CHAP. 20. OTHER WAYS OF TAKING THE PASSAGE.
There are also some persons who understand the prophet's words, " He gave breath to the people upon it," that is to say, upon the earth, as if the word " breath," flatus, were simi)ly equivalent to "soul," auiina; while they construe the next clause, " and spirit to them that walk over it," as referring to the Holy Ghost; and they suppose that the same order is observed by the prophet that is mentioned by the apostle: " That was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterAvard that which is spiritual." " Now from this view of the prophet's words an elegant interpretation may, no doubt, 9 Job XXX. 3, 4, according to the LXX., of which the text is, 'i.vv^tji^ hk;^ciA«a>i' ^ou Ka^apa »*o»)<7et. WvtviktL B^iov To TTOiTjaar p.€^ irroTj 6f TTai'TOKpaTopd? i<TTt.¥ 17 6t5afTicoif<ra.
'° The words here given in brackets are suggested by the Benedictine editor. (The Latin as it stands may be translated simply: " that the prophet meant to signify i:i these words the soul or spirit whereby o\ir nature lives?" and is not this belter than the conjecture? — W.]
" I Cor. XV. 46.
[Book I.
be formed consistent with the apostle's sense. The phrase, " to them that walk over it," is in the Latin, '■'^ cakantibus earn;'' and as the literal meaning of these words is " treading upon it," we may understand the idea of contempt of it to be implied. For they who receive the Holy Ghost despise earthly things in their love of heavenly things. None of these opinions, however, is contrary to the faith, whether one: regards the two terms, breath and spirit, to pertain to human nature, or both of them to the Holy Ghost, or one of them, breath, to the soul, and the other, spirit, to the Holy Ghost. If, however, the soul and spirit of the human being be the meaning here, since undoubtedly it ought to be, as the gift of God to him, then we must further inquire, in what way does God bestow this gift? Is it by propagation, as He gives us our bodily limbs by this process? Or is it bestowed on each person severally by God's inbreathing, not by propagation, but as always a fresh creation? These questions are not ambiguous, as this man would make them; but we wish that they be defended by the most certain warrant of the divine Scriptures.
CHAP. 21. — THE SECOND PASSAGE QUOTED BY VICTOR.
On the same principle we treat the passage in which God says: " For my Spirit shall go forth from me; and I have created every breath." ' Here the former clause, " My Spirit shall go forth from me," must be taken as referring to the Holy Ghost, of whom the Saviour similarly says, " He proceedeth from the Father." ^ But the other clause, " I have created every breath," is undeniably spoken of each individual soul. Well; but God also creates the entire body of man; and, as nobody doubts. He makes the human body by the process of propagation: it is therefore, of course, still open to inquiry concerning the soul (since it is evidently God's work), whether He creates it as He does the body, by propagation, or by inbreathing, as He made the first soul.
He proceeds to favour us with a third passage, in which it is written: " Who forms the spirit of man within him." ^ As if any one denied this! No; all our question is as to the mode of the formation. Now let us take the eye of the body, and ask, who but God forms it? I suppose that He forms it not externally, but in itself, and yet, most certainly, by propagation. Since, then. He also forms " the human spirit in him," the ques- ' Isa. Ivii. i6. In the Septuagint it is, Jlvtviia yap nap' ifiov €^€Aei'<TeTat, Kai Tri'orji/ irafTaf t'yiu €7rotrjO"a.
2 John XV. 26.
3 Zech. xii. i, which in the Septuagint is, Ku'ptos...TrAacrtrioi' wtviia avOoutvov ii/ avrui.
tion still remains, whether it be derived by a fresh insufflation in every instance, or by propagation.
chap. 23. — HIS FOURTH QUOTATION.
We have read all about the mother of the Maccabean youths, who was really more fruitful in virtues when her children suffered than of children when they were born; how she exhorted them to constancy, speaking in this wise: " I cannot tell, my sons, how ye came into my womb. For it was not I who gave you spirit and soul, nor was it I that formed the members of every one of you; but it was God, who also made the world, and all things that are therein; who, moreover, formed the generation of men; and searches the action-* of all; and who will Himself of His great mercy restore to you your spirit and soul." s AH this we know; but how it supports this man's assertion we do not see. For ■ what Christian would deny that God gives to 1 men soul and spirit? But similarly, I suppose that he cannot deny that God gives to men their tongue, and ear, and hand, and foot, and all their bodily sensations, and the form and nature of all their limbs. For how is he going to deny all these to be the gifts of God, unless he forgets that he is a Christian? As, however, it is evident that these were made by Him, and bestowed on man by propagation; so also the question must arise, by what means man's spirit and soul are formed by Him; by what efficiency given to man — from the parents, or from nothing, or (as this man asserts, in a sense which we must by all means guard against) from some existing nature of the divine breath, not created out of nothing, but out of His own self?
chap. 24 [XV.] — WHETHER OR NO THE SOUL IS DERIVED BY NATURAL DESCENT (EX TRADUCE), HIS CITED PASSAGES FAIL TO SHOW.
Forasmuch, then, as the passages of Scripture which he mentions by no means show what he endeavours to enforce (since, indeed, they express nothing at all on the immediate question before us), what can be the meaning of these words of his: " We firmly maintain that the soul comes from the breath of God, not from natural generation, because it is given from God "? As if, forsooth, the body could be given from another, than from Him by whom it is created, " Of whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things; " ^ not that they are of His nature, but of His workmanship. " Nor is it from nothing," says he, " because it comes forth from God." Whether this be so, is (we must say) not the question to be here entertained. At the same time, we do not hesitate to * Actii}ii; another reading is ortum, rtiore in accordance with the Greek vei-ecrii, the meaning of which would be: " Searches the origin of all things."
Chap. 26.]
affirm, that the proposition which he advances, that the soul comes to man neither out of descent nor out of nothing, is certainly not true: this, I say, we affirm to be without doubt not true. For it is one of two things: if the soul is not derived by natural descent from the parent, it comes out of nothing. To pretend that it is derived from God in such wise as to be a portion of His nature, is simply sacrilegious blasphemy. But we solicit and seek up to the present time some plain passages of Scripture bearing on the point, whether the soul does not come by parental descent; but we do not want such passages as he has adduced, which yield no illustration of the question now before us.
CHAP. 25. — JUST AS THE MOTHER KNOWS NOT WHENCE COiMES HER CHILD WITHIN HER, SO WE KNOW NOT WHENCE COMES THE SOUL, How I wish that, on so profound a question, so long as he is ignorant what he should say, he would imitate the mother of the Maccabean youths! Although she knew very well tliat she had conceived children of her husband, and that they had been created for her by the Creator of all, both in body and in soul and spirit, yet she says, " I cannot tell, my sons, how ye came into my womb." Well now, I only wish this man would tell us that which she was ignorant of! She, of course, knew (on the points I have mentioned) how they came into her womb as to their bodily substance, because she could not possibly doubt that she had conceived them by her husband. She furthermore confessed — because this, too, she was, of course, well aware of — that it was God who gave them their soul and spirit, and that it was He also who formed for them their features and their limbs. What was it, then, that she was so ignorant of? Was it not probably (what we likewise are equally unable to determine) whether the soul and spirit, which God no doubt bestowed upon them, was derived to them from their parents, or breathed into them separately as it had been into the first man? But whether it was this, or some other particular respecting the constitution of human nature, of which she was ignorant, she frankly confessed her ignorance; and did not venture to defend at random what she knew nothing about.
Nor would this man say to her, what he has not been ashamed to say to us: " Man being in honour doth not understand; he is compared to the senseless cattle, and is like unto them." ' Behold how that woman said of her sons, " I cannot tell how ye came into my womb," and yet she is not compared to the senseless brutes. " I cannot tell," she said; then, as if they would inquire of her why she was ignorant, she went on ' Ps. xlviii. 12.
to say, " For it was not I who gave you sjiirit and soul." He, therefore, who gave them that gift, knows whence He made what He gave, whether He communicated it l)y propagation, or breathed it as a fresh creation, — a point which (this man says) I for my i)art know nothing of. " Nor was it I that formed the features and members of every one of you." He, however, who formed them, knows whether He formed them with the soul, or gave the soul to them after they had been formed. She had no idea of the manner, this or that, in which her sons came into her womb; only one thing was she sure of, that He who gave her all she had would restore to her what He gave. But this man would choose out what that woman was ignorant of, on so profound and abstruse a fact of our nature; only he would not judge her, if in error; nor compare her, if ignorant, to the senseless cattle. Whatever the point was about which she was ignorant, it certainly pertained to man's nature; and yet anybody would be blameless for such ignorance. Wherefore, I too, on my side, say concerning my soul, I have no certain knowledge how it came into my body; for it was not I who gave it to myself He who gave it to me knows whether He imparted it to me from my father, or created it afresh for me, as He did for the first man. But even I shall know, when He Himself shall teach me, in His own good time. Now, however, I do not know; nor am I ashamed, like him, to confess my ignorance of what I know not.
CHAP. 26 [XVI.] — THE FIFTH PASSAGE OF SCRIP- TURE QUOTED BY VICTOR.
" Learn," says he, " for, behold the apostle teaches you." Yes, i4ideed, I will learn, if the apostle teaches; since it is God alone who teaches by the apostle. But, pray, what is it which the apostle teaches? " Behold," he adds, " how, when speaking to the men of.Athens, he strongly set forth this truth, saying: ' Seeing He giveth to all life and spirit.' " Well, who thinks of denying this? "But understand," he says, " what it is the apostle states: I/e giveth; not. He hath dven. He refers us to continuous and indefinite time, and does not proclaim past and completed time. Now that which he gives without cessation. He is always giving; just as He who gives is Himself ever existent." I have quoted his words precisely as I found them in the second of the books which you sent me. First, I beg you to notice to what lengths he has gone, while endeavouring to affirm what he knows nothing about. For he has dared to say, that God, without any cessation, and not merely in the present time, but for ever and ever, gives souls to persons when they are born. " He is [Book I.
always giving," says he, "just as He who gives is Himself ever existent." Far be it from me to say that I do not understand what the apostle said, for it is plain enough. But what this man says, he even ought himself to know, is contrary to the Christian faith; and he should be on his guard against going any further in such assertions. For, of course, when the dead shall rise again, there will be no more persons to be born; therefore God will bestow no longer any souls at any birth; but those which He is now giving to men along with their bodies He will judge. So that He is not always giving, although He is ever existent, who at present is giving. Nor, indeed, is that at all derivable from the apostle's expression, who giveth (not hath given), which this writer wishes to deduce, namely, that God does not give men souls by propagation. For souls are still given by Him, even if it be by propagation; even as bodily endowments, such as limbs, and sensations, and shape, and, in fact, the whole substance, are given by God Himself to human beings, although it be by propagation that He gives them. Nor again, because the Lord says,' '■ If God so clothes the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven " (not using the preterite time, hath clothed, as when He first formed the material; but employing the present form, clothes, which, indeed, He still is doing), shall we on that account say, that the lilies are not produced from the original source of their own kind. What, therefore, if the soul and spirit of a human being in like manner is given by God Himself, whenever it is given; and given, too, by propagation from its own kind? Now this is a position which I neither maintain nor refute. Nevertheless, if it must be defended or confuted, I certainly recommend its being done by clear, and not doubtful proofs. Nor do I deserve to be compared with senseless cattle because I avow myself to be as yet incapable of determining the question, but rather with cautious persons, because I do not recklessly teach what I know nothing about. But I am not disposed on my own part to return railing for railing and compare this man with brutes; but I warn him as a son to acknowledge that he is really ignorant of that which he knows nothing about; nor to attempt to teach that which he has not yet learnt, lest he should deserve to be compared with those persons whom the apostle mentions as " desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor whereof they afifirm." ^ CH.\P. 27 [XVII.] — AUGUSTIN DID NOT VENTURE TO DEFINE ANYTHING ABOUT THE PROPAGATION OF THE SOUL.
For whence comes it that he is so careless about ' Matt. vi. 30.
2 3 Tim. i. 7.
the Scriptures, which he talks of, as not to notice that when he reads of human beings being from God, it is not merely, as he contends, in respect of their soul and spirit, but also as regards their body? For the apostle's statement, "We are His offspring," ^ this man supposes must not be referred to the body, but only to the soul and spirit. If, indeed, our human bodies are not of God, then that is false which the Scripture says: " For of Him are all things, through Him are all things, and in Him are all things." -^ Again, with reference to the same apostle's statement, " For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman," s let him explain to us what propagation he would choose to be meant in t\e process, — that of the soul, or of the body, or of both? But he will not allow that souls come by propagation: it remains, therefore, that, according to him and all who deny the propagation of souls, the apostle signified the masculine and feminine body only, when he said, " As the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman; " the woman having been made out of the man, in order that the man might afterwards, by the process of birth, come out of the woman. If, therefore, the apostle, when he said this, did not intend the soul and spirit also to be understood, but only the bodies of the two sexes, why does he immediately add, " But all things are of God," 5 unless it be that bodies also are of God?
For so runs his entire statement -. " As the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman; but all things are of God." Let, then, our disputant determine of what this is said. If of men's bodies, then, of course, even bodies are of God. How comes it to pass, therefore, that whenever this person reads in Scripture the phrase, " of God," when man is in question, he will have the words understood, not in reference to men's bodies, but only as concerning their souls and spirits? But if the expression, "All things are of God," was spoken both of the body of the two sexes, and of their soul and spirit, it follows that in all things the woman is of the man, for the woman comes from the man, and the man is by the woman: but all things of God. What " all things " are meant, except those he was speaking of, namely, the man of whom came the woman, and the wonjan who was of the man, and also the man who came by the woman? For that man came not by woman, out of whom came the woman; but only he who afterwards was born of man by woman, just as men are now born. Hence it follows that if the apostle, when he said the words we have quoted from him, spoke of men's bodies, undoubtedly the bodies of persons of both sexes are of God. Furthermore, if he insists that nothing in man comes 3 Acts xvii. 28.
* Rom. xi. 36.
5 I Cor. xi. 12.
Chap. 28.]
;27 from God except their souls and spirits, then, of course, the woman is of the man even as regards her soul and spirit; so that nothing is left to those who tlispute against the propagation of souls. But if he is for dividing the subject in such a manner as to say that the woman is of the man as regards her body, but is of God in respect of her soul and spirit, how, then, will that be true which the apostle says, " All things of God," if the woman's body is of the man in such a sense that it is not of God? Wherefore, allowing that the apostle is more likely to speak I the truth than that this person must be preferred | as an authority to the aj)ostle, the woman is of the man, whether in regard to her body only, or in reference to the entire whole of which human nature consists (but we assert nothing on these points as an absolute certainty, but are still inquiring after their truth); and the man is through the woman, whether it be that his whole nature as man is derived to him from his father, and is born in him through the woman, or the flesh alone; about which points the question is still undecided. " All things, however, are of God," and about this there is no question; and in this phrase are included the body, soul, and spirit, both of the man and the woman. For even if they were not bora or derived from God, or emanated from Him as portions of His nature, yet they are of God, inasmuch as whatever is created, formed, and made by Him, has from Him the reality of its existence.
CHAP. 28. A NATURAL FIGURE OF SPEECH MUST NOT BE LITERALLY PRESSED.
He goes on to remark: " But the apostle, by saying, ' And He Himself giveth life and spirit to all,' and then by adding the words, ' And hath made the whole race of men of one blood,' ' has referred this soul and spirit to the Creator in respect of their origin, and the body to propagation." Now, certainly any one who does not wish to deny at random the propagation of souls, before ascertaining clearly whether the opinion is correct or not, has ground for understanding, from the apostle's words, that he meant the expression, 0/ one blood, to be equivalent to of one man, by the figure of speech which understands the whole from its part. Well, then, if it be allowable for this man to take the whole from a part in the passage, " And man became a living soul," ^ as if the spirit also was understood to be implied, about which the Scripture there said nothing, why is it not allowable to others to attribute an equally comprehensive sense to the expression, of one blood, so that the soul and spirit may be considered as included in it, on the ground that the human being who is signi- ' Acts xvij. 25.
* Gen. ii. 7.
fied by the term '^ blood''' consists not of body alone, but also of soul and spirit? For just as the controversialist who maintains the propagation of souls, ought not, on the one hand, to press this man too hard, because the Scripture says concerning the first man, " In whom all have sinned " 3 (for the expression is not, In whom the flesh of all has sinned, but " all," that is, " all men," seeing that man is not flesh only); — as, I repeat, he ought not to be too hard ])ressed himself, because it happens to be written " all men," in such a way that they might be understood simi)ly in respect of the flesh; so, on the other hantl, he ought not to bear too hard on those who hold the propagation of souls, on the ground of the phrase, " The whole race of men of one blood," as if this passage proved that flesh alone was transmitted by propagation. For if it is true, as they ■♦ assert, that soul does not descend from soul, but flesh only from flesh, then the expression, " of one blood,''' does not signify the entire human being, on the principle of a part for the whole, but merely the flesh of one person alone; while that other expression, " In whom all have sinned," must be so understood as to indicate merely the flesh of all men, which has been handed on from the first man, tlie Scripture signifying a part by the whole. If, on the other hand, it is true that the entire human being is propagated of each man, himself also entire, consisting of body, soul, and spirit, then the passage, " In whom all have sinned," must be taken in its proper literal sense; and the other phrase, " of one blood''' is used metaphorically, the whole being signified by a part, that is to say, the whole man who consists of soul and flesh; or rather (as this person is fond of putting it) of soul, and spirit, and flesh. For both modes of expression the Holy Scriptures are in the habit of employing, putting both a part for the whole and the whole for a part. A part, for instance, implies the whole, in the place where it is said, " Unto Thee shall all flesh come; " 5 the whole man being understood by the term flesh. And the whole sometimes implies a part, as when it is said that Christ was buried, whereas it was only His flesh that was buried. Now as regards the statement which is made in the apostle's testimony, to the eff"ect that " He giveth life and spirit to all," I suppose that nobody, after the foregoing discussion, will be moved by it. No doubt " He giveth; " the fact is not in dispute; our question is, How does He give it? By fresh inbreathing in every instance, or by propagation? For with perfect propriety is He said to give the substance of the flesh to the 3 Rom. V. 12. < Another reading has Victor.
i Ps. Ixv. 2.
' he asserts," i.e. Augustin's opponent.
[Book I.
human being, though at the same time it is not denied that He gives it by means of propagation.
that internal portion of their nature which has no sex.
CHAP. 29 [XVIII.] THE SIXTH PASSAGE OF SCRIP- TURE QUOTED BY VICTOR.
Let us now look at the quotation from Genesis, where the woman was created out of the side of the man, and was brought to him, and he said: "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh." Our opponent thinks that "Adam ought to have said, ' Soul of my soul, or spirit of my spirit,' if this, too, had been derived from him." But, in fact, they who maintain the opinion of the propagation of souls feel that they possess a more impregnable defence of their position in the fact that in the Scripture narrative which informs us that God took a rib out of the man's side and formed it into a woman, it is not added that He breathed into her face the breath of life; for this reason, as they say, because she had already been ensouled ' from the maxi. If, indeed, she had not, they say, the sacred Scripture would certainly not have kept us in ignorance of the circumstance. With regard to the fact that Adam says, " This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh,"" without adding. Spirit or souJ, from my spirit or soul, they may answer, just as it has been already shown, that the expression, " my flesh and bone," may be understood as indicating the whole by a part, only that the portion that was taken out of man was not dead, but ensouled; ■ for no good ground for denying that the Almighty was able to do all this is furnished by the circumstance that not a human being could be found capable of cutting off" a part of a man's flesh along with the soul. Adam went on, however, to say, " She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man." *, Now, why does he not rather say (and thus con- 1 firm the opinion of our opponents), "Since her | flesh was taken out of man"? As the case stands, indeed, they who hold the opposite view may well contend, from the fact that it is written, not woman's flesh, but the woman herself was taken out of man, that she must be considered in her entire nature endued with soul and spirit.
For although the soul is undistinguished by sex, yet when women are mentioned it is not necessary to regard them apart from the soul. On no other principle would they be thus admonished with respect to self-adornment. " Not with braided hair, or gold, or peads, or costly array; but which (says the aposde) becometh women professing godliness with a good conversation. "^^ Now, " godliness," of course, is an inner principle in the soul or spirit; and yet they are called women, although the ornamentation concerns CHAP. 30 — THE DANGER OF ARGUING FROM SI- LENCE.
Now, while the disputants are thus contending with one another in alternate argument, I so judge between them that they must not rely on uncertain evidence; nor make bold assertions on points of which they are ignorant. For if the Scripture had said, " God breathed into the woman's face the breath of life, and she became a hving soul," it would not have followed even then that the human soul is not derived by propagation from parents, except the same statement were likewise made concerning their son. For it might have been that whilst an unensouled ■* member taken from the body might require to be ensouled,^ yet that the soul of the son might be derived from the father, transfused by propagation through the mother. There is, however, an absolute silence on the point; it is entirely concealed from our view. Nothing is i denied, but at the same time nothing is athrmed. i And thus, if in any place the Scripture is possi-; bly not quite silent, the point requires to be supported by clearer proofs. Whence it follows, that neither they who maintain the propagation of souls receive any assistance from the circumstance that God did not breathe into the i woman's face; nor ought they, who deny this doctrine on the ground that Adam did not say, "This is soul of my soul," to persuade themi selves to believe what they know nothing of.
I For just as it has been possible for the Scripture to be silent on the point of the woman's having received her soul, like the man, by the inbreathi ing of God, without the question before us being I solved, but, on the contrary, remaining open; so ' has it been possible for the same question to remain open and unsolved, notwithstanding the silence of Scripture, as to whether or not Adam said. This is soul of my soul. And hence, if the soul of the first woman comes from the man, a part signifies the whole in his exclamation, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; " inasmuch as not her flesh alone, but the entire woman, was taken out of man. If, however, it is not from the man, but came by God's inbreathing it into her, as at first into the man, then the whole signifies a part in the passage, " She was taken out of the man; " since on the supposition it was not her whole self, but her flesh that was taken.