In the epistle which is inscribed 'To the Hebrews' there is a certain passage most worthy of careful consideration. For when, through Melchizedek—in whom a figure of this future matter had gone before—the author was distinguishing the priesthood of Christ from the priesthood of Levi, he says: 'Consider therefore how great this man is, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth part out of the firstfruits. And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, receiving the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, even though these too came forth from the loins of Abraham. But he who is not of their lineage received tithes from Abraham, and blessed him that had the promise. Now without any contradiction, the lesser is blessed by the greater.'
'And here indeed dying men receive tithes, but there one of whom it is testified that he lives. And, as one may say, through Abraham even Levi, who receives tithes, was himself tithed; for he was still in the loins of his father.' If therefore this too avails toward that distinction—how far the priesthood of Christ surpasses the Levitical priesthood, in that Christ the priest was prefigured through him who tithed Abraham, in whom Levi himself also was tithed—then assuredly Christ was not tithed by him. But if Levi was tithed for this reason, that he was in the loins of Abraham, then for this reason Christ was not tithed, because He was not in the loins of Abraham.
But further, if we understand Levi to have been in Abraham not according to the soul, but only according to the flesh, then Christ too was there, since Christ also according to the flesh is of the seed of Abraham; and so He too was tithed. What then is it that is brought forward as a great difference between the priesthood of Christ and the priesthood of Levi—that Levi was tithed by Melchizedek while he was in the loins of Abraham, where Christ also was, whence they were alike tithed—unless it be that we must understand that in some respect Christ was not there? Yet who would deny that He was there according to the flesh? Therefore according to the soul He was not there. Christ's soul, then, is not from the transmitted line of Adam's transgression; otherwise it too would have been there.
Here those arise who defend the transmission of souls, and they say that their opinion is confirmed if it is established that Levi was in the loins of Abraham even according to the soul, in which loins Melchizedek tithed him, so that Christ may be distinguished from him in this tithing: for since Christ was not tithed and yet was in the loins of Abraham according to the flesh, it remains that He was not there according to the soul, and it therefore follows that Levi was there according to the soul. This does not much concern me, who am still more prepared to hear the comparison of both sides than to confirm the opinion of either. Meanwhile, by this testimony I have wished to set apart the soul of Christ from the origin of this transmission.
These men will find what they may perhaps answer for the rest, and may say—what moves me too not a little—that although no man's soul is in the loins of his father, yet, according to the flesh, Levi, being set in the loins of Abraham, was tithed, and Christ, likewise set there according to the flesh, was not tithed. For according to that seminal principle Levi was there, by which principle he was to come into his mother through intercourse; according to which principle Christ's flesh was not there, although according to that same principle Mary's flesh was there. Wherefore neither Levi nor Christ was in the loins of Abraham according to the soul; but according to the flesh both Levi and Christ were—yet Levi according to carnal concupiscence, but Christ according to the bodily substance alone.
For since in the seed there is both a visible corporeal mass and an invisible principle, both ran from Abraham, or even from Adam himself, down to the body of Mary, since it too was conceived and brought forth in that manner. But Christ took the visible substance of flesh from the flesh of the Virgin; the principle of His conception, however, came not from male seed, but far otherwise and from above. Accordingly, in respect of that which He received from His mother, He was even in the loins of Abraham. He therefore was tithed in Abraham who, though only according to the flesh, was nevertheless in his loins in the same way in which Abraham himself also was in the loins of his own father—that is, who was so born of his father Abraham as Abraham was born of his own father.
Abraham, that is, through the law in the members warring against the law of the mind and through invisible concupiscence—although the chaste and good ordinances of marriage do not allow it to prevail except insofar as through it they can provide for the raising up of offspring. But He was not tithed there, whose flesh drew from that source not the fever of the wound, but the material of the remedy. For since that very tithing pertained to prefiguring the medicine, that was being tithed in Abraham's flesh which was being healed, not that from which the healing came. For the same flesh had, not only Abraham's, but also that of the first, earthly man himself, both the wound of transgression and the remedy for the wound:
the wound of transgression in the law of the members warring against the law of the mind, which through all the flesh propagated from that source is, as it were, transcribed by the seminal principle; but the remedy of the wound in that which was taken from that source, without any operation of concupiscence, in bodily material alone, through the divine principle of conception and formation, from the Virgin—for the sake of a fellowship in death without iniquity, and an example of resurrection without falsehood.
Wherefore, that the soul of Christ is not from the transmitted line of the soul of that first transgressor, I think that even those who defend the transmission of souls would agree—for indeed they hold that through the seed of the father who has intercourse the seed of the soul also is transfused, and from this kind of conception Christ is alien—and that, had He been in Abraham according to the soul, He too would have been tithed; but that He was not tithed Scripture testifies, which on this ground also distinguishes His priesthood from the Levitical priesthood. But perhaps they will say: as He could be there according to the flesh and not be tithed, why could He not also be there according to the soul without being tithed? Here it is answered:
because at any rate not even those who consider the soul to be a body have supposed that the simple substance of the soul is increased by bodily increments—and among these are especially those who hold that it is created for a child by its parents. Accordingly, in the seed of the body there can be an invisible power which incorporeally works out numbers, to be discerned not by the eyes but by the understanding from that corporeal mass which is perceived by sight and touch. And the very magnitude of the human body, which of course incomparably exceeds the measure of the seed, sufficiently shows that something can be taken from that source which does not have that seminal power, but only corporeal substance—which, by divine action, not from the propagation of those who have intercourse, was taken up and formed into the flesh of Christ.
But who could affirm this concerning the soul—that it possesses both, both a manifest material of seed and a hidden principle of seed? Yet why should I labour in a matter which perhaps can be conveyed to no one by words, unless the mind be so great and of such quality that it can outrun the speaker's effort and not await the whole of his discourse? Briefly, then, let me gather it up: if it could come to pass even of the soul—which, when we said it of the flesh, was perhaps understood—then the soul of Christ is from the transmitted line in such a way that it did not draw with itself the stain of transgression; but if it could not be from that source without this guilt, then it is not from that source. Now concerning the coming of the other souls—whether they are from parents or from above—let those prevail who are able.
For my part, I still waver between the two views, and am moved now this way, now that—saving at least this, that I neither believe the soul to be a body, nor any corporeal quality or, if it must be so called, adjustment, which the Greeks call 'harmonia'; nor, however anyone may prattle of these things, am I confident that, with God aiding my mind, I shall come to believe them. There is another testimony not to be neglected, which those can bring forward on their own behalf who believe that souls come from above, the Lord Himself saying: 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.' What, they say, could be more decisive than this saying, that the soul cannot be born of the flesh? For what else is the soul but the spirit of life, created indeed, not creator? Against these the others reply:
'For what else,' they say, 'do we hold, we who say that flesh comes from flesh and soul from soul? For man consists of both, and we hold that both come—flesh from the flesh of the one working, spirit from the spirit of the one desiring'—to pass over for the moment that the Lord was speaking not of carnal generation but of spiritual regeneration. Having therefore treated of these matters as far as the time allowed, I would pronounce all the weights of reasons and testimonies on both sides equal, or nearly equal, were it not that the opinion of those who think souls are created from parents is outweighed by the question of the baptism of infants. As to what can be answered to them concerning this, nothing has as yet occurred to me for the present; if perhaps hereafter God shall grant something, well.
And if He shall grant the ability to write it to those who are earnest in such matters, I shall not grudge it. Yet now I give notice beforehand that the testimony of infants is not to be despised, so as to be neglected as though it were refuted, if the truth be against it. For either nothing at all is to be inquired into concerning this matter, so that it suffices for our faith to know that by living piously we are to come whither, even if we do not know whence we have come; or, if the rational soul is not shamelessly aflame to know even this about itself, let there be no obstinacy in contending, but let there be diligence in inquiring, humility in asking, perseverance in knocking—so that, if He knows this to be profitable for us, who knows better than we what is profitable for us, He may grant even this, who gives good gifts to His children.
Nevertheless the custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is by no means to be scorned, nor in any way to be reckoned superfluous, nor at all to be believed, unless it were an apostolic tradition. For even that tender age bears a great weight of testimony, which was the first to be counted worthy to shed its blood for Christ. I duly admonish, so far as I am able, that if this opinion has taken possession of any—that they believe souls to be propagated from parents—they should as much as they can consider their own selves, and meanwhile be wise enough to know that their bodies are not their souls.
For there is no nature nearer, by diligently inspecting which even God—who abides unchangeable above all His creation—can be incorporeally conceived, than that which is made to His own image; and there is nothing more akin, or perhaps nothing so consequent, than that, once it is believed that the soul is a body, God too should be believed to be a body. For on this account those who are habituated and affected by bodily senses are unwilling to believe the soul to be anything other than a body, lest, if it be not a body, it should be nothing; and thereby they the more fear to believe even of God that He is not a body, the more they fear to believe God to be nothing.
For they are so carried away into the phantasies or phantasms of images which thought turns over concerning bodies, that when these are taken away they dread having to perish as it were through a void. Thus it is inevitable that they paint both justice and wisdom in some fashion in their hearts, with shapes and colours, which they cannot conceive as incorporeal; and yet, when they are moved by justice or wisdom—whether to praise them or to act in accordance with them—they cannot say what colour, what stature, what lineaments [or what forms] they have beheld. But of these things we have already said much elsewhere, and, if God will, we shall say more where the matter seems to require it.
Now, as we had begun to say, if some either do not doubt concerning the transmission of souls from parents, that it is so, or doubt whether it is so, yet do not dare to believe or say that the soul is a body—chiefly on account of what I have said, lest they should suppose God Himself also to be nothing else than a body, even if a most excellent one, even if of some peculiar nature surpassing all others, yet a body. In fact Tertullian, because he believed the soul to be a body for no other reason than that he could not conceive it as incorporeal and therefore feared lest it should be nothing if it were not a body, was likewise unable to think otherwise concerning God: who, being indeed at times acute, is against his own opinion overcome by the truth once it is seen.
For what truer thing could he say than that which he affirms in a certain place: 'Everything corporeal is passible'? He ought therefore to have changed the opinion by which, a little above, he had said that even God is a body. For I do not think he had so lost his senses as to believe even the nature of God to be passible—so that now Christ would be believed to be passible and changeable not only in the flesh, nor in flesh and soul, but in the very Word through whom all things were made: which be far from a Christian heart. Likewise, when he even gave the soul an airy and luminous colour, he came to the senses, by which he attempted to furnish it limb by limb as though it were a body, and said: 'Here will be the inner man, another the outer, one man in two ways;'
'that one too having its own eyes and ears, by which the people ought to have heard and seen the Lord, having also the other limbs, by which it makes use both in thoughts and functions in dreams.' Behold, with what ears and with what eyes the people ought to have heard and seen God—those by which the soul functions in dreams; whereas, if anyone should see Tertullian himself in a dream, he would never say that he had been seen by him and had spoken with him, whom in turn he himself had not seen. Finally, if the soul sees itself in dreams, when the limbs of its own body are lying, of course, in one place, while it itself wanders about through various images which it sees—who has ever seen it in dreams of an airy and luminous colour, unless perhaps like the other things which it likewise falsely sees? For this too it can see.
But far be it that, when he has awoken, he should believe it to be such; otherwise, when he sees himself otherwise—which is the more frequent case—either his soul will have been changed, or not even then is it the substance of the soul that is seen, but an incorporeal image of the body, which in a wondrous manner is formed as in thought. For what Ethiopian has not almost always seen himself black in dreams, or, if he saw himself in another colour, was he not the more astonished, if there was memory with him? Yet whether he ever saw himself of an airy and luminous colour, I know not—unless he had never read or heard of this. What then?
The fact is that men are led by such visions, and they wish, on the basis of the Scriptures, to prescribe to us that some such thing—not the soul, but God Himself—is such as He was figuratively shown to the spirits of the saints, such as He is also set forth in allegorical discourse. For those visions are indeed similar to such sayings. And thus they err, setting up in their hearts the images of a vain opinion, and not understanding that the saints so judged of their visions in the way in which they would judge if they read or heard such things divinely spoken in figures:
just as the seven ears of grain and the seven oxen are seven years, just as the linen sheet bound at its four corners like a platter, full of various animals, is the round world with all its nations—so all the rest, and much more, which are signified concerning incorporeal things by corporeal—not by realities, but by images. Yet Tertullian was unwilling that the soul should grow in substance like the body, alleging also the cause of his fear: 'lest,' he says, 'it be said to decrease also in substance, and thus be believed even to be destined to fail.' And yet, because he extends it locally through the body, he finds no way out of its increases, which he wishes to be made equal, from a tiny seed, to the magnitude of the body; and he says:
'But its power, in which the natural properties are implanted and retained, while the measure of its substance—with which it was breathed forth from the beginning—remains intact, is gradually brought forth together with the flesh.' This perhaps we would not understand, unless, employing a comparison, he made plain what he was saying. 'Set out,' he says, 'a fixed weight of gold or silver, still a raw mass: its condition is gathered and for the time being smaller than what it will be, yet containing within the line of its measure the whole of what the nature of gold or silver is. Then, when the mass is spread out into a plate, it becomes larger than its beginning through the dilation of the fixed weight—not through addition, while it is extended, not while it is increased. And yet even so it is increased while it is extended; for it is permitted to be increased in condition, though it is not permitted in state.'
'Then too the very splendour of the gold or silver is brought forth, which before was indeed present even in the mass, but more obscure, yet not wholly absent. Then also various successive conditions accrue, according to the pliability of the material, whithersoever he who works it shall have led it, conferring nothing on the measure except a shape. Accordingly, the increments of the soul too are to be reckoned not substantive, but eliciting.' Who would believe that a man could be so eloquent with such a mind? But these things are to be trembled at, not laughed at. For to this would he be driven, if he could conceive anything which both is and is not a body? And what is more absurd than to think that a mass of any metal can grow in some part, while it is beaten, unless it decreases in another; or be increased in breadth, unless it be diminished in thickness?
Or that any body, while the quantity of its own nature remains, can grow on every side, unless it becomes rarefied? How then will the soul fill up, from that droplet of seed, the magnitude of the body which it animates, if it too is a body, whose substance grows by no accession? How, I say, will it fill the flesh which it vivifies, unless it becomes the more rarefied the larger that is which it has animated? He feared, forsooth, lest it should fail even by diminishing, if it grew, and he did not fear lest it should fail by rarefying, when it grew. But why should I delay longer, since both the discourse runs on into a more prolix mode than the necessity of concluding demands, and my own opinion is now sufficiently known—both what I hold for certain, and whence I still doubt, and why I doubt?
Accordingly, let this volume too now be concluded, so that we may look at what follows next. BOOK ELEVEN. 'And they were both naked, Adam and his wife, and were not ashamed. Now the serpent was the most prudent of all the beasts that are upon the earth which the Lord God had made. And the serpent said to the woman: Why has God said, You shall not eat of every tree of paradise? And the woman said to the serpent: Of the fruit of the tree which is in paradise we shall eat; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die. And the serpent said to the woman: You shall not die the death; for God knew that on whatever day you eat of it, your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.'
'And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasing to the eyes to look upon, and fair to understand. And taking of its fruit, she ate, and gave also to her husband with her, and they ate. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in paradise in the evening, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the face of the Lord God in the midst of the tree of paradise. And the Lord God called Adam and said to him: Adam, where are you? And he said to Him: I heard Your voice, walking in paradise, and I was afraid, because I am naked, and I hid myself. And He said to him:'
'Who told you that you are naked, unless you have eaten of the tree of which alone I had commanded you not to eat? And Adam said: The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate. And the Lord God said to the woman: Why have you done this? And the woman said: The serpent seduced me, and I ate. And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle and above all the beasts that are upon the earth. Upon your breast and your belly shall you go, and earth shall you eat all the days of your life. And I will put enmities between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. She shall watch your head, and you shall watch her heel. And to the woman He said:'
'Multiplying I will multiply your sorrows and your groaning. In sorrows shall you bring forth children, and your turning shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you. And to Adam He said: Because you have hearkened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree, of which alone I had commanded you that you should not eat, cursed is the earth in your works; in sorrows shall you eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face shall you eat your bread, until you return into the earth from which you were taken; for earth you are, and into earth shall you go. And Adam called the name of his wife Life, because she is the mother of all the living. And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife garments of skin, and clothed them. And the Lord God said:'
'Behold, Adam has become as one of us, in knowing good and evil. And now, lest at any time he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever. And the Lord God sent him away from the paradise of pleasure to till the earth from which he was taken. And He cast out Adam, and set him over against the paradise of pleasure; and He stationed the Cherubim and a flaming sword which turns, to guard the way of the tree of life.' Before we treat in order the text of this Scripture set before us, I think it must be premised—what I remember I have said before elsewhere in this work—that this must be demanded of us: that whatever the one who wrote it narrates as having been done should be defended according to the proper sense of the letter.
But if, in the words of God, or of any person assumed into the prophetic office, something is said which cannot be understood according to the letter except absurdly, then without doubt it ought to be received as spoken figuratively for the sake of some signification; yet it is not lawful to doubt that it was spoken. For this is required by the faith of the narrator and the promise of the expositor. They were therefore both naked: it is true—the bodies of the two human beings dwelling in paradise were altogether naked. Nor were they ashamed: for of what should they be ashamed, when they had felt no law in their members warring against the law of their mind? Which penalty of sin followed them after the perpetration of the transgression, disobedience usurping what was forbidden, and justice punishing what was committed.
Before this came to pass, they were naked, as has been said, and were not confounded; there was no motion in the body to which shame was due; they thought nothing needed veiling, because they had felt nothing needing restraint. In what manner they were to propagate children has already been discussed before; yet it is not to be believed that they would have propagated in the manner in which they did propagate after the foretold vengeance followed upon the crime committed—when, before they died, death, already conceived, was even now stirring in the body of disobedient men, by a most just reciprocation of disobedient members, the tumult. Adam and Eve were not yet such, when they were both naked and were not confounded. Now the serpent was there, most prudent indeed, but of all the beasts which were upon the earth, which the Lord God had made.
For the word 'most prudent'—or, as several Latin manuscripts have it, 'most wise'—is said by transferred usage, not in the proper sense in which wisdom is wont to be taken for good, whether of God, or of angels, or of the rational soul; as when we call even bees and ants wise, on account of works that as it were imitate wisdom. Although this serpent could be called most wise of all the beasts, not by its own irrational soul, but by an alien spirit now within it, that is, a diabolical one. For however much the transgressor angels have been justly cast down from the heavenly seats by the merit of their own perversity and pride, yet by nature they are more excellent than all beasts on account of the eminence of reason.
What wonder, then, if the devil, now by his own instigation filling the serpent and mingling his spirit with it—in the manner in which the seers of the demons are wont to be filled—had rendered it the most wise of all the beasts, in respect of the living and irrational soul of living creatures? For by an abuse of the word, wisdom is thus spoken of in an evil sense, just as cunning is in a good sense—although properly and more usually, at least in the Latin tongue, the wise are praiseworthily named, while the cunning are understood to be evilly disposed of heart. Whence some, as we find in very many manuscripts, transferring to the usage of Latin speech not the word but rather the sense, preferred to call this serpent more cunning than all than more wise.
But what the Hebrew property has—whether there, in an evil sense, the wise can be named and understood not by abuse but properly—let those see who know it well. We, however, plainly read in another place of the holy Scriptures that the wise are toward evil, not toward good; and the Lord says that the children of this world are wiser than the children of light in providing for themselves for the future, though by fraud, not by right. Nor indeed ought we to suppose that the devil chose for himself the serpent through which he might tempt and persuade to sin; but since there was in him, on account of his perverse and envious will, a lust to deceive, he could do so only through that animal through which he was permitted to be able. For the will to harm can be depraved even from one's own mind;
but there is no power except from God, and this by a hidden and profound justice, since there is no iniquity with God. If therefore it be asked why God permitted man to be tempted, whom He foreknew would consent to the tempter, I cannot indeed penetrate the depth of His counsel, and I confess that this is far above my powers. There is therefore perhaps some more hidden cause, which is reserved for those better and holier than I, by His grace rather than by their merits; yet nevertheless, so far as He grants me to understand or permits me to say, it does not seem to me that man would have been destined for great praise, if he could live well for this reason only:
namely, because no one would persuade him to live evilly, when in his nature he had the power, and in his own power the will, not to consent to the persuader—with His help, however, who resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble. Why then would He not permit him to be tempted, whom He foreknew would consent, since he was going to do this by his own will through fault, and was to be ordered by His equity through punishment, so that in this way too He might show to the proud soul—for the instruction of the future saints—how rightly He Himself would make use of the wills of souls, even evil ones, when those wills were perversely using good natures?