Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book IV: On Original Sin
Chapter 11: The question of the origin of the soul is explained
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. V, De Amissione Gratiae et Statu Peccati, Book IV. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Concerning the origin of the soul, then, there has always been a most grave contention — first among the heathen philosophers, then among the Christian theologians. For from the error of the Stoics was born the error of Manichaeus and of Priscillian; from the error of Plato, the error of Origen; from the error of Aristotle — or certainly from the opinion of Aristotle not well grasped — the error of Apollinaris; so that Tertullian, in the book against Hermogenes, rightly judged that the philosophers should be named the Patriarchs of the heretics. I see that there have been six opinions in all about the origin of the soul; all of which we shall briefly relate, and indicate what is to be thought of each.
The first opinion is that human souls are particles of the substance of God, and hence are neither properly created nor transmitted from parents, but wondrously breathed in by God. This Stoic error Philo the Jew first defended, in that book which he entitled That the Worse Lies in Wait for the Better; the Gnostics, Manichaeans, and Priscillianists afterwards followed the same, as St. Augustine relates in the book On Heresies, chapters 6, 46, and 70. Now this opinion is a manifest heresy. For the divine substance is immutable and inviolable: I am God, and I change not, Malachias 3; With whom there is no change, nor shadow of alteration, James 1; But thou art always the selfsame, and thy years shall not fail, Psalm 101. But the human soul is mutable and violable, since from good it can become evil through sin, and again from evil good through grace. Wherefore this opinion was deservedly condemned of heresy in the first Council of Braga, canon 5, and in the epistle of St. Leo to Turibius, chapter 5. And what the adversaries objected from chapter 2 of Genesis — He breathed into his face the breath of life — is easily solved. For from those words we understand that the human spirit was produced by God (for to inspire is to give spirit to someone); yet it is not necessarily gathered from them that the spirit of man is from the substance of God. For God can produce spirit in three ways: in one way, from his own substance, in which way he produces and breathes the Holy Spirit; in another way, from nothing, in which way he produced the angelic spirits; in a third way, from created matter, in which way he produced and produces the souls of beasts, which Ecclesiastes calls spirits, chapter 3. Now to which of those ways the production of the soul is to be referred cannot be gathered from those words alone, He breathed the breath of life. Yet if we add that the human soul could not be produced from the substance of God, because it is mutable, nor from created matter, because it is not material, it will follow that it was produced from nothing.
The second opinion is that human souls were indeed created by God, and from nothing, but all together at once with the Angels; and then, seized with weariness of those spiritual goods which they enjoyed in heaven, began to love earthly things, and therefore were thrust down by God into bodies as into prisons. This Platonic error, which Origen maintains in book 1 of the Peri Archon — that is, On the Principles — chapter 7 [al. 8], and in other places, the first Council of Braga condemned, canon 6, and St. Leo in the epistle cited to Turibius, chapter 10. The same error the holy Fathers had reprehended before: Epiphanius, in the epistle to John of Jerusalem; Jerome, in the epistle to Pammachius against the same John; Theophilus of Alexandria, in the first Paschal book; Augustine, in epistle 28 to Jerome; and most excellently Cyril of Alexandria, book 1 on John, chapter 9, where he storms this error with twenty-three arguments. We shall briefly touch the principal reasons. The first reason can be that, if souls were thrust down into bodies as into prisons for the sake of punishment, many things would follow which are most absurd. For first of all, God would imprudently have slain all the wicked at the time of the deluge, and preserved the just Noe; and no less improvidently would he have destroyed the Sodomites, but delivered Lot from the burning. For this would have been nothing else than to dismiss wicked men from the prisons, and keep the good in chains. Next, we should owe the greatest thanks to the devil, who procured death for us — that is, opened the door of the prison — and none to Christ, who acquired resurrection for us — that is, called us back into the prison, and that a perpetual one. Moreover, those blessings — Increase and multiply, Genesis 1 and 9; and, I have made thee a father of many nations, and I will make thee increase exceedingly, Genesis 17; and, The Lord God add to this number many thousands, Deuteronomy 1 — would be not blessings, but curses. For what else would the multiplying of men be than the filling of prisons? Again, when God gave sons to Anna supplicating, and prolonged life to Ezechias, and called back Lazarus and the widow's son from the dead, he would have done not a benefit, but an injury. Finally, why does God in the law command evildoers to be slain, and the innocent preserved? and why in every well-ordered commonwealth are robbers and parricides taken out of the way, if to be detained in the body is a punishment, and to be led out of the body a benefit? The second reason is that if all souls had sinned in heaven, and therefore had been condemned to bodies, that would be false which the Apostle says, Romans 5: Death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them who have not sinned; and Romans 9: When they were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil; and in the later epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 5: We must all be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he hath done, whether it be good or evil. The third reason: if souls descended from heaven to earth, from light to darkness, from the most bright dwelling of the blessed to the vilest prison of the damned, when they begin to live in the body, the divine Scripture would be false, which says: That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world, John 1; and again: Many say: Who sheweth us good things? The light of thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us, Psalm 4. Further, the arguments of the Origenists are easy — so much so that the holy Fathers wished rather to indicate than to refute them. They brought that of Psalm 114: Turn (or return), O my soul, into thy rest; and that of Psalm 118: Before I was humbled I offended; and that of Psalm 141: Bring my soul out of prison; and that of chapter 1 of John: That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world. But in the first testimony the prophet gives thanks to God that, delivered from great dangers, he is now free of anxiety of mind, and at the same time exhorts himself to seek again the inward peace and tranquility of soul which, on account of frequent fears and straits, he had almost lost. This place can also be understood of the everlasting rest, from the hope of which we fell through sin, and to which we are called back through penance. In the second testimony the prophet, and any other just man, acknowledges that he is not undeservedly scourged at times by the Lord, and humbled through temptations, seeing that his sins deserve such punishment. In the third, David speaks literally of the cave in which he was hiding on account of Saul's persecution, as is plain from the title of the Psalm; and so he prays God to deliver him at length from that siege, that he be not always compelled to lurk in the cave as in a prison. But spiritually this place can be understood of the prison of this mortal body, from which holy men desire to be led out: because the body which is corrupted burdens the soul, as the Wise Man says, chapter 9; whence is that cry of the Apostle, Romans 7: Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? By which words holy men do not desire simply to be freed from the body, but from the mortal body, as St. Augustine has noted on this place. For otherwise they await the redemption of the body with great desire, as the Apostle says, Romans 8; and, if it could be (as the same Apostle says, 2 Corinthians 5), they would not wish to be unclothed, but clothed over, that what is mortal might be swallowed up by life. In the fourth testimony it is not signified that man comes into this world as though he had before been outside the world; but that, since he was nothing, and thereby was not in the world, through generation he began to be, and to live in this world, as St. Cyril rightly teaches in the commentary.
The third opinion is that human souls were fashioned at the beginning together with the Angels, and then are sent to a body, now one, now another. And the difference between this opinion and the former is that this one does not teach that the souls sinned in heaven, nor that they are shut up in bodies in punishment of sin, as the former taught; but affirms only that all souls were created at the beginning, lest it be compelled to concede that God made anything new after the seventh day, since it is written, Genesis 2, that on that day God ceased from the work which he had undertaken. Of this opinion are certain rabbis of the Hebrews, as can be understood from the commentary of rabbi Solomon on chapter 33 of Deuteronomy, and from their other books. The same opinion Gregory of Nyssa hands down in the book On the Soul, chapter 6 — if, however, that book is his, and not rather of Nemesius or of some other, since Gregory of Nyssa in the book On the Making of Man, chapters 28 and 29, professedly refutes this opinion. That some others also of the catholic doctors were of the same opinion, St. Jerome writes in the epistle to Marcellinus and Anapsychia, which is the 27th among the epistles of St. Augustine. This opinion St. Jerome, in the place cited, calls a foolish persuasion. And St. Leo, in the epistle to Turibius, chapter 10, reprehends it in these words: “The Catholic faith constantly and truly preaches that the souls of men were not, before they were breathed into their bodies.” Finally, St. Thomas, in the first part of the Summa, question 118, article 3, refutes the same opinion with this argument. The soul is an imperfect nature, and a part of man, not the whole man, and thereby is naturally joined with the body, as a form with its matter. But it is absurd that God should have begun his work from an imperfect thing, since the works of God are perfect; nor is it less absurd that one part of man was made at the beginning of the world, the other made after many ages; therefore the soul was not before it was breathed into the body. The proposition, which alone seems to need proof, is proved: for if the soul were of itself a perfect substance, it could not be the form of the body; but that it is the form is certain, both from elsewhere and from the definition of the Lateran Council under Leo X, session 8. Likewise, if the soul were not naturally joined with the body, it would remain in it violently, and life would be to us not a benefit, but a punishment. Finally, if the soul were perfect without the body, and were not a natural part of man, it could be asked whether it is coupled with the body by its own will or by another's. And if by its own will, three absurdities will follow: first, that it wills in vain to be joined with the body, since it does not need its service; second, that it remained separate for so many ages, and now at last, as though its mind were changed, wills to be in a body; third, that it comes about by chance that it slips down into a body — for it cannot but be by chance that at one time the will of the man generating and disposing the matter should concur with the will of the soul desiring to descend to inform it. But if they are coupled with the body by another's will, certainly the soul is compelled by a higher power, in punishment of a preceding sin — which is the error of Origen, refuted a little before. Nor can it be answered that it is not compelled in punishment of sin, but is applied by the will of God to ruling the human body, as the Angels are applied to moving the heavenly bodies. For the Angels are not the forms of the heavens, nor are they detained in them as in prisons, nor do they take any punishment from that ministry; but souls are so coupled to bodies that they are made their forms, nor do they understand, while they are in the body, except through corporal phantasms, so that they seem deservedly to be in darkness; finally, the evils of the body so overflow into the minds that the Wise Man said, chapter 9: The body which is corrupted burdens the soul. And so, if souls were in heaven before they were joined with the body, it cannot be denied that they are thrust unwilling into bodies in punishment of some sin, as wicked men are driven unwilling to prisons. The contrary arguments are two, which seem briefly to be refuted. First is objected the Scripture, which in chapter 1 of Genesis relates that man was created on the sixth day to the image and likeness of God, and then in chapter 2 relates that man was formed after the seventh day from the mud of the earth. For from these places it seems to be gathered openly enough that man was created as to the soul, in which properly is the image of God, on the sixth day; as to the body, which consists of the mud of the earth, after the seventh day. And because the reasoning of the other men is the same, it seems one must say that all souls were created on the sixth day among the works of the first creation of things, but that the bodies after the seventh day are little by little multiplied through generation. Secondly it is objected that it is absurd that anything new be produced by God after the seventh day, on which he put an end to all his works; but he would produce something new if he daily procreated souls from nothing — that is, souls which had been founded neither in the potency of matter nor in seminal power in the first six days. To the first objection I answer that in those two places is narrated the production of the whole man, but in the one more briefly, in the other more fully. And so the whole man was founded on the sixth day, both as to the soul and as to the body; but because this had been briefly indicated in the first chapter of Genesis, and the matter was of great moment, it pleased the Holy Spirit in the second chapter to weave the same narration again, and to explain the whole order of the human creation more at length. And although the image of God properly resides in the soul, yet by reason of the soul the whole man is rightly said to be founded to the image of God. And certainly Scripture in that first chapter of Genesis does not say that the soul was made to the image of God, but that man was made, and that male and female, and that to them it was said: Increase and multiply — which certainly suit not the soul alone, but the whole man. To the other objection St. Augustine, in epistle 28 to Jerome, says it can be answered that God ceased on the seventh day from his work because he made nothing new afterwards, but governed and multiplied the works which he had made in those first days; and so the creation of souls is not new, because he had already made on the sixth day one soul of the same species with the rest. We can also answer that all souls can be said to have been created on the sixth day, not in act, but in power. For when God produced the principles of human generation — that is, the man and the woman — and said to them, Increase and multiply, he then not only produced in power all the human bodies which were to be propagated through generation, but also willed that, as often as matter should be duly prepared for human generation, straightway a soul should exist and animate that body; and thereby he produced in power not only the bodies, but whole men, when he founded those two human beings and attributed to them the power of propagating the race. Wherefore, although souls are created from nothing at that very point of time at which they are breathed into bodies, yet this is so perpetual, and proceeds according to the order of nature constituted at the beginning, that it would have to be held for a miracle if a soul were wanting, at its time, to a body disposed and prepared.
The fourth opinion is that souls are drawn from the parents no less than bodies — so that from the soul of the father is the soul of the son, as from the body of the father is the body of the son. The first author of this opinion among Christians was Tertullian, whom Apollinaris followed, as St. Jerome relates in the epistle cited above to Marcellinus and Anapsychia; where also the same author says that the greatest part of the westerners were of the same opinion. That the same opinion was attributed to the Luciferians, St. Augustine testifies in the book On Heresies, chapter 81. This opinion all the Scholastic theologians, with the Master of the Sentences, book 2, distinctions 17 and 18, reject and refute as a manifest error; and St. Thomas, in the first part, question 118, article 2, in express words calls it a heresy. And first this opinion is wont to be refuted from chapter 2 of Genesis. For God, to show the difference between the human soul and the souls of beasts, had said of the beasts, chapter 1: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl… over the earth; and again: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things and beasts, etc. But of man he does not say, “let the earth bring forth,” but, he himself formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life. From which we understand that the souls of beasts are material and educed from matter itself, but that the human soul was not educed from the mud, but breathed in by the Creator himself. Nor ought it to move us that Philastrius, in the Catalogue of Heretics, chapter 99, numbers among the heretics those who judge that that breath of life is the rational soul, and not rather the grace of the Holy Spirit. For Philastrius in that matter spoke with too little consideration, as St. Augustine teaches, book 13 of the City of God, chapter 24; so far is this opinion from being heretical that its contrary is repugnant not only to the holy Fathers — Chrysostom, homilies 12 and 13 on Genesis; Jerome, in the epistle to Pammachius on the errors of John of Jerusalem; Augustine, book 12 of the City of God, chapter 23 [al. 24], and book 13, chapter 24; Theodoret, question 23 on Genesis; Eucherius, book 1 on Genesis; and others — but also to the Apostle Paul, who in the first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 15, says that man was at the beginning founded animal, and after the resurrection will be spiritual. And he proves it because it is written: Man was made into a living soul. Now these words which the Apostle cites are written in chapter 2 of Genesis, where we read: He breathed into his face the breath of life, and man was made into a living soul. Wherefore that breath of life (the Apostle being witness) did not give man spiritual being, such as is had through the grace of the Holy Spirit, but animal being, which is had through the soul, which furnishes the body with being and living. Now the proper sentence of that place is this: God breathed into his face (or, as the Hebrew words sound, into his nostrils) the breath of life — that is, God set in the nostrils of that body, compounded of the mud of the earth, breath, and made it begin to breathe and live. For respiration is the sign of life; but because man does not live without the soul, which is the principle of life, therefore, when God is said to have given man to breathe and live, he is understood to have given also the soul, through which it comes about that man breathes and lives. And if some Fathers (as Irenaeus, Cyprian, Basil, whom we cited in the book On the Grace of the First Man, chapter 3) sometimes expound this place of the grace of the Holy Spirit, and not of the rational soul, they take the Scripture not according to the letter, but mystically. But it is to be observed that this place demonstrates efficaciously enough that the soul of the first man was not educed from matter, but was created by God from nothing; yet it does not compel us to judge the same of the remaining souls. For it could be answered that, as God formed the body of the first man from the mud of the earth, but procreates the remaining bodies not by himself from the mud of the earth, but through generation from the bodies of the parents, so the soul of the first man was created by God properly and from nothing, but now from that first one the rest are propagated. Wherefore, as St. Augustine disputes in epistle 28 to Jerome, perhaps no place of Scripture will be found in which it is perspicuously taught that souls are not made from stock, but created. For those places — He who hath made the hearts of every one of them, Psalm 32; and, The spirit return to God, who gave it, Ecclesiastes, last chapter; and, Every breath I have made, Isaias 57 — prove indeed that God is the founder of all souls, yet do not indicate the manner in which they were founded by God, whether by creation from nothing, or by propagation from the soul of the first man.
We, then, these being omitted, shall endeavor to demonstrate efficaciously, in two ways, that souls are not propagated from the parents, but created: first by ecclesiastical tradition, then by reasons evidently drawn from the principles of the faith. As to the first, we shall bring forward the testimonies of the Fathers who openly reprehend the opinion of the propagation of souls. St. Hilary, book 10 On the Trinity, before the middle of the book: “The soul of man,” says he, “is the work of God; but the generation of the flesh is always from flesh.” And below: “As he by himself took up for himself a body from the Virgin, so from himself he took for himself a soul — which assuredly is never furnished by man from the origins of the begetters.” St. Ambrose, book On Noe and the Ark, chapter 4: “Very often,” says he, “Scripture calls the Angels sons of God, because souls are generated from no man.” Likewise, book On Paradise, chapter 10 [al. 11]: “Consider,” says he, “that he took a rib from the body, not a portion from the soul — that is, not soul from soul, but bone of bones and flesh of flesh.” St. Jerome, in the commentary on the last chapter of Ecclesiastes: “They are sufficiently to be laughed at who think that souls are sown from bodies, and are generated not by God, but by the parents of the bodies.” Likewise in book 3 of the Apology against Rufinus, past the middle, and in the epistle to Pammachius on the errors of John of Jerusalem, before the middle, having recited the opinions of the heretics Origen, Tertullian, and Apollinaris about the soul, he says: “It is the ecclesiastical dogma that God daily fashions souls.” Where, since he opposes the ecclesiastical dogma to the opinions of the heretics, he seems altogether to have held that it is to be held by Catholic faith that souls are not transmitted from the parents, but created. St. John Chrysostom, homily 28 on various places of Matthew: “The soul,” says he, “neither generates nor is generated, nor acknowledges any father besides him by whose will it was created.” St. Gregory of Nyssa, in the book On the Soul, chapter 6, professedly refutes the opinion of the propagation of souls from the parents as a manifest error. Theodoret, book 5 to the Greeks, which is on the nature of man, about the middle of the book: “He (Moses) says that the infant is first formed in the womb of the mother, and then at last, the body being now perfected, is ensouled — not indeed so that a pre-existing soul is inserted into the body from elsewhere, nor so that it springs from the seed, but that by divine institution, as was the law implanted in nature from the beginning, it receives creation.” Theodoret adds in the same place that this is a dogma in which all the Scriptures of the Apostles and Prophets agree. St. Cyril, book 1 on John, chapter 9: “Opportunely and justly are we commanded not to sin in this flesh: since we began to be at that time at which we came into this world together with the body, and, as it were from a certain place, came from nothing to being.” In which place Cyril writes not only that the soul was not before the body, but also that it came from nothing to being. For although he seems to speak of the whole man, when he says “we are commanded not to sin in the flesh,” etc., yet he speaks of the soul alone, which by the figure of intellection is wont also to be called the man, as is plain from that whole disputation. St. Augustine — although (as we shall say a little after) he believed the origin of souls to be uncertain, and in book 10 On Genesis, chapter 23, wrote that the opinion which asserts the propagation of souls rests on stronger arguments than the other opinions — yet in epistle 157 to Optatus, which he wrote much later, most openly refutes that opinion which we are now endeavoring to refute: “And so they,” says he, “who defend the propagation of souls with inconsiderate temerity,” etc. And in the same epistle, speaking of the opinion of Tertullian, he says thus: “Than which what can be said more perverse?” St. Leo, in the epistle to Turibius, chapter 10: “The Catholic faith,” says he, “constantly and truly preaches that the souls of men were not before they were breathed into their bodies, and are embodied by no one save by God the maker, who is the creator both of them and of the bodies.” The same, in epistle 11 to Julian, teaches that souls are breathed into us in the same manner in which one was breathed into Christ; and it is certain that the soul of Christ was not propagated from parents, as St. Augustine teaches, book 10 On Genesis, chapter 18 [al. 19], but created by God. See, to the same opinion, the author On the Cardinal Works of Christ (which work is had among the opuscules of St. Cyprian), in the sermon on the resurrection; the author of the book On Ecclesiastical Dogmas, chapter 14, which work is had in the fourth tome of St. Augustine; St. Bernard, sermon 27 on the Canticles; Innocent III, in the commentary on Psalm 50; finally the Lateran Council under Leo X, session 8. To which testimonies can also be added the consent of the peoples; for it is so implanted in the minds of the faithful that souls are freshly created by God when the offspring are ensouled in the wombs of their mothers, that even farmers, craftsmen, cobblers, simple women, and boys know this; and if anyone publicly taught the contrary, he would hear the very worst among the Catholic people. “Dost thou wonder,” says St. Jerome, in book 2 of the Apology against Rufinus, “if the scandals of the brethren are stirred against thee, when thou swearest thyself ignorant of that which the Churches of Christ confess that they know?”
I come to the reasons, which are drawn from the principles of the faith; since the things which are evidently deduced from the articles of faith also pertain to the faith. The first reason: that the souls of men are immortal is a principle of the faith — and indeed a primary and most certain one, luculently expressed, by the consent of all, in the holy Scriptures. But if the souls of men are immortal, they necessarily subsist of themselves. For if they did not subsist of themselves, but depended on the body, as the souls of cattle, then, that perishing, they too must needs perish. Again, if the souls of men subsist of themselves, certainly they are also produced of themselves. For those things are produced of themselves which subsist of themselves; those are produced for the production of another which exist for the existence of another. Finally, if the souls of men are produced of themselves, this manifestly follows: that they are not made from stock, but are created from nothing. For the things that are made from stock, as the souls of all beasts, are not made of themselves, but exist for the generation of the composite. The souls of men, then, either are made of themselves — which is to be created, not transmitted — or are not immortal, which is (as we said) against the faith. The second reason: if the souls of men are drawn from the parents, they are drawn either from the body or from the soul of the parents. If from the body, they are therefore corporal, and thereby mortal, like the rest which are produced from corporal seed. If from the soul, either from the whole or from a part. If from the whole, then either the parent thereafter lacks a soul, seeing he has poured the whole over into his son; or the whole remains in the father and in the son. Each is evidently false; for experience testifies that the parent is not deprived of his soul by generation, and that the soul of father and son is not one and the same — to omit that it is singular and proper to the divine nature, on account of its infinity, that one in number should be in several persons. But if the soul of the son exists not from the whole, but from a part of the soul of the father, then the soul is divisible, and thereby corporal and mortal. So one always returns to the article of the immortality of the soul. Thou wilt say: the soul is made neither from the body nor from the soul of the father, but from a seed of the soul, which is poured over into the womb of the mother together with the seed of the body. For that this was the thought of those who contended that the soul is made from stock, St. Augustine testifies, book 10 On Genesis, chapter 20. I answer: the seed of the soul is either corporal or spiritual. If corporal, a spiritual soul cannot be made from it. If spiritual, we shall ask again whether it is a substance or an accident. For if it is a substance, it will be made either from nothing or from another substance; if from nothing, then a spiritual substance will be created by man; if from another substance, we shall ask again whether that is corporal or spiritual — and so a progress to infinity will be given. But if it is an accident — a certain seminal power, namely — then the seed of the soul will be not matter, but the instrument of the agent. But it is matter we are seeking — unless someone be so foolish as to will that the father make the soul from nothing, which belongs to the creator alone. The third reason: every form which is produced through true generation, if it be separated from the body, necessarily perishes. For this is for a form to be produced through true generation: to be educed from the potency of matter by the power of the producer. But what is educed from the potency of matter so depends on matter that without it it can neither be made nor be. Now the human soul is the true form of the body, as was declared in the Lateran Council, session 8; and, if it is drawn from the parents, it is without doubt produced through true generation. For men do not beget sons otherwise than the other animals; and so far are men from begetting by some action proper to man alone, that they rather lose the use of reason in the very act of generation. Wherefore, if the human soul is transmitted, it will, no otherwise than the souls of beasts, both be generated from matter and, separated from matter, fail and perish. Thus, then, let it stand demonstrated that human souls are not made from stock, but created. Nor do the arguments which are wont to be made against this have great force.
First is wont to be objected that of Genesis 46: All the souls that came out of Jacob's thigh, were sixty-six. It is answered that by souls in that place must be understood the men themselves, who consist of a soul. For frequent in the Scriptures is the use of that figure which is called intellection, when, namely, either the whole is understood from a part, or a part from the whole. So in 1 Kings, chapter 28, Samuel is said to have appeared to Saul, when the soul of Samuel had appeared to him. So in the book of Leviticus, chapter 5, soul is taken for man, when it is said: If a soul sin, and hear the voice of one swearing; likewise, the soul that toucheth any unclean thing; likewise, the soul that sweareth, etc. Secondly is objected the argument drawn from chapter 7 of the epistle to the Hebrews, in this way: Christ and Levi were in the loins of Abraham when he offered tithes to the high priest Melchisedech; and yet Levi is said to have been tithed when his father Abraham was tithed, but Christ is not said to have been tithed (for thence the Apostle proves that the priesthood of Christ is more excellent than the levitical priesthood, because the priesthood of Christ is according to the order of Melchisedech, who received tithes from Levi himself, lurking in the loins of Abraham); therefore Christ and Levi were not in the loins of Abraham in the same way, but Levi was there by a certain proper and definite manner in which Christ was not. Now Christ was in the loins of Abraham by reason of the body; therefore Levi was in the same loins by reason of the body and by reason of the soul. This argument St. Augustine proposes and endeavors to solve, book 10 On Genesis, chapter 19. We briefly answer that Levi was in the loins of Abraham otherwise than Christ — not because Levi was in the loins of Abraham by reason of soul and body, but Christ only by reason of body; but because Christ was in the loins of Abraham according to the matter of the flesh, not according to the seminal principle, while Levi was there according to both. For Christ had a mother from the progeny of Abraham, not a father; and the mother in generation furnishes the matter, not the active power, which resides only in the seed of the man, and which, as the instrument of the man, forms the body that is generated. For it is known from the Gospel that Christ was conceived of the Virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit, and wondrously born of the Virgin. But Levi had both father and mother from the progeny of Abraham, and therefore was in his loins according to the matter of the flesh by reason of his mother, and according to the seminal principle by reason of his father. And this was the cause why Christ did not contract original sin, nor had need to pay tithes; but Levi was both subjected to sin and tithed in Abraham. Thirdly it is wont to be objected that, if souls are not drawn from the parents, but created by God and breathed into bodies disposed through generation, this absurdity follows: that God cooperates with adulterers and fornicators in the procreation of a man, seeing he bestows souls on fornicating and adulterous conceptions. Which argument, devised by Apollinaris, Gregory of Nyssa, book On the Soul, chapter 6, judged almost insoluble. But St. Jerome answered, in book 3 of the Apology against Rufinus, that it is no more absurd that God should breathe souls into adulterous conceptions than that the earth should cherish in her bosom the seeds which a sower has carried off by theft, or cast with an unclean hand. Which similitude St. Augustine, in epistle 28 to Jerome, writes to be most elegant. But if anyone require a scholastic solution, we briefly answer that in fornication and adultery two things can be considered: the natural action of human generation, and the vice of the one transgressing the law of God in performing that work; and the first indeed is good, and with that good the good God cooperates, when he pours souls into matter duly disposed and prepared; the second is evil, and with it God in no way cooperates.
The fifth opinion is of those who judge that the origin of the soul lies hidden, and that nothing is to be rashly defined. Of this opinion, even to his death, was St. Augustine, as can be understood from book 10 On Genesis; likewise from the four books On the Origin of the Soul, which he wrote when already old, and wrote for this purpose: to show that not without great cause did he not dare to bring forward a certain opinion on this matter; again from epistle 28 to Jerome, and from epistle 157 to Optatus; finally from book 2 of the Retractations, chapter 56. The hesitation of St. Augustine was followed by St. Gregory, in the epistle to Secundinus, which is had in the register of his epistles, book 7, chapter 27 [al. 53], and by Eucherius, in the commentary on the second chapter of the book of Genesis. Nor are there wanting those who would have us still persevere in the same doubt. We, however, judge that at this time this opinion is by no means safe, and therefore we subscribe to the sixth opinion, which teaches that for single men single souls are created and infused, not from stock, but from nothing, then first when the offspring conceived in the wombs of their mothers have been prepared for animation. Which opinion is of all the authors whom we adduced against the fourth opinion, excepting Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa. Further, the reason why we judge that the fifth opinion is to be exploded, and this sixth embraced, is twofold. For first, we have at this time, besides the testimonies of the Fathers who preceded the times of St. Augustine, the rescript of St. Leo the First, cited above, to Turibius; the decree of Leo the Tenth in the Lateran Council; the consent of all the theologians who have flourished these five hundred years; finally, the excellent reasons devised by the theologians — which arguments St. Augustine lacked. Next, the whole cause which hindered St. Augustine from certainly persuading himself of the creation of new souls was the argument of the Pelagians against original sin, which we proposed in the preceding chapter. For the other arguments against the new creation of souls the same Augustine thought he could easily dissolve, and in very deed dissolved them, in epistle 28 to Jerome; but in the same epistle, as also in 157 to Optatus, he ingenuously confesses that neither by reading, nor by praying, nor by reasoning could he find how, with the creation of souls, the sin of origin might be defended. But, the question of original sin being removed, St. Augustine did not doubt that the opinion of the creation of souls is most true. For in book 1 On the Origin of the Soul, chapter 19, after he had enumerated four errors which are to be guarded against in the question of the soul, he wrote thus: “Saying, then, none of these four things — since any of them is false and impious — let them defend this their opinion” (of the new creation of souls) “not only with me not forbidding, but even favoring and giving thanks.” And in epistle 28: “For although no one brings it about by wishing that what is not true should be true, yet, if it could be done, I would wish that this opinion were true — as I wish that, if it is true, it may be most clearly and most invincibly defended by thee.” And in epistle 157: “And if thou find what I admonished thee to seek, which I myself, I confess, have not yet found, defend as much as thou canst, and assert that the souls of infants are of such a state; and communicate with us in brotherly charity what thou shalt have found. But if thou find it not, let not thy assent even so be rashly bent to another opinion, so as to believe that souls are transmitted by propagation from that one — lest perchance another be able to find what thou canst not, or thou thyself at some time find what now thou canst not.” And below he says thus: “If thou choose so to defend souls as strangers to propagation that yet, by most right reasoning, they be demonstrated bound by this handwriting, which is to be torn up only by the death of Christ — defend it not only with no one forbidding, but even show us how we may defend it with thee. But if thou canst not, better does the origin of the soul lie hidden.” From these places it is plain that to St. Augustine our opinion of the creation of souls seemed far truer than the opinion of propagation. Nor should it be objected that in book 10 On Genesis, chapter 23, he seems to lean more toward the opinion of propagation. For in that place he does not compare opinion with opinion, but arguments with arguments, and says that the opinion of propagation rests on a stronger argument; yet it does not follow thence that that opinion seemed to him truer. Add that Augustine wrote the epistle to Jerome on the origin of the soul later than the books On Genesis, and the epistle to Optatus later still, and after both wrote the four books On the Origin of the Soul, when already very old, as can be understood from book 2 of the Retractations; and in these writings he is found ever more and more to have withdrawn from the opinion of stock, and drawn near to the opinion of the creation of souls. Therefore only the transmission of original sin hindered Augustine from believing the creation of souls. But in very truth neither does the creation of souls hinder the transmission of sin, as we shall demonstrate in the following chapter; nor does the propagation of souls from the soul of Adam help the propagation of sin — since Adam, as to his soul, was justified from sin before he begot sons; and often too just parents, lacking original sin, beget sons; but an unjust soul cannot be drawn from a just soul, and thereby sin is not transmitted into the offspring because soul is made from soul. Wherefore, since that argument about the sin of origin was the sole cause of St. Augustine's hesitation, and that argument is no less easily dissolved, the creation of souls being posited, than the stock being posited — as presently, God willing, we shall teach — there is no cause why we should believe that one must doubt any longer. Certainly indeed St. Augustine, if he now lived among men, would not only favor, but even give thanks to those who should maintain this our opinion.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XI. i Explicatur quaestio de origine animae , • Igitur de origine animae semper fuit gra¬ vissima concertario. Primum apud ethnicos philosophos ; deinde apud Christianos theo¬ logos. Nam ex errore Stoicorum natus est error Manichaei et Priscilliani : ex errore Platonis error Origenis : ex errore Aristo¬ telis, vel certe ex Aristotelis sententia non bene percepta, error Apollinaris , ut jure Tertullianus in lib. adversus Hermogenem, Philosophos Patriarchas haereticorum nomi¬ nandos censuerit. Sex in universum fuisse video sententias de origine animae. Quas omnes breviter re¬ feremus, et quid de unaquaque sentiendum sit indicabimus. (t)Eph. 11,3. 360 UBER IV. Prima sententia est, animas humanas esse particulas substantiae Dei, proinde nec pro¬ prie creari, nec a parentibus traduci, sed a Deo mirabiliter inspirari. Hunc Stoicum errorem primus defendit Philo Judaeus in eo libro, quem inscripsit : Quod deterius potiori insidietur eumdem postea secuti sunt Gnostici, Manichaei, Pricillianistae , ut S. Augustinus refert in lib. de haeresibus cap. 6. 46. et 70. Est autem haec sententia hceresis explo¬ rata. Siquidem divina substantia immuta¬ bilis atque inviolabilis est : Ego Deus et non mutor , Malach. m : Apud quem non est transmutatio, nec vicissitudinis obumbratio , Jac. I. Tu autem idem ipse es, et anni tui non deficient, Psalm ct. (I ). At anima humana mutabilis et violabilis est, cum ex bona possit fieri mala per peccatum, et rursus ex mala bona per gratiam. Quare merito damnata est haereseo haec sententia in primo Concilio Bra- carensi, c. 5, et ep. S. Leonis ad Turbium c. o. Quod vero objiciebant adversarii ex cap. ii. Genes. : Inspiravit in faciem ejus spiracu¬ lum vitae (2), facile solvitur. Nam ex illis ver¬ bis intelligimus, humanum spiritum a Deo "esse productum (inspirare enim est spiritum alicui dare) non tamen ex eo necessario col¬ ligitur, ex Dei substantia esse spiritum ho¬ minis. Potest enim Deus tribus modis spi¬ ritum producere : uno modo ex projpria substantia, quomodo producit ac spirat Spi¬ ritum sanctum ; altero modo ex nihilo, quomodo produxit spiritus angelicos ; tertio modo ex materia creata, quomodo produxit / ac producit animas bestiarum, quas Eccle¬ siastes spiritus appellat cap. m. Jam vero ad quem istorum modorum sit referenda productio anima;, non potest col¬ ligi ex illis solis verbis : Inspiravit spiracu¬ lum vitae. Tamen si addamus non potuisse animam humanam produci ex Dei substan¬ tia, quia mutabilis est, neque ex materia creata, quia materialis non est, sequetur pro¬ ductam esse ex nihilo. Altera sententia est. Animas humanas creatas quidem a Deo fuisse, et ex nihilo, sed omnes simul una cum Angelis, ac deinde fa¬ stidio affectas bonorum illorum spiritualium, quibus in cado fruebantur, amare coepisse res terrenas, atque idcirco a Deo in corpora tamquam in carceres detrudi. Platonicum hunc errorem, quem tuetur Origenes in lib. i. rapi dp/wv, hoc est, de prin¬ cipiis cap. 7. et aliis in locis, damnavit Con¬ cilium Bracarense primum cap. 6. et S. Leo in epistola citata ad Turbium cap. 10. Eun¬ dem errorem antea reprehenderant sancti Patres, Epiphanius in epistola ad Joannem Hierosolymitanum. Hieronymus in epist. ad Pammachium contra eumdem Joannem. Thcophilus Alexandrinus in lib. i. Paschali. Augustinus in epist. 28. ad Hieronymum, et praeclarissime Cyrillus Alexandrinus lib. i. in Joannem, cap. 9. ubi viginti tribus argu¬ mentis hunc errorem expugnat. Nos princi¬ pales rationes breviter attingemus. • Prima ratio esse potest, quia si anima; in corpora, tamquam in carceres supplicii gra¬ tia detruderentur, sequerentur multa, quae absurdissima sunt. Nam in primis impruden¬ ter Deus tempore diluvii sceleratos omnes occidisset, et justum Noe conservasset; nec minus improvide Sodomitas perdidisset, Lot vero ab incendio liberasset. Nihil enim id fuisset aliud, nisi viros improbos e carceribus dimittere, probos in vinculis retinere. Deinde maximas gratias agere deberemus diabolo, qui mortem nobis procuravit, id est, januam carceris aperuit, nullas vero Christo, qui re¬ surrectionem nobis acquisivit, id est, in car¬ cerem, cumque perpetuum revocavit. Prae¬ terea benedictiones illae : Crescite et multi¬ plicamini, Genes, i et ix ; Et patrem multa¬ rum gentium constitui te, f aciamque te crescere vehementissime , Genes, xvn; et : Addat Deus ad hunc numerum multa millia, Deuter. l. (1), non benedictiones, sed maledictiones essent. Quid enim esset aliud, multiplicari homines, quam impleri carceres? Rursus, cum Deus Annae supplicanti filios donavit, et Ezechiae vitam prorogavit, et La- zarum, ac filium viduae a mortuis revocavit, non beneficium, sed injuriam fecisset. Deni¬ que cur Deus in lege maleficos jubet occidi, innocentes conservari? et cur in omni Repu- blica bene instituta latrones et parricidae de medio tolluntur, si detineri in corpore sup¬ plicium est, educi de corpore, beneficium ? Altera ratio est, quia si omnes animae in cado peccassent, et ideo ad corpora damna¬ tae fuissent, falsum esset quod ait Apostolus ad Roman. v : Regnavit mors ab Adam usque ad Moysem etiam in eos, qui non peccaverunt. (1) Mal. III. 0; Jacob. I, 17; Psal, CI, 28. - (2) Gen. II, 7. - (3) Gen. I, 22, 18; IX, 1, 7; Gen. XVII, 5; Deut 1,11. CAPUT XI. 30 1 Et ad Itoinan. ix. : Cum nondum nati essent, nec aliquid boni , vel mali egissent. Et in po¬ steriore ad Corinth. cap. v : Omnes nos ma¬ nifestari oportet ante tribunal Christi, ut re¬ fellat unusquisque propria corporis sicut gessit, sive bonum, sive malum (i). Tertia ratio, si animae de coelo ad terras, de luce ad tenebras, de clarissimo domicilio beatorum ad deterrimum carcerem damna¬ torum descendarent, cum in corpore vivere incipiunt, falsa esset Scriptura divina, quae ait : Erat lux vera, qux illuminat omnem ho¬ minem venientem in hunc mundum, Joan. i. Et rursus : Multi dicunt quis ostendet nobis bona? signatum est super nos lumen vultus tui Domine, Psalm. iv. (2). Porro argumenta Origenistarum facilia sunt, adeo ut sancti Patres ea potius indi¬ care, quam refellere voluerint. Afferebant illud ex Psalm. cxiv : Convertere, vel, rever¬ tere anima mea in requiem tuam. Et illud ex Psalm. cxviii : Priusquam humiliarer , ego deliqui. Et illud ex Psalm. cxli : Educ de cu¬ stodia animam meam. Et illud ex cap. i. Joannis : Erat lux vera, qux illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum (3). Sed in primo testimonio gratias agit pro¬ pheta Deo, quod a magnis periculis liberatus ingenii sollicitudine jam careret, et simul hortatur se ipse ad internam pacem et ani¬ mi tranquillitatem repetendam, quam ob fre quentes timores et angustias pene perdide¬ rat. Potest etiam hic locus intelligi de requie sempiterna, a cujus spe per peccatum excidi¬ mus, et ad quam per poenitentiam revocamur* In secundo testimonio agnoscit propheta, ct quilibet alius justus, se non immerito a Domino interdum flagellari, et per tentationes humiliari. Quandoquidem peccata sua poe¬ nam ejusmodi mereantur. In tertio, ad litteram loquitur David de spelunca, in qua latebat ob Sauli persecutio¬ nem, ut perspicuum est ex titulo Psalmi. Jtaquc Deum precatur, ut se aliquando libe¬ ret ab obsidione illa, ne semper cogatur in spelunca, quasi in custodia delitescere. Spi- ritualiter autem hic locus intelligi potest dc carcere corporis hujus mortalis, a quo sancti viri educi cupiunt : Quia corpus quod corrum¬ pitur aggravat animam, ut ait Sapiens c. ix. Unde est illa vox Apostoli ad Rom. vii: Quis me liberabit de corpore mortis hujus (4)? Qui¬ bus vocibus non cupiunt sancti homines sim¬ pliciter a corpore liberari, sed a corpore mortali. Ut in hunc locum annotavit S. Au¬ gustinus. Nam alioqui redemptionem corpo¬ ris magno desiderio expectant, ut ait Apo¬ stolus ad Roman. vm. et si fieri posset (ut ait idem Apostolus II Corinth. v.) non cupe- rent spoliari, sed supervestiri, ut absorbere¬ tur quod mortale est a vita. In quarto testimonio non significatur, ho¬ minem venire in hunc mundum, quasi antea extra mundum fuisset, sed quia cum nihil es¬ set, ac per hoc in mundo non esset, per ge¬ nerationem coepit esse, et vivere in hoc mundo, ut sanctus Cyrillus in commentario recte docet. Tertia sententia est, animas humanas si¬ mul cum Angelis initio conditas fuisse, ac deinde, modo unam, modo aliam ad corpus mitti, lnterest autem inter hanc sententiam; et superiorem, quod haec non docet animas in coelo peccasse, neque in poenam peccati corporibus includi, ut superior docebat: sed ideo solum affirmat, animas omnes initio fuisse creatas, ne concedere cogatur, Deum aliquid novi fecisse post diem septimum, cum scriptum sit Genes, i, eo die cessasse Deum ab opere quod instituerat. Hujus sententiae sunt rabini aliqui Hebrae¬ orum , ut intellgi potest ex commentario rabbi Salomonis in cap. 33. Deuteron. et ex aliis eorum libris. Eamdem sententiam tra¬ dit Gregorius Nyssenus in lib. de anima, cap/ 6. Si tamen is liber est ejus et non po¬ tius Nemesii, aut alicujus alterius, cum Gre¬ gorius Nyssenus in lib. de opificio hominis, cap. 28 et 29. ex instituto hanc sententiam refellat. Alios etiam nonnullos ex catholicis doctoribus ejusdem sententia) fuisse, scribit S. Hieronymus in epistola ad Marcellinum, et Anapsychiam, qua) est 27 inter epistolas san¬ cti Augustini. Hanc sententiam S. Hieronymus loco ci¬ tato, vocat stultam persuasionem. Et sanctus Leo in epistola ad Turbium, cap. 10. his ver¬ bis reprenhendit : « Catholica fides constan¬ ter praedicat, atque veraciter, quod anima) hominum, prius quam suis inspirarentur cor¬ poribus, non fuere. Denique sanctus Thomas in prima parte summa), qua)st. 118. art. 3. eamdem senten¬ tiam hoc argumento refellit. Anima est na- (1) Rom. V, 14; Rom. IX, 11; II Corin. V 10. — (2) Joan. I, 9; Psal. IV, G. - (3) Psal. CXIV, 7; ibid. CXVIII, G7; ibid. CXLI, 1; Joan. I, 9. - (4) Sap. IX, 15; Rom. VII, 24. Tom. V. 21 .102 LIBER IV. tura imperfecta, et pars hominis non totus homo, ac per hoc naturaliter conjungitur ‘ cum corpore, ut forma cum sua materia. At absurdum est, Deum inchoasse opus suum a re imperfecta, cum Dei perfecta sint opera, nec minus absurdum est, unam partem ho¬ minis factam esse initio mundi, alteram fieri post multa saecula ; igitur anima non fuit antequam corpori inspiraretur. Propositio, quae sola probatione indigere videtur, probatur, nam si anima per se per¬ fecta substantia esset, non posset esse forma corporis, formam autem esse certum est tum aliunde, tura ex definitione Concilii Latera¬ nensis sub Leone X. Scss. 8. Item si anima non conjungeretur naturali¬ ter cum corpore, violenter in eo maneret, neque esset nobis beneficium vita, sed poena. Denique si anima perfecta esset absque corpore, neque esset pars hominis naturalis, quaeri posset, utrum sua voluntate cum cor¬ pore copuletur, an aliena. Et siquidem sua voluntate, tria sequentur absurda : primum, quod frustra velit conjungi cum corpore, cum non egeat ejus opera; alterum, quod tot saeculis manserit separata, et nunc de¬ mum quasi mutata sententia velit esse in corpore; tertium, quod casu fiat ut in corpus delabatur. Neque enim potest non casu fieri, ut uno tempore concurrat voluntas hominis generantis ac disponentis materiam cum vo¬ luntate anima* descendere cupientis ad eam informandam. Sin autem aliena voluntate cum corpore copulantur, certe cogitu* a su¬ periori potestate in poenam peccati praeceden¬ tis. Qui est error Oiugenis paulo an te refutatus. Neque responderi potest, eam non cogi in poenam peccati, sed voluntate Dei applicari ad regendum corpus humanum, quemadmo¬ dum Angeli applicantur ad incitanda corpora coelestia. Nam Angeli non formae coelorum, neque in eis tamquam carceribus detinentur, neque poenam ullam ex eo ministerio ca¬ piunt : animae vero ita copulantur corpori¬ bus, ut eorum formae efficiantur, neque ,in- telligunt, dum sunt in corpore, nisi per phan¬ tasmata corporalia, ut merito in tenebris esse videantur; denique mala corporis ita redun¬ dant in animos, ut Sapiens dixerit cap. ix : Corpus quod corrumpitur, aggravat ani¬ mam (1). Itaque si animae in coelo fuerunt antequam cum corpore jungerentur, negari non potest quin in poenam alicujus peccati invitae detrudantur in corpora, quemadmo¬ dum scelesti homines inviti coguntur ad car¬ ceres. Argumenta contraria duo sunt, quae bre¬ viter refellenda videntur. Objicitur primo Scriptura, quae in i. cap. lib. Genes, refert, hominem sexta die creatum fuisse ad imagi¬ nem et similitudinem Dei : ac deinde cap. ii. refert, hominem post septimam diem forma¬ tum fuisse ex limo terrae. Videtur enim ex his locis satis aperte colligi, hominem crea¬ tum fuisse quoad animam, in qua proprie est imago Dei, sexta die ; quoad corpus, quod ex limo terrae constat, post septimam diem. Et quia eadem est ratio eseterorum hominum, videtur dicendum, animas omnes creatas fuisse sexta die inter opera primae creationis reruqj, corpora vero post septi¬ mam diem paulatim per generationem mul¬ tiplicari. Objicitur secundo, absurdum esse, ut ali¬ quid novi producatur a Deo post septimam diem, in qua finem imposuit omnibus operi¬ bus suis. Produceret autem aliquid novi, si animas quotidie procrearet ex nihilo, id est, quae neque in potentia materiae, neque in virtute seminali in primis sex diebus condi¬ tae fuissent. Ad primam objectionem respondeo , in duobus illis locis narrari productionem to¬ tius hominis, sed in uno brevius, in altero plenius. Itaque totus homo conditus fuit sexta die, tum quoad animam, tum quoad corpus ; sed quia id fuerat in primo cap. Ge- neseos breviter indicatum, et res erat magni momenti placuit Spiritui sancto in secundo capite iterum retexere narrationem eamdem, et totum ordinem creationis humanae fusius explicare. Et quamvis imago Dei proprie re¬ sideat in anima, tamen ratione animae totus homo recte dicitur conditus ad imaginem Dei. Et certe Scriptura in primo illo capite Geneseos non dicit, factam esse animam ad imaginem Dei, sed factum esse hominem, eumque masculum et foeminam, eisque di¬ ctum : Crescite et multiplicamini. Quae certe non soli animae, sed toti homini conveniunt. Ad alteram objectionem S. Augustinus in epist. 28. ad Hieronymum, responderi posse dicit, Deum cessasse die septimo ab opere suo, quia nihil postea fecit novum, sed gu¬ bernavit, et multiplicavit opera, quae primi- illis diebus fecerat. Itaque ‘animarum creas (!) Sap. IX. 15. CAPUT XI. 303 tionem non esse novam, quia jam animam ait, producat terra, sed, formavit ipse ho- unam ejusdem speciei cum coeteris, sexto die % minem de limo terra;, et inspiravit in faciem ejus spiraculum vitae. Ex quo intelligimus, fecerat. Possumus etiam respondere, animas dici . posse, creatas fuisse omnes sexta die, non actu, sed virtute. Nam cum Deus produxit principia generationis humanae, hoc est, vi¬ rum et fceminam, eisque dixit : Crescite et multiplicamini, tum non solum produxit in virtute omnia corpora humana, quae per ge¬ nerationem propaganda erant, sed etiam vo¬ luit, ut quotiescumque materia rite praepara¬ ta esset ad humanam generationem, continuo- anima existeret, et corpus illud animaret, ac per hoc non solum corpora, sed totos homi¬ nes in virtute produxit, cum duos illos ho¬ mines condidit, eisque vim generis propa¬ gandi attribuit. Quare licet animae creentur ex nihilo in eo ipso temporis puncto, quo corporibus inspi¬ rantur, tamen ita est hoc perpetuum, et se¬ cundum naturae ordinem initio constitutum procedit, ut pro miraculo habendum sit, si anima corpori disposito ac praeparato, suo tempore desit. Quarta sententia est, animas non minus a parentibus trahi, quam corpora ; ita ut ex anima patris, sit anima filii, quemadmodum ex corpore patris, est corpus filii. Auctor hu¬ jus sententiae primus inter Christianos Ter¬ tullianus fuit, quem secutus est Apollinaris, ut sanctus Hieronymus refert, in epistola supra citata ad Marcellinum, et Anapsy- chiam. Ubi etiam idem auctor dicit, in ea¬ dem sententia fuisse maximam partem occi¬ dentalium. Eamdem sententiam attributam fuisse Luciferianis, testatur sanctus Augusti¬ nus in libro dc hseresibus, capite octogesimo primo. Hanc sententiam ut exploratum errorem rejiciunt ac refellunt omnes Theologi Scho¬ lastici, cum Magistro sententiarum lib. ii. distinet. 17. et 18. eamque S. Thom. in pri¬ ma parte, quaest. 118. art. 2. disertis verbis hseresim appellat. Ac primum refutari solet haec sententia ex capite ii. Geneseos. Nam Deus ut discrimen ostenderet inter animam humanam, et ani¬ mas bestiarum, de bestiis dixerat, cap. i : Producant aquae reptile animae viventis, et vo¬ latile super terram. Et rursus : Producat terra animam viventem in genere suo, et re¬ ptilia, et bestias, etc. (1). At de homine, non animag bestiarum materiales esse, et ex ma¬ teria ipsa eductas, animam humanam non ex limo eductam, sed ab ipso creatore inspi¬ ratam. Neque nos movere debet, quod Philastrius in Catalogo haereticorum, capite nonagesimo nono, inter ha}reticos numerat eos, qui cen¬ sent spiraculum illud vitae esse animam ra¬ tionalem , et non potius gratiam Spiritus sancti. Nam Philastrius in ea re parum con¬ siderate locutus est, ut sanctus docet Augu¬ stinus, lib. xiii. de Civit. Dei, cap. 24. tan¬ tum enim abest, ut haec sententia sit haeretica ut contraria non solum repugnet sanctis Patribus, Chrysostomo homil. 12. et 13. in Genesim; Hieronymo in epistola ad Pamma- chium, de erroribus Joannis Hierosolymitani ; Augustino lib. xn. de Civitat. Dei, cap. 23. et lib. xiii. cap. 24; Theodoreto quaest. 23. in Genesim; Eucherio^lib. i. in Genesim, et aliis ; sed etiam Apostolo Paulo, qui in epi¬ stola priore ad Corinthios, cap. 13. dicit ho¬ minem initio conditum fuisse animalem , deinde post resurrectionem futurum spiritu¬ alem. Et probat, quia scriptum est : Factus est homo m animam viventem. Porro haec verba quae Apostolus citat, scripta sunt in ii. cap. Geneseos, ubi legimus : Inspiravit in faciem ejus spiraculum vitae, et factus est homo in animam viventem (2). Quare spiraculum illud vitae (Apostolo teste) non dedit homini esse spirituale, quale habetur per gratiam sancti Spiritus, sed esse animale, quod habetur per animam, quae praestat corpori esse, et vi¬ vere. Est autem proprie sententia ejus loci : In¬ spiravit Deus in faciem (sive ut Hebraea verba sonant in nares ) ejus spiraculum vitae, hoc est, posuit Deus in naribus corporis illius ex limo terrae conflati spiritum, ac fecit, ut spirare ac vivere inciperet. Respiratio enim signum est vitae ; quia vero non vivit homo sine anima, quae est vitae principium, ideo cum dicitur Deus dedisse homini, ut spiraret ac viveret, intelligitur animam quoque dedisse, perquam fit, ut homo spiret, ac vivat. Quod si Patres aliqui (ut Irenaeus, Cyprianus, Basilius, quos citavimus in lib. de gratia primi hominis, cap. 3.) interdum hunc locum exponunt de gratia Spiritus sancti, non de anima ratio- (1) Gen. I. — (2) Gen. II, 7. LIBER IV. 30 1 nali, ii non ad litteram, sed mystice Scriptu¬ ram accipiunt. < Sed observandum est, hunc locum salis efficaciter demonstrare animam primi ho¬ minis non ex materia eductam, sed a Deo ex nihilo fuisse creatam. Caeterum non cogere ut idem dc animabus reliquis judicemus. Posset enim responderi, quemadmodum Deus primi hominis corpus ex limo terra? formavit, reliqua vero corpora non per se ex limo terra?, sed per generationem ex parentum corporibus procreat : ita primi hominis ani¬ mam a Deo proprie atque ex nihilo fuisse cre¬ atam, nunc vero ex illa prima reliquas pro¬ pagari. Quare ut sanctus Augustinus disputat in epist. 28. ad Hieronymum, nullus fortasse Scripturae locus invenietur, in quo perspicue doceatur, animas non fieri ex propagine, sed creari. Nam loco illa, Qui fingit sigillat ini corda eorum, Psalm.xxxn; et, Spiritus redeat ad Deum , qui dedit illum, Ecclcs. ult. ; et, Flatum omnem ego feci, Isaia? lvji (1), pro¬ bant quidem animarum omnium conditorem esse Deum, tamen non indicant modum quo a Deo sint condita?, utrum per creationem ex nihilo, an per propagationem ex anima primi hominis. Nos igitur his omissis duobus modis effica¬ citer demonstrare conabimur, animas non propagari ex parentibus, sed creari; primum traditione ecclesiastica , deinde rationibus evidenter ductis ex principiis fidei. Quod ad primum attinet, afferemus testimonia Pa¬ trum, qui sententiam de propagine animarum aperte reprehendunt. Sanctus Hilarius lib. x. de Trinitate ante medium libri: « Anima, inquit, hominis opus est Dei, carnis vero generatio semper ex carne est. » Et infra : « Ut per se sibi as¬ sumpsit ex Yirgine corpus, ita ex se sibi ani¬ mam sumpsit, qua: utique nunnjuam ab ho¬ mine gignentium originibus pra?betur. » Sanctus Ambrosius libro de Noe et Arca, cap. 4 : « Plerumque, inquit, Angelos, filios Dei Scriptura vocat, quia ex nullo homine generantur anima?. » Item libro de paradiso cap. I i : « Considera, inquit, quia de cor¬ pore costam sumpsit, non de anima portio¬ nem, hoc est, non anima ex anima, sed os de ossibus, et caro de carne. » Sanctus Hieronymus in commentario ca¬ pitis postremi Ecclesiasta? ? « Satis, inquit, ridendi sunt, qui putant animas ex corpo¬ ribus seri, et non a Deo, sed a corporum pa¬ rentibus generari. » Item in lib. m. Apologia? adversus Ruffinum, ultra medium, et in epis¬ tola ad Pammachium de erroribus Joannis- Hierosolymitani ante medium, recitatis sen¬ tentiis Origenis, Tertulliani et Apollinaris lla?reticorum, dc anima, dicit : « Ecclesia¬ sticum dogma esse, ut Deus quotidie animas fabricetur. » Ubi cum opponat Ecclesiasti¬ cum dogma sententiis IIa?reticorum, videtur omnino sensisse, Catholica fide esse tenen¬ dum, animas non traduci a parentibus, sed creari. Sanctus Joannes Chrysostomus homil. 23. in varia loca Matthaei : « Anima, inquit, nec generat, nec generatur, nec ullum agnoscit patrem praeter eum, cujus voluntate creata est. » Sanctus Grcgorius Nyssenus in libro de anima, cap. 6, refellit ex proposito senten¬ tiam de propagatione animarum ex paren¬ tibus tamquam exploratum errorem. Theodoretus lib. v. ad Gra?cos, qui est de natura hominis circa medium libri : « For¬ mari prius, inquit, in alvo matris infantem ait (Moses) ac tum denique jam perfecto cor¬ pore animari, non ita quidem ut anima pra?- exitens aliunde corpori inseratur. Neque ut enascatur c semine, sed divino institutio, sic¬ ut ab initib insita naturae lex fuit, creationem accipiat. » Addit in eodem loco Theodo¬ retus, hoc esse dogma, in quo conveniant omnes Scriptura? Apostolorum et Prophe¬ tarum. S. Cyrillus lib. i. in Joannem, cap. 9 : « Opportune, inquit, ac juste non peccare in hac carne jubemur : quoniam eo coepimus esse tempore, quo una cum corpore in hunc mundum venimus, ac quasi a loco quodam, a nihilo ad esse pervenimus. » Quo loco Cy¬ rillus scribit, non solum animam ante corpus non fuisse, sed etiam, a nihilo ad esse per¬ venisse. Quamvis enim de toto homine lo¬ qui videatur, cum ait non peccare in carne, jubemur, etc., tamen desola anima loquitur, qua? per intellectionis figuram homo etiam dici solet, ut perspicuum est ex tota illa dis¬ putatione. S. Augustinus, quamvis (ut paulo post di¬ cemus) incertam esse crediderit originem animarum, et in lib. x. de Genesi cap. 23. scripserit , opinionem , quae asserit propa- (l)Psal. XXXII, 15; Eccl. XII, 7; Isai. LYII, 10. CAPIT XI. 365 ginem animarum, niti fortioribus argumentis quam sententias caeteras : tamen in epist. 157. ad Optatum, quam scripsit multo po¬ sterius, apertissime refellit eam sententiam, quam nos modo refutare conamur: « Itaque illi, inquit, qui propaginem animarum incon¬ siderata temeritate defendunt, etc. » Et in eadem epistola loquens de sententia Tertul¬ liani, sic ait : « Quo quid perversius dicit potest? » S. Leo in epistola ad Turbium, cap. 10: « Catholica fides, inquit, constanter praedi-' cat atque veraciter, quod animae hominum priusquam suis inspirarentur corporibus non fuere, nec ab ullo incorporentur, nisi ab opi¬ fice Deo, qui et ipsarum est creator et cor¬ porum. » Idem in epist. 11. ad Julianum, docet eo modo nobis animas inspirari, quo fuit inspirata Christo : ac certum est, Christi animam non fuisse propagatam ex parenti¬ bus, ut docet sanctus Augustinus lib. 10» de Genesi cap. 19, sed creatam a Deo. Vide in eamdem sententiam auctorem de operibus Cardinalibus Christi (quod opus ha¬ betur inter opuscula S. Cypriani) in ser¬ mone de resurrectione ; auctorem libri de Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus, cap. 14. quod opus habetur in quarto tomo S. Augustin. S. Bernardum serm. 27. in Cantica, Inno¬ centium III. in commentario Psalm. l. De- • nique Concilium Lateranense sub Leone X. sess. 8. Ad quae testimonia potest etiam addi popu¬ lorum consensus ; est enim ita insitum in mentibus fidelium, animas a Deo recens ere¬ mi, cum foetus in uteris matrum animantur, ut etiam agricolae, fabri, sutores, mulierculae, pueri hoc sciant, et si quis contrarium pu¬ blice doceret, pessime omnino apud Catho¬ licum populum audiret : a Miraris, » inquit sanctus Hieronymus in ii. lib. Apologiae ad¬ versus Ruffinum, « si contra te fratrum scandala concitentur, cum id nescire te jures quod Christi Ecclesiae se nosse fateantur ? » Venio ad rationes: qua) ducuntur ex pxanci- piis fidei. Siquidem ea, quae evidenter dedu¬ cuntur ex articulis fidei, pertinent etiam ad fidem. Prima ratio animas hominum esse immor¬ tales principium est fidei, et quidem prima¬ rium et certissimum, et in scripturis sanctis omnium consensu luculenter expressum. At si animae hominum sunt immortales, neces¬ sario per se subsistunt. Nam si non per se subsisterent , sed penderent a corpore , ut animae pecudum, illo pereuutc, et ipsas in¬ terire necesse esset. Itursus si animae ho¬ minum per se subsistunt, certe etiaim per se producuntur. Illa enim per se producuntur, quae per se subsistunt , illa producuntur , ad productionem alterius, quae ad exi- steutiam alterius existunt. Denique si ani¬ mae hominum per se producuntur, id mani¬ feste sequitur, ut non fiant ex propagine, sed creentur ex nihilo. Quae enim ex propagine fiunt, ut animae omnium bestiarum, non per se fiunt, sed ad compositi generationem ex¬ istunt. Animae igitur hominum, aut per se fiunt, quod est creari, non traduci, aut non sunt immortales, quod est (ut diximus) contra fidem. Secunda raitio : si animae hominum a pa¬ rentibus trahuntur, vel trahuntur ex corpore vel ex anima parentum ; si ex corpore, sunt igitur corporales, ac per hoc mortales, ut caeterae, quae ex corporali semine producun¬ tur. Si ex anima, vel ex tota, vel ex parte ; si ex tota, igitur vel parens caret deinceps anima, quippe qui totam transfudit in filium; vel tota manet in patre, et in filio. Utrumque est evidenter falsum ; nam experientia te¬ statur, parentem per generationem anima non destitui ; et non esse unam atque eamdem animam patris et filii ; ut omittam singulare, ac proprium esse divinae naturae ob ejus infi¬ nitatem, ut una numero sit in pluribus per¬ sonis. Sin autem non ex tota, sed ex parte animae patris existit anima filii, igitur anima partibilis est, ac per hoc corporalis et mor¬ talis. Ita semper reditur ad articulum de ani¬ mae immortalitate. Dices, non fit anilia ex corpore, neque ex anima patris , sed ex semine animae , quod cum semine corporis tranfunditur in uterum matris. Id enim sensisse eos, qui animam fi¬ eri ex propagine contendebant, testatur S. Augustinus lib. x. de Genesi, cap. 20. Re¬ spondeo, vel semen anima) corporale est, vel spirituale : si corporale, non poterit ex eo fi¬ eri anima spiritualis ; si spirituale, iterum quaeremus, sit ne substantia, vel accidens. Nam si substantia est, vel ex nihilo fiet, vel ex alia substantia ; si ex nihilo, igitur cre¬ abitur ab homine substantia spiritualis; si ex alia substantia, iterum quaeremus, sit ne illa corporalis, an spiritualis, et sic dabitur pro¬ gressio in infinitum. Si vero sit accidens, vir¬ tus scilicet quaedam seminalis, tum semen animae non erit materia, sed instrumentum agentis. At nos materiarii quaerimus, nisi quis 3G6 LIBER IV. ita desipiat, ut velit patrem^ex nihilo animam facere, quod solit convenit creatori. Tertia ratio: omnis forma, quce per veram generationem producitur, si a corpore sepa¬ ratur, necessario perit. Id enim est formam per veram generationem produci, de potentia materia} virtute producentis educi. Quod au¬ tem de potentia materiae educitur, ita pendet a materia, ut sine ea neque fleri, neque esse queat. Est autem anima humana vera cor¬ poris forma, ut in Concilio Lateranensi ses- sion 8. declaratum est, et, si a parentibus trahitur, per veram generationem sine dubi¬ tatione producitur. Neque enim homines aliter filios gignunt, quam animantia ctetera, tantumque abest, ut homines propria aliqua actione, quce soli homini conveniat, gignant, ut potius usum rationis in ipso actu genera¬ tionis amittant. Quare si anima humana tra¬ ducitur, non secus atque anima} bestiarum, et generabitur ex materia, et a materia se¬ parata deficiet, ac peribit. Sic igitur de¬ monstratum sit, animas humanas non fieri ex propagine, sed creari. Neque argumen¬ ta quae contra fieri solent, magnam vim ha¬ bent. Objici solet primum illud Genes, xlvi : Omnes animae , quae egressae sunt de fcemoreJa- cob, fuere sexaginta sex (1). Respondetur, per animas eo loco intelligi debere ipsos homines, qui anima constant. Frequens enim est in Scripturis usus ejus figurae, quse dicitur in¬ tellectio, cum videlicet aut totum ex parte, aut ex toto pars intelligitur. Sic in lib. I Re¬ gum cap. xxviii. dicitur, Samuel apparuisse Saiili, cum ei anima Samuelis apparuisset. Sic in lib. Levitici capt 5. accipitur anima pro homine cum dicitur, si peccaverit anima, et audierit vocem jurantis. Item anima, quae tetigerit aliquid immundum. Item anima, quae juraverit, etc. Objicitur secundo, argumentum ductum ex cap. 7. epistolae ad Hebweos, hoc modo, Christus et Levi fuerunt in lumbris Abrahae, quando is decimas obtulit summo sacerdoti Melchisedech ; et tamen Levi decimatus di¬ citur, cum pater ejus Abraham decimatus fuit, Christus autem non dicitur decimatus (inde enim probat Apostolus sacerdotium Christi pra}stantius esse sacerdotio levitico) quia sacerdotium Christi est secundum or¬ dinem Melchisedech, qui ab ipso Levi in lum¬ bis Abrahae delitescente decimas accepit, igi¬ tur non eodem modo fuerunt in lumbis A- braha} Christus et Levi, sed propria quadam et certa ratione fuit Levi, qua non fuit Chri¬ stus. Fuit autem Christus in lumbis Abrahte ratione corporis, ergo Levi in iisdem lumbis fuit ratione corporis, et ratione animae. Hoc argumentum proponit, et solvere co¬ natur S. Augustinus lib. x. de Genesi, cap. 19. Nos breviter respondemus, aliter fuisse in lumbis Abrahae Levi, quam Christum, non quod Levi fuerit in lumbis Abrahae ratione animae et corporis, Christus autem solum ra¬ tione corporis, sed quia Christus fuit in lum¬ bis Abrahae secundum materiam carnis, non secundum rationem seminalem, Levi autem secundum utrumque. Siquidem Christus ma¬ trem habuit ex progenie Abrahae, non pa¬ trem; mater autem in generatione materiam praebet, non vim activam, quae solum residet in semine viri, quaeque tamquam instrumen¬ tum viri, format corpus quod generatur. No¬ tum estenim ex Evangelio, Christum a Virgine per Spiritus sancti virtutem conceptum, et ex Virgine mirabiliter natum esse. Porro Levi et patrem et matrem habuit ex progenie A- brahae, atque ideo in lumbis ejus fuit secun¬ dum materiam carnis ratione matris, et se¬ cundum rationem seminalem ratione patris. Atque haec causa fuit, cur Christus non con¬ traxerit originale peccatum, neque opus ha¬ buerit decimas solvere, Levi autem et pec¬ cato subjectus, et in Abrahamo decimatus fuerit. Objici solet tertio, si animae non trahantur a parentibus, sed creentur a Deo, et corpori¬ bus per generationem dispositis inspirentur, sequi hoc absurdum, ut Deus adulteris, et fornicariis in procreatione hominis coepere¬ tur. Quippe qui fornicariis, et adulterinis conceptibus animas largiatur. Quod argu¬ mentum ab Apollinare excogitatum, Grego- riusNyssenuslib. xu. de anima, cap. 6, pene insolubile judicavit. Sed respopdit S. Hieronymus in lib. m. Apologiae contra Ruffinum, non magis absur¬ dum esse ut Deus adulterinis conceptibus inspiret animas, quam ut terra gremio suo confoveat semina, quse sator furto sustulerit, vel immunda projecerit manu. Quam simi¬ litudinem elegantissimam esse scribit S. Au¬ gustinus in epist. 28. ad Hieronymum. Sed si quis scholasticam solutionem requi¬ rat, breviter respondemus, in fornicatione, (1) Gen. XLVI, 26. CAPUT xr. 3G7 et adulterio duo quaedam considerari posse, actionem naturalem generationis humanae, et vitium transgredientis legem Dei in opere illo perficiendo ; ac primum quidem bonum esse, et ei bono bonum Deum cooperari, cum animas in materiam rite dispositam, ac praeparatam infundit : secundum esse ma¬ lum, et ei Deum nulla ratione cooperari. Quinta sententia eorum est, qui censent, latere originem animae, neque esse aliquid temere definiendum. Hujus sententiae ad mortem usque fuit sanctus Augustinus, ut intelligi potest ex lib. x. de Genesi. Item ex quatuor libris de origine animae, quos scri¬ psit jam senex, et ideo scripsit, ut ostenderet, se de hac re non sine magna causa non au¬ dere certam proferre sententiam. Rursus in epist. 28. ad Hieronymum, et ex epist. 157. ad Optatum. Denique^x lib. ii. Retractatio¬ num, cap. 56. S. Augustini cunctationem secuti sunt S. Gregorius in epistola ad Se- cundinum, quae habetur in registro epistola¬ rum ejus lib. vii. cap. 27. et Eucherius in commentario secundi capitis libri Geneseos. Neque desunt, qui in eadem dubitatione ad¬ huc perseverandum esse velint. Nos tamen hoc tempore hanc sententiam minime tutam esse censemus, et ideo sen¬ tentiae sextae subscribimus, quae docet, ho¬ minibus singulis animas singulas, non ex propagine, sed ex nihilo, tunc primum crea¬ ri, atque infundi, cum in uteris matrum foe¬ tus concepti, atque ad animationem praepa¬ rati sunt. Quae sententia est omnium aucto¬ rum, quos adduximus contra sententiam quartam, exceptis Augustino et Gregorio Nysseno. Porro ratio, cur quintam sententiam ex¬ plodendam, et hanc sextam amplectendam esso judicemus, duplex est. Primum enim habemus hoc tempore praeter testimonia Pa¬ trum, qui sancti Augustini tempora praeces¬ serunt, rescriptum sancti Leonis primi, su¬ pra citatum ad Turbium, decretum Leonis decimi in Concilio Lateranensi, consensum Theologorum omnium, qui his quingentis annis floruerunt; denique rationes egregias a Theologis excogitatas ; quibus argumentis sanctus Augustinus caruit. Deinde tota causa, quae sanctum Augusti¬ num impedivit, ne creationem novarum ani¬ marum certo sibi persuaderet, fuit argumen¬ tum Pelagianorum contra peccatum origina¬ le, quod superiori capite proposuimus. Nam argumenta caitera contra novam animarum creationem, idem Augustinus facile se puta¬ vit posse dissolvere, et reipsa dissolvit in epist. 28. ad Hieronymum, sed in eadem epistola, ut etiam in 157. ad Optatum, in¬ genue confitetur, se neque legendo, neque orando, neque ratiocinando invenire potuis¬ se, quomodo cum aaimarum creatione pec¬ catum originis defendatur. Cffiterum remota quiestione peccati origi¬ nalis, S. Augustinus sententiam de creatione animarum verissimam esse non dubitavit. Nam in i. lib. de origine animse, cap. 19, posteaquam enumeravit quatuor errores, qui in quaestione de anima cavendi sunt, ita scripsit : « Nihil ergo istorum quatuor di¬ centes, quoniam quodlibet eorum falsum, atque impium est, hanc sententiam suam » (de nova creatione animarum) « non solum me non vetante, sed etiam favente, et gra¬ tias agente defendant. » Et in epist. 28 : <( Nam licet, inquit, nemo faciat optando, ut verum sit quod verum non est, tamen si fieri posset, optarem, ut hsec sententia vera esset, sicut opto, ut si vera est, abs te liquidissime, atque invictissime defendatur. » Et in epist. 157 : a Et si inveneris, inquit, quod te quae¬ rere admonui, quod ipse adhuc, fateor, non inveni, defende quantum potes, atque asse¬ re animarum infantium ejusmodi esse novi¬ tatem, ut nulla propagatione ducantur : et nobiscum quod inveneris fraterna charitate communica. Si autem non inveneris, nec sic jam temere in aliam sententiam tua defle¬ ctatur assensio, ut ea ex illa una credas pro¬ pagando traduci, ne forte alius invenire pos¬ sit, quod ipse non possit, aut aliquando in¬ venias quod nunc non potes. » Et infra sic ait : « Si optes animas sic alienas a propa¬ gatione defendere, ut tamen hoc chirogra¬ pho, quod sola Christi morte rumpendum est, rectissima ratione demonstrentur obstri¬ ctae, non solum nemine prohibente defende, verum etiam id nobis quomodo tecum de¬ fendere possimus ostende. Si autem non po¬ tes, melius origo animae latet. » Ex his locis perspicuum est, S. Augustino, sententiam nostram de creatione animarum, visam esse longe veriorem, quam sententiam de propagatione. Neque objici debet, quod in lib. x. de Genesi, cap. 23. videatur ma¬ gis propendere in sententiam de propagatio¬ ne. Neque enim confert eo loco sententiam cum sententia, sed argumenta cum argumen¬ tis, ac dicit, sententiam de propagatione niti fortiori argumento. Non tamen inde sequitur 368 LIBER IV. eam sententiam visam illi fuisse veriorem. Adde quod epistolam ad Hieronymum de origine animae, scripsit Augustinus posterius, quam libros de Genesi, et epistolam ad Opta¬ tum adhuc posterius, et post utramque scri¬ psit libros quatuor de origine animae, jam valde senex, ut ex lib. n«*Retractationum in- telligi potest. In bis autem scriptis semper magis, ac magis invenitur recessisse a sen¬ tentia de propagine, et accessisse ad senten¬ tiam de creatione animarum. Igitur sola tra¬ ductio peccati originalis Augustinum impe¬ divit, quo minus creationem animarum cre¬ deret. At revera neque animarum creatio impe¬ dit peccati traductionem, ut in sequenti ca¬ pite demonstrabimus ; neque propagatio animarum ex anima Adami propagationem peccati juvat, siquidem Adamus, quoad animam, justificatus fuit a peccato antequam filios generaret ; saepe etiam parentes justi, et peccato originali carentes filios gignunt : non potest autem ex anima justa trahi anima injusta, ac per hoc non ideo traducitur pec¬ catum in prolem, quia anima fit ex anima. Quare cum argumentum illud de peccato originis solum cunctationis S. Augustino causa fuerit : illud autem non minus facile dissolvatur posita creatione animarum, quam posita propagine, ut mox, Deo volente, do¬ cebimus, nulla causa est, cur amplius dubi¬ tandum esse credamus : certe quidem S. Augustinus, si nunc inter homines viveret, non solum faveret, sed etiam gratias ageret iis, qui nostram hanc sententiam tuerentur.