Chapter 3 [III.]—He Enumerates the Errors Which He Desires to Have Amended in the Books of Vincentius Victor. The First Error.

If you ask me what the particular errors are, you may read what I have written to our brethren, that servant of God Renatus, and the presbyter Peter, to the latter of whom you yourself thought it necessary to write the very works of which we are now treating, “in obedience,” as you allege, “to his own wish and request.” Now, they will, I doubt not, lend you my treatises for your perusal if you should like it, and even press them upon your attention without being asked. But be that as it may, I will not miss this present opportunity of informing you what amendments I desire to have made in these writings of yours, as well as in your belief. The first is, that you will have it that “The soul was not so made by God that He made it out of nothing, but out of His own very self.”97    See above, Book i. 4 and Book ii. 5.    Ps. xlix. 12. Here you do not reflect what the necessary conclusion is, that the soul must be of the nature of God; and you know very well, of course, how impious such an opinion is. Now, to avoid such impiety as this, you ought so to say that God is the Author of the soul as that it was made by Him, but not of Him. For whatever is of Him (as, for instance, His only-begotten Son) is of the self-same nature as Himself. But, that the soul might not be of the same nature as its Creator, it was made by Him, but not of Him. Or, then, tell me whence it is, or else confess that it is of nothing. What do you mean by that expression of yours, “That it is a certain particle of an exhalation from the nature of God”? Do you mean to say, then, that the exhalation98    Halitus (breath). itself from the nature of God, to which the particle in question belongs, is not of the same nature as God is Himself? If this be your meaning, then God made out of nothing that exhalation of which you will have the soul to be a particle. Or, if not out of nothing, pray tell me of what God made it? If He made it out of Himself, it follows that He is Himself (what should never be affirmed) the material of which His own work is formed. But you go on to say: “When however, He made the exhalation or breath out of Himself, He remained at the same time whole and entire;” just as if the light of a candle did not also remain entire when another candle is lighted from it, and yet be of the same nature, and not another.

CAPUT III.

3. Si quaeris quaenam illa sint, poteris quidem legere mea scripta ad fratres nostros, Renatum Dei servum, et presbyterum Petrum, ad quem tu eadem ipsa, de quibus nunc agimus, scribenda existimasti, «ejus,» ut asseris, «voluntati petentis obtemperans.» Dabunt enim tibi ut legas procul dubio, si volueris, et ingerent etiam non petenti. Verumtamen etiam hic, quae maxime in eisdem libris tuis, et in fide tua emendari cupiam, non tacebo. Primum est, quod «Animam non ita vis a Deo esse factam, ut eam ex nihilo fecerit, sed ex semetipso» (Supra, lib. 1, n. 4, et lib. 2, n. 5). Ubi non putas esse consequens ut naturae sit Dei: quia profecto quam sit impium, et ipse cognoscis. Qua impietate ut careas, ita oportet ut dicas animae auctorem Deum, ut ab illo facta sit, non de illo. Quod enim de illo est, sicut unigenitus Filius, ejusdem naturae cujus et ille est. Ut autem anima ejusdem naturae non sit cujus est ille, facta est quidem ab illo, sed non de illo. Aut ergo dic unde, aut fatere de nihilo. Quid est quod dicis, «eam particulam esse quamdam halitus naturae Dei?» Numquidnam ipsum halitum naturae Dei, cujus halitus est ista particula, negas ejusdem cujus Deus est esse naturae? Si negas, ergo de nihilo et istum halitum fecit Deus, cujus halitus animam vis esse particulam. Aut si non de nihilo, dic unde illum fecerit Deus. Si de se ipso, ergo ipse est, quod absit, materies operis sui. Sed dicis, «Cum de se ipso halitum vel flatum facit, ipse integer manet:» quasi non et ignis lucernae integer maneat, cum de illo altera accenditur, et tamen ejusdem, non alterius, sit naturae.