Apology against Jerome 1.27–1.38

These are the things you write in those commentaries which alone of all your works you choose, and bid men read again in order to condemn the rest. You say that there was an invisible world before this visible one was made, and in that world, with its other inhabitants, the angels namely, there were also souls. These souls, you say, for certain causes known to God alone, are born in bodies in this visible world, and those which before had dwelt in heaven in a former age now dwell here, on earth namely, not without some causes which they themselves committed while living there. And you say that each of the saints, such as Paul and others like him, in each generation were destined by God for their instruction, so that by their preaching they might call them back to that dwelling of theirs from which they had fallen; and you confirm this with very abundant testimonies of Scripture. And what other sayings, I ask, are there for which you summon Origen to court? What others are there for which you bid him be condemned? Do you condemn another for what is in your own writings? And if, as you urge, sayings of this kind are to be condemned, you will pass sentence first, and for such sayings you will condemn yourself first. For no escape is left you any longer. No tricks, for which you accuse others, will have room here. For in your very repentance, after your conversion, already amended and corrected, you gave authority to these books: namely, that your judgment on the doctrines you say are to be condemned should be proved from them. And therefore what is written here must be heard as though you were now pronouncing and defining it. And here you define such things as you say are to be condemned. "But it is not I," he says, "who define it; I say it is another who says these things": that is, this very man whom I now say ought to be condemned. Let us then take up again, if you please, that very sentence where you change the person of the expositor, to see who it is whom you say asserts such things. You say, then: "But another, who tries to show that God is just, says" the things we have already quoted above. If this man whom you call "another" shows by this assertion of his, as you say, that God is just, and is other than and different from you, what do you think about yourself? Do you deny that God is just? Master, while you see so much, and so sharply censure moles whose eyes are blind, I think you have run into a trap and are shut in on both sides. For either you will deny that God is just, so as to be other than and contrary to him who says these things; or if, as the whole church confesses, you too confess that God is just, you are the one who says these things, and you are the first to receive the sentence you pass on another, and you are the one pierced by your own sword. This, I think, should suffice before most just judges who await the coming judgment of God: not that they should condemn him who sees the speck in his brother's eye and does not see the beam in his own, but that they should correct him and call him back to true repentance.

But lest perhaps this passage escaped him, one of those in the books which he thought he had thoroughly revised, and whose example, all the rest being condemned, he had put forward as a confession of faith, let us inquire how he thinks in the other places too. Again in the same book, on the heading where it is written, "According to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glory," after a little he speaks thus: "Here, then, those seize an occasion who think that before the foundation of the world souls dwelt with the angels and the other names of the heavenly powers in the heavenly Jerusalem; because it cannot be understood to be according to God's good pleasure, nor to the praise of his glory and grace, that some are born naked, barbarians, slaves, weak, and others rich, Romans, free, healthy; base-born or noble in different regions and in different parts, unless causes preceded, by whose merits each of the souls received this lot. And that which is written to the Romans, which some think they understand and do not, 'Has the potter no power over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honour, another for dishonour?', they refer to the same meaning: that just as a bad or good life, a toilsome or easy one, is lived in this world to no purpose unless we believe that there will be a judgment of God, so also the diversity of those born in this world would accuse the justice of God, unless the merits of souls had preceded. For if, they say, we do not take it so, it will be neither the good pleasure of God's will, nor to the praise of his glory and grace, that he chose some before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless and to have adoption through Jesus Christ, and destined others to the lowest condition and to everlasting punishments; that he loved Jacob before he came out of the womb, and hated Esau before he had done things deserving of hatred, unless causes had preceded which prove the justice of God."

What could be more explicit than this assertion? What could be thought or said more plainly about these doctrines, either by Origen or by any of those whom you say you censure, namely, that the diversity and inequality among those born in this world is to be referred to the justice of God? You say that each soul has itself given the cause of its salvation or damnation, from those movements of mind which they performed while living before in the heavenly Jerusalem, which is the mother of all. "And this," he says, "was not said in my own person, but I wrote that another says it. In short, I said, 'Some seize an occasion.'" Nor do I deny that you seem to speak of another. But whether this "other," whom you say says these things, is in agreement and harmony with you, or contrary and hostile, you have not denied. For when you name some "other" contrary to you, you usually set down some of his sayings but at once destroy and attack them, as with Marcion, Valentinus, Arius and the rest. But when you name an "other," and write his sayings with very strong assertions, and fortify them with abundant testimonies of the Scriptures, do not even we, the slowest of men, whom you call moles, see that this man whose sayings you set down and do not destroy is none other than yourself, and that this is the rhetorical figure by which speakers put forward their own view under another's person? Orators do this when they fear to offend some people or wish to avoid ill-will. For if you think yourself defended by naming another in these sayings, much more excusable will be the man you accuse. For he not only is in the habit of saying that others say so, and that it seems so to some; but he says much more cautiously that on such matters he does not define but rather offers an opinion; and that if something else seems better to another, these things should be dropped and those held. See how much caution he used; and yet he is summoned by you to condemnation. You think you have escaped because you merely name "another." For you condemn him for the very things in which you follow and imitate him.

But we will show still greater things from what follows, as we promised. For after he had said that we "hoped before in Christ," and that from that time, that is, before the foundation of the world and before we were born in bodies, we were blessed and chosen in the heavens, he again brings in that "other" of his, and says: "But another, not accepting this doctrine, that we existed and hoped in Christ before we lived in this body, transfers the meaning to this." In this place this "other" of his, whoever he is, has breathed out all his foulness. For let him tell us whom he wishes to be this "other," who does not endure the doctrine that before we lived in this body we both existed and hoped in Christ; for this is the very thing for which he bids Origen be condemned. Whom does he wish to be understood here as "another"? Someone contrary to himself? What do you say, master? You are pressed by that horned dilemma which you are accustomed to explain to your pupils. For if you say that this "other," who does not accept that souls existed before they lived in the body, is you, then what was hidden in the earlier passage is betrayed: for by your own confession you are found to be that "other" who defines all the doctrines you bid be condemned. But if you are not the "other" in the earlier passage, so that what you reject may not be ascribed to you, neither will you be the "other" here, who does not endure that souls existed before we lived in the body. Choose whichever side of the excuse you please. Do you wish us to understand this "other" whom you so often bring in to be you, or someone else? Do you wish him to seem catholic or heretic? To be condemned or acquitted? If this "other" of yours is catholic, who said in the earlier passage that before this visible world souls existed with the angels and the other powers, placed in the heavens in the Jerusalem above, and there by their manner of life contracted the causes of their diversity, either of being born in this world or of enduring any other conditions, then these will be catholic doctrines, and meanwhile it is impious to condemn what is catholic. But if you call this "other" a heretic, you will mark as a heretic him who does not accept that souls existed and hoped in Christ before they were born in the body. Where is the way out of here, master? Where does one break out? Where does one escape again? Wherever you turn, you will stick fast. I do not say that no way of withdrawing yourself is given, but not even a little room to breathe. Is this how the commentaries of your Alexander on Aristotle have profited you? Is this how Porphyry's have? Has the training of so many and such great philosophers, Greek and Latin, and of Jewish learning besides, so cultivated you that you have come into these straits so inextricable, and are so wretchedly hemmed in that you could not be defended even as far as the Alps?

But let us spare him now: we must defer to letters and, as he himself says, sleep is not to be charged to a great work; though he himself spares no one, and flogs whom he pleases not so much by the reasoning of what was said as with the lash of his tongue. And if anyone flatters him rather less, he is at once branded a heretic by writings and by a hundred copies sent in all directions. Yet let us imitate not him but the patriarch David, who, when he had caught his enemy Saul in the cave, would not cut his throat though he could, but spared him; which this man also, even if he will not admit it, keeps in his heart and conscience as having been done to him by us more than once, not only in word but in deed and act. Let us then grant pardon to one who does not know how to grant pardon, who judges another's sayings without any regard for humanity, and meanwhile let us lead him out of this cave, until he falls into that one from which, even if we all try and wish it, he cannot get out. Let him say, then, how it can be that in that earlier passage, where this doctrine was confirmed by him who was trying to show that God is just, where he spoke of "another," it was truly another's person, such as he now wishes condemned; while here, where the "other" is contrary and does not accept what was said earlier, he called himself "another." For it may be that he is conscious of having held this view when he wrote, though he could not express it with his pen. Let there be pardon, then, and let us suppose that in this place this "other" is himself, who does not accept the doctrine which says that souls existed before we lived in the body and hoped in Christ. Let us take up the chapter itself again and follow more carefully where it tends. He says, then: "But another, not accepting this doctrine, that we existed and hoped in Christ before we lived in this body, transfers the meaning to this: he says that at the coming of the Lord and Saviour, when in his name every knee shall bow, of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue shall confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father, when all things have been subjected to him, some will be subjected by will and others by necessity; and those who hoped in him before the presence of his majesty will be to the praise of his glory and will be called proēlpikotes; but those who are found believing by necessity, at the time when neither the devil nor his angels will be able to deny him as he reigns, will be hoping, but not to the praise of his glory. This we see partly fulfilled even now, because the reward of him who follows God by will is one thing, and that of him who follows by necessity another. Yet, whether in pretence or in truth, provided only Christ is proclaimed: so long as both he who hopes and he who hoped before know that they will receive different rewards according to the difference of their hope."

In this place every opportunity for quibbling is taken away. In the earlier passage you said that those who "hoped before in Christ" are those who, before they were born in bodies in this visible world, had hope in Christ while placed in the heavens. But so that this doctrine might not seem to be yours, you brought in another exposition, in which you say that at the time when every knee shall bow to the Lord Jesus, the whole creation of things in heaven, on earth and under the earth will be subjected to him in two ways, some by will, others by necessity. And you say that by will all the saints are subjected, who now believe in him through the words of preaching, and that these are called proēlpikotes, that is, those who hoped before in Christ. But by necessity those are subjected who now indeed have not believed through the preaching of the word, but then will no longer be able to deny, like the devil and his angels and those who by necessity have fallen with them; and all these, with whom also the devil and his angels, because they will believe afterwards, will not be called "those who hoped before," for the reason that the former believed in Christ before and hoped in him by will, but these later and by necessity. And therefore you say they will receive different rewards. Yet you place rewards for all these who do not now believe, that is, for the devil and his angels, though lower ones; and him, of whom you censure in another the mere opinion, not the judgment, that his punishment will at some time be remitted, you yourself lead to second rewards in the kingdom of Christ. And you wish this to be understood: that as it makes no difference whether Christ is proclaimed in truth or by necessity, so it matters nothing whether one believes by necessity or by will.

These are the things which you bid us learn from your commentaries. These are the rules of confusion in the faith that you teach us, so that what is learned at home is condemned in others. For certainly, if you are now the "other" who does not endure that first doctrine, which says that souls existed in the heavens before they were in bodies, you are without doubt the one who not only grants pardon to the devil and his angels and all unbelievers, but even promises that they are to be rewarded with second prizes. But if you shun this second doctrine, you are the father of that first doctrine. I wonder how these prudent and learned men who read these writings of his, about which these things are now written by him, laugh at me because he calls me a mole, and do not perceive that they are rather judged moles by him, since he thinks they do not see these things buried in his books. For if he thought that as readers they could understand, he would never have bidden them take the copy of these books for condemning the very things which the master himself teaches, books in which those very things which he urges us to condemn are contained more fully and plainly. We have shown meanwhile that he himself asserts in these chosen commentaries of his the things which he bids be condemned in another's books: namely, that souls existed in the heavens before they were born in bodies in this world; and that all, whether sinners or unbelievers, with the devil and his angels, at the time when every knee shall bow to Jesus, of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth, will not only receive pardon but will also be called to second rewards.

But since the novelty of the thing, I do not doubt, hardly earns belief, that anyone should be believed to condemn what he builds up, I know what you desire: that, if we can, we bring forward from the same books examples so clear that no room at all for doubt about them remains for anyone, that is, where not even that "other" of his is named. And so I will do. Again from the same book: that at the end of the age Christ and all his saints will have their seat above the demons, so that the demons themselves act according to the will of Christ and of his saints seated above them. From the heading where the Apostle says, "That he might show in the ages to come the abundant riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus," after a little: "That we," he says, "who were once held by the law of hell, and through vices and sins, as by works of the flesh, were thus destined also to punishment, now reign in Christ and sit with him. And we sit not in some low place, but above every principality, power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the age to come. For if Christ has been raised from the dead and sits at the right hand of God in the heavens above every principality and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the age to come, and we too shall sit and reign with Christ, it is necessary that we sit above the things above which he sits. But the careful reader will at once say and ask: What then, is man greater than the angels and all the powers in heaven? Since it is dangerous to answer this, he refers the principalities, powers, virtues, dominions and every name that is named not only in this age but also in the age to come (especially since all things are subjected to Christ's feet) not to the good side but to the contrary, so as to say that they are the fugitive angels, and the prince of this world, and Lucifer who rose in the morning, above whom the saints will sit with Christ at the end of the age, conferring a benefit on them too, who now are infernal and, misusing their freedom, wander everywhere and fall headlong over the precipices of sins. But when they have such rulers seated over them, they will begin to be governed according to the will of those seated over them." Is any ambiguity left here too, so that this place needs a defender? Where most plainly, with no person of that "other" interposed, he says that the fugitive angels, and the prince of this world, and Lucifer who rose in the morning, will at the end, when Christ sits above them and reigns with his saints, be partners and companions not only of his kingdom but also of his will. For to act according to the will of Christ and of all his saints is to have arrived at the highest blessedness. For there is no other perfection of the prayer in which he taught us to pray to the Father than that his will be done, as in heaven so also on earth.

But listen patiently, I pray, not indeed to one going through everything about these doctrines that is contained in his books (for they are so many that if I wished to pursue them I should have to write several volumes), but as much as may satisfy readers: that he does not fall into these things by chance, which he now sets before his disciples to imitate, but confirms them with very broad and frequent assertion. But let us see what he teaches us from these most approved commentaries. Again from the same book: that not only in the present age but also in the age to come there is an ascent and descent of men. On the heading where he says, "Above every principality, power, virtue and dominion, and every name that is named not only in this age but also in the age to come," after some other matter: "But if there are powers, virtues, principalities and dominions," he says, "it is necessary that they also have subjects, who fear them and serve them, and who are strengthened by their might. These distributions of offices will exist not only in the present but also in the age to come, so that by particular advances and honours, by ascents also and descents, one may grow or decrease, and come under one or another power, virtue, principality and dominion."

Why, master, to deal with you in your own words, after nearly four hundred years do you teach these things to the quiet and simple minds of the Latins? Why do you thrust upon unaccustomed ears new words which no one received from the apostles? I beg you to spare the ears of the Romans, to spare the faith which was praised by the Apostle's voice. Why do you bring into the open what Peter and Paul were unwilling to publish? Until you wrote these things (not, as you teach, until I translated, but until you wrote them about fifteen years ago), was the Christian world without them? For what is it that you now teach, that in the age to come there will still be ascents and descents, and some will advance and some decrease? Then what you say, that in this age life is either gained or lost, is not true; or has it some hidden interpretation? For you do not repent of the things contained in these commentaries. Again, that the church is to be understood as one body made up not only of men but also of angels and all the heavenly powers: from the same book, on the heading where it is written, "And he gave him as head over all the church," after a little: "The church," he says, "can be understood as consisting not only of men but also of angels and all the powers and rational creatures." Again, that souls, because they knew God in that former life, now know him not as one unknown but recognize him anew as after forgetting him: from the same book he speaks thus: "As to what he says, 'in the knowledge of him,' that is, en epignōsei, some understand it thus, that between gnōsis and epignōsis, that is, between knowing and recognizing, there is this difference: knowing concerns things we did not know before and afterwards began to know, while recognizing concerns things which we afterwards remember. And we suspect a certain former life in the heavens, since, after being cast down into these bodies and forgetting God the Father, we have now come to know him by revelation, according to what is written: 'All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord'; and many things like these."

As to his saying, "Some say these things," I think I have shown clearly enough above that whenever he puts "Some say these things," or "Another says," and yet does not destroy what is said, he himself is that "some" or "another," especially since I have often shown that views agreeing with these were stated by him without any such interposition of a person. But what else is there that displeases him in another? "He says," he declares, "that the stars and the other things in heaven are rational and capable of sin." Let us see, then, what he himself thinks about such things. In the same book, from the same heading, where it is written, "For he must reign until he puts his enemies under his feet," after some other matter: "It can be answered," he says, "that no one is without sin. Even the stars themselves are not clean before God, and every creature fears the coming of the Creator. Hence the cross of the Saviour is said to have cleansed not only the things on earth but also the things that were in heaven." Again, that because of the body of humiliation and the body of death men are called children of wrath: from the same book, on the heading where it is written, "We were by nature children of wrath like the rest," after some other matter: "But let us say," he says, "that all men are first by nature children of wrath because of the body of humiliation and the body of death, and because from youth the mind of men is set on evil." Again, that the making of the soul comes first and then the moulding of the body: from the same book under the same heading, after much else: "And observe carefully," he says, "that he did not say 'we are his figure and moulding,' but 'his workmanship.' For moulding draws its origin from the clay of the earth, but workmanship took its beginning according to the likeness and image of God. These two, set together in the hundred and eighteenth Psalm, signify different things: 'Your hands, Lord, have made me and moulded me.' Making holds the first place, then moulding." What else is there that he wishes condemned? Let him say, so that we may bring it out of his books, or rather out of his heart. "That he makes one nature of souls and of angels," he says, "this is offensive." But let us see what he himself thinks about this in these books which he sets before us as a model of confession and a rule of belief. Again from the same book, on the heading where it is written, "And coming he preached peace to those far off and to those near": when he had first explained it of the Jews and Gentiles, he afterwards added this: "And let this be said according to the common interpretation. But whoever reads the Apostle's words about Christ, 'making peace through the blood of his cross with the things that were on earth and those in heaven,' and the rest that is said in the same place, will not think that we, who in the spirit are called Israel, were far off, and the Jews, who are called Israel only in the flesh, were near. And he will apply this whole meaning to the angels and heavenly powers and to human souls: that Christ in his blood joined the earthly and the heavenly, which were at variance with each other. And the good shepherd, carrying back the sick sheep to the mountains, made it be with the rest; and joined the drachma that was lost to the drachmas that were safe."