One who was not his Friend Would Probably Say to Him: Either Change Everything which is Bad, or Else Make Known Everything which You Think Thoroughly Good. If for the Sake of Simple Christians You Cut Out Everything which is Pernicious, and do not Choose to Put into a Foreign Language the Things that You Say have Been Added by Heretics; Tell us Everything which is Pernicious. But, if You Mean to Make a Veracious and Faithful Translation, Why do You Change Some Things and Leave Others Untouched? You Make an Open Profession in the Prologue that You have Amended what is Bad and have Left all that is Best: and Therefore, if Anything in the Work is Proved to be Heretical, You Cannot Enjoy the License Given to a Translator but must Accept the Authority of a Writer: and You Will be Openly Convicted of the Criminal Intent of Besmearing with Honey the Poisoned Cup So that the Sweetness which Meets the Sense May Hide the Deadly Venom. These Things, and Things Much Harder than These, an Enemy Would Say; and He Would Draw You Before the Tribunal of the Church, not as the Translator of a Bad Work but as one who Assents to Its Doctrines. But I am Satisfied with Having Simply Defended Myself. I Expressed in Latin Just what I Found in the Greek Text of the Books Peri 'Archon, not Wishing the Reader to Believe what was in My Translation, but Wishing Him not to Believe what was in Yours. I Looked for a Double Advantage as the Result of My Work, First to Unveil the Heresy of the Author and Secondly to Convict the Untrustworthiness of the Translator. And, that no one Might Think that I Assented to the Doctrine which I had Translated, I Asserted in the Preface How I had Been Compelled to Make this Version and Pointed Out what the Reader Ought not to Believe. The First Translation Makes for the Glory of the Author, the Second for his Shame. The one Summons the Reader to Believe Its Doctrines, the Other Moves Him to Disbelieve Them. In that I am Claimed against My Will as Praising the Author; in this I not Only do not Praise Him, but am Compelled to Accuse the Man who Does Praise Him. The Same Task Has Been Accomplished by Each, but with a Different Intention: the Same Journey Has had Two Different Issues. Our Friend Has Taken Away Words which Existed, Alleging that the Books had Been Depraved by Heretics: and He Has Put in those which did not Exist, Alleging that the Assertions had Been Made by the Author in Other Places; but of this He Will Never Convince us Unless He Can Point Out the Actual Places Whence He Says that He Has Taken Them. My Endeavour was to Change Nothing from what was Actually There; for My Object in Translating the Work was to Expose the False Doctrines which I Translated. Do You Look Upon Me as Merely a Translator? I was More. I Turned Informer. I Informed against a Heretic, to Clear the Church of Heresy. The Reasons which Led Me Formerly to Praise Origen in Certain Particulars are Set Forth in the Treatise Prefixed to this Work. The Sole Cause which Led to My Translation is Now Before the Reader. No one Has a Right to Charge Me with the Author's Impiety, for I did it with a Pious Intention, that of Betraying the Impiety which had Been Commended as Piety to the Churches. C8. I had Given Latin Versions, as My Friend Tauntingly Says, of Seventy Books of Origen, and of Some Parts of his Tomes, but no Question was ever Raised About My Work; no Commotion was Felt on the Subject in Rome. What Need was There to Commit to the Ears of the Latins what Greece Denounces and the Whole World Blames? I, Though Translating Many of Origen's Work in the Course of Many Years, Never Created a Scandal: but You, Though Unknown Before, have by Your First and Only Work Become Notorious for Your Rash Proceeding. Your Preface Tells us that You have Also Translated the Work of Pamphilus the Martyr in Defence of Origen; and You Strive with all Your Might to Prevent the Church from Condemning a Man Whose Faith the Martyr Attests. The Real Fact is that Eusebius Bishop of Cæsarea, as I have Already Said Before, who was in his Day the Standard Bearer of the Arian Faction, Wrote a Large and Elaborate Work in Six Books in Defence of Origen, Showing by Many Testimonies that Origen was in his Sense a Catholic, that Is, in Our Sense, an Arian. The First of These Six Books You have Translated and Assigned it to the Martyr. I must not Wonder, Therefore, that You Wish to Make Me, a Small Man and of no Account, Appear as an Admirer of Origen, when You Bring the Same Calumny against the Martyr. You Change a Few Statements About the Son of God and the Holy Spirit, which You Knew Would Offend the Romans, and Let the Rest Go Unchanged from Beginning to End; You Did, in Fact, in the Case of this Apology of Pamphilus as You Call It, Just what You did in the Translation of Origen's Peri 'Archon. If that Book is Pamphilus's, which of the Six Books is Eusebius's First? in the Very Volume which You Pretend to be Pamphilus's, Mention is Made of the Later Books. Also, in the Second and Following Books, Eusebius Says that He had Said Such and Such Things in the First Book and Excuses Himself for Repeating Them. If the Whole Work is Pamphilus's, Why do You not Translate the Remaining Books? if it is the Work of the Other, Why do You Change the Name? You Cannot Answer; but the Facts Make Answer of Themselves: You Thought that Men Would Believe the Martyr, Though they Would have Turned in Abhorrence from the Chief of the Arians. See this Question Fully Argued Out by Lightfoot in the Dict. Of Christian Biography, Art. Eusebius of Cæsaria. He Says: "The Defence of Origen was the Joint Work of Pamphilus and Eusebius:" and "Jerome's Treatment of this Matter is a Painful Exhibition of Disingenuousness, &C. " See De v. Ill. Lxxv. C9. Am I to Say Plainly what Your Intention Was, My Most Simple-Minded Friend? do You Think that we Can Believe that You Unwittingly Gave the Name of the Martyr to the Book of a Man who was a Heretic, and Thus Made the Ignorant, through their Trust in Christ's Witness, Become the Defenders of Origen? Considering the Erudition for which You are Renowned, for which You are Praised Throughout the West as an Illustrious Litterateur, So that the Men of Your Party all Speak of You as their Coryphæus, I Will not Suppose that You are Ignorant of Eusebius' Catalogue, which States the Fact that the Martyr Pamphilus Never Wrote a Single Book. Eusebius Himself, the Lover and Companion of Pamphilus, and the Herald of his Praises, Wrote Three Books in Elegant Language Containing the Life of Pamphilus. In These He Extols Other Traits of his Character with Extraordinary Encomiums, and Praises to the Sky his Humility; but on his Literary Interests He Writes as Follows in the Third Book: "What Lover of Books was There who did not Find a Friend in Pamphilus? if He Knew of any of them Being in Want of the Necessaries of Life, He Helped them to the Full Extent of his Power. He Would not Only Lend them Copies of the Holy Scriptures to Read, but Would Give them Most Readily, and that not Only to Men, but to Women Also if He Saw that they were Given to Reading. He Therefore Kept a Store of Manuscripts, So that He Might be Able to Give them to those who Wished for them Whenever Occasion Demanded. He Himself However, Wrote Nothing Whatever of his Own, Except Private Letters which He Sent to his Friends, So Humble was his Estimate of Himself. But the Treatises of the Old Writers He Studied with the Greatest Diligence, and was Constantly Occupied in Meditation Upon Them. " Sungrapheus