A and indeed worthy of admiration on account of his eloquence: "A man who is, among other things, noble and good, and rightly admired for his eloquence," as he adds, "one may know from his books which still survive; which, whether on account of their ancient style of expression and the gravity of their sentiments, or on account of the elegance of their terminology and the charm with which he explains matters, are greatly esteemed: excellent in the antiquity of their phrases and the sobriety of their thoughts, and in the beauty and grace of their delivery." B Nor does Anastasius Sinaita speak otherwise, to whom he is called "the divine Eustathius, eminent in theology, a preacher, a martyr, and the supreme teacher of the Nicene Synod: The great Eustathius in theology, the divine, the orator, the martyr, and the leader and teacher of the Synod at Nicaea." Yet it must be lamented most of all that, out of the literary monuments of such a great Father, very few have reached us; nor indeed does any survive of those infinite letters of his which Jerome mentions. Nevertheless, his *Dissertation on the Engastrimyth against Origen* still exists complete, which, together with the other work of Origen himself on the same subject, Leo Allatius published at Lyons in the year 1629 of the previous century. Furthermore, we ourselves thought it right for both to be committed to press, truly acting in accordance with our holy Father, who conceived the plan of publishing both his own and Origen’s disputation together. "For it is fitting," he says, "for those who engage in a struggle to fight at close quarters against the enemy and to stand against them; so that it may be easily discerned who is the better. Wherefore, in the first place, before all else, we shall set forth the words of Origen; then we shall subjoin the contrary opinion to them, which it will be worth the trouble to discuss with the industry and diligence of our wit: for one must first set down the Origenian views, and then, in their own order, we must study the mind that contends against them."
IV. But behold, there is the illustrious Huet, who, struggling strenuously for his Origen, rises up against Eustathius of Antioch and thinks that his attacks and assaults on Adamantius must be repelled by himself. The illustrious man complains, indeed, that the holy Father attacked the allegories of Origen most sharply, more so than any others, in his *Diagnostic on the Engastrimyth*. But a learned editor of Origen’s works acts as an advocate for the blessed prelate of Antioch when he brings Adamantius’s custom regarding the method of interpreting Holy Scripture to examination: "If you listen to Origen," he says, "he holds that the letter of Scripture suffices for the edification of the simple. In this respect, it is worthy of reverence. From another perspective, it contains countless false, absurd, impossible, and self-contradictory things." From this I conclude that the few good things he attributes to the letter are not eclipsed by the countless vices he reproaches it with. Wherefore, one cannot excuse the injurious manner Huet employs regarding the holy martyr Eustathius of Antioch, whose objections against the Origenian method he calls futile cavils. I will not, indeed, deny that Adamantius’s opinion concerning the pythoness was attacked by Eustathius more sharply than was necessary. For the question is merely critical, and could harm neither faith nor morals. But through this very sharp censure, it seems that Origen was not so much vexed by Eustathius because of his D opinion about the ventriloquist, as because of his method of interpreting Scripture, which perverts the meaning of all the holy books; and, therefore, had stirred up just indignation in Eustathius, as is sufficiently clear from these words of his: "This is the only passage of Scripture which Origen, from whom all things were transferred to allegories, wishes to be accepted in a literal sense."
If you except the question regarding the ventriloquist, therefore, the accusations of Eustathius against Origen are not unjust, nor does Huet repel them well. Eustathius demands this, that he [Origen] abolished the earthly paradise and the fruitful trees of paradise by allegorical exposition. Is Adamantius well purged when Huet responds that he borrowed this opinion from the books of Philo? Is Origen’s crime diluted by a similar crime of Philo? Eustathius complains that, without any mention of historical sense being made, he drew the wells dug by Abraham into allegories, which, however, still survived in his own age. Huet responds that those who had spent so many years in Judea could not have been ignorant of such wells. But is not Origen on this very account less worthy of excuse, because he treated a matter placed in the open and present to everyone’s eyes as if it were invented and fictitious? Certainly, the 40th homily on Genesis, which Eustathius seems to have intended for Huet, has this: "I have often said that in these, histories are not being told, but mysteries are being woven together."
V. But finally, let us review the remaining fragments that survive from the works of Eustathius. And first, indeed, Theodoret cites many excerpts in his *History* and his *Dialogues* from his oration on that text of Prov. viii, 22, "The Lord created me," and another occurs in the *Acts* of the Nicene Council on those words of Prov. ix, 5, "Eat my bread, and drink the wine which I have mixed for you." Furthermore, Theodoret also records other things in his own *Dialogues* from his Commentaries on the Davidic Psalter, especially the psalms xv and xcII. In addition to these, some things exist from his book *On the Soul*, which Jerome mentions, in the same Theodoret, in Eustathius the presbyter of Constantinople, and in John of Damascus. Moreover, Pope Gelasius, Eulogius in Photius, Facundus of Hermiane, and John of Damascus exhibit various passages from his eight books *Against the Arians*. But we bring forth all these things, drawn from the praised writers of the Church, arranged in their proper places. To these you may add, if you like, from Gelasius of Cyzicus, the refutation by the same holy Father Eustathius of the objections of the philosopher Phaedo, who spoke on behalf of Arius and his blasphemy at the Nicene Synod.
In the last place, we set forth the *Allocution* of our prelate of Antioch to the Emperor Constantine, delivered at the Nicene Council, which Gregory the presbyter of Caesarea has saved for us. Indeed, Theodoret narrates that, in that same council, the great Eustathius was the first of all to deliver a panegyric to Constantine, more than the rest: "The great Eustathius was the first... who crowned the head of the emperor with the flowers of praise." On which matter you may consult Baronius, and I would not wish for you to omit Tillemont.
ORIGEN ON THE ENGASTRIMYTH (I Reg. XXVIII.)
DISSERTATION OF SAINT EUSTATHIUS ARCHBISHOP OF ANTIOCH AGAINST ORIGEN CONCERNING THE ENGASTRIMYTH
I. I have always admired the zeal of your divine way of life, which is worthy to be known to others, O most distinguished preacher of the orthodox faith, Eutropius. Indeed, I am often struck with admiration for your marks of piety, and not least do I wonder at this particular matter: that you clearly wish to know what my opinion is regarding the Engastrimythos (the ventriloquist) who is mentioned in the first book of Kings. For you say that you are not pleased with what Origen has published on this subject. Furthermore, I know of others, and not a few, who have complained about the things he asserted so rashly, and many there are who are most severely tormented in their souls because of them. Some, on the other hand, acquiesce in his commentaries and easily embrace a new dogma that has been wrongly introduced, giving attention to names rather than to the realities themselves, as one ought to do. B In order, therefore, that I may not seem to be introducing an adversarial, judicial contest of my own, I think it not unfitting to join his entire exposition together with this my current writing, and through both of them to clarify the truth; so that neither may some think we are slandering him in any way by having been induced to form an opinion, nor, on the other hand, may the opinions of both parties remain in dispute. For it is considered that by a comparative study of both, the opinion of either side can be better discerned, and subsequently learned men can apply themselves to what is better. For neither is a contest horse judged by himself to be proven, running with graceful limbs, even if he is very swift, as if winged, A demonstrating...