This is the Chief Passage which those who were Sent from the East to Lay Snares for Me Tried to Brand as Heretical, not Only by Perversely Misunderstanding It, but by Falsifying the Words. But I could See Nothing to Suspect in It, as Also in Several Similar Passages of the Writer I was Translating, nor did I Think that There was any Reason to Leave it Out, Since There was Nothing Said in it as to a Comparison of the Son with the Father, but the Question Related to the Nature of the Deity Itself, Whether in any Sense the Word visibility could be Applied to It. Origen was Answering, as I have Said Before, the Heretics who Assert that God is visible Because they Say that He is Corporeal, the Faculty of Sight Being a Property of the Body; for which Reason the Valentinian Heretics, of whom I Spoke Above, Declare that the Father Begat and the Son was Begotten in a Bodily and visible Sense. He Therefore Shrank, I Presume, from the Word Seeing as a Suspicious Term, and Says that it is Better, when the Question Turns Upon the Nature of the Deity, that Is, Upon the Relation of the Father and the Son, to Use the Word which the Lord Himself Definitely Chose, when He Said: "No Man Knoweth the Son Save the Father, Neither Doth any Know the Father Save the Son. " He Thought that all Occasion which Might be Given to the Aforesaid Heresies Would be Shut Out If, in Speaking of the Nature of the Deity He Used the Word Knowledge Rather than vision. vision' Might Seem to Afford the Heretics Some Support. The Word Knowledge on the Other Hand Preserves the True Relation of Father and Son in one Nature Never to be Set Apart; and this is Specially Confirmed by the Authoritative Language of the Gospel. Origen Thought Also that this Mode of Speaking Would Ensure that the Anthropomorphites Should Never in any Way Hear God Spoken of as visible. It did not Seem to Me Right that this Reasoning, Since it Made no Difference Between the Persons of the Trinity, Should be Completely Thrown on one Side, Though Indeed There were Some Words in the Greek, which Perhaps were Somewhat Incautiously Used, and which I Thought it Well to Avoid Using. I Will Suppose that Readers May Hesitate in their Judgment Whether or not Even So, it is an Argument which Can be Employed with Effect against the Aforesaid Heresies. I Will Even Grant that those who are Practised in Judging of Words and their Sense in Matters of this Kind and Who, Besides Being Experts, are God-Fearing Men, Men who do Nothing through Strife or Vain Glory, Whose Mind is Equally Free from Envy and Favour and Prejudice May Say that the Point is of Little Value Either for Edification or for the Combating of Heresy; Even So, is it not Competent for them to Pass it Over and to Leave it Aside as not Valid for the Repulse of Our Adversaries? Suppose it to be Superfluous, Does that Make it Criminous? How Can we Count as a Criminal Passage one which Asserts the Equality of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit in this Point of Invisibility? I do not Think that any one Can Really Think So. I Say any One: for There is no Evidence that Anything Contained in My Writings is Offensive in the Eyes of My Accusers; For, if they had Thought So, they Would have Set Down My Words as they Stood in My Translation. CBut what did they Actually Do? Consider what it was and Ask Yourself Whether the Crime is not Unexampled? Recall the Passage which Says: "But Perhaps You Will Ask Me My Opinion as to the Only-Begotten Himself. Well, if I Should Say that Even to Him the Nature of God is Invisible, Since it is Its Very Nature to be Invisible, do not Dismiss My Answer as if it were Impious or Absurd, for I Will at once Give You My Reason for It. " Well, in the Place of the Words which I had Written, "I Will at once Give You My Reason for It" they Put the Following Words: "Do not Dismiss My Answer as if it were Impious or Absurd, For, as the Son Does not See the Father, So the Holy Spirit Also Does not See the Son. " if the Man who did This, the Man who was Sent from their Monastery to Rome as the Greatest Expert in Calumny, had Been Employed in the Forum and had Committed this Forgery in Some Secular Business Every one Knows what Would be the Consequence to Him According to the Public Laws, when He was Convicted of the Crime. But Now, Since He Has Left the Secular Life, and Has Turned his Back Upon Business and Entered a Monastery, and Has Connected Himself with a Renowned Master, He Has Learned from Him to Leave his Former Self-Restraint and to Become a Furious Madman: He was Quiet Before, Now He is a Mover of Sedition: He was Peaceable, Now He Provokes War: Instead of Concord, He is the Promoter of Strife. For Faith He Has Learnt Perfidiousness, for Truth Forgery. He Would, You May Well Think, have Been the Complete Exemplar of Wickedness and Criminality of this Kind, if You had not had Before You the Image of that Woman Jezebel. She is the Same who Made up the Accusation against Naboth the Zezreelite for the Sake of the vineyard, and Sent Word to the Wicked Elders to Urge against Him a False Indictment, Saying that He had Blessed, that is Cursed, God and the King. I Know not Whether of the Two is to be Accounted the Happier, She who Sends the Command or they who Obey it in all Its Iniquity. These Matters are Serious; Such a Crime, as Far as I Know, is Hitherto all but Unheard of in the Church. Yet There is Something More to be Said. What is that You Ask. It is This, that those who are Guilty Should Become the Judges, that those who Plotted the Accusation Should Also Pronounce the Sentence. It Is, Indeed, no New Thing for a Writer to Make a Mistake or a Slip in his Words, and in My Opinion it is a Venial Fault, for the Scripture Also Says, "In Many Things we all Stumble: if any Stumbleth not in Word the Same is a Perfect Man. " is it Thought that Some Word is Wrong? Then Let it be Corrected or Amended, Or, if Expediency So Require, Let it be Taken Out. But to Insert in what Another Man Has Written Things He Never Wrote, to Put in False Words for no Other Purpose than to Defame Your Brother, to Corrupt his Writings in Order to Attach a Mark of Infamy to the Author, and to Insinuate Your Ideas into the Ears of the Multitude So as to Throw Confusion into the Minds of the Simple; and all this with the Object of Staining a Man's Reputation among his Fellows; I Ask You Whose Work this Can be Except that of Him who was a Liar from the Beginning, and Who, from Accusing the Brethren, Received the Name of Diabolus, which Means Accuser. For when He to whom I have Alluded Recited at Milan one of These Sentences which had Been Tampered With, and I Cried Out that what He was Reading was Falsified, He, Being Asked from whom He had Received the Copy of the Work Said that a Certain Woman Named Marcella had Given it Him. As to Her, I Say Nothing, Whosoever She May Be. I Leave Her to Her Own Conscience and to God. I am Content with God's Own Witness and with Yours. When I Say Yours, I Mean Your Own and that of Macarius Himself, the Saintly Man for whom I was Doing that Work: for Both of You Read My Papers Themselves at the First, Even Before they had Been Completed, and You have by You the Completely Corrected Copies. You Can Bear Witness to what I Say. The Words "As the Son Does not See the Father, So Also the Holy Spirit Does not See the Son" not Only were Never Written by Me, but on the Contrary I Can Point Out the Forger by whom they were Written. If any Man Says that as the Father Does not See the Son, So the Son Does not See the Father or that the Holy Spirit Does not See the Father and the Son as the Father Sees the Son and the Son and the Holy Spirit, Let Him be Anathema. For He Sees, and Sees Most Truly; Only, as God Sees God and the Light Sees the Light; not as Flesh Sees Flesh, but as the Holy Spirit Sees, not with the Bodily Senses, but by the Powers of the Deity. I Say, if any one Denies this Let Him be Anathema for all Eternity. But as the Apostle Says, "He that Troubles You Shall Bear his Judgment, Whosoever He Be. " Jerome's Friend Eusebius of Cremona, of whom Rufinus Complains as Having Taken Occasion from this Old Friendship to Purloin and Falsify his Mss. See Below C. 20, 21.