But Let this Pass, for what Follows is of More Importance. I Thank God that He Has Relieved Me from a Very Serious Burden of Suspicion. Perhaps I Seemed to Some People to be Acting Contentiously and Calumniously when I Insinuated That, According to a Figure of Rhetoric, when He Spoke of Another' He Meant Himself. But to Prevent all Further Doubt from Resting in the Minds of his Hearers, He Has Himself Declared that it is So. Like a Truly Good Teacher, who Would not Wish any Ambiguity About his Sayings to Remain in the Minds of his Pupils, He Has Been So Good as to Shew Quite Clearly who that Other' was of whom He had Spoken Before. He Therefore Says, "But, as it Stands, the Addition of the Preposition Before' Leads us to Explain it According to the Ideas which we Argued in a Former Place to be Necessary. " You See, He Means that it is We, and not Some Other, no one Knows Who, as You May have Thought, who in the Former Place Argued Thus, when we were Expounding the Words "Who Hath Blessed us with Every Spiritual Blessing in the Heavenly Places in Christ. " it was to Meet the Case of the Less Intelligent Persons, who Might Think that what was There Said was Spoken by Some one Else, to Prevent any Error on the Point Remaining in the Minds of those whom He had Begged to Read These Books So that they Might See what his Opinion of Origen Was, that He Now Acknowledges this Opinion as his Own, And, no Longer Speaking of Another,' Says what we have Quoted Before; Namely, That, as God had Before Blessed us with all Spiritual Blessing in Christ in the Heavenly Places, and had Chosen us Before the Foundation of the World; So Also we are Said to have Trusted in Christ at that Former Time in which we were Elected and Predestinated and Blessed in Heaven. He Himself Therefore, as it Seems to Me, Has by his Own Testimony, Absolved Me from all Suspicion of Speaking a Calumny when I Say that That Other' is no Other' than Himself. C(A). But, I Undertook to Shew Something of More Importance Still in what Follows. After He had Said that we had Hoped in Christ Before, and that in the Time Before the Foundation of the World and Before we were Born in Our Bodies, we had Been Blessed and Chosen in Heaven, He Again Introduces that Other' of His, and Says: "Another, who Does not Admit this Doctrine that we had a Previous Existence and had Hope in Christ Before we Lived in this Body, Would have us Understand the Matter in his Own Way. " in this Passage this Other,' Whoever He May Be, Has Put Forth all his Ill Savour. Let Him Tell us Then whom He Means by this Other' who Does not Admit this Opinion that Before we Lived in this Body we Both Existed and Hoped in Christ --For which He Requires us to Condemn Origen. Whom Does He Wish us to Understand by this Other'? is it Some one Opposed to Himself? what do You Say, Great Master? You are Pressed by that Two-Horned Dilemma of which You are So Fond of Speaking to Your Disciples. For, if You Say that by this Other' who Does not Admit that Souls Existed Before they Lived in the Body You Mean Yourself, You have Betrayed the Secret which in the Previous Passages was Concealed. It is Now Found Out that You by Your Own Confession are that Other who have Fashioned all the Doctrines of which You Now Demand the Condemnation. But if we are not to Believe You to be the Other' of the Former Passage, So that the Doctrines which You Now Impugn May not be Ascribed to You, we have no Right to Consider You in this Case to be the Other' who Does not Admit that Our Souls Existed Before we Lived in Bodies. Choose Either Side You Like as the Ground of Your Acquittal. This Other,' whom You So Frequently Bring In, are we to Understand by Him Yourself or Some one Else? do You Wish that He Should be Thought by us to be a Catholic or a Heretic? is He to be Acquitted or Condemned? if that Other' of Yours is a Catholic, the Man who Said in the Former Passage that Before this visible World Our Souls had their Abode among the Angels and the Other Heavenly Powers in the Heavenly Places in Jerusalem which is Above, and that they There Contracted those Dispositions which Caused the Diversities of their Birth into the World and of the Other Conditions to which they are Now Subject, Then These must be Esteemed to be Catholic Doctrines, and we Know that it is an Impiety to Condemn what is Catholic. But if You Call this Other' a Heretic, You must Also Brand as a Heretic the Other' who Will not Admit that Souls Existed and Hoped in Christ Before they were Born in the Body. Which Way Can You Get Out of this Dilemma, My Master? Whither Will You Break Forth? to what Place Will You Escape? Whichever Way You Betake Yourself, You Will Stick Fast. Not Only is There no Avenue by which You Can Withdraw Yourself; There is not Even the Least Breathing Space Left You. Is this all the Profit You have Gained from Alexander's Commentaries on Aristotle, and Porphyry's Introduction? is this the Result of the Training of all those Great Philosophers by whom You Tell us You were Educated, with all their Learning, Greek and Latin, and Jewish into the Bargain? have they Ended by Bringing You into These Inextricable Straits, in which You are So Pitifully Confined that the Very Alps could Give You no Refuge? C(A). But Let us Spare Him Now. We must Bend to Our Examination of the Books; For, to Use an Expression of his Own, a Great Work Leaves no Time for Sleep; Though Indeed He Himself Spares Nobody, and Does not So Much Use Reasonable Speech as Lash with the Scourge of his Tongue Whomsoever He Pleases; and any one who Refuses to Flatter Him must Expect to be Branded at once as a Heretic Both in his Treatises and in Hundreds of Letters Sent to all Parts of the World. Let us not Follow his Example, but Rather that of the Patriarch David, Who, when He had Surprised his Enemy Saul in the Cave and Might have Slain Him, Refused to do So, but Spared Him. This Man Knows Well How Often I have done the Same by Him, Both in Word and Deed; and if He Does not Choose to Confess It, He Has it Fixed at Least in his Mind and Conscience. I Will Pardon Him Then, Though He Never Pardons Others, but Condemns Men for their Words Without any Consideration or Charity; and for the Present I Will Let Him Come Out from this Pit, Until He Falls into that Other, from which all of us Together Will be Unable to Deliver Him, However Much we May Wish and Strive. He Has to Explain How it Comes to Pass That, in the First Passage, Where that Doctrine was Being Asserted which Sought to vindicate the Justice of God, He Really Meant to Speak of Some one Else, and that That Person was the one whom He Now Wishes to have Condemned; yet in the Second Passage, Where the Speaker Says the Opposite and Does not Admit what Has Been Said Before, the Other' whom He Speaks of Means Himself. It is Possible that He May Feel Sure that this was what He Meant, but that He was not Able to Make it Plain in Writing. Let us Give Him the Benefit of the Doubt, and Assume that in this Latter Passage the Other' is Himself, and that it is He who Does not Admit the Doctrine which Holds that Before Our Life in the Body Began Our Souls Existed and Hoped in Christ. I Will Quote the Entire Passage, and Prosecute a Fresh and Diligent Inquiry to See what it Tends To. He Says Thus:

Bible > Library

Life and Works of Rufinus with Jerome's Apology Against Rufinus. — Various

31. But let this pass, for what follows is of more importance. I thank God that he has relieved me from a very serious burden of suspicion. Perhaps I seemed to some people to be acting contentiously and calumniously when I insinuated that, according to a figure of rhetoric, when he spoke of another' he meant himself. But to prevent all further doubt from resting in the minds of his hearers, he has himself declared that it is so. Like a truly good teacher, who would not wish any ambiguity about his sayings to remain in the minds of his pupils, he has been so good as to shew quite clearly who that other' was of whom he had spoken before. He therefore says, "But, as it stands, the addition of the preposition before' leads us to explain it according to the ideas which we argued in a former place to be necessary." You see, he means that it is we, and not some other, no one knows who, as you may have thought, who in the former place argued thus, when we were expounding the words "Who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ." It was to meet the case of the less intelligent persons, who might think that what was there said was spoken by some one else, to prevent any error on the point remaining in the minds of those whom he had begged to read these books so that they might see what his opinion of Origen was, that he now acknowledges this opinion as his own, and, no longer speaking of another,' says what we have quoted before; namely, that, as God had before blessed us with all spiritual blessing in Christ in the heavenly places, and had chosen us before the foundation of the world; so also we are said to have trusted in Christ at that former time in which we were elected and predestinated and blessed in heaven. He himself therefore, as it seems to me, has by his own testimony, absolved me from all suspicion of speaking a calumny when I say that that other' is no other' than himself. c30 (a). But, I undertook to shew something of more importance still in what follows. After he had said that we had hoped in Christ before, and that in the time before the foundation of the world and before we were born in our bodies, we had been blessed and chosen in heaven, he again introduces that other' of his, and says: "Another, who does not admit this doctrine that we had a previous existence and had hope in Christ before we lived in this body, would have us understand the matter in his own way." In this passage this other,' whoever he may be, has put forth all his ill savour. Let him tell us then whom he means by this other' who does not admit this opinion that before we lived in this body we both existed and hoped in Christ -- for which he requires us to condemn Origen. Whom does he wish us to understand by this other'? Is it some one opposed to himself? What do you say, great master? You are pressed by that two-horned dilemma of which you are so fond of speaking to your disciples. For, if you say that by this other' who does not admit that souls existed before they lived in the body you mean yourself, you have betrayed the secret which in the previous passages was concealed. It is now found out that you by your own confession are that other who have fashioned all the doctrines of which you now demand the condemnation. But if we are not to believe you to be the other' of the former passage, so that the doctrines which you now impugn may not be ascribed to you, we have no right to consider you in this case to be the other' who does not admit that our souls existed before we lived in bodies. Choose either side you like as the ground of your acquittal. This other,' whom you so frequently bring in, are we to understand by him yourself or some one else? Do you wish that he should be thought by us to be a catholic or a heretic? Is he to be acquitted or condemned? If that other' of yours is a catholic, the man who said in the former passage that before this visible world our souls had their abode among the angels and the other heavenly powers in the heavenly places in Jerusalem which is above, and that they there contracted those dispositions which caused the diversities of their birth into the world and of the other conditions to which they are now subject, then these must be esteemed to be catholic doctrines, and we know that it is an impiety to condemn what is catholic. But if you call this other' a heretic, you must also brand as a heretic the other' who will not admit that souls existed and hoped in Christ before they were born in the body. Which way can you get out of this dilemma, my master? Whither will you break forth? To what place will you escape? Whichever way you betake yourself, you will stick fast. Not only is there no avenue by which you can withdraw yourself; there is not even the least breathing space left you. Is this all the profit you have gained from Alexander's Commentaries on Aristotle, and Porphyry's Introduction? Is this the result of the training of all those great Philosophers by whom you tell us you were educated, with all their learning, Greek and Latin, and Jewish into the bargain? Have they ended by bringing you into these inextricable straits, in which you are so pitifully confined that the very Alps could give you no refuge? c31 (a). But let us spare him now. We must bend to our examination of the books; for, to use an expression of his own, a great work leaves no time for sleep; though indeed he himself spares nobody, and does not so much use reasonable speech as lash with the scourge of his tongue whomsoever he pleases; and any one who refuses to flatter him must expect to be branded at once as a heretic both in his treatises and in hundreds of letters sent to all parts of the world. Let us not follow his example, but rather that of the patriarch David, who, when he had surprised his enemy Saul in the cave and might have slain him, refused to do so, but spared him. This man knows well how often I have done the same by him, both in word and deed; and if he does not choose to confess it, he has it fixed at least in his mind and conscience. I will pardon him then, though he never pardons others, but condemns men for their words without any consideration or charity; and for the present I will let him come out from this pit, until he falls into that other, from which all of us together will be unable to deliver him, however much we may wish and strive. He has to explain how it comes to pass that, in the first passage, where that doctrine was being asserted which sought to vindicate the justice of God, he really meant to speak of some one else, and that that person was the one whom he now wishes to have condemned; yet in the second passage, where the speaker says the opposite and does not admit what has been said before, the other' whom he speaks of means himself. It is possible that he may feel sure that this was what he meant, but that he was not able to make it plain in writing. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that in this latter passage the other' is himself, and that it is he who does not admit the doctrine which holds that before our life in the body began our souls existed and hoped in Christ. I will quote the entire passage, and prosecute a fresh and diligent inquiry to see what it tends to. He says thus:"Another who does not admit this doctrine that before our life in the body began our souls existed and trusted in Christ, changes the sense of the passage so as to mean that, in the advent of our Lord and Saviour, when in his name [2876] every knee shall bow, of things heavenly and earthly and infernal, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father, when all things shall be made subject to him, there will be some who are made subject willingly, but others only by necessity; and that those who before his coming in his majesty have hoped in him will be to the praise of his glory; that these therefore are called [2877] Fore-hopers; but that those who are only found to believe through necessity, when even the devil and his angels will be unable to reject Christ as King are to be called simply Hopers, and that they are not for the praise of his glory. And this we see partly fulfilled even now, since we can distinguish between the reward of those who follow God willingly and those who follow Him through necessity. But, [2878] whether by pretence or in truth, let Christ be proclaimed: only let each of them understand, both the Hopers and the Fore-hopers, that for the difference of their hope they will receive different rewards."

Footnotes:

[2876] Philippians 2:10, 11

[2877] Jerome uses the Greek word proelpikotas. It seems best to coin a new one to represent the peculiar idea.

[2878] Philippians 1:18