I Repeat that There are no Writings of Mine in which There is any Error to be Corrected. There are Many of Yours Which, as I have Shewn, According to Your Present Opinion, Ought to be Wholly Condemned. You Made an Exception in Favour of the Commentaries on the Ephesians, in which You Imagined that You had Written More Correctly. But Even You must have Seen, as I have Shewn, How Like they are all through to Origen's views; And, Indeed, How they Contain Something More Extreme than the views of which You Demand the Condemnation. And, were it not that You had Cut Yourself Off from the Power of Repentance by Saying "Read Over My Commentaries on the Ep. To the Ephesians, and You Will Acknowledge that I have Opposed the Doctrines of Origen;" Possibly You Might Wish to Turn Round and do Penance for Those, and in this Case, as in the Rest, to Condemn Yourself. As Far as I am Concerned, I Give You Full Leave to Repent of These Also; Indeed, the Best Thing that You Can do is to do Penance for all that You have Said and Also for all that You are Going to Say; for it is Certain that all that You have ever Written is to be Repented Of. But if any one Blame Me for Having Translated Anything at all of Origen's, Then I Say that I am the Last of Many who have done the Deed, and the Blame, if Any, Should Begin with the First. But Does any one ever Punish a Deed the Doing of which He had not Previously Forbidden. We did what was Permissible. If There is to be a New Law, it Holds Good Only for the Future. But it May be Said that the Works Themselves Ought to be Condemned and their Author as Well. If that be So, what is to Happen to the Other Author who Writes the Same Things, as I have Shewn Most Fully Above? He must Receive a Similar Judgment. I do not Ask for this nor Press for It, Although He Acts a Hostile Part Towards Me. But I Cannot but See that He is Heaping up Such a Judgment for Himself by his Rash Condemnation of Others. CBut I must Deal with You once More by Quoting Your Own Words. You Say of Me in that Invective of Yours that I have by My Translation Shewn that Origen is a Heretic While I was a Catholic. The Words Are: "That is to Say, I am a Catholic, but He whom I was Translating is a Heretic. " Yes You Say It, I have Read It. Well Then, If, as You Tell Us, the Result of My Whole Work is to Show that I am a Catholic and Origen a Heretic, what More do You Want? is not Your Whole Object Gained if Origen is Proved a Heretic and I a Catholic? if You Bear Witness that I have Said this and have Thus Given You Satisfaction by the Whole of My Work, what Cause of Accusation against Me Remains? what Purpose was Served by that Invective of Yours against Me? if I Proved Origen to be a Heretic and Myself a Catholic, was I Right or Not? if I Was, Then Why do You Subject to Blame and Accusation what was Rightly Done? But, if it was not Right that Origen Should be Called a Heretic, Why do You Make a Charge against Me on that Head? what Need was There for You to Translate in a Worse Sense what I had Already Translated According to Your Principles, Though in a Less Elegant Style? Especially what Need was There for You to Play Your Readers False, And, when they Expected one Thing, for You to do Another? they Imagine that You are Acting in Opposition to those who Defend Origen as Catholic; but the Person whom You Combat and Accuse is the Man who You Say Has Pronounced Him a Heretic. Perhaps it was for this that You Invited Me to do Penance; and I had Misunderstood You. But Even of this I must Say that I could not Repent, if My Repentance Implied that I Thought all Things which are Found in his Works are Catholic. Whether what is Uncatholic is his Own Or, as I Think, Inserted by Others, God Only Knows: at all Events These Things, when Brought to the Standard of the Faith and of Truth are Wholly Rejected by Me. What Then is it that You Want Me to Say? that Origen is a Heretic? that is what You Say that I have Done, and You Blame It. That He is a Catholic Then? Again You Make this a Ground of Accusation against Me. Point Out More Clearly what You Mean; Possibly There is Something which You Can Find Out that Lies Between the Two. This is all the Wit that You have Gathered from the Acuteness of Alexander and Porphyry and Aristotle Himself: this is the Issue of all the Boasting which You Make of Having from Infancy to Old Age Been Versed and Trained in the Schools of Rhetoric and Philosophy, that You Set Forth with the Intention of Pronouncing Sentence on Origen as a Heretic, and in the Very Speech in which You are Delivering Judgment Turn Upon the Man whom You are Addressing and Accuse Him Because He Also Has Shown Origen to be a Heretic. I Beg all Men to Note that There is in all this no Care for the Faith or for Truth, no Earnest Thought of Religion and Sound Judgment; There is Nothing but the Practised Lust of Evil Speaking and Accusing the Brethren which Works in his Tongue, Nothing but Rivalry with his Fellow Men in his Heart, Nothing but Malice and Envy in his Mind. So Much is this the Case That, Before any Cause of Ill Feeling Existed, and I Spoke of You with Praise as My Brother and Colleague, You Nevertheless were Angry at My Advances. Forgive Me for not Knowing that You were what the Greeks Call Acatonomastos (Akatonomastos), one whom no one Dares to Address by Name. Still, I Wonder that You Should Call Upon Me to Condemn what You Complain of Me for Branding as Wrong. Namely, Ep. Lxxxiv. C. 7. C30. It Seems Needless to Make any Answer to that Part of his Indictment in which He Says that the Works of the Martyr Pamphilus, Expressed as they are with So Much Faithfulness and Piety, are Either not to be Considered Genuine or if Genuine, to be Treated with Contempt. Is There any one to Whose Authority He Will Bow? is There any one whom He Will Refrain from Abusing? all the Old Greek Writers of the Church, According to Him, have Erred. As to the Latins, How He Disparages Them, How He Attacks them one by One, Both those of the Old and those of Modern Times, any one who Reads his Various Work Knows Well. Now Even the Martyrs Fail to Gain any Respect from Him. "I do not Believe," He Says "That this is Really the Work of the Martyr. " if Such an Argument were Admitted in the Case of the Works of any Writer, How Can we Prove their Genuineness in any Particular Case? if I were to Say, it is not True that Books of Miscellanies are Origen's as You Maintain, How Can they be Proved to be His? his Answer Is, from their Likeness to the Rest. But, Just As, when a Man Wants to Forge Some One's Signature, He Imitates his Handwriting, So He who Wishes to Introduce his Own Thoughts under Another Man's Name, is Sure to Imitate the Style of Him Whose Name He Has Assumed. But, to Pass Over for Brevity's Sake all that Might with Great Justice be Said on this Point, if You were Determined to be So Bold as to Question the Works of the Martyr, You Ought to have Brought Out Publicly the Actual Statements which Seemed to You Liable to Question, and Then Every Reader could have Seen what was Absurd in them and what was Reasonable, what was Unsuitable to or against the System of the Apostles; and Especially the Great Impiety, Whatever it May have Been, in Expiation of which You Tell us that the Martyr Shed his Blood. A Man who Read those Actual Words Would be Able to Say, Not, as Now, on Your Judgment but on his Own, Either that the Martyr had Gone Wrong, or that a Treatise which was So Full of Absurdity and Unbelief had Been Composed by Some one Else. But, as it Is, You Know Well that if the Writings which You Impugn are Read by any One, the Blame Will be Turned Back Upon Him who Has Unjustly Found Fault; and Therefore You do not Cite the Passages which You Impugn, but with that Censor's Rod' of Yours, and by Your Own Arrogant Authority, You Make Your Decrees in this Style: "Let this Book be Cast Out of the Libraries, Let that Book be Retained; and Again, if Today a Book is Accepted, Tomorrow if any one but Myself Has Praised It, Let it be Cast Out, and with it the Man who Praised It. Let this one be Counted as Catholic, Even Though He Seems at Times to have Gone Wrong; Let that Man have no Pardon for his Error, Even Though He Has Said the Same Things as Myself, and Let no Man Translate Him nor Read Him, for Fear He Should Recognize My Plagiarisms. This Man Indeed was a Heretic, but He was My Master. And this Other, Though He is a Jew, and of the Synagogue of Satan, and is Hired to Sell Words for Gain, Yet He is My Master who must be Preferred to all Others, Because it is Among the Jews Alone that the Truth of the Scriptures Dwells. " if the Universal Church had with one Voice Conferred on You this Authority, and had Demanded of You that You Should be the Judge of Each and All, Would it not have Been Your Duty to Refuse to Allow So Heavy and Perilous a Burden to be Laid Upon You? but Now we have Made Such Progress in the Daily Habit of Disparaging Others that we no Longer Spare Even the Martyrs. But Let us Suppose that the Work is not that of the Martyr Pamphilus, but of Some Other Unknown Member of the Church; did He, Whoever He May have Been, Employ his Own Words, I Ask, So that we are Called Upon to Defer to the Merits of the Writer? No. he Sets Out Quotations from the Works of Origen Himself, and Exhibits his Opinion Upon Each Question not in the Words of the Apologist but in those of the Accused Himself; And, Just as in the Present Treatise what I have Quoted from Your Writings Carried Much More Force than what I have Said Myself, So Also the Defence of Origen Lies not in the Authority of his Apologist, but in his Own Words. The Question of Authorship is Superfluous, when the Defence is So Conducted as to Dispense with the Author's Aid. C31. But I must Come to that Head of his Inculpation of Me which is Most Injurious and Full of Ill-Will; Nay, not of Ill-Will Only but of Malice. he Says: which of all the Wise and Holy Men Before us Has Dared to Attempt the Translation of These Books which You have Translated? I Myself, He Adds, Though Asked by Many to do It, have Always Refused. But the Fact Is, the Excuse to be Made for those Holy Men is Easy Enough; for it by no Means Follows Because a Man of Latin Race is a Holy and a Wise Man, that He Has an Adequate Knowledge of the Greek Language; it is no Slur Upon his Holiness that He is Wanting in the Knowledge of a Foreign Tongue. And Further, if He Has the Knowledge of the Greek Language, it Does not Follow that He Has the Wish to Make Translations. Even if He Has Such a Wish, we are not to Find Fault with Him for not Translating More than a Few Works, and for Translating Some Rather than Others. Every Man Has Power to do as He Likes in Such Matters According to his Own Free Will or According to the Wish of any one who Asks Him to Make the Translation. But He Brings Forward the Case of the Saintly Men Hilary and victorinus, the First of Whom, Though Well-Known as a Commentator, Translated Nothing, I Believe, from the Greek; While the Other Himself Tells us that He Employed a Learned Presbyter Named Heliodorus to Draw what He Needed from the Greek Sources, While He Himself Merely Gave them their Latin Form Because He Knew Little or Nothing of Greek. There is Therefore a Very Good Reason Why These Men Should not have Made this Translation. That You Should have Acted in the Same Way Is, I Admit, a Matter for Wonder. For what Further Audacity, what Larger Amount of Rashness, Would have Been Required to Translate those Books of Origen, After You had Put Almost the Whole of their Contents Into Your Other Works, And, Indeed, had Already Published in Books Bearing Your Own Name all that is Said in those which You Now Declare Worthy of Blame? C32. Perhaps it was a Greater Piece of Audacity to Alter the Books of the Divine Scriptures which had Been Delivered to the Churches of Christ by the Apostles to be a Complete Record of their Faith by Making a New Translation under the Influence of the Jews. Which of These Two Things Appears to You to be the Less Legitimate? as to the Sayings of Origen, if we Agree with Them, we Agree with them as the Sayings of a Man; if we Disagree, we Can Easily Disregard them as those of a Mere Man. But How are we to Regard those Translations of Yours which You are Now Sending About Everywhere, through Our Churches and Monasteries, through all Our Cities and Walled Towns? are they to be Treated as Human or Divine? and what are we to do when we are Told that the Books which Bear the Names of the Hebrew Prophets and Lawgivers are to be had from You in a Truer Form than that which was Approved by the Apostles? How, I Ask, is this Mistake to be Set Right, or Rather, How is this Crime to be Expiated? we Hold it a Thing Worthy of Condemnation that a Man Should have Put Forth Some Strange Opinions in the Interpretation of the Law of God; but to Pervert the Law Itself and Make it Different from that which the Apostles Handed Down to Us,--How Many Times Over must this be Pronounced Worthy of Condemnation? to the Daring Temerity of this Act we May Much More Justly Apply Your Words: "Which of all the Wise and Holy Men who have Gone Before You Has Dared to Put his Hand to that Work?" which of them Would have Presumed Thus to Profane the Book of God, and the Sacred Words of the Holy Spirit? who but You Would have Laid Hands Upon the Divine Gift and the Inheritance of the Apostles? C33. There Has Been from the First in the Churches of God, and Especially in that of Jerusalem, a Plentiful Supply of Men who Being Born Jews have Become Christians; and their Perfect Acquaintance with Both Languages and their Sufficient Knowledge of the Law is Shewn by their Administration of the Pontifical Office. In all this Abundance of Learned Men, Has There Been one who Has Dared to Make Havoc of the Divine Record Handed Down to the Churches by the Apostles and the Deposit of the Holy Spirit? for what Can we Call it but Havoc, when Some Parts of it are Transformed, and this is Called the Correction of an Error? for Instance, the Whole of the History of Susanna, which Gave a Lesson of Chastity to the Churches of God, Has by Him Been Cut Out, Thrown Aside and Dismissed. The Hymn of the Three Children, which is Regularly Sung on Festivals in the Church of God, He Has Wholly Erased from the Place Where it Stood. But Why Should I Enumerate These Cases one by One, when their Number Cannot be Estimated? This, However, Cannot be Passed Over. The Seventy Translators, Each in their Separate Cells, Produced a Version Couched in Consonant and Identical Words, under the Inspiration, as we Cannot Doubt, of the Holy Spirit; and this Version must Certainly be of More Authority with us than a Translation Made by a Single Man under the Inspiration of Barabbas. But, Putting this Aside, I Beg You to Listen, for Example, to this as an Instance of what we Mean. Peter was for Twenty-Four Years Bishop of the Church of Rome. We Cannot Doubt That, Amongst Other Things Necessary for the Instruction of the Church, He Himself Delivered to them the Treasury of the Sacred Books, Which, no Doubt, had Even Then Begun to be Read under his Presidency and Teaching. What are we to Say Then? did Peter the Apostle of Christ Deceive the Church and Deliver to them Books which were False and Contained Nothing of Truth? are we to Believe that He Knew that the Jews Possessed what was True, and Yet Determined that the Christians Should have what was False? but Perhaps the Answer Will be Made that Peter was Illiterate, and That, Though He Knew that the Books of the Jews were Truer than those which Existed in the Church, Yet He could not Translate them Into Latin Because of his Linguistic Incapacity. What Then! was the Tongue of Fire Given by the Holy Spirit from Heaven of no Avail to Him? did not the Apostles Speak in all Languages? C34. But Let us Grant that the Apostle Peter was Unable to do what Our Friend Has Lately Done. Was Paul Illiterate? we Ask; He who was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, Touching the Law a Pharisee, Brought up at the Feet of Gamaliel? could not He, when He was at Rome, have Supplied any Deficiencies of Peter? is it Conceivable that They, who Prescribed to their Disciples that they Should Give Attention to Reading, did not Give them Correct and True Reading? These Men who Bid us not Attend to Jewish Fables and Genealogies, which Minister Questioning Rather than Edification; and Who, Again, Bid us Beware Of, and Specially Watch, those of the Circumcision; is it Conceivable that they could not Foresee through the Spirit that a Time Would Come, After Nearly Four Hundred Years, when the Church Would Find Out that the Apostles had not Delivered to them the Truth of the Old Testament, and Would Send an Embassy to those whom the Apostles Spoke of as the Circumcision, Begging and Beseeching them to Dole Out to them Some Small Portion of the Truth which was in their Possession: and that the Church Would through this Embassy Confess that She had Been for all those Four Hundred Years in Error; that She had Indeed Been Called by the Apostles from Among the Gentiles to be the Bride of Christ, but that they had not Decked Her with a Necklace of Genuine Jewels; that She had Fondly Thought that they were Precious Stones, but Now had Found Out that those were not True Gems which the Apostles had Put Upon Her, So that She Felt Ashamed to Go Forth in Public Decked in False Instead of True Jewels, and that She Therefore Begged that they Would Send Her Barabbas, Even Him whom She had once Rejected to be Married to Christ, So that in Conjunction with one Man Chosen from Among Her Own People, He Might Restore to Her the True Ornaments with which the Apostles had Failed to Furnish Her. 1 Tim. Iv. 13 C35. What Wonder is There Then that He Should Tear Me to Pieces, Being as I am of no Account; or that He Should Wound Ambrose, or Find Fault with Hilary, Lactantius and Didymus? I must not Greatly Grieve Over any Injury of My Own in the Fact that He Has Attempted to do My Work of Translating Over Again, when He is Only Treating Me with the Same Contempt with which He Has Treated the Seventy Translators. But this Emendation of the Seventy, what are we to Think of It? is it not Evident, How Greatly the Grounds for the Heathens' Unbelief have Been Increased by this Proceeding? for they Take Notice of what is Going on Amongst Us. They Know that Our Law Has Been Amended, or at Least Changed; and do You Suppose they do not Say Among Themselves, "These People are Wandering at Random, they have no Fixed Truth Among Them, for You See How they Make Amendments and Corrections in their Laws Whenever they Please," and Indeed it is Evident that There must have Been Previous Error Where Amendment Has Supervened, and that Things which Undergo Change at the Hand of Man Cannot Possibly be Divine. This Has Been the Present which You have Made us with Your Excess of Wisdom, that we are all Judged Even by the Heathen as Lacking in Wisdom. I Reject the Wisdom which Peter and Paul did not Teach. I Will have Nothing to do with a Truth which the Apostles have not Approved. These are Your Own Words: "The Ears of Simple Men Among the Latins Ought not After Four Hundred Years to be Molested by the Sound of New Doctrines. " Now You are Yourself Saying: "Every one Has Been under a Mistake who Thought that Susanna had Afforded an Example of Chastity to Both the Married and the Unmarried. It is not True. And Every one who Thought that the Boy Daniel was Filled with the Holy Spirit and Convicted the Adulterous Old Men, was under a Mistake. That Also was not True. And Every Congregation Throughout the Universe, Whether of those who are in the Body or of those who have Departed to be with the Lord, Even Though they were Holy Martyrs or Confessors, all who have Sung the Hymn of the Three Children have Been in Error, and have Sung what is False. Now Therefore After Four Hundred Years the Truth of the Law Comes Forth for Us, it Has Been Bought with Money from the Synagogue. When the World Has Grown Old and all Things are Hastening to their End, Let us Change the Inscriptions Upon the Tombs of the Ancients, So that it May be Known by those who had Read the Story Otherwise, that it was not a Gourd but an Ivy Plant under Whose Shade Jonah Rested; and That, when Our Legislator Pleases, it Will no Longer be the Shade of Ivy but of Some Other Plant. Jer. Letter Lxxxiv. C. 8.