PG 17 · cols. 521–540

Admonitio ad Apologeticum libellum S. Pamphili martyris pro Origene

Editors' preface

PG 17:521

OPERA AD ORIGENEM SPECTANTIA.

WORKS RELATING TO ORIGEN.

ADMONITIO

ADMONITION

AD APOLOGETICUM LIBELLUM S. PAMPHILI MARTYRIS PRO ORIGENE.

ON THE APOLOGETIC BOOK OF ST PAMPHILUS THE MARTYR FOR ORIGEN.

I. Sub finem anni quinti commotae a Diocletiano Imperatore adversus Ecclesiam persecutionis, id est Christi 307, Pamphilus, natione Phoenix, domo Berytius, Pierii, ut scribit Photius, Alexandrinae Ecclesiae presbyteri discipulus, qui tum inter Caesariensis Ecclesiae presbyteros eminebat, captus et in carcerem conjectus, biennii spatium in vinculis exegit. Eo tempore Eusebius amicum et contubernalem suum invisens assidue, seu communi cum eo carcere inclusus, ut ait Photius, quinque libros Defensionis Origenis in carcere una cum illo, sextum vero et ultimum ejusdem operis librum mortuo demum absolvit Pamphilo. Totum opus confessoribus ad metalla Palaestinae degentibus ab Eusebio et Pamphilo nuncupatum est, quemadmodum scribit idem Photius Bibliothec. codice CXVIII his verbis : Ἀνεγνώσθη 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 ζῇν ἀπαχθεὶς, ἀνέλυσε πρὸς ὃν ἐπόθει Θεὸν, Εὐσεβίῳ λοιπὸν ἀπαρτίζεται. « Lecti sunt Pamphili martyris et Eusebii pro Origene libri sex, quorum quinque sunt a Pamphilo in carcere, praesente etiam Eusebio, elaborati : sextus vero postquam jam martyr ferro privatus vita, ad unice desideratum Deum migrarat, ab Eusebio est absolutus. » Et paucis interjectis :

I. Towards the end of the fifth year of the persecution stirred up by the emperor Diocletian against the Church, that is, the year 307 of Christ, Pamphilus, a Phoenician by nation, of Berytus by home, a disciple, as Photius writes, of Pierius presbyter of the Church of Alexandria, being himself at that time eminent among the presbyters of the Church of Caesarea, having been seized and cast into prison, spent the space of two years in chains. At that time Eusebius, visiting his friend and companion constantly, or shut up in a common prison with him, as Photius says, completed five books of the Defence of Origen in prison together with him, and the sixth and last book of the same work only after Pamphilus was dead. The whole work was dedicated by Eusebius and Pamphilus to the confessors living at the mines of Palestine, as the same Photius writes in the Bibliotheca, codex 118, in these words: There was read the work of Pamphilus the martyr and of Eusebius on behalf of Origen; the book is in six tomes, of which five were elaborated by Pamphilus while dwelling in the prison, with Eusebius also present with him; whereas the sixth, after the martyr, taken away from life by the sword, departed to the God Whom he longed for, was thereafter completed by Eusebius. "There were read the six books of Pamphilus the martyr and Eusebius on behalf of Origen, five of which were elaborated by Pamphilus in prison, with Eusebius also present; whereas the sixth, after the martyr, deprived of life by the sword, had departed to the uniquely longed-for God, was finished by Eusebius." And with a few words interposed:

Editors' notes and page, col. 521

Footnotes

(86) ‹anchor: not visible; the calls are not in the Admonitio text on this page› · printed under col 521

⁸⁶ Psal. CIV, 17.

Ps. 104:17 (Vulgate numbering; Hebrew 105:17).

(printed under page 271)

(87) ‹anchor: not visible› · printed under col 521

⁸⁷ Job iii, 19.

Job 3:19.

(printed under page 271)

Page

running head: 521 APOLOGIA PRO ORIGENE. —
marginal letters: A facie omnem gratiam; B I. Sub finem anni; C his verbis : Ἀνεγνώσθη
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only at top (facie omnem...); full-width titles after double rule cut off at right edge, not set (OPERA AD ORIGENEM / ADMONIT / AD APOLOGETICUM LIBELLUM S. PRO ORIGENE.); editors' matter set: I. Sub finem anni
other: a full-width band stands across cols 521/522 in mid-page (OPERA AD ORIGENEM SPECTANTIA. / ADMONITIO / AD APOLOGETICUM LIBELLUM S. PAMPHILI MARTYRIS PRO ORIGENE.; no editor's name printed); it is set at the head of c521_a.md; the text above it in both columns ends the previous unit and is not set here
other: the column opens with the end of the previous work (another unit); not set here: the unit begins at I. Sub finem anni quinti

PG 17:522

Τὴν δὲ ὑπὲρ Ὠριγένους Ἀπολογίαν, ὡς ἔφημεν, ὁ Πάμφιλος σὺν Εὐσεβίῳ καθειργμένος τῷ οἰκήματι συνεγράψατο, καὶ ταύτην πρὸς τοὺς ἐν μετάλλοις διὰ Χριστὸν ταλαιπωρουμένους διεπέμψατο· ὧν ἦν τὸ ἀκροθίνιον, Πατερμούθιος, ὁ μετὰ βραχὺ τῆς Παμφίλου ἀναλύσεως, διὰ πυρὸς καὶ αὐτὸς σὺν ἑτέροις τὸν βίον τελειωθείς. « Ejus porro Apologiam, ut diximus, Pamphilus una cum Eusebio, communi carcere inclusi conscripserunt, eamdemque ad eos qui pro Christi nomine ad metalla damnati exercebantur, consolationi miserunt; quorum princeps erat Patermuthius, qui post Pamphili per martyrium emigrationem, brevi interjecto tempore, flammis et ipse cum aliis vita pulsus est. » Hujus Apologiae Eusebius lib. VI Hist. eccl., cap. 33, sic meminit : Ὅσα δὲ ἀναγκαῖα τῶν περὶ αὐτὸν (Ὠριγένην) διαγνῶναι ἦν, ταῦτα καὶ ἐκ τῆς ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πεπονημένης ἡμῖν τε καὶ τῷ καθ' ἡμᾶς ἱερῷ μάρτυρι Παμφίλῳ Ἀπολογίας, πάρεστιν ἀναλέξασθαι· ἣν τῶν φιλαιτίων ἕνεκα συμπονήσαντες ἀλλήλοις, διὰ σπουδῆς πεποιήμεθα. « Quaecunque vero necesse est de illo (Origene) agnoscere, ea peti possunt ux Apologetico qui a nobis et a sacrosancto nostri temporis martyre Pamphilo pro illius defensione conscriptus est; quem quidem nos propter malevolos quosdam obtrectatores communi studio atque opera junctim elaboravimus. » Socrates item lib. III Hist. eccles., cap. 7 : Ὠριγένης δὲ πανταχοῦ

And the Apology on behalf of Origen, as we said, Pamphilus composed while shut up in the prison room with Eusebius, and sent it to those suffering hardship for Christ in the mines; of whom the first-fruits was Patermuthius, who shortly after the departure of Pamphilus, himself also with others perfected his life through fire. "Moreover the Apology for him, as we said, Pamphilus together with Eusebius, shut up in a common prison, wrote, and sent the same for consolation to those who, condemned to the mines for the name of Christ, were being afflicted; the chief of whom was Patermuthius, who after the departure of Pamphilus through martyrdom, a short time having intervened, was himself also with others driven from life by the flames." Of this Apology Eusebius in Book 6 of the Ecclesiastical History, Chapter 33, makes mention thus: And whatsoever things were necessary to know accurately of the matters concerning him (Origen), these also it is possible to gather from the Apology on his behalf elaborated both by us and by the holy martyr of our time Pamphilus; which, having laboured together with one another on account of the censorious, we composed with diligence. "And whatsoever things it is necessary to know concerning him (Origen), these can be sought from the Apologeticus which was written by us and by the most holy martyr of our time Pamphilus for his defence; which indeed we elaborated jointly with common zeal and labour on account of certain malevolent detractors." Socrates likewise in Book 3 of the Ecclesiastical History, Chapter 7: And Origen everywhere

Editors' notes and page, col. 522

Page

running head: APOLOGIA PRO ORIGENE. — MONITUM. 522
marginal letters: A istic per ordinem,; B Τὴν δὲ ὑπὲρ; C meminit : Ὅσα δὲ
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only at top (istic per ordinem...); full-width titles after double rule cut off at left edge, not set (GENEM SPECTANTIA. / MONITIO / IBELLUM S. PAMPHILI MARTYRIS RO ORIGENE.); editors' matter set: Τὴν δὲ ὑπὲρ; ends mid-sentence
other: the paragraph of this column above the full-width band (istic per ordinem … Amen.) ends the previous unit and is not set here; the band is set at the head of c521_a.md

PG 17:523

μὲν ἐν τοῖς φερομένοις αὐτοῦ βιβλίοις ἔμψυχον τὸν ἐνανθρωπήσαντα οἶδεν· ἰδικῶς δὲ ὁ εἰς τὴν Γένεσιν αὐτῷ πεπονημένος ἔννατος τόμος, τὸ περὶ τούτου μυστήριον ἐφανέρωσεν, ἔνθα Ἀδὰμ μὲν τὸν Χριστὸν, Εὔαν δὲ, τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν εἶναι πλατύτερον κατεσκεύασε· μάρτυρες τούτων ἀξιόπιστοι, ὅ τε ἱερὸς Πάμφιλος, καὶ ὁ ἐξ αὐτοῦ χρηματίζων Εὐσέβιος· ἄμφω γὰρ κοινῇ τὸν Ὠριγένους παρατιθέμενοι βίον, καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἐκ προλήψεως ἀπεχθανομένους πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα ἀπαντῶντες, ἐνδόξοις βιβλίοις ἀπολογίαν ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ ποιούμενοι, οὐ πρῶτον Ὠριγένην ἐπὶ ταύτην τὴν πραγματείαν ἐλθεῖν φασιν, ἀλλὰ τὴν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας μυστικὴν ἑρμηνεῦσαι παράδοσιν. « Origenes quoque in omnibus libris suis, Christum hominem factum anima praeditum esse agnoscit : sed specialiter in nono tomo Commentariorum quos scripsit in Genesim, hujus rei sacramentum exponit : quo loco Adamum quidem Christi, Evam autem Ecclesiae typum gerere pluribus verbis asseruit. Hujus rei testes sunt locupletissimi S. Pamphilus et, qui ab illo nomen traxit, Eusebius. Ambo enim cum simul juncti vitam Origenis conscriberent, et iis qui ex anticipata quadam opinione eum aversabantur, responderent, in praeclaris illis libris quos pro ejus defensione elucubrarunt, Origenem non primum in hoc argumento versatum esse dicunt, sed mysticam Ecclesiae traditionem esse interpretatum. » Socratem sequitur Nicephorus Callistus lib. X, cap. 14. Anonymus auctor, qui sexto saeculo epistolas synodicas a R. P. Lupo editas collegit, in suis ad epistolam 198 observationibus hujus etiam sic meminit : « Eusebius in opere apologetico pro Origene et dogmatibus ejus, id est, pro praeexsistentia et restitutione composito, quod martyris et ipsius Eusebii Caesariensis nominibus praenotatur, multis valde praecedentium Patrum testimoniis usus est pro praedictis erroribus. » Quod autem ait Eusebius hanc a se et a martyre Pamphilo Defensionem Origenis fuisse conscriptam « propter malevolos quosdam obtrectatores, » haud scio an non praecipue respiciat Methodium, Olympi in Lycia episcopum, qui tum eruditione celeberrimus erat. Nam « Eusebius Caesariensis episcopus » (verba sunt Hieronymi lib. I Apologiae adversus Rufinum) in sexto libro τῆς Ἀπολογίας Origenis hoc idem objicit Methodio episcopo et martyri, quod tu in meis laudibus criminaris; et dicit : « Quomodo ausus est Methodius nunc contra Origenem scribere, qui haec et haec de Origenis locutus est dogmatibus? » Librum De resurrectione scripsit Methodius adversus Origenem, testibus Hieronymo et Epiphanio : atque haec causa fuisse videtur cur Eusebius in suis Historiae ecclesiasticae libris nullam ejus mentionem fecerit. Nam cum omnes fere ecclesiasticos scriptores in hoc opere accurate commemoraverit, Methodium tamen de industria praetermisit, eo quod Origenem, quem ipse praecipue mirabatur, impugnavisset. Sic Hieronymus Rufini, quicum simultates

indeed in his extant books knows that He Who became man was endowed with a soul; and especially the ninth tome wrought by him on Genesis manifested the mystery concerning this, where he established at greater length that Adam is Christ, and Eve the Church; trustworthy witnesses of these things are both the holy Pamphilus and Eusebius, who takes his name from him; for both, setting forth in common the life of Origen, and meeting those who out of prejudice bore hatred towards the man, making a defence on his behalf in renowned books, say that Origen did not come first to this undertaking, but expounded the mystical tradition of the Church. "Origen also in all his books acknowledges that Christ, made man, was endowed with a soul: but especially in the ninth tome of the Commentaries which he wrote on Genesis, he sets forth the mystery of this matter: in which place he asserted in many words that Adam indeed bore the type of Christ, and Eve that of the Church. Most trustworthy witnesses of this matter are St. Pamphilus and Eusebius, who drew his name from him. For when both joined together wrote the life of Origen, and replied to those who from a certain preconceived opinion were averse to him, in those renowned books which they composed for his defence, they say that Origen was not the first to engage in this argument, but interpreted the mystical tradition of the Church." Nicephorus Callistus follows Socrates in book 10, ch. 14. The anonymous author who in the sixth century collected the synodical epistles edited by the Rev. Fr. Lupus, in his observations on epistle 198 also makes mention of this thus: "Eusebius, in the apologetic work composed for Origen and his dogmas, that is, for pre-existence and restitution, which is superscribed with the names of the martyr and of Eusebius of Caesarea himself, used very many testimonies of preceding Fathers on behalf of the aforesaid errors." Now as to what Eusebius says, that this Defence of Origen was written by himself and the martyr Pamphilus "on account of certain malevolent detractors," I scarcely know whether he does not chiefly have in view Methodius, bishop of Olympus in Lycia, who was then most celebrated for his learning. For "Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea" (the words are Jerome's in book 1 of the Apology against Rufinus) in the sixth book of the Apology of Origen objects this very thing to Methodius, bishop and martyr, which you censure in my praises; and he says: "How has Methodius dared now to write against Origen, who has spoken such and such things concerning the dogmas of Origen?" Methodius wrote a book On the Resurrection against Origen, as Jerome and Epiphanius bear witness: and this seems to have been the reason why Eusebius in his books of Ecclesiastical History made no mention of him. For although he accurately commemorated almost all ecclesiastical writers in this work, yet he purposely passed over Methodius, because he had attacked Origen, whom he himself chiefly admired. Thus Jerome, of Rufinus, with whom he carried on feuds,

Editors' notes and page, col. 523

Page

running head: 523 S. PAMPHILI MARTYRIS
marginal letters: A μὲν ἐν τοῖς; B sed specialiter; C epistolas synodicas; D libro τῆς Ἀπολογίας
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: μὲν ἐν τοῖς (continuation of Monitum)

PG 17:524

exercuit, nullam in suo Catalogo virorum illustrium mentionem fecit.

made no mention in his Catalogue of Illustrious Men.

II. Anno Christi 397, Rufinus, e Palaestina in Italiam a sancto Chromatio, Aquileiensis Ecclesiae episcopo, evocatus, ubi Romam advenit, primum hujus Apologiae librum Latine vertit, et sub solo martyris Pamphili nomine publicavit. Cur autem id operis aggressus sit, sic ipse exponit lib. I adversus Hieronymum : « Vir fide, eruditione, nobilitate, vita clarus Macarius cum opuscula adversus fatum vel mathesim haberet in manibus, eaque utili et pernecessario sudore componeret : in aliquantis vero, quia erat perdifficilis materia, de divinae Providentiae dispensationibus haesitaret, per soporem sibi a Domino tale aliquid dicebat ostensum : quod navis ei quaedam demonstraretur eminus adventare per pelagus, quae cum portum fuisset ingressa, nodos suae haesitationis absolveret. Exsurgens vero, cum de visu sollicitus cogitaret, nos supervenisse aiebat in tempore : quibus continuo et opuscula sua, et ambiguitatem indicavit, et visum. Quid porro Origenes, quem opinatissimum apud Graecos audierat, sentiret de talibus percunctatur, breviterque sibi ejus de singulis quibusque sententias orat exponi. Ego rem primum dicebam factu esse difficilem; sanctum tamen Pamphilum martyrem dixi quadam ex parte tale aliquid operis conscripsisse in Apologetico suo. Continuo id sibi poscit in Latinum verti. Nullum dicebam me usum hujuscemodi operis habuisse, et ad Latinum sermonem tricennali jam pene incuria torpuisse. Perstitit tamen deprecans qualicunque sermone notitiam sibi tantum eorum quae cupiebat, ostendi. Cumque id quo potui sermone fecissem, majori desiderio accensus est ad illa ipsa plenius cognoscenda, e quibus pauca illa quae transtuleram videbantur assumpta. Excusantem me urgere vehementius coepit, et sub Dei testimonio convenire ne sibi ad opus bonum quae se auxilia juvare possent denegarem. Cumque vehementius insisteret, et desiderium ejus secundum Deum esse perspicerem, acquievi tandem, et interpretatus sum. » At vero Hieronymus lib. III adversus Rufinum sic deridet hanc Rufini narrationem : « O triremem, inquit, locupletissimam, quae Orientalibus et Aegyptiis mercibus Romanae urbis ditare venerat paupertatem !

II. In the year of Christ 397, Rufinus, summoned from Palestine into Italy by Saint Chromatius, bishop of the Church of Aquileia, when he arrived at Rome, translated the first book of this Apology into Latin, and published it under the sole name of the martyr Pamphilus. Why he undertook this work, he himself explains thus in book 1 against Jerome: "When Macarius, a man illustrious in faith, learning, nobility, and life, had in hand treatises against fate or astrology, and was composing them with useful and most necessary toil, but in some points, because the subject was exceedingly difficult, hesitated concerning the dispensations of divine Providence, he said that in sleep something of this sort was shown to him by the Lord: that a certain ship was shown to him coming from afar across the sea, which, when it had entered the harbour, would untie the knots of his hesitation. Rising up, therefore, while he was thinking anxiously about the vision, he said that we arrived opportunely: to whom he straightway disclosed both his treatises, and his perplexity, and his vision. He further inquiries what Origen, whom he had heard to be most renowned among the Greeks, thought concerning such things, and begs that his opinions on each single point be briefly set forth for him. I at first said that the matter was difficult to do; yet I said that the holy martyr Pamphilus had in some part written a work of such a kind in his Apologeticus. Straightway he demands for himself that it be turned into Latin. I said that I had had no practice in a work of this sort, and had grown torpid with respect to Latin speech through nearly thirty years of neglect. Yet he persisted in entreating that in whatever sort of speech a knowledge only of those things which he desired might be shown to him. And when I had done this in such speech as I could, he was kindled with a greater desire to know more fully those very things from which those few passages that I had translated seemed to be taken. When I excused myself, he began to urge me more vehemently, and calling God to witness, to adjure me not to deny him for a good work the aids which could help him. And when he insisted more vehemently, and I perceived that his desire was according to God, I yielded at last, and translated it." Yet Jerome in book 3 against Rufinus derides this narrative of Rufinus thus: "O most wealthy trireme, says he, which had come with Oriental and Egyptian wares to enrich the poverty of the city of Rome!

Tu maximus ille es,

You are that greatest man,

Unus qui nobis scribendo restituis rem.

Who alone by writing restore the state for us.

Ergo nisi de Oriente venisses, eruditissimus vir haereret adhuc inter mathematicos, et homines Christiani, quid contra fatum dissererent, ignorarent. » Eminentissimus cardinalis Norisius Dissert. histor. de synod. V, cap. 13, ut aperti mendacii Rufinum arguat, objicit in hoc Apologetico libello quem sub nomine Pamphili martyris edidit, nihil probatum legi contra mathematicos vel fati assertores; sed tantum de Patre, de Filii aeternitate, de Spiritus sancti divinitate, de Verbi incarnatione, ac Christo Domino, de poenis damnatorum, etc.

Therefore, unless you had come from the East, a most learned man would still be stuck among the astrologers, and Christian men would be ignorant of what to argue against fate." The most eminent Cardinal Noris, Historical Dissertation on the Fifth Synod, ch. 13, in order to convict Rufinus of an open falsehood, objects that in this Apologetic little book which he published under the name of the martyr Pamphilus, nothing is read as proved against astrologers or asserters of fate; but only concerning the Father, the eternity of the Son, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the incarnation of the Word, and Christ the Lord, the punishments of the damned, etc.

Editors' notes and page, col. 524

Page

running head: S. PAMPHILI MARTYRIS 524
marginal letters: A exercuit, nullam; B navis ei quaedam; C operis habuisse; D talibus et Aegyptiis
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: exercuit, nullam (continuation of Monitum)

PG 17:525

« Quodnam igitur, inquit, opus contra mathematicos Pamphilus scripsit? » Sed responsio facilis est. Ut enim darem in primo Apologiae libro nihil contra mathematicos fuisse, at caeteros forte libros sequentes, in quibus alicubi forsitan fati assertores confutabantur, Latine reddere in animo erat Rufino, quem ab hoc labore deterruit solus Macarius libros Περὶ ἀρχῶν videndi cupidus. Hic enim, teste Rufino lib. I Apologiae adversus Hieronymum, lecta libri primi Apologetici versione, « majori desiderio accensus est ad ipsa illa plenius cognoscenda, e quibus pauca illa, quae » transtulerat Rufinus, « videbantur assumpta. » Translationem itaque librorum Περὶ ἀρχῶν aggredi coactus est Rufinus.

"What work therefore," says he, "did Pamphilus write against the astrologers?" But the answer is easy. For even if I were to grant that there was nothing against the astrologers in the first book of the Apology, yet Rufinus perhaps had it in mind to render into Latin the remaining subsequent books, in which somewhere perhaps the asserters of fate were refuted, from which labour Macarius alone deterred him, being eager to see the books On First Principles. For he, as Rufinus testifies in book 1 of the Apology against Jerome, having read the version of the first Apologetic book, "was kindled with a greater desire to know more fully those very things from which those few passages, which" Rufinus had translated, "seemed to be taken." And so Rufinus was compelled to undertake the translation of the books On First Principles.

III. Hieronymus, codicis Graeci, quem a Rufino mutuatus erat, titulo fidem adhibens, primum crediderat Defensionem Origenis sub nomine Pamphili vulgatam, opus esse diversum a sex Pamphili et Eusebii libris pro Origene elaboratis, propriumque solius Pamphili, sed hac postmodum Pamphilo detracta, unum esse ac eumdem solius Eusebii fetum acriter contendit. « Nunc tantum, » inquit lib. II adversus Rufinum, « tuis assertionibus obviasse sufficiat, et hoc breviter prudentem instruxisse lectorem, me istum librum, qui sub nomine Pamphili ferebatur, vidisse primum scriptum in codice tuo; et quia non erat mihi curae quid pro haeretico diceretur, sic semper habuisse, quasi diversum esset opus Pamphili et Eusebii : postea vero, quaestione mota, scriptis eorum respondere voluisse, et ob hanc causam legisse quid pro Origene unusquisque sentiret; perspicueque deprehendisse, quod primus liber sex voluminum Eusebii ipse esset, qui unus sub nomine Pamphili a te editus est tam Graece quam Latine, immutatis duntaxat sensibus de Filio et Spiritu sancto, qui apertam blasphemiam praeferebant. Unde etiam ante annos ferme decem, cum Dexter amicus meus, qui praefecturam administravit praetorii, me rogasset ut auctorum nostrae religionis ei indicem texerem, inter caeteros tractatores posui et hunc librum a Pamphilo, ita putans esse ut a te et a tuis discipulis fuerat divulgatum. Sed cum ipse dicat Eusebius Pamphilum nihil scripsisse, exceptis brevibus epistolis ad amicos, et primus liber sex voluminum illius eadem et eisdem verbis contineat quae sub nomine Pamphili a te ficta sunt, perspicuum est te idcirco librum hunc disseminare voluisse, ut sub persona martyris haeresim introduceres. » Idem narrat lib. III adversus Rufinum : « De Pamphili libro non ridiculosa, ut tu scribis, sed ridicula mihi forte res accidit; ut postquam Eusebii asseruerim esse, non Pamphili, ad extremum dixerim, etiam me annos plurimos hoc putasse, quod Pamphili fuerit, et a te exemplar hujus voluminis mutuatum . . . . . . . De tuo codice quasi Pamphili exemplar accepimus. Credidi Christiano, et credidi monacho : non putavi tantum sceleris

III. Jerome, giving credit to the title of the Greek codex which he had borrowed from Rufinus, had at first believed that the Defence of Origen published under the name of Pamphilus was a work distinct from the six books wrought by Pamphilus and Eusebius on behalf of Origen, and peculiar to Pamphilus alone; but afterwards, withdrawing this from Pamphilus, he sharply contended that it was one and the same offspring of Eusebius alone. "For the present only," says he in book 2 against Rufinus, "let it suffice to have met your assertions, and briefly to have instructed the prudent reader of this, that I saw that book, which was circulated under the name of Pamphilus, first written in your codex; and because I did not care what was said on behalf of a heretic, I always regarded it as if the work of Pamphilus and of Eusebius were distinct: but afterwards, when the question was raised, I wished to reply to their writings, and for this reason read what each one thought on behalf of Origen; and I clearly discovered that the first book of the six volumes of Eusebius was the very one which alone was published by you under the name of Pamphilus both in Greek and in Latin, with only the expressions concerning the Son and the Holy Spirit changed, which displayed open blasphemy. Whence also nearly ten years ago, when my friend Dexter, who administered the praetorian prefecture, had asked me to weave for him an index of the authors of our religion, among the other tractarians I placed also this book by Pamphilus, thinking it to be so as it had been divulged by you and by your disciples. But since Eusebius himself says that Pamphilus wrote nothing except brief epistles to friends, and the first book of his six volumes contains the same things and in the same words as those which were fabricated by you under the name of Pamphilus, it is clear that you wished to disseminate this book for this reason, that under the mask of a martyr you might introduce heresy." He relates the same in book 3 against Rufinus: "Concerning the book of Pamphilus, not a ludicrous thing, as you write, but a laughable thing happened to me by chance; that after I asserted it to be Eusebius's, not Pamphilus's, at the end I said that for very many years I too had thought this, that it was Pamphilus's, and had borrowed a copy of this volume from you . . . . . . . From your codex we received a copy as though of Pamphilus. I believed a Christian, and I believed a monk: I did not think that so great a wickedness

Editors' notes and page, col. 525

Page

running head: 525 APOLOGIA PRO ORIGENE.
marginal letters: A « Quodnam igitur; B III. Hieronymus; C vero, quaestione mota; D ptis brevibus epistolis
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: « Quodnam igitur (continuation of Monitum); word split at column break: sce-leris

PG 17:526

a te posse confingi. Postea vero per interpretationem tuam quaestione contra Origenem toto orbe commota, in quaerendis exemplaribus diligentior fui, et in Caesariensi bibliotheca Eusebii sex volumina reperi Ἀπολογίας ὑπὲρ Ὠριγένους. Quae cum legissem, primum eum librum deprehendi, quem tu solus sub nomine martyris edidisti, de Filio et Spiritu sancto in bonam partem plerisque blasphemiis commutatis. » Idem habet lib. I Apologiae adversus Rufinum : « Sex libros, ut ante jam dixi, Eusebius Caesariensis episcopus, Arianae quondam signifer factionis, pro Origene scripsit, latissimum et elaboratum opus, et multis testimoniis approbavit Origenem juxta se catholicum, id est, juxta nos Arianum esse. Horum tu primum librum vertis sub nomine martyris . . . . paucisque testimoniis de Filio Dei et Spiritu sancto commutatis, quae sciebas displicitura Romanis, caetera usque ad finem integra dimisisti. » At vero sanctus doctor, qui constanter locis modo citatis asseverat librum hunc a Rufino Latine translatum, esse primum sex voluminum Eusebii Ἀπολογίας ὑπὲρ Ὠριγένους, contrarium omnino, nempe sexti libri esse principium, caetera vero membra a Didymo vel ab altero quolibet addita fuisse dicere videtur sub finem epist. 41, alias 65, ad Pammachium et Oceanum : « Sexti libri Eusebii super Origenis Defensione principium usque ad mille ferme versus liber iste, qui Pamphili dicitur, continet, et in reliquis scriptor ejusdem operis profert testimonia, quibus nititur approbare Origenem fuisse catholicum. Eusebius et Pamphilus tantam inter se habuere concordiam, ut unius animae homines putes, et ab uno alter nomen acceperit. Quomodo igitur inter se dissentire potuerunt, ut Eusebius in toto opere suo Origenem Ariani probet dogmatis, et Pamphilus Nicaenae synodi, quae fuit postea, defensorem? Ex quo ostenditur vel Didymi, vel cujuslibet alterius esse opusculum, qui, sexti libri capite detruncato, caetera membra sociarit. » Ut tollatur aperta verborum repugnantia, eminentissimus cardinalis Norisius Dissert. historica de synodo quinta, cap. 13, eam rejicit in amanuensium errorem, qui cum in hac ad Pammachium et Oceanum epistola legerent abbreviatas hasce notas : « VI lib. Eusebii super Origenis defensione principium, sexti libri Eusebii » reddiderunt, cum « sex librorum Eusebii super Origenis defensione principium, » scribere debuissent. Sic etiam paulo post legentibus : « qui VI lib. capite detruncato, » non exscribendum eis erat, « sexti libri, » sed, « sex librorum. » Quod autem addit Hieronymus, « vel Didymi, vel cujuslibet alterius esse opusculum, qui, sex librorum capite detruncato, caetera membra sociarit, » non ita accipiendum est, quasi velit Apologiam pro Origene a Rufino sub nomine Pamphili editam, revera esse Didymi; sed explicandum istud est ex alio loco supra allato e lib. III Apologiae adversus Rufinum, ubi postquam dixit : « Postea vero per interpretationem tuam quaestione

could be fabricated by you. But afterwards, when through your translation a controversy against Origen was stirred up throughout the whole world, I was more diligent in seeking copies, and in the library of Caesarea I found the six volumes of Eusebius's Apology on behalf of Origen. When I had read these, I discovered that first book which you alone published under the name of the martyr, with most of the blasphemies concerning the Son and the Holy Spirit changed for the better." He has the same in book 1 of the Apology against Rufinus: "Six books, as I have already said before, Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, formerly the standard-bearer of the Arian faction, wrote on behalf of Origen, a most extensive and elaborate work, and by many testimonies he proved that Origen was catholic according to himself, that is, Arian according to us. Of these you translate the first book under the name of the martyr . . . . and with a few testimonies concerning the Son of God and the Holy Spirit changed, which you knew would displease the Romans, you left the rest intact right to the end." Yet the holy doctor, who constantly in the passages just cited asserts that this book translated into Latin by Rufinus is the first of the six volumes of Eusebius's Apology on behalf of Origen, seems to say the exact opposite, namely that it is the beginning of the sixth book, and that the remaining parts were added by Didymus or by someone else, towards the end of epistle 41, otherwise 65, to Pammachius and Oceanus: "This book, which is called Pamphilus's, contains the beginning of the sixth book of Eusebius on the Defence of Origen up to nearly a thousand lines, and in the rest the writer of the same work brings forward testimonies by which he strives to prove that Origen was catholic. Eusebius and Pamphilus had such harmony between themselves that you would think them men of one soul, and the one took his name from the other. How therefore could they disagree between themselves, so that Eusebius in his whole work proves Origen to be of Arian dogma, and Pamphilus a defender of the Nicene synod, which took place afterwards? From which it is shown to be a minor work either of Didymus or of someone else, who, having lopped off the head of the sixth book, joined the remaining parts to it." In order to remove the open contradiction of words, the most eminent Cardinal Noris, Historical Dissertation on the Fifth Synod, ch. 13, attributes it to an error of the copyists, who, when in this epistle to Pammachius and Oceanus they read these abbreviated notes: "the beginning of VI lib. of Eusebius on the defence of Origen," rendered it "of the sixth book of Eusebius," when they ought to have written "the beginning of the six books of Eusebius on the defence of Origen." So also a little later, when reading: "who, having lopped off the head of VI lib.," they ought not to have transcribed "of the sixth book," but "of the six books." Now what Jerome adds, "to be a minor work either of Didymus or of someone else, who, having lopped off the head of the six books, joined the remaining parts to it," is not to be taken as though he meant that the Apology for Origen published by Rufinus under the name of Pamphilus was in reality Didymus's; but this is to be explained from another passage adduced above from book 3 of the Apology against Rufinus, where after he said: "But afterwards, when through your translation a controversy

Editors' notes and page, col. 526

Page

running head: PRO ORIGENE. — MONITUM. 526
marginal letters: A leris a te posse; B sub nomine martyris; C approbare Origenem; D breviatas hasce notas
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: leris a te posse (continuation of Monitum); word split from previous column: sce-leris

PG 17:527

contra Origenem toto orbe commota, in quaerendis exemplaribus diligentior fui, et in Caesariensi bibliotheca Eusebii sex volumina reperi Ἀπολογίας ὑπὲρ Ὠριγένους. Quae cum legissem, primum eum librum deprehendi quem tu solus sub nomine martyris edidisti, de Filio et Spiritu sancto in bonam partem plerisque blasphemiis commutatis, » addit : « Et hoc vel Didymum, vel te, vel alium fecisse nescio quem, quod tu apertissime in libris Περὶ ἀρχῶν fecisse convinceris. » Id ergo unum utrobique sibi vult Hieronymus, vel Didymum, vel Rufinum, vel alium nescio quem in bonam partem tam Graece quam Latine plerasque blasphemias commutasse quae in Eusebii textu comparebant. Quod utrum verisimile sit, mox indagare tentabimus.

against Origen was stirred up throughout the whole world, I was more diligent in seeking copies, and in the library of Caesarea I found the six volumes of Eusebius's Apology on behalf of Origen. When I had read these, I discovered that first book which you alone published under the name of the martyr, with most of the blasphemies concerning the Son and the Holy Spirit changed for the better," he adds: "And that either Didymus, or you, or someone else I know not who did this, which you are most openly convicted of having done in the books On First Principles." This one thing, therefore, Jerome means in both places: that either Didymus, or Rufinus, or someone else I know not who changed for the better, both in Greek and in Latin, most of the blasphemies which appeared in the text of Eusebius. Whether this is probable, we shall presently attempt to investigate.

IV. Jam vero ut probet Hieronymus Apologeticum istum libellum pro Origene, non Pamphili, sed solius Eusebii esse, haec sunt ejus argumenta : 1° « Si iste Pamphili liber est, » inquit lib. I Apolog. advers. Rufinum, « de sex libris qui erit primus Eusebii? » Responsio facilis est. Erit primus Pamphili simul et Eusebii; 2° instat ibidem : « In ipso volumine, quod tu Pamphili simulas, sequentium librorum facta mentio est. In secundo quoque et reliquis dicit Eusebius quod in primo libro antea dixerat, et quod eadem repetere non debeat. » Nullibi in libro primo de caeteris mentionem fieri reperimus : sed esto in Graeco facta fuerit, quid mirum? Nempe quinque priores a Pamphilo simul et Eusebio collata opera fuerant elaborati; 3° pergit ibidem : « Si totum opus Pamphili est, cur reliquos libros non transfers? » Scilicet obfuit Macarii desiderium, ut jam diximus : vel potius nulla alia videtur fuisse causa, quam quod Rufini codex unicum hujus Apologiae librum primum sub nomine Pamphili martyris contineret. Certe lib. II advers. Rufinum fatetur ipse Hieronymus se « istum librum, qui sub nomine Pamphili ferebatur, vidisse primum scriptum in codice Rufini, et quia non erat ei curae quid pro haeretico diceretur, sic semper habuisse quasi diversum esset opus Pamphili et Eusebii; » et lib. III ait se a Rufino « exemplar hujus voluminis, » (non sex voluminum) fuisse « mutuatum; » 4° Objicit Hieronymus nihil proprii operis Pamphilum scripsisse. « Et ipse quidem proprii operis, » inquit lib. I advers. Rufinum, « nihil omnino scripsit, exceptis epistolis, quas ad amicos forte mittebat, in tantum se humilitate dejecerat. Veterum autem tractatus scriptorum legebat studiosissime, et in eorum meditatione jugiter versabatur. Defensor Origenis, et laudator Pamphili dicit Pamphilum nihil omnino scripsisse, nec proprii quidquam condidisse sermonis : et hoc dicit, jam Pamphilo martyrio coronato, ne habeas suffugium post editos ab Eusebio libros hoc Pamphilum scripsisse. » Sed nodus hic perquam facile poterat a Rufino solvi. Quippe proprium Pamphili opus Apologeticus ille

IV. Now, in order that Jerome may prove that this Apologetic little book for Origen is not Pamphilus's, but of Eusebius alone, these are his arguments: 1st, "If that book is Pamphilus's," says he in book 1 of the Apology against Rufinus, "of the six books which one will be the first of Eusebius?" The answer is easy. It will be the first of Pamphilus and of Eusebius together; 2nd, he urges in the same place: "In that very volume which you pretend is Pamphilus's, mention is made of the following books. In the second also and the rest Eusebius says what he had said before in the first book, and that he ought not to repeat the same things." Nowhere in the first book do we find mention made of the others: but grant that it was made in the Greek, what wonder? Surely the first five had been wrought by Pamphilus and Eusebius together with combined labour; 3rd, he continues in the same place: "If the whole work is Pamphilus's, why do you not translate the remaining books?" Doubtless the desire of Macarius stood in the way, as we have already said: or rather there seems to have been no other reason than that the codex of Rufinus contained only the first book of this Apology under the name of the martyr Pamphilus. Certainly in book 2 against Rufinus Jerome himself confesses that he "saw that book, which was circulated under the name of Pamphilus, first written in the codex of Rufinus, and because he did not care what was said on behalf of a heretic, he always regarded it as if the work of Pamphilus and of Eusebius were distinct;" and in book 3 he says that he "borrowed from Rufinus a copy of this volume" (not of the six volumes); 4th, Jerome objects that Pamphilus wrote no work of his own. "And he himself indeed of his own work," says he in book 1 against Rufinus, "wrote nothing at all, except epistles which he happened to send to friends, so greatly had he abased himself in humility. But he read most studiously the treatises of ancient writers, and was continually engaged in meditating upon them. The defender of Origen and eulogizer of Pamphilus says that Pamphilus wrote nothing at all, nor composed anything of his own speech: and he says this when Pamphilus had already been crowned with martyrdom, lest you should have the subterfuge that Pamphilus wrote this after the books were published by Eusebius." But this knot could very easily be untied by Rufinus. For that Apologeticus ought not to have been called Pamphilus's own work,

Editors' notes and page, col. 527

Footnotes

(3) ‹anchor: forte mittebat› · call in col 527

(printed under page 274) (3) Euseb. lib. III De vita Pamphili.

Eusebius, Life of Pamphilus, book 3.

(printed under page 274)

Page

running head: 527 S. PAMPHILI MARTYRIS
marginal letters: A contra Origenem; B qui idipsum (in col. 528) / IV. Jam vero; C lata opera fuerant; D scripsisse. « Et ipse
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: contra Origenem (continuation of Monitum)

PG 17:528

dici non debuit, quem alterius, nempe Eusebii, opera adjutus elaboravit. Huc adde quod totus ille constat locis Origenis ex variis ejus operibus excerptis, si modo exceperis initium, quod aliquo modo nihil aliud est quam epistola ad confessores ad metalla damnatos : ac proinde potest inter Pamphili epistolas locum obtinere; 5° « Date, » inquit Hieronymus epist. 65, ad Pammachium et Oceanum, « quodlibet aliud opus Pamphili. Nusquam reperietis. Hoc unum est. Unde igitur sciam quod Pamphili sit? Videlicet stylus et saliva docere me poterit? » E stylo quidem nos hodie dijudicare non possumus an Pamphili opus sit; verum id facile erat iis, quibus illud cum ejus epistolis, quae adhuc supererant, conferre integrum erat. Ipse Hieronymus, qui idipsum profecto contulit, asserere non ausus est eumdem esse libri hujus Eusebiique stylum; et reipsa ab Eusebii saliva paululum diversus abire videtur.

which he wrought assisted by the labour of another, namely of Eusebius. Add to this that the whole of it consists of passages of Origen excerpted from his various works, if only you except the beginning, which in some way is nothing else than an epistle to the confessors condemned to the mines: and accordingly it can obtain a place among the epistles of Pamphilus; 5th, "Produce," says Jerome in epistle 65, to Pammachius and Oceanus, "any other work of Pamphilus. Nowhere will you find one. This is the only one. Whence therefore shall I know that it is Pamphilus's? Doubtless the style and savour will be able to teach me?" From the style indeed we today cannot judge whether it is a work of Pamphilus; but that was easy for those for whom it was possible to compare it with his epistles, which still survived. Jerome himself, who assuredly compared this very thing, did not dare to assert that the style of this book and of Eusebius is the same; and in fact it seems to depart as somewhat different from the savour of Eusebius.

V. Objicit praeterea Hieronymus lib. II advers. Rufinum, virum doctissimum Eusebium (doctissimum, non catholicum) « per sex volumina nihil aliud agere, nisi ut Origenem suae ostendat fidei, id est Arianae perfidiae; » nullam ergo hujus operis partem ad Pamphilum martyrem pertinere, cujus fidem probat Ecclesia. Eadem repetit locis supra citatis, et alibi passim, unde concludit librum sub Pamphili nomine editum, ab aliquo in Trinitate catholico fuisse emendatum, qui plerasque blasphemias de Filio et Spiritu sancto tam Graece quam Latine in bonam partem commutarit. « Sed fidem hic Hieronymo habendam non esse validissimis argumentis evinci potest (inquit Bullus De Filii τῷ ὁμοουσίῳ, cap. 9, art. 20). Nam : 1° Photius codice CXVIII testatur se in Graeco legisse Pamphili martyris et Eusebii libros sex, in quibus nulla Arianae perfidiae vestigia notat severus ille censor, qui alioqui in aliorum scriptis constanter solet minima quaeque reprehendere, quae vel speciem Arianismi prae se ferant; 2° idem Photius cod. CXVII veterem quemdam auctorem anonymum commemorans qui Apologiam itidem pro Origene conscripserat, ait auctorem illum in Apologia sua pro Origene ejusque sententiis pugnasse auctoritate tum aliorum antiquiorum scriptorum, tum imprimis Pamphili martyris et Eusebii Caesariensis. Μᾶλλον δὲ, inquit, τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων, Παμφίλῳ τε τῷ μάρτυρι ἐπερείδεται καὶ τῷ Εὐσεβίῳ, id est, « prae caeteris vero Pamphilo martyri innititur et Eusebio, » ut indubium mihi videatur anonymum illum eamdem prorsus cum Pamphilo et Eusebio Origenem defendendi rationem secutum esse. Nunquid vero Arianus fuit apologista? Nihil minus. Nam ipse Photius, qui alioqui plerosque Origenis errores illi tribuit, diserte dicit, quod περὶ τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος οὐδὲν τῶν ἐσφαλμένων λέγει· « de S. Trinitate nihil erratorum affert. » Quomodo autem Origenem defendit auctor?

V. Jerome furthermore objects in book 2 against Rufinus that the most learned man Eusebius (most learned, not catholic) "throughout six volumes does nothing else than show Origen to be of his own faith, that is, of Arian perfidy;" and that therefore no part of this work belongs to Pamphilus the martyr, whose faith the Church approves. He repeats the same things in the passages cited above, and elsewhere passim, whence he concludes that the book published under the name of Pamphilus was emended by someone catholic with respect to the Trinity, who changed for the better, both in Greek and in Latin, most of the blasphemies concerning the Son and the Holy Spirit. "But that credit is not to be given here to Jerome can be proved by the most valid arguments (says Bull, On the Consubstantiality of the Son, ch. 9, art. 20). For: 1st, Photius in codex 118 testifies that he read in Greek the six books of the martyr Pamphilus and Eusebius, in which that severe censor notes no traces of Arian perfidy, who otherwise in the writings of others is constantly accustomed to reprove all the slightest things which display even the appearance of Arianism; 2nd, the same Photius in codex 117, commemorating a certain ancient anonymous author who had likewise written an Apology for Origen, says that that author in his Apology for Origen and his opinions fought by the authority both of other more ancient writers and especially of the martyr Pamphilus and Eusebius of Caesarea. And more than all the others, says he, he relies both upon Pamphilus the martyr and upon Eusebius, that is, 'and above the rest he leans upon Pamphilus the martyr and Eusebius,' so that it seems to me beyond doubt that that anonymous writer followed altogether the very same method of defending Origen as Pamphilus and Eusebius. Was the apologist then an Arian? Nothing less. For Photius himself, who otherwise attributes most of the errors of Origen to him, expressly says that concerning the Holy Trinity he utters nothing erroneous: 'concerning the Holy Trinity he brings forward nothing of errors.' And how does the author defend Origen?

Editors' notes and page, col. 528

Page

running head: PAMPHILI MARTYRIS 528
marginal letters: A dici non debuit; B qui idipsum; C mias de Filio; D antiquiorum scriptorum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: dici non debuit (continuation of Monitum)

PG 17:529

Φησὶ δὲ, inquit Photius, καὶ περὶ τοῦ Ὠριγένους μηδὲν αὐτὸν κατὰ δόξαν ἐσφάλθαι περὶ τῆς Τριάδος· « quin etiam hoc asserit de Origene, nihil eum quod quidem ad dogma de Trinitate attinet, errasse. » Ait mox Photius scriptorem illum quindecim capita Origeni objecta, quorum tria prima, decimum tertium et ultimum ad articulum de Trinitate pertinent, probasse διαβολὰς εἶναι, ἐκ τῶν τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκείνου συγγραμμάτων ποιούμενον τοὺς ἐλέγχους· « meras esse calumnias, ex ipsiusmet (Origenis) scriptis allatis argumentis. » Eamdem plane rationem ac methodum servat Apologia sub Pamphili nomine a Rufino edita. Sane ex his illud saltem efficitur, a Graeco scriptore veteri qui in articulo de S. Trinitate, vel Photio judice, catholicus fuit, allata fuisse ex ipsis Origenis scriptis, prout tum Graece exstarent, testimonia, quae catholicum pariter fuisse in eodem articulo Origenem ostenderent, atque hoc fecisse auctorem illum Pamphili martyris et Eusebii exemplo, eorumque vestigiis insistentem. » 3° Verisimile non est jam tum ad Arianam haeresim defecisse Eusebium, cum in gratiam Origenis scriberet. Quis enim credat, si jam tum fuisset Arianus, id se sibi probandum suscepisse ab Origene statui « quod aequalis sit Trinitas : quod non purus homo, sed divinae naturae sit Christus : quod extra ullum initium sit generatio Filii Dei : quod non sit Pater antequam Filius, sed coaeternus sit Filius Patri : quod non per prolationem natus sit Filius : quod inseparabilis sit a Patre : quod eadem sit inconvertibilitas Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti : quod sicut Pater novit initia omnium et fines, sic et Filius, sic et Spiritus sanctus : quod ex Deo Patre natus sit Filius, ac unius et ejusdem cum Patre substantiae; alienus vero a substantiis creaturarum, » etc., quae e diametro haeresi Arianae adversantur? Quis sibi persuadeat eum, dum praeclarissima illa Origenis testimonia excerperet unde Arianus error confoditur, Ariana ipsis infersisse? 4° Invicte demonstrat doctissimus noster domnus Prudentius Maran in suo De divinitate Christi lib. IV, cap. 14-16, et alibi passim, Arianae haeresi nullatenus favere Origenem, sed e contrario scriptorem catholicum acerrimumque sacri de Trinitate dogmatis defensorem haberi debere; et quae objiciuntur, aut ficta esse et ab eo aliena, aut partim praeclarissimam habere sententiam, si recte interpreteris, partim non incommodam, si cum aliis ejus principiis apte concilies. Quomodo igitur Eusebius in praestantissimis illis contextibus, quibus Origenis doctrinam ab Ariana labe vindicat, approbare potuisset ipsum Origenem fuisse Arianum? Quas blasphemias infersisset, si nihil sit in Origene quod ad haeresim Arianam trahi merito queat? Caeterum dato, non autem concesso, Apologeticum libellum sub nomine Pamphili a Rufino editum, Ariano veneno in textu Graeco infectum

And he says, says Photius, concerning Origen also, that he erred in nothing with respect to opinion concerning the Trinity: 'moreover he asserts this concerning Origen, that he erred in nothing so far indeed as pertains to the dogma concerning the Trinity.' Photius presently says that that writer proved the fifteen heads objected against Origen, of which the first three, the thirteenth, and the last pertain to the article concerning the Trinity, to be calumnies, making his refutations from the writings of that very man himself: 'to be mere calumnies, arguments having been adduced from the writings of (Origen) himself.' The Apology published by Rufinus under the name of Pamphilus observes plainly the same plan and method. Assuredly from these things this at least is established, that by an ancient Greek writer who in the article concerning the Holy Trinity, even in the judgement of Photius, was catholic, testimonies were adduced from the very writings of Origen, as they then existed in Greek, which showed that Origen was likewise catholic in the same article, and that that author did this after the example of the martyr Pamphilus and Eusebius, and treading in their footsteps." 3rd, It is not probable that Eusebius had already at that time fallen away to the Arian heresy when he was writing in favour of Origen. For who would believe that, if he had already at that time been an Arian, he would have undertaken to prove that it is laid down by Origen "that the Trinity is equal: that Christ is not a mere man, but of divine nature: that the generation of the Son of God is outside of any beginning: that the Father is not before the Son, but the Son is coeternal with the Father: that the Son was not born by projection: that He is inseparable from the Father: that the unchangeableness of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is the same: that just as the Father knows the beginnings and ends of all things, so also the Son, so also the Holy Spirit: that the Son was born from God the Father, and of one and the same substance with the Father; but alien from the substances of creatures," etc., which are diametrically opposed to the Arian heresy? Who could persuade himself that he, while excerpting those most splendid testimonies of Origen whereby the Arian error is pierced through, stuffed Arian things into them? 4th, Our most learned Dom Prudentius Maran invincibly demonstrates in his On the Divinity of Christ, book 4, ch. 14-16, and elsewhere passim, that Origen in no way favours the Arian heresy, but on the contrary ought to be accounted a catholic writer and a most vigorous defender of the sacred dogma concerning the Trinity; and that the things which are objected are either fabricated and alien from him, or partly have a most noble meaning, if you interpret them rightly, and partly not an unsuitable one, if you aptly reconcile them with his other principles. How therefore could Eusebius, in those most excellent passages in which he vindicates the doctrine of Origen from the Arian stain, have proved that Origen himself was an Arian? What blasphemies could he have stuffed in, if there is nothing in Origen which can deservedly be drawn over to the Arian heresy? For the rest, granted, yet not conceded, that the Apologetic little book published by Rufinus under the name of Pamphilus was infected with Arian poison in the Greek text,

Editors' notes and page, col. 529

Footnotes

(4) ‹anchor: favere Origenem› · call in col 529

(printed under page 275) (4) Vide infra notas in Origenian. lib. II, cap. 2, quaest. 2.

See below, the notes on the Origeniana, book 2, chapter 2, question 2.

(printed under page 275)

Page

running head: 529 APOLOGIA PRO ORIGENE.
marginal letters: A Φησὶ δὲ; B lata fuisse; C quod eadem sit; D sacri de Trinitate
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Φησὶ δὲ (continuation of Monitum)

PG 17:530

fuisse, nunquid inde sequeretur non fuisse martyris Pamphili? Minime omnium, vel ipsomet Hieronymo judice. « Sed concedamus ex superfluo, » inquit epist. 65, ad Pammachium et Oceanum, « ut Pamphili sit; sed necdum martyris. Ante enim scripsit quam martyrium perpeteretur. Et quomodo, inquies, martyrio dignus fuit? Scilicet ut martyrio deleret errorem, ut unam culpam sanguinis sui effusione purgaret. Quanti in orbe martyres, antequam caederentur, variis subjacuere peccatis ! ». Quibus verbis tanquam suffugio utitur Hieronymus, ut si minus fidem famamque Rufini elevaret, saltem Pamphili martyris, quem hujus Apologiae auctorem non omnino diffiteri audet, auctoritatem minueret. Sed eo infirmius ejus est argumentum, quod tormenta plurima prius passus esset Pamphilus, quam scriberet; adeoque jam tunc vere erat martyr, secundum vulgarem ejus temporis loquendi modum. Hieronymo autem sic respondet Rufinus Invect. lib. II : « Si in tantum volebas audere, ut martyrem reprehenderes, dicta ipsa, quae tibi videbantur reprehensibilia, in medium proferre debueras; et tunc unusquisque legentium vidisset quid ibi esset absurdum, quid consequens, quid iniquum, quid certe contra apostolicas regulas : sed tantum nescio quid impietatis, pro quo, ut dicis, expiando sanguinem suum fuderit martyr. Ipsa illa verba si legeret, jam non tua, sed sua sententia, aut errasse martyrem, aut nomine martyris absurdam et impiam conscriptionem ab alio diceret esse compositam. Nunc vero sciens quia si legantur ea quae reprehendis, nota retorquebitur in eum qui culpat injuste, ea quidem quae reprehendis non profers. » Et reipsa nihil nisi generatim protulit Hieronymus adversus hanc Apologiam. Imo promiserat lib. II adversus Rufinum, se in sequentibus contra ipsam scripturum, si dictandi spatium esset, nec tamen quidquam scripsisse novimus, quamvis plures annos postea vixerit.

would it follow thence that it was not that of the martyr Pamphilus? Least of all, even in the judgement of Jerome himself. "But let us grant superfluously," says he in epistle 65, to Pammachius and Oceanus, "that it is Pamphilus's; yet not yet a martyr's. For he wrote before he suffered martyrdom. And how, you will say, was he worthy of martyrdom? Doubtless that by martyrdom he might blot out his error, that he might purge one fault by the shedding of his blood. How many martyrs in the world, before they were slain, were subject to various sins!" Which words Jerome uses as a subterfuge, so that, if he could not disparage the credit and reputation of Rufinus, he might at least diminish the authority of the martyr Pamphilus, whom he does not dare altogether to deny to be the author of this Apology. But his argument is all the weaker because Pamphilus had suffered very many torments before he wrote; and therefore he was even then truly a martyr, according to the common manner of speaking of that time. Moreover, Rufinus replies thus to Jerome in Invectives book 2: "If you wished to dare so much as to reprove a martyr, you ought to have brought forward publicly the sayings themselves which seemed to you reprehensible; and then each of the readers would have seen what was absurd there, what consequential, what unjust, what certainly against the apostolic rules: instead of merely some impiety I know not what, for expiating which, as you say, the martyr shed his blood. If one read those very words, now not by your opinion, but by his own, he would say either that the martyr erred, or that an absurd and impious composition had been put together by another under the name of the martyr. But now, knowing that if the things which you reprove are read, the brand will be turned back upon him who blames unjustly, you do not bring forward the things which you reprove." And in fact Jerome brought forward nothing except in general terms against this Apology. Indeed he had promised in book 2 against Rufinus that he would write against it in what followed, if there were time for dictating, and yet we know that he wrote nothing, although he lived for several years afterwards.

VI. Sed tamen ut Hieronymum cum seipso conciliem, non inficias ierim videri quidem Pamphilum et Eusebium in Defensione illa quaedam attulisse ex Origene testimonia, quibus voculae et dicta nonnulla admista essent, quae catholicis auribus Hieronymi aetate minus placuerunt, utpote ab Arianis tum ad haeresim suam propagandam usurpata : quas voculas, vel quae dicta propterea resecuisse videtur a sua versione Rufinus, et quibusdam additis, quibusdam detractis emollisse, ut catholicam doctrinam verbis plane catholicis traderet. Quod innuere videtur ipse Rufinus, cum in epilogo ad translationem suam ad Macarium ait se « Apologeticum sancti martyris Pamphili, prout potuit, vel res poposcit, Latino sermone digessisse. » Hujusmodi resectionis etiamnum vestigium exstat. Pamphilus hujus Apologiae cap. 4, De Spiritu sancto, testimonium adducit e cap. 3 libri I, Περὶ ἀρχῶν, cujus fragmentum

VI. Yet in order that I may reconcile Jerome with himself, I would not deny that Pamphilus and Eusebius do indeed seem in that Defence to have adduced certain testimonies from Origen in which some expressions and sayings were intermingled which were less pleasing to catholic ears in the age of Jerome, inasmuch as they were then used by the Arians to propagate their heresy: which expressions, or which sayings, Rufinus on that account seems to have cut away from his version, and with some things added and some things removed to have softened, so that he might hand down catholic doctrine in plainly catholic words. Which Rufinus himself seems to hint when in the epilogue to his translation to Macarius he says that he "arranged in Latin speech the Apologeticus of the holy martyr Pamphilus, according as he was able, or as the subject demanded." Of such cutting away a trace still remains. Pamphilus in ch. 4 of this Apology, On the Holy Spirit, adduces a testimony from ch. 3 of book 1, On First Principles, of which the

Editors' notes and page, col. 530

Page

running head: PRO ORIGENE. — MONITUM. 530
marginal letters: A fuisse, nunquid; B menta plurima; C vero sciens; D aetate minus
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: fuisse, nunquid (continuation of Monitum); word split at column break: fra-gmentum
other: the word fragmentum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 531

PG 17:531

Graecum exhibet imperator Justinianus ad calcem epistolae ad Menam, quod non parum criminantur ipse Justinianus, Athanasius in Matth. XII, 32; Theophilus in epist. 1 paschali; Hieronymus in epist. ad Avitum, et Photius Biblioth. cod. VIII. En tibi ipsamet verba : Ὅτι ὁ μὲν Θεὸς καὶ Πατὴρ συνέχων τὰ πάντα φθάνει εἰς ἕκαστον τῶν ὄντων, μεταδιδοὺς ἑκάστῳ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἰδίου τὸ εἶναι· ὢν γάρ ἐστιν. Ἐλάττων δὲ πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα ὁ Υἱὸς φθάνων ἐπὶ μόνα τὰ λογικά· δεύτερος γάρ ἐστι τοῦ Πατρός· ἔτι δὲ ἧττον τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐπὶ μόνους τοὺς ἁγίους διικνούμενον. Ὥστε κατὰ τοῦτο μείζων ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Πατρὸς παρὰ τὸν Υἱὸν καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. Πλείων δὲ ἡ τοῦ Υἱοῦ παρὰ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον· καὶ πάλιν διαφέρουσα μᾶλλον τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἡ δύναμις παρὰ τὰ ἄλλα ἅγια. « Quod Deus quidem et Pater omnia continens ad unumquemque pervenit, esse unicuique impertiens de suo : ipse enim est qui est. Quod vero praeter Patrem Filius ad sola rationabilia pervenit, est enim secundus a Patre : adhuc autem minor Spiritus sanctus ad solos sanctos pertingit. Ita ex hoc major est potestas Patris, quam Filii et Spiritus sancti. Amplior item potestas Filii prae Spiritu sancto; ac rursus praestantior sancti Spiritus virtus, quam aliorum sanctorum entium. » Haec, quamvis duriuscula prima fronte videantur, si quis tamen ad mentem potius Origenis quam ad verba attenderit, sanum recipient sensum, et ab ipsomet Huetio excusantur Origenianorum lib. II, cap. 2, quaest. 2, num. 27 et 28. Ibi enim agitur de ratione principii, fontis et originis. Sed ea Rufinus, quia sua aetate minus placebant, quibusdam additis, quibusdam resectis, ita et in hac Apologia, et in libro I Περὶ ἀρχῶν emollivit : « Arbitror igitur operationem quidem esse Patris et Filii tam in sanctis quam in peccatoribus; in rationabilibus hominibus, et in mutis animalibus; sed et in his quae exanima sunt, et in omnibus omnino quae sunt : operationem vero Spiritus sancti nequaquam prorsus incidere vel in ea quae exanima sunt, vel in ea quae animantia quidem, sed muta sunt : sed ne in illis quidem inveniri qui rationabiles quidem sunt, sed in malitia positi, nec omnino ad meliora conversi. In illis autem solis arbitror esse opus Spiritus sancti, qui jam se ad meliora convertunt, et per vias Jesu Christi incedunt, id est, qui sunt in novis actibus incedentes, et in Deo permanentes. » Vix dubium est quin ad hunc contextum, et ad paucos quosdam fortasse similes attenderit Hieronymus, cum ait Rufinum plerasque blasphemias, quae de Filio et Spiritu sancto in Eusebii textu comparebant, detraxisse, et in bonam partem commutasse. Forsitan dicas fieri posse ut Pamphilus et Eusebius, nondum quaestionibus de Filio et Spiritu sancto tantopere sua aetate agitatis, clariores expressioresque Origenis de Trinitate contextus non extraxerint, quorum loco alios expressius consubstantialitatem probantes Rufinus forte substituerit. Atque id quidem indicare videtur Hieronymus

Greek fragment the Emperor Justinian exhibits at the end of his epistle to Menas, which Justinian himself, Athanasius on Matt. 12:32, Theophilus in his 1st paschal epistle, Jerome in his epistle to Avitus, and Photius in the Bibliotheca cod. 8 censure not a little. Here for you are the very words: That God and the Father indeed, holding all things together, reaches to each of existing things, imparting to each from His own to be; for He is He Who is. And lesser in comparison with the Father is the Son, reaching only to rational beings; for He is second to the Father; and still less is the Holy Spirit, penetrating only to the saints. So that according to this the power of the Father is greater than the Son and the Holy Spirit. And greater is that of the Son than the Holy Spirit; and again the power of the Holy Spirit is more excellent than the other holy beings. "That God and the Father indeed, holding all things together, reaches to each one, imparting being to each one from His own: for He Himself is He Who is. And that beside the Father the Son reaches only to rational beings, for He is second from the Father: and still lesser the Holy Spirit reaches only to the saints. Thus from this the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Greater likewise is the power of the Son in comparison with the Holy Spirit; and again more excellent is the virtue of the Holy Spirit than that of the other holy beings." These things, although at first sight they may seem somewhat harsh, yet if anyone attends rather to the mind of Origen than to his words, will admit of a sound sense, and are excused by Huet himself in Origeniana book 2, ch. 2, quest. 2, nos. 27 and 28. For there the question concerns the relation of principle, fountain, and origin. But Rufinus, because in his age they were less pleasing, with some things added and some things cut away, softened them thus both in this Apology and in book 1 On First Principles: "I think therefore that the operation indeed of the Father and of the Son is both in saints and in sinners; in rational men, and in dumb animals; and also in those things which are inanimate, and in all things altogether which exist: whereas the operation of the Holy Spirit by no means falls at all either upon those things which are inanimate, or upon those things which are animate indeed, yet dumb: nor is it even found in those who are rational indeed, yet set in malice, and not at all converted to better things. But in those alone do I think that the work of the Holy Spirit is, who already convert themselves to better things, and walk along the ways of Jesus Christ, that is, who are walking in new actions, and abiding in God." There is scarcely a doubt that Jerome attended to this passage, and to a few others perhaps similar, when he says that Rufinus removed most of the blasphemies concerning the Son and the Holy Spirit which appeared in the text of Eusebius, and changed them for the better. Perhaps you may say that it could happen that Pamphilus and Eusebius, when questions concerning the Son and the Holy Spirit were not yet so greatly agitated in their age, did not extract clearer and more explicit passages of Origen concerning the Trinity, in place of which Rufinus perhaps substituted others more explicitly proving consubstantiality. And this indeed Jerome seems to indicate in

Editors' notes and page, col. 531

Page

running head: 531 S. PAMPHILI MARTYRIS
marginal letters: A gmentum Graecum; B ναμις παρὰ τὰ ἄλλα; C agitur de ratione; D tunt, et per vias
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: gmentum Graecum (continuation of Monitum); word split from previous column: fra-gmentum

PG 17:532

lib. I advers. Rufinum his verbis : « Paucisque testimoniis commutatis, quae sciebas displicitura Romanis, caetera (libri primi Eusebii) usque ad finem integra dimisisti. » Idem apertius innuit in epistola ad Pammachium et Oceanum. Imo vix continere se potest in hac eadem epistola, quin ab alio quolibet scriptore quam Eusebio, scilicet vel Didymo, vel ipsomet Rufino, totum hunc librum dicat fuisse compositum. « Porro, inquit, quod Pamphilum proferunt laudatorem ejus (Origenis), gratias illis ago meo nomine, quod dignum me putaverunt, quem cum martyre calumniarentur. Si enim ab inimicis Origenis libros ejus dicitis esse violatos ut infamarentur, quare mihi non liceat dicere ab amicis ejus et sectatoribus compositum esse sub nomine Pamphili volumen, quod illum testimonio martyris ab infamia vindicaret? Ecce vos emendatis in Origenis libris quod ille non scripsit; et miramini si edat aliquis librum, quem ille non edidit? Vos in edito opere potestis redargui : ille qui nihil aliud edidit, facilius patet calumniae. Date quodlibet aliud opus Pamphili. Nusquam reperietis. Hoc unum est. Unde igitur sciam, quod Pamphili sit? Videlicet stylus et saliva docere me poterit? Nunquam credam quod doctus vir primos ingenii sui fructus quaestionibus et infamiae dedicarit . . . Unum nunc proferam, cui contradicere vel stulti sit, vel impudentis. Sex librorum Eusebii super Origenis Defensione principium usque ad mille versus liber iste, qui Pamphili dicitur, continet, et in reliquis (versibus) scriptor ejusdem operis profert testimonia, quibus nititur approbare Origenem fuisse catholicum. Eusebius et Pamphilus tantam inter se habuere concordiam, ut unius animae homines putes, et ab uno alter nomen acceperit. Quomodo igitur inter se dissentire potuerunt, ut Eusebius in toto opere suo Origenem Ariani probet dogmatis, et Pamphilus Nicaenae synodi, quae fuit postea, defensorem? Ex quo ostenditur vel Didymi, vel cujuslibet alterius esse opusculum, qui sex librorum capite detruncato, caetera membra sociarit. » Verum sibi non constat Hieronymus. Nam contrarium omnino statuit lib. II adversus Rufinum, ubi testatur primum Eusebii librum eadem et iisdem verbis continere quae sub nomine Pamphili a Rufino edita sunt, et Rufinum sensus duntaxat de Filio et Spiritu sancto immutasse seu pervertisse, qui apertam blasphemiam praeferebant. « Perspicueque » deprehendi, inquit, « quod primus liber sex voluminum Eusebii ipse esset, qui unus sub nomine Pamphili a te editus est tam Graece quam Latine, immutatis duntaxat sensibus de Filio et Spiritu sancto, qui apertam blasphemiam praeferebant . . . Et cum primus liber sex voluminum illius (Eusebii) eadem et iisdem verbis contineat quae sub nomine Pamphili a te ficta sunt . . . cumque de hoc ipso libro, quem Pamphili simulas, multa perverteris, et aliter in Graeco, aliter in Latino sit, » etc. Sensus duntaxat ait Rufinum pervertisse, nimirum verbula quaedam, quae Hieronymus

book 1 against Rufinus in these words: "And with a few testimonies changed, which you knew would displease the Romans, you left the rest (of the first book of Eusebius) intact right to the end." He hints at the same more openly in the epistle to Pammachius and Oceanus. Indeed he can scarcely restrain himself in this same epistle from saying that this whole book was composed by any other writer whatever than Eusebius, namely either Didymus or Rufinus himself. "Furthermore," says he, "as to their bringing forward Pamphilus as his (Origen's) eulogizer, I give thanks to them on my own behalf, because they have thought me worthy to be calumniated together with a martyr. For if you say that the books of Origen were tampered with by his enemies in order that they might be defamed, why should it not be lawful for me to say that by his friends and followers a volume was composed under the name of Pamphilus, which might vindicate him from infamy by the testimony of a martyr? Behold, you emend in the books of Origen what he did not write; and do you marvel if someone publishes a book which he did not publish? You can be refuted in a published work: he who published nothing else is more easily exposed to calumny. Produce any other work of Pamphilus. Nowhere will you find one. This is the only one. Whence therefore shall I know that it is Pamphilus's? Doubtless the style and savour will be able to teach me? Never shall I believe that a learned man dedicated the first fruits of his genius to controversies and infamy . . . One thing I will now bring forward, which it would be the part either of a fool or of a shameless man to contradict. This book, which is called Pamphilus's, contains the beginning of the six books of Eusebius on the Defence of Origen up to a thousand lines, and in the remaining (lines) the writer of the same work brings forward testimonies by which he strives to prove that Origen was catholic. Eusebius and Pamphilus had such harmony between themselves that you would think them men of one soul, and the one took his name from the other. How therefore could they disagree between themselves, so that Eusebius in his whole work proves Origen to be of Arian dogma, and Pamphilus a defender of the Nicene synod, which took place afterwards? From which it is shown to be a minor work either of Didymus or of someone else, who, having lopped off the head of the six books, joined the remaining parts to it." Yet Jerome is not consistent with himself. For he states the exact opposite in book 2 against Rufinus, where he testifies that the first book of Eusebius contains the same things and in the same words as those which were published by Rufinus under the name of Pamphilus, and that Rufinus changed or perverted only the expressions concerning the Son and the Holy Spirit, which displayed open blasphemy. "And I clearly" discovered, says he, "that the first book of the six volumes of Eusebius was the very one which alone was published by you under the name of Pamphilus both in Greek and in Latin, with only the expressions concerning the Son and the Holy Spirit changed, which displayed open blasphemy . . . And since the first book of his (Eusebius's) six volumes contains the same things and in the same words as those which were fabricated by you under the name of Pamphilus . . . and since from this very book, which you pretend is Pamphilus's, you have perverted many things, and it stands otherwise in the Greek and otherwise in the Latin," etc. He says that Rufinus perverted only the expressions, namely certain little words, which to Jerome

Editors' notes and page, col. 532

Page

running head: S. PAMPHILI MARTYRIS 532
marginal letters: A lib. I advers. Rufinum; B phili volumen; C scriptor ejusdem; D sensus duntaxat
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: lib. I advers. Rufinum (continuation of Monitum); word split at column break: Hiero-nymo

PG 17:533

in malam partem trahebat, quibusdam additis, quibusdam resectis, ad bonam convertisse; non integros contextus subtraxisse et alios substituisse. Et hanc esse Hieronymi mentem intelligitur ex lib. III adversus Rufinum, ubi ait vel Didymum, vel Rufinum, vel alium nescio quem in bonam partem tam Graece quam Latine plerasque blasphemias commutasse, quae in Eusebii textu comparebant. Quod non aliud significat quam quae blasphema Hieronymo videbantur, solo verborum sensu immutato, ad catholicum sensum adduxisse. Rem enim aliquam in bonam partem commutare, est ipsam eamdemque rem, quae mala vel erat, vel esse videbatur, ad bonum convertere. Res eadem permanet; status rei non idem.

drew in a bad sense, with some things added and some things cut away, he turned to a good sense; not that he removed entire passages and substituted others. And that this is the mind of Jerome is understood from book 3 against Rufinus, where he says that either Didymus, or Rufinus, or someone else I know not who changed for the better, both in Greek and in Latin, most of the blasphemies which appeared in the text of Eusebius. Which signifies nothing else than that the things which seemed blasphemous to Jerome, with only the sense of the words changed, he brought to a catholic sense. For to change any thing for the better is to turn that very same thing, which either was or seemed to be bad, to good. The thing remains the same; the state of the thing is not the same.

VII. Sed necdum his contentus quae supra objecit Hieronymus ad Apologiam hanc sancto martyri Pamphilo abjudicandam, iterum instat lib. II advers. Rufinum his verbis : « Quamvis de Eusebii libro multa subtraxerit, et in bonam partem de Filio et de Spiritu sancto nisus sit commutare, tamen multa in illo scandala reperiuntur et apertissimae blasphemiae, quae iste sua negare non poterit, catholica esse pronuntians. Dicit Eusebius, imo, ut tu vis, Pamphilus in isto volumine Filium Patris ministrum; Spiritum sanctum non de eadem Patris Filiique substantia; animas hominum lapsas esse de coelo, et in hoc quod sumus de angelis commutati, in restitutione omnium aequales et angelos, et daemones, et homines fore, et alia tam impia et nefaria, quae etiam replicare sit criminis. » Verum hic sanctus doctor sibi ipsi aperte adversatur. Tantum enim abest ut aliquem de Trinitate errorem in ea Rufini interpretatione repererit, ut Pamphilum e contrario asserat Nicaenae synodi, quae fuit postea, per eam ostendi defensorem, et inde concludat ab aliquo in Trinitate catholico opus illud fuisse emendatum. Sic enim ait sub finem epistolae 65 ad Pammachium et Oceanum : « Sex librorum Eusebii super Origenis Defensione principium usque ad mille ferme versûs liber iste, qui Pamphili dicitur, continet, et in reliquis scriptor ejusdem operis profert testimonia quibus nititur approbare Origenem fuisse catholicum. Eusebius et Pamphilus tantam inter se habuere concordiam, ut unius animae homines putes, et ab uno alter nomen acceperit. Quomodo igitur inter se dissentire potuerunt, ut Eusebius in toto opere suo Origenem Ariani probet dogmatis, et Pamphilus Nicaenae synodi, quae fuit postea, defensorem? Ex quo ostenditur vel Didymi, vel cujuslibet alterius esse opusculum, qui, sex librorum capite detruncato, caetera membra sociarit. » Nullam ergo haeresim in ea Rufini interpretatione, nullum scandalum, nullamve blasphemiam tunc reperiebat Hieronymus. Exstant quidem duo testimonia ubi Filius Patris minister dicitur : sed illud blasphemum dici

VII. Yet not content even with these things which he objected above in order to adjudge this Apology away from the holy martyr Pamphilus, Jerome again urges in book 2 against Rufinus in these words: "Although he removed many things from the book of Eusebius, and strove to change for the better the things concerning the Son and the Holy Spirit, nevertheless many scandals are found in it and most open blasphemies, which that man will not be able to deny to be his own, pronouncing them to be catholic. Eusebius, or rather, as you wish, Pamphilus says in that volume that the Son is the minister of the Father; that the Holy Spirit is not of the same substance of the Father and of the Son; that the souls of men fell from heaven, and in this, that we have been changed from angels, in the restitution of all things both angels, and demons, and men will be equal, and other things so impious and nefarious that even to repeat them is a crime." Yet here the holy doctor openly contradicts himself. For so far is he from having found any error concerning the Trinity in that translation of Rufinus, that on the contrary he asserts that Pamphilus is shown through it to be a defender of the Nicene synod, which took place afterwards, and thence concludes that that work was emended by someone catholic with respect to the Trinity. For thus he says towards the end of epistle 65 to Pammachius and Oceanus: "This book, which is called Pamphilus's, contains the beginning of the six books of Eusebius on the Defence of Origen up to nearly a thousand lines, and in the rest the writer of the same work brings forward testimonies by which he strives to prove that Origen was catholic. Eusebius and Pamphilus had such harmony between themselves that you would think them men of one soul, and the one took his name from the other. How therefore could they disagree between themselves, so that Eusebius in his whole work proves Origen to be of Arian dogma, and Pamphilus a defender of the Nicene synod, which took place afterwards? From which it is shown to be a minor work either of Didymus or of someone else, who, having lopped off the head of the six books, joined the remaining parts to it." No heresy therefore in that translation of Rufinus, no scandal, and no blasphemy did Jerome then find. There exist indeed two testimonies where the Son is called the minister of the Father: but that it be called blasphemous

Editors' notes and page, col. 533

Footnotes

(5) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · printed under col 533

(printed under page 277) (5) Origenian. lib. II, quaest. 14, num. 16.

Origeniana, book 2, question 14, number 16.

(printed under page 277)

Page

running head: 533 APOLOGIA PRO ORIGENE.
marginal letters: A nymus in malam; B VII. Sed necdum; C quae etiam replicare; D et ab uno alter
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: nymus in malam (continuation of Monitum); word split from previous column: Hiero-nymus

PG 17:534

nolim, quod ante et post concilium Nicaenum catholice dictum est; quod Theophilus Antiochenus, quod Justinus, quod Irenaeus, quod Orientales in exemplo fidei contra Photinum, quodque Hilarius et Athanasius Arianae haeresis acerrimi impugnatores, eo sensu quo Origenes, dixerunt, ut infra videbimus in Origenian. lib. II, cap. 2, quaest. 2, num. 14. Quod autem ait Hieronymus, Spiritum sanctum in eo volumine non de eadem Patris Filiique substantia dici, id nusquam hodie reperitur, nec tamen inde concludendum reor, quemadmodum conjicit Huetius, ea fuisse a Rufino erasa, quo omnem quaerelae ansam praecideret. Nunquid enim Rufinus, qui in illo ipso libro religiose profitetur, « quod sancta Trinitas coaeterna sit, et unius naturae, uniusque virtutis et substantiae, » atque aliter docenti anathema denuntiat, adeo stupidus esse potuit ut tam spissam blasphemiam in sua translatione poneret, et absque monitore Hieronymo non animadverteret? Deinde, si eam e codicibus suis expunxit, unde igitur evenit ut nullum ejus operis exemplar hodie exstet, in quo blasphemia illa reperiatur? Nam longe lateque dispersa fuerant Rufinianae versionis exemplaria, antequam illud objiceret Hieronymus. Num verisimile est Rufinum potuisse omnes illos priores codices sive supprimere, sive emendare? « Quid igitur dicendum? Det mihi lector aequus conjectandi veniam, inquit Bullus Defensionis fidei Nicaenae de Filii τῷ ὁμοουσίῳ cap. 9, num. 21. Pamphilus prope finem Apologiae a Rufino versae, Origenis errorem de animarum προϋπάρξει defendens, vel certe excusans, contraque eos disputans qui animarum traductionem defenderent, duo horum genera describit : alterum eorum qui, cum animas hominum ex traduce esse docerent, primam tamen animam ex Dei esse substantia defenderent; eorum alterum, qui ex nihilo factam esse a Deo animam illam primam assererent. Adversus priores ita disserit Pamphilus : « Jam vero illi qui ex traduce animas venire affirmant, et simul cum corporali eas semine seminari; siquidem, ut quidam ipsorum affirmare solent, non aliud dicunt animam esse, quam insufflationem Spiritus Dei, illam scilicet, quam in initio facturae mundi Deus insufflasse dicitur in Adam, de ipsa Dei esse eam substantia profitentes; quomodo non et isti videbuntur quodammodo haec praeter Scripturae regulam et rationem pietatis asserere, quod substantia Dei est? » Vix dubito quin ex his verbis istam Pamphilo calumniam struxerit Hieronymus. Quippe cum veterum multis sensit Hieronymus, spiraculum vitae, quod Deus primo homini insufflasse dicitur, fuisse ipsum Spiritum sanctum eidem homini una cum anima ejus infusum. Sic in Commentariis in cap. IV Epist. ad Ephesios, ad verba illa : « Nolite contristare Spiritum sanctum in quo signati estis in die redemptionis, »

I would not wish, which before and after the Nicene council was said catholically; which Theophilus of Antioch, which Justin, which Irenaeus, which the Easterners in their formula of faith against Photinus, and which Hilary and Athanasius, the most vigorous opponents of the Arian heresy, said in the sense in which Origen did, as we shall see below in Origeniana book 2, ch. 2, quest. 2, no. 14. Now as to what Jerome says, that the Holy Spirit in that volume is said not to be of the same substance of the Father and of the Son, this is nowhere found today, nor yet do I think it is to be concluded thence, as Huet conjectures, that those things were erased by Rufinus in order to cut off every handle for complaint. For could Rufinus, who in that very book religiously professes "that the Holy Trinity is coeternal, and of one nature, and of one power and substance," and denounces anathema against anyone teaching otherwise, have been so stupid as to place so gross a blasphemy in his translation, and not notice it without Jerome as monitor? Next, if he expunged it from his codices, how then did it happen that no copy of that work exists today in which that blasphemy is found? For copies of the Rufinian version had been dispersed far and wide before Jerome objected that. Is it probable that Rufinus could either suppress or emend all those earlier codices? "What therefore is to be said? Let the fair reader grant me leave to conjecture, says Bull in Defence of the Nicene Faith, on the Consubstantiality of the Son, ch. 9, no. 21. Pamphilus near the end of the Apology translated by Rufinus, defending, or at least excusing, the error of Origen concerning the pre-existence of souls, and disputing against those who defended the traducianism of souls, describes two kinds of these: the one of those who, while teaching that the souls of men are by derivation, yet defended that the first soul was from the substance of God; the other of those who asserted that that first soul was made out of nothing by God. Against the former Pamphilus argues thus: 'Now those who affirm that souls come by derivation, and are sown together with the bodily seed; since indeed, as certain of them are accustomed to affirm, they say that the soul is nothing else than the inbreathing of the Spirit of God, namely that which in the beginning of the making of the world God is said to have breathed into Adam, professing that it is from the very substance of God; how will not these also seem in some way to assert these things beyond the rule of Scripture and the rule of piety, that it is the substance of God?' I scarcely doubt that from these words Jerome contrived that calumny against Pamphilus. For along with many of the ancients Jerome held that the breath of life, which God is said to have breathed into the first man, was the Holy Spirit Himself infused into the same man together with his soul. Thus in his Commentaries on ch. 4 of the Epistle to the Ephesians, on those words: 'Grieve not the Holy Spirit in Whom you were sealed in the day of redemption' (Eph. 4:30),

Editors' notes and page, col. 534

Footnotes

(88) ‹anchor: in die redemptionis› · call in col 534

⁸⁸ Ephes. IV, 30.

Ephesians 4:30.

(printed under page 277)

Page

running head: PRO ORIGENE. — MONITUM. 534
marginal letters: A nolim, quod ante; B uniusque virtutis; C Origenis errorem; D tes; quomodo
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: nolim, quod ante (continuation of Monitum)

PG 17:535

haec adnotat : « Signati enim sumus Spiritu Dei sancto, ut et spiritus noster et anima imprimantur signaculo Dei, et illam recipiamus imaginem et similitudinem, ad quam in exordio conditi sumus. Hoc signaculum sancti Spiritus, juxta eloquium Servatoris, Deo imprimente, signatur. » Ubi imaginem et similitudinem illam Dei, ad quam in ipsa sua creatione efformatus fuit homo, interpretatur signaculum Spiritus sancti : quod ideo omnino fecisse videtur, quia spiraculum vitae, quod Deus cum primum hominem formaret, ipsi insufflasse dicitur, Spiritum fuisse sanctum credidit. Hoc clarius dixit Tertullianus lib. De baptismo, cap. 5, ubi de regeneratione hominis, quae per baptismum fit, sic loquitur : « Ita restituitur homo Deo ad similitudinem ejus, qui retro ad imaginem Dei conditus fuerat, etc. Recepit enim illum Dei Spiritum, quem tunc de afflatu ejus susceperat, sed post amiserat per delictum. » Hinc igitur factum videtur, ut ex eo quod insufflationem Spiritus Dei Pamphilus (intelligens nimirum per insufflationem, juxta cum adversariis quos refellit, nihil aliud quam ipsam hominis animam) negaret de substantia esse Dei, ipsum calumniatus fuerit Hieronymus, quasi docuisset Spiritum Dei, tertiam Divinitatis personam, de substantia Dei non esse. » Nullibi etiam comparent quae postea reprehendit Hieronymus, scilicet « animas hominum lapsas esse de coelo, et in hoc quod sumus de angelis commutati, in restitutione omnium aequales fore et angelos, et daemones, et homines. » Sed haec cum naturaliter sequantur ex praeexsistentia animarum, quam excusare tentat Pamphilus, inde ea, quasi si dicta fuissent, exprobrasse videtur Hieronymus.

he notes these things: 'For we have been sealed with the Holy Spirit of God, so that both our spirit and soul are stamped with the seal of God, and we receive that image and likeness to which we were created in the beginning. This seal of the Holy Spirit, according to the word of the Saviour, is sealed by God stamping it.' Where he interprets that image and likeness of God, to which man was formed in his very creation, as the seal of the Holy Spirit: which he seems altogether to have done for this reason, because he believed that the breath of life, which God, when He formed the first man, is said to have breathed into him, was the Holy Spirit. Tertullian said this more clearly in his book On Baptism, ch. 5, where concerning the regeneration of man, which takes place through baptism, he speaks thus: 'Thus man is restored to God unto His likeness, who formerly had been created unto the image of God, etc. For he receives that Spirit of God which he had then received from His breathing, but had afterwards lost through transgression.' Hence therefore it seems to have come about that, because Pamphilus denied that the inbreathing of the Spirit of God (understanding doubtless by the inbreathing, alike with the adversaries whom he refutes, nothing else than the very soul of man) was of the substance of God, Jerome calumniated him, as though he had taught that the Spirit of God, the third Person of the Divinity, was not of the substance of God." Nowhere also do the things appear which Jerome afterwards reproves, namely "that the souls of men fell from heaven, and in this, that we have been changed from angels, in the restitution of all things both angels, and demons, and men will be equal." But since these things naturally follow from the pre-existence of souls, which Pamphilus attempts to excuse, thence Jerome seems to have reproached them as though they had been said.

VIII. Ex his intelligere licet quaenam sit Hieronymo fides adhibenda, cum in hanc Origenis Defensionem tam acriter invehitur. Nullibi sibi constat sanctus doctor : ubique sibi adversatur. Hanc primum dixerat solius esse Pamphili, postea solius Eusebii. Modo eam Eusebio tribuit, modo vel Didymo, vel Rufino, vel alteri cuilibet, qui, libri primi Eusebii capite detruncato, caetera membra sociarit. Modo hanc esse ait ipsummet Eusebii primum volumen, modo sextum; modo eadem et iisdem verbis in primo Eusebii libro contineri, modo ejus scriptorem de ipso Eusebii libro quaedam immutasse; modo sensus duntaxat immutasse, modo ipsa testimonia subtraxisse, et alia substituisse; modo pauca, modo multa; modo denique in ipsa Rufini Latina interpretatione multa etiamnum scandala, et apertissimas blasphemias reperiri, modo Pamphilum Nicaenae fidei per eam ostendi defensorem. Undequaque sese versat sanctus doctor, omnia movet ne liber hic Pamphili sit. Atqui tamen non poterat ignorare ipsum Eusebium, cujus scripta

VIII. From these things one may understand what credit is to be given to Jerome when he inveighs so fiercely against this Defence of Origen. Nowhere is the holy doctor consistent with himself: everywhere he contradicts himself. At first he had said that this was of Pamphilus alone, afterwards of Eusebius alone. Now he attributes it to Eusebius, now either to Didymus, or to Rufinus, or to anyone else, who, having lopped off the head of the first book of Eusebius, joined the remaining parts to it. Now he says that this is the very first volume of Eusebius, now the sixth; now that the same things and in the same words are contained in the first book of Eusebius, now that its writer changed certain things from that very book of Eusebius; now that he changed only the expressions, now that he removed the testimonies themselves and substituted others; now a few, now many; finally, now that in the Latin translation of Rufinus itself many scandals and most open blasphemies are still found, now that Pamphilus is shown through it to be a defender of the Nicene faith. On every side the holy doctor turns himself about, he moves all things so that this book may not be Pamphilus's. And yet he could not be ignorant that Eusebius himself, whose writings

Editors' notes and page, col. 535

Footnotes

(6) Φασὶ δὲ αὐτόν, etc. Cum dicat Eusebius Hist. eccles. lib. VI, cap. 39, Origenem et Decio et tormentis fuisse superstitem, cujus rei testes appellat ipsius Origenis epistolas post Decium scriptas; vel nondum viderat illas epistolas quando in hac Apologia una cum Pamphilo scribebat Origenem in persecutione Decii vitam celebri martyrio finivisse; vel inconsulto Eusebio solus haec scripsit Pamphi- (continues)

"They say that he," etc. Since Eusebius says (Ecclesiastical History, book 6, chapter 39) that Origen survived both Decius and his tortures, and calls as witnesses to this Origen's own letters written after Decius, either he had not yet seen those letters when, in this Apology together with Pamphilus, he wrote that Origen ended his life in the persecution of Decius by a celebrated martyrdom; or Pamphilus wrote this alone, without consulting Eusebius (continues)

(printed under page 278)

Page

running head: 535 S. PAMPHILI MARTYRIS
marginal letters: A haec adnotat; B ejus, qui retro; C Sed haec cum; D bis in primo
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: haec adnotat (continuation of Monitum)

PG 17:536

assidue versaverat, in suo Histor. eccles. lib. VI, cap. 33, aperte testari a se et a sacrosancto martyre Pamphilo Apologeticum pro Origenis defensione communi studio atque opera junctim fuisse elaboratum, adeoque Apologiam hanc sub nomine Pamphili a Rufino editam, quam esse fatetur Hieronymus ipsummet Eusebii primum volumen, esse Pamphili simul et Eusebii. Videtur ergo Hieronymus ideo eamdem soli Eusebio ascripsisse, quia Rufinus, cui tunc temporis quo haec scribebat non minus quam Origeni erat infensus, soli Pamphilo ascripserat; et ideo Eusebio soli iterum ascripsisse, ut eam Ariana peste esse infectam facilius persuaderet, Rufinique fidei et auctoritati certius derogaret. Sed nihil proficit sanctus doctor contra auctoritatem ipsius Eusebii, Socratis, anonymi a R. P. Lupo editi, Photii, et caeterorum, qui hanc Pamphilo simul Eusebioque adjudicant; et satis nobis est praecipuum operis auctorem Pamphilum ab Eusebio et Photio agnosci, ut nullas in eo blasphemias exstitisse judicemus.

he had assiduously studied, in his Ecclesiastical History book 6, ch. 33, openly testifies that the Apologeticus for the defence of Origen had been wrought jointly with common zeal and labour by himself and by the most holy martyr Pamphilus, and therefore that this Apology published by Rufinus under the name of Pamphilus, which Jerome confesses to be the very first volume of Eusebius, is of Pamphilus and of Eusebius together. Jerome therefore seems for this reason to have ascribed the same to Eusebius alone, because Rufinus, towards whom at the time when he was writing these things he was no less hostile than towards Origen, had ascribed it to Pamphilus alone; and for this reason to have ascribed it again to Eusebius alone, that he might more easily persuade men that it was infected with the Arian plague, and more surely detract from the credit and authority of Rufinus. But the holy doctor avails nothing against the authority of Eusebius himself, of Socrates, of the anonymous writer edited by the Rev. Fr. Lupus, of Photius, and of the rest, who adjudge this to Pamphilus and Eusebius together; and it is enough for us that Pamphilus is acknowledged by Eusebius and Photius as the chief author of the work, for us to judge that no blasphemies existed in it.

IX. Restat jam ut aliquid de caeteris quinque deperditis libris dicamus. Socrates in eo contextu quem supra attulimus ex ejus Histor. lib. III, cap. 7, desumptum, ait Pamphilum et Eusebium simul junctos vitam Origenis in ea Apologia conscripsisse, et ibi ostendisse Origenem, qui in omnibus libris suis Christum hominem factum anima praeditum esse agnoscit, specialiter in nono tomo Commentariorum in Genesim, ubi Adamum quidem Christi, Evam autem Ecclesiae typum gerere pluribus asseruerit, non primum in hoc argumento versatum esse, sed Ecclesiae traditionem esse interpretatum. Quod post Socratem repetit Nicephorus Hist. l. X, cap. 14. Docet etiam Eusebius Hist. lib. VI, c. 23, se in secundo hujus Apologiae libro exposuisse qui motus ordinationis Origenis causa fuerint concitati, et quae super iisdem motibus a praesulibus Ecclesiarum constituta sint; et quaecunque alia vigens ipse Origenes ac florens in praedicatione verbi divini contulerit. Τὰ μὲν οὖν ἐπὶ τούτῳ περὶ αὐτοῦ κεκινημένα· τά τε ἐπὶ τοῖς κινηθεῖσι δεδογμένα τοῖς τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν προεστῶσιν· ὅσα τε ἄλλα ἀκμάζων περὶ τὸν θεῖον εἰσενήνεκται λόγον, ἰδίας δεόμενα συντάξεως, μετρίως ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ ἧς ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πεποιήμεθα ἀπολογίας, ἀνεγράψαμεν. Quae omnia confirmat Photius Biblioth. codice CXVIII, his verbis : Φασὶ δὲ τὸν Ὠριγένην ἐν τοῖς κατὰ Σευῆρον διωγμοῖς γράψαι Λεωνίδῃ πατρὶ, ἐπαλείφοντα πρὸς τὸν τοῦ μαρτυρίου δρόμον, ὃν καὶ καλῶς δραμόντι τῶν βραβείων τυχεῖν ἐξεγένετο· καὶ αὐτὸν δὲ ἀποδύσασθαι σπεύδειν πρὸς τὸ τῶν ἀγωνισμάτων στάδιον, τὴν δὲ μητέρα καὶ ἄκοντα δυνηθῆναι τῆς ὁρμῆς ἐπισχεῖν· καὶ τοῦτο καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν ἐπιστολῇ οἰκείᾳ ἐπισημαίνεται. Φασὶ δὲ αὐτὸν, ὅ τε Πάμφιλος

IX. It now remains for us to say something concerning the remaining five lost books. Socrates, in that passage which we adduced above taken from his History book 3, ch. 7, says that Pamphilus and Eusebius joined together wrote the life of Origen in that Apology, and there showed that Origen, who in all his books acknowledges that Christ, made man, was endowed with a soul, especially in the ninth tome of the Commentaries on Genesis, where he asserted at length that Adam indeed bore the type of Christ, and Eve that of the Church, was not the first to engage in this argument, but interpreted the tradition of the Church. Which after Socrates Nicephorus repeats in History bk. 10, ch. 14. Eusebius also teaches in History book 6, ch. 23, that in the second book of this Apology he set forth what commotions were stirred up on account of the ordination of Origen, and what things were decreed concerning the same commotions by the rulers of the Churches; and whatever else Origen himself, when vigorous and flourishing in the preaching of the divine word, contributed. The things therefore stirred up concerning him on this account, and the things decreed upon these commotions by the presidents of the Churches, and whatsoever other things while in his prime he contributed concerning the divine word, requiring a separate treatise, we have moderately recorded in the second book of the apology which we have made on his behalf. All of which Photius confirms in the Bibliotheca, codex 118, in these words: And they say that Origen in the persecutions under Severus wrote to his father Leonides, anointing him for the race of martyrdom, running which nobly it was granted him also to obtain the prizes; and that he himself also was eager to strip for the stadium of the contests, and that his mother was able, even against his will, to restrain him from his impulse; and this he himself also indicates in a letter of his own. And they say of him—both Pamphilus

Editors' notes and page, col. 536

Footnotes

(6) ‹anchor: ἐπισημαίνεται. (6) Φασὶ δὲ αὐτόν› · call in col 536

(printed under page 278)

Page

running head: S. PAMPHILI MARTYRIS 536
marginal letters: A assidue versaverat; B ipsius Eusebii; C Evam autem; D τάξεως, μετρίως
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: assidue versaverat (continuation of Monitum)

PG 17:537

μάρτυς, καὶ ἕτεροι πλεῖστοι, οἵτινες ἀπ' αὐτῶν τῶν ἑωρακότων Ὠριγένην τὰ περὶ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἠκριβώσαντο, διαβοήτῳ μαρτυρίῳ τοῦ βίου ἐξεληλυθέναι, ἐπ' αὐτῆς τῆς Καισαρείας Δεκίου τὴν κατὰ τῶν Χριστιανῶν ὠμότητα πνέοντος. Οἱ δέ φασιν αὐτὸν ἕως Γάλλου καὶ Βολουσιανοῦ διαρκέσαντα, καὶ ἑξηκοστὸν ἔννατον ἔτος τῆς ἡλικίας ἄγοντα, ἐν Τύρῳ καὶ τελευτῆσαι, καὶ ταφῇ παραδοθῆναι. Ἔστι δὲ μᾶλλον οὗτος ὁ λόγος ἀληθὴς, εἴ γε αἱ φερόμεναι αὐτοῦ μετὰ τὸν διωγμὸν Δεκίου ἐπιστολαὶ οὐκ ἔχουσι τὸ πλαστόν. Παντὸς δὲ μαθήματος ἰδέαν αὐτόν φασι καὶ μετελθεῖν καὶ διδάσκειν. Τοῦτον τοίνυν τὸν Ὠριγένην, ὃν καὶ Ἀδαμάντιον ἐπονομάζεσθαί φασιν, ὅτι ἀδαμαντίνοις δεσμοῖς ἐῴκεσαν οὓς ἂν δήσειε λόγους, ἀκροατὴν καὶ διάδοχον λέγουσι γενέσθαι Κλήμεντος τοῦ Στρωματέως, καὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρειαν ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ διδασκαλείου. Κλήμεντα δὲ Πανταίνου γενέσθαι λέγουσι καὶ ἀκροατὴν, καὶ τοῦ διδασκαλείου διάδοχον· Πάνταινον δὲ, τῶν τε τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἑωρακότων ἀκροάσασθαι, οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καί τινων αὐτῶν ἐκείνων διακοῦσαι. Τὰς δὲ κατὰ Ὠριγένους κινήσεις ἐκεῖθεν λέγουσιν ἐκρυῆναι· Δημήτριος Ἀλεξανδρείας ἐπισκόπει, ὃς Ὠριγένην δι' ἐπαίνων εἶχε, καὶ ἐς τοὺς φιλτάτους συνέταττεν. Ἀλλ' Ὠριγένης ἀπαίρειν εἰς Ἀθήνας χωρὶς τῆς τοῦ οἰκείου γνώμης ἐπισκόπου, εἰς πρεσβύτερον οὐ δέον ὂν ἀναβιβάζεται. Θεότεκνος δ' ἦν, ὁ κατὰ Καισάρειαν τὴν ἐν Παλαιστίνῃ τὸν ἀρχιερατικὸν χειρίζων νόμον, ὁ τῆς Ὠριγένους αὐτουργὸς χειροτονίας, ἔχων συνευδοκοῦντα καὶ τὸν Ἱεροσολύμων Ἀλέξανδρον. Τρέπεται διὰ τοῦτο Δημητρίῳ εἰς μῖσος, τὸ φίλτρον· καὶ οἱ ἔπαινοι, πρὸς τοὺς ψόγους. Καὶ σύνοδος ἀθροίζεται ἐπισκόπων, καί τινων πρεσβυτέρων, κατὰ Ὠριγένους. Ἡ δὲ, ὡς ὁ Πάμφιλός φησι, ψηφίζεται, μεταστῆναι μὲν ἀπὸ Ἀλεξανδρείας τὸν Ὠριγένην, καὶ μήτε διατρίβειν ἐν αὐτῇ, μήτε διδάσκειν. Τῆς μέντοι τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου τιμῆς οὐδαμῶς ἀποκεκινῆσθαι. Ἀλλ' ὅγε Δημήτριος ἅμα τισὶν ἐπισκόποις Αἰγυπτίοις, καὶ τῆς ἱερωσύνης ἀπεκήρυξε, συνυπογραψάντων καὶ τῇ ἀποφάσει τῶν συμψήφων αὐτῷ γεγενημένων. Φυγαδευθέντα δὲ τὸν Ὠριγένην τῆς Ἀλεξανδρείας, Θεότεκνος ὁ Παλαιστίνης, ἀσμένως τε διάγειν ἐν Καισαρείᾳ ὑπεδέξατο, καὶ τοῦ διδάσκειν πᾶσαν ἐξουσίαν ἐνεχείρισε. Καὶ τὰς μὲν αἰτίας ἐξ ὧν συνέβη τὰς διαβολὰς ἐκραγῆναι τῷ Ὠριγένει, ταύτας φησί. « Aiunt igitur (Pamphilus et Eusebius) Origenem Severi imp. persecutione Leonidae patri scriptum misisse, quo ad martyrii curriculum eum exacueret : et sane stadium fortiter decurrens ille bravium accepit. Addunt ipsummet Origenem summo studio idem certamen suscipere conatum fuisse, sed matrem impetum vel ipso invito refrenasse. Quod ipsum item epistola quadam

the martyr, and very many others, who from the very men who had seen Origen ascertained accurately the things concerning the man—that he departed from life by a renowned martyrdom, in Caesarea itself when Decius was breathing cruelty against the Christians. But others say that he lasted until the times of Gallus and Volusianus, and conducting the sixty-ninth year of his age, both died in Tyre and was given over to burial. And this account is rather true, if indeed his extant letters after the persecution of Decius do not have forgery in them. And the form of every branch of learning they say that he both pursued and taught. This Origen, therefore, whom they say was also surnamed Adamantius, because the arguments which he bound together resembled adamantine bonds, they say became a hearer and successor of Clement the Stromatist, and of the ecclesiastical school at Alexandria. And Clement they say became both a hearer of Pantaenus and successor of the school; and that Pantaenus both heard those who had seen the apostles, and moreover heard thoroughly some of those very men themselves. And the commotions against Origen they say flowed forth from thence: Demetrius was bishop of Alexandria, who held Origen in praise, and ranked him among his dearest friends. But when Origen was departing for Athens without the consent of his own bishop, he was elevated to presbyter, though it ought not to have been so. And it was Theotecnus, who administered the high-priestly law at Caesarea in Palestine, who was the author of the ordination of Origen, having also Alexander of Jerusalem consenting with him. On this account affection turns into hatred for Demetrius; and praises into censures. And a synod of bishops and of certain presbyters is gathered against Origen. And it, as Pamphilus says, votes that Origen indeed should remove from Alexandria, and neither reside in it nor teach; yet that he should in no wise be removed from the honour of the presbyterate. But Demetrius, together with certain Egyptian bishops, deposed him from the priesthood also, those who had voted with him also subscribing to the sentence. And when Origen was banished from Alexandria, Theotecnus of Palestine both gladly received him to dwell in Caesarea and entrusted to him full authority to teach. And the causes from which it happened that the calumnies broke out against Origen, he says were these. "They (Pamphilus and Eusebius) say therefore that in the persecution of the Emperor Severus Origen sent a writing to his father Leonides, whereby he whetted him for the course of martyrdom: and indeed, bravely running the stadium, he received the prize. They add that Origen himself with the utmost zeal endeavoured to undertake the same contest, but his mother restrained his impulse even against his will. Which very thing likewise in a certain epistle

Editors' notes and page, col. 537

Footnotes

(7) ‹anchor: ἀναβιβάζεται. (7) Θεότεκνος› · call in col 537

(printed under page 279) (7) Θεότεκνος. Legendum videtur hic et infra, Θεόκτιστος. Ita enim vocatur ab Eusebio Histor. eccles. lib. VI, cap. 27 et 46, nec non ab Hieronymo lib. De scriptor. ecclesiast., cap. 54.

"Theotecnus." Here and below it seems we should read "Theoctistus," for that is what he is called by Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, book 6, chapters 27 and 46) and also by Jerome (On Ecclesiastical Writers, chapter 54).

(printed under page 279)

(8) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · printed under col 538

(printed under page 279) (8) Hieronym., De scriptor. ecclesiast., cap. 54.

Jerome, On Ecclesiastical Writers, chapter 54.

(printed under page 279)

Page

running head: 537 APOLOGIA PRO ORIGENE.
marginal letters: A μάρτυς, καὶ ἕτεροι; B τέως, καὶ τοῦ; C μητρίῳ εἰς μῖσος; D Ὠριγένει, ταύτας
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: μάρτυς, καὶ ἕτεροι (continuation of Monitum); word split at column break: qua-dam
other: the word quadam was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 538

PG 17:538

sua testatum reliquit. Quin Pamphilus martyr, et alii cum eo plurimi, res Origenis ex illis ipsis qui hominem viderant, accuratius perscrutati, narrant eum celebri martyrio tum vita decessisse, cum Caesareae Decius suam in Christianos crudelitatem effunderet. Alii tamen volunt ad Galli ac Volusiani usque tempora perdurasse, et sexagesimum nonum aetatis annum agentem Tyri mortuum, in eademque urbe sepultum. Quae quidem verior narratio est, si modo germanae sunt, quae feruntur, epistolae illius post Decii persecutionem conscriptae. Omnes autem omnino disciplinas ipsum et percepisse, et docuisse ferunt. Hunc item Origenem, quem etiam Adamantium cognominatum ex eo tradunt, quod rationes quas colligaret, adamantinis quibusdam quasi vinculis non absimiles viderentur, auditorem fuisse Clementis ejus, qui Stromateus dictus est, ejusdemque in catechetica schola, quae Alexandriae erat, successorem. Clementem porro Pantaeni fuisse discipulum, scholaeque successorem : et Pantaenum rursum iis usum magistris, qui apostolos vidissent : quin et illorum nonnullos audiisse. Caeterum hinc in Origenem excitatam omnem tempestatem commemorant : Demetrius Alexandriae praesul Origenem multum laudans, in paucis charissimum habebat. At cum hic absque bona episcopi venia Athenas profecturus esset, Theotecnus, Caesareae Palaestinae tum archiepiscopus, secus eum quam oporteret, presbyterum ordinavit, non improbante factum hoc Alexandro Jerosolymorum episcopo. Hinc Demetrio amor in odium vertit, laudesque mox cum vituperatione commutatae. Synodus insuper episcoporum coacta, et presbyterorum quorumdam contra Origenem : quae, ut Pamphilus refert, decretum fecit, Alexandria quidem pellendum Origenem, neque in ea versari aut docere permittendum; sacerdotii tamen dignitate nequaquam submovendum. Verum Demetrius una cum Aegypti episcopis aliquot, sacerdotio quoque illum abjudicat, subscribentibus etiam edicto huic, quotquot antea suffragati ei fuissent. Ita igitur Alexandria in exsilium pulsum Origenem, Theotecnus Palaestinae episcopus libenter Caesareae et degere jussit, et de superiore loco docendi potestatem fecit. Has ille causas affert, ex quibus omnes illae calumniae in Origenem eruperint. » Praeterea Eusebius Hist. lib. VI, cap. 36, dicere videtur se in sexto hujus Apologiae libro epistolas, quas ad Fabianum papam et ad complures alios Ecclesiarum antistites de recta fidei suae ratione Origenes scripserat, inseruisse : Γράφει δὲ καὶ Φαβιανῷ τῷ κατὰ Ῥώμην ἐπισκόπῳ, ἑτέροις τε πλείστοις ἄρχουσιν Ἐκκλησιῶν, περὶ τῆς κατ' αὐτὸν

of his own he left attested. Moreover, Pamphilus the martyr, and very many others with him, having investigated more accurately the affairs of Origen from those very men who had seen the man, relate that he departed from life by a renowned martyrdom at the time when at Caesarea Decius was pouring out his cruelty against the Christians. Others, however, maintain that he lasted right until the times of Gallus and Volusianus, and while conducting the sixty-ninth year of his age died at Tyre, and was buried in the same city. Which indeed is the truer narrative, if only those epistles of his which are circulated, written after the persecution of Decius, are genuine. Moreover, they report that he both learned and taught altogether all branches of learning. They likewise hand down that this Origen, who was also surnamed Adamantius from the fact that the arguments which he bound together seemed not unlike certain adamantine bonds, was a hearer of that Clement who was called the Stromatist, and his successor in the catechetical school which was at Alexandria; furthermore, that Clement was a disciple of Pantaenus, and successor in the school: and that Pantaenus in turn used as masters those who had seen the apostles: nay, had even heard some of those men themselves. For the rest, they recount that the whole tempest against Origen was stirred up from this source: Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, praising Origen much, held him among the few most dear to him. But when he was about to set out for Athens without the good leave of his bishop, Theotecnus, then archbishop of Caesarea in Palestine, ordained him presbyter otherwise than was fitting, Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, not disapproving this act. Hence for Demetrius love turned into hatred, and praises were presently exchanged for vituperation. A synod moreover of bishops and of certain presbyters was assembled against Origen: which, as Pamphilus relates, made a decree that Origen indeed should be driven from Alexandria, and not permitted to reside or teach in it; yet should by no means be removed from the dignity of the priesthood. But Demetrius, together with some bishops of Egypt, adjudged him away from the priesthood also, all those who had previously voted in his favour subscribing to this edict also. And so Theotecnus, bishop of Palestine, gladly bade Origen, thus driven into exile from Alexandria, both to dwell at Caesarea and gave him authority to teach from the higher place. These causes he brings forward, from which all those calumnies broke out against Origen." Furthermore, Eusebius in History book 6, ch. 36, seems to say that in the sixth book of this Apology he inserted the epistles which Origen had written to Pope Fabian and to several other rulers of the Churches concerning the right account of his faith: And he writes both to Fabian, the bishop at Rome, and to very many other rulers of Churches, concerning his own

Editors' notes and page, col. 538

Page

running head: PRO ORIGENE. — MONITUM. 538
marginal letters: A dam sua testatum; B culis non absimiles; C amor in odium; D quibus omnes
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: dam sua testatum (continuation of Monitum); word split from previous column: qua-dam

PG 17:539

ὀρθοδοξίας· ἔχεις καὶ τούτων τὰς ἀποδείξεις, ἐν ἕκτῳ τῆς γραφείσης ἡμῖν περὶ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἀπολογίας. Testantur etiam Socrates Hist. lib. IV, cap. 27, et Nicephorus lib. XI, cap. 19, hisce libris adjunctam esse S. Gregorii Thaumaturgi panegyricam orationem, quam ille ab Origene discedens in ejus laudem composuit. Rufinus, ut jam diximus, lib. I adversus Hieronymum, dicit in hac Apologia agi de fato seu mathesi. Anonymus auctor a R. P. Lupo editus, refert Pamphilum martyrem, et Eusebium pro praeexsistentia et restitutione multis valde praecedentium Patrum testimoniis usos esse. Alter denique anonymus a Sirmundo editus sub nomine Praedestinati, quem alii Arnobium juniorem, alii Primasium esse existimant, in lib. I De haeresibus, haeresi XXII, quae est Apellitarum, ita ait : « Hos Origenes ita perfecte superavit, ut eorum causa περιοδευτὴς (circuitor) fieret, et per singulas quasque urbes per Orientem eundo praedicaret. Et quia innumerabilia sunt tractatorum ejus volumina, haeretici superati libros ejus ad suos libitus callidissima argumentatione mutarunt, ut quos vellent decipere, dicerent ita Origenem suis Expositionibus definisse. Unde quicunque usque hodie Origenem legit, si prudenti eum novit recitatione distinguere, deprehendit loca ab haereticis maculata. Quod ita esse sanctus Pamphilus martyr in suo Apologetico declaravit. » Et haeresi XLIII, postquam dixit tres fuisse Origenes, unum Syrum sceleratissimum, qui turpia docuerit, alterum qui et mortuorum resurrectionem negabat, et Christi creaturam esse Spiritum sanctum dicebat, paradisum autem et coelos allegorice dicta esse affirmabat, haec subjungit : « Hi duo Origenes prava quaeque scripserunt. Haeretici et perversi doctores nostro Origeni catholico tractatori miscuerunt, ut adimpleretur quod dicitur a Domino in Evangeliis : Nonne bonum semen seminasti in agro tuo? Unde ergo haec zizania? Qui respondens ait : Inimicus homo haec fecit. Ideo enim Origenem legentes invenimus catholicum, et contra haereses dimicantem et vincentem : identidem legentes Origenem invenimus haereticum,

orthodoxy; you have the proofs of these things also in the sixth book of the apology written by us concerning the man. Socrates also in History book 4, ch. 27, and Nicephorus in book 11, ch. 19, testify that to these books was subjoined the panegyric oration of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, which he composed in praise of Origen when departing from him. Rufinus, as we have already said, in book 1 against Jerome, says that this Apology treats of fate or astrology. The anonymous author edited by the Rev. Fr. Lupus relates that Pamphilus the martyr and Eusebius used very many testimonies of preceding Fathers on behalf of pre-existence and restitution. Finally, another anonymous author edited by Sirmond under the name of Praedestinatus, whom some think to be Arnobius the Younger, others Primasius, in book 1 On Heresies, heresy 22, which is that of the Apellites, speaks thus: "These Origen overcame so completely that for their sake he became a periodeutes (circuit-visitor), and preached by going through each single city throughout the East. And because the volumes of his treatises are innumerable, the vanquished heretics altered his books at their pleasure with most cunning argumentation, so that to those whom they wished to deceive they might say that Origen had thus defined in his Expositions. Whence whoever even to this day reads Origen, if he knows how to distinguish him by prudent reading, detects the passages stained by the heretics. That this is so, the holy martyr Pamphilus declared in his Apologeticus." And in heresy 43, after he said that there were three Origens—one a most wicked Syrian, who taught foul things; the second, who both denied the resurrection of the dead, and said that the Holy Spirit was a creature of Christ, and affirmed that paradise and the heavens were spoken of allegorically—he subjoins these words: "These two Origens wrote all manner of perverse things. Heretics and perverse teachers mingled them with our catholic tractarian Origen, that there might be fulfilled what is said by the Lord in the Gospels: Did you not sow good seed in your field? Where then has it these tares? And he answering said: An enemy man has done this (Matt. 13:27–28). For on this account, reading Origen, we find him catholic, and fighting against heresies and conquering: repeatedly reading Origen, we find him heretical,

Editors' notes and page, col. 539

Footnotes

(89) ‹anchor: in Evangeliis› · call in col 539

⁸⁹ Matth. XIII, 27, 28.

Matthew 13:27–28.

(printed under page 280) (1) Hanc praefationem, Apologeticum Pamphili, ac Rufini librum De adulteratione librorum Origenis contulimus cum sex mss. uno Corbeiensi, hodie S. Germani a Pratis, noni saeculi; altero Regio num. 1641, decimi tertii saeculi; 3° Sorbonico; 4° S. Remigii Remensis; 5° S. Vitoni; 6° S. Michaelis in Periculo maris: necnon et cum iisdem mss. codicibus ad quorum fidem libros Περὶ ἀρχῶν emendavimus.

We have collated this preface, Pamphilus's Apologeticus, and Rufinus's book On the Falsification of Origen's Books with six manuscripts: one from Corbie, now at Saint-Germain-des-Prés, of the ninth century; a second, Regius no. 1641, of the thirteenth century; third, the Sorbonne manuscript; fourth, that of Saint-Remi at Reims; fifth, that of Saint-Vanne; sixth, that of Mont-Saint-Michel ("Saint Michael in Peril of the Sea"); and also with the same manuscripts by whose witness we emended the books On First Principles.

(printed under page 280) (2) Mss., injungis mihi rem quam videris quantum (continues)

The manuscripts read: "you lay on me a task which you see how much (continues)

(printed under page 280)

Page

running head: 539 S. PAMPHILI MARTYRIS
marginal letters: A ὀρθοδοξίας· ἔχεις; B haeresi XXII; C rectionem negabat
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: ὀρθοδοξίας· ἔχεις (continuation of Monitum); full-width lines below rule across cols. 539-540 not set (IN APOLOGETICUM ... Cognoscendae veritatis ...)

PG 17:540

et adversa fidei astruentem. Litterae verba tradunt et sensus : si possent et facies loquentium demonstrare, errorem nullus poterat de persona doctoris incurrere. Nam et illud cavendum est, quod Ampullianus quidam haeresiarches Bythinius, qui docebat post Origenem Ecclesiam Dei. Hic incurrit talem haeresem, ut diceret omnes criminosos cum diabolo et daemoniis eo usque in gehenna decoqui, usquequo puri redditi possint inde et immaculati egredi, ad hoc quod antea fuerant alieni a culpa suo iterum Creatori restitui. Hic, dum argueretur ab Ecclesia, coepit proferre libros Origenis, quos ipse vitiaverat, et dicere : Ecce quia Origenes ita sensit, et praecipue in quatuor Περὶ ἀρχῶν libris. Sed qui sani sensus est, et habet mentis splendidos oculos, sic videt addita in Origenis opusculis mala ista, atque cognoscit, sicut in stragulo coccineo pannos albos, aut cujusque alterius coloris cernat assutos. Quod ita esse sanctus martyr Pamphilus docet, qui antequam ad martyrii coronam attingeret, irreprehensibiliter cathedram episcopatus obtinuit, et sanam doctrinam Dei populis ministravit. Hic edidit Apologeticum, et omnia quae de Origene Catholici ignorantes mentiuntur, exclusit, ostendens ea, quae reprehensibilia inveniuntur in ejus opusculis, Origenis non esse, sed eorum quos ipse superaverat : alia vero, quae tota perversa sunt, aliorum duorum haereticorum esse, qui Origenis nomen, non fidem, nec conscientiam habuerunt. » Nescio unde haec hauserit anonymus auctor, sed ex impuris ea fontibus hausisse videtur; et vereor ne qui tam inepte Pamphilum martyrem episcopali dignitate donat, ineptius etiam vel Apologiam quinque libris constantem anonymi illius de quo Photius Biblioth. cod. CXVII, vel Rufini librum De adulteratione librorum Origenis pro ipsa Pamphili Apologia habuerit. Uterque enim libros quidem Origenis ab haereticis ait esse vitiatos; sed nullibi Pamphilus; nisi forte id dixerit in caeteris libris temporum injuria absumptis : de quo tamen nec Eusebius, nec Hieronymus, nec Socrates, nec Photius, nec ullus alius vel minimum habent verbum.

and building up things contrary to the faith. Letters hand down words and meanings: if they could also show the faces of the speakers, no one could fall into error concerning the person of the teacher. For that also must be guarded against, which a certain Ampullianus, a Bithynian heresiarch, did, who taught the Church of God after Origen. This man fell into such a heresy as to say that all criminals are boiled down together with the devil and the demons in Gehenna until, rendered pure and immaculate, they can come forth thence, and be restored again to their Creator unto that which they had been before, free from guilt. This man, when he was reproved by the Church, began to bring forward the books of Origen, which he himself had corrupted, and to say: Behold, Origen thought thus, and especially in the four books On First Principles. But he who is of sound sense, and has bright eyes of the mind, so sees and recognizes those evil things added in the works of Origen, just as on a scarlet coverlet one would discern white patches, or those of any other colour, sewn on. That this is so, the holy martyr Pamphilus teaches, who before he attained to the crown of martyrdom, irreproachably held the chair of the episcopate, and ministered the sound doctrine of God to the peoples. He published the Apologeticus, and excluded all the things which ignorant Catholics falsely allege concerning Origen, showing that the things which are found reprehensible in his works are not Origen's, but belong to those whom he himself had overcome: while the other things, which are wholly perverse, belong to the other two heretics, who had the name of Origen, not his faith nor his conscience." I know not whence the anonymous author drew these things, but he seems to have drawn them from impure fountains; and I fear lest he who so ineptly endows Pamphilus the martyr with episcopal dignity, even more ineptly mistook either the Apology consisting of five books by that anonymous writer of whom Photius speaks in the Bibliotheca cod. 117, or Rufinus's book On the Adulteration of the Books of Origen, for the Apology of Pamphilus itself. For each of the two indeed says that the books of Origen were corrupted by heretics; but nowhere does Pamphilus; unless perhaps he said it in the remaining books consumed by the injury of time: concerning which, however, neither Eusebius, nor Jerome, nor Socrates, nor Photius, nor anyone else has even the slightest word.

Editors' notes and page, col. 540

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: RUFINI PRAEFATIO AD MACARIUM (title of the next piece, set across the page width)› · call in col 540

(1) Hanc praefationem, Apologeticum Pamphili, ac Rufini librum De adulteratione librorum Origenis contulimus cum sex mss. uno Corbeiensi, hodie S. Germani a Pratis, noni saeculi; altero Regio num. 1641, decimi tertii saeculi; 3° Sorbonico; 4° S. Remigii Remensis; 5° S. Vitoni; 6° S. Michaelis in Periculo maris : necnon et cum iisdem mss. codicibus ad quorum fidem libros Περὶ ἀρχῶν emendavimus.

(1) We have collated this preface, the Apologeticus of Pamphilus, and Rufinus's book On the Adulteration of the Books of Origen with six manuscripts: first, one of Corbie, now of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, of the ninth century; second, a Royal one, no. 1641, of the thirteenth century; third, one of the Sorbonne; fourth, one of Saint-Remi at Reims; fifth, one of Saint-Vanne; sixth, one of Mont-Saint-Michel in Peril of the Sea; and also with the same manuscript codices on whose authority we corrected the books On First Principles.

(printed under page 280; begins under col 539 and runs on under col 540)

(2) ‹anchor: o vir desideriorum Machari, (2) injungis› · call in col 540 (first line set across the page width)

(2) Mss., injungis mihi rem quam videris quantum

(2) The manuscripts read: you enjoin on me a thing which you see how much [note runs on past page 280]

(printed under page 280; continues on the next page)