Chapter XXI.—As Free-Will Actuates an Individual So May His Character Change.

Now, if the soul possessed this uniform and simple nature from the beginning in Adam, previous to so many mental dispositions (being developed out of it), it is not rendered multiform by such various development, nor by the triple164    i.e., the carnal, the animal, and the spiritual. Comp. Adv. Valentin. xxv., and De Resur. Carnis, lv. form predicated of it in “the Valentinian trinity” (that we may still keep the condemnation of that heresy in view), for not even this nature is discoverable in Adam. What had he that was spiritual? Is it because he prophetically declared “the great mystery of Christ and the church?”165    Eph. v. 32. “This is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman. Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and he shall cleave unto his wife; and they two shall be one flesh.”166    Gen. ii. 23, 24. But this (gift of prophecy) only came on him afterwards, when God infused into him the ecstasy, or spiritual quality, in which prophecy consists. If, again, the evil of sin was developed in him, this must not be accounted as a natural disposition: it was rather produced by the instigation of the (old) serpent as far from being incidental to his nature as it was from being material in him, for we have already excluded belief in “Matter.”167    See Adv. Hermog. xiii. Now, if neither the spiritual element, nor what the heretics call the material element, was properly inherent in him (since, if he had been created out of matter, the germ of evil must have been an integral part of his constitution), it remains that the one only original element of his nature was what is called the animal (the principle of vitality, the soul), which we maintain to be simple and uniform in its condition. Concerning this, it remains for us to inquire whether, as being called natural, it ought to be deemed subject to change. (The heretics whom we have referred to) deny that nature is susceptible of any change,168    See Adv. Valentin. xxix. in order that they may be able to establish and settle their threefold theory, or “trinity,” in all its characteristics as to the several natures, because “a good tree cannot produce evil fruit, nor a corrupt tree good fruit; and nobody gathers figs of thorns, nor grapes of brambles.”169    Luke vi. 43, 44. If so, then “God will not be able any longer to raise up from the stones children unto Abraham; nor to make a generation of vipers bring forth fruits of repentance.”170    Matt. iii. 7–9. And if so, the apostle too was in error when he said in his epistle, “Ye were at one time darkness, (but now are ye light in the Lord:)”171    Eph. v. 8. and, “We also were by nature children of wrath;”172    Eph. ii. 3. and, “Such were some of you, but ye are washed.”173    1 Cor. vi. 11. The statements, however, of holy Scripture will never be discordant with truth. A corrupt tree will never yield good fruit, unless the better nature be grafted into it; nor will a good tree produce evil fruit, except by the same process of cultivation. Stones also will become children of Abraham, if educated in Abraham’s faith; and a generation of vipers will bring forth the fruits of penitence, if they reject the poison of their malignant nature. This will be the power of the grace of God, more potent indeed than nature, exercising its sway over the faculty that underlies itself within us—even the freedom of our will, which is described as αὐτεξούσιος (of independent authority); and inasmuch as this faculty is itself also natural and mutable, in whatsoever direction it turns, it inclines of its own nature. Now, that there does exist within us naturally this independent authority (τὸ αὐτεξούσιον ), we have already shown in opposition both to Marcion174    See our Anti-Marcion, ii. 5–7. and to Hermogenes.175    In his work against this man, entitled De Censu Animæ, not now extant. If, then, the natural condition has to be submitted to a definition, it must be determined to be twofold—there being the category of the born and the unborn, the made and not-made. Now that which has received its constitution by being made or by being born, is by nature capable of being changed, for it can be both born again and re-made; whereas that which is not-made and unborn will remain for ever immoveable. Since, however, this state is suited to God alone, as the only Being who is unborn and not-made (and therefore immortal and unchangeable), it is absolutely certain that the nature of all other existences which are born and created is subject to modification and change; so that if the threefold state is to be ascribed to the soul, it must be supposed to arise from the mutability of its accidental circumstances, and not from the appointment of nature.

CAPUT XXI.

Quod si uniformis natura anima ab initio in Adam, ante tot ingenia, ergo non multiformis per tot ingenia; jam nec triformis, ut adhuc trinitas valentiniana caedatur, quae nec ipsa in Adam recognoscitur. 0684B Quid enim spiritale in illo? Si quia prophetavit magnum illud sacramentum in Christum et Ecclesiam (Gen. II): Hoc os ex ossibus meis, et caro ex carne mea, vocabitur mulier; propterea relinquet homo patrem et matrem, et adglutinabitur mulieri suae, et erunt duo in carnem unam; hoc postea obvenit, cum in illum Deus amentiam immisit, spiritalem vim qua constat prophetia. Si et malum in eo apparuit transgressionis admissum, nec hoc naturale deputandum est, quod instinctu serpentis operatus est (Gen. III), tam non naturale, quam nec materiale; quia et materiae fidem jam exclusimus. Quod si nec spiritale, nec quod dicitur materiale proprium in illo fuit; nam si ex materia fuisset mali semen, superest ut solum in illo et unicum fuerit naturale, quod censetur animale; 0684C quod statu simplex et uniforme defendimus. De hoc plane relinquitur quaeri an demutabile debeat credi, quod naturale dicatur. Iidem enim convertibilem negant naturam, ut trinitatem suam in singulis proprietatibus figant: quia arbor bona malos non ferat fructus, nec mala bonos; et nemo de spinis metat ficus, et de tribulis uvas. Ergo si ita est, neque de lapidibus filios Abrahae suscitare (Matt. III) poterit Deus, nec genimina viperarum facere poenitentiae fructus; et erravit 0685A Apostolus scribens (Eph. V): Eratis et vos aliquando tenebrae; et (Eph. II): Fuimus et nos aliquando natura filii irae, et (I Cor. VI): In his vos quoque fuistis, sed abluti estis. Sed nunquam discordabunt sententiae sanctae. Non dabit enim (Luc. VI) arbor mala bonos fructus, si non inseratur; et bona malos dabit, si non colatur; et lapides filii Abrahae fient, si in fidem Abrahae formentur, et genimina viperarum fructum poenitentiae facient, si venena malignitatis expuerint. Haec erit vis divinae gratiae, potentior utique natura, habens in nobis subjacentem sibi liberam arbitrii potestatem, quod αὐτεξοὺσιον dicitur; quae cum sit et ipsa naturalis atque mutabilis, quoquo vertitur, natura convertitur. Inesse autem nobis τὸ αὑτεξούσιον naturaliter, jam et Marcioni ostendimus 0685B et Hermogeni. Quid nunc, si et naturae conditio sic erit definienda, ut duplex determinetur, natorum et innatorum, factorum et infectorum? Atque ita quod natum factumque constiterit, ejus natura capiet demutationem: et renasci enim poterit, et refici. Innatum autem et infectum immobile stabit. Quod cum soli Deo competat, ut soli innato et infecto, et idcirco immortali et inconvertibili, absolutum est, caeterorum omnium natorum atque factorum convertibilem et demutabilem esse naturam; ut etsi trinitas animae adscribenda esset, ex mutatione accidentiae, non ex institutione naturae deputaretur.