Apology against the books of Rufinus, sent to Pammachius and Marcellus

Blzh. Jerome of Stridon and Rufinus of Aquileia were friends for a long time. Their parallel activities as translators of Origen led to a disagreement between them over the question of which of them was actually an Origenist. The treatise “Apology against the books of Rufinus, sent to Pammachius and Marcellus” (3 books) is filled with personal attacks and insults, and also has practically no dogmatic or moral and edifying content. Books 1-2 were written by Bl. Jerome in 401 in response to the “Apology against Jerome” compiled by Rufinus of Aquileia. Book 3 was compiled in 402 as a response to a letter from Rufinus, in which he threatened to attract the blj. Jerome to court if he does not stop the attacks. In the 1st book (32 chapters) we are talking about the reason for the renewal of the conflict between the bl. Jerome and Rufinus (chap. 1–5). The author exonerates himself from accusations of Origenism (chap. 14–29), as well as from accusations of violating the oath he took in a dream (chap. 30–32). In the 2nd book (36 chapters) Bl. Jerome refutes Rufinus' "Apology" and also justifies his new translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew original (chap. 1-14), responding to Rufinus's accusations that with these translations he intends to oust the text of the Septuagint from worship. Blzh. Jerome explains that the new translations were made solely in the interests of studying the Holy Scriptures and polemics with Judaism. In the 3rd book (44 chapters), the author condemns the duplicity and resourcefulness shown by Rufinus during the Origenist disputes in relation to the bishop. Theophilus of Alexandria, Vigilantius, Pope Anastasius I, bishop. Epiphanius of Cyprus and himself (chap. 16–24). Blzh. Jerome discusses Rufinus's position on the question of the origin of the soul (chap. 25–33). Despite the fact that at the end of the book the author calls on Rufinus to reconcile, this was the final break in relations between them. The essay raises some dogmatic topics, for example: - ecclesiology. The Church was created by Christ, founded by the apostles, sacredly maintaining fidelity to tradition (Book 3, chapter 25); - eschatology. Blzh. Jerome refutes Origen's opinion about the pre-existence of souls and teaches that Adam's soul was created simultaneously with his body. Likewise, even now the souls of people are created daily by God, Who never ceased to be the Creator. It is natural for a person to resurrect the flesh that he had during life (Book 2, Chapter 5). Blzh. Jerome denied the possibility of salvation for the devil, demons and wicked pagans (Book 2, chapters 6-7). He recognized the possibility of salvation for Christians who committed sins and were overtaken by death. Their deeds will be tested and purified by fire, which is “consciousness of sins and repentance that burns the inside of the heart” (Book 2, chapter 7) (the influence of Origen’s ideas about universal salvation and the purifying nature of fiery punishments). *The title of the work in Latin is Apologia adversus libros Rufini, lib. I-III. 1. And from your letters and from the letters of many, I learned that in the school of the Tyrant 1, “with the tongue of dogs from my enemies” (Ps. 67:24), they object to me why I translated the books Περί άρχυ into Latin. O unparalleled shamelessness! The doctor is accused of indicating poison - in order, of course, to protect his (the medicine seller) φαρμαχοπώλην not by evidence of innocence, but by complicity in his crime, as if the number of sinners reduces the guilt and the accusation lies in persons, and not in deeds. Books are written against me, rumors about them are spread everywhere, and yet they are not published in order to sway the simpletons with them and to deprive me of the opportunity to answer for myself. A new kind of malice is to blame for what you are afraid to reveal, to write about what you are hiding. If what he writes is true, then why was he afraid of publicity? If it’s false, then why did you write it? Once upon a time, as boys, we read: “I think that it is the nature of the reckless to write something that he would like to hide” (Cicero lib. 1 Academ. Quaest.). The question is: what kind of insult is this? Why are they raging, why are they going crazy? That I pushed away the pompous panegyrist, that I did not want praise from treacherous lips, that under the guise of a friend I understood the treachery of the enemy? In the introduction I am called brother and comrade, and my crimes are stated quite clearly - what I wrote, with what praise I raised Origen to heaven. He says he did it with good intentions. And how is it that now, as an enemy, he blames me for what he previously, as a friend, praised? He wanted to imitate me in translation as the founder, and to borrow authority for his work from my works. It was enough to say once that I wrote. What was the need to repeat the same thing over and over again and often mention it, and, as if no one believed his praises, to quote the very expressions? Praise that is so concerned that listeners believe it is neither sincere nor pure. Why was he afraid that they would not believe him in praising me without citing my words? You see that we understand his wisdom, we understand that he often practiced the techniques of satirical panygyricism. He cannot seem sincere where he pretends to be an artist in cunning. Let it be an accident to commit a mistake once, many times twice; But why does he cleverly make mistakes and often, and so throughout the entire work, he carries out errors, so that I cannot deny what he praises? A reasonable person and friend should, after the end of the misunderstanding, avoid even slight suspicions, so that it does not seem that what he did by accident was done with intention. Therefore, Tullius, in his Commentary on the Charges for Gabinius, says: “I have always thought that with the highest holiness and fidelity one should guard all friendships, and especially those that are restored after enmity: because the violation of duty in an indissoluble friendship is justified by the excuse of folly, or (to put it more forcefully) negligence; and what is done after reconciliation is considered a matter not of negligence, but of a deliberate violation of friendship and is usually attributed not to unreason, but to treachery.” And Flaccus Horace, in a letter he wrote to Florus, said: “poorly repaired love does not come together and is torn apart.” 2. What good does it do me now that he swears that he was sincerely mistaken? So they accuse me of praising him and charge me with a crime of insincere, impure praise of my most sincere friend. If he prepared an authority for his work, wanting to show whom he followed, then he had Hilary the Confessor, who translated almost forty thousand verses of Origen into Job and the Psalms; he had Ambrose, whose almost all his books are filled with the speeches of Origen, and the martyr Victorinus, who proves his simplicity in Origen, without plotting a plot against anyone. He is silent about all of them, and as if ignoring the pillars of the church, he pursues me, one small and insignificant person, in the corners. Is it possible that he will swear that he did not know them with the same simplicity with which he denounced his friend out of ignorance? But who will believe him - a very learned man, such an expert on ancient, especially Greek, writers that, chasing after someone else's, he seemed to have lost his own - that he does not know the latest writers, and specifically Latin ones? From this it is clear that I am not so much praised by them as they are not accused - so whether this praise, as he tries to assure the unreasonable, or the accusation, as I feel from the pain of my wound, is such that I have neither glory in praise, nor consolation in censure in my partners. 3. I have your letters in my hands, in which you write that I have been accused, and ask me to answer the accuser, so that it does not seem that I admit guilt if I remain silent. I confess that I responded to these letters, and although I was offended, I retained the requirement of friendship so much that I defended myself without blaming the accuser, and regarding what one friend accused me of in Rome, I represented myself as being accused by many enemies all over the world, so that it would seem that I was responding not to an individual, but to accusations. Really, having been accused, according to the law of friendship I should have remained silent, and having my face covered in dirt and, so to speak, splashed with a heretical stench, I should not even wash it with plain water, so that it would not seem that he had offended me? This is an attitude neither to a person nor to a person - to clearly call him a friend, and at the same time, under the guise of a praiser, expose his guilt, and not give him the opportunity to even prove his Orthodoxy and answer that the praise of the heretic, which they accuse him of, did not come from sympathy for his heresy, but from surprise at his mind. He wanted, or, as he himself wants to seem, he was forced to translate into Latin what he did not want. What was the need to involve me in the matter, sheltered and separated by such a space of sea and land, to expose me against the hatred of many, in order to harm me more with praise than to benefit myself with my example? And now, since I refused his praises and, turning the style around, showed that I was not what my friend had informed me of, now, they say, he is furious and has composed three books against me with Attic art, accusing me of the very thing for which he had previously praised, and accusing me of his wicked opinions in the translation of Origen - in the translation, about which in the preface of his panigyric he said: “I will follow the rule of my predecessors and especially that man mentioned above - who, having translated into Latin more than seventy books of Origen, which he called homiletical, also translated several of his works into the Apostolic: in them, even if there are some tempting passages in Greek, during the translation he smoothed out and cleaned everything up, so that the Latin reader does not find in them anything that would disagree with our faith. So, if possible, we follow this man, although not by the power of eloquence, but by the rules of discipline.” 4. He cannot deny that these are truly his words. The very grace of style and harmonious speech, and what is more, Christian simplicity, indicate the characteristics of its author. It’s a different matter if Eusebius spoiled it, and the accuser of Origen and who was biased towards me testified that in the same work both he and I were either mistaken or thought correctly. Now my enemy cannot call me a heretic, about whom he said long ago that I do not disagree with his faith. At the same time, I ask him what this restrained and ambiguous speech means? The Latin reader, he says, will not find anything in them that would disagree with our faith. What faith does he call his own? Is it the one that is strong in the Roman Church, or the one that is contained in the writings of Origen? If he answers: Roman, then I, who have not translated anything from Origen’s errors, am Orthodox. And if his faith is the blasphemy of Origen, then by accusing me of inconstancy, he shows himself to be a heretic. Either my praiser believes rightly and by his confession accepts me as an accomplice, or wrongly and shows that before he praised me because he considered me an accomplice in his error. But I will try to answer against those books that are distributed in the corners and offend me with thieves’ slander, since they were published and came out of darkness into the light and could have reached us through the love of our brothers or through the foolishness of our rivals. For these books should not be very scary if their author was afraid to publish them and assign them for reading only to accomplices. Then I will either admit the accusations, or dispel, or expose the accuser of what he accuses me of, and show that my silence until now was a consequence of modesty, and not of consciousness of guilt. 5. By the way, I want to be cleared before the silent court of the reader and refute the most important accusation between friends, so that he can see that it was not I who was the first to offend, who, even having received a wound, did not direct arrows against the pursuer, but only put his hand to his wound. I ask the reader, without prejudice to persons, to place the blame on the one who made the attack and, not content with the insult, to compile three books against me, as if tongueless and forever silent, and work on my works άντιθέσειζ by Marcion. My soul longs to know both his beyond-expectations erudition and my unexpected madness. Perhaps in a short time he learned what he had to teach us, and a sudden river of eloquence will reveal the knowledge no one suspected of him. So the father makes him God, so the great Jesus (From Virgil. Book X. Aeneid.). Let him begin the battle. Although he took the advantage of the spear of his accusation and attacked us with all his might, we believe in the Lord Savior that His truth will cover us with a shield and we will be able to sing it with the Psalmist: “The arrows of the child caused their wounds” (Ps. 63:8), and: “If an army takes up arms against me, my heart will not fear: if battle rises up against me, against him I trust” (Ps. 26:3). But more on that elsewhere. Now let's return to what we started about. 6. His supporters attack me and, having no luck in business, prepare mill shells (Aeneid. book 1) - why did I translate into Latin the harmful and contrary to the church faith books of Origen περὶ ᾿А ρχῶν. The answer to them is short and concise: I was prompted by your letters and letters, brother Pammachius, informing me that these books were falsely translated by others and something was thrown out in them, something was either added or changed. And so that I would not have mistrust of the letters, you sent copies of that translation with a preface praising me. When I read this and compared it with the Greek, I immediately noticed that what Origen said impiously about the Father and the Son and the Holy. Spirit and what Roman ears could not bear, the translator changed for a better side, and other opinions about the fall of angels, about the fall of souls, about the miracles of the resurrection, about the world or Epicurus' alternating worlds, about the restoration of everyone to the same state, and much worse than this, which would take a long time to repeat here - either translated as I found it in Greek, or stated more extensively and convincingly according to the comments of Didymus, the most notorious defender of Origen, so that whoever sees Origen in the doctrine of the Trinity as Orthodox, does not fear him as a heretic in other points. 7. Someone who was not his friend would probably say: either change everything that is bad, or publish everything that you consider beautiful. If for ordinary people you cut off everything that is harmful and what you imagine to be introduced by heretics, you do not want to transfer into the speech of others, then I concede to you in everything that is harmful. And if in translation you preserve the true faith, then why do you change some things and leave others untouched, although in the same Prologue you openly admit that you corrected the bad and left the best? On the basis of this, you will be denounced not as a free translator, but as an independent writer, if anything translated turns out to be heretical, and you will be accused of an obvious crime - that you wanted to coat a cup of poison with honey, so that the deceptive sweetness would cover up the most evil poison. This is what the enemy would say, and much more harshly than this, and would bring you to the court of the church, not as a translator of a bad work, but as a like-minded person. And I, content with defending myself, (I will say that) I translated simply what was contained in Greek in the books περὶ ᾿А ρχῶν - not so that the reader would believe what I translated, but so that he would not believe what you translated before. My work had a double benefit - since the author is exposed as a heretic, and the incorrect translator is exposed. And so that someone would not consider me to sympathize with what was translated, I protected the inconvenience of the translation with an introduction and showed what the reader should not believe. The first translation contains praise for the author, the second - censure. This one causes the reader to believe, this one encourages not to believe. There, too, I involuntarily find myself approving; here, I so disapprove of the person I am translating that I am forced to blame the person who approves. The same thing is not done for the same purpose; even more so - one path had different outcomes. He destroyed what was, saying that it was distorted by heretics, and added what was not, assuring that Origen had spoken about it in other places - which he will not be able to prove if he does not indicate the very places from where, according to him, he translated. I took care not to change anything from the original. For I translated in order to expose what was poorly translated. Do you recognize me as a translator? I was a traitor, betrayed a heretic in order to protect the church from heresy. Why I praised Origen in some respects is shown by the book that precedes this work. Now we are talking about one of my translations; if it is made with a pious intention, then I should not suffer the charge of impiety by presenting the profane that was offered to the churches as pious. 8. I translated seventy of his books into Latin, as my friend complains, and many of the volumes. There was never any dispute about my work, Rome never worried. What was the need to convey to the Latins what Greece abhors and what the whole world condemns? I, who have translated so many things for so many years, have never been tempted. You, previously unknown, became known for your foolishness from your first and only work. The very introduction shows that you also translated the book of Pamphilus the Martyr in Defense of Origen. And with all your might you are working to ensure that the Church does not reject anyone whose faith the Martyr approves. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, once the leader of the Arian heresy, wrote six books in defense of Origen (as I said above) - a most extensive and elaborate work - and proved with many testimonies that Origen from his point of view is Orthodox, i.e. with ours - Arian. You translate the first of these books under the name of the Martyr. And is it surprising if you want to make me, a man of little importance, a praiser of Origen, when you slandered the martyr? And having changed a few places about the Son of God and the Holy Spirit, which, according to your conviction, the Romans would not like, you left everything else untouched until the end, doing the same thing in the Apology, as if Pamphilus, that you did in the translation of Origen's περὶ ᾿А ρχῶν. If that book is Pamfilov, then of the six books which will be the first by Evseev? In the work itself, which you falsely acknowledge as Pamfilov, further books are mentioned. Both in the second and in the remaining books, Eusebius points to what was said before in the first book and says that he should not repeat the same thing. If the entire work is Pamfilov’s, then why don’t you translate the other books? If it’s different, then why are you changing your name? You are silent, but the very things speak: of course, so that those who will turn away from the leader of the Arians will believe the martyr. 9 . I would say: where was your mind, most simple-minded friend? How could you put the name of a martyr on a heretical book and make the ignorant defenders of Origen out of respect for the martyr of Christ? According to the scholarship that you possess and are famous as a famous συγγραφέας (writer) in the West, so that all your supporters call you a luminary, I don’t think that you didn’t know Evseeva’s σύνταγμα and that the martyr Pamphilus will not compose any work at all. For Eusebius himself, a friend and admirer and close acquaintance of Pamphilus, wrote three most elegant books describing the life of Pamphilus: in them, speaking of other things with amazing praise and extolling his humility to the skies, in the third book he added the following: “Which of the wise was not a friend of Pamphilus? If he saw someone in need of the necessities of life, he generously supplied them with what he could. And he distributed the sacred Scriptures, very willingly, not only for reading, but also for property. And not only men, but also women whom I saw devoted to reading. Therefore, I prepared many codes to distribute to those who wanted them when needed. And he himself did not write any work of his own, except for letters that he sent on occasion to friends: he humiliated himself so much out of humility. “I read the works of ancient writers very diligently and was constantly thinking about them.” 10. The defender of Origen and praiser of Pamphilus says that Pamphilus wrote absolutely nothing and composed nothing independently. And this is said already when Pamphilus was crowned with martyrdom, so that you do not have that refuge, that Pamphilus wrote this after the publication of the books by Eusebius. What should you do? The consciences of many have been seduced by the book that you published under the name of a martyr. For them, the authority of the bishops in condemning Origen, whom they consider to have been praised by a martyr, has no force. What significance will the epistles of Bishop Theophilus have, and what will the meaning of Pope Anastasius, persecuting the heretic throughout the world, when your book, published under the name of Pamphilus, contradicts their epistles, and the testimony of a martyr is opposed to the episcopal name? What you did in the books περὶ ᾿А ρχῶν, do the same with this work ψευδώεπίγράφψ (falsely inscribed). Listen to your friend’s advice, you won’t repent of your outburst: either say that this essay is not yours, or that it was distorted by Eusebius the presbyter. How can you prove that it was translated by you? Your hand is not bound, and you are not so eloquent that no one can imitate you. And if it comes to proof and the evidence of many people presses against obvious shamelessness, then sing a palinode in the manner of Stesichorus. It is better for you to renounce your cause than to keep both the martyr in slander and the deceived in error. Do not be ashamed to change your view: you are not so authoritative and famous that you should be ashamed that you have fallen into error. Imitate me, whom you love very much, without whom you can neither live nor die, and shout with me what I, praised by you, said in my defense. 11. Eusebius of Caesarea, Bishop of Caesarea, whom I mentioned above, in the sixth book of the Apology of Origen, blames Methodius, the bishop and martyr, for the same thing, for which you accuse me of praising me, and says: how did Methodius now dare to write against Origen; Methodius, who said such and such about the opinions of Origen? This is not the place to speak for the martyr, for one cannot talk about everything in all places. This time, let it be enough to resolve that the most famous and learned martyr is accused by an Arian man of that for which you both praise me, being a friend, and accuse me, being insulted. You have a reason to raise a complaint against me regarding this place, why do I now blame Eusebius, whom I previously approved in another place? Although the name of Eusebius is different, it is the same accusation as regarding the name of Origen. I praised Eusebius in his Church History, in his development of chronology, in his description of the Holy Land, and having translated these very works into Latin, I gave them to the people of my language. Am I really an Arian because Eusebius, who compiled these books, is an Arian? If you dare to call me a heretic, remember your introduction to περὶ ᾿А ρχῶν, in which you testify that I am of your faith; and at the same time, I ask you to patiently listen to the complaint of someone who was once your friend. You fight with others, or you complain about them, or you tolerate them yourself. Those who are accused by you and those who accuse you are from your rank; rightly or in vain, you will see. I am also disgusted by the fair accusation against my brother; and I do not blame others, but I say what I myself would not do. Separated from you by such a distance of countries, how have I sinned against you? what did you do wrong? Is my defense really an accusation against you? And if you are not an Origenist and were not one, then I believe your oath; if there was, then I accept the repentant. Why are you angry, if I am the same as you, according to your words? Is it really because I dared to translate Origen’s books after you that my translation is considered a humiliation of your work? What could I do? Your praise was sent to me, i.e. accusing me. You praised me so powerfully and extensively that if I had rested on your praises, everyone would have considered me a heretic. Look at what the excerpt from the letter to me from Rome contains: “Clear the suspicions of people and expose the slanderer, so as not to appear to agree if you do not expose him” (Letter of Pammachius and Oceanus). Constrained by this situation, intending to translate the same books, listen to what I wrote: “My friends (I did not say: my friend, so that it would not seem that I was denouncing you) arranged for me that if I remain silent, I will be found guilty, if I answer, I will be an enemy. Both situations are unpleasant, but of the two I will choose which is easier. Hostile relations can be corrected, blasphemy does not deserve forgiveness” (Letter to Pammachius and Oceanus). Do you see that this work was imposed on me against my will, with refusal on my part, and that future hostility because of this work is justified by the excuse of necessity? If you translated the books of περὶ ᾿А ρχῶν without my name, then you would rightly complain that they were later translated as a denunciation to you. And now you are unfairly offended that I answered you with the essay for which I was accused by your praise. For what you call praise, everyone understands as accusation. Agree that you accused, and you will not be offended because I answered. Suppose you wrote with good intentions, and being innocent and a true friend, from whose lips a lie never came, you insulted me out of ignorance: what benefit does this have for me, the insulted one? Should I not be treated because you hurt me with good intentions? I’m lying amazed, there’s a gaping wound in my chest, my previously clean limbs are stained with blood, and you tell me: don’t put your hand on the wound, so that it doesn’t seem like I’ve wounded you? And the translation itself exposes Origen more than you. For you have corrected what you thought was brought in by heretics. I have stated what, as all Greece says, he himself wrote. Who thinks more justly is neither mine nor yours to judge. Let what both of us have written stand the test of criticism. All the message that I write in my defense is directed against heretics and my accusers; What does it matter to you, who call yourself both Orthodox and my praiser, if I am too strict with heretics and expose their tricks? Rejoice at my attack, so as not to seem like a heretic if you are offended. When writing anonymously against crimes, the one who is offended is the accuser of himself. A prudent person, even if he was offended, would have to hide his mood and dispel the fog lying on his heart with the clarity of his face. 12. Otherwise, if you relate everything that is said against Origen and his followers to yourself, then it follows that the epistles of Pope Theophilus and Epiphanius and other bishops, which I recently translated on their orders, concern you and offend you. And the instructions of the emperors commanding the expulsion of the Origenists from Alexandria and Egypt were drawn up at my suggestion. That the high priest of the Roman city persecutes them with amazing hatred - this was on my advice. That after your translation the whole world began to hate Origen, whom they had previously read in simplicity, this was done by my style. If I am so strong, I wonder why you are not afraid of me. I, so careful in writing publicly (Letter to Rufinus), carefully guarded against you taking anything said personally, immediately wrote a short letter to you, complaining about your praise. Since you were not in Rome, my friends did not want to send you this letter on the grounds that, they said, you and your supporters are spreading rumors about my life unworthy of the name of a Christian. I have attached a copy of this letter to this book, so that you will know what insult I softened with what condescension of friendship. 13. In addition, I hear that you are analyzing some of my message philosophically and, a man with a wrinkled brow and upturned eyebrows, laughing at me with the salt of Plautus, that I called the Jew Barrabas my teacher. And it is not surprising if instead of Varanin, in which there is some similarity of letters, you wrote Barrabas, when you change names with such freedom that you made Pamphilus from Eusebius, and a martyr from a heretic. I need to beware, and I should especially beware, lest you suddenly, unknown to me, call me Sardanapalus from Jerome. So listen, pillar of wisdom and example of Cato's rigor. I did not call him a teacher, but I wanted to prove my study of the Holy Scriptures, to show that I had read Origen as much as I had listened to him. Because it wasn’t from you that I should have learned Hebrew. Is it really an insult to you if I followed Apollinaris and Didymus instead of you? Couldn’t I really have named Gregory, a most learned man, in that letter? Who is his equal among the Latins? As a teacher, I boast and am proud of him. But I indicated only those who were mentioned in the reproach, in order to show that I read Origen in a similar way, not because of the truth of faith, but because of learning. Origen himself, and Clement and Eusebius and many others, when they talk about something from Scripture and want to prove what they say, usually write like this: a Jew told me, I heard from a Jew, this is the opinion of the Jews. After all, Origen names the patriarch Guillus, who was in his time, and the thirtieth volume on Isaiah, at the end of which he explains the words: “Woe to you Ariel, whom David defeated,” concludes with his explanation, and saying that before he was of a different opinion, he confesses that he learned a more just explanation from him. And the eighty-ninth psalm, which is inscribed: “The Prayer of Moses the Man of God,” and the other eleven, which do not have an inscription, according to the opinion of Guillus, recognizes the psalms of the same Moses, and, explaining the Hebrew Scripture, does not consider it unworthy to bring in every place what the Jews think. 14. When the letters of Theophilus were recently read, in which he sets out the errors of Origen, they say that he stopped his ears and clearly before everyone condemned the author of such evil and said that until that time he did not know that Origen wrote such vile things. I’m not blaming, I’m not saying what someone else might have said - that he could not help but know the one whose works he translated, the Apology for whom, written by a heretic, he published under the name of a martyr, whose defense he expressed in his own work; I will speak against this below if there is room for dictation. I say something that he cannot contradict. If it is possible for him not to understand what he translated, then why can I not not know the books of περὶ ᾿А ρχῶν, which I have not read before, and it is impossible for me to read only the Conversations that I translated, in which, according to his own testimony, there is nothing bad? And if, contrary to his conviction, he now accuses me of what he previously praised, then he will be baffled on both sides. For he either praised me, a heretic, because he was of the same opinion with me, or now, being an enemy, he in vain accuses me, whom he previously recognized as Orthodox. But maybe he, as a friend, was silent about my errors, and now, angry, he declares what he previously hid? 15. Although inconsistency does not deserve trust, and statements of enmity give rise to suspicion of falsity, I will boldly go into battle, wanting to find out that I wrote heretical, in order to either repent with him and assure that I did not know the bad sides of Origen and now for the first time learned from Pope Theophilus about his wicked opinions, or to prove that I know these opinions well, and he, according to his custom, misunderstands. For it cannot be that in the same books on the Epistle to the Ephesians, which I hear him condemn, I said both good and bad, and from the same source came both sweet and bitter - that in this entire work I condemned those who believe that souls are created from angels, suddenly forgetting to defend what I previously condemned. He cannot make me look like a fool, me whom he glorified as the most eloquent and learned in his writings. Otherwise, stupid idle talk should be considered a sign of an empty loudmouth and talker rather than a scientist. I don’t know what he actually accuses in the book. For I have only heard rumors about his accusations, and not his writings, and it is stupid, as an apostle, to beat the air with your fist. However, I will answer the wrong until I reach the right: in my old age I will teach my ἀντ ί ζηλον (enemy) what I learned in childhood - that there are many types of essays and that according to the nature of the subject, not only thoughts, but also the expressions of essays vary. 16. Chrysippus and Antipater rotate among the thorns. Dimosthenes and Aeschines throw lightning bolts at each other. Lysias and Isocrates flow pleasantly. Each has amazing variety, but all are perfect in their own way. Read the books of Tullius on Herennius, read his Rhetoric, or, since he says that these works came out of his hands rough and unprocessed, open the three books about the Orator, in which he presents the competition between the most eloquent orators of his time, Crassus and Antony, and the fourth book of the Orator, which he wrote in his old age to Brutus, then you will understand that history is compiled differently, dialogues are different, letters are different, commentaries are different. For in my commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians I so followed Origen and Didymus and Apollinaris (who undoubtedly have contrary opinions) that I did not lose the truth of my faith. What is the purpose of comments? They explain the words of another, with clear speech they reveal what is obscurely stated, they set forth the opinions of many and say: some explain this passage this way, others interpret it this way, they try to confirm their understanding with such and such evidence and on such and such a basis - so that the prudent reader, having read various explanations and having learned the opinions of many, approving or disapproving, judges which is fairer, and, like a good banker, recognizes a counterfeit coin. Will he really be guilty of differing interpretations and opposing opinions if he, explaining something in one essay, sets out the explanations of very many? I suppose that in your youth you read Asper's commentaries on Virgil and Sallust, Vulcatus on the speeches of Cicero, Quiz on his dialogues and on the comedies of Terence, as well as my teacher Donatus on Virgil and the comments of others on others, such as Plautus, Lucretius, Flacca, Persia and Lucan. Accuse their interpreters, why they did not follow the same explanation, but bring about the same subject both what seems to them and what others think. 17. I omit the Greeks, the knowledge of which you extol, and chasing after someone else’s, I almost completely forgot my language - so that, according to the old proverb, it would not seem that the pig is teaching Minerva and that I am carrying firewood into the forest. I am surprised that you, Aristarchus of our time, do not know these trifles. However, you, distracted by thoughts and immersed in the thought of slandering me, neglected the rules of grammar and orators, not considering it necessary to make returns after a long speech, to avoid the rigidity of consonants, to avoid clanging expressions. It is ridiculous to point out the few wounds on a body that is all damaged and mutilated. I do not choose subjects for reproach: let him indicate himself what is free from deficiency. Shouldn't he have known this Socrates: I know that I know nothing? An inexperienced ship's helmsman is afraid to lead. Abrotanum 2 should not be given to a patient except by someone who knows. What is the work of healers, is done by healers: masters work in a workshop. We write poems, both by non-scientists and scientists, whoever it may be. (Horat. epist. 1 ad August). Is it possible that he will swear that he has not studied the sciences, which we very willingly believe him in and without an oath, or will he resort to the testimony of the Apostle: “Even though he is ignorant in word, yet not in understanding” (2 Cor. 11:6). Ap. Paul, who studied Jewish wisdom and received his education at the feet of Gamaliel, whom in his apostolic dignity he is not ashamed to call a teacher, despised Greek eloquence, or, of course, out of humility, said that he did not know it, so that his preaching consisted not in persuasion with words, but in the power of signs; he despised, alien to wealth, being rich in his own means, although Festus would not have said to an uneducated person like you who stumbles at every thought before the tribunal: “You are crazy, Paul! great learning drives you to madness” (Acts 26:24). You, unsteady in Latin and more accurately moving at a snail's pace than the speaker, must either write in Greek in order to appear to those who do not know the Greek language as an expert in a foreign language, or, if you decide to write in Latin, then first listen to the grammarian, put your hand under the ferula, and learn among the boys as an elder student (ἀθηνογέρων) the art of speaking. Even if anyone looked at Croesus and Darius, learning does not follow wealth: it is the companion of sweat and labor, the ally of fasting and not satiety, abstinence and not luxury. Demosthenes, they say, consumed more oil than wine, and with his nightly activities he always surpassed all artisans. After what he did to pronounce one letter, learning the pronunciation ρ from a dog, you reproach me, why did I, a man, learn the Hebrew language from a man. That is why it happens that some remain learned ignoramuses if they do not want to learn what they do not know. And they do not listen to Horace’s admonitions: I'd rather be ignorant How to try scientific work? And Wisdom, which we read under the name of Solomon, says: “Wisdom will not enter into an evil-doing soul; let us dwell in a body guilty of sin: for the Holy Spirit of punishment will flee from flattery and be taken away from foolish thoughts” (Wisdom 1:4-5). On the other hand, satisfied with the reading of the crowd, they do not pay attention to the demands of scientists and are not embarrassed by the sentence with which arrogant ignorance is branded: Was it not you, O ignoramus, who had a custom at crossroads? Sing a pathetic song on a whistling reed? A crowd of shaggy young men sings Milesian vulgarities in schools; The “testament of the Pig” (Testamentum Suis) shakes the insides of the Bess with laughter, and at clownish feasts this kind of obscenity is constantly produced. Isn’t it every day in the squares that a street buffoon hits fools on the back, and when they want to bite a stick, having managed to turn it over, he hits them in the teeth? And we are surprised that the books of the ignorant find readers!... 18. They are indignant at me for why I wrote that the followers of Origen are united among themselves in orgies of lies. I named the book where this was written, namely the sixth book of Origen’s Stromatus, where he, equating our teaching with the view of Plato, says this: “Plato in the third book on the Republic says: one should especially adhere to the truth, for if, as a little higher we very rightly said, a lie is unworthy and useless for God, and is sometimes useful for people (to use it as a seasoning or medicine), then there is no doubt that it is permissible to lie may be given to doctors, but unreasonable people should be prohibited. “You are telling the truth,” answered (the interlocutor), and therefore the leaders of cities (if a similar benefit is allowed for someone else) can sometimes lie to counter enemies or in defense of the fatherland and citizens, and all others who do not know how to use lies should be deprived of permission to lie.” So, Origen then argues, “we, remembering this commandment: “Speak the truth to everyone who is sincere” (Eph. 4:25), should we not say who our neighbor is? But look how carefully the philosopher said: “a lie is unworthy and useless for God, but sometimes it is useful for people.” Even in the types of world government one cannot imagine the possibility of lies on the part of God. If the benefit of the listener requires it, then God expresses His will in dark and mysterious words, so that the dignity of truth is reserved for Him, and something that could be harmful if offered to the people undisguised is covered with some veil. And a person who is forced to resort to lies must carefully observe that sometimes he uses lies as a seasoning or medicine, in order to observe the measure, not to exceed the limits in which Judith used lies against Holofernes, defeating him with a prudent deception in words. Let him imitate Esther, who, having long hidden the truth of her origin, changed the definition of Artaxerxes, and especially the patriarch Jacob, who, as we read, received his father’s blessing through skillful deception. From this it is obvious that if we lie not in order to achieve some great good, then we will have to be subject to the judgment of Him who says: “I am the truth” (John 14:6). This is what Origen wrote; it is impossible to deny this; wrote it in the books appointed for the perfect and for the disciples; he teaches that teachers are allowed to lie, but students should not lie. So, the one who lies well and, without any shyness, invents whatever comes into his mind against the brothers, shows himself to be an excellent teacher. 19. They say that he also blames me for the fact that in the explanation of the second psalm, instead of what was written in Latin: “apprehendite disciplinam” and in Hebrew: “nescu bar”, in my comments I put: “adorate filium”, and in the complete translation of the Psalter into Latin, as if forgetting my previous explanation, I put: “adorate pure”, which obviously contradicts the previous translation. But truly one should forgive him if, although he sometimes stumbles in Latin, he does not know the Hebrew language. Nescu literally means: χαταφιλήσατε, i.e. deosculamini (kiss); Not wanting to translate indecently, I followed the meaning and translated: adorate (read). Since those who worship usually kiss their hand and bow their head (which blessed Job denies in himself in relation to the elements and idols, saying: “Seeing the light of the sun, how it shines, and the moon, how it walks majestically, was I deceived in the secret of my heart and in honor of them did my lips kiss my hand? And this would be a crime worthy of punishment, because I would have renounced the Most High God” (Job 31:26-28), and the Jews, by the nature of their language, put kissing instead of reverence, then in my translation I conveyed what those to whom the word belongs themselves understand. A bar has different meanings among the Hebrews. It is also accepted in the meaning of son, as: Barjona - the son of a dove, Bartlioiomaeus - the son of Folomeus, Bartimaeus, Barhiesu, Barrabas - also means wheat, and a bunch of ears, and chosen, and pure. So, what did I do wrong if I translated a word that has different meanings differently? In interpretations where freedom of research is allowed, I put: “adorate filium” (honor your son), and in the text itself, so as not to seem like an inaccurate translator and not give rise to censure from the Jews, I translated: adorate pure or electe (honor purely or predominantly), as both Aquila and Symmachus translated. What damage is there to the faith of the Church if the reader learns how diversely the same verse is explained by the Jews? 20. Your Origen is allowed to talk about the transmigration of souls, to invent countless worlds, to clothe intelligent creatures with new and new bodies, to say that Christ suffered many times and will suffer even more times, so that what is accepted and brought benefit once benefits forever; and you yourself acquire such authority that you falsely make a martyr out of a heretic, heretical forgeries out of the books of Origen: but I will not be allowed to reason about words and in my interpretations teach the Latins what I learned from the Jews? Even if it were not tiresome and did not smack of self-praise, I would still show you how useful it is to knock around from teachers and learn art from masters: you would see what a forest of ambiguous names and verbs there is in the Hebrew language. This circumstance is the reason for the difference in interpretations: from the doubtful, everyone chooses what seems more consistent to him. But why am I sending you to strangers? Open Aristotle and Alexander's explanations of Aristotle's works: by reading them, you will learn how many ambiguities there are in them, so that perhaps you will finally stop reproaching your friend for something that you never even learned in a dream. 21. But since Paulinian, my brother, informed me of some of his censures regarding the Commentaries on the Epistle to the Ephesians, and he remembered a few of them and showed me the very places, then I should not hide; I only ask the reader to excuse the need if I am somewhat lengthy in presenting and resolving the accusations; for I do not accuse others, but try only to defend myself and refute the slander brought against me in heresy. On Paul's epistles to the Ephesians, Origen wrote three volumes, and Didymus and Apollinaris compiled their own small works. Partly translating them, partly imitating them, this is what I wrote in the Prologue to the said work: “In the Introduction, I also warn you so that you know that Origen wrote three volumes on this epistle, which we partly followed, and that Apollinaris and Didymus published some small interpretations, from which, although not much, we also drew; they added something at their own discretion, left something out - I warn you so that the attentive reader will know from the very beginning that this work is partly someone else’s, partly ours” (Prologue of Interpretations on the last. to Ephesians). So, in everything that can be considered erroneous in the interpretation of this message, if I am not able to indicate this in the Greek works, from which, as I said, I translated into Latin, I acknowledge my guilt and it will be mine that it does not turn out to be a stranger. However, so that it does not seem that I am joking again and do not dare take a step in the competition beyond this general justification, I will present the very evidence presented in the prosecution. 22. At the very beginning of the first book, the testimony of Paul, in which he says: “Because He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him” (Eph. 1:4), we explained in this way that election was not derived according to Origen from the previous existence of souls, but from the foreknowledge of God, and we precisely said: “And that the apostle testifies that we are chosen to be holy and blameless before Him, i.e. God, before the creation of the world, then this refers to the foreknowledge of God, for Whom the whole future is already accomplished and is known before its fulfillment. So Paul himself is destined in his mother’s womb, and Jeremiah is sanctified, chosen and strengthened in his mother’s womb and sent as a prophet to the Gentiles in the image of Christ. Of course, there is no error in such an interpretation and, while Origen says the opposite, we followed the church understanding. And since the interpreter is obliged to represent the opinions of others, and in the Introduction I promised to do this, I also cited Origen’s explanation, without hatred to his name, saying: “And another interpreter, who tries to show God as just because He chooses everyone not according to the predestination of His knowledge, but according to the merits of those chosen, says that before the visible creatures - the sky, the earth, the seas and everything in them, there were other invisible creatures, and among them were souls, which, according to some For reasons known only to God, they were cast down into this vale of tears, into this place of our suffering and coming, a place in which the saint prayed for a return to his former location, saying: “Woe is me, for my coming continued, I settled in the village of Kedar. My wandering soul is much" (Ps. 119:5-6), and the Apostle: "I am a damned man: who will deliver me from the body of this death" (Rom. 7:24), and again: "to be resolved and to be with Christ is much better" (Phil. 1:23) and in another place: "before we even humble ourselves, I have sinned" ( Ps.119:67) and so on, which would take a long time to rewrite. Notice that I said: “but the other interpreter, who tries to show God as just,” tries to show, but does not show. If you see a temptation in the fact that I briefly presented Origen’s very lengthy argument and revealed its meaning to the reader, and if I seem to you to be a follower of Origen because I did not omit anything that he said, then consider whether this was done by me in order to avoid your slander - so that you do not say that I omitted much that was said by him, that he argues more strongly in the Greek original. That is why I, although very briefly, outlined everything that I found in Greek, so that his disciples would not have anything new to tell the Latins, because we more easily neglect the known than the unknown. And listen to what I said at the end of the chapter, according to the presentation of the interpretation of Origen: “The Apostle did not say: he chose us before the foundation of the world, when we were holy and blameless, but said: he chose us so that we would be holy and blameless, that is, so that we, who were not holy and blameless before, would become such after. This can also be applied to sinners who have turned to the right path, for this truth is immutable: “no one living will be justified before You” (Ps. 142:2), i.e. throughout his life, all the time he lives in this world. Such an understanding of this passage both refutes the opinion of those who say that souls before the creation of the world were chosen for holiness, and also refutes the idea of ​​the irresponsibility of sins.” For both Paul and those who are like him are chosen (as we have already said above) not because they were holy and blameless, but are chosen and destined to become holy and blameless in their subsequent life through deeds and virtues. And after such a view, does anyone dare accuse us of the heresy of Origen? Almost eighteen years have passed since I wrote those books, I wrote at a time when the name of Origen was famous in the world, when περὶ ᾿And ρχῶν, his work, was unknown to the Latins: and yet I confessed my faith and I said that I did not like it. From this and other things, if my enemy could point out anything heretical, I should be found guilty not so much of wrong opinions (dogmatum), which I have often condemned here and in other books, but of an unintentional mistake. 23. Another place that my brother pointed out to me as being contradicted by him, since it is insignificant and clearly exposes his slander, I will present briefly. After a varied explanation of the place where Paul says: “having seated him at his right hand in those who are in heaven, far above all principality and power and might and dominion and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in the world to come” (Eph. 1:20-21), - moving on to the ranks of the servants of God and speaking about the Principalities and Authorities and Powers, and Dominions, I added the following: “It is necessary that they have subordinates who fear them, serve them and are strengthened by their strength. These divisions of ranks not only exist in the present, but will also exist in the next century, so that through private successes and honors, ascensions and descents, each one is either elevated or diminished and is subject to one and another Principality, Power, Authority and Dominion.” Having cited the example of an earthly king and with a detailed description of the court ranks, showing the difference in the ranks of God’s servants, I added: “And we think that God, the Lord of lords and the King of kings, is content with only a simple composition of ministers?” Just as the name of the Archangel is acquired only as the first among the Angels, so the Principalities, Powers and Dominions are called so only because they have certain (spirits) subordinate to themselves and of a lower degree. If he deduces from this that I follow Origen, since in my explanation I speak about successes and honors, ascensions and descents, increases and decreases, then let him know that it is a big difference to talk about Angels, Seraphim and Cherubim, that they are both demons and people, as Origen claims - and says that the Angels themselves received different kinds of ministries, that not against the church. Just as between people the degree of merit differs according to the difference in labor, when a bishop and a presbyter and every church degree has its own rank and yet everyone is people: so among Angels the merits are different, and yet they all remain in angelic dignity and from Angels do not become people and from people are not again transformed into Angels. 24. The third point of reproach is that in response to the words of the Apostle: “May he show in the world to come the exceeding riches of his grace through his kindness to us in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:7) - we placed a threefold interpretation: in the first we expressed our own opinion, in the second - the view of Origen, which is opposite to our opinion, in the third - a simple interpretation of Apollinaris. If I did not mention their names, forgive my restraint: I should not have blamed those whom I partly imitated and whose opinions I translated into Latin. “But,” I said, “he who has carefully read the Scripture will now present his research and views,” and then, at the end, he added: “and another interpreter accepts what was said: may he reveal in all the future the exceeding riches of his grace in this sense.” Here, you say, under the name of a careful reader you have outlined the thoughts of Origen. I confess to a mistake: I should have called it not thorough, but blasphemous, and if I had done this and, by some foreknowledge, I knew that you would become attached to trifles of this kind, I would have avoided even words of reproach. It is a grave crime if I called Origen a thorough reader of Scripture, whose seventy books I translated, whom I extolled to the skies with praise, and in whose defense two years ago I was summoned to respond with a small book to your praises to me 3 . In your praises you claim that I called Origen a teacher of churches, and you think that I should be afraid if now, in enmity with me, you accuse me of calling Origen a careful reader. We often call the stingiest merchants, farmers, boring teachers, and clever thieves careful. And in the Gospel about the unrighteous steward it is said that he did something prudently (Luke 16) and also: “The sons of this age are wiser than the sons of light in their generation” (Luke 16:8), and in another place: “The serpent was wiser than all the beasts that were of the earth; the Lord God made them” (Gen.3:1). 25. The fourth point of reproach refers to the beginning of the second book, where we explained Paul's testimony: “for this reason I Paul the prisoner of Jesus Christ became a Gentile because of you” (Eph. 3:1). Since this place is clear, I will present only that part of the explanation that gave rise to the reproach. “That the Apostle calls himself a prisoner of Jesus Christ for the pagans, this can also be understood in relation to martyrdom - that he sent this letter from Rome, when he was imprisoned here, at a time when, as we have shown in another place, he wrote letters to Philemon, to the Colossians and to the Philippians. But since in many places this body is called the bonds of the soul and in it it is kept, as it were, in a closed prison, we have reason to believe that Paul is bound by the bonds of the body, is not released and does not abide with Christ - in order for the preaching he had undertaken to the pagans to be completed; although some introduce another meaning into this place - that Paul, destined and dedicated to preach to the Gentiles before his birth, then received the bonds of the body.” And in this place, as above, I presented a threefold interpretation: one my own, another interpretation of Origen, and the third - the opinion of Apollinaris, directed against Origen. Read the Greek interpretations, and if you find it wrong, I admit my guilt. What is my mistake in this place? Again, what I answered above is why I didn’t name those who said this. But it was unnecessary, with each testimony of the Apostle, to cite the names of those whose writings I promised to use in the Introduction. And yet it is not unreasonably said that the soul is bound by the body until it returns to Christ and in the glory of the resurrection changes this corruptible and mortal body into incorruptibility and immortality. Therefore, the Apostle says: “I am a wretched man: who will deliver me from the body of this death” (Rom. 7:24), calling the body the body of death, because it is subject to shortcomings and illnesses and shocks and death, until he rises with Christ in glory, and the previously mortal clay is baked into the strongest vessel by the warmth of the Holy Spirit, changing glory, and not nature. 26. The fifth point of the reproach is the strongest and concerns the explanation of the words of the Apostle: “from Him the whole body is composed and put together in a decent way with every touch of alms, according to the action of one part in each one, the restoration of the body creates itself into a creation of love” (Eph. 4:16). We gave a very lengthy explanation of Origen, revealing the same thoughts in different expressions, briefly, without omitting, however, anything from his evidence and considerations, and when we reached the end, we added the following: “So also at the resurrection of all, when the true physician Christ Jesus comes to heal the now scattered and torn body of this Church, everyone will receive his place according to the measure of faith and knowledge of the Son of God (Whom, he says, he knows, because he first knew, and then ceased to know) and will begin to be what it was before, so, however, that not everyone will be put in the same state, i.e. everyone will be transformed into angels, as another heresy teaches, but each member will be perfect according to its measure and service. So, for example, a fallen angel will begin to be what he was created to be, and a person expelled from paradise will again be returned to cultivating paradise,” and so on. 27. I am surprised that you, a very smart person, did not understand the way I presented it. When I say: “so, however, that not everyone will be put in the same state, i.e. “all will be transformed into Angels, as another heresy teaches,” then I show that what I am expounding is heretical and differs from another heresy. What are these two heresies? One, which says that all rational creatures will be transformed into Angels; the other, which claims that everything in general, when the world is restored, will be what it was created; for example: since demons originated from Angels, then the demons will again become Angels, and the souls of people will be the same as they were created, they will be transformed not into Angels, but into what they were created by God, so that both the righteous and sinners will be equal. Finally, so that you know that I did not express my opinion, but compared heresies, of which I read about both in Greek, I ended my discussion with the following conclusion: “Therefore, as we said above, in our language this is very dark, since in Greek it is expressed metaphorically, and every metaphor, literally translated from one language to another, seems to drown out the meaning and the offspring of thought with some kind of thorns.” If you do not find the same thing in Greek, then consider everything said as mine. 28. The sixth and final reproach (unless the brother forgot something in the middle) - why am I, explaining the place of the Apostle: “Love your wife, love yourself. No one ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and warms it, just as Christ does the church” (Eph. 5:28-29), after a simple interpretation, raised an objection to Origen, and on his behalf, without mentioning the name, said: “They can object to us that the very thought of the Apostle is incorrect: no one will ever hate his own flesh, because those suffering from jaundice, consumption, cancer, softening of the brain, they prefer death to life and hate their bodies,” and immediately added his own opinion: “So the Apostle’s speech should rather be understood in a figurative sense. When I talk about the figurative sense, then (he reproaches) I teach that what is said is unfair, but is depicted under the cover of an allegory.” – However, let us cite the very expressions of Origen in his third book: “We recognize that the soul must love and nourish and warm that flesh that will see the salvation of God, teaching science and satisfying with heavenly bread and drinking the blood of Christ, so that, renewed and enlightened, it can follow its husband with free movements and not be burdened with any burden of weakness. And it is beautiful in the image of Christ, who feeds and warms the church and says to Jerusalem: “How much have thy fellow children desired, as thy chicks gather kokosh under the wing, and have not desired” (Matthew 23:37), and souls warm their bodies, so that this corruptible may be clothed with incorruptibility and raised with light wings, soar more comfortably into the air (1 Cor. 15). So, let us also, husbands, warm our wives and souls - our bodies, so that wives are transformed into husbands and bodies into souls, and there is no difference between the sexes, but just as Angels have no husband and wife, so we, who will be like Angels, will now begin to be what we are promised to be in heaven.” 29. The simple explanation of this passage that appeared to us was stated above in the following words: “If we explain it simply, then, having received the commandment of holy love between husband and wife, we now receive the commandment to nourish and warm the spouses, that is, to provide them with food and clothing and what is necessary.” This is our opinion. By this we have shown that everything that follows and that can be brought against us must be understood not on our behalf, but on behalf of those who contradict us. Here is a short and positive answer; but since it, as said above, is covered with shadows of allegory and distorted by conclusions from what is in it to what was not, then I will come closer and look at what you do not like in this reasoning. Of course, I don’t like what I said, that souls, like husbands, warm their wives’ bodies, so that this corruptible thing is clothed in incorruptibility and, lifted with light wings, soars more comfortably into the air. When I say: “so that this corruptible may put on incorruptibility,” I do not change the nature of bodies, but exalt the glory. The following does not change this nature: “and lifted with light wings soared more comfortably into the air”: whoever takes wings, that is, immortality, in order to soar more easily into the sky, does not cease to be what he was. But, you say, I am outraged by what follows: “So let us also warm our husbands and our bodies, so that wives will be transformed into husbands and bodies into souls and there will be no difference between the sexes, but just as Angels do not have husbands and wives, so we, who will be like Angels, will now begin to be what we are promised to be in heaven.” These words would rightly outrage you if, after the first thought, I had not said: “Let us begin now to be what we are promised to be in heaven.” When I say: “We will begin to be here on earth,” I do not destroy the nature of the sexes, but I destroy lust, the intercourse of husband and wife, according to the word of the Apostle: “time has ceased to eat other things, so that those who have have wives shall not be like those who have not” (1 Cor. 7:29). And the Lord, when asked which of the seven brothers would have the wife at the resurrection, said: “You are deceived, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For on the resurrection they neither marry nor commit sex, but as the angels of God are in heaven” (Matthew 22:29–30). And in truth, when chastity is maintained between a husband and wife, they begin to be neither husband nor wife, but while still in the flesh they change into Angels, who have neither husband nor wife. This is expressed by the same apostle in another place: “If you were baptized into Christ, you put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither slave nor free: there is neither male nor female: for you are one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:27-28). 30. But since our speech emerged from dangerous and difficult places and we repelled the accusation of heresy launched against us with complete fearlessness of spirit, we will now move on to other points of his accusation with which he is trying to hurt us. The first of them is that I am a scolding person who blames everyone, that I always vilify my predecessors. But let him present at least one whose name I would blaspheme in my writings or whom, like his art, I would embarrass with insidious praise. And if I speak against envious people and if the edge of my style strikes Lucius Lavinius or Asinius Pollione of the Cornelian family, 4 if I push away from me a person with a farcical and petty mind and direct all the spears at one fool, then why does he share his wounds among many, why does his impatience to answer show that they concern him specifically? He accuses me of perjury, even combined with desecration of the shrine, that in a book compiled for the edification of the virgin of Christ before the tribunal of the Judge in a dream, I promised that I would never study secular literature 5, and meanwhile sometimes remembered this condemned scholarship. It was he, Sallustius Calpurnius, who, through the orator Magnus (the Great), asked us a small question, and to which we satisfied with a short book 6 . Now we will answer regarding the desecration of a shrine and the crime of an oath given in a dream. I said that I would no longer read secular literature; this is a promise for the future, and not the destruction of what was previously acquired by memory. How, you say, do you retain in your memory something that you haven’t re-read for so long? If I again answer you with something from the ancient books and say: “It means a lot to get used to it from youth” (Virgil. Georg. II), then by rejecting the accusation, I bring it, and by bringing evidence in my defense, I accuse myself by the very same thing that I defend myself with. So now I have to prove with a long speech what everyone’s consciousness says. Which of us doesn't remember our childhood? Of course, I will make you, a serious man, laugh and make you imitate Crassus, about whom Lucilius says that he laughed only once in his life - if I say that I remember how I ran around the servants' rooms as a child, spent a holiday day in games and how I was forcibly dragged from the arms of my grandmother to the stern Orbilium. To your even greater amazement, now, with a gray and bald head, I often dream that I, with cropped hair, having picked up my toga, am reciting an example of a conversation before a rhetorician, and when I wake up, I rejoice that I am freed from the danger of answering. Believe me, a lot of things from childhood are remembered in detail. If you were studying science, then the pot of your little mind would emit the smell of what it was once soaked with. The crimson dye of woolen fabric cannot be washed off by any water. And donkeys and dumb animals, even on a long road, passing it another time, know the stopping places. Are you surprised that I didn’t forget Latin literature when you learned Greek without a teacher? The foundations of dialectics taught me seven kinds of syllogisms - what an axiom means, corresponding to the Latin pronuntiatum (decided), how without a verb and a name there can be no judgment, parts of sorites, the tricks of a pseudoman, the deceptions of sophisms. I could swear that after I left school I never read it at all. It remains for me, therefore, to drink from the spring of Lethe, but from the fables of the poets, in order to avoid accusations of knowing what I have studied. Here you are, reproaching me for my little acquaintance with literature and calling yourself a scientist and a rabbi, tell me how you dared to write something and translate the most eloquent man Gregory with equal brilliance of eloquence. Where do you get such a wealth of words, clarity of thoughts, variety of expressions - from a person who barely tasted the art of oratory in his youth with the edges of his lips? Either I’m mistaken, or you secretly read Cicero, and that’s why you’re so eloquent, and you charge me with a crime of reading him so that I alone can be famous for the river of eloquence among church writers. However, you follow the Philosophers more - the sarcastic Cleanthes and the confused Chrysippus - not in terms of art, which you do not know, but in the greatness of their minds. And since the Stoics mastered logic, and you despise the nonsense of this science, then in this part you are an Epicurean: you care not about why you speak, but only about what you say. And what do you care if someone else doesn’t understand what you want to say: after all, you don’t speak to everyone, but only to your own people. And finally, when I re-read your writings, although sometimes I don’t understand what you say, and I think that I am reading Heraclitus, 7 I do not grieve and do not regret wasting time: after all, when I read, I experience the same thing that you experience when writing. 31. This is what I would have said if I had promised anything while awake. And now a new kind of impudence - he blames me for my dream. The importance of the place and the assembly of the saints of the whole world require that I read the divine Scriptures, and I have no time to speculate on external matters. However, anyone who makes a dream a crime must listen to the testimony of the prophets that dreams should not be believed, because neither fornication in a dream leads me to hell, nor does a martyr’s crown lift me to heaven. How many times have I seen myself dead and laid in a coffin! How many times have I dreamed that I was flying over the earth and, floating in the air, transported across mountains and seas! Do I need to die or have wings on my sides if my mind is often deceived by deceptive images? How many rich people in their sleep, opening their eyes, find themselves poor, how many thirsty people drink rivers in their sleep, and when they wake up, they suffer from heat on their dry lips! You demand from me the fulfillment of the promise given in a dream: I will give you leniency in a more real and binding way. Have you fulfilled everything you promised in baptism? Have you and I both observed everything that the word “monk” requires? Look, I beg you, don’t you notice my branch from behind your log? I speak involuntarily, and grief forces a reluctant tongue to speak. You are not satisfied with fabrications against me while I am awake, if you do not condemn my dreams. You are so curious about my actions that you figure out what I did and said in my sleep. I will not talk about how you, speaking against me, sullied your title, how you brought disgrace on all Christians in words and deeds. I declare one thing, and repeating it again and again I will not stop convincing you. You present me with a horned syllogism: if I were not afraid of this apostolic saying: “Speaking evil will not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:10) and: “Beware lest by biting one another you are cut off from one another” (Gal. 5:15), then even now you would feel that out of a small and insincere friendship great enmity was born in the world. What good is it for you to shower me with slander before friends and strangers alike? Or because I am not Origen and do not know that we sin in heaven, should I be denounced as a sinner on earth? And is it not because you returned my friendship so that I could not speak against heretics, lest, when I exposed them, you would not admit to being offended? As long as I did not reject your praise, you followed me as a teacher, called me brother and comrade, and recognized me as Orthodox in everything. And after I did not recognize your praises and considered myself unworthy of glorification from such a great man, you immediately reverse the style and condemn everything previously approved, bringing out both sweet and bitter from the same lips. Do you feel what I am keeping silent about, why, worrying in my soul, I do not express it in words, and I say with the Psalmist: “Put, O Lord, a guard over my mouth and a door of protection over my lips. Do not turn my heart into the words of wickedness" (Ps. 140:3-4), and again: "And as a man he does not hear, and does not have reproof in his mouth" (Ps. 37:15), and in another place: "I have kept with my mouth, so that the sinner may never arise before me. I have become mute and humbled and kept silent from good things” (Ps. 39:2-3). But the Lord, who is the avenger for me, will answer you, Who speaks through the Prophet: “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord” (Rom. 12:19) and in another place: “When you sat against your brother, you slandered, and you set offense against your mother’s son. These things you have done, and have kept silent, you have cried out, O wicked one, because I will be like you: I will reprove you and bring your sins before your face” (Ps. 49:20-21) - so that you see condemned in yourself for what you falsely accuse in others. 32. In addition, I heard that Chrysogonus, his follower, reproaches me for why I said that in baptism all sins are forgiven, that in it a bigamous man dies and a new husband rises in Christ, and that in the churches there are some saints of this kind. I will answer him briefly: they have a book that they accuse 8: let her answer, let her refute it with her reasoning and prove what is written with what is written. Why does he, with importance on his face, frowning and flaring his nostrils, spew out empty words and with feigned severity assume the guise of holiness before the common people? Let him hear: we again proclaim that the ancient Adam dies entirely in the font and in baptism with Christ a new one arises, the earthly one perishes and the heavenly one is born. We ourselves, thank God, are not bound by this issue and do not say this because we have expressed our opinion on the issue of the brethren, without preventing anyone from following any opinion and without constraining the decisions of others with our opinion. We, secluded in our cells, do not seek the priesthood, and we do not rush, disdaining humility, to buy bishoprics with gold; We also do not want to offend the bishop chosen by God with an impudent thought, and we do not show ourselves to be heretics by pandering to heretics. We neither have nor want to have money: “having food and clothing, we are content with these” (1 Tim. 6:8), constantly singing this about the climber to the mountain of the Lord: “Who did not give his money for interest, and did not accept bribes on the innocent. This work does not move forever” (Ps. 14:5). And whoever does not do this has already fallen forever. 1. Hitherto, holding back grief, I responded not as I should have, but as best I could, to the accusations, or rather, to defend myself from the accusations that my former insidious praiser brought against me and which are very stubbornly supported by his students. For I intend not so much to accuse others as to defend myself. Now I will move on to his Apology, in which he tries to justify himself before Saint Anastasius, bishop of the city of Rome, and in defense of himself again builds slander against me, and loves me so much that, carried away by the whirlpool and drowning in the depths, he most of all grabs my leg, so that with me he can either be saved or perish. 2. He says that first of all he responds to those rumors with which in Rome his faith is condemned, a man very experienced both in faith and in love for God; that he himself wanted to arrive there, if, having returned thirty years later to his parents, he had not found it difficult to leave those whom he had not seen for so long, so as not to seem inhuman and rude, and if, having become too tired from the difficulties of such a long journey, he had not felt unable to undertake new similar works; - and that, since he did not do this, he sent a letter against his critics, like a stick, to hold in his right hand and drive away the dogs barking at him. But if everyone, and especially the bishop himself, to whom he writes, considers him proven in faith and love of God, then how is it that in Rome he is subjected to reproaches and censures and rumors of his dubious reputation circulate? Then, what humility is there in the fact that he calls himself tested in faith and love for God, when the apostles ask: “Lord, add faith to us” (Luke 17:5) and hear: “If you had faith like grain of peas” (Luke 17:6), and Peter himself is told: “Why did you have little faith?” (Matthew 14:31). What can we say about love, which is higher than both faith and hope and which Paul desires more than he assimilates, without which both the blood shed in martyrdom and the body devoted to the flame have no crown of reward? He ascribes to himself both, so much so, however, that he has critics against him, who only stop barking when they are driven away by the rod of the glorious bishop. Truly funny is his ranting that after thirty years he returned to his parents, he has neither father nor mother, that he, having left them in his youth, is now so devoted to them in old age when they have already died (unless he calls his relatives and relatives parents and following the soldier’s and common people’s language), and that since he does not want to leave them, so as not to seem inhuman and rude, then as a result, leaving his fatherland, he lives in Aquileia. His very tested faith in Rome is questioned, and he, careless and lazy, having not been there for thirty years, cannot arrive there in a carriage along the very convenient Flaminian Way, and with fatigue from the long journey he apologizes as if he had been constantly running for thirty years and, sitting for two years in Aquileia, did not rest from the difficulties of the perfect journey! 3. Let's look at the rest and quote the very words of his letter. “So, although our faith was tested during the persecution of heretics, when we lived in the holy church of Alexandria in imprisonment and exile, to which we were subjected for our faith.” I’m surprised that he didn’t add: I am a prisoner of Jesus Christ, I was delivered from the lion’s mouth, I fought with beasts in the Alexandrian church, I accomplished a feat, I kept my faith, I have been awarded the crown of righteousness. What prisons and exiles is he talking about? I am ashamed of the obvious lie: as if imprisonment and exile are imposed without a determination from judges! I wish only that he would indicate the prisons themselves and say in which provinces he was in exile. In any case, he has the opportunity to name one from many prisons and countless places of exile. Let him tell us the acts of his confession, which we did not know before, so that among the other Alexandrian martyrs we can read about his deeds and so that he can say against his oppressors: “other than that, let no one give me labor, for I bear the wounds of the Lord Jesus on my body” (Gal. 6:17). 4. “However, if even now there is anyone who wants to either test our faith, or listen or learn from it, let him know that we believe this way regarding the Trinity,” and so on. Above, you give the bishop a stick against your dogs, so that, armed with it, he can come to your defense; Now, as if hesitating, you say: “if there is anyone who wants to test our faith.” You doubt again when the censures of many have reached you. I do not analyze in detail your expressions, which you neglect and do not attach importance to; I will only respond to thoughts. They ask you about one thing, and in another you make excuses. Already in Alexandria, in prison, you fought against the dogmas of Arius not with words, but with blood. Now a charge is being brought against you because of the heresy of Origen. Don't worry about treating healed wounds. You say that the Trinity is one Divinity. Since the whole world already believes in this, I think that the demons also recognize that the Son of God was born from the Virgin Mary and took on the flesh of human nature and soul. If I ask you anything more specific, you will call me picky. If you say that the Son of God took on the flesh of human nature and soul, then I ask you to calmly answer: did the soul that Jesus took exist before it was born of Mary, or was it created in the virgin embryo, which was born from the Holy Spirit, together with the body, or was it already created in the womb and sent from heaven immediately after the formation of the body? Of these three opinions, I want to know one - your opinion. If she existed before she was born of Mary, then it means that she was not yet the soul of Jesus and did something before, and for the merits of virtues subsequently became His soul. If it received its beginning through transmission (ex traduce), then it means the same nature of both human souls, which we recognize as eternal, and the souls of dumb animals, which decay along with the body. If the soul of Jesus is created and sent forth immediately after the formation of the body, then express this directly and free us from doubt. 5. You don’t talk about anything like that, but by doing something else, you abuse our simplicity and, seducing us with the tinsel of loud phrases, do not allow us to concentrate on the question. Well, you say, wasn’t the question about the resurrection of the flesh and the torment of the devil? Is it true. So answer briefly and directly. I am not asking about what you write about - whether the same flesh in which we live will be resurrected, without the separation of any member and without cutting off any part of the body - for this is what you are talking about - but I am asking about what Origen rejects: will bodies at the resurrection have the same sex with which they died, and will Mary be resurrected as Mary and John as John, or after the confusion and transformation of sex, there will be neither men or women, but will it be both, or neither? And will the bodies themselves be incorruptible and immortal and, as you cunningly warn, will remain spiritual forever according to the Apostle, and not only the bodies, but also the flesh and blood that fills the veins and penetrates the bones that Thomas touched - or will they little by little decompose into nothing and return to the four elements from which they were formed? This is what you should have either confirmed or rejected, and not said what Origen slyly admits, as if mocking fools and boys, “that they will be resurrected without the separation of any member and without the cutting off of any part of the body.” This is exactly what we were afraid of, lest we should be resurrected without a nose and ears, and lest, after cutting off our genitals, a kingdom of eunuchs might form in heavenly Jerusalem. 6. Then he expresses this opinion about the devil. “We also say that there will be a judgment, at which judgment everyone will receive their proper body, in accordance with their deeds, good or bad. And if people receive according to their deeds, is it not even more so the devil, who is the cause of sins for everyone? Regarding him, we also think that it is written in the Gospel (Matthew 25:41, 46), that the devil himself, and all his angels, as well as those who do his deeds, that is, those who slander the brethren, will equally have the inheritance of eternal fire. Therefore, if anyone denies that the devil is committed to the eternal fires, then he will receive a part with him in the eternal fire in order to experience what he denied.” Let's turn to particulars. “We say,” he testifies, that there will be a trial, at a trial,” and so on. I decided not to talk about the shortcomings in expressions, but since his students are surprised at the eloquence of their teacher, I will point out a few. He said that there would be a trial, but as a cautious person, he was afraid to say only in quo (at which) and wrote: in quo judicio (at which trial), lest we, if he does not repeat the word judicium (court) another time, forgetting the previous one, imagine a donkey instead of a trial. There is just as much charm in the fact that he then says: “those who slander the brethren will equally enjoy the inheritance of eternal fire.” Who has ever heard: potiri ignibus (to have fires) and frui suppliciis (to use punishments)?... But he apparently wanted, like a Greek, to translate himself and instead of what the Greeks call χληρονομήσουσιν and which we can express in one word hereditabunt (inherit), he used a more complex and florid expression: hereditate potientur. His entire speech is filled with this kind of nonsense and awkwardness. But let's return to the content. 7. The devil, who serves as the cause of sin for everyone, is struck with a large spear if he gives an account for his deeds, just like a man, and, together with his angels, will have the inheritance of eternal fire. After people were given over to torture, all that was needed was for him to possess the eternal fires, which he had desired for so long. It seems to me that in this place you are slandering the devil, and accusing the general slanderer of unjust crimes. For you say: “which is the cause of sin for everyone,” and by referring to crimes to it, you free people from guilt and destroy free will, while the Savior says that “from our hearts come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, blasphemy” (Matthew 15:19). And we also read about Judas in the Gospel: “and after the bread Satan came into him” (John 13:27), - into him, who, before receiving the bread, sinned of his own free will and neither through humility nor the mercy of the Savior bowed to repentance. Therefore, the apostle says: “I delivered them over to Satan, so that they would be punished not to blaspheme” (1 Tim. 1:20), and in another place: “I delivered such one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit might be saved” (1 Cor. 5:5). He handed over those to Satan as an executioner for punishment, who, before being betrayed, blasphemed of their own free will. And David says: “Cleanse me from my secrets, and spare your servant from strangers” (Ps. 18:13–14), briefly designating both the error of his will and vicious motives. In Ecclesiastes we also read: “even if the possessing spirit comes upon you, do not leave your place” (Eccl. 10:4). From this it is clearly seen that if we gave place to the one who ascended, then we sinned by giving the place and not overthrowing the enemy who was ascending the walls. And that you wish for the brethren, that is, your accusers, eternal fires along with the devil, then, it seems to me, you are not so much burdening the brethren as you are making it easier for the devil, if he should be punished with the same fires as people - Christians. And I think that you are not unaware of what eternal fires Origen usually means - namely, the consciousness of sins and repentance that burns the inside of the heart. Isaiah says about this: “their worm will not die, and their fire will not be quenched” (Is. 66:24). And to Babylon it is written: “They are coals of fire, sit on them, these will be your help” (Is. 47:14-15). And in the psalm the repentant hears: “What will be given to you or what will be added to your flattering tongue? The arrows of the mighty are sharpened with the coals of the desert” (Ps. 119:3-4), so that the arrows of God’s commandments, about which in another place the prophet says: “we return to passion when we are struck by thorns” (Ps. 31:4), wound and pierce the wicked tongue and produce in it a desert of sins. Also, the testimony in which the Lord says: “fire came to burn on the earth, and whatever I want, even if it was already on fire” (Luke 12:49), is explained as follows: “I want everyone to repent and burn away sins and vices with the Holy Spirit, for I am the One about whom it is written: “God consumes fire” (Deut. 4:24). Thus, to say a little about the devil what is prepared for people.” You rather should have said (in order to reject the thought of the devil’s salvation): “Thou hast wrought destruction, and shalt not be unto any man for ever” (Ezek. 28:19), and on behalf of the Lord speaking to Job: “Behold, his hope will deceive him, and in the eyes of all he will be cast down. No matter how cruel, I will not restore him. For who can stand before Me? Who has given Me in advance, so that I may repay him? Under the whole sky everything is Mine. I will not spare him, despite neither powerful words nor appeals” (Job.41:1-4). But in this he can be excused as a simple man, and since scientists do not avoid this, then among the unlearned a semblance of innocence is preferable. 8. But what follows next about the state of souls is completely inexcusable. For he says: “I hear that questions have been raised about the soul; whether to accept or reject a complaint on this subject is up to you to decide. If they ask me what I think, then I confess that I have read different opinions on this issue from very many writers. I have read some who say that in the same way as the body, through the medium (per traducem) of human semen, the souls are spilled, and they confirmed this with the evidence they could. Of the Latins, it seems that Tertullian or Lactantius, and perhaps some others, thought so. Others claim that after the formation of the body in the womb, God daily creates and infuses souls. Others believe that, having created souls from the beginning, i.e. Then, when God created everything out of nothing, He now determines by His judgment that they should be born in a body. Origen and some other Greeks think so. And although I have read all this, however (I speak with the testimony of God) to this day I do not hold to anything positive and definite regarding this issue, but what of this is true, I let God know and those to whom He Himself deigns to reveal. Nevertheless, I do not deny that I have read all this and admit that I still do not know this, except for what the church clearly conveys - that God is the Creator of both souls and bodies.” 9 . Before discussing thoughts, I will marvel at the expressions of Theophrastus 9. “I hear,” he says, “questions being raised about the soul; whether to accept or reject a complaint on this subject is up to you to decide.” If questions about the soul are raised in Rome, what kind of complaint or litigation is it, regarding which it is left to the court of bishops to decide whether it should be accepted or rejected, unless for some reason he thinks that quaestio (question) and querimonia (complaint) mean the same thing, since in Capra's comments he meets a figure of this kind. Then he says: “I have read some who say that the souls are poured out in the same way as the body through the medium of human seed, and they confirmed this with whatever evidence they could.” The question is, what kind of freedom of figures is this? What a confusion of tenses! “I read the speakers, they supported them with whatever evidence they could!” And then: “others claim that after the formation of the body in the womb, God daily creates and infuses new souls; others believe that having created souls from the beginning, i.e. Then, when God created everything from nothing, He now determines by His judgment that they should be born in a body.” And this order is beautiful. Some, he says, affirm this or that, others believe that they were created from the beginning, i.e. then, when God created everything from nothing and now God, by his judgment, determines for them to be born in a body. He speaks so ungracefully and disorderly that it is more difficult for me to point out his shortcomings than for him to write. In conclusion, he said: “Even though I read all this,” and having just posed this thought, as if expressing something new, he added: “Nevertheless, I do not deny that I have read all this, and I admit that I still don’t know.” 10. O unfortunate souls tormented by the spears of such shortcomings! I don’t think they suffered as much when, according to Origen’s error. fell from heaven to earth and were clothed in coarse bodies, as many are now compressed from here and there, and expressions and thoughts, not to mention the obscenity (χαχέμφατον), with which it is said that souls are spilled through the medium of human seed. I know that among Christians, shortcomings in expressions are usually not condemned; but I wanted to show from a little how reckless it is to teach what you don’t know, to write about what you don’t understand - to show that you can look for similar wisdom in your thoughts. He sends a letter, that is, the strongest stick, so that the bishop of the city of Rome can arm himself with it, and says that he does not know what the very question is about which the dogs are barking. If he does not know why the accusation is being brought against him, then what is the need to send an Apology, which does not contain his defense, but the consciousness of ignorance? This does not mean to reassure, but to arouse people's suspicions. He gives three opinions about the state of souls and in conclusion says: “I do not deny that I have read all this, and I admit that I still do not know.” Just think, this is Arcesilaus or Carneades, whom everyone recognizes as doubtful, although he surpasses them in caution. They, unable to bear the hatred of all philosophers for eliminating truth from life, came up with the plausible in order to limit the impossibility of knowing things by recognizing probability; and he says that he doubts and does not know at all which of the three opinions is true. If he had to answer, then what reason prompted him to make such a high priest a witness of his ignorance? Of course, it was this fatigue that, exhausted by thirty years of travel, he could not arrive in Rome. There are so many other things we don’t know, and yet we don’t look for witnesses to our ignorance! He boldly speaks about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, about the birth of the Lord Savior, about whom Isaiah cries: “Who will confess His generation” (Is. 53:8), and assigns to his knowledge a secret unknown to all previous centuries, and does not know only that one thing, ignorance of which serves as a temptation for everyone. He knows how the Virgin gave birth to God, and does not know how he himself was born. He recognizes God as the Creator of souls and bodies, whether there were souls before bodies, or are born with the beginnings of bodies, or are sent after the formation of bodies and their acceptance of the image in the womb. We know that God is the cause of everything. But now the question is whether God or someone else created them. But he says that he does not know which of the three opinions he gives is true. Be careful not to object to you because you confess to ignorance of the three, so as not to be forced to blame one because you are sparing and; Tertullian and Lactantius, so as not to squeeze Origen's throat with them. As far as I remember, if I am not mistaken, I do not know that I read that Lactantius calls the soul συσπειρομένην (together sown, together with the body created). However, since you write what you read, then tell me in which book you read, so that it does not seem that you slandered the deceased as well as the sleepy me 10. But even here you act slowly and carefully. For you say: “Of the Latins, it seems that Tertullian or Lactantius, and perhaps some others, thought so.” You not only doubt the state of souls, but you also hesitate regarding the opinions of the authors, with some differences, however. Regarding souls, you do not directly know and admit ignorance, but about authors you express ignorance in such a way that you rather assume than assume. You do not doubt Origen alone, for you say: “Origen thinks so.” I ask you: does he think well or badly? You say, I don’t know. So why are you, sending letter carriers and many messengers, trying to inform me so that I know about your ignorance? And so that I do not for some reason distrust your ignorance and do not think that you are deliberately keeping silent about what you know, you swear, with the testimony of God, that until now regarding this issue you have not held anything positive and definite, and you allow God or whomever He deigns to reveal to know what is true here. Does it seem to you that for so many centuries no one has proven himself worthy to have the Lord give him a revelation regarding this matter? Neither patriarch, nor prophet, nor apostle, nor martyr? Even you, when you were imprisoned and exiled, were not secrets of this kind revealed to you? The Lord in the Gospel says: “Father, having revealed Your name to man” (John 17:6), who revealed the Father, remain silent about the state of souls? And you are surprised if the temptations of the brethren arise regarding you, when you swear that you do not know what the churches of Christ profess to know! 11. Having expressed his faith, or rather, his consciousness in his ignorance, he moves on to another, and tries to justify himself in why he translated the books of περὶ ᾽ Αρχῶν into Latin. And this is what he literally writes: “since I hear that there are disputes about the fact that, at the request of the brethren, I translated something from Origen from Greek into Latin, then, I think, it is clear to everyone that this is being blamed on me out of envy alone. For if there is something in the author that one does not like, then why do they attribute it to the translator? They asked me to present it in Latin as it reads in Greek. To the Greek thoughts I have added only Latin words. Consequently, whether there is anything commendable in these thoughts is not mine, and whether there is anything reprehensible is also not mine. I hear, he says, that there are disputes about that too.” How cleverly he calls the accusation against himself a “dispute.” “That I, at the request of the brethren, translated something from Origen from Greek into Latin.” What is this something? Doesn't it have a name? Are you silent? They say the writings of the accusers. “I think,” he says, it is clear to everyone that this is being blamed on me because of envy alone.” Because of what envy? Don't they envy your eloquence? Or have you done something that no man has ever been able to do? So I also translated a lot from Origen, and except you no one envy or blame. “For,” he says, “if there is something in the author that is not liked, then why attribute it to the translator? They asked me to present it in Latin as it reads in Greek. To the Greek thoughts I have added only Latin words. Therefore, whether there is anything commendable in these thoughts is not mine; whether there is anything reprehensible is also not mine.” And you are surprised if people think badly of you when you say about obvious blasphemies: “if there is anything in the author that is not liked?” Everyone doesn’t like what is said in those books, and you are the only one who doubts and complains that the translator is credited with what you praised in the preface to your translation. They asked you to translate it into Latin as it appears in Greek. Oh, that you would do what you say you were asked to do! You would not be subjected to any hatred now. If you had been faithful in your translation, then I would not have needed to refute the incorrect translation with the correct translation. Your conscience knows what you added, what you left out, what you willfully change in one direction or another: and after that you dare to say that both good and bad should be imputed not to you, but to the author? And, oppressed by hatred, you soften your expressions and say, as if walking on needles: “Is there anything commendable or reprehensible in these thoughts?” You don’t dare to defend, but you don’t want to blame either. Choose what you want from the two, you are given a choice: if your translation is good, praise it, if it’s bad, condemn it. But he makes excuses and adds another trick. He says: “I even added something else, as I indicated in my preface - that I, as far as I could, cut off something - however, what came into my suspicion was that this was not said so by Origen himself, but seemed to be introduced by others, because, as I read, in other places by the same author, Orthodox wondrous and flecked with Attic flowers eloquence was said about the same thing! “Quinimo etiam” (even more) and “quae mihi ad sus-pisiopet veniebant” (which made me suspicious). I’m surprised how he dared to send such literary wonders to Rome! Just think, his tongue is shackled, and tied in knots that cannot be untangled, it barely breaks through to human sound. But let's get back to business. 12. Who gave you the right to cut off a lot from the translation? You were asked to translate from Greek into Latin, and not to correct, to convey what was said to others, and not to compose your own. And you yourself admit that, having cut off a lot, you did not fulfill what was asked of you. And oh, if only you would cut off the bad and not bring in much of your own to confirm the bad! Of these, I will point out one thing, so that the rest can be judged from this. In the first book of περὶ ᾽ Αρχῶν, where Origen blasphemed in sacrilegious language that the Son does not see the Father, you, as if on behalf of the author, present the reasons and translate σχόλιον (interpretation) of Didymus, in which he tries in vain to defend someone else’s error, that although Origen said well, but We, simple people and donkeys of Ennius, cannot understand the wisdom of either his or yours, the translator. Your preface, to which you point and in which you praise me extremely, accuses you of a very bad translation, for you say that you cut off a lot from the Greek text, although you do not say that you added to it. Was what you cut off good or bad? Of course it's bad. Was what you retained good or bad? Of course it's good. After all, you couldn’t translate something bad. So, you cut out the bad and kept the good? Without a doubt. But it turns out that almost everything translated is bad. Therefore, whatever I indicate that is bad in the translation should be attributed to you, who translated it as good. Is it possible that you, as an unjust censor, exclude some of those guilty of the same crime from the Senate and leave others in the Curia? But you say: “I could not change everything, but considered it necessary to cut off only what, in my opinion, was added by the heretics.” Wonderful. If you cut off what you considered added by heretics, then what you left behind belongs to the one you translated. Tell me, is this good or bad? You could not translate what was bad, for you immediately cut off what was added by the heretics, unless, cutting off the errors of the heretics, you translated the errors of Origen without changes into Latin. So tell me, why did you translate Origen’s errors into Latin? - to betray the culprit of evil, or to praise him? If you give it away, then why do you praise it in the preface? If you praise, then you expose yourself to heresy. All that remains is to admit that you translated it as good. If all this evil is approved, it means that both the author and the translator will be guilty of the same crime and the saying will be fulfilled: “thou sawst the thief, and thou didst flow with him, and thou didst make thy part with the adulterer” (Ps. 49:18). There is no need to make doubtful what is clear through proof. Let him answer the following: where did he get the suspicion that this was added by heretics? Because, as I read, he says, “in other places by the same author the Orthodox says about the same thing.” 13. Let's look at the main thing so that we can get to the secondary things in order. Of the many errors of Origen, I recognize the following as especially heretical: that the Son of God is a creature, that the Holy Spirit is a minister, that countless worlds follow one after another in endless centuries; that angels turn into the souls of people; that the soul of the Savior existed before it was born of Mary, and it was she who was in the image of God, who did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but humiliated herself, taking on the image of a servant (Phil. 2:6-7); that the resurrection of our bodies will be in such a way that they will not have the same members, because after the cessation of the functions of the members, the members will turn out to be superfluous, and the bodies themselves, subtle and spiritual, will little by little disappear and dissipate into thin air and into nothingness; that at the restoration of everything, when the general remission of sins (indulgentia) comes, the cherubim, seraphim, thrones, principalities, dominions, powers, authorities, archangels, angels, devils, demons, the souls of all people, both Christians and Jews and pagans, will be in the same state, will be of the same measure. And when everyone reaches the form and measure of equality and the new army of the people returning from exile of the world reveals in itself rational creatures that have put together all the remnants of bodies, then again from another beginning another world and other bodies will arise, with which the souls who have fallen from heaven will be clothed - so that we must fear lest we, who are now men, would later be born women, and that now a virgin would then become an indecent woman. This is what I recognize as heretical in Origen’s books; and you indicate in which of his works you read the opposite of this. 14. Do not say: “the same thing in other places by the same author, as I read, is said Orthodox,” so as not to refer me to those six thousand of his books, of which you accuse the blessed Pope Epiphanius of reading, but name the very places; Yes, this will not be enough for me if you do not convey the same expressions verbatim. Origen is not stupid, and I know he cannot contradict himself. From this calculation it follows that both the good and the bad of Origen, whose writings you praised in the prologue, belong to you not to the heretics, but to Origen. 15. In the same Apology it follows: “I am neither a defender, nor an intercessor, nor the first translator of Origen. Others did the same thing before me; I did it after everyone else, at the request of the brothers. If a decision is made not to do something, then usually this decision is binding for the future. If those who did something before the decision are accused, then the accusation should begin with the first ones.” Finally he vomited what he wanted, and all his indignation burst out in anger at my accusation. When he translates the books of περὶ ᾽ Αρχῶν, he says that he follows me; when he is accused of why he did this, he presents my example: both in a safe state and in danger, he cannot live without me. Let him listen to what he seems ignorant of. No one reproaches you for translating Origen - otherwise Hilary and Ambrose will be guilty of the same thing - but they reproach you for the fact that, while translating something heretical, you confirmed it with praise in your preface. I myself, whom you accuse, translated seventy of his conversations and some of the volumes in such a way that I obscured the bad when translating the good, and in the books of περὶ ᾽ Αρχῶν, to expose your translation, I clearly showed what the reader should avoid. Do you want to translate Origen into Latin? You have at your disposal many of his conversations and volumes in which moral subjects are treated and the dark places of the Scriptures are revealed. Translate this, give this to those who ask. Why does your first work begin with disgrace? Why, having the task of translating something heretical, do you, in its defense, send a book as if it were a martyr, and bring to the attention of the Romans something of which the whole world was horrified in translation? Or, if you are already translating in order to denounce you as a heretic, then do not change anything from the Greek and testify in the preface the same thing that Pope Anastasius very reasonably stated in the letter that he writes against you to Bishop John, justifying me for doing this and accusing you for not wanting to do it. And so that you do not somehow deny this, I am enclosing a copy of this letter so that you listen to the bishop who accuses you, if you do not want to listen to the brother who convinces. 16. You say that you are neither a defender nor an intercessor of Origen: so now I will point you to your book, about which you, in the notorious preface to your famous work, speak in the following words: “The reason for this difference I explained to you in great detail in Apologetics, which Pamphilus wrote among his books - I stated it, adding a very short essay, in which I clearly, I believe, proved that his books, and especially those about the translation of which you now ask me, that is, περὶ ᾽ Αρχῶν, in very many places has been corrupted by heretics and evil-wishers.” Was it not enough for you to defend Origen on the part of Eusebius, or as you claim - Pamphilus, that you, as if more intelligent and learned, will make up for what you considered insufficient from them? It would take a lot of time if I wanted to present your entire book in this essay and, setting out the chapters, answer each one separately - what shortcomings of speech there are in them, how many false statements, how much disorder in the very arrangement of words. Therefore, avoiding boring detailed analysis and trying to be as brief as possible, I will answer only thoughts. Already leaving the pier, he ran aground. For speaking of the Apology of Pamphilus the Martyr (belonging, as we have proven, to Eusebius, the head of the Arians), about which he said that “as far as it was possible or as far as the matter required, I set it out in Latin,” he added: “I want to instill in you, man of desires, Macarius, so that you know that this rule of faith, which we have expounded above from his books, is such that it must be accepted and contained, for it is clear it is clear that all these books contain Orthodox thoughts.” Although he omitted a lot from the book of Eusebius and tried to change the teaching about the Son and the Holy Spirit for the good, there are many temptations and obvious blasphemies in it, the belonging of which to him he cannot deny, passing them off as Orthodox. Eusebius, or (as you claim) Pamphilus, says in the above-mentioned work that the Son is the servant of the Father, that the Holy Spirit is not one and the same being with the Father and the Son, that the souls of men fell from heaven, and in the state in which we are, we are changed from the angels, that when everything is restored, both angels, and demons, and people will be equal, and many other things, so wicked and absurd that it is sinful to even repeat it. What will the defender of Origen and the translator of Pamphilus do? If there is so much blasphemy in what he corrected, then how much blasphemy is in what he presents as corrupted by heretics? He comes to this opinion on the basis that a person is not stupid and is in his right mind and could not contradict himself. And so that we might not think that he wrote differently at different times, he added: “What to do with the fact that sometimes in the same places and, so to speak, almost in the next chapter, an opposite opinion is found? Could it be that in the same section of the same book and sometimes, as we said, in the immediately following chapter, he could forget himself? How, for example, having said above that nowhere in all of Holy Scripture is there a place where the Holy Spirit is called created or created, he soon adds that among other creatures the Holy Spirit was created? Or, again: how, having called the Father and the Son consubstantial, which in Greek is called ὁμοούσιον, in the immediately following chapters he could say that He was created of a different being, Whom a little earlier he recognized as born from the very essence of God the Father? 17. These are his own words; he cannot deny this. Do not say: “for example, in what way he said above,” but name the very book in which he first said good, and then bad, in which, having said that the Holy Spirit and the Son have their being from the being of God the Father, he immediately then called Them creatures. Don't you know that I have all the works of Origen, that I have read very many of them? And I know you inside and out.” (Pers. Sat. 3). The most learned man Eusebius (I called him the most learned, and not Orthodox, so that you, according to your custom, would not blame me for this) in his six volumes does nothing else as soon as he shows that Origen adheres to his faith, that is, Arian unbelief. He cites a lot of excerpts and constantly proves this. In what vision in the Alexandrian prison was it revealed to you that you imagine that what he recognizes as truth is corrupt? But perhaps, as an Arian, he turned what the heretics added to the benefit of his error, so that it would not seem that he alone thought wrongly, contrary to the teachings of the church. What can you say about Didymus, who undoubtedly thought Orthodox about the Trinity? I also translated his book on the Holy Spirit into Latin. He, of course, could not agree with the fact that in the works of Origen it was added to the very books of περὶ ᾽ Αρχῶν, which you translated, he made brief explanations in which he did not deny that Origen wrote what was written, but that we, ordinary people, cannot understand what he said, and tries to instill in what sense it should be understood in a good way side. This is only about the Son and the Holy Spirit. As for other dogmas, both Eusebius and Didymus are very clearly inclined to the opinions of Origen, and what all churches reject, they defend as what was said orthodox and pious. 18. However, let’s see with what arguments he tries to prove that Origen’s works were corrupted by heretics: “Clement,” he says, “is an apostolic disciple, who, after the apostles, was a bishop and martyr of the Roman Church, published books called Ἀναγνωρισμός, that is, “Memoirs”; whereas in them in very many places the teaching is set out on behalf of the Apostle Peter, as if truly apostolic, in some places the teaching of Eunomius is introduced, so that one might think that this is nothing more than the reasoning of Eunomius himself, who assures that the Son of God was created from nothing.” And after many other things, which would take a long time to write about, he says: “How, one wonders, should one think about this: is it true that an apostolic man wrote heretical things, or is it better that malicious people, in order to confirm their teachings, in order to arouse more confidence in them, introduced under the name of holy men something that cannot be recognized by their teachings and writings?” He writes that also Clement, presbyter of the Alexandrian Church, an Orthodox man, in his books sometimes calls the Son of God created, and that Dionysius, bishop of the city of Alexandria, a most learned man, having polemicized in four volumes against Sabellius, is inclined towards the Arian teaching, and with these examples he tries to prove that it was not the church and Orthodox men who thought wrongly, but that their writings were spoiled by heretics, and concludes with the following words: “and regarding Origen, in whom, just like the above-mentioned writers, there are some differences, why should one not think in the same way as they think and understand regarding men already recognized by the Orthodox, so that for the same guilt there would be the same justification? But if we assume that everything harmful found in books has been damaged by others, then nothing will belong to those under whose names it is published, but everything will belong to those to whom the damage is attributed; but since at the same time it will not be their property, since their names are unknown, it will turn out that everything belongs to everyone and nothing belongs to anyone in particular. With such confusion in the defense, it will be impossible to blame either Marcion, or Manichaeus, or Arius, or Eunomius, since no matter what we reproach them for saying wickedly, their disciples will answer that it was not published by their teachers, but damaged by their enemies. In this way, your book itself will not be yours, but perhaps mine. And my book, with which I, the accused, answer you, if you find anything bad in it, will not belong to me, but to you, who condemns it. And, classifying everything as heretics, what do you attribute to the church writers, to whom you leave nothing as their property? How, you say, did some errors appear in their books? If I answer that I do not know the reasons for the errors, then this still does not recognize them as heretics. Perhaps, either they were simply mistaken, or they wrote in a different sense, or their writings were little by little spoiled by inexperienced scribes, or at least, before Arius was born in Alexandria, like the demon of the noonday, they said something simple-heartedly and not entirely carefully, which cannot reject the accusations of malicious people. Origen's errors are accused, but you do not defend him, but accuse others; you do not deny guilt, but look for many culprits. If you were told: whom Origen has as accomplices in heresy, then you would rightly point it out. Now you are asked: is what is read in Origen’s books good or bad? You are silent and instead say something else: Clement says this, the same error is noticed in Dionysius, Bishop Athanasius defends the error of Dionysius in this way, the writings of the apostles are damaged in this way. Now others are accusing you of heresy, but you are silent for yourself and speak for me. I do not blame anyone, content to be responsible only for myself. I am not what you accuse me of; if you are as they accuse you, then you yourself appear to be so. Neither my acquittal nor your accusation will prove either my or your innocence or guilt. 19. Having pointed out the damage by heretics to the works of the apostles, both Clements and Dionysius, he moves on to Origen and says in the following words: “We have proven this by the writings and words of him himself, complaining and lamenting it. For what he himself, while still living in the flesh, feeling and seeing, suffered both from the damage to his books and conversations, and from the forgery of publications, this is clearly evident from his own letter, which he writes to some of his friends in Alexandria.” And he directly cites an excerpt from the letter and, attributing to the heretics the forgery of Origen’s works, he himself begins with a forgery: he does not translate as it stands in Greek and does not convey to the Latins what he himself sees in his letter. Origen in this entire letter reviles Demetrius, the bishop of the city of Alexandria, attacks the bishops and clergy of the whole universe and says that he was unjustly excommunicated by the churches and that he does not want to respond to slander in the same way, so that, of course, a person so afraid of slander that he did not dare to slander even the devil could not appear to be slanderous - with which he gave Candide, a follower of Valentinian teaching, a reason to accuse him of having recognized the devil as capable to be saved. And he, having hidden the contents of the letter, attributes to Origen something that he does not say. Therefore, I translated part of the letter from what was said in it above, and at the same time exposed what he translated with omissions and slyly, so that the reader himself would understand for what purpose he kept silent about the previous one. Arguing in general against the hierarchs of the church, with whom he is recognized as unworthy of communication, he says: “What must be said about the speeches of the prophets, in which they very often threaten and denounce the shepherds, and elders, and priests, and leaders of the people? You can see this even without us from the Holy Scriptures and clearly see that perhaps now is the time about which it is said: “Do not believe in others, nor trust in elders” (Mic. 7:5). And is it not now that the prophecy is being fulfilled: “The leaders of my people did not know Me: they are sons of fools and fools, they are wise, who do evil, but do not know good” (Jer. 4:22). We should pity and pray for them rather than slander them. For we were created for blessing, not for slander. Therefore, when Michael spoke with the devil, arguing about the body of Moses, he did not dare to pronounce a reproachful judgment against such an evil one, but said: “May the Lord rebuke you” (Jude 1:9). We also read something similar to this in Zechariah: “May the Lord rebuke you, O devil, and may the Lord who chose Jerusalem rebuke you” (Zechariah 3:2). Therefore, we also want the Lord to reproach those who do not humbly want to be reproached by their neighbors. And when Michael says: “May the Lord rebuke you and Zechariah in the same way,” then whether the Lord will reproach the devil or not, He Himself will determine, and if He reproaches, then how He will reproach He Himself will determine.” And after much else, which would take a long time to write out, he adds: “We know that not only those who have committed important sins will be cast out from the kingdom of heaven, for example, fornicators, adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, but also those who have sinned in less important things, according to what is written: “neither drunkards nor troublemakers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:10) and that there is a measure of both goodness and the wrath of God. Therefore, we try to act with caution in everything, both in the use of wine and in the restraint of the tongue, so as not to dare to slander anyone. But whereas, out of the fear of God, we are afraid of slandering someone, remembering the saying: “I dare not bring blasphemy with judgment” (Jude 1:9), said about Michael in relation to the devil, and another: “Dominions are swept away, but glories are blasphemed” (ibid., v. 8), - some of those who love to invent quarrels attribute blasphemy to us and our teaching, regarding which let them judge for themselves how they hear these words: “neither drunkards nor slanderers will inherit the kingdom of God,” although they say that the father of malice and destruction of those who will be cast out from the kingdom of God can be saved, which even a madman cannot say.” He translated the rest of this letter instead of what we translated at the end with the words: “but then, due to the fear of God, we are afraid to slander anyone,” etc. It is he who, having insidiously cut off the previous one, on which the subsequent one depends, begins to translate the letter as if the previous beginning had this meaning, and says: “Some of those who take pleasure in accusing their neighbors attribute to us and our teaching the guilt of blasphemy, which they have never heard from us; let them judge this for themselves, who do not want to keep the commandment that says that “those who speak evil will not inherit the kingdom of God, and who say that I claim that I am the father of wickedness and destruction of those who will be cast out of the kingdom of God, i.e. the devil will be saved, which even the insane and obviously crazy cannot say.” 20. Compare the words of Origen, which I translated above verbatim, with what he did not translate, but distorted, and you will see how much difference there is not only in words, but also in thoughts. I beg you not to be burdened by this rather long translation. I translated everything in order to show why he kept silent about the previous one. The Greeks have a dialogue between Origen and Candide, the defender of the Valentinian heresy, which I, I admit, looked at as a battle between two Andabates 11 among themselves. Candide says that the Son has existence from the essence of the Father, erring in that he recognizes προβολήν, that is, prolatio. On the contrary, Origen, in agreement with Arius and Eunomius, denies that He was brought forth (prolatum esse) or begotten, so that God the Father would not be divided into parts, but says that the highest and most excellent creation came into being by the will (voluntate) of the Father, like other creations. Then they move on to the second question. Candide claims that the devil is a being of the most evil nature and one that can never be saved. Against this, Origen directly answers that the devil is not of a nature that must perish, but that he fell of his own free will and can be saved. Candide turns this into an accusation, as if Origen had said that the devil by nature must be saved; the latter (Origen) refutes what he unfairly accuses him of. And we know that only in this dialogue does Origen expose the corruption on the part of heretics, and not in his other books, regarding which there was never a question. Otherwise, if everything heretical belongs not to Origen, but to heretics - and his volumes are almost all full of these errors - then nothing will belong to Origen, but to those whose names are unknown. It is not enough for him to blame the Greeks and the ancients, on whom, due to the longness of time and the remoteness of the countries, he can blame whatever he wants; he goes over to the Latins and first of all refers to Hilary the Confessor, as if his book after the Council of Arimin was spoiled by heretics, and when a question was raised at the council of bishops on this matter, he allegedly ordered this book to be brought from his house, a book that, due to ignorance on his part and being in his closets, was considered heretical. And when it was brought and recognized by everyone as heretical, its author was excommunicated and retired from the meeting of the cathedral. He considers himself so authoritative that when he tells this tale to his supporters, no one dares to contradict him, who blames it on the confessor. Please answer: in what city was that council at which he was excommunicated? Name the bishops; talk about the signed definitions, about disagreement or agreement with them. Tell us: who were the consuls that year, which emperor ordered this council to meet, whether there were bishops of only Gaul or both Italy and Spain, or at least on what matter the council was assembled. You don’t say any of this, but in order to defend Origen, you slander that the council excommunicated a most eloquent man, a trumpet of Latin speech against the Arians. But let’s somehow transfer the slander to the confessor. He goes on to the glorious martyr Cyprian and says that Tertullian's book, entitled On the Trinity, is being read under his name in Constantinople by the heretics of the Macedonian party. Two people are slandered in this accusation. For this book neither belongs to Tertullian, nor is it called Cyprian, but belongs to Novatian, by whose name it is entitled; this is evident both from the author’s language and stylistic features. 21. I consider it unnecessary to refute those obvious absurdities when they put forward a fable about me: that the council 12, in the person of one friend of the Bishop of Rome Damasus, asked me, to whom he entrusted the compilation of church epistles, asked that the tricks of the Apollinarians be described, that they spoiled the book of Athanasius, which I took for reading, where it is written: “The Lord’s man,” in such a way that, from what was scraped out, they wrote again what they scraped it out precisely so that it would seem not spoiled by them, but added by me. I ask you, dear friend, in church treatises where the truth of dogmas and the salvation of our souls is concerned, where the authority of the elders (majorum) is required, omit this kind of nonsense, and do not consider fables told at lunches and dinners as proof of the truth. After all, it may be that, even if you heard the truth from me, someone else who does not know this matter will say that this is your composition and was invented like the mime of Philistion or the elegant joke of Lentulus and Marullus 13. 22. What lengths does unbridled recklessness not reach one day! After the excommunication of Hilary, after the ψευδεπίγραφον (falsely inscribed) book of Cyprian, after the damage and instead of a postscript in the book of Athanasius, which I overslept, he finally attacked Pope Epiphanius and in an apology for Origen expresses his heartfelt grief over the fact that he, in a letter to Bishop John, declared him a heretic, and consoles himself with the following words: “It is especially appropriate here to reveal the hidden truth. For it is impossible for any man to be so unjust as to judge the same matter differently. But the fact is that the authors of reproaches are those who, arguing, as is their wont, in great detail in church or even compiling books, everything speaks and writes on the basis of Origen. In order to hide from the majority their secret borrowings, which, of course, would not seem at all criminal if they were not ungrateful to their teacher, they turn away all the simpler people from reading him. Finally, one of them, who considered slandering Origen as necessary as preaching the gospel among all nations and in all languages, admitted in a very large assembly of listening brethren that he had read six thousand of his books. Of course, if he read to become familiar with his errors (as he usually says), then ten or twenty or, at most, thirty books would be enough to become familiar with them. But reading six thousand of his books no longer means wanting to become familiar with his errors and mistakes, but devoting almost your entire life to teaching and studying him. How, then, should his words be treated with dignity when he accuses those who, for the sake of their own instruction (preserving the rule of faith and without prejudice to piety), have read very little of his writings? 23. Who are these who usually argue in great detail in the church, who write books, who all speak and write on the basis of Origen, who, wanting to hide their secret borrowings and being ungrateful to the teacher, turn away simpler people from reading him? You must name and indicate the people themselves. This means that the blessed bishops Anastasius and Theophilus, and Venerius, and Khromatsky and the entire council of Orthodox, both East and West, who unanimously, for unanimously, declare him a heretic before the people, should be considered secret borrowers from his books, and preaching in churches, expound not the mysteries of the Scriptures, but secretly borrowed from Origen? Is it not enough for you to condemn everyone everywhere, if you do not in particular direct the edge of your style against the blessed and glorious saint of the church? Who is he who considers slandering Origen as necessary for himself as preaching the gospel among all nations and in all languages? Who in a very large assembly of listening brethren admitted that he had read six thousand of his books? In what large assembly and crowd of brethren were you present when he (Epiphanius) in his letter (and not in the assembly) complains that in defense of the heresy of Origen you expressed wicked teachings? Is it really necessary to blame him for the fact that he knows Greek, Syriac, Hebrew, Egyptian and partly Latin? This means that both the apostles and the apostolic men who spoke in tongues are guilty, and you, the bilingual 14, will laugh at me, the trilingual? As for the six thousand of his books that you imagine were read by him, who will believe either that you are telling the truth, or that he could be lying? For if Origen had written six thousand books, it might have turned out that the most learned man, taught the Holy Scriptures from childhood, read other things for the sake of curiosity and knowledge. But how could he read what he did not write? Count the titles of the books contained in the third volume of Eusebius, where he described the life of Pamphilus, and you will not find - I’m not saying six thousand - but not even the third part. We have a letter from the above-mentioned bishop, in which he responds to this slander of yours when you were still in the east, and refutes the obvious lie with a calm brow of truth. 24. After all this, in your Apology you have the strength to say that you are neither a defender nor an intercessor of Origen, in whose defense Pamphilus and Eusebius, in your opinion, said little. Against these writings (if the Lord prolongs this life) I will try to answer at another time. Now it will be enough to speak only against your statements and briefly explain to the prudent reader that the book that was attributed to Pamphilus was the first time I saw written in your codex, and since I did not care about what was said in defense of the heretic, I always considered the works of Pamphilus and Eusebius to be different, but later, when the question was raised, I wanted to answer their works and therefore read what each of them thought in favor Origen, and clearly understood that the first book of the six volumes of Eusebius is the same one that you alone published under the name Pamphilus, both in Greek and in Latin, with a change only showing obvious blasphemy of opinions about the Son and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, almost ten years ago, when my friend Dexter, who was prefect of the guard, asked me to compile for him a list of writers of our religion, I included this book, published by Pamphilus, among other authors, being of the same opinion about it as was published by you and your disciples. But since Eusebius himself says that Pamphilus wrote nothing except short letters to friends, and since the first book of his six volumes contains the same thing and in the same expressions that you falsely presented with the name of Pamphilus, it is obvious that you wanted to distribute this book in order to introduce heresy on behalf of the martyr. And since you distorted a lot from this very book that you pass off as Pamfilova, and in Greek it is different, and in Latin it is different, then you should not attribute your deception to my mistake. For I believed that this book belonged to the one whose name it was entitled, just as περὶ ᾽ Αρχῶν and many other works of Origen and very many Greek writers, which I either did not read before, or only now am forced to read, when the question of heresy is raised, in order to know what I should avoid and what I should approve. Therefore, during my youth, as a result of sincere requests, I translated only his conversations that he spoke to the people and in which there was not so much seductiveness, I translated, without prejudging anyone to accept approvingly what is clearly heretical. Without a doubt (in order not to talk too long), just as I prove that I received the book from those who copied it from your code, so you, tell me from whom you received a copy of it, so that someone who cannot indicate another culprit can be considered guilty of forgery. “A good man brings forth good treasures from his heart” (Matthew 12:35), and a tree of noble seed is recognized by the sweetness of its fruit. 25. Brother Eusebius writes that among the African bishops who came to the Comitat on church business, he found a letter supposedly written in my name, in which I express repentance and testify that in my youth I was tempted by the Jews to translate Jewish books into Latin, in which there is nothing true. I was amazed to hear this. Since “when two or three witnesses speak, every word will stand” (Matt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1), but they do not believe one witness, even if it were Cato; I was also convinced of the same thing by the letters of the brethren from Rome, who asked whether this was true, and with regret indicated who distributed this letter among the people. What else would the one who dared to do this not dare to do? It’s good that anger doesn’t have as much power as it does plans. Innocence would perish if force were always combined with meanness, and slander could do whatever it wants. The most eloquent husband could not imitate my style, whatever it may be, and my manner of presentation; but in the very fakes and in the mask of another falsely put on himself, he showed who he was. So, the one who invented a letter on my behalf with repentance that I translated the Hebrew books badly, they say, reproaches me for translating the Holy Scriptures to condemn the Seventy, so that, whether translated truly or falsely by me, in any case I remain guilty: since either in the last work I admit that I made a mistake, or the new edition must be a condemnation of the previous one (the Seventy). I am surprised that in the same letter he did not call me a murderer, an adulterer, a blasphemer, a parricide, and all that shameful secret fantasy can invent. I must thank him that out of the mass of crimes that exist, he accuses me of one crime of error or distortion. Did I really say anything against the Seventy Interpreters, which, many years ago, in a most carefully corrected form, I published for the people of my language who study the Scriptures - which I daily expound in the assembly of the brethren, whose psalms I sing with unrelenting depth in them? Was I really so reckless that I wanted to forget in my old age what I had learned in my youth? All my writings are woven with their testimonies. Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets explain both my translation and the translation of the Seventy. O human works, constantly deceptive! O aspirations of mortals, sometimes achieving nasty goals! What I thought to do a good service to my Latins and arouse our minds to study (Holy Scripture), which after so many translators the Greeks do not disdain when translating from Latin - by this I bring accusation upon myself and give food to a stomach that disdains it. And what is safe in a person if innocence is criminal! While the master was sleeping, man's enemy sowed tares (Matthew 13:25). “Ozoba is a grape and a boar from an oak grove, and a solitary fish is eaten” (Ps. 79:14). I am silent, and letters not written by me speak against me. I don’t know the crime, but in front of the whole world I confess to the crime. “Woe to me, my mother, you have given birth to me, a handsome man who has been judged throughout the whole earth” (Jer. 15:10)! 26. The witnesses in this case are all the prefaces to the Old Testament, excerpts from which I partially quote here. And it is unnecessary to write about what is said in them differently than as it is said there. So, I'll start with Genesis. The prologue to this book is as follows: “I have received the desired letters of my Desiderius, who, by some premonition of the future, received a common name with Daniel 15, and who asks me to give to my (Latins) the Pentateuch translated from Hebrew into Latin. Of course, this is a dangerous matter and open to reproaches from critics, who claim that I, in humiliation of the Seventy Interpreters, compose a new one instead of an old one, praising the mind as well as wine, whereas I very often said that I offer what I can in the tabernacle of God to the best of my ability, and that the wealth of one is not humiliated by the poverty of others. The work of Origen challenged me to such a bold undertaking; apostles We read from them much from the Old Testament that is not in our codes, such as the following: “Out of Egypt I called My Son” (Matthew 2:15); “He will be called a Nazarite” (Matthew 2:23); “they will look upon Him, but His blood has broken” (John 19:37); “rivers will flow out of His belly and waters of life” (John 7:38); “their eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and the heart of man has not sighed, what God has prepared for those who love Him” (1 Cor. 2:9), and much more that requires special σύνταγμα (composition). Let us ask them: where is this written? And since they will not tell us this, we will quote it from the Jewish books. The first testimony is found in Hosea (Hosea 11:1), the second in Isaiah (Isaiah 11:1), the third in Zechariah (Zechariah 12:10), the fourth in Proverbs (Proverbs 5:16), the fifth also in Isaiah (Isaiah 64:4). Many, without knowing this, follow the fables of the apocrypha, and prefer Iberian fiction to genuine books. It is not my place to state the reasons for what is wrong. The Jews say that this was done (by the Seventy) with a prudent intention, so that Ptolemy, the admirer of one God, would not think that the Jews also had two deities, and they did this mainly because Ptolemy apparently was inclined to the teachings of Plato. Therefore, wherever Scripture communicates something mysterious about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they either translated it differently, or did not translate it at all (tacuerunt), in order to satisfy both the king and not to divulge the secret of faith to the people. I do not know which author was the first to build seventy rooms in Alexandria with his lies, divided into which they (Seventy interpreters) wrote the same thing when Aristaeus, ὑπερασπιστής (defender) of the same Ptolemy and, after a little time, Joseph did not report anything like this, but write that they, united in one basilica, compared, and did not prophesy. For it is another thing to be a prophet, and another to be a translator. There the Holy Spirit predicts, here learning and verbal art translate what they understand. Is it perhaps to be believed that Tullius, inspired by the rhetorical spirit, translated Xenophon’s work on economics (Oecenomieum), Plato’s Protagoras and Demosthenes’ speech in defense of Ctesiphon, to explain why from the same books the Holy Spirit gave evidence differently through the Seventy and differently through the apostles, and what the former kept silent about, the latter invented written. So what? Are we condemning the ancients? Not at all. But after the labors of our predecessors, we labor in the house of the Lord as much as we can. They translated before the coming of Christ, and they conveyed what they did not know through mutual thoughts. We, after His suffering and resurrection, are writing not so much a prophecy as a history. For what is heard is conveyed differently, and what is seen is conveyed differently. What we understand better, we convey better. Listen, O zealot, and take heed, O reproach! I do not condemn, I do not reproach the Seventy; but I firmly prefer the apostles to all of them. Through their lips Christ speaks to me; Before the prophets, I read them among those who are spiritually blessed, among whom interpreters occupy almost the last place. Why are you tormented by anger? Why are you stirring up the minds of the ignorant against me? If it seems to you that I am making a mistake somewhere in the translation, then ask the Jews, consult with teachers in different cities. What they have about Christ is not in your codes. Another question is whether they like the evidence subsequently used against them by the apostles, and in this regard, the Latin lists are better than the Greek ones and the Greek ones are better than the Hebrew ones. 27. Also in the books of Samuel and Malachi, which we call the four books of Kings, after the list of books of divine Scripture, I added the following. “If this is so, then I ask you, reader, not to consider my work a humiliation of the ancients. In the Tabernacle of God, everyone brings what they can. Some bring gold, silver and precious stones, others fine linen, purple, scarlet and hyacinth. It is also good for us if we bring leather and goat hair. And yet our apostle, the more despised, considers it more necessary (1 Cor. 12:22). Therefore, all that beauty of the tabernacle, and its division into particular types of the present and future church, is covered with skins and hair shirts, and what seems worst is protected from the heat of the sun and damage from bad weather.” Look with what pride I treat the Seventy Interpreters when I say that they brought gold, precious stones and purple into the Tabernacle of God, and I brought leather and goat’s hair! 28. I will present other evidence so that you do not say that now, forced by necessity, I have changed my mind. In the book of the Times, that is, Chronicles, which in Hebrew is called Dabre Iamim, I made the following preface for the holy Pope Chromatius: “If the edition of the Seventy remained pure and in the form in which they translated it into Greek, then it would be unnecessary for you, my Chromatius, most holy and learned of bishops, to encourage me to translate the Hebrew books for you into Latin. For whatever has once captured the ears of the people and strengthened the faith of the nascent church, it should rightly be approved by our silence. But since now in different countries there are different lists in circulation and that original and ancient translation is spoiled and damaged, then you consider it our duty either to determine what is true on the basis of many lists, or to carry out a new work in the old case, and while the Jews laugh at us, to gouge out, as they say, the eyes of the crows. Alexandria and Egypt, in their edition of the Seventy, praise Hesychius as the author; from Constantinople to Antioch the lists of Lucian the martyr are approved; in the intermediate regions between them, the codices are read, which, in the adaptation of Origen, were published by Eusebius and Pamphilus, and disputes arise throughout the world as a result of this threefold difference. Origen not only combined the lists of the four editions, marking each word in the margin, so that one who disagreed would immediately be exposed by the mutual agreement of the others; but, what was more daring, in the edition of the Seventy he added the edition of Theodotion, denoting with asterisks what was missing, and with lines what seemed unnecessarily added. So, if others could not adhere to what they had once accepted, and after seventy rooms, which are told to the people without indicating the author, open special rooms, if in churches they read what the Seventy did not know, then why do my Latins not accept me, who, having left the old edition untouched, compiled a new one in such a way that I can confirm my work with the authority of the Jews and (what is more important than them) the apostles? I recently wrote a book “On the Best Method of Translation,” arguing that the following passages are from the Gospel: “Out of Egypt I called My Son” (Matthew 2:15); “He will be called a Nazarite” (Matthew 2:23); “they will look upon Him, but He has been drained” (John 19:37) and from the apostle: “whose eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has the heart of man breathed what God has prepared for those who love Him” (1 Cor. 2:9) and other similar passages are found in the Jewish books. The Apostle and the evangelists, of course, knew the translation of the Seventy interpreters. Where could they borrow what the Seventy did not have? And Christ, our Lord, the Creator of both covenants, says: “Believe in Me, as the Scripture says, rivers flow from the belly; living waters will flow out from it” (John 7:38). Undoubtedly, that which the Savior testifies as written is written. Where is it written? The Seventy do not, the church does not know the apocrypha. Therefore, we need to turn to the Jews, from where the Lord speaks and His disciples give evidence. I do not say this against the ancients, but only respond to my critics, who gnaw at me with a dog’s tooth, publicly reproaching me, and reading in the corners, being both accusers and defenders, since in others they approve of what they condemn in me, as if virtue and vice do not consist in the deeds themselves, but change mutually, depending on the culprit. However, I remind you that I once gave ours an edition of the Seventy, corrected from the Greek, and that I should not be considered an enemy of those whom I constantly explain in the assembly of the brethren. If I have now translated Dabre Iamim, that is, the Words of Days, then I did this so that what presents insurmountable difficulties, a mass of names mixed up by copyist error, and confusion in thoughts, can be presented with greater clarity and with the division of verses, like the Change of singing for myself and my own, if the ears of others are deaf." 29. I also expressed a similar thing in the preface to the book of Ezra and after much added the following: “It is very fair to introduce what I intend to introduce. I published something that is not in the Greek or is written differently than in my translation. Why do they scold the translator? Let them ask the Jews and, based on their testimony, whether they trust or distrust my translation. Then it is another matter if, as they say, with closed eyes they want to slander me and do not imitate the zeal and good disposition of the Greeks, who, after the Seventy Interpreters, already in the light of the Gospel of Christ, diligently read the Jews and Ebionite translators of the Old Testament, that is, Akilus, Symmachus and Theodotion, and through the work of Origen ὲν έξαπλοῖς (in exapla) handed them over to the churches. How much more grateful should my Latins be when they see that proud Greece is borrowing something from them! For, first of all, it is expensive and very difficult to have all the lists. Moreover, those who have them, if they do not understand the Hebrew language, will rather wander around not knowing which of the many said it more correctly. This happened recently among the Greeks even with one very intelligent person 17, who sometimes, leaving the meaning of Scripture, followed the error of some translator. But I, who have at least a small knowledge of the Hebrew language and are somewhat familiar with Latin speech, can better judge others and express in my own language what I understand.” 30. Let me move on to the book of Job. After the publication of the Seventy Interpreters, which Origen marked with obels and asterisks, it was translated into Latin many years ago. When I again translated it according to the Hebrew original itself, I spoke like this: “With every book of divine Scripture, I am forced to respond to the slander of opponents who accuse my translation as a humiliation of the Seventy Interpreters; as if the Greeks did not translate Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion either word for word, or following only the meaning, or the method of translation mixed from both of them and the average between them, and as if Origen did not mark out all the books of the Old Testament with obelis and asterisks, - indicated by which additions or borrowings from Theodotion he introduced into the ancient translation, proving that what was added did not exist. So let my critics either accept as a whole what they accepted in parts, or scrape off my translation along with their asterisks. And it cannot be that they did not admit that those who obviously left out a lot also made some mistakes, especially in the book of Job, in which a very large part would be cut off if what was added under the asterisks was removed. And this is only among the Greeks! And the Latins, before the translation that I recently published with asterisks and obels, lacked about seven or eight hundred verses, so that the truncated, torn and gnawed book seemed ugly to those who read it publicly.” And after much that I am omitting for the sake of brevity, I added the following at the end: “Therefore, let my dogs hear that I worked on this book not in order to disparage the ancient translation, but so that what is dark in it, or omitted, or distorted by the mistake of the scribes, would become clearer through my translation, since I have also partially studied the Hebrew language and have become fluent in Latin almost from the cradle among grammarians, rhetoricians and philosophers. For if the Greeks, after the publication of the Seventy, already in the light of the Gospel of Christ, accepted the Jew Aquila and the Judaizing heretics Symmachus and Theodotion, who, although many of the mysteries of the Savior were covered with a crafty interpretation, are nevertheless in the exaplos of the churches and are explained by church men; then how much more squeamish or malicious readers should not blame me, a Christian, born of Christian parents, wearing the sign of the cross on my forehead, I, all of whose efforts were aimed at supplementing what was omitted, correcting what was corrupted, and expounding the mysteries of the church in pure and precise language.” 31. Also, the Psalter, which through my labors, very accurately corrected according to the Seventy interpreters, was recently accepted by Rome, translating again according to the Hebrew original, I protected with a preface, and said this in the prologue: “Since you 18 recently, arguing with a Jew, cited some testimonies about the Lord Savior from the psalms, and he, wanting to laugh at you, said to almost every word: it does not stand in Hebrew as you do.” objected to him on the Seventy Interpreters, then you very earnestly asked that, after Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, I compose a new translation in Latin. You said that you were especially embarrassed by the differences in translators and that, out of love for me, you would be satisfied with both my translation and my judgment. Therefore, prompted by you, to whom I should not refuse even the impossible for me, I again submitted myself to the abuse of my critics and only wished that you would attribute my shortcomings more to my strengths than to a good disposition in friendship. Of course, I can safely say and refer to many witnesses in this work that I, at least consciously, did not change anything from the Jewish original. Thus, if my edition differs in places from the old ones, then ask any of the Jews, and you will clearly see that I am in vain tormented by zealots who prefer to appear to despise the beautiful than to learn. Very strange people: they are constantly looking for new pleasures, the nearby seas are not enough for them to sip: why, in the mere study of Scripture, are they satisfied with old dishes? I say this not as a reproach to my predecessors, without the idea of ​​blaming anything from them - from them, the translation of which, very carefully corrected, I once gave to the people of my language; but I say in the sense that it is another thing to read psalms in assemblies of believers in Christ, and another thing to respond to Jews who object to every word.” 32. Also translating from the Hebrew the books of Solomon, which I once translated into Latin on the Seventy with the addition of obels and asterisks, and dedicating them to the holy bishops Chromatius and Iliodorus, at the end of my preface I added the following: “If anyone likes the edition of the Seventy interpreters more, then he has it in the form I once corrected. For I do not create new things in such a way as to destroy the old.” 33. I will also move on to Isaiah and give part of the prologue to it about the translation of the Seventy. Having said that he is more an evangelist than a prophet, because he traced all the mysteries of the Church of Christ so clearly that one might think that he is not prophesying about the future, but setting out the history of the past, I also added the following: “From this I guess that the Seventy interpreters did not want at that time to clearly convey the secrets of their faith to the pagans, so as not to give holy things to dogs and pearls to pigs. As you read this edition, you will notice these secrets hidden by them. I know how difficult it is to understand the prophets and that it is not easy to think about translation without first understanding what you read. I know that I, too, am subject to attacks from very many who, hiding their envy, despise what they themselves cannot accomplish. So, knowing and understanding this, I put my hand into the fire. But nevertheless, I also ask my squeamish readers, that just as the Greeks, after the Seventy interpreters, read Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, either out of their curiosity, or in order to better understand the translation of the Seventy from comparing them, so let them deign to accept my translation, at least as the last among the previous ones. Let them read first and then scold, so that it does not seem that they are condemning what they do not know not on the basis of criticism, but out of prejudice of hatred.” 34. And regarding Daniel, I will briefly answer that at the beginning of the prologue, when I called him a prophet, I did not deny his prophetic significance, but wanted to indicate what the Jews say and what evidence they try to confirm their opinion, and to inform the reader that the churches of Christ read this prophet according to Theodotion, and not according to the Seventy interpreters. If I said that in this book their publication largely deviates from the original and is rightly not approved by the court of the churches of Christ, then the fault is not with me who said this, but with those who read. There are four editions: Aquila, Symmachus, Seventy and Theodotion; churches read Daniel according to Theodotion. What did I sin if I followed the judgment of the churches? And whoever accuses me of reporting what Jews usually say against the story of Susanna, the song of the three youths, the tales of Vila and the dragon, which is not in the Hebrew, declares himself a stupid slanderer. For I have stated not what I myself think, but what they usually say against us. And if, trying to be brevity, so that it would not seem that I was writing not a preface, but a book, I did not answer their opinion in the prologue, then, I think, I qualified it, for I said: “now is not the time to talk about this.” Otherwise, from the fact that I said that Porfiry spoke a lot against this prophet, and referred to Methodius, Eusebius and Apollinaris as witnesses to this, who responded to his recklessness with many thousands of verses - and from this one could blame me for the fact that in a short preface I did not write against the books of Porphyry. Whoever follows absurdities of this kind and does not want to accept the authentic Jewish scripture, let him hear that I directly declare: I do not force anyone to read what they do not want. I wrote for those who ask, and not for those who disdain, for the grateful, I am not for the envious, for the zealous, I am not for the careless. Nevertheless, I am surprised how he reads the heretic and Judaizer Theodotion, and abhors the translation of any sinner, but a Christian. 35. I ask you, dear friend, you who are so inquisitive that you even know my dreams and bring to the accusation everything that I have written for so many years without any fear for future accusations, I ask you to answer how you do not know the prefaces of those books that you accuse, prefaces that, as if by foreknowledge, answered the future accusation, according to the proverb: “the antidote is before the poison.” What harm will my translation do to the churches? Dearly, as I know, you paid for Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion and the Jewish translators of the fifth and sixth editions. Your Origen and (so that you do not complain that you are wounded by feigned praise) our Origen (I call him ours for his learning, and not for the truth of his opinions) in all his books after the Seventy Interpreters interprets and explains the translations of the Jews. Eusebius and Didymus do the same. I’m not talking about Apollinaris, who, although with good zeal, but not with reason, tried to sew scraps from all the translations into one garment and establish the meaning of Scripture not according to the norm of the original, but at his own discretion. The apostolic men use the Hebrew Scriptures, and it is obvious that the apostles and evangelists themselves did the same. The Lord and Savior, wherever he mentions the Old Testament Scripture, gives evidence from Jewish books, such as: “believe in Me, as the Scripture says, rivers of water will flow out of his belly” (John 7:38) and on the cross: Eli, Eli, lema azabathani, which translates: “My God, My God, where you have forsaken Me” ( Matthew 27:46) and not as stated by the Seventy: “O God, my God, look upon me, wherefore thou hast forsaken me” (Ps. 21:1) and much like this. We say this not in the sense of censure of the Seventy interpreters, but in the sense that the authority of the apostles and Christ is higher, that wherever the Seventy did not disagree with the Hebrew, there the apostles cited evidence from their translation, and where there was disagreement between them, there they put in Greek what they read in Hebrew. So, just as I point out many pieces of evidence given in the New Testament from the Old Testament books, evidence that the Seventy do not have, and prove that it is in the Hebrew, so let the accuser point out something given in the New Testament according to the Seventy interpreters that is not in the Hebrew, then the dispute will be over. 36. From all this it is clear that the publication of the Seventy Interpreters, approved by long-standing reading, is useful for the churches, since the nations before the coming of Christ heard about Him as one who was to come, but that other translators should not be rejected, because they translated not their own, but divine books, and my friend must accept from a Christian and friend what he hastened to copy from the Jews at great expense. I stepped out of the confines of the letter and, having already directed my style against the impious heresy 19, was forced to answer in defense of myself, expecting three books of a friend and all my thoughts, concentrating on the mass of his accusations; because it is easier to take measures against an obvious enemy than to tolerate an enemy hiding under the name of a friend. or the last answer of Blessed Jerome against the writings of Rufinus. 1. Having read the letter of your wisdom, in which you attack me and in which you now challenge the one whom you once praised and called a true comrade and brother to respond with books and intimidate with denunciations, I realized that on you this saying of Solomon was fulfilled: “from the mouth of fools is a rod of vexation” ( Proverbs 14:3 ) and: “a man of feeble understanding does not require wisdom, driven by madness" (Proverbs 18:2). And Isaiah says: “The fool shall speak foolishly, and his vain heart shall understand what he has committed iniquity, and speak deceit against the Lord” (Is. 32:6). For what was the need to send accusatory volumes and expose my mistakes, when in the last part of the letter you threaten me with denunciation and death, so that I do not dare answer the accusations or, better yet, your praises? For you praise and blame the same thing, and from the same source come sweet and bitter. Therefore, I ask you that first you yourself observe the modesty and bashfulness that you demand from me, and, accusing another of lying, stop lying yourself. I do not tempt anyone and do not, by the way, inform on you, for I do not mean what you deserve, but what is appropriate for me; and I am afraid of the saying of the Savior, who says: “Whoever causes one to stumble from the little ones who believe in Me, it is better for him, even if a millstone falls on his neck, and he is cast into the sea” (Mark 9:42), and: “Woe to the world because of the offense: the need is for it to come with an offense; otherwise woe to the man to whom the offense comes” (Matthew 18:7). I could also call lie against you and say that I heard or saw what no one talks about, so that people who do not know impudence will consider truth and irritation as firmness. But let it not be that I imitate you and myself do what I reproach in you! Let him who can do abominations speak of abominations: “The wicked man brings out the evil treasure of the heart” (Matthew 12:35). Luke 6:45) By the way, let it be a benefit for you that someone who was once your friend, now, having been accused, does not want to expose you to infamy. And I say this not because I am afraid of the swords of your accusation, but because I wish to be accused rather than to accuse, and to endure rather than to offend, knowing what the Apostle commanded: “Do not take revenge on yourself, beloved, but give place to anger; For it is written: Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord. If your enemy is hungry, give him something to eat; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; For when you do this, you heap coals of fire on his head” (Rom. 12:19–20; Deut. 32:35). For whoever avenges himself does not deserve to have the Lord avenge him. 2. And yet, before answering your letter, I would like to question you, oldest of the monks, good presbyter, imitator of Christ: how can you kill your brother, whom if you only hate, then you turn out to be a murderer? Have you learned from the Savior to offer the other to the one who strikes you on the cheek? He himself answered his tormentor in this way: “If you speak evil words, bear witness to evil; if you speak good, that Me, do you speak?” (John 18:23). You threaten death, which can also be caused by snakes. Death is the destiny of all, and murder is the destiny of the most evil. After all, what? If you don't kill me, will I be immortal? I am even grateful to you that you make something valiant out of what is necessary. Did not the apostles disagree, while maintaining mutual friendship, when Paul and Barnabas quarreled over John, called Mark, and when navigation separated those who were united by the gospel of Christ? The same Paul, didn’t he personally confront Cephas because he did not act directly according to the gospel? And yet, he calls him his predecessor and pillar of the church and offers a sermon with him, so that his present or previous feat would not be in vain. Do not children also disagree with their parents, without violating respect, and wives and husbands, while maintaining love? If you believe so, as we believe, then why do you hate us? If you think otherwise, then why do you want to kill? Is it really death for anyone who disagrees with you? I call on Jesus as a witness to my conscience, who will judge both this scripture and your letter, that I, on the advice of the holy Pope Chromatius, wanted to remain silent, put an end to hostility and conquer evil with good; but since you threaten death if I do not remain silent, I am forced to answer, so that it does not seem that by my silence I admit the accusation and so that you do not interpret my meekness as a sign of a bad conscience. 3. Your true dilemma, borrowed not from dialectics, which you do not know, but from the workshop and considerations of executioners, is this: if I remain silent, then I will be guilty, if I answer, then I will be evil-tongued. In this way you both keep me from answering and force me to answer. I will be moderate in both, so as to eliminate reproaches and refrain from insult. For who is not afraid of someone who is ready to kill? I will follow your main idea, leaving the rest to those most learned books that I refuted before I read. You say that “you sent my accusation only to those who were offended by my words, and not to many, since Christians should not speak for vanity, but for edification.” But where, please tell me, did the rumor about your books reach me? Who in Rome, who in Italy, who spread them across the Dalmatian islands? If they were hiding in the closets of you and your friends, then how did the accusations against me reach me? And you dare to claim that you speak not for vanity, but, as a Christian, for edification - you, who, in your old age, invent things about an old man that a murderer would not say about a robber, a public woman about a harlot, a buffoon about a mimic actor? You, who give birth to mountains of accusations for me and spend so much time sharpening swords to plunge them into my throat? Isn’t that why your cereals and couriers ran around different provinces, to read praises to me, so that your panegyric could be read in corners, streets and in women’s textiles? Such is your holy modesty, such is Christian edification; You are so modest, so bashful that those who came in droves from the West told me about your slander, and with such detail and such agreement that I was forced to respond not to your works, which I had not yet read, but to opinions about the works, and to reflect the arrows of lies flying all over the world with the shield of truth. 4. Then in your letter it follows: “do not bribe my copyist with a lot of money, as your friends did regarding my sheets of περὶ ᾽ Αρχῶν, not yet corrected, not yet completely finished, so that it is more convenient to distort what either no one had, or very few had. Accept the code I sent for free, which you would like to purchase at a high price.” Aren't you ashamed of such an introduction? Would I bribe your copyist with gold? Who would dare to compete in wealth with Croesus and Darius, so as not to be afraid of Demaratus and Crassus suddenly becoming rich? Have you really hardened your forehead so much that you can pin your hope on lies, consider it possible to protect yourself with lies and think that you need to believe you in everything, no matter what you invent? Who stole your panegerical letter from the bedroom of brother Eusebius in Bethlehem? Thanks to whose dexterity and whose servants, in the hospitable home of Saint Fabiola and Oceanus, an intelligent man and believer in Christ, was found a code that they had never seen? Do you really consider yourself innocent because you transfer onto others everything that belongs to you? Is it possible that whoever insults you, even if it were a simple person, even if it was an innocent person, will immediately become guilty, just because you possess what has overcome the modesty of Danai, that Gehazi preferred his teacher to holiness, for which Judas betrayed his Lord? 5. However, let's see what my friend distorted in your sheets, which had not yet been corrected and not completely finished, and whether it was more convenient for him to distort them due to the fact that either no one had them, or very few. I wrote before, and now, testified by God, I also declare that I did not approve of the denunciation of either him or any other Christian against a Christian. For what is the need to expose many to temptation and temptation that can be secretly exposed or corrected? But since everyone lives in his own way, and a friend cannot completely control the will of another, then just as much as I do not approve of even a fair denunciation, I also do not allow the distortion of sheets in a holy man. For what could the Latin change in the Greek translation? Or what would he publish or add to books, περὶ ᾽ Αρχῶν, where everything is in such a close connection and one follows from the other in such a way that whatever you want to throw out or add would immediately be visible as a patch on clothing? So, you yourself do what you suggest to me. Accept a little, at least, human, if not Christian, shame, so that, having neglected and corrected your conscience, you, guilty of deeds, do not consider yourself justified by words. If Eusebius bought uncorrected sheets of paper for gold in order to distort them, then present yours, not distorted, and if you prove that there is nothing heretical in them, then in that case he will be guilty of forgery. Even if you make changes in them, even if you correct them, you will not prove that they are Orthodox. For if the errors were in words, or in a few thoughts, then it would be possible to cut off the bad and replace it with the good; and where all the reasoning is the same - that all rational creatures who have fallen of their own free will will subsequently be converted into one state, that again from the same beginning various falls occur - how will you correct all this if you do not change everything? If you do this, you will no longer be translating other people’s books, but composing your own. As for what follows, I don’t understand what kind of proof this is. “Since,” he says, the sheets had not yet been corrected and finished clean, the more easily they were distorted by Eusebius.” Either I'm too stupid, or this is too stupid and ridiculous. If the sheets have not yet been corrected and finished clean, then their errors should not be attributed to Eusebius, but to your slowness and clumsiness, since you delayed in correcting them, and he should be found guilty only of hastening to disseminate among the people your works, which you wanted to correct over time. If Eusebius distorted them, as you claim, then why do you complain and be indignant that they appeared in public in an uncorrected and completely unfinished form? After all, they are still distorted, whether they were corrected or uncorrected. You say that no one had these books or very few. In one thought, what a contradiction! If no one had them, then how come few had them? If only a few had them, then why do you lie that no one had them? And since you say that some had them, and since your own confession has refuted that no one had them, then where is what you complain about, namely, what kind of gold was your copyist bribed with? Give the name of the census taker, say how much gold was given, where, by whom and to whom it was given. You, of course, drove away your traitor and removed the perpetrator of such a crime from your community? Look, is it not more true that those few of your friends gave both Eusebius and others copies that are so similar and agree with each other that they do not even differ from one another in even one point. Then, how wise it is to give a copy to others when you have not yet corrected it! The sheets of paper had not yet been completely written, and your mistakes, which you had to correct, were already in the hands of others! Don't you notice that lies don't fit in with themselves? And what benefit was it to you at a critical moment, in order to avoid the verdicts of the bishops, to show yourself to be incompetent and to be exposed in your own words? It is clear that you, in the words of the famous speaker 21, have a desire to lie, but do not have the art of inventing. 6. I will follow the order of the letter and drag in, as you put it, the very words. “I confess, you say, that in my preface I praised your eloquence, and would have praised it now if you, contrary to the opinion of your Tullius, had not made it disgusting with your great boasting.” Where did I boast of my eloquence, the very praises of which I accepted from you with displeasure? Or are you saying by this that you do not want to flatter me with insidious praise, that you will directly incriminate me, so that if I did not want to accept your praises, I would feel your accusations? As for your ignorance, I am not so stupid as to convict you of it: no one can expose it more strongly than you yourself with your writing. I just wanted to show your fellow students, who along with you did not learn to read and write, how much you have managed in the course of thirty years in the east - you, συγγραφεύς ἀγράμματος (illiterate writer), who considers impudence, talkativeness and slander in everyone a sign of a clear conscience. I do not give you, as you say, fire, and I do not try to teach my student, an old man, to read and write with a whip and a rod; but since all of us who write cannot bear the brilliance of your eloquence and learning, and you blind our eyes with your wit, so that you consider everyone your envious people; then we all together want to destroy you, so that you, having once received primacy in literature and strengthened your highest position in eloquence, will not deprive all of us who have the claim to know something from even making a utterance. I am a philosopher, rhetorician, grammarian, dialectician, Jew, Greek, Latin, trilingual. In this case, you, who are so versed in Greek and Latin that the Greeks consider you a Latin, and the Latins a Greek, will be bilingual, and Pope Epiphanius will be πεντάγωττος (five-lingual), because he speaks in five languages ​​against you and your favorite 22. But at the same time, I am surprised at the audacity with which you dare to speak against such a highly respected husband: “if you look through the eyes of so many sciences, then how can you be forgiven for your mistakes, and shouldn’t you be consigned to eternal shameful oblivion?” Having read this, I thought that I had erred somewhere in the language (for “he who does not sin in word is perfect,” James 3:2), and began to suspect that he would point out some of my errors, when suddenly he declared: “two days before the departure of the bearer of this letter, your attacks on me fell into my hands.” So where is what you are threatening and talking about: “how can you be forgiven for your mistakes and shouldn’t you be consigned to eternal oblivion?” Was it because of the shortness of time that you could not accurately indicate such errors, and did you intend to hire one of the scientists to find the beautiful pearls of your eloquence in my writings? Above you wrote: “accept the code sent by me for free, which you would like to purchase at a high price,” and now you say with feigned humility: “I wanted to imitate you, but since the one returning to you was in a hurry, I preferred to write briefly about your slander to you rather than in detail to others.” Meanwhile, you boldly take advantage of your ignorance, since you once declared: “it was unnecessary for you to be blamed for a little, when we recognized everything as worthy of blame.” I will not point out that you said “acquire” the codex instead of “buy”, since acquisition means the exchange of identical objects, and purchase means receiving for money, and also the very sloppy expression due to περισσολογί ᾳ (excess of words): “since the one returning to you was in a hurry back.” I will only respond to thoughts and convict you not of solecisms and barbarisms, but of lies, deceit and shamelessness. 7. If you are writing a letter only to me, with the goal of bringing me to reason and if you would like to correct me, without creating a temptation for others, so that when some go berserk, you do not strangle others by the throat; then why do you write books against me to others and, through your messengers, distribute them for reading throughout the world? Where is your syllogism with which you are trying to confuse me and in which you say: “Whom did you want to correct in this, most wonderful teacher? If those to whom you are writing, then they have not sinned in anything; and if it is me whom you denounce, then you did not write to me.” And I will ask you in your own words: whom did you want to correct, ignorant teacher? Those who did not sin, or me, to whom you did not write? Do you think that the readers are stupid and that they all do not understand your wisdom, or rather, your cunning, just as the serpent was wiser than all the animals in paradise - when you demand secret admonition from me, and you yourself persecute me with a public accusation, and are not ashamed to call your accusation an Apology? When you complain why I shield myself from your dagger and, as if quite religious and pious, you put on a mask of humility and say: “If I have sinned, then why are you writing to others, and not denouncing me?” I will turn the same thing against you: why didn’t you yourself fulfill everything that you accuse me of not doing? This is as if someone, striking someone with his fists and feet, when he decided to resist, said to him: “Aren’t you commanded: “If anyone hits you on the cheek, turn him the other too” (Matthew 5:39)? Well, good man! You are commanded that you beat me and gouge out my eye, and if I move a little, then you will sing to me about the Gospel commandments? Do you want to know about all the twists and turns of your cunning, about the cunning of the foxes that live in the ruins of the walls and about which Ezekiel says: “Like the foxes in the wilderness, your prophets are to Israel” (Ezekiel 13:4)? Listen to what you did. You praised me so much in your preface that I was reproached by your praises, and if I had not said that I was alien to such a praiser, then I would have been considered a heretic. After I have repelled the accusations, that is, your praises, and, without hatred of your name, answered the accusations, not the accuser, and, dishonored by you, to prove my Orthodoxy, attacked the heretics, you are angry, indignant and compiling notorious books against me; and when you distributed them to everyone for reading and chanting, then from Italy, and from the city of Rome and from Dalmatia, many letters came to me about how you, who had previously approved of me, decorated me with praises. 8. I confess, I immediately responded to the reproaches, and tried with all my might to prove that I was not a heretic, and sent these very books of my Apology to those whom you wounded, so that your poison would be followed by our antidote. As a result of this guilt, you send me both the previous books and a new letter, full of insults and accusations. What do you want from me, good friend? For me to remain silent? – it will seem that I admit the accusation. For me to speak? “You are frightening me with your swords and threatening me with denunciation, not ecclesiastical, but civil. What have I done? What did you do wrong? How did I insult you? What said that I am not a heretic? That I admitted myself unworthy of your praise? What openly described the deceit and deceit of heretics? Why are you offended here, boasting of your Orthodoxy and truthfulness, more readily accusing me than defending yourself? Is my defense an accusation for you? Or can you be Orthodox only by proving that I am a heretic? What benefit do you have from my community? And what kind of wisdom is it that, accused by one, you accuse another, that one attacks you, and you, turning your back to him, provoke against yourself the one who does nothing? 9 . I bear witness to the mediator Jesus that I answer these words against my will and only in defense of myself, and if you had not called me, I would always have remained silent. Finally, stop blaming, and I will stop defending myself. For what edification is there for the listeners when two old men argue with each other over heretics, and especially when both want to appear Orthodox? Let us stop defending heretics, and there will be no dispute between us. With the same fervor with which we previously praised Origen, we will now condemn the condemned man by the whole world. Let us give each other hands, unite our souls and cheerfully follow the two from the east and west. We were mistaken in our youth, but we will correct ourselves in old age. If you are a brother, then rejoice at my correction. If I am a friend, then I should rejoice at your conversion. As long as there is a quarrel between us, it will seem that we observe the right faith out of necessity, and not out of free will. Our enmity destroys the evidence of true repentance for both of us. If we believe in the same things, if we want and do not want the same things (from which, even according to the testimony of Catiline, lasting friendship is born), if we equally hate heretics and equally condemn the previous error; then why do we argue with each other when we fight against the same thing and defend the same thing? Forgive me that, in my youth, before I was fully acquainted with the heresy of Origen, I praised his learning and knowledge of the Scriptures - and I will forgive you that you, being a gray head, wrote an Apology in defense of his books. 10. You testify that my books fell into your hands two days before you wrote a letter to me, and that therefore you did not have time to respond freely; otherwise, if you spoke against me deliberately and preparedly, it would seem that you were throwing lightning, not accusations. But who will believe you, a most truthful person, that a merchant of oriental goods, who had to sell what was taken from here and buy goods there to bring them here, that this merchant was only in Aquileia for two days, so that you were forced to hastily and without preparation dictate a letter against me? Are those books of yours that you have been finishing for three years more eloquent? Was it possible that at that time there was no person who would correct your chatter, and therefore the entire path of your speech, alien to the art of Pallas, is strewn with potholes and abysses of shortcomings? Your lie about time is so obvious that you could not only answer, but even read what I wrote in two days. From this it is clear that either you wrote this letter in more days, as this elegance of the style itself proves, or, if your speech was hasty, you are extremely careless, since being so without preparation, you turned out to be worse in what you wrote after thinking it over. 11. As for the fact that you dodge and say that you translated from Greek what I previously translated into Latin: I do not quite understand what you want to say by this, unless you now accuse the commentaries on Ephesians and as if nothing had been told to you regarding this, but remain stubborn in your shamelessness and, having covered your ears, do not listen to the words of the exorcist. We, both in these comments and in others, expressed both our opinion and the opinions of others, clearly stating what is heretical and what is Orthodox in them. For such is the nature of commentaries and such is the rule of interpreters, that when they explain, they set forth different opinions and present what seems to them, as well as to others. And this is done not only by interpreters of the sacred scriptures, but also by Latin and Greek commentators on secular literary works. But you cannot make this excuse regarding the books περὶ ᾽ Αρχῶν. For you will be convicted by your preface, in which you promise that, having cut off the error and what was added by the heretics, you left the best, so that everything good or bad that you said should not be imputed to the person you are translating, but to you who translated it, unless you were obliged to correct the errors of the heretics and leave the errors of Origen uncorrected. But to this, since you refer us to the code, we answered you before we read your writings. 12. Regarding the book of Pamphilus, a circumstance happened to me worthy not of laughter, as you write, but of contempt - namely, that having recognized the book as Eusebius, and not Pamphilus, I then said that for many years I thought that it belonged to Pamphilus and that the copy of this book was borrowed from you. Look how afraid I am of your laughter that I quote the same words now. From your codex we received a list of something like Pamphilus. I believed the Christian and I believed the monk, I did not think that you could invent something so criminal. But then, as a result of your translation, when the question against Origen was raised all over the world, I began to study the lists with great attention, and found in the Caesarea library six books of Eusebius’ Apology in Defense of Origen. Having read them, I came across for the first time the book that you alone published under the name of the martyr, changing for the good many blasphemies about the Son and the Holy Spirit. I do not know whether Didymus, you or someone else did this, for which you are very clearly convicted in the books of περὶ ᾽ Αρχῶν, especially when the same Eusebius (as I have already shown in the two previous books) writes that Pamphilus did not publish any of his works. So tell me from whom you received the list, and in order to evade accusations, do not name any of the dead, so that, not being able to indicate the culprit, do not refer to someone who cannot answer. If this stream has a source in your closets, then even without my words you know what follows from here. But let the title of this book and the name of the author be changed by some other adherent of Origen: why do you translate this (title and author's name) into Latin? Of course, so that, by virtue of the testimony of the martyr, everyone would believe the writings of Origen, when the confirmation of such an author and witness is prerequisite. But the apology of the most learned man is not enough for you, you also write your own book in defense of him, and having distributed these books among many, you already boldly translate the books περὶ ᾽ Αρχῶν from Greek and in the preface you recommend these books, saying that something in them was spoiled by heretics, which you corrected by reading other books of Origen. You praise me too, so that none of my friends contradict you. You approve of Origen's praiser, you extol my eloquence to the skies in order to trample faith into the dirt; you call me brother and comrade and admit that you imitate my work. And while you praise the seventy discourses of Origen that I translated and some volumes on the Apostles, in which I corrected everything so that “the Latin reader will not find in them anything inconsistent with the Orthodox faith,” now you accuse the same books as heretical, and, having turned the style of the one whom you praised, considering your accomplice, you accuse, seeing in him the enemy of your false faith. Which of the two is the martyr's accuser? Is it me who says that he was not a heretic and did not write that book that is condemned by everyone, or you who published the book of an Arian under the name of a martyr with a changed title? The temptation of Greece is not enough for you; you also pass this on to the Latins, and, as far as you have the strength, you dishonor the glorious martyr with your translation. However, you did this for a different purpose - not to accuse me, but to defend the works of Origen through me. However, know that the Roman faith, praised by the word of the Apostle, does not tolerate tricks of this kind: even if an angel proclaims otherwise than what was once preached, it, protected by the authority of Paul, cannot change. So, brother, whether the book was forged by you, as many think, or by others, as perhaps you will try to convince, and you thoughtlessly believed that the heretic’s book belongs to a martyr - change the title and save Roman simplicity from such danger. It does you no good if because of you the most glorious martyr is considered a heretic and the one who shed his blood for Christ is recognized as an opponent of the faith of Christ. Say better: I found a book and considered it to be the book of a martyr; don't be afraid of repentance. I will no longer embarrass you, I will not ask from whom you received it: name one of the dead, or say that you bought it on the street from an unknown person. I am not looking for your condemnation, but for your conversion. It is better that you make a mistake than that a martyr become a heretic. In any way, free your leg from the real trap. At the future trial you will see how difficult it will be for you to answer the martyr’s complaints against you. 13. You even offer yourself objections that no one makes to you, and you refute what no one accuses you of. You say that in my letter you read: “tell me, who allowed you to throw something out, change something, add something when translating?” And now you answer yourself and speak against me: “This is what I say to you: please tell me, who allowed you in your comments to write something from Origen, something from Apollinaris, something from yourself, and not everything from Origen, or from yourself, or from someone else?” Meanwhile, by doing otherwise, you brought the strongest accusation against yourself and forgot the old proverb: “liars should be mindful.” You say that in my comments I cited something from Origen, something from Apollinaris, something from myself. If therefore what I have cited under the name of others belongs to Origen and Apollinaris; then how in your books do you bring an accusation against me, as if when I write: “another says so, someone suggests so,” then this other and someone is myself. There is a big difference between Apollinaris and Didymus in interpretation, style, and theological opinions. When I present different opinions in one chapter, is it really necessary to think that I follow opposing opinions? But more on that elsewhere. 14. Now I will ask you: who reproached you for either omitting something from Origen, or adding, or changing, and who, as if under torture, interrogated you: is what you translated good or bad? It is in vain that you feign innocence in order to make the question seem stupid and weaken its justice. I accused you not because you decided to translate Origen - for I myself did this, and Victorinus, Hilary and Ambrose did it before me - but because you confirmed the heretical translation with the evidence of your preface. You force me to repeat the same thing and go through my previous lines. For in the same prologue you say that what was added by heretics you cut off and replaced it with good. If you have destroyed the errors of the heretics, then what you left or added will be either Origen’s or yours, which you placed, of course, as good. But you cannot deny that there is a lot of bad things in this. And tell me, what does this have to do with it? Blame it on Origen; for I have changed only what was added by the heretics. State the reasons why you released the errors of the heretics and left untouched the errors of Origen. Is it not clear that you partly condemned Origen’s errors as heretical, and partly accepted them, because you considered them not bad, but good and consistent with your faith? This is what I asked you about - whether what you praised in the preface was good or bad, which, after cutting off the worst, remained, according to you, as the best, this is what I subjected you to torture with proper arguments - that if you recognize it as good, you turn out to be a heretic, if it is bad, then you hear the question: then in the preface you praised what is bad? But I did not add what you cunningly bring: then you translated the bad news for the Latins to know? For bad things are sometimes indicated not in order to suggest them, but to warn against them, so that the reader is careful not to follow errors, so that he despises what is learned, which sometimes, without being known, attracts attention. And after that you dare to say that I compose such works, but you, like a translator, where you could correct something, did more than a translator, and where you could not, you were only a translator. You would rightly say this if your books περὶ ᾽ Αρχῶν did not have a preface. Hilary also did this when translating his conversations, so that both good and bad were imputed not to the translator, but to the author. If you had not said that you cut off the worst and left the best, then you would somehow get out of the swamp. This is what destroys your intricacies and prevents you from being entangled on all sides from getting out. And do not so abuse the simplicity of the reader and do not consider everyone who reads your writing so stupid as to think that they will not laugh, that you, leaving the wounds to rot, put a plaster on a healthy body. 15. What do you think regarding the resurrection of bodies, we already learned this from your Apology: “without separating any member and without cutting off any part of the body.” This is the pure and open confession of your simplicity, which you claim has been accepted by all the bishops of Italy. I would have believed the one who said this if that book, not Pamfilov’s, had not made me doubt about you. However, I wonder how Italy approved what Rome rejected, how the bishops accepted what the apostolic see condemned. 16. You also write that I stated in my letter that Pope Theophilus recently issued a statement of faith, which has not yet reached you, and a promise to follow everything that he wrote. I don’t know that I wrote this or that I have ever sent letters of this kind. But you therefore agree with the unknown and with that which you do not know what it will be, in order to evade the known and not declare your agreement with it. In the last approximately two years I have translated two of his epistles, the conciliar and the Easter, against Origen and his disciples, and others against Apollinaris and the same Origen, and for the edification of the church I published these epistles for reading to the people of our language. I don't know that I have translated any other of his works. And, however, you, saying that you follow the opinion of Pope Theophilus in everything, beware lest your teachers and fellow disciples hear this, lest you offend very many who call me a robber and you a martyr, lest the one who, sending you a letter against Pope Epiphanius 25, urge you to remain in the truth of the faith and not change your opinion out of any fear, becomes angry with you. All those to whom this letter was delivered consider it genuine. And after this, according to your custom, you express yourself: “in order for me to satisfy you in your fury regarding what you spoke about above, you say: do you think you have anything else where to direct the nerves of your talkativeness.” And you are still offended if I accuse you of using disgusting language and that you, a church writer, use the nasty comedies and vulgarities of dissolute women and depraved youths! 17. Then you ask when I began to follow the opinion of Pope Theophilus and entered into communion of faith with him, and you answer yourself: “then, I think, when you defended Paul with all your strength and with all your zeal, 26 whom he condemned, when you incited him to again accept, on the basis of an imperial order, the priesthood of which he was deprived by the episcopal court.” But first I will answer you in defense of myself, as if I told you about the insults inflicted on others. What kind of philanthropy is this, what kind of mercy – to rejoice in the misfortunes of others and point out the wounds of others to everyone! Is this what this Samaritan teaches you, admonishing you to take the half-dead man to an inn, pour oil on your wounds, and promise payment to the innkeeper? Is this what you are taught by reading about the returned sheep, the found coin, the adopted prodigal son? Let me offend you and, as you say, with some heels, provoke you to unreasonable reproaches; but what did the unknown man do to deserve having his wound opened and the healed skin cut with pain that was unexpected for him? Were you not obliged not to do this, even if he were worthy of blame? Either I am deceived, or what is true is what many people say, that in his person you are pursuing the enemies of the Origenists and for one thing you are arming yourself against both. If you sympathize with Theophilus’s definitions and if you consider it criminal to destroy the decrees of bishops, then what can you say about others whom he condemned? What can you say about Pope Anastasius, regarding whom no one considers it probable that the saint of such a city could offend you, whether innocent or absent? I say this not in the sense that I judge the decisions of the bishops or want their decisions to be abolished, but because everyone, under his own responsibility, does what he pleases and knows how to judge his opinion. In our monastery, hospitality is a matter close to our hearts, and we welcome everyone who comes to us with radiant cordiality. We fear that it might happen that Mary and Joseph did not find a place in the inn and that Jesus, not accepted, would say to us: “I am strange, and did not know Me” (Matthew 25:43). It is only heretics that we do not accept, and those are the only ones you accept. Our goal is to wash the feet of those who come, and not to sort out merits. Remember, brother, about his confession, about the blows that struck his chest. Remember the prison, the unknown, the exile, the mines - and you will not be indignant that, as you passed by, he was received at a hotel. Do we really seem like troublemakers to you if we give a cup of cold water to the thirsty in the name of Christ? 18. Do you want to know why we should love him more, and you hate him more? A party of heretics, recently expelled from Egypt and Alexandria, retired to Jerusalem and wanted to enter into communication with him, so that the same victims would be equally guilty. He drove away with contempt, rejected them, saying that he was not an enemy of the faith and was not undertaking war against the church, that what he had attempted before was the result of grief, and not unbelief, and that he did not encroach on the innocence of another, but only wanted to prove his own. Do you consider the imperial rescript after the decision of the saints impious? Is this so - let the one who deserves it know. What do you think about those who, having been condemned, besiege palaces and, closing in a wedge, persecute the faith of Christ in one person? I will not name anyone else as a witness to my communication with Pope Theophilus, except him himself, whom you imagine was insulted by me, who, as you are not unaware, always wrote letters to me, even when you prevented their delivery to me, and daily sending out letter carriers, proclaimed that his enemy is my sincere friend and friend, and invented what you are now shamelessly writing in order to arouse his hatred against us and so that grief from offense becomes oppression for the faith. But a prudent man possessing apostolic wisdom, through time and deeds, proved both our disposition towards him and your intrigues against us. If my students, as you write, intrigued you in Rome and stole uncorrected papers while you were sleeping, then who aroused Pope Theophilus against the rebels in Egypt? Who caused the royal definitions, the agreement of the whole world regarding this subject? You also boast that from your youth you were a listener and student of Theophilus, while he, due to his characteristic humility, never taught before he became a bishop, and you were not in Alexandria after he became a bishop. And you still dare to say in reproach to me: “I don’t blame my teachers and I don’t change them.” If this is true, then you make your circle of acquaintances suspicious to me. I do not condemn my mentors, as you accuse, but I am afraid of this saying of Isaiah: “Woe to those who say good in the evil one, and the good in evil, who put light in darkness, and light in darkness; who put bitter sweet, and sweet bitter” (Is. 5:20). And when you drink the poison of the teachers along with the honey, you deviate from the instructions of the Apostle, who teaches that you do not need to believe even an angel and him if they sinned in faith. 19. What you dream about Vigilance, I don’t know. For where did I write that he stained himself by communicating with heretics in Alexandria? Give me the book, show me the letter, you won’t find this anywhere. Then, with the same freedom, or rather shamelessness, of lying, as a result of which, as you think, everyone will believe your words, you add: “when you brought evidence against him from the Scriptures so offensively that I do not dare repeat it with my own lips.” You don’t dare repeat it, but by silence you accuse him more; not having anything to object to, you appear to be restrained, so that the reader would think that you are sparing me, you who did not spare your soul with your lies. What is this testimony from the Scriptures that cannot come from your humblest lips? And what vile thing can be given in the holy books? If you are ashamed to say, then at least write, so that your own words will convict us of insolence. Without mentioning anything else, I will prove from this one place that you have a copper forehead of deceit. Look how afraid I am of your accusation: if you indicate what you threaten, then everything that belongs to you will be mine. I answered you with what Vigilance said, for he accused me of the same thing, for which you subsequently praise as a friend and accuse me as an enemy. I know who incited this fury against me, I know your undermining. I am not unaware of the simplicity that everyone praises. As a result of his stupidity, your anger broke out against me; if I reflected the latter in my letter to show that you are not the only one who has a literary stick, then you should not falsely refer to vile words that you have never read anywhere, but you must understand and admit that as a result of his stupidity, an answer to your slander was given. 20. The message of Saint Pope Anastasius has put you in a slippery position, and, alarmed, you do not find anything to stand on firmly. For recently you said that it was composed by me, and now - that it should have been sent to you by those to whom it was sent. Again you accuse the writer of injustice, and claim that whether it was written by him or not, this does not concern you at all, since you have the testimony of his predecessor and, out of love for your town, did not fulfill Rome’s request to personally give an explanation regarding this message. If you suspect that it was written by me, then why don’t you look for it in the archives of the Roman church, so that, having found out that it was not written by a bishop, you can most obviously accuse me of a crime, and not spread a weak web for me, but catch me in the strongest and most durable snares? If it belongs to the Roman bishop, then you are doing a stupid thing by demanding a copy of the letter from someone who did not receive or send it - you are expecting evidence from the east about the author and witness of which you have nearby. Better go to Rome and personally ask him why he dishonored you both in absentia and innocently - firstly by not accepting the statement of your faith, which, as you write, was approved by all Italy, and did not want to use the stick of your letters against your dogs - and secondly by sending messages to the east against you, unknown to you to brand you with the name of a heretic, he said that the books of Origen περὶ ᾽ Αρχῶν were translated by you and handed over to the simple-hearted Church of Rome so that through you the Romans would lose the truth of the faith received from the Apostle, and what is especially unpleasant for you, you dared to accuse these books recommended by the testimony of your preface. It’s hard what the bishop of such a city imputes to you or what he without hesitation accepted as being blamed on you by others. Shout and shout through the crossroads and streets: this is not my book, and if it is mine, then these are uncorrected sheets stolen by Eusebius; I didn’t publish them that way, or rather, I didn’t publish them; I gave them to no one, or at least to few, and the enemy was so angry, the friends were so careless, that the codes of everyone were equally distorted by him. This is what you, dear brother, should have done, and not directed, turning your back to him, the overseas arrows of your curses against me. For what good will it do your wounds if I am wounded? Or what consolation is it for a wounded person to see a friend dying with him? 21. You cite the message of Siricius, who is already reposing in the Lord, and neglect the words of the living Anastasius. How, you say, can something that he wrote, unknown to you, or perhaps did not write, harm you? And if he did write, then the evidence of the whole world is enough for you. But no one seems likely that the saint of such a city could really unjustly condemn either an innocent person or an absent one. You call yourself innocent when Rome was horrified by your translation, absent when, having been accused, you now dare to defend yourself, and so avoid the judgment of the city of Rome that you prefer to endure the siege (of Aquileia) by the barbarians than to endure the sentence of a peaceful city. Let me compose last year's message. Who sent new messages to the east? In them, Papa Anastasius decorates you with such flowers that, having read them, you would become more willing to defend yourself than to accuse me. At the same time, look at your inimitable wisdom, Attic salt and the charms of sacred eloquence. Others attack you, others shower you with accusations, and you, furious against me, say with boasting: “Can’t I tell you how you left Rome, how you were judged when you were there, what they wrote about you after, what you swore, where you boarded the ship, how sacredly you kept your oath? I could have revealed this, but I decided to keep a lot of things better than to report them.” Such are the embellishments of your words. And then you immediately threaten me with exile and swords if I say anything harsh about you. And yet you, a most eloquent man, play with the art of rhetoric and pretend to omit what you say, so that, without being able to prove the accusations, you show the criminality of what you seem to be silent about. This is all your straightforwardness, this is how you spare your friend; You are saving yourself until the judicial tribunal, so that, while sparing me, you can burden me with a bunch of crimes. 22. Do you want to know how I left Rome? I'll tell you briefly. In the month of August, when the trade winds were blowing, I, with the holy presbyter Vincent, with my young brother, and with other monks who were now in Jerusalem, calmly boarded a ship in the Roman harbor, accompanied by a huge crowd of saints. He arrived in Regium, stopped for some time on the shore of Scylla, where he became acquainted with old fables, with the dangerous path of the cunning Ulysses, with the songs of the sirens and with the insatiable abyss of Charybdis. And while the locals told me a lot and gave me advice to sail not to the pillars of Proteus 27, but to the harbor of Iona 28, because the first path is the path of fugitives and restless people, and the second is the path of a safe person, I preferred to go through Malea and the Cyclades to Cyprus. Received here by the venerable bishop Epiphanius, whose testimony you boast, I arrived at Antioch, where I enjoyed the communication of the bishop and confessor Paulinus, and, after he had seen me off, in the midst of winter and the most severe cold, I arrived in Jerusalem. I saw a lot of amazing things and was convinced with my own eyes of what was previously known to me by ear. From here he went to Egypt, examined the Nitrian monasteries and saw that asps were hiding among the choirs of saints. Soon I returned with haste to my Bethlehem and enjoyed the fragrance of the manger and the cradle of the Savior. I also saw the famous lake 29 and did not indulge in inactive peace, but learned a lot that I did not know before. And regarding how I was judged in Rome and what was subsequently written about me, I do not want you to remain silent, especially if you have written documents; only I must be convicted not by your testimony, which you are capable of inventing and pelting me with lies with impunity, but by church documents. Look how afraid I am of you: if you present even a small note from the Bishop of Rome or another church against me, then everything that was written against you, I recognize as my crimes. Couldn’t I also figure out your departure - what age were you, where were you from, what time did you sail, where did you live, who did you stay with? But let it not happen that I do what I condemn in you, and fill church reasoning with the nonsense of old women’s gossip. Let only what I have said be sufficient for your wisdom, so that you beware of saying against another what can immediately be turned against you. 23. Your subterfuge about Saint Epiphanius, that after a kiss, after a prayer, he, as you say, could not write against you, is as strange as if you began to assert that someone who had recently lived could not die, or that the reproach made to you is more undoubted than the excommunication that followed after peace. “She came forth from us,” he says, “but was not from us; she remained therefore with us” (1 John 2:19). The Apostle instructs, after the first and second admonition, to move away from the heretic (Titus 3:10), who, before they began to move away from him or condemned him, was, of course, a member of the church flock. At the same time, I cannot help laughing that you, admonished by some wise man man, in praise of Epiphanius you proclaim: “this is that old man who has lost his mind, that anthropomorphite, the one who in your presence announced the six thousand books of Origen, who thinks that he is entrusted with preaching against Origen in the languages of all nations, who rejects reading Origen so that others do not learn about his secret borrowings.” Read your writings and his epistle, or rather epistles, from which I will give one testimony about your faith, so that it does not seem that he is now undeservedly praised by you: “May God deliver you brother, and the people of Christ entrusted to you, and all the brethren who are with you, and especially the presbyter Rufinus, from the heresy of Origen and other heresies and their destruction. For if, because of one or two words contrary to the faith, many heresies are rejected by the church, then how much more will be considered among heretics the one who has invented so many perversions and false teachings against the faith, who has declared himself an enemy of the Church of God!” This is the testimony of the holy man about you; You appear with such decorations, with such praises from him. This is the message that you brought to light for gold coins from the bedroom of brother Eusebius in order to accuse the translator, in order to convict me as guilty of an obvious crime - why did I translate “dearest” instead of “venerable”. But what do you care about that; you prudently soften everything and treat everything with indifference; If you find someone to believe you, then Anastasius and Epiphanius did not write against you (if only the messages themselves did not testify against you and break your insolence), and whether they wrote or did not write, you completely neglect their judgment and you do not care about this, because they could not write about the innocent and absent. Moreover, such evil should not be attributed to the holy man, “to prove that although he testified to reconciliation with his lips and kisses, he retained evil and deceit in his heart.” This is your argument and these are the words of your defense. That the message against you belongs to him, the whole world admits, and we affirm that it was delivered to you in the original; and I am surprised at the modesty, or rather shamelessness, with which you deny something the truth of which you have no doubt about. According to you, it follows that dishonor will lie on Epiphanius, who gave you reconciliation, but retained deceit in his heart. And why is it not more correct that he first admonished you, that he wanted to correct and turn to the right path, so as not to reject the kiss of Judas, in order to defeat the traitor of the faith with patience, but, convinced that he was working in vain and that the leopard could not change the motley of his skin and the Ethiopian of his skin, he declared in writing what he had in mind? 24. Your reasoning against Pope Anastasius also represents something similar: since you have a letter from Bishop Siricius, it is as if he could not write against you. I am afraid that you might suspect that you have been treated unfairly. I don’t know how you, a shrewd and prudent man, reached such absurdities that, considering your readers stupid, you expose yourself to stupidity. After an excellent argument, you conclude by saying: “Let this not happen from holy men. This usually comes out of your school. When we departed, you gave us reconciliation, and from behind you threw us arrows filled with poison.” And in this equally intelligent speech, or rather declamation, you wanted to be eloquent. We gave reconciliation, but did not accept heresy. We shook hands with you and saw you off when you left so that you would be Orthodox, and not so that we would be heretics. However, I want to know what are these poisonous arrows that you complain we threw behind you? - These are Vincentius, Paulinian, Eusebius, Rufinus, presbyters. Of these, Vincent arrived in Rome a long time before you, Paulinian and Eusebius departed a year after your departure; Rufinus, in the case of Claudius, was sent two years later - everyone either went on domestic business or because of the danger to the lives of others. How could we know what the glorious man dreamed of when you entered Rome 30 - as if a ship full of goods was entering with inflated sails 31 , that all questions about fate (fatum) were resolved by intelligent (non fatua) interpretation, that you translated the book of Eusebius instead of the book of Pamphilus, put, as it were, your lid on a poisoned bowl, with your high eloquence translated the notorious work περὶ ᾽ Αρχῶν ? A new kind of accusation: we allegedly sent accusers before you did what needed to be accused. It was not, it was not, I say, a matter of our intention that those sent for a different purpose armed themselves against the emerging heresy and, like Joseph, alleviated the famine that was about to occur with the warmth of faith. 25. Where does unbridled insolence not once invade? He reproaches himself for someone else's fault, so that it seems that we made it up. He applies what is said anonymously to himself and, justifying the wrongdoings of others, does not care only about his own innocence. He swears that he did not write on my behalf the epistle to the Africans, in which I confess that, due to temptation on the part of the Jews, I translated incorrectly, and nevertheless sends books that contain everything that he swears ignorance of. I am surprised how his wisdom so coincided with the crime of another, that what was invented in Africa by one, the other, in agreement with him, recognized as true, and I don’t know what kind of ignoramus could imitate his elegant style. You alone are allowed to transport the poisons of heretics and give all nations to drink from the cup of Babylon. You will correct the Latin scriptures from the Greek and give the churches to read something other than what they once received from the apostles; and after the edition of the Seventy, which, in a most carefully corrected form over many years, I gave to the people of my language, in order to refute the Jews, it will not be permissible for me to translate even those lists that they themselves recognize as the most correct, so that, in a debate with Christians, they have no place to dodge, but so that they can be struck primarily with their own weapons? I wrote in more detail about this, I remember, in many other places, and at the end of the second book, where I answered your accusation and curbed your chatter with obvious evidence, with which you are trying to arouse hatred of me in simple and inexperienced people; there, I think, the reader should be sent. 26. I will not allow myself to pass over in silence the following: do not complain that the distorter of your sheets enjoys the fame of a confessor with me; while you, guilty of the same crime, after the Alexandrian exile and gloomy prisons, are called martyr and apostle by all the followers of Origen. Regarding your excuse of ignorance, I have already answered you. But since you repeat the same thing again and, as if forgetting about your previous defense, again remind us that you have been devouring Greek books for thirty years and do not know Latin, then pay some attention to the fact that I do not blame you for your words, only a few - in that case you would need to destroy all your writings - but what I wanted to show your students, whom you taught with great zeal to know nothing, so that they understand how much modesty lies it is to teach what you do not know, and to write what you do not understand, and so that the teachers seek the same wisdom in their thoughts. And as for your addition: “It is not words that stink, but sins, lies, slander, condemnation, false witness and all slander, and that “a lying mouth kills the soul” (Wis. 1:11)” and your advice so that “that stench does not reach my nose,” then I would believe the one who says this if I did not know the facts contradicting this; you speak as if a clothier and tanner advised a painter to pass by their workshops with his nose plugged. I will do as you command - I will hold my nose so that it does not suffer from the very pleasant smell of your truth and your blessings. 27. Praising and blaming me - you turned out to be diverse - you surprisingly wittyly prove that you can also speak good and bad about me, just as I could blame Origen and Didymus, whom I previously praised. So listen, wise man and head of Roman dialectics, that it is not reprehensible to praise the same person for one thing and blame for another, but it is reprehensible to approve and disapprove of the same thing. I will give an example so that the prudent reader will understand with me what you do not understand. In Tertullian we praise intelligence but condemn heresy. In Origen we marvel at the knowledge of the Scriptures and yet do not accept false teachings. In Didymus we glorify both the memory and the purity of faith regarding the Trinity, but in other respects, in which he unjustly trusted Origen, we evade him. For one should imitate not the shortcomings, but the good qualities of teachers. Someone in Rome had an African grammarian, a most learned man, and thought to equal his teacher by imitating only the hissing of his tongue and the shortcomings of his mouth. In the preface to περὶ ᾽ Αρχῶν you call me brother and most eloquent comrade and glorify the truth of my faith. You will not be able to blame these three things; Reprove the rest as much as you like, so that it does not seem that you contradict your own testimony about me. When you call me brother and comrade, you recognize me as worthy of your friendship; when you praise me for my eloquence, you no longer accuse me of ignorance; When you recognize someone as Orthodox in everything, you cannot accuse them of heresy. If you blame anything in me other than these three things, you will not seem to contradict yourself. From this calculation the result is that you are making a mistake by blaming in me what you previously praised, and that I am not sinning if in the same people I glorify what should be praised and blame what should be condemned. 28. You move on to the state of souls and reproach me in great detail for my smoke 32 and, so that you can not know what you deliberately pretend to be ignorant of, you first ask me about heavenly things: how do angels exist, how do archangels exist? Where and how do they live? Is there any difference between them, or is there absolutely none? Under what conditions does the sun exist, why are there accretion of the moon, why are there eclipses, what or what kind of path does a star take? I’m surprised you forgot to quote the famous poems: What is the cause of the shaking of the earth and the stormy waves of the sea, Either breaking all the barriers, then settling again? And why do eclipses of the moon or sun occur? People from where, and animals, and rain, and the power of flames, What are the Hyades, Arcturus and double Trions, And why does the winter sun go away so quickly? Into the waves of the sea; what do such long winter nights mean? 33. Then you, leaving the heavenly and descending to the earthly, philosophize about less important subjects. You ask me: “Tell us why there are sources? Why the winds? Why hail? Why is it raining? Why is the sea salty? Why are the rivers fresh? Why are clouds, showers, thunder and lightning sparkling and killing? You do this so that after I answer that I don’t know this, you can easily remain ignorant of souls and, in contrast to knowledge of one subject, put ignorance of so many things. You, who blow my smoke on every page, don’t you understand that I see your darkness and your empty whirlwinds? In order to appear to yourself as knowing something and to enjoy the glory of a scientist among Calpurnius’s disciples, you are putting all of Physics against me, so that what Socrates said in the transition to ethics would turn out to be nonsense: “What is above us is not for us.” So, if I do not show you the reasons why an ant, a small animal and constituting, so to speak, a bodily point, has six legs, while a huge animal - an elephant, walks on four legs, why snakes and snakes crawl on their belly and chest, while a worm, which the people call a millipede (woodlice), has so many legs, then I will not be able to know about the state of souls? You ask what I think about souls, so that as soon as I speak out, you will immediately attack me. And if I express the well-known church teaching that God constantly creates souls and sends them into the bodies of those born, then you will immediately imagine the teacher’s network: where is God’s justice if he gives souls to those born from adultery and incest? Does this mean that He contributes to the sins of people, and Himself forms souls for adulterers who produce bodies? As if if wheat is stolen, then it is blamed on the one who sowed, and not on the one who stole what was sown, and as if the earth should not warm the seeds in its depths if the sower scatters them with an unclean hand. This is where your mysterious question comes from: why do babies die after receiving bodies for their sins? There is a book of Didymus to you, in which he answered your questions that they did not commit many sins, and therefore they only need to touch the prison of the bodies. My and your teacher, at the time when you asked him about this, set out for me, at my request, three books of commentaries on the prophet Hosea. From this it is clear what he taught me and what he taught you. 29.You force me to answer regarding the nature of things. If there was space, I could present to you the opinions of either Lucretius on Epicurus, or Aristotle on the Peripatetics, or Plato and Zeno on the Academicians and Stoics. And in order to move on to the church, in which the standard of truth is found, Genesis, the books of the prophets, and Ecclesiastes tell us a lot about questions of this kind. Or if we do not know about this, then how, regarding the question of the state of souls, in your Apology you had to admit ignorance of all this and ask the accusers why they shamelessly interrogate you about one thing, when they themselves do not know so much? O richest trireme, who came to enrich poor Rome with oriental and Egyptian goods! 35 You alone saved our state, and you saved it only by writing 36. Yes, if you had not arrived from the east, then the most learned man would still have joined the mathematicians and all Christians would not have known what to say to them against fate. It is right that you ask me about astrology and the course of the sky and stars, you who brought a ship filled with such valuable goods. And I confess my poverty: I have not become rich in the east as much as you have. Pharos taught you for a long time what Rome did not know; Egypt told you something that Italy had never had before. 30. You write that among church writers there are three opinions about souls: one, which is followed by Origen, another, which is followed by Tertullian and Lactantius (although you are clearly lying about Lactantius), the third, which is followed by us, simple and stupid people, who do not understand that if this were so, then we would accuse God of injustice. And then you swear you don't know what the truth is. Tell me, I ask you: do you think that outside of these three opinions there is something in which the truth lies, and that these three are false? Or is one of these three true? If there is something, then why do you limit the freedom of reasoners to narrow limits and, pointing out lies, remain silent about the truth? If out of three one is true and the other two are false, why do you not equally know both the false and the true? Or do you hide the truth so that it is safe for you to defend the lie when you want. This is the smoke, this darkness, with which you try to remove the light from people’s eyes. You are Aristippus 37 of our time, who brought a ship full of all kinds of goods into the Roman harbor, and, having installed a public pulpit, you appear to us as Hermogors and Gorgias of Leontinus; in your haste to set sail, in the east you forgot about the goods, which consisted of one question. And again you shout and chatter that both in Aquileia and Alexandria you learned that God is the Creator of both souls and bodies. As if the dispute is about whether God or the devil created souls, and not about whether souls existed before bodies, as Origen claims, and whether they did anything as a result of which they are associated with gross bodies, or whether they, like sleepyheads (animals), were in torpor and hibernation. You keep quiet about what everyone asks, and you answer what no one asks. 31. You often make fun of my smoke - because I pretend to know what I don’t know, and by listing scientists I fool the ignorant crowd. You, of course, are a fiery person, even lightning-fast, throwing insults in your speech and unable to contain the flame contained in your lips; just as the famous Bar-Khochaba 38, the culprit of the Jewish indignation, lit a straw in his mouth and blew through it so that it seemed as if he was spewing out a flame, so you, the second Salmoneus, illuminate everything through which you pass and expose us as smoking, about which it can be said: “touch the mountains, and they smoke” (Ps. 103:32); You do not understand what kind of locusts the smoke of the prophet signifies (Rev. 9:3), and your beautiful eyes cannot bear the bitterness of our smoke. 32. As for the accusation of perjury, since you refer me to your code and since I have mostly given the answer to you and Calpurnius in other books, now it is enough to briefly say that you demand from a sleepy person what you yourself have never discovered in your waking state. I am guilty of a great crime if I told the maidens and virgins of Christ that they do not need to read secular books and that, admonished in a dream, I promised not to read them. Your ship, promised in revelation 39 to the city of Rome, promises one thing and does another. He came to solve the problems of mathematicians, but destroys the faith of Christians. Having sailed with full sail across the Ionian and Aegean, Adriatic and Tyrrhenian seas, he was wrecked in a Roman harbor. Aren't you ashamed to engage in this kind of nonsense and impose on me the need to refute such things? Let another have a glorious dream about you: it was the duty of your modesty and prudence to remain silent about what you heard, and not to boast of the dream of another as important evidence. Look at the difference between your dream and my dream. I humbly talk about how I was punished, and you boastfully repeat how you were praised. You cannot say: for me it is not at all important what another saw in a dream, since you say in your notorious books that by this circumstance you were called to transfer, so that the dream of a glorious husband about you would not be lost. These are all your aspirations: if you prove that I am an oathbreaker, then you will not be a heretic. 33. I come to the most serious charge, in which you accuse me of infidelity after the restoration of friendship. I confess, of all the bad things that you either reproach me for or threaten me with, nothing should be as disgusting to me as deception, deceit, and infidelity. For it is human nature to sin, but it is the devil’s to create sins. So, is it really for this reason that I reconciled with you in the Church of the Resurrection after the slaughter of the lamb, in order to steal your papers in Rome, so that the dogs sent would gnaw away the uncorrected papers during your sleep? And is it really possible that we prepared accusers before you committed the crime, that is, we knew what was on your mind, that another dreamed about you, so that the Greek proverb would be fulfilled on you - so that the pig taught Minerva? If I sent Eusebius to bark, then who aroused the rage of Aterbius and the others against you? Isn’t he the one who recognized me as a heretic because of my friendship with you? When I satisfied him with my condemnation of the teachings of Origen, you locked yourself at home and never dared to see him, lest you either condemn what you did not want, or by open resistance arouse hatred of heresy. Or is it because he could not be a witness against you because he accuses you? Before Saint Epiphanius arrived in Jerusalem and with his lips and kisses testified to reconciliation with you, keeping evil and deceit in his heart, before we dictated letters to him that disgrace you, so that he would write as a heretic about the one whom he approved as Orthodox with a kiss. Aterbius had already barked against you in Jerusalem, and if he had not quickly left, he would have experienced the stick not of letters, but of your hand, - the stick with which you usually drive away dogs. 34. “Why,” he says, did you accept my distorted sheets? Why, after my translation, did you dare to direct the style to the books of περὶ ᾽ Αρχῶν? If I sinned as a person, then shouldn’t you have entered into an agreement with me through private letters and treated me as kindly as I now treat you in my letters?” My whole fault is that, accused by crafty praises, I wanted to cleanse myself and, moreover, without any hatred towards your name, since I attributed what was accused by you alone to many, not accusing you of heresy, but removing heresy from myself. Did I know that you would be angry if I wrote against heretics? You said that you eliminated from Origen’s books what was heretical in them; I thought that you no longer patronize heretics, and therefore I attacked not you, but the heretics, and if at the same time I got excited, then forgive me. I thought you'd like it too. You say that thanks to the theft and deceit of my servants, your leaflets were distributed in society, which were hidden in your bedroom, or were only in the possession of the one for whom they were assigned. But how do you admit above that either no one had them, or very few? If they were hidden in your bedroom, then how did the person for whom they were intended have them? If only one person for whom they were written received them secretly, then it means that they were not hidden only in your bedroom, and that means that not many of them, of whom you testify as having had them, did not have them. You claim that they were stolen, and on the other hand you complain that they were bought for a lot of money and for a lot of goods. About one circumstance and in one letter, how many varied and discordant lies! You are allowed to accuse, but I will not be allowed to defend myself? When you blame, you are not thinking about your friend; When I answer, the duty of friendship comes to your mind. Tell me, do me a favor, did you write the sheets to hide them, or to publish them? If it was to hide, then why did you write them? And if in order to publish, then why did you hide them? 35. But I am worthy of blame for not restraining my friends - your accusers. Would you like me to present their letters in which they accuse me of hypocrisy for the fact that, knowing you as a heretic, I was silent, that carelessly caring for the world, I laid the foundation for internecine wars in the church? You call those who suspect me of being your fellow student disciples. And since I was very lenient when refuting your praises, they consider me to be initiated into your secrets. Your prologue will convey to me that you have done me more harm as a friend than as an enemy. They have once and for all come to the conclusion (whether rightly or not is their business) that you are a heretic. If I want to defend, then I will only do that they will accuse me equally with you. They even blame me for your praise and think that you did not write with deceit, but sincerely, and they strongly blame what you always praised about me before. What do you want from me? So that my students begin to blame me instead of you, so that I take the spears aimed at a friend on my chest? 36. Regarding the books περὶ ᾽ Αρχῶν you should even thank me. For, as you say, having cut off everything harmful, you left the best, and I have presented these books as they were in the Greek text. From this we can see both your faith and the heresy of the one you translated. From Rome, the best men in Christ wrote to me 40: “Answer the accuser, so that if you remain silent, it will not seem that you agree with him.” Everyone unanimously demanded that I expose the wickedness of Origen, to show that the ears of the Romans need to beware of the poison of heretics. How does this offend you? Weren't you the only one who translated these books? Didn't others do the same? Are you really one of the seventy translators, so that after your publication it is impossible to translate to others? So, as you say, I have translated many books from Greek into Latin; You can, if you want, also translate them; for both good and bad are imputed to their author. This would have happened to you too if you had not said that you cut off the heretical and translated the best. This is your knot that cannot be untied. But if you, as a person, made a mistake, then condemn your previous opinion. 37. But what will you do with your Apologetics, which you wrote in defense of the works of Origen? What will you do with the book of Eusebius, in which, although you changed a lot and translated the works of a heretic under the name of a martyr, you nevertheless left a lot that is not in accordance with the church faith? You even translate Latin books into Greek, but you don’t allow us to give foreign ones to our compatriots? If I answered in another essay in which you did not insult me, it might seem that I was translating what you translated to insult you, in order to prove your inexperience or cunning. And now a new type of complaint: you are offended that you were given an answer in the essay with which you accused me. They said that as a result of your translation, all of Rome was indignant: everyone demanded that I heal against this, not because I had any power, but because those who asked thought that I had some significance. You, who translated this, were a friend: what do you order me to do? Should we obey God more, or people (Acts 5:29)? Should we protect the being of God, or should we conceal the deception of our co-servant? Will I not appease you otherwise than by committing together with you a worthy accusation? If you had not made any mention of my name, if you had not endowed me with excellent praise, then I could have had some refuge and hidden the differences so as not to translate the translated again. You, friend, forced me to spend several days on this work in order to bring to light what Charybdis was about to absorb; and yet, having been offended, I retained the duties of friendship towards you and, as far as I could, defended myself so as not to blame you. You are too inclined to suspect and complain if you consider what is said against heretics to be an insult to you. If I can be your friend in no other way than by being a friend of heretics, then it will be easier for me to endure your enmity than their friendship. 38. You also think that I invented a new lie, composing under my name a letter that seemed to have been written to you a long time ago, so that I would appear kind and modest - a letter that you never received at all. This can be explained quite easily. There are many in Rome who have copies of it, who, having received it almost three years before, did not want to send it to you, knowing what rumors you spread about me and what unworthy of the name of a Christian and terrible accusations you brought against me. I wrote, without knowing it, as to a friend. They did not hand it over to someone they knew was an enemy, sparing both my error and your conscience. And, at the same time, you prove that if I wrote such a letter to you, then I should not have written a lot of bad things against you in another book. This is your whole mistake and your real complaint, that you regard to yourself as what was said against you, what we say against heretics; and if we did not spare them, then you consider yourself offended. Do we really not give you bread because we hit the brains of heretics with a stone? And in order not to confirm our letter, you say that it was also supported by a similar deception of Pope Anastasius, regarding which I previously answered. If you suspect that it does not belong to him, then you can catch us lying to him. If it is his, as the letters written against you this year also prove, then you are in vain trying to prove the forgery (of the letter) with lies, when from his genuine letter we can prove the authenticity of ours. 39. Justifying your lies, you wanted to be as pleasant as possible: in order not to present the six thousand books of Origen, you demand from me the original works of Pythagoras. Where is the self-confidence with which you, with puffy cheeks, very often shouted that in the books of περὶ ᾽ Αρχῶν you corrected what you read in other books of Origen, and that you added not someone else’s, but your own to yours? From such a forest of books you cannot imagine a single tree or stem. This is the true smoke, the true fog, regarding which you, accusing me, at the same time find out that it was destroyed by me and dispersed in you, and, having broken your neck, you do not let up, but with more shamelessness than ignorance, you say that I deny the obvious, you say so that, having promised mountains of gold, you will not even take out a leather coin from your treasures. I recognize the justice of your hatred of me and the madness with which you rage against me. For if I had not boldly demanded what is not there, it would seem that you have what is not there. Do you demand from me the books of Pythagoras? But who told you that his books exist? Is this really what is said in my letter that you accuse? “But let me be mistaken in my youth and, having educated myself by studying philosophers, that is, pagans, I did not know the basic tenets of the Christian faith and thought to see in the apostles the same thing that I read in Pythagoras, Plato and Empedocles.” I did not speak about their books, but about the teachings that I could learn from Cicero, Brutus and Seneca. Read the speech in defense of Vatinius and others, which mentions circles of friends (Pythagoreans). Expand the dialogues of Tullius, look at the entire Italian region, which was once called Magna Graecia, and you will recognize the Pythagorean teachings carved on copper tablets exposed to the people. Who owns the famous χρυσ ᾶ παραγγέλματα (golden advertisements)? Isn't it Pythagoras? They briefly contain all his provisions, and the philosopher Iamblichus commented on them in a very extensive work, imitating in part Moderatus, a very eloquent man, and Archippus and Lysides, listeners of Pythagoras. Of these, Archippus and Lysides had schools in Greece, specifically in Thebes, and, remembering well the teacher’s instructions, they used his mind instead of books. They communicated the well-known expression: “φυγαδευτέον πάσ ῃ μηχαν ῇ, χαὶ περιχοτέον πυρὶ χαὶ σιδήρψ ? ἀμαθίαν, χοιλίας δὲ πολυτέλελειαν, πόλεως δὲ στάσιν, οἴχου δὲ ". This can be translated as follows: “it is necessary to drive out in every possible way, through fire and iron and by all means, to remove from the body disease, ignorance from the soul, luxury from the belly, rebellion from the city, discord from the home, and in general immoderation from everything.” Pythagoras also wrote the famous instructions: “friends have everything in common, a friend is a second self”; “we need to take care of two times in particular, the morning and the evening,” that is, about what we have to do and about what we have done; “After God, one must honor the truth, which alone makes people closest to God.” The same must be said about the well-known tributary sayings, which Aristotle very carefully sets out in his books: “do not jump over the steelyard,” that is, do not violate justice; “Do not stab the fire with a sword,” that is, do not touch someone who is irritated and agitated with swear words; “there is no need to tear off the wreath,” that is, you need to comply with the laws of the cities; “The heart should not be eaten,” that is, sorrow must be removed from the soul; “having gone, do not return,” that is, do not desire this life after death; “Do not walk on the common road,” that is, do not follow the misconceptions of many; “a swallow should not be accepted into the home,” that is, talkative and talkative people should not be kept under the same roof; “a new burden must be imposed on those who bear the burden, but not on those who create it,” that is, for those who live virtuously, the demands must be increased, and those who indulge in idleness must be left alone. And since I said that I read the Pythagorean teachings, then listen to what Pythagoras was the first to discover among the Greeks: “souls are immortal and pass from one body to another.” Following this teaching, Virgil in the sixth book of the Aeneid says: At the end of the thousand-year age, those souls God calls a great crowd to the source of Lethe, So that in oblivion we return again to the heavenly light, They began a new life, putting on a new body 41. 40. He said that firstly he was Euphorbus, secondly Callidas, thirdly Hermotimus, fourthly Pyrrhus, finally Pythagoras; that after certain periods of time what was done before is done again; that we see nothing new in the world; that philosophy is a reflection on death, that it brings to freedom the soul, constantly striving from the prison of the body; that μαθήσεις ἀνμνήσεις, that is, teaching is recollection, and he taught many other things that Plato expounds in his books, and mainly in Phaedo and Timaeus. For, after the Academy and countless students, noticing that much was lacking in his teaching, he came to Magna Graecia and there, having studied the teaching of Pythagoras through Archytas of Tarentum and Timaeus of Locris, he combined with his teachings the grace and wit of Socrates. Origen is accused of transferring all this under a changed title into his books περὶ ᾽ Αρχῶν. So where did I sin if in my youth I said that I believed that the apostles also contained what I read in Pythagoras, Plato and Empedocles? I said this not in the sense that you accuse and imagine, that I read this in the books of Pythagoras, Plato and Empedocles, but in the sense that I read that this is how they taught, that from the writings of others I learned about this and taught them. And this kind of expression is very common, as if, for example, I said that I considered the opinions about which I read from Socrates to be true - not in the sense that Socrates wrote any books, but in the sense that I read about this teaching of Socrates from Plato and other Socrates. Or if I said: I wanted to imitate the actions that I read about in Alexander and Scipio; This does not mean that they themselves described their deeds, but that I read from others about their deeds, which I was amazed at. So, if I could not even say that the monuments of Pythagoras himself exist, and if I could not prove them with the testimony of my son, daughter and other students, then you would not have caught me in a lie, because I read not books, but teachings. Therefore, you are wrongly mistaken that I wanted to cover up your lie in such a way that you will lose six thousand books of Origen only if I present one book of Pythagoras. 41. I will move on to the epilogues, that is, to your slander, in which you call me to repentance and threaten me with death if I do not convert, that is, if I do not remain silent in the face of your accusations. You declare that this scandal will fall on my head, since with my answer I supposedly provoked you, the quietest man and possessing the meekness of Moses, to write madly. You boast that you know my crimes, which I confessed to you alone, as my closest friend, - that you will make them public, that I must be depicted with my colors and that I must remember how I lay at your feet, so that you do not cut off my head with the sword of your mouth. And after many things in which you rage, losing your temper, you restrain yourself and say that you want peace with the only condition that I remain silent in the future, that is, that I do not write against heretics and do not dare answer your accusation. If I do this, then I will be a brother, a comrade, a most eloquent husband, a friend and acquaintance, and - what is more important than this - you will recognize as Orthodox everything that I translated from Origen. If I make a sound or move, then I will immediately be unclean, a heretic and unworthy of your friendship. Such are your praises, so do you persuade me to peace; for my grief you do not allow even groans and free tears. 42. I could paint you with your colors and rage against the fury, say everything that I know or don’t know, with the same freedom, or rather, with fury and madness, collect both lies and truth, so that I would be ashamed to speak and listen to you, and blame you for something that would condemn either the accuser or the accused, arousing trust in the reader with dishonesty, so that they would think that I justly wrote what I I would write shamelessly. But let it be alien to the morals of Christians that, while others are looking for their blood, they themselves betray theirs and voluntarily become murderers without a sword. This is characteristic of your goodness, your meekness and simplicity, since you, from the same trash heap of your heart, spread both the smell of roses and the stench of corpses, and, contrary to the saying of the prophet (Is. 5:20), you call bitter what you praised as sweet. There is no need for church treatises to deal with a matter that is subject to civil court; you will not hear anything more about this except the well-known expression from textbooks: “if you say what you want, you will hear what you do not want.” If the popular saying seems low to you, and if you, as the wisest man, love the judgments of philosophers and poets more, then read Homer’s: Ὁ ποῖον χ ᾽ εἴπησθα ἔπος , τοῖον χ ᾽ ὲπαχούσαις (What you tell a person, you will hear from him) 42. There is only one thing I want to inquire of your extraordinary holiness and severity (the purity of which is such that demons roar at your scarves and aprons): whose example do you follow when you write? Which Orthodox Christian, when arguing with sectarians, has ever exposed his shamelessness to the one against whom he is writing? Is this what your teachers taught you? Have you really been instilled with such rules as to remove the head and cut off the tongue of someone to whom you are unable to respond? Don't boast too much if you do what Scorpios and Cantharides can do 43 . Fulvia and Cicero and Herodias and John did this: they could not hear the truth, and the tongue that spoke the truth was pierced with a hairpin. Dogs bark for their masters, but you don’t want me to bark for Christ? Many wrote against Marcion, Valentinus, Arius and Eunomius. Which of those who wrote told shameless lies against them? Were they not entirely devoted to the refutation of heresy? These are the methods of heretics, that is, your teachers, that when convicted of unbelief, they turn to slander. In this way, Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, found his sons without knowing them 44. So Athanasius, bishop of the city of Alexandria, cut off the third hand of Arsenius 45. For whereas before he was passed off as dead, it later turned out that he was alive and had both hands. Now your disciples and teachers are inventing similar things about the saint of the same church and are fighting against the true faith with gold, that is, with their own forces and the forces of your followers. What can we say about heretics who, although they stand outside (the church), nevertheless call themselves Christians? How many famous among us wrote against the most wicked Celsus and Porphyry! Who, having abandoned the case, dealt with unnecessary accusations of crimes? It is not church writings that should speak about this, but the documents of judges. And what good will it do if you lose the case and prove the accusation? And you don’t need to risk your head to inform: you can satisfy your desire by bribing one murderer. And you still pretend to be afraid of temptation - when you are ready to kill what was once your brother, now accused and always your enemy. Nevertheless, I am surprised how you, a prudent man, out of irritation, want to show me such a benefit as to bring my soul out of prison and not tolerate me remaining with you in the darkness of this age. 43. So, you want me to keep quiet? Don't blame. Put down the sword and I'll throw down the shield. There is one thing I cannot agree with you on: to spare heretics, so as not to prove one’s Orthodoxy. If this is the reason for disagreement, then I can die, but I cannot remain silent. Although I had to respond to your madness from all Scripture and, like David who played the harp, with divine words to tame the fury of your heart; but I will limit myself to a few testimonies of one book and contrast wisdom with stupidity, so that you do not at least despise the heavenly if you despise the human. So listen to what the wise Solomon says about you and about all those who are ill-disposed, slanderous and covetous: “the foolishness of vexation, the desire that was, the former wickedness, the hateful feeling” (Proverbs 1:22). “Do not weave evil against your friend” (Proverbs 3:29). “Do not be hostile against a man” (Proverbs 3:30). “Wickedness has brought up dishonor” (Proverbs 3:35). “Take away the obstinate mouth from you, and put away the offensive lips far from you; the eye of a wicked man, the tongue of an unrighteous man, the hands that shed the blood of the righteous, and the heart that forges evil thoughts, and the nose that strives to do evil” (Prov. 4:24, 6:17–18). “He who is established in lies, he who feeds the winds, he who marries the birds that soar; forsaking the paths of his grapes, and getting lost in the paths of his agriculture, he passes through the waterless desert and the land determined by thirst, and gathers with his hands the barrenness” (Proverbs 9:12). “The lips of the defiant are approaching destruction; But those who bear reproach are the most foolish” (Prov. 10:14, 18). “Blessed is every simple soul; An ardent man is not comely” (Proverbs 11:25). “For sin of the lips the sinner falls into a snare” (Proverbs 12:13). “The ways of fools are right in their sight” (Proverbs 12:15). "A fool confesses his anger" (Prov. 12:16). "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord" (Prov. 12:22). "He who guards his mouth guards his soul; but he who is bold with his lips will frighten himself" (Prov. 13:3). "An wicked man with vexation does evil, but a fool spreads out his malice" ( Proverbs 13:17 “You seek wisdom from the wicked and you will not find it” (Proverbs 14:6). “The bold-hearted will be satisfied with his ways” (Proverbs 14:14). “The wise man fears to turn away from evil; but a fool who trusts in himself is confused with him” (Proverbs 14:16). “A man who is long-suffering is wise in understanding; but the faint-hearted is deeply foolish” (Proverbs 14:29). “The one who slanderes the poor provokes his creator” (Proverbs 14:31). “The tongue of the wise speaks good news, but the lips of fools speak evil” (Prov. 15:2). “A fierce man makes war” (Proverbs 15:18). “Everyone who is proud in heart is unclean before God, but whoever puts his hand into his hand unrighteously will not be blameless” (Prov. 16:5). “Love your belly and spare your lips” (Proverbs 16:17). “Vexation comes before destruction, and evil is before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18). “The wicked think with their eyes, and all that is evil determine with their lips” (Proverbs 16:30). “The mouth of a fool leads him to evil, but his bold lips call for death” (Prov. 18:6). “A wicked man will gain much” (Proverbs 19:19). “Better is a righteous poor man than a liar rich man” (Proverbs 19:22). “Glory to a man who turns away from vexation: every fool is entangled in these things” (Prov. 20:3). “Do not love to slander, lest you perish” (Proverbs 20:13). “The bread of lies is sweet to a man, but then his mouth will be filled with stones” (Prov. 20:17). “If you make treasures with a lying tongue, vanity will drive you away and fall into the snares of death” (Prov. 21:6). “Speak nothing in the ear of a fool, lest your wise words mock” (Prov. 23:9). “A dagger and a sword and an arrow are destructive, so a man also bears false testimony against his friend” (Proverbs 25:18). “Like birds that fly away, so a vain oath will not come upon anyone” (Proverbs 26:2). “Do not answer a fool according to his foolishness, lest you be like him; but answer a fool according to his foolishness, lest he be wise among himself” (Prov. 26:4-5). “They who deceive their friends, when they see them, they say that they have done something playfully” (Proverbs 26:19). “A fire is a coal and firewood is a fire, but a man is a slanderer in a riot” (Proverbs 26:21). “Even if the enemy prays to you with a loud voice, do not believe him, for seven times there is deceit in his soul” (Proverbs 26:25). “Stone is heavy and sand is unbearable, but the wrath of a fool is heavier than both. Wrath is merciless and anger is sharp, but jealousy is worth nothing” (Prov. 27:3-4). “He who is bold in wickedness slandereth the poor” (Proverbs 28:3). “Whoever trusts in a bold heart is foolish” (28:26). “A fool utters all his anger, but a wise man hides it part by part” (Proverbs 29:11). “The child of evil has teeth and limbs like a slash, to destroy and devour the humble from the earth” (Prov. 30:14). So, enlightened by these testimonies, I did not want to offend the one who offended and, in turn, repay him in kind; but he preferred to curse the furious madness and pour the antidote of one book into his chest, poisoned by poison. But I am afraid that, having achieved nothing, I will be forced to say the famous Davidic saying and console myself with the following words: “The sinner has alienated herself from falsehood, having gone astray from the womb, I have spoken a lie. Their rage is like the serpent, like a deaf asp, and one who stops his ears, so that he does not hear the voice of those who are in his presence, is enchanted by the wisdom of wisdom. God will break their teeth in their mouth: the Lord has broken the members of lions. They will be humbled like water that flows by; they will strain their bow until they faint. Like melted wax they are taken away: fire falls on them, and they do not see the sun” (Ps. 57:4-9). And again: “The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance of the wicked: he will wash his hands in the blood of the sinner. And the man said: If there is fruit for the righteous, there is a God who judges them on the earth” (Ps. 57:11-12). 44. At the end of the letter you write with your own hand: “I wish you to love the world.” To this I will answer briefly: if you want peace, then lay down your arms. You are good to me - I can be at peace with you, if you threaten - I’m not afraid. Let us have one faith, and peace will immediately follow. It refers to Tyranium, or Toranium, the birthplace of Rufinus. Works of Blessed Jerome. Abrotanum – tree of God, plant. Of course, a letter to Pammachius, written two years before the present composition. See Creation. bl. Hieron. in Russian lane Pis. 46. According to Seneca, Lucius Lavinius was a rival or competitor of Terence, Asinius Pollio-Cicero. By these names Jerome means his envious people - Rufinus and one monk who boasted that he came from the Cornelian family. See letter to Eustochia about maintaining virginity, where Bl. Jerome says that he had a dream that he was placed before the throne of the Judge God and, under the blows of a scourge, swore an oath not to read any more secular literature. Creation bl. Hieron. in Russian lane Pis. 21. Sallust mentions Calpurnius, the consul of Numidia, who betrayed the republic for money during the Jugurthine War. Calling Rufinus Calpurnius, bl. Jerome reproaches him for betraying his former friendship. Through the Roman orator Magnus, Rufinus had previously reproachfully asked Jerome why he cited excerpts from secular writers in his writings, to which Jerome responded with a letter to Magnus. See Creation. bl. Jer. in Russian lane Pis. 65. Heraclitus was considered the darkest among writers, and therefore in ancient times he received the nickname σχοτεινός - dark. Of course, a Letter to the Ocean. See Creations of Bl. Hieron. in Russian lane Pis. 64. The question of this letter was whether a bigamous man, who married one wife before baptism and another wife after baptism, after the death of the first, can be a bishop, and whether this is in accordance with the decree of the Apostle that a bishop should have one wife for his husband. Jerome ironically calls Rufinus after the philosopher Theophrastus, famous for his eloquence. An allusion to the reproach of Rufinus given in the first book regarding Jerome's dream. This was the name given to gladiators who fought in helmets with their eyes closed. Of course, probably the Roman Council of 382, ​​which was under the Roman Bishop of Damasus. Philistion, Lentulus and Marullus are known as authors of folk comic works, mimes. Blazh. Jerome knew Hebrew, Greek and Latin, but Rufinus knew only Greek and Latin. Blazh. Jerome brings together the name Desiderius, which means desire, with the name of the prophet Daniel “man of desires” (Dan.9:23). Reference to the words: mihi sape et musis (sing for me and for the muses), spoken by the singer Antigenides to his student Ismenius, when the latter did not meet with popular approval for his singing. With Apollinaris of Laodicea, to whom Jerome makes a brief reference in the 35th chapter of this book. That is, Sophrony, who translated the works of the blessed one. Jerome into Greek. That is, such messengers who spread rumors all over the world, like Ceres, who searched everywhere, even in the underworld, for her kidnapped daughter, Proserpina. That is, behind those carrying trophies, behind the advanced warriors - Theophilus and Anastasius. Presbyter Isidore wrote a letter of this kind against Epiphanius to John of Jerusalem and his followers. This was the bishop who was greatly persecuted by Theophilus, and whom Jerome allegedly accepted into his monastery. To the city of Jopia, from where the prophet Jonah fled. Macarius, to whom Rufinus attributed the Apology of Pamphilus and explained the difficulties regarding fate (see below chapter 29). That is, false teachings (see below chapter 29). That is, idle talk, chatter, boasting. Virgilie. Georg. II, 478–482; Aeneid. I, 743–746. Here we mean the disciples of Rufinus (Macarius, Appronian and others), whose blessed. Jerome often calls Calpurnius (see below, Chapter 32); also Apol. prot. Ruf. book I, ch. 30. This is a parody of the poems of the Roman poet Quintus Ennius (in his chronicle) about Fabius Maximus, who saved the Roman state with his slowness during the Second Punic War. Aristippus, founder of the Cyrenaic school, was the first philosopher to charge his listeners. Hermogoras and Gorgias of Leoptina were famous rhetoricians who, without prior preparation, discussed the subjects about which they were asked questions. He pretended to be the Messiah, attributed to himself the power of miracles and outraged the Jews, by whom he was killed in 133 A.D. Salmoneus is a mythological person, he wanted to become equal to Jupiter and tried to produce thunder and lightning by artificial means (Virgil. Aen. 6, 585 sqq.). In a dream to Macarius (see chapter 23 above). The Arians bribed one woman to claim that her son was born to her from a relationship with Bishop Eustathius. The Arians slandered Athanasius that he cut off Arseny's hand. But Arseny personally proved that both of his hands were intact. You might be interested in: