the relations of the Trinity. (5) Commentaries on Gal., Phil., and Eph. Though lacking continuous merit (see Lightfoot, Gal. p. 227), these are probably the first Latin commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles (see Hieron. Comm. in Gal. Proleg.). (6) An anti-Manichean treatise, with reasonable certainty ascribed to him (Migne, Proleg. § 3), ad Justinum Manichaeum, is the earliest extant treatise against the Manicheans, and insists with considerable insight on the inconsistencies of their dualism. (7) A very strange little treatise, de Verbis Scripturae "Factum est vespere et mane dies unus." For an Eng. trans. of the fragments see Ante-Nicene Lib.
Besides these we may notice the de Physicis, ascribed to him by Cardinal Mai (see his remarks in Migne prefixed to the treatise, p. 1295). It is an ably written treatise on the Creation, Fall, and Recovery of Man. But the style does not suggest the authorship of Victorinus, and the character of the quotations from N.T. seems to argue a different author.
We have some allusions in his extant works to others which have perished, e.g. on Eph. iv. 10 (lib. ii. init.) there is an allusion to a commentary on Cor. Cardinal Mai refers to a commentary on Leviticus by Victorinus extant in the Vatican (see Ceillier, Auteurs sacrés, vol. iv. p. 328, note 2).
All these writings of Victorinus (except the commentaries, which approach more nearly to lucidity) are very astonishingly obscure for one of Victorinus's reputation as a rhetorician. This, together with the recondite nature of the theological subjects he treats, the extremely corrupt condition of the text as hitherto edited, the barbarous mixture of Greek and bad Latin in which he often writes, and his prolixity and repetitions, have caused him to be ignored more than his substantial merits deserve. There is one notable exception to the usual severe judgments on his style and matter. Thomassin, whose theological judgment is weighty, speaks of him as "inferior to none in the profundity of his insight into the inmost mysteries" of the Divine Being, and the relation of the Persons of the Trinity to one another (de Incarn. Verbi, bk. ii. c. i. § 6). This judgment will put us on the right lines for estimating his position and powers. He has no special merits as a commentator, nor the capacities of a dogmatic theologian in the ordinary sense. He does not manipulate skilfully the stock anti-Arian arguments. He combats, generally as badly as possible, the objection to the ὁμοούσιος as an unscriptural term (adv. Ar. i. 30, p. 1063 B, C [1]; and ii. 8, 9, pp. 1094–1095). He has none of the controversial power and vividness of Athanasius or Augustine. Almost all his importance lies in his metaphysical and speculative capacities, and in his belief in the power of the intellect to give a rational presentation of the Trinitarian Creed, etc. He does, indeed, feel the danger of such speculation. "It is madness," he says (adv. Justin. 2, 1000 C), "to suppose that while we are almost unknown to ourselves, we should have either the capacity or the leave to investigate what lies beyond ourselves and the world." He rebukes Candidus for writing about God "tam audenter," and not keeping to Scripture. "Magnam tuam intelligentiam quis fascinavit?" he asks. "De Deo dicere, supra hominem audacia est" (de Gen. i. p. 1019 C, D). He ends his own first answer to Candidus with a striking prayer to God to forgive his sin involved in writing about God (de Gen., ad fin.). But the "fascination" of such subjects he feels to the full, and, on the whole, he is sure that they are within the power of the illuminated Christian intellect. "Lift up thyself, my spirit!" he cries, "and recognize that to understand God is difficult, but not beyond hope" (adv. Ar. iii. 6, 1102 D).
The special character of his theology may be further explained by two epithets. (1) Though post-Nicene in date, it is ante-Nicene in character. The doctrine of the subordination of the Son is emphasized by him, and this very subordination doctrine is used against Arianism without the least suspicion of its being itself open to the charge of any Arianizing tendency. He sees, as boldly as the earlier theologians, anticipations of the Incarnation in the Theophanies of O.T. (adv. Ar. iv. 32, 1136 C). He retains the ante-Nicene interpretations of crucial texts—"My Father is greater than I" (John xiv. 28), etc. "What has come into being in Him was life" (John i. 3). He keeps the functions of the Incarnate in the closest possible relation to the cosmic function of the pre-Incarnate Word.
(2) His theology is neo-Platonist in tone. Here is the special interest attaching to Victorinus's works. He had grown old in the neo-Platonist schools before his conversion. When converted, he applied many principles of the Plotinian philosophy to the elucidation of the Christian mysteries. His importance in this respect has been entirely overlooked in the history of theology. He preceded the Pseudo-Dionysius. He anticipated a great deal in Scotus Erigena. If sometimes more neo-Platonist than Christian, this is no doubt due in part to the great age he had attained before studying Christian theology.
We deal with, I. his theological system; II. its relation to neo-Platonism; III. further points in his theology which demand notice; IV. his importance in relation to ante-Hieronymian versions of the Latin Bible.
I. The following is a summary of his mode of conceiving the relations of the Trinity and the processes of creation and redemption.
Candidus had objected to the orthodox doctrine that in asserting generation in God, it asserted change ("omnis generatio per mutationem est"), and thus contradicted the essential idea of God; and further that the idea of a "genitus Deus ex prae-existente substantia" is in contradiction to the "simplicity" of the Divine substance. Dwelling on ideas such as these of the Divine immutability and simplicity, he believed himself, in fighting against the Catholic doctrine, to be contending for the dignity of God, "the infinite, the incomprehensible, the unknowable, the invisible, the unchangeable" (Candidi Arian. Lib. de Gen. Div. 1–3; Migne, Patr. Lat. viii. 1015). Victorinus's reply is central and final. Your transcendent and immutable God is so conceived that He can come into no possible relation to anything
- ↑ References are to vol. viii. of Migne's Patr. Gk.
