# Apology for Origen - Author: [Pamphilus of Caesarea](https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/authors/pamphilus/) - Latin title: *Apologia pro Origene* - Date: ca. 308–310 (Rufinus's Latin about 397) (approximate) - Source: J.-P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus, series Graeca, vol. 17 (Paris, 1857), cols. 539–616 (Rufinus's Latin version of Book 1; Migne's notes and Monitum not reproduced); text transcribed from library-scan OCR (Latin text: Migne, Patrologia Graeca vol. 17 (1857), transcribed from library-scan OCR of the printed volume) - Translation: Claude, from the original text, unless a passage says otherwise; each passage below gives the translator - Editions and translations: Pamphile et Eusèbe de Césarée, Apologie pour Origène, ed. René Amacker and Éric Junod, SC 464–465 (Paris: Cerf, 2002) (edition to be checked) - Work page: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/ - Passages: 17 ## Apology for Origen 0 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/0/#p-0 - Source: PG 17:539b–549a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: An anonymous prologue, Rufinus's preface with his creed, and Pamphilus's preface, which defends Origen's humility as an inquirer and announces a defence from Origen's own words. ### Latin text Cognoscenda … praefationem, Apologeticum Pamphili, et adversa fidei astruentem. Littera: verba tradunt et sensus : si possent et facies loquentium demonstrare, errorem nullus poterat de persona doctoris incurrere. Nam et illttd cavendum est, «mod Ampulliauus quidam lueresiarches Bythinius, qui docebat post Origenem Ecclesiam Dei. llic incurrit talem haeresem , ut diceret omnes criminosus eam diabolo et daetnoniis eo usque in gehenna decoqui, usquequo puri redditi possint inde et immaculati egredi, ad hoc quod antea fuerant alieni a culpa sua iterum Creatori restitui. llic, dum argueretur ab Ecclesia, cmpit profierre libros Origenis , quos ipse vitiaverat, et dicere : Ecce quia Origenes ita sensit, et praecipue in quatuor Περὶ ἀρχῶν lihris. Sed qui sani sensus est, et habet mentis splendidos oculos. sic videt addita in Origeuis 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 Apotogeticum, et Omnia quae de Origene Catholici ignorantes tnentiuntur, exclusit, ostendens ea, quae reprehensibilia inveniuntur in ejus Opusculis. Origcnis 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. … S. PAMPHILI … ORIGENE AD MACARIUM. Macari, o vir desideriorum, veritatis amore permotus, injungis mihi rem, quae tibi … agnitae veritatis gratiam conferat; mihi tamen non dubito quin offensam maximam comparet eorum, qui se laesos putant ab eo qui de Origene non aliquid male senserit. Et quamvis non meam de eo sententiam, sed sancti martyris Pamphili sciscitatus sis, et librum ejus, quem pro Origene in Graeco scripsisse traditur, transferri tibi poposceris in Latinum, tamen non dubito futuros quosdam qui et in eo laesos se putent, si nos aliquid pro eo vel alieno sermone dicamus. Quos tamen et ipsos deprecamur nihil praesumpto vel praejudicato animo agere: sed quoniam ad judicium Dei venturi sumus, non refugiant scire quod verum est, ne forte ignorantes delinquant; sed considerantes quia falsis criminationibus percutere fratrum infirmorum conscientias in Christum peccare est, ideo non accommodent criminatoribus aurem suam, nec ab alio discant alterius fidem, maxime cum coram experiri sit copia, et oris sui confessio quid vel qualiter unusquisque credit osten…. Scriptum est enim, quia corde creditur ad justitiam, ore autem confessio fit ad salutem; et: Ex verbis suis unusquisque justificabitur, et ex verbis suis condemnabitur. Qualiter ergo Origenes de singulis capitulis sanctarum Scripturarum senserit, tenor libelli hujus edoceat. De his autem quae apud eum sibi contraria inveniuntur, quid causae sit, in ultimo brevi adjectione docebimus. Nos autem, sicut traditum est nobis a sanctis Patribus, ita tenemus, quod sancta Trinitas coaeterna sit, et unius naturae atque substantiae, uniusque virtutis; et quod Filius Dei in novissimo tempore homo factus est, et pro peccatis nostris passus est, et in ea ipsa carne, in qua passus est, resurrexit a mortuis, propter quod et resurrectionis spem humano generi tribuit. Carnis vero resurrectionem non per aliquas praestigias, sicut nonnulli calumniantur, dicimus; sed hanc ipsam carnem, in qua nunc vivimus, resurrecturam credimus; non aliam pro alia, nec corpus aliud quam hujus carnis dicimus. Sive ergo corpus resurrecturum dicimus, secundum Apostolum dicimus; hoc enim nomine usus est ille: sive carnem dicimus, secundum traditionem symboli confitemur. Stulta enim adinventio calumniae est, corpus humanum aliud putare esse quam carnem. Sive ergo caro secundum communem fidem, sive corpus secundum Apostolum dicitur quod resurget, ita credendum est sicut Apostolus definivit, quia quod resurget, ita resurget, in virtute resurget, et in gloria, et incorruptibile et spiritale corpus; quia corruptio incorruptionem non possidebit. Salvis ergo his praerogativis futuri corporis vel carnis, resurrectio carnis credenda est integre atque perfecte, ut et natura carnis eadem servetur, et incorrupti ac spiritalis corporis gloria non infringatur. Sic enim scriptum est. Haec in Jerosolymis in Ecclesia Dei a sancto sacerdote ejus Joanne praedicantur: haec nos cum ipso et dicimus, et tenemus. Si quis praeter haec vel credit, vel docet, vel a nobis aliter credi quam exposuimus putat, anathema sit. Nostrae ergo fidei documentum … si aut hujus nostrae fidei facimus rationem, secundum … ab omni specie mala nos abstinentes; et si … Dei. Amen. PRO ORIGENE. … quod ita vos Origenis subterfugit intellectus, vos quoque ea aestimetis de illo, quae et alii non…, qui sive per imperitiam sui, qua non valent sensus ejus altitudinem contueri; sive pravitate mentis, qua studium gerunt non solum dicta ejus incusare. verum etiam adversus eos qui hzec legunt hostiles inimicitias sumere, tam pertinaciter id agentes, nt nulla prorsus venia eos dignos haberi putent, ne ea quidem quam impertire solent, verbi gratia, his qni vel Graecorum stecularium libros, vel nonnunquam etiam haereticorum, percunctandi atque agnoscendi studio decurrunt: sibi solis scilicet concedi debere peritiam probandi sermonis putant, ut si quid bene ab aliquo dictum est, retinere sciant, ah omni autem specie mala abstinere se noverint: abhis vero qui Origenis libros legunt, istud penitus exclusum putant esse mandatum, quo probabiles jubentur ellici trapezitae, scientes quod bonum est retinere. ab omni autem specie mala se abstinere': sed tantummodo si quis legere libros illius visus fuerit, statim ab bis mereticorum perfundatur infamia. Denique cum multis honesta: vitm et religiosi propositi viris, in quibus nihil prorsus culpae inveniunt, inimicitias propter hoc solum habent si eorum studium circa memorati viri libros propensius esse perspexerint, invidiosius etiam ista tingentes, quod ab his in loco sanctorum apostolorum vel prophetarum tam ipse quam dicta ejus habeantur. Sed de hoc certum non habeo utrum calumniandi voto tantummodo ista jactitent, an etiam ab aliquibus simplicioribus et propensiore allecto diligentibus virum, aliquando fortassis tale aliquid audierint. (l6) Nos tamen perspicimus frequenter ea quae ab eo cum magno timore Dei et cum omni humilitate dicuntur, cum veniam petit pro his quae per nimiam discussionem et per multam scrutationem Scripturarum animo disputantis occurrunt : quae cum exponit, frequenter addere solet et profiteri se non haec quasi definitiva pronuntiare sententia, nec statuto dogmate terminare, sed inquirere pro viribus. et sensum discutere Scripturarnm, nec tamen profiteri quod integre perfecteque comprehenderit; suspicari magis se de quamplurimis dicens, nec tamen certum esse quia in omnibus quod perfectum est et integrum assecutus sit. Sed et nonnunquam invenimus eum (l7) de multis haerere se profitentem, in quibus ea quidem quae in quaestionem veniunt movet, nectamen eorum absolutiones adjungit, sed cum omni bumilitaleet veritate non erubescit fateri (l8) iure sibi non liquere. Audivimus etiam illud abeo frequenter intexi, quod hodie ne isti quidem ipsi imperitissimi omnium obtrectatores ejus dicere dedignantur. ut si quis melius dehis locis quae ille disseruit, dixerit, vel «posuerit, illi potius qui rectius dixerit quam sibi esset auscultandum. Partem couiprehendimus eum nonnunquam diversas expositiones (ἓο) ejusdem capituli facere : et cum omni reverentia, quasi qui sciat se de sanctis Scripturis dicere, cum multa quae sibi occurrerunt exposuerit, pmipit his qui legunt, probare de singulis quae dixerit. et quod rectius prudens lectorindicaverit, obtinere: profecto quia nec ipsum latebat quod non oumia quae moverat, vel discusserat. probabilia vel lixa haberi deberent, pro eo quod multa mystica in Scripturis sanctis, etin secreto recondita esse credantur. lllud denique ejus si intentius advertamus,quam integre et catholice de omnibus Tractatibus suis in prela tione eorum librorum quos in Genesim scribit protestatus est, omnem ejus sensum ex hoc facile cognoscemus. Οιιιῦευεε. ‹ Nisi omnimodis pigri essemus, ac desides, ne ad inquirendum quidem accedere, Domino et Salvatore nostro ad hoc nos provocante, profecto revocassemns pedem, considerantes quod longe simus ab ea magnitudine spiritalis intelligentiae, (2‘2) qua de tam magnis rebus investigari de heat intellectus. Purmws. Et paulo post ait: ORIGENES. Si cui vero in disceptatione profundum aliquid occurrerit, de hoc dicendum quidem est, sed non cum omni alIirmatione. Hoc enim aut tcinerarii hominis est, et ejus qui sensum humana: iullrmitatis perdiderit, oblitusque sui sit : autcerte perfectornrn virorum, et eorum qui conlideuterse sciant ab ipso Domino Jesn didicisse, id est, s Verbo veritatis, et ab ipsa Sapientia per quant omnia facta sunt, agnovisse : vel eorum qui divina responsa ingressi turbinem et caliginem ubi Deus ipse est, caelitus acceperunt, in quod vix ille Moyses ingressus vel intelligere talia potuit vel proferre. Nos vero, pro eo solo quod mediocriter licet (‘23), credimus tamen Domino Jesu, et ejus gloriamur esse discipuli, nec tamen audemus dicere quod l'acie ad faciem ab ipso traditam susceperimus intelligentiam eorum quae in divinis libris referuntur : qme quidem certus sum quod ne ipse quidem mundus pro virtute ac majestate sensuum capere potest . Propter quod pronuntiare quidem de his quae diciums, sicut apostoli potuerunt, non audemus : in eo autem gratias agimus, quod cum multi imperitiam suam nesciant, et motus suos incompositos et inordinatos, interdum etiam et ineptos ac fabulosos. cum nnmi intentione, sicut sibi videntur, quasi verissima assertione annuntient, nos de rebus magnis, et his quae supra nos sunt, ignorantiam nostram non ignoramus. Paurutws. Cum ergo haec eum de se dicere audianins, et hujuscemodi mente ac voto quae dicit asserere, miramur in tantum temeritatis aliquos esse provectos. ut qui se ita humilitate judicat, astruant quod ab aliis dicta ejus vel libri pro sermonibus apostolicis vel dictis propheticis habeantur, aut quod ille ipse vel prophetis vel apostolis ab aliquo comparetur. Et quidem quod et honore presbyterii in Ecclesia praeditus fuerit. el vitam abstinentissimam egerit et valde philosopliicam, quodque puram religionis observaverit disciplinam, et pra: cteteris verbo Dei et doctrinm Operam dederit, nulli dubium est et es his quae ad nos laboris et studii ejus certissima designantur indicia: prmcipue vero per eos tractatus, quos pene quotidie in Ecclesia habebat ex tempore, quos η et describentes notarii ad monimentum posteritao “' tis tradebant. Consequens igitur erat, ex his omnibus laborum et studiorum suorum testimoniis amplecti talem virum : et neque defensionis studio plus dare ei meriti quam mensura deposcit, neque rursus obtrectandi vitio facile condemnare, et alienum ab ecclesiastica doctrina temere pronuntiare: cum utrumque istud pracipitium providens ante divinus sermo prohibuerit dicens :Non sit in le mensura major. neque naensura minor. Abominaoile est enim in conspectu Domini utrumque ’. Unicuique enim, prout dignum est, tribuere, justitim hoc proprium est. Propter quod et mensura integra, et pondus aequale acceptabile est apud Deum, non hoc quod mentitur veritatem, per quod ι) vel plus donatur rebus, quam merita exposcunt, vel subtrahitur meritis quod debetur. Quanto rectius agerent obtrectatores isti, si absque ulla animi praeventione, cum omni religione veritatis, quam omnibus proximis nostris cum charitate juhemur expendere, intelligerent et ipsum unum de proximis esse quibus charitatem ex mandato debemus, et assumptos libros ejus legerent cum ea venia, quam ipse iu Przel'ationibus suis deposcit, sicubi venia dignum aliquid invenirent. Nunc vero e contrario videas eos maledictis quidem probrisque mihi non parcere : eos vero qui Scripturarum intelligendarum secundum mandatum Domini et Salvatoris nostri studium gerunt, a lectione librorum ejus deterrere, uitalibet etiam alia inepta, etiam nihil pro'utura, potius quam illius commentarios legi debere allirmantes. lu quibus sape etiam ridiculi aliquid pati solent. Nam ut eorum contentiosa praesumptio, vel, ut verius dieam, ρηιῇιιόίωιει vesania facilius declaretur, accidere solet vel casu, vel interdum studio, ut nomine in codice non pratitulato legatur aliquid ipsius in auribus obtrectatorum quasi alterius trao ctatoris. Quod tandiu placet et laudatur, atque in οιηηί admiratione habetur, quandiu nomen non fuerit indicatum. At ubi Origenis cognita fuerint essequae placebant, statim displicent, statim ha:retica esse dicuntur: et eaque: paulo ante ad emlntn usque ferebantur, iisdem vocibus eademque lingua usque ad inferos demerguntur. Praeterea etiam illud est invenire, quod nonnunquam tales sunt accusatores ejus, qui nec Graecam noverint linguam: alii omnimodis imperiti; nonnulli etiamsi aliquid videntur habere peritiae, non tamen etiam id studii habuisse inveniuntur, ut libris ejusoperam dederint: aut si acciderit ut etiam legerint, non continuo etiam tanta: eruditionis fuerint, ut altitudinem sensus ejus assequi quiverint, quo ea qua: ille diverso prospectu pro locis et causis disserere solet, advertere valuerint. Multos invenias, quos si interroges in quibus libris, aut in quibus locis dicta sint haec quae arguunt, confitentur se quidem nescire ea de quibus alllrmant, nec legisse unquam, audisse autem alios dicentes. Ex quo cuivis plena ridiculi sententia eorum videbitur, cum de bis judicant, atque ea condemnant, quae nee discere quidem prius, ac nosse potuerunt. ln alios vero novi furoris morbus et inauditae labes incessit insaniae, cum tam multa ejus volumina referta totius utilitatis et instructionis habeantur, et satis rara et perpauca forte loca sint, in quibus vel imperitiores quique, vel, quod verius, malevoli posse sibi videantur oil’endi : omnia quidem illa quae et catholica, et ad aedificationem animai, atque ad scientia: instructionem etiam ipsi apta fatentur, ouiittnnt et negligunt; nec aliquid inde, unde possunt et debent prolicere ; ea vero sola qua ad calumniam proficiant, summo studio ediscunt: utqui boni nihil unquam forte didicerunt, hzee quae ipsi non esse bona dicunt, apprime memoria: retinenda commendent: quo videlicet promptius ea prol‘erentes, ('52) exercitatius valeant concinnare calumnias. Aliud quoque est genus hominum fmdltm sane et turpe, quantum ad prohitatem pertinet morum, sed ad calumniantium vehementius, et tetrius ad iucusandum, quos Graeci φαγολοιδόρους appellarunt : qui summum quidem studimn, sed et satis intentam operam libris ejus dederunt, ita ut et magistro eo in omnibus uterentur, et se ei tanquam speciales discipulos manciparent :sed ubi ad id loci ventum est, utjam se magistros malint quam discipulos nominari, ubi auditoris plausus sectari coeptus εει, ibi si forte aliquis audientium quae laudantur Origenis esseobmurmuraverit, ne vel laude cedantmagistro, vel culpa: judicio, alienum esse Origenem continuo protestantur, nihil sibi cum ipsius doctrina commune esse confirmant. Anathema quoque dicere, eum non dubitant improbe, et inferre maledicta non parcunt; ne illum quidem apostolicum sermonem verentes quo designat, quia maledici rcgnum Dei non possidebunt . In tantum autem horum, de quibus supra diximus, progressa malitia est, ut quidam etiam conscribere adversus eumausi sint, et libellis editis derogare ei viro, qui per tot annos magister Ecclesia: iuit, qui in Ecclesia'catholica senuit, qui adversus eas haereses, quae illo tempore Ecclesium impugnabant, ο ita constanter, ita fortiter dimicavit, ut omnia eorum diabolica: machinationis fundamenta sub. verterit, non studiorum laborem, non continentiae, non institutionis, non humilitatis; quae super caeteras omnes virtutes ejus maximam gratiam continet, non illud certe considerantes quod presbyterii dignitate in Ecclesia honoratus est. Quae si omnia ad revocandam linguam. comprimendumque sermonem snflicere non possunt, illud saltem contemplari debuerant, quantum ridendi materiam gentilibus, quantamque haereticis prtebeant,cum eos quos assertores Christiani dogmatis et defensores putabant, confutari nunc videant, et refelli a propriis, et velut civili bello gaudeant impuo gnatum, quem ipsi hostiliter impugnare non poterant. Quoniam ergo quamplurimi ex simplicioribus quibusque fratribus a supra dictis laeduntur, non solum de his qui de ipso male sentiunt, sed etiam de his qui studio scientia: etintelligendarum Scripturarum inter caeteros libros etiam ipsius scripta conspiciunt, ita ut vos quoque ipsi iu dubium veneritis, ne forte vel multitudini vel auctoritati calumniatorum fides debeat adhiberi de his quae passim sine ullo respectu difl‘amanturzrisum nobis est, primo quidem curare suspicionem vestram; simul etiam per occasionem vestri, om. nium qui ei obtrectant confutare calumnias. Quod ita nobis prosequi rectius visum est, (i2) utnon nostris verbis et assertionibus defensionem paretnus, sed ex suis propriis vocibus, quibus ipse aliena sibi haec esse, quae i'sti objiciunt, proprio sermone testatur, id est, omne quidquid praeter lio dem catholicam praedicatur: quia si nostris verbis haec asserere velimus, suspiciosum videri forte possit, eo quod nos amore ejus si quid ipse prave senserit celaverimus. Ubi autem ejus ipsius qui accusatur vocibus utimur, et ad omnes obje— CIiones accusatorum suis verbis eum, non nostra assertione, defendimus, quae ultra relinqui potest (M) criminationis occasio, saltem his ipsis qui non veri studio, sed velut libidine quadam culpandi semper agitantur? Et quoniam de co nunc sermo est, qui utique apud homines defunctus est, qui apud onmes judices pro defuncto fortius et firmius valere debet, quam et litterae, et scripta defuncti ἲ lncipientes igitur indiciis scriptorum suorum ostendere quid de singulis senserit, ex his praecipue libris testimonia congregabimus, (Mi) quos accusatores ejus quam maxime criminantur, id est, quos per spatium et quietem in secreto conscripsit : hos enim asserunt maxime a prmdicatioue ecclesiastica discrepare: ex his praecipue libris, quos Περὶ ἀρχῶν attitulavit, in quibus quamplurima a calumniatoribus iucusantur. In his ergo ipsis inter principia quali expositione fidei usus sit proferemus : tum deinde et ex his quae sparsim vel per ipsos libros vel caeteros sensit, assignabimus eum praedicationem apostolicam custodisse. Est ergo lectio ex primo libro Περὶ ἀρχῶν, quam promisimus, hazc. ### English translation (Claude) (It is) to be known … the preface, the Apology of Pamphilus, and … (the one) asserting what is contrary to the faith. Letters convey the words and the sense; if they could also show the faces of those who speak, no one could fall into error about the person of the teacher. For this too must be guarded against: a certain Ampullianus, a heresiarch from Bithynia, who taught in the Church of God after Origen, fell into such a heresy as to say that all the guilty, together with the devil and the demons, are cooked in Gehenna until, made pure, they can come out of it unstained, so as to be restored again to the Creator, as before, free of their guilt. When he was refuted by the Church, he began to bring forward books of Origen which he himself had corrupted, and to say: "See, Origen thought so, especially in the four books On First Principles." But whoever is of sound mind and has bright eyes of the mind sees that these evils have been added to Origen's works, and recognizes them as one sees white patches, or patches of any other colour, sewn onto a scarlet coverlet. That this is so the holy martyr Pamphilus teaches, who before he attained the crown of martyrdom held the episcopal chair blamelessly and ministered sound doctrine to the peoples of God. He published an Apology and shut out everything that ignorant Catholics falsely say about Origen, showing that the things found blameworthy in his works are not Origen's but belong to those whom he himself had overcome, and that other things, which are wholly perverse, belong to two other heretics, who had Origen's name but neither his faith nor his conscience. Rufinus's preface to the Apology of St Pamphilus for Origen, to Macarius. Macarius, O man of desires, moved by love of the truth, you lay on me a task which will bring you … the benefit of the truth once known; but I do not doubt that it will earn me the greatest offence of those who think themselves injured by anyone who does not think something bad of Origen. And although you have asked not for my opinion of him but for that of the holy martyr Pamphilus, and have requested that his book, which he is said to have written in Greek for Origen, be translated into Latin for you, I do not doubt that there will be some who will think themselves injured in this too, if we say anything for him, even in another's words. These too, however, we beg to do nothing with a presumptuous or prejudiced mind; but, since we shall come to the judgment of God, let them not shun knowing what is true, lest perhaps they sin in ignorance; and, considering that to wound the consciences of the weaker brothers with false accusations is to sin against Christ, let them therefore not lend their ear to accusers, nor learn another's faith from someone else, especially when there is opportunity to test it face to face, and the confession of each one's own mouth shows what and how he believes. For it is written: "With the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation"; and: "By his own words each one will be justified, and by his own words he will be condemned." How Origen thought about the several heads of the holy Scriptures, then, the tenor of this little book will show. As for the things found in him that contradict one another, we will explain the cause in a brief addition at the end. We, for our part, hold as it has been handed down to us by the holy fathers: that the holy Trinity is coeternal, of one nature and substance, and of one power; and that the Son of God in the last time was made man and suffered for our sins, and in the very flesh in which he suffered rose from the dead, by which he also gave the hope of resurrection to the human race. And we speak of the resurrection of the flesh not by some sleight of hand, as some slanderously allege; but we believe that this very flesh in which we now live will rise again; not one in place of another, nor do we speak of any body other than that of this flesh. If, then, we say that the body will rise, we say it according to the Apostle, for he used this word; and if we say flesh, we confess it according to the tradition of the creed. For it is a foolish invention of slander to think that the human body is something other than flesh. Whether, then, what will rise is called flesh according to the common faith, or body according to the Apostle, it must be believed as the Apostle defined it: that what will rise will rise in power and in glory, incorruptible and a spiritual body; for corruption will not inherit incorruption. These prerogatives of the future body or flesh being kept, the resurrection of the flesh is to be believed wholly and completely, so that the same nature of the flesh is preserved and the glory of the incorruptible and spiritual body is not diminished. For so it is written. These things are preached in Jerusalem, in the Church of God, by its holy priest John; these things we too say and hold with him. If anyone believes or teaches anything besides these, or thinks that we believe otherwise than we have set out, let him be anathema. This, then, is the statement of our faith … if we give an account of this our faith according to … abstaining from every kind of evil; and if … of God. Amen. The Apology of Pamphilus for Origen. … that, since the understanding of Origen has so escaped you, you too should think of him what some others also (think), who, either through their own lack of skill, by which they are unable to behold the depth of his meaning, or through perversity of mind, are eager not only to find fault with his sayings but also to take up hostile enmity against those who read them. They pursue this so stubbornly that they think such readers deserve no pardon at all, not even the pardon they are accustomed to grant, for example, to those who run through the books of the secular Greeks, or sometimes even of heretics, out of a desire to inquire and to know. They think that the skill of testing a discourse should be granted to themselves alone, so that, if anything has been said well by anyone, they know how to keep it and know how to abstain from every kind of evil; but for those who read Origen's books they think that commandment wholly excluded by which we are bidden to become approved money-changers, knowing how to hold fast what is good and to abstain from every kind of evil. Instead, if anyone is merely seen to read his books, he is at once drenched by them with the infamy of heretics. In short, they hold enmities with many men of honourable life and religious purpose, in whom they find no fault at all, for this reason alone: if they see that their zeal for the books of the man we have mentioned is rather keen. They also invent, more invidiously, that he and his sayings are held by these people in the place of the holy apostles or prophets. But I am not certain whether they toss these things about only from a wish to slander, or whether they have perhaps sometimes heard something of the kind from some simpler people who love the man with too eager an affection. We, however, see that he often speaks with great fear of God and with all humility, when he asks pardon for the things that occur to his mind as he discusses with excessive inquiry and much searching of the Scriptures. When he expounds them he often adds and professes that he does not pronounce these things as a definitive judgment, nor close them as settled doctrine, but inquires as far as he can and examines the sense of the Scriptures, without professing that he has grasped it wholly and perfectly; saying rather that about very many things he is conjecturing, and that he is not certain that he has attained in all things what is perfect and whole. Sometimes too we find him professing that he is at a loss about many things, in which he raises the points that come into question but does not add their solutions; with all humility and truthfulness he is not ashamed to confess that the matter is not clear to him. We have heard him also often weave in this, which today not even these most unskilled of all his detractors disdain to say: that if anyone has spoken or expounded better about the passages he discussed, one should listen to the one who has spoken more rightly rather than to himself. We have also observed that he sometimes gives different expositions of the same passage; and with all reverence, as one who knows that he is speaking about the holy Scriptures, after setting out many things that occurred to him, he bids those who read to test each thing he has said and to hold what the prudent reader judges more correct. Clearly he too knew that not all the things he had raised or discussed should be held as approved or fixed, since many mysteries are believed to be hidden and stored away in the holy Scriptures. Finally, if we attend more closely to the declaration he made, wholly and as a catholic, about all his treatises in the preface to the books he wrote on Genesis, we shall easily recognize his whole mind from it. Origen: "Unless we were altogether lazy and idle, (we would venture) even to approach the inquiry, since our Lord and Saviour calls us to it; otherwise we would surely have drawn back our foot, considering how far we are from that greatness of spiritual understanding by which the mind ought to investigate such great matters." Pamphilus: And a little later he says: Origen: "But if in the discussion something deep occurs to anyone, it should indeed be spoken of, but not with full assertion. For that belongs either to a rash man, one who has lost the sense of human weakness and forgotten himself, or else to perfect men, who know confidently that they have learned from the Lord Jesus himself, that is, from the Word of truth, and from the very Wisdom through whom all things were made; or to those who entered the whirlwind and the darkness where God himself is, and received the divine answers from heaven, into which even Moses scarcely entered, and so was able to understand or utter such things. But we, for this alone, that we believe, although in a modest measure, in the Lord Jesus, and glory in being his disciples, yet do not dare to say that we have received from him, face to face, an understanding of the things related in the divine books; which, I am sure, not even the world itself could contain, because of the power and majesty of their meanings. Therefore we do not dare to pronounce on what we say, as the apostles could. But we give thanks in this: that while many do not know their own lack of skill, and with all intensity, as it seems to them, proclaim their disordered and unruly notions, sometimes even silly and fabulous ones, as if they were the truest assertion, we, concerning great things and things above us, are not ignorant of our ignorance." Pamphilus: Since, then, we hear him say these things about himself, and assert what he says with such a mind and wish, we wonder that some have advanced so far in rashness as to allege, of one who judges himself with such humility, that his sayings or books are held by others in place of the discourses of the apostles or the sayings of the prophets, or that he himself is compared by anyone with prophets or apostles. That he was endowed with the honour of the presbyterate in the Church, led a most abstinent and truly philosophical life, kept the pure discipline of religion, and devoted himself beyond others to the word of God and to teaching, no one doubts, from the most certain indications of his labour and study that have come down to us, and especially through the homilies he delivered almost daily in the Church without preparation, which shorthand writers took down and handed on as a record for posterity. It followed, then, from all these testimonies to his labours and studies, that such a man should be embraced; that one should neither, from zeal for his defence, give him more merit than measure demands, nor again, from the vice of detraction, readily condemn him and rashly pronounce him alien to the Church's doctrine. For the divine word, foreseeing both these precipices, forbade them, saying: "There shall not be in you a greater measure and a lesser measure; for both are an abomination in the sight of the Lord." To give to each as is fitting is the proper mark of justice. Therefore a whole measure and an equal weight is acceptable before God, not one that belies the truth, by which either more is given to things than their merits demand, or what is owed to their merits is taken away. How much more rightly these detractors would act if, without any prejudice of mind and with all scrupulous regard for the truth, which we are commanded to show with love to all our neighbours, they understood that he too is one of the neighbours to whom we owe love by the commandment, and took up and read his books with the indulgence that he himself asks in his prefaces, wherever they found something deserving of indulgence. As it is, on the contrary, you may see them sparing me neither curses nor reproaches, and deterring from the reading of his books those who, according to the command of our Lord and Saviour, are zealous to understand the Scriptures, affirming that any other silly works, even ones that will profit nothing, ought to be read rather than his commentaries. In this they often meet with something ridiculous. For, so that their contentious presumption, or more truly their … madness, may be shown more plainly, it often happens, by chance or sometimes on purpose, that something of his is read in the hearing of the detractors from a codex without a title, as if it were by another writer. This pleases, is praised, and is held in all admiration as long as the name has not been given. But as soon as the things that pleased are known to be Origen's, at once they displease, at once they are said to be heretical; and the things that a little before were extolled to the heavens are plunged down to the underworld by the same voices and the same tongue. Besides, one also finds that his accusers are sometimes people who do not even know Greek; others are wholly unskilled; some, even if they seem to have some skill, are not found to have had the zeal to give attention to his books; or, if they happened to read them, they were not of such learning as to grasp the depth of his meaning, so as to notice the things he is accustomed to discuss from different points of view according to the passages and occasions. You may find many who, if you ask them in which books or in which passages the things they criticize were said, confess that they do not know the things they assert and have never read them, but have heard others say so. From this their judgment will seem to anyone full of absurdity, since they judge and condemn things that they could not even first learn and know. Others again have been seized by the disease of a new frenzy and the plague of unheard-of madness. Although so many of his volumes are filled with every kind of usefulness and instruction, and the passages by which the less skilled, or more truly the malevolent, might seem to themselves to be offended are quite rare and perhaps very few, they pass over and neglect all the things which even they admit to be catholic and suited to the edification of the soul and to instruction in knowledge, and they draw no profit from what they can and should; but they learn by heart with the utmost zeal only those things that serve slander. So those who perhaps never learned anything good commit to memory above all what they themselves say is not good, so that, of course, by bringing these things out more readily, they may be better practised at contriving slanders. There is also another kind of men, foul indeed and base as regards honesty of character, but fiercer in slander and more hideous in accusation, whom the Greeks call phagoloidoroi, those who revile the one whose bread they have eaten. They gave the greatest zeal and quite intent attention to his books, so that they used him as a teacher in everything and gave themselves over to him as his special disciples; but when they came to the point of preferring to be called teachers rather than disciples, and began to court the applause of hearers, then, if any of the hearers happened to murmur that the things being praised were Origen's, lest they should yield to their teacher either in praise or in the verdict of blame, they at once protest that Origen is foreign to them and affirm that they have nothing in common with his teaching. They do not hesitate shamelessly to call him anathema, and do not spare to heap curses on him, not fearing even the apostolic word which shows that revilers will not inherit the kingdom of God. And the malice of those we have spoken of has advanced so far that some have even dared to write against him, and in published pamphlets to disparage the man who was a teacher of the Church for so many years, who grew old in the catholic Church, who fought so constantly and so bravely against the heresies that were then attacking the Church that he overturned all the foundations of their diabolical contrivance. They respect neither the labour of his studies, nor of his continence, nor of his teaching, nor of his humility, which among all his other virtues holds the greatest grace; certainly they do not consider that he was honoured in the Church with the dignity of the presbyterate. If all these things cannot suffice to restrain their tongue and check their speech, they should at least have considered how much matter for laughter they give to the pagans, and how much to the heretics, when these see those whom they thought assertors and defenders of Christian doctrine now refuted and confuted by their own people, and rejoice that one whom they themselves could not overcome by hostile attack is now assailed as in a civil war. Since, then, very many of the simpler brothers are injured by the people mentioned above, not only regarding those who think ill of him but also regarding those who, out of zeal for knowledge and for understanding the Scriptures, look into his writings too among other books, so that even you yourselves have come into doubt whether perhaps credit should be given, either for their number or for their authority, to the slanderers in the things spread about everywhere without any scruple, it has seemed good to us, first, to heal your suspicion, and at the same time, on the occasion you give, to refute the slanders of all who disparage him. It seemed more right to us to proceed in such a way that we prepare his defence not with our own words and assertions but from his own statements, by which he himself testifies in his own words that the things these men object are foreign to him, that is, everything that is preached contrary to the catholic faith. For if we wished to assert these things in our own words, it might perhaps seem suspicious, as if out of love for him we had concealed anything he thought wrongly. But when we use the words of the very man who is accused, and defend him against all the objections of the accusers with his own words, not with our assertion, what occasion for accusation can still be left, at least to those who are always driven not by zeal for the truth but by a kind of lust for blaming? And since the discussion now concerns one who has indeed died among men, what should count more strongly and firmly with all judges on behalf of the dead than the dead man's letters and writings? Beginning, then, to show by the evidence of his writings what he thought on each point, we will gather testimonies above all from the books his accusers most attack, that is, those he wrote privately, at leisure and in quiet; for these, they assert, most disagree with the preaching of the Church; and above all from the books he entitled On First Principles, in which very many things are accused by the slanderers. From these very books, then, we will bring forward what exposition of the faith he used at the beginning; and then, from what he thought here and there, in these books or in others, we will show that he kept the apostolic preaching. Here, then, is the reading we promised from the first book of On First Principles. ### Scripture references - Rom 10:10: quotation, high confidence - Matt 12:37: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 8:12: allusion, medium confidence - 1 Cor 15:42: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:43: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:44: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:50: allusion, high confidence - 1 Thess 5:21: allusion, high confidence - 1 Thess 5:22: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 13:12: echo, low confidence - John 21:25: allusion, medium confidence - Prov 20:10: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 6:10: allusion, high confidence - Dan 9:23: allusion, medium confidence - Exod 20:21: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - This section holds three pieces printed before the Apology in Migne: a short anonymous prologue (from "Letters convey the words"), whose claims are not otherwise attested (Pamphilus was a presbyter, not a bishop, and Migne's editor notes that no other ancient source mentions Ampullianus); Rufinus's preface to Macarius with his statement of faith; and the opening of Pamphilus's own preface, addressed to confessors. Rufinus's Latin translation (397) is the only surviving form of Book 1 of the Apology. - The scan is badly damaged here. The first line of the anonymous prologue is garbled ("…"). Rufinus's preface, printed beside it in two half-columns, is read by the scan as two separate runs of half-lines; it has been put back in reading order by sense, using only words in the scan, and half-lines lost in the scan are shown as "…" (chiefly near the beginning and in the last sentences). The opening of Pamphilus's own preface is lost: the text begins mid-sentence ("… that, since the understanding of Origen has so escaped you"). Checked privately against a modern English translation (FOTC 120); the Latin decides. - "Bishop John" of Jerusalem, whose preaching Rufinus endorses, was then in dispute with Jerome over Origen. Rufinus's creed insists on the resurrection of "this very flesh", against the charge that Origenists denied it. - "Sparing me neither curses nor reproaches": the Latin has mihi ("me"); it may be a slip for ei ("him", i.e. Origen). - "Phagoloidoroi": a Greek word for those who abuse the person at whose table they have eaten. - Origen's two quotations come from the preface to his lost Commentary on Genesis. The sentence "Unless we were altogether lazy …" lacks a main verb in the Latin; "we would venture" gives the sense. ### Citation (SBL) Pamphilus, Apol. Orig. pref. (PG 17:539b–549a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/0/#p-0). ## Apology for Origen 1.1 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/1-1/#p-1-1 - Source: PG 17:549a–557b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Pamphilus quotes Origen's summary of the apostolic rule of faith (On First Principles, preface) and his definition of a heretic from the lost Commentary on Titus, to show that Origen held the Church's teaching as the test of truth. ### Latin text Ontceues. Sicut enim, multis apud Graecos et barbaros pollicentibus veritatem, desivimus apud omnes eam quaerere qui eam falsis Opinionihus asserebant, posteaquam credidimus Filium essc Dei Christum, et ab ipso nobis hanc disceudam esse persuasimus : ita, cum multi siut qui se putant sentire quae Christi sunt, et nonnulli eorum diversa a prioribus sentiant, servetur vero ecclesiastica praedicatio per successionis ordinem ab aposmlis tradita, et usque ad praesens in ‘Ecclesiis permanens, illa sola credenda est veritas, quae in nullo ab ecclesiastica traditione discordat. lllud autem scire oportet, quoniam sancti apostoli fidem Christi praedicantes, de quibusdam quidem quaecunque necessaria crediderunt omnibus credentibus, etiam his qui pigriores erga inquisitionem divinte scientia). videbantur, manifestissime tradiderunt, rationem scilicet assertionis eorum relinquentes ab his inquirendam qui Spiritus θ dona excellentia, et praecipue sermonis, sapientiae, et scientia: per ipsum Spiritum sanctum percipere merebantur: de aliis vero dixerunt quidem quia sint, quomodo autem, aut unde sint, siluerunt: profecto ut studiosiores quique ex posteris suis amatores sapientia: et scientiae, exercitium habere possent, in quo ingenii sui fructum ostendere valerent, bi videlicet qui dignos se et capaces sapientiae prepararent. Species vero eorum quas per pra:dicationem apostolicam manifeste traduntur, istae sunt. Primo quod unus est Deus qui omnia creavit, atque composuit, quique ex nullis esse fecit uuiversa “, Deus a prima creatura et conditione mandi omnium iustorum Deus, Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Euoch, Noe, Sem, fabraham, lsaac, Jacob, duodecim patriarcharum, Moysis et prophetarum : et quod hic Deus in novissimis diebus, sicut per prophetas suos ante promiserat, misit Dominum Jesum Christum, primo quidem vocaturum Israel, secundo vero etiam gentes post perlidiam populi Israel. Hic Deus justus et bonus, Pater Domini nostri Jesu Christi, legem, et prophetas, et Evangelia ipsc dedit, qui et apostolorum Deus est, et Veteris et Novi 'l‘estamenti. Tum deinde quia Christus Jesus ipse qui venit, ante onmem creaturam natus ex Patre est. Qui cum in omnium conditione Patri ministrasset (per ipsum namque omnia facta sunt " ) novissimis temporibus seipsum exinaniens homo factus est; incarnatus est cum Deus esset, et homo factus mansit quod erat Deus. Corpus assumpsit nostro corpori simile, eo solo differens, quod natus ex Virgine et Spiritu sancto est. Et quoniain‘hic Jesus Christus natus et passus est in veritate, et non per imaginem, communem hanc mortem sustinuit vere mortuus: vere enim eta mortuis resurrexit : et post resurrectionem conversatus cum discipulis suis, assumptus est. Tum deinde honore ac dignitate Patri et Filio sociatum tradiderunt Spiritum sanctum.‘ln hoc non jam manifeste discernitur utrum natus sit, an lnnatus. Pupmws. Qui de nato vel innato requirit, sine dubio creatura: in eo nullam habet opinionem, alioquin et hoc adduxisset ad inquisitionem. Et adjungit : Omoexss. Vel Filius etiam ipse Dei habendus sit, necne. Sed inquirenda jam ista pro viribus sunt de sancta Scriptura, et sagaci perquisitione investiganda. Sauerquod iste Spiritus sanctus unumquemque sanctorum vel prophetarum, vel apostolorum inspiraverit, et non alius Spiritus iu veteribus, alius vero in his qui in adventu Christi iuspirati sunt, fuerit , manifestissime in Ecclesiis praedicatur. Post haac jam quod anima substantiam vitamque habens propriam, cum ex hoc mundo discesserit, pro suis meritis dispensabitur sive interna: vita: ac beatitudinis hereditate potitura, si hoc ei sua gesta praestiterint :sive igni esterno ac suppliciis mancipanda, si in hoc eam scelerumculpa detorserit. Sed et quia erit tempus resurrectionis mortuorum, cum corpus hoc, quod in corruptione seminatur, surget in incorruptione : et quod seminatur in ignominia, surget in gloria “. Est et illud definitum in ecclesiastica praedicatione, omnem animam esse rationabilem, liberi arbitrii et voluntatis : esse quoque ei certamen adversus diabolqu et angelos ejus, contrariosque virtutes , ex eo quod illi peccatis eam onerare contendant, nos vero, si recte consulteque vivamus, ab hujuscemodi onere exuere nos conemur. Unde et consequensest intelligere non nos necessitati esse subjectos, ut omni modo, etiam si nolimus, vel bona , vel mala agere cogamur. Si enim nostri arbitrii sumus, impugnare nos fortasse possunt aliqua: virtutes ad peccatum, et alitejuvare ad salutem, non tamen necessitate cogimur vel recte agere. vel male. Quod fieri arbitrantur qui stellarum cursum et motus causam dicunt humanorum esse'gestorum, non eorum quae extra arbitrii accidunt libertatem , sed eorum quae in nostra sunt posita potestate. De anima vero, utrum ex seminis traduce duca. tur, ita ut ratio ipsius vel substantia inserta ipsis corporalibus seminibus habeatur, an vero aliud initium haheat : et hoc ipsum initium si genitum est, aut uou genitum, vel certe si extrinsecus corpori inditur, necne, non satis manifesta praedicatione distinguitur. De diabolo, et angelis ejus, coutrariisque virtutibus ecclesiastica praedicatio docuit quoniam sint quidem haec : quae autem sint, vel quomodo sint, non satis clare exposuit. Apud plurimos tamen ista habetur opinio. quod angelus fuerit iste diabolus, et apostata ell'ectus quamplurimos angelorum secum declinare persuaserit, qui et nunc usque angeli ipsius nuncupantur. Est praaterea et illud in ecclesiastica praedicatione, quod mundus iste 'sit factus, et a certo tempore cmperit, et sit pro ipsa sui corruptione solvendus : quid tamen ante hunc mundum fuerit, aut quid post mundum erit, jam nou pro manifesto multis innotuit : non enim evidenter de his in ecclesiastica praedicatione sermo profertur. Tum deinde quod per Spiritum Dei Scriptum conscripta: sint, et sensum habeant, non eum solum qui in manifesto est, sed et alium quemdam latentem quamplurintos. υ Formae enim sunt haec quae scripta sunt sacramentorum quorumdam. et divinarum rerum imagines': dequo totius Ecclesia: unus est sensus , esse quidem omnem legem spiritalem , non tamen ea quae … PAMPHILUS. Et post pauca ait : ORIGENES. t Est etiam illud in ecclesiastica praedi. catione, esse angelos Dei quosdam, et virtutes bonas, qui ei ministrent ad salutem hominmn consummandam : sed quando isti creati sint. vel quales, aut quomodo sint, non satis in manifesto distinguitur. De sole autem, et luna, et stellis, utrum animantia sint, an exanima, manifeste non traditur. Oportet igitur velut clementis ac fundamentis hujusmodi uti, sccundmu mandatum quod dicit ί Illuminate vobis lumen scientiw ”, eum qui cupit seriem quamdam et corpus ex horum omnium ratione conficere, ut manifestis et necessariis assertionibus de singulis quibusque quid sit in vero rimetur, et unum, ut diximus, corpus eliiciat exemplis et aliirtuatiouihus, vel his quas in sanctis Scripturis invenerit, vel quas ex consequentia: ipsius indagine. ac recti tenore repererit. s Passennus. Haec quidem inter principia primi libri Περὶ ἀρχῶν disseruit, ut ostenderet qua sint illa quae manifeste in ecclesiastica praedicatione tradita sunt, et quae sint quas non aperte definiuntur. De quibus singulis secundum eam divisionem, quam supra ostendit, sparsim disputat in reliquo corpore librorum, ea quidem quae ex definito prmdicari ab Ecclesia supra docuit, omnibus adhibitis prohameutis, ex Scripturis sanctis manifestius et constantius asserens; de his vero de quibus osumdit non manifeste, neque ex definito in Ecclesia praedicari, opinionibus magis, et his sensibus qui disputanti ei et tractanti de talibus occurrere potuerunt, quam certis aliquibus ac definitis assertionibus utitur, id est. discutiens et pertractans potius quam affirmans. lu omnibus tamen sermonis sui meminit, ejus quem supra exposuit, cum ait illam solam recipiendam et credendam esse veritatem. quae in nullo apostolicis et ecclesiasticis dogmatibus adversatur : et non solum in his libris quorum supra fecimus mentionem, sed etin omnibus qua de Scripturis exponit, hac sententia uti solet, et in his praecipue in quibus plures unius capituli interpretationes exponit, hoc asserens, se quidem ne quid quod dici possit omitteret, plura vel divi-rsa, prout sentire potuit, protulisse; illud autem debere teneri quod apostolicus atque ecclesiasticus lector probaret. lloc idem facitetiam cum ιικωιὶο corum discutit sectas : quibus omnibus confutatis … Omnes sententias ejus congregare , et longum satis est, et erit tam nobis qui scribimus onerosum, quam legentibus taediosum. Sed sutIicit pauca proferre, in quibus omnium profecto facile dignoscentur indicia. Neque enim contra Domini sententiam sentiendum est, ut quiin paucis invenitur fidelis, non etiam in multis et haberi debeat et credi fidelis . Primum ergo ex ejus libris ponemus exemplum quod illi superiori conveniat, ex eo libro quem in Epistulam Pauli apostoli ad Titum scripsit dc eo capitulo in quo dicit Apostolus: Ilwreticum hominem post unam correptionrm devita, sciens quia peruersus est, et peccat, qui est a semetipso damnatus ". De quo dicit qualis sit qui haereticus, et qualis sit qui catholicus est et ecclesiasticus. Ostesses. Nomen haeresis, quantum ego deprehendere potui, etiam in Epistola ad Corinthios designatur hoc modo : Oportet enim Iucreses esse, ut probati manifesti [iant inter vos ". Et iterum ad Galatas inter opera carnis haeresis quoque nomen ascribitur, sicut ait : Manifesta autem sunt opera carnis, quae sunt fornicatio, inmunditia, impudicitia , idololatria , veneficia, inimicitiae, contentiones, temulationes , ine , rixae, discordiis, hwreses , ebrietates, comessationes, et his similia, quis et pra:dico vobis quoniam qui talia agunt, regnum Dei non possidebunt η’. Per quae cognoscimus, quoniam sicut hi qui fornicationibus vel immunditiis, atque impudicitiis, et idolorum cultibus maculati sunt, regnum Dei non possidebunt, ita ethi qui in haere- ο sim declinaverint. Neque enim putandum est tanti apostoli tam absolutam sententiam posse ullo genere vacillare. Apostolus enim est omnium Ecclesiarum Christi , non ab homine, neque per horninem, sed per Iesum Christum et Deum Patrem electus ε’. Propterea ergo, secundum auctoritatem sententiae ipsius , oportet nos sicut reliqua mala quae (6'5) numeravit, ita etiam nomen haeresis devitare, neque cum talibus orationis societate misceri. η. Passennus. Et post haec, paucis quihusdam per medium insertis, adjecit : Oenones. Quid vero sit haereticus homo , pro viribus nostris, secundum quod sentire possumus, describamus. Omnis qui Christo se credere confitetur, et tamen alium Dettm legis et prophetarum, alium Evangeliorum Deum dicit. et Patrem Domini nostri Jesu Christi non cum dicit esse qui a lege et prophetis praedicatur, sed alium nescio quem ignotum omnibus atque omnibus inauditum, huiusmodi homines haereticos designamus, quantlibet variis ac diversis et fabulosis concinneut ista figmentis, sicut sectatores Marcionis, et Valentini, et Basilidis, et hi qui se Tethianos appellant. Sed et Apelles licet non omnibus modis Dei esse deneget legem vel prephetas, tamen et ipse haereticus designatur, quoniam Dominum hunc qui mundum edidit, ad gloriam alterius ingeniti et boni Dei eum construxisse pronuntiat: illum autem ingenitum Deum in consummatione seculi misisse Jesum Christum ad emendationem mundi, rogatum ab eo Deo, qui eum fecerat, ut mitteret Filium suum ad mundi sui correctionem. Et si quidem hic solummodo qui de Deo Patre aliter sentit quam regula pietatis exposcit, haereticus habendus esset, sufiiceret utique quod superius dictum est. Sed nunc unum atque idem credendum est etiam de eo qui de Domino nostro Jesu Christo falsi aliquid senserit, sive secundum eos qui dicunt eum ex Ioseph et Maria natum , sicut sunt EbiOllllai et Valentiniani, sive secundum eos qui primogenitum eum negant, et totius creaturas Deum , et Verbum, et Sapientiam, quae est initium viarum Dei antequam aliquid fleret, ante saecula fundatam, atque ante omnes colles generatam ο, sed hominem solum eum dicentes : vel secundum eos qui Deum quidem eum fatentur, non tamen assumpsisse animam corpusque terrenum : qui sub specie quasi amplioris gloria: Jesu Domino deferendae, omnia quae ab eo gesta sunt, visa geri magis , quam vere gesta esse testantur : quique neque de Virgine natum fatentur, sed triginta annorum virum eum apparuisse in Iudaea. Alii vero ex Virgine quidem eum credunt esse progenitum, sed putasse se magis Virginem peperisse, non tamen vere peperisse confirmant. Latuisse quippe etiam Virginem putativa! generationis asserunt sacramentum. Qui quomodo non ab Ecclesia longe ponendi sunt, cum philarchite morbo languentes dogmata statuerint, quibus ad suum nomen discipulos declinarent ? Sed eos qui hominem dicunt Dominum Jesum praecogenitum et praedestinatum, qui ante adventum car. nalem substantialiter et proprie non exstiterit, sed quod homo natus Patris solam in se habuerit deitatem, ne illos quidem sine periculo est Ecclesiae numero sociari :sicut et illos qui superstitiose magis quam religiose, uti ne videantur duos deos dicere,fneque rursum negare Salvatoris deitatem, unam eamdemque subsistentiam Patris ac Filii asseverant, id est, duo quidem nomina secundum diversitatem causarum recipientem, unam tamen ὑπόστασιν subsistere, id est unam personam duobus nominibus subjacentem , qui Latine Patripassiani appellantur. Sed et si qui suntqui Spiritum sanctum alium quidem dicunt esse qui fuit in prophetis, alium autem qui fuit in apostolis Domini nostri Jesu Christi, unum atque idem delictum impietatis admittunt, quod illi, qui, quantum in se est, naturam deitatis secant, et scindunt unum legis et Evangeliorum Deum. Sed et illi qui non omnes humanas animas unius ejusdemque natura: dicunt esse vel substantiae, sed diversas naturas animarum, inter eas luereses numerandi sunt qua: iniquitatem in Excelsum loquuntur , atque injustitiam iniquitatemque ejus accusant. Necnon et illi qui liberi arbitrii potestatem ex animabus aul‘erre nituntur velut perniciosa dogmata, communi humana: vitae, et virtuti continen« tia: labem quamdam inferre iudicandi sunt, ne humani propositi res putetur bonum quid vel facere , vel'dicere , vel sentire : ex quo ad contemptum ac negligentiam divini iudicii mens humana formabitur. Sit autem in ecclesiastico ordine etiam de peccatorum suppliciis fides, et de his qui praunia bona: conversationis et vitae in regno Domini justo ejus judicio recepturi sunt. Si quis ergo horum a.iquid , quae supra exposuimus, commutare vel subvertere conatur, velut perversus, et a semelt'pso damnatus, secundum sententiam Apostoli ”, etiam a nobis przecepto obsequentihus ejus , similiter habendus est. Designel autem ecclesiasticum virum cum his omnibus quae supra exposuimus , etiam de mortuorum resurrectione fides, de qua sanctus apostolus Paulus ita pronuntiat, quia si quis negat resurrectionem mortuorum , conse-' quens est ut Christi resurrectionem neget . Habeatur nihilominus in ecclesiastico ordine etiam de diabolo ratio, et de omni ejus exercitu, quod agones quosdam et. certamina adversum omnes homines , praecipue tamen adversus eos qui credunt in Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum , movent : et quod necessitatem quidem imponere peccandi per .agones et certamina non valent, persuadere tamen et decipere ad subversionem possunt eos qui non onmi custodia sua corda praemuniunt. liabendum est autem in ecclesiasticis observationibus , quod neque hominum quis a Deo in perditionem traditus est, sed unusquisque pereuntium sua negligentia pereat et culpa , qui habens arbitrii libertatem, eligere quod bonum est et potuit et debuit. Quod etiam de ipso diabolo sentiendum est, qui in conspectu Domini omnipotentis describitur restitisse “, et deseruisse statum suum in quo fuerat immaculatus :qui utique potuisset in hoc statu in quo ab initio t'uit , usque in finem perseverare si voluisset. Designatus , ut arbitror, nobis est, prout potuimus , et descriptus quis et qualis esset haereticus , et quae vel in quibus ejus dogmata falsaque opiniones habeantur, et quae sit ecclesiasticae observantiae puritas. α PAMPHILUS. Et post pauca addidit haec: ORIGENES. Requisierunt sane quidam utrum haeresim, (8|) an schisma oporteat vocari eos qui Cataphrygae nominantur, observantes falsos prophetas et dicentes : Ne accedas ad me, quoniam mundus sum : non enim accepi uxorem, nec est sepulcrum patens guttur meum , sed sum Nazarazus Dei, non bibens vinum sicut illi. PAMPHILUS. Istae voces sunt ejus qui velut hereticus accusatur, et corruptio ac perditio animarum, ab his qui nequaquam ostium ori suo et claustra labiis suis imponere a Propheta didicerunt ’. Quae quidem non in publico ab eo dicta sunt, id est in communi Ecclesiae auditorio , ne forte putetur propter audientes favorabilem aptasse sermonem : sed ex illis haec libris protulimus ,‘quos in secreto apud semetipsum nullo arbitro intercedente dictabatJn quo attentius vos illud volo considerare quod dixit, quia si quis horum aliquid commutaverit, haereticus est, et peccat in subversione positus , et a semetipso damnatus , secundum Apostoli sententiam ”‘ : cujus et nos auctoritati obsequentes eadem sentire debemus. Cum ergo haec ita se habeant, consequens arbitror interrogare istos ipsos accusatores ejus . si ipsi aliter quam ejus vocibus designatum est, vel de haeretico sentiunt, vel de catholico. Dicant ipsi quae alia sunt ecclesiaalica dogmata, si haec non sunt quae superius ab illo digesta sunt.- Et haec quidem generaliter de omnibus ecclesiasticis dogmatibus ab illo dicta sint. Pergamus autem et qtue specialiter de singulis , et maxime de principalibus rebus, de sancta ac beata Trinitate , id est de Patre , et Filio , et Spiritu Sancto senserit indicantes, et proferentes in medium ea quae in diversis sui operis voluminibus inserta mandavit , et ut ipsius sententia de maximis et divinis rebus quae fuerit ostendatur, et duobus vel tribus vocum suarum testibus stet omne verbum defensionis ejus ”. lndicat ergo quid de Deo Patre omnipotente senserit in his ipsis libris , qui quam maxime ab accusatoribus celebrantur, est, Περὶ ἀρχῶν, scribens haec : ### English translation (Claude) Origen: "For just as, when many among the Greeks and barbarians promised the truth, we ceased to seek it among all who asserted it with false opinions once we came to believe that Christ is the Son of God and were persuaded that we must learn it from him, so, since there are many who think they hold the things of Christ, and some of them think differently from those before them, while the Church's preaching is preserved, handed down from the apostles through the order of succession and remaining in the churches to the present, that alone is to be believed as truth which in no way disagrees with the Church's tradition. One must know, however, that the holy apostles, when they preached the faith of Christ, handed down most plainly to all believers, even to those who seemed rather sluggish in the search for divine knowledge, whatever they believed necessary on some points, leaving the reasons for their statements to be investigated by those who would merit to receive the excellent gifts of the Spirit, and especially of speech, wisdom, and knowledge, through the Holy Spirit himself. On other points they said that these things are, but were silent as to how or whence they are; surely so that the more zealous among their successors, lovers of wisdom and knowledge, might have an exercise in which to show the fruit of their talent, namely those who would prepare themselves to be worthy and capable of wisdom. "The particular points which are plainly handed down through the apostolic preaching are these. First, that there is one God, who created and arranged all things, and who made the universe to be out of nothing; God from the first creation and founding of the world, the God of all the righteous, of Adam, Abel, Seth, Enosh, Enoch, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, Moses and the prophets; and that this God in the last days, as he had promised beforehand through his prophets, sent the Lord Jesus Christ, to call first Israel, and second the Gentiles too, after the unfaithfulness of the people of Israel. This just and good God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, himself gave the law and the prophets and the Gospels; he is also the God of the apostles, and of the Old and New Testaments. Then, that Christ Jesus himself, who came, was born of the Father before every creature. After he had served the Father in the founding of all things (for through him all things were made), in the last times he emptied himself and became man; he was made flesh though he was God, and, made man, remained what he was, God. He took a body like our body, differing only in this, that he was born of the Virgin and the Holy Spirit. And since this Jesus Christ was born and suffered in truth and not in appearance, he truly died, undergoing this common death; for he truly rose from the dead; and after the resurrection, having spent time with his disciples, he was taken up. Then, they handed down that the Holy Spirit is associated in honour and dignity with the Father and the Son. In his case it is not yet plainly distinguished whether he was born or unborn." Pamphilus: Whoever asks whether he was born or unborn plainly holds no opinion that he is a creature; otherwise he would have brought this too into the inquiry. And he adds: Origen: "Or whether he too is to be held a Son of God or not. But these things must now be investigated, as far as we can, from holy Scripture, and searched out by careful inquiry. That this Holy Spirit inspired each of the saints, whether prophets or apostles, and that there was not one Spirit in the men of old and another in those who were inspired at the coming of Christ, is preached most plainly in the churches. After this, that the soul, having its own substance and life, when it departs from this world, will be dealt with according to its merits: either it will obtain the inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its deeds have secured this for it, or it will be handed over to eternal fire and punishments, if the guilt of its crimes has turned it that way. And also, that there will be a time of the resurrection of the dead, when this body, which is sown in corruption, will rise in incorruption, and what is sown in dishonour will rise in glory. This too is defined in the Church's preaching: that every soul is rational, with free choice and will; and that it has a contest against the devil and his angels and the opposing powers, because they strive to load it with sins, while we, if we live rightly and wisely, try to strip ourselves of such a burden. From this it follows that we understand that we are not subject to necessity, so as to be compelled in every way, even against our will, to do either good or evil. For if we are masters of our own choice, some powers may perhaps assail us toward sin, and others help us toward salvation; yet we are not compelled by necessity to act either rightly or wrongly. That this happens is supposed by those who say that the course and motions of the stars are the cause of human acts, not of those that happen outside the freedom of choice, but of those placed in our power. But concerning the soul, whether it is derived by transmission from the seed, so that its principle or substance is held to be inserted in the bodily seeds themselves, or whether it has another beginning, and whether this beginning is begotten or not begotten, or whether it is put into the body from outside or not, is not distinguished by sufficiently clear preaching. Concerning the devil and his angels and the opposing powers, the Church's preaching has taught that they exist; but what they are or how they exist it has not explained clearly enough. Most, however, hold this opinion: that this devil was an angel and, having become an apostate, persuaded very many of the angels to fall away with him, who even now are called his angels. There is further this in the Church's preaching: that this world was made and began at a certain time, and is to be dissolved because of its very corruptibility; but what was before this world, or what will be after the world, has not become plainly known to many, for no clear statement about these things is made in the Church's preaching. Then, that the Scriptures were written through the Spirit of God, and have not only the meaning that is plain but also another, hidden from very many. For the things written are the forms of certain mysteries and the images of divine things. On this the whole Church has one mind: that the whole law is spiritual, yet that the things which …" Pamphilus: And after a little he says: Origen: "This too is in the Church's preaching: that there are certain angels of God and good powers, who serve him in bringing the salvation of men to completion; but when these were created, or of what kind they are, or how they exist, is not distinguished plainly enough. About the sun and moon and stars, whether they are living beings or without souls, nothing is plainly handed down. Anyone, then, who desires to construct a sequence and a body out of the reasoning of all these things must use elements and foundations of this kind, according to the commandment that says, 'Light for yourselves the light of knowledge', so that by clear and necessary statements he may search out on each point what is true, and produce, as we said, a single body, with examples and assertions, either those he finds in the holy Scriptures or those he discovers by investigating their consequences and by right reasoning." Pamphilus: These things he discussed at the beginning of the first book of On First Principles, to show which things are plainly handed down in the Church's preaching and which are not openly defined. He discusses each of these here and there in the rest of the body of the books, according to the division he showed above. The things which he taught above are preached by the Church as defined, he asserts more plainly and more firmly from the holy Scriptures, applying every proof; but on those which he showed are not preached in the Church plainly or as defined, he uses opinions, and such thoughts as could occur to him as he discussed and treated such matters, rather than any certain and defined assertions; that is, he discusses and examines rather than affirms. In all things, however, he keeps in mind the statement he set out above, when he says that that alone is to be received and believed as truth which in no way opposes the apostolic and ecclesiastical doctrines. And not only in the books we mentioned above, but in all his expositions of the Scriptures, he is accustomed to use this principle, especially in those in which he sets out several interpretations of one passage, asserting that, so as to omit nothing that could be said, he has put forward several or differing views as he was able to perceive them, but that what the apostolic and ecclesiastical reader approves is to be held. He does the same also when he discusses the sects of the heretics; and when all of them have been refuted … To gather all his statements is quite long, and would be as burdensome for us who write as tedious for those who read. It is enough to bring forward a few, in which the indications of all will surely be easily recognized. For one must not think, contrary to the Lord's saying, that one who is found faithful in a few things should not also be held and believed faithful in many. First, then, we will set out from his books an example that agrees with the one above, from the book he wrote on the Epistle of the apostle Paul to Titus, on the passage in which the Apostle says: "Avoid a heretical man after one admonition, knowing that such a one is perverted and sins, being condemned by himself." There he says what kind of man the heretic is, and what kind the catholic and churchman. Origen: "The word heresy, so far as I could discover, is designated also in the Epistle to the Corinthians thus: 'For there must be heresies, so that those who are approved may become manifest among you.' And again, in the Epistle to the Galatians, the word heresy is also listed among the works of the flesh, as he says: 'Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, anger, quarrels, dissensions, heresies, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I tell you beforehand that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.' From this we know that, just as those who are stained with fornication or impurity and licentiousness and the worship of idols will not inherit the kingdom of God, so also those who have turned aside into heresy. For we must not think that so absolute a sentence of so great an apostle could waver in any way. For he is the apostle of all the churches of Christ, chosen not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father. Therefore, according to the authority of his sentence, we must avoid the name of heresy as we avoid the other evils he listed, and not mix in fellowship of prayer with such people." Pamphilus: And after this, with a few things inserted in between, he added: Origen: "What a heretical man is, let us describe as far as we can, according to what we can perceive. Everyone who professes to believe in Christ, and yet says that the God of the law and the prophets is one God and the God of the Gospels another, and says that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is not the one proclaimed by the law and the prophets but some other, unknown to all and unheard of by all, such men we designate heretics, however varied, diverse, and fabulous the fictions with which they dress these things up, like the followers of Marcion, Valentinus, and Basilides, and those who call themselves Tethians. Apelles too, although he does not entirely deny that the law and the prophets are of God, is nevertheless designated a heretic, since he declares that this Lord who produced the world built it for the glory of another, unbegotten and good God, and that that unbegotten God at the end of the age sent Jesus Christ to amend the world, at the request of the God who had made it, that he would send his Son for the correction of his world. And if only one who thinks otherwise of God the Father than the rule of piety requires were to be held a heretic, what has been said above would suffice. But now the very same must be believed also of one who thinks anything false about our Lord Jesus Christ: whether with those who say that he was born of Joseph and Mary, as are the Ebionites and Valentinians; or with those who deny that he is the firstborn, and the God of all creation, and the Word, and the Wisdom which is the beginning of the ways of God, established before the ages and begotten before all the hills, before anything was made, but call him only a man; or with those who confess that he is God, yet say that he did not take a soul and an earthly body, and who, under the pretext of paying the Lord Jesus a fuller glory, testify that everything he did seemed to be done rather than was truly done; and who do not confess that he was born of the Virgin, but say that he appeared in Judea as a man of thirty years. Others believe that he was born of the Virgin, but affirm that the Virgin thought she gave birth rather than truly gave birth; for they assert that the mystery of the supposed birth was hidden even from the Virgin. How should these not be set far from the Church, since, sick with the disease of love of leadership, they have set up doctrines by which to turn disciples aside to their own name? As for those who say that the Lord Jesus was a man foreknown and predestined, who did not exist substantially and properly before his coming in the flesh, but that, born a man, he had in himself only the deity of the Father, it is not without danger to associate even these with the number of the Church; and the same holds for those who, superstitiously rather than religiously, so as not to seem to speak of two gods nor again to deny the Saviour's deity, assert one and the same subsistence of Father and Son, that is, one that admits two names according to the difference of causes, yet one hypostasis subsisting, that is, one person underlying two names; in Latin they are called Patripassians. And if there are any who say that the Holy Spirit who was in the prophets is one, and the one who was in the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ is another, they commit one and the same crime of impiety as those who, as far as lies in them, cut the nature of the deity and split the one God of the law and the Gospels. Those too who say that not all human souls are of one and the same nature or substance, but that there are different natures of souls, are to be counted among those heresies which speak iniquity against the Most High and accuse him of injustice and iniquity. So too those who strive to take the power of free choice away from souls are to be judged as bringing in pernicious doctrines, a kind of ruin to the common life of mankind and to the virtue of continence, so that it should not be thought a matter of human purpose to do, say, or think anything good; from which the human mind will be shaped to contempt and neglect of the divine judgment. Let there also be in the Church's order the belief concerning the punishments of sins, and concerning those who will receive the rewards of good conduct and life in the kingdom of the Lord by his just judgment. If, then, anyone tries to change or subvert any of the things we have set out above, he is to be held by us too, who obey his precept, as perverted and condemned by himself, according to the Apostle's sentence. Together with all that we have set out above, let the churchman be marked also by faith in the resurrection of the dead, concerning which the holy apostle Paul pronounces thus: that if anyone denies the resurrection of the dead, it follows that he denies the resurrection of Christ. Let there likewise be in the Church's order an account of the devil and of all his army: that they stir up struggles and contests against all men, but especially against those who believe in our Lord Jesus Christ; and that they cannot impose a necessity of sinning through these struggles and contests, but they can persuade and deceive to their overthrow those who do not fortify their hearts with every guard. It is to be held in the Church's observances that no human being has been handed over by God to perdition, but each of those who perish perishes by his own negligence and fault, since, having freedom of choice, he both could and should have chosen what is good. This must be held of the devil himself too, who is described as having stood against the face of the almighty Lord and as having abandoned his state, in which he had been unstained; he could certainly have persevered until the end in the state in which he was from the beginning, had he wished. We have designated and described, I think, as far as we could, who and what kind of man the heretic is, which are his doctrines and false opinions and in what they consist, and what the purity of the Church's observance is." Pamphilus: And after a little he added this: Origen: "Some have indeed asked whether those called Cataphrygians should be called a heresy or a schism, since they follow false prophets and say: 'Do not come near me, for I am pure; for I have not taken a wife, nor is my throat an open grave, but I am a Nazirite of God, not drinking wine as they do.'" Pamphilus: These are the words of the man who is accused as a heretic and as the corruption and ruin of souls by those who never learned from the Prophet to set a door on their mouth and bars on their lips. He did not say these things in public, that is, in the common assembly of the Church, lest it be thought that he adapted his speech to win the favour of his hearers; but we have brought them out of those books which he dictated privately, by himself, with no witness present. Here I want you to consider more attentively what he said: that if anyone changes any of these things he is a heretic, and sins, being in a state of subversion, and is condemned by himself, according to the Apostle's sentence; and we, obeying the Apostle's authority, must think the same. Since this is so, I think it follows to ask these very accusers of his whether they themselves think otherwise about the heretic or the catholic than is marked out by his words. Let them say what other doctrines of the Church there are, if they are not these which he set in order above. These, then, are the things he said generally about all the doctrines of the Church. Let us go on to indicate what he thought specifically about each, and especially about the chief matters, the holy and blessed Trinity, that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, bringing into the open what he left inserted in various volumes of his work, so that his opinion on the greatest and divine matters may be shown, and every word of his defence may stand on two or three witnesses from his own words. He indicates, then, what he thought about God the Father almighty in these very books, which the accusers cite most of all, that is, On First Principles, writing this: ### Scripture references - John 1:3: quotation, high confidence - Phil 2:7: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:42: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:43: quotation, high confidence - Rom 7:14: allusion, high confidence - Hos 10:12: quotation, high confidence - Titus 3:10: quotation, high confidence - Titus 3:11: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 11:19: quotation, high confidence - Gal 5:19: quotation, high confidence - Gal 5:20: quotation, high confidence - Gal 5:21: quotation, high confidence - Gal 1:1: allusion, high confidence - Col 1:15: allusion, medium confidence - Prov 8:22: allusion, high confidence - Prov 8:23: allusion, high confidence - Prov 8:25: allusion, high confidence - Ps 73:8 (72:8 LXX): allusion, medium confidence - 1 Cor 15:13: allusion, high confidence - Jude 1:6: allusion, medium confidence - Isa 65:5: quotation, high confidence - Ps 5:9 (5:10 LXX): allusion, high confidence - Ps 141:3 (140:3 LXX): allusion, high confidence - Matt 25:21: allusion, medium confidence - Deut 19:15: allusion, medium confidence - Matt 18:16: allusion, medium confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - 2 Macc 7:28 (2 Maccabees): allusion, medium confidence - Origen, Princ. pref. 2–10 (Origen, On First Principles): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Origen's quotations are On First Principles, preface 2–8 and 10 (Rufinus's Latin), and passages from his lost Commentary on Titus (on Titus 3:10–11). Speaker labels ("Origen", "Pamphilus") are printed in the Latin. - "Yet that the things which …": Pamphilus breaks off the quotation (On First Principles, preface 8). - "When all of them have been refuted …": a line is lost in the scan at the page turn. - "Tethians": so the Latin. Migne's editor corrects it to "Tatianists"; others read "Sethians", a Gnostic sect. - "Not drinking wine as they do": the Cataphrygians (Montanists) are made to speak in the words of Isa 65:5 and Ps 5:9 (LXX 5:10). - No public-domain English translation exists; checked privately against a modern English translation (FOTC 120); the Latin decides. ### Citation (SBL) Pamphilus, Apol. Orig. 1.1 (PG 17:549a–557b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/1-1/#p-1-1). ## Apology for Origen 2.1 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/1-1/#p-2-1 - Source: PG 17:557b–559a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Origen, quoted from On First Principles, teaches that God is incorporeal and incomprehensible, and that the God of the Old Testament is the Father of Jesus Christ. ### Latin text ORIGENES. t Omni igitur sensu qui corporale aliquid de Deo intelligi suggerit, prout potuimus , confutato, dicimus secundum veritatem quidem Deum‘ incomprehensibilem esse atque inaestimabilem. Si quid enim illud est quod sentire vel intelligere de Deo potuerimus , multis longe modis eum meliorem esse ah eo quod sensimus, necesse est credi. Sicut enim si videamus aliquem vix posse scintillam luminis , aut brevissiu‘ue lucerna: lumen aspicere, et eum cujus acies oculorum plus luminis capere quam supra diximus, non valet, si velimus de claritate et splendore solis educere, nonne oportebit nos ei dicere, quia omni hoc lumine quod vides, inefl‘abiliter et inaestimabiliter melior et praestantior solis est splendor? lla mens nostra cum intra carnis et sanguinis claustra concluditur, et pro talis materia: participatione hebetior atque ohtusior redditur , licet ad comparationem naturae corporeze longe praecellens habeatur, tamen cum ad incorporea nititur, atque eorum iutuitionem rimatur, tunc scintilla: alicujus aut lucernae vix obtinet locum. Quid autem in omnibus intellectualibus , id est incorporeis , tam praestans omnibus, tam inctl‘abiliter atque inaestimabiliter praecellens est, quam Deus τ Cujus utique natura acie humanm mentis intendi atque intueri, quamvis sit purissima mens ac limpidissima , non potest. Verum non videtur absurdum, si ad evidentiorem rei manifesta« tionem etiam alia utamur similitudine. luterdum oculi nostri ipsam naturam lucis , id est, substantiam solis intueri non possunt : splendorem vero ejus, vel radios fenestris forte, vel quibuslibet luminum brevibus receptaculis infusos intuentes, considerare possumus fomes ipse vel fons quan tus sit corporei luminis. lla ergo quasi radii quidam sunt Dei natura: Opera divina: Providentiae, et ars universitatis hujus, ad comparationem lpsius substantiae ac naturae. Quia ergo mens nostra ipsum per seipsam Deum sicut est non potest intueri , ex pulchritudine operum , et decore creaturarum, parentem universitatis intelligit. Non ergo corpus aliquod , aut in corpore esse putandus est Deus, sed intellectualis natura , simplex , nihil omnino in se adjunctionis admittens, uti ne majus aliquid et inferius in se habere credatur, sed ut sit ex omni parte μονὰς , et, ut ita dicam , ἑνὰς, et mens , ac fons ex quo initium totius intellectualis natura: vel mentis est. Mens vero ut mo. veatur vel operetur, non indiget loco corporeo, neque sensibili magnitudine, vel corporali habitauit colore, neque alio ullo prorsus indiget horum qum corporis vel materia: pr0pria sunt. Propter quod natura illa simplex , et tota mens, ut moveatur vel operetur aliquid , nihil dilationis aut cunctationis habere potest, ne per hujusmodi adjunctionem circumscribi vel inhiberi aliquatenus videatur divinze natura: simplicitas. uti ne quod εει principium omnium , compositum inveniatur et diversum, et sit multa, non unum, quod oportet totius corporea: admistionis alienum una sola , ut ita dixerim , deitatis specie constare. Psurntws. Haec in primo libro Περὶ ἀρχῶν scribit de divina natura. ln secundo vero , quia idem Deus Veteris et Novi Testamenti sit, hoc modo rel‘ert: ORIGENES. llis per ordinem, prout potuimus, breviter digestis, consequens est, secundum id quod ex initio propositum est , confutare etiam eos qui putant alipm Deum esse Patrem Domini nostri Jesu Christi , praeter illum qui vel Moysi responsa legis dabat, vel prophetas mittebat, quiest Deus patrum Abraham , Isaac et Jacob. Oportet enim primo in hac nos fidei ratione lirmari. Considerandum ergo est illud quod frequenter in Evangeliis dicitur, et in singulis quibusque Domini et Salvatoris nostri gestis adjungitur : Ut impleatur quod dictum est per PrOphetam ο illum et illum : cum manifestum sit prophetas esse illius Dei qui mundum fecit. Ex ipsa ergo consequentia concluditur, quoniam qui prophetas misit, de Christo quae gerenda erant ipse praidixit : et. dubium non est quod haec non alienus quis ab eo , sed Pater ipsius priedicebat. Sed et illud quod frequenter exempla de Veteri Testamento a Salvatore proferuntur, vel ab aposto‘ lis ejus, non aliud indicat, nisi quod auctoritas veteribus a Salvatore et ab ejus discipulis adhibetur. Sed et illud quod ad benignitatem provocans discipulos suos Salvator dicit : Estote perfecti , sicut et Pater vester caelestis perfectus est , qui solem suum oriri jubet super bonos et malos, et pluit super justas et injustas : cuivis etiam exiguae intelligentia: viro evidentissimum suggerit intellecuun , quod nnn alium ad imitandum proponit discipulis suis Deum, nisi factorem solis , et iimbrium przebitorem, ΡΑιιριειιυς. Post haec in consequentibus multis argumentis atque exemplis Scripturarum ailirmaus, ostendit quoniam unus et idem Deus , Deus est lcgis, et Evangeliorunt, et prophetarum, et apostolorum, justus et bonus, visibilium et invisibilium ac totius universitatis Dominus. Quomodo ergo senserit de Deo Patre , cx bis ejus scriptis , quae supr: exposuimus, claruit. Videamus ergo nunc qualitct etde Dei Filio disserat. ### English translation (Claude) Origen: "Having refuted, then, as far as we could, every notion that suggests that God should be understood as something bodily, we say that God in truth is incomprehensible and beyond estimation. For whatever we have been able to perceive or understand about God, we must believe that he is in many ways far better than what we have perceived. Suppose we see someone who can scarcely look at a spark of light or the light of a very small lamp, and whose eyesight cannot take in more light than we have mentioned: if we wished to lead him to the brightness and splendour of the sun, would we not have to tell him that the splendour of the sun is unspeakably and inestimably better and more excellent than all this light that he sees? So our mind, when it is shut within the bars of flesh and blood and made duller and blunter by its share in such matter, though it is held to be far superior to bodily nature, yet, when it strains toward incorporeal things and seeks to look upon them, scarcely holds the place of a spark or a lamp. And what among all intellectual, that is, incorporeal, beings is so surpassing all, so unspeakably and inestimably excellent, as God? His nature certainly cannot be gazed upon and beheld by the sharpness of the human mind, even the purest and clearest mind. It does not seem absurd, however, to use another comparison too, to make the matter plainer. Sometimes our eyes cannot look at the nature of light itself, that is, the substance of the sun; but looking at its radiance or its rays pouring in, perhaps through windows or through any small openings for light, we can consider how great is the source, the very fountain of bodily light. So the works of divine Providence and the art of this universe are like rays of God's nature, compared with his substance and nature itself. Since, then, our mind cannot by itself behold God himself as he is, it understands the Father of the universe from the beauty of his works and the comeliness of his creatures. God, therefore, is not to be thought to be a body, or to be in a body, but a simple intellectual nature, admitting no addition at all in himself, so that he may not be believed to have in himself anything greater or lesser, but is in every respect a monad and, so to say, a henad, and the mind and source from which the whole intellectual nature, or mind, takes its beginning. And mind, in order to move or act, has no need of bodily place, nor of sensible size, nor of bodily shape or colour, nor of anything at all else that belongs to bodies or matter. Therefore that simple nature, wholly mind, can have no delay or hesitation in moving or doing anything, lest the simplicity of the divine nature seem to be in any way circumscribed or hindered by such an addition, and lest what is the principle of all things be found compound and diverse, and be many, not one; for, being foreign to all bodily admixture, it must consist, so to say, in the one sole form of deity." Pamphilus: This he writes about the divine nature in the first book of On First Principles. In the second, he sets out that the same God is God of the Old and the New Testament, in this way: Origen: "These things having been briefly set out in order as far as we could, it follows, according to what was proposed from the beginning, that we refute also those who think that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is another God besides the one who gave Moses the answers of the law and sent the prophets, who is the God of the fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For we must first be made firm in this article of the faith. We must consider, then, what is often said in the Gospels and added to each of the deeds of our Lord and Saviour: 'That what was spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled', this one or that; since it is plain that the prophets belong to the God who made the world. From this very sequence, then, it is concluded that he who sent the prophets himself foretold what was to be done concerning Christ; and there is no doubt that it was not someone foreign to him, but his Father, who foretold these things. The fact, too, that examples from the Old Testament are often brought forward by the Saviour or by his apostles indicates nothing other than that the Saviour and his disciples give authority to the ancients. And when the Saviour, urging his disciples to kindness, says, 'Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect, who commands his sun to rise on the good and the evil, and sends rain on the just and the unjust', he suggests a most evident understanding to anyone of even slight intelligence: that he sets before his disciples for imitation no other God than the maker of the sun and the giver of the rains." Pamphilus: After this, in what follows, he affirms with many arguments and examples from the Scriptures, and shows, that one and the same God is God of the law and of the Gospels, of the prophets and of the apostles, just and good, Lord of things visible and invisible and of the whole universe. How he thought of God the Father, then, has become clear from these writings of his set out above. Let us see now how he discusses the Son of God too. ### Scripture references - Matt 1:22: allusion, medium confidence - Exod 3:6: allusion, medium confidence - Matt 5:48: quotation, high confidence - Matt 5:45: quotation, high confidence - Rom 1:20: echo, low confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Origen, Princ. 1.1.5–6 (Origen, On First Principles): quotation, high confidence - Origen, Princ. 2.4.1–2 (Origen, On First Principles): quotation, high confidence - Wis 13:5 (Wisdom of Solomon): echo, low confidence ### Translation notes - Origen's quotations: On First Principles 1.1.5–6 and 2.4.1–2 (Rufinus's Latin). - "Monad … henad": Greek words (μονάς, ἑνάς) kept in the Latin; both mean "unity", the second stressing oneness. - No public-domain English translation of the Apology exists; checked privately against a modern English translation (FOTC 120); the Latin decides. ### Citation (SBL) Pamphilus, Apol. Orig. 2.1 (PG 17:557b–559a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/1-1/#p-2-1). ## Apology for Origen 3.1 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/3-1/#p-3-1 - Source: PG 17:559a–564c - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Pamphilus gathers Origen's statements that the Son is the image of God, born of the Father without beginning, the eternal radiance of the eternal light, Son by nature and not by adoption. ### Latin text Οιιιοειιεε. t Pro viribus igitur nostris perexiguis considerata ex operum suorum , magis quam ex nostri sensus contemplatione, divina natura, intuitisque nihilominus creaturis ejus visibilibus. fide quoque invisibilibus contemplatis , quia non omnia vel oculis videre potest humana fragilitas, vel ratione complecti , eo quod omnium rationabilium infirmius et fragilius animal nos sumus homines : prestantiora enim sunt ea quae vel in caelo, vel super caelos habentur : superest ut harum omnium creaturarum, et Dei, medium , id est mediatorem qiueramus, quem Paulus apostolus primogenitum omnis creaturae pronuntiat. Videntes enim ea quae de ejus majestate in Scripturis sanctis referuntur et intuentes quod imago invisibilis Dei, primogenitus omnis creaturis dicatur, et quod in ipso creata sint omnia, sive qute in caelis, sive quae interra sunt, visibilia et invisibilia. sive throni,sive domina. tiones, sive principatus, sive potestates , omnia per ipsum, et in ipso creata sunt ' et ipse est ante omnes, et omnia in illo constant , qui est caput omnium , . solus habens caput Deum Patrem , sicut scriptum est. Caput autem Christi Deus : pervidentcs etiam quod scriptum est : quoniam nemo novit Patrem, nisi Filius,- neque Filium quis novit, nisi Pater “ ; (quis enim nosse potest quae sit sapientia, nisi qui genuit eam:aut quis ad liquidum quae sit veritas lovit, nisi veritatis Pater? quis certe universam Verbi sui naturam, alque ipsius Dei qui ex Deo est, investigare potuit, nisi solus Deus, apud quem erat Verbum fit) pro ceno habere debemus , quod hoc Verbum , sive ratio dicenda est , hanc sapientiam , hanc veritatem nullus alius nisi solus Pater novit : de quo, sicut scriptum est : Ne ipsum quidem mundum capere posse arbitror libros qui scri- (terentur de gloria et de majestate Filii Dei. lmpossibile namque est litteris committere ea quae ad Salvatoris gloriam pertinent. Psurutws. Unum istud testimonium de deitate Filii Dei ex illis libris protulimus , qui maxime ab acvusatorihus arguuntur. Dubium autem non est , quod eodem sensu etiam in caeteris sentiat, nec sibi sit ipse contrarius. De eo quod non sit Pater antequam Filius. sed comternus sit Filius Patri, in primo libro De Genesi haec ait : ORIGENES. Non enim Deus, cum prius non esset Pater, postea Pater esse coepit, velut impeditus aliquibus ex causis, quibus homines mortales impediri solent, ut non statim ex quo sunt etiam patres esse possint. Si enim semper perfectus est Deus. nec deest ei virtus qua Pater sit, etbonum est esseeum Patrem talis Filii, quid difl'ert, autquiil boc bono se fraudat, et non statim,si ita dici potest,(98‘) ex quo potest esse Pater, edicitur Pater? ldipsum autem etiam de Spiritu sancto dicendum est. Ρηρηιιυε. Aliud testimonium de eadem re ex libris Epistolis ad Hebraeos. ORIGENBS. α Lux autem {eterna quid aliud sentiendum est, quam Deus Pater, qui nunquam fuit quando lux quidem esset. splendor vero ei non adesset? Neque enim lux sine splendore suo unquam intelligi potest. Quod si verum est, nunquam est (99‘) quando Filius non Filius fuit. Eratautem non, sicut‘de aeterna luce diximus, innatus, ne duo principia lucis videamus inducere, sed sicut ingenitae lucis splendor, ipsam illam lucem initium babens ac fontem, natus quidem ex ipsa; sed non erat quando non erat. Puemws. Aliud teStimonium de eadem re de libris Epistolas ad Romanos. Ontcmss. t Quod promiserat, inquit, per prophetas suos in Scripturis sanctis de Filio suo qui secundum carnem factus est ea: semine David “. Factus est quod ante non erat. Manifestum est enim quia secundum carnem non erat prius : secundum spiritum vero erat ante, et non erat quando non erat. … cum omne quod corporeum est, vel habitu, vel cotore. vel magnitudine designetur. Et quis unquam sani sensus habitum vel colorem, aut mensura: magnitudinem in Sapientia requisivit, per quod Sapientia est? Quomodo autem extra hujus Sapientiae generationem fuisse aliquando Deum Patrem, vel ad punctum momenti alicujus potest quis sentire vel credere, qui tamen pium aliquid de Deo intelligere noverit, vel sentire? Aut enim non potuisse Deum dicet generare Sapientiam antequam generaret, ut eam, quae non erat, (Υ) postea genuerit ut esset : aut potuisse quidem, sed (quod ne dici quidem de Deo fas est) noluisse generare: quod utrumque et absurdum esse, et impium omni bus patet, (ὃ) id est, ut aut cx eo quod non potuit Deus, proliceret ut posset; aut ex eo cum posset, dissimularet generare Sapientiam. Propter quod nos semper Deum Patrem novimus unigeniti Filii sui ex ipso quidem nati, et quod est ab ipso trahentis, sine ullo tamen initio, non solum eo quod aliqui bus temporum spatiis distingui potest, sed ne illo quidem quod sola apud semetipsam mens intueri solet, et nudo, ut ita dixerim, intellectu atque animo conspicari. Extra omne ergo quod vel dici, vel intelligi potest initium, generatam esse credendum est Sapientiam. PAMPHILUS. Aliud testimonium (5‘) de eisdem. ORIGENES. (ι) Qui autem initium datVerbo Dei, vel Sapientia: Dei, (4‘) intuere ne magisin ipsum ingenitum Patrem impietatem suam iactet, cum eum neget semper Patrem fuisse, et genuisse Verbum, et habuisse Sapientiam anterioribus vel temporibus, vel saeculis, vel si quid illud estquod nominari potest. PAMPHILUS. item aliud testimonium de eisdem. Ontceues. Eflicitur ergo virtus altera in sua proprietate subsistens, utait sermo Scripturae, vapor quidam primae et ingenitae virtutis Dei, … virtute processerit, iterum interrogabitur quare non et ante illud quod dixit initium : et ita semper de anterioribus inquirentes, et verbo interrogationis ascendentes, perveniemus in illum intellectum. ut quoniam semper et poterat Deus. et Volebat, nunquam vel decuerit, vel causa aliqua exsistere pomerii, ut non hoc quod bonum et volebat et poterat, semper habuerit. Ex quo ostenditur semper I'uisse vaporem iatum virtutis Dei nullum habentem initium, nisi ipsum Deum. Neque enim decebat aliud ei esse initium, nisi ipsum, unde est et nascitur, Deum. Secundum Apostoium vero dicentem, quia Christus Dei virtus est , jam non solum vapor virtutis Dei, sed et virtus ex virtute dicenda est. PAMPHILUS. Item aliud testimonium de eisdem. OntcENEs. ί Sempiternnm, vel aeternum proprie dicitur, quod neque initiqu ut esset habuit, neque cessare unquam potest esse quod est. Iioc autem designatur apud Joannem, cum dicit : Quoniam Deus lux est . Splendor autem lucis ejus Sapientia sna est, non solum secundum quod lux est, sed et secundum quod sempiterna lux est, ita ut aeternus et aeternitatis splendor sit Sapientia sua. Quod si integre intelligatur, manifeste declarat, quia subsistentia Filii ab ipso Patre descendit. sed non temporaliter, neque ab ullo alio initio, nisi, ut diximus, ab ipso Deo. ΡΑιιΡιιιιυε. Item, de aeternitate Filii Dei, et inseparabilitate ejus a Patre, aliud testimonium de libro primo. Omcsuss. (Ii) Infandum autem est et illicitum, Deum Patrem in generatione Filii sui unigeniti, atque in subsistentia ejus. exsequare alicui vel hominum, vel aliorum animantium generanti ; sed necesse est exceptura aliquid esse et Deo dignum, cujus nulla prorsus comparatio non in rebus solum, sed ne in COgitatione quidem vel sensu inveniri potest, ut humana cogitatio possit apprehendere quomodo ingenitus Deus Pater eflieitur unigeniti Filii. Est namque ita acterna et sempiterna generatio. sicut splendor generatur cx Iuce. Non enim per adoptionem Spiritus Filius iit extrinsecus, sed natura Filius est. Pitumnus. Item de eodem aliud testimonium. ORIGENES. Videamus ergo quislsit Salvator nosier. Splendor diciturgloriw",id est,a:ternaz lucis quod splendor ex lumine ἀλλὰ inseparabiliter generatur, et donec permanet lux, permanet semper et splendor. Salvator ergo noster qui Sapientia est ipsa est splendor aeternae lueis) inseparabiliter et indesinenter generatur ex Patre. Sic enim et ipsa de se Sapientia per Salomonem dicit : Ante omnes colles generat me δι. Νοιι enim dixit : Ante omnes colles genuit me, sed, generat me. In quo significantia sempiternitatis est. ### English translation (Claude) Origen: "Having considered, then, as far as our very slight powers allow, the divine nature from the contemplation of his works rather than from our own perception, and having looked at his visible creatures and contemplated the invisible ones too by faith (since human frailty can neither see all things with the eyes nor embrace them with reason, because we human beings are the weakest and frailest of all rational living beings, and the things in heaven or above the heavens are more excellent), it remains that we seek the mean between all these creatures and God, that is, the mediator, whom the apostle Paul declares to be the firstborn of all creation. For we see what is related in the holy Scriptures about his majesty, and observe that he is called the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, and that in him all things were created, whether in heaven or on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers: all things were created through him and in him; and he is before all, and in him all things hold together; he is the head of all, and he alone has as his head God the Father, as it is written: 'The head of Christ is God.' We see also that it is written: 'No one knows the Father except the Son, and no one knows the Son except the Father.' (For who can know what Wisdom is, except the one who begot her? Or who knows clearly what Truth is, except the Father of Truth? Who indeed could investigate the whole nature of his Word, and of God himself, who is from God, except God alone, with whom the Word was?) We must hold for certain, then, that this Word, or Reason as it may be called, this Wisdom, this Truth, no one knows but the Father alone; concerning whom, as it is written, 'I suppose that not even the world itself could contain the books' that would be written about the glory and majesty of the Son of God. For it is impossible to commit to writing the things that belong to the Saviour's glory." Pamphilus: We have brought this one testimony on the deity of the Son of God from those books which are most attacked by the accusers. There is no doubt that he thinks the same in the others too, and is not inconsistent with himself. On the point that the Father is not before the Son, but the Son is coeternal with the Father, he says this in the first book On Genesis: Origen: "For God did not, when he was not previously Father, afterwards begin to be Father, as though hindered by some causes by which mortal men are usually hindered, so that they cannot be fathers as soon as they exist. For if God is always perfect, and the power to be Father is not lacking to him, and it is good that he be Father of such a Son, why should he put it off, or deprive himself of this good, and not be called Father, if one may say so, from the moment he can be Father? The same must be said also of the Holy Spirit." Pamphilus: Another testimony on the same matter, from the books on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Origen: "What else is to be understood by the eternal light but God the Father, of whom there was never a time when he was light and his radiance was not with him? For light can never be conceived without its radiance. And if this is true, there is never a time when the Son was not the Son. But he was not unborn, as we said of the eternal light, lest we seem to bring in two principles of light; rather, as the radiance of the unbegotten light, he has that very light as his beginning and source, being indeed born from it; but there was not when he was not." Pamphilus: Another testimony on the same matter, from the books on the Epistle to the Romans. Origen: "'Which he had promised,' it says, 'through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.' He was made what he was not before. For it is plain that according to the flesh he was not before; but according to the spirit he was before, and there was not when he was not. … since everything bodily is marked by shape, or colour, or size. And who of sound mind ever looked for shape or colour or measurable size in Wisdom, insofar as it is Wisdom? And how could anyone who knows how to think or perceive anything reverent about God think or believe that God the Father ever existed, even for a moment of time, without begetting this Wisdom? For he will say either that God could not beget Wisdom before he begot her, so that he afterwards begot her, who was not, to be; or that he could indeed, but (what it is unlawful even to say of God) was unwilling to beget her. Both of these are plainly absurd and impious to all: that is, either that God advanced from not being able to being able, or that, when he could, he held back from begetting Wisdom. Therefore we know that God is always the Father of his only-begotten Son, who was born of him and draws from him what he is, yet without any beginning: not only without one that can be marked by some spaces of time, but not even one that the mind alone is accustomed to contemplate within itself and to behold, so to speak, with bare intellect and soul. Wisdom, then, must be believed to have been begotten beyond every beginning that can be spoken of or understood." Pamphilus: Another testimony on the same. Origen: "Whoever gives a beginning to the Word of God or the Wisdom of God, let him beware lest he rather hurl his impiety at the unbegotten Father himself, denying that he was always Father, and had begotten the Word, and had Wisdom, in all earlier times or ages, or whatever else can be named." Pamphilus: Again another testimony on the same. Origen: "There comes to be, then, another power subsisting in its own proper being, as the word of Scripture says, a kind of vapour of the first and unbegotten power of God … proceeded from that power, it will be asked again why not before that beginning he spoke of; and so, always inquiring about what is earlier and climbing up by the word of questioning, we shall arrive at this understanding: since God was always both able and willing, it was never fitting, nor could any cause ever exist, that he should not always have had this good which he both willed and was able to have. From this it is shown that this vapour of God's power always existed, having no beginning but God himself. Nor was it fitting that it should have any other beginning but God himself, from whom it is and is born. And according to the Apostle, who says that Christ is the power of God, it must be called not only the vapour of God's power but power from power." Pamphilus: Again another testimony on the same. Origen: "That is properly called everlasting or eternal which neither had a beginning of its being nor can ever cease to be what it is. This is indicated in John, when he says, 'God is light.' And his Wisdom is the radiance of his light, not only in that he is light but also in that he is everlasting light, so that his Wisdom is eternal, the radiance of eternity. If this is fully understood, it plainly declares that the subsistence of the Son comes from the Father himself, but not in time, nor from any other beginning except, as we have said, from God himself." Pamphilus: Again, on the eternity of the Son of God and his inseparability from the Father, another testimony from the first book. Origen: "It is monstrous and unlawful to compare God the Father, in the begetting of his only-begotten Son and in his subsistence, to any man or other living being that begets; there must be something exceptional and worthy of God, for which no comparison at all can be found, not only in things but not even in thought or perception, so that human thought might grasp how the unbegotten God becomes Father of the only-begotten Son. For the begetting is eternal and everlasting, as radiance is begotten from light. For he does not become Son from outside, by adoption of the Spirit, but is Son by nature." Pamphilus: Again another testimony on the same. Origen: "Let us see, then, who our Saviour is. He is called the radiance of glory, that is, of the eternal light; for radiance is begotten from light inseparably, and as long as the light remains, the radiance too always remains. Our Saviour, then, who is Wisdom (and Wisdom is the radiance of eternal light), is begotten from the Father inseparably and unceasingly. For so Wisdom herself says of herself through Solomon: 'Before all the hills he begets me.' He did not say, 'Before all the hills he begot me', but 'he begets me'. In this there is a sign of everlastingness." ### Scripture references - Col 1:15: quotation, high confidence - Col 1:16: quotation, high confidence - Col 1:17: quotation, high confidence - Col 1:18: allusion, medium confidence - 1 Cor 11:3: quotation, high confidence - Matt 11:27: quotation, high confidence - John 1:1: allusion, high confidence - John 21:25: quotation, high confidence - Heb 1:3: allusion, high confidence - Rom 1:2: quotation, high confidence - Rom 1:3: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 1:24: quotation, high confidence - 1 John 1:5: quotation, high confidence - Prov 8:25: quotation, high confidence - Rom 8:15: echo, low confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Origen, Princ. 2.6.1 (Origen, On First Principles): quotation, high confidence - Origen, Princ. 1.2.2 (Origen, On First Principles): quotation, high confidence - Origen, Princ. 1.2.9–11 (Origen, On First Principles): quotation, high confidence - Origen, Princ. 1.2.4 (Origen, On First Principles): quotation, high confidence - Wis 7:25–26 (Wisdom of Solomon): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Origen's quotations: On First Principles 2.6.1; then passages from his lost Commentary on Genesis (book 1), Commentary on Hebrews, and Commentary on Romans (the last is not in Rufinus's later translation in this form); then On First Principles 1.2.2, 1.2.9–11, 1.2.4, and a passage on Heb 1:3 and Prov 8:25. "There was not when he was not" turns against Origen's critics the slogan later used by the Arians ("there was when he was not"). - Lines are lost in the scan in two places, shown as "…": after "there was not when he was not" (the end of the Romans quotation and the start of the next one, On First Principles 1.2.2); and after "the first and unbegotten power of God" (On First Principles 1.2.9). - Migne prints beside the last quotation a Greek fragment of it and a second Latin version; these notes are not part of Rufinus's text and are left out. - No public-domain English translation of the Apology exists; checked privately against a modern English translation (FOTC 120); the Latin decides. ### Citation (SBL) Pamphilus, Apol. Orig. 3.1 (PG 17:559a–564c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/3-1/#p-3-1). ## Apology for Origen 4.1 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/3-1/#p-4-1 - Source: PG 17:564c–572a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Pamphilus quotes Origen on the Holy Spirit as unchangeable, never a creature, and always known within the Trinity; on the limits of every creature's knowledge of God; and on the spread of the faith as proof of Christ's divinity. ### Latin text ORIGENES. (l5) Tempus est; nunc pro viribus de Spiritu sancto (ιδ) pauca describere, quem Dominus et Salvator noster in Evangelio secundum Joannem Paracletum nominavit δ’. Sicut enim idem ipse Deus, atque idem ipsert-istus, ita idem ipse et Spiritus sanctus est, qui etiam in prophetis et in apostolis fuit, id est, sive in illis quiante adventum Christi Deo crediderunt, sive itt bis qui per Christum confugerunt ad Deunt. Et duos quidem Deos audivimus ausos esse haereticos dicere, et duos Cbristos: (l7) duos autem Spiritus sanctos nunquam audivimus ab aliquo prauiicari. Purntws. Quod eadem sit inconvertibilitas Spiritus sancti quae Patris et Filii. De libro Περὶ ἀρχῶν. ORIGENES. Nulla ergo natura est, secundum quod nos sentimus, qua:- non possit recipere malum : sed non continuo, quia dicimus nullam esse naturam quae non possit recipere ntalum, id. circo confirmamus omnem naturam recepisse malum, id est, malam efl'ectam : sed sicut est dicere, quia omnis hominis natura recipit ιιι possit navigare, non tamen ex eo etiam omnis homo navigabit; et iterum omni homini possibile est discere artem grammaticam, vel medicinam, non tamen idcirco ostenditur omnis homo vel medicus esse vel grammaticus: ita si dicimus nullam esse naturam qua non possit recipere malum, non tamen continuo etiam recepisse malum designatur. (9.6) Et rursum : Nulla natura est quae non recipiat bonum :nec tamen idcirco omnis natura probabitur recepisse quod bonum est. Puemws. Et post pauca addidit: Onteesss. Nulla ergo natura est quae non recipiat malum, excepta Dei natura, (2|) quae fons bonorum omnium est, et Christi. Sapientia enim est, et sapientia utique stultitiam recipere non potest. Et iustitia est ; justitia autem nunquam profecto injustitiam capiet. Et Verbum est, vel ratio, quae utique irrationabilis eflici non potest. (‘22) Sed et lux est, et Alucetn certum est quod tenebrae non compre hendant. Similiter autem et natura Spiritus sancti, quas sancta est, non recipit pollutionem. Naturaliter enim, vel substantialiter sancta est. Si qua autem alia natura Sancta est, ex assumptione hor, vel inSpiratione Spiritus sancti habet ιιι sattctiticetur, non ex sua natura hoc possidens, sed accidens ; propter quod et decidere potest quod accidit. lta et justitiam accidentem quis habere potest, uttde et decidere eant possibile est. Sed et sapientiam quis accidentem‘ nihilominus habet, quamvis in nostra sit positum potestate studio nostro et vita: merito, si sapientia: operam demus, elIici sapientes; et si semper id studii geramus, (2'5) semper sapientia: participemus; et id nobis vel plus vel minus accidat vel pro vita: merito. PAMPHILUS. Quod aequalis sibi sit Trinitas, et quod Spiritus sanctus non sit creatura. De libro … ORIGENES. ί De Spiritu vero sancto, quia est, multa: nos Scriptura: docuerunt, sicut David in quinquagesimo psalnto dicit: Et Spiritum sau-. ctum tuum ue auferas me”. Et in Dauiele dicitur: Spiritus sanctus qui in te est “. In Novo vero Testamento abundantibus testimoniis edocemur, cum Spiritus sanctus super Christum descendisse perscribitur, et cum ipse Dominus insnfllavit itt apostolos post resurrectionem, dicens : Accipite Spiritum sanctum". Et ad Mariam dicitur ab augelo: Spiritus sanctus rcuiet super te “. Pau- lus vero docet, quia nemo potest dicere Dominum Iesum, nisi in Spiritu sancto . Ει in Actibus apo. stolordm per impositionem manuum apostolicarum Spiritus sanctus dabatur in baptismo ‘°. Es quibus omnibus didicimus tantae esse et auctoritatis et dignitatis substantiam sancti Spiritus, ut salutare baptisma non aliter nisi excellentissima: omnium Trinitatis auctoritate, id est Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti eognominatione compleatur, et innato Deo Patri, et unigenito ejus Filio, nomen quoque Spiritus sancti c0puletur. Quis ergo non obstupescat quanta majestas sit Spiritus sancti, cum eum qui dixerit verbum in Filium hominis audiat sperare veniam posse ; eum vero qui in Spiritum sanctum blasphemavet-it, veniam non habere neque in praesenti seculo, neque in futuro ‘9 ?s PAMPHILUS. Et post pauca adjecit : ORIGENES. Verumtamen usque ad praesens nullum sermonem in Scripturis sanctis invenire potuintus, per quem Spiritus sanctus iactura esse vel creatura diceretur. Ριιιιριιιιυε. Et insertis compluribus testimoniis de virtute Spiritus sancti, post aliquanta etiam haec adjecit : Omnem-ss. Si revelante Filio cognoscit Patrem Spiritus sanctus, ergo ex ignorantia ad scientiam venit : quod utique et impium pariter et stultum est, Spiritum sanctum confiteri, et ignorantiam ei ascribere. Non enim cum aliud aliquid esset antea quatn Spiritus sanctus, per profectum venit in hoc ut esset Spiritus sanctus : ut quis audeat dicere, quia tunc quidem cum nondum esset Spiritus sanctus, ignorabat Patrem : postea vero quam recepit scientiam, etiam Spiritus sanctus efl'ectus est. Quod si esset, nunquam utique in unitate Trinitatis, id est, Dei Patris inconvertibilis, et Filii ejus, etiam ipse Spiritus sanctus haberetur, nisi quia et ipse semper erat Spiritus sanctus. Puteanus. Et post pauca adjecit : ORIGENES. ε Rectum tamen videtur inquirere quid causa: sit quod qui regeneratur per Deum in Salutem, opus habet et Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu sancto, non percepturus salutem, nisi sit integra Trinitas: nec possibile sit participem vel Patris, … discutientes, sine dubio necessarium erit at Operationem specialem Spiritus sancti, specialem Patris, vel Filii, describamus. Arbitror igitur Operationem quidem esse Patris, et Filii, tam in sanctis quam itt 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 Christi Jesu incedunt, id est, qui sunt in novis actibus incedentes, et in Deo permanentes. Quoniam autem operatio Patris et Filii estet in sanctis, et in peccatoribus, manifestatur ex eo quod omnes qui rationabiles sunt, Verbi Dei, id est, rationis participes sunt, et per hoc velut semina quasdam insita sibi gerunt sapientia: et scientias, quod est Christus. … qui solem suum oriri jubet super bonos et malos, et pluit super justas et injustas δι. PAMPHILUS. Et post multam de Patre et Filio per Seripturarum exempla assertionem, addidit haec: ORIGENES. Spiritus vero saneti participationem a sanctis tantummodo haberi invenimIJS- Propter quod dicitur : Nemo potest dicere Dominum Jesum, nisi in Spiritu sancto . Et vix aliquando ipsi apostoli digni habentur audirezAccipietis virtutem superuenientis Spiritus sancti in vos ". Propter quod et consequens puto, quia qui peccaverit in Filium hominis, venia dignus est“, pro eo quod is qui Verbi vel rationis est particeps, si desinat rationabiliter vivere, videtur in ignorantiam, vel stultitiam deeidisse. et propter hoc veniam promereri : qui autem jam dignus est habitus sancti Spiritus participatione, et retro fuerit conversus, hic reipsa et opere hlasphemasse dicitur in Spiritum sanctum. … ad ultimam cognitionem praivalens pervenire, desperatione rei et stupore proclamat et dicit; altitudo divitiarum sapientia: et scientia: Dei "l Et quod desperatione perfecta: comprehensionis haec exclamaverit, audi ipsum dicentem: Quam inscrustabilia sunt judicia Dei, et quant iitvestigabiles via? eius “l Non enim dixit difficile posse serutari, sed omnino non posse, judicia Dei : nec dixit dillieile investigari posse vias ejus, sed non posse investigari. Quantumcunque enim quis scrutando promoveat. et studio intentiore proliciat, gratia quoque Dei adjutus, sensuque illuminatus, ad perfectum finem eorum qum requiruntur, pervenire non poterit; nec omnis meus quae creata est, possibile habet ullo genere comprehendere: sed eum invenerit aliquantulum ex his quae quaeruntur, iterum videt alia quae quaerenda sunt. Quod si et ad ipsa pervenerit, multo iterum plura ex illis quae quazri debeant, pervidebit. Propter quod et sapientissimus Salomon naturam rerum per sapientiam contuens, ait : Dixi, sapiens efliciar, et ipsa sapientia longe [acta est a me, longe plus quam erat:et altitudinem profundam quis inveniet " ‘t Sed et Isaias sciens rerum initia a natura mortali inveniri non posse, sed nc ab his quidem naturis quae quamvis diviniores sint quam humana est, facta! tamen et ipsa: sunt vel creatae : sciens ergo quod a nulla harum neque initium, neque linis inveniri potest, ait: Priora quae fuerint dicite, et sciemus quia dii estis : vel novissima quae sint, annuntiate, et tunc videbimus quod dii estis υθέ. Nam et Hebrtvus doctor ita tradebat, pro eo quod initia omnimn vel linis non posset ab ullo comprehendi, nisi tantummodo a Domino Jesu Christo et ab Spiritu sancto, ideirco aiebat per figuram visionis Isaiam dixisse duos seraphim solos esse qui duabus quidem alis Ope» riunt faciem Dei, duabus vero pedes, et duabus volare eos, et clamare ad invicem sibi dicentes: Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus Dominus Deus Sabaoth, plena est universa terra gloria tua. … ergo sola seraphim utrasque alas suas habent in facie Dei et in pedibus ejus, … nuntiare, quod neque exercitus sanctorum angelorum, neque sancta: sedes, neque dominationes, neque principatus, neque potestates scire possunt integre initium omnium, et finem universitatis Sed intelligendum est sanctos istos, quos enumera vimus, spiritus et virtutes proximas quidem ipsis initiis, et attingere tantum quantum consequi non valent reliqui. Verumtamen quantumcunque … illud est quod revelante Filio Dei ac Spiritu sancto didicerint istae virtutes, quamplurima quidem assequi poterunt, et multo plura priores inferioribus, omnia tamen comprehendere impossibile eis est, quia scriptum est: Quamplurima ex operibus Dei in secretis sunt. Unde et optabile est ut pro viribus unusquisque semper se extendat ad ea quae priora sunt, ea quae retrorsum sunt obliviscens, tam ad opera meliora, quam etiam ad sensum intellectumque puriorem, per Jesum Christum Salvatorem nostrum, cui est gloria in saecula saeculorum. ORIGENES. In omni orbe terrarum, in Graecia atque exteris nationibus innumeri sunt et immensi, qui relictis patriis legibus, et his quos putabant deos, vel observantia Moysi legis, in discipulatum se Christi cultumque tradiderunt; et hoc non sine ingenti odio eorum qui simulacra venerantur; ita ut ab his frequenter … et cruciatibus affligantur, nonnunquam etiam agantur in mortem. Amplectuntur tamen, et cum omni affectu custodiunt doctrinae Christi sermonem. Et est videre quomodo brevi tempore ipsa religio creverit, ex poenis cultorum mortibusque proficiens, sed et bonorum direptionibus, atque omni … ab his afflictionum genere tolerato. Et eo maxime mirum est, quod ne doctores quidem ipsi vel satis idonei sunt, vel satis …. Praedicatur tamen sermo iste in omni orbe terrarum, ita ut Graeci ac barbari, sapientes et insipientes religionem Christianae doctrinae suscipiant. Ex quo dubium non est non haec humanis viribus aut opibus agi, ut cum omni potestate et persuasione sermo Jesu Christi apud omnium mentes atque animos convalescat. Nam et praedicta ab eo haec ipsa, et divinis ab eo responsis firmata, manifestum est cum dicit, quia apud reges et judices adducemini propter me, ### English translation (Claude) Origen: "It is time now to write, as far as we can, a few things about the Holy Spirit, whom our Lord and Saviour in the Gospel according to John named the Paraclete. For just as it is the same God himself and the same Christ himself, so it is the same Holy Spirit himself who was also in the prophets and in the apostles, that is, both in those who believed in God before the coming of Christ and in those who through Christ have fled for refuge to God. We have heard that heretics dared to speak of two Gods and two Christs; but we have never heard two Holy Spirits preached by anyone." Pamphilus: That the Holy Spirit has the same unchangeableness as the Father and the Son. From the book On First Principles. Origen: "There is, then, no nature, as we think, that cannot receive evil. But because we say that there is no nature that cannot receive evil, we do not straightway affirm that every nature has received evil, that is, has been made evil. Just as one may say that the nature of every man admits of sailing, yet it does not follow that every man will sail; and again, every man can learn the art of grammar or of medicine, yet it is not thereby shown that every man is a physician or a grammarian: so, if we say that there is no nature that cannot receive evil, it is not straightway indicated that it has received evil. And again: there is no nature that does not receive good; yet it will not thereby be proved that every nature has received what is good." Pamphilus: And after a little he added: Origen: "There is, then, no nature that does not receive evil, except the nature of God, which is the source of all good things, and of Christ. For he is Wisdom, and wisdom certainly cannot receive folly. He is righteousness, and righteousness will surely never admit unrighteousness. He is the Word, or Reason, which certainly cannot be made irrational. He is also light, and it is certain that darkness does not comprehend the light. Likewise the nature of the Holy Spirit, being holy, does not receive pollution; for it is holy by nature, that is, substantially. If any other nature is holy, it has its sanctification from taking in, or being inspired by, the Holy Spirit, possessing this not from its own nature but as something added to it; and for this reason what has been added can also fall away. So too one can have righteousness as something added, from which it is also possible to fall away. One has wisdom too as something added, although it is placed in our power, by our zeal and the merit of our life, to become wise if we devote ourselves to wisdom; and if we always keep up this zeal, we always share in wisdom; and this comes to us more or less according to the merit of our life." Pamphilus: That the Trinity is equal to itself, and that the Holy Spirit is not a creature. From the book … Origen: "That the Holy Spirit exists, the Scriptures have taught us in many places, as David says in the fiftieth psalm: 'And do not take your Holy Spirit from me.' And in Daniel it is said: 'The Holy Spirit who is in you.' In the New Testament we are taught by abundant testimonies, when the Holy Spirit is recorded to have descended upon Christ, and when the Lord himself breathed on the apostles after the resurrection, saying, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.' And to Mary it is said by the angel: 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you.' Paul teaches that no one can say 'Lord Jesus' except in the Holy Spirit. And in the Acts of the Apostles the Holy Spirit was given in baptism through the laying on of the apostles' hands. From all these we have learned that the substance of the Holy Spirit is of such authority and dignity that saving baptism is not completed except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of all, that is, by naming the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that to the unbegotten God the Father and his only-begotten Son is joined the name of the Holy Spirit too. Who, then, would not be astonished at the greatness of the majesty of the Holy Spirit, when he hears that whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man may hope for pardon, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit has no pardon, either in the present age or in the age to come?" Pamphilus: And after a little he added: Origen: "Yet up to the present we have been able to find no statement in the holy Scriptures by which the Holy Spirit might be called made or a creature." Pamphilus: And having inserted many testimonies on the power of the Holy Spirit, after a while he added this too: Origen: "If the Holy Spirit knows the Father by the Son's revealing him, then he came from ignorance to knowledge; and it is both impious and foolish to confess him to be the Holy Spirit and to ascribe ignorance to him. For it is not that he was something else before he was the Holy Spirit and came by progress to be the Holy Spirit, so that someone might dare to say that while he was not yet the Holy Spirit he did not know the Father, but after he received knowledge he became the Holy Spirit as well. If that were so, the Holy Spirit himself would certainly never be counted in the unity of the Trinity, that is, with the unchangeable God the Father and his Son, unless he too had always been the Holy Spirit." Pamphilus: And after a little he added: Origen: "It seems right, however, to ask what the reason is why one who is reborn through God to salvation needs the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and will not receive salvation unless the Trinity is complete; and why it is not possible to become a partaker of the Father or … In discussing this, it will doubtless be necessary for us to describe the special working of the Holy Spirit, and that of the Father or the Son. I think, then, that the working of the Father and the Son is both in saints and in sinners, in rational men and in dumb animals, and even in things without life, and in absolutely all things that exist; but that the working of the Holy Spirit does not at all extend either to things without life, or to things that are living but dumb, nor is it found even in those who are rational but set in wickedness and not at all turned to better things. In those alone, I think, is the work of the Holy Spirit who are already turning to better things and walking in the ways of Christ Jesus, that is, who walk in new deeds and abide in God. That the working of the Father and the Son is both in saints and in sinners is shown from this, that all who are rational are partakers of the Word of God, that is, of reason, and through this bear certain seeds, as it were, of wisdom and righteousness planted in them, which is Christ. … who commands his sun to rise on the good and the evil, and sends rain on the just and the unjust." Pamphilus: And after a long assertion about the Father and the Son from examples in the Scriptures, he added this: Origen: "Participation in the Holy Spirit, however, we find is had by the saints alone. That is why it is said: 'No one can say "Lord Jesus" except in the Holy Spirit.' And scarcely, on one occasion, are the apostles themselves thought worthy to hear: 'You will receive the power of the Holy Spirit coming upon you.' For this reason too I think it follows that one who has sinned against the Son of Man is worthy of pardon, because one who is a partaker of the Word or Reason, if he ceases to live rationally, seems to have fallen into ignorance or folly, and for this reason to merit pardon; but one who has already been thought worthy of participation in the Holy Spirit and has turned back is said, by the very fact and deed, to have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit." … "… (not) able to come through to the final knowledge, he cries out in despair of the matter and in astonishment, saying: 'O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!' And that he exclaimed this in despair of complete comprehension, hear him saying: 'How unsearchable are the judgments of God, and how inscrutable his ways!' For he did not say that the judgments of God can be searched out with difficulty, but that they cannot be searched out at all; nor did he say that his ways can be traced with difficulty, but that they cannot be traced. For however far one advances by searching, and progresses by more intent study, even helped by the grace of God and with his understanding enlightened, he will not be able to reach the perfect end of the things that are sought; nor can any created mind comprehend them in any way; but when it has found a little of what is sought, it sees again other things that must be sought. And if it reaches these too, it will see far more again among the things that must be sought. For this reason the most wise Solomon too, contemplating the nature of things through wisdom, says: 'I said, I will become wise, and wisdom itself was made far from me, much farther than it was; and who will find the deep depth?' Isaiah too, knowing that the beginnings of things cannot be found by mortal nature, nor even by those natures which, though more divine than human nature, were yet themselves made or created, knowing, then, that neither the beginning nor the end can be found by any of these, says: 'Tell the former things, what they were, and we shall know that you are gods; or announce the last things, what they are, and then we shall see that you are gods.' The Hebrew teacher, too, used to hand on this: since the beginnings or the end of all things could be comprehended by no one except the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, he said, that was why Isaiah, in the figure of the vision, spoke of only two seraphim, who with two wings cover the face of God, and with two his feet, and with two they fly, crying to one another and saying: 'Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts; the whole earth is full of your glory.' Since, then, only the seraphim have both pairs of wings on the face of God and on his feet, … (this is to) announce that neither the army of the holy angels, nor the holy thrones, nor the dominions, nor the principalities, nor the powers can know wholly the beginning of all things and the end of the universe. But it must be understood that these holy spirits and powers we have listed are nearest to the very beginnings, and attain as much as the rest cannot reach. Yet however great is what these powers have learned by the revelation of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit, and though they will be able to attain very many things, the higher far more than the lower, still it is impossible for them to comprehend all things, because it is written: 'Very many of the works of God are in secret.' Hence it is to be desired that each one, as far as he can, should always stretch out to the things that are ahead, forgetting what lies behind, both toward better works and toward a purer understanding and knowledge, through Jesus Christ our Saviour, to whom be glory for ages of ages." Origen: "In the whole world, in Greece and in the foreign nations, there are countless, immeasurable numbers who have left their ancestral laws and those they thought gods, or the observance of the law of Moses, and have given themselves to the discipleship and worship of Christ; and this not without the enormous hatred of those who worship images, so that they are often afflicted by them with … and tortures, and sometimes even led to death. Yet they embrace and guard with all affection the word of Christ's teaching. And one can see how in a short time this religion has grown, advancing through the punishments and deaths of its worshippers, and through the plundering of their goods, and every kind of affliction endured at their hands. And this is the more wonderful because its teachers themselves are neither sufficiently capable nor sufficiently …. Yet this word is preached in the whole world, so that Greeks and barbarians, wise and foolish, take up the religion of the Christian teaching. From this there is no doubt that it is not by human strength or resources that the word of Jesus Christ prevails with all power and persuasion in the minds and souls of all. For it is plain that these very things were foretold by him and confirmed by divine answers from him, when he says, 'You will be brought before kings and judges for my sake,' ### Scripture references - John 14:16: allusion, medium confidence - Ps 51:11 (50:13 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Dan 4:9: quotation, medium confidence - Matt 3:16: allusion, high confidence - John 20:22: quotation, high confidence - Luke 1:35: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 12:3: quotation, high confidence - Acts 8:18: allusion, high confidence - Matt 28:19: allusion, medium confidence - Matt 12:32: allusion, high confidence - Luke 12:10: allusion, high confidence - Matt 11:27: allusion, medium confidence - John 1:5: allusion, high confidence - Matt 5:45: quotation, high confidence - Acts 1:8: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 2:10: allusion, medium confidence - Rom 11:33: quotation, high confidence - Eccl 7:23 (7:24 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Eccl 7:24 (7:25 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Isa 41:22: quotation, high confidence - Isa 41:23: quotation, high confidence - Isa 6:2: allusion, high confidence - Isa 6:3: quotation, high confidence - Phil 3:13: allusion, high confidence - Luke 21:12: quotation, high confidence - Matt 10:18: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Origen, Princ. 1.3.1–7 (Origen, On First Principles): quotation, high confidence - Origen, Princ. 1.8.3 (Origen, On First Principles): quotation, high confidence - Origen, Princ. 4.3.14 (Origen, On First Principles): quotation, high confidence - Origen, Princ. 4.1.1–2 (Origen, On First Principles): quotation, high confidence - Sir 43:32 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Origen's quotations: On First Principles 1.3.1; 1.8.3; 1.5.5 ("no nature that does not receive evil, except God's"); 1.3.2; 1.3.3; 1.3.4; 1.3.5; 1.3.7; 4.3.14; 4.1.1–2 (Rufinus's Latin). - The scan is badly damaged in this section, and it is printed partly in narrow half-columns. Lost lines are shown as "…": after "a partaker of the Father or"; before "who commands his sun to rise" (On First Principles 1.3.6); and after "blasphemed against the Holy Spirit" (Pamphilus's heading and the start of the next quotation, On First Principles 4.3.14, are lost). The end of that quotation and the start of the next are printed side by side and have been separated by sense; first letters cut at the edge of the column are restored only where certain. - A paragraph that the scan places after "rain on the just and the unjust" ("I think that God the Father, since he holds all things together, reaches each being … the Son, less than the Father, reaches rational beings alone … the Holy Spirit, still less, reaches the saints alone") is not Rufinus's text: it is a Latin version, printed by Migne as a note, of a Greek fragment of the same passage preserved by Justinian, and it is left out. - "The Hebrew teacher": a Jewish-Christian teacher whom Origen mentions several times. - No public-domain English translation of the Apology exists; checked privately against a modern English translation (FOTC 120); the Latin decides. ### Citation (SBL) Pamphilus, Apol. Orig. 4.1 (PG 17:564c–572a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/3-1/#p-4-1). ## Apology for Origen 5.1 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/5-1/#p-5-1 - Source: PG 17:572a–579a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Origen's argument from fulfilled prophecy (the end of Judah's rulers, the calling of the Gentiles, the spread of the gospel) closes Pamphilus's proof of his faith in the Trinity; Pamphilus then begins to list the charges against him. ### Latin text in testimonium ipsis, et gentibus. Et iterum: Multi mihi dicent in illa die: Domine, Domine, nonne in nomine tuo manducavimus et bibimus, et in nomine tuo daemonia ejecimus? Et dicam illis: Discedite a me, operarii iniquitatis, nunquam vos cognovi. Quae ita quidem dicta ab eo fuissent, nec ad finem tamen ea quae praedicta sunt pervenissent, fortassis minus esse vera viderentur, nec habere aliquid auctoritatis: nunc vero cum in effectum res, quae fuerant ab eo praedictae, perveniant, cum tanta autem potestate atque auctoritate praedicta sint, manifestissime declaratur Deum vere esse, qui homo factus salutaria praecepta hominibus tradidit. Quid vero inde dicendum est quod prophetae de ipso ante praedixerint non cessaturos principes ex Juda, neque duces ex femoribus ejus, usquequo veniat ille cui repositum est, regnum scilicet, et usquequo veniat exspectatio gentium? Manifestissime enim ex ipsa historia apparet, et ex his quae hodie pervidentur, quia ex temporibus Christi ultra reges apud Judaeos non exstiterunt. Sed et omnes ambitiones Judaicae, in quibus jactantiae quamplurimum gerebant, et in quibus gloriabantur, id vel de templi decore, vel de altaris insignibus, atque omnibus illis sacerdotalibus infulis indumentisque pontificum, simul universa destructa sunt. Completa est enim prophetia quae dixerat: Per multos sedebant filii Israel sine rege, sine principe: non erit hostia, nec altare, nec sacerdotium, responsa. His ergo testimoniis utimur adversus eos qui videntur asserere de his quae in Genesi ab Jacob dicta sunt de Juda, et dicunt permanere adhuc principem ex genere Judae, istum videlicet qui gentis ipsorum princeps est, quem nominant patriarcham: nec deficere posse de semine ejus qui permaneat usque ad adventum ejus Christi quem sibi ipsi describunt. Sed si verum est quod ait propheta, quia dies multos sedebant filii Israel sine rege, sine principe, nec est sacrificium, neque altare, neque sacerdotium, et ex quo utique subversum est templum, nec hostiae offeruntur, nec altare invenitur, nec sacerdotium constat, certissimum est defecisse principem ex Juda, sicut scriptum est, et ducem ex femoribus ejus, usquequo veniat ille cui repromissum est. Constat ergo quia venit ille cui repositum est, in quo exspectatio gentium est. Quod manifeste videtur impletum de multitudine eorum qui per Christum Deo ex diversis gentibus crediderunt. Sed et in Deuteronomii cantico per prophetiam designatur pro peccatis prioris populi futura esse insensatae gentis electio: non alia utique quam haec quae per Christum facta est. Sic enim ait: Exacerbaverunt me in simulacris suis, et ego in zelo concitabo eos, in gente insipiente irritabo illos. Est ergo satis evidenter agnoscere quemadmodum Hebraei, qui Deum exacerbasse dicuntur in his qui non sunt dii, et irritasse eum in simulacris suis, irritati sunt et ipsi in zelotypiam per gentem insipientem, quam Deus elegit per adventum Christi Jesu, et discipulos ejus. Sic enim dicit Apostolus: Videte enim vocationem vestram, fratres, quoniam non multi sapientes inter vos secundum carnem, non multi potentes, non multi nobiles: sed quae stulta sunt mundi elegit Deus, et ea quae non sunt, ut ea quae erant prius, destrueret. Non ergo glorietur carnalis Israel; ita enim ab Apostolo vocatur; non, inquam, glorietur caro in conspectu Dei. Sed et de his quae in Psalmis prophetantur de Christo, quid dicendum est, in eo maxime qui superscribitur, Canticum pro dilecto, ubi refertur, quia lingua ejus calamus scribae velociter scribentis: decorus specie super filios hominum, quoniam effusa est gratia in labiis ejus? Indicium autem effusae gratiae in labiis ejus hoc est, quod brevi tempore transacto doctrinae ejus (anno enim et aliquot mensibus docuit), universus tamen orbis praedicatione ac fide pietatis ejus impletus est. Orta est ergo in diebus ejus justitia, et multitudo pacis permanens usque in finem, qui finis ablatio lunae appellata est, et dominatur a mari usque ad mare, et a flumine usque ad fines orbis terrae. Datum est autem et signum domui David. Virgo enim in ventre concepit, et peperit Emmanuel, quod interpretatur Nobiscum Deus, et impletum est quod ait ipse propheta: Nobiscum Deus: scitote, gentes, et vincimini. Victi enim nos sumus, et superati ex gentibus, et velut exuviae ejus exsistimus, qui ejus gratiae nostra colla subjecimus. Sed locus nativitatis ejus praedictus est in Michaea propheta dicente: Et tu Bethlehem, terra Juda, nequaquam exigua es in ducibus Juda: ex te enim exiet dux qui regat populum meum Israel. Sed et septimanae annorum impletae sunt usque ad Christum ducem, quas praedixerat Daniel propheta. Adest nihilominus et is qui per Job praedictus est belluam ingentem consumpturus, qui et dedit potestatem familiaribus suis discipulis calcare super serpentes et scorpiones, et supra omnem virtutem inimici, nihil ab eo nocendis. PAMPHILUS. Haec est de summis rebus, id est, de sancta Trinitate, Origenis fides, quam ex paucissimis testimoniis de quamplurimis ejus voluminibus assumptis edocuimus. Et quid tam rectum, quid tam verum, quid tam catholicum, quid certe ad instructionem omnium magis utile, vel apud istos certe ipsos qui inimica adversus eum mente desaeviunt, quid tam irreprehensibile? Et quidem in summa haec posuisse de fidei ejus documento ac probatione sufficeret, nisi etiam ad reliqua his qui eum criminantur respondere necessarium videretur. Intueamur tamen quae sint istae ipsae criminationes quae a malevolis intenduntur. Prima illa est, quod aiunt eum innatum dicere Filium Dei. Secunda, quod dicunt per prolationem, secundum Valentini fabulas, in subsistentiam venisse Filium Dei dicere. … lum Samosatenum, purum hominem, id est, non etiam Deum dicere Christum Filium Dei. ### English translation (Claude) "… as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles.' And again: 'Many will say to me on that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not eat and drink in your name, and cast out demons in your name?" And I will say to them, "Depart from me, you workers of iniquity; I never knew you."' If these things had been said by him in this way, and yet what was foretold had not come to pass, they might perhaps seem less true and to have no authority; but now, since the things he foretold do come to pass, and were foretold with such power and authority, it is most plainly declared that he who was made man and handed on saving precepts to men is truly God. And what is to be said of the fact that the prophets foretold of him that rulers would not fail from Judah, nor leaders from his thighs, until he should come for whom it is laid up (that is, the kingdom), and until the expectation of the Gentiles should come? For it is most plainly evident from history itself, and from what is seen today, that from the times of Christ there have no longer been kings among the Jews. All the Jewish pomp, too, in which they took very great pride and gloried, whether in the beauty of the temple, or the splendour of the altar, and all those priestly headbands and the vestments of the high priests, has been destroyed together. For the prophecy has been fulfilled which said: 'For many days the children of Israel will sit without king, without ruler; there will be no victim, nor altar, nor priesthood, (nor) oracles.' These testimonies, then, we use against those who seem to assert, concerning the words spoken by Jacob about Judah in Genesis, that a ruler from the race of Judah still remains, namely the one who is ruler of their nation, whom they call the patriarch, and that one of his seed cannot fail who will remain until the coming of their Christ, as they themselves depict him. But if what the prophet says is true, that for many days the children of Israel will sit without king, without ruler, and there is no sacrifice, nor altar, nor priesthood; and if, since the temple was overthrown, no victims are offered, no altar is found, no priesthood stands, it is most certain that the ruler has failed from Judah, as it is written, and the leader from his thighs, until he should come to whom it was promised. It is established, then, that he has come for whom it is laid up, in whom is the expectation of the Gentiles. This is plainly seen to be fulfilled in the multitude of those from various nations who have believed in God through Christ. And in the song of Deuteronomy, too, it is signified by prophecy that, because of the sins of the former people, there would be a choosing of a foolish nation, none other, certainly, than the one made through Christ. For it says: 'They provoked me with their images, and I will stir them to jealousy; with a foolish nation I will anger them.' We can recognize quite clearly, then, how the Hebrews, who are said to have provoked God with those who are not gods and to have angered him with their images, were themselves angered into jealousy by a foolish nation, which God chose through the coming of Christ Jesus and his disciples. For so the Apostle says: 'Consider your calling, brothers: not many of you are wise according to the flesh, not many powerful, not many noble; but God chose the foolish things of the world, and the things that are not, to destroy the things that were before.' Let not carnal Israel boast, then (for so the Apostle calls it); let no flesh, I say, boast in the sight of God. And what is to be said of the things prophesied about Christ in the Psalms, especially in the one entitled 'A song for the beloved', where it is said that his tongue is the pen of a scribe writing swiftly, 'fairer in form than the sons of men, for grace is poured out on his lips'? The sign of grace poured out on his lips is this: that although the time of his teaching was short (for he taught a year and some months), yet the whole world has been filled with the preaching and faith of his religion. In his days, then, righteousness has arisen, and abundance of peace, lasting until the end, the end that is called the taking away of the moon; and he rules from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth. A sign was given to the house of David too: for a virgin conceived in the womb and bore Emmanuel, which is interpreted, God with us; and what the same prophet says was fulfilled: 'God is with us; know it, you nations, and be overcome.' For we, from among the nations, have been overcome and conquered, and we are as his spoils, we who have bowed our necks to his grace. The place of his birth too was foretold in the prophet Micah, who says: 'And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the leaders of Judah; for from you will come forth a leader who will rule my people Israel.' The weeks of years too which the prophet Daniel had foretold have been fulfilled until Christ the leader. And he is present as well who was foretold through Job as the one who would destroy the huge beast, who also gave his familiar disciples power to tread on serpents and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy, without being harmed by it at all." Pamphilus: This, then, is Origen's faith concerning the highest matters, that is, concerning the holy Trinity, which we have shown from a very few testimonies taken from very many of his volumes. And what is so right, what so true, what so catholic, what certainly more useful for the instruction of all, or, at least among these very men who rage against him with a hostile mind, what so blameless? Indeed it would be enough to have set these things down, in sum, as evidence and proof of his faith, if it did not seem necessary also to answer his accusers on the other points. Let us look, then, at what these very charges are that are aimed at him by the malevolent. The first is that they say he calls the Son of God unborn. The second, that they say he holds that the Son of God came into subsistence by emission, according to the fables of Valentinus. … (The third, that like) Paul of Samosata he calls Christ the Son of God a mere man, that is, not also God. ### Scripture references - Matt 10:18: quotation, high confidence - Matt 7:22: quotation, high confidence - Matt 7:23: quotation, high confidence - Gen 49:10: quotation, high confidence - Hos 3:4: quotation, high confidence - Deut 32:21: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 1:26: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 1:27: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 1:28: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 10:18: allusion, medium confidence - 1 Cor 1:29: quotation, high confidence - Ps 45:1 (44:2 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Ps 45:2 (44:3 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Ps 72:7 (71:7 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Ps 72:8 (71:8 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Isa 7:14: quotation, high confidence - Matt 1:23: allusion, high confidence - Isa 8:9: quotation, high confidence - Mic 5:2: quotation, high confidence - Matt 2:6: allusion, medium confidence - Dan 9:24: allusion, high confidence - Job 40:19: allusion, medium confidence - Luke 10:19: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Origen, Princ. 4.1.2–5 (Origen, On First Principles): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Origen's quotation: On First Principles 4.1.2–5 (Rufinus's Latin). - In Migne this passage is printed in three columns: Rufinus's text, a new Latin translation of the surviving Greek of the same passage ("Interpretatio nova"), and notes. The scan mixes all three, line by line. Only Rufinus's text is given here; it has been sorted out by sense, and the other two columns are left out. Where the columns cut a word, the word is completed only where certain. - "He taught a year and some months": Origen's estimate of the length of Christ's ministry. - "The patriarch": the head of the Jewish community in Origen's time, held to descend from David. - The opening words of the third charge are lost at the column change ("… Paul of Samosata"); "The third, that like" gives the sense. - No public-domain English translation of the Apology exists; checked privately against a modern English translation (FOTC 120); the Latin decides. ### Citation (SBL) Pamphilus, Apol. Orig. 5.1 (PG 17:572a–579a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/5-1/#p-5-1). ## Apology for Origen 5.4 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/5-1/#p-5-4 - Source: PG 17:579a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The fourth charge: that Origen taught that Christ's deeds happened only in appearance. ### Latin text Post, ista est, quae istis omnibus adversatur (caeca enim est malitia), quod dicunt eum dicere δοκήσει, id est, putative tantum, et per allegoriam, non etiam secundum ea quae per historiam referuntur, gesta esse omnia quae a Salvatore gesta sunt. ### English translation (Claude) Next comes this one, which contradicts all the rest (for malice is blind): they say that he holds that all the things the Saviour did were done "in appearance", that is, only seemingly and by allegory, and not also as they are related in the history. ### Translation notes - "In appearance" renders the Greek δοκήσει, which Rufinus keeps and explains. ### Citation (SBL) Pamphilus, Apol. Orig. 5.4 (PG 17:579a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/5-1/#p-5-4). ## Apology for Origen 5.5 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/5-1/#p-5-5 - Source: PG 17:579a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The fifth charge: that Origen preached two Christs. ### Latin text (σι) Alia quoque criminatio est, qua asserunt enm duos Christos praedicare. ### English translation (Claude) There is also another charge, by which they assert that he preaches two Christs. ### Citation (SBL) Pamphilus, Apol. Orig. 5.5 (PG 17:579a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/5-1/#p-5-5). ## Apology for Origen 5.6 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/5-1/#p-5-6 - Source: PG 17:579a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The sixth charge: that Origen denied the historical events narrated in Scripture. ### Latin text Addunt illud quoque, quod historias corporales, quae per omnem sanctam Scripturam referuntur de gestis sanctorum, penitus deneget. ### English translation (Claude) They add this too: that he wholly denies the bodily histories related throughout the holy Scripture about the deeds of the saints. ### Citation (SBL) Pamphilus, Apol. Orig. 5.6 (PG 17:579a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/5-1/#p-5-6). ## Apology for Origen 5.7 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/5-1/#p-5-7 - Source: PG 17:579a–579b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The seventh charge: that Origen denied the resurrection and the punishment of sinners. ### Latin text Sed et de resurrectione mortuorum, et de impiorqu poenis non levi impugnant eum calumnia, velut negantem peccatoribus inferenda esse supplicia. ### English translation (Claude) Concerning the resurrection of the dead, too, and the punishments of the ungodly, they attack him with no light slander, as if he denied that punishments are to be inflicted on sinners. ### Citation (SBL) Pamphilus, Apol. Orig. 5.7 (PG 17:579a–579b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/5-1/#p-5-7). ## Apology for Origen 5.8 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/5-1/#p-5-8 - Source: PG 17:579b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The eighth charge: that Origen's views on the soul are wrong. ### Latin text Quidam vero disputationes ejus, vel Opiniones, quas de anima: statu vel dispensatione disseruit, culpant. ### English translation (Claude) Some find fault with his discussions or opinions on the state or ordering of the soul. ### Citation (SBL) Pamphilus, Apol. Orig. 5.8 (PG 17:579b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/5-1/#p-5-8). ## Apology for Origen 5.9 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/5-1/#p-5-9 - Source: PG 17:579b–589a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Pamphilus lists the last charge (transmigration of souls) and answers the first five charges with Origen's own words: the Son is born of the Father by nature, not by emission; Christ is God and not a mere man; his body was real; and there is one Christ. ### Latin text Ultima vero omnium est criminatio illa, quae cum omni infamatione dispergitur, μετενσωματὼσεως, id est, quod humanas animas in mnta animalia, vel serpentes, vel pecudes asserat transmutari post mortem,'et quod etiam ipsa: mutorum animalium anima: rationabiles sint. Quam criminationem idcirco novissimam posuimus, ut plura de libris ejus coacervantes exempla, evidentius ejus falsitas nosceretur. Si ergo bene meminimus ordinis criminationum quem supra conscripsimus, incipiamus a … ad Deum Patrem retulit hanc vocem, dicens: Quia Deus charitas est ’”. Sed rursum ex ipsa ejus Epistola proferemus et illud quod ait: Charissimi, diligamus invicem, quoniam Charitas ea; Deo est . Qui ergo dixit: Quia Deus charitas est, ipse iterum charitatem docet esse ex Deo : quam chari. tatem credo non esse alium, nisi unigenitum Filium ejus, sicut Deum ex Deo, ita charitalem ex charitate progenitum. ΡΑιιιιιιιιυς. De eisdem in quinto libro de Evangelio secundum Joannem. Onmenes. Unigenitus Filius Salvator noster, qui solus ex Patre natus est, solus natura et non adoptione Filius est. Ρλυρῐιιιυς. ltem in ipso libro. Omcexes. ‹ Unus ergo est verus Deus qui solus liabet immortalitatem, lucem habitat inaccessibilem “'1‘. Unus et verus Deus, ne scilicet multis veri Dei nomen convenire credamus. lta ergo et hi qui accipiunt spiritum adoptionis filiorum, in quo clamamus, Abba, Pater , filii quidem Dei sunt, sed non sicut unigenitus Filius. Unigenitus enim natura Filius, et semper, et inseparabiliter Filius est: caeteri vero pro eo quod susceperunt in se Filium Dei, potestatem acceperunt Filii Dei fieri. Qui licet non ex sanguine, neque ea: vt‘fiuntatc carnis, neque ea: voluntate viri, sed ea: Deo nati sint π’, non tamen ea nativitate sunt nati, qua natus est unigenitus Filius. Propter quod quantam dill‘erentiam verus Deus habet ad eos quibus dicitur: Ego dixi : Dii estis , tantam dilferentiam habet verus Filius ad eos qui audiunt : Filii Επειδί omnes . 9 PAMPHILUS. De libris Epistola: ad llehrzeos, quomodo ὁμοούσιος est cum Patre Filius, id est, unius cum Patre substantite, alienus autem a substantiis creaturae. Omcenes. Interrogamus igitur eos quos piget confiteri Deum esse Filium Dei, quomodo poterat sola humana natura nihil in se habens eximium, neque aliquid divina: substantiae, luereditatem capere omnem principatum, et omnem potestatem, et virtutem, et his omnibus praeferri ac praeponi a Patre. Unde rectum videtur quod prtestantior esse debeat is qui btereditatem capit, et genere utique, 'et specie, et substantia, et subsi- . stentia vel natura, atque omnibus quibusque modis debet esse praestantior. Ριιιριιιιυε. Et post pauca in eodem libro : ORIGENES. t Cum autem discutitur hoc quod dictum est de Filio Dei, quod sit splendor gloria: ", necessario videtur simul disserendum et illud quod dictum est, non solum quia splendor est lucis a'ternte τυ. sed et quod huic simile in Sapientia Salomonis refertur, in qua seipsam Sapientia de. scribit dicens: Vapor est enim ivirtutis Dei, et aporrlttea gloria: Omnipotentis purissima . s Pnrniws. Et post aliquanta: Oaicssss. ‹ Oportet autem scire nos quia per inefl‘abilia quaedam et secreta ac recondita quemdam modum sibi iaciens Scriptura sancta conatur hominibus indicare et intellectum suggerere subtilem. Vaporis enim nomen inducens, hoc ideo de rebus corporalibus assumpsit, ut vel ex tarte aliqua intelligere possimus quomodo Christus, qui est Sapientia, secundum similitudinem ejus vaporis qui de substantia aliqua corporea prosedit, sic etiam ipse ut quidam vapor esoritur de virtute ipsius Dei : sic et Sapientia ex eo procedens, ex ipsa substantia Dei generatur: sic nihilominus et secundum similitudinem corporalis aporrhteze, esse dicitur aporrhma gloria: Omnipotentis pura quaedam et sincera. Quae utrasque similitudines manifestissime ostendunt communica nem substantiae esse Filio cum Patre. Aporrhtea enim ὁμοούσιος videtur, id est, unius substantiae cum illo corpore ex quo est vel aporrhoea, vel … Superest ut et secunda! criminationi illatae sibi ab accusatoribus, per nos quidem prolatis sed Suis verbis ipse respondeat, duobus vel tribus testiinoniis adhibitis, quibus aequum est secundum legem nostram omne verbum stare π’. RESPONSIO AD SECUNDAI CBIMINATIONEM. Quod non per prolationem natum dicat esse Filium Dei secundum Valentini impietatem. Omcsues. Ego arbitror quod sufficere debeat voluntas Patris ad subsistendum hoc quod vult Pater. Volens enim non alia via utitur, nisi quae consilio voluntatis profertur. lta ergo et ab eo Filii subsistentia generatur: quod necesse est in primis suscipi abhis qui nihil ingenitum, id est innatum, printer solum Deum Patrem fatentur. Observandum namque est ne quis incurrat in illas ahsurdas fabulas eorum qui prolationes quasdam sibi ipsis depingunt, ut divinam naturam in partes vocent, et Deum Patrem, quantum in se est, dividant, cum hoc de incorporea natura vel leviter suspicari non solum extremm impietatis sit, verum etiam ultima: insipientia, nec omnino vel ad intelligentiam consequens, ut in» corporea: natura: substantialis divisio possit intelligi. Magis ergo sicut voluntas procedit e mente, et neque partem aliquam mentis secat, neque ab ea separatur aut dividitur, tali quadam specie putandus est Pater Filium genuisse, imaginem scilicet suam : ut sicut ipse est invisibilis per naturam, ita imaginem quoque iuvisibilem genuerit. Verbum enim est Filius, et ideo nihil in eo sensibile intelligendum est. Sapientia est, et in Sapientia nihil corporeum suspicandum est. Lumen est verum quod illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum , sed nihil habet commune … et invisibilis sit, et inseparabilis a Filio, non per prolationem ab eo, ut quidam putant, generatus est Filius. Si enim prolatio est Filius Patris, prolatio vero dicitur qua: talem significat generationem, qualis animalium vel hominum solet esse progenies, necessario corpus est et is qui protulit, et is qui prolatus est. PAMPHILUS. Tum deinde in consequentibus vehementius adversum Valentini haeresim talia describentem invectus, longe his contrariam suam sententiam secundum catholicas lidei protulit veritatem. Ex secundo libro secundum Joannem de his ipsis. ORIGENES. Unigenitus ergo Deus Salvator … nisi ipse solus ", his quos ad eum Pater caelestis altraxerit'". Paunnttus. Sufliciat per haec respondisse secundae criminationi. Nunc consequenter respondebimus ctiam his qui purum hominem, id est, sine Deo, ab eo dici asserunt Christum. RESPONSIO AD TERTIA“ CRIIINATIONEI. Quod non purus homo, sed diuina’ natura? sit Christus. [De primo libro Epistolis: ad Galatas.] ORIGENES. Ex eo quod dixit Apostolus: Paulus apostolus non ab hominibus, neque per hominem, sed per Iesum Christum , manifeste intelligi datur, quia non erat homo Iesus Christus, sed erat divina natura. Non enim, si homo esset, dixisset Paulus hoc quod ait : Paulus apostolus non ab hominibus, neque per hominem. Si enim homo fuit Iesus, et per ipsum assumptus est in apostolatum Paulus, utique per hominem erat apostolus factus. Si autem per hominem erat apostolus, nunquam dixisset, quia neque per hominem .' sed manifeste separat ab humana natura Iesum Paulus per haec verba. Non enim sullicit ei dixisse : Neque per hominem; sed adjecit dicens ιδιά per Iesum Chrislum. Quem utique quia sciebat excellentioris esse naturae, propterea dixit se non assumptum esse per hominem. PAMPHILUS. llaec in initio Epistolas dicens, in sequentibus libri ipsius similia adjecit, exponens illud capitulum in quo scriptum est : Notum autem vobis facio, fratres, Evangelium quod prwdisam vobis , quoniam non est secundum hominem : neque enim ego ab homine accepi illud, sed per revelationem Iesu Christi . Οιιιεειιεε. t Adverte ergo quid scribit, quia convenienter quis et haec adjungens prioribus, intelligere poterit et ostendere his qui negant deitatem Iesu Christi, sed hominem eum solum pronuntiant, quod non est homo, sed Deus, Dei Filius Iesus Christos. Sic enim dicit Apostolus , quia Evangelium quod euangelizaui vobis, non est secundum hominem, sed secundum Jesum Christum. Evidenter ergo ostendit quia Christus .lesus non est homo: si autem non est homo , sine dubio Deus est; imo non aliud erit, nisi Deus et homo. Et iterum si verum est quod dicit Paulus , quia non ab homine accepit Evangelium, sed per reuelationem Jesu Christi, certum est quia Jesus Christus qui revelavit. plus quam homo est. Alienum enim est ab homine revelare quae in occulto sunt, et velata sunt: quod etiam si aliquando per hominem fiat, non tamen ab homine fit, sed ab eo qui in homine loquitur Christus. Pupaiws. Tempus est his ita evidenter ostensis, nos etiam ad insequentis criminationis tendere defensionem, brevitatis studio paucorum testimoniorum probatione contentos. BESPONSIO AD ρυΑιιτΑκ CRIIINATIONEI. Adversum eos qui dicunt eum per allegorias … omnia quae a Salvatore scripta sunt corporaliter acta. ORIGENES. «Adjungendum est etiam illud bis quae supra diximus, quoniam corpus Christi non erat alienum a terrena substantia secundum hoc quod filius est David, et filius Abraham, sicut scribit )latthzeus : Liber generationis Iesu Christi, filii David , filii .Abraham 7’ : et sicut Paulus dicit, Christum esse ex semine Abrahae · et ex semine David '° secundum carnem. Quod ergo dictum est, quia, consummatis quadraginta diebus jejunii, et quadraginta noctibus, postea esuriit °°', sine dnbio hoc indicat, quod evacuari et repleri, similiter ut nostra corpora solent, etiam illius poterat corpus. Si vero quis objiciat nobis hujus miraculi rationem de quadraginta dierum jejunio; facile solvi potest. cum adhibetur etiam illud exemplum de Moyse ". et Elia 3“, qui similiter pertulisse jejunium referuntur. Sed et illud, quod itineris et testas labore fatigatus sedens super puteum requiescit, et sitit“, quid aliud indicat, nisi nervorum fatigatione , et solis ardore nimio elementum corporci humoris absumptum? Quod vero in melioribus occupatus, hoc quod bibere voluerat distulit,nec bibit, non propterea dicendum est quia neque passus est sitim. Sed et illud quod frequenter per cmnas vocatur, et in conspectu omnium manducat,et bibit, non decipiens vel fallens oculos videntium facit, neque putative, ut quidam arbitrantur, haec gerit, maxime cum ita sumeret cibum ac potum, ut a quibusdam etiam quasi pro praesumptione nimia culparetur, velut cibum ac potum propensius appetens. Si autem quis violentius velit asserere ideo hinc dicta esse, quia per phantasiam manducabat, et illi quomodo htec fierent nesciebant, respondendum est ad ea ex his quae ipse Dominus dixit : Venit Joannes Baptista neque manducaris, neque bibens, et dicunt : Darnionium habet. Venit Filius hominis manducans et bibens, et di« cunt : Ecce homo devorator et vinum bibens . Ipso enim Salvatore dicente quia venit Filius hominis manducone et bibens, quomodo ausus est aliquis dicere. neque manducasse eum, neque bibisse? Quae utique manifesta incredulitas est doctrina! ejus. Si autem manducabat, et bibebat, et substantia vini atque esca: in carnem ejus efliciebatur, sine dubio per omnes corporis ejus compages ac membrorum perplexiones diffundebatur. Spiritalem enim naturam (sicut quidam de ejus corpore sentiunt, quod imperite satis et absurde faciunt) impossibile est vini atque esca: recipere substantiam. Si vero quis indignas obscenasque au haec proferat inquisitiones, requirens si etiam digestioues in corpore hebant, nihilabsurdum videtur fateri secundum consequentiam natura: corporeae. Si vero etiam exemplis a nobis bare exigant allirmari, ostendendum est illos satis haec insipienter inquirere. Ubi enim ista vel de apostolis, vel dc eteteris sanctis facta esse referuntur, vel etiam de impiis et peccatoribus, ex abundanti de eo requiritur. Sed et circumcisionis ejus ratio nobis quidem (l) non generabit angustiam, dicentibus eum consequenter humano corpore et circumcisum esse, et praeputium ejus terrae mandatum, fortassis usque ad tempus : aut si aliter est, in alia disputatione requiretur. Haec tamen ejus circumcisio satis coangustablt eos qui ex diverso sunt. Spiritale enim . corpus quomodo poterat circumcidi ferro terreno? Propter quod non erubuerunt quidam ex ipsis de praeputio circumcisionis ejus etiam libros edere, quibus ostendere conarentur quod in substantiam cesserit'Spiritalem. Non minus autem angustabuntur etiam illi qui animale corpus dicunt esse corpus Christi. Sed et de sanguine ejus et aqua quae processit de latere ejus hasta compuncto a milite , eadem sentienda’ sunt. Sed his qui sciunt quid audiant per hoc quod dicitur, quia fixum clavorum erant in ejus corpore “, manifeste declaratur quia caro erat terrena, id est humanae naturae: quae utique non erat talis, ut recipiendorum vulnerum subterfugeret qualitatem. Quod si non etiam multa humanae infirmitatis in ipsa morte sensisset, cur anima ipsius perturbatur , et tristis est pro ea usque ad mortem. Quae omnia evidenter ostendunt quod non falso, sed quasi homo dixerit: Spiritus quidem promptus est, caro autem infirma . Eadem nihilominus ostendit etiam somni ratio, cum dicitur, quia erat in puppi super cervical dormiens , sicut Marcus refert , et ab homine suscitatur e somno. Haec enim licet habeant spiritalem intellectum, tamen manente prius historia: veritate, etiam spiritalis recipiendus est sensus. (ὅ) Licet enim caecos semper curet secundum … inclinare aures his qui dicunt per Mariam, et non es Maria eum esse natum: quod Apostolus praasciens ita praedixit: Cum autem venit plenitudo temporum, misit Deus Filium suum factum es muliere, factum sub lege, ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret “. Vides quia non dixit, factum per mulierem, sed, factum ea; muliere. Passennus. Quid tam evidenter aut integre, quant ex bis omnibus quas scripsit, confirmatur? Conlirmatur ab eo et Dominicorum gestorum reritas. et historiae Scripturarum fides. Sed persequamur consequenter etiam alia, in quibus actu. satur quasi duos Christos dicens, unum Deum Verbum, et alium Jesum Christum qui ex Maria natus. RESPONSIO AD QUINTAI CRIIINATIONEI. Quod unus est Christus Filius Dei. (Ex primo libro de Isaia.) ORIGENES. ‹ Sicut dicit Apostolus, Quoniam aemulatores estis spirituum ’. Sicut enim cum unus sit Spiritus sanctus, tanti per singulos dicuntur spiritus sancti, quanti sunt hi qui habent in se Spiritum sanctum : ita et de Christo dicendum est. Ab uno enim Christo multi fiunt christi, de quibus Scriptura dicit: Nolite tangere christos meos , et in prophetis meis nolite malignari". Sic etab uno Deo dii multi dicuntur, omnes scilicet hi in quibus habitat Deus : sed nobis unus est Dm Pater, ex quo omnia . Unus ergo est verus Deus, qui, ut ita dixerim, praestator est deitatis, et unm Christus factor christorum , et unus Spiritus … facit christos. Adhibcamus tamen et aliud ex primo libro de Evangelio secundum Matthaeum, in quo hoc modo dicit: ORIGENES. Si Christus Iesus, cum in forma esset Dei, non rapinam arbitratus est esse se (equalem Deo, sed semetipsum exinanivit formam servi accipiens, et in similitudinem hominum factus, habitu repertus ut homo est, humilians seipsum, [actus obediens usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis , dubium non est quod nativitas ejus non est talis, ut quasi qui ante non fuerit, esse coeperit, sicut de nativitate hominum putatur : sed qui prius erat, et erat in forma Dei, (ίῦ) venit etiam formam servi suscipere. Denique quod natum est ea: carne, caro est θ’, inquit. Quod natum est, id est, ex ea qua dixit : Ecce ancilla Domini, fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum : huic est forma servi, quae utique caro est. , Psurmws. Et in tertio libro Epistolze ad Colossenses de eisdem ita scribit. Onrcsues. (l l) Data est autem lex Moysi per angelos in mauu et virtute Mediatoris Christi’, qui cum esset in principio Verbum Dei, et apud Deum esset, et Deus esset Verbum Patri in omnibus ministra. vit. Omnia enim per ipsum [acta sunt , id est non solum creaturae, scd et lex et prophetazzet ipse est mediator Dei et hominum. ### English translation (Claude) The last charge of all is the one spread about with every kind of infamy, that of metensomatosis: that is, that he asserts that after death human souls are changed into dumb animals, or snakes, or cattle, and that the souls of dumb animals too are rational. We have put this charge last so that, by heaping up more examples from his books, its falsity may be recognized more clearly. If, then, we remember well the order of the charges we wrote out above, let us begin with … (John) referred this word to God the Father, saying, 'God is love.' But again we will bring forward from the same Epistle of his what he says: 'Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God.' He who said 'God is love', then, also teaches that love is from God; and this love, I believe, is none other than his only-begotten Son, begotten as love from love, just as he is God from God." Pamphilus: On the same, in the fifth book on the Gospel according to John. Origen: "The only-begotten Son, our Saviour, who alone was born of the Father, alone is Son by nature and not by adoption." Pamphilus: Again in the same book. Origen: "There is, then, one true God, who alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light: one and true God, so that we may not believe that the name of true God belongs to many. So also those who receive the spirit of adoption as sons, in which we cry, 'Abba, Father', are indeed sons of God, but not as the only-begotten Son is. For the Only-begotten is Son by nature, and always and inseparably Son; but the others, because they have received the Son of God into themselves, have received power to become sons of God. Although they were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God, yet they were not born with the birth by which the only-begotten Son was born. Therefore, as great as the difference is between the true God and those to whom it is said, 'I said, You are gods', so great is the difference between the true Son and those who hear, 'You are all sons of the Most High.'" Pamphilus: From the books on the Epistle to the Hebrews: how the Son is homoousios with the Father, that is, of one substance with the Father, but foreign to the substances of the creature. Origen: "We ask, then, those who are reluctant to confess that the Son of God is God, how a merely human nature, having nothing exceptional in itself and nothing of the divine substance, could take as its inheritance every principality and every power and might, and be preferred and set above all these by the Father. Hence it seems right that the one who takes the inheritance should be more excellent: more excellent in kind, in form, in substance, in subsistence or nature, and in every way whatever." Pamphilus: And after a little, in the same book: Origen: "When what is said of the Son of God, that he is the radiance of glory, is discussed, it seems necessary to discuss at the same time not only what is said, that he is the radiance of eternal light, but also what is related like it in the Wisdom of Solomon, where Wisdom describes herself, saying: 'For she is a vapour of the power of God, and a most pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty.'" Pamphilus: And after a while: Origen: "We must know that holy Scripture, making for itself a way, as it were, through certain inexpressible, secret, and hidden things, tries to point them out to men and to suggest a subtle understanding. When it brings in the word vapour, it has taken it from bodily things so that we may understand at least in part how Christ, who is Wisdom, arises as a kind of vapour from the power of God himself, after the likeness of the vapour that comes forth from some bodily substance; so too Wisdom, proceeding from him, is begotten from the very substance of God; and so too, after the likeness of a bodily emanation, he is called a pure and unmixed emanation of the glory of the Almighty. Both these likenesses show most plainly that the Son shares the substance of the Father. For an emanation seems homoousios, that is, of one substance, with that body of which it is the emanation or …" … It remains that he himself answer the second charge brought against him by the accusers, in words brought forward by us but his own, with two or three testimonies adduced, on which, according to our law, it is right that every word should stand. Response to the second charge: That he does not say that the Son of God was born by emission, according to the impiety of Valentinus. Origen: "I think that the will of the Father should be enough for what the Father wills to subsist. For in willing he uses no other way than that which is brought forth by the counsel of his will. So, then, the subsistence of the Son is begotten from him. This must be accepted above all by those who confess that nothing is unbegotten, that is, unborn, except God the Father alone. For care must be taken that no one fall into the absurd fables of those who picture for themselves certain emissions, so as to divide the divine nature into parts and, as far as in them lies, to divide God the Father; whereas even lightly to suspect this of an incorporeal nature is not only the height of impiety but also the extreme of folly, nor is it at all consistent, even for understanding, that a substantial division of an incorporeal nature could be conceived. Rather, then, as the will proceeds from the mind, and neither cuts off any part of the mind nor is separated or divided from it, in some such way the Father must be thought to have begotten the Son, his image: so that, as he himself is invisible by nature, he also begot an invisible image. For the Son is the Word, and therefore nothing perceptible to the senses is to be understood in him. He is Wisdom, and in Wisdom nothing bodily is to be suspected. He is the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world; but he has nothing in common … is both invisible and inseparable from the Son, the Son was not begotten from him by emission, as some think. For if the Son is an emission of the Father, and 'emission' signifies the kind of begetting that the offspring of animals or men usually is, then both he who emitted and he who was emitted are necessarily bodies." Pamphilus: Then, in what follows, inveighing more vehemently against the heresy of Valentinus, which describes such things, he set out his own opinion, far opposed to theirs, according to the catholic truth of the faith. From the second book on John, on these same things: Origen: "The only-begotten God, then, our Saviour … except he alone, to those whom the heavenly Father has drawn to him." Pamphilus: Let this suffice as an answer to the second charge. We will now answer, next, those who assert that he calls Christ a mere man, that is, without God. Response to the third charge: That Christ is not a mere man but of divine nature. [From the first book on the Epistle to the Galatians.] Origen: "From the Apostle's saying, 'Paul, an apostle not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ', it is plainly given us to understand that Jesus Christ was not a man, but was of divine nature. For if he were a man, Paul would not have said, 'Paul, an apostle not from men nor through man.' For if Jesus was a man, and Paul was taken into the apostleship through him, then he was made an apostle through a man; and if he was an apostle through a man, he would never have said, 'nor through man.' By these words Paul plainly separates Jesus from human nature. For it was not enough for him to say, 'nor through man'; he added, 'but through Jesus Christ'. He said that he had not been taken up through a man because he knew that Jesus Christ was of a more excellent nature." Pamphilus: Having said this at the beginning of the Epistle, he added similar things later in the same book, explaining the passage in which it is written: 'I make known to you, brothers, the gospel that was preached by me, that it is not according to man; for I did not receive it from man, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ.' Origen: "Notice, then, what he writes; for one who adds these words to the earlier ones will be able to understand, and to show those who deny the deity of Jesus Christ and declare him only a man, that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is not a man but God. For the Apostle says that the gospel he preached is not according to man but according to Jesus Christ. Plainly, then, he shows that Christ Jesus is not a man; and if he is not a man, without doubt he is God; or rather, he will be nothing other than God and man. And again, if what Paul says is true, that he did not receive the gospel from man but through the revelation of Jesus Christ, it is certain that Jesus Christ, who revealed it, is more than a man. For it is beyond a man to reveal what is hidden and veiled; and even if this is sometimes done through a man, it is not done by the man but by Christ, who speaks in the man." Pamphilus: Now that these things have been so plainly shown, it is time for us to move on to the defence against the next charge, content, for brevity's sake, with the proof of a few testimonies. Response to the fourth charge: Against those who say that he … by allegories all the things written of the Saviour as done bodily. Origen: "To what we said above this too must be added: that the body of Christ was not foreign to earthly substance, inasmuch as he is son of David and son of Abraham, as Matthew writes, 'The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham', and as Paul says that Christ is of the seed of Abraham and of the seed of David according to the flesh. The saying that, when the forty days and forty nights of fasting were completed, he was afterwards hungry, without doubt indicates that his body too could be emptied and filled, as our bodies usually are. And if anyone objects to us the explanation of this miracle of the forty days' fast, it is easily answered by adducing the example of Moses and of Elijah, who are related to have endured a similar fast. And that, wearied by the toil of the journey and by the heat, he sat on the well to rest and was thirsty: what else does it show than that, through the fatigue of the sinews and the excessive heat of the sun, the element of bodily moisture had been used up? That, occupied with better things, he put off the drink he had wanted and did not drink, is no reason to say that he did not suffer thirst. That he is often invited to dinners and eats and drinks in the sight of all, he does not do to deceive or cheat the eyes of those who see him, nor does he do these things in appearance, as some think; especially since he took food and drink in such a way that he was even blamed by some, as if for excessive presumption, as one who sought food and drink too eagerly. But if anyone wants to maintain, more forcefully, that these things were said because he ate in appearance and they did not know how these things happened, he must be answered from what the Lord himself said: 'John the Baptist came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He has a demon. The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, Look, a glutton and a wine-drinker.' Since the Saviour himself says that the Son of Man came eating and drinking, how has anyone dared to say that he neither ate nor drank? That is plain unbelief in his teaching. But if he ate and drank, and the substance of the wine and food was turned into his flesh, without doubt it was spread through all the joints of his body and the windings of his limbs. For it is impossible for a spiritual nature (as some think his body was, which they do quite ignorantly and absurdly) to receive the substance of wine and food. And if anyone brings forward unworthy and indecent inquiries, asking whether digestion too took place in his body, it does not seem absurd to admit it, in keeping with bodily nature. And if they demand that this be affirmed by us with examples too, it must be shown that they ask these things quite foolishly. For where are such things related as happening, whether of the apostles or of the other saints, or even of the ungodly and sinners, that they should be required, beyond what is needed, of him? The matter of his circumcision, too, will cause us no difficulty, since we say that, consistently with a human body, he was circumcised and his foreskin was committed to the earth, perhaps until a certain time; or, if it is otherwise, it will be inquired into in another discussion. His circumcision, however, will press hard on those of the opposite view. For how could a spiritual body be circumcised with earthly iron? For this reason some of them were not ashamed even to publish books about the foreskin of his circumcision, in which they tried to show that it passed into a spiritual substance. Those too who say that the body of Christ was a body of soul will be no less hard pressed. And the same must be held about his blood and the water that came out of his side when it was pierced with a lance by the soldier. But for those who know what they hear, the saying that the print of the nails was in his body plainly declares that his flesh was earthly, that is, of human nature, which certainly was not such as to escape the property of receiving wounds. And if he had not felt many things of human weakness in death itself, why is his soul troubled and sorrowful even to death? All these things show plainly that it was not falsely, but as a man, that he said, 'The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.' The account of his sleep shows the same, when it is said that he was asleep on a cushion in the stern, as Mark relates, and is roused from sleep by a man. For although these things have a spiritual meaning, still, with the truth of the history standing first, the spiritual sense too is to be received. For although he always heals the blind according to … (do not) incline the ear to those who say that he was born through Mary and not from Mary; which the Apostle foresaw and foretold thus: 'But when the fullness of time came, God sent his Son, made from a woman, made under the law, to redeem those who were under the law.' You see that he did not say 'made through a woman', but 'made from a woman'." Pamphilus: What could be confirmed more plainly or more completely than by all these things he wrote? He confirms both the truth of the Lord's deeds and the reliability of the history of the Scriptures. But let us go on next to the other matters, in which he is accused of speaking of two Christs, one God the Word and another Jesus Christ, born of Mary. Response to the fifth charge: That Christ the Son of God is one. (From the first book on Isaiah.) Origen: "As the Apostle says, 'since you are zealous for spirits.' For just as, although the Holy Spirit is one, as many are called holy spirits, one by one, as there are those who have the Holy Spirit in them, so must it be said of Christ too. For from the one Christ many become christs, of whom the Scripture says, 'Do not touch my christs, and do my prophets no harm.' So too from the one God many are called gods, namely all those in whom God dwells; but for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things. There is, then, one true God, who, so to say, is the giver of deity, and one Christ, the maker of christs, and one Spirit …" Pamphilus: … makes christs. Let us, however, bring forward another testimony from the first book on the Gospel according to Matthew, in which he speaks thus: Origen: "If Christ Jesus, when he was in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal to God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, and being made in the likeness of men and found in appearance as a man, humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross, there is no doubt that his birth is not such that, as one who did not exist before, he began to be, as is thought of the birth of men; but he who was before, and was in the form of God, came also to take up the form of a servant. In short, 'what is born of the flesh is flesh', it says. What is born, that is, from her who said, 'Behold the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word': to this belongs the form of a servant, which is certainly flesh." Pamphilus: And in the third book on the Epistle to the Colossians he writes thus about the same: Origen: "The law was given to Moses through angels by the hand and power of the Mediator, Christ, who, being in the beginning the Word of God, and being with God, and being God the Word, served the Father in all things. For all things were made through him, that is, not only the creatures but also the law and the prophets; and he himself is the mediator between God and men. ### Scripture references - 1 John 4:8: quotation, high confidence - 1 John 4:7: quotation, high confidence - 1 Tim 6:16: quotation, high confidence - Rom 8:15: quotation, high confidence - John 1:12: allusion, high confidence - John 1:13: quotation, high confidence - Ps 82:6 (81:6 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Heb 1:2: allusion, medium confidence - Eph 1:21: allusion, medium confidence - Heb 1:3: quotation, high confidence - Col 1:15: allusion, medium confidence - John 1:9: quotation, high confidence - John 6:44: allusion, medium confidence - Matt 11:27: allusion, medium confidence - Gal 1:1: quotation, high confidence - Gal 1:11: quotation, high confidence - Gal 1:12: quotation, high confidence - Matt 1:1: quotation, high confidence - Gal 3:16: allusion, high confidence - Rom 1:3: allusion, high confidence - Matt 4:2: allusion, high confidence - Exod 34:28: allusion, high confidence - 1 Kgs 19:8: allusion, high confidence - John 4:6: allusion, high confidence - John 4:7: allusion, high confidence - Matt 11:18: quotation, high confidence - Matt 11:19: quotation, high confidence - Luke 2:21: allusion, medium confidence - John 19:34: allusion, high confidence - John 20:25: allusion, high confidence - John 12:27: allusion, medium confidence - Matt 26:38: allusion, high confidence - Matt 26:41: quotation, high confidence - Mark 4:38: allusion, high confidence - Gal 4:4: quotation, high confidence - Gal 4:5: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 14:12: quotation, high confidence - Ps 105:15 (104:15 LXX): quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 8:6: quotation, high confidence - John 17:3: allusion, medium confidence - Phil 2:6: quotation, high confidence - Phil 2:7: quotation, high confidence - Phil 2:8: quotation, high confidence - John 3:6: quotation, high confidence - Luke 1:38: quotation, high confidence - Gal 3:19: allusion, high confidence - John 1:1: allusion, high confidence - John 1:3: quotation, high confidence - 1 Tim 2:5: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Wis 7:25 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence - Origen, Princ. 1.2.6 (Origen, On First Principles): quotation, high confidence - Origen, Princ. 4.4.1 (Origen, On First Principles): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - The quotations are from Origen's commentaries, most of them now lost: the first book on Romans (the first quotation, whose heading is lost in the scan), books 2 and 5 on John, Hebrews, Galatians, Isaiah, Matthew, and Colossians; and from On First Principles 1.2.6 and 4.4.1 (the passage against "emission"). - "Homoousios" ("of one substance") is Rufinus's Greek word here; whether Origen himself used it of the Son is disputed. - "Metensomatosis" (μετενσωμάτωσις): the passing of souls into other bodies. - Lines are lost in the scan at several page and column turns, shown as "…": the opening of the first response and of Origen's quotation ("Perhaps someone may ask whether the Son is love, especially since John …" is the sense); after "the emanation or" (the end of the quotation and the start of Pamphilus's next words); after "nothing in common"; in the quotation from book 2 on John; in the heading of the fourth response; after "he always heals the blind according to"; and after "one Spirit" (the end of the Isaiah quotation and Pamphilus's comment). - A paragraph from Migne's "Interpretatio nova" (a new Latin version of a Greek fragment of the passage against emission, beginning "It is time to repeat some things about the Father and the Son") is printed beside Rufinus's text and run into it by the scan; it is left out. - "A body of soul": the Latin animale corpus, the view that Christ's body was "psychic" rather than material (a Valentinian teaching). - No public-domain English translation of the Apology exists; checked privately against a modern English translation (FOTC 120); the Latin decides. ### Citation (SBL) Pamphilus, Apol. Orig. 5.9 (PG 17:579b–589a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/5-1/#p-5-9). ## Apology for Origen 6.1 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/6-1/#p-6-1 - Source: PG 17:590a–594a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: After Origen's words on Christ as mediator before the incarnation, Pamphilus defends Christ's human soul from Scripture and answers the sixth charge with Origen's insistence that most of Scripture's history and commandments are to be taken literally. ### Latin text Quod Verbum in fine quidem saeculorum homo factus est Jesus Christus : sed ante hunc manifestum in carne adventum mediator quidem erat hominum, sed nondum erat homo. Erat tamen et tunc mediator Dei et ho. minam: unde et data lex per angelos, sine ipsius mediatoris manibus data esse non dicitur, utesset lex sancta, et mandatum sanctum, et justum, et bonum , et omnia haec sanctificarentur a Christo. ΡΑιιριιιιιιε. Suilicere opinor etiam de hoc tribus testimoniis confutatam esse calumniam. Si quis sane ofl’enditur quod dixit Salvatorem etiam animam suscepisse: nihil de hoc amplius respondendum puto, nisi quod hujus sententiae non Origenes auctor est, sed ipsa sancta Scriptura testatur, ipso Domino et Salvatore dicente : Nemo tollet ani: mam meam a me ; et: Tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem"; et: Nunc anima mea turbata est ., Et multa his similia in sanctis Scripturis habentur. Superest respondere ad illam accusationem qua calumniatur eum omnem Scripturam in allegoriam vertere. Ex ipsis libris quos vel maxime obtrectatores ejus incusant, id est de quarto Περὶάρχῶν libro proferemus quia non negat ea quae in Scripturis referuntur, etiam secundum litteram gesta. … etiam sensibiliter impleta, vel praecepta ejus secundum litteram non debere servari: respondendum est quoniam a nobis evidenter decernitur in quamplurimis servari oportere historia: veritatem. Quis enim negare possit quod Abraham in duplici spelunca' sepultus est in Ebron, sed et Isaac, et Jacob, et singula: eorum uxores? Vel quis duhitet quod Siehima in portionem data est Ioseph ’ὲ Vel quod Jerusalem metropolis est iudicas, inqua constructum est templum Dei a Salomone? et alia innumerabilia. Multo enim plura sunt quae secundum historiam vera sunt , quam ea quae nudum sensum continent spiritalem. (Ἡ) Tum deinde quis non aliirmet mandatum hoc quo praecipitur: Honora patrem tuum et matrem tuam, ut bene sit tibi ’, sine ulla spiritali interpretatione sufiicere , et esse observantibus necessariumhnaxime cum et Paulus eisdem verbis repetens confirmaverit ipsum mandatum. Quid vero oportet dicere de eo quod dictum est: Non adulterabis, non occides, non furtum facies, non falsum testimonium dices , et caetera hujusmodi? Jam vero de his quae in Evangelio mandata sunt, ne dubitari quidem potest quin secundum litteram observentur, sicut cum dicit: Ego autem dico vobis non jurare omnino; et cum ait: Qui autem inspexerit mulierem ad concupiscendum eam, jam moechatus est eam in corde suo; et apud apostolum Paulum quae praecipiuntur: Commonete inquietos, consolamini pusillanimes, sustinete infirmos, patientes estote ad omnes; et alia quamplurima. … qui secum arcam fuerant ingressi θ’. Similiter et de Abraham, quod meruerit testimonium Dei, et quod susceperit hospitio, cum esset snb ilice Mambre, tres viros , ex quibus unus Dominus erat . Credit et de lsaae vel quomodo natus est, vel quomodo oblatus est a patre, vel quomodo responsa Dei audire meruerit "z sed et de Jacob, quod mutato nomine Israel a Deo COgnominatus est ε et defloyse, quod per signa et virtutes ministraverit Deo “. Credit et quod Jesus Nave exauditus a Deo stare fecerit solem super Gabaon, et lunam super vallem lielon ’. Quid autem dicendum est de lidelibus judicibus, et de his quae per eos gesta referuntur: vel in Regnorum libris de Samuele, quod messium tempore pluvias a Deo poposcerit, et acceperit "2 et de David quem assumpsit Dominus ab oribus "', ut regeret Jacob puerum suum, et Israel hereditatem suam ”‘? et de Nathan quod prophetarerit '8: necnon et Gad '9: sed et de Salomone, quod apparuerit ei in visu Dominus ο : etde Elia, quod assumptus est per ascensionem in caelum , edectis illis omnibus, quae scripta sunt, signis et prodigiis: sed et de Elisaeo , quoniam non solum resuscitavit lilium Sunamitis, sed et mortuum super ossa sua projectum . Oportet ergo unumquemque fidelium credere et omnibus quae scripta sunt de Ezechia, quod in diebus ejus retrorsum repedaverit umbra solis . Est ergo fides nostra primo quidem omnium in Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, consequenter vero etiam in omnes sanctos patriar— ο cbas, vel prephetas, vei apostolos Christi, eo ordine quo superius diximus. PAMPHILUS. Sullicienter ista ad probationem catholicae ejus fidei, et qualiter etiam de ipsa Scripturarum historia senserit, dicta sint. Et quoniam inter caeteras criminationes quas ei inferunt, etiam quam maximam ponunt, quod resurrectionem futuram deneget mortuorum , quod utique futurum manifeste in Ecclesiis praedicatur, … de resurrectione scripsit, quam ex cmteris ejus diversis voluminibus, approbabimus etiam in hac parte quam catholice senserit. ’ PRIIA RESPONSIO Λῐ) SEPTIMA! CRlMlNATIONEI. ### English translation (Claude) Origen (continued): "This Word at the end of the ages became man, Jesus Christ; but before this manifest coming in the flesh he was indeed the mediator of men, but was not yet a man. Yet even then he was the mediator between God and men; hence the law, which was given through angels, is said not to have been given without the hands of the mediator himself, so that the law might be holy, and the commandment holy and just and good, and all these might be sanctified by Christ." Pamphilus: I think that with these three testimonies the slander on this point too has been refuted. If anyone is offended because he said that the Saviour also took a soul, I think nothing more need be answered on this, except that Origen is not the author of this opinion: holy Scripture itself testifies to it, the Lord and Saviour himself saying, 'No one takes my soul from me'; and, 'My soul is sorrowful even to death'; and, 'Now my soul is troubled'; and many things like these are found in the holy Scriptures. It remains to answer the accusation by which they slander him as turning all Scripture into allegory. From the very books which his detractors attack most, that is, from the fourth book On First Principles, we will show that he does not deny that the things related in the Scriptures were also done according to the letter. … (Origen:) "… were also fulfilled in a way perceptible to the senses, or that its precepts should not be kept according to the letter, the answer must be that we plainly judge that the truth of the history must be kept in very many things. For who could deny that Abraham was buried in the double cave at Hebron, and Isaac and Jacob too, and each of their wives? Or who doubts that Shechem was given as a portion to Joseph? Or that Jerusalem is the chief city of Judea, in which the temple of God was built by Solomon? And countless other things. For the things that are true according to the history are far more than those that contain a bare spiritual sense. Again, who would not affirm that this commandment, 'Honour your father and your mother, that it may be well with you', is sufficient without any spiritual interpretation, and necessary for those who keep it, especially since Paul too, repeating it in the same words, confirmed the commandment itself? And what need is there to speak of the sayings, 'You shall not commit adultery, you shall not kill, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness', and the rest of this kind? As for the commandments given in the Gospel, it cannot even be doubted that they are to be kept according to the letter, as when he says, 'But I say to you, do not swear at all'; and when he says, 'Whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart'; and the things commanded by the apostle Paul, 'Admonish the unruly, comfort the faint-hearted, support the weak, be patient with all'; and very many others." … "… who had entered the ark with him. Likewise of Abraham: that he merited God's testimony, and that, when he was under the oak of Mamre, he received as guests three men, of whom one was the Lord. He believes too of Isaac how he was born, how he was offered by his father, and how he merited to hear the answers of God; and of Jacob, that his name was changed and he was named Israel by God; and of Moses, that he served God through signs and wonders. He believes too that Joshua son of Nun, heard by God, made the sun stand still over Gibeon and the moon over the valley of Aijalon. And what is to be said of the faithful judges and of the things related as done through them; or, in the books of Kingdoms, of Samuel, that he asked God for rain at the time of harvest and received it; and of David, whom the Lord took from the flocks to rule Jacob his servant and Israel his inheritance; and of Nathan, that he prophesied; and of Gad too; and of Solomon, that the Lord appeared to him in a vision; and of Elijah, that he was taken up into heaven by ascent, after doing all the signs and wonders that are written; and of Elisha, that he raised not only the son of the Shunammite but also a dead man thrown onto his bones? Every one of the faithful, then, must believe also all that is written of Hezekiah, that in his days the shadow of the sun went back. Our faith, then, is first of all in our Lord Jesus Christ, and next also in all the holy patriarchs, prophets, and apostles of Christ, in the order we have stated above." Pamphilus: Let this be enough said as proof of his catholic faith, and of how he thought about the history of the Scriptures itself. And since among the other charges they bring against him they set down as one of the greatest that he denies the future resurrection of the dead, which is plainly preached in the churches as something that will be, … from what he wrote on the resurrection, and from his other various volumes, we will prove how catholic his thought was in this part too. First response to the seventh charge. ### Scripture references - Gal 3:19: allusion, high confidence - Rom 7:12: allusion, high confidence - 1 Tim 2:5: allusion, medium confidence - John 10:18: quotation, high confidence - Matt 26:38: quotation, high confidence - John 12:27: quotation, high confidence - Gen 23:19: allusion, high confidence - Gen 49:31: allusion, high confidence - Gen 48:22: allusion, medium confidence - Exod 20:12: quotation, high confidence - Eph 6:2: allusion, high confidence - Exod 20:13: quotation, high confidence - Exod 20:14: quotation, high confidence - Exod 20:15: quotation, high confidence - Exod 20:16: quotation, high confidence - Matt 5:34: quotation, high confidence - Matt 5:28: quotation, high confidence - 1 Thess 5:14: quotation, high confidence - Gen 7:7: allusion, medium confidence - Gen 18:1: allusion, high confidence - Gen 18:2: allusion, high confidence - Gen 22:2: allusion, medium confidence - Gen 32:28: allusion, high confidence - Josh 10:12: allusion, high confidence - 1 Sam 12:17: allusion, high confidence - Ps 78:70 (77:70 LXX): allusion, high confidence - Ps 78:71 (77:71 LXX): allusion, high confidence - 2 Sam 7:2: allusion, medium confidence - 1 Kgs 3:5: allusion, high confidence - 2 Kgs 2:11: allusion, high confidence - 2 Kgs 4:35: allusion, high confidence - 2 Kgs 13:21: allusion, high confidence - 2 Kgs 20:11: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Origen, Princ. 4.3.4 (Origen, On First Principles): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Origen's quotations: the end of the passage from the third book of his Commentary on Colossians (begun in the previous section); On First Principles 4.3.4 (on the literal truth of most of Scripture); and a passage from another work listing the biblical history that the faithful believe. - Lines are lost in the scan at two page turns, shown as "…": after "done according to the letter" (Pamphilus's heading and the opening of the quotation from On First Principles 4.3.4), and after "very many others" (the heading and opening of the next quotation, which began with Noah). A few words are also lost before "from what he wrote on the resurrection". The commandments from the Gospel and from Paul are printed in two half-columns, which the scan interleaves; they have been put back in order by sense. - No public-domain English translation of the Apology exists; checked privately against a modern English translation (FOTC 120); the Latin decides. ### Citation (SBL) Pamphilus, Apol. Orig. 6.1 (PG 17:590a–594a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/6-1/#p-6-1). ## Apology for Origen 7.1 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/6-1/#p-7-1 - Source: PG 17:594a–601a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Pamphilus answers the charge that Origen denied the resurrection with passages from his books On the Resurrection and his commentaries: the same body will rise, transformed, and Christ carried his flesh into heaven. ### Latin text ORIGENES. «Quomodo enim non videtur absurdum, ut hoc corpus, quod pro Christo pertulit cicatrices, et pariter cum anima persecutionum toleravit saeva tormenta, carcerum quoque ac vinculorum et verberum supplicia pertulit, igne etiam cruciatum, ferro caesum est, insuper et bestiarum cruentos morsus, crucis patibula, ac diversa ptenarum genera perpessum est, tantorum certaminum praemiis defraudetur? Quippe si sola anima, quae non sola certaverit, coronetur, et corporis sui vasculum quod ei cum magno labore servivit, nulla agonis ac victoriae praemia consequatur, qnomodo non contra omnem rationem videtur ut naturalibus vitiis atque ingenitae libidini propter Christum caro resistens, et virginitatem obtinens cum ingenti labore, qui continentiae labor utique aut major corporis quam anima: est, aut certe utriusque aqualis est, prtemiorum tempore altera. velut indigna rejiciatur, altera veniat ad coronam? Quae res sine dubio aut injustitia: alicujus Deum, aut impossibilitatis accusat. Ρειιιδιιιιυε. His assertionibus incipiens nti de resurrectione mortuorum, per totam voluminis sui seriem evidentissimis approbationibus usus est. in secundo vero libro ejusdem materiae, cum praedixisset quia quasi ad gentiles loqueretur, hujuscemodi suam sententiam declaravit. ORIGENES. Nos vero post corruptionem mundi eosdem ipsos futuros esse homines dicimus, licet non ‘in eodem statu, neque in iisdem passionibus. Non enim iterum ex conventione viri et mulieris erunt, sed, verbi gratia, ca ratio quae continet Panli substantiam (Pauli autem nunc dico corporalis) salva permanet, et cum voluerit Deus secundum ea quae dicta sunt, per sacramentum tubarum in novissima tuba facere ut mortui resurgant, per illam ipsam subsmntialem, rationem quae salva permanet, de terra: pulvere suscitantur a mortuis ex omnibus locis ii quibus ratio illa substantiae corporalis in ipsis corporibus permanebat, quae in terram prolapsa Dei voluntate iterum suscitantur. Et hoc arbitror asserere volentem Apostolum dixisse in prima Epistola ad Corinthios, post assertionem resurrectionis mortuorum. Nam cum proposuisset sibi ea quae possent ab aliis objici de resurrectione mortuorum, sic ait : Sed dicit aliquis : Quomodo resurgunt mortui? Quo autem corpore veniunt? Stulte, tu quod seminas non cicificatur, nisi prius moriatur : et quod sentiπαι, non corpus quod futurum est seminus, sed nudum granum, utputa, tritici, aut alicujus cazterorum. Deus autem dat illi corpus “ prout voluit. Cum enim manifeste ostendisset quia mortui resurgunt, et certum esset quod Salvator noster cum ipso corpore resurrexit quod susceperat ex Maria, non autem satis clarum esset quomodo resurrecturi essent caeteri, vel quale corpus habituri : comparat resurrectionem seminibus quae seminantur in terram, utputa, grano frumenti, quod cum ceciderit in terram, corrumpitur : sed rationis illius virtus quae est insita in interioribus ejus medullis, ipsa rationis virtus assumpta adjacentem sibi terram, vel aqua: humorem, sed et aeris circumstantem temperiem, caloris quoque sullicientem recipiens fomitem, per divinam potentiam in corpus culmi vel spica: consurgit; et hoc est quod dicit: Tu quod seminus non vivificatur, nisi prius moriatur : et quod seminas, non corpus quod 'futurum est … hoc ostendunt. Sed et hoc ipsa Domini nostri Jesu Christi resurrectio declarat, qui primogenitum ex mortuis dicitur. Psupmws. Post haec, quibusdam per medium latius disputatis, adjecit etiam ista. ORlGENES. σ Sicut enim plus habet omnis rationabilis anima his quae vel crescendi, vel nutriendi, vel motus solius cilicium exhibere dicuntur : sic ea ratio qua! in humano corpore est, multo amplius habet, quam quae in reliquis est corporibus, ex eo quod etiam cum corruptum fuerit corpus humanum, subsistere rursum potest Dei virtute servatum et custoditum usque ad resurrectionis sua tempus. Quod autem ubicunque fuerit restituatur, id est ab omni in quo jacuerit loco, ita ait Joannes in Revelatione sua : Et reddidit mare mortuos quos habebat in se, et mors et inferas reddiderunt mortuos suos qui erant in eis . Forte enim, ut ego puto, mare hic pro humido omni appellatum est elemento; interi autem pro aere; mors vero pro te'rra. Quasi quamdam namque cognationem his inter se invicem habentibus, corpus nostrum pulverem mortis vocat Scriptura, vel terram , vel corpus mortis . Sane qualis fuerit uniuscujusque praeparatio' in hac vita, talis erit et resurrectio ejus. Qui beatius hic vixerit, corpus ejus in resurreCtione diviniore splendore lulgebit, et apta ei mansio beatorum tribuetur Iocorum. l‘luic vero qui in malitia consumpsit tempus sibi vita: praesentis indultum, tale dabitur corpus quod sullicere et perdurare tantummodo possit in ptenis. Et arbitror quod hanc ditiereutiam volens ostendere Paulus apostolus, dicit : Alia caro animalium, alia volucrum, alia piscium ο, et cetera quae enumeravit Apostolus. Sed sicut non est pntandum quod animalium corpus accepturus sit peccator, aut volucris, aut piscium; sic neque solis, aut lunae, aut stellarum sperandum est sccipere eos qui resurgunt in gloriam: sed exempli gratia dicta esse haec ab Apostolo sentiendum est, lst designetur per haec quod alii pro meritis suis honorabiliores et clariores erunt, beatiora quoque habitacula sortituri : aliorum vero indignissimus et abiectissimus pro gestorum scelere erit status, qui etiam mutis animalibus dignus sit comparari. ΡΑινιιιιυε. Pauca haec ad testimonium traximus e'x multis et innumeris quae per hujuscemodi sensum in ipsis libris quos De resurrectione scribit, exposuit. Non autem videtur absurdum ad majorem satisfactionem etiam de reliquis ejus libris consonas his vel paucas adhibere sententias. lu vicesimo igitur et octavo libro de lsaia propheta , de illo capitulo scribens, in quo dicitur : Resuscitabuntur mortui, et resurgent lii qui in sepulcris sunt "; ita … ORIGENES. «Melius est ergo dicere quod omnes quidem resurgemus δ’, ut et impii veniant in illum locum tibi fletus est et stridor dentium ", et ubi justi recipient unusquisque in suo ordine secundum meritum bonorum gestorum suorum, cum trausformabitur corpus humilitatis eorum, ut sit conforme corporis gloria Christi“: (1υοά seminatum quidem est in corruptione, surget vero in incorruptione : quod seminatum est in ignominia, surget in gloria: quod seminatum est in infirmitate, surget in virtute ", resurrectionis scilicet tempore : et quod seminatum est corpus animale, surget autem corpus spiritale. Licet ergo omnes resurgant, et unusquisque in suo ordine “ resurgat, considerandum est tamen pr0pter illum sermonem Joannis , quem in Revelatione sua dicit : Beatus qui habet partem in resurrectione prima, in hoc secunda mors non habet potestatem " : ne forte dividi possit omnis resurrectionis ratio in duas partes : id est in eos qui salvandi sunt justos, et etiamin eos qui cruciandi sunt peccatores : ut sit una quidem honorum, quae dicitur prima; illa vero quae est miserorum, secunda dicatur : et illam quidem in omnibus esse puram, hilarem, totius plenam lzetitiae; illam vero alteram totam tristem, lotam maeroris plenam. et actibus ac vita: eorum dignam qui in praesenti vita Dei mandata contempserint, ct judicii ejus timore neglecto, semetipsos tradiderint in operationem totius immunditiaa et avaritiae, nec se praeparare conati sint, ut resistere adversario possent adversum contrarias atque inimicas humano generi potestates. Sepulcra autem mortuorum in hoc loco, sicut et in multis aliis, secundum certiorem Scripturzesensum accipienda sunt, non ea solum quae ad depositionem humanorum corporum videntur esse constructa. vel iu saxis excisa, aut in terram defossa, sed omnis locus in quocunque vel integrum humanum corpus, vel ex parte aliqua jacet; etiamsi accidat ut unum corpus per loca multa dispersum sit, absurdum non erit omnia ea loca in quibus pars aliqua corporis jacet, sepulcra corporis ejus dici. Si enim non ita accipiamus resurgere de sepulcris suis mortuo divina virtute, qui nequaquam sunt sepulturae mandati, neque in sepulcris depositi, sed sive naufragiis, sive in desertis aliquibus defuncti sunt locis, ita ut sepulturae mandari non potuerint, non videbuntur annumerari inter eos qui de sepulcris resuscitandi dicuntur. Quod utique valde absurdum est. PAMPHILUS. Nihilominus in eo ipso libro, interjectis quibusdam, dicit : ORIGENES. Cum ergo Paulus scribit, quod sicut stella ab stella dillert in gloria, ita erit et resurrectio mortuorum "5 : et quod dicit : Seminatur in corruptione, surgit in incorruptione ‘9, et caetera hujusmodi : manifeste haec de solo corpore scribit. Non enim anima seminata est in corruptione, aut in infirmitate, aut in ignominia. Denique evidenter adjuegit his omnibus, et dicit : Seminatur corpus animale ος ut ne quis putaret animum esse quae seminatur in corruptione, vel in ignominia, vel in … mansuram etiam in futuro, plurima tamen ititmutatione in melius et gloriosius facta. Necesse est enim animam in locis corporeis habitantem uti corporibus talibus quze apta sint hislocisin quibus degit. Et sicut, verbi cattsa, si in aquis maris nos habitare, vel degere posceret, sine dubio pro habitaculi qualitate uecessarium videretur habere talem corporis statum, et compositionem, qualem habent illa animalia quae in aquis vivunt: ita nunc cum ctelorum habitaculum promittatur, secundum locorum gloriam consequens est aptandas esse etiam corporum qualitates. Nec ideo tamen prior hare species exterminabitur, licet gloriosior ejus elIecta sit permutatio. Sicut enim ipsius Domini Jesu, vel Moysi, vel Elia: species non erat alia in transformatione, quam fuerat ante transformationem, ita non erit alia sanctorum species, etiamsi multo gloriosior fiat. … ORIGENES. Dominus Iesus Christus hac dicit, cujus primum caro requievit in spe. Crucilixus enim est, primogenitus ex mortuis lactus; et post resurrectionem assumptus in ctelum, secum terrenum corpus evexit, ita ut terrerentur et obstupesoerent virtutes cmlestes videntes carnem as. cendentem in caelum. De Elia enim scriptum est, quia quasi in caelum assumptus est ’ἐ et de Enocb, quia translatus est : non tamen dictum est quia ascendit in caelum. Oll'endatur qni vult ex nostro sermone : ego autem cum onmi fiducia assevero, quia sicut primogenitns ex mortuis est Christus, ita primus carnem evexit ad coelum. Denique novitate ipsa perterrentur caelestes virtutes, quia quod nunquam ante viderant, nunc videbant carnem ascendisse in caelum: et propterea dicunt: Quis est iste qui venit ex Edam, id est a terrigenis? Rubor vestimentorum ejus ea: Bosor “. Videbam enim in corpore ejus vestigia vulnerum ex Bosor, id est, in carne suscepta. s Ontcssss. ‹ l-lzrc propter illud quod dictum est, quoniam caro mea requiescet in spe ”. In qua spe? Non solum quia ex mortuis resurgit (parum enim hoc εει), sed in ea spe requiescit, quod assumpta est in caelum. ΡΑιιιιιιιιυε. Quid hoc evidentius et clarius ab aliquo dici potest de resurrectione carnis, quam assignavit non solum resurrecturam a mortuis, verum etiam in cmlos. si qua tamen id meruerit, assumendam, secuturam scilicet eum qtti primogenitus ex mortuis factus, primus in coelum naturam carnis invexit? Quid tamen in octavo decimo psalmo exponens illum versiculum : In sole posuit tabernaculum suum '°, senserit, audiamus. ORIGENES. t Quid est quod dixit: In soleposuit tabernaculum suum? Quidam quidem dicebant quod Salvator noster ascendens e terris in caelum, et corpus suum assumens, pervenit usque ad eum circulum qui solis zona nominatur, et ibi, aiunt, posuit tabernaculum corporis sui : non enim ultra erat possibile id progredi. Sed haec illi ita sentiunt, pro eo quod allegoriam nolunt in Scriptura divina recipere : et ideo purae historiae deservientes, huc jusmodi l‘abnlas et ligmenta componunt. Nos vero deprecamur omnipotentiatu Dei, ut nos dignetur audire, et secreta nobis spiritalis intelligentia: dignetur aperire. Quod ergo a nobis sentitur in hoc loco, hoc est, In sole posuit tabernaculum suum, quaero quid sit tabernaculum Christi, et quae sit habitatio in qua tabernaculum Christi collocatur. Ilabitatio tabernaculi Christi sol esse dicitur. Tabernaculum vero Christi Ecclesiam esse intelligo. Solem autem quem alium sentire debeo, nisi illud lumen verum, quod illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum '7? Ipsum video solem, de quo dictum est : Quia timentibus nomen Domini orietur Sol justititc, et sanitas in alis ejus . In sole ergo posuit tabernaculum suum, id est in Sole justitia: Ecclesiam suam collocavit. ln illo enim sole Ecclesia collocata est, qui diem mternum facit, sicut dictum est : Erit tibi Dominus lux (eterna, et Deus gloria tua . Purmws. Erubescant etiam illi qui et hoc de ipso non dubitaverunt concinnare figmentum, quo dicereut quia corpus vel carnem Christi usque ad solem dicit evectam, et ibi esse derelictam. Hoc enim ille ab aliis dictum, non recte dictum esse confutat. Sed ostenderunt se ne haec quidem intelligere potuisse obtrectatores ejus quae ille ab aliis non recte dicta coarguit, et quae sunt quae ipsa confirmat. Tum deinde etiam illi impudentiam suam retundant, qui dicunt cum corpus quidem resurgere cooliteri, carnem vero negare. Desinant aliquando a maledictis, videntes eum carnem Verbi Dei cum ipso Verbo Deo in ccelo, quo Verbum ascendit, imponere. llis coniungit de suppliciis peccatorum, quae nos quoque consequenter ad ea qum supra dicta sunt, conjungimus, quoniam in ordine criminationum iSte fuerat ordo digestus. ### English translation (Claude) Origen: "For how does it not seem absurd that this body, which bore scars for Christ, and together with the soul endured the cruel tortures of persecutions, and suffered besides the punishments of prisons, chains, and scourges, was tormented by fire and cut by the sword, and also underwent the bloody bites of beasts, the gibbet of the cross, and various kinds of punishment, should be cheated of the rewards of such great contests? For if the soul alone is crowned, which did not contend alone, and the vessel of its body, which served it with great labour, obtains no rewards for the contest and the victory, how does it not seem contrary to all reason that, when the flesh resists natural vices and inborn lust for Christ's sake, and keeps virginity with enormous labour (a labour of continence that is certainly either greater for the body than for the soul, or at least equal for both), at the time of rewards the one should be rejected as unworthy and the other come to the crown? Such a thing would undoubtedly accuse God either of some injustice or of inability." Pamphilus: Beginning with these assertions on the resurrection of the dead, he used the clearest proofs throughout the whole course of his volume. In the second book on the same subject, having said beforehand that he was speaking as if to Gentiles, he declared his opinion in this way: Origen: "We say that after the corruption of the world the very same men will exist, though not in the same state, nor in the same passions. For they will not again come from the union of man and woman; but, for example, the principle that holds together the substance of Paul (I mean now the bodily Paul) remains preserved; and when God wills, according to what has been said, through the mystery of the trumpets, at the last trumpet, to make the dead rise, by that very substantial principle, which remains preserved, they are raised from the dead from the dust of the earth, from all the places in which that principle of bodily substance remained in the bodies themselves; and these bodies, having fallen into the earth, are raised again by God's will. And I think that the Apostle, wishing to assert this, spoke as he did in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, after his assertion of the resurrection of the dead. For when he had set before himself the objections that others could raise about the resurrection of the dead, he says: 'But someone says, How are the dead raised? With what body do they come? Fool, what you sow is not made alive unless it first dies; and what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare grain, say of wheat or of some other kind. But God gives it a body' as he willed. For when he had plainly shown that the dead rise, and it was certain that our Saviour rose with the very body he had taken from Mary, but it was not clear enough how the others would rise or what kind of body they would have, he compares the resurrection to seeds sown in the earth, for instance a grain of wheat, which decays when it has fallen into the earth; but the power of the principle planted in its inner marrow takes to itself the earth lying around it, the moisture of the water, and the surrounding temperateness of the air, and, receiving sufficient kindling of warmth, rises by divine power into the body of the stalk or the ear. And this is what he says: 'What you sow is not made alive unless it first dies; and what you sow is not the body that is to be' … show this. And the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ himself declares it too, who is called the firstborn from the dead." Pamphilus: After this, having discussed some things more fully in between, he added this too: Origen: "For just as every rational soul has more than those that are said to provide only for growth, or nourishment, or motion, so the principle that is in the human body has much more than that which is in other bodies, in that even when the human body has decayed it can subsist again, preserved and kept by the power of God until the time of its resurrection. And that it is restored wherever it may be, that is, from every place in which it has lain, John says thus in his Revelation: 'And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and the underworld gave up their dead that were in them.' Perhaps, as I think, 'sea' here is said for every moist element, 'the underworld' for the air, and 'death' for the earth. For since these have a kind of kinship with one another, Scripture calls our body the dust of death, or earth, or the body of death. Indeed, as each one's preparation has been in this life, so will his resurrection be. Whoever has lived more blessedly here, his body will shine with a more divine splendour in the resurrection, and a fitting dwelling in the places of the blessed will be given him. But to one who has spent in wickedness the time of the present life granted to him, such a body will be given as can only suffice and endure in punishments. And I think that the apostle Paul, wishing to show this difference, says: 'One flesh is of beasts, another of birds, another of fish', and the rest that the Apostle listed. But just as it must not be thought that the sinner will receive the body of beasts, or of birds, or of fish, so those who rise in glory must not hope to receive that of the sun, or moon, or stars; these things must be understood as said by the Apostle by way of example, to indicate that some, according to their merits, will be more honoured and more glorious and will obtain more blessed dwellings, while the state of others, because of the wickedness of their deeds, will be most unworthy and abject, so as to deserve comparison even with dumb animals." Pamphilus: We have drawn these few things as testimony from the many, indeed countless, things he set out in this sense in the very books he wrote On the Resurrection. It does not seem absurd, for fuller satisfaction, to add a few statements in agreement with these from his other books too. In the twenty-eighth book on the prophet Isaiah, then, writing on the passage in which it is said, 'The dead will be raised, and those who are in the tombs will rise', he … thus: Origen: "It is better, then, to say that we shall all rise, so that the ungodly come to that place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, and where the righteous will receive, each in his own order, according to the merit of his good deeds, when the body of their humiliation will be transformed to be conformed to the body of Christ's glory: that what was sown in corruption will rise in incorruption, what was sown in dishonour will rise in glory, what was sown in weakness will rise in power, namely at the time of the resurrection; and what was sown a natural body will rise a spiritual body. Although, then, all rise, and each rises in his own order, yet because of the saying of John in his Revelation, 'Blessed is he who has a part in the first resurrection; over him the second death has no power', we must consider whether perhaps the whole account of the resurrection can be divided into two parts, that is, into the righteous who are to be saved and the sinners who are to be punished: so that one, that of the good, is called the first, and the other, that of the wretched, is called the second; the first in all things pure, joyful, full of all gladness, the other wholly sad, wholly full of grief, and worthy of the deeds and life of those who in the present life despised God's commandments, and, neglecting the fear of his judgment, gave themselves over to the working of all uncleanness and greed, and did not try to prepare themselves to resist the adversary and the powers hostile and inimical to the human race. The tombs of the dead in this place, as in many others, must be taken according to the more certain sense of Scripture, not only as those that seem to be built for laying human bodies, or cut in rocks, or dug in the earth, but as every place in which a human body lies, whole or in some part. Even if it happens that one body is scattered through many places, it will not be absurd to call all the places in which some part of the body lies the tombs of that body. For if we do not take it so, those who were never committed to burial nor laid in tombs, but died either in shipwrecks or in some deserted places so that they could not be buried, will not seem to be counted among those who are said to be raised by divine power from their tombs. That is certainly very absurd." Pamphilus: In the same book, with some things in between, he also says: Origen: "When Paul writes that 'as star differs from star in glory, so will it be with the resurrection of the dead', and says, 'It is sown in corruption, it rises in incorruption', and the rest of this kind, he plainly writes these things of the body alone. For the soul is not sown in corruption, or in weakness, or in dishonour. In short, he plainly added to all these and says, 'It is sown a natural body', so that no one might think it is the soul that is sown in corruption, or in dishonour, or in … to remain also in the future, though changed very greatly for the better and more glorious. For the soul, dwelling in bodily places, must use such bodies as are suited to the places in which it lives. And just as, for example, if it were required of us to live or stay in the waters of the sea, it would doubtless seem necessary, because of the kind of dwelling, to have such a state and composition of body as the animals have that live in the waters, so now, since a dwelling in the heavens is promised, it follows that the qualities of bodies too must be adapted to the glory of the places. Yet this former form will not be done away for that reason, though its change has made it more glorious. For just as the form of the Lord Jesus himself, or of Moses or Elijah, was not different in the transfiguration from what it had been before the transfiguration, so the form of the saints will not be different, even if it becomes much more glorious." … Origen: "The Lord Jesus Christ says these things, whose flesh first rested in hope. For he was crucified, made the firstborn from the dead; and after the resurrection, taken up into heaven, he carried his earthly body with him, so that the heavenly powers were terrified and astonished at seeing flesh ascending into heaven. For of Elijah it is written that he was taken up as it were into heaven, and of Enoch that he was translated; yet it is not said that either ascended into heaven. Let whoever wishes take offence at our words: I assert with all confidence that as Christ is the firstborn from the dead, so he was the first to carry flesh up to heaven. Indeed, the heavenly powers are terrified by the very novelty, because they now saw what they had never seen before, flesh ascended into heaven; and therefore they say: 'Who is this who comes from Edom', that is, from the earth-born? 'The redness of his garments is from Bozrah.' For they saw in his body the marks of the wounds from Bozrah, that is, in the flesh he had taken." Origen: "These things (are said) because of the saying, 'My flesh will rest in hope.' In what hope? Not only that it rises from the dead (for that is little), but it rests in this hope, that it has been taken up into heaven." Pamphilus: What could anyone say more plainly and clearly about the resurrection of the flesh than this, in which he declared that it will not only rise from the dead but also, if any flesh has merited it, be taken up into the heavens, following, that is, him who, made the firstborn from the dead, first carried the nature of flesh into heaven? Let us hear, however, what he thought when expounding the verse of the eighteenth psalm, 'In the sun he has set his tabernacle.' Origen: "What is it that he said, 'In the sun he has set his tabernacle'? Some said that our Saviour, ascending from earth to heaven and taking his body with him, came as far as the circle that is called the zone of the sun, and there, they say, set the tabernacle of his body, since it was not possible for it to go further. But these people think so because they will not accept allegory in divine Scripture, and therefore, slaves to the bare history, they compose fables and fictions of this kind. We, however, pray the almighty God that he may deign to hear us and to open to us the secrets of spiritual understanding. What we understand in this place, 'In the sun he has set his tabernacle', is this. I ask what the tabernacle of Christ is, and what the dwelling is in which the tabernacle of Christ is placed. The dwelling of Christ's tabernacle is said to be the sun; the tabernacle of Christ I understand to be the Church. And what other sun should I understand than that true light which enlightens every man coming into this world? I see that sun himself, of whom it is said, 'For those who fear the name of the Lord the Sun of righteousness will rise, and healing is in his wings.' In the sun, then, he has set his tabernacle; that is, in the Sun of righteousness he has placed his Church. For the Church is placed in that sun which makes an eternal day, as it is said, 'The Lord will be your eternal light, and God your glory.'" Pamphilus: Let those too be ashamed who did not hesitate to invent this fiction about him as well, saying that he says the body or flesh of Christ was carried up as far as the sun and left there. For he refutes this, said by others, as not rightly said. But his detractors have shown that they could not understand even this: which things he refutes as wrongly said by others, and which he himself confirms. Then let those too blunt their shamelessness who say that he confesses that the body rises but denies the flesh. Let them stop their curses at last, seeing that he places the flesh of the Word of God, together with God the Word himself, in heaven, where the Word ascended. To these things he joins what concerns the punishments of sinners, and we too join it next to what was said above, since this was the order set out in the list of charges. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 15:52: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:35: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:36: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:37: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:38: quotation, high confidence - Col 1:18: allusion, high confidence - Rev 20:13: quotation, high confidence - Ps 22:15 (21:16 LXX): allusion, medium confidence - Gen 3:19: allusion, medium confidence - Rom 7:24: allusion, medium confidence - 1 Cor 15:39: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:41: quotation, high confidence - Isa 26:19: quotation, high confidence - Matt 8:12: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:23: allusion, high confidence - Phil 3:21: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:42: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:43: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:44: quotation, high confidence - Rev 20:6: quotation, high confidence - Matt 17:2: allusion, high confidence - Matt 17:3: allusion, high confidence - Ps 16:9 (15:9 LXX): quotation, high confidence - 2 Kgs 2:11: allusion, high confidence - Gen 5:24: allusion, high confidence - Isa 63:1: quotation, high confidence - Ps 19:4 (18:5 LXX): quotation, high confidence - John 1:9: quotation, high confidence - Mal 4:2 (3:20 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Isa 60:19: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Origen's quotations: his lost two books On the Resurrection; his Commentary on Isaiah, book 28 (on Isa 26:19); his commentaries on the Psalms (on Ps 1:5, Ps 16:9, and Ps 19:4). The passage "the very same men will exist" is also transmitted in Greek by Epiphanius, Panarion 64.14. - "The principle" renders ratio (Greek logos): the formative principle of a body that, for Origen, survives its decay, like the power in a seed. - "The eighteenth psalm" and "the fifteenth" are the Greek and Latin numbering (English Ps 19 and 16). - Lines are lost in the scan in a few places, shown as "…": after "the body that is to be" (the end of one quotation and the start of the next); before the Isaiah quotation (one word); after "or in dishonour, or in"; and Pamphilus's introduction to the passage on Ps 16:9 ("My flesh will rest in hope"). - No public-domain English translation of the Apology exists; checked privately against a modern English translation (FOTC 120); the Latin decides. ### Citation (SBL) Pamphilus, Apol. Orig. 7.1 (PG 17:594a–601a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/6-1/#p-7-1). ## Apology for Origen 8.1 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/6-1/#p-8-1 - Source: PG 17:601a–604a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Pamphilus answers the charge that Origen denied the punishment of sinners with his teaching on the fire of judgment as a remedy and on the pains of the risen body, and begins his defence of Origen's views on the soul. ### Latin text … RESPONSIO AD SEPTIMAM CRIMINATIONEM. De pomis peccatorum. (Ex libro secundo Περὶ ἀρχῶν.) ORIGENES. ‹ Ego arbitror quod sicut in corpore esca: abundantia, et qualitas, et quantitas cibi contraria, febres generat, et l'ebres diversi vel modi, vel temporis, secundum eam mensuram qua intemperies collecta materiam suggerit ac fomitem [ebrium : quae materiae qualitas ex diversa intemperie congregata, causa vel acerbioris morbi, vel prolixioris exsistit : ita anima, cum multitudinem malorum operum et abundantiam in secongregaverit peccatorum. Competenti tempore omnis illa malorum congregatio concitatur ad supplicium, atque inflammatur ad poenas: cum mens ipsa vel conscientia per divinam virtutem omnia in memoriam recipiens, quorum in se signa quaedam ac formas, cum peccaret, expresserat, et singulorum gestorum suorum quae vel {cede vel turpiter gesserat, vel etiam impie commiserat, historiam quamdam scelerum suorum ante oculos suos videbit expositam. Tunc et ipsa conscientia. propriis stimulis agitatur atque compungitur, et suis ipsa elficitur accusatrix, et testis. Quod ita sensisse etiam apostolum Paulum puto, cum dicit: Inter se invicem cogitationibus accusantibus, aut etiam defendentibus, in die, cum judicabit Deus occulta hominum, secundum Evangelium meum, per Iesum Christum θο. PAMPHILUS. Sed et in sequentibus rursum de peccatorum poenis hoc modo scribit : Omoenss. s Multa sunt autem quae nos latent, quae illi Soli cognita sunt qui est medicus animarum nostrarum. Si enim ad corporis sanitatem pro his vitiis qum per escam potumque collegimus, necet sariam habemus interdum austerioris ac mordacioris medicamenti curam: nonnunquam vero, st id vitii qualitas depoposcerit, rigore ferri et seetionis asperitate indigemus : quod si et hcce supergressus fuerit morbi modus, ad ultimum conceptum vitium ignis exurit: quanto magis intelligendum est, medicum nostrum Deum volentem diluere vitia animarum nostrarum, qum ex peccatorum et scelerum diversitate collegerant, uti hujusmodi poenalibus curis, insuper etiam ignis inferre supplicium his qui sanitatem animae perdiderunt? PAMPHILUS. Item post pauca addidit etiam haec: ORIGENES.‘ Quoniam autem pernecessaria paena est ea quae per ignem referri dicitur, lsaias docens, de Israel quidem sic dicit: Abluet Dominus sordes filiorum ac filiarum Sion. et sanguinem expurgabit e medio ipsorum spiritu jutliciiet spiritu adustionis . De Chaldaeis autem sic dicit : IIabes carbones ignis, sedebis supereos : hi erunt tibi adjutorio θ’. Et iu aliis dicit : Sanctificabit eos Dominus in igne ardenti . Et in Malachia propheta dicit : Sedens Dominus conflabit sicut aurum et argentum populant suum, con/labit et purgabit eos, et [undet purgatos filios Juda “. Paurmws. Haec quidem ex libris Περὶ ἀρχῶν. lnnuu’terabilia vero dispersa sunt per omnes libros ejus assertionis hujus testimonia, qua! nos studio brevitatis omittimus, commemorantes de his solummodo, quaz in sexto psalmo de hoc ipso … poenarum temporis, pro eo quod si paulo vehementiores exstiterint, continuo etiam vita: celerem inferunt finem. Denique multi, si res poposcerit, pro pietatis confessione in ipsis tormentis animam reddunt : alii vero in ipso jam corona: aditu positi denegant fidem, qnam usque ad mortem proposuerant confiteri. Et hoc non utigue diminutione propositi patiuntur. sed vi doloris nimia et intolerahili superati. Si ergo in hac praesenti vita tam intolerabiles sunt ptenarunt dolores, quid putandum est tunc eum non jam crassiore anima utetur indunrento; sed eum id spiritale eflectum ex resurrectione recipiet, et eo vehementius utique, quo subtilius est, sentiet vim doloris? Puto enim quod quanta differentia estin praesenti saeculo nudum verberari quam vestitum, ad persentiendum scilicet cruciatum, eo quod vehementius nudum corpus crucient verbera quam vestitum : tantam puto futuram ditlerentiam doloris, eum corpus humanum, crassitudinis hujus indumento deposito, velut nudum coeperit sustinere tormenta. PAMPHILUS. Suflicere arbitror etiam ad hujus criminationis calumniam propulsandam, pauca haec de ejus libris testimonia protulisse, quae innumera sparsim per lihro's ejus manifestum est contineri. Nunc ad ea etiam per nos ipsos respondebimus, quae ei de anima objiciunt, id estquod ante corpus eam factam dicat exsistere. Sciens namque etiam istud dogma de anima non aperte neque manifeste haberi in ecclesiastica prtedicatione, sicubi occasionem aliquam vel suspicionem potius disputandi ei Scriptura: sermo suggessit, discutiens et pertractans ea quae sensui ejus occurrerant, discernenda hmc legentibus exposuit et probanda, non manifesto dogmate, vel Scripturarum sententiam suam auctoritate dellniens, frequenter et illttd addens : ‹ Si tamen habere videtur aut probatur aliquid consequentia: sermo is quem de anima tractavimus. s Denique in tam multis et tam diversis ejus libris nusquam omnino invenitur ab eo liber proprie De anima conscriptus, sicut habet vel De martyrio, vel De oratione, vel De resurrectione. Nusquam prorsus librum proprie de anima scriptum edidit; sed in diversis locis, sicut superius diximus, incurrentes sibi opiniones ex Scriptum occasionibus disserebat: quod potius maximi signi reverentiae ejus ac timoris in diri. nis dogmatibus esse deberet, quod tanti sensus vir, et tantae prudentiae, eum utique magister esset Eeclesiae, et tanta ab eo dicta scriberentur, non est ausus id sibi auctoritatis assumere, ut proprie De anima librum ederet scriptum. Procul dubio hac observatio ejus illud indicat, quod nihil audebattle hac re manifesto dogmate confirmare. Denique in eo libro quem in Epistolam Apostoli ad Titum scribit, haereticum describens, et anime faciens mentionem, haec dicit : ### English translation (Claude) … Response to the seventh charge. On the punishments of sinners. (From the second book On First Principles.) Origen: "I think that, just as in the body an excess of food, and a harmful quality and quantity of food, produce fevers, and fevers of different kinds or durations, according to the measure in which the accumulated intemperance supplies material and kindling for fevers (and this quality of material, gathered from different kinds of intemperance, becomes the cause of a sharper or a longer illness), so the soul, when it has gathered within itself a multitude of evil works and an abundance of sins, will at the fitting time have all that gathering of evils stirred up to punishment and set aflame for penalties: when the mind itself, or the conscience, taking back into its memory by divine power all the things whose signs and forms it imprinted on itself when it sinned, will see set out before its eyes a kind of history of its crimes, of each of the deeds it had done foully or shamefully, or had even committed impiously. Then conscience itself is driven and pricked by its own goads, and becomes its own accuser and witness. And I think that the apostle Paul too thought so, when he says, 'their thoughts accusing or else excusing one another, on the day when God will judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, through Jesus Christ.'" Pamphilus: And in what follows he again writes of the punishments of sinners in this way: Origen: "There are many things hidden from us, which are known only to him who is the physician of our souls. For if, for the health of the body, because of the ills we have gathered through food and drink, we sometimes need the treatment of a harsher and more biting medicine, and sometimes, if the kind of ill demands it, we need the rigour of the knife and the harshness of cutting, and if the measure of the disease has gone beyond even these, fire finally burns out the ill that has been contracted, how much more must we understand that God our physician, wishing to wash away the ills of our souls, which they had gathered from the diversity of sins and crimes, uses penal treatments of this kind, and even brings the punishment of fire on those who have lost the health of the soul?" Pamphilus: Again, after a little, he added this too: Origen: "That the punishment said to be inflicted through fire is most necessary, Isaiah teaches. Of Israel he says: 'The Lord will wash away the filth of the sons and daughters of Zion, and will purge the blood from their midst by a spirit of judgment and a spirit of burning'; and of the Chaldeans he says: 'You have coals of fire; you shall sit on them; these will be a help to you.' And elsewhere he says: 'The Lord will sanctify them in burning fire.' And in the prophet Malachi he says: 'The Lord, sitting, will smelt his people like gold and silver; he will smelt and purge them, and will pour out the purified sons of Judah.'" Pamphilus: These, then, are from the books On First Principles. Countless testimonies to this assertion are scattered through all his books, which we omit for brevity, mentioning only those which, on the sixth psalm, on this very … (Origen:) "… of the time of punishments, because if they are a little more severe, they at once bring on a swift end of life too. In short, many, if the occasion demands, give up their soul in the very tortures for the confession of piety; but others, already at the very entrance to the crown, deny the faith which they had resolved to confess unto death. And they suffer this not through any weakening of their resolve, but overcome by the excessive and unbearable force of pain. If, then, in this present life the pains of punishment are so unbearable, what must we think will happen then, when the soul will no longer use a thicker garment but will receive it made spiritual by the resurrection, and will surely feel the force of pain the more keenly, the finer the garment is? For I think that, as great as the difference is in this age between being beaten naked and being beaten clothed, as regards feeling the torment (because blows torment a naked body more keenly than a clothed one), so great will be the difference of pain when the human body, having laid aside this garment of thickness, begins to endure torments as if naked." Pamphilus: I think that these few testimonies brought forward from his books are enough to repel the slander of this charge too, since it is plain that countless such testimonies are contained here and there in his books. Now we will reply in our own words to what they object against him concerning the soul, that is, that he says it was made and exists before the body. He knew that this doctrine about the soul is not held openly or plainly in the Church's preaching; so wherever the word of Scripture suggested to him some occasion, or rather some hint, for discussion, he discussed and examined what occurred to his mind and set it out for readers to judge and test, not defining his opinion as plain doctrine or by the authority of the Scriptures, and often adding this too: "If, however, the discussion we have held about the soul seems to have, or is shown to have, any consistency." In short, in so many and such diverse books of his, no book written specifically On the Soul is found anywhere, as he has On Martyrdom, or On Prayer, or On the Resurrection. He never published a book written specifically on the soul at all; but in various places, as we said above, he discussed the opinions that occurred to him on occasions given by the Scriptures. This ought rather to be a sign of his very great reverence and fear in divine doctrines: that a man of such understanding and such prudence, who was a teacher of the Church and whose sayings were written down in such numbers, did not dare to take on himself the authority to publish a book specifically On the Soul. Without doubt this caution of his shows that he dared to confirm nothing on this matter as plain doctrine. In short, in the book he writes on the Apostle's Epistle to Titus, describing the heretic and mentioning the soul, he says this: ### Scripture references - Rom 2:15: quotation, high confidence - Rom 2:16: quotation, high confidence - Isa 4:4: quotation, high confidence - Isa 47:14: quotation, high confidence - Isa 47:15: quotation, high confidence - Isa 10:17: allusion, medium confidence - Mal 3:3: quotation, high confidence - Isa 66:16: allusion, low confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Origen, Princ. 2.10.4–6 (Origen, On First Principles): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Origen's quotations: On First Principles 2.10.4, 2.10.6, and 2.10.6 (Isaiah and Malachi); then a passage from his commentary on Psalm 6 (Greek numbering; the same in English), whose opening is lost in the scan ("…"). - Origen did write a treatise On Martyrdom (the Exhortation to Martyrdom) and On Prayer, both on this site; his On the Resurrection is lost. - No public-domain English translation of the Apology exists; checked privately against a modern English translation (FOTC 120); the Latin decides. ### Citation (SBL) Pamphilus, Apol. Orig. 8.1 (PG 17:601a–604a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/6-1/#p-8-1). ## Apology for Origen 9.1 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/9-1/#p-9-1 - Source: PG 17:604a–608b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Pamphilus argues that the origin of the soul is not settled by Scripture or the Church's preaching, that the rival views (creation at conception, transmission with the seed) are more open to objection than Origen's, and begins his answer to the charge of transmigration. ### Latin text ORIGENES. Sunt vero et alia quaedam dogmata, quae in apostolicis traditionibus non habentur, de quibus requires si oportet eos qui quodlibet de his sentiunt vel pertractant, hereticos putandos, utputa, verbi causa dixerim, si quis rationem humana! animae inquirat, cum de ea neque quod ex seminis traduce ducatur, neque quod bonorabilior et antiquior corporum compage sit, tradiderit Ecclesia‘stica regula. Propter quod multi nec comprehendere potuerunt qualiter sentiri oporteret de anima: ratione: sed et qui sliquid sentire vel disserere visi sunt, a nonnullis in suspicione habentur velut novi aliquid introducentes. PAMPHILUS. Deinde post pauca ait : ORIGENES. Sed et tu ipse apud temetipsum discutiens considera si Oportet eum qui quolibet modo de bis opinatur vel haereticum, vel ecclesir sticum temere definiri, aut si non est periculosum de eo pronuntiare, quoniam et ipse perversa: sit et peccet, et sit a semetipso damnatus quod de haereticis dicitur, si quis forte ex his quae supra diximus, quamlibet opinionem licet novam et qum plurimis peregrinam, videatur inducere. … et omnes diversa, quomodo hic magis quam caeteri incusandus est, maxime cum ea quae a reliquis aflirmantur, multo magis et absurda videantur, et sibi ipsa contraria? Quidam enim opinantur praaparatis jam in ventre mulierum deformatisque corporibus, tunc ad praesens creari animas, et inseri deformatojam corpori. Haec vero sentientes, praeter hoc quod manifestas probationes ex sanctis Scripturis adbibere non possunt, insuper etiam injustitiam quodammodo Conditoris accusant, quod non aequaliter omnes utantur, id est, aequas vitae conversationes tribuat omnibus. Statim enim ut creata fuerit anima, cum nihil utique adhuc in se culpa: commiserit, inseritur interdum, si ita acciderit cmco corpori, vel alias debili: ali:e vero sanis corporibus et firmioribus: et aliis quidem multum vita tempus tribuitur, aliis vero brevissimum : ita ut interdum simul ut nata: foerint, exturbentur e corpore: et aliae quidem ad conversationem agrestem quamdam et barbaram, et ubi ex nulla nihil humani aut honesti est, et super omnia ubi paternae superstitionis impietas obtinet, diriguntur: aliae vero ad viros honestos, sobrios, humanos, ubi et humanarum legum abservatio viget: interdum etiam ad parentes religiosos, ubi educatio nobilis et honesta, ubi etiam eruditio rationabilis, transmittuntur. Quomodo igitur assertores eorum in talibus divinam Provi; dentiam recte omnia dispensantem, et arqua lance moderantem, tanquam boui et justi Dei poterunt assignare? Jam vero illi qui ex traduce animas venire afiirmant, et simul cum corporali eas semine seminari : siquidem (ut quidam ipsorum af. firmare solent) non aliud dicunt animam esse quam iusufilationem Spiritus Dei, illam scilicet quam initio factura: mundi Deus dicitur insulilasse 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 quae peccat, si anima quae de substantia Dei est, peccat; insuper etiam quod et ptenis ' subdeuda sit pro peccato? Sed et illud se (quod perabsurdum est) incurrere non vident, quia necesse est eam simul cum corpore mori, et esse mortalem, si simul cum corpore vel seminata, vel formata, vel nata est. Tum deinde illi qui unam quidem ex nullis substantibus a Deo factam esse dicunt animam, id est illam quze prima facta est in Adam, et ex ea jam omnium hominum animas exsistere, et secundum corporalem sine dubio successionem traducem quoque fieri animarum, etiam ipsi quid aliud ostendunt, nisi animas esse mortales? Si enim sicutanimalia caetera ex solo semine oriuntur, ita etiam de hominibus sentiamus, ut cum corpore simul in eodem semine etiam anima diffundatur, quid dicimus de his qui imperfecti adhuc et de ventre aborsi sunt, et qui nonnunquam etiam antequam vasculorum naturalium receptaculis semina sint suscepta, depereunt? In quibus sine dubio invenietur, quod simul etiam illae quae naturali ratione semiuibus insertae inerant animm, exstinctae sint pariter et corruptae. Sive ergo ex insumatione Dei sint, sive ab una illa quae prima facta est, necessario simul cum corporibus corrumpcntur, si eamdem cum corporibus etiam originem sumunt secundum ipsorum rationem. Aut enim nihil omuino ex rationabili atque immortali anima participavit illud quod adhuc in ventre corruptum est; et repulsa illa ratio est quae allirmat eam iu seminis traduce simul cum corporibus seminatam : aut si participat, necessitas imminet confiteri mortalem esse animam: quod fides utique nostra non recipit. Verumtamen qUId est quod ex his omnibus ostendi volumus? illud profecto, quod sicut eos qui uuam quamlibet de his quas supra exposuimus, Opinionem veram putant, non recta ratione hereticos quis appellat, pro eo quod neque ex divinis Scripturis certi aliquid de bis vel manifeste dictum esse videatur, neque in Prwdicatione ecclesiastica contineri: ita neque hunc virum culpari justum est, disserentem quod sibi visum est, maxime cum illud praecipue servaverit quod in Ecclesia de animae confessione servari omnimodis debet, id est ne diversas naturas esse diceret animarum: qninimo et dicentes redarguit, et veltementi assertione convincit. Ipse autem fatetur unius Substantia: omnes esse animas, et immortales ac rationabiles, liberi arbitrii ac voluntatis: judicandas quoque esse pro liis quae in hac vita gesserunt: esse tamen eas factas a Deo, qui universa creavit et condidit. Quando autem factae sint, olim simul, aut nunc per singulos nascentium , quid periculi est alterum e duobus opinari? Sed aliter respondere possibile est, ut omnis penitus culpandi aditus excludatur. Sicut enim de luminaribus ωεξΙί diversa singuli, etiam ipsi qui sunt in Ecclesiis, seutiuut; aliis quidem opinantibus esse animautia, et rationabilium animantium; aliis vero putantibus quod irrationabilia sint, imo vero quod non solum anima, sed et omni sensu penitus careant, et sola sine spiritu ac sensu sint corpora: nemo tamen merito alterum eorum qui haec ita diverse sentiunt, haireticum dixerit, propterea quod non aperte de his traditum est in apostolica praedicatione : ita etiam eos qui de humana anima dubitant, et de initio ejus vel origine diversa opinantur, non est rectum hzereticos pronuntiare, maxime cum iu reliquis ecclesiasticas doctrina: regulis quod rectum eSt et catholicum teneant. Novissima criminatio est μετενσωματώσεως, hoc est transmutationis animarum. Ad quod, sicut in caeteris fecimus, ipsius qui accusatur respondebimus … contrario dici poterunt, disputentur : et hanc esse artem disputandi non advertentcs, objiciunt cide hoc dogmate, quod quasi ipse senserit ea quae es adversantis persona disseruit. Denique quod discutiendi haec et non confirmandi dixerit causa, ipse per ea quae post tractatum rei ipsius adjecit, ostendit ltoc modo dicens: ORIGENES. t Sed lucc, quantum ad nos pertinet, non sint dogmata; sed discussionis gratia dicta sint, et abjiciantur. Pro eo autem solo dicta sunt, ne videatur quaestio mota, non esse discussa» PAMPHILUS. Sed haec in eo loco dixit, in quo de animabus animalium requirebat, nou de transmutatione animarum. De animarum vero transmutatione in septimo libro in Evangelium secundum Matthaeum ita scribit : ### English translation (Claude) Origen: "There are also some other doctrines which are not contained in the apostolic traditions, about which you may ask whether those who think or discuss anything about them are to be considered heretics: for example, if anyone inquires into the nature of the human soul, since the Church's rule has handed down neither that it is derived by transmission from the seed, nor that it is more honourable and older than the structure of the body. For this reason many have been unable to grasp what they ought to think about the nature of the soul; and those who have seemed to think or discuss something about it are held under suspicion by some, as introducing something new." Pamphilus: Then, after a little, he says: Origen: "But you yourself, discussing it within yourself, consider whether one who holds any opinion whatever on these matters should rashly be defined as a heretic or as a churchman, or whether it is not dangerous to pronounce of him what is said of heretics, that he is perverted and sins and is condemned by himself, if perhaps he seems to introduce some opinion on the matters we mentioned above, even one that is new and foreign to most." … Pamphilus: … and all (hold) different (views), how is this man to be blamed rather than the others, especially since what the rest affirm seems much more absurd and self-contradictory? For some think that when the bodies have already been prepared and formed in women's wombs, souls are then created for the moment and inserted into the body already formed. Those who think this, besides being unable to bring forward plain proofs from the holy Scriptures, also in a way accuse the Creator of injustice, in that he does not deal equally with all, that is, does not grant equal conditions of life to all. For as soon as the soul is created, having committed no fault at all in itself, it is sometimes inserted, if it so happens, into a blind or otherwise weak body, and others into healthy and stronger bodies. To some a long time of life is granted, to others a very short one, so that sometimes they are driven out of the body as soon as they are born. Some are directed to a rustic and barbarous way of life, where there is nothing human or honourable from any source, and above all where the impiety of ancestral superstition holds sway; others are sent to honourable, sober, humane men, where observance of human laws flourishes, sometimes even to religious parents, where the upbringing is noble and honourable and the education rational. How, then, can those who assert this ascribe such things to the divine Providence of a good and just God, which ordains all things rightly and governs them with an even balance? As for those who affirm that souls come by transmission and are sown together with the bodily seed: if indeed, as some of them usually affirm, they say that the soul is nothing other than the breath of God's Spirit, namely the breath which God is said to have breathed into Adam at the beginning of the making of the world, professing that it is from the very substance of God, will not they too seem in a way to assert, outside the rule of Scripture and the reason of piety, that it is the substance of God that sins, if the soul, which is from the substance of God, sins; and furthermore that the substance of God must be subjected to punishments for sin? They do not see that they also fall into this, which is very absurd: that the soul must die together with the body and be mortal, if it was sown, formed, or born together with the body. Then those who say that one soul was made by God out of nothing, namely the one first made in Adam, and that from it the souls of all men now exist, and that there is, without doubt, a transmission of souls following bodily succession: what else do they too show but that souls are mortal? For if we think of men as of the other animals, which arise from seed alone, so that the soul is spread together with the body in the same seed, what do we say of those who are aborted from the womb while still unformed, and of those who sometimes perish even before the seeds have been received into the receptacles of the natural vessels? In them, without doubt, it will be found that the souls planted by natural reason in the seeds were extinguished and destroyed along with them. Whether, then, souls are from the breath of God or from that one which was first made, they will necessarily be destroyed together with the bodies, if according to their reasoning they take the same origin as the bodies. For either what is destroyed while still in the womb had no share at all in a rational and immortal soul, and the reasoning that affirms that the soul is sown with the bodies by transmission of seed is refuted; or, if it has a share, one is forced to confess that the soul is mortal, which our faith certainly does not accept. What, then, do we wish to show from all this? Surely this: that just as no one rightly calls heretics those who think any one of the opinions set out above to be true, since nothing certain seems to have been said plainly about these matters in the divine Scriptures, nor is anything contained in the Church's preaching, so neither is it just to blame this man for discussing what seemed right to him; especially since he kept above all what must in every way be kept in the Church's confession about the soul, namely not to say that there are different natures of souls. Indeed, he refutes those who say so and convicts them with vehement assertion. He himself confesses that all souls are of one substance, immortal and rational, with free choice and will, to be judged for what they did in this life, and yet made by God, who created and founded all things. As for when they were made, all at once long ago or now one by one as people are born, what danger is there in holding either of the two? But it is possible to answer in another way, so as to shut out every approach to blame. For just as individuals, even those in the churches, think differently about the heavenly lights, some holding that they are living beings, and rational ones, others thinking that they are irrational, or rather that they lack not only soul but all sense whatever and are mere bodies without spirit or sense; and yet no one would rightly call either of those who think so differently a heretic, because nothing has been handed down openly about them in the apostolic preaching: so too it is not right to pronounce heretics those who are in doubt about the human soul and hold different opinions about its beginning or origin, especially since in the other rules of the Church's teaching they hold what is right and catholic. The last charge is that of metensomatosis, that is, the transmigration of souls. To this, as we did with the others, we will reply with the words of the one accused … could be said on the opposite side are discussed; and not noticing that this is the art of disputation, they object to him regarding this doctrine as though he himself held what he set out in the person of an opponent. In short, that he said these things for the sake of discussion and not of confirmation, he himself shows by what he added after treating the matter itself, saying thus: Origen: "But let these things, as far as we are concerned, not be doctrines; let them be said for the sake of discussion, and let them be rejected. They were said only so that the question, once raised, should not seem undiscussed." Pamphilus: But he said this in the place where he was inquiring about the souls of animals, not about the transmigration of souls. On the transmigration of souls he writes thus in the seventh book on the Gospel according to Matthew: ### Scripture references - Titus 3:11: quotation, high confidence - Gen 2:7: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Origen, Princ. 1.8.4 (Origen, On First Principles): quotation, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Origen's quotations here come from his lost Commentary on Titus; the brief one on the souls of animals is On First Principles 1.8.4. - Lines are lost in the scan in two places, shown as "…": after "foreign to most" (the end of Origen's quotation and the beginning of Pamphilus's comment); and in the introduction to the last charge. - Pamphilus states three views of the soul's origin current in his day: each soul created when the body is formed (creationism); souls transmitted with the seed (traducianism); and the soul existing before the body, Origen's hypothesis, which Pamphilus presents as an open question. - No public-domain English translation of the Apology exists; checked privately against a modern English translation (FOTC 120); the Latin decides. ### Citation (SBL) Pamphilus, Apol. Orig. 9.1 (PG 17:604a–608b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/9-1/#p-9-1). ## Apology for Origen 10.1 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/9-1/#p-10-1 - Source: PG 17:608b–615a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Pamphilus answers the charge that Origen taught the transmigration of souls with passages in which Origen rejects it as foreign to the Church and contrary to Scripture's teaching that the world will end. ### Latin text ORIGENES. Quidam quidem opinati sunt ex eo quod dictum est: Ipse est Elias qui venturus est: animam Eliae eamdem fuisse quam Joannis. Quod enim dixit: Ipse est Elias, non ad aliud, sed ad animam referendum putarunt, et ex hoc pene solo sermone dogma introduxerunt μετενσωματώσεως, id est, transmutationis animarum, quasi etiam ipso hoc Jesu confirmante. Sed oportuerat intueri, quia si hoc verum esset, in multis utique prophetarum vel Evangeliorum scriptis simile aliquid inveniri deberet. Tum deinde etiam ille sermo qui huic adjungitur, ostendit secretiorem quemdam … qualia peccata Eliae anima transmutata est in Joannem, qui ab ipso angelo nasciturus praenuntiatur, a quo et Jesus Salvator noster? Quomodo ergo non hoc evidentissimum mendacium est, ut ille qui tam perfectus fuit, ut ne communem quidem istam mortem gustaret, veniret ad transmutationem animae, quae secundum illorum assertionem non potest accidere nisi ex peccatis? Deinde quomodo hoc exponent quod dictum est ad Joannem: Tu Elias es? Et dicit: Non sum. Sed ut ostendatur conve… hoc etiam illi verbo quod dixit Dominus: Si vultis suscipere, ipse est Elias qui venturus est: quod dixit, Elias ipse est, referendum est ad spiritum et virtutem ipsius Eliae. Joannes enim processit in spiritu et virtute Eliae convertere corda patrum ad filios. PAMPHILUS. De eo ipso, ex undecimo libro de Evangelio secundum Matthaeum. ORIGENES. Hi quidem qui alieni sunt a catholica fide, transferri animas ex humanis corporibus in corpora animalium putant, secundum differentiam peccatorum. Nos vero qui hoc nusquam cautum invenimus in divina Scriptura, dicimus quia per multam vitae negligentiam humana prudentia, cum fuerit inculta atque neglecta, efficitur velut irrationabile pecus per imperitiam vel negligentiam, non per naturam. Similiter autem et qui tales fuerint effecti ex propositi sui negligentia, … qua erudiri neglexerint, si eruditioni se ac exercitio rationabili dediderint, rationabiles efficiuntur atque prudentes: sicut scriptum est de evangelicis canibus qui manducabant de micis quae cadunt de mensa dominorum suorum: ex quibus conversa Chananaea facta est Dei filia, secundum quod dicit ad eam Salvator: O filia, magna est fides tua. Sicut enim virtus animi confert unicuique ut sit filius Dei, ita malitia mentis et verborum … PAMPHILUS. De eodem, ex tertio decimo libro … ORIGENES. In his Elias, non anima dici mihi videtur, uti ne incurramus in dogma alienum ab Ecclesia Dei de transmutatione animarum, quod nec ab apostolis traditum est, nec usquam Scripturis cautum est. Contrarium namque est his quae dicta sunt ab Apostolo: Quoniam quae videntur temporalia sunt; et ubi est hoc quod omnes Scripturae confirmant, quod praesens saeculum finiendum est? Sed nec illud poterit stare quod dictum est: Caelum et terra transibunt; neque illud quod dicit Apostolus: Transibit enim habitus hujus mundi; et illud: Caeli peribunt, et ea quae sequuntur. Si enim (ut aiunt auctores hujus dogmatis) nemo potest in id initium restitui, quod primo … ab initio mundi usque ad finem, qua ex causa mutari animam vel transferri secundo vel tertio opus est, vel frequenter? Hoc enim modo delicta uniuscujusque perhibent et poenas lui, si in diversa corpora frequentius transmittantur. Quod utique superfluo fiet, si finis nullus emendationis occurrat, nec erit unquam quando non anima transferatur. Et si semper pro delictis animabus corpora diversa redeundum est, quis unquam mundo dabitur finis, ut impleatur illud quod dictum est: Caelum et terra transibunt? Quod etsi concedatur, verbi gratia, ut sit aliquis sine peccato, quem non sit necesse revolvi in corpus, quot per tempora putabimus inveniri? unam fortasse vix animam quae penitus pura sit, nec permutatione corporis indigeat. Quod et ipsum si concedatur, rursum contrarium suum dogma efficitur. Si enim demus paucas quasque animas per singulos ad perfectionem posse restitui, ita ut ultra in corpora venire non indigeant, necesse est (licet per infinita saecula et immensa tempora) singulis quibusque animabus ad perfectionem restitutis, cessare … usum corporum, et per hoc finem mundum recipere ac resolvi. Non tamen ita videtur sanctae Scripturae, quae dicit multitudinem peccantium relinquendam esse in fine saeculi. Quod ex eo manifestissime indicatur quod in Evangelio scriptum est: Verumtamen putas veniens Filius hominis inveniet fidem super terram? et quemadmodum apud Matthaeum ita expressum invenimus: Sicut enim in diebus Noe, ita erit et adventus Filii hominis. PAMPHILUS. Et posteaquam de Scripturis multa disseruit, ipse jam suam sententiam hoc modo declarat. ORIGENES. Erit autem his qui tunc erunt vindicta, non ex transmutatione animarum: non jam ad peccandum locus erit, sed alia genera poenarum. Transmutatio namque corporum poenam non faciet peccatorum, ita ut nulla extrinsecus putentur inferri supplicia; quin potius est peccatorum … poenarum modus, id est ut pro his quae in mundo gesserunt, poenam recipiant delictorum. Manifestum tamen est quod … singulae rationes his … possunt rei consequentiam diligenter advertere, contrariae sunt huic dogmati quo perhibentur animae transmutari. Quod si gentilium auctores sequi volunt qui opinionem istam ex principiorum suorum consequentia persecuti sunt, dicentes cum haec fiant, sine dubio nunquam mundum istum posse finiri, consequens est eos qui haec sentiunt, Scripturae nostrae non credere, quae manifestissime pronuntiat finem mundi futurum, et non exquirere in ipsis Scripturis expositiones, sive assertiones ineptas et inconsequentes, ex quibus nullo genere ostendi potest quod secundum Scripturas nostras nunquam finis futurus sit. PAMPHILUS. De eadem re, ex libro De Proverbiis Salomonis. ORIGENES. Videtur autem mihi et illa assertio quae transformari animas de corporibus in alia corpora asseverat, pervenisse etiam in aliquos eorum qui Christo credere videntur, ex quibusdam Scripturae sanctae occasionibus, non intelligentes quomodo intelligi debeant quae scripta sunt. Non enim advertunt quomodo homo efficiatur … aut pullus, equus, aut mulus; et putaverunt transmutari humanam animam in pecudum corpora, ut aestimarent quod aliquando serpentis suscipit corpus, vel viperae, aliquando equi, vel reliquorum animalium. Jam ergo consequens est et hoc illos dicere debere, quod diabolus, qui leo in Scripturis dicitur, corpore leonis utatur, aut draconis carnibus, cum draco nominatur; ita erit ut secundum illos transmutatio ista animarum perveniat et in daemonum naturam, ut sit aliquando vel leo vel draco animam habens diabolum. PAMPHILUS. Et paulo post: ORIGENES. Sed superfluae sunt istae omnes adinventiones. Manifestum est enim quod una poena … ### English translation (Claude) Origen: "Some have supposed, from the saying 'He is Elijah who is to come', that the soul of Elijah was the same as that of John. For they thought that 'He is Elijah' was to be referred to nothing else but the soul; and from this saying almost alone they introduced the doctrine of metensomatosis, that is, the transmigration of souls, as if Jesus himself confirmed it. But they should have observed that, if this were true, something similar would surely have to be found in many writings of the prophets or the Gospels. Then the words joined to this saying also show a more hidden … for what sins was the soul of Elijah changed into John, whose birth was foretold by the same angel by whom Jesus our Saviour too (was foretold)? How, then, is this not a most evident lie: that he who was so perfect that he did not even taste this common death should come to a transmigration of soul, which according to their own assertion cannot happen except because of sins? Then, how will they explain what was said to John, 'Are you Elijah?' and he says, 'I am not'? But so that it may be shown to agree … with the Lord's saying too, 'If you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come': his saying 'He is Elijah' is to be referred to the spirit and power of Elijah himself. For John went forth in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children." Pamphilus: On the same matter, from the eleventh book on the Gospel according to Matthew. Origen: "Those who are strangers to the catholic faith think that souls are transferred from human bodies into the bodies of animals, according to the difference of their sins. But we, who find this nowhere laid down in divine Scripture, say that through great negligence of life human prudence, when it has been left uncultivated and neglected, becomes like an irrational beast through lack of skill or negligence, not by nature. Likewise those who have become such through the negligence of their purpose, … by which they neglected to be taught, if they give themselves to instruction and rational exercise, become rational and prudent; as it is written of the dogs in the Gospel, who ate of the crumbs that fall from their masters' table: from among them the Canaanite woman, converted, was made a daughter of God, according to what the Saviour says to her, 'O daughter, great is your faith.' For just as virtue of mind brings it about for each one that he is a son of God, so wickedness of mind and words …" Pamphilus: On the same, from the thirteenth book … Origen: "In these words it seems to me that it is not the soul that is called Elijah, lest we fall into the doctrine, foreign to the Church of God, of the transmigration of souls, which was neither handed down by the apostles nor laid down anywhere in the Scriptures. For it is contrary to what the Apostle said, 'For the things that are seen are temporal'; and where is what all the Scriptures confirm, that the present age is to be brought to an end? Nor will this saying be able to stand, 'Heaven and earth will pass away'; nor what the Apostle says, 'For the form of this world will pass away'; and this, 'The heavens will perish', and what follows. For if, as the authors of this doctrine say, no one can be restored to that beginning which … first … from the beginning of the world to the end, for what reason is it necessary for the soul to be changed or transferred a second or a third time, or often? For in this way they say that each one's offences and punishments are paid, if souls are transferred quite often into different bodies. That will certainly happen to no purpose if no end of amendment occurs, and there will never be a time when the soul is not being transferred. And if souls must always return to different bodies for their offences, what end will ever be given to the world, so that the saying may be fulfilled, 'Heaven and earth will pass away'? And even if it be granted, for example, that someone may be without sin, so that he need not be rolled back into a body, how many shall we suppose are found in the course of time? Perhaps scarcely one soul that is wholly pure and has no need of a change of body. And even if this be granted, their doctrine again becomes contrary to itself. For if we grant that some few souls, one by one, can be restored to perfection, so that they need not come into bodies any more, then it is necessary, even through infinite ages and immeasurable times, once each and every soul has been restored to perfection, that … the use of bodies should cease, and through this that the world should receive its end and be dissolved. Yet holy Scripture does not seem to think so, for it says that a multitude of sinners will be left at the end of the age. This is shown most plainly by what is written in the Gospel: 'Yet, when the Son of Man comes, do you think he will find faith on the earth?' and as we find it expressed in Matthew: 'For as in the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.'" Pamphilus: And after he had discussed many things from the Scriptures, he now declares his own opinion in this way: Origen: "There will be vengeance on those who are then, not by transmigration of souls; there will no longer be room for sinning, but other kinds of punishment. For transmigration of bodies will not make a punishment of sins, such that no punishments are thought to be inflicted from outside; rather there is … a manner of punishments for sins, that is, that they receive the penalty of their offences for what they did in the world. It is plain, however, that … every single argument, to those (who) can carefully attend to the consequence of the matter, is contrary to this doctrine by which souls are said to be transmigrated. And if they wish to follow the pagan authors, who pursued this opinion as a consequence of their own principles, saying that while these things happen this world can without doubt never come to an end, it follows that those who think so do not believe our Scripture, which most plainly declares that the end of the world will come, and do not seek in the Scriptures themselves for explanations or assertions, foolish and inconsistent, from which it can in no way be shown that according to our Scriptures there will never be an end." Pamphilus: On the same matter, from the book on the Proverbs of Solomon. Origen: "It seems to me that the assertion which maintains that souls are transformed from bodies into other bodies has reached even some of those who appear to believe in Christ, through certain occasions taken from holy Scripture, since they do not understand how what is written ought to be understood. For they do not notice how a man becomes … or a colt, a horse, or a mule; and they thought that the human soul is changed into the bodies of beasts, so that they supposed it sometimes takes the body of a snake, or a viper, sometimes of a horse, or of other animals. It follows, then, that they ought to say this too: that the devil, who is called a lion in the Scriptures, uses the body of a lion, or the flesh of a dragon when he is called a dragon; and so, according to them, this transmigration of souls will reach even the nature of demons, so that at times a lion or a dragon has the devil for its soul." Pamphilus: And a little later: Origen: "But all these inventions are superfluous. For it is plain that one punishment … ### Scripture references - Matt 11:14: quotation, high confidence - Luke 1:13: allusion, medium confidence - Luke 1:17: quotation, high confidence - 2 Kgs 2:11: allusion, medium confidence - John 1:21: quotation, high confidence - Matt 15:27: allusion, high confidence - Matt 15:28: quotation, high confidence - Matt 17:12: allusion, medium confidence - 2 Cor 4:18: quotation, high confidence - Matt 24:35: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:31: quotation, high confidence - Ps 102:26 (101:27 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Luke 18:8: quotation, high confidence - Matt 24:37: quotation, high confidence - Ps 32:9 (31:9 LXX): allusion, medium confidence - 1 Pet 5:8: allusion, high confidence - Rev 12:9: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Origen's quotations: his Commentary on Matthew, books 7, 11, and 13 (the last survives in Greek, 13.1, on Matt 17:10–13), and his lost commentary on Proverbs. Pamphilus says that the first passage comes from the seventh book; Origen there argues that John the Baptist was Elijah in "spirit and power" (Luke 1:17), not by the return of Elijah's soul. - In Migne this passage is printed in three columns: Rufinus's text, a new Latin translation of the surviving Greek of Commentary on Matthew 13.1 (Huet's), and notes. The scan mixes all three. Only Rufinus's text is given; it has been sorted out by sense, and words lost at the column edges are shown as "…". Migne's editor notes that at "there will no longer be room for sinning" Rufinus's Latin differs from the Greek, which speaks of those who are found still sinning. - The staged text breaks off at "one punishment …"; the rest of the Apology is not in this section. - No public-domain English translation of the Apology exists; checked privately against a modern English translation (FOTC 120); the Latin decides. ### Citation (SBL) Pamphilus, Apol. Orig. 10.1 (PG 17:608b–615a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/9-1/#p-10-1).