Free English Translation
Apology to Anastasius
Apologia ad Anastasium
7 chapters · ~7 min read · by Rufinus of Aquileia
About Apology to Anastasius
Written around 400 AD, this letter answers accusations brought against Rufinus of Aquileia before Anastasius I, bishop of Rome, after his return to Italy following nearly thirty years abroad. Rufinus states that he writes not because his conscience is troubled but to furnish a plain confession against detractors. He sets out his belief in the Trinity as one nature, Godhead, and substance distinguished only by the persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the incarnation, death, and bodily resurrection of Christ; the resurrection of the same flesh believers now possess, free of corruption; the future judgment of the living and the dead, including the devil and his angels; and a final judgment rendered to each according to deeds. On the origin of the soul he reports several current opinions—traducianism, daily divine creation, and pre-existence, the last associated with Origen and some Greek writers—but declares that he holds no fixed view on the question. He then addresses his translation of Origen's writings from Greek into Latin, arguing that rendering another author's words does not make him responsible for that author's opinions, and that he omitted passages he judged inconsistent with Origen's own teaching elsewhere. He closes by affirming the faith held in common by the churches of Rome, Alexandria, Aquileia, and Jerusalem.
By Rufinus of Aquileia. Collected in Patrologia Latina, Volume 21.
In this work
Apologia Which Rufinus the Presbyter Sent on His Own Behalf to Anastasius Bishop of the City of Rome
1 Occasion and Purpose of This Letter 2 Confession of Faith Concerning the Trinity 3 The Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection of Christ 4 The Resurrection of the Flesh 5 The Future Judgment and the Devil's Eternal Punishment 6 Uncertain Opinions on the Origin of the Soul 7 Defense of His Translation of Origen's WritingsApologia Which Rufinus the Presbyter Sent on His Own Behalf to Anastasius Bishop of the City of Rome
1. Occasion and Purpose of This Letter
I have heard that certain persons, when stirring up controversies before Your Beatitude, whether concerning the faith or I know not what other questions, made mention also of my name. And your Holiness indeed, as one instructed from her very cradle in the rules of ecclesiastical tradition, gave no ear to slanderers against one who was absent and well known to her both in faith and in the love of God.
Yet since a report touching my reputation, thus assailed, has reached me, I thought it right (since I myself, after almost thirty years, have been restored to my parents, and it would be hard indeed and inhuman if I should so quickly desert those whom I had so long delayed to visit again; and likewise because the labor of so long a journey renders me weaker for undertaking labors anew) to satisfy Your Beatitude by my letter—not that I should wipe away from your holy mind, which as a kind of sanctuary of God admits nothing unjust, any stain of suspicion, but that I might offer you, against rivals perhaps barking against me, a certain staff of my confession, by which they might be driven off.
2. Confession of Faith Concerning the Trinity
Although, then, our faith was proved in the time of the persecution of the heretics, when we dwelt in the holy Church of Alexandria, in the prisons and exiles which were inflicted for the faith's sake: yet even now, if there be anyone who wishes either to test our faith, or to hear it, or to learn it, let him know that concerning the Trinity we believe thus: that it is of one nature, of one Godhead, of one and the same power and substance; nor is there any diversity whatsoever between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, except that the one is the Father, and this the Son, and that the Holy Spirit. A Trinity in subsisting persons, a unity in nature and substance.
3. The Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection of Christ
We confess also that the Son of God, in these latter days, was born of the Virgin and of the Holy Spirit: that he took on flesh of human nature, and a soul, in which he also suffered, and was buried, and rose again from the dead: rising again in that very flesh which had been laid in the tomb: with which flesh, together with the soul, after the resurrection he ascended into the heavens; whence also he is awaited to come for the judgment of the living and the dead.
4. The Resurrection of the Flesh
But we also confess the resurrection of our flesh, that it will be entire and perfect—of this very flesh of ours in which we now live. We do not say, as some slanderously assert, that another flesh will rise in place of this one; but this very flesh itself, with no member of it whatsoever cut off, nor any part of the body removed, but lacking nothing at all of its whole nature except corruption alone. For this is what the holy Apostle promises: that the body is sown in corruption, and rises in incorruption; is sown in weakness, rises in power; is sown in dishonor, rises in glory; and that, whereas the body is sown a natural body, it rises a spiritual body. These things concerning the resurrection have been handed down to us by those from whom we received holy baptism in the Church of Aquileia—which I think are the very same things that the Apostolic See also has been accustomed to hand down and to teach.
5. The Future Judgment and the Devil's Eternal Punishment
We also affirm the future judgment, in which judgment each one shall receive what is proper to the body, according as he has done, whether good or evil. But if men are to receive according to their works, how much more shall the devil, who exists as the cause of sin for all? Concerning whom we hold that which is written in the Gospel: that the devil himself, and all his angels, together with those who do his works—that is, who accuse the brethren—shall together with him obtain the inheritance of eternal fire. If anyone, therefore, denies that the devil is to be committed to the eternal fires, let him receive a portion with him in the eternal fire, that he may perceive what he denied.
6. Uncertain Opinions on the Origin of the Soul
I hear that questions have also been raised concerning the soul. Whether this complaint ought to be entertained or dismissed, judge for yourselves. But if it is asked what I myself think about it, I confess that on this question I have read various things among a great many writers. I have read some who say that, together with the body, the soul also is propagated through the transmission of human seed; and they confirmed this with what arguments they could. This, I think, was the opinion among the Latins of Tertullian, or of Lactantius, and perhaps of certain others as well. Others assert that, once the bodies are formed in the womb, God daily makes and infuses souls; others, that souls already made long ago—that is, at the time when God created all things out of nothing—are now, by his judgment, distributed into bodies. This is also the opinion of Origen, and of certain other Greeks.
But I, having read each of these opinions, declare, with God as my witness, that up to the present I hold nothing certain or settled on this question, but leave it to God to know what the truth is, and if he should deign to reveal it to anyone. Yet I do not deny that I have read each of these opinions, and I confess that I am still ignorant of the matter, apart from this, which the Church clearly hands down: that God is the creator of souls and of bodies.
7. Defense of His Translation of Origen's Writings
Indeed, since I hear that it has also been disputed on the ground that, at the request of brethren, I translated certain writings of Origen from Greek into Latin, I think that everyone must understand that this charge arises solely from ill will. For if there is something in the author that displeases, why should it be twisted against the translator? Just as it stands in the Greek, so I was asked to show it to Latin readers. I gave Latin words only to Greek meanings. If, then, there be any praise in those meanings, it is not mine; if there be fault, likewise it is not mine. Nay rather, I even added this—as I set forth in my little Preface—that as far as I was able, I omitted certain things: yet only those which came under suspicion to me, as seeming not to have been so said by Origen himself, but rather inserted by others, because I had read that, on the same matters, in other places the same author had spoken in a catholic manner.
Let no one, therefore, I beg you, holy and venerable and blessed Father, weave hatred against me on this account; let no one make use of factions and slanders, which is not lawful to be done in the Church of God. For where will simplicity and innocence be safe, if not here? I am neither a defender of Origen, nor his advocate, nor his first translator. Others before me had done this same work; I, too, did it, last of all, at the request of the brethren. If it be commanded that it should not be done, the command is customarily observed for the future. If those who did it before the command are blamed, let the blame begin with the first. But I, besides this faith which I have set forth above—that is, which the Roman Church holds, and the Alexandrian, and our own of Aquileia, and which is preached at Jerusalem—have never had, nor have now, nor shall ever have, another, in the name of Christ.
And if anyone believes otherwise, whoever he may be, let him be anathema. But they shall render account on the day of judgment, who beget stumbling-blocks, and dissensions, and scandals for the brethren out of envy alone and ill will.
Free to read, funded by readers.
You just read this work in full, at no cost. Translating classic Christian writing into clear English takes real time, and it is readers who make it possible and keep it free. If it was worth your time, help fund the next translation.
Donate to the projectUpdated Works publishes readable, modern editions of the classics. Explore the library →
