MAGISTROS MEOS NEC MUTO NEC ACCUSO:

RUFINUS O,N ORIGEN

Among the paradoxes involved in the dispute between Rufinus

of Aquileia and J erome over the orthodoxy of Origen, is the fact
that it is Jerome who supplies us with the Rufinian taunt: UMagistros meos nec muto nec accuso - My teachers I neither accuse
nor change." J erome presents an immediate but not very telling
reply: ((Nec enim damno) ut crimin.aris) institutores meos) sed
metuo iUud Isaiae) Vae iltis qui dicunt mala bona et bona mala
- Nor ,do I condemn, as yu charge, my instructors; but I fear
Isaias with his: Woe to those who call bad good and good bad" 1.
Rufinus and Jerome had been friends as youths engaged in
ascetical pursuits. As monastic founders in Bethlehem and Jerusalem they were involved in a quarrelover Origen not of their
making. Reconciled, they parted friends when Rufinus returned
to Rome in 397 only to fall victim to a coterie of Jerome's
Roman followers who accused him of Origenism for having,
innocently enough, praised Jerome as the perfect translator in the
preface to Rufinus' Latin version of the Peri Archon 2.
In his subsequent Apologia Against Jerome Rufinus furnishes
a detailed account of his involven1ent with the Peri Archon. On
his arrival in Rome he had been approached by a certain Macharius
who was writing a tract Against Astrologers and Mathematicians
and was experiencing difllculties in explaining the providence 01
God. On meeting Rufinus, he had requested the opinion of Origen
on this matter. Rufinus obliged by giving him a translation of
the Apologia tor Origen written by the martyr Pamphilus to
which Rufinus added a small volume of his own On the Falsification 0/ the Books 0/ Origen 3.
In his Apologia) Pamphilus presented Origen as a man of great
integrity who was above all else anxious to preserve the rule of

1 Jerome, Apol. 111, 18; cf. F. Murphy, Rufinus of Aquileia} Washington 1945, 69-70.
2 Rufinus, Praef. Peri Archon I, 1-2 (GCL 20, 245-46).
3 De Adult. Lib. Orig. 1-16 (CCL 20, 7-17); Apol. Pamph. pro Orig.
(PG 17, 542-615); cf. F. Murphy, Ruf. 82-90.

242

F.X. MURPHY

faith handed down by the Apostles. Confronting charges of heresy

made against Origen with extracts from his own works, Pamphilus
points out the soundness of his teaching on the Trinity and the
Incarnation, the orthodoxy of his notions concerning the soul,
and the reliability of his manner of interpreting the Scriptures 4.
In his own On the Falsification 0/ Origen Rufinus cites a
number of instances in which important churchmen's works had
been tampered with, beginning with Origen's own complaint about
a falsification with which he was confrontend personally. Rufinus
then lists interpolations in the Pseudo-'Clementine Recognitions;
falsif-ications of the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles, signalIed
by 1 ertullian in his refutation of Marcion; forgeries in Hilary's
De ~)ynodis) and the Letters of Cyprian of Cartbage. He finally
cites Jerome's experience with a copy of a work of Athanasius.
Rufinus finishes the tract with the remark that for the most part,
the people who malign Origen were men who ((write books, the
whole matter of which is borrowed from Origen."
He had
Epiphanius of Cyprus in mind; Jerome's friends took it for an
attack on Jerome 5.
Having had his appetite for Origen whetted, Macharius
urged Run.nus to favor him with a Latin version of the Peri Archon.
With reluctance, forseeing possible conflict with the anti-Origenists
Rufinus consented. In the preface to the first seetion of this
work he attempted to ward off criticism by appealing to Jerorne's
methods of translation as his model 6.
:Long considered a primitive Summa theologiae) the Pt.rz
Archon has recently been recognized for \vhat it reaHy is: aseries
of studies regarding what "Te would be tempted to call a meta..
physics beginning with special quest1.o11s on the Trinity and the
way of salvation that pertain to faith; and considerations of
created nature that are open to the speculations of reaSOll.
'Thanks to Fr. Steidle and Marguerite Harl, a reo1}dering ot
the chapters and their headings has reveled the true nature of the
treatise which fits in \vith tbe literary genre of its age 7.
In the preface to the Peri Archon) Rufinus had lauded his friend
and erstwhile colleague, Jerome, as a model for translators. He
1

Apol. Pamph. 2-10, F. Murphy, 84-85.

Ruf. De Adult. 2, 15 ('CeL 20, 8-16); Cf. G. Bardy, Fa,ux et fraudes
litteraires dans l'antiquite chretienne} RHE 32 (1936) 5-23; 275-302; F.
Cavallera.. S. ]erome} Paris 1922, 11, 99-100.
6 GGL 20, 245-246.
7' B. Steidle, Neue Untersuch. Orig. Peri Archon, ZNW 40 (1941) 236243; M. Rar!, Recherches sur le Peri Archon, in Studia patristica 111, BerEn
1961, 57-67; M. Simonetti, I Principi d}Origene} Torino 1960, 28-37.
4

RUFINUS ON ORIGEN

243

praised hirn in particular for having so deftly corrected certain

offendicula in Origen's Greek so that the Latin 'reader would
meet with nothing contrary to his faith. With becoming modesty,
Rufinus disclaimed any attempt to emulate Jeron1e's erudition. In
now bringing Origen into Latin, 'a task he accepted reluctantly
and only because Jerome had turned author and abandoned that
task, he asserted that ((he would take care not to produce those
sentiments that were inconsistent and opposed toeach other" in
Origen's work. He justified this procedure with the observations
made by Origen hirnself that his books had been falsified 8.
Rufinus explained further that in the Peri Archon) Origen
had treated subjects that the philosophers after a lifetime of
research had not solved. He thus dealt with theCreator as a
matter of faith; and with the created universe using the too1s of
reason, a distinction further elaborated by Origen himself in his
Prologue.
Meanwhile Rufinus asserts that in his translation,
following Jerome, he either omitted or corrected from other
sections of Origen's works, statements and opinions that contradicted Origen's true concepts of the Trinity. Obscure passages he
had likewiseclarified using the author's other writings and
injecting nothing of his o\vn.
He considered these remarks
necessary to prevent slanderous tongues from bringing wrongfu1
accusations 9.
His precautions proved worth1ess. A mutual friend, Eusebius
of Cremona, abusing his hospitality, obtained an uncorrected copy
of the translation and handed it to Jerome's anti-Origenist friends
in Rome. Alarmed at what they considered Rufinus' duplicity in
using Jerome as a shield for his Origenistic propaganda, they complained to Jerome that in copy-sheets containing Origen's Peri
Archon translated into Latin, they had found certain things
(( expressed in a manner not sufhciently Catholic". They begged
Jerome for a faithfu1 translation of the original, and initiated a
campaign against Rufinus as an Origenist.
In his claim that he was following Jerome's prescriptions in
translating Origen, Rufinus had the Bethlehemite's own LibeUus
de optimo genere interpretandi before hirn. There Jerome defined
his right to translate any literary work other than the Scriptures
with considerable freedom, taking account of the sense rather

8 Cf. F. Murphy, 86-87; F. Cavallera, S. ]erome) 11, 99-100: Rufinus

quotes part of the Letter of Odgen {De Adult. 7); Jerome supplirs the
rest of it (Apol. 11, 18).
9 Ruf.,Praef. Peri Archon (CCL 20, 243-248); F.Murphy, 92-95.

244

F.X. MURPHY

than individual words, and the genius of the language rather than
its form 10.
Acceding to his friends' request, Jerome furnished a literal
translation of the Peri Archon and complained of its difficulties
whileexposing its dubious assertions about the Trinity, the preexistence of souls, the salvation of the devil, and the return of
all things to their original status at creation. The letter he sent
to Rufinus explaining his action was never delivered by Marcella
and ,Pammachius thus giving Rufinus the impression that he was
the principal target of Jerome's attack. At his friends' urging he
set about justifying himself with his Apologia adversus Hieronymum

11.

Rufinus' Apologia is a formidable document. While it lacks

J erome"s verve and brilliant sallies, it is not marred by his violence
and captiousnes. I t has its own vigor and occasional sharp thrusts.
But its strength lies in its reliance on documentary evidence for its
assertions together with a rigid logic. I t possesses literary qualities
enhanced by frequent innuendoes and mild invectives. Ferdinand
Cavallera in his excursus on (( the exactitude of Rufinus" has
demolished the notion, based on Jerome's charges, that Rufinus
lied. l~hough guilty of occasional inaccuracies, he was above all
else hones t and sincere.
:Hist first concern \vas to waylay the charge that he was a
heretic. Thus he gives an account of the articles of the Creed
that he holds in keeping with the curch of Aquileia. Having
designated his faith in the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Passion
and Resurrection, the second coming in glory, and the judgment
by theLord and Savior, he turns to the accusations made against
Origen hut only because he is forced to do so by Jerome's charges 12
.A.ddressing Jerome directly, Rufinus asks for an explanation
of the evident contradiction in Jeronle's conduct toward Origen.
After thirty years of continuous esteem for Origen, why had he
suddenly discovered a heretic in the writings he so lavishly
praised and in the man he considered an equal of the apostles? 1.3
In his Letter to Pammachius Jerome had asserted that both

10
11

Jet., Epist. 57 {eSEL 55, 503ff.).

CCL 20, 29-123: Cf. F. Cavalleta, 11, 97-101 (<< L'exactitude de

Rutin ).
12 R.uf. Apol. I, 4-6: In teciting the Cteed, he draws atttention to
the parallel between that of Rome and that of Aquileia (Apol. ad Anastasium,
CCL 20, 19-28).
13 Ruf., Apol. I, 22: iUum quem triginta fere annis continuis et legens
et scribens apostolis exaequavi.J nunc haereticum pronuntio?

RUFINUS ON ORIGEN

245

his Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians and his Commen..

tary on Ecclesiastes were free of Origenian errors 14. Rufinus cites
copious passages fram both works carefully analyzing their teachings concerning the resurrection, the pre-existence of souls, the
pardon to be granted the devil, and the universal restoration of
all things. He thus shows Jerome at every turn advancing opinions
that he now holds up for condemnation. Hence, Rufinus asserts,
Jerome is still an Origenist at heart.
In his second book, after giving an account of Jeron1e's
educational boasting and polemical indiscretions, Rufinus turns to
his assertion that he had praised Origen but twice and then only
as an exegete. This, Rufinus says, is a far cry from a time not so
distant when he had proclaimed his Alexandrian master as a model
of Christian productiveness. Quoting from Jerome's Prelace to
Origen s Commentary on Ezechiel on the C,anticle 01 Canticles
On the Meanings 01 Hebrew W ords) on Michea) and in two
letters to Marcella, he produces at least ten occasions when Jerome
had heaped fulsome praise on Origen. As Cavallera suggests he
could have doubled or tripled the instances 15.
Winding up this section, Rufinus exclaims: ((Now I ask
whether you can produce anything written by me in which you
might convict me of having fallen into heresy even in my youth
- anything of such character as the heresies of which, though
you will not confess it, you now stand convicted? 16".
Rufinus then faults Jerome's complaint about the alterations
in the Peri Archon. Has Jerome not been guilty of a greater
crime in laying hands on the Sacred Scriptures and in criticising
the Septuagint, a document inspired and transmitted in the Church
by the Apostles. Were there a need for arevision, why did not
Peter or Paul undertake it, assisted as they were with gift of
tongues? 17.
Jerome did not wait for a copy of this document before
attempting a refutation based on the reports of friends and
passages memorized by his brother Paulinianus.
He confesses
explicitly: Iltis eruditissimis libris quos antequam legeram conlutavi: 18. In Jerome's Apologia adversus Rufinum) he attempts to
define his o\vn attitude toward o rigen, justifying his admiration
for the man's zeal and erudition but condemning his errors. He
J

14
15
16
17
18

Jer.. , Epist 84, 2; Ruf. Apo!. I, 22.

F. CavaHera 11, 98-100.
Ruf., Apo!. 11, 30-31; 32.
Ibid. 11, 32.
Jer., Apo!. 111, 3: cf. F. Murphy, 149-150.

246

F.X. MURPHY

contends wrongly that Pamphilus the martyr was not the author
of the Apologia tor Origen} forgetting that in his own Dc viris
illustribus he had made the proper attribution 19. He then answers
Rufinus' attacks on the Origenisms in Jerome's commentaries.
In the second book of his Apologia Jerome declares Rufinus'
translation of the P eri Archon unjustifiable; and his claims regarding the falsification of the works of Origen absurd 20.
Rufinus ans\vered Jerome in a letter that has not b,een
preserved; then on the advice of Bishop Chromatius of Aquileia,
he lapsed into silence. Unhappily his reply provoked a third
book of Jerome's Apologia that turned violent in its charges of
perfidy on Rufinus' part. Nevertheless it contains a paragraph in
which the real Jerome reveals himself.
I attest before Jesus our Mediator that I have descended to
Where is the
thes'e words unwillingly and with repugnance ...
ediHcation in two old men who are battling eachother over heretics? .,.
With the sam,e fervor ith which we praised Origen before, let us now
condemn him who is condemned by the whole world ... 21.

In closing, Jerome acknowledged that Rufinus had declared

himself in favor of peace; but he coul,d not refrain from a final
sally: If you desire peace put down your arms. If between us
there is one faith, then peace will follow". Despite this statement,
Jerome pursued Rufinus for another two decades announcing his
death in 411 without compunction and accusing him along with
Origen of being a source of Pelagianism 22.
l~ufinus apparently owed his acquaintance with Origen's
works to the eight years he spent in Alexandria under Didymus
the Blind. In his Apologia he asserted that he had spent six years
with Didymus Dei causa and after an interval, another two 23
Jerome confirms this fact \vhen boasting that while he sojourned
there a mere matter of one month, Rufinus complains Didynlus at his request wrote three books of commentary on the
prophet Osee, while providing Rufinus with a mere short tract
on the problem of infant deaths, thus indicating his esteem for
Jerome over Rufinus 24.
Basic to Rufinus' attitude toward Origen was his conviction
elaborated in his Apologia against Jerome that matters concerning

19
20
21
22
23
24

Jer., Apol. I, 8-10; Cavallera, 11, 100-101.

Jer., Apol. 11-23.
Jer., Apol. 111, 9.
rCavallera, 11, 131-135.
,Ruf. Apol. 2, 11; cf. F. Murphy, 44-46.
Jet., Apol. 111, 28; Cavallera, 11, 128-129.

RUFINUS

ON ORIGEN

247

the Trinity and man's salvation were the objects of faith and
indisputable, while matters concerned with the created order were
open to discussion. In this, he was echoing Origen's contention
in his preface to the Peri Archon. There Origen distinguishes
between beliefs that were clearly revealed by the apostles for
everyone, and the reasons for these statements. The latter were
open to examination by those who enjoyed the gifts of the Holy
Spirit such as languages, wisdom and knowledge, so that lovers
of wisdom among the apostles' successors would have subjects on
which to exercise their talents 25.
In translating ()rigen, Rufinus stated that while he would
seek consistency in Origen's opinions he could not guarantee
freedom from all error since he was not capable of such assurance 26.
\Xlhile not hesitating to omit passages contrary to Origen's
authentie thought, he did produce observations regarding rational
creatures where faith was not involved. He suggests however
that a diligent reader seek assistence from a teacher for he asserts
it is absurd to think that divine matters about God, the divine
powers and the whole created universe can be absorbed without
a teacher when poetry and drama need the aid of grammarians
and others 27.
Neither Jerome nor Rufinus were fully consistent in their
attitude toward Origen. In his skirmish with the Spanish priest
Vigilantius, who had accused Jerome of being an Origenist, Jerome
exclaimed: Origen a heretic? hut what is that to me, who do not
deny that he was heretical in many points. He erred about the
resurrection of the body; he erred about the status of souls ...
And yet, in many instances he has weIl interpreted the Scriptures,
and has made clear obscure pasages in the prophets, and has
cleared up great mysteries in both the Old and the New Testament.
If therefore I have translated what is good in his works, and have
either cut out the evil, or changed it, or passed it over in silence,
am I to be condemned because through me the Latins are
acquainted with the good things in Origen and are ignorant of
theevil? 28.
With Rufinus the principle enunciated by Jerome was
paramount that in translating Origen while informing the Latins

Origen, Praef. Peri Archon I, 3; M. Simonetti, I Principi) 120-12l.

Ruf., Apol. I, 10-12.
27 Ruf., Praef. in Lib 111 Peri Archon (IGeh 20, 248); Simonetti, I Principi) 361-363.
28 Jer., Epist. 61 (eSEL 54, 575).
25

26

248

F.X. MURPHY

of the good things in hirn, he should keep them ignorant of the

evil 29.
Rufinus' attitude towards the errors in Origen is interesting.
His critical faculties being a good deal less than those of J erome,
though sharp enough when roused in self-defense, he adopted a
more benevolent attitude towards Origen's mistakes.
For the
most part he looked on them as metaphysical assertions rather
than dogmatic statements, and as such useful in repelling the
attacks of philosophers on the Christian creed. He believed that
in general these matters had to do with secondary and obscure
opinions wherein the Church had not pronounced and in which
a certain latitude was given to her learned defenders. In line
with this position Rufinus delimited the sphere of faith narrowly:
for hirrl it embraced teaching regarding the Trinity and eternal
salvation. In dealing with creation, at least on its organizational
side, with the nature of man, with the manner in which the soul,
created by God, is united to the body, and with free will, he
considered that reason played the paramount role. In this manner,
it is his deficiency of doctrinal awareness not his good will or
sincerity that is at fault. In these matters his talent are a good
deal below those of Jerome.
(:onsiderable criticism had been levelled at Rufinus for his
failure to provide a literal translation of the Peri Archon) particularly by modern philologists anxious to reconstruct the original
Greek text. Such criticism 1S unreasonable. Rufinus should be
judged on what he set out to do. He desired to provide the
West with a theological tract in which the personal reflections of
an original, theological genius blended so well with the lessons
and doctrines found in the Scriptures. This he did though taking
care, as he thought, to present Origen's real opinions in places
where he thought the Greek text corrupt. The fact that Jerome
did actually produce a literal text was a sheer accident; ordinarily
he ,vould have proceeded in the very same manner in which
Rufinus had approached the work. He admits as much when he
says: I did as he (Pammachius) desired and sent hirn the books
that when he read them, he was horrified, hiding them in his
bookcase lest, were they given out, theymight have harmed souls
of many 30.
As regards the theological needs of the day, the fact that
Rufinus' work has survived, whereas the literal rendition of Jero-

29 Ruf. Apol ad Anast. 7 (GGL 20, 27-28); Of Origen I am neither a

defender nor proponent; nor am I his first translator((.
30 Jer. Epist. 81 (iGSEIL 55, 106-107).

249

RUFINUS ON ORIGEN

me's has not, seems to be an indication that Ruhnus' production

served a very useful requirement, though of course the fact that
Pamtnachius kept a c10se watch over Jerome's manuscript may
in some way account for the 10ss.
A hnal paradox isencountered in the fact that it was to
this very work, the Peri Archon that Jerome referred Paulinus ot
Nola in his difIiculties regarding predestination, the very problem
presented to Ruhnus by Macharius when Ruhnus first suggested
Origen :U. There was need for a translation of Origen at the time.
Though it would have been ideal had the work been done by a
person possessed of more theo10gica1 circumspection than Ruhnus,
no such genius appeared. Ruhnus filled the breach. All things
considered, he did it surprisingly welle

F.X.

MURPHY,

St. Mary's
Annapolis, Md

31

F. Murphy, 103-104.

CSSR