Huet's Origeniana

SAINT GREGORY THAUMATURGUS, PROSPHONETIC AND PANEGYRICAL ORATION ON ORIGEN

PIERRE DANIEL HUET, BISHOP OF AVRANCHES, ORIGENIANA

PROLOGUE AND PARTITION OF THE ENTIRE WORK

As I gather the surviving relics of the original works of Origen and prepare to bring them into the public light, it has seemed to me that it is the best course of action, useful to the public, and not contrary to the custom of writers of this age who have dedicated their efforts to publishing the monuments of the ancients, to report the affairs of Origen. For this demanded a diligent treatment, free from bias—a treatment that has been provided sparingly by some, negligently by others, and by no one at all in a full, balanced, and impartial manner, devoid of love or hatred. I speak of the affairs of Origen: not only his deeds, but also the thoughts he revealed through his letters; for Origen partitioned the leisure of his life not only in acting, but also in meditating, commenting, and writing. Wherefore, the work which we are undertaking shall be divided into three parts. First, we shall describe his life, deeds, character, and death. Then, we shall discourse upon his learning and the dogmas which stirred up great troubles in the Church while he lived, and even greater ones after his passing. Finally, his writings, which have vexed the criticism of many, will be touched upon and discerned.

BOOK ONE

THE LIFE OF ORIGEN

PARTITION OF THE FIRST BOOK

CHAPTER ONE

1. Origen was an Egyptian by race, born at Alexandria, as it seems, in the one hundred and eighty-fifth year of Christ, in the sixth year of the reign of Commodus, and the ninth year of the Christian Republic.

(1) That Origen was officially an Egyptian by race, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and others hand down: but no one among the ancients teaches in express words that he was born at Alexandria.

^A Under the administration of Pope Eleutherus, in the consulship of Triarius Maternus and M. Atilius Bradua. For since Eusebius writes (Hist. eccl. lib. VI, cap. 2) that he was seventeen years of age at the time that his father Leonides sought martyrdom, which was in the tenth year of Severus, he appears to have begun his life clearly at the hinge of time I have mentioned. The *Fasti Siculi* and others make him two years younger, and place his birth in the year when Clodius Crispinus and Papirius Aelianus were consuls. The reasoning of Marianus Scotus seems the same, for he assigns the martyrdom of Leonides to the year of Christ 204. But Hermannus Contractus believed Origen to be three whole years younger: some even suggest four. We follow the calculations of Eusebius. His father was the one I mentioned, Leonides, distinguished in every kind of virtue, and thoroughly instructed in sacred disciplines, ^B and even endowed with the episcopate, as Suidas writes. Authors have passed the mother's name over in silence, for that was then widely the custom, and catechumens did not cast off names of this kind when they embraced the faith of Christ; and hence Dionysius the Areopagite, Apollos the Alexandrian, Phoebe, Hermas, Hermes, Nereus, and Diotrephes are commemorated among Christians, along with Luke, Paul, and John; hence the Ammonii, Serapiones, Athenagorae, Apollinarii, Demetrii, Isidori: for "what," says Tertullian, "is the culpability of names?" But that which can be objected—that he should have been called Orogenes, not Origen—is nothing; for firstly it can be responded that Mercury was called *Argeiphontes* for *Argophontes*; thus a certain adversary of Aristotle was named Cephisodorus, who ought to have been called Cephisodorus; and it is also a custom most accepted among the Latins to conflate names in this way; thus they called Cicero *Dionysipolitas*, whom others called *Dionysopolitas*; thus *Demophon* and *Clitiphon* were called by the comic poets, who were called by others *Demophoon* and *Clitophon*; thus *Phoebigena* by Virgil, who ought to have been called *Phoebogena*. And even if we could provide no similar coagmentation of names, who would look for the accurate purity of Hellenism in the Alexandrian dialect, which, having sprung from the Macedonian, was itself at first barbaric and impure, and counted outside the census of Greek, and then so polluted by the commerce of so many nations, and finally, among the Egyptians, among whom it settled, distorted and corrupted? Hence the speech of the Alexandrians is so often carped at by ancient critics, Phrynicus, Thomas Magister, and Helladius Besantinus. But passing these by, a genuine answer will easily appear from what follows. ^C Orus, the god of the Egyptians, is the son of Osiris and Isis, whom the ancients handed down with great consensus to be Apollo and the Sun. Horus Apollo thought that Orus or Horus was so named because he presides over the hours; ^D and he took for himself the names of the prophets Elijah, Jeremiah, and Isaiah, and Samuel and Daniel. Thus Athenagoras, *Legatio pro Christianis*, not far from the beginning: "But no name is considered evil or good on its own account and by itself; but on account of the underlying, either good deeds, or bad, or indifferent." The name itself, by itself and insofar as it is a name, is judged neither good nor evil: but each one must indeed be judged such, as the thing itself or the action of which it is predicated has been.

^A The author of the Etymologiae teaches that Opeigenes is one thing, and Origenes another. In another place, he likewise teaches that those names, Ωριγένης or Ωρίων, are patronymics, and that consequently it is not derived from ὄρους, but from Ὥρου, as Ὠριγένης. But Orion was a name common among many Egyptians. Suidas mentions two grammarians of this name, one a Theban, the other an Alexandrian. It is derived, of course, from Or, a name which, as I have said, many others also enjoyed. The hunter Orion himself, who was placed among the stars, had this name not, as deceived Greece fabricated, from Ὠρίων, but rather from the Hebrew, as if you were to say, *Lucidus* (the Shining One); for this is one of the most brilliant constellations of all. And it is the more credible that he possessed a Hebrew name because he lived in Boeotia, just like Cadmus, who was not much older than Orion, and who introduced the Phoenician language into Greece. Hoeschelius adds in *Origen contra Celsum*, book 1, that for Ὠριγένης it was written Ὀρειγένης, just as they said ὀρεσίτροφος for ὀρεσίτροφος. I would not wish this to have escaped a learned man; for what the poets dared to do, moved by the necessity of meter, ought not to have been drawn into a law or a precedent. Nor is the conjecture of others more successful, who wish the name *Origenes* to have been so formed because he was born at the right time; for thus it would be written *Horigenes*, not *Origenes*. Moreover, it is vain that the learned man added, for the sake of confirming his opinion, that he had very often found the name of Origen written with an aspiration in ancient codices: for it is certain that it is far more frequently without an aspiration: it is, of course, an appellation from Horos, which sometimes claims an aspiration for itself, but more often rejects it.

It is from him that the name derives, and the four seasons are likewise called ὥρας (hours) from the same source, as are the year, the annals of the Greeks, and their writers, the ὡρογράφοι, as Macrobius reports in book 1 of the *Saturnalia*, chapter 21; and Censorinus, chapter 19. Absurdly, Horus Apollo says: "To me, therefore, it seems an Egyptian and by no means a Greek name, to be Horos," says Pausanias in his *Corinthiaca*. Truthfully, Salmasius, in his 78th epistle, judges that the name Or comes from the word of the ancient Egyptian language *pouro*, or without the article *ouro*, which means "king." In this way, certainly, it is often explained by Ibno Cabar in the *Scala magna*, which Kircher edited. There are those who derive it from *or*, that is, the Sun, to whom I can by no means assent: for Ὧρος was formed from the Egyptian *Or*, to which a termination was added by the Greeks. ^B *Or* was the name of a certain Egyptian shepherd, the father of Telegonus, who held the kingdom of Egypt seventh from Inachus. Jerome mentions this man in the latter book of the *Chronicle of Eusebius*, and another *Or* in his *Epistle to Ctesiphon against Pelagius*, chapter 2. Palladius wrote the life of two Egyptian abbots in his *Lausiaca*, of whom one was named Or, the other Pior, with the Egyptian masculine article prefixed to the latter. The same author in another place mentions the virgin Taor, with the Egyptian feminine article likewise prefixed to the name Or. *Or* is the genuine name of this Egyptian god, whence comes the Greek Ὧρος, with the termination added. And just as more than one person was called by the Greek appellation Ὧρος in honor of that god, so many also adopted the Egyptian *Or* as a name. If, therefore, anyone were found named in this way, he should not be thought to be so named by a metaplasm for Ὧρος, as Scaliger conjectures; but, on the contrary, it should be thought that Ὧρος was distorted from the primitive *Or* by the introduction of a Greek form. But *Or* is pure and unadulterated Hebrew, *or* (אור), which signifies light, and is also used for the sun itself in Job xxxi, 26, and also in Job xxxvi, 30; and in Isaiah v, 50, according to the exposition of certain interpreters. Now, indeed, the origin of the name *Origenes* is at hand; it must have been formed from *Or*, as Ὠριγένης, not Ὠρογένης, just as from ἦρ, ἡριγένεια is derived, not ἠρογένεια; from πῦρ, πυριγενής, an epithet of Bacchus in Nonnus. Origenes, therefore, is the same as Phœbigena (Sun-born), not Montigena (Mountain-born). ^D These words from the *Etymologicon* have led Erasmus, Caninius, and others into error: (8) "If a vowel is brought after, or a single consonant, the diphthong ει is preserved. For instance, ὄρει, ὀρείαυλος, ὀρειγενής, i.e., he who was born in the mountain." They would have understood these things more correctly, in truth, if they had attended to what follows: "For the proper name is both grave, and is written through the long omega, and through..." for it could not have indicated it more clearly.

^C This is the name Origenes had from boyhood; but as the years passed, he was surnamed Adamantius, "because he resembled adamantine bonds, which the words he might utter would bind," says Photius, codex 118, or because of the adamantine strength of his mind, which would not be exhausted in illuminating Scripture and in the labors of writing, as Jerome reveals in his *Epistle to Marcella*; or because, like an unconquered diamond, he might firmly bear the aid of the true faith, and beat back all the darts of the heretics thrown against him with the truth itself. And Epiphanius, *Haer*. 64, c. 73, reports that he assumed this surname for himself. (10) Hence Erasmus is refuted in his *Life of Origen*, who thought that this was bestowed upon him right from the beginning of his life, not from his habits. From the great abundance of books, which he assiduously wrote, he also deserved to be called a *syntactes* (a composer), (11) or *syntacterios*, or *syntactikos*. The nickname *Chalcenterus* (Brazen-gut) was also attributed to him by Jerome, after the example of that Didymus the Alexandrian grammarian, who, on account of…

[*original-script column: see facsimile*]

his unusual constancy in literary labors, was called by the name *Mochthos* (Toil). But let us return to the matter at hand.

IV. (12) Leonides had six sons besides Origen, but since the boy’s natural gifts for virtue were already shining forth greatly even in his early childhood, he drew almost all of his father’s love and interest to himself. And so, Leonides took it upon himself to form him through domestic education and constant instruction, and he imbued the boy's untutored mind with the elements of Christian piety, as well as with divine and secular learning, yet in such a way that sacred disciplines took precedence over the study of human letters in his daily exercises. The boy had an extremely sharp and fervent talent, a singular memory, and a burning and incredible zeal for learning, so that he would not so much take in what was laid before him to learn as seize upon it, exhausting his teacher-father with his learning and questioning. For when selected passages from Holy Scripture were proposed for him to commit to memory on each individual day, not content with the obvious sense of the words, he strove to go down into the interior and to unfold recondite meanings, and he would harass his father with constant questioning. And Leonides would restrain the boy when he was overflowing with a certain immoderate abundance of talent and would openly rebuke him, but nonetheless, silently admiring the happy heat of his mind, he would augur that he would one day aspire to greater things, and, in his judgment, he attributed all the highest qualities to his son, who was not yet a boy of full age. But the affection of a father would express at night that which prudence and gravity had restrained during the day; for they say that when the boy was sleeping, his father would often enter his room, bare the boy’s chest, and kiss it as if it were some dwelling place of the Holy Spirit, and give thanks to God who had blessed him with such a happy child.

V. (13) After his mind had been strengthened by domestic instruction, it began to seek the public light; ^A he also collected a very great memory of antiquity and mathematics, and added the capacity for oratory to these arts. He then applied himself to Ammonius, surnamed Saccas, and in his lecture halls obtained a distinguished knowledge of philosophy, but especially the Platonic, which took such deep roots in his mind that it interfered with the rising fruits of Christian doctrine; for he almost required the doctrines of the Church to conform to the standard of Plato and, if I may say so, painted the sincere dogmas of Christ with Platonic colors. It is in Werner’s *Fasciculus temporum* that Narcissus, Alexander’s predecessor in the bishopric of Jerusalem, was Origen’s teacher. Eusebius, however, has nothing of the sort, and I cannot imagine from where Werner might have derived it. Halloxius writes that Origen also heard Pantænus as a teacher; no testimonies of the ancients lead us to agree with this; indeed, they seem to contradict it: for Eusebius records that Origen was a hearer of Clement even when he was still a boy, and that after Pantænus, Clement presided over the Alexandrian school. Pantænus, therefore, must have abandoned the care of teaching when Origen first made use of teachers. The Magdeburg scholars (Cent. III, c. 10) also relate that Phuo is listed among Origen’s teachers by Jerome in his *Apology against Rufinus*. ^B Jerome relates (lib. 1, cap. 3) that Origen was given some advice by Huillus that pertained to a truer interpretation of Scripture. But if anyone who kindly warns one who is erring about better things for the time being is to be called a teacher, then indeed all of us who apply ourselves to letters are each other’s teachers, in that we aid one another with admonitions and counsels, and "We seek this indulgence, and grant it in turn" (15).

VI. Furthermore, two things must be seen here: whether Origen heard Ammonius; and then, whether several of this name came forth from the school of Ammonius: for these things have been disputed by learned men on both sides. Baronius agitates the former question at the year of Christ 234, and says he wonders how Origen could have heard Ammonius when he was almost Ammonius’s age, and since he himself was in charge of the education of others before the thirtieth year of his age. As if, in these times, as we shall prove below by many examples, men already of advanced age did not frequent schools; and did not Plotinus, a disciple of this very Ammonius, reach him to hear him at twenty-eight years of age, and study under him for eleven years? ^C As if Origen could not have provided the rudiments of the Christian faith to catechumens and taught grammar publicly; they follow Panna. But as to the objection made by the most famous Huetius from Eusebius that Origen was a hearer of Clement even when still a boy, and that Clement presided over the Alexandrian school after Pantænus, Tillemontius responds that Pantænus had indeed departed for India around the year of Christ 189, when Origen was still four years old, but that he himself returned to Alexandria later, as Jerome teaches in *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, cap. 36. ^D

^C VII. A more complex and recondite question is the other, for the accurate treatment of which we have found a convenient place. We shall not only dispute whether several Origens arose from the school of Ammonius, but also whether a twofold sect of the Origenist heretics proceeded from one and the same Origen, and furthermore, whether there were multiple Adamantii. I am, in truth, very much in favor of the opinion of Henri Valesius, a man excellently versed in both ecclesiastical and profane antiquity. In his luminous annotations to the *History* of Eusebius, he writes that two men named Origen gave their attention to Ammonius: one, our Adamantius; the other, he who lived in close association with Herennius and Plotinus as a fellow-student, and of whom frequent mention occurs in the *Life of Plotinus* written by Porphyry, and in the fragment of the book *On the End* composed by Longinus, which Porphyry himself wove into that very *Life*. I shall briefly summarize the reasons by which that learned man supports this. It is stated by Porphyry in Eusebius (*Hist.*, lib. VI, cap. 19) that Origen Adamantius, a pupil of Ammonius, attained great glory among posterity by his writings; but the same Porphyry and Longinus teach that the other Origen, the companion of Plotinus, left nothing behind except a short book written *On Demons*. Moreover, Eusebius records that the Origen who is called Adamantius ended his days during the reigns of Gallus and Volusianus; but Porphyry left it that the other Origen wrote a certain book under Gallienus, specifically in that *Life of Plotinus*. To these I add a third argument: Porphyry stated that Origen Adamantius was known to him when he was an adolescent at one time—which he certainly would not have said if a long and constant association had existed between them; however, Eunapius has handed down to memory that Porphyry was a fellow-student and contemporary of the other Origen in Rome. Truly, it is most certain that Origen Adamantius did not undertake a journey to Rome while Philip held the empire, and that he was entirely absent from Rome during that time; for it is not credible that Eusebius and Jerome would have passed over such a long pilgrimage in silence. But the same Porphyry is the authority that the other Origen approached Plotinus while he was lecturing publicly in the schools at Rome. If Baronius (16) had noticed this, he would not have imagined—contrary to the authority of Eusebius—that Origen Adamantius (whom he did not distinguish from the other) went to Rome a second time to Pope Fabian for the sake of clearing himself; nor would he have provided the cause for Possevino and Halloxius to believe the same; for that single passage of Porphyry alone convinced that great man. However, just as some have confused two Origens into one, so others have fabricated two Origens out of one and the same Origen, the son of Leonidas—the one the real person, the other the man from whom the so-called Origenists and those simply called the Origenists are derived; the other, the leader and chief, of the Origenists, who are called the vile ones. I wonder that some rashly affirm what Epiphanius, a most copious writer and closest to those times, testifies he is ignorant of. Augustine rendered the words of Epiphanius rather insincerely; for when Epiphanius had professed that he did not know (*Hær.* 65, cap. 1, and *Hær.* 64, cap. 3) whether the impure Origenists were propagated by Origen Adamantius or by someone else, Augustine rendered this thus in his book *De Hæresibus*, cap. 42: "The Origeniani are named from a certain Origen, not from him who is known to almost everyone, but from another I know not whom, of whom even Epiphanius speaks to his followers," etc. The author of *Prædestinatus*, whom Sirmondus edited, corrupted the opinion—which had already been vitiated by Augustine—with a new addition; for he wrote thus, *Hær.* 42: "The Origeniani, the forty-second heresy, began from a certain Origen, not him who is known to almost everyone, but another most wicked Syrian." It seems that he depraved these words of Augustine, "but from another I know not whom," by this false reading: "but from another Syrian." In the following chapter, the same man foists upon us another Origen, different from our Adamantius, the author of those dogmas for which Epiphanius accused Adamantius. Sophronius of Jerusalem, led on by Epiphanius, also imagines two Origens, the other being more ancient. He commemorates a second Adamantius in his letter to Sergius, which Photius deemed worthy of his note in *Cod.* 231. John of Damascus is of the same mind in his book *On Heresies*, inventing two Origens, from whom the two kinds of vile Origenists and followers of Adamantius arose. And likewise Guido the Carmelite, Bishop of Elna, who seized upon the same fiction in his *Summa de Hæresibus*. And so, whether two Origens existed as the leaders of the Origenists, Epiphanius doubted; Augustine, Sophronius, and John of Damascus asserted it; but the author of *Prædestinatus*, a vile writer, feigned three, as you might conjecture even from the fact that in the same chapter he relates that Pamphilus the martyr was at one time a bishop. What Augustine asserted, however, Baronius explicitly denied in his entry for the year 256, and he acutely investigated the reasons why a double Origen was invented. Furthermore, whether that Origen mentioned by Eunapius in the *Life of Porphyry*—the one we spoke of, the fellow-student of Porphyry and Amelius—is the same as that companion of Plotinus, or another, does not sufficiently appear; for the Origen who heard Ammonius with Plotinus was a contemporary and friend of Plotinus, and not inferior in doctrine, so that when he came to hear him, Plotinus would blush and rise, and would not dare to speak in his presence: but the other Origen, praised by Eunapius, seems to have frequented the school of Plotinus, for he was a fellow-student of Porphyry and Amelius in Rome, both of whom it is established adopted the doctrine of Plotinus in Rome. If this is so, that two Origens lived at the same times in closest association with Plotinus in Rome...

^A one needs to mention his other fellow disciple, the other student. To these I shall add Origen, who was also an Egyptian and a presbyter as well, and a companion of the other Ammonius, but younger than the Adamantius Origen; he is one whom Palladius mentions in the *Lausiac History* and Nicephorus Callisti commemorates; the rest of those bearing this name I leave to the industry of scholars to investigate. Furthermore, I would wish for students to exercise caution, so that whenever the mention of Adamantius occurs in ecclesiastical writings, they do not immediately assume this is Origen. For that name, besides others, belonged to a certain Christian author, whom Theodoret, carefully distinguishing from Origen, professes more than once to have used both of their writings to compose his epitome of heretical fables.

VIII. ^A Origen had almost completed his seventeenth year of age when the emperor Severus began to harass the Church of Christ in every way possible. For as the Christian faith was spreading throughout the whole world, that cautious and diligent man feared that there might arise from this some shift in affairs. Therefore, he declared a fierce war against the whole Church. Egypt was then governed by Laetus, who, in order to display his loyalty and diligence to the emperor, raged with a savage cruelty against the Egyptian Christians, but especially against those in Alexandria. Then indeed, a huge desire for martyrdom seized Origen, who reckoned that by doing so, he would reap the notable fruit of life. His mother ^B was present and held back the resolve of her son by prayers and cleverly devised arguments. But what the son had desired with all his hopes was suddenly visited upon the father, who, having been cast into chains in the name of Christ, was sentenced to death. The firmness of Leonides ignited the dormant desire for martyrdom in Origen’s mind, so that he thought it better to suffer any torments than to depart from the hoped-for glory of martyrdom. But his mother, having used tears to no avail, delayed her son’s assault with craft, and by secretly hiding his clothes, kept him unwillingly at home. And so, what he could not do himself, he became the author of, through letters of exhortation to his father: made more firm by these, Leonides bore his capital punishment in the year, as I have said, the tenth of Severus, on the tenth day before the Kalends of May, on which day his death is recorded in the Roman Martyrology. His goods, by which he had honestly supported his family while he lived, were confiscated by the treasury; and thus Origen, left with his mother and six young brothers in extreme poverty and mourning, all their resources ^D having been consumed.

A noble and wealthy woman of Alexandria favored the Christians and supported the needy with her resources, but she was not very cautious in distinguishing the orthodox from heretics; for she not only supported a certain Paul of Antioch, who held the highest position among the Alexandrian heretics, with her wealth, but even adopted him in her home as a son. Taking pity on the misfortune of Origen, she did not allow the youth’s industry to languish nor his mind to grow sluggish from neglect, but supported him comfortably and liberally with food and other necessities. From this, some association between Origen and Paul ensued; but although not only non-heretics but even the orthodox flocked to him on account of his eloquence, Origen could never be induced to join in his use of prayer, because he remembered that this was forbidden by the laws of the Church. Here Nicephorus differs—not lightly, from Eusebius, whom he nonetheless openly follows, but in this place, as it seems, he understood too little: for he writes (book V, ch. 5) that Paul was the husband of this wealthy woman, and Origen his adopted son; a point that anyone who compares his words with those of Eusebius or compares the interpretation of Rufinus with both will immediately understand he conceived from having poorly understood the words of Eusebius.

IX. ^C Wishing to compensate by diligence for the loss he had sustained and to alleviate his fortune by industry, Origen cultivated with the keenest study the knowledge of secular learning handed down to him by his father, and he made such progress in the grammatical disciplines that he began to undertake teaching them publicly. From this, a large income from life’s necessities was provided to him. The religion of Christ, however, had so charmed the pagans that, with the teachers of the Church put to flight by fear, they flocked to Origen—still an adolescent, but conspicuous in youth for his doctrine and virtue—and wished for him to explain sacred dogmas to them. Many, moved by his sermons and having accepted the faith of Christ, joined themselves to his intimate circle. Therefore, Demetrius, the bishop of the Church of Alexandria, believed that he could not more happily restore the fortunes of the Christians in Egypt than if he entrusted the care of the catechumens to Origen alone, at the age of eighteen. He therefore sustained both roles: that of the grammarian and of the catechist. ^D Meanwhile, a new persecution sparked by Aquila, the prefect of Alexandria, broke out against the Church, and in it Origen, having provided singular evidence of his faith, piety, and constancy, won for himself great fame and gratitude among the Christians.

^A For when the martyrs of Christ were being dragged to their death, he would embrace them and attend to them as they went, and he would alleviate the cruelty of their torments with his exhortations and consolations. Whence the anger of the surrounding populace was turned against him; he was attacked with stones, and when he had with difficulty escaped the hands of wicked men, his house immediately—which they had noticed was frequented by catechumens—was besieged by armed men. I especially approve the opinion of those who attribute to this tempest the extraordinary feat of Origen, commemorated by Epiphanius (haer. 64, cap. 1), when, with his head shaved after the manner of the ministers of the Egyptian gods, the heathen set him upon the steps of the profane Serapis and ordered him to offer palm branches to the priests who were ascending to perform the sacred rites, by which custom their most solemn ceremonies are observed. Having accepted the palm sprigs, with a present and erect mind, he addressed those standing by in a loud voice saying: "Come, take the branch, not as one consecrated to the idols of the temple, but to Christ." By which the hearts of the Gentiles were stirred up against him, and he was forced to flee, to hide, and to change his hiding places frequently.

X. Baronius, moved by the authority of Palladius who, in chapter 147, writes that Origen, while fleeing the vexation of the Gentiles, hid for two years with the virgin Juliana in Caesarea and employed his mind in studies, thinks ^B that he left Alexandria about the same time and fled to Caesarea in Cappadocia. Then he adds this: "I found this written in a very ancient *sticheric* book, which was written by the hand of Origen; I found this book with the virgin Juliana in Caesarea, I myself hiding with her, who said she had received it from Symmachus himself, the interpreter of the Jews." These things manifestly contradict each other: for if Origen wrote that book with his own hand, how could Juliana have it from Symmachus? How could Origen find it with Juliana? Read *hoper egegrapto* (which was written), and all things will become clear. Palladius says that he found these words written in the very ancient book by the hand of Origen: "I found this book with the virgin Juliana, in the city of Caesarea, while I was hiding with her, who related that she had received it from Symmachus himself, the interpreter of the Jews." (19) Since, however, Eusebius teaches elsewhere that Symmachus' Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew and his arrangement of the Interpretation of Scripture ^C were had by Juliana by right of succession from Symmachus himself, Baronius inferred from those books of Symmachus mentioned by Eusebius that it was one of them that Palladius saw marked by Origen's hand; either, indeed, the Commentaries on Matthew, or the Interpretation of Scripture itself. Furthermore, he judged that there was no other reason for Origen to hide with Juliana than to avoid some persecution of the heathens against the Christians, namely that of Severus, or Maximinus, or Decius: since, however, these books of Symmachus had already come into the light in the age of Maximinus or Decius, and had therefore come to Origen's notice, then certainly they were discovered by him while the war of Severus against the Church was raging. Baronius’ reasoning drew Halloxius to his side, which, however, let us examine more accurately. The book which Palladius says he saw marked by the hand of Origen was very ancient: but Symmachus preceded Palladius by about two hundred years. (20) Yet, can a two-hundred-year-old codex be called "very ancient"? Scholars who know how many centuries such codices are accustomed to survive might judge. Therefore, that book did not have Symmachus as its author. But the books of Symmachus which Eusebius declares Origen received from Juliana were composed by Symmachus himself. ^D Furthermore, that codex which Palladius saw was *sticheric*: but it will not be easily persuaded to any sane person that either Symmachus' Commentaries (21) or his Interpretation of Scripture were written in *stichoi*. Therefore, the book mentioned by Palladius was one, and those mentioned by Eusebius were others. Nor is it any wonder, indeed, that Origen received both from Juliana, since it is likely that the entire library of Symmachus came to Juliana by hereditary right, and she subsequently made it available to Origen. Hence, therefore, Baronius concludes in vain that the Interpretation and Commentaries of Symmachus were then discovered by Origen when Severus held the empire and was harassing the Church, because they had already come into the hands of Origen and, indeed, of everyone, when Maximinus or Decius attacked the Christian republic. (22) And if it could not happen that, although these lucubrations of Symmachus had already become known to many, they nevertheless escaped Origen himself, who was occupied with other matters. Eusebius relates this same hiding of his in book VI, cap. 3, and says that he moved from house to house, not from city to city; and by no means in the whole city...

^A could he have been hidden, but not having exceeded the Alexandrian borders. Then he immediately adds that many, following his example, were brought to the side of Christ, so that, as the number of catechumens—whom Demetrius, the bishop of Alexandria, had entrusted to him alone to instruct—increased daily, he resigned from the profession of the grammarian’s art. Since these things are thus connected by Eusebius, who would think that such a long and lasting journey had intervened? Since that time, therefore, can by no means be fitted to this, we shall endeavor to find a more suitable one below.

XI. (23) With the number of his listeners increasing daily, as I have said, whom the desire partly for the study of grammar and partly for grasping Christian doctrine enticed, he believed that it was of little relevance to himself to teach the elements of letters, he who could imbue the minds of men with the word of God. Wherefore he abrogated for himself the task of teaching grammar, and turned himself to celebrating better doctrines. And to make up for the diminished fruits of his family property, he sold all the books, which were his precious goods, and sold them for the price of a daily pension of four obols, (24) so that concern for domestic affairs would not distract him from the work to which he was destined.

XII. (25) To the study of divine things was added also the assiduous practice of all virtues that were worthy of a Christian. He spent his days teaching, his nights reading. His fasts were long, his sleep short, which he took lying on the ground or merely on a mat. He was most patient of the cold, and most abstinent of wine, oil, and other things by which the appetite is irritated and men become soft and unfit for labor, ^B to such an extent that his health was tested and his stomach suffered. You would have truly called him a Christian philosopher. So great was the admiration for him among both pagan philosophers and Christians that they would compose themselves entirely in imitation of him, and, inflamed by his exhortations, ^C they would seek to attain the palm of martyrdom. (26) Hence for them... To this, he had added the assiduous practice of all virtues, etc. Huetius touches very lightly here upon the Christian virtues of Origen, which Eusebius and others describe much more fully. This discipline, says Eusebius, lib. VI, cap. 3, and a way of life purely philosophical, he persisted in using for many years thereafter, removing from all sides the allurements of youthful desires. And during the daytime, indeed, he endured the most strenuous labors of exercises of every kind: but he spent the greater part of the night in the study of the divine Scriptures, restraining himself according to the laws and institutions of philosophy as much as he could. For he sweltered in the exercises of fasts during the day: but at night he measured out the space of sleep, and took it not on a bed, but upon the naked floor. But he especially considered that those evangelical precepts of our Savior were to be observed, by which we are warned, both that we should not hold two tunics, nor use shoes; and then that we should not torment ourselves with too much anxiety for the morrow. But with an ardor of spirit greater than his age allowed, remaining in cold and nakedness, and raised to the highest summit of evangelical poverty, he struck his acquaintances with huge admiration. And he afflicted many of them with incredible grief, who wished to share their goods with him, when they saw him enduring such labors for the sake of divine preaching. Never, however, did he remit anything of the vigor of his endurance. For thirty years thereafter he still reckoned himself among the poor, as is clear from his *Exhortation to Martyrdom*, where, on page 284, he says: "It is therefore just, just as it is for those who have not been examined in tortures and toils to yield the first place to those who have shown endurance in racks and various kinds of tortures and fire: so also to us, who are poor, even if we are martyrs, the word suggests that we yield the first place to you, who, because of your love for God in Christ, trample upon deceitful glory and that which is coveted by the many, and such great possessions, and affection for children." That, therefore, as it is just that those who have not been tested by torments and labors yield the first place to those who have exhibited patience with racks and various types of torments and fire: so also let us poor people, even if we are martyrs, since reason suggests yielding the first place to you, who for the love of God in Christ trample upon the fallacious and mostly sought-after glory, and such great possessions, and the natural love for children. But although he was raised to the highest summit of evangelical poverty, in which he died, he still did not find himself poor enough: "Christ our Lord," he says, *Homily 16 on Genesis*, pages 104, 105, "let us hear what he commands his priests. Whoever," he says, "does not renounce all that he possesses, cannot be my disciple" (Luke XIV, 33). I tremble saying these things; for I myself, I say, I myself exist as the accuser, I speak my own condemnations. Christ denies that one is his disciple whom he has seen possessing anything, and one who does not renounce all that he possesses. And what are we doing? How do we either read these things ourselves, or expound them to the people, when we not only do not renounce the things that we possess, but even wish to acquire those which we never had before we came to Christ? Does not our conscience, because it convicts us, allow us to hide and not to bring forward what is written? I am unwilling to be held guilty of a double crime. I confess, and I confess openly in the hearing of the people, that these things are written, even though I know that I have not yet fulfilled them. But at least by this, being warned, let us hasten to fulfill them; let us hasten to cross over from the priests of Pharaoh, to whom there is earthly possession, to the priests of the Lord, to whom there is no portion on earth, to whom the Lord is their portion. Eusebius, *Hist.*, lib. VI, cap. 3: He is said also to have walked for many years with naked feet, using no footwear at all. He also abstained for a very long time from wine, for all living things, and from other things which are less necessary for sustenance: to such an extent that his chest fell into the most serious risk of collapse and disease (Greg. Thaum., *Orat. panegyr.*, part III). He incited his disciples to virtue more by deeds than by words, and endeavored to present himself such as he described in words the one who is to live rightly, proposing the example of the wise man. His holiness was extraordinary, according to Epiphanius himself, *hæres.* 64, p. 525. Eusebius furthermore says: His daily acts seemed to be the most absolute works of a certain true philosophy and admirable discipline. And, as is commonly said, as is the speech, so is his life: as is the life, so was his speech. And a little later the same Eusebius, *Hist.*, lib. VI, cap. 55: Providing, therefore, examples of such a philosophical life, when the divine virtue aided him, he deservedly provoked many of his disciples to his imitation: so that many ^D

^A from the Gentiles, excelling both in every sort of doctrine and in philosophy, submitted themselves to his tutelage. And when they had received the faith of Christ sincerely and with intimate affection of mind from him, they became renowned during the time of that persecution: insomuch that some of them were seized and completed their martyrdom. The first of these was Plutarch. As he was going to his death, Origen, adhering to him inseparably until the very end of his life, was not far from being killed by his fellow citizens, as he was considered the author of his death. But divine Providence preserved him at that time as well. After Plutarch, the second of Origen’s disciples to be a martyr was Serenus, who proved the faith which he had received by testing it in the fire. The third from the same school to stand as a martyr was Heraclides, and then the fourth, Heron, both of whom were beheaded: the former while he was still a catechumen, but the latter a neophyte. Besides these, the fifth, an athlete of Christian piety from the same assembly, was declared a victor: Serenus, a namesake of the former, who, having borne most cruel tortures with great fortitude, is said to have been finally beheaded. But from the number of women, a certain Herais, still a catechumen, having obtained baptism by fire, as he himself says somewhere, departed from this light. Seventh among these let Basilides be reckoned, he who led that most celebrated Potamiana to her execution.

^B There were several reasons why Origen did this. Maidens used to come to him for the sake of the Christian faith and their studies; but he understood well how prone the human temperament is to lust after labor, and he feared lest from the frequent association with virgins his body, even in the very prime of youth, might be ill-governed and driven toward pleasure. He was moved to this by that saying of Christ, in which He had pronounced that some had made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Having accepted this beyond its genuine meaning, and deceived, I think, by the perverse interpretations of the Valesian heretics, who had preceded his age and had been accustomed to cut off the virile parts, this new idea of religion took hold of him. And, led on by other words of Christ, taken out of their rightful sense, he had only one tunic, threw off his footwear, walked with naked feet, and did not consult for the morrow or for the long term in any way. Furthermore, Eusebius writes (Lib. vi, cap. 8) that there was another reason for this matter for Origen, namely, that he might not have an occasion for detraction from malevolence due to the frequent coming and conversations of maidens with him. But what he adds immediately after contradicts this, that Origen took pains ^C that the deed should be concealed; for if he concealed it, how could he stifle the rumors of men regarding a deed that was meant to be publicized in order to check slander and obscene rumors? Baronius suspects that these things pertain to the fourteenth year of Severus; though Eusebius by no means designated the time of these events. If this be so, Origen would have been in his twenty-first year.

Truly, there is a great contention here among learned men, whether such an act be worthy of praise ^D or of blame. Baronius openly condemns it, at the year 230, and supports his opinion with many arguments; but it seems so because of the silence of Eusebius, who surely would have mentioned the use of a medicine, if it had truly been applied by Origen, by which he might more excuse the deed.

...it was forbidden, as testified by Suetonius in *Domitian*, by Dio Cassius (Lib. LXVII), and by Justin Martyr, who in *Apology I*, num. 29, relates this history: "And already one of our number, in order to persuade you that the promiscuous union is not a mystery among us, presented a petition in Alexandria to the prefect Felix, asking that he grant permission to a physician to remove his testicles; for the physicians there said that it was forbidden to do this without the permission of the magistrate. And when Felix was in no way willing to sign, the young man remained by himself and was content with his own conscience and that of those who thought as he did." And now some of our number, in order to persuade you that promiscuous intercourse is not a mystery among us, offered a petition to Felix, the prefect of Alexandria, asking him to give a physician license to excise his own testicles. For the physicians of that city said that it was forbidden to them to do this without the prefect's license. But as Felix was entirely unwilling to write, the young man, remaining in continence and virginity, was content with his own conscience and that of those who thought the same as he did. Since the matter is thus, and there is no room for doubt that he who deliberately violates a just civil law is sinning, it must be freely admitted that Origen’s act was worthy of blame, although perhaps such a law had not yet been confirmed by the canons of the Church in that age, as seems to be able to be gathered from historical...

records. ^A And he strongly terrified them, by other places as well as by his own Commentaries on Matthew, so that they might never conceive anything of the sort in themselves. The passage is found in Book XV, numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, which I would wish to be thoroughly consulted. On the other hand, Halloxius not only fails to excuse it, but praises it (Book V of Origen's Defense, Quest. 3). I will not repeat the individual points gathered on both sides; I will set forth in a few words what I myself think. It is certain that the voluntary self-mutilation—I mean that which is done by the sword—was forbidden by the 22nd and 24th Apostolic canons. But their authority is doubtful, and it is entirely rejected by Halloxius. The Council of Nicaea, long after Origen had died, condemned the same act in Canon 1, and the Council of Arles also condemned it in Canon 7. ^B Even Eusebius himself, though a perpetual praiser of Origen, had the force of truth extract from him a denunciation of this folly. But why seek external arguments when domestic testimonies are available? Origen himself finally condemned both kinds of castration—that which is accomplished by cutting and that which is accomplished by drying—and he engaged his efforts in bringing others to a life of restraint, so that they might never conceive such a thing in themselves. Origen concealed his deed from his disciples and intimates, doubtful in his mind whether it should be accounted to him as praise or as a reproach. Demetrius, however, discovered the matter; though he was at first greatly astonished, he later bestowed praises upon him, confirmed Origen, and ordered him to carry on the duty he had strenuously undertaken. Then, at long last, with all obstacles removed, he admitted everyone who came to him for the sake of instruction, without any distinction of sex. Moreover, in their training he conducted himself with the utmost diligence, and devoted all his leisure to their business.

CAPUT II.

1. Death of the Emperor Severus. Origen departs for Rome. 2. He returns to Alexandria. 3. He learns the Hebrew language. 4. He converts Ambrosius to the faith of Christ. 5. He is summoned to Arabia, he returns to Alexandria. 6. He seeks Palestine, he returns to Alexandria. 7. He is summoned to Antioch by Mammaea; he returns to Alexandria. 8. He begins to illustrate Sacred Scripture with commentaries. 9. He begins Commentaries on John and other books of Scripture. 10. He sets out for Achaia by way of Palestine. 11. Departing from Athens, he makes a journey to Ephesus. 12. He had already been ordained a presbyter at Caesarea; he is expelled from Alexandria. 13. Since he might have been corrupted by an Ethiopian, he had sacrificed to idols. 14. He retires to Caesarea in Palestine. 15. The assertion of some, who wrote that Origen was driven from Alexandria by Heraclas, is refuted. 16. He performs ecclesiastical duties; he is cherished by many churches. 17. He travels through Palestine. 18. Whether he spent twenty-eight years in Tyre. 19. He instructs Gregory Thaumaturgus and Athenodorus, brothers, and others in sacred and secular literature. He expounds Isaiah and Ezekiel in commentaries.

1. (31) In the meantime, while Caracalla the son of Severus was undertaking to kill some, death ensued from sickness in the eighteenth year of his reign, while Origen was in his twenty-sixth year. After some years, he determined to go to Rome, out of a desire to visit the Roman Church, over which Pope Zephyrinus presided at that time. Baronius attempts to reach by conjecture the time of the journey, which was omitted by Eusebius, and assigns it to the first year of Elagabalus, which was the eighteenth and last year of Zephyrinus. He suspects that Mammaea, the mother of Alexander, gave the cause for the journey, since she accompanied Elagabalus to Rome when he began his reign after Origen had been summoned to her at Antioch. (32) But these events are divided differently in the chronology of Eusebius: for he signifies clearly enough that Origen was summoned to Antioch by Mammaea, and Suidas does so too in express words (33), when her son Alexander was in power. After he had acquired the empire, he did not go elsewhere to Antioch... ^C ...and he set out to ward off the Romans, who were threatening the borders with war. These things happened many years after the death of Zephyrinus. But when Elagabalus was proclaimed emperor, Mammaea was staying at Emesa, and it is not likely that, in such a great revolution of affairs, she could have applied herself to curious auditions. Furthermore, I do not see what cause Baronius could have had to invent an uncertain occasion for Origen’s journey to Italy—namely a desire to attend upon Mammaea—when Eusebius expressed the true one (Hist. lib. VI, cap. 14), namely, the desire to fully know the Roman Church, which is, as he himself writes, the most ancient of all. Therefore, let us be content to assign this journey between the death of Severus, which happened in the eleventh year of Zephyrinus, and the death of Zephyrinus himself, which pertains to the second year of Elagabalus; however, let us abstain from designating the time precisely, since the monuments of the ancients do not afford us even room for conjecture. ^D ...yet not according to knowledge, he cut off his genitals with iron. Where, as you see, he does not praise the deed, but the love of extreme purity by which he had been impelled to it. (31) Eusebius, lib. VI, cap. 8, 14, 21. (32) But these things are related differently in the chronology of Eusebius, etc. See a little below the note to no. VII, where Huet’s opinion concerning the time when Origen went to Mammaea is refuted. (33) Suid., Lexic. Ω.

Ω. ^A in the thirteenth year of Zephyrinus, certain historians establish, which does not differ from the calculations of Eusebius, and is quite satisfactory to me. From this, the fraud of Suidas and the Magdeburg Centuriators is exposed.

II. (34) Having quickly traveled through Rome, Origen immediately returned to Alexandria; the care of instructing the catechumens in Christian doctrines was again entrusted to him by Demetrius. Since he was driven by this work day and night, having set aside other studies, and could not find for himself any remaining time for the investigation of the Scriptures and divine matters, he divided the office of teaching with Heraclas, who at that time stood above the rest of his disciples, so that the latter taught the first elements of Christian doctrine to those who were more simple, while the former instructed those who were more mature and already experienced in the inner dogmas.

III. Hence, having gained some time for leisure, he used it for unraveling the more obscure meanings of Scripture, and diligently applied himself to that study with daily commentaries. But when he realized that his effort was being wasted without a knowledge of the Hebrew language, he added that ornament as well to the other praises of his doctrine. Johannes Trithemius, in his book *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, following the accounts of Origen, says that he learned the Hebrew language when already an old man, contrary to his age. He took these things from Jerome ^B (35) incorrectly: "He had such great diligence in the Holy Scriptures that he learned even the Hebrew language, contrary to the nature of his age and nation." I understand these things thus: Adamantius had already reached a manly age—which age is accustomed to scorn the subtleties and trifles of grammar and to delight in more serious studies—yet he brought his mind down to the point of exercising himself in this art. There is no indication of old age there. The Magdeburg Centuriators, however, cent. 3, chap. 10, narrate the same thing in these words: "Having thus obtained some small amount of leisure, he applied his mind to learning the Hebrew language, which, as Suidas says, is otherwise contrary to his nature." What Suidas has there, he translated from the Greek interpretation of Jerome’s work *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, where the words of Jerome, which were recently brought forward, are rendered thus: Ὥστε καὶ τὴν Ἑβραϊκὴν διάλεξιν ἐναντιουμένην τῇ τε ἡλικίᾳ, καὶ τῇ οἰκείᾳ φύσει ἐκμαθεῖν. What Jerome said regarding the nature of the Alexandrian people—who, according to the custom of all the Greeks, despised the knowledge of foreign languages—that ^C pertains to the nature of Origen himself, whom the interpreter reported poorly, which is proven to me well enough.

IV. (36) At that time, there was at Alexandria a man flourishing in wealth and dignity, and also esteemed for his genius and doctrine. Some write that he had been ensnared by the error of Valentinus, which then prevailed in Egypt, others that he was ensnared by the error of Marcion. Both are convenient: for there was a great affinity between both heresies, and a consensus of dogmas. Some also reported that he was a Sabellian, that is, a Noetian; for Sabellius indeed renewed the ravings of his teacher Noetus shortly after the death of Origen. Ambrosius often came to Origen, along with others partly heretical and partly ethnic philosophers, who were drawn by the man’s name and doctrine. For, sprinkling the precepts of philosophy, mathematics, and human disciplines into the documents of divine things, he instructed his listeners according to the capacity of each; nor did he think there was little help in those doctrines for perceiving sacred things. Ambrosius was so affected toward him that, having abjured his errors, he gave himself to be instructed by him in sounder doctrine and applied himself entirely to his society. Baronius (37) acknowledges that Caracalla was ruling at the time when Ambrosius was converted to the faith of Christ. Yet he teaches that Origen returned from Rome to Alexandria in the final times of Zephyrinus, when Elagabalus had recently acquired the empire, whereas this return of Origen preceded the conversion of Ambrosius. Clearly, he is killed by his own sword.

V. At about the same time, the Governor of Arabia sent a military man to Alexandria with letters to Demetrius the bishop and the prefect of Egypt, in which he vehemently begged that they should send Origen to him immediately; for he desired to share with him concerning divine matters, and to become a participant in his doctrine. Both assented to the very fair request. Origen was immediately sent to him, and the matter being happily explained, he returned to Alexandria without delay. However, what Halloxius asserts—that it is by no means doubtful that Origen, approaching to hear Hippolytus speaking in a certain church during that time, was designated by him, and ^D for the sake of honor was pointed out to those standing by, as Jerome reports the event in the book *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis* regarding Hippolytus—that indeed lacks proof: (38) for when Hippolytus had departed from Arabia and finally died a martyr in Italy, etc. Huet follows Baronius, who, at the year of Christ 229, thinks that the great Hippolytus, of whom it is treated here, had departed from Arabia, come to Rome, had been promoted to the see of Porto by Pope Callistus, and had died there a martyr. But of which place Hippolytus was bishop, even Jerome did not know, as he himself acknowledges in the *Catalogus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum*, chap. 61. Gelasius, book 1 *against Eutyches*, calls Hippolytus the Metropolitan of the Arabs. But Eusebius, book VI of the *Ecclesiastical History*, chap. 20, speaks at the same time about Hippolytus and Beryllus, the bishop of the Bostrians. The city of Bostra was then the metropolis of Arabia. Therefore, when he had Beryllus as bishop, another metropolis must be sought for Hippolytus, which neither Jerome, nor Eusebius, nor Theodoret knew. Since these things are so, let an impartial estimator of things judge what trust should be placed in more recent writers—such as George Syncellus in his *Chronicle*, Nicephorus Callistus, Zonaras, and Anastasius the Librarian in his *Collectanea*—who write that Hippolytus was Bishop of Porto. What, then, will be done about St. Germanus of Constantinople, who makes mention of "Hippolytus of Rome"? What about Leontius of Byzantium, who in volume XI of the *Bibliotheca Patrum*, page 503, calls the holy Clement and Hippolytus "Bishops of Rome"? Certainly the error of all these seems to have been born from the fact that they confuse the great Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, of whom Eusebius, Jerome, and Theodoret speak, with the other, Hippolytus of Porto, the martyr of whom Prudentius speaks in *De martyribus*, hymn 11.

^A Since at that time Alexander Severus, accompanied by his mother Mammaea, had come to Antioch—who, being Syrian by birth, had acquired some familiarity with Jewish and Christian affairs—she sent a military escort to invite Origen, whose name was then celebrated everywhere, for the purpose of exploring the man's doctrine and gaining a greater knowledge of Christ. Having held many discussions with her concerning God, and having spent no little time there, he hastened back to Alexandria to his interrupted studies. In connecting this pilgrimage of Origen with those times, I know that I am disagreeing with some chronologists, who refer the Persian expedition to the final years of Alexander Severus, whereas it is certain that Origen went to visit Mammaea long before the end of Alexander’s reign. ^B Indeed, the *epilogismoi* of Eusebius, to which we consistently adhere in this history, favor us: for he assigns the Persian war to the second year of Alexander in his *Chronicle*; while in *History*, Book VI, chapter 21, after having signified that Alexander had attained the imperial dignity, he immediately subjoins the journey of Origen to Mammaea; but the retreat of Origen to Caesarea, which he teaches occurred in the tenth year of Alexander, he recorded much further down. Those, however, who have cast this war back into the final years of Alexander have done so without any authority; for those who have embraced the events of that age—Herodian, Zosimus, Xiphilinus, and Lampridius—have by no means expressed the time of the Persian expedition: Eusebius alone, whom we follow, has left it noted. But if you were to insist that these things happened before Mammaea went to Rome, as Baronius wishes at year 220, no. 6—for one of two things must be said, and it does not appear that she was in Antioch at any other time—you will find this opinion refuted by us above.

VI. Not long after, he slipped away secretly from Alexandria, fleeing the impious arms of Caracalla, by which he brought most disastrous slaughter upon the Alexandrians. The year was 215 of Christ, the fifth of Caracalla, with Origen in his thirtieth year. He withdrew into Palestine and made his seat at Caesarea; where so great an honor was accorded him by the bishops that, although he was not yet a presbyter, but still a layman even then, the task of explaining Scripture publicly in the church was entrusted to him in the presence of the bishops. Demetrius resented this, and as if it had been attempted by the bishops and Origen contrary to divine law, he condemned it in letters written to them. Theoctistus, bishop of Caesarea (whom Photius calls Theotechnus, codex 118 and 132), and Alexander of Jerusalem excused the deed on the basis of reason and the authority and example of other bishops. And yet they did not so appease Demetrius that he did not recall Origen through letters and dispatching deacons. He obeyed the orders and, having returned to his homeland, restored himself to his accustomed duty. The lack of diligence here by Halloxius and others must be corrected, who confused this first journey of Origen to Palestine with another one, which we shall relate shortly, that he had to those parts while setting out to the bishops of Achaia; for Eusebius carefully distinguished both journeys, and narrates the former as undertaken by Origen before the death of Caracalla (*Hist.*, book VI, cap. 19), and assigns the latter to those times in which Zebinus succeeded Philetus as bishop of Antioch; this passage exists in *Hist.*, book VI, cap. 23; Zebinus, however, entered upon his episcopate under Alexander Severus, as it is in the Eusebian *Chronicle*. This is something which Halloxius himself noted in another place.

VII. Meanwhile, a war having arisen between the Romans and the Persians...

[Note: The remainder of the page is technical discussion regarding the dating of the Persian war and the reign of Alexander Severus, and the correction of minor errors in the works of Baronius and others.]

^A Origen began to illustrate [the Scriptures] in commentaries, at the urging of Ambrose, who did not merely incite him with words, but also supplied the expenses. It is read in Cedrenus, a statement also adopted by Suidas and Glycas, that Origen interpreted the sacred letters for a space of eighteen years. This, however, by no means agrees with the reckonings of Eusebius, who writes that Origen, being more than sixty years old, illustrated [the Scriptures] in commentaries on Matthew, that is, for thirty years and more after he first began to expound Scripture. If anyone should think these things must be accepted in such a way as to suggest that whatever time Origen contributed to the interpretation of the sacred Volumes at various intervals equals a space of eighteen years, I dissent even more widely; for I do not believe such a calculation can in any way be supported. It is much more credible that this notion arose from an ill-read or miscopied place in Epiphanius (45). For after he said that Ambrose requested Origen to interpret the sacred Scriptures, he says that he did this during his retreat in Tyre for twenty-eight years (46). In another place also, he writes that Origen explained the divine Volumes at Tyre for 28 years. Similarly, Suidas, following others, narrates that at the request of Ambrose, Origen explained the Scriptures for 28 years. You see that these accounts are genuine to those which Epiphanius wrote, except that the number 28 degenerated into eighteen. Regarding the duration of the Tyrian retreat that Epiphanius assigned, we shall have a discussion shortly.

^B Jerome writes in *De viris illustribus*, in the section on Hippolytus, that Ambrose incited Origen to the interpretation of the sacred Books in emulation of Hippolytus, who was already well-deserving of the Church, having published many commentaries on Scripture. A misunderstood Eusebius deceived Jerome, who, after listing the writings of Hippolytus, subjoins these words in *Hist.*, bk. VI, ch. 23; that is: "From that time also the beginning of commenting upon the divine Scriptures was made by Origen, with Ambrose greatly urging him on." Jerome, however, wrongly referred this word, *ἐκείνου* (that), which pertained to the time, to Hippolytus; about which Nicephorus has nothing similar. Henry Valesius already observed this before. The author of the Greek translation of the book *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis* ^C distorted the false explanation of Jerome with a new depravation. Jerome has this: "He (Hippolytus) wrote some commentaries on the Scriptures, of which I have found these: on the *Hexaemeron*... *On the Pascha*, *Against all heresies*, *On the praise of the Lord Savior*; in which he signifies that he is speaking in the Church in the presence of Origen. In emulation of him, Ambrose, whom we have said was corrected from the heresy of Marcion to the true faith, encouraged Origen to write commentaries on the Scriptures, providing him with seven or more scribes, and their expenses, and an equal number of notaries: and, what is greater than these, demanding the work from him daily with incredible zeal. Whence Origen calls him his 'work-driver' (*ἐργοδιώκτην*) in a certain letter." The interpreter received these in such a way as if these things were to be written in one series: "In which he signifies that he is speaking in the Church in the presence of Origen in ^D emulation of him; then there should be appended a full stop." For he translates thus: "Nor did the evil end here; for Photius, a man otherwise abounding in literary praises, added new accessions to the ancient errors: for he, whom the translator whom Jerome followed had preceded, distinguished the passage with such punctuation: (supplying, Hippolytus) '[...] in which he signifies that he is speaking in the Church in the presence of Origen in emulation of him; Ambrose, whom we have said was corrected from the heresy of Marcion to the true faith, encouraged Origen to interpret the divine Scriptures, having provided him with seven or more notaries.'" That Photius read it thus is declared by these words of his: "Since these things are derived from Jerome’s Greek interpreter, the error of certain men of suspicious mind is manifest, who conjecture that this is a recent work." But from this, some were persuaded that it was Hippolytus, not Ambrose, who was ready to provide the expenses for literary matters: how true this is, let the reader judge, and how false opinions are propagated as if by tradition. For Eusebius was a deception to Jerome, Jerome to the Greek interpreter, the Greek interpreter to Photius, and Photius himself to countless others, and each one received an error from another, and then accumulated new ones upon it. But enough of this. Ambrose, therefore, assisted Origen in all things, and whatever pertained to bodily needs and to his studies was provided to him in abundance, as if by a divine wand. He therefore had more than seven notaries at hand, who would take down what was dictated from the mouth of the speaker, and an equal number of copyists [with young women], who would hasten to transcribe in a neater hand what had been written.

IX

he had the use of writing materials, and in that time he worked out the first five books of his Commentaries on John, as well as the beginning of the sixth, at Alexandria, upon his return from the Achaean journey which we shall soon describe. Likewise, he finished the first eight books on Genesis and twelve more; he expounded twenty-five of the Psalms in this period, although he subsequently interpreted several more, as we shall say below; and he also interpreted the Lamentations of Jeremiah in their entirety in multiple volumes. Add to this the ten books of

On First Principles

Stromateis

^B

X. (48) Ecclesiastical business, for the sake of which he set out for Achaia, interrupted Origen in these studies. What that business was, ^A Eusebius did not express; but Baronius, at the year 230, n. 7, sought to discover it by conjectures; and he divines that Origen went into Greece for this reason: (49) that he might become master of the Nicopolitan edition which was discovered about these times. But why should we descend to elaborate conjectures when the truth itself lies open? For Jerome writes in

On illustrious men

Exposition of Eusebius' History

Thesaurus of the Orthodox Faith

On illustrious grammarians

XI. That he departed thence and passed through Ephesus cannot be believed to be beyond probability. For Origen writes in a letter to his friends in Alexandria that he once encountered a certain heretic at Ephesus who, although he had not endured to confer a word with him, ^D nevertheless sent to his disciples, and to others, a fabricated story of a false disputation, and that when he finally arrived at Antioch, making a show of false victory and spreading rumors, Origen publicly refuted him and put his vanity to shame. If anyone wishes to hold that this happened then, when it can scarcely be assigned to another time, I shall favor the conjecture: but let each person hold his own judgment whole on this matter as well, for I do not believe that all Origen’s travels were committed to writing, especially since he himself teaches elsewhere that he passed through many places on earth. What are therefore proposed by us in this place, and here and there elsewhere, with doubt, let the reader accept as mere conjectures, if perhaps they possess some verisimilitude.

^A

XII. Before he came to Athens, however, he had traveled through Palestine, and at Caesarea had been advanced to the sacred order of the presbyterate by the bishops already mentioned, Theoctistus and Alexander. Whether he had already received prior orders is not clear; indeed, I am easily led to believe that he was ordained presbyter "by a leap," as they call it, as was the custom in the early times of the Church. This happened at the time when Zebinus held the governance of the Church of Antioch, namely, in the year of Christ 228, the seventh of Alexander Severus, and the forty-third of Origen. This was done by most holy bishops for a man not of their own jurisdiction, under the testimony of the ecclesiastical letter with which Demetrius had accompanied his departure—concerning which Alexander wrote back to him for the sake of clearing himself, the man being of a gentle and mild disposition; as a witness to this we provide Jerome, in his book *De viris illustribus*, on Origen and Alexander. On this account, the bishops of Egypt and Alexandria in their synodal letter ^B against the doctrine of Origen, acknowledge: *χειροτονηθέντα αὐτὸν πρεσβύτερον ὑπὸ τῆς κανονικῆς τε καὶ μιᾶς χειρὸς ἀληθινῆς* (that he was ordained presbyter by the canonical and one true hand). Wherefore I am the more surprised that Photius, in *Codex* 118, wrote that Origen, having traveled to Alexandria, had received the dignity of the presbyterate without the consent of his own bishop. He adds that the author of the act was Theoctistus, and the approver Alexander. Hence it is that Demetrius burned severely with this grief, and from Origen’s distinguished glory, which had long been collected in his breast, he spewed forth the whole poison of envy, from whence great tumults were subsequently stirred up and dissipated the whole Church into factions. For he first began publicly to disparage and traduce Origen’s castration, which he had previously miraculously praised and approved, to incite the whole Church against him, to deprive him of the honor of the priesthood, and to separate him from the communion of Asia. Indeed, Photius, in *Codex* 118, narrates that a twofold synod was convened against him; of these, the first, composed of some bishops and presbyters, ordained that he should be removed from the teaching office and expelled from Alexandria, but it did not strip him of the dignity of the presbyterate; the second, convened by Demetrius from some bishops of Egypt, decreed that he should also be stripped of the honor of the priesthood. Jerome, in *Liber II in Rufinum*, cap. 5, testifies that the entire world, except Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia, and Achaia, agreed to this decree of Demetrius, and that his reputation for virtue was crushed not because of the novelty of his dogmas or errors, but because of envy. The same author also states that Origen was not only removed from the presbyterate by Demetrius, but was also prohibited from the society of the Church, with the priests consenting to it; as it seems plausible to me that this was also decreed in the synod gathered by Demetrius. But he had already departed from his fatherland when that Demetrian synod met, as we shall say shortly. Thus Adamantius, having returned to Achaia to Alexandria, now a presbyter and intent upon his former studies, was agitated by his own bishop—at first favoring him, then secretly envious, and then, by the greatest additions of deeds of odious envy, openly hostile—until, finally exhausted by evils, he yielded to the injury and was forced to depart from his ancestral home. For, in truth, while the synod decreed his exile, he preferred to admit voluntarily what he saw he would have to do even against his will, especially since he could not bear the mounting envy. For thus must those be reconciled who boast that he left of his own accord, with those who wish it to be believed that he was expelled and banished from his fatherland.

XIII. Epiphanius, *Haer.* 64, cap. 2, brings forward another cause for this exile, and says that Origen, flourishing with the high reputation of learning and sanctity, was ^C malicious. Vincent of Lérins would certainly have made mention of this history; nor, if it had been true, would Porphyry—who, though the truth was reluctant, snatched Ammonius from the Christians—have left Origen to them. 2. Who could easily persuade himself that the magistrates and prefects of Alexandria (for Epiphanius attributes this to them, not to the seditious mob) would have dared, under Emperor Alexander, who favored Christian matters, to inflict such horrible force upon Origen, a man at that time most famous, whom Mammaea, the most powerful mother of the emperor, also knew and valued highly? Epiphanius seems to have thought that this happened while some persecution was raging, since he says that Origen was cast out by the Church by the judgment of the confessors and martyrs who were at that time. But hardly any martyr is found at the very time when Origen left Alexandria. For indeed, for almost twenty years, no one had seen a spark of persecution. Huetius should have at least produced the one martyr who, while Alexander was emperor, suffered at Alexandria, as certain and indubitable monuments would attest. Nicetas, Nicephorus, and other more recent Greeks reject this fall of Origen to the persecution of Decius. The Reverend Father Pagi, page 251, § 8, did not think any other path was to be taken by him, and says that it is indicated by Epiphanius in explicit words; but he fell into Scylla while desiring to avoid Charybdis, as Huetius invincibly proves below, cap. 4, num. 4. 3. But if, in order to withdraw himself from the mockery of those taunting him, ^D Origen left Alexandria of his own accord and withdrew into Palestine, as Epiphanius narrates, then it is false that he was...

^A forced to do so. Nor did he not take it, but since, as punishment for a crime of this sort, as Huet himself admits, he was subject to apostolic canons, how could the bishops of the churches of Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia, and Achaia have taken up his cause, have committed to him the office of preaching, and have permitted other priestly duties? Huet is mistaken when he says it is clear from Epiphanius that Origen only hesitated to accept idolatry, but did not actually reach the deed. In the very words of Epiphanius: «Of the two things proposed to him, he chose to sacrifice, though by no means of his own will, but rather he did this not by choice; yet, as the story goes, since he was compelled, they placed the incense upon his hands and he let it fall upon the altar.» Having proposed these two things, he preferred to sacrifice. Although it is said by the common people that he did this entirely of his own accord, but that it was done once by his assent, and that, having been placed in his hands, it fell upon the altar, the Gentiles declare. This is the only thing Epiphanius says, that Origen hesitated, and after it is said he would sacrifice, he himself cast it into the fire having assented. Concerning the assent, it is certain; but that it is enough for public penance to be subject to it, and therefore to be stripped of priestly dignity, as Origen in his third book against Celsus, no. 51, p. 482, says, that public penance is only required on the condition that, since they were excluded for the future from all dignities and ecclesiastical magistracies. And what Nicetas says, that Origen had changed his mind and retracted the promise, and for that reason had retracted, he immediately adds concerning him, when he was pressed, he nevertheless performed it. 5 The humility that shines everywhere in Origen's writings, as if he were guilty of such a crime, is ^B certainly such that he would never have allowed the memory of it to be wiped out, had he been guilty, and he would not have omitted in his commentary on the Psalms or in his interpretation of Scripture to lament his guilt, especially in that place where he fell at Jerusalem. 6 It is truly strange that such an act was not known among the ancients to Epiphanius, who otherwise seems to know little about things pertaining to Origen's life. He nowhere mentions Demetrius against him with persecutions, nor the synods of which one cast him out into exile, the other stripped him of priesthood and Church ministry, although he does not omit that these things were done, offering himself of his own accord to be inserted in the book, calling Origen a heretic, for he had proposed that he be expelled. 7 He says that Origen, after his fall and departure from Alexandria, came to the knowledge of Ambrose; that he himself adjured the author of the heresy; and that Ambrose demanded from Origen that he should reveal the Holy Scriptures through interpretation; and that Origen, indeed, in order to please Ambrose, for which he was accused, set out to declare all of Scripture through his interpretation and exposition. Which, since it is established to be entirely false, the error will be great, if he thought this to have happened after the Decian persecution. 8 Origen remained at Tyre for twenty months, and yet if the faith of Epiphanius (lib. de pond. et mens., p. 175) is to be believed, regarding his departure from Alexandria and the time he spent at Jerusalem and Caesarea, he consumed twenty-eight years in the retreat at Tyre and in the work of Scripture. Moreover, who would tolerate Epiphanius saying that Origen flourished under the Emperor Decius, when under Septimius Severus, ^C long before Decius, there was great celebrity of Origen, and he would never have returned, having left? But if he said he flourished under Decius, since he died before Decius, he would have departed? That cannot be, for if he flourished under Severus and was long before Decius, he would never have returned, having withdrawn! Or if Epiphanius (lib. de pond. et mens., p. 174) writes that Origen flourished in the time of the emperors Gallus and Volusianus, and that he flourished then? Where the double error is, since Decius is placed after Severus, and the years of Origen's life are rejected beyond the reign of Gallus and Volusianus. Therefore, that he later deferred Origen's fall to the Decian times, from which it becomes evident that Epiphanius was clearly ignorant and foreign to Origen's life, there are greater arguments. 9 It is not strange that a fable of this kind, sanctioned by the authority of an ancient writer, was later snatched up by the rest of the Greeks without any examination. Certainly that account of his is found in Nemesius, but without doubt they read it in Epiphanius. Add to this that Nemesius has very little weight in the Church, and regarding the time he lived, nothing certain is known up to now. (a) Justinian writes that Origen abjured Christ by sacrificing to idols, and that his followers admit it; but although Huet thinks otherwise, the authority of Justinian is of value for confirming such history; Leontius the Byzantine, Nicetas Choniates, and other more recent ^D Greeks, who were bitter enemies of Origen, openly follow Epiphanius. The weight of his account is not in the number of them, who lived long after him. (55) That he amended human sin with timely and healthy penance. This is certainly contradicted by the fact that he says himself in a letter to his friends that some Alexandrians had written a little after he left Alexandria, that Jerome lib. II adv. Rufin., disparages Demetrius, and inveighs against the bishops and clergy who were against him, and it is said in vain that he was excommunicated by the Churches. It is contradicted by what he says in the Preface to John, which he began much later than when he left Alexandria for Caesarea, because he did not take the former writing with him when he left Alexandria. Now,

to amend; and he showed that not only Peter’s fall, but his tears and sorrow, were also represented. Just as Peter preceded Origen in a delinquency of this kind, so too did both of them precede Pope Marcellinus: for the Acts inscribed in his name bear witness that he entered the temple of Vesta and offered incense with Diocletian. However, Augustine, in his work against the Donatist Petilian ^A (56), maintains that this is a fabrication and a falsehood. And even if it were true, it is certain that he atoned for his crime shortly thereafter by undergoing martyrdom with the greatest steadfastness. Moreover, Origen demonstrated his repentance with such clear signs that idle men have since falsely attributed to him a book, *On Repentance*, which Pope Gelasius relegated to the category of apocryphal writings (57). Yet, that book—whichever one it refers to—concerns Origen’s fall; he says, “Up to the fifth volume, although the storm of Alexandria appeared to us to be adverse—which things were permitted, we have spoken, with Jesus rebuking the winds and the waves of the sea. Advancing from this circumstance, with God delivering us from Egypt—He who led His people out of it—then, with the enemy (Demetrius) fighting most bitterly against us through his new letters, which are truly inimical to the Gospel, and stirring up all the winds of Egypt against us, reason exhorted me rather to the struggle, and to preserve the most excellent part of myself, than to join the remaining Scripture untimely, before the discourse of reason could recover its tranquility, lest perchance evil thoughts might increase and bring a storm upon my soul as well... But now, since the many fiery darts directed against us have been made vain, with God extinguishing them, and because our soul, accustomed to these things which occur for the sake of the heavenly word, is constrained to bear the snares that have been set more easily, as if having attained some serenity, we do not wish to delay any longer in dictating the rest, praying that God, the Master sounding within the inner shrine of our soul, may be present, so that the structure of the exposition of the Gospel according to John may receive faith.” ^B If Origen had been guilty of idolatry; if, for that reason, he had been cast out from the Church and the priesthood by the judgment of Demetrius and many bishops; if, finally, he had been penitent, would he have spoken in this way? Let a fair judge of matters decide.

Baronius, in the year 253, no. 118, did not doubt this, whose claim that Adamantius declares himself guilty of a crime in this book can scarcely be reconciled with the history of Epiphanius which we are discussing. And I believe that this transgression, in particular, was the cause for which he was removed from the priesthood and the Church, since that punishment is indeed imposed for an offense of this kind by the apostolic canons. Nor is it a wonder that he was kindly received by other churches (58); for one may learn from the letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, regarding Novatus, with how much indulgence and charity Christians of old were accustomed to be treated, who, after having abjured Christ through weakness of spirit and softness, were brought back to a better frame of mind led by repentance (59). (60) But if he had been accused merely of being received by a presbyter not of his own [diocese], they attempt to reconcile this. However, it was permitted only for martyrs to intercede for the lapsed and to write letters of recommendation. It appears, therefore, that this passage of Dionysius should be translated as we have translated it: “Furthermore, the divine martyrs who are now assessors of Christ, and sharers in His kingdom, and participants in His judgment, and who will judge together with Him: while they were here with us, they received certain of the brothers who had lapsed and had been convicted of sacrificing to idols; and seeing their conversion and repentance, when they had judged that it might be pleasing to Him who prefers the repentance of a sinner to his death, they admitted them and gathered them, and received them into their company; and they communicated with them in prayers and in food.” Although the word *sunestēsan* can also be explained differently, namely passively, as “standing together.” Thus Dionysius in Eusebius, lib. VII, cap. 9: *molis parakaloumenos, sunestanai tais proseuchais anexetai*. And Eusebius in lib. VI, cap. 2, concerning Origen: *oudepōpote proutrapē kata tēn euchēn autō sunestēsan*. Valesius adds later: “There was a twofold communion in the Church: one of prayer, the other of the sacraments. ^D And indeed, the communion of prayers was granted to penitents after a certain period of time. But the communion of the Body of Christ was not granted except to those reconciled after long delays of penance. See canons 11, 12, and 13 of the Council of Nicaea. From which it appears that the communion of prayer was the last and nearest degree for penitents to the communion of the sacred mysteries. And these things are to be understood regarding public communion, by which it was granted to penitents to pray in the church openly with all the people. But in this passage of Dionysius, there is discussion of private communion, which I see some confuse with public. But I call 'private communion' that which, from private persons—and not, however, from the bishop, whose right and pontifical duty it was—was granted to a certain person. For example, when confessors and martyrs, imploring their intercession and mercy, received the lapsed kindly, and permitted them to pray to God together with them. This communion, although it had been granted to the lapsed by the martyrs and presbyters (for many of the martyrs were from the clergy), gave them no right: but it was only in the nature of a prejudice, so that they might afterwards be admitted by the bishop to the public communion of prayer in the church. The passage of Eusebius in lib. VI, cap. 2 regarding Origen, which I cited a little while ago, is to be understood as being about this kind of private communion; as is another in lib. IV, cap. 14; likewise the passage of the same Eusebius in lib. VI, cap. 43, from the letter of Pope Cornelius, where he speaks of the presbyter Moses, who repelled Novatian from his communion. Also the passage of Sulpicius Severus in lib. I, *On the Life of St. Martin*. See Fr. Florentinus at title 7, concerning the translation of a bishop.”

^A it is credible that Demetrius, who was the accuser, would not have treated him so severely, especially since he had allowed him to be promoted to that degree of dignity, relying upon his own recommendation. But it is by no means to be thought that the narration of this deed was deliberately omitted by Eusebius, either to liberate Origen from the charge of idolatry, or because he thought that a sin washed away by penance should thereafter be committed to oblivion; but because the matter had already been embraced by Origen in his own clear work of *Apology*, while in his *History* he considered it necessary only to touch upon it in passing. Then he left unsaid that excellent and in every way praise-worthy deed of Origen (which Nicetas in *Thes. orthod. fid.*, lib. iv, haer. 31, has committed to memory as having happened at the same time), when, according to the custom of the Egyptian priests, having been shaved by the pagans, he incited all the Christians at the temple of Serapis with a clear voice to contend for the name of Christ. Furthermore, Baronius, at the year 253, num. 120, insists that the history of the Origenian idolatry is false and fabricated, and that it was inserted into Epiphanius by an alien hand, and he gathers many things to that argument, which you have learnedly refuted by Petavius in his *Epiphanian Animadversions*. Others attribute the matter to the times of Decius. We shall weigh these things more accurately below: but we assert in advance that we can agree neither to the opinion of these men, nor to the conjecture of Baronius. It is also consistent that Demetrius complained at that time that the integrity of the faith in most of his books, and especially in that which is *On Principles*, had been violated by Origen, inasmuch as he was studiously collecting all arguments against him. Therefore, Origen, eliminated from Alexandria, withdrew to Caesarea of Palestine, and there fixed his seat, in the 46th year of his age, in the year 231 of Christ, the 10th of Alexander Severus; or as it is in some manuscripts of Eusebius, and in Nicephorus, and in some exemplars of the Eusebian Chronicle, in the 12th or 11th year of Alexander, as the Scaligerian edition of this Chronicle has it. From these it is evident that Epiphanius was hallucinating, who wrote, *haer.* 64, cap. 1, that Origen flourished at Alexandria during the reign of Decius, when it is agreed that he never returned there after that time. Therefore, I concede to the opinion of Petavius, who thinks that the name of Severus was erroneously changed to the name of Decius by Epiphanius. It is also certain that Abraham Scultetus ^B hallucinated more vehemently, who narrates that Origen, after he left Alexandria to yield to his rivals, was recalled there and illustrated all the books of Sacred Scripture with commentaries.

This was sufficient for Demetrius to vomit forth the entire poison of envy he had long collected in his breast from the glory of Origen, and to seize from there an excuse for treating him so severely.

XIV. Origen therefore fled to Caesarea to Theoctistus, and was kindly and liberally received by him, and was protected from all injuries and insults. Hence Demetrius, suffused with a new malevolence, as I have said, gathered the bishops of Egypt into a synod, and judged Origen unworthy of the presbyterate, and separated him from the society of the Church, with almost the entire world approving and confirming the decree. He also scattered burning and stinging letters against him in every direction: but timely death put an end at once to the anger and the life of the man, in the same year, as it seems, in which Origen departed, and Heraclas was substituted in his episcopate. Eusebius narrates these things in his *History* in the order we have described; it is otherwise in the *Chronicle*, in which Demetrius's death anticipates Origen's departure by a full two years, which by no means can stand.

XV. Certainly, so that I may hide nothing, Gennadius in his book, *De viris illustribus*, cap. 33, writes that Theophilus, the Alexandrian bishop, handed down that Origen was not first cast out by himself, but had been ejected from the presbyterate and pushed from the church and driven from the city by ancient Fathers, and especially by Heraclas. ^C The same is held by the author of the *Life of St. Pachomius*, and by the synodical letter of the bishops of Egypt and Alexandria, a fragment of which Justinian produces in his letter to Mennas, which Huetius provides shortly below.

Regarding the fact that Demetrius complained that the integrity of the faith in most books, and especially in that which is *On Principles*, had been violated by Origen at that time: this may indeed be gathered both from the matters which the Demetrian synod decreed against Origen, and from Origen's own letter to certain friends at Alexandria, where he complains that his adversaries, and certain heretics, and some others wishing to disturb the churches, had adulterated his books. His enemies in the time of Jerome also said that he was condemned for this reason, on account of the novelty of doctrines and heresy, as Jerome himself testifies in a certain letter to Paula, a portion of which Rufinus brings forward in his *Invectives*, Book I. ^D That Origen had been deposed from the priesthood and the Church, especially on account of the crime of idolatry, as Huetius maintains, Eusebius would certainly not have omitted the narration of this fact. Yet he does not seem to have made even a single mention of this disgrace in his *Apology*. For if he had commemorated it, surely Photius, who in codex 148 reports from that very *Apology* from where the whole storm was stirred up against Origen by Demetrius, would not have omitted it. Petavius vindicates the truth of history with very light arguments: if you compare these with ours, they collapse immediately.

Regarding the name of Decius being substituted for the name of Severus, etc. Nevertheless, Epiphanius, *lib. De pond. et mens.*, pag. 174, writes that Origen flourished from the time of the emperor Decius, up to Gallus and Volusianus, and beyond. Where there is a double error, since Decius is put in place of Severus, and Origen's death is placed beyond the empire of Gallus and Volusianus. Which is an argument that not imprudently Decius crept in for Severus, but that Epiphanius so believed it, and thus was unlearned and a stranger to the life of Origen: which Huetius himself admits below.

^A of the bishops of Egypt, a fragment of which Justinian produces in his epistle to Mennas. The words are these: "For once he had begun to speak blasphemous discourses, the then blessed Heraclas the bishop, being like a true husbandman and laborer of the field of the Church, plucked this man out from the midst of the good wheat, as being truly the evil tare." For when he had begun to utter impious speeches, the bishop Heraclas of blessed memory, who was then flourishing, like a plowman and vinedresser studious of the ecclesiastical field, plucked him out from the midst of the beautiful harvest, just as one truly plucks out a bad weed. Besides those mentioned above, another reason is brought forward why Origen was expelled. ^B There is something similar in Peter, the bishop of Alexandria, in his *Mystagogia*, a portion of which Justinian also recites in the same epistle: "What shall I say," he says, "concerning the blessed bishops Heraclas and Demetrius? What temptations they endured from the maddened Origen, and from him casting divisions into the Church, which have stirred up troubles in it even to this day?" But what shall I say of the blessed bishops Heraclas and Demetrius? What temptations did they suffer from the insane Origen, when he was sowing dissensions in the Church, which have stirred up disturbances in it to this very day? Finally, Eusebius, as I have already noted, invents in his *Chronicle* that Origen was in exile two years after Heraclas was created bishop. ^C I easily believe, indeed, that Heraclas, while still a presbyter, assented to the decree of Demetrius against Origen, and that as soon as he obtained the episcopate, he confirmed the edict of his predecessor and prevented Origen from being restored to his former position; for Photius says (Cod. 118) that all who had previously supported Origen himself subscribed to the edict of Demetrius. But I cannot be persuaded that Demetrius was already dead when Origen was cast out from Alexandria, nor can I believe that Heraclas was the author of his expulsion, contrary to the testimony of Eusebius's *History*, and Jerome's *book II against Rufinus*, chapter 5, and indeed that of Origen himself, who, in a letter written to friends in Alexandria after his own exile, inveighs against Demetrius and others who agreed with him.

XVI. 17 After Origen withdrew to Caesarea from this tumult, he took counsel for his own reputation, which had been assailed by so many calumnies, and clearly refuted that epistle which I mentioned above, written by Demetrius to certain of his friends in Alexandria. In it, although he declares that he wishes to refrain from insults, he nevertheless harshly and bitterly lashes out at Demetrius and the bishops who agreed with him against him, and refutes both the injury done to him and the anathemas inflicted upon him. Nor was he any the less discharged from ecclesiastical duties on account of the decrees of Demetrius and the Alexandrian synods; he taught publicly, and in the church he discoursed to the people on sacred matters. And he did these things not only by the permission of the bishop of Caesarea and the bishop of Jerusalem, but even by their command; for they entrusted to this one man the office of interpreting Holy Scripture. ^D For when there were various opinions among different people regarding his case, and the whole of Palestine, Phoenicia, and Arabia had taken up his cause as if into two separate factions, their protection and defense supported him; relying on whose authority, he by no means thought himself to have fallen from his priesthood and the communion of the Church, and he maintained his rank and dignity among them.

XVII. About the same time he also went to Jerusalem, intending to see the footsteps of Christ and the apostles. There the college of priests urgently requested of him that he should speak words in the church; and since those who presided over the sacred rites were using almost violent pressure to obtain this, he arose, and having taken up the book from which he might choose a subject for himself, he chanced upon this verse from Psalm XLIX: *But to the sinner God said: Why do you declare my justices, and take my covenant into your mouth?* When this was read, as if his own treachery were being reproached to him by God, he fell into such lamentations that he drew tears from everyone standing by. But when he signified that he had at some time traveled the footsteps of Christ and the apostles (in *Comm. in John*, vol. vi, no. 24, p. 140), we think this can be attributed to these times. He departed from there shortly after.

XVIII. Epiphanius writes (*Haer. 64*, cap. 3, and *De pond. et mens.*, cap. 18) that he went to Tyre after his journey to Jerusalem, and that there he spent his leisure for twenty-eight years in interpreting the Scriptures, according to the requests of Ambrosius. I would say the number was corrupted by the copyists, if it were not found in two places in Epiphanius.

^A XLVI, in which he was ejected from Alexandria, there intervene twenty-eight years in total. And it can be believed that this was the cause of Epiphanius’s error.

XIX. As soon as Origen came to Caesarea, having left Alexandria, he was placed in charge of literary studies there, and immediately he stirred up all men to take up the disciplines—but especially the holier ones—by both teaching and writing; yet he stirred up two adolescents of great name in particular, who came from Neocaesarea and were born to distinguished parents, though they were strangers to Christ: Theodorus, who was also called Gregory and earned the surname Thaumaturgus, and his brother Athenodorus. Who, when they had come to Berytus to devote themselves to the study of Roman law ^B (where at that time the doctrine of laws flourished), were by I know not what chance carried off to Caesarea ^C and fell in with Origen, who had recently arrived there, and with Firmilian. By these words Huet indicates—and below in chapter 5, number 7, he expressly states—that Firmilian was not yet a bishop when he began to study under Origen together with Gregory Thaumaturgus. There follows Gregory of Nyssa, who in his *Life of Thaumaturgus*, page 543, has it thus: ^D "After he had traversed all the disciplines of outward wisdom, he happened upon a certain patrician from Cappadocia, Firmilian, similar in character and disposition (as he showed in his subsequent life, when he was an ornament of the Church of the Caesareans), and he revealed the aim of his own mind and life to his friend, as that which was directed toward God: and when he realized that his own zeal corresponded to that same desire, having abandoned all zeal for outward philosophy, he proceeded with him to the one who at that time was leading the way in the philosophy of the Christians." This was Origen, of whom there is much mention in his writings. "When he was living in Egypt, in the great city of Alexander, into which the youth drawn from everywhere, having practiced both philosophy and medicine, would flow together. And this was the tenth year of the reported principate, at which time Origen made his migration from Alexandria to Caesarea, and left Heraclas in charge of the catechetical schools there." And before long, Demetrius, the bishop of the Church of the Alexandrians, died, having...

administered the Church for forty-three years. Heraclas succeeded in his place. At that time, Firmilianus was flourishing as ^B Bishop of Caesarea among the Cappadocians. Therefore, Firmilianus did not come into Origen’s discipline before his episcopate, together with Gregory Thaumaturgus. But Nyssenus can be reconciled with other writers if we say that Firmilianus, already a bishop, frequently visited Origen in Palestine at that time, and remained with him for some time in order to acquire a greater knowledge of divine things; and in this way, he came in a certain manner into Origen's discipline together with Gregory. This agrees with the narrative of Eusebius: "So great," he says (Hist. lib. vi, cap. 27), "was his disposition towards Origen, that he would sometimes summon him to his own province for the benefit of the churches, and at other times he would travel all the way to Judaea to see him, and would remain for some time with him, that he might acquire a greater knowledge of divine things."

(76) Socrates’ narrative—that they were moved by the fame of Origen to hasten there—is proved false by those things which Gregory himself narrates in his *Panegyric* (n. 3): that he and his brother Athenodorus, when they were wandering about—as if wild beasts or birds that had fallen into Origen's nets, that is, into his sight—wished at first to flee from him toward Berytus, or return to their own country; which they would undoubtedly have done, had not Origen so chained them to himself with a thousand baits that they were forced to remain with him at Caesarea.

(77) If you reckon the beginning of these years from the year 231, the end will be 236. But in that very year, during the fierce persecution of Maximinus, which (according to Orosius, lib. vii, cap. 19) was stirred up specifically against the prelates and teachers of the Church on account of Origen, it is not likely that Origen remained at Caesarea at that time. For which reason, if Gregory had committed himself to be taught by Origen in the year 231, it seems probable that he spent 235 and 236 in Alexandria, and from there returned to Origen in the year 237 or 238, to be baptized, and completed his five-year period of study under Origen in the year 238 or 239. Casaubon perhaps paid heed to this, when he said that Gregory gave his service to Origen for eight years.

Of the sentimus attributed to Jerome, whose words are found in his book

(78) Which Gregory Thaumaturgus himself also refutes more openly, in the words of his *Panegyric* (n. 5): "For my first education from my very birth was under the care of my parents; and my ancestral customs were misguided—from which I had no hope of being liberated, nor did I think anyone else did, nor was there any hope for me, being a boy and irrational, under a superstitious father. Then followed the loss of my father and orphanhood, which was perhaps for me the beginning of the knowledge of the truth. For then, for the first time, I was transferred to the saving and true Word, I know not how, forced rather than willing. For what judgment did I have, being fourteen years old? Nevertheless, from that time, this sacred Word began to dwell with me, as if, with the common reason of all men by then perfected, it truly arrived. For my first education from my very birth was under the care of my parents; and the ancestral customs were misguided: from which I had no hope of being redeemed, either—I think—anyone else might have hoped, nor was there any hope for me, being still a boy and devoid of reason under a superstitious father. Then followed the loss of my father and my being an orphan, which was for me perhaps the beginning of knowing what is true. For then I first crossed over to the saving and true word, I know not how, whether forced or willing. For what judgment had I, born fourteen years? Nevertheless, from that time that holy word began to come to me, as if, with the reason common to all men already perfected, it came indeed then for the first time. Nevertheless, that Origen applied the finishing touch to this imperfect beginning of conversion, when he accepted him to be taught, is testified by Gregory below in these words: 'And he, indeed, receiving me from the first day, which was in truth the first day for me—the most honorable of all days, if one must say—when first the true sun began to rise for me,' etc." Therefore, the error of Jerome is not as manifest as Huetius thought. As for Gregory Nyssenus, he dissents too much from the narrative of St. Jerome and Thaumaturgus himself, when he says (Gregory, p. 540) that he had already become a disciple of the Gospel before he approached Origen, and in Egypt, in the great city of Alexander, into which from all sides philosophy and...

secular learning intended for the youth used to flow, he had been present, and finally, having run through all the disciplines of wisdom, had happened upon a certain patrician Cappadocian, Firmilian, and had disclosed to him, as to a friend, his intent and way of life, namely that he already had the eyes of his mind directed toward God: and when he [Firmilian] had recognized that he was revolving similar intentions in his mind, having left behind all study of external philosophy, [he] went with him to that man who at that time was the prince of the philosophy of the Christians, namely Origen, whose fame was celebrated because of his writings. Moreover, in that speech which Gregory made to Origen himself when he was about to return from Caesarea to his homeland, he does not intimate that he dwelt in Athens, but that as a very young man he went into Palestine with his sister, who was traveling to her husband, an assessor of the governor of Palestine. He indicates next that, having passed by Berytus, he came directly to Caesarea, and there happened upon Origen, who then became for him, and for his brother as well, the agent of their devoting themselves to philosophy, and who gradually instilled in their minds an attraction and love for the Christian religion. It seems that Nyssen, when he was reading Gregory—who had been a disciple of Origen, but whom he [Nyssen] supposed to have taught at Alexandria—thought that he had passed into the discipline of Origen there. But if Gregory went to Alexandria, it is probable (since he is said to have pursued philosophical studies there) that he went there with his brother at the counsel of Origen from Caesarea, around the year 235, at which time the persecution of Maximinus was raging, so that, having thoroughly examined the discipline of the Christian philosophers and their holy manner of life there, both might be confirmed in their desire to embrace the faith; and that from there, together with holy Firmilian, later bishop in Caesarea in Cappadocia, they returned to Origen in Palestine around the year 237 or 238, and were dipped in baptism.

^A and indeed that he had himself either spoken or written any discourse, whether great or small, or had heard anyone else privately writing or speaking, or publicly providing panegyrical and ^B agonistic speeches, except for those marvelous men who had embraced the fine philosophy. For eight years no sermon or writing ^C of his own did he recognize himself to have published or recited, nor had he heard anyone reciting, except for those admirable men, lovers of true philosophy, fellow disciples, indeed fellow students of Origen. But he does not at all signify that he heard them for eight years, but rather that he had not heard anyone else for eight years. Nicephorus writes (Hist. lib. v, cap. 20) that Dionysius, he who was successor at Heraclea both in the school and in the episcopate of Alexandria, also used Adamantius as a teacher at this time. Eusebius surely—the only one whom Nicephorus seems to have followed here—teaches that Dionysius was a hearer of Origen at Alexandria; but that he was so at Caesarea, that you will find nowhere in him. Yet Origen ^D busied himself in this Caesarean retreat not only by teaching, but also by producing in his custom publicly by writing: for he explained with commentaries the prophecies of Isaiah and Ezekiel at that time.

CHAPTER III.

1. Alexander Severus is succeeded by Maximinus. The sixth persecution. 2. Gregory and Athenodorus return to Neocaesarea. Origen flees to Caesarea of Cappadocia to Firmilian, and stays with Juliana. 3. He begins the Hexapla. 4. He writes the book *On Martyrdom*. 5. Maximinus perishes, Gordian succeeds. 6. Origen travels again to Athens; he visits Ambrose in passing at Nicomedia; at Athens he completes his Commentaries on John and on Ezekiel, and begins others on the Song of Songs. 7. He returns to Caesarea Stratonis, completes the Commentaries on the Song of Songs, and again receives Firmilian into his discipline. 8. He is summoned to Bostra to refute the heresy of Beryllus, and returns to Palestine. 9. Gordian dies, Philip succeeds. 10. Whether Origen was attacked by Dionysius of Alexandria. 11. Origen, over sixty, writes against Celsus, on Matthew, and on the twelve Prophets; and countless letters. 12. Whether the emperor Philip was a Christian. 13. Origen allows his homilies to be taken down for the first time; he sends a profession of his faith to Pope Fabian and other bishops. 14. He is called to a council against the Arab heresy; he writes against the Elcesaites; he routs the Appellites.

Alexander Severus was slain with his mother Mammaea, after having administered the empire for thirteen years with singular temperance and equity. Maximinus, the author of the crime, a man barbarian in race and character, was substituted in the place of the deceased; and not content with having offered him death and seized his dignity, [he] wished to destroy utterly the pious family of the best emperor, and whomsoever he had held dear while he was alive, [treating them] in a bestial manner. Hence a cruel war was brought against the Church, and with the common crowd of Christians ignored, the priests were destined for death and punishment, so that with the pillars removed the building might collapse. Orosius (lib. vii, cap. 19) records that this decision was taken even for the sake of Origen alone; and after him Beda (82), Freculphus (Chron. tom. II, lib. III, c. 2), and Marianus [Scotus ad an. Christi 259] agree. Therefore, when Alexander had permitted the Christians to exist, Maximinus desired to destroy them utterly. Thus a cruel war was brought against the Church, and, the common multitude of Christians being neglected, the priests were destined for death and torment, so that the structure, having been weakened by the removal of its columns, might collapse. Orosius (lib. VII, c. 19) relates that this plot was undertaken particularly because of one man, Origen; and after him Beda (82), Freculphus (Chron. tom. II, lib. III, c. 2), and Marianus.

^A Scotus as well to the year of Christ 259. Therefore, I believe that it was chiefly through his piety, writings, sermons, and example that the Christian faith had already received great increase, and it seemed that it would continue to capture further ground.

II. Origen withdrew himself from the impending danger by flight, after having lived five years in his chambers, and would have lost those who were to have returned with him to their homeland. And then, for certain reasons, we are led to believe that he had fled to Firmilianus, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, with whom he was tied by a very close bond of friendship, and who was inviting him to Cappadocia. For when we have proved above that this flight could by no means fall in the times of the fifth persecution, it remains that it be referred to the sixth, which was that of Maximinus, or to the Decian. Yet Decius did not complete two years in the empire, and for a long time, while he held power, Origen was in chains; since he had hidden there for the whole two years with Juliana, as is written by Palladius. Absolutely, therefore, this flight to Caesarea falls within the persecution of Maximinus. It is credible that Firmilianus also, while he was looking after his own affairs (for the danger pertained primarily to the leaders of the Church), had hidden somewhere, and perhaps with Origen, after he assigned him a safe refuge with Juliana. She, being abundant in wealth and accustomed to pouring it out for the comforts of the Church, welcomed with the greatest generosity a man who had earned well of the Christian republic; and she did not only receive him as a guest, but also opened to him her library, which ^B she held by hereditary right, most richly furnished from Symmachus.

III. There I believe Origen began the distinguished work of the Hexapla, having obtained the greatest collection of books and especially interpretations of Scripture, which it is likely Symmachus had collected for his own use when he was preparing his own work. That he had already formed in his mind the first draft of them while he was living at Alexandria, and had collected and compared some interpretations of Scripture for that purpose, seems to be indicated by Eusebius, *Hist.* cap. 16, and Jerome says, *Apol. in Rufin.* lib. II, cap. 9, that he himself had purchased them at great expense. But I believe he seriously set his hand to the work at Caesarea in Cappadocia and brought it to completion at Tyre. From this, the rationale of Epiphanius is understood, testifying that it was elaborated at Tyre, that is, partly at Tyre, and partly in those places where Origen spent time over the course of the twenty-eight years which Epiphanius (84) falsely thought were spent at Tyre. These matters will be treated by us later. Conveniently, that which Origen says of himself, in Suidas (85), can be referred to that study: that it was his custom *ἐν καιροῖς ἀνέσεως φιλολογεῖν, καὶ ἀκριβοῦν τὰ ἀντίγραφα*—for I am easily persuaded that he gathered various copies together during his spare hours, a labor which was as it were a *παρασκευή* (preparation) for compiling the Hexapla.

IV. In the meantime, Ambrosius, already mentioned by us above, and ^C the presbyter of the Caesarean Church, Protoctetus, were arrested while this persecution was raging and were thrown into custody. And although they themselves were defending the cause of Christ vigorously, Origen nevertheless confirmed them both not insignificantly by sending a golden little book, in which he exhorted them to martyrdom. We seem, therefore, to have grounds to conjecture that this book was written in his hideout in Caesarea: but to where it was destined, or in what places Ambrosius and Protoctetus were tortured, it is not easy to discover by conjecture. Thus Origen addresses them in the book about which we are inquiring, no. 41: Παῦλος μὲν λεγέτω, εἰ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, ἐθηριομάχησα ἐν Ἐφέσῳ· ἡμεῖς δὲ, εἰ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, ἀνηρέθην ἐν Γερμανίᾳ. "Let Paul say: If (according to man) I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus*; but we: If (according to man) I have been killed in Germania." That Origen is speaking on behalf of Ambrosius and Protoctetus is manifest; for he himself faced no danger at this time. But what that Germania is, is a matter of great dispute. Ortelius doubts whether it is Germanopolis, which Ptolemy *Geogr.* lib. V, cap. 6 places in the interior of Paphlagonia, though he suspects that Gerianopolis is the same as the Germanicopolis of Pliny (86), which was situated by the sea in Bithynia. I know that he is mistaken as surely as I know that I live. An old Greek Catena on the Gospels praises Severus of Antioch in his Work to Thomas, bishop of Germania. Hence someone might conjecture that it is Germanicia, which is an archiepiscopal city of Euphratsia, subject to the Church of Antioch. But Germania is a metropolis, subject to the Church of Constantinople, in rank 68, according to the Disposition of Leo the Philosopher, which is inserted into the Leunclavian collection of Greco-Roman law (87), and is appended to the bottom of the book *De officiis Constantinopoleos* of Georgius Codinus. In the other Disposition of Palæologus, which follows this first one in the same book of Codinus, it is thus: «Ο Γερμίου, καὶ αὐτὰ ἐξ' ὄντα οθ' γεγόνασιν.» Hence it appears that it should be read *Γερμίων*, and that Germia and Germania are the same. Now the old *Notitiæ* place Germia in Galatia Secunda or Salutaris, and list it among the *αὐτοκεφάλους* (autocephalous) archiepiscopacies. But the same Disposition of Leo contradicts this; for after it enumerated the metropolises, and Germania among them, it adds archiepiscopacies, and assigns to Germia the second place among them. What, therefore, I should conclude, I do not have: I leave the judgment to everyone, considering it better to be silent in an uncertain matter than to propose void and futile conjectures. If...

that ^A *Leonis Diataxis* still survived in its entirety, and had not been mutilated in its final part, in which the dioceses attributed to each metropolitan were enumerated (88), we would easily know the situation of Germania. And so much for this.

V. It seems that Origen lay hidden in the library of Juliana for as long as Maximinus lived. He finally perished near Aquileia during a military mutiny along with his son, in the third year of his reign: various are the opinions of authors on this, some of whom, according to Julius Capitolinus (89), hold that Maximinus reigned for two years, others for three. Gordian succeeded Maximinus. The year of Christ was then 237, the fifty-second of Origen’s life; Fabian was governing the Roman Church, having been substituted in place of Anterus, who had succeeded Pontianus, when both had suffered ^B martyrdom in the persecution of Maximinus; after the latter had held the supreme pontificate for about six years, and the former for barely one month.

VI. We judge that another visit of Origen to Athens can be assigned to those times. But it is probable that, as he was departing from Caesarea in Cappadocia, he reached Nicomedia briefly for the sake of visiting Ambrose, who had escaped from the bonds of the impious, and was making a stay in that city with his wife Marcella and his children (for indeed Ambrose had children, a wife, brothers and sisters: but he died while Origen was still alive, and Jerome relates (90) that he was faulted by many because, dying, he did not remember his aged and impoverished friend). Hence he wrote that learned epistle to Africanus, in which he confirms the history of Susanna, which had been in vain impugned by him, and asserts its faith and authority to him (91). I am ignorant of the reason for his Athenian journey: this we know, that as long as he stayed in that city, he consumed his leisure in exercises; for he completed the Commentaries on Ezekiel which had been begun (which Erasmus (92) thinks was done in the sixtieth year, based on Suidas, an author of no merit, who stitched together the eulogy of Origen from the rags of Eusebius, in which this writing exists, in a confused and disorderly manner), and he began to illustrate the Song of Songs with expositions: of which…

(88) *The situation of Germania.* "And I," says Westhenius, "have attempted to devote some effort to the elucidation of this matter, but I could find nothing more certain. The *Taxis*, or the patriarchal arrangement, by which the Order of sitting is assigned to metropolitans and bishops, added to the end of the body of the canons of the Greek Church, illustrated by a double commentary of Zonaras and Balsamon, and inserted by Enimundus Bonelidius in book II of Oriental Jurisprudence, places ^C *Germania* among the metropolises, numbering sixty-six: but among the archbishoprics it assigns the fourth position to the *Germioi*, and the twenty-eighth to *Germa*. Which confirm the observation of the illustrious Huet brought from Codinus and the *Diataxis* of Leo. That most ancient *Dispositio*, first brought to public law by William Beveridge in his notes on the *Pandectae canonicae* of the Greeks, published at Oxford; by which all the metropolises and bishoprics appear accurately listed under the five patriarchs, Roman, Constantinopolitan, Antiochene, Alexandrian, and Hierosolymitan, omits Germania entirely; so that it must be that many years later it was finally co-opted among the metropolises. Again, in the code of the canons of the African Church, among the subscriptions of the bishops, this also is found: *Candidus Germaniae his gestis subscripsi.* May we conclude from this that there was also a certain Germania in Africa? Let us hear what that most eminent man, to be honored by me for many reasons, Henricus Justellus, observes regarding these things in his most beautiful and useful work, *Bibliotheca canonica*, vol. I, page 412: *Candidus Germaniae, bishop Abitinensis of the Church of the Germaniciani.* But the Abitinenses are a people of Africa, of whom Augustine makes mention several times in his book *Against Parmenianus*. In the same *Canon. Eccl. Afric.*, pages 384, 385, and elsewhere, mention is made of *tēs neas Germanias*, New Germania, from which it would be easy to conjecture that there were two Germanias in Africa: one called simply by that name; the other, because it was recently founded, called new". Herodotus, book I, page 60, recounting the peoples of Persia, speaks thus: "These are the Persians: Panthelaei, Derusiaei, Germanii." Others: these Persians are the Pauthelaei, Derusiaci, Germanii. Eusebius in his *Chronicle*, page 11, among the peoples of the East descended from Sem, reports *Germanoi*, the Germans: and after him the same is done by ^D Epiphanius in *Ancoratus*, and Georgius Syncellus in his *Chronographia*, page 47; Cornarius, the translator of Epiphanius, translates them as Carmani. Therefore they are inhabitants of Carmania, *tēs Karmanias*, a region situated between Persis and India, which Ptolemy describes in book VI, chapter 8 of his *Geography*. Miræus in his *Topographia ecclesiastica* observes that this Carmania is also called Germania, and Salmasius, in the oldest manuscripts of Solinus, Pliny, and Martianus Capella, finds Germania written for Carmania, and Germanic for Carmanic. See *Plinian. Exercit.* on Solinus, page 240. I will add nothing regarding European Germania, with which Origen here has nothing to do. Meanwhile, which Germania Origen understands among those many, I do not presume to judge. Let the learned reader choose which he knows to be most convenient to the circumstances of the events. These are the words of Westhenius. But Tillemont, in volume [three] of his *Memoirs for Ecclesiastical History*, page 272, wonders why so many difficulties are raised regarding this Germania, as if that which Origen says could not be understood of European Germania, where Maximinus was saluted as emperor and where he waged wars for a long time. For it was his custom, according to Herodian, pages 592–593, to summon the most noble men from the farthest reaches of the empire to himself, so that, exhausted by the journeys of ignominy and labors, he could later sacrifice them to his own avarice and cruelty. What then prevents Ambrose and Protoctetus from having been led to him in like manner? But the presbyter of the Caesarean Church, Protoctetus, in Jerome’s *De viris illustribus*, where he treats of Ambrose, is called Theoctistus. Ambrose was first a Marcionite; then, corrected by Origen, he was a deacon of the Church, distinguished by the glory of his confession of the Lord, to whom the book of Origen *On Martyrdom* is written *for the presbyter Theoctistus*. I am indeed persuaded that it is an error of the scribes, who changed the genuine reading of Jerome, *cui et Protocteto presbytero* [to whom and to the presbyter Protoctetus], into this one, *cui pro Theoctisto presbytero* [to whom, for the presbyter Theoctistus]. The error is manifest from the fact that Origen sent his *parainesis* [exhortation] to martyrdom not to Ambrose *for* Theoctistus, but to both, namely to Ambrose and to the presbyter Protoctetus.

^A He worked out five books in that see; the rest, to the same number, he completed at Caesarea Maritima. It is likely, as I shall show below, that around this period he also brought to a close the Commentaries on John, which had been begun long before. Hallox assigns the duration of this delay to the year at Athens, and I do not contradict him; let it be permitted to everyone, taking a different judgment from the facts, to dissent.

VII. Origen, then, returned to his former see of Caesarea Maritima after a long time, and there he brought to completion the work he had begun on the Commentaries on the Song of Songs. The Magdeburg Centuriators (93) are mistaken when they say that Suidas wrote that Origen wrote these Commentaries in his sixtieth year: for you will find nothing of the sort in Suidas. It is in Jerome (94) that Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, came to Origen for the sake of the holy places, that he might gain from him a greater knowledge of Holy Scripture, having previously had him with him for a long time in Cappadocia. But Gregory of Nyssa (95) narrates that Firmilian, a Cappadocian patrician not yet a bishop, was received into Origen’s school together with Gregory Thaumaturgus. Thus Firmilian gave himself to be educated by Origen twice; first, before he had given his name to the Church and indeed to Christ; and again, after he had returned to Caesarea Maritima from his second journey to Athens. (96) Eusebius (97) tells the matter in such a way as to dissent from neither.

VIII. (98) During this same time, Beryllus (99), bishop of the Bostrenes, ^B fell into heresy; since he taught that Christ, before he bound himself to a human body, had nothing of his own, but was God only by the paternal divinity, not by his own and proper one. This heresy was later restored and championed by Sabellius. Beryllus provoked many bishops against himself by this nefarious dogma. They gathered at Bostra for a synod and assailed the man with many skirmishes. When this proceeded to little effect, Origen was summoned to overcome the man’s stubbornness; for everyone hoped that in his skill all things would be easy, and they acquiesced to his counsel. Already exercised by frequent disputes against heretics and Jews, he approached Beryllus with the greatest kindness and dexterity, and through various discourses held concerning his doctrine, he so refuted the error he had caught by means of arguments that Beryllus completely abjured it, and allowed himself to be restored to a sound mind. This matter having been brought to a close according to their wish, Origen returned to Palestine without delay. ^C And certainly Beryllus, such was the man’s candor, did not allow the memory of so great a benefit to fade away with him through the passage of time; but he reflected upon it in the years that followed, and attested as much in letters written to Origen. These, along with the acts of the synod and other monuments of this man, were preserved long after and used by the reading of the learned; but eventually they perished through the antiquity of time.

IX. The year of Christ 244, which was the fifty-ninth of Origen, while Gordian was already ruling for the sixth year, was calamitous...

[Regarding the marginal note 99, Eusebius says:] "Subverting the ecclesiastical canon, he tried to introduce things foreign to the faith, daring to say that our Savior and Lord did not have a pre-existence according to a distinct subsistence before the sojourn among men; nor that he had a divinity of his own, but only the paternal one residing in him." [The note continues:] "It could be translated literally: 'Perverting the ecclesiastical rule, he attempted to introduce certain things new and alien to the Catholic faith: he dared to assert that our Lord and Savior, before he moved among men, did not subsist according to the distinctness of his own substance; nor did he have in himself his own, but only the paternal divinity residing in him.' *Ousìas perigraphē* is nothing other than the distinctness of substance. Beryllus was not, therefore, in error if by the name of substance (*ousia*) he understood substance and not person; for the substance of the Father is not one thing, and that of the Son another: he surely did not err when he said that our Lord did not have a proper divinity, but only the paternal one residing in him. For the divinity of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is not proper [to one], but one and the same; otherwise there would be three gods, not one God. If Beryllus thought this, he is undeservedly blamed for subverting the ecclesiastical rule; indeed, Eusebius himself reveals himself to be guilty of Arianism if he calls these things new dogmas and alien to the Catholic faith. ^D But it is very probable that Beryllus took *ousia* for person, in the custom of his century, in which *ousia* and *hypostasis* were confused among themselves. Beryllus therefore erred, who said that Christ had no distinctness of his own person before the incarnation. Certainly Jerome in *De viris illustribus*, ch. 60, does not attribute to Beryllus what Eusebius does; but only asserts that Beryllus fell into a heresy which denies Christ before the incarnation. The place of Origen in his Commentaries on the Epistle to Titus is to be understood concerning the heresy of Beryllus, which holds as follows: 'But also those who say that the Lord Jesus is a man foreseen and predestined, who did not exist substantially and properly before his carnal advent, but that as a man born [of the life] of the Father he had in himself only the divinity, even these are not without danger if they are associated with the Church.' This passage is held in Pamphilus's *Apology for Origen*, ch. 1, p. 22. Gennadius also mentions this in his book *De dogmatibus ecclesiasticis*, ch. 4: 'Nor was he so born of the Virgin that he received the beginning of his divinity at his birth as a man, as if before he was born of the Virgin he was not God, as Artemon, Beryllus, and Marcellus taught.'"

was entirely extinguished; but that Philip, after he invaded his position by supreme treachery, immediately exhausted his life by an equal crime. But that he amended his perpetrated crimes with repentance and also passed over to the side of Christ, certain Christian historians, as we are soon about to say, have recorded. However that may be, in his third year of empire, Dionysius, whom Origen had once instructed in the doctrines at Alexandria, took up the administration of the Church of Alexandria, after the death of Heraclas, who was himself a disciple of Origen, and after he had held the Alexandrian episcopate for many years. Eusebius defines the number as eighteen years in his *Chronicle* (1), and sixteen in his *History*: but it is evident from what Baronius (2) wrote on this subject that some copies preferred sixteen (*hexkaideka*) instead of eleven (*hendeka*), or that some interpreters at least read it that way. He himself saw that an error had crept into this number, and concluded from Eusebius that Heraclas had sat on the Alexandrian throne for at least fourteen years. It is clearly true that he sat for exactly fifteen years; for from the tenth year of Alexander, which is the year we posit for the retirement of Demetrius, to the third year of Philip, fifteen full years intervene. We must say, therefore, that after fifteen years were spent in the pontificate, Heraclas yielded to nature in his sixteenth. I think Eusebius is to be understood in this way: and if we conjecture correctly, Demetrius died in the same year that Origen left Egypt. Hence also the manifest error of Nicephorus (3), who writes that Heraclas died after the thirteenth year of his episcopate, while Gordian was emperor. But Scaliger (4) here contends that Eusebius suffered a lapse of memory, and clings to his *Chronicle*, which teaches that the Alexandrian episcopate was begun by Dionysius in the fifth year of Philip. He proves this from the consistent agreement of the codices alone, which have it thus. A futile argument: as if the codices of Eusebius' *History* did not also consistently assign it to the third year of Philip. Certainly, if the *History* of Eusebius is to be corrected by his *Chronicle*, let it be corrected in the six hundred places where they dissent. Even in this matter of the computation of Heraclas’ years, the *Chronicle* places the beginning of his episcopate in the ninth year of Alexander; the departure of Origen from Alexandria in the eleventh; while the *History* ascribes the year of Origen’s departure to the tenth year of Alexander, and signifies that Demetrius, to whom Heraclas succeeded, died after the same departure.

^B X. Baronius, at the year 248, number 4, writes that Heraclas favored Origen in all things, and that therefore, after the death of Demetrius, he showed himself very hostile to Origen regarding the riots stirred up against him. ^C The testimony of Gennadius, Peter of Alexandria, the synodical letters of the Egyptian prelates, and Photius, show that Heraclas was not differently disposed toward Origen than his predecessor Demetrius had been. Baronius ought to have added the reason why he believed that he was attacked by the same Dionysius, whether derived from authority or from probability; which certainly does not exist. Therefore, Halloxius (6) rightly repudiated this opinion of his, and contended that Origen, as long as he lived, was greatly respected by Dionysius, and even praised after his death; which we shall also show below.

XI. (7) Furthermore, Origen, now older than sixty, was no less busy with divine matters, nor did he omit almost any day without either speaking to the people about God, or writing, or reading, or conversing. The books against Celsus are witnesses, filled with every fruit of sacred erudition, by which he crushed the petulance of the Epicurean sophist (and which Marianus Scotus (8) falsely believed were written while Gordian was emperor, and David Blondellus (9) erroneously referred their composition to the year 237, although he is, especially in chronological matters, cautious and diligent; and thus he strayed by ten whole years, since he had assigned the death of Origen to the year 256). Witnesses are his learned Commentaries on Matthew and on the XII Prophets; witnesses are the countless letters written to various people, which Eusebius had collected in his lifetime from everywhere, having obtained more than a hundred, and had digested into books. (10) These consumed a series of years.

XII. And would that even those two letters survived, which he wrote to the Emperor Philip and his wife Severa Augusta. From this it could certainly be conjectured whether they truly adhered to Christ, as has been recorded by Christian authors: or whether they were alien to the Christian side, which is suggested by the silence of pagan authors regarding a new religion accepted by them; and furthermore the consensus of many, both Christians and pagans, by whom Constantine is celebrated as the first among the emperors to profess Christ. For my part, I will interpose my own judgment—when the matter prompts me to do so—along with the opinions of great men. If Philip had publicly professed the faith of the Christians, it is certainly not probable that pagan writers would have been silent about it, and that the obscurity of this event—as it has been—would have [come to pass].

^A been far from the Church, and tramples on the authority of the ancients; he relies on this single argument, that they do an injury to Christ who have dared to call a wicked man, and the murderer of his own Lord, a Christian. As if no wicked men were found among Christians; as if some Christian emperors had not been most wicked. Furthermore, we have shown that Philip was not yet a Christian when he committed these crimes. Nor does the conjecture of Peter Hallox appeal to me more, who suspects that Origen, from the time he traveled to Arabia, was known to the Emperor Philip, as he was an Arab and born in Bostra. For Philip is believed to have left his native soil as a boy and entered military service. And even if he had not yet left his homeland, by what argument can it be proven that a man born in an obscure place, and of humble fortune, came to the attention of Origen, a man sent to these regions regarding great matters and occupied with most serious business? What is this if not idle soothsaying? Least of all, however, should we listen to the learned man who, in his Annotations to Nicephorus ^B, attributes to Pope Fabian what Leontius of Antioch, Chrysostom, and—following Leontius—the author of the Alexandrian Chronicle have, by unanimous consent, attributed to Babylas. I do not now dispute whether what Baronius conjectures is true, namely that Philip Augustus is being confused with Philip the Augustalis, the prefect of Egypt: certainly that has no place here, as he himself admits; not only because Eusebius had seen those two letters of Origen, but much more because that Philip, the Augustalis prefect, was consumed by martyrdom during the reign of Severus; whereas the deed of Philip Augustus mentioned by Eusebius was performed after he had already attained the ^C empire. There exists also from this point the claim, justly written by Pomponius Laetus, that Philip, in order to cover his crimes, feigned reverence for the Christian name. But let us return to the matter at hand.

XIII. During this first period he willed [to have] his homilies—but the bishop who then presided over the Church did not permit him access until he had made a confession of his crimes, and had joined himself to those who had fallen due to human frailty and stood in the order of the penitents. For because of the many crimes he had committed, he would never have been admitted at all by the bishop unless he had first done this. And the emperor, it is said, willingly obeyed, and demonstrated his sincere and religious affection for the fear of God by his very deeds. ^D Furthermore, it is clear from this narrative of Eusebius that Philip did not indeed ask to be received into the assembly of the Christians, but already wishing to be a Christian, he sought to be a participant in the prayers in the Church; nor, therefore, did he embrace the doctrine of Christ at the very beginning of his reign, but before he obtained the empire: which is also testified to by Leontius of Antioch, Chrysostom, and, from Leontius, the Alexandrian Chronicle. See Tillemont, *Hist. imperat.*, Vol. III, Note on Philip, p. 643 ff.

which he was accustomed to deliver in the Church almost daily, Origen permitted to be taken down by shorthand writers during the sermon, a thing he had never before allowed to be done. From this, his name was celebrated more and more day by day; but he was held in such a way that he was regarded with the greatest admiration by many; while by some, such is the varied nature of human perception, he was defamed. The cause was chiefly given to reproofs by works that were learned, indeed, but not sufficiently meditated upon, and written almost as if for private use, yet incautiously published. These were opportune for the sinister interpretations of heretics, and were often distorted either to kindle envy against Origen and to ensnare him with false crimes, or to seek a splendid patronage for their wicked dogmas. To counter this evil, and to rid himself of this suspicion, he thought it advisable to profess his own opinion on God and divine matters in letters sent to Pope Fabian and other bishops, and if he had erred in writing, to make amends through mature repentance. He attributed the causes of this rashness to Ambrose, because he had brought into the public, works that were published in secret. Baronius (20) casts a serious charge here against Eusebius, because he maliciously suppressed the fact that this profession of faith was rejected by Fabian, and that Origen himself had been summoned to Rome to plead his cause; but we have already vindicated Eusebius above from this calumny of Baronius: for what was done by this profession is uncertain, and it is most certain that Origen went to Rome but once.

^B XIV. (21) But Adamantius did not yet have a respite from his labors. A new heresy having arisen among the Arabs, which held that the soul is extinguished with the body at the moment of death, and is to be awakened again with the body on the last day, a large council was immediately convened, and to it Origen was called; he brought the heretics, having been convicted and overcome by the force of his arguments, to a better frame of mind. With equal success he also crushed the doctrine of the Helcesaites—a doctrine which had been formerly attacked by Papias, a presbyter of Achaia, at the moment of its first rising—now that it was being reborn, not by confrontations and arguments, but by writings. The author is Theodoret (22), who has these things: *Against this heresy Origen truly wrote; but Alcibiades, originating from Apamea in Syria, organized it.* Perhaps it should be read *ouverkpátnoe* (he upheld it); for thus Nicephorus (23) says concerning the same matter: *Against this, Alcibiades of Apamea of Syria struggled greatly; but Origen excelled in the refutations against it.* Although I affirm nothing: for I attribute little to the authority of Nicephorus. This victory by Origen was maliciously suppressed by George Syncellus, following the custom of all the Greeks in disparaging Origen. Nor perhaps would it be absurd to join to these same times the profligacy of the Apellians, whom Origen restrained as they were spreading through the East, and, having hunted them down through every single city, he repressed them by his sermons.

CHAPTER FOUR

I. Emperor Philip is killed. Decius is substituted. The seventh persecution. II. Origen sustains the most grave tortures for Christ. III. Dionysius of Alexandria writes to him the book *On Martyrdom*. IV. Origen's modesty. Whether to avoid the rape of an Ethiopian he abjured the faith of Christ, and at what time that happened. V. The rashness of some critics is chastised. VI. Upon the death of Decius, Origen is released from his bonds. Gallus and Volusianus succeed Decius. VII. Origen dies at the age of sixty-nine. Gallus and Volusianus perish. VIII. A eulogy of Origen. IX. He is buried at Tyre. The vain question concerning his salvation is passed over. X. His disciples are numbered.

I. (24) In this triple [conflict], which we described just now, Origen seems to have exercised his skirmishing against the rising heresies in the last years of the reign of Philip; (25) who, when he had already held the reins of power for the seventh year, was killed at Verona by the treachery of Decius by the army. ^C Decius is substituted in his place, who, as he was incensed with hatred toward the memory of Philip, decided to lay waste the affairs of the Christians, whom Philip during his life had seemed to hold dear, and to destroy their name utterly. Therefore, in this most terrible persecution, the Pontiff Fabian fell, in whose place was substituted Cornelius. Noble bishops were also crammed into prison: Alexander, who was the one by whom Origen had once been co-opted among the presbyters, and Babylas; who, when they had met death in chains, having been destined for it, Fabius succeeded the latter and Mazabanes succeeded the former. And what does it matter to recount them all, whom that most disastrous slaughter of the Church consumed? Ancient martyrologies are filled with their names. But especially Palestine was...

affected by the slaughter: for many, inflamed by the exhortations of Origen, boldly exposed themselves to the furies of Decius.

II. I readily agree with those who believe that Origen had withdrawn to Tyre even before the Christians began to be attacked by Decius; to assign a specific year for his retreat is merely to guess. Certainly, the greatest severity of this persecution bore down upon him, which he endured with the same constancy that he, as an author, had encouraged others to possess so that they might endure it. For he was first thrust into the deepest prison; an iron collar was placed upon his neck; and his feet were inserted into wooden stocks, with his legs forced wide apart by a great interval, so that he was tortured most cruelly for many days with his body stretched out. The threats of fire and of various tortures were held over him, and finally, his aged body was tortured by multiple torments. Yet he, bearing a mind lifted high above fortune and leading his life according to the faith of Christ, overcame all these hardships. And he would have considered his situation to have been handled excellently if the wicked judge had sought the final punishment from him—a judge whose one intent was to inflict all the tortures of martyrdom upon a most innocent man, but to deprive that same man of the reward of martyrdom he hoped to receive through his death. Thus, the prize for his struggle and his labors was deferred to another time.

III. Moreover, his excellent disciple, mindful of their old friendship, did not fail his master who deserved so well of him while he was in torments. Dionysius of Alexandria wrote a book for him *On Martyrdom*, to relieve his spirit, which was languishing with grief and misery, and to provide him with that solace which he himself was accustomed to provide to all others.

IV. Nicephorus, the perpetual follower of Eusebius, deserts his leader here and turns to atrocious calumnies against Origen, in the manner of the recent Greeks. He says that Origen, having lost modesty and Christian humility, which is the parent of all virtues, and having been afflicted by torments in the Decian persecution, indeed maintained his own constancy and faith in the Church; but that, when an Ethiopian was brought to abuse his most chaste body, he preferred to offer incense to the gods rather than to admit such a disgrace upon himself. He says that, having thereby fallen from divine grace, he collapsed into various heresies and, having misled many into error, was rooted out of the Church of Christ a long time after. Nicephorus relates this, yet when recalled to the exact standard of truth and weighed against the writings of the ancients from which these things were drawn, his account loses all its credibility. For that Origen then took upon himself excessive pride—although Anastasius the Librarian and Zonaras wrote before Nicephorus—is something I can scarcely believe, he who in the books written by him at this time speaks and feels so subjectively and humbly about himself. Furthermore, after he wrote that Origen had renounced Christ in the Decian persecution, he adds that he later fell into many heresies, gave many a cause for error, and was long after deprived of the communion of the Christians: these things are in manifest conflict with themselves, since it was only a very few years before Origen's death that Decius, prompted by fury, declared war on the Christians. It should be known, moreover, that Nicephorus drew this from Epiphanius, who, in narrating this defection of Origen (haer. 64, cap. 2), is silent about the Decian persecution, just as Cedrenus and Suidas are. However, in the book *De mensuris et ponderibus*, n. 18, when he mentions the Decian persecution, he teaches indeed that Origen suffered many things at that time, but he does not commemorate the Ethiopian at all. Nor, certainly, does John Zonaras commemorate it, although he records that Origen, having been overcome by torments under Decius, fell from the faith and became the author of depraved dogmas puffed up by arrogance. Zonaras was deceived by these misunderstood words of Epiphanius: *And Origen himself, though he suffered many things, did not reach the end of martyrdom*, owing, of course, to the cruelty of the judge, not to the perfidy of Origen, which prevented him from obtaining the martyr's crown. These things were also poorly understood by Anastasius the Librarian and wrongly referred to the year of Christ 244, the year in which Philip attained the empire, six years or more before the Decian persecution. Glycas, however, clung to Epiphanius. Nicephorus, therefore, who in this place seems to have followed Epiphanius, and whoever else assigns this crime of Origen to the times of the Decian persecution, do not have Epiphanius as their authority. Indeed, if anyone pays attention to the context of that narrative, he will plainly acknowledge that he is refuting them openly: for he writes that it happened at Alexandria, and that for this reason Origen was cast out by the Church; and that, grieving that he was a laughingstock, he left his fatherland. But at the time of the Decian persecution, no one has taught, nor can it be believed, that Origen was at Alexandria, nor that he was separated from the communion of the Church, nor that he departed from Alexandria; and it is sufficiently refuted by the histories of Eusebius, of Nicephorus himself, and of others. For all these things accord perfectly with this age [the age of Philip], to which we have conjectured that event happened. For Origen was staying at Alexandria at that time, and immediately after that foul deed he left Alexandria, and was cast out of the society of the Christians, and not long after he went to Jerusalem, where he bewailed the crime he had committed in the public assembly of the Christians.

^A And yet, although Severus Alexander, who then held the empire, favored the Christian cause, the governors of the provinces nevertheless vexed them at their whim, and gave many Christians to death. The ecclesiastical Annals and the Martyrologies declare this. It is certain, therefore, that Nicephorus was mistaken, and that this crime of Origen has no connection whatsoever with the Decian persecution.

But we act preposterously to examine the time of this affair, when we do not yet have certainty that the thing itself ever happened. For although it is attested in a most illustrious monument, namely in the books of Epiphanius, an outstanding and ancient writer, Baronius nevertheless recalled the matter for examination, as we have said, and judged it to be a fabrication; and, lest he be compelled to join battle with Epiphanius, he pronounced that fragment to be something sewn onto his writings and inserted. Halloxius, Raynaudus (in his *Hoplotheca*), and Valesius have agreed with Baronius; Petavius, however, has contradicted [him]. Bringing forward the arguments of both sides, and bestowing no weight to prejudices or authority, we shall briefly expound our own opinion. The sum of Baronius's arguments is this: If the thing were so, as it is expressed in Epiphanius, then surely Origen’s adversaries, Theophilus and Jerome, would have mentioned it when attacking him; or those who refuted his supporters—Eusebius, Pamphilus, and Rufinus—or the ancient Fathers, Augustine, Vincent of Lérins, and others, who spoke of him extensively and explicitly; and in the controversies agitated with such zeal against Origen during the age of Justinian, some mention of his crime would have finally been made; nor would Porphyry have omitted this, when he invented the story that Ammonius had defected from Christ to the party of the pagans; for this story is passed over in silence by them, and therefore it is not even true. ^B Halloxius presents nearly the same points, expanding and dilating upon them, and adds one thing worthy of note: that he who dictated the letter for Emperor Justinian to Menas, Patriarch of Constantinople, against Origen—which letter is recorded in the acts of the Fifth Council—appears to be the first inventor of this tale. He does not provide why he thought so, and in truth, he had nothing to provide: for the false claim could not be approved by any authors or any arguments; indeed, apart from Epiphanius, Nemesius, who was older than Justinian, mentions this deed; Leontius Byzantinus also mentions it, whom Bellarmine judges to have been earlier than the Fifth Synod. Add to this that in this letter, Justinian does indeed accuse Origen of idolatry, but does not breathe a word about the Ethiopian incident. Nor, certainly, is it probable that in this encyclical letter, destined for all bishops, the Emperor—or he who wrote in the Emperor’s name—would have thrown a lie, fabricated with no cause, in the faces of the Fathers: men who were not unlearned, who would have undoubtedly marveled at the novelty of an unheard-of thing, and would have easily discerned its falsehood. Having therefore rejected this conjecture of Halloxius, let us address Baronius himself. For he must first admit that the crime of idolatry committed by Origen was known to and recorded by Nemesius, Leontius, and Justinian. ^C But the opponents of Origen had reasons for this silence, which Petavius explains; either that, being intent on examining the dogmas of Origen, they neglected a crime committed through human frailty; or they considered it ungenerous and unfair to cast up a crime that had been amended by penance. And I think that besides these reasons, there were others why his adversaries kept silent about it, even if he had admitted he was about to offer sacrifice, etc. These are very weak conjectures by Huetius. It was enough that Origen had agreed, for him to be held guilty of idolatry, and consequently to be subjected to public penance, and for him to justly and deservedly lose his priestly dignity; nor would his concern for purity have diminished the crime, however much that concern might appear to shine forth from it. A truly remarkable purity, which would be preserved by the denial of Christ! ^D Furthermore, if for that reason he had been cast out by the judgment of Demetrius and many bishops from the Church and the priesthood, would the prelates of the churches of Arabia, Palestine, Phoenicia, and Achaia have been ignorant of it? If not, how could they have taken up his cause, entrusted the office of preaching to him, and allowed him to perform other duties of his priesthood? Therefore, the falsehood of this crime is revealed by this single fact: that those bishops received Origen with such charity and embraced his patronage with such zeal; and consequently, it was not for the reasons that Huetius brings forward that his adversaries kept silent about this history of Origen’s idolatry, but because nothing of the sort ever happened to Origen. Moreover, there was no reason why anyone should excuse what did not happen. Hence the silence on that matter among the defenders of Origen. Hence also not even a word of this is found in Eusebius; for he does not seem to have mentioned it even in the very *Apology for Origen*, as we have already said.

For although it might have been complex, comprising these and many such things which were not altogether accommodated to the purpose of his *History*—inasmuch as he was setting forth matters pertaining to the universal Church—he moreover had to repeat them. Therefore, the arguments gathered by Baronius against this passage of Epiphanius lie idle, and the very similarity of style, as Petavius rightly noted, sufficiently adjudicates it to Epiphanius.

V. I would wish that the monuments of antiquity, but especially those of the Fathers, be handled with more caution and reverence. For although Baronius, a man of excellent genius—to say nothing of his singular learning—was a man of most sagacious and keen critical nose, he brought his hand to Epiphanius in this place quite sparingly and not without some semblance of truth; yet this example can draw a taint into the following age, so that learned men, led by the authority of so great a man, might perhaps dare to mock the works of venerable antiquity, reshaping them at pleasure and returning them to their own anvil. I have indeed sought much and for a long time whether the critical art has brought more harm or utility to literature. For how many sound and integral writings of the ancients has the rashness of critics perverted, while, whatever they perceived less with their mind, they made for themselves a license to reshape it to their own whim? How many volumes have they entirely stripped from their own authors and attributed to others? I am moved to anger as often as I see vile, low-born grammarians scattering the virus of their own ignorance upon good authors; and if at any time a new word, unknown to lexicographers, presents itself, they slay it without hesitation with their obelus, and by foisting in their own conjectures through supreme audacity, they practice a deception upon us. And then they especially love to be called critics, and are pleased with themselves when they cast before us the masks of authors, with the true authors themselves deformed. And this pestilence has pervaded everything. Indeed, very many impurities have been let to smear and adhere to the writings of the ancients, either through the length of time or the sloth of the copyists; but I would wish that these be washed away only when manifest, and that nothing be substituted except by the aid of manuscript codices or by certain and evident arguments, and that conjectures—however acutely thought out—be relegated to notes outside the text of the author himself. But these things belonged elsewhere. Now to the matter at hand.

VI. In what year of Decius Origen was tortured with pulleys is unknown, but there is light doubt as to whether Decius did not complete his biennium in the empire. It seems to be attributed to the year of Christ 250, the sixty-fifth of Origen. Nor does it appear in the same way how he escaped his bonds. I truly believe it happened through the death of Decius; when he was destroyed by the barbarians along with his army, Vibius Gallus seized the empire, having admitted his son Volusianus into the partnership. For then, with the affairs of the Christians calmed, it is likely that Origen also attained his liberty. ^A Yet not even then did his age, verging on old age, soften him, broken by labors, into leisure and sloth; but, scarcely relaxed from the illness and misery which had nearly worn him out in the Decian butchery, he provided useful consolations through letters to others whom the same disaster had afflicted. This was shown by his innumerable letters, which were written after the Decian devastation and, long after, preserved by pious men, at length perished through age. Whether he committed other things to writing before his death, since ancient writers have handed down nothing about it, is not known. Yet it can scarcely be believed that a mind most impatient of leisure rested from its accustomed labor of writing, by which so many thousands of volumes are reported to have been produced. ^B

VII. And now Origen had completed sixty-nine years, when labor and years, having worn him out, consumed him with a timely death at Tyre, in the year after the birth of Christ 254: in which year Gallus and Volusianus were killed at Interamna. For since we have shown him to have been born in the year 185 after Christ, adding 69, the number of years he completed in life, the sum total becomes exactly 254. Although Eusebius wrote thus: "Decius... Gallus succeeds him after being slaughtered; Origen in this time, having completed sixty-nine years of life, dies," he did not precisely signify by those words that Origen died at the very same time that Gallus succeeded the extinguished Decius, as some have wrongly opined; but that Origen had finished his fate while Gallus held the empire. Photius writes (cod. 118) that Pamphilus and many others report that they had investigated Origen's life and deeds from those very people who had seen the man, and that he ended his life by martyrdom in the Decian slaughter. Photius refutes this, ^C asserting that he died in the times of Gallus and Volusianus; it truly seems strange what Photius reports. When

^A he asserts that he died in the times of the Persians, he confirms his judgment from letters of his written after the death of Decius. Nicephorus, a light-weight author who does not weigh his words sufficiently, announces that he perished miserably; he thinks this because he believed that, once entangled in the errors of idolatry, he had finished his days in impiety. But on the contrary, Theotimus, bishop of Tomis, a prelate of the new piety, asserted against Epiphanius that he died a glorious death.

VIII. Finally, such was the end of life of Origen Adamantius, a man who was by far the greatest in the Church of God; whom, besides his ancestral lineage, his piety in Christ, and the fame of his father Leonidas's martyrdom, his own virtues ennobled: an immense desire for martyrdom, a witnessed love of chastity and poverty, a perpetual contempt for worldly pleasures, an expansive will to propagate the Christian faith, a vehement desire to save souls from eternal destruction, an unusual constancy in labors, singular fortitude in dangers, notable mildness and compliance toward all, a modesty remarkable in its great brilliance, and a rare sanctity of morals; added to these were a prodigious power of intellect, a ready memory—which it is said he increased by the use of a certain herb he discovered, although Epiphanius does not agree—a subtle judgment, a wonderful grace in speech, discourse effective at persuasion, often sharp and vehement, not so much fashioned for ornamenting virtues as for tearing out vices, and a wondrous knowledge of human and divine things, so that no one was more of a prince of the primary arts. Nor was his reputation inferior to his merits; he enjoyed great favor among the nobility.

For it is clear even from this, that Pamphilus and Eusebius, while imprisoned together, touched upon the life and deeds of Origen in that Apology which they wrote for him together; how can it be, then, that Pamphilus said Origen ended his life by a famous martyrdom in the persecution of Decius, when Eusebius writes in *Hist.* lib. VI, cap. 39, that he survived both Decius and the tortures, and cites Origen's own letters written after Decius as witnesses to this fact? Therefore, either Eusebius had not yet seen those letters when he was writing the Apology together with Pamphilus, or Pamphilus wrote these things alone, without consulting Eusebius, as he was the chief author of the work; or perhaps Photius was deceived by the word "martyrdom," which is rightly said of all who endure tortures for the truth of the faith, even if death itself does not follow (for in that sense, it can be rightly said that Origen underwent martyrdom in the Decian slaughter): or, through a slip of memory, Pamphilus attributed to him what was perhaps only said by others whom he commemorates; or, finally, Pamphilus only intended to imply that Origen, having been crushed by tortures and miseries in the Decian slaughter, lived not long afterward. This is not inconsistent with the words of Eusebius.

^B Regarding his corporeal exterior, we learn from Eusebius, who, in *Hist.* lib. VI, cap. 39, speaking of the rack in which his feet had been stretched for the space of many days during the Decian persecution, writes that he had been extended to the interval of four holes. For the History teaches that many martyrs were stretched even to the fifth hole. Then Origen himself, in a letter to someone—the first in our edition—describes the ardor of Ambrosius toward the Sacred Scriptures, ^A and the authority he held among the leaders of the Church. Truly, certain precipitous heat of spirit, a less than sufficiently considered handling of the sacred letters, and an almost reckless zeal for delving into the mysteries of God—which were hidden and placed above the capacity of the human mind—obscured those gifts, whether bestowed by nature or acquired by art, with which vices he had already, by his previous virtues, given cause for envy to break forth against him. Almost the entire Church blazed against him; harassed by calumnies, pierced by curses, shredded by writings, struck by anathema, and segregated from the Church by the suffrage of many bishops, he was finally cast out from his very homeland—a man mild and vulnerable to injury, so that it cannot easily be estimated whether he flourished more in the grace of men or burned in their hatred. Whoever, however, looks at the matter from the truth, will confess that, beyond doubt, he shone with far more virtues than vices, which clung to his excellent spirit like certain blemishes to an exquisite body.

IX. He was granted burial at Tyre; ^B those who have traveled those places declare that the traces of his tomb exist there to this day. I know that a debate has been raised by many concerning the salvation of Origen; some believe that he was gifted with heaven for his merits, while others—among whom is Georgius Syncellus—on the contrary, affirm that he suffered the eternal loss of his soul. A vain and empty question, which we, hurrying on to necessary things, leave to be argued by those who prefer to allow their own intellects such license. "A grand labyrinth," says Werner Westphalus barbarously, "but truly one woven by various people concerning Samson, Solomon, Trajan, and this Origen: namely, whether they are saved or not; which, because they are unknown without danger," he says, "does not walk from the supper, or relax his little body (τὸ σωματίον, as Suidas reads) to be given to him.

are not yet finalized by the Lord. ^A

X. (50) There came from the school of Origen men illustrious in piety and doctrine: Plutarch, Serenus, Heraclides, Heron, another Serenus, Herais, and Basilides, who endured bitter tortures and finally death itself for the name of Christ (51). Heraclas, the brother of this Plutarch, was first a disciple of Origen, then his associate in teaching, and finally his successor as bishop of Alexandria (52). Dionysius, the prelate of the Alexandrian Church after the death of Heraclas, was most celebrated for his erudition and writings. Gregory, who attained the surname "the Miracle-worker," bishop of Neo-Caesarea, preferred Origen in his intimacy above all his contemporaries, even when Origen was already advanced in age. Athenodorus, the brother of Gregory; Tryphon, illustrious for his rare skill in Scripture, of whom Jerome relates that some epistles to Origen existed in his time (53); (54) Firmilian, the prelate of Caesarea in Cappadocia, was so devoted to Origen that, having left his homeland for the sake of meeting him, he made a long and difficult journey. (55) Included among these must also be Barbara, a virgin of Nicomedia, noble by birth and illustrious in learning, who was first recalled from the superstition of the heathens and instructed in the mysteries of Christ by Origen through letters and through Valentinus the presbyter, whom he sent to her; she was subsequently, in the persecution of Maximinus, most cruelly tortured and struck by the sword. At that time, however, he returned from Achaia to Alexandria, having been advanced by the dignity of Origen. For indeed, while he was already a presbyter, a letter was given to him by Alexandria, which is inserted in his Acts. Rufinus and Nicephorus include the virgin Potamiaena, famous for her most noble martyrdom, among the disciples of Origen; but the passage of Eusebius (56), not quite attentively examined, misled them, where Basilides is listed seventh in this series in plain words; but regarding Potamiaena, there is no such suspicion in his account (57). Wherefore it is the more to be wondered at that Potamiaena should be inscribed by a learned man in this census, with Basilides struck out. As if it were little credible that a man given to military affairs, having been moved by the fame of Origen, should have approached him, and having received from him some knowledge of Christian matters, while he was conducting Potamiaena to execution in the line of his duty, should have protected her from the wantonness of wicked men, and that having been awakened in his sleep after she had fulfilled her fate, he should have openly professed the faith of Christ. To this also Nicephorus (58) adds Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, and Theoctistus of Caesarea; to whom it is reasonable to add Mammaea and the one mentioned by Eusebius (59) as governor of Arabia. Finally, "Innumerable," says Vincent of Lérins (60), "doctores, innumerable priests, confessors, and martyrs have sprung from its bosom." ^B

BOOK TWO. THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGEN.

PARTITION OF THE SECOND BOOK. — The life of Origen having been explained, the established order demands that we proceed to expound his doctrine. This proposal, simple in its appearance, is indeed complex in its recesses: for some things must be premised regarding the erudition of Origen and the arts and studies with which he especially formed his mind while he lived. Then his dogmas will be proposed, distinct by their own headings; not, indeed, those which were supported by the universal suffrage of the Church as consonant with her decrees, or those which are of lighter moment; but those which, being of greater weight in the Church, are alien to common and received opinions; and especially those which have been vexed by the censures of the Fathers and by the anathemas of synods. To which will be subjoined, I will not say an Apology—for I neither should nor would—but an accurate examination, free and unfettered by all prejudices. Hence we shall proceed to describe a summary of the fortune of those dogmas, so that the storms they stirred up in the Church, and with what great partisanship they were attacked and defended, may be made manifest. And thus this book is distributed into four chapters. I. Regarding the erudition of Origen. II. His dogmas are examined. III. A general examination of his doctrine is contained. IV. The fortune of that same doctrine is narrated. ^C

regarding her, there is no reason why she should be calculated among them. As for Barbara, all is uncertain. For there is deep silence concerning her among the ancients, as Bollandus confesses in *Maius*, vol. 1, p. 26. The letters of Origen to Barbara, and of Barbara to Origen, have long been considered spurious among the learned, and as having no other parent than Hallerius, as we warned in the Preface to the first volume. But it seems the bishop of Caesarea, Theotecnus, should be enumerated among the disciples of Origen; whom Huetius passed over, but concerning whom Eusebius, *Hist.* lib. vII, cap. 14, says: "And this (Theotecnus) was of the school of Origen." Here also (Theotecnus) is said to have been an auditor of Origen. ^D

CHAPTER I. Origen’s Erudition.

I. Origen’s first and primary study, from his tender years of childhood even to his death, was to penetrate the inner and recondite knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. In this he so applied himself that it was a thing of wonder, nor did anyone afterward achieve as much in that exercise; whether you look at the letter itself, as they call it, which he had commended so entirely to his memory that he could recite all the passages on the spot, even without consulting his books; or at the intimate and hidden senses, which he drew out with such sagacity that, as Suidas says, ^A all the teachers of the Church who came after him derived their starting points from him. This will easily appear from our Observations, in which we point out similar passages from the Fathers, and note with references those that have proceeded from Origenians. Nor did he neglect any aid for acquiring an exquisite knowledge of the divine volumes: for he compared the Vulgate – that is, the translation of the LXX Elders as it was among the Alexandrians – with other versions gathered by him at great expense: those of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus; and also the Fifth and Sixth versions, published by him for the first time; and he accommodated these to the Hebrew exemplars, whence the Tetrapla, Hexapla, and Octapla came into existence.

II. But if he had exercised himself more in Hebrew studies, and had attained greater expertise in this language, nothing would have been wanting to his perfect knowledge of the divine law; but he garnered only as much glory from it as he withdrew from the study of this speech. For I will say truly: either those are little acquainted with Hebraisms, or they have been only superficially involved in the reading of Origen’s works, who have attributed to him anything eminent in the holy tongue, or in the knowledge of the dialects which have flowed from this fountain. Nor does Jerome (61) contradict our opinion, although he seems to do so, when he says that the whole of Greece was struck with admiration at his singular knowledge of this language: for that surely could seem a wonder to the Greeks, who were rude and ignorant of Hebraisms, and lacked the knowledge to judge how much Origen had progressed in it. ^C But he himself does not at all disguise his own ignorance of this language, Homil. 14, in Num. 1, p. 322: "They say, therefore," he says, "who read the Hebrew letters, that in this place, 'God' is not placed under the sign of the tetragrammaton: about which whoever can may inquire." We have noticed many things in our Observations which demonstrate his ignorance in Hebrew matters; of such a kind is that ^D frivolous distinction, between *ouranos* and *ouranous*, which he invents in regard to Matthew xviii, 18, and to which he alleges that Christ had respect; as if the Syriac dialect, which Christ used, admitted this distinction: just like that false interpretation of the name Aser, which is had at Matthew xviii, 19, *Comment. tom. xiv*, p. 616, as if it were derived from *erudit, ligavit* (he taught, he bound), when it is made from *ligavit* (he bound). Although by the authority of the LXX Elders it can be excused, who sometimes rendered *asar* as if it were the same as *yasar*. As in Psalm civ (Heb. cv), 22; for the Hebrew *leesor* they have *tou paideusai tous archontas autou*; Vulgate, *ut erudiret principes ejus*. And Hosea x, 10, *leesor*. LXX, *paideusai autous*; Vulgate, *corripiam eos*; such is that depraved reading of the place of the LXX Interpreters, II Esdras 1, 11, *eunouchos to basilei*. (62) But if he had been in any way versed in Hebrew, he would have corrected what they have as *mashkeh lammelek* in the version of the LXX to *oinochos to basilei* (*cupbearer to the king*), if indeed he did not himself introduce this error, which certainly nowhere exists in the exemplars of the LXX Elders: such is that inept exposition of the word (63), "John," which he thought to be formed from the prefix *jo* and *hannen*, when it is derived from only *jo* and the servile prefixes. Likewise, he most often errs in searching out the origins of Hebrew names. This was, of course, easy for a man walking his path in unknown places by borrowed light: but the Jew Philo acted as a light, who had interpreted the Hebrew names of the Old Testament in a peculiar book; to which book Origen subjoined a comparable one, comprising an exposition of the Hebrew names of the New Testament. But who would not feel offended by Origen following Philo as his guide, who, though a Jew, and pregnant with Jewish lore, had not been illuminated by even a moderate aura of Hebrew letters, just as neither had almost any of the other Hellenists? If this is not new in men born and educated in Alexandria – whose nature, Jerome writes (64), was repugnant to learning the Hebrew language, according to the custom of all Greeks, who were accustomed to despise the study of exotic languages – yet in that Josephus, the Hebrew, son of Mathathias, it ought indeed to seem strange; for it is easy to detect from his writings that he did not bring to the great and singular knowledge of Jewish origins an equal expertise in his native speech; although he...

may have written some things in Hebrew which have perished with the lapse of time.

Furthermore, Origen was so lightly versed in Jewish letters that some do not hesitate to affirm he was most expert in the Samaritan idiom. They are abundantly refuted by those words of Origen on that passage in Ezekiel IX, 4, p. 424: "Sign the Thau upon the foreheads of the men that sigh." ^A *A certain Hebrew*, he says, *of those who have believed in the Savior, was saying that the ancient characters have the Thau bearing a resemblance to the form of the cross, and that it is prophesied concerning the sign made upon the forehead among Christians, which all who have believed do, whenever they undertake any action, and especially prayers or holy readings.* He calls the elements of the Samaritans *archaia stoicheia* ("ancient elements"), which the Hebrews used in ancient times, *pro tes metoikesias Babylonos* (before the Babylonian captivity). If Origen had obtained any knowledge of them, he would not have said that he had received the form of the Samaritan Thau from that Hebrew, which he would have known and seen for himself. And here, let us incidentally defend Origen against the censure of Scaliger, who in his *Notes on Eusebius* flatly denies that the Samaritan Thau had any other form than that which is painted today in the books of the Samaritans; this is even against the authority of Jerome, who had examined Samaritan codices. For it is certain that the Samaritan Thau was not accustomed to be marked in only one way, and that it was sometimes depicted in the form of a cross, as is proven by the most ancient Hebrew coins.

III. Adamantius had accurately scrutinized not only interpretations of Scripture, but even the interpreters themselves and all ecclesiastical writers, whose support he usually claims by name for his own opinions—for instance, Clement, Ignatius, Josephus, Philo, and others. Nor will you find this only in the books that were translated by Rufinus; indeed, ^B a scholar of this age considered those to be invented by the translator; but he did so even in the Greek volumes, or writings rendered into Latin by Jerome, and especially in the books *Against Celsus*. Among ecclesiastical writers, I include the authors of the apocryphal books, whose testimonies he also often uses; yet he attributes no more faith or authority to them than what it is permitted to attribute to them from this apostolic warning: "Test all things; hold fast what is good" (1 Thess. v, 21).

IV. The principal exertion of Origen in expounding the Scriptures, for the sake of which discipline he cultivated the external studies—but philosophy most of all—was therefore this. However, he admired Plato above the rest: just as he would adapt Christian dogmas to the laws of Platonic doctrine, rather than the doctrine of Plato to the sayings of Christ. Philo the Jew, wholly composed according to the model of Plato, urged Origen on by his example, not merely by attributing too much to Plato, but by explaining Scripture also through perpetual allegories. His teacher, Clement of Alexandria, also urged him on, being accustomed to illustrate Christian matters with the pigments of the academy; which the greatest part of the ancient Fathers also did, but more sparingly and modestly. After Adamantius had encrusted the pure vessel of Christian doctrine with these Platonic delusions, his doctrine from that point was corrupted and imbued with profane errors, whence, tossed by infinite reproaches and complaints, he fell into supreme calamities and squandered the praise he had earned by his merits. But he did not even restrain his genius within the boundaries of the academy; he roamed in his mind through all the sects of the philosophers. Porphyry is the witness that he took delight in the writings of the Pythagoreans and also used the books of the Stoics. Hence, he was not so much addicted to any one sect, but was a student of them all, and from them he culled whatever was more useful and more likely to be true, and cautioned his disciples to do the same. Gregory Thaumaturgus left a writing (66); so that he ought not to be called so much a Platonist or Pythagorean as a Potammonic, after that Potamon of Alexandria, who was the author of the eclectic sect. Wherefore Justinian, in his epistle to Mennas, and in his other epistle to the fifth synod, ^C brings objections against Origen regarding the error of the pagans in Exodus, and likewise in the Psalms, in Jeremiah, in the Lamentations; also among Ezekiel, Daniel, and Hosea. Furthermore, the readings of the Syrians are cited by Eusebius of Caesarea, more frequently by Diodorus of Tarsus, and by Eusebius of Emesa, Jerome, Theodoret, and others. And which is to be noted, the same men, and most especially Diodorus, often join the Syrian with the Hebrew in this guise: *ho Syros kai ho Hebraios*, or *ho Hebraios kai ho Syros*, whenever, that is, the interpretations of both agree, which often happens. These readings, just like those of the Samaritan, could have been placed by Origen, the most diligent collector of versions, in the margins of the *Hexapla*: although this is by no means certain. For we say these things only by way of conjecture: for until some part of the *Hexapla*, however small, emerges from the darkness just as it was written at the beginning, we will not be able to fish out a full and perfect knowledge of them.

^A Origen is so frequently reproached for having been related to these. ^B Furthermore, in a certain letter which is found in Eusebius, he excused his excessive study of those doctrines, which had been exposed to the criticisms of some—indeed, of foolish men who understood little of how much profane literature contributes to the advancement of sacred things. Finally, he earned for himself such clarity of name through his erudition that men of every kind flocked to him; even the heathens themselves praised his excellent learning in their writings, dedicated their own studies to him, and he was believed to have embraced in his mind an encyclopedia of all the disciplines, being set by almost everyone as the prince among the lettered.

CHAPTER TWO. Origen’s Dogmas.

^C PROLOGUE AND PARTITION OF CHAPTER 2. — We have now arrived at the actual dogmas of Origen, whether those which, having undergone criticism, can in some way be defended, or those which, being in reality less in agreement with sound Christian doctrine, reject every possible excuse: and not only those which are commonly blamed, but also those which we have identified from an attentive and diligent reading of his works. Some have indeed taken it upon themselves to defend all of Origen’s errors, whether rightly or wrongly, promising themselves great praise if they could impugn the accepted opinions about him; they never once considered that, while they strive to be obliging toward Origen, they are paying little heed to their own reputation and honor. It is our purpose to pursue the truth, and either to accuse Adamantius, if the facts so demand, or to excuse him, as our candor will allow; yet we shall be the more prepared to discharge the duty of his defense: which we intend to do in roughly three ways: either by applying a gentle and kindly interpretation to the controversial passages, or by adducing contrary and repulsive statements from Origen himself, or by citing similar sentiments from the Fathers. Both of the latter modes of defense have been rejected by some, and the second indeed by a distinguished theologian of our age, clearly because it is concluded from Origen’s opposing testimonies only that he held diverse views, not that he by any means clung to perverse opinions.

^D Yet Pamphilus did not think any other more convenient way to protect Adamantius existed in his *Apology*. For since it was established that the Origenian volumes had been violated by heretics, if any variety of opinion was detected, it was deservedly attributed to the frauds of the heretics for the sake of variety. Furthermore, even if we grant that Origen erred, we must admit that at least there was uncertainty of mind in those questions, and that he was far removed from the crime of pertinacity, by which alone one is sufficiently purged. The third method, too, of defending Origen, which is taken from the endorsement of the Fathers, is rejected by Jerome; who, when John of Jerusalem had defended Origen in the same fashion, wrote this to Theophilus: “A new kind of defense, not to deny Origen’s faults in such a way that you incriminate others along with him. Namely, that you defend whom you dare not openly defend, by citing the similar error of many.” Surely it not infrequently happened that Jerome himself was held guilty of what he condemned in Origen. When his adversaries objected this to him, he wished Origen to be purged, not to be defended by his own or others’ example. Therefore, Rufinus, in *Invectiva* 1, represents Jerome as speaking thus: “All these (Fathers) erred as Origen did: but let them receive pardon for their error, because I too have sometimes erred, and now I perform penance, and I deserve to receive pardon. But Origen, although he said the same things I did, even if he performed penance, shall not receive pardon: rather, for the things we all said, let him alone be condemned.” If, however, Jerome himself was ever accused, he did not hesitate to seek Origen’s patronage for himself: wishing to be granted what he denied to Origen. Rightly, therefore, does Rufinus say in *Invectiva* 2: “Whether Origen did this or not, what is that to you? If you wish to be judged by his example, re-read your own writings and see what you have said. This is not, you say, to purge oneself; but to seek accomplices in crime. Do not, therefore, yourself seek accomplices in crime, but seek a purgation of the deed.” Truly, if this rebuttal of charges is taken away, we shall lack a legitimate and, in such controversies, a most accepted argument of defense, one often used by the Fathers even after Jerome. For, to pass over others in silence, did not Facundus fortify the cause of Theodore of Mopsuestia with similar patronage, who filled the eleventh book of his *Work* entirely with selected similar sentiments of the Fathers: “We determine,” he says, “to present in this volume the sayings of great men, similar ones, to excuse the more difficult ones for which they thought he, as the master of Nestorius, should be struck with anathema.” And now in skirmishes against the heterodox, what is more common than to fight with the suffrage and consensus of the Fathers? Girded, therefore, with this triple protection, let Origen finally come to the battle. We comprehend his dogmas in fourteen questions. I. It is about God: II. about the most holy Trinity.

III. about Christ, and his incarnation and economy: IV. about the Blessed Virgin Mary: V. about good and evil angels: VI. about the soul: VII. about free will, grace, and predestination: VIII. about the stars: IX. about the resurrection of the dead: X. about the final judgment: XI. about punishments and rewards: XII. about the world, the earthly paradise, and Adam: XIII. about the allegorical interpretation of Scripture: XIV. he comprises a few small questions, as if in a medley.

QUESTION ONE. ABOUT GOD.

I. Adamantius is first beaten on this account, that he believed the power of God to be finite and circumscribed by limits, and that he had produced as many things as his Providence could contain and administer; that he had made as much matter as he was able to adorn and divide into the forms of things; and that he himself was able to do only as much as the matter provided him for action; and that his power was not to be extended into the infinite, for the sake of praise; for it would not be understood by itself unless it were determined, since the infinite cannot be comprehended. Therefore, as often as Origen called God omnipotent, he understood that all things which were created by Him are in His power; but he did not understand that an infinite number of things could be created by Him and ruled at will; this is, indeed, that He is *pantokrator* (almighty), but that He is not *pantodynamos* (all-powerful in the sense of absolute potentiality). And this opinion is sufficiently evident from these words of his in *De principiis*, bk. II, ch. 2, n. 10: “God the Father is omnipotent, in that he holds power over all things, that is, of heaven and earth, and the sun and moon, and the stars, and all things that are in them.” ^A

III. Therefore, Halloxius provides a vain defense for Origen in *Orig. defens.*, bk. IV, quæst. 6, proclaiming that Origen meant this: “that all things are subject to God, and that his wisdom in governing is equal to his omnipotence in creating, so that it can never happen that he creates so many and so great things, without being able to govern so many and so great things; so that the wisdom of the governor is equal to the power of the Creator.” But if the number of those stumbling in the same question can do anything for Origen’s cause, we will concede Peter Abelard, a man of restless spirit and studious of new opinions, who in *Introduct. theolog.*, bk. II, ch. 5, disputes thus: “How much, therefore, I estimate, since God can do only that which it is fitting for him to do, and it is fitting for him to do nothing which he might omit, I truly judge that he can do only that which he at some time does: although this opinion of ours has few or no supporters, and appears to dissent greatly from the sayings of the saints, and somewhat from reason.” We will also concede William of Paris, who denied that more worlds could be created by God. ^B

II. Therefore, Theophilus of Alexandria objects this crime to him in his first Paschal epistle; to testify to which, Emperor Justinian produces a clear fragment from the first book of *De principiis* at the end of his epistle to Menas, which is found not a little deformed in Rufinus’s Latin translation, bk. I, ch. 2, n. 10. Furthermore, Methodius reports in Photius, *codex* 235, that Origen believed for this reason that the world was coeternal with God, because He was always *pantokrator* (ruler of all), but that He could not be *pantokrator* without things that are ruled (*ton kratoumenon*). Whence it follows that He is omnipotent, not because He can effect everything, but because He has power over all things that exist. Rufinus the Palestinian, in the little book *De fide* which Sirmond edited, says: “Impiously and nefariously Origen spoke, who said thus: God did not do all that he willed, but only those things which he could contain and comprehend. He who said this took away the power of the Lord of all, as if power were given to Him to act by that half portion. For if he does not have the capacity, as he esteems, of containing and subjecting to himself what he might make, he will not even have the capacity of creating. For he who has the capacity of creating, will likewise have that of subjecting to himself the things created.” ^C

IV. These things truly seem to have arisen from the decrees of the old Academy: for Plato, whom Adamantius generally follows, taught that God is the very soul of the world, procuring and administering all things that are in the world. Cicero, *Acad. quæst.* I: “But they (the Academics) think that all things that are in it, which are held by sentient nature, in which perfect reason exists, which is the same as eternal, are parts of the world: for nothing is more powerful than it, from which it might perish. This force they say is the soul of the world, and the same is the mind and perfect wisdom, which they call God, and, as it were, a certain providence of all things which are subject to it, procuring in the highest degree the celestial things, then those things on earth which pertain to men, which they sometimes call necessity, because nothing can be otherwise than as it is constituted by it.” But the soul of any single thing, equal to animating and ruling it, cannot exert its force to animate more; for this force of its own is constrained within the limits of the thing subject to it. Therefore the soul of the world, which according to Plato is God himself, cannot extend its power to animate other things outside the world; therefore, not even to create. Wherefore Plotinus, *Enn.* V, bk. V, ch. 12, decreed that God could create nothing except what He did create. ^D

V. Some things can persuade that a body was ascribed to God by Origen. First, that argument which Jerome adduces from bk. III of *Peri archon*, ch. 6, n. 1, in *Epistle* 59 to Avitus, ch. 3, by which Adamantius strives to demonstrate that the soul will be without a body, because the saints are to be like God,

in accordance with that saying of Christ: "That as I and you are one, so they may be one in us;" ^A but God is incorporeal. One may find this same point in homily 4 on Genesis, n. 13, and in book VI *Against Celsus*, n. 69. And we shall show in what follows that, although he seems to posit that the soul is incorporeal, he nonetheless declares it to be such with respect to grosser bodies, while in reality judging it to be endowed with a body; just as is evident even from the preface to his books *On First Principles*, n. 8, where, explaining the force of this word *asomaton* (incorporeal), he teaches that it is accepted as meaning that "it is not like this gross and visible body of ours; rather, it is naturally subtle and as it were thin like air." God, therefore, to whom the soul is similar, is in reality, according to Origen, corporeal, but incorporeal only in comparison with graver bodies. Jerome, moreover, in chapter 3 of the aforementioned epistle to Avitus, says that Origen added these words at the end of book III of *Peri archon*: "And God will be all in all," so that the entire corporeal nature may be reduced to that substance which is better than all things, namely, the divine, than which nothing is better. And towards the end of the same epistle, he refers to Origen’s book IV of *Peri archon*: "to join all reasonable natures, that is, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the angels, powers, dominions, and the other virtues, and man himself also, to be of one substance according to the dignity of the soul." Theophilus of Alexandria proves that this same thing follows from his doctrine in his 1st *Paschal Letter*.

VI. (71) Nevertheless, many passages clearly prove that he was far from this heresy; most especially chapter 1 of book I of *Peri archon*, where it is most clearly stated that all body is segregated from God. Finally, after a long demonstration of this matter, it stands thus, n. 5: "In every sense, therefore, which might seem to declare anything corporeal about God, having refuted it as far as we have been able, we say that according to the truth, God is indeed incomprehensible and inestimable." Then n. 6: "Therefore, God is not to be thought of as any body, or as being in a body, but as a simple intellectual nature, admitting absolutely nothing of adjunction into itself, so that it is not believed to have anything greater or lesser within it; but that it is a *monas* from every side, and, if I may say so, a *henas*, and a mind, and the fountain from which is the beginning of the whole intellectual nature, or mind." And chap. 6, n. 4: "It is the property of the nature of God alone, that is, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, that it be understood to subsist without material substance, and without any society of corporeal adjunction;" and book II, chap. 2, n. 2: "For it will be rightly thought that the life of the Trinity alone exists incorporeally;" and book IV, n. 27: "But that substance of the Trinity, which is the beginning and cause of all things, from which are all things, and through which are all things, and in which are all things, is to be believed to be neither a body, nor in a body." Truly excellently in book II, chap. 4, n. 3: "If God were pronounced to be a body, since every body is from matter, God would also be found to be from matter: and if he were from matter, but matter is without doubt corruptible, there would then, according to them, be a corruptible God." ^B If anyone thinks these words were gratuitously inserted by Rufinus, let him see the same reasoning repeated and expanded in volume XIII of his *Commentary on John*, n. 21 and following. Likewise, in book VIII *Against Celsus*, n. 49, he states thus: "For among us, God is not a body, so that we might not fall into the absurdities into which those who philosophize according to Zeno and Chrysippus fall." For neither is God a body in our view, lest we fall into the same absurdities, ^C led not by vain affections, but asserting clearly what we perceive, as to how it is possible that he is of a different nature than material. But since many things that were written before the corporeal advent of Christ seem to say that God is in a place, it does not seem to me foreign to the purpose to propose a few of these also, so that every doubt may be taken from those who, because of their inexperience, as far as it is in them, confine God—who transcends all things—in a small and narrow place. For first, in Genesis, it is said: "Adam and Eve heard the voice of the Lord God walking in paradise in the evening: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the face of the Lord God in the midst of the tree of paradise" (Gen. III, 8). We ask, therefore, those who do not want to enter the treasuries of Scripture, and do not even knock at the door, whether they are able to prove that the Lord God, who fills heaven and earth, to whom, as they themselves imagine, heaven is a corporeal throne and the earth the footstool of his feet, is, if he is compared with the entire heaven and earth, contained in so small a place, so that God does not fill the corporeal paradise which they imagine for themselves, but he just barely exceeds it in magnitude, such that it even contains him walking, and the sound of the sole of his feet is heard. And below: "These few places from the Old Testament we have added, which are thought to establish God in a place; so that we might persuade the reader, by whatever facility is granted to us, to accept sacred Scripture in a higher and more spiritual sense, when it appears to teach that God is in a place." ^D

^A Indeed, in the Catena of Combesis on Gen. 1:26, and in Theodoret’s Quæstiones on Genesis, quest. 20, he non-perfunctorily chastises Melito, who had written a book on this subject, that God is corporeal. Plato himself, whose dogmas Origen has almost entirely embraced, surely removes all body from God: so too does Aristotle.

VII. Since Origen says therefore that the soul will be devoid of body, because it will be similar to God who lacks a body, he means by this that God and the soul are without body ^B *homonymously* indeed, but not in the same way; for God is simply and absolutely incorporeal. The objection raised by Theophilus and Jerome, that Adamantius placed God in the same substance and category as rational things, is resolved by an equal response: those substances agree in that they are *noerai* and *logikai* (intellectual and rational), though they differ immensely otherwise. This response is affirmed by the very passage of Origen which Jerome cites from book IV of *De Principiis*, no. 36: “He senses,” he says, “the intellectual and rational nature... God, and his only-begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit; the angels sense it, and the powers, and the other virtues; the interior man senses it, who was created to the image and likeness of God.” From this it is concluded that God and these are, in a certain way, of one substance. “In a certain way,” that is, in one respect; which, to escape the crime of sacrilege, we can interpret benevolently, says Jerome.

VIII. Since things are thus, Origen nonetheless writes this in the prologue of the books *De Principiis*, no. 9: “How God himself is to be understood must also be inquired: whether he is corporeal, or fashioned according to some habit, or of a nature other than what bodies are—which at any rate is not manifestly designated in our preaching.” Hence it is that Tertullian decided without hesitation that God is corporeal, both elsewhere and *Adversus Praxean*, chap. 7: “For who will deny,” he says, “that God is a body, even if He is spirit? For spirit is a body of its own kind, in its own image.” And truly those invisible things, whatever they may be, have with God their own body and their own form, through which they are visible to God alone; how much more so that which was sent from His own substance—will it not be without substance? Although these things are manifest, some attempt to bend them to the contrary sentiment, wishing “substance” to be understood by the term “body.” As if Tertullian were so unskilled in Latin speech and so lacking in vocabulary that, wishing to denote a thing existing by itself, he could not designate it otherwise than as a body. The same was thought about God by Valentinus, Seleucus, and Hermias the Galatians, Audaeus and his followers the Audaeans (whom others have later wrongly called Vadians), and the Egyptian Anthropomorphites, of whom we shall discourse below.

QUESTION II. ON THE MOST HOLY TRINITY.

I. Origen is reported to have fallen into many errors regarding the mystery of the Trinity, the most grave of which are noted. II. Under this head he has incurred the rebukes of many Fathers. III. Whether he opined that the persons of the Holy Trinity differ in substance. IV. Some things are brought forward in his defense. V. His genuine sentiment is brought out. VI. Whether he thought the Son was begotten by procession. VII. Whether he said that the Son is inferior to the Father, and the Holy Spirit inferior to the Son, VIII. as is loudly claimed by many. IX. He seems sometimes to defend the dignity of both. X. He rejoices in the suffrage of many Fathers. XI. Some Fathers testify that he thought rightly concerning the dignity of the Son and Holy Spirit. XII. He obscured orthodox doctrine with Platonic ravings. XIII. Whether he believed the Father to be the primary Creator of things, but the Son to be secondary and a minister of the Father. XIV. He is upheld by the consensus of some of the older Fathers. XV. In what sense he said the Son is not absolutely good, XVI. and not absolutely truth. XVII. Whether the accusation of many is just, that Origen said the Father cannot be seen by the Son, nor the Son by the Holy Spirit. XVIII. Rufinus attempts to repel this. XIX. Whether he said the Son’s knowledge is inferior to the Father’s knowledge, and the Holy Spirit’s knowledge inferior to the Son’s. XX. Which he at times seems to have denied. XXI. Whether he judged the Son and Holy Spirit to be created, XXII. as is commonly rumored. XXIII. Many faults are proposed for being elevated/removed from him. XXIV. Origen’s genuine sentiment is opened. XXV. He has some Fathers in agreement. XXVI. In what sense he said the two seraphim (Isaiah chap. VI, ver. 2) are Christ and the Holy Spirit. XXVII. It is charged to Origen that he said the Father presides over all things universal, the Son only over those endowed with reason, and the Holy Spirit only over the holy; XXVIII. but he is defended. XXIX. Whether he pronounced that the Son should not be adored. XXX. Whether he feigned that the Holy Spirit could not redeem the human race.

1. Everything has been treated by Origen as regards the dogmas of the Christian religion; and indeed almost everything has been treated; none is believed and said to have been so deformed by his own inventions and opinions as that by which the mystery of the most holy Trinity is contained. For he seemed to sever the Son’s substance from the Father’s substance; and to place the Son as inferior to the Father, the Holy Spirit inferior to the Son, so much so that the Father by the Son, and the Son by the Holy Spirit is entirely recognized as spiritual, just as the Platonists do, as we shall show below, quest. 6, no. 5. From this it follows that if Origen says, as Theophilus and Jerome object, that God is in a certain way of one and the same substance as things endowed with reason, they agree in those substances insofar as they are intellectual and merely spiritual, not insofar as they are corporeal, as the most famous Huet rightly observes, although otherwise they differ immensely.

^A a holy Spirit can in no way be seen, and thus to establish degrees of dignity and excellence in the Trinity; to thrust the Son and the Holy Spirit into the order of created things; to assign to the latter the administration of things endowed with reason, and to the former the administration of other things, while secluding them from each other’s provinces; to defraud the Son in our prayers; to diminish the power of the Holy Spirit; and finally to invent many other things by which the unity of substance, the Trinity of persons, and their perfect equality with each other are violated.

II. (74) On this account, Augustine in *Heresy 43* to Quodvultdeus, and Justinian afterward in his letter to Mennas, [claimed] that he thought most basely concerning the Trinity ^B and ^C sought to detract from the power of the Holy Spirit; and finally invented many other things by which the unity of substance, the Trinity of persons, and their perfect equality with each other are violated.

(74) On this account, Augustine in *Heresy 43* to Quodvultdeus, and Justinian, etc. I. If the judgment regarding Origen rests with the ancient writers, as our master Prudentius Maran says in his *De divinitate Christi* lib. IV, cap. 14, the very weighty testimonies on both sides will scarcely leave a certain mark for judging. For no one among the greatest men is more distinguished by praises and vituperations. Yet among those who seem to have studied his writings more accurately—Dionysius of Alexandria, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and other such disciples of Origen, who could neither be ignorant of nor approve of it, if he had held anything impious on a matter of such importance; Pamphilus the martyr, who not only approved of him but defended him with his own resources and arms; the Great Athanasius, who set him as an impregnable wall against the Arians—in my opinion, more credence should be given than to Epiphanius and Jerome, who twisted his words into alien meanings and, I know not how, attached to him some things of which not even a trace exists in his works. He seemed to Basil not to have thought altogether rightly concerning the Holy Spirit. But I believe that this most holy and learned man, driven by the custom of fighting against the Arians and the Pneumatomachi, was led to disapprove in Origen those things which he did not approve in them, as they were craftily insinuating error and eluding the truth; and he did not sufficiently notice that a distinction must be made between versatile and deceitful heretics, and a writer alien to all fraud and dissimulation. But it is not the purpose of this work to dwell on weighing the testimonies of the ancients: I will derive the whole abundance of his doctrine for judgment from his writings—not those translated into Latin by Rufinus, but those existing in Greek. Nor will I do in repelling this accusation what is wont to be done with other opinions of Origen: to say that the error was not obstinately defended by him, but proposed as a probable conjecture on a matter not yet decided, and to plead for the crime by a commemoration of his virtues and the things he suffered for Christ. Besides the fact that excuses of this kind would have no force in the very heart of religion to repel the mark of impiety, nothing was committed by Origen that would compel one to have recourse to them. From those things which I have already reported, said magnificently by him concerning the mystery of the incarnate God and argued excellently against Jews, heathens, and heretics, he should be considered not only a Catholic writer but even a most fierce defender of sacred dogma. As clearly and vehemently as we have seen him in defending the divinity of Christ, we shall see him as accurate and diligent in explaining it; and, as the capacity of the human mind allows, interpreted, which will be evident from his testimonies concerning the eternity of the Son, his equality with the Father, and his consubstantiality. The things that are objected are either forged and alien to him, or partly have a most noble meaning if you interpret them rightly; partly, they are not inconvenient if you fit them aptly with his other principles.

The Arian heresy, in the name of which Origen is so vehemently accused, has this as its first and primary task: to twist the titles of the Son and God into metaphors. No one is more free from this vice than Origen. Not only does he not elude the testimonies of the Scriptures with metaphors, but he also diligently weighs their force. He often calls Christ properly the Son of God, as in *tom. VI in Joan., num. 10, p. 118*, and *tom. XII in Matth., num. 42, p. 565*. In *tom. XI in Matth., num. 17*, he warns that one should observe in the Gospels: "Who call Christ the Son of David, as the Canaanite woman, and the blind men who were at Jericho; and who indeed [call him] the Son of God, and that too without the addition of the word 'truly,' as even the demoniacs saying to him: 'Truly you are the Son of God' (Matt. XIV, 33)." He had already commended the faith of the latter, because they had called him not simply the Son of God, but *truly* the Son of God. He urges at length in *tom. XII, num. 11*, that we should say with Peter: "You are the Christ, the Son of God" (Matt. XVI, 16); which mystery he teaches is not revealed by flesh and blood, but by the Father himself, who is in heaven, by removing the veil placed upon the heart. In the same place, num. 2, he thinks that nothing of excuse was left to the Pharisees and Sadducees who had incredulously rejected this mystery; because the prophecies, miracles, and doctrine of Christ were a certain argument "that he is truly the Son of God, who performed so many and such great things." With the Arian stain, there cannot coexist that diligence in examining and pursuing the force that every word of Scripture has, and the admiration of such a great mystery, Origen considers its difficulty not to lie in the words but in the reality to be revealed by the Father alone.

[Column 712 continues]...[He] is no less alien to metaphors and cavils when he calls Christ God. He observes that John spoke much more magnificently of Christ’s divinity than the other evangelists; which is a great argument that he was accustomed not to elude the force and weight of the sentences in Interpreting the Scriptures, but to admire them. Thus he speaks ^C at num. 6, p. 6, in *Joannem*: «Οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἐκείνων ἀκράτως ἐφανέρωσεν αὐτοῦ τὴν θεότητα, ὡς Ἰωάννης παραστήσας αὐτὸν λέγοντα· Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου· Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδός, καὶ ἀλήθεια, etc.» "For no one of them so purely manifested his divinity as John, who introduces him saying: 'I am the light of the world' (John VIII, 12); 'I am the way, the truth, and the life' (John XIV, 6); 'I am the resurrection' (John XI, 25); 'I am the door' (John X, 7); 'I am the good shepherd' (John X, 11). And in the Apocalypse: 'I am the A and the Ω, the beginning and the end, the first and the last' (Apoc. I, 8; XXII, 13)." Although he greatly admires John's magnificent testimonies, he does not think that the others spoke jejunely concerning Christ's divinity; but he refutes this opinion of some in *tom. XII, num. 6, in Matth.*: "That furthermore is to be observed for the sake of those who think that the Savior's divinity is not strongly proven from the Gospel of Matthew, because when the disciples were reflecting among themselves and saying that they did not have bread, Jesus knew their thoughts and said: 'Why do you reflect among yourselves, you of little faith, that you have no bread?' (Matt. XVI, 8), that it was not a human thing. For the Lord alone knows the hearts of men, as Solomon says in the third [book] of Kings (VIII, 59)." Could he have interpreted John's most excellent testimonies metaphorically, who does not even suffer that to be done in the other evangelists? Would the open and manifest preaching of Christ's divinity not persuade him, when the texts are satisfying to him, from which it is derived only by consequence?

^D In those places, which the Arians eagerly snatched up, he is accustomed to pursue metaphors and subtle interpretations. An example will be his observation on that saying of the priests: "This man performs many signs" (John XI, 47). Ὡς δ᾽ αὐτοὺς οἶμαι καὶ ἐπὶ καθαιρέσει τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ εἰρηκέναι τό· Οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος· ἐπίστουν γὰρ τοῖς καὶ ἀνωτέρω εἰρημένοις περὶ τοῦ Θεὸν αὐτά.

αὐτά. ^A I believe they spoke thus in order to destroy his glory. For they did not believe those things which he had said above (namely, that he himself was God), when they wished to stone him, as if for blasphemy, saying to him: "You, being a man, make yourself God" (John X, 33, 35): for he even responded in his kindness, teaching that everyone to whom the word of God has come is called God by God. Since, therefore, Christ says that he is God, Origen suspects no metaphor, but thinks that this title was truly assumed by him for himself. But when he sets out to soothe the Jews with these words of the Psalm: "I have said: You are gods" (Ps. LXXXI, 6), he interprets them not according to the letter and the word, but decrees that they should be attributed to the kindness of Christ. In the same place, reproaching the Pharisees and chief priests because, when they had seen so many miracles done by Christ for the salvation of others, they thought he would do nothing for his own sake, he speaks thus of his omnipotence: ^B "Unless perhaps they believed that he performs signs, and suspected that they were not brought about by divine power; so that for this reason he could not do everything, nor could he rescue himself from the plots of those men."

God is also the helper of the little ones, the supporter of the infirm, the Savior to those who are desperate and those who have been given up for lost. Such is what he uses even here, with this woman, to those who were in the city, using the Apostle's words: "God is a humbler... and a Savior of the desperate; and he treats this woman, as it were, even with the Apostle to those in the city."

To these can be added other testimonies of the Old Testament that clearly signify the divine nature, which are referred to Christ by Origen. He teaches (in *Matt.*, tom. XII, num. 43) "that the Son of God had warned Moses, and that it was he who said to him: 'For no man shall see my face, and live' (Exod. XXXIII, 20)." In *Exhort. ad mart.*, num. 9, he says that the Firstborn of all creation is the jealous God (Exod. XX, 5). Origen thinks this statement belongs to the same: "They have provoked me to jealousy in him who was not God" (Deut. XXXII, 21), etc. He contends that these words are spoken from the person of Christ (lib. II *adv. Cels.*, num. 78). He concludes that Christ is the King of glory and the Lord, strong and mighty in battle, from Psalm XXII (lib. VIII *contra Cels.*, num. 1, and tom. XVI *in Matt.*, num. 19). He proves the divinity of Christ against the Jews (lib. II *in Cels.*, num. 48) from the miracles which, as God coming to earth, Isaiah foretold would be brought forth (Isa. XXXV, 5), and which Jesus accurately fulfilled. Christ, as Origen observes (tom. XII *in Matt.*, num. 9), says through Jeremiah: "As I live" (Jer. XXII, 24); and again: "They have forsaken me, the fountain of living water" (Jer. II, 13). And through Malachi (tom. I *in Joan.*, num. 31, p. 33): "If I am the Lord, where is my fear?" (Malach. I, 6).

But now we must penetrate the inner sanctum of Origen's doctrine through an open threshold and discuss what he sensed concerning Christ, insofar as he is the Word of God, and concerning his eternity, his equality with the Father, and the unity of substance in both.

It is no wonder, therefore, if in so many places Origen calls Christ the true and great God. He speaks thus (hom. 2, *De engastrimytho*, in 1 Reg. XXVIII, p. 497): "Just as it was impossible for anyone other than God, and the pillar of fire, and the pillar of light, which is from God, to make the sea passable; just as it was impossible for anyone other than Jesus the true God, whose type that Jesus was, to make the Jordan passable, etc." In the same way, no one other than God could provide a pathway through the sea, and the columns of fire and columns of light, which are from God himself; just as no one other than Jesus the true God, of whom that Joshua was a type, could make the Jordan passable: so by the flaming sword, neither Samuel nor Abraham could pass. Thus, he introduces John speaking (tom. VI *in Joan.*, num. 17, p. 132): "He who is coming after me is so strong that I am not even able to bear the garments of the ultimate powers which are around him, not being laid bare, so that even those who happen by could understand them, nor are they able to endure bearing these things. I do not know which I should say, whether it is my great weakness, which is not able to bear the lowly things of Christ in comparison with the greater things around him, or his divinity, which surpasses and is greater than the whole world." ^D He suspects (tom. XIII *in eundem evangelistam*, num. 58, p. 274) that some of the princes, stupefied by the power and divinity of Jesus, fled to him and prayed for those subject to them. And in num. 28, p. 238, he brings this reason why the disciples wondered that Jesus spoke with the woman, because "they had already perceived the magnitude of the divinity in him." He himself, however, concludes from this colloquy of Christ with the little woman that simple people are not to be despised; since he who formed their hearts in the womb, who formed the hearts of all men singly, and understands all their works (Ps. XXXII, 15), is the helper of the abject.

III. To refute thoroughly those who assign Origen to the Arians, this one thing alone may be enough, that he believed Christ to be the most genuine Word of the Father, and did not, like them, distinguish a double Word, one eternal and not distinct from the Father, the other created by him. Nothing, naturally, was more hateful and detestable to the Arians, nor seemed more palpable to their adversaries, than the fact that the Son is called the very Wisdom of the Father, the very Word. No one, thinking the Word of God to be created and alien to the Father's substance, would be so insane as to introduce God deliberating with this Word, just as men deliberate among themselves, and creating and governing all things through that Word. Origen does not fear this comparison of the divine Word with the human. He assigns this difference between the two (hom. 19 *in Jerem.*, num. 1), that the divine subsists by itself: "For his Word," he says, "is such as the word of all things. For no one's word is living, no one's word is God: for no one's word was in the beginning with him, whose word it was." He adds that it is admirable in the Word of God "that he is God, that he is the living Word, that he subsists by himself and ministers to the Father."

Of what nature that ministry is, which the Son discharges, can be seen from lib. V *contra Celsum*, where, to Celsus who attacks the testimonies of Scripture in which God is said to act and command, he responds (num. 62): "If he had read the sayings of the prophets, with David saying, 'But you are the same'... he would have seen that none of us says that there is change in God, either in act or in thought. For, remaining the same, he administers changeable things, as is natural, and [index: entries preserved]

according to the prescription of his own Word. » In the same book, no. 64: « God giving essence to those to whom he gives it according to his Word and by the Word himself. » Let those who make Origen out to be an Arian attend to how they make him reason. For in that opinion which they attribute to him, he reasons thus: God does not change when he governs and creates changeable things, because he governs and creates them according to the prescription of a created and changeable thing. What, therefore, is more coeternal to God, and equal, and consubstantial, than that Word by whose prescribing and dictating he governs all things? These things might perhaps be dragged toward the Sabellian heresy if any such suspicion resided in Origen; but they absolutely cannot be dragged toward the Arian.

^B The same force is held by what he says in Vol. I on John, no. 22, p. 21: God, as wise architects are accustomed to do before they build anything, so before he created the world, described all things in his Wisdom. Origen was not ignorant that the Word had received all things from the Father, provided that he declares this in set terms in the place cited from the work *Against Celsus*; nor did that escape him which Augustine observes in Book XV *On the Trinity*, no. 28 and 37, that God is not wise by that wisdom which he begat, but by nature and order he is wise and rational before he begets Wisdom and Reason; but because he held for certain that the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, and that all paternal ideas are delivered to the Son, he not unfairly decided that the Son is the very Word of the Father, according to whose prescription the Father governs all things; the very Wisdom in which he described all things before the creation of the world.

^C Consistent with these principles is that which has been so often stated by Origen, that Christ is the Word himself, Truth itself, Wisdom itself. Thus he speaks in Vol. XIV on Matthew, no. 7, p. 622: « If the kingdom of heaven has been likened to such-and-such a king who has done such-and-such things, whom are we to call him if not the Son of God? For he himself is the King of the heavens, and just as he himself is Wisdom-itself, and Justice-itself, and Truth-itself, so perhaps also Kingdom-itself? » If the kingdom of heaven is likened to such a king, or one doing such things, what shall we say that it is, unless the Son of God? For he himself is the king of the heavens; and just as he is wisdom-itself, justice-itself, truth-itself, why perhaps is he not also kingdom-itself? Similarly, he calls Christ *autologos* (Word-itself), *autosophia* (Wisdom-itself), *autoaletheia* (Truth-itself), the Word himself, wisdom himself, truth itself, in Book III *Against Celsus*, no. 41, p. 474, and Book VI, no. 65, p. 680, and in the *Exhortation to Martyrdom*, no. 47. Why he calls Christ such, is gathered from these words in Book VI *Against Celsus*, no. 64: « Our Savior does not participate in holiness, but Justice-itself is that by which the just participate. » Nothing certainly more honorable can be said of Christ, nothing more suitable for overturning the Arian heresy, than that he is not a participant in justice and truth, but is Truth itself, Justice itself. Hence so often, which no less fights against the same heresy, he declares that there is only one Word: « I do not know, » he says in Homily 9 on Jeremiah, no. 1, « any other Word of the Lord, except this one about whom the evangelist has said, *In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God*. » (John 1:1.) Just as he teaches that there is one God, one Truth, one Wisdom, so he teaches that there is one Word in Vol. II on John, no. 3 and 4.

^D IV. How much Origen disagrees with the Arians is then also easily understood when one comes to his opinion on the eternity of the Word. Marcellus of Ancyra relates, in Eusebius (Eusebius, Book I *against Marcellus of Ancyra*, ch. 4, p. 22), this excellent testimony of Origen: « For God did not begin to be a Father, being hindered, as human fathers are, by the inability to be fathers. For if God is always perfect, and the power to be a Father is present with him, and it is good for him to be the Father of such a Son, why does he delay and deprive himself of that good, and, as far as it is possible to say, of that from which he can be the Father of a Son? The same must also be said concerning the Holy Spirit. » For God did not begin to be a Father, prevented before, like men who become fathers, because he was not yet able to be a Father. For if God is always perfect, and with him there is the faculty that he might become a Father, and it is a good that he should be the Father of such a Son, why does he delay, and deprive himself of the good? And that, so far as it is permissible to speak, from which he can be a Father of the Son? The same thing must also be said about the Holy Spirit. A place clearly twin to this occurs in Book I *On Principles*, ch. 2, no. 2.

Great Athanasius, in his book *On the Decrees of the Nicene Synod*, p. 233, cites two most excellent testimonies of his, of which the first holds thus: « If he is the image of the invisible God, he is an invisible image. I, however, would dare to add that, since he happens to be the likeness of the Father, there was never a time when he was not. For when was God, who is called Light according to John—for God is light—without the radiance of his own glory, so that someone might dare to grant a beginning to the Son, as if he were not previously? And when was the image of the ineffable and unnameable and unspeakable substance of the Father, the characteristic Word who knows the Father, not in existence? For let him discern—he who dares to say, *There was a time when the Son was not*—that he will also say this: *There was a time when Wisdom was not, and the Word was not, and Life was not*. » If he is the image of the invisible God; he is also the invisible image. I indeed will dare to add, since he is the likeness of the Father, that there was never a time when he was not. For when did God, who according to John is called light (for God is light [John 1:5]), not have the splendor of his own glory, so that anyone should dare to give the Son a beginning of existing, as if he had not existed before? When did the image of the ineffable, innominable, and inenarrable paternal hypostasis, and the character of the Word who knows the Father, not exist? Let him think, therefore, who dares to say: *There was a time when the Son was not*, that it is said by him that Wisdom was not, Reason was not, Life was not. Very similar things are read under the end of Book IV *On Principles*, no. 28.

Another testimony is read thus in Athanasius, ibid.: « But it is not right, and it is not safe, by reason of our infirmity, so far as it lies in us, to deprive God of the only-begotten Word, who is co-eternal with him, the Wisdom in whom he rejoiced. For so he would not be thought of as always rejoicing. » But neither is it allowed for us, nor is it without danger because of our infirmity, to deprive God, as far as within us lies, of his only-begotten Word who always co-exists with him, which is the Wisdom with whom he rejoiced. For thus he would not be understood as always rejoicing. In these places, not only is the eternity of the Son explained most accurately, but also his equality with the Father; since the fact that he says the image is invisible, if the Father is invisible, rests on this principle: whatever is in the Father is in the Son. Petavius admits (Book I *On the Trinity*, ch. 4) that these things are wondrous; and if anyone other than Athanasius were to provide the faith [of their authenticity], it would be feared that the suspicion of [Arianism] having been woven into Origen's books might arise. Huet does not deny...

that we find these things spoken by Origen in the places marked below, numbers 4 and 24; but that he said them in the sense in which the Nicene synod spoke is indeed something that cannot be confessed. But to the authority of Athanasius, which alone should suffice to ward off suspicions, are added many other testimonies of Origen, partly already cited, partly to be cited now, in which he asserts exactly the same concerning the Word and the splendor.

^B I shall begin with a notable passage from Homily 9 on Jeremiah, where Origen, demonstrating that we are in need of divine aid for every act and in every single moment of life, uses the example of the Savior, who, insofar as he is the splendor of the Father’s glory, is generated for as long as that light which produces the splendor exists. Thus, therefore, he speaks, no. 4, p. 181: "Let us see who our Savior is: the splendor of glory. The splendor of glory has not been generated once, and it is not being generated [now]. But for as long as there is light capable of producing splendor, for so long the splendor of the glory of God is generated. Our Savior is the Wisdom of God. Now Wisdom is the splendor of eternal light. If, therefore, the Savior is always generated, and for this reason he says, 'Before all the hills he begets me,' and not 'before all the hills he has begotten me,' but, 'before all the hills he is begetting me,' and the Savior is always being generated by the Father; so also you, if you have the Spirit of adoption, God always begets you in Him for every work, for every thought—and being thus generated, you become a son of God who is always being generated in Christ Jesus, to whom is glory and power for ever and ever, amen." ^C "Let us see what our Savior is: he is the splendor of glory. Now the splendor of glory is not generated once and then ceases to be generated: but for as long as the light exists that creates the splendor, for so long the splendor of the glory of God is generated. Our Savior is the Wisdom of God. Now Wisdom is the splendor of eternal light. If, therefore, the Savior is always generated, and for that reason he says: 'Before all the hills he begets me,' but not, 'before all the hills he has begotten me,' but, 'before all the hills he begets me' (Prov. viii, 25); and the Savior is always generated by the Father: so also you, if you have the Spirit of adoption, God always begets you in Him for every act and every thought: and while you are thus being generated, you become always a generated son of God in Christ Jesus, to whom be glory and power for ever and ever, amen."

Origen is consistent with himself in this opinion regarding the eternity of the Son: he interprets the passage from Proverbs as if he foresaw that the Arians would one day abuse it; and since he certainly knows that the Son is the splendor and wisdom of the Father, he does not hesitate to regard His eternity as being derived from the eternity of the Father. For which reason, if he did not believe the Son to be eternal, he would have to be said not to have left eternity even to the Father himself. For these words cannot admit of any other meaning: "For as long as the light exists that creates the splendor, for so long the splendor of the glory of God is generated." Jerome had rendered it less elegantly: "As often as the light has risen, from which the splendor rises, so often does the splendor of glory rise."

In the books *Against Celsus* we read the same doctrine no less clearly expressed. Refuting Celsus, who, among the Christians, asks why they pride themselves on the worship of one God when, in addition to Him, they also worship this recently appeared one, he speaks thus, book viii, no. 12: "We worship one God, as we have explained, the Father and the Son, and the argument concerning others remains steadfast for us; and we do not worship one who has but recently appeared, as if he did not exist before. For we are persuaded by Him who said: 'Before Abraham was, I am.' And who says: 'I am the truth.' And there is no one among us so much a slave as to think that the essence of truth did not exist before the times of Christ's appearing." "One God, therefore, as we have shown, we worship, ^D the Father and the Son; and we retain the integral reason against others; nor do we worship a recently risen one as if he had not existed before. For we believe Him who says: 'Before Abraham was, I am' (John viii, 58). Likewise: 'I am the truth' (John xiv, 6). Nor is any of us such a beast as to imagine that the substance of truth did not exist before the times of the coming of Christ." Many arguments for the eternity of Christ are found here in one testimony. 1. He must be as eternal as the Father himself: otherwise he will be no more one God with Him than the gods of the gentiles are with the highest and eternal God. 2. The phrase must be carefully observed, "as if he did not exist before," from which it is clear that nothing is worshipped by the Christians about which it could be said that it did not exist before some time. Furthermore, if they worshipped something not eternal, they would be worshipping a thing which, before it was created, did not exist. 3. He demonstrates that Christ existed before He came into this world from the fact that He is the truth; which reasoning, since it is taken from the very nature of truth, is founded on this principle: that no time or aeon can be assigned, without stupidity, when it could be said that Truth did not exist.

In the same sense must be taken both the fact that he demonstrates that Christ was the Son of God before He became man, when Celsus reproaches the Christians with novelty (book iii, no. 14), and the fact that he calls Him "the splendor of eternal light" (book v, no. 10). But I cannot omit that [passage] from book vi, no. 17: "For no one can know the ingenerate, and the firstborn of every generated nature, according to [its] dignity, as the Father who begat Him, nor [can anyone know] the Father, as His living Word and Wisdom and truth." For no one can know the uncreated and the firstborn of all created nature according to its dignity, as the Father who begat [Him] can; nor [can anyone know] the Father, as the living Word and His Wisdom and truth. Not only is the Son established by this testimony as uncreated and eternal, but also as equal to the Father; so that He Who comprehends the Father can no more be comprehended by created things than the Father Himself.

I would seem to betray Origen's cause if I did not extract something for his defense from the *Commentary on John*, from which so many things have been seized to accuse him. He, therefore, tom. i, no. 16 et seqq., explaining the beginning of John, *In the beginning was the Word*, distinguishes many beginnings: the beginning of passage/transition, which pertains to way and length; the beginning of genesis, that is, of creation or generation, to which that of Moses is referred: *In the beginning God created heaven and earth* (Gen. i, 1). Likewise that of Job: *This is the beginning of the molding of the Lord, made to be mocked by his angels* (Job xl, 15): the beginning from which something is made: the beginning *kata to eidos*, according to the exemplar; the beginning of discipline, just as when elements are called the beginning of grammar. He asks to which of these beginnings the words of John are to be referred; then he speaks thus, no. 22: "It is clear that [it is] not the beginning of transition, or of way and length; nor is it doubtful that [it is] not of genesis; except that it is possible [that it is] as the 'by whom,' which is the maker, since God commanded, and they were created [Ps. cxlviii, 5]. For in what way is Christ the Creator, when the Father says 'Let there be light,' etc.?" It is perspicuous that this beginning cannot be taken from the beginning of transition, or of way, or of length. But it is clear that neither of the beginning of creation, though [the term] can be accepted as the beginning "from whom," which is the efficient cause, if indeed God commanded, and they were created (Ps. cxlviii, 5). For Christ is in some way the Creator, to whom the Father said: "Let there be light, and, Let there be a firmament" (Gen. i, 3, 6). Origen does not think it inconvenient for the Word to be called the efficient beginning of creation, in that all things were created through Him; but he thinks it liquid and clear that He cannot be called the beginning of creation as if He had been created before all things. It ought not be bothersome,

^A so far as it can be done, to compress these things into a small space.

III. Let us start first with that charge, ^B concerning which Origen ^C says that Christ is in a certain way the Creator: for since heretics pretended that the Creator was greater than Christ, Origen is accustomed to contend that the Creator is greater than Christ—just as the Father is greater than the Son—by taking into account the origin.

In the same tome, nos. 31, 32, demonstrating that Christ is Teacher and Lord, and referring to Him that passage of Malachi: "If I be a Lord, where is my fear?" (Malach. 1, 6), he holds that this passage of the Psalm is even more honorable to Him: "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" (Psal. 11, 7). *But through all these things the nobility of the Son is not clearly presented. But when that [saying]: "Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee," is said to Him by God, to whom "today" always is—for there is no evening for God, and I think not even morning—but the time, if I may so speak, extending together with His unbegotten and eternal life is "today" to Him, in which the Son was begotten, the beginning of His generation being found just as little as that of the day.* Nevertheless, the nobility of the Son is not manifested by all these things: but then, when "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" is said to Him by God, to whom "today" is always; for there is neither evening of God, nor morning, in my judgment; but time, equal to His unbegotten and eternal life, so to speak, is "today" for Him, in which the Son was begotten; so that, just as of the day, so neither can the beginning of the generation be found.

He speaks no less magnificently at the beginning of tome 11, page 49, where, regarding what is wont to be said in the Old Testament, that the Word was made to the prophets, he compares it with these words of John: "And the Word was with God" (Joan. 1, 1). *But toward men, who were not previously capable of the visitation of the Son, of the God-Word, the Word is made; but toward God He is not made, as if He were not already toward Him. But it is said that He is always with the Father: "And the Word was with God"; for He was not made toward God. And the same word, "was," is predicated of the Word, that He was "in the beginning," and that [he means "because"] He was with God, neither being separated from the beginning, nor left behind by the Father; and again, neither from not being in the beginning, becoming in the beginning; nor from not happening to be with God, being made toward God in order to be with God. For before all time and aeon, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God."* "For the Word was indeed made toward men, who were previously not capable of the advent of the Son of God the Word. But toward God He is not made, as if He were not previously with Him. But because He always co-exists with the Father, therefore it is said: And the Word was with God. And that very word, 'was,' is said of the Word, because He was in the beginning, and was with God, neither separated from the beginning, nor left by the Father, nor, from the fact that He was not in the beginning, made in the beginning, nor, from the fact that He was not with the Father, made so as to be with the Father. For before all time and age, in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God."

The same author observes in the same tome 11, n. 13, page 72, that the Word was not made in the beginning; nor was there any time when the beginning—that is, Wisdom, the Word—was without the Word and Reason. In the same place, when he had said that life was made in the Word, and that the Word is in a certain way before life, because life is light, and there was no light of men before there were men, he warns lest anyone think that these things are said ^D *chronikos*—temporally—as if these things were not sometimes, but that these things, regarding men, are recounted in a certain series and order. Add to this what is in the same tome, no. 28, page 87, against the heretics who rejected the prophecies of the prophets concerning Christ as useless, he demonstrates that God wished it to be established by many arguments that *God, who is above all created things, was made man.*

V. It would be very unfair to evade so many excellent sentiments by the same escape which Petavius and Huetius have used; of whom one, in book i *De Trin.*, cap. 4, admits that the testimonies cited by Athanasius for the defense of Origen are indeed valid against the Arians, but denies that they suffice to affirm the *homoousion*, because Origen considered that creatures had existed from eternity with God; but Huetius, in question 2, n. 24 of this work, admits indeed that it follows from the example of light and radiance that the Son was begotten from the substance of the Father, but attributes this most foolish error to Origen, that the Son emanated from the substance of God no otherwise than matter itself, from all past eternity. That which the most learned bishop says—that matter, according to Origen’s opinion, is derived and procreated from God just as light is from the sun—since he does not make faith in his judgment with any argument, lightens for us the labor of refuting this invention, of which no trace exists in Origen. Unless someone perhaps should take in a worse sense what Origen says in book 1 *De princip.*, cap. 1, n. 6: *Sometimes our eyes cannot behold the very nature of light, that is, the substance of the sun: but looking upon its splendor or rays perhaps infused into windows and whatever other small receptacles, we can consider what and how great the source itself of corporeal light is. Thus, therefore, the works of Divine Providence and of this universe are, as it were, certain rays of God’s nature, in comparison of substance and nature. Because, therefore, our mind cannot behold God Himself by Himself, as He is; it understands the parent of the universe from the beauty of the works, and the comeliness of the creatures.* Whether this passage has been present in Huetius’s mind when he attributed such foolish dreams to Origen, I cannot affirm: but it is clear that creatures are called in it, as it were, certain rays of the divine nature, not because all things whatsoever are in God are also in creatures, as Origen teaches concerning the Son; but because the majesty and omnipotence of the Creator shine forth in them. To this is added what Origen says concerning the Son in tome 1 *in Joan.*, n. 50, pag. 52, that He is known from the works by those who cannot contemplate His divine nature.

As for the eternity of matter, or even of the world, it must be admitted that Origen, although he most often refutes those who wished the world to have been created from uncreated matter or by some inferior God; although he teaches that it is certain according to the faith of our history, *lib. III De princip., cap. 5, n. 1, that the world was made and began from a certain time*; yet he sometimes seems to incline toward that absurd opinion, that he does not disapprove that before this world some others dissimilar to it existed. Whether he considered these vicissitudes of worlds succeeding one another to be eternal, I do not examine; but even if he had considered them eternal, the testimonies of that work concerning the eternity and divinity of the Son would always stand in their own strength: for otherwise he would attribute eternity to the Son of God, otherwise to created things: to the former by conjecturing and doubting, to the latter by affirming and asserting: to the former, because otherwise God Almighty did not seem to have been always, unless He held something by His dominion; but to the latter, because He is God, the Word, Wisdom, Truth, the Splendor of the Father, and the most absolute image, to whom nothing is lacking that is indeed in the Father. Nay, he does not even consult only the omnipotence of the Father in this absurd opinion, but also that of the Son Himself. For he feared that even if the omnipotent Father, or the Son, the outflow of that omnipotence, were demonstrated to have always existed, unless created things had existed, over which the Father and the Son, to whom he attributes one and the same omnipotence, would have dominion. This is to be read in lib. I *De princip.*, cap. 2, n. 10. Wherefore these things concerning

^A the eternity of the world, or if you will, the eternity of opinion, no more harms the eternity of the Son than it does the Father. Hence Hermogenes, who even more absurdly fashioned uncreated matter, had uttered nothing new concerning the Son of God, as Tertullian testifies; nor are the consequences, which Tertullian rightly deduces from his opinion, more of an injury to the Son than to the Father.

VI. It is very easy to gather the equality of the Son with the Father, and the singularity of substance in both, from the testimonies already brought forward. For if the Son is the eternal splendor of the paternal glory; if he comprehends the Father; if whatever is in the Father is also in the Son; there is no doubt but that the whole substance of the Father was communicated to him. But this doctrine of Origen is more expressly set down in many other places, especially in *Hom. 8 in Jerem*., n. 2, where, after he had cited that proverb: *The Lord by wisdom founded the earth, he prepared the heavens by prudence* (Prov. III, 19), he speaks thus: ^B "There is, therefore, a certain prudence of God, which I bid you seek in Christ Jesus. For whatever things are of God, such are in him. Christ is the Wisdom of God, he himself is the power of God, he himself is the justice of God, he himself is sanctification, he himself is redemption, he himself is the prudence of God." *There is therefore some prudence of God, which I bid you seek in Christ Jesus. For whatever things are of God, they are in him: he is his wisdom, he is his fortitude, he is his sanctification, he is his justice, he is his holiness and redemption, he is the prudence of God.* Nothing, indeed, can be said more significantly regarding the numerical unity of essence and its equality, than that all the attributes of the Father are in the Son, as Origen declares in these express words. He derives this opinion from the words of Christ in *Tom. XX in Joan.*, n. 30, p. 359, where he speaks thus: "But if he also says: *My judgment is just* (John V, 30); hear him in the Gospel itself saying: *All mine are thine* (John XVII, 10). For if what was said by the Savior is true, *All mine are thine*, it is clear that the judgment, of which he says, *My judgment is just*, is the Father's judgment."

From this opinion he derives an excellent argument in *lib. VIII contra Celsum*, n. 13. When Celsus was mocking Christians, because, while they would not allow other gods to be worshipped along with the supreme God, they themselves worshipped Christ along with the supreme God; Origen replies that the Son is worshipped with the Father because he is one with the Father, and the Father has handed over all his own things to him by begetting him. ^C And he speaks thus: "Our faith, therefore, is in God through his Son, who confirms this in us. And Celsus can show no dissension among us concerning the Son of God; we worship the Father, admiring his Son, the Word, and Wisdom, and Truth, and Justice, and everything we have learned that the Son of God is, and so too [we worship] him who was begotten from such a Father." These last words will contain no sense unless we read: *everything we have learned that God himself is*. Wherefore I think it ought to be rendered thus: "Therefore our faith in God abides, through his own Son, who confirms it in us: nor is there any reason why Celsus should object any sedition to us on account of the Son. For we worship the Father, admiring his Son, who is the Word, and Wisdom, and Truth, and Justice, and everything we have learned that he is; just as [we worship] God himself, so also [we worship] him who is begotten of such a Father."

VII. Nor should those things be omitted which are read in *Tom. XIII in Joan.*, n. 36, where Origen speaks thus: "A fitting food for the Son of God, when he becomes the maker of the paternal will, is to do this willing in himself, which was also in the Father, so that the will of God is in the will of the Son, changeless from the will of the Father, so that there are no longer two wills, but one will. Which one will was the cause of the Son saying: *I and the Father are one*; and for this reason, he who sees the will, has seen the Son, and has seen also him who sent him." *A becoming food for the Son of God, when he effects the paternal will, is to effect this willing in himself, which was in the Father; so that the will of God is in the will of the Son, in no way different from the will of the Father, lest there be any longer two wills, but one will; which indeed is the one will that is the cause why the Son says: I and the Father are one (John X, 30). And because of this will, he who sees the Son, sees also him who sent him.* The similarity of essence was not sufficient for Basil; but if anyone used that word ^D ἀπαράλλακτον, *alike in all things*, he considered him clearly and completely purified and approved, as is evident from his *Epist. 9*. Who, therefore, would not approve of Origen, who of his own accord proclaims those things which seemed, even in the most suspicious times, most apt to repel all suspicion?

VI. When the same Celsus asked in jest whether God, because he is great and difficult to contemplate, had sent his own Spirit, Πνεῦμα ἴδιον, cast down into our body, to be heard and learned from, Origen replies, *lib. VI*, n. 69: "Not alone is the God and Father of all great according to our doctrine; for he has communicated even of his own greatness to the Only-Begotten and firstborn of all creation; so that he, being the image of the invisible God, might preserve the image of the Father even in his magnitude. For it was not possible for it to be commensurate, if I may so call it, with a beautiful image of the invisible God, if it did not also represent the image of his magnitude... Let God indeed be difficult to contemplate; but he is not alone difficult to contemplate to anyone; but his Only-Begotten also is. For the Word of God is difficult to contemplate; and Wisdom is difficult to contemplate, in which God has made all things." *Not alone is the God and Father of all great according to our doctrine; for he communicated even his own magnitude to the Only-Begotten and firstborn of all creation, so that when he himself is the image of the invisible God, he may keep the image of the Father even in that magnitude: for it could not be, that he should be of the same, if I may so speak, measure, as the beautiful image of the invisible God, if he did not also exhibit the image of his magnitude... Let God therefore be difficult to contemplate, but not alone, but even his Only-Begotten himself. For the Word of God is difficult to contemplate, and for that same reason, the Wisdom in which God made all things is also difficult.* Therefore, according to Origen, the Son is equal to the Father, and his most accurate measure and most perfect image, not less invisible, not less great than the exemplar himself; since God has handed over his own magnitude, or, what is the same, his whole substance, to the Son.

Origen continues, *Tom. XIII in Joan.*, n. 36: "...And it is rather more fitting for us to think that the will of the Father is being performed by the Son, from which will also the things outside the willer were rightly made, than that we, without investigating the things concerning the will, should think that to perform the will of the sender, while [he] says... something outside is being done... For that, I say, which comes to pass outside the willer, apart from the aforementioned will, is not the whole will of the Father: but the whole will of the Father is what is being done by the Son, when the willing of God, coming to be in the Son, does these things which the will of God wishes. And the Son alone makes all the will of the Father to be contained [leg. contained]. Wherefore he is his image. One must also consider the Holy Spirit." *And truly it is more decorous that we should understand the will of the Father, by which will indeed the things that are outside the willer were excellently made, to be thus performed by the Son, rather than that, not investigating what*

^A dogma contains this, Thomas did not indicate; but Fulgentius, in his Response to the 7th Arian objection, shows that Origen’s words refer to this will, that we should deem it to be the same to do the will of Him who sent him as to do something externally. For that which is done outside the willer, apart from the aforementioned will, is not the whole will of the Father; but the whole will of the Father is indeed performed by the Son, since the will of God, generated in the Son, does those things which the will of God desires. For the Son alone performs and receives the whole will of the Father; and for this reason, he is His image: this, moreover, must also be considered regarding the Holy Spirit. To the same effect, in *Contra Celsum*, book VII, no. 12, he teaches that the Father and the Son are one in the identity of their will, *ταυτότητι θελήματος*. Light does not differ from darkness more than this opinion of Origen differs from the inventions of the Arians. For they drew this obedience of the Son to the paternal commands toward a dissimilarity of nature; but Origen posits that the will of the Father is performed by the Son, not because the Son carries out the Father’s commands like some minister, but because the Son alone receives the whole will of the Father, and, the whole will of the Father being generated in the Son, he does those things which the will of God desires. Hence, Origen repeats the rationale of the image, and declares it not obscurely to consist in this, that the entire substance of the Father is in the Son. Hence, in *Commentary on Matthew*, book XV, no. 10, he speaks thus: “And the Savior, just as He is the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15), so also He is the image of His goodness (Wis. 7:26).” From which it is clear that Origen allowed nothing in the exemplar that he would not admit in the image. Similarly, in *Commentary on John*, book XX, no. 18, p. 450: “For I think that the Son is the radiance of the whole glory of God... For I do not think that anyone can grasp the radiance of the whole glory of God, except His Son.” “And indeed, I believe the Son to be the splendor of the entire glory of God Himself. For I do not believe that anyone can grasp the entire splendor of the whole glory of God, except His Son.” ^B From the same principle he concludes that the entire knowledge of the Father is in the Son, in *Commentary on John*, book I, no. 27: “But if anyone asks whether our Savior knows everything that has been known by the Father according to the depth of His riches and wisdom and knowledge, and, by a fancy of honoring the Father, asserts that some things known by the Father are ignored by the Son, [not] being sufficient to be equalized to the graspings of the unbegotten God, one must observe Him from the fact that the Savior is the Truth, and one must conclude that if the Truth is whole, it ignores no truth, so that the Truth does not limp, failing in those things which it does not know, which, according to them, happen to be only in the Father; or let someone demonstrate that there are things known that do not reach the name of truth, but are situated above it.” “But if anyone should inquire whether our Savior knows whatever is known to the Father according to the depth of His riches and wisdom, and, for the sake of glorifying the Father, proclaims that some things known to the Father are unknown to the Son, as if He could not be equal to the cognitions of the unbegotten God; to this one must be told that the Savior is the Truth, and it must be noted that, if the Truth is integral, it knows nothing that is true as ignored, lest the Truth should limp, failing in those things which it does not know, when, according to them, they are in the Father alone: or let someone demonstrate that there are certain things which, though known, do not have the name of truth, but are situated above it.”

VIII. Origen declares his opinion regarding the Holy Spirit not obscurely in *Commentary on John*, book XIII, no. 36, where, demonstrating that the whole will of the Father is in the Son, he bids that the same be considered and understood regarding the Holy Spirit. “But this, he says, must also be considered regarding the Holy Spirit.” And that he says this without hesitation, but from those things which he had established about the Son, what is to be thought about the Spirit, the judgment of the readers ^C will determine. We certainly read this in *Commentary on John*, book II, no. 18, page 76, to allow, since it is evident from those things which he subjoins: “But the rest of the saints, he says, will indeed do nothing apart from the will of the Father, not, however, so that the whole will of God is imprinted in them;” then from the fact that in book II on the same evangelist, no. 6, he teaches that whatever things are in the Son, those are also in the Holy Spirit, and that for this reason He is not the Son, because He is in need of the Son, so that He might receive all these things. There was no doubt, therefore, in Origen that the whole will of the Father is in the Holy Spirit just as it is in the Son. Hence, just as he pronounces the Father not to be separable from the Son, so he pronounces the Son not to be separable from the Spirit in *Commentary on Matthew*, book XIII, no. 19, where he interprets that child, whom Jesus placed in the midst of the disciples, as the Holy Spirit, and speaks of Him thus: “It behooves one to receive that child from Jesus Himself in the name of Jesus, from whom Jesus is by no means separated, in the one who has received the child, so that it is said to this effect: Whoever receives this child in my name, receives me (Luke 9:48). Then truly the Father, because He cannot be separated from the Son, is with him who has received the Son; whence it is said: And whoever receives me, receives Him who sent me (ibid.). In the same way, therefore, the Spirit is one with the Son, just as the Son himself is with the Father: furthermore, since for this reason the Son, according to Origen’s doctrine, is one with the Father, because the whole will of the Father or essence was handed over to Him by the Father; it is necessary that the same essence be likewise handed over and communicated to the Holy Spirit.

He speaks to the same effect in book XIV, no. 6, where he teaches that the whole knowledge of the Son is in the Holy Spirit: “Just as, he says, no one of those who are human knows the things of a man, unless the spirit which is in him; and no one has known the things of God, except the Spirit of God (I Cor. 2:11); so, the things which Christ spoke in proverbs and parables, no one knows after God except the Spirit of Christ, of whom whoever shall have been a participant, not only insofar as He is the Spirit of Christ, but also insofar as He is of Christ, as Wisdom, as the Word, he will be able to contemplate in his mind those things which have been opened and revealed to him on this passage.” In *Commentary on John*, book XX, no. 18, these things are read: “I do not think that anyone can perceive all the splendor of the whole glory of God, except the Son of God. If you add also His Spirit to Him, you would speak and think most excellently and most absolutely about God.” But these last words, which were omitted by Ferrarius, Huet supplied, appearing to have crept from the margin into the text. For thus the Greek has: *Εἰ προσέθου καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ αὐτοῦ, ἄριστά σοι ἂν ἐθεολογεῖτο καὶ τελειότατα.* If you had added His Spirit, you would have spoken and thought ^D most excellently and most absolutely about divine things. It is clear that these were not written by Origen, but noted by another who was annoyed that the Holy Spirit was omitted in this passage. But this notation is little justified. For ecclesiastical writers are not wont, when they discourse about the Son, always to touch upon those things which pertain to the Holy Spirit. Origen does this sometimes, as in *Commentary on John*, book I, no. 23, where, establishing that there are many things in God which no reality having its existence from another could comprehend, he specifically excepts Christ and the Holy Spirit. In many other places, he joins the Spirit with the Son; which is proof that He is not excluded, if at any time He is passed over. But in that passage which made some reader squirm, Origen observes, after it has been demonstrated that the Father is glorified in the Son, that it can be asked not unsuitably how He is also glorified in the Holy Spirit, and in all those through whom the glory of the Lord has appeared or will appear. Then he establishes that the Son is the splendor of the whole glory; “but yet, that particular splendors arrive from this splendor of the whole glory to the rest of the rational creature...”

^A that God is light, and some imagine that from this it is established that He does not differ in substance from the Son (John 14:25); but if He does not have the Holy Spirit, the soul is desolate. It is inhabited, however, when it is full of God, when it has Christ and the Holy Spirit. But these things are said differently and in various ways in the Scriptures, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit dwell in the soul of man. For David also, in the psalm of confession, asks for three Spirits, saying: “Confirm me with a principal Spirit: renew a right Spirit in my bowels: take not thy holy Spirit from me” (Ps. 50:14, 12, 13). Who are these three Spirits? The principal Spirit is the Father: the right Spirit is Christ: the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit. Origen does not admit three Spirits separated from each other or three Gods (for how could they dwell together in the same soul?), but three persons, of whom each one is Spirit and God. Gregory Nazianzen does not hesitate to speak in the same sense that there is one God in three splendors, one nature in three lights (Carm. p. 154). He calls the three persons “the three greatest” (Orat. 24, p. 428). Sometimes, however, he counts three hypostases in one splendor and glory, as in Orat. 30, p. 496.

He teaches that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one cloud that overshadows the just. “What,” he says in *Tom. XI in Matth.*, no. 42, “is that luminous cloud overshadowing the just? Is it perhaps the paternal power, from which the Father’s voice proceeds? ... Perhaps also the Holy Spirit is the luminous cloud overshadowing the just, and uttering the oracles of the God who works in Him and says: ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased’ (Matt. 17:5). Nay, I will even boldly declare our Savior to be a luminous cloud ... For a luminous cloud of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit overshadows the true disciples of Jesus. ^B For a cloud of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit overshadows the true disciples of Jesus.” So also *Tom. VI in Joan.*, no. 29: “God is in the river that makes glad the city of God: for the Father is in the Son. For this reason, those who go to Him, in order to be washed, lay aside the stain brought from Egypt and become more fit to be carried and are cleansed from leprosy, and are even made ready for the reception of the Holy Spirit; forsooth, ^C as the spiritual dove flies to no other river.”

If the Son is the river in which the Father is, and from whom the Spirit is not separated, it is not to be wondered at if those three persons are equally to be thirsted for and worshipped, so that if anyone refuses to worship one, he worships none. Origen teaches this also in clear words in *Homil. 18 in Jerem.*, no. 9, p. 251: “Whoever,” he says, “has so thirsted for God as to say: ‘My soul has thirsted for the living God’ (Ps. 41:3)? Who has so thirsted for the breasts of the Rock, while the Rock was Christ? (1 Cor. 10:4). Who has so thirsted for the Holy Spirit as to say: ‘As the hart desireth the fountains of waters, so my soul desireth thee, O God’ (Ps. 41:2)? Unless we have thirsted for the three fountains of waters, we shall find no fountain of waters.” (For if we do not thirst for the three fountains of waters, we shall find no fountain of the waters.) The Jews seemed to thirst for the one fountain of waters, God; but because they did not thirst for Christ and the Holy Spirit, they could not drink of God either. ^D Likewise, heretics seemed to thirst for Christ Jesus; but because they did not thirst for the Father, who is the God of the Law and the prophets, they do not drink of Christ either. But those who indeed preserve one God, but despise the prophets, have not thirsted for the Holy Spirit, who speaks in the prophets: therefore they drink neither from the paternal fountain, nor from Him who cried out in the temple and said: “If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink” (John 7:37). This passage will be easily explained if the term *ousia* is translated as *persona*, or

^A if one concludes that Origen attributed one substance to the Father and another to the Son. But this is certainly not clear enough: for he does not deny that it can be simply gathered from these two passages of John that the Father does not differ from the Son in substance; he certainly does not say that they do not differ. Ferrarius, the interpreter of Origen, saw this and noted it. The meaning of the passage seems to be made clearer by what follows, in which Origen says that he who will have attended more carefully, and wished to speak more soundly, will say that the Father, who is light, differs from the Son, who is likewise light, in so far as the light of the Son shines in darkness, and is opposed by them; when, indeed, by the assumed name of *ousia*, that is, of substance, a *persona* is understood. Nor is it necessary to use the indulgence which Huet gives, so that Origen may not be said to reproach those who maintained that the Father does not differ from the Son in *ousia*, but only those who deduced this opinion from these two passages of John. He definitely reproaches the opinion itself, as is evident from the following words, which bring light to this passage: “Ὁ δέ τις ἀκριβέστερον τηρήσας, ὁ καὶ ὑγιέστερον λέγων, φήσει οὐ ταὐτὸν εἶναι τὸ φαῖνον ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φῶς, καὶ μὴ καταλαμβανόμενον ὑπ’ αὐτῆς, καὶ τὸ φῶς, ἐν ᾧ οὐδαμῶς ἐστι σκοτία.” “But whoever will have observed more diligently, and will have spoken more correctly, will say that the light that shines in darkness, not comprehended by it, is not the same as the light in which there are in no way any darkness.” From these it seems to be concluded first that the Catholic doctrine, which defends the one and singular substance of the Father and the Son, is not refuted by Origen; but rather the heretics, who, in order to escape the difficulty of believing such a great mystery, wanted the Father and the Son to be *tauton*, that is, one and the same thing and person. For that *tauton*, which forbids it being said of the Father and the Son, has this force and nature, as is evident even from this same passage in which, inquiring why the holy ^C evangelist said: “In him was life, and the life was the light of men” (John 1:4), and thus placed life before light, he answers that life and light, although *tauton*, one and the same, are considered in various ways. 2nd, Since the heretics whom Origen refutes understood one *persona* by the name of one essence, there is no doubt but that Origen subjected the same meaning to the same word, and under the name of one essence rejected the singularity of the *persona*. This observation is confirmed from the fact that Origen, while he refutes this heresy, is not carried to the opposite, but keeps the middle course, as the Catholic Church has always held. For if he defends against the heretics the true Son for God, he does not posit any other distinction of the Father and the Son than that which is deduced from the very notion of Father and Son. For after he demonstrated that it does not befall the Father to shine in darkness and suffer persecution from darkness, because these refer to the incarnation of the Son, he adds this third reason: “Thirdly, he says, this light is called the true light, in which respect the Father, as God of truth, is more ample and greater than truth; and since the Father is Wisdom, he transcends the true light as much as he transcends Wisdom itself.” He therefore defends the mystery which the wicked heretics were overthrowing; and he brings forward no other reason why the Father should be distinguished from the Son, why the Son should be greater, except that the Father of the true Son is true. 3rd, I will not unwillingly confess that the same thing was done by Origen as by many other very accurate Fathers, who, although they hold one and singular essence in three persons, because however this essence has some properties in the Father, others in the Son, sometimes having regard for such personal properties, they distinguish the essence of the Son from the essence of the Father. Nothing therefore is strange if Origen in this passage distinguishes the true light from the Father of true light, nay, even contends that the Father and the Son are two lights in the same place: “Παραστατικώτερον δὲ δύο φῶτα τὸν Πατέρα καὶ τὸν Υἱὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ Δαβὶδ τυγχάνειν διὰ τούτων εἰσόμεθα, ὅ γέ φησιν ἐν τριακοστῷ πέμπτω ψαλμῷ ἐν φωτί σου ὀψόμεθα φῶς.” ^{D A} natura humana inferiorem se gessit paterna luce, quae non lucet in tenebris: “Ὁ γὰρ λόγῳ, inquit num. 21, ὁ Πατὴρ μόνος ἔχει ἀθανασίαν, τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν διὰ φιλανθρωπίαν θάνατον τὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀνειληφότος, τούτῳ ὁ Πατὴρ ἔχει μόνος τό· σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία, τοῦ Χριστοῦ διὰ τὴν πρὸς ἀνθρώπους εὐεργεσίαν ἐφ᾽ αὑτὸν ἡμῶν σκοτίας ἀναδεδεγμένου.” (76) Sed vere tamen ne de Platonicae doctrinae narthecio deprompta ista sint. Docebat siquidem Plato τἀγαθόν, sive Deum Patrem, creasse νοῦν, mundo proximum, qui qua parte respiciebat Patrem, ejus ^B Apertius autem Patrem et Filium duas luces exsistere per haec a Davide sciemus, psalmo quinto et tricesimo dicente: In lumine tuo videbimus lumen (Psal. xxxv, 10). Quid igitur? an Origenem dicemus ab egregiis principiis, quae alibi statuit de identitate voluntatis et essentiae, discedere? Ne digitum quidem discedit; sed quemadmodum recte dicitur lumen de Patre et Filio lumen, una voluntas, sic Origenes lucem ex luce agnoscit. Deinde vero illud memoria tenendum est Origenem contra hujusmodi haereticos disserere, quos inter et Catholicos de singularitate divinae naturae conveniebat; in eo autem controversia erat, quod isti Patrem, et Filium et Spiritum sanctum, tria ejusdem naturae variis modis consideratae nomina, Catholici vero tres personas esse contenderent. Quamobrem contra hanc haeresim usui erant Scripturae testimonia quae Patrem a Filio, non solo nomine, non varia tantum ejusdem rei considerandae ratione, sed ut voluntatem ex voluntate, essentiam ex essentia distinguunt. Haec domnus Prudentius Maran in lib. IV De divinitate Christi, cap. 15, num. 3. (76) Sed vere tamen. Perperam timet Huetius ne de Platonicae doctrinae narthecio depromptum sit quod Patrem Origenes in tenebris lucere negat, Filium asserit. Ipse enim mentem suam non multo post aperit. Nam cum id durum et insolens videri posset, quaerit, quam ob causam cum Salvator sit impeccabilis, et lux in qua nullae tenebrae, id tamen Patri proprium tribuatur ut tenebrae in eo non sint ullae. Respondet Salvatorem pro nobis factum esse peccatum: “Ὁ γὰρ λόγῳ (inquit num. 21) ὁ Πατὴρ μόνος ἔχει ἀθανασίαν, τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν διὰ φιλανθρωπίαν θάνατον τὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀνειληφότος, τούτῳ ὁ Πατὴρ ἔχει μόνος τό· σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία, τοῦ Χριστοῦ διὰ τὴν πρὸς ἀνθρώπους εὐεργεσίαν ἐφ᾽ αὑτὸν τὰς ἡμῶν σκοτίας ἀναδεδεγμένου, ἵνα τῇ δυνάμει αὐτοῦ καταργήσῃ ἡμῶν τὸν θάνατον, καὶ ἐξαφανίσῃ τὸ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ ἡμῶν σκότος, ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ παρὰ τῷ Ἡσαΐᾳ, ὁ λαὸς ὁ καθήμενος ἐν σκοτίᾳ φῶς εἶδε μέγα.” Nam qua ratione solus Pater habet immortalitatem, quia Dominus noster ^D mortem pro nobis ob amorem erga genus humanum pertulit; hac Pater solus habet ut in ipso nullae sint tenebrae cum Christus, ut homines beneficio afficeret, tenebras nostras in se ipsum receperit, ut potentia sua mortem nostram deleret, expelleretque animarum nostrarum tenebras, nimirum ut impleretur illud Isaiae: Populus, qui sedebat in tenebris, vidit lucem magnam (Isa. ix, 2). Siccine a Platonicis non abludit, qui Filium in tenebris lucere ait, quia nostra causa incarnatus et mortuus est? Tertullianus lib. adversus Praxeam, cap. 15, eamdem haeresim refellens idcirco Paulum existimat de Patre dixisse, qui solus habet immortalitatem, et lucem habitat inaccessibilem, ut et contraria ipsi Filio ascriberemus, mortalitatem, accessibilitatem, quem mortuum contestatur secundum Scripturas, et novissime a se visum per accessibilem utique lucem. Haec domnus Prudentius Maran lib. IV De divinitate Christi, cap. 15, num. 3.

was similar, otherwise than as the lower things. Macrobius, lib. 1 ^A on the Dream of Scipio, cap. 14, according to the opinion of Plato, discusses it thus: “God, who is the first cause, both is and is called the one of all things that are, and that are seen to be, the prince and origin. He, from the superabundant fecundity of his majesty, created from himself a mind. This mind, which is called *nous*, by which it looks upon the Father, preserves the full likeness of the author; but it creates the soul from itself, looking back at what follows. The Pythagoreans used to affirm that the *nous* was the creator of this world.” Origen does not deviate from these men when he says that the Father does not shine in darkness, but the Son is inferior to the Father in that he shines in darkness, and is opposed by those same things; for the things created by him, and men especially, being forgetful of his benefits, despise the laws and mandates of their author.

(77) The resolution of those passages which are set forth in book VIII against Celsus, no. 12, is even more difficult: *“If anyone is troubled, lest we might be defecting to those who deny that there are two hypostases, Father and Son, let him consider that which says: ‘And the heart and soul of all who believed were one,’ so that he might contemplate that: ‘I and the Father are one’”;* and thereafter: *“We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth, and being two things by hypostasis, yet one in unanimity and in concordance and in the identity of will.”* He says that the Father and the Son are two by hypostasis, one by consent and concord. (78) Yet *hypostasis* ^B was accustomed to be used by the ancients, both heathens and Christians, for *ousia*. Jerome, epistle 57 to Damasus: “The whole school of secular literature knows *hypostasis* as nothing other than *ousia*.” Thus the Nicene Fathers took it, thus the Sardican Fathers. And it is likely that Origen took it so as well. Indeed, in the first tome on John, no. 23, he speaks thus about the Valentinians: “Thinking that there is a paternal procession, as if existing in syllables, the Son of God, and according to this a hypostasis for him, if we were to inquire strictly of them, they do not provide, nor do they clarify his *ousia*.” Where he does indeed distinguish *hypostasis* from *ousia*, but he does not take it as *person*, but as *subsistence*, for he calls *person* by its own term, *idioteta*. Moreover, since he said the Father and the Son are one by consent and concord, ^C after he taught that they are two by hypostasis, the word *hypostasis* seems clearly to have been applied to denote substance: for if in the former place he had signified that they were two with regard to persons, he would have added surely that they were one with regard to *ousia*. But since he wrote that they are one by consent alone, he seems to have rejected every other unity, and to have believed that they were two with regard to *ousia*. That Antiochenan convention celebrated in the year 341, in the *Exposition of the Ecclesiastical Faith*, which Exposition Athanasius and Hilary report in the books *On the Synods* against the Arians, uses similar phrasing: “Manifest indeed, it says, of the Father, truly of the Father; and certain of the Son, truly of the Son; and known of the Holy Spirit, truly of the Holy Spirit.”

(77) The resolution of these passages might indeed seem easy at first glance; but if they are inspected more attentively and deeply, they will provide a most illustrious testimony of numerical unity in the divine substance. 1. The caution applied by Origen, lest he seem to hold the same as the Noetians, is an argument that he held that middle path between the Arian and Sabellian heresy, as the Catholic Church has always held. For who, dissociating three persons far and wide, would think that he must guard against, and fear, that he might seem to confound them? 2. Origen does indeed repeat the unity of God from the concord and consent between the Father and the Son, but he places this consent in the identity of will: which way of speaking, while it designates of its own accord the will, or essence, of the Father communicated to the Son, certainly does not allow for another sense in this place. For to the heretics, who imagine one will or essence and hypostasis in the Father and the Son, he concedes that there is one will, but requires two hypostases. But if, as he admitted two hypostases, he also admitted two wills, why in the one instance does he give ground to the sentiment of the heretics, while he so obstinately debates the other? Especially since he takes pains to distinguish what in the Trinity suffers number, and what does not. Moreover, he declares from this identity of will that it happens that he who has seen the Son has also seen the Father. This is indeed excellent if the whole of the Father's will is handed down and communicated to the Son: for this being posited, it follows that there is nothing in the Father that is not in the Son, and that the Father is seen while the Son is seen. But if the identity of will is nothing other than the obedience of the Son toward the Father, who is so absurd as to conclude from such obedience that the Son is equal to the Father, and that the Father is seen while the Son is seen? 3. In this place Origen refutes what Celsus was saying most unjustly was done by Christians, namely, that when they themselves do not hesitate to worship this one who recently arose (for so he designated Christ) along with the supreme God, they would not grant the same permission to others to add ministers to the supreme God. ^D Origen replies that Celsus would have thought otherwise about the Christians if he had understood that: “I and the Father are one” (John x, 30), and, “The Father is in me, and I in the Father” (ibid. 38). Then, having applied caution lest anyone should brand him with the mark of the Noetian heresy, he concludes against Celsus against the Christians worshipping one God, Father and Son—things indeed two by hypostasis, but one by identity of will. The cause of the Church could not be defended more accurately: for from the unity of substance in the Father and the Son, the unity of God necessarily follows. But if Origen had invoked the cited words of Scripture for the obedience of the Son and a consent of wills, as was done by the Arians, how did he seem to himself to worship one God? Would not Celsus have objected with the same right a consent of wills between the supreme God and his ministers? Or was Origen so absurd that he did not see himself reverting into that which he was criticizing in the heathens; or was he so wicked that he was dissimulating? These are the words of D. Prudens Maran, in *On the Divinity of Christ*, lib. IV, cap. 15, no. 6. See further Bull, *Defense of the Nicene Faith* on the *homoousios* of the Son, sect. 2, cap. 9, no. 11.

(78) “Yet *hypostasis* was accustomed to be used for *ousia* by ancient writers, etc. Even if I were to concede that in the case of a few writers, it could certainly not be conceded in the case of Origen; but many others have used this word in the same sense. Even the heretics themselves, when they admitted one hypostasis, did they not understand *person* by the name of hypostasis? To omit Alexander of Alexandria who in his epistle to Alexander of Constantinople teaches the same as Origen; Athanasius, who brought three hypostases into concord with unity; Basil and Gregory Nazianzen, and other defenders of three hypostases; both Dionysii, the Roman and the Alexandrian, six bishops, whose epistle to Paul of Samosata exists, interpreted *hypostasis* in the same way as Origen.” — These are the words of D. Prud. MARAN, *On the Divinity of Christ*, cap. 15, no. 6. See also Bull, as above.

^A The author of the book *On the Trinity*, which is ascribed to Novatian and commonly held to be among the works of Tertullian, cap. 22, disputing against the same heresy which decreed that the Son differed from the Father by name only, used almost the same words and certainly the same sentiment as the Council of Antioch. For he thus explains that passage of John, *I and the Father are one* 10: “One,” he says, “placed neutrally, sounds as the society of concord, not the unity of person. For ‘one’ is not said as ‘one person,’ because it is not referred to number, but expressed as a society of another. Finally, he adds by saying, ‘We are,’ not ‘I am,’ in order to show by this that he said, ‘We are, both I and the Father,’ two persons. But that which he says, ‘one,’ pertains to concord and the same sentiment and to that very society of charity, so that by merit the Father and the Son are ‘one’ through concord, and through love, and through affection.” But whether the sentiment and locution of this author and of Hilary are correct, I do not inquire.

...of the Holy Spirit: and by these names ^A not simply nor with idle propositions, but with those effectively signifying the proper substance of each of the named, and the order, and the glory, so that they are indeed three in substance, but one in consonant agreement. You might say these latter points were culled from Origen; which Hilary nevertheless excused and softened when he said that the synod was not convened against those who recognize that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit differ in substance, but against those who, after the times of the Nicene synod, set forth that there is one person in the Trinity, namely the Father, but distinguished by three names. To oppose them, the Antiochenes said that there are “three substances” (the words are Hilary’s, interpreting *hypostasis* according to his custom as *substance*), teaching that the persons of those existing are substances, not separating the substance of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit by a diversity of dissimilar essence. Then he subjoins: “But that which was said, that they are indeed three by substance, but one by consonant agreement, does not contain calumny. Because with the Spirit named, that is the Paraclete, it refers to concord rather than essence by...

10 John x, 30.

(79) But why do we attempt to offer a defense ^C of Origen, when he himself betrays his own cause in *Comm. on John*, tom. 2, num. 3, where, in attacking the singularity of a certain person in the Trinity, he condemns it and requires that distinction which is not contained by thought and names alone? Similarly, in *Comm. on John*, tom. 2, num. 2, he institutes a double class of heretics who boast of the worship of one God: “Either those who deny that the property of the Son is other than that of the Father, confessing as God him who is among them called Son in name only; or those who deny the divinity of the Son, but set forth his property and essence as subsisting by itself, and as other than that of the Father.” Therefore, with Origen, “properties,” “person,” “suppositum,” and “essence subsisting by itself” sound the same. I will not add for my own use what Huetius seems to concede, that those are censured by Origen who placed another substance in the Son than in the Father. He does not censure them, but rather praises them; and rightly so, for [substance] is nothing other than essence circumscribed and defined by its own properties, or subsisting by itself. This manner of speaking, which is of great importance for explaining the doctrine of Origen, he himself explains thus towards the end of *Comm. on John*, tom. 1, num. 42, p. 47: “And furthermore, to the [notion] of admitting that the Word has his own circumscription, such as subsisting by himself, one must speak also concerning powers, and not only concerning power. ‘Thus says the Lord of powers,’ is placed in many places, of certain rational divine living powers being named, of which the one above and better was Christ, being addressed not only as the Wisdom of God but also as Power. Just as therefore there are several powers of God, of which each is by circumscription, of which the Savior is different, so also the Word, even if the one among us is not by circumscription outside of us, Christ will be understood through the things already examined, having his *hypostasis* in the beginning in the Wisdom.” And so, that the Word may be understood to have his own circumscription, since he subsists by himself, it must be said of powers, not only of power. *This says the Lord of powers*, is put in many places: by which name of powers...

^A are understood certain divine rational animals, over whom is the superior and more excellent Christ, who is called not only Wisdom, but also Power. Just as, therefore, there are many powers of God, each of which has a circumscription, that is, it subsists by itself, so the Word (although our word does not subsist by itself outside us) will be understood as Christ, from those things which we have previously investigated, having a hypostasis in the Beginning, that is, in Wisdom. » Thus also in Basil, Epist. 38, no. 2, *perigraphe* is opposed to the substance common to three persons. And, no. 3, *hypostasis* is defined as establishing and circumscribing that which is common and uncircumscribed or infinite: *That which presents and circumscribes both the common and the infinite.* Prudentius MARAN, *On the Divinity of Christ*, lib. IV, cap. 15, no. 4.

^B There are many other things that can be brought forward from Origen, from which it may appear that something is said to be one in essence and hypostasis, when it is distinguished only by thought and by various names alone, just as the wicked heretics thought about the Trinity. Thus in *Comm. on John*, tom. I, no. 30, p. 32: *Let no one be offended by our distinguishing the concepts in the Savior, imagining that we also make them the same in essence.* He attributed to the Son no essence subsisting by itself and defined by its own properties, but left a distinction made only by reasoning and empty names. Who would not wonder that Origen, while refuting these heretics, seemed to be ^C engaging with the Catholics? We will wonder at this much more if we consider how diligently and accurately he establishes the Catholic sentiment. For he demands this one thing from the heretics: that they not defraud the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit of their personal properties. He admits and requires three hypostases; but he opposes to them that distinction which is contained solely by thought and names alone. He considers two extremes as equally to be fled and censured: whether someone, having confessed God as Christ, does not distinguish his property from the property of the Father, and calls him Son in name only; or whether, by attributing an essence subsisting by itself to the Son, he denies his divinity. He himself, therefore, standing between both, confesses ^D the Son to be God; but he contends that he is God from God, and the true Son: he vindicates for him a divine essence, but one which has a personal property in him different from that in the Father. If Origen had held three dissimilar substances, he would have been indignant in the highest degree that two created things were being confused with the Creator. But who, even the most insane, would spend so much effort to demonstrate that two created things are distinguished from the Creator not by mere thought, but by a personal property? It is therefore a sin to doubt that Origen admits one substance in number in the three persons, if indeed he moves the struggle over personal properties alone. We can equally confirm this from *Comm. on John*, tom. X, no. 21, p. 199, where he speaks thus of those very heretics who defended themselves with these words of Christ: *Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up* (John II, 19); and from there concluded that Christ is the same in number as the Father, who is said in Paul to have raised Christ (I Cor. XV, 15): *« Those among these, he says, who seem to themselves to demonstrate that the Son does not differ from the Father in number, but that both exist not only in essence, but also in subject, and that Father and Son are named according to certain different concepts, not according to hypostasis: we must answer them, first of all, by those words which primarily establish that the Son is other than the Father, and that it is necessary for the Son to be the Son of the Father, and the Father to be the Father of the Son. »* Origen is therefore always consistent with himself. He holds hypostasis and subject to be the same, and concedes that the Son is one in essence with the Father, but makes the controversy only over the person. Hence, in the preceding testimonies, when he seems to distinguish the essence of the Son or of the Holy Spirit from the essence of the Father, he always adds something that contains this distinction in personal properties alone: as when *« Let no one be offended that we distinguish in the Savior his various concepts, thinking that the same is done by us also of his (ousia) essence. »* Here, surely, the force of essence is the same as that of person; since Origen fears that, while he distinguishes many things in Christ, he might seem to distinguish many persons in him. He has similar things on Christ in *Hom. 8 on Jerem.*, no. 2, p. 171: *« The subject is one, but by reason of the concepts, many names are imposed on different things. »* See *Comm. on John*, tom. VI, no. 22, p. 137. Thus also *Hom. 18 on Jerem.*, no. 4, p. 244, he demonstrates that one and the same thing in the Holy Scriptures, according to whether it is touched upon lightly or considered more attentively, is a spring or a well. *« To the same in hypostasis, to one who touches upon it superficially it is a spring, to one searching more deeply it is a well. »* And in *Comm. on Matt.*, tom. XVI, no. 6, p. 717: *« Very many, he says, refer both (that is, the cup and the baptism) to martyrdom. »* *« Not explaining whether he possesses two concepts signified through the two names in the same hypostasis, or whether two things can also be signified in these. »* From these, it must be concluded that in these testimonies, which seemed to bear the error of three substances, a very bad heresy is refuted, and an excellent sentiment is established. Most undeservedly, truly, was the great study of Origen beaten for refuting such a heresy, which confounded the notions of the Father and the Son, asserting the Holy Spirit to be the same as the Father, or even the same as the Son, and giving the Holy Spirit no

there is a strong suspicion that it has proceeded. Such is that place in Homily 12 on Numbers, no. 1, p. 312: “There is, therefore, this distinction of the three persons in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit, which is retracted to the plural number of the wells. But of these wells there is one fountain; for there is one substance and nature of the Trinity;” and also from book III in Epist. ad Rom., no. 11: “We say, however, that faith in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit, is whole, full, perfect, which professes nothing diverse, nothing discrepant, or extraneous in the Trinity;” and that from book V, no. 2, p. 553: “(Christ) does not deem it robbery to be equal to God; that is, he does not deem it a great thing to himself that he is indeed equal to God, and one with the Father;” and that from book VII, no. 13, p. 612: “If therefore the Son is called God over all, and the Holy Spirit is mentioned as containing all things, but God the Father is he from whom all things are, it is evidently shown that the nature of the Trinity and the substance is one, which is over all;” and here also from book VIII, no. 5, p. 626: “There are also some who indeed announce and preach of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but not sincerely, not fully; as are all the heretics, who indeed announce the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but do not announce them well, not faithfully. For they either wrongly separate the Son from the Father, in that they call the Father one nature and the Son another; or they wrongly confuse them, so that they think God is composed of three, or that the name is merely a triple appellation in him. But whoever announces the good things well, will give to the Father, and ^B the Son, and the Holy Spirit what is proper to each; but he will confess that there is no diversity in nature or substance;” and also from book I, Περὶ ἀρχῶν, ch. 2, no. 5: “But to the second comparison, the image of the Son of God, of which we now speak, can be compared also according to this, that the image of the invisible God is invisible, just as according to history we call his son Seth the likeness of Adam. For thus it is written: And Adam begat Seth according to his own image, and according to his own likeness.” Which image also contains the unity of the nature and substance of the Father and the Son; and here from the following chapter, no. 4, which Pamphilus recites in the Apology: “Which if it were, the Holy Spirit himself would never surely be held in the unity of the Trinity, that is, of God the Father, inconvertible, and of his Son;” and that also from ch. 5, no. 3: “For the nature of the Trinity has not been shown to have anything of composition;” and here from book I, ch. 6, no. 1, p. 152: “The truth of faith teaches that what is one is the Son with the Father, to be referred to the property of nature;” and that furthermore from book IV, in the Anacephalaeosis: “Truth, life, wisdom, are the same as Christ: Christ is the same as the Father. Which although they are said to be many in intellect; yet in fact and substance they are one, in which is the fullness of divinity.” To which is also to be added here from the same place, no. 28: “For we do not say, as the heretics think, that any part of the substance of God has been turned into the Son, or that the Son was created by the Father from things that have no subsistence, that is, outside his own substance, so that there was a time when he was not.” Nothing would be clearer for the praise of the Trinity, if it were not, as I have said, that the doubtful faith of Rufinus the translator made these things suspect. One might also think these things, which are read in vol. I on John, no. 6, are useful to Origen: *“If, however, as it is said, according to Isaiah, our Lord was sent by the Father and his Spirit, it is also necessary here to offer an apology concerning the Spirit who sent Christ, not as if he differs in nature, but because of the dispensation that took place of the incarnation of the Son of God, the Savior having been made lower than him.”* But when he says that the Holy Spirit does not differ φύσει (by nature), he by no means signifies that he does not differ in nature, as Perionius thought, but that he does not exceed in nature.

V. That stronger passage from the same volume on John, no. 2, where he inveighs against certain people, ^C *denying the divinity of the Son, and setting his property and his substance to be different from the Father by circumscription.* (81) The Son, who is called the radiance of the glory and the figure of the paternal substance, he considered to be such by reason of the Father, as a ray is in respect to the sun. There is nothing more frequent among Origen and other Fathers for signifying the eternal generation of the Word than this example of the sun and the solar ray: but in that the ray is a certain portion and effluence of the solar substance, Origen never considered the Son to be such by reason of the Father, as the ray is in respect to the sun. “Is it possible,” he says in book Περὶ ἀρχῶν, ch. 1, no. 1, “that because (the Son) is named light, he will be thought to be similar to the light of this sun? It is true light,” he says in the same book, ch. 2, no. 6, “which enlightens every one coming into this world,” but has nothing in common with the light of this sun. One may learn Origen’s genuine opinion on this matter from vol. XXXII on John, no. 18, where he says that “the Son is the radiance of the whole glory of God, and can alone take all the radiance of the whole glory of God.” Which words manifestly indicate that there is nothing in the exemplar ^D which is not in the image, and therefore that the Son is not divided or separated from the Father as a part from the whole, but is of one number and of the same substance as the Father. See below in note on no. 24; see also Bull in *Defens. fidei Nicaena*, regarding the subordination of the Son, ch. 4, nos. 9, 10, et seqq., where he evidently shows that Origen acknowledged the numerical unity of the substance of the Father and the Son, just as much as any of the older Fathers acknowledged it, and even Athanasius himself acknowledged it; that is, that Origen believed the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, while in reality they are three persons, nevertheless in no way exist as three men apart and separately; but that they cohere intimately with each other and are joined; and therefore that one exists in the other, and, if I may so speak, they pass into one another and penetrate through a certain ineffable...

^A union, and is called the reflection of the paternal substance. But he said this in the sense in which the Nicene synod thought it to be regarding the Father, because it is like a ray with respect to the sun. Now, although a solar ray is inferior to the sun, it is nevertheless of the same substance as the sun itself; for it is a certain effluvium and particle of the solar substance, but yet it is not the same substance numerically. (82) Here, therefore, [Origen] blames the heretics for separating the substance of the Son from the substance of the Father entirely and *kata perigraphēn* [by circumscription], and for denying that the latter emanated from the former: but in the testimonies brought forward above, he denies that the Son is the same substance as the Father numerically. This is the true and genuine opinion of Origen. Hence those contradictory statements of Epiphanius (haer. 64, cap. 4) are reconciled: "He introduces this (the Son) from the substance of the Father," which means that he considers him to be from the substance of the Father; with those others (cap. 8): "In many places we find him, the Only-begotten God, separating from the divinity and substance of the Father, as also the Holy Spirit." (83) But if this which we propose is the genuine sentiment of Origen, it was certainly little understood by Athanasius, when he says (de decret. Nicænæ synod.): "But regarding the Word's eternally existing with the Father, and not being of another essence or substance, but *improprius* to that of the Father, as those who were in the synod have said, let it be allowed to us again to hear from the industrious Origen: 'The Word, however, is from eternity with the Father, and is not of another essence or substance, but is proper to the substance of the Father,' just as they said who attended the synod, although it is for us to hear it again from the laborious Origen." I do not deny that he said this; but that he said it in the sense in which the Nicene synod said it, that I truly cannot admit. It is in vain, therefore, that Rufinus, in his booklet *On the Adulteration of the Books of Origen*, says that whatever savors of this heresy was attached to Origen and inserted into his writings for his purification, saying: "Could it be that in the same work of the same book, as we have said, he could have immediately forgotten himself in the following chapter, for instance, as one who designated the Father and the Son as of one substance, which is called *homoousion* in Greek, could he in the following chapters immediately say that he is of another substance, and call him a creature, whom a little before he had pronounced to be born of the very nature of God the Father?"

VI. Since the doctrine of Origen has thus been set forth, certain ones are exploded whom Pamphilus in his *Apology* writes were accused by Origen, on the grounds that he said the Son of God came into substance by prolation. It is certainly strange for this crime to be objected against him, which he himself often criticizes in others and at length. For besides the testimonies that Pamphilus brings forward, there is also that remarkable one from *Tom. 1 in Joan.*, num. 23, p. 25: "And it is worthy to note those who refer such things to the ones named, and use this as an exception, and again seek an explanation of those very things, if anyone were to bring them to them, though they accept what is clear in this, namely: 'What then ^B is the Son of God called the Word?' and especially since they constantly use, 'My heart has poured forth a good word,' thinking it to be a paternal prolation, as if the Son of God were lying in syllables, and regarding this, if we ask them exactly, they do not give an answer, nor do they clarify his essence." (84) And this folly was that of the Valentinians, the Marcosians, and other ^C heretics, against whom Origen maintained a perpetual battle, which we have shown above and clearly that the Nicene bishops did not say the Son was *homoousios* to the Father in any other sense than that in which the Son is established to be true God just as the Father, not of any created or mutable essence. And in this sense, we have abundantly proved in this 9th chapter that Origen acknowledged the Son to be *homoousios* to the Father. If you have leisure, read the entire *Defense of the Nicene Faith* by Bull, regarding the *homoousion* of the Son, or at least the whole of the first and ninth chapters.

^D regarding the Valentinians or Marcosians, etc. Huetius thinks these things were poorly spoken. The author of *Platonism Unveiled* (p. 222) agrees with him in this matter. Petavius (*De Trinit.*, lib. vi, cap. 3) opines that the Catholics were refuted by Origen, and he likewise, like Huetius, rebukes him because the appellation of the Word, which properly distinguishes the hypostasis of the Son, seems to be applied to the Son no differently than that of light, and life, and resurrection, and other appellations of this kind. Neither are the Valentinians refuted by Origen, nor the Catholics in general, but rather the Novatians, or some unskilled persons who, while they cling too much to the appellation of the Word, were imprudently favoring the Noetians. For after Origen reviewed the various appellations of Christ which are usually deduced from his operations, he says these were spoken by him to refute the rash and inconsiderate method of acting of many, the *anapoklērotikon kai adasaniston* ["the erratic and unexamined"] of the many, who, since so many appellations are referred to Christ, cling only to the appellation of the Word, not inquiring for what cause at last the Son of God is both the Word and God in the beginning.

^A

It was also the case with Tertullian, Lactantius, and Paul of Samosata. Yet, it must not be concealed that there is here some error on the part of Origen, who thinks that the term "Word" does not pertain to the Son in any other way than "Light," or "Shepherd," and other names which he mentions. This is false; for the word "Word" properly distinguishes His hypostasis and involves the signification of His very divine substance.

VII. (85) Having used the solar ray comparison as closely as possible when explaining Origen's opinion on the generation of the Son, the same will be repeated now here and elsewhere; for there is nothing more suitable for unfolding Origen's dogmas concerning the Trinity. Therefore, by how much more noble is the sun itself than the rays emitted from the storehouse of its immense light, and by its dignity superior; by so much did he count the Father more noble and superior to the Son, and thus he poured this lost and damnable heresy into his writings, from whence it was transmitted to Arius and the partisans of Arius; and perhaps also to the Donatists, who although of the same substance, yet thought the Son was lesser than the Father, and the Holy Spirit lesser than the Son, as we learn from Augustine in his book *On Heresies* to Quodvultdeus, heres. 69, and epist. 50. It would be long to select from individual writings of Adamantius whatever has been tainted by this plague. Let us consult brevity, ^B and let us examine especially the *Commentaries on John*, in which he undertook to explain the dignity of the Son according to (a settled) rule. The first passage presents itself from vol. II, no. 3, page 53: (86) "For God was, and God

according to the saying: The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken, and hath called the earth

1° That cannot be charged as a fault to Origen, that against wicked heretics who kept saying that three gods were worshipped by Christians, he demonstrates the singularity of God from the singularity of the principle. In the same way, Tertullian against Praxeas, chap. 3, 4 and 11, vindicates the monarchy of the Catholic Church, which Praxeas and his fellows were arrogating to themselves. Petavius himself in book I *De Trinitate*, chap. 13, among other causes why God is one, though there are three persons, mentions this in the third place, because the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is the prin^D-

- ^A cipium, and has handed everything over to them, for which view he cites as witnesses Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, both Gregories, and other writers of great name, who by this same argument demonstrate that one God is worshipped by Christians.

2. I do not deny that the distinction Origen used between God with the article and God without the article is utterly useless; nor would I strongly approve of his referring these words: *“That they may know thee the only true God,”* (John 17:3) only to the Father, when they do not exclude the Son; but it is fair to inquire whether Origen was led to these subtle distinctions because he believed the divine nature belonged to the Father alone, or because he believed the Father alone did not receive divinity from another. He does not leave the matter in doubt, since he declares in clear terms that God with the article is nothing other than *autotheos*, God by himself: *autotheos ho Theos esti*, therefore also the Savior says in his prayer to the Father, ^B etc. "God by himself, that God is with the article, for which reason the Savior also says in his prayer to the Father," etc. He therefore compares *autotheos* with God from God, the truth and the exemplar with the image, and he does not detract from the divine nature of the Son. For he says that, while being with the Father, he draws divinity to himself, being in the beginning with God, in that he is God ever remaining with God. Furthermore, Origen does not entangle himself in these knots for any other purpose than to reconcile the plurality of divine persons with the monarchy; nor does he side with the Arians when he concedes that the Father alone is the true God, because he alone is God by himself, but he rather snatches away the greatest support they had constructed for themselves from these words of Christ. He indeed establishes that whatever is called God, apart from him who is God by himself, is so called by participation in the Father’s divinity; but he distinguishes those made gods from the Son by broad boundaries. Those gods, as he explained not long ago in volume 1, number 34, are a certain kind of angel, superior to thrones and principalities. He gathers that it is they who are called gods from these words of Scripture: *“The God of gods hath spoken”* (Ps. 49:1). *“Confess to the God of gods”* (Ps. 135:2). In this respect only does he compare these gods with the Son, that neither is God by himself, and that the Son is the image of the Father, while they are images of the Son. Yet how much of a difference there is between the two, he declares in many ways: for the Son is always God with the Father, drawing divinity from him; but these are not always gods, neither with the Father nor with the Son, nor do they draw divinity from the Son. The Son draws from God that which he may bestow upon those gods; and this out of his goodness: but they do not draw from the Son.

The same distinction is to be observed in what follows, number 5: *“But since it is likely that some will take offense at what has been said—that the Father is proclaimed as the one true God, but beside the true God there are several gods becoming so by participation in God—because they are fearful of equating the glory of him who transcends all creation with the rest who obtain the name of God, in addition to the distinction provided, by which we said that God the Word is the minister of divinity to all other gods, this also must be added. For the reason that exists in each of those who use reason has the same relation to that reason which is in the beginning with God, and the Word is God, as God the Word has to God. For just as God by himself and the true God the Father stands toward the image and the images of the image—for which reason men also are said to be not images, but after the image—so in this manner does the Word himself stand toward the reason that is in each. For both hold the place of source and origin, the Father indeed of divinity, the Son of reason. Just as therefore there are many gods, but for us there is one God the Father, and there are many lords, but for us there is one Lord Jesus Christ; so there are also many words, but for us we pray that that Word which is in the beginning may exist, who is with God, who is God the Word.”* ^C But since it is likely that many will take offense that we have called the Father the one true God, and that besides the true God there are many gods made so by participation in God, and fear that the glory of Him who surpasses every creature might be made equal to the others who obtain the name of God; besides the provided difference, whereby we said that God the Word is the minister of divinity to all other gods, this too must be added. For the reason which exists in each of those who use reason has the same comparison to that reason which is in the beginning with God, and is God the Word, as God the Word has to God. For just as God by himself and God the true Father stands related to the image and the images of the image, for which reason even men are said to be not images, but toward the image, so in this way the Word himself stands toward the reason which is in each one. For both hold the place of source and origin, the Father of divinity, but the Son of reason. As therefore there are many gods, but for us there is one God the Father, and there are many lords, but for us there is one Lord Jesus Christ; so there are also many words, but we pray that that Word may be within us, who is in the beginning, who is with God, who is God the Word.

That fear, that it might appear that created things were being equated with the Word, and the more abundant explanation of the thought applied to refute this suspicion, are of great avail for Origen’s defense. For he declares that he is not comparing those things which the Son received from the Father with those which created things received from the Son, nor the manner of receiving, but rather that he proclaims the Son equal to the Father, because he asserts that each is a source: from which it follows that the nature in both is the same, and that the attributes are completely the same. Thus, while he seems to compare created things with the Son—in that the Son received all things from the Father, and created things received all things from the Son—if we pay close attention, he is rather comparing the Father with the Son. ^D Not unlike these testimonies are two others objected by Jerome and Justinian, in the first of which the Son is said to comprehend the Father, if you consider knowledge and wisdom; but it is otherwise if you understand that comprehension by which the Father comprehends all things that have their being from him. Thus therefore Origen, according to Jerome: *“For if the Son knows the Father, he seems, in that he knows the Father, to be able to comprehend him: as if we say that an artist knows the measure of his art.”* Nor is there a doubt that if the Father is in the Son, he is comprehended by him in whom he is. But if we say such comprehension, that one does not only comprehend by sense and wisdom, but also holds all things that he has known by virtue and power, we cannot say that the Son comprehends the Father. But the Father comprehends all things. And among all things is the Son, therefore he also comprehends the Son. The last words in Greek in Justinian read as follows: *“But if the Father comprehends all things, and the Son is of all things, it is clear that he also comprehends the Son.”* Origen admirably explains the unity of essence and the equality in the Father and the Son, while he determines that the Father is comprehended by the Son, because the Father is in the Son. He believed, therefore, that the Father is in the Son, not because the Son obeys the Father, but because the Father handed over the whole divine substance to the Son by begetting him. Whence Origen recognizes the knowledge and wisdom as equal in both, and removes from the Son only that kind of comprehension by which the begetter comprehends the begotten.

But in the other passage, which exists in the first book of *De principiis*, chapter 3, number 5, we have a similar distinction of persons, namely, that the Son is lesser than the Father, and the Holy Spirit lesser than the Son, by reason of origin: *“That God and Father, holding all things together, reaches to each of those that exist, bestowing on each from his own that they should be: for if…”*

γὰρ ^A *For if all things were made through the Word, they were not made by the Word, but by one who is better and greater than the Word; and who else should this be but the Father?* The Son is inferior to the Father, reaching only to rational beings, for He is second to the Father. And the Holy Spirit is even less, extending only to the holy. Thus, in this respect, the power of the Father is greater than the Son and the Holy Spirit, and the power of the Son is greater than the Holy Spirit; and, again, the power of the Holy Spirit differs—more so—from other holy things.

(87) *But if all things were made through the Word, etc.* Two things here displease Huet: that the Son is sent below the Father, and that creation is taken away from Him. But he would have thought differently had he attended to Origen as he weighs the force and meaning of the prepositions, and how he counters the contentions of Heracleon, who wanted the Word to have provided the Creator with the cause of the world's origin, and the Word Himself by no means to have created under another's operation and power, but rather that another created while the Word Himself worked. In contrast, Origen asserts that Scripture ought to have said, if this were Heracleon’s true sentiment, that all things were made through the Creator by the Word, and not through the Word by the Creator. He adds that the Word was not the Creator of the world, but the minister of the Creator, according to the prophet David: *He spoke and they were made; He commanded and they were created* (Ps. XXXII, 9). For the unbegotten God commanded the firstborn of every creature, and they were created, not only the world and what is in it, but also all other things, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities; *for all things were created through Him and unto Him, and He is before all things* (Col. I, 16). There is nothing in these words which you could deservedly reproach. Origen does not subject the Son to the Father otherwise than ^B as Catholic doctrine demands, nor does he take away true creation from the Word, but only that which the heretics invented. For since they denied that the world was created by the true God, and said that the Word was used by the creator or demiurge as a sort of instrument, Origen vindicates the violated majesty of the Creator, and [asserts] that the Word received all things from the Creator or Father; he [Origen] does not [attribute] anything to the Father from the Word, nor to the Creator from the Word, but ^C demonstrate that the Word served the Creator, since the Word, as he teaches elsewhere, is the idea of ideas, by which all things are contained; the eternal reason (ratio), to whose decree God creates and governs all things; the wisdom, in which, as a wise architect, He described and disposed all things. Neither is this ministry unbecoming to the Word, nor does this method of creating clash with Catholic decrees, but rather with the inventions of the heretics. This is [the view of] Dom Prudentius Maran, *De divinitate Christi*, lib. IV, cap. 16, num. 5.

(88) *More manifest also are these same things from the same tome, num. 18, etc.* See above, num. 3, a note on these words: *Since, etc.* (89) *But nevertheless, of so many and such great things, etc.* Paul seems to say above this place that Origen thought the Son and the Spirit were equal to, or perhaps even more surpassed by, the Father than they themselves surpass created things; and from these words, Huet thinks that the Son and the Holy Spirit are so compared to created things by Origen that they are entirely dissociated from the Father. But yet, if that passage is read and understood as it ought to be, there will be no need for an insincere and less-than-orthodox excuse, but rather for an equitable judgment. Thus, therefore, Origen speaks: *We, however, obeying the Savior, who said, "The Father who sent me is greater than I" (Joan. XIV, 28), and who for this reason refused to accept the title of "good"—which is proper, true, and perfect—when it was offered to Him, but referred it gratefully to the Father, with a rebuke for the one who wanted to over-glorify the Son, we say that the Savior, together with the Holy Spirit, surpasses all generated things, not by comparison, but by an exceeding excellence; so that He is not surpassed by the Father by as much great excellence as He Himself and the Holy Spirit surpass the rest—not just anyone.* He adds [that] Origen so far surpasses the angels, and thrones, and dominions, that this excellence cannot be expressed in words; but nonetheless he proceeds to describe the Father's excellence: *But yet, of so many, etc.*, that is: *But yet, although He Himself surpasses such and so great natures in essence, dignity, and power and divinity (for He is the living Word and Wisdom), He is compared to the Father in nothing. For He is the image of His goodness, and the splendor, not of God, but of His glory, and of His eternal light, and the vapor, not of the Father (Sap. VII, 25, 26), but of His power, and the unspotted mirror of His same operation; through which mirror Paul and Peter, and those like them, see God, as He says: "He who has seen me has seen my Father who sent me" (Joan. XII, 45).* 1° Origen's fault would not be excusable if those things which the Son ^D performs...

^A mirror without blemish of His operation. By whom He is the Word and Wisdom; He is not compared in anything to the Father; for He is the image of His goodness, and the splendor, not of God, but of His glory, and of His eternal light, and the pure effluence of His omnipotent glory, and ^B by nature and all-blessed. It is not absurd to say that not only men and angels are needy of intelligible foods, but also the Christ of God; for He Himself, if I may so say, is always being prepared by the Father, who alone is needy of nothing and self-sufficient for Himself. But the great multitude of those being instructed receive [their] food from the disciples of Jesus, being ordered to set it before the crowds; but the disciples of Jesus [receive] from Jesus Himself, except at times also from holy angels; but the Son of God receives [His] food from the Father alone, not through anyone. It is not absurd to say that the Holy Spirit is also nourished. "My food is that I should do the will of Him who sent me, and complete His work." A food becoming to the Son of God, when He becomes the executor of the Paternal will, doing this will in Himself, which ^C indeed was the cause of the Son saying: "I and the Father are one." And for this reason, the one who has seen this will has seen the Son, and has seen also Him who sent Him. ^D As for what the interpreter Ferrarius understood to be harmful, he deceived the reader for the sake of his author, and to whom none of these things could... [alt-version omitted]

And He is in the Father, so that the will of God is in the will of the Son, [being] not different from the will of the Father, so that there are no longer two wills, but one will; which one will was the cause of the Son saying: "I and the Father are one" (Joan. X, 30); and because of this will, he who has seen Him has seen the Son, and has seen also Him who sent Him. Where he teaches that the entire will of the Father is in the Son without any discrepancy; so that there are not two wills, but one completely. But the heretics were assuming for themselves a divine and spiritual nature, which does not in the least depend upon the will and holiness of God, nor lose its luster and strength among flagitious acts. Origen, who is sometimes carried away into minute observations, admonishes that in the Scriptures the Son is called not the image of God, but of His goodness, and not the splendor of the Father, but of His glory, so that the signification of the divinity flowing from the Father to Him might be more expressive. 4° There removes all suspicion from Origen's doctrine the fact that he says created things, even the most excellent, are exceeded by the Son, rather than the Son by the Father. For this cannot be said at all unless of the true and consubstantial Son. The context of Origen in the manuscript codices is thoroughly corrupted, and exhibits a sense entirely inconsistent with Origen's purpose and opinion. For it attributes this absurd and impious statement to Origen: "The Savior is exceeded by the Father in a greatness as much, or even greater, than the extent to which He Himself and the Holy Spirit exceed other things, even the most excellent." How could this have escaped Origen? He proves in this very place that the Savior so exceeds created things, or even the most excellent, namely angels, thrones, and dominions, that this excellence cannot be expressed. He does not yet examine in what sense the Father is greater; he leaves that to be examined a little later. Wherefore, that the Son is exceeded by the Father more than created things are by the Son would have been not only useless to say, but also inept and absurd. For he would have consigned Him to created things, at the very time when he wants to separate Him from created things. Furthermore, he would not have said the Son is further removed from the Father than from the most excellent created things, but generally from created things. Yet if we read it thus, as I contend it ought to be read, everything will be clear, and consistent with Origen's purpose, which is entirely in proclaiming the majesty of the Savior. I would not, however, believe that an Arian hand was the author of this corruption. It is more probable that the little word *ou* [not], as often happens otherwise, fell out through the carelessness of scribes; and because it is repugnant that any thing should be equally distant from God as from created things, some one from that great number of them who were not friends of Origen's fame, injected these words, *kai pleon* [and more], or at least added them to the margin, from whence they crept into the text. 5° If any one does not think these points of reasoning should be believed, let him hear Origen himself treating the same subject, and so refuting the corrupt context that he heals the wound by his own testimony. Thus, therefore, he speaks in Tom. XV in Matth. num. 10: "And the..."

^A knowledge of himself, and in his own contemplation, which is greater ^A. But I ask whether it is possible for God to be glorified otherwise than by being glorified in the Son, as we have explained, [or if He is] more greatly glorified in Himself, when He finds Himself in His own majesty, in the ^B Saviour—just as He is the image of the invisible God, so also is He the image of His goodness. But every inferior thing to which the word 'Good' is applied has a different meaning than when it is said of Him. For if He is the image of goodness in relation to the Father, but in relation to the rest [of things], that which the Father’s goodness is toward Him; or rather, it is possible to see a certain closer analogy for the goodness of God toward the Saviour, who is the image of His goodness, than for the Saviour toward a good man, or a good work, or a good tree. For there is a greater excellence in the Saviour toward inferior goods, in that He is the image of the goodness of God, who is good, toward the Saviour who said: 'The Father who sent me is greater than I.' ^C of the contemplation in the Son, as one ought to think of such things in regard to God, one must say that He rejoices with unspeakable satisfaction. ... a multitude of believers, and those who admit of disagreement, because of... nor must we be silent regarding him who is after... ^D Wherefore we do not now call Him Father, as Celsus slanders us, to the Son of God... Nor is any of us so foolish as to say: 'The Son of man is the Lord of God.' But we maintain that the Saviour is rightfully [Lord], especially when we perceive Him to be the Word of God, and Wisdom, and Justice, and Truth, [being Lord] indeed of all things subjected to Him in that He is these things, but not also of the Father and God who holds sway over Him. ...'The Son, and his Lord is the Son of man; and who else will rule over the God who holds sway?'

' ^A regarding the presumption of supposing the Savior to be God over all. Yet we are not such, we who are persuaded by Him who says: 'The Father who sent me is greater than I.' ^A To this Heschelius adds the common response from Athanasius: 'Not in greatness, nor in time, but because of his generation from the Father himself;' and this other one: 'Not as God to God, but as Father to the Son who assumed human nature.' But these, to speak the truth, are little to the point. Some affirmed that Christ is the God of the universe, and that truly and orthodoxly. This certainly pertains to the divine nature of Christ, not the human. Origen, on the contrary, denies that the Savior is the God of the universe, and proves this by the fact that He is less than the Father, who is the God of the universe. He therefore takes away from the divine nature of Christ that supremacy over all things, and assigns it to the Father; and consequently, by [diminishing] greatness, He establishes the Son as inferior to the Father as God to God, not as man to God. Leontius of Byzantium, in the 10th Act of his Scholiorum, to convince Origen of this error, adduces these words from a certain epistle of his: 'The Son is either greater than the Father, or less, or equal; if, therefore, I show that He is neither greater nor equal, it is clear that He is less.' Finally, when he has previously said that the Father surpasses the Son in essence, dignity, virtue, divinity, goodness, and wisdom, he states the same thing regarding knowledge in Tract 30 on Matthew, no. 55: 'Perhaps also that which He says about not knowing the day and the hour of the consummation, He said before His dispensation, because "No one knows, neither the angels, nor the Son, but the Father alone." But after the dispensation was fulfilled, He by no means said this, after God highly exalted Him and gave Him the name which is above every name: for afterward the Son also knew, receiving the knowledge from the Father, even concerning the day of the consummation and the hour, so that now not only the Father knew of it, but also the Son.' As if Christ had not received this knowledge from the Father until after His death. But the exposition of the same passage which follows a little later is sounder, namely, insofar as that hour ^B will He dominate? Since he did not know or concealed that which is proper to heretics, he complained that the Son of God was called Lord by all Christians—who hold an empire stronger than God—and that He alone was worshipped. Origen, therefore, as is evident from these things, does not deny that Christ is God, but [that He is] God greater than the Father; nor does he refute the Catholics, but repels the accusation to which the inventions of heretics had given substance. See D. Prudentius Maran, *De divinitate Christi*, lib. iv, cap. 16, num. 5. See also Bull, *Defensio fidei Nicenae de Filii τῷ ὁμοουσίῳ*, cap. 9, num. 12, and *De subordinatione Filii*, cap. 2, num. 6.

He thought that Christ was ignorant, insofar as the Church, which is the body of Christ, is ignorant. To this one might think fit to add the long discussion from the beginning of tome II on John, no. 2 et seq., in which Origen distinguishes the word "God" when joined to its article from the word "God" deprived of the same article, and assigns the latter to the Son, the former to the Father: whence some have opined that he ascribed a different Deity to the Father—a more excellent one—while that of the Son was inferior. For which reason Genebrardus thought those things had been foisted in by Arians. But since he acknowledges that they can be interpreted correctly—and we too, in our *Observations*, shall demonstrate why we refrain from affixing the mark of falsehood to this passage—there is no cause [for suspicion]. But Origen manifestly attempts to defraud the Holy Spirit of His honor and dignity in tome XIII on John, no. 25, in these words: ^B (92) "To him who wishes to over-glorify the Son, as surpassing all generated things—not by comparison, but by an exceeding excellence—we say that the Savior, and the Holy Spirit, are surpassed, [the Spirit] as much or even more by the Father, as [the Son] Himself and the Holy Spirit surpass the rest, [who are] not among the ordinary." He demeans the Holy Spirit there below the Father; but he places Him after the Son in tome II on John, no. 6: (95) "These things, however, have been examined at length for those who wish to see more clearly how, if all things came to be through Him, and the Spirit also came to be through the Word, [He] is understood as being one of all the things in the category of those that are inferior to Him through whom they came to be, even if certain expressions seem to draw us to the contrary."

^C VIII. Jerome convicts Origen of being guilty of injuring the majesty of Christ in epist. 59, ad Avit., cap. 1, where, commemorating the follies of the first book *De Principiis*, (94) he notes that he said: "Christ, by comparison with the Father, is a very small splendor, who, in our eyes, for our weakness, seems to be great." Then he adds: (95) "He puts forward the example of two statues, one greater and one smaller; one which fills the world, and by its magnitude is in a way invisible; and another which falls under the eyes, comparing the Father to the former and the Son to the latter." Justinian, in his epistle to Menas, says that he [Origen] posited degrees in the Trinity and fashioned the Father as greater than the Son: then he compounds his accusation from Origen's own words. ^D (94) He notes that he said, "Christ, by comparison with the Father, is a very small splendor," etc. This accusation seems to be taken from those places where Origen says that there are no shadows in the Father, but that the Son shines in shadows. But we explained in what sense he said this above, no. 3, in these words: "But I fear, however, that from the narthex of Platonic doctrine," etc. See also Bull, *Defensio fidei Nicenae de Filii τῷ ὁμοουσίῳ*, cap. 9, num. 18.

(95) "Two statues, greater and smaller," etc. This example indeed exists in lib. 1 *De Principiis*, cap. 2, num. 8. But it is manifest that Origen is speaking about the Incarnation, and that he employs this example for this reason: because the Son, who was in the form of God, emptying Himself, strives through that very kenosis of His to demonstrate to us the fullness of God. D. Prud. Maran, *De divinitate Christi*, lib. iv, cap. 16, num. 1.

^A And what point is there in commemorating the rest, since the complaint is common to almost all writers who have devoted any effort to reviewing his errors? His doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit has been torn apart by no less significant accusations and reproaches from Theophilus, Epiphanius, and, among others, Basil—who, in his book *De Spiritu sancto*, ch. 29, and in ep. 41, writes that Origen, having ill-conceived notions about the Holy Spirit, was, if ever he spoke correctly, overcome by the force of custom and tradition. He also charged Dionysius of Alexandria, a disciple of Origen, with the same offense, to such an extent that the errors against the Holy Spirit are seen to have arisen first of all from the school of Adamantius. To the charges of others, Jerome adds, in lib. ii *Apol. advers. Rufin.*, ch. 3, that he had said the Holy Spirit is a minister of the Father and the Son, and Justinian, at the end of his epistle to Mennas, says that Origen called the Son and the Holy Spirit *λειτουργικὰ ζῶα*, i.e., "ministerial creatures."

IX. Many things may indeed be pleaded in favor of Origen against these charges, by which he seems to have defended the orthodox view concerning the dignity of the Word; but they are for the most part taken from books which have Rufinus as their translator, and are therefore of doubtful credibility and may be thought to have been interpolated. We shall, however, bring them forward one by one, lest we seem to have abandoned Origen's cause. And first, concerning Christ, these things are read in *Hom. 4 in Genes.*, num. 5: ^B "For He took the form of a servant, and though He Himself is invisible by nature, as being equal to the Father, He nevertheless assumed a visible habit." And these things in *lib. vii in Epist. Pauli ad Rom.*, num. 5, p. 599: "And therefore it is not said to his injury that spirits are subject to the prophets, but for the sake of dispensation; just as we accept that statement concerning the Savior, namely, that then even the Son Himself will be subject who subjected all things to Himself." And for he is not said to be subject as if he were inferior. For how can he be called inferior, who is the Son, and is everything that the Father is? "For all things," he says, "Father, are yours, mine are yours." Furthermore, in *lib. 1 Περὶ ἀρχῶν*, ch. 2, he teaches that the power of the Father and the Son is the same, and their goodness the same. But the fact that he denied in *lib. viii contra Celsum*, num. 14, that the Savior is God over all, this can be opposed to it from the *Præfat. Comment. in Joan.*, num. 11, p. 12: ^C "But we must not remain silent about the Word, who is God after the Father of all things; for He is nothing less than good, and this is the good." For since the Son has all things from the Father, he refers back to the Father as God over all things. Therefore, the Father is the God of all things of Himself; the Son is the God of those same things from the Father. Since he denies that the Savior is God over all things, understand God of Himself, or *autotheon*. When he asserts that He is God of all things, understand God from the Father, or God from God. It also makes for Origen that the greatest part of those passages in which he diminishes the majesty of the Son came from his *Commentaries on John*, which he had written against Heracleon the Marcionite. But it was the delusion of that sect that the Creator of the world was a God other than the God and Father of Christ, and inferior to Him and to Christ. The more easily to defeat a fiction of this kind, Origen asserted the contrary view, and proved that the God who is the creator of the world ^D was greater and superior to Christ. You might believe him to have orthodox sentiments concerning the Holy Spirit in the preface to the books *Περὶ ἀρχῶν*, num. 4, when he says: "Then, furthermore, they (the apostles) delivered that the Holy Spirit is associated with the Father and the Son in honor and dignity." But these are light, as I have said, which are taken from the works translated by Rufinus: especially from the books *Περὶ ἀρχῶν*, in which he attempted to amend the errors admitted concerning the Trinity. Wherefore the defense of that passage is also fragile, from book 1 of this work, ch. 3, num. 7: "Furthermore, nothing in the Trinity is to be called greater or less." And in this, from book ii, ch. 2, num. 1: "The origin and fountain of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit, is the Father, and nothing prior or posterior can be understood in them." Nor are these of greater importance for Origen from *lib. vii in Epist. ad Rom.*, num. 13, p. 612: "Christ, therefore, is God over all. Which all? Those, without doubt, which we mentioned a little earlier, 'above principalities and powers, and virtues, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the future.'" But He who is over all has no one above Him. For He is not after the Father, but from the Father. But the wisdom of God allowed this same thing to be understood also concerning the Holy Spirit, where it says: "The Spirit of the Lord has filled the whole world; and He who contains all things has knowledge of the voice."

X. More favorable for the Origenist side will be the argument that can be sought from similar expressions of other Fathers on the same subject. Indeed, among the Christian teachers who flourished before the Nicene synod, many spoke too incautiously about the mystery of the Trinity. Certainly, the doctrine of Tatian concerning the Trinity, and of Justin, who was older than Tatian, was insincere. Pseudo-Clement falls under the same accusation, as does Theophilus of Antioch. Indeed, Tertullian and Lactantius brought forth things unworthy and intolerable; also Clement, and Dionysius and Pierius of Alexandria; and many others. Thus, when Origen...

^A defends himself with this argument, Bellarmine (lib. I *De Christ.*, cap. 10) maintains that the opinion of his own teacher Clement, of his disciples Dionysius of Alexandria, and of Gregory Thaumaturgus regarding the mystery of the Holy Trinity was sound and orthodox, since it is credible that the doctrine which he had received from Clement he had refined and handed down to his own disciples; yet he could have said nothing more contrary to the Origenian cause. For none of these three had sufficiently pure and sound views on the Trinity: for Clement so separates the substance of the Son from that of the Father as to decree it inferior: Dionysius of Alexandria said the Son was a creature of the Father and unlike Him, and "uttered words little becoming to the Spirit," says Basil (epist. 41), by whom he was corrected, as also was Gregory Thaumaturgus, because he had openly preached the Son as created. So much so that one must consider Anastasius the Librarian to have been little attentive when he says in his *History*, at the year of Christ 246, that Eusebius had passed over the praises of Gregory Thaumaturgus in silence because he was entirely foreign to the ravings of Origen and Arius: whereas he followed these very ravings, and Eusebius did not defraud him of his praises (lib. VI *Hist.*, cap. 50). Finally, it is evident that not even in the days of Basil, and indeed in more recent times, did Catholics dare to openly profess the divinity of the Holy Spirit, lest they experience the insolence of the Pneumatomachians.

Verumtamen (Nevertheless), when they seemed to establish the Son as inferior to the Father, and the Holy Spirit as inferior to the Son, they focused almost entirely on the authority of principle, origin, cause, paternity, and unbegottenness, ^C which constitutes a certain order among the persons of the Holy Trinity. For the fact that the Father is the principle and source of the Son, He can be called greater than the Son and prior in dignity, yet without any discrimination of nature or perfection. Thus the greater part of the Fathers believed that the saying of John: *The Father is greater than I* (Joan. xiv, 28) should be understood; which others interpret as referring to the humanity of Christ compared to the divinity of the Father. Likewise, because the Holy Spirit derives His origin from the Son, He is called minor than He. Athanasius (*orat. contra Arianos*): "These things ^D indeed the Lord said to the Jews as a man: but showing His divinity and greatness to the disciples, signifying no longer that He was less than the Spirit, but greater and equal, He gave the Spirit and said: *Receive the Holy Spirit* (Joan. xx, 22), and: *I send Him, and He will glorify me* (Joan. xvi, 14)." Basil says even more clearly: "Just as the Son is by order second to the Father—for the Father is placed first in the enumeration—so too is the Holy Spirit by rank second to the Son, as has been shown in the enumeration; and indeed also by dignity; for the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son, as being supplied through the Son."

[Greek portion:] The Father, yet by nature equal: "For I," He says, "and the Father are one" (Joan. x, 30). So also the Holy Spirit is in rank second to the Son, even as has been shown in the enumeration; and indeed also in dignity; for He is called the Spirit of the Son, as being supplied through the Son. • Since the Son is from the Father; not a creature from the Son, he let slip words by no means becoming to the Spirit. "But concerning the fact that the Word is eternally with the Father, and not of a different essence or substance, but that He is the Father's own, as those in the synod have said, let it be permitted to you again to hear from the industrious Origen." • Concerning the *First Principles*, he says that he [Origen] was in no way mistaken in his opinion regarding the Trinity: but being opposed to the heresy of Sabellius, which was then accounted a great evil; and struggling to present the Trinity of persons, most evident and in many ways distinct, from the proper source, and what the Lord said to the Jews as a man: but showing His own divinity and greatness to the disciples, no longer signifying Himself to be less than the Spirit, but greater and being equal, He gave the Spirit and said: Receive the Holy Spirit, and: I Myself send Him, and He will glorify Me. • The Son is in rank second to the Father; for the Father is placed first in the enumeration... and furthermore also in dignity... [end of page]

^A et sapientia. Cyrillus lib. III contra Julian.: “Plato defined one to be the Creator, the cause of all things, whom he also said was near to the world; but that there existed another God before him, namely the Idea of the Good. He furthermore devises a third cause, inferior in order and nature to those former ones, which he also calls the Soul of all things.” From this fountain flowed not only the errors of Origen against the most holy Trinity, and the less circumspect locutions of other Fathers whom we have recounted, but also whatever was uttered insanely by heretics against the same mystery.

XIII. If, from the testimonies brought forward above and set forth on both sides, by which Origen seemed to undermine or assert the dignity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, his opinion is not sufficiently manifest, it is certainly easily detected from the following, in which he ascribes the operation of things to God the Father; while he would have it that the Son contributed only a secondary effort to the creation, and played the part of an instrument or minister: “And here, if all things were made through the Word, they were not made by the Word, but by One better and greater than the Word; and who else would this be, ^B but the Father?” Double is the corruption of this passage, for he both declares the Son to be lesser and inferior to the Father, and entirely abjudicates from Him the creation of things; in which he says the Son only ministered to the Father, and was not likewise a creator as the Father was, in lib. I *De principiis* in the very proemium, no. 4: “Jesus Christ Himself who comes, is born of the Father before every creature. Who, when He had ministered to the Father in the creation of all things (for through Him all things were made), in the most recent times emptied Himself and was made man.” This passage the author of the book *De deitate et incarnatione Verbi* to Januarius—which is customarily placed in the fourth tome of the works of Augustine—cites at ch. 1. Pamphilus, before him, also cited it in his *Apology*; and he cites it from lib. III on the Epistle to the Colossians: “But the law was given by Moses through angels, in ^C procedit e mente, et neque partem aliquam mentis secat, neque ab ea separatur aut dividitur, tali quadam specie putandus est Pater Filium genuisse, imaginem scilicet suam, ut, sicut ipse invisibilis est per naturam, ita imaginem quoque invisibilem genuerit. Verbum enim est Filius, et ideo nihil in sensibile intelligendum est. Sapientia est, et in sapientia nihil corporeum suspicandum est, Lumen est verum quod illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum (Joan. 1, 9), sed nihil habet commune ad solis hujus lumen.” These words Pamphilus repeats in his *Apology*. See furthermore the observations in no. 5 and in no. 24, and our animadversions on this passage of Origen.

^A by the hand and virtue of the Mediator Christ, who when He was in the beginning the Word of God, and was with God, and the Word was God, ministered to the Father in all things. For all things were made through Him—that is, not only creatures, but also the Law and the prophets. Whence he says in *Commentary on John*, tome XX, no. 7, that He is the *eyewitness* of those things which are in the Father; and that the angels see the same thing through Him, as through a mediator and minister, ὡς διὰ μεσίτου καὶ ὑπηρέτου. And in tome I, no. 22, he teaches that Christ is Creator insofar as the Father spoke: *Let there be light*—that is, insofar as He presented Himself as a minister to the Father in the making of light. (1) He expressed this sentiment most clearly in *Against Celsus*, book VI, no. 60: "That the Son of God, the Word, is the immediate creator and, as it were, the agent of the world; but the Father of the Word, by having commanded His own Son, the Word, to make the world, is the primary creator." It is evident, therefore, in what sense he spoke in the *Catena* of Balthasar Corderius on John, ad cap. 1, 1 (if indeed they are truly Origen's, and if any authority is to be attributed to the Catenas): "Setting Him as the creator of all things, he applies to Him the name of Word;" where he also calls Him the maker of all things: and says a little later: "For how was it not necessary that He should be before all things, and be the creator in the beginning of their existence?" And shortly after: "When He was creating, He brought everything into substance, and..."

Partes, cunctis præbebat ut essent, et erat apud Deum, et Deus erat; et denique: 'Aλλ' οὐχ ὁ δημιουργὸς τοῦ παντὸς τοιοῦτος, τυγχάνων Θεὸς Λόγος κατ' οὐσίαν· διὸ καὶ Σοφία, καὶ ᾿Αλήθεια ἐν ταῖς θεολογίαις ὀνομάζεται. "But the Creator of all things is not such [a one as this], being God the Word according to essence; wherefore He is also named Wisdom and Truth in the theologies." But He is not in this way the Creator of all things who is God the Word according to essence. Whence He is also called Wisdom and Truth, when speaking of divine things. Likewise in *Commentary on Romans*, book VI, no. 9: "There is nothing of visible or invisible creation which can be compared to the Son; for in no way can a creature be brought into comparison with its creator; and if the creator himself has been gifted to us, how shall not every creature be gifted to us with him?" He thinks the Son is the effector of things, but a secondary one; and that He indeed created things, but served in the role of an instrument; whereas the Father is the author of creation, and the primary and principal cause: and thus each is assigned his own office. Hence Gennadius, in *De Dogmatibus*, cap. 4: "Let us believe that nothing in the Trinity is unique to one office, nor communicable to another, as Origen does." Hence also Cyriacus, in Simeon Metaphrastes, among the dogmas of the Palestinian Origenists of the sixth century, sets down this: "That the Trinity was not the maker of the world," and Justinian complains that Origen called the Son and the Holy Spirit *leitourgika zoa*, "ministering animals," as I have observed above.

^B

^C XIV. (2) Some of the earlier Fathers attributed these same roles in the working of the world to the Son. Theophilus of Antioch, in book I *To Autolycus*:

^D Certain of the older Fathers attributed [these roles] to the Son. Surely, that all things were created by the Father as supreme artificer—as if commanding—and through the Son—executing the mandate and will of the Father—is so far from being Arian that even Catholic doctors who lived after the Council of Nicaea, and who were most bitter impugners of the Arian heresy, have not feared to affirm this frequently in their writings. Athanasius, in his book *On the Decrees of the Nicene Synod*, explains these words from Psalm XXXII: *He commanded and they were created*, in such a way that he intends the Father to have commanded the Son: "It is of one God, as using His own Word like a hand, and in Him making all things." In the same book, further on: "For the Son of God," he says, "as is clear from the Scriptures themselves, He is the Word of God, and wisdom, and image, and hand, and virtue." Where he calls the Son the hand of the Father no less aptly than the Church calls Him the Right Hand of God, and names the Holy Spirit the Finger of the right hand of God, in that most celebrated hymn: *Veni Creator Spiritus*. The Orientals, in the *Exemplum fidei* against the heretic Photinus: "And again," they say, "confirming the understanding of Christianity, we say: Since if anyone does not say that Christ, the Son of God, subsisting before the ages and ministering to the Father for the perfection of all things; but that from the time He was born of Mary, from then He was named Christ and Son, and received a beginning to be God, let him be anathema." Likewise Marius Victor, in the first book *On the Creation of the World*: "When, at God's command, the omnipotent Son, full of the mind of the Parent, was acting." To the same point refer those words of Prosper in his *Commentary on Psalm CXLVIII*: *He commanded and they were created*: For what God says, He says by the Word: and the Word through whom all things were made, is the command of the One speaking.

^A (God) held the Word as the minister of the things that have come to be, and through Him He made all things. And further down: *When it pleased God to do whatsoever He had deliberated, this Word He begat as prolatitious (uttered).* And a little after: *The Word being God, and born of God, whenever the Father of all wills, He sends Him to some place.* ^B Irenæus lib. III, cap. 8: *To whom did He command? To the Word, surely, through whom, he says, the heavens were established.* And lib. IV, cap. 17: *For His offspring and His fashioning, that is, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Word and Wisdom, minister to Him (the Father), and all the angels serve and are subject to them.* The six bishops of the Antiochene synod in their letter to Paul of Samosata before he was deposed: *We believe this Son, [existing] always with the Father, to have fulfilled the Father's will for the creation of all things.* That [the Son] we believe, always existing with the Father, to have fulfilled the paternal will for the creation of the universe. And from this dogma Arius and Aetius seem to have taken the occasion for thinking the Father to be the primary cause of the creation of things, but the Son to be the instrument: whose madness Athanasius (orat. 3 and 5), Cyril (lib. xv and xvi), and others have chastised.

XV.

name, but a certain aura and image of goodness; so that he is not called absolutely good, but with the addition "the good shepherd," and so forth. An anonymous author in Photius, cod. 117, and Pamphilus in his *Apology* recount this error among those that are commonly cast at Origen. The very words are reported by Justinian at the end of his letter to Mena, which—amended by the interpreter Rufinus and twisted into an orthodox meaning—have been interpolated in *De Principiis*, book 2, no. 13, from which the author of the little treatise *De deitate et incarnatione Verbi* (found at the end of volume IV of Augustine) took them. These things I have adduced above from volume II of *In Joannem*, no. 6, are tainted with this flaw: ^A (4) He withholds from Christ that goodness which belongs to God the Father, not only insofar as he is man, but also insofar as he is the image of the goodness of God, that is, insofar as he is God. Nowhere, however, does he speak more clearly than in volume XV of *In Matthaeum*, no. 10: (5) "As regards the Father, he is the image of goodness, but as regards the rest, that which the goodness of the Father is to him—or rather, a certain close analogy is to be seen in the goodness of God toward the Savior, who is the image of His goodness, than in that of the Savior toward a good man, and a good work, and a good tree—for the excellence toward lesser goods is greater in the Savior, insofar as he is the image ^B of His goodness, that is, of God, than is the excellence of the Good God himself toward the Savior who said: 'The Father who sent me is greater than I,' being toward others also an image of the goodness of God."

To wish to write against these things is not our candor. However, the comparison of the solar ray which we employed above, it is necessary to repeat here, so that his opinion concerning the goodness of the Son may be known. Therefore, just as he believed the Son to be so much inferior to the Father in dignity as the solar ray falls short of the dignity of the sun itself, so one must think he judged the reason for the Son’s goodness to be toward the Father’s goodness. For just as the solar ray contains and expresses a certain image of the sun, but a crude and imperfect one; in the same way he thought the Son bears the image of the Father’s goodness, not a perfect ^C image of the invisible God, and in this sense is God—but not the one of whom Christ himself says: "That they may know thee the only true God" (John XVII, 3)—so he is the image of goodness, but not—as the Father is—without any difference, good. Thus I also think it may be excellently said of the Savior that he is the image of the goodness of God, but not goodness itself. And perhaps the Son himself will be called good, but not as simply good. Just as he is the image of the invisible God, and therefore God, yet not he of whom Christ himself says: "That they may know thee the only true God" (John XVII, 3), so he is an image of goodness, but not, like the Father, good without any difference. Where Origen considers the nature in the divine persons, he determines that the goodness—or what is the same thing, the will of God, as we saw above—which is in the Son, is in no way different from the will of the Father. Here, however, he is occupied with establishing the distinction of persons, and denies that ^D the Son is good in the same way as the Father, because the Father is goodness itself and the fountain of goodness, while the Son is the image of goodness and good from the Good. Therefore, that whole difference does not at all fall into the goodness itself, but into the mode by which the Father is good and the Son is good; the Father indeed has goodness received from no one; the Son has goodness flowing from the Father. — D. Prudentius Maran. *De divinitate Christi*, book IV, chapter 16, no. 1. See further Bull, *Defensio fidei Nicaenae* regarding the Son, chapter 9, no. 13.

(4) "So then in this place, etc." See above, no. 7, our annotation on these very words of Origen.

(5) "As regards the Father, etc." See above, no. 7, our observations on these words of volume XII of *In Joannem*, etc.

even as to the archetype itself, it is in all respects similar and equal, but lightly expressed and far inferior to the excellence of the exemplar. If, therefore, he ever teaches that the goodness of the Son is the same as the goodness of the Father—as in book 1 of *De Principiis*, cap. 2, num. 10 and 13, where he says that the power of both is the same, as is their goodness, and that whatever the Father has, the Son also has—the meaning is easy: namely, that the goodness of the Son is a particle and trace of the Father's goodness, derived and drawn from the Father's goodness. And if at times he attributes goodness to the Father alone, he understands this as the primordial goodness and the source and fountain of goodness; but that the Son is merely endowed with that same Paternal goodness. He seems to have taken occasion for this impiety from a misunderstanding of Matthew 19:17 and John 17:13, and from Plato, who said that the name of "the Good" pertained particularly to God.

XVI. In a similar way there is another dogma to be explained, which Jerome reports as put forward by him in Epist. 59, to Avitus, cap. 1: "That the Son, with respect to the Father, is not the truth, but with respect to us, is the imaginary truth." Augustine has nearly identical things in *De haeresibus* to Quodvultdeum, heresy 43: "Furthermore, he says," he notes, "that the Son of God, compared to holy men, is the truth; ^C but compared to the Father, he is a lie." Nor are those things dissimilar which Guido the Carmelite presents from the decretal epistle of the Palestinian bishops against the Origenists in *Summa de haeresibus*, in the heresy of the Origenists: "If there are any who in their treatises have handed down that the Son, compared to us, is the truth, but compared to the Father is a lie—just as Peter and Paul are to the Savior, that is, that the Only-Begotten Son and Word of God compared to the Father... both they and their dogmas shall be anathema to the Church." With these agrees that anonymous defender of Origen whom I mentioned, and among the chapters usually criticized in him, he places that last one: "That the image of God, with respect to Him whose image it is, insofar as it is an image, is not the truth." ^D This heresy seems to have been expressed in book 1 of *De Principiis*, cap. 2, num. 6, but obscured by the arts of Rufinus and covered by this false interpretation: "Our Savior is therefore the invisible image of God the Father; with respect to the Father himself, he is the truth; but with respect to us, for whom he reveals the Father, he is the image through whom we know the Father."

XVII. The charge that is habitually brought against Origen—that he denied that the Father could be seen by the Son, the Son by the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit by the angels, and the angels by men—is not easily cleared away if one considers the number and authority of his accusers. Epiphanius establishes this as his primary and foremost error in *Haereses* 64, cap. 4, and in the *Ancoratus*, cap. 63, where he exhibits the very words of Origen: "Let them learn," he says, "how Origen did not disdain to say that the Son does not see the Father; but he says: 'Just as the Son cannot see the Father, so the Holy Spirit cannot see the Son.' And again: 'The angels cannot see the Holy Spirit, and men cannot see the angels.'" Let them learn how Origen did not hesitate to say that the Son does not see the Father, but says: "Just as the Son cannot see the Father, nor can the Holy Spirit see the Son." And again: "The angels cannot see the Holy Spirit, and men cannot see the angels." He repeats the same in his epistle to John of Jerusalem, cap. 2. Jerome also, in reviewing the errors of the books of *De Principiis* in epistle 59 to Avitus, says that he wrote in the first volume of this work: "God the Father, being by nature invisible, is not seen by the Son"; and in the second: "It remains that God is invisible. But if he is invisible by nature, he will not be visible to the Savior." The same in epistle 61 to Pammachius, cap. 3: "And first concerning the book *De Principiis*, where he speaks: 'For just as it is incongruous to say that the Son can see the Father, so it is inconvenient to opine that the Holy Spirit can see the Son.'" That John of Jerusalem was involved in this heresy, he demonstrates throughout this whole chapter. Similar is the complaint of Gennadius in his book [alt-version omitted]

^A *On Dogmas*, ch. 4: "Nothing," he says, "is invisible to itself, and to know is of an intellectual nature. Whatever, therefore, belongs properly to bodies, this is not to be thought of the Father or of the Son. But what pertains to the nature of the Deity, this holds between the Father and the Son." He concludes at length that his interpretation had been depraved and corrupted in this place, and so he concludes for the sake of his own clearing: ^B "If anyone denies that the Son does not see the Father as the Father sees the Son, and that the Holy Spirit does not see the Father and the Son as the Father sees the Son and the Holy Spirit, let him be anathema. For He sees, and most truly sees, but as God sees God, and light sees light, and not as flesh sees flesh, but as the Holy Spirit sees; not with corporeal senses, but with the virtues of the Deity." Hallox (lib. V) seized upon Rufinus’s response and explained it more fully ^C in his *Defense of Origen*, quest. 4. Furthermore, the passage of Origen famous for these debates exists in *On First Principles* (lib. I, cap. 1, num. 8), and you will find another similar one in lib. II, cap. 4, num. 3. To these can be added for the defense of Origen that which is also in tom. XX *in John*, num. 7: "As we might call certain men eyewitnesses of the Word from the beginning, about whom Luke says: 'As they delivered unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word,' so we shall say the Savior is an eyewitness of those things that are with the Father, and according to this is it said: 'No one knows the Father except the Son,' while those to whom the Son reveals Him are no longer eyewitnesses; but the word 'eyewitness' clearly indicates that the Savior happens to be of those things which are in the Father, in the text: 'What I have seen with the Father, I speak.'" Here, however, as is often the case elsewhere, it is permissible to make use of that from the ^D *Apology of Pamphilus*: "There is no doubt that he also thinks in the same sense in other matters, and is not self-contradictory."

XVIII. But Rufinus endeavors to drive away this accusation from Origen in many places in his *Invection against Jerome*, and shows that in order to refute the heresy of the Valentinians—who described God as corporeal and constant, made up of human members—Origen proved that God by His own nature lacks a body and therefore cannot fall under the eyes, since vision is of bodies, but that He can be known, because the knowledge of things is of those devoid of a body; therefore, the Father can be known by the Son, but not seen. Then he draws out the very passage of Origen in which these things are held: "It is one thing to see, another to know: to be seen and to see is of bodies; to be known and to know is of intellectual nature. Whatever, therefore, is peculiar to bodies, this is not to be thought of the Father or of the Son. For it is impossible for Him who has a beginning to conceive or to grasp the Beginningless as He is in Himself. For it is not possible for Him to investigate the Father such as He is in Himself. For the Son, indeed, does not know His own essence. For when He says the Son [exists], He exists by the will of the Father. For what reason allows Him who is from the Father to know the Begetter Himself by comprehension? It is manifest that He who has a beginning cannot mentally encompass or comprehend Him who lacks a beginning." ...[For] Origen does not speak in his own words, but introduces another speaking, whose opinion he does not confirm with any sign of approval, as anyone can discern from the testimony itself, which is held in Greek in lib. IV *On First Principles*, num. 35. And even if in this place he were proposing his own opinion rather than someone else's, his words would undoubtedly have to be taken in the same sense as these of Basil from his book IV *Against Eunomius*: "If the Son is true God, and Light, and immutable, and good, and holy, and Lord; yet while He is these, so is the Father, not similarly, but more greatly; not by a superiority of substance, but by a preeminence of quality." And that this is the mind of Origen is understood from those words which precede in Jerome, where Origen speaks in his own name, and determines that there is no doubt that if the Father is in the Son, and is comprehended by Him in whom He is: "For if the Son knows the Father," he says, "it is seen, in that He knows the Father, that He is able to comprehend Him: as if we say the craftsman’s mind knows the measure of his art. Nor is there any doubt if the Father is in the Son, and is comprehended by Him in whom He is. But if we call this comprehension, in such a way that one comprehends all things not only by sense and wisdom, but also holds them by virtue and power, we cannot say that the Son comprehends the Father. But the Father comprehends all things. And among all things is the Son, therefore He also comprehends the Son." The last words are read in Greek in Justinian at the end of the *Epistola ad Menam* thus: "If the Father contains all things, and of all things the Son is one, it is clear that He also [comprehends] the Son." Origen marvelously expounds the unity of essence and equality in the Father and the Son, while he determines the Father is comprehended by the Son because the Father is in the Son. Therefore, he believed the Father to be in the Son, not because the Son obeys the Father, but because the Father handed over to the Son the entire divine substance by begetting Him. Whence Origen recognizes the knowledge and wisdom in both as equal, and removes from the Son only that kind of comprehension by which the Begetter comprehends the Begotten. Domnus Prud. Maran *De divinit. Christi* lib. IV, cap. 16, num. 2 et 4.

^A Another will ask if it is true that God is known by Himself in the same way as He is known by the Only-Begotten; and he will declare that what is said, "The Father who sent me is greater than I," is true in all respects. So that even in the act of knowing, the Father is known more greatly, more clearly, and more perfectly by Himself than by the Son. "To know the Father as He knows Himself." The Son, therefore, knows the Father, being as He is the greatest Good in the very act of knowing Him; and whatever the Son, being in perfect knowledge, knows the Father to be, He is glorified. I believe that even knowing Himself—though this itself is not far from the former—He is glorified by the very fact of His having known Him. The vision of the Father is greater than the vision in the Son. If anyone asks whether our Savior knows everything that is known by the Father according to the depth of His riches, wisdom, and knowledge, and whether, out of a desire to glorify the Father, He declares certain things to be known, ^B by the Father to be unknown by the Son, it is sufficient to be mindful that He is the Truth, and one must add that if Truth is complete, it is ignorant of nothing that is true, lest Truth, lacking in what it does not know, should limp—as those people claim—and exist only in the Father alone; otherwise, let someone show that there are things which, while knowable, do not attain the honor of the name of Truth, but exist above it. *On First Principles*.

Addendum: one ought to consider that passage also from the book, cap. 3, num. (which the author of the little book *On the Divinity and Incarnation of the Word*, addressed to Januarius, which is appended to the fourth volume of Augustine's works, uses as a source); in which it is shown that the knowledge of the Holy Spirit is equal to the knowledge of the Father and the Son, if only Rufinus had not corrupted this work—as I have so often pointed out—especially in those parts where the Trinity is discussed. But the concept is this: "For just as it is said concerning the Son, that no one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal Him, so the Apostle says the same thing also regarding the Holy Spirit when he says: 'To us, however, God has revealed [it] through His Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God'." But again, in the Gospel, the Savior, while mentioning the divine and deeper doctrines which His disciples were not yet able to grasp, says to the apostles: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now: however, when the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, has come, He will teach you all things, and will call to mind all that I have said to you." And so one must hold the opinion that just as the Son, who alone knows the Father, reveals Him to whom He wishes, so the Holy Spirit, who alone searches even the deep things of God, reveals God to whom He wishes; for "the Spirit blows where He wills." For it is not to be thought that the Spirit also learns by the Son revealing it. For if the Holy Spirit knows the Father by the Son revealing Him, then He proceeds from ignorance to knowledge; which is surely both impious and foolish to confess of the Holy Spirit—to ascribe ignorance to Him. If Origen denies that any ignorance is to be ascribed to the Holy Spirit, he attributes to Him a knowledge altogether equal to that of the Father and the Son; for no greater knowledge can be conceived than that which is utterly untainted by any fog of ignorance.

^{C D} XXI. That the Son of God was held and preached by Origen as a created thing—which was the impious and pernicious opinion of the Arians and Anomoeans—these words can persuade, which Justinian cites from a book in his *Epistle to Menas*: "This Son, generated by the will of the Father, who is the image of the invisible God, and the radiance of His glory, and the stamp of His substance, the firstborn of every creature, a creature, wisdom. For Wisdom herself says: 'God created me as the beginning of His ways for His works'."

On First Principles

by him (the Father): which must first be received by those who confess nothing unbegotten, that is, innate, except God the Father alone." This, which Rufinus translates "born or unborn," is rendered by Jerome in Epist. 59, to Avitus, chap. 1, as "made or unmade." For he thus reviews the errors of the first book of *On First Principles*: "He asserts that the Holy Spirit is third in dignity and honor after the Father and the Son: concerning whom, when he says he is ignorant whether he was made or unmade, he expressed in later passages what he felt about Him, confirming that nothing is unmade except God the Father alone." Origen had indeed written, ^A *genetos ē agenētos* [begotten or unbegotten], just as also in tom. 11 in John, num. 6: "There is also a question concerning [the text]: 'All things were made through Him,' and it follows that the Spirit, being a creature, was made through the Word, how He is, as it were, preferred to Christ in certain Scriptures." That these things were assumed by the Arians without cause, Genebrardus contended in his *Collection on the Life of Origen*, cap. 6, as will appear from what follows. (10) Also slightly earlier, "As more pious," he says, "and true, we accept the [view] that, of all things that came into being through the Word, the Holy Spirit is more precious, and in rank [is] before all things which were made by the Father through Christ." And a little further down, in the same num. 6, p. 65: "These things having been examined at length, [it is] for those wishing to see more clearly how, if all things were made through Him, the Spirit also was made through the Word." ^B

(10) Also slightly earlier, "As more pious," he says, "and true, we accept the [view] that, of all things that came into being through the Word, the Holy Spirit is more precious, and in rank [is] before all things which were made by the Father through Christ." But he contends that He existed from God, and uses these words: "And not at all through anyone, but He came into being from God." Just as, therefore, in these places *ginesthai* [to come into being] sounds altogether different than *creari* [to be created]; so, when Origen has testified to his opinion concerning the eternity of the Spirit by so many things, the words must be rendered in a way that matches this opinion for things created or indeed uncreated, but [which] nevertheless receive their being from another. Huetius approves of this method of interpretation, although he says he cannot be brought to consider Origen fully approved and purged.

2. It must be admitted that Origen does not interpret the words of John well, which, since they pertain to created things, ought not to have been referred to the Holy Spirit. But yet, since that word, *egeneto* [came into being], is ^C fitting for all things that have some principle of their being, he does not interpret Scripture in a way contrary to the custom of himself and very many others. For ecclesiastical writers are accustomed to call the Father the sole principle, and they demonstrate that the Son and the Holy Spirit are from the Father, because all things are said in the Scriptures to be from the Father, and they do not hesitate to compare the Son and the Spirit in this with created things, because they received their being from the Father, although in a way far different than created things. Origen, tom. iv, num. 22, p. 80, established that there are many things in God which can be grasped not only by human nature but also by [other] things brought into being besides the Son and the Spirit. It is therefore not at all surprising if, when he counts the Son Himself among the things which have [their] being from God, he should also list the Holy Spirit among the things which existed through the Son. Hilary, a very fierce defender of the Nicene faith, brings forward a response to the Arians seeking cause for caviling [as to] through whom the Holy Spirit is (lib. ix *De Trinit.*, num. 29), [which is] most similar to this place in Origen: "When they say," he says, "through whom He is, and for what He is, or what kind He is: if our answer displeases those who say, 'through whom are all things, and from whom are all things,' and because the Spirit is God's, a gift of the faithful; he ^D

^A is, perhaps, beyond those two, namely, the one who agrees that the Holy Spirit has come into existence through the Word, and the one who deems Him to be unbegotten, a third person who decides that the Holy Spirit does not even have His own proper essence subsisting apart from the Father and the Son; or perhaps, if he thinks the Son to be other than the Father, he is led all the more to think that the Holy Spirit is the same as the Father Himself; whereas the distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Son is manifestly demonstrated in these words: 'Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come' (Matt. XII, 32).

Having premised these things, Origen sets forth his own opinion thus: 'We, however, believing that there are three hypostases, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and believing that nothing is unbegotten save the Father, we accept that the Holy Spirit is the most honorable of all things that have come into existence through the Word, and that He holds an order above all things that have been brought into existence through Christ by the Father; and perhaps this is the reason He is not also called a son of God, the Only-Begotten alone being by nature Son from the beginning, to whom the Holy Spirit appears to stand in need, ministering to His hypostasis, not only for His existence, but also for His being wise, and rational, and righteous, and whatever else one must understand Him to be by participation in the conceptions of Christ which we have previously mentioned.' ^B We, for our part, who are persuaded that there are three hypostases, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and who believe that nothing is unbegotten except the Father, maintain this: since all things have come into existence through the Son, the Holy Spirit is more excellent than all things, and is set apart from all things which have come into existence through Christ from the Father. And this is perhaps the cause why He is not also called the Son of God, since the Only-Begotten alone, existing as Son by nature from the beginning, is He whom the Holy Spirit appears to need, that He may minister to His hypostasis, not only that He may exist, but also that He may be wise, and rational, and just, and whatever else it is altogether fitting for Him to conceive and understand, according to the communication of the notions of Christ which we have already commemorated.

We have in these words an accurate explanation of Origen's opinion. For, 1st, he asserts that the Holy Spirit is "begotten" in the same sense as the Son Himself is; and he denies that He is unbegotten in the same sense as he affirms the Father is unbegotten. For from the fact that the Father alone is unbegotten, he concludes that the same cannot be said either of the Son or of the Father. But truly, when he says that the Father alone is unbegotten, he understands not only that He was not created from nothing, but that He alone has not received His existence from another; from which it is clear that he is not inquiring whether the Holy Spirit was created from nothing or not, but whether He received His existence from another or not. This is confirmed by that necessary distinction of the triple hypostasis, which he adds for his own purposes. Surely no one would say that Origen was so foolish as to conclude that the Holy Spirit, from the fact that He is the third hypostasis of the Trinity, ^C and must not be confused with the Father and the Son, was created and brought forth from nothing, and that the same is true of the Son of God, that He is not born, but made.

2nd. Although he numbers the Holy Spirit among those things which have come into existence through the Son, he nevertheless declares Him to be separated from created things. Hence, when he speaks of the Holy Spirit, he nowhere uses those words which designate creation; nay, he even declares that such words concerning the Son do not occur anywhere in the Scriptures regarding the Holy Spirit (lib. I *De princip.*, cap. 3, num. 2), which passage, as it has been brought forward by the martyr Pamphilus for the defense of Origen, is not devoid of authority: 'Nevertheless,' he says, 'up to the present we have been able to find no word in the holy Scriptures by which the Holy Spirit could be called a production or a creature, not even in the way we showed above that Solomon refers to Wisdom, or what we have discussed as being understood regarding life, or the Word, and other appellations of the Son of God.' Origen would not have lacked such testimony if he had thought that creation was signified by these words of John: 'All things were made'—or 'came into existence'—'through Him' (John I, 3), by which he does not doubt that the Holy Spirit is included.

3rd. He brings forward this reason why the Holy Spirit is not called Son, because He exists from the Father through the Son; in which it is clear that the whole difference between the Son and the Holy Spirit is to be sought not in a dissimilarity of nature, but in a different manner of existence. Hence that observation of the martyr Pamphilus (*Apolog.* cap. 1) upon these words of Origen (from the *proem.* in lib. *De princ.*, n. 4): 'In this it is not yet clearly discerned whether He is born or unborn: "Whoever," he says, "inquires about the born or the unborn without doubt has no opinion that it is a creature, otherwise he would have brought this also into the inquiry."' And Origen adds: 'Or whether the Son Himself of God is to be so considered or not.' ^D Both these last words of Origen and the observation of the holy martyr demonstrate that Origen is not inquiring whether the Spirit is a creature or not, but how He has received it to be one of the three divine persons. Wherefore Jerome, looking upon this passage of Origen, speaks less accurately in his *Epistle to Avitus*: 'Of whom,' he says—that is, of the Holy Spirit—'when he says that he is ignorant whether He be made or unmade: in his later works he expressed what he thought about Him, confirming that nothing is unmade except the Father alone.' Origen never said he was ignorant of whether the Holy Spirit was a creature or not. For in this very *proem.* to his books *De Principiis*, among those things which are manifestly handed down through apostolic preaching, he enumerates this dogma: 'that the Holy Spirit is associated in honor and dignity with the Father and the Son'; which words Pamphilus did not omit. Origen, therefore, never doubted that the Holy Spirit is one of the three divine persons, equal to the Father and the Son; but since His procession did not seem to be explained in the Scriptures as distinctly as the generation of the Son, he judged that effort should be spent in investigating this matter.

4th. He confirms the equality of the three persons, and the unity of substance, by what Origen says (*tom. II in Joan.*, num. 6), that 'the Holy Spirit needs the Son to be wise, rational, just, and whatever else it is altogether fitting for Him to conceive and understand according to the communication of the notions of Christ,' which he had enumerated earlier. As therefore the Son is all things, as Origen teaches, that the Father is; so the Holy Spirit is all things that the Son is, except for the difference of generation and procession; and just as the Father handed over all His things to the Son, as Origen declares elsewhere, so it is necessary, according to his principles, to demonstrate that all things were handed over from the Father through the Son to the Holy Spirit. — D. Prudentius Maran, *De divinitate Christi*, lib. IV, cap. 16, num. 9.

^C Epiphanius in *Panarion*, Heresy 64, chapter 4, asserts this, and from this audacity regarding the Son, learn that he held the Holy Spirit also to be a created thing; "and indeed in many places we find him separating the Only-Begotten God from the divinity and substance of the Father, and likewise also the Holy Spirit; for this reason it is clear that he called him a produced God, because he judges him to be created." Justinian, in his Epistle to Mennas, asserts that Adamantius said the Holy Spirit too are created things, and that what we are to the Son, that the Son is to the Father. Photius, in *Codex* 117, writes that Origen taught in Book 1 of *De Principiis* that the Son was made by the Father and the Holy Spirit by the Son. To these agree Augustine, Cedrenus, Suidas, Zonaras, and Nicetas.

XXIII. If, however, there are points which can extenuate this fault, let us gather them. Rufinus, in his *De adulteratione librorum Origenis*, believed the poison of this heresy was poured into Origen's books by a foreign hand: "Could he," he says, "in the same work, of the same book, be forgetful of himself, as we have said, sometimes immediately in the following chapter? For instance, that he who had said above that it is nowhere found in all Scripture where the Holy Spirit is said to be made or created, should immediately add that the Holy Spirit was made among the other creatures?" Genebrardus brings forward similar points in his *Collectanea de Vita Origenis*, chapter 6. ^D Didymus, however, a man not only of extraordinary learning but also of orthodox faith, does not deny that the writings which are usually objected to are by Origen, but asserts that they are twisted into a bad sense by malevolent persons, whereas they could be defended by a right interpretation. Before we collect these points, we shall bring forward Origen’s testimonies that are sufficiently consistent with Catholic doctrine. He calls the Son Creator in his 7th book *On the Epistle to the Romans*, number 9, and explicitly separates Him from created things: "For there is nothing," he says, "of visible or invisible creature that can be compared to the Son; for in no way can the creature be compared to its Creator; and if the Creator Himself has been given to us, how shall not every creature be given to us with Him?" And in the *Anacephalaeosis* of Book 4 of *De Principiis*, number 28: "For we do not say, as the heretics think, that any part of the substance of God was turned into the Son, or that the Son was begotten of the Father from non-existent things, that is, outside of His own substance, so that there was a time when He was not, but, omitting all bodily sense, we say the Word and Wisdom was begotten from the invisible and incorporeal, without any bodily passion, just as if the will proceeds from the mind." The author of the booklet *De deitate et incarnatione Verbi* repeats this passage in chapter 18, addressed to Januarius, which is found at the end of Augustine’s fourth volume. And these words: "Or that the Son was begotten of the Father from non-existent things, that is, outside of His substance, so that there was a time when He was not," there is no one who does not see [them] either as having been interwoven into the interpretation by Rufinus, or as having been stuffed into the very Greek text by others older than Rufinus, against Arius, whom Sozomen, book 1, chapter 15, says was the first in the Church to dare to say that the Son of God was made from non-existent things. Furthermore, this statement in Epiphanius regarding Origen, that he says the Son is called Son not by nature but by grace, is a fabrication most remote from all of Origen’s principles. I will not say the same concerning the generation from the will of the Father; which way of speaking, while approved by many others, is quite accommodated to Origen’s sentiment. For since he teaches that the will of the Father is generated in the Son, and the whole is communicated to the Son, so that there is an identity of will in both, not undeservedly nor inconveniently could he say that the Son was generated from the Father’s will. Regarding what concerns the text of Proverbs: "The Lord created me" (Prov. viii, 22), etc., by which relying Origen is said to have called the Son created and a created thing; it must be seen in what sense he did this (for it cannot be turned into a fault that he uses the words of Scripture), whether he uses this testimony as clear and open to overturn the eternity of the Son, or rather, as in an obscure and difficult place, he takes refuge in subtle interpretations. Those things which are read in *De Principiis*, book 1, chapter 2, numbers 2 and 3, resolve the dispute, where that "The Lord created me" is not [applied] to Wisdom itself, but...

^A it was evidently looking to that Proverb (vIII, 22), where the LXX has, *The Lord created me the beginning of his ways*. Thus, indeed, did the interpreters of the LXX render this verse, whereas the Hebrew has, *[He] possessed me*. Aquila translated it, *hath acquired me*, and perhaps it should be read thus also among the others; for this reading is upheld by Basil in his book *Against Eunomius*, Gregory of Nyssa in his book *Against the Same*, and Jerome in *Isaiah* xxvi, 13. Although the Chaldean, the Syrian, the Arab, and indeed the greater part of the older Fathers agree with the current reading. Certainly, *ἐκτίσει*—created—can refer to the generation of the Son, meaning *begat*. Cicero, in book I of *De Republica*, says: "Since the fatherland contains most numerous benefits, and is a parent more ancient than he who, as they say, may have created it." Virgil, *Aeneid* x, verse 551:

"Sylvicola Fauno Dryope whom the nymph had created."

Claudian, *De raptu*, verses 59, 60:

"For whatever nature brings forth anywhere, It is created by your gift."

But *ἐκτήσατο*, possessed, is also said of parents; for nothing is as proper to them as the children whom they have begotten. For which reason ^B Eve said of Cain: "I have gotten a man through God." Therefore, one can believe that the Son is called a "creature" by Origen in this sense, in which sons are said to be created by their parents. Wherefore, since in his *Commentary on John*, num. 22, he called Wisdom "animate," that is to say, the Son, "created" by God, he softened that expression with this proviso: "Here are his words: etc." Nor yet does this passage escape the censure of a certain learned man.

The charge against the succeeding passages is that our Savior is called *γενητός*, and since the ambiguity of this last word is such, and its meaning has been ventilated in such frequent disputes, the judgment of this question hangs entirely upon it. We must therefore examine that word accurately, but briefly. From *γεννάω*, to beget, comes *γεννητός*, begotten; from *γίνομαι*, to be, to exist, comes *γενητός*, that is, having it from another that it exists. Therefore, if we wish to speak properly, God the Father is *ἀγέννητος* and *ἀγένητος*, because he is neither begotten by anyone, nor has he it from anyone that he exists. Likewise, the Son is *γεννητός*, begotten, for he is begotten by the Father; he is *γενητός*, for he has it from the Father as his principle that he exists. The Spirit...

[As for] the reasons for future things being previously described by God in Wisdom: "For he made all things in Wisdom" (Ps. CIII, 24). And it must be said that God, when he had "created"—if I may say so—the living Wisdom, permitted it, so that from those figures and species which were in it, it might, as I suppose, provide subsistence and formation and forms to beings and to matter. It is clear, therefore, that Origen means nothing other than that Wisdom was in a certain way created by God, and—with God permitting, or as he says elsewhere, commanding—created all things according to the exemplars and ideas which God had disposed and described within it. And in the same volume, num. 39: "Let it not be passed over by us, nor let it be unreasonably supposed that the Wisdom of God is [merely a phantom of the mind], and for this reason called by this name; for the Wisdom of God does not have its subsistence in the mere phantasms of the God and Father of all, according to phantoms analogous to human thoughts. But if anyone is able to conceive of an incorporeal subsistence containing the reasons of all things, living and, as it were, animate, he will know that the Wisdom of God, which is above every creature, rightly says concerning herself: *The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works*, through which creation every creature has been able to subsist, not being [unsupported by the] divine Wisdom according to which it has been produced." ^C But this must not be passed over in silence, that Jesus, the Wisdom of God, rightfully exists, and for this reason is called by this name: for since Wisdom does not have the substance of the Father of all in the bare thoughts of God, just like the phantasms of human thoughts; but if any person can consider [it] an incorporeal substance of various speculations, containing the reasons of all things, living and as it were animate, he will plainly find that the Wisdom of God is superior to every creature, [and] well says of herself: *God created me the beginning of his ways for his works* (Prov. VIII, 22), through which creation any creature whatever was able to subsist, [not being] devoid of the divine Wisdom according to which it was made. In this, therefore, is placed that creation of Wisdom—that all things were created through it, and any creature whatever has been a participant in it.

^A is truly holy, not *gennētos* (ungenerate), but *genētos* (generated); for he has no begetter, but he has from the Father and the Son in order to exist. This is the proper meaning of those terms, which the Fathers did not always maintain, however, and which the Arians deliberately stirred up and confused, so that in the ambiguity of the term they might more easily construct their fraud. When Origen calls the Son a *genētos* God, understand it thus: "He who has a principle of his own, and a beginning of existence." To the Son, indeed, it is common with created things to have a principle and an origin; but the manner of proceeding and issuing from that principle is clearly different: for the Son proceeds by eternal generation; created things proceed by a temporal creation. In this sense, by which I have spoken, Athanasius writes that the term *agenētos* was used by the ancients in his book *De synodis Arimini et Seleuciae*: "We are not unaware that even those who have said that the *agenēton* is the Father, did not write so as to imply that the Word is *genētos* and a creature, but that he does not have a cause." "For we are not unaware of those who stated that there is one *agenētos*, signifying the Father, not writing in such a way as if the Word were *genētos* and a work, but because the Father has no cause." He says that the Father is called *agenētos* because he does not have it from another that he exists; but he denies that the Son is *genētos* in this sense, that he was made by another: but he does not deny that he is *genētos* in another sense, namely, that which I have indicated, that he has it from another that he exists, not as a made thing, but as a begotten thing. And thus the Son can be called *agenētos*, who does not have it from another that he exists, namely as a work, or a made thing, or as a created thing: and *genētos*, who has it from another that he exists, namely as a begotten thing and as the Son. Thus Origen, who is accused of having called the Son a *genētos* God, and who in *Contra Joannem*, tom. II, num. 6, said he believed the *agenēton* (it must be read, or at least understood as *agenēton*) to be nothing else than the Father, that is, that the Father lacks a principle and does not have it from another that he exists, yet calls the Son *agenētos* in *Contra Celsum*, lib. VI, num. 17: "For no one can know the *agenētos* and the Firstborn of all *genētē* nature according to his worth, as the Father who begat him." There, *agenētos* sounds as "not made, not created." From this, I think, arose the first of the accusations brought against Origen, which Pamphilus reviews in the *Apology*. That first—

^B is, he says, what they call the Son of God "unbegotten." Origen had indeed said *agenētos*, which his adversaries, contentious and litigious men, confused with *agennētos*, so that they might have an opportunity for calumny. But Socrates, on the contrary, speaking of Eusebius, rightly said: "He became an admirer and emulator of Origen's books; in which those who can understand the depth of Origen’s books everywhere find the Son begotten of the Father. An admirer and emulator of the books of Origen, in which those who are able to penetrate with their mind the depth of the books of Origen find the Son born of the Father everywhere." Jerome, however, affirming that Origen himself said "Christ the Son of God is not begotten, but made," that is, *agenēton* and *genēton*, twists both these terms into a different intellect than that which was used by Origen: for when he said the Son is *agenētos*, he meant thereby that he is not made nor created. On the contrary, Jerome explained it as "not begotten," as if he had said *agennēton*; but when he said the Son is *genētos*, he meant thereby that he has a principle of his own; on the contrary, Jerome explained it as "is made." Indeed, he loved thus to drag the words of Origen into the worst sense. (12) Epiphanius says he will approve the use of the term *genētos* in others, but condemns it in Origen. Against those things, however, which he adds—that Origen wished the Son to be called such "by grace"—the defense is ready from Origen himself, who clearly teaches, in *Contra Joannem*, tom. II, num. 6, that only the Only-begotten is the Son by nature from the beginning; and in *Epistolam ad Romanos*, lib. VI, num. 1: "For just as there are many children of God, as the Scripture says: 'I said: You are gods, and children of the Most High all,' yet one is the Son and Only-begotten by nature from the Father."

The passage cited by Diodorus, where the light produced by God (Gen. 1, 3) is said to be the Son, is conveniently explained if we answer that this was referred allegorically to the Son by Origen. For since the Father never says: "I have begotten you today," he can also be cited as always saying: "Let my Son be begotten, who is the true light." The word *gennēthētō*, "let him be begotten," strengthens this answer: for thus it is read in the *Catena*, not as it is commonly read, *genēthētō*, "let it be made."

^C But truly it is inconsistent. ^D "God," he says, "is the principle of all things." One who calls the God of all things the principle would not be speaking absurdly, falling openly into the view that the Father is the principle of the Son, and the Creator is the principle of created things, and God is the principle of existing things generally. In the same sense he teaches in tom. II, num. 23, that the properties of God cannot be known by human nature, and perhaps not even by other begotten things besides the Son and the Holy Spirit, *tacha de kai heterois para Christon kai to hagion Pneuma genētois*. Therefore, nothing is repugnant about a "begotten God," if it is so accepted; but in the sense in which Epiphanius and Jerome accept it, it does not occur anywhere in Origen; unless, perhaps, we wish to believe that the very nature of the Father is thought by Origen to have been created from nothing. For he declares that the will of the Father is born in the Son, *ginomenon en tō Huiō*, as we saw above. — D. PRUDENT. MARAN, *De divinit. Christi*, lib. IV, cap. 15, num. 1.

^A a sol, although it may not be the same in number in substance: and again, the Son from the Father's substance and divinity, as Epiphanius says, he separated; because just as light has proceeded from the sun by outflowing, it can be called separated from it and set apart; furthermore, that the Son is inferior to the Father, because the sun is more noble than light and superior in dignity. He said [it was] created, either in the sense in which children are said to be procreated by their parents, as we have noted; or (14) because he knew that the matter from which the world was fashioned, which he deemed to have emanated from God's substance from all eternity, as we shall show below, could be called created. For he placed this much of a distinction between the generation of the Son and the creation of matter—that it is born of essence, as light flows from light; [while] ^B the third in no way exists as separate from its Father; just as neither a ray is separated from the sun, nor brilliance from light. 4. Finally, that the Son is born from the Father without alteration or diminution of the divine essence. Indeed, this simile helps our minds in a wonderful way in understanding the adorable generation of the Son of God; whence it was used by the Nicene Fathers in their very confession.

XIV. But why do we detain the reader with such involved arguments, wasting time in explaining words and unraveling points? It is better to examine the very arcana of Origen’s doctrine himself. Let us remember that we noted above that Origen believed the Son to have flowed from the substance of God, just as light [flows] from the sun, and therefore to be of the same substance as the Father, because light is of the same substance as that from which it is born.

^B ...to examine. Let us remember that we noted above, etc. This is not to examine the very arcana of Origenian doctrine (says Bull in *Defensio Fidei Nicaenae*, concerning the *homoousion* of the Son, ch. 9, num. 14), but rather to pry into and suspect things about which Origen himself never even dreamt. I admit that the generation of the Son from the Father is illustrated by Origen, even in his books against Celsus, by the simile of a ray or splendor projected from the sun or another luminous body. But what then? Did not all the Catholic Fathers, as many who wrote before as after the Council of Nicaea, use the same simile? Did not the Nicene Fathers themselves, and in their own Creed, say that the Son of God is born of the Father God, as light of light? And what, finally, will become of the divine author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who was not afraid to call the Son of God ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης τοῦ Πατρός, the splendor of the Father’s glory, ch. 1, v. 3? There are certainly two points which Huet deduces from this comparison, and which he imputes to Origen, that are entirely foreign to Origen’s mind. The first is that the Son is divided and separated from the Father as a part of the divine essence from the whole, and so the essence of God is split into parts. But who would believe that such a senseless blasphemy could enter the mind of Origen, a man who was certainly not unlearned? How often, indeed, does Adamantius expressly repudiate this blasphemy in his writings? Thus (to omit six hundred other places), in *lib. IV contra Celsum*, num. 14, p. 510, he mocks the Epicureans and Stoics because they could not τρανῶσαι τὴν φυσικὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἔννοιαν, ὡς πάντη ἀφθάρτου, καὶ ἁπλοῦ, καὶ ἀσυνθέτου, καὶ ἀδιαιρέτου, ^C to clearly understand the nature of God, namely, that He is "entirely incorruptible and simple, neither composite nor divisible." He soon adds that the Son of God subsists in the form of God, that is, in the divine essence, and therefore he himself is also immutable together with the Father. But nothing is more explicitly repugnant to this fabrication than the words of Origen, which Pamphilus cites in his *Apology* from *lib. II* on the *Gospel of John*, namely these: "The only-begotten God our Savior, therefore, is generated alone from the Father, and is Son by nature, not by adoption. But he is born from the very mind of the Father, as the will [is born] from the mind. For the divine nature, that is, of the unbegotten Father, is not divisible, so that we might think the Son was procreated either by division or by diminution of His substance." Regarding the other corollary of Huet, namely, that the Son is considered by Origen to be inferior to the Father, I will show most clearly in its proper place below (though we have already shown above, num. 7) that Origen never maintained that the Son is unequal to the Father according to essence, but only in respect of origin, namely, insofar as the Father is the author and principle of the Son. I will say in a word that Origen and other Catholic Fathers, by using that simile of the sun and the ray, light and splendor, meant to signify only these things, and nothing else came into their minds: 1. That the Father is πηγὴ θεότητος, the fountain of divinity, just as the sun is the fountain of the splendor emitted from it; 2. That the Son is of the same nature and substance as the Father; insofar as... ^D ...matter, or even the world, it must be admitted that Origen, although he very often refutes those who wished the world to be created from uncreated matter or by some inferior God; although in *lib. II De principiis*, ch. 5, num. 4, he teaches that "it is certain according to the faith of our history in ecclesiastical definitions that the world was made and began at a certain time," yet he sometimes leans toward that absurd opinion, that he does not disapprove that before this world some other worlds unlike it existed. Whether he considered these vicissitudes of worlds succeeding one another to be eternal, I do not examine: but even if he had considered them eternal, the testimonies concerning the eternity and divinity of the Son would always stand on their own strength. For he ascribes eternity to the Son of God in one way, and to created things in another; to the former by affirming and asserting; to the latter by conjecturing and doubting; [to the latter] because otherwise the omnipotent God will not appear to have always been, unless something by His dominion...

^A that He might be Son, but always was and is, just as the Father. Wherefore Athanasius in his book *De Decretis synodi Nicaenae* says thus: "And concerning the Word being co-eternal with the Father... allow it to be heard again by you also from the industrious Origen." And Socrates, lib. VI, cap. 6, after he said that Plato was accustomed to be read by George, and Origen by Timothy, Arian presbyters, says: "It seems wonderful to me, then, how these men remained in the religion of the Arians, of whom the one always had Plato in his hands, and the other breathed Origen; for neither does Plato say that the second and third cause—as he is accustomed to name them—received a beginning of existence; and Origen everywhere confesses the Son to be co-eternal with the Father." Epiphanius Scholasticus translates: "To me, however, it seems admirable how such men remained in the law of the Arians, of whom one indeed always held Plato in his hands, the other breathed constantly upon Origen: since nowhere does Plato (as he himself is accustomed to name it) assert that the second or third cause received a beginning of subsistence, and Origen everywhere confesses the Son to be co-eternal with the Father." And Guido of Saint-Victor in his *Summa de haeresibus*: "Origen," he says, "in his *Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans*, did not follow the error of Arius concerning the existence of the Son of God: for Arius says that there was a time when the Son of God was not, which Origen rejects in two ways; first, expounding that passage of Rom. 1, 'Who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh,' he says thus: 'He was made, without doubt, that which he was not before according to the flesh: but according to the Spirit, that is, according to the Deity, by which he is God, he was spirit, he was before, and there was no time when he was not.' Secondly, he rejects the error of Arius when he says: 'For it must be observed that it does not say, Who was predestinated to be the Son of God in power according to the spirit of sanctification, but says: Who was destined to be the Son of God in power... For he who is, is destined; but he who is not yet, is predestinated, as the Apostle says of these: Whom he foreknew, them he also predestinated (Rom. VIII, 29). Therefore those can be foreknown and predestinated who are not yet; but he who is, and always is, is not predestinated, but destined... But the Son of God always was from eternity, and there was no time when he was not.' Where it is clear that Origen clearly condemns the error of Arius." To prove this with more is superfluous, which Athanasius sufficiently proved from a double passage of Origen in the *Decretis synodi Nicaenae*. Moreover, concerning what is said about the generation of the Son ^B being *teletotate*, as Clement of Alexandria speaks in lib. VI *Strom.*: "And most holy, and most sovereign, and most governing, and most kingly is the nature of the Son, which is closest to the only Omnipotent." But it matters little by what word he signifies the Son's origin from the Father, whether calling it *ktiston* (created), or *poieton* (made), or *genneton* (begotten), provided the thing itself matches. Hence it is also clear in what sense he said in *Commentary on John*, num. 2, that the Son draws and derives His divinity from the divinity of the Father, *apo tou Theou arusanta, ei, sposanta tes theotetos eis heauton*, that is, a portion of divinity, not [a separate] divinity. Furthermore, since if you posit an eternal sun, it is necessary to posit a co-eternal light, therefore he acknowledged the Father as co-eternal with the Son in *Commentary on John*, num. 32. "But when 'Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee' is said to Him by God, to whom 'today' always is—for there is no evening for God; but I think that there is not even a morning, but the 'day' is to Him time, if I may so speak, extending itself along with His unbegotten and eternal life, in which the Son has been begotten; the beginning of whose generation is thus not found, just as neither is that of the day." And lib. I *De principiis*, cap. 2, num. 10: "Through the Gospel it is taught that all things were made by Him, and without Him was made nothing (John I, 3): and let him understand from this, that there cannot be an older appellation in the omnipotent God than that of Father: for by the Son the Father is omnipotent." And in the following chapter, speaking of the Holy Trinity, he says, num. 4: "The things of which we speak are indeed named temporarily in the treatment of discourse, but by their nature they exceed all understanding of temporal sense"; and lib. V, in *Anacephalaeosi*, num. 28: "Above all time, and above all ages, and above all eternity are the things which are said concerning the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be understood. For this Trinity alone is that which exceeds all sense of understanding, not only temporal, but also eternal. The other things, however, which are outside the Trinity, are to be measured in ages and in times." Which passages the author of the work *De deitate et incarnatione Verbi*, which is found at the end of the fourth volume of Augustine, uses in chapters 13 and 19. To these add also this one from lib. I *in Epist. ad Rom.*, cap. 1, num. 5: "Who was never predestinated ^C to be the Son, but always was, and is, just as also the Father." Truly, because He is God, the Word, Wisdom, Truth, the splendor of the Father and the most absolute image to whom nothing is lacking that indeed is in the Father. Moreover, he does not only consult the omnipotence of the Father in this absurd opinion, but also of the Son Himself. For he feared that either the Father would be demonstrated as omnipotent, or the Son as an effluence of that omnipotence, always to have existed, unless there existed created things over which the Father and the Son, to whom he applied one and the same omnipotence, held dominion. These things are to be read in lib. I *De principiis*, cap. 9, num. 10. Wherefore this opinion concerning the antiquity, or if you will, the eternity of worlds, does not harm the eternity of the Son any more than that of the Father. Hence Hermogenes, who imagined matter to be uncreated even more absurdly, had uttered nothing new concerning the Son of God, as Tertullian testifies; nor are the consequences which Tertullian rightly draws from his sentence more injurious to the Son than to the Father. D. Prud. MARAN *De divinit. Christi*, lib. IV, cap. 14, num. 5. See also Bull's *Defens. fidei Nicenae* concerning the Son's *te synaidio*, cap. 3, num. 6.

^A Since we have said these things, the same must be understood regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit, and indeed it is generated from the fire and is diffused, being coeval with it, and it would be coeternal if the fire were eternal. Therefore, Arius differed from Origen in that the former said the Son was made *ex ouk onton*, that is, from nothing, and that there was a time when he was not; whereas the latter said that he was a portion of the Father’s substance and an effluvium flowing from eternity and coeternal with the Father. That the Psathyrian heretics, who were descendants of Arius, fell into this error is recounted by Theodoret in book IV of his *Haereticarum fabularum compendium*. The author of the work *De deitate et incarnatione Verbi* addressed to Januarius, which is found at the end of the fourth volume of Augustine and is almost entirely stuffed with Origen’s rags, states, on the authority of John and Paul, that the Word is generated in the 40th chapter, just as splendor proceeds from light: "For there is," he says, "an eternal and everlasting generation, just as splendor is generated from light"; and in chapter 19: "But John also indicates that God is light, and Paul designates that the Son is the Splendor of the eternal light. Therefore, just as light could never exist without splendor, so also the Son cannot be understood without the Father, who is called the express image of his substance, and the Word, and Wisdom." Finally, he decrees that the Son is "God of God, light of light."

Lest anyone think that we have gratuitously summoned the example of the sun and the solar ray to explain Origen’s views, here are his own words from *Homily IX on Jeremiah*, num. 4: ^B "(15) If, then, I shall bring forward concerning the Savior that the Father did not beget the Son, and the Father released him from his generation, but is always begetting him, I will also present something similar regarding the Just One; but let us see who the Savior is for us. *The brightness of his glory*: the brightness of glory has not been begotten once, nor is it being begotten; but in as much as the light is productive of the brightness, to that extent is the brightness of the glory of God being begotten. Our Savior is the Wisdom of God; and wisdom is the brightness of eternal light. If, therefore, the Savior is always being begotten, and for this reason he says: *Before all the hills he begets me*, and not: *Before all the hills he has begotten me*, but: *Before all the hills he begets me*, and the Savior is always being begotten by the Father." Tertullian uses the same similitude in *Apologeticus*, cap. 21: "Even when the ray is extended from the sun, it is a portion of the whole. But the sun will be in the ray, because it is the sun's ray; nor is the substance separated, but extended. Thus, Spirit is from Spirit, and God from God, as light is kindled from light: the matrix of the substance remains whole and unblemished, even if you draw many transmissions of quality from it. Thus, that which has proceeded from God is God, and the Son of God, and both are one." These words are echoed in his book *Against Praxeas*, cap. 9: "The Father is the whole substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as he himself confesses: *For the Father is greater than I*." Hence it is clear in what sense he said in *Against Praxeas*, chapters 2 and 4: "The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of one substance, and one status, and one power, and the Son does not derive himself from anywhere else than from the substance of the Father." ^C Augustine himself explains the generation of the Word with the same comparison in book VI of *De Trinitate*, at the very beginning, but does not draw the same conclusion from it: "Arius himself," he says, "is said to have stated: If the Son exists, he is born: if he is born, there was a time when the Son was not; not understanding that there is also an eternal birth from God, so that the Son is coeternal with the Father: just as the splendor that ^D is generated from fire, and is diffused, is coeval with it, and would be coeternal if the fire were eternal."

XXV. Yet, not only in these matters, but also in others pertaining to the generation of Christ and the procession of the Holy Spirit, both this Tertullian whom I mention, and several other of the most ancient doctors, even those preceding the Nicene council, have either matched or surpassed the impiety, or perhaps call it the ignorance, of Origen. Tatian, Tertullian himself, and Lactantius said that God, when he meditated the creation of the world, brought forth his Word as a minister to be used in the engineering of things. Basil also reports in *Epistle* 64 that Gregory Thaumaturgus said the Son was created and made. The following words of Dionysius of Alexandria are also read, which are of singular folly: that the Son of God is a "work and a creature, alien to the Father in substance, just as the farmer is to the vine." Finally, he adds: "For as he is a work, he did not exist before he was generated."

(16) Justin, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, etc. In what sense the statements of those ancient doctors, whom Huetius cites here and below, should be understood—that God, when he meditated the creation of the world, brought forth his Word—is explained at length by the lord Prudentius Maran in his *De divinitate Christi*, book IV, cap. 4, num. 3; cap. 6, num. 3 et seq.; cap. 7, num. 2; cap. 8, num. 3 and 4; cap. 12, num. 2 et seq.; cap. 22, num. 4 and 5; cap. 23, num. 6; cap. 24, num. 2. See him.

"For in that He is a work, he did not exist before he was made." Photius also relates that Theognostus of Alexandria, a follower of Origen, said in the second book of his *Hypotyposes* that the Son is created, although Athanasius used the authority of both him and Dionysius of Alexandria to refute the Arians. We have indicated that this was said allegorically by Origen, and likewise that the Son was produced by the Father when He ^A commanded "light to be made." Indeed, Tertullian said this plainly and openly in *Against Praxeas*, ch. 3: "Then the Word himself assumed form and adornment, sound and voice, when God said: 'Let there be light.'" But while it is necessary to judge with less severity a man equal to those times, in which these questions had not yet been agitated, such things can by no means be tolerated in Rupert, who speaks as follows in book 1 of his *Commentary on Genesis*, ch. 10: "For the Word, truly existing without voice and containing all things potentially, the Father then actually generated when He created heaven and earth, when He made light and the rest. The heart of the Father therefore belched forth the good Word and from the womb—that is, from the secret of His own substance—He generated that Word before Lucifer, when He said: 'Let there be light.'"

^B That the two seraphim which are described in Isaiah with six wings, crying one to another and saying: "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Sabaoth," should be understood as the only-begotten Son of God and the Holy Spirit. But we think that also what is said in the Canticle of Habakkuk: "In the midst of two animals, or two lives, You shall be known," ought to be understood of Christ and the Holy Spirit. For all knowledge of the Father, with the Son revealing Him, is known in the Holy Spirit, so that both these—which according to the prophet are called either living beings or lives—may exist as the cause of the knowledge of God the Father. Similarly, this interpretation, by which the two olive trees of the golden candlestick which Zechariah in ch. 4 narrates that he saw are explained as the Son and the Holy Spirit, is also impious; but the center lamp is God the Father (of whom Jerome says in *Zechariah* 4 that it cannot be said without blasphemy that Christ and the Holy Spirit are at His right and left), and the branches or spikes of the olives are the incarnation of Christ, and the likeness of the dove is the Holy Spirit. If Origen wished—as he certainly did wish—that the seraphim of Isaiah be taken anagogically as symbols of Christ and the Holy Spirit, just as David was a type of Christ and the animals or lives or olives of the candlestick symbols, then the complaints of Jerome are vain. The following points demonstrate this more clearly, in which Origen writes that by these words: "The whole earth is full of his glory," the coming of Christ is signified; for it is certain that He whose glory is said to be full of the earth here is the very Lord God of Sabaoth; but Origen believed that Christ is He whose glory fills the earth. He believed, therefore, that Christ himself is the Lord God of Sabaoth. ^C If this be so, Origen would have thought that the seraphim stood by Christ himself, not that one of them was Christ. Therefore, Haymo of Halberstadt labors in vain in his book *On the Memory of Ecclesiastical Matters* to say that these things were inserted into the works of the Origenists by malicious persons; or if they do have Origen as their author, that they were put forward tentatively.

XXVI. There is in Origen, *Homily 1 on Isaiah*, num. 2, the statement that the two seraphim by which the prophet writes that he saw the throne of God surrounded are Christ and the Holy Spirit. The same is repeated in book 1 of *On First Principles*, ch. 3, num. 3, where he also praises his Hebrew master as the author of this exposition, and in book IV, num. 26. Whence Antipater, Bishop of Bostra, in his *Disputations against Origen*, says: "Concerning the cherubim or the seraphim, we can say nothing, because the writer (Origen) learned from the Hebrew—who is the very Hebrew signified by him—that the Son and the Holy Spirit are signified." And those *Disputations* of Antipater are contained in the *Eclogues* of John of Damascus, which have not yet been edited but are preserved in the Bibliotheca Claromontana of the Society of Jesus. Justinian provides the very words at the end of his letter to Mennas. This interpretation so stirred the stomach of Jerome (17) that he called it impious and detestable. Therefore, the interpretation of the following homily (num. 1), in which he teaches that David is Christ, is also impious and detestable. Impious also is that which in book 1 of *On First Principles*, ch. 3, num. 3, he joined to the opinion condemned by Jerome. Both are of this kind: "And the Hebrew said that those two seraphim in Isaiah with six wings crying to one another and saying: 'Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Sabaoth,' are the Only-begotten of God and the Holy Spirit. But we think that in the canticle of Habakkuk: 'In the midst of two animals you shall be known,' [it is] about Christ and the Holy Spirit." ^D Moreover, the Hebrew master used to say...

XXVII. Photius, *Codex* 8, recounting the errors of the books of *On First Principles*, says that these are contained in the first book: "The Father extends through all things that exist, the Son only through rational beings, and the Spirit only through those who have attained salvation." But in *Codex* 106 he relates that Theognostus of Alexandria, defending the dogmas of Origen, said in the second book of his *Hypotyposes* that the Son "presides over rational things only." Athanasius in the book which he wrote on *Matt.* XII, 32, teaches that these things tend toward the heresy of Novatus, and he rejects Origen and his follower Theognostus. Theophilus also bitterly attacks him with insults in his *1st Paschal [Letter]*, and overturns those fabrications by reason and authority. Jerome also touches upon these lightly in...

^A *Epist. ad Avit*. He refutes him, indeed, with his own words, at the end of the letter to Menas, representing such things from Book I of *De principiis*, ch. 3, no. 5: "For God the Father, holding all things together, reaches to each of the things that exist, bestowing being from his own [nature] to each one of those that exist; but the Son, reaching only to rational beings, is lesser in comparison to the Father; for he is second to the Father; and the Holy Spirit, extending only to the holy, is yet less than the Son. Hence, in this respect, the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; and the power of the Son is greater than that of the Holy Spirit; and again, the power of the Holy Spirit is more distinguished than for other holy beings."

That God indeed and Father, containing all things, reaches to each one of the entities, imparting being to each from his own, for He himself is He who is; but the Son, being lesser than the Father, reaches only to rational beings, for he is second from the Father; yet more minor is the Holy Spirit, reaching only to the holy. Thus from this the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and Holy Spirit, and the power of the Son is greater than that of the Holy Spirit; and again, the power of the Holy Spirit is more excellent than that of other holy beings ^B. Apt from this dogma is that which is in *Commentary on Matthew*, Tom. II, p. 441: "One is the shepherd of rational beings, the Word"; and that from Tom. XI, p. 506: "Perhaps also there are some loaves of the words of Jesus which it is permitted to give only to those who are more rational, as to children"; and what he teaches in *Commentary on John*, Tom. VI, p. 107, that Christ is "the self-truth which is essential, and the prototype of the truth in rational souls"; and that also from Tom. XXXII, p. 450: "I think that the Son is the effulgence of the whole glory of God, according to Paul, who says: 'Who is the effulgence of his glory'; but that from this effulgence of the whole glory, partial effulgences reach to the rest of the rational creation"; and what he says, Tom. I *in Joan.*, no. 29, that Christ is light insofar as he illuminates minds that are partakers of reason.

And likewise that which I find in *De principiis*, Book I, ch. 3, no. 5, in the translation of Rufinus: "In those only do I judge the work of the Holy Spirit to be, who already turn themselves toward better things, and walk through the ways of Jesus Christ; that is, they are in good actions and remain in God." And a little further down: "In this manner, therefore, the operation of the power of God the Father and the Son extends indiscriminately over every creature; but we find participation in the Holy Spirit is had by the holy only." And in Book VII *in Epist. ad Rom.*, no. 6: "So great is the fact that he (Christ) died for the ungodly; for as Paul himself shows when he says: 'For Christ, when we were still weak, in due time died for the ungodly' [Rom. v, 6]: but the Holy Spirit does not now intercede for the ungodly, but for the saints." ^C Which for all these he wishes to be understood: that the Father operates in all things that are, because He is the principle of the whole essence, or existence (if it is permitted so to speak); the Son, who is also the *Logos*, that is, according to the exposition of Origen, Reason, experiences his power only in those things which are endowed with reason; the Spirit, who has his proper surname from holiness, assigns the power of sanctification only to the saints.

XXVIII. (18) And these things, thus abruptly taken, are scarcely such that they escape censure. But if anyone should attend to the mind of Origen rather than to his words, he will think otherwise. For although the works of the Holy Trinity are one and the same, and whatever the Father does in external things, the Son does the same, and the Holy Spirit also; nevertheless, certain things are wont to be assigned to the Father, others to the Son, others to the Holy Spirit. As, therefore, the creation of things is commonly attributed to the Father, even though it belongs equally to the three persons; so Origen ascribes the care of all rational beings to the Son, who is the *Logos*; but he assigns the collation of holiness to the Holy Spirit, according to Rom. 1, 4, and II Thess. 2, 13, although it is owed to the whole Trinity. It is written in 1 Pet. 1, 2: "According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." Foreknowledge is attributed to the Father, and the infusion of holiness to the Holy Spirit.

That Origen held this view, one may judge from those things which are extant in *De principiis*, Book I, ch. 3, no. 7: "Furthermore, in the Trinity nothing is to be said as greater or lesser, since the fount of one divinity holds all things by his Word and reason; but he sanctifies with the Spirit of his mouth those things which are worthy of sanctification, as it is written in the Psalm: 'By the word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the power of them by the spirit of his mouth' [Ps. xxxii, 6]. There is also a certain principal operation of God the Father beyond that which He granted to all things that they might naturally exist. There is also a certain principal ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ, which he confers upon those whom he makes rational, through which it is provided to them that they might exist well. There is also another grace of the Holy Spirit, which is granted to the worthy, namely, administered through Christ, but unoperated by the Father according to the merit of those who are rendered capable [of it]. This the apostle Paul points out most manifestly, setting forth one and the same virtue of the Trinity when he says: 'There are divisions of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are divisions of ministries, but the same Lord; and there are divisions of operations, but the same God who works all things in all. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit according to what is expedient' [1 Cor. xii, 4-7]. From which it is most manifestly signaled that..."

(18) And these things, thus abruptly taken, etc. If Origen were saying that rational beings are illuminated by the Son without the Father, and holy ones are sanctified by the Holy Spirit without the Father, he would deservedly seem injurious to the holy Trinity, and I know not if he would be yet more injurious to the Father. But there resides in this no suspicion of such error, and he says the power of the Father is greater and more broadly reaching in this only than the power of the Son and Spirit, because while rational beings receive reason from the Son, and holy ones receive holiness from the Spirit, the Son and Spirit receive all things from the Father. — D. Prudentius. MARAN *On the divinity of Christ*, book IV, ch. 16, no. 2.

^A For we truly call Him by the name of Wisdom, since the Holy Spirit and the Father Himself are Wisdom; thus the Holy Spirit is properly called by the name of charity, since the Father and the Son and the Spirit are universally charity.

In similar fashion we address another petition, related to the former one. Athanasius in *Matthew* XII, 32, wonders if Origen thought that the sins against the Holy Spirit are those which are committed after baptism. Indeed, since he said that the Holy Spirit alone works within the saints and Christians, it follows that when they sin, the person of the Trinity who works in them—namely, the Holy Spirit—is especially offended by their sin. Novatian, who denied the remission of sins to the fallen, did not deviate much from this, because he said that the Holy Spirit is offended by the sins of Christians, whose offenses Christ taught are not forgiven in this age or in the age to come. But just as Origen believed that the three persons of the Trinity work in Christians, even if this operation is wont to be attributed properly to the Holy Spirit; so he said that the sins of Christians admitted after baptism injure Him properly, although he judged that the Father and the Son are also offended by them.

^C XXIX. Furthermore, that anonymous author whom Photius (cod. CXVI) reports to have written an *Apology* for Origen, mentions that it was blamed in Origen that he pronounced that the Son should in no way be invoked. Augustine, in *Heresies* XLIII, to Quodvultdeus, relates that Origen indeed meant that the Son should not be prayed to with the Father—but not that He should not be prayed to at all—and he provides a reason for why he thought this way: "He says besides," he writes, "Origen himself, that the Son of God compared to holy men is truth; but compared to the Father, a lie; and that the Son is as distant from the Father as the apostles are from Christ. Whence the Son is not to be prayed to with the Father, because He is not the author of the seeking of indulgences, but a suppliant."

Theophilus of Alexandria, in his *Second Paschal Letter*, combined both accusations, where he says that Origen dared to say, "The Son is not to be prayed to, nor the Father with the Son;" which is indeed an absurd complaint and one conflicting with itself; for if Origen wished that the Son not be prayed to, why would he have forbidden the Father from being prayed to with the Son, who is not to be prayed to at all?

^D Certainly, if we recall the things said above concerning the majesty of the Son being violated by Origen, we will easily grasp what he must have thought concerning His invocation. For since our prayer ought to be accommodated to the dignity of the one whom we address with prayers, Origen had to say that the Father should be worshipped with a more humble supplication than the Son, if he wished to retain the consistency of his doctrine. And our conjecture does not fail us, for the books against Celsus declare that this was his genuine opinion, in the fifth book, number 4, where he discourses thus: "For every petition, and prayer,"

and intercession, and thanksgiving must be sent up to the God who is over all, through the high priest of all angels, ^A the living Word and God; and we shall also pray to him, and we shall offer thanks to him, and we shall make intercession to him." [alt-version omitted]

Seeing that he so clearly declares the equality of the Father and the Son and their unity of essence, why does he suppose that the Father is to be prayed to more than the Son? Why does he seem to reserve prayer, properly so called, to the Father alone? ^B Assuredly, he does not prescribe this so that we might pray to the Father more frequently or more fervently than to the Son, or that we might trust we shall receive more from the Father than from the Son; since he attributes to the Son all things whatsoever that are in the Father, and declares that both are to be worshiped by "supplicating with all our strength and praying." Nor does that subtle distinction between prayer properly and improperly so called signify a different nature in the Son than in the Father, or a greater or lesser power, for the same reasons, and also because Origen often, as Huetius admits, directs prayers to the Son himself, and in this very place teaches that supplications, thanksgivings, and petitions are due to him.

The whole of that distinction therefore comes down to this: that by the name of prayer we understand those petitions which are accommodated to the order that subsists between the divine persons, so that, since the Father is the fount and origin of divinity, they may be directed to him. In this sense we pray to the Father more than to the Son—not because we pray more frequently or more fervently, but because we pray *through* the Son. You will find no other difference in Origen between those prayers offered to the Father and those offered to the Son. ^C And this opinion of his is the less to be blamed because it seems to be derived from the custom of the Church and the practice of public prayers which are directed to the Father. The matter seemed of such importance to the African bishops that they approved it and decreed it in canon 23 of the Council of Carthage: "That no one in prayers should name the Father instead of the Son, or the Son instead of the Father. And when standing at the altar, prayer should always be directed to the Father. And whoever copies prayers for himself from elsewhere, let him not use them unless he has first discussed them with more instructed brethren."

But Origen's opinion is to be illustrated from his book *On Prayer*, in which he makes it his deliberate business to examine this. In this book, numbers 14, 15, and following, he sets out to explain the four species of prayer prescribed by Paul: supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings. He defines ^D obsecration as a prayer sent up supplicantly by someone in order to obtain what they lack; but prayer (properly so-called), as that which is offered more magnificently with glorification by a person placed in dangers concerning greater matters. The third species he assigns to that which is asked of God with greater confidence; the fourth, finally, to benefits already received. He then adds examples of each species: the first from the prayers of Mordecai and Esther; the second from those of Azariah, Tobias, Anna, Habakkuk, and Jonah; the third from the prayers of Joshua and Samson; the fourth, finally, from these words of Christ: "I confess to thee, Father" (Matt. xi, 25), etc. He determines that thanks are to be rendered to Christ; he teaches that one should make requests of him by the example of Stephen: "Lord, do not lay this sin to their charge" (Acts vii, 60); and that one should also make supplication and obsecration to him, just as the father of the lunatic supplicated: "I beseech thee, Lord, have mercy on my son."

But with regard to the prayer which he calls *proseuche*, he fully opened his mind on it in number 15: "If we should hear what it is that constitutes prayer, perhaps it is that one should not pray to any of those who are begotten, not even to Christ himself, but solely to the God of all and

^{A B C D} and let us pray, if we are able to hear the distinction between prayer in the proper sense and prayer in the improper sense. He bids that prayer properly so-called be poured out to God the Father, but the improper and [catachrestic] prayer to the Son: to the former as to God, the giver of good things; to the latter as to a mediator, who offers our prayers to God: “because He is not the author,” says Augustine speaking in the person of Origen, “of the petitions granted, but a supplicant.” He reveals his mind even more clearly in Book VIII, no. 13: “But the one God, and His one Son, and Word, and [...] ecclesiastical prayers are rendered in one form, nor should they differ among those who pray otherwise. Or do we not suffer division if some of us pray to the Father and others to the Son? It is the sin of simple folk, in their great guilelessness, to sin through unexamined and unscrutinized prayer, whether they offer it to the Son *with* the Father or *without* the Father. Do we not indeed suffer division if some of us pray to the Father and others to the Son, committing the same sin through great simplicity, thoughtlessly and without examination, like simpletons who pray to the Son either with the Father or without the Father?”

From these things, it is clear that Origen had no other purpose than that the manner of prayer which flourishes in the Church should be observed, that the Father should be prayed to through the Son. When he considers the divine nature in the Son, he confesses that He is to be besought, that petitions are to be made to Him, and thanks given to Him; but when he attends to the fact that He received all things from the Father, and for our sake was made incarnate and became our brother, he concludes that prayers, which ought not to be expressed in the plural number nor in a varied and inconstant manner, should be directed to the Father through the Son. But while I contend that nothing fell from Origen in these passages against the divinity of Christ, I shall nevertheless confess that he is more precise than is just in his laborious questions and minute reasonings, and that he lays down things which, if they are not constrained by any exception, can be reconciled neither with the prayers which Origen repeats from Scripture, nor with those which were sometimes directed to the Son in the very beginnings of the Church; indeed, not even with Origen's own principles, from which it would follow that even the obsecrations, petitions, and acts of thanksgiving which he confesses are owed to the Son should be instituted in the same way as prayer itself.

It will perhaps seem troublesome that, encountering these words of Deuteronomy which he foresaw would be cast at him: “Let all the angels of God adore Him” (Deut. xxxii, 43), he responds that the same was said concerning the Church: “If anyone,” he says, “thinking that prayer should be poured out to the Son Himself, and revering that which follows from adoration, objects to us that text: ‘Let all the angels of God adore Him,’ which is without controversy said of Christ in Deuteronomy; one must say to him that the Church, which is called Jerusalem by the prophet, is to be adored by kings and queens who have become nursing fathers and nursing mothers, as is apparent from these words: ‘Behold I will lift up my hand to the nations... kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and queens thy nursing mothers: they shall worship thee, bowing down to the earth’ (Isa. xlix, 22, 23),” etc. Since the manner of praying and adoring is the same, it is not at all surprising if Origen, who teaches that prayers should be directed to the Father as the fountain of divinity, should decide the same concerning adoration. There can be no doubt from the testimonies just mentioned that he teaches that Christ is to be adored with the Father, as the true Son and God one with the Father. But if he employs that distinction, so that although the Father and the Son, as one God, are adored simultaneously, adoration is nevertheless rendered to the Father as the fountain of divinity, and to the Son as God from God; this sentiment remains far distant from the inventions of the Arians. Although Origen admits the metaphor in the example of the Church being adored by kings and queens, it does not follow from this that he equally admitted it in the adoration rendered to the Son; but he only contends for this, that although the Father is adored and the Son is adored, the distinction of each person is not for that reason abolished; for in fact the Church itself is said to be adored. In a similar manner, in the eighth book against Celsus, in order to prove that the Father and the Son are not confused, even though they are said to be one, he uses the example of the first believers, of whom there was one heart and one soul. And does it follow from this that in his [view] between the Father...

and the Son there is not a closer union than is admitted among the faithful? By no means, indeed, since he defends there the identity of will in both. There is no reason to fear in this place that the adoration due to the Son should be harmed by the example of adoration taken from Isaiah. ^D MARAN, *De divinitate Christi*, lib. IV, cap. 16, num. 7 and 8. See further the notes of the English scholar on Origen’s book *De oratione*, towards the end of our previous volume. See also Bull's *Defensio fidei Nicænæ*, concerning the *homoousion* of the Son, sect. 2, cap. 9, num. 15.

(21) The commentary is extant *in Joan.*, num. 6. In that place Origen asks how it can be, if the Holy Spirit exists through the Son, that the Son himself in Isaiah says he was sent by the Lord and his Spirit. He answers first that Christ was sent by the Spirit, not because the Spirit is superior in nature, but on account of the economy of the incarnation of the Son of God the Savior, who lowered himself beneath the Spirit. Then truly, as he was talented in devising such things, he proposes this conjecture, that perhaps this had to be said, that the creature needed to be liberated from the bondage of corruption, etc. Huetius chastises a double error here. But that very learned man paid less attention to the word *hōsper* (as it were), which shows that Origen is using a figure of speech, and by no means saying that the incarnation especially suited the Holy Spirit, and that he could not sustain this task; but that he attributed it to the Savior as though it suited him, and he could not sustain it. For since Origen certainly held that the Son is greater than the Holy Spirit by reason of origin, and could not be sent by him, seeing that the Holy Spirit exists through the Son, he thought the passage of Isaiah should be explained thus: that the Son should be said to have been sent not as by a superior, but as a person proceeding from him and deferring this task for the sake of honor. It would therefore be very absurd to accept that which Origen declares he is fabricating, as his genuine opinion. — D. Prudent. MARAN, *De divinit. Christi* lib. IV, cap. 16, num. 10.

796 we worship, offering to the God of all our prayers through his Only-begotten, to whom we first offer them, asking him, as he is the propitiation for our sins, to offer our prayers, sacrifices, and intercessions as high priest to the God above all. ^A For one must pray only to the God above all, and one must indeed pray also to the Only-begotten, and firstborn of all creation, the Word of God, and one must ask him, as high priest, to carry up the prayer that has reached him to his God, and our God. ^B if anyone [is such], none the less let him also pray to the Word of God, who is able to heal him, and much more to his Father, as he formerly sent his Word to the saints, and healed them. ^C that the creature needed to be liberated from the bondage of corruption, but also that the human race needed a blessed and divine power to become incarnate, which will set straight both the things on earth, and [that] this task, which he was not able to endure, the Savior is set forth—such a great prize only he was able to bear...

XXX. ON THE OPINION OF ORIGEN CONCERNING THE HOLY SPIRIT

QUESTION III

OF CHRIST, AND HIS INCARNATION, AND ECONOMY

^A of mind, he is defended. VI. His errors concerning the soul of Christ are refuted. VII. To which, however, he did not pertinaciously adhere. VIII. Some of his accusers are repelled. IX. In what sense he said the Son and his soul are one, just as the Father and the Son are one. X. Whether he was persuaded that Christ brought his flesh from heaven. XI. Whether he believed that Christ appeared on earth only in appearance, and did not bear true flesh. XII. Two difficult points of his are solved. XIII. Whence the suspicion of a false body afflicted upon Christ came to him, is explored. XIV. Whether he thought Christ was a mere man. XV. Whether he invented two Christs. XVI. Whether and in what sense he proclaimed that the Son of God put on Jesus. XVII. In what sense he said Christ deified human nature. XVIII. In what sense he said Christ was that barren man spoken of in Jeremias, cap. XXII, v. 30. XIX. Whether he thought the body of Christ is everywhere. XX. For whom he thought Christ suffered. XXI. The accusations of the Fathers against Origen's opinion are reviewed. XXII. Which is proposed from his own words. XXIII. It is not sufficiently clear whether he thought Christ suffered often for those endowed with reason, or only once, or perhaps that he would suffer at some time. XXIV. From the things brought up above, his genuine opinion is elicited. XXV. The origin of which is also indicated. XXVI. Some things make for Origen's cause. XXVII. Whether he imagined that Christ left his body behind in the sun. XXVIII. Whether he thought Christ ceased to be man after he died. XXIX. In what sense he said Christ even now laments our sins. XXX. Whether he believed the kingdom of Christ would come to an end.

I. We leave here the common order of theological disputations accepted in the schools, following Origen, whose opinions on divine matters were as abnormal as they must be treated with a peculiar division, foreign to the usual custom. Therefore, having rejected to a lower place those questions concerning the angels, the creation of the six days, and others usually appended to these, let us examine Origen’s decrees regarding the incarnation of the Word or his economy, if there be any liable to reprehension or which might offend the mind of an orthodox reader. And there are certainly not a few, which, having been ventilated and refuted by his adversaries, imposed eternal stigmas upon his name.

II. That point is light compared to the others soon to be expounded, and has some excuse, where he taught that Christ, before he became man, was present, ministering to the Father, in Moses, the prophets, and the angels, who promote human salvation, and indeed substantially, and thus in a certain way inaugurated his economy. Behold his words from Homily 8 on Genesis, number 8: "And yet it must be considered that this angel is reported to have spoken to Abraham, and that in the following verses this angel is evidently shown to be the Lord. Whence I think that just as he was found among us men in the guise of a man, so also among the angels he was found in the guise of an angel." And from Homily 1 on that passage of Isaiah: "And I saw the King, the Lord of Sabaoth, with my eyes, and one of the seraphim was sent to me" [Isa. VI, 5, 6]: "It is ^B not one," he says, number 5, "the advent by which he descended to the lands; he came to Isaiah, and he came to Moses, and he came to the people, and he came to each one of the prophets: nor should you fear, even if he has now been received into heaven, he will come again. But because he also came to men before his carnal presence, take him as a witness himself, denouncing and saying: Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent to thee, how often would I have gathered thy children [Matt. XXIII, 37]? How often would I. He does not say: I did not see you except in this advent; but he says: How often would I. And turning himself to each of the prophets: I, he says, was the Christ who spoke through the prophets. I said: Neither do you fear, and now Jesus Christ is sent. He does not lie: I am with you, says the Lord, all days even to the consummation of the age [Matt. XXVIII, 20]. He does not lie: Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them [Matt. XVIII, 20]." To these things his Commentary on Matthew, tome XII, number 45, rings in harmony: "Consider, if you can, these things said also concerning those in the place, that the disciples, having understood that the Son of God had spoken to Moses, and that he himself was the one who had said: For a man shall not see my face and live [Exod. XXXIII, 20]." And Tractate XXVI on Matthew, number 28, page 849, explaining that passage: "How often would I have gathered thy children, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not? How, he says, does this Lord Jesus, as one who frequently wished to gather the Jews, but did not gather them because of the stubbornness of those unwilling to believe, say thus: How often would I: when it is manifest that he instructed the Jews while once in the body? But not only in the present time, but also substantially, Christ was always present in Moses and in the prophets; and even more so in the angels ministering to human salvation, and through individual generations, and thus is fulfilled: How often would I. For through individual generations he always wished and hastened to accomplish the will of the Father in them: although not constituted in a body, as he is now in the end of the ages, nevertheless he always hastened to gather the children of Jerusalem. For the voices of him wishing to gather the children of Jerusalem are held in the Law and in the Prophets: and of him it is written: Spreading his wings he took them, and received them upon his shoulders [Deut. XXXII, 11]: and it is the daily work ^C of Christ to gather the children of Jerusalem; of whom more things are said in Isaiah and the other prophets. And daily the Son of God gathers the dispersed children of God, as a hen her chicks under her wings. In which, when he says that Christ was present substantially in Moses and in the prophets, he understands the conjunction as *relative*, not indeed *hypostatic*." Furthermore, in tome I on John, number 34: "And indeed, no one who has believed doubts that he became man. But concerning the angel, let us be persuaded while keeping the appearances and words of the angels, when the power of the angels is seen, in certain ^D

^A of the Scriptures, as when it says, "An angel of the Lord appeared in a flame of fire from the bush, and said: I am the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob." But also Isaiah says: "His name is called, Angel of the Great Counsel." And at the beginning of the following volume, he teaches that the Son of God was sent by the Father to the prophets; and when the Scripture says: "The word was made to Hosea," this is to be understood as, the Word of God was sent to Hosea. The same author holds in his homily *On Divers Subjects*: "To Abraham the father of those who believe, for three hours of time, though not through the ineffable substance of the Godhead itself, but rather through an angelic form, he was seen at midday: to us he appeared on earth for thirty-three years, and deigned to converse with men." Jacob also, in a short time, nevertheless appeared through an angel, wrestling with him, etc.

III. Sixtus of Siena, in book V, ann. 105, notes that this was criticized, but he defends it with the support of Augustine. Many ancient Fathers surely professed a similar doctrine, not only those older than Origen, or his contemporaries, but even later ones and those after the Nicene council. Pamelius collects their names and loci in *Tertullian’s Paradoxes*, ch. 19, and others have collected them subsequently. From which loci it is clear that these Fathers were persuaded that it was the custom of the Son, acting for the Father, to present himself as visible to the patriarchs, and to have earned the names of God, Angel, or Lord; and that whatever we read in Old Testament history as having been done by God, had the Son as its author. Yet our Origen does not maintain a consistent opinion on this, for he sometimes seems to assign the same roles to God the Father: for instance, in Homily 3 on Luke: "It was the grace of God," he says, "that he appeared to Abraham, or to other prophets: not because the eye of Abraham's heart alone was the cause, so that he might behold God; but because the grace of God of its own accord offered itself to be seen by the just man." You should understand this not only regarding God the Father, but also regarding the Lord Savior, and regarding the Holy Spirit. ^B

IV. He who says that the Son of God, before he put on a human body, was present among angels, patriarchs, and prophets, must also necessarily say that he was then the mediator, the intermediary, and the sequestrator between God and men. Origen held this sequence of doctrines, and he who had proposed the former also decreed the latter. We owe his own words to the *Apology of Pamphilus* from book II on the Epistle to the Colossians: "But the law," he says, "was given to Moses through angels in the hand and power of the mediator Christ; who while he was in the beginning the Word of God, and was with God, and the Word was God, ministered to the Father in all things. For all things were made by him, that is, not only creatures, but also the law, and the prophets; and he himself is the mediator of God and men." This Word, in the end of the ages, was made man as Jesus Christ, but before this he was mediator, though not yet man. He was, however, even then the mediator of God and men: whence the law given through angels is not said to have been given without the hands of the mediator himself, that the law might be holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good, and that all these things might be sanctified by Christ. Therefore, he is not said by Origen to have been mediator of God and men in the manner of an intercessor only, before he was born of the Virgin, in the way he was afterwards, once he assumed human nature: for through the conjunction of both natures he reconciled man with God, and thus was a middle thing between both, being both, both God and man. ^C Although, however, with a view to that communion, and to the future fellowship of some time, and to the things to be accomplished through it, God poured out the riches of his kindness and grace upon the patriarchs and prophets of the Old Testament, and even then Christ was in a certain way a mediator, Origen did not look to that, but to those frequent additions and returns to men, when, clothed in various forms and speaking through various persons, Christ brought the mandates of God the parent to them; especially, however, when he delivered the law to Moses, according to that of the Apostle: "What then was the law? It was set because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom he had promised, being ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator. Now a mediator is not of one; but God is one."

V. Although some have thought this should be referred to Moses, Chrysostom and Jerome, however, apply it to Christ; and the latter, himself interpreting that of Paul, has embraced Origen's doctrine. For he says: "After he deigned to be born for our salvation from the womb of the Virgin, the man Christ Jesus is called the sequester of God and men. But before he assumed a human body, and while he was with the Father in the beginning as the Word of God, to all the holy ones to whom the word of God was made, namely Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and afterwards Moses and all the prophets whom Scripture commemorates, he is called only Mediator, without the addition of man, which he had not yet assumed." But those six orthodox bishops of the Antiochene synod also followed Origen's exposition in their epistle to Paul Samosatenus: "But, we say," they say, "that the law was likewise given to Moses through the ministering of the Son of God, as the Apostle teaches, saying: 'What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom it was promised, ordained by angels in the hands of a Mediator.' For we know no other mediator of God and men than him; and we are taught these things also through Moses. 'And an angel appeared to him in a flame of fire from the bush,' etc. Quin even we say that the law was likewise given to Moses, with the Son of God ministering, just as the Apostle teaches, saying: 'What then is the law? Because of transgressions it was placed, until the seed should come…"

…" ^A to whom the promise had been made, ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator. For we know no other mediator between God and men besides him. For this is what was learned from Moses: "And the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the bush." But those words of the Apostle, which we have adduced, are accepted differently by the Arians; for this reason they used to say that Christ was a creature, because he had been a certain middle nature between man and God, inferior to the latter, but superior to man.

VI. Of the soul of Christ: Origen’s error was manifold, and the complaint and accusation of the Fathers against him were likewise manifold. His opinion ^B is this, as far as it is possible to understand from his writings, that the soul of Christ was created by God long before [human] bodies, together with the rest of the souls of men, and that, strictly as this one had made its union with God inseparable, so it was not by chance, nor by the acceptance of a person [respect of persons], that the assumption of his soul took place, but it was granted to it by the merit of its own virtues, listen to the Prophet saying to it: "Thou hast loved justice, and hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows" (Ps. XLIV, 8). By the merit of love, therefore, it is anointed with the oil of gladness, that is, the soul of Christ is made Christ with the Word of God. For to be anointed with the oil of gladness is understood as nothing else than to be filled with the Holy Spirit. But what he said, "above thy fellows," indicates that the grace of the Spirit was not given to him as it was to the prophets, but that the substantial plenitude of the Word of God itself resided in it, just as the Apostle also said: "In whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporally" (Coloss. II, 9). It must indeed be confessed that at first sight no other opinion occurs in these words than that which is attributed to Origen by most, that the soul of Christ was not called to union with the Word gratuitously, but obtained it by its own merit in the place of a reward; whence Huetius also attributes this to Origen, that if we imitate the singular love of the soul of Christ toward God, by which it merited to receive God into itself, we too shall be made participants of the effect in proportion. Let us, however, endeavor to investigate Origen’s meaning.

That is to be observed, ^C that no interval of time at all is placed by Origen between the creation of Christ’s soul and its union with the Word. For it adhered to him inseparably from the beginning of creation and thereafter. Indeed, I would not even fear to say that Origen avoided nothing more cautiously than that it should follow from his own opinion on the pre-existence of souls that the soul of Christ had been separated from the Word for any time, and could have sinned like the others. Hence, with every assertion he confirms in number 5, that the soul of Christ so chose to love justice that, on account of the immensity of its love, it adhered to Him inconvertibly, and had no sense or possibility of sin. Moreover, he repeats this holiness and impeccability from the hypostatic union with the Word of God. He uses the example of a mass of iron, which, if it be always placed in fire, receiving the fire into all its pores and all its veins and made wholly fire, if neither the fire ever ceases from it, nor it itself be separated from the fire, it can never receive cold. ^D In this way, therefore, he says in number 6, also that soul, which, like iron in the fire, is thus always placed in the Word, always in Wisdom, always in God, all that it does, what it feels, what it understands, is God: and therefore it can be called neither convertible nor mutable, for it possessed inconvertibility from the unity of the Word of God, having been incessantly ignited. Finally, it must be thought that some heat of the Word of God reached all the saints: but in this soul, the divine fire itself is to be believed to have rested substantially, from which some heat reached the others. Finally, what he said, "because God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows," shows that this soul is anointed with the oil of gladness, that is, the Word of God and Wisdom, in one way, and its participants, that is, the holy prophets and apostles, in another. For they are said to have run in the odor of his ointments; but this soul was the very vessel of the ointment, from whose fragrance all who are worthy, participants...

^A in another, for he [Origen] did not at all think that the soul of Christ was the bond of vices, from which the divine nature is most averse, and of which it was in no way capable; and thus, that "which was placed in the will, by the influence of long habit, had already turned into nature," so that it was entirely immune from sin. Therefore, the Word was in the prophets and apostles in one way, and in Christ in another; for to the former he adhered through a relational [σχετικήν] and moral conjunction, but to Christ through an immaculate federation and hypostatic union: and consequently, if we imitate the singular love of the soul of Christ toward God, by which it merited to receive God into itself, we also shall become partners in the effect [of this union] in our proportion. In asserting this, he uses the testimony of David from Ps. XLIV, 8: "You have loved righteousness," and such was said to have been present at the very moment of creation. He does not deny it: and since he repeats this election based on merit, by the name of merit he does not understand acts performed well before the election, but that immutability and impeccability, which, being bestowed upon it at the moment of creation because of the union with the Word, rendered it worthy of being united with the Word. These things can be illustrated from those things which Hermas teaches in *Pastor*, book III, chap. 5, no. 6, that the body in which God was to dwell had been prepared by the Holy Spirit, in order, namely, that it might be worthy of being united with God the Word. It follows from this opinion that Christ's body was not chosen by chance or with partiality among other bodies existing in the same state, but that it alone was worthy and suitable for the Word to dwell in hypostatically. Whoever pursues in this place not the dots of the letters, but the series and complexion of the arguments, will admit that Origen says nothing else about the soul. In this, indeed, Origen sins, in that he believed that souls were created before bodies, but in this we praise him, that he took care not to separate the soul of Christ from the Word.

4. But whatever I have labored at in this explanation of a difficult passage, it will count more toward clearing the interpreter Rufinus than Origen. For Rufinus strangely deformed the context of Origen while he undertook to amend it. But if we inspect it as it is preserved by Justinian at the end of the letter to Mennas, we shall notice that Origen speaks not only of the soul, but of the hypostatic conjunction of body and soul with the Word, from which it happens that the humanity of Christ simultaneously with the Word obtains both the name of Christ and of the Only-Begotten and the communion of glory. Thus, therefore, Origen according to Justinian:

Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἄνθρωπος γέγονε Χριστὸς ἐξ ἀνδραγαθήματος τοῦτο τυχών, ὡς μαρτυρεῖ ὁ Προφήτης λέγων: Ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύνην, etc. Ἔπρεπε δὲ τὸν μηδέποτε κεχωρισμένον τοῦ Μονογενοῦς συγχρηματίσαι τῷ Μονογενεῖ καὶ συνδοξασθῆναι αὐτῷ.

Τὸ ἐκ τῆς Παρθένου σῶμα χωρῆσαν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς, τῇ θεότητι ἀτρέπτως ἤνεται καὶ τεθεοποίηται.

^A you have hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." Furthermore, you may find this whole dissertation of Origen repeated in almost the same words in the last chapter of the little book *On the Divinity and Incarnation of the Word*, addressed to Januarius; which little book consists almost entirely of Origenist fragments, and is accustomed to be appended to the end of the fourth volume of Augustine. And the Pelagians eagerly seized upon and defended this doctrine, however absurd it may be. Of the passages of Origen in which it is contained, the first exists in his *Commentary on John*, tom. I, no. 37: "And a man, it is said, is coming after John, who was before him, and he was before him, so that we might be taught that even the man of the Son of God, having been mingled with his divinity, was older than that birth from Mary." Another is found in the following volume XX, no. 17: "The topic should not be left unexamined, and also the argument concerning the soul. For perhaps the soul of the Son, existing in its own perfection, was in God and in the fullness, and having gone forth from there, by having been sent by the Father, took up the body from Mary." In the second book *De principiis*, ch. 6, no. 3 and 4, and in book I *Against Celsus*, no. 32 and 33, he treats the same argument at greater length and clearly sets forth his opinion; since these are overly long, to avoid wearying the readers, I refrain from citing them. We shall only adduce those things which Justinian drew from the same book *De principiis*, ch. 6, no. 4, at the end of his epistle to Mennas: "On account of this, Christ also became man, having attained this by his own merit, as the Prophet bears witness, saying: 'Thou hast loved justice, and hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.' And it was fitting that he who was never separated from the Only-Begotten should be distinguished along with the Only-Begotten and be glorified with him. Therefore, Christ also became man, having earned this by his own merit, as the Prophet bears witness, saying: 'Thou hast loved justice, and hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness ^C above thy fellows.' It was fitting, indeed, that he who was never separated from the Only-Begotten should exist with the Only-Begotten, and be glorified together with him."

VII. But if anyone is more vehemently disturbed by those false assertions of Origen, let him know that he prefaced them in book II *De principiis*, ch. 6, no. 2, before he approached the explanation of the mystery of the Incarnation: "Which things, indeed, to bring to human ears and to explain in words, goes far beyond the powers, whether of our merit, or of our intellect and speech. I even suppose that it goes beyond the capacity of the holy apostles: nay, perhaps it is even higher than the explanation of any of the heavenly powers of the whole creation regarding this sacrament. Concerning which we, not with any rashness, but as the order of the place demands, shall put forward, not so much those things which human reason is accustomed to vindicate, as those things which our faith holds, although we shall bring forward, as briefly as possible, our own suspicions rather than the clearer affirmations in place of them." What I might suspect was added by Rufinus, if Origen were not accustomed to preface his work in this way when about to dispute on obscure matters.

VIII. Nevertheless, not even in this way was he immune from the accusations of many. Theophilus criticizes him in his *First Paschal Epistle*, because he referred that passage of Paul in Philippians II, 7: "He did not think it robbery to be equal to God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant," to the soul of Christ; ^B whence he concludes that Origen believed Christ's soul to be equal to God, and that consequently the souls of men, which are of the same substance as the soul of Christ, are equal, and that the Word himself did not at all come to earthly things, but only his soul. And would that Theophilus had represented Origen's own words, or had pointed a finger at the very places from which these things were taken; for we would have perceived Origen's meaning more easily and certainly. For I fear that, stirred by vehement hatred—for so it was—he did not deal with Adamantius in sufficiently good faith. It is certain that when Christ "emptied himself," his divinity suffered no detriment, but only his humanity was liable to labors; and since the soul is the principal part of it, that suffered the distresses and sorrows, and therefore in this sense it can be said to be "emptied," and cast down from that highest degree of felicity which Origen thought it had possessed when, joined to God by an unbroken bond of love, it had not yet immersed itself in a human body. That which the Apostle therefore says: "Let everyone understand in us what is in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant," is easily explained according to the mind of Origen. Paul says that Christ, when he was in the form of God, and equal to God—not according to his humanity, but according to his divine nature—emptied himself, and took the form of a servant, not according to his divinity, but according to his human nature, of which the soul holds the primary place. To this must be referred that saying of Christ: "My soul is sorrowful even unto death." These things being adjusted to a suitable sense, Theophilus’s attack is blunted, especially since it is sufficiently established from elsewhere that Origen held for certain that the Word of God was made flesh in Christ. One such testimony of his will suffice, from the prologue in the book *De principiis*, no. 4: "The species, however, of those things which are manifestly handed down through the apostolic preaching, are these... that Jesus Christ himself who came, was born of the Father before every creature. Who, when he had ministered to the Father in the creation of all things (for through him all things were made), in the last times emptied himself, and was made man and was incarnate though he was God, and being made man remained what he was, God," etc.; unless perhaps someone might allege that these were depraved by Rufinus. These matters ^D being…

… ^A subjoined by Theophilus, when he had said that Origen defined the *psyche* from *psychein*, that is, because the love and charity of souls for God had grown cold, he was persuaded that, consequently, the soul of Christ had remitted its pristine fervor of love for God. A futile and trivial cavil of an impotent man. Guido the Carmelite has a similar one in his *Summa de hæresibus*, in the heresy of the Origenists, to which this reasoning of Paganino Gaudentio in his book *De comparatione dogmatum Origenis cum philosophia Platonis*, chapter 35, resonates: "According to Origen, souls enter bodies on account of sins; therefore, the soul of Christ committed a sin." As if one should now rebuke as sacrilegious someone who uses that verse of the Prophet, "Every man is a liar," arguing that because Christ is a man, he had pronounced him a liar. And as if Origen had not faked for himself that God had deputed certain souls to perform duties for mankind, as we will demonstrate later. Justinian, however, assailing this very delusion of Origen in his letter to Mennas, uses these words of Athanasius: "Rightly shall they condemn themselves, all who think that the flesh from Mary existed before Mary, and that the God-Word had a human soul before it, and had always been in it before the advent." Rightly will all those condemn themselves who think that the flesh which is from her existed before Mary; and that the God-Word had a human soul before her, and had always been in it before the advent. By these words, it seems that not so much Origen is struck, as Apelles and others who believed that Christ brought flesh with him from heaven. But Justinian, at the end of the same letter to Mennas, directs his second and third anathemas against that impious dogma of Origen which we have expounded. As for that pre-existence of souls—whence these commentaries of Origen concerning the soul of Christ flowed—we shall discuss that below. From this, indeed, Theodore of Mopsuestia seems to have constructed his pestilential heresy, and after him, Nestorius: from this, too, Pope Leo suspects in his letter to Julian of Cos that Eutyches was led to affirm that there was a twofold nature of Christ *pro tēs henōseōs*, as if he believed his soul was in heaven at that time.

But it would not cause offense—what Origen said—that just as that man, who is joined to the Word in one person, received God into himself, so we too could be partakers of God in proportion, if he had attributed that to divine grace, not to his own merits: for thus Augustine says in the book *De prædestinatione sanctorum*, ch. 15: "As therefore that one is predestined that he might be our head, so many of us are predestined that we might be his members." Likewise: "By this grace does any man become a Christian from the beginning of his faith, by which grace that man was made Christ from the beginning."

^A IX. Theophilus of Alexandria recorded in the logo titled *Asynchetos* that Origen thought that the soul which the Son of God assumed and the Son of God himself were one, just as the Father and the Son are one. Hence, he was given an opportunity to carp after his custom at Origen, which, however, we shall wrest from him. For first, Theophilus himself acknowledges in the same place that Origen at times thought correctly concerning the dignity of the soul of Christ, and believed it to be inferior to God the Word. Furthermore, when he taught that the soul of Christ and the Word are one, just as the Father and the Son are one, he did not mean that they are one by the same unity in species, but by the same unity in genus. For the unity of Father ^B and Son agrees in this with the unity of the Word and the soul, that both are referred to the same genus—namely, unity: but they differ in that the unity of the Father and the Son is a unity of nature, a unity of essence; but the unity of the Word and the soul is a hypostatic unity, a unity of person. For just as when I say the sun is beautiful, and the house is beautiful, I say their beauty is the same in genus but differing in species; for indeed the beauty of the house is one thing, and that of the sun another: certainly, he would treat me very poorly if someone were on that account to accuse me of attributing light to the house, and foundations, joinery, and rooftops to the sun. And that this is not a fictitious and frivolous distinction is shown by that saying of Athanasius in the Creed: "As the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ." For since man consists of soul and body, as parts making one thing, but God and man do not constitute Christ as parts (for it cannot be that God should be a part of any whole); it will be false that God and man are one Christ, just as the rational soul and flesh are one man, unless we repeat the same distinction which we used above, saying that God and man are one Christ by the same unity in genus as the rational soul and body are man; but not by the same unity in species.

X. Gennadius of Marseilles in his book *De dogmatibus*, which some have falsely ascribed to Augustine, ch. 2, writes thus: "The Son of God is therefore born from a man, and not through a man; that is, not from the seed of a male, as Ebion says; but taking flesh from the body of the Virgin, and not bringing it with him from heaven, as Marcion, Origen, and Ebion affirm." If we subject these claims to examination, they will lose their credibility. For it is false that he thought Marcion believed Christ brought flesh from heaven. He indeed thought, following his teacher Cerdon, that whatever was done on earth by Christ and administered was done in appearance only, not in reality; ^D and that he did not put on true flesh, but apparent flesh. Since Gennadius himself refutes this error in the very next passages, and here leaves it untouched, he undoubtedly understood that a true and solid body had been attributed to Christ by Marcion

and that he had passed through Mary as if through a channel, taking nothing from her. If I conjecture correctly, those who are deceived by the interpretation of this place—*The first man is of the earth, earthly; the second man is from heaven, heavenly* 71—are in error. Now Apelles says that "Christ was neither in a phantasm as Marcion says, nor in the substance of a true body, as the Gospel teaches; but in that he descended from the higher parts, he wove for himself a sidereal and airy flesh in that very descent." These are the words of Tertullian, *De praescriptione*, chapter 51. The same is also noted regarding Apollinaris by Theophylact on III John. Whence it is clear that neither of them departed much from Valentinus. Nevertheless, those three can be numbered among the *phantasiastae*, because, says Irenaeus, "it is the same to say that he appeared by supposition, and that he took nothing from Mary. For he could not have truly possessed flesh and blood, through which he redeemed us, unless he had gathered into himself the ancient formation of Adam. Because it is the same to say he appeared in species, and that he took nothing from Mary." Moreover, his adversaries slandered Origen, saying he taught things consonant with the most wicked of those heretics. "The fourth (accusation) after these," says Pamphilus in his *Apology*, "which withstands all these (for malice is blind), is that they say he declares that all things were done by the Savior only *by supposition*—that is, ostensibly—and allegorically, and not according to those things which are recounted through history." Zonaras also, in his second book, denies that Origen believed Christ to have taken flesh from the Virgin Mary. But Origen himself magnificently repels this slander with the words that are recited in the same place in the *Apology*, and proves from the holy Scriptures that Christ was truly born of the seed of Abraham and David, and did not perform His deeds "ostensibly and by phantasm"; nor did He bear a spiritual body, but a fleshy and earthly one; and He was not made *through* a woman, but *of* a woman. Those things which he wrote in *Homily 1 on Ezekiel*, num. 4, also tell in his favor: "Let the heretics, who elude His (Christ’s) nativity as a phantasm, answer me why Christ is called the Son of man;" and those things in *Tract. XXXV on Matthew*, num. 92, p. 902: "For (Christ), assuming the nature of human flesh, fulfilled all its properties, so that He might be thought not to have possessed flesh in phantasm, but in truth." And in *Homily 14 on Luke*: "Jesus was clothed in filthy garments 72. Which, indeed, also makes against those who deny that our Lord had a human body, but that it was woven of celestial and spiritual things. For if His body was of celestial things, and, as they falsely assert, of the stars and some other more sublime and spiritual nature, let them answer why a spiritual body could be sordid; or how they interpret that which we have set down: *Jesus was clothed in filthy garments?*" And in book II *De Principiis*...

[809D-810A] XI. It was also made an objection against Origen that he was persuaded that Christ bore a counterfeit body, appearing only in species and not true; and that, mocking eyes with false images, He ensnared credulous men with empty shadows of miracles, labors, and torments. This was the peculiar dogma of those heretics who deserved to be called *phantasiastae* and *docetae*; after whose standard-bearer, Simon Magus, Basilides, Valentinus, Cerdo, Marcion, and Manichaeus were the first to champion it. Among whom Valentinus willed that Christ brought down a certain spiritual body from heaven.

^A *De principiis*, cap. 6, num. 2: “For which reason, it must be contemplated with all fear and reverence, so that in one and the same [entity] the truth of both natures is demonstrated, so that neither anything unworthy and indecent is felt concerning that divine and ineffable substance, nor again are the things which were done thought to be illusory by false images.” And lib. V in *Epist. ad Rom.*, num. 9: “But some of the heretics, not understanding this, have attempted from this passage of the Apostle (Rom. VI, 5, 6) to assert that Christ did not truly die, but had a likeness of death, and appeared to die rather than truly died. To whom, because it is very easy to reply, I do not think it necessary to bring in the weight of testimonies from other sayings of the Apostle or the Gospels, ^B where his death is written simply and not as a likeness of death, since we can say to them: If there was a likeness of death, and not a true resurrection, then we also shall appear to rise and shall not rise; and we shall appear to die to sin, and we shall not truly die; and therefore everything that was done and is done appeared to be done, but was not done. It remains, therefore, that if we are saved, we appeared to be saved, but were not truly saved. Whence, because these things are so absurd that they do not need proofs, let us turn to the explanation of the things that are held in what follows.” And lib. *Contra Cels.*, num. 66, pag. 402: “Hinc illius in Marcionistis opinionis damnandae ac confutandae partes Adamantio recte tribuit auctor dialogi *De recta in Deum fide*, sec. 4.

XII. These things being so, it may seem strange why Origen wrote thus in *Homil. in Luc.*: “He (Christ) had a human body, and this is a sign that is contradicted.” For some ^C say that he came from the heavens; others that he had such a body as ours, so that through the likeness of his body he might also redeem our bodies from sins and give us the hope of resurrection.” Origen reproves those who say that Christ had such a body as ours; therefore, he thought he bore a body unlike ours. In what that dissimilarity consisted, he himself explains in the preface to the books *Peri archon*, num. 4: “He (Christ) was incarnated when he was God, and remained what he was, God. He assumed a body similar to our body, differing only in that it was born of a Virgin from the Holy Spirit. And because this Jesus Christ was born and suffered in truth, and did not sustain this death through a common phantasy, he truly died; for he truly rose from the dead,” etc.

^D This also can be drawn into calumny which Origen has in *Apologia Pamphili* from lib. *in Epist. ad Galat.*: “But even the reason for his circumcision will not generate anxiety for us, as they say that he was consequently also circumcised in a human body, and his foreskin was perhaps committed to the earth until a time; or if it is otherwise, it will be sought in another disputation. Yet this circumcision of his will sufficiently constrain those who are from the diverse [camp] (that is, *heterodoxous*, in which notion the same locution is used elsewhere); for how could a spiritual body be circumcised with an earthly iron? For which reason some of them were not ashamed to even publish books concerning [the issue of] his foreskin, by which they tried to show that it passed into a spiritual substance. But no less will those also be constrained who say that Christ’s body is animal. Therefore, he adjudicates an animal body away from Christ; but also a human one, since a human body is ‘animal’ according to the Apostle 1 Cor. XV et seq. But the matter is to be thought of otherwise. For he touches the Valentinians, who, since they scried there to be a triple race of men, which were called by them *spiritual*, *animal* (psychic), and *earthly* (choic), and held that the first two could attain eternal salvation, but the latter not at all; they defined that Christ assumed not only a spiritual but also a psychic nature. We give as witness Irenaeus near Epiphanius, *Haer.* XXXI, cap. 20: “Wherefore they say that the world was also created, and that the Savior came to that animal [nature], since it excels in freedom of the will, in order that he might save it. For they say that he assumed the firstfruits of those whom he was about to save; that Christ put on the spiritual [element] from Achamoth, but the animal [element] from the Demiurge: and that because of his administration, a body was placed around him, endowed with an animal nature, yet constructed with an ineffable art, so that he could be seen, touched, and suffer. But they say he took nothing consisting of matter; for they say matter is in no way capable of salvation.”

XIII. And as I contemplate whence Origen may have been moved to this suspicion concerning the violated humanity of Christ and the body falsely afflicted for him, I find one place besides the previous two, whence this crimination could arise. It is held in *Tract.* XXXV *in Matth.*, num. 100, pag. 906: “But such a tradition came to us concerning him, that there were not only two forms in him: one indeed according to which all saw him;

and another according to which he was transformed before his disciples on the mount, when his face also shone like the sun, but he also appeared to each one according to what he was worthy of. And when he was himself, he did not seem to be himself to all.” And a little later: “And this tradition does not seem to me incredible, whether it be physically, for the sake of Jesus himself, that he was seen by men in one way or another; or whether for the sake of the Word's own nature, which does not appear similarly to all. If then this is so, it is possible to find the solution to what is sought. For even though the crowds coming with Judas frequently saw him, they nevertheless had need, because of his transformations, of one who would point him out to them, having a more intimate knowledge of him through long dwelling with him, so that he might understand the transformations according to which he was wont to appear to his own.” ^A This same thing is signified also by John the evangelist, where Jesus, knowing what was about to happen to him, went forth and said: “Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. And he said to them: I am he; and they went away and fell backward.” ^B You see that they did not recognize him, although they had frequently seen him, because of the transfigurations of him. We have found it necessary to repeat these things, lest anything of Origen's opinion be lost. Therefore, he who assigned the frequent changing of forms to the body of Christ ^C had deduced this, so that it appeared as one thing to one person and another to another; for it was natural for them to think that it was borrowed, and composed of an assumed substance, not his own, nor similar to ours, that he had believed the same. But if that invention offends anyone—that Christ assumed various forms and made himself a shapeshifter at will—let him note that this was proposed by Origen as something handed down to him by others, not as if invented by himself; as a thing not entirely incredible, not as if confirmed, by doubting, not by asserting.

XIV. Among the nine accusations that Pamphilus in his *Apology* refutes as accustomed to be brought against Origen, the third is "that they say he, according to Artemas or Paul of Samosata, says that Christ the Son of God is a mere man, that is, not also God." Nicephorus indeed, in book XVII, cap. 27, hands down that Origen said *ὅτι ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος ἦν* (that he was a mere man). Cyriacus also, in the writings of Simeon Metaphrastes, the writer of his Life, affirms that the Origenists dwelling in Palestine in the sixth century said that "Christ is not one of the Trinity." Pamphilus says that this accusation is very contrary to the others mentioned above by him, but it is even much more at odds with the fourth, which we subjected to our examination in the preceding pages; whence the falsity of one or the other is manifestly evident; ^D (23) but that third accusation is even more clearly refuted by sexcent Origen's defenses against Ebion or against the heathens, if he had found some way, regarding taking away the disadvantages of eternal punishment, so also to diminish the mystery of God incarnate, which seemed much more incredible. But the more foolish it seems to Celsus for God to become man, the more sharply does Origen defend this mystery, nor does he employ any other reason for explaining the matter than that which was employed by the Fathers against the Arians; nor any other arguments than those which can produce faith in so great a mystery.

In the first two books the Jew is refuted, whom Celsus induces speaking: and the more impudently he mocks the divinity of Christ, the more sharply does Origen defend it. He demonstrates in book I, num. 34, that it was predicted by the prophets that he would be born of a Virgin, *τὸν ἐπώνυμον τοῦ πράγματος*, him who has his name from the reality, because when he was born God was to be with us. By which words he declares that Christ, even if he be not called Emmanuel, is nevertheless Emmanuel in reality and meaning; and that the prophecy, which predicted that he would be called Emmanuel, is to be judged not by the word, but by the sense. He proves that Christ is God in num. 56 from these words of the psalm: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; God, thy God, hath anointed thee" (Ps. XLIV, 7, 8), and he adds that he had once used this psalm against a certain Jew, who, when he could not retreat a foot from this argument, escaped there, so that he should contend it ought to be referred to the God of the universe. No one surely would say that Origen, contending with such heat against the Jews, desired to wring nothing from them except that they should confess Christ to be God in name only. To the mocking Jew, in num. 58 and 60, because the Chaldeans were said to have been drawn to that infant by Jesus to adore him, he responds that those magi, both struck by the novelty of the star, and mindful of Balaam’s oracle, and perhaps also having perceived the emptiness of their own art, now having no outcome, had come into Judea, and had offered gold to Christ as a king, myrrh as to one who was to die, and frankincense as to God. He adds, since he who was the Savior of the human race, who was more powerful than the angels, had come, an angel [gave] piety,

^A a doctrine handed down by Ebion. And if anyone should wish to gather all these arguments together, he would waste his leisure in demonstrating what is most well-known. He will have enough, he whom Pamphilus adduces in the first book of Origen’s *De Principiis*.

XV. The following arguments refute the calumnies mentioned just above, which Jesus had adored, as the reward that he returned, and since he had warned them not to return to Herod.

Thus the Jew addresses Christ in no. 57: "If you say that anyone who is born by the singular providence of God is the son of God, in what respect do you surpass the rest?" Origen replies that anyone who is no longer led by fear, but embraces virtue for its own sake, is indeed a son of God; but that Jesus is the Son of God in a far different sense. ^B He attains to it. But he truly surpasses all others, whosoever are called sons of God on account of virtue, in a far and wide degree; since he is, as it were, a certain fountain and origin of such. He says a little later that well-known saying of Gamaliel: "If this counsel or this work is of men, it will be dissolved; but if it is of God, you will not be able to dissolve it" (Acts v, 38, 59), as an argument that the others who arrogated this title to themselves were neither sons of God, nor powers; but that Jesus was truly the Son of God.

However, regarding the sufferings and that lowly state of life, which the Jew thinks unworthy of God, Origen employs no other rule for unravelling the knot than that which is repeated from the two natures of Christ: he refers the sufferings to the body and the soul, and confesses that they do not fall upon the divinity. Thus in no. 66, to the Jew asking in jest why Christ fled into Egypt, since it does not befit God to fear death, he replies thus: "But we ourselves, believing in Jesus, regarding the divinity indeed which was in him, saying: I am the way, and the truth, and the life (John xiv, 6), and if there is anything similar to these; but regarding the body in which he was a man: Now you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you (John viii, 40); we say that he became a certain composite thing." "They came therefore into Judea... bringing gifts, which (if I may so call them) they offered to a certain composite thing from God and mortal man, as symbols—gold as to a king, myrrth as to one who was to die, frankincense as to God." ^C something more divine in the seen man, which was strictly the Son of God, God the Word, and the power and the wisdom of God. "If Celsus, meanwhile, believes the Gospels where he thinks he can bring an accusation against the Christians, but disbelieves those which establish the divinity in Jesus, we will say to him: 'O man, either disbelieve all and do not even think to accuse, or believing all, marvel at the Word of God having become man and having wished to benefit the entire human race.'" "To the Jews who did not think him God, who was testified to in many places by the prophets, as being a great power, for he was the power of God, the Christ, and the wisdom of the Father, for this reason he performed these things and still performs them."

^D It is evident from these things that Origen did not speak thus because he truly thought Jesus was composed of God and man, but in order to express more aptly the closest conjunction of the double nature. Similarly, he says in the same place that he hides "something divine under a human appearance, which indeed was properly the Son of God, God the Word, and the power and wisdom of God." Origen is united by the same distinction of the double nature in many other places, whether when he says in book ii, no. 9, that it is unworthy of God to flee and to be seized, and to be betrayed by his disciples; or when he criticizes Christ in no. 24, because he begged off the cup; or when he berates the Christians in no. 31, because they present for adoration a man afflicted with a shameful punishment, calling him the Word of God, the Son.

So explored was it to Origen concerning the two natures of Christ that he considered the divine to be no less certainly determined by the Scriptures than the human. For thus he occurs in book ii, no. 33, to the Jew or Celsus using those things which demonstrate the human nature of Christ, but disbelieving those which commend the divine: "But if Celsus believes the Gospels, where he thinks they do these things, but does not believe where they commend the divinity of Christ; we will say: Either deny faith to all, and do not think to act against us; or believing all, admire the Word of God having become man, so that he might benefit the entire human race."

This distinction of the double nature, which after Origen was of great use in refuting the Arians, indeed satisfies those inept cavillations of the Jew, or Celsus: but yet it does not remove the difficulty arisen from the magnitude of the mystery, why God assumed a human body, and subjected it to pain and ignominy. In a matter so abstruse, the fertile genius of Origen falls silent: he can bring forward nothing whereby we might understand this mystery; he brings forward many things whereby we might believe the predictions of the prophets, the miracles of Christ, and especially the conversion of the whole world to God. To the Jew excusing his ancestors because they did not hold Christ to be God, he replies that they have no excuse, since their prophets gave testimony to him. "We blame the Jews, therefore, he says, in book ii, no. 9... and God." Therefore, he judges these oracles of the prophets to be sufficient argument in no. 37, as to why an equitable assessor of things should agree that he is both Christ and the Son of God.

The Jew asks in many places what great thing Christ did, that he should deservedly be considered the Son of God: Origen objects the miracles and the conversion of the whole world to God. "Of his divinity, he says in book i, no. 67, there are witnesses in so many churches of men, who have emerged from the mud of vices, and adhere to the Creator, and refer all things so that they might please him." He speaks about this wonderful work in book ii, no. 79: "But because Christ was the power of God and the wisdom of the Father, for this reason he did these things, and still does them."

There is surely no one who, if he considers this doctrine of Origen more attentively, would not acknowledge that it fights face-to-face against the Arian error. For 1st, is he suspicious under the name of Arianism, who contends so sharply that Christ is not metaphorically, not by adoption, but truly the Son of God? 2nd, Can he be a kinsman of this error, who describes the divinity of Christ in the scriptures of the New Testament no less evidently than his humanity itself, and who in the prophecies proves and confirms it to such an extent that no excuse is left to the Jews that they did not believe him to be God? 3rd, Finally, no one could slip into Arianism unless he should diminish the magnitude of so great a mystery, and reconcile the feigned fight between the divinity and the flesh. But Origen is stunned at the thought of so great a mystery: he urges the heathens to admire the Word of God having become man; much less does he attempt to diminish their high and sublime notion concerning the Word and the Son of God and God: nor does he find another reason for explaining the matter, unless that which is sought from the two natures hypostatically conjoined; and neither

any other arguments, except those which pertain to the establishment of the faith of so stupendous a mystery.

After the Jew has concluded his speech, Celsus in a certain way renews the battle in his own name, and not only mocks the crucified God, but also strives to overturn those arguments which the Christians brought forward for the defense of this mystery. The marvelous Origen is equally adroit both in explaining the mystery and in defending it. To Celsus, who mocks that the Christians believe in a God consisting of a mortal body—which they themselves seem to do piously—he replies thus in book III, number 41: "Let those ^A who bring accusations know that while we believe and are persuaded from the beginning that He is God and the Son of God, this is the very Word, the very Wisdom, and the very Truth. And we say that His mortal body and the human soul within it have received the greatest things, not only through communion with Him, but also—through union and intermixture—by having shared in His divinity and passed over into God." Let the accusers know, therefore, whom we serve and whom we are persuaded, from the beginning, to be God and the Son of God; that He is the Word Himself, the Wisdom Himself, the Truth Himself; but that His mortal body, and the human soul within it, have, we say, received the greatest things not only through communication with the Word, but also through union and intermixture, and by participating in His divinity, have passed over into God. Origen therefore maintains that nothing mortal or created is worshipped by Christians, but the eternal God and the Son of God: and that this God and Son of God, not as created things, is a participant in reason and wisdom and truth, but is Himself Reason, Himself Wisdom, Himself Truth.

But since Celsus spoke most dishonestly concerning the flesh of Christ, it is by no means surprising if Origen commends it through its most intimate union with the Word. Nor should it be troublesome that he calls this conjunction an intermixture. For this way of speaking has been used by many other writers, and those most accurate, as Petavius demonstrates in volume III of his *Dogmata theologica*. For if, through that bond which subsists between us and the Son of God and God the Word, we are made gods; if the human nature, as Origen teaches in book II, number 28, is made divine in those who direct their life toward the precepts of Christ; how much more could the same be said of the human nature ^B joined hypostatically with the Word, without any confusion of natures? Many other things could be adduced from these books concerning the eternity of the Word, his equality and substantial identity with the Father, stated marvelously: but these being reserved for another place, we must now see how Origen confirms the demonstrations of this mystery accustomed to be used by Christians, and refutes the petty arguments of Celsus (a).

Christians were accustomed to demonstrate the incarnate God from miracles and prophecies: they said that Christ suffered of His own will, and that this was for the sake of human salvation. No other reason for explaining such a great mystery was available. Origen vindicates all these points against Celsus in these books. When Celsus had objected that Aristaeus the Proconnesian and Abaris the Hyperborean performed miracles, yet were not considered gods, Origen opposes to these futile prodigies, in book III, number 30, the conversion of the whole world from superstition to the true worship of God. He says that the advent of Christ brought forth such rich fruits that the assemblies among the pagans, and the senates and magistrates—if one considers morals and the zeal for pleasing God—could not be compared, even in the smallest part, with the assemblies of the Christians and the ecclesiastical senate and the magistrates of the Church. Then ^C of one who recognizes; and that another, destined for the restitution of the Jewish status, would come, as Tertullian mentions in book IV *Against Marcion*, chapter 6. But that there was nothing consistent with or similar to this, he concludes his argument thus: "If these things are so, how is it not reasonable to suppose, regarding Jesus, who was able to accomplish so many and such great things, that the divinity in Him was not that of just any one?" "If these things are so, how is it not consistent with reason to imagine concerning Jesus, who was able to perform so many and such great things, that a divinity—not just any kind—was in him?"

"He brings forward the Christians speaking thus, Celsus, book VI, numbers 10 and 11: 'Believe that this one, of whom I teach you, is the Son of God. Believe, if you wish to be saved, or be gone.'" Likewise book VI, number 2: "It had to happen so; for these things were predicted long ago." Origen demonstrates that nothing is proposed to Christians to be believed without most certain grounds for belief, nor is the effort lessened in instructing the simpler folk. But as regards the prophets who had predicted that the Son of God would come: he demonstrates that their oracles are to be surely believed, both because the prophets were most holy men, and all their speech pertains to the true worship of God and to true piety; and especially because their predictions were confirmed by the event. Hence he demonstrates the firmest faith of Christians in many places, as when he says: "No one will persuade us that such a one is not the Son of the unbegotten God and Father." No one can persuade us that He is not the Son of the unbegotten God and Father. And in number 75, he says that the magistrates among the Christians, when taking up this office, are compelled against their will ^D while a great King is present, "who, we are persuaded," he says, "is the Son of God, God the Word:" *Whom we are persuaded is the Son of God, God the Word.* Similarly, he vindicates from the laughter of Celsus the fact that Christians were accustomed to say that Christ suffered by His own supreme will and for the sake of our salvation. "He who for the sake of certain precepts had sent the Son," says Celsus, book VIII, number 41, "allowed Him to perish so cruelly along with His precepts, and has dissembled about the matter for so many centuries? What Father is so impious? You will say that He suffered because He so willed." Origen demonstrates, number 43, that neither was the Jewish crime unpunished, nor had the mandates, for which Christ had come—that is, the image—perished with Him, but rather that men were led by Him to recognize them; then he concludes thus: "The Father of Jesus is therefore a pious Father, who did not spare His own Son, but for all of us delivered Him up, His Lamb, that He might take away the sin of the world, dead for the whole world: wherefore not compelled, but willing, He endured the injuries brought upon Him." Nothing does Celsus attack more frequently than that the Christians were accustomed to say that God had come into this world for the sake of human salvation, "and that indeed there was no need for God Himself to be known, but for the sake of our salvation He desired to provide knowledge of Himself; so that those who should receive it, having been made good, might be saved: but those who should not receive it, being convicted of wickedness, might be punished." (Book IV, number 7.) To Celsus, the salvation of men—which he denies in number 23 is worth more than that of worms and frogs—seemed a thing too slight and trivial to provide a cause for God to descend from heaven and assume flesh. But the more these things seem ridiculous to Celsus, the more willingly Origen proclaims them. Besides those things which I have already adduced, he speaks thus in number 9: "He came therefore, even if Celsus does not wish it, after many prophets, as a corrector of the affairs of that Israel; a corrector of the whole world is Christ, not needing, according to the former economy, the use of scourges, and chains, and instruments of torture against mankind. For the teaching was sufficient." He came, therefore, although

the object of Origen is clear from the response of Pamphilus. ^A But then Nestorius, while professing that Christ consisted of a dual person, was said by the Fathers, and believed, to have introduced two Christs, even though he protested. Nor does there exist sufficiently anything either different or distinct attributed to Adamantius. This accusation, of whatever sort it may be, which conflicts with the above, Pamphilus refutes with three testimonies of Origen himself. To amass more from the great abundance, which are obvious to everyone, would be labor spent in vain on our part; especially since in the remaining works of Origen, I remember not having found even the slightest vestige of such an error.

XVI. The Catena on the Psalms edited by Balthasar Corderius, at verse 20 of Psalm XLII, exhibits these words from Origen: ^B "We have a high priest, Jesus, who is clothed with the Son of God." Which expression indeed sounds ill, and it is that heresy which Nestorius later defended. For if the divinity of the Word is understood as wrapped around the humanity of Christ, and the humanity clothed with the divinity, as it becomes one to understand from the word ^B ἐνδεδυμένον (clothed); the mind is certainly driven from this to fashion for itself only a certain [Gk: σχέσιν] (relation), and a [Gk: σχετικὴν] (relative) suitability of both natures; which was the error of Nestorius. But if you say that the divinity of the Word assumed and put on the humanity of Christ, a hypostatic union [Gk: ἕνωσις] will be signified. What rule, therefore, shall we use here for the defense of Origen? That common one, of course, and which must often be used by us in this work; since these matters had not yet been illustrated and sifted by dissertations in that age, that Origen, having moved in slippery paths, deserves pardon for his slips. Add that the Catena from which this fragment was taken, and almost all other collections of its kind, are of very little authority, as we demonstrate elsewhere.

XVII. Let us proceed to another dogma of Origen to be weighed, which in tract XXVII on Matthew, no. 35, ^C Celsus would not have, after many prophets who had amended the affairs of Israel, Christ as the amender of the whole world, having no need according to the former economy to use scourges, chains, and torments against men. For the teaching was sufficient. He also says in book VIII, no. 29: "It was useful for the human race to receive him as the Son of God, God coming in human soul and body." ^D Celsus attacks the crucified God and the one born with such curses and mockeries that he seems to feign that sometimes a mutation occurs in the Christians' belief in God, and sometimes that nothing is worshipped in Christ except body and soul. I shall subjoin a few examples of the reasoning employed by Origen in refuting both. Thus he speaks in book IV, no. 5: "Afterward the noble Celsus, I know not from whence he found the occasion, institutes a doubt against us, as if we say that God himself descends to men; and he thinks it follows from this that he must abandon his own seat. For he knows not the power of God, and that the Spirit of God has filled the world, and that the one which holds together all things has knowledge of the voice: 'Does not the Lord say, Do I not fill heaven and earth?' (Jerem. XXIII, 24.) Nor does he see that according to the Christian doctrine we all live and move and have our being in him, just as Paul also taught in his speech to the Athenians. Whether, therefore, the God of the universe descends by his power with Jesus into the life of men; or whether that Word, which in the beginning was with God, which is itself also God, comes to us, he does not become one having departed from his seat, nor does he leave his own seat, ^D such that one place is empty of him, while another is full which did not have him before. 'But that which has descended to men existed in the form of God, and for the sake of philanthropy he emptied himself, that he might be able to be contained by them,' but by no means has there occurred to him any change from good to evil. The immortal God, the Word, having assumed a mortal body and a human soul, seems to Celsus to be changed and transformed; let him learn that the Word, remaining the Word in essence, suffers nothing of those things which the body or the soul suffers."

From the adduced testimonies Origen is freed from all suspicion whatsoever. For 1st, there is no doubt that he defends the incarnation of the true God against the heathens. All Celsus's arguments are derived from the nature of the true God: he denies that human salvation can be of such great value that God should descend; he contends that the immutability and immensity of God are harmed by the incarnation. Origen does not stir up a dispute about this nature of the Word: but he confirms that he truly became man, and yet that he lost nothing of his immutability and immensity. 2nd, nor in such great zeal for the common faith does any suspicion remain of a will alien to common doctrine: nor is it less absurd that Origen, while he sees miracles and prophecies being incessantly cited in the Church to demonstrate Christ's divinity, and testimonies of Scripture being explained without any metaphor, and while he himself follows that way of teaching, should have attributed to Christ no more than to a most excellent creature, and believed that he was deferred to by others. Nor should you object that Origen departed from the common doctrine concerning eternal punishments. For he departed not only from the common opinion, but also from the common manner of speaking. But if he had demonstrated the eternity of punishments by testimonies of Scripture, if he had routed the detractors of this dogma, and confirmed the arguments accustomed to be employed by Christians; no one would suspect that he did not believe in the eternity of punishments, nor that he believed others believed it. [alt-version omitted]

^A "The mortal part," he says in book III, no. 41, "and the human soul within him, through the communion and not only the union, but the mixture with him, we say have received the greatest things, and having shared in his divinity have passed over into God." He compares Christ's body to matter, which is devoid of all qualities in itself, but receives those which the Maker of all things has chosen to instill in it; then he adds: "What is wonderful if the quality of the mortal body according to Jesus, by the providence of God, was willed to change into an ethereal and divine quality?" And a little later, no. 42: "However, we shall add to this that if it is possible for matter, which is subject to all qualities, to change its qualities, how is it not possible for the flesh of Jesus, having changed its qualities, to have become such as ^B it was necessary for that which is in the ether and living in the places above to be, no longer having the characteristics of bodily weakness?"

XVIII. There is in Jerome on Jeremiah XXII, that the passage asserting Jeconiah, the son of Jehoiakim, who is compared to a ring and is called a broken vessel and a barren man, was applied by Origen to Christ in book V of the *Stromata*, has been lost. Sixtus of Siena, in book V, Bibl., annot. 234, says very well: "It is credible from the books which exist that Origen, expounding these things allegorically, set them forth concerning Christ, in the sense in which Paul dared to say that Christ was made sin, a curse, and an execration for us, that is, an offering for sin, and the curse to which we were subject." If anyone, moreover, weighs these passages of Jeremiah alongside Isaiah LII, 14, and LIII, 2, 3, he will not at all wonder at Origen's interpretation.

XIX. Since the Ubiquitarians defend themselves with a few testimonies of the Fathers, whose words they either pervert by understanding them badly, or corrupt by interpreting them badly; they could with equal right claim the patronage of Origen, for in Tractate XXXIV on Matthew, no. 70, pg. 887, he left this written: "The Son of God will not indeed appear in one place when he shall come in his glory, and not appear in another; but just as he wished to demonstrate his advent according to the comparison of the lightning going forth, saying: 'If they say to you, Behold, he is in the desert, do not go out; behold, he is in the house, do not believe it. For as the lightning goes forth from the east and appears even to the west, so will be the advent of the Son of man.' Therefore, just as the lightning going forth from the east, and because it fills all things, appears even to the west; so when Christ shall come in his glory, because he will be everywhere, he himself will be everywhere in the sight of all, and all will be everywhere in his sight, and thus they will be constituted before the seat of his glory, that is, before his kingdom and the power of his dominion." Genebrard, or whoever authored these words at the margin, thinks he solves this: "The advent of Christ will be everywhere, but successively." But the example of the lightning resists this, which is not successive, but in almost the same

^A moment of time illuminates the east and the west, because he fills all things. I, however, do not judge the presence of Christ to be signified by human eyes, which are to be used for a corporeal reality, but by the mind, which is to be illuminated by divinity. Those things which immediately precede make for this: "How much more rightly are all nations said to be gathered and constituted before Him, when He shall have been made manifest openly to all, as much the good as the bad, as much the faithful as the unfaithful, no longer found before the eyes of their mind by any search of faith or diligence, but presented by the manifestation of His very divinity." They also make for faith, which are read in the preceding treatise on Matthew, no. 65, pages 882, 883, in which, discoursing on, *A certain man going abroad, etc.*, he asks how Christ can be said to be a traveler, whom the holy scriptures demonstrate to be everywhere; then he posits that Christ, insofar as He is the Word of God, and Wisdom, and Justice, and Truth, is not enclosed by a corporeal boundary, and insofar as He is divine and holds His power, He is everywhere, but according to the dispensation of the body which He assumed, He is a traveler. The same person asserts this in Homily 6 on Luke, and teaches that Christ, insofar as He is the power of God, pervades all things, celestial, terrestrial, and infernal. And in Book VI in the Epistle to the Romans, no. 2, page 622, after he declared that Christ is not circumscribed by the boundaries of any place, but penetrates everywhere and is diffused through all things; "But in such a way," he says, "must you think of Christ, as of the Word, and Truth, and Wisdom, and Justice of God. These things, however, are not sought in a place, but are present everywhere, nor are they evoked from the infernal places, but are grasped by the mind alone and by the intellect." ^B And so is to be understood Tome II on John, no. 29, when he says: "After these things, there is another testimony of the same Baptist concerning Christ, still teaching His previous substance, extending over all the world, according to rational souls, when he says: *In the midst of you stands One whom you do not know, coming after me*."

XX. Another opinion of Origen follows concerning the death of Christ, which was useful not only to men, but also to the angels, and the stars, and all created things whatsoever. If anyone wishes to contend that Origen was entirely alien to this, he must cast aside all candor and shame, since most of the ancients castigate and refute this opinion in him, and he has left it behind consigned in clear and repeated testimonies. But because the matter is intricate and perplexing, it seems it must be examined more accurately.

XXI. Theophilus, in Paschal Epistle 2, complains that he thought Christ would have to be fixed to the cross for the sake of the demons and spiritual wickednesses in the upper regions; and by saying these things, then amplifying and extending them after his custom, he shows that many pestiferous consequences follow from them. And then indeed Hincmar used the authority and words of this one to crush the same error in his book *On Predestination*, chapter 27. Jerome does not think otherwise in his *Apology against Rufinus*, book 1, chapter 5: "It is permitted, he says, for your Origen to say that Christ has suffered often, and will suffer more often, so that what once profited, the assumed humanity should always profit"; and Epistle 61, to Avitus, chapter 4: "And when he (Origen) had said, according to the Apocalypse of John, that the everlasting Gospel, that is, the one which will be in heaven, precedes this Gospel of ours as much as the preaching of Christ precedes the sacraments of the old law; at the end he brought in (which it is sacrilegious to have even thought) that for the salvation of the demons Christ will suffer even in the air and in the higher places. And although he did not say it, yet it is understood what the consequence is: just as for the sake of humans He became man in order to liberate humans; so also for the salvation of demons He will become a demon, which is what these beings are, to whom He is about to come to be liberated." Then he presents the very words of Origen, whence he adds strength to his accusation, and we will refer to these also below. It must be noted, meanwhile, that Jerome expressly affirms that Origen did not say that Christ would become a demon for the salvation of the demons, which neither did Theophilus read in him; but both collected it by reasoning from Origen's words; although he wrote that Christ appeared to the angels and celestial virtues in the form of each one of them, as we shall show a little later. Similar also to the above is the complaint of Orosius against the Origenists in the *Commonitorium* among the works of Augustine, which is wont to be edited at the beginning of the book against the Priscillianists and the Origenists: "But concerning the body of the Lord they have handed down that, since the Son of God coming to us after so many thousands of years was not idle up to then, but preaching forgiveness to the angels, powers, and all the higher beings, when He assumed the quality of the form of those He was visiting, He had transited up to the tangibility of the flesh under the appearance of assumption." From that also, Posthumianus, in Sulpicius Severus, *Dialogues* 1, chapter 3, reports that envy was stirred up against Origen among the Egyptian bishops, because it was read in his books that the Lord Jesus, just as He had come in the flesh for the redemption of man, and suffered the cross for the salvation of man, and tasted death for the eternity of man, so by the same order of passion He was going to redeem even the devil: because this would be congruent to His goodness and piety, that He who had reformed the lost man might also liberate the fallen angel. Hence Bernard, Sermon 44 on the *Song of Songs*: "Finally, he says, He worked salvation in the midst of the earth: perhaps also in the midst of the air?" This is against Origen, who in the air impudently crucifies the Lord of glory again for the demons with a lie; when Paul, conscious of this mystery, affirms that rising from the dead He now dies no more; death shall no longer have dominion over Him; and Albert the Great on the 8th Epistle of Dionysius: "Not that Christ will suffer again, according to Origen's error." What is worse from the very words of Origen is

Justinian the Emperor represents twice in his letter to Mennas that Christ is to be crucified for the demons, and this often throughout future ages. Then, in the anathemas subject to this letter, he touches upon Origen when he condemns those who have said that the Word was made a Seraph to the Seraphim, and similar things to the rest of the powers of heaven; and when he adds an anathema against those who say that Christ will be crucified in the world to come for demons, just as for men. Whence Nicephorus, lib. xvii, cap. 27, reports that this was condemned among the heresies ascribed to Origen: "It is necessary for Christ to be crucified for demons, and often in future ages to suffer the same thing at the hands of the spirits of wickedness who are in the celestials." ^A Truly, it is horrible and detestable that John Damascene, in his book *On Heresies*, said that it was Origen's conviction that Christ would be governed together with the devil by the King, and that, having been put upon the cross, He would falsely preach to the demons.

XXII. Now, leaving the rivulets, let us draw from the very fountain. Origen, in *Homily on Luke*, proves from it that the advent of Jesus Christ was profitable to the Fathers of the Old Testament, because it was profitable to the celestials, according to the Apostle in Colossians 1:20. Origen misuses this passage of Paul for the same opinion in *Homily I on Leviticus*, no. 3, and in book V, *On the Epistle to the Romans*, no. 10, page 568. But by this name of "celestials," he designated not only the orders of angels, but also the stars, inasmuch as he judged them to be endowed not only with soul, but also with reason. Moreover, he deemed that whatever beings possess reason are liable to sin, and consequently are in need of purification; and that Christ exhibited the service of purification to them by His death, and procured salvation, ^B *apal pantos outinosoun, plen tes anthropon soterias, kai pantos logikou* [that is, "for all beings whatsoever, except for the salvation of men, and for every rational creature"]. Thus error clings to error. Furthermore, enumerating rational beings in *Tom. I on John*, no. 34, he placed angels, men, and demons among them. And he added a soul to the stars, derived, of course, from the celestial orders above, to which the benefit of Christ's death equally pertained. He openly brings forward these fabrications in *Tom. I on John*, no. 40, and asserts that Christ is the great high priest, not only for men, but also for everything that is capable of reason; and thus at length concludes: ^C "For it is absurd to say that He tasted death for the sake of human sins, but no longer for any other being created in sins besides man, such as for the stars, even though the stars are not altogether pure in the sight of God, as we have read in Job: 'The stars are not clean in His sight,' unless perhaps this is said hyperbolically." A similar thing he intimates in *Tom. II on John*, no. 16, when he says that Christ is the light, not only of men, but also of all those who are capable of reason. Nor does he seem to himself sufficiently consistent when he explains the reason and manner by which Christ liberated rational beings from the servitude of corruption. For he seems sometimes to think that He appeared to the individual orders of angels in the form of each one, and preached the Gospel. Just as when he says in *Homily on Genesis*, no. 8: "It must be considered that the angel is reported to have spoken these things to Abraham, and that in what follows this angel is evidently shown to be the Lord. Hence I think that just as He was found among us men in the likeness of a man, so also among the angels He was found in the likeness of an angel." And when he asserts in *Tom. XV on Matthew*, no. 7, that the angels can be called disciples of Christ: ^D "For the name of the disciples of Jesus extends even to such powers, so that not only men are discipled by Him, but also the angels to whom He appeared, and if anyone wishes to believe in Him from every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the age to come." And when he says in *Tom. VIII Against Celsus*, that Christ "has sown the word of piety by His power into the whole inhabited world of men; and I shall not lie by adding and saying that He did this also for other rational beings who are in need of correction, and healing, and a turning away from wickedness." And when he says in *Tom. I on John*, no. 34, that the Savior was made all things to all men, that He might win all—whoever could attain salvation—who were partakers of reason; then he enumerates beings possessing reason, and establishes a triple series of them; and he assigns the first to the angels, and then doubts whether to ascribe the subsequent parts to men, or to the *katachthoniois* [those in the lower regions], among whose number he assumes are demons, either all or some. And in the first book of the *Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans*, no. 4, he asks whether Christ, when He was manifested in the flesh, appeared to the angels—according to the Apostle—without the Gospel; he then subjoins: "If, therefore, when He appeared to us men, He did not appear without the Gospel, the consequence seems to show that He did not appear to the angelic order without the Gospel, perhaps by that which we taught above mentioning the 'everlasting Gospel' from John [Apoc. xiv, 6]. If, however, it is to be suspected that something of this kind was also done by Him in the remaining celestial orders, appearing to them in the form in which each one is, and announcing..."

peace, since indeed he reconciled through the blood of His cross not only things on earth but also things which are in heaven, examine this also within yourself. ^A And in Homily 1 and 2 on Leviticus, he states that Christ poured out the vital power of His body in the celestial realms as a kind of corporal sacrifice, and that He reconciled the celestial realms to this extent, insofar as He was offered there as an offering.

^B But on the other hand, in many places he decides that Christ procured salvation for all things endowed with reason by the one death He underwent on earth. For, beyond the greater part of them which have been excerpted above, whence you may easily gather this, and especially this part from the first tome on John, number 40, in which Christ is called "the great high priest, not only for men, but also for every rational [being], having offered the one sacrifice and having offered up Himself"—and beyond this, [there is] that from tome VII against Celsus, number 17, page 703: "He endured as wise and perfect whatever it behooved Him to endure on behalf of the whole race of men, or rather, doing all things for all rational [creatures]—that He alone might be for all, who is able to be." This is contained at the end of Book V in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, number 10, page 568, where he says he is astonished "that some, against this most evident opinion of Paul, wish to assert that it is necessary for Christ to suffer either the same or similar things again in future ages, so that even those who could not be healed in the present life by the dispensations of His medicine might be liberated." And a little later: ^C "'But to these things,' he says, 'we shall answer briefly as we are able. We do not deny that free will always remains for a rational nature; but we assert that the power of the cross of Christ and of this death, which He underwent at the end of the ages, is so great that it suffices for health and remedy not only for the present and the future, but also for the past ages; and it suffices not only for this human order of ours, but also for the celestial powers and their orders. For according to the opinion of Paul the apostle himself, Christ reconciled through the blood of His cross not only things that are on earth, but also those that are in heaven.'" Or that [passage] from Book II of *De Principiis*, chapter 3, number 5: ^D "'But the holy Apostle teaches,' he says, 'that Christ did not suffer in the age that was before this one, nor indeed in the one that was before that; and I do not know if I could enumerate how many prior ages there were in which He did not suffer. But I shall bring forward the words of Paul from which I came upon the occasion of this understanding. For he says: "But now once in the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to abolish sin by the sacrifice of Himself." For he says that the sacrifice was made once, and in the consummation of the ages it is to abolish sin.'"

But let us again call to mind the perfidy of Rufinus.

Although the passages adduced above attribute to the death once inflicted upon Christ on earth that power which might suffice for the saving of the orders of men and angels; nevertheless, in subsequent ages, Origen seems to affirm that Christ will suffer again in Homily 1 on Leviticus, number 3: "Unless perhaps he means to be understood in this way: that the blood of Jesus was poured out not only in Jerusalem, where the altar, its base, and the tabernacle of testimony were; but also that He Himself sprinkled the same blood upon that altar which is in heaven, where the church of the firstborn is." But the seat of this error is clearly that which Justinian exhibits in his epistle to Mennas and in Book IV of *De Principiis*, number 25. It is commonly edited thus: "That Christ must also be crucified for the demons, and this often in the ages to come. But even if one should inquire regarding the passion, one will seem to be doing a rash thing in seeking it regarding the celestial places. But if there are spiritual forces of wickedness in the celestial places, then if we do not shrink from confessing that there is a crucifying here for the destruction of those whom He destroyed by having suffered, so also, granting that the things following in that place happen similarly, even to the consummation of the whole age, we shall not fear." This passage, somewhat more amplified and conceived in the Latin tongue, Jerome presents in Epistle 61 to Avitus, chapter 4: "For as He fulfilled the shadow of the Law through the shadow of the Gospel; so, because all law is an example and shadow of celestial ceremonies, it must be more diligently sought whether we rightly understand the celestial law also, and [that] the ceremonies of the supernal worship do not have fullness, but need the truth of the Gospel, which we read in John's Apocalypse as the 'everlasting Gospel,' specifically in comparison to this Gospel of ours, which is temporal and preached in a passing world and age. Which indeed, even if we were to wish to inquire up until the passion of the Lord Savior: although it is bold and rash to seek His passion in heaven; yet if there are spiritual forces of wickedness in celestial places, and we are not ashamed to confess the cross of the Lord for the destruction of those things which He destroyed by His passion; why should we fear to suspect something similar in supernal places in the consummation of the ages, so that the peoples of all places might be saved by His passion?" From this interpretation of Jerome it is clear that the words of Origen were wrongly accepted by Justinian; for what is read in him: "Even to the consummation of the whole age," we believe Jerome to have understood so sluggishly and negligently that he translated it "in the consummation of the ages" (the original reading having been corrupted), so that by this genuine reading it would be wrongly inferred that Christ, according to Origen, is to suffer again in subsequent ages. One thing alone can be gathered: that the death of Christ profited not only earthly, but also celestial [beings]: which Origen seems to have taught everywhere.

Rather, we ought to say that it should be read, *at the consummation of the age*, by an easy permutation of letters: for in Book V of the *Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans*, no. 10, page 568, where Rufinus translates, "of this death, which He received at the end of the ages," it is probable that Origen had written the same way, *at the consummation of the age*. If this is so, Justinian has undeservedly prefixed to this Origenian passage a lemma of this sort: *That Christ must also be crucified for the demons, and this often for future ages.* That Christ must even be crucified for the demons, and that more frequently in future ages: since this should have been written exceptionally at the beginning, it was wrongly joined in a single series to the following points.

^B XXIV. Certainly, I conjecture from a careful consideration of his words that Origen thought differently concerning the death endured by Christ than is commonly imputed to him; for I cannot be persuaded that there was so much folly in him as to believe that Christ either had suffered or would suffer repeated punishments, either in heaven or in the air, or in the form of an angel or a demon. That one passage which Justinian and Jerome bring forward seems to have given occasion for this calumny. For I find no other passage among his works marked with the express signs of this heresy, nor is it likely that any existed in those writings which have perished; nor indeed would his adversaries have passed over those if they had remained intact. But we have demonstrated that this passage of Justinian was corrupted. But if we adhere to the interpretation of Jerome, the meaning will not be so clear that we must conclude therefrom that Origen intended that Christ would seek death again for the demons. Furthermore, Jerome admits—in Epistle 61 to Avitus, chapter 4—that the greatest and principal part of this dogma, which posits Christ becoming a demon for the salvation of demons, does not exist in the books of Origen, but that he judged it to flow necessarily from his pronouncements; just as that Alexandrian, Theophilus, as I said when I was reviewing their accusations. I therefore believe this to have been the genuine doctrine of Origen concerning the death of Christ: that Christ died absolutely once, namely on earth, when He was sentenced to death by Pontius Pilate; but after He had washed away the sins of men by the bloody sacrifice slaughtered there, He had wiped away the faults of celestial beings and other things ^C which were possessed of reason by a certain spiritual sacrifice. "Unless perhaps," he says in *Homily I on Leviticus*, no. 3, "he wished this to be understood, that the blood of Jesus was poured out in Jerusalem, where the altar was, and its base, and the tabernacle of testimony; but also that the same blood sprinkled the supernal altar which is in the heavens, where the Church of the firstborn is, just as the Apostle says: *Because He has made peace through the blood of His cross, whether those things which are on earth, or those which are in heaven* [Col. 1, 20]. Rightly, therefore, does he name a second altar, which is at the door of the tabernacle of testimony, because it was offered not only ^D for earthly things, but also for celestial things as the host Jesus, and here indeed He poured out the very corporeal substance of His blood for men: but in the heavens, while the priests (if there are any there) were ministering, He immolated the vital virtue of His body as a sort of corporeal sacrifice." He adds then that there was a double host in Him, one suitable for earthly beings, another fitting for celestial ones; and that with that double veil, which Paul commemorates in the *Epistle to the Hebrews*, the flesh of Christ and the heaven which He Himself penetrated are signified, and consequently that it is to be understood that there is a double sacrifice through which He prepared salvation for earthly and celestial beings. When these things are attentively examined, they manifestly reject the exposition added to the margin, by which it is asserted that that celestial sacrifice is the Eucharist, but the earthly one is the death endured on the cross. Moreover, he declares in *Homily II on Leviticus*, no. 3, that Christ was offered in heaven not for sin, but as a gift: "See, therefore," he says, "lest perhaps Jesus, whom Paul says has made peace through His blood not only with things on earth, but also with things in heaven, be the very same calf, who was offered in heaven indeed not for sin, but as a gift: but on earth, where sin reigned from Adam even unto Moses, was offered for sin: and this is to have suffered without the camp." How, however, He appeared to each in his own form, he himself explains in *Tome I on John*, no. 34, and teaches that He was made man to men when "He was manifested in the flesh," an angel to angels, when He was seen by the patriarchs and prophets, for instance by Moses in the bush; but to the shades below, when "He was made among the dead." It can also be said that He preached the Gospel to the angels when He opened to them the mystery of the future Incarnation; but to the inhabitants of the lower world, when "He penetrated all the lower parts of the earth, and looked upon all the sleeping, and enlightened all hoping in the Lord"; when "put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit, He came and preached to those spirits who were in prison, who had been unfaithful at one time, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noah"; when "it was evangelized to the dead, that they might be judged indeed according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." Or he is to be said to have preached His doctrine even to the angels then, when, speaking words to men, He addressed the angels also who were present. Origen hints at this in *Homily 23 on Luke*: "Our Savior, therefore, and the Holy Spirit who spoke in the prophets, teaches not only men, but also angels, and invisible virtues"; then "For John and the prophets did not come only, but the Savior Himself also came, both to men and to angels, and to the other virtues, to preach a salvific repentance, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth." For he believed that angels were indeed subject to sins, as we shall say.

^A And the same homily clearly states that Christ spoke not only to the prophets and apostles, whenever he addressed human beings regarding divine matters, but to the angels as well. Moreover, he believed that Christ appeared to the angels, to those under the earth, and to human beings in such a way that he applied the benefit of his unique death, endured in a human body, to them, not that he assumed their forms to undergo new deaths. As for his appearing to suggest elsewhere that Christ died not only for rational beings, but for all creatures whatsoever, we shall easily explain this if we remember that this view is contrary to the context and flow of his own doctrine; for he held that all things capable of reason possess perpetual use of liberty; that whatever is free is liable to sins; that whatever is guilty of sin requires purgation; and that the death of Christ alone could provide that purgation. But he believed that things devoid of reason lack liberty, and consequently do not sin, nor do they need purgation, and therefore do not receive the fruits of Christ’s death in any way. Therefore, we must state that by "creation," he meant the works of God endowed with reason, using the genus for the species.

^B XXV. Thus, from this earlier fiction, by which he attributed the perpetual use of liberty to all rational creatures, the Father was driven to believe that Origen thought they had need of reconciliation, and that Christ’s death had bestowed this benefit upon them. Two passages from Paul led him to this, one from the Epistle to the Ephesians, ch. 1, ver. 10, and the other from the Epistle to the Colossians, ch. 1, ver. 20, which he frequently objects to us. He interprets this much more correctly and aptly in his ^C Homily on Leviticus, no. 4: "But the Apostle calls us companions of the saints, and no wonder. For if we are said to have fellowship with the Father and the Son, how not also with the saints, not only those who are on earth, but also those who are in heaven? Because Christ indeed reconciled things in heaven and on earth through his blood, in order to unite earthly things with heavenly ones." This is the truer exposition of this apostolic statement, and it is the one maintained by Augustine in his *Enchiridion ad Laurentium*, ch. 61. And if Origen did indeed surmise that Christ would also suffer in times past—as it is reported—he founded his opinion upon that statement, "I am to be crucified again from above," which is attributed to Christ in the *Acts of Paul*, as we learn from Origen himself in his 20th Tomus on John, no. 12.

XXVI. Nor was this opinion concerning the death of Christ condemned for the first time in this instance: Tertullian refutes it in his ^D book *De carne Christi*, ch. 14: "But, they say, Christ carried an angel. Why? By the same reason as he carried a human being. Therefore the cause is the same for which he carried a human being. Christ was the salvation of man; the cause, clearly, was to restore what had perished. Man had perished, it was necessary for man to be restored. There is no such reason for Christ to carry an angel; for even if the perdition of the angels is reckoned as being in the fire prepared for the devil," indeed, they were never promised restoration. Christ accepted no mandate from the Father for the salvation of the angels. What the Father neither promised nor commanded, Christ could not administer. Jerome, however, translated this sentiment of Origen into his Commentaries on the Epistle to the Ephesians, whose words are these in book 1, on ch. 1, ver. 22: "But why all things, that is, angels, thrones, dominations, powers, and virtues—things which were never contrary to God—should be subjected under his feet, seems obscure. It can, therefore, be answered that there is no one without sin, and the stars themselves are not clean in the sight of God, and every creature fears the advent of the Creator. Hence, the cross of the Savior is said to have purged not only things that were on earth, but also those that were in heaven." And in ch. 11, ver. 14: "However, whoever reads that of the Apostle, recalling of Christ: 'Making peace through the blood of his cross to those things which were on earth, and to those things which were in heaven'... will temper this whole understanding to include the angels, the heavenly virtues, and human souls... and will thus think it came to pass that the cross of the Lord was of profit not only to the earth, but also to heaven; not only to men, but also to angels, and every creature was purged by the blood of their Lord." And in book II, on ch. III, ver. 10 of the same epistle, he says that the cross of Christ profited not only us, but also the angels and all the virtues in heaven, for through it the manifold wisdom of God was revealed to them just as it was to us; and in ch. IV, ver. 10: "For we cannot know how the blood of Christ profited the angels and those who were in the underworld, and yet we cannot be ignorant that it did profit them." This, which Jerome had put forth without refutation, was reproached by Rufinus in *Invectiv.* lib. 1, but in his *Apology*, he defends himself nonetheless validly. Cyril also contributes to the excuse of Origen in his *De adoratione*, book IX, where he speaks thus: Χριστοῦ γὰρ μέτοχος πᾶσά ἐστιν ὁρατὴ, καὶ ἀόρατος κτίσις. "Ἄγγελοι τε γὰρ, καὶ ἀρχάγγελοι, καὶ τὰ ἔτι τούτων ἐπέκεινα, καὶ αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ χερουβίμ, οὐχ ἑτέρως ἅγια πλὴν ὅτι διὰ μόνου Χριστοῦ ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι. "For every visible and invisible creature is a partaker of Christ. For angels and archangels, and those things even beyond them, and even the cherubim themselves, are in no other way holy than through Christ alone in the Holy Spirit." And Augustine, in *De consensu evangelistarum*, book 1, ch. 35, where he defines all minds capable of reason, whether of angels or of men, as being wise only through participation in Christ, who is Wisdom; and that Christ, by saying and doing, by suffering and enduring what was suitable for our salvation, became an example of return for men below, and for the angels above, an example of remaining. Truly, this proposition by no means contradicts the decrees of the Church; that Christ by his own blood [procured] for the angels the first grace, and then the gift of perseverance.

Add to this that whatever Origen proposes on this subject, he proposes waveringly and inquiringly, not asserting it: as in that notable place from Homily 1 on Leviticus, no. 3: "But perhaps even this," he says, "is not without cause," etc. Also a little below: "Unless perhaps he wished this to be understood," etc., and in another from Homily 2, no. 3: "See then whether perhaps Jesus," etc. Then in that which is requested from Vol. 1 on John, no. 34, he asks dubiously about how he was rendered similar to those in the underworld. He most openly expresses his wavering in Book 1 on the Epistle to the Romans, no. 4, when he recounts those various apparitions of Christ: "Concerning which," he says, "although it may seem dangerous to commit the speech to papers, nevertheless the sayings of the wise and the enigmas ^A should not be passed by idly, but should be contemplated with a very subtle keenness of mind (as far as the subject allows) as if through a certain mirror; lest perhaps he who appeared made flesh, having been placed in the flesh," etc.

^A XXVII. Among the sacrilegious sayings of the Manichaeans, Augustine recounts that notable [passage] in Book XX against Faustus, chap. 2. He [says] that Christ, who is the power and wisdom of God, dwells as if bipartite in the sun and moon; and indeed in the sun, in that he is the power of God, but in the moon, in that he is wisdom. Philastrius likewise, in Heresy LV, and Augustine to Quodvultdeus, in Heresy LIX, accuse Seleucus and Hermias, denying that the Savior sits in the flesh at the right hand of the Father, but [that they] thought he had divested himself of flesh and placed it in the sun; prompted to this by the psalm of the prophet XVIII, 6: "He has placed his tabernacle in the sun." Theodoret accuses Hermogenes of the same crime in Book 1 of *Heretical Fables*, chap. 19, from whom it is likely that the Manichaeans sucked the virus of this kind, as they did many others; not from Origen, whom, however, Serapion of Thmuis, surnamed the Scholastic, accuses as if he had been the author of this error for the Manichaeans, inasmuch as, illustrating the recently lauded passage of David, he wrote that Christ, when he ascended into heaven, fell asleep, and, his body having been deposited in the sun, brought his soul into heaven to the right hand of the Father. Sixtus of Siena writes that these [things] are contained in the book of Serapion against the Manichaeans in his *Bibliotheca Sancta*, Book V, and after him Genebrard in the collections prefixed to Origen. But I find nothing of this kind in this work of Serapion, as it is found edited in the *Bibliotheca Patrum*. Binetus, however, in his booklet *On the Salvation of Origen*, recounts that Serapion wrote this in his Commentary on Psalm XVIII. Certainly, Orosius accuses certain Origenists of a crime not much unlike this in his *Commonitorium* to Augustine; saying that they contend that Christ, before he descended to the lands, preached remission ^B to the angels, having assumed the body of those he approached; and at length put on a human body, determining this by his passion and resurrection, and having ascended again until he came to the Father, he had attenuated it: so that neither had the body ever been deposited, nor, reigning in any body, was God circumscribed. Which, when in the book of Augustine against the Priscillianists and Origenists, as other errors of the same [people] proposed by Orosius himself, they appear nowhere refuted, I conclude that some part of the booklet has perished.

But who was that Origen who could be involved in that opinion, whom Pamphilus relates to have written these things in his *Apology*: "What is that which he said: 'He has placed his tabernacle in the sun'? Some indeed were saying that our Savior, ascending from the lands to heaven, and assuming his body, arrived as far as that circle which is named the zone of the sun; and there, they say, he placed the tabernacle of his body: for it was not possible to proceed further. But they feel these things in this way because they do not wish to accept allegory in divine Scripture, and therefore, serving pure history, they compose fables and figments of this kind." Then he interprets this place of the prophet shortly after, that the tabernacle of Christ is the Church; the sun, however, [is] God, who is eternal light, and the sun of justice. Indeed, Theodoret relates in *Heresies*, Book 1, chap. 19, that Origen refuted Hermogenes, the proponent of this madness. The conjecture of Sixtus of Siena ^C and Genebrard is therefore pleasing, that that delirium was falsely attributed to Origen by the Manichaeans, and his books corrupted to win faith for their impiety. But the other response of Genebrard is not at all pleasing—that it can be simply denied because the book of Origen does not survive: for to what will the authority of Serapion fall back, whom Jerome extols?

XXVIII. It is more difficult to excuse this opinion, which is akin to that former one, which Origen recorded in Homily 29 on Luke. "But if," he says, "you have been tempted, you will have imitated him (Christ) who was tempted for your sake and have conquered every temptation, [and] you will have hope with him who at that time was man, but now has ceased to be man. For if he who formerly was man, after he was tempted, and the devil receded from him, until the time of death rising again from the dead will no more die; but every man is subject to death: ^D this one, therefore, who by no means dies, is now no longer man, but is God." I said this opinion is akin to that former one; for if Origen had truly been persuaded that Christ had deposited his body in the sun, it was a consequence to judge that he had also divested himself of humanity. It is said that the [opinion] of Marcellus of Ancyra was almost similar.

believing that Christ would abandon the flesh after the resurrection, and that consequently he would cease to be man and king. ^A But Origen’s reasoning was different, for he did not think Christ separated from his own body (I do not speak here of the three days in which his dead body lay in the tomb, as we have demonstrated); and he denies that he is man for this reason—because whoever is not subject to death, he does not deem to be a man at all. Although in this matter the question concerns the name of "man," since the fact is agreed upon, it must nevertheless be confessed that this is an ill-considered statement and therefore to be repudiated.

XXIX. Celebrated is Bernard’s complaint against Origen, in the sermon entitled *On the words of Origen*, in which he attacks him severely because in *Homily 7 on Leviticus*, number 2, he said that Christ even now laments our sins. [Bernard claims] that Christ, while he lived [on earth], was indeed subject to such affections, but after he advanced to heaven, he is no longer touched by grief; that he indeed rejoices with those who rejoice, but does not mourn with those who mourn, although he possesses an affection for those who are failing that is more effective than those who weep for the weeping, or those who lay down their souls: and that the same is to be thought concerning the Blessed. Genebrardus responds in his *Collectanea*, chapter 6, that this was said by Origen in a pious sense and is unjustly criticized by Bernard, since Paul himself says in Romans 8:26, "The Spirit intercedes for us with groanings that cannot be uttered." (25) ^B But this response is little approved by me, for Origen meant that Christ is truly tormented by the sense of grief for sins, and he has openly and repeatedly affirmed this. But that the Holy Spirit for that reason experiences anything of the sort, I do not believe Paul understood; certainly the interpreters do not think so either. Thus Origen himself explains the passage in book 6 of *Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans*, number 6: "The Holy Spirit, when he sees our spirit perturbed by the assaults of the flesh, and knowing not what he ought to pray for as is proper, he himself, as a master, puts forward a prayer which our spirit—if it desires to be a disciple of the Holy Spirit—may follow; he himself offers groanings by which our spirit may learn to groan, so that it may render God propitious to itself." This explanation is confirmed by that passage of Paul in Galatians 4:6: "Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father," and another similar one in Romans 8:15. No more pleasing is the excuse of Sixtus Senensis (26), who interprets Origen’s words in such a way that Christ laments our sins only insofar as he laments our sins in his members, while he pours forth weeping and compassion for another’s iniquity into his elect. But these words of Origen himself show that the sentiment pertains to Christ and not to Christ’s members, in *Homily 7 on Leviticus*, number 2, page 221: "My Savior laments even now my sins. My Savior cannot rejoice as long as I remain in iniquity. Why can he not? Because he himself is the advocate for our sins."

(25) But this response is little approved by me. Origen himself opens his mind in *Homily 23 on Numbers*, number 2, page 357, where he says that just as our good acts and the progress of virtues yield joy and festivity to God the Father, to our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the Holy Spirit and the angels, so our evil conversation brings lamentations and grief ^C not only to the earth, but even to heaven, and to God himself; but all these things, in which God is said to lament, or rejoice, or hate, or be glad, are to be accepted as spoken figuratively and in a human manner by Scripture—for the divine nature is alien from every affect of passion and change, enduring in that summit of beatitude always immobile and unshaken. "Does God, therefore," he says, "have his festival days? He has. For human salvation is a great festival. I think that through each individual believer, through each one who is converted to God, who makes progress in faith, a festival of the Lord arises. How, you ask, does he delight him, when he who had been unchaste becomes chaste, and he who had been unjust cultivates justice, and he who had been impious is made pious? All these conversions of individuals generate festivals for God. Nor is there doubt but that our Lord Jesus Christ, who even poured out his own blood for our salvation, celebrates a great festival when he sees that what he achieved is worth the labor, because he humbled himself and, taking the form of a servant, became obedient unto death. The Holy Spirit likewise celebrates [festivals], where he sees more temples prepared for himself in those who are converted to God. For what shall I say of the angels, to whose festival of rejoicing it is said that all who are converted to the Lord arrive? Or is it not a great festival for them, when they rejoice in heaven over one sinner who does penance, more than over ninety-nine just persons who need no penance (Luke 15:7)?".... But just as our good acts and the progress of virtues generate joy and festivity for God and ^D the angels, so I fear that our evil conversation brings lamentations and grief not only to the earth, but also to heaven, and perhaps human sins even strike grief into God himself. Or is that not the voice of one lamenting, when it is said: "It repents me that I have made man upon the earth" (Gen. 6:6)? But also that of our Lord and Savior in the Gospel, where he says: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who stonest the prophets and killest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldest not?" (Matth. 23:37.) But also that is the voice of God lamenting the human race, by which it is said through the prophet: "Woe is me" (Mich. 7:1, 2), "because I am become as one that gathereth in summer fruits of the vintage, for there is no cluster to eat, the firstfruits which my soul desired! Woe to me, my soul! because the godly is perished out of the earth, and there is none upright among men." These are the voices of the Lord lamenting the human race.... It is certain that where joys are celebrated for what is good, there lamentation is made for what is contrary: if, therefore, they rejoice for the converted, it is necessary that they mourn for the sinner.... But all these things, in which God is said to lament, or rejoice, or hate, or be glad, are to be accepted from Scripture in a figurative and human manner. The divine nature is far from every affect of passion and change, enduring in that summit of beatitude always immobile and unshaken. This is what Origen means, that Christ still laments our sins, just as the Father laments, and the Holy Spirit likewise laments: furthermore, he professes here that the Father and the Holy Spirit lament only in a figurative manner—therefore he did not intend that Christ is still tormented for sins by a true sense of grief, but that he laments in a figurative manner in the same way that he says Paul [meant that] the Spirit intercedes for us with groanings that cannot be uttered; and hence it must be confessed that he was accused by Bernard in vain.

(26) Sixtus Senensis, book 5, *Bibliotheca*.

^A Manifest traces of either heresy are nowhere to be found. And so, either his adversaries believed that such a thing followed from his own words, or it existed in those works which have been abolished by age. However, just as no passage of Origen is available from which this accusation might gain credence, so there hardly exists one from which it can be easily refuted. Halloxius did indeed collect a few things, but they are weak and light, and have little bearing on the matter, such as that solemn clause of Origen's homilies: "To the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom is glory and dominion for ever and ever." For Origen had written in Greek: *Eis tous aionas ton aionon*; and we shall prove below that there is not one meaning to those words, nor is a beginningless eternity always denoted by them.

And indeed, Theophilus says he does not know whence Origen drew such madness. But I can clearly swear that this passage of the Apostle which is read in 1 Cor. xv, 24 seq., incorrectly understood, gave Origen the cause of this error, if indeed he adhered to it; for Marcellus, and his countryman Photinus, were also impelled toward the same opinion from it; and from it, Origen also took the cause for fashioning another dogma discordant with the decrees of the Church, as we shall observe in the following pages. But we may conjecture that it is sought in vain by us, and that Origen was free from this stain, from the fifteenth catechesis of Cyril of Jerusalem, who, while attacking that heresy in Marcellus and Photinus, says that it had recently arisen, *prosphatos anaphueisan*—which he certainly would not have said if it had already been propagated from the times of Origen. I pass over the remainder of Theophilus's dissertation against this fiction, which fights only with abuse and brings forth nothing worthy of a serious response.

QUESTION IV. CONCERNING THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY.

I. Whether Origen believed Christ and the blessed Virgin Mary had need of purification after childbirth. II. Whether he thought the womb of the virginity of blessed Mary was opened in childbirth. III. Whether he thought the blessed Mary was subject to sins.

1. A single homily, which is the fourteenth on Luke, gave Origen twofold—and more—cause for being reproved: the former, when he asserted that Christ and Mary had need of purification after birth; the latter, when he taught that the womb of the blessed Mary’s virginity had been opened in the birth. We shall examine both in their order; and now, indeed, concerning the former. Origen, interpreting the second chapter of Luke, says upon ^D these words of verse 22: *Kai hote eplesethesan hai hemerai tou katharismou auton, kata ton nomon Mouseos*, as follows: "On account of the purification," he says, "of them. Of whom? Of them? If it had been written 'on account of her purification,' that is, of Mary who had brought forth, no question would arise, and we would boldly say that Mary, who was a human being, had need of purification after childbirth. But now, in the fact that he says, 'the day of the purification of them,' there does not appear...

^A a mother, but rather another, or several. For he had read, as it is also read now, *tou katharismou auton* (of their purification), which reading is supported by the Syriac, Ethiopic, and Persian translations, as well as some Fathers and very many manuscripts. Others, and not a few, have *autou* (of him), but it must by all means be read *autēs* (of her), according to the Vulgate and the Arabic translation of the Erpenian edition. For it is evident from Leviticus 12 that purification was applied to the woman who gave birth, and not to the infant. The corrupted reading of that word *autēs*, therefore, misled Origen ^B and persuaded him that Christ, just like Mary, had need of purification. Thus, he applied to Christ, just as to other men, the saying of Job: "No one is clean from filth, not even if his life should be but a single day." He distinguished, however, between filth and sin here, and thought that the soul becomes filthy when it undergoes a mortal body fashioned out of vile and filthy matter; and consequently that Christ’s soul was defiled when it joined itself to a body lurking in the straits of a woman’s womb. Thus he says in the same homily: "Whence also the Savior speaks: 'I am a worm and no man, a reproach of men and an outcast of the people.'" He saw the uncleanness of bodies in his mother’s womb, and, surrounded on all sides by her innards, he suffered the constraints of earthly dregs: whence he likens himself to a worm and says: "I am a worm and no man."

But Tertullian, in his book *De carne Christi*, chapter 4, and his book *contra Marcionem*, chapter 11, in dealing with the incarnation of our Lord, blathers even worse things; for besides the impurities of the genitals in the womb of the elements, the humors and blood, and the foul clots of flesh to be nourished by the same mire for nine months; he also imagines the unclean and shameful torments of birth, and the filthy, anxious, and ridiculous consequences of the childbirth itself thereafter. These things, which were objected by the Heretics, he did not by any means deny, but argued that they were unworthy of God, against the Marcionites.

Yet, concerning the Holy Virgin conceiving after the manner of other women, and bringing forth Christ through the opening of the womb—as Origen imagined, as we shall presently discuss—it could also be believed that he thought that the flow of the birth, just as with others, was poured forth from her, from which it would be no wonder that he asserted that she also had to be purified; but this, unless my diligence has deceived me, is not explicitly stated in Origen. His own errors are therefore sufficient for him, and others should not be rashly attributed to him. Let us rather admit this annotation 136 of Sisto da Siena, which is woven into book VI of his *Bibliotheca*: "Perhaps Origen understands this, not of purification from the impurities and filth of childbirth, to which no one doubts Mary was not subject, but of the rites and ceremonies by which Moses had commanded that women who had given birth be purified: these it was necessary to be observed by the mother of Him who had come to fulfill the law, not to destroy it." This is confirmed by the fact that in Homily 8 on Leviticus, number 2, Origen writes that only those women are unclean in giving birth who conceive by the admission of seed, whereas those who conceive without seed, they do not bring forth in uncleanness. The genuine nature of those things which the Catena from Origen on Leviticus XXII, 2 represents is: "A woman who conceives by seed and brings forth a male; it will seem redundant, 'if she conceives by seed,' placed before 'and brings forth a male'; but I pause, lest perhaps, so that prophetically Mary might not be thought to be unclean for having brought forth a male—not having been conceived by seed—this whole thing was said." Let us add, finally, an outstanding passage from Homily 12 on Leviticus, number 4, in which the purity of the generation of Christ and of the virginal body of Mary is most clearly proclaimed: "Everyone who enters this world is said to be made in a certain contamination. For which reason the Scripture also says: 'No one is clean from filth, not even if his life should be but a single day.' Therefore, by the very fact that he is placed in the mother’s womb, and that he takes the matter of his body from the origin of paternal seed, he can be said to be contaminated in father and mother. Or do you not know that when a male child has been made forty days, he is offered to the altar, so that he may there be purified, as one who has been polluted in the very conception, either of paternal seed or of maternal womb? Every man, therefore, is polluted in father and mother; but Jesus alone, my Lord, entered into this generation clean; he was not polluted in his mother. For he entered a body uncontaminated. For He was the one who also had said long ago through Solomon: 'But rather, when I was good, I came into an undefiled body.' He is not therefore contaminated in his mother, nor even in his father. For Joseph contributed nothing in his generation except service and affection."

Thus, the Catholic Church feels concerning the sacred childbirth of Mary, imbued with the dogmas of the ancient Fathers, even if the womb grew day by day (for it pleases to retain the words of Tertullian from his book *De carne Christi*, chapter 4, although his own opinion is repudiated), that it was nevertheless by no means grievous, anxious, uncertain with the lusts of loathing and gluttony; but that the infant came forth not poured out with his impediments and forgotten, as is wont to happen to all other women in childbirth, but came forth without any defilements and filth. On account of this, by canon 79 of the Quinisext council, the custom accustomed to be observed by some in those times is abrogated, namely, the baking of fine flour after the day of Christ’s birth and distributing it to one another, "under the pretext of honors due to the afterbirth of the immaculate Virgin mother." The synod renders the reason: that the divine birth from the virgin is indeed *alocheutos* (without delivery), as it was also conceived *asporos* (without seed). "The divine birth of the Virgin lacking afterbirth, as one that was void of seed."

The second even more serious accusation arises from the words of his 14th Homily on Luke: "Whosoever you may say brought forth a male from the womb, does not open the womb of his mother in such a way as the Lord Jesus; because in all women, it is not the birth of the infant, but the intercourse of a man, that opens the womb. But the mother of the Lord, at that time..."

^A the womb was opened, whereby the birth was brought forth, because the holy womb, and one to be venerated with every dignity of reverence before the birth of Christ, no male touched at all.” He considers Christ to have been brought forth through the opening of the womb. Tertullian’s slipping is equal to this in his book *De carne Christi*, ch. 23; for there he teaches that the blessed Mary lost the beauty of her virginity (that is, the integrity of a certain part of the body, which is wont to be in virgins, and is worn away and violated by the first intercourse with a man) because the womb was opened at the birth. But after other things, he argues thus: *Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord* (Luke 2:23). “Who is truly holy, save the Son of God? Who properly opened the womb, save He who unlocked it when closed? As for the rest, marriage opens [it] for all. Therefore, it was opened more because it was more closed. Certainly, she is to be called not a virgin more than a virgin, by a certain leap [she was] a mother before she was a bride. And what more is to be retracted about this? Since by this reasoning the Apostle declared that the Son of God was born not of a Virgin, but of a woman, he acknowledged the marital passion of an opened womb.” The heretic Jovinianus subsequently embraced the same opinion, and our own heterodox ones defend it to this day, teaching that the virginal womb was indeed opened for Christ as He passed through, and provided a wide-open path, but that soon the parts, divided by the divine will, returned to their former seats and coalesced into one. Nor does Durandus of Saint-Pourçain stray much from this, defining that while the seal of virginity had persevered inviolate, yet the enlarged passages opened a way.

Views contrary to the Origenian sentiment are decreed in the first of the homilies *ad diversos*, which—that it does not have Origen as its author—may be judged even from this. Such is this: “Just as to Daniel, who was shut within the lions’ den, his meal was brought by Habakkuk without the gates being opened; so too did this holy Virgin bring forth the Lord, but remained intact; she was made a mother, but did not lose her virginity; she brought forth an infant, and, as it has been said, remained a virgin. Therefore, a virgin brought forth and remained a virgin: she was made the mother of the Son, and did not lose the seal of chastity.” And that is the view of the very best part of the Fathers, both Greeks and Latins, and moreover the decree of the Council of Ephesus, proven by the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church, and corroborated by this oracle of the prophet Ezekiel: ^B “And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be closed: it shall not be opened, and no one shall pass through it: because the Lord God of Israel has entered through it; and it shall be closed to the prince” (Ezek. 44:2). By which most Fathers affirm it is foretold that Mary’s virginity would be inviolate both in conception and in birth, and that the body of Christ would emerge forth through the closed bars of the womb in the same manner in which He penetrated to the disciples through closed doors.

However, Genebrardus intervenes against the censure of Origen (Collect. ch. 6), and alleges as a pretext the authority and example of Ambrose and Jerome, both of whom say that the gate of virginity was opened by Christ in the birth. He could have added Athanasius, Basil, and others besides, who discuss the opening of the virginal womb in a similar way. But to all these must be applied the exception which Thomas used (p. III, q. 28, a. 2) to resolve the passage of Ambrose, namely, that those Fathers spoke in such a way when they were expounding that which the evangelist says: *Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord* (Luke 2:23); which indeed is used according to the common custom of speaking, not to signify the opening of the virginal cloister, but only the exit of the offspring from the womb. Other passages of Ambrose and Jerome, in which they manifestly hand down that the seal of virginity remained unbroken in the childbirth, defend Thomas’s response; such is that one of Ambrose from the book *De institutione virginis*, ch. 7: “Therefore, Mary is the gate through which Christ entered into this world, when He was poured forth in a virginal birth, and did not loosen the genital cloister of virginity. The septum of modesty remained undefiled, and the seals of integrity endured inviolate, when He went out from the Virgin.” And that very one of Jerome from book II *contra Pelagianum*, which Genebrardus tries to make resemble the Origenian one, and which is diametrically opposed to it. Behold it: “Christ alone opened the closed doors of the virginal womb, which nevertheless remained perpetually closed.” Therefore, Genebrardus would have exerted more useful labor in excusing his Origen if he had said that Mary’s virginity was not at all detracted from by Origen, even if he believed that the gates of virginity were broken in giving birth (which itself, however, has been reprobated by the Church); for virginity consists not in the integrity of the flesh, but in the constant purpose of the will: for “The integrity of a corporeal member relates accidentally to virginity, in as much as, through the fact that one abstains from venereal pleasure by the purpose of the will, integrity remains in the corporeal member. Whence if it should happen that the integrity of a member be corrupted by some other means through some accident, it does not prejudice virginity any more than if a hand or foot were corrupted.” The words are of St. Thomas 2-2, q. 152, a. 1. “It is surely to be noted,” says Eligius of Noyon, hom. 2, “what is said: *Every male opening the womb*, because the evangelist expressed the manner of customary birth with these words. And he did not mean for it to be understood, as heretics bark, that Christ deprived the mother of her virginity by being born; since a woman does not lose her virginity then, when she gives birth, but when she sleeps with a man.” To this he brings what Origen, in tract 26 in Matthew, num. 25, page 846, committed to writing from a certain tradition regarding the death brought upon Zacharias, because, after Mary had brought forth the Savior, he had allowed her to stand in a certain place in the temple destined for virgins, and had said to those prohibiting her: “She is worthy of the place of virgins, since she is a virgin.” ^D

III. That the blessed Virgin never conceived any sin within herself is today ratified by the Church and confirmed by the authority of the Tridentine Council. By which

^A argument, rather, must one acquiesce—more so than in the dictates of the ancients—if any have seemed to think otherwise. Among them must be numbered Origen, who pronounced that Mary, the mother of Christ, was not only not exempt from the law of sin, but that she also succumbed to it, in these words: “What? Do we think that when the apostles were scandalized, the Mother of the Lord was immune to scandal? If she did not suffer scandal in the Lord’s passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins. But if all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace, and redeemed, then certainly Mary, too, was scandalized at that time.” And this is what Simeon now prophesies, saying: “And your own soul—you who, without a man, gave birth to you who are a virgin, you who heard from Gabriel: ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you’—the sword of infidelity will pass through, and you will be struck by the blade of ambiguity.” These things lie in Homily 17 on Luke, which, almost verbatim, Basil recorded in letter 317; for he writes that by that sword a certain doubt was marked by Simeon, which was to divide Mary’s soul into parts as Christ suffered death, according to Christ’s oracle: “You will all be scandalized in me”—otherwise, the fruit of Christ’s death would not have reached her. Titus of Bostra and Amphilochius in Oration 3 on the Meeting of the Lord, Chrysostom in Psalm XIII, Cyril in John, the author of the book of Questions of the Old and New Testament ascribed to Augustine (question 73), and Theophylact on Luke II all twist the words of Simeon in the same way. Some of them say that the Virgin, after that fluctuation, was strengthened in her spirit, having followed Basil—the author of this opinion—more pressingly.

Origen likewise in Homily 20 on Luke accuses Mary of doubtful and uncertain faith in this way: “At the same time, attend to this: that as long as (Jesus) was in the possession of his Father, he was above, because Joseph and Mary did not yet have full faith, and therefore they could not remain above with him.” And a little later: “But Mary kept all these words in her heart. She suspected something more than of a man.” Tertullian, in book *On the Flesh of Christ*, chapter 7, attributes this same fault of little faith to Mary: “But let Apelles also learn the reason for the response when he says that he disowned his mother and brothers for the moment. The brothers of the Lord did not believe in him, just as is contained in the Gospel published before Marcion. It is not shown that the Mother clung to him any more, when Martha and the other Mary are frequently in his company. Finally, his incredulity appears in this place, when he taught the way of life, when he preached the kingdom of God, when he labored at healing sicknesses and vices; those so close were absent, while strangers were fixed upon him.” But Pamelius speaks in his defense, and transfers the whole mark of incredulity to the brothers; and he wishes it to be said that the Mother did not cling to Christ only in so far as she was not present at all of Christ’s sermons. The effort of Pamelius is indeed praiseworthy, but futile. ^B For what exception can avail against such an open sentiment? For he says that their incredulity appeared in this place, when Christ was preaching the kingdom of God, and those closest were absent while strangers were fixed upon him. And yet he said that the Virgin did not cling to Christ as equally as Martha and Mary. Therefore, he indicts the Virgin, just like the Lord's brothers, of incredulity. Pamelius also prepares to defend Origen against Rhenanus, who objects to this same crime, with this argument: that he calls the blessed Virgin immaculate. Sixtus of Siena, in his *Bibliotheca*, annotation 440, strives to explain more conveniently the passage from Homily 20 on Luke just recently cited: “I think,” he says, “that by the term ‘full faith’ Origen understood a full knowledge of all the mysteries of the divinity and humanity of Christ, which the Virgin Mary did not yet have at that time; although she held all those things which she then knew about Christ with a most certain and unshakable faith.” To dissolve the former passage from Homily 17, however, the solution of Thomas could have been helpful, interpreting that doubt as admiration and discussion, if only those words of scandal and infidelity did not occur. Furthermore, these things are discordant, and the opinion of some of the ancients about Mary, which deviates from the Church’s dogmas, and others of this kind, which we pass over for the sake of brevity, gave cause to the Lutherans and Calvinists to suppose that the blessed Mary sinned after the manner of other men.

QUESTION V.

CONCERNING ANGELS.

^A XXIX. And of things lacking a soul. XXX. Whether he thought that two angels, one good, another evil, attend each nation and man simultaneously. XXXI. The source of the Origenian opinions concerning tutelary angels is demonstrated. XXXII. The Fathers who agree are recounted. XXXIII. Er and Origen can be excused for their fluctuation. XXXIV. What he conjectured concerning the conducting angels (ψυχοπομποί) is investigated. XXXV. It is asked what he thought concerning the angels as ministers of rewards and punishments. XXXVI. Whether he thought that angels were not to be invoked at all. XXXVII. Whether and how he said the cherubim are the thoughts of the Son. XXXVIII. Whether he believed that demons are fed by odor and blood.

1. We proceed to explain the Origenian doctrine concerning angels, taking up the task again. By the name of angels, we comprehend both good angels and evil ones, who are called demons, since the knowledge of both is self-mixed and coherent. Origen writes in the prologue of his books *On First Principles*, no. 10, that the nature of these was not yet sufficiently well known in his time, nor explained by the definitions of the Church: "There is also this in ecclesiastical preaching, that there are certain angels of God, and good powers, who minister to Him for the completing of the salvation of men; but when they were created, or of what sort, or how they are, is not sufficiently designated in the manifest." And a little earlier, in no. 6: "The ecclesiastical preaching has taught concerning the devil, and his angels, and the contrary powers, that these things indeed exist: but what they are, or how they are, it has not explained clearly enough. Among most, however, this opinion is held, that this devil was an angel, and having become an apostate, persuaded very many of the angels to decline with him, who even until now are called his angels." Therefore, for Origen there was a proclivity to a fall in a slippery and uncertain matter, and a prompt and easy stumbling in the darkness. And he was indeed manifold, while trusting too much in his own genius, sometimes wandering outside the track. Individual points must here be discussed in detail.

H. The first thing to be sought is at what time Origen posited the angels were created by God; and not only the angels, but all natures possessing reason, whether demons, or human souls, or others whatsoever (for he felt that many others also were participants of reason), since he held that they all were of the same nature among themselves, and created by God at the same time, and that then they were *noes*, that is, minds; but afterwards, on account of their various movements and the diverse use of free will, he declared with constant and repeated assertion that they were distributed into various orders, whether of angels, or of men, or of demons, as we shall often show in the following. But since he writes that it is commonly ignored at what time these were created by God, and he did not define anything openly on that matter, we must use conjectures only. To me, indeed, it seems probable that Origen believed natures of this kind were created by God from eternity; just as the sun is never without light coeval with it, although produced by it. We shall indeed demonstrate below that he was convinced that the world was therefore founded by God so that those rational natures might be sent into it according to their merits. But he opined that God was never without a world; for he says in book III of *On First Principles*, cap. 5, no. 3: "If the world began in time, what was God doing before the world began? For to call the nature of God idle and immobile is at once impious and absurd, or to think that goodness at some time did not do good, or that omnipotence at some time did not exert power." Therefore, not even rational natures began to be from time. Whence it necessarily follows that they were created by God from all eternity; then, having used the liberty of the will in various ways, these acted rightly, those evilly, and that the world was immediately fashioned for the expiating of their crimes, into which they might be thrust down, so that these things, although different in matter, happened ^B at the same time. The authority of recent Platonists, whose opinion on these same matters was almost similar, makes me think that Adamantius thus felt, as is found in Augustine, book X of *The City of God*, cap. 31. This passage of Jerome’s also makes for this, at cap. 1 of the *Epistle to Titus*: "Six thousand years of our world are not yet fulfilled; and how many eternities, how many times, how many origins of ages must be thought to have been, in which angels, thrones, dominions, and the other powers served God, and stood without the shifting and measures of times at God's command?" These things smack of Origenism, such as Jerome had sprinkled in his Commentaries. The intellect of Leontius of Byzantium is now easy, when he says in his *Scholia*, act 10: "And thus," he says, "he (Origen) thought concerning pre-existence, that before the ages all ^C were pure minds, and the demons, and the souls, and the angels ministering to God, and doing His commandments. The devil, however, being one, since he possessed free will, willed to withstand God, and God thrust him away; and all the other powers revolted with him, and those who sinned very much became demons; those who sinned even less, angels; and those who sinned still less, archangels; and thus successively each received according to his own sin; there remained the souls, who had not sinned so much that they should become demons, nor again so lightly that they should become angels; therefore He made the present world, and bound the soul to the body for punishment." And thus Origen felt in the meantime concerning pre-existence, ^D that before the ages all minds were pure, both demons, and souls, and angels ministering to God, and executing His commands. The devil, however, since he was one, because he possessed freedom of the will, willed to resist God, and he was expelled by God; and that all other powers had revolted together with him, and those which had sinned more, became demons; which less, angels; which even less, archangels; and so consequently each one received a reward for his own sin; but the remaining were souls, which had not sinned so much that they should become demons; nor again so lightly, that they should be proved angels;

and that it was Origen's opinion that he had created this world, and for the sake of punishment had bound the soul to a body. Understand that between the creation, and the sin, and the punishment, there intervened almost a single moment, and that these things happened ^A πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων, that is, from eternity. To Origen's opinion the author of the *Commentary on Job*, whom Perionius translated, accedes; for he says: "In the devil, however, the beginning of formation must be understood, not as if he were the first effect of all things which are understood by reason and mind; but that it is without time, as that passage explains."

III. We must next see whether Origen considered angels to be endowed with bodies or to be lacking a body. However, his reasoning does not seem sufficiently explained and certain at first glance; for you might say that the things he argues in different books on this subject are contradictory. Whoever, nevertheless, has applied his mind diligently to his words will judge otherwise. For his fixed and constant opinion indeed was that angels are clothed with a body, but a subtle and tenuous one: for in bk. 1 *De Principiis*, ch. 6, no. 4, he pronounces: "that it is the proper nature of God alone, that is, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, to be understood to subsist without material substance and without any fellowship of bodily addition." ^B St. Thomas brings forward this passage in *p. 1, q. 51, a. 1*, and asserts that Origen drew this opinion from the ancient philosophers. He speaks even more clearly in bk. 2 of the same work, ch. 2, no. 1, and after he has asked whether rational natures that have attained supreme beatitude can cast off the body entirely, and has said that this seemed to himself most difficult and almost impossible; he added, what he uses again in the following chapter, that it would be necessary for the bodily nature to be reduced to nothing, just as it was created from nothing, if it should cease to be useful; then he adds in no. 2: "But if it is impossible to affirm this in any way, that is, that any other nature besides the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit can live without a body, the necessity of consequence and reason compels us to understand that rational natures were indeed created primarily; but that material substance is separated from them only in opinion and intellect, and is seen to be made for them, or after them, but that they have never lived or do live without it: for only the life of the Trinity will be rightly thought to exist incorporeally." These things provided a great motive for a man of eminence to attack Origen, because although elsewhere he said that angels and souls capable of reason lacked bodies for a long interval, he here affirmed that this was impossible. But the matter is otherwise; ^C for that was Origen's opinion, but because of its remarkable subtlety, when compared with the remaining bodies of the world, they could be called spiritual and incorporeal: although, therefore, they were created before the creation of this bodily world, they were nevertheless provided with bodies of their own kind; and they did not persevere for long even in that first state, but, having admitted sin immediately after they were created, they were straightway immersed in coarser bodies for the sake of punishment. Besides the previous testimonies in which a body is attributed to angels, those things must also be recited which follow the passage of Origen brought forward above: "Therefore, he says, as we said above, the material substance of this world, having a nature that is transformed from all things into all things, when it is drawn to any lower things, is formed into a coarser and more solid state of body, so that it distinguishes these visible species of the world and their varieties: but when it ministers to the more perfect and more blessed, it shines in the brightness of celestial bodies, and adorns either the angels of God or the sons of the resurrection with the raiment of a spiritual body." But also in bk. 4, in the *Anacephalaeosis*, no. 35: "(28) But there will always be rational natures which have need of a bodily garment: there will therefore always be a bodily nature, whose garments it is necessary for rational creatures to use. Unless someone thinks he can show by any arguments that a rational nature can live without any body. But how difficult it is, and how almost impossible for our intellect, we have shown while discussing each point in the preceding sections." Wherefore also Photius, *cod. 106*, relates that Theognostus of Alexandria wrote in the fourth book of his *Hypotyposes*, from the mind and opinion of Origen, that slender bodies are placed around angels and demons.

IV. But although Origen plainly and clearly attributed a body to rational natures, he seems to deviate from himself in other places and to withdraw the body from the same natures. Thus, in *Homil. 1 in Genes.*, no. 2: "For since those things which God was about to make consisted of spirit and body, for this reason heaven is said to have been made in the beginning and before all things, that is, every spiritual substance, upon which as upon a certain throne and seat God rests. But this heaven ^D is the firmament, it is corporeal." Where, when he opposes spiritual substance to corporeal, it follows that it is incorporeal; and *tom. 1 Commentar. in Joan.*, no. 17: "And it is necessary to realize that a life completely immaterial and incorporeal is lived in the beatitude of the saints; but he who is called the dragon has become worthy, having fallen from the pure life, to be bound before all things with matter and body": and *tom. 20*, no. 22: "By all means, at least, even this condition is when he is clothed with bodies; in the better, when he lays them aside: it is of no doubt that bodies do not subsist primarily, but occur through intervals and on account of the various motions of rational creatures, so that those who require them may be clothed, and again, when they have corrected themselves from that depravity of falls to better things, they are dissolved into nothing: and they are always varied by this succession."

^A For the devil possesses a true doctrine concerning himself, thinking either that he is a rational being, and that such and such is a man, and such and such an angel, and such and such a body, and what sort of body, and something else different from a body. Likewise in the book *On First Principles*, ch. 7, no. 1: “Manifestly, therefore, in Christ and through Christ, all things were made and created,” declares Paul (Col. 1, 16), “whether visible, which are corporeal; or invisible, which I consider to be nothing else than incorporeal and spiritual virtues.” And lib. *On First Principles*, ch. 3, no. 6: “For the same thing is not understood by what he says are those things which are unseen, and those things which are invisible. For those things which are invisible not only are not seen, but do not even have the nature to be seen, which the Greeks called *asōmata*, that is, incorporeal. But these things of which Paul speaks, ‘the things which are not seen,’ ^B have indeed the nature to be seen, yet he explains that they are not yet seen by those to whom they are promised.” And that, from lib. III, last chapter, no. 7: “All this reasoning, therefore, contains this, that God fashioned two general natures; a visible nature, that is, corporeal, and an invisible nature, which is incorporeal.” And this is most evident in the fourth book of the same work, no. 27: “But again, it is said that all visible and invisible things were created through Christ. By which it is declared that there are in creatures certain substances invisible according to their own property. But although these themselves are not corporeal, they nevertheless use bodies, although they themselves are better than corporeal substance. But that substance of the Trinity, which is the beginning and the cause of all things, from which are all things, and through which are all things, and in which are all things, is to be believed to be neither a body nor in a body, but is entirely incorporeal.” And also lib. VI *against Celsus*, no. 71: “We, ^C he says, do not know of an incorporeal substance being dissolved into fire, nor the human soul, or the substance of angels, or thrones, or lordships, or principalities, or powers.” Therefore, Sophronius of Jerusalem writes in his letter to Sergius that Origen and his followers said that souls lived before their bodies, lacking flesh and body, in a heaven not yet created.

V. Although Origen may seem to contradict himself in these matters, the discordant passages are easily reconciled: ^D (29) for he wants angels to be corporeal such that he nonetheless wishes them to be spiritual, because spirits are nothing other than bodies of the highest thinness, such as are the angelic ones; for he asserts in the place cited above that he “adorns with the garments of a spiritual body the material substance of this world, whether the angels of God or the sons of the resurrection;” just as Paul declares that the bodies of men also will be spiritual after the resurrection (1 Cor. xv, 44). Furthermore, since he called angels spiritual on account of the remarkable thinness of their bodies, he also judged that they could be called incorporeal in a certain way, and *catachrestically*, especially taking into account our own bodies, which are crass. He himself indicates this clearly in the prologue of the books *On First Principles*, no. 8, for when he had said that the term *asōmaton* is not used at all in the Scriptures, he brings against himself a certain passage from an apocryphal booklet, which is inscribed *The Doctrine of Peter*, in which Christ says to his disciples that he is not “an incorporeal demon.” Origen answers that *The Doctrine of Peter* is not held among ecclesiastical books; then he adds: “Even if that were conceded, the same sense would not be indicated there by the word *asōmaton* itself, which is shown by Greek and pagan authors when the nature of the incorporeal is disputed by philosophers. For in this booklet he called the demon incorporeal, in place of that which he is, whatever that condition may be,” lib. VII *against Celsus*, no. 32: “Since, he says, Celsus mocks the dogma of the resurrection because he does not understand it, and has heard it only from the unskilled who could not support it with any argument, it will be useful, besides those things which have been said above on this matter, to observe this one thing, that those things which we hand down concerning the resurrection do not proceed, as Celsus thinks, from an ill-understood migration of souls from bodies into bodies; but because we know that the soul, being by nature incorporeal and invisible, does not subsist in any corporeal place without needing a body accommodated to the nature of that place: which body it bears at one time, having cast off the former one which was previously necessary and later becomes useless; at another time, it is clothed with a better one besides that which it previously had, which it needs in order to reach purer, ethereal, and celestial places. Thus, being born into this life, it sheds the membrane with which it was useful to be wrapped in the mother's womb, as long as it was in it; but before it sheds that, it puts on a body which was necessary for living on earth,” etc. With these things premised, the discordant passages of Origen are easily reconciled. Therefore, when he says that angels and souls are incorporeal, he does not accommodate himself to the grasp of the unskilled, but judges them to be incorporeal by their own nature: and when he calls them corporeal, he does not think that they are so by their own nature, and therefore he does not mean that spirits are nothing other than bodies of the highest thinness, but he means that they are externally surrounded by a subtle and airy body, which he calls spiritual, as if by a garment and vehicle. See a little further below, question 6, *On the Soul*, no. 3 and 13.

^A nor is the limitation of the demonic body similar to this coarser and visible body of ours: but according to the meaning of him who composed that writing, it must be understood as what he said; that is, it is not a body of such a kind as demons have, which is naturally subtle and fine like a breeze, and for this reason it is either thought by many to be, or is called, incorporeal, but rather that it possesses a solid and palpable body. For in human usage, everything that is not of this kind is termed incorporeal by the simpler or more ignorant people: just as if someone were to call this air which we enjoy "incorporeal," since it is not a body of such a sort that it can be grasped and held, and withstand the pressing. If, therefore, he at any time called the angels incorporeal, let us believe that he accommodated himself to the grasp of the ignorant and spoke according to the custom of the common people.

VI. And not content ^B to have attributed a corporeal nature to the angels, he furthermore ascribed a soul to them in book II, *On Principles* (Περὶ ἀρχῶν), chap. 8, no. 1: "It remains to inquire concerning the angelic order, whether they themselves have souls, or are souls, or concerning the other divine and heavenly virtues, and likewise concerning the contrary powers. We do not indeed find any authority in the divine Scripture anywhere declaring that either angels, or any divine spirits who are ministers of God, have souls or are called souls: yet that they are living beings is held by very many." Jerome, *Epistle 65 to Pammachius*, chap. 5: "Nor did Origen ever say that souls were made from angels, since he teaches that ‘angels’ itself is the name of an office, not of a nature; for in the books *On Principles* he says that angels, and thrones, and dominions, powers and rulers of the world and of darkness, and every name that is named not only in the present age but in the future, are the souls of those bodies which they have assumed either by desire or by ministry." Surely it is not easy to state by what reasoning he felt that a soul could be in the angels: for one might ask whether that soul is corporeal or the opposite. He would certainly have said it was corporeal, for he holds nothing to be incorporeal except God. Therefore, he ought to have said that a thin and outline-like body was animated by another far thinner and simpler body. But a little later, no. 2, he determines that angels are mere souls. Regarding the fact, however, that the soul of God is mentioned in the Scriptures, it is difficult to perceive and to state how it ought to be understood; for we profess once that that nature is simple and without the mixture of any affliction: yet in some way or other it is to be understood that the term "soul of God" is used; of Christ, however, it is not doubted. And therefore it does not seem absurd to me even to say or feel something of the sort about the holy angels and the other heavenly virtues: ^C if indeed that definition of a soul seems to extend to them as well. For who could reasonably deny that they are sensible and mobile? But if this seems a right definition, that a substance which is reasonably sensible and mobile be called a soul, it seems that this same definition also pertains to the angels. For what else is in them but a reasonable sense and motion? But the reason for their definition is, without doubt, the same substance. Something like this he has in book II *On the Song of Songs*, p. 58: "And let the soul further require recognition of itself, if there is any order, or if there are any spirits of the same substance as it, but others not of the same, but diverse from it, that is, if there are also other reasonable spirits, as it itself is, and others lacking in reason: and if its substance is the same as that of the angels, since a reasonable being is believed to differ from a reasonable being by no means."

VII. Moreover, a certain difference in lightness constitutes the distinction between the body of angels and that of demons, since he supposed that heavier or more subtle bodies were added to their minds according to the measure of their crimes, as we have said. For after the demons were driven from heaven on account of their wickedness, he believed that they were encased in a certain coarser body. Thus he says in *Tom. 1 in Joannem*, no. 17: "The so-called dragon has been found worthy, having fallen from the pure life, to be bound before all things with matter and body." What he determines about the devil is also to be understood concerning all demons. And he says that this body, though coarser than an angelic one, is nevertheless, as he states in the prologue to book I *On Principles*, no. 8, "naturally subtle, and thin like a breeze, composed of rarer air, as it were." Which Jerome refutes in *Epistle 59 to Avitus*, chap. 1. Yet Origen admits this diversity of bodies without any distinction of nature. For he denies that there is any difference of essence (*ousia*) between the devil and an angel, *Tom. XX in Joannem*, no. 20. Nor does what he wrote in book III *Against Celsus*, no. 57, contradict this: "But the divine and holy angels of God are of a different nature (*physis*) and disposition than all the demons upon the earth." For it is one thing to be *physis*, another to be *ousia*.

VIII. ^D And a number of the Fathers defend these individual tenets, who, as it is a matter of uncertainty and not circumscribed by the definitions of the Church, have followed their own mind. We praise in part, in our observations at page 813 of volume XVII of Origen's *Commentary on Matthew*, those who have held angels to be corporeal. To these can be added Justin in *Dialogus cum Tryphone*; Clement of Alexandria *Paedagogus*, lib. I, cap. 6; Macarius *hom.* 4; Methodius in Photius, *cod.* CCXXXIV; Cyril, *lib. IX in Joannem*; Gennadius, *lib. De dogmatibus Ecclesiae*, cap. 11 and 12; Bernard, *lib. V De consideratione ad Eugenium*, and many others. What of the fact that we find the same opinion in the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, not indeed defined, but yet expressed: so common was that opinion in usage and by the consensus of the most ancient theologians. We have noted that Origen, though he assigns bodies to the angels, seems sometimes to withdraw them. The same thing can be observed in Basil, who, although he called angels corporeal in *lib. De Spiritu sancto*, cap. 16, and elsewhere, nevertheless affirms them to be devoid of body in *lib. IV contra Eunomium*. But from whence exactly the discrepancy observed by us in Origen arose, from thence the one in Basil also proceeded, namely from the abuse of words and the perspective of coarser bodies. Most aptly, Caesarius, *Dialog. I, interrog.* 48. "Incorporeal, indeed..."

are ^A angels for us; but they are bodies in relation to themselves, like wind, or fire, or smoke, or air. For they are subtle and immaterial bodies, external to our own density; for the holy Apostle says there are 'celestial bodies' and 'terrestrial bodies'." To this, that of Cassian, *Collat.* VII, cap. 15, is very similar: "For though we pronounce that some are spiritual natures, as are angels, archangels, and other virtues, and our own soul too, or at any rate this subtle air; yet they are by no means to be considered incorporeal. For they possess in themselves a body by which they subsist, although it is much more subtle than we are. For they are bodies according to the opinion of the Apostle thus speaking: 'There are celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial'." ^B Likewise, Gregory the Great, *Moral.*, cap. 3, apt says: "By comparison with our bodies he says angels are spirits; but by comparison with the supreme and uncircumscribed Spirit, he says they are body." To whom Damascene concurs with equal sentiments, *De orthod. fid.*, lib. II, cap. 3. Hence, although Augustine has argued in six hundred places that the nature of angels is corporeal, yet sometimes he calls it spiritual and intellectual, just as do Cassian and Bernard, who nevertheless followed no other opinion than Augustine's. Tertullian himself also, in his book *De carne Christi*, cap. 6, declares that angels are of a "spiritual substance; and if of some body, yet of their own kind." ^C

That hesitation also of Origen, where he doubts whether he assigns also a soul to angels besides a body, is defended by the authority of Claudianus Mamertus of Vienne, and Fulgentius, the former of whom declares that "the angel consists of body and spirit, formed with a primary dignity among creatures;" the words of the latter are these in his book *De Trinitate*: "Great and learned men assert that they (angels) are of a dual substance, that is, of an incorporeal spirit, by which they never depart from the contemplation of God, and of a body, through which they appear to men in time." But Augustine denies that angels are endowed with souls, and after Augustine, Faustus of Riez, ^D who is rebuked on this account by Mamertus of Vienne, because a body cannot live of its own accord unless it is awakened to life by a vital spirit. But Mamertus seems to have been deceived by his own reasoning; for he will say that the vital spirit itself is either incorporeal or corporeal. If he wishes it to be incorporeal, there is no reason why he should not admit the whole nature of the angel as likewise incorporeal; if it is corporeal, yet no body, according to his own opinion, can live of its own accord, therefore it must necessarily be kept alive by another awakening spirit. Furthermore, the same question would recur regarding that third spirit, and the same regarding the fourth, and so on to infinity.

That Origen defined that angels were first bound to more subtle and ethereal bodies, but after the fall to coarser bodies, he has Minucius Felix agreeing with him, who "decerns that those spirits have lost the simplicity of their substance," and Augustine, who discourses thus in *lib.* XI *De Genes. ad lit.*, cap. 10: "If, however, those transgressors bore celestial bodies before they transgressed, it is not wonderful if, out of punishment, they were converted into an airy quality." ^A

But now, although it has not been expressly defined by the Church whether angels are implicated in bodies, yet this is common and received, and a dogma approved by the consensus of all theologians, namely, that [God] strips everything ^B of body, so that anyone who affirmed the contrary today should be held as rash and presumptuous: since the Lateran Council consented to this decree, cap. 1: "Creator of all things visible and invisible, spiritual and corporeal, who by His omnipotent power from the beginning of time created both from nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely the angelic and the mundane, and then the human, constituted as it were common from body and spirit." S. Thomas believed that the Origenists were targeted by this decree.

IX. Furthermore, whatever Origen handed down concerning angels, he was able to defend, however slightly, by sacred or profane authors. That body is ascribed to angels, it seems ^C in Ps. CIII, 4: "Who makest thy angels spirits, and thy ministers a flaming fire." Which, although they can be explained otherwise—that God uses wind and fire as ministers and as angels, and wind, indeed, as when He shattered the ships of Jehoshaphat and Ahaziah; or when against Jonah fleeing into Tarshish He "sent a great wind into the sea, and a great tempest was made in the sea;" but fire, as when the Lord rained fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah; or when "fire went out from the Lord and killed two hundred and fifty men who were offering incense"—nevertheless, that Davidic verse is thus expounded by many: "Who hast bestowed upon thy angels a spiritual and fiery nature." Thus Tertullian understood it in *lib.* II *contra Marcion.*, cap. 8; thus Jerome in *V* Daniel; thus Severianus Gabalitanus, *homil.* 4; thus Origen himself in *lib.* I *Περὶ ἀρχῶν*, cap. 8, num. 3. The name Seraphim confirms this interpretation, which is attributed to the first order of angels. Dionysius translates that word in *cap.* 3 and 7 *De cœlesti hierarch.* as "enkindlers" or "heaters." But Gregory, *homil.* 34, [translates] "incendiaries" and "burning ones," as also Isidore *lib.* VII *Origin.*, cap. 5. Hence Severianus, *homil.* 1 *De opificio mundi*, says that angels are fire: "For not only," he says, "is this the fire, but the powers above are also fire, and the fire above is cognate to this one of ours." "For this is not the only fire, but those superior virtues are also fire, and that superior fire is cognate to this of ours." In the same way he refers that ^D

^A prophet John of Damascus, in his book *On the Orthodox Faith*, ch. 3; but he maintains that angels are spirits and fire lacking matter and body. Induced by this psalm, Origen seems to attribute fiery bodies to the angels, especially since Plato had decreed that gods are fiery, as is found in Laertius in [his life of] Plato, and in Aristotle, who, however, adds a little later that he asserted God himself to be without body and soul, which he repeats elsewhere. And these things can be reconciled in this way: that God, the supreme creator and governor of all, is destitute of a body, but the inferior gods, the ministers of that supreme one, are not. This is plainly expressed by Origen, when he stripped the body from God and joined it to the angels. The rest of his dogmas concerning angels are derived almost entirely from the schools of the Platonists.

X. He also caused offense because, in explaining Genesis, he said that the waters which are above the firmament, and those which are below, signify tropically the celestial and infernal powers; and that hence those waters are called upon to sing the praises of the Lord (Ps. CXLVIII, 4, and Dan. III, 60). Although Basil, in his 3rd homily *in Hexaemeron*, acknowledges that these things are said allegorically, he nevertheless rejects them, and refutes them as if they were similar to the conjectures of dreams and old wives' fables. Epiphanius also refutes [him] in his letter to John of Jerusalem, ch. 5, and *Haeres.* LXIV, ch. 4. Jerome also refutes [him] in his epistle 61 to Pammachius, ch. 3. Justinian also refutes [him], using Basil's words in his letter to Mennas, and in it he twists this anathematism against him: *Ei tis legei ouranon, kai helion, kai selenēn, kai asteras, kai hudata ta huperanō tōn ouranōn empsychous kai hylikas (read logikas, as Gaudentius saw) einai tinas dynameis, anathema estō.* "If anyone says that heaven, and the sun and the moon and the stars, and the waters that are above the heavens are ensouled and rational powers, let him be anathema." This is also condemned by Sophronius in his letter to Sergius. ^B

Yet, when it comes to the synagogues of the nations, he says: "Nor is it a wonder, indeed, if Origen, having imagined and stated many things regarding God that are less than suitable, also explains the paradise and the waters, which are said to be both below and above the firmament, allegorically (for a no small number of the professors of truth assert this about him); nor does he, with some Hebrew doctors, both ancient and more recent, refer the waters to the angelic orders, but accommodates them to the synagogues of the nations, which, indeed, like flowing waters, have been derived and poured out into manifold faiths and multifaceted [sects], until they flowed together into the one Synagogue of Christ through august and rugged places." If serious men have openly declared this about Origen, let Nicetas refute it, if only faith is to be applied to the Latin translation. Let it be noted in the meantime that the exposition of the *epouraniōn* (celestial) waters flowed from Jewish teachers.

It can be gathered from the above that these things were explained by Origen in diverse ways; with manifold and various meanings gleaned and evolved from the simple context of the letter according to the time, yet without destroying and abolishing the sense of the letter. If this excuse is not pleasing, perhaps this other one may be admitted: that by the angels who are over the waters, [Origen meant] what he conceived of the angels who are the guardians of all things. Let his tenth homily *On Jeremiah*, no. 6, be read, in which he explains this doctrine and concludes thus: *Outōs phēmi erō, kai gēn legesthai ton epi gēs tetagmenon angelon, kai hydōr legesthai ton epi hydatos tetagmenon angelon, kath’ ho lelektat: Eidosan se hydata, o Theos, eidesan se hydata.* "In this way I would say, that 'earth' is called the angel stationed over the earth, and 'water' is called the angel stationed over the water, according to what is said: 'The waters saw thee, O God, they saw thee'." ^C

Gregory of Nyssa agrees almost entirely with Origen's sentiment in his book *in Hexaemeron*; for those waters which Moses narrates that God divided from the inferior waters on the second day of creation, he interprets as celestial powers; but he declares that he in no way accepts the inferior waters as evil angels. This opinion was also pleasing to Augustine in his *Confessions*, book XIII, ch. 15. Isidore also devised something similar to Origen's example (see *Origin.* lib. VII, ch. 5): "Whence," he says, "after the creation of heaven in the beginning, it is found: 'Let there be a firmament, and the firmament was called heaven'; undoubtedly showing that after the fall of the evil angels, those who remained attained the firmness of eternal perseverance, being no longer turned away by any fall, falling by no pride, but remaining firmly in the love and contemplation of God, having nothing else sweet, except him by whom they were created."

(SO) I seem to have found certain vestiges of this doctrine in, [e.g.], Homily 23 on Luke: "The prophets themselves, and the apostles," says Origen, "proclaim everything they resound, not only to men, but also to angels. And that you may know this is true: 'Attend,' he says, 'O heaven, and I will speak' (Deut. XXXII, 1), 'In the sight of the angels I will sing to thee' (Ps. CXXXVII, 1); and: 'Praise, O heavens of heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens, the name of the Lord' (Ps. CXLVIII, 4)." ^D However, in his first homily *On Genesis*, no. 2, which deals with those superior and inferior waters, you will not encounter anything similar, but rather similar allegories, by which he wishes to signify spiritual and corporeal things by heaven and firmament; and by the waters that are above the firmament, the mysteries of celestial things. Certainly, Nicetas, in book IV of his *Thesaurus of the Orthodox Faith*, heresy XXXI, says that Origen never compared those waters to the angelic orders. [He continues,] "A Catena on Psalm 26, 3, displays another fragment in which this doctrine is expressed more clearly: 'The voice of the Lord is simply upon the waters, but the Lord himself is upon many waters.' By the waters, he now signifies rational natures. 'Let there be,' he says, 'a firmament in the midst of the water, and let it be dividing.' The voice indeed of the Lord is simply upon the waters; but the Lord himself is upon many waters. Rational natures are signified in this place by the waters. 'Let there be,' he says, 'a firmament in the midst of the water, and let it be dividing.' These things exist in our edition, vol. II, p. 639."

XI. Concerning the liberty, merits, grace, remuneration, and punishments of the angels, Origen devised many things straying from the norm of the Church. For he thought that all natures endowed with reason were of one and the same species.

believed. Moreover, he reduced good and evil angels and souls seated in humans to the same account, as was shown above. He supposed that these natures were created by God before the world, and were endowed with the faculty of acting well or ill, through which, before they made use of it, they were *noes*, that is to say, minds; but that having immediately used it, and in diverse ways—since some were carried toward vice, others toward virtue—they were kept according to their merits. Some, having committed sin, were plunged into the deep, while others, due to lighter faults, were cast down from superior orders and passed to inferior ones, and were even sent down to animate human bodies; so that in whatever place they are, they must attribute this to their own merits. ^B *Noes* themselves, that is, souls, then escaped after they had been "fled" from the love of God, yet they still enjoy such freedom of will that those rational natures—whether they are entangled in human bodies, or have become demons, or retain the angelic order—can conceive new sins within themselves or embrace virtue, and according to what is done rightly or wickedly, they are either depressed into inferior things or ascend to superior ones: those orders are therefore interchanged, and men may turn out from angels, demons from men, and in turn some from others: that the devil indeed can be converted from wickedness to better things, but is unwilling, and remains determined in his perfidy. But the help of grace, which confirms angels in holiness and prohibits them from sins, or the defect of the same grace, from which it happens that demons do not emerge from wickedness, he seems in no way to acknowledge. He thinks, however, that it will come to pass at some time that all those natures, whether of angels, or of demons, or of men, will plead their cause before God, and render an account of the things done by them, and be graced according to their merits; meanwhile, however, they obtain those various orders and states according to their virtues and vices.

XII. This is the sum of the Origenian doctrine concerning the nature and merits of angels, which Church Fathers have drenched with their reproaches; especially Methodius in his book *On the Resurrection*; Theophilus of Alexandria in his *Paschal Letters* 1 and 2; Epiphanius in his letter to John of Jerusalem, ch. 2, and *Heresies* LXIV, ch. 4; Nemesius *On the Nature of Man*, ch. 3; Leontius in *Scholia on the Acts*, 10, whose words we have adduced above; Jerome, both often elsewhere and especially in *Letter 59 to Avitus*, ch. 1, where, besides other things, he has this remarkable passage: “And when he had discussed everything in various discourse (Origen), asserting that the devil is not incapable of virtue, and yet does not yet wish to take hold of virtue; at the end he discoursed at very great length that an angel, or a soul, or certainly a demon—whom he asserts to be of one nature, but of diverse wills—on account of the magnitude of their negligence and folly can become a beast of burden: and for the pain of punishments, and for the heat of the fire, it would rather choose to be a brute animal, and dwell in the waters and the waves, ^C and assume the body of this or that beast: so that we must fear not only the bodies of quadrupeds, but also of fish.” And he enumerates this opinion among the principal errors for which Origen is wont to be reproached by an anonymous author in Photius, *Codex* 116. He also enumerates this one: “That the holy ones (I read *angels*) came into the world out of the fall, and not through the care of others.” Justinian, moreover, in his letter to the fifth synod, which Cedrenus recites, and Sophronius in his letter to Sergius, accuse Origen of the same crime; and finally St. Thomas, p. 1, q. 64, a. 2, and in the *Golden Exposition on Job* ch. iv, says we must beware of this error of his, by which he asserted that any created spirits whatsoever are unstable, and could be led to depravity.

XIII. To these things, Maximus the Confessor must be consulted in *Scholia on ch. 6 of Dionysius’ On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*, where it is worthy of note what he says of Origen: “That according to the ratio of their lapse, each of the celestial orders is bound with more subtle bodies.” He adds: “By reason of the crime, every one of the celestial orders is bound to more tenuous bodies.” Augustine, in *On the City of God*, bk. XI, ch. 23, reports the contrary of Maximus, saying that Origen thought souls put on heavier bodies according to the proportion of their own sins; which he impugns thus: if that were so, a heavier body ought to be joined to a demon than to a human, inasmuch as he has sinned more. Origen indeed doubts which nature is lower, that of the demon or that of the human (which Tertullian, *Against Marcion*, bk. II, ch. 8, surmised to be even more excellent than the angelic), and consequently he cannot define which one anyone receives, who becomes guilty of graver crimes: “Consider, however,” he says in *Commentary on John*, vol. 1, no. 34, “whether humanity is the lowest state, or the so-called ‘subterranean’ things, among which are also the demons, or all, or some.” And a little above: “So also must the rational one descend to the lowest rational being, perhaps no other than the human.” Here he assigns the last place to humans. Conversely, in *Commentary on Matthew*, vol. XV, no. 27, he attributes the former place to angels, the latter to demons, and the middle to humans: “But humans, as far as the comparison with angels is concerned, being the lowest, become the first of the angels, of those who did not keep their own beginning.” Since, therefore, he sometimes places demons behind humans, and sometimes humans behind demons, he sometimes lays down that rational natures put on a human nature according to the gravity of their crimes, and undergo a most heavy body, ^D while other times he asserts that they put on the nature of demons, and assume a more subtle body. Indeed, he asserts that demons become humans through new sins committed, and humans in turn, guilty of new faults, pass into the nature and body of demons, according to Jerome, *Letter 59 to Avitus*, ch. 1: “Thus everything, he says, (we judge) is varied, so that he who is now a man can become a demon in another world; and he who is a demon, and has acted more negligently, is relegated to thicker bodies, that is, so that he becomes a man.” The same Jerome on that passage of Jeremiah XXIX, 14: “And I will bring back your captivity, and I will gather you from all nations, and from all the places to which

I have cast you out, saith the Lord. And I will make you return ^A from the place to which I caused you to migrate.” Origen, whom he calls a delirious interpreter, says that the ruin of the celestial Jerusalem is signified by these things, and that the prophecy looks to those who, having been dismissed thence, dwell in this world, and that it shall come to pass that after seventy years they shall be restored to their original place, provided they have earned it by their own good works, as those who, descending into these bodies of their own accord, have acted rightly: but those who were unwilling to lower themselves voluntarily into these earthly things and to imitate their brethren, will suffer the same thing which the Lord threatens to Zedekiah and his people, namely, that He will send upon them the sword, and famine, and pestilence; and will deliver them to the vexation of all the kingdoms of the earth, so that they will by no means be men, but shall become aerial powers, and shall be for a curse, and for an astonishment, and for a hissing, and for a reproach among all nations for all the angels who preside over individual provinces; and that they will suffer this because they would not hear the words of the prophets in the celestial Jerusalem, who exhorted them to descend to earthly things, and to take on the body of humility, and after true sabbatism to possess their original place.

XIV. Furthermore, those works of Adamantius that are extant are sprinkled with these errors; if we should endeavor to point them out one by one, we would be abusing our leisure and would cause weariness to the reader. Yet some illustrious examples must be selected, so that faith may be added to our statements. Therefore, in the third book of the *De Principiis* ^B (Περὶ ἀρχῶν), cap. 5, num. 4, he argues thus: “For it is proven by many assertions that all rational creatures are of one nature; by which alone the justice of God can be defended in all their dispensations, while each one has within itself the causes why it is placed in this or that order of life.” From this he enumerates a triple genus of rational natures that have fallen hither: those, namely, who have deserved this by their own deeds; others who have been snatched away by the desire for visible things; and finally those who, even against their will, have been appointed by God to perform duties for others and have been relegated to these places. By these he signifies the souls of men; then those angels who are believed by many to have loved women; and finally the angels who are guardians of men, or those whom he says came into this world without being sent by God, offering doctrine or prophecy, in tom. XX of the *Commentary on John*, num. 17. Moreover, in the first book of *De Principiis* (Περὶ ἀρχῶν), cap. 6, num. 2: “From these indeed,” he says, “who remained in that beginning which we described as being similar to the future end, some in the ordering and dispensation of the world obtain the angelic order, others that of virtues, others of principalities, others of powers... all of which divine Providence has bestowed upon them ^C according to merit and their progress, in which they had advanced into the participation and imitation of God, by a just and equal judgment. But those who were moved from the state of first blessedness, though they were not moved irremediably, are subject to and to be ruled by the holy and blessed orders: using whose assistance, and reformed by salutary institutions and disciplines, they can return and be restored to the state of blessedness. From which I suppose, so far as I can feel, this order of the human race was instituted, which indeed shall be restored in the future world, or in the ages that follow, when there shall be a new heaven and a new earth according to Isaiah, into that unity which the Lord Jesus promises.” And soon after, in num. 3: “However, it must be known that some, who have fallen from the one principle which we mentioned above, have given themselves over to such indignity and malice that they have been held unworthy of this institution or erudition by which the human race is trained and educated through the flesh by the help of celestial virtues; but on the contrary, they exist as adversaries and opponents of those who are trained and imbibed.” Then a little later: “Meanwhile, both in those things which are seen and in temporal ages, and in those which are not seen and are eternal, all these are dispensed according to order, according to reason, according to measure, and according to the dignities of their merits, so that some in the first, others in the second, and some even in the last times, and through greater and more grievous punishments, and also those which are long-lasting and, if I may so say, tolerated for many ages, being repaired by more severe corrections and restored by trainings—first angelic, then also by the virtues of higher orders, and thus moving forward step by step to higher things—they might arrive at those things which are invisible and eternal, namely, after having traversed the offices of celestial virtues by a certain kind of training. From which, as I suppose, this very consequence seems to show that every rational nature can, passing from one order to another, arrive through individuals into all, and from all into individuals, while everyone petitions for various accessions of progress or defect according to his own movements or inclinations, according to the faculty of free choice.” You will find some of these things described in Greek at the end of the letter of Justinian to Menas and in Maximus the Confessor, in the place recently cited. He also established these conversions and permutations of dignities and orders in tom. XV of the *Matthew Commentary*, num. 27. But in Tom. XIII, page 594, although in an intricate style, and perhaps corrupted by scribes, he teaches that the opposing powers, on account of the offenses offered to men, undergo human bodies and pay the penalties therein. The same person, in cap. 8 of the first book of *De Principiis* (Περὶ ἀρχῶν), num. 1 and 4, repeating similar things, inculcates that the office of the angels consists only in merit; but the demons, “on account of their own movements and progress, by which they progressed in wickedness, have obtained these degrees of malice,” and have so given themselves to iniquity that now sin is a matter of lust and delight, and they are unwilling to be recalled, rather than unable, while God, for His own goodness, attracts and provokes all things to blessedness; and of rational

^A beings, those who are thus designated are set in order, and their underlying nature is nothing else but man; and to this underlying subject it has fallen to be a throne, or a lordship, or an authority, or a power. And in the book of Jesus son of Nave it is set down: "A man appeared to Jesus in Jericho, who says: 'I am the captain of the host of the Lord, now I have come.'" Hence, this place of Jerome's letter to Pammachius, ch. 5: "Nor did Origen ever say that souls were made from angels, since he teaches that the angels themselves are a name of an office, not of a nature." That is to say, an angel is not made a soul through a change of nature, for they are of the same nature; but through a change of office and a migration, as it were, into another dwelling. But also in Vol. XVII on John, no. 58, he says he thinks that some of the demons, stupefied by the divinity of Jesus, were led by repentance to flee to Him, inasmuch as they are more capable of virtue than humans, since they are of a spiritual nature, whereas humans are of a corporeal and grosser nature. But, in particular, I would wish one to read the passages of Origen extracted by Jerome in his letter to Avitus, ch. 1, in which he asserts that natures partaking of reason are bound to the bodies of beasts because of sins; that the natures of demons, humans, and angels are simultaneously changed and commingled; and that the souls of the stars themselves, as they are endowed with reason, were joined to bodies because of sins, which may shine more or less according to how rightly or wrongly they have behaved.

^B Furthermore, regarding the order of natures assigned to fill up the human race, souls are chosen which, after the time of their life has been piously administered, are again taken up into the order of angels. Again, in the book *On First Principles*, ch. 6, no. 5: "The last enemy, indeed," he says, "is to be understood in such a way, not that its substance, which was made by God, should perish, but that the intent and the inimical will, which did not proceed from God but from itself, should die." In Homily 23 on Luke, he says that those angels, who are the subject of the Apocalypse and who sinned, were rebuked by John, and that he preached saving repentance to them just as he did to men, as did the Saviour also. Hence, in Homily 4 on Ezekiel, no. 1, p. 370: "When, therefore," he says, "angels pervert justice, and there are others who keep God's precepts and await the judgment, not only of men, but even of God, as we have frequently said, as well concerning those things which are written in the Apocalypse as from other innumerable things; why, I say, should there not be a judgment of the earth and the air?" In the Royal Catenae on the Psalms, on Ps. XXXII, 6, these words are attributed to him: ^C "For they were not created as infants, becoming worthy of the reception of the Spirit little by little through practice; but in their first constitution and in the dough, as it were, of their essence, they possessed holiness; wherefore they are also unmoved—or rather, difficult to move—toward evil. This is what persuades me to say that the one who fell was the morning star [Lucifer] because of pride." And if you speak concerning the holy powers, I say angels and archangels, you say well; for they are immovable, or rather difficult to move, toward evil. "For there are many of the angels who were the first of men [who] become the last of certain men; and many also of the men, who happen to be last in nature to the angels, become, on account of their life and the Word of God, the first of certain angels who were originally set among the first, but were made last on account of certain causes." To these things the rest agree. Illustrious also is that passage from Vol. XV on Matthew, no. 27, in which, after he said that angels were more excellent and more ancient than not only man but also the rest of the world's fabric: "It is daring," he says, "to assert that many of the angels, who were the first... [will become the last]..." He then adds: "And it will be further advised that for the superior powers the names are not names of the natures of living beings, but of orders, of which one has one, and another has another, and the rational nature has attained it from God; for a throne is not a species of living being, nor is a lordship, nor a dominion, nor a power, but they are names of things upon which..."

^D That which Epiphanius writes in the synopsis of Vol. I, book II, ch. 18, namely that Origen taught that angels would one day cease to be, is to be understood thus: that there would at some time be a future conversion and restoration of all things, and that all, even the angels and demons, would return to the original state in which they were before they had merited, by their own virtues or sins, to be joined to the nature of angels or demons. Justinian correctly explains this according to Origen’s sentiment in his letter to the fifth synod, which Cedrenus recites.

XV. Nevertheless, although Adamantius often betrayed such ravings through clear and illustrious testimonies, he sometimes, as if unweaving Penelope’s web, seems to retract his earlier statements. "See, therefore," he says in Homily 2 on Leviticus, no. 3, "lest perhaps Jesus, whom Paul says reconciled by his blood not only things on earth but also things in the heavens [Coloss. 1, 20], may be the same calf which in the heavens was offered, not for sin, but as a gift; while on earth, where sin reigned from Adam even to Moses, it was offered for sin. And this is what it means to have suffered outside the camp." From the context of this passage, if one pays attention, it is inferred that sin is not admitted in heaven. Also in Homily on Numbers XIII, no. 7, when he had asked why God forbids demons from being invoked by Balaam, he answers that that was done because the liberty of acting should have been left to the demons, and the people of God should not have been permitted to their frenzies and intemperance; or else of the choice

of being spoiled should have belonged to them, lest they should rage impotently against the Israelites. If this had been the last, he says, it would have been to condemn the rational creature and to bring on judgment before the time, and to hinder all who could be crowned in the struggle against them. As if the demons in a judgment at some point in the future were eventually to lose the right of liberty. Although this is not clearly compelled by the foregoing, nor by any necessary consequence, yet the opinion of this place seems to incline to that view, and to recede from previous positions. Especially since in Book I of De principiis, chap. 6, no. 1, when he is about to treat more accurately of the liberty of the angels, and to set forth at length the dogmas ventilated above, he thus prefaces: ^B "Which things are indeed said by us even with great fear and caution, as discussing and treating them rather than laying them down as certain and defined. For it has been indicated by us in what went before, what are the things concerning which it is to be determined by a manifest dogma, which I believe we have done to the best of our ability when we were speaking of the Trinity. But now we are engaged, as we are able, more in the manner of disputing than of defining." And when in chap. 8, no. 3, of this book he disputes thus: "According to us, however, there is nothing in any rational creature that is not as capable of evil as of good: but not therefore, because we say that there is no nature that cannot take in evil, do we confirm that ^C every nature has received evil, that is, has been made evil: just as it is to say that the nature of every man receives the possibility of navigating, yet not from that does every man navigate; and again, it is possible for every man to learn the art of grammar and medicine; yet not for that reason is every man shown to be either a physician or a grammarian: so if we say that there is no nature that cannot receive evil, it is not therefore immediately signified that it has received evil. For according to us, not even the devil himself was incapable of good; yet not because he was able to receive good did he also wish it, or devote his efforts to virtue." And a little later, no. 4: "And there is this other order of rational creature, which has so surrendered itself to wickedness that it does not wish to be recalled more than it is perhaps able, while the madness of sins is now a pleasure, ^D and delights it." And when in Book V of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, no. 10, page 568, after he has confessed that a nature endowed with the will of liberty is gifted with the capacity of reason, he does not teach that it is to be used in that way: "What, however, it is," he says, "which in future ages holds the liberty of judgment, so that it may not fall again into sin, the Apostle teaches us in a brief word, saying: *Charity never faileth* [1 Cor. XIII, 8]; for therefore love is called greater than faith and hope, because it alone will be that through which it will no longer be possible to sin"; then he adds: "And therefore deservedly charity, which alone is greater than all, will contain every creature from falling. Then God will be all in all [1 Cor. XV, 28]"; which he confirms by the authority of the Apostle, who declares that it is impossible for those, by however much they are burdened and oppressed, to be separated from the love of Christ: and when in Tome XVII on Matthew, no. 30, when he was asking whether men eminent for piety might become angels, he says that he is examining these things in a doubting and uncertain manner: and when in another place, after he explained what he thought about the angels, he adds such things: "These, according to our opinion, are not dogmas, but only inquiries, and set forth, lest they should seem entirely unexamined."

XVI. Now indeed let us inquire what things support this harmful cause. And first, John of Damascus, in his book *On Two Wills*, said that angels and men differ indeed in subsistence, but have the same nature. That angels are of the same nature among themselves, the Fathers affirmed with such consensus that it has been handed down by some that this was the doctrine of the universal Church: but that angels and demons can do well or ill, grave men have opined after Origen. Ambrose, explaining this place of Paul to the Ephesians [III, 10], judged that demons could be recalled from error through the Church and separated from the fellowship of the devil. Jerome, in the same Epistle, chap. 1, verse 22: "But why," he says, "all things, that is, angels, thrones, dominations, powers, and the other virtues, which have never been contrary to God, should be subjected to his feet, seems obscure. It can therefore be answered that there is no one without sin [Job XV, 14], and the stars themselves are not clean in the sight of God [Job XXV, 5], and every creature fears the coming of the Creator. Whence also the cross of the Savior is described as having purged not only those things which were on earth, but also those which were in heaven." And a little earlier in verse 20 of this chapter: "If however there are principalities, and powers, and virtues, and dominations, it is necessary that they should have subjects, and those fearing them, and serving them, and those who are strengthened by their fortitude. Which distributions of offices will be, not only at present, but also in the coming age, so that through individual progress, and honors, and ascensions, and descensions, one may either grow or diminish, and be brought under one authority and another, power, virtue, principality, and domination." And when these things had been agitated with the reprohensions and censures of Rufinus, Jerome thus attempts to excuse himself: "But if he thinks that I follow Origen for this reason, because I have placed progress and honors, ascensions and descensions, increases and diminutions in my exposition, let him know that it matters much to say that demons come to be from angels, and seraphim, and cherubim, and men, which Origen affirms, and that the angels themselves have obtained among themselves various kinds of offices, which is not repugnant to the Church. In just the same way, among men, the order of dignities is different based on the variety of labor, when bishop and presbyter, and every ecclesiastic...

grade has its own order, and yet they are not all men; so also among angels merits are different, and yet all persist in the angelic ^A dignity, nor do men become angels, nor do men in turn change into angels. This is the difference between the doctrine of Origen and that of Jerome, that the former taught that angels and souls are of one nature; but that they were established in different degrees according to their merits, and have filled various offices, which, however, are from time to time permuted according to the ratio of their merits, either by ascending higher or by falling to lower things: and that the grades of this vicissitude are the nature of angels, men, and demons. Jerome, however, separated the nature of angels from the human, but thought those various grades and orders were so assigned to angels according to their virtues and merits, that they might still aspire to higher things, and by acting well reach them, or by acting evilly fall to lower things, and that others in turn are subjected to power or principality, and that such permutations will exist even into eternity, but within the bounds of the angelic nature.

As for angels, Basil inquires, though with difficulty, whether they can sin, in his homilies on the Psalms [Ps. XXXII]: "Those involved in affairs are more changeable than the others; but those who, because of the excellence of their nature, approach God in relationship, ^B and enjoy blessedness through the contemplation of Him, and are turned only towards themselves and God, have entirely alienated themselves from practical matters and matter, and have associated themselves with contemplation and God, and remain immutable." "That they can be converted to malice with difficulty, possessing that constancy in virtue by the gift of the Holy Spirit." Maximus in chapter 11 of Dionysius' *De coelest. hierarch.*, which was to be referred to the acceptance of divine grace, attributed it to the affection of angels and a certain acquired habit, which is plainly Origenian; he says: "For it is permitted to say piously, that God, foreseeing the movement of their desire, introduced into them orders worthy of them: from which no one would say that they could fall; because they possess a certain habit toward the good from vehement desire: but that angels, certainly those of the lowest orders, can perhaps be converted to wickedness. He spoke of them, indeed, as 'circum-mundane' [surrounding the world]; from whom I suppose the devil was once, before he fell. Not immovable, but ^C fickle." Which Maximus seems to have transplanted in part from Gregory Nazianzen: for he, both elsewhere and in his 38th oration, wishes angels to be "difficult to move," because they are greatly illuminated by God due to their proximity; but these lower things which are subject to sins enjoy only secondary light. Similar is that of Nemesius in his book *De natura hominis*, chapter 41: "Again, of those incorporeal beings, whatever ones are in the terrestrial regions because of the fellowship they have with men are occupied with the affairs being conducted, and they are more changeable than the others. But whatever ones, because of the excellence of their nature, approach God through affection, and enjoy blessedness through contemplation of Him; turned only towards themselves and God, they have wholly separated themselves from affairs and matter; but they have joined themselves to contemplation and God, and remain immutable." What of the fact that John of Damascus in book III of *De orthod. fid.*, chapter 4, teaches that the angel who fell and was thrust into Tartarus was the one who held the principality of the earthly order, and to whom the care of guarding the earth had been committed by God?

Those things of Evagrius smack of the most genuine Origenism: "Each order of the celestial powers consists either entirely of those below, or entirely of those above, or of those from above and those from below." And even more so this: "From the angelic and archangelic constitution the psychic constitution comes to be; and from the psychic, the demonic and human; and from the human, angels and demons come to be again." Maximus brings forward both passages in the chapter of Dionysius’ *De eccl. hierarch.* A certain opinion against Tertullian, attributed to Augustine [33], favors the same opinion concerning the progress and conversions of angels, which decides that the souls of men will be converted into demons after death. Although Isidore in book VIII of his *Etymologies* [Origin.], chapter 6, refers this crime to the Tertullianists. This same Isidore of Seville, of whom I speak, has some things that smell of Origenism in book VIII of his *Etymologies*, chapter 5: "The name of angel is a name of office, not of nature," whose reason for this pronunciation he offers: "For they are always spirits, but ^D when they are sent, they are called angels." Truly, but Isidore has a question about the name. Origen, however, used the same locution in another sense; for he intended that those natures which enjoy angelic dignity did not attain it by right of birth, but merited it by their own virtues. Isidore then adds: "Also, to each one, as was said before, proper offices are enjoined, which he states they merited at the beginning of the world." Plainly in an Origenian manner.

XVII. Nor only by suffrages, but also by reason, Origen can be argued, and at least some of his doctrine.

^A of his own defended. For that permutation of orders and degrees, which I mentioned, can be admitted to this extent: if, while preserving the distinction of natures in humans and angels, we say that humans through grace can attain a degree of blessedness and glory equal to that of the angels. The angelic doctor proves this, part 1, quæst. 108, and says it is this: "Humans are assumed into the orders of the angels." To this accusation of Jerome, wherein he complains that Origen went so far as to opine that souls endowed with reason are devolved into the bodies of beasts, one could oppose that testimony of Origen from book 1 of *Περὶ ἀρχῶν*, chap. 7, no. 4, p. 76, if the faith of the translator Rufinus were not doubtful: "We certainly deem those things by no means to be accepted, which some are wont superflously to require or assert—that is, that souls come to such a lapse of their own that, forgetful of their rational nature and dignity, they are even devolved into the order of irrational creatures, whether beasts or cattle... Which things we not only do not accept, but we refute and reject all these assertions of theirs that come against our faith." And we shall pursue these matters more clearly below, when we examine the Origenian documents concerning metempsychosis.

From the foregoing, those two consequences seem to follow from the dogmas of Adamantius concerning the freedom of the angelic will and the faculty of acting well or ill which still persists: the one, that angels can progress to better things through the exhortations, examples, and instructions of others, and enjoy the benefit of Christ's death; the other, that they will one day render an account of their deeds and be subjected to final examination and judgment. The former, we already touched upon in part above, when we were dealing with the assessment of the blood of Christ (to speak in the scholastic manner) and inquiring whether Origen believed the grace of Christ’s shed blood extended to the angels. But now, let us weigh whether he thought they could be informed by the precepts of others, stirred toward virtue, or educated by instructions.

XVIII. The words of the apostle Paul writing to the Ephesians are these ^B: "To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, is given this grace, that I should evangelize the unsearchable riches of Christ, and enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery hidden from eternity in God who created all things, that now the multiform wisdom of God might be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places by the Church." These words gave the ancient Fathers of the Church reason to believe that the angels learned most of the mysteries of God through the Church, not indeed those things which necessarily inhere in the nature of God; for all of them knew those things once the power to behold God was granted to them; but that they attained the knowledge of those things which God works freely and externally only through the Church. Gregory of Nyssa, in homily 8 on the Canticle, interprets the passage of Paul in this way: that the angels, ^C having understood through the help of the Church—having understood ^D through the Church the mysteries of the Incarnation, redemption, the cross, and the death of Christ. Then he proposes a doubt: whether in the Church, which is the body of Christ, they have, as his spouse, beheld the bridegroom himself, who had not been seen by them until now. Moreover, Chrysostom, both elsewhere and when illustrating the aforementioned sentence of Paul in his commentaries, clearly declares that the angels obtained knowledge of things previously hidden and unknown to them from the very mouth of the apostles, and that chief among these matters was the conversion of the Gentiles to the faith of Christ, which the angels had previously not known. Jerome adds to the same opinion in book II on the Epistle to the Ephesians, chap. III, v. 10, and teaches that that manifold wisdom unknown to the angels is contained in the mysteries of Christ’s life. Many others have followed these. But since some of them believed that the angels were taught through the Church, as though they were witnesses and privy to events—a view which approaches closer to the truth—while others believed them to be as disciples; Origen seems to have been the author of this latter dogma. For thus he discourses in hom. 23 on Luke: "Our Savior, therefore, teaches, and the Holy Spirit who spoke in the prophets, not only humans but also angels and invisible powers. What shall I say of the Savior? The prophets themselves and the apostles, all that they proclaim, they proclaim not only to men, but also to angels. And that you may know this is true, 'Attend,' he says, 'O heaven, and I will speak'; 'In the sight of the angels I will sing psalms to you'; and: 'Praise the Lord, ye heavens of heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens, let them praise the name of the Lord'; and: 'Let the angels praise him'; and: 'In every place of his dominion, bless, O my soul, the Lord.'" You will find in very many places, and especially in the Psalms, that speech is addressed to the angels, with power given to man, to him nevertheless who has the Holy Spirit, that he might also address the angels. Of which I give one example, so that we may know that the angels are also instructed by human voices. It is written in the Apocalypse of John: "To the angel of the Church of the Ephesians write: I have something against you; and again: To the angel of the Church of Pergamos write: I have something against you." Certainly it is a human who writes to the angels, and gives some command. Item in book VIII on the Epistle to the Romans, no. 10: "Was he not like a good and faithful servant, who, having been faithful in a few things, knew he would be set over many, and that the Apostle would be, even after his departure, a [teacher] not only of Gentiles, but also of Israelites, and perhaps of other invisible beings, there where the spirits and souls of the just bless the Lord, sing a hymn, and superexalt him for aion to aion?" Concerning that doctrine handed down to the angels by Christ, we have already disputed above; but concerning that which they themselves received from the prophets and apostles, it is to be understood by every pious person that the mystery of the Incarnation was not revealed and uncovered to humans before it was to the angels, which manifestly conflicts with the testimonies of sacred Scripture; yet, they did not have complete knowledge of it.

^A

XIX. As to the judgment to be rendered upon the angels, whatever Origen decides, it pertains generally to the angels who are set over the guardianship of humans. For whether they are those to whom the governance of churches is committed, or those to whom the guardianship of nations or individual men has been entrusted, he defines that they will render an account of their administered duty, no differently than men. He teaches that judgments of two kinds are exercised upon them by God: one, as often as men entrusted to their care act rightly or wrongly; the other, when God will judge from the supreme decision concerning the sum of all universal things. He seems to have assigned to both kinds of judgments their own punishments and their own rewards; and to the former, indeed, in return for a duty rightly performed, praises and glory; for a deed ill done, ignominy and disgrace: but to the latter, according to the proportion of merits, a more lasting and brighter, or a more obscure and briefer, or none at all, or an eternal vision of God. Although you may not find these things distinctly expressed in him, they are nonetheless easily deduced from his assertions. In *Homily on Numbers* XX, 3, he discusses that argument at length, and affirms that the angels delegated to guide each one of us, or those applied to the government of the churches, will be either praised for the good deeds of the men entrusted to them, or blamed and refuted for their sins; and he proves this from the second chapter of the Apocalypse, in which the angels of the Asiatic ^B churches are received with praises and rebukes according to their merits: "For they will come," he says in number 4, "the angels to judgment with us, and they will stand for us before the Sun of justice, lest by chance some of the blame for the fact that we have sinned be theirs; lest by chance they have spent less work and effort upon us, by which they might have recalled us from the stain of sin." He confirms the same with proofs, and repeats it in *Homily on Luke* 13, and thus concludes: "Moreover, it often happens that, while we are struggling, they themselves do not fulfill their duty, and are at fault." But in *Homily* 35 on the same Gospel, he says that not all angels of all men see the face of the Father who is in heaven, but only those of them who have given their name to the Church; then he says afterwards, "For how, if by their care and industry salvation is procured for men, do they always behold the face of the Father: so if through their negligence a man has fallen, they are not unaware that it is a matter of their own peril." And a little further on: "It is an ignominy to an angel if a man has been believed to be just, and has sinned: as on the contrary, it is a glory to an angel if one has been believed to be even the least in the Church. For they will see, not sometimes, but always, the face of the Father who is in heaven, while others do not always see it. For according to the merit of those whose angels they are, either always, or never, or more, or less, they will behold the face of God." ^C

At the same time, he pronounces that not only angels as guardians, but others also, whoever bind themselves to sins, are to be set before judgment, in *Homily on Ezekiel* 4, no. 1, page 370: "When, therefore," he says, "angels transgress, and there are others who keep the commandments of God, and await the judgment, not only of men, but also of God, as we have frequently said as much concerning those things that are written in the Apocalypse as from other innumerable things, why, I ask, should there not be a judgment of the earth and the air?"

XX. Why Origen believed that angels are assailed with rebukes and insults when they poorly administer their undertaken province, seems to have been brought about by what is written in the second and third chapters of the Apocalypse, as we have noted. But why he thought they would also undergo the final judgment, the cause seems to have been that text of Paul which we brought forth from 1 Cor. vi, 3, "Know you not that we shall judge angels?" which, however, is to be understood no more regarding good angels than that text of Peter, from his second Epistle, chapter ii, v. 4: "For if God did not spare angels sinning, but delivered them, drawn down by ropes of hell, into tartarus, to be reserved for judgment to be tormented;" and that of Jude, verse 6: "But the angels who did not keep their principality, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in eternal chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." Nevertheless, Tertullian applied that Pauline text to good angels in his book *De fuga*, chap. 10: "You fear man, O Christian, whom it behooves to be feared by angels, since indeed you are to judge angels: whom it behooves to be feared by demons, since indeed you have received power even over demons."

XXI. St. Thomas labors to soften Origen’s sentiment, part 1, quest. 113, art. 7, and after him Genebrard in his *Collectanea*, cap. 6, as though he intended that angels are led into judgment for the sins of men, not as the accused, but as witnesses, to convince men of their sloth. Genebrard tries to bolster this response with Origen’s eleventh *Homily on Numbers*, no. 3, in which some things dissonant to the above are contained: namely, that in the final judgment, indeed, angels will be present with men, but by no means to undergo examination and judgment. It will be worth the effort to bring forth the words themselves. "Therefore, each one of the angels will be present at the judgment at the consummation of the age, bringing forth with him those whom he oversaw, whom he helped, whom he instructed, for whom he always saw the face of the Father who is in heaven. And I think that there will be an inquiry there also, not indeed whether the angel was lacking in the culture of men, but whether human sloth responded in any way worthily to the angelic culture." ^D Then he explains that passage of Paul, 1 Cor. vi, 3, from which he draws that fiction about judgment.

^A It does not follow from these things, as some suppose, that those who are saved in Christ are greater than the holy angels. For how can those who are cast by holy angels into vessels ^B be compared with those who cast them into the vessels, being placed under their authority? We say these things, however, not because we are ignorant of certain angels who have not been entrusted with such a dispensation, nor have we read that those who are to be saved in Christ are superior to all of them. For we also read: "Into which things the angels desire to look," where it is not said, "all angels." We know also the text: "We shall judge angels," where it is not said, "all angels." For so long a time, the devil has been sinning from the creation and foundation of the world, and there is neither fire nor scourge for him. For he is not worthy of the punishments that come from God, nor can the devil say: "O Lord, rebuke me not in thy wrath," and the rest. Therefore, let everyone who is conscious of sins in himself pray to be punished; for it is good indeed to have done nothing worthy of punishment. But if we have done something worthy of punishment, let us be so punished that we may receive it in this present life, and after this may find rest in the bosom of Abraham.

^A For it has been reserved for them in the future; to which he adds this reason: "because they are unworthy to be punished in the present age, but will receive what they deserve in the future." Consistent with these are the things which Origen provides in the Catena on Exodus xx, 5, p. 127: "He says, for so long a time the devil has been sinning from the creation and foundation of the world, and there is neither fire nor scourge. For he is not worthy of the punishments which are inflicted by God, nor can the devil say: O Lord, rebuke me not in thy wrath, etc. Whoever therefore is conscious of sin in himself, let him pray to be punished. It is better indeed to have done nothing which deserves punishment. But if we have acted in a way worthy of punishment, let us be punished in such a way that we may receive it in this present age, but after these things may rest in Abraham’s bosom."

He adduces another cause in Homily 7 on Numbers, after he cited the same passage of Matthew as testimony: "And for this reason, he says, he did not remove the devil from the principality of this present world, because there is still need of his work for the perfection of those who are to be crowned; there is still need of his work for the exercises of the contests and the victories of the blessed." He adds later that God intervened with Balaam’s incantations because otherwise the other alternative was necessary: either the people of God would have been delivered to ruin, if it had been permitted to the demons summoned by Balaam to obey freely the capacity of their own will; or, if they had been deprived of the freedom of their own will, this would have been "to condemn a rational creature, and to bring judgment before the time, and to hinder all who, struggling against them in the contest, were able to be crowned. For if the freedom of will is taken away from the demons, no one will further assault the athletes of Christ; and with no one assaulting, there would be no contest; and with the contest removed, there would be no future reward, no victory." ^D But in Homily 6 on Joshua, he invents something new and remarkable: that as often as a demon, after having prepared snares for a pious man, is conquered by him, he abandons the art and combat of wrestling, and departing to the infernal regions or to the place destined for him, he no longer contributes his effort to soliciting men to wickedness: hence, with the number of tempting demons diminished, the approaches to the faith of Christ are easier, and more are converted to God than when those wicked enemies were fighting with their entire forces; which he attempts to prove by the authority of the Scriptures at last. But when Adamantius says this in his Homily on Numbers, the most illustrious prelate adduces his passage a little further below.

^A Homily 55 on Luke: "For not all are adversaries to all, but individuals have individuals who follow them everywhere, and are their companions." This can be reconciled with what precedes: by "whom he said are conquered by men, and being conquered cease from tempting them," he signified those who make attacks at intervals and wage war against men; but those who as permanent companions are assigned to men and adhere to them, he said remain intact even after the men are conquered and their piety is put to shame. Most clearly, however, he explains his meaning on this argument in his *De Principiis*, book 3, chapter 6, number 3, a passage we have already produced above: "Meanwhile, as well in those things which are seen and in temporal ages, as in those which are not seen and are eternal, all these are dispensed according to order, according to reason, according to measure, and according to the worthiness of their merits, so that some in the first, others in the second, and some even in the last times, and through greater and more grievous punishments, and also those which are lifelong and, so to speak, tolerated for many ages, repaired and restored by harsher amendments and teachings, [advance] first to angelic [tasks], then subsequently even to the virtues of higher degrees, and thus through each stage advanced to higher things, until they arrive at those which are invisible and eternal, having clearly traversed each of the offices of the heavenly virtues by a certain kind of training."

XXIII. It would indeed be a vain and superfluous labor to produce the names and words of all the Fathers, as many as have held that the angels, after committing sin, were not immediately thrust down into Tartarus, but were affected by—to use their term—the penalty of loss, yet remained without the sense of punishment and torments. Let Bellarmine be consulted, *De beatitudine sanctorum*, book 1, chapter 6. More serious is the fact that Eusebius, *History of the Church*, book 4, chapter 18, reports that many of those Fathers held that the devil himself did not know he was condemned to eternal torments before Christ had publicly and openly preached it. And hence, Isidore of Pelusium reports, *Letters*, book 2, 90, that he rushed into every kind of wickedness and disseminated heresies everywhere: "Having heard the decree of the sentence passed against him, he breathed more fiercely against us and brought forth heresies." Eusebius himself "origenizes" in ^B *Preparation for the Gospel*, book 7, in the chapter which is inscribed: "Concerning the opposing powers," where, after he says that demons were precipitated into Tartarus on account of impiety, he relates that a small part remained around the earth to exercise the holiness of pious men, and introduced idolatry to man. Cassian also "origenizes" in his *Collations*, book 7, chapter 17, where he establishes that demons are routed and withdraw from the battle, as often as the vices which they preside over are stormed by men. But so that our Origen might lack the support of these Fathers, the note of heresy was not yet applied to that decree—the one which removes the sense of punishment from the demons until they are relegated to the abyss at the final judgment.

XXIV. We said above that Origen had held the opinion that there is one and the same nature for all things endowed with reason, and that they, according to the inequality of their merits, are either raised to the ranks of angels, or depressed into human bodies, or even become demons. He devised something else, moreover, worthy of our commemoration and investigation, namely, that the souls of those conspicuous for the holiness of men are themselves angels, not reduced into the order of men on account of sins, but sent thither by God for other reasons by an extraordinary embassy. The monuments of this doctrine stand in *Commentary on Matthew*, tome 11, number 30, where he says that just as the Word was joined to the human nature of Christ, so by a certain proportion the angels, as Words, attached themselves to the prophets: "And pay attention," he says, "if it is possible in these things to say that the prophets who suffered previously had an analogy to the Word who has no form or beauty; for just as the Son of Man comes in the glory of his Father, so the words which in the prophets become angels come alongside him, preserving the analogy of their own glory." In the second tome on John, number 24, he says that John had no other reason for coming into the world than to bear witness concerning the light; and he adds a little later, number 25, that the angels, as imitators of Christ, put on a human body, so that, emulating Christ's love for men, they might serve to promote their salvation: "And since we are simply in the argument about John, seeking his mission, we will not inopportunely add an opinion of ours which we have concerning him; for since we read concerning him, 'Behold, I send my angel before your face, who shall prepare your way before you,' we suggest lest perhaps he happens to be one of the holy angels sent down for the service of our Savior. And it is no wonder [that] the Firstborn of all creation being incarnated out of philanthropy, some became zealots and imitators of Christ, having loved to serve through the body His kindness toward men." He strives to approve these ravings by means of a certain apocryphal book, the title of which is the *Prayer of Joseph*, and from that which even leaped in the womb of Elizabeth, and the fact that ^D there is a distinction between Jacob and Esau ordained by God, that the greater should serve the lesser. Nor much higher up are these things read in the same *Commentaries*, number 17: "But he who thinks this will say that just as there are angels among the acknowledged men, as Zachary says: 'I am an angel of God among you, says the Lord Almighty,' and John, concerning whom it is written: 'Behold, I send my angel before your face,' so also the angels of God act according to this work, and not having been called men contrary to their nature."

XXV. Cyril refutes this dogma of Adamantius in *John* 1, 6, and says that many even before Origen, and even John the Evangelist himself, had believed that John the Baptist was not a man but an angel, and that for the sake of overturning this error he wrote John.

^A Fuit homo. An anonymous author in Photius, cod. 117, reports that it was objected to Origen that he had said that the saints came into the world because of a fall, and not because of the correction of others. Andreas Schottus reads "saints" (ἅγιοι) as "holy angels" (ἅγιοι ἄγγελοι), for he translates: "that holy angels came down into the world, not to serve others." However it is read, it is clearly a calumny. But Jerome touches upon the former point of Origen from vol. 2 on John in his commentary on Haggai: "Some think," he says, "that John the Baptist, and Malachi, who is interpreted as 'angel of the Lord,' and Haggai, whom we now have in our hands, were angels, and that because of the dispensation and command of God they assumed human bodies and associated with men. Nor is it a wonder that this is believed about angels, since for our salvation the Son of God himself assumed a human body." ^B And for this reason they also offer testimony from the apocrypha, where it is said that Jacob, who was later called Israel, was an angel, and that for this reason he supplanted his brother in his mother's womb; that John, too, leaped in the womb of Elizabeth at the voice of Mary, the Mother of the Lord; and that all rational beings have one nature, and for this reason men who have pleased God become equal to the angels. Let those think what they will. As for us, let us simply accept the messenger of the Lord, that is, the angel, who is called in Hebrew 7D, as a prophet, because he announced the will of the Lord to the people." Thus also in the prologue of the commentaries on Malachi: "Nor must it be thought, according to the opinion of some, that an angel came from heaven and assumed a human body in order to speak what is commanded by the Lord to Israel." And a little later he specifically attributes that dogma to Origen: "Origen wrote," he says, "three volumes on this book; but he did not touch history at all, and according to his custom he was entirely occupied with an allegorical interpretation, making no mention of Ezra, but thinking that it was an angel who wrote, according to what we read concerning John: *Behold I send my angel before thy face.* This we do not accept at all, lest we be forced to admit a down-fall of souls from heaven." The same author in epistle 126, which is to Evagrius: "At the beginning of Genesis, in the first of Origen's homilies, I found it written concerning Melchizedek; in which, arguing with a diverse discourse, he devolved into saying that he was an angel, and used almost the same arguments that your writer used concerning the Holy Spirit, the one who spoke about the ethereal virtues. I turned to Didymus, his follower, and I saw a man who followed in his master's footsteps." ^C Jerome, therefore, was far from this error, though Genebrard suspects that he favored it in his commentary on Psalm 23. That this is certainly not so, anyone who has examined with a curious eye the entire exposition of this psalm will discover. Rufinus also reproached Jerome for this in Invect. 1, provoked by the things that have been written in his commentary on Ephesians 1, 4. But he clears himself of this guilt in Apolog. 1 adv. Rufin., chapters 5 and 6.

XXVI. Origen also has many paradoxes concerning guardian angels, the investigation of which we must not omit. In the Canticle of Moses there exists that clause: "When the Most High divided the nations, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel. But the Lord's portion is His people: Jacob is the lot of His inheritance." These things are consonant with the Hebrews; but because of a variation in the reading, which we have examined in another place, the Septuagint Translators rendered it: *According to the number of the angels of God*. Origen followed them here, as he did elsewhere, and from this he fashioned for himself that then for the first time, when the nations were dispersed into various languages and various peoples at the tower of Babel, angels were assigned to them, so that they might care for them like shepherds, and offer first-fruits from them to God—namely, the men who excelled in merit and virtue, or their pious thoughts—and so that they might be a help to the men destined for them, to aid in obtaining salvation: and if each nation had bound itself in this common rebellion to a weightier crime, because of the penalty it was subjected to the command of a harsher angel; ^D but that God Himself took up the ruling of this nation that retained the ancient language; but in such a way that if it showed itself less obedient to His command, it would pass over to the rule of angels; and other nations likewise would experience the rule of the harsher angels if they refused the commands of the milder ones; while in the meantime the gentler lords, to repair the loss of the men committed to them, would withdraw others from the rule of the more savage princes and convert them to themselves; hence that the Israelites were disinherited and the nations gathered in by Christ; and that the angels, too, according to the measure of their merits, were allotted the rule of these nations or those, and were called gods, because they were given by God, and lords, because they received power from the Lord: Origen reveals these *parataigmata* in more than one place. Let Homily 16 on Genesis, num. 2, be seen, and Homily 11 on Numbers, num. 4, in which he adds to the aforementioned things that there are perhaps also other angels from without, who gather the faithful from all the nations and govern them, while they themselves are governed by Christ, who "is called not so much King, as King of kings; and not so much Lord, as Lord of lords;" and he adds a little later that the angels exert great care in cultivating those whom by their zeal and diligence they have led from error to the faith. But I also bid you to look at Homily 23 on Joshua, num. 3, and the twelfth on Luke, in which he describes the angels who are the leaders of the nations as failing under the burden imposed upon them.

^A He affirms that they were relieved by the help of the advancing Christ; and in Book

De Principiis

But this reasoning of Origen’s commentary seems difficult; for if the Most High “constituted the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God,” the number of angels would be extremely small; for not many nations inhabit the world. But the answer is ready; for Adamantius does not understand that everything of the angels anywhere is appointed to rule this world, but that this duty was imposed upon certain select angels from the lower orders; and furthermore, that some of these were set as leaders over whole nations; others over provinces; others over cities, churches, arts, disciplines, and even individual men, and even over inanimate things, as we shall presently demonstrate; and that they succeed one another in this duty; and that several often assist one single man, and that all things are full of angels. ^B

Ezech., num. 7: “It is not enough,” he says, “that one heaven be opened: many are opened, so that not from one, but from all the heavens, angels may descend to those who are to be saved.” And soon after: “When, however, they saw the prince of the celestial host dwelling in earthly places, then they entered through the opened way, following their Lord, and obeying His will, who distributes them as guardians of those believing in His name. You were yesterday under a demon, today you are under an angel.” And not long after: “All things are full of angels: come, angel, take up the one converted from his former error, from the doctrine of demons, from iniquity speaking against the Most High: and taking him up, as a good physician, cherish and instruct him. He is an infant; today is born an old man growing young again; and take him up, bestowing upon him the baptism of a second regeneration, and call to yourself other companions of your ministry, so that you all together may instruct those who were once deceived unto the faith.” It should also be noted that in Book II

De Principiis

Shepherd

Against Celsus

^D XXVII. I said that Origen assigned the governance of churches also to angels: for he decreed that each church was presided over by a bishop, one visible, and another not falling under the eyes; urged by the second chapter of the Apocalypse, where many things are discussed concerning the angels placed in charge of the care of the Asiatic churches. Which opinion, since it is traditional and supported by the consensus of the Fathers, we will add only the words of Origen from Homily 23 on Luke: “I do not doubt that there are angels present in our assembly, not only generally for the whole Church, but also individually, of whom the Savior says: ‘Their angels always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.’ A double Church is present here, one of men, another of angels. If we speak anything according to reason, and according to the will of the Scriptures, the angels rejoice and pray with us. And because present angels are in the Church, in that one only which is worthy and is Christ’s, therefore it is commanded to women who pray that they should have a veil upon their head because of the angels, namely those who assist the saints and rejoice in the Church.”

XXVIII. But concerning the angels placed over the custody of men, Origen did not have a certain opinion. For first he leaves it in doubt whether an angel guardian is assigned to individuals, or only to those who have professed faith in Christ and to the saints. He seems to maintain the latter in Homily 20 on Numbers, num. 3, and Homily 23 on Joshua,

^A acknowledging their authority; yet he adds that the saints are protected by Christ, who has given them His own angels as their guardians. This is what seems to have persuaded Origen concerning that verse of the Psalm (XXXIII, 8): "The angel of the Lord shall encamp round about them that fear Him, and shall deliver them."

Elsewhere, however, he departs for the contrary view, asserting that no one lacks angelic protection; for instance, in Tome XIII on Matthew, num. 5, where he teaches that this lunatic whom the Lord cured was attended by a good angel, even at the time when he was vexed by a demon and had not yet felt the saving aid of Christ: "The father of the lunatic is perhaps the angel allotted to him; or we must say that every human soul has been placed under some angel." ^B Still more illustrious is another passage from Homily 35 on Luke, in which he asserts that angels always behold the face of the celestial Father; but those who are alien to the Church, their angels dare not raise their eyes to the face of the celestial Father; and according to the merits and virtues of the men subject to them, they are able to contemplate the face of God either more or less, or always, or never. Furthermore, he has pronounced in more than one place that two angels are present to each individual: one good, the other evil, as we shall show a little further on.

Origen also doubts whether an angel is joined to an elect man by God as a companion and guardian of his salvation immediately from the moment of his birth, or only from baptism. A passage stands in Tome XIII on Matthew, num. 26, where, explaining that evangelical saying: "See that you despise not one of these little ones," he asks whether those who are little and imperfect in Christ are in need of the guardianship of angels, while the greater and perfect ones are under Christ Himself. Then he proposes the aforementioned question: whether infants, after they are born, or after they are reborn, enjoy the company of guardian angels. He supports both opinions with passages from Scripture, yet the former with more instances; however, as to the latter, he acknowledges it follows that a man is subject to the angels of Satan as long as he has not accepted the faith of Christ. It is a strange and harmful thing that he adds: that an angel, perhaps, is added as a guardian to a man when he is born, being evil at the beginning; then, as the child adopts the doctrine of Christ, he makes the same progress as the angel, and finally beholds the face of the celestial Father: or perhaps the angel is the author of salvation to the man, or the man to the angel; and that some, from the number of tutelary angels, always enjoy the sight of the celestial Father. Then he opposes to himself what is written in the Acts of the Apostles, that when Peter knocked at the door, those who were inside declared it to be his angel; thus Christ does not stand by the perfect, but an angel does, just as he does to others; he responds that the opinion of those who think thus is not to be held as a dogma. Therefore, in Homily 24 on Numbers, num. 3, he affirms in explicit terms that for the just and the elect, the Lord Himself is present, but for the lower ones, angels. So, however, he says himself in Homily 11 on Numbers, num. 4: "Just as the apostles themselves even make use of angels as helpers to fulfill the duty of their preaching and to complete the work of the Gospel. For thus it was said in the Acts of the Apostles, that it was Peter's angel who knocked at the door. Similarly, therefore, it is understood that there is also an angel of Paul, just as there is of Peter, ^A and another of another apostle, and so for each according to their order." Similar things are found in Homily 23 on Joshua, num. 3.

XXIX. Besides men and the gatherings and societies of men—both ecclesiastical and political—which he decreed were committed to the care of angels, he also decreed that other inanimate things were subject to their governance, and that they obtained these various offices according to their merits, so that if any are set over beasts, they have obtained this through their animal-like acts; but those who have been ordered to offer the prayers of the saints to God, have had this zeal entrusted to them on account of their piety and their love for humanity; that to Michael, the duty of offering prayers to God was assigned; to Gabriel, the administration of wars. One may read to this effect in Homily 14 on Numbers, num. 2, page 323, where he asserts that angels are set over plants, animals, the offspring of animals, armies, and other earthly things, but also over holy works and the transmission of divine knowledge, and he warns that we must take care not to be found among the angels assigned to these ministrations, devoted to earthly and bodily acts. One may also read Homily 23 on Joshua, num. 3, and Homily 10 on Jeremiah, num. 6, and chapter 8 of Book 1 of *De Principiis*, num. 1, and Book VIII *Against Celsus*, num. 31, where, refuting that Epicurean philosopher, he discovers that the administration of all things which occur in these lower places, which he ascribes to demons, is in the hands of angels, as it were by right; only the evils, the troubles, and things harmful to the human race—such as sterility, calamities, droughts, pestilence, and other things of that kind—he refers to demons as their authors, who by divine judgment obtain this power against men at certain times, but especially against the impious and those alien to the worship of God. However, in book ^C *De Principiis* III, chapter 3, num. 2, 3, he ascribes the power over disciplines and arts to certain spiritual energies and virtues of this world; and from this, he surmises, arise poetic frenzies, divinations, and magic. These things, indeed, seem to have been taken from the theology of the Greeks, who fashioned certain Muses as presiding over the sciences, and gods as *mousēgetai* (conductors of the Muses).

XXX. Thus far we have discoursed according to the opinion of Origen concerning the protection of either good or evil angels added to nations, men, and even inanimate things. Now let us discuss what has been handed down by him regarding the company of both—good and evil angels alike—assisting nations and men. It is known from Origen's Book VIII *Against Celsus*, num. 54, and Homily 12 on Luke, that evil angels, no less than good ones, hold power over the nations. For he says, it is not right to believe ^D

^A that a single demon presides over every individual man by vice, and that many demons are subject to him who serve to propagate this vice, but that all the princes, being appointed for the increase of sins, have one supreme leader, as if he were the master of their militia. Since, however, a man can be troubled by many vices at once, and often is so troubled, then he is beset by many demons simultaneously. Yet I think that Origen understood this to mean that these affections of many demons and angels are temporary; but that there is a constant and lifelong attachment of some specific angel and demon, decreed and attributed to every human being from birth.

^B Furthermore, it was his persuasion that after the duty of our guardianship has been administered, the angels will be brought to judgment and will render an account of the province committed to them. Since we have already examined this before, let us hasten to other things, and inquire from where he drew his doctrines concerning the tutelage of angels, and what patronage he might promise himself.

XXXI. The Gentile philosophers, who confessed that the genii presiding over men and places were not from the higher orders of the gods, but were summoned from the common ranks of the gods, had preceded them in this opinion concerning the companion and guardian spirit of each individual man; Plato in particular, as Clement of Alexandria recognizes, both elsewhere and in Book X of *The Republic*, toward the end. Plotinus discusses his doctrine in *Enneads* 5, Book IV, in such a way that whoever has examined it attentively cannot doubt ^C that Origen transferred his own ideas from the lucubrations of Plato or the Platonists; for [Plotinus] grants a demon’s protection to the soul, and thinks that the demon changes according to the mutations of the soul, and considers that the demon of the soul, after it is released from the body, hangs over it, who ruled it while animating the body; and it is evident from his words that there are, moreover, external and internal demons present to every soul. Hence Apuleius in his booklet *On the God of Socrates*: "From this more sublime abundance of demons," he says, "Plato thinks that individual witnesses and guardians are added to individual men in the conduct of life, who, though invisible to anyone, are always present, the witnesses not only of all deeds, but also of thoughts. And when life is finished and one must return, that same one who was granted to us, immediately seizes and drags [the soul] as if his own charge to judgment: and there he stands by at the pleading of the cause; if [the person] says anything false, he refutes it; if he says anything true, he affirms it; and the sentence is issued entirely upon his testimony." Therefore, the genius was worshipped by the ancients with the highest religion: Censorinus, chapter 3, *De die natali*: "Therefore, we sacrifice to the Genius especially throughout our whole life every year." Although not only this one, but also many other gods exist besides, each aiding the life of men in his own portion, whom those willing to know will be sufficiently taught by the books of the *Indigitamenta*; but all these represent the effect of their own divinities once in each man: wherefore they are not summoned with new religious rites through the whole span of life. The genius is thus a watcher set over us in such a way that not a point...

of time longer than necessary elapses, but from our mother’s womb to the very end of life it accompanies us.

Note, besides the perpetual companionship of the genius, that the ancients thought that human life was aided by the ministry of many gods, which resonates with Origenian sentiments. And that conviction, indeed, flowed down to those ancients having proceeded first from the sacred volumes, but subsequently deformed by profane myths. This same notion also flowed from the same source into the Church, and into the Church’s Fathers, but in a purer and more refined state.

XXXII. Eusebius and Origen shifted the words of Moses from Deuteronomy xxxii, 8, 9, to almost the same position. For he teaches that angels were set by God as guardians over all nations. And [he teaches] that the Son of God took upon Himself to rule Israel, whosoever, that is, imitating the piety of the patriarch Jacob, deserved to be called by his name. ^B And these things are in book IV, chapter 7 of the *Evangelical Demonstration*. Then, in the pages that follow, he writes that those angels, or rather, the men committed to the guardianship of angels, began to be attacked by demons, and were for the most part reduced to their power, until Christ should succor those who were laboring and oppressed, and should overthrow the tyranny of the impious demons. Thus also Augustine says in *Psalm* lxxxviii: “God did not close the fountain of His goodness even against foreign nations, which He had placed under angels, making the people of Israel a portion for Himself.”

Origen did not propose those conflicts of the angels among themselves, nor the battles of those desiring to snatch away the men who were committed to their charge and to subject them to themselves, without supporters: among whom are to be counted as many as have turned the cited tenth chapter of Daniel to good angels. For if the prince of the kingdom of Persia, being indeed a good angel, fought with Michael, it must be admitted that good angels fight among themselves. Many, however, have thought that the princes of the kingdom of Persia and of the Greeks were good angels; such as Theodoret on this chapter of Daniel, Isidore of Pelusium in book II, epistle 85; John Chrysostom in the fragment of a certain homily on the Nativity of Christ, which Photius exhibits in codex cclxxvii; but especially St. Thomas, p. 1, q. 113, art. 8, who explains how angels can disagree among themselves. ^C

But that these various duties were assigned to them according to their merits, Isidore of Seville also affirmed after Origen. “To each,” he says in book VII of *Origins*, chapter 5, “as it was said before, his own duties were assigned, which it is evident they earned at the beginning of the world. For because angels preside over both places and men, the angel testifies through the prophet, saying: *The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me.* (Dan. x, 13). Whence it appears that there is no place over which angels do not preside: for they preside even over the auspices of all works. This is the order or distinction of the angels who remained in celestial vigor after the fall of the evil ones.”

Adamantius determined that more harsh leaders were imposed upon men who were refractory against the commands of the angels: but Basil judged that these were indeed not new princes ascribed to rebels, but that the former ones were certainly withdrawn. For he has it thus in *Isaiah* v, 5: * Lest perhaps each of us, having a holy angel who encamps round about those who fear the Lord, be found guilty in sins and be subject to the threatened blow, and be stripped of the wall [which is] the protection of the holy powers. “Perhaps, moreover, each one of us, having a holy angel encamping in a circuit around those who fear the Lord, discovered in sins, may become subject to the blow threatened against him, and be stripped of the wall, that is, the custody of the holy virtues.” Nor are there wanting, indeed, those for whom it is not even now sufficiently clear whether the same perpetual angel clings to each man, or whether others succeed others in that task.

Chrysostom, in his *Homily on the Nativity of Christ*, cited by Photius in codex cclxxvii, favors Origen, who delegates the guardianship of all things, even inanimate ones, to angels: “God set angels according to the climates of the inhabited world, each one to administer, as Moses also says, each individual nation. He set them, moreover, that they might bridle the inanimate creation, the sun and the moon, and the sea, and the earth, and what is in them, to serve for the enjoyment of man.” ^D “God constituted angels according to the climates of the world, that they might each take care of individual nations, just as Moses also says. He constituted them also to rule the inanimate creation, the sun, and the moon, and the sea, and the earth, and what is in them, that they might serve the uses of men.”

The doctrine which he handed down concerning the company of a twin angel, namely of a good and an evil one, he had received not only from Hermas and Barnabas, but even from his teacher Plato, whose words from book X of the *Laws* Theodoret relates in sermon 3 *On the Curing of Greek Affections*: “But it is necessary to say that a soul directing and dwelling in all things that are moved everywhere governs the heaven; why not? One or more? I will answer on your behalf: let us not suppose fewer than two, the one which confers good, and the one which is able to perform the contraries.” “But when you speak of a soul that is governing and implanted in all things that are moved everywhere; it must necessarily be said that it governs the heaven also. What then? One or many? I will answer you: Let us not suppose fewer than two, that which confers good, and that which is able to effect the contrary.” In this, however, Adamantius had many who agreed with him, but especially Cassian, *Collationes* viii, chapter 17, and book xiii, chapter 12, who adduces the same testimony of Hermas; and Bellarmine, in his book *On Ecclesiastical Writers*, and in his book *On the Pastor*, chastised both this man, and that, and Origen besides, as if for a false and erroneous dogma; which perhaps he would not have done if he had remembered that Gregory of Nyssen was in the same case. Origen also preceded that same Cassian, when he determined that to each vice its own leader is attributed; which, although

it may seem to have little probability, has nevertheless not been entirely repudiated by some notable scholastic fathers.^A

To excuse Origen's error regarding the judgment of establishing guardian angels long ago, we proposed some points above; now, since we are fighting with the suffrage and authority of the Fathers, we shall bring forward Jerome, an advocate of Origen, to lift the odium of this opinion. In his commentary on that passage of Micah, ch. vi, verses 1 and 2, "Hear what the Lord says: 'Arise, contend in judgment against the mountains, and let the hills hear your voice. Let the hills hear the judgment of the Lord, and the strong foundations of the earth':" he thinks that by those mountains are signified the angels, to whom the oversight of human affairs is committed, according to Deut. xxxii, 8, and Heb. i, 14, and that they, if they have ruled the peoples entrusted to their care badly, are to be blamed, as in Apocal. ii and iii. Hence, he usurps not only the sentiment of Origen, but almost the very words. "For just as," he says, "sometimes the fault is the bishop's, sometimes the people's, and often the master sins, often the disciple, and sometimes it is the father's fault, sometimes the son's, so that they may be instructed either well or badly: so in the judgment of God, either the crime will be referred to the angels, if they have not done all the things that pertained to their office; or to the people, if when they did everything, they themselves neglected to listen." These things reek of pure Origenism.

XXXIII. But setting aside the suffrages of others, Adamantius' own doubt also sufficiently defends him. That doubt appears mostly from the fact that those opinions which he seemed to have embraced, appearing most abhorrent to the common sense of the theologians, he proposed certain things contrary to them from the opposite side. And regarding the angels who are first deputed to the guardianship of men, his doubt is so great that he cannot at all determine, as we have said, whether they undertake the care of men from birth or from baptism. Nor does he teach without hesitation that the angels who are delegated to rule us, make progress in the faith along with us. He is similarly uncertain of mind whether an angel cures and reconciles salvation for man, or man for an angel. He is no more consistent when he decrees that the very just are guarded by Christ, but that those who are inferior in piety are guarded by angels, as we have observed: for he assigns angelical guardianship to all on other occasions. He teaches that no one at any time lacks the protection of angels; at other times he grants it only to Christians. He sometimes imagines such constant attendance of angels, that those whom they have undertaken to rule in this world, they do not cease to preside over in the future: but on the contrary, he taught that men handed over to them for custody were sometimes snatched away and transferred to themselves by the angels. Therefore, if we wish to act rightly and fairly with Origen, whatever he proposed in an obscure matter, and one not determined by any sanctions of the Church, we shall accept as coming from a man who is not so much pronouncing something certain, as weighing uncertain things from a love of truth.^B But we will by no means imitate Antipater of Bostra, who traduced and stigmatized Origen, and Origen himself, as if he pertinaciously adhered to his own utterances, not as if he timidly proposed conjectures. Although he may falsely attribute to him the opinion that he judged that angels, because of their own sins, when they were previously minds, became angels and archangels; and that those guilty of lighter faults received authority over those who had designed graver crimes; and that the guardianship of those very men, who were to be promoted to eternal salvation, was handed down to them; although they themselves ought to have striven to merit salvation for themselves and to recover their former rank, and were themselves at one time to be subjected to the same judgment as the men committed to their care. The fragments of this Antipater are held among the Eclogues of John of Damascus, which are preserved in manuscript in the Claromontana library of the Fathers of the Society of Jesus, and excerpts of which the most learned and most kind Gabriel Cossartius graciously transmitted to me.

XXXIV. Nor does Adamantius confine the ministry to be performed by angels to men within the bounds of this mortal life, but extends it even to those things which precede the life of men, and which follow it. For he affirmed in explicit terms that by the help of angels the souls of men are sent into bodies, and when loosed from the body they are received by them, set in judgment, and finally conducted to their destined place, and are not ruled any otherwise than when they were tied to bodies. Certainly in his Commentaries on John, book xiii, number 49, he says that angels are ordained by God for the gathering of men, by whose work body and soul coalesce into one. But the objection that can be raised to the contrary, that David acknowledges himself to have been fashioned and formed by the hands of God (Psalm cxviii, 75, and Jeremiah i, 5), he solves thus: that they were indeed created by God, but by the ministry and help of angels; just as the law is said to be ordained through angels, although it has God as its author. He also brings forward this response: that those whom God has destined for Himself in a special way, for example Job, David, and Jeremiah, were made by God Himself; but others were made by those angels to whom it happened that they were allotted. To this he bids one to refer that passage of Gen. i, 26: "Let us make man in our image and likeness;" and that passage of Gen. xi, 7: "Come, let us descend, and let us confuse their language there;" with God, namely, addressing the angels appointed to guard men in this way. But in book xix on John, number 4, from this passage of Luke: "Fool, this night they require your soul from you," he teaches that the souls of all men are assumed by certain ^C *psychagogoi*, who are more excellent than the souls themselves, and that Christ Jesus alone was immune from this *psychagogia*, to whom all others, even the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles, were subject. But he writes that souls assumed by angels for their custody, while they were in the body, were to be led by those same ones into judgment, homil. in Num. 11, number 4, and 20, number 4. And not only into judgment, but also into punishments, or the place destined for glory. "He is dead," he says, [in-]

^A homil. 9 on Leviticus, numb. 4, "and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. Likewise also the rich man, and he was carried to the underworld, into a place of torment." You observe clearly that the places of both fates are distinct. See also who they are that carry them away: the angels, he says, who are always ready to carry away; for they are ministers of God destined for this very task, to fulfill the fate which you yourself have prepared for yourself. Homil. 5 in Num., numb. 3, demonstrates that the saints are carried by the hands and shoulders of angels after death, until they are brought into a place of rest. That this is signified, he says, by that Psalm of David xc, 11, 12: "For He has given His angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. In their hands they shall bear thee, lest by chance thou dash thy foot against a stone." But from that of Paul, 1 Thess. iv, 16: "Then we who are alive, who are left, shall be taken up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, ^B and so we shall ever be with the Lord," he proves that those who have been purified of vices and have escaped lighter will be taken up by the angels; but that the rest, who are burdened by the remnants of their sins, are carried. And finally, homily 11 in Num., numb. 4, page 308, already praised above, decrees that after this life angels will be the leaders of those whom they had already governed while they were among the living, and whom they had converted to Christ by their own zeal and labor.

From the fountains of Plato, however, these things are almost entirely drawn. For so he in the *Phaedo*: "It is said thus, that after each one has died, his own daemon, which had been allotted to him while living, endeavors to lead him to a certain place where those who have been gathered must undergo judgment and proceed to the underworld, with that guide [assigned] to whom it has been commanded to lead those from here to there." Thus it is said that every dead person is led by the daemon that had been allotted the living person, to a certain place where it is necessary for all who are gathered, having stated their case, to proceed to the underworld with that guide to whom it was commanded to lead those who have departed from here, to that place. Which he then repeats in other places of the same book; and after him Plotinus, *Enn.* iii, lib. iv, cap. 6: ^C "'But this daemon of whom we speak, who is said to lead to the underworld, no longer remains the same, unless he should choose the same things again; but before that, how? It is [his duty] to lead [them] to judgment.' The daemon, therefore, whom we call [the one] who is brought to lead to the underworld, does not remain the same afterward, unless he chooses the same things again. But before that, how? To lead them, namely, to judgment." Augustine, book x *De civit. Dei*, cap. 24: "They, however, he says, who believe their Plato, [maintain] that all mortal living things—among which man holds the place of preeminence, and which holds a place akin to the gods themselves—were made not by that supreme God who created the world, but by other lesser [gods], whom He Himself indeed created, by His permission or command." And then: "The angels, however, whom they prefer to call gods, even if they apply ^D their effort to things that are produced in the world, whether commanded or permitted, yet we do not say that they are the creators of animals, nor of the crops of fruits and trees."

XXXV. The following question concerning the rewards and punishments to be administered by the angels by God could have been passed over; for Origen devised nothing much out of the ordinary concerning that argument. Since, however, its discussion coheres with the previous inquiry, and Adamantius has something peculiar [to say] about it, for that reason we shall also touch upon it lightly. Therefore, in the homily on Jeremiah 21, numb. 6, he shows that God recompenses men for what they have merited in a threefold way: first, by Himself, according to that of Jeremiah li, 6: "He Himself shall render him a recompense;" then through evil angels, according to that of the Psalm lxxvii, 49: "He sent upon them the wrath of His indignation, indignation, and wrath, and tribulation, a sending through evil angels;" sometimes also through good [angels], of which kind he says many things are to be found in the Scriptures: and {that} God permits his ministers to avenge slighter offenses, but He Himself avenges more serious harms. He pursues this argument at length in the book viii *against Celsus*, numb. 52, and proves that whatever evils happen to men are sent by the demons by the nod and counsel of God, from the aforementioned place in Psalm lxxvii; but that good things are ministered by the angels. In which he did not depart from his master Plato; who in the *Symposium* established a certain middle genus between the gods and men, and calls them demons, "interpreters and arbiters of both, interpreting and carrying to the gods the things from men, and to men the things from the gods; of the former, prayers and sacrifices; of the latter, commands and the rewards of sacrifices." Which same duties are attributed to the angels, whence they are called *Malachim* and *angeloi* by the sacred writers, that is, messengers. Plotinus, however, *Ennead* iii, lib. iv, cap. 6, after he had taught that the soul is led by the angels to judgment, subjoined that those same [angels] are present with them as they afterward suffer their punishments. Sticking by Origen are, besides others, Ambrose and

Hieronymus, whom he cites in book V, epist. 58, writes this: "Can we believe that the angels themselves, who sustain diverse ministries in the labors of this world, as we read in the Apocalypse of John, do not groan when they are employed as ministers of punishments and destructions? For those who have eternal life, they would certainly prefer it to run on in that higher state of their own tranquility than to be interrupted by the avenging punishments of our sins." And Hieronymus in book I, on the chapter of Daniel: "The office of the angels is twofold; some distribute rewards to the righteous, others are set over individual punishments."

^A [XXXVI.] Since Origen's manner of speaking concerning the invocation of angels seems variable and not entirely consistent, we must also examine that question. Thus he speaks in book V *Contra Celsum*, no. 4: "For all supplication, and prayer, and intercession, and thanksgiving is to be sent up to the God over all through the high priest of all angels, the living Word and God; but we shall also supplicate the Word himself, and we shall make intercession to him, and we shall give thanks, and we shall pray, if we are able to understand the proper and improper use of prayer." And again he inculcates this: whence all invocation of angels seems to be cut off. But it is not so; for while he forbids that honors and prayers be applied to angels which are suitable to God alone, nor does he grant that they should be adored or worshiped *anti tou Theou* [instead of God], he permits certain acts of worship to be rendered to them and certain prayers to be poured out, which are appropriate to their created nature and of a different kind from the higher ones: "We praise them," he says in book VIII *Contra Celsum*, no. 57, p. 785, "and we bless those entrusted by God with things useful to our race; yet we do not assign to them the honor owed to God." He does not condemn prayer, therefore, but the manner of prayer. He himself is the guarantor of this interpretation, in the same work *Contra Celsum*, book VIII, no. 13, in which, responding to Celsus, who thought that because Christians worship the Son of God, they should also worship his ministers, namely, the demons, he says: "If indeed," he says, "he meant that the true servants of God after the only-begotten of God, namely Gabriel, and Michael, and the other angels and archangels, should be also ^B served [θεραπεύεσθαι], perhaps if we were to clear up the meaning of his use of 'to serve' [θεραπεύειν], and the actions of the one serving, we would say something on this point, as we are discussing such matters, which we had room to think about concerning them." Some of our modern heterodox have attempted to break the force of this passage, but they could not succeed in showing that Origen did not concede some kind of *therapeia* [service/worship] to the angels from these his own words; namely, a kind of *therapeia* inferior to that which is to be rendered to God alone. But they contend in vain that this *therapeia*, not to be understood as religious observance and worship, since here there is a debate about nothing other than religious worship, which Celsus asserted should be rendered to demons exactly as to God. To signify this, he used the word *therapeuesthai* [to serve/worship]. Origen responds that a certain kind of that *therapeia* expressed by Celsus—that is, religious worship—is indeed owed to the angels, provided it is exhibited in the right and legitimate way, and that such worship is cautiously distinguished from the worship customarily rendered to God. In the same way, when he distinguished in book V that prayers were to be offered to God the Father, from those he allowed to be offered to the Son, as *mesites* [mediator], he wants the proper use of this name to be understood, and to be separated from the abuse of it: "For all prayer," he says in no. 4, "and supplication, and intercession, and thanksgiving is to be sent up to the God over all through the high priest of all angels, the living Word and God; but we shall also supplicate the Word himself... if we are able to understand the proper and improper use of prayer." With the same caution he orders that worship and prayers to be offered to God the Father be distinguished from prayers to be directed to the Son, and from the worship to be exhibited to angels. And yet he grants that the Son is to be prayed to, provided that he be invoked as mediator and with a lower type of prayer than the Father; for this was his madness: it must therefore be concluded that he felt the same concerning prayers and worship exhibited to angels. But without ambiguity he venerates an angel with prayer in *Homilies on Ezekiel*, no. 7: "All things," he says, "are full of angels. Come, angel: take up the one converted from his former error, from the doctrine of demons, from iniquity speaking on high: take him up as a good physician and comfort and instruct him; he is a little one, today he is born, an old man becoming a child again: and take him up, granting him the baptism of the second regeneration, and call to yourself other companions of your ministry, so that all together you may instruct in the faith those who were once deceived." Although these things are clearer than the sun itself, nevertheless, those same heterodox mentioned above did not hesitate to gainsay them, and to try to elevate—with a twofold response—the weight of the testimony by which they felt themselves crushed; the first being this: that the angel is not invoked there with religious prayer, but is addressed only by a rhetorical apostrophe; the second being this: that this passage is spurious and inserted by an adulterous hand: which, spoken gratis and proven by no solid arguments, can be denied gratis. I confess that the Fathers sometimes use apostrophes; I deny, however, that Origen used an apostrophe here. Indeed, if to any heretic today who denies that the Holy Spirit should be invoked, the testimonies of the Fathers invoking him were presented, and he were to reply that these are merely apostrophes, the futility of this response would be called great. Nor is the other response any happier: they claim that the Greek copies of this homily are missing; and that the interpretations were produced by Rufinus and Hieronymus, whose ^D interpretation is light... [alt-version omitted] ...and conflicting quest. See also Bull, in *Defensio Fidei Nicaenae*, on the *homoousion* of the Son, chap. I, no. 15.

^A trust; and finally, implies that this apostrophe is alien to the style of Origen. It is certain that Hieronymus is the interpreter of these homilies on Ezekiel; if we were to admit that he had added these things of his own accord, the adversaries would be forced to admit, if not Origen, then certainly Hieronymus had confirmed the invocation of angels by his own example. But there is no need for that exception. Hieronymus often says—and we have shown elsewhere—that he did not render the number of words in translating, but only conveyed the senses; he disregarded the words, but faithfully retained the meanings. Let us concede, therefore, that these things were not in the Greek—if, perchance, they were not—but let the adversaries concede that the sentiment itself, which contains the invocation of the angels, was in no part vitiated. But as for their addition that Origen is not accustomed to use such apostrophes, we grant that this is indeed true in the tomes, but not so in the homilies, which, if they are not filled with such ornaments and figures, are certainly not entirely devoid of them. I have heard some others from the same sect claiming that, by the name of angel here, a bishop is meant, just as in the Apocalypse, ch. 1 and 2, the bishops of the Asiatic Churches are signified by that same name of angels. They would be ashamed of their own response if they would look more attentively at the coherence of the whole passage, in which there is manifest mention of guardian angels—following the example of Christ, as Origen himself imagined—descending from heaven and undertaking the care of human salvation. These are the words: "It does not suffice for one heaven to be opened: many are opened, so that angels descend not from one, but from all the heavens, to those who are to be saved: angels who were ascending and descending upon the Son of man, and came to him, and served him. But the angels descended, because Christ had descended first, fearing to descend before the Lord of all powers and all things gave the command. But when they saw the Prince of the heavenly host dwelling in earthly places, then, through the opened way, they entered, following their Lord and obeying his will, who distributed them as guardians of those believing in his name. You were yesterday under a demon, today under an angel." Then: "The multitude of the heavenly host was praising and glorifying God, when Christ was born. All things are full of angels. Come, angel, receive one converted from his former error by the discourse." Strength is added to these things by this testimony from homily 23 on Luke: "I do not doubt that angels are present in our assembly, not only generally for the whole Church, but also individually; of whom the Savior says: *Their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven* (Matt. xviii, 10). Here there is a twofold Church present, one of men, the other of angels. If we say anything according to reason and according to the will of the Scriptures, the angels rejoice and pray with us." Therefore, it is clear that Origen did not appeal to a bishop in that former passage, but invoked an angel. Therefore, it is in vain that the authority of Origen is pressed into service to repudiate the cult of the angels.

^B Ger. Joan. Vossius claims this in his book *De orig. idol.*, chap. 9. Furthermore, the response we employed in the previous passage can generally be used against some passages of Origen and other Fathers, by which it is pronounced that worship and faith are to be attributed to God alone and to no one else, and by which adversaries strive to impugn the invocation of angels, and the allegation for offering our prayers to God, which is accepted by Catholics: among whom, however, some are candid and learned men, who, having been truly overcome by the truth, admit that the intercession of angels can be both requested and obtained.

XXXVII. An anonymous writer in Photius, cod. 117, reports that Origen was once falsely accused on many accounts, and also because he affirmed *ὅτι τὰ χερουβὶμ ἐπίνοιαι τοῦ Υἱοῦ εἰσιν* ("that the Cherubim are thoughts of the Son"). How that anonymous writer defended Origen against this charge, I do not know; yet, from the words of Photius, it seems to follow that it was refuted as something falsely concocted and impacted upon Origen through calumny by this patron of his. Nevertheless, even if we grant that it was written by Origen, I would clearly swear that, just like almost everything else, he proposed it *allegorically*. Therefore, the same response may stand here, which we used to excuse him above, when he said that the Son and the Holy Spirit are two Seraphim, and that Christ is also that sterile man whom Jeremiah mentions in chapter xxii, verse 30.

XXXVIII. We observed above that Origen assigned different bodies to angels and demons, without any distinction of ^C substance and nature. From that opinion was born that other one, coarser, that the body of demons, being akin to our air, seeks things of its own kind, such as incense and the odors of sacrifices, and even to lick the blood of victims; and that they are delighted by those things not only because they see men given to idolatry, but also because of the pleasure and delights by which their bodies are affected. Origen, *contra Cels.*, bk. I, no. 37: "All the gods of the gentiles, he says, are greedy demons, and they wallow in sacrifices, and blood, and the vapors of sacrifices, for the deception of those who have not fled to the God who is over all." And in the following book, no. 5, after he said that certain impure spirits dwell around the earth, he adds this: *He shows that such are those who are the same, and [that] their bodies are nourished by the vapors from sacrifices and by the emissions from blood and burnt offerings, taking pleasure in such things, and, as it were, loving them.* And in bk. VIII, no. 30: *And the forbidden things, [the eating of] blood that has not been shed, which they say is the food of demons, being nourished by its vapors; the Word forbids this, so that we may not be nourished by the food of demons.* And in the *Protrepticus ad martyrium*, no. 45: *Since some, not seeing the doctrine concerning demons, and how, for the sake of remaining in...*

this density and sublunary air, they require nourishment which comes through emanations, watching for places where there is savor [knissa], blood, and frankincense, hold the act of sacrificing as a matter of indifference—we would say to them also, that if those who provide food to robbers, murderers, and barbarians who are enemies of the great King are punished as persons who have injured the common good, how much more would those who, by sacrificing, provide food to the servants of wickedness, keeping them in the sublunary place, be most justly accused?*

Furthermore, in the same cause as Origen are Justin, who is older than he, and the later Maternus Firmicus. The former, in his *Apology I*, writes that the rebellious angels reduced men to servitude, among other ways, *by teaching the rites of sacrifices, incense, and libations, which they became in need of after they had enslaved themselves to the passions of desires.* This latter author, in ch. 14 of the book *De errore profanarum religionum*, asserts that the substance of demons, who were born of the devil, is nourished by the blood of victims.

QUESTION VI. CONCERNING THE SOUL.

1. Origen had no fixed opinion concerning the origin of the soul. II. From the dogma of *pre-existence* and the perpetual use of liberty, the greatest part of the Origenian errors flowed. III. Whether he asserted that rational souls were derived from the divine substance. IV. Whether he thought them older than the body and sent down into it because of sins. V. Whence he surmised the name *Psyche* was derived. VI. From these things arose the accusations of many. VII. The finger is pointed toward the sources of this doctrine. VIII. With what various places of Scripture Origen attempted to support it. IX. Although many refute it thoroughly. X. The Fathers who were its assertors are reviewed. XI. Nothing concerning this subject had been determined by the Church in those times. XII. Nor much later. XIII. Whether he believed souls were corporeal, and with what sort of body they were endowed. XIV. The assent of many Fathers and his own hesitation can excuse Origen. XV. He derived his opinion from ancient philosophy. An intricate passage of Methodius is explained. XVI. Whether he said that only the soul constitutes man. XVII. The Origenian *metensomatosis* is examined. XVIII. Adamantius has been said by many to have championed Pythagorean *metempsychosis*. XIX. But he is cleared by many. XX. The authors of *metensomatosis* are produced.

I. Since Origen willed that the souls of men be of the same order and nature as the angels, after the nature of these [souls] has been explored according to his own definitions, the series of topics demands that we now treat of these. But it is to be noted before all else that this subject seemed obscure and difficult to Origen, just as it did to most other Fathers of the Church, and that he dwelt in the greatest hesitation and anxiety. For when, in book III of *De principiis*, ch. 4, no. 1, he had proposed the three main opinions concerning the soul—whether it is twofold in us, the one more divine and brought down from heaven, the other inferior; or whether there is only one, celestial, joined to a body from which it is inclined and weighed down toward vices; or whether the soul consists of two parts, of which one is a participant in reason, while the other lacks reason—after he accurately examined the individual opinions in sections 2, 3, 4 and 5, he adds at last, ^A *And we, indeed, as far as we were able, have brought forward into the midst for the sake of discussion what can be spoken from the persons of individuals concerning each dogma. But let him who reads choose from these what is more to be embraced.* He declares further, not once, that he argues *diaporētikōs* (problematically), and does not speak *kataphatikōs* (affirmatively), if at any time he has seemed to determine something about that matter, as it is uncertain and not yet defined by the decrees of the Church in the Origenian age, nor even by those of much more recent times; as will be declared below. Pamphilus confirms this in his *Apology*, although he admits that some blamed the discussions or assertions which Origen proposed concerning the state and dispensation of the soul.

II. But first of all, it is worthy of the greatest observation that from this dual dogma mentioned above—the *pre-existence* of minds, and the full and perpetual use of liberty that is always vigorous and flourishing—the greatest part of the Origenian errors proceeded; for from it flowed almost everything he sinned regarding the nature of angels: thence *metensomatōsis*, with souls entering into different bodies according to the varied use of liberty: thence he judged that only the soul constitutes man, the body surely having been assumed for punishment as a bond and a fetter: whence also the resurrection had to be done away with, for what need is there for a man restored to wholeness to have this body and chains? That excessive and immoderate liberty also destroyed the benefit of grace. And whence shall we say that souls are afflicted by the stars, and free will, if not from this ascent and descent of minds, and bodies that are more coarse or more subtle and splendid that they enter into according to their merits? Whence this insane and pestilential opinion, that Christ has either suffered or will suffer for the stars, for angels, and for demons, if not from that other claim, that those natures are subject to sin no less than human ones, and therefore have need of the same reparation and remedy? But also, from what fountain did the definite limit and time for the punishments of the damned flow, if not from the use of liberty that persists even after the inflicted punishments? Finally, given these revolutions of minds and the circuit that will never cease, it was necessary for worlds also to be reborn again and again, since with minds sinning anew, new bonds were again to be prepared, that is, new bodies to be imposed, from the diversity of which the world flourishes. If anyone will observe these things diligently, he will acknowledge that the doctrine of Origen consists not of repugnant and dissipated dogmas, but is aptly connected and coherent in a necessary series and texture of arguments.

III. Jerome brings the first accusation in this question against Origen in *Epist.* 59 to Avitus, ch. 4, when he says he thought that *all souls, and whatever is endowed with reason, proceeded as expressed from the substance of God, and are a part of his divine substance. "Lest we think it a small impiety," he says, "of those things which he had premised [Origen] conjoins at the end of the same volume (Peri Archōn) all rational natures, that is, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the angels,*

and the other virtues; the interior man, also, who is created in the image and likeness of God, perceives them. From which it is concluded that God and these, in a certain manner, are of one substance." ^A What Jerome had condemned in Origen, Justinian likewise condemns in the Palestinian Origenists in the letter to the Fifth Synod, which Cedrenus contains: "For they say that minds were without number and name, so that there was a oneness of all rational beings in the identity of substance and operation, and in their power in relation to God the Word, and their union and cognition." For they say that minds were without number and name, so that there was a unity of all rational things, since they are the same in substance, and operation, and in the virtue which is with God the Word, then in union and through knowledge. Gobarus also, that Tritheite, whose excerpts Photius collected in cod. ccxxxii, says of many dogmas, which are almost Origenian, while arguing on both sides, in the eighth place: "that the human soul proceeded from the divine substance."

That was, indeed, the doctrine of the Pythagoreans, that our souls consist of a particle of the divine aura, and God ^B "is to go through all lands, and the reaches of the sea, and the deep heaven; hence the cattle, the herds, men, the whole race of wild beasts, each one at birth draws in its thin life." (Virgil. Georg., lib. IV, lines 221-224.)

"I used to hear," says Cato in Tully, "Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans, almost our own neighbors, who were once called the Italic philosophers, never to have doubted that we had souls drawn from the universal divine mind." The Platonists and Stoics were of the same opinion, which Cerdo, and Marcion, and the Manichaeans later embraced. Jerome, epist. 61 to Pammachius, cap. 5, thus addresses John of Jerusalem: "You say that the souls of men are not part of God’s nature: as if you were now called a Manichaean by Epiphanius;" and cap. 6: "You say that the soul is not of the substance of God; well done, for you condemn the most impious Manichaean, whom it is a pollution to name; and shortly after: "No one doubts that he errs who says it (the rational soul) is the substance of God."

Therefore, that John of Jerusalem, who was commonly called an Origenist, ^C was nevertheless foreign to that opinion, as Jerome admits; which can avail for the clearing of Origen. Origen himself, whose words for this dogma Jerome cites, by adding the word "in a certain manner," wards off reproaches from himself. One word he adds, "in a certain manner," says Jerome in epist. 59 to Avitus, cap. 4, "so that he might escape the accusation of such great sacrilege," or perhaps so that he might declare himself in no way related to this opinion. Thus he indeed (says) in his book *On Martyrdom*, no. 47: "And even if a man loves life, having received a conviction concerning the rational soul, that it has something akin to God." But if he had judged the soul to be a portion drawn from the substance of God, he would not have said it had something akin, but that it was a particle of Him itself; but when he says it has something akin to Him, it is because it is created in his image, because it is signed by the divine light of His countenance, because it is immortal, and capable of eternal blessedness. Truly, he most plainly argues against this error of impiety in Heracleon, who imagined that whoever worshipped Him in spirit were of the same essence as God: "Let us consider," he says in tome XIII on John, no. 25, "if it is not very impious to say that those who worship the spirit [I read: *homoousious*] to the unbegotten and most blessed nature are *homoousion* to God." ^D Origen also clears himself of this charge, that he decreed the soul to be corporeal, as we shall declare below; for who could say that corporeal things are a part of God, who lacks a body, as Origen defends Him to be? Hence Augustine, lib. 1 *De civit. Dei*, cap. 23: "They say souls are not parts of God, but were made by God, and sinned by departing from the Creator; and through diverse progressions, according to the diversity of their sins, they deserved diverse bodies as if they were chains, even from the heavens down to the earth. And that this is the world, and that this was the cause of the world being made, not that good things should be created, but that evils should be restrained." Hence Origen is justly blamed: for in the books which he calls *Peri Archōn*, that is, *On Principles*, he thought this, he wrote this. Origen, therefore, believed that souls were not indeed parts of God, but were created by God. Nevertheless, it is useful that Jerome, in epist. 82 to Marcellinus and Anapsychia, distinguishes Origen's genuine sentiment from this one falsely attributed to him: "Concerning the state of the soul," he says, "I remember your little question, or rather a most ecclesiastical question: whether it fell from heaven, as the philosopher Pythagoras, and all the Platonists and Origen think; or from the proper substance of God, as the Stoics, the Manichaean, and the heresies of the Spanish Priscillianists suspect." Justinian attacked the Palestinian Origenists for this dogma, perhaps for the reason that he thought all the errors of Origen were defended by them; but if they did indeed adhere to them, Adamantius will by no means answer for all the madness of his followers. But if he had been guilty of this fault, we would give him Tertullian as a supporter, who in lib. IV *Against Marcion*, cap. 38, says thus: "He commands, therefore, that man be rendered back to the Creator, in whose image and likeness, and name, and material he was expressed."

IV. Origen [did not place] the nature of the soul in a body, however subtle, with more certain and manifest opinions.

^A This opinion he marked with monuments, whereby he determines that souls were created by God before bodies, and were sent down into them as if into prisons on account of their sins. And this is connected to what was set forth above regarding the merits, rewards, and punishments of the angels. For he thought that all rational natures, that is, minds, were created by God before the foundation of the world, and were endowed with free will; and that, by using this faculty of acting rightly or wrongly in various ways, they obtained from there different degrees of glory, or ignominy and punishment; since some indeed obtained the angelic nature, which were the sources of lighter transgressions; while those which, on the contrary, had abused the gift of free will for the worse, were thrust down into grosser bodies, such as those of demons, or stars, or humans; yet so that, in whatever place they may be, they can progress in virtue, or, on the contrary, relapse into vices; and according to the reason of their regression or progress, they are either raised to a higher state or thrust down to a lower one. ^B To this condition, moreover, he bound the soul of Christ, and wished it, because of its supreme love for God, to have been joined to the Word in one, and thence to have undergone the forming of its body in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Furthermore, he sensed that of those minds which had attained the angelic condition, some, imitating the love and charity of Christ toward the human race, or for other causes sent by God, assumed flesh, and acted in the role of prophets and holy men on earth, and, composing themselves to the example of Christ, looked to the salvation of the rest of mankind. A part of all these things we have already demonstrated above, and a part we have reserved to be declared here.

We must not, however, dwell longer on gathering the passages in which Adamantius asserted the ^C pre-existence of souls. They are clear and accessible to everyone, and offer themselves frequently to a man who is not very diligent. Only some notable ones, according to our custom, are to be cited for the sake of reconciling the faith, besides those which we have already brought forward above when we were examining his opinion concerning the merits of the angels. Before all others, that one in Book II of *On First Principles*, cap. 8, num. 3 and 4, is to be observed, in which he handles those rational natures which were first created by God before they had conceived in themselves any good or evil, and relates that they were minds; but then, after the crime was committed, they became souls. The words themselves are produced: "From all these things it seems to be shown that a mind, declining from its state and dignity, was made or named a soul; which, if it be repaired and corrected, returns to this, that it may be a mind. If this is so, the departure itself and the devolution of the mind seems to me not to be understood as equal for all, but that one is turned into a soul either more or less, and that some minds indeed preserve something of their prior vigor; others, however, either nothing or only a small amount. Hence ^D there are found some who from their earliest age are of a more ardent keenness, others of a slower sort; but some are born most obtuse and utterly unteachable." Similar things are repeated in the end of the same chapter. In the first book of the same work, cap. 7, num. 4, he teaches that the soul of man was not made with the body, but inserted from the outside, and that according to the merit of its deeds. Proving this, he brings forward the example of Jacob and Esau, of whom the former supplanted his brother when he was coming forth from the womb; which he thinks would by no means have happened, unless each had merited it by his deeds before he slipped down from heaven: he adds also the example of John, who, while still formed in the seclusion of the maternal womb, leaped at the voice of Mary; and of Jeremiah, to whom the Lord had said: "Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee." Otherwise, he says, there would be respect of persons and injustice before God, which he also repeats in Tom. II on *John*, num. 25. He inculcates this more assertively in cap. 8 of Book I of *On First Principles*, and Book III, cap. 1, num. 20. For after he said that everyone, according to how he behaved himself, is made by God a vessel either to honor or to dishonor, he adds immediately in the same place at page 134: "But if this assertion seems just, just as it is certainly just, and according with all piety, that for the preceding causes every vessel is prepared by God either to honor or to dishonor: it does not seem absurd that we, discussing the older causes in the same order and with the same consequence, should feel the same things also regarding the nature of souls, and that this is the cause why Jacob was loved before he was born into this world, and Esau was held in hatred while he was still held in his mother’s womb." Finally, he closes the dissertation in num. 21: "From which we opine that indeed (as we have frequently said) the soul is immortal and eternal, because in many and infinite spaces of time, through immense and diverse ages, it is possible that it descends from the highest good to the lowest evils, and from the last is restored to the highest goods." But as to how that which could be opposed from Paul to the Romans cap. IX, that God out of the same mass, just as a potter, fashions some vessels to honor and others to dishonor, is to be dispelled: he contends that there is one nature of rational souls, which is subject to God no otherwise than a lump of clay to a potter, and thence vessels of various sorts are drawn out. Similarly, he derives the rebuke of Paul: "O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" to the impious who dare to speak against God, not for the sake of learning, but of resisting; and after they have fallen from the confidence and right of addressing God by their crimes and perfidy, it may deservedly be objected to them: "O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" But to holy men, the love of approaching and addressing God, and answering Him, etc. See our observations above in quest. 3, *On Christ*, num. 6.

^A always desires that there should be an abundance, such as was formerly made for Moses. Origen applies this same interpretation again, together with the preceding discussion regarding the soul of Jacob and the vessels destined for dishonor or honor, in Book VII *on the Epistle to the Romans*, num. 17, while he explains this same chapter in his *Commentaries*. These are, of course, vain and frivolous quibbles, in an open matter, and worthy of sharp censure and correction. To confirm this error, he repeats the examples brought forward above of John leaping in his mother’s womb, and of Jeremiah being known to God and sanctified by Him before he was formed in the maternal womb and proceeded from it, in Book III of *De Principiis*, num. 5; and he gathers other arguments taken from those who are seized by demons immediately from birth, or from childhood are endowed with the faculty of divination; the cause of which he thinks to be none other than the acts formerly committed by them before they entered their bodies; for he maintains that the soul always uses its freedom of choice, whether it is outside the body or joined to a body. The passages collected by Justinian and appended to the letter to Mennas suggest the same thing. Indeed, he dreams that some souls fall to earth of their own accord and wish to expend their efforts in carrying out the counsels of God, *Tom. XV in Matth.*, num. 34. ^B Origen has some things in *Tom. XX in John* which seem to be little in agreement with his superior opinion concerning the soul, namely, that I know not what qualities are engendered in souls, such as are engendered in bodies. Let us grant the very words from num. 2: [Here an omission of text occurs in the original.] And afterwards: Item in *Psalm XV*, 7, from the *Catenae Regiae*, p. 599: What else should we say these qualities innate in souls are, than qualities brought over with the seed? But if something is brought over into souls with the seed and engendered, nay, if something is sown with the souls themselves, then the souls themselves are surely sown, and are propagated by distinct "traduction." But I think those words of Origen must be understood otherwise; for although he says the souls are equipped with certain ^C spermatic reasons, nevertheless, that sowing is not completed through the ministry of parents, nor is it to be understood as being a corporeal seed, but another, mystical sowing, and a seed whose author is God Himself: for it can be said that He sows souls, insofar as He distributes them into various bodies according to Origen’s opinion: then, however, Adamantius thought that certain qualities were inserted into them according to their merits, and because they are sown in souls precisely when the sowing of the souls themselves is administered, he called them "spermatic": and if these qualities are similar to those of the soul of Abraham or of another just man, and are diligently cultivated, they will make us sons of Abraham, or of some other just man, in a certain mystical and spiritual manner. That this is the genuine meaning of Origen is understood from an attentive reading of the whole passage, but especially from the fact that he said the varied and unequal dispensation of those qualities had causes preceding their origin. For from thence it is gathered that ^D souls—which cannot stand if rooted in the propagation of souls by "traduction." Add to this the frequent digressions of Origen against this opinion, and if he now regrets it, he would be guilty of excessive inconstancy, unworthy of so great a man. What we read in *Tom. XIV in John*, num. 43, supports this exposition: it seems to me that the psalms signify concerning the general coming of the more noble souls into this life, with saving seeds, and indeed that they come in, as it were, unwillingly with groaning, but return in exultation, because they have well cultivated, and caused to grow, and multiplied the seeds with which they arrived.

V. Furthermore, pursuing the opinion he had established in his mind, Origen added to the foregoing that menses (minds) were said to have fallen into a worse state, because the fervor of their piety and charity had cooled. These things are found in *De Principiis*, Book II, cap. 8, num. 3, where he teaches that God is fire, and the angels are fiery, and he commands us ourselves to be fervent in spirit if we wish to please God: but that the impious are both cold and are so called; and that the devil himself is signified by the dragon, who is said to reign in the sea. Then he concludes thus: "If, therefore, those things which are holy are called fire, and light, and fervor; but their contraries are cold, and charity is said to grow cold because of sin, it must be sought whether perhaps the name of the 'soul' (*psyche*), which in Greek is said from the state of re-cooling from a more divine and better state, was thus applied because it seems to have cooled from that natural and divine heat; and therefore it is situated in this state and name in which it now is." Justinian adduces a similar passage to this in the same place at the close of his letter to Mennas. Epiphanius, *Haeres.* LXIV, cap. 5, and in his *letter to John of Jerusalem*, cap. 2, reports that Origen said *psyche* is called [from *psychesthai*]. The most learned interpreter translates this, "that it was beloved from heaven"; but this exposition certainly cannot be approved by me; for Origen affirmed that souls are indeed sent down from above.

^A And Cyriacus the monk, whom Simeon Metaphrastes mentions as saying to Cyril that "the dogmas concerning pre-existence and the restoration to the same state are held by the Origenists as, so to speak, intermediate and free from all danger," responded that "in no way are they intermediate, nor are the dogmas concerning pre-existence void of danger; rather, they are slippery and dangerous." Antipater of Bostra, a writer whose time I have not yet discovered, also attacked them in his dissertations against Origen, which John of Damascus wove into his Eclogues, under the title, *On the Reward of those who have lived according to virtue*. This same doctrine in Origen is also condemned by the Quinisext council, canon 1, and by Sophronius of Jerusalem in his letter to Sergius of Constantinople; by Isidore, *Etymologies* book VIII, chapter 5; by John of Damascus in book II of *De fide orthodoxa*, chapter 12, and in book IV, chapter 6; by George Syncellus in his *Excerpta Chronographica*; by Cedrenus in his *Compendium Historiarum*; by Suidas under "Origen"; by Nicetas in *Thesaurus orthodoxae fidei* ^B book IV, heresy 31; by Vincent of Beauvais in *Speculum doctrinale* book XVII, chapter 43; by Nicephorus in book XVII, chapter 27, and by Guido the Carmelite in his *Summa de haeresibus*, who refutes it in many places.

VI. From these doctrines of Adamantius concerning the origin of the soul, arose the eighth of the accusations which Pamphilus in his *Apology* represents and refutes as being customarily leveled at him. Certainly, after Justinian had lengthily confuted it in his letter to Menas, both by the authority of the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers, he initiated the practice of attaching his anathemas to that same letter; and he decrees that whoever has embraced those tenets is anathema, and he strikes them down again in his letter to the Fifth Council, which is found in Cedrenus. It had long been the case, by then, after Methodius had chastised these vain thoughts of Origen—as can be learned from his excerpts which Epiphanius and Photius have preserved for us; Cæsarius, brother of Gregory Nazianzen, had also chastised them in his *Dialogues* III, question 149 and following (if this Cæsarius is indeed the real author of those Dialogues, as is reported); Gregory of Nyssa had also chastised them in his book *On the Making of Man*, chapter 38, and Epiphanius in *Heresy* LXIV, chapter 4, and in his letter to John of Jerusalem, chapter 2, in which places he says that Adamantius thought that the soul (*psychē*) is so named from its having grown cold (*psychesthai*) from above, and the body (*sōma*) from the fact that the soul is bound in it, or that the body is as it were a tomb (*sēma*), "in that it holds the soul enclosed within it, just as sepulchers and graves hold the corpses of the dead"; Theophilus of Alexandria and Jerome, in epistle 59 to Avitus, chapters 1 and 2, and epistle 61 to Pammachius, chapters 3, 5, 6, and epistle 65 to Pammachius and Oceanus, chapter 2, and in book V of his *Commentary on Jeremiah*, chapter 24, and in his letter to Demetrias, chapter 9, had also chastised them, where he complains that the pre-existence (*proyparxis*) of souls, which once spread in Egypt and the parts of the East, is in his own time "hidden, like vipers' dens, and haunts many," and that it "pollutes the purity of those parts, and creeps like a hereditary disease into the few, so that it might reach the many"; and in his *Commentary on Psalm 89*, where he brands this dogma with the name of heresy, just as in his *Commentary on Jeremiah* 29, ^C and in other places which I omit for the sake of brevity; Orosius had also chastised them in his *Commonitorium* to Augustine, and Augustine in his little book *Against the Priscillianists and Origenists*, chapters 8 and 11, and in book XI of *The City of God*, chapter 23, where he eruditely refutes those fabricated fables concerning the progressions and regressions of souls; Pope Leo also in epistle 11, which is to Julian of Cos, and Gennadius in *De dogmatibus*, chapter 14, and Leontius in the book *De sectis*; but most especially Cyril, who was a successor of his uncle Theophilus, not only in the Alexandrian episcopate but also in his intense hatred against Origen, subverted this opinion of his concerning the origin of souls with a manifold apparatus of arguments while explaining the Gospel of John. And with no less zeal, after the Fifth Council, Facundus of Hermiane in book I, chapter 6, and ^D others have impugned the same doctrine.

VII. Furthermore, Adamantius showed himself here too to be governed by Plato. But he, in the *Phaedo*, the *Epinomis*, and book X of the *Laws*, and in the *Timaeus*, and in other places, explains this doctrine in most clear words, which a great part of the ancients thereafter seized upon. And he was certainly not the architect of this opinion himself; for Pythagoras and Empedocles had promoted it much earlier. "It is more reasonable," says Origen in book I *Against Celsus*, no. 32, "that every soul, according to certain secret reasons (I speak these things now according to Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus often named), is introduced into a body, it being introduced according to its merit and according to its former character"; and Jerome in epistle 82, which is to Marcellinus and Anapsychia: "I remember your little question concerning the state of the soul, or rather, it is a most ecclesiastical question: whether it fell from heaven, as the philosopher Pythagoras, and all the Platonists, and Origen think." You may encounter something similar in the letter of Justinian to the Fifth Council, and in Nicetas in the *Thesaurus orthodoxae fidei*, book IV, heresy 31. But even before Pythagoras, Orpheus said that the soul is punished in the body. Plato bears witness to this in the *Cratylus*, where he also seeks the origin of the word *sōma* [body] from *sēma* [a tomb]. Clement of Alexandria reports this locality in his *Stromata* book III, and likewise another one from Philolaus the Pythagorean, by which he proves the same thing from the ancient ethnic theologians and prophets. Therefore, Harmenopulus, in his book *De sectis*, and Elias of Crete, the interpreter of Nazianzen, rightly say that Origen drew his opinion from Greek sources.

VIII. Yet, in order to approve it to Christians, he strove to support it not only with reasons, but also with testimonies sought from Holy Scripture, which are exhibited to us by the Fathers. And Epiphanius reports these in his letter to John of Jerusalem, chapter 2, from Psalm 118:67: "Before I was humbled by malice, I sinned"; and from Psalm 114:7: "Return,

O my soul, unto thy rest"; and from Psalm 141:8: "Bring my soul out of prison"; and from Psalm 115:9: "I will please the Lord in the land of the living." Jerome also appends this in *Epistle to Demetrias*, ch. 9, from John 9:2: "Did this man sin, that he was born blind, or his parents?" And besides these, he adds in Book I of his *Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians* (1:4), from Psalm 119:5: "Woe is me, that my sojourning is prolonged; I have dwelt with the inhabitants of Cedar; my soul has been a long wanderer"; from Romans 7:24: "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"; and from Philippians 1:23: "It is better to depart and be with Christ"; and from Psalm 89:1-2: "Lord, you have been our refuge from generation to generation: before the mountains were formed, and the earth was made, and the world." He also appends that from Ephesians 1:17; and from Psalm 21:28: "All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord." Finally, from this John 1:9: "He was the true light, which illuminates every man coming into this world," Cyril says that Origen or the Origenists drew the strength for their cause regarding that same passage of John.

IX. ^A But that saying of Zechariah 12:1 openly opposes this: "The Lord who stretches out the heaven and founds the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him"; which has been opposed by some as a rebuttal to this Origenian commentary. That word of John 9:3 also opposes it: "Jesus answered, neither did this man sin, nor his parents, but that the works of God should be manifested in him." Whence it is a source of surprise to see the amazement of Origen, who misused that preceding question—"Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"—in defense of his own delusion; for by referring the cause of that blindness to the will of God, Christ removed every handle for twisting it toward sins of a previous life. Even more openly, it is opposed by that passage in Rom. 9:11 et seq., which Augustine uses in his *Epistle to Optatus* to undermine this opinion of Origen: "For when they had not yet been born, nor had done anything good or evil (so that the purpose of God according to election might remain), it was not of works, but of him who calls. It was said to her: The elder shall serve the younger, as it is written: Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated. What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid. For he says to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy. So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy." Although these things utterly overthrow the fables of Origen, he nevertheless brings these very words of Paul to the defense of his own cause in Book II of *De Principiis*, chapter 9, but interprets them otherwise than they are usually interpreted. For what the Apostle says—that before they had done anything good or evil, they were destined by God, not earning it by works, so that one might be loved and the other hated—he refers to works committed on earth and in this life, which gave God no cause for His destination.

^B Nor does he think that the life preceding these works is in any way infringed upon or removed by the Apostle. Therefore, he says in no. 7, just as concerning Esau and Jacob it is found upon a more diligent searching of the Scriptures that there is no injustice with God, in that before they were born, or had done anything in this life, it was said that the elder shall serve the younger, and just as it is found that it is not injustice that Jacob struggled with his brother in the womb, if one understands that he was worthily chosen by God because of the merits of a previous life, so that he deserved to be preferred to his brother; so also, etc. He seems to have thought that this same Pauline passage should be interpreted in the same way in *Tome II on John*, no. 25. And it is likely that he understood in no other way that other passage, II Tim. 1:8-9, although he is opposed to his own view: "Work with the Gospel according to the power of God, who saved us and called us with His holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages of time."

X. ^C But although these decrees have been convicted by clear testimonies of Scripture, nevertheless Adamantius had many supporters: for besides Pamphilus, the author of the *Apology*, who seems to incline toward that opinion, Clement of Alexandria follows the same in *Stromata*, Book I, and even more clearly in Book III. In his *Eclogues*, he also transmits that the soul is sent into the womb by one of the angels set over that generation. Photius, in *Cod.* 119, testifies that Pierius of Alexandria, who is called another Origen, also defended the pre-existence of souls. Nemesius, in his book *On the Nature of Man*, chapter 2, thinks that the souls of men, once created by God, are sent into bodies by Him when they are fit and prepared to receive them. Jerome, in *Epistle 82 to Marcellinus*, narrates that some ecclesiastics were persuaded that souls were created long ago and kept in the treasury of God; he separates this opinion from the Origenian one. ^D I myself, in Book I of my *Commentary on Ephesians*, on ch. 1, verses 4 and 5, accurately search out the heads and bulwarks of this commentary, and on comma 17 of that same chapter, he says that there is a difference of distinction between *epignosis* and *gnosis*, namely that *gnosis* is of things we have never known, but *epignosis* is the recollection of things we had formerly forgotten—wherefore he says that Paul desires for the Ephesians the spirit of revelation in the knowledge of God, that is, in *epignosis*, signifying that we knew God previously in a heavenly life, and, having forgotten Him upon migrating from the heavens to the earth, we recognize Him again through revelation. And in Book II of those same *Commentaries on Ephesians* (ch. 3, v. 1), he says that in many places he reads that Paul is called a prisoner, because his soul is held in the body as if in a prison: he then adds that this is accepted by others in another sense, namely that Paul, having been predestined from his mother's womb to convert the Gentiles, afterwards received the bonds of the flesh: and in Philemon 23, where Paul calls Epaphras his "fellow-prisoner," in the word of captivity, according to...

^A some, says Jerome, he intimates that something hidden lies concealed, "because they were brought into this valley of tears, both captives and bound alike." Having written this without any intervening refutation or censure, he was exposed to the vexations and complaints of Rufinus. In truth, he attempts to absolve himself from the accusation of this crime in his *Apology 1 against Rufinus*, chapters 5 and 6, and he rebuts the same charge obscurely against Rufinus in his *Apology*, lib. II, chapters 2 and 4, and lib. II, chapters 8 and 9. But remarkable above all is what he says in chapter 6 of *Apology 1*: "To say that the soul is bound to a body, until it returns to Christ, and in the glory of the resurrection exchanges the corruptible and mortal body for incorruption and immortality, is not an understanding without absurdity." That anonymous writer in Photius, codex 117, who undertook the defense of Origen, strives to maintain this error even further by the suffrages of Holy Scripture and the Fathers, far from preventing his reproach by Origen. I would indeed believe that Philastrius was not entirely alien to this; for after he discussed these things in heresy 51: "There is another heresy which says that the soul of man was not made by God and called a soul, but, it says, it was called an intellect, and was in heaven: but afterwards because it desired earthly things, it departed from heaven, and they suppose it was called a soul from that circumstance"; which are entirely Origenian. He then reveals his own mind in these words: "Ignorant that in the beginning the soul was made by God, and created after the angels, it was called by the Lord, and this name of propriety it received from God, so that it might be called a soul, not an intellect." And he confirms this afterward by the testimonies of Scripture. Finally, Augustine finds fault with Tertullian in his book *On Heresies* to Quodvultdeus, because he asserted that the souls of wicked men are converted into demons after death. Wherefore Domitian the Galatian, bishop of Ancyra, in a letter to Pope Vigilius, complains of these things against the enemies of Origen, as reported by Facundus, lib. IV, chapter 4: "They rushed to anathematize most holy and glorious doctors, on the occasion of the dogmas which were stirred up concerning preexistence and restitution, under the guise indeed of Origen, but anathematizing all the saints who were before him and after him."

XI. Indeed, concerning the origin and lot of the soul, nothing had yet been decreed by the Church. Regarding the soul, however, Origen says in the prologue to *De Principiis*, number 5, "whether it is drawn from the tradition of seed, so that its reason or substance is considered inserted into the bodily seeds themselves; or whether it has another beginning: and this very beginning, if it is begotten, or not begotten; or certainly if it is placed inside the body, or not, is not distinguished by a sufficiently manifest declaration;" which passage is brought forward in the suppositious dialogue under the name of Jerome and Augustine, which is held among the spurious works of Jerome; and in the work *On the Deity and Incarnation of the Word* to Januarius, which is annexed to the fourth volume of Augustine, lib. 1, chapter 2, and is brought forward in both places in the very words of Rufinus. The same [man] in *Epist. ad Rom.*, lib. II, number 4, page 479: "If even those placed outside the body ^C or the saints, who are with Christ, do something, and labor for us after the likeness of the angels, who procure the ministries of our salvation; or, on the other hand, sinners even themselves, placed outside the body, do something according to the purpose of their own mind, to the likeness of the evil ones, with whom they are also said by Christ to be sent into eternal fire: let this also be held among the occult things of God, and mysteries not to be committed to paper." Nay, even in book II on the *Song of Songs*, page 58, sanctioning that every soul must strive in the knowledge of itself, he enumerates various and contrary opinions concerning it, which he bids the soul to discuss and ventilate, and to acquiesce in those that are more probable. Yet he gave them to the soul to be weighed in such a way that it seems permitted at that time to dispute them on either side, and to choose those more consistent with reason. Hence, in book II of *De Principiis*, chapter 8, after he has discussed many things concerning the soul, and proposed the dogmas examined by us above, he finally appends, number 4: "Nevertheless, what we have said, that the mind is turned into a soul, or if any other things seem to look toward this, let him who reads more diligently discuss it with himself, and go over it thoroughly: yet let them not be thought by us to be brought forward as dogmas, but as discussed in the manner of treating and inquiring;" and a little later, number 5: "We have brought these things forward as we were able concerning the reasonable soul, more for discussion by readers, than as statutes and settled definitions." And this is the sum of Pamphilus's defense. To confirm this more validly, he says that Origen treated of almost other matters; and that he wrote nothing concerning the soul, as being of uncertain origin and little-understood nature. Then, from the book on the *Epistle to Titus*, he adduces a pertinent location of Origen, by which, bringing forward an example of those things which, not at all determined by apostolic traditions, could be either rejected or admitted without the mark of heresy, he proposes the question concerning the soul: "When concerning it," he says, "neither that it is drawn from the tradition of seed, nor that it is older and more honorable than the mass of bodies, has the ecclesiastical rule handed down; those who had assented to either, he says, had come into suspicion as favoring new things; but he condemns those of rashness, who would hold anyone suspected for this cause." To this Pamphilus adds that other opinions about the soul are far more absurd and foolish than those of Origen: among which he places in the first rank that which is today received by the sanctions of the Catholic Church. He adds then that Origen is by no means to be condemned, since he guarded those things which the Church had then commanded to be guarded on that question, namely, that souls are of the same substance, immortal, participants of reason, endowed with free will, and created by God. Finally he appends: "But when they were made, whether long ago at once, or now one by one as they are born, what danger is there in opining either of the two?" What of the fact that Origen, in *Tome II on John*, number 24, says the pre-existence of souls is approved by universal opinion? "For," he says, "the general doctrine concerning the soul holds, as ^D

not as sown into the body, but as existing before it, and through various causes clothed in flesh and blood," etc.

XII. Nor was the origin and nature of the soul uncertain in the Church merely in Origen’s time, but also in more recent times. Pamphilus writes in his *Apology* that in his own age all ecclesiastics held diverse opinions concerning the soul. Jerome, in *Epistle* 82, recites the question proposed to him by Marcellinus and Anapsychia regarding the state of the soul, from which you may understand in what darkness the question of the soul was enshrouded at that time: "I remember," he says, "your little question regarding the state of the soul—or rather, a most ecclesiastical question: whether it fell from heaven, as the philosopher Pythagoras, all the Platonists, and Origen think; or whether it is from the proper substance of God, as the Stoics, Manichaeus, ^B and the Priscillianist heresies of Spain suspect; or whether they were once created and are held in the treasury of God, as some ecclesiastics believe with foolish persuasion; or whether they are made daily by God and sent into bodies, according to that which is written in the Gospel: 'My Father worketh hitherto, and I work'; or certainly whether they are by *tradux* (transmission), as Tertullian, Apollinaris, and the greatest part of the Westerns surmise; so that just as body is born from body, so soul is born from soul, and subsists in a condition similar to brute animals." Augustine, in *De libero arbitrio*, book 3, chapters 20 and 21, having passed over the question of whether souls proceeded from the proper substance of God, enumerates the remaining four in these words: "However, of these four opinions concerning the soul—whether they come by propagation; or are made new in each individual at birth; or, already existing somewhere, are sent into the bodies of the newborns by divine decree; or fall into them of their own accord—it would not be safe to affirm any one rashly." And Augustine himself, in his *Epistle to Jerome* on the nature of the soul, testifies that these are the very same opinions reported by Jerome. Certainly, throughout the whole course of his life, Augustine fluctuated, uncertain on this point. There survive his notable epistles to Jerome and Optatus, from which you may recognize his hesitation and wavering; which he also revealed in other places, such as *De Genesi ad litteram*, books 6 and 10, and elsewhere. In chapter 6 of this seventh book, he conjectures that God initially fashioned a certain spiritual matter from which human souls were subsequently formed and shaped: "Perhaps," he says, "the soul, before it became that very nature which is called soul—whose beauty is virtue or whose deformity is vice—could have had a spiritual matter appropriate to its kind, which was not yet soul; just as the earth, from which flesh was made, was already something, although it was not yet flesh." And in *Retractations* 1: "For what pertains to the origin of the soul, whence it is in the body, whether it is from that one soul which was first created when man was made into a living soul, or whether individual souls are made for individuals, I did not know then, nor do I know now."

XIII. We have seen when he thought souls were created; let us see what kind he judged them to be—whether endowed with bodies, or lacking body. This question might surely appear superfluous if what we have written concerning angels is attended to: for we have declared in a lengthy disputation that Origen attributed bodies to all natures endowed with reason. Therefore, we shall here touch upon a small matter briefly, which was deliberately passed over there and which we have brought together in this place; namely this: since Adamantius believed that souls consist with a body, let us see what kind of encorporeation he devised for them, whether like that of angels, or of a coarser one—one approaching more nearly to that of the demons, which we have shown to be more dense than the angelic. And we have said that rational natures are bound to coarser or finer bodies according to their merits: when souls, therefore, are inferior to angels in virtue and merit, it must be said that they are of a coarser corporeality than angels. Origen, *De principiis*, book 2, chapter 2, number 2: "As therefore we have said above, the material substance of this world, which is transformed from all things into all things, when it is drawn toward the lower regions, is formed into a coarser and more solid state of body, so that visible

species of the world and various things are distinguished: when, however, it ministers to more perfect and more blessed beings, it shines in the radiance of celestial bodies, and adorns either the angels of God or the sons of the resurrection with the vestments of a spiritual body: from all of which a diverse and varied state of one world is completed;’ and in the following chapter, number 3: ‘For it seems possible that rational natures, from which the faculty of free will is never taken away, may again be subjected to certain movements, the Lord himself granting this, lest perhaps if they always maintained an unchangeable state, they might be ignorant that it was by the grace of God and not by their own virtue that they were established in that end of blessedness. These, without a doubt, a variety and diversity of bodies will again accompany, from which the world is always adorned; nor will the world ever be able to subsist except through variety and diversity, which can in no way be effected outside of corporeal matter.’

XIV. However, in excusing this dogma, by which he assigns bodies to souls, contrary to what is believed in the Church today, that which is adduced is from the prologue of the books *De principiis*, number 9: ‘How God also ought to be understood, must be inquired: whether He is corporeal and shaped according to some habit, or of a different nature than bodies are; a point which is certainly not manifestly designated in our preaching. The same must also be inquired concerning Christ and the Holy Spirit; but it must likewise be inquired concerning every soul and every rational nature.’ These things which Origen urged to be inquired into were certainly not defined by the decrees of the Church. Hence, not only in the age of Origen did it seem the same to Tertullian regarding the soul, but also to very many Church Fathers thereafter: for instance, Hilary in *Commentary on Matthew*, can. 5, where he proclaims that ‘the species of souls, whether those possessing bodies or those wandering outside of bodies, none the less obtain a corporeal substance for their own nature’: and Ambrose in book II *On Abraham*, cap. 8, where he asserts that all things, besides the Holy Trinity, consist of bodies: and Cassian, *Conferences* VII, cap. 13, where he admits that souls are indeed spiritual, but denies that they are incorporeal: and before these, Theodotus, in the *Excerpts* added to the end of Clement of Alexandria, where he affirms that human souls are corporeal: and Methodius ^A himself, an adversary of Origen, in Photius, cod. 234, where he says that souls are *νοερὰ* bodies, divided into members distinctly visible by reason. Augustine himself, although hostile to this opinion, nevertheless confesses in some sense that the soul is a body (Epist. 28). But Faustus of Riez departed from him, and openly assigned bodies to souls; a mistake which Claudianus Mamertus punished in three books.

But what could serve better to excuse Origen is what was written by him in *Homily 4 on Genesis*, number 13, where he says that the man who was fashioned from the clay of the earth is a corporeal man; but he who was created in the image of God is spiritual and void of body; the former being the exterior man, the latter the interior. ‘But if any ^B think that he who was made in the image and likeness of God is corporeal, and they seem to introduce him in human form; to think this concerning God is most manifestly impious;’ and lib. I *De principiis*, cap. 1, num. 7: ‘But if there are any who think that the mind itself and the soul is a body, I would like them to answer me, how it receives the reasons and assertions of such matters, so difficult and so subtle? Whence comes its power of memory?’ and in *Exhortation to Martyrdom*, num. 47: ‘*"Moreover, man also loves life, having received an assurance regarding the substance of the rational soul, as having that which is akin to God; for both are intellectual and invisible, and, as the prevailing argument proves, incorporeal."*’ and lib. VI *Against Celsus*, num. 71, ‘*"But according to us, even while attempting to prove the rational soul superior to every corporeal nature, and an invisible and incorporeal substance;"*’ and in *Luke* XI, 34, from the *Catena* of the Mazarine library: ‘*"Consider whether it is possible to interpret allegorically, in accordance with the eye, the body as well, so that the whole soul, even if it does not happen to be corporeal, can now be said to be the body."*’ and presently: ‘*"And do not marvel if, in the passage: 'The lamp of thy body is the eye,' the body is taken allegorically for the soul, although by its own definition it is invisible and incorporeal; for it was made according to the image of the invisible God; since we find, allegorically, that the powers of the soul are also named in accordance with the bodily parts, though they are not themselves bodies."*’ And these things are of such a kind that they cannot be reconciled with the preceding ones, just as what he had written concern- ^C ing the angels, sometimes imposing a body upon them, sometimes taking it away. For we have said that Origen spoke variously of the bodies of the angels according to the diversity of the respect, and that he said they were embodied with respect to God, but lacking a body with respect to this visible world. Here, however, with respect to God himself, he says that souls lack a body, inasmuch as they were created according to His image. To these, Jerome, in *Epistle 59 to Avitus*, cap. 2, adduces these words of Origen from the end of book II *On First Principles*: ‘*“And when we have progressed so far that we are by no means flesh and bodies, nor perhaps even souls, but the mind and sense having come to perfection, and not clouded by any mist of perturbations, it will behold the rational and intelligible substances face to face;”*’ which Rufinus perverted in his own fashion. Jerome adduces a similar line of reasoning to that mentioned above from the same book of *First Principles* in chapter 3 of the same epistle, namely that it is necessary that one of the two must be the case: either that we become incorporeal if we strive to be like God, or that we must not hope for the likeness of God if we are always to have the same bodies: and in *Epistle 61 to Pammachius*, cap. 5, he says that Origen said in the books *De principiis*, ‘*“that the sun and the moon and the choir of all the stars are the souls of creatures that were once rational and incorporeal.”*’ Finally, Sophronius of Jerusalem ^D in his letter to Sergius of Constantinople, which is contained in the 11th action of the 6th synod, while objecting to other crimes of Origen, himself...

^A in saying: “But since the souls of men have by the grace of God cast off the corruption that naturally resides in every created nature, shall we therefore suspect that they existed before their bodies, or shall we conceive that they existed in some eternal life before the production and construction of the visible world, and say that they had a heavenly life, living an incorporeal and fleshless life at some time when the eternal life in heaven did not exist? This is what the mad Origen desires, and his fellow-mystics and fellow-thinkers Didymus and Evagrius, and the rest of his myth-loving faction.”

But it is not for the reason that the souls of men have, by the grace of God, repelled the corruption which naturally resides in all creatures, that we will suspect that they existed before their bodies, or suppose them to have been placed in some eternal life before the creation and composition of this visible world, or assert that they had a heavenly life, living an incorporeal or fleshless life at some time when the eternal life in heaven did not exist, as the insane Origen maintains, along with his fellow-members and followers Didymus and Evagrius, and the rest of the company that devises such fables. From these things it is evident how great Origen’s fluctuation on both sides has been; yet he seemed to lean more toward that side which ascribes a body to the soul. Certainly Stephen Gobarus the Tritheite, in Photius, cod. 232, while defending and attacking many dogmas (yet almost all were Origenist), in thirty places examines this: “That the souls of men are intellectual bodies, and are shaped according to the appearance seen outside the body; and from the opposite, that the soul is incorporeal, and is not subject to bodily forms.” ^B The souls of men are intelligible bodies, and are of the same shape as the outer form of the body; and, on the contrary, the soul is incorporeal, and is not subject to incorporeal figures.

XV. Furthermore, in attaching bodies to souls, Origen abandoned his leader and master Plato, who removed corporeality from souls; yet he had many others among the ancient philosophers whom he followed. Whoever wishes to know their dogmas concerning the soul, let him read Tertullian’s book *De Anima*, chapters 5, 6, and 7, and Nemesius’s book *De Natura Hominis*, chapter 2, and Cicero’s book IV, *Academic*. But it is not fitting to pass over a certain place of Methodius, sufficiently intricate and obscure, wherein he strives to overturn Origen’s decree concerning corporeal souls. It is found in Photius, cod. 234. Here he first recites the words of Origen, in which he says that if it be proved by demonstrations that the soul is by itself without a body, it must be confessed that it puts on an alien and adventitious body, similar to the former one with which it had been joined on earth. To these words Photius attaches the censure of Methodius: “To these,” he says, “the holy man speaks thus: ‘Another shape, similar to this ^C sensible one, having after its departure from here possessed the soul,’ he declares it to be incorporeal in some way, Platonically.” Which things are to be interpreted thus: “To these words the holy man” (Methodius, doubtless) “says: ‘The soul, after it has departed from here, possesses another shape similar to this sensible one,’ handing down that it is incorporeal, in a Platonist manner, he affirms it to be. These things Methodius says about Origen, not Photius about Methodius, who then proves that from this opinion of Origen it follows that the soul lacks a body; because if after its departure from life it needs a body like a vehicle and garment, inasmuch as it cannot be comprehended when naked, it is by no means corporeal (for otherwise the same argumentation would be valid which Augustine used against Vincentius Victor, who maintained that the soul was corporeal, in *De Anima*, book 1, chapter 5: ‘For since he contends that it is not a spirit but a body, what else does he wish to effect than that we do not consist of soul and body, but of two or even three bodies? For when he says that we consist of spirit, soul, and body, and asserts that all these three are bodies, he surely thinks that we are composed of three bodies. In which opinion, how great an absurdity follows him, I think should be demonstrated to him rather than to you.’)” Since, therefore, Origen added an adventitious body to the soul, Methodius concluded that he necessarily held it to be incorporeal. He proceeds further: “If the soul is incorporeal, it is immune from affections, and not subject to the movements of an alien or borrowed body. But if it is struck by the affections of the body, then it is not incorporeal. But it suffers evils or goods together with the body, as the testimonies of those who have shown themselves after death confirm: therefore the soul is corporeal.” Thus, therefore, Methodius drives Origen to an absurdity and ^D impossibility, demonstrating that according to his own words the soul is both corporeal and incorporeal. Finally, he reveals his own meaning, saying that souls are bodies gifted with the faculty of understanding, provided with members perceivable only by reason, not those which are clothed in an adventitious body, but which are bodies by their very nature. This is the true and genuine exposition of this passage, which I have therefore pursued, so that the reader may understand that it was given as a fault by his most bitter adversary to Adamantius, that he had added a body to the soul, which was indeed objected to by others; but that Methodius had, on the contrary, suggested a truer opinion in the same place, when he himself adhered to the worse one.

XVI. Here also, another passage of Methodius must be produced, taken from the book *De Resurrectione* by Photius, from which the one just praised has likewise been taken: “A man,” he says, “is named most truly according to nature, neither does he put a garment, nor the nature of the soul, into a body,” having followed the Platonists in this matter, as we have observed in question 9 concerning the angels, number 3.

^A nor an animal soul without a body; nor again a body without a soul; but that which is composed from the constitution of soul and body into one form of the good. But Origen said that the soul alone is man, just as Plato did. “Man,” he says, “is by his nature most truly said to be neither soul without a body, nor again body without a soul; but that which is fashioned from the coalition of soul and body into one beautiful form.” Origen, however, said that the soul alone is man, just as Plato did. This passage of Methodius, found in Epiphanius (haer. LXIV, cap. 17), also appears here, but truncated with these final words: “And Origen said that the soul alone is man, just as Plato did.” Whether Photius added the latter part on his own authority, or whether Epiphanius, who condensed the entire discussion of Methodius into a summary, removed it, is not easy to say. Add to this, ^B in his favor, that a certain Photian codex shows the opposite reading; namely, “nor did Origen.” Nor would it be surprising if Origen departed from Plato—from whom we have just seen him depart—when it came to the question of whether souls are corporeal or incorporeal.

It must be admitted, however, that the coherence of the Origenist doctrines compels us to affirm that Adamantius believed man consists of the soul alone. For if the body is a bond and a prison for the soul, which part can be considered to compose man? Although it seems everything else follows in Homily 29 on Luke, when he says: “Every man is subject to death; he, therefore, who by no means dies, is no longer a man, but is God;” which passage we brought forward above, when we were discussing whether he believed Christ ceased to be a man after He died. He affirms there that Christ is no longer a man, because He is no longer subject to death; whoever, therefore, cannot die, is not a man according to Origen’s opinion: but a human soul separated from the body cannot die: therefore, by Origen’s decree, the soul is not a man. He asserts this without ambiguity, interpreting these words of Psalm CXVIII, verse 50, in the Corderian Catena, page 802: *This hath comforted me in my humiliation.* “The future life,” he says, “is a resurrection, in so far as we learn that the soul is not its own life, nor true life, if indeed the soul is not a man. For if it possessed the truth of living in its own life, the dead one would not have required a resurrection; therefore, even the Lord called those who are dead ‘living unto God,’ as though they did not yet possess life, except in so far as they were in the power of God who makes them alive, and says that they have perished, if they do not attain to the resurrection.” These things collide head-on with what was said above, and it is necessary that one of the two accusations must fall.

Plato asserted in *Alcibiades I* that man consists of the soul alone, which Plotinus followed (Enn. lib. 1). Varro, following the ancient Academics, condemned this opinion, as is found in Augustine, *De civit. Dei*, lib. XIX, cap. 3. Indeed, certain heretics, instructed by Plato and following his opinion, felt the correction of Tertullian. For thus he says in his book *De [resurrect. carnis]*, cap. 40: “Finally, the heresies that have sprung up have judged two men, as set forth by the Apostle: the inner, that is, the soul; and the outer, that is, the flesh; assigning salvation to the soul, that is, to the inner man; but destruction to the flesh, that is, to the outer man, because it is written to the Corinthians: *For though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day* [II Cor. IV, 16]. Moreover, neither is the soul by itself man, which was afterwards inserted into the figure already called man; nor is flesh without a soul man, which is described as a corpse after the exile of the soul.” Origen agreed with these heretics, and after Origen, Arnobius, lib. II *Advers. gent.*: “For what are we men,” he says, “but souls enclosed in bodies?” And much later, Hugh of Saint Victor, lib. II *De sacrament. fidei*, part. 1, cap. 14, when he wished to prove that for that entire three-day period in which Christ lay in the sepulcher, the Word was a man: for he uses this reasoning, that man consists of the soul alone, and the Word was joined to the soul of Christ which was separated from the body, therefore the Word was nonetheless a man, just as when the soul was connected to the body. Finally, in the memory of our ancestors, the same opinion was maintained by Franciscus Georgius, tom. I, probl. 26, 27.

XVII. That belief and the claims concerning the pre-existence of souls were also the cause why he admitted *metensomatosis* (trans-corporation), as we have said: for since he believed that souls, according to the reason and manner of their sins or virtues, could either attain the dignity of angels, or be joined to the grosser bodies of men or demons, and, using their perpetual freedom of will, could act rightly or wrongly again and again, it was brought about by the necessary consequence of his arguments that he confessed that souls could occupy the bodies of men or demons again and again. And that is the much-sung, so often exploded *metensomatosis* of Origen, as one might say, trans-incorporation; which can also be called *metempsychosis*, which you might render as trans-inanimation. Gregory of Nyssenus saw the connection of both dogmas beautifully in a letter to the patriarch Menas, recorded by Justinian, and in Origen he rebukes it. Now, just as this word, *metempsychosis*, is commonly used in two ways—either for the transition of the soul from a human body into a human body; or for the migration of the soul from a human body into the body of a plant or beast, which Pythagoras championed, and which Iamblichus refuted in a special book:—so according to Origen’s doctrine, one must distinguish the migration of a rational soul from a celestial, human, or demonic body into the body of a beast, and vice versa; from the migration of a rational soul which is perfected among celestial, human, and demonic bodies, excluding beasts or any other thing. And it cannot be denied that Origen maintained this latter, as it is suited to his principles. Whence an anonymous author in Photius’ *codex* CXVII reports that he was blamed because he said: “That the soul of the Savior, the…

soul of Adam itself, had been.” I accept this as: the soul which had been Adam’s, transitioned into the Savior’s body many centuries later. Whence also Theophilus says that Origen taught that man dies very frequently; which I understand to mean nothing else but that souls very often pass from bodies into bodies, and to be ^A *metensomatized*.

XVIII. But many of the ancients vociferously claim that he held to the former *metempsychosis*, which is Pythagorean. They relate that this charge was leveled against him by Pamphilus in his *Apology*, and by the frequently praised anonymous author in Photius. Jerome—whose words we have cited above from *Epist.* 59 to Avitus, chapters 1, 2, and 4, and from book 1 of his *Apology against Rufinus*, chapter 4—accused Origen in the name of that same error which he says is held in book 1 of *De Principiis*. Justinian copied the very passages of Origen at the end of his letter *to Mennas*, which, since they do not appear in these books today, it is likely were suppressed by Rufinus. Philastrius spared Origen’s name, but he touched upon the matter itself and refuted it with this argument: that after the soul is released from the body, it is led by an angel to a fixed place, so that it may be adorned according to its merits. ^B Regarding his own essence and his own first principles, he would not have so mocked the soul that comes into a mortal body, not according to Plato’s *metensomatosis*, but according to some other, more sublime theory. “If he (Celsus) had understood with his mind what the condition of the soul in eternal life would be, and what one ought to think about its nature and first principles, it would not have seemed so ridiculous to him that it should enter into a mortal body—not by migrating from body to body, as Plato would explain, but in another and far more sublime manner.” In the same work, *Against Celsus*, book 5, no. 49, he reports that Christians reject the Pythagorean myth regarding the *metensomatized* soul. But he asserts more firmly in book 8, no. 30: “We by no means say that there is a *metensomatosis* of the soul, and its descent as far as irrational animals; clearly, not even in the way Pythagoras does, even if we sometimes abstain from animals, we will not consume their flesh.” ^C “Nor, indeed, do we judge that the soul migrates from body to body, and that it is cast down even to the condition of brute animals. Therefore, even if we sometimes abstain from animals, we do not loathe their flesh for the same reason as Pythagoras.” And in book 5 *on the Epistle to the Romans*, no. 1, page 549: “But Basilides, failing to notice that these things ought to be understood according to natural law, has dragged the apostolic discourse toward inept and impious fables concerning the dogma of *metensomatosis*—that is, that souls are poured into other and different bodies—and he tries to prove this from this saying of the Apostle. For the Apostle said, he says, ‘For I was alive once without the law’*; and the rest, which I leave for the diligent reader to examine.” The perverse interpretation of this Pauline passage, and the Pythagorean confirmation of *metensomatosis*, he condemns again in book 6 *on the Epistle to the Romans*, no. 8, page 583. He asserts in *Proverbs of Solomon*, vol. VII, *on Matthew*, page 441 (which testimonies lie in the *Apology of Pamphilus*), and in vol. X *on Matthew*, no. 21, page 468, and vol. XI, no. 19, page 506, that the *metensomatosis* is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and the ecclesiastical faith. He also pursues this argument at length in vol. VI *on John*, no. 7, ^D inquiring whether the soul of Elijah migrated into the body of John; and even more copiously in vol. XII *on Matthew*, no. 1, page 567, 568 and following, ventilating the same question, and opposing *metensomatosis* with this reasoning: the world, he says, will never end if souls enter bodies on account of sins; for if that were the case, since souls can always sin by the freedom of their will, they would always enter bodies; therefore, bodies would always be present; therefore, the world would never end. But if, as the ages pass, some souls, immune from sin, no longer need bodily chains after a long curriculum of years, and the number of souls gradually diminishes, the world would be reduced to very few souls; and when they have attained perfection, it would finally cease from the lack of souls to enter bodies; which contradicts Scripture.

XIX. Justinian rightly attended to this accusation when he transcribed the very words of Origen in which that absurd and impious dogma is contained; for in so many frequent and open testimonies elsewhere did Adamantius repudiate and condemn it, that I can scarcely bring myself to believe that a man—I do not say one flourishing in the highest erudition and genius, but even one not entirely imbecilic and insane—would have pronounced such repugnant and contrary things with one and the same mouth. For in this very work which Justinian praises, *De Principiis*, book 1, last chapter, no. 4, he discourses thus: “We certainly judge that those things are by no means to be received which are commonly requested or asserted by some, that is, that souls come to such a departure from themselves that, forgetful of their rational nature and dignity, they are even devolved into the order of irrational animals, whether beasts or cattle.” I omit the rest out of a desire for brevity, although they pertain to the matter. And in book 1 *On the Resurrection*, which passage Pamphilus exhibits: “But just as,” he says, “it is not to be thought that a sinner is about to receive an animal’s body, whether of birds or fish; so neither is it to be hoped that those who rise in glory will receive the form of the sun, or of the moon, or of the stars: but it is to be understood that these things were said by the Apostle for the sake of example, so that it may be indicated by means of these that some, according to their merits, will be more honorable and more glorious, being about to obtain also more blessed dwellings; while the status of others, who are most unworthy and abject, will be such on account of the wickedness of their deeds, that it may be worthy of comparison even to mute animals.” If anyone should argue against this, that it was either perverted by Rufinus or inserted, what will he counter against that which is from book 4 *Against Celsus*, no. 17: “But if he (Celsus) had understood what follows for a soul in eternal life, and what one ought to think about the essence of it, and about its first principles, he would not have so mocked the soul that comes into a mortal body, not according to Plato’s *metensomatosis*, but according to some other, more sublime theory.”

Nevertheless, we can support the cause of Adamantius with other defenses, such as those provided for us by Pamphilus, who states that these words were falsely attributed to Origen, and that they had been brought forward not from his own person, but from that of an adversary; and furthermore, that he concluded his dissertation with these words: “But let these things, as far as they pertain to us, not be dogmas, but said for the sake of discussion, and let them be rejected. They were said for this reason alone, that the question might not appear to have been raised without being discussed.” Jerome also repeats this and acknowledges it in Epistle 59, to Avitus, chapter 1. Moreover, it is useful for the defense of Origen that he wrote in *Commentary on Matthew*, Vol. XI, no. 17, p. 506, that *metensomatosis* is to be admitted if by it the soul is understood to be so changed and converted that, either through depraved morals and will it becomes not naturally, but similarly, like a beast, or through virtues and piety it appears once again to become possessed of reason. The same sentiment ^A is contained in another passage from the book of Solomon’s *Proverbs*, which Pamphilus wove into his *Apology*. Philastrius, in *Heresies* 120, approves of this with his own assessment and assent. Gregory of Nyssa discusses this same point more extensively and elegantly in the aforementioned dispute, which Justinian inserted into his letter to Mennas. ^B Nor is it any more likely to me that Origen held any other opinion concerning this *metensomatosis*, by which souls are said to pass into the bodies of beasts, because this was the very *metempsychosis* of some Platonists. We offer Nemesius as an authority, chapter 2: “For Plato,” he says, “said that spirited, irascible, and rapacious souls are clothed in the bodies of wolves and lions; and that those occupied with licentiousness take on the bodies of asses and similar creatures. Some understood the lions, wolves, and asses literally, while others perceived that he had spoken metaphorically, indicating characters through animals.” And ^C soon after: “Iamblichus, running in the opposite direction to these, says that there is a species of soul for each species of animal, which is to say different species. A book was written by him, a single volume entitled, ^D *That metempsychoses do not occur from humans into speechless creatures, nor from speechless animals into humans, but from animals into animals, and from humans into humans.* And it seems to me that he, for this reason, hit the mark better, not only regarding Plato’s opinion but the truth itself. For when Plato said that irascible, furious, and rapacious souls take on the bodies of wolves and lions, and that those who had lived intemperately assume the bodies of asses or others of that kind, some understood lions, wolves, and asses literally; while others judged that he had said this figuratively, indicating morals through animals.” And soon after: “Iamblichus, however, running in the contrary direction to these, says that there is a species of soul for each species of animal, which is to say different species. From there, therefore, a singular book was written by him, entitled: *Migrations of souls do not occur from humans into brutes, nor from brute animals into humans; but from animals into animals, and from humans into humans.* And to me he seems, above the rest, to have attained best not only Plato’s opinion, but the truth itself.”

XX. Since Origen had accepted the *pre-existence* of souls from Plato, he also accepted their *metensomatosis* from the same. But Plato affirmed that souls pass from human bodies into human bodies; Origen, however, said that souls migrate from celestial bodies into human, and from these into demonic: and as Plato said that the souls of men may become the souls of cattle insofar as, addicted to wickedness, they become like cattle, so Origen pronounced the same thing. Pythagoras had preceded Plato, but he had admitted true transitions of souls not only from human bodies into human, but even from these into those of wild beasts. Servius also affirms that another difference existed between Pythagorean and Platonic doctrine on that line of Virgil, *Aeneid* III, lines 67, 68: “And we consign the soul to the tomb.”

“Plato,” he says, “calls the soul perpetual, and says it makes a transition to different bodies immediately according to the merits of its former life. Pythagoras, however, does not say *metempsychosis*, but *palingenesia*, that is, a return, but after a time.” In this, leaving Pythagoras aside, Adamantius also follows Plato. But Paganinus Gaudentius, in chapter 31 of his little book *On the Comparison of the Dogmas of Origen with the Philosophy of Plato*, discussing Origen’s *metempsychosis*, says that his opinion differs from the Pythagorean in that he recognizes punishments to be paid in subterranean places for crimes; whereas Pythagoras abolished the underworld and the punishments of the underworld, which is false: “But even he himself says in his writing that after two hundred and seven years he had come from Hades to be among men.” “But he himself also,” says Laertius in *Pythagoras*, “says in his writings that after two hundred and seven years he comes from the underworld to men.” For Pythagoras and Plato had been imbued with this insane doctrine of *metempsychosis* by Egyptian masters; for Servius, in the same place, and Clement of Alexandria in *Stromata* VI, record that it flowed from there. This, today, some Americans most obstinately retain, as do most Chinese, and as many among the Indians as have not given their name to Muhammad; and so they cautiously abstain from eating animate beings. Whether it passed from the Indians to the Egyptians or from the latter to the former is not a matter of small inquiry. Fed by these authors, it infected the minds of the Simonians, Basilidians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Gnostics, and Manichaeans, and among them it has often been refuted both by others and by Origen. It also pleased the ancient Gauls, as recorded by Caesar in *De bello Gallico*, book VI. Nor did even these last ones...

^A in times past restrain themselves, for Jerome Cardan, a man of unbridled genius, introduced a certain repeated and recurring *palingenesia* in his *Dialogue on Death*.

QUESTION VII. OF FREE WILL, GRACE, AND PREDESTINATION.

I. The opinion of Origen regarding free will and the grace of God is proposed in summary. II. It is explained more fully. III. In what he placed the freedom of the will. IV. He did not distinguish the state of unfallen nature from the state of fallen nature. V. Whether, and how, he thought the free will could govern good and evil impulses stirred up in the soul. VI. Who is that spirit against whom Paul says the flesh lusts? VII. Whether the soul can be said to be intermediate between spirit and flesh. VIII. It is asked whether any good affections proceed naturally from the flesh; and regarding the law of nature. IX. Many Fathers felt that something good could arise from the nature of the flesh. X. Origen attributes too much to the law of nature. XI. Just as he does to the law of Moses. XII. His opinion is investigated concerning the assistance of grace, which he believed was granted to men by God, on account of deeds rightly performed before. XIII. And in this mortal life. XIV. He did not recognize an exciting grace. XV. He was led to this opinion by wrongly interpreting certain passages of Scripture. XVI. Which is deservedly rebuked. XVII. A few things collected in favor of Origen. XVIII. Whether, and how, he thought perfect men were able not to sin. XIX. On account of this dogma he is chastised. XX. Whether he supposed that after grace is received there is no room left for repeated repentance. XXI. Whether he felt that divine precepts could not be obeyed. XXII. Aids are offered on behalf of Origen. XXIII. Whether he affirmed that men are made righteous by faith alone. XXIV. His dogma concerning original sin and the end of baptism is investigated. XXV. It is disputed what pleased him concerning predestination. XXVI. Here too he suffers punishment in some respects, but is helped in others.

I. Now, however, concerning free will, and what is innate to the soul itself; and concerning the grace of God which is infused into the soul, we must explore what pleased Origen; for he does not run through this question with an unoffending step, attributing too much to the will ^B of the rational mind, and infringing upon the assistance of divine grace: so much so that the Pelagians, and their little brothers the Massilians, are said to have drawn their heresy from his writings. Hence Jerome, in his *Epistle to Ctesiphon*, chapter 2, pronounces the doctrine of Pelagius to be a small branch of Origen; and in book I *against Pelagius*, chapter 7, says that the master of the Pelagians was *τὸν ἀρχαῖον* [the ancient one], namely the author of the work *Περὶ ἀρχῶν* [On Principles], and in book III of the same work, at the end of the last chapter, he calls Origen the darling of the Pelagians. Hence also Theodore Beza, a sworn adversary of Origen, in his *Annotations on Romans* 1:1, says that no one has more opposed the grace of God, according to Pelagius, than Origen. Cornelius Jansenius, Bishop of Ypres, undertook to prove this in whole chapters, accurately comparing Origen’s words and decrees with the Pelagians and Semipelagians, and copiously demonstrating their connection to one another.

II. And before we bring these things to our scales, we must above all repeat here what we have lightly touched upon before: namely, that minds, when they were created by God, were furnished with free will, the faculty, that is, of choosing either vice or virtue. Just as they used these, so they either rose to higher orders or were cast down to lower ones. Whatever state they may have attained, they nevertheless enjoyed the same power, to act either rightly or wrongly according to their own pleasure, and were consequently subject to either rewards or punishments; nor would it ever happen that either that faculty or the use of the faculty should perish in their souls, even if they were sometimes turned away from evils or goods by charity or stubbornness.

These things, since we have skimmed over them superficially ^C above, now come to be unfolded more clearly and examined with attentive eyes; and it must be asked whether the liberty of the rational nature is whole or diminished; whether it has need of any aids of divine grace, and is helped; and in what way he thought this to occur. He therefore felt that the freedom of the will consisted in a certain indifferent faculty of acting well or badly, and that it was implanted in minds the moment they were created by God, remaining ever whole and vigorous; and that it was in no way diminished, and that its full use persisted in the blessed and the damned; that the soul is indeed impelled by good or evil powers toward virtues or toward vices, but by no means forced or subjected to any necessity. You will find these dogmas scattered in many places, but especially in the first chapter of book III of *De principiis*, in which he placed the principal foundations of his doctrine concerning the freedom of the will. For there he teaches that we are indeed variously impelled and incited by external causes; but that our assent depends upon our reason and our will. ^D After he demonstrated this by the authority of nature itself, he confirms it with a manifold heap of passages from Holy Scripture. Then he resolves the testimonies brought from there to impugn the freedom of the will, having exploded the delusions of the Valentinians, Basilidians, and Marcionites, who imagined different natures of men, some destined for life, others for death, and that the God who is the maker of the world was harsh and severe, while another, the good Father of Christ, was different. And finally he describes the operation of divine grace at length, of which we shall speak later. In the following chapter, number 4, he shows that while contrary powers suggest evils to us, or divine virtue inclines us toward the right, the free power of the will remains nonetheless vigorous. In which, he often repeats and inculcates elsewhere. Moreover, the passages by which he proves that souls, in whatever state they may have arrived, use the liberty of their will, besides those we brought forward above when we were dealing with the liberty of the angels—which I would wish to be consulted again—are especially these: book II *Περὶ ἀρχῶν*, chapter 3, number 3: "For it seems possible that rational natures, from whom the faculty of free will is never taken away, may again be subjected to some impulses, the Lord himself granting this, lest if they always held an immovable state, they might be ignorant that they were constituted in that end of blessedness by the grace of God and not by their own virtue"; and book III, chapter 1, number 21, page 156: "From which we opine, since indeed, as we have frequently said, immore-

BOOK II, CHAPTER II, QUESTION VII. OF THE ORIGENIANS

such is the soul and eternal, that in many and endless spaces throughout immense and diverse ages it is possible that it should either descend from the highest good to the lowest evils, or be restored from the ultimate evils to the highest goods; and chap. 3 of the same book, no. 5: "For the soul always has free will, even when it is in this body, and even when it is outside the body; and the freedom of the will is moved always either toward good things or toward evil things; nor can the rational sense, that is, the mind or soul, ever be without some motion, whether good or evil." Furthermore, [Homily 43] in Num., no. 7, he hands down in express words that the use of their free will is permitted to the demons, and that if this were diminished by God, then by this very fact that [demon] would already have been condemned; but he believed that this had not yet occurred, as we have seen. And these, then, are the principles of the Origenian doctrine on liberty, which labor under their own faults, which we shall set forth in the open; but we shall also set forth the accusations hurled by others, and, if the case should so require, we shall refute them, so that we may deal with equal justice in all matters involving our Adamantius, lest we seem to contribute more to favor or to malevolence than to truth. But let us warn the reader in the meantime that, whenever we speak of Origenian liberty, it is not to be understood merely as that which humans enjoy; but also that which angels and demons enjoy: for he asserted six hundred times that the right and use of free will is equal among all of them.

^A nor does he say that they dissent from the nature of free will; nor does he seize upon their published words, by which they demonstrate that it is placed in the power of choosing what is good or evil, for this reason, though he vehemently attacks and refutes it for other reasons. He also everywhere opposes freedom to necessity: but he maintains, without any beating around the bush, that because a man can live well or badly, he is therefore his own master and possesses freedom, in bk. III contra Faustum Manich., chap. 5: "And we, indeed, place the genesis of no man under the fate of the stars, so that we may vindicate the free will of the will, by which one lives either well or badly, from every bond of necessity on account of the just judgment of God." And no less does what he has in chap. 2 of the book *De gratia et libero arbitrio* to Valentinus contribute to this, where, after he has brought forward this remarkable passage from Ecclesiasticus ^B in support of the human's liberty: "He made him from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel. If you will, you shall keep the commandments, and perform acceptable fidelity. He has set fire and water before you: stretch forth your hand to what you will. Before man is life and death; and that which pleases him shall be given to him," he immediately adds this: "Behold, the free will of the human will is very clearly expressed." Then he draws out a long series of testimonies from the New and Old Testament to prove the same thing, in which God declares to man that He does not want him to turn to vices; and at length he closes these with these words: "Indeed, where it is said, Do not do this, and do not do that, and where in divine warnings the work of the will is required for doing something and for not doing something, the free will is demonstrated sufficiently."

III. Cornelius Jansenius, in the book titled *Augustinus*, after having proved in the second book of the first volume from the words of Pelagius and the Pelagians that they had decreed that the freedom of the human will consists in a certain indifferent power, of choosing and selecting one thing out of many, which they called "possibility" in one word, then writes in the sixth book following, chaps. 13 and 15, that the Pelagian heresy was prefigured and delineated by Origen; and that this definition of liberty flowed from his fountains into the puddles of Pelagius, and that the whole Pelagian heresy depends on it. That would indeed be believable if Origen had been the sole architect and proponent of this opinion before Pelagius; but, to omit the clear voice of nature, which urges us that we are free when we can both act and not act, and can embrace what we have judged to be best out of many things in our mind; to omit the authority of the ancient philosophers, who, having diligently examined the nature of liberty, declared that it is placed in this very thing of which we have spoken; there could have been in support of the Origenian opinion, not only the consensus of Gregory Nazianzen, not of Ambrose and Hilary, and other Fathers whose testimonies others have collected; not the canons of the Council of Orange, nor those of Trent; but also he whom Jansenius wishes to be the sole arbiter of this struggle, Augustine, and whom he asserts in explicit words to have left behind no traces of this opinion in tom. III, lib. vi, chaps. 8 and 9. For as often as he either attacks Pelagius, or enters into the lists with Julian, or compares his position with theirs, he does not say that he himself disagrees with them concerning the nature of free will; nor does he seize upon their published words, by which they demonstrate that it is placed in the power of choosing what is good or evil, for this reason, though he vehemently attacks and refutes it for other reasons. ^C

It is, moreover, surprising how Jansenius, having forgotten his earlier statements, should have contended to prove, tom. III, lib. vi, chap. 12, by the authority of this same Origen, that necessity does not conflict with liberty, but only coercion. He uses, indeed, a passage from the prologue of the books *Περὶ ἀρχῶν*, no. 5: "And it is also defined in the ecclesiastical preaching that every rational soul is endowed with free will and choice: that it also has a struggle against the devil, and his angels, and opposing powers, from the fact that they endeavor to burden it with sins; but we, if we live correctly and advise ourselves well, strive to free ourselves from such a burden. Whence it is also a consequence to understand that we are not subjected to necessity, so that in every way, even if we are unwilling, we are compelled to do either evil or good things. For if we are of our own will, some powers can perhaps attack us toward certain sins, and others help us toward salvation; yet we are not compelled by necessity to do either rightly or wrongly: which they think happens who say that the course and motions of the stars are the cause of human deeds, not only of those which happen outside the freedom of the will, but of those which are placed in our power." Jansenius thinks that by this word of compelling necessity, the force is signified ^D

^A which alone infringes upon freedom, although Origen understood by it the necessity which those who maintain the course and motion of the stars say is the cause of human actions. Yet the astrologers introduced not a compelling necessity, but a simple and voluntary one to human actions; therefore, Origen in this place opposed a simple and voluntary necessity to freedom. You will maintain a similar location of Origen against a similar objection with the same response. Behold it from Book VI on the Epistle to the Romans, no. 3: "It is evident, therefore, from these words, where Paul says: 'To whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are to whom you obey, whether of sin or of righteousness' (Rom. vi, 16), that we ourselves yield ourselves of our own accord, with nothing compelling us, to serve either sin or righteousness through our obedience: and therefore we ought always to be mindful of these things, lest we put forward vain complaints in excuse of sin, that the devil made us sin, or that the necessity of nature, or a fatal condition, or the course of the stars causes it." Coercion is likewise to be understood here as that which a fatal condition or the course of the stars brings about; which is, in truth, nothing other than a simple necessity, and one joined with the will. We use this response, which was set in opposition to the petitions of Jansenius by Dionysius Petavius in Book III, *On the Creation of the Six Days*, the more willingly because whatever Origen has handed down here and there concerning free will, he proposed almost entirely against the Valentinians, Marcionites, and other heretics who were championing fate and the necessity fittingly derived from the stars. Jansenius could also draw to his own opinion that statement of Origen's from Book I on the Epistle to the Romans, no. 18, where, the soul being placed as it were at a crossroads between flesh and spirit, and the angels who are the patrons of each way, he says: "For the matter is not transacted by force, nor is the soul inclined to either side by necessity." But Jansenius rightly understood that his explanation would be weakened by the following: "Otherwise, neither guilt nor virtue could be ascribed to it; nor would the choice of good deserve a reward, nor the turning away from evil a punishment: ^B but freedom of its own will is preserved for it in all things, that it may incline to whichever it wishes, as it is written (Eccl. xv, 17, 18): 'Behold, I have set before thy face life and death, and fire and water: for if the soul can choose either part, it is certainly not subjected to any necessity.' For the sake of confirming his response, and making the Origenian opinion even more openly declared, Petavius adds some of his testimonies from Homily 20 on Numbers, by which, although the interior grace calls and invites, it is shown that no necessity is imposed upon us, but that the will can be carried to the contrary.

IV. But as Origen kept to the right path in defining the freedom of human will, he did not likewise show enough examination and caution in distinguishing between the freedom of nature in its integrity and nature that has fallen; for you will find nowhere any distinction made by him between either freedom, and he often attributes an equal faculty and use of free will to any nature whatsoever that is endowed with reason, whatever order it may have finally attained, as was said above. And this was one of the chief errors of the Pelagians, that man today is born possessing equal powers of free will, and instructed with the same righteousness, wisdom, and other gifts, as Adam was ^C when he was created by God. (40) However, if we wish to brazen it out and defend Origen from any danger whatsoever, we will be able to apply this exception; although human powers of freedom were broken and weakened through the fall of Adam, ^D and thus it is said that they have declined, unless it be he who once stood in the right way. Whence it appears that that first work of rational nature, which was made by God, was right, and placed in the right way by the gift of the Creator Himself. But because it turned its course from this way to the left hand of sin, it is now said to have declined rightfully: as the first man Adam is a case in point, who, having been ill-advised by the fraud of the serpent, turned from the right way of paradise to the crooked and tortuous paths of mortal life.

However, he still preserved the integrity of that liberty itself; nor consequently was there any distinction marked by Origen between the liberty that preceded Adam’s fall and that which followed it, because it looked to the pure nature of liberty, not to its strength and power.

V. From this opinion of Origen regarding man’s indifferent propensity toward good or evil, it is fitting and consequent that a man, instructed with this faculty, provided that the assistance of grace be present, can resist wicked desires, or yield to them, and can either reject or embrace virtue. "An evident reason, therefore," he says in book III *On First Principles*, ch. 2, n. 2, "is that just as in good things human resolve alone, by itself, is imperfect for the consummation of the good; for it is led to everything perfect by divine assistance: so also in contrary matters, we receive certain beginnings, and as it were certain seeds of sins, from these things which are naturally had in use," etc. Then, toward the end of the chapter, n. 4: "Nothing else should be thought to happen to us from the very things that are suggested to our heart, whether good or evil, except a stirring alone, and an incitement provoking us either toward goods or toward evils. But it is possible for us, when a malignant power has begun to incite us to evil, to cast away from ourselves wicked suggestions, and to resist base persuasions, and to conduct ourselves with no guilt at all. And again, it is possible that when a divine power has provoked us to better things, we may not follow, the power of free will being preserved for us in both cases." ^B The Bishop of Ypres attacks this bitterly in his *De Pelag. hær.*, book II, ch. 4, and book IV, ch. 7, and book VI, ch. 4, where he complains that Origen held "that by the nod of reason we oppose the movements of the mind inciting us to good or evil, and that they are governed toward goods or evils," and says that this doctrine is pure Pelagianism. If Origen intended that the mind could of itself be moved toward the good, without the previous incitement of God’s grace, or that even deprived of the help of assisting grace, it could of itself resist the lust driving us to evil, then that error is indeed to be condemned. But if he joined the impulse and assistance of grace, then in both cases it is free from fault; for free will holds the command over the evil movements that concupiscence generates, and the good ones that grace produces, and either obeys the evils, inclined thither by its own and innate impulses, or raises itself up to the goods, strengthened by divine grace. Whether Origen, if anyone were to ask me, actually meant this, I would answer in good faith that he admitted the assistance of grace, but not truly a previous incitement, as I shall discuss more fully below: "In good matters," he says, "human resolve alone, by itself, is imperfect for the consummation of the good; for it is led to everything perfect by divine assistance." Had he added, "and is excited," all would be well; since it is settled by the clear decree of the Council of Trent, sess. 6, ch. 5, and can. 4, that man freely assents to and cooperates with the exciting and assisting grace of God, and does not do nothing himself when he receives that inspiration, in that he can indeed reject it.

VI. In the fifth chapter of the second book of *De Pelag. hær.*, Jansenius also attacks these words of Origen from book I *On the Epistle to the Romans*, n. 18: "Frequently in the Scriptures we find, and it has often been discussed by us, that man is said to be spirit, and body, and soul: but when it is said that the flesh lusts against the spirit, but the spirit against the flesh (Gal. V, 17), the soul is without doubt placed in the middle, which either acquiesces in the desires of the spirit or is inclined toward the concupiscences of the flesh." Jansenius grieves that he "calls" that spirit, against which the flesh lusts, "not in the Catholic manner the Holy Spirit, but in the Pelagian manner the law of nature, which we bear imprinted on our minds by the institution—as he is accustomed to speak—of the Creator" (these are his own words), "and which" (the words are Origen’s in book II *On the Epistle to the Romans*, n. 9, and book VI, n. 8) "is written in the hearts of men, not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; which teaches everyone what must be done, what must be avoided, and through which a man knows his sin; and which persuades men not to commit murder, not to commit adultery, not to steal, not to bear false witness, to honor father and mother, and things of this kind; perhaps also that God is the one creator of all;" according to that of Paul, Rom. II, 14, 15: "For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law, these having not the law are a law to themselves: who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another." Furthermore, those seeds of goodness were once turned away from the path of men’s lives, where by grace it is repaired, and by the teaching of the Word of God it is restored, it undoubtedly renders that odor which the first creator God had implanted, but the guilt of sin had taken away." Therefore, Origen acknowledges the nature of free will both before and after Adam’s fall, but not the same powers nor equal strength for attaining the good. Hence it follows that he did not locate the liberty of fallen man in an indifference of propensity toward good or evil, but in an indifference of power to act well or ill. Power is one thing, propensity is another; according to Origen, there is in every state the same power of acting well or ill, but not the same and equal propensity toward the good.

^A implanted in our minds, which Origen asserts in the testimonies recently brought forward. Jansenius clearly rejects this in the places indicated above, but especially in volume I, book IV, chapter 7.

It is certain that these words of Paul in Gal. v, 17, "For the flesh lusts against the spirit; but the spirit against the flesh," are referred by most of the Fathers to the Holy Spirit; but it is also certain that many have wished to signify by the name of spirit here that higher part of the soul which they call the *hegemonikon* (ruling faculty). I could bring forward many, if I had to fight by weight of numbers, but one who is greater than all exception shall be cited: Augustine. He, in book II *De Genesi contra Manichæos*, chapter 11, says that the marriage of Adam and Eve is an image of that spiritual marriage which binds the rational part of man with the animal; then he says: "Then, so that each one may rightly rule over this part of himself, and become as it were marriageable within himself, so that the flesh does not lust against the spirit, but is subjected to the spirit—that is, so that carnal concupiscence does not oppose reason, but rather, by obeying, ceases to be carnal—he has need of perfect wisdom." He draws these things into the same sense in book I *De doctrina Christi*, chapter 24, and in book XI *De Genesi ad litteram*, chapter 12. I do not repeat the words on account of their prolixity. And truly, in an Origenian manner, in his 81 Questions, question 70: "The flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. For these resist and oppose each other by turns, so that you do not do whatever you will. It happens, therefore, through perfect sanctification, that every carnal appetite is subjected to our illuminated and vivified spirit, that is, to the good will."

^B VII. From these things it is concluded that the lower part of the soul, which is called the soul simply (as the higher is called the spirit), is in a certain way the middle point between spirit and flesh; that is, between the persuasions of the spirit and the incentives of the flesh. "When it is said," Origen says in book I *in Epist. ad Rom.*, number 18, "that the flesh lusts against the spirit, but the spirit against the flesh," the soul is undoubtedly placed in the middle, which may either acquiesce in the desires of the spirit or be inclined toward the concupiscences of the flesh. To which he adds, and proves by various places in Scripture, that angels—the fosterers and supporters of both ways, that of the flesh and that of the spirit—assist men, and that Christ himself, as it were, paves the way of the spirit for men: "The Lord himself also favors it," he says, "since he even lays down his life for his sheep. But from both sides of the favor, discipline is observed. For the soul is not moved by force, nor is it inclined by necessity toward either side: otherwise, neither guilt nor virtue could be ascribed to it; neither would the choice of good deserve a reward, nor the turning to evil punishment; but the liberty of the will is preserved for it in all things, so that it may incline to whichever it wills, just as it is written: Behold, I have placed before your face life and death, and fire and water." The same is expressed no less clearly in book III *Περὶ ἀρχῶν*, chapter 4, number 2.

^C Jansenius also argues against these things regarding error in volume I, book II, chapter 5: "Nor indeed," he says, "was this exposition of that apostolic passage—regarding natural good and evil affections arising from natural law and the flesh, and regarding the soul as a median between the two—a view held only by Pelagius, Cassian, and Origen, but of all the Pelagians whatsoever, whose writings I have been able to see." Thus, however, Jerome in his *Epistle to the Galatians* v, 17: "The flesh is delighted with the present and the brief; the spirit with the everlasting and the future. The soul stands in the middle of this discord, having indeed in its own power the good and the evil, to will and not to will; and a little later: "So that this may be made more manifest, let us take an example: the flesh is earth; the soul is gold; the spirit is fire."

But why have we brought forward the authority of Augustine, [to prove] that that spirit which is the adversary of the flesh is often taken for the *hegemonikon* of the soul, or indeed for the soul itself, when that can be concluded from so many places in Scripture? As for instance that in Matthew xxvi, 41: "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak"; and that in I Cor. v, 5: "I have judged that such a one should be delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ"; and that in II Cor. vii, 1: "Let us cleanse ourselves from all pollution of the flesh and spirit"; and that in Ephes. iv, 20-23: "But you have not so learned Christ, if indeed you have heard him, and have been taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus. To put off according to the former conversation the old man, who is corrupted according to the desires of error. And be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man"; and that in I Thessal. v, 23: "May the God of peace sanctify you in all things: that your whole spirit, and soul, and body may be kept blameless in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ"; and that in Hebr. iv, 12: "For the word of God is living and effectual, and more piercing than any two-edged sword: and reaching unto the division of the soul and the spirit, and of the joints also and the marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intentions of the heart." In which the spirit can be taken as nothing other than the soul, or the *hegemonikon* of the soul, in the manner Origen understood it.

^D As long as gold is in the earth, it loses its own name, and is called by the earth with which it is mixed. But when it has been separated from the soil and has received both the appearance and the name of gold, it is called gold, but it is not yet tested. But if it has been refined by fire and tested, then it receives the splendor of gold and the dignity of its adornment. So also the soul, existing between the human and the fire, that is, between the flesh and the spirit, when it has surrendered itself to the flesh, is called flesh; when to the spirit, it is called spirit." So also Augustine, in book X *De Genesi ad litteram*, chapter 12, [describes] the soul as placed in the middle, sometimes being depressed by the flesh to vices, sometimes...

^A lifted up to virtue by the spirit. But just as Origen said that good and bad angels entice us to both sides, virtue and vice (in book I on the Epistle to the Romans, no. 18, interpreting the place of Paul which is had in Galatians 5:17), so after Augustine argued these very words of Paul which we brought up above from the LXXXIII Questions, quest. 70, he adds then: "Now as long as there is in us that which resists the good will, we need the aid of God through good men and good angels, so that as long as our wound is being healed, it may not trouble us so much that it destroys even the good will." And since these things are so clearly expressed in Augustine, it is truly surprising why Jansenius, having spent so many years in the reading of Augustine, should have accused Origen of Pelagianism.

VIII. But now, because of the asserted good and evil affections ^B naturally proceeding from the flesh, let us inquire whether Origen has justly fallen into accusation. And indeed there is no controversy concerning the evil ones; the contention is only about the good ones. Before we begin to dispute this, it must be said that Jansenius, not only in the place which we mentioned, but even more significantly in Vol. I, book VI, chapter 14, impugns that force, or as he himself speaks, the sufficiency of natural law; which, in order to prove more clearly that it was believed and defended by Origen, he recites these words of his from book II on the Epistle to the Romans, no. 7, page 484: "It may happen that even of those who are under the law, if anyone by common persuasion does not believe in Christ, yet he may work what is good, hold to justice, love mercy, keep chastity and continence, preserve ^C modesty and gentleness, and perform every good work; even if this person does not have eternal life because, believing only in the true God, he did not believe in His Son Jesus Christ, whom He sent; yet the glory of his works, and peace and honor will not be able to perish." And these things are certainly nowhere referred to those who are under the law of nature, but to the Jews who were ruled by the Mosaic laws, by which they were kept from vices and enkindled to virtue. But the following things pertain to the heathens who keep only the law of nature: "But even a Greek, that is, a Gentile, if, although he does not have the law, he is a law unto himself, showing the work of the law in his heart and moved by natural reason, as we see some among the Gentiles either holding to justice, or keeping chastity, or ^D preserving prudence, temperance, and modesty; this person, although he may appear to be an alien to eternal life because he does not believe in Christ, and cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven because he is not reborn of water and the spirit, yet it seems that through these things which are said by the Apostle, he cannot entirely lose the glory, honor, and peace of good works." Then he spends more of the argument on the same point. Jansenius also refutes, along with the previous ones, another place of Adamantius, which certainly must be handled not without caution. "God will indeed be found," says Origen in book III on the Epistle to the Romans, no. 6, "by man [who has been granted] all affections, and all movements by which he can strive and progress towards virtue: furthermore [He has] also implanted the power of reason, by which he might recognize what he ought to do, what to avoid. God is therefore found to have granted these things to all men in common. But if, these having been received, man has neglected to walk the path of virtue, for whom nothing was missing from God, he is found himself to have been wanting to those things which were given to him by God." Although these things savor of Pelagianism, they can nevertheless receive a genuine and orthodox exposition, either by understanding the grace given to man by God, which grace is sufficient for obtaining salvation; or by understanding the law of nature, by the help of which even heathens can strive toward moral virtues; not toward those which contribute anything to salvation—for this would be a grave error, which it would not be lawful to patronize without offense.

IX. Certainly a great part of the holy Fathers opined that some kind of good could arise from the force of nature, but especially Augustine, whose authority in questions of this kind is preeminent. Thus he [writes] in the book *De spiritu et littera*, chapter 27: “But if those who naturally do the things which are of the law are not yet to be held in the number of those whom the grace of Christ justifies, but rather in the number of those—even of the ungodly, who do not truly and justly worship the true God—whose deeds we nevertheless either read, or know, or hear of, which according to the rule of justice we can not only not disparage, but even deservedly and rightly praise: although if it is discussed to what end they are done, those are hardly found which deserve the due praise or defense of justice.” Then in the following chapter he writes that the stain of earthly affections has not so far encroached upon the human soul that the traces of the image of God do not remain impressed, from which some precepts of the law can even in wickedness be said to be performed or known by merit. He adds afterwards that the law of God is not entirely erased from our hearts by sin, [but] is renewed by grace. And afterwards: "For they (the Jews) were also men, and that force of nature was in them, by which the rational soul both feels and does something lawful." Then a little later, he says it will be of little profit in the day of judgment to have obeyed these laws of nature, unless perhaps to mitigate punishments: "For just as certain venial sins, without which this life is not led, do not hinder from eternal life an otherwise just person: so to eternal salvation no good works profit an ungodly person, without which the life of any worst man is found with great difficulty." And again: "What then did the Apostle want to effect here, when, checking the arrogance of the Jews, after he had said: *Not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified*, he immediately added concerning those who, not having the law, naturally do the things which are of the law, if those are not to be understood who pertain to the grace of the Mediator, but rather those who, although they do not worship the true God with true piety, yet have some good works in...

their conduct and deeds which they perform, but do not refer them to the end of the Christian faith and charity; to whom indeed some good things may be present, which pertain to the equity of human society; but because they are not done out of the charity of God, they cannot be of profit. Jerome also, in *Isaiah* xxiv, 5, writes that those who have observed the natural law will obtain rewards: and in *Ezek* xxix, 17, he says that we are condemned by the comparison of the Gentiles if they perform by natural law what we neglect, though it be written. Nor is it right to omit another passage of his in *Galatians* iii, 2, which pertains to this argument, and should be touched upon circumspectly. "We shall answer," he says, "that he (the centurion Cornelius) indeed received the Spirit, but from the hearing of faith and the natural law, which speaks in our hearts, that all good things are to be done, and evils avoided, through which we likewise related that Abraham, Moses, and the rest of the saints were justified long ago; which the observance of works, and the justice of the law, can subsequently increase, though not a carnal law which has passed away, but a spiritual one, because the law is spiritual."

^C X. Since these things are so, it must nevertheless be admitted that Origen sometimes attributed too much to the law of nature, and transferred to a general aid what was owed to the special aid of God; which is altogether Pelagian: such as the individual acts of the will, which they call "volitions": for he supposed that we have these from God in such a way that we have the power of willing, or the faculty of the will, from God. Thus he explains that passage of Paul, *Phil* ii, 13: "For it is God who works in you both to will and to perform, for a good will." When some concluded from this passage that we lack free choice, since the movements of our will depend upon God, Origen answers thus in *De Principiis*, Bk. III, ch. 1, no. 19 (41): "And regarding this, it must be said that the Apostle’s statement does not say that the willing of evil things is from God, or that the willing of good things is from God, nor likewise the carrying out of the better or the worse; but [he speaks of] willingness in general, and running in general. For just as we have from God the fact that we are living beings, and the fact that we are human, so too [we have] the willingness in general, as if I were to say, moving in general. But just as, having the fact that we are living beings, having movement, and, for example, moving these limbs, hands or feet, we would not reasonably say that we have from God this specific act, that is, the moving *to strike*, or *to kill*, or *to take away* the things of others; but rather, we received from God the generic fact of moving; but we make use of that movement for the worse or for the better; so, too, we have received from God the [power of] acting in that we are living beings, and the willing we have received from the Creator, and we use the wanting for the best, or we use it for the contrary, and likewise with the acting." Their opinion Rufinus reported with sufficient faithfulness, contrary to his custom, because, of course, they were Pelagian. Saint Thomas noted these in *Summa contra Gentiles*, Bk. III, ch. 89, and refuted them with various passages of Scripture. Jansenius also noted them, and rightly repudiated them as contrary to the grace of Christ. But the passage which he cites at the end of the thirteenth chapter of his first book, which is found at the end of chapter 1 of the book *De Principiis*, Rufinus provided from his own workshop of Pelagianism; for it does not appear in the Greek exemplar.

^B Let the fair reader observe, meanwhile, whether we can add to the credit of the many passages which are traditionally brandished against Origen from the books rendered into Latin by Rufinus: of such a kind is that which Jansenius brings forward in Bk. VI, Tom. I, ch. 13, from Book III of *De Principiis*, chap. 2, no. 3, to prove that Origen exalted the law of nature more than was just: "For it is not the same thing to have the virtue of conquering, and to conquer, just as the Apostle himself marked with most cautious speech, saying that God will give the issue *so that you may be able to sustain*, not that you may sustain. For many do not sustain, but are conquered in temptation. But it is given by God, not so that we sustain—otherwise there would seem to be no contest—but so that we may be able to sustain. But by that virtue which is given to us so that we may be able to conquer, according to the faculty of free choice, we either use it industriously and conquer, or slothfully and are overcome," etc.; and that one from Book X on the *Epistle to the Romans*, no. 38: "The grace of God and the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ must be accepted as one and the same grace. For just as the Father quickens whom He wills, and the Son quickens whom He wills: and as the Father has life in Himself, and has given to the Son to have life in Himself; so also the grace which the Father gives, this the Son also gives. It must indeed be known that everything which men have from God is grace; for they have nothing by debt. For who gave to Him first, and it shall be repaid to him? Whatever, therefore, he who did not exist, and exists, has, he has as grace, receiving it from Him who always was." And that one from Book IV on the *Epistle to the Romans*, no. 1, page 522: "But when I consider the eminence of the discourse, where he says that it is returned to the worker according to debt, I can scarcely persuade myself that there could be any work which demands a retribution from God by debt, since we make even this very thing, that we are able to do anything, or to think, or to speak, by His gift and bounty. What, therefore, will be the debt of Him whose loan preceded us?" And this one from Book V on the same epistle, no. 1, page 550: "What he therefore said, *after days*, shows that during the first days of his life he (Abel) was held by the institutions of his father's transgression; but after those days, when he repented, when he looked to God, admonished by the law of nature, he is said then to have offered a sacrifice to God."

^A XI. After Jansenius, in tom. 1, lib. vi, cap. 14, demonstrated that Origen held unsound opinions about the law of nature, he attempts to show that his opinions regarding the Law of Moses were no sounder; to prove which he brings forward that passage from the fourth book *In Epist. ad Rom.*, num. 1, p. 523: "For the beginning of being justified by God is faith, which believes in the one who justifies. And when this faith has been justified, it clings like a root to the soil of the soul, having received the rain, so that when it begins to be cultivated through the law of God, branches arise in it which may yield the fruits of works." Jansenius adds: "Behold the dogma of Pelagius concerning justice to be worked through the law, provided that the remission of sins through faith has preceded." But these things do not pertain specifically to the law of Moses, but to good works only, whether of Jews or of Gentiles, which are empty without faith. He says, therefore, that the beginning of justification is faith, which believes in God; which faith, as a disposition for acquiring justification, when it has apprehended justice—as they say—and has thus been justified by God; and when, like some root, it has been drenched by the rain of justice, then that faith and that justice itself cling to the soil of the soul; yet in such a way that it is necessary for it to be fostered and cultivated by the observance of the divine law in order to bear the fruits of works, which blossom like shoots of this root. These things are entirely consonant with the decrees of the Catholic faith, provided that the preceding help of exciting and assisting grace is acknowledged. Truly, this is not what Jansenius questions: rather, he complains that the dogma of Pelagius concerning justice to be worked through the law lies hidden here, provided that the remission of sins given through faith has preceded. Indeed, that justification must take its beginning from faith, and that the same deletes sins—we confess Origen said this, and we contend he said it rightly: nor do I think Jansenius intended to say that this Pelagian tenet is situated in that point, but in the dogma concerning justice to be worked through the law, which we acknowledge to be Pelagian, but we contend that it is far distant from this passage of Origen. For how did he believe justice was to be worked through the law, when he said that justification must precede the observance of the law? Through the law of God, that is, good works, he indeed ordained that justice should be cultivated, but he by no means believed that justice was obtained through the law. Although these things are clear, they can nevertheless be confirmed by other testimonies of the same Origen. "From all of which," he says in book iii of *In Epist. ad Rom.*, num. 9, p. 517, "it is clear that the Apostle rightly judges that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law. But perhaps someone hearing these things may be relaxed, and may take up negligence in well-doing, if faith alone suffices for justification. To whom we shall say that if, after justification, anyone acts unjustly, without doubt he has spurned the grace of justification." He placed not works before justice itself, but justice before works. Even clearer is what lies a little further down: "But where there is no faith which justifies the believer, even if someone has works from the law, yet because they are not built upon the foundation of faith, although ^B they appear to be good, yet they cannot justify their operator, because faith is lacking to them, which is the seal of those who are justified by God;" and in the following book, num. 1, p. 521: "Therefore, also in another place of Scripture it is said of Abraham that he was justified by the works of faith; because it is certain that he who truly believes performs the work of faith and justice, and of all goodness." These things, however, which he discusses in book iii, num. 10, p. 519, must be read cautiously: "But if anyone asks more curiously, to those who are justified by faith, by whom they are justified; and again to those who are justified by faith, from what they are justified: although perhaps much curiosity may seem to be in this, nevertheless we can conveniently say that those who are justified by faith, having taken their beginning from faith, are consummated through the fulfillment of good works; and those who are justified by faith, having started from good works, receive the summit of perfection through faith." Which things, however, will be bearable, if they are understood in such a way that good works can indeed precede justification, but not of the sort which contribute anything to its apprehension; such as those works which are performed by the persuasion of the natural law. Jansenius proceeds to show, tom. i, lib. vi, cap. 14, that Origen's tenets concerning the law of Moses were little sound, seeing that he believed that sin had been diminished and restricted through it, against this pronouncement of the Apostle: "But the law entered in, that the offense might abound"; and he writes that these tenets are consonant with the doctrine of Pelagius and Julian, and that they had been vanquished and confessed as such by Augustine. I, indeed, do not favor the cause of Origen to the extent of denying that the powers of the natural law were proclaimed by him beyond what is fair; and likewise those of the Mosaic law, which he so extolled, as if that law not only prohibited sin, but also conferred grace upon men to overcome it; and as if not just the knowledge of sin, but also healing, had occurred through it; and as if transgression had not been added to the prior types of sins which had preceded the law, which transgression cannot exist unless the law is established; and as if, with men striving against what is forbidden, concupiscence had not waxed strong, checked by the law; and as if sin had not only begun to appear and be accounted, but had also been taken away. It can, however, be said in favor of Origen that he did not pronounce that sins were absolutely dismissed through the law, but "in some part"; because Moses, by the command of the first King, instituted sacrifices, by which, offered with a certain solemnity as it was fitting, to them sin would be remitted. These are the words of Origen from book v of *In Epist. ad Rom.*, num. 1, p. 550, from that very passage which Jansenius brings forward. But since this remission of sins was imperfect, and a shadow of that which is merited by the blood of Christ, for that reason he said that the tyranny of death and sin was not fully and perfectly, but "in some part," resisted through the law. He signifies this himself quite clearly when he adds that, however much the law might resist, it had prevailed

^A only by transgression as well. S. Thomas on Rom. v, 20: "Secondly, however, it may be answered, noting that the 'that' is to be taken causally; yet so that the Apostle is speaking of the abundance of the offense, according to how it is in our cognition; so that the sense is: the law entered that the offense might abound, that is, that the offense might be more abundantly known, according to the mode of speaking in which a thing is said to happen when it becomes known. Whence it was said above that through the law is the knowledge of sin." It also aids Origen what S. Thomas has in the same place: that after the promulgation of the law, while some fell into forbidden wickedness, certain ones escaped to a better way of life, and in them sin was repressed. "It must be known, however," he says, "that, as the Philosopher says in X Ethics, the prohibition of the law, although it restrains those who are ^B ill-disposed from exterior sins by the mere fear of punishment, yet brings some who are well-disposed to the love of virtue; but this good disposition, in regard to some things, can be from nature, but its perfection is not except through grace, from which it happens that even with the old law given, sin does not abound in all, but in many. But some, with the law prohibiting and grace further assisting, finally arrived at the perfection of virtues, according to that from Eccles. xliv, 1: 'Let us praise glorious men,' etc., and further on, 3, 'men great in virtue.'" That of Thomas also supports our Adamantius, from 1-2, quæst. 98, a, 1: "The old law was consonant with reason, because it repressed concupiscence, which is contrary to reason, as is evident in that commandment: 'You shall not covet the thing of your neighbor,' which is placed in Exod. xx, 17. It also prohibited all sins ^C that are contrary to reason." And in the following article he teaches that the old law ordered men to Christ by way of a certain disposition, while, withdrawing men from the worship of idolatry, it concluded them under the worship of the one God, from whom the human race was to be saved through Christ.

XII. And would that we could soften the Origenian dogmas regarding the aids of divine grace with equally convenient expositions (42): but he has attacked it so openly that it seems that every color [of excuse] that might be applied is in vain. For he clearly wished the mode and measure of divine aid to depend on the human will and its choice, although he acknowledges that man cannot lack celestial aid for the perfection of a work. ^D (42) Truly, he has attacked it so openly against Catholic dogma. But no one is unaware that excellent men are often found in some error in such a way that they by no means defend what follows from it. And if this was ever true elsewhere, it is certainly proven in Origen, who puts forward that opinion of his concerning the pre-existence of souls as a probable conjecture, with the matter not decided; but regardless of this commentary, he expounds and defends the grace of Christ, that great gift of God incarnate and crucified, in such a way as was fitting for one who consumed his life meditating, preaching, and defending against the Jews, the ethnic, and the heretics in this mystery of the Incarnation. 1. It is settled that Origen had human weakness, as in book VII against Celsus, no. 42, he determines that men cannot attain the knowledge of God without divine aid. Hence, not even for Plato, to whom he appeals…

^A does Celsus declare that God was known to the other philosophers, because if they had found Him, they would never have worshipped other gods. Then he adds: "But we affirm that God can in no way be sought or purely found by human nature, unless helped by Him whom it seeks." One who thinks that grace depends upon free will, and not upon the gratuitous will of God, does not speak in this way; one who ascribes the beginnings to man, but the progress to the free will subjected to divine grace. Conscious of this weakness, if ever he had fallen into a difficult passage of Scripture, he sought the knowledge of the truth from Christ, just as when, explaining that verse of Exodus x, 27: "The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh," he admits on page 114 that he had need of the Saviour God, that he might bring forward the harmony of His justice and wisdom. Thus also, explaining a difficult passage of Jeremiah, he says in homily 18, no. 11, page 254: "I confess that my powers are unequal to the task of explaining them, and that I need, as I said above, the present help of the virtue of Jesus, who is Wisdom and the Word and the Truth, that His presence may pour light upon the face of my soul."

He confesses generally in tom. XII on Matthew, no. 40, page 562, that no truth can be perceived without Christ: "There is no truth without the action of Him who said: I am the truth" (John xiv, 6). Therefore, it is no wonder if Origen thinks that faith is a gift of God, and that no one can believe unless it be granted by God. He observes in tom. XX on John, no. 26, that the gift of faith is numbered in the third place by Paul, namely after the gift of wisdom and the gift of knowledge; then he adds this: "And by the action (of the Word), it will be clear to one who has considered it that it is no ordinary gift of God, since, when many different doctrines are preached by many who promise to teach the truth, to believe in none or only in the truth is of God." It must not be concealed that Origen is not speaking in this place about the beginnings of faith, but about the perfect faith ^B which is obtained by the prayers of those who groan and confess their own weakness in believing: but yet he would have spoken very absurdly about this faith being a gift of God, if he had thought that the beginnings of faith were attained without grace.

2. Origen declares that those very beginnings, in which we understand the words of Christ, although we do not entirely assent to them, are perfected and given by Christ. For in tom. XX on John, no. 18, when Heracleon and other such heretics, from these words of Christ: "Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word" (John viii, 43), gathered that there are diverse natures in men, he meets them in such a way as to demonstrate that those Jews were not able to know the words of Christ because they were of a worse nature, but because their ears had been stopped to divine discourses, which deafness he holds to be not proper to their nature, but taken away by Christ. "Whence first," he says, "the power of hearing the divine word must be prepared for us, that then we may be able to know the words of Jesus; for it is permitted to him who before was not able to hear the words of Jesus, afterwards to arrive at the point where he can hear them." How that power, however, is prepared, he explains thus: "Since indeed, as long as one has not yet been healed in his ears by the Word who says to the deaf, 'Be opened,' he is not able to hear; but when the cause of the deafness, which is the binding, is loosened, then one will be able to hear Jesus, when he is also able to know His speech." From these words it is clear that Origen, while refuting the heretics, does not run into the contrary error, but most accurately defends the Catholic dogma. The heretics were bringing forward this as the reason why some believed and others did not believe: that the former were of a spiritual nature, but the latter of an animal nature: against this, Origen assigns the deafness, which those attributed to the animal nature, to all whose bonds Christ has not loosened; that faith is not a matter ^C of nature, but is a gift of grace in those who believe; he contends that stubbornness in those who do not believe is not an appended property of nature, but can be overcome by grace. What beginning of faith, therefore, can be devised which Origen does not refer to the grace of Christ, since he declares that no one can not only believe, but not even hear and understand, unless Christ says: "Be opened" (Mark vii, 34).

3. This doctrine of the grace of Christ was of use to Origen not only against the heretics, but also against the pagans. He demonstrates in book I against Celsus, no. 31, that the apostles would never have undertaken so many labors, nor would they have faced so many dangers, unless Christ had given them a certain maximum confidence, not only teaching them to hold His own dogmas, but also to persuade others. In the same book, he uses Celsus's sneers against the apostles chosen by Christ as an argument for why it is not to their talent and eloquence, but to the power of Christ, that we should attribute the fact that they brought nations to the faith. "But now," he says in no. 62, page 377, "who is there who, when he sees fishermen and publicans or those unskilled in the primary elements (for Scripture testifies this of them, and Celsus believes them describing their own ignorance), not only confidently disputing about joining the faith of Jesus among the Jews, but also successfully announcing Jesus among the rest of the nations, would not have asked whence the faculty of persuading was in them? For it was not vulgar. Who would not say that Jesus accomplished in the apostles by a certain divine power what He had promised them with the words: 'Come after me, I will make you fishers of men'?" (Matt. iv, 19). And a little later: "Although I have mentioned above what the Saviour said in the Gospel: nevertheless, I will again bring it forward here and indeed opportunely. For from this, anyone will perceive that the preaching of the Gospel was divinely foreseen by our Saviour; and how great is the power of that word, which even without ^D teachers subjects to itself those who embrace the faith, which a divine power persuaded them to embrace." Hence, when Celsus had mocked Christ thus: "But the body of God does not use such a voice, nor such methods of persuasion," Origen responds that he does injury to the oracles celebrated among the pagans, in which the voice of the gods was heard; then he adds in no. 70, page 384: "But by much it would have been better for God to have used a voice producing by the fact that it was announced with power an ineffable persuasion in the hearers." Therefore, it is no wonder if Origen, distrusting his own powers, and persuaded that the fruit of his labor depends upon divine grace, prays to God thus in the beginning of book V, page 578: "May God grant that we do not bring to this discussion a mind and speech barren and void of divinity, without which the faith of those to whom we desire to be of service would rest only on human wisdom: but that, having received the Spirit of Christ from Him who alone gives it, the Father, and aided to understand the Word of God, we may destroy every height exalting itself against the knowledge of God (II Cor. x, 5), and at the same time repress the pride of Celsus, by which he grows insolent against us, against our Jesus, against Moses and the prophets. May He grant, I say, who gives the word to those who evangelize with much power (Ps. LXVII, 12), that, with the same word granted to us, and much power given, faith may be born in the readers, fortified by the word and power of God." Thus also in the book "On Prayer," no. 2, page 200, he confesses that he has need of the Father illuminating, and the Word teaching, and the Holy Spirit cooperating, that he might understand and say the things that are worthy of such a subject.

4. He thinks divine grace is no less necessary for overcoming temptations, for fulfilling the commandments, and for amending corrupted morals. Concerning Christ's...

… ^A inner desire, which cannot be cured by others, He himself cures: what could be healed by no physician, is healed by Christ Jesus.” He declares in Homily 1 on Jeremiah, no. 16, p. 136, that it is useless to exhort and preach to men unless God moves them within. “Words,” he says, “uproot nations; words undermine the kingdoms of the flesh and the world; but virtue does not attend these things that are spoken, unless God gives it, according to that saying: ‘The Lord will give a word to those who preach the gospel with great power’ (Ps. LXVII, 12).” And in Homily 5, no. 6: “For when the Savior says: ‘I am the good shepherd’ (John X, 11), I do not understand it to be spoken universally, not just as to others, namely that he is the shepherd of believers—for this indeed is sound and true—but I must also have Christ within my soul, the good shepherd who guides the irrational movements within me, so that they no longer go out to pasture as chance may have it, but being led by the shepherd, they become his own, who were once alien to him.” In Homily 8 on Jeremiah, no. 1, p. 170, explaining that word of the prophet: “Who made the earth in his strength” (Jer. X, 12), he speaks thus: “We have need of the strength of God; and without the power of God we are not able to perform those things which are not according to the mind of the flesh.” I would gladly agree with Huet, if he only meant to assert that God’s commandments are impossible for Origen to keep unless grace be present; but I do not know how the most learned man attributed to Origen this very foolish error below, in no. 21, that the divine precepts cannot be obeyed. The passage he takes from Book II of Origen’s Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, where he teaches that the law according to the letter cannot have a fulfiller, and that it is almost impossible for human nature to observe the truth in all things, accomplishes nothing. The one refers to that yoke which neither the apostles nor their fathers could bear, as Peter says (Acts XV, 10); the other is softened by Origen himself with a certain modification, or it should not be received as referring to nature without the help of grace. It is certainly consistent Origen’s doctrine that the commandments can be fulfilled by us if grace is present. This is confirmed in Homily 17 on Jeremiah, no. 4, p. 238: “Just as the Savior himself is righteousness, truth itself, and sanctification itself, so also he is patience itself. And there is nothing just, nor holy, without Christ, nor does one endure who does not have Christ.” ^B In Matthew, no. 19, p. 467: “For even if someone were to be perfected in faith among the sons of men (Wisdom IX, 6), if your virtue were absent from him, he will be reckoned as nothing; or if perfected in temperance, as much as one can be among the sons of men, if your temperance were absent, he will be reckoned as nothing; or if perfected in justice and the remaining virtues, if your justice and the remaining virtues were absent, he will be reckoned as nothing.” I do not believe these things were said by Origen because he believed faith, temperance, justice, and the remaining virtues could be acquired without grace; but because, even if someone should appear to have attained these, they are vain and futile ornaments unless they are given by God. This interpretation is confirmed by what follows: “For what is worthy of boasting is not ours, but the wisdom from him is a gift of God, and the strength from him, and so on for the rest.” Towards the end of Vol. XIV on Matthew, no. 25, p. 649, he teaches that chastity is a gift from God. “For the Savior,” he says, “teaching us that absolute chastity is a gift of God for everyone, [not that ^C of nature, but that some are spiritual, some psychic, some fleshly or earthy; and thus some destined for life are spiritual, some for destruction are fleshly/earthly], and that it is not acquired by exercise of the body alone, but also must be obtained by prayers from God, he referred these things to that: ‘Not all men receive this word, but those to whom it is given’ (Matt. XIX, 11).” But when some dared to criticize these words of Christ, “to whom it is given,” and to drag them to the excuse of those who, having taken up celibacy, are overcome by desires, Origen replies that no excuse is left for men of this kind, because that gift is obtained by prayers, as Christ says: “Ask, and you shall receive” (Matt. VII, 7). But he declares that prayers themselves are a gift of God in express words in his book *On Prayer*, no. 2, p. 199: “Our mind is not able to pray, unless the Spirit prays before it, as if in it; just as neither can we psalm or sing to the Father in Christ rhythmically and melodiously and metrically and harmoniously, unless the Spirit, who searches all things and the depths of God, has first praised and sung of the depths of the mind which he has searched and as he has been able to grasp them.” Since therefore Origen declares both faith and prayers are gifts of God in such express words, who could bear that what he says in Vol. XIII on John, no. 1, be dragged toward Semipelagianism: “Perhaps it is a dogma that no one receives a divine gift unless they have asked for it”? There is no greater fault in the things read in Book II *On Principles*, ch. 9, no. 2. ^D Since he thinks excellently, it is no wonder if he pronounces both our merits and the reward owed to merits to be gifts of God, Homily 16 on Jeremiah, no. 5: “Do not therefore suspect,” he says, “that it is not out of mercy, but out of personal merit, that these things have happened to them by justice, etc.” He says the mother of the son of Zebedee was justly chastised by Christ in Vol. XVI on Matthew, no. 5, p. 717: “Because such a great gift is the grace of God who is over all, breathing together and working together and establishing in such excellence those whom He knows to be fit.” Huet does not happily suspect Semipelagianism in these words. Origen most accurately expresses the Catholic dogma when he maintains that eternal happiness is at once the reward of merits, and the gift and grace of God.

7. Many other things are criticized in Origen, but those which in part are sound of their own accord, such as when he teaches in Book IX on the Epistle to the Romans, no. 5, that the various gifts of the Spirit are obtained by faith, in part are easily explained if you observe that no heretics were refuted more often by Origen than those who taught that men by nature were either spiritual or fleshly, and by nature were either to be saved or damned. Wherefore, since they left no place for merit or good works, what wonder if Origen sometimes declares our good works to be our own, if he declares justice, chastity, and other virtues to be our work, as in Homily 1 on Ezekiel, no. 3, and Homily 35 on Luke; if in Book III *De principiis*, ch. 5, no. 5, he says: “It is in us, and in our movements, whether we be blessed or holy, or whether we turn toward malice and perdition”; if in Book VII on the Epistle to the Romans, no. 16: “That we be good or evil is [a matter] of our own will”; if finally in Homily 11 on Numbers, no. 4, he teaches “that all things happen before God by reason and judgment, and not by grace, but by merit.” In these and other such places, which can be seen below in nos. 13 and 14 in Huet, Origen does not discard those things which he discusses elsewhere about grace, nor does he contradict himself absurdly; but he maintains that good works, virtues, and our merits, although they are gifts of grace, are nonetheless rightly situated in us, because they do not proceed from nature, as the heretics wanted, nor are they done in us by God without us. “We are the cause,” he says in Vol. X on Matthew, no. 11, p. 454, “that we are either beautiful and worthy types of vessels, or rotten and worthy to be put outside…”

so that whatever kind of life they eventually embrace, and to whatever they surrender themselves, whether to virtues or to vices, they necessarily reach their salvation or are cast away. For nature is not the cause of iniquity in us, but the free will which sins; nor is nature the cause of justice, as if it were not capable of injustice, but the Word whom we receive, which also makes us just. Likewise, when Origen says that those who are worthy and fit are sometimes aided, this is said either against the heretics who attributed natural holiness and grace to men persevering in crime—and who were therefore unworthy—or it is to be understood of those who, aided by grace, pray, or of those whom God judges fit for His counsels; in which ^A sense Origen teaches in Book II *Against Celsus*, no. 48, that those whom the Word of God knew to be fit for the resurrection were such that what was done by the Lord was not only a sign of certain things, but even then led many to the evangelical doctrine by the magnitude of the miracle.

8. From these testimonies it is already in part perfect that grace is not thought by Origen to be the handmaid of human will, but all-powerful and effective. For if no one can believe unless Christ says: “Be opened” (Mark vii, 34); if faith, chastity, justice, and all virtues, and prayer itself are gifts of God, it is clear that God not only helps us to believe, to be chaste, to pray; but He also works faith, chastity, and prayer themselves within us by His omnipotent will. Yet because in this matter much has been detracted from Origen’s reputation, more magnificent testimonies must be cited. 1. He repeats the power of effective grace from the omnipotent will of God in Book III *Against Celsus*, nos. 59, 60, 65, 66, 69, 70, and he marvelously considers His omnipotence to shine forth in this gift of grace: in which indeed he confirms the common opinion of all Christians. For Celsus in these places laughs at and attacks the Christians because, when they invited sinners to the Christian religion and said that God was merciful to sinners, they refuted those who, like Celsus himself, thought that vices confirmed by nature and habit could not be amended, with this saying: “God can do all things.” Adhering to this opinion, Origen speaks thus in Book I *Against Celsus*, no. 43: “The virtues of Jesus did not shine only at that time when, clothed in a body, He lived among men; but even now ‘the power of Jesus is working conversion and improvement in those who believe in God through Him.’” He teaches in Book II, no. 58, that Christ came so that He might disseminate His doctrine to the human race in a truly stupendous manner and by a certain divine power, *μετά τινος δυνάμεως θειοτέρας*. He demonstrates in Book III *Against the same Celsus*, no. 68, that there is a great difference between the method of persuasion of the apostles and that of the philosophers, whose persuasion had nothing above human nature. “The proof ^D given in the apostles of Jesus was from God, persuasive through the Spirit and power. Wherefore their word—or rather, the word of God—ran very quickly and keenly, changing many of those who were accustomed to sin; those whom no human punishment could have changed, the Word transformed, shaping and molding them according to His own will.” He had said in Book II, no. 72: “For such is the voice of God, that it is heard by those alone whom He who speaks wishes it to be heard… and when He who speaks does not wish His voice to be heard by all, he who has superior ears hears God, but he who is deaf in the ears of his mind does not hear God speaking.” Origen seemed to himself to perceive an excellent example of divine power in that comparison by which Christ declared the salvation of the rich to be the image of those things which it works for the healing of minds, as though a camel passes through the eye of a needle; but this is not in human power: so too that a rich man might enter into the kingdom of God. But in what way God makes things of this kind possible, He Himself knows, and His Christ, and he to whom His Son has revealed it. I cannot omit a most excellent testimony from the book *On Prayer*, where, explaining that: “Thy will be done” (Matt. vi, 10), etc., he speaks thus in no. 26: “Whether we are still earth on account of sin, let us pray that the will of God may be extended to us also for the sake of amendment, just as it reached those who before us were made heaven; or whether we are no longer earth, but are considered heaven by God, let us pray that, as in heaven, so also on earth—that is, in what is inferior—the will of God may be fulfilled,” etc.

9. We can perceive the opinion of Origen from various testimonies, in which he declares that the miracles worked by Christ for the healing of bodies are the shadow and image of those which He carries out for the healing of minds. “To draw back a soul that has departed,” he says in Vol. XII on Matthew, no. 2, “so that it might come out of the tombs even as already stinking and four days dead, was the work of none other than Him who had heard from the Father: ‘Let us make man in our image and likeness’ (Gen. i, 26).” But these miracles, as the same Origen testifies in Vol. VI on John, no. 17, “are images of those who are always healed by the Word of God from every disease and infirmity.” Hence, in Vol. XXVIII on John, no. 6, he compares the resurrection of Lazarus with the resurrection of those whom Jesus recalls from the death of sin to life. “But we must note,” he says, “that there are some still today who are Lazaruses, who after contracting friendship with Jesus became infirm and perished: who even in the monument, and in the place of the dead, remained dead with the dead, and afterwards were vivified by the prayer of Jesus, who called them with His great voice from the monument to come forth: to whom he who obeys comes out, surrounded by bonds worthy of mortification because of previous sins, and still having his face covered, neither seeing, nor able to walk, nor able to do anything because of the bonds of mortification, until Jesus orders those by whom he is bound to unbind him, in whose power it was also to allow him to depart.” Likewise in Book II *Against Celsus*, no. 48: “For daily the eyes of those who were blind in mind are opened; their ears, which were deaf to the voice of Him who exhorted them to virtue, greedily hear what is said about God and the blessed life to be enjoyed with Him: many who were lame concerning the interior man, as Scripture calls it, now healed by doctrine do not simply leap, but leap as a hart, an animal hostile to serpents, and to whom the poison of vipers can do no harm.” But we must first observe what is read in Vol. X on John, no. 16, where Origen asks how the money-changers did not feel annoyed at being whipped by Christ and having their tables overturned. No other cause seems to him to be able to be brought forward for this matter, except “a certain more divine power of Jesus, who could, when He willed, extinguish the inflamed spirit of His enemies, and overcome many thousands of men by divine grace, and dissipate the thoughts of the tumultuous: for the Lord dissipates the counsels of nations (Ps. xxxii, 10),” etc. Origen declares that he concedes nothing from the miracles worked by Christ to this history: “This also,” he says, “we can pronounce greater than that water was changed into wine at Cana of Galilee; for in that case He changed inanimate matter, but in this place He overcame the minds of so many myriads, and the most excellent parts of the soul.” He brings forward the same cause for why the Galileans received Christ, since they saw all things.

^A that we examined above. He believed, therefore, that souls, having correctly or incorrectly administered the provinces entrusted to them by God during long cycles of years, were assigned ^B by grace that firm state of mind—whether it be the charity which is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, or even whatever we do magnificently, being strengthened in this state. He expresses this opinion clearly in *Tome XII on Matthew*, no. 25, p. 544, where he speaks thus: “*For I live; now not I* (Gal. 2:20)”—this was the voice of one renouncing himself, as one who had lost his own life, but had received Christ into himself, so that He might live in him as justice, and as wisdom, and as sanctification, and as our peace, and as the power of God working everything in him, πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ ἐνεργῶν. In his book *On Prayer*, explaining the first words of the Lord’s Prayer, “Our Father” (Matt. 6:9), he speaks thus concerning the children of adoption, no. 22, p. 253: “Therefore, all their work and speech and thought, being conformed to the Only-Begotten Word Himself, imitate the image of the invisible God, and they are made to the image of the Creator,” etc. Therefore, Origen was not one who thought that the perfect stood by their own strength and were strengthened in virtue. He always repeats this stability of theirs as coming from Christ’s grace, just as when he says in *Tome II on John*, no. 2, “Jesus looked upon him (Simon), by that look declaring that He was looking after Simon, his soul being illuminated in its most excellent part; and Simon was able, because Jesus looked upon him, to be so far established that from that stable and firm work he derived his surname and was called Peter.” To the same intent must be accepted what he says in *Tome XVI on Matthew*, no. 8, p. 726: “Whoever is with Jesus cannot be invaded by death.” Wherefore Huetius thinks in vain that Origen deserves no excuse for what he says in *Tome XII on Matthew*, no. 23: “He who has attained perfection in charity is not subject to scandal,” and *Tome XV*, no. 6, p. 659: “Children were brought to Jesus with the intention that when Jesus had touched them and had infused His power into them by touching, no misfortune, no demon, or anything else could reach them.” Then in these passages, and in another from the same commentary, p. 676, where he uses the term ἀπαθείας, he attributes nothing to the creature that does not proceed from Christ’s grace, nothing that can be preserved without grace. By the term ἀπαθείας, he understands not that absurd immunity from every emotion, but immunity from every wickedness, since a little earlier, namely, p. 675, no. 16, discussing the same perfect person, he says sometimes that he is “outside every desire,” sometimes that he has “cast off every wickedness.” But if Origen is censured for such statements, the holy martyrs must be censured who said that their faith could neither be conquered, nor changed, nor could they be separated by any torments from the charity of Christ. Cyprian will merit the same mark, who teaches in *Epist. 11* that nothing can separate believers, and that nothing can pluck away those clinging to the body and blood of Christ; and when asked by the proconsul if he would persevere in his will, he replied that the good will which knows God cannot be changed. Likewise also the martyr Ignatius in *Epist. ad Ephesios*, no. 8: “Carnal men cannot perform spiritual deeds, nor spiritual men carnal deeds; just as faith cannot perform the deeds of unbelief, nor unbelief the deeds of faith.” ^C no one will doubt who wishes to read the passage from the *Commentary on the Psalms*, p. 571, where he speaks thus: “Not only, therefore, is our will and conspiring divine aid necessary for someone to become honest and good—which, as far as we are concerned, is outside the free will, or does not depend on our free will (ἥτις ἐστὶν ὡς πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἀπροαίρετον); but also for him who has turned out to be good and honest to persevere in virtue; which, certainly, about to fall into ruin ^D

^A by the counsel of God is left; and thus, to say it so, he makes the grace of God beholden to us. Therefore, he so extols the powers of free will, as if lacking the aid of grace, in *Homily 1 on Leviticus*, no. 11: "Whether, therefore, the spiritual effect becomes one spirit with the Lord, or whether through the glory of the resurrection it passes into the order of the angels, rightly it will no longer be 'man': but each one himself provides this for himself, that he either exceeds the appellation of man, or is considered within the condition of this name"; and *Homily 4 on Ezekiel*, no. 3, p. 357: "But you, O man, why do you not wish to be left to your own free will? Why do you take it ill to strive, to labor, to contend, and through good works to be the cause of your own salvation? Or will it please you more, while sleeping and established in idleness, to rest in eternal prosperity? My Father, says the Lord Jesus Christ, works even until now, and I work: and does it displease you to work, you who were born for works? Do you not wish your work to become justice, wisdom, chastity? Do you not wish your work to be fortitude, and other virtues?" Those things also are manifest in *Book 1 of On First Principles*, cap. 5, no. 5, p. 68: "Through this, it follows that it is in us, and in our movements, that we should either be blessed and holy, or through sloth and negligence incline from blessedness into malice and perdition"; ^B and likewise those things in *Homily 35 on Luke*, p. 974: "Give, therefore, effort that you may be freed from the prince to whom the adversary drags you. Give effort that you may have wisdom, justice, fortitude, and temperance: and then it shall be fulfilled: Behold the man, his works are before his face"; and this also in *Book 7 on the Epistle to the Romans*, no. 16, p. 615: "For that we be good or evil, is of our will: but to what sort of stripes the evil man is destined, and to what sort of glory the good man, is of the will of God." Indeed, he prattles this same thing with full cheeks, in chapter 1 of the book *On First Principles*, in which chapter he undertook to assert and defend the liberty of the will: for there he says that to obey or to resist temptations is placed in our power, and he does not acknowledge the need for the aid of grace for it; but only for a certain erudition, which suggests to us salubrious examples and precepts of holier doctrine for the time being.

XIV. But if he sometimes acknowledges that we need the aids of grace, he admits grace only as a handmaid of our will, composed at its nod, and bestowed by God upon men according to their merits; not as exciting, not as given freely. Just as in cap. 9, no. 2, *Book 2 of On First Principles*, he says "voluntary and free," ^C says [he] in *Book 2 on the Epistle to the Romans*, no. 6, "we who feel that all these things are to be understood spiritually, therefore we believe that not the hearers, but the doers of the law are to be justified, not of the law according to the letter, which certainly, for its own impossibility, cannot have a doer, but according to the spirit, through which alone the law can be fulfilled." See above number four of this our observation. ^D

^A Since he says, "in consummatione servatam"—namely, that he himself might obtain it for himself through his own diligent studies in imitation of God, with the possibility of perfection given to him at the beginning through the dignity of the image, so that in the end he might at last perfect the likeness in himself through the fulfillment of his works. He adds then, "the likeness of God to be hoped for, which will be provided according to the perfection of merits." Nor are those things acceptable which we read in *Homily 11 on Numbers, no. 4, page 308*: "For all things happen before God according to reason and judgment; nor do they happen by grace, but according to merit," etc., for these things utterly destroy the benefit of grace; just as those things in *Tom. X on Matthew, no. 11, page 484*: "For we are the cause of the coming-to-be of good and worthy kinds of so-called saints, or rotten and worthy of being cast out; for nature in us is not the cause of wickedness, but choice, which is voluntarily evil-doing. And thus, neither is nature the cause of righteousness, as if it were incapable of injustice, but it is the reason which we have received, the one which prepares," and these things in *Tom. XI, no. 40, page 561*: "No one who is hostile to the given Spirit being present with the one who is asking, and wisdom for those who are helped by God according to some worthiness of theirs," and these things also in *Tom. XVI, no. 5, page 717*, ^B and the Savior rebuking the boastful mother of James and John, as one who did not know who those excelling ones were, and that such a great gift is the grace of God over all, who inspires and works together, and establishes in such excellence those whom He knows to be fit, etc., and that in *Tom. XIII on John, no. 1*: "For perhaps it is a dogma that no one receives a gift who does not ask for it." He also manifestly twists this passage of the Apostle to his own opinion in *Book IX on the Epistle to the Romans, no. 3, page 648*: "Having however gifts according to the grace that is given to us, differing, whether prophecy according to the measure of faith," etc.; for from this he indeed gathers that grace is given by God according to the measure of faith: then from the same place and from another passage of the first Epistle to the Corinthians he concludes thus: "Whence it seems to me that, writing both to the Romans and to the Corinthians, he teaches three ways of receiving grace, so that he might show that something is done by us, although the first part nevertheless consists in God's bounty. He posits that there is also a measure of faith, through which one receives grace: he posits also to that which is expedient; and that the Spirit divides as He wills. That there should be found in us such great faith as can merit a more sublime grace (for so it must be read), it seems to be of our own work and study: but that that which is expedient and useful to the receiver should be given, is the judgment of God; or if He wishes it to be given at all, it rests in Him." With equal insanity he corrupts in the same place this other passage, *I Cor. XII, 18*: "But now God has placed the members, each one of them in the body, just as He willed. God willed, however, he says, according to the reason or measure of faith which is in...

us, or willed toward that which is expedient." Unless perhaps someone wishes to understand it this way: "God placed each member in the body as He willed," so that the word "willed" refers more to the member—that is, as He willed, as He chose, as He bestowed work—so that the power of free will may not seem to be taken away from man. Finally, in the chains on the Psalms, such things are reported to have been uttered on Ps. CXX, 3, p. 820: "Do not give thy foot to a slipping ^A; do not be moved," he says, "nor fall into scandal. And then you will have God extending His hand, so that the beginning must come from us, and God is ready to extend His hands."

But now, it is easy to perceive the genuine sense of Origen in many things, by which it seemed good to him to preach the legitimate power of grace. For example, when in Lib. III *De principiis*, cap. 1, no. 18, he asserts most excellently that a building is not the work of the builder, but of God; and that the protection of a city is to be ascribed not to the guards and the watches of soldiers, but to God. For in this way he wishes the matter to be understood: that man was the one who undertook the work, but God was the perfecter; and that human will does not suffice for attaining the end, unless God assists him for that purpose, which he thinks is proven by this: "It is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy 80." To this passage he repeats the same and expands in Lib. VII *in Epist. ad Rom.*, no. 16, p. 614, and from that he says it is demonstrated "that man indeed spends labor and solicitude, but God grants success to the work and the effect"; and therefore the sum of the work is to be attributed to God rather than to man. He confirms that with the words of Paul, I Corinthians III, 6: "I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase." Then he says: "It is certain that God not only knows the purpose and will of each person, but also foreknows them. And being knowing and foreknowing, as a good and just steward, He uses the movements and purpose of each one to perform those works which the spirit and will of each one chooses." And finally, p. 615: "For that we be good," he says, "or evil, is of our will; but to what kind of stripes the evil man is destined, and to what kind of glory the good man is destined, is of the will of God." The words from Lib. *De principiis*, cap. 2, no. 2, do not sound otherwise: "The reason is therefore evident, because just as in good things human purpose alone is by itself imperfect for the consummation of the good, for it is led to all perfect things by divine aid, etc." In these things Origen splendidly ^B Semi-Pelagianized, attributing the inception—that is, the *willing*—to man, but to God only the *perfecting*. Yet Rufinus, as if there were little enough error in these things, darkened them with new additions of his own delusions. But let us proceed to reveal the insanities of Origen. At the end of the first chapter of Lib. III *De principiis*, no. 22, after he appeared to have nicely reconciled the knowledge of God with liberty, he ruins everything with a most base conclusion when he says that nothing is prepared by God for honor or ignominy "unless it has some material of difference in our choice, leaning toward the worse or toward the better," which he repeats in Lib. III, cap. 9, no. 2, 6 et seq. Likewise, in the first book of the same work, cap. 3, no. 5, he says that "only in those is the work of the Holy Spirit, who are already turning themselves to better things and walking through the ways of Christ Jesus, that is, who are in good works and remain in God," as if someone could be converted to better things without the work and grace of the Holy Spirit. Nor do the following passages support him, when he says in no. 7: "The Holy Spirit..."

In order that the inmost mysteries of this doctrine may be even more exposed, it must be observed that a twofold faith is constituted in us by Origen: one human, which we can have by our own powers, reinforced by no support; another divine, which is infused into us by the grace of God. And he thinks that not only faith is twofold, but also the remaining virtues are twofold in us, some of which are from us, and others from God: but that the former are of no profit for attaining salvation, unless they are strengthened by the fellowship of the latter. These oracles are unfolded in *Tract. XXXIII in Matth.*, no. 69: "For instance," he says, "to one having the faith which is from us, the grace of faith which is through the spirit of faith will be given, and it will abound; and whatever someone has had from natural creation, when he has exercised it, he receives that very thing also from the grace of God, so that it may abound and be firmer in that very thing which he has," which he writes is to be understood of every virtue. Finally, he concludes: "Therefore, if we wish that a more perfect virtue be given to us, and that what is perfect among men should abound in us, let us acquire it in every way through diligence, and after we have acquired it, as if understanding that these things are accounted as nothing without the grace of God, let us humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God 76, and let us pray without anger or argumentation, lifting up pure hands 77, that the perfection of all good things which are in us may be given from God, and He may make us perfect and acceptable to God, as children of God." He rehashes the same cabbage in Lib. IV *in Epist. ad Rom.*, no. 5, and thus wishes this utterance of the apostles to Christ to be received: "Increase our faith 78." "Because," he says, "even faith itself, by which we seem to believe in God, is confirmed in us by the gift of grace." And he repeats the same immediately in Lib. IX, no. 3, p. 649, and strives to prove it by that apostolic saying: "To another faith in the same Spirit 79." "The faith," he says, "which hopes and believes, and trusts without any doubt, is in us; but the reason of faith itself, and the knowledge, and the perfect understanding of those things which we believe, is gifted by God." And finally: "Just as there is a faith which we have taught to be in us, and again there is a faith which is given through grace, just as we said above it is written: 'To another faith in the same Spirit;' so also in each of these things which we enumerated above as being given by God through grace, there is also something in us, according to the measure or reason of which each one merits grace." This, to be sure, is...

^A is the sense in which he pronounced these things; he himself disclosed it a little later, teaching that God "sanctifies those things worthy of sanctification by the Spirit of his mouth;" then he adds: "There is also another grace of the Holy Spirit which is provided to the worthy, administered indeed through Christ, but wrought by the Father, according to the merit of those who are made capable of it." Nor should those things from Homily 4 on Genesis, number 7, escape anyone, where he compares the grace of Christ to the rays of the sun, and asserts that our minds are illuminated by it, unless the blindness of the latter hinders it; just as we admit the light of the sun to our eyes, unless we are prevented by our own blindness. ^B This is correct, indeed, for Augustine also uses the same comparison to explain the effects of grace. But in the following passages he semi-Pelagianizes, when he signifies that we are illuminated by greater light the closer we have approached him: "We do not, however, all come to him in the same way, but each according to his own virtue;" by which he puts it in our power to approach Christ or to recede from him. He writes likewise in volume XI on Matthew, numbers 5 and 6, that the disciples embarking in the boat, and then being tossed by the sea and the wind, represent men beset by adverse temptations, who can indeed sustain them and arrive in the middle of the sea by their own virtue; but they are unable to escape and reach the opposite shore ^C unless they are assisted by the help of Christ: that is, the beginning of good is from us, the end and completion from God. Finally, in book V on the Epistle to the Romans, number 10, page 569: "For although (freedom of will) is indeed a virtue and remains in nature, yet the power of charity is so great that it draws all things to itself, and unites all things to itself, and claims the virtues for itself; especially since God has given us the causes of charity beforehand, who did not spare his only Son, but delivered him up for us all, and with him gave us all things." These words sound, indeed, as if he meant that God bestowed upon us the grace of charity through the death of the Son before every motion of the will. But a far different meaning lies hidden here, namely, that God gave us the causes beforehand through the death of the Son, for which we should pursue him with charity ^D and love; but that this charity and love depend upon us.

XV. Whence, furthermore, he was led into these opinions, he does not in the least dissimulate, but in chapter 1 of book III of *De Principiis* he recites various passages of Scripture, and says that he omits many others in silence, from which he thinks his cause is confirmed. They indeed persuade us that man, placed as it were at a crossroads between vice and virtue, can be carried to either, but so that they do not exclude the help of grace, not only as aiding but also as inciting; which was done by Origen as we have shown. To him, however, the word of Paul seems especially to be abused, which is II Tim. 2:21: "In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and earth, and some indeed to honor, but some to dishonor. If anyone, therefore, shall have cleansed himself from these, he will be a vessel sanctified to honor, and useful to the Lord, prepared for every good work." He takes this in the same way in number 20, as if we could cleanse the filth of our sins by penitence by the powers of our own will alone, devoid of all help. Which is absolutely Pelagian.

XVI. The Magdeburgenses ^A rage against these things in *Cent. III*, chapter 10; the Bishop of Ypres also rages against them, and in this, just as in the preceding matters, drew his pen in volume I, book VI, chapter 15, and demonstrated that this opinion of Origen is the very heresy of the Massilians, capital against the grace of Christ. While we concede that this is true, and acknowledge that Origen is rightly rebuked on this account, we contend that he was blamed beyond what was fair because, in discussing divine grace, he "attributes to it the invitations and persuasions of freedom of will;" for instance, in book III of *De Principiis*, chapter 9, number 7: "For through the grace of his mercy, he (God) provides for all, and encourages and calls all, by whatever remedies they can be cured, to salvation," and in book III, chapter 2, number 4: "Nothing else is to be thought to happen to us from the things which are suggested to our heart, whether good or evil, than a mere movement and incitement, ^B provoking us either to good or to evil." To this he could have added that from book I of the same work, chapter 8, number 3: "For the kindness of God, according to what is worthy of him, provokes all things, and draws them to that blessed end where all pain, and sadness, and groaning depart and flee away." But what malice is there in those words of persuasion, incitement, provocation, or exhortation, which Augustine himself used, or others similar to them? For example, in the book *De Spiritu et Littera*, chapter 34: "In these ways, therefore, when God acts with a rational soul so that it may believe in him—for it cannot believe by any free will, if there is no persuasion or calling to which it may believe—assuredly God does work in man the very willing to believe, and in all things his mercy precedes us: ^C but to consent to the calling of God, or to dissent from it, as I have said, is of one's own will." Where it is to be noted in passing that power of will to consent or dissent, which we were defending above. Likewise in the same chapter: "Now if anyone presses us to investigate that depth, why it is suggested to one so that he may be persuaded; while to another it is not, two things only occur meanwhile," etc. We have deemed it sufficient to select these few from many.

XVII. Finally, we shall put an end to this dissertation, repeating in favor of Origen what we touched upon above, that whatever we have brought forward from the books interpreted by Rufinus to explain his opinion, does little to prejudice him. For Rufinus interpolates everything that he undertook to interpret, and that beyond

953 ORIGENIANORUM LIB. II. CAP. II. QUÆST. VII. 954

his custom to twist the opinion of authors to suit his own dogmas; but that he thought badly concerning free will is made certain by the Roman council of seventy bishops: Rufinus, a religious man, published very many books of ecclesiastical work: he also translated some of the Scriptures: but because the blessed Jerome noted him in certain places concerning free will, we feel those things which we know the blessed Jerome felt. We must remember, moreover, that before the times of Pelagius, those questions concerning free will, and concerning the grace of Christ, and predestination had been treated lightly and perfunctorily; and that, therefore, in an obscure matter not sufficiently illustrated by the definitions of the Church, it was easy to stumble. We shall add also this: that while Origen certainly did produce a pure and unadulterated Semipelagianism when discoursing on the assistance of divine grace, he was nevertheless alien to Pelagianism—which attributed both the inception of a good work and also its perfection to the powers of free will and nature—and that he was infected by it only in some matters, not in all; and it seems excessive, what the bishop of Ypres so often boasted against him, that "no pernicious thing is put forward in the writings of the Pelagians which Origen has not brought forward more clearly and more boldly."

And this is what prevents select passages, in which he seems to defend the merit and dignity of divine grace in an outstanding way, from contributing anything to the protection of Origen: such as that one from lib. I Περι Ἀρχῶν, cap. 8, num. 3, where he asserts the Holy Spirit to be the fountain of all holiness, and that from Him everything that is holy has received its holiness: "Likewise also," he says, "the nature of the Holy Spirit, which is holy, does not receive pollution: for it is holy naturally, or substantially. But if any other nature is holy, it has it from the assumption or inspiration of the Holy Spirit so that it is sanctified, not possessing this from its own nature, but as an accident to itself: for which reason what happens as an accident can also ^B fall away." Remarkable also is what he says in lib. III Περι Ἀρχῶν, cap. 2, num. 5, that human nature is by no means able to resist opposing powers by its own strength, but, supported by the assistance of God, can easily blow away their onslaughts. He discourses no less piously concerning divine grace in hom. in psalm. IV, pag. 571: "Not only, therefore, is our choice necessary to become noble and good, and the divine breath—which is, as far as we are concerned, unchosen—but also in order to remain in the good and noble that has come to be, in virtue." Where he teaches that divine aid is required not only to retain virtue, but also to lay hold of it. And homil. 4 in psalm. XXXVI, num. 2, pag. 672: "You see, therefore, that we always need the assistance of the Lord, first so that we do not fall; then, even if we have fallen, that we may rise again." Likewise tom. X in Matth., num. 6, pag. 448, he teaches that those who, having dismissed their possessions, follow Christ, have undertaken this resolution with God assisting. But thus he writes in tract. XXXV in Matth., num. 88, pag. 900: "By this, however, we are instructed that we should never promise anything concerning our human condition without consideration, as if we were able to fulfill the confession of Christ, or any of the precepts of God, from ourselves;" then he says that Peter ought to have asked grace from God, so that he himself would not suffer the scandal that the disciples of Christ suffered. ^C But we know from the connection of the rest of his decrees that Origen believed Peter had asked for this grace by the movement of his own will, since we cannot even ask for grace without the help of prevenient grace. And this solution could easily be accommodated to many of Adamantius’s sentiments, in which he derives grace from preceding merits. Of such a kind is that which we just brought forward: "God sanctifies things that are worthy of sanctification, the grace of the Holy Spirit is provided to the worthy," for it would be prompt to respond that those are worthy of the grace and sanctification of the Holy Spirit who have been made worthy through prevenient grace. Such is this of Augustine, epist. 49, ad Deogratias, quæst. 2: "The salvation of this religion, by which alone it is truly and truthfully promised, was never lacking to any man who was worthy; and to whom it was lacking, he was not worthy;" and that of Chrysostom, homil. 16 in Epist. ad Rom., τοὺς ἀξίους ὁ Θεὸς οἶδε μόνος · "God alone knows who are worthy." But the doctrine of those Fathers ^D refuses the context of the Origenian view entirely.

For if Origen had scattered the lighter seeds of the Semipelagian doctrine, this observation, supported by the authority of the Fathers, might perhaps profit him; even if grace is sometimes said to be gained by the right actions of men, that does not exclude another grace which is antecedent, by whose assistance men have acted rightly; but the former is regarded less because it is more remote from the impetration of salvation than the latter, although it is necessary for achieving it. For we know from the connection of his own decrees that Peter had asked for this grace by the movement of his own will, since we cannot even ask for grace without the help of prevenient grace. Certainly, Origen teaches the necessity of prevenient grace for praying, in express words, in lib. De oratione, num. 2, pag. 199: "For our mind," he says, "cannot pray, unless the Spirit prays before it, as it were in subordination to it; just as neither to psalm, and to hymn the Father in Christ rhythmically and melodiously and measuredly and harmoniously..." [index: entries preserved] ...is also excellent from tom. XXXII in Joan., num. 6, pag. 415: "For without Jesus no one becomes clean before God, even if he be thought to have made himself clean before Him through some diligence." But what is read in lib. III Περι Ἀρχῶν, unless the Spirit, who searches all things and the deep things of God, has first searched out and, as He was able, grasped the depths of the mind, and praised and hymned them. For our mind cannot even pray unless the Spirit, as it were hearing it, prays before it; so that neither can it psalm and praise the Father in Christ with modulated and rhythmic song and harmonious voice, unless the Spirit, who searches all things, even the depths of God (1 Cor. II, 10), first praises and celebrates Him whose depths He has searched and, as He was able, comprehended.

^A I say, he writes thus: "This was attributed to him in his own defense by Evagrius, who was endowed with the power of discernment (namely, that Hyperborean from Pontus), that he had seen no man who was more impassible and aloof from all perturbations of the soul." Hence Jerome, in his preface to the *Dialogues against the Pelagians*, attacking the assertors of *apatheia*, says: "Palladius, he says, attempted to restore the same heresy of servile wickedness." It was also restored nearly four hundred years ago by the heretic Bogonatus, the parent of the Beghards and Beguines.

In those relics which survive of Origen’s works, notes of this opinion do not appear frequently: for what stands in the 1st homily on Jeremiah, number 16, as it was translated by Jerome: "For it is impossible that what God has once quickened can be killed by Him, or by another; to eternal life, and we have shown in the observations that it should be referred to the saints who enjoy it"; and it was moreover intruded by Jerome. In volume XII on Matthew, number 29, Origen conjectures that those little children, like whom Christ wishes us to become, and to whom He forbids that a stumbling-block be presented by us, and whom He denies that the heavenly Father wishes to perish, signify men who have attained perfection; then he adds that such children can neither perish nor suffer offense, because "Great peace have they which love thy law, and nothing shall offend them," ^B and that they can deservedly say "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?" But by the authority of Ezekiel, nevertheless, he proves that the soul of a just man is subject to change, and can depart from the commandments of God, so that no account is had of his former righteousness; and that therefore the Savior forbids by His commandment that offense be presented to them by us. Also in the fifth book on the Epistle to the Romans, number 1, page 546, speaking of the death of sin: "This man, therefore, he says, who is already reformed and repaired to the image of God, is said to be neither earthly, nor in this world, but his conversation is in heaven: and therefore, according to Him who says: 'But ye are not of this world,' death cannot pass unto him"; and then: "But if sin and death entered into this world, and dwells in this world, it is certain that those who through Christ, or with Christ, have died to this world, and have been raised with Him, and have merited to sit with Him in the heavenly places, having their conversation no longer in this world, but in heaven, are strangers to death and to sin." Item, in the same book, number 10, near the end, page 568, these things are held: "For if the soul has ascended to that level of perfection, that it loves God with all its heart, and with all its soul, and with all its strength, and its neighbor as itself, where will there be a place for sin?" And this level of perfection he says the Apostle had attained, when he said: "Who shall separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus?"; then it is subjoined: "From all of which it is evidently shown, that if all these things,"

which the Apostle has enumerated, cannot separate us from the love of God, when anyone has ascended to that summit of perfection, much less will the liberty of the will be able to separate us from His love. But we can suspect that this was tainted by the interpreter Rufinus, whom no one is ignorant of not having sufficiently guarded himself against the Pelagian leaven. However, just as the places of Origen's error, reprehended by Jerome, do not very clearly convict him, so neither does he satisfy those who purge him, he who stands in *tom. XIII in Matth.*, ^A num. 23: "It is impossible for a man to be found entirely sinless, and without sin to have taken up virtue"; nor does that enumeration of the holier patriarchs, which is in *lib. V in Epist. ad Rom.*, num. 1, pag. 547, prove that any one of them lived immune from sin; (to which enumeration an opposite one, established by Pelagius, namely of those "who are reported not only not to have sinned, but also to have lived justly," is exhibited by Augustine in *lib. De natura et gratia*, cap. 35, for which I would wish the epistle of Pelagius himself to Demetrias, and the book I of Jerome *adv. Pelagian.* to be consulted); for he understands the life led by perfect men before they had crept up to the sum of perfection. Another place confirms this from *tom. XXXII in Joan.*, num. 12, pag. 436: "For they remembered, I suppose, being men, that the volition of those who are still progressing is mutable, and admits of desiring the opposites of what they had previously proposed." He says that the will of those who progress is mutable, not of those who are perfect.

At, he admits of scarcely any excuse for what is written by him in *tom. XII in Matth.*, num. 23, where, explaining this of Christ to Peter: "You are a scandal to me," he asks how that can stand with that of the Prophet: "Great peace have they who love the law of God, and for them there is no scandal"; and that of the Apostle: "Charity never falls away"; and he answers that not only the Savior, but also he who has attained perfection in charity, is not exposed to scandal; but that he who sins, to the extent that it is in him, offers scandal to such a one. Indeed, that which is found in the same volume, num. 4, pag. 516, is completely damning: "Therefore, he who is sinless, and no longer needing the legal sacrifices, has passed beyond, having been perfected, perhaps even the spiritual law, and has become above that law which is above him." Moreover, in *tom. XV* on the same Gospel, num. 6, pag. 659, he teaches that the children on whom Jesus laid hands could no longer be struck by the assaults of demons or the enticements of sin; and num. 17, pag. 676: "Indeed, this man, who exchanges poverty for wealth, in order to become perfect, having been persuaded by the words of Jesus, might be helped all at once, as the Apostles of Christ were, toward becoming wise in Christ, and brave, and just, and sober, and outside of every passion; and he who is thus defending himself will say that this need not be understood to have happened on that very day to him who has given back his possessions and given to the poor; but perhaps from that day the divine supervision will lead him to such things: I speak of praiseworthy apathy, and all virtue."

^B XIX. But this frantic delusion of Origen, already noted before by the Magdeburgensians (*cent. III, cap. 10*, which he clearly berates in *tom. I, lib. VI, cap. 12 and 15*, and especially *lib. IV* of the same tome, *cap. 19*, where he demonstrates that this *apatheia* flowed from the schools of the Pythagoreans, Stoics, Diogenes, Pyrrho, and other philosophers), does not escape the diligence of the Bishop of Ypres. In which I wonder that this escaped notice: "Although Origen was not the first author of this impassibility. For, to say nothing of the Manichaean... the Stoics have long been thought to be the authors of that *apatheia*." As if the Manichaean preceded Origen, who it is certain published his heresy about twenty-one years after Origen's death. Then, in this place, and in *lib. VI, cap. 12* of the same tome, he teaches that Priscillian, the Manichaean, the Gnostics, Evagrius the Hyperborean, Jovinian, Pelagius, and the heretics of almost all of Syria took this doctrine from Origen as their author; and that among them Evagrius published the book *Peri apatheias*, which was translated by Rufinus into Latin. Then he cleverly observes that Jerome, in *epist. ad Ctesiph. contra Pelag., cap. 2*, and in the *proem. ad Dialog. contra Pelag.*, and in the *proem. Comment. in Jerem., lib. IV*, did not sufficiently carefully distinguish those two things: ^C having the ability not to sin, and not having the ability to sin; that is, being able not to sin, and not being able to sin. The former depends on free will, by which it happens that we can sin or not sin, provided that the assistance of grace is present for that latter; the latter, however, takes away the liberty of human choice, and was championed by the Valentinians, who wanted men to be of such a nature that it would receive sin in no way: which dogma, and the authors of the dogma, Origen was wont to push with perpetual skirmishes; never ceasing to inculcate this, that there is no nature that is not capable of good and evil, so much so that not even the angels themselves were immune from sin and the punishments of sin. Wrongly, therefore, Jerome in *epist. ad Ctesiph., cap. 1*, thought that *anamartēton* was the same as being "without sin"; for *anamartēton* means "incapable of sin": but Origen did not want the perfect to be incapable of sin, nor did Pelagius, but rather that they were able to be without sin; indeed, Pelagius was declaring that the question was not whether anyone had been free from sin throughout their whole life, but whether men could be free from sin, which he affirmed could be done by the powers of free will; and Adamantius also thought that no one had lived without sin, as I said above. And yet Augustine did not deny that it was possible for a man to be in this life without sin, provided that it be referred not to the powers of nature, but to the assistance of grace: "For those who say," he says in *lib. De peccat. mer., lib. II, cap. 6*, "that it is possible for a man to be in this life without sin, it does not for them continuously follow ^D

that one must resist [this assertion] with cautious rashness. For if we deny that this is possible, we will be disparaging both the free will of man, which seeks this by desiring it, and the virtue or mercy of God, which brings it about by assisting it." Nor does the same Jerome in the preface to *lib. IV Comment. in Jerem.* seem to have rendered *anomartesian* appropriately as "sinlessness"—that is, "not to sin"—when it should have been rendered as "impeccability"—that is, "not being able to sin." He also wrote incorrectly in the preface to *Dialog. advers. Pelag.*: "But that is a doctrine peculiar to Origen, that it is possible, when someone has turned himself to better things, to arrive at such strength that he can no longer not sin," instead of what he ought to have written, that he can "not sin any further." Therefore, the genuine opinion of Origen was that all men are prone to sins; but that he who has applied himself to acquiring virtue and to purging away faults, and has ascended to perfection, can of his own strength trample down the incitements of vices if he wishes, and in no way be tempted by them. In this there is a double error: that he is willing to claim the perfect man does not need the aid of grace to trample down the allurements of sin, and that he believes he is not at all shaken by temptations; whereas it is certain that the life of man is a perpetual struggle, and that a thorn in the flesh was given to Paul himself.

^B

XX. Just as Adamantius defined that men who are raised to the highest pinnacle of virtue are not prone to sins, so he appeared to assert that it is impossible for them to emerge from vices and return to virtue, and to be renewed through repentance, those who, after having received the light of divine grace from God, have again entangled themselves in sins: that Peter, when he sinned by denying Christ, had not yet received the Holy Spirit; but to us, if we have sinned after receiving Him, neither in this age nor in the future is forgiveness granted. "Pay attention to this," he says in *tract. xxxv in Matth., num. 114, pag. 913*, "since before the cock crowed, and before the Holy Spirit, in the time of deep night, even if someone had frequently denied Him, he can still live: which is manifest from the fact that Peter denied Him thrice. But if, after the cock crowed, or once someone is placed in any danger, he denies Him, it is impossible for him to be renewed to repentance, so as to crucify the Son of God to himself again." Clement of Alexandria, indeed, in *Stromat. lib. II*, affirms that this repeated repentance, by which a man given over to sins after conversion is touched, is as it were a kind of meditation on new sin; but he is not so insane as to think that for a man who sins after that repentance there lies open no return to virtue, nor that he wishes any place for another repentance to survive. Indeed, both were pushed to this by accepting wrongly these words from the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. VI, verses 4-6: "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, and have fallen away, to be renewed again unto repentance, crucifying to themselves the Son of God, and showing him off." And this is not the same as what is found in chap. X, verses 26, 27: "For if we sin willingly after having received the knowledge of the truth, there is no longer left a sacrifice for sins; but a certain terrible expectation of judgment." Hence Novatus was led into heresy. But as for what exposition Philastrius applied to these passages of Paul, we can apply the same to that Origenian one. It stands thus in chap. 88: "He does not exclude repentance by teaching, but he shows a different degree of dignity between him who has kept his integrity, and him who has sinned. Therefore, there is a detriment of dignity in him who has sinned, not a loss of salvation. For if someone has fought bravely through martyrdom, he will regain his former dignity; or if he has lived worthily in this age, he obtains what he desires to attain. For in that same epistle he excludes re-baptizers, he does not deny the baptism of repentance." However, I would wish for Sixtus Senensis to be consulted, *lib. VI Biblioth., annot. 119*, and *lib. VII, haeres. 8*, who collected these and other things, both when explaining this sentiment of Paul and against the testimony of Origen that was adduced.

XXI. Moreover, it is strange that Origen, while believing that perfect men can "not sin," yet said that the divine commandments cannot be obeyed. Pelagius decreed the contrary in his *Sententiis*, as witnessed by Jerome, who writes this in *lib. I contra Pelag.*: "The hundredth title is, that it is possible for a man to be without sin, and to keep the commandments of God easily, if he wishes." But Origen writes thus in *lib. II, in Epist. ad Rom., num. 9*: "But we who believe that all these things are to be understood spiritually, for that reason believe that we are to be justified not as hearers, but as doers of the law, not the law according to the letter, which certainly, because of its impossibility, cannot have a doer, but according to the spirit, through whom alone the law will be able to be fulfilled." And *num. 14, pag. 499*: "Although some of the Jews did not believe, nevertheless it must be said concerning their infidelity, that God indeed alone is truthful, but every man is a liar: because even if someone is righteous, it is nevertheless necessary that he fall from the truth in something, which it is almost impossible for human nature to preserve in all things." There are even graver and more explicit things existing in *tract. xxxv in Matth., num. 88, pag. 900, 901*, where he asks whether, once the prophecy of Christ was posited—that all the apostles were about to suffer scandal in him—it could have happened that Peter would not suffer scandal; which he solves with a double response: first, because it was necessary, with the most truthful mouth predicting it, that "all you will be scandalized," for it to happen as it was predicted by Jesus; second, "because he who was entreated by the Ninevites, and did not do what he had predicted through Jonah because of the repentance of the Ninevites, thus it was possible that he might also repel the scandal from Peter as he prayed." The latter response is true, the former false: for the prophecy of Christ having been posited, the effect certainly followed, it is not neces-

^A It is false, moreover, that he could not have not denied, for even if he were certainly going to deny, he could nevertheless have not denied. Origen asks elsewhere whether Peter was abandoned. And since he says that he spoke not only inconsiderately, but almost impiously: "Even if all shall be scandalized in thee, I will not be scandalized," 91 and not thinking of slippery human nature, he uttered a great word; for this reason, he was not abandoned for a moment, that he might deny, or that he might deny even once; but he was abandoned more abundantly, so that he might deny three times. He subjoins later that it would have been better for Peter to have considered his own case, if, having foreseen the weakness of human nature, which by its own strength and diligence can by no means profess the name of Christ, he had prayed to Him to confer upon him the grace necessary for that. That, indeed, is very well said, but what follows is faulty: "For it could not be," he says, "that when interrogated he could have said 'Lord Jesus' in the Holy Spirit, or have confessed Him, since the Holy Spirit had not yet been given."

And Origen repeats this very notion later in number 114, page 912, and furthermore piles on a new dogma: "Considering Peter's denial more abundantly, we say that no one can say 'Lord Jesus' except in the Holy Spirit, as Paul teaches us 92; and the Holy Spirit was not yet in men at that time, because Jesus had not yet been glorified, as John says. 93 Therefore it was not possible, nor was that Peter of that time able to confess Jesus, nor yet to be blamed for not confessing Jesus." Since it is said to those who confess: "It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you." 94 But since that Spirit of our Father is powerful to speak in us, and since it is in our power to give place in us to the Holy Spirit and not to the devil, if we have denied, we shall have no excuse.

^B And first, because he says that Peter was abandoned, it can be understood in more than one way; for he either means that he was deprived of every aid of any grace whatever, by the help of which he could have openly confessed Christ, spurning the terror of death: and since the mark of rashness, impiety, and heresy was branded upon this opinion by the solemn decree of the sacred theological faculty of Paris in the year 1656, it would also be rash and impious to defend it by any trifling or argument. Or, he judges that there was lacking to him not only that vehement aspiration of God and that divine impulsion—by which, urged on, he had cast himself into the midst of the waves and had attacked the band of guards with drawn sword to fight for Christ—but also the aid of effective grace; and that this can be said rightly and catholically.

^C However, from the fact that the Spirit was not yet given, he falsely concludes that no one could have called Jesus Lord in the Holy Spirit; for although the Holy Spirit had not yet been given by that broad and wonderful mission by which He was poured into the apostles at Pentecost, He had been given in another way to just men before the birth of Christ, while He walked among men, and after He returned to heaven. Excellent is the dissertation of Augustine on this matter, which he treats in *John* xxx, where he shows what divides this last mission of the Holy Spirit from the others of previous times. Therefore, when Peter denied Christ, although the Holy Spirit had not yet been given by that solemn and visible mission which happened at Pentecost, yet the divine grace, bestowed through the Holy Spirit, was available to him, by which, neglecting the danger of death, he could have confessed Christ. Therefore, that which Origen adds cannot be borne: "For this reason it was not possible for that Peter of that time to confess Jesus, nor yet to be blamed for not confessing Jesus." Nor does he think that the Holy Spirit was absent from Peter alone at that time, but that there was also present the spirit of the enemy of this Spirit, whom God bestows upon those whom He wishes to assist by His aid, as the same author teaches in *Matthew*, tom. XII, no. 40, pp. 560, 561.

^D XXII. Nevertheless, although he may have seemed to define at times that it is impossible to obey divine mandates, he sings the contrary in *Homily* 9 in *Joshua*, no. 2: "Does it not seem to you," he says, "that among women is to be numbered that man who says: 'I cannot observe what is written, I cannot sell what I have, and give to the poor,'... and other similar things which are commanded; he who says 'I cannot fulfill,' what else does it seem to you, than that he is to be numbered among the women who can do nothing manly?" And in *Matthew*, tom. XIV, no. 25, and tom. XV, no. 5, he says that each one can obtain from God the gift of chastity, although it may not be granted to everyone. Furthermore, the dogma we evaluated above, by which he teaches that the just are sinless, resists this; for since we have proved from various testimonies, and even by the authority of Jerome himself, that Origen was caught in this error, how could he have adhered to this other one, which we are investigating, that the commands of God can scarcely even be kept? For if the commands cannot be kept, no one can avoid resisting the commands, and consequently no one can avoid sinning. Since these things appear to be opposed to one another, I suspect they were reconciled by him in this way: that in one sense indeed it is true that men are just and perfect, and that they can not sin, and are able to obey the divine laws; but that other men cannot keep all the precepts; for Jerome, in the prologue to *Dialogus adversus Pelagianos*, handed down that this was characteristic of Origen: "It is impossible for human nature from the beginning until death not to sin: and on the other hand, it is possible, when someone has converted himself to better things, to arrive at such fortitude, that he can sin no more." But Peter...

^A deemed that he had either not yet been perfected when he denied Christ, or that, having received the Holy Spirit, he was perfect and ἄπαθης [impassible], yet was unable to avoid sin because of Christ's prediction of his future sin, which was confirmed by an oath. But as for the statement: "For it was necessary that what was predicted by Jesus should happen," I believe it originated from an interpreter, for Origen, in *Commentary on Genesis*, tom. III, no. 6, p. 14, thinks otherwise. His words are: "For it is not because it is known that it happens; but because it was about to happen, it is known." It requires a distinction. For if one interprets the phrase "it will absolutely be" in such a way that it is necessary that what was foreknown must happen, we do not grant this to him; for we will not say that, because it was foreknown that Judas would become a traitor, there was an absolute necessity for Judas to become a traitor. The following passages also point in the same direction. The remarks added in the same *Commentary on Matthew*, tractat. xxxv, no. 88, p. 901, also admit of a convenient explanation, namely that it could not have been that Peter would not sin, once Christ had confirmed His prediction with an oath, an "Amen." For the phrase "it could be," Origen could express in Greek in a twofold way: οἷόν τε εἶναι, [or] εἰ δυνατὸν εἶναι; the former excludes necessity and agrees with the liberty to choose opposites, as they express it; the latter, however, includes necessity and excludes liberty. I draw the argument for this distinction from book II *Against Celsus*, no. ^B 18, where he speaks of the same betrayal and Christ’s prophecy: "It was not possible that he who was known as one who would betray should not betray, nor that he who was warned should not deny." As if to say: "It was in no way going to be." But a little later, at no. 20, he has this: "And yet, all of this happens in the foreknowledge of Him who declares it as something that could be that this or that will come to pass, one of them will happen. And we do not say that the one who foreknows, by removing the possibility of [a thing] happening and not happening, says something like this: ‘This will absolutely be, and it is impossible for it to happen otherwise.’" And in book VII of the *Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans*, no. 8, p. 605: "It is not, therefore, because the prophets predicted it that Judas betrayed; but because he was about to be a traitor, the prophets predicted the things which he was going to do out of the wickedness of his own will, when Judas certainly had it in his power to be like Peter and John, if he had wished." Hence, the Magdeburgians indeed complained in *Cent*. III, cap. 40, that Origen asserted the possibility of the divine Law.

Furthermore, it is to be understood that it is sometimes possible for a man, such as the thief was, a companion of Christ ^C in His final suffering, to be justified by faith alone, without any good work intervening; when, of course, the ability or opportunity to perform one is not given. "For the beginning of justification by God," Origen [says in] lib. IV following, no. 1, p. 523, "is faith which believes in the One who justifies: and when this faith has been justified, like a root that has received rain it clings to the soil of the soul, so that when it begins to be cultivated by the law of God, branches arise from it which bear the fruit of works. Therefore, the root of justice does not grow from works, but the fruit of works grows from the root of justice." And a little earlier, p. 522: "Now you will certainly consider whether, if it is said of faith that it was 'reckoned to him for righteousness,' the same can be said of other virtues, because, for example, mercy can be reckoned to anyone for righteousness, or wisdom, or knowledge, or gentleness and humility, or at least if, for every believer, faith is reckoned for righteousness." Then in Rom. iv, 18, no. 6, p. 531: "I think that the first beginnings of salvation, and the very foundations, is faith; the progress and growth of the building, however, is hope: but the perfection and summit of the whole work is charity." The same author, *tom.* xvi in *Matt.*, no. 27, p. 760, says that faith without works is like the fig tree dried up by Christ, which showed only leaves without fruits. Therefore, after he tried to prove that man is made just by faith alone, without the works of the law, in the first part of book IV in *Epist. ad Rom.*, he immediately adds at no. 9, p. 517: "But perhaps someone hearing these things might be loosened, and take up negligence in doing good, if indeed faith alone suffices for justification. To whom we shall say that if, after justification, anyone acts unjustly, without doubt he has spurned the grace of justification." And afterward, no. 10, p. 519: "But if someone should inquire more curiously, through whom those who are justified by faith are justified; although perhaps much curiosity may seem to be in this, we can nevertheless conveniently say that those who are justified by faith, having taken their beginning from faith, are perfected through the fulfillment of good works; and they who are justified through faith, having begun from good works, receive through faith the highest perfection." By what faith, then, did the Magdeburgians, *cent*. III, cap. 10, write that Origen made good works the fountain of justification?

XXIII. There is also evident room for criticism of Origen from book IV in *Epist. ad Rom.*, no. 9, in which he strives to demonstrate by examples and reasons that a man is made just by faith alone, without any works of the law, according to that of the Apostle, Rom. iii, 27, 28: "Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law." Yet it is certain, however, that Origen is discoursing there about the beginnings of justification, not about its progress and increase. ^D

XXIV. Concerning original sin propagated from Adam to men, the complaint of the bishop of Ypres against Adamantius is not singular. In *tom.* I, lib. vi, cap. 17, after he admitted that Origen did not seem at all to dissent from the Catholic Church concerning original sin, he nonetheless says that he opened a door to the Pelagians for them to harbor false opinions about that matter. Soon he collects the principal chapters from book V of his own *Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans*, by which he believes his doctrine on this subject is contained; which we will examine individually, but briefly. The first of these is the world, into which sin entered.

^A

It is that the Apostle teaches, concerning the sin of Adam: 1. that men are earthly; 2. that death, which passed upon all men, is the death of the soul, not of the body; 3. that that death did not pass upon all, but upon many, namely those who sinned in act; 4. that it did not reign over all, but only over those who sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression; 5. that not all men, but many were made sinners by the fault of one; 6. that Christ brought more back to life than Adam brought to death; 7. that Adam is the form of the one to come, because, imitating the example of his sin, they were made sinners. I would wish it observed, above all, that these things were proposed by Origen allegorically [ἀλληγορικῶς], not defined dogmatically [δογματικῶς]; for before he approaches them, having explained the sense of the letter, "Let us see now," he says in number 1, page 545, "what the interior intellect also contains." Which will reveal itself even more clearly from the inconsistency and diversity of his own opinions. For as regards the first point, after he said that earthly men, and those dedicated to earthly things, are allegorically the world into which sin entered, he later interprets the world differently, and teaches that by it is signified, in number 1, page 547, "this earthly place in which men dwell; or the earthly and corporeal life, in which death has a place; to which world, that is, to this earthly life, the saints say they are crucified and dead." Not much lower down, on page 549, he has other words: "It seems to me," he says, "that the Apostle here has called not so much men, but the world, that age which has not yet attained to the capacity of reason." ^B

The second complaint is this, that Origen said the death which passed upon all men is the death of the soul, not of the body. I confess that that death is generally taken by him as the death of sin, but, like other things, in an allegorical sense: of which death he calls the corporeal death the shadow, in number 1, page 547, because "wherever it proceeds, this must necessarily follow, just as a body follows a shadow; and for that reason it was that Christ was dead, because He was made sin for us." But as for that death, which the Apostle says reigned from Adam unto Moses, Romans v, 14, Origen interprets it not once as the death of the body and the descent into the underworld in his book *On the Epistle to the Romans*, such as when he says in number 4: "How indeed, or what condemnation came upon all men, it must be seen: and perhaps it may be sufficient, according to the simple exposition, to say that the condemnation of the fault is this common death, which comes and will come to all, even if they appear righteous." ^C

Origen therefore believed that not only sin, which is the death of the soul, but even corporeal death was transmitted to the whole human race through the fall of Adam, which is perfectly in agreement with the decree of the Council of Trent, session 5, canon 2. This Jansenius, as if dissenting from himself, by no means conceals in volume I, book II, chapter 15. The third charge is such: that he judged that death which, according to the Apostle, Romans v, 12, passed upon all, passed only upon many, who indeed sinned by act. ^D To which the fourth charge is connected: that it seemed to him that the death of which Paul speaks, Romans v, 14, did not reign over all, but only over those who sinned in the likeness of Adam’s transgression. In both cases, he understands the death of sin: and hence also follows the fifth accusation, that he asserted that not all men, but many were made sinners by the fault of one. Origen, however, distinguishes the transit of death from the reign of death: "For sin," he says in number 4, page 550, "passed even unto the righteous, and touched them with a certain light contagion; but in transgressors, that is, in those who submit themselves to it with their whole mind and devotion, it holds the kingdom and dominates with all power." But he holds that that death reigned only over those who defiled themselves with a crime similar to Adam's. Although elsewhere he says that the sin of origin reigned over all: "It is not therefore," he says in number 2, page 554, "that since we sin nothing, death reigned in us: and soon after: But death reigned from Adam until Moses over those who sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression. Do you see how Paul spares no one from sin?" That death, however, passed into all, he asserts explicitly in repeated places, just as when in number 1, page 547, he says that corporeal death is the shadow of the death of sin; and therefore that no one is immune to the death of sin, because no one can avoid corporeal death. He then proves this by commemorating men of former times who were noble in holiness, all of whom he demonstrates to have been subject to sin. He confirms the same thing not much later, explaining that apostolic statement, Rom. v, 18: "Therefore as by the offence of one unto all men to condemnation, etc. And it may be sufficient," he says in number 4, "perhaps according to the simple exposition, to say that the condemnation of the fault is this common death, which comes and will come to all, even if they seem righteous;" and he says this is the simple, not the allegorical exposition. Nor is it repugnant to the above, what he says in number 2, page 553: "He (the Apostle) does not place all men, as is usual, in the others, but many, who by the fault of one were constituted sinners; for he confesses in number 5, page 556, that the word *all* was omitted by the Apostle, lest if he had said *for the disobedience of one, all were made sinners, and necessarily added, so also by the obedience of one all shall be constituted righteous*, it might seem to resolve the minds of those for whom it is expedient to be under fear by the security of such a promise." Then in number 5, pages 556, 557, he teaches that it is one thing to sin, and another to be a sinner; that all, even the righteous, sin, but those are sinners who have often, by sinning, contracted the custom and habit of sinning; therefore, that many are sinners, not all; but that all indeed sin. But these things are clear in number 1, page 544: "And in order to show more evidently that all men and many men are the same, he added to these: For as by the disobedience of one man many were constituted sinners, so also by the obedience of one shall many be constituted righteous."

^A And as regards what he had said above regarding all men, he named many in the same sense; and this is in number 2, page 553: "Christ, however, accepted this common death, although He did not receive that of sin, which reigned in all." And we have already demonstrated sufficiently above that Origen was persuaded that no one is free from sin. This sixth charge is brought against him: that he decreed that Christ brought back more to life than Adam did to death. This is easily refuted by the foregoing, for if Origen thought that death, whether of the soul or of the body, flowed from Adam upon all, he certainly could not have thought that Christ brought back to life more than all. Furthermore, in explaining that passage of the Apostle, Romans v, 15: "For if by the transgression of one many died; much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many," he opposes the grace of Christ to the sin of Adam, and he accurately compares whatever good or evil was brought upon men by each, ^B and observes that no more were raised by the grace of Christ than were affected and changed for the worse by the sin of Adam. Truly he explains the Pauline sentiment in these words, number 2, page 552: "He wishes to show how much stronger is life than death, and justice than sin, and to teach thereby that if, in this way, death could reign in all through sin, taking its beginning from the disobedience of one man, how much more powerfully and worthily will life reign through justice, taking its beginning through the obedience of one, Christ?" But also on page 553, he thinks it can be said in a "simpler understanding" that more were gifted with life by Christ than were affected by death by Adam; because Adam gave death only to those springing from him; but Christ gave life not only to them, but even to Adam himself. "Thus," he says, "Christ brings back more to life than Adam led to death; ^C because Christ even called back to life Adam himself, who was the cause of death for the others." Finally, Jansenius blames Origen for asserting that Adam was the form of the future, because those who imitate the example of his sin are made sinners. That passage exists, indeed, with other places in this fifth book on the Epistle to the Romans, and especially in number 5, page 557, in these words: "Adam therefore gave to sinners a form through disobedience; Christ, on the contrary, established for the righteous a form through obedience.... For therefore he also became obedient even unto death 97, that those who follow the example of his obedience might be constituted righteous by justice itself, just as those following the form of disobedience were constituted sinners." But on repeating the testimonies of the same book, he pronounces that Adam is called the form of the future because he prefigured the type of Christ. ^D However, what he adds, that Adam provided for men a form of sinning through his transgression, and that thus many were constituted sinners, does not at all exclude the sin propagated from origin: or rather, as he says in number 1, page 550, it is to be understood more simply, and the likeness of Adam's transgression should be accepted without any discussion, so that by this discourse all who were born of Adam the transgressor may appear to be condemned, and to have in themselves the likeness of his transgression, not only from the seed, but also received from instruction. Where he acknowledges the sin of origin transmitted by seed, and the sin, as they call it, actual, received through instruction. And not long after, in number 2, pages 553, 554, he inculcates the same doctrine, teaching that men are urged to the death of sin not so much by nature as by discipleship, and that sin is "not only of birth, but also of doctrine," and that Christ opposed contraries to contraries, and through regeneration abolished that vice contracted through generation; and checked the sin admitted through evil instruction by wholesome doctrine; and therefore did not say to his disciples: "Go, baptize all nations;" but: "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost 98." Then he concludes thus: "Knowing therefore that both are in fault, he gave a remedy for both, that mortal generation might be changed by the regeneration of baptism, and the doctrine of piety might exclude the doctrine of impiety." It is more useful for attacking Origen that the Chains on the Psalms refer to him at Psalm xlviii, 6, page 718: *[Original script column: see facsimile]* By these, the sin of origin and the punishments due to it are entirely removed. But apart from the unreliable faith of the Chains, the sound and orthodox sentiment of Origen himself on this subject in various scattered places serves him, as in homily 8 on Leviticus, number 5, where he asserts that men are conceived in iniquities and born in sins, and therefore it is written: "No one is clean from filth, though his life be but of one day 99" (although in homily 12 on Leviticus, number 4, and homily 14 on Luke, he distinguishes those impurities which we contract being born from sin, and thinks that the filth and defilement of conception and birth are signified), otherwise baptism would be superfluous and useless if, as is customary, it were conferred on infants for the remission of sins. He repeats similar things in volume xv on Matthew, number 23, page 686, and decides that by baptism the filth which we contract at birth is washed away; namely sin, according to that of David in Psalm 1: "For behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother conceive me." From this is solved, to say this in passing, the other crime imputed to the Origenists, that they held that sins were not removed by baptism, but were covered. Hence Jansenius himself confessed that Origen does not seem to dissent from Catholic doctrine concerning original sin; hence they argue that he taught soundly concerning the effect of baptism, namely, that by it the filth of sin is laid aside and every kind of harm is taken away.

Magdeburgenses, Cent. III, cap. 10. If anything that is not very consonant with the orthodox faith occurs in those *Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans*, the learned reader should remember that their author is to be considered not so much Origen as Rufinus; by whom they were not so much interpreted as rewritten and interpolated. Moreover, Rufinus is said to have thought so erroneously on original sin that Celestius, at the Council of Carthage, professed that he had received from him that nefarious dogma, that there is no transmission of sin, as Augustine reports in *De peccato originali*, lib. II, cap. 3.

Let us note, meanwhile, the capital accusation of Jerome against Origen, in which his third book against the Pelagians ends: "But if it seems unjust to you (Pelagians)," he says, "that the remission of others' sins, which is brought about by baptism, is needed by him who could not sin, pass over to your 'Amasius,' who says that past and ancient sins in heaven are dissolved in baptism; so that you may follow the error in this part as you are led by his authority in other things." By that 'Amasius' I understand Origen, as if he were called Adamantius from *amando* (loving), so he might be called Amasius from *amando*. Since we have admitted that he believed that sins were committed by souls in heaven, we do not deny that he thought them to be washed away by baptism: provided it is granted that he also supposed that the sin of propagation, derived from Adam, is also erased by the same baptism; which we have undertaken to defend in the present instance.

XXV. It now remains for Origen to plead his cause regarding his tenets on predestination. We must therefore remember the dogma we have so often rehearsed, by which he asserted that souls, before they tumbled into bodies, passed a life in heaven, and according to the life lived there, whether rightly or wrongly, were some of them adopted into the angelic order, while others were thrust down to the earth; and that they not only obtained various bodies and a various lot of living on earth, but also merited a various measure of divine grace, and were made into vessels of clay or gold, of dishonor or of honor; yet so that, using the same freedom of will, they might take hold of new increments of grace and be carried back again to higher degrees, or relapse to lower ones. **^B** And the whole ninth chapter of the second book of *De principiis* is devoted to this argument. But the same writer openly teaches this in lib. VI *in Epist. ad Rom.*, num. 17, explaining that Pauline text: "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?"

As Adamantius thought that the deeds done by us long ago, before we underwent bodies, gave God the reason for entangling our minds in these earthly weights—to such an extent that God predestined us to perform this life on earth, from the merits foreseen from all past ages of that life spent in heaven—so he thought God predestined us to ^C certain noble tasks on earth, and then afterwards to glory after death. (44) He asserts this in two places in particular, the first of which is lib. I *in Epist. ad Rom.*, num. 5, where he says that Paul was separated from his mother's womb unto the Gospel of God, because "He to whom the mind is not hidden saw in him the causes and merits for which he ought to be separated for this. For He foresaw that he would labor in the Gospel more abundantly than all the others... Therefore, Jesus, foreseeing these things and many others like them in him from his mother's womb, separated him for the Gospel for these reasons." And soon after: "Those whom God foreknew would be such as to conform themselves to Christ in his passions, them He also predestined to be conformable and like to the image of His glory. Therefore, the foreknowledge of God precedes, by which it is known who will possess labors and virtues in themselves, and thus predestination follows; yet foreknowledge is not to be thought of as the cause of predestination. For whereas with men the merit of each one is weighed by past deeds, this is judged before God by future ones." The second place is in lib. VII *Comment. in Epist. ad Rom.*, num. 8, where, explaining this utterance of the Apostle: "Whom he predestinated, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified," he teaches first that the phrase "whom he foreknew," mentioned in the previous verse, is to be understood differently than is commonly accepted; because if only those are foreknown who are predestined, then those who are not predestined are certainly not foreknown: thus he proves that this knowledge is to be understood as a bond of love and a knot of affection, using many testimonies of Scripture, such as this: "The Lord knoweth them that are his," that is, he loves them, even though He is not unaware of those who are not His: therefore he wishes those to be foreknown by God "in whom, knowing what they would be, God had placed His own love and affection." He asks subsequently in what sense that word of the Apostle is to be interpreted: "Whom he called, them he also justified," when many are called, but few chosen. He answers that there is a twofold kind of calling; one according to the purpose—not of God who calls, but of the man who is called—by which he embraces virtue; and whoever are called by such a calling, them he asserts are also justified: the other is a kind of calling not according to good purpose, by which even the reprobate are called, lest they use this as a pretext for being punished for their merits: that they were alienated from virtue because they lacked a calling. But if anyone wishes to refer that purpose, according to which the Apostle said we are called by God, to God, that future result also follows from the right purpose of the human will, and a religious mind, and the desire for salvation. Finally he adds: "Thus, therefore, the cause of our salvation or perdition does not consist in the foreknowledge of God, nor does justification depend on will alone, nor is glorification wholly lifted from our power.

XXVI. The Bishop of Ypres complains that Origen has stated that predestination depends upon foreseen merits: that vocation happens according to the purpose of man, not of God; that vocation according to the purpose of God is appropriate to and connected with the good desires of men; that these same things are the cause of salvation and damnation, namely, the desires of a religious mind. All these things tend toward the same result. He also finds fault with how the passage of the Apostle is wrongly interpreted: ^A “God has set the members, each one of them, in the body, as he willed,” as if that will pertained to the member, not to God. The locus is in Book IX of the *Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans*, no. 3, page 648: “He willed, however, he says, God according to the reason or measure of faith which is in us, or he willed to that which is expedient. Unless perhaps someone wishes to understand it in this way: God placed in the body each one of the members, as he willed, in such a way that as he willed, the *as he willed* may refer more to the member, that is, as he willed, as he chose, as he exerted effort, so that the power of free will may not appear to be taken away from man.”

That Origen placed predestination after foreseen merits is not at all surprising, since we learn that this question was touched upon only lightly and perfunctorily by the ancient Fathers who lived before the Pelagian times, as we gather from the letters of Prosper and Hilary of Arles to Augustine, which are accustomed to be placed before his own books *On the Predestination of the Saints* and *On the Gift of Perseverance*, and from chapter 14 of the former book of Augustine and chapter 20 of the latter. For indeed Irenaeus ^B and Chrysostom held this view; but even after the Pelagian age, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and many others have held it as a traditional view. Since we see the same view propounded today by Catholic men, and it is permitted to pursue this or the other view opposed to it through the authority of the highest pontiffs. Yet Adamantius did not support this opinion to such an extent that he did not also seem to pursue the contrary at times. For in Book V of his *Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans*, no. 15, he writes: “But all these things tend toward this, that the Apostle may prove that if either Isaac or Jacob had been chosen by God for those merits which they had acquired while placed in the flesh, and had deserved to be justified through the works of the flesh, the grace of their merit could certainly have pertained also to their posterity of flesh and blood. But now, since their election was not made from works, but from the purpose of God, and from the will of him who calls, the grace of the promises is fulfilled not in the children of the flesh, but in the children of God: ^C that is, those who are chosen in like manner as they were, according to the purpose of God, and are adopted as sons.” But, as I have often said, little faith should be placed in this book, as it is sprinkled and stained with Rufinian opinions.

We know it. Origen does not so maintain that vocation according to the purpose of man—which Augustine truly attributes to the Pelagians in Book II of *Against the Two Epistles of the Pelagians*—that he does not also admit that vocation according to the purpose of God can be understood here; for he proposes both and accommodates them to his own view. Although he defended that first one, having Chrysostom as a supporter, who discusses it in *Rom. xv, 28* as follows: “He says ‘according to the purpose’ here, so that he does not give everything to the calling, since otherwise the Greeks and the Jews were going to contradict. For if the ^D calling alone sufficed, why were not all saved? For this reason, he says, not the calling alone, but also the purpose of those who are called has wrought salvation. For the calling did not happen by compulsion, nor by force; all were called, but not all obeyed.” “He says ‘purpose’ here, so as not to attribute everything to the vocation: for thus both Greeks and Jews would have contradicted. For if the vocation alone sufficed, for what reason were not all saved? Therefore, he says, not vocation alone, but also the purpose of those who are called, worked salvation: for the vocation was not made by compulsion, nor was it violent. All, therefore, were called, but not all obeyed.” He would also have had Theodoret, and the perpetual followers of Chrysostom, Theophylact and Oecumenius, and some others as agreeing. But the vocation according to the purpose of God, since that purpose depends upon the discerned pious desires of the soul, insofar as it coheres with the remaining dogmas of Adamantius, is rightly rejected by Jansenius; for it derives pious desires from the sole will of men; having discerned these desires, God proposes to call them, and then for the first time bestows the grace appropriate to it. Hence Jansenius criticizes something in Origen in Volume I, Book VIII, Chapter 4, namely, that he said Christ had handed down the precepts of saving doctrine to men as he knew them to be disposed, and foresaw that they would apply faith to himself. Indeed, I do not doubt, as I said above, that Origen believed that Christ was moved by this foreknowledge to bestow upon them the first grace: and therefore we offer no defense for this Semipelagian error. If Origen had thought that those whom he had foreseen would assent through the aid of his purely gratuitous grace were those whom Christ imbued with his doctrine, or that a future and foreseen consent had provided the occasion for Christ to bestow his doctrine and grace—not that merit was provided; that is, that Christ had lavished his grace and doctrine not from their future merits, but from this occasion offered by consent—he would certainly be protecting himself with great patrons; for instance, Augustine, who, as Jansenius has it in the above-cited place, in *Epistle 49 to Deogratias*, Question 2, teaches that Christ then wished to appear to men, and his doctrine to be preached among them, when he knew, and where he knew, there were those who were going to believe in it; and a little later:

"For God does not do all things at once, but uses condescension because of his great love for mankind. And this is the reason for Christ’s having come now, and not long ago," that God does not do all things suddenly, but adapts himself to circumstances because of his exceeding humanity. And this is the cause why the Savior arrived now, not long ago; a matter he discusses at greater length at the end of the same homily; and with Sedulius, who, on Romans viii, 28, says that the purpose of God is to be understood there, according to which he proposed to save by faith alone those whom he had foreknown would believe. One could also tolerate what Origen adds, that our justification does not depend solely upon the will of God, nor is salvation completely removed from our own power; for man freely consents to the grace of justification, from which he can dissent, and by dissenting, can lose eternal salvation, according to the Tridentine views (45). In truth, however, all convenient interpretation is excluded by what Origen adds, "that the cause of salvation is not placed in God’s foreknowledge for each individual, but in his own purpose and deeds"; it is also excluded by the other precepts of Adamantius from which these things proceed. Rightly, too, is that explanation of the Pauline passage which exists in I Cor. xii, 18, proposed by Origen—though not asserted by him, nor altogether approved—refuted as absurd and forced.

QUESTION VIII. CONCERNING THE STARS.

I. Whether he thought that they consist of a soul and body, or that the bodies are inanimate, we must repeat what we have already discussed so often above: that Adamantius opined that minds were created before bodies, and on account of their merits were thrust into various bodies; but that some of those which had behaved not badly were appointed to the noble task of animating the bodies of the sun, moon, and other stars, and of illuminating and adorning the world. This was already touched upon above, and must now be proven even more fully. Indeed, this is held in Volume I of Origen’s *Commentary on John*, no. 17, "For the soul of the sun in the body." This is the soul of the sun, not of Elias, as the interpreter ineptly translates. But in Book II of *De Principiis*, chap. 9, no. 7, after he decreed that souls are joined to diverse bodies according to their virtues and merits, he adds some from among those that are of better merit, to adorn the state of the world, to share the lot of the rest, and to perform service for those lower than themselves, so that through this they might become participants in the Creator’s endurance: according to what the Apostle himself says: "For the creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who subjected it in hope." This is undoubtedly to be understood concerning the stars.

Nor did he think that a soul was merely added to the stars, but that they also possess reason, and know, praise, and pray to God. For in Volume XIII of his *Commentary on Matthew*, no. 20, these things are read: "It is absurd to say that the system of heaven and earth and of those things that are in them [is inanimate], so that one might say that the sun, and the moon, and the host of the stars, and the angels in this whole world did not know the true light, and, being ignorant of it, kept the order appointed to them by God." And in Book V *Contra Celsum*, no. 10, page 585, he calls the stars "rational and noble beings, enlightened by the light of knowledge by Wisdom, which is the effulgence of eternal light." He proves in no. 13 that they offer prayers to God through his only-begotten Son, and praise him, from David’s Psalm cxlviii, 3, 4: "Praise him, all stars and light: praise him, ye heavens of heavens." To which he also refers that passage from Romans viii, 19-21: "For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who subjected it in hope: because the creature also itself shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God"; and in Book VIII of the same work, no. 66: "We praise the sun," he says, "as a good creature of God, and one that keeps the laws of God, and obeys the saying: Praise the Lord, O sun and moon. And as much as is in your power, praise the Father, and the creator of all." And a little later, no. 67: "We praise God, and his Only-Begotten, as do the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and all the heavenly host; for all these praise, being a divine choir with the righteous among men, the God who is over all, and his Only-Begotten." It is his opinion that the same are subject to sins; and not only the stars, but also the elements, and that therefore they will at some time undergo the judgment of God, fixed in these words in *Homily 4 on Ezekiel*, no. 1: "It is destined that in the day of judgment, not only man, but also the entire creation shall be judged. For all creation groans and travails together. If all creation groans and travails, and a part of the creatures is heaven and earth, and whatever else is under the heaven, and what is above the heavens, and all creation shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God, who knows whether even the earth, according to its own nature, might be held subject to some sin? For if it is an animal, if it is rational, if it is in need of hearing the prophetic word saying: Attend, O heaven, and I will speak, and he..."

will perceive with his ears, O earth—why then should there not be a judgment of the earth and the air in the future?" He then proves this by various testimonies of Scripture; then he adds: "It (the earth) is capable, I say, as an animal, according to the qualities of its parts, and of good acts, and of evil ones, in which it may deserve either praise or punishment." ^A Moreover, regarding what is held in Matthew xxiv, 35, *Heaven and earth shall pass away*. "Why," he says, "does he pass over the heaven, while the earth passes away, unless it is because they have done certain things worthy of their passing?" And he comments upon this in that passage of Ezekiel xiv, 13: *The earth shall not have sinned against me, so that I should prevaricate in prevaricating, I will stretch out my hand upon it, and I will crush its staff of bread.* But Sixtus of Siena (Bibliotheca, lib. v, adnot. 242) thinks it in vain that these things were said by Origen by way of prosopopoeia, as is manifest from the connection of his own doctrine. Genebrardus took better counsel for Origen, responding that these things were pronounced by way of inquiry and discussion. Furthermore, he asserts that the stars are led by the hope of the future (lib. vii contr. Cels., num. 65); for after he referred the same Pauline passage from the Epistle to the Romans to the stars, he adds: *not that those things which were subjected to the slavery of corruption, and to vanity, do these things for a better hope, in the place of honoring God.* This hope, however, is of liberty and of the future separation from the bodies to which they are conjoined, and of salvation.

But he exhausted all that argument in book i, *De principiis*, cap. 7, from which Justinian selected some passages and, for the sake of confirming the faith, recorded them at the end of his letter to Menas. In the first place (num. 2), he shows that the stars are not immune from the contagion of sin from Job xxv, 5: *Stars are not clean in his sight.* To prove this better, he argues that they are animals; that they are said to receive commands from God; but that God commands them so that they are moved at appointed times; ^B but that those motions cannot be accomplished without a soul; nor can those things which are endowed with a soul exist without motion: nor should they possess only a soul, but also reason; and accordingly, without doubt, receive increments or decrements of virtue: to these things, he proves that the souls are inserted extrinsically into the more recent bodies of the stars, first by this reasoning, that since human souls, which, while they are the souls of men, are inferior to the souls of the stars, are more ancient than the bodies of men, it is likely that the souls of the stars are also more ancient than the bodies of the stars: he proves this same thing then by the above-adduced Pauline passage from Romans viii, 19-22; indeed, that the ethereal body is called vanity, which the soul of the star undergoes unwillingly, hoping that in the future, when this ministry is fulfilled, it will be liberated from that servitude of corruption and vanity, when the time of the revelation of the glory of the sons of God will have arrived; whose vow's fulfillment, while it awaits, it groans, and "as if having affection toward those whom it serves, it condoles: but it will be liberated from servitude, and when Christ shall have delivered the kingdom to God and the Father, then also these living creatures, having previously been made a kingdom of Christ, will at the same time be delivered to the Father to be governed along with the whole kingdom; that when God shall be all in all, even these, since they are from all things, God may also be in them as he is in all."

II. That occasion was opportune for the adversaries of Origen to accuse him. Theophilus of Alexandria, in his Pascal epistles 1 and 2, puts that among his damnable statements. Jerome also sets it forth in epistle 59, to Avitus, chapters 1-3, and in epistle 61, to Pammachius, chapter 5, and says that it is a dogma of the Gentiles, and in part Platonic. Orosius in his *Commonitorium* to Augustine ascribes this opinion to certain Origenists of his own age; and Augustine validly refutes it in the little book against the Priscillianists and Origenists, chapters 8-11, and weakens the two foundations of this dogma, namely, the perverse interpretations of this Pauline sentence: ^C *For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who subjected it in hope;* and that which exists in Job xv, 15, *The heavens are not clean in his sight;* to which sounds in agreement that in chapter xxv, verse 5, *The stars are not clean in his sight.* Although he concedes that it can be said without error that not even the angels are just by the standard of divine justice; and accordingly, if it be granted that there are angels in the stars; he says it would be clear why Job said that the stars are not clean in the sight of God. But whether spirits composed of reason reside in these lucid bodies, he confesses he does not know, and advises that it should be cautiously investigated. Be that as it may, on the authority of Augustine, Remigius of Rheims combats this opinion of Origen regarding Rom. viii, 20. Justinian also rises up against it in his letter to Menas, and adopts the authority of Basil, who in *Hexaemeron*, homily 3, criticizes Origen because he taught that the waters which are above and below the firmament signify angels tropologically; nor does he therefore hand down that the firmament is a creature endowed with sense because it declares the glory of God, otherwise the dew, and the frost, and the abyss would be creatures, which the prophet praises for the glory of God. Finally, by the sixth of the anathemas appended to this letter of Justinian, this same opinion of Origen concerning ensouled stars is crushed. In which, indeed, I wonder what the emperor in his anathemas said about the stars being prone to sin, and about their hope and future salvation—not a word—when he nevertheless presents his very words taken from book i, *De principiis*, cap. 7, by which words both a soul is attributed to the stars, and the sun is introduced saying that it is better to be dissolved and to be with Christ, ^D but that it is more necessary to remain in the flesh for the sake of the revelation of the glory of the sons of God, and he bitterly complains of the same thing in the letter to the fifth council, which Cedrenus records; that he should have undertaken to blame and condemn one thing, which is not, however, lacking its own patrons and defenders. Rufinus the Palestinian also, in his little book *De fide*, [argues against] this doctrine of Adamantius with grave…

^A arguments, and he undermines the foundation established in this passage of Scripture, Job xxv, 5: "But the stars are not clean in his sight." For he says that from the fact that they are not clean in the sight of God, they are not therefore called living beings; otherwise, the menstrual blood of women would also be called living beings, as would a leprous house, since not even these are clean before God, according to the law of Moses. For we read often that many of those things which are without a soul are, by a certain reasoning, unclean." Rufinus also says that Origen turns these passages of Scripture to the defense of his own opinion: "The sun knew its setting," Ps. ciii, 19; and that other: "I have commanded all the stars," Isa. xlv, 12. Finally, Nicephorus, lib. xvii, cap. 28, narrates that this error concerning animate stars was condemned in the fifth synod.

III. Although Origen appeared to have asserted this with every affirmation, yet he preoccupied the mind of the reader with this pronouncement in the preface of the first book of the same *Peri Archōn*, no. 10: "But as to the sun, and the moon, and the stars, whether they are living beings or inanimate, it is not clearly handed down;" which words Pamphilus repeats in his *Apologia*. Also in chapter 11 of the following book, no. 7, he speaks as though uncertain and wavering: "When, therefore, for instance, the saints have reached the celestial places, then they will clearly perceive the reason of the stars one by one, and whether they are living beings, or whatever that is, they will comprehend it." And in the first tome on John, no. 40, p. 42, he suspects that the statement by Job, "the stars are not pure in his sight," was expressed hyperbolically. "For indeed," he says, "it is absurd to assert that he [God] tasted death on behalf of human sins, but no longer [did so] for anyone else beyond humans who has been born in sins, as for instance for the stars; nor are the stars entirely pure in the sight of God, as we read in Job: 'The stars are not clean in his sight,' unless perhaps this was said hyperbolically." Finally, in the tenth homily on Jeremiah, no. 6, explaining that text of Jerem. xii, 4, "How long shall the land mourn," he says that the earth is a body bereft of soul and sense, but that by the name of the earth is called the angel of the earth standing by; and likewise of the water, of the elements, and of individual things. Which opinion among ecclesiastical doctors is most prevalent: that the stars are animate through a form that is attendant and coherent, not infused ^C and informing. And from these things Origen's hesitation is sufficiently evident.

Regarding these matters, Pamphilus in his response to the eighth accusation says that it is permitted for each of the Christians to judge the stars as animate or not animate; nor should a stigma of heresy be branded upon anyone on account of either opinion, "on account of this, because it has not been so clearly handed down in the apostolic preaching." This very thing Adamantius himself set forth in the preface of the books *Peri Archōn*, no. 10, as we showed above. But truly, Ambrose *origenizes* deeply, so arguing in epistle 38 to Horontianus: "Stars veiled in clouds vanish, though they sustain the uses of this worldly ministry, not indeed spontaneously, but in hope; because they hope also for the reward of this labor ^A from him who subjected them. And therefore they endure on his account, that is, on account of his will. Nor is it a marvel if they endure patiently, since they know their Lord and Creator of all things, whether those that are in heaven or those that are in earth, to have assumed the frailty of our body." Then: "Therefore, imitating the goodness of him, the celestial creatures, although they groan because they are subject to the vanity of this world, yet they console themselves because they shall be liberated "from the servitude of corruption into the liberty of the glory." Augustine also, lib. xi *De Genes. ad litter.*, and in the *Enchiridion ad Laurent.*, cap. 58, declares that he is unwilling to define anything regarding this, as it is an obscure and uncertain matter. Hence, Jerome himself, the critic of Origen, in *Ecclesiastes* 1, 6, doubts whether Solomon thought a soul was present in the stars; and in *Ephes.* 1, 22, he writes that not even the stars themselves are clean before God, and that they fear the advent of the Savior. Whence in epistle 61, to Pammachius, cap. 5, dealing with this dogma: "It is not," he says, "of this time to write against the dogma of the gentiles, and in part Platonic; [but] about ten years ago in my commentaries on Ecclesiastes, and the explanation of the Epistle to the Ephesians, I think the sense of my mind [was] explained to those who are prudent." These [writings], when they had been objected to him by Rufinus in his *Invectiva*, he clears away the charge in *Apologia* lib. 1, cap. 4. Furthermore, Pseudo-Clemens in the *Recognitions*, lib. v, and R. Moses ben Maimon, attribute souls to the stars. Finally, St. Thomas, lib. ii *contr. Gent.*, cap. 70, denies that it pertains to the doctrine of faith whether the stars are called animate or inanimate; ^C whence it is possible to estimate among what number he held the anathemas of Justinian, which strike down the one who affirms this opinion.

IV. A path to this dogma for Origen was paved by Plato, who in the *Timaeus* says that the soul of the heaven is possessed of reason, and that nothing more excellent than it was created by God; and in the *Epinomis* he proclaims the stars to be a divine race, of the most beautiful body, and of the most happy and excellent soul. Thales, the leader of the Ionic sect, also paved the way, who attributed a soul to all things universally. Pythagoras also paved the way, who judged that the stars were gods. The Stoics paved the way, and, if we believe Plutarch, Alexander of Aphrodisias, and others, Aristotle himself. Philo, according to his custom, reported Plato's opinion and almost his very words; for in his book *On the [Stars] being heaven-sent*, and elsewhere, he asserts that the stars are not only living beings, but even most pure minds. However, in his book *On the Creation of the World*, and another *On the Giants*, he intends them to be *di' holou spoudaia* (which word Origen used) and "entirely incapable of evil, and undefiled," which did not please Origen. Clement of Alexandria also preceded him in grasping this opinion in his *Eclogae ex scripturis propheticis*. However, that view concerning animate stars has persisted to our own age, and it has had defenders of the greatest value, Tycho and Keppler.

V. Augustine, lib. v *De civit. Dei*, cap. 1, of them

confuting the dogma of those who suppose that we perform our actions, or that we receive goods or suffer evils, without the will of God; ^A he adds: "But if the stars are said to signify these things rather than to cause them, so that this position is as it were a certain form of speech predicting the future, not acting—for that opinion of learned men [he notes Origen] was not mediocre—it is not indeed the way mathematicians are accustomed to speak, as if they should say, for example, that Mars so positioned signifies a murderer; but rather that he makes a murderer." It is believed, I say, that he marked Origen with these words: for in that fragment which Eusebius inserted into the sixth book of his *Praeparatio evangelica*, taken from the third book of Origen's own Commentaries on Genesis, he affirms that there is in the stars a signification of future things, num. 5, 9 et seq., but not a cause, as the Genethliaci do; therefore, he argues, a motion and an order were implanted in them by God, so that from them the angels might draw knowledge of future events; the attainment of which knowledge, since it exceeded human powers, was in some measure transmitted to men by apostate angels; yet no force or necessity is thence brought upon free will. Besides Augustine, Rufinus the Palestinian in his little book *De fide*, and Procopius of Gaza on Gen. 1, 14, vehemently criticize these things; Procopius, who in other matters follows Origen almost word for word, departed from him in this part.

If Origen had said that many future events are not only announced by the stars but also effected by them, and that these earthly bodies are affected by the powers of the stars in various ways, and are moved and inclined toward this or that, he would be in the same position as all the Apostelesmatici and the modern patrons of astrology, whose opinion, provided the freedom of the human will is kept whole, is immune to the charge of heresy. But since he attributed to the stars only a signification of future things, just as Synesius did in his book *De insomniis*, and not a cause, with the freedom of the will left unharmed, his opinion is even less opposed to the decrees of the Church; that this opinion flowed from the schools of the Platonists is sufficiently apparent from Plotinus, Enn. II, lib. 1, cap. 1 and 7, and Enn. III, lib. 1, cap. 6, whom Macrobius followed in his *Somn. Scip.*, lib. 1, cap. 1.

Indeed, since in that fragment which we have mentioned, and elsewhere too, Origen labored with great effort to prove that the cause of future events in no way resides in the stars, I marvel that this dogma was attributed to him: that "astronomy is the cause of those things which happen," which, among other things commonly reproached in him, the anonymous author of the *Apologia pro Origene*, apud Photium cod. CXVII, recounts in the tenth place. ^B

VI. Beyond what has preceded, he also cites that cause for reproach from book IV of *De principiis*, num. 16, towards the end of the epistle to Menas: "Τίς νοῦν ἔχων ὁρίζεται πρώτην, καὶ δευτέραν, καὶ τρίτην ἡμέραν, ἑσπέραν τε καὶ πρωΐαν χωρὶς ἡλίου γεγονέναι, καὶ σελήνης, καὶ ἀστέρων;" "Who of sound mind determines that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, came to pass without sun, and moon, and stars?" To which may be added this, which he reads elsewhere, namely that he thinks the spaces of the six days of Moses' creation of the world signify nothing, those whom he says he refuted in his Commentaries on Genesis. In this he followed Philo, whose words are these in his *Lib. 1 Allegor.*: "Εὔηθες πάνυ τὸ οἴεσθαι ἐξ ἡμέραις, ἢ καθόλου χρόνῳ κόσμον γεγονέναι." Indeed, Origen thought these things were to be understood and explained tropically, just as most other things, in which, by attributing too much to the allegorical sense, he subverted the natural and literal meaning. Since this error demands its own examination, I shall add no word.

QUESTION IX. OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.

I. "Let us pass hence to the most famous question concerning the resurrection of the flesh and body." For it is permitted to use the words of Jerome, *epist.* 61, to Pammachius, cap. 7, who pursued this argument against Origen. ^C This, however, coheres also with the things above, for, the state of souls before this life having been examined, the future lot of those same souls after this life must also be explored: namely, whether he supposed they would undergo the final judgment alone and solitary, or joined to the bodies which they occupied, and would then adhere to them thereafter. And we would truly have a great compendium for the treatment of that question if the length of time had spared the books written by him on this subject and title; and if the monuments of the ancients presented whatever was formerly criticized in them: for he himself narrates in lib. *De principiis*, cap. 10, num. 1, that his lucubrations *On the Resurrection* were published, and he wonders that that dogma was attributed to him by some in the ecclesiastical faith, as if he believed foolishly and utterly senselessly about the resurrection, especially heretical things. Much too would the books of Ammonius of Adrianople, written against Origen on this question, profit the illustration of this argument, if they still survived, or if at least as much had come down to us from them as Epiphanius and Photius preserved of the excerpt from the work of the same intent by Methodius. But since these commentaries have been consumed by age, and we are destitute of this help, let us estimate what his view was with our best strength, partly from the *anoxia* [logic/chain] of Origen's dogmas, partly from the expostulations ^D of others, and partly from his own writings, of the kind which have reached our age.

II. That if we wish to look at the matter first from the fabric of his own doctrine, it is necessary to remember that he was accused of having said, following Plato, that the soul alone constitutes man: and that he taught that souls were cast into various bodies for their sins, just as if into chains, as we have observed above. ^A They report, furthermore, that he was persuaded that Adam, because of his transgression, was clothed in a mortal body, which he previously lacked, having been created immortal by God; and that the garments of skins, which it is said God put upon him after his prevarication, were nothing else than mortal bodies; but that the bones and flesh which Scripture commemorates Adam as having before the sin are intelligible flesh and intelligible bones. Since, therefore, he thought that the mortal body was something adventitious and extraneous, it follows necessarily from this that, once sins have been purged and punishments satisfied, the soul, exonerated at long last from the weight of corporeal fetters, rises again. For if it is a punishment to bear a body, the soul will certainly cease to bear a body when the punishment ceases. I understand "that body" to be the one which it itself underwent as a fuel for wickedness, that heavy one, namely, earthy and fleshy; not, however, the one with which it was first created and formed by God. It is a corollary to this that, in the future, the soul of humans will cast off that configuration of limbs, as one that is proper to the fleshy body; but it will take on a better and more perfect form, as one that has been changed for the better and restored to a more perfect state; and since the spherical form is the most perfect of all forms, it will also come to pass that souls resurrected from the dead will be rounded into a sphere. From that assertion, moreover, which supposes that bodies more or less coarse are imposed upon souls according to the nature of their crimes, it is concluded that the mode of rising again will be different; and that those souls which exercise themselves more diligently in virtues while they act upon the earth will enter into a more splendid and subtle body; whereas those that break forth into vices will be joined to denser and coarser bodies. Now let us weigh, from the accusations of others and from his own writings, whether Origen held consistency and sequence in his doctrine.

III. Pamphilus relates that he was accused of having absolutely abolished the resurrection of the dead, ^B and he refutes this accusation placed in the seventh position. Epiphanius, *Haer.* LXIV, cap. 11, says that he attempted in his *Commentary on the First Psalm* "to overturn the confession of our resurrection in truth, from the things that happen to us according to nature." From those very things which happen to us naturally, he achieved the result that he might thoroughly abolish the profession of our resurrection conjoined with a certain hope. The same author, cap. 63, says that he craftily and deceitfully admits the name of resurrection, but denies the thing itself: for he determines that the body in no way rises again, but only the soul; but the soul does not rise again, which neither falls nor is extinguished; the body also, according to his own tenets, does not rise again; therefore nothing rises again, and consequently there is no resurrection of the dead.

Accordingly, Augustine writes to Quodvultdeus, *Haer.* XLIII, that the resurrection was denied by the followers of Origen. Jerome, in *Epist.* 59, to Avitus, cap. 1, reports that Origen said that corporeal substances will have completely melted away; or at least that in the end of all things these will be future bodies, which now is ether, and heaven, and whatever other body can be understood as more sincere and purer; then he adds: "Since this is so, it is clear what he thinks about the resurrection." Then he produces the words of Origen conspiring to the same opinion in the following chapters. He criticizes similar things in [his letter] to John of Jerusalem, *Epist.* 61, to Pammachius. To this also pertains what he wrote in *Lib.* XII *in Ezech.* XL: "Not that we believe, according to the most savage heresy, that bodies are to be abolished." Theophilus of Alexandria, *Epist. Pasch.* 2: ^C "Among other things, he (Origen) also so corrupts and violates the resurrection from the dead, which is the hope of our salvation, that he dares to say our bodies are resurrected subject again to corruption and death;" and afterwards: "He says the bodies that rise again after many ages are to be dissolved into nothing, and will be nothing, unless when souls, descended from the mansions of the heavens to the lower regions, have need of us, which may be again made others, with the former having been entirely deleted;" then below: "But if, as Origen falsely thinks, not only a corruptible but also a mortal body is to be resurrected, therefore corruption and incorruption are one and the same." Another place of his against this heresy is drawn by Justinian in his *Epistola ad Menam* from a certain letter to the saints who were in Sceti: and also a passage from the letter of Cyril to the monks who were in Phua, by which it is signified that Origen had been subject to anathema because he denied the resurrection of the dead. To this letter to Menas is subjoined a twin testimony from Origen sprinkled with this error; another from *Lib.* III *Peri Archon*, by which it is established that bodies are to be laid aside by all and reduced to nothing, when all things shall be subjected to God; and again that future bodies, if rational beings descend from things above: another from the fourth book, by which the same is signified. ^D Justinian further complains at the fifth synod, in the letter which Cedrenus transcribed, that the Origenists affirm: "Ότι παντελής ἐστι τῶν σωμάτων ἀναίρεσις, αὐτοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου πρώτου ἀποτιθεμένου τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα, καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἀπάντων, καὶ ὅτι ἀνακομίζονται πάλιν ἅπαντες εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν ἑνάδα, καὶ γίνονται νόες, καθὰ καὶ ἐν τῇ προϋπάρξει ἐτύγχανων." ["That there is a complete destruction of bodies, the Lord himself first laying aside his own body, and all the rest likewise, and that all return again into the same unity, and become minds, just as they happened to be in the pre-existence."] "That bodies completely perish, the Lord himself first laying aside his proper body, and all the rest as well; and all again return to the same unity, and become minds, of the sort they were before." Therefore, that Origen was condemned by the fifth synod on account of the abolished resurrection of bodies is testified by Photius in his booklet *On the Synods*, and the uncertain author of the booklet *On the Synods* which is inserted into the Justellina *Bibliotheca juris canonici*, and the first canon of the Quinisext synod, and Cedrenus. Sophronius adds the same claim to this.

^A epistolary letter to Sergius, and the anonymous author in Photius, cod. cxvii, and John of Damascus in the book *On Heresies*, and Constantine Harmenopulus in the book *On Sects*, and before him Glycas, *Annals* part III, although in part IV he asserts that he indeed believed bodies would rise, but not the same ones. Finally, Cyriacus, in Simeon Metaphrastes, says that the Origenists of the New Laura in Palestine claimed that our bodies, which we shall have from the resurrection, are destined to perish entirely, and the first of Christ as well.

IV. From these charges he clears Adamantius, whom we have demonstrated above, that by Origen’s decree nothing created is devoid of body, from which it follows that either an injustice is done to him by those who report that he thought bodies would perish entirely and be dissolved into nothing, or that he certainly, in accordance with the custom of Scripture, called the restoration and change for the better a "destruction." For thus Methodius, heresy LXIV, chap. 32: "It is the custom in the Scriptures to call that change and restoration of this world to a better and more glorious state a 'destruction,' as when the prior form perishes in accordance with the change to the most radiant of all things." We shall say that this is the custom of Scripture, that it calls the restoration of the world, and its change for the better and more excellent, a "destruction," inasmuch as the former form perishes while it is converted into a more beautiful form. Jerome also clears him in his epistle to Pammachius, chap. 8, when he writes ^B that he held a middle path between the Catholics, who maintain the true resurrection, and the heretics Marcion, Apelles, Valentinus, and Manes, who think that the resurrection is to be in phantom only. "But (asserts Origen) that both these opinions were displeasing to him, and that he shunned both the flesh of our bodies (the words are Jerome’s) and the phantoms of the heretics, because both parties are excessive in the opposite direction, the one wishing them to be what they were, the others denying the resurrection of bodies altogether."

V. He even shows that the resurrection of bodies was not entirely abolished by him, which Pamphilus narrates in his *Apology*, that he confesses that the body indeed rises, but denies that the flesh does. Methodius blames him for this in his book *On the Resurrection*, by which he refutes this dogma of Origen, and an epitome of which Epiphanius inserted into his *Panarion*, heresy LXIV, and which Photius represented in codex CCXXXIV, and he claims that Origen, regarding the answer given by the Lord to the Sadducees, said that it would come to pass that we become like the angels, and consequently be naked of flesh. Furthermore, he attacks the Origenists, suspecting that they hold that there is some difference between flesh and body (46); as if the body were something proper to the soul, which cannot be seen; but the flesh were that external thing which is perceived by the eyes. Anastasius Sinaita opposes the same error by the authority of Methodius in *Contemplations on the Anagogical*, book XI. Nor does the reasoning of Epiphanius against Origen seem to aim at anything else.

Having set these things forth, it will be easily understood what Origen intended in those contexts cited below by Huet, and above by Jerome and Methodius. For when he says, "that he shuns our flesh, it being necessary that in the resurrection we be naked of flesh; and that the same flesh will not rise again," etc., he understands this of the flesh that is corruptible and still subject to infirmities, which, taken in such a way—that is to say, in the same infirmities, and without any change for the better—he denies will rise again; but he proclaims that this very same flesh, with its qualities changed, will rise again in incorruption, in power, and in glory. This is the constant opinion of Origen, which he sets forth in clear words in book II, *De principiis*, chap. 6, no. 5 and 6, and in the book *Against Celsus*, no. 42: "Since it is possible to change the qualities of the underlying matter for all qualities; why is it not also possible for the flesh of Jesus, having changed its qualities, to have become such as it was fitting for it to be, dwelling in the ether and in the highest places of Him, no longer having the properties of fleshly weakness?" If the qualities of matter subject to all qualities can be changed, why could it not happen that the flesh of Jesus, with its qualities changed, turned out to be such as it was fitting for it to be, which would dwell in the ether and in higher places, and have nothing of those things which are proper to the weakness of the flesh? To these add what is read in book I *On the Resurrection* and in Psalm XV. Compare also what is contained in book III or IV *On the Resurrection*; book I *De principiis*, chap. 10; book V *Against Celsus*, no. 15; book V, no. 17-23; book VI, no. 29, on Psalm I, verse 5, and book XXVIII on Isaiah the prophet; and from an accurate collation of each of these passages you will confess that there is nothing in them which cannot be adapted to the Catholic dogma of the Resurrection, provided that you exclude certain minor questions which the over-curious mind of Origen, pursuing more minutely, follows a little too far. For sometimes he so changes the qualities of the flesh or body that he seems to change its very nature. Concerning which, Huet below.

[LATIN COLUMN] 985 ORIGENIANORUM LIB. II, CAP. II, QUÆST. IX. 986 querela hær. lxiv, cap. 4, "The resurrection of the dead," he says, ^A he makes imperfect, at one point setting it forth in theory, at another point denying it absolutely, and at other times teaching that only a part of it rises again; and that of Vincent of Beauvais, *Speculum doctrinale*, lib. xviii, cap. 43, when he says that Origen denied the true resurrection of the flesh. It is not, however, sufficiently understood what Theophanes Cerameus intended when he wrote, homil. 22: "From the saying, *Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?* (Matt. xvi, 26), the resurrection invented by the namesake of corruption, Origen, is refuted." • "But by saying, 'Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?' ^B the forged resurrection by Origen, whose name is derived from ὀργή [wrath/corruption], is refuted." • That he asserted this same thing not once, which the aforementioned writers object, must indeed be admitted: for instance, lib. ii, *De principiis*, cap. 3, num. 2, "Therefore, with admirable reasoning," says the holy Apostle, looking toward the general primary cause, "of material substance, the use of which material substance the soul always has, placed in any quality whatsoever, now indeed fleshy, but afterwards more subtle and purer, which is called spiritual," he says, "*It is necessary that this corruptible put on incorruption*" (1 Cor. xv, 53), etc.; and in the *Catena Corderiana* on Ps. cxviii, 25, p. 799: "Now the soul has been glued to the earth, and has become flesh; ^C but in the resurrection the flesh will be glued to the soul, and there shall be a soul which, having been glued to the Lord in the general resurrection, becomes one spirit, and the body becomes spiritual." Nor do we understand otherwise those things recorded in lib. v *Contra Celsum*, num. 18: "Neither therefore do we, nor do the divine Scriptures, say that they will rise again with these same bodies, having undergone no change for the better, having risen from the earth." For as to how a correct opinion can be reconciled with these, the following place of the Apostle is an obstacle: "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. xv, 50), which he thinks signifies that this sensible and visible flesh which we bear is to be excluded from the heavenly kingdom and deprived of the benefit of the resurrection. Hence he writes in the same place that ^D the resurrection of the flesh preached in the churches is understood more clearly by the more intelligent; and elsewhere that the resurrection, in the usage of the simpler folk, is called the resurrection of the flesh. VI. However much Origen’s opinion may appear clear and constant, Pamphilus nevertheless opposes it, and proves that he did not even judge the resurrection to be stripped of the flesh itself, having extracted his words from the *Commentary on Psalm 15*, which are of this kind: "Let him be offended who wishes by our discourse: but I, with all confidence, assert that as the firstborn from the dead is Christ, so he first brought flesh to heaven"; and a little later: "This is on account of that which was said: *For my flesh shall rest in hope* (Ps. xv, 19). In what hope? Not only because it rises from the dead; for this is little: but it rests in that hope, because it was assumed into heaven." To which I would also add that from lib. iii *De principiis*, cap. 6, num. 5, if I did not fear the deceptions of the interpreter Rufinus. "Finally, our flesh is thought by the unlearned and infidels to perish to such an extent after death, that it is believed to have nothing at all remaining of its substance. We, however, who believe in its resurrection, understand only a change to have happened after death, but it is certain that its substance remains, and by the will of its Creator, at a certain time, it is again repaired to life, and again its transformation occurs, so that what was first flesh from earthly earth, then afterwards dissolved after death, and again made ash and earth; *for earth you are*, he says, *and into earth you shall go* (Gen. iii, 19), it may again be raised from the earth; and after this, just as it had demanded merit of the indwelling soul, it will proceed in the glory of a spiritual body." Surely here, too, as in many other things, Origen is not consistent with himself, and sometimes follows one side, sometimes another, and as in matters where Christianity was still young and obscure, and not yet defined by the Church, he indulges his mind, and whatever seems more plausible to him for the time being, he snatches up. Hence not even the scourge of Origen, Methodius, handled this argument without stumbling, imagining men destined to live after the resurrection on a now-restored earth, and changed for the better through the most temperate surrounding air, and to pass a blessed age in the delights of paradise; but that for the angels, the celestial spheres were destined as a home. Photius also narrates in a certain letter to Constantine that Eusebius, a partisan of Origen, had taken away the resurrection of the dead. Jerome and Rufinus mutually call each other into suspicion of the same error, which, however, each one strives to dispel with the utmost care. It is likely that Arnobius also adhered to this; for he says in lib. ii *Adversus gentes*: "You dare to see in us that we say the resurrection of the dead is future, which we indeed confess to say; but that it is heard by you otherwise than we think." Which is the same as that of Origen saying the resurrection of the flesh is "understood more clearly by the more intelligent." Finally, it has been handed down by Epiphanius and Jerome that this same had been the false opinion of Marcion and other heretics regarding the resurrection. VII. Although Origen may have thought that that crude mass and structure of flesh would be separated from the bodies about to rise: yet of what qualities he thought they would be possessed when they rise, what change they underwent, and with what form they were furnished, is not sufficiently clear. For sometimes he asserts that the same body will be raised, albeit more subtle and more splendid. As in lib.

^A *De principiis*, cap. 10, no. 1: "If it is necessary that we be in bodies, as certainly it is necessary, we must be in no others than our own bodies." And ibid. no. 8: "It must also be observed whether perhaps this same passage signifies that just as the saints will receive, after the resurrection, their own bodies in which they lived holy and pure lives in the habitations of this life, clear and glorious, so also the impious, who in this life loved the darkness of errors and the night of ignorance, will be clothed in dark and dismal bodies after the resurrection." And lib. II, cap. 6, no. 4: "But it is not to be doubted that the nature of this body of ours, by the will of God who made it such, is able to be brought by the Creator to that quality of a most subtle, most pure, and most splendid body, as the state of things shall call for, and as the merit of a rational nature shall have demanded." And soon no. 6: "Likewise it is to be thought concerning the nature of the body, that it is not another body which we use now in ignobility, and in corruption, and in infirmity, and another that we shall use in incorruption and in virtue and in glory; but this selfsame body, with the abject infirmities in which it now is, will be transmuted into glory, made spiritual, so that what was a vessel of indignity, this very thing, being purged, becomes a vessel of honor and a dwelling-place of beatitude." Then he shows that a body is not to be made for us by God from that fifth body of the philosophers, ^B since the holy Apostle manifestly defines that no new bodies are given to those rising from the dead, but that they receive these very ones which they had while living, transformed from worse to better. Finally, in the first book *On the Resurrection*, as it is in Pamphilus’ *Apology*, he says it would be absurd and unjust if the body, which fought bravely with the soul, were defrauded of its reward, and were to be deprived of it when it rises. Glycas, if I am not mistaken, was thinking of this reparation of the body for the better when he writes that Origen thought *our bodies will not rise at the resurrection*, which words Cedrenus also repeats when speaking of the Origenists condemned in the fifth council.

Sometimes, however, he seemed to have taught that not even the same body will return to life. Persuaded by these words of the Apostle, I Cor. xv, 42-44: "It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in ignobility, it is raised in glory; it is sown in infirmity, it is raised in virtue; it is sown an animal body, it is raised a spiritual body," he thought that the body would indeed rise, but that it would be changed in nature, and different from the former, and plainly another; ^C just as from a grain of wheat a stalk rises different from the grain; which he thinks is confirmed by that passage from the former epistle to the Corinthians xv, 36-38: "Foolish one, that which you sow is not quickened unless it first die. And that which you sow, you do not sow the body that shall be, but a naked grain, as, for instance, of wheat or of some of the others. But God gives it a body as He has willed, and to each of the seeds its own body." Whence in lib. V *against Celsus*, no. 22, he says that in a dead body, as it were, there is present the seed of the future body, and that for a man rising from the dead, a body is ^D assigned by the Creator's will; then he concludes no. 23: "We, therefore, do not say that the corrupted body returns to its original nature, just as we do not say that the corrupted grain of wheat returns to the grain of wheat; for we say that just as in the case of the grain of wheat a stalk is raised, so some principle (λόγος) lies hidden in the body, from which, not being destroyed, the body is raised in incorruption." And a little earlier, no. 22: "But we, being persuaded that that which is sown is not quickened unless it die; and that it is not the body that is to be which is sown; for God gives it a body, as He willed, etc." Similar things are read in book II *De principiis*, cap. 10, no. 3.

In which place, and likewise in lib. II *On the Resurrection*, he calls the reason for substance the germ of the resurrection, by which he thought that bodies were to be repaired, which Genebrard rightly noted is called by the scholastics "radical substance"; although its effect and power are understood by them in an altogether different and other way. Therefore, Gennadius in his book *On Dogmas*, cap. 6, disputes thus: "And there shall not be a transmutation of bodies according to Origen, that is, another new body instead of flesh; but the same corruptible flesh which falls, as much of the just as of the unjust, shall rise incorruptible."

Although Adamantius fashioned for himself a body that would be produced as something else, and different from the former, yet he affirms that it will be distinguished by the same features and the same form in his *Commentary on Psalm 1*, pages 534, 535, which commentary Epiphanius, in *Heresy* LXIV, cap. 12 et seq., represents as contracted into an epitome by Methodius. He, therefore, in chapter 44 writes that bodies which tolerate life through the reception of nutrients never remain the same, but, like a river, flow and change perpetually through the eating and excretion of food: yet these bodies remain the same, not only by reason of the soul, which is always the same; but also because of the perseverance of those same forms, which are certain proper marks and characters of individual bodies, whence freckles, scars, and birthmarks adhere to bodies until death; therefore, in the resurrection, that form is to be put around the soul by which, for example, Peter is constituted, even if the matter be different and the body different; for souls use different bodies according to the variety of places; and just as it would be necessary to assume another body if we were to live in the waters, so for us who are to live life in heaven, spiritual bodies must necessarily be assumed; but although the body is changed, the same species and form nevertheless will not be extinct, just as Jesus, Moses, and Elias showed themselves in the Transfiguration to be recognizable by the same species. Methodius explains this same thing immediately in chapter 38, and Pamphilus also inserted this dissertation of Origen into his *Apology*. Eustathius of Antioch, in his book *On the Witch of Endor*, relates that Origen was abundantly refuted by Methodius for his wicked opinion concerning the resurrection, and that it was openly demonstrated by him that an opportunity was thereby given to heretics to imagine that men would be raised one day in name only, and not in the body itself. Notable, however, is the accusation of Nicetas Acominatus...

in his Fourth Book on the Orthodox Faith, Heresy XXXI, where he expounds the opinion of Origen in these words, according to the interpretation of Petrus Morellus: "This body wherein we are wrapped will not rise on that day of resurrection, but only the human form by which Paul, perhaps, or Peter is recognized; and thus that external figure will rise, which is also comprehended under the form. Furthermore, the subject itself, or body, will not remain the same at all; for 'it is sown an animal body,' says the Apostle 17, 'it is raised a spiritual body.' Wherefore it is necessary that we hope for a resurrection in form alone, but not in the subject." Nicetas then adds his own judgment that Origen received this opinion on the resurrection from the Platonists; for they taught that a twofold kind of idol adheres to each soul: one attached to it from eternity, splendid and shining; the other crasser, placed around it by the arrangement of the stars. To the latter, the baser functions of the soul are owed, and to the former, the more excellent ones. The former is sometimes separated from the soul once it has been loosed from the body, and flies back to its original seat; the latter, however, can in no way be loosed from it, but departs into Orcus or among the stars after death. Having explained these things, he finally subjoins: "And so Origen, according to my opinion, when he had clothed the soul with an idol of this kind, which would carry about its own proper actions entwined with itself, concluded that it would rise together with this to be subjected to the future judgment, in which regard he completely imitates the heathens; but he held that the mortal flesh exposed to touch would flow away and vanish."

^B Origen goes even further at times, and declares that not even the form itself and shape will remain in the bodies to be raised; and just as from a grain of wheat a stalk rises dissimilar to the grain, and nothing passes from the former into the latter except the principle of the seed, or *σπινθηρισμόν* (spark), so there is a seed in the dead body which will germinate when the last trumpet sounds, and will produce a different body from itself. Jerome treated this at length in his letter against John of Jerusalem, and brings Origen forward arguing thus, in chapter 8: "But when the day of judgment shall arrive, and at the voice of the archangel and the last trumpet 18 the earth shall tremble, the seeds will immediately be moved, and in a moment of an hour they will germinate the dead: yet they will not restore the same flesh, nor in those forms which they once had." In the following chapter, he represents Adamantius speaking as though he had repudiated the resurrection of bones, blood, and individual members: "Now we see with our eyes, we hear with our ears, we act with our hands, we walk with our feet; but in that spiritual body we shall all see, all hear, all act, all walk, and the Lord will transfigure the body of our humility, conformed to the body of the glory of His brightness 19. When He said, 'He will transfigure,' that is, *μετασχηματίσει*, the diversity of the members which we now use is denied. Something else is promised to us, spiritual and ethereal, which is subject neither to touch nor ^C is it to be changed by variety in the places where it will be." Then he opposes to himself the resurrection of Christ, and His raised body, standing, walking, equipped with side, hands, flesh, and bones; but he replies that the body possesses another power, which is not formed from the seed of a man, as are our bodies; and that for this reason the body of Christ appeared as such, "in order to produce the faith of the resurrection in the doubting apostles," yet it was ethereal and spiritual, as one that entered when the doors were closed, and vanished from the eyes in the breaking of bread. This response, and the rest of Origen's argument, Jerome vigorously opposes in what follows. And the same point, when proposed to him, Augustine also accurately dissolves in Epistle 49, to Deogratias.

The marks of this error can certainly be found in the commentary of Origen on Psalm 1, pages 555 and 556, which Methodius contracted into an epitome. For there he twists into another sense the place in Ezekiel, chapter XXXVII, where the mystery of the future resurrection is explained most plainly; for he thinks that by those dry bones, the bitter captivity of the Jews is noted, which had deformed their bodies, exhausted of moisture and withered; and by the resurrection, he thinks the liberty of the Jews is signified, which was to restore them to their former state, and an integral and vivid habit of body. In like manner he diverts that passage from Matthew VIII, 12: "There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth," and other such things, which prove that bodies are to be resurrected; and he replies that there will be no teeth there, where there will be no future use for teeth, and that that bodily form will be changed; and that the primary matter—which he often says is the same as the body—will in no way be resurrected; and to this point he adapts the example of the grain and the stalk, which the Apostle used. Also in Volume XVII on Matthew, numbers 30 and 33, treating the question proposed by the Sadducees to the Savior, he decreed that bodies in heaven will lack genitals, because the use of genitals is to be abolished there. But even from the end of Book II of *De Principiis*, Jerome brings forth this place in Epistle 59 to Avitus, chapter 2: "And when we have progressed so far, that we have reached the perfect, and, darkened by no cloud of perturbations, shall behold reasonable and intelligible substances face to face, perhaps we shall have been not flesh and bodies, but mind and sense." This is how Rufinus corrupted it after his own fashion: "And thus the reasonable nature, growing through individual parts—not as it grew in this life in flesh or body, but increased in mind and sense—is brought to perfect knowledge, no longer impeded by these carnal senses, but increased by intellectual increments, always looking purely, and, so to speak, face to face, at the causes of things." Finally, in Book V *against Celsus*, number 19, he teaches that we have need of bodies because of migrations from one place to another; but that this does not require a certain arrangement of parts.

^A Adamantius imagined that the body was something else, and fashioned otherwise than what it had carried in this mortal life; for what shape would he have attributed to this body rather than the spherical, seeing that it is proper to celestial things, and the most perfect of all forms, and most congruent to souls that have been purged and restored to a more perfect state? Indeed, Cyriacus relates in Symeon Metaphrastes (47) that the Origenist monks, who infested the monasteries of Palestine in the times of Justin and Justinian, said: "That our bodies are raised up ethereal and spherical in the resurrection: and that the Lord's body was raised in this way, and we shall be his peers in the resurrection." Therefore, Justinian, in his epistle to Mennas, assailed Origen with reproaches because he asserted that the bodies of men were raised up orbicular. Hence the fifth of the anathemas subjected to the same epistle was conceived thus: "If anyone says or thinks that the bodies of men are raised up spherical, and does not confess that we are raised up upright, let him be anathema." Antipater, Bishop of Bostra, condemns this same thing in Origen and refutes it at length in his Dissertation against Origen, inserted in the Eclogues titled under John of Damascus, which the Jesuit Fathers of Clermont have in manuscript. Nicephorus also condemns it in book XVII, chapter 27. To this refers that statement of Jerome in epistle 61 to Pammachius, chapter 10: "So also our Lord was transfigured in glory on the mount, not that he lost hands and feet and other members, and was suddenly rolled into the roundness of the sun or a sphere, but so that the same members, glowing with the radiance of the sun, might dazzle the eyes of the apostles."

(48) That Jerome seems to have inclined in the same direction as Origen in his book on the Epistle to the Ephesians, chapter 5, verse 28: "Let us cherish, therefore," he says, "and let husbands cherish wives, and our souls our bodies, so that wives may be reduced into husbands, and bodies into souls, and there may be no diversity of sexes. But just as there is no male and female among the angels, so let us who are to be like the angels, even now begin to be what is promised to us in the heavens." Rufinus bitterly explodes these things, as those from which the destruction of bodies and the abolition of sexes follows; finally he says: "How much more rightly would you act if you were to imitate us, whom you blame, in such things, and permit these to be known to God alone, as the truth of the matter stands; and if you would rather confess that you are ignorant than write those things which a little later you yourself would condemn." But Jerome clears himself in his ^B book of Apology against Rufinus, chapter 6, responding that he brought forward such things as if from the person of Origen, not as a matter asserted by himself, but as one to be objected to. He also says that he had effectively refuted this in a certain Origenist in epistle 27 to Eustochium, chapter 11, and he also testifies elsewhere that it is held by him to be false. That the distinction of sexes would then be abolished, not a few among the ancient Fathers affirmed. Theodoret says: "For their nature, which lives under the empire of death, has need of this distinction;" then: "For to those who have become immortal, the female sex is entirely superfluous." Let Athanasius be consulted further, sermon 3 against the Arians, Basil on the Psalm, Hilary on the Gospel of Matthew; nearly the same cause as Origen's will be found to be theirs concerning this question of the sex of the blessed bodies.

IX. If in the resurrection the soul is to receive another...

On the reward of those who have lived well according to virtue

"For their nature, which lives under the empire of death, stands in need of this distinction; ^C for to those who have become immortal, the female sex is entirely superfluous."

(48) That if it were established that Origen thought this, I would say he was driven to it by Plato, who posited that the end was destruction; offending on both sides, whether he says the parts of the body are in vain, and were not given to them by God for their own proper work; or whether he says the entrails and the straight intestine obtain their own uses in the celestial bodies. But he will act most foolishly who thinks that they have the human form in the manner of statues, only on the surface, and not also in the deeper parts. But since Origen says in countless places that we shall turn out to be like the angels after the resurrection, and especially in volume XVII on Matthew, number 30, pages 813, 814, where he says: "I, for my part, opine that it is becoming manifest from this, not only from the fact that those who are accounted worthy of the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, they become like the angels of heaven; but also from the fact that their bodies of humiliation being transformed, become such as the bodies of the angels are, ethereal, and ^D light formed of rays." It follows that he believed the bodies of men after the resurrection would be spherical.

Certainly Origen openly teaches that the bodies of the celestials are spherical in his book *On Prayer*, number 31, page 268: "For to think that the bodies of the celestials are so fashioned as to have corporeal knees, is not altogether right; seeing that it has been demonstrated by those who have accurately discoursed concerning these things, that their bodies are spherical." And he who is unwilling to admit this, and does not want to be impudent in resisting reason, will be compelled to admit the use of the individual members, so that nothing of those things which were made by the supreme Craftsman, God, was made in vain; offending on both sides, whether he says the parts of the body were made in vain and not for their own proper work by God, or whether he says the entrails and the straight intestine perform their own uses in the celestial bodies. Most foolishly, however, will he act who thinks that they have the human form in the manner of statues, in regard to the surface only, and not also in the interior parts. Furthermore, since Origen says in six hundred places that we shall turn out to be like the angels after the resurrection, and especially in volume XVII on Matthew, number 30, pages 813, 814, where he says: "I indeed opine from thence that it becomes manifest, not from that alone that those who are accounted worthy of the resurrection from the dead neither contract marriage, nor are given in marriage, that they turn out like the angels of heaven; but from that also, that their bodies of humiliation being transformed, turn out to be such as are the bodies of the angels, ethereal, that is to say, and similar to a shining light;" it follows that he believed the bodies of men after the resurrection would likely be spherical.

^A For he placed equality ^B with God; but he fashioned God, though lacking a body, as endowed with a spherical form, just as did Xenophanes, as is found in Cicero, Academica IV, and Laertius in Plato and Xenophanes: and accordingly, he was compelled to attribute a spherical form to souls that had attained their end. But Jerome, in Epistle 59 to Avitus, chapter 3, recites the words of Origen from book III of On First Principles, chapter 6, number 1, in which he says that men will for this reason lay aside their bodies, that they might be like God, according to that word of the Savior: "That as I and you are one, so these also may be one in us." Finally, he says this: "We are compelled to accept one of two things: either we despair of the likeness of God if we are always to have the same bodies, or, if the blessedness of a life with God is promised to us, we must live under the same condition as God lives." Then Jerome: "From all these things it is proved what he thought about the resurrection." Origen clearly thought that God was incorporeal, as He is, and therefore lacked every figure: how then could he have deemed that souls would have spherical bodies, when he thought they were to be similar to God, whom he judged to lack body and figure? Therefore, in book II of On Principles, chapter 10, number 2, refuting certain heretics who were abolishing the resurrection entirely, he says: "Let us ask of them, if they can demonstrate and describe for us the habit of a spiritual body, which they will certainly be able to do in no way." You see the inconsistency of the man, who sometimes strips away bodies from resurrected souls, and sometimes attaches them, and does not hold for certain what kind of figure they will have.

X. Origen writes in Volume XVII on Matthew, number 33, that no one will be raised from the dead who has not struggled in this life. These are the words: "If those deemed worthy of blessedness for the present age in which they lived well will be in that life, and none of those who have not struggled here is deemed worthy of the resurrection from the dead, it is evident that those things for which there was a need here for the sake of becoming will not exist there." But if anyone should conclude from this that Origen thought that the wicked were to be deprived of resurrection, he may understand that he has been abundantly refuted by Pamphilus, or rather by Origen himself in that place which the author of the Apology produces from his book XXVIII on Isaiah, in which he declares that the just and the impious are to be raised from the dead; but that the resurrection will be twofold, the first being that of the just, and the second that of the impious, according to that saying of John in the Apocalypse XX, 5: "Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection: in these the second death has no power;" not so that the former is prior to the latter in time, but in mode and reason. For it is likely that from this passage of John they snatched an opportunity for dividing the resurrection, about which Gennadius says in his book On Dogmas, chapter 6: "There will be a resurrection of all men, ^C but once and simultaneously: not first of the just and second of the wicked, as the fable of the dreamers has it, but one for all." But Origen defines this mode of rising: that each one, according to how he has conducted himself in life, will receive a body from God, either coarser or more subtle. "Truly," he says in book II On the Resurrection, page 34, "as the preparation of each one has been in this life, such will be his resurrection. He who has lived more blessedly here, his body in the resurrection will shine in a more divine splendor, and an appropriate mansion will be granted to him in the places of the blessed. To him, however, who has consumed in malice the time of the present life granted to him, such a body will be given as can suffice and endure in punishments," etc. The same things are repeated in book II On First Principles, chapter 3, and chapter 10, numbers 2 and 3, and book III, chapter 6, number 4, where, in addition to other things, he adds that, after things have returned to such a point that all things are one, just as the Father and the Son are one, then that diversity of bodies will cease. When, therefore, Origen said that the wicked would be deprived of resurrection, understand that resurrection which is opposed to damnation. Thus Lactantius in book VII of the Divine Institutes, chapter 21: "Then those whose justice has been proven will receive the reward of immortality: those, however, whose sins and crimes have been detected will not rise; but they will be hidden away with the impious in the same darkness, destined for certain punishments." For the resurrection can be accepted in a twofold way: either as a return to life, and a new union of body and soul; or as the acquisition of eternal life: in the former way all men will rise equally, in the latter only the just. This exposition is confirmed by another passage of Origen from Volume XIII on Matthew, number 21: "For the holy ones being in this tabernacle groan, being burdened by the body of humiliation, and do everything so that they may be found worthy in the mystery of the resurrection, when God will transform not the body of humiliation of all, but of those who are genuinely discipled to Christ, so that it becomes conformed to the glory of Christ." He tells us that we are found in the mystery of the resurrection, when God will make our mortal body similar to the glorious body of Christ; which benefit will not pertain to all men, but to the saints only. He confirms this also with that other passage from the Commentary on Psalm 1, page 532, recited by Epiphanius in Heresies LXIV, chapters 10 and 12, by which he says that certain simpler folk, relying on the Davidic saying: "Therefore the wicked shall not rise in judgment," deny that the wicked are to be deemed worthy of resurrection or judgment by God, not indicating clearly enough what they judge resurrection or judgment to be.

XI. Moreover, as in almost all other things, so in these questions about the resurrection, Adamantius used Plato as his master. For the Platonists said that it would come to pass that souls would some day begin to desire to return into bodies, ^D (VIRGIL, Aeneid VI, verse 751.)

XIII. From what was said above, the reasoning of Methodius, whereby he undertook to refute this pronouncement of Origen—that the cause of all sins is to be referred to the body—is subverted. For Methodius says that Origen contradicts himself; since, having conceded that the soul had sinned apart from the body, and on account of that sin was clothed in garments of skin, and that those garments were the bodies themselves; he then contradicts himself when he says that the body is the cause for why the soul sins. Methodius did not see the connection of the Origenian doctrine. For we have said above that Adamantius called souls corporeal or incorporeal by reason of coarser or finer bodies, although he really judged them to be corporeal, and only God incorporeal. He also asserts that souls, according to the gravity of their sins, undergo heavier bodies. ^B Nothing in this is contradicted by the statement that souls are drawn into vices by their bodies, and since they will never be without a body, that there will always be alternations of beatitude and damnation; and that before they were bound to human limbs, they had nevertheless fallen into sins, and had earned the reason why they were cast down from more subtle bodies into denser ones. And thus Origen has something in common with Porphyry, who said, “in order for the soul to be blessed, every body must be fled.” But although he has certain things in common with Porphyry, he nevertheless thought things that were entirely different.

XII. But lest our Origen lack his customary support, let us briefly summarize what can be collected in his defense beyond the foregoing. In the first place, his own inconsistency in the treatment of this subject favors him, which, as is sufficiently manifest from what has been said, is shown by the fact that when he disputes about the end of things, and inquires whether we shall enjoy supreme beatitude in the body or outside the body, he proposes a threefold opinion for anyone to pursue as he pleases in his *Books on First Principles*, Book II, ch. 3, num. 7, which passage Jerome repeats in *Epistle 59 to Avitus*, ch. 2. Chapter 6 of the first book of *On First Principles* also testifies to this same fluctuation of Origen; for after he has set forth a dual opinion concerning the state of the blessed, the former of which defines the nature of bodies as destined to perish, and from which he professes himself to be alienated, he later says that the corporeal nature will be purged in the manner of ether, and finally concludes in num. 4: “Certitude, however, as to how the matter will stand, only God knows, and those who are his friends through Christ and the Holy Spirit.” In a nearly similar way, he closes a dispute on a similar subject in *On First Principles*, Book I, ch. 2. It is also helpful to excuse him by the response of Rufinus in his *Book on the Adulteration of Origen’s Works*, maintaining that these errors concerning the matter of the resurrection were scattered in his writings by heretics. His words are: “Or again concerning the resurrection of the flesh, he who so evidently pronounced that the nature of the flesh ascended into heaven with the Word of God, and therein appeared to the celestial Virtues, offering them a new and wonderful sight of himself—was it possible that he would say that this would not be saved again?” ^C But thence, however, Origen draws his primary defense: that in his own age those questions had not yet been judged by the Church; whence it happened that while Methodius strives to recall him, having strayed from the norm of truth, he himself wandered from the truth, and others also have engaged in this question not without offense, as we have shown above; and Jerome, as if wavering, treated this matter in *Epistle 61 to Pammachius*, ch. 13; for he says: “Therefore, you will ask, are we also going to eat after the resurrection? I do not know, for it is not written; and yet if it is asked, I do not think we shall eat.” This is the reason why Origen, about to declare his own opinion on the resurrection, pronounced that the opinion of the ancients was to be retained, because surely, however absurd his dogmas were, they nevertheless had their authors and patrons.

It should be noted further that the author of the dialogue *On the True Faith in God*, who appeared under the name of Origen, introduces Marinus the Bardesanist as defending these dogmas: that man consists of soul alone; that the soul, having committed a sin, was bound by skins of hide—that is, the body—as if by a bond and shackle, and thence from Jeremiah we are called prisoners; and that the body is for the soul the cause of all evils: but that Adamantius was the one refuting these very things; and, while demonstrating that man consists of body and soul, pointed out that the soul is nevertheless called 'man' in the Scriptures, and was refuting Marinus with the same things which Methodius opposed to Origen in Epiphanius.

QUESTION X OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT.

1. The resurrection of the dead will face the supreme judgment of God. Since crimes are to be punished by it, and right actions and virtues are to be rewarded, therefore Origen supposed that everything that can merit rewards or punishments by acting either rightly or wrongly will stand there. We showed above that he attributed the power of acting rightly or wrongly to angels, to the stars, and to the elements. “It is going to be,” he says in *Homily 4 on Ezekiel*, num. 1, page 370, “that on the day of judgment not only man, but also the entire creation will be judged: For every creature groans and travails in pain.” (Rom. VIII, 22.) Then he casts into this assessment of things to be judged the angels, the heavens, and [all] that are above and below heaven, the earth itself, and the air. Regarding this opinion, we have discoursed at length when…

^A of all, Christ, by his nature and majesty, looks into the hearts of all and the conscience of each, manifests the hidden things, and reveals what is buried, so that he may grant praise to good deeds and [that] the wicked may receive the punishment which they deserve." Indeed, by his allegories he corrupted that sincere dogma which every Church of the true God holds in confession and profession (says Augustine, *De civit. Dei*, Bk. XX, ch. 1), [namely] that "Christ is to come from heaven to judge the living and the dead," not only by his power and majesty filling all things, illuminating the minds of all, and turning back the memory of their deeds; but physically present, and bringing all men into one place, and settling the affairs of men by a supreme and definitive sentence. But let us also remember here that at that time the Church had not yet hedged these questions with certain boundaries.

QUESTION XI. ON PUNISHMENTS AND REWARDS.

1. Origen's opinion is deduced from his own principles. II. The same is then declared more fully in his own words. And first, concerning punishments: he felt that all men were to be examined by fire. III. Then, that they were to be sent to various places according to their merits; IV. And to be tormented. V. What sort of punishments he thought there would be; what "eternal fire" [is]. VI. Whether he decreed that any punishments other than fire were to be inflicted on the dead. VII. Various accusations against him arise from these things. VIII. But still, he does not lack supporters, and a defense of his own. IX. The subject of rewards is treated, and it is explained in what Origen placed the blessedness of the saints. X. The various degrees through which he thought it could be reached are reviewed. XI. The place where he taught that the souls of the saints rest is discussed: namely, the new heaven and the new earth. XII. And concerning paradise. XIII. Whence he derived these things is investigated. XIV. Hence he incurred the rebukes of many Fathers. XV. But some things can still be offered in his excuse. XVI. Whether, and how, an end would be put to the punishments of the damned, and that all things would become one in God through the ἀποκατάστασιν [restoration]—this he thought. XVII. He admitted no punishments other than purgatorial ones. XVIII. What the "last enemy, death," is according to Origen, and the punishments of demons are inquired into. XIX. Whether he also circumscribed the future duration of blessedness with limits. XX. The sources of these dogmas are uncovered. XXI. On account of them he was gravely rebuked by the Fathers. XXII. Whether he was in the heresy of the Chiliasts. XXIII. Some things are brought forward to defend Origen. XXIV. He sometimes asserts that the punishments of the devil alone will be eternal. XXV. Some Fathers do not deviate much from the Origenian opinion on the punishments of the damned. XXVI. The signification of the word αἰώνιος [eternal] is investigated.

I. Finally, by the judgment of God, every man’s affairs will be followed by his own rewards and his own punishments. In the treatment of this matter, Origen permitted so much to himself that for no other reason did he stir up greater complaints against himself: for in investigating what sort of punishments and rewards there will be, and how great they will be, he fell into absurd opinions, while he accommodated these dogmas also to the false principles of his doctrine. For we have already said many times that he thought that minds possessed of reason [would be judged] according to the merit of their ...

actions and how they might be joined to various bodies—to more subtle ones if they conduct themselves rightly, or to heavy and coarse ones if otherwise; and that every one having attained such a state enjoys the freedom of his own will to act well or ill, and consequently that there are perpetual falls from the celestial to the lower realms and returns therefrom. From this it follows that there is no certain future state of blessedness or misery; and that there will always be progress or regress, whether in happiness or in torments, according as they have advanced in the virtue of the soul or in vice; and that therefore the punishments of the damned and the joys of the blessed will by no means be eternal.

^B It is likewise probable that for each of those in need of it, the fire serves at once as retribution and as healing, burning but not consuming those who lack the matter requiring to be destroyed by that fire; and burning and consuming those who have built with wood, hay, or stubble—terms used tropically for the structures formed by their deeds, words, and thoughts. When, therefore, he says in Book VI of *Epistles to the Romans*, no. 12, p. 640, that whoever has not been purged by the Word of God will be tormented by this fire, he understands that he who has been purged by the Word of God will indeed be purified by fire, but not burned. Yet in Homily 24 on Luke, he affirms that only those are to be baptized by Christ with the river of fire who have already been baptized with water and the Spirit and yet are in need of purgation. Conversely, in Homily 2 on Jeremiah, no. 3, he says that the holy are baptized by Jesus with the Holy Spirit, but the wicked with fire. But in Homily XXV on Numbers, no. 6, he says that everyone stands in need of purgation, but that these things are mystical and ineffable. “For who,” he says, “will be able to relate to us what purifications are prepared for Paul, or Peter, or others like them?” However, Sixtus Senensis and Genebrard misunderstood Origen’s mind, thinking his words should be referred to the fire of the final conflagration, which will purify certain elect who are not yet sufficiently purged, but will seize all the reprobate; for Adamantius assumes that not even the most holy, such as Peter or Paul, will be immune to this fire.

II. If we wish to examine each part of this opinion more subtly, not by the connection of Origenian doctrine, but by assessing each point according to Adamantius’s own words, and by gathering whatever else he has argued on this subject, the task will indeed be easy. First, he defines that all men will be examined by fire, but in such a way that the holy pass through unharmed and untouched; whereas the faults and vices of the wicked are refined away by the flames. “We must come, therefore,” he says in Homily VI on Exodus, no. 4, “all of us to the fire; we must come to the smelting furnace: for the Lord sits, and smelts, and purifies the sons of Judah” (Mal. III, 3). “But even when one arrives there, if someone has brought along many good works but a little bit of iniquity, that little bit is dissolved and purged by the fire like lead, and the whole remains as pure gold. And if someone has brought more lead there, more is burned away so that it may be more fully refined, so that, even if there is only a little gold, it remains purged at the end. But if someone comes there entirely leaden, there will happen to him that which is written: ‘He will be plunged into the deep, like lead into the most violent water’” (Exod. XV, 10). And in Homily II on Psalm XXXVI, no. 1: “It is certain that the fire which is prepared for sinners awaits us, and we shall come to that fire, in which the fire will test what sort the work of each one is” (1 Cor. III, 13). “And, as I think, it is necessary for all of us to come to that fire. Even if one is Paul or Peter, yet he comes to that fire. But such as they hear: ‘Even if you pass through the fire, the flame will not burn you.’ But if someone is a sinner like me, he will indeed come to that fire, like Peter and Paul, but he will not pass through it as Peter and Paul do.” And he explains the difference in that passage by a comparison with the crossing of the Red Sea by the Hebrews and the Egyptians, having adduced those words of Paul (1 Cor. III, 13): “The fire will test what sort each one’s work is.” And in Homily XIV on Luke: “I think that even after the resurrection from the dead, we have need of a sacrament that washes and purges us; for no one can rise again without filth, nor can any soul be found that is immediately free from all vices.” And in Book V *Contra Celsum*, no. 15, refuting that Epicurean who mocked the opinion accepted among Christians concerning the conflagration of the world, he says that fire is to be brought upon the whole world.

III. According to Origen’s decree, men tested by this fire will be assigned various places according to their merits: some to hell, and to various localities and mansions of hell; and just as these earthly places are considered a hell for minds cast down from their celestial domicile on account of sins, so to those who have departed from the earth and are contaminated by wickedness, a lower seat is assigned, which is called hell. “Perhaps,” he says in Chapter I of the *Philocalia*, “just as those dying from hence according to the common death are disposed of based on what they have done here, if they are deemed worthy of the region called Hades, to attain different places according to the proportion of their sins; so too those who die from thence, if I may so speak, descend into this Hades, being judged worthy of [different] dwellings of the whole lower region, better or worse.” These were rendered by Rufinus thus in Book IV of *De Principiis*, ch. 2, no. 23, p. 185: “For perhaps, just as those departing from this world according to the common death are dispensed according to their deeds and merits, as they are judged worthy—some indeed into the place which is called hell, others into the bosom of Abraham, and through various other places or mansions—so also, as they die from those places as it were (if it can be said), they descend from the higher realms into this hell. For that hell to which the souls of those dying from here are said to go, I believe is called ‘lower hell’ by Scripture because of this distinction.”

Which were also inserted by Jerome in Epistle 59 to Avitus, chapter 4. Since Christ sometimes calls hell “outer darkness,” it follows that Adamantius ^A banishes them outside the world, in *Commentary in Matthew*, book XIII, number 69: “For we read,” he says, “someone who was before us expounding on the darkness of the abyss, and saying that the abyss is outside the world, and there is the darkness. Let us consider, therefore, if his exposition can be true, so that some, as if unworthy of the whole world, are cast out into that abyss which he expounded, in which there is darkness, with no one illuminating them, since they are outside the entire world.” But elsewhere, however, he explains “outer darkness” differently, as we shall soon show. In *Homily 1 on Genesis*, number 1, he writes that the abyss which darkness covered at the beginning of things is that into which the devil and his angels are to be sent.

IV. Once the places and their habitations have been assigned, those who have been returned will be tormented by penalties and punishments according to the nature of their crimes. For he says in *On First Principles*, book I, chapter 6, number 3: “Meanwhile, both in those things which are seen and in temporal ages, as well as in those which are not seen and are eternal, all these are dispensed according to order, according to reason, according to measure, and according to the dignity of their merits, so that some in the first [times], others in the second, and some even in the last times, and through greater and more severe punishments, and also long-lasting—and, if I may say so, endured for many ages—are prepared and restored by more harsh amendations, through angelic instructions first, then afterwards also by the virtues of higher ranks, and thus advancing through each step to higher things, until they arrive at those things which are invisible and eternal, each of them having traversed, in a certain progress, the duties of the celestial virtues individually.” From which, as I think, the consequence itself seems to show that every rational nature can pass from one order to another, arriving through individuals to all, and from all to individuals, while each undergoes varied accessions of progress or defections according to its own movements or efforts, by the faculty of free will. I have found it necessary to describe this long passage because it contributes to the mending of Origenian doctrine and the understanding of what follows.

V. Now let us see what kind of future punishments Origen believed in. He believed that the “eternal fire” into which the wicked are to be sent by the capital decree of Christ is nothing other than the worm of conscience. Consult chapter 10 of *On First Principles*, book II, number 4, where he has examined this argument: there he says that, being recalled by divine power and with the memory of sins placed before the eyes of the wicked (according to that of Paul [Rom. II, 15, 16]: “Their thoughts one with another accusing, or else defending, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men”), it pricks his mind with stings, so that ^B it becomes its own accuser and witness; and he says that it is to be consumed by avenging flames; that the fuel for this fire is the sins admitted beforehand, which the Apostle therefore called “wood, hay, and stubble”; and hence it is written in Isaiah [L, 11]: “Walk in the light of your fire, and in the flame which you have kindled.” By these words, he says, it seems to be indicated that each one kindles for himself the flame of his own proper fire, and is not submerged into some fire that had been kindled beforehand by another, or that had existed before him. He asks next (in number 5) whether, besides those fires of anger, or fury, or insanity, or sorrow, by which the impious were tormented in this life, they will also be punished hereafter by some general penalty. Then he says that the soul will be affected by that torture, torn away from the order and harmony for which it had been created by God, just as the body is affected when members are pulled apart with their connection dissolved: “This dissolution and tearing apart of the soul,” he says, “when it has been tested by the reasoning of the applied fire, is undoubtedly solidified unto a firmer connection and restoration.” Furthermore, in number 6, just as iron and fire are often applied in the curing of diseases, so he conjectures that “our physician, God, wishing to wash away the vices of our souls which had collected from the diversity of sins and crimes, also uses in addition the punishment of fire for those who have lost the health of the soul.” In book V of *Against Celsus*, he teaches that by the fires he understands nothing other than those whom Scripture calls the “fools of the world,” ^C *and the turning back through the fear and imagination of the punishments, and the abstinence from many evils.* Similar is that from *Commentary 34 on Matthew*, number 72: “But those who depart from Jesus fall into eternal fire, which is of a different kind from this fire which we have in use. For no fire among men is eternal, nor even of long duration; for it is quickly extinguished. But the eternal fire is that of which Isaiah also says at the end of his prophecy: ‘Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be extinguished’ [Isa. LXVI, 24].” He asserts that demons use a similar fire (Homily 27 on Numbers, number 8), namely, when they see that men have turned from their vices to better things, then they indeed suffer the most bitter punishments and are inflamed by those fires.

He wishes that in other places the “fire” that exceeds and takes up sins is God Himself, because of Deuteronomy [IV, 24]: “The Lord thy God is a consuming fire.” Hence, in the *Homily on Jeremiah* 2, number 2, and 16, numbers 5 and 6, he recounts that by this fire the wood, hay, and stubble, which is built upon the foundation of Christ—namely, the works of sin—are consumed after the soul has been separated from the body: but gold, silver, and gems, that is to say, virtues and right actions, are preserved unhurt and intact. But in *On First Principles*, book I, chapter 1, number 2, he twists this passage of Deuteronomy in another direction, and does not accept it for the purgation of future life, but for the grace of this present [life] ^D

infused by God into human minds. For what, he says, will God consume according to that which is fire? Shall it be thought to consume material substance, such as wood, or hay, or stubble? And what is said in this that is worthy of the praises of God, if God is a fire consuming such materials? But let us consider that God indeed consumes and destroys, but he consumes the evil thoughts of minds, he consumes shameful deeds, he consumes the desires of sin, when he inserts himself into the minds of those who believe, and dwells within those souls that are made capable of his Word and Wisdom, along with his Son, according to what was said: "I and the Father will come, and will make our abode with him" [John xiv, 23]; with all their vices and passions consumed, he makes them a temple clean for himself and worthy of him. Thus also in Book II on the ^B Canticle of Canticles, page 52: "Finally, for this reason our God is said to be a consuming fire [Heb. xii, 29], and nonetheless a light in whom there are no shadows [1 John i, 5]." Light, without a doubt, to the just, and it is made fire to sinners, in order to consume in them everything of corruptibility or frailty that it finds in their soul; and not otherwise in Homily I on Ezekiel, numbers 12 and 13. Furthermore, he established that the soul cannot be reached and burned by fires in Book VI against Celsus, number 71: *We do not know an incorporeal substance to be set on fire, nor does the human soul, or that of the angels, or of thrones, or of dominions, or of principalities, or of powers, have an essence that is dissolved into fire.*

Sometimes, however, he thinks that the supreme conflagration of the world is denoted by this fire, and that by it the sins of men are burned away and purged. Let that passage in Book V against Celsus, number 15, be read, where he refutes this impure philosopher who denies the future conflagration of the world; for he shows that all men will be purified by this fire, with those, however, remaining unharmed in whom the works of sin—that is, the suitable fuel for this fire—will not be found; but with those others burned up who have gathered together wrongs and wickedness, namely wood, hay, and stubble, to be consumed by the flames. Also in the fourth book of the same work, numbers 20 and 64, he teaches that the world is purified now by floods, now by fires, *and perhaps not only these on earth, but also those in the whole world, which is in need of purification whenever great wickedness becomes present in it.*

However he thinks this fire is to be understood, he writes in his book on the Proverbs of Solomon that no other punishment is inflicted upon harmful men, although it may be intensified or lessened in different ways according to the nature of their sins: "It is manifest that one punishment is set beforehand by the Lord for the nature of demons as well as for the human race of sinners, which the Lord designated in his judgment, saying: 'Go into eternal fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels' [Matth. xxv, 41]; showing that the same species of punishments ^C is prepared for sinners, humans, and for the devil and his angels, although in that same punishment there may be a different quantity of punishment. For one is tortured more gravely and vehemently for the magnitude of his sins; another, however, more lightly, whose sins are easier and lighter." Pamphilus sets forth this passage in his Apology.

VI. Yet he has often confessed that men are chastised by God with other punishments besides fire. In Homily 18 on Jeremiah, number 15, page 261, he concludes that there is some punishment greater than the fire of Gehenna, from the fact that he who says to his brother, "Raca," [Matth. v, 22] is liable to the Gehenna of fire; therefore, a greater punishment hangs over those guilty of greater crimes, such as adulterers; what sort of thing that will be has not ascended into the heart of man. In Book VII against Celsus, number 5, he writes that an innocent and pure soul, as soon as it has departed from the body, is carried aloft to the purer places of the ether; whereas whatever is harmful, oppressed by its sins, is rolled hither and thither around the earth; some are cast sometimes before the eyes of men around the sepulchers of the dead as specters; others wander elsewhere. He transferred this notion from Plato, as he did many other things, whose assertion in the Phaedo is that the souls of men entangled in bodily things while they lived hover around monuments, to which, when some visible part of the body still adheres, dark images of souls hence come to be visible. Nevertheless, he rejects that opinion in Volume XXVIII on John, number 5, and determines it to be absurd to think that the soul, after it has been freed from the body, sits by the dead.

He further thinks that another kind of punishment is denoted by those words of Luke, in which Christ threatens that he will "cut in two" [Luke xii, 46] the imprudent servant, "and put his portion with the unbelievers." And he thinks that this kind of punishment is the division of the soul from the Holy Spirit; or the division of the nobler part of the soul, which was made in the image and likeness of God, from that part which has been deformed by the fall of free will; or the division of the soul from the angel assigned as its guardian. But he also wishes the shadows of errors and the darkness of ignorance to be expressed by the outer darkness, into which the king orders him to be sent who was reclining at the nuptial feast not wearing a wedding garment [Matth. xxii, 13]; and the wicked and slothful servant who had hidden the talent entrusted to him in the ground [Matth. xxv, 30]. To which is added Treatise XXXIII on Matthew, number 69, explaining the outer darkness thus: "Where there is no illumination, perhaps not even corporeal, and there is no regard of God there, but those who have sinned in such ways are as if unworthy of the contemplation of God, they are condemned in those things that are called outer darkness: perhaps until they have understood, that they may be converted and become worthy to depart from them." Yet a little later he says otherwise: "Let us consider, therefore, if his exposition can be true, so that we may understand those outer shadows, so that some, as if unworthy of the whole world, are cast out into that abyss which he described."

^A VII. The aforementioned dogmas brought upon Origen manifold reproach. Among other things, Pamphilus narrates in his *Apologeticus* that it was charged against him that he denied the punishments to be inflicted upon the wicked; because he seemed to have done away with the "punishment of sense," as they call it, when he interpreted the eternal fire as perturbations of the soul and the stings of conscience. To this point pertain those words of Jerome in *Book III on the Epistle to the Ephesians*, v, 6: "Since, therefore, there are many who say that punishments for sins are not to come, and that torments are not applied from without, but that sin itself and the conscience of the transgressions are the punishment, while the worm in the heart does not die and the fire is kindled in the mind, in the likeness of a fever which does not torture the sick person from without, but punishes by seizing the bodies themselves without the application of external torments, those whom it possesses." Furthermore, Jerome notes in *Epistle 59 to Avitus*, caps. 1-4, that Origen said that souls, according to the measure of their crimes, are cast into coarser bodies of men, or beasts, or even demons, and that upon repenting they return to the nature of angels: a point we have already observed. He adds in chapter 2 that he placed torments and the fire of Gehenna in the conscience of sinners in *Book II of On First Principles*, which he repeats in *Apology II*, chapter 1, and in the *Commentaries on the Epistle to the Ephesians*, chapters 5 and 6. Orosius also complains to Augustine in his *Commonitorium* that certain Origenists were accustomed to boast that the eternal fire in which sinners are punished is not a true fire, saying that "fire" is said to be the punishment of one's own conscience; and thus all souls of sinners, after the purgation of their conscience, are to return into the unity of the body of Christ. Augustine also refutes those everlasting cycles of blessedness and damnation in *Heresies 43 to Quodvultdeus* and *Book XXI of The City of God*, chapter 17. But Nicetas Choniates, in *Book IV of the Treasury of Orthodox Faith*, heresy 31, says that Origen taught that it would come to pass that the soul remains in the fire for as long a time as it takes to be purged from the filth of its vices; but that the worm, however, would remain without end, and that Gehenna would never be extinguished, so that by this means there might be a stimulus for the future, and the memory of divine humanity might be refreshed in the souls that had been freed from these perennial punishments.

^B VIII. Nevertheless, our Origen is defended by the consensus and patronage of many, especially by his own hesitation, when in *Book I of On First Principles*, at the beginning of the sixth chapter, intending to treat of the consummation of all things, of the punishments of the damned, and of the rewards of the blessed, he prefaces his remarks thus: "These things indeed are said by us even with great fear and caution, discussing and examining them further rather than setting them down as certain and definitive." And finally he closes the same chapter: "However, God alone knows how the matter will stand, and those who are His friends, Christ and the Holy Spirit." In the same way, at the beginning of the following chapter, he declares his hesitation. Jerome himself did not deny this, when in *Epistle 59 to Avitus*, chapter 1, he finally says of Origen having written many things as commentaries on the same subject: "These, according to our opinion, are not dogmas, but merely questions put forward lest they seem to have been left entirely untouched."

Furthermore, in asserting that fire which, at the end of all things, he envisions as going to attack the just just as it does the impious, Origen is agreed with by Lactantius, *Institutes Book VII*, chapter 21: "When He judges the just," he says, "He will examine them even by fire: then those whose sins have prevailed either in weight or in number shall be singed by the fire and burnt: but those whom full justice and the maturity of virtue have seasoned, shall not feel that fire." Hilary also, in chapter 2 of *Matthew*, says that for those who have been baptized in the Holy Spirit, it remains that they be "consummated by the fire of judgment," and he does not think that even the Blessed Virgin would be immune from this law. He holds the same in his *Commentary on Psalm 118*, 20. Ambrose, in his *Sermon on Psalm 36*: "By fire, therefore, shall the sons of Levi be purged, by fire Ezekiel, by fire Daniel"; and then: "We shall be saved by faith, yet so as if by fire; though we shall not be consumed, yet we shall be scorched." What follows is clearly translated from Origen: "How, nevertheless, some remain in the fire, and others pass through it, divine Scripture teaches us: namely, the Egyptian people were drowned in the Red Sea, but the Hebrew people passed through before them." He says that such a purgation by fire is signified by the flaming sword ^C turned and rotated around the entrance of paradise, in his *Commentary on Psalm 118*. And Jerome, in *Book III on Amos VII*, 4, says that both the saints and the impious are to be purged by fires alike, all of which was anticipated by the author of the Sibylline Oracles in *Book II*:

And then indeed all through the burning river, And the inextinguishable flame shall pass; the just Shall all be saved, but the impious shall perish therein For all ages, as many as have done evil before.

And then: But the others, to whom justice and good deeds are a care, The angels rising up shall bring through the burning river Into the light.

Then indeed all shall pass through the burning river, And the inextinguishable flame: but the just

^A shall attain salvation; the impious, however, shall perish forever, whoever has done evil beforehand. ^B

Fire in the faculties of the conscience and in lashes, just as Origen established, Ambrose also notes in lib. VII in Luc., cap. 14, in almost his very words: "Therefore," he says, "there is neither a corporal gnashing of teeth, nor any everlasting fire of corporal flames, nor a corporal worm. But these things are so, because just as fevers and worms arise from much indigestion, so if anyone does not digest his sins, as if by a certain imposed sobriety of abstinence, but by mixing sins with sins, he contracts as it were a certain indigestion of old and recent transgressions, he will be burned by his own fire and consumed by his own worms." Jerome, though otherwise sufficiently hostile to this doctrine, nonetheless bears himself gently toward it toward the end of book XVIII of his Commentary on Isaiah: "But the worm that will not die, and the fire that will not be quenched, is by many taken as the conscience of sinners, which torments those established in punishments, because by their own fault and sin they have lacked the good of the elect;" and a little later: "If therefore anyone has in his conscience tares, which the enemy, while the householder slept, has oversown, this the fire will burn, this the conflagration will devour." He does not indeed testify that these beliefs are added by himself; but he does not signify that they are disapproved by him; nor does he propose them under another’s person, but under his own. Augustine’s reasoning, however, is different, for although in lib. XXI De civit. Dei, cap. 9, he reprobates the opinion of those who take the fire of the damned metaphorically, and professes it to be corporal in chapter 10 of the same book, and in book XII De Genes. ad litter., chaps. 32 and 33, denies that the substance of the infernal regions is spiritual, and teaches that the things by which souls stripped of bodies are affected are not corporal, but similar to corporal things; yet in book XX De civit. Dei, cap. 26, he says that he assumes no one knows "of what kind, or in what part of the world or of things, that fire is to be, unless perhaps the one to whom the divine Spirit shows it." In chapter 26 of the following book, he thinks the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. III, 13: "The fire shall test what sort of work each one's is;" and verse 15: "But he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire," signify the anxieties and sorrows by which a man is struck when he is deprived of things that he has loved and delighted in beyond what is right: "For what," he says, "he did not possess without illicit love, he will not lose without burning pain." By this fire he also conjectures that death is signified, or the persecutions of the Church, or martyrdoms; and he distinguishes it, therefore, from that eternal fire into which the damned are to be sent by the decree of Christ. But I would entirely wish it to be noted: "Certainly after the death of this body, until one comes to that which, after the resurrection of the bodies, is to be the final [state] of damnation and remuneration, if during this interval of time the spirits of the departed are said to endure such a fire, which is not felt by those who have not had such morals and loves in the life of this body, so that their wood, and hay, and stubble are consumed; but is felt by others who have carried such structures with them; whether only there, or both here and there, or for this reason here so that they may not be there, [they] find the fire of transitory tribulation, which burns those things venial from damnation, I do not refute, because perhaps it is true." Nor is the support in Greek writers less for Origen: Philo in the book *Concerning the meeting for the sake of education*: "The unjust and godless soul, God sending away far from Himself, He scattered into the region of pleasures and desires and transgressions; and this region is most aptly called that of the impious, not that which is fabulously imagined in Hades; for in truth Hades is the life of the wicked man, the avenger, and the criminal, and subject to all curses." (He adds the Latin:) "Injustam et impiam animam fugatam a seipso longe procul dispergit (Deus) in voluptatum, et cupiditatum, et criminum locum. Hic autem locus aptissime impiorum appellatur, non qui apud inferos fabulose fingitur. Verus enim infernus, vita est hominis nequam, perniciosa, conscelerata, et omni exsecratione digna." Gregory of Nyssa also denies that the infernal region is corporal in lib. De anima et resurrect., just as John Damascene denies that the eternal fire consists of matter in the end of book IV of De orthod. fid., whose sentiment, however, S. Thomas tries to soften, as is found in Sixtus Senensis, Biblioth. lib. V, annot. 141. Theophylact places the fire and the worm in the memory of crimes in IX Mark: ^C "Σκώληξ δὲ καὶ πῦρ κολάζοντα τοὺς ἁμαρτωλοὺς ἡ συνείδησίς ἐστιν ἑκάστου, καὶ ἡ μνήμη τῶν πραχθέντων ἐν τῷ βίῳ τούτῳ αἰσχρῶν· ἥτις ὥσπερ σκώληξ καταδαπανᾷ καὶ ὡς πῦρ φλέγει." (Vermis autem et ignis, qui puniunt peccatores, conscientia est uniuscujusque et memoria turpium in hac vita gestorum; quæ sicut vermis absumit, et sicut ignis urit.) Nicetas, in lib. IV Thes. orthod. fid., haer. XXXI, suspects that God is denoted by the name of that fire, because He consumes vice and converts it into ash. In establishing the place of the infernal regions outside the boundaries of this world, Chrysostom supports Origen, homil. 31 in Epist. ad Rom., establishing Gehenna in spaces secret from this world by this argument, that the prisons and mines of kings are wont to be remote. Augustine also supports this, in lib. XII De Genes. ad litter., chaps. 33, 34, when he places the infernal regions outside the earth; and in lib. XX De civit. Dei, cap. 16, when he professes to be ignorant "in what part of the world or of things that fire is to be." Although in lib. II Retract., cap. 24, he finally concedes that it is under the earth. ^D Certainly, concerning the place and nature of this fire, although no special decree has yet been issued, let alone in the age of Adamantius, the consensus of the whole Church nonetheless shows sufficiently what is to be held by everyone. Finally, John Philoponus, a Christian philosopher, [denies that] souls [when] stripped of bodies...

hover around monuments, according to the decree of Origen. For he said that man is endowed with a triple soul—vegetative, sensitive, and rational—and that with death the first two are lost, but the third remains; if it is defiled by sins, it is enveloped in a subtle spirit in order to purge them, and in that state undergoes the deserved punishments; otherwise, the incorporeal soul could not be affected by bodily things. Therefore, he held that this spiritual body is tormented by punishments, dwells meanwhile in sepulchers, is clothed in various forms, and is nourished by vapors; and when that is finally consumed, the purged soul is at last set free and carried into heaven. It is not necessary to repeat here what we have already discussed in its proper place, at what time Origen thought punishments were to be inflicted upon demons. For we have made it clear that, in his opinion, no punishments are inflicted upon them until they are cast into eternal fire at the final judgment; and that many of the holy Fathers removed from them the "sense of pain," as it is called.

IX. Now let us explore what he surmised about beatitude. He felt it was placed in this: that whoever has attained it becomes one with God, according to that saying in John xvii, 24 and 21: "Father, those whom you have given to me, I will that where I am, they also may be with me; that they all may be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us." He did not, however, think that this summit of happiness was reached immediately, but rather through knowledge and learning, by which the darkness of errors and ignorance is dispelled; and then through likeness to God; and finally through intimate conjunction and unity with God, in which the supreme good is contained. These things are explained in many places, in *De Principiis*, Book II, ch. 11, §3, and Book III, ch. 6, §1 et seq.: for in the former place Origen shows that the saints will eat the "bread of life, which nourishes the soul with the foods of truth and wisdom, and illuminates the mind, and gives it to drink from the cups of divine wisdom... nourished by these foods of wisdom, the mind is repaired to be whole and perfect, just as man was made in the beginning, to the image and likeness of God." Hence, he says that a love of learning is implanted in each person by God, which will then be satisfied when, after having diligently sought the knowledge of truth in this life, we have merited to attain a clearer perception of reality. He then enumerates a manifold science of things, by which the mind will be illuminated, not indeed by a simple and sudden enlightenment, but by a ^B diverse one, imparted in a continuous succession according to the capacity and progress of the mind. In the latter place, he teaches that the supreme good, or the end of all things, toward which the whole rational nature tends, is this: to become similar to God, so far as it is possible; and from this likeness, the soul, progressing for the better, becomes one with God, as Christ promised in John xvii, 24 and 21, and so on, that in the end God will be all in all. He explains later how God can be all in all; namely, when the soul, powerful in reason, is purged from the dross of vices, it can understand or feel nothing other than God; nor does it desire to taste further the fruit plucked from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, since it is always in the good, and it is not prompt for it to commit evil. In this way, the end is finally repaired into the beginning, and the outcomes of things are brought back to their starting points, when the soul is restored to that state which it possessed when it stood in no need of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. At that time, it will not be subject to death, all sense of malice will be wiped away, and God will truly be all in all. Furthermore, he revealed what that spiritual body will be like, with which the blessed are to be clothed: it will be, of course, more splendid and excellent than any other bodies that can fall under our vision; it will obtain more subtlety and splendor the more the soul, instructed by reason, has requested it according to its merits and virtues. Finally, he asks whether after the consummation of all things, when God will be all in all, the brightness and glory of all bodies will be the same; and he responds that the corporeal nature will attain that highest and perfect state after Christ has subjected to God the Father the souls taught by holy doctrines. Jerome holds these items in *Epistula* 59, *ad Avitum*, ch. 3, and says that at the end of this third book *Peri Archon* Origen introduced these things: "And God will be all in all, so that the whole corporeal nature may be reduced to that substance which is better than all others, namely, the divine, than which there is nothing better;" which Rufinus concealed. He also concealed this other matter, which Jerome adduces in the same place from the same book of Origen, ch. 6, §5: "Nor is there any doubt that after certain intervals of time, matter will exist again, and bodies will be formed, and the diversity of worlds will be built; on account of the various wills of rational creatures, which, after perfect beatitude, having gradually slipped down to lower things until the end of all things, received so much malice that they turned to the contrary, since they did not want to preserve their beginning and possess incorruptible beatitude." Indeed, Rufinus transfers this common dogma of Origen regarding the sins and falls of blessed souls to others by his own interpretation in the same book, *De Principiis*, ch. 6. For he has it thus: "But some think that this perfection and beatitude of rational creatures, or natures, remains in the same state that we mentioned above—that is, that they have God as their all, and God is all to them—only if the society of corporeal nature does not remove them at all. Otherwise, they think that the glory of the highest beatitude is hindered if an admixture of material substance is interposed." Moreover, what Rufinus introduces ascribing to others, he shows Adamantius himself refuting in the same chapter, §6: "In which state (of beatitude) it must also be believed that one remains forever and immutably by the will of the Creator, making the case credible by the opinion of the Apostle who says: 'We have a house not made with hands...'"

'> ^A Origen also deals with the final end of all things in his *Book I De Principiis*, ch. 6, nos. 1, 2, saying that all things must be recalled to a single end, just as they proceeded from a single beginning, after Christ has reigned and subjected all enemies to Himself, and destroyed the last enemy, death, and handed over the kingdom to the Father; and then celestial, terrestrial, and infernal things are to arrive at one end, ^B 'through the goodness of God, and the subjection of Christ, and the unity of the Holy Spirit.' He adds, moreover, that goodness exists substantially only in the Trinity, and that others have received it from there by borrowing and derivation; 'and that they are then in beatitude, when they participate in holiness, and wisdom, and in the Divinity itself: which, however many neglect, they fall short of this happiness through the vice of their own sloth, and are treated by God according to the measure of their fault.' Nor do the things which the Corderian Catena on the Psalms brings forth from Origen at Psalm LX, 3, page 739, disagree with these, where Christ is said to be the tabernacle and the holy mountain in which the perfect rest; then he subjoins: *Truly, though such a tabernacle possesses perfection to such a degree that it is even a holy of holies, yet there is after it a state surpassing that of rational beings, according to which they shall be in the Father and the Son, or rather in the Trinity; for it is said that they shall dwell as sojourners for ages, but not reside as local inhabitants in the tabernacle; he who has become in this house shall be sheltered in the protection of the wings of God.* This is to say: Having departed from the tabernacle, which is Christ, the saints shall rest in the Trinity, when, with the kingdom of Christ brought to completion, the Father Himself shall have received the kingdom. Imbued with this doctrine, Theodore Ascidas, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and patron of the Origenists in the age of Justinian, said: *If now the apostles and martyrs work miracles, and are in such honor, if in the restoration they do not become equal to Christ, what kind of restoration is it for them?* ^C Which statement Evagrius testifies was condemned in the fifth synod, lib. IV, cap. 38. Nevertheless, in the preface to his *Commentary on John*, Origen does not at all retreat from the common opinion of theologians, teaching that beatitude is situated in the knowledge and contemplation of God, and that the end is the contemplative life, into which the end of the journey concludes in the so-called restoration.

X. Origen maintained, however, that one does not arrive at supreme beatitude immediately, but gradually and by various stages. For he imagined that souls which have merited beatitude, but are still laboring under the contagion of earthly things, are, after they have been released from the body, led through various places in which they are purged, and instructed by angels assigned to this ministry, and, freed from the darkness of errors, ascend to a more splendid and lofty region; and there, instructed by new doctrines and having experienced other teachers, they are carried higher, until they arrive at the highest point, which we have called the pinnacle of happiness; ^D and that first, in a certain place of the earth, earthly filth and ignorance are laid aside, and this is paradise; then in the air, and subsequently in diverse places of heaven, they take up a new discipline, and at last enjoy perfect beatitude; but that in each of the mansions souls spend a stay longer in proportion to how many evils they had contaminated themselves with while attached to the body, and how many impurities they must be purged of. Frequent examples of this doctrine exist: we shall select the principal ones. *Homily 26 in Numbers*, no. 4, teaches that the departure of the soul from the body is expressed by the exit of the Israelites from Egypt, when, having left behind the shadows of this world and the blindness of the body, the soul passes into another realm, which is named either the bosom of Abraham, as in the story of Lazarus, or paradise, as in that of the thief; 'or even,' he says, 'if God knows there to be other places, or other mansions, through which the soul believing in God passes, and arriving even at that river which gladdens the city of God, it receives within itself the lot of the inheritance promised to the Fathers;' and some time later, no. 5: 'The soul believing in God, therefore, attains the inheritance of this land after it has gone out from the Egypt of this world: and in one place indeed are those who lived under the Law; in another, however, those who have been dispensed by the faith and grace of Jesus Christ.' In the following homily he then repeats these same points, and writes that the mansions of the Israelites in the desert signify the mansions of the soul; just as also that passage of Christ in John XIV, 2: *In my Father's house are many mansions;* and furthermore by various testimonies of the prophets, which he enumerates one after another; through these places, therefore, the soul wandering in pilgrimage sighs for the place of rest with groaning and sorrow; it also grows dull and dim-sighted until it has reached the goal of its journey: "Passing through each one," he says at no. 4, page 377, "those many mansions, which are said to be with the Father, it is illumined more as it comes from one to another, always seeking greater increments of illumination, until it be accustomed to endure the vision of the true light itself, which lightens every man, and to bear the splendor of such wondrous majesty." He inculcates the same in the following sections, no. 6: "(The soul), after the resurrection, about to ascend to the heavens, does not ascend suddenly or importunately to the summit, but is led through many mansions, in which, being illumined through each one, and having always received an increment of splendor, it is illumined in each mansion by the light of wisdom until it arrives at the Father of lights Himself." After this, he applies the names of those desert stations to the mansions which the soul traverses when about to depart into heaven, and shows that this soul is subject to the traps and temptations of demons even then, and sustains labors, but is not unwilling, nor is it as exhausted by them as it is sustained by hope; but that the soul is also comforted by refreshments, and rises little by little to the knowledge of heavenly things, and already exerts its full power in the body.

and then to reach the goal of its course, when it arrives at the river of God, and of the flowing wisdom, and is irrigated by the waves of divine knowledge. From these things it appears sufficiently clear that Sixtus Senensis, in book v of his *Bibliotheca*, annotation 128, offers violence to this opinion of Origen when he asserts that those mansions are to be referred not to diverse times of ascent, but to diverse degrees of rewards. Finally, in *Homily 28 on Numbers*, numbers 2 and 3, he imagines that a certain place is prepared for us by God, where we may dwell for a certain time if we have committed any sins imprudently; just as Moses assigned certain cities of refuge to those who had committed homicide by chance and without intent; and that each one is established in this or that part of heaven by Christ according to his merits. He adds in *Homily 25 on Joshua*, number 4, that the children of Abraham will be placed in heaven according to the order of the stars and the parts of heaven; and that to some a lot is given in the east, to others in the west, to others in the south, but to others, who are better known to God, in the north. The passage from *Homily 1 on Psalm 38*, number 8, is relevant to this: "The course of this heaven of ours, bounded by its own spaces, makes one day; he who merits to arrive at the ascent of the second heaven has another day. For he who could be caught up to or arrive at even the third heaven leads a much brighter day, where he will find not only ineffable light, but will also hear words which it is not permitted for man to speak. I know also of other days, the number of which the prophet perhaps rightly seeks." But that which is read in *Tractate 30 on Matthew*, number 51, page 871, is most clear: "Each heaven has its own foundations and beginnings, and perfections—that is, ends. For instance, after the highest conversation which was upon the earth, the conversation of one heaven receives man again, and the perfection which is in it. Then the third conversation of the third heaven receives him again, and the perfection which is in it. And thus understand for me that there are many beginnings and ends—that is, perfections—of the conversations of many heavens, from which beginnings and ends God gathers his elect for the diverse heavens." The same author, in *De principiis*, book 1, chapter 6, teaches that all things will return to one end, just as they had the same beginnings—namely, when Christ has held the empire and, having defeated his enemies and subjected them to himself, and even death itself, has delivered up the kingdom to the Father. He shows ^D then that certain rational natures which had fallen from their orders were handed over to others to be ruled, those who had kept their place, and that through their wholesome disciplines they could recover their lost blessedness: "Of which," he says in number 2, "I think, as far as I can perceive, that this order of the human race was instituted, which indeed in the future age, or in the ages that will follow, when there will be a new heaven and a new earth according to Isaiah, will be restored to that unity which the Lord Jesus promises." He says, moreover, that some have arrived at such wickedness that they utterly reject the instruction of celestial virtues and resist them; and that they are called by the apostles contrary virtues, whence ^A contentions and struggles arise. He then teaches that in the present and in the future age individuals, punished by diverse chastisements, are corrected by angelic disciplines, until they arrive at perfect and eternal things; which passage we have cited more than once above. Finally, he concludes in this: that the corporeal nature will not indeed perish at the end of things, but will be changed into the manner of ether, and will attain a certain celestial subtlety and splendor. He explains this argument also in many ways in book 11 of *Περὶ ἀρχῶν*, chapter 3, and proposes for his own inquiry whether after this world there will be any curing and emendation, harsher indeed for those who did not obey the Word of God; but milder and gentler toward others, who, having been accustomed to the study of truth while they lived, have become more capable of divine wisdom: and whether the end of all things is to receive this life, and another world is to be for the correction of those who deserve it. He then examines this opinion which asserts that corporeal nature at the end of things is to be thoroughly reduced to nothing; and explaining this, he says in number 2: "This matter of the body, which is now corruptible, will put on incorruption, when the perfect soul, also instructed in the dogmas of incorruption, shall have begun to use it;" and he teaches that the soul will be the garment of the body, which it itself will put on in Christ, whence it will become incorrupt. Afterward he adds: "But what will incorruption and immortality be, if not Wisdom, and the Word, and the Justice of God, which form the soul, and clothe it, and adorn it?" But as for that opinion which determines that the future life is to be lead in an incorporeal state, when all things shall have been subjected to Christ; or this other which decrees that corporeal substance is to be joined to the purest spirits according to merit, and to be transmuted into an ethereal state; or finally the third, which defines that the fashion of this world will cease, and proposes that the station of the pious is to be placed in safety above the sphere ^C ἀπλανῆ, both for those who have expiated their faults through chastisements, and for those who have merited to arrive there through virtues, it leaves it to each one to embrace at his own will that which he finds more pleasing to his own mind. In chapter 4 of the same book, number 6, he declares that he thinks souls migrating from this life depart to some place situated in the earth, which Scripture calls paradise, and there, as in a school, learn the causes of the things they had seen on earth and also of future things. But the more clean and exercised any one has been, the more he will progress, and the sooner he will ascend into the air, and from thence to the celestial spheres, in which he will be enriched with new accessions of learning. The same is held in book 11 of *Περὶ ἀρχῶν*, chapter 6, number 6, and he teaches that through immense cycles of years souls are corrected in their own places, with some running ahead and striving toward the highest things with a rapid course, with others following closely behind, and some more slowly; and thus they make progress through diverse orders, and are reconciled to God, until the last enemy, death, is destroyed; and when the souls have finally been restored to this state, corporeal nature will be brought to glory; and all things will be one, when God shall be all in all.

^A At the end of the eighth section of that same chapter, he ^A inculcates the same point, and adds that in another land the saints are to be instructed in heavenly institutions. ^B But in Homily 11 on Numbers, no. 4, he adds to the above that in the coming age, the angels will be overseers of those whom they have, by their labor and ministry, gathered from various nations and brought to the knowledge of Christ; insomuch that Christ shall be not so much a future King, as King of kings, and Lord of lords 38; and that some are offered to Christ by angels, while others are offered only to archangels. Finally, he concludes thus in no. 5: "Just as from the beginning of this age, when God scattered the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God, and every nation was made under its own angel, but Israel was one and an elect nation, which was the portion of the Lord, and the line of His inheritance 39; so I believe that at the end of this world, and at the beginning of another age, the Most High will again divide the sons of Adam, and those who have not been able to be so pure in heart as to see the Lord Himself, and be the portion of the Lord, shall see the holy angels, and shall be according to the number of the angels of God. But blessed is he who shall be found worthy in that life to be the portion of the Lord, and the people of His inheritance, Jacob, and the line of His inheritance, Israel." Akin to this is what is read in Homily 21 on Numbers, no. 1, where he assigns one type of blessedness to those who have performed divine ministries among the living, and another to those who have cultivated virtue more sluggishly: he writes, indeed, that the former transcend the highest pinnacles of heaven, and there always dwell in the Lord, always in His Word and Wisdom, enjoying supreme delights; but the latter are to obtain the inheritance of some higher and more powerful earth, namely, the land of the living. Furthermore, he writes in Homily 3 on Luke that in the coming life not all will see God or the angels as soon as they leave the body, but only those who have shown themselves worthy of the sight of God by the purity of their heart; and although those who are pure in heart and those who are defiled with stains will both be in the same place, their future lot will nonetheless be different, and the former will enjoy the vision of God, which the latter will lack. In the following Homily 17, he asserts that digamists will be cast out ^C from the heavenly Church, just as they are debarred from ecclesiastical dignities on earth. "Not that," he says, "they are sent into eternal fire, but that they do not have a part in the kingdom of God: and he then says they are in the second rank, and are of those who invoke the name of the Lord, and who are indeed saved in the name of Jesus Christ, yet are by no means crowned by Him."

Finally, because created things have not yet been brought to supreme perfection, he affirmed that for this reason the blessed have not yet received full joy, nor do they enjoy supreme gladness—not even the prophets themselves, or the apostles, nor indeed Christ Himself. His words are these, from Homily 7 on Leviticus, no. 2, p. 222: "For they have not yet received their joy, not even the apostles, but they themselves await that I too may become a participant of their joy." Nor do the saints departing from here obtain the full rewards of their merits immediately, but they also await us, however lingering, however sluggish we may be. For there is not perfect joy for them until they grieve for our errors and mourn our sins. To prove this, he uses this passage of the Apostle from Hebrews XI, 39-40: "All these, though commended through their faith, did not receive the promise, since God had provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us." He adds shortly after that the saints are to obtain perfect blessedness with us on the day of judgment, for the reason that the whole body is to be raised up together, namely all mankind: which body, since it consists of many members, namely individual men, would be a truncated and imperfect body if it lacked any part of itself, and consequently would not enjoy perfect and full joy until it had received its wholeness. And afterwards: "For if it does not seem to you, who are a member, that there is perfect joy if another member is missing, how much more does our Lord and Savior, who is the head and author of the whole body, not say that there is perfect joy for Himself, as long as He sees that something is missing from His body's members?" Genebrardus tries to come to the aid of the laboring Origen in his *Collectanea*, chap. 6, and writes this: "But this can be explained regarding the total and absolute consummation of blessedness, which the saints have not yet received in their bodies." But what good is it to offer help to one who refuses it, when he considers that the saints do not yet enjoy perfect ^D joy for a reason other than that which Genebrardus mentions? "For there is not," he says himself, "perfect joy for them as long as they grieve for our errors and mourn our sins."

But when Origen says in *Matthew* tom. X, nos. 2 and 3, that souls, after they have been more or less purged according to the measure of their filth and defilement, will at last be one solar light, and will provide their own light to those below: he means by this that they will reach the supreme peak of happiness, above which it is not permitted to rise; and whatever station they hold, they must needs shine with equal light and enjoy an equal measure of blessedness. But if any of this number should always lapse back to their former vices and fall from that highest rank, they will shine with a duller light, and one that is prior and far inferior. He is to be understood similarly when he says that God will one day be all in all, and mentions that supreme end to which all things will arrive, and the *apokatastasin* (restoration) of the universe. But when he writes in *Matthew* tom. XV, no. 36, p. 706, that in rewarding men, God takes account only of their will and zeal, not of the time they spent in exercising virtue, and therefore those who have labored to the best of their ability are to be given equal rewards, this is to be explained from the above as meaning that the same reward is to be bestowed upon them, namely salvation, but not...

that the same purgation be applied, if they have labored little in virtue for a long time, even though they may have ended their lives carried away by similar zeal toward God; but that both are restored by diverse disciplines and corrections before they are placed at the supreme summit of blessedness. And so Origen subjoins, no. 37, p. 707: “For while let them have, on account of their repentance and the fact of being overtaken in a converted life, something better than those overtaken in sins, yet one ought not to assume concerning them that they are ^A akin to those who have sinned in this regard in their youth, besides the fact that they had not even learned the beginning of the things of the faith.” There is, therefore, a great difference between these ravings of Origen and the heresy of Jovinian, who thought that virtues and sins were equal, and that consequently reward and punishment would be equal, following the Stoics who, as Augustine says in Epistle 29 to Jerome, “of the parity of sins,” dared to argue against every sense of the human race.

XI. Having traversed and passed through these spaces, which Origen imagined souls run through for the sake of being purged, where he thought they were to subsist and rest, it must be seen. He indeed assigns a new heaven and a new earth for happiness and rest after this life, in book II of *De principiis*, ch. 6, no. 2, on account of that passage of Isaiah LXV, 17: “For behold I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former things shall not be in memory, and they shall not ascend upon the heart;” which is represented in II Peter III, 13, and Apocalypse XXI, 1. But on account of that passage of Paul, I Cor. VII, 31, “For the figure of this world passeth away,” and that of David, Psalm CI, 27, “The heavens shall perish, but thou remainest, and all shall grow old like a garment;” and perhaps this of Isaiah LI, 6, “The heavens shall vanish like smoke, and the earth shall be worn away like a garment,” he teaches that a new heaven and a new earth are to be created insofar as ^B this world will be destroyed at the end of things, and will be restored into a new earth and a new heaven: “The innovation,” he says ibid., no. 4, “of the heavens and the earth, and the transmutation of the habit of this world, and the mutation of the heavens shall without doubt be prepared for them who, traveling through that way which we showed above, tend toward that end of blessedness, to which even the enemies themselves are said to be about to be subjected, in which end all things, and in all things, God is said to be.” And thus Jerome, in Epistle 59 to Avitus, ch. 1, complains that Origen believed that it would come to pass that a race of men would consist of certain souls in some one of the worlds, when according to Isaiah a new heaven and a new earth shall be made.

Above this also he sometimes places the visible heaven, a new earth, and a new heaven; and he says that the underworld is the firmament in relation to that supreme and new heaven, just as this earth of ours, which he judges to be properly called dry land, is the underworld in relation to the firmament; and the heaven itself is the underworld in relation to the underworlds; and just as souls departing from these earthly seats obtain diverse places among the underworlds according to their merits, so that those which pass ^C from this place to the firmament, or to the earth, obtain various places there; and again, just as souls migrating from the underworlds, and returning to the earth on account of right deeds, are said to be born; so various risings of souls happen in the firmament, and likewise in the supreme heaven. The very words of Origen, by which this doctrine is contained, are adduced by Jerome in chapters 2 and 4 of Epistle 59 to Avitus, from book IV of *De principiis*, no. 23. Certainly in no. 22 of this book, Origen teaches that Jerusalem, but also the remaining regions of the earth as well, have namesakes for themselves in the heavens, and that in them are found Egypt, Babylon, Tyre, and Sidon; and that the prophets have prophesied many things about those places, which if anyone refers to earthly places, he is greatly hallucinating. He recounts there many things mentioned in the sacred volumes, which he thinks ought to be interpreted allegorically and distorted toward celestial things. In Homily 28 on Numbers, no. 2, he establishes Judea in heaven as distinct with its mountains, its cities and villages, and even its tribes, and that the people of God, and the true Israel, would be set there, with Jesus as leader, whose image the other Jesus, the son of Nave, bore; and that each individual would be sent away into this or that tribe according to their merits and virtues; “and not only according to the merits of them who are dispensed,” he says in no. 4, “but also by the contemplation of the final Adam, in whom all are said to be quickened.” In the same place he locates Jerusalem, and Mount Sion, according to the Apostle, Gal. IV, 26, and Heb. XII, 22, and John, Apocal. III, 12, and XXI, 2, and the temple of God; and thinks that feast days are to be celebrated there, and whatever finally is commanded in the law, which the Apostle says contains the shadow of future goods. He has the same in Homily 25 on Joshua, no. 4, and refers to it that statement of John XIV, 2, “In my Father’s house there are many mansions,” and thinks that that faithful servant, who put to profitable use the money committed to him, will have power over those celestial cities. Origen therefore establishes such a proportion and resemblance between the seats of souls, that he wishes this earth to be the shadow and image of celestial things, and what is done on earth, according to the Apostle, Heb. VIII, 5. But especially memorable is that passage which we find in Homily 5 on Psalm XXXVI, where, explaining that passage of Psalm XXXVI, 34, “And he shall exalt thee, to take the earth as an inheritance,” he means that this earth is the back of the firmament itself: “Whence,” he says in no. 4, “I think that, just as the lower ground of the heaven itself, that is, of the firmament—the dry land in which we live—is called its earth; so also the upper ground, which is principally called the lower ground, in which those celestial inhabitants dwell, and, if I may so say, the very back of this firmament, is deservedly, as I said, called the earth of that heaven: but a good earth, a holy earth, a great earth, the earth of the living, an earth flowing with milk and honey.” He explains the whole context of his doctrine at length in book III of *De principiis*, ch. 3, nos. 6, 7, and the universality of all things, ^D of the underworld, of earthly things, of celestial things, and what is above

^A the heavens; he calls the world by the name of the generated, by which the other worlds are contained. And just as the firmament encompasses this earth with its capacity, so does a certain higher sphere—which is called in the Scriptures the good land, and the land of the living, and is promised to the meek and gentle—hold itself within its own heaven, in which the names of the saints are inscribed. From this heaven, and from that land, the firmament and the dry land were affected by the names of earth and heaven; and [he argues] that there is one heaven and earth which were created in the beginning by God, and a firmament which is said to have been fashioned on the second day. This higher world, however, is that from which Christ signifies that he was sent, saying in John 8:23: "I am not of this world"; it is by no means subject to corruption, nor is it visible to the eyes, but this seat is destined for the holy ^B and perfect. As for the land of that world, it is for those who have been purged by punishments and corrections, while the heaven is for those who, while they lived on earth, obeyed the commandments of God, yet in such a way that there is a passage open from that land to the supreme heaven. Similar things are found in the same book, ch. 9, no. 3, and in the final chapter of book III, nos. 8, 9, where he also adds that the form of these celestial things—which act as types of these lower things—was shown to Moses on the mountain; and according to whose pattern he fashioned the instruments of the tabernacle and sacrifices, according to that commandment of God in Exod. 25:40: "Look and make according to the pattern which was shown to you on the mountain." He adds ^C also that in that highest heaven will be that "which is called the eternal Gospel and the Testament that is always new and will never grow old"; and in that land of the pious, souls will be instructed by the angels, just as in the aforementioned mansions, until, having attained the highest heaven, God is all in all. Nor does Homily 1 on Genesis, no. 2, differ from these views, when he writes that that supreme and incorporeal heaven, which is the seat of God, was created first by God, and then the corporeal heaven, that is, the firmament; for he calls it incorporeal, as we showed above, because on account of its extreme tenuity it does not fall under the senses. Likewise, in the last chapter of book II of *De principiis*, no. 6, after he said that the saints departing from this life would arrive at a certain place on this earth, which is called paradise, he affirms that they will then cross over from the mansions of the air and the celestial [mansions] to those things which are unseen, and which are known to us in name only. Hence, in book VII of his *Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans*, no. 5, p. 600, he forbids us to hope for things that are usurped by the eyes—namely, the dry land or the firmament—but [urges us to look for] things that do not strike the eye, and which are eternal, namely, heaven: "Nay rather," he says, "heavens much more eminent and lofty than is that firmament which can be seen by the eyes, and a land assigned to the meek," as the Apostle declares in 2 Cor. 4:18: "While we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen ^D are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal."

XII. As far as paradise is concerned, Adamantius distinguished it from that highest and supreme heaven and placed it in some definite spot on earth; whereas, translating the earthly paradise—which it is most certain was situated on earth—allegorically, he set it above the heavens, as we shall show. And the testimony concerning the former is manifest in book II of *De principiis*, ch. 11, no. 6: "For I think," he says, "that each of the saints departing from this life will remain in some place situated on the earth, which the divine Scripture calls paradise, as if in a certain place of instruction." And he wishes this to be the first mansion, in which souls departing from the body are purged of earthly defilements; which he also holds to be the same as the bosom of Abraham. "But we also said," he says in Homily 26 on Numbers, no. 4, "that this is a figure of the departure from Egypt, when the soul leaves the darkness of this world, and the blindness of corporeal nature, and is transferred to another age, which is indicated either as the bosom of Abraham, as in [the case of] Lazarus; or paradise, as in [the case of] the thief who believed from the cross." He also distinguishes paradise by certain differences in Homily 13 on Ezekiel, no. 2, pp. 405, 404, so that one is paradise, and the other is the paradise of delights. And he confuses this paradise of delights with Eden, that is, the earthly paradise, in book I on the *Canticle of Canticles*, p. 42; for he says: "But whoever shall be worthy to return and be with Christ, and whoever is found faithful in a little shall be set over much, he shall taste, and will be led to a place where he takes the pleasure of the Lord, a certain place which, on account of such abundance and variety of foods, is called a place of delights. For which reason it is also said to have been placed in Eden, which indicates delights." What he thought about the earthly paradise, we shall examine below.

XIII. These things also are drawn almost entirely from the fountains of Plato; for he willed that blessedness be situated in the likeness of God. Laertius in [his life of] Plato is a witness, as is Clement of Alexandria in *Stromata*, book II, who also demonstrates that the Stoics held the same opinion, as does Abammon the Egyptian in his reply to Porphyry's letter. Plato, moreover, in the *Phaedo*, after he has described the topography of the underworld, narrates that souls who have held a middle path between virtue and vice, after judgment is passed upon them, go forth to Acheron, and having boarded vehicles, are carried to the Acherusian swamp, and having there been purged of their wicked deeds through punishments, they are released, and finally receive the rewards for their good deeds, and are even sometimes sent back for the generation of animals. But those who have bound themselves to incurable crimes are cast into Tartarus without any hope of future exit; but those whose crimes can be cured, are cast into Tartarus, but after staying there for a year, are cast out by the flood, and return to the Acherusian [swamp], and are not released until they have appeased those whom they treated with injury or death; but those who have led a pure and innocent life, are sent to a certain higher region, and one flowing with delights, which

^A remains above the earth, to ascend; and some of these, instituted by the precepts of philosophy, are entirely freed from the corporeal mass and depart into more pleasant places. It should be particularly noted that passage from Plotinus, Enn. III, lib. IV, cap. 6, by which he asserts that some of the souls that have progressed to higher things live in this sensible world, others outside this world: those that dwell in the sensible world live, others stay by the sun, or some planet, or pass their time in the firmament, each according to their merits. Pythagoras had already declared before, as Laertius reports in his *Pythagoras*, that "the air is full of souls." And these interpolated ideas Origen adapted to the utterances of Holy Scripture as best he could.

For that earth resting upon the vault of the firmament, which Adamantius describes, is very similar to another which Plato commemorates in the same book, where he says: `αὐτὴν τὴν γῆν καθαρὰν ἐν καθαρῷ κεῖσθαι τῷ οὐρανῷ, ἐν ᾧπέρ ἐστι τὰ ἄστρα, ἣν δὴ αἰθέρα ὀνομάζειν τοὺς πολλοὺς τῶν περὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα εἰωθότων λέγειν· οὗ δὴ ὑποστάθμην ταῦτα εἶναι, καὶ ξυῤῥεῖν ἀεὶ εἰς τὰ κοῖλα τῆς γῆς` ("That pure earth lies in a pure heaven in which the stars are, which many accustomed to speak of such things call aether, of which these are the dregs, and they always flow into the hollows of the earth"). Hence Tertullian, Lib. *De anima*, cap. 55: "But our slumber is in the aether with the boys of Plato; or in the air, with Arius; or around the moon, with the Endymion of the Stoics." That ancient theology of the poets also sang that the souls of the blessed were received into a certain land, namely, the Elysian grove. From this, Celsus objected to the Christians that we were taught by the heathens that souls would depart after death to another land superior to this one. But then Origen, being ashamed of his master (49), preferred to attribute what he had learned from Plato to Moses, who introduced God promising to the good a land flowing with milk and honey; of which he said this earthly Judea and Jerusalem was the symbol and image, according to the Apostle, Heb. XII, 22. In their argument, he uses certain testimonies of David, promising to frugal men the inheritance of a certain land. He also believes that Plato took the gems of that land from Isaiah LIV, 12, and the rest that likewise pertain to this fable, just as they were also taken from Moses and other prophets. He does not count Haggai among them, who in chap. II, verse 7, clearly distinguishes the earth from the dry land.

XIV. Reviewing the Origenist errors inserted in the books *Περὶ ἀρχῶν*, Jerome in his *Epistle 59 to Avitus* did not at all omit those mentioned above regarding supreme happiness and the different degrees of happiness. I would like the first chapter of this epistle to be read, and the second one also, which concludes with these words, taken from the end of the second book *De principiis*: "And when we have progressed so far that we are completely without flesh and bodies, perhaps even without ^B even souls, but the mind and the senses coming to perfection, and darkened by no cloud of perturbations, we will behold (perhaps we should read: *we shall behold*) rational and intelligible substances face to face." I would also like the reader to consult the fourth chapter of that same epistle, in which Jerome reports that Origen said that against souls hastening at the end of things to the heavenly Jerusalem, wars of opposing powers arise, not so that the virtue of the souls may weaken, but that, exercised by battles, they may receive a new increment of strength. Theophilus also touches upon this in *Pasch. II*, when he says that Origen dreamed that souls ascend into heaven and descend; and sometimes progress, sometimes slip down to lower things. He also touches upon the fiction of the various mansions of heaven, a little further down, saying that many ages are to be dissolved into nothing, and that nothing is to be future, unless when souls that have slipped down to lower things need new ones, which may again be made, with the former ones entirely destroyed. Jerome also summarizes this whole meditation concerning the new heaven and new earth, and that heavenly world, very similar to this of ours, in chap. 4, epist. 59, to Avitus. But Epiphanius unfairly blames Origen (Haer. LXIV, cap. 4) because he referred that Davidic Psalm CXIV, 7, "Turn, O my soul, unto thy rest," to that heavenly rest which the soul obtains on account of its excellent deeds in this life; indeed, the Church refers this whole psalm to the same thing. Augustine in his book *De haeresibus*: "They (the Origenists) do not believe that Paradise, and the heavens, and other things are according to the letter, but in allegory." Finally, Michael Glycas in *Annal. part. I and IV* attacks Origen on this account, and mentions his opinion as having been refuted by John Chrysostom.

XV. Nevertheless, against so many assaults of his adversaries, Origen has this defense in his own protestation, Lib. I *Περὶ ἀρχῶν*, cap. 6, num. 1, whereby he so fortifies the minds of his readers regarding the dogmas set forth above: "Which things indeed are said by us also with great fear and caution, discussing and examining them rather than establishing them as certain and defined. For it has been indicated by us in the preceding pages which things are to be settled by a manifest dogma, which I think we have done to the best of our ability when we were speaking of the Trinity. But now we are exercising ourselves more in the manner of debating than of defining, as far as we are able." Besides this, in the following book, cap. 3, num. 6, he does not state with sufficient certainty what or in what place that world is from which the Savior indicated He had come when He said, "I am not of this world" (John XVII, 15): "But whether this world," he says, "which He wishes to be perceived, is separated from this one, and divided far off, either by place, or by quality, or by glory; or whether it excels indeed in glory and quality, yet is held within the boundary of this world—which seems to me more probable—is nevertheless uncertain, as I ^D

have discussed, and also unusual for human thoughts and minds; and then, by a threefold judgment proposed concerning the consummation of things and supreme beatitude, he permits to everyone the freedom of his own judgment to pursue whatever he pleases. And at last, the final chapter of Book III, *De Principiis*, which is *On the Consummation of the World*, he concludes with these words: ^A “Thus far having discussed with us both the rationale of corporeal nature or spiritual body, we leave it to the judgment of the reader to choose from either what he shall have judged better.” Homily 23 *on Joshua*, no. 4, after having assigned heavenly things as similar to these earthly ones, declares such mysteries to be worthy of veneration and silence, and [says] that they cannot be perfectly expressed by any of mortals, not even by the apostles themselves. Wherefore, also in Book IV *De Principiis* [Περὶ ἀρχῶν], no. 23, page 186, ^B he thinks that the kingdom of heaven has been prepared like treasure hidden in a field.

Yet, although he had asserted clearly and without ambiguity what he proposed uncertainly, he might be assisted by the support and consensus of certain holy men. Clement of Alexandria, Book II *Stromata*, defends with the authority of Holy Scripture that axiom of Plato, by which he defines a man to be blessed when he is like unto God. Concerning the manner and place of the felicity of the saints, from the earliest times of the Church down to Innocent III and Benedict XI, and the Council of Florence, there was nothing certain established by the Church, to such an extent that the Fathers went in different directions. Sixtus of Siena collected their opinions and testimonies in Book V *Bibliotheca*, annotation 345, so that it seems to be entirely superfluous work to re-record them here. Besides those who were mentioned by him, I would wish for the following to be consulted: Cyprian’s epistle 52 *to Antonianus*; Novatian, *De Trinitate*, chap. 1; Athanasius in *Exposition of the Faith*, judging that the paradise promised by Christ on the cross to the thief is the same place from which Adam was cast out, along with Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catechesis Mystagogica* 1; Basil in his book *On Paradise*, and chapter 27 of the book *On the Holy Spirit*; Gregory of Nyssa in his oration *On the Forty Martyrs*; and Paulinus of Nola, who thought the same as Athanasius thought. Let Epiphanius also be consulted in his epistle *to John of Jerusalem*, chapter 4, and in the *Ancoratus*, chapter 54, placing paradise in one place, heaven in another; and Augustine, ^C Book XX *De Civitate Dei*, chapters 14 and 16; and among others, the author of the *Questions to Antiochus*, declaring this to be a mystery hidden and unknown to men.

XVI. It is gathered sufficiently from the above, even if I remain silent, that a measure and an end to the punishments of the damned were set by the decree of Origen: for since he thought it would be such that, whatever state of soul they hold, they can sin, and in fact very often do sin, and on account of sins or merits are turned forever back and forth from the lowest to the highest, and from the highest to the lowest, and that the will of the devil himself, turned away from God, ^D shall at some time be crushed, and Christ shall be about to deliver the kingdom to God the Father, and since he believed that a complete *apocatastasis* [restoration] of all things and a perfect felicity would be [there] when God shall be all in all; it follows necessarily from thence that the punishments of the damned shall cease, and that they are inflicted by God upon men solely for the sake of purging sins. It would be the mark of an intemperate man, and one not sufficiently sparing of his own time, to set out for the reader whatever madnesses are found forgotten in the Origenist commentaries; so abundant and hateful is Adamantius in putting forth this dogma. But lest we deflect from our custom, we shall set aside only the illustrious [points] for the sake of faith. A prior passage occurs in Homily 7 *in Leviticus*, in which he disputes at length how the Son can be said to be subject to the Father, and shows that the Son is said to be not subject to the Father only to the extent that we, who are members of Christ, are by no means subject to the Father. “When, however,” he says (no. 2, p. 222), “He shall have consummated His work, and brought His entire creation to the highest point of perfection, then He himself shall be said to be subject in those whom He has subjected to the Father, and in whom He has consummated the work which the Father had given to Him, so that God may be all in all.” He subjoins then that Christ will drink wine when all things have been subjected to Him, and with all saved and the death of sin destroyed, it will no longer be necessary to offer sacrifices for sin. He adds a little later: “How much more does our Lord and Savior, who is head and author of the whole body, say that he does not have perfect joy for himself, until he sees that something is lacking to his body from the members?” He explains that subjection in a similar manner in Book III *De Principiis* [Περὶ ἀρχῶν], chapter 5, no. 6, when he writes that Christ, embracing in Himself all whom He subjected to the Father, and who by His help have attained salvation, is said to be subject to the Father along with them and in them. He subjoins afterward (no. 7): “If, therefore, that subjection is accepted as good and salutary, by which the Son is said to be subject to the Father, it is highly consistent and coherent that the subjection of the enemies, which is said [to belong] to the Son of God, be understood as a certain salutary and useful [thing]: that just as when the Son is said to be subject to the Father, the perfect restoration of the whole creation is declared; so when the enemies are said to be subject to the Son of God, the salvation of the subjected and the reparation of the lost may be understood in it.” With this coincide those things which are read at the end of Tract XX *in Matthew*, no. 8. But I omit other things concerning that subjection of the Son which he discusses in Tract XXX, no. 55, because they are of a different subject matter. Let Homily 6 *in Numbers*, no. 4, follow, in which, discussing leprosy, on account of which those who labored under it were cast out of the camp, he compares leprosy to sin, and says that it will not remain forever, but at the completion of a week the lepers would be recalled to the camp, namely at the end of the world, when the fullness of the Gentiles shall have entered in, and all Israel shall be saved, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd, and [how] God has concluded all under sin, that finally He might have mercy on all in Christ. Illustrious also is that passage from the *Catena Regia* on Ezekiel 5:15, page 415: “And my wrath shall be completed [καὶ συντελεσθήσεται ὁ θυμός μου]—this indicates that the wrath of God shall have an end, together with the consummation of the world.” And here

^A in homily 4 on the same prophet, no. 8: “Such is the righteous man: he saw the world before the flood, that is, before the consummation: he saw the world in the flood, in corruption and in the destruction of sinners, which are to come to pass on the day of judgment: he will see the world again in the resurrection of all sinners.” And that also from homily 10, following number 3: “The Hebrews say that Sodom is to be restored to the same state in which it was established before, so that it may be compared again to the paradise of God or the land of Egypt.” If this is how it stands, whether it is to be in the future or not—for such things are to be inquired into among those who are most learned—yet, for what is said to happen to come about, “Three thousand years shall be completed for me, and then Sodom shall be restored, having been tormented for three thousand years, that is, my soul: Sodom, a penalty for my sins.” A great interval of time is placed between restoration and ruin. He says that the harmful soul is afterwards a figure of Samaria, which is not to be restored otherwise than when the ten tribes have returned, then he says: ^B “If, however, that which preceded as a sign is to be restored after so long a time, when you are restored—if indeed you shall be restored—Samaritan and heretical soul, you who believed in idols and not true feasts, and in figments coming from the heart of Jeroboam?” Some such things are to be seen in the following passages, by which the same doctrine is inculcated. But for the sake of Adamantius, let this be noted, “If you shall be restored” [Si tamen restitueris], by which his uncertain and fluctuating mind is betrayed: if indeed this is truly Origenian, and not Rufinian. More illustrious also is this and from Book I of *On First Principles*, ch. 6, no. 1, 2, in which he proves this with the testimony of Scripture: “The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand: Until I make your enemies your footstool,” and that from 1 Cor. xv, 24, 25: “Then the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father: when he shall have brought to naught every principality, and power, and virtue. For he must reign until he put all enemies under his feet,” with what follows; and that from Ps. LXI, 2: “Shall not my soul be subject unto God? For from him is my salvation.” By these, I say, testimonies of Scripture he proves that it will be in the future that, with the enemies of Christ subdued into one end through the Son, the goodness of God shall recall the whole creation: and he wishes that subjection to be the very thing by which we, adhering to Christ, are rendered holy and obtain salvation: and such a future end, as were the beginnings, when all, obeying the nods of God, conspired into one. Then in what follows he demonstrates that all things are to be repaired into one from this of Christ: “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us. And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, as we also are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected in one”; and that from Paul, Ephes. iv, 13: “Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto the perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ”; nor does he think that even the demons themselves will lack the benefit of this restoration. He asks in addition to these, in *Commentary on Matthew*, tome x, no. 3, p. 445, how there will be a different brightness in the resurrection of men, according to the Apostle, 1 Cor. xv, 41, when the Savior said: “The righteous shall shine like the sun” (Matt. xiii, 43); then he answers that at the very beginning of beatitude, it will be that the brightness of men is diverse, since all have not yet been purged; but after offenses have been gathered out of the kingdom of Christ, and wickednesses consumed by fire, then all shall be one solar light. But what follows does not seem to hang together well; for he writes that it will come to pass that the righteous shall then shine for those below, who will become participants of their light, just as the sun offers its light to the earth. ^C For if the sins of all are to be purged then in such a way that they shine with no distinction of brightness, who will be lower, who will be higher? Certainly he thinks that no one’s beatitude, as I have already warned above, is so much his own that he cannot always slide down to lower things by new sins: therefore, as some are always receding to the lowest, those who have held their place will impart their light to them. Of the same flour is this, from *Tome xv on Matthew*, no. 27, p. 693: “But in these things we have rendered to those who are to be saved first, and to those who are not worthy of such an order of those who are to be saved last, but of punishment, and of being abandoned, either until the fullness of the Gentiles shall have come in, or until they have fulfilled the things concerning their own sins”; and this from *Tract XXXIII on Matthew*, no. 69: “But that man who had received one talent, and had hidden it in the earth, is condemned not only as evil and slothful, but is cast as useless into the exterior darkness, where there is no illumination, perhaps not even corporal, nor is there any regard of God there; but as those who are unworthy of the contemplation of God who have sinned in such ways are condemned in those things which are called exterior darkness; perhaps until they have understood, that they may be converted, and be rendered worthy to go out from them, perhaps also for another cause which we do not know”; and this also which is written in *Book VIII Against Celsus*, no. 72, must be concluded under the same laws, that at some time whatever is partaker of reason, when it shall be restored to a perfect state with the Word of God. In argument for which he brings forward that from Sophonias III, 9: “Then I will restore to the peoples a chosen lip, that all may call upon the name of the Lord, and serve him with one shoulder.” ^D XVII. It is clear from this that Origen did not admit other punishments than those that are expiatory and temporary; such as those purgatorial fires which the Catholic Church acknowledges. But this is even more manifest from what is contained in *Homily 8 on Leviticus*, where, treating of the woman who has given birth, according to the prescription of the old law, [he says she is] unclean for seven days if she had brought forth a male; for fourteen if a female, and says that this week is the time of the present life, through which in every way

we cannot be clean unless the eighth day arrives, which is, to be sure, the time of the future age: and on that day, he says, num. 4, “if it is a male and he has acted manfully, he is purified immediately upon the very advent of the future age, and the mother who gave birth to him is immediately made clean: for she shall receive back her flesh, purified of vices, from the resurrection. But if he has had nothing manly against sin, but has been slack and effeminate in his actions, whose sin is such that it is not remitted either in the present age or in the future, he passes one week and another in his uncleanness, and upon the third week finally beginning to arise, he is purified from the uncleanness which she contracted by bearing a female.” Of the same kind is this from homily 14 on Luke, p. 948: “As it is written in the law: If a mother has brought forth a male, the mother shall sit for seven days in unclean blood, and thereafter thirty-three in pure blood; and in the end the infant himself shall sit in most pure blood: so because the law is spiritual and has a shadow of future goods, we can understand that true purification comes to us after time. I think that even after the resurrection from the dead we have need of a sacrament washing us and purifying us; for no one will be able to rise without filth, nor can any soul be found that is at once devoid of all vices.” Bellarmine, in book II *De purgatorio*, cap. 9, deservedly brands these with a note of error, because by the decree of Scripture after the resurrection and judgment no hope of amendment remains. But Suarez, in *S. Thom.*, tom. IV, quest. 46, sect. 5, thinks that this is faulty and corrupted by the fault of copyists, since those things which precede in the same homily contradict them, making it an impiety to think that we will rise sordid and defiled in the future. Yet we find so much hesitation in Origen on many points that it is not new to me that he has produced diverse and contradictory things in the same homily. Expiatory punishments ^A are also most openly proclaimed in homily 16 on Jeremiah, num. 5, when he says that the gold, silver, wood, hay, and stubble built upon the soul are to be tested by fire; then he says in num. 6: “What then follows first to be received because of the wood? It is clear that the fire which consumes the wood, and the hay, and the stubble”: and afterwards, since it is written in Jer. xvi, 18: “And I will first requite their double iniquities.” “Necessarily,” he says, “the word ‘first’ is added; for first the things of injustice, then the things of righteousness are requited.” Furthermore, in book II *Περὶ ἀρχῶν*, cap. 10, num. 5, he says that the soul through sin deserts its order, and is torn from the bond to which it had been connected by God; and that with the application of fire it is without doubt solidified unto a firmer bond and restoration; and not much later in num. 6: “But that the punishment which is said to be inflicted through fire is understood to be applied for help, Isaiah teaches, who says indeed of Israel: The Lord shall wash away the filth of the sons ^B or daughters of Zion, and shall purge the blood from the midst of them by the spirit of judgment and the spirit of burning.” Concerning the Chaldeans, however, he says thus: “You have coals of fire, sit upon them, these shall be for a help to you.” And in other places he says: “The Lord shall sanctify them in burning fire”: and in the prophet Malachi he says: “Sitting he shall refine and purify, and he shall pour forth the purified sons of Judah.” Also book VIII on the Epistle to the Romans, num. 12, p. 640: “Truly,” he says, “in this very purification which is applied through the punishment of fire, how long the times, how long the ages for which he demands torments from sinners, He alone can know, to whom the Father has handed over all judgment.” Finally in book IV *contra Cels.*, num. 40, he says the punishments of the future life are ἀναγκαίας τῷ παντί, τάχα δὲ καὶ τοῖς πεισομένοις αὐτὰς οὐκ ἀχρήστους.

XVIII. But since he often uses that Pauline testimony which is I Cor. xv, 26, “The last enemy, death, shall be destroyed,” the exposition of this passage brought forward by him seems not to be passed over in silence. He thinks, therefore, that death signifies the devil, whom he supposes will be so destroyed, in so far as his impious will, which is averted from God, will be conquered. Let us present the very words from book III *Περὶ ἀρχῶν*, cap. 6, num. 5: “For this reason also the last enemy, who is called death, is said to be destroyed, so that there may be nothing sad hereafter, where there is no death, nor may there be anything adverse, where there is no enemy. The last enemy is indeed to be understood as destroyed, not so that his substance, which was made by God, might perish; but so that the purpose and the hostile will, which did not proceed from God, but from himself, ^C might perish;” and these are from homily 8 on Joshua, num. 4: “Concerning the devil, however, saying [this], he says: The last enemy, death, shall be destroyed, because then truly death shall be conquered, when this mortal shall be swallowed up by life.” Certainly in Heb. ii, 14, the devil is said to have the empire of death; but he is distinguished from death, so that through death he might destroy him who had the empire of death, that is, the devil. Expounding this, Origen in tom. XIII on Matthew, num. 9, p. 582, says: “But the power of death is to be thought to be held by the devil, not that of the *medium* and indifferent [death], according to which those composed of soul and body die, by the separation of their soul from the body; but of the opposite and enemy of Him who said: I am the life, according to which a soul sinning, this one shall die.” When he says that the will of the devil, once averted from God, will be crushed, he sufficiently signifies that he does not exclude even the demons from eternal felicity. But this is evinced even more clearly from the sequence of his dogmas, and from this place from book I *Περὶ ἀρχῶν*, cap. 6, num. 3, which we have already cited above, and here also we will repeat: “But now if some from these orders ^D who act under the principality of the devil, and obey his malice, will be able at some time in future ages to be converted to goodness, for the reason that there is in them an ability of free choice: or whether indeed a permanent and inveterate malice as if into a certain nature from habit

^A be converted, even you who read, approve, if in every way ^B or in those things which are not seen, and are eternal, this part will be in disagreement from that final unity and convenience. The same sentiment lies in the Corderian Catena on John, on John 12:31: ‹ The judgment of this world was: for having made peace through the blood of his cross, whether things on earth, or in the heavens, having triumphed on the wood, casting off the principalities and powers, he sat down in the heavens, restoring all things to their own proper end. › ‹ His death, or passion upon the cross, was the judgment of the entire world, since by his blood shed upon the cross he reconciled peace both on earth and in the heavens, while after the triumph on the wood, he established the principalities and powers which he had stripped off, in the celestials, leading all things to their own proper end. ›

XIX. Furthermore, he wished not only for punishments, but also for the time of happiness to be limited by certain bounds, and for souls, raised to the height of perfection and purged of the filth of sin and corporeal mass, to be confined, immediately upon their turning from virtue to vice, into the prison of a denser body. Justinian brings forward the words of Origen from book II *De principiis*, in which bodies are said to be destined to perish when all things have been subjected to God: ‹ the nature of bodies suffering a second time, if again rational beings descend; › when the nature of bodies must again be repaired, if rational beings descend again. He also brings forward other things from the fourth book, in which he teaches that the nature of bodies exists through intervals, because of certain accidents occurring to rational beings, which require bodies: ‹ and again, upon the correction being perfectly accomplished, these are dissolved into nothingness, so that this happens always. › ‹ Because of certain lapses occurring to things possessed of reason, which require bodies; and again, having made a perfect correction, these are dissolved into nothingness, so that this happens always. › Jerome brings forward these things also from book I, in Epistle 59, to Avitus, chap. 1: ‹ In the end and consummation of the world... (50) since all (souls) have free will, and by their own accord can either take up virtues or vices, they will be in a much worse condition than they now are; these will come to a better state: because diverse motions and various wills will receive against either side a diverse state, that is, so that angels, men, or demons come to be, and again from these come to be men or angels; › and that from book II, chap. 6, num. 3: ‹ Nor is there any doubt that after certain intervals of time matter again subsists, and bodies are made, and the diversity of the world is constructed, on account of the various wills of rational creatures, which, after perfect blessedness, having gradually fallen to lower things until the end of all things, received such great malice that they were turned into the contrary, while they are unwilling to preserve their principle, and incorrupt ^C blessedness to possess. › To which these things are also to be added from the same book, chap. 1, num. 21: ‹ From which we opine, since indeed, as we have frequently said, the soul is immortal and eternal, that it is possible in many and endless spaces through immense and diverse ages, that one should descend from the highest good to the lowest evils, and be repaired from the furthest evils to the highest goods. ›

XX. But if anyone seeks the origin of these dogmas, let him know that, besides certain testimonies of Scripture which have been immediately commemorated by us, Adamantius also was brought into error by having misinterpreted that which exists in Isaiah 24:22: ‹ And they shall be shut up there in prison, and after many days they shall be visited; › and this from John 10:16: ‹ There shall be one fold and one shepherd, › which he himself uses as a buttress for his dogma at the end of Homily 6 on Numbers. Likewise that from the parable which Christ proposes in Matthew 18:15, when the angry lord ordered the wicked servant to be delivered to the tormentors, until he should repay the full debt. Whence Origen, Homily 35 on Luke: ‹ What is the law of this prison (hell)? I do not go out from it, nor does the exactor suffer me to go out, unless I pay the whole debt. › It was to his detriment that he incorrectly accepted even that of the Apostle, Romans 11:25, 26: ‹ Blindness in part has happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in, and so all Israel should be saved. › Moreover, he defends the expiatory and purgatorial punishments with these words from 1 Cor. 3:12, in which Paul affirms that the work of each one is about to be examined by fire. Jerome, at the end of his Commentaries on Isaiah, records that others were wont to use certain other bulwarks of this opinion; namely, that of Paul in Rom. 11:32: ‹ God hath concluded all under sin, that he might have mercy upon all; › and that of Micah 7:9: ‹ I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned against him: until he plead my cause, and execute judgment for me, and bring me forth into the light; › and this also of Isaiah 12:1: ‹ I will praise thee, O Lord, because thou wast angry with me: thou hast turned thy face away from me, and hast comforted me; › as well as that of Hosea 14:5: ‹ When the wrath of my fury shall have passed away, I will again heal; › and likewise that of Psalm 30:20: ‹ O how great is the multitude of thy sweetness, O Lord, which thou hast hidden for them that fear thee! ›

Verily, not only by sacred authors, but also by profane ones, Origen seems to have allowed himself to be guided: especially by Plato, who in the *Phaedo* introduces Socrates arguing thus: that the souls of men who have surrendered themselves to earthly desires wander around tombs, paying penalties, until they are again bound to bodies. Socrates teaches in the same place ^D that the dead are led to the underworld by that demon who had been allotted to them while they were living, and after long intervals of time are recalled by another guide. He says afterwards that many souls of the dead gather at the Acherusian lake, which, after shorter or longer spans of time, are again sent forth to the generation of living creatures;

for those who have been defiled by curable sins are cast into Tartarus, from where there is no hope of emerging. He repeats this same point in the *Gorgias*, decreeing that some punishments are temporary for lighter faults, but eternal and endless for those that are incurable. The same author, in book X of *The Republic*, speaking through the person of a certain Armenian named Er, recounts that souls pass from heaven to the regions under the earth and back again, traveling to and fro; those who enjoyed heaven are filled there with delights and joy, while those who act beneath the earth undergo a thousand-year journey and finally issue forth from there. And in the *Timaeus*, he asserts that the soul which has conducted itself well here is numbered among the stars, but one which has behaved badly is demoted into a female body; and for both, after a cycle of a thousand years, the choice of a new life is given; and that those who have further contaminated themselves with new vices are to be relegated into the bodies of beasts, nor will they have an end of evils until they have purged away by reason the filth adhering to them from the colluvium of the elements. These things appear in the book *On the Universe* translated into Latin by Tully, and repeated by Alcinous in chapter 16.

Finally, a desire to crush the Valentinian heresy too much provided Origen with a cause for error, for since they believed that those who were of a spiritual nature could not be damned, and those of an earthly nature could not be saved, and reckoned the devil among the latter and the angels among the former, Origen, deviating into a different path, stumbled, asserting that angels could be damned, and that some were in fact damned at some point; [and] that the devil could be saved, and would in fact be saved at some time.

XXI. It is, therefore, not at all surprising that Adamantius, hearing the dictates of Plato and the Platonists, and setting forth the same things to Christians not cautiously enough, was reprobated and rejected by the Fathers. Epiphanius, in his epistle to John of Jerusalem, chapter 3, and in the synopsis of the first tome of the *Panarion*, book II, chapter 18, reproaches him for favoring that future conversion and salvation of the devil. Theophilus also reproaches him ^A in his Paschal letter with these words: "Such a pastor of a diseased flock constantly brands Christ with injuries, and elevates the devil with honor, while he asserts that the former, purged of vices and sins, will one day regain his pristine glory, and that the latter will cease to reign, and at the same time is to be brought under the authority of the Father along with the devil." Jerome complains, in epistle 59 to Avitus, chapter 1, that he had said "every creature, according to the Apostle, is subjected to vanity, and is to be liberated into the revelation of the children of God," and in epistle 61 to Pammachius, chapter 3, that he says both the devil and demons will one day perform penance and will rule with the saints at the last time; which he explains more fully in chapter 5, and in epistle 65 to Pammachius and Oceanus, chapter 2, he says that he held: "After many ages, and one restitution of all things, Gabriel will be the same as the devil; Paul, the same as Caiaphas; virgins, the same as harlots"; and in epistle 75 to Vigilantius, he writes that Origen thought pardon was to be granted to men at the time when it is granted to the devil; and in book I against the Pelagians, chapter 9: "If, however," he says, "Origen says that all rational creatures are not to be destroyed, and ^B if [he suggests] that the devil is to be granted penance, what is that to us?" And in book VI on Isaiah, chapter xiv, 20: "Where, then, are those who grant penance to the devil and say that he can be cleansed?"; and in book VIII on the chapter xxvii of Isaiah, verse 1: "Let those who say that the devil will perform penance and obtain pardon interpret for us how they accept this, which is written: 'And he will slay the dragon that is in the sea'"; and in book I on Daniel, III, 96: "Some very wickedly refer to the devil that at the consummation and end of the world even he himself will receive the knowledge of God and exhort all to penance." He inveighs most fiercely against this doctrine in his commentary on Jonas III, 6: "Otherwise, he says, if all rational creatures are equal, and by their own volition either rise upward or sink to the depths on account of virtues or vices, and after a long circuit and infinite ages there will be a restitution of all things, and one dignity of the combatants, what distance will there be between a virgin and a harlot? What difference between the Mother of the Lord and (that which is a crime even to say) the victims of public lusts? Will Gabriel and the devil be the same? Apostles and demons? Prophets and false prophets? Martyrs and persecutors? Imagine whatever you will, multiply years and times, and heap up infinite ages for punishments; if the end of all things is the same, all that is past is for nothing, because we do not seek what we once were, but what we shall always be." I supersede the mentioning of many other things of this kind. I wonder, therefore, what came into the mind of Halloxius as to why he should deny, in book IV of the *Defense of Origen*, question 5, that Epiphanius, Theophilus, and Jerome had produced anything concerning this matter. Although Augustine says that the rest of Origen's commentaries can be defended, in *On Heresies* 43, to Quodvultdeus, he confesses that this is vainly excused by his defenders: "For what Catholic Christian (these are the words of Augustine), whether learned or unlearned, does not vehemently shudder at the 'purgation of evils' ^C which he describes, that is, that even those who have finished this life in crimes, atrocities, sacrileges, and every greatest impiety—that even the devil himself at last and his angels, although after very long times, are purged and liberated, and restored to the kingdom of God and to the light; and that again after very long times, all who have been liberated relapse into these evils, and return, and that these alternating cycles of beatitudes and miseries have always been and will always be for rational creatures?" Concerning this most vain impiety against the philosophers, from whom Origen learned these things, I have disputed most diligently in the book *On the City of God*; in the second book, I think, chapters 17 and 23, where he examines the same dogma, and states that for this cause Origen was deservedly reprobated by the Church; as also in the book *On the Acts of Pelagius*, chapter 3. Go also to his book against the Priscillianists and Origenists, chapters 5 and 6, and the *Commonitorium* of Orosius to Augustine prefixed to this book. The author of the book *On Common Essence*, book III, chapter 6, and the author of the *Dialogues* which are attributed to Caesarius, the brother of Gregory of Nazianzus, ^D also rebuke him on this very account.

^A Since the fire is indeed extinguished, the filth being consumed; but as for the worm, does it remain without end? Finally, what of Gennadius *On Dogmas*, ch. 9; Leontius, Act 10; John Scholasticus, surnamed Climacus, *Ladder*, part [ch.] 5; the anonymous author of Photius’ *Codex* 117, so often already called upon; Sophronius in his *Epistle to Sergius*, Act of the 6th Synod; Theophylact on *Matthew* 13 and 25, and *Mark* 8; Freculphus of Lisieux, Anastasius the Librarian in *History*, year of the world 5715; Cedrenus in *Compendium of History*; Zonaras, book 2; Glycas, *Annals*, part 3 and 4; Constantine Harmenopulus in *On Sects*; Nicephorus, book 17, ch. 27; Vincent of Beauvais, *Speculum doctrinale*, book 18, ch. 43; and Guido the Carmelite, in *Heresies*,—do they not all inveigh against this same heresy?

^B XXII. Passing over these, I conclude with John of Damascus, who in his book *On Heresies* says that the Origenists hold that Christ’s kingdom will at length one day cease, and that at the same time the angels will cease, namely, when all things shall become one with God; and in his book *On the Orthodox Faith*, ch. 1, he refutes this Origenian restitution in its entirety, which he asserts Adamantius believed would occur after a space of a thousand years. Gobarus the Tritheite, in Photius, *Codex* 232, also included this among the disputed questions: "That the just will rise first, and with them all animals, and will enjoy delights for a thousand years, ^C both eating, and drinking, and begetting, and after that the universal resurrection will occur." If such was the opinion of Origen, he sought to transfer that "millennial cycle" of Plato, which we have mentioned, into the Christian faith, and thus he could be called a Chiliast. Although the heresy of the Chiliasts, properly so-called, which arose from Cerinthus, or, as others say, from Papias of Hierapolis, the bishop, was different. For Eusebius is the author, in his *Ecclesiastical History*, book 3, last chapter, of the claim that that Papias, being endowed with mediocre talent and having understood the writings of the apostles—namely, the twentieth chapter of the Apocalypse—but little acutely, thought that the kingdom of Christ would persist on earth for a thousand years among the highest bodily pleasures, and that he ^D persuaded Irenaeus of his authority. Other men, noble in erudition, also pursued that sect—Tertullian, Victorinus of Pettau, and Lactantius—until it erupted into an open heresy, condemned in Apollinarius by Pope Damasus. Yet Epiphanius can scarcely persuade himself that Apollinarius was the assertor of such a dogma, nor is it clear that Origen was even akin to it, from these words in *Commentary on Matthew*, volume 13, no. 35, p. 827: "And just as those are deceived who, because they do not allegorize the prophetic [writings], think that we are to eat and drink after the resurrection with bodily delights..."

^A even so they keep the things written concerning marriages, and men and women, according to the literal sense, and imagine that even then we shall use carnal intercourse, by which it is not even possible to have leisure for prayer; for those who use carnal desires are in some way in pollution and a certain uncleanness. Against this same heresy, he burns [with indignation] in the same manner in *De principiis*, Book II, ch. 11, n. 2, and in the prologue to *Canticles*, p. 28: “It happens that some simple folk, not knowing how to distinguish and discern what things in the divine Scriptures should be regarded as belonging to the inner man and what to the outer, being deceived by the similarities of terms, have betaken themselves to certain absurd fables and empty figments; so that they even believe that after the resurrection there will be use for bodily food, and that drink will be taken not only from that vine which is true and living in the ages, but also from these vines of wood.” Furthermore, he held opinions regarding the resurrection and the punishments of the damned which stand in direct opposition to the madness of the Chiliasts. Hence Jerome, in the preface to Book XVIII of his Commentary on Isaiah, addressed to Eustochium, arguing against the Millenarians, acknowledges that the error of those who deny the resurrection is contrary and opposite to their error: and Justinian, in his letter to the fifth synod which Cedrenus produces, explains the doctrine of Pythagoras and Plato, and indeed their very words regarding these periods of a thousand years, ^B never attributing it to Origen.

XXIII. Although we certainly hold Origen in error regarding the question of the eternity of punishments and blessedness, many things can nevertheless be brought forward in his defense, both taken from his own writings and gathered from respected authors. Before we touch on these, it is worth noting what the author of the *Praedestinatus*, edited by Jacques Sirmond, records (heresy XLIII): that a certain Bithynian heretic named Ampullianus fell into the heresy of saying that all criminals, along with the devil and the demons, were to be boiled in Gehenna until they could be rendered pure and emerge from there washed and immaculate; ^C wherefore, having stirred up the whole Church against himself, he had produced books of Origen, corrupted by himself, and especially those which are *De principiis*, for the defense of his opinion. The author of the booklet then adds: “But one who is of sound mind, and has clear eyes, thus sees these evil things added to the works of Origen, and recognizes them just as if one were to see white patches, or [patches] of any other color, sewn onto a scarlet cloak.” Now let us collect what Adamantius himself provides in his own favor. First, in Homily 8 on Leviticus, n. 5, he says there are certain sins “which pass with us after this life, and there are some things so fixed in souls that they cannot be erased.” In Homily 4 on Isaiah, n. 1, he declares it unknown what things are to come after the world: “The last things,” he says, “as they are, cannot be recounted. Who has announced the last things? says the Scripture.” What we see ^D (although it may be conceded that we see some things) are intermediate: what existed before the world, we do not know; although there were indeed things before the world. What things are to follow after the world, we do not grasp with certainty: but there will be other things after the world.” Then afterwards: “Who can explain those things which are to be after the last age, into the ages of ages? It is for prating men to promise knowledge of these things, not knowing that man can only grasp those things which are intermediate, and those things which are to be after the world until the consummation in the judgment regarding punishments and retribution. And many of these things also are hidden from us, so that for this reason indeed it is written: They veiled their faces with two.” Whence, about to treat these matters in Book I of *De principiis*, ch. 6, n. 1, he occupies the reader's mind with this adjuration: “Which things are indeed said by us even with great fear and caution; as we are discussing and examining them further, rather than asserting them as certain and defined. For it has been indicated by us in the preceding parts, which are the things about which one must conclude with a manifest dogma, which I think we have done to the best of our ability when we were speaking concerning the Trinity. But now we are exercising ourselves in the manner of debating rather than of defining, as far as we can.” And this admonition is followed by the other dissertation, at the beginning of the next chapter: “These things indeed which we have discussed above have been digested by us in a general discourse, treated and discussed with more a sequence of reasonings than with defined dogma concerning rational natures, after the place which we explained to the best of our ability regarding the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Now, therefore, let us see what those things are about which it is fitting to discourse in the following parts according to our dogma, that is, according to the faith of the Church.” He drifts even more in Tome XXVIII On John, 7, asking whether that impudent man, who, having approached the banquet without a wedding garment, was ordered to be cast into the outer darkness with hands and feet bound, is ever to be loosed from his bonds or not: “For it is not shown,” he says, “what is written concerning his being loosed; nor does it seem safe to me to pronounce upon it without having grasped anything at all, especially since it has not been written concerning him.” And in Book VIII, on the Epistle to the Romans, n. 12, p. 640: “But in this very purgation, which is applied through the punishment of fire, for how great a time, and for how many ages, torture is exacted from sinners, only He can know to whom the Father has entrusted all judgment.”

And this also speaks in favor of Origen, which is read in Book II of *De principiis*, ch. 6: for when he had said that God would be all in all for as long as souls remained without any admixture of bodily matter, he adds finally at n. 6: “In which state it must also be believed that one remains always and immutably by the will of the Creator, as the sentence of the Apostle makes the faith of the matter valid, saying: We have a house not [made] by hand, eternal in the heavens…

Unless perhaps the interpreter Rufinus added this of his own accord. And this support is also provided to [the] Adamantius [Origen] by what is written in Fragment XXXIV on Matthew, no. 72, p. 889: "For there is no fire among men that is eternal, nor even one of long duration; for it is quickly extinguished. But the eternal fire is that of which Isaiah also speaks at the end of his prophecy: *Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be extinguished*;" and what is in Homily 35 on Luke: "But if we owe a great sum of money, just like the man who is written to have owed ten thousand talents, how much time we may be locked in prison until we pay the debt, I cannot explicitly pronounce. For if he who owes a little will not come out until he pays the last farthing, certainly for him who is liable for such a great debt, infinite ages will be counted for the repayment of the debt." Indeed, he even concedes at one point a certain and immutable future felicitous state in *De Principiis*, Bk IV, no. 24: "But also, the punishments are laid down for those who have transgressed the law; and likewise, for those who were in need of purification, different kinds of purifications are given, just as those who were more frequently to be defiled are assigned them; so that through these they may eventually come to that one purification, after which it is no longer permitted to be defiled." And in Homily 18 on Jeremiah XVIII, no. 1, p. 241, he resolves that men are by no means accepted for amendment after death: "But if, after the present age, we come at the end of life, and are then burned—whether by the fire of the burning arrows of the evil one, for whatever we may become, or by the divine fire, since our God is also a consuming fire—if we become, I say, [subject to] such or such a fire, whatever we may be when we are broken down, whether from having been good vessels for salvation or from having been wicked vessels for destruction, we are not rebuilt, nor does our structure admit of improvement."

^B XXIV. Furthermore, we may use in defense of Origen, to some extent, a certain testimony by which he holds that while an entry to beatitude will indeed at some time be opened for the damned, for the devil it is completely closed. This is found in Book VIII on the Epistle to the Romans, no. 9, p. 634, where he asserts that the fall of Lucifer differs from the fall of the Israelites: "For the conversion of the latter," he says, "will be at the end of the age, when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, and all Israel is saved: but for the other, who is said to have fallen from heaven, there will not be any conversion even at the end of the age." Hence it is that he is vehemently angry, in his letter to his Alexandrian friends, that it had been bandied about among the public that he said 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: "which," he says, "not even one who is deranged and clearly insane could say." For this reason Jerome, in his *Apology against Rufinus*, Bk II, cap. 5, openly exonerates him of this charge, which he otherwise very often brings against him: "Candidus asserts," he says, "that the devil is of an entirely evil nature, and one that can never be saved; ^C against this, Origen correctly responds that he is not of a perishable substance, but fell by his own will, and can be saved." This Candidus turned into a calumny, as if Origen had said that the devil's nature is to be saved. What he had falsely objected, he [Jerome] here refutes.

XXV. To be sure, on matters not yet defined by the Church at that time, Origen entertained various ideas in his mind, which we observe to have been done also by other Fathers in turn. Justin Martyr, in his *Dialogue with Trypho*, seems to have judged that the punishments of the damned are to be ended by the death of the souls: "But indeed, I do not say that all souls die; for that would really be a godsend to the wicked. But what then? That those of the pious remain in some better place, while the unjust and wicked remain in a worse, awaiting the time of judgment then; thus, the former, appearing worthy of God, do not die anymore, while the latter are punished for as long as God wills them both to exist and be punished." "But in truth, I do not say that all souls die: for in reality, that would be something to be desired and convenient for the wicked. What then? [I say that the souls] of the pious remain in a better place, while the unjust and wicked in a worse, awaiting the time of judgment. And thus, those who appear worthy to God do not die again, but those others are punished for as long as God has willed them to exist and be punished." Irenaeus seizes upon the same doctrine in Bk II, cap. 64, where he asserts that souls, no less than other works of God, exist and persist for as long as God has willed them to exist and persist; ^D and not long after: "For life," he says, "is not from us, nor from our nature, but is given according to the grace of God: and therefore he who will have kept the gift of life, and will have given thanks to Him who provided it, will receive length of days for ever and ever; but he who will have cast it away, and will have been ungrateful to the Creator for the fact that he was created, and will not have acknowledged Him who provides it, deprives himself of persistence for ever and ever." Arnobius held the opinion that souls would be consumed and extinguished by the duration and cruelty of torments; and that this is the eternal death so often threatened to wicked men in Scripture: while the souls of the pious and holy men [are to] enjoy happy immortality and eternal life. Wherefore, in his second book, he repeats again and again that human souls are of a doubtful, middle, and ambiguous nature between life and death. Gregory Nazianzen, in *Oration 39*, threatens heretics that they will undergo a difficult and long baptism of fire, unless they depart from their heresy, in which fire all malice is to be burned away like hay. But in the following oration, he doubts whether the punishments of the damned are to be eternal, or whether they are to be shortened by God for the sake of His humanity. Indeed, Simeon Metaphrastes narrates, in the *Life of St. Cyriacus*, cap. 10, that when Cyriacus asked the monk Cyril what dogmas they chiefly held...

he answered that Cyril claimed their dogmas concerning pre-existence and restitution to the same state were neutral and free from any danger; saying that they brought forward as testimony for this what the great ^A Gregory left written in his Apologetic works: "It seems to me not a trivial or contemptible thing to allot to each individual, in due season, a measure of discourse, and to dispense in judgment the truth of our dogmas, which we philosophize about the world, or about worlds, about matter, about the soul, about intelligence, and about intelligent natures, as much the more excellent as the inferior ones; about the providence which gathers together all things that are seen to happen by reason, and whatsoever [happens] beyond a reason that is lower and human: and what furthermore [we say] about our primary constitution, and forms, and truth, and the testaments, and the first advent of Christ, and the second: for in these it is not useless to attain [knowledge], and not to attain is free from danger." ^B Aloysius Lipomanus, Bishop of Verona, attempts to tear this safeguard away from the Origenists; but whatever he might bring forward, it seems that Gregory wished these questions to be not yet sufficiently clear, nor to have been circumscribed by the Church. But what is this which Cyriacus adds in the same place, that those Origenists had thought that in the restitution to the primary state, all things gifted with reason—even down to the demons—could be constructed into *aiones*, that is, ages? For Origen sufficiently abhorred *aiones* and other trifles of the Valentinians. Another ^C Gregory embraces the Origenian sentiment without any doubt in his *Disputation on the Soul and Resurrection*, in which he declares that souls separated from bodies, and demons as well, will confess Christ once all wickedness has been set aside: and in another place of the same Dissertation, he says that God could not otherwise be "all in all," according to the sentiment of the Apostle, than by all wickedness being rooted out and extirpated from its very bottom. He then gathers many other things to support this, which I pass over for the sake of avoiding prolixity. Furthermore, in chapter 8 of his *Catechetical Oration*, he affirms that after this life, the perverse affections of the soul are cured by God, which could not be cured by virtue in this life; then in chapter 26, he teaches that not only wicked or impious men, but even the devil himself—the author of sin—is touched by the benefit of the Son of God, who he says is purified just as gold is purified by fire, by the filtering and refinement of base matter; and finally, that eventually, through long circuits of time, with all the evil that is inherent in nature consumed, the damned will be restored to their integrity, so that all created things with one voice might return thanks to God. He takes gold again ^D as an example in chapter 35 of the same book, and does not at all shut off hope of future salvation for those who have not cleansed the stains of life by baptism, nor by repentance, nor by any purgation whatsoever. But Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, intervenes, who, in order to cleanse the stain of this opinion from Gregory of Nyssa, wrote a book, excerpts of which Photius possesses in *Codex* CCXXXIII. Through this work, Germanus proposes to demonstrate that Gregory was a stranger to that error; and if any parts of his writings seem to pertain to it, they were interpolated by the Origenists, or at the very least corrupted. Nicephorus narrates that he heard the same thing in book XI, chapter 19. Nor does Ambrose dissent from Origen, when, in expounding Psalm CXVII, he judges that those who are guilty are subjected to punishments, because they are to be exempted from them at some point; but that the devil's punishment is deferred, so that it might never end. To this is added Ambrosiaster in *Epist. ad Ephes.*, cap. 11, teaching that the Church, although it is called holy, consists nonetheless of vicious men, not indeed men who are to perish, but who are to be purged by fire: and in cap. III, he says that ecclesiastical preaching profits the demons, so that, having rejected the devil's empire, they might be converted to God. One must also cautiously observe Jerome, who inflicted so many insults on the Origenian name, that he nearly argues against Origen on this question, because he asserted that the devil was to be freed from punishments, although he confesses the contrary elsewhere, as we have noted; but that he was silent about the liberation of men. Therefore, he discourses upon certain abnormal things, and things alien to the faith, in *lib. 1 advers. Pelagian.*, cap. 9, handing down that eternal punishments are destined for the devil and impious men; but only temporary ones for the unjust and those guilty of sin. He distinguishes the impious from the unjust thus: "Every impious man is unjust and a sinner: but it is not reciprocal so that we can say, every sinner and unjust man is also impious: for impiety peculiarly pertains to those who do not have the knowledge of God, or who have changed that knowledge through transgression; but sin and injustice, according to the quality of the vices, receive healing after the wounds of sin and injustice." Afterward, he aligns his own sentiment with the Origenian one in this way: "If Origen says that all rational creatures are not to be lost, and grants repentance to the devil, what is that to us, who say that both the devil and his satellites, and all the impious and prevaricators perish perpetually; and that Christians, if they are overtaken in sins, are to be saved after punishments?" Those things are clear, too, in which he puts an end to his *Commentaries on Isaiah*, saying that that dogma which brings an end to the punishments of the damned must not be divulged, lest, with the fear of eternal punishment removed, license might break out all the more. Finally, he concludes thus: "And just as we believe there are eternal torments for the devil and all deniers and impious men, who have said in their heart: *There is no God* [Ps. LII, 1], so we think the judgment of the Judge is moderate and tempered with clemency for sinners and the impious, and yet Christians, whose works are to be tested and purged in fire." When he had sprinkled these things also into his *Commentaries on the Epistle to the Ephesians*, he was reproved by Rufinus in *Invect.* I and II, although Jerome attempts to evade these reproofs in *lib. Apolog. advers. Rufin.*, cap. 6. But in his book...

^A *Apologia* second, cap. 1, he has these words: "But as for your calling down eternal fires upon your brethren—that is, upon your accusers—you seem to me to be oppressing not so much your brethren as to be shielding the devil, since he is to be punished with the same fires as Christian men," as if the devil were to be tormented with one kind of fire and Christian men with another. Therefore, Stanislaus the Pannonian Anabaptist, in his book *De divina philanthropia*, while championing this error of Origen, not without reason invokes the authority of Jerome, and is undeservedly censured for this by Sixtus of Siena in *lib. VI Bibl.*, note 290. For although that heretic has taken up the defense of a doctrine that is utterly wicked and condemned, and it must be admitted that he acted shamelessly in doing so, he nevertheless claims for himself the patronage of Jerome without the imposture and falsehood that Sixtus charges him with. For although hundreds of testimonies from Jerome might be produced in which he handed down the contrary, one thing at least follows from this: that he sometimes changed his mind and did not always adhere to a single opinion. ^B Yet Jerome dealt back measure for measure to spite Rufinus, who, when he had written these words to Pope Anastasius in his *Apologia fidei*: "If anyone denies that the devil is to be consigned to eternal fires, let him receive a portion with him of the eternal fire, so that he may feel what he denied," Jerome nevertheless attempted in *Apolog. II*, cap. 1, to call him into suspicion for asserting the salvation of the devil, although Rufinus had labored to drive away that suspicion in his first *Invectiva*. Truly, if we set aside this passage of Rufinus—which we think can be drawn to a worse meaning not without cavil—in his *Symbolum* he explicitly defines that the devil is to be tormented by everlasting torments, but that guilty men are to be punished by temporary ones that are eventually to be ended. For what else can it mean when he affirms it will come to pass that sinners "may pay the debts of their punishment without their own destruction," and that God ministers to the just "the perpetuity of glory," but to sinners "a prolixity of confusion and punishment"? Chrysostom and Augustine indeed discourse rightly and according to the prescription of the Church on the perpetuity of punishments, yet both have this peculiar point: that they thought the torments of the damned, if not ended, could certainly be mitigated by the prayers and sacrifices of the living; the latter in *Enchiridion ad Laurentium*, cap. 110 and 112, the former in 3 *Homil. ad Philip.* But Synesius, ^C in epistle 44 to John, absolutely platonizes: he says indeed that the demons, who are set in charge of the expiation of crimes, exercise the same art upon souls as fullers do upon dirty clothes; and therefore that for some souls the stains are wiped away without great labor and their former brightness restored, whereas for others the filth is so ingrained that they can be cleansed by no washing or purgation: the rest is pure Platonism. That comparison of the soul to be purged with a dirty garment being cleansed by the fuller's art, just as other arguments set up by the Fathers to explain the matter involving fire and gold, seem to have proceeded from these words of Malachi (III, 2, 3): "For he is like a refiner's fire, and like fuller's herb: and he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he shall purify the sons of Levi," and from that passage of Jeremiah (II, 22): "Though you wash yourself with nitre, and take to yourself much fuller's herb, you are stained in your iniquity before me, says the Lord God." Origen used that first passage of Malachi in *lib. VI contra Celsum* when he was inquiring why the valley of Ennon, which is Gehenna itself and a place of punishment, should be reckoned in the same Benjamite tribe in which Jerusalem is counted; and he replies that this place of punishment is taken for purgatorial torments, which are inflicted upon the soul by the King and Lord of the heavenly Jerusalem, according to the words brought from Malachi. Finally, he adds that these mysteries are to be sealed in silence, lest wicked men run riot into vice, seeing that they are not restrained from crimes even by the opinion and fear of eternal and endless punishments. This is what Jerome expressed at the end of his *Comment. in Isaiam*. It is therefore clear that this opinion about the eventual termination of the punishments of the damned was not yet execrated with a clear and express note of heresy in Origen's age or for many years after, as it was approved by some in the assembly of the Fathers, and those not of the lowest order. Wherefore, Facundus of Hermiane writes in *lib. IV*, cap. 4, that Domitian of Ancyra, a defender of the Origenist doctrine, in a little book he wrote to Pope Vigilius, while complaining of those who contradicted the dogmas of Origen—who asserted that human souls pre-existed before their bodies in a certain blessed life, and that all who were destined for eternal punishment would be restored to their pristine beatitude together with the devil and his angels—also says these things: "They rushed to anathematize most holy and glorious teachers, on the occasion of those dogmas which were debated concerning pre-existence and restitution, under the appearance of Origen, but anathematizing all the holy men who were before him and after him." Petrus Halloixius, an outstanding patron of the Origenian cause, tries to clear away the crime charged to Adamantius in nearly two ways in *Origen. Defens. lib. IV, quæst. 4*: for he either tries to show that he did not say that the damned and the demons would return to the things above, but only that they *could* return, and that under certain ^D conditions which can in no way come to pass, so that Origen is to be understood in no other way than if he had utterly deprived both the devil and the damned of all liberation. Those conditions, however, are of this sort: that angels and the blessed can slide down to the depths if, using the liberty of their will, they fail in virtue; and conversely, that the damned and the demons can arrive at the heights if, helped by divine grace, they repent; but since it will in no way come to pass that these repent or those fail in virtue, Halloixius concludes that Origen judged that the former would not fall from beatitude and the latter would not be liberated from their punishments. "Wherefore," he says, "as often as Origen says the devil can be saved, he is to be understood as saying it on the side of nature, not on the side of malice; or that his nature is not repugnant to salvation. For this is what the Valentinians held." How light this excuse is, is sufficiently, if I am not mistaken,...

proven by the previous testimonies, which do not ^A *hypothetically*, but absolutely and simply promise happiness to damned men and demons. The other defense of Halloix has more weight in its appearance, which is placed in a copious collection of Origenist passages, to which eternal punishments for the devil and the damned, and eternal fires, are ascribed. For what Origen had called *aiōnion*, Latin interpreters rendered as "eternal." The entire force of the argument therefore is placed in the proper signification of that word *aiōnion*.

^B XXVI. *Aiōn* does not enjoy a simple notion, for it sounds at one time as finite time, another time as indefinite, and another time as infinite. Hesychius says: "*Aiōn*, the life of men; the time of life; but it is also understood as a long period of time." Many others, including John of Damascus in book II of *De fide orthodoxa*, chapter 1, propose the significations of the word *aiōn*, which pertain partly to a finite and partly to an infinite span of time. Aristotle, in *De Caelo*, thinks the word *aiōn* is made from *aei ōn*, because it contains the notation of eternity. This derivation was then usurped by Plotinus, Proclus, the Etymologer, and others. But even then, the reader admits that both types of time are expressed by that word in Aristotle. From *aiōn* came the Latin *aevum*, with the Aeolic digamma inserted; as from *ōis*, *ovis*. *Aevum* therefore, like *aiōn*, has a manifold force, at one time designating time without an end, at another time designating time that is terminated. Witnesses for the former are Servius in *Aeneid* VI, verse 764; Censorinus, chapter 16; and Isidore in *Originum* book IV, chapter 38: " *Aevum*, he says, is perpetual age, ^C of which neither beginning nor end is born, which the Greeks call *aiōna*, which is used among them sometimes for the age, sometimes for the eternal. Whence it is also derived among the Latins." A witness for the latter signification is Horace, *Carminum* book II, ode 9, verse 13, where he says Nestor functioned for three *aevis*, who had exceeded three generations, that is, 90 years. The same author uses *aevum* for time in *Epistulae* 1, book II, verse 159, when he says the traces of the countryside remained for a long *aevum*. It is often used for an age, whence *longaevus*, *grandevus*, *aevus*. From *aevum* comes *aevitas*, and by contraction *aetas*: the meaning is the same as *aevi*, for it designates at one time eternal time, at another time circumscribed time. From *aevo* likewise comes *aeviternus*, and by syncope *aeternus*; by which word even finite time is sometimes expressed. ^D Notable is that passage of Cicero in book III of *De Oratore*: "For there is no kind of thing which, either torn from the others, can stand by itself, or from which, if others were lacking, it could preserve its own force and eternity." Many, even learned men and princes of the etymological art, are mistaken who think *sempiternus* is made from *aeternus*. The measure of the second syllable, which is shortened, resists this. *Sempiternus* comes from *semper*; just as from *heri*, *hesternus*, and from *diu*, *diurnus*, according to Priscian. What *aiōn* signifies among the Greeks, and *aevum* among the Latins, the same means among the Hebrews *olam*—time, age, eternity: from the root *alam*, which is, to hide, to lie hidden: perhaps because time is a thing commonly ignored; or because past things are not known to us clearly, and future things are entirely unknown; or because time creeps in silently and secretly. You would say that Horace had looked to this origin when he wrote in book I, ode 12, verse 45:

*Crescit occulto, velut arbor, aevo,* *Fama Marcelli;*

and Ovid, *Metam.* X, verse 519: *Labitur occulte, fallitque volatilis aetas.*

That which is held in Deuteronomy XV, 17, regarding a man who consigns himself to voluntary and eternal servitude, is valid for the confirmation of the above: "You shall take an awl, and you shall pierce his ear in the door of your house, and he shall serve you forever," Hebr. *le-olam*. LXX, "and he shall be your servant forever (*eis ton aiōna*)." Similar to this is that of Horace in book I, *Epist.* 10, verse 41:

*Serviet aeternum, quia parvo nescit uti.*

This passage of Jerome in *Ezechielem* chapter XXVI, last verse, is also useful: "And you shall be no more forever: or as it is written in Hebrew *olam*, and in Greek *aiōn*, it signifies one age, according to that of Isaiah, who says that Tyre is to be restored to its original state after seventy years. But they say that one age, that is, the time of human life, is calculated by the number of seventy years, the Psalmist saying: 'The days of our years in them are seventy years'; and that in Galatians 1: 'In Hebrew an age, that is *olam*, where it has the letter *vav* placed, signifies eternity: but where it is written without *vav*, it signifies the fiftieth year, which they call the Jubilee.' But *aiōn* signifies not infinite time, but indefinite in those words of Luke I, 33: 'And he shall reign in the house of Jacob forever (*eis tous aiōnas*),' for if it expressed an interminable span of time, why would it be added: 'And of his kingdom there shall be no end?' Therefore Luke, or rather Gabriel, means this: He will indeed obtain a long-lasting kingdom in the house of Jacob, and one that will lack any end. Often, therefore, you will find *ton aiōna touton* for the present time, and *ton aiōna erchomenon* and *tous aiōnas eperchomenous* for the future, in the New Testament. Hence Origen in *Homily* 6 on Exodus, number 15: "As often as it is said 'for an age,' the length of time is indeed indicated, but that there is some end is also indicated: and if it is said 'for another age,' without doubt a longer one is posited, yet an end is put: and as often as 'ages of ages' are named, perhaps though unknown to us, yet some terminus ordained by God is indicated"; and in book I of *De Principiis*, chapter 3, number 5: "However, the authority of Holy Scripture moves me regarding this, which says: 'for an age and beyond.' For even in that which it says 'and beyond,' it wishes something to be understood, without doubt, more than an age. And see lest that which the Savior says—'because I wish that where I am, they also may be with me; and as I and you are one, they also may be one in us'—demonstrate that there is something more than an age

or perhaps even more than an age of ages; that is manifest, when 'all things' are no longer in an age, but God is in all things. Therefore, Origen did not intend that the term ^A should signify an uninterrupted span of time, either in an age or in ages of ages. Why then does Cæsarius, in his Dialogue, say that Origen thought the punishments of the damned would come to an end, 'upon the sole assertion that the Lord called the punishing fire *aionion* (eternal), and not *aionion aionon* (eternal of ages)?' — 'That the Lord called the purgatorial fire only eternal, not eternal for ages?' Leontius Byzantinus agrees with the aforementioned, who says that the Origenists claim 'the word *aion* (age/eternity) is taken for a definite time, and when the Scripture says that the punishment is *aionia* (eternal), it does not say, save for a definite time.' 'The name *aion* is to be understood as referring to a limited time, and when Scripture says that punishment is *aionia*, it signifies nothing more than a finite period.' Then he admits 'that, in truth, the name of *aion* is often used by outsiders and in Scripture for a definite time: indeed the name of *aion*, both among profane authors and in Scripture, is often used for a finite time.' But the Origenian refutation of this dogma, ground down by others, has already been co-opted.

'The word *aionios* (eternal) represents its own notation, indicating sometimes a thing of infinite time; sometimes a thing of definite and limited time. Therefore, the Greeks called the secular games, recurrent almost every hundred years, *aionious*. Therefore, those testimonies in which he declares that the hellish fire will be eternal, or as he wrote in Greek, *aionion*—for by this word he understood a long, but finishable time—are brought forward in vain for the favor ^C and protection of Origen. For he thought that the meaning which the sacred writers had attributed to this word was the kind of meaning he himself attached to it. Augustine wrote memorable things on this subject in his booklet against the Priscillianists and Origenists; for when Orosius had written a *Commonitorium* to him, which is usually prefixed to this work of Augustine, in which he complained that it was boasted from the books of Origen that the Tartarean fire, which is preached as eternal, is not perpetual according to the Greek etymology, even adding a Latin testimony, because it is said, "For ever," and "Unto age of age," Augustine replies in chapters 6 and 7 that there is a double understanding of the word *aion*, sometimes denoting an age, sometimes eternity; but that the word *aionios* is usually applied to things lacking an end. That this is not so, however, we have also proved above, and it is easily proved from two Scripture ^D locations which Augustine objects to for himself, and which, if I see correctly, he struggles in vain to resolve. The former occurs very often in the Pentateuch, when God speaks about the ceremonies and rites of the old law, "This shall be for you an eternal statute." "Although," says Augustine, "if the words are understood more diligently, perhaps the things that were signified by those sacraments were not destined to have an end." For so—lest he wander too far ^B away—we say eternal God, not certainly these two very short syllables, but what is signified by them. As if when God ordains that Aaron should not enter the tabernacle of the testimony unless clothed in linen garments; and adds, "It shall be an eternal statute for him and his seed after him," that this pertains not to the command immediately instituted, but to the mystery signified by this command. As if he meant these syllables, which are written just now, to be "an eternal statute"; not the precept instituted by those syllables, according to the letter, but according to the anagogical sense. But what is it to destroy the letter, if this is not it? No less valid is the following passage from the Epist. to Titus 1:2: "the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before eternal times," in Greek *pro chronon aionion*. "When, however," he says, "times after the foundation of the world seem to have a beginning, how are they eternal, unless because He said they are eternal, which have no time before them?" And yet, although no time preceded those times, they nevertheless began to flow from some beginning; and thus they are finite from the prior side. Therefore, both these solutions are weak, and indeed so proposed by Augustine that he did not lean heavily upon them. He adds then, in that Matthew xxv, 46: "These will go into eternal burning, but the just into eternal life," that the notation of the word *aionios* is the same in both places, whether it is conjoined with life promised to the just, or with fire bringing punishment to the wicked; and thus it signifies that the fires will be without an end, since it is agreed by all that life will be without an end; which same thing is also read in book xxi of *De civit. Dei*, chap. 23. But that is of little worth at all against Origen, who prescribed a term both for the happiness of the blessed and for the torments of the impious.

The Etymologus proposes many notions of the word *aion*, sometimes signifying life, sometimes the time of life; then it has this: "*Aion* is also the number of a thousand years"; and a little later: "*Aion* is also called the seven ages from the creation of heaven and earth until the common resurrection of men." Origen used the word *aion* in the former way when he said that the damned would be tormented for a thousand years, if indeed he truly believed that after the passing of a thousand years they would be restored in full, as we have related above from John of Damascus: in the latter way, perhaps, when he confessed that they would be tortured *eis tous aionas ton aionon* (unto the ages of ages). Moreover, there is no other meaning of the word *aion* aside from Origen's opinion, which the Etymologus notes in the same place: "*Aion* is also the eternal and the endless"; for in tom. xxviii *in Joan.*, num. 7, Origen wishes *eis aiona* or *eis aionas* to be understood as meaning *aei* (always). These are the words: "You inquire concerning him who is not clothed in the wedding garment, concerning whom it is said: 'Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness,' whether he remains bound forever, and in the outer darkness?"

^A For it is not added "for eternity," or "for eternities," or that he will ever be released. And I do not think the word *aiōnios* (eternal) should be understood in any other way, [as seen in] *Contra Celsum*, book VII: "But it is not safe to entrust the clarity of such matters to the Scripture, since the majority do not stand in need of further instruction beyond that concerning the punishment of those who sin; for it is not useful to ascend to matters above that, for the sake of those who with difficulty, out of fear of eternal punishment, restrain themselves to some degree from wickedness and the pouring out of sins which come from it."

QUESTION XII. CONCERNING THE WORLD, THE EARTHLY PARADISE, AND ADAM.

1. Regarding the question of the world, a twofold paradox ascribed to Origen comes to be examined: first, whether and in what sense he said the world was created by God for the sake of rational natures; second, whether he asserted that He had created only one world in the past, or would create one in the future. Origen proposes these two questions for himself in the third chapter of book II of *De Principiis*, which is inscribed, *On the beginning of the world and its causes*.

II. As far as the first is concerned, everyone sees from his preceding doctrine that it is fitting that the world was created by God for the sake of those natures which are partakers of reason. For since souls, in whatever state they are placed, have wished to use the freedom of their will for sinning or for acting rightly, and since this punishment was to be inflicted upon them for their sins—that they should be sent into heavier and grosser bodies—on that account He had to say that those heavy bodies were formed by God, just as prisons are constructed for holding convicts. A copious dissertation of Origen for proving this is held in book II of *De Principiis*, chap. 1: "Since, therefore," he says in no. 1, "there is such great variety in the world, and in the rational living beings themselves there is such great diversity, on account of which all the other variety and diversity must also be thought to have existed; what other cause will it be necessary to name, for which the world exists, especially if we consider that end through which all things are to be restored to the state of their beginning, as was discussed in the preceding book? And if this is seen to be said consistently, what other cause, as we have said, shall we think exists for the great diversity of this world, unless it be the diversity and variety of the motions, and of the fallings of those who fell from that unity and concord in which they were first created by God?" ^B He says the same thing in chap. 9 of book II of *De Principiis*, no. 2: "For their own motions, each mind, whether more or less, neglecting the good and being drawn toward the contrary of the good, which is without doubt evil, was carried away. From which it seems that that Creator of all things received certain seeds and causes of variety and diversity, so that, according to the diversity of minds—that is, of rational creatures—which diversity they are to be thought to have conceived from the cause we mentioned above, He might create a varied and diverse world." In the same chapter, however, no. 6, repeating the matter more deeply, he says that God, when He wished to create natures capable of reason from the beginning, had no cause for creating them except Himself and His own goodness: in which, however, because there is no diversity, nor was there any on the part of the things to be created, He created them equal and in every way similar to Himself: but these, as endowed with free will, did not all use this faculty in the same way, with some rushing into vice and iniquity, and others rising toward better things; and from thence the difference of rational natures came to be: and that God, wishing to adorn or to punish each one according to merit, drew the diversities of minds into the harmony of one world, just as into one house which is outfitted with vessels of gold, silver, and earthenware. "And these causes," he says, "as I judge, this world received for its variety, while the divine providence dispenses each one according to the variety of his motions, or of his inclinations and purposes." Wherefore in tome XIX *On John*, no. 5, and in chapter 5 of book II of *De Principiis*, no. 5, he observes that the creation of the world is called by this new and proper name, *katabolē* (foundation/casting down), by the sacred writers, because, namely, there was a descent from higher to lower regions, not only by those souls which deserved it by the variety of their motions, but also by those which, for the service of the whole world, were brought down from those superior and invisible regions to these inferior and visible ones, though unwillingly; for the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope ^C, by which either the sun, or the moon, or the stars, or the angels might fulfill service for the world, and for those souls which, on account of excessive defects of the mind, needed these grosser and more solid bodies, and on account of those for whom this was necessary, this visible world also was established. And soon after: "But such and so great a world must be thought to have been made, which might either contain all those souls which are set in this world to be exercised, or all those virtues which are prepared to be present to them, and to dispense and help them." And these very places from the books of *De Principiis* are brought forward by Jerome for the sake of reproach in epist. 59, *To Avitus*, chaps. 2 and 3. Furthermore, Justinian reports two other things from book II of *De Principiis*, chap. 1, no. 1, and from book IV, at the end of the letter to Mennas, which it would not have been superfluous to have inserted here. The former is this: "Thus indeed, the world being of such great variety, and ^D

[LATIN COLUMN]

1049 ORIGENIANORUM LIB. II, CAP. II, QUÆST. XII. 1050

they say, have sinned, and by the diversity of their sins have fallen from the heavens down to the earth, and have merited various bodies as if they were chains, and that for this cause the world was made. These things Honorius of Autun repeats almost word-for-word in his book *De hæresibus*. Finally, St. Thomas, in his book II *Contra Gentiles*, chapter 44, struggles vehemently against this same opinion.

^A ...containing such diverse rational beings, what other cause must one say has been the reason for its having come into being, if not the variety of the fall of those who did not emanate from the Monad in the same way? "Thus, since the world consists of such great diversity, and contains so many different rational natures, what other cause is to be stated for why it subsists, than the various modes of falling of those who do not flow from the Unity in the same way?" Another passage holds: "It is necessary that the nature of bodies should not have existed beforehand, but should have come into existence at intervals from certain accidents occurring to rational beings that are in need of bodies. For it is necessary that the nature of bodies should not have pre-existed, but should subsist at intervals on account of certain cases which happen to natures endowed with reason, and which are in need of bodies."

^B III. Therefore, on this account also, Origen felt the reproaches not only of Justinian but of others as well. "What prophet," asks Theophilus in *Paschalis I*, "has taught that we should believe that God was compelled to fashion bodies because of the ruin and fall of souls from the heavens? Who, according to the blessed Luke, among those who saw and were ministers of the Word of God, handed down for our instruction that God was provoked to create the diversity of this world by the negligence, the movement, and the decline of the higher rational creatures?" And afterwards: "For he says that the world began to exist because of the sins of the intellectual creatures." Jerome, in *Epist. ad Ephes. I, 4*, without expressly mentioning Origen’s name, explains his opinion: "Another says," he reports, "that before visible creatures—heaven, earth, seas, and all that is in them—there were other invisible creatures, in which also were souls, which for certain causes known to God alone, were cast down into this valley of tears... Therefore, before souls were cast into the world, they say, and the world was made from souls, with their inhabitants cast down into the lowest depth, God chose Paul." Although these things are recounted as the opinion of another, Rufinus nevertheless contends in *Invect. I* that Jerome agreed with these things; but Jerome removes the calumny from himself in book I of his *Apology against Rufinus*, chapter 6. Augustine, however, in book XI *De Civitate Dei*, chapter 23, attacks Origen by name: "They say that souls are not parts of God, but were made by God, and sinned by withdrawing from the Creator; and by various progressions, according to the diversity of their sins, from the heavens down to the earth, they merited diverse bodies as if they were chains. And that this is the world, and that this was the cause for the world being made: not that good things might be created, but that evils might be restrained." On this account Origen is justly blamed; for in the books which he calls *Περὶ ἀρχῶν*, that is, *On Principles*, he thought this and wrote this. And these things are later strongly attacked. He is attacked also, both elsewhere and especially in the book Against the Priscillianists and Origenists, chapter 8, when Orosius had written to him in his *Commonitorium* that it was persuaded among certain Origenists that "The world was finally made for this reason, that souls might be purified in it which had sinned before." Isidore, book VIII *Originum*, chapter 5: "The Origenists," he says, "at the beginning of the world, souls..."

^C Since, however, it is so connected with the preceding matters that the arguments we have brought forward above for defending Origen’s cause may also have weight here, what purpose does it serve to seek out more, especially since Jerome, after he collected in chapter I of his *Epistle 59 to Avitus* whatever is damnable in the first book of *Περὶ ἀρχῶν*—among which this opinion which we are discussing occurs frequently—says that he [Origen] declares such things: "These, according to our opinion, are not dogmas, but only inquiries brought forward, lest they seem to have remained entirely undiscussed."

^D IV. "Now indeed, since the sermon of the previous discussion has shown that the diverse movements of rational creatures and their various opinions have given cause for the diversity of this world, we must see if it does not happen that the end also of this world corresponds to its beginning. For there is no doubt that its end is to be found in much diversity and variety still; which variety, indeed, being discovered at the end of this world, will furnish causes and occasions for the diversities of another world to come after this one, in that the end of this world is the beginning of the future one." These are the words of Origen in book I of *Περὶ ἀρχῶν*, chapter 3, section 3, declaring the connection of the previous inquiry with this one which we have proposed to examine here. "For it seems possible," he says in book II of *Περὶ ἀρχῶν*, chapter 3, section 3, "that rational natures, from which the faculty of free will is never taken away, may be able again to be subject to certain movements... Which movements, without doubt, the variety of bodies and diversity will again follow, because of which the world is always adorned, and the world can never consist except in variety and diversity, which can be effected in no other way than through corporeal matter." Origen therefore preserved the coherence of his doctrine, and what he thought could be effected by his dogmas, he decreed with a manifest assertion: for in what follows, having rejected some who affirmed that worlds equal to this one in every respect and similar to it would arise in future ages in a continuous succession—because such an opinion would hinder free will—he decreed that others would be created, but ones that were clearly different; whether, however, they are superior in dignity, or inferior, or equal, he confesses he does not know. He adds, moreover, that this world, which itself is also called an age, is the end of many ages, and the beginning of many ages to follow. But as if doubting, he says finally that after the creation and destruction of many ages, something greater than the ages will come to pass in the restitution of all things, when God will be all in all. Afterwards, in the third book of the same work, chapter 5, after he showed that the world had a beginning and will have an end, he objects to himself...

^A regarding this assertion, as he is accustomed to write, num. 3: "If the world began in time, what was God doing before the world began?" For it is both impious and absurd to call the nature of God idle and immobile, or to think that goodness at some time did not do good, and that omnipotence at some time did not exercise power. And he thinks he resolves this very well with this answer: "We, however, shall respond appropriately, observing the rule of piety, and saying that God did not begin to work for the first time when He made this visible world; but just as after the corruption of this one there will be another world, so too before this one was, we believe there were others." He brings forward a twofold testimony of Scripture to confirm these things: one from Isaiah LXV, 17 and LXVI, 22, where God declares that He will create a new heaven and a new earth; the other from Ecclesiastes 1, 9, 10, which is of this sort: "What is that which has been? That which is to be. What is that which has been made? That which is to be made. Nothing new under the sun; nor is anyone able to say: Behold, this is new: for it ^B has already preceded in the ages that were before us." He judges, moreover, that these worlds are not many at once, but are successors to one another in a perpetual series. And Jerome transferred these very reproaches from the same place into epistle 59, to Avitus, chapter 3. Furthermore, the reasoning of this Origenian passage is the same as that of book I *De principiis* (*Περὶ ἀρχῶν*), chapter 2, num. 10, where he says that God is omnipotent, that is, *παντοκράτωρ*, insofar as He has some things over which He might exercise His power: "And therefore, that God may be shown to be omnipotent, it is necessary that all things subsist." For if anyone might wish that those things which were subsequently made did not exist at some time, it must be confessed by him that God was not then necessarily omnipotent, but that He received omnipotence later, when He began to have things which His power might govern. "But if," he says, "there is never a time when He was not omnipotent, it is necessary that those things through ^C which He is called omnipotent must also always subsist, and that He always had things over which He exercised power, and which were moderated by Him, whether as king or as prince." Genebrardus notes, indeed with an officious and friendly spirit toward Origen, though not equally accurately, that this is what he wants to say: that God the Father showed His omnipotence when He begat the Son, and that if He had not begotten, He would not have been omnipotent. For it is manifest that Origen is speaking about things in the plural number, over which God holds dominion, not about one thing only, such as the Son. But the fact that he had created things also in his mind is sufficiently proven by what follows: "Concerning which we shall discourse more fully in the proper places in which his creatures are to be discussed." And that superior passage of Origen, or at least one similar to it, is reported by Methodius in his book *On Created Things* (*Περὶ τῶν γενητῶν*), excerpts ^D of which Photius has in codex ccxxxv: "For," he says, "there is no creator without things created, nor a maker without things made, nor an omnipotent one without things held by him."

What he discusses, however, in his Commentary on Genesis 1, 12 and in book I *De principiis* (*Περὶ ἀρχῶν*), chapter 1, num. 4, refuting that matter is co-eternal with God, is to be understood thus: that he indeed rejects that matter which is *ἀγέννητον*, lacking birth and beginning, such as certain philosophers had introduced and the Marcionites defended, which they held to be co-eternal with God and a second principle of things; but that he nonetheless admits another matter, not indeed lacking birth and beginning, (33) but created by God before the ages in such a way that light proceeds from the sun. In that point, therefore, he dissented from those heretics, in that they posited these two principles of things—God and matter—both being co-eternal with each other, neither depending on the other; whereas he established God as the sole principle of all things universal, who had produced matter from Himself from all eternity. He imagined that the worlds were subsequently formed from that matter. Thus he differed from the Marcionites, although he employed their arguments. For he refutes the heretic Hermogenes in the same way, num. 24, in our observations on these words of Huet: "or because the matter from which the world was formed, etc."

^A Tertullian relates that he reasoned this way in a special book written against him; for he said that God was always Lord, but that He could not have been Lord from all eternity unless there had always been something of which He was Lord; and consequently that there was always matter; whence it is concluded that matter was never non-existent. The Marcionites had taken this reasoning from the ancient philosophers, and Philoponus refutes it in his work *On the Eternity of the World* against Proclus. But although Plato—as Ambrosius and Zacharias Mitylenæus report—said that the world was indeed founded by God from eternal matter, yet he affirmed it was created in time, and Aristotle and Theophrastus judged that he had spoken thus; however, more recent Platonists, in order to reconcile their master with Aristotle, confessed that Plato indeed said the world was created, but from eternity: so that it lacked a beginning of time, but had a beginning of cause, namely God; "nor was this, of course, a beginning of time, but of substitution," as Augustine says in *De civ. Dei*, lib. X, cap. 31, who writes that this is explained by the Platonists through a certain comparison: "For as they say, if a foot had always been in the dust from eternity, a footprint would always be beneath it; yet no one would doubt that this footprint was made by the one walking, nor that one was prior to the other, even though one was made by the other: so, they say, the world, and the gods created in it, ^B both always existed, with Him who made them always existing, and yet they were made." And that this was the mind of Plato is maintained by Boethius; likewise Simplicius, Taurus, Porphyrius, and Proclus; Censorinus, Apuleius, and Macrobius. Thus, this opinion being current in the times of Origen, and commonly received among the Platonists, he also conceded to it.

Furthermore, if anyone wishes to ask whence he was led to the other tenet, that of the perpetual propagation of worlds, nothing seems more probable than that it was fashioned by him to match that of the Stoics, who established that this world was to be conflagrated, and that another, in every part similar to this, or at least differing but little, would come forth; so that it would not only reflect the form of this one entirely, but also the same events, and all the same things; and that after this one was also burned, another would rise up afterwards, and then another, with worlds always being reborn and conflagrating. But the Platonists and Pythagoreans, instructed by the Egyptians, indeed thought the world to be incorruptible, but that with the stars having returned to the same position after long circuits, the same things would happen again, and the same men would be born, and all things would return to their pristine form, which they held by reason of the similar position of the stars then prevailing. Although Adamantius thoroughly refuted such delusions in book V *against Celsus*, num. 20, 21 et seq., as he should have done; nonetheless, I would judge that he forged his own dogma from these reheated ideas; especially with the addition of the twin [opinion] of Solomon, which we recounted above, ^C and the passage of Isaiah, to which—twisted by a false interpretation—he fashioned those interpolated opinions of the philosophers in *Peri Archon*, lib. III, cap. 5, num. 3.

V. The Fathers by no means let this pass in silence and forgiven to Origen; for he is refuted by Methodius in Photius, cod. CCXXXV, and by Jerome, epist. 59, to Avitus, cap. 2, in these words: "But in the second book of *Peri Archon*, he asserts that there are innumerable worlds, not like Epicurus, many at one time and similar to one another, but that after the end of another world, there is a beginning of another: and before this world of ours, there was another world: and after this, another is to be, and after that, another, and so on after the rest. And he doubts whether the future world will be in every part so similar to another world that they might seem not to differ at all from each other; or whether perhaps a world will never be entirely undifferentiated and similar to another world (54)." Soon he adduces the words of Origen: "And therefore I think that diverse worlds are made because of the variety of causes; and the errors of those who contend that there are worlds similar to their own are refuted." That these same things were handed down by Origen in book I and III of *Peri Archon*, Jerome reports in cap. 1 and 3 of the same epistle; for which reason he also cites him for these crimes in *Apolog.* lib. I, cap. 5, and lib. II, cap. 3. Justinian also writes thus in his epistle to Mennas: Ὑποτίθεται δὲ καὶ διαφόρους κόσμους συστῆναι τε καὶ συνίστασθαι, τοῦτο μὲν παρελθόντας, τοῦτο δὲ μέλλοντας· "He also posits that diverse worlds have existed and do exist, some past, some future." ^D But note carefully what precedes: Κἀκεῖνο δὲ τὸ πάσης δυσσεβείας ἀνάμεστον τῆς αὐτοῦ ἐστι μυθολογίας τὸ λέγειν ὅτι πάντα τὰ γένη, καὶ τὰ εἴδη συναΐδιά ἐστι τῷ Θεῷ· "But he himself also fabulates that, full of all impiety, saying that all genera and species are co-eternal with God." Justinian also brings forward the very words to the end of the letter from book I of *Peri Archon*. Orosius seems to indicate in his *Commonitorium* to Augustine that certain Origenists defended a similar doctrine in his time: "Saying first that all things, before they appeared as made, always remained made in the wisdom of God, with this word: For God, whatever He made, did not begin by making." Augustine refutes these in many ways in his book *against the Priscillianists and Origenists*, cap. 8. Nicephorus strikes at Origen for the same reason, declaring that he held not genera and species, but *ktismata* (creatures) to be co-eternal with God, wrongly, it seems, accepting Origen's opinion, though it is openly set forth in lib. I, *Peri Archon*, in Justinian at the end of the epistle to Mennas: "Genera, he says, and species were always: no one would say so of individuals differing in number." The ideas of his master Plato influenced Origen to this opinion. Thus, that genera and species are co-eternal with God [is held] to that extent [index: entries preserved]

he said, according to the mind he had.

[VI] Verily, however much Origen might seem to have asserted these things clearly, he nevertheless prefaced them in the Prooemium of his books *On First Principles*, no. 7: "There is, moreover, this point in ecclesiastical preaching, that this world was made and began at a certain time, and is to be dissolved on account of its own corruption. What, however, was before this world, or what will be after the world, has not yet clearly become known to many: for no evident discourse concerning these things is brought forward in ecclesiastical preaching." He says that the obscurity of these things is signified in his 4th homily on Isaiah, no. 1, by those four wings of the two seraphim that covered the face and feet of God. From this it can be estimated that whatever he wrote upon this topic, he proposed as mere conjectures, not as dogma asserted.

Nor, indeed, is it right to omit that statement of Jerome from book 1 of his *Epistle to Titus*, not far from the beginning: "Six thousand years of our world are not yet completed, and how many eternities, how many times, how many origins of ages must be judged to have existed before, in which the angels, thrones, dominions, and the other virtues served God and, without the shifts of time, without measures, remained by God's command." Philo, Tatian, Lactantius, and others positioned the matter as having been created by God before the world, from which He later fashioned the world.

[VII.] The opinion of Origen, which twists the planting of Paradise toward an allegorical explanation, is so celebrated by the disputations of many that it seems to demand our examination as well. He held that this Paradise, which is commonly called terrestrial, was placed in the third heaven; but he explained the trees, and other things by which a certain terrestrial place is denoted, and finally all remaining things, allegorically: for he opined that souls dwelling in heaven are signified by Adam and Eve created in Paradise; the crimes which souls commit there, by the eating of the forbidden fruit; the exile of souls on account of their faults, by the expulsion of our first parents from Paradise; the earthly and mortal body imposed upon souls, by the coats of skins with which God clothed Adam and Eve.

[(55)] Methodius (in Epiphanius, *Haer.* 64, cap. 47) and Photius (*Cod.* 234) object this very same thing to him, as does Eustathius in *On the Pythoness*, and Epiphanius himself, in chapter 4 of the same heresy, and in the *Ancoratus*, chapter 54, in which places they show that Origen reinforced his opinion with this testimony of Paul, 2 Cor. XII, 2-4, where he says he was caught up into the third heaven and into Paradise; and from this he inferred that Paradise and the third heaven were the same; which Methodius and Epiphanius deny, asserting that Paradise must be distinguished from the third heaven. "Who would listen," says Epiphanius in his epistle to John of Jerusalem, cap. 3, "to Origen giving us a Paradise in the third heaven, and transferring the one which Scripture commemorates from earth to celestial things, and thus allegorically understanding all the trees which are written of in Genesis, namely that the trees are angelic powers, whereas the truth does not admit this?" And afterwards: "But you say: We read that St. Paul was caught up as far as the third heaven, and as far as Paradise. You say well: When he sets down the third heaven, and afterwards adds, 'and into Paradise,' he shows that heaven is in one place, and Paradise in another." And Jerome says in *Epistle* 61 to Pammachius, cap. 3, that this, having been objected against John of Jerusalem, was not at all cleared up by him; he who also, on chapter X of Daniel, says: "Let the ravings of those be silenced who, seeking shadows and images in the truth, strive to overturn the truth itself; so that they think the rivers and trees and Paradise ought to be subverted by the laws of allegory." Sophronius also in his epistle to Sergius, and Anastasius Sinaita in book VII of his *Anagogical Contemplations*, and John of Damascus in his book *On Heresies*, and Cedrenus, accuse the Origenists of having abolished the planting of Paradise, of having stripped the body from Adam and Eve, and of having refuted the conversation with the serpent.

But let us hear Origen himself speak: "What person, then," he says in *On First Principles*, book IV, no. 16, "having understanding, will believe that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And what is more, the first day even without a heaven? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a human husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden towards the east, and created a visible and sensible tree of life in it, such that one could take life by tasting the fruit with physical teeth; and again, by some chewing of what was taken from this tree, could partake of good and evil? And if God is said to walk in Paradise in the cool of the day, and Adam to hide himself under the tree—I do not think any one will doubt that these things figuratively signify certain mysteries through the appearance of a story, and did not happen physically." This Rufinus translates as: "To whom, I ask, having good sense, will it seem consistent that it be said that the first, and second, and third day, in which evening and morning are named, existed without sun, and"

[(55)] The same is objected by Methodius, etc. The same is objected by Chrysostom, *Homily 13 on Genesis*, tom. IV of the new edition, pages 102 and 103, where he says: "In this place, 'he planted' should be understood thus, namely that he ordered that the paradise be made on earth.... For this reason Moses also adduces the name of the place in the Scriptures, so that it might not be permitted for those who wish to argue in vain to impose upon the ears of the simpler-minded, and to say that Paradise is not on earth, but in heaven, and to dream up fables of this kind. For if the divine Scripture had used such an arrangement of words, albeit some men, wise in their own eloquence and in foreign philosophy, did not doubt to speak against the Scriptures and to say that Paradise is not on earth, and to adopt many other things besides those which have been said, to think against Scripture, and to hold the opposite path, and to think that those things which were spoken concerning the earth were spoken concerning the heavens—would they not have fallen away, had Moses not used that humble and moderate manner of speaking, the Holy Spirit moving his tongue?"

^A ...without the moon and without the stars; and the first day without a heaven? But who would be found so foolish as to think that God planted certain trees as a farmer in Paradise, in Eden toward the east, and planted in it the tree of life, that is, a wood that is visible and palpable, so that a person eating from that tree with bodily teeth might perceive life, and again, by eating from another tree, might gain the knowledge of good and evil? But as for the fact that God is said to walk in Paradise in the afternoon, and Adam to hide under a tree, I for my part believe that no one doubts that these things are brought forward by Scripture through a figurative trope, by which certain mystical things are indicated. [See also homily 1 on Genesis, no. 1, and book 4 against Celsus, no. 39.]

Philo drew Origen into this opinion, likewise bending these very things toward allegory at the end of his book *On the Creation of the Six Days*, and in book 1 of *Allegories of the Law*. Papias, Irenæus, Pantænus, and Clement of Alexandria were also drawn by this, men whom Anastasius Sinaita, in book 7 of his *Anagogical Contemplations*, reports to have diverted the description of Paradise toward a mystical exposition, and following their example, both of the Gregories did as well. Ambrose, however, followed Origen and placed the earthly Paradise in the third heaven, leaning on the same passage from Paul from which Origen thought his own opinion had added strength. This he does indeed in book 3 of *On Paradise*, although elsewhere, in 1 Cor. 6, he distinguishes the earthly Paradise from that into which Paul was taken up. Yet in his epistle to Sabinus, he converts all these things to allegory. Jerome, however, affirms that Paradise was created before the construction of this world, in his *Hebraic Traditions on Genesis*. But if he thought it was created before this world, surely he judged that it was outside the world. Moses bar Cepha, in book 1 of *On Paradise*, chap. 8, locates it in the medium between the earth and the firmament; and he thinks that the soul of the pious thief was sent there, which Severianus also affirms regarding the souls of other saints in *Orat. 5 On the Cosmology*, as well as Eulogias in Photius, cod. 230. Indeed, Sixtus Senensis writes in book 5 of his *Bibliotheca*, annot. 34, that the error of Origen was revived shortly before his own age by Francesco Giorgio, and he exhausts the entire question of that place in his subsequent annotations.

Elsewhere, however, Origen writes that Paradise, or Eden, is the same as that earthly Paradise into which the souls of the pious are sent after death; and since he placed that on earth, as I said above, it is necessary that this one also be on earth. "Whoever, however," he says in book 1 of *On the Canticles*, p. 42, "is worthy to return and be with Christ, and whoever is found faithful in a little thing and is established over many things, he will taste and take the pleasure of the Lord, being led to a certain place which, on account of the abundance and varieties of such foods, is called a place of delights. For which reason it is also said to be placed in Eden, because it indicates delights."

VIII. As Adamantius fashioned for himself a mystical meaning for the planting of Paradise, so too regarding the leathern tunics with which God clothed Adam after the fall, he dreamed that his very earthly and mortal body was signified, with which Adam's soul was shackled, although it was previously immortal and incorporeal; otherwise, it would be ridiculous to assert that God, like a tanner and cobbler, had flayed living creatures and sewn the skins removed from them. Irenæus, in book 1, chap. 1, and Tertullian in *Against Valentinus*, chap. 24, and in book *On the Resurrection of the Flesh*, chap. 7, refute this error; for it had already taken root before the age of Origen. Clement of Alexandria also refutes it in *Stromata*, book 2—condemning it in a certain Cassianus, as Paul Pellisson pointed out to me, a work in which I do not know whether the charm of his wit or the excellence of his doctrine is more to be praised. Justin, or whoever the author of *Questions to the Orthodox* may be, also refutes it (quest. 49), as do the author of the *Dialogues* which are attributed to Cæsarius, the brother of Gregory of Nazianzus (dial. 3, interr. 149); Gregory of Nyssa in *Orat. cat.*, chap. 8; Chrysostom in *Homily 18 on Genesis*; Anastasius Sinaita in *Anagogical Contemplations*, book 11; and Rupert, book 3, chap. 2 on Genesis 1. Methodius, in Epiphanius (*Hæreses* 64) and in Photius (cod. 234), reproaches Origen with the same thing; Epiphanius in *Hæreses* 64 and in his *Epistle to John of Jerusalem*, chap. 3; Jerome in *Epistle 61 to Pammachius*, chap. 3; Sophronius in his *Epistle to Sergius*; Stephanus Gobarus the Tritheite in Photius, cod. 232; John of Damascus in *On Heresies*; Glycas in parts 1 and 4 of his *Annals*; Cedrenus; and Nicetas in *Thesaurus of the Orthodox Faith*, book 4, heresy 31.

This passage of Scripture has surely been drawn into various meanings. Methodius said that the leathern garments were not indeed a mortal body, but signified the dissolution of a body that was previously immortal and afterwards became mortal. Gregory of Nazianzus wishes the nudity of the body to express that Adam's body was previously immortal and not prone to any diseases; but by the garments, its mortality, heaviness, and infirmity, which invaded that body. Some, however, whom Theodoret refutes in *Question 39 on Genesis*, have said that the leathern tunics were the barks of trees, which are as it were the skins and garments of trees.

Origen might excuse his error with these supporters, if it were manifest. But how great his fluctuation was on this question will be clear from the following passage, which the chains attribute to Origen with one consent. For in *Genesis* 3:21, after he said it was absurd for God to be fashioning the skins removed from animals, he adds: "Again, however, fleeing such an absurdity, he says that the leathern tunics are nothing other than the bodies: this is plausible, and can draw one to assent, but it is not as clear as it is true. For if leathern tunics are flesh and bones, how does Adam say before this: 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh'? Again, however, if one, fleeing a matter so absurd, were to say that the leathern tunics were no other things than bodies, it would indeed be probable and capable of drawing one to assent; it is not, however, clear, as that which is true ought to be. For if the tunics..."

are flesh and bones, as Adam says before: *This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh* 63? He adds furthermore that some, hemmed in by these straits, have thought that the skin tunics were the necessity of dying imposed upon Adam and Eve after the sin: which he himself considers not to be without difficulty. He seems to concede more clearly to the orthodox opinion in homil. 6, in Levitic., num. 2, when he says: "I would wish to compare those wretched garments, with which the first man was clothed when he had sinned, with these holy and faithful garments. And indeed God is said to have made them: *For God made*, he says, *skin tunics, and clothed Adam and his wife* 64." Those tunics of skins, therefore, were taken from animals; for it was fitting that a sinner be clothed with such things, with skin tunics, I say, which were an indication of his mortality, which he had received for his sin, and of his frailty, which came from the corruption of the flesh. Therefore, the author of the *Dialogue on Orthodox Faith*, which is popularly attributed to Origen, brings him in sect. 5, pag. 862, defending the true and generally received opinion in the Church concerning those skin tunics, against Marinus the Bardesanist.

Certainly, if it were sufficiently established that Origen said that Adam had lost the image of God through sin, he would have Augustine as one who supports him, who in lib. vi *De Genesi ad litter.*, cap. 27, speaks thus: "Adam lost this image, which had been impressed upon the spirit of the mind, through sin, which we have received through the grace of justice." He nonetheless softens this in lib. ii *Retractat.*, cap. 24, saying that this image was not erased from man, but so deformed that it was to be reformed. But if the doctrine of Origen is not viewed from the questions of his adversaries, but from his own words, as they were translated by Rufinus, an altogether light interpreter, we shall confess that he is beaten here without cause. For he teaches that the image of God was impressed upon the mind of man, not the body, when he was created by God: but that he attains the likeness of God when he adorns his mind with virtues. "This man certainly," he says in *homil. 1 in Genes.*, num. 13, "whom he says was made to the image of God, we do not understand as corporeal. For the figment of the body does not contain the image of God, nor is the man said to have been made corporeal, but fashioned, as it is written in the following. For it says: *God fashioned man* 65, that is, he formed him from the slime of the earth. But he who was made to the image of God, and to [his] likeness, is our interior man, invisible and incorporeal, and incorrupt and immortal. For in such things as these the image of God is more rightly understood. If any, however, think that this one is corporeal who was made to the image and likeness of God, they appear to be introducing God himself as corporeal and of human form, which to think of God is most manifestly impious." Presently he asserts that the image of God, to which man was formed, is Christ himself, insofar as he is the figure of the substance of God, not insofar as he is clothed with a body taken from Mary. "To the likeness of this image, therefore," he says, "man was made, and for this reason our Savior, who is the image of God, moved by mercy for man, who had been made to his likeness, seeing that he had laid aside his own image and put on the image of the evil one, himself moved by mercy, having assumed the image of man, came to him." He shows thereafter that by sinning we are made like to the devil; by acting rightly, to Christ: "But let no one," he says, "despair, seeing his likeness to be with the devil more than with God, that he can again recover the form of the image of God, because the Savior did not come to call the just, but sinners to repentance 66." Also in *Tomo* xx *in Joan.*, num. 20, pag. 335, he says that we assume the likeness of God when we obey his commandments; [that] of the devil, when we incline toward vices: then he subjoins: *And our primary subsistence is in that which is according to the image of the Creator; but our derived [subsistence] is in the creature taken from the slime of the earth; and if, as if forgetful of the better substance in us, we subject ourselves* ^A to the creature from the slime, and the better shall receive the image of the earthy, but if...

^B IX. Among the accusations which Epiphanius collected against Origen (*hær.* LXIV, cap. 4, and in the *epistola ad Joannem Jerosolym.*, cap. 4), one is this: "Among many things, he even dared to say that Adam lost the image of God": which also Jerome repeats in *epist.* 61, *ad Pammach.*, cap. 3. As if he had wished that Adam, for the punishment of sin, was bound not only by a heavy body, as if by shackles, but that he had also fallen from the image of God, to which he had been created. But a little further on, Epiphanius teaches that not all Origenists thought the same on this question: "For some of them," he says, "say that the image of God, which Adam first received, perished when he sinned: others suspect the body, which the Son of God was to have from Mary, is that image itself; others [say] the mind; others virtue; these [say] baptism; they [say] that man is lord over all to the image of God." But Nicetas, in *Thesauro orthodoxæ fidei*, lib. IV, *hær.* XXXI, says that Origen declared that Adam, before he sinned, kept a human effigy immune from corporeal coverings, and endowed with only a human form; but that after sin was admitted, he lost that form, when the soul entered into this body. Then he discourses thus concerning Origen: "For he used to posit that God is one thing, and that which is formed to the image is another; and likewise that the likeness is one thing, and that which is effected according to the likeness is another. And he used to say that the first images and likenesses of God were the angels, and other virtues: but we are second after them, as inferior to them, who have been formed to their image, indeed. Then, deflecting toward worse things, he calls the image of the invisible God the Only-begotten Son, by apostolic voice corrupted, and without adding that in him there is nothing subject to mutation; and [that] we [are] to the image of God, or of the Son ^C unigeniti factos esse scribit, quod impietate non ^D caret.

^A His breath, he received the Holy Spirit. But that last passage of Origen is to be explained by the one immediately preceding: from which it will appear that he compared this mortal life with the future life, and believed that we, proceeding into that one, bear from birth the image of God—that is, as he himself says, “the possibility of perfection divinely granted,” when Adam was created; but that the likeness, adumbrated by right deeds, in the following age, or “in the consummation,” would be absolute in all ways. But if Origen meant the image of God to be nothing else than “the possibility of perfection divinely granted,” as the Rufinian translation sets forth, it follows that he by no means believed that Adam departed from it, since he asserted six hundred times that he would never fail to enjoy complete liberty. Furthermore, Victorinus, in book 1 *Adversus Arium*, and Eucherius of Lyon, in book 1 *In Genesim*, and Nicetas, in *Thesaurus orthodoxæ fidei*, book IV, hær. XXXI, and num. 21, page 342, retained this same distinction of image and likeness: "More manifestly also that point from book ^B *Περὶ ἀρχῶν*, cap. 6, num. 1: Therefore, the supreme good toward which the universal rational nature hastens, and which is also called the end of all things, is defined by very many of the philosophers in this way: that the supreme good is, as far as possible, to become like God. But I think this was not so much their own invention as it was taken by them from the divine books. For Moses indicates this before all others, when he narrates the first condition of man, saying: *And God said: Let us make man to our image and likeness.*" Then he adds: *And God made man; to the image of God he made him; male and female he made them, and blessed them.* "Therefore, this which he said, *To the image of God he made him*, and remained silent concerning the likeness, indicates nothing else than that he received the dignity of the image in his first condition; but the perfection of the likeness was reserved for the consummation: namely, that he himself might obtain it for himself by the studies of his own industry through the imitation of God, with the possibility of perfection divinely given to him through the dignity of the image, [that] in the end, finally, through the completion of works, he might perfect the likeness for himself; and that point from book IV *In Epist. ad Rom.*, num. 5, page 550: *In the beginning man, when it had been proposed that he should be made to the image and likeness of God, was indeed made to the image, but the likeness was deferred, for this reason, that he might first trust in God, and thus become like him, and that he himself might hear that everyone who trusts in him will become like him.*" This distinction of image and likeness seems to have been touched upon by Methodius, when he wrote in the book *De resurrectione* that it was given to man by God to bear the image and likeness of God, and all things toward that perfect original effigy of the Father and the Only-Begotten. Jansenius also reproves this in tom. I, lib. II, cap. 7, as if Origen thought that only the inspiration of the soul was denoted by the image of God impressed upon Adam; but by the likeness, the infusion of habitual grace (to use scholastic terms); and consequently that he believed Adam was instructed in creation with no gift of this habitual grace, and suspended it entirely from his acts; and by this, he derogated much from the dignity of the integral nature, in which Adam, when... ^C X. From what precedes, light is brought to an obscure and difficult passage of Origen, tom. XIV *in Matth.*, num. 16, page 638, where he distinguishes from those who were formed from dust those who were created to the likeness of God: "For he understands men created to the image of God as interior and spiritual men, immune from the contagion of sensible and corporeal things." Whence he immediately adds: *Θῆλυ*. But he establishes that those who are dedicated to the flesh and delight in transitory and sordid things are man and wife, namely, two in one flesh. Likewise, Philo separates and distinguishes man formed from dust from him who was created to the image of God; but he explains the matter differently; for he wishes this man to be the *ἀρχέτυπον* and *νοητόν*, or the idea of man, which exists in the mind of God, but that the other is mortal and earthly man, expressed after the form of this one. It would be unfairly held against Origen if one were to argue from that passage that he introduced Pre-Adamites, since he elsewhere often asserted that Adam was created by God from the beginning of things and calls him the first man. It would be even more unfair ^D to hold against him if, from this other one, which Methodius exhibits in Photius, cod. CCXXXV, he were accused of the same error: *Οὔτε οὖν ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ, ὡς φασί τινες, πρότερον οὐκ ὢν ὁ ἄνθρωπος, τότε πρῶτος πλασθεὶς εἰς κόσμον παρῆλθεν· οὔτε αὖ κόσμος πρὸ ἓξ ἡμερῶν τῆς τοῦ Ἀδὰμ γενέσεως ἤρξατο δημιουργεῖσθαι*: "Neither therefore did man, who was not before, come into the world created for the first time then from Adam, as some allege; nor, again, did the world begin to be created six days before Adam came into existence." Here he is not indeed a Pre-Adamite, as has been said, but...

he feigns nothing worse; for he asserts that other worlds existed before this one. Indeed, Methodius, in that place, discourses on the eternity of the universe.

QUESTION XIII.

I. Since the foundation of theology is Sacred Scripture, and heresies have arisen from almost perverse interpretations of the holy books, it is of the greatest importance to the Christian commonwealth to keep their meanings safe and sound, and to curb the license of certain men who permit themselves too much ingenuity in explaining it. This was the sole purpose of the ancient Fathers of the Church, as we understand from their perpetual skirmishes against the corrupters of Scripture; so much so that Origen, because in expounding the divine volumes he sometimes ruined or neglected the historical sense and obscured the truth of the matter with allegorical expositions, lived to see and experience the accusations of many, as he himself complains in Homily 13 on Genesis, no. 5: "If, therefore, I begin," he says, "to discuss the sayings of the ancients, and to seek the spiritual sense in them; if I have attempted to remove the veil of the Law and to show that what is written is allegorical, I am indeed digging ^B wells; but friends of the letter will immediately move slurs against me, and they will lie in wait for me, and they will immediately prepare hatreds and persecutions, denying that truth can stand unless it is upon the earth." And because this error is widespread and is, as it were, a crop of many errors, for that reason the fourth and sixth of the nine charges collected by Pamphilus in his *Apology* are found to relate to this. Theophilus also, in his first *Paschal Letter*, says: "What reason, what order of disputations led him to destroy the truth of the Scriptures with the shadows and hollow images of allegory?" — "The truth of history," says Epiphanius (Epist. to John of Jerusalem, ch. 2), "he destroys with the lie of allegory, and multiplies infinite words," which he also objects to him in *Heresy* LXIV, ch. 4, and adds that testimonies falsely affixed to sacred writers are brought forward by him for the defense of false opinions. For the same reason, Jerome blames him in Epistle 61 to Pammachius, ch. 5. But in ch. 10 of Daniel, he spared the name of Origen while refuting the matter itself. Basil also refutes him in Homily 9 on the *Hexaëmeron*, as do Chrysostom in Homily 13 on Genesis, Augustine in *De civitate Dei*, book 12, ch. 21, and in *De Genesi ad litteram*, book 8, ch. 1, Anastasius Sinaita in book 7 of his *Anagogical Contemplations*, Michael Glycas in his *Annals*, part 4, and Nicetas Choniates in the *Thesaurus orthodoxus*. See also, regarding these, the ^A ancient Eustathius of Antioch, who is older than all these, in his book *On the Engastrimuth*, whose attacks and assaults upon Origen we shall refute ^C below.

II. Let us see whether lawsuits against Origen were justly or unjustly brought. He often teaches indeed that the historical sense is to be trampled upon and scorned: as in book 6 *Against Celsus*, no. 70, "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life"; by 'letter' he designated the sensible interpretation of the divine Scriptures, and by 'spirit' the intelligible one. In the same place, no. 60 and 61, he reproves for ignorance those who think that God spent six literal days in creating things. And in book 7, no. 20, refuting Celsus, who argued that certain of Christ's institutions were contrary to the Mosaic Law, he replies that the law is twofold, one according to the letter, the other according to the intellect; the law which is *according to the literal sense* is called by Ezekiel "statutes that were not good, and ordinances that were not good," but the law which is *according to the understanding* is called by the same prophet "good statutes and good ordinances." The same in Homily 6 on Genesis, no. 3: "What edification will there be for us," he says, "in reading that Abraham, being a patriarch, not only lied to king Abimelech, but also betrayed the chastity of his wife? What edification is it to us that the wife of so great a patriarch is thought to be exposed to contamination through marital connivance? Let Jews think these things, and those who are with them, ^D 'friends of the letter,' not of the spirit." And in the following 10th Homily, no. 4: "I have often said that in these (passages) histories are not being told, but mysteries are being woven together." But in Homily 2 on Exodus, no. 1: "If what is written were to be taken according to the historical narrative, this which Scripture says, that the midwives did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded them, would seem to be impossible"; and a little later: "These things are meanwhile for those who are friends of the letter, and do not think that the Law is spiritual and to be understood spiritually. But we, who have learned that all things which are written were written not for the narratives of ancient events, but for our discipline and utility," etc.; and then, no. 2: "Because the midwives feared God, they made themselves houses." "Which statement can have no consistency according to the letter"; and later, no. 3: "Do not think, as we have often said, that fables of the ancients are being recited to you, but that you are being taught through these things so that you may recognize the order of life." In the following Homily, no. 2, he writes this: "And you, therefore, unless you ascend to the mountain of God, and there meet Moses—that is, unless you ascend to the lofty sense of the Law, unless you reach the summit of spiritual intelligence—your mouth is not opened by the Lord. If you stand in the humble place of the letter, and connect the text of history with Jewish narrations, you have not met Moses on the mountain of God, nor has God opened your mouth, nor instructed you as to what you ought to speak." Homily 11 on the same book, no. 2, you may also encounter such things as these: "If there is anyone... who in human things excels..."

reading Moses, murmurs against him, and finds displeasing the law as it is written according to the letter, because in many places it does not seem to preserve consistency, Moses shows him the rock, which is Christ, and leads him to it, so that he may drink from it and refresh his thirst." Homily 5 on Leviticus, no. 5, he says that the Jews uselessly and foolishly kept the ordinance by which the touch of unclean things and corpses is prohibited, and maintains that this is to be understood allegorically; this also he inculcates at length in Homily 7 on Leviticus, no. 4 and following. Furthermore, the same 3rd homily, no. 8, in expounding the precept of Leviticus which orders that a spotless ram for an involuntary sin be offered, bought with the holy shekel, declares it to be absurd according to the letter, and draws it toward a spiritual exposition. ^B Homily 4 on the command concerning unleavened bread, which the law decrees is to be sanctified for whoever touches it, says in no. 7: "Indeed, in no way does the nature of the thing or the truth of religion admit this; and therefore we must return to the evangelical and apostolic expositions, so that the law may be understood. For unless the Gospel takes the veil from the face of Moses, his countenance cannot be seen, nor can his sense be understood. See, therefore, how in the Church the disciples of the apostles are present to those things which Moses wrote, and defend them, because they can be fulfilled and were reasonably written; but the teachers of the Jews, following the letter, make these things both impossible and irrational." There are similar things found in Homily 9 on Joshua, no. 4. Moreover, he comments in Homily 5 on Leviticus, no. 4, on the precept of Moses concerning the sacrifice for sin, which exists in Leviticus V, 25 and following: "If we do not accept all these things in a sense other than that which the letter of the text shows, as we have already said many times, when they are read in the Church, they will provide an obstacle and a subversion to the Christian religion rather than an exhortation and edification." He adds afterwards that Scripture consists of body, soul, and spirit: the letter, indeed, in the sense that is found within it, and as a certain shadow of heavenly things; the body served as a use to those who preceded us, the soul to us, and the spirit to those who will attain the heavenly inheritance. Then, after many things interspersed, he says, no. 5: "For we have often said that a triple mode of understanding is found in the divine Scriptures: historical, moral, and mystical: whence we have understood that a body, a soul, and a spirit reside in it." But the most clear statement is what is read in Homily 7 on Leviticus, no. 5: "If we sit by the letter, and according to this, whether what the Jews believe or what is commonly seen, we accept what is written in the Law, I blush to say and confess that God gave such laws. For the laws of men, for example, of the Romans, or of the Athenians, or of the Lacedaemonians, will seem more elegant and reasonable. But if, according to this understanding which the Church teaches, the law of God is accepted, then clearly all ^C are believed to excel human laws, and to be truly the law of God." Homily 6 on Isaiah, no. 4, asserts there are some things held in the Gospels which, according to the letter, are false and mendacious; such as that which is said by the Savior: "If you have believed, not only what I do, you will do, but also greater things than these will you do"; but regarding the spiritual sense, he says that the apostles produced works greater than the works of Christ; for Christ healed men "corporally," they "spiritually." In Tome X on John, no. 2, he writes that the truth of the Gospels is preserved, and that their dissonance is solved only by anagogy; and in John II, 13 and following, no. 16, he doubts whether Christ really drove the money changers and merchants out of the temple, as the Gospels narrate: just as he conjectures that doves and turtledoves offered for Christ were something other than birds, namely, "a certain divine thing, and august to human contemplation" (Homily 14 on Luke). Moreover, a certain place of his in Genesis III, 21, is cited in the Catena, in which, after he has discoursed at length on skin tunics, he concludes thus: "It must be said that one ought not to cling to the letter of the Scripture as if it were true, but to seek the hidden treasure in the letter." ^D It should be said that one must not cling to the letter of the Scripture as if it were true, but the treasure hidden in the letter must be investigated. Finally, Socrates, however much he was a studious follower of the Origenian name, yet writes thus in Book V, chap. 21: "Whoever (Origen) was a wise teacher, and having seen that the impossibility of the Law of Moses is infirm when rendered according to the letter, he elevated the discourse concerning the Passover toward contemplation, saying that there is only one true Passover that has come into being, which the Savior performed, exerting force against the opposing powers by means of his converse at the cross, using this trophy against the devil." Which Epiphanius the Scholastic interprets thus: "Who, being a wise master, and considering that the impossibility of the Mosaic law according to the letter was weak, raised the reason of the Passover to the mode of contemplation, saying that one only true Passover came to be, which the Savior celebrated against contrary powers, when he took up the cross, and used this trophy against the devil." But since he consecrated almost the entire book *On First Principles*, no. 8 through no. 28, to this argument, I think it is worth the effort to bring here the summary of this chapter, which is written in the *Philocalia* in Greek. First, therefore, in order to construct the allegorical interpretation of Scripture, he chastises the ignorance of the Jews, to whom various prophecies of Scripture were a hindrance, because they could not accept Christ, for although allegorically they pertained to Christ, yet taking the same according to the letter, they thought they were not fulfilled in Jesus. He adds that this same method of interpreting Scripture compelled the Valentinians, Marcionites, and other heretics to admit a double God, one just, the maker of the world, another good.

He confesses, moreover, that many mysteries, indeed, and things wrapped in figures are contained in the Scriptures; which, however, it is unknown what they may be and of what sort; then he recounts some things which he contends abound with mysteries, in such a way that they do not seem in any way to repudiate the sense of the letter. He says that hidden and recondite senses are present not only in the books of the prophets, but also in the volumes of the New Testament. Then, he compares Scripture to man, who consists of body, soul, and spirit, consistent with a body—that is, a common and historical sense; also with a soul—namely, a more sublime sense; and finally with a spirit—namely, the most profound and recondite sense. ^B He then subjoins that sometimes the historical sense is not found, but only the soul and spirit, a fact he approves by various places in the Apostle; and that these are not manifest to all, but only to those who have been subjected to long study in the meditation of Scripture. He then says that the Holy Spirit, wishing to hand down mysteries to men, implicated them in the integuments of historical sense, which is only a storehouse and repository of more recondite doctrine: lest anyone should think that he might be free from the precepts of interior and occult doctrine, for this reason Divine Wisdom provided that certain obstacles, or gaps in understanding, should be created, that is, historical; by inserting some impossibilities and inconveniences in the middle, so that the very interruption of the narration might resist the reader as if by certain barriers, which might deny the path and passage of this common intelligence, ^C and so we might turn aside to another path, namely, one more lofty and eminent; there are, therefore, many such things in Scripture, “either things less done, or which could not be done at all; sometimes also things which could indeed be done, but yet were not done,” but especially in the Law, which has many things in which no reason for utility is shown at all; sometimes indeed impossible things are decreed; but also in the whole Old and New Testament. Hence, he touches upon various histories of Scripture, in which he affirms that the truth of the historical sense is sought in vain; in vain, for example, it is thought that the first three days since the world was founded were without sun, moon, and stars; and the first one even without heaven, which we have already discussed above: that it is also foolishly and insipidly believed that God planted trees in paradise, and that which is called of life, and that which contains the knowledge of good and evil; that God walked in the garden after midday, and that Cain went out from the face of God, things which have been almost handled by us: that many things of this kind can be gathered from the Scriptures, which are written indeed as if they were facts, yet they are not to be believed to have been able to be done competently and reasonably according to history: that of this kind is what the Gospel narrates, that Jesus was carried up by the devil to a high mountain, that he might show him all the kingdoms of the world ^D and that which Moses commands—that every male who had not been circumcised on the eighth day should be terminated; and that the goat-stag is held among clean animals, the griffin among unclean; since the latter cannot be captured by man, and the former does not even exist: although it is told by the ancients that griffins and goat-stags both exist and are captured; likewise, that on the Sabbath one should not move from one's place, nor lift a burden; and that which the Gospels contain: "Greet no one on the way"; that by no means should two tunics be had, nor sandals; that to him who strikes the right cheek, the left should be offered, for he says, "everyone who strikes with the right hand should strike the left cheek"; that the eye, which is an offense and a scandal, should be plucked out; that the severed foreskin should not be brought; all of which he writes are brought by him so that we may understand that not only things contrary to reason, but also things which could not be done at all, are contained in the letter. He subsequently subjoins that one should not therefore spurn every historical sense, since there are many more things which are consistent according to history than those which contain a bare spiritual sense; of which sort he commemorates some, for example, the precepts of the Decalogue. But then he says that much caution and diligence must be applied, so that the mystical sense may be discerned from the sense of the letter; then he proposes this note and rule useful for that purpose: as often as the prophets prophesy something concerning Jerusalem, or Judea, or Israel, or Jacob, this is to be referred anagogically, following Paul’s principle, to the heavenly Jerusalem, or Judea, or Israel, or Jacob; and in the same way also whatever has been predicted concerning Egypt, Babylon, Tyre, and Sidon: since there are, in heaven, places with the same names as these earthly ones, and inhabitants of those places, namely, souls. Finally, after many things, he concludes thus: "There are some things whose signification no one can properly explain at all in human language, but they are declared by a simpler understanding rather than by any properties of words." To which rule the understanding of the divine scriptures must also be retained, so that, namely, those things which are said are valued not for the utility of the discourse, but for the divinity of the Holy Spirit, who inspired them to be written.

III. (57-57) Origen did not bring in this manner of interpreting Scripture. Eusebius writes in book VI of his *Ecclesiastical History*, cap. 17, that Philo commemorates many things concerning the Therapeuts (who were Christian ascetics inhabiting Egypt); but especially that, that they were accustomed to spend entire days in the meditation of philosophy, and in explaining allegorically the precepts of wisdom handed down to them; because they thought words to be signs of hidden things, which must be dug out by the help of allegories: and that, moreover, these Therapeuts received this custom from their ancestors, who were the leaders of their sect, many

^A monuments of the doctrine placed in allegories they left behind. Eusebius says that Philo himself repeats this more clearly in these words, some things being interposed: "The explanations of the sacred Scriptures are for them [done] through under-meanings in allegories. For the entire legislation appears to these men like a living being; and it has as its body the literal words, but as its soul the invisible mind stored away within the words." They interpret sacred Scriptures figuratively through allegories. For indeed, the whole law seems to those men to be like a living creature; and the words themselves are the body, but the soul is the hidden and occult sense, which cannot be seen. Origen also made use of this similarity, as has been said above. Therefore, if we wish to stand by what Photius writes about Philo in codex 105: "From this, I think, every allegorical discourse of Scripture in the Church had its beginning to flow in"; and what Bellarmine states, that Philo was the first to expound the Scriptures of the Old Testament, is to be understood in this way: that Philo is the first of those whose expositions on the Old Testament have reached this age. Since, therefore, the ancient Therapeuts, pursuing the institutions of their ancestors, illustrated Scripture with allegorical explanations, it is probable that Philo himself received this custom from them, whose brilliant allegories on Scripture survive. Aristobulus also, a Jew older than Philo, had inserted allegories into his commentaries on the Pentateuch of Moses. But Porphyry, in the same Eusebius, *History* Book VI, chap. 49, reports that Origen, from the assiduous reading of the books of Chaeremon the Stoic and Cornutus, transferred this habit of allegories to the sacred Scriptures. Why should I not also say that he was impelled by the example of Metrodorus of Lampsacus, whom Tatian says brought all of Homer into allegories, and of Heraclides Ponticus, a writer of Homeric allegories? Indeed, besides the above, I consider Paul to have been the principal author for Origen, for which he pursued allegorical expositions: for in the Epistle to the Galatians, he inquires into what is said by way of allegory, which things are commemorated in Scripture concerning Isaac and Ishmael, the one born of the slave girl, the other of the free woman. Whence Origen, *Against Celsus*, Book IV, no. 44: "We are not the ones who teach that brides and handmaidens are to be led to tropology, but we have received it from above from wise men, one of whom, inciting the hearer to tropology, said: 'Tell me, ye who read the law, do you not hear the law?'" which words are found in Gal. IV, 21. Therefore, Origen was accustomed to defend his allegories with testimonies summoned from Paul; just as that one of Paul in 1 Cor. X, 4: "And they drank of the spiritual [rock] that followed them; but the rock was Christ," and that one in II Cor. III, 6. ^B "Who also hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth," and the rest in the chapter and what follows, from which he especially usurped that: "But we have this treasure in earthen vessels," and this also from Col. II, 16, 17: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holiday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths: which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ," and many others, which are recited in *De Principiis* Book IV, chap. 2, and *Against Celsus* Book IV, no. 44. John also, and even Christ the Lord Himself, taught that some things were to be drawn to allegory: relying on which examples, Origen could have hurried into allegories, if he had held to a limit. But Celsus was dragging interpretations of this kind into calumny, when he said that many things in the Scriptures are held to be little in accordance with the honesty of morals, and that a pretext of allegories is deliberately set up by Jews and Christians for these, when nevertheless they would reject all allegory, and they were mere fables. Origen responds to that opinion, [saying] that some histories embrace a historical sense, while others are written for the express purpose that they should be interpreted allegorically: to which he gives credence in many places of Scripture. Then, because Celsus had added that allegories written into sacred books are base and absurd, Origen suspects that this was cast into the commentaries of Philo or Aristobulus by an impure sophist, although many things were excerpted from there by Greek philosophers for their own uses: Numenius the Pythagorean also, in many parts of his writings, setting forth the things of Moses and the prophets, and not unpersuasively interpreting them tropologically. And I find that this had held the torch for Adamantius in interpreting Scripture allegorically. To which also the occasion presented by Marcion, that pestiferous heretic, with whom he was struggling in constant skirmishes, drove him: for when he was utterly excluding allegories from expositions of Scripture, in his zeal to oppose him, he followed all that was contrary, and deliberately indulged in allegories. This also can be conjectured to have been done against the followers of the letter from those things which he himself wrote in Homily 14 on Leviticus.

IV. (38) Yet to one unfolding his writings more carefully, many things will occur in which he preserves the dignity of the letter, and writes of it fairly and rightly; admitting the historical sense in some, the allegorical in more, and in many both. What was more usual for him, preaching to the people, than to place the interpretation of the letter as a foundation, as it were, for the mystical exposition? In his former homily on Genesis, numbers 14 and 15, discussing the 27th and 28th verses of the first chapter, he begins with the explanation of the letter and transitions to allegory. In the following homily, number 1, about to speak on the structure of the Noetic ark: "First of all," he says, "let us see what are related of it according to the letter, and proposing the questions which are usually raised by many," servat, etc. Vide, *Preface to our second volume*, article 8.

^A even the resolutions of these from those things which have been handed down to us by our predecessors, let us inquire; that when we have laid foundations of this kind, we may be able to ascend from the text of history to the mystical and allegorical sense of spiritual understanding, and to open anything that is contained hiddenly within them. In Homily 7 on Genesis, treating of Isaac and Ishmael, he relates that the Apostle judged their history should be interpreted allegorically; then he says in num. 2: "What then? Was not Isaac born according to the flesh? Did not Sarah bring him forth? Was he not circumcised? And this very thing, that he was playing with Ishmael, was he not playing in the flesh? For this is what is wonderful in the sense of the Apostle, that he says those things are allegorical, about which there can be no doubt that they were done according to the flesh: so that we may know what is to be done in other matters, and especially in those in which the historical narrative seems to suggest nothing worthy of divine law." In Homily 14 on Leviticus, num. 2: "When anyone reads the Scriptures, and follows the letter, but rejects the spiritual understanding, he has indeed an Israelite mother, that is, the letter; but because he does not follow the spiritual sense, but the carnal, the father of this one is an Egyptian." And presently: "But we, who are Israelites of both lines, defend both the letter and the spirit in the holy Scriptures." He indeed spent his whole homily on the treatment of that subject, which is the eleventh on Numbers, where, debating about the offering of first-fruits, he says in num. 1: "I think it is necessary that this law be observed also according to the letter, just as also some other things." Afterward he says thus: "There are those who say thus, that if anything at all must be observed according to the letter, why should not ^B all things be observed? But if things are to be referred to the spiritual understanding, which the law contains, nothing at all should be discerned according to the letter, but all things spiritually. But we, tempering the insolence of both assertions, will attempt to bring forward from the authority of the divine Scriptures what kind of rule should be observed in the sayings of the law of this kind." Then he says that there are in Scripture laws, commandments, justifications, precepts, testimonies, and judgments, distinct and diverse from one another, which are by no means to be mixed and confounded, although all these are sometimes signified by the single name of law: therefore, according to the Apostle, the law has a shadow of future good things (Hebr. x, 1), but the rest do not: "These things are therefore each one, which the Apostle says are by no means to be observed entirely according to the letter, generally all designated under the title of law among Moses; but those which are reckoned under the name of commandment, such as these: Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal (Rom. xiii, 9), and others of this kind, are to be observed according to the letter; for 'what need is there to seek into allegory, when even the letter edifies?'" Thence he concludes thus: "We have shown, therefore, that there are some things which are by no means to be observed according to the letter of the law, and there are some things which allegory by no means ought to change, but in every way, ^C as they are contained by the Scriptures concerning these things, [they] are to be observed." Afterward he shows that some things are to be observed according to the letter, yet [one should] embrace the allegorical sense, such as that: "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh" (Genes. ii, 24), which, according to the Apostle, contains both mysteries, and is to be observed according to the letter. In this same census he places those things which Paul referred to allegory that were handed down in the Scriptures concerning Ishmael and Isaac, and those which are sanctioned concerning the offering of first-fruits. Finally, he adds: "We have shown (as I think) by the authority of divine Scripture, from those things which are written in the law, that some things are entirely to be avoided, and to be guarded against so that they are not observed according to the letter by the disciples of the Gospel; but some things are to be held in every way, as they are written; but others, while having a truth of their own according to the letter, yet profitably and necessarily receive also an allegorical sense." And he leaves the discretion of these to the discerning interpreter of the Scriptures. It is certain that in most places the sacred Codices admit both senses, as Paul himself is witness (I Cor. x, 1, and Galat. iv, 24), and it is also certain that in some only the allegory is to be sought; whatever some scholastics may allege to the contrary; as when Christ speaks of his own voluntary castration: and in those it is true what Jerome says in *Apology 1 against Rufinus*, cap. 6: "When I say a tropical understanding, I teach that what is said is not true, but is figured by the cloud of allegory." But some think that no other sense exists in them than the historical. But Origen, even if he thinks that this sense alone is to be sought in some, yet does not believe that even these are devoid of ^D mysteries; for this is his pronouncement in homily 1 on Exodus, num. 4: "I, believing in the words of my Lord Jesus Christ, do not think that in the law and the prophets one iota or one tittle is empty of mysteries, nor do I think that any of these can pass away until all things are fulfilled." Whence in the book *On First Principles*, num. 26 and 27, he declares that most of the mysteries of the Holy Scripture are unknowable to men. A very few indeed, but sufficiently suited to purge Origen, the author of the Apology brought forth from book 4 of *On First Principles*, cap. 2, taken in great part, in which he proclaims that the histories of the Old Testament are not fictitious, but true, and to be necessarily admitted by those who desire to obtain salvation. What of the fact that he often searches for the historical, mystical, and moral exposition in Scripture; as in homily 17 on Genesis, discussing the blessings of the patriarchs: "Which matter," he says in num. 4, "subjects to us a tripartite (as we have done in others) matter of explanation, so that the blessings may keep the place of history, but prophecy the mystical and dogmatic, and the correction and rebuke of morals may direct the moral style: and he pursues this triple explanation in the rest of the homily." Which things indeed for the sake of Origen, by translators

^A of his works, are shown to have been falsely and spuriously manipulated—lest you cause scandal: for behold, I place before you, in Tome XV on Matthew, no. 15, page 672, that saying of Christ: "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have, and give to the poor," ^B where he forbids the turning of this to allegory, spurning the letter, and, lest anyone dare to attempt this, he deters them with certain histories of the heathens.

V. (39) These things having been observed, it is now easy to judge whether Eustathius of Antioch—who, more sharply than the rest, inveighed against Origen’s allegories in his *Diagnostic on the Ventriloquist*—has vexed Origen with a fair censure. And he complains, first, that he, who was otherwise accustomed to distorting all other things with allegories, had explained to the letter those gods whom the Pythoness said she saw ascending from the earth (I Reg. xxviii, 13). Certainly, regarding that summoning of Samuel, many have handed down the same thing that Origen did, as we shall say below. In the fact, however, that he thought an angel ascended along with him, he is also supported by the votes of many who attach *psychopompic* angels to souls, just as we showed above. He therefore offered here no handle for biting him. His defense would be more difficult if he had objected to what is usually objected to by many: namely, that he dragged almost everything into an allegorical sense, except for that saying of the Savior’s, where He recommends his own voluntary castration for the sake of attaining the heavenly kingdom, and that where He says only one tunic is to be kept, shoes are to be cast away, and that there is no need to look out for the morrow; ^C things which, nevertheless, most of all demanded an allegorical interpretation. Yet the rash heat of youth is an excuse for that, during which he attempted such things; but that he changed his mind in later years is persuaded to me by the fact that he condemned voluntary castration in Tome XV on Matthew, no. 2, page 653, as has been noted by us elsewhere.

Eustathius demands another thing: that he abolished the earthly paradise and the fruitful trees of paradise by allegorical exposition. Almost everyone whose condemnation of his allegorical interpretations we have noted has accused him of this very thing. But Philo the Jew, from whose books *De opificio mundi* and *Legum allegoriae* 1 he borrowed his opinion on paradise, acts as his patron. Eustathius’s following cavil is futile regarding the word *myth*, by which Origen called the history of paradise, since grammarians know that by the name "myth," things actually done are also signified, just as by the name of "histories," fables are sometimes understood. Propertius, book IV, Elegy 1: "Thus far history," when he had pursued the fables of Troy. ^D Eustathius continues to complain that he derived the wells dug by Abraham into an allegory, which nevertheless still existed in his own age. But even that last point refutes his unjust accusation sufficiently; for these wells could not have been unknown to Origen, who spent so many years in Judea; yet we believe that the man, cast forth by shame, meant to affirm: *Could he have asserted that the affairs of Isaac and Rebecca were counterfeit and fictitious?*

Furthermore, he reports that he changed the events of Isaac and Rebecca. Certainly, Origen has this in Homily 10 on Genesis, which Eustathius seems to have designated here, no. 4: "I have often said that in these things, histories are not being told, but mysteries are being woven together": which I understand in this way—that while histories are indeed being told, the point is not so much that, as that mysteries are being woven together; since in Homily 15, no. 4, on Genesis, he asserts that Scripture does not serve historical narratives so much as it serves mystical matters and senses. If he felt otherwise, I approve Eustathius’s complaint. I would also like that saying to be quoted regarding those things which he says are the same sins concerning the history of Job. But it is altogether unjust and inept what he adds, that Origen wrongly changed Lazarus—whom Christ loved for his virtue—in an allegorical interpretation into a man laboring under sins. Let the reader consult Tome XXXVII on John, no. 6, and he will discover Origen immune from blame: for after he explained the history of Lazarus according to the letter at length, he adds that by this, those men are signified who, having committed sins, fall away from the friendship previously contracted with Jesus, who is the life of the soul, and having been roused again by the new aids of grace, recover it. But it is one thing to labor under sins, and another to bear the image of a man laboring under sins; Origen attributes the latter to Lazarus, but the former not at all. Furthermore, I have no answer to what follows, in which Adamantius is accused of having denied, against the authority of the Gospel, that the Jews threw stones at Christ, and of having twisted the matter to a tropology: for with the antiquity of the Commentaries on John having diminished, that part in which this Gospel narrative is explained has fallen away. How, therefore, it was received by Origen, is uncertain. Finally, it is grievous to Eustathius that Adamantius sometimes runs off into allegories by means of arguments taken from the interpretation of names, since two men most often bearing the same name are deeply discordant in their morals and way of life. But it is not so true that Origen fetches allegories from there, as it is that he seeks to confirm by this extraneous argument—however light—allegories sought from elsewhere.

QUESTION XIV

COMPRISING SEVERAL SMALL QUESTIONS AS IF BY A MISCELLANY.

1. It is asked concerning the power conceded to priests. II. His opinion on the Eucharist is examined. III. Certain of his dogmas on matrimony are noted. IV. It is explored whether he favored magical arts: V. and what he determined concerning the ventriloquist; VI. whether concerning a lie, VII. and concerning swearing an oath. 1. A dispute concerning the power of priests, according to Origen’s opinion, commences this question. He writes in Tome XII on Matthew, no. 14, page 531, that bishops have the power of the keys, etc. See again the Preface to the second volume, article 8.

and what has been bound or loosed by them on earth is bound and loosed in heaven, provided they emulate the virtues of Peter: but if they are held bound by the chains of their own sins, it is in vain for them to bind or loose. And if, though inferior to Peter in merits and piety, they nevertheless hope that what they have bound and loosed on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven, it is right to say they are ignorant of the meaning of the Scriptures and are blinded by pride. Sixtus Senensis, in Book VI, annotation 70, notes on this passage that Origen alludes to an error subsequently championed by the Hussites, who wished to make the power of the Pope and bishops dependent upon the holiness of their conduct, so that whenever they sinned and became unlike Peter, they at once lost his authority; and that this was condemned by the Council of Trent, sess. 14, can. 10, in these words: "If anyone shall say that priests who are in mortal sin do not have the power of binding and loosing, let him be anathema." ^B I concur with Sixtus and say that Origen errs, and seems to embrace this heresy, in which the Donatists later became involved, when they suspended the power of the Church upon the holiness of its priests. Yet these words can admit of a favorable interpretation. He says that bishops arrogantly claim for themselves the power of binding or loosing, which was granted primarily to Peter, unless they flourish in the same holiness and justice as Peter: that is, unless they apply the same justice in binding and loosing that Peter did. Since, therefore, Peter used his authority so holily that he absolved from sins only those who had deserved it by their repentance and piety, and bound only those who were guilty; if any bishop, unlike Peter, should abuse his power by binding the innocent or absolving the unworthy, the matter will not stand the same way in heaven. Origen is supported in this by that passage of Jerome in Book III on Matthew 16:19: "Bishops and presbyters, not understanding this passage, assume for themselves something of the pride of the Pharisees, so that they either condemn the innocent or think themselves able to loose the guilty, whereas before God it is not the sentence of the priests that is sought, but the life of the accused." He calls those "guilty" who, implicated in sins, are touched by no repentance for their crimes: otherwise, no one can be loosed unless he is guilty.

^C Origen asserts further in Tome XIII on Matthew, no. 31, page 613, that the power of binding and loosing was granted by Christ to all who have three times rebuked the guilty. Thus in Tome XII, no. 10, page 524, he says that every disciple of Christ is the rock upon which the Church of Christ is built; that the keys of heaven are given to every perfect one; and that whatever Christ promised to Peter, he would eventually grant to whoever showed himself to be like Peter. That these latter points, however, were spoken allegorically rather than dogmatically is proved by what follows: "If anyone says this ('You are the Christ, the Son of the living God') to him (Christ), not because flesh and blood have revealed it to him, but the Father who is in heaven, he shall obtain what was said," as the letter of his Spirit teaches, to everyone who becomes like that Peter. The following passages show the same thing, in which he says that the gates of hell are sins, that heresies are demons, and that the kingdoms of heaven are virtues. However, in the former passage which we praised, although he concedes the power of binding and loosing to all who have three times rebuked sinners, he nonetheless wishes it to have been granted to Peter in a special manner, with a fuller power and a stronger right, since he affirms that while others can bind and loose only in one heaven, Peter ^D can do so in all. Add that similar locutions occur frequently among the Fathers, which likewise must be brought back to a correct interpretation. Irenæus, Book IV, cap. 20: "All the just have a priestly order." Tertullian, in his book *De exhortatione castitatis*, cap. 7: "Are we not also, who are laymen, priests? It is written: 'He has made us a kingdom and priests to God and His Father.'" Gregory of Nyssa in his book *De perfectione*: "Through this and such things, we too shall be a rock, imitating, as far as is possible in a mutable nature, that which is constant and immutable." By these and similar things we too shall be a rock, imitating, as far as it is possible to do so, what is constant and immutable in a mutable nature. Ambrose, *Comment. in Luc. IX*: "He who has conquered the flesh is the foundation of the Church, and if he cannot be made equal to Peter, he can imitate him." Then: "Great is the grace of Christ, who granted almost all His titles to His disciples. 'I am,' He says, 'the light of the world'; and yet He granted the name He himself glories in to His disciples, saying: 'You are the light of the world.' 'I am the living bread,' and 'We all are one bread.' 'I am the true vine,' and to you He says: 'I have planted you as a fruitful vine, every true one.' Christ is the rock (for they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them; and the rock was Christ); He did not deny the grace of this title to His disciple, so that he too might be Peter, because he has from the rock the solidity of constancy, the firmness of faith. Strive therefore that you too may be a rock." Augustine, Book II *Quæst. evang.*, cap. 40: "Hardly any of the faithful doubts that the priesthood of the Jews was a figure of the royal priesthood which is in the Church, by which all who belong to the body of Christ, the high and true prince of priests, are consecrated. For now all are anointed, which then was done only for kings and priests. And what Peter says, writing to the Christian people: 'A royal priesthood'; he declared that both names fit that people to whom that anointing pertained." Augustine *de verbo Domini*, homil. XV, Theophylact in Matthew 18:18, and Anastasius Nicenus, quæst. 61, also wish the power of binding and loosing to be common to all those who reproach their sinning brothers.

This constitutes that passage of Origen concerning the Eucharist, which is here

^A in the tenth volume of his Commentary on Matthew, number 14, page 498, we present. The sum of it is this: Someone objects to him, saying that, since according to Christ’s pronouncement, what enters the mouth does not defile a man, therefore what enters the mouth does not make a man holy, even though simpler people think otherwise regarding the bread of Christ. Origen answers that just as food does not defile the one eating it, but rather the conscience of the one who eats with doubt; and just as for an impure man nothing is clean, not of itself, but because of the impurity of this impure man; so too, that which has been consecrated by the word of God and prayer does not of itself make the one eating it holy—otherwise it would also confer holiness on him who eats it while defiled by sins—but rather, the benefit is gained from it when it is received with a pure mind and an intact conscience. Nor are we defrauded or increased in any good thing by abstaining from this bread or by eating it, but only if we are wicked or righteous, as Paul says (I Cor. VIII, 8): *For neither if we have eaten shall we abound; nor if we have not eaten shall we be deficient.* He adds further that, just as what enters the mouth is sent down into the stomach and afterwards cast out into the draught, so the consecrated bread, according to the fact that there is material inherent in it, is sent down into the stomach and cast out into the draught; but through the prayer that has been added to it, it becomes useful to the one eating it according to the measure of his faith; and it is not the substance of the bread, but the word pronounced over it, that helps him who does not eat it unworthily. Finally, he calls that bread a typical and symbolic body. The rest pertains to the spiritual eating of the body of Christ, not the sacramental, as was thought by Vincent of Beauvais, *Speculum doctrinale*, lib. XVII, cap. 43, who blames Origen undeservedly for this reason. The exposition of this passage according to the doctrine of the Church is easy: for, in order for one to take help from the eating of the body of Christ, the eating itself is not sufficient, but an intact and undefiled mind is required in addition; otherwise, he who approaches the sacrament of the altar polluted by sins eats and drinks judgment upon himself. Therefore, it does not confer holiness upon the eater by itself and simply, but only if a certain faith and a pure spirit are applied by the eater. Similarly, regarding a man abstaining from this sacrament, whether because he is not yet sufficiently approved to himself, or because he has not yet reached the proper age, or for any other legitimate reason, he does not receive detriment from this abstinence; nay, Origen even says that he is not deprived of any good thing thereby; which I understand thus: when a man is not yet sufficiently approved to himself, or is conscious of some crime in himself, if he were to approach the sacrament of the altar, he would eat and drink judgment upon himself, and would be the cause of the death of his soul by this eating and drinking, let alone receive any fruit from it. Therefore, it follows that if, fearing these things, he abstains from the sacrament, he is not deprived of any good thing, so long as he does not take the body of Christ; for he would have received only evil ^B if he had taken it. But the material of that part of bread which he says is cast into the draught—these are the accidents adhering to the material of the bread and proper to it, which, corrupted by the stomach and converted into a new substance, either pass out into the draught or take on the form of the human body. As for that prayer which makes the bread useful to those who eat it, and the word pronounced over the bread, what else should I say they are, than those mystical words by which the bread is consecrated, and which some Fathers call an *euchē* and a mystical prayer? Because they involve a prayer, even if not expressed, by which the priest asks God that, by the mystical words proclaimed by him, the same thing might be done which He did of old when He proclaimed them Himself. And through these, although the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ is brought about, those accidents do not help the eater in the least, but through those mystical words it comes about that we are helped by the eating of the body of Christ. Finally, he calls it a typical and symbolic body, perhaps because it hides under the species and likeness of bread; and although it is in reality the body of Christ, it appears to be the type and symbol of bread: which is the same as if he had said "sacramental," because we do not touch the naked body of Christ, but wrapped under symbols. Wherefore, in Homily 7 on Leviticus, number 5, Adamantius discourses thus: *There is also in the New Testament a letter that kills, for him who does not attend to what is said spiritually. For if you follow according to the letter this very thing which has been said: "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood"; this letter kills.* He orders these things to be understood spiritually, because Christ ordains that his flesh be eaten and his blood be drunk sacramentally, not in the way we grind other flesh with our teeth. Nor does the force of this response suffer any damage from Edmund Albertinus (40), when he says that Origen denies there that the flesh of Christ is eaten according to the letter; yet whoever eats the flesh of Christ, even if he does not eat it in its proper species and figure, does nonetheless eat the flesh of Christ according to the letter. For I deny that he who does not eat it in its proper species and figure eats the flesh of Christ according to the letter: for to eat according to the letter is to eat in such a way as we are accustomed to eat food—namely, to insert it into the mouth, to grind it with teeth, to turn it with the tongue, to taste it with the palate, to swallow it down the throat, to digest it once sent down into the stomach, to separate it in the intestines from refuse, and to distribute it as nourishment for the body. In this sense, since the flesh of Christ is not eaten by us in any way, it is surely not eaten according to the letter, but sacramentally. Or else, Origen calls the eucharistic bread a typical and symbolic body to this extent, not in that it is the type and symbol of an absent body of Christ, as Edmund Albertinus and other heterodox persons with him wish, but in that, while it is in reality the body of Christ, it is the type and symbol of other things, for instance of itself outside

the sacrament, as it was formerly on the cross, and as it is now in heaven; or of our resurrection, according to the Nicene Council; or of that one body, of which he (the Savior) exists as the head, and to which he wished us to be bound, as members, by the most strict connection of faith, hope, and charity, according to the Tridentine Fathers; or of faith and promise, according to Clement of Alexandria.

Similar turns of phrase of Origen, in which certain things are called symbolic, or are said to be such and such symbolically, thoroughly confirm this explanation—not that they are not in reality such and such, but that, while they are indeed such and such in reality, they are nevertheless symbols of other things. Thus, in Book XXXII on John, no. 13, he says that John reclined symbolically in the bosom of Christ: not that he did not in reality recline in the bosom of Christ, but that that reclining was a symbol of the inclined affection and ready faith that John bore toward Christ. Similarly, in the same book, no. 16, he says that it was night symbolically when Judas went out to betray Jesus; not that it was not in reality night, for John indeed writes that it was night, chap. XIII, ver. 30, but that that night was a symbol of the other night that was brooding over the mind of Judas. Moreover, in Book XIV on Matthew, no. 22, page 646, he says that Paul ordered that a bishop, a priest, and a deacon—whom he wishes to have been symbols of true things—should be monogamous symbolically; not that he does not want them to be monogamous in reality, for in this passage he sufficiently teaches that they ought to be such, but that that monogamy is a symbol of the purity of soul which those who administer sacred things ought to maintain. The same author, furthermore, in Book XVI on Matthew, no. 3, page 711, calls the high priest of the Jews symbolic; not that he was not in reality a priest—for who would deny this?—but that he was a symbol of the true priest, Christ. In the same place, he calls the sacrifices of the Mosaic law symbolic: not that they were not in reality sacrifices, but that they were symbols of the sacrifices which are made for sins. Finally, he adds that, when the true Jerusalem—namely, the heavenly one—received the carried Jesus, that is to say, in his body, then the Jerusalem which is a shadow was dissipated: calling it a shadow because he had called it a symbol.

^A That the lower Jerusalem, the earthly one, in truth was not Jerusalem; but that it was a shadow and symbol of the heavenly Jerusalem. In the same way, therefore, when he calls the body of Christ symbolic and typical, he does not deny that the body of Christ is there in reality, but he means that the body of Christ present there is a symbol and type of other things, namely of those which we have mentioned, for instance of itself outside ^B the sacrament. This is sufficiently indicated by Origen, when he immediately subjoins: "Much could also be said regarding the Word himself, who became flesh and true food," etc., in which he discourses on the body of Christ outside the sacrament. No solution better or more solid than the one we give can be devised for this passage, inasmuch as it is taken from similar testimonies of the same writer and clearly declares his own mind. In vain, therefore, have many heterodox persons of these times tried to extract support for their cause from the preceding words of Adamantius concerning the Eucharist. In vain also did Sixtus of Siena suspect the passage had been corrupted by heretics (Biblioth. lib. vi, annot. 66). In vain did Genebrard and Perronius conjecture that it had been corrupted by the translator Erasmus; since the consensus of the Greek manuscripts clearly proves the integrity of the passage.

Besides those two testimonies of Origen, by which he has seemed to have thought incorrectly concerning the sacrament of the Eucharist, Peter Martyr brings forward four others of the same kind in his book against Gardiner, from which he thinks his cause is not a little confirmed. The former passage is taken from Homily 16 on Numbers, no. 9: "We are said to drink the blood of Christ, not only in the rite of the sacraments, but also when we receive his discourses, in which life consists, as he himself says: The words which I have spoken are spirit and life." But that is ^C manifestly for the Catholic cause, for he separates the sacramental drinking of the blood of Christ from the other, by which the word of Christ is drunk by the ears and the mind, in a spiritual manner. (41) Nor is this other passage from Treatise 35 on Matthew, no. 85, page 898, of any more value for the side of the adversaries. This bread which God the Word confesses to be his body, the word when he says: "For God the Word did not call that visible bread, which he held in his hands, his body, but the Word, in whose mystery that bread was to be broken. Nor did he call that visible drink his blood, but the Word, in whose mystery that drink was to be poured out. For what else can the body of God the Word, or his blood, be, if not the Word that nourishes, and the Word that gladdens the heart?" For here Origen, with certain ancients, distinguishes three things in the Eucharist: namely, the external species subject to the senses; the substance lying within, and viewable only by the contemplation of faith; and a certain mystical ^D signification of the sacrament. He looks to the external part, appearing to the eyes and touched by the hands of Christ.

(41) Nor is this other passage from Treatise 35 on Matthew of any more value for the side of the adversaries. "This bread, which God the Word confesses to be his body, the word..." The things which we have restored to the text hereafter by the authority of the manuscript codices do not favor the heterodox: "For God the Word did not call that visible bread, which he held in his hands, his body, but the Word, in whose mystery that bread was to be broken. Nor did he call that visible drink his blood, but the Word, in whose mystery that drink was to be poured out. For what else can the body of God the Word, or his blood, be, if not the Word that nourishes, and the Word that gladdens the heart?" For here Origen, with certain ancients, distinguishes three things in the Eucharist: namely, the external species subject to the senses; the substance lying within, and viewable only by the contemplation of faith; and a certain mystical signification of the sacrament. He explicitly designates the substance lying hidden under the external appearance both by these preceding words: "This bread which God the Word confesses to be his body... and this drink which God the Word confesses to be his blood," and by these of the following article: "And he shows (Jesus) when he nourishes them (the disciples) with this bread, that it is his own body... Then he taught the disciples, who... had eaten the body of the Word," etc. Finally, he discourses throughout the whole article concerning the mystical signification of the sacrament, interpreting the words of the institution of the Eucharist allegorically concerning the Word of God, which, like that heavenly bread and drink, nourishes and gladdens, gives to drink and inebriates the hearts of those who drink in a splendid manner. Saint Augustine, in sermon 272, to the Infants, discourses of the sacrament of the altar in almost the same way as Origen here: "What

1081 ORIGENIANORUM LIB. II, CAP. II, QUÆST. XIV.

is the nourishment of souls, the Word proceeding from the Word-God, and the bread from the heavenly bread, etc., to which it is possible to find parallels in Homily 7 on Leviticus, no. 3, utilized by Hermann Bodius in his *Collectanea* against the Catholic doctrine: for if we must take this according to the letter, as the martyr [Peter Martyr Vermigli] wishes it to be taken, how is that bread which was offered to Christ at supper, broken and distributed to the disciples, and which Christ said was His own body, nothing other than the Word, the nourisher of souls, as Bodius contends? How does that bread, according to the fact that it consists of material substance, go into the belly and is cast out into the draught, as we noted above that the martyr objected from Origen's Tome XI on Matthew, no. 14, if that bread "is the Word, the nourisher of souls"? Assuredly, this whole dissertation of Origen on that bread in [Tract] 55 on Matthew is allegorical. Nor is it any more valid, what the martyr concludes from this, that the bread is the body of Christ, when Origen wrote: "This bread, which the Word-God confesses to be His body." For the bread is called the body of Christ because it was bread, and now also, while it is the body of Christ, it bears the appearance of bread. Hence it is also called ἄρτος ἁγιαζόμενος, the consecrated bread, that is, if I may speak ^B so, bread transubstantiated into the body of Christ.

Truly the meaning of the third passage is most clear, so that it is in vain for the martyr to attempt to corrupt it with a perverse explanation. Such is that [passage] in Homily 9 on Leviticus, no. 10: "The rite of propitiation, indeed, which was performed among the ancients for men before God, as it was celebrated ^C you see, he says, it is bread and the chalice, which even your eyes report to you: but that which your faith demands to be instructed about, the bread is the body of Christ, the chalice the blood of Christ. This is briefly said, which may perhaps suffice for faith: but faith desires instruction. For the Prophet says: *Unless you believe, you shall not understand* (Isa. VII, 9). For such a thought can arise in the mind of anyone... how is the bread His body? And the chalice, or what the chalice contains, how is it His blood? These things, brethren, are therefore called sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, another is understood. What is seen has a bodily appearance: what is understood has spiritual fruit. If, therefore, you wish to understand the body of Christ, hear the Apostle saying to the faithful: *But you are the body of Christ and members* (I Cor. XII, 27). If, therefore, you are the body of Christ and members, your mystery is placed on the Lord's table: you receive your mystery. To that which you are, you answer Amen, and by answering you subscribe. You hear, [it is] the body of Christ; and you answer, Amen. Be a member of the body of Christ, that the Amen may be true. Why, therefore, in the bread? Let us bring nothing of our own here: let us hear the Apostle himself, who, when he spoke of that sacrament, said: *We being many are one bread, one body* (I Cor. X, 17); understand and rejoice; unity, truth, piety, charity. *One bread*; who is this one bread? *We being many are one body*. Recall that the bread is not made from one grain, but from many. When you were exorcised, it was as if you were ground. When you were baptized, it was as if you were kneaded. When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, it was as if you were baked. Be what you see, and receive what you are. This the Apostle said concerning the bread: now what we should understand about the ^D chalice, it sufficiently shows. For just as, in order for there to be the visible species of bread, many grains are kneaded into one, just as that comes to pass which the Holy Scripture says of the faithful: *There was to them one soul and one heart in God* (Acts IV, 32): so also it is concerning wine. Brethren, recall how wine is made. Many grapes hang in a cluster, but the liquid of the grapes is confounded in unity. So also the Lord Christ signified us, He willed us to belong to Him; He consecrated the mystery of our peace and unity on His table. This much only do Augustine and Origen differ, because the one directs the symbolic signification of the Eucharistic mystery to the unity of the faithful in one and the same mystical body of Christ, the other, however, to the Word of God. Each of them touches upon the very nature of the sacrament, which is sufficiently known to the faithful, only lightly and as it were in passing, uniquely attentive to opening up the mystical reasons. With these things premised, I do not see what the heterodox can extract from this allegory of Origen to confirm their cause. For if any sense other than the allegorical is excluded here, the Calvinist [doctrine] of the figure, type, virtue, and efficacy of the body of Christ is certainly excluded. If, however, another sense is supposed, it is certainly the literal sense of the Catholics, which Adamantius expresses clearly enough with the words just cited; not the sense of the Calvinists, of which there is not even the slightest trace there. Furthermore, that Origen recognized another sense besides the allegorical concerning the Word of God is clear from Homily 16 on Numbers. "We are said," he says, "to drink the blood of Christ, not only in the rite of the sacraments, but also when we receive His discourses, in which life consists, just as He Himself says: *The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life* (John VI, 64)."

^A Christians do not refer these things to demons, but to God the Creator of all things, and receive them with thanksgiving; and through prayer a certain holy body is made for them, one which makes those holy who use it with a sound purpose. These things seem not at all to pertain to the Eucharist. Albertinus himself admits this. But if anyone should contradict, I would not only disagree, but I would maintain that the doctrine of the Church is confirmed by these things; for he says that the loaves are made a holy body through prayer—that is, through mystical words—and that it makes those who use it with a sound purpose holy; namely, the body of Christ.

Martyr comes to the conflict, following up with Albertinus, in *De sacrament. Euchar.* lib. II, in *Exam. testim. Origen.* Having warmed up again some scattered testimonies already drawn from Origen by Martyr, he adds four of his own, which must be recalled to our scale. The first is found in Tom. XXXII in *Joh.*, num. 16, where, discoursing on the morsel ^B of Judas offered by Jesus, he wishes it to be understood that a certain force and virtue had been infused into it by Christ, which could have been useful to Judas had not Satan forestalled the morsel, and, occupying the heart of the betrayer, hindered him from enjoying its beneficial power. Then he illustrates this with a double example: the first is of the body and blood of Christ, which are useful or harmful according to the piety or wickedness of him who receives them; the second is of that common bread by which we are nourished, and which, according to the condition of the eater, confers health and vigor if taken by a healthy body, or disease if taken by one who is feverish and infirm. The passage is conceived thus: "And so it may not unreasonably be said in this place that, just as he who eats the bread of the Lord unworthily, or drinks His cup, eats and drinks unto judgment—the one greater power in the bread and in the cup, being present with a better disposition, working that which is better, but with a worse disposition causing judgment—so the morsel from Jesus was ^C of the same kind (*homogenes*) as that given to the rest of the apostles in *Take, eat*, but to those it brought salvation, while to Judas it brought judgment, inasmuch as Satan had entered into him with the morsel." Let the bread and the cup be understood by the simpler folk according to the more common acceptance regarding the Eucharist; but by those who have learned to hear more deeply, according to the more divine, and concerning the promise of the *Logos* who is the nourishment of truth; as if I were to say by way of example, that even the bread which is most nourishing corporeally increases an underlying fever, but restores health toward well-being.

^D And so, after the morsel, Satan entered into him. However, let this bread and this cup be considered by the simpler folk according to the more common understanding of the Eucharist, that is, of thanksgiving: but those who have learned to understand these things more deeply should consider that this has been said according to the more divine promise also concerning the *Logos*, and the Word of truth providing nourishment more abundantly, just as if by way of example I should say that bread, as concerns the body, provides most abundant nourishment, yet increases a lurking fever, when on the contrary it should restore to health a good condition of the body. From these things Albertinus reasons thus: The morsel offered to Judas was of the same kind as the eucharistic bread, according to Origen: *homogenes* to that given to the apostles; but that morsel was mere bread: therefore that [eucharistic bread] was also mere bread. But that subtle disputer should have attended to the fact that the things which are assumed as an example ought to agree in the respect for which the comparison is instituted, though they may differ in other things—that is, in part being of the same kind (*homogenes*), and in part of a different kind (*heterogenes*); but here the comparison is instituted by Origen between the morsel offered to Judas and the eucharistic bread, not to explain the nature of the bread offered to Judas, but to declare its effect, and its power of helping or hurting according to the condition of the receiver: and thus it is *homogenes*, regarding that efficiency which is asked about in this place; but *heterogenes* regarding nature, about which no dispute at all has been held here. The hem of the garment of Christ, which healed the woman with the issue of blood, had drawn virtue from the contact of the sacred body of Christ, just like the morsel offered to Judas by Jesus. The contact of the hem could be useful or harmful according to the piety or wickedness of the one touching. With equal right, therefore, could Origen compare the contact of the hem with the eating of the eucharistic bread; for both agreed in this, that according to the condition of the one touching and eating, they could be wholesome or damnable; in other things they differed. If he had done this, he could surely have called both *homogenes*, namely regarding that power and efficiency; not regarding nature. You may say the same of the morsel assimilated to the eucharistic bread. Otherwise, when Origen said that the morsel offered to Judas was similar to that bread by which we sustain life—that is, *homogenes*—in this, namely, that as that can procure strength for the soul, so it [the bread] can for the body according to the condition of the eater, or [can cause] disease; I would certainly conclude that our bread by which we are nourished possesses the same virtue as that morsel to which Christ infused a peculiar power by His own touch: which is absurd. What if, besides, we say that Origen supposed that morsel to have been the very eucharistic bread offered to Judas? Truly, this passage has nothing contrary to this opinion, which both Cyril in *Joh. VI* and Anastasius Sinaita in *Orat. De synaxi* have embraced. If that be so, the eucharistic bread and the morsel offered to Judas would clearly have been *homogenes*, both regarding efficiency and regarding nature.

We apply almost the same explanation.

^A of another passage from Homily 7 on Leviticus, number 1, which deals with the precept given to Aaron and the priests, that they should not drink wine when about to approach the altar. Since the Law is a shadow of the good things to come (Hebr. X, 1), Origen, scrutinizing what is signified by this Law, judged Christ to be this High Priest, and the apostles to be the priests. He thought that Christ, when He was about to approach the altar—that is to say, the Cross—did not drink wine at the Last Supper, being led by these words of Mark XIV, 25: *Amen I say to you, that I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine, until the day that I shall drink it new in the kingdom of my Father*; but that the apostles did drink wine, because they were not yet about to approach the altar of the Cross. Here for you are the very words: "Let us see how we may apply this to our true High Priest, Christ the Lord, and to His priests and sons, or rather to our apostles, etc. We inquire, therefore, how our Lord and Savior, who is the true High Priest, with His disciples, who are the true priests, drinks wine before He approaches the altar of God; but when He begins to approach, He does not drink. The Savior had come into this world to offer His own flesh as a sacrifice to God for our sins. Before He offered this, during the intervals of the dispensations, He drank wine: in fact, He was called a glutton and a drinker of wine, a friend of publicans and sinners" (Matth. XI, 19). "But when the time of His cross arrived, and He was about to approach the altar where He would immolate the sacrifice of His flesh, *Taking the chalice*, He says, *He gave thanks and gave to His disciples, saying: Drink ye all of this* (Matth. XXVI, 23). You, He says, drink, you who are not now about to approach the altar. But He Himself, as one about to approach the altar, says of Himself: *Amen I say to you, that I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father* (Marc. XIV, 25)." From this, Albertinus thinks it follows that Christ's disciples drank pure wine at the Last Supper, just as Aaron and the priests who were not going to approach the altar drank pure wine; and he says he cannot grasp what we could oppose to this. I reply, however, that when Origen judged that old precept of Leviticus—by which the High Priest and priests were forbidden wine when about to approach the altar—to have been a shadow of those things which occurred to Christ and the apostles (when He, about to approach the altar of the Cross, abstained from wine, but they, not yet about to approach the altar of the Cross, did drink wine), he meant for himself that the wine of Aaron and the priests was ^D *homogenes* to the Eucharistic wine of Christ and the apostles in this regard: that both were abstained from by those who were to approach the altar, and were drunk by those who were not to approach the altar. Concerning this matter, of course, the discussion was held in this place. In other respects, however, they were *heterogenes*, and especially in that the wine of Aaron and the priests was *mere* wine, whereas that of Christ and the disciples was wine in appearance only. Yet someone will press the point, saying that no note here distinguishes that wine which Christ drank with publicans and sinners from that wine from which He abstained at the Last Supper, but that both are opposed to the wine of Aaron, and therefore ^B the wine which Christ abstained from is the same as the wine which He drank with publicans and sinners. I answer that it was sufficient for Origen that a comparison could rightly be established between the wine of Aaron and the wine either drunk by Christ in the course of His life with publicans and sinners, or not drunk, but handed to the disciples at the Last Supper. For although this was wine only in appearance, it was in reality the blood of Christ; but the former was wine in both appearance and reality. Origen did not seek, nor should he have sought, a similarity in the fact that both were wine in reality or appearance, but in the fact that in the one case Christ, about to approach the altar, abstained, and in the case of the other, He drank it not being about to approach the altar—just as the pontiffs and priests of the Old Testament abstained from wine when about to approach the altar, but did drink it when not about to approach the altar.

^C But the strength of the third passage which Albertinus brings forward from his Prologue to the Canticle is indeed weak and feeble. In it, Origen writes that there is a certain food proper to the exterior man, namely, of the body—that is to say, corporeal and earthly; but there is also a food proper to the interior and spiritual man, namely, the living bread which descends from heaven. But let us repeat the very words which exist on page 28: "The food of this material man, who is also called the exterior, and the drink related to his nature, is this corporeal and earthly one. Similarly, however, there is a specific food for the spiritual man himself, who is also called the interior, such as that living bread which descends from heaven" (Joan. VI, 41, 51). "But that drink is also from that water which Jesus promises, saying: *Whosoever shall drink of this water that I will give him, shall not thirst for ever*" (Joan. IV, 13). "Thus, therefore, through all things, a similarity of terms is posited for each man; but the propriety of the things themselves is discretely held for each, and corruptible things are provided for the corruptible, but incorruptible things are proposed for the incorruptible. Whence it happens that some simpler people, not knowing how to distinguish and separate what things in the Divine Scriptures are to be attributed to the interior man and what to the exterior, being deceived by the similarities of the terms, have betaken themselves to foolish fables and empty figments, so as to believe that even after the resurrection corporeal foods are to be used, and that drink is to be taken not only from that true and living vine in the ages, but also from these vines and fruits of the tree." So far is Albertinus from being able to collect anything for his cause from this, that it is rather contrary and adverse to his own opinion; or at least it does not fight for either side. For a twofold food and a twofold eating of the interior man can be understood: either the sacramental eating, when we receive the body of Christ with our mouth; or the other, when we apprehend and consume the Word made flesh by faith, both of which are expounded in the sixth chapter of John; the former indeed from verse 31 to these words in verse 52: *And the bread that I will give*; the latter, however, from these words to verse 59. If that eating is understood, by which we consume the Word made flesh by faith, what then...

can Albertinus achieve, I do not see. For we admit that the Word made flesh, in so far as He is apprehended and eaten by faith, is the proper food of the soul, not of the body. And that I may hide nothing, I judge this to be the understanding of the passage. But if the sacramental eating is signified here, Albertinus is slain by his own sword; for Origen says that that food agrees with other foods only in name, but that each one retains its own properties; that those are corrupted, but this remains whole: just as we say that the eucharistic bread agrees with other breads in name, but differs in reality; that these are corrupted, but the body of Christ, with the corruptible accidents remaining, stays incorrupt: and although it is received in the body just as other breads are, yet they are changed into nourishment of the body; but this one ministers nourishment to the soul, that is, to the inner and spiritual man, while the accidents only nourish the body after they have been changed into a new substance. But how will the heterodox accommodate these things to their own opinion, seeing that Origen asserts that the eucharistic bread agrees with other breads only in name; while they say that it agrees not only in name, but in reality itself? Origen teaches that this is food for the *soul*, that is, for the spiritual and inner man; the heterodox think that those nourish the *body*: Origen calls these corporeal and earthly, that he may distinguish them from that which is spiritual, mystical, and sacramental; but do the heterodox judge both this and those to be plainly corporeal and earthly? ^C

The last passage, since it is taken from the *Dialogue on the Orthodox Faith*—a spurious book, and one falsely bearing the name of Origen—and does not pertain to this present undertaking, I pass over.

Albertinus is indeed amusing when he argues against Bulenger, who (in *contra Casaubonum* part II, diatr. 3, p. 167) defended the Catholic dogma concerning the Eucharist with this testimony of Origen: ^A *For he who partakes of the bread, partakes of the body of the Lord; for we do not attend to the nature of the things which are sensibly set before us, but we lift up the soul through faith to the body of the Word. For he did not say: "This is a symbol," but, "This is the body," [speaking] demonstratively, that no one might think it to be a type.* Albertinus does not untie this knot, but severs it with this reply: "The passage is fictitious, and perhaps [the work] of some more recent 'little Greek,' falsely ascribed to Origen: for Bulenger himself adduced another passage from the same Origen, where he says plainly to the contrary concerning the eucharistic bread and wine that those are the antitypes of the Lord's body (*ἀντίτυπά εἰσι τοῦ Δεσποτικοῦ σώματος*). Just as also in the passage from his Commentary on Matthew cited above, he calls the bread 'typical and symbolic body,' this ^B being a type and symbol of the body." But who would believe that he wrote such contradictory things? Far be it from us, therefore, to be so sluggish as to accept these words, taken from I know not where, as genuine Origen. Yet elsewhere Albertinus admitted as authentic certain passages of Origen cited by this same Bulenger, which he believed to be opportune for his cause: "For so also Origen," he says, lib. II, cap. 5, "cited by Bulenger against Casaubon, Diat. 3, p. 166, says: *Τὰ ἐπὶ τοῦ λογικοῦ ἡμῶν θυσιαστηρίου ἐπιτελούμενα ἁγιάζει τὴν τράπεζαν, καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ σκεύη. Ἀντίτυπα γάρ εἰσι τοῦ Δεσποτικοῦ σώματος.* 'Things which are performed upon our rational altar sanctify both the table and the vessels which are upon it. For they are antitypes of the Lord's body.'" Truly a convenient and easy method of arguing: if testimonies help the Catholic cause, to hold them as false, spurious, and fictitious; if any seem contrary to it, to use these no differently than as legitimate and genuine. Or surely let the former passage be solved, or the latter not cited; which we, however, accept just like the other, in which the eucharistic bread is called a typical and symbolic body: for *ἀντίτυπον Δεσποτικοῦ σώματος* is the same as if he were to call it the sacrament of the body of Christ. Moreover, it does not sufficiently appear whether Origen is there treating of eucharistic bread and wine, as Albertinus wishes. For he says that the things "which are performed upon our rational altar," that is, in our mind, "sanctify the table and the vessels which are upon it," that is, the soul and the faculties of the soul. I do not see why these things should be referred to sacramental eating rather than to that by which we eat the Word made flesh by faith. And just as this eating is the *antitype* of the sacramental eating, so the Word apprehended by faith and, if I may so say, eaten, is the *antitype* of the Lord's body. But in the former passage, when he says the body of Christ is not a type, understand it thus: that it is not a *mere* type and sign without the thing signified, which is the common notion of a type; but he does not deny that it is a type and sign of another kind, namely, one conjoined with the thing signified. And let these things suffice for the present. Whoever wants more may consult Bellarmine, lib. I, *De Eucharist.*, cap. 8, where he sets forth not only the testimonies of Origen cited by Martyr, but also recites many others of the same author, by which he is believed to have thought rightly concerning the sacrament of the Eucharist: and we also observe some things in tom. XI of Origen *in Math.*, no. 14, concerning the same argument. ^D

III. Let us proceed from the sacrament of the Eucharist to the sacrament of matrimony, concerning which Origen seems to have departed in some points from the common dogmas of the Church. First, *Hom. XI in Jerem.*, no. 5, p. 191, he says that whatever proceeds from intercourse and pleasure has need of purification: and *tom. XVII in Matth.*, no. 25, p. 827, he wishes that those who use venereal acts are in a certain way defiled: not even excepting those pleasures for which matrimony provides the license. Then, in the book II *in Epist. ad Rom.*,

^A number 13, page 494, he calls him "uncircumcised" who abuses the pleasures granted by the right of matrimony not according to the order of generation, nor for the bonds of adolescent nuptials; but "circumcised," if anyone uses these offices in such a business in lawful ways, and only so much as suffices for posterity. In which, besides the grace of seeking offspring, he seems to reject every conjugal meeting, even that which is rendered as a duty, or is performed for the sake of avoiding temptation. But we can reply that these things, too, are contained in the word "lawful"; or indeed that he is "circumcised" who exercises the conjugal act solely for the sake of procreating offspring for the worship of God; but that he is not "uncircumcised" who looks to other ends besides this, but rather one who behaves himself intemperately. Jerome, certainly, in book II *in Epist. ad Ephes.*, chapter 5, seems to disapprove all remaining ends, and to admit this one alone, by which the procuring of offspring is proposed. "If," he says, "the wife is to be subjected to the husband in such a way as the Church to Christ, there will be a holy conjunction between man and wife, and they will never serve the passions of the body." ^B Regarding the Corinthians, however, as being weak and not yet strengthened in solid piety, he says that Paul conceded the mutual fulfillment of the debt through *syngkatabasin* (condescension) and indulgence; but that he withheld it from the Ephesians, as being more advanced in the doctrine of Christ; yet that it is lawful for anyone to emulate either the Ephesians or the Corinthians. And a little later: "The works of children, therefore, as we have said, are permitted in matrimony. But the pleasures which are taken from the embraces of harlots are condemned in a wife. Reading this, let every man and wife understand that after conception they must serve prayer more than matrimony. And that which is prescribed by the very law of nature in animals and beasts, that pregnant ones do not have intercourse until parturition, let them know that this is left to the judgment of humans, so that there might be a reward from the abstinence of pleasures." To this are added those things from Epiphanius, *Hær.* 63, chapter 4: "The chaste marriage does not forbid procreation to the shame of those things well created by God; but neither does it otherwise handle the conduct of the marriage union ordained by God." "By no means do honorable marriages, which draw to ignominy those things founded by God, forbid the procreation of children; but neither do they otherwise usurp the bond of nuptial conjunction instituted by God." ^C Augustine also agrees in his book *De bono conjugali*, chapter 7: "To render the conjugal debt," he says, "is a crime of no one; but to demand it beyond the necessity of procreating is a venial fault," which he repeats in chapters 10 and 11, and in book I *De nupt. et concupisc.*, chapter 14. The supplement to the *Summa* of St. Thomas, *quæst.* 49, art. 5, also agrees. Now, that which Theophilus, *Pasch.* 2 and 3, asserts, that Origen "condemned honorable marriages," he argues not from his words, but from the consequence of his doctrine: for thus he reasons: "If noxious souls are thrust down into bodies, as if into dungeons, that 'immaculate bed' is not, nor 'honorable marriages,' which give effort to forming bodies and punishing souls, since 'for the punishments of souls, and not for the order of generation, do they provide the bonds of nuptials.' "

Furthermore, he writes in Origenes *homil.* 6 *in Num.*, number 3, that the Holy Spirit is not present in conjugal acts. The words are: "Lawful marriages indeed lack sin; yet the presence of the Holy Spirit will not be given at that time when conjugal acts are carried out, even if he who obeys the duty of generation should seem to be a prophet." But it is established, nevertheless, that this act, if it be practiced for the sake of begetting offspring, or of rendering a debt—because one thing is the work of religion, another of justice—is holy and pious, and is therefore exercised with the help and aid of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, the author of the *Opus imperfectum in Matth.*, 1, 18, contradicts him and says that marriage, though it may not bring punishment upon those who use it, yet does not provide a reward.

Lastly, Adamantius held that repeated marriages are a matter for which not as entirely damnable and harmful, but as unworthy of a pious and Christian man: which the Magdeburgenses, *Cent.* 3, chapter 10, have worthily censured. "But now," he says in *homil.* 17 *in Luc.*, "second, and third, and fourth marriages, to say nothing of more, are found, and we are not ignorant that such a conjugation will cast us out of the kingdom of God." And then: "From the assembly of the primitive and immaculate Church, which has neither spot nor wrinkle[*], the *digamus* (bigamist) will be cast out, not so that he is sent into eternal fire, but so that he may not have a part in the kingdom of God." Then presently: "For I think that the monogamist, and the virgin, and he who perseveres in chastity, are of the Church of God; but he who is a *digamus*, although he may have a good conversation and excel in other virtues, is nevertheless not of the Church, and not of that number which does not have a wrinkle or a spot or anything of this kind; but is of the second rank, and of those who call upon the name of the Lord, and who are indeed saved in the name of Jesus Christ; yet are by no means crowned by him." Hence in *Homilia* 19 *in Jerem.*, number 4, he maintains that the *digamus* is not indeed to be condemned to eternal punishment, but will be a partaker of some salvation, though not of as great a felicity as he who lived purely. Also in *Tome* XX *in Joan.*, number 10, he declares that Abraham is by no means to be imitated in that he had intercourse with his handmaid, and brought in another to his deceased wife in his old age. Indeed, not only the Montanists, among whom was Tertullian, nor the Novatians, were infected with this opinion, but some things akin to this are also wont to be brought forward from orthodox writers, which Gratian collected in the *Decretorum pars* II, *caus.* 31, *quæst.* 1, *can.* 8, 9, and 10. The former location is from the Council of Neocæsarea, by which a presbyter is prohibited from being present at the "connubium" (marriage) of second nuptials, especially since penance is wont to be imposed upon such nuptials. Where for "connubio," one should read "convivio" (banquet); for thus it is held a little later: "Who will be the presbyter who, on account of the banquet, consents to their nuptials?" Thus it is read in

^A the copies of the council, from the Greek: *Presbyteron eis gamous digamounton me hestiasthai*. Dionysius Exiguus renders this as: "Let not a presbyter be a guest at the nuptials of him who takes two wives, or becomes a digamist." Another passage is from the author of the *Opus Imperfectum*, homily 33 on Matthew 19, in which it is decided that it is licit according to the Apostle's precept to enter into second nuptials, "but according to the reason of truth, it is truly fornication: but when it is committed publicly and licitly with God permitting it, it becomes an honest fornication." Finally, a third is supplied by Jerome, Book I *Against Jovinian*, chapter 8, where he defines that second nuptials are scarcely to be granted the name of nuptials, and are scarcely to be excused. But this was said not so much to repudiate them as to extol the chastity of widows, Gratian replies, and proves it from his other testimonies. However, the writer of the *Opus Imperfectum* is so filled with errors that he is by no means to be listened to in dogmatic disputes. Now, some respond that the Council of Neocaesarea was dealing with those who had taken multiple wives simultaneously: a response which I cannot approve. I would prefer to admit that in that age the severity and rigor of the Church were such that it desired second nuptials—which were licit, yet carried with them some species of incontinence—to lack not only celebration, and for a presbyter not to attend them at all, but even to be noted in some way by the imposition of penance.

IV. Theophilus of Alexandria, in his second Paschal Epistle, accuses Origen of having provided patronage to magical arts. He adduces these words from the writings of Origen: "The magical art does not appear to me to be a word for anything subsistent: but even if it should be, it is not of a bad work, so that it might have something for contempt." Then he exaggerates many things against him oratorically; furthermore, he has to look more intently into the matter. He says that Origen is a proponent of Elymas, Jannes, and Mambres; that idolatry, which proceeded from the magical art, was destroyed by the advent of Christ, and consequently that magic itself was destroyed; and he heaps up many other things of this kind. Wherefore an anonymous writer in Photius, codex 117, among the charges fabricated against Origen by his adversaries, lists this in the ninth place: *hoti ou kakon he magia*—that magic is not evil. Those accusers ought to have remembered that there is a double magic, as Sixtus, book VI, annotation 8, and Genebrardus, *Collectanea*, chapter 6, rightly prove from Jerome and Justin: the one, which foresees and predicts things from natural causes and principles, and sometimes even accomplishes them, which is properly philosophy; the other, which, using the help and assistance of demons, deceives and deludes men with jugglery. Porphyry, in book III of *De abstinentia*, relates that those Magi, from whom magic is named, were addicted to the religions of the gods, and derived the name from their native dialect: "Among the Persians," he says, "the wise in divine matters, and those who serve the divine, are called Magi; for this signifies 'Magus' in the native dialect." ^D "Among the Persians, those who are skilled in divine matters and worship the gods are called Magi: for this signifies..." ^{A B C} indeed even more explicitly toward the end of the preceding book, num. 80; for there he indeed refutes Celsus, who had called the Magi "most pious," from whom, he says, "the sorcery that is named after their nation—and which is among the other nations—for the corruption and destruction of those who use it, has been introduced." And in Homily 13 on Numbers, num. 5: "Nor should you marvel if there is something such as this in the magical art: for Scripture itself designates that this art exists, but it forbids the use of it. For Scripture also designates that demons exist, but it forbids them from being worshipped and entreated. Therefore, it rightly also forbids the use of magic, because the ministers of the Magi are runaway angels, and malignant spirits, and unclean demons." The rest, no less clear, I omit for the sake of avoiding satiety. In his thirty-fifth treatise on Matthew, num. 110, p. 910, he also says that it is a Jewish practice to adjure demons, and not according to the power conceded by Christ; by which St. Thomas, 2-2, qu. 90, a. 2, wishes it to be signified that this is a type of adjuration which is done through prayers, sacrifices, and forbidden ceremonies; not that other kind, which is done by power, as Thomas speaks, and which the Church is accustomed to use. Also in his book *De principiis*, chapter 3, numbers 3 and 4, he discourses on magic in such a way that it is evident he held it itself to be harmful and pernicious.

V. Since these things are so, I am astonished that Eustathius of Antioch wrote this:

Αλλ' ὁ κομψός Ὠριγένης εἰδωλολατρείας ὄργανα, καὶ νεκρομαντείας εὑρήματα τῷ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας θέλων ἐπεισκυκλῆσαι χορῷ τοῦ θείου καταψεύδεται Γράμματος. « Sed venustus Origenes idololatriae instrumenta, et necromantiae inventa in Ecclesiae chorum inducere volens, in sacram Scripturam mentitur. »

but a demon, or a phantom fashioned by a demon. To pursue these matters in detail is neither our leisure nor our purpose: Origen has sufficient support in the consensus of certain Fathers, whom Leo Allatius recounts in his ^A *Syntagma De Engastrimytho*, cap. 7: Justin in his *Dialogue with Trypho*; Sulpicius Severus in his *Sacred History*, book 1; and Anastasius of Antioch in his *Odegos*, quæst. 112, and others besides whom Bellarmine praises in his *De Christo*, book IV, cap. 11. Add to these the suffrage of the most ancient rabbis, who teach that the souls of the dead, if they are evoked within a year of their passing—the time at which Samuel’s soul was raised—are indeed seen by the necromancer but not heard; heard by the one who consults the oracles but not seen; and by others, neither heard nor seen.

Augustine opposes this view in his book *De Mendacio* to Consentius, cap. 2, and in a certain Epistle to Jerome, and all theologians agree with him, condemning every lie and every simulation, and branding them with the mark of sin.

VII. But Origen, who does not condemn lying in every instance, completely forbids swearing, tract. 35 on Matthew, num. 110, p. 910, arguing as follows: "For it is similar to what the Lord Himself says in the Gospel: *But I say to you, do not swear at all*, and do not adjure at all. For if it is not permitted to swear, according to the evangelical commandment of Christ, it is true that it is not permitted to adjure another." Athanasius, Chrysostom, ^B Epiphanius, Hilary, and many others, whom Sixtus Senensis cites in book VI, annot. 26, were of the same opinion; and Pelagius followed this opinion, as is related by Augustine at the end of Epistle 89, as did a great part of the recent heterodox: whereas, on the contrary, the Catholic Church establishes that an oath is holy and useful, provided it is used in a pious, prudent manner and when necessity demands it.

VI. Jerome, in book 1 *Apologia contra Rufinum*, cap. 4, offers a passage from Origen from book VI of the *Stromata*, in which he defends that, according to Plato's opinion, it is sometimes permitted to lie. The same view was held by Jerome himself in book 1 *Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians*, cap. 2, verse 11, and he defends his own opinion with many arguments. This view was also held by Chrysostom in his book *De Sacerdotio*, and by Cassian in book XVII of the *Conferences*, cap. 8 and 17, and following.

CAPUT III. General Examination of Origenian Doctrine.

1. The judges of the Origenian name, whether for or against him, are proposed in general. II. The defenders of the same are recounted. III. Many things are proposed in general for the refutation of his opponents. Mutual repugnance of accusations; IV. Errors of the Origenists attributed to Origen; V. The perfidy of Rufinus, the interpreter; VI. An example of the Fathers being attacked by false crimes; VII. The *Philocalia* excerpted from Origen's writings by Gregory the Theologian and Basil; VIII. His allegorical interpretations. IX. He is called the font of heresies in vain. X. The depravation of his books. XI. Many things are also brought forward to excuse him in general: his perpetual hesitation in proposing opinions; his modesty; XII. His constant zealousness in attacking heresies; XIII. His excessive haste in writing; XIV. Theological questions not yet sufficiently examined in his time nor defined by the Church. XV. He finally repented of his rash words. XVI. Jerome unjustly reproaches Rufinus, because of the name of Pamphilus inscribed on Origen's *Apology*. XVII. It must be admitted that Origen sinned in many things. XVIII. It is debated in what number Origen's books are to be held. XIX. And whether he is to be placed among the heretics.

1. Whatever was commonly said of Origen and of the doctrine of Origen in the past—"where it is good, none better; where it is bad, none worse"—the same can be said today, rightly, of him and of those who have formed opinions about his doctrine. Where it is accepted as good, no one is received better, no one is extolled with greater praise, and no one's doctrine is defended with more intense zeal; where it is considered bad, no one is torn apart with a harsher and more bitter censure. To such an extent has that man experienced all extremes, not only in life, but even after death; I know not by what persisting urgency of fate, and how few bear a middle path between Adamantius and his adversaries. Indeed, you may see some so unfairly disposed toward him that they place Origen among the ranks of nefarious and pestilential heretics, and ^C they wish it to be established that others are carried away toward him with such blind and unbridled zeal that they are prepared to defend all his deeds and words, and to embrace his dogmas as if they were *kyrias doxas* (sovereign truths).

*Error, but harms on various sides.*

For my part, I think a middle path ought to be held between these extremes, if anyone desires to be fair and not deceive himself. It must be admitted that Origen often sinned, and fell into damaging errors; if anyone denies that he was in many things falsely and undeservedly accused, such an one is devoid of shame, which we have already proved, and will further show hereafter. Pamphilus, in the Preface to the *Apology*, splendidly says: "It was consequential ^D

^A for those who are tossed by the contentions of the times, to embrace such a man (Origen) out of the testimony of his labors and studies, and neither to attribute to him more merit out of a zeal for his defense than the measure demands, nor, on the other hand, to condemn him lightly out of the vice of detraction, and rashly declare him alien to ecclesiastical doctrine; since the divine word, foreseeing both such precipices, hath already prohibited them, saying: "Let there not be in thee a greater measure, nor a smaller; for both are abominable in the sight of the Lord." [*] For to render to each according to what is worthy, this is the property of justice. On account of which both a full measure and an equal weight are acceptable before God; not that which falsifies the truth, by which either more is given to things than their merits demand, or that which is due is subtracted from their merits. Therefore, the method of both is disapproved by me: both those who, in their apologies, strive to cleanse Origen of every stain, and those who utterly detest his name from the Church: but yet I profess to favor more those who have undertaken to defend his cause; for it is surely known that more favor is to be shown to the accused than to the accuser.

II. Nor do the revilings of certain men move me, who think Origen not only unworthy of their defense, but also cast the mark of rashness upon those who render any service of excuse to him. By this decree of theirs, they strike down not certain schoolmasters of the crossroads, but princes in letters and men distinguished by piety. For, to say nothing of Alexander of Jerusalem, Theoctistus of Caesarea, Dionysius of Alexandria, Firmilian of Caesarea, ^C Gregory Thaumaturgus, and Athenodorus, and others contemporary with Origen; and finally all of Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia, and Achaia, which defended the cause of Origen against Demetrius of Alexandria—the same were thereafter openly and brilliantly defended in their writings by Eusebius and Pamphilus, both in their *Ecclesiastical History* and, much more, through the *Apology* comprising six books, of which but one survives. Photius, in *Codex* CXVIII, also records that many other men of great name wrote apologies for Origen in the time of Eusebius. Stephanus Tritheita, surnamed Gobarus—whose excerpts are held by Photius in *Codex* CCXXXII—places Athanasius among the supporters of the Origenian name. To these must be added Didymus of Alexandria, who published an *Apologetic* for Origen, as well as Titus of Bostra, and both of the Gregories, I mean the Nazianzen and the Nyssen, who are commemorated by Gobarus, and John of Jerusalem, who was assailed by the constant reproaches of Epiphanius and Jerome for this very reason. ^D Methodius, too, that bitter adversary of Origen, repented of his hatred at some point and professed his name among his admirers and defenders. The same age bore Rusinus of Aquileia, most devoted to Origen, and countless monks dispersed throughout Egypt, who for the same reason were treated with the greatest hostility by Theophilus of Alexandria. ^{B A} Since Photius, in *Codex* CXVII, testifies that he read the *Apology* for Origen—which we have already praised above—he suppressed the name and age of the author in silence. Why should I now commemorate those more recent, John Pico della Mirandola, Jacques Merlin of Tours, Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, Sixtus of Siena, Claude d'Espence, Gilbert Genebrard, and most recently, Pierre Halluix, whose brilliant dissertations in defense of Origen remain?

III. I think that I could have followed the example of these without reproach; yet I have not done so, nor will I do so; for I would not wish to be seen to be too much in favor of either side. I shall merely dispute what can be brought forward on both sides in general. First, it must be seen what most favors the cause of Origen; the method of which is twofold: either by dissolving the accusations brought against him, or by excusing Origen himself. The accusations are first refuted by this argument: that most of them contradict each other and run into one another. Among nine crimes commemorated by Pamphilus, the first four which pertain to Christ are contrary to one another, so that, even if Origen himself were silent, they refute each other. But if anyone should examine that higher chapter which embraces the dogmas of Adamantius with attentive eyes, he will discover many of the crimes objected to Origen to be mutually adversarial.

IV. A second argument for defending Adamantius is sought from the fact that the errors of heterodox Origenists are often attributed to Origen, and because, as Bede says in the *Collectanea* and *Florilegia*, chapter on the Luminaries of the Church: "Many of his worst disciples seem to have published many poisonous things under his name." For when his doctrine had dissipated the Christian world into factions, just as many things were falsely cast upon him by his adversaries, so too did his followers defend not a few things as if handed down by him; or things which had in fact been handed down by him, they distorted into another meaning: for which reason they were imputed to the innocent Origen. Therefore, let everyone who wishes to examine this history accurately and have a clear understanding of it cautiously and diligently separate Origenistic dogmas from Origenist ones, and know that Origen and the Origenists are involved in different causes.

V. It also damaged Origen that he found Rufinus to be the interpreter of the greatest part of his works. His license in rendering both the writings of the ancients into Latin and in being so immoderate—as we have often warned—in both omitting much or inserting things, and then interpolating and recooking the majority, is such that whoever reads any writer converted by Rufinus must understand that he is not reading the sentiments and words of the author himself so much as those of Rufinus. And that vice is all the more widely extended because he alone derived the very fountain of Origenian doctrine, the books *On First Principles*, for us, and in his own— 43 43. It harmed Origen also that he found in Rufinus an interpreter for the greatest part of his works. See our Preface prefixed to the first volume, pages 2, 3, and 4.

stained with filth; we cite as a witness to this Rufinus himself in his Prologue, and in the Preface to the third book. Nor let anyone think that the credibility of the earlier chapters of these dissertations is weakened by this; for since a great part of the accusations which Origen's opponents fling about is derived from that source, what is more appropriate than to draw forth responses from the same source whence the accusations were taken? If, therefore, anyone were to object to defenses brought forward from a corrupt book, the credibility of the accusations gathered from the same book must necessarily collapse. But if their own strength is preserved for these, then their authority will likewise stand.

VI. The example of other Fathers also contributes much to the defense of Origen, to whom some errors fell by human frailty, even though they held an orthodox faith in other matters and were reckoned among the orthodox. For, to pass over others for the sake of brevity, how many can we recount who, while untainted by any suspicion of heresy, nevertheless devised false and absurd ideas concerning the Trinity? In this rank will come Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Methodius, Lucian, and especially Origen’s disciple, Dionysius of Alexandria—whom for this reason Basil (Epist. 41) calls the father of the Anomoeans, and Gennadius (lib. II, De dogmat., cap. 2) calls the fountain of Arianism—even though Athanasius defends him against these accusations, and besides Athanasius, Jerome, who testifies in his Apology (lib. II, cap. 4) that he was a Catholic regarding the Trinity. How many men of integral and sound faith has the Church borne who were lacerated by calumnies and marked with ignominy? I shall praise one above the rest, John Chrysostom, and for this reason especially: that the suspicion of Origenism gave rise to these very conflicts of his. For while he defended the Origenist monks against the injuries of Theophilus of Alexandria, he came under suspicion of affected Origenism and, driven from his bishopric by various arts, expelled from Constantinople, sent into exile, and treated with the utmost and almost beastly inclemency by his submissive guards, he finally perished from infirmity of spirit and bodily pains; and in protecting the Origenists, he expressed in his own person the calamity and fortune of Origen.

VII. It must be noted also, in favor of Origen, that whatever the *Philocalia* presents to us of his (and it presents much, even which has been censured by his accusers), it seems to be fortified as if by the suffrage and approval of Gregory the Theologian and Basil, by whom it was selected and named the *Philocalia*; for if they had felt otherwise about them, why would Gregory, in his letter to Theodore, bishop of Tyana, have called them “useful selections for the learned” [Ἐκλογὰς χρησίμους τοῖς φιλολόγοις]?

VIII. Moreover, his allegorical interpretations sometimes misled his readers; for as he often passes from the exposition of the letter to the spiritual sense in such a way that the connection between both is scarcely perceived, they held his allegorical interpretations to be dogmatic assertions, and thus they raged against them as if against new opinions brought into the Church.

IX. Nor should it be a prejudice against him that he is called by some the father of the Manichaeans, Sabellians, Arians, Eunomians, Anomoeans, and Pelagians, and the font of all heresies. For even if we concede that his writings provided an incentive for evil minds to devise heresies, is he to be held responsible for the guilt and perverse judgments of his readers? Does the fault of a sick stomach rightfully transfer itself to pure food? Nay, rather, his supreme authority in the Church can be gauged even from this: that the heterodox thought that great weight was added to their errors by his suffrage. Do not heretics likewise endeavor to reconcile the primary credibility of their fabrications with Holy Scripture? Have they not hammered out their pestiferous dogmas from the divine Books, twisted by themselves into alien and heinous meanings? By the same right, therefore, if one may speak so, Holy Scripture itself might be called the source and origin of all errors, on account, of course, of the preposterous ingenuity of heretics, who pervert everything that is best.

X. (44) Finally, the defense of Origen is most of all supported by the corruption of his own books. That argument was grasped by his anonymous defender in Photius (cod. cxvii). Rufinus indeed expanded on this in a special little book, the gist of which is this: that one must argue that Origen's codices were corrupted by heretics and malevolent people because contradictions and repugnant things are found not only in his different writings, but even in the same places, which no one could suspect had been written by a man who was not insane or completely deranged; that the enemies of the Church had in like manner corrupted the books of other Fathers, for instance of Clement of Rome, of the other Clement, of Alexandria, and likewise of Dionysius of Alexandria; that Athanasius had demonstrated that hands had been laid upon his books by heretics; that the codices of Athanasius himself had suffered the same fate, as had those of Hilary and Cyprian; nor had those heinous men, the Marcionites and Apellites, spared the Sacred Volumes themselves; that Origen himself had detected not one but many corruptions of his own works undertaken by his adversaries, just as he himself complained to his friends in Alexandria in a letter that Rufinus transcribed; and that he repeated the same complaint in another letter. Above all others, Rufinus reports that the books *De Principiis* [*Περὶ ἀρχῶν*] had been corrupted, in the Prologue prefixed to them. Vincent of Lérins agrees with this in his little book against heresies, chapter 23: “But someone will say,” he says, “‘that Origen’s books have been corrupted: I do not resist, rather I go further, for it has been both transmitted and written by some that this occurred, not only by Catholics but even by heretics.’” The Author of the *Catalog to Desiderius*: “Many, however, testify that some of his (Origen's) most wicked disciples published many venomous things under his name,” which words Beda repeats. Author, Preface to the first volume, pages 2, 3, and 4, where this opinion is refuted.

^A *Praedestinati*, her. 22 and 43, does not depart from these, and adds that a certain Ampullianus, a Bithynian heresiarch, produced books of Origen, corrupted for the sake of establishing his own dogma. Finally, Haymo of Halberstadt, in his book *De Christianarum rerum memoria*, discourses thus: “I for one, concerning Origen, a man so illustrious, of most abstinent and chaste life, of excellent doctrine, of pure and lucid speech, would say, the faith of the Fathers being safe, that he did not write these things at all, but that they were maliciously fabricated and written by heretics to obscure his noble name, and prefixed with his name.” It is truly well established that it is a common practice for heretics to violate ancient books for the sake of acquiring authority for themselves. Examples occur frequently in the *Panarion* of Epiphanius. Evagrius likewise writes, Book III, Chapter 31, that the Nestorians and Eutychians often falsified the works of the holy Fathers, and inscribed many books of Apollinaris to Gregory Thaumaturgus, Athanasius, and Julius, having changed the titles. Leontius is the authority that the Apollinarists also perverted the books of Cyril. I would believe, moreover, that the scribes, receiving Origen’s homilies and dictations from his own mouth, sprinkled them with some errors through excessive haste; as also did the unlearned girls, whose services he used for copying codices in neat handwriting.

^B But Jerome dismisses all this defense of Origen, which is sought from the corruption of his books, in *Apologia adversus Rufinum*, Book II, chapters 4 and 5, and joins battle with Rufinus, and demands that the passages of Origen in which Rufinus said inconsistencies existed be pointed out to him. We certainly have, in the previous chapter, brought forward testimonies so contrary to him that they might satisfy Jerome. He says next that Didymus did not use this response, nor did Eusebius. But what then? If Didymus softened with a gentle interpretation the things that were inserted by heretics, or if Eusebius defended them wrongly; if they preferred to resolve the objective testimony, which was at hand, rather than to reject it as false, which was more difficult to prove, are they therefore any less uncertain and adventitious? Rufinus had also used the example of other Fathers, whose works had been violated. Jerome, however, says that if that were conceded, then the authors of the books would be uncertain, since nothing would be referred to those who wrote them, but everything to the corrupters, ^C and not even to them, since they are unknown. By this perturbation of defense, he says, neither Marcion, nor Manichaeus, nor Arius, nor Eunomius could be accused. But had Jerome attended to what preceded: Rufinus writes that those things are suspected of being false, to which other things in the same writer stand in opposition; to these alone Rufinus applies the mark of falsity. For he does not, he says in *Invective 1 against Jerome*, “generally promise that I will bring forward those things that were contrary to the faith, but those that were contrary to themselves; shall the authors of the books therefore be uncertain, if those things alone are rejected from them which contradict the rest? What defense will Marcion, Manichaeus, and others be able to promise themselves from this?”

Then Jerome objects to himself: “How is it that there are some faulty things in their books (the Fathers of the Church)?” He answers: “If I should reply that I do not know the causes of the faults, I shall not immediately judge them to be heretics: for it can happen that they either erred simply, ^D or wrote in another sense, or their writings were gradually corrupted by unskilled scribes: or certainly, before Arius was born in Alexandria, like a noonday demon, they spoke some things innocently and less cautiously, and things which cannot avoid the calumny of perverse men.” I accept the excuse, why will you reject the same one when applied to Origen? We say his writings were perhaps corrupted by scribes; we declare that he spoke less cautiously before Arius, or wrote in another sense, or finally erred; will you for that reason condemn his person for heresy? Having finally mocked the examples of other Fathers brought forward, he says that Origen is not free from the suspicion of heresy, even if other Fathers were in heresy. One should rather say that Origen is free from heresy, although he fell into errors, because the Fathers, though involved in similar errors, are nevertheless immune to the mark of all heresy.

Jerome subsequently argues against Rufinus concerning the mutilated letter of Adamantius to the Alexandrians; as if someone should say a writer has been mutilated by me, because I produce some testimony or fragment from him pertinent to the point placed in dispute: for why would Rufinus have mentioned the complaints of Origen against Demetrius, which are contained in the remainder of the letter, when dealing with the defilement of his books? But to that which Origen had complained of in the letter to the Alexandrians, the codex of the *Dialogue* held with himself was adulterated by the heretic Candidus Valentinianus, Jerome replies: “We understand that in this Dialogue alone heretical falsity is argued by Origen, and not in the rest of the books, about which there was never any question: otherwise if everything that is heretical were not Origen’s, but the heretics’, and almost all of that volume is full of these errors, nothing will be Origen’s, but the authors whose names we do not know.” But what becomes of the other letter of Origen, in which Rufinus writes that the same complaint is held concerning his violated books? Then we have said that Rufinus does not mean that whatever is heretical in Origen’s works is the heretics’, but only those things against which Origen asserted repugnant opinions. In epistle 65 also to Pammachius and Oceanus, chapter 4, Jerome collects many things to the same point, and he has the same thing which is proposed in the *Apology against Rufinus*, and refuted by us above, namely that the defenders of Origen, Eusebius and Didymus, did not use this response which is sought from the defilement of his books. Then he says: “Origen alone was found, whose writings were falsified throughout the whole world.” Is it so indeed? Have not the writings of the evangelists and apostles felt the adulterating hands of heretics? What is added is also of little value: “Origen himself, in the letter which he writes to Fabian, does penance, why did he write such things…”

and he refers the cause of his rashness to Ambrose, because he published things which were written in private.” For that man is neither a heretic, nor should he be held as one, who repented of his rash words. Jerome furthermore suggests to us by these words an argument for defending Origen: namely, that the codices which Origen may have written in private for the sake of exercise were wrongly published by Ambrose. From this, finally, is refuted that remark of Baronius ^A (ad ann. 232, cap. 10): “But in this he certainly seems less worthy of excuse, that when he knew his works were being attacked by everyone, he published no retracting commentary; although there was enough leisure and time for him to align everything he had written with all the canons of the Catholic faith.” For that letter to Fabian can be considered a retracting commentary, and perhaps he wrote others as well, which were later consumed by age.

“These things, as far as we were able, we have brought forward concerning the rational soul, to be discussed by the readers rather than as something settled and defined.” All his works are full of such protestations, from which Pamphilus brings forward a few, beginning his Apology for Origen, and from such hesitation he draws a most powerful argument for defending him, and he objects this to his adversaries more than once. Hence William of Paris, in part 1, *De universo*, cap. 19, writes this: “Hence arises the error which was imposed by certain ones upon one of the chief doctors of the Christians, and he was one of the wise theologians of the Greeks, and he was called Origen. It will appear to you, however, that he spoke not at all by way of settled opinion and assertion.” But we will use this excuse for Origen the less, since Basil used the same for Origen’s disciple, Gregory Thaumaturgus (ep. 64). Rightly, therefore, John Pico della Mirandola, in the second article of his Apology for Origen, proves that if he wrote anything not in harmony with the faith, he proceeds “neither dogmatically, nor assertively, but always doubtfully and inquiringly”; and he gathers many passages of Origen in which his vacillation appears. Pamphilus also praises greatly the modesty of Origen and his submissive and humble feelings about himself and his own doctrine at the beginning of his Apology: and with good reason; for what is so alien to heresy, the certain character of which is pride? Thus, it was done excellently by Halloux, ^B when he applied his effort to attesting to his submission and modesty, and gathered together many of his passages (*Orig. defens.* lib. II, cap. 2).

XI. Since we have collected what could serve to break the accusations of Origen’s attackers, to defend him against calumnies, and to render him free of blame, let us now see what contributes to excusing him, and, even though he erred, to winning for him the favor of men. Most useful, first of all, is the fact that he shows no stubbornness in proposing opinions, no pertinacity in defending them, which is the chief mark of heresy; but always wavering and uncertain, he brings his thoughts forward into the public sphere with that customary little word *mêpote* [perhaps], which belongs to one who is hesitant, preoccupying the minds of his readers and beginning his discussions, and concluding them with the customary protestation by which he exhorts everyone to inquire into and propose other things, signifying himself to be ready to depart from his own views and pass on to better ones. Indeed, he often confesses his own doubt in the books *De principiis*, or as in lib. I, cap. 6, num. 1: “These things, indeed, are said by us also with great fear and caution, discussing and examining them more than setting them down as certain and defined. For it has been indicated by us in the preceding [books] which are the things that must be determined by a manifest dogma, which I believe we have done to the best of our ability when we were speaking of the Trinity. But now we are engaged in the manner of discussing rather than defining, as best we can.” This he repeats at the end of the same chapter and at the beginning of the following one. About to speak of the incarnation of Christ, he prefaces these things (lib. I *De principiis*, cap. 6, num. 2): ^C “Concerning which we speak not with any rashness, but because the order of the place demands it, we bring forward those things which our faith contains rather than what the assertion of humane reason is wont to claim, in as few words as possible, putting forth our own conjectures rather than any manifest affirmations.” Nor does he wish his discussion of the soul to be accepted otherwise; for he says in the same lib. I *De principiis*, cap. 8, num. 4: “However, what we have said about the mind being turned into the soul, or if there are other things that seem to regard this, let the reader discuss it more diligently with himself and examine it; yet let these not be thought by us to be brought forward as dogmas, but in the manner of examining and ^D of inquiring those things that are to be discussed.”

XII. What of the fact that Origen wages a perpetual, internecine war against the heretics—the Valentinians, Marcionites, Basilidians, Apellites, Helcesaites—and commands that only those things be held and believed which have been received by the Church? “That alone,” he says in the Proemium of lib. I *De principiis*, num. 2, “is to be believed as truth which in nothing dissents from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition,” which he repeats often; and in *Homil. 16 in Luc.*: “I, for my part, because I wish to be ecclesiastical, and to be named not by any heresiarch, but by the name of Christ, and to have a name which shall be blessed upon the earth, and I desire both in deed and in sense to be and to be called a Christian, I seek an equal reason in the old and in the new law.” Whence Pamphilus, *Apologia* cap. 1: “Origen does the same thing also when he discusses the sects of the heretics, with all of whom refuted and convicted, he holds one only, and that which he expounded above, the sentiment of the Catholic truth.” Concerning how he responded to the heretics touching each of these, and how, in destroying all their dogmas, he himself always confirmed the apostolic faith, if we were to wish to gather all his opinions, it would be quite long and would be as burdensome to us who write as it would be tedious to the readers. Indeed, he loathed heresies and the leaders of heresies from his childhood to such an extent that he would never deign to be present at the prayers with Paul the heretic, although he was a man of excellent eloquence, even if he was in the same...

^A company." "Observing," says Eusebius in book VI of his *Ecclesiastical History*, chap. 2, "the rule of the Church even from childhood, and detesting, as he says himself in one place in his own words, the doctrines of heresies."

XIII. Furthermore, it is believable that his haste in writing harmed Origen; for when he was distracted by so many cares—both by speaking to the people, and instructing catechumens, and performing all the duties of piety—there did not remain much leisure for perfecting his writings; and therefore, he represented with the greatest diligence the time he had spent on pious exercises, so that he wore out more than seven scribes in writing, and he published such a quantity of books into the public sphere that it is a marvel. From this it happened that we have often detected him in solecisms; with his mind intent upon the matter, he was careless about the composition of his speech. What wonder, then, if some things occasionally slipped out not said with sufficient caution?

XIV. What especially assists Origen is that most of these questions had not yet been ventilated and illustrated by the disputations of theologians, nor defined by the decrees and sanctions of the Church. The theologians, therefore, roaming as if in trackless places, and over soil trodden by no one before, were borne along by what seemed the nearest path to the truth, and they often strayed; but it was an error worthy of pardon, since the straight path had not yet been pointed out through the Church. What, then, is customarily granted generously to other Fathers, it is equitable and true that it be granted to Origen as well. Origen himself, using careful distinction in the Prooemium of Book I of *De Principiis*, separated what things were accepted and approved by the consensus of the Church in his own age, and what things could be disputed on either side. Into this latter sense he casts the questions concerning the origin of the soul, the nature of angels and demons, those things which preceded the birth of the world and those which will be after its destruction, and certain other matters. Jerome used the same exception in a similar case in book II of his *Apologetic against Rufinus*, chap. 4, when he wished to excuse the ancient writers of the Church whose books are infected with errors: "It may be that, before Arius was born in Alexandria like a meridian demon, they spoke of some things innocently and with less caution," and that they cannot avoid the calumny of perverse men. We therefore return his own words to Jerome, and we demand by our own right that, what he desires to be valid for others, the same should also be valid for Origen.

XV. Finally, when in epistle 65, which is to Pammachius and Oceanus, chap. 4, Jerome testifies, as we mentioned above, that Origen had repented of his errors, and that he had signified this by letter to Pope Fabian, and had attributed the cause of the rashness to Ambrose, because he had published things written in secret; he is entirely vindicated from all infamy of heresy, by which those are marked who merely defend with pertinacity things pronounced rashly. This was noted most excellently, according to the perspicacity of his own genius, by Pico della Mirandola in art. 4 of his *Apology for Origen* (45) but he added—less correctly—that Origen proposed many things hesitantly before the sixtieth year of his age, as one not yet sufficiently disciplined in theological questions; yet that those which he wrote later—for instance, the books against Celsus and the *Commentaries on Matthew*—were written when the Catholic truth had already been discovered by him: as if the same errors, which he had admitted in the earlier ones, do not appear in these as well.

^B XVI. But since we are enumerating the defenders of Origen in this chapter, and we are summarizing what can be useful for defending him, the place warns us that we must indicate the true and legitimate author of the *Apology* written under the name of Pamphilus for him, whose testimony we have often employed throughout this entire work. Rufinus had inscribed the name of Pamphilus to this labor, which he had rendered into Latin letters, as it exists inscribed even today; and he had praised it in his *First Invective against Jerome* as having been elaborated by Pamphilus: whom the author of *Praedestinatus* (book I, hær. 43), Socrates (book IV *Hist. eccles.*, chap. 27), and Nicephorus (book X, chap. 14) subsequently followed. Jerome protested against Rufinus and complained that the readers had been deceived: yet he spoke variously concerning the author of this work. For in the prooemium to the *Dialogues against the Pelagians*, and in *Apology 1 against Rufinus*, chap. 2, he teaches that it is the first book of the six books which comprised the *Apology of Eusebius for Origen*; and from this it is manifest that it is clear from the fact that in the following books of Eusebius that first one is cited; and in [COLUMN 1104] his own questions and small doubts he proposed them for a clearer elucidation of the truth. Other things he himself sent into the public sphere, whether against infidels, or against heretics, or finally to instruct the Christian plebs; in which, walking in a trodden and safe life, he handed down the doctrine received in the Catholic Church more studiously. But it cannot be denied that Origen’s suffrage regarding Catholic doctrine ought to be sought from those writings especially which he himself destined for public uses, which he wrote thoughtfully and attentively, and which he finally composed when already an old man and taught by long use and experience of affairs. Of this kind are, by the consensus of all, the eight books against the Epicurean Celsus (and the *Commentaries on Matthew*). Yet I would not deny that most of the errors appear in them which he had admitted in the earlier ones.

^A and in turn following them; nothing of Pamphilus’s own work, as Eusebius testifies. And in the book *Against the Pelagians* to Ctesiphon, ch. 2: "He had done this," he says, "also in the name of the holy martyr Pamphilus, so that he might prefix the name of the martyr Pamphilus to the first book of the six books of the defense of Origen by Eusebius of Caesarea, who everyone knows was an Arian." And in book VI on Ezekiel, ch. 18: "And it is no wonder if he translated a gentile philosopher into a martyr and bishop of the city of Rome, since he also changed the first book of Eusebius of Caesarea for Origen into the name of the martyr Pamphilus, so that he might more easily win over Roman ears to the most impious books, *On First Principles*." (46)

But in epistle 41, alias 65, to Pammachius and Oceanus, ch. 4, he suspects that the book was composed by the friends and followers of Origen, and that it was composed the more easily because, with no other writings published by Pamphilus, the truth could not be detected from their conflict (47), and he adds that this supposititious work contains about a thousand lines from the beginning of the sixth book of Eusebius's *Apology*. He later subjoins that there was great harmony of minds between Pamphilus and Eusebius: "How, therefore," he says, "could they dissent among themselves, such that Eusebius in his entire work proves Origen to be of Arian dogma, and Pamphilus is a defender of the Nicene synod, which was later?" Whence he concludes that this little work is either by Didymus, or by anyone else who, ^B having "chopped off the head" of the sixth book of Eusebius, combined the remaining members; that is, who inserted the beginning of the sixth book into the former. For in book III of the *Apology against Rufinus*, ch. 4, he has these words: "In the Caesarean library I found six volumes of Eusebius’s *Apology for Origen*, which when I read, I realized that it was first of all that book which you alone published under the name of the Martyr, with the blasphemies concerning the Son and the Holy Spirit in many places changed for the better; and I do not know whether Didymus, or you, or someone else did this, which you are most openly convicted of having done in the books *On First Principles*; especially since the same Eusebius, as I have already shown in two books, writes that Pamphilus published nothing of his own." From these things it is inferred that Didymus, or anyone else, inserted about a thousand lines removed from the beginning of the sixth book into the first book of the Eusebian *Apology*, and that Rufinus rendered it into Latin and published it under the name of Pamphilus, when it should rather have been said to be Eusebius’s; and that he also changed some things regarding the Son of God and the Holy Spirit, whether he himself, or Didymus, or someone else did so. This same thing is repeated in book II of the *Apology against Rufinus*, ch. 6, and book IV, ch. 4, in which last place he admits that some things also exist that are less congruent with orthodox faith in Rufinus’s interpretation, which nowhere appear today; (48) erased by Rufinus, as I think, so that he might cut off every chance of complaint. In the sixth chapter of the same second book, Jerome relates that this *Apology*, first seen by him in a codex of Rufinus and inscribed with the name of Pamphilus, he had sometimes thought to be different from Eusebius’s *Apology*; but having read both, he easily understood that the first of the six Eusebian books was the one to which the name of Pamphilus was added by Rufinus, which was published under this title in Latin and Greek, with only the meanings concerning the Son and the Holy Spirit changed, which bore open blasphemy; hence it resulted that in his book *On Ecclesiastical Writers* he ascribed this labor to Pamphilus. His words are: "He wrote, before Eusebius wrote, an *Apology for Origen*." He excuses this at last in book II of the *Apology against Rufinus*, ch. 6: "But since Eusebius himself says that Pamphilus wrote nothing, except for short epistles to friends, and the first book of his six volumes contains the same things and the same words as those which you have forged under the name of Pamphilus, it is clear that you wished to disseminate this book for this reason, so that under the mask of a martyr you might introduce heresy; and since you have corrupted many things about the very book which you pass off as Pamphilus’s, and it is otherwise in Greek and otherwise in Latin, you ought not to impute your fraud to my error; for I believed it to be the book of the man whose title it bore." And he repeats these things in book III of the *Apology*, ch. 4. However, although Jerome remains doubtful in assigning the author of this *Apology*, Marianus Victorius, a careful editor of Jerome, did not hesitate to ascribe it to Eusebius without doubt.

^C Verum concertationem dirimit Photius cod. cxviii; docet enim Pamphilum, cum attineretur in carcere, quinque priores Apologetici illius libros, præsente Eusebio, elaborasse; sextum vero, perpesso martyrium Pamphilo, ab Eusebio fuisse absolutum. Præcipuum nempe operis auctorem Pamphilum agnoscit, socium vero Eusebium et administrum. Res ex ipsius verbis melius spectabitur: 'Ανεγνώσθη Παμφίλου τοῦ μάρτυρος, καὶ Εὐσεβίου ὑπὲρ Ὠριγένους· τόμοι δὲ τὸ βιβλίον ἕξ, ὧν οἱ μὲν πέντε Παμφίλῳ τὸ δεσμωτήριον οἰκοῦντι, συμπαρόντος καὶ Εὐσεβίου ἐξεπονήθησαν. Ὁ δὲ ἕκτος ἐπεὶ ὁ μάρτυς ξίφει τοῦ ζῆν ἀπαχθείς, ἀνέλυσε πρὸς ὃν ἐπόθει Θεόν, Εὐσεβίῳ λοιπὸν ἀπαρτίζεται. "Lectus est Pamphili martyris, et Eusebii pro Origene liber sex tomis ^D principium" reddiderunt "sexti libri," cum "sex librorum Eusebii super Origenis defensione principium" scribere debuissent. Sic etiam paulo post legentibus, "qui vi libr. capite detruncato," non exscribendum eis erat, "sexti libri," sed, "sex librorum." ansam præcideret. Vide Monitum nostrum in Apologiam Pamphili, num. 7, ubi hæc Huetii opinio confutatur.

^A maintained, five of which were found by Pamphilus in prison while he was detained, and with the five books we have this work mutilated.

XVII. Although we have brought forward many things either to refute Origen’s adversaries or to excuse him, it must nevertheless be confessed that he erred in many points. And indeed, we have acknowledged most of his errors, which had already been detected by others, or we have noted those not yet perceived while we weighed his doctrines. The cause of his sin was a precipitate judgment and an immoderate wantonness and license of genius, to which he yielded so intemperately that he poured forth all his thoughts, even those still raw and immature. There was added an inept method of interpreting Scripture—one that studied odiously and tediously to elicit and weigh the notions of individual words, and labored morosely and coldly in pursuing and pitting against one another the minutest details. Add to this an excess of profane doctrines, and especially of Platonic philosophy—which Tertullian, in his book *De anima*, cap. 23, says is the "spice-chest of all heretics"—the study of which he used as a norm by which to measure theological dogmas; being himself steeped in absurd opinions, he soon disturbed the Church. ^B Many of the ancient Fathers did indeed follow the discipline of Plato—some who were older than Origen, others younger—especially those who preceded the Council of Nicaea; but they borrowed from him only those things that agreed with the decrees of the Church. Origen, however, seemed to have transferred the entire academy into the Church, although he confesses in *Hom. 14 in Genesis*, no. 3, that "philosophy is neither in all things contrary to the Law of God, nor in all things in agreement with it." From this, such a great harvest of errors grew up from good crop. From these things it is clear enough how hollow are the efforts of Rufinus when he orders whatever is found to be false in Origen to be held as spurious and intruded by heretics; (49) for while it is true that many things have been falsely attributed to Origen, it nevertheless befits a candid man to confess that more things, and those harmful and destructive, proceeded from him.

XVIII. It now remains to be asked in what number the books of Origen are to be held, and indeed Origen himself, and whether he is to be placed among the heretics, and those books among the condemned and rejected writings. This will be, as it were, a corollary of this chapter. Let us first dispute ^D about the books. That Origen fell into various errors has been confessed by us. But although we might grant that these were added to his works from elsewhere, as many have affirmed, and we might clearly acknowledge Origen to be free from them, that would indeed avail for the excuse of the author, but not for the cleansing of the books. Since it is therefore certain that they teem with false and impious opinions, and have been infected with evil leaven from ancient times, it is asked whether the Church orders them to be utterly repudiated and cast aside, as is the custom with the books of heretics, or whether she approves or at least permits their use.

^A Pamphilus is the authority in his *Apology*, that in his own time those who used the books of Origen were regarded by many as heretics, and that they were not even granted the indulgence which is usually extended, for example, to those who study the secular books of the Greeks, or sometimes even read those of heretics for the purpose of inquiry and knowledge. Around the time of Pamphilus flourished the abbot Pachomius, illustrious for the holiness of his life; he who recorded his life in writing relates that, when he was near death, he forbade his monks in the strongest terms from reading those lucubrations. But the manifest hatred of the author toward Origenism detracts from the credibility of the narration. Then, much was attempted by Theophilus and Epiphanius so that those books might be cleared from everyone’s hands; ^B for it is reported by Socrates (lib. vi, cap. 9, 12) and Sozomen (lib. viii, cap. 14) that Theophilus alone railed against the lucubrations of Origen, even though Athanasius had already fought against the Arians using their authority; that he convened a council at Alexandria and succeeded in having them repudiated there; that he caused them to be condemned in the Cyprian synod through the persuasion of Epiphanius himself, and decreed that no one should spend time reading them; that he sent the decree to Constantinople, and strongly urged Chrysostom to do the same; that he strove to win the bishops over to his own opinion, and finally, as he was preparing to condemn the Origenist writings by public proclamation in the Temple of the Apostles, he was deterred by the warning of Serapion. Jerome also testifies that their use was forbidden by Faustinus (epist. 76, to Tranquillinus). Nor do I agree with Baronius, who, contrary to the authority of Sulpicius Severus, Socrates, and Sozomen, asserts that it is false ^C that there was any struggle between Epiphanius, Theophilus, and Chrysostom at that time concerning the prohibition of Origen’s books, or that they were proscribed in the Alexandrian or Cyprian synods; nor do I agree with Gennadius, who says that Severus reports in his former *Dialogue*: "In his own time, at the Alexandrian synod of bishops, there was a decree that Origen should be read by the wise more cautiously as a source of good things, and should be repudiated by the less capable as a source of evil." Sulpicius says indeed that there was a great dispute between the monks and the bishops "for this reason, because the priests, having gathered together numerous times in frequent synods, seemed to have decreed that no one should read or possess the books of Origen." Pope Anastasius, moreover, asserts in his letter to John of Jerusalem that he was most pleased that Arcadius and Honorius recalled the Christians from the reading of Origen. Vincent of Lerins also seems to lean in that direction (cap. 23, *Contr. hæres.*), that those books should be removed from the use of Christians. Finally, Justinian in his encyclical letter to Mennas and other bishops writes that he desires all Christians to know that the writings of Origen are utterly alien to the Christian faith and should be completely rooted out.

But on the other hand, ^D Theotimus of Tomis and John Chrysostom, along with many other bishops, refused to confirm with their subscription or assent that *xabaɩpetixx*—that condemnation—of Origenist works which Epiphanius had brought to Constantinople. Those who translated their own interpretations of the Holy Scripture from them, whom we have praised in our notes for the time, also seem to have not completely rejected them, if they did not openly approve them. And although their reading was sometimes forbidden by the decrees of the Church, it is said that the contrary use did not thereby become illicit.

This seems to be the most equitable opinion, and one confirmed by the perpetual consensus of the Church: that the use of Origen’s books is permitted to the public, provided that his errors are avoided. Jerome felt this way, however much he was incensed against Adamantius: "Because," he says in epist. 76 to Tranquillinus, "you ask for the opinion of my insignificance, whether he is to be utterly rejected according to brother Faustinus, or read in part according to some others: I think that Origen is to be read at times because of his erudition, just as Tertullian, Novatus, Arnobius, Apollinaris, and some other ecclesiastical writers, both Greek and Latin, are read, so that we may love what is good in them and avoid what is contrary, according to the Apostle who says: *Test everything; hold fast to what is good* (1 Thess. v, 21)." And shortly thereafter: "For one must not accept perverted dogmas because of his learning, nor, because of the perversity of his dogmas, are we to reject totally any useful Commentaries he may have edited on the Holy Scriptures." Imbued with this persuasion, that Origen-stinger Theophilus, after having miserably vexed Chrysostom, upon returning to Alexandria from Constantinople, when he was found reading Origen, cleverly said: *Τὰ Ὠριγένους ἔοικε λειμῶνι πάντων ἀνθέων· εἴ τι οὖν ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐφεύρω καλόν, τοῦτο δρέπομαι· εἰ δέ τί μοι ἀκανθῶδες φανείη, τοῦτο ὡς κέντρον ὑπερβαίνω.* "The books of Origen are like a meadow planted with every kind of flower. If I find anything good in them, I pick it; but if anything thorny appears to me, I pass over it like a sting." Cassiodorus ordered the same rule to be observed in reading Origen (lib. *De institut. divin. Scriptur.*, cap. 1), saying that his writings should be kept after the manner of dill; that the reading of Holy Scripture should be seasoned with his juice, but the boiled-down dross itself should be cast away; and since it has been said of him: "Where he is good, no one is better; where he is bad, no one is worse," he must be handled with great caution: "Wherefore," he says, "in the works of Origen, insofar as I have been able to discover in passing, I have marked the passages that were spoken against the rules of the Fathers with an *achresti* [useless] mark (for thus I read it, instead of *hæresim* [heresy] mark), so that he may not be able to deceive, who by such a mark is shown to be one who must be watched out for in regard to his depraved meanings. Others, however, say that he is to be avoided entirely, because he subtly deceives the innocent." Truly, before this, the Roman council, which was held under Gelasius, had decided in such a way concerning the matter: some of Origen's short works...

which the blessed man Jerome does not repudiate, we accept for reading, but we say that all the rest, along with their author, are to be rejected. Wherefore Socrates ^A seems to have written correctly in Book VI, chapter 45, that the noble adversaries of Origen—Methodius, Eustathius, Apollinaris, and Theophilus—by whom he was accused of many crimes, sufficiently demonstrated that whatever they did not censure was approved. Since this is the case, however, I believe that the use of the Origenian writings should not be permitted to just anyone from the crowd of Christians, but only to those whose faith has been clearly recognized and whose constancy has been proven by long-term experience. I would wish that those approved men be made the money-changers, who know how to cautiously separate the counterfeit coins of doctrine from the legitimate ones.

XIX. We have spoken of the books; let us explore what should be thought of Origen himself. Although Demetrius, the bishop of Alexandria, had gathered a double synod against him, by which he was stripped of his priestly honor, prohibited from the communion of the Church, and driven out of Alexandria, with almost the whole world consenting to this decree: nevertheless, the mark of a heretic did not begin to be branded upon him again until Epiphanius had altercated with John of Jerusalem, Theophilus with the Nitrian monks, and Jerome with Rufinus. For after Theophilus had convened a synod at Alexandria and, as he himself says, had cut off the snakes of Origen with an evangelical sword, he asked Epiphanius by letter to convene ^B a synod himself and to carry it out, "so that Origen might be condemned by name, and his nefarious heresy." To this advice Epiphanius finally acceded. Jerome reports in Book II of his *Apology against Rufinus*, chapter 6, and in his letters to Pammachius and Marcellus, that Pope Anastasius of Rome, Theophilus of Alexandria, Venerius of Milan, Chromatius of Aquileia, and the entire synod of Catholics of both the East and the West had denounced that heretic with the same opinion and the same spirit: by which title he himself also defames him. Theophilus calls him the hydra, the teacher and prince of all heresies and errors, in his *First Paschal Letter*, just as Zonaras also does in *Decius*. Pope Gelasius, in the Roman council, calls him a schismatic. The Antiochene synod of Ephraim pronounced anathema on Origen; the fifth universal council did so as well. ^C But in that council, as Evagrius relates in Book IV, chapter 38, it was first and foremost inquired whether men who had already finished their lives could be subjected to anathema; Eutychius, who was at the service of the bishop of Amasya—and who later attained the bishopric of Constantinople—resolved the question with the example of King Josiah, who not only slew the priests of the demons but also dug up the graves of the dead; this was received with great applause by all, but especially by Justinian. And not once, but again and again, this was debated in the various sessions of this council; those debates were summarized by Gratian in the *Decretum*, Part II, Cause 24, Question 2, and the synod finally decreed that heretics are subject to anathema both in life and after death.

Therefore, struck by the anathema from [that council] and declared a heretic, Origen was so branded. This was subsequently approved ^D by the sixth synod; for among its Acts is recorded the letter of Sophronius to Sergius, by which Adamantius is attacked with the same curse; and in the 8th session, the profession of faith offered by Macarius of Antioch to the Emperor Constantine is recited, in which he damns Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, and their deliriums; and in the 17th and 18th sessions, the anathema inflicted upon Origen by the fifth synod is approved, as it is also in the edict of the Emperor Constantine to the people dwelling in the Western parts; it is finally approved in the letter of Pope Leo II to Constantine. Furthermore, Facundus, who undertook the defense of the Three Chapters, openly recounts Origen among the heretics in Book XII, chapter 1. Moreover, Cassiodorus, in Book I of his *Institutions of Divine Scripture*, chapter 1, hands down that he was held in the same category by the suffrages of many Fathers, and Pope Pelagius II calls him the worst of heresiarchs. By the First Lateran Council, he is proscribed by the Church along with other heretics. Finally, the more recent Greeks, and many others as well, condemn him with the same reproach. These things, therefore, lead the adversaries of Origen to conclude that there is a prejudice against him, and they think that no one is allowed to speak against it.

However, those who follow the contrary side reply with these arguments: that although Origen was separated from the Church by Demetrius and many bishops who agreed with him, yet Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia, and Achaia had undertaken and defended his cause; and according to the testimony of Jerome, not his errors, but the envy of his adversaries had brought these troubles upon him: that there was no mention made of the Demetrian synods by Theophilus or Epiphanius, who were the most embittered adversaries of Origen, and consequently they took no account of them: that he was called the second teacher of the Churches after the apostles by Jerome, and even before that by Didymus; who would think that this was said of a heretical man? That Theophilus is refuted by the authority of these men, when he complains that Origen is called a doctor of the Church: that the pious bishop Theotimus replied to Epiphanius, who was urging the condemnation of Origen's books, "It is not holy to insult one who died long ago, nor is it right to slander the judgment of the ancients without cause, and to abolish the things that were approved by them." Neither, they say, is it right to treat a man who died long ago with contumely, nor to disapprove of the judgment of the ancients without calumny, and to rescind what was decreed by them: that Epiphanius himself did not demand the proscription of Origen, but only the condemnation of his books: he did not indicate that Origen himself was to be excommunicated, but slandered only the books. "He did not decree that Origen himself was to be outside of communion, but only accused his books," says George, the bishop of Alexandria, in his *Life of Chrysostom*, chapter 43—but indeed, we are not to understand Gelasius in such a way, when he calls him a schismatic, as if he meant that he had made a secession from the supreme head of the Church, but that he had brought dissensions and riots into the Church; introducing schisms into the

"[...when he had stirred up schisms in the Church," as Peter of Alexandria writes of him in his *Mystagogia*. Regarding the Fifth Council, it is that synods are able to judge on matters of faith, but not on persons, especially those deceased; hence it came about that the decrees of that Fifth Council regarding Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas lost, in the progress of time, their force and authority. It is a known principle of St. Thomas in ^A his *Quodlibet* nine, final article, that no one is necessarily constrained to the assent of the Church in those matters which do not pertain to the substance of the faith. Pope Vigilius, in his *Constitutum* to Justinian, ordered that the errors of Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas be refuted and condemned, but that the authors themselves be spared, since they died in the peace of the Church. Baronius, at the year 553, chapter 185, says this is to be approved insofar as it is certain that he who died in the peace of the Church had neither stubbornly defended heresy while alive nor feignedly persevered in the communion of the Church. But who would say that Origen stubbornly clung to his errors, he who we have shown felt so humbly and moderately about himself, and declared with such modesty what he felt? Who would imagine that he feignedly followed the communion of the Church, he who gave a profession of faith to Pope Fabian, most bitterly attacked arising heresies, entered into no society with heretics, and constantly utilized the familiarity of Catholic bishops until his death? Certainly, the Nicene Synod had already provided, even before Justinian, that a sentence should not be passed in the absence of the one whose cause was being judged. Whence Pontianus the bishop excellently states in his letter to Justinian: "In the end of your letter we learned, which does not a little prick our conscience, that we ought to condemn Theodore, the writings of Theodoret, and the letter of Ibas. Their words have in no way reached us until now. But if they have reached us, and we have read therein something apocryphal that is against the rule of faith, we can reject the words, but not condemn authors already dead by a precipitate condemnation. But if they were still alive, and, being corrected, did not condemn their error, they would be most justly condemned." When therefore Justinian says in his Edict against the Three ^B Chapters: "But if some say that Theodore ought not to be anathematized after his death, let those who defend such a heretic know that every heretic who remains in his error until the end of his life is justly subjected to a perpetual anathema, even after death; and this has been done in the case of many heretics, both ancient and more recent, that is, Valentinus, Basilides, Marcion, Cerinthus, Manichaeus, Eunomius, and Bonosus: this same thing has also been done in the case of Theodore, who was accused in his lifetime and anathematized by holy Fathers after his death;" this applies in no way to Origen; for even if he fell into errors at some time, yet, after he was once condemned by the Church, he did not refuse in any way to withdraw; the error was in his intellect; the crime of contumacy was not in his will. Finally, Leo III, sovereign pontiff, sufficiently asserted Origen’s reputation and name when, among the lessons culled from the lucubrations of the Fathers and inserted into the Roman Breviary, he also inserted some taken from Origen’s books.

Those, therefore, who wish for every suspicion of heresy to be absent from Origen, I judge can be reconciled with those who defame him with the invidious name of heretic if we say that the appellation of heretic is taken in a double sense: either to signify him who has either fabricated or followed a heresy—even if he was prepared to abjure it as soon as it had been repudiated by the Church—or one who was not only an author and follower, but also a perpetual champion and a stubborn asserter against the authority of the Church. In the former sense, therefore, the name of heretic is imposed by the Fathers upon Adamantius, so that he is signified as an author of heresy, not an asserter of it. In which sense very many orthodox Fathers can also be called heretics, such as Irenaeus, Papias, Cyprian, and others. Furthermore, this response can be provided: that the ignominious appellation of heretic is inflicted by the Church on no one except upon a hypothesis, namely, if one has died in heresy having spurned the decrees of the Church; which accusation falls upon Origen not at all. Let us therefore acquiesce in this opinion of Jerome ^C from the *Hebrew Traditions*: "This one thing I say: I would wish, along with the hatred of his name, to have also his knowledge of the Scriptures, holding as of no account the images and shadows of ghosts, whose nature is said to be to frighten children and to chatter in dark corners;" and in that from Epistle 65 to Pammachius and Oceanus, chapter 3: "But if anyone should oppose his errors to us, let him listen freely: 'Sometimes great Homer nods,' But it is right for sleep to steal over a long work. Let us not imitate his vices, whose virtues we cannot follow. Others have erred in the faith, both Greeks and Latines: whose names it is not necessary to bring forward, lest we seem to defend him not for his own merit, but for the error of others... But now, since I candidly confess his error, I will read him just as the others, because he erred just as the others. But you might say: If the error is common to many, why do you pursue him alone? Because you praise him as an Apostle. Remove the excess of love, and we remove the magnitude of hatred;" and this from the Prologue of Book II on Micah: "For that which they say, that I compile the volumes of Origen and that it is not proper to contaminate the writings of the ancients; which they believe to be a vehement curse, I consider the greatest praise, when I wish to imitate him who I doubt not is pleasing to all prudent men and to you."

CHAPTER IV.

THE FORTUNE OF ORIGENIAN DOCTRINE.

DIVISION OF THE FOURTH CHAPTER.—This chapter consists of three sections. I. It explains what Origenian doctrine suffered in the East from the time of Origen himself down to the altercation between Jerome and Rufinus; and then also what fortune it experienced in the West. II. It contains whatever was done on account of Origenism, from the dissension of Theophilus with the Egyptian monks and John Chrysostom, down to the times of the Council of Chalcedon. III. From that tempest, it pursues the fortune of Origenism down to this present age.

SECTION I.

1. The series of storms stirred up against the doctrine of Origen while he lived is summarized. II. Shortly after Origen’s death, they reappear. III. Pierius of Alexandria is called the younger Origen. Photius places Theognostus of Alexandria among the disciples of Origen. IV. In the time of the Arians, Origen’s doctrine began to be attacked again by the orthodox, because the Arians claimed his patronage for themselves. V. Yet Athanasius, Basil, and Gregory Nazianzen preferred to interpret it kindly. VI. Hilary, Euzoius, Titus of Bostra, Didymus, Ambrose, Eusebius of Vercelli, Victorinus of Pettau, Gregory of Nyssa, and even Jerome himself, who however soon changed his opinion, defend the Origenian side; Theodore of Mopsuestia and Apollinaris oppose it. VII. A twofold class of Origenists: the orthodox and the heterodox. VIII. The heterodox Origenists mostly emerged from the monasteries of Egypt. IX. The disagreement of John of Jerusalem with Epiphanius and Jerome; X. and of Jerome with Rufinus; XI. whom Archelaus and Theophilus attempt to reconcile. XII. Jerome writes to Pammachius against the errors of John of Jerusalem; XIII. and to Theophilus. XIV. He also deters Augustine from Origenism by letter. XV. Melania returns to Rome with her companion Rufinus; XVI. who, having published the *Apology of Pamphilus*, the tract *On the Adulteration of the Works of Origen*, and his books *On First Principles* in the city, was checked by Marcella. XVII. Jerome, having been informed of these things, translates the books *On First Principles*. XVIII. Rufinus writes three books against Jerome. XIX. Pope Anastasius condemns the errors of Origen. XX. And Rufinus himself. XXI. Jerome and Rufinus attack each other with writings. XXII. Melania the Elder and Rufinus meet their end. XXIII. Pelagianism follows Origenism, and Nestorianism follows Pelagianism. XXIV. Origenism is reborn in Spain, but is crushed by the works of Augustine; and at last it is thoroughly extirpated in the West.

As we are about to say how varied the judgments and wills of men have been in respect to Origen’s doctrine, it is necessary to repeat a few things that we have already stated when writing his life. It has been demonstrated, however, that the author and instigator of all the disturbances ^Bthat were stirred up against Origen to the great detriment of the Church was Demetrius of Alexandria. For when he had received the order of the presbyterate from Alexander of Jerusalem and Theoctistus of Caesarea, this was taken ill by Demetrius, and he took very severe measures against him, partly by subjecting him to mocking castration, and partly by stripping him of his honor through a synod of some Egyptian bishops gathered by him, and excluding him from the communion of the Church; although another synod had already decreed that he should be removed from the office of teaching and moved away from Alexandria. Yet such a heavy envy of men was blazing that the entire world consented to the decrees of those synods, with the exception of Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia, and Achaia. We have also said that it seemed consistent that Demetrius, looking everywhere for reasons to vex him, had denounced, and perhaps condemned, opinions that were suspect because of their novelty and alien to the usage of the Church: but that Heraclas succeeded Demetrius, and Dionysius succeeded Heraclas, who favored Origen, and that the storms stirred up against Origen were not quieted by the death of Demetrius, while the hatreds of many, whom his glory burned, were growing stronger. The Works of Origen themselves were especially exposed to their false accusations; for they were either recited on the spur of the moment and taken down from the mouth of the preacher, and therefore not composed with sufficient deliberation; or they were composed at night for the private instruction of Ambrose, not for the public light, and yet were published by Ambrose against Origen’s intent; or they were poured forth in the immoderate heat of a luxurious genius and were liable to the castigations of the malevolent; especially since, as we have said, heretics had inserted their own errors into his adulterated Works. But it is not easy to say whether the slanders of the envious were more detrimental to him, or the infinite praises and encomiums of his friends, by which the malevolence of his adversaries was sharpened. "Does it not seem to you," says Origen in Homily 25 on Luke, "that all have loved more than is expedient, and while they admire the virtue of each one, they have lost the measure of love? This is what we suffer in the Church; for many, while they love more than we deserve, boast of these things and speak, praising our sermons and doctrine, which our conscience does not accept. Others, however, slandering our treatises, accuse us of holding views which we know we have never held." Being therefore attacked by slanders and suspected of new dogmas, Origen maturely countered the rumors spread about him by writing an epistle to Pope Fabian and other prelates, in which he declared his own opinion concerning divine matters.

II. Dionysius of Alexandria followed the one who had finished his life with praises in a letter to Theotecnus, or Theoctistus, the bishop of Caesarea, as recorded by Gobarus.

^A It is recorded by Photius, cod. ccxxxii, that, in truth, the crowds of souls which Origen had roused while living, he is believed to have extinguished when dying; for the ancients have supplied us with no evidence of hatred persisting after his death. But not long after, new tempests fell upon his surviving fame. First, upon his being removed, I find that Methodius, bishop of Tyre, impugned his doctrine during the times of Diocletian: for Jerome narrates in his book *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, cap. 94, that there were books written by him *Against Origen* regarding the resurrection, regarding the Pythoness, and regarding free will. Epiphanius inserted a notable fragment of the work on the resurrection into his *Panarion*, heresy 64, and Photios, in cod. ccxxxiv, has also presented excerpts from it. The same, in cod. ccxxxv, brings forward excerpts from his *Ecloga* regarding the created, and in cod. ccxxxvi, regarding the power of self-determination, by which the dogmas of Origen are castigated. But that he finally repented of his own judgment, and, as if singing a palinode, declared himself an admirer of Origen in the Dialogue which he titled *Xenon*, is affirmed by Socrates in his book vi, cap. 13. (51) But Baronius contradicts Socrates in the year 402, and accuses him of falsehood on this argument: that Methodius, after having first praised Origen, later condemned him, as Eusebius relates in Jerome, book 1, *Apologia in Rufinum*, cap. 2; from which it is so far from being the case that he first condemned him and then praised him. As if Methodius could not have praised Origen at first, and subsequently, having detected errors, censured him, and then, those same things having been excused, returned to his former opinion. Baronius adds that Epiphanius had taken much from the lucubrations of Methodius against Origen; which he would have been ashamed to do, if he had known that Methodius had revoked his former opinion. That would indeed carry weight if Methodius had written in that Dialogue, *Xenon*, that everything that had been said by him against Origen was false; but if he intended only this—that Origen had indeed erred, but that the error was to be pardoned, and that he had been handled by him too severely and harshly, whereas he ought rather to have been favored on account of his piety, and his illustrious merits toward the Church—into what, then, does the reasoning of Baronius collapse? Finally, his argument against Socrates is this: that no mention of the Methodian Dialogue exists in Eusebius, nor in Rufinus, and that it is therefore supposititious. Yet, did Baronius not see the six books of the *Apology* written by Pamphilus and Eusebius for the sake of Origen, in which everything that could weigh in his favor was diligently collected, and in which the mention of the Dialogue of *Xenon* was therefore not omitted?

III. The renown and esteem of the Origenian doctrine were indeed so great at these times that, from this, I believe Methodius was led to a change of heart, since one could hardly entice anyone to his own side; all ^B adhered firmly to Adamantius. Yet, I find him poorly regarded by Peter, bishop of Alexandria and martyr, who was of the same age as Methodius. Justinian sets forth certain passages from his books in his letter to Menas, from which one may understand how hostile his mind was toward Origen. But at that time there flourished at Alexandria among the followers of Origen a man of great name, Pierius the presbyter, whom rare erudition, tireless labor, a happy genius, and a zeal for temperance and poverty, and useful and pleasant sermons to the people, so recommended that he was called the younger Origen: as though in such praise the sum of all praises that might become an ecclesiastical man were contained. “For at that time Origen was among the most distinguished men.” For thus he was held among the most celebrated Origens, says Photius in cod. cxix, where he discusses the writings of Pierius. The same, in cod. cv, reviewing the seven books of the *Hypotyposes* of Theognostus of Alexandria, says that he, moved by a zeal for either following or defending Origen, decreed that the Son of God is a creature, and that he presides only over those endowed with reason; and that he proposed the same things regarding the Holy Spirit as Origen, and likewise attributed bodies to angels and demons just as he did. Yet in cod. ccxxxii, Photius writes that Athanasius admits Theognostus in many places. Indeed, Athanasius calls him a most studious, eloquent, and admirable man in *On the Decrees of the Nicene Synod*, and in *On the Sin against the Holy Spirit*, and utilizes his protection against the Arians: and for this reason it is probable that the specific mention of him by Eusebius was omitted, because he was alien to the Arian parties. Wherefore, Andreas Schottus in his *Scholia* to Photius, cod. cvi, not undeservedly guesses that his *Hypotyposes* were corrupted by the patrons of this sect, just as was the book of Clement inscribed with the same title. But if the codex of Photius had reached us intact, we would know his age with certainty. This one thing we may know: that he was older than Athanasius and more recent than Origen.

^C IV. From the age of Methodius to the Arian times, honor toward Origen seems to have remained. But Ario having arisen, the Arians, seeking a defense for their heresy, studied to use the name of Adamantius as a pretext for their cause. From his own works, therefore, they diligently collected whatever appeared to undermine the dignity of the Son, or finally to aid their own opinion concerning the Trinity. And that would have been tolerable if their madness had stopped at that limit; but they poured the poison of their wicked doctrine into the same writings everywhere, so that they might make Origen entirely their own. To raise his authority, in which the Arians boasted so much, the orthodox turned their mind; with the Arians disagreeing in return, and the honor of Origen’s doctrine and reputation being rightfully preserved. ^D

^A And those, therefore, who had nearly as many supporters as the Arian heresy had, or as many detractors, for the most part, either embraced the Origenian doctrine or detested it; nor do I suppose that the storms raised against him at this time arose from any other source. You may clearly discern the zeal of these parties in the most illustrious prelates of these times, Eustathius of Antioch and Eusebius of Caesarea. The latter, the standard-bearer of the Arian faction, as he is called by Jerome (lib. 1, in Rufin., cap. 2), in order to consult for Origen’s reputation, induced his own friend and intimate, the presbyter Pamphilus—so devoted to Origen that he sought out and dedicated all of Origen’s books from everywhere to the Church of Caesarea (these are Jerome's words in his epistle to Marcellus) and transcribed the greater part of them with his own hand, which, in the age of Jerome, were still preserved in the Caesarean library—to write an Apology for Origen. Photius (cod. CXVI) relates the cause of this Apology being written: that it might be sent for the consolation of pious men who had been condemned to the mines for the sake of Christ. But when Eusebius, having completed the work after Pamphilus had died a martyr and could not finish it, added the final hand, he also debated gloriously for the Origenian cause in his Ecclesiastical History. Anastasius the Librarian takes this ill indeed, for in his History for the years of Christ 244 and 246, he complains more than once that Eusebius, with unjust silence, had crushed the praises of many men illustrious for their piety and learning, or had handled them only lightly and invidiously, in order to attribute all supreme honors to his own Origen, “not knowing what he was saying or whereof he affirmed.” ^B As if this age had produced another equal to Origen in fame and merit! It must be admitted that Eusebius perhaps gathered his praises with a malicious intent, but as far as the credibility of the historical facts goes, he generally had Epiphanius, or Jerome, or others in agreement. But Eustathius, standing apart from the orthodox, and therefore accused by the Arians of Sabellianism, attacked Origen and took up the task of refuting his opinion regarding the Witch of Endor in a special work. Pamphilus writes in the first book of his Apology, which Rufinus translated, that Origen was burned with such hatred by those men at that time that not only was he accused as a heretic, together with "the corruption and ruin of souls," but those devoted to the reading of his works were also torn apart and considered unworthy of the pardon usually granted to those who are addicted to profane or heretical books, and were clearly held to be heretics. "Finally," he says, "upon many men of honest life and religious purpose, in whom they find absolutely no fault, they have enmities for this reason alone, if they perceive their zeal to be more inclined toward the books of the aforementioned man, even fictitiously and invidiously maintaining that he and his words are held by them in the place of the holy apostles or prophets." A little later he adds that for the most part the unlearned, and those inexperienced in the handling of the Origenian volumes or ignorant of the matters in question, were nevertheless accustomed to condemn Adamantius by their own judgment for unknown reasons; others, good fruit ^C of which his books were filled, to omit; harmful [books] and opportunities for accusation to incite envy, and to collect; and some, even those versed in his reading, after they understood that they had progressed sufficiently through him, then indeed departed from their master and pierced him with anathema, lest they appear to have learned anything from him. Then he adds: "But the malice of those of whom we spoke above has progressed so far that some have even dared to write against him, and by published pamphlets to disparage the man who for so many years was a master of the Church." He further relates that those books were especially sought after "which he had written in secret during a space of quiet," because he was thought to have discussed matters more openly in them; but above others, the books *On Principles*, in which he had arranged his dogmas as if in a storehouse. Moreover, the accusations forged against him by the malevolent consisted of nine principal chapters, which Pamphilus reviews and refutes, and which we have discussed extensively above. Thus, Abbot Pachomius, when dying, warded off his monks from the reading of the Origenian lucubrations with a severe adjuration.

^D V. This Arian faction gave birth to these troubles for Origen while it was too zealously angling for his support: an action for which, when the orthodox took revenge more sharply, they did not sufficiently distinguish Origen’s cause from the Arian, and condemned both. Dionysius of Alexandria, a disciple of Origen, was affected by the same injury, and having been called into suspicion of an injured Trinity—whence he was not accepted by Basil in many things, especially where he confirmed the heresy of the Arians—as Gobarus writes (apud Phot. cod. CCXXXII). But Athanasius acquitted him of both charges, as has been handed down by us above; nor was the zeal for the truth of more value to him than that of the Catholic parties: and Basil himself and Gregory the Theologian preferred to drag the testimonies of Adamantius, which had been objected to them by the Arians, into a convenient sense rather than, by scorning those same things, to defraud the author of his due honor. Moreover, having worn them out by the constant reading of his very works, they gathered all the excellent things selected into one volume, and because of the matters brilliantly conceived, inscribed it with the title *Philocalia* (whence Gregory Nazianzen in his epistles also names Origen "Philocalus") and sent it to Theodorus, bishop of Tyana. Furthermore, it is said that they, whenever they read Origen’s writings and encountered his own dogmas that were at variance with common usage, affixed a double *chi*, after the manner of the Platonists, who, when they read Plato, marked the notable passages with this character: as Laertius reports in his *Plato*. Instructed by this reading, both stoutly repelled the attacks of the Arians. We learn this from Socrates, who also adds (lib. IV, cap. 26), *Méya yàp xλέos τὸ Ὀριγένους καθ' ὅλης τότε τῆς οἰκουμένης ἐφήπλωτο*—"For the great glory of Origen had spread over the whole world at that time." By the finished Apologies, illustrious men truly protected him, at the time when Pamphilus was devoting his work to his defense, as Photius testifies (cod. CXVI). Yet some indeed, although his name is disguised, carp at his own [works]

with inept and frigid allusions, such as that writer loves to invent, and calls them blasphemous. Likewise, he says that his dogmas are poisonous, soul-destroying, and ensnare the simple-minded. ^A

Athanasius and Basil [reproached him]. The former, in his *Life of Anthony*, reproaches the lapsing of souls and their transmigrations from minds into bodies; the latter, in the third book of his *Commentaries on the Hexaemeron*, condemns his anagogical expositions, by which he teaches that certain higher virtues, which deserve to hold a place in heaven, are signified by the waters which are above the firmament, whereas those that fell therefrom are denoted by the waters which are under the heaven.

Moreover, it is manifest from the foregoing how greatly Halloxius erred in his book *Defense of Origen, quaest. 4*, as well as some others, who—before the dissensions of Epiphanius with John of Jerusalem and Chrysostom—reported that Origen was held by no one to be a heretic, and that Epiphanius was the first to attack him. For Pamphilus writes clearly in his *Apology* that he was accused as a heretic; and this very *Apology* reveals by what grave crimes he was beset, for "the very name of 'Apologetic'," as Jerome says in *Epistle 65 to Pammachius and Oceanus*, ^B "shows the accusation; for nothing is defended unless it is in a state of crime." This is also declared by the many *Apologies* written for Origen by men of great name in the time of Pamphilus. Nor is it a contradiction that Augustine asks Jerome by letter to reveal Origen's errors to him; for on account of his ignorance of the Greek language, Augustine remained in that state of unawareness.

VI. While those discourses in favor of Origen were prevailing, Hilary of Poitiers proposed to himself to follow him in writing. For Jerome relates that he, while exiled in Phrygia, illustrated a great part of the Psalms with commentaries, and in that work imitated Origen, though he added some things of his own; he also translated into the Latin tongue Origen's expositions on Job and Matthew. Jerome is furthermore the authority for the fact that Euzoius, bishop of Caesarea, a fellow-student and contemporary of Gregory Nazianzen, attempted to restore the "corrupted library of Origen and Pamphilus on parchment." Titus, bishop of Bostra, also followed Origenian parts, as did Didymus the Alexandrian, whom he calls the most manifest champion of Adamantius, and who, having published small commentaries on the *De Principiis*, maintains that there is nothing in them that is not orthodox, just as Eusebius does. The same Jerome recounts that Ambrose of Milan, Eusebius of Vercelli, and Victorinus of Pettau donated many of Origen’s works to the Latin language or imitated them. Gregory of Nyssa so openly adhered to Origen that he not only followed him with praises, but even held some of his dogmas, to such an extent that Germanus the Patriarch—whose excerpts Photius has in *Cod. 230*—endeavored to demonstrate with a special book that his writings had been corrupted and adulterated by Origenists. Certainly, in his disputation on man, ^C Gregory repudiates the pre-existence and transmigration of souls, yet he refrains from the name of Origen. Jerome himself, even when young, had been so captivated by the prodigious genius of Origen and his singular erudition that he often lapsed into his praises and could be considered a pure Origenist; but realizing that he was walking over fires placed under deceitful ashes, he drew back his foot, as we shall declare in what follows. Yet not so many were deterred by the patrons of the Origenian name that Theodore of Mopsuestia and Apollinaris shrank from railing against him openly here, or attacking him in many short treatises there; but the detraction of heretical men who are being warned is of little importance. The author of the *Dialogues*, too, which are ascribed to Caesarius, the brother of Gregory Nazianzen—though they are more recent than Caesarius and filled with fragments of Maximus and Gregory of Nyssa—that author, I say, felt and wrote ill of Origen, calling him a "mythologist," one who "charms the ears but does not nourish the souls," and "full of wrath." ^D

VII. Thus far, matters had gone famously with Origen, nor had his adversaries heaped so much ignominy upon him as the prominence he had attained, as the fame of his doctrine grew from day to day; yet when hostilities were undertaken against some of the ecclesiastical men, partly for reasons of Origenism and partly for private hatred, the whole Church was shaken by the greatest commotions. If it were our purpose to pursue every detail accurately, this work would grow to an immense size, and we would run beyond the boundaries set for this study; so long is the injury, so long the intricacies; but we shall pursue only the summits of events. In order that this may proceed in order, the matter must be repeated from a deeper level. With the whole world almost agreeing in praise of Origen, it happened that some, admiring his excellent words and deeds as they deserved, defended even his errors with little prudence, not knowing how to moderate their zeal, and to cling to Origen where he thought correctly, while bidding farewell to him where he erred. Hence a double kind of Origenist arose: orthodox and heterodox. Among the orthodox we place those who have just been praised, attributing all things to Origen with their own reckoning, but departing from his errors, or ready to depart from them as soon as they had been perceived and condemned by the Church. We count among these John Chrysostom, Theotimus of Tomi, and some of those whom we shall relate below to have been vexed on account of Origenism; to the heterodox we ascribe Didymus the Alexandrian, John of Jerusalem, Evagrius Ponticus, Palladius of Galatia, Isidore, Rufinus, and many of the Egyptian monks who inhabited Mount Nitria, and who, Nicetas relates in *Thesaurus of Orthodox Faith, book IV, heresy 51*, were the first to be imbued with the poison of Origenism.

Rufinus had intended to praise [him], as we have learned from Jerome, whose words to Ctesiphon, ch. 2, are these: ^A “He even wrote a book, as if about the monks, and in it he enumerates many who never were, and those who he writes were [monks] and Origenists, and beyond doubt condemned by the bishops, namely Ammonius and Eusebius; and Euthymius, and Evagrius himself, and Or also, and Isidore, and many others, whom it is tiresome to enumerate.” And according to that saying of Lucretius:

*As when physicians try to give to boys* *The bitter wormwood, they first touch the rims* *About the cups with yellow, honeyed sweetness* 15;

so he placed one man, John, at the beginning of his book, who is without doubt known to have been a Catholic and a saint, so that through the occasion of him, he might introduce to the Church the others whom he had set down as heretics. Marianus Victorius rightly asserts that John Chrysostom is signified by these, but he is mistaken in thinking this other Evagrius to be different from Evagrius Ponticus, the Hyperboreite, as he is called elsewhere by Jerome. But just as Rufinus undertook to celebrate the Origenists in Latin, so the same was done in Greek by Palladius in the *Lausiac History*, in which work he encompassed the lives of Isidore, Dorotheus, Ammonius, Evagrius, Or, Potamiana the disciple of Origen, Didymus, and of other followers of Adamantius. Moreover, I would wish all those whom we classify among the Origenist heterodox to be held as heretics; for it is traditional that it is not error, but obstinacy, that makes one a heretic. Melania, for example, although from this flock, was nonetheless numbered among the saints; and some of those Nitrian monks at the pseudo-synod held at the Oak demanded and obtained the pardon of their errors.

^C And this distinction of the Origenists must be diligently noted: for Baronius thinks that all those Nitrian monks who were defamed at that time by the name of Origenists were heretics, and that they did not so much favor the glory of Origen as cling obstinately to his opinions: which opinion seems to me to be extremely insulting to Chrysostom and Theotimus, bishop of Tomi, most holy men. Others, however, wish all suspicion of error to be removed from them, and they turn the odium of the whole dispute onto the bishops who were hostile to the Origenists, arguing that they used the cause of Origenism as a pretext for their own rivalries, and unjustly harassed innocent men; holding furthermore the authority and testimony of the most pious men, Jerome and Epiphanius, in less regard, and preferring over them the suffrage of Palladius, a mere Origenist, by whom the life of Chrysostom was written. Heribert Rosweyde, a diligent seeker into ecclesiastical history, walks between these, and conjectures that those men who were brought into disrepute for Origenism first defended the dogmas of Origen, but afterwards repudiated them: which, if it were so, would certainly not have been overlooked by the writers of their own or subsequent times, nor by those who studiously collected arguments for or against Origen. ^B It remains, therefore, that we say that the Origenists were of a double kind, orthodox and heterodox; and that this odious name was attributed to many undeservedly, and to more, indeed, by right. The Greek menologies, which refer some of the Origenists to the album of the saints, and the proven virtue and piety of Chrysostom, who protected them so much that he brought the same appellation upon himself, lend credence to our opinion; as does the testimony of Jerome and Epiphanius on those parts that impose the mark of heresy. Truly, that there was not one single doctrine of all the Origenists, nor the same morals, is sufficiently proven from Epiphanius, who, in *Haer.* 63 and 64, recognizes a twofold breed of them: in which, although he may have put forward uncertain things, and Augustine after him, it is nevertheless clear from this that the sect of those men was manifold. I readily believe Epiphanius, when he reports that while there were some among them of the most upright morals, others practiced filthy lust and Onanism; whatever Halloxies may contradict: and from this I suspect that Epiphanius was led, since he had heard that not all Origenists thought the same things in other respects, to think that that foul deed, which was a vice of morals, was an error of doctrine, and thus he established a double sect. As many were of a mild disposition, so others were contentious, refractory, and stiff-necked; such as those who laid violent hands, as we shall say, on Theophilus, the bishop of Alexandria: others were glib and petulant, and often assailed the Catholics with scoffs and insults; as in the schism we are narrating, where they called the Catholics "Pelusiotae" (people of the mud), because they were, as it were, immersed in mud, and bent down to the earth and void of heavenly things; alluding with cold and scurrilous jest to the word *πηλός*, and the name of Pelusium, being situated in the vicinity of the Nitrian Origenists and those who lived in Palestine. Jerome, *Epist.* 61, to Pammachius, ch. 5: “These are your tricks and prestidigitations, by which you call us Pelusiotae, and beasts, and animal men, because we do not receive the things that are of the Spirit.” Baronius misses the meaning of this saying, and commands that *Pilosiotas* be read instead of *Pelusiotas*, because the Origenists used this word, mocking and deriding the Catholics as if they believed the dead were to rise again even with their hairs, while they were saying correctly that they would be raised with the individual members of their bodies 16. But we offer Jerome himself as the warrantor of our explanation, *Epist.* 65, to Pammachius and Oceanus, ch. 3: "They call us," he says, "Pelusiotae, and muddy, and animal, and carnal, because we do not receive the things that are of the Spirit"; and ch. 1: "For they think that I am their *symmystes* (fellow initiate), and that on account of the animal and muddy sorts I do not want to publicly confess the dogmas." More clearly still in *In Jerem.* xxix, 14: “When the disciples of him (Origen) and the refuse of the family of Grunniana (that is, of Rufinus) hear these things, they think they are hearing divine mysteries; and us, who scorn these things, as if…”

they possess for irrational animals, and they call them *pηλоvσтαs* [mud-dwellers], because, being constituted in the mud of this body, we cannot perceive celestial things. It is recorded in literature that the Egyptian monks, among whom Origenism particularly flourished, were generally of a restless and turbulent disposition, and eager for new things, and that on this account they fell into various heresies. From this source, the Aerians, Eustathians, Anthropomorphites, Jovinians, Eutychians, and six hundred others of that kind emerged; and from an even earlier age, clinging to the Meletians and Arians, they branded their own bishop Athanasius with reproaches. Whence Jerome, in his *Apology against Rufinus*, book III, chapter 7, says: "I traveled through Egypt, I searched the monasteries of Nitria, and among the choirs of the saints, I saw that asps lay in wait."

VIII. From this nursery of heresies and heretics, the heterodox Origenists came to be. Epiphanius relates in *Heresy 64*, chapter 4, that Origenism was first propagated in Egypt and flourished among the Egyptian monks in his time. And first, Melania the Elder, a noble woman, when she had left her homeland to go to Jerusalem for the sake of piety, made a stay of several months among the monks of Nitria, and having visited Didymus, she was infected with the Origenist errors there, along with Rufinus, her companion on the journey. This took place around the year of Christ 372. At that time, Jerome sent a letter to Rufinus, in which he invited him in a friendly manner to come to him in Syria. But after they had fixed their residence in Jerusalem, expending their wealth and labor on fostering pilgrims and aiding the affairs of Christians, they received Evagrius Ponticus, who was leaving Constantinople for certain reasons, and into his mind they sprinkled the first seeds of the Nitrian Origenism. Thus instructed, and having been invested with the monastic habit by Melania according to his vow, Evagrius went into Egypt, and after he had met with Didymus, he finally hid himself in the monasteries of Nitria, and enrolled his name among the Origenists flourishing there. Jerome is the authority, in his *Letter to Ctesiphon*, chapter 2, that he [Evagrius] wrote to virgins, to monks, and to her whose name of blackness testifies to the darkness of perfidy (understand Melania the Elder), and that he further published a book *On Apatheia* [On Dispassion], in which the notable dogma of Origen, which I discussed above, was contained; and that the West had read his books, interpreted into Latin by Rufinus. Palladius the Galatian arrived at the same place some years later, and after three years spent in the asceteria, he was imbued with Origenism; when he was afflicted by poor health, he withdrew to Palestine, and the poison of Origenism which he had drained in Egypt he poured out everywhere. Paula the Roman was flourishing at that time in these places in holiness and virtue; Palladius attacked her, and would have drawn her into his party, had not Jerome maturely countered the growing evil, and restrained the man's insolence by holding a dissertation with him. Jerome narrates the history of the matter at length in his *Epitaph of Paula*, chapters 11 and 12, in which he complains that she was snatched from him by that man. ^B Palladius, in the *Lausiacs*, section 78 and following, and likewise section 124, also censures Jerome.

IX. But that stain had already seized upon John, the prelate of Jerusalem. Before attaining the episcopate, he was a monk who had lent his ears to the Arians and Macedonians, and having left them, he had betaken himself to the Origenists when raised to the pontifical dignity. Epiphanius of Salamis, the bishop, naturally bore this ill, as he ought, and gently, in the presence of many, face to face, admonished him of his error; at which he, with his partisans, became so inflamed that he publicly accused Epiphanius of the heresy of the Anthropomorphites, and defended his own [party] with such stubbornness that he made the same Epiphanius repent of having had communion with them. Hence John, exasperated and eager for contention, was seeking pretexts for vengeance, when lo, conveniently, Epiphanius promoted Paulinianus, the brother of Jerome, to the dignity of deacon and presbyter in Palestine, outside his own jurisdiction, though he was unwilling and reluctant. John complained much, both publicly and privately, threatening that he would divulge the matter to all by letter; and furthermore adding to the injury that, when Epiphanius was performing the sacred rites to God, he was accustomed to say: "Lord, grant to John that he may believe rightly." Epiphanius cleared himself of the charged crimes in a mild letter, which is held as number sixty among the Jeromean [letters]; in which he signifies not so much that he was attacked by him on account of the character of the presbyterate imposed upon Paulinianus outside his jurisdiction—since it had been done in a monastery, and not in a parish subject to John, and it was permitted to be done by the usage received among the bishops of Cyprus—but rather that he had reproached him for the faith violated by the Origenian dogmas. Yet in the third chapter he writes these things: "I grieve, and I grieve greatly, seeing most of the brethren, and especially those who have a profession which is not minimal, and who have even reached the highest degree of the priesthood, deceived by his (Origen's) persuasions, and that through his most perverse doctrine they have become the food of the devil." Whence it is apparent how many even then the breeze of Origenism had blown upon. Finally, he concludes in these words: "But as for Palladius the Galatian, who was once dear to us, and now needs the mercy of God, beware, because he preaches and teaches the heresy of Origen, lest perhaps he might lead some of the people entrusted to you into the perversity of his error." ^D This letter was dated in the year of Christ 392, in the consulship of Arcadius and Rufinus, and once it was published, along with others of the same argument given by him to the bishops and monks of Palestine and to Pope Siricius, the rumor of the dissension immediately spread through the entire world. It should be known, however, that dissensions also occurred between Jerome and John, for the sake of the same Paulinianus, but indeed mostly for the cause of Origenism; for since Jerome stood by Epiphanius, and not only approved the things done in the business of Paulinianus, but also openly condemned the errors of Origen, John proceeded to such a pitch of anger that he excluded Jerome from the communion of the Church.

^A Just as Jerome complains in his letter 61, chapter 15, to Pammachius: "I, poor wretch," he says, "while hiding in the solitude, suddenly cut off by such a great pontiff, have lost the name of presbyter." Yet, he testifies that for this reason he was not prohibited from entering the church, or from the fellowship of bishops and Christians, in that chapter and the one following. In letter 62, which is to Theophilus (chapter 4), he adds that his exile had been requested by John and granted; yet, he was not in the least driven into exile.

X. Meanwhile, this contagion of discord also infected Rufinus; for while he once cherished in his bosom the doctrine of Origen, which he had drunk in, he defended the same doctrine in John, Palladius, and others against whom it was being assailed. From here comes that statement of Epiphanius in his letter to John of Jerusalem, chapter 4: "May God, however, deliver you, my brother, and the holy people of Christ who are entrusted to you, and all the brothers who are with you, and especially Rufinus the presbyter, from the heresy of Origen, and from other heresies and their perdition." Nor for any other reason did Rufinus break away from the friendship he had formed with Jerome many years before.

XI. As the hatred escalated daily between John of Jerusalem and Epiphanius, the count Archelaus—a man, as Jerome says, "most eloquent and most Christian"—endeavored to restrain the such great disturbances of his friends. It was decided first, since the suspicion of violated faith had bred discord, that a profession of the same should pave the way to concord. At the agreed place of the covenant, and with a crowd of monks and others already gathered, they waited for John, but he, alleging the illness of some woman or other, deferred the matter to another time, and, despite Archelaus warning and inviting him to settle the matter, he did not appear, employing the same excuse. Then indeed, Theophilus of Alexandria deemed it his duty to assist the suffering Church; whether stirred by rumor or, as I would rather believe, invited by John. Therefore, he sent Isidore, a presbyter and monk of Alexandria, a man conspicuous for his reputation for piety, as a legate to John and others, for the sake of settling the contentions, bearing letters with which he attempted to soothe their inflamed spirits. But, in fact, his hope deceived Theophilus by a great margin; for this Isidore, whom he had sent, was a mere Origenist, favoring the Origenists, more apt to disturb things than to compose them; for three months before he came to Jerusalem, he had sent letters to the presbyter Vincent, by which he encouraged him to persevere in the orthodox faith, that is, in Origenism, ^B claiming he would soon arrive to crush the battalions of the adversaries. These are the words of Jerome’s letter 61, to Pammachius, chapter 15, whose footsteps we accurately follow. Thus, therefore, that distinguished peacemaker was animated; he approached John and the others who were participants in this dissension, and delivered his embassy. And perhaps he might have reconciled peace, if he had not betrayed a spirit steeped in the ferment of Origenism; for since he knew Jerome to be hostile to this doctrine, he approached him a second and a third time in the name of Theophilus, but refused to deliver the letters to him. But when Jerome asked him, saying: "If you are a legate, deliver the letters of the embassy; if you do not have letters, how will you prove yourself a legate?" he replied that he did indeed have letters for him, but had been asked by John not to deliver them. Thus, with suspicion of favoritism toward the other side injected, he killed the hope of peace, and departed with the matter unfinished. As he was leaving, John handed him an Apology for his cause to Theophilus, to whose composition Isidore had been present, and had contributed his own work; "so that he was," says Jerome, letter 61, chapters 2 and 15, "both the dictator and the bearer of the letters." Meanwhile, John regarded a great multitude of brothers and choirs of monks in Palestine who did not communicate with him (the words are Jerome's) as public enemies; because they had been compelled by the warning of Epiphanius to avoid his communion. Furthermore, disdaining to give an answer to the aforementioned letter of Epiphanius, he sent legates, as he had previously threatened, in every direction, who would disseminate accusatory letters written by him against Epiphanius to Theophilus of Alexandria throughout the whole world, but especially in the West, with which, as Jerome says in letter 61, chapter 3, he might stir up the ears of the Occidental priests.

XII. Exasperated by these things, Pammachius asks Jerome by letter from Rome that, since this altercation was drawing the minds of many in different directions, some supporting Epiphanius' cause and others John's, he would himself set forth his own judgment. Jerome complied, and in a trenchant reply, given in the year of Christ 393, he showed that the true and genuine cause of the contention was not the consecration of Paulinianus, which John claimed as the pretext for his anger, but Origenism, which he narrates had been objected to John, called back from eight chapters, of which he had purged only three. And I command that these be carefully noted, so that from them the doctrine and dogmas of the Origenists of this age, which were in controversy, can be observed. The first is: that neither the Son can see the Father, nor the Spirit can see the Son; second, that the soul was cast from heaven into the body on account of sins, as if into a prison; third, that it will be that the devil and the demons will one day repent of their sins and reign with the saints in heaven; fourth, that Adam and Eve were without bodies before the sin, but that human bodies were placed around them after the sin, signified by the coats of skins; fifth, that flesh will by no means be resurrected, that limbs will not be reassembled, that men will be entirely devoid of sex; sixth, that the terrestrial paradise should be understood allegorically; seventh, that the waters which are said in Scripture to be above the heavens are the angels, and those above and below the earth are the demons; finally, that man lost the image of God by sinning. This letter contains much else worthy of reading, if anyone desires to obtain an accurate knowledge of those times. Jerome proves this primarily with manifest reasons, which we have said: before Paulinianus was ordained, already on account of Origen, John and

Epiphanius had been at odds. Wherefore I wonder at Halloxius, and certain more recent writers, who challenge this even to this day, and hold in no account the testimony not only of Jerome but also of Epiphanius, who speaks to John thus: "For I see that because of this reason all your indignation has been aroused, because I told you that you ought not to praise Origen, the father of Arius, to be sure, and the root and parent of other heresies. And when I asked you not to err in this way, and warned you, you contradicted me, and brought me to sadness and tears: and not only me, but many other Catholics who were present. From this, as I understand, comes all this indignation and this fury; and for that reason you threaten that you will send letters against me, so that your discourse may run hither and thither." Finally, Jerome declares in the same letter that his own purpose was to destroy the dogmas of Origen in a special work.

XIII. Fearing meanwhile that Theophilus’s mind, occupied with the letters of John and the whisperings of Isidore, might think ill of the cause of the orthodox, he thought it right to write the history of the events to him, and to purge himself and his party before him. He declares, therefore, in a letter that is held as number sixty-two among those of Jerome and was dated in the same year, 393, that he wishes for peace and is prepared to bring about the same; he then refutes many charges laid against him by John; in which it is to be noted that he replied to being accused by John of having translated certain of Origen’s works into Latin: "I did not do this alone, but the confessor Hilary did it as well; and yet each of us, cutting away all that was harmful, translated what was useful"; and a little later: "Just as I always attributed to Origen the interpretation and idioms of the Scriptures, so I most steadfastly removed the truth of his dogmas." Moreover, to show how vain was John’s complaint regarding the ordination of Paulinianus, he asserts that he was ordained in the territory of Eleutheropolis, not in that of Aelia. Eleutheropolis, however, is Hebron; Aelia, Jerusalem. Finally, after he complained that John had labored to procure his destruction and had solicited public authority and rescripts, he signifies that he desires all discord to be allayed. Having heard both sides, Theophilus perceived the truth and, finding that a bad cause was being fostered by John and others through wicked arts, he so embraced the opposing party as nevertheless to strive to recall both sides to sincere concord, and to treat the resisting Origenists softly and kindly.

XIV. Furthermore, in order to check the plague of the serpent Origenism, in the following year Jerome admonishes Augustine—flowering in piety and erudition, with whom a certain acquaintance had passed between them, through the courier Alypius, later bishop of Tagaste, who had already earlier signified his wish that the works of Origen should be rendered into Latin by Jerome—by a letter, which has been lost, that he should walk cautiously in Origen’s writings, approving the better parts and rejecting the worse; but Augustine, in his response, requested that Origen’s errors be noted for him.

XV. In the year 397 from the birth of Christ, after a separation of twenty-five years, Melania returned to Rome, accompanied by Rufinus, her companion on the journey. Palladius says the cause of her return was as follows: having received word that her granddaughter Melania, the wife of Pinianus, averse to marriage and the world, wished to consecrate the remainder of her life to Christ, she feared, as the elder, that her granddaughter might fall in with the perverse leaders of her own secession, and so had flown to Rome and aided her with counsel. Baronius assigns another cause for the journey: namely, the zeal for bringing in Origenism, for which the secession of the younger Melania among the common people had been a pretext. He did not provide the author of his opinion; he yielded only to conjectures.

XVI. As soon as Rufinus arrived in Rome, intending to publish the books of Origen *On First Principles* (*Περὶ ἀρχῶν*) that he had rendered into Latin, he sent ahead the first book of the *Apology* of Pamphilus, likewise translated and interpolated by him, and along with it his own work *On the Adulteration of the Books of Origen*, to prepare the way for Origenism. In his prefaces he testifies that he undertook both at the exhortation of Macarius: but Jerome asserts that this was feigned by him through simulation (*Apolog.* bk. II, ch. 3). In the preface to Macarius, under the pretext of the *Apology* of Pamphilus, he does not obscurely touch upon Epiphanius and Jerome when he discourses thus concerning his own interpretation: "I have no doubt, however, that it brings the greatest offense to those who think themselves harmed by anyone who has not thought something evil of Origen." And these words recall a similar complaint of his own, which he inserted in the peroration to his interpretation of Origen’s *Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans*: "But it will be a delight," he says, "to have indulged in these labors, if only, as we have experienced in other matters, malevolent minds do not return insults for our vigils, and if studies are not rewarded with slanders, and labors with traps. For we undergo a new kind of fault among them;" and presently: "But they donate all this to me, not for love of me, but for hatred of the author." But let us return to the preface of the *Apology*. After Rufinus issued, as it were, a profession of faith for the sake of clearing himself: "These things," he says, "are preached in Jerusalem in the Church of God by its holy priest John; these things we both say and hold with him." He even lashes out at Jerome in his little book *On the Adulteration of the Books of Origen* with these words: "The authors of his (Origen’s) detractors are those who are accustomed either to dispute more extensively in the Church, or even to write books, who speak or write entirely about Origen: lest, therefore, more people discover their thefts, which certainly, if they were not ungrateful toward their master, would not appear criminal in the least, they deter the simpler ones from reading him." For although Jerome had wondrously celebrated Origen even when he was young, and was more than 70 bo

^Aoks of his—having himself turned into Latin many of his homiletic books and also many of the tomes written on the Apostle, and having enriched his own Commentaries with his books—he soon began to kick against him. Halloxius, however, thinks Jerome is by no means censured by these things, because friendship had already been reconciled between them, and a little earlier he had mentioned Jerome with praise in these words: "Damasus the bishop, when deliberation was being held concerning the reception of the Apollinarists, commanded that an edition of ecclesiastical faith, to which they would have to subscribe if they wished to be joined to the Church, be written by a certain friend of his, a most eloquent presbyter, who used to procure this business for him according to custom." Halloxius could have added that he [Origen] was even nominated by Rufinus for the sake of honor in the preface to the books *On First Principles* (Περὶ ἀρχῶν), which appeared at this time. But such was the nature of Rufinus; openly he praised him to his face, secretly he disparaged him; at the same time he cherished him in his bosom, and wore friendship on his brow. And so he would offer flattery to Jerome's face, so that he might bite more sharply in secret. Furthermore, Jerome himself in *Apologia 2 against Rufinus*, chapter 6, repeats these words, as if they did not pertain to him at all, but either he did not perceive that he was being tacitly noted, or he simulated silence about the perceived calumny. Be that as it may, let the judgment remain with the reader: the following certainly aim manifestly at Epiphanius: "Finally, some of them, who thinks that he has a necessity of evangelizing, as it were, through all nations and in all languages, by speaking ill of Origen, confessed in the presence of a great multitude of the brethren that he had read six thousand of his books." Then Rufinus, offering those same books *On First Principles* to the City, so that he might the more entice readers, prefixed a preface to the work, and in it declared that he had either corrected or passed over, while leaving the other dogmas intact, the false opinions of Origen concerning the Trinity, as having been inserted by heretics; for Arianism, which was rampant at this time against Origen, whose patronage he was seeking, had stirred up the Catholics. Rufinus also signifies by this very preface that he was led by the example of Jerome, already the interpreter of many of Origen's books, to undertake the translation of that writing. And yet he was so diffident about the cause that he did not dare to inscribe his own name to the preface; and furthermore he boasted in the assent of Theophilus and Jerome.

^B XVII. But Pammachius and Oceanus inform Jerome of the things done in the City, and send the Rufinian translation of the books *On First Principles* with the preface, and ask that he translate those same books with greater fidelity, and clarify the suspicions cast upon himself. Rufinus had already returned to grace with him at that time, when he was leaving for Jerusalem. Therefore, feeling that he had been secretly gnawed and attacked by Rufinus's crafty preface, and placed among the Origenists, Jerome expounded this injury to him in a friendly and gentle manner through a letter, of which this is the introduction: "Your own speech indicated that you had lingered for a long time at Rome;" whence it is permitted to conjecture that Rufinus had already given him letters before. But since, through the delays of transport, Jerome's reply had been brought to Rome too late, it had been reported in the meantime to Rufinus that a new translation of the books *On First Principles* was being prepared by him, which, as Jerome writes in *Apologia* I, cap. 2, was composed with the intention not that the reader should believe those things which were being interpreted, but that he should not believe those things which Rufinus had previously translated. And thus, friendship having been broken between them, the letter given to Jerome's relatives, who had undertaken to take care of it, was suppressed. In the meantime, at the request of Pammachius and Oceanus, Jerome finished a more sincere translation of the books *On First Principles*, and sent them to Rome, with a luminous letter, in which he confesses that he had praised Origen's doctrine and erudition, but denies that he held to his dogmas. "I have praised," he says, "the interpreter, not the dogmatist; the genius, not the faith; the philosopher, not the apostle. But if they wish to know my judgment concerning Origen, let them read the Commentaries on Ecclesiastes, let them examine the three volumes on the Epistle to the Ephesians, and they will understand that I have always been opposed to his dogmas;" and again: "If you believe me, I have never been an Origenist; if you do not believe me, I have now ceased to be one;" and in the following chapter: "Suppose that I erred in my youth, and, being learned in the studies of the philosophers—that is, the Gentiles—was ignorant of Christian dogmas at the beginning of my faith, and thought those things to be in the apostles which I had read in Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles. Why do you, who are little ones in Christ and sucklings, follow the error? Why do you learn impiety from him, who had not yet known piety? The second plank after a shipwreck is to confess one's fault simply. You have imitated the one going astray, imitate the one corrected."

Similarly in epistle 62 to Theophilus: "For just as I always attributed to Origen the interpretation and idioms of the Scriptures, so I have most constantly removed the truth of his dogmas." And yet, when he had filled his Commentaries on Ecclesiastes and the Epistle to the Ephesians with the writings of Adamantius, he barely contradicted them once; nay, he did not even cite Origen as the author. But if he held those things for false, why did he not set a mark of censure? Why, when this was attributed to him as a fault, did he count it as his own glory? "For what they say," he says in the Prologue to book II of the *Commentary on Micah*, "that I am compiling the volumes of Origen, and that it is not fitting for the writings of the ancients to be contaminated: that which they consider to be a vehement curse, I consider the highest praise, when I wish to imitate him."

^C For there were indeed many to whom that work translated by Rufinus was dear, and it attached priests, monks, and many of the common Christian people to Origen, and it also mocked the simplicity of Pope Siricius. But more were struck by the novelty of the doctrine; insomuch that Jerome relates in *Apologia* lib. I, cap. 3, that after Rufinus's interpretation, the whole world burned with hatred for Origen, and shuddered at the translated work. The author is also that someone who reports that Marcella, a Roman woman illustrious by the nobility of her race and piety, first detected and repressed the budding error. Therefore, the authors of the deed, planning their departure, when they were already almost designated as heretics, obtained ecclesiastical letters from Siricius, so that they might be able to boast of the Church's communion; and provided with these, Rufinus returned to Aquileia.

^A Since I do not doubt that it is pleasing to all men of sense and to you; why does he say in the preface to his book *On Hebrew Names* that no one but an ignorant man would deny that Origen is the master of the Churches after the apostles? Therefore, it is not without cause that Rufinus once boasted that Jerome was an Origenist. "This," he says in his *Invective* I, "is the gravity of such a great master, that you condemn in others that which you praise in others, and him whom in your prefaces you called the second master of the Churches after the apostles, you now call a heretic? What heretic was ever able to be called a master of the Churches?" Jerome's excuse for these things is futile, for in the Prooemium to Book XI of his *Commentary on Isaiah*, he replies that Origen, Eusebius, Apollinaris, and others were named by him as masters of the Church in his commentaries on the books of Daniel, for the sake of distinguishing them from certain men who were alien to the faith of Christ. Rufinus continues to provoke Jerome, and convicts him with his very own words, when he boasts that he never praised Origen's faith. To which Jerome, as if convicted, writes in *Apology* II, chapter 3: "With the same fervor with which we previously praised Origen, let us now condemn him, condemned as he is by the whole world"; and soon after: "We erred as youths, let us be corrected as old men"; and again: "Forgive me that in my youth I praised the learning of Origen and his study of the Scriptures before I knew his heresy more fully." Hence Posthumianus rightly says in Sulpicius Severus: "That greatly troubled me, that Jerome, a most Catholic man and most learned in the holy law, was thought to have followed Origen in the beginning, yet now the same man principally condemns him, or rather condemns all of his writings." Hence Vigilantius also attacked him as an Origenist, a charge, however, which he tries to repel in Epistle 75. Hence also Augustine, in Epistle 8, obscurely reproaches Jerome for the inconstancy and fickleness of his mind, now that he defames Origen who was once very dear to him. "We ask, therefore," he says, "and with us asks the whole studious society of the African Churches, that you would not be loath to expend care and effort in translating those men who have treated our Scriptures most excellently in Greek; for you can ensure that we, too, have those such men, and one above all, whom you sound more willingly in your writings": Origen, certainly, whose great celebrity in Africa even then is manifest from this. Hence also Pope Pelagius II, in his *Epistle to Elias of Aquileia and other bishops of Istria*, says: "And is not Jerome, our Church’s presbyter and a singular interpreter of the Hebrew language, moved with such favor towards Origen that he seems almost to be his disciple?" Hence, finally, an epistle was forged under Jerome's name, in which he laments that he had once attached himself to Origen. ^B However, although he performed the duty of a pious and orthodox man when he abjured the acknowledged errors of Origenism, it would nonetheless have been desirable that that most holy doctor should have been more constant and moderate in his spirit, and not have been so easily swayed by his own bile, so that for the sake of circumstances and times, he might have been drawn and tossed ^C had he known it, sometimes he even drenched the greatest men with most bitter reproaches: for it must be confessed that he was deservedly often reproved by Rufinus; and often also Rufinus was blamed by the same man without cause. Furthermore, while these things were being done, the year of Christ was being dragged through the three hundred and ninety-ninth.

XVIII. At this time Pammachius was detaining Jerome's translation of the books *On First Principles* (*Περὶ ἀρχῶν*); but it was published among the public through the fraud of a certain friend of his. Knowing, however, that the infidelity of his translation would be perceived from this conflict, and that his craftiness was already revealed, Rufinus, having also received letters that had been brought to him by the work of Apronianus, which Jerome had sent to Pammachius and Oceanus together with the books *On First Principles* newly rendered into Latin by him, spent three years in working out a double Apology. The former perished through age: the latter survives in two parts, the first of which refutes the charges brought by Jerome, the second assails Jerome himself. As these erupted into open contention, the minds of Roman Christians moved, as usually happens, into two parts, some favoring Rufinus, others Jerome; and not only the Romans, but as many as were scattered throughout the world were caught up in diverse partisan studies.

XIX. Then indeed Pope Anastasius understood that it was his part, not indeed to soothe the arising commotions by applying palliatives, as we noted was done by his predecessor Siricius, but to cut away the evil that was secretly growing by apostolic authority. Having therefore weighed the matter long and maturely on both sides, he finally impressed the mark of heresy upon the errors of Origen in the year 400, imitating the zeal of Theophilus, who had condemned them in the previous year at the Alexandrian synod. Anastasius immediately sent messengers into all parts and promulgated the condemnation of the Origenian errors; upon receiving which, they were everywhere rejected. Let us hear Theophilus discoursing on that matter in his Epistle to certain monks, which Julianus brings forward in his Epistle to Menas: "Therefore, by anathematizing Origen and other heretics, just as we and Anastasius, the bishop of the holy Church of the Romans—who, distinguished from former contests, was appointed glorious commander of a famous people, whom the whole synod of blessed bishops in the West follows, accepting the decree of the Church of the Alexandrians against the impious man—have done." Jerome certainly, in his *Apology* II, chapter 6, besides Anastasius and Theophilus, reports that Venerius, bishop of Milan, and Chromatius of Aquileia ^D also…

^A held him as a stranger to our parties, so that we might desire to know what he is doing or where he might be. Let him see to it himself, where he might be able to be absolved." Therefore, Jerome addresses Rufinus in his *Apology*, Book II, chapter 6: "Go rather to Rome, and being present before him (the Roman bishop) demand an explanation why he has caused you ^B both absent and innocent such an insult; first, that he would not receive your exposition of faith, which all of Italy, as you write, approved, and would not use the staff of your letters against your dogs: then, that he should send Epistles against you to the East, and, while you are unaware, brand you with the cautery of heresy, and say that the books of Origen's *De Principiis* had been translated by you and handed over to the simple populace of the Roman Church, so that they might lose the truth of the faith which they had learned from the Apostle; and by which he might make himself greater target of your envy, he dared to accuse these very ones, strengthened by the testimony of your preface." Furthermore, in Epistle 82, to Marcellinus and Anapsychia, he says he had exploded the deceitful pamphlet offered by Rufinus to Pope Anastasius, and other writings of his, by means of certain short works of his own; and that no one could conjecture those to be anything other than the *Apologies* themselves, of which we shall speak presently.

XX. But Anastasius, thinking he had accomplished little if he did not strike down Rufinus, the author of the tumult and the one renewing the war, summoned him to Rome to plead his cause: Rufinus hesitated, and wrote an *Apology* to Anastasius, in which, having used shallow excuses to decline the journey, he professes his faith: then he says: "I am neither a defender, nor an advocate, nor the first interpreter of Origen: others before me have done this same work; I did it last, requested by the brethren. If it is commanded that it not be done, the command should be observed for the future. If those who did it before the command are to be blamed, let the blame begin with the first ones. For besides this faith, which I have expounded above—that is, which the Roman Church and the Alexandrian and our Aquileian hold, and which is preached at Jerusalem—I have never held, do not hold, and will not hold any other in this matter." Anastasius, however, by no means accepted this excuse, but at the urging of Marcella, to use the words of Jerome ^C, he branded Rufinus with the cautery of heresy, and condemned him in the year 401. "Of the condemnation of heretics," says the same Jerome in Epist. 16, "Marcella was the beginning, while she brought forward witnesses who had been previously instructed by them, and afterwards had been corrected of the heretical error; while she showed the multitude of those who were deceived, while she brought forward the impious volumes of *De Principiis*, which were shown corrected by the hand of the scorpion; while the heretics, summoned by frequent letters that they might defend themselves, dared not come, and such was the power of conscience, that they preferred to be condemned while absent than to be refuted while present. Of this so glorious victory, Marcella is the origin." When the fame of this victory had spread throughout the whole world, John of Jerusalem consulted Anastasius himself regarding Rufinus and inquired about his opinion. There exists a response of Anastasius given in the year 402, in which it is to be noted first that John, though suspected of Origenism, is extolled by him with many praises; then also this: "But Origen, whose works (Rufinus) translated into our tongue, was unknown to our purpose as to who he was or what words he produced." He adds that Rufinus wished by this interpretation to violate the faith propagated by the apostles; but that he does not condemn him if he abhors the dogmas in the translated work; he condemns him completely if he assents to them. Then a little later: "That also," he says, "which I rejoice to have happened, I could not remain silent about, that the responses of the most blessed princes have gone forth, by which everyone who serves God may be recalled from the reading of Origen; and the prince whom the profane reading of things has exposed is to be condemned by judgment." Finally, he sets forth his own opinion concerning Rufinus in these words: "Therefore, most dear brother, with all suspicion set aside, know that Rufinus of his own mind translated and approved the words of Origen into Latin, and he is not unlike him who grants assent to the vices of others."

XXI. In this same year, Jerome received a twin *Apology* of Rufinus against himself with a twin *Apology* as well against Rufinus: for when his brother Paulinianus had returned from the West to Jerusalem, he signified that those books elaborated against him had not yet been published to the light by the author, whom fear, of course, and shame inhibited, but were nevertheless being circulated among Rufinus's friends; and when some things from them had come out to the public, he collected them and brought them to his brother: which very thing Pammachius and Marcellinus performed by letters. Jerome, therefore, adorned the former *Apology* which we have not to these writings of Rufinus themselves, but to the charges reported by Pammachius, Marcellinus, and Paulinianus. It is contained in two books, and is inscribed in the name of Pammachius and Marcellinus, by whose counsel it had been worked out; and it was transmitted to those whom Rufinus in his writings had accused: and in it Jerome declares that it was his intention to refute the *Apology* of Pamphilus and Eusebius in a separate work. As soon as this was brought to Rufinus, incited by anger, he sent a response along with the *Apologies* to Jerome, with which he terrified him with hostile points, threatening death, and that he would provoke him to the tribunals unless he abstained from insults. But Jerome, disregarding the futile threats, immediately wrote back the later *Apology*.

XXII. Seven years after these things were done, Melania the Elder closed her last day, having returned to Jerusalem scarcely forty days before. Baronius hands down that Rufinus also perished in the following year, which was 410 from the birth of Christ, as a fugitive in Sicily when Aquileia was devastated by Alaric. But in the Epistle to Ursacius, which he prefixed to his interpretation of Origen's *Commentaries* in ^D

the book of Numbers Rufinus prefixed, and which, when it was not yet published, the distinguished brothers Bigot once kindly shared with me, he writes thus: "But it was not a timely season for fulfilling a promise, as he says, but for us a stormy and troubled [time]. For what place is there for a style when hostile weapons are feared? Where the devastation of cities and fields is before the eyes? Where one flees through dangers of the sea, and not even exiles themselves are kept without fear? For in our sight, as you yourself also saw, a Barbarian, who was mixing fires with the town of Rhegium, was held back by the narrowest strait from us, where the soil of Italy is separated from the Sicilian." Therefore he was then passing the time in Sicily. Then he says: "For now, of all things which I found written in the law, only in Deuteronomy, as I think, are the little orations missing, which, if the Lord will aid and grant health to my eyes, I desire to join with the rest of the body: although our most loving son Pinianus, whose religious company, for the love of chastity, we follow as fugitives, enjoins other things also." That Pinianus, in whose company he says he was then, was the husband of the younger Melania. That he departed from Rome in the year 408, and arrived in Carthage in the year 409, Baronius himself acknowledges. Therefore, either death in the following year carried off Rufinus in Sicily, left behind by Pinianus and both Melanias; or certainly the time assigned by Baronius preceded the death of Rufinus by at least one year; a man so studious of Origenian doctrine that he brought upon himself infinite troubles, reproaches, infamy, and finally condemnation on its account; who, if he had been moderate in his spirit and had withheld his hand from the interpretation of the books

Περὶ ἀρχῶν

Apol. I, cap. 3

XXIII. But the seeds of Origenism planted by Rufinus were not extinguished by his death. Pelagius, a monk by nation a Briton, having seized upon certain dogmas of Origen, cultivated and propagated by Rufinus, renewed them. Wherefore Jerome, in his

Proem to Book I of the Commentary on Jeremiah.

ἀπαθείας and ἀναμαρτησίας

Prooemio Dialog. adv. Pelag.

Prooem. lib. IV Comment. in Jerem.

Letter to Ctesiphon.

Book II On original sin, against Pelagius and Coelestius.

Epitaph of the Nestorian and Pelagian heresies

^B XXIV. Origenism in the West seemed to be clearly crushed and brought to nothing, when lo! two Aviti, Spaniards, one having set out for Rome, the other for Jerusalem, brought back after their return to their homeland Origenian wares. One of them (if I am not mistaken, he who had contended for Jerusalem, and whom it is probable had approached Jerome living in Palestine) had demanded of Jerome that he send to him the books of Origen,

Περὶ ἀρχῶν

Commonitorio

Commentariolo

On the City of God

De deitate et incarnatione

About the same time, Joannes Cassianus was bringing strength to the Semipelagian heresy in Gaul from Origen's writings, ^D whose name, conversely, Vincent of Lérins was traducing in the same place: for in his

First Commonitorium against Heresies, chapter 23

^A For this reason, this same Origen—so great and such a man—while he abused the grace of God too insolently, while he indulged his own genius too much and trusted himself too fully, when he made little account of the ancient simplicity of the Christian religion, while he presumed to be wiser than all others, while he despised ecclesiastical traditions and the teachings of the ancients and interpreted certain chapters of the Scriptures in a new fashion, he deserved that it should be said of him also by the Church of God: *If there shall rise in the midst of thee a prophet;* and a little later: *Thou shalt not hear, says he, the words of that prophet.* Truly it was not only a temptation, but even a great temptation, to lead away the Church—which had surrendered itself to him and hung upon him, admiring his genius, knowledge, eloquence, conversation, and grace, suspecting nothing regarding him, fearing nothing—suddenly, from the old religion into a new profanity, slowly and little by little. He then warns the readers that, even though the books of Origen are corrupted—which he does not deny—they are nevertheless sold under his name, and so great a name can have such weight in insinuating errors. Thus, the shoots of the renascent Origenism were crushed in the West. But even there they were crushed again and again, as we shall show in the following section.

SECTION II. I. Theophilus of Alexandria vexes certain Nitrian monks; II. and while he suppresses Origenism in them, he attacks the Origenists themselves. III. Other causes of this dissension are brought forward. The Alexandrian Synod condemns the Origenists, whom Theophilus drives out of Egypt. IV. A fair judgment regarding these struggles [is sought] from Posthumianus, Sozomen, Sidonius, the author of the *Praedestinatus*, and Eutyches.

I. While these things were being carried out in the West, Origenism was shaking the Churches of the East with a much more serious tumult. We shall repeat its history, which was interrupted to avoid confusion. After that Isidore, whom we said was sent by Theophilus to settle the controversies between John, Epiphanius, and Jerome, had returned to Alexandria, Epiphanius and Jerome did not cease to urge Theophilus to join open battle with the Origenists himself. He declined the fight, especially at the request of Epiphanius, toward whom he was ill-disposed because he suspected him of the heresy of the Anthropomorphites. But as soon as private hatreds were added to the cause of the Church, he immediately sounded the trumpet against the followers of Origen. The history of those times is certainly obscure and implicated, and one which we can draw only from Palladius, Socrates, and Sozomen, who were closest to that age, although an open love of Origenism has diminished the authority of the former, and a zeal for other heresies has robbed others of their deserved reputation. Therefore Socrates explains why Theophilus attacked the Origenists. A question had been raised in Egypt not long before as to whether God was corporeal, bearing a human shape, or entirely incorporeal. Many—especially the simpler monks—imagined God to be endowed with a human form—from which they were called Anthropomorphites, or, as Epiphanius Scholasticus speaks in the ^B *Tripartite History* (Book X, Chapter 7), *Humaniformians*; more followed the contrary opinion. Among these was Theophilus, who, after he had revealed his own opinion in a certain Paschal letter (the kind of letter he was accustomed to write every year), and it had been carried to the Egyptian ascetics, they were so inflamed that they considered that Theophilus ought to be expelled from the Church. Cassian records in his *Conferences* (Book X, Chapter 1) that the Scetine monks, who were more outstanding in holiness and doctrine than the rest, had repudiated this entire letter, except for the single abbot Paphnutius. And indeed, many of the other monks scattered throughout Egypt flew in a body to Alexandria and contemplated killing Theophilus. He treated these dull men with craft and restrained the encroaching mob with this ambiguous saying: *I have seen you as if it were the face of God,* with which Jacob once appeased his brother Esau, as it is in Gen. xxxii, 10. They were appeased, but they demanded one thing more: that he condemn the books of Origen, some of which denied that God had a body. "I, indeed," says he, "abhor the lucubrations of that man and those who approve them." And the controversy would have stopped at this end, had it not immediately flared up again for a new reason. Four men noble in piety presided over the Egyptian monasteries: Dioscorus, Ammonius, Eusebius, and Euthymius, brothers by blood, tall in stature and therefore nicknamed the "Long" (which is also a nickname...

^A It is possible to conjecture that Isidore had a hand in their affairs, even from that letter of Jerome, Epist. 61, to Pammachius, ch. 15: "And yet, what did this Jerome dare to reply to that thunderbolt Isidore, along with his ragged crowd and squalid flocks? Unless perhaps he did not believe it, and would crush them by the presence and weight of his own body," etc. Because Theophilus held those brothers in great esteem, he appointed Dioscorus as Bishop of Hermopolis; but he detained the two others with him against their will. And although they were languishing from a longing for the monastic life, they tolerated this state of affairs until, having clearly perceived the Bishop’s avarice, they grew to loathe the man and returned to the solitude after three years. When the cause of their departure became known, Theophilus threatened them with the most terrible things and grew to hold even Dioscorus in hatred. When, therefore, he had learned from mutual encounters that they were hostile to the Anthropomorphites, he feigned adherence to the Anthropomorphite heresy among certain simple and unlearned monks, whom he knew to be followers of that heresy, and warned them that Dioscorus and his brothers were of the opposite sect and that they took away the body from God, and that they followed Origen, the patron of this opinion. The good men, lured into a trap by these speeches, vehemently turned against Dioscorus and his followers and denounced them, smearing them with the odious name of "Origenists"—whereas, on the contrary, their adversaries, fewer in number but more experienced in doctrine and practical affairs, called them "Anthropomorphites." Thus, they were agitated and conflicted by seditions among themselves. But Theophilus, pursuing his own private injuries, put forward the tumult of the Origenists and, having occupied the mountain of Nitria, provided arms to the Anthropomorphite monks and burned down the monastery of Dioscorus; he, having hidden with his brothers in pits, barely escaped the assault.

Polybius, Bishop of Rhinocorura, a disciple of Epiphanius and the author of his life, enumerates only three "Tall Brothers," sons of Heracleon, who had held authority at Alexandria, saying they were joined in friendship to Theophilus and were brought by him by guile from their monasteries into the city, where one was created a bishop, and others deacons and stewards of the Church. He narrates then that, having performed this office for three years, they retired to their former solitude against the wishes of Theophilus; that Theophilus took this ill and deprived them of communion; and when they strove in vain to be admitted to it, they appealed to Chrysostom to be restored. Chrysostom requested this of Theophilus but did not obtain it, and eventually freed them from Theophilus's censure: hence arose the dissension between the two.

^B Furthermore, in order to stir up hatred, Theophilus with singular artifice linked the cause of the Origenists with their cause. For since he already understood that the followers of Origen were in ill repute with the common people, and that the most illustrious adherents of that side had emerged from among the Nitrian monks, and that Nitria was considered the principal stronghold of Origenism; and since he was being spurred on against them by Epiphanius and Jerome—he did not attack those who, as he himself had previously championed, still held to the true dogma that defines God as incorporeal. Instead, he fastened onto them the infamous appellation of "Origenists," by which he might win over the adversaries of Origenism to himself and stir them up against them. And he surely approved the calumny of Origenism imposed upon them by a light argument, namely, that Origen was the assertor of this opinion, which separates material bulk from God. And he persuaded them of this the more easily, because, as we shall say presently, Isidore—whom we have already shown above to have been a most bitter patron of this doctrine—had fled to them. Having once, therefore, linked the cause of Origenism to his own wrath, he found it necessary to persecute all Origenists: hence, it is likely that he searched the monasteries of Nitria, teeming with this type of man, and together with Dioscorus drove all the Origenists from that place.

^C III. There was also another cause that had incurred the hatred of Theophilus toward the Scetian or Nitrian monks (for they can be called by either name, whether from Mount Nitria or from the region of Scetis). A rivalry had arisen between him and Peter, the archpresbyter of the Church of Alexandria. For this reason, Theophilus, hostile to Peter, complained that he had admitted to the communion of the mysteries a certain woman infected by the Manichaean plague who had not yet renounced her heresy. Peter replied that this had been done according to church custom and in accordance with the opinion of Theophilus, and confirmed it with the testimony of Isidore, a man of gravity whom we mentioned above, and whom Theophilus had studied to elevate to the see of Constantinople after the death of Nectarius. Incensed by this, he expelled both from the Church. Sozomen relates that this was the story told by many, but he says that he received it differently from a man accustomed to converse with those monks; namely, that Theophilus had two reasons for persecuting Isidore—one common to Isidore and Peter, because they had refused to testify that Theophilus's sister had been named his heir; and another peculiar to Isidore, because since he managed the care of the poor, he refused to give the money spent on them to Theophilus, who wanted to consume it in building temples. Palladius, or whoever the author of the life of Chrysostom is—for the author is not known to all—has something similar, and he heaps together many other things, which, having been passed over by others, will be passed over by us as well. But truly, most grave here is the hallucination of a certain anonymous writer whose life of Chrysostom was cast into the eighth volume of his works by Savile, as well as the hallucination of Simeon Metaphrastes, who confuse that Isidore with Isidore of Pelusium; unless perhaps someone says that the former was also a Pelusiot, although he is commonly called an Alexandrian. But let us proceed to hear Sozomen. Being expelled, Isidore retired to the monks at Scetis. Ammonius immediately approached Theophilus and demanded that he admit Isidore to communion: when Theophilus procrastinated, Ammonius persisted, along with those companions whom he had joined to himself for the journey; to such a degree that, in order to terrify the others and remove them from his presence, he cast one of them into prison.

^A His companions followed him into the same custody, having entered by deceit, and surrendered themselves willingly, because he had dismissed all the others. His indignation at this matter was so great, that although he knew that they left everything else behind for the sake of quiet and the study of the monastic life, he confined them, having stirred up dissensions in an underhanded manner, disturbed the peace, and ravaged the monasteries with fire and sword. Palladius adds that Theophilus laid an iron collar with his own hands upon Ammonius, who was praying, and upon the one acting for Isidorus, and struck their jaws and eyes with his fists, while this word was repeatedly and insistently uttered: "Heretic, anathematize Origen." Be that as it may, it is certain that Theophilus convened a synod of bishops at Alexandria in the year of Christ 399, and, as has been narrated above, expelled the Origenists from the Nitrian mountain, having condemned them with one voice; with the added authority of the emperors, who had given written commands that they should be expelled from Egypt. ^B Some fragments of the synodical letter of this council were preserved by Justinian in his letter to Mennas. George the Alexandrian and Simeon Metaphrastes add to the above that the expelled monks arrived in Alexandria in exile from their own borders, and the populace was so moved by their miserable appearance that they called for the death of Theophilus, who was in hiding, and he was barely calmed by the exhortations of the prefect. The Origenists who had departed from Egypt fled to Jerusalem to John, the prelate of the city, whom they had previously known to be favorable to their camp. George the Alexandrian in his *Life of Chrysostom*, chapter 38, another anonymous author of a *Life of Chrysostom*, chapter 89, and Simeon Metaphrastes in the *Life of Chrysostom*, incorrectly call him Sylvanus. For Baronius demonstrates that John sat on the Jerusalem throne in the year 386 and died in the year 416, whereas the Origenists, as I said, fled to Jerusalem in the year 399. ^C Having immediately sent legates, Priscus and Eubulus, into Palestine, Theophilus ensured that they were expelled from Jerusalem also and nearby places, with John nowhere offering resistance. We derive our conjecture of these matters from letter 70 of Jerome. The Origenists arrived at Scythopolis, about eighty in number. Among them were Dioscorus, Ammonius, Eusebius, Euthymius, Hierax, the two Isaacs, and Isidorus. But when they heard that Theophilus had sent monks chosen from Nitria, who were bitter against the Origenists, along with others, to Constantinople to Emperor Arcadius and Archbishop John, to present their case in his defense, they themselves departed to the same place to clear away the accusations of Theophilus and to look after their own affairs.

IV. During the same time in which these things were being done, Posthumianus was brought to those regions from Gaul. He recounts in Sulpicius Severus that foul disputes had occurred between the bishops and the monks, “because the priests, having gathered together more often, seemed to have ordained in frequent synods that no one should read or possess the books of Origen, who was considered the most skilled expositor of the holy Scriptures; and the bishops had judged that the books of Origen, because they were overflowing with errors, should be utterly rejected; and that whatever was in them that was rightly subject to censure should be condemned, but the rest should not be condemned on their account. Hence arose sedition; from which you may judge the contentious and pugnacious disposition of the headstrong Origenists; who, since they could not be restrained by the authority of the bishops, had to have a prefect assumed, and through him be cast into flight and dispersed in such a way that, by the edicts proposed, they were allowed to settle nowhere. ^D He adds later: 'But yet, whether that is an error, as I feel, or heresy, as is supposed, it could not only not be restrained by many animadversions of the priests, but it could by no means have spread so widely, had it not grown through contention.' Finally, he says that he approves of neither the severity of the bishops nor the rebellion of the monks. Which judgment I indeed approve of very much; for Theophilus acted too severely against the Origenists; but the monks, by whom the authority of the bishops was so wantonly trampled underfoot, seem to have sinned more grievously.

V. Meanwhile, Theophilus informed Anastasius, the supreme pontiff, of the matter through a synodical letter, and likewise other bishops, but especially Epiphanius, to whom he wrote to the effect that he had cut down the serpents of Origen with the evangelical sword and had delivered the fruitful host of the Nitrian monks from the pestiferous contagion; but that it was now the work of Epiphanius himself to gather the Cypriot bishops and to give the task that Origen, by name, and his nefarious heresy be condemned; and then to send synodical letters to him, to John Chrysostom, and to other bishops; that word had reached him that the Origenists cast out of Egypt had sailed to Constantinople; let him therefore see to it that the prelates of Isauria, Pamphylia, and the neighboring provinces contribute their efforts to eradicate Origenism, and send some industrious man to Constantinople who might report there what had been done; that the joy among all in Egypt at the profligacy of the heresy was immense. I would like to note in passing the facetious error of Guido the Carmelite, who, having wrongly interpreted the words of Theophilus, in which he boasted to Epiphanius that he had cut down Origen's serpents with the evangelical sword, wrote that Theophilus was complaining that the Origenists were cutting off their own limbs with the sword, so that they might be considered humble and religious. As soon as Epiphanius received the synodical letter of Theophilus, he immediately sent it back to Jerome, and added another of his own, in which he addresses him thus: “Know, most beloved son, that Amalec has been destroyed to the very root, and on Mount Raphidim the trophy of the cross has been erected. For just as when the hands of Moses were stretched on high, Israel was victorious, so the Lord has strengthened his servant Theophilus, that he might place the standard against Origen upon the altar of the Church of Alexandria, and that the saying might be fulfilled in him...”

[LATIN COLUMN]

which is said: "Write this for a sign, for I will blot out the heresy of Origen from under heaven, together with Amalek himself." Moved by this argument to write to Epiphanius, Theophilus wrote in almost the same terms to Jerome; to whom the latter replied: "The voice of your blessedness," he says, "has resounded throughout the whole world, and while all the Churches of Christ rejoice, the poisons of the devil have fallen silent. No longer does the ancient serpent hiss, but, twisted and disemboweled, hiding in the darkness of caverns, he cannot bear to look upon the clear sun." Concerning this matter, indeed, even before you wrote, I had sent letters to the West, pointing out to those who speak my language the snares of the heretics. By the dispensation of God, I think it happened that at that time you also wrote to Pope Anastasius, and strengthened our opinion while you were ignorant of it. And a little later: "Vincentius the presbyter, two days before I gave this letter, came from the City, and suppliantly greets you, and with frequent speech celebrates Rome and the whole of Italy, freed by your letters after Christ,"—namely, by the care of Pope Anastasius, by whom, as was said in the previous section, Origenism had been routed. In another letter to the same man, he narrates that Priscus and Eubulus, having been sent by Theophilus into Palestine, had pursued the scattered leaders—the Origenists, that is—even to their hiding places, and that all were rejoicing over the victory won from the heretics: "Well done," he says, "well done to the zeal of your faith; you have shown that up to this point silence was a dispensation, not a consent." Finally, he excuses John of Jerusalem for the reception of a certain Origenist, before he had received the letters of Theophilus, in these words: "Concerning the reception of someone, you ought not to grieve against the pontiff of this city, because you gave no instruction in your letters, and it was rash to pass judgment about that of which he was ignorant; nevertheless, I believe that he neither dared nor wished to injure you in anything." Some think that by these words it is not John of Jerusalem, but Chrysostom who is meant, but they do not persuade; for Jerome says that a certain individual was received, whereas Chrysostom received fifty. Furthermore, when Jerome says "of this city," which is more likely to be meant—Constantinople, dispersed among so many dwellings, or Jerusalem, in whose vicinity he was writing these things? Certainly, it seems that John of Jerusalem is intended. From these things, it is permissible to suspect that in this period his disagreements with Jerome had cooled a little (though we shall show below that they were renewed again), and that he had relaxed to some degree in his love toward Origen, or at least had concealed his opinion. That I should suspect this is caused by that letter of Theophilus, in another to Jerome: "And would that among you also, those who are said to be secretly undermining the truth would lay aside their hypocrisy; for the brothers in those regions who do not feel well about them have provoked me to write these things!" Theophilus adds that, with the Origenists put to flight, the monasteries had returned to their ancient tranquility. Jerome should also be heard, when, writing some time later to Pammachius and Marcella, he says: "Where now, he asks, is the twisted snake? Where is the most venomous viper? The first face of a man, committed to the womb of wolves?" Where is the heresy that hissed in the world? And then: "He (Theophilus) was oppressed by his authority and eloquence, and he speaks from the earth in the manner of demonic spirits: for he does not know Him who comes from above and speaks of the things that are above." He complains later that the Origenists were accustomed to engage in such dissimulations that they were barely distinguishable from Catholics: then he adds: "What need is there to besiege the Propontis, to change places, to roam through different regions, and to rend with a rabid mouth the most illustrious pontiff of Christ and his disciples? If you speak the truth, change the former ardor of error for the ardor of faith." Finally, he declares that the Paschal letters of Theophilus, by which Origenism is destroyed, are received and proclaimed with admiration throughout the whole East.

[VI.] These things have been noted by me at length so that, with the authority of Palladius, Socrates, Sozomen, George of Alexandria, and the other anonymous author who committed the life of Chrysostom to letters (published by Savile in Volume VIII of Chrysostom) and Simeon Metaphrastes, the equitable reader may weigh the authority of Epiphanius and Jerome, and may recognize how diverse their views were regarding the schism between Theophilus and the Origenists. They attribute the highest praise of piety, sanctity, and gentleness to the Origenists; these others portray them as hypocritical, refractory, and stubborn. They present Theophilus as irritable, impotent, unjust, greedy for money, prone to vengeance, and falsely pretending the cause of God for his own private injuries; these others say he burned with zeal for the faith, excelled in prudence, and reflected the virtue of Moses. But if things had been done as they are narrated by Palladius, could they have remained hidden from the present Posthumian, and from Epiphanius and Jerome situated in the vicinity? Could they themselves have lacerated with insults such innocent and pious men who were unjustly exterminated from their homes? Could they have consented to the petulance of Theophilus? Could they have praised his ferocity and cruelty, and by praising him, increased it? But if, on the contrary, false things were spread in letters about the Origenists and the cause of Chrysostom, had not Photius, in cod. XCVI, pronounced about the Dialogist himself that in a dialogical manner [καλῶς τε καὶ ἐσπουδασμένως τὰ περὶ τὸν Χρυσόστομον ἀνεγράψατο], that he had written the affairs of Chrysostom beautifully and diligently in a Dialogical character? Indeed, I have already said above, and now also pronounce, that the Origenists were of a double kind, orthodox and heterodox; and because it was not easy to separate them from one another, Theophilus assailed both indiscriminately; and for the same reason, John Chrysostom supported both indiscriminately: hence some approved of the deed of Theophilus in attacking the heterodox, while others grieved that the orthodox were treated ill. Theophilus, moreover, is said to have been before his judgment

^A cipiti, and of having succumbed too much to the affections of his mind; if I were to deny this, Chrysostom—against whom he raged so uncontrollably—would protest; and that Bishop Paul would protest, whom Jerome—after he had been scourged, imprisoned, and sent to the mines—took in as a guest while he was passing through, not because of Origenism, but for other reasons, having been driven out of Egypt by Theophilus, and whom he strove to have restored by imperial writ. It seems to me, therefore, most likely that Theophilus was moved to attack the Origenists by private motives, and that he craftily used Origenism as a pretext for his vengeance; whereas Epiphanius and Jerome, while regarding the extirpation of Origenism as a thing in itself very useful to the Church, had other motives as well. Whatever indeed may have impelled Theophilus, it is certain that the errors of the Origenists were rescinded by the decrees of a legitimate synod; and perhaps Jerome and Epiphanius attributed this not so much to the authority of Theophilus as to the authority of the synod.

VII. Furthermore, Jerome translated into Latin not only the synodal letter of Theophilus, given in the year of Christ 399, but also four Paschal letters, written in the years 400, 401, 402, 403, and 404, so that the condemnation of Origen contained in them might be more widely known, especially in the West. The later three have survived to this age; the first, along with the synodal letter, has perished. As for those in which some things were depraved by Jerome, he cleared himself eloquently in his 78th epistle to Pammachius and Marcella, when he sent them the later Paschal letters, after his adversaries had boasted of those depravations.

VIII. Now let us pursue the series of events. We have said ^B that the Origenists set out for Constantinople after they received the legates sent by Theophilus. Baronius, at the year 400, chapter 61, argues that this is falsely fabricated by Palladius and Sozomen, and maintains that Theophilus did not send legates there until after he understood that the Origenists had gone there. He also wishes it to be false that Isidore was among the Origenists, although Socrates asserts this alongside Sozomen. Baronius relies on the letter of Theophilus to Epiphanius, which is among the Hieronymian epistles, number 67; it reads thus: "For I have learned that the calumniators of the true faith, Ammonius, Eusebius, and Euthymius, raving with a new madness for heresy, have sailed to Constantinople, so that they may deceive the unwary, if they can, and join themselves to the old associates of their impiety." There is no mention of Isidore here; certainly, nor of Dioscorus, nor of the other fifty whom Palladius reports to have traveled there. As if Theophilus had intended to enumerate the names of every single one. But then Theophilus writes: "And so that our writings may reach Constantinople more quickly, send a diligent man, and one of the clerics, just as we have also sent from the monasteries of Nitria the fathers of the monks, together with other holy and most continent men, who can teach everyone present what things have been done." From these words, Baronius thinks it proven that a legate was sent to Constantinople by Epiphanius, and not by Theophilus at that time; but that Theophilus had sent certain monks from Nitria elsewhere. Indeed, this is not forced by the words of the letter; rather, ^A Theophilus asks Epiphanius to send someone to Constantinople, just as the Nitrian monks were sent by him; sent where? Why, where he wants someone sent by Epiphanius; to Constantinople: for what else do the words sound like? But as for the fact that Chrysostom received them into foreign communion, Baronius concludes from this that the letters of the Alexandrian synod had not yet been carried there; otherwise, he would by no means have received monks who had been condemned and proscribed. Even if one grants this, which can nevertheless be denied (for it is certain that it is permitted to inquire into the cause of a condemnation), it does not follow from this that the Constantinopolitan route was undertaken by the Nitrian Origenists before Theophilus had sent his own legates to the same place. For it is probable that the legates of Theophilus visited many provinces for the sake of disseminating the synodal letters of that prelate, and therefore brought the same to Constantinople later; while in the meantime, the Origenists, having heard of their departure, without interposing any delay, had hastened there by long routes; and those who had begun the journey later had finished it sooner.

IX. The Origenists who were brought to Constantinople fell at the knees of John, demanding that by his work and authority the anger of Theophilus against them be quieted, and that the opportunity be granted them to return to Egypt: as if, through reverence or fear of Theophilus, they were to be repelled by him also, just as they were by other bishops, they would finally implore the aid of the emperor. The demeanor of the men, composed to move pity, drew tears from Chrysostom. Thus he kindly addresses them, bids them be silent ^C about the cause of their arrival, and says that he would act with Theophilus through letters regarding their restoration, and that in the meantime they should fix their seat and dwelling in the church named the Anastasis. They obeyed, and provided the necessities of life in part with their own hands, as was the custom of the monks, and in part by the liberality of religious women, especially Olympias, who after the death of her husband Nebridius had been made a deaconess of the Church of Constantinople, and was wont to receive foreigners into hospitality and support them with her wealth. Chrysostom allowed these men communion in public prayers, but did not admit them to the use of the sacraments, as their cause was not yet known; especially since certain clerics, already ^D sent to Constantinople by Theophilus regarding other matters, had been interrogated by John about the affairs of the monks, and had indeed said that they suffered great injury, but nevertheless had by no means requested that they be admitted to communion, lest that matter be an offense to Theophilus. Chrysostom writes to Theophilus, and asks him to admit the restored Origenists to communion; but if he should prefer to contend in judgment, that he send necessary persons who might procure his case. He did not reply, but was content that certain of his own had alleged that, "admonishing them as if to present pleadings," says Palladius, "which he had dictated to them in the usual manner, containing open and express falsehood, covered and obscured by various calumnies; and when he could not derogate from their life, he sees to it that within the palace, as if by magi

^Acal practices, they might be noted. He subjoins later that the Origenists, perceiving they had accomplished nothing, and that many who were established in high dignities had brought themselves along, had all anathematized the heresy. Then, having collected accusations against the tyranny of Theophilus, they delivered them to Joannes in a book, even though he tried in vain to recall them from their undertaking. He warns Theophilus of the accusation gathered against him. Theophilus writes back that it is forbidden by the Nicene canons for any bishop to judge a matter situated outside his own jurisdiction: that he, if he is to be called to trial, ought to be judged by Egyptian bishops. He was disturbed by these false rumors; that Joannes had granted the Origenists communion of the sacraments, and was prepared in spirit to bring them aid. Wherefore he sent letters everywhere to the bishops, eagerly striving in every way to cast Joannes down from his dignity and episcopacy, and to avenge Dioscorus together with his brothers and associates, yet cautiously concealing his plan, and carping only at the books of Origen.

If anyone wonders that the Origenists were received by Joannes, he should remember that the reputation of the Nitrian monks was great among all; and that the arts of Theophilus were already known to Chrysostom, when he tried to intrude Isidorus into the Constantinopolitan see, and attempted to hinder Joannes from being raised to it. Moreover, the Nitrians had publicly detested the Origenian errors: hence the accusation of Theophilus was highly suspect to him. But the pious bishop had not yet sufficiently noted the simulations of the Origenists, by which it was easy to explain away the errors imputed to them by an oath. These things are to be noted in the epistle of Jerome, 65, to Pammachius and Oceanus, ch. 1, "I will do the only thing they fear, so that I may bring their sacred rites and mysteries into the public, and that all their prudence, by which they deceive us simple folks, may be in the open; and those who do not believe the accusing voice, let them at least believe the arguing pen." For they dread this most of all, lest their writings should ever be seized against their author. They say readily under oath, what they afterwards resolve by another perjury. They prevaricate at the subscription, and seek subterfuges. Another says: "I cannot condemn what no one has condemned." Another: "Nothing on this subject has been decreed by the Fathers"; so that while the authority of the whole world is provoked, the necessity of subscribing is deferred. Some more constantly say: "How shall we condemn those whom the Nicene council did not touch?" And I would wish this not to be understood of all the Origenists, as many as had fled to Chrysostom, for I think that this band consisted partly of the orthodox, partly of the heterodox; so that the former abjured the errors of Origen from their heart, the latter only by word of mouth. Which, since it could hardly be perceived by Chrysostom, leaving their hearts to be searched by God, he considered it enough that they had abjured the heresy in words. Perhaps there was added to this some reverence for the Origenian name, whose books I think I have observed Joannes ^B to have read studiously, and to have translated many things from them for his own use, and I have proven this in the subsequent notes.

The kindness of the Augusta Eudoxia towards the Origenists was experienced by them: for it has been divulged by Sozomen and Nicephorus, that when she was perchance passing by in a carriage, the monks approached her, and explained the injuries brought upon them by Theophilus; she, having shown them honor, promised that a synod would shortly be gathered, and that Theophilus would be summoned to it.

X. While these things were being acted upon, Epiphanius, having received the letters of Theophilus, by which we said above that he had been incited to summon a synod and to condemn the Origenists, gathers a council of Cyprian bishops, and by decree prohibits the reading of the books of Origen, a copy of which decree he sends to other places, but especially to Constantinople, exhorting Joannes to do the same. Socrates and Sozomen also write that a synod was later collected by Theophilus at Alexandria for the same reason; Baronius denies this, and asserts that the Alexandrian synod was wrongly referred to that time by impure writers, as one which had already been celebrated before. But I for my part have nothing to decide; for Posthumianus, in Sulpicius Severus, Dialog. 1, cap. 3, recounts that not one council was gathered against the Origenists.

XI. Chrysostom neglected the letters sent to him by Epiphanius and Theophilus, and the snares prepared for him, and kept his mind on restoring ecclesiastical discipline. Meanwhile, the monks who were legates from Theophilus to Constantinople were attacking the Origenists with libels: these, on the contrary, with the hope of peace cut off, complained of the injuries of Theophilus before the Emperor Arcadius and Eudoxia, and, a libel having been offered, brought grave and bitter accusations against him, and requested that he be brought even against his will, and that he stand bail before Joannes; but that the libels of accusations forged against them be permitted to be adjudicated by the prefects of the city. Elaphius is sent to Alexandria to bring Theophilus; the prefects examine the cause of the libels and the accusations. The calumny of the legates of Theophilus having been detected, they shift the crime onto Theophilus, and confess that they were suborned by him. Having been severely beaten with scourges, they are thrust into prison, until Theophilus should be present to speak for himself: and upon his arriving quite late, part died in chains, part were deported to the island of Proconnesus after the arrival of Theophilus, the minds of the judges being softened by money. These things are thus related by Palladius. Chrysostom meanwhile was believed to have aided the Origenists with his counsel and authority. Wherefore he is obscurely censured by Jerome under the name of Barnabas in Epist. 16 to Principia: "The charity of many having grown cold," he says, "a few who loved the truth of the faith were joined to our side, whose head was publicly sought, against whom all wealth was being prepared; so that Barnabas also was led into that simulation, or rather open ^C parricide, which he committed not by his strength, but by his will."

XII. And now fame had spread abroad that Theophilus was ill-disposed towards Joannes, and was seeking causes by which he might depose him from his see. When this was understood, the nobles, and many clergy who desired a council to be gathered at Constantinople, whose enmities Chrysostom had ^D severe...

^A in consequence of his authority brought upon himself. Eudoxia had already promised the Origenists that this would come to pass. Accordingly, Theophilus orders the Egyptian bishops to sail there immediately, and invites the prelates of the East to a council. Not long after, Epiphanius, setting sail from Cyprus, arrives at Constantinople. John, with the escort of the entire clergy, went out to meet him and honored him upon his arrival, yet could not prevail upon him to make use of his hospitality, or the ecclesiastical houses, or even his company: so hostile a spirit did he manifest toward John on account of the Origenists he had received. Immediately Epiphanius summons to himself the bishops who happened at that time to be at Constantinople: he brings forth the decrees of the synods, by which the reading of Origen was forbidden to all; he demands that they, too, confirm these with their own votes. Some obeyed, but more refused. Among these was Theotimus, bishop of Tomi, a man of recognized sanctity, who said it was unjust to inflict injury upon a man long since dead, and to rescind the decrees of our ancestors regarding him: with which statement he brings forth a certain book of Origen, and having read a few verses, which contained doctrines useful to the Church: "Let those understand," he said, "who reject the books of Origen, that these things also are rejected by them." Nevertheless, when Chrysostom asked him to share his house and take part in the Church with him, Epiphanius declared that he would not enter into communion of house and prayers with him, unless he were willing to condemn the books of Origen and reject the Egyptian Origenists from himself: since John refused to do this before the investigation of the case, Epiphanius was persuaded by certain of John’s adversaries to go out publicly to the temple of the Apostles, where the Synaxis was to be celebrated, to condemn the books of Origen and the Origenists, and to attack Chrysostom himself. And he would indeed have done so, had not Serapion the deacon, sent by John, approached him when he was already near the temple, and warned him of the danger that would ensue if he were to carry out in reality what he had purposed in his mind; for (he said) the matter looked toward sedition. Deterred by this warning, Epiphanius withdrew. ^B XIII. About the same time a disagreement arose between him and Eudoxia: writers recount the cause in various ways. Leo the Emperor and Simeon Metaphrastes write that Eudoxia Augusta, as she was of a hostile mind toward Chrysostom, accused him of heresy before Epiphanius; that she demanded that Epiphanius, since he was to plead the case, should summon John, otherwise she would not agree at all; that to these things the Augusta exclaimed that if she were to interrupt the destruction of John, she would restore the worship of idols; hearing which, Epiphanius was struck with grief and left Constantinople shedding tears. But Sozomen has a different account; that the Emperor’s infant son had fallen into a sickness; that the Empress, fearing for his life, asked Epiphanius to pray for him; that when he had promised that the child would recover if she would withdraw from the party of the Origenists, the Augusta replied: "My son is in the power of God; but as for you, Epiphanius, if you were able to recall the dead to life, your own archdeacon would by no means have died"—and that at that same time, Eudoxia had sent the Orige^Cnists to Epiphanius to ask whether he had ever encountered their disciples in his books; and as he denied it, they had asked him whence he had detected the heretics, seeing that he had made no trial of their doctrine; and since he replied that he had understood it from hearsay, they had answered: "With us, the opposite happens, for from your disciples and books, and especially from your *Ancoratus*, your doctrine, once known to us, has often enabled us to refute some who were casting the calumny of heresy upon you; therefore, you ought to have returned us the favor." That having understood these things, Epiphanius had sent the men away appeased; and that he himself also shortly afterwards sailed to Cyprus, whether it was that he repented of his journey to Constantinople, or that God by some oracle had warned him that his death was at hand. What reasons he had for departing are uncertain. Certainly, before he reached Cyprus, he died upon the very ship, as he was already advanced in years. Around this time also, Isidorus and Dioscorus perished at Constantinople by fate, and shortly thereafter Ammonius, who after their death attained a great reputation for sanctity. At which time the year was 403.

XIV. It is worth knowing what Polybius, the disciple and companion of Epiphanius, and an eyewitness of all events, has handed down in his writings regarding this journey and its cause. He writes that Theophilus, hostile to John Chrysostom on account of the Long Brothers restored to communion, when he received word that the Empress wished to send him into exile, had labored exceedingly that this might be accomplished; that he had therefore sent letters to Epiphanius, in which he accused John of Origenism; that Epiphanius, being about to sail to Constantinople for another reason, had all the more accelerated his departure, yet not with a desire to harm Chrysostom: that at that time there had been great turmoil in the royal city, because of the dissensions between Eudoxia and Chrysostom; that Epiphanius had been compelled by necessity to enter a certain monastery, in order to ordain someone; that Chrysostom had taken this ill; that from this, dissensions had arisen between them; that Eudoxia, having learned of these things, had summoned Epiphanius, accused Chrysostom of heresy, and demanded that, ^D after removing him, he should appoint another bishop at Constantinople; that Epiphanius had replied that John was indeed unworthy of the priesthood if he had in reality fallen into heresy; but if she wished to cashier him to avenge private injuries, he would by no means comply; that she had become enraged, and threatened that she would open the temples of the idols if he wished to intercede for the exile of John; that it had been reported to Chrysostom that Epiphanius had consented to his exile; that he had prophesied to him that he would no longer sit upon his throne, and that he in turn had foretold to John that he would not live to reach the place of his exile; that Epiphanius, having finally boarded his ship, died before he could reach Cyprus. Baronius at the year 402, ch. 7, asserts that it is false that anyone had been promoted to the diaconate by Epiphanius in the diocese of Constantinople, and he puts forward the silence of Sozomen alone as a pretext for his opinion; but the cause why that is put forward is this.

^A Photius in Codex LIX presents this. But Palladius acknowledges only thirty-six: for he reports that the bishops who were sitting with John wrote back to the conventicle: "Your synod indeed has thirty-six bishops from one province: but we are forty from various provinces, in which seven are metropolitans." Emperor Leo is the authority that forty-two were present with John. However, since it is easy to make a slip in noting numbers, it is more prompt to suspect that the number is corrupted in those writers than in Palladius, who explicitly asserts that fewer than four hundred were present with Theophilus.

John is immediately ordered to be present and to respond to the accusations, and with him Serapion, and Tigris the eunuch, who were presbyters, and Paul the lector; at the same time the synod summoned the entire clergy of the Church of Constantinople. Although forty bishops were assisting John, he did not on that account refuse to be present to speak to his cause at the Oak; provided only that four from the number of the prelates, who were deservedly suspected by him of hatred and enmity, were removed; if they persisted further, he protested that he would appeal to an ecumenical synod. Having heard these things, after he was called four times, and had used the same exception, the prelates of the Oak synod at last brought their mind to the weighing of the accusations.

XVI. Writers report that things were not weighed there with equality, but were conducted through insult and curses. And they record three libels of accusations brought to the conciliabulum, the acts of which were exhibited by Photius, and related in the *Jus Graeco-Romanum* which Leunclavius published. John, a deacon of Chrysostom, offered the first, stuffed with twenty-nine heads of accusations; the second by John the monk, by which Heraclides was accused of Origenism and theft, while it was imputed as a crime to Chrysostom that he had appointed Heraclides, though a heretic and thief, as bishop of Ephesus, and had suffered much for the sake of the Origenists; the third was given by the bishop Isaac, which comprised eighteen heads of accusations, when he had previously accused the same Heraclides of Origenism.

Photius relates that that synod, which was read by him, was concluded in thirteen actions, of which the first twelve sought the condemnation of Chrysostom, ^D the last one Heraclides; he relates that the bishops had examined the first and second head of the first libel, then had held an inquiry into Heraclides and Palladius, and subsequently into the twenty-ninth and twenty-seventh head: finally, that the second head of the last libel was examined, which was of this kind: "That the blessed Epiphanius, because of the Origenists Ammonius, Euthymius, and Heraclides, and Palladius, did not wish to hold communion." That is: "The blessed Epiphanius, because of the Origenists Ammonius, Euthymius, Eusebius, and Heraclides, and Palladius, was unwilling to have communion with him (Chrysostom)": moreover, the seventh head was examined, and then the third. Besides that, two pertained very much to Origenism; the first, that John the monk was beaten because of the Origenists of Chrysostom.

and furthermore that he had been in chains on the sixteenth, that he had received the same, thrown the legates of Theophilus into prison, and that he did not even go to visit them as they were dying. Moreover, there is no mention of Origenism or the Origenists in the other charges, and none at all in the first libel.

XVII. ^A Baronius attempts to bolster the credibility of the acts of the Photian conventicle at the Oak with this argument: that most things reported by others are omitted in them. However, he does not observe that the illustrious Cardinal had merely selected certain excellent things and recorded them in his *Myriobiblon*, but had deliberately omitted very many others. Therefore, let those acts retain their authority, insofar as Baronius’s conjecture is confirmed by sounder reason.

XVIII. Furthermore, there was deep silence in the conventicle regarding the books of Origen: yet regarding the Origenists, besides those few things we discussed, these things are also reported: that they called Theophilus mildly, that they urged him to repentance, that he promised immunity, and at the same time that the familiars of Theophilus who were present urged them with great shouting to implore pardon; by which thing the monks were moved to ask that their offenses be forgiven; that Theophilus entered into a pact with them and received them into communion, and thus the Nitrians were absolved of the crime, among whom, as we have said, Dioscorus and Isidore had already perished, and Ammonius had died at the Oak at the very beginning of the synod. It is reported that upon hearing of his death, Theophilus wept and openly said that he had never had anyone among his own like Ammonius. George of Alexandria and Socrates report that Dioscorus indeed died after the synod and the flight of Theophilus; but Sozomen, to whom we attribute the primary credit, places his death at a time prior to the synod. And so at last that sad and calamitous controversy over the errors of Origen was settled: for although storms and tumults arose from this, by which the Church was afterwards vexed and disturbed, nevertheless, with new arguments of complaint and hatred frequently added, while more recent offenses were at hand, the old ones faded away. Let us therefore touch briefly and cursorily upon what remains.

XIX. In the year of Christ 403, around the month of July, Chrysostom is deposed by the votes of the conventicle. ^C The bishops alleged only this: that he had not shown himself to be a listener, having been summoned by their mandates. But under the pretext of reporting the matter to the emperor, they also accused Chrysostom of lèse-majesté before him, inasmuch as Eudoxia had been publicly censured by him before the people under the names of Jezebel and Herodias. However, it was enough for Arcadius to have removed John from the Church, having sent a count and soldiers for that purpose. Then, with the people rioting and seditiously demanding the restoration of Chrysostom, and furthermore with an earthquake occurring at the very approach of night, which immediately followed his departure, Eudoxia was indeed so terrified ^A that she immediately took care that he be recalled from exile. But when discord and factions broke out again the following year, he gave way to the harm, and after delaying for some time at Nicaea, he was sent into exile to Cucusus—which is a city of Armenia, or as Chrysostom himself testifies, of Cilicia—and moved from Cucusus to Arabissus and Pityus. Arsacius, a presbyter and brother of Nectarius, the former prelate of Constantinople, was substituted for him, and after Arsacius, Atticus. Meanwhile, Pope Innocent (who had been made more certain of these events through his letters) consoled the pious exile with gentle letters and shared his communion with him; having disapproved of the deed of Theophilus, whom he later also segregated from his communion, with the consent of almost all the bishops of Europe; as is evident from a certain letter of Innocent to Arcadius, which ^B George of Alexandria displays in *Life of Chrysostom*, chap. 68, and the anonymous writer of the same life, chap. 130, and which exists in the volumes of the Councils: and he would certainly have stood his trial before a universal synod, which Arcadius was planning to convene, had not death taken Pope Innocent, the author of its assembly, prematurely. At last, having been tossed about in various ways, and treated with the greatest inhumanity by his enemies, John died at Comana in the year 407.

XX. Nor yet did the anger of Theophilus grow quiet. After the first restoration of Chrysostom, in the thirteenth action of the pseudosynod, he strove to abrogate the dignity of Heraclides, whom John had created bishop of Ephesus: but with many resisting, the contention erupted into an open riot. And now the matter was being fought with arms; with many wounded and a few killed, Theophilus, who was specifically sought out by all, consulted his own safety by flight; although Arcadius, at the request of Chrysostom, had summoned bishops from all sides to celebrate a synod. After the death of John, however, Theophilus took pains not only that his name would not be carried by the bishops of the East in the Diptychs, but also that he would be held infamous by the common people, through a large volume written for that purpose. Facundus inserted a fragment of this book into his own sixth book, and testified that it had been translated into Latin by Jerome. These were the causes to Isidore of Pelusium for gravely rebuking Theophilus, calling him ^D *lithomane* (mad after stones) and *chrysolatrem* (gold-worshipper), and saying that he was brought to persecute John on the occasion of that Isidore mentioned by us above: “He warred against,” he says, “the man dear to God and expert in divine things, having found in the hatred and ill-will toward him who is my namesake the starting point for his own perversity. 'He attacked a man dear to God and learned in divine matters, when he had found in the enmity and hatred against my namesake an occasion for his own perversity.' ” Whence the narrative of Sozomen, saying that hostilities undertaken against Isidore gave Theophilus the cause for stirring up such great disturbances, is confirmed against Baronius.

XXI. Synesius also, being of those times,

although placed under the jurisdiction of Theophilus, in a letter nevertheless given to him, continues to pursue the memory of John. When this same man was being promoted against his will to the bishopric of Cyrene the previous year, he publicly contested in order to decline the burden and to deter the people, that he could not be persuaded of the end of the world, nor the resurrection of bodies, nor that souls could be inserted into already-formed bodies: which, since they are notable heads of the Origenian doctrine, we conclude that it was then highly detested in those places. But Jerome congratulated Theophilus on the expulsion and exile of Chrysostom by letter: "And so we," he says, "wished John, who for a long time ruled the Constantinopolitan Church, to please God always, and we by no means wished to believe the causes of his ruin, into which he was being dragged unawares. But he," he says, "not to mention his other shameful acts, by receiving Origenists into his friendship, and by promoting many of them to the priesthood, and on account of this crime, distressing to no small degree the man of God Epiphanius of blessed memory, who shone as a bright star in the world among the bishops, deserved to hear: Babylon is fallen, is fallen." Therefore, one must by no means agree with Baronius, who conjectures that Jerome bore with great indignation the disturbances stirred up by Theophilus against Chrysostom.

XXII. It is, however, worthy of observation what Socrates, George of Alexandria, and Simeon Metaphrastes narrate, that the hatred of the common people for Theophilus grew for the reason that, after the books of Origen were condemned with such great effort, he was nonetheless detected as still being given to their reading; and when someone asked him the reason for this matter, he replied that the books of Origen were like a meadow planted with flowers, that he plucked what was beautiful, and passed over what was thorny: and that this was an offense to all. Regarding this matter, Rupert of Deutz writes in book 1 of his *Commentary on Deuteronomy*, chapter ix: "According to the letter, the equity is manifest, but according to the anagoge, the mutability of a reader's judgment is inhibited, namely that which the ecclesiastical account censures in Theophilus, the bishop of the city of Alexandria. For he, since he was an enemy of John of Constantinople, who is called Chrysostom, condemned out of zeal for that same John the reading of Origen, to which he himself willingly applied his efforts; and finally, when John was condemned, because he did not refrain himself from the reading of Origen, he again applied himself to the reading of the ^D same Origen." Hence it can be estimated with what craftiness Theophilus, under the guise of attacking Origenism, took vengeance for private enmities; easily, especially with the Origenists having been received back into favor a little while before: but in order to persevere in the simulation he had begun, he exercised his pen even in this year and the following one with the greatest asperity and malignity against Origen in his Paschal letters, which Jerome translated into Latin, agreeing with Theophilus in abolishing the errors of the Origenists.

XXIII. In the year of Christ 412, Theophilus died, leaving behind, along with the Paschal letters, a large volume, in which he expressed his hatred against Origen, whether true or feigned, in notable monuments. Regarding this volume, Gennadius writes in his book *On Illustrious Men*: "He wrote one large volume against Origen, in which he condemns almost all his sayings, and him equally as well; teaching likewise that it was not by him first, but by the ancient Fathers, and especially Heraclas, that he had been ejected from the presbyterate, and driven from the Church, and put to flight from the city." John of Damascus reports from Isidore the Deacon that Theophilus, when near to death, because he could not exhale his spirit on account of the sin he had committed in the case of John, upon the image of Chrysostom being offered to him and adored, immediately gave up his ghost. ^B Cyril, a kinsman of Theophilus, nonetheless defamed his reputation. But when Cyril had announced to the Constantinopolitan bishop Atticus, who was studying to mitigate his spirit, that he would maintain perpetual hostilities with the name of Chrysostom, he incurred the sharp rebukes of Isidore of Pelusium: and at length, being recalled to a better state of mind, he came back into grace with the memory of John, and inserted his name into the diptychs. The anonymous author of the life of Chrysostom narrates that, warned in a dream by John, Cyril changed his opinion, and came to have healthier feelings regarding his piety and integrity. Once his name was restored to the diptychs, it served as an example for the remaining prelates to do the same. So much so that Chrysostom began to be honored publicly thereafter, and Proclus, the prelate of Constantinople, at length transported his relics with great pomp and retinue to Constantinople from Comana. Moreover, Socrates here wonders in vain why, so many years after his death, Theophilus should have pronounced Origen to be segregated from the communion of the Church, while Proclus should have wanted John to be received into it thirty-five years after his death: for although it was rather the doctrine of Origen than his name that was to be condemned by Theophilus, nevertheless, Origen, as the author of a nefarious doctrine, deserved some censure and reproach; whereas Chrysostom, who was akin to no error, having been proscribed from the Church through an extreme crime, was rightly received into it subsequently. Already before these times, Hammon of Adrianople had written a book *On the Resurrection against Origen*, as has been handed down by Maximus in the *Scholia on Dionysius on the Celestial Hierarchy*, chapter 7. Regarding his age, I have one thing to say, that he was older than Cyril himself, by whom he is cited somewhere as a testimony.

XXIV. With Chrysostom restored to his pristine fame, nonetheless great ignominy was brought upon the Origenian name by these contentions, so that he was already held by the common people as practically a heretic. On this account, Jerome, instructing the virgin Demetrias with precepts in the year 413, cautiously warns her to guard herself against the leaven of the Origenists. For when he had said that Origenism had been crushed by Anastasius, he adds: "And because I fear, or rather I have learned by rumor, that in some places poisoned plantings still live and sprout, that I, with the pious affection of charity..."

deem it necessary to pre-warn thee, that thou shouldst hold the faith of saint Innocent, who is the successor and son of the aforementioned man and of the apostolic chair." After he had noted the *proūparxis* of souls and the sins admitted by them before life as the distinguishing mark of that heresy, he says: "This impious and wicked doctrine formerly roamed in Egypt and the parts of the East, and now it dwells secretly among many, as if in viperous dens, and it pollutes the purity of those parts; and like a hereditary evil it creeps in among a few, so that it may reach the many." And by these words and those that follow, he denotes not only Origenism, but also Pelagianism, its successor: for there is a great affinity between the doctrine of both. Whence John of Jerusalem, who had already been called upon several times to take sides, after he had long championed the Origenian doctrine, finally lapsed into the Pelagian; nor did he merely foster Pelagius, but, out of a desire to avenge himself on Jerome, the hammer of the Pelagians, he ravaged the monasteries of his disciples Eustochium and Paula with slaughter, arson, and plunder through his suborned henchmen. But shortly after, death overcame him, in the year of our Lord 416, and four years later, Jerome himself. Pope Leo, who was contemporary with this age, in his 11th epistle to Julian of Cos, approves and proclaims the condemnation of the Origenian *proūparxis* of souls. Vincent of Lérins, a contemporary of Leo, whom we mentioned in the previous section, in his booklet *Against Heresies*, ch. 23, endowed Origen with the highest praises, so that the ensuing vituperation would be all the more brilliant. The author of the *Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers* addressed to Desiderius—falsely attributed to Jerome, and otherwise not very unkind to heretics—nevertheless accuses Origen of rashness and error. The Alexandrian prelate Dioscorus was accused of Origenism at the Council of Chalcedon by Theodore, a deacon of the Church of Alexandria. Cyril the monk reports, in the *Life of St. Euthymius*, that a great multitude of Origenists lived in the vicinity of Caesarea in Palestine; and since they frequently visited the most holy abbot Euthymius under the pretext of piety, the man, being most expert in these matters, refuted their vanity and error and pressed them with arguments when they resisted. Most memorable, however, is the decree of the Roman Council held in the year 496 under Pope Gelasius, regarding Origen and his works, which is to this effect: "Some of Origen's short works, which the blessed man Jerome does not repudiate, we allow to be read; but all the rest we say must be rejected along with their author." Furthermore, he blames Eusebius for having written one book "in praise and excuse of the schismatic Origen." Then he orders the writing which deals with the repentance of Origen to be considered apocryphal. However, some, such as Nicholas of Cusa in his book *On Catholic Concordance*, ch. 5, affirm that these are suppositious, and that the whole part of this decree from the words "Item decretales epistolæ" to the end was added by Gratian, and that nothing of the sort is to be found in ancient codices. ^A Finally, Stephen Gobarus the Tritheite writes that Isidore of Pelusium, looking for an opportunity, accused Severus of assigning Origenism to him; namely, because he had defended the cause of Chrysostom against Theophilus and Cyril: yet that, overcome by the truth, he repented and prudently revoked the slander rashly cast.

XXV. Moreover, I find that some, led by contrary studies, favored the Origenian name at this time. Theodoret, in weaving together a series of heresies, lists no Origenism, no Origenists among them; nay, he even refers to Origen with praise and honor. Certainly, Philastrius of Brescia, who was fifty full years older than Theodoret and who also published a catalogue of heretics, made no mention whatsoever of Origenists; for he preceded the altercations of Epiphanius, Jerome, John of Jerusalem, Theophilus, the Nitrians, and Chrysostom. ^B But Socrates Scholasticus and Hermias Sozomenus reveal themselves openly as Origenists in their Histories; so diligently do they seek out all the arguments by which this sect can be supported and strengthened. Sidonius Apollinaris was of the same stamp, as was the author of *Praedestinatus*, who was of those same times and was brought to light by Jacques Sirmond, showing his bias against Origen and arguing strenuously that his errors, having been mixed into his works by forgers and heretical adulterators of books, had been inserted and sprinkled therein. It is even said that Eutyches, that impious heretic, instructed and armed in impiety from the books of Origen, posited a single nature in Christ. So differently did men feel about Origen's doctrine at this time. ^{C D}

SECTION III

^A of those years of truce followed, with many favoring Origenism, and even more opposing it, yet both sides either suppressing their opinion or opening it up without discord; until again, the flame of dissension, breaking out from the monasteries of Palestine, ignited a great fire in the Church. For when certain rebellious monks had illicitly departed from the asceteria built by St. Sabas, and had constructed a new laura at the torrent of Thecoa in Palestine around the year of Christ 517, Sabas, having reconciled with them, placed a certain John over their laura, which had been decorated and expanded by him. Cyril the monk, a reliable witness, as he lived in those places and times, writes that John, near to death, issued a prophecy of this kind: "Behold, the days are coming in which those who inhabit this present place shall depart from the right faith, and they shall be puffed up in themselves, to use the words of the divine David, who provoked: in their audacity they shall truly be destroyed, and their height shall suddenly fall." Events confirmed the saying: for when, by the nod of Sabas, Paul was substituted in the place of John, he, a simple man, admitted into the company of monks four men laboring under the Origenistic plague, not having sufficiently discerned their doctrine: among whom held the first place a certain Palestinian, Nonnus—involved not only in the errors of the Origenists, but also in those of the Gentiles and Manichaeans—and Leontius the Byzantine, or as it pleases others, the Byzacenian. These, under Agapetus, whom Sabas had ordered to preside over the New Laura, revealed their insanity after Paul, a lover of the solitary life, withdrew into Arabia. Upon discovering this, Elias, the bishop of Jerusalem, and Agapetus, having used the counsel of Sabas, immediately expelled the Origenists from the laura so that the contagion might not creep further. Nor were they able to obtain from the prelate of Jerusalem who succeeded Elias the permission to be fully restored; until Mæmas, after the death of Agapetus, received them as rector of the New Laura, while they carried Origenism in their hearts but dissimulated their intention due to fear of Sabas. ^B

II. Meanwhile, the Samaritans afflicted the Christian cause throughout Palestine with the greatest calamities. Nevertheless, a man illustrious by his dignity, named Arsenius, a clever old deceiver and sycophant, surrounded Justinian and his wife Theodora — who had recently attained the empire — with feigned calumnies, and cast the cause of the Samaritan sedition upon the Christians. Having received these, the prelate of Jerusalem sent Sabas to the emperor in the year of Christ 530 to refute the calumny. Justinian received him liberally and granted everything profusely. Then, indeed, he earnestly demanded of him, above all things, that the dogmas of Arius, Nestorius, and Origen, by which the tranquility of the Church was being disturbed, should be removed from the midst. The emperor consented and, by letters, gave the task to Anthony of Ascalon and Zacharias, bishop of Pella, to eradicate these heresies and subject them to anathema. ^C

III. At the end of the following year, following the example of Sabas, Origenism received great growth in Palestine. For Nonnus, once freed from such a chastiser, and using Leontius as his assistant, afflicted with this plague not only the New Laura but other monasteries of this desert as well. Yet he wasted his efforts in vain in attempting to corrupt the asceterium of Suca, as Cyriacus, a man of wonderful virtue and an elder, breathed out his arts. Therefore, Nonnus succeeded in having Peter the Alexandrian, a man addicted to the Origenistic sect, elected to the government of this monastery: but as soon as he began to explain his doctrine, he was immediately cast out by the great consensus of all. The Catholics likewise deprived of their dignity another Peter, born in Greece, a similar and partisan man to the former Peter, who had been substituted for him by the followers of Nonnus, and in the end, they constituted Cassian the Scythopolitan, flourishing in the integrity of faith and character, as archimandrite of the monastery of Suca. John the Silent, a bishop at that time hiding in the laura of Sabas and hostile to the Origenists, ordered Cyril the monk, who committed to writing the Life of Sabas, to carry letters to the same Cyriacus, in which he earnestly begged him to obtain from God the refutation and exile of Nonnus, Leontius, and other Origenists who were occupying the New Laura. Cyriacus replied that the time was near when Nonnus and Leontius would most miserably perish, and the rest of their followers would be expelled from the New Laura. Simeon Metaphrastes, by whom the Life of Cyriacus was written, narrates that discourses were then held back and forth between this man and Cyril concerning the affairs of the Origenists. Around this same time, Bellator the priest was translating some of Origen’s short works into the Latin language. ^D

IV. Affairs seemed tranquil for a while, when the disciples of Nonnus, Domitian and Theodore, surnamed Ascidas—the former of Ancyra, the latter created bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia—abused their recently attained power to promote Origenism. Indeed, trusting in their protection, the Origenists no longer attempted to conquer unwary minds through secret tunnels or subtle reasoning, but, ranging with open force and armed with weapons, they would utterly demolish the monasteries of those whose hearts they could not corrupt. That slaughter would have descended upon the great Laura of Sabas itself, had they not strayed from the road and fallen into rough, trackless places, from where, their task unaccomplished, they finally retreated. They also grew in great pride because they had driven Peter, the bishop of Jerusalem, through calculated deceptions, to return to communion with them.

^A Since it is noted that a monk arises from [the Hebrew word *sara*], he terrified; hence perhaps one might think the monks called Sarabaites are restless, stubborn, and turbulent; for Jerome relates that they were accustomed to bickering and contending among themselves. Some suspect they were named from *Sarabou*, that is, the female pudenda, for so Hesychius and Suidas interpret this word. Moreover, the Sarabaites were prone to lechery: wherefore Cardinal Humbert says: "Whence they also venerate the fornicating Sarabaites;" but it is more likely what we brought forward in the first place as the true etymology of this name. Be that as it may, it is not without reason that it could be believed that pious and orthodox monks were denounced by this sort of insult by the impious Origenists: but we change nothing however: nor do we assert anything, but only propose it. And this by the way.

VI. After the Laura of Sabas was stormed, Gelasius, the prefect of the monastery, set out to the Emperor on the counsel of the Fathers, to report the summary of events to him; but it was brought about by the arts of Theodore, bishop of Caesarea, that every access to the Emperor and to the Constantinopolitan bishop was precluded to him, and he finally departed with his business unfinished. ^B Death overtook him at Amorium, which is a city of Phrygia, as he was returning. These things being understood, Theodore and Domitian committed the government of the Laura of Sabas to a certain George, their co-resident. He immediately drove the orthodox from the Laura. But he himself, too, was not long after driven from the monastery, convicted of a certain libidinous impurity, since a little while before Nonnus had closed his life with a most shameful end. Cassianus, a man instructed in holy and legitimate disciplines in the retreats of Sabas, succeeded George; and after Cassianus died ten months later, Conon—second to none in the integrity and virtue of his doctrine, by whom the Laura, afflicted by frequent dissensions and now almost deserted, was restored to its pristine splendor after the orthodox Fathers were recalled—set to work with special effort in overcoming Origenism, at the same time that Theodosius was coenobiarch among the Palestinians, who had obtained great authority ^C among the monks of those regions for his notable holiness of life. About which time a synod gathered by Ephraem, the prelate of Antioch, condemned with anathema the Origenists of these regions, as the author of the *Synodicon* relates, which the most learned and most kind Henry Justellus, a son most worthy of his father Christopher, recently caused to be reprinted in the *Bibliotheca juris canonici*. However, with their forces broken, the Origenists ceased from the persecution of the orthodox; but they stirred up many riots and battles among themselves.

VII. As Pelagius, deacon of the Holy Roman Church, was returning from Palestine to Constantinople, several Palestinian monks joined him as companions. The reason for this journey was as follows. They had excerpted certain principal heads of heresies from the books of Origen. They wanted to offer them to Justinian, and to obtain that they, together with Origen, be condemned. At that time, the favor of the Emperor was held by ^D that Theodore whom I aforementioned, the bishop of Caesarea of Cappadocia, a most keen defender of the Origenian cause: to whom

^A because Pelagius, having wrongly led the Palestinian monks to Constantinople, and having as his supporter Menas the Patriarch of Constantinople, requested of Justinian that he grant their petitions. The Emperor, rejoicing that the arbitration of ecclesiastical affairs was being deferred to him, granted their wish, and ordered that an Epistle be written in his name to Menas, which contains the condemnation of Origen and of the Origenian dogmas. It is worthwhile to recite the very words of Liberatus, archdeacon of Carthage: "At his command, it was dictated against Origen, and in it the condemnation of anathema was inscribed; which, when subscribed to by them along with the archbishop Menas, they were found at Constantinople; then it was directed to Vigilius the Roman bishop, Zoilus of Alexandria, Ephraem of Antioch, and Peter of Jerusalem, whose receiving and subscribing to it caused Origen, who had once while living been before condemned, to be condemned [dead]. Thus the most noble prelates of the Church confirmed with their own vote the condemnation of Adamantius. We discover that these things were done around the year 538."

VIII. Justinian, however, does not attack the Origenists in this epistle, but Origen himself, and, having enumerated his errors, decrees that he is to be ranked among the heretics: "If, therefore," he says, "all heretics have been cast out of the most holy Church for the perversion of one or another dogma, and subjected to anathema along with their own dogmas, who among all Christians will endure to support Origen and his wicked writings, he who has uttered so many blasphemies, and who has provided to almost all heretics such material for destruction and blasphemy, and who for this reason has long since been placed under anathema by the holy fathers along with his foul dogmas?" To these things the objection is ready and prepared: if error makes a heretic, I confess that Origen is a heretic; but if it is pertinacity, who dare say that Origen adhered pertinaciously to his errors? The Emperor then shows that Adamantius agreed with the pagans and Manichaeans, and that from his decrees the Arian heresy arose: then he opposes the pre-existence of souls with such contention that it easily appears that among the Origenian opinions, this one most especially pleased the Origenists of this age, which is also understood from the Lives of Euthymius and Cyriacus written by Cyril. It should be noted furthermore that Justinian willingly accepts the patronage of Chrysostom, so that he might strip this aid also from the Origenists. But it is a joke, and, to speak more truly, a childish hallucination of ^B Justinian, when, arguing against the opinion of Origen—which was gifted with stellar ratiocination—he brings forward this passage of Basil from the Homily in Hexaemeron: "We have a word concerning the separated waters," etc.; then he adds: "The hearers must note that, in the Father saying: 'We have a word concerning those who are from the Church,' he is discussing Origen, who has been cast out from the grace of God and from the holy Church of God, and those who are like-minded with him. For he did not say 'to those who are in the Church,' but 'to those who are from the Church, we have a word.' And by saying 'we,' he indicated those of the Church; but by saying 'those from the Church,' he meant those who had fallen away."

Hearers ought, furthermore, to note that Basil, when he says, "The discourse is ours to those who are from Origen, who has been repelled from the grace of God and from the holy Church of God, and to speak of his followers..." and by saying "we," he meant those who are counted in the Church; but by saying "those from the Church," he noted those ^C who were cast out therefrom. The good Emperor, or whoever composed this letter in his name, was ignorant that the particle *apo* does not always denote disjunction and separation, but also conjunction, and a sect or rule of life: "those from the sects," the heretics; "those from the Stoa," the Stoics; "those from Pythagoras," the Pythagoreans. Therefore, "those from the Church," that is, Christians, ecclesiastics; for Basil turns his sermon toward them insofar as they are opposed to the pagans. After the errors of Origen had been lengthily refuted, Justinian finally asks Menas to hold a meeting of the bishops and heads of monasteries who were then at Constantinople, and through them to ensure that Origen and the dogmas of Origen be rejected and crushed by anathema; and to transmit copies of the things done by him in this cause to the prelates and abbots everywhere, so that they themselves might also confirm the anathemas with their own subscription. Furthermore, he forbids anyone to be constituted bishop or archimandrite, unless he has first professed with his whole heart that he detests and condemns Origen along with other heretics, who are customarily struck by anathema in published documents. He signifies subsequently that letters were sent by him by this same example to Pope Vigilius, and to the patriarchs of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Theopolis, that is, Antioch. For after the earthquake, Justinian auspiciously called Antioch by the new name, Theopolis. In addition to these things, from the single work *On First Principles*, he gathers those errors that seemed most capital, and places them before the eyes of the readers. Finally, he prescribes the very words in which he wishes the anathemas against the dogmas of Origen to be conceived, the last of which strikes Origen himself, the author of the condemned dogmas.

IX. To be compared here seems to be the vision of Theophanes the Nestorian monk, which is mentioned by Moschus the Eunuch in

^A the *Spiritual Meadow*, ch. 26. That Theophanes had approached others to inquire about matters, and when Cyril saw that he remained stuck in the mire of Nestorius, he ordered him to pray that the truer doctrine might be revealed to him. A man of terrible aspect stood by him while he prayed, and led him away to a dark place, horrid with foul-smelling fires. Then, as he looked upon Nestorios, Eutyches, Apollinaris, Dioscorus, Severos, Origen, and others in the midst of the flames, he said that this was the place destined for the punishments of heretics; and that he would eventually undergo those same torments there himself, unless he departed from his erroneous opinions. Theophanes related the vision to Cyriacus, and gave his name to the Catholic Church. That work of Moschus is praised in the Seventh Synod, and because many—believing that much authority was added to him thereby—hold Theophanes’ dream as an oracle divinely delivered, I am personally little moved by this; for the race of Greeks, and especially the monks, is productive of such dreamings; and whatever the artifice of the mind fashions during leisure, it is easy and ready to propose as the utterances of God to itself and others. I do not, however, judge that because a little piece of that writing of Moschus was praised in the Seventh Synod, the entire work is to be esteemed: for otherwise, one would have to attach faith to many works full of harmful night-studies, any single selected passage of which some synod might perchance have utilized. John the Grammarian, nicknamed Philoponus, flourished in that age; he was an Alexandrian, highly learned in exquisite letters; but because of dogmas contrary to the Catholic faith, he was relegated among the heretics, for he was the father of the Tritheists and, like Origen, denied the resurrection of the body, having mocked the authority of the Fathers in a work written on that subject; but he was clearly refuted by the monk Theodosius, Conon, Eugenius, and Themistius.

X. But Theodorus Ascidas, the column of the Origenists and of the Acephali (or Monophysites), in that he bore with difficulty the fact that Origen had been reprobated by the bishops through the work of Justinian, proposed to himself to attack and subject to anathema Theodorus, Bishop of Mopsuestia—who, while he lived, was hostile to the Origenian name and famous for many treatises published against him—chiefly because he had been praised by the Council of Chalcedon. Therefore, suggesting this with the favor of the Empress Theodora to the Emperor, who was defending the authority of that council against the Acephali in his writings, he suggested that the labor of writing was being undertaken in vain if he could recall the Acephali to his communion by a shortcut, if Theodorus of Mopsuestia, and the Epistle of Ibas of Edessa to Maris the Persian (inasmuch as it was polluted with the mire of Nestorius), and the scourges of Theodoret against the twelve chapters of Cyril (or the twelve anathemas opposed to the anathemas of Nestorius) were condemned; for indeed the concord of the Acephali with the Catholics was greatly retarded by these.

XI. The credulous Emperor consented, and, desirous of conciliating peace in the Church, allowed an edict composed by Theodorus Ascidas to be promulgated in his own name, ^B as he had lately set out for Rome to the Deacon Pelagius, who had performed the office of apocrisiarius with Justinian. In this edict, he is ordered to be anathema who defends Theodorus of Mopsuestia, or the epistle to Maris the Persian heretic, which Ibas is said to have composed, or the writings of Theodoret against Cyril and his twelve chapters. But the Emperor, realizing that this availed very little unless it obtained force and strength by the subscription of the bishops, dragged many to assent; many, however, refused to consent, believing that these chapters could not be undermined while the authority of the Council of Chalcedon was preserved, and that the Emperor's authority had in addition no standing in ecclesiastical matters. Justinian summons Vigilius the Roman Pontiff himself, who was defending those chapters, to Constantinople; he requests his opinion on the three chapters; the Pontiff tergiversates, collects the thirty bishops who were present into a synod, and orders them to set forth in writing what each felt, and finally yields to Justinian’s opinion; and in the year 548, he issues the decree which is called the *Judicatum*, and declares by it that he condemns the three chapters, with the authority of the Council of Chalcedon saved. Yet many schisms were sparked from this, since the bishops, especially of the West, thought that the reverence and majesty of this synod were violated by the Roman Pontiff; although he stood firm, despite Justinian urging him to consent to the condemnation of the three chapters without any mention of that synod. But at length, with Menas of Constantinople and Theodorus of Caesarea—whom Vigilius had removed from his communion—having returned to a saner mind, and with the edicts which Justinian had published concerning the three chapters having been likewise abrogated, it pleased them that the investigation and judgment of those questions be permitted to a legitimate synod.

XII. Meanwhile, the sect of the Origenists was receiving new increments in Palestine and the neighboring regions. Leontius, Bishop of Neapolis in Cyprus, who was contemporary with the Emperor Heraclius, writes that two monks of a certain Asceterion, which was near Emesa, had once inquired among themselves why Origen the heretic (for so he is called) should have fallen from the faith, though endowed by God with such great gifts. And when the one argued that the knowledge in which he excelled was a gift not of God but of nature, the other, on the contrary, maintained that no one could attain functions of that kind by a gift of nature, such as those which were composed by him; it seemed to both of them to defer the matter for decision ^D to the monks of Palestine, whose fame had then spread widely. They proceed to the monasteries bordering the Dead Sea, and ask John the Abbot and Simeon what they might think about the matter they had questioned between themselves; but they ordered them to consult another Simeon, by the nickname Salus (which is, as I conjecture, שָׁלוֹם, with the ם changed into ς, just as in *Annibas* for Hannibal), that is, the insane and foolish one, living in Emesa. That man, for the sake of trampling on pride and vain glory, veiled his modesty under the simulation of madness, and was commonly regarded as a fool. He, of the lupines which he happened to be eating at that time...

and using them as a signal, signified to the monks who approached that Origen, having trusted too much in his own intellect and seeking after higher things, had fallen into the sea and perished. Evagrius narrates that in this very year, Macarius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, suspected of Origenism, was driven from his see before the Emperor could confirm his election by his own vote, but that he was somewhat later restored to it, after he had condemned Origen, Evagrius, and Didymus, as is betrayed by the same author. But although Origen was publicly and privately defamed, the spirits of the Palestinian Origenists were not at all settled; and when their sect primarily in the New Laura grew strong, they were driven out from thence by Eustochius, Bishop of Jerusalem. Disseminated into various parts, they enticed many who had been ensnared by their doctrines to bring them aid. That Theodore, whom I called Ascidas, a participant in Justinian's counsels and joined to him by great familiarity, fervently favored them. He publicly criticized the deed of Eustochius and agitated the court against him. ^B And Evagrius and Nicephorus write that this was the cause of the summoning of the Fifth Synod.

XIII. The synod having been convened at Constantinople in the year 553, much was transacted therein concerning the Three Chapters. Since it is not our intent to recount each of these things here, let it suffice to have said this one thing: that despite the resistance of Vigilius, who had struggled with all his might against the celebration of the synod and had taken upon himself the cause of defending those Three Chapters anew, they were nonetheless condemned, and Vigilius, favoring the side of Theodore, Ibas, and Theodoret through a scroll composed by himself and sent to Justinian, which he called a *Constitutum*, and refusing to subscribe to the council, was put into custody—"a modicum of bread and water was supplied to him," as Anastasius has it in his *Life*—and many bishops, especially from Illyricum and Africa, were for the same reason cast out of their sees, punished with exile, and ill-treated in every way; others, enriched with gifts, gave their assent; yet the Roman Church at length admitted the Fifth as among the ecumenical and legitimate synods, either by the nod of Vigilius himself, or of Pelagius, and other pontiffs; and Vigilius, having been recalled from exile at the request of Narses along with others, died in Sicily while he was returning to Rome. It is therefore manifest from the altercations of the Origenists and the rivalries and hatreds of Pelagius and Theodore of Caesarea that these movements and ^C disorders had arisen in the Church: "That this is clear to all I believe," says Liberatus in his *Breviary* (cap. 24), "through Pelagius the Deacon and Theodore, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, this scandal entered the Church." Which Theodore himself also openly shouted, that he and Pelagius ought to be burned alive, through whom this scandal entered into the world. Domitianus of Ancyra himself, an assertor of the Origenian doctrine, in a certain letter to Pope Vigilius, acknowledges that it was by the work of the Origenists that the Three Chapters were condemned by Justinian: witness Facundus, Bishop of Hermiane, in his book I *ad Justinian*, cap. 2: "It found," he says, "the desired opportunity (the spirit of the heretics) out of the fury of certain ones, who under the name of a Christian hidden in the Church follow the Origen dogma." And because through the insistence of your religion there is a repeated condemnation of this same profane dogma, hence its followers have been inflamed against the Church, seeking to trouble it in whatever mission they could. And this whole matter did not escape public notice, especially when even Domitianus, Bishop of the city of Ancyra in the province of Galatia Prima, who was a manifest assertor of the Origenist heresy itself, confessed through a document which he wrote to the most blessed Pope Vigilius—God extorting it—that his accomplices, the Origenists, when they saw that they could not defend their own dogma, nor did any hope of conflict remain for them, stirred up these scandals of the Church for the sake of the vengeance of those things which were done against Origen. Which he also repeats more clearly in lib. IV, cap. 4.

XIV. Furthermore, whether the cause of Origen and the Origenists was transacted in the Fifth Synod must be investigated: for some have asserted without any circumlocution that it was completely silent about them. Halloxius asserted it, and that those things which were done against Origen before or after the council, many, either out of hatred for Origen, or fawning upon the emperor, or having fallen through human frailty, wrote as having been done in the council itself. Indeed, I confess that I once thought so, as it is commonly blustered and believed, that Origen was condemned by the authority of this council, and the doctrine of Origen, and that it was confected by the fraud of the Greeks and perhaps inserted into the history of Evagrius. I was moved to believe this by these reasons most especially: that no condemnation of Origen exists in the acts of the council, and none exists in the writings of Victor of Tunnuna or Facundus, who were contemporaries of these times and witnesses of the events. But when the matter has been weighed more accurately, I am not only persuaded that the cause of Origen and the Origenists was transacted in the synod, and that he himself along with his followers and dogmas was condemned and pierced with anathema, but that whoever thinks otherwise must be considered either little attentive or not sufficiently honest. I have had these reasons for having believed this. First, I see that the summary of the whole affair and the very words of the anathema are reported by Evagrius, whom the whole troop of Greeks follows, the author of the *Chronicon Alexandrinum*, Georgius Syncellus, Theophanes, Photius in his booklet *On the Synods*, Nilus Rhodius, and two anonymous writers who also wrote about the synods, which the most famous man Henry Justel collected into his *Bibliotheca* of ancient canon law; Zonaras, Glycas, but especially Cedrenus, who also represents the letter of Justinian to the synod, in which he agitates for the Fathers to condemn Origen and the followers of Origen; and Nicephorus, who recites the anathematisms launched against Origen by the synod word for word. Furthermore, the monk Cyril, already cited by us several times, who flourished in the age of Justinian and could not be ignorant of the things done in the synod, clearly teaches that Origen was condemned therein in the *Vita Euthymii*, cap. 105. "But when," he says, "in the preceding time, afterwards the Fifth Holy Synod was gathered in Constantinople, and the dogmas of Origen and Nestorius..."

were struck by it with anathema, and the Origenists who had held the New Laura had been expelled from there, and the faithful and orthodox Fathers had migrated back into it, with the permission of the admirable John the Silent—I, I say, he who was bishop, depart from the monastery and I also dwell in this Laura." And again in the *Vita Sabae*, last chapter: "After these things, when the holy and ecumenical Fifth Synod had been gathered at Byzantium, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Origen, and together with them the impious dogmas concerning pre-existence and resurrection, had been subjected to a general anathema, and thus with all freedom of speech taken away from the heretics henceforth, the Laura of divine Sabas, and almost all of Palestine with them, twenty-three years after his death, breathed again from grievous heresies and from the bitterness and iniquity of the time." That fragment from the *Vita Sabae* is adduced in the seventh synod, Act 1. But eighty years after that fifth synod was celebrated, Sophronius, prelate of Jerusalem, writing to Sergius the patriarch of Constantinople, discourses thus concerning it: "It removes and casts out for destruction, indeed primarily, Origen the fool, and all his dream-like niceties and writings full of manifold impiety, and the dogmas of Evagrius with him and of Didymus, and all their Hellenic and monstrous, nay, even their mythical absurdities." He confounds and casts into destruction primarily indeed the insane Origen, and all his delirious inventions, and his lucubrations full of manifold impiety; likewise the dogmas of Evagrius with him and of Didymus, and all their Hellenic and monstrous, as well as their fabulous ineptitudes. The sixth synod also testifies to this, acts 17 and 18. Emperor Constantine also testifies in an edict to the people dwelling in the western parts: and Leo II, the Roman pontiff, in a letter to Constantine, which two writings are held among the Acts of the same sixth synod. The quinisext pseudosynod also testifies, can. 1, and the synodical letters of Theodore of Jerusalem which were recited in the third action of the seventh synod; and the letter of Tarasius, bishop of Constantinople, and of the whole of that seventh synod to Constantine and Irene, which exists in the seventh action of the same council; and Anastasius the Librarian to the twenty-sixth year of Justinian. These things are so manifest that no one can object or file a plea against them.

As for what pertains to Facundus Hermianensis, the authority of the negative argument, as they call it, ought certainly to have little weight, when a *kataphatic* (affirmative) argument is brought forward on the contrary side. Indeed, the reason brought forward by Baronius seems to me very likely as to why the acts of the council are silent about Origen—that they had been mutilated and truncated. He suspects the authors of the act to be the Origenists who presided over the synod, Eutychius the patriarch of Constantinople, who, since he did not then admit the resurrection of the flesh (an error, however, which he later abjured at the persuasion of Pope Gregory, who at this time was a deacon and apocrisiarius of the S. R. E.), deservedly fell under suspicion of Origenism: as did Theodore of Caesarea, the artificer of the whole struggle. ^A Regarding which, as one might truly opine of him, on account of the manifest craftiness of the man, so as to Eutychius, a most holy and most candid man, I can scarcely suspect anything. Certainly, the sixth synod declared in action 14 that the copies of this same council, both Greek and Latin, had been vitiated by the study of Macarius of Antioch and Stephen, and announced their adulteration as well in action 19, near the end. But even if we grant that the Acts of the council survive intact, it will certainly have to be hidden that in the eleventh of the anathemas which exist in the eighth collation, Origen is sanctioned as an anathema among other heretics. And in the fifth collation likewise these words are read: "And indeed we find many others also anathematized after death: and also Origen; and if anyone recurs to the times of Theophilus of holy memory, or earlier, he will find him anathematized after death." Which your holiness, and Vigilius the most religious pope of older Rome, also performed even now in this very matter.

Nevertheless, Halloxius asserts with enough confidence that the name of Origen was intruded into the words brought forward from the eighth collation, and was placed after the names of other heretics, although it should have been placed in a prior position. As if Cyril had not also attached the name of Origen to Theodore of Mopsuestia in the place shortly inferred from the *Vita Sabae*, so that I may refrain from citing more examples in which names are recounted without any distinction or regard for time. Another place of the fifth collation is likewise thought to have been forged, as are also other certain parts of the same collation, as Halloxius surmises, ^B moved by these arguments, because in the prior collations not a word is made about Origen; and in the *Constitutum*, Vigilius had proven that no one is to be condemned after death. To the first argument Baronius will reply that many particles of this synod had been suppressed by the Origenists: the other, however, is blunted by this exception, that while Vigilius did indeed teach in the *Constitutum* that no one ought to be condemned after death, he had decreed the contrary in the *Iudicatum*.

XV. Now since it is established that the matter of Origen was dealt with in the fifth synod, let us carry out the sequence of the event. Evagrius writes that when the Origenists had been expelled from the New Laura, and Theodore Ascidas blamed this act before the emperor, ^C Rufus and Conon the archimandrites, and other monks from Palestine noble in virtue, were sent to Constantinople; and that as soon as they were brought there, they approached to ventilate the cause of Origen, Evagrius, and Didymus: Ascidas, on the other hand, struggling that the discussion might be about Theodore of Mopsuestia, Ibas, and Theodoret; that before all things it was sought whether men who have finished their lives can be subjected to anathema; and that Eutychius, who was then the respondent to the bishop of Amasea, solved the question by the example of King Josiah, by whom not only the priests of the demons living in his time were killed, but the graves of the dead were also dug up: ^D that this saying was received with such applause by all, but especially by Justinian, that the emperor subsequently elevated him to the see of Constantinople; and concerning Theodore of Mopsuestia thereafter, and concerning the writings

of Theodoret against the twelve chapters of Cyril, and concerning the letter of Ibas to Maris the Persian, it is said that a dispute occurred. After these things were condemned, and Eulogius, Conon, Cyriacus, and the monks Pancratius had brought forward ^A petitions against the dogmas of Origen and his followers, they requested of Justinian the judgment of the synod, bringing forward also for consideration the memorials written by Vigilius regarding these matters, in which he showed that Origen had labored to defile the purity of the apostolic doctrine with the deliriums of the Greeks and the Manichaeans. This Justinian had already blamed in him earlier in his Letter to Menas, saying that he had taken pains, "In order that he might introduce the myths of the Greeks and his own Manichaean error." And in his letter to the synod speaking of the Origenists, he says: "Lest they utterly destroy many through their Greek and Manichaean deception." Whence Facundus (lib. XII, cap. 1) links Origen with the Manichaean: "We say," he writes, "that to this stubbornness belongs—or rather, we affirm that it holds the principate in it—even those doctrines which some, not as if failing to understand the divine Scriptures but by openly resisting them, established through the mere presumption of the spirit, as did the Manichaean and Origen." Evagrius adds that, after Origen and his partisans were condemned by the vociferations of the synod, it was resolved that it should be referred to Justinian. Then he presents the very words, in which Origen is said to be caught as a thief in the snares of anathemas, and cast out beyond the sacred walls; and he says that there were added to these the condemned chapters of the Origenists, from which it is easy to note in what ^B they agreed or disagreed with one another. He says that the fifth of these chapters contains the dogma asserted by certain monks of the New Laura and by Theodore Ascida, that in the restitution the apostles and martyrs would be equal to Christ, which he concludes from miracles wrought by them. He says that the rest of the wicked opinions of Didymus, Evagrius, and Theodore were diligently collected. Nicephorus has these same things, but he adds some things from his own account, such as that these things were debated in the second session. He also adds the synod's anathemas themselves, which he affirms he has transcribed word for word, and which are the very same that Justinian had already appended to his letter to Menas. Let the credit for these rest with Nicephorus, a very flighty and frivolous little Greek, as we have already warned. Cedrenus, however, presents letters which were sent by Justinian to the synod against Origen, the purport of which is this: that he had discovered that there were monks in Jerusalem who maintained the errors of Pythagoras, Plato, and Origen, and that he had decreed that an investigation should be made concerning this matter. ^C Then he reviews some of their dogmas, especially the one that we have noted as having been ventilated in those times regarding the pre-existence of souls, among which only the soul of Christ kept its rank unmoved; and he demonstrates that this was transferred from the dreamings of Pythagoras and Plotinus, and especially of Plato, by Origen. For which reason he exhorts the Fathers to condemn such deliriums, along with Origen and his followers. Cedrenus finally adds that the Fathers with unanimous consent obeyed these letters.

XVI. Thus, the affairs of the Origenists having been defeated, whoever among those of this faction were related to the Lauras of Sabas were ejected, and the orthodox Fathers moved back into them. Then indeed Palestine recovered from the heresies and the difficulty of the times, when thereafter hardly anyone dared to mutter against the authority of the ecumenical council. Whence the name and doctrine of Origen came into such odium throughout the entire East that, even today, they say it is forbidden by ecclesiastical laws among the Greeks that anyone should transcribe his works; and that if anyone does otherwise, he is ordered to be outside the communion of the Church. The name of Cassiodorus was great in the Church at that time, and it is worth the trouble to inquire into his opinion regarding Origen, after the anathemas were pronounced against him by the Constantinopolitan synod. Therefore, in his book *On the Institution of Divine Scriptures*, he writes such things about him: that he was declared a heretic by the opinion of many Fathers, and was condemned anew by Pope Vigilius—namely, as may be suspected, through the *Constitutum* published specifically for that purpose; that Theophilus had refuted his thirty-five errors; that Epiphanius had been greatly angered against him; and that, in reading him, one should especially approve the rule which was proposed by Jerome in his Letter to Tranquillinus. Anastasius Sinaita and John Scholasticus were flourishing around this time, to whom they gave the surname Climacus from the title of the book inscribed *The Ladder of Paradise*. Both of them were poorly disposed toward Origen and the followers of Origen. It was also very ^D pertinent to the diminishing of the Origenists' reputation that they consented to Justinian after he had lapsed into a new heresy. Now, the capital dogma of that heresy was this: that the body of Christ, while he was living his life, was subject to no affections and to no corruption. Since the Origenists proved this by their own calculation, it was manifest to everyone how ready they were to recede from the approved doctrine of the Church. A few years later, Pelagius II was made Roman pontiff, whose opinion regarding Origen and the sect of Origen is revealed by a letter written in his name by Gregory, while he was still a deacon in Rome, but subsequently pontiff. Thus he addresses Elius, the bishop of Aquileia, and the other schismatic bishops of Istria, and those defending the Three Chapters: "For what is more serious in the heresiarchs than Origen, and in the historiographers, what can be found more honorable than Eusebius? And who of us is unaware with what praise Eusebius extols Origen in his books? But because the holy Church weighs the hearts of her faithful more kindly than she weighs words, and because she was able to absolve the inward intent of Eusebius more than that of the heretics, she therefore did not condemn Eusebius for the fault of the acclaimed Origen. Does not even Gregory, bishop of the city of Nyssa, when he expounds the Song of Songs, prefer Origen with great praise? And does not Jerome, a presbyter of our Church and a unique servant of the Hebrews...

tongue, intent with such great favor toward Origen that he seems almost to be his disciple? But because causes are to be weighed more than words, neither did their kindness harm them, nor did the favor of another’s testimony excuse him from his own guilt. ^A Certainly this same Gregory, when previously he served in the office of apocrisiarius at Constantinople, had skirmished against the most holy prelate Eutychius, who was defending Origen’s doctrine concerning the resurrection: for that good man had taught that our body in the resurrection could not be touched by hands, and that it was more subtle than wind and air. Gregory suppressed this reviving error, though it was scarcely approved by anyone in these lands, and Eutychius, when dying, retracted it, while the Emperor Tiberius had judged his book worthy of the flames. About this time also, Leontius of Byzantium—distinct from the other Leontius, the Byzantine or, according to others, the Byzacenian monk mentioned above—lacerated Origen with sharpened writings. ^B

XVII. From that time on, the odium of Origenism faded a little, nor did the following age produce many who were hostile to him. Eighty years after the fifth synod was celebrated, Sophronius, the prelate of Jerusalem, writing a synodal epistle to Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, which is as it were a profession of faith, among other errors of the heretics, enumerates the principal dogmas of Origen that are contrary to the Christian faith, and refutes them with most grave words, and asserts that he was condemned in the fifth council; then he places him together with the most wicked heretics. This epistle is recorded among the Acts of the sixth synod, session 11. Then, in sessions 17 and 18, the definition of the council is repeated, in which the decrees of the fifth synod are proved and confirmed, which synod is said there to have been gathered against Theodore of Mopsuestia, Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius. In the same session 18, there is the edict of the Emperor Constantine, in which he declares that he undertakes what the fifth synod ordained against the impugners of God, Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius. Finally, it exhibits the epistle of Pope Leo II to Constantine, in which, ordering that what the six ecumenical synods had established be held as ratified, among other heretics whom those councils had crushed with anathema, he places Origen Adamantius, Didymus, and Evagrius. Nor was Origen thought of any better by Isidore of Seville, who, in his *Libri VIII, cap. 5*, tracing the series of heresies that have emerged among Christians, mentions the Origenists and sets forth their reprobated opinions. Guy the Carmelite reports from him this epigram, in which Origen is introduced speaking:

I am that Origen, the doctor, ^D of old most true, Who first the clear alphabet of the faith did pursue: I was eminent in merits, and renowned for the gift of speech; Suddenly, by a harmful voice, I fell within their reach. If you believe it, I strove to compose as many thousand books As the legion leads men into arms, with fearsome looks. No blasphemy ever touched my senses in their state, But I was vigilant, and prudent, and escaped the foe's gate.

1176 ^A Anno 649, Pope Martin gathered the first Lateran synod to fulfill the mandate of the Emperor Constantine and to crush with new and repeated anathemas the Monothelites Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul. In it, Origen with his followers Didymus and Evagrius is proscribed by the Church. Stephen Gobarus the Tritheite seems to have favored Origen, as it is ready to conjecture from the codex of Photius, *CCXXXI*; for he disputed most of his dogmas, even those most reprobated, toward both parts, perhaps concealing his own opinion by this art, and he commemorated the principal praisers of Origen. Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, lived around the year 720, who besides other short works wrote an *Antapodoticum*, or *Antirheticum*. ^B Reading the highest points of this book, Photius, in codex *CCXXXIII*, reports that it deals chiefly with proving that the writings of Gregory of Nyssa are immune from that error of Origen, by which it is affirmed that demons and men condemned to the fires of hell will eventually be liberated; for Germanus contended that Gregory’s books had been corrupted by the Origenists, partly with spurious additions, partly also with words misinterpreted, and that by that work he had achieved a signal triumph over the Origenists who had been openly convicted. Almost contemporary with this Germanus was John of Damascus, who declared his hatred against the Origenists with most clear testimonies; especially in the book *Concerning Heresies*, in which he reckons the Origenists among the most foul heretics, and, following Augustine and Epiphanius, says they were double-dealing. The same, in the *Eclogae*, which exist in manuscript in the Claromontane Library of the Society of Jesus, brings forth certain fragments of Antipas, Bishop of Bostra, *from the treatise against the blasphemies of the ill-named Origen*. How he was disposed toward Origen is understood from this title. Concerning the age of this Antipas, I have searched long and much, and only this have I been able to detect so far: that he was more recent than Eusebius, whom he reproves, and more ancient than John of Damascus, by whom he is praised. Also unknown to me is the age of John Mauropous, Metropolitan of the Church of Euchaita, who wrote a solution to the explanation of Origen on the Psalter. That book is listed in the catalogue of the Constantinopolitan Library of the most illustrious Prince Marmoreta, which is appended to the supplement of the Bibliotheca Gesneriana of Antoine Verdier. ^D Antonio Possevinus also commemorates an anonymous Scholiast of Origen in his *Apparatus Sacer*, whose age is equally unknown. I can no more conjecture at what time the *Questions of the Origenists to the Faithful* was written, which is placed in the Allatian inventory of the Vatican Library. The venerable Bede showed himself just to Origen, equal to those of Damascenus; for he both extolled his outstanding gifts with praises in his *Collectanea* and *Flores* (chapter "On the Luminaries of the Church"), nor did he fail to dissemble his faults. Anastasius the Librarian was more unfair, having suppressed the praises of Adamantius and having cherished only his errors.

originated, and sharpy rebuked Eusebius himself for his excessive affection ^A toward Origen. In the following century, which is the ninth from the birth of Christ, Haymo of Halberstadt flourished. He attempted to absolve Origen of the charge in plain terms, asserting that either the errors were foisted upon him by heretics or were proposed by him not as his own settled opinion, but as a mere suggestion. Conversely, Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, his contemporary, condemned Adamantius most severely.

XVIII. It would be a long task to examine and report the opinions of individuals who, passing by or occupied with other matters, have briefly set forth what they thought of Origen and Origen’s doctrine. For why should I mention Georgius Syncellus and Theophanes, why Georgius Cedrenus, why Theophylact, why Joannes Zonaras, why Michael Glycas, why Nicephorus Callisti, ^B by whom he was treated as wretchedly as by almost the entire Greek nation? Why mention Nilus the Thessalonian, who says that his wisdom, though he was most learned in Christian matters and expert in Scripture, did not prevent Origen from falling away from the integrity of the faith? Suidas the lexicographer, compiling the sayings of others according to his custom, gifted Origen with a twofold encomium: the first, almost entirely culled from Eusebius’s book *On Ecclesiastical Writers* but in a confused and disordered arrangement—and in part also from the Greek translation of the encomium with which Jerome gifted him—extols him marvelously; yet the second, taken *autolexei* [verbatim] from Cedrenus, calls him by the charge of heresy. My attention, however, is called by the encomium which Nicetas wrote for Origen: "For this, he says, must be said in summary: that in physical theorems and their allegories, as well as throughout all moral discipline, Origen was most acceptable and most accommodating to everyone among the learned, ^C and was one who exercised virtue in his actions more than all others. For he so cultivated his life in the study of this exercise that his chest, as they say, withered from an excessive continence and abstinence in all living things. But in the true faith and those disciplines which require greater contemplation, and especially theological matters, he proved himself more absurd than any of those who preceded or followed him," which is almost entirely culled from Epiphanius, *Heresies* LXIV, cap. 5. But again, why should I mention Sidonius Apollinaris, why Bede, why Freculphus of Lisieux, why Regino, why Hermannus Contractus, why Marianus Scotus, why Honorius of Autun, why William of Paris, who showed themselves more kindly toward him? Why Martin of Opava, who extolled him with great praises? Why Anastasius the Librarian, who was of the contrary opinion and flayed him with the harshest insults? ^D Why Bernard, who in his sermon on the words of Origen warns that he should be read circumspectly, because the authority of the holy Fathers maintains that he wrote many things against the faith? Why Thomas Aquinas, attacking him just as he does the father of the Arians? Why Robert Curson the Englishman, whom Bale (*Centuries of the Writers of Britain*, 3) reports to have written a book *On the Salvation of Origen*? Why Vincent of Beauvais, who in his *Speculum Doctrinale*, book XV, cap. 43, pronounces upon Origen with the utmost fairness? Why Werner of Westphalia, who, after he had heaped praises upon Origen, says that he cannot reconcile the contradictory and opposite opinions concerning the merits and virtues of Origen? Why should I list various heretics of that lower age, who revived most of his tenets: such as those who went by the name of Barulo, whom historians report to have defended the preexistence of souls and to have considered the Blessed Virgin an angel; or the Waldensians, who asserted that bishops, as long as they remain entangled in sins and crimes, cannot use the power of their order, and that all pious men are priests? One thing I wish to warn my readers: that Origen is treated more harshly by the Greeks than by the Latins, the reason for which we refer to the Fifth Synod; for since that synod had condemned Origen along with the Three Chapters, and since many bishops of the West had set out to defend the Three Chapters against the authority of the synod, the custom of defending Origen among them seems to have sprung from that same source.

XIX. The fourteenth century brought forth the pious woman Mechtild. Some years ago, her *Life* was published, in which is reported a certain oracle given to her divinely, which is worthy of our observation. For the writer of this *Life* relates that God announced to her from heaven that whatever had been forgiven and granted by Him to Samson, Solomon, and Origen, He had deliberately hidden from men, so that, terrified by ignorance of this matter, the most learned, the most prudent, and the most valiant might learn to hope very little from themselves and everything from God. Bernard Gui was celebrated at this very time, by whom the errors of the Origenists are listed and are recorded as having been condemned in the Fifth Synod along with their author. After him, Bartolommeo Platina dealt remarkably with Origen and adorned him with great praises. But the greatest was in the following age, that of Joannes Pico, Count of Mirandola, whose praise and fame in the world of letters were such that Origen could have desired no more noble or more learned patron for himself. Therefore, among the nine hundred conclusions which he proposed for public disputation before the whole world, this one was notable: "It is more reasonable to believe that Origen is saved than to believe that he is condemned." From that vast heap of propositions, his rivals condemned thirteen marked with asterisks as if contrary to the Christian faith, among which was the one that pertains to the salvation of Origen. The most illustrious prince wrote an apology for himself and his doctrine, and dedicated a special chapter to the defense of Adamantius. That work consists of seven articles, which it is useful to report: In the first, it is considered whether Origen ever [held] a heretical opinion concerning matters of the faith.

in the second, granting that he wrote, whether he wrote dogmatically, or adhesively, or merely inquisitively; in the third, granting that he wrote adhesively, whether he adhered in such a way that by writing he mortally sinned and can be called a heretic; in the fourth, granting that he wrote, and wrote in such a way that he erred in doing so, whether he ever repented for such things; in the fifth, granting that it is not established whether he repented or remained unrepentant, whether it is more reasonable to believe him damned or saved; in the sixth, what is to be judged as having been determined by the Church regarding Origen, from the declarations of the decrees; in the seventh, to what extent the determination of the Church binds our belief in this matter. Various were the human judgments concerning these conclusions and the apology, so that, to avoid the offense of many, Pope Innocent VIII decreed that these conclusions were not to be read by anyone; yet he wished the reputation of Pico to remain safe and intact. His successor, Alexander VI, on 18 June 1493, issued an apostolic brief to Pico, which is of such a nature that it could serve him as an apology, liberating Pico with such severe and grave language from every suspicion of heresy and error. I think that Pico’s example was a stimulus to others to dare to do the same for Origen. For this reason, Johannes Nauclerus, Provost of Tübingen, wrote distinguished praises of Origen in his Chronicle. Johannes Trittemius, Abbot of Spanheim, also celebrated him with many praises in his book *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, though he did not hide his errors, professing that he wished to be alien to them.

^C XX. At the beginning of the last century, Jacobus Merlinus Victurniensis, a theologian, canon, and penitentiary of Paris, was the first to undertake to collect into one body the fragments of Origenian writings scattered in libraries and to bring them into the public light. He added an apology for Origen to this work, in which he spoke not very prudently about Gelasius and the sentence passed by him in the Roman Council, nor as befitted a Catholic and pious man, much less a theologian, and he added many other things that became exposed to the complaints of Massæus, rector of the school of Cambrai, and Natalis Beda, syndic of the theological faculty. Since, therefore, errors were being attributed to Origen by him, the matter was debated and disputed in the supreme senate and among the Parisian theologians for a long time and by many. Certainly, in the year 1522, Merlinus felt compelled to compose an apology for his apology. That manuscript is kept in the library of the theological faculty, and its use was granted to me. Why the author himself did not bring it to light, I do not know. It is contained in three books. The first argues for Origen and Origen’s doctrine and concludes with seven propositions, the first of which is this: «It is not certain, evident, or indubitable that any council condemned Origen Adamantius, son of Leonides the martyr, as a notorious and public heretic.» The second is thus: «To dogmatize that Origen Adamantius, son of Leonides the martyr, was not a notorious and public heretic ^D condemned by the Church legitimately assembled, is neither heretical nor suspect in faith.» The third is of this kind: «One who probably affirms that Origen Adamantius, son of Leonides the martyr, was not the author of all those very evil errors that are attributed to him, does not derogate from ecclesiastical sanctions, nor from the decrees of the supreme pontiffs, nor from the dogmas of the holy Fathers.» The fourth is conceived in these words: «To assert probably either of these propositions: Origen Adamantius, son of Leonides the martyr, is not, and never was, a heretic; [or] Origen Adamantius, son of Leonides the martyr, is or was a heretic, is not heretical, nor does it savor of heresy, nor is it erroneous, or alien from the faith or from piety.» The fifth is such: «One asserting this or that side probably ought to lay aside all obstinacy, and affirm the other under an express or tacit condition: otherwise, he would expose himself to a dangerous risk.» The sixth is expressed thus: «Although the aforementioned propositions cannot stand together in truth, and it is necessary that one be true, yet someone affirming one true part is not a schismatic, nor suspect of schism.» The seventh is finally concluded with these words: «It is more conducive to Christian piety, in the face of such a great doubt, when the truth is hidden and uncertain, and not openly defined by the Church or the Pope, to think and dogmatize well, in favor of Origen’s doctrine and its author, than to think and dogmatize perversely; and [it is better] to exceed in commending than to fail in the praise owed to him: especially if one must come to the other [position].» The second book defends nine propositions extracted from Merlin’s Apology by his adversaries and reproved. The third draws Origen’s Life and Eulogies from Eusebius, Jerome, Nauclerus, and Trittemius; to these is added a response to the Dialogues of Massæus and the Additions of Beda. In these, Merlinus skirmishes not so much from the faith of history and the testimonies of the ancients, as with twisted sophistries and school quibbles.

XXI. Desiderius Erasmus also merited well of Origen in this age, for he translated a certain part of his Commentaries on Matthew into the Latin language, wrote his Life, and pursued his praises, and passed judgment on his lucubrations, his erudition, and his method of teaching; but he abstained from his dogmas, prevented, if I am not mistaken, by death, which acted as an impediment to his completing the edition and censure of Origenian works he had also undertaken, and to his refuting Origen’s adversaries. Moreover, in the part of the censure that exists, Erasmus retained his old habit, debating matters not accurately perceived with hasty judgment, and in debating, sometimes stumbling. Meanwhile, Martinus Luther was supremely adverse to Origen, (whose word was: «I have long since devoted Origen to the curses.») To whom Theodorus Beza subsequently assented, both in six hundred places of his greater annotations on the Epistle to the Romans, and especially under the very beginning, [where he speaks of] the foulest Adam-

Adamantio ^A branding the marks: "Nor indeed," he says, "when I say these things, do I wish to detract anything from the authority of the Fathers; but, as far as it concerns me, I cannot with a good conscience place Origen among those Fathers whom I would wish to imitate. Therefore, I shall not be ashamed to refute his errors here and there, with no intention (so may God well love me) of disparagement; but because I desire that an impure writer should either be shaken from the hands of readers, or handled by the learned with the highest judgment." The Magdeburg Centuriators felt and wrote more moderately and equitably about Origen, adorning him for his vices or his virtues: although you would by no means bear them, for they bring into criminal charges some of Adamantius's orthodoxies, which are contrary to the dogmas of their own sect, while falsely attributing some things to him. Ambrosius Ferrarius of Milan, a Cassinese monk, having found in the Venetian library of St. Mark the Commentaries of Adamantius on John in Greek, first translated them into Latin and sent them to the press; but he was so studious of the Origenian reputation that, while he championed him, he took little counsel for his own; for although he testified that in translating this book he used the greatest good faith, yet you may detect some things deliberately cut away, in which Origen had wandered from the straight path of Christian doctrine. Moreover, in a dedicatory epistle to Pope Julius III, he narrates that he had taken care to visit at great expense the most celebrated libraries that exist everywhere, by sending men who might scour all of Greece, and if they found any writings of Origen, they might bring them to him. Having been thus enriched, he prepared many of his authentic works for the press. Why these did not come to light, we do not know. ^B Somewhat later, Sixtus Senensis, of the Order of Preachers, contributed work useful for defending the name of Origen: for he consecrated an outstanding eulogy to him in the fourth book of his *Bibliotheca Sancta*, in which he not only extols him with praises, but also enumerates the number of his books and eruditely separates the genuine from the spurious. He marks and examines errors in his books of Annotations. His method was little approved by Cardinal Caesar Baronius, who, being of a most alien mind against Origen, and exercising the greatest harshness and inclemency of style against him in his *Annales*, also carped at and touched in passing the others who were more inclined toward him: "I have wondered greatly," he says, "after his condemnation inflicted by the apostolic authority of Pope Anastasius, after his reprobation pronounced in the sixth synod, and after so many ancient Fathers conspiring in the same judgment, that even now some more recent [writers] ^C have presumed to publish new apologies for the same, and have presumed to stir up again rashly controversies that have often been judged by the authority of the Catholic Church, which Sixtus Senensis seemed to have done of old." Cardinal Robert Bellarmine does not treat Origen more mildly, nor all his partisans and defenders.

Claudius Espencæus acted with truly the highest equity toward Adamantius in his *Commentaries on the Epistle to Titus*; for he was neither blinded by insane love to detract anything from the faith of history, nor, offended by errors, did he obscure his praises. Vicelius is reported to have favored him greatly and to have forgiven him much in his book *On Ecclesiastical Writers*; which I report from the testimony of another, for I could not find the book. However, Gilbert Genebrard, a Parisian theologian and later Archbishop of Aix, surpassed the industry of the rest in adorning Origen by a long interval: for he reviewed prior editions, and compared and amended them with the ancient Greek and Latin copies of the Royal Library; he undertook a new edition of all his works, and in it published many things not yet edited; he translated the *Philocalia* into the Latin tongue; he prefixed collectanea to his edition, in which almost nothing is omitted that might pertain to purging Origen and absolving him of every crime. Especially in the last chapter of the collectanea, he pursued certain selected dogmas of Origen that disagree with the ecclesiastical norm; and in defending or excusing these, he was led too much by his own love for Origen. Antonius Possevinus in his *Apparatus Sacer*, Jacobus Gretser in *On the Right and Custom of Prohibiting Bad Books*, book 10, chap. 11, and Stephanus Binetus in his short book on the salvation of Origen, all showed themselves more equitable in treating his affairs, looking to the one truth and attributing nothing at all to hatred or love. ^D Uncertain, however, is the method of Abraham Scultetus, who, after saying that he would treat of Origen briefly—because he is counted among the heretics rather than among the Fathers—shortly after, when he came to his doctrine and errors, either judges them to have proceeded from the depravers of books, or demonstrates that Origen fluctuated in them, in *Medulla Theologiae Patrum*, bk. 6, chap. 1, and that very recent vindicator of Origen who has most copiously embraced his life, virtues, and proofs in four books, [is] intent on this one thing: that he might demonstrate that Origen's doctrine was either whole and orthodox and immune from stain; or, if he is forced by truth to admit that some vice has adhered to it, that he might dilute it with excuses fetched from everywhere.

BOOK THREE. THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN.

PARTITION OF THE THIRD BOOK. — We divide this book, just as the previous two, into four chapters. The first discusses the writings of Origen in general. These writings, because they either pertain to the interpretation of Scripture or are of a special nature, we divide into two genres: exegetical and dogmatic treatises (syntagmata). Therefore, the second chapter deals with Origen’s exegetical works, and those works of his in which he gathered the various interpretations of Scripture produced before his own time, which can be called *hermeneutika*. The third is concerned with his *syntagmata*. In the fourth, we inquire into the order and the times in which Origen’s books were composed. An Appendix is added concerning books falsely attributed to Origen.

CHAPTER ONE. Disputation in general concerning the writings of Origen.

I. Origen’s style is redundant and uncultivated. II. More than seven shorthand writers were present for his dictation, and the same number of copyists, including maidens, inscribed his works more neatly. III. Whatever books of Origen survive are damaged and corrupted. IV. To each of Origen’s works its own authority and value is assigned. V. The number of Origen’s writings is discussed. VI. It is disclosed which editions of Holy Scripture Origen was accustomed to use.

I. Origen’s style is redundant and diffuse. For this reason, Eustathius of Antioch, and after him Epiphanius, criticize his ^A *ametron phlyarian* (immoderate babbling) and *tautologian* (tautology), and Theophilus calls him a "seminary of loquacity." Hence, Nicetas also applies to him this saying of Solomon: "In much speaking there will not be wanting sin" [Prov. x, 19], so much so that I think Erasmus was not very attentive when he praised his brevity in his *Censure*. I consider the cause of this fault in Origen to have been his constant habit of teaching, which easily makes men verbose. He abounds not only in words but also in subject matter; for just as a richer field luxuriates with weeds, so did Origen’s mind, if ever it had concentrated upon some meditation, find itself provided by its happy genius and the hidden storehouse of doctrine with such an abundance of things that the shorthand writers could scarcely keep up with his writing. From this haste, as I already said above, many inconveniences arose: there was too much carelessness and sluggishness of speech, for his mind, attentive to the substance, disregarded concern for words, and he sometimes befouled his discourse with barbarisms, some of which we have observed in their proper places. He often confused things with things, such that when citing sacred writers he would sometimes exchange names and call one person by the name of another, and would often mix up places in Scripture, relying, of course, upon his memory, and hindered by his haste from consulting books. Didymus writes in the *Apologeticus* which he published for Origen that there is another meaning in the words than appears at first glance. Certainly, as for the books that survive, the style is clear and open, and therefore I would dare to affirm that, wherever Origen is obscure, he has intentionally hidden his meaning to avoid causing offense. We have noted the faults of the Origenian style; we would note its merits as well, had not Erasmus already performed this accurately and learnedly—a man to whom anyone who favors Adamantius should listen in this regard.

II. I said that the shorthand writers were scarcely equal to his writing; thus it was. Eusebius reports that more than seven shorthand writers were present for his dictation; not all at once, as Plinius relates concerning Caesar—who, having four scribes, was sufficient for dictating at one time, doing nothing else—but alternatively, and each at set turns. Why, therefore, Baronius should wonder at this so much, there is no cause; for such was the speed of Origen’s genius, and such was his patience for day and night labor, that he could easily weary the shorthand writers as they wrote. A number of copyists were present with him, along with maidens, whose handwriting was most orderly and clear; he made use of their labor for transcribing his studies neatly, not for putting the words of the narrator into letters, as Martinus Polonus thought. But as for the homilies which he delivered to the people almost daily, others took them down from the lips of the speaker, a practice he had forbidden before his sixtieth year. Had it been otherwise, no small part of the homilies that survive would have perished. Sixtus Senensis does not sufficiently distinguish this when he says: "Origen daily, and as if extemporaneously, expounded the Scriptures to the people,"

^A receiving them from his mouth through seven notaries, and as many most swift girls in writing, and other scribes, who delivered them to the monument of posterity." Nor indeed did Pamphilus, whom he cites as witness, say this, but only this: "But chiefly through those treatises which he held almost daily in the Church extemporaneously, which the notaries took down and delivered to the monument of posterity."

III. Hence, moreover, we have noted above that the writings of Origen were vitiated. But that would have been bearable, had not the wickedness of evil men also been added to it, who championed their own errors with evil arts and applied adulterous hands to the works of others. Even while he was still alive, some attempted this. The Arians later dared the same, and Rufinus finally exposed the audacity of these corruptors in his book *On the Adulteration of the Books of Origen*. But I can justly affirm that no one else has harmed Origen so much by his perfidy and temerity as Rufinus himself. For, while interpreting his writings, he so vexed and corrupted them with additions and deletions that you would yearn for Origen within Origen. Adamantius is indeed beholden to this man for the fact that his works were understood and used by Latin men; and because, with the Greek copies consumed, they somehow revived in Roman translations. But since men ignorant of the Greek tongue were content with these same expositions, the Greek codices were neglected and perished, so that good Greek works were exchanged for the worst Latin ones. As many books of Origen, therefore, as fortune has transmitted to us, it is likely that they have been violated—and most especially those which, beyond the *sphalmata* of the notaries and the adulterations of heretics, also experienced the hallucinations and perfidy of the translators. ^B

Book Three

As for chapter 5, he says that Origen erred perpetually in all Scripture, and that he explained it in a huge mass of books: then he adds: "To every scripture he did not shrink from saying what appeared to him; and as many things as were said in homilies and through introductions regarding morals and the natures of animals and other things, moving in the middle path, he often narrated charmingly; but as many things as he dogmatized regarding dogmas, and concerning faith, and higher contemplation, are found to be the most absurd of all those before him, and after him, except for the filth of the heresies." ^C Both kinds of Greek writings—I mean the homilies and the books written at leisure with accuracy—and whatever finally exists written in Greek by Origen, I bid to be held far superior to those which were derived into the Latin language, and which have suffered either the weak fidelity of translators, or hallucinations, or both. Among the writings that exist translated into Latin by the ancients, the first in authority will be those interpretations which Jerome gave: those which were gifted to the Latinity by Rufinus will hold the last place. And indeed, one must entrust no more trust to the old translator of the *Commentaries on Matthew*, whoever he may be, than to Rufinus. If you compare him to the Greek context that we provide, good God, what a monster of interpretation you will find! You will discover whole pages, whole leaves stitched in, whole ones removed. Among these things, this difference also should be observed: that there is greater authority in those books which the aged Adamantius refined with an intellect more seasoned by age than in those which overflowed with a fecundity that burst forth in the heat of his youth.

IV. Therefore, the authority is not equal and same for all books that have proceeded from Origen's anvil. For just as those were especially suspect, and said to teem with most damaging errors and to depart from the discipline of the Church—those which he had Lucubrated in secret at his leisure, and especially the books *Peri Archōn*, in which he had established the workshop of his dogmas, as Pamphilus relates in his *Apology*—so should these now be held valid above all for penetrating into his senses and extracting his dogmas. For in his homilies he accommodated himself to the capacity of the common people, and did not serve up to unlearned men the exquisite wares of doctrine taken from his own medicine-chests. But in his works elaborated with more diligent care, he unlocked the storehouses of his erudition. Therefore, regarding the Greek books that remain, it should be decided that the homilies hold the last rank, and the carefully and attentively written works—such as the books *Against Celsus* and *Peri Archōn*, and the *Tomi*—hold the first; Epiphanius, in *Haer.* 64, provides his own judgment regarding these. ^C

V. Nor did the speed of the notaries or the audacity of the corruptors harm only some parts of the Origenian writings; rather, the intemperance of the envious raged against entire volumes as well: for would those who raged with such effort against the doctrine of Origen have spared his books, and not destroyed them with every effort? Added to this were the frequent anathemas of synods and bishops, by which Adamantius and the doctrine of Adamantius were condemned: then, the decrees promulgated among more recent Greeks, by which it was forbidden for anyone to transcribe his books. Whence a most great slaughter was brought upon the Latin, and especially the Greek, copies, and truly few were saved from this destruction. For although a huge volume of works by Origen still survives, his writings could not have been harmed, since he himself deposited authentic copies of his works in the Caesarean Library before his death.

^C what part of this great number of works, which the ancients reported to have been produced by him, is that? Theophilus writes in *Pasch.* 1 and 2 that he wove innumerable books, and that he left to the world a heritage of his garrulity, as if it were a harmful possession. "He filled the world, endlessly repeating himself, with measureless babbling," says Eustathius of Antioch in *De engastrimytho*. "Who among us," says Jerome in *Epist.* 65 to Pammachius and Oceanus, cap. 3, "can read as much as he wrote?" The same, *Epist.* 18 to Marcellus: "Ambrose, providing paper, funding, and scribes, truly explained for us how innumerable were the books of our Adamantius and Chalcenterus." Vincent of Lérins, *Contra haer.*, cap. 23: "But I believe he wrote little; no mortal, more—so that to me it seems they were not only not read in their entirety, but could not even be found." Because of this immense number of works, he earned the name *syntacticus*. Foreseeing, however, that this immense license for writing would bring upon him the criticisms of some, he excuses it in many places, in *Tome* V on John, nos. 1, 2 and 4, the fragments of which excuse you have in *Philocalia*, cap. 5.

Yet, concerning this huge abundance of books, which some say is innumerable, others have assigned a specific number. Epiphanius, *haer.* 64, cap. 63, narrates that six thousand books were supposedly written by him. And he reports this of his own accord, not from Methodius, as the Magdeburgians wrongly assert (*Cent.* 3, cap. 10). Honorius of Autun in *De script. eccles.*, cap. 55, assigns the same number, as do Cedrenus in *Severus*, and from Cedrenus, Suidas on Origen, and Glycas in *Annales*, part III. Furthermore, Rufinus in his booklet *De adulteratione librorum Origenis*, speaks thus concerning Epiphanius: "Finally, one of them, who thinks he has a duty to evangelize among all peoples and in all languages, confessed in the presence of a great multitude of brothers that he had read six thousand of Origen’s books, and that the majority of them were evil." To this, Jerome—who boasted in *Apol.* lib. II, cap. 4, that he possessed all of Origen’s works and had read the majority—replies in the sixth chapter of that same book: ^D "But concerning the six thousand books that you falsely claim were read by him, who would believe that you are speaking the truth, or that he was capable of lying? For if Origen had written six thousand books, it might have been possible that a man as scholarly and, from infancy, steeped in the Holy Scriptures, might have read others' works out of curiosity and knowledge; but how could that man have read what he himself did not write? Count the indices of his books, which are contained in the third volume of Eusebius, in which he writes the *Life of Pamphilus*; and you will find not six thousand, but not even a third part. We have the letter of the aforementioned Pontiff, in which he answers this calumny of yours while you were still in the East, and refutes such a glaring lie with the open brow of truth; and in *Epist.* 62 to Theophilus, cap. 2: 'No one could have read six thousand volumes of Origen,'—the witness to this discourse, whom you falsely claim to be its author. Jerome denies that Epiphanius said six thousand of Origen’s books were read by him; nay, he denies that so many were ever written by Origen at all; although Epiphanius asserts that this report had spread widely.

Why, then, do Beda in his book *De sex aetatibus mundi*, Ado of Vienne, Hermannus Contractus, Marianus Scotus, and Conrad of Ursperg mean when they say that Jerome wrote in a certain place that five thousand of Origen’s books had been read by him? And Martin Polonus and Guido the Carmelite, six thousand? What of Isidore in the writings of this Guido, who introduces Origen speaking thus: "If you believe it, have I studied as many thousand books As a legion leads thousands of soldiers into arms?"

Certainly, this seems to have been taken from the aforementioned passage of Rufinus, who, since he does not present the name of Epiphanius, those writers easily attributed it to Jerome, just as it was later attributed by Erasmus and Genebrard. But I think that the error of most noting five thousand books, while others commemorate six, arose from corrupt numeric notations, as usually happens. But I truly do not know which to agree with more—Jerome, who totally denies that so many books were written by Origen, or Epiphanius, asserting that it is borne by common report. For fame is a futile author: but Jerome’s argument is also vain; for although not six thousand, nor even a third part, has been found in the indices of Origen’s books which Eusebius had woven into the third book of the *Life of Pamphilus*, it by no means follows that no more were produced by Origen than what Eusebius recorded. Some part had already been lost; a part had escaped his diligence: for although he writes in *Hist.* lib. VI, cap. 32, that he had woven an accurate catalogue of them, I believe that not all of them reached his notice.

But let no one think that those six thousand books, if indeed so many were written by Origen, were all huge volumes of the kind, for example, of the work *Against Celsus*, or the work *Peri Archon*, or the *Tomes* on John, or the homilies on Luke. Individual letters, individual tomes, individual homilies—each came into this census under its own title and name; and thus that huge number easily arose, which neither exceeds faith nor is very marvelous. Didymus the scholar of Alexandria is said to have written three thousand five hundred books. George of Alexandria narrates that after the death of Chrysostom, certain pious men collected his homilies—four thousand eight hundred of them—although they could not collect them all. Suidas reports that the abundance of Chrysostom’s books was so great that they exceeded any count: then, as if he had not signified the matter well enough, he adds: *Τῶν συγγραμμάτων αὐτοῦ καταλέγειν τὸν ἀριθμὸν, οὐκ ἀνθρώπου, Θεοῦ δὲ μᾶλλον τοῦ τὰ πάντα γινώσκοντος.* To enumerate the number of his works is not the work of a man, but of God rather, who knows all things. Theodore of Mopsuestia is said to have written more.

than ten thousand volumes, and Raymond Lull more than four thousand. There was, therefore, no reason why Jerome should deny with such obstinacy that six thousand books had been written by Origen, especially since he confesses that he spoke more than a thousand homilies in the Church, and that he published countless tomes besides. Furthermore, Jerome himself had drawn up an index of his books, after Eusebius, in the volumes of letters which he wrote to Paula; and he had compared Origen to Varro, a man of ^A many writings, as he himself testifies in his book *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, ch. 85.

VI. But since the labor and industry of Origen were exercised mainly concerning the sacred books, he did not use the same edition in interpreting them: for in the homilies, which he adapted to the grasp of the people, he followed the common edition which the people used daily; but in his tomes, he consulted the Hebrew truth and other editions. Jerome in the Proem to his *Traditions of the Hebrews* says: "However, I am silent about Adamantius, whose name (if it is permitted to compare small things with great) is more invidious than my own: for though in his homilies, which he speaks to the common people, he follows the common edition; in his tomes, that is, in his major disputation, fortified by the Hebrew truth and surrounded by his own hosts, he sometimes seeks the aids of a foreign language." Hence you will often find testimonials of Scripture reported by him differently than they are conceived in the editions which circulate today: a fact which also sometimes happened from the treachery of memory. A like difference occurs in the passages taken by him from the Gospels; for besides the fact that the codices of the New Testament also had their variant readings, as they have today, Adamantius also often used in these matters the Gospel according to the Hebrews, as Jerome reports in his book *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, ch. 4, and from that I conjecture that such a discrepancy arose.

CAPITULUM II. Origen’s Exegetical and Hermeneutical Works.

PARTITION OF THE SECOND CHAPTER. — This chapter is contained in three sections. I. The various kinds of Origen’s exegetical works are enumerated. II. The individual works of Origen, whose memory survives to this day, are listed. III. What remains of his exegetical works is discussed, as well as their ancient interpretations. IV. A discussion is held concerning Origen’s Tetrapla, Hexapla, and Octapla, and the vulgate edition of the Seventy Interpreters.

SECTION I. VARIOUS KINDS OF ORIGEN’S EXEGETICAL WORKS ARE ENUMERATED.

1. Origen was requested to interpret Sacred Scripture. Some are refuted who wish to claim that he was the first interpreter of Holy Scripture. II. Origen’s exegetical works are divided into scholia, homilies, and tomes. III. These are inquired into one by one. IV. It is disputed what his *semeioseis* were. V. We place his Hermeneutical letters among his treatises. VI. Origen is accustomed to search out the historical, mystical, and moral sense. VII. It is investigated why he was said by Ambrose to be less in the New than in the Old Testament.

I. Before I enumerate the various kinds of Origen’s exegetical works, let those things previously noted be recalled to mind: that Origen was urged and, as it were, compelled to interpret the books of Sacred Scripture by the counsel, authority, and request of Ambrose, as he himself complains in a friendly way in his *Commentaries on the Psalms*, psalm 1, no. 2, p. 526, and as he complains lightly in a certain letter which Cedrenus and Suidas present, and as Ambrose himself writes in a letter to Origen, which Jerome reports in letter 48, to Marcella.

C. There then comes to be refuted the error of some who have written that Origen was the first to interpret the Scriptures. Among these, the blessed Rhenanus discourses thus of Origen to Hermann, Archbishop of Cologne: "Indeed this writer, since he was endowed with a most perspicacious talent, and one thoroughly cultivated by the best disciplines, and because he kept watch with tireless study over the sacred monuments, he was the first, as it were, to break the ice, according to the proverb, in expounding the divine Scriptures. Which true praise, and how abundant indeed, is owed to the first authors of all excellent things, is ambiguous to no one." And Sixtus Senensis in book IV of his *Bibliotheca*, who says thus: "He wished to use similar little incitements everywhere, as befitted a man almost self-taught, and who was the first to have undertaken an explanation of all the divine Scriptures, not yet attempted by anyone before due to their immense difficulty." And Genebrard in his Epistle to Charles IX, whose words are: "He opened what is as it were the clearest fountain of theology, and with that thrifty man of Solomon, he derived his springs abroad." Then furthermore: "And truly of all, ^D whose letter, which Cedrenus and Suidas exhibit, and which we have published in tome I of our edition, p. 3, as the genuine [letter] of Origen himself."

^A P. DANIEL HUET: He lowered himself to the understanding [of the common people], and expounded certain select pericopes of Scripture less accurately by means of homilies. Jerome, in the Prologue to his translation of the homilies which Origen gave on Ezekiel: "Briefly admonishing this, that you may know that Origen’s minor works on all of Scripture are threefold. The first are his excerpts, which in Greek are called scholia, in which he touched upon, summarily and briefly, those things which seemed to him obscure and to have some difficulty. The second is the homiletic kind, of which the present interpretation of his is an example. The third is what he himself inscribed as *tomoi*, [which] we might call volumes, in which work he gave his full sails to the blowing winds and, receding from the shore, fled into the midst of the open sea." Rufinus, in the Prologue to his translation of Origen’s Commentaries on Numbers, which the Bigot library once supplied to me: "Whatever we found written in the book of Numbers, whether in the homiletic style or even from those things which are called excerpts, these, at your urging, we have arranged and collected into one order from diverse sources, in Latin, as we were able." And a little later: "I want you to know, brother, that this reading truly opens the paths to understanding, yet it does not discuss everything that is written in detail, as you have read in the books of the [full] explanations: so that the reader might not be rendered slothful, but might 'prick his heart,' as it is written, and might bring forth sense, and upon hearing a good word, 'as a wise man, [he may] add unto it.'"

Truly, was this the case? Was he older than Philo, who, leaving so many writings surviving to this day, explained the Holy Scriptures? Was he older than Theophilus of Antioch, whose commentaries on the four Gospels still exist? Older than him were Melito of Asia, who had written a book on the John’s Apocalypse; and Rhodon, and Candidus, and Appion, who composed treatises on the Hexaemeron in detail; and Judas, who wrote about the seventy weeks in Daniel. Therefore, Ambrose, on Ps. CXVII, 28, says that Origen discussed the interpretations of many with diligent inquiry: whom you may find frequently cited by him: for instance, homily 15 on Genesis, no. 7, where he says: "Now, meanwhile, it will not seem to be said without reason that, as it also seemed to certain of our predecessors, a certain prophecy is seen to be designated in this." And homily 13 on Exodus, no. 5: "The ram also, before us, some have posed for [the sake of] passion." And homily 8 on Leviticus, no. 6: "Concerning this, some even before me have spoken." And homily 9 on Numbers, no. 5: "Some, however, of those who interpreted this passage before us, I remember, said that they were 'the dead' who are understood to be dead in sins by the excess of their vices." And homily 26 following it, no. 4: "That the figure of going out of Egypt is received in two ways has already been said often by our predecessors and by us." And homily 8 on Judges, no. 4: "I recall that a certain one of our predecessors in his booklets called the people of Israel 'the wool of the sheep'." And homily 11 on Jeremiah, no. 2, *tauta de kai pro hemon alloi diégesanto*. And homily 14, following it no. 5, *ton pro emou de tis epébalon to topó*. And tome X on Matthew, no. 22, p. 471, *etêrêse men oun tis pro hêmôn*. And throughout the Commentaries on John, he attacks Heracleon the heretic, an interpreter of this evangelist. Who, therefore, can be said to have led the way for others in interpreting Scripture? But one may excuse what Sixtus of Siena says in book IV of his *Bibliotheca*: "He wished to use such brief excitations everywhere, as became a man who was almost 'self-taught,' and who was the first to have attacked the explanation of all the divine Scriptures, not yet attempted by anyone due to their immense difficulty." For he does not deny that others had exposed some part of the Scriptures; but he denies that anyone before Origen had attacked the explanation of *all* the Scriptures, and with good reason.

^B Though it should be granted that he greatly advanced this art of explaining Scripture: for he did not employ merely one simple mode of interpreting; but he was the first to adapt various types of explanations to Scripture. For either by diffuse commentaries, he heaped up at great length whatever his genius and learning provided; or he illustrated by brief scholia whatever was more obscure; or he presented [the text] to the people by means of homilies.

^C Scholia were brief notes for resolving more intricate passages and for eliciting more abstruse meanings, such as we have for almost all Greek poets. Erasmus, in *De doctrina et libris Origenis*, suggests they are 'otiosa' (idle). Sixtus of Siena, in book IV of his *Bibliotheca*, explains: "Vacations, or leisures, or excerpts [made] during leisure, by which, as often as leisure for a full commentary was lacking, he would touch upon, in brief annotations, only those things which seemed to him obscure." Both are inane. *Scholion* is a diminutive of *schola*: *Schola*, in Greek and Latin, besides the common meanings, also signifies a 'lucubration' (night-work), which is elaborated on some matter during leisure. A *scholion*, therefore, signifies a 'small schola,' that is, a small piece of night-work. Specifically, a short dissertation. Furthermore, passages excerpted from some author are called *scholia*, of which kind Epiphanius in *Haereses* XLII took certain things from the Gospel that Marcion used, and called them *scholia*. And these *scholia* in Latin are properly called excerpts. But you would wrongly apply this name to short expositions and dissertations: which, however, Jerome and Rufinus did, when they called Origen’s minor commentaries on Scripture 'excerpts,' bestowing the common name of 'excerpts' on every kind of *scholion*, which should have been restricted to a certain specific type. But since these *scholia* of Origen are in brief sentences, ^D and are specially called *scholia*—that is, small commentaries or small dissertations.

or were the Commentarioli concluding; for this reason Jerome calls that genus of interpretation "commatic." In the Proem to the Commentary on Matthew: "I confess," he says, "that many years ago I read in Matthew the twenty-five volumes of Origen, and as many of his homilies, and the commatic genus of interpretation." And in the Proem to the Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians: "For that man (Origen) wrote on the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians five volumes of his own, and completed the tenth book of his Stromata with a commatic discourse on its explanation." This I understand to mean that he inserted his scholia on the Epistle to the Galatians into the tenth book of his Stromata. That Origen attached scholia to the margin of the sacred books is shown by the most ancient book of René Marchal, which contains all the prophets, and which is preserved in the library of the Jesuit college in Paris, and the use of which was most kindly granted to me by Gabriel Cossart, the prefect of this most ample library, himself a living library and full of all doctrine. The prophecy of Ezekiel has this prefix in that book: "It was transcribed from the Hexapla editions, and corrected from the Tetrapla of Origen himself, which were also corrected and annotated in his own hand; whence I, Eusebius, have added the scholia." "It is taken from the Hexapla, according to the editions, and corrected from the Tetrapla of Origen himself, which were both corrected by his own hand and were succinct in their scholia. Whence I, Eusebius, have added the scholia." ^B From this we learn that the margins of the Tetrapla had been tightened with scholia by Origen. But if anyone thinks that the annotations attached to the margin of Ezekiel and other prophets in this Marchal codex are the very scholia of Origen, he will certainly be much mistaken. For those are composed partly of various interpretations drawn from Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus; and partly of various readings, or observations concerning the variety of readings. But neither can be held as the scholia of Origen: not the former; for who could suppose that Origen, into the Tetrapla, which were, as I have said, brief with scholia, from where these [annotations] are also taken, would have gathered particles from the expositions of different interpreters, when in those [the latter] full and complete interpretations were held? Nor the latter; inasmuch as in them the mention of Origen, and in some places even of Constantine the emperor, often occurs.

Homilies are called Treatises [Tractatus] by Rufinus and Jerome. The Apology of Pamphilus, translated by Rufinus: "Especially indeed through those treatises, which he delivered almost daily in the Church extempore, which the scribes also writing down would hand over as a monument to posterity." Jerome against Vigilantius, epist. 75, speaking of the homilies on Job, which Hilary had translated: "Why do you have his treatises on Job transcribed?" And in the Preface to the homilies of Origen on the Canticle: "These two treatises, which he composed in the manner of daily speech for children still suckling..." ^A ...he composed, interpreting more faithfully than ornately: and in the Proem to the Commentary. In the Epist. to the Galatians: "For that man (Origen) wrote on the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians five volumes of his own, and completed the tenth book of his Stromata with a commatic discourse upon its explanation; he also composed various treatises, and excerpts, which alone might suffice." He signifies by those five volumes the tomes, the homilies, and the scholia, and the treatises, and the commatic discourse, and the excerpts. But perhaps someone might conclude from this passage that the excerpts and the commatic discourse are different things: but in vain; for Jerome means by this that some scholia were inserted into the tenth book of the Stromata, while others were elaborated and written down separately. ^B Erasmus is mistaken when he thinks those homilies are correctly called "colloquies," for Origen did not converse with (colloquebatur) the hearers, but addressed (alloquebatur) them; and therefore they would be better called "allocutions." In them Adamantius avoided the finery and oratorical pigments; he pursued indeed a plain, familiar, and simple style, not very prolix, such as homilies more easily allow.

"Tomes" are the same as what are properly called "exegetical [works]"; for although all things that perform the role of interpretation can be affected by this name; and thus that word can be referred not only to tomes, but also to homilies and to scholia, and we might have prefixed it to our edition, which consists of tomes and homilies; ^C nevertheless, it pertained specifically and properly to tomes, and is always attributed to them in ancient codices. Rufinus calls them "books of explanations" in the Prologue to the translation of the Commentaries of Origen on Numbers. In them Origen, hemmed in by the Hebrew truth and surrounded by his own troops, sometimes sought the help of a foreign tongue, as Jerome reports in the Proem to the Hebrew Questions: but in the homilies he followed the common edition, as was noted in the previous section.

IV. Moreover, I find certain interpretations of Origen called *sēmeiōseis*. It must be asked whether that word is attributed to scholia or to what is strictly called exegetical. Jerome clearly attributes it to scholia in the Proem to Book I of his Commentary on Isaiah: "There are circulated," he says, "two books to Gratatus, which are thought to be pseudepigraphical, and twenty-five homilies, and *sēmeiōseis*, which we can call excerpts." Excerpts, therefore, or scholia, are those *sēmeiōseis*. ^D But in Philocalia chapter 27, after a long fragment of Origen on Exodus 27 has been set forth, these words are prefixed to several following fragments: "And again in another tome in the same *sēmeiōseis* on Exodus (57')." Therefore the *sēmeiōseis* consisted of tomes; therefore whatever fragments are represented in this chapter of the Philocalia on Exodus were taken *ex tōn sēmeiōseōn*. But those by no means...

^A can be held as scholia, but they fulfill the role of proper commentaries; such is the wealth and abundance of their subject matter and language.

I myself think that *sēmeiōseis* is a general term, by which tomes and scholia are contained. *Sēmeiōsthai* is "to note, to write a commentary, to add some writing to another, to ascribe"; *sēmeiōsis* is "an annotation, a commentary, whatever is added in writing to something else," of which sort are the scholia and commentaries that are accustomed to be attached to the margins of books. In this way, Eusebius, *Hist.*, bk. V, ch. 20, is to be understood when he calls a certain adjuration, which had been added outside the context at the end of Irenaeus's book *On the Ogdoad*, a *chariestatēn sēmeiōsin*. Thence, light is also cast upon another passage of the same Eusebius, bk. VI, ch. 16, where he writes as follows, dealing with the Hexapla of Origen and the various interpretations of which it consisted: *Taũtas dè hapasas epi tauton sunagagōn, dielōn te pros kōlon, kai antiparatheis allēlais, meta kai autēs tēs Hebraiōn sēmeiōseōs, ta tōn legomenōn Hexaplōn hēmin antigrapha kataléloipen.* "Having gathered all these into one place, and having divided them by *cola*, and placed them opposite one another, and having added to them the Hebrew *sēmeiōsis*, he left to us copies of what are called the Hexapla." What Eusebius called the *sēmeiōsin Hebraiōn*, Epiphanius more conveniently termed ^B *parasēseis tēs Hebraikēs hermēneias*, as if you were to say "adjunctions," "additions." Nicephorus also rendered *parasēmeiōsin* very well, that is, "a description added to another thing"; for the added preposition signifies that it is *tōn pros ti*. Since, therefore, scholia and commentaries are wont to be written for the sake of explaining another piece of writing, and to be frequently joined to it and attached to the margin, they were rightly called *sēmeiōseis*: nor is it without reason that the compilers of the Philocalia attributed this term to the Commentaries, and Jerome to the Scholia.

V. Under the general title of *exēgētikōn*, we comprise Origen's Tetrapla, Hexapla, and Octapla, which you could call by the proper term *hermēneutika*. For since they were compiled from various interpretations of Scripture, they must have come into the estimation in which everything that Adamantius labored to produce for the interpretation of Scripture is held. Sixtus Senensis adds to this the epistles, because Origen resolved by writing back the questions proposed to himself concerning the illustration of Scripture. But since it is certain that he also treated other arguments through epistles, for instance when he wrote to the Emperor ^C Philip, or to his wife Severa, or to Pope Fabian for the sake of professing his faith, we judge that the epistles should rightly be joined to the synthetic works.

VI. Origen, who used a triple genus of *exēgētikōn* for interpreting the Scriptures, was accustomed to elicit and investigate a triple sense from them: the historical, which they also call the sense of the letter, the mystical, and the moral. Thus he, in *Homily 17 on Genesis*, no. 1, p. 106, where he deals with the blessings of the patriarchs: "In the very body and series of the words, there are neither blessings alone, nor the announcement of future things alone, but their morals or purpose, or even certain things done by them, are notably argued. Which matter submits to us a tripartite (as we have done in other cases) material of explanation, in such a way that the blessings serve the place of history; prophecy, the mystical and dogmatic; while the correction and rebuke of morals directs the moral style." He repeats the same thing at the end of the same homily. He proceeds from the historical sense to the mystical, and from the mystical to the moral, although he sometimes subverts this order, sometimes neglects the letter, and sometimes passes from moral exposition to the mystical. Since we have treated these matters clearly ^D above, it is enough to have touched upon them in passing.

VII. We shall put an end to this section by adducing that of Ambrose, from bk. V, ep. 45: "And if I know that nothing is more difficult than to discourse on the reading of the Apostle, since Origen himself is far lesser in the New than in the Old Testament." To me, seeking the causes of this thing, it occurs that in the age of Origen, the Old Testament had been illustrated by more commentaries, interpretations, dissertations, and traditions than the New, whose more recondite meanings had been investigated by the industry of very few up to that time; and thus Adamantius, handling the Old Instrument, had been in greater light than when he applied his labor to explaining the New. To this is added that, while recounting the abrogated ceremonies and judgments of the ancient Law, he ran into allegories and destroyed the letter with less danger than when he would have depraved the decrees of Christ and the sanctions of the apostles with the novelty of his own dogmas.

SECTION II.

I. They are enumerated in the Pentateuch; II. in Joshua, Judges, books of Kings, Paralipomena, Ezra, and Job; III. in the Psalter; IV. in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticle; V. in the four major prophets; VI. and in the twelve minor ones; VII. item in Matthew, Luke, John, and the Acts of the Apostles; VIII. the Epistles of Paul and the Apocalypse.

1. After we have surveyed the various kinds of Origenian exegetical works, it is now proper to enumerate the individual exegetical labors, the knowledge of which has come down to our age. For from this huge heap of writings, which we have mentioned, not only has the greater part perished, but the titles and names of many have also vanished. Therefore, whose memory has been preserved in any way in the writings of the ancients, these we shall recount one by one, and we shall arrange them according to the order of the books of Sacred Scripture.

Epiphanius writes, and following him Cedrenus and Suidas, that every individual book of Sacred Scripture was interpreted by the study of Origen. We must begin with Genesis, which he testifies he explained in thirteen books of commentaries and two books of mystical homilies.

^A Jerome, in his *Invectives* against Rufinus, Book II, narrates that Adamantius dedicated his twelfth and thirteenth books of commentaries upon Genesis to this passage: "Whoever shall kill Cain, he shall be punished sevenfold." [Genesis IV, 14.] From this, Eusebius is to be corrected, in whose *Ecclesiastical History*, Book VI, chapter 24, the following is read: "Around the ninth of the commentaries upon Genesis (there are twelve in all), he indicates that not only those before the ninth were composed at Alexandria..." ^B But in the ninth commentary upon Genesis (for there are twelve in total), he shows not only that those which precede the ninth were composed at Alexandria. Suidas followed Eusebius. Often, however, copyists err in numerical notations; from this perhaps arose the error, with 16' being written instead of 12' [ιγ']. Or certainly in that manuscript which Eusebius used, the latter two books coalesced into one, since they revolved around the same subject.

Seventeen homilies on Genesis, which survive to this day, were rendered into the Latin language by Rufinus; we shall show below that these are distinct from the mystical homilies. Certainly, the same Jerome, in Epistle 126 to Evagrius, writes that Origen discoursed upon Melchizedek in his first homily on Genesis; since no mention of this occurs in the first of the homilies that survive, it is concluded that either Jerome was referring to a former one of the mystical homilies, or that many other collections of homilies on Genesis had existed.

Some fragments from Origen's tomes on Exodus are contained in the twenty-sixth chapter of the *Philocalia*. Furthermore, Jerome, in his work against Rufinus, relates that Origen wrote excerpts or scholia on this same book, and on Leviticus. ^C Rufinus indeed translated twelve homilies on the former book of Scripture into Latin, and sixteen on the latter. Another fragment from the second homily on Leviticus is contained in the first chapter of the *Philocalia*, of which you may find not even a trace in the second homily of the Latin edition, or in others. From this, it is easily understood that there were also many collections of homilies on Leviticus. This is also proven by the fact that, although in homily 4, number 6, Origen says that he had often spoken above about the linen garments, and in homily 6, number 5, that he had spoken here and there and often about the consecration of the priest and the anointing, yet nothing of the sort exists at all in the preceding ones. Whether that fragment in the first chapter of the *Philocalia* was taken from extemporaneous homilies on Leviticus, or from those elaborated at leisure (for we shall demonstrate below that Origen produced homilies of both kinds), is uncertain.

^D Rufinus relates in his Prologue to the homilies of Origen on Numbers that he also produced scholia, but they are so intermingled by this Rufinus with the homilies — since he was explaining both in Latin — that they might be taken for the same thing: "Whatever," he says, "we find written in the book of Numbers, whether in a homiletic style or even from those which are called Excerpts, these we have arranged, at your urging, O Roman, from diverse sources into one order as best we could." Jerome, in his interpretation of Origen's twelfth homily on Jeremiah, notes that Adamantius discoursed upon priestly blessings. However, nothing of this sort appears in the Rufinian collection. Therefore, either Rufinus curtailed and interpolated these homilies according to his own custom; or some had already perished in his own age.

Origen declares that he at one time discoursed on Deuteronomy in his 8th homily on Luke. He affirms that he would explain the same book in Tome XXXII on John; but only thirteen survive today, which, so far as I know, are called into question by no one. From this, it appears that there were once various collections of them. A double fragment from the eighth homily is brought forward by Jonas, Bishop of Orleans, in his book *On the Institution of the Laity*, chapter 19, and chapter 13 of the same book exhibits another from the tenth homily. Regarding the scholia on Exodus and Leviticus, nothing survives today, unless perhaps the *Eclogai* which circulate under Origen's name in Greek manuscript catenae, and which we represent in our edition, hold something excerpted from them.

^A

num. 11. Cassiodorus, in his book *De institutione divinarum Scripturarum*, ch. 1, mentions eight homilies of Origen upon that [book]: "I have also left you eight sermons of Origen on Deuteronomy, in which there is an exposition that is too minute and subtle." Rufinus says in his Prologue to Ursacius: "For indeed, of all things that I have found written in the Law, only the little discourses on Deuteronomy are, I think, missing, which, if the Lord favors and grants health to my eyes, I desire to add to the rest of the body." Furthermore, Jerome, in ep. 65, ch. 2, indicated the aforementioned tomes on the Pentateuch when he said that Ambrose had compiled Origen’s *Hexaemeron*.

II. (64) Rufinus rendered into Latin twenty-six homilies on Joshua, delivered extemporaneously by Adamantius in his old age and preserved through the industry of shorthand writers. A fragment from homily 20 is represented in the twelfth chapter of the *Philocalia*. Rufinus likewise brought over into Latin words nine homilies on Judges. Origen, in the Prologue to his *Commentaries on the Song of Songs*, writing concerning the song of Deborah, writes thus, p. 34: "But you will also find these matters discussed more fully in those little discourses which we have published on the book of Judges." And yet, of the discourses on Judges that survive, the sixth one explains the song of Deborah. It is therefore probable that these very homilies were designated by Origen, and consequently were edited by him, not conceived ^B and delivered extemporaneously. On the books of Kings there are two homilies in total remaining: the first on 1 Kings ch. 1 and 2; the other on 1 Kings 28, in which he discourses on the necromancer. A Latin edition of Origen possesses the former; Allatius brought out the latter from Vatican membranes. Moreover, in the third homily on Joshua, num. 4, Origen says that he once discoursed to the people in church regarding the two harlots whose dispute Solomon judged. Cassiodorus, furthermore, in the book *De institutione divinarum Scripturarum*, ch. 2, affirms that he found four homilies of Origen on the first book of Kings; one on the second book; and one, a prolix one, on the second book of Chronicles. The same author, ch. 6, relates that he saw individual homilies of Origen on the two books of Ezra, which were explained in the Roman tongue by the presbyter Bellator. Origen expounded Job in many homilies. Thus Eustathius of Antioch in his *Diagnosticos* on the necromancer: *Περὶ δέ γε τοῦ πολύτλα προσομιλήσας Ἰὼβ .... μετέωρος εἰς τὰ τῶν θυγατέρων ὁρμήσας ὀνόματα κατετρίβη γραωδῶς.* "When he had delivered homilies on the miserable Job, launching into the names of his daughters with sublime oratory, he busied himself with that argument ^C in an old-womanish fashion." Jerome, in his *Catalogus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum* and in ep. 75 to Vigilantius, hands down that these homilies were translated into Latin by Hilary. And adding to this: "Why do you have his tracts on Job, in which he disputes against the devil and about the stars and the heavens, having spoken things that the Church does not receive?"

III. Origen illustrated the Psalter with a triple genre of expositions: commentaries, homilies, and scholia. That he explained the whole body of the Psalms among the Greeks in many volumes is reported by Jerome in epist. 89 to Augustine, which I understand to refer to the commentaries. The same source states that Hilary either imitated or translated many things from these; he also reports that he expressed seven of those tomes in Latin words, namely from the tenth to the sixteenth Psalm. The same author also [writes] in book 1 of his *Apology against Rufinus*, ch. 3: "Also," he says, "the eighty-ninth Psalm, which is inscribed *The Prayer of Moses the man of God*, and the remaining eleven which do not have titles, he (Origen) thinks, according to the exposition of Huillus, belong to the same Moses, nor does he disdain, while interpreting the Hebrew Scripture, to insert what seems to the Hebrews [to be the case] at each location." We understand that those commentaries were undertaken at the urging of Ambrose and inscribed to him because of a fragment which Epiphanius has, *Haer.* LXIV, ch. 7. Trithemius, in his book *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, declares that he saw one hundred and fifty of Origen’s treatises on the Psalter. The Latin edition of Origen possesses nine homilies on Psalms 36, 37, and 38, donated to the Roman tongue by the work of Rufinus. Concerning the exposition of those psalms, Rufinus [writes] thus in his Prologue: "Therefore, for your sake, Apronianus, my dearest son, I have translated into Latin what is digested, as it were, into one body in nine little discourses, which the Greeks call homilies." He says that he translated it, having been digested into nine homilies, not that he digested it into nine homilies; contrary to how it seemed to Erasmus and Sixtus Senensis. From the homily on Psalm 82, moreover, Eusebius inserted a fragment into his *History*, book VI, ch. 38, and Origen himself praises his homily on Psalm 100 in *Homily* 15 on Joshua, num. 6. Finally, that the Psalter was annotated by Origen with brief scholia is affirmed by Jerome, or whoever the author of the *Commentaries on the Psalms* in the *Proemium* might be. "Recently," he says, "when we were reading together Origen’s Psalter, which he called his *Enchiridion*, annotated with brief and necessary interpretations, we both perceived that he had either touched upon some things lightly, or left them completely untouched; regarding which he disputed most extensively in another work, since he clearly did not think it a great matter to conclude the subject in a brief sermon." And then: "Not that I think that what he passed over can be spoken by me; but that those things which he himself discussed in his tomes or homilies, or I..." ^D (64) [Regarding] twenty-six homilies on Joshua delivered by Adamantius in his old age: Cassiodorus, in his *Institut. divin. Script.*, ch. 4, mentions thirty. In the seventh, num. 6, he calls himself a presbyter and a herald of the word of God; in the third, num. 4, he praises a certain homily which he had in another church regarding the two harlots, about whom it is written in the third book of Kings, who had come to the judgment of Solomon. Then, it is clear from the thirteenth, num. 3, 15, num. 6, and 25, num. 4, that they are later than the exposition on Psalm 100 and the homilies on Jeremiah and on Numbers; and they seem to have been delivered around the end of the year 249, or towards the beginning of the year 250, since the ninth homily, num. 10, mentions the very grave persecution which was then afflicting the Church.

^A worthy of reading, I shall refer to this brief summary. In these, the tomes, homilies, and scholia of Origen on the Psalter are noted individually.

IV. From his Commentaries on the Proverbs of Solomon, Pamphilus extracted two small parts in his Apology. A manuscript catena in the Mazarine Library also draws out a notable fragment from the same work on Luke, at chapter VIII, verse 4. Sixtus writes that Methodius makes mention of his Explanations on Ecclesiastes in his book *On the Resurrection*, which, in truth, I nowhere find in the fragments that exist in Epiphanius and Photius. That he bestowed much labor and study on the Song of Songs, Gregory of Nyssa himself testifies in the *Proem to his Commentary on the Song of Songs*. He indeed produced both commentaries and homilies on this book. The commentaries were twofold: as a young man, he wrote a small tome, in which you may discover a piece woven into the seventh chapter of the *Philocalia*; but more advanced in years, he composed ten tomes, which Jerome adorned with a memorable eulogy in the *Prologue to Damasus*, prefixed to his own translation of two of Origen’s homilies on the Canticle: "Origen," he says, "when he had surpassed everyone in other books, in the Song of Songs he surpassed even himself: for having finished ten volumes, which reach to nearly twenty thousand lines, he discussed the Septuagint Translators, then Aquila, and Symmachus, and Theodotion, and finally the fifth edition, which he writes he found at Actium, so magnificently and openly, that it seems to me to be the fulfillment of what is said: *The King has brought me into his chamber*." ^B A not insignificant portion of these Commentaries survives to this day in the Latin edition, but it is poorly distributed into homilies, as we shall show below when there is a place to discuss the surviving works of Origen. Jerome translated two Latin homilies on the Canticle, "which," as he himself says, "(Origen) composed in the manner of daily speech for little ones still nursing."

V. Adamantius interpreted Isaiah with commentaries, homilies, and scholia; specifically, thirty books of commentaries and twenty-five homilies. Jerome, in *Book I of the Apology against Rufinus*, chapter 3, says: "Certainly Origen also names the patriarch Huillus, who was in his times; and he concludes the thirtieth tome on Isaiah, in which he discourses at the end, *Woe to thee, city of Ariel, which David besieged!* with his exposition; so that, while he says he thought otherwise before, he admits that he was taught by him what is truer." And in the *Proem to his first book of Commentaries on Isaiah*: "Origen wrote thirty volumes on this prophet according to the four editions, up to the vision of four-footed animals in the desert, of which the twenty-sixth book is not found. Other books are circulated under his name regarding the vision of four-footed animals to the Greeks, which are thought to be pseudepigrapha; and twenty-five ^C homilies; and those painstaking ones which we may call excerpts. That he wrote more, these words of Eusebius in *Book VI of the History*, chapter 32, can persuade us, from where Jerome borrowed his own: 'And at this time, those things upon Isaiah were composed by Origen, of which thirty tomes have come down to us, up to the third part of Isaiah, reaching as far as the vision of the four-footed animals in the desert.' At this time Origen composed his Commentaries on Isaiah, of which thirty tomes reached us in the third part of Isaiah, up to the vision of four-footed animals in the desert. And speaking immediately of the Commentaries of the same man on Ezekiel, he says that twenty-five existed in his age, and that Origen wrote no more on that prophet: as if suggesting that some of the Commentaries on Isaiah had been lost. In the ancient Marchalian codex, from which Curterius extracted the context of Isaiah and published it with the Commentaries of Procopius, the numbers of those volumes of Origen are written in the margin, and they end at the thirtieth, which is noted on the edge of chapter XXIX, verse 1, and from there consequently pertains to chapter XXX, verse 6; from where the vision of the four-footed animals begins.

Adamantius explained the prophecy of Jeremiah through homilies. Jerome translated fourteen of the homilies into the Latin tongue in a confused order. The Scorialensis codex, which Corderius used, had nineteen under the name of Cyril; twelve of which were already considered to be among Jerome’s. A fragment from the thirty-ninth homily offers the nineteenth from the ^D *Philocalia* chapter. Cassiodorus, in his book *On the Institution of Divine Scriptures*, chapter 3, asserts that Origen expounded Jeremiah in 45 homilies, and that fourteen of them were found for him, namely those which Jerome had rendered into Latin. Finally, Rabanus Maurus, in his *Preface to Jeremiah*, asserts that he himself saw those forty-five homilies of Origen on Jeremiah. But Origen had dictated nine tomes on the Lamentations of Jeremiah, of which Eusebius handed down to memory in *Book VI, chapter 24*, that only five had survived to his time.

Eusebius, in the same *Book VI of the History, chapter 32*, teaches that Ezekiel was illustrated by Origen in twenty-five tomes. The old Marchalian book, which contains all the prophets, also teaches this: for on the edge of Ezekiel, the numbers of the Origenian tomes are noted in their proper places, and there are no more than twenty-five. As for the homilies pronounced on the interpretation of this prophet, fourteen were rendered into the Latin edition by Jerome with Roman words. From this place of Origen, *Tract. 29, num. 40, p. 86C*, in *Matthew*: "But as for what follows in the text of Daniel, as we were able, we have explained," we learn that something was composed by him on Daniel, and also from the *Proem* of Jerome to the eleventh Commentary

on Isaiah, in which he says that he had accompanied Origen with others in the exposition of the seventy weeks, unless perhaps one might say that these matters were treated by Origen in other books only in passing. Much less, therefore, do these ^A things teach whether he published homilies or Commentaries on Daniel. Moreover, since Balthasar Corderius extracted from the Escorial codex nineteen of Origen’s homilies on Jeremiah, falsely ascribed to Cyril, and in the preface to his own edition noted that the Commentaries of the same author on Ezekiel and Daniel were contained in this very codex, let the reader beware of assuming rashly that these also are wrongly attributed to Cyril, just as the homilies on Jeremiah were, and that they pertain to Origen: for they could as easily be Cyril’s as Origen’s. Indeed, Cyril is said to have written on all the prophets, and Sixtus of Siena records in *Bibliotheca*, book V, on Cyril, that his homilies on Daniel are kept in the Vatican library. Either those Hieronymians at the Escorial who brood over these treasures know the truth, or they are able to know it.

VI. In regard to the twelve prophets, Jerome narrates in *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, cap. 86, that he found twenty-five volumes of Origen’s explanations written by the hand of Pamphilus; yet Eusebius, in *Historia*, book VI, cap. 56, signifies that Adamantius wrote more: "He composed volumes on the twelve prophets, from which we have found only twenty-five." And he compiled volumes on the twelve prophets, of which we have found only twenty-five: he is said to have written some things on Hosea, and likewise on Zechariah, and also ^B on Malachi; and I judge these to be among those twenty-five volumes of explanations. ^C Jerome reports what he commented on Hosea in his *Proem to the Commentary on Hosea*: "Origen wrote a small book about this prophet, to which he gave this title: 'Why is Ephraim called [a name] in Hosea?', wishing to show that whatever is said against him is to be referred to the person of the heretics." And another volume, *akephalon kai atelesmon*, which lacks both beginning and end. He adds, moreover: "He (Didymus) dictated three books at my request, and five others on Zechariah. For Origen himself wrote only two volumes on ^D this [Zechariah], discussing hardly a third part from the beginning of the book up to the vision of the chariots." The same author says in the *Prologue* to his first Commentaries on Zechariah: "Origen wrote two volumes on this prophet up to the third part of the book from the beginning." These are the words of Jerome regarding the Commentaries of Origen on Zechariah; that, indeed, is regarding his volumes on Malachi: "Origen wrote three volumes on this book, but he did not touch upon the history at all, and according to his custom, he was wholly occupied with allegorical interpretation."

VII. Concerning Origen’s exegetical works on Matthew, Jerome also has this: "I confess that many years ago I read Origen’s twenty-five volumes on Matthew, and just as many of his homilies, and his varied kind of interpretation: that is, commentaries, homilies, and scholia." Eusebius counts an equal number of his commentaries in *Historia*, book VI, cap. 36. Therefore, it is clear that these words of Jerome’s *Prologue*, which is prefixed to the Latin interpretation of Origen’s homilies on Luke, are corrupt: "Since that which holy Blaesilla once had demanded at Rome, that I should render into our language his 36 tomes on Matthew, and five others on Luke, and 39 on John." For it should be read: "25 tomes of his on Matthew." Erasmus, in *Censura*, lib. *Orig.*, Sixtus of Siena in *Bibliotheca*, book IV, and Josias Simler and Conrad Gesner in *Epitome bibliothecae* followed this. Corrupt also is that passage in Rufinus’ *Invective* 2 against Jerome, in which he reports that twenty-six books of Origen on Matthew were commemorated by Jerome; which error was also followed by Vincent of Beauvais in *Speculum doctrinale*, book XVI, cap. 43. We have presented a good part of them in Greek; time has consumed the better part. Truly, those which are contained in the Latin editions are miserably deformed. Among the homilies which are accustomed to be inscribed on various subjects, there are seven that deal with the interpretation of Matthew, but since they are of uncertain authorship and reliability, they will be examined in their proper place.

Jerome commemorates five tomes of Origen on Luke. He rendered thirty-nine of the same author’s homilies on this evangelist into the Latin tongue, which the inclemency of time has spared, while the tomes have been consumed. That more were written by Origen, I am led to suspect by the final six, which, as they do not maintain the continuous order of the preceding ones, appear to have been detached from a larger number. Origen himself also does this in tome XIII on Matthew, no. 29, p. 610, and in tome XXXII on John, no. 2, where he narrates certain things written by himself in his homilies on Luke, of which no traces appear in the surviving homilies. (67)

Adamantius issued two. Thus Rufinus, in his *Invection* II against Jerome, praises the books of Origen—as we have said above—to the highest degree, and says that if they were translated into the Roman tongue, one would know how much of the good he had formerly been ignorant of, and [what] he had now begun to know; that is, he says, twenty-six books (read: twenty-five) on Matthew, five on Luke, and thirty-two on John. ^A Hence it is that in the manuscript of the *Commentary on John* used by Ambrosius Ferrarius, the nine tomes of interrupted sequence had been distributed into 32 tomes. Let that passage, therefore, in the Prologue of Jerome to the homilies of Origen on Luke, which he himself translated—"Since that which holy Blaesilla had long ago requested at Rome, that I should translate into our tongue 36 tomes (read: 25 tomes) of his on Matthew, and five others on Luke, and 39 on John"—be corrected (read: 32 on John), not as the learned man seems to have read it, thirty-four. Eusebius writes in *History*, book VI, chapter 24, that out of the entire mass of these commentaries, only twenty-two books existed in his own age. In these times, however, hardly nine remain. There are, moreover, two homilies on John found among those which are inscribed to various [subjects]; but since the author of them is not certain, we shall have a question about them at another time. Concerning the *Expositions on the Acts of the Apostles*, I have this one thing to write: that several homilies on them were composed by Origen: (68) for the seventh chapter of the *Philocalia* closes with a small fragment from the fourth homily on this book.

^C VIII. Origen devoted immense effort and labor to the elucidation of the epistles of Paul; he applied the greatest diligence especially to the Epistle of Paul to the Romans; for what exists in the Latin edition translated by Rufinus scarcely equals half the part of the commentaries which he had issued on that epistle. Rufinus, in the preface to Heraclius prefixed to his translation, says: "You persuade me," he says, "that we should explain with our voice his (Origen's) fifteen volumes in which he discussed the Epistle of Paul to the Romans." Thus Merlin (69), Erasmus, and Genebrardus read and edited them; hence Sixtus Senensis said that Origen had written fifteen books of commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans. But Cassiodorus, in book I of the *Institutions of Divine Scriptures*, asserts that they were twenty in number, thus speaking: "Saint Paul's first," he says, "as we were able, we have expounded concerning the two thieves who were crucified with Christ, who according to Matthew and Mark both reproached him on the cross, but according to Luke, who says that one of the hanging thieves was blaspheming... It is therefore fitting that in the first place both thieves should be understood to have blasphemed the Lord.. Or perhaps, as we said there also (in the *Commentaries on John*, namely), these two thieves are others, of whom one was blaspheming him, and those two thieves who both blasphemed were others: (for thus it must be read according to the manuscripts)." These things, however, are nowhere found in the nine tomes which still survive on John, and from the words just cited and the place where they are cited, it seems that Origen did not treat of the two thieves perfunctorily, but professedly and in their proper place. Furthermore, since the thirty-second tome ends at chapter 13, verse 53 of the Gospel of John, as we have already said, yet the thieves are treated of in chapter XIX, verse 18 of the same Gospel, it seems that Origen composed more than 32 tomes on John, and consequently the reading of Jerome which commemorates 39 tomes on John seems genuine. Rufinus, however, that the commentaries of Origen had been interpolated, ^B and that in almost all libraries some volumes from the body itself had been missing. Jerome himself says in *Epistle 52 to Pammachius* that he translated the first Epistle to the Corinthians most broadly. This is confirmed from Origen's own homily 17 on Luke, in which he says that he had discussed chapter 1, verse 2 of this Epistle. He also explained the Epistle to the Galatians with commentaries, homilies, and scholia. Jerome is a witness in the *Proem to the Commentaries on the Epistle to the Galatians*: "That man (Origen) wrote five own volumes on the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, and completed the tenth book of his *Stromata* in a *commatic* style on the explanation of his discourse; he also composed various treatises and excerpts, which alone might suffice." These words he repeats subsequently in *Epistle 89 to Augustine*; then he adds a little later: "This explanation, however, which Origen first [did] in the tenth book of the *Stromata*, where he interprets the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, and which other interpreters followed afterward," etc. Jerome also teaches us that he illustrated the Epistle to the Ephesians in three volumes, and that he himself had followed him; which he repeats in *Apology against Rufinus*, book I, chapters 4 and 5. Pamphilus in the *Apologia* adduces a fragment from the third book on the Epistle to the Colossians. We learn from Jerome that Origen had issued [commentaries] on the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, whose words are these in *Epistle 152 to Minervius and Alexander*: "Origen, in the third volume of his *Exēgēmatikōn* on the first Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians, after many things which in various [ways]...

(69) Thus Merlin and Genebrardus read and edited, etc. But two manuscript codices to whose authority we have recalled the text of Rufinus, for fifteen, read ten, another twelve.

^A Leviticus; IV. and Numbers; V. on Joshua, Judges, Kings; VI. Psalms, and Proverbs; VII. Song of Songs; VIII. Isaiah; IX. Jeremiah; X. Ezekiel; XI. and Hosea; XII. on Matthew; XIII. Luke; XIV. John and the Acts of the Apostles; XV. and on the Epistles to the Romans, Colossians, Titus, and Hebrews.

I. From the immense number of Origen’s exegetical works, even this brief list that we have recounted has not been immune to the injury of time; for the greatest part of those writings has perished, so that very few indeed have escaped the envy of antiquity, and they have been transmitted to us like planks from a shipwreck. I said "planks," for they are either truncated, mutilated in their greater part, and poorly dispensed, or deformed by perverse interpretations. But just as in the workshops of goldsmiths the very shavings are precious and the scraps are studiously collected, so let us rescue the golden relics of the great Origen from darkness and dust as much as may be possible. Our beginning shall be with Genesis. We have said in the previous section that this was expounded by Origen in thirteen books of Commentaries. (71) Eusebius inserted two fragments from these into his books *On Evangelical Preparation*: the first exists in book VI, chapter 20, and explains the twelfth verse of the first chapter of Genesis; and it is argued from its style that it is a part of the Commentaries: the later one illustrates the fourteenth verse of the same chapter, but it lies in the sixth book of Eusebius, chapter 11. (72) There is also contained in chapter 22 of the *Philocalia* some part of this fragment, from which we learn that it was drawn from the third tome of Origen’s Commentaries. Another moreover is found in chapter 14 of the *Philocalia*, where it is signified that it was taken from the same tome. Pamphilus recites a small fragment from the preface of these books, and another also from the first book, in his *Apology*. Origen had written two books of mystical homilies on Genesis: Sixtus Senensis thought that those which survive are seventeen parts of them. (73) I cannot by any means agree with him; for the homilies which we have seem to have been delivered extempore, and recorded by stenographers; but the mystical ones were meditated upon and elaborated at leisure, and published by Origen himself.

^A Merlini attributed the translation of the surviving works to Jerome; Erasmus and Genebrard recognized that this was due to Rufinus. This is proven by his own Prologue to Ursacius: "For I remember having promised that if there were any things said by the elder Adamantius regarding the Law of Moses, I would collect them, and translate them into Latin for our people to read;" and then: "Therefore, in so far as I am able, I strive to explain what you have ordered. For among all those things which I have found written in the Law, only the homilies on Deuteronomy, I think, are missing." Yet, we have the homilies on the first four books of the Pentateuch translated into Latin; who, then, would dare to deny that Rufinus was the translator? This is proven by the peroration itself, appended to the translation of Origen’s Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans, which we will show in its proper place is to be ascribed to Rufinus; in it, he writes that he translated Origen's homilies on Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus into Latin. Therefore, no credence should be given to the ancient manuscript of the Royal Library, in which that very translation of Origen's homilies on Genesis, which we are discussing, is attributed to Jerome. Let the reader observe, meanwhile, that the final homily is in a good part mutilated; for it does not proceed through all the blessings of the patriarchs as planned, and it lacks the solemn conclusion which Origen was accustomed to append to all his homilies.

II. Basil and Gregory incorporated some fragments of the Commentaries on Exodus into the twenty-sixth chapter of the Philocalia. But thirteen homilies are contained in the Latin edition. The name of the translator is not inscribed, but from the Prologue of Rufinus to Ursacius, and his own peroration to the translation of Origen's Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans, which we have just praised, it is manifest that no other translator should be sought than Rufinus: something which one can immediately perceive from the mere similarity of style. Sixtus of Siena is therefore mistaken in attributing this translation to Jerome.

III. The same arguments must apply to the translation of the sixteen homilies of Origen on Leviticus, which are likewise to be adjudicated to Rufinus, and serve to refute Sixtus, who ascribes them to Jerome. How Rufinus conducted himself in translating those homilies, as well as those on Genesis and Exodus, he himself declares in the peroration just cited: "For I confess, most beloved brother Heraclius, that while I desired to satisfy your requests, I almost forgot the commandment which enjoins: 'Lay not a burden upon yourself beyond your strength'*; although we did not lack great labor in the other things which, at your urging—or rather, by your demanding the accomplishment of a daily task—we translated into Latin, while ^B we desire to supply things that were delivered by Origen to the Church extempore, not so much with the intention of explanation as of edification: just as we did in the homilies, or brief Orations on Genesis and Exodus, and especially in those which were dictated by him in the style of a sermon on the book of Leviticus, but translated by us in the manner of an explanation. We took upon ourselves the labor of supplying what was missing so that questions raised and left behind—a thing that often happens in the homiletic style of speaking—would not generate disgust in the Latin reader." An extraordinary translator, indeed, bestowing whatever he pleased from his own store! (74) We owe him this much, however, that they have been restored to their rightful author; these were falsely sold among the Works of Cyril. And so Bellarmine, who in book IV, *De Verbo Dei*, chapter 11, had not dared to define whether they were Origen's or not, attributed them without hesitation to him in his book *De script. eccles.*. Hence, a certain heterodox author who placed them among the supposititious works of Origen is to be exploded. ^C Furthermore, the first chapter of the Philocalia exhibits a fragment from the second homily on Leviticus, which is indeed entirely different from the second homily of the Rufinian collection. Some have opined that this homily was shortened and mutilated by that fragment; but it is much more likely that there were several collections of these homilies, and that one of them contained that certain homily in its place, from which the Philocalia fragment came, which was absent from the Rufinian collection. Rufinus himself proclaims that the homilies on Numbers which survive were collected and arranged by him, as we shall say shortly. The homilies on Jeremiah translated into Latin by Jerome are arranged in a different order in the Latin edition than in the Greek codices: a thing we shall observe to have happened elsewhere as well. It is therefore easy to assume that the same thing happened to the homilies on Leviticus, and that they were selected and ordered in various ways according to the whim of the translators or students.

IV. From the Prologue which Rufinus prefixed to his translation of the twenty-eight homilies of Origen on Numbers, which survive to this day, and from the very style itself, it is understood that they are grievously mistaken who assign any other translator than Rufinus. "Whatever," he says, "we find written in the book of Numbers, whether in the homiletic style, or from those which are called Excerpts, these, at your urging (he addresses Ursacius), we have collected and arranged from different sources into one order in the Roman tongue, as best we could." These, indeed, which we have, he arranged into an order as he pleased, having collected them from everywhere, (75) and at the same time he even ^D mixed in the scholia themselves; which have been restored to Rufinus, which were among Cyril's, etc. See our Admonition to the *in Leviticum*, where we show by many other moments of reasoning that those homilies are the genuine work of Origen, not the offspring of Cyril. That is perhaps the cause why in such homilies certain things were pronounced extempore, while others were [written] at leisure.

^A Gratianus should have noticed that a significant part of the twentieth homily consists of the twelfth chapter of the *Philocalia*. If you compare this with the interpretation of Rufinus, you will truly detect that Rufinus spoke of himself in that peroration of his commentary on Origen’s Epistle to the Romans, so often praised: "For those things which we have written on Joshua, and on the Book of Judges, and on the thirty-sixth, and thirty-seventh, and thirty-eighth psalms, we have expressed simply as we found them, and have translated them without much labor." Erasmus indeed acknowledges Rufinus as the author of this interpretation in his *Censure on the works of Origen*, but he deems the Preface to have been fabricated and imposed by booksellers, because it abounds with solecisms and ineptitudes of language, and because it signifies that these homilies on Joshua were extemporaneous, although Athanasius writes that Origen was most diligent. These are truly futile arguments. As if Rufinus had not also defiled his own speech with jumbled nonsense; as if Origen had not also pronounced homilies extemporaneously and labored over others at his leisure, as we shall demonstrate below. However inept this censure of Erasmus may be, the one from the Magdeburg Centuriators (Cent. 3, chap. 10) expressed it even more ineptly: "There survive 26 homilies on the Book of Joshua, which Erasmus judges not to be by Origen, due to the solecisms of the diction and the impropriety of the locutions and the ineptitudes of the speech; likewise from the individual allegories; then because Jerome in his *Catalogue of Writers* makes no mention of this work." What Erasmus said about the Preface, the Magdeburgians thought was said about the homilies. That is far removed from the opinion of Erasmus: for he thinks the Preface is supposititious based on this argument, not because it falsely ascribes these homilies to Origen, but because it teaches that they were recited by him extemporaneously. Then he adds: "To these I shall add that, just as Jerome in the *Catalogue of Writers* makes no mention of this work, so Rufinus in the peroration which we cited a little earlier, confesses himself to be the interpreter of this book and of the following Book of Judges." Erasmus says that Jerome, while reviewing his own works, made no mention of this interpretation in his *Catalogue of Writers*; but that Rufinus, in the peroration appended to Origen’s Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans, professed himself to be its author. And indeed he proves this, that Rufinus, not Jerome, is the author of this interpretation; he does not demonstrate that the homilies themselves are falsely ascribed to Adamantius, as the Magdeburgians thought. Thus he finally concludes: "It seemed good to impress these things at greater length, because they appear to be written and discussed at more length." Hence it also happens that the time of neither work can now be assigned with certainty.

V. The Latin edition presents to us twenty-six of Origen’s homilies on Joshua. The title of the Prologue attributes the interpretation to Jerome: but the interpretation itself, as well as the Prologue prefixed to the interpretation, has Rufinus as its author. And indeed, the style of these is very similar to the style of the previous homilies in terms of both the context of the speech and the choice of words. Nor does Rufinus himself conceal that he is the interpreter in the peroration of his interpretation of Origen’s Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans. The Prologue also smells of Rufinian wares. I think that the reasons why it was attributed to Jerome are these. Jerome had written in his *Prologus Galeatus*: "In the temple of God everyone offers what he can; some offer gold, silver, and precious stones: others offer fine linen and purple, and scarlet, and hyacinth: it is well with us if we offer skins and goats' hair." ^B Rufinus expressed this in his own Prologue and expanded upon it. He also addresses Chromatius, whom Jerome addresses in his Prefaces to *Paralipomena* and *Tobias*. Rufinus bestows these titles upon him: "O my always venerable father Chromatius"; these Jerome uses in the Prologue to the second book of his *Commentary on Habakkuk*: "My Chromatius, venerable father (papa)." (76) From these things the error was born. And I conjecture that this happened not by chance, but by the deceitful arts of Rufinus, who, when he understood that he was commonly suspected of Origenism, and that for this reason his wares were less saleable, it is likely that he wished to deceive the unwary readers; he wrote his adversary Jerome’s name on them, so that he might also call him into suspicion of Origenism, [the very thing] of which he [Jerome] had so often been accused regarding this doctrine. (77) He used the same cunning against him in the peroration of the interpretation of Origen’s Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans, as will be said by us in its place. Moreover, Chromatius seems to have been no less familiar to Rufinus than to Jerome, being the bishop of Aquileia, which was Rufinus’s native land. Gratianus in *Causa* 23, *Quaestio* 1, brings forward a passage from Homily 15 of Origen on Joshua, which he ascribes to Gregory. For Gregory had surely usurped this passage for himself, which is seen to have been snatched from elsewhere.

Those who attribute too much to any titles or little prefaces, whose blunt judgment we have written about, we have expressed simply as we found them. In these words, he shows sufficiently that he was discussing the author of the homilies, not the preface. And yet I see that William Perkins and another heretic of this age—a man well-learned, whose name I spare—have embraced the opinion of the Magdeburg Centuriators. From the same peroration by Rufinus, mentioned just now, Origen is found to be the author of nine homilies on Judges, and Rufinus the translator, and indeed, if one is to believe him himself, a sufficiently accurate one. Nor would you say that the single homily on Kings published in Latin originated from anywhere else, whether you look at the work itself or the translation. I would like to have that noted particularly in it, which is found in no. 1, around the beginning: "Do not, therefore, demand from us that which you have in Pope Alexander. For we confess that he surpasses us all in the grace of gentleness." He signifies Alexander, the prelate of Jerusalem, by whom he had been promoted to the order of the presbyterate. Because Andrew Rivet was unaware of this, he took the occasion in vain to adjudge this homily from Origen. "But who," he says, "is that Pope Alexander? If he is the first Roman bishop of that name, he is much older; but if he is the Alexandrian bishop, he is much more recent; for he succeeded Achillas in the year of Christ 341; whereas Origen had ended his final day around the year 256." The other homily *On the Engastrimyth*, which Allatius published after having unearthed it from the Vatican library, is proven to be Origen’s by the reliability of the codex, the style itself, and the diagnostic of Eustathius.

VI. We acknowledge also from the testimony of the Rufinian peroration cited just a moment ago, that the nine homilies on Psalms 36, 37, and 35 are rightly ascribed to Origen, and the translation to Rufinus; and that it was expressed simply. In the preface prefixed to these homilies, he declares that this labor was undertaken by him for the favor of Apronianus, a noble man and a patron of his cause. Erasmus must be touched upon here in passing, who, in his *Censure on these Homilies*, grants too much to his own criticism and makes both their author and the translator doubtful: "Nor," he says, "does he who writes the preface profess that he has translated these homilies simply as they were had among the Greeks, nor does he express the name of the author there." This is indeed true; but Erasmus ought to have remembered that it was customary for the names of authors to be prescribed at the beginning of works, and therefore the preface-writing Rufinus had no necessity to profess that he had translated these homilies from Origen, since the title itself proclaimed it. Even more futile is the argument sought from the peroration, in which he did not express the name of the author. He was acting concerning the works of Origen translated by himself; he had named Origen himself; he had made mention of his homilies on Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus: he adds then: "For those which are in Jesus Nave, and in the book of Judges, and in the thirty-sixth, and in the thirty-seventh, and in the thirty-eighth psalms..." ^A It is surely understood easily that these works also, just like those mentioned previously, are by Origen, whose name it would have been superfluous and annoying to append to each one. But if this omission of the Origenian name makes the author doubtful, why did Erasmus doubt the author of the homilies on the Psalms, but not doubt at all the author of the homilies on the book of Judges? For the rationale was the same in both cases. ^B In the same way, we reason concerning the author of the translation: for what kind of ^C *apoklerosis* (allotment away) is this, to attribute the translation of the remaining homilies mentioned in the Peroration to Rufinus, but to adjudge this one away from him, who professed himself to be the interpreter of these just as of the others? Erasmus was certainly a man of great and excellent genius, but of hasty judgment. Yet the Magdeburg Centuriators follow this censure of his, as does Robert Cooke the Englishman, and he supports it with this argument: that in explaining different texts, he narrates how they stand in Latin and how in Greek. For example, on Psalm 36, here (he says, making words about a certain text in Deuteronomy) where it is said in Latin: *They have provoked me to jealousy, and I will provoke them to jealousy*, in the Greek the same speech is the same which is also said at the beginning of the psalm: *They have envied me, and I will envy them*. Truly, the license of Rufinus was poorly perceived by this critic, for whom it is customary to add such additaments to the author's context. Furthermore, Erasmus conjectures with truly immense audacity that this book of homilies was drawn from Origen's Commentaries on the Psalter, translated more freely, and divided into homilies. For if such a license of conjecture is allowed, then what will be certain, what will be constant in letters? The boundaries of ancient things will be confounded, and all things will be turned upside down. Therefore, Genebrardus deservedly refutes this censure of Erasmus in his *Collectanea* and asserts these homilies to their own author, Origen, with many solid reasons. ^D And from this, William Perkins the Englishman is also refuted, who strikes two homilies on Psalm 38 out of the series of genuine Origenian works.

58. Antonius Verderius, in the supplement to the *Epitome of the Bibliotheca of Gesner*, subjoined a *Bibliotheca*, or *Constantinopolitan Antiquities*, in which, among the books of the most illustrious prince, Lord Jacob Marmoreta, he lists this one, which is titled: "An Explanation by Origen on the Psalter of David." Then it is subjoined: "And again, for the explanation of Origen, he has a solution of the explanation by John Mauropous, metropolitan of the most holy metropolitan church of Euchaita: and Origen himself, as he has his explanation, is a son of St. Hippolytus, philosopher and martyr." Possevinus added these very things to the end of his *Apparatus* when he was weaving together the catalogs of various libraries. Since these things are sufficiently obscure, I understand it thus: that Origen, in this exposition of the Psalter, imitated Hippolytus, whose Commentaries on...

Jerome, in *De viris illustribus*, ch. 36, states that Origen wrote a Psalter. Yet I have elsewhere proven that same Jerome to have falsely taught in that place that Origen had girded himself to interpret the Scriptures in imitation of Hippolytus. Therefore, either the compiler of the Catalogue, or he who transcribed the codex itself, thought Origen to have been an imitator and son of Hippolytus in his explanation of the Psalter. Furthermore, Josias Simler and Conrad Gesner write in the *Epitome of the Gesnerian Library* ^A that an Origenian exposition of the Psalter is preserved in the Caesarea Viennensis library, as do others.

Moreover, of the tomes on the first Psalm, we have certain parts in Epiphanius, *Haer.* 64, ch. 6, and in the *Philocalia*, ch. 2 and 3, and in Eusebius, *Hist.* VI, ch. 25, and again in Epiphanius in the same *Haer.*, ch. 10, and in Pamphilus’ *Apology*, where he refutes the sixth accusation against Origen. Again, the *Philocalia*, twenty-fifth chapter, exhibits a significant segment from the tome on the fourth Psalm, and another from the *Commentaries* on the sixth Psalm is in the *Apology* of Pamphilus, refuting the seventh accusation against Origen; and yet another [is contained] in the same *Apology*, treating the sixth accusation from the *Commentaries* on the fifteenth Psalm; and again another in the same place, from the *Commentaries* on the ^B eighteenth Psalm; and again another in the *Philocalia*, first chapter, from the *Commentaries* on the fiftieth Psalm. But Eusebius, *Hist.* VI, ch. 38, brings forward a portion from the Homily on Psalm lxxxii. These relics have been rescued from the injury of time from so many homilies and tomes. Two fragments of the *Commentaries* on Proverbs were saved by Pamphilus from destruction in his *Apology*. Another also exists in the Mazarine catena on Luke, but it is not our purpose here to enumerate the fragments of the catenae.

VII. Of the small tome on the Canticles, which Origen wrote when a young man, we have a certain portion in the seventh chapter of the *Philocalia*. But from the second tome of the *Commentaries*, which he composed in ten volumes when he was older, we find another segment in the twenty-sixth chapter of the *Philocalia*, which brings it to an end. But the Latin edition of Origen represents the Prologue of these same ten volumes, together with the beginning of the subsequent tomes, translated by Rufinus, but deformed, and wrongly sold as homilies. I shall state the reasons why I think thus against some who have felt falsely about the author of this work. That the writer of it is indeed Origen is detected by the style, and by the allegorical and tropological expositions into which he departs from historical ones. This is proven, furthermore, by sentiments similar and germane to them, which occur in the two homilies translated by Jerome: "The Epithalamium," he says in the beginning of the Prologue, "this little book, that is to say the nuptial song, seems to me to have been written by Solomon in the manner of a drama, which he sang as if it were the bride-to-be who had arrived and [was standing] towards her ^C spouse. In the former homily, however, rendered by Jerome into Latin: "For these, in this book," he says, no. 1, "both the fable and the epithalamium, are persons from which the Gentiles claimed the epithalamium for themselves, and the flesh of that sort was assumed. For the Song of Songs is an epithalamium." Explaining the first verse of the Canticle in the false-named homily which follows the Prologue, p. 38, he writes that the *hemonikon* is signified by various names in Holy Scripture, either by the word 'heart', or 'breast' and 'bosom', if it concerns those reclining at a banquet; just as when John is said to have reclined upon the breast of Jesus, it is to be understood as the *hemonikon* of Christ: in Leviticus likewise, [it is signified] by the breast and the shoulder, which is separated for the priests; but in the Canticle, by the breasts. Then he concludes thus: "Your heart, O my Spouse, that is the dogmas which are within you, or the grace of your doctrine, surpasses all wine, which is wont to gladden the heart of man." Just as in those things of which he says: "Because they shall see God"*, because 'heart' seems to be suitably said, and between those reclining, the bosom and breast is placed for the habit of those reclining without doubt, and the form of the banquet: and again, just as with the priests the breast and shoulder is designated for mystical eloquence; so I judge that in the present place, where the habits and conversations of lovers are described, this same principal part of the heart is most gracefully called the breasts." Behold for you the same matters in the former homily translated by Jerome, no. 3, upon the same verse of the Canticle: "The divine word ^D aptly calls one and the same thing by different names according to the quality of the places. When the host is offered in the Law, and he wishes to show the understanding, he speaks of the 'shoulder of separation' [breast]. But when someone reclines with Jesus, and enjoys the communion of his senses, he speaks not of the 'shoulder' as above, but addresses the 'breast'. Moreover, when the Spouse speaks to the Spouse, because it is introduced as a nuptial song, he names not the shoulder, as in the sacrifice; not the breast, as in John the disciple, but the breasts, saying: 'Because your breasts are better than wine'**. Communicate as a Spouse with the senses of the Spouse, and know that such thoughts intoxicate and gladden." Who would not say that both places were formed on the same anvil? Finally, Merlin says that he found the name of Jerome ascribed to this work in some codex, but he admits that in all ancient and approved volumes Origen is marked as the author. There is no doubt, therefore, that this work of which we are treating has Origen for its author.

Now, however, it must be proven that it was wrongly distributed into homilies, and that it is part of the ten tomes which he is recorded to have written on the Canticles. The first argument is the style, which those who are versed in the reading of Origen know to be different in the tomes than in the homilies. The homiletic style is familiar, simple, popular, brief; the other is sublime, diffuse, curious, erudite. Such is the writing of

Origen on the Canticle, to which this belongs. Where, moreover, is the prologue? Origen never prefixes prologues to homilies; he never does so to homilies. Finally, the homilies of Origen are wont to be concluded with this solemn clause, so that one can scarcely find one or two that differ from this custom: ^A *in Christo Jesu, cui est gloria et potestas in saecula saeculorum*. Nothing of this kind appears in those pseudonymous homilies of Origen. They are, therefore, not homilies at all, but tomes. Vincent of Beauvais, in *Speculum doctrinale*, lib. xvi, cap. 43, while weaving together the number of Origenian writings, says that Adamantius published two homilies on the Canticle, but three books at the beginning of the same work. Nor does the magnitude of the work allow us to think that it is a part of the small tome which he labored upon in his youth for the Canticle, especially since that fragment from the small tome, which is brought forward in the seventh chapter of the *Philocalia*, nowhere exists in these four homilies or in the Prologue: but that other fragment, which is taken from the second of the ten tomes in the twenty-sixth chapter of the *Philocalia*, is found in the second of those four homilies. Wherefore, it is probable that the first three homilies are the first three tomes; and the last one is a part of the fourth; which we are also permitted to estimate from their length. Finally, in that work, Origen praises his expositions on Exodus, on Leviticus, on Numbers, and on Joshua, which it is not probable had been finished by then when he was working on his small tome on the Canticle, seeing that he composed it while still a youth; whereas at a more mature age he approached the task of compiling ten tomes. It may be objected that it is written by Jerome in the Prologue to the translation of the two homilies on the Canticle, that Origen in ten tomes magnificently and openly discoursed upon the Septuagint Translators, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and the fifth edition; and because this does not appear in the pseudonymous homilies ^B which we are discussing, it results from this that the work is different from the ten tomes. But it must be known that Rufinus is the translator of this writing, as I shall presently show, for whom it is customary to pervert everything and recast it at will, so that he condensed the tomes of Origen on the Epistle to the Romans into half their size, and who would expect any trustworthiness from him?

It remains for us to demonstrate that Rufinus is the translator. Jerome, in the Prologue to the two homilies of Origen on the Canticle, treating of the ten volumes of Commentaries, says that their translation was passed over by him, because it was a work of immense time, labor, and expense. In his book *De viris illustribus*, cap. 135, among the books of Origen translated by him, he made no mention of this one. This translation, therefore, is by no means to be ascribed to Jerome. Gennadius, however, in *De viris illustribus*, cap. 18, seems to indicate that whatever works of Origen do not have Jerome as translator are to be referred to Rufinus; thus one cannot doubt that this translation is owed to Rufinus: for the style sufficiently proves it to be ancient, equal to the age of Jerome, and older than Gennadius; which, to pass over all other arguments, marks Rufinus alone as the translator. Most of all, this is indicated by certain selected and, for the most part, barbarous words which were most habitual to Rufinus, such as these: *attitulare*, *competenter*, *complecti* in a passive sense, *cassare*, *creatura* for *creatio*, *incorruptio*, *numerositas*, *observantiae*, *observanter*, *participium* for that which is *partis adeptio*, *pretiositas*, *rationabiliter*, *refutare* for *abnuere*, *sequestrari*, *significantiae*. ^C And if someone objects that the Prologues are usually prefixed by Rufinus to his translations, as Gennadius reports in *De viris illustribus*, cap. 18, but that to this book no prologue was added by the translator; let him know that many of Rufinus’s prologues have perished; like that one, which I have so often praised, prefixed to Numbers, and inscribed to Ursacius, which the Latin edition of Origen by no means represents.

As these things are so, it is evident that it is for nothing that in certain ancient codices the name of Jerome was prefixed to this work, as Sixtus observes; and from which work the Master of the Sentences and St. Thomas brought forward testimonies under the name of Ambrose. Erasmus is also to be corrected, who himself feels, and has persuaded the Magdeburgians to feel the same, that this work belongs to a Latin man, beautifully learned and well eloquent: for the reason that in the Prologue, p. 27, he praises the Greeks as if they were foreigners, with these words: "When among the Greeks, who seem learned and wise." He says the same is clear from the interpretation of "amoris, charitatis, dilectionis et cupidinis." Finally, he suspects it belongs to the author whose books *De vocatione gentium* and *Commentaries on some Psalms* exist. How frivolous these are, it is easy to show. It is well known that all heathens were called *Hellenes* by Luke in the Acts, and by Paul: hence the Jews are opposed to the *Hellenes*, that is to heathens or Gentiles. And so, by the Fathers, *Hellenes* are praised as if they were foreigners, and even by Origen himself in *Matth.*, tom. xv, no. 15, where he says: [Greek omitted]. Moreover, even from this passage, whence Erasmus conjectures that work to be supposititious, where with not obscure words the *Symposium* of Plato is praised, in which the nature of ^D love is discussed, no slight conjecture can be drawn that the author of this work is Origen, for whom it is customary to convert the disputations of Plato into his own uses. As regards...

the words ^A *of love, of affection, of charity and of desire*, these and others of that kind, which smack of a Roman writer, ought to have been ascribed to the perfidy of Rufinus. Such is the observation made by the Englishman Robert Cooke, who said that the author of this Commentary, book III, p. 76, says: "The Word of God is expressed in the masculine gender among the Greeks, but in the neuter gender among us"; and such are the places in this work of which Bruno Amerbach says in the Preface to Jerome, vol. VII: "There are many things which would prove them to be the work of a Latin man, not a Greek." Their judgment, as well as that of William Perkins, who counts this work among rejected and spurious writings, deserves to be treated as of no account.

Besides the fragment of a small volume and the extensive scraps from ten volumes, two homilies also remain, explained in the Latin tongue by Jerome "more faithfully than elegantly," as he himself says in the Prologue to Damasus. Merlin mistakenly divided the first homily into two parts, passing off the first part as a preface instead of a letter. Erasmus and Genebrard saw this error and corrected it in their editions, joining both parts into one.

VIII. In the previous section, we said that Origen had explained Isaiah in thirty volumes and twenty-five homilies. Pamphilus in his Apology provides a fragment from the first book of the Commentaries; another follows shortly after from the twenty-eighth book. Of the homilies, exactly nine survive in the Latin edition. The name of the translator is not listed, though I judge it to be Jerome. Erasmus holds the same opinion, and says that Jerome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers confesses to having translated this fragment from the Commentaries of Origen on Isaiah. Yet I find this only in that Catalogue, chap. 135, where Jerome speaks of himself: "On Jeremiah and on Ezekiel, twenty-eight homilies of Origen, which I translated from Greek into Latin, concerning the Seraphim and Hosanna." But of the homilies that survive, the first deals with the seraphim standing above the throne of the Lord (Isaiah VI, 2), yet this is a weak argument for proving that Jerome translated these nine homilies. A more likely conjecture is taken from the style and the choice of certain words, which Jerome often loves to claim for himself, which is the best way to distinguish between writers. Those words are: ^B *abstruse* (absconsus), *dominical* (dominicus), *titular* (nuncupativus), *principal* (principale) for that which is τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, *to be principal to someone*, *principal* (principalis), *prophet* (prophetes), *I promise again* (repromitto), *promise* (repromissio), *speculative* (speculatorius), *foul-mouthedness* (turpiloquium), *the Devil* (Zabulus), *all the Gospels* (cuncta Evangeliorum), and others of this kind. Let the diligent reader note that the ninth homily is mutilated in the editions of Merlin, Erasmus, and Genebrard, and truncated in its final part, and that the final part of the ninth homily (according to the collection of the sixth) on Jeremiah was detached to supplement it, beginning from these words: *They have turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers* (Jerem. XI, 10). But this error has long taken root in these homilies: for the handwritten codices of the Royal Library were indeed tainted by the same deformity. For it easily happened that an imprudent copyist, coming to transcribe the final part of the ninth homily of Origen on Isaiah, translated by Jerome, fell by chance into the final part of the ninth homily of Origen on Jeremiah, likewise translated by Jerome. Whence a valid argument ^C is also taken that the translator of the homilies on Isaiah is no other than Jerome, as it is for the homilies on Jeremiah. Truly, this error was the cause why the final part of the ninth homily on Isaiah was lost.

IX. We observed above that Origen delivered forty-five homilies on Jeremiah. From this vast pile of homilies, Jerome produced fourteen in Latin, as he himself testifies in his preface to the homilies of Origen on Ezekiel, and in his book *On Ecclesiastical Writers*, chap. 135. Balthasar Corderius published nineteen in Greek from the Escorial library and added his own translation. He prefixed Cyril's name, having been deceived by an ancient code of otherwise excellent quality. Such commutations of names arise very often because many works of various authors, gathered into the same volume, partly inscribed with the names of their authors and partly destitute of them, easily deceive librarians, who believe that a piece of writing lacking its author’s name belongs to the same author whose name appears on the writing immediately preceding it. But Origen’s name is mixed up and confounded with Cyril’s name not only in these, but also in other studies. Old editions have sixteen of Origen’s homilies on Leviticus and ascribe them to Cyril. A certain commentary on Mark (which we will one day publish before God) is attributed by some codices to Origen, by others to Cyril, and by others to Victor of Antioch. We therefore judge that the nineteen homilies wrongly ascribed to Cyril should be restored to Adamantius, on the argument that among the fourteen homilies of Origen translated by Jerome, twelve of those are found which Corderius published in Greek. ^D The authority of the Vatican codex, which contains these same nineteen homilies on Jeremiah and assigns them to Origen, is added to this. Michael Ghislerius published seven of them in his catena on Jeremiah; those, of course, which were lacking in the Hieronymian corpus. Both codices place the same order among them, and one that is legitimate and consistent with the places of Jeremiah which they explain. For the order that Jerome followed is confused, as he himself admits: "Therefore," he says, "after the fourteen homilies on Jeremiah, which I have already translated in a confused order." Whence it is manifest that the titles to these h…

homilies prefixed to them are not Jerome's. In addition to these, a fragment from the thirty-ninth homily is exhibited in the tenth chapter of the Philocalia. ^A

X. A certain small portion of the twenty-first book of Origen on Ezekiel constitutes the eleventh chapter of the Philocalia. Jerome, indeed, expressed fourteen of the homilies on this same prophet in Roman words. A witness to this is the Prologue placed at the front of these homilies; a witness also is the book *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, chapter 146; a witness also is Rufinus, in *Invectiva* 2, who also teaches that the Prologue was written to Vincentius. Erasmus wonders in his *Censura* of the books of Origen why Jerome, who is otherwise prolific with prefaces, has not written a preface to the homilies on Isaiah and Jeremiah which he rendered into Latin; but in the prologue to the homilies on Ezekiel, he complains that the name of Jerome and also the person whom Jerome is addressing have been erased. He suspects that the prologues were removed by those to whom he had written after the name of Origen became odious to the Romans, and that it is likely that in these prologues Jerome had magnificently praised Origen’s genius. But I confess that Jerome set prefaces before the individual books of Origen which he expounded, for Gennadius asserts this in the *Catalogus virorum illustrium*: but those which he prefixed, I judge to have been removed not on purpose but by chance and the negligence of librarians; otherwise the Prologue to Damasus prefixed to the homilies of Origen on the Canticles would also have been removed; and that other one to the homilies on Ezekiel. In the Merlin edition, this title is prefixed to the prologue: "Prologue of the same translator": that is to say, of him who had translated the preceding homilies of Origen on Jeremiah, whom it is established was Jerome.

XI. We have shown above from the Proem of Jerome’s Commentaries on Hosea that Origen wrote a small book *περὶ τοῦ πῶς ὠνομάσθη ἐν τῷ Ὠσηὲ Ἐφραΐμ*, and furthermore another volume on the same prophet, *ἀκέφαλον καὶ ἀτέλεστον*. From which of the two this fragment, which constitutes the eighth chapter of the Philocalia, is taken is uncertain; but that it is taken from one or the other is certain: for although it is prefixed to them as "From those things on Hosea interpreted," and Jerome, in the place cited, asserts that no Commentaries on Hosea were written by Origen, saying, "I asked him (Didymus) that he himself should complete what Origen had not done, and write Commentaries on Hosea," it is to be understood that Origen did not write full commentaries on the whole of Hosea, but only small treatises.

XII. Origen labored on twenty-five books on Matthew. Eusebius quotes a brief segment from the first book in *Historia*, book VI, chapter 25, and Pamphilus brings forth an even briefer one from the same in his *Apologeticus*. Another is exhibited from the second book in the sixth chapter of the Philocalia. Pamphilus brings forward another from the seventh book. Julius Caesar Bulengerus, in his *Disputationes against Casaubon*, part II, diatribe 3, page 191, brings forward a fragment from Origen on chapter VI of Matthew and page 166; another from the same to chapter 23, and also another on page 167, from the same *Expositions on Matthew*, the place of which he does not indicate. Bulengerus is truly careless, as he did not warn the reader whence he had these things. From some manuscript codex? I hardly believe it: for whoever survive today, and certainly whoever are available to me, lead their beginning either from the thirteenth chapter or from those following: and they cease at the twenty-second or before. Perhaps, therefore, these things emerged from some catena. Although they have nothing of the sort, as many catenae as I and Combefisius have examined. In ancient manuscripts, the eleventh book is found with the six immediately following. The Ladenburg codex, which Erasmus used, began at Matthew XIII, 36, just as also the Holm codex: the royal one was mutilated in the former part of the eleventh book ^B and the five immediately following. Erasmus, in a letter to Franciscus Cigalinus, affirms that nothing of Origen is possessed on the tenth chapter of Matthew. But the Vatican codex is reported to consist of the tenth, eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth books. Josias Simler and Conradus Frisius also wrote in the *Epitome Bibliothecae Gesnerianae* that the tenth book of the Commentaries of Origen on the Gospel of Matthew is held in a certain library in Italy; and also that book X (I read X), XI, and XII of the same commentaries were with Didacus Hurtadus at Venice. But if the consensus of the remainder is equal among themselves, such as that of the royal exemplar with the Holm codex, I would judge them all to have been described from one and the same codex. Furthermore, although Bellarmine’s conjecture, by which he adjudges those Commentaries away from Origen, is slight, yet it is not to be passed over [ἀναπόκριτος]. Thus he says in his book *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, where he speaks of Origen: "The fifth tractate on Matthew seems to be of a Latin author: for the author, bringing forward the words of Isaiah LVIII, 16, 'The Lord sent me and his spirit,' says, in the Greek, 'The Holy Spirit is of the neuter gender, not masculine, as it is among us'; where he numbers himself among the Latins." And if the fifth tractate is of a Latin author, there is no small suspicion that ^C the remaining tractates of the same work are also of a Latin author. This passage of Origen is held in the volume on Matthew XVIII, num. 18, page 595. Although the reading of the Greek codex openly refutes this judgment of Bellarmine, yet if we were lacking it, it would have no more validity against this book of Adamantius than against the others which we read rendered into Latin by the industry of ancient translators: for in them, such additions of the translators frequently occur, gratifying to those of their own language. Let him who wishes read some pages translated by Rufinus, and he will see how often he adds similar appendices of his own. The ancient interpretation of the Commentaries of Origen on Matthew is more ample than any Greek manuscript exemplar—for the Holm codex, indeed, of all those which have come to my notice, is the most lengthy, from chapter XIII of Matthew, verse 36, to ^D

^A chapter XXII, verse 33, it pertains: but the ancient interpretation, beginning at Matthew chapter XVI, 43, proceeds to XXVII, 66. Library scribes, acting with ill-conceived leisure, divided this portion of the Commentaries into 35 homilies or tracts. This division appears to be more recent, dating from the time of Vincent of Beauvais; for he, in the eighteenth book of his *Speculum doctrinale*, chapter 43, while reviewing the books of Origen surviving in his own age, and mentioning almost all of them that appear even today in the Latin edition, assigns twenty-six books on Matthew, having followed—as I said—corrupt exemplars which noted just as many in place of twenty-five. It is not easy to assign an author to this interpretation. Jerome, in the Prologue to the homilies of Origen on Luke, writes that it was beyond his own powers, his leisure, and his labor to translate the twenty-five volumes of his on Matthew, five on Luke, and thirty-nine on John, at the request of Blesilla, into the Roman tongue. Therefore, Jerome is not the author of the ancient interpretation of Matthew. Certainly, Josias Simler and Conrad Fries, who write thus in the *Epitome of the Gesnerian Library*: "The 36 homilies of Origen on Matthew, translated by Jerome, are held to be among the works of the saintly Jerome," are not to be heard; for neither do 36 homilies of Origen on Matthew exist, but only 35; nor is Jerome to be considered their interpreter; rather, the interpreter is more recent than Jerome, for if they had already appeared in his age, Blesilla would by no means have asked for them; nor would Jerome have written thus in Epistle 65 to Pammachius and Oceanus, chapter 2: "It is nearly a hundred and fifty years since Origen died at Tyre: which of the Latins ^C ever dared to translate his books *On the Resurrection*, *Peri Archon*, the *Stromateis*, or the *Tomi*?" Let no one, therefore, think that any interpretation of these volumes is older than Jerome. Nor does it seem that it should be ascribed to Rufinus, a statement which I wish to make with the permission of Erasmus, who attributes this to him; for he, when interpreting certain passages brought in from the Commentaries on Matthew in the *Apology of Pamphilus*, not only uses no words other than those which that ancient interpreter employed, but also represented many things which are missing in it. Yet when he himself is translating passages in the same *Apology* from other Commentaries—those which he himself had previously interpreted—he uses no words other than his own, and shows himself to be like himself in translating the same passage twice. Add that the style differs entirely from the Hieronymian and the Rufinian, and is tainted with the vice and corruption of a baser and more recent age. I also conjecture it to be more recent than Gennadius, because in his *Catalogue of Illustrious Men* he does not obscurely signify that whatever works of Origen were extant in his time that had not been translated by Jerome, these had been rendered into Latin by Rufinus. We have shown, however, that this interpretation can be ascribed neither to Jerome nor to Rufinus, whence it follows that it is also more recent than Gennadius. ^A Since, moreover, Thomas Aquinas in the *Catena Aurea* borrows many passages from this interpretation, referring them to the verses of Matthew after verse 13 of chapter XVI, it is clear that it is older than Thomas, and was such in his age as it is circulated today. Therefore, it is older than Thomas, (and) more recent than Gennadius. But we discover by no slight indications that it approaches closer to the age of Gennadius. In volume XVI on Matthew, number 14, page 789, Origen has this: *Ὁποῖοί εἰσιν οἱ συγχέοντες Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ ἔννοιαν, καὶ τῇ ὑποστάσει ἕνα διδόντες εἶναι τὸν Πατέρα, καὶ τὸν Υἱόν.* The ancient interpreter translates: "Such are the heretics who confuse the substance of the Father and the Son, saying that the Father and the Son are one." He renders *ὑπόστασιν* as "substance," which savors of great antiquity in a writer; for the Fathers generally used this concept of *ὑπόστασις* in the ancient way. Hilary, in his book *On the Synods against the Arians*, recognizes three substances in the Trinity, that is, *ὑποστάσεις, ἰδιότητας, πρόσωπα*—distinguishing substance from essence. Also, the ancient interpreter of the New Testament renders this passage, Hebr. 1, 3: *ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης, καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ*, as "and the figure of his substance"; and Jerome did not change this, although ^B *ὑπόστασις* there seems to signify person. Yet I assert nothing here; for I know that in the view of many Fathers the substance itself, or the nature and essence of the Father, is understood here. In addition to this, the veteran interpreter in tract 8 brings forth a notable passage from the *Gospel according to the Hebrews* [(81)]. Yet he added that on his own account, since it appears nowhere at all in Greek exemplars. And therefore, he was a contemporary of those times when this Gospel survived. Truly, when investigating the age of this interpreter, it perhaps seems likely to some that he lived in the times of Cassiodorus, and was the very Epiphanius the Scholastic, a familiar and necessary associate of Cassiodorus. The marks noted above seem to agree with this, and others besides. The Greek language was of little concern to Epiphanius; his diction is barbarous, disorganized, and uncultivated. Such is the total barbarism of that ancient interpreter, his knowledge of the Greek idiom barely mediocre, his perception in resolving more obscure meanings absolutely nil; ^D conscious of which, he skipped over every most difficult part as if on purpose. Certainly he administered this interpretation with such abnormal license that it is a wonder: he removed whole pages, added whole pages, and nowhere followed an exemplar. But if anyone were to accurately compare the *Tripartite History* written by this Epiphanius with that ancient interpretation of the Origenian Commentary on Matthew, (he would find) a total discrepancy of style, and this (latter) much more tainted than that.

^A A certain Bellator, a contemporary of Epiphanius and likewise a friend of Cassiodorus, at whose request he rendered many Greek writings—and indeed some of Origen’s—into the Latin tongue, was his equal. If anyone should wish to see the interpretation of the Commentaries on Matthew ascribed to him, I shall not strongly object. Nor does the silence of Cassiodorus on this interpretation much oppose our conjecture, since he reviewed almost all the other works of Bellator in his book *De institutione divinarum Scripturarum*: for this work could have been composed after the publication of that booklet by Cassiodorus.

Regarding the seven homilies of Origen on Matthew that are found among those commonly called "on various subjects," since the author is uncertain, we shall discuss them in their proper place.

XIII. The homilies of Origen on the Gospel of Luke are contained in the Latin edition to the number of thirty-nine. Jerome professed himself the translator in the Prologue prefixed to them, and in his book *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, cap. 146. Erasmus had written, in a letter to Franciscus Cigalinus, that these seemed to be the work of someone other than Origen, but in his *Censura* on the books of Origen he changed his opinion and acknowledged the true author. Nevertheless, he argues as follows: "Yet in the *Catalogue* (Jerome) makes mention of this work in such a way that he seems rather to have translated it from Didymus. For when he had left off mentioning Origen, he speaks after this manner: 'The book of Didymus on the Holy Spirit, which I translated into Latin; thirty-nine homilies on Luke; seven treatises on the Psalms from the tenth to the sixteenth; the life of a captive monk, etc.' From which words nothing else can be understood than that this work is either Jerome’s own, or translated by him from Didymus. Whether this was done by chance or on purpose, I do not know." But had Erasmus observed that by a parity of reasoning the author of the two homilies on the Canticles could be brought into doubt, since in the same chapter of the *Catalogue* Jerome has these words: "On the three questions of the old law, two homilies on the Song of Songs, against Helvidius." For he evidently neglected to write the name of the author, whom he knew to be sufficiently well known from elsewhere. Erasmus adds: "Then, since there is no error in the rest, here there are many things either suspect or condemned." Is it so, indeed? Is there no error in the books *Περὶ ἀρχῶν*, in the Commentaries on Matthew, or in the remaining works? Wonder, reader, at the unbridled and reckless temerity of Erasmus in weighing the writings of the ancients. Merlin is more moderate, asserting that the errors were sprinkled into these homilies by enemies of the Origenian name: although even that is very uncertain. Julius Caesar Bulengerus, part II, diatrib. 3, p. 158 and 222, against Casaubon, exhibits a few small fragments of Origen on Luke, perhaps taken from some catenae. ^B XIV. Of the thirty-two tomes of the Commentaries on John, only nine remain: the first, second, sixth, tenth, thirteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-eighth, and thirty-second. In the codex of the Royal Library, the tomes are found marked with their own numbers. The aforementioned book in the catalogue of the Bavarian Library comprises the same tomes, except for the tenth and twenty-eighth. But the codex of the library of Saint Mark in Venice, although it is similar to the Royal one and has no more, was nevertheless distributed into thirty-two tomes by a cunning librarian, wanting by this artifice to conceal and dissimulate the lacunae and gaps from the unwary, and to sell it as complete. Thus it comes about that I think it is the same one that belonged to Diego Hurtado, and which is reported to have been dissected by a similar deception. That this partition of the tomes, which Ferrarius followed, is false is argued by the fragments which are brought forward from the fourth tome in the fourth chapter of the *Philocalia*, and are found in the fifth tome of Ferrarius’s interpretation. Similarly, from the sixth tome, Basil recites a particle in his book *De Spiritu sancto*, cap. 29. That stands in the sixth tome of the Royal codex, but in the eighth of Ferrarius’s interpretation. Furthermore, such is the similarity and congruence of all the codices among themselves that I am certain they were all described from a single exemplar. Besides the above, Pamphilus in his *Apologetic*, refuting the second charge, produces a small particle from the second tome on John. In the fourth chapter of the ^C *Philocalia*, fragments are adduced from the fourth tome; likewise in the following chapter, other fragments from the Preface of the fifth tome on the same Gospel; a portion of which Preface Eusebius also inserted into the twenty-fifth chapter of the sixth book of his *History*. Bulengerus, in his *Disputations against Casaubon*, part II, diatrib. 3, p. 251, brings forward certain slight snippets from Origen on the sixth chapter of John; since the handwritten codices of the Commentaries on that Gospel do not exhibit these, it is not unlikely that they came from catenae. Finally, among the homilies on various subjects, there are two on John, which, having no certain author, shall be discussed in their proper place a little later.

One unique fragment of Origen on the Acts of the Apostles survives, drawn from the fourth homily, which Basil and Gregory the Theologian inserted into the seventh chapter of the *Philocalia*. In the Catalogue of books of the most illustrious prince, Lord Jacob Marmoreta, which Antonius Verderius inserted into the Supplement of the Gesnerian Library among the antiquities of Constantinople, Origen’s *Explanation on the Acts of the Apostles* is mentioned, as well as on the Epistles of Paul, of which we must now treat in their proper order.

XV. Rufinus, at the impulse of Heraclius (85), undertook to donate twenty tomes of Origen’s Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans to the Latin tongue: but with what fidelity? Cassiodorus indeed says that Origen elaborated twenty tomes on the Epistle to the Romans; but Rufinus enumerates only fifteen, and of our ^D manuscripts, one has ten, another twelve.

^A His own, that is to say, [the] very worst: for he professes in the Preface to Heraclius that the whole work is already interpolated and curtailed to almost half its size by several volumes. You will the more easily detect the injury inflicted upon Origen if you compare certain fragments of this lucubration inserted into the *Philocalia* with the translation of Rufinus. Erasmus justly burns with rage against this audacity, and restores to Rufinus the translation of this work falsely attributed to Jerome. (84) Why it was attributed to Jerome, I think was done through the craft and guile of Rufinus, who, to avoid the odium of the act (for the name of Origen was in bad repute) and to cast it back upon Jerome—by whom he had often been agitated on account of Origenism—did not attach his own name, feigning that it was done out of modesty, ^B which had been done by evil arts. "But I," he says, "who defer more to my conscience than to my name, even if I seem to add something and fill in what is missing, or abbreviate what is long, nevertheless I do not think it right to steal the title of him who laid the foundation of the work and furnished the material for the building to be constructed. Let it be in the judgment of the reader, when he has approved the work, to whom he wishes to ascribe the merit of the work." Then in the Peroration he deceitfully added these words: "For they say to me: In these things which you write, since many things in them are of your own work, give the title of your name, and write: *Jerome, for example, Books of Explanations on the Epistle to the Romans.*" Hence, deluded foolish men inscribed the book with the name of Jerome. But even from this their stupidity is argued. For if the translator had been Jerome, why would he have added those words, *for example*, which declare that this name is fictitious and assumed, not legitimate? ^C He adds a little later that he would translate the books of Clement; which, as is agreed, was done by Rufinus, not by Jerome; then he says: "I will certainly satisfy my friends in this; I will give my name to the title, while nonetheless remaining by the designation of the author: for lest it be thought to be Jerome's, Clemens will be written: Jerome’s, namely, whose name he feigned written above." We have already noted above in number 5 that Rufinus employed the same guile. In the Prologue to the Homilies on Joshua he attempted to refer to the opinions and style of Jerome. In the Preface to the books *On First Principles* (*Περὶ ἀρχῶν*) he hid his own name. By thus hiding Origenism and traducing Jerome, he deceived the common people. Therefore I do not agree with Erasmus, who accuses the booksellers of this knavery and thinks that the name of Jerome was used by them as a pretext for attracting buyers. Beyond that contracted ^D and truncated interpretation of Rufinus, we have a portion of the first tome in the *Apology of Pamphilus*; a much larger one in the 24th chapter of the *Philocalia*. The ninth chapter of the same *Philocalia* also offers us another fragment from the ninth tome. Finally, Pamphilus provides a small particle from the same work in another place in his *Apology*. However, he did not note the tome from whence it was translated. And although these things most clearly demonstrate that Adamantius is the legitimate author of these Commentaries, nonetheless a certain novice heterodox writer did not hesitate to throw these very ones into the series of supposititious writings of Origen; deluded by William Perkins, who indeed wrote that they were poorly translated by Rufinus, which is very true, but he never thought that they were falsely attributed to Origen.

(84) *Why it was attributed to Jerome, I think was done through the craft and guile of Rufinus, etc.* Rufinus did not set his name at the front of this, nor of any interpretation, which is clear enough both from Gennadius of Marseilles, as we shall presently say, and from the peroration to this Epistle to the Romans, where Rufinus himself says that he will satisfy his friends, and that he will give his name to the title of the books of saint Clement, whose interpretation he was contemplating. Is it to be concluded from this, according to the opinion of Huet, that Rufinus wished to cast all his interpretations onto Jerome? But what is more absurd? For who is the anonymous author who could not be accused of the same fraud? Or indeed what will prevent the same from being said about Jerome? For neither did he himself sign the works of Origen translated by him with his own name, since, witnessing Gennadius, it was distinguished only by prologues as to what had been translated by Rufinus and what by Jerome. "Whatever is read in the Latins with the Prologues prefixed," says Gennadius, *Catalog of Illustrious Men*, cap. 18, "was translated by Rufinus: but those which are without a Prologue were translated by another who did not want to make a Prologue: but not all are Origen's, because Jerome also translated some, which are distinguished by his own Prologue." Furthermore, when it was sufficiently distinguished by Prologues what had been translated by Rufinus and what by Jerome, I do not see whence the craft and guile of Rufinus can be drawn. Moreover, if Rufinus had wished to cast all his interpretations onto Jerome, would he not have refused to acknowledge these as his own, being so vehemently agitated by Jerome himself on account of Origenism? And yet Rufinus nowhere denies his offspring; indeed, in the books which he wrote against Jerome, he admits that the books *On First Principles* and several others were translated by himself, and in his peroration to this Epistle to the Romans he sufficiently professes himself to be the interpreter of all of Origen's lucubrations on the Pentateuch, on Joshua, on Judges, and on certain psalms, when he promises there that he will translate the books of Clement—which, by the judgment of Huet himself, is established to have been done by Rufinus, not by Jerome. But, says Huet, in the Peroration to Heraclius, Jerome is twice deceitfully named by Rufinus as if he were the interpreter of this. So indeed the books published earlier read, but I contend that this was done by the guile of the booksellers, not of Rufinus. For if this were the genuine reading, all manuscript codices, even those which acknowledge Rufinus as the author of this interpretation, would preserve the name of Jerome. But our codices restore Rufinus everywhere in place of Jerome, and they most certainly demonstrate that it is to be read thus, by both the books of Origen and the books of Clement mentioned there, which are agreed to have been translated by Rufinus. Finally, if Rufinus had so openly and fraudulently designated Jerome as the interpreter of this work, would Jerome have been ignorant of this deception? Would he not have cried out? Whence does it happen, therefore, that this holy doctor, who did not forgive Rufinus even the slightest thing, nonetheless nowhere denounces this fraud? I would therefore not wish to accuse Rufinus of this crafty art, which neither Jerome himself anywhere argues, nor any other besides Huet: and accordingly, I adhere more to the opinion of Erasmus, who, accusing the booksellers of the knavery, thinks that the name of Jerome was used as a pretext by them for attracting buyers. (85) A brief fragment of the third book on the Epistle to the Colossians, and other fragments of the book on the Epistle to Titus

Pamphilus included in his Apology. Jerome, in his Epistle to Minervius and Alexander, brings forward a fragment from the third volume of Origen’s *Commentaries* ^A on the first Epistle to the Thessalonians. Eusebius, in book VI of his *Ecclesiastical History*, chapter 25, wrote down a few things from the homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Pamphilus likewise brings forward some things in various places in his Apology.

Furthermore, the *catenæ* provide many fragments from various of Origen’s lucubrations; but they neither indicate the places from which these were taken, nor is the reliability of the *catenæ* certain, as we have warned elsewhere. For this reason, we have determined that no account should be taken here of the fragments that have originated from them. From these, however, many *exegeses* of Origen on various books of Scripture have been excerpted, which are commemorated in the catalogs of the Vatican library.

SECTION IV. OF ORIGEN'S TETRAPLA, HEXAPLA, AND OCTAPLA.

^A I. The opinion of Epiphanius regarding Origen's Tetrapla, Hexapla, and Octapla is set forth. II. The position of the two Hebrew columns in the Hexapla and Octapla is asserted. III. The question is asked why, in the Tetrapla, Hexapla, and Octapla, Symmachus preceded Theodotion. IV. The intention of Eusebius regarding the Tetrapla, Hexapla, and Octapla is investigated. V. The Hexapla and Octapla were one and the same work. VI. From the above, the errors of many recent authors are refuted. VII. Origen distinguished the edition of the Septuagint interpreters, which was in the Hexapla, with asterisks, obeli, lemnisci, and hypolemnisci. Furthermore, he added to it the scholia that were in the Tetrapla. VIII. Eusebius and Pamphilus emended the edition of the LXX that was interwoven into the Hexapla, and were the first to publish it separately. Hence, at that time, there was a threefold edition of the LXX: the Origenian, the Eusebian, and the *koinē*. IX. Around the same time, Lucian repaired the *koinē*, and Hesychius did likewise. Hence, there is a fivefold edition of the LXX. X. Lucian and Hesychius also distinguished their own editions with asterisks and obeli; as did Jerome with his own interpretation of the LXX. All current editions of the LXX are corrupted and vitiated.

I. Let us now discuss the Tetrapla, Hexapla, and Octapla, the most noble and ^B lauded of all Origenian works: the method of which Epiphanius has handed down most accurately in his book *On Weights and Measures*. Adamantius [Origen] had already collected beforehand the interpretations of Scripture elaborated by the Seventy Elders, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus. Moreover, he conveniently obtained a fifth and a sixth edition, which Eusebius writes he had investigated and brought to light, hidden as they were in certain corners. Athanasius, however, in his *Synopsis* (86) teaches that, during the reign of Caracalla, the fifth [edition] was discovered in jars at Jericho by a certain studious person from among those who were in Jerusalem; and the sixth was discovered under Alexander Mammaeae at Nicopolis, near Actium, by a certain disciple of Origen. Epiphanius has nearly the same account in his book *On Weights and Measures*, chapter 18, and adds that the former was unearthed from darkness in the seventh year of Caracalla. Cedrenus is mistaken, who narrates that both were found at Jericho.

From these six interpretations, and from a Hebrew exemplar, Origen harmonized his Tetrapla, Hexapla, and Octapla. (87) And although the Tetrapla, which ^C were later in time than the Hexapla, consisted of four editions arranged by columns—first Aquila, second Symmachus, third the Seventy Elders, and the last being Theodotion—he placed the interpretation of the LXX in the third position, so that the others could be more easily tested and examined by it, which he considered to be the most accurate of all. These very four interpretations, placed in the same order, were contained in the Hexapla along with a Hebrew exemplar, written in Hebrew letters, and [another column] containing the exact [Hebrew text] in Greek characters. The first [column] presented was the Hebrew column, depicted in Hebrew; but that which exhibited the Hebrew context written in Greek letters was placed next to the interpretation of Aquila. Moreover, after those six columns, the Jericho edition was appended, which Origen called the fifth and marked with the note of the numeral five (ε'), and after the Jericho one was the Nicopolitan edition, which he called the sixth and marked with the *episēmos* (ϛ'); thus the Octapla existed. Epiphanius says as much at the cited place; and so that these things may be clearer, we shall depict the first word of Genesis, just as it was arranged in the Tetrapla, Hexapla, and Octapla.

(86) *During the reign of Caracalla, in jars at Jericho...* Again, at the beginning, he noted that it [the fifth edition] was discovered at Jericho in a jar during the times of Antoninus (Caracalla), who was the son of Severus. (87) *And although the Tetrapla, which were later in time than the Hexapla...* That the Tetrapla were later than the Hexapla, the D. Bernard de Montfaucon proves in his *Preliminaries to the Hexapla of Origen*, chapter 1, number 3, page 9. (Of this *Patrologia*, vol. XV.)

DANIEL HUET'S DIAGRAM OF THE TETRAPLA, HEXAPLA, AND OCTAPLA

| Exemplar Hebraicum | Exemplar Hebraicum | Aquila | Symmachus | Septuaginta | Theodotion | Quinta editio | Sexta editio | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Hebraicis litteris | Græcis elementis | | | | | Hierichuntina | Nicopolitana | | כראשית | βερεσίθ | ἐν κεφαλαίω | ἐν ἀρχῇ | ἐν ἀρχῇ | ἐν ἀρχῇ | Desideratur | Desideratur | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |

[Note: 1-4 = TETRAPLA; 1-6 = HEXAPLA; 1-8 = OCTAPLA]

^A ...and the weights and measures, chapter 19, except for what concerns the arrangement of the Hebrew columns; for from certain other passages of Epiphanius, one might judge that the Hebrew context marked in Greek characters was in the first place. Such is that from *On Weights and Measures*, chapter 3: "Whence he first zealously endeavored to gather into one the six interpretations—Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy-two, and Theodotion, and the fifth and sixth editions—with the addition of each Hebrew word in its own proper elements; and from the opposite side, using a second page for a parallel arrangement—composing the Hebrew indeed in its word, but the Greek in its writing (for so I read: *[in Greek script]*), he made another composition."

"Whence he first strove to join together in one the six interpretations—Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy-two, and Theodotion; the fifth edition also and the sixth; with the addition of each of the Hebrew words described in its own proper elements; and from the other side opposite, using a second column to depict the context, Hebrew indeed in its diction, but Greek in its letters, he worked out yet another context."

These things could be explained thus: that the six Greek interpretations held the middle place between the Hebrew-written Hebrew, which was placed on one side, and the Greek-written Hebrew, which was located on the other side. But the words of the same Epiphanius, which we shall soon bring forth from the book *On Weights and Measures*, chapter 19, reject this explanation, where he acknowledges that each Hebrew context was noted in the first place.

^B It seems, therefore, that Epiphanius rather intended to say that to one side of the Hebrew column, written out in Hebrew characters, the six Greek interpretations were noted; but to the other side, the Hebrew context written in Greek. One might say that these words from the book *On Weights and Measures*, chapter 7, signify this same thing: "For having put together on one page the six interpretations and the Hebrew writing in Hebrew elements and the very words themselves, he added another page, placed opposite, written in Greek letters indeed, but with Hebrew words," etc.

"For he added the six interpretations and the Holy Scripture, written in Hebrew elements and words in one page, and added another page placed opposite, written in Greek letters indeed, but with Hebrew words." But if he had joined together the six interpretations and the Hebrew exemplar written in Hebrew at the same time, it follows that in the outermost column the Hebrew context written in Greek character was certainly attached.

^C But that the Hebrew, depicted in Hebrew, was undoubtedly prefixed, and then the same, written in Greek, was annexed, and the six interpretations were then placed underneath, is manifest from those things which are read in Jerome, *Epistle* 111, 9: "Whence it was our care to amend all the books of the Old Law, which the learned man Adamantius had arranged in the Hexapla (so read, not 'exempla,' as is commonly done), copied from the Cæsarean library from the very authentic manuscripts themselves, in which the Hebrew words themselves are described in their own proper characters, and expressed in the neighboring track in Greek letters: Aquila also, and Symmachus, and the LXX, and Theodotion hold their own order." He reviewed all the proposed columns in their order.

Even more clearly, Rufinus, *Ecclesiastical History*, book 5, chapter 16: "Origen was the first to compose those most famous codices in which he described the work of each interpreter separately, column by column, in such a way that first of all he placed the Hebrew words themselves in Hebrew letters; in the second place, he described the Hebrew words in Greek letters in order, side by side; he added the third edition of Aquila; the fourth of Symmachus; the fifth of the Seventy Interpreters, which is ours; he placed the sixth of Theodotion; and because of such a composition, he called the exemplars themselves *Hexapla*."

From these it is also clear that the Hebrew contexts were prefixed to the Greek editions, not subjoined; and not one prefixed and another subjoined, as those words of Epiphanius seem to indicate: "side by side, opposite." This is also clear from these words of the same, from the book *On Weights and Measures*, chapter 19: "Some, therefore, as I said, meeting with these books and finding the two Hebrew [versions] placed in the first place, and after these that of Aquila arranged..." etc.

"Some therefore, as I said, reading these books and finding the two Hebrew editions situated in the first place; but after them that of Aquila arranged..."

^A in the second; Symmachus in the third; the Seventy, as they are called, in the fourth; and Theodotion in the fifth place." Lest anyone think the word *selis* is used here for what we call a page; for it signifies a column, so that one page might contain many columns.

Moreover, this order which we have established is clearly supported by the most ancient Barberini codex of the twelve prophets, which, at Hosea 11:1, has a brief specimen of the Hexapla in the margin, and which Walton referred to in its proper place in the sixth volume of the Polyglot Bibles. Indeed, the Hebrew text written in Hebrew is missing; but in the first place are situated the Hebrew texts conceived in Greek characters; next beneath these is Aquila; after him Symmachus; whom the LXX follow; and the fifth column is claimed by Theodotion.

It is worth inquiring whether Origen preferred the more recent Symmachus to the older Theodotion in the arrangement of the interpretations. Epiphanius would have thought he could easily solve this knot, for he opined in his book *De Ponderibus et Mensuris*, ch. 16, 17, that Symmachus was older than Theodotion. Therefore he would have replied that those three were placed according to the order of their own age. ^B But I cannot depart from the received opinion, which places Theodotion earlier in age than Symmachus: for what can be countered against these words of Jerome’s Preface to the Gospels: "I do not seek what Aquila or Symmachus think, [but] why Theodotion walks as a middle path between the new and the old"? By these words, not only the temperate style of interpreting, which Theodotion held, but also his middle age seems to be signified between Aquila and Symmachus.

I think, therefore, that Origen had another reason for arranging those interpretations in that way. Aquila adhered most to the Hebrew, and for that reason he joined him next to them. ^C Symmachus departed more from them than the rest, inasmuch as he was more retentive of the sense than of the words. So that the truth might be elicited from the conflict between Aquila and Symmachus, who had gone into different paths and had pursued extremes, both were joined together for the best of reasons. Subjected to them, then, were the LXX interpreters and Theodotion, who had held the middle path. "As if," says Jerome in his Preface to Job, "among the Greeks, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion did not express either word-for-word, or meaning-for-meaning, or a kind of translation mixed from both and temperate in the middle." But the order of studies demands that, when we are about to discuss an intricate and uncertain question, we should first start with the extremes and the opposites, and advance to the middle. And Origen observed this method in arranging the interpretations.

IV. Now, let us inquire whether the description we have given of the Tetrapla, Hexapla, and Octapla agrees with the arguments of Eusebius. He writes in *History*, book VI, chapter 46, that Origen had collected the original Scriptures used among the Jews, inscribed in the very letters of the Hebrews. A learned man understood these words differently and translated them thus: "that he had gathered for himself the Scriptures which are said to be written among the Jews in original Hebrew letters." ^D He asserted that the original Hebrew letters were the very elements of the Samaritans; therefore he wants Eusebius to mean that Origen used the Samaritan codices of Scripture and inserted them into the Hexapla. But whoever pays closer attention to this place in Eusebius will elicit quite a different meaning. *ta para* signifies nothing other than "the original Scriptures which are circulated among the Jews"; not, however, "which are said to be the original Scriptures among the Jews"; for if Eusebius had intended that, he would have said, why did he use *para* rather than *apud* regarding the Greeks, the Hellenists, and others who confessed along with the Jews that the Samaritan letters were older than the Jewish ones? Finally, who would think that Origen inserted Samaritan exemplars into the Hexapla—arranged for the illustration of Scripture and for public utility—while neglecting the Jewish ones, when that Samaritan nation was confined to narrow borders, while the Jewish one reached much further? But if anyone says that both exemplars claimed a place for themselves in the Hexapla, then they should not be called Hexapla or Octapla, but Heptapla or Enneapla. It is certainly certain that in this chapter Eusebius contrasted Hebrew exemplars with Greek interpretations, whose way he deservedly called *prototypous graphas* (original writings) in respect to the Hebrew truth. In fact, a huge stupor would have occupied Epiphanius, Jerome, and Rufinus if, while accurately counting the editions and columns of the Hexapla, they had passed over the Samaritan one. It is therefore not true that the testimonies of the Samaritan codex which occur in the writings of the Fathers were taken from Origen’s Hexapla; but it is most certain that the Fathers used Samaritan and Syriac readings, adds D. Bernard de Montfaucon in the *Preliminaries to the Hexapla*, ch. 1, no. 8: "they are very often observed in the margins of the most ancient exemplars which exhibit fragments of the Hexapla; the Syriac indeed in most books of Scripture; the Samaritan, however, only in the Pentateuch, where you may not infrequently notice the interpretations of the Samaritan, sometimes alone, more often compared with the readings of other interpreters. Since, however, those Samaritan readings occur not only in ancient codices but also in the Fathers of the fourth, fifth, and following centuries, it seems quite probable that Origen himself [placed] those readings of the Samaritan in the margin of the He...

^A ...and the sixth, and the seventh, and having set them forth, he marks them. (92) Nor is that which underlies the text of Eusebius without difficulty, namely that Origen added a seventh to the other interpretations, which was found in a jar during the reign of Caracalla. Zonaras holds the same view. It is certain from the authority of Athanasius and Epiphanius that the fifth edition was found in a jar during the reign of Caracalla. Epiphanius adds that other books were found at the same time, both Hebrew and Greek. But if we say that this was that seventh edition of the Psalms, then Eusebius will be reconciled with the others. Some think that this seventh edition is the same as the Lucianic one, on the argument that Athanasius, or the author of the *Synopsis*, lists the Lucianic edition in the seventh place and calls it the seventh; but they are much mistaken, for the Lucianic edition itself was *koinē*, corrected and emended after the time of Origen by Lucian, as Jerome relates at the beginning of his letter to Sunius and Fretella. (93) But the seventh edition, which is woven into the Hexapla, Eusebius asserts in *Hist.*, lib. vi, cap. 16, was found at Jericho during the reign of Caracalla; and this certainly cannot be said of the *koinē*. Therefore those Hexapla of Origen, or Octapla, which in other books of Scripture consisted of six Greek editions, contained seven in the Book of Psalms. Thus Eusebius writes shortly after: "Having gathered all these into one, and having distinguished them into cola, and having placed them side-by-side with the very notation of the Hebrew, he has left us the copies of what are called the Hexapla." The sense is: "Having joined all these into one, and having distinguished them by cola, and having placed them opposite one another, along with the addition of the Hebrew context, he left us copies of the Hexapla." We said that notation means ^B to add some writing to another.

The same must be said of the Syriac version, the interpretations of which are found here and there in Genesis and Exodus, likewise in the Psalms, in Jeremiah, in the Lamentations; also in Ezekiel, Daniel, and Hosea. The Syriac readings are cited by Eusebius of Caesarea, more frequently by Diodorus of Tarsus; by Eusebius of Emesa, Jerome, Theodoret, and others. And it should be noted that they, and especially Diodorus, often join the Syrian with the Hebrew in this way: "The Syrian and the Hebrew," or "the Hebrew and the Syrian," namely when the interpretations of both agree, which often happens. These readings, just like the Samaritan ones, could also have been placed in the margins of the Hexapla by Origen, the most diligent collector of different versions: although this is by no means certain. For we say this only by guessing; for until some small part of the Hexapla, as they were written at the beginning, emerges from the darkness, we will not be able to ferret out full and perfect knowledge of them. ^C

Zonaras indeed in his *Hist. Imper.* of Severus, and Nicephorus lib. v, cap. 11, say that the seventh edition was found at Jericho; but Eusebius does not state this openly. For whatever Huet says, *ἐπὶ μιᾶς αὖθις σεσημείωται· ὡς ἐν Ἱεριχοῖ εὑρημένη ἐν πίθῳ κατὰ τοὺς χρόνους Ἀντωνίνου τοῦ υἱοῦ Σεβήρου*, signifies nothing other than "Again, at the beginning of one, he noted that it had been found at Jericho in a jar, in the time of Antoninus who was the son of Severus," as Valesius correctly translated; and therefore it can be referred as much to the fifth or sixth as to the seventh edition. But since it is certain from the authority of Athanasius and Epiphanius that the fifth edition was found at Jericho during the reign of Caracalla, what Eusebius says here would seem to be understood more of the fifth than of the seventh edition. I would not want to deny, however, that this seventh could have been found at Jericho as well. Be that as it may, let Zonaras and Nicephorus be reconciled with Epiphanius, who says that other books were found together with the fifth edition, both Hebrew and Greek. I only contend that Eusebius does not assert that the seventh edition was found at Jericho during the reign of Caracalla. ^D (95) As for the seventh edition, etc. We have already demonstrated above that Eusebius does not in the least assert that the seventh edition was found at Jericho during the reign of Caracalla, but that this place in his history can be referred as much to the fifth or sixth as to the seventh edition, and accordingly would seem to be understood more of the fifth.

^A And so, *semeiōsis*, is the addition of some writing to another. Thus, *Hebraiōn sēmeiōsis* is the placing of the Hebrew copy alongside the other interpretations. Some have distorted these things beyond their legitimate meaning.

(94) After the Hexapla, Adamantius constructed the Tetrapla from four editions—those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy Interpreters, and Theodotion—combined and placed opposite one another, as Eusebius relates, and after him, Zonaras. For these words of Eusebius mean nothing else, *idios tēn Akylou, kai Symmachou, kai Theodotiōnos ekdosin hama tē tōn Hebdomekonta en tais Tetraplois epikataskeuasas*, than that after the Hexapla, he compiled the Tetrapla separately out of these four editions; not, however, that in the Tetrapla the individual interpretations were arranged separately and segregated, so that each occupied its own page: ^B for in the same pages they were all described and placed opposite to one another, or, as Epiphanius says, *syntetagmenai*, who also adds that if the Hebrew *Dipla* had been joined to the Greek Tetrapla, the Hexapla would have been produced; which certainly could not have happened unless the Greek editions of the Tetrapla had been placed opposite one another on the same pages, just as in the Hexapla.

V. Our observation requires that we note what the same Eusebius says: that Origen left us the Hexapla with six Greek editions collected into one, and with the Hebrew context added; but that the Hexapla of the Psalms consisted of seven Greek editions. The Roman Scholia on the edition of the 70 agree with Eusebius, in which the Hexapla are sometimes cited regarding the Psalms. Epiphanius, *Haer*. LXIV, cap. 3, also agrees, and after him Zonaras, who distinctly declare that the Hexapla ^C consisted of six Greek editions, with a double description of the Hebrew text. It may therefore be asked why they are called *Hexapla*, since they had eight columns. For, I do not believe—even if someone agrees with Erasmus and the Magdeburg Centuriators—that *Hexapla* did not derive its name from the number *hexa*, but from the verb *exaplō*, which means "I unfold"; for from where would the terms *Tetrapla* or *Octapla* be derived? Some respond that the *Hexapla* were so named, not from the number of columns, but from the number of interpretations, totaling six, without account of the Hebrew context, which ought not to be numbered among the interpretations. The previously cited passage of Epiphanius seems to favor this opinion, when he says: *Hōste einai tēn Pasan Palaian Diathēkē di' Hexaplōn kaloumenōn, kai dia tōn dyo Hebraikōn rhēmatōn*. So that the whole Old Testament was ^D comprised in those Hexapla, and a double Hebrew context: where he clearly distinguishes the Greek Hexapla from the Hebrew *Dipla*. The *Hexapla*, therefore, they say, were named after the six interpretations, just as the *Tetrapla* from the four, and therefore those who assign to the Hexapla the common four Greek editions and two Hebrew copies are mistaken. If that were the case, Epiphanius would openly contradict himself in his book *De Ponderibus et Mensuris*, cap. 19, where he discourses thus: *Tetrapla gar eisi ta Hellēnika, hotan hai tou Akyla, kai Symmachou, kai tōn Hebdomekonta dyo, kai Theodotiōnos hermēneiai syntetagmenai ōsi; tōn tessarōn de toutōn selidōn tais dusi tais Hebraikais synaphtheisōn, Hexapla kaleitai; ean de kai pemptē, kai hē hektē hermēneia synaphthōsin, akolouthōs toutois Octapla kaleitai*. For the *Tetrapla* consist of the Greeks, when the interpretations of Aquila, and Symmachus, and the Seventy, and Theodotion are combined: which four columns, if two Hebrew ones are added, are called *Hexapla*; but if the fifth and sixth interpretation are added, it follows that they are named *Octapla*. Rufinus agrees with this in his translation of the sixteenth chapter of the sixth book of Eusebius' *History*. Nicetas, however, in *Thesaurus Orthodoxae Fidei*, lib. IV, *haer*. 31, goes a different way and maintains that the Hebrew *Dipla*, because they contained absolutely the same thing, were held as one, and that a bipartite column, and that these, with the *O*, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and the fifth edition, constituted six columns, and that they were therefore called *Hexapla*.

Between these opposite and conflicting opinions, I maintain a new and, if I am not mistaken, the most true one: that the fifth and sixth edition did not contain all the books of Scripture. They contained only some of them, especially those which consist of verses among the Hebrews. Here is Jerome for you on the seventh edition, and the investigation of whether the sixth, the fifth, or the seventh always followed the other. It is certain that those three superadded editions were placed alongside the others in the book of Psalms and in the twelve Minor Prophets. In the Psalms, indeed, the frequency of those fragments which are observed everywhere suggests that those three editions were joined throughout the whole book; in the twelve Minor Prophets, however, witness Jerome, besides Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, Theodotion, and the fifth, two other editions were added, namely the sixth and the seventh, the fragments of which we present—the fifth's being very frequent, the others' more rare. We represent the Canticle of Habakkuk entire, according to one of these latter editions, which, since it can be neither the fifth nor the sixth, it follows that it was taken from the seventh. In the Song of Songs, only the fifth and sixth readings are brought forward; but there is not even a trace of the seventh; whence perhaps a suspicion might arise that the seventh was not present here with the others, which, however, can only be affirmed rashly. For it is possible that, even though it was present, it might have been neglected by collectors. In

^A the whole mass of the Bible, no consistent method was observed, and therefore they were not called by anyone the Enneapla. Origen also asserts that the Lamentations of Jeremiah were absent from the translations of Aquila and Theodotion. Therefore that book was the Tetrapla, but the whole body of the Scriptures should not have been called the Tetrapla on account of the smallness of that one book. Some people called those volumes the Hexapla, and perhaps they were even inscribed as the Hexapla by Origen, because the greater part of them consisted of four editions—those of Aquila, Symmachus, the LXX, and Theodotion—and in addition to these, the Hebrew transcripts; but others, understanding that there were six Greek editions besides the Hebrew copies in those volumes, judged that they should be called the Octapla. Wherefore no one ought to wonder why Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Zonaras said that six Greek editions and two Hebrew texts were woven together in the Hexapla; for those six editions were woven in only in certain books, not in all; for although the seven editions were likewise woven into the Psalms, Eusebius nevertheless called that book the Hexapla of the Psalms. It is manifest, therefore, that the Hexapla and the Octapla were one and the same work; but that it held different names due to the different parts of which it consisted. ^B (97) The Tetrapla, however, was a private and separate work from those three editions added by Origen after the Hexapla, for they were metrical books; namely Job, Psalms, and Proverbs, and yet it has been proven above by the most open examples that those editions were present in the Pentateuch, in the minor prophets, and in the Canticles; but among the metrical books, only the Psalms display the remains—and indeed, very frequent ones—of those three editions; whereas Job and Proverbs, of which a very large forest of Hexaplar readings remains, do not have even a trace of those three editions. Having observed these things, no one will deny that it is very difficult to reconcile the examples brought forward above with the words of Jerome. But since it is altogether certain that Origen did not add those three interpretations in all the books of Scripture, it can be asked whether those three interpreters translated the whole of Scripture, or only those parts which were employed by Origen in the Octapla. Often, since those two, or at least the former two ^C, translated the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and according to Jerome, Job and Proverbs; and since they likewise translated the Canticles and the minor prophets, I do not see what the cause could have been why they omitted the middle books, and what is more urgent, why, since those three interpreters are mostly found in the same books of Scripture—though they undoubtedly wrote in various places—they translated the same books from the Hebrew and omitted the same. This certainly seems to have been able to happen neither by chance nor by design. If you answer, why then did Origen append those editions in certain books, and not in all, I would reply: why did he place only Symmachus with the edition of the LXX in the Threni or Lamentations of Jeremiah, even though Aquila and Theodotio had adorned the translation of this book just as they had the others, as we prove in the Monitor there? From this it is clearly evident that it cannot be concluded from this omission by Origen that those editions were not complete, but only comprised a few books of the Hebrew Scripture. ^D For the rest, we leave a matter not completely explored to the judgment of the reader.

(96) That the seventh edition pertained to one Psalter. The seventh edition also pertained to the twelve minor prophets, as we shall show presently from the work of D. B. de Montfaucon. (97) The Tetrapla, however, was a private and separate work, etc. See below, chapter 4, number 2, where this opinion of Huet is refuted.

VI. From these points it is easy to understand how much the reasoning has eluded Scaliger, who, in the delineation of the Hexapla or Octapla which Heinsius included in his *Sacred Exercises*, placed both Hebrew texts after the six Greek translations at the end. This is provided that this delineation truly belonged to Scaliger, a fact which the recently published *Scaligeriana* makes doubtful to me, in which, while numbering the ^A columns of the Octapla, he lists the two Hebrew texts in the first places. Nor is Heinsius more successful when, in describing the columns of the Hexapla in the same place, he attributes the third to the Septuagint, the fourth to Aquila, the fifth to Theodotion, and the sixth to Symmachus. Nor is the authority of Nicetas Acominatus sufficient to excuse them, as he was involved in a similar error, asserting that the *tois O'* (the Seventy) were subjected to the Hebrew columns, then Aquila, then Symmachus, and from there Theodotion, and finally the fifth translation. Baronius also errs, considering the Greek editions in the Tetrapla to have been arranged differently than in the Hexapla, and assigning the first place in those to the *tois O'*, and the third in these. Philoponus seems to have led them into this deception, who, in the book *De opificio mundi* (*Peri kosmopolias*), bringing forward passages of the sacred text from these four translations, places the *tois O'* in the first position; he places Aquila after these, then Theodotion, and to that Symmachus. For Philoponus did not intend to represent the Tetrapla; rather, in arranging the translations, he looked to the age of the interpreters: since it is clearly evident ^B otherwise from Epiphanius, *De pond.*, ch. 19, that Theodotion held the final column in both the Tetrapla and the Hexapla, Symmachus the second, and that the Septuagint went between them. "For they are Tetrapla," he says, "the Greek ones, when the interpretations of Aquila, and of Symmachus, and of the Seventy-two, and of Theodotion are arranged together. Then the Greek Tetrapla arise, when the interpretations of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy Ancients, and Theodotion have been composed into one." Then he adds, if the Hebrew *Dipla* are placed in front, the Hexapla are formed. That those passages brought forward by Philoponus from the four Greek translations cannot be taken as a specimen of the Origenian Tetrapla can also be proven from Philastrius, who, in *haer.* 137, asserts that the versions of Aquila were never placed in the middle of the books, but were accustomed to be assigned to the right or left. Aquila's interpretation was placed in the first position in the Tetrapla; which position, in a different regard, was either to the right, or to the left from the perspective of the readers, ^C on the right side of the book itself. Thus others wrote that it was situated in the right place, others in the left. When Philastrius read this, he thought Aquila had held the right position in some copies of the Tetrapla, in others the left; but he was hallucinating, for the column was always assigned to this, which was placed on the left side of the readers. As it is, it is certain that it was never in the middle: for it would have been, if the Septuagint had occupied the first column, and Aquila the second. Salmasius is also refuted by the aforementioned, who writes these things in his *Commentary on Hellenistic Language*: "But Jerome nowhere makes mention of the fifth and sixth editions; and when he calls them Hexapla, he understands the Greek Tetrapla, together with the Hebrew *Dipla* which made up the Hexapla." And shortly after, having brought forward certain passages of Jerome in which only four Greek editions are mentioned, he adds: "It is apparent from these that Origen compared only four editions among themselves, and composed them in the Tetrapla, which, with the two Hebrew texts, constructed those Hexapla dedicated to the Churches." Certainly, in the words of Jerome brought forward by me above from the *Commentaries on the Epistle to Titus*, mention is made of the fifth and sixth edition, and very often in the *Epistle to Sunia and Fretella*, and other places. However, those are called Hexapla, not which had only the Greek Tetrapla, with the Hebrew *Dipla*, but which, in addition, had the fifth, and sixth, and seventh edition ^D joined to it, not everywhere, but only in some books. A little later Salmasius says: "But also the ancient Fathers, from whom the chains, as they are called, are read on various books of the Old Testament, never cite the varieties of translations from the fifth and sixth edition, but from those four only which Origen had composed together alternately, from which he had made the Tetrapla, and with the double Hebrew *Exapla*." Consult the *Notes* of Flaminius Nobilius, and you will discover how often the ancient Fathers cite the variant readings of the fifth and sixth edition. It also appears to be false what some moderns claim, that Origen never composed an Octapla, but only Hexapla and Tetrapla. Origen certainly composed the Octapla just as the Hexapla, since we have demonstrated that the Hexaplum and Octaplum were the same work. The new opinion of Ussher of Armagh is also refuted from the preceding, asserting that not only a pure and emended translation of the *tois O'* was had in the Hexapla, but also a common one, which also seems to have persuaded Bellarmine. The multiple hallucination of the Magdeburg Centuriators is also detected in these words of theirs: "First, to the version of the Seventy, which then seems to have been the most vulgar, he added the editions of Aquila of Pontus, Theodotion, and Symmachus, found by him, hidden for a long time: one indeed at Nicopolis on the Actiac shore; another in other places, just as he himself writes: Eusebius indicated this in book vi, ch. 17. To these he afterwards added..."

the fifth, sixth, and seventh, which they called editions: one of which he indicated had been found at Jericho, in a jar, during the time of Antoninus Caracalla. ^A For, to say nothing of the interpretation of Symmachus, it can in no way be proven that the editions of Aquila and Theodotion were discovered by Origen; nor is it true that any of those three were found at Nicopolis, but the sixth was. Furthermore, Sixtus Senensis erred most foully in books iv and vi of his *Bibliotheca*, for he confuses and mixes up the Tetrapla with the Hexapla, and distinguishes the Hexapla from the Octapla—and even persuaded a certain great man to do likewise; and he asserted that the seventh edition was never in the Hexapla nor in the Octapla; whereas Eusebius contradicts this in distinct terms in book vi of his *History*, ch. 16.

^B VII. The Hexapla furthermore exhibited another monument to the diligence of Origen. He had noted that the Seventy had neglected to translate certain words which were in the Hebrew, but had inserted some of their own, and that various copies of them were in circulation which differed among themselves, and which were corrupted either by the laziness of the librarians, or by the rashness of critics; and that from this the Jews seized an opportunity for slander, claiming that an interpretation of this kind, which did not agree in all things with the Hebrew truth, was customarily read in the churches of the Christians. Let his fifteenth tome on Matthew be consulted, and his *Epistle to Africanus*, where he discourses on the corruption of the copies of the LXX and the slanders of the Jews. In order to counteract these inconveniences, he amended the interpretation of the Seventy Elders by the authority of the best copies, and especially that which was kept in the Serapeum, which some of the ancients affirm was the very autograph of the LXX. Additionally, wherever something was missing, he inserted it with asterisks alongside the neglected words; but those things which they had added contrary to the authority of the Hebrew, he marked with a prefixed obelus. "These signs," says Jerome, ^C are found in the Epistles to Sunnia and Fretela, and in the poems of the Greeks, from whence they were also translated by Origen. What Epiphanius adds about the lemniscus in his book *De ponderibus et mensuris*, ch. 17, is very corrupt and confused; from which you can scarcely extract anything certain. However, he seems to wish to suggest that Origen inscribed lemnisci whenever any two or more pairs of interpreters (for he assumes that these were organized into thirty-six pairs, and that they almost all agreed when they translated the Holy Scripture in Egypt) had used some word different from the word (even if of the same meaning) that the rest of the interpreters had used (a fact which Hesychius in Psalm 12:4 and Isidore in *Origines*, book 1, ch. 20, almost state); but that he noted hypolemnisci if at any time a single pair had used a word of this sort. By these {signs} it is signified that Origen had brought together 36 copies of the interpretations at once. Andreas Masius dissents from Epiphanius in his *Preface to the Greek edition of Joshua*, and in his notes he rejects those pairs of interpreters as old wives' tales, and thinks that the lemniscus and hypolemniscus were appended when several or fewer codices asserted certain varying readings. Joannes Curterius presents another use of those marks in his *Preface to Procopius' Commentary on Isaiah*, and does not think the lemniscus signifies anything other than that some interpreters agree in words but differ in sense; and the hypolemniscus, that they differ in both sense and words. (98) But to me the opinion of Masius seems more plausible. Epiphanius notes the forms of these asterisks, obeli, lemnisci, and hypolemnisci, and the meanings of their names; (99) and he is much mistaken when he derives the word *lemniscus* from the Greek *limnazein*. For it is clear that it is a Syriac word. Epiphanius pursues the rest in the same book, but he does not teach whether the interpretation of the LXX which is interwoven in the Hexapla was marked with such signs: but this is clear ^D that not so does D. Bernard de Montfaucon appear to think, who in his *Preliminaries to the Hexapla of Origen*, ch. 4, no. 4, thus opens his own opinion: "I think that just as the asterisk was added to note omissions that were being inserted, and the obelus to those things which were redundant, to be 'jugulated,' as Jerome says, so the lemniscus was used where the Seventy Interpreters expressed the Hebrew reading, indeed, but not so accurately and distinctly: which was the reason that, while that was left in the text, another which seemed better, sought from other interpreters, was subjoined to it. For it should not be thought that Origen—a very accurate man, who so diligently marked even the slightest things that were added with an asterisk and what was to be done away with an obelus—would not have placed a mark in those truly frequent places where, while leaving the former reading, he nevertheless added a new one taken from one of the interpreters." Then, having brought forward an example by which he confirms his opinion, the learned man proceeds thus: "I would believe that the hypolemniscus was then appended when that noted reading was only that of the Seventy Interpreters, which was indicated by a single dot placed beneath the line; but the lemniscus with two dots, when it was not only that of the Seventy Interpreters, but also that of Theodotion."

(99) He is much mistaken, when he derives the word *lemniscus*, etc. Concerning the etymon of this name, D. de Montfaucon in the same place as above, I will express in a few words what the most erudite B. Moneta thinks, as I have received it from him. Athenaeus, page 200 of the Lugdunum edition, in a long passage of Callixenus of Rhodes, has the word *lemniskos*, which is corrected in the margin thus: *liniskois*. And Eustathius reads it thus in verse 570 of the eighteenth book of the *Iliad*, where he refers to this very passage brought forth by Athenaeus. Isaac Casaubon, however, in his *Notes*, says that one should read either *lemniskois* or *liniskois*, but he does not dare to prefer either reading to the other. But it is certain that the word *lemniskos*, which initially signified a narrow band, was derived from the word *lenos*, wool, because from its very origin bands of this kind were woolen. Hence, however, the Syracusans, by a singular formation, put an *m* in place of *leniskos* and made *lemniskos*: which was the cause that this word was considered to be Syracusan. Hesychius {says}: "The Syracusans {call} the narrow bands *lemniskoi*," understand *call them*. Hence the word was used to signify other things; namely, for the bands with which crowns were encircled; for a twisted filament to be inserted into wounds; and finally for a mark of books, concerning which Isidore says: *Limniscus*, that is, a small line lying between twin dots, is appended in those places which the interpreters of Holy Scripture have translated with the same sense, but in different terms. With this triple signification the word *lemniskos* was used, namely, to signify things similar to narrow bands, which the Syracusans called *lemniskoi*. Hence it is called

^A from the Roman Scholia of the LXX on 1 Reg. xiv, 4: "Rather, these things have been marked with an asterisk in the Hexapla, as having been added from Theodotion." Truly, these things are marked in the Hexapla with an asterisk, as being things which were added from Theodotion; and from those words of Jerome, which Rufinus repeats in *Invect.* II: "But Origen also made asterisks, taking from the translation of Theodotion, so that he might compose the volumes which are called the Hexapla." Then he adds: "Because frequently, if a dispute occurred, they would lie that things in our Scriptures had been changed, or were missing, or abounded, Origen wished to show our people what the reading of the Scriptures was among the Jews, and in his own pages or columns he wrote out the editions of each of them; and he indicated the things which among them had been added or removed, by certain signs added to the heads of the verses; and in another’s work, not in his own, he fixed his notes; so that we might know not what seemed to be missing or abounding to us, but to the Jews who contend against us." And again from those words of Jerome in the *Preface to the Paralipomena* to Chromatius: "And certainly Origen not only composed the Hexapla of four editions, writing out each word in a row, so that one who disagrees might immediately be refuted by the others agreeing among themselves; but, which is of greater audacity, in the edition of the Septuagint he mixed the edition of Theodotion, designating with asterisks those things which had been lacking, and with virgulae [obeli] those which seemed to have been added as superfluous." But it is worth the effort to hear Origen himself; thus he says in *Comm. in Matth., tom. xv, num. 14, p. 671*: "But now, clearly, there has been a great difference among the copies, whether from the carelessness of certain scribes, or from the evil audacity of some in correcting what was written, or also from those who add or remove things in the correction according to what seems good to themselves. ^B We have found how to heal the difference of the copies of the Old Testament, God granting, by using the other editions as a criterion; for regarding the things which were in doubt among the Seventy because of the difference of the copies, having made the judgment from the other editions, we have preserved what is in harmony with those, and indeed we have marked with obeli the things that were in the Hebrew text, not daring to remove them entirely; but some things we have added with asterisks, so that it might be clear that the things which were not in the Seventy, we have added in harmony with the Hebrew from the other editions." From this passage, it may be suspected that some things were interspersed not only from Theodotion but also from other editions. Wherefore Epiphanius, from whom a history of those things has been accurately handed down, says that many things are sought after among the Septuagint Interpreters which they themselves omitted to relate from the Hebrews, but which Aquila, and Symmachus, and the remaining interpreters represented; yet he did not lay down that they were added from Theodotion alone. This emendation of the LXX by means of obeli and asterisks was the reason why Jerome thus addressed Augustine in *Epist. 89, cap. 6*: "I marvel how you can read the books of the Seventy Interpreters, not pure, as they were edited by them, but corrected, or rather corrupted, by Origen through obeli and asterisks, and do not follow the little translation of a Christian man; especially since he transferred those things which were added from the edition of a Jewish and blasphemous man, after the passion of Christ." He calls the books of the Seventy Interpreters corrupted on account of the additions from Theodotion, although in *cap. LVIII of Isaiah* he calls the Hexapla codices corrected and true, which bore the same additions; for with the asterisks neglected, which could be neglected in either reading or transcribing, a great confusion of Theodotion with the ^C LXX arose; but upon the observation of the distinction of the asterisks ^D the name of the asterisk might precede, but more rarely the name might precede the asterisk. Whether Origen himself placed the names with the asterisks in the text of his own edition, or whether this was done in a subsequent age by those who collected the collections of the Hexapla and placed them in the Bibles, is not so easy to divine. Certainly that codex of the Reverend Jesuit Fathers in Jeremiah and Ezekiel often places asterisks in the text itself, with the name of the interpreter from whom that adjectitious reading was taken usually subjoined by only the first letter, thus * A. when from Aquila; or Θ. if from Theodotion; or Σ. when from Symmachus; or finally of Γ, if that reading was excerpted from those three interpreters simultaneously. But perhaps because Origen usually brought forward the readings of Theodotion with asterisks, he was not accustomed to express the name of Theodotion; but because he inserted the interpretations of Aquila more rarely, and those of Symmachus very rarely, with the asterisks, he inscribed the names by the first letter, so as to indicate that the words were not being excerpted from Theodotion as usual. But this is said only by conjecture. "Moreover," he says, *num. 4*, "from the similarity which existed between the obeli and the lemnisci and hypolemnisci, not only as to form, but also as to use, it came about that lemnisci were taken for obeli. For with the exception of one passage in Hesychius, I do not remember finding any mention of lemnisci anywhere since the time of Epiphanius and Jerome; namely, in manuscript Bibles, in Catenae, and in commentaries."

the legitimate words of the Seventy were accurately and clearly distinguished from those of Theodotion. Therefore, according to the attention and diligence of the reader, they were either corrupt or emended. On this account, in the same letter to Augustine, Jerome continues: "Do you wish to be a true lover of the Seventy Interpreters? Do not read the things which are under the asterisks; nay, rather, erase them from the volumes."

We learn from the aforementioned Marchalian codex, which the Clairmont fathers of the Society of Jesus possess, that Origen added certain scholia to the margin of the edition of the Seventy which was in the Tetrapla; for it is noted before Ezekiel that this book was transcribed from the Hexapla, but corrected according to the standard of the Tetrapla; afterwards it is noted: "Which things were corrected by the hand of Origen himself and provided with scholia; whence I, Eusebius, added the scholia: Pamphilus and ^B Eusebius emended [them]." Which (Tetrapla) were emended by the hand of Origen himself and were brief in their scholia: [(99°)] whence I, Eusebius, added the scholia: Pamphilus and Eusebius emended [them]. ^C Eusebius and Pamphilus endeavored to restore it, and increasingly so, with this edition, from the very autograph which was in the library at Caesarea; however, they published it restored and separately transcribed with great diligence. And this edition was called the Palestinian. It was, of course, received with the highest applause, and began to be chanted in Jerusalem and other churches of the East, and, through the labor of copyists who were frequently transcribing it for public use, it was disseminated and propagated everywhere; this was both on account of the fame of the author and the noble learning of those who emended it, and on account of the dignity of the work itself. A clear monument of this edition and emendation exists in the aforementioned codex of René Marchal, already often praised, in which, after the book of Jeremiah, it is noted that it was transcribed from the Hexapla of Origen, and emended from the Tetrapla written by his own hand; and that this was the work of Pamphilus and Eusebius.

Thus, you have before you a triple edition of the Seventy: this Origenian one which was contained in the Hexapla; a second, published privately by Eusebius and Pamphilus, which was purely genuine to the former; and a third, that ancient one which preceded the emendation of Origen and is called the *koine* or Vulgate, and which was manifold and diverse, as it had suffered various adulterations. No other edition of the Seventy Interpreters was commonly used before Origen than that which was called *koine*. It had achieved this appellation because no other edition of Scripture was worn out by more frequent use through the East. Whence it happened that the *koine* edition began eventually to signify not one single and particular edition of the Seventy, but signified the very translation of those interpreters by a general appellation. I explain the matter in one word. That term, *koine*, was common to the genus and the species, as are most other terms: to the genus, when it denoted any edition of the Seventy whatsoever; to the species, when it was tied only to that which was circulated before the emendation of Origen. It was attributed to the species first, and from there crossed over to the genus itself. Wherefore, Jerome sometimes distinguishes the Seventy, emended by Origen, from the *koine*; at other times he mingles and confuses them with it. He distinguishes them, indeed, in the Prologue to the sixteenth book of Commentaries on Isaiah. "I clearly admit," he says, "that they are not held in the Hebrew, nor are they in the Seventy Interpreters, but in the Vulgate edition, which is called *koine* in Greek ^D and is different throughout the world." He marks the Seventy Interpreters as emended by Origen, and in the letter to Sunnia and Fretela: "But this *koine*, that is to say, the common edition, is itself that which is also the Seventy; but this is the difference between the two, that the *koine* is a corrupt edition according to places and times, and according to the will of ancient scribes. But that which is held in the *Hexapla*, and which we translate, is itself that which is preserved in the books of the learned as the uncorrupted and immaculate translation of the Seventy Interpreters."

VIII. I see that this opinion has become widespread among many, that Origen, so that the edition emended by him might be more accessible, published it separately and removed it from the huge bulk of the Hexapla; so that that solitary one would be genuine and similar in every part to the other, which was held in the Hexapla from whence it had proceeded. No valid reason for this opinion is offered. The opinion of the most learned man, Jean-Baptiste Morin, seems to me more probable, who thinks that that edition of the Seventy was transcribed from the Origenian Hexapla by Eusebius and Pamphilus and first published; according to that saying of Jerome in the Preface to Chronicles addressed to Chromatius: "Alexandria and Egypt praise Hesychius as the author in their Septuagint. Constantinople as far as Antioch approves the copies of the martyr Lucian. Provinces midway between these read the Palestinian codices; which Eusebius and Pamphilus published, having been worked out by Origen." For when the Hexapla were frequently transcribed for the use of churches and learned men, they were deformed daily by new stains of filth; especially when copyists either had the notation of asterisks and obeli excessively or did not administer it with sufficient diligence: whence a huge disturbance of matters occurred, with the additions of Theodotion being confused and mixed with the translation of the Seventy. "Mercy and truth," says Jerome in the epistle to Sunnia and Fretela, "have met together: and you say that in the Greek it is not held that they met themselves: *eleos kai aletheia synentesan*, that is, Mercy and truth met together; thus it is held in the Hebrew, and among the Seventy it is marked with an obelus: which signs, when they are left out as almost superfluous by most through the negligence of scribes, a great error arises in reading." He speaks of the edition of the Seventy which was in the Hexapla. As it degenerated, it is clear that Eusebius added new scholia to the Tetrapla in some books of Scripture at least, and that in another, as it seems, than the Origenian copy, which was emended last through the work of Pamphilus and Eusebius.

Whatever therefore disagrees with this, there is no doubt but that it also disagrees with the authority of the Hebrews. However, it confuses ^A the *Septuagint* with the *Vulgate* in the book of Isaiah, xxx, 20. "In this place," he says, "the *Septuagint* edition and the Hebrew text differ greatly." We shall treat first of the *Vulgate*. He calls the *Septuagint* the *Vulgate* edition, whose words he puts forward; and he brings these forward from the *Hexapla*. And in the *Preface to the Commentary on Daniel*: "Origen placed asterisks in the *Vulgate* edition concerning the work of Theodotion." And in the *Epistle to Sunia and Fretela*: "Although I found it thus in the *Septuagint* and in the *Hexapla*." That is, in the *Vulgate* and in that of the *Hexapla*. The pious and learned women Sunia and Fretela specifically and properly used what is called the *Vulgate*: it had diverged much from the original exemplar. These women asked Jerome ^B to provide them with the legitimate reading from the Hebrew truth for many places in the Psalter in which the Greek differed from the Latin. Jerome complied with their wish and wrote back a long letter, from the reading of which you may learn what difference existed between the *Vulgate* edition and that which lay in the *Hexapla*.

IX. While Eusebius and Pamphilus were devoting their efforts to cleansing the *Septuagint*, a similar care was being exercised about the same time by Hesychius the monk in Egypt, and by Lucian at Antioch. They set about changing for the better that ancient edition, called the *Common* [*koinē*], which was disfigured by errors and corrupted in six hundred places. Having therefore employed ancient copies of this *Vulgate* translation, they proceeded in such a way that Egypt embraced the edition published by Hesychius; ^C but the one prepared by Lucian was approved and adopted by all the regions that lie between Constantinople and Antioch; for he is said to have consulted the Hebrew truth as well, and that ancient *Vulgate*, emended by him, was honored with his own name. Jerome, in the *Epistle to Sunia and Fretela*: "In which I shortly advise you of this, that you should know that there is one edition which Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea, and all the commentators of Greece, call the *Common* [*koinē*], that is, the *Vulgate*, and which is now called the *Lucianic* by most; another is that of the *Septuagint* Translators, which is found in the *Hexaplar* codices, and has been faithfully translated by us into the Latin tongue, and is chanted at Jerusalem and in the churches of the East."

Therefore, after this age, ^D there existed a fivefold edition of the *Septuagint* Translators: the ancient *Vulgate*, the *Origenian*, the *Eusebian*, that of Lucian, and finally the fifth, that of Hesychius. But because the *Eusebian* had proceeded from the *Hexapla*, both were held as one and the same. And what remained of the copies of the *koinē* lay hidden in the libraries of the studious. And thus, although in truth five editions existed at this time, there were only three in use in the churches. "Alexandria and Egypt," says Jerome, "laud Hesychius as the author of their *Septuagint*; Constantinople as far as Antioch reads the copies of the martyr Lucian; the whole world struggles with this threefold variety among themselves, for those copies which were elaborated from Origen were published by Eusebius and Pamphilus."

X. However, it seems to me most probable that Lucian himself, and Hesychius, when they were emending the *koinē*, just as they imitated Origen’s zeal, also followed his method of emendation, and distinguished the *koinē* with obeli and asterisks, and attached thereto portions of Theodotion. For since it is certain that Egypt and Syria used the editions of Hesychius and Lucian; and it is no less certain that the editions of the *Septuagint* which were used in those regions were marked with obeli and asterisks, it is clearly concluded from this that the editions of Hesychius and Lucian were marked with obeli and asterisks. Jerome in the *Proem to the Commentary on Daniel*: "But Origen too placed asterisks in the *Vulgate* edition concerning the work of Theodotion, teaching that what was added was missing; and again he marked certain verses with obeli, designating all that was superfluous. And since all the churches of Christ, of the Greeks as well as the Latins, and the Syrians and the Egyptians, read this edition with asterisks and obeli, let those who are envious forgive my labor, as I wanted to have for our own people that which the Greeks read in the editions of Aquila, and Theodotion, and Symmachus." And in *Epistle 89, to Augustine*, ch. 6: "Do you wish to be a true lover of the *Septuagint* Translators? Do not read the things which are under the asterisks, nay rather, erase them from the volumes, that you may prove yourself a supporter of the ancients; but if you do this, you will be forced to condemn all the libraries of the churches, for hardly one or two books are found which do not have these." For it was hardly possible to find any copies in the age of Jerome which had not been corrected either by Origen, or by Lucian, or by Hesychius. Since, therefore, asterisks and obeli had settled into all the *vulgate* copies, and there were almost no others in use than those which those three correctors had emended, it follows that their codices were thus distinguished. Whose authors is it proper to assign to this discrimination, except Lucian himself, and Hesychius, imitating and subsequently refining what had first been invented by Origen? Indeed, such a mark reached even to the Latin editions; for Jerome in *Epistle 89, to Augustine*, ch. 6, testifies that he himself added asterisks and obeli to his own Latin translation of the *Septuagint*.

Furthermore, from these Greek editions, namely the one which was in the *Hexapla*, or the *Eusebian*, or the *Lucianic*, or the *Hesychian*, all our modern ones seem to have proceeded: for by this, as Jerome says, threefold variety the whole world was struggling; the *Vulgate*, indeed, being the most defiled of all, had almost fallen into disuse. But since it is certain that great confusion was introduced into those ancient texts by the carelessness of scribes, while they either neglected the notation of obeli and asterisks or failed to ascribe them to their proper places, it cannot be denied that the more recent editions of the *Septuagint* are impure and vitiated, as they proceeded from those ancient ones. For even if they had proceeded from the *Hexapla*, in which, Jerome writes…

the *Septuagint* was amended and rendered true ^A along with the remaining context, with the asterisks obliterated, they reached us as copies; certainly the additions of Theodotion, which were transmitted, adulterate and corrupt the edition.

CHAPTER III. ORIGEN’S SYNTAGMATA.

PARTITION OF THE THIRD CHAPTER.

SECTION I. THE INDIVIDUAL ORIGENIAN SYNTAGMATA, THE MEMORY OF WHICH SURVIVES, ARE ENUMERATED.

I. Origen’s *Syntagmata* listed by Eusebius are recounted. II. Some of these are examined more thoroughly; first the books *On the Resurrection*, III. *Stromateis*, IV. *On Martyrdom*, V. *Dialogues*, VI. *Epistles*, VII. *Interpretation of the Hebrew Names of the New Testament*, VIII. *Book on Prayer*, IX. *Disputations against Heretics*, and among them the *Little Labyrinth*. X. It is asked what Origen’s *Monobiblia* are, and what is the *Apology* for himself mentioned by Vincent of Beauvais. XI. We also include the *Philocalia* in the list of Origenian works.

1. Eusebius, in the sixth book of his *History*, ^B while weaving the story of Origen’s life, mentions most of his writings in passing, but leaves many out, inasmuch as he had already included each of them in the third book of the *Life of Pamphilus*. Now, since we lack that book, let us take refuge in his *History*, and let us recount here in the same order the *Syntagmata* of Origen that are praised therein. First occur the *Commentaries on the ancient philosophers*, whose lucubrations he explained for the sake of his students, not only in lectures, but also in writing. Eusebius mentions them in *Hist.*, bk. VI, ch. 18; and in ch. 24, his two books *On the Resurrection*; then the work *On Principles* (*De principiis*), distinguished in four books; likewise the *Stromateis* in ten books; and in ch. 28, the *Book on Martyrdom*, dedicated to Ambrose and Protoctetus, a presbyter of the Church of Caesarea; and in ch. 33, the *Disputations* which Origen conducted with Beryllus of Bostra; and in ch. 36, the eight books *Against Celsus*; and in ch. 39, certain *Sermons* useful to those who had need of consolation while enduring torments for the faith of Christ; and here and there his *Epistles*. These details about Origen’s *Syntagmata* are what Eusebius—whom we consult according to our custom, as a narrator of Origenian affairs superior to the rest—has provided beforehand as ^C the most faithful guide.

II. Now, let us retract some of these points and examine them a little more accurately. Only two books *On the Resurrection* are commemorated by Eusebius. But Jerome, in *Invect.* II against Rufinus, relates that Origen ^D wrote "two books *On the Resurrection*, and another two dialogues *On the Resurrection*." The same Jerome, in *Epist.* 61 to Pammachius, ch. 8, cites the fourth book of that same work. And Methodius refuted these books in a work of the same title.

III. Origen polished his *Stromateis* after the example of Clement, whose own lucubrations of equal subject matter and title survive to this day. Jerome, in *Epist.* 84, which is to the Roman orator Magnus, writes: "Clement, presbyter of the Church of Alexandria, in my judgment the most learned of all, wrote eight books of *Stromata*, and as many *Hypotyposes*, and another *Against the Gentiles*; there are also his three volumes of the *Pedagogue*. What in them is unlearned? What is not from the heart of philosophy?" Origen, imitating him, wrote ten *Stromateis*, comparing the opinions of Christians and philosophers among themselves, and confirming all the dogmas of our religion from Plato, Aristotle, Numenius, and Cornutus. Rufinus says that this same Jerome elsewhere says that "certain men were leagued with Origen for perjury, and that this secret of his mystical tradition was hidden in the sixth book of his *Stromateis*; and had not been discovered by anyone else in so many centuries, except by himself alone." In the *Proem* to his *Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians*, however, he writes that Origen composed his tenth book of *Stromateis* in a thematic discourse upon the explanation of the Epistle to the Galatians: and he says that in the thirteenth chapter of Daniel, he wrote certain things in that same book of *Stromateis* concerning the story of Susanna and Bel.

Furthermore, in his Epistle to Pammachius and Oceanus (cap. 2), he affirms that no Latin author before his own time had wished to translate the books of Origen *On First Principles*, the *Stromateis*, and the *Tomes*, because of the novelty, of course, of the doctrine. Since, therefore, Origen had composed his own [books] after the example of the *Stromateis* of Clement, so that one might more accurately perceive the subjects with which they were occupied and the art with which they were composed, read the thirteenth chapter of the sixth book of Eusebius' *History*, where there is a discussion concerning this writing of Clement.

^A IV. Regarding the book *On Martyrdom*, Jerome commemorated it in his book *On Ecclesiastical Writers* (cap. 67) in these words: "Ambrose was distinguished by the glory of the Lord's confession, to whom, along with Theoctistus the priest, Origen's book *On Martyrdom* is written." We must absolutely read: "to whom and to Theoctistus." If a Greek interpreter had seen this, he would by no means have given us this absurd interpretation: *To whom and to Theoctistus the priest, the book of Origen On Martyrdom is written*. It seems he read: *To whom the book of Theoctistus the priest, etc.* Jerome names Theoctistus, who is called Protoctetus by Eusebius. Theoctistus was bishop of Caesarea; Protoctetus was a priest of that same church: Jerome wrongly confuses them. It was to Protoctetus, not Theoctistus, that this book was inscribed, ^B as is shown by the copy of it not yet published, which is in my possession. Adamantius had written an epistle of the same subject to his father, who was destined for martyrdom, while still a boy; Eusebius repeats certain words of this epistle in the second chapter of the sixth book of his *History*.

V. I believe that the records of the contention held by Origen with Beryllus are the same as the dialogue between them, in which Beryllus is refuted of heresy. Jerome writes in his book *On Ecclesiastical Writers* (cap. 71) that this existed in his own time. Besides this dialogue, Origen is said to have committed others to writing. Rufinus, in his booklet *On the Adulteration of the Books of Origen*, mentions a certain one composed by him, and adulterated by the heretic Candidus, with whom he had held a discussion. It was abroad in the time of Jerome, and in it Origen and Candidus, a defender ^C of the Valentinian heresy, were arguing, among other things, whether the Son was of the substance of the Father, and whether the devil was of His nature, such that he could not attain salvation. Africanus, a contemporary and friend of Origen, at the beginning of the epistle in which he asked for his opinion regarding the story of Susanna, praises his dialogue to Agnomon, in which he had brought forward that part of the book of Daniel which tells the story of Susanna as testimony. Finally, there exists a *Dialogue on the True Faith in God*, which is also inscribed *Against the Marcionites*; but it is spurious and supposititious, as we shall demonstrate below.

VI. Whatever epistles of Origen he had obtained, he had collected and arranged into their own books, as Eusebius reports in the sixth book of his *History* (cap. 36), the number of which was more than one hundred. For Origen was most diligent in literary matters. Rufinus cites the fourth book of this collection in his booklet *On the Adulteration of the Books of Origen*. From this collection of epistles ^D I find those mentioned by Eusebius: the first is to Leonides, approaching his martyrdom; another Origen wrote against those who criticized his devotion to liberal studies; next is a commemoration of various epistles in which the time of the sixth persecution is indicated, though Eusebius does not go through their inscriptions and titles one by one; then mention is made of the Epistle to Africanus concerning the story of Susanna; then the Epistle to the Emperor Philip is praised, another to his wife Severa, another to Pope Fabian, and others to many other bishops, in which a profession of faith was contained; and finally various ones not distinctly noted. Afterwards, many epistles are cited which declared how useful were the discourses he had left for those who needed solace in their torments. These things are from Eusebius. Jerome testifies in his book *On Ecclesiastical Writers* (cap. 65) that the epistles of Origen to Philip and to his mother existed in his own age; whereas Eusebius, from whom Jerome patched together this book, has *the wife of him* (τὴν τούτου γαμετήν). Jerome writes the same of Origen's letters to Beryllus, bishop of Bostra, in the same book (cap. 71). Rufinus also, in his booklet *On the Adulteration of the Books of Origen*, uses testimonies from an epistle written by Origen to certain of his friends in Alexandria: and he praises another besides of the same subject. The epistle of the same to Gregory Thaumaturgus is contained in the thirteenth chapter of the *Philocalia*. Finally, Cedrenus and Suidas produce a part of an epistle of a certain Adamantius.

VII. Moreover, I find mention of certain other writings of Origen among the ancients. Philo the Jew had published a book on the Hebrew names of the Old Testament, and had added their etymologies and interpretations: which book Jerome expressed in Latin prose. What Philo had done in the Old Testament, Origen accomplished in the New, and added his own work to the work of Philo; and in doing so he had Jerome as an imitator: whose words these are in the Preface to the book of *Hebrew Names*: "And lest by chance, with the building completed, the finishing touch should be missing, I have interpreted the words and names of the New Testament, wishing to imitate in part Origen, whom, after the apostles, no one who is not ignorant denies is the teacher of the churches. For among other excellent monuments of his genius, he even labored in this, that what Philo as a Jew had omitted, he as a Christian might fulfill." The author of the *Questions* mentions the same book.

The work against the orthodox, which is falsely attributed to Justin, ^A in questions 82 and 86, teaches that in it, besides, he interpreted Hebrew names and measures. Let Rufinus therefore see with what honesty he wrote, in his *Invective* II against Jerome, that Origen did not translate even a single word of Scripture.

VIII. Pamphilus records in his *Apology* that Origen published the book *On Prayer*: "Finally," he says, "in so many and so diverse books of his (Origen's), there is never found one book written by him strictly *On the Soul*, as there is one *On Martyrdom*, or *On Prayer*, or *On the Resurrection*. Even if we lacked this testimony, the work itself, which survives to this day, would make itself known."

IX. Theodoret, in his books *On Heretical Fables*, ^B often brings forward Origen and adduces his books as testimony. In the first book, chapter 2, he says that he wrote against the heretic Menander; and in chapter 4, against Basilides and Isidorus; and in chapter 7, against the Helcesaites; and in chapter 19, against Hermogenes and Valentinus; and in chapter 21, against Severus; and in chapter 25, against Apelles; and in book II, chapter 2, against the heresy of the Nazarenes; and in book III, chapter 4, against the Nicolaitans. In the second book, chapter 5, he reports that some attribute to Origen the *Little Labyrinth*, which is a book written against the heretic Theodotus. Nicephorus also, in book X, ^C chapter 56, testifies that Origen by his written booklets clearly refuted Marcellus Galata and Porphyry; and that in those books he attempted to reach this goal, that the obscure and intricate places of Scripture, which the heretics were accustomed to abuse, should be deflected to their true meaning. I would not myself believe that Origen published as many books for the refutation of heretics as Theodoret narrates that he refuted; but I think that most of them were incidentally touched upon by Origen in his writings on other subjects; just as we see Heracleon being frequently rebuked by him in his *Commentary on John*, ^D and almost everywhere Valentinus, Basilides, and Marcion. Yet it is certain that he published some works against heretics and pagans as a deliberate project; such is the book *Against Celsus*; such was that *Little Labyrinth* against Theodotus, if indeed it had Origen as its author; such was the work *Against the Helcesaites*, whom it is likely were convicted by a special work.

X. Jerome, in his *Invective* II against Rufinus, while weaving together an index of Origen's books, argues thus: "Do you wish to know how many monuments of his genius he has left behind? The following title shows: He wrote thirteen books on Genesis; two books of mystical homilies; excerpts on Exodus; excerpts on Leviticus; also *Monobiblia*, four books *On Principles* (Περὶ ἀρχῶν), two books *On the Resurrection*, and two other dialogues *On the Resurrection*." What the *Monobiblia* are is uncertain. Perhaps no special work of Origen is signified by this name, but rather those booklets of his which it is the custom to comprise under the name of *Syntagmata*. When Jerome had enumerated his exegetical works, then he puts his *Syntagmata* together into one class, and approaching them in their order, he says: "Also, he wrote *Monobiblia*, four books *On Principles* (Περὶ ἀρχῶν), etc."; as if he had said: "Also, he wrote the following *Syntagmata* (which Rufinus then calls booklets), namely, the books *On Principles* (Περὶ ἀρχῶν), etc." And these, because they were not elaborated for the sake of other books, nor were they to be joined to other books, of the sort that his exegetical works were, but were contained by their own proper argument, and occupied themselves with their own peculiar subject matter, for that reason they were called *Monobiblia*. But I wish these to be held as a conjecture. Finally, Vincent of Beauvais, in the *Speculum Doctrinale*, book XVIII, chapter 43, enumerating the works of Origen that had reached his own times, begins thus: "*Apologia pro se*, 1 treatise. We have noted above that Origen sent a defense of his own doctrine to Pope Fabian: whether that is signified by these words of Vincent, or whether the perceptive reader may judge it another work, I leave to them.

XI. By no means would the *Philocalia* seem to be collected into this category, as it was compiled and patched together by Basil and Gregory the Theologian. However, since it is entirely woven from the rags of Adamantius, and consists of fragments that have been pulled mostly from the Origenic works discussed above, therefore it is not to be thought of as any different work, but only as an Origenian cento, in which everything is Origenian except the context: and for that reason it will be admitted by us into this series.

SECTION II: ON THE SYNTAGMATA OF ORIGEN THAT SURVIVE, AND ON THE ANCIENT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BOOKS *ON PRINCIPLES* (Περὶ ἀρχῶν).

I. Concerning the books *On the Resurrection*, II. *On Principles*, III. *Stromata*, IV. *Exhortation to Martyrdom*, V. books *Against Celsus*, VI. *Letters*, VII. the book *On Prayer*, VIII. and the *Philocalia*.

I. Of almost all the *Syntagmata* of Adamantius mentioned just now, either the whole books, or significant fragments, or some small particles have reached our times. Indeed, from the first and second books *On the Resurrection*, Pamphilus takes several fragments in his *Apology*, to refute the seventh charge by which Origen was said to have thought evilly about the resurrection. From the same work as well, the tenth chapter of the second book *On Principles* (Περὶ ἀρχῶν), by the admission of Origen himself, has a certain part translated.

II. Baronius, in the year 232, chapter 4, suspects that the books *On Principles* (Περὶ ἀρχῶν) were elaborated by Origen after the pattern of Longinus. For Porphyry in the *Life of Plotinus* reports that Longinus wrote a book by this title. If anyone, on the contrary, should affirm that Longinus took the subject matter of his work from Origen, he will not wander far from the truth; for both are equally uncertain. Rufinus failed to grasp the title of the book, who in the prologue to the books *On Principles* (Περὶ ἀρχῶν) says that it can be rendered *De principiis*, or *De potestatibus*. But who indeed does not

understand that it was Origen's intent to transmit in this book the elements of the Christian religion and true philosophy? Wherefore they are truly, as Rufinus submits, both very obscure and very difficult. He could have added: and also most full of errors and of the seeds of the 'falsely named knowledge' (ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως), for in them Origen placed the principal foundations of his dogmas. Wherefore Didymus illustrated them with brief commentaries, while Rufinus set them forth in the Roman tongue. But just as Origen concluded the main points of his errors in this work, so too does Rufinus seem to have wished to provide an excellent specimen of his own evil and fluid interpretation of the faith; for he says thus in the Prologue: 'Whenever, therefore, in his book (*Περὶ ἀρχῶν*) we find anything concerning this that had been defined by him in other places piously concerning the Trinity, we have either omitted this as corrupted and foreign, or have set it forth according to that rule which we have frequently found affirmed by him. If, indeed, he speaks as though to those already skilled and knowledgeable, while wishing to pass over matters briefly, he has expressed them more obscurely; we, so that the passage might become clearer, have added those things which we had read more openly in his other books, being mindful of explanation; yet we have said nothing of our own, but, although the things are stated in other places, we have returned them to their place.' Whoever might have wished to hide his own perfidy, he would easily have betrayed himself. ^A (3) For from this book Pamphilus transferred many things into his *Apologeticum* which are wanting in the Rufinian interpretation: as in that chapter where the co-eternity of the Son of God is treated, and His inseparability from the Father, this testimony is cited from the first book: 'Let us see, therefore, what our Savior is. He is called the Splendor,' etc., which you seek in vain in Rufinus' translation. Such also is that which is taken from the same first book: 'From that which the Apostle Paul says: "Not of men,"' etc., which is contained in the chapter where Pamphilus responds to the third accusation. He brings forth something else from the same place to refute the fourth accusation, which Rufinus omitted in his interpretation. Furthermore, the fragments of the *Philocalia* borrowed from this work prove the total vanity of it, if one contends with his own words. Although it can be doubted whether Basil and Gregory, the compilers of the *Philocalia*, might have removed some things which dissented from the orthodox faith. But the most certain proof is sought from the conflict of the passages which, being taken from the books *Περὶ ἀρχῶν*, Justinian set forth in his *Epistle to Mennas*, which are very different from those of the Rufinians. Therefore, realizing how great the dangers to Christian piety and doctrine were from this infidelity of Rufinus, ^B Jerome prepared a new interpretation with better faith, and revealed the errors of Origen to the Latin Church, without any arts of dissimulation, and unclouded by any gloss of false interpretation; so that, having been placed in the open, the reader might more easily judge for himself. But this new interpretation did not reach this age. Andreas Rivetus narrates, on the authority of others, in *Critici sacri*, book II, chapter 12, that the books *Περὶ ἀρχῶν* written in Greek exist in certain libraries. I would dare to affirm that this is false: for it is most certain that they are not to be found in Gallic, or Italian, or German, or Hispanic [libraries]. It is, however, uncertain whether Abraham Scultetus 74 conjectured from another's word or from his own ingenuity that the *Anacephalæosis*, which closes the fourth book of the work *De principiis*, was of Rufinus or Pamphilus. As this is proposed supported by no author and no reason, so it is refuted with no argument produced.

III. We have shown above, on the authority of Jerome, that the *Stromateis* of Origen, composed after the example of the *Stromateis* of Clement of Alexandria, compared the dogmas of Christians with the opinions of philosophers, and confirmed the former by the latter. Jerome exhibits a specimen of them from the sixth book in book I of his *Apology against Rufinus*, chapter 4, where, when he had introduced Plato, who proves that one may sometimes use a lie, he strengthens the same by the authority of the sacred books, and by the example of Judith, Esther, and the patriarch Jacob.

IV. The Royal Library provides a fragment from Origen’s *Protrepticus* to martyrdom. The entire work, having been obtained from the library of the most illustrious Lord de la Barde, ambassador of the most Christian king to the Swiss, his brother, a canon of the Church of Paris, a man of rare piety, humanity, and integrity, made my property, and will be arranged by me in order among the *Syntagmata* of Origen. ^C

V. Concerning the books *Against Celsus*, Eusebius speaks thus in his *Antirrheticus against Hierocles*: ^D 'But now, by its power, it has not been overturned by his own writing against them, but has been refuted in its entirety in the eight books written by Origen against the *True Account* of Celsus, inscribed more arrogantly by the Philalethes, whose refutations, in all that we have found, the aforementioned, bringing them together, having taken all that has been said and will be said by anyone on the same subject, has resolved by anticipation.' 'But now, by its power, although not written expressly against them, the (writings of Hierocles) are crushed and refuted in the eight books which Origen wrote against Celsus' *True Account*, more boastful than that work (of Hierocles) which is inscribed *Philalethes*: in which that man, having embraced all the causes and arguments, [has answered] all things whatsoever at the same time that either have been said by anyone on that subject, or will be said hereafter.'

' Indeed, for at no other time does he display such a wealth of Christian and secular doctrine, or such weighty arguments. Celsus the Epicurean was the cause of his writing, for he had attacked the Christian religion in a book he titled 'Alēthēs logos (True Discourse). When it had been received with great applause by the adversaries of Christ, Adamantius—though Celsus was already removed from the living—undertook its refutation at the request of Ambrose.

VI. Of the letters of Origen, we possess two that are entirely complete and not truncated in any part, and others that are extant only in part. The letter to Julius Africanus survives intact, in which he eruditely responds to that most learned man, who suspected that the history of Susanna, which is read in the book of Daniel, was adulterated, and who had asked for his opinion through a letter, and he asserted the authority of this narrative. Many copies of both are circulated, transcribed by Greek hands; one of these, transcribed by himself, was sent to me by Emeric Bigot, a man of singular erudition: ^A and we, with God's help, shall one day publish both among our *Syntagmata*. Intact, too, is the letter which constitutes the thirteenth chapter of the *Philocalia*, and in which Origen encourages Gregory Thaumaturgus to the study of sacred literature. Rufinus, in his little book *On the Adulteration of the Books of Origen*, recites a part of a letter which Adamantius wrote to his Alexandrian friends when he was driven from his homeland; in it, he complains that his adversaries falsely boast that he was persuaded that the devil would one day attain salvation; he adds that a certain heretic had adulterated the acts of a disputation held with him, and that he himself had sent the book of the acts so that the corrupter might be convicted of falsehood; he also mentions another heretic, who had refused to engage with him, who had committed a false account of the disputation to writing and spread it far and wide, but who had in the end been convicted by him of vanity and impudence. Jerome, however, in the second book of his *Apology against Rufinus*, chapter 5, complains that this very letter was translated by Rufinus without fidelity, for he had concealed the fact that Demetrius, the bishop of Alexandria, and the bishops and clergy of the whole world, by whom Origen had been prohibited from the communion of the Church, were lacerated by him; then he says that Origen claimed he had been cast out of the Church in vain, and that he did not wish to return injury for curses, and that he abstained from them to the extent that ^B he gained the occasion from thence of accusing him of having said that the devil is of such a nature that he could attain salvation. Then Jerome presents the beginning of the letter—which Rufinus had omitted—as translated by himself. Jerome is certainly less than fair to Rufinus here; for why, when he wished to show that Origen’s books were adulterated, would he have transcribed a part of a letter alien to his purpose? Eusebius, in Book VI of his *Ecclesiastical History*, chapter 2, repeats some words from a letter which Origen wrote to his father while he was still a boy, already destined for punishment for the sake of the Christian faith. And in the nineteenth chapter, he recites at greater length a fragment of a letter which he had written for his own defense against those who condemned his excessive study of Greek disciplines. Finally, George Cedrenus, under the heading of Severus, gives a part of a certain letter of Origen, in which he complains that he is urged too harshly by Ambrose to interpret the Scriptures, and more than is fitting. Suidas presents the same, excerpted from Cedrenus. The ancient *catenae* on Deuteronomy xvi. 20 offer a portion ^C of a letter of Origen to the presbyters Photius and Andreas. Verily, there is little authority in the *catenae*, as we have said elsewhere; and as far as trustworthiness from other sources is added, let this fragment be held in suspicion.

VII. The book *On Prayer* was produced at the urging of Ambrose and Tatiana. We transcribed this from a manuscript codex of the library of Queen Christina of Sweden. It lacks a title, but the author and the subject matter are easily discovered from the reading of the work itself; even if other indications were lacking, those words with which the dissertation concludes would suffice: "Ταῦτα κατὰ δύναμιν ἐμὴν εἰς τὸ τῆς εὐχῆς πρόβλημα, καὶ εἰς τὴν ἐν τοῖς Εὐαγγελίοις εὐχὴν τά τε πρὸ αὐτῆς παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ εἰρημένα ἡμῖν διήθληται, φιλομαθέστατοι καὶ γνησιώτατοι ἐν θεοσεβείᾳ ἀδελφοί, Αμβρόσιε καὶ Τατιάνη." ^D "These things have been labored upon by us, to the best of our ability, regarding the problem of prayer, and the prayer in the Gospels, and those things said before it in Matthew, most studious and most genuine brothers in piety, Ambrose and Tatiana." Who this Tatiana might have been, and concerning the dissertation itself, will be discussed by us more accurately elsewhere, when it is committed to print among our *Syntagmata*.

VIII. Since it is not from this book of the *Philocalia* [that we have drawn our account...]

we must treat it briefly. The epigraph itself briefly declares what the *Philocalia* is: "This book contains a selection of scriptural questions and solutions, gathered from various books composed by Origen, by those wise in divine things, Gregory and Basil." This book contains a selection of questions and solutions pertaining to Scripture, from various books composed by Origen, which was collected by men skilled in divine matters, Gregory and Basil. Then there is subjoined a letter, by which Gregory Nazianzen transmitted this work to Theodorus, Bishop of Tyana. Elegant iambics, not yet published, which we found in an ancient manuscript codex of this collection, also show what the *Philocalia* is: Οὗ (Ώριγ.) τῶν λόγων τῶν ἁρμογὴν ὁρᾷς ξένην, Βασιλείου κρίναντος, ὡς κρείττους πάνυ. Of whose (Origen’s) discourses you see the strange arrangement, Basil having judged them to be altogether excellent.

^B And I relate these things all the more willingly, because in them is contained the meaning of the word *philokalia* in the sense in which it was used by Basil and Gregory. For that word denotes nothing else than a selection of certain excellent passages from the various books of some writer: such as are the fragments from Petronius collected by some studious person. The other definition of *philokalia*, which Augustine brings forward in book II *Against the Academics*, chapter 1, and in book I of the *Retractations*, chapter 1, writing that it is the study of divine things from divine relationship and the Word of God found out—a sense in which Genebrardus and Tarinus opined that this word was used by Gregory and Basil—has no place here; for how would that accord with a selection of certain Origenian passages? But in that sense which Augustine notes must be understood the term *philokalos* (lover of beauty), which Photius writes in his *Bibliotheca*, codex 232, that Gregory the Theologian attributes to Origen in his letters.

CHAPTER IV

I. If that book of Eusebius *On the Life of Pamphilus*, into which he had inserted an index of the books of Origen, had escaped the injury of time, a great light would have been added to this argument which we are pursuing: but since we lack that resource, let us see what assistance we have in his *History*. For we shall look to him as our chief guide in this part, just as in the rest of what pertains to Origen, in which we have proposed to investigate the order in which the individual books of Adamantius which remain in memory were written; and at what times they were produced. The writing of Adamantius which is celebrated first by him is his commentaries on the ancient philosophers, all of which have perished through the length of time. Next are mentioned interpretations of Holy Scripture, a not inconsiderable part of which has been preserved to this day. I find that he began to explain the sacred volumes not long after the beginning of the Alexandrian commentaries. ^D And first he began with the Gospel of John, and composed the first five tomes of it at Alexandria; also the first eight of the twelve on Genesis. Furthermore, he illustrated with expositions there the first twenty-five psalms and the *Lamentations* of Jeremiah. Of great importance is the fact that in the book *On Prayer*, no. 2, Tatiana is described as of advanced age, and towards the end of the work both she and Ambrose are hailed as "most genuine siblings." For in both places the language could be figurative, and perhaps they are called most genuine siblings in no other way than in Christ, in the same manner as Origen himself calls Ambrose his brother at the beginning of tome II of the *Commentaries on John*. He also indicated that he had already composed the books *On First Principles* (*Peri Archōn*) and the *Stromata* before he left Alexandria. After Maximinus obtained the empire, he published the book *On Martyrdom*. But after he was removed and Gordianus held sovereign power, he wrote commentaries on Isaiah and Ezekiel in his retirement at Caesarea. Moreover, Eusebius mentions, in *History* book VI, chapter 31, the *Letter to Africanus*, in which the faith and authority of the history of Susanna is defended: but he does not assign the time in which it was sent. Petavius refers it to the year of Christ 222; in which year Alexander seized the empire; he did not write at all why he thought so. But since it was written at Nicomedia while Ambrose was present, I conjecture that it was sent while Gordianus held the empire, when Origen was in his fifty-second year, when he had journeyed from Caesarea to Athens and visited Ambrose in passing at Nicomedia. After he moved to Athens, he brought to completion the Commentaries on Ezekiel which had been begun: but having attacked the exposition of the *Song of Songs*, and having elaborated the first five books, he finished the remaining five upon his return to Caesarea.

Passing into his sixty-third year, he first allowed his homilies to be taken down by shorthand writers as he preached them. Whence it is evident that a good portion of them which have been transmitted to our age should not be referred to any other time. The homily, for instance, on Psalm LXXXII, a fragment of which we have drawn from Eusebius, was delivered at this time against the error of the Helcesaites. During this very period, he confuted Celsus in eight books; he compiled Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew and the twelve prophets; he also wrote very many letters to the emperor Philip and to his wife Severa, and to several others, which are cited here and there according to their times in the book of Eusebius.

II. It is not easy to determine the period to which the description of the Tetrapla and Hexapla, which Eusebius mentions in *Hist.*, bk. VI, ch. 16, should be joined. Eusebius seems to signify that this took place long before Origen had left Alexandria, at that very time when he was converting Ambrose to the faith of Christ. Epiphanius, however, has asserted more than once that they were composed at Tyre (8). I, for my part, assign another time to this affair: namely, when Origen took refuge at Caesarea in Cappadocia to stay with Firmilianus during the time Miniminus was vexing the Christians. For he had been received generously by Juliana, and by using the library formerly built up by Symmachus and then transmitted to her by right of inheritance, he had utilized the copies which Symmachus had used. It is probable that he collected and joined the codices there; but as he could not finish the projected work there through the pressure of time, he put the final hand to it during his leisure at Tyre. Not that I think Origen had only then thought of them for the first time, but perhaps it had been conceived in his mind while he was at Alexandria, and had been begun in Athens and Caesarea Maritima, and I believe it was finally perfected at Tyre. Thus Epiphanius is reconciled with Eusebius, for the latter seems to signify that some labor was expended by Origen in preparing the Hexapla at Alexandria, while the former openly teaches that they were composed at Tyre; which is to be understood in this way: that Origen had not only elaborated them at Tyre, but also in those places in which he spent the twenty-eight years before his death, which years Epiphanius wrongly believed were spent at Tyre. Our conjecture is confirmed by what Eusebius says in *Hist.*, bk. VI, ch. 17: that Origen found the translation of Symmachus in the library of Juliana. Therefore, he had not yet compiled the Hexapla or Tetrapla, a great part of which was the translation of Symmachus. Epiphanius likewise agrees with Eusebius, *Haer.* LXIV, ch. 3, saying that Origen began his lucubrations on Scripture, undertaken at the impulse of Ambrose, with the Hexapla: "He first," he says, "strove diligently to collect the six translations." Yet at that time he was living in Alexandria. Someone will refute this argument and say that at that time Origen could not have collected the six translations into one volume, as he was even then lacking the translation of Symmachus and the sixth edition. I reply that he had pre-formed the joining of the Hexapla in his mind when he was at Alexandria, but had not actually joined them, as he did not yet have the copies at hand, but had already begun to devote his efforts to seeking them out. Therefore, Epiphanius does not say *synegen* (he collected), but *ephilotimesato synagagein* (he strove to collect).

(9) *He found there copies of Holy Scripture which Symmachus had used, etc.* "It does not seem likely," says Tillemont, note 9 on Origen, "that Origen found the version of Symmachus, elaborated 60 years earlier, so late; and Eusebius can conveniently be understood either as referring to Symmachus's own autograph—for Juliana had received it from Symmachus himself—or to some commentary of Symmachus on Scripture, not his version." Here are the very words of Eusebius in *Hist.*, bk. VI, ch. 17: *And the Commentaries of Symmachus are still carried about even now, in which he seems, by directing himself against the Gospel according to Matthew, to strengthen the aforementioned heresy. And Origen signifies that he had received these, together with other interpretations of the Scriptures by Symmachus, from a certain Juliana, who, he also says, had succeeded to the books from Symmachus himself.* "Certainly the Commentaries of Symmachus still exist, in which, relying on the Gospel according to Matthew, he defends the aforementioned heresy (of the Ebionites). Origen testifies that he accepted these, along with other interpretations of the Scriptures by Symmachus, from a certain Juliana, to whom those books had come by right of succession from Symmachus himself." If *hermeneiai* (interpretations) can be understood here as the Commentary—which I think no one would deny—the word *allon* (others), used by Eusebius, suggests that it is to be understood in this way in this passage. Since these things are so, nothing prevents Origen from having begun the Hexapla before the year 235, by which time he is believed to have begun staying with Juliana in Cappadocia. He clearly mentions his Hexapla in the Epistle to Africanus, which it is certain was written at Nicomedia; and since he instituted two journeys into Greece, it seems he sought out Nicomedia on one of these journeys and gave the epistle. Tillemont thinks this happened on the first journey, that is, in the year 228, rather than on the second, twelve years later, relying on this single argument: that Africanus calls Origen by the name of 'son,' which refers more aptly to the first than to the second journey. But it does not seem of such great importance to the eminent man Montfaucon. "For it is likely," he says, page 13 of the *Preliminaries to the Hexapla*, "that he addressed him as son because he was much younger in age; which reason was doubtless equal in both the first and the second journey of Origen." Nor are there lacking examples by which this may be confirmed. For Eusebius of Vercelli used to call Dionysius, bishop of Milan—a man already mature and conspicuous in dignity—his 'son,' even though he was younger himself. Therefore, since it is not certain that the epistle to Africanus was written at Nicomedia on the first journey, that is, in the year 228, there is no reason why the Hexapla should be thought to have been adorned before this year. Montfaucon thinks this one thing likely: "that Origen applied his hand to the publishing of the Hexapla after he had found the sixth edition: but he found it, according to Epiphanius, in the seventh year of Alexander Severus, that is, 228 of Christ. And because from then until the year 231, when he withdrew to Caesarea, he seems not to have had enough leisure and convenience to undertake so arduous a matter, the work of the Hexapla is opportunely relegated to the year 231, when he was living at Caesarea." (10) Origen consulted for the expenses and labor, and turned his mind to compiling the Tetrapla. Huet preceded.

^A that which Origen had compiled, which he mentions in his *Commentary on Matthew*; in the 15th volume of which, chapter 16, page 671, he records that he had examined various editions of the Scripture, and had marked them with obeli and asterisks.

He left us the copies of the Hexapla; since, moreover, he had arranged the edition of Aquila, and Symmachus, and Theodotion, together with that of the Seventy Elders, separately in the Tetrapla. Zonaras clearly states the same in his account of Severus. But since previously, whether the one or the other—

Valesius, relying on the same testimony of Eusebius, which he translated thus: "He left us the copies of the Hexapla: but later he arranged the edition of Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotion with the version of the Septuagint Interpreters separately in the Tetrapla." Valesius believed that it should be translated in this way because he thought that the word *epikateskeuasas*, which he himself substituted from manuscripts in place of *episkeuasas*, meant that the Tetrapla were published afterward. But whether *episkeuasas* or *epikateskeuasas* is read, the eminent man Bernard de Montfaucon, in his *Preliminaries to the Hexapla of Origen*, page 9, thinks the sense of this passage is this: "He left us the copies of the Hexapla, ^B when he had arranged the edition of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion with the Septuagint Interpreters separately in the Tetrapla." "For the aorist," he says, "placed in this position denotes that the thing stated last was done before the one that is indicated by the preceding verb. Indeed, this form of speech is so obvious among writers that it is a wonder that a learned man should have fallen into error in so clear a matter. Thus in Strabo, book XIII, these words, *Attalus took over the rule, and was first proclaimed king after he had won a great victory over the Galatians*, are explained as follows: Attalus received the power, and was proclaimed king first, after he had brought back a great victory over the Galatians. For though this victory seems to be stated in the last place, yet from the clear and known usage here it is understood that the victory preceded, and the inauguration followed. You ought also to understand this place in Eusebius in the same way, as if the series stood thus: *Specifically having arranged the edition of Aquila, and Symmachus, and Theodotion, together with that of the Seventy in the Tetrapla, he left us the copies of the so-called Hexapla.* When he had arranged the edition of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion with the Septuagint Interpreters separately in the Tetrapla, he left us the copies of the Hexapla. ^C And nothing interferes with this interpretation of the compound word *epikateskeuasas*: for the same logic applies equally to all compound words, as well as to the simple ones, when they are used in such a way. With this interpretation established, Origen undoubtedly published the Tetrapla before the Hexapla. And this was the opinion of scholars before Valesius, supported by the mentioned passage in Eusebius, opened a new path. But beyond these things, Origen's note on Genesis chapter XLVII, verse 6, seems to solve the whole question. Furthermore, we have published it in the same place as follows: *Since in the Tetrapla, from which the copy was also taken, it is shown in relation to the sequence in the Hebrew and other editions that the text of the Seventy was also transposed in some places, so that the first became last and the last first: which was also found to have happened here; for this reason we have added the sequence; it is this. With "We will dwell, your servants, in the land of Gesem," is joined: "And Pharaoh said to Joseph: Let them dwell in the land of Gesem. But if you have known that they are..."* That is: Since in the Tetrapla, from which the exemplar was taken, it is shown according to the series of the Hebrew and other editions that the edition of the Septuagint Interpreters had been transposed in some places, so that things that were first were placed later, and things that were later, first: which is discovered to have happened in this place also; therefore we have added the true sequence here, which is as follows: ^D With the words *We will dwell, your servants, in the land of Gesem*.

III. Eusebius catalogues these writings of Origen and annexes them to his own times. Moreover, we have collected several things from the Adamantine himself, from which the order and time of some other of his studies may be estimated. That Origen wrote commentaries, the following is subjoined: *And Pharaoh said to Joseph: Let them dwell in the land of Gesem. But if you know that there are [men of ability] in them, etc.* (Gen. XLVII, 5). But so that you may correctly understand this note, you should place a comma after the word *metelephthē*, so that the following things *pros ton eirmon, etc.*, may be referred to *deiknytai*, and the sense may be: *It is shown according to the series, or from the series of the Hebrew and other editions, that the text of the Seventy had been transposed in some places and placed preposterously*; namely, in the note placed in the margin of the Tetrapla, which warned that in that place the series was disturbed and transposed: for the words that follow, *toutou charin parethēkamen akolouthian*, "for this reason we have added the sequence," clearly indicate that the restoration was made after the Tetrapla were published. Trust in what we are now saying is provided by a note in a manuscript of the Jesuit College of Louis le Grand, which reads as follows before Ezekiel: *It was copied from the copy of Abba Apollinarius the Coenobiarch, in which these things are subjoined: it was copied from those according to the editions of the Hexapla, and was corrected from those of Origen's own Tetrapla, which had been corrected and annotated by his own hand; I, Eusebius, have added the annotations. Pamphilus and Eusebius corrected them.* Ezekiel was taken from the exemplar of the Abbot Apollinarius, in which these things are subjoined: *It was transcribed from [the copies] containing the editions of the Hexapla, and was corrected to the faith of Origen's Tetrapla, which were also corrected and illustrated with scholia by his hand. I, Eusebius, added the scholia. Pamphilus and Eusebius corrected.* There it is said that Origen corrected his Tetrapla and illustrated them with scholia: which scholia he who edited the note had seen written by the hand of Origen himself. Moreover, there is no doubt that the note (the higher one on Genesis chapter XLVII, 6) pertains to Origen's Hexapla. For in his Hexapla, he restored to their order those places of the Septuagint Interpreters which had been transposed either by the slip of copyists or by some other event. But that Origen did not correct the edition of the LXX in the Tetrapla, but applied a medical hand to them later—namely, when he was adorning the Hexapla and Octapla—is proven by many places. Thus, in the note on verse 5 of Psalm LXXXVI, it is said that that place, "Mother Sion," which looks to the Hebrew, was had in the Tetraselid, or in the Tetrapla, but otherwise in the Octaselid, or in the Octapla, where it was correctly read: "Shall not Sion," because, clearly, Origen later corrected this place, which was faulty in the Tetrapla, in the Octapla. Moreover, in the book of Job, very frequent places are mentioned which were taken from the Tetrapla, by which it is demonstrated that the edition of the Septuagint Interpreters, which had been placed by Origen in the Tetrapla, had not been corrected, but that the errors and preposterous readings that existed in the copies of the Seventy remained intact there, as anyone can notice in our notes. It is established, therefore, that the text of the Septuagint Interpreters was not corrected in the Tetrapla, but that Origen achieved this later in the Hexapla. Wherefore, when there is talk among the ancients about correcting the reading of the Septuagint Interpreters, the Hexapla are always cited, the Tetrapla never. From this it is clear that the Tetrapla were published before the Octapla: for if Origen had first published the Hexapla with that edition of the Seventy, purified of its faults, can it be believed that he himself—

^B afterward, when he was editing the Tetrapla, would have cast aside that edition which he had purified with such labor and substituted another, corrected and full of errors? That would certainly conflict with sound reason. We have followed these matters at greater length because Henri Valois, by mistranslating a passage of Eusebius, had deceived certain learned men.

^A [The writing of] Commentaries on Genesis before he composed the books *On First Principles* is understood from Eusebius, and much more from Origen himself, who in Book I of *On First Principles*, ch. 3, no. 3, and Book II, ch. 3, no. 6, cites these Commentaries. Yet in Book I, ch. 2, no. 6, the same author has this: "I think, therefore, that one may apply the former example to him who was made according to the image and likeness of God, that man concerning whom, God favoring, we shall see more diligently when we have begun to explain the passage itself in Genesis. What then? Shall we say these were corrupted by copyists, or by the translator? Or shall we imagine that Origen had meditated on other things in Genesis when he wrote these? Indeed, I hesitate." We also know from the book *On Prayer*, no. 23, p. 235, that this was written when the Commentaries on Genesis had already been published. ^B There is no mention in the sixth book of Eusebius' *History* of expositions on Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers; that these are older than the ten volumes of Commentaries on the Song of Songs, these words of Origen from Book I of the *Commentary on the Song of Songs*, p. 38, make clear: "Concerning which we have explained more fully in the book of Leviticus, according as the Lord has deigned to give." And these from the Prologue, p. 33: "But how the Holy of Holies differs from the holy things in Exodus, and how works differ from the works of works in the book of Numbers, has been said by us in our treatises, as we were able." At what time, however, he explained the Song of Songs, we shall soon see. ^C Origen again praises his expositions on Leviticus in Book IX of the *Epistle to the Romans*, when he says, no. 1: "Concerning each of which, when we were saying something on the book of Leviticus, as we have attempted to explain... [The things] in Exodus, in Leviticus, and in Numbers are indicated by these [citations], whether they are Homilies, it does not sufficiently appear. There is profound silence in Eusebius concerning the narrations on Deuteronomy. I find that those are more recent than the later volumes on John: for thus Origen writes in vol. XXXII on John, no. 11, on Deuteronomy ch. II, verse 30: 'But as for these things, it would be more appropriate to examine them in the things on Deuteronomy.' But his own time we shall soon predefine for the later volumes on John. But those narrations on Deuteronomy were older than the Homilies on Luke: for concerning them Origen says in Homily 8 on Luke: 'I remember, when I was once discoursing on Deuteronomy, I said,' etc., which seem to indicate no other kind of exposition than the homiletic."

It has been observed in Eusebius that Adamantius published the Commentaries on the first twenty-five psalms while residing at Alexandria. Origen himself, in vol. I of the *Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans*, no. 3, p. 464, promises that he will at some time explain Psalm LVII: yet in the fourth book on the same Epistle, no. 2, p. 523, he declares that he has interpreted the psalms; but here perhaps he understands volumes; there, homilies or scholia. But in Homily 15 on Joshua, no. 6, he signifies that he had explained the hundredth psalm; and in Homily 13 on Leviticus, no. 2, he makes mention of his exposition on Psalm CXVIII. Jerome in the Preface of his *Commentaries on Obadiah* writes that Origen's Exposition on the Song of Songs was a fruit of his youthful age. Baronius, following Jerome, thinks that it was done ^D after he was sixty years of age.

[Regarding] "how works differ from the works of works in the book of Numbers, etc." This kind of distinction exists in the fifth homily on Numbers: but who can assert of which work this passage is a part, of homilies or of scholia? For Rufinus mingled both works together. If of the homilies, Huet's opinion is false, that they are all from the number of those which Adamantius pronounced extemporaneously after the sixtieth year of his age: if of the scholia, nothing indeed will now prevent the homilies on Numbers from being thought to have been pronounced after Origen reached the sixtieth year of his age: but this is not certainly elicited, as Huet thinks below, from the twelfth homily on Jeremiah. For there Origen only says, where he had made an end of speaking, that he would yet speak concerning the passage of Numbers which was to be read: which certainly does not prevent him from being able to have had other homilies on Numbers long before.

From these same Homilies on Leviticus, the first, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 13, it is clear that 1) they are extemporaneous; 2) they were delivered at Caesarea in Palestine; 3) if not all, at least the ninth is later than a certain homily on Jeremiah, and the thirteenth is later than the Exposition on Psalm CXVIII.

"Kind of exposition, than the homiletic," etc. Hence it is no wonder if in Book VI of the *Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans*, no. 7, p. 579, he says that what is read in Deuteronomy XXV, 5, is to be treated more fully and at greater length in its proper places.

^A In the year of Christ 208, at which time Adamantius was in his twenty-third year. This conflicts with the accounts of Eusebius, who relates that he began to illustrate Scripture at that time, when he had returned to Alexandria from Antioch, being then about thirty-one years old. In another place, the same author reports that Origen completed those ten books of *Commentaries on the Canticles* at Caesarea, which he had begun during his second stay in Athens. He had already reached his fifty-second year when he returned to Athens a second time. Furthermore, in this work, Origen praises his own expositions on Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, which it is believable he did not publish until he was advanced in years; he also praises the little homilies published by himself on the book of Judges, which I think are none other than those currently extant. Did Adamantius, therefore, already publish some light and crude things while he was a young man, only to have published those new commentaries, distinguished into ten volumes, when he was more advanced in years? Truly this is the case: for in the seventh chapter of the *Philocalia*, a fragment is brought forward, to which these words are prefixed: Ἐκ τοῦ εἰς τὸ Ἄσμα μικροῦ τόμου, ὃν ἐν τῇ νεότητι ἔγραψεν: "From the short volume on the Canticles which he wrote as a youth." This small volume, therefore, which he had put forth at a youthful age, is what Jerome designates in the *Prologue to the Commentaries on Obadiah*; but being more mature in years, he refined the ten volumes. If this be so, it is understood that Eusebius held those earlier efforts in no account and only took into consideration those writings which Origen, more mature in talent and years, had prepared carefully. In his eleventh homily on Ezekiel, no. 5, you may read the following: "At the time when we expounded Jeremiah, we attempted to explain—by the grace of God granted to you who pray, or indeed as we understood it—the things which were given to us." Therefore, he had interpreted Jeremiah before he had given those homilies on Ezekiel. ^B (15) Not yet had he even undertaken the explanation of Numbers when he illustrated Jeremiah with homilies, as is manifest from the twelfth. Truly, in the first, he shows that not long before, he had set forth this sentiment of the Savior: "A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country," which, since it is found in Matt. XIII, 57, and an extensive interpretation of it exists in the tenth volume, no. 16 and 18, of the *Commentary on Matthew*, Origen undoubtedly looked to those writings; from which it is concluded that the homilies on Jeremiah are later than these *Commentaries*; yet not much later, since he prepared those *Commentaries* after his sixtieth year. But those homilies are of that type which, having been delivered extempore, were committed to writing by stenographers ^C at the time they were first described. Regarding the lucubrations on Ezekiel, Sixtus Senensis writes thus in his *Bibliotheca*, book IV: "When he was living in Athens, being already over sixty years of age, he labored—by the testimony of Eusebius—on twenty-five volumes on Ezekiel, having previously delivered very many homilies on the same prophet." Sixtus errs twice, for he had not yet exceeded his fifty-second year when he undertook his second Athenian journey, as we have demonstrated; during this journey he completed the volumes on Ezekiel: but he delivered the homilies when he was over sixty, seeing as they belong to that class of works which, when they were delivered from the pulpit, were recorded by stenographers. That he also wrote something on Daniel before he took up the exposition of Matthew is shown by that passage from *Tractata* 29 on Matthew, no. 40, p. 860: "As for those things that follow in the text of Daniel, we have expounded them as best we could." He is indeed dealing with chapter IX, verse 27 of Daniel. We have said that Eusebius reported that Origen, already over sixty, refuted Celsus around the same time and expounded the twelve prophets. Certainly, in book VII *Against Celsus*, Origen seems to signify that his *Commentaries* on the twelve were already prepared, and he implores divine aid for their completion: for he says in no. 11: "Nevertheless, we also, according to our ability, have made... as Celsus says... and entirely obscure as to the letter, having explained them, in those things composed by us on Isaiah, and on Ezekiel, and on some of the twelve; but as God grants progress in his Word, at the times which he wills, either the remaining things or whatever we may suffice to clarify shall be added to those things already written down on these matters." ^D Eusebius is silent regarding Origen's *Commentaries on the Gospel according to Luke*. Origen himself, however, in volume XVI, on Matthew, no. 9, p. 728, mentions those things he had previously commented on regarding Luke; whether they were commentaries or homilies is uncertain. In volume XIII, no. 29, p. 610, he specifically praised the homilies themselves. The older ones were the same as the later volumes on John, insofar as they are referred to in volume XXXII, no. 1, p. 404. Jerome seems to indicate that they were written by Origen before he had attained the age of manhood, when he says in the *Prologue* to his *Interpretation*: "I confess, therefore, before he should object, that in these treatises Origen, as it were, plays again: his other works are manly, and the serious works of his old age." I believe the later volumes on John were completed during his second journey to Athens.

(15) *Not yet had he even undertaken the explanation of Numbers*, etc. Here the most illustrious Huetius is manifestly inconsistent with himself. For Origen, as Huetius himself reports just above, in the *Prologue to the Commentaries on the Song of Songs*—which he began during his second stay in Athens, namely in the fifty-second year of his age—mentions his explanations of Numbers, and one cannot say that this *Prologue* was written long after the work was completed. How, therefore, does Huetius conclude here that Origen had not yet undertaken the explanation of Numbers when he illustrated Jeremiah with homilies, which, in the judgment of Huetius, he delivered extempore after his sixtieth year? In truth, the twelfth homily on Jeremiah promises that Origen, when he had finished speaking, would still speak on the priestly benedictions which are contained in Numbers; but that does not prevent him from having had other homilies on Numbers long before. See our *Monitorium* on Numbers.

^A For after the persecution of Maximinus, Origen preached for a year; the actuaries, from both: for he mentions his 22nd tome, as Eusebius relates in Book VI of the *History*, ch. 28, even though he had not yet begun to explain Matthew, as appears from his 16th tome on Matthew, no. 19, p. 748, and the 10th tome on John, no. 18, p. […]. Eusebius mentions the Romans; yet from Origen’s 17th tome on Matthew, no. 32, p. 821, and Books V and VIII against Celsus, no. 47, p. 614, and no. 65, p. 790, we understand that Origen had already composed those works when he set about explaining Matthew and refuting Celsus. Indeed, we may learn from Homily 17 on Luke that he had already interpreted the First Epistle to the Corinthians before he spoke on this evangelist to the people: "I remember," he says, "when I was interpreting that which is written to the Corinthians: 'The Church of God which is at Corinth, with all who call upon him,' I said [there was] a distinction between the Church, and those who call upon the name of the Lord." You may find his commentaries on the First Epistle to the Thessalonians praised in the work against Celsus, Book II, no. 65, p. 437. Finally, he was meditating on some exposition of the Apocalypse while he was explaining Matthew; for when treating of that dragon equipped with seven heads and ten horns, he writes in tract 30, no. 49, p. 867: "It will be expounded in its own time in the Revelation of John"; and soon after: "These principal expositions and proofs must be made when the book itself (of the Apocalypse) has been proposed to us for exposition."

^C IV. Moreover, great judgment must be exercised in distinguishing the homilies of Origen; for some he published having written them in private, others he recited extemporaneously. The authority of the latter is, in my judgment, much lighter; the reputation of the former is weightier. Whatever extemporaneous homilies remain, they were delivered after the sixtieth year of his age: which until then he had been forbidden to do. Others he prepared at various times. If Erasmus had perceived this, surely that remark would never have escaped him while dealing with the homilies of Origen in general: "These discourses he did not write himself, but allowed them to be taken down by secretaries," which they deny that he allowed before his sixtieth year, as was said before. As if Origen had thoughtfully written no homilies, but had poured them all out extemporaneously. The Homilies on Luke, as witness Jerome in the Prologue of his interpretation, are a fetus of his youth, and conceived in leisure and secrecy, so that they might subsequently be published for the public. You may therefore observe a continuous exposition of Luke there, except in the last six homilies, which seem to be excerpted from a larger number. Similar to those first thirty-three are the homilies on Psalms 36, 37, and 38, and two on the Canticle, and nine on Judges. But extemporaneous homilies, since they were preached according to the bishop’s command and on an argument and passage of Scripture designated by him, do not for that reason preserve a certain order; but are often found doubled on the same pericope, with whole chapters omitted which are otherwise worthy of diligent observation and explanation. Of this kind seem to be the surviving homilies on the first four books of the Pentateuch, and those which exist on the book of Joshua, which, as the interpreter Rufinus says in the Prologue: "Adamantius the elder spoke extemporaneously in the Church." Of this kind also seems to be that unique one on 1 Kings ch. 1 and 2, and another on the Engastrimyth, which Leo Allatius first published, and those which survive on Isaiah, on Jeremiah, and on Ezekiel. These, however, were subsequently collected and arranged by students according to the order of Scripture. And these things we conjecture, led by great probability, not asserting them obstinately.

APPENDIX. Books falsely or doubtfully ascribed to Origen. [Including] the commentary on Job, and concerning their ancient interpreter. III. Concerning the later Commentary on Job. IV. Concerning the Commentary on Mark. V. Homilies on various [books]; VI. The homily which in the Vatican codex is inscribed, *On the Rich Man Being Saved*; VII. Scholia on the Lord's Prayer, and the Canticles of the B. Virgin, Zechariah, and Simeon. VIII. Concerning the Lament of Origen. IX. The Dialogue on the orthodox faith. X. Another old dialogue. XI. The books *On Heresies*. XII. *On the Singularity of Clerics*. XIII. *On the Astrolabe*, and *On the Breviary*, and the sermon *On Catechesis*.

That the name of Origen was at one time great and illustrious in the Church, and that it became even more illustrious from the contentions and abuse of adversaries, as often happens in other cases, is well known. Hence it came about that some works, like castaway infants, gladly took for themselves the dear name of Origen, and sometimes even crafty writers, fearing for their own works, used this feigned name as a pretext—

^A I. But it is not only in the diversity of titles, but in the books themselves, that this occurs. In the manuscripts of Victor, or under the name of Cyril, Origen, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Apollinaris, and Theodore are cited; whereas you would find heretics like the Cathari censured: and these names, among many other things, you will find erased from the exemplars that bear Origen’s name on their front. Should anyone think this happened by chance, he has little insight into the audacity of librarians. To me, however, it is quite certain that this commentary is not by Origen; it is highly probable that it was interpolated by them, and rewritten into an Origenian work, so that it might more easily find buyers among the readers.

Now, as to whether it should be attributed rather to Victor or to Cyril as judge of this commentary, although it lies beyond my established plan, I shall say that it is more likely to be ascribed to Victor than to Cyril; for I would not easily believe that Origen was cited as a frequent witness by Cyril, nor that the authority of Chrysostom was usurped by him. As for the age of Victor, Peltanus has a question, and thinks he is older than Julian; for this reason he says that the foundations of the temple were remaining, explaining the thirteenth chapter of Mark; but that they were demolished while Julian reigned, according to the testimony of Nicephorus; on the other hand, a later chapter suggests the heretic Cathari, whose heresy had been eradicated by the Church before that age.

V. Concerning the homilies which are accustomed to be inscribed *On Divers Matters*, it must be noted first of all that they were collected from various places by Merlin, and arranged in the order in which they appear to be disposed among one another. This I have had to warn the reader about, so that he might not wonder how diverse and discordant members could have flowed together into one body. We shall now examine them separately and individually.

The first is completely foreign to Origen’s style: the simple and familiar [style] is brief and summarizes the text, then transitions to allegories and tropes; it abounds with rhetorical figures and tropes, plays with words, and concludes differently from how Origen concludes his homilies. ^B Origen’s homily 14 on Luke teaches that Christ was brought forth with the gates of the womb opened, as was said above in its place: all these things are contrary to what this homily posits. Clearly, then, it is not Origen’s. The Latin writer convicts himself. Whether it is by some diviner, I do not know. It is found in the Lectionary of the old Royal Library.

And wondrous is the astonishment of those who adjudged the second homily to Origen; for, besides a style abhorrent to the Origenian genius, and a conclusion different from the Origenians, it names the Manichaeans and Arians as people posterior to Origen’s time. It says the Son is ὁμοούσιον with the Father; it cites Dionysius the Areopagite, although Origen’s age would not have seen these books. This homily is held in a manuscript of the Royal Library among many of the works of Augustine. Concerning the author, I can define nothing certain.

I would not dare to attribute the third to Origen either, as the conclusion and style are repugnant; although, as regards the Origenian flavor, it comes closer than the two previous ones; for it has a few allegories. Yet it is similar to the first and the second, to such an extent that you might call it the work of a Latin writer, specifically one more recent than Jerome, by its figures and interrogations. Let this also be the judgment regarding the fourth homily, which the Lectionaries of the Royal Library present.

The fifth and sixth homilies exhibit nothing that is Origenian: neither style, nor allegories, nor conclusion: the oration is concise, loose, ^C *exegesimene*. The beginning of the homily tastes of Origen’s doctrine, and deceives the readers. You will find it in Matthew, no. 1, where you will find almost the same sentiments. Which, unless the faith of the interpreters were doubtful, would make one judge the Latin writer by these words: "(17) From [the phrase] *When he is done, that something is done in it*, or *a village or a circumvallation of a boundary*, he has received the name of this protection of custody, it is rightly asserted concerning the dispensation of the flesh that the Lord entered, who, through the gate of divinity, drawing unbelievers to belief, and..." ^D [are] able, since those who are weighed down by the burden of sins are not able to ascend to sublime mysteries without being cast off from their weight. For this reason, the children of Israel were not able to ascend the mountain at first to meet God, burdened as they were by the conversation of the Egyptians, but only Moses, etc.; our manuscripts have: "As the Lord was teaching on the mountain, they came to him as if they were friends, as if they were kin, as if they were neighbors. Therefore the Lord says: *You are the salt of the earth, and you are the light of the world* (Matt. v, 13, 14). Now as he was coming down from the mountain, the crowds followed him, which were not able to ascend the mountain, because they were lazy people, like Gentiles, as [those who are] imperfect. And so the children of Israel were not able to ascend the mountain to go to meet God because they could not, on account of their irreligion and impiety, but only Moses, etc." So finally, these and most of the other homilies that Merlin published, besides the fact that they swarm with errors everywhere and gape with countless gaps, have much woven into them that is represented differently in the manuscripts.

^A The author of that work rejects those who attribute human weakness to God: Origen vigorously attacked that heresy. The author admits to guardian angels, just as Origen does. The author opines that Christ appeared to the patriarchs and prophets of the Old Testament, and in this way served as the mediator between God and man at that time; Origen holds the same opinion. The author defines the nature of the stars as *semantikē* (significant), not *apotelestikē* (efficient); Origen defines them the same way. Thus, that consensus easily created a deception. In certain Greek codices and in the first edition by Genebrard, four homilies are appended, which, because they were discovered to be by Chrysostom, were omitted in later editions. Beyond that double Commentary on the Book of Job, Lawrence Humphrey writes in a letter to Antonio Cano, which is prefixed to the Erasmian edition of Origen, that Hieronymus Froben and Nicolaus Episcopius, who committed that edition to the press, did not want to insert certain short notes on Job into it, because they were very brief and seemed to some learned men to smell little of the genius and style of Origen.

^B IV. In a manuscript codex of the Royal Library, an old Commentary on the Gospel of Mark bears the name of Origen. It is also read in Possevin’s *Apparatus* that there is some work of Origen on Mark in the Corpus Christi library at Oxford. What kind of work that is, I for one do not know. As regards the Royal codex, some allegories in it, and many things akin to Origenian doctrine, which we noted in the *Observations* on the Commentary on Matthew, seem to indicate Origen as the author. But these are trifles compared to those which prove the contrary: the total discrepancy of style, Origen’s constant habit of arranging his commentaries either into tomes, or homilies, or scholia—to none of which categories these expositions can be referred; for they exceed the scholia in length, while they are exceeded by the tomes, and they differ profoundly from the homiletic genre. Add that the writer of the work declares at the very beginning that he will reduce into one body those things which had been noted sporadically by the doctors of the Church on this Evangelist; whereas many up to his own time had written on Matthew and John, few on Luke, and none at all on Mark. Indeed, not many had written on Matthew and John before Origen; and these matters smack of an age later than Origen’s times. If these conjectures are not enough to strip this book from Origen, the dissent of the ancient codices will certainly suffice, some of which attribute it to Victor of Antioch—such is a certain book in the Royal Library, and such also was that of Theodorus Peltanus, a theologian of the Society of Jesus, who published that Commentary, which he had rendered into Latin, under the name of Victor. Other codices attribute the same to Cyril of Alexandria; such is another one in the Royal Library.

1277 ^A ORIGENIAN APPENDIX. 1278 ^B It is no more in agreement with the dogmas of Origen. Furthermore, it directly contradicts the teachings Origen sets forth in his fourteenth homily on Luke, where he argues that Mary gave birth to Christ with the portals of her womb opened, as has been mentioned in its proper place; whereas in this homily everything asserts the opposite. Therefore, it is clearly not by Origen. The style betrays a Latin author. If one cares to guess, one may divine the author. It is found in a certain ancient Lectionary of the Royal Library. Nor does the difference lie only in the titles, but even in the text of the book itself. In codices inscribed with the name of Victor or Cyril, you will find Origen, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Apollinaris, and Theodorus cited, while the Cathari heretics are censured: and these names, along with many others, you will find erased from the copies that bear the name of Origen on their front. If anyone thinks that this happened by chance, he has little insight into the audacity of copyists. Since it is certain to me that this Commentary is not by Origen, it is probable that it was interpolated by those parties and recast into an Origenian work so that it could more easily find buyers or readers. Now, although it is beyond my present purpose to decide whether this Commentary should be attributed to Victor or to Cyril, I will say in passing that it is more likely to be ascribed to Victor than to Cyril; for I would not easily believe that either Origen was so frequently cited as a witness by Cyril, or that the authority of Chrysostom was so commonly usurped by him. Peltanus addresses the question of Victor’s age, and he believes him to be older than Julian, on the grounds that in expounding the thirteenth chapter of Mark he says that the foundations of the temple remain, whereas they were unearthed during the reign of Julian, according to the testimony of Nicephorus; and furthermore, in the following chapter he censures the Cathar heretics, whose heresy had already been suppressed by the Church before that age.

V. Regarding the homilies which are customarily inscribed "On Various Subjects" [In diversos], it must be noted first of all that they were collected from different places by Merlin and arranged in the order in which they are seen to be disposed. He himself stated this in the preface to his edition. This was a necessary warning to the reader, so that he might not wonder how such diverse and poorly harmonizing limbs came to flow together into one body. Let us now examine them one by one, individually.

The first is completely alien to Origen’s style: his is plain and familiar, he briefly explains the letter, then transitions to allegories and tropology; this one abounds in figures and tropes, plays upon words, and finally concludes otherwise than Origen is accustomed to conclude his homilies. These words, and the preceding ones—"For Capharnaum is interpreted as a field or village of consolation. When a field, etc."—do not exist in all those ancient handwritten homiliaries that I have seen; in place of these words, one reads: "Why did he enter there? Because of this, that he both found and it was immediately manifest. A centurion approached him (Matt. VIII, 5). He approached truly; not in part, but entirely: not by the appearance of the body only, but by the fullness of the soul: not only with his face, but with an immaculate heart." Thus also at the beginning of the homily, for these words: "When Jesus had come down from the mountain, great crowds followed him (Matt. VIII, 1). While the Lord was teaching on the mountain, the disciples were with him, to whom it was given to know the secrets of heavenly doctrine, through which the knowledge of salvation might leap into the hearts of the unreasoning, and the light of truth might be opened to the eyes of the blind, darkening through the shadows of worldly delight. Whence also the Lord says to them: You are, he says, the salt of the earth, you are also the lights of the world (Matt. V, 13, 14). But now, as he descended from the mountain, great crowds followed him: for they were by no means able to ascend the mountain."

But the astonishment of those who adjudged the second homily to Origen is remarkable; for besides a style that abhors the Origenian genius, and a conclusion that is different from those of Origen, it calls the Manichaeans and Arians, who are later than the times of Origen, by name. It says that the Son is homoousios with the Father; it cites the works of Dionysius the Areopagite, when the age of Origen had not yet seen these books. This homily is held in a manuscript codex of the Royal Library among many works of Augustine. I cannot define anything certain about the author. I would not dare attribute even the third to Origen, as the conclusion and style protest; although it approaches the Origenian flavor more closely than the previous two; for it has a few allegories. Yet it is more similar to the first than to the second, so frequent is it in figures and interrogations. You would call it a Latin writer, and indeed one more recent than Jerome.

The same judgment must be made regarding the fourth homily, which the Lectionaries of the Royal Library also exhibit. The same ones also show the fifth homily, which possesses nothing Origenian—no style, no allegories, no conclusion: the speech is concise, disjointed, and ornate. The beginning of the homily, which tastes of Origen’s doctrine, has deceived readers. See volume X on Matthew, number 1, and you will find almost the same sentiments. If the reliability of the interpreters were not in doubt, I would judge it to be a Latin writer from these words: "Since the field, from which it receives its name, for something to be done in it, or a village from the circumvallation of a boundary, that is, the fortification of a watch, the Lord is asserted to have entered into it by the dispensation of the flesh, so that by drawing the incredulous to belief by surrounding them through the gate of his divinity, and by being the miracle of unity, he was about to act. ...whence they could not, because those who are weighed down by the burden of sins are in no way able to ascend to the heights of the mysteries without shedding the load. Therefore also the children of Israel were not able to ascend the mountain initially to meet God, because they were hindered, weighed down by the Egyptian way of life, but Moses alone, etc."; our manuscripts have: "While the Lord was teaching on the mountain, the disciples came to him as if eager, as if intimate, as if near, as if friends or brothers. Therefore the Lord also says to them: You are the salt of the earth, and you are the light of the world (Matt. V, 13, 14). Now, however, as he descended from the mountain, great crowds followed him, which were not able to ascend the mountain, as lazy people, as negligent, as imperfect. So also the children of Israel were not able to ascend the mountain at first: they could not proceed to meet God because of their irreligion and impiety, but Moses alone, etc."

Thus, finally, these and most other homilies, which Merlin published under the name of Origen, besides the fact that they swarm with errors everywhere and gape with countless lacunae, have many things woven into them that are represented differently in the manuscript homiliaries.

^A

It was to perform a miracle of unity. The first homily differs little in style from the others. The sixth homily is similar to the first, third, fourth, and fifth, but most especially to the third, in its style, figures, and cadence; whence we judge that it was also written by a Latin author. ^B (18) Nor do we judge differently regarding the seventh, even though it lacks a cadence. (19) A certain lectionary in the Royal Library represents both, and the seventh indeed with this beginning: "Brethren, someone of you says: I have committed many and great sins; and who among you is there that does not sin? Say, O man: I have erred more than all men. This confession is enough for you in sacrifice. You first state your iniquities, that you may be justified." ^C Know yourself, that you are a sinner: have sorrow when you return: be as if desperate and mournful; yet also pour forth tears, being pricked in heart. Was there anything else in the courtesan than the pouring forth of tears? And from this profusion she found protection, and receiving confidence, she approached the fountain, the Lord Jesus. But let us come to the subject. What then does the Evangelist say? "And Jesus passing from thence withdrew into the parts of Tyre and Sidon, and behold a Canaanitish woman." A wonderful thing, O Evangelist! The rest is conceived as in the printed books.

What we feel about the immediately preceding ones, we feel about the eighth, which is sprinkled with rhetorical pigments. Merlin suspected this, and confessed that it in no way reproduces the style of Origen, and that he had long ago inserted it into Origenian writings on this sole argument, because it is thought by many to be Adamantius’s and has been found among his works. Victorius, however, placed it in the ninth volume among the works falsely ascribed to Jerome.

The ninth homily is composed of three members compacted into one. The first part is nothing other than Origenian tract thirty-four on Matthew, from where some things have been deleted on purpose, because it contained less sound doctrine. But that part which begins with these words, "By many remorse of conscience is accepted for sins," etc., and ends in these: "In a very wonderful way the fire of Gehenna is expressed in a few words," is taken from the book of Jerome’s Commentaries on Isaiah. The rest was supplied by chapter 17, Book V of the Morals of Gregory the Great.

Whoever has a refined sense will immediately recognize that the tenth homily is not Origen’s. The style is foreign to Origen, foreign is the cadence, foreign the tropes, ^D and foreign the figures; none of which have the flavor of the Origenian simplicity. Furthermore, there are no allegories, no tropes. If I have any conjectural ability, I would call the writer a Latin. Such is the congruence and similarity of the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and tenth among themselves, (20) that I would almost dare to affirm that they are all the work of one and the same author; and, as I have said, a Latin one: the second is of another writer: the ninth is stitched together from a triple fragment of three writers. From Origen, however, nothing at all has proceeded, except for that first part of the ninth.

VI. Michael Ghislerius, in his Preface to his Commentaries on Jeremiah, chapter 7, paragraph 4, relates that in a certain Greek manuscript codex he found twenty homilies of Origen on Jeremiah; and that their last, although the title indicated it, nevertheless in no way belonged to Origen. He adds shortly after that he found upon publication that it was not a homily of Origen, but a significant Treatise of Clement of Alexandria, which Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius mention, for it was titled thus: Τίς ὁ σωζόμενος πλούσιος.

VII. Scholia on the Lord’s Prayer, and the Canticles of the Blessed Virgin, Zechariah, and Simeon in Greek with his Latin interpretation (edited by Federicus Morellos, under the name of Origen, or, as he himself added, of another contemporary doctor, and he declares that he selected, transcribed, and translated them from an old manuscript codex that came from Italian libraries). In the Greek title of the Scholia themselves you will in no way find the name of Origen, but only this: Ἀνωνύμου σχόλια εἰς εὐχὴν κυριακήν. Whence I suspect the name of Origen was added by Morellos himself. Truly, it is a good thing that we know from the first volume of the Library of the Fathers that Peter of Laodicea is the legitimate author, in which these scholia on the Lord’s Prayer, translated into Latin, are found joined and mixed with those of Germanus, patriarch of Constantinople. But Morellos’s codex attributed the Scholia on the Canticles to the same person to whom it attributed the Scholia on the Lord’s Prayer; and the similarity of style can convince one of this.

VIII. To the end of the books *De principiis* it is customary to attach a short work, which is inscribed *The Lament of Origen*. Its interpretation Guido Carus attributes to Jerome, and it is the work of one and the same author, and that a Latin one. Huetius almost erred, and if he had dared to affirm it plainly, he would have erred plainly. For the homily which is numbered seventh among them, regarding which he says there is such great congruence and similarity with the others, is the very same homily, or rather a part of the homily on the Canaanite woman, which Mabillon and many after him have falsely attributed to Laurence, bishop of Novara, others to a presbyter, others to Laurence Mellifluous, others to a Milanese; which our lord Montfaucon has, however, rightly and deservedly adjudged to St. Chrysostom. For this learned man compared it with the Greek text of St. Chrysostom, and found and pointed out that it is a mere interpretation, or rather a fragment of the Greek homily on the Canaanite woman.

^A lita, in the heresy of the Origenists; Merlini’s edition attributes it to him, as does a handwritten codex from the Royal Library. But, on the contrary, Erasmus writes: “This Lament, he says, was neither written by Origen, nor translated by Jerome, but is a fabrication by some unlearned person who was eager to defame Origen by such a coloring.” And Gelasius in the Roman Council: “The book which is called *On the Penitence of Origen* is apocryphal.” Therefore, it is surprising that this book is sometimes cited by certain theologians as a testimony without a mark of falsehood, and is placed among the genuine works of Origen by Vincent of Beauvais, *Spec. doctr.* lib. xvii, cap. 43. But here the stupidity of some heterodox person of this age is to be mocked, who thought the *Lament* ascribed to Origen was something different from the book *On Penitence*.

^B He also reconciles what Eusebius narrates in *Hist.* lib. vi, cap. 33, that very many things were handed down about Origen written by the presbyters of his own age; and that the author of the *Dialogue* commemorates certain kings who had embraced the faith of Christ, and that the temples of the heathens had been overturned with their idols; for nothing of this sort happened in the times of Origen, but under Constantine: whence you may gather the age of Maximus. (21) Perhaps the title of the *Dialogue* bearing the name of Adamantius deceived Basil and Gregory, because Origen plays the leading role in it; just as the titles of the *Dialogues on Friendship* and *On Old Age* bear the names of Laelius and Cato, not because they were written by Cato or Laelius, but because the leading roles are assigned to them. Furthermore, it is not surprising that the names of the interlocutors appear neither in Eusebius nor in the *Philocalia*: for since such names and headings were usually distinguished by rubrics or some other color, this distinction was frequently omitted by scribes, either through negligence or rather because, being forgetful men, they would defer this to a more convenient time, and finally omit them altogether. The Latin edition of Genebrard offers a double interpretation of this work: one by Joachim Perionius, the other by Laurence Humphrey. Besides this, another exists, prepared by the senator of Paris, Jean Pic, published separately in the year 1556.

^C X. A certain heretic had attributed to himself and to Origen another *Dialogue*, although he had refused any meeting and dispute with him, which perhaps he had foreseen at Ephesus. He sent the fictitious writing to his disciples at Rome and disseminated it everywhere; and at Antioch, before Origen arrived there, he celebrated empty triumphs for a false victory: but soon as Adamantius was present, he crushed the man's insolence and refuted his vanity with manifest arguments.

IX. Basil and Gregory Nazianzen seem to attribute to Origen the *Dialogue on the Orthodox Faith*, which is also usually inscribed *Against the Marcionites*. For since they professed to have compiled the *Philocalia* from purely Origenian works, they inserted into the *Philocalia* a fragment taken from the third part of this *Dialogue*. Therefore, it is clear that they believed it to be Origen’s. But in that *Dialogue*, Origen is introduced defending the opinion approved in the Church concerning the coats of skins of Adam, and concerning the human body and soul, and concerning the resurrection; whereas we have shown above that he held other views. Whence the author of this little work can by no means be believed to be Origen. Furthermore, at the end of this fragment which is inserted into the *Philocalia*, the following Scholion is usually found: “These are excerpted from the seventh book of the *Evangelical Preparation* of Eusebius Pamphili. They are, however, by Maximus, as the same Eusebius says, a writer of no small note among Christians; and these same things are found written verbatim in the *Dialogue of Origen Against the Marcionites and Other Heretics*, with Eutropius judging, and Megethius defending.”

^D In truth, Eusebius in book v of the *Evangelical Preparation* presents that fragment, and hands down that it was borrowed from Maximus’s book *On Matter*. But we must not doubt to which we should give more credit: to Basil and Gregory, who attribute that work to Origen; or to Eusebius, who assigns the same to Maximus; for we have frequently shown that no one applied as much care and skill in investigating the affairs of Origen as Eusebius did. It is likely, however, that a confrontation did indeed take place between Origen and Megethius, Marcus, and other heretics; but it was later committed to writing by Maximus. (See what we have said regarding this *Dialogue* in tom. I, *Preface*, pp. 12, 13, and in the admonition prefixed to the work in the same volume, pp. 800, 801, and 802.)

XI. A certain booklet also falsely prescribes the name of Origen to itself, which reviews the sects and dogmas of the philosophers, and is usually called the *Philosophumena* of Origen. But this is the first book of a larger work, in which the author had proposed to himself to refute all heresies, because from the dogmas of the philosophers, the plagues of heresies had almost all proceeded; and the refutation of them is useful for overthrowing these [heresies]. These words, which exist in the preface, strip the mask from this masked writing: “These things, however, no other will refute than the Holy Spirit handed down in the Church, which the apostles, having received it first, communicated to those who had rightly believed; of whom we, being successors, and participating in the same grace, both of the priesthood and of teaching, and accounted as guardians of the Church, will not sleep with an idle eye.” These things, however, no one will refute except the Holy Spirit handed down in the Church: which the apostles having first received, they communicated to those who thought rightly about God: of whom we...

^A are the successors, partaking of the same grace, both of the priesthood and of the teaching, and being accounted guardians of the Church, we shall not sleep with our eyes shut. These words, not otherwise, are attributed by the edition of Merlin and by a manuscript codex of the Royal Library to the heresy of the Origenists; and they are woven into its own work, *On All Things*. But on the contrary, Erasmus says: "This Lament, he says, was neither written by Origen nor translated by Jerome, but is a fabrication of some unlearned person who was eager to defame Origen with a color of this kind. With similar artifice they feigned a letter under Jerome's title, in which he lamented that he had at one time thought in agreement with Origen." And Gelasius in the Roman Council: "The book which is called *On the Repentance of Origen* is apocryphal." It is therefore strange that this book is sometimes cited as a testimony by certain theologians without a mark of falsehood, and is placed among the genuine works of Origen by Vincent of Beauvais, *Speculum Doctrinale*, lib. xvii, cap. 43. But here the stupidity of a certain heretic of this age is to be laughed at, who thought that the *Lament* ascribed to Origen was something different from the book *On Repentance*. The same man reconciles two things: that which Eusebius narrates in *Hist.*, lib. 6, cap. 33, that very many things written about Origen were handed down by the presbyters of his own age; and the fact that the writer of the *Dialogue* commemorates certain kings who had embraced the faith of Christ and that the temples of the heathens with their idols were overturned; for nothing of this sort happened in the times of Origen, but in those of Constantine: whence you may collect the age of Maximus. ^B Perhaps the title of the *Dialogue*, bearing the name of Adamantius, deceived Basil and Gregory, because Origen plays the leading parts in it; just as the names of Laelius and Cato bear the titles of the *Dialogues on Friendship* and *on Old Age*, not because they were written by Cato or Laelius, but because the first parts are attributed to them. Furthermore, it is not to be wondered that the names of the interlocutors appear neither in Eusebius nor in the *Philocalia*: for since such names and headings were wont to be distinguished by rubric or some other color, this distinction was very often omitted by copyists, either through negligence or rather because, putting off that task to a more convenient time, they finally, being forgetful men, passed them over entirely. The Latin edition of Genebrard offers a double interpretation of this lucubration, one by Joachim Perionius, the other by Laurence Humphrey. Besides another, worked out by John Pico, a Parisian senator, in the year 1556, exists edited separately.

X. A certain heretic had substituted another *Dialogue* in his own and Origen's name, although he had refused all meeting and dispute with him, perhaps by chance seen at Ephesus. He sent the fictitious writing to Rome to his disciples, and disseminated it everywhere; and at Antioch, before Origen arrived there, he celebrated empty triumphs on account of a false victory: but soon as Adamantius was present, he crushed the impudence of the man and refuted his vanity with manifest arguments.

IX. Basil and Gregory Nazianzen seem to attribute to Origen the *Dialogue on the Orthodox Faith*, which is also accustomed to be inscribed *Against the Marcionites*. For since they professed that they compiled the *Philocalia* from works purely Origenian, they cast into the *Philocalia* a fragment taken from the third part of this *Dialogue*. ^C Thus it is clear that they believed it to be Origen’s. But in that *Dialogue*, Origen is introduced defending the opinion approved in the Church concerning the coats of skins of Adam, and concerning the human body and soul, and concerning the resurrection; whereas we have shown above that he thought otherwise. Whence the writer of this work can by no means be believed to be him. Furthermore, at the end of this fragment which is inserted into the *Philocalia*, this scholion is wont to be found: "These things have been extracted from the seventh book of the *Evangelical Preparation* of Eusebius Pamphili. They belong, however, to Maximus, as the same Eusebius says, a writer not undistinguished among Christians. But these things are found written in the same words in Origen's *Dialogue against the Marcionites and other heretics*, Eutropius judging, Megethius arguing." — ^D Indeed, Eusebius, in book 5 of *Evangelical Preparation*, exhibits that fragment and relates that he borrowed it from the book of Maximus *On All Things*. But to which we should give more faith, to Basil and Gregory, attributing that work to Origen; or to Eusebius, assigning the same to Maximus, is not to be doubted: for we have often shown that no one applied as much care and skill in researching the affairs of Origen as Eusebius applied. But it is likely that a struggle truly took place for Origen with Megethius, Marcus, and other heretics; but was afterwards committed to writing by Maximus. See what we said about this *Dialogue*, Vol. I, Preface, pp. 12, 13, and in the admonition prefixed to the work on pp. 800, 801, and 802 of the same volume.

XI. A certain little book also falsely writes for itself the name of Origen, which recounts the sects and dogmas of the philosophers, and is wont to be called *Origen's Philosophumena*. But this is the first book of a larger work, by which the author had proposed to himself that all heresies should be refuted, because the plagues of the heresies came almost entirely from the dogmas of the philosophers, and the refutation of them is useful for pulling them down. Those words which exist in the preface strip the mask from this masked writing: "These things are not otherwise to be refuted, except by the Holy Spirit handed down in the Church: which the apostles having first received, they communicated to those who thought rightly about God: of whom we being survivors, and participating in the same grace, and of the priesthood and of the teaching, and being accounted guardians of the Church, shall not sleep with our eyes shut." These things, however, not another will refute, except the Holy Spirit handed down in the Church: which the apostles having first received, they communicated to those who thought rightly about God: of whom we...