As to Origen’s unorthodoxy concerning the Holy Spirit St. Basil may have had in his mind such a passage as the following from the First Book of the De Principiis, extant in the original in Justinian, Ep. ad Mennam.  Migne, Pat. Gr. xi. p. 150.  ὅτι ὁ μὲν θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ συνέχων τὰ πάντα φθάνει εἰς εκαστον τῶν ὄντων μεταδιδοὺς ἑκάστῳ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἰδίου τὸ εἶναι· ὢν γὰρ ἔστιν· ἐλάττων δὲ παρὰ τὸν πατέρα ὁ Υἱ& 232·ς φθάνει ἐπὶ μόνα τὰ λογικά· δεύτερος γάρ ἐστι τοῦ πατρός· ἔτι δὲ ἧττον τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐπὶ μόνους τοὺς ἁγίους διικνούμενον· ὥστε κατὰ τοῦτο μείζων ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Πατρὸς παρὰ τὸν Υἱ& 232·ν καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον πλείων δὲ ἡ τοῦ Υἱοῦ παρὰ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον   The work does not even exist as a whole in the translation of Rufinus, who omitted portions, and St. Jerome thought that Rufinus had misrepresented it.  Photius (Biblioth. cod. viii.) says that Origen, in asserting in this work that the Son was made by the Father and the Spirit by the Son, is most blasphemous.  Bp. Harold Browne, however (Exposition of the xxxix. Art. p. 113, n. 1), is of opinion that if Rufinus fairly translated the following passage, Origen cannot have been fairly charged with heresy concerning the Holy Ghost:  “Ne quis sane existimet nos ex eo quod diximus Spiritum sanctum solis sanctis præstari.  Patris vero et Filii beneficia vel inoperationes pervenire ad bonos et malos, justos et injustos, prœtulisse per hoc Patri et Filio Spiritum Sanctum, vel majorem ejus per hoc asserere dignitatem; quod utique valde inconsequens est.  Proprietatem namque gratiæ ejus operisque descripsimus.  Porro autem nihil in Trinitate majus minusve dicendum est, quum unius Divinitatis Fons verbo ac ratione sua teneat universa, spiritu vero oris sui quæ digna sunt, sanctificatione sanctificet, sicut in Psalmo scriptum est verbo domini cœli firmati sunt et spiritu oris ejus omnis virtus eorum.”  De Princ. I. iii. 7. On the obligations of both Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus to Origen, cf. Socrates iv. 26.