Apology for Origen 9.1–10.1

Pamphilus of Caesarea · Apology for Origen · ca. 308–310 (Rufinus's Latin about 397) · Caesarea · 2 passages

Authorship disputed: Photius (Bibliotheca 118) says Pamphilus and Eusebius wrote the six-book Apology together in prison; Jerome later argued that Eusebius alone wrote it and that Rufinus misused Pamphilus's name. Only Book 1 survives, in Rufinus's Latin (made about 397), which may be freely adapted; the Greek is lost. Rufinus's preface, in which he states his aims, is included.

Latin text: Migne, PG 17 (Latin text: Migne, Patrologia Graeca vol. 17 (1857), transcribed from library-scan OCR of the printed volume).English: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), public domain (CC0).

BothSource textEnglish

Show only the passage I followed

Chapter 9

9.1PG 17:604a–608b

ORIGENES. Sunt vero et alia quaedam dogmata, quae in apostolicis traditionibus non habentur, de quibus requires si oportet eos qui quodlibet de his sentiunt vel pertractant, hereticos putandos, utputa, verbi causa dixerim, si quis rationem humana! animae inquirat, cum de ea neque quod ex seminis traduce ducatur, neque quod bonorabilior et antiquior corporum compage sit, tradiderit Ecclesia‘stica regula. Propter quod multi nec comprehendere potuerunt qualiter sentiri oporteret de anima: ratione: sed et qui sliquid sentire vel disserere visi sunt, a nonnullis in suspicione habentur velut novi aliquid introducentes. PAMPHILUS. Deinde post pauca ait : ORIGENES. Sed et tu ipse apud temetipsum discutiens considera si Oportet eum qui quolibet modo de bis opinatur vel haereticum, vel ecclesir sticum temere definiri, aut si non est periculosum de eo pronuntiare, quoniam et ipse perversa: sit et peccet, et sit a semetipso damnatus quod de haereticis dicitur, si quis forte ex his quae supra diximus, quamlibet opinionem licet novam et qum plurimis peregrinam, videatur inducere. … et omnes diversa, quomodo hic magis quam caeteri incusandus est, maxime cum ea quae a reliquis aflirmantur, multo magis et absurda videantur, et sibi ipsa contraria? Quidam enim opinantur praaparatis jam in ventre mulierum deformatisque corporibus, tunc ad praesens creari animas, et inseri deformatojam corpori. Haec vero sentientes, praeter hoc quod manifestas probationes ex sanctis Scripturis adbibere non possunt, insuper etiam injustitiam quodammodo Conditoris accusant, quod non aequaliter omnes utantur, id est, aequas vitae conversationes tribuat omnibus. Statim enim ut creata fuerit anima, cum nihil utique adhuc in se culpa: commiserit, inseritur interdum, si ita acciderit cmco corpori, vel alias debili: ali:e vero sanis corporibus et firmioribus: et aliis quidem multum vita tempus tribuitur, aliis vero brevissimum : ita ut interdum simul ut nata: foerint, exturbentur e corpore: et aliae quidem ad conversationem agrestem quamdam et barbaram, et ubi ex nulla nihil humani aut honesti est, et super omnia ubi paternae superstitionis impietas obtinet, diriguntur: aliae vero ad viros honestos, sobrios, humanos, ubi et humanarum legum abservatio viget: interdum etiam ad parentes religiosos, ubi educatio nobilis et honesta, ubi etiam eruditio rationabilis, transmittuntur. Quomodo igitur assertores eorum in talibus divinam Provi; dentiam recte omnia dispensantem, et arqua lance moderantem, tanquam boui et justi Dei poterunt assignare? Jam vero illi qui ex traduce animas venire afiirmant, et simul cum corporali eas semine seminari : siquidem (ut quidam ipsorum af. firmare solent) non aliud dicunt animam esse quam iusufilationem Spiritus Dei, illam scilicet quam initio factura: mundi Deus dicitur insulilasse in Adam “, de ipsa Dei esse eam substantia profitentes: quomodo non et isti videbuntur quodammodo haec praeter Scripturae regulam, et rationem pietatis asserere, quod substantia Dei est quae peccat, si anima quae de substantia Dei est, peccat; insuper etiam quod et ptenis ' subdeuda sit pro peccato? Sed et illud se (quod perabsurdum est) incurrere non vident, quia necesse est eam simul cum corpore mori, et esse mortalem, si simul cum corpore vel seminata, vel formata, vel nata est. Tum deinde illi qui unam quidem ex nullis substantibus a Deo factam esse dicunt animam, id est illam quze prima facta est in Adam, et ex ea jam omnium hominum animas exsistere, et secundum corporalem sine dubio successionem traducem quoque fieri animarum, etiam ipsi quid aliud ostendunt, nisi animas esse mortales? Si enim sicutanimalia caetera ex solo semine oriuntur, ita etiam de hominibus sentiamus, ut cum corpore simul in eodem semine etiam anima diffundatur, quid dicimus de his qui imperfecti adhuc et de ventre aborsi sunt, et qui nonnunquam etiam antequam vasculorum naturalium receptaculis semina sint suscepta, depereunt? In quibus sine dubio invenietur, quod simul etiam illae quae naturali ratione semiuibus insertae inerant animm, exstinctae sint pariter et corruptae. Sive ergo ex insumatione Dei sint, sive ab una illa quae prima facta est, necessario simul cum corporibus corrumpcntur, si eamdem cum corporibus etiam originem sumunt secundum ipsorum rationem. Aut enim nihil omuino ex rationabili atque immortali anima participavit illud quod adhuc in ventre corruptum est; et repulsa illa ratio est quae allirmat eam iu seminis traduce simul cum corporibus seminatam : aut si participat, necessitas imminet confiteri mortalem esse animam: quod fides utique nostra non recipit. Verumtamen qUId est quod ex his omnibus ostendi volumus? illud profecto, quod sicut eos qui uuam quamlibet de his quas supra exposuimus, Opinionem veram putant, non recta ratione hereticos quis appellat, pro eo quod neque ex divinis Scripturis certi aliquid de bis vel manifeste dictum esse videatur, neque in Prwdicatione ecclesiastica contineri: ita neque hunc virum culpari justum est, disserentem quod sibi visum est, maxime cum illud praecipue servaverit quod in Ecclesia de animae confessione servari omnimodis debet, id est ne diversas naturas esse diceret animarum: qninimo et dicentes redarguit, et veltementi assertione convincit. Ipse autem fatetur unius Substantia: omnes esse animas, et immortales ac rationabiles, liberi arbitrii ac voluntatis: judicandas quoque esse pro liis quae in hac vita gesserunt: esse tamen eas factas a Deo, qui universa creavit et condidit. Quando autem factae sint, olim simul, aut nunc per singulos nascentium , quid periculi est alterum e duobus opinari? Sed aliter respondere possibile est, ut omnis penitus culpandi aditus excludatur. Sicut enim de luminaribus ωεξΙί diversa singuli, etiam ipsi qui sunt in Ecclesiis, seutiuut; aliis quidem opinantibus esse animautia, et rationabilium animantium; aliis vero putantibus quod irrationabilia sint, imo vero quod non solum anima, sed et omni sensu penitus careant, et sola sine spiritu ac sensu sint corpora: nemo tamen merito alterum eorum qui haec ita diverse sentiunt, haireticum dixerit, propterea quod non aperte de his traditum est in apostolica praedicatione : ita etiam eos qui de humana anima dubitant, et de initio ejus vel origine diversa opinantur, non est rectum hzereticos pronuntiare, maxime cum iu reliquis ecclesiasticas doctrina: regulis quod rectum eSt et catholicum teneant. Novissima criminatio est μετενσωματώσεως, hoc est transmutationis animarum. Ad quod, sicut in caeteris fecimus, ipsius qui accusatur respondebimus … contrario dici poterunt, disputentur : et hanc esse artem disputandi non advertentcs, objiciunt cide hoc dogmate, quod quasi ipse senserit ea quae es adversantis persona disseruit. Denique quod discutiendi haec et non confirmandi dixerit causa, ipse per ea quae post tractatum rei ipsius adjecit, ostendit ltoc modo dicens: ORIGENES. t Sed lucc, quantum ad nos pertinet, non sint dogmata; sed discussionis gratia dicta sint, et abjiciantur. Pro eo autem solo dicta sunt, ne videatur quaestio mota, non esse discussa» PAMPHILUS. Sed haec in eo loco dixit, in quo de animabus animalium requirebat, nou de transmutatione animarum. De animarum vero transmutatione in septimo libro in Evangelium secundum Matthaeum ita scribit :

Origen: "There are also some other doctrines which are not contained in the apostolic traditions, about which you may ask whether those who think or discuss anything about them are to be considered heretics: for example, if anyone inquires into the nature of the human soul, since the Church's rule has handed down neither that it is derived by transmission from the seed, nor that it is more honourable and older than the structure of the body. For this reason many have been unable to grasp what they ought to think about the nature of the soul; and those who have seemed to think or discuss something about it are held under suspicion by some, as introducing something new."

Pamphilus: Then, after a little, he says:

Origen: "But you yourself, discussing it within yourself, consider whether one who holds any opinion whatever on these matters should rashly be defined as a heretic or as a churchman, or whether it is not dangerous to pronounce of him what is said of heretics, that he is perverted and sins and is condemned by himself, if perhaps he seems to introduce some opinion on the matters we mentioned above, even one that is new and foreign to most." …

Pamphilus: … and all (hold) different (views), how is this man to be blamed rather than the others, especially since what the rest affirm seems much more absurd and self-contradictory? For some think that when the bodies have already been prepared and formed in women's wombs, souls are then created for the moment and inserted into the body already formed. Those who think this, besides being unable to bring forward plain proofs from the holy Scriptures, also in a way accuse the Creator of injustice, in that he does not deal equally with all, that is, does not grant equal conditions of life to all. For as soon as the soul is created, having committed no fault at all in itself, it is sometimes inserted, if it so happens, into a blind or otherwise weak body, and others into healthy and stronger bodies. To some a long time of life is granted, to others a very short one, so that sometimes they are driven out of the body as soon as they are born. Some are directed to a rustic and barbarous way of life, where there is nothing human or honourable from any source, and above all where the impiety of ancestral superstition holds sway; others are sent to honourable, sober, humane men, where observance of human laws flourishes, sometimes even to religious parents, where the upbringing is noble and honourable and the education rational. How, then, can those who assert this ascribe such things to the divine Providence of a good and just God, which ordains all things rightly and governs them with an even balance? As for those who affirm that souls come by transmission and are sown together with the bodily seed: if indeed, as some of them usually affirm, they say that the soul is nothing other than the breath of God's Spirit, namely the breath which God is said to have breathed into Adam at the beginning of the making of the world, professing that it is from the very substance of God, will not they too seem in a way to assert, outside the rule of Scripture and the reason of piety, that it is the substance of God that sins, if the soul, which is from the substance of God, sins; and furthermore that the substance of God must be subjected to punishments for sin? They do not see that they also fall into this, which is very absurd: that the soul must die together with the body and be mortal, if it was sown, formed, or born together with the body. Then those who say that one soul was made by God out of nothing, namely the one first made in Adam, and that from it the souls of all men now exist, and that there is, without doubt, a transmission of souls following bodily succession: what else do they too show but that souls are mortal? For if we think of men as of the other animals, which arise from seed alone, so that the soul is spread together with the body in the same seed, what do we say of those who are aborted from the womb while still unformed, and of those who sometimes perish even before the seeds have been received into the receptacles of the natural vessels? In them, without doubt, it will be found that the souls planted by natural reason in the seeds were extinguished and destroyed along with them. Whether, then, souls are from the breath of God or from that one which was first made, they will necessarily be destroyed together with the bodies, if according to their reasoning they take the same origin as the bodies. For either what is destroyed while still in the womb had no share at all in a rational and immortal soul, and the reasoning that affirms that the soul is sown with the bodies by transmission of seed is refuted; or, if it has a share, one is forced to confess that the soul is mortal, which our faith certainly does not accept. What, then, do we wish to show from all this? Surely this: that just as no one rightly calls heretics those who think any one of the opinions set out above to be true, since nothing certain seems to have been said plainly about these matters in the divine Scriptures, nor is anything contained in the Church's preaching, so neither is it just to blame this man for discussing what seemed right to him; especially since he kept above all what must in every way be kept in the Church's confession about the soul, namely not to say that there are different natures of souls. Indeed, he refutes those who say so and convicts them with vehement assertion. He himself confesses that all souls are of one substance, immortal and rational, with free choice and will, to be judged for what they did in this life, and yet made by God, who created and founded all things. As for when they were made, all at once long ago or now one by one as people are born, what danger is there in holding either of the two? But it is possible to answer in another way, so as to shut out every approach to blame. For just as individuals, even those in the churches, think differently about the heavenly lights, some holding that they are living beings, and rational ones, others thinking that they are irrational, or rather that they lack not only soul but all sense whatever and are mere bodies without spirit or sense; and yet no one would rightly call either of those who think so differently a heretic, because nothing has been handed down openly about them in the apostolic preaching: so too it is not right to pronounce heretics those who are in doubt about the human soul and hold different opinions about its beginning or origin, especially since in the other rules of the Church's teaching they hold what is right and catholic.

The last charge is that of metensomatosis, that is, the transmigration of souls. To this, as we did with the others, we will reply with the words of the one accused … could be said on the opposite side are discussed; and not noticing that this is the art of disputation, they object to him regarding this doctrine as though he himself held what he set out in the person of an opponent. In short, that he said these things for the sake of discussion and not of confirmation, he himself shows by what he added after treating the matter itself, saying thus:

Origen: "But let these things, as far as we are concerned, not be doctrines; let them be said for the sake of discussion, and let them be rejected. They were said only so that the question, once raised, should not seem undiscussed."

Pamphilus: But he said this in the place where he was inquiring about the souls of animals, not about the transmigration of souls. On the transmigration of souls he writes thus in the seventh book on the Gospel according to Matthew:

Textual problem in this passage: see the notes.

Titus 3:11 (quotation, high confidence) · Gen 2:7 (allusion, high confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: Pamphilus argues that the origin of the soul is not settled by Scripture or the Church's preaching, that the rival views (creation at conception, transmission with the seed) are more open to objection than Origen's, and begins his answer to the charge of transmigration.

Origen's quotations here come from his lost Commentary on Titus; the brief one on the souls of animals is On First Principles 1.8.4.
Lines are lost in the scan in two places, shown as "…": after "foreign to most" (the end of Origen's quotation and the beginning of Pamphilus's comment); and in the introduction to the last charge.
Pamphilus states three views of the soul's origin current in his day: each soul created when the body is formed (creationism); souls transmitted with the seed (traducianism); and the soul existing before the body, Origen's hypothesis, which Pamphilus presents as an open question.
No public-domain English translation of the Apology exists; checked privately against a modern English translation (FOTC 120); the Latin decides.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (OCR garble corrected; OCR slip corrected; OCR slips corrected; footnote and column number removed; lines lost in the scan (the end of the quotation, Pamphilus's heading, and the start of his comment) marked …; lines lost in the scan at the page turn marked …; note marker removed; note markers removed; speaker label corrected; speaker label misread by the OCR corrected; words rejoined): dt» gntata → dogmata; qui (τε) quodlibet → qui quodlibet; utputa, verbi causa dixerim, ἐ quis → utputa, verbi causa dixerim, si quis; novi- aliquid in- η troducentes, → novi aliquid introducentes.; Ρικριιιιυε. → PAMPHILUS.; URIGBNES. → ORIGENES.; (Ιέ eo → de eo; ηε (π) quod → quod; videatur inducere. et omnes diversa, → videatur inducere. … et omnes diversa,; anima difi‘unη dam": (ιυῙά ἀίεῖῐηυε de his (illi imperfccu'adhuc → anima diffundatur, quid dicimus de his qui imperfecti adhuc; “ Gen. ll, 7. 606 peccat → peccat; vresponde- θ contrario → respondebimus … contrario; ORIGBNES. → ORIGENES.; Euangeliuns secundum Hau/imum → Evangelium secundum Matthaeum.

Extrabiblical texts: Origen, Princ. 1.8.4 (Origen, On First Principles; quotation)

Topics: Heresy, Eschatology

Cite (SBL): Pamphilus, Apol. Orig. 9.1 (PG 17:604a–608b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/9-1/#p-9-1). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-pamphilus-apologia-origene-9-1) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude from Rufinus's Latin in Migne's Patrologia Graeca 17 (scan OCR, corrections logged). No public-domain English translation exists; checked afterwards privately against a modern English translation (not reproduced), with the Latin deciding every question.

Chapter 10

10.1PG 17:608b–615a

ORIGENES. Quidam quidem opinati sunt ex eo quod dictum est: Ipse est Elias qui venturus est: animam Eliae eamdem fuisse quam Joannis. Quod enim dixit: Ipse est Elias, non ad aliud, sed ad animam referendum putarunt, et ex hoc pene solo sermone dogma introduxerunt μετενσωματώσεως, id est, transmutationis animarum, quasi etiam ipso hoc Jesu confirmante. Sed oportuerat intueri, quia si hoc verum esset, in multis utique prophetarum vel Evangeliorum scriptis simile aliquid inveniri deberet. Tum deinde etiam ille sermo qui huic adjungitur, ostendit secretiorem quemdam … qualia peccata Eliae anima transmutata est in Joannem, qui ab ipso angelo nasciturus praenuntiatur, a quo et Jesus Salvator noster? Quomodo ergo non hoc evidentissimum mendacium est, ut ille qui tam perfectus fuit, ut ne communem quidem istam mortem gustaret, veniret ad transmutationem animae, quae secundum illorum assertionem non potest accidere nisi ex peccatis? Deinde quomodo hoc exponent quod dictum est ad Joannem: Tu Elias es? Et dicit: Non sum. Sed ut ostendatur conve… hoc etiam illi verbo quod dixit Dominus: Si vultis suscipere, ipse est Elias qui venturus est: quod dixit, Elias ipse est, referendum est ad spiritum et virtutem ipsius Eliae. Joannes enim processit in spiritu et virtute Eliae convertere corda patrum ad filios. PAMPHILUS. De eo ipso, ex undecimo libro de Evangelio secundum Matthaeum. ORIGENES. Hi quidem qui alieni sunt a catholica fide, transferri animas ex humanis corporibus in corpora animalium putant, secundum differentiam peccatorum. Nos vero qui hoc nusquam cautum invenimus in divina Scriptura, dicimus quia per multam vitae negligentiam humana prudentia, cum fuerit inculta atque neglecta, efficitur velut irrationabile pecus per imperitiam vel negligentiam, non per naturam. Similiter autem et qui tales fuerint effecti ex propositi sui negligentia, … qua erudiri neglexerint, si eruditioni se ac exercitio rationabili dediderint, rationabiles efficiuntur atque prudentes: sicut scriptum est de evangelicis canibus qui manducabant de micis quae cadunt de mensa dominorum suorum: ex quibus conversa Chananaea facta est Dei filia, secundum quod dicit ad eam Salvator: O filia, magna est fides tua. Sicut enim virtus animi confert unicuique ut sit filius Dei, ita malitia mentis et verborum … PAMPHILUS. De eodem, ex tertio decimo libro … ORIGENES. In his Elias, non anima dici mihi videtur, uti ne incurramus in dogma alienum ab Ecclesia Dei de transmutatione animarum, quod nec ab apostolis traditum est, nec usquam Scripturis cautum est. Contrarium namque est his quae dicta sunt ab Apostolo: Quoniam quae videntur temporalia sunt; et ubi est hoc quod omnes Scripturae confirmant, quod praesens saeculum finiendum est? Sed nec illud poterit stare quod dictum est: Caelum et terra transibunt; neque illud quod dicit Apostolus: Transibit enim habitus hujus mundi; et illud: Caeli peribunt, et ea quae sequuntur. Si enim (ut aiunt auctores hujus dogmatis) nemo potest in id initium restitui, quod primo … ab initio mundi usque ad finem, qua ex causa mutari animam vel transferri secundo vel tertio opus est, vel frequenter? Hoc enim modo delicta uniuscujusque perhibent et poenas lui, si in diversa corpora frequentius transmittantur. Quod utique superfluo fiet, si finis nullus emendationis occurrat, nec erit unquam quando non anima transferatur. Et si semper pro delictis animabus corpora diversa redeundum est, quis unquam mundo dabitur finis, ut impleatur illud quod dictum est: Caelum et terra transibunt? Quod etsi concedatur, verbi gratia, ut sit aliquis sine peccato, quem non sit necesse revolvi in corpus, quot per tempora putabimus inveniri? unam fortasse vix animam quae penitus pura sit, nec permutatione corporis indigeat. Quod et ipsum si concedatur, rursum contrarium suum dogma efficitur. Si enim demus paucas quasque animas per singulos ad perfectionem posse restitui, ita ut ultra in corpora venire non indigeant, necesse est (licet per infinita saecula et immensa tempora) singulis quibusque animabus ad perfectionem restitutis, cessare … usum corporum, et per hoc finem mundum recipere ac resolvi. Non tamen ita videtur sanctae Scripturae, quae dicit multitudinem peccantium relinquendam esse in fine saeculi. Quod ex eo manifestissime indicatur quod in Evangelio scriptum est: Verumtamen putas veniens Filius hominis inveniet fidem super terram? et quemadmodum apud Matthaeum ita expressum invenimus: Sicut enim in diebus Noe, ita erit et adventus Filii hominis. PAMPHILUS. Et posteaquam de Scripturis multa disseruit, ipse jam suam sententiam hoc modo declarat. ORIGENES. Erit autem his qui tunc erunt vindicta, non ex transmutatione animarum: non jam ad peccandum locus erit, sed alia genera poenarum. Transmutatio namque corporum poenam non faciet peccatorum, ita ut nulla extrinsecus putentur inferri supplicia; quin potius est peccatorum … poenarum modus, id est ut pro his quae in mundo gesserunt, poenam recipiant delictorum. Manifestum tamen est quod … singulae rationes his … possunt rei consequentiam diligenter advertere, contrariae sunt huic dogmati quo perhibentur animae transmutari. Quod si gentilium auctores sequi volunt qui opinionem istam ex principiorum suorum consequentia persecuti sunt, dicentes cum haec fiant, sine dubio nunquam mundum istum posse finiri, consequens est eos qui haec sentiunt, Scripturae nostrae non credere, quae manifestissime pronuntiat finem mundi futurum, et non exquirere in ipsis Scripturis expositiones, sive assertiones ineptas et inconsequentes, ex quibus nullo genere ostendi potest quod secundum Scripturas nostras nunquam finis futurus sit. PAMPHILUS. De eadem re, ex libro De Proverbiis Salomonis. ORIGENES. Videtur autem mihi et illa assertio quae transformari animas de corporibus in alia corpora asseverat, pervenisse etiam in aliquos eorum qui Christo credere videntur, ex quibusdam Scripturae sanctae occasionibus, non intelligentes quomodo intelligi debeant quae scripta sunt. Non enim advertunt quomodo homo efficiatur … aut pullus, equus, aut mulus; et putaverunt transmutari humanam animam in pecudum corpora, ut aestimarent quod aliquando serpentis suscipit corpus, vel viperae, aliquando equi, vel reliquorum animalium. Jam ergo consequens est et hoc illos dicere debere, quod diabolus, qui leo in Scripturis dicitur, corpore leonis utatur, aut draconis carnibus, cum draco nominatur; ita erit ut secundum illos transmutatio ista animarum perveniat et in daemonum naturam, ut sit aliquando vel leo vel draco animam habens diabolum. PAMPHILUS. Et paulo post: ORIGENES. Sed superfluae sunt istae omnes adinventiones. Manifestum est enim quod una poena …

Origen: "Some have supposed, from the saying 'He is Elijah who is to come', that the soul of Elijah was the same as that of John. For they thought that 'He is Elijah' was to be referred to nothing else but the soul; and from this saying almost alone they introduced the doctrine of metensomatosis, that is, the transmigration of souls, as if Jesus himself confirmed it. But they should have observed that, if this were true, something similar would surely have to be found in many writings of the prophets or the Gospels. Then the words joined to this saying also show a more hidden … for what sins was the soul of Elijah changed into John, whose birth was foretold by the same angel by whom Jesus our Saviour too (was foretold)? How, then, is this not a most evident lie: that he who was so perfect that he did not even taste this common death should come to a transmigration of soul, which according to their own assertion cannot happen except because of sins? Then, how will they explain what was said to John, 'Are you Elijah?' and he says, 'I am not'? But so that it may be shown to agree … with the Lord's saying too, 'If you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come': his saying 'He is Elijah' is to be referred to the spirit and power of Elijah himself. For John went forth in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children."

Pamphilus: On the same matter, from the eleventh book on the Gospel according to Matthew.

Origen: "Those who are strangers to the catholic faith think that souls are transferred from human bodies into the bodies of animals, according to the difference of their sins. But we, who find this nowhere laid down in divine Scripture, say that through great negligence of life human prudence, when it has been left uncultivated and neglected, becomes like an irrational beast through lack of skill or negligence, not by nature. Likewise those who have become such through the negligence of their purpose, … by which they neglected to be taught, if they give themselves to instruction and rational exercise, become rational and prudent; as it is written of the dogs in the Gospel, who ate of the crumbs that fall from their masters' table: from among them the Canaanite woman, converted, was made a daughter of God, according to what the Saviour says to her, 'O daughter, great is your faith.' For just as virtue of mind brings it about for each one that he is a son of God, so wickedness of mind and words …"

Pamphilus: On the same, from the thirteenth book …

Origen: "In these words it seems to me that it is not the soul that is called Elijah, lest we fall into the doctrine, foreign to the Church of God, of the transmigration of souls, which was neither handed down by the apostles nor laid down anywhere in the Scriptures. For it is contrary to what the Apostle said, 'For the things that are seen are temporal'; and where is what all the Scriptures confirm, that the present age is to be brought to an end? Nor will this saying be able to stand, 'Heaven and earth will pass away'; nor what the Apostle says, 'For the form of this world will pass away'; and this, 'The heavens will perish', and what follows. For if, as the authors of this doctrine say, no one can be restored to that beginning which … first … from the beginning of the world to the end, for what reason is it necessary for the soul to be changed or transferred a second or a third time, or often? For in this way they say that each one's offences and punishments are paid, if souls are transferred quite often into different bodies. That will certainly happen to no purpose if no end of amendment occurs, and there will never be a time when the soul is not being transferred. And if souls must always return to different bodies for their offences, what end will ever be given to the world, so that the saying may be fulfilled, 'Heaven and earth will pass away'? And even if it be granted, for example, that someone may be without sin, so that he need not be rolled back into a body, how many shall we suppose are found in the course of time? Perhaps scarcely one soul that is wholly pure and has no need of a change of body. And even if this be granted, their doctrine again becomes contrary to itself. For if we grant that some few souls, one by one, can be restored to perfection, so that they need not come into bodies any more, then it is necessary, even through infinite ages and immeasurable times, once each and every soul has been restored to perfection, that … the use of bodies should cease, and through this that the world should receive its end and be dissolved. Yet holy Scripture does not seem to think so, for it says that a multitude of sinners will be left at the end of the age. This is shown most plainly by what is written in the Gospel: 'Yet, when the Son of Man comes, do you think he will find faith on the earth?' and as we find it expressed in Matthew: 'For as in the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.'"

Pamphilus: And after he had discussed many things from the Scriptures, he now declares his own opinion in this way:

Origen: "There will be vengeance on those who are then, not by transmigration of souls; there will no longer be room for sinning, but other kinds of punishment. For transmigration of bodies will not make a punishment of sins, such that no punishments are thought to be inflicted from outside; rather there is … a manner of punishments for sins, that is, that they receive the penalty of their offences for what they did in the world. It is plain, however, that … every single argument, to those (who) can carefully attend to the consequence of the matter, is contrary to this doctrine by which souls are said to be transmigrated. And if they wish to follow the pagan authors, who pursued this opinion as a consequence of their own principles, saying that while these things happen this world can without doubt never come to an end, it follows that those who think so do not believe our Scripture, which most plainly declares that the end of the world will come, and do not seek in the Scriptures themselves for explanations or assertions, foolish and inconsistent, from which it can in no way be shown that according to our Scriptures there will never be an end."

Pamphilus: On the same matter, from the book on the Proverbs of Solomon.

Origen: "It seems to me that the assertion which maintains that souls are transformed from bodies into other bodies has reached even some of those who appear to believe in Christ, through certain occasions taken from holy Scripture, since they do not understand how what is written ought to be understood. For they do not notice how a man becomes … or a colt, a horse, or a mule; and they thought that the human soul is changed into the bodies of beasts, so that they supposed it sometimes takes the body of a snake, or a viper, sometimes of a horse, or of other animals. It follows, then, that they ought to say this too: that the devil, who is called a lion in the Scriptures, uses the body of a lion, or the flesh of a dragon when he is called a dragon; and so, according to them, this transmigration of souls will reach even the nature of demons, so that at times a lion or a dragon has the devil for its soul."

Pamphilus: And a little later:

Origen: "But all these inventions are superfluous. For it is plain that one punishment …

Matt 11:14 (quotation, high confidence) · Luke 1:13 (allusion, medium confidence) · Luke 1:17 (quotation, high confidence) · 2 Kgs 2:11 (allusion, medium confidence) · John 1:21 (quotation, high confidence) · Matt 15:27 (allusion, high confidence) · Matt 15:28 (quotation, high confidence) · Matt 17:12 (allusion, medium confidence) · 2 Cor 4:18 (quotation, high confidence) · Matt 24:35 (quotation, high confidence) · 1 Cor 7:31 (quotation, high confidence) · Ps 102:26 (101:27 LXX) (quotation, high confidence) · Luke 18:8 (quotation, high confidence) · Matt 24:37 (quotation, high confidence) · Ps 32:9 (31:9 LXX) (allusion, medium confidence) · 1 Pet 5:8 (allusion, high confidence) · Rev 12:9 (allusion, medium confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: Pamphilus answers the charge that Origen taught the transmigration of souls with passages in which Origen rejects it as foreign to the Church and contrary to Scripture's teaching that the world will end.

Origen's quotations: his Commentary on Matthew, books 7, 11, and 13 (the last survives in Greek, 13.1, on Matt 17:10–13), and his lost commentary on Proverbs. Pamphilus says that the first passage comes from the seventh book; Origen there argues that John the Baptist was Elijah in "spirit and power" (Luke 1:17), not by the return of Elijah's soul.
In Migne this passage is printed in three columns: Rufinus's text, a new Latin translation of the surviving Greek of Commentary on Matthew 13.1 (Huet's), and notes. The scan mixes all three. Only Rufinus's text is given; it has been sorted out by sense, and words lost at the column edges are shown as "…". Migne's editor notes that at "there will no longer be room for sinning" Rufinus's Latin differs from the Greek, which speaks of those who are found still sinning.
The staged text breaks off at "one punishment …"; the rest of the Apology is not in this section.
No public-domain English translation of the Apology exists; checked privately against a modern English translation (FOTC 120); the Latin decides.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (the scan mixes three columns here: Rufinus's text, a new Latin translation of the surviving Greek of Origen's Commentary on Matthew 13.1 printed beside it by Migne (Interpretatio Huetii), and Migne's notes; Rufinus's text is kept and put in order by sense, the other two are dropped; first letters cut at the edge of the column are restored only where certain (e.g. -num → alienum, -di → mundi, -mam → animam); words lost at the column edges are marked …; the text breaks off where the staged section ends): Ontcsnss. Quidam quidem opinati sunt ex eo quod dictum est : Ipse est Elius qui venturus est " : animam Elite eamdem fuisse quam Joannis. Quod enim dixit : Ipse est Elius, nou ad aliud, sed ad animam referendum putarunt, et ex hoc pene solo sermone dogma introduxerunt μέτενσωματὼσεως, id est, transmutationis animarum, quasi etiam ipso hoc Jesu confirmante. Sed dportuerat intueri, quia si hoc verum esset, in multis utique prophetarum vel Evangeliorum scriptis simile aliquid inveniri deberet. Tum deinde etiam ille sermo qui huic adjungitur, osi‘endit secretioremquemdamm qua]! peccata Elite anima transmutata est in Joan- es nire uem, qui ab ipso angelo nasciturus praenuntiatur, a quoetJesus Salvator noster? Quomodo ergo non hoc evidentissimum hoc mendacium cst, ut ille qui tam perlectus luit, ut ne communem quidem istam mortem gustaret, veniret ad transmutationem animae, qum secundum illorum assertionem non potest accidere nisi ex peccatis? (92') Deinde quomodo hoc exponent quod dictum est ad Joannem : Tu Elius bus bi tia que illis bus que , INTERPRETATIO .9 Et dicit : Non sum . Sed ut ostendatur conve— hoc etiam illi verbo quod dixit Dominus: Si uultis suscipere, ipse est Elias qui venturus esu" : quod dixit, Elias ipse est, referendum est ad spiritum et virtutem ipsius Eiiac. Joannes enim processit in spiritu et virtute Elim conuertere corda patrumad filios“. Ρλιιιιιιιυε. De eo ipso, ex undecimo libro de Evangelia secundum Μ attiiazum. (9'5) ORIGENES. ε Hi quidem qui aiieni sunta catholica lide, transferri animas ex humanis corpori- in corpora animalium putant, secundum difi’e- 'entiam peccatorum. Nos vero qui hoc nusquam cautum invenimus in divina Scriptura, dicimus quia per multam vitae negligentiam humana prudentia, cum l'uerit inculta atque neglecta, elficitur velut irrationabile pecus per imperitiam vel negligentiam, non per naturam. Similiter autem et qui tales fuerint ellecti ex propositi sui negligen- qna erudiri neglexerint, si eruditioni se at- exercitio rationabili dediderint , rationabiles elliciuntur atque prudentes : sicut scriptum est de evangelicis canibus qui manducabant de micis quae cadunt de mensa dominorum suorum : ex qui- conversa Cltananzea facta est Dei lilia , secundum quod dicit ad eam Salvator : filia, magna est fides tua ". Sicut enim virtus animi confert unicui- ut sit lilius Dei, ita malitia mentis et verborum Ριιιιιιιιιιιε. Doeodem, ex tertio decimo libro (96‘) Onioeuss. (9:) ln his Elias,non anima dici mihi videtur, uti ne ineurramus in dogma num ab Ecclesia Dei de transmutatione animarum, quod nec ab apostolis traditum est, nec usquam Scripturis cautum est. Contrarium namque est quae dicta sunt ab Apostolo : Quoniam quae uidentur temporalia sunt , ξ et ubi est hoc quod omnes Scriptura: conlirmant,quod praesens saeculum finiendum est . Sed nec illud poterit stare quod dictum est : Caelum et terra transibunt ; neque illud dicit Apostolus : Transibit enim habitus hujus di ; et illud : Caeli peribunt , et ea quae sequuntur. Si enim ( ut aiunt auctores hujus dogmatis) nemo potest in id initium restitui, quod primo ab initio mundi usque ad finem, qua ex causa mutari animam vel transferri secundo vel opus cst, vel frequenter? Hoc enim modo delicta uniuscujusque perhibent, et poenas lui, in diversa corpora frequentius transmittantur. Quod utique superfluo fiet, si finis nullus emendationis occurrat, nec erit unquam quando non anima transferatur. Et si semper pro delictis animabus corpora diversa redeundum est, quis unquam mundo dabitur linis, ut impleatur illud quod dictum est Caelum et terra transibunt 8°? Quod etsi concedatur, verbi gratia. ut sit aliquis sine peccato , quem non sit necesse revolvi in corpus, (l) per tempora putabimus inveniri unam fortasse vix mam quae penitus pura sit, nec permutatione poris indigeat? Quod et ipsum si concedatur, sum contrarium suum dogma efficitur. Si enim mus paucas quasque animas per singulos ad fectionem posse restitui, ita ut ultra in corpora venire non indigeant, necesse est (licet per infinita saecula et immensa tempora) singulis quibusque animabus ad perfectionem restitutis, cessare ex Evangelia secundum Matthwum. Elia: aliein his · τὸ, Ol quod munfuit imtertio reddi si ad : jam quot anicor- rurde- per- · jam INTERPRETATIO HUETII. significari._ne fortein alienam ab Ecclesia Dei de migratione _e traditam, neque uspiam in Scripturis prolatam incicaduca ea esse quae videntur. et consummatum iri saa- et terra transibunt ; et : Praeterit enim figura hujus Nam si, ut id ponamus, in eo rerum statu qui'ab eadem anima bis corpus subire potest, ecquamnam ob corpus subit, cur non ter, et saepius subibit, cum per mialia quavis ratione vita haec, in eaque admissa flagitia puconcessum, nunquam non fortasse anima e corpore ἰῖι corpus ξι) corpore versabitur , atque ita locum non habebit Ut autem concedatur-Juxta hanc positionem. eum qui inucorpus rediturum ; an'toto temporum decursu reperiri ullius'in aliud corpus migration'is egentem? Verumtanumero excedente, nec amplius redeunte in corpus, ortus redacto scilicet ad unum.— vel alterum, vel paulo plures interibit, deficientibus qui in corpus eant'; quod-Scrisiquidem peccatorum futuramwnovit ξ quo tempore interperspicuum est : Verumtamen F ilius hominis veniens , putas 1 Cor. vit, 3i. "° Psal. cr, 27. Matth. xxiv,55. xxrv, ut in textu. 99) lta mss. Editi vero, transmutantur. 1)_Alias perperam, per quod per tenipora.lPaulo nisi post editi, rursum suo dogmati contrarium dficitur. Re- Si enim demus... per singulas ad perfectionem posse restitui, utultraiu corpora, etc. Mss. autem ut in textu. ac rae, dam Verumtamen indicatur quod in Evangelio scriptum est: super terram ίῖ Sicut enim in diebus Noe, ita erit et aduentus INTERPRETATIO inveniet fidem in terra? et quemadmodum apud Matthteum diebus Noe, ita erit et adventus Filii hominis. Ριιιιιιιιιιυε. (~2) Et posteaquam de Scripturis multa disseruit, enim erunt nam ribus “ hoc qui mte · sine tiat test saeculi INTERPRETATIO Punientur autem eorum peccataqui tunc erunt , uon per huc peccantes deprehettduutitr,_vel alio pinnae genere niendi rationes erunt; illa quidem per transitum e corpore illarum causas et dill‘erentias exponant: vel non qui in consummatione iuerintdepreltensi; χοι-«ιιιοά corpore peccaverunt, poenas videlicet extra illud,__et extra rite dantes. Unumquodque autem illorum, ut faei|e__intell_igit de migratione auittiarum Ae corpore in corpus funditus varia corpora invehuntethnici,‘utpote consentanea sario non'admittunt,superest ut postquam Scripturis mundi vel (idem iis non habeant, vel verba reperiantquibusea possint, quod facere neutiquam poterunt, etiamsi velint. Puputws. De eadem re, ex libro De Proverbiis Ι) plura: modo Salomonis. Ontccnss. Videtur autem mihi et illa assertio quae transformari animas de corporibus in alia cor- aut pora asseverat, pervenisse etiam in aliquos eorum qui Christo credere videntur, ex quibusdam Scri- ’ί Luc. XVIII, 8. υ Matth. XXIV, 57. (‘2)_Et posteaquam_de Scripturis multa disseruit, etim etc'. 'Certe sequens Origenis contextus immediate priorem sequitur in Graeco: adeoque inter utrumque nihil de Scripturis disseruit Origenes. (3‘) Rulini interpretatio. 5)’ Ex lib. xm Comment. in Mattha’nm, num. l. 5 Ex lib. xm Comment. in Mattlnvnm, num. Ι. 4; Sic omnes mss. At vero editi , non transmutatio animarum : non enim jam ad peccandum locus erit, etc. Notanda Rufini interpretis pertidia qui hic mea reddidit, non enim iam ad peccandnmnocus erit, usum corporum, et per hoc finem mundum recipere resolvi. Non tamen ita videtur sancta: Scriptu- quae dicit multitudinem peccantium relinquen- esse in [ine saeculi. Quod ex eo manifestissime putas ueniens Filius hominis inveniet fidem Filii hominis 2 HUETll. ita expressum invenimus : Sicut autem in ipse jam suam sententiain hoc modo declarat. (2') Ontcstvss. Erit autem his qui tunc erunt vittdicta, non ex transmutatione animarum τ ιιοιι jam ad peccandum locus eritzsed alia genera pinum. Transmutatio namque corporum pte- non faciet peccatorum, ita ut nulla extrinsecus putentur inferri supplicia , quin potius est peccato- paanarum modus, id est ut pro his quae itt mundo gesserunt, pmttam recipiant delictorum. Manifestum tamen est quod isne singula: rationes his possunt rei consequentiam diligenter advertere, contrariae sunt huic dogmati quo perhibentur aui- transmutari. Quod si gentilium auctores sequi volunt qui opinionem istam ex principiorum suorum consequentia persecuti sunt, dicentes cum haec (iant, dubio nunquam mundum istum posse finiri, consequens est eos qui inec sentiunt, Scriptura: nostrae non credere, quae manifestissime pronun- finem mundi futurum, et non exquirere in ipsis Scripturis expositiones, sive assertiones ineptas et inconsequentes, ex quibus nullo genere ostendi po quod secundum Scripturas nostras nunquam linis futurus sit. HUETII. migrationem e corpore in corpus : nam si ad postea punienturtac duae proinde generales pu- in corpus ; illa vero extra hocc'e corpus ς’ ac punientur, quasi peccata sua confestim ‘alijecerint melius es‘t._uua tantum ratione plectuntur; qtti itt vitae huius statum ex peccaturum suorum tue- quisquis res introspicere petest, sententiam laliel'aetat.Quod si qui transitum animarum iit doctrina: huic astruentes, mundi interitqu iueces- occasum aSserentibus palam refragati fuerint, quae ad consummationem pertinent, explicare sanctae occasionibus , non intelligentes quo- intelligi debeant quae scripta sunt. Non enim advertunt quomodo homo efliciatur aut pullus, equus, aut mulus;et putaverunt transmutari humanam animam in pecudum corpora, ιιι aestimarentquod aliquando serpentis suscipit corpus, vel habeatur in Graeco, ἔταραλαμόἁνονται, nam si adhuc-peccantes deurehen’ untur. “gilanti, quae in hoc corpus gesserunt. Mss. ut in ίαῖδξίιτ. mss. nostri. Editi vero, qui lucc uolunt. viperae, aliquando equi, vel reliquorum animalium. .lam ergo consequens est et hoc illos dicere debere, quod diabolus, qui leo in Scripturis dicitur ",corpore, leonis utatur. aut draconis carnibus, cum draco nominatur . ita erit ut secundum illos transmutatio ista animarum perveniatet in daemonum naturam, ut sitaliquando vel leo vel draco animam habens diabolum. PAMPHILUS. Et paulo post: Onrcenss. r Sed superflua: sunt istae omnes adinventiones. Manifestum est enim quod una ptena → ORIGENES. Quidam quidem opinati sunt ex eo quod dictum est: Ipse est Elias qui venturus est: animam Eliae eamdem fuisse quam Joannis. Quod enim dixit: Ipse est Elias, non ad aliud, sed ad animam referendum putarunt, et ex hoc pene solo sermone dogma introduxerunt μετενσωματώσεως, id est, transmutationis animarum, quasi etiam ipso hoc Jesu confirmante. Sed oportuerat intueri, quia si hoc verum esset, in multis utique prophetarum vel Evangeliorum scriptis simile aliquid inveniri deberet. Tum deinde etiam ille sermo qui huic adjungitur, ostendit secretiorem quemdam … qualia peccata Eliae anima transmutata est in Joannem, qui ab ipso angelo nasciturus praenuntiatur, a quo et Jesus Salvator noster? Quomodo ergo non hoc evidentissimum mendacium est, ut ille qui tam perfectus fuit, ut ne communem quidem istam mortem gustaret, veniret ad transmutationem animae, quae secundum illorum assertionem non potest accidere nisi ex peccatis? Deinde quomodo hoc exponent quod dictum est ad Joannem: Tu Elias es? Et dicit: Non sum. Sed ut ostendatur conve… hoc etiam illi verbo quod dixit Dominus: Si vultis suscipere, ipse est Elias qui venturus est: quod dixit, Elias ipse est, referendum est ad spiritum et virtutem ipsius Eliae. Joannes enim processit in spiritu et virtute Eliae convertere corda patrum ad filios. PAMPHILUS. De eo ipso, ex undecimo libro de Evangelio secundum Matthaeum. ORIGENES. Hi quidem qui alieni sunt a catholica fide, transferri animas ex humanis corporibus in corpora animalium putant, secundum differentiam peccatorum. Nos vero qui hoc nusquam cautum invenimus in divina Scriptura, dicimus quia per multam vitae negligentiam humana prudentia, cum fuerit inculta atque neglecta, efficitur velut irrationabile pecus per imperitiam vel negligentiam, non per naturam. Similiter autem et qui tales fuerint effecti ex propositi sui negligentia, … qua erudiri neglexerint, si eruditioni se ac exercitio rationabili dediderint, rationabiles efficiuntur atque prudentes: sicut scriptum est de evangelicis canibus qui manducabant de micis quae cadunt de mensa dominorum suorum: ex quibus conversa Chananaea facta est Dei filia, secundum quod dicit ad eam Salvator: O filia, magna est fides tua. Sicut enim virtus animi confert unicuique ut sit filius Dei, ita malitia mentis et verborum … PAMPHILUS. De eodem, ex tertio decimo libro … ORIGENES. In his Elias, non anima dici mihi videtur, uti ne incurramus in dogma alienum ab Ecclesia Dei de transmutatione animarum, quod nec ab apostolis traditum est, nec usquam Scripturis cautum est. Contrarium namque est his quae dicta sunt ab Apostolo: Quoniam quae videntur temporalia sunt; et ubi est hoc quod omnes Scripturae confirmant, quod praesens saeculum finiendum est? Sed nec illud poterit stare quod dictum est: Caelum et terra transibunt; neque illud quod dicit Apostolus: Transibit enim habitus hujus mundi; et illud: Caeli peribunt, et ea quae sequuntur. Si enim (ut aiunt auctores hujus dogmatis) nemo potest in id initium restitui, quod primo … ab initio mundi usque ad finem, qua ex causa mutari animam vel transferri secundo vel tertio opus est, vel frequenter? Hoc enim modo delicta uniuscujusque perhibent et poenas lui, si in diversa corpora frequentius transmittantur. Quod utique superfluo fiet, si finis nullus emendationis occurrat, nec erit unquam quando non anima transferatur. Et si semper pro delictis animabus corpora diversa redeundum est, quis unquam mundo dabitur finis, ut impleatur illud quod dictum est: Caelum et terra transibunt? Quod etsi concedatur, verbi gratia, ut sit aliquis sine peccato, quem non sit necesse revolvi in corpus, quot per tempora putabimus inveniri? unam fortasse vix animam quae penitus pura sit, nec permutatione corporis indigeat. Quod et ipsum si concedatur, rursum contrarium suum dogma efficitur. Si enim demus paucas quasque animas per singulos ad perfectionem posse restitui, ita ut ultra in corpora venire non indigeant, necesse est (licet per infinita saecula et immensa tempora) singulis quibusque animabus ad perfectionem restitutis, cessare … usum corporum, et per hoc finem mundum recipere ac resolvi. Non tamen ita videtur sanctae Scripturae, quae dicit multitudinem peccantium relinquendam esse in fine saeculi. Quod ex eo manifestissime indicatur quod in Evangelio scriptum est: Verumtamen putas veniens Filius hominis inveniet fidem super terram? et quemadmodum apud Matthaeum ita expressum invenimus: Sicut enim in diebus Noe, ita erit et adventus Filii hominis. PAMPHILUS. Et posteaquam de Scripturis multa disseruit, ipse jam suam sententiam hoc modo declarat. ORIGENES. Erit autem his qui tunc erunt vindicta, non ex transmutatione animarum: non jam ad peccandum locus erit, sed alia genera poenarum. Transmutatio namque corporum poenam non faciet peccatorum, ita ut nulla extrinsecus putentur inferri supplicia; quin potius est peccatorum … poenarum modus, id est ut pro his quae in mundo gesserunt, poenam recipiant delictorum. Manifestum tamen est quod … singulae rationes his … possunt rei consequentiam diligenter advertere, contrariae sunt huic dogmati quo perhibentur animae transmutari. Quod si gentilium auctores sequi volunt qui opinionem istam ex principiorum suorum consequentia persecuti sunt, dicentes cum haec fiant, sine dubio nunquam mundum istum posse finiri, consequens est eos qui haec sentiunt, Scripturae nostrae non credere, quae manifestissime pronuntiat finem mundi futurum, et non exquirere in ipsis Scripturis expositiones, sive assertiones ineptas et inconsequentes, ex quibus nullo genere ostendi potest quod secundum Scripturas nostras nunquam finis futurus sit. PAMPHILUS. De eadem re, ex libro De Proverbiis Salomonis. ORIGENES. Videtur autem mihi et illa assertio quae transformari animas de corporibus in alia corpora asseverat, pervenisse etiam in aliquos eorum qui Christo credere videntur, ex quibusdam Scripturae sanctae occasionibus, non intelligentes quomodo intelligi debeant quae scripta sunt. Non enim advertunt quomodo homo efficiatur … aut pullus, equus, aut mulus; et putaverunt transmutari humanam animam in pecudum corpora, ut aestimarent quod aliquando serpentis suscipit corpus, vel viperae, aliquando equi, vel reliquorum animalium. Jam ergo consequens est et hoc illos dicere debere, quod diabolus, qui leo in Scripturis dicitur, corpore leonis utatur, aut draconis carnibus, cum draco nominatur; ita erit ut secundum illos transmutatio ista animarum perveniat et in daemonum naturam, ut sit aliquando vel leo vel draco animam habens diabolum. PAMPHILUS. Et paulo post: ORIGENES. Sed superfluae sunt istae omnes adinventiones. Manifestum est enim quod una poena ….

Topics: Eschatology, Heresy, Scripture and canon

Cite (SBL): Pamphilus, Apol. Orig. 10.1 (PG 17:608b–615a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/pamphilus-apologia-origene/9-1/#p-10-1). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-pamphilus-apologia-origene-10-1) · Report an error