Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 24

BOOK ONE. TO RENATUS. Your sincerity toward us, dearest brother Renatus, and your fraternal benevolence and the affection of mutual love we indeed held as proven even before; but now your friendly diligence has made it more proven to us, in that you sent me, this past summer, two books of a certain man whom I did not know at all—yet not therefore to be despised—Vincentius Victor (for so I found his name prefixed there), although, because I was absent, they were delivered to me at the end of autumn.

For how could you, my dearest one, be able or bound not to bring to my notice a matter which, when the letters of any man whatsoever had come into your hands—even though written to another—yet where my name was mentioned and read, in such a way that my words, which I had published in certain little works, were contradicted? This therefore you did, which as my most sincere and beloved friend you were bound to do. But on this account I am a little pained, that I am still less known to your holiness than I would wish, since you supposed that I would take it as though you had done me an injury by making known what another did. But how far this is from my mind—see, that I do not even complain of having suffered an injury from that man.

For when he thought certain things otherwise than I, ought he by any means to have kept silent? Whence it ought to be pleasing to me that he did not keep silent in such a way but that we can even read it. Someone might say that he ought rather to have written to me than to another about me; but because I was unknown to him, he did not dare to thrust himself upon me in the refutation of my sayings. Nor did he think I needed to be consulted where it seemed to him a matter least to be doubted, but rather that he held a fully known and certain opinion. He complied, however, with his friend, by whom he says he was compelled to write. And if in disputing he expressed something that redounded to my reproach, I would not believe he did it with the will of one reviling, but from the necessity of one who thinks differently.

For where the mind of an unknown man toward me is uncertain, I judge it better to think the better things than to blame what has not been examined. For perhaps he acted out of love for me, knowing that what he wrote could reach me, since he does not want me to err in those matters in which he rather thinks that he himself does not err. And therefore I ought even to have gratitude for the benevolence of one whose opinion I am nonetheless obliged to disapprove. And on account of this, in those things which he does not rightly understand, he seems to me still to be gently corrected, not harshly detested—especially because, as I hear, he has recently been made a Catholic, for which he is to be congratulated.

For he has been rid of the division and error of the Donatists, or rather the Rogatists, by which he was formerly held—provided, however, that he understands the Catholic truth as he ought, so that we may truly rejoice at his conversion. For he has eloquence, by which he can explain what he thinks. Hence one must deal with him, and it must be wished for him, that he think rightly, lest he make delightful things that are useless, and that whatever he has said eloquently may seem to have been said truly; although even in his very eloquence he has much to be amended and to be restrained from excessive overflowing, which in him displeased you also as a serious man, as your writings indicate. But this is either easily corrected, or, without detriment to the faith, is loved by gentle minds and tolerated by grave ones.

For we already have certain men who are foamy in speech but sound in faith. Therefore one must not despair even of this in him, that, although it is tolerable, if it persists it can nevertheless be purged and tempered and either brought or recalled to a whole and solid measure. Especially because he is reported to be a young man, so that what he lacks in experience diligence may supply, and what the crudeness of talkativeness belches forth, the maturity of age may boil down. That is troublesome and dangerous, or rather pernicious, if, when eloquence is praised, folly is persuaded, and in a precious cup a pestilential draught is drunk.

For, that I may now begin to demonstrate what things in his disputation are chiefly to be avoided: he says that 'the soul was indeed made by God and is not a part of God nor of his nature,' which is altogether true. But since he is unwilling to confess that it was made out of nothing, and mentions no other creature out of which it was made, and thus assigns God as its author in such a way that it is neither out of things not previously existing—that is, out of nothing—nor out of any thing that is not what God is,

but so that it is believed that God 'made it out of himself,' he does not perceive that he rolls back into that from which he thinks he has turned aside—namely, that the soul is nothing other than the nature of God, and thus consequently that something is made even out of the nature of God by the same God, for whom, in making, the material out of which he makes is himself who makes; and thereby that the nature of God is both mutable and, being changed for the worse, that the nature of the same God is condemned by that same God. You see, according to your faithful understanding, how this is not to be supposed, and how it is to be shut out from a Catholic heart and fled far away. For thus indeed the soul is either made from a breath, or is made itself the breath of God, in such a way that it is not out of him, but was created by him out of nothing.

For it is not to be thought of God as it is of a man, who, when he blows, cannot make a breath out of nothing, but returns the breath which he draws from this air; so as to think that certain airs were already poured around God, of which he would draw some tiny particle by breathing in and pour it back by breathing out, when he breathed into the face of man and in that way made him a soul. And even if it were so, then not out of himself, but out of some underlying breathable thing, could that be which he breathed. But far be it that we should deny that the Almighty could make the breath of life out of nothing, whereby man became a living soul.

And let us not be thrust into those straits, so as to suppose either that something already existed, which he himself was not, out of which he might make the breath, or to believe that, because we see it made mutable, he made it out of himself. For what is out of himself must necessarily be of the same nature as he himself is, and thereby also immutable; but the soul, as all confess, is mutable: therefore it is not out of himself, because it is not immutable as he is. But if it is made out of no other thing, it is made out of nothing, without doubt, yet by himself. But in that he 'contends it to be not a spirit, but a body,' what else does he wish to bring about than that we consist not of soul and body, but of two or even three bodies?

For when he says that 'we consist of spirit, soul, and body' and asserts that 'all these three are bodies,' assuredly he thinks that we are composed of three bodies. In which opinion, how great an absurdity attends him, I think must be demonstrated to him rather than to you. Yet this is a tolerable error of a man who has not yet learned that there is something which, though it be not a body, can nevertheless bear a certain likeness of a body. But who would bear that which, in the second book, when he tried to solve the most difficult question about original sin—how far it pertains to body and soul, if the soul is not derived from the parents, but breathed in new by God—striving therefore to unravel this so troublesome and so profound a question:

'Deservedly,' he says, 'through the flesh it recovers the former condition which it seemed for a little while to have lost through the flesh, so that through it it may begin to be reborn, through which it had deserved to be defiled.' You surely discern that a man who dared to undertake what exceeds his powers has fallen into so monstrous a precipice as to say that the soul deserved to be defiled through the flesh, when he can in no way say whence it derived this merit before the flesh. For if merit of sin begins from the flesh, let him say, if he can, whence before its own sin it deserved to be defiled by the flesh. For this merit, by which it was sent into sinful flesh, that it might be defiled by it, assuredly it had either from itself, or—what is much more abhorrent from the truth—from God.

For it could not have merit from the flesh before the flesh, by which merit it should be sent, to be defiled, into the flesh. If therefore it had this merit from itself, how did it have it, seeing that before the flesh it did no evil? But if it is said to have had this merit from God, who would hear this, who would bear it, who would permit it to be said with impunity? For it is not here asked what it deserved, that it should be judged worthy of condemnation after the flesh, but what it deserved before the flesh, that it should be so condemned as to be sent, to be defiled, into the flesh. Let him explain this, if he can, who dared to say that the soul deserved to be defiled through the flesh. Likewise in another place, when he proposed, as if to be unraveled, the same question in which he had entangled himself, he says, as though from the person of adversaries:

'Why,' they say, 'did God punish the soul with so unjust a chastisement, as to be willing to relegate it into the body of sin, so that it begins to be sinful by association with the flesh, which could not be sinful?' In the, as it were, rocky whirlpool of this question he certainly ought to have guarded against shipwreck, and not to have committed himself to a place from which he could extricate himself not by passing through, but perhaps by returning—that is, by repenting. For he strives to free himself by the foreknowledge of God, but in vain. For the foreknowledge of God foreknows those sinners whom he is going to heal; it does not make them. For if he frees from sin those souls which, innocent and clean, he himself entangled in sin, he heals the wound which he inflicted on us, not which he found in us.

But may God avert it, and may it be altogether far from us, that we should say that, when by the washing of regeneration God cleanses the souls of little ones, he then corrects his own evils which he himself did to them, when he mingled them, having no sin, with sinful flesh, by whose original sin they were contaminated. Yet this man, accusing them, says that they deserved to be defiled through the flesh, and cannot say whence they deserved so great an evil before the flesh. Thinking therefore in vain that he can dissolve this question by the foreknowledge of God, he still entangles himself and says: 'The soul, if it deserved to be sinful, which could not be sinful, nevertheless did not remain in sin, because, prefigured in Christ, it ought not to be in sin, as it could not be.'

What is it that he says, 'it could not be sinful' or 'it could not be in sin,' except, I believe, if it did not come into the flesh? For it could not be sinful by original sin, or in any way be in original sin, except through the flesh, if it is not derived from the parent. We see therefore that the soul is freed from sin by grace, but we do not see whence it deserved to cling to sin. What then is it that he says: 'if it deserved to be sinful, it did not however remain in sin'? For if I should ask of him why it did not remain in sin, he will most rightly answer: 'because the grace of Christ freed the soul.' As therefore he says whence the soul of the little one was freed, being sinful, so let him also say whence it deserved to be sinful.

But what does he say, to whom that which he had said before has happened? For, in order to propose this question to himself, he says: 'Other reproaches are heaped up by the querulous murmurings of those who bark against us, and, shaken as if by some whirlwind, we are again and again dashed among monstrous rocks'—if I were to say this of him, perhaps he would be angry; the words are his own—: with these premised, he proposed the question in which he might display the very rocks upon which, dashed, he was shipwrecked. For to this he was led, and upon such dreadful crags carried, driven, and fixed, that he can in no way extricate himself except by amending what he said, being unable to show by what merit the soul was made sinful—which he did not fear to say deserved, before all its own sin, to be made sinful.

Who deserves so monstrous a punishment without sin, that, conceived in another's iniquity, before it comes forth from its mother's womb, it is already not without sin? But from this penalty grace freely frees the souls of little ones who are regenerated in Christ, by no preceding merits of theirs; otherwise grace is now no longer grace. Accordingly, let this very intelligent man, to whom our hesitation—though not learned, yet cautious—in so great a depth is displeasing, say, if he can, by what merit the soul came into this penalty, from which penalty grace frees it without merit; let him say, that he may defend by some reason, if he shall be able, what he said. For I would not demand this, unless he himself had said that the soul deserved to be sinful.

Let him say whether its merit was good or evil. If good, by what good merit did it come into evil? If evil, whence any evil merit before all sin? Likewise I say: if good, then grace does not free the soul gratuitously, but according to debt, since a good merit preceded, and thus grace will now no longer be grace; but if evil, I ask what it is. Is it that it came into the flesh, into which it would not have come, unless he in whom there is no iniquity had himself sent it? Never therefore, except by hurling himself into worse things, will he manage to establish this his opinion, by which he said that the soul deserved to be sinful.

And concerning those little ones indeed, whose original sin is washed away in baptism, he found something, of whatever sort, to say, since the foreknowledge of God could in no way have harmed those predestined to eternal life by their adhering for a little while to another's sin. Which might be tolerably said, if this man did not entangle himself in his own words, saying that the soul deserved to be sinful. From which he does not at all free himself, unless it repents him to have said this.

But concerning those little ones who are overtaken by death before they are baptized in Christ, when he wished to respond, he dared 'to promise them not only paradise, but even the kingdom of heaven,' not finding by what way he might get out, lest he be compelled to say that God condemns innocent souls to eternal death—souls which, by no preceding merit, he grafts into sinful flesh. But somehow perceiving what an evil thing he had said, that the souls of little ones are redeemed into eternal life and the kingdom of heaven without any grace of Christ, and that original sin can be dissolved in them without the baptism of Christ, in which the remission of sins takes place—seeing therefore into what depth of a shipwrecking whirlpool he had cast himself:

'Indeed,' he says, 'for them I judge that assiduous oblations and the sacrifices of the holy priests are to be continually offered.' Behold another thing from which he will never get out, unless it repents him to have said it. For who would offer the body of Christ except for those who are members of Christ? And since it was said by him: 'Unless one be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,' and in another place: 'He who loses his soul for my sake shall find it,' no one becomes a member of Christ except either by baptism in Christ or by death for Christ.

Whence also that thief, not a follower of the Lord before the cross, but a confessor on the cross—concerning whom sometimes a prejudgment is seized upon, or an attempt is made, against the sacrament of baptism—is reckoned by holy Cyprian among the martyrs who are baptized in their own blood, which happens to very many who are not baptized when persecution is raging. For with so great a weight was it weighed, and it availed so much with him who knows how to weigh these things, that he confessed the crucified Lord, as much as if he had been crucified for the Lord. For then his faith flowered from the wood, when the faith of the disciples withered—unless it were that, by the resurrection of him at the terror of whose death it had withered, it should grow green again. For they despaired of the dying one; he hoped in the one dying with him.

they fled from the author of life, he begged the sharer of his penalty; they grieved as at the death of a man, he believed that he would reign after death; they deserted the surety of salvation, he honored the companion of the cross. In him was found the measure of a martyr, who then believed in Christ, when those who were to be martyrs failed. And this indeed was clear to the eyes of the Lord, who conferred so great a felicity at once upon one not baptized, as though washed by the blood of martyrdom. But which of us also would not consider with what faith, with what hope, with what love he could have undertaken death for the living Christ, who sought life in the dying one?

To this is added, that it is said not incredibly that the thief who then believed beside the crucified Lord was, as it were, sprinkled with a most sacred baptism by that water which gushed forth from the wound of his side—to say nothing of the fact that no one of us knows, no one proves, that he had not been baptized before he was condemned. But let each one take these things as he will, provided only that concerning baptism it be not laid down, contrary to the precept of the Savior, by the example of this thief, and that no one promise to unbaptized little ones, between damnation and the kingdom of heaven, as it were a middle place of any rest or felicity whatsoever, and anywhere.

For this even the Pelagian heresy promised them, since it neither fears damnation for the little ones, whom it thinks to have no original sin, nor hopes for them the kingdom of heaven, if they do not attain to the sacrament of baptism. But this man, although he confesses that little ones are bound by original sin, yet dared to promise them, even unbaptized, the kingdom of heaven—which not even those dared, who assert that they are altogether without any sin. Behold with what snares of presumption he entangles himself, unless it repents him to have written such things!

But concerning Dinocrates, the brother of holy Perpetua, neither is that scripture itself canonical, nor did she—or whoever wrote it—so write as to say that that boy, who died at seven years of age, had died without baptism, on whose behalf she is believed to have been heard when martyrdom was imminent, so that he might be transferred from punishments to rest. For boys of that age can already both lie and speak the truth, both confess and deny. And therefore, when they are baptized, they already both recite the creed and themselves answer for themselves to the questions asked.

Who therefore knows whether that boy, after baptism, at the time of persecution, was alienated from Christ by his impious father through idolatry, on account of which he went to death in condemnation, and did not come forth from there except by being granted to the prayers of his sister, who was about to die for Christ? But even if this be conceded to this man—which by no reasoning is conceded while the Catholic faith and the ecclesiastical rule are kept safe.

As for the claim that the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ should be offered on behalf of unbaptized persons of whatever age, as though through such piety on the part of their own kin they might be helped to attain the kingdom of heaven — what answer will he give concerning so many thousands of infants who are born of the ungodly and never come into the hands of the godly through any pity, whether divine or human, and who depart from this life in that most tender age without the laver of regeneration? Let him say, if he can, whence these souls came to deserve to become so sinful that they are not, at the very least, set free from sin even afterward. For if I ask why they deserve to be condemned when they are not baptized, the correct answer is given me: 'because of original sin'; and likewise if I ask whence they contracted original sin.

He will answer: 'from the sinful flesh, of course.' If then I ask whence they deserved to be condemned to sinful flesh, seeing that they had done no evil before the flesh — let him here find what to answer, and how they came to be condemned to undergo the contagion of others' sins in such a way that neither does baptism regenerate the ill-begotten nor do sacrifices expiate the defiled — for in that place also these little ones were born of such parents, or are even now still being born, so that no such aid can come to their rescue — here surely all argumentation fails. For we are not asking whence souls deserved to be condemned after their partnership with sinful flesh, but by what.

...we ask whence souls deserved to be condemned to enter into partnership with sinful flesh, when they had no sin before their partnership with sinful flesh. It cannot be said: 'the briefly shared contagion of another's sin did them no harm, since in God's foreknowledge a redemption had been prepared for them.' For we are now speaking of those to whom, departing from the body before baptism, no redemption comes. It cannot be said: 'those whom baptism does not wash, frequent sacrifices offered on their behalf will cleanse, since God, foreknowing this, willed that they should for a little while cleave to others' sins without any destruction of eternal condemnation and with hope of eternal happiness.'

For we are now speaking of those whose birth among the ungodly and from the ungodly can find no such safeguards. And even if such could be applied, they would without doubt be of no benefit to the unbaptized — just as those sacrifices which he mentioned from the Book of Maccabees, offered for the dead sinners, would have profited them nothing had they not been circumcised.

Let him therefore find, if he can, what to say when he is asked what a soul — free of all sin, whether original or its own — deserved, that it should be so condemned to undergo another's original sin that it cannot be delivered from it; and let him see which of two things he chooses: whether to say that even those souls of dying infants, who depart hence without the laver of regeneration and on whose behalf no sacrifice of the Lord's body is offered, are absolved from the bond of original sin — though the Apostle teaches that from one man all go into condemnation, those namely upon whom grace does not come to their rescue that through the one they might be delivered into redemption — or to say that souls having no sin whatever, whether their own or original, and in every way innocent, simple, and pure, are punished with eternal condemnation by the just God, when He Himself inserts them, not to be delivered, into sinful flesh.

For my part I affirm that neither of these two things is to be said, nor that third thing — that souls sinned somewhere else before the flesh, so as to deserve condemnation into the flesh; for the Apostle most plainly defined that those not yet born in the flesh had done nothing good or evil, whence it is established that little ones, in that they need remission of sins, have contracted nothing but original sin — nor that fourth thing, that those souls of infants destined to die without baptism are by the just God banished into sinful flesh and condemned, because He foreknew that, had they reached the age at which they would use free will, they would have lived wickedly.

For this indeed not even he, placed in such straits, dared to say; nay rather, against this very vanity he has already spoken clearly and briefly enough, where he says that 'God would have been unjust had He willed to judge a man not yet born, apart from any completed works of his own will.' For this is what he answered when he was treating the question against those who say: 'why did God make a man whom, being foreknowing, He knew would not turn out good?' For He would not judge the unborn if He had refused to create him for this reason, that He foreknew he would not be good. And indeed, as it also seemed right to him, God ought to judge a man on his completed works, not on things foreknown and never permitted to come about.

For if sins which a man would have committed had he lived are, though not committed, condemned in one who is dead, then no benefit has been conferred upon him who was taken away lest wickedness alter his understanding — since he will be judged according to the wickedness that would have been in him, not according to the innocence that is found in him. And there could be no security concerning any dead baptized person, since even after baptism men can not only sin in whatever manner but even apostatize. What then?

If, then, one who was baptized and taken away hence would have become an apostate had he lived, shall we suppose that no benefit was conferred on him in that he was taken away lest wickedness alter his understanding, and shall we judge, on account of God's foreknowledge, that he must be judged not as a faithful member of Christ but as an apostate? For how much better, if sins not yet done, not yet even thought of, but foreknown and future are punished, that those two should have been cast out of paradise before sin, lest sin be committed in a place so holy and blessed! And what of this — that foreknowledge itself is utterly emptied out if what is foreknown will not come to be? For how is it rightly said that a future thing is foreknown, when it will not be future?

How then are sins punished which are nonexistent — that is, which were neither committed before the flesh, this present life not yet beginning, nor after the flesh, death forestalling them? Accordingly, in this interval from when the soul was sent into the flesh until it should be released from the flesh, since it is the soul of a little one and has not lived the age of free will, it finds no ground for its condemnation, baptism not having been received, except original sin. That the soul is justly condemned for this sin we do not deny, since the just law has appointed punishment for sin; but we ask why it has been condemned to undergo this sin, if it is not derived from that one sin which was committed in the first father of the human race.

Wherefore, if God does not condemn the innocent nor make guilty those whom He perceives to be innocent; and if He does not deliver souls, whether from original or from their own sins, except in the Church of Christ through the baptism of Christ; and if souls had absolutely no sin at all before the flesh; and if sins before they are committed — and much more those which have never been committed — cannot be condemned by a just law: let him say none of these four things, and, if he can, let him explain by what desert the souls of infants, which depart without baptism and are sent into condemnation, were sent into sinful flesh, though they had committed no sin, so as to find there the sin on account of which they are deservedly condemned.

Furthermore, if — avoiding these four things which sound doctrine condemns, that is, not daring to say either that souls existing without any sin are made sinful by God, or that in them original sin is loosed without the sacrament of Christ, or that they sinned somewhere before they were sent into the flesh, or that sins they never had are condemned in them — if, unwilling to say these things, since assuredly they are not to be said, he should say that little ones do not contract original sin nor have any ground for condemnation if they depart hence without receiving the sacrament of regeneration, he will fall, deserving of condemnation, into the Pelagian heresy, which is beyond doubt damnable.

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:

'He breathed the breath of life into the woman's face, and she was made into a living soul,' not even so would it follow that the soul is not propagated from the parents, unless this too were likewise read to be written concerning their son. For it could have come to pass that a limb without a soul, drawn from the body, needed to be given a soul, while the soul of the son was drawn from the father through the mother by the transfusion of propagation. But when it is passed over in silence, it is concealed, not denied, but neither affirmed. And on this account, wherever perhaps it is not passed over in silence, it must be established by clearer proofs. Whence neither are those who defend the propagation of souls at all helped by this, that God did not breathe into the woman's face, nor those who deny it, on this account, that Adam did not say:

'Soul of my soul,' ought to persuade themselves of what they do not know. For just as, with the same question not resolved but remaining, Scripture could keep silent that the woman received a soul by God's breathing, just as her man did, so, with the same question not resolved but remaining, Scripture could keep silent, so that Adam should not say, 'soul of my soul.' And on this account, if the soul of the first woman is from the man, the whole was signified from a part, where it is read, 'This now is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,' since she was taken wholly from the man, not the flesh alone. But if it is not from the man, but God breathed it into her as into the man, the part was signified from the whole, where it is read, 'She was taken out of her man,' since her flesh, not the whole, was taken.