On the Soul and Its Origin 1.18–1.31

How too does he know whether it is a repetition of the thought—“who gives breath to the people upon it and spirit to those who tread on it”—so that both are understood as said of one thing, and the prophet meant to signify not the soul or 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 have breathed on the disciples after the resurrection and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit”, nor would it have been written in the Acts of the Apostles: “Suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a violent breath rushing, and there appeared to them tongues divided as of fire, which also sat upon each of them, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit.” What if the prophet foretold this when he said, “who gives breath to the people upon it”, and then, as if explaining what he had called breath, repeated it and said, “and spirit to those who tread on it”? For this was fulfilled most evidently when they were all filled with the Holy Spirit. Or if the hundred and twenty persons who were then present in one place are not yet to be called a people, certainly when four or five thousand believed at once and, baptized, received the Holy Spirit, who would doubt that a people received the Holy Spirit together, a multitude walking on the earth, that is, people treading the earth? For the spirit that belongs to human nature, whether it is given by propagation or breathed in new—neither of which I say is to be affirmed until one or the other becomes clear beyond all doubt—is given not to those treading the earth but to those still enclosed in their mother’s womb. He gave breath, then, to the people upon the earth and spirit to those who tread on it when many believing together were filled with the Holy Spirit. And he gives it to his people, though not to all at once, to each in his own time, until by departing from this life and succeeding into this life the whole number of that same people is completed; so that in this place of holy Scripture breath is not one thing and spirit another, but it is a repetition of the same thought, just as he who dwells in the heavens is not one and the Lord another, nor is laughing one thing and deriding another, but the same thought is repeated where we read: “He who dwells in the heavens will laugh at them, and the Lord will deride them”; or when it is said, “I will give you the nations as your inheritance and the ends of the earth as your possession”, it certainly did not call inheritance one thing and possession another, nor the nations one thing and the ends of the earth another, but it is a repetition of the same thought. And he will find countless expressions of this kind in the divine oracles, if he pays attention to what he reads.

What the Greek calls pnoē the Latins have translated in various ways: sometimes “breath”, sometimes “spirit”, sometimes “inspiration”. For the Greek manuscripts have this word in the prophetic testimony we are now dealing with, where it is said, “who gives breath to the people upon it”: that is pnoē. It is the same word where man was ensouled: “and God breathed into his face the breath of life.” It is the same word also in the psalm where it is sung, “Let every spirit praise the Lord”; it is the same in the book of Job, where it is written, “But it is the inspiration of the Almighty that teaches.” The translator chose not to say “breath” but “inspiration”, though the Greek has pnoē, which is also in the words of the prophet we are now discussing. And certainly in this place I do not know whether one ought to doubt that the Holy Spirit is signified. For the subject was wisdom, whence it is in men: “For it is not from the number of years,” he says, “but there is a spirit in men, and it is the inspiration of the Almighty that teaches”; so that by this repetition it might be understood that he had not spoken of man’s spirit when he said, “There is a spirit in men.” For he wished to show whence they have wisdom, that it is not from themselves, and by repeating he explained it, 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 that teaches me.” Here too what he calls inspiration or aspiration is pnoē in the Greek, which in those words of the prophet is translated “breath”. Therefore, since it is rash to deny that “who gives breath to the people upon it and spirit to those who tread on it” was said of man’s soul or man’s spirit, although the Holy Spirit can much more credibly be understood there, by what reasoning, pray, will anyone dare to decide that in that place the prophet meant to signify the soul or spirit by which our nature lives? For certainly, if he said most plainly, “who gives a soul to the people upon the earth”, it would still have to be asked whether God gives it from the origin of the preceding generation—just as from the origin of the preceding generation he nevertheless gives a body, as he wills, not only to man or beast but even to a seed of wheat or of any other plant—or whether he breathes in a new one, as the first man received it.

There are also some who understand these prophetic words in such a way that, where it says, “he gave breath to the people upon it”, that is, upon the earth, they would take breath to mean only the soul, while what he added, “and spirit to those who tread on it”, they think signifies the Holy Spirit—in the order, namely, in which the apostle too says: “Not first what is spiritual, but what is of the soul; afterward what is spiritual.” From this prophetic statement an elegant sense is also carved out: that he said “to those who tread on it” meaning “to those who despise it”. For those who receive the Holy Spirit despise earthly things out of love for heavenly ones. None of these interpretations is against the faith, whether one understands both, that is, both breath and spirit, as what belongs to human nature, or takes both as said of the Holy Spirit, or refers breath to the soul and spirit to the Holy Spirit. But if the soul and spirit of man is to be understood here too, just as it is not to be doubted that God gives it, so it must still be asked how he gives it: whether by propagation—as he indeed gives the members of the body, but gives them by propagation—or whether he distributes it new and not propagated by breathing it into each; and this we want defended not by ambiguous authorities of the divine oracles, as this man does, but by some most certain ones.

By the same reasoning, what God says, “For the spirit will go forth from me, and every breath I have made”—the words “the spirit will go forth from me” are indeed to be taken of the Holy Spirit, of whom the Saviour also says, “He proceeds from the Father”; but it cannot be denied that “every breath I have made” was said of every soul. But he also makes every body; and that he makes the human body by propagation no one doubts. And so, concerning the soul, since it is established that it is made by him, how he makes it—whether by propagation, like the body, or by breathing, as he made the first—must certainly still be inquired.

He added also a third testimony, because it is written, “who forms the spirit of man within him”—as if this were denied! But the question is how he forms it. For who but God forms even the bodily eye of man? And I suppose he forms it not outside but within him, and yet, as is certain, by propagation. Since, then, he forms the spirit of man also within him, it must be asked whether it is by a new inbreathing or drawn by 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, exhorted them by saying: “My sons, I do not know how you appeared in my womb. For it was not I who gave you spirit and soul, nor I who shaped the face and limbs of each of you; but God, who made the world and all that is in it, and made the human race and searches out the deeds of all, will himself give you back spirit and soul with great mercy.” We know this indeed, but we do not see how it supports what he asserts. For what Christian would deny that God gives men soul and spirit? But in the same way I think he cannot deny that God gives men the ear, the tongue, the hand, the foot, and all the senses of the body, and the form and nature of all the members. For how will he deny that these are gifts of God, unless he forgets that he is a Christian? But just as it is established that these are made and given by him through propagation, so it must also be asked how the spirit and soul of man are brought about by him by whose working they are given: whether from the parents, or from nothing, or—as this man affirms, but which must be guarded against in every way—from some existing nature of his own breath, created not from nothing but from himself.

Since, then, the testimonies of Scripture which he cites in no way teach what he is trying to persuade us of—for as far as this question is concerned they express nothing at all—what does he mean when he says: “We constantly assert that the soul is from the breath of God, not from transmission, because it is given from God”? As if the body were given from any other than him by whom it is created, from whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things—though not from his nature but from his workmanship. “Nor from nothing,” he says, “because it proceeds from God.” Here we do not merely advise that it must still be asked whether this is so; rather, that what he says is not true at all—namely, that the soul is neither from transmission nor from nothing—this, I say, we affirm without hesitation to be untrue. For it is one of two: if it is not from transmission, it is from nothing, lest it be from God in such a way as to be of God’s nature, which it is wholly sacrilegious to believe. But whether it is not from transmission we still demand, or seek, certain testimonies, not such as he has set down, by which what we are seeking is not shown.

How I wish that in so deep a question, as long as he does not know what to say, he would imitate the mother of the Maccabees! Though she knew that she had conceived her sons by her husband, and that they had been created for her by the Creator of all, both as to the body and as to the soul and spirit, she nevertheless says: “I do not know how you appeared in my womb.” I wish this man would tell us what it was she did not know. For the things I have mentioned she certainly knew: how they came into her womb as to the body, since she could not doubt that she had conceived them by her husband. She also confessed—because this too she certainly knew—that God gave them soul and spirit, and that he himself formed their faces and limbs. What, then, did she not know? Was it perhaps what we too do not know: whether the soul and spirit which God undoubtedly gave them he drew from the parents or breathed in new, as into the first man? But whether it was this or something else about the constitution of human nature that she did not know, she said that she did not know, and did not rashly defend what she did not know. Yet this man would not say to her what he did not blush to say to us: “Man, placed in honour, did not understand; he has been compared to senseless cattle and become like them.” See, this woman said of her sons, “I do not know how you appeared in my womb”, and yet she is not compared to senseless cattle. “I do not know,” she said; and as if they asked her why she did not know, she added: “For it was not I who gave you spirit and soul.” He who gave it, then, knows whence he made what he gave, whether he drew it by propagation or breathed it in new—which I, she says, do not know. “Nor did I shape the face and limbs of each of you”; he who shaped them knows whether he shaped them together with the soul or gave the soul to them once they were shaped. In which way, then, whether this or that, her sons came into her womb she did not know; and yet she knew this, that he who gave everything would give it back. But let this man choose what, in so deep and hidden a secret of human nature, this woman did not know; only let him not judge her a liar or compare her to senseless cattle for not knowing. Whatever it was that she did not know certainly belonged to human nature; yet a human being could be ignorant of it without fault. Therefore I too say of my soul: I do not know how it came into my body—for I did not give it to myself. He who gave it knows whether he drew it from my father or created it new, as for the first man. I too shall know, if he himself teaches me, whenever he wills; but now I do not know, and I am not ashamed, as this man is, to confess that I do not know what I do not know.

“Learn,” he says; “see, the apostle teaches.” I will certainly learn, if the apostle teaches—for it is only God who teaches through the apostle—but what, pray, is it that the apostle teaches? “See,” he says, “when he was speaking to the Athenians, he set this out firmly, saying: ‘Since he himself gives to all life and spirit.’” Who denies this? “But understand,” he says, “what the apostle says. ‘Gives,’ he says, not ‘gave’, referring to infinite and continuous time, not speaking 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 of the books you sent. Here first see how far he has gone while striving to affirm what he does not know. For he dared to say that God gives souls to those being born not only now and in this age alone, but through infinite time, without ceasing, and altogether always. “He always gives,” he says, “just as he who gives always is.” Far be it from me to deny that I understand what the apostle said, for it is plain enough; but what this man says he himself ought to understand is against the Christian faith, and he ought to take care not to say it again. For when the dead have risen, no one will be born any more; and so then he will not give souls to those being born, but will judge, with their bodies, the souls he gives in this age. He does not, then, always give, although he who now gives always is. Nor, because the blessed apostle said not “gave” but “gives”, does it follow, as this man wants to conclude, that he does not give souls by propagation. For he himself gives them even if he gives them by propagation, since he himself gives men the members of the body, the senses of the body, the form of the body, and the whole substance of the body, although he gives them by propagation. For when the Lord says, “If God so clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven”—not saying “clothed”, as when he first established it, but “clothes”, which he does even now—we shall not for that reason deny that lilies are produced from the origin of their own kind. What, then, if in the same way the soul and spirit of man is both given by God, as long as it is given, and yet given by propagation from its own kind? This I neither defend nor refute. But if it is to be defended or refuted, I urge that it be done by clear testimonies, not ambiguous ones. Nor am I for this reason to be compared with senseless cattle because I declare that I do not yet know this, but rather with cautious people, because I do not dare to teach what I do not know. But I do not in turn compare him with cattle, as if repaying curse for curse; rather I advise him as a son to confess that he does not know what he does not know, and not to try to teach what he has not yet learned, lest he be compared not to cattle but to those people of whom the apostle says that they wish to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertions.

For how is it that he takes so little care to attend to the Scriptures he speaks of that, when he has read that men are from God, he contends that they are from God not also as to the body, but only as to soul and spirit? For what the apostle says, “We are from him”, this man wants referred not to the body but only to the soul and spirit. If, then, bodies are not from God, what is written is false: “from whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things.” Next, where the same apostle says, “For as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman”, let him explain to us what propagation he meant to signify—of the soul, of the body, or of both. But he will not have souls come by propagation; it remains, then, according to him and all who destroy the propagation of souls, that 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 afterward the man too was born through the woman. If, then, in saying this the apostle wished to be understood not also souls and spirits but only the bodies of both sexes, why did he immediately add, “but all things are from God”, unless because bodies too are from God? For this is what 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 choose, then, of what it was said. If of bodies, then certainly bodies too are from God. Why is it, then, that wherever he reads “from God” in the Scriptures, when men are concerned, he wants it understood not also of bodies but only of souls and spirits? But if “all things are from God” was said both of the body of each sex and of the soul and spirit, then the woman is from the man in all respects; for the woman is from the man, the man through the woman, all things from God. What are these “all things” but those he was speaking of, that is, both that man from whom the woman came, and that woman who came from the man, and that man who is through the woman? For the man through the woman is not the one from whom the woman came, but the man who was born afterward from a man through a woman, as men are born to this day. Therefore, if when the apostle said this he was speaking of bodies, without doubt the bodies of both sexes are from God. Further, if he will have nothing of men to be from God except souls and spirits, then certainly the woman is from the man also as to soul and spirit, and nothing will be left for those who argue against the propagation of souls. But if he divides it so as to say that the woman is from the man as to the body, but from God as to soul and spirit, how will what the apostle says be true, “but all things are from God”, if the woman’s body is from the man in such a way as not to be from God? Therefore, so that the apostle may rather speak the truth than this man be preferred to the apostle, the woman is from the man, whether as to the body alone or as to the whole of which human nature consists—for we affirm neither of these as certain, but are still seeking which of them is true—and the man is through the woman, whether the whole nature of the man who is born through the woman is drawn from the father, or only the flesh, about which there is still a question; yet all things are from God, about which there is no question: that is, the body and soul and spirit both of the man and of the woman. For even if they were not born, drawn, or flowed from God so as to be of his nature, yet they are from God. For they have their being from him by whom they were created, founded, and made.

“But the apostle,” he says, “by saying, ‘and he himself gives to all life and spirit’, and then adding, ‘and he made from one blood every race of men’, referred the soul and spirit in their origin to the Author, and the body to transmission.” On the contrary, one who does not wish rashly to deny the propagation of souls before it becomes clear whether it is so or not has a way of understanding these words of the apostle: that in saying “from one blood” he said “from one man”, by the figure of speech that signifies the whole by a part. For if he is allowed to understand what is written, “and man became a living soul”, as the whole by a part, so that the spirit too is understood there, of which Scripture there said nothing, why may others not take what is said, “from one blood”, in such a way that both soul and spirit can be understood there, since man, signified by the name of blood, consists not of the body alone but also of soul and spirit? For just as he who defends the propagation of souls ought not to press this man on the ground that it is written of the first man, “in whom all sinned”—for it was not said, “in whom the flesh of all sinned”, but “all”, that is, all men, since man is not flesh alone—just as, then, this man ought not to be pressed on this point, because perhaps “all men” was said in such a way as to be understood according to the flesh alone, so he ought not to press the defenders of the propagation of souls on the ground that it was said, “every race of men from one blood”, as though the flesh alone belonged to propagation. For if what these men assert is true, that the soul is not from a soul but only flesh from flesh, then “from one blood” was said not so that the whole man was signified by a part, but only the flesh of one man; and in what was said, “in whom all sinned”, only the flesh of all men is to be understood, which was transmitted from him, Scripture signifying a part by the whole. But if it is true that the whole man is propagated from the whole man, that is, body, soul, and spirit, then “in whom all men sinned” was said literally there, while here “from one blood” signifies the whole by a part, figuratively: that is, the whole man, who consists of soul and flesh, or rather, as this man likes to say, of soul and spirit and flesh. For the divine oracles are accustomed to signify both the whole by a part and a part by the whole. The whole is signified by a part where we read, “To you all flesh shall come”, since by flesh the whole man is understood; and a part by the whole, when Christ is said to have been buried, although only his flesh was buried. As for what is set down in this testimony of the apostle, that he himself gives to all life and spirit, I think that after the preceding discussion it moves no one; for he himself gives it. But we still ask how he gives it, whether by new inbreathing or by propagation. For he is also most rightly said to give the substance of the flesh, which it is not denied that he gives by propagation.

Now let us look at that testimony from Genesis, where the woman, 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.” 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 they fortify their opinion more invincibly from this passage, because, although it is written that God took a rib from the man’s side and built it into a woman, it is not added that he breathed the breath of life into her face; for this reason, they say, because she had already been ensouled from the man. For if she had not been, they say, holy Scripture would by no means have cheated us of the knowledge of this. To what Adam says, “This now is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”, without saying “spirit of my spirit” or “soul of my soul”, they can answer as was shown above: that “bone and flesh of mine” is said so that the whole is understood by a part, but things taken out ensouled, not dead. For it must not be denied that the Almighty could do this merely because no human being can cut off anything of human flesh together with the soul. And as to what Adam went on to add, “She shall be called woman, because she was taken from her husband”, why did he not rather say what would confirm these men’s opinion, “because her flesh was taken from her husband”? Here, then, those who think the opposite can say that, since it is written not that the woman’s flesh but that the woman was taken from her husband, she must be taken as whole, with soul and spirit. For even though the soul has no sex, it is not necessary, when women are named, to understand them with the soul excepted. Otherwise they would not be admonished to adorn themselves thus: “not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but as befits women,” he says, “who profess godliness, through good conduct.” Certainly godliness is within, in the soul or in the spirit; and yet they are called women even so that they may adorn themselves within, where there is no sex.

Since these men contend with each other in alternating speech in this way, I judge between them by warning both not to trust in what is unknown and rashly dare to affirm what they do not know. For if it had been written, “He breathed the breath of life into the woman’s face, and she became a living soul”, even then it would not yet follow that the soul is not propagated from parents, unless the same were written likewise of their son. For it could have happened that a member taken from the body without a soul needed to be ensouled, while the son’s soul was drawn from the father through the mother by transmission in propagation. But since it is passed over in silence, it is hidden, not denied, but not affirmed either. And therefore, if it happens not to be passed over somewhere, it must be established by clearer proofs. Hence neither are those who defend the propagation of souls helped at all by the fact that God did not breathe into the woman’s face, nor ought those who deny it to persuade themselves of what they do not know because Adam did not say “soul of my soul”. For just as Scripture could be silent, the question not being solved but remaining, about the woman’s receiving a soul by God’s breathing as her husband did, so Scripture could be silent, the question not being solved but remaining, in that Adam did not say “soul of my soul”. And therefore, if the first woman’s soul is from the man, the whole is signified by a part where we read, “This now is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”, since the whole woman, not the flesh alone, was taken from the man. But if it is not from the man, but God breathed it into her as into the man, a part is signified by the whole where we read, “She was taken from her husband”, since her flesh, not the whole of her, was taken.

Therefore, although this question is not solved by these testimonies, which are certainly ambiguous as far as this matter is concerned, yet I know that those who think the woman’s soul is not from the man’s soul, because it was not said “soul of my soul” but “flesh of my flesh”, argue in the same way as the Apollinarians, or whoever else they are, argue against the Lord’s soul, which they deny on the ground that they read it written, “The Word was made flesh.” “For if there were a soul there too,” they say, “it should have been said, ‘The Word was made man.’” But these are told that Scripture is accustomed to name the whole man by the name of flesh—as in “and all flesh shall see the salvation of God”, for flesh without a soul cannot see anything—because in very many other places of the holy Scriptures it is shown without any ambiguity that not only flesh but also a human soul, that is, a rational one, is in the man Christ. Hence those too by whom the propagation of souls is defended could take “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” as said of the whole by a part, so that the soul too would be understood there, just as we take the Word made flesh not without a soul—if, just as other testimonies teach that Christ has a human soul, so they too established the propagation of souls by some unambiguous testimonies. In turn, therefore, we warn also those who destroy the propagation of souls to establish by certain proofs that new souls are breathed in by God, and then to defend that “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” was said not figuratively, the whole by a part, so that the soul is understood as well, but literally of the flesh alone.