Jerome's Apology for Himself Against the Books of Rufinus

Life and Works of Rufinus, with Jerome's Apology · Rufinus of Aquileia

Preface.
It is hard that an old friend with whom I had been reconciled should attack me in a book secretly circulated among his disciples.
Others have translated Origen. Why does he single me out?
He gave me fictitious praise in his Preface to the Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν. Now, since I defend myself, he writes 3 books against me as an enemy.
He spoke of me as united in faith with him; but what is his faith? Why are his books kept secret? I can meet any attack.
He spoke of me as united in faith with him; but what is his faith? Why are his books kept secret? I can meet any attack.
I translated the Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν because you demanded it, and because his translation slurred over Origen's heresies.
My translation put away ambiguities, and showed the real character of the book, and of the previous translation.
My translation of Origen's Commentaries created no excitement; his first translation, of Pamphilus' Apology, roused all Rome to indignation.
But the work was really Eusebius's, who tells us that Pamphilus wrote nothing.
After the condemnation of Origen by Theophilus and Anastasius, it would be wise in Rufinus to give up this pretended defence.
I had praised Eusebius as well as Origen only as writers; and was forced to condemn them as heretics. Why should this be taken amiss?
I wrote a friendly letter to Rufinus, which my friends kept back.
There is nothing to blame in my getting the help of a Jew in translating from the Hebrew.
There is nothing strange in my praising Origen before I knew the Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν.
The accusations seem inconsistent, but I knew them only by report.
The office of a commentator.
We must distinguish methods of writing, and not expect a vulgar simplicity in the various compositions of cultured men.
My assertion was true, that Origen permitted the use of falsehood.
The accusation about a mistranslation of Ps. ii is easily explained.
In the difficulties of the translator and the commentator we must get help where we can.
In the Commentary on Ephesians I acted straightforwardly in giving the views of Origen and others.
As to the passage “He hath chosen us before the foundation of the world.”
As to the passage “Far above all rule and authority &c.”
As to the passage “That in the ages to come &c.“
As to “Paul the prisoner of Jesus Christ.”
As to “The body fitly framed &c.”
I quoted Origen's views as, “According to another heresy.”
As to “Men loving their wives as their own bodies.”
As to “Men loving their wives as their own bodies.”
To the charge of reading secular books I reply that I remember what I learned in youth.
Also, a promise given in a dream must not be pressed. Why should such things be raked up by old friends against one another?
I am right in my contention that all sins are remitted in baptism.
Summary of the Chapters.
A criticism on Rufinus' Apology to Anastasius. His excuses for not coming to Rome are absurd. His parents are dead and the journey is easy. No one ever heard before of his being imprisoned or exiled for the faith.
A criticism on Rufinus' Apology to Anastasius. His excuses for not coming to Rome are absurd. His parents are dead and the journey is easy. No one ever heard before of his being imprisoned or exiled for the faith.
A criticism on Rufinus' Apology to Anastasius. His excuses for not coming to Rome are absurd. His parents are dead and the journey is easy. No one ever heard before of his being imprisoned or exiled for the faith.
His confession of faith is unsatisfactory. No one asked him about the Trinity, but about Origen's doctrines of the Resurrection, the origin of souls, and the salvability of Satan. As to the Resurrection and to Satan he is ambiguous. As to souls he professes ignorance.
His confession of faith is unsatisfactory. No one asked him about the Trinity, but about Origen's doctrines of the Resurrection, the origin of souls, and the salvability of Satan. As to the Resurrection and to Satan he is ambiguous. As to souls he professes ignorance.
His confession of faith is unsatisfactory. No one asked him about the Trinity, but about Origen's doctrines of the Resurrection, the origin of souls, and the salvability of Satan. As to the Resurrection and to Satan he is ambiguous. As to souls he professes ignorance.
His confession of faith is unsatisfactory. No one asked him about the Trinity, but about Origen's doctrines of the Resurrection, the origin of souls, and the salvability of Satan. As to the Resurrection and to Satan he is ambiguous. As to souls he professes ignorance.
His confession of faith is unsatisfactory. No one asked him about the Trinity, but about Origen's doctrines of the Resurrection, the origin of souls, and the salvability of Satan. As to the Resurrection and to Satan he is ambiguous. As to souls he professes ignorance.
What Latin! The poor souls must be tormented by his barbarisms.
It is not permitted to you to be ignorant of such a matter which all the churches know.
As to translating the Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν, it is not a question, but a charge that you unjustifiably altered the book.
Origen asserts Christ to be a creature, and maintains universal restitution. Where has he contradicted this?
Origen asserts Christ to be a creature, and maintains universal restitution. Where has he contradicted this?
The question is, as Anastasius says to John of Jerusalem, with what motive you translated the Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν.
You pretend not to be Origen's defender, but you publish and enlarge the Apology for him and allege the heretics' falsification of his works.
Your defence gains no support from Eusebius or Didymus, who, each for his own reason, defend the Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν as it stands.
If we may allege falsification at every turn we make a chaos of all past literature.
The object of Origen's letter, of which he translates only a part, is not to shew the falsification of his writings but to vituperate the Bishops who condemned him.
It is only in reference to a particular point in his dispute with Candidus that Origen alleges this falsification. The story of Hilary's being condemned through his writings having been falsified has no foundation.
That which you tell about myself in Damasus' council is mere after-dinner gossip.
The attack on Epiphanius as a plagiarist of Origen is an outrage on the Bishops generally. Origen never wrote 6000 books.
The attack on Epiphanius as a plagiarist of Origen is an outrage on the Bishops generally. Origen never wrote 6000 books.
I ascertained at the library at Cæsarea that the Apology you quote as Pamphilus' is the work of Eusebius.
The letter falsely circulated in Africa as mine, and expressing regret for my translation of the Old Test. from the Hebrew bears the mark of your hand. I have always honoured the Seventy Translators.
In proof of this, I bring forward the prefaces to my Translation of the Books from Genesis to Isaiah.
As to Daniel, it was necessary to point out that Bel and the Dragon, and similar stories were not found in the Hebrew.
A vindication of the importance of the Hebrew Text of Scripture.
Though the LXX has been of great value, we should be grateful for fresh translations from the original.
Preface.
Your letter is full of falsehood and violence. I will try not to take the same tone.
Why cannot we differ as friends? Why do you, by threats of death, compel me to answer?
Your shameful taunt that I wished to get copies of your Apology by bribing your Secretary is an imputation to me of practices which are your own.
Your shameful taunt that I wished to get copies of your Apology by bribing your Secretary is an imputation to me of practices which are your own.
Eusebius should not have accused you; but your charges against him will not stand.
You taunt me with boasting of my eloquence. Will you boast of your illiteracy?
You wish first to praise, then to amend me, but both with fisticuffs; and make it impossible for me to keep silence.
You wish first to praise, then to amend me, but both with fisticuffs; and make it impossible for me to keep silence.
Why cannot you join with me in condemning Origen, and so put an end to our quarrel?
The assertion that you had only two days for your answer is a fiction.
Your translation, contrariwise to my Commentaries, vouches for the soundness of Origen.
You try to shield Origen by falsely attributing the Apology for him to Pamphilus.
In my Commentaries my quotation of opposite opinions shows that neither is mine.
Had you translated honestly, you would not have had Origen's heresies imputed to you.
You say the Bishops of Italy accept your views on the Resurrection. I doubt it.
You rashly say that you will agree to whatever Theophilus lays down. You have to consider your friendship for Isidore now his enemy.
You speak of the Egyptian Bishop Paul. We received him, though an Origenist, as a stranger; and he has united himself to the orthodox faith. Not only Theophilus but the Emperors condemn Origen.
You speak of the Egyptian Bishop Paul. We received him, though an Origenist, as a stranger; and he has united himself to the orthodox faith. Not only Theophilus but the Emperors condemn Origen.
Against Vigilantius I wrote only what was right. I knew who had stirred him up against me.
As to the letter of Pope Anastasius condemning you, you will find that it is genuine.
Siricius who is dead may have written in your favour; Anastasius who is living writes to the East against you.
My departure from Rome for the East had nothing blameable in it as you insinuate.
Epiphanius, it is true, gave you the kiss of peace; but he showed afterwards that he had come to distrust you.
When we parted as friends I believed you a true believer; no one was sent to Rome to injure you.
You swear that you did not write my pretended retractation. Your style betrays you, and I have given a full answer about my translations already.
You bid me beware of falsification and treachery. You warn me against yourself.
There is nothing inconsistent in praising a man for some things and blaming him in others. You have done it in my case.
My ignorance of many natural phenomena is no excuse for your ignorance as to the origin of souls. You ought, according to your boasting dream to know everything. The thing of most importance was forgotten in your cargo of Eastern wares.
My ignorance of many natural phenomena is no excuse for your ignorance as to the origin of souls. You ought, according to your boasting dream to know everything. The thing of most importance was forgotten in your cargo of Eastern wares.
My ignorance of many natural phenomena is no excuse for your ignorance as to the origin of souls. You ought, according to your boasting dream to know everything. The thing of most importance was forgotten in your cargo of Eastern wares.
My ignorance of many natural phenomena is no excuse for your ignorance as to the origin of souls. You ought, according to your boasting dream to know everything. The thing of most importance was forgotten in your cargo of Eastern wares.
Your dream was a boast: mine of which you accuse me humbled me.
It was not I who first disclosed your heresies, but Epiphanius long ago and Aterbius before him.
As to our translations of the Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν, yours was doing harm, and mine was necessary in self-defence. You should be glad that heresy is exposed.
As to our translations of the Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν, yours was doing harm, and mine was necessary in self-defence. You should be glad that heresy is exposed.
As to our translations of the Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν, yours was doing harm, and mine was necessary in self-defence. You should be glad that heresy is exposed.
Your Apology for Origen did not save him but involved you in heresy.
My friendly letter was to prevent discord: the other to crush false opinions.
Pythagoras was rightly quoted by me. I produce some of his sayings.
Pythagoras was rightly quoted by me. I produce some of his sayings.
You threaten me with destruction. I will not reply in the same way. Personalities should be excluded from controversies of faith.
You threaten me with destruction. I will not reply in the same way. Personalities should be excluded from controversies of faith.
The way of peace is through the wisdom taught in the Book of Proverbs, and through unity in the faith.
The way of peace is through the wisdom taught in the Book of Proverbs, and through unity in the faith.