1 " Animata," possessing the " anima" or soul.
CHAP. 31. — THE ARGUMENT OF THE APOLLINARI- ANS TO PROVE THAT CHRIST WAS WITHOUT THE HUMAN SOUL OF THIS SAME SORT.
Although, then, this question remains unsolved 4 Animari" or endued with the " animal or soul.
Chap. 33.]
by these passages of Scripture, which are certainly indecisive so far as pertains to the point before us, yet I am quite sure of this, that those persons who think that the soul of the first woman did not come from her husband's soul, on the ground of its being only said, " Flesh of my flesh," and not, " Soul of my soul," do, in fact, argue in precisely the same manner as the ApoUinarians argue, and all such gainsayers, in opposition to the Lord's human soul, which they deny for no other reason than because they read in the Scripture, "The Word was made flesh." ' For if, say they, there was ar soul in Him also, it ought to have been said, " The Word was made man." But the reason why the great truth is stated in the terms in question really is, that under the designation flesh. Holy Scripture is accustomed to describe the entire human being, as in the passage, " And all flesh shall see the salvation of God." ^ For flesh alone without the soul cannot see anything. Besides, many other passages of the Holy Scriptures go to make it manifest, without any ambiguity, that in the man Christ there is not only flesh, but a human — that is, a reasonable — soul also. Whence they, who maintain the propagation of souls, might also understand that a part is put for the whole in the passage, " Bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh," in such wise that the soul, too, be understood as implied in the words, in the same manner as we believe that the Word became flesh, not without the soul. All that is wanted is, that they should support their opinion of the propagation of souls on passages which are unambiguous; just as other passages of Scripture show us that Christ possesses a human soul. On precisely the same principle we advise the other side also, who do away with the opinion of the propagation of souls, that they should produce certain proofs for their assertion that souls are created by God in every fresh case by insufflation, and that they should then maintain the position that the saying, " This is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh," was not spoken figuratively as a part for the whole, including the soul in its signification, but in a bare literal sense of the flesh alone.
CHAP. 32 [XIX.] — THE SELF-COXTR.A.DICTION OF VICTOR A3 TO THE ORIGIN OF THE SOUL.
Under these circumstances, I find that this treatise of mine must now be closed. It contains, in fact, all that seemed to me chiefly necessary to the subject under discussion. They who peruse its contents will know how to be on their guard against agreeing with the person whose two books you sent me, so as not to believe with ' John i. 14.
2 Luke iii. 6, and Isa. xL 5.
him, that souls are produced by the breath of God in such wise as not to be made out of nothing. The man, indeed, who supposes this, however much he ma)' in words deny the conclusion, does in reality affirm that souls have the substance of God, and are His offspring, not by endowment, but by nature. For from whomsoever a man derives the origin of his nature, from him, in all sober earnestness, it must needs be admitted, that he also derives the kind of his nature. But this author is, after all, self-contradictory: at one time he says that "souls are the offspring of God, — not, indeed, by nature, but by endowment; " and at another time he says, that " they are not made out of nothing, but derive their origin from God." Thus he does not hesitate to refer them to the nature of God, a position which he had previously denied.
CHAP. 33. — AUGUSTIN HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE OPINION ABOUT THE PROPAGATION OF SOULS BEING REFUTED, AND THAT ABOUT THEIR IN- SUFFLATION BEING MAINTAINED.
As for the opinion, that new souls are created by inbreathing without being propagated, we certainly do not in the least object to its maintenance, — only let it be by persons who have succeeded in discovering some new evidence, either in the canonical Scriptures, in the shape of unambiguous testimony towards the solution of a most knotty question, or else in their own reasonings, such as shall not be opposed to catholic truth, but not by such persons as this man has shown himself to be. Unable to find anything worth saying, and at the same time unwilling to suspend his disputatious propensity, without measuring his strength at all, in order to avoid saying nothing, he boldly affirmed that " the soul deserved to be polluted by the flesh," and that " the soul deserved to become sinful; " though previous to its incarnation he was unable to discover any merit in it, whether good or evil. Moreover, that " in infants departing from the body without baptism original sin may be remitted, and that the sacrifice of Christ's body must be offered for them," who have not been incorporated into Christ through His sacraments in His Church, and that " they, quitting this j^resent life without the laver of regeneration, not only can go to rest, but can even attain to the kingdom of heaven." He has propounded a good many other absurdities, which it would be evidently tedious to collect together, and to consider in this treatise. If the doctrine of the propagation of souls is false, may its refutation not be the work of such disputants; and may the defence of the rival principle of the insufflation of new souls in every creative act, proceed from better hands.
[Book I.
CHAP. 34. — THE MISTAKES WHICH MUST BE AVOIDED BY THOSE WHO SAY THAT MEN'S SOULS ARE NOT DERIVED FROM THEIR PARENTS, BUT ARE AFRESH INBREATHED BY GOD IN EVERY INSTANCE.
All, therefore, who wish to maintain that new souls are rightly said to be breathed into persons at their birth, and not derived from their parents, must by all means be cautious on each of the four points which I have already mentioned. That is to sav, do not let them affirm ' that souls become sinful by another's original sin; do not let them affirm that infants who { died unbaptized can possibly reach eternal life and the kingdom of heaven by the remission of original sin in any other way whatever; do not let them affirm that souls had sinned in some other place previous to their incarnation, and that on this account they were forcibly introduced into sinful flesh; nor let them affirm that the sins which were not actually found in them were, because they were foreknown, deservedly punished, although they were never permitted to reach that life where they could be committed.! Provided that they affirm none of these points, ' because each of them is simply false and impious, they may, if they can, produce any conclusive testimonies of the Holy Scriptures on this question; and they may maintain their own opinion, not only without any prohibition from me, but even with my approbation and best thanks. If, however, they fail to discover any very decided authority on the point in the divine oracles, and are obliged to propound any one of the four opinions by reason of their failure, let them restrain their imagination, lest they should be driven in their difficulty to enunciate the now damnable and very recently condemned heresy of Pelagius, to the effect that the souls of infants have not original sin. It is, indeed, better for a man to confess his ignorance of what he knows nothing about, than either to run into heresy which has been already condemned, or to found some new heresy, while recklessly daring to defend over and over again opinions which only display his ignorance. This man has made some other absurb mistakes, indeed many, in which he has wandered out of the beaten track of truth, without going, however, to dangerous lengths; and I would like, if the Lord be willing, to write even to himself something on the subject of his books; and probably I shall point them all out to him, or a good many of them if I should be unable to notice all.
CHAP. 35 [XX.] CONCLUSION.
As for this present treatise, which I have thought it proper to address to no other person in preference to yourself, who have taken a kindly and true interest both in our common faith and my character, as a true catholic and a good friend, you will give it to be read or copied by any persons you may be able to find interested in the subject, or may deem worthy to be trusted. In it I have thought proper to repress and confute the presumption of this young man, in such a way, however, as to show that I love him, wishing him to be amended rather than condemned, and to make such progress in the great house which is the catholic Church, whither the divine compassion has conducted him, that he may be therein " a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the Master's use, and prepared unto every good work," ' both by holy living and sound teaching. But I have this further to say: if it behoves me to bestow my love upon him, as I sincerely do, how much more ought I to love you, my brother, whose affection towards me and whose catholic faith I have found by the best of proofs to be cautious and sober! The result of your loyalty has been, that you have, with a brother's real love and duty, taken care to have the books, which displeased you, and wherein you found my name treated in a way which ran counter to your liking, copied out and fonvarded to me. Now, I am so far from feeling offended at this charitable act of yours, because you did it, that I think I should have had a right, on the true claims of friendship, to have been angry with you if you had not done it. I therefore give you my most earnest thanks. Moreover, I have afforded a still plainer indication of the spirit in which I have accepted your service, by instantly composing this treatise for your consideration, as soon as I had read those books of his.
' 2 Tim. ii. 21.
ly THE SHAPE OF A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE PRESBYTER PETER.
HE ADVISES PETER NOT TO INCUR THE IMPUTATION OF HAVING APPROVED OF THE BOOKS WHICH HAD BEEN ADDRESSED TO HIM BY VICTOR ON THE ORIGIN OF THE SOUL, BY ANY USE HE MIGHT MAKE OF THEM, NOR TO TAKE AS CATHOLIC DOC-TRINES THAT person's RASH UTTERANCES CONTRARY TO THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. victor's VARIOUS ERRORS, AND THOSE, TOO, OF A VERY SERIOUS CHARACTER, HE POINTS OUT AND BRIEFLY CONFUTES; AND HE CONCLUDES WITH ADVISING PETER HIMSELF TO TRY TO PERSUADE VICTOR TO AMEND HIS ERRORS.
To his Lordship, my dearly beloved brother and fellow-presbyter Peter, Augustin, bishop, sendeth greeting in the Lord.
CH.-VP. I [l.] DEPRAVED ELOQUENCE AN INJURI- OUS ACCOMPLISHMENT.
There have reached me the two books of Vincentius Victor, which he addressed in writing to your Holiness; they have been forwarded to me by our brother Renatus, a layman indeed, but a person who has a prudent and religious care about the faith both of himself and of all he loves. On reading these books, I saw that their author was a man of great resources in speech, of which he had enough, and more than enough \ but that on the subjects of which he wished to teach, he was as yet insufficiently instructed. If, however, by the gracious gift of the Lord this qualification were also conferred upon him, he would be serviceable to many. For he possesses in no slight degree the faculty of explaining and beautifying what he thinks; all that is wanted is, that he should first take care to think rightly. Depraved eloquence is a hurtful accomplishment; for to persons of inadequate information it always carries the appearance of truth in its readiness of speech. I know not, indeed, how you received his books; but if I am I correctly informed, you are said, after reading them, to have been so greatly overjoyed, that [ you (though an elderly man and a presbyter) kissed the face of this youthful layman, and thanked him for having taught you what you had been previously ignorant of. Now, in this conduct of yours I do not disapprove of your humility; indeed, I rather commend it; for it was not the man whom you i)raised, but the truth itself which deigned to speak to you through him: only I wish you were able to point out to me what was the truth which you received through him. I should, therefore, be glad if you would show me, in your answer to this letter, what it was he taught you. Be it far from me to be ashamed to learn from a presbyter, since you did not blush to be instructed by a layman, in proclaiming and imitating your humble conduct, if the lessons were only true in which you received instruction.
CHAP. 2 [ll.] HE ASKS WHAT THE GREAT KNOWLEDGE IS THAT VICTOR IMPARTS.
Therefore, brother greatly beloved, I desire to know what you learned of him, in order that, if I have already possessed the knowledge, I may participate in your joy; but if I happen to be ignorant, I may be instructed by you. Did you not then understand that there are two somethings, soul and spirit, according as it is said in Scripture, " Thou wilt separate my soul from my spirit "? ' And that both of them pertain to man's nature, so that the whole man consists of spirit, and soul, and body? Sometimes, however, these two are combined together under the designation of soul; for instance, in the passage, " And man became a living soul." ^ Now, in this place the spirit is implied. Similarly in sundry passages the two are described under the name of spirit, as when it is written, " And He bowed His head and gave up the spirit; " ^ in which passage it is the soul that must also be understood. And that the two are of one and the same substance? I suppose that you already knew all this. But if you did not, then you may as well know that you have not acquired any great knowledge, the ignorance of which would be attended with much danger.
* Job vii. 14. 'AiroAXafeis djrb irvei^/ti aroc nou Tr\v <^v\r\v it.ov, Sept. * Gen. ii. 7. ^ John xLx. 30.
(32 [Book. II.
And if there must be any more subtle discussion on such points, it would be better to carry on the controversy with himself, whose wordy qualities we have already discovered. The questions we might consider are: whether, when mention is made of the soul, the spirit is also implied in the term in such a way that the two comprise the soul, the spirit being, as it were, some part of it, — whether, in fact (as this person seemed to think), under the designation soul, the whole is so designated from only a part; or else, whether the two together make up the spirit, that which is properly called soul being a part thereof; whether again, in fact, the whole is not called from only a part, when the term spirit is used in such a wide sense as to comprehend the soul also, as this man supposes. These, how- 1 ever, are but subtle distinctions, and ignorance about them certainly is not attended with any, great danger.
CHAP. 3. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SENSES OF THE BODY AND SOUL.
Again, I wonder whether this man taught you the difference between the bodily senses and the sensibilities of the soul; and whether you, who were a person of considerable age and position before you took lessons of this man, used to consider to be one and the same that faculty by which white and black are distinguished, which sparrows even see as well as ourselves, and that by which justice and injustice are discriminated, which Tobit also perceived even after he lost the sight of his eyes.' If you held the identity, then, of course, when you heard or read the words, " Lighten my eyes, that I sleep not in death," ^ you merely thought of the eyes of the body. Or if this were an obscure point, at all events when you recalled the words of the apostle, " The eyes of your heart being enlightened," ^ you must have supposed that we possessed a heart somewhere between our forehead and cheeks. Well, I am very far from thinking this of you, so that this instructor of yours could not have given you such a lesson.
CH.\P. 4. — TO BELIEVE THE SOUL IS A PART OF GOD IS BLASPHEMY.
And if you happened to suppose, before receiving the instruction from this teacher, which you are rejoicing to have received, that the human soul is a portion of God's nature, then you were ignorant how false and terribly dangerous this opinion was. And if you only were taught by this person that the soul is not a portion of God, then I bid you thank God as earnestly as you can that you were not taken away out of the body before learning so important a lesson.
' Tobit iv. 5, 6; compare ii. 10.
For you would have quitted life a great heretic and a terrible blasphemer. However, I never could have believed this of you, that a man who is both a catholic and a presbyter of no contemptible position like yourself, could by any means have thought that the soul's nature is a portion of God. I therefore cannot help expressing to your beloved self my fears that this man has by some means or other taught you that which is decidedly opposed to the faith which you were holding.
CHAP. 5 [hi.] IN WHAT SENSE CREATED BEINGS ARE OUT OF GOD.
Now, just because I do not suppose that you, a member of the catholic Church, ever believed the human soul to be a portion of God, or that the soul's nature is in any degree identical with God's, I have some apprehension lest you may have been induced to fall in with this man's opinion, that " God did not make the soul from nothing, but that the soul is so far out of Him as to have emanated from Him." For he has put out such a statement as this, with his other opinions, which have led him out of the usual track on this subject to a huge precipice. Now, if he has taught you this, I do not want you to teach it to me; nay, I should wish you to unlearn what you have been taught. For it is not enough to avoid believing and saying that the soul is a part of God. Wo. do not even say that the Son or the Holy Ghost is a part of God, although we affirm that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all of one and the same nature. It is not, then, enough for us to avoid saying that the soul is a part of God, but it is of indispensable importance that we should say that the soul and God are not of one and the self-same nature.
This person is therefore right in declaring that " souls are God's offspringj not by nature, but by gift; " and then, of course, not the souls of all men, but of the faithful. But afterwards he returned to the statement from which he had shrunk, and affirmed that God and the soul are of the same nature — not, indeed, in so many words, but plainly and manifestly to such a purport. For when he says that the soul is out of God, in such a manner that God created it not out of any other nature, nor out of nothing, but out of His own self, what would he have us beheve but the very thing which he denies, in other words, even that the soul is of the self-same nature as God Himself is? For every nature is either God, who has no author; or out of God, as having Him for its Author. But the nature which has for its author God, out of whom it comes, is either not made, or made. Now, that nature which is not made and yet is out of Him, is either begotten by Him or proceeds from Him. That which is begotten is His only Son, Chap. 7.]
that which proceedeth is the Holy Ghost, and this Trinity is of one and the self-same nature. For these three are one, and each one is God, and all three together are one God, unchangeable, eternal, without any beginning or ending of time. That nature, on the other hand, which is made is called " creature; " God is its Creator, even the blessed Trinity. The creature, therefore, is said to be out of God in such wise as not to be made out of His nature. It is predicated as out of Him, inasmuch as it has in Him the author of its being, not so as to have been born of Him, or to have proceeded from Him, but as having been created, moulded, and formed by Him, in some cases, out of no other substance, — that is, absolutely out of nothing, as, for instance, the heaven and the earth, or rather the whole material of the universe coeval in its creation with the world — but, in some cases, out of another nature already created and in existence, as, for instance, man out of the dust, woman out of the man, and man out of his parents. Still, everv creature is out of God, — but out of God as its creator either out of nothing, orout of something previously existing, not, however, as its begetter or its producer from His own very self.
CHAP. 6. SHALL GOD'S NATURE BE MUTABLE, SINFUL, IMPIOUS, EVEN ETERNALLY DAMNED.
All this, however, I am saying to a catholic: advising with him rather than teaching him. For I do not suppose that these things are new to you: or ihat they have been long heard of by you, but not believed. This epistle of mine, you will, I am sure, so read as to recognise in its statement your own faith also, which is by the gracious gift of the Lord the common property of us all in the cathohc Church. Since, then (as I was saying), I am now speaking to a catholic, whence I pray you tell me, do you suppose that the soul, I will not say your soul or my own soul, but the soul of the first man, was given to him? If you admit that it came from nothing, made, however, and inbreathed into him by God, then your behef tallies with my own. If, on the contrary, you suppose that it came out of some other created thing, which served as the material, as it were, for the divine Artificer to make the soul out of, just as the dust was the material of which Adam was formed, or the rib whence Eve was made, or the waters whence the fishes and the fowls were created, or the ground out of which the terrestrial animals were formed: then this opinion is not catholic, nor is it true. But further, if you think, which may God forbid, that the divine Creator made, or is still making, human souls neither out of nothing, nor out of some other created thing, but out of His own self, that is, out of His own nature, then you have learnt this of your new instructor; but I cannot congratulate you, or flatter you, on the discovery. You have wandered along with him very far from the catholic faith. Better would it be, though it would be untrue, yet it would be better, I say, and more tolerable, that you should believe the soul to have been made out of some other created substance which God had already formed, than out of God's own uncreated substance, so that what is mutable, and sinful, and impious, and if persistent to the end in the impiety will have to sufter eternal damnation, should not with horrible blasphemy be referred to the nature of God! Awav, brother, I beseech you, away with this, I will not call it faith, but execrably impious error. May God avert from you, a man of gravity and a presbyter, the misery of being seduced by a youthful layman; and, while supposing that your opinion is the catholic faith, of being lost from the number of the faithful. For I must not deal with you as I might with him; nor does this tremendous error, when yours, deserve the same indulgence as being that of this young man, although you may have derived it from him. He has but just now found his way to the catholic fold to get healing and safety; ' you have a rank among the very shepherds of that fold. But we would not that a sheep which comes to the Lord's flock for shelter from error, should be healed of his sores in such a way, as first to infect and destroy the shepherd by his contagious presence.
CHAP. 7. — TO THINK THE SOUL CORPOREAL AN ERROR.
But if you say to me, He has not taught me this; nor have I by any means given my assent to this erroneous opinion of his, however much I was enchanted by the sweetness of his eloquent and elegant discourse; then I earnestly thank God. Still I cannot help asking, why, even with kisses, as the report goes, you expressed your gratitude to him for having taught you what you were ignorant of, previous to hearing his discussion. Now if it be a false report which makes you to have done and said so much, then I beg you to be kind enough to give me this assurance, that the idle rumour \ may be stopped by your own written authority. I If, however, it is true that you bestowed your ' thanks with such humility upon this man, I, should rejoice, indeed, if he has not taught you I to believe the opinion which I have already I pointed out as a detestable one, and to be carej fully avoided as such. Nor shall I find fault [iv.] if your humble thanks to your instructor were further earned by your having acquired from discussions with him some other true and I See below in ch. 14 [x.j.
[Book II.
useful knowledge. But may I ask you what it is? Is it tliat tlie soul is not spirit, but body? Well, I really do not think ignorance on such a point is any great injury to Christian learning; and if you indulge in, more subtle disputes about the different kinds of bodily substance, I think the information you obtain is more difficult than serviceable. If, however, the Lord will that I should write to this young man himself, as I desire to do, then perhaps your loving self' will know to what extent you are not indebted to him for your instruction; although you rejoice in what you have learnt from him. And now I request you not to feel annoyance in writing me an answer; so that what is clearly useful and pertinent to our indispensable faith may not by any chance turn out to be something different.
THE RICH MAN IN THE SOUL TO BE CHAP. 8. THE THIRST OF HELL DOES NOT PROVE CORPOREAL.
Now with regard to the point, which with perfect propriety and great soundness of view he believes, that souls after quitting the body are judged, before they come to that final judgment to which they must submit when their bodies are restored to them, and are either tormented or glorified in the very same flesh wherein they once lived here on earth; is it, let me ask you, the case that you were really ignorant of this?