Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 24 part 2/9

That this may not befall him, how much better does he hold to my hesitation concerning the origin of the soul, that he may not dare to affirm what neither human reason comprehends nor divine authority defends, lest he be compelled to profess folly while he shrinks from confessing ignorance! Here perhaps he may say that his opinion is defended by divine authority, since he supposes that by the testimonies of the holy Scriptures he can prove that 'souls are not made from propagation, but new ones are breathed into each individual.' Let him prove it, if he can, and I will confess that I have learned from him what I was seeking with great earnestness. But let him seek — perhaps he may find some other testimony; for by these which he has already produced he has not proved it. For all that he has here adduced are certain with respect to something else;

but with respect to that which is asked concerning the origin of the soul, they are shown to be ambiguous. For it is certain that God has given men breath and spirit, the prophet saying: 'Thus says the Lord, who made heaven and founded the earth and the things that are in it, who gives breath to the people upon it and spirit to those who tread it.' This testimony he wishes to be taken in the sense which he defends, so that where it says 'gives breath to the people,' it be believed not to make souls for the people from propagation, but to breathe in new ones. Let him then dare to say that God did not give us the flesh, because the origin of the flesh is drawn from the parents; and, since the Apostle says of a grain of wheat:

'God gives it a body as He has willed,' let him deny, if he dares, that wheat is born from wheat and its blade from the seed according to its kind. But if he does not dare to deny this, whence then does he know how it was said 'gives breath to the people' — whether drawing it from the parents or breathing in a new one? Whence too does he know whether 'it is a repetition of the same statement: who gives breath to the people upon it and spirit to those who tread it,' so that both are understood to be said of one thing, and he meant to signify not the soul or the spirit by which human nature lives, but the Holy Spirit? For if the Holy Spirit could not be signified by 'breath,' the Lord would not, after the resurrection, have breathed on the disciples and said:

'Receive the Holy Spirit'; nor would it have been written in the Acts of the Apostles: 'Suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of a rushing violent wind, and there appeared to them divided tongues as of fire, which also rested upon each one of them, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit.' What if the prophet foretold this, saying 'who gives breath to the people upon it,' and, as if explaining what he meant by 'breath,' repeated it and said 'and spirit to those who tread it'? For then it came to pass most evidently, when they were all filled with the Holy Spirit.

Or if the one hundred and twenty men who were then present in one place are not yet to be called a people, surely when at once four or five thousand believed and, being baptized, received the Holy Spirit, who would doubt that a people at once received the Holy Spirit — a multitude that was walking on the earth, that is, men treading the earth? For that which is given as pertaining to the nature of man — whether it be given from propagation or breathed in as new (neither of which, I say, is to be affirmed until one or the other becomes clear without any doubt) — is not given to those treading the earth, but to those still enclosed in the mother's womb. He gave therefore breath to the people upon the earth and spirit to those treading it, when many believing at once were filled with the Holy Spirit.

And He Himself gives it to His people — though not to all at once, but to each in his own time — until, by departing from this life and succeeding into this life, the whole number of that same people be completed; so that in this passage of holy Scripture the breath is not one thing and the spirit another, but a repetition of the same statement. Just as it is not one who 'dwells in the heavens' and another who is 'the Lord,' nor one thing to 'laugh' and another to 'mock,' but the same statement is repeated, where it is read: 'He who dwells in the heavens shall laugh at them, and the Lord shall mock them'; or, when it is said:

'I will give you the nations for your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for your possession,' He surely did not say one thing by 'inheritance' and another by 'possession,' nor one thing by 'nations' and another by 'ends of the earth,' but it is a repetition of the same statement. And he will find innumerable expressions of this sort in the divine oracles, if he attends to what he reads. Now what the Greek calls πνοήν, the Latins have variously rendered: sometimes 'breath' (flatum), sometimes 'spirit' (spiritum), sometimes 'inspiration' (inspirationem). For the Greek codices have this very word in that prophetic testimony of which we are now treating, where it is said 'who gives breath to the people upon it': this is πνοήν, the very word which is also used where man was animated: 'and God breathed into his face the breath of life.'

But the very same word is also in the psalm, where it is sung: 'Let every spirit praise the Lord'; and it is likewise in the Book of Job, where it is written: 'But it is the inspiration of the Almighty that teaches.' He would not say 'breath,' but 'inspiration,' though in the Greek it is πνοή, which is also in those words of the prophet of which we are now disputing. And certainly in this place I do not know whether one ought to doubt that the Holy Spirit is signified. For the matter treated was wisdom, whence it comes to be in men: 'For it is not from the number of years,' he says, 'but the spirit is in men, and the inspiration of the Almighty is that which teaches' — so that it might be understood, by this repetition, that he had not spoken of the spirit of man in saying 'the spirit is in men.'

For he wished to show whence they have wisdom, namely that it is not from themselves, and by repeating he set it forth, saying: 'It is the inspiration of the Almighty that teaches.' Likewise in another place in the same book he says: 'The understanding of my lips understands pure things. The divine Spirit that made me, and the inspiration of the Almighty, is that which teaches me.' And here what he says 'inspiration' or 'aspiration' is in the Greek πνοή, which in those words of the prophet was rendered 'breath' (flatus). Wherefore, since it is rashly denied that it was said of the soul of man or the spirit of man:

'who gives breath to the people upon it and spirit to those treading it' — although in that place the Holy Spirit too can much more credibly be understood — by what reasoning then will anyone dare to define that in that passage the prophet meant to signify the soul or the spirit by which our nature lives? For assuredly, even if he had said most plainly 'who gives soul to the people upon the earth,' it would still have to be asked whether it be that God gives it from the origin of a preceding generation — just as, from the origin of a preceding generation, He nevertheless Himself gives the body not only to man or beast, but even to the seed of wheat or of any of the rest, as He has willed — or whether He breathes in a new one, as the first man received. There are also those who understand these prophetic words in such a way that what he says:

'He gave breath to the people upon it,' that is, upon the earth, they will have to be understood as meaning nothing but the soul by 'breath'; but what he added, 'and spirit to those treading it,' they think signifies the Holy Spirit — in that order, namely, by which the Apostle too says: 'Not first that which is spiritual, but that which is of the soul (natural), afterward the spiritual.' For from this prophetic statement an elegant sense too is carved out, in that he said 'to those treading it' so as to wish it understood 'to those despising it.' For those who receive the Holy Spirit, by love of heavenly things despise earthly things. All these opinions are not against the faith, whether one understands both — that is, both the breath and the spirit that pertain to human nature.

Let each one understand [as he will], whether he take both as said of the Holy Spirit, or refer the breath to the soul but the spirit to the Holy Spirit. But if the soul and spirit of man is to be understood here also, then, just as it is not to be doubted that God gives it, so it must still be asked whence He gives it: whether from propagation — as indeed He Himself gives, yet from propagation, the members of the body — or whether He distributes a new one, unpropagated, by breathing it into each individual. This we wish to be defended not by ambiguous testimonies, as this man does, but by some most certain authority of the divine oracles. By the same reasoning also, as to what God says: 'For a spirit shall go forth from me, and every breath I have made,' what He says is to be taken of the Holy Spirit:

'a spirit shall go forth from me,' of which the Saviour too says 'proceeds from the Father,' is to be taken of the Holy Spirit; but what is said, 'every breath I have made,' cannot be denied to be said of every soul. But every body too He Himself makes; yet that He makes the human body from propagation no one doubts. And thus concerning the soul, since it is agreed that it is made by Him, it is still assuredly to be inquired whence He makes it — whether from propagation, like the body, or by breathing it in, as He made the first. He added also a third testimony, because it is written: 'who fashions the spirit of man within him.' As though this were denied; but whence He fashions it, this is asked. For who but God fashions even the bodily eye of man? And I think that He fashions it not outside but within him, and yet, as is certain, from propagation.

Since therefore He fashions also the spirit of man within him, it must be asked whether by a new inbreathing or drawn from propagation. We know too that the mother of the Maccabean youths, more fruitful in virtues when her sons suffered than in offspring when they were born, thus exhorted them, saying: 'My sons, I know not how you appeared in my womb. For neither did I bestow on you spirit and soul, nor did I form for each of you the countenance and the members; but God, who made the world and all that is in it, and made the race of men and searches out the deed of all, He Himself will render to you spirit and soul again with great mercy.' These things indeed we know, but how they support this man in what he asserts we do not see.

For what Christian would deny that God bestows on men soul and spirit? But in the same way I judge that this man cannot deny that God bestows on men ear, tongue, hand, foot, and all the senses of the body, and the form and nature of all the members. For how will he deny these to be gifts of God, unless he forget that he is a Christian? But just as it is agreed that these are made and bestowed by Him from propagation, so it must also be asked whence the spirit and soul of man is effected by Him, by whom, effecting it, it is bestowed — whether from the parents, or from nothing, or (what this man affirms, but which must by all means be guarded against) from some existing nature of His breath, not created out of nothing, but out of Himself.

Since therefore the testimonies of the Scriptures which he cites by no means teach what he attempts to persuade — for as regards this question, they do not express it at all — what is it that he says: 'We steadfastly assert that the soul comes from the breath of God, not from the transmission (traduce), because it is given from God'? As though the body is given from any other source than from Him by whom it is created, from whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things — although not from His nature, but from His workmanship. 'Nor from nothing,' he says, 'because it proceeds from God.' This, plainly, we admonish is not yet to be inquired into, whether it be so; but that what he says is utterly untrue — namely, that the soul is neither from transmission nor from nothing — this, I say, without any doubt we affirm to be untrue. For it is one of two things:

if it is not from transmission, it is from nothing — unless it be from God in such a way as to be of the nature of God, which it is altogether sacrilegious to believe. But as to whether it is not from transmission, we demand or seek certain testimonies, not such as this man has adduced, by which what we seek is not shown. Would that, in so profound a question — so long as he is ignorant of what he says — he would imitate the mother of the Maccabees! For she, though she knew that she had conceived her sons of her husband and that they had been created for her by the Creator of all, whether according to the body or according to the soul and spirit, yet said: 'I know not how you appeared in my womb.' I could wish this man would say what she did not know.

For these things which I have mentioned she certainly knew: how according to the body they came into her womb, since she could not doubt that she had conceived them of her husband. She confessed also — because this too she assuredly knew — that God gave them soul and spirit, that He Himself formed for them their countenances and members. What then did she not know? Perhaps that which we too do not know: whether the soul and spirit, which God without doubt gave them, He drew from the parents, or breathed in a new one, as into the first man? But whether this, or something else concerning the constitution of human nature, she did not know, she said that she did not know; she did not rashly defend what she did not know. Yet this man would not say to her what he was not ashamed to say to us: 'Man, being placed in honor, did not understand;

he is compared to the senseless beasts and has been made like to them.' Behold, this woman said of her sons: 'I know not how you appeared in my womb,' and yet she is not compared to the senseless beasts. 'I know not,' she said; and as though they were asking her why she did not know, she added: 'For neither did I bestow spirit and soul upon you.' He therefore who bestowed it knows whence He made what He bestowed — whether He drew it from propagation or breathed in a new one — 'which I,' she says, 'know not; nor did I form for each of you the countenance and members.' He knows who formed them, whether He formed them together with the soul, or gave the soul to them when already formed. In what manner, then — whether in this way or that — her sons came into her womb, she did not know;

and yet she knew this, that all which He gave, He who gave it would render back. But let this man choose, in so deep and hidden a secret of human nature, what this woman did not know; only let him not judge her to be lying, nor compare her, though ignorant, to the senseless beasts. Whatever it was that she did not know, it assuredly pertained to the nature of man — which nevertheless a man might not know without fault. Wherefore I too say of my own soul: I know not how it came into my body — for I did not bestow it on myself; He knows who bestowed it, whether He drew it from my father or created a new one, as for the first man. I too shall know, if He Himself teach me, whenever He wills; but now I know not, nor am I, like this man, ashamed to confess that I do not know what I do not know.

'Learn,' he says; 'behold, the Apostle teaches.' I will learn plainly, if the Apostle teaches — for none but God teaches through the Apostle — but what then is it that the Apostle teaches? 'Behold,' he says, 'when he spoke with the Athenians, he set this forth steadfastly, saying: since He Himself gives to all life and spirit.' For who denies this? 'But understand,' he says, 'what the Apostle says. He says gives, not gave, recalling it to infinite and perpetual time, not pronouncing of the past and completed. And what He gives without ceasing, He always gives, just as He who gives always is.' I have set down his words, as I found them in the second book of his which you sent. Here first see how far he has advanced, while he strives to affirm what he does not know.

For he has dared to say that God gives souls to those being born, not only now and in this present age alone, but throughout infinite time, without ceasing and altogether always. 'He always gives,' he says, 'just as He who gives always is.' What the Apostle said — since it is plain enough — far be it from me to deny that I understand; but what this man says, he himself ought to understand to be against the Christian faith, and further to beware lest he say it. For when the dead shall have risen, no one will any longer be born; and therefore then He will not give souls to those being born, but will judge, together with their bodies, those souls which He gives in this present age. He does not therefore always give, although He Himself who now gives always is.

Nor yet, because the blessed Apostle said not 'gave' but 'gives,' is that thereby brought about which he wishes to establish by this — that God does not give souls from propagation. For He Himself gives, even if He gives from propagation, since He Himself gives to men both the members of the body and the senses of the body and the form of the body and altogether the substance of the body, although He gives it from propagation. For neither, because the Lord says: 'If God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is and tomorrow is cast into the oven,' and He says not 'clothed,' as when He first established it, but says 'clothes,' which He does even now — shall we therefore deny that the lilies are produced from the origin of their own kind.

What then if the soul and spirit of man too is thus given by God, for as long as it is given, and yet is given from the propagation of its own kind? This I neither defend nor refute. But if it is to be defended or refuted, I admonish that it must be done by clear, not ambiguous, testimonies. Nor for that reason am I to be compared to the senseless beasts, because I declare that I do not yet know this, but rather to cautious men, because I do not dare to teach what I do not know.

But I, in turn, do not compare this man to the beasts as though repaying curse for curse; rather I admonish him as a son, that he may confess that he does not know what he does not know, and may not attempt to teach what he has not yet learned, lest he be compared not to beasts, but to those men whom the Apostle calls 'wishing to be teachers of the law, understanding neither the things they say nor those concerning which they make assertions.' For whence is it that he thus takes no care to attend to the Scriptures of which he speaks, so that, when he has read that men are 'from God,' he contends that they are 'from God' not even according to the body, but only according to soul and spirit? For what the Apostle says, 'we are from Him,' this man wishes to be referred not to the body, but only to the soul and spirit.

If therefore bodies are not from God, then false is that which is written: 'from whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things.' Then, where the same Apostle says: 'For as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman,' let this man expound to us which propagation he meant to signify — that of the soul, or of the body, or of both. But he does not wish 'souls to be from propagation'; it remains, therefore, that according to himself and all who destroy the propagation of souls, the Apostle signified only the male and female body when he said: 'For as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman' — because the woman was made from the man, so that the man too might afterward be born through the woman.

If therefore the Apostle, in saying these things, meant to be understood not also souls and spirits, but only the bodies of each sex, why did he immediately add: 'but all things are from God' — unless because the bodies too are from God? For thus he says: 'For as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman. But all things are from God.' Let this man therefore choose of what it was said. If of bodies, then assuredly bodies too are from God. What is it then, that wherever this man reads 'from God' in the Scriptures, when men are being treated of, he wishes not also bodies, but only souls and spirits, to be understood? But if what was said, 'but all things are from God,' was said both of the body of each sex and of the soul and spirit, then according to all things the woman is from the man;

for the woman is from the man, the man through the woman, all things from God. Which 'all things,' save those of which he was speaking — that is, both that man from whom the woman is, and that woman who is from the man, and that man who is through the woman? For not that man is through the woman, from whom man the woman is; but the man who is afterward born from man through woman, just as they are born even today. And thus, if, when the Apostle said these things, he was speaking of bodies, then without doubt the bodies of each sex are from God. Furthermore, if he does not wish men's souls and spirits alone to be from God, then assuredly according to soul and spirit too the woman is from the man, and nothing will now be left to those who dispute against the propagation of souls.

But if he divides the matter in such a way as to say that the woman is from the man as regards the body, yet from God as regards the soul and spirit, how will that be true which the Apostle says, 'But all things are from God' (1 Cor. 11:12), if the woman's body is so from the man that it is not from God? Therefore, that the Apostle may rather speak the truth than that this man be preferred to the Apostle, the woman is from the man, whether according to the body alone or according to the whole.

Of which human nature consists—for we affirm none of these things as certain, but are still inquiring which of them is true—and man exists through woman, whether the whole nature of man is drawn from the father, which is born through the woman, or the flesh alone, whereon there is still a question; yet all things are from God, whereon there is no question, that is, both body and soul and spirit, both of the man and of the woman. For even if they are not born from God, nor drawn from Him, nor have flowed from Him in such a way as to be of His nature, nevertheless they are from God. For by whom they were created, established, and made, from Him they have their being. But since the Apostle, he says, in saying, 'And He Himself gives to all life and breath' (Acts 17:25), then adds:

'And He made of one blood every race of men' (Acts 17:26), he referred the soul and spirit in their origin to the Author, but the body to propagation. Nay rather, he who is unwilling rashly to deny the propagation of souls, before it becomes clearly evident whether it be so or not, has here something whereby he may understand that in these words of the Apostle 'of one' with 'blood' means 'of one man,' by that mode of speech in which the part signifies the whole. For if it is permitted to him to understand the whole from a part in what is written, 'And man was made into a living soul' (Gen. 2:7), so that there the spirit also is understood, concerning which Scripture there kept silence, why is it not permitted to others to understand thus what is said:

'Of one blood' (Acts 17:26)—so that there both soul and spirit may be understood, since the man signified by the name of blood does not consist of body alone, but also of soul and spirit? For just as he who defends the propagation of souls ought not to be overwhelmed from this, because it is written of the first man, 'In whom all have sinned' (Rom. 5:12)—for it was not said, 'in whom the flesh of all sinned,' but 'all' was said, that is, all men, since a man is not flesh alone—; therefore just as this man ought not to be overwhelmed from this, because perhaps 'all men' was so said that they should be understood according to the flesh alone, so this man ought not to press the defenders of the propagation of souls from this, because it is said:

'Every race of men of one blood' (Acts 17:26), as though on that account the flesh alone pertained to propagation. For if that which these men assert is true, namely that the soul is not from the soul, but only the flesh is from the flesh, then 'of one blood' was said in such a way that not the whole man is signified from a part, but only the flesh of one man; while that which was said, 'in whom all have sinned' (Rom. 5:12), is to be understood as the flesh alone of all men, which was thence transfused, Scripture signifying the part from the whole.

But if that is true, namely that the whole man is propagated from the whole man, that is, body, soul, and spirit, then there it was said in a proper sense, 'in whom all men have sinned,' but here in a figurative sense, 'of one blood,' the whole is signified from a part, that is, the whole man, who consists of soul and flesh, or rather, as this man loves to speak, of soul and spirit and flesh. For the divine words are accustomed to signify both the whole from a part and the part from the whole. For the whole is signified from a part where it is read, 'To Thee shall all flesh come' (Ps. 65:2), because by the flesh the whole man is understood; but the part from the whole, when Christ is said to be buried, though His flesh alone was buried.

Now as for that which is set down in this testimony of the Apostle, that 'He Himself gives to all life and breath' (Acts 17:25), according to the preceding discussion I think that it moves no one; for He Himself does give. But we are still inquiring whence He gives it, whether by a new inbreathing or by propagation. For He is most rightly said to give even the substance of the flesh, which nevertheless is not denied to be given by propagation. Now let us consider that testimony from Genesis, where the woman, having been made from the man's side, was brought to him, and he said: 'This now is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh' (Gen. 2:23). For this man thinks 'that Adam ought to have said, "soul of my soul" or "spirit of my spirit," if this too had been drawn from him.'

But those who assert the propagation of souls think that from this they more invincibly fortify their opinion, because, although it is written that God took a rib from the man's side and built it into a woman, it was not added that He breathed into her face the breath of life; therefore, they say, because she had already been given a soul from the man. For if she had not, they say, Holy Scripture would by no means have defrauded us of the knowledge of this matter. But to that which Adam says, 'This now is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,' nor says 'spirit of my spirit' or 'soul of my soul,' it can be answered by them thus.

As was shown above, so that this saying, 'my bone and flesh,' may be understood as the whole from a part, but as things which were taken away already animated, not dead. For it is not to be denied that the Omnipotent could do this, merely because no man is able to cut off anything together with a soul from human flesh. Now as to what Adam went on to add, 'She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of her man' (Gen. 2:23), why did he not rather say, whereby the opinion of these men might be confirmed, 'because her flesh was taken out of her man'? And so here those who think otherwise can say that it is not written that the flesh of the woman, but the woman, was taken out of her man; and she must be understood entirely, with soul and spirit.

For even though the soul lacks sex, yet when women are named, they are not necessarily to be understood with the soul excepted. Otherwise they would not be admonished to adorn themselves thus: 'not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly apparel, but with what befits women professing godliness, through good conduct' (1 Tim. 2:9-10). Surely godliness is within, in the soul or in the spirit, and yet they were called women, even so that they should adorn themselves within, where there is no sex. Since therefore these men have thus contended among themselves with alternating discourse, I so judge between them as to admonish both parties, lest they trust in things unknown and rashly dare to affirm what they do not know. For if it were written: