Who ever had his mind so obstinately set against the gospel as not to hear these truths, and after hearing to believe them, in the parable of the poor man who was carried away after death to Abraham's bosom, and of the rich man who is set forth as suffering torment in hell?^ But has this man taught vou how it was that the soul apart from the body could crave from the beggar's finger a drop of water; ^ when he himself confessed, that the soul did not require bodily aliment except for the purpose of protecting the perishing body which encloses it from dissolution? These are his words: " Is it," asks he, " because the soul craves meat and drink, that we suppose material food passes into it? " Then shortly afterwards he says; " From this circumstance it is understood and proved, that the sustenance of meat and drink is not wanted for the soul, but for the body: for which clothing also, in addition to food, is provided in like manner; so that the supplying of food seems to be necessary to that nature, which is also fitted for wearing clothes." This opinion of his he expounds clearly enough; but he adds some illustrative similes, and says; " Now what do we suppose the occupier of a house does on an inspection of his dweUing? If he observe the tenement has a shaky roof, or a nodding wall, * Dilectio tua. ^ See Luke xvi. 22, 03. 3 Lulce xvi. 24.
or a weak foundation, does he not fetch girders and build up buttresses, in order that he may succeed in propping up by his care and diligence the fabric which threatened to fall, so that i in the dangerous plight of the residence the < peril which evidently overhung the occupier j might be warded off? From this simile," says he, " see how the soul craves for its flesh, from which it undoubtedly conceives the craving' itself." Such are the very lucid and adequate words in which this young person has explained his ideas: he asserts that it is not the soul, but the body, which requires food; out of a careful regard, no doubt, of the former for the latter, as one that occupies a dwelling-house, and by a prudent repair prevents the downfall with which the fleshly tenement was threatened. Well, now, let him go on to explain to you what probable ruin this particular soul of the rich man was so eager to prevent by propping up, seeing that it no longer possessed a mortal body, and yet suffered thirst, and begged for the drop of water from the poor man's finger. Here is a good knotty question for this astute instructor of elderly men to exercise himself on; let him inquire, and find a solution if he can: for what purpose did that soul in hell beg the aliment of ever so small a drop of water, when it had no ruinous tenement to support?
CHAP. 9 [v.] — HOW COULD THE INCORPOREAL GOD BREATHE OUT OF HIMSELF A CORPOREAL SUBSTANCE?
In that he believes God to be truly incorporeal, I congratulate him that herein, at all events, he has kept himself uninfluenced by the ravings of TertuUian. For he insisted, that as the soul is corporeal, so likewise is God.-* It is therefore specially surprising that our author, who differs from TertuUian in this point, yet labours to persuade us that the incorporeal God does not make the soul out of nothing, but exhales ii as a corporeal breath out of Himself. What a wonderful learning that must be to which every age erects its attentive ears, and which contrives to gain for its disciples men of advanced years, and even presbyters! Let this eminent man read what he has written, read it in public; let him invite to hear the reading well-known persons and unknown ones, learned and unlearned. Old men, assemble with your younger instructors; learn what you used to know nothing about; hear now what you had never heard before. Behold, according to the teaching of this scribe, God creates a breath, not out of something else which exists in some way or other, and not out of that which absolutely has < See Tertullian's treatise On the Soul In The Antc-Xiccne CftHstian Fathers, vol. iii. p. 181 sq. See also Augustin, On Heresies, 86, and Epistles, No. 190.
Chap, it.]
no existence; but out of that which He is Himself, perfectly incorporeal, He breathes a body: so that He actually changes His own incorporeal nature into a body, before it undergoes the change into the body of sin. Does he say, that He does not change something out of His own nature, when He creates breath? Then, of course. He does not make that breath out of Himself: for He is not Himself one thing, and His nature another thing. What is this insane man thinking of? But if he says that God creates breath out of His own nature in such a way as to remain absolutely entire Himself, this is not the question. The question is, whether that which comes not of some previously created substance, nor from nothing, but from Him, is not what He is, that is, of the same nature and essence? Now He remains absolutely entire after the generation of His Son; but because He begat Him of His own nature. He did not beget a something which was different from that which He is Himself. For, putting to one side the circumstance that the Word took on Himself a human nature and became flesh, the "Word who is the Son of God is another but not another thing: that is. He is another person but not a different nature. And whence does this come to pass, except from the fact that He is not created out of something else, or out of nothing, but was begotten out of Himself; not that He might be better than He was, but that He might be altogether even what He is of whom He is begotten; that is, of one and the same nature, equal, co-eternal, in every way like, equally unchangeable, equally invisible, equally incorporeal, equally God; in a word, that He might be altogether what the Father is, except that He actually is Himself the Son, and not the Father? But if He remains Himself the same God entire and unimpaired, but yet creates something different from Himself, and worse than Himself, not out of nothing, nor out of some other creature, but out of His very self; and that something emanates as a body out of the incorporeal God; then God forbid that a catholic should imbibe such an opinion, for it does not flow from the divine fountain, but it is a mere fiction of the human mind.
CHAP. lO [vi.] CHILDREN MAY BE ^OUND OF LIKE OR OF UNLIKE DISPOSITIONS WITH THEIR PARENTS.
Then, again, how ineptly he labours to free the soul, which he supposes to be corporeal, from the passions of the body, raising questions about the soul's infancy; about the soul's emotions, when paralysed and oppressed; about the amputation of bodily limbs, without cutting or dividing the soul. But in dealing with such points as these, my duty is to treat rather with him assign a for him to labour to says. In this way we than with you; it is reason for all he shall not seem to wish to be too importunate with an elderly man's gravity on the subject of a young man's work. As to the similarity of disposition to the parents which is discovered in their children, he does not disj)ute its coming from the soul's seed. Accordingly, this is the opinion also of those persons who do away with the soul's propagation; but the opposite party who entertain this theory do not place on this the weight of their assertion. For they observe also that children are unlike their parents in disposition; and the reason of this, as they suppose, is, that one and the same person very often has various dispositions himself, unlike each other, — not, of course, that he has received another soul, but that his life has undergone a change for the better or for the worse. So they say that there is no impossibility in a soul's not possessing the same disposition which he had by whom it was propagated, seeing that the selfsame soul may have different dispositions at different times. If, therefore, you think that you have learnt this of him, that the soul does not come to us by natural transmission at birth, — I only wish that you had discovered from him the truth of the case, — I would with the greatest pleasure resign myself to your hands to learn the whole truth. But really to leani is one thing, and to seem to yourself to have learned is another thing. If, then, you suppose that you have learned what you still are ignorant of, you have evidently not learnt, but given a random credence to a pleasant hearsay. Falsity has stolen over you in the suavity.' Now I do not say this from feeling as yet any certainty as to the proposition being false, which asserts that souls are created afresh by God's inbreathing rather than derived from the parents at birth; for I think that this is a point which still requires proof from those who find themselves able to teach it. No; my reason for saying it is, that this person has discussed the whole subject in such a way as not only not to solve the point still in dispute, but even to indulge in statements which leave no doubt as to their falsity. In his desire to prove things of doubtful import, he has boldly stated things which undoubtedly merit reprobation.
[VIL] ■VICTOR IMPLIES THAT THE SOUL HAD A " STATE " AND " MERIT " BEFORE INCARNATION.
Would you hesitate yourself to reprobate what he has said concerning the soul? "You will not have it," he says, " that the soul contracts from the sinful flesh the health, to which holy ' This play of words too inadequately represents Augustin's Subrcpsit tibifalsiloqitium per suaviloqititini.
zz^ [Book II.
state you can see it in due course pass by means of the flesh, so as to amend its state through that by which it had lost its merit? Or is it because baptism washes the body that what is beUeved to be conferred by baptism does not pass on to the soul or spirit? It is only right, therefore, that the soul should, by means of the flesh, repair that old condition which it had seemed to have gradually lost through the flesh, in order that it may begin a regenerate state by means of that whereby it had deserved to be polluted." ' Now, do observe how grave an error this teacher has fallen into! He says that " the soul repairs its condition by means of the flesh through which it had lost its merit." The soul, then, must have possessed some state and some good merit previous to the flesh, which he would have that it recovers through the flesh, when the flesh is cleansed in the laver of regeneration. Therefore, previous to the flesh, the soul had lived somewhere in a good state and merit, which state and merit it lost when it came into the flesh. His words are, " that the soul repairs by means of the flesh that primitive condition which it had seemed to have gradually lost through the flesh." The soul, then, possessed before the flesh, an ancient condition (for his term ^'primitive " describes the antiquity of the state); and what could that ancient condition have possibly been, but a blessed and laudable state? Now, he avers that this happiness is recovered through the sacrament of baptism, although he will not admit that the soul derives its origin through propagation from that soul which was once manifestly happy in paradise.
How is it, then, that in another passage he says that "he constantly affirms of the soul that it exists not by propagation, nor comes out of nothing, nor exists by its own self, nor previous to the body "? You see how in this place he insists that souls do exist prior to the body somewhere or other, and that in so happy a state that the same happiness is restored to them by means of baptism. But, as if forgetful of his own views, he goes on to speak of its " beginning a regenerate state by means of that," meaning the flesh, " whereby it had deserved to be polluted." In a previous statement he had indicated some good desert which had been lost by means of the flesh; now, however, he speaks of some evil desert, by means of which it had happened that the soul had to come, or be sent, into the flesh; for his words are, " By which it had deserved to be polluted; " and if it deserved to be polluted, its merits could not, of course, have been good. Pray let him tell us what sin it had committed previous to its pollution by the flesh, in consequence of which it ' See below, Book iii. 9.
merited such pollution by the flesh. Let him, if he can, explain to us a matter which is utterly beyond his power, because it is certainly far above his reach to discover what to tell us on this subject which shall be true.
CHAP. 12 [VIII.] HOW DID THE SOUL DESERVE TO BE INCARNATED?
He also says some time afterwards: " The soul therefore, if it deserved to be sinful, although it could not have been sinful, yet did not remain in sin; because, as it was prefigured in Christ, it was bound not to be in a sinful state, even as it was unable to be."^ Now, my brother, do you, I ask, really think thus? At any rate, have you formed such an opinion, after naving read and duly considered his words, and after having reflected upon what extorted from you praise during his reading, and the expression of your gratitude after he had ended? I pray you, tell me what this means: " Although the soul deserved to be sinful, which could not have been sinful." What mean his phrases, i/eserve^/ a.nd could not? For it could not possibly have deserved its alleged fate, unless it had been sinful; nor would it have been, unless it could have been, sinful, — so as, by committing sin previous to any evil desert, it might make for itself a position whence it might, under God's desertion, advance to the commission of other sins. When he said, "which could not have been sinful," did he mean, which would not have been able to be sinful, unless it came in the flesh? But how did it deserve a mission at all into a state where it could be sinful, when it could not possibly have become capable of sinning anywhere else, unless it entered that particular state? Let him, then, tell us how it so deserved. For if it deserved to become capable of sinning, it must certainly have already committed some sin, in consequence of which it deserved to be sinful again. These points, however, may perhaps appear to be obscure, or may be tauntingly said to be of such a cliaracter, but they are really most plain and clear, llie truth is, he ought not to have said that *' the soul deserved to become sinful through the flesh," when he will never be able to discover any desert of the soul, either good or bad, previous to its being in the flesh.
CHAP. 1 3 [iX.] VICTOR TEACHES THAT GOD THWARTS HIS OWN PREDESTINATION.
Let us now go on to plainer matters. For while he was confined within these great straits, as to how souls can be held bound by the chain of original sin, when they derive not their origin from the soul which first sinned, but the Creator breathes them afresh at every birth into sinful ^ See above. Book i. 8, and below, Book iii. 11.
Chap. 14.]
00/ flesh, — pure from all contagion and propagation of sin: — in order that he might avoid the objection being brought against his argument, that thus God makes them guilty by such insufflation, he first of all had recourse to the theory drawn from God's prescience, that " He had provided redemption for them." Infants are by the sacrament of this redemption baptized, so that the original sin which they contracted from the flesh is washed away, as if God were remedying His own acts for having made these souls polluted. But afterwards, when he comes to speak of those who receive no such assistance, but expire before they are baptized, he says: " In this place I do not offer myself as an authority, but I present you with an example by way of conjecture. We say, then, that some such method as this must be had recourse to in the case of infants, who, being predestinated for baptism, are yet, by the failing of this life, hurried away before they are born again in Christ. We read," adds he, " it written of such. Speedily was he taken away, lest that wickedness should alter his understanding, or deceit beguile his soul. Therefore He hasted to take him away from among the wicked, for his soul pleased the Lord; and, being made perfect in a short time, he fulfilled a long time." ' Now who would disdain having such a teacher as this? Is it the case, then, with infants, whom people usually wish to have baptized, even hurriedly, before they die, that, if they should be detained ever so short a time in this life, that they might be baptized, and then at once die, wickedness would alter their understanding, and deceit beguile their soul; and to prevent this happening to them, a hasty death came to their rescue, so that they were suddenly taken away before they were baptized? By their very baptism, then, they were changed for the worse, and beguiled by deceit, if it was after baptism that they were snatched away. O excellent teaching, worthy to be admired and closely followed! But he presumed greatly on the prudence of all you who were present at his reading, and especially on yours, to whom he addressed this treatise and handed it after the reading, in supposing that you would believe that the scripture he quoted was intended for the case of unbaptized infants, although it was written of the immature ages of all those saints whom foolish men deem to be hardly dealt with, whenever they are suddenly removed from the present life and are not permitted to attain to the years which people covet for themselves as a great gift of God. What, however, is the meaning of these words of his: " Infants predestinated for baptism, who are yet, by the failing; of this life, hurried away before they are born again in Christ," as if some ' Wisd. iv. II, 14, 13.
power of fortune, or fate, or anything else you please, did not permit God to fulfil what He had fore-ordained? And how is it that He hurries them Himself away, when they have pleased Him? Then, does He really predestinate them to be baptized, and then Himself hinder the accomplishment of the very thing which He has predestinated?
CHAP. 14 [X.] — VICTOR SENDS THOSE INFANTS WHO DIE UNBAFJIZED TO PARADISE AND THE HEAVENLY MANSIONS, BUT NOT TO THE KING- DOM OF HEAVEN.
But I beg you mark how bold he is, who is displeased with hesitancy, which prefers to be cautious rather than overknowing in a question so profound as this: " I would be bold to say " — such are his words — "that they can attain to the forgiveness of their original sins, yet not so as to be admitted into the kingdom of heaven. Just as in the case of the thief on the cross, who confessed but was not baptized, the Lord did not give him the kingdom of heaven, but paradise; ^ the words remaining accordingly in full force, ' Except a man be born again of water and of the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' ^ This is especially true, inasmuch as the Lord acknowledges that in His Father's house are many mansions,-* by which are indicated the many different merits of those who dwell in them; so that in these abodes the unbaptized is brought to forgiveness, and the baptized to the reward which by grace has been prepared for him." You observe how the man keeps paradise and the mansions of the Father's house distinct from the kingdom of heaven, so that even unbaptized persons may have an abundant provision in places of eternal happiness. Nor does he see, when he says all this, that he is so unwilling to distinguish the future abode of a baptized infant from the kingdom of heaven as to have no fear in keeping distinct therefrom the very house of God the Father, or the several parts thereof. For the Lord Jesus did not say: In all the created universe, or in any portion of that universe, but, " In my Father's house, are many mansions." But in what way shall an unbaptized person live in the house of God the Father, when he cannot possibl}' have God for his Father, except he be born again? He should not be so ungrateful to God, who has vouchsafed to deliver him from the sect of the Donatists or Rogatists, as to aim at dividing the house of God the Father, and to put one portion of it outside the kingdom of heaven, where the unbaptized may be able to dwell. And on what terms does he himself presume that he is to enter into the kingdom of heaven, when from that kingdom he * Luke xxiii. 43.
3 John iii. 5.
* John xiv. 2.
33^ [Book II.
excludes the house of the King Himself, in what part soever He pleases? From the case, however, of the thief who, when crucified at the Lord's side, put his hope in the Lord who was crucified with him, and from the case of Dinocrates, the brother of St. Perpetua, he argues that even to the unbaptized may be given the remission of sins and an abode with the blessed; as if any one unbelief in whom would be a sin, had shown him that the thief and Dinocrates had not been baptized. Concerning these cases, however, I have more fully explained my views in the book which I wrote to our brother Renatus.' This your loving self will be able to ascertain if you will condescend to read the book; for I am sure our brother will not find it in his heart to refuse you, if you ask him the loan of it.
CHAP. 15 [XI.] VICTOR " DECIDES " THAT OBLA- TIONS SHOULD BE OFFERED UP FOR THOSE WHO DIE UNBAPTIZED.
Still he chafes with indecision, and is well-nigh isuffocated in the terrible straits of his theory; for very likely he descries with a more sensitive •eye than you, the amount of evil which he enun-•ciates, to the effect that original sin in infants is effaced without Christ's sacrament of baptism. It is, indeed, for the purpose of finding an escape to some extent, and tardily, in the Church's sacraments that he says: " In their behalf I most certainly decide that constant ^oblations and incessant sacrifices must be offered up on the part of the holy priests." Well, then, ■you may take him if you like for your arbiter, if it were not enough to have him as your instructor. Let him decide that you must offer up the sacrifice of Christ's body even for those who have not been incorporated into Christ. Now this is quite a novel idea, and foreign to the Church's discipline and the rule of truth: and yet, when daring to propound it in his books, he does not modestly say, T rather think; he does not say, I suppose; he does not say, I am of opinion; nor does he say, I at least would suggest, or mention; — but he says, I give it as my decision; so that, should we be (as might be likely) offended by the novelty or the perverseness of his opinion, we might be overawed by the authority of his judicial determination. It is your own concern, my brother, how to be able to bear him as your instructor in these views. Catholic priests, however, of right feeling (and among them you ought to take your place) could never keep quiet — God forbid it — and hear this man pronounce his decisions, when they would wish him rather to recover his senses, and be sorry both for having entertained such opinions, and for having * See Book i. of the present treatise, chs. 11 [ix.] and 12 [x.J.
gone so far as to commit them to writing, and chastise himself with the most wholesome discipline of repentance. " Now it is," says he, " on this example of the Maccabees who fell \\\ battle that I ground the necessity of doing thi-^Vhen they offered stealthily some interdicted sacrifices, and after they had fallen in the battle. we find," says he, " that this remedial measur.-was at once resorted to by the priests, — sacrifices were offered up to liberate their souls, which had been bound by the guilt of their forbidden conduct." ^ But he says all this, as if (according to his reading of the story) those atoning sacrifices were offered up for uncircumcised persons, as he has decided that these sacrifices of ours must be offered up for unbaptized persons. For circumcision was the sacrament of that period, which prefigured the baptism of our day.
CHAP. 16 [XU.] — VICTOR PROMISES TO THE UN- BAPTIZED PARADISE AFrER THEIR DE.4TH, AND THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN AFTER THEIR RESUR- RECTION, ALTHOUGH HE ADMITS THAT THIS OPPOSES CHRIST'S STATEMENT.