Ignorant of What All the Churches Know

Unhappy souls, pierced through by all these barbarisms as by so many spears! I doubt whether they had as much trouble when, according to Origen’s mistaken theory, they fell from heaven to earth and were clothed in these coarse bodies, as they have now in being knocked about on every side by these strange words and sentences; to say nothing of that ill-omened phrase which says that they are infused through the channel of the human seed. I know it is not usual in Christian writings to criticize mere faults of style. But I thought it well to show by a few examples how rash it is to teach what you do not understand and to write what you do not know; so that when we come to the substance, we may be prepared to find the same amount of wisdom. [a]

He sends a letter, which he calls a very strong stick, as a weapon for the bishop of Rome; and on the very subject over which the dogs are barking at him, he professes complete ignorance. If he is ignorant on the subject that has brought bad reports on him, what need was there to send an Apology that contains no defense of himself, only a confession of his ignorance? A course like this is likely to sow a crop of suspicions, not to calm them. He gives us three opinions about the origin of souls, and his conclusion at the end is, “I do not deny that I have read each of them, and I confess that I am still ignorant.” You would think he was Arcesilaus or Carneades, who declare that nothing is certain. Yet he outdoes even them in caution. They were driven, by the unbearable ill will they stirred up among philosophers for taking all truth out of human life, to invent the doctrine of probability, so that by making probable assertions they might soften their claim that nothing can be known. He simply says that he is uncertain, and does not know which of these opinions is true. If this was all the answer he had to give, what could have led him to call on so great a pontiff as witness to his lack of theological learning? I suppose this is the weariness he tells us about, when he says he is worn out by his thirty years’ journey and cannot come to Rome. There are a great many things of which we are all ignorant; but we do not ask for witnesses to our ignorance.

About the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and about the birth of our Lord and Savior, of which Isaiah cries, “Who will declare his generation?”, he speaks boldly; a mystery that all past ages did not know he claims to understand completely. This alone he does not know: the very thing whose ignorance makes men stumble. How a virgin became the mother of God he knows fully; how he himself was born he knows nothing about. He confesses that God is the maker of souls and bodies, whether souls existed before bodies, or came into being with the seeds of bodies, or are sent into them when they are already formed in the womb. In any case we recognize God as their author. The question at issue is not whether souls were made by God or by someone else, but which of the three opinions he states is true. Of this he professes ignorance.

Take care! You may find people saying that the reason you confess ignorance of all three is that you do not want to be forced to condemn one. You spare Tertullian and Lactantius so as not to condemn Origen with them. As far as I remember, though I may be mistaken, I am not aware of having read that Lactantius spoke of the soul as planted at the same time as the body. But since you say you have read it, please tell me in what book it is to be found, so that you may not be thought to have slandered him after his death as you have slandered me in my sleep. But even here you walk with a cautious and hesitating step. You say, “I think that among the Latins Tertullian or Lactantius held this opinion, and perhaps some others.” You are not only in doubt about the origin of souls; you have only “thoughts” about the opinion each writer holds, and yet the matter is of some importance. On the question of the soul you openly proclaim your ignorance and confess your lack of teaching; about the authors your knowledge amounts only to “thinking,” hardly to “presuming.” But about Origen alone you are quite clear: “This is Origen’s opinion,” you say. Let me ask you, then: is the opinion sound or not? Your reply is, “I do not know.”

Then why do you send me messengers and letter carriers, who are constantly coming, merely to teach me that you are ignorant? So that I cannot doubt whether your incapacity is as great as you say, or suspect that you are cunningly hiding all you know, you take an oath in the presence of God that up to this moment you hold nothing certain and settled on this subject, and that you leave it to God to know the truth, and to anyone to whom it may please him to reveal it. What! Through all these ages does it seem to you that no one has been worthy to have this revealed to him? Not a patriarch, not a prophet, not an apostle, not a martyr? Were these mysteries not made clear even to you, when you lived among princes and exiles? The Lord says in the Gospel, “Father, I have revealed your name to men.” Did he who revealed the Father keep silent about the origin of souls? And are you surprised if your brothers take offense, when you swear that you know nothing of a thing that the churches of Christ profess to know?