The Nature and Origin of the Soul
Against Pelagianism
j/k navigate paragraphs
· n/p next/prev article
· e expand all
· c collapse all
contra Vincentium Victorem
Against Vincent Victor
Revisions II
C. 56The Nature and Origin of the Soul, in Four BooksDe anima et eius origine, libri quattuor
Eodem tempore quidam Vincentius Victor in Mauritania Caesariensi invenit apud Hispanum quemdam presbyterum Petrum, nonnullum opusculum meum, ubi quodam loco de origine animae hominum singulorum, utrum ex illa una primi hominis ac deinde ex parentibus propagentur, an sicut illi uni sine ulla propagatione singulae singulis dentur (Retract. 1, 1, 3; 2, 45), me nescire confessus sum, verumtamen scire animam non corpus esse sed spiritum; et contra ista mea ad eumdem Petrum scripsit ille duos libros, quos mihi de Caesarea Renatus monachus misit.
At that same time a certain Vincent Victor, in Mauretania Caesariensis, came upon a small work of mine in the possession of a Spanish priest named Peter. In a certain passage there I had confessed that I did not know about the origin of the soul of each individual human being—whether souls are propagated from that one soul of the first man and then from the parents, or whether, as that one soul was given without any propagation, so individual souls are given to individuals (Retract. 1, 1, 3; 2, 45)—though I knew that the soul is not a body but a spirit. And against these statements of mine he wrote two books addressed to this same Peter, which the monk Renatus sent to me from Caesarea.
DAeEQuibus ego lectis responsione mea quattuor reddidi: unum ad Renatum monachum, alterum ad presbyterum Petrum et duos ad eumdem Victorem. Sed ad Petrum, quamvis habeat libri prolixitatem, tamen epistola est, quam nolui a tribus ceteris separari. In his autem omnibus, in quibus multa necessaria disseruntur, defendi de origine animarum, quae singulis hominibus dantur, cunctationem meam, et multos errores atque pravitates praesumptionis eius ostendi. Quem tamen iuvenem non praepropere detestandum, sed adhuc docendum quanta potui lenitate tractavi, et ab eo rescripta correctionis eius accepi.
When I had read them, I gave my reply in four pieces: one to the monk Renatus, another to the priest Peter, and two to this same Victor. The one to Peter, however, although it has the length of a book, is nonetheless a letter, which I did not wish to separate from the other three. In all of these, in which many necessary matters are discussed, I defended my hesitation concerning the origin of the souls that are given to individual human beings, and I exposed his many errors and the perversities of his presumption. Yet I treated him—a young man who was not to be detested too hastily but still to be taught—with all the gentleness I could, and I received from him a reply containing his correction.
DAeEHuius operis liber ad Renatum sic incipit: Sinceritatem tuam erga nos;
The book of this work addressed to Renatus begins thus: Your sincerity toward us;
DAeEad Petrum autem sic: Domino dilectissimo fratri et compresbytero Petro;
and the one to Peter thus: To the most beloved lord and brother and fellow priest Peter;
DAeEduorum vero novissimorum ad Vincentium Victorem primus sic incipit: Quod mihi ad te scribendum putavi.
and the first of the two most recent ones, addressed to Vincent Victor, begins thus: What I thought I ought to write to you.
DAeEBk. 1To RenatusAd Renatum
1. 1. Sinceritatem tuam erga nos, Renate frater carissime, et fraternam benevolentiam, ac mutuae dilectionis affectum probatum quidem et antea tenebamus: verum nunc probatiorem nobis amica diligentia demonstrasti, quod mihi duos libros, eius quidem hominis quem penitus ignorabam, nec tamen ideo contemnendi, Vincentii Victoris (sic enim praenotatum ibi nomen eius inveni), proxime praeterita aestate misisti; quamvis mihi, eo quod absens fuissem, in autumni fine sint redditi. Quomodo enim tu carissimus meus posses vel deberes in meam non perferre notitiam, cum in manus tuas venissent cuiuslibet hominis qualescumque litterae, licet ad alium scribentis, ubi tamen nomen commemoraretur et legeretur meum, ita ut contradiceretur verbis meis, quae in quibusdam opusculis edidissem? Hoc itaque fecisti, quod sincerissimus et dilectissimus amicus meus facere debuisti.
1. 1. Your sincerity toward us, Renatus, my dearest brother, along with your brotherly goodwill and the affection of mutual love, we held to be proven even before; but now you have shown it to us as still more proven by your loving diligence, in that you sent me, this past summer, two books by a man whom I did not know at all—though he was not on that account to be despised—Vincent Victor (for that is the name I found written there at the head). They were delivered to me, however, only at the end of autumn, since I had been away. For how could you, my dearest friend, be able or obliged not to bring to my notice writings of any sort, by whatever man, that had come into your hands—even though written to another—where nonetheless my name was mentioned and read, in such a way that my words, which I had published in certain little works, were being contradicted? And so you have done what my most sincere and beloved friend ought to have done.
DAeE.1.1.12. 2. Sed hinc angor paululum, quod adhuc tuae Sanctitati minus quam vellem cognitus sum: quandoquidem putasti me sic accepturum, quasi tu mihi iniuriam feceris, notum faciendo quod alius fecit. Quantum autem hoc absit ab animo meo, vide, ut ne ab illo quidem me passum iniuriam conquerar. Cum enim aliter quaedam quam ego saperet, numquidnam debuit reticere? Unde mihi gratum esse debet, quod ita non tacuit, ut id etiam legere possimus. Debuisset quis dixerit eum scribere potius ad me, quam ad alterum de me: sed quod mihi esset ignotus, non est ausus se mihi ingerere in meorum refutatione dictorum. Nec consulendum me putavit, ubi sibi videtur minime dubitandum, sed plane cognitam et certam tenere sententiam.
2. 2. But on this point I am a little distressed: that I am still less known to your Holiness than I would wish, since you supposed that I would take it as though you had done me an injury by making known what another did. But see how far this is from my mind, so that I do not even complain that I have suffered an injury from him. For when he thought differently about certain matters than I do, ought he to have kept silent? Hence I should be grateful that he did not keep silent, but did so in such a way that I too can read what he wrote. Someone may say that he ought rather to have written to me than to another about me; but because I was unknown to him, he did not dare to thrust himself upon me in refuting what I had said. Nor did he think he should consult me where it seems to him there is no room for doubt at all, but that he holds a clearly known and certain opinion.
DAeE.1.2.2Obtemperavit autem amico suo, a quo se, ut scriberet, dicit esse compulsum. Et si quid inter disputandum, quod in meam contumeliam redundaret, expressit; non eum conviciantis voluntate crediderim, sed diversa sentientis necessitate fecisse. Ubi enim mihi animus erga me hominis ignotus est et incertus, melius arbitror meliora sentire, quam inexplorata culpare. Fortassis enim amore mei fecit, sciens ad me pervenire posse quod scripsit; dum in eis rebus errare me non vult, in quibus se potius errare non putat. Et ideo debeo etiam eius habere gratam benevolentiam, cuius me necesse est improbare sententiam: ac per hoc in eis quae non recte sapit, adhuc leniter corrigendus mihi videtur, non aspere detestandus; praesertim quia, sicut audio, nuper catholicus factus est, quod ei gratulandum est. Caruit enim Donatistarum vel potius Rogatistarum divisione et errore, quo antea tenebatur: si tamen catholicam veritatem sicut oportet intellegat, ut vere de illius conversione gaudeamus.
And he complied with his friend, by whom he says he was compelled to write. And if, in the course of his argument, he let fall anything that redounded to my reproach, I would not believe that he did it out of a wish to insult, but out of the necessity of one who thinks differently. For where a man's mind toward me is unknown and uncertain to me, I judge it better to think the better things than to blame what I have not examined. For perhaps he did it out of love for me, knowing that what he wrote could reach me, while he does not want me to err in those matters in which he thinks it is rather he himself who is not erring. And so I ought to hold welcome even the goodwill of one whose opinion I must reject; and through this, in those matters in which he does not think rightly, he seems to me still to be corrected gently, not detested harshly—especially since, as I hear, he has recently become a Catholic, on which he is to be congratulated. For he was freed from the division and error of the Donatists, or rather of the Rogatists, by which he was formerly held—provided, however, that he understands the Catholic truth as he ought, so that we may truly rejoice at his conversion.
DAeE.1.2.23. 3. Habet enim eloquium, quo possit explicare quae sentit. Unde cum illo agendum est, eique optandum ut recta sentiat, ne faciat esse delectabilia quae sunt inutilia, et quae diserta dixerit, vera dixisse videatur. Quamvis et in ipso eloquio habeat multa emendanda, et a nimia exundantia reprimenda. Quod in illo tibi quoque, ut viro gravi, sicut tua indicant scripta, displicuit. Sed hoc vel facile corrigitur, vel sine detrimento fidei a levibus mentibus amatur, toleratur a gravibus. Habemus enim iam quosdam spumeos in sermone, sed in fide sanos (Cf. Tit 1, 13; 2, 2).
3. 3. For he has eloquence by which he can unfold what he thinks. Hence we must deal with him and wish for him that he may think rightly, lest he make delightful things that are useless, and lest, because he has said things eloquently, he seem to have said true things. And yet even in his very eloquence he has much to amend and much that must be restrained from its excessive overflow. This displeased you too, as a serious man, as your writings show. But this is either easily corrected, or, without harm to the faith, is loved by light minds and tolerated by serious ones. For we already have certain men who are foamy in speech but sound in faith (Cf. Titus 1:13; 2:2).
DAeE.1.3.3Non itaque desperandum est, etiam hoc in isto (quamvis sit tolerabile, si permanserit), posse tamen expurgari et temperari, atque ad integrum et solidum vel perduci, vel revocari modum: praesertim quia iuvenis esse perhibetur, ut quod minus habet peritia, suppleat diligentia; et quod cruditas loquacitatis eructat, aetatis maturitas decoquat. Illud est molestum et periculosum vel perniciosum, si cum laudatur eloquentia, persuadeatur insipientia, et in pretioso poculo bibatur pestifera potio.
And so we must not despair that even this in him (although it is tolerable, should it persist) can nonetheless be purged and tempered, and either brought or recalled to a whole and sound measure—especially since he is said to be young, so that what he lacks in skill diligence may supply, and what the rawness of his garrulity belches out the maturity of age may digest. What is troublesome and dangerous, or even pernicious, is if, when eloquence is praised, foolishness is recommended, and a deadly draught is drunk from a precious cup.
DAeE.1.3.34. 4. Ut enim iam incipiam demonstrare, quae praecipue sint in eius disputatione vitanda: "Animam dicit a Deo quidem factam, nec Dei esse partem sive naturam" (Qui e appresso le citaz. sono di Vincenzo Vittore); quod omnino verum est: sed cum eam non vult ex nihilo factam fateri, et aliam nullam creaturam unde sit facta commemorat, atque ita illi dat auctorem Deum, ut neque ex nullis exstantibus, id est, ex nihilo, neque ex aliqua re, quae non est quod Deus est, sed de se ipso eam fecisse credatur; nescit eo se revolvi, quod declinasse se putat, ut scilicet nihil aliud anima quam Dei natura sit;
4. 4. To begin now to show what is chiefly to be avoided in his argument: he says that the soul was indeed made by God, and is not a part or the nature of God (Here and below the citations are from Vincent Victor)—which is altogether true. But since he will not admit that it was made out of nothing, and mentions no other creation out of which it was made, and so assigns God as its author in such a way that it is believed God made it neither out of nothing existing, that is, out of nothing, nor out of anything that is not what God is, but out of his very self, he does not realize that he is rolling back into the very thing he thought he had avoided—namely, that the soul is nothing other than the nature of God;
DAeE.1.4.4ac sic consequenter et de Dei natura fiat aliquid ab eodem Deo, cui faciendo materia de qua facit, sit ipse qui facit: ac per hoc et Dei sit natura mutabilis, et mutata in deterius eiusdem ipsius Dei ab eodem ipso Deo natura damnetur. Quod pro tua fideli intellegentia, quam non sit opinandum, et quam sit a corde catholico secludendum, longeque fugiendum, vides. Ita quippe anima vel de flatu facta, vel Dei flatus factus est ipsa, ut non de ipso sit, sed ab ipso de nihilo creata sit.
and so it follows that something is made out of the nature of God by this same God, for whose making the matter out of which he makes is the very one who makes; and through this God's nature would be both mutable and, when changed for the worse, would be condemned as the nature of this same God by this same God himself. By your faithful understanding you see how this is not to be thought, and how it is to be shut out from a Catholic heart and fled far away. For the soul was made either out of the breath, or as the very breath of God, in such a way that it is not out of him, but created by him out of nothing.
DAeE.1.4.4Neque enim sicut homo quando sufflat, non potest de nihilo flatum facere, sed quem de isto aere ducit, hunc reddit; ita Deo putandum est auras aliquas circumfusas iam fuisse, quarum exiguam quamdam particulam spirando traheret, et respirando refunderet, quando in hominis faciem sufflavit, eique illo modo animam fecit (Cf. Gen 2, 7). Quod et si ita esset, nec sic de ipso, sed de subiacenti re aliqua flabili posset esse quod flavit.
For just as a man, when he blows, cannot make a breath out of nothing, but gives back the breath he drew from this air—so it must not be thought that for God there were already certain breezes spread about, from which he drew some tiny particle in breathing and poured it back in exhaling, when he breathed into the face of man and in that way made him a soul (Cf. Gen 2:7). And even were it so, then what he breathed could not be out of him, but out of some underlying breathable thing.
DAeE.1.4.4Sed absit ut negemus omnipotentem de nihilo flatum vitae facere potuisse, quo fieret homo in animam vivam: atque in eas contrudamur angustias, ut vel iam fuisse aliquid, quod ipse non esset, unde flatum faceret, opinemur; vel quod mutabile factum videmus, de se ipso eum fecisse credamus. Quod enim de ipso est, necesse est ut eiusdem naturae sit cuius ipse est, ac per hoc etiam immutabile sit. Anima vero, quod omnes fatentur, mutabilis est. Non ergo de ipso, quia non est immutabilis sicut ipse. Si autem de nulla re alia facta est, de nihilo facta est procul dubio, sed ab ipso.
But God forbid that we should deny that the Almighty was able to make out of nothing the breath of life, by which man became a living soul, and that we should be driven into such straits that we either suppose there already was something, which he himself was not, out of which he made the breath, or believe that he made out of his very self what we see was made mutable. For what is out of him must necessarily be of the same nature as he is, and through this also immutable. But the soul, as all confess, is mutable. It is not, then, out of him, since it is not immutable as he is. But if it was not made out of any other thing, it was without doubt made out of nothing, yet by him.
DAeE.1.4.45. 5. Quod vero "eam non spiritum, sed corpus esse" contendit; quid aliud vult efficere, quam nos non ex anima et corpore, sed ex duobus vel etiam tribus constare corporibus? Cum enim "spiritu, anima, et corpore constare nos dicit", et "omnia haec tria corpora esse" asserit; profecto ex tribus corporibus nos putat esse compactos. In qua opinione quanta eum sequatur absurditas, illi potius quam tibi demonstrandum puto. Verum iste tolerabilis error est hominis, qui nondum cognovit esse aliquid, quod cum corpus non sit, corporis tamen quamdam similitudinem gerere possit.
5. 5. But as for his contention that the soul is not a spirit but a body, what else does he aim to bring about than that we are made up not of soul and body, but of two or even three bodies? For when he says that we are made up of spirit, soul, and body, and asserts that all these three are bodies, he plainly thinks we are compacted of three bodies. How great an absurdity follows him in this opinion, I think should be shown to him rather than to you. But this is a tolerable error in a man who has not yet recognized that there is something which, though it is not a body, can nonetheless bear a certain likeness of a body.
DAeE.1.5.56. 6. Illud plane quis ferat, quod in secundo libro, cum quaestionem difficillimam solvere conaretur de originali peccato, quatenus ad corpus animamque pertineat, si anima non de parentibus trahitur, sed a Deo nova insufflatur; hanc ergo tam molestam et tam profundam enitens enodare quaestionem: "Merito, inquit, per carnem, priscam reparat habitudinem, quam visa fuerat paulisper amisisse per carnem, ut per eam incipiat renasci, per quam meruerat inquinari". Cernis nempe hominem ausum suscipere quod vires eius excedit, in tam immane praecipitium decidisse, ut diceret inquinari animam meruisse per carnem; cum dicere nullo modo possit, unde hoc meritum traxerit ante carnem. Si enim a carne incipit meritum habere peccati, dicat si potest, unde ante peccatum suum carne meruerit inquinari.
6. 6. But who could bear this, that in the second book, when he was trying to solve a most difficult question about original sin—how far it pertains to body and soul, if the soul is not drawn from the parents but breathed in newly by God—when, then, he was straining to unravel so troublesome and so deep a question, he says: Rightly through the flesh it recovers its former condition, which it had seemed for a little while to have lost through the flesh, so that through the flesh it may begin to be reborn, through which it had deserved to be defiled. You see indeed that the man, having dared to take up what exceeds his powers, has fallen into so monstrous a precipice as to say that the soul deserved to be defiled through the flesh, when he cannot in any way say from where it drew this desert before the flesh. For if its desert of sin begins from the flesh, let him say, if he can, from where, before its own sin, it deserved to be defiled by the flesh.
DAeE.1.6.6Nam hoc meritum quo in carnem peccatricem missa est, ut inquinaretur ex illa, profecto aut ex semetipsa habuit, aut, quod vero multo amplius abhorret, ex Deo. Ex carne quippe meritum non potuit habere ante carnem, quo merito inquinanda mitteretur in carnem. Si ergo a semetipsa hoc meritum habuit; quomodo habuit, quae ante carnem nihil mali fecit? Si autem hoc meritum ex Deo dicitur habuisse; quis hoc audiat? quis ferat? quis dici impune permittat? Non enim hoc loco quaeritur, quid meruerit, ut iudicaretur damnanda post carnem: sed quid meruerit ante carnem ita damnari, ut inquinanda mitteretur in carnem. Explicet hoc si potest, qui est ausus dicere, inquinari animam meruisse per carnem.
For this desert, by which it was sent into sinful flesh so as to be defiled by it, it surely had either from its own self or—what is far more abhorrent—from God. From the flesh it could not have had, before the flesh, the desert by which, deserving to be defiled, it was sent into the flesh. If, then, it had this desert from its own self, how did it have it, since before the flesh it had done nothing evil? But if it is said to have had this desert from God, who could listen to this? Who could bear it? Who could allow it to be said with impunity? For the question here is not what it deserved, so as to be judged worthy of condemnation after the flesh, but what it deserved so as to be condemned, before the flesh, to be sent into the flesh to be defiled. Let him explain this, if he can, who dared to say that the soul deserved to be defiled through the flesh.
DAeE.1.6.67. 7. Item alio loco, cum eamdem, qua se ipse implicuerat, velut explicandam proponeret quaestionem, tamquam ex persona adversariorum ait: "Cur, inquiunt, Deus animam tam iniusta animadversione mulctavit, ut in corpus eam peccati relegare voluerit, cum consortio carnis peccatrix esse incipit, quae peccatrix esse non potuit"? In huius quaestionis tamquam scopuloso gurgite, debuit utique cavere naufragium, nec eo se committere, unde se non erueret transeundo, sed forte redeundo, id est, poenitendo. Nam de praescientia Dei se nititur liberare, sed frustra. Praescientia quippe Dei eos quos sanaturus est, peccatores praenoscit, non facit.
7. 7. Likewise in another place, when he set forth, as if to be explained, the same question in which he had entangled himself, he speaks as though in the person of his adversaries: Why, they say, did God punish the soul with so unjust a chastisement as to will to banish it into a body of sin, since it begins to be sinful through fellowship with the sinful flesh, when it could not be sinful? In the rocky whirlpool, as it were, of this question, he ought surely to have guarded against shipwreck, and not to have committed himself to it where he could not extricate himself by passing through, but only perhaps by turning back—that is, by repenting. For he strives to free himself by the foreknowledge of God, but in vain. For the foreknowledge of God foreknows as sinners those whom he is going to heal; it does not make them sinners.
DAeE.1.7.7Nam si eas animas liberat a peccato, quas innocentes et mundas implicuit ipse peccato, vulnus sanat quod intulit nobis, non quod invenit in nobis. Avertat autem Deus, et omnino absit, ut dicamus, quando lavacro regenerationis Deus mundat animas parvulorum, tunc eum mala sua corrigere, quae illis ipse fecit, cum eas nullum habentes peccatum peccatrici carni, cuius originali peccato contaminarentur, admiscuit. Quas tamen iste accusans dicit inquinari meruisse per carnem, nec potest dicere unde tantum mali meruerint ante carnem.
For if he frees from sin those souls which, innocent and clean, he himself entangled in sin, he heals a wound that he inflicted on us, not one that he found in us. But may God avert it, and may it be altogether far from us, that we should say that when, by the bath of regeneration, God cleanses the souls of little ones, he is then correcting his own evils, which he himself did to them, when he mingled them, having no sin, with sinful flesh, by whose original sin they were to be contaminated. Yet this man, accusing these souls, says that they deserved to be defiled through the flesh, and he cannot say from where they deserved so great an evil before the flesh.
DAeE.1.7.78. 8. Hanc ergo quaestionem frustra se putans de praescientia Dei posse dissolvere, adhuc sese involvit, et dicit: "Anima si peccatrix esse meruit, quae peccatrix esse non potuit, tamen neque in peccato remansit, quia in Christo praefigurata in peccato esse non debuit, sicut esse non potuit". Quid est quod dicit, "peccatrix esse non potuit", vel "in peccato esse non potuit", nisi, credo, si non veniret in carnem? Neque enim potuit originali peccato esse peccatrix, aut quoquo modo in originali peccato esse, nisi per carnem, si de parente non trahitur. Videmus ergo eam per gratiam liberari a peccato: sed non videmus unde meruerit haerere peccato. Quid est ergo quod dicit: "si peccatrix esse meruit, non tamen in peccato remansit"? Si enim ab illo quaeram, cur non in peccato remanserit, rectissime respondebit quod eam Christi gratia liberavit. Sicut ergo dicit unde anima parvuli fuerit liberata peccatrix, sic etiam dicat unde meruerit esse peccatrix.
8. 8. Thinking, then, that he could resolve this question in vain by the foreknowledge of God, he entangles himself still further, and says: If the soul deserved to be sinful, which could not be sinful, yet it did not remain in sin, because, prefigured in Christ, it ought not to be in sin, just as it could not be. What does he mean by saying it could not be sinful, or could not be in sin, except, I believe, if it did not come into the flesh? For it could not be sinful with original sin, or be in any way in original sin, except through the flesh, if it is not drawn from a parent. We see, then, that it is freed from sin by grace; but we do not see from where it deserved to cling to sin. What, then, does he mean by saying: if it deserved to be sinful, yet it did not remain in sin? For if I ask him why it did not remain in sin, he will answer most rightly that the grace of Christ freed it. As, then, he says from where the soul of a little one was freed as a sinner, so let him also say from where it deserved to be a sinner.
DAeE.1.8.88. 9. Sed quid dicit, cui hoc quod praelocutus est, contigit? Namque ut istam quaestionem sibi proponeret, ait: "alia substruuntur opprobria querulis murmurationibus oblatrantum, et excussi quasi quodam turbine, identidem inter immania saxa collidimur". Hoc si ego de illo dicerem, forsitan succenseret. Verba sunt eius: quibus praemissis proposuit quaestionem, in qua ipsa saxa quibus collisus naufragavit, ostenderet. Ad hoc enim perductus est, et tam horrendis cautibus illatus, impulsus, infixus, ut eruere se nisi emendando quod dixit, omnino non possit; non valens ostendere quo merito anima sit facta peccatrix, quam dicere non timuit ante omne suum peccatum meruisse fieri peccatricem. Quis tam immane supplicium meretur sine peccato, ut in aliena iniquitate conceptus, antequam exeat de visceribus matris, iam non sit sine peccato? De hac autem poena parvulorum animas, qui regenerantur in Christo, nullis eorum praecedentibus meritis gratuita liberat gratia: alioquin gratia iam non est gratia (Rom 11, 6).
8. 9. But what does he say, to whom what he prefaced has happened? For, in order to set this question before himself, he said: Other reproaches are heaped up by the querulous murmurings of those who bark against us, and, shaken as if by some whirlwind, again and again we are dashed among monstrous rocks. If I were saying this about him, perhaps he would be angry. They are his own words; and having set them down, he proposed the question in which he might show the very rocks against which he was dashed and shipwrecked. For he was brought to this point, and carried, driven, and fixed upon such dreadful crags, that he cannot extricate himself at all except by amending what he said—being unable to show by what desert the soul was made sinful, which he did not fear to say deserved, before all its own sin, to be made a sinner. Who deserves so monstrous a punishment without sin, that, conceived in the iniquity of another, before it comes forth from its mother's womb, it is already not without sin? But from this punishment gratuitous grace frees the souls of little ones, who are regenerated in Christ, with no preceding merits of their own: otherwise grace is no longer grace (Rom 11:6).
DAeE.1.8.9Proinde iste homo valde intellegens, cui displicet in tanta profunditate, etsi non docta, tamen cauta nostra cunctatio, dicat si potest, in hanc poenam quo pervenerit anima merito, de qua poena liberat gratia sine merito. Dicat, ut quod dixit, aliqua, si valuerit, ratione defendat. Non enim hoc exigerem, nisi ipse dixisset quod anima meruerit esse peccatrix. Dicat meritum eius, utrum bonum fuerit, anne malum. Si bonum, quo merito bono venit in malum? Si malum, unde aliquod malum meritum ante omne peccatum? Item dico: Si bonum, non ergo eam gratis, sed secundum debitum liberat gratia, cuius praecessit meritum bonum; ac sic gratia iam non erit gratia (Rom 11, 6). Si autem malum, quaero quod sit: an quod venit in carnem, quo non venisset, nisi apud quem non est iniquitas, ipse misisset (Cf. 2 Paral 19, 7; Rom 9, 14)? Nunquam igitur nisi se in peiora praecipitans, hanc suam sententiam molietur astruere, qua dixit quod anima meruit esse peccatrix.
Accordingly, let this very intelligent man, to whom our hesitation in so great a depth—a hesitation that, if not learned, is at least cautious—is displeasing, say, if he can, by what desert the soul came into this punishment, from which punishment grace frees it without desert. Let him say it, so that, by some reasoning, if he can prevail, he may defend what he said. For I would not demand this, had he not himself said that the soul deserved to be a sinner. Let him say what its desert was, whether it was good or evil. If good, by what good desert did it come into evil? If evil, from where any evil desert before all sin? Again I say: if good, then grace frees it not gratuitously but according to what is owed, since a good merit preceded; and so grace will no longer be grace (Rom 11:6). But if evil, I ask what it is: is it that it came into the flesh, into which it would not have come unless he, with whom there is no iniquity, had himself sent it (Cf. 2 Chr 19:7; Rom 9:14)? Never, then, except by hurling himself into worse things, will he contrive to establish this opinion of his, by which he said that the soul deserved to be a sinner.
DAeE.1.8.9Et de his quidem parvulis, quorum in Baptismo diluitur originale peccatum, invenit qualitercumque quod diceret, quoniam praescientia Dei praedestinatis in vitam aeternam nihil obesse potuisset, paulisper alieno inhaerere peccato. Quod tolerabiliter diceretur, si non iste verbis suis implicaretur, dicens quod meruerit anima esse peccatrix; unde se omnino non liberat, nisi hoc eum dixisse poeniteat.
And concerning those little ones whose original sin is washed away in Baptism, he found something or other to say, since the foreknowledge of God could have done no harm to those predestined to eternal life if they clung for a little while to another's sin. This would be tolerably said, were this man not entangled by his own words, saying that the soul deserved to be a sinner—from which he does not free himself at all unless he repents of having said it.
DAeE.1.8.99. 10. De illis autem parvulis qui morte praeveniuntur priusquam baptizentur in Christo, cum respondere voluisset, ausus est eis promittere, non solum paradisum, verum etiam regnum coelorum: non inveniens qua exiret, ne Deum animas innocentes dicere cogeretur aeterna morte damnare, quas nullo merito praecedente peccati, carni inserit peccatrici. Sed utcumque sentiens quid mali dixerit, sine ulla Christi gratia animas redimi parvulorum in aeternam vitam regnumque coelorum, et in eis posse solvi originale peccatum sine Baptismo Christi, in quo fit remissio peccatorum: videns ergo, in quam se profunditatem naufragosi gurgitis iecerit, "sane, inquit, pro eis oblationes assiduas, et offerenda iugiter sanctorum censeo sacrificia sacerdotum". Ecce aliud unde nunquam exiturus est, nisi eum dixisse poeniteat. Quis enim offerat corpus Christi, nisi pro eis qui membra sunt Christi? Ex quo autem ab illo dictum est: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu, non potest intrare in regnum Dei (Io 3, 5); et alio loco: Qui perdiderit animam suam propter me, inveniet eam (Mt 10, 39): nemo fit membrum Christi, nisi aut Baptismate in Christo, aut morte pro Christo.
9. 10. But concerning those little ones who are overtaken by death before they are baptized in Christ, when he wished to give an answer, he dared to promise them not only paradise but even the kingdom of heaven—finding no way out by which to avoid being forced to say that God condemns to eternal death innocent souls, which, with no preceding merit of sin, he inserts into sinful flesh. But somehow sensing what an evil he had said—that the souls of little ones are redeemed without any grace of Christ into eternal life and the kingdom of heaven, and that in them original sin can be loosed without the Baptism of Christ, in which the remission of sins is made—seeing, then, into what a depth of a shipwrecking whirlpool he had cast himself, he says: Certainly I judge that for them constant offerings and the sacrifices of the holy priests should be offered continually. Behold another point from which he will never come out unless he repents of having said it. For who would offer the body of Christ except for those who are members of Christ? But since it was said by him, Unless one is born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5); and in another place, Whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it (Matt 10:39): no one becomes a member of Christ except either by Baptism in Christ or by death for Christ.
DAeE.1.9.109. 11. Unde et latro ille, non ante crucem Domini sectator, sed in cruce confessor, de quo nonnunquam praeiudicium captatur, sive tentatur, contra Baptismatis sacramentum, a Cypriano sancto inter martyres computatur, qui suo sanguine baptizantur (CIPRIANO, Ep. 73, 22), quod plerisque non baptizatis fervente persecutione provenit. Tanto namque pondere appensum est, tantumque valuit apud eum qui haec novit appendere, quod confessus est Dominum crucifixum, quantum si fuisset pro Domino crucifixus. Tunc enim fides eius de ligno floruit, quando discipulorum marcuit; nisi cuius mortis terrore marcuerat, eius resurrectione reviresceret.
9. 11. Hence even that thief, who was a follower of the Lord not before the cross but a confessor on the cross—from whose case a prejudgment is sometimes sought, or attempted, against the sacrament of Baptism—is counted by holy Cyprian among the martyrs, who are baptized by their own blood (Cyprian, Ep. 73, 22), as happens to very many of the unbaptized when persecution rages. For so great a weight was attached, and so much did it avail with him who knows how to weigh these things, that he confessed the Lord crucified, as much as if he had been crucified for the Lord. For then his faith flowered from the wood, when that of the disciples had withered; unless, by whose death's terror it had withered, by his resurrection it should grow green again.
DAeE.1.9.11Illi enim desperaverunt de moriente, ille speravit in commoriente: refugerunt illi auctorem vitae; rogavit ille consortem poenae: doluerunt illi tamquam hominis mortem, credidit ille regnaturum esse post mortem: deseruerunt illi sponsorem salutis, honoravit ille socium crucis. Inventa est in eo mensura martyris, qui tunc in Christum credidit, quando defecerunt qui futuri erant martyres. Et hoc quidem oculis Domini clarum fuit, qui non baptizato, tamquam martyrii sanguine abluto, tantam felicitatem statim contulit (Cf. Lc 23, 43). Sed etiam nostrum quis non consideret, quanta fide, quanta spe, quanta caritate mortem pro Christo vivente suscipere potuit, qui vitam in moriente quaesivit.
For they despaired of the dying one, but he hoped in one dying with him; they fled from the author of life, but he begged of his companion in punishment; they grieved over the death as of a man, but he believed he would reign after death; they deserted the surety of salvation, but he honored his fellow on the cross. The measure of a martyr was found in him, who then believed in Christ when those who were to be martyrs failed. And this indeed was clear to the eyes of the Lord, who at once conferred so great a happiness on one not baptized, as though washed by the blood of martyrdom (Cf. Luke 23:43). But let any of us also consider with how great faith, how great hope, how great love he was able to take up death for the living Christ, who sought life in the dying one.
DAeE.1.9.11Huc accedit, quia non incredibiliter dicitur, latronem qui tunc credidit, iuxta Dominum crucifixum, aqua illa quae de vulnere lateris eius emicuit, tamquam sacratissimo baptismo fuisse perfusum (Cf. Io 19, 32. 34). Ut omittam quod eum, antequam damnaretur, baptizatum non fuisse, quoniam nemo nostrum novit, nemo convincit. Verum haec ut volet quisque accipiat, dum tamen de Baptismo non praescribatur Salvatoris praecepto, huius latronis exemplo; et non baptizatis parvulis nemo promittat inter damnationem regnumque coelorum, quietis vel felicitatis cuiuslibet atque ubilibet quasi medium locum. Hoc enim eis etiam haeresis Pelagiana promisit: quia nec damnationem metuit parvulis, quos nullum putat habere originale peccatum; nec sperat eis regnum coelorum, si non perveniunt ad Baptismatis sacramentum. Iste autem cum confiteatur parvulos originali obstrictos esse peccato, eis etiam regnum coelorum non baptizatis ausus est polliceri: quod nec illi ausi sunt, qui eos asserunt sine ullo prorsus esse peccato. Ecce qualibus se laqueis praesumptionis innectat, nisi eum talia scripsisse poeniteat.
To this is added that it is not incredibly said that the thief who then believed, beside the crucified Lord, was sprinkled, as with a most sacred baptism, by that water which gushed from the wound of his side (Cf. John 19:32, 34). To say nothing of the fact that no one of us knows, and no one proves, that he had not been baptized before he was condemned. But let everyone take these things as he will, provided that no prejudgment is made about Baptism contrary to the Savior's precept, on the example of this thief; and that no one promise to unbaptized little ones, between damnation and the kingdom of heaven, as it were a middle place of rest or of any sort of happiness anywhere whatever. For this the Pelagian heresy too promised them: since it neither fears damnation for little ones, whom it thinks to have no original sin, nor hopes for them the kingdom of heaven, if they do not come to the sacrament of Baptism. But this man, while he confesses that little ones are bound by original sin, has dared to promise them, even unbaptized, the kingdom of heaven as well—which not even those dared to do who assert that they are altogether without any sin. Behold with what snares of presumption he entangles himself, unless he repents of having written such things.
DAeE.1.9.1110. 12. De fratre autem sanctae Perpetuae Dinocrate, nec scriptura ipsa canonica est, nec illa sic scripsit, vel quicumque illud scripsit, ut illum puerum qui septennis mortuus fuit, sine Baptismo diceret fuisse defunctum: pro quo illa imminente martyrio creditur exaudita, ut a poenis transferretur ad requiem. Nam illius aetatis pueri, et mentiri, et verum loqui, et confiteri, et negare iam possunt. Et ideo cum baptizantur, iam et symbolum reddunt, et ipsi pro se ad interrogata respondent. Quis igitur scit utrum puer ille post Baptismum, persecutionis tempore a patre impio per idololatriam fuerit alienatus a Christo, propter quod in damnationem mortis ierit, nec inde nisi pro Christo moriturae sororis precibus donatus exierit?
10. 12. But concerning Dinocrates, the brother of holy Perpetua, the writing itself is not canonical, nor did she, or whoever wrote it, so write that she said that boy, who died at seven years of age, had departed without Baptism: for whom she is believed to have been heard, when martyrdom was imminent, so that he was transferred from punishments to rest. For boys of that age can already both lie and speak the truth, both confess and deny. And therefore, when they are baptized, they already both recite the creed and themselves answer for themselves to the questions. Who, then, knows whether that boy, after Baptism, had in the time of persecution been estranged from Christ by an impious father through idolatry, on account of which he went into the damnation of death, and came out of it only by the prayers of his sister, who was to die for Christ?
DAeE.1.10.1211. 13. Sed etiamsi hoc isti concedatur, quod salva fide catholica et ecclesiastica regula, nulla ratione conceditur, ut pro non baptizatis cuiuslibet aetatis hominibus offeratur sacrificium corporis et sanguinis Christi, tamquam per huiusmodi pietatem suorum ad regnum coelorum quo perveniant adiuventur, quid responsurus est de tot millibus infantum, qui nascuntur ex impiis, nec in manus piorum aliqua vel divina vel humana miseratione perveniunt, et de ista vita in illa tenerrima aetate, sine lavacro regenerationis abscedunt?
11. 13. But even if this be granted to him—which by no reasoning is granted, the Catholic faith and the ecclesiastical rule being kept safe—that the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ may be offered for unbaptized human beings of any age, as though through such piety of their kin they were helped to reach the kingdom of heaven: what will he answer about so many thousands of infants who are born of the impious, and do not come into the hands of the pious by any compassion, whether divine or human, and depart from this life, in that most tender age, without the bath of regeneration?
DAeE.1.11.13Dicat, si potest, unde istae animae sic peccatrices fieri meruerunt, ut a peccato saltem nec postea liberentur. Si enim quaeram, quare damnari mereantur, si non baptizantur; recte mihi respondetur, propter originale peccatum. Item si quaeram, unde traxerint originale peccatum; iste respondebit, ex carne utique peccatrice. Si ergo quaeram, unde damnari meruerint in peccatricem carnem, quae nihil mali fecerant ante carnem; hic inveniat quid respondeat; et sic damnari ad alienorum peccatorum subeunda contagia, ut nec Baptisma regeneret male generatos, nec sacrificia expient inquinatos. Ibi enim et de talibus hi parvuli nati sunt, sive adhuc usque nascuntur, ut eis nullo tali possit adiutorio subveniri.
Let him say, if he can, from where these souls deserved to be made sinners in such a way that they are not freed from sin even afterward. For if I ask why they deserve to be damned if they are not baptized, I am rightly answered: on account of original sin. Again, if I ask from where they drew original sin, this man will answer: from the sinful flesh, of course. If, then, I ask from where they deserved to be condemned into sinful flesh, having done nothing evil before the flesh, let him find here what to answer—and how they are condemned to undergo the contagions of others' sins, so that neither does Baptism regenerate the ill-begotten, nor do the sacrifices expiate the defiled. For there too these little ones were born of such parents, or are still being born, so that they can be aided by no such help.
DAeE.1.11.13Hic certe omnis argumentatio deficit. Non enim quaerimus, unde animae damnari meruerint post carnis consortium peccatricis: sed quaerimus, unde animae damnari meruerint ad subeundum carnis consortium peccatricis, nullum peccatum habentes ante carnis consortium peccatricis. Non est ut dicatur, "nihil eis obfuit alieni peccati paulisper communicata contagio, quibus in Dei praescientia fuerat parata redemptio". De his enim nunc loquimur, quibus ante Baptismum de corpore exeuntibus redemptio nulla succurrit. Non est ut dicatur, "Eas quas baptisma non abluit, sacrificia pro eis crebra mundabunt; quod praesciens Deus, paululum illas voluit alienis haerere peccatis, sine ullo exitio damnationis aeternae, et cum spe felicitatis aeternae". De his enim nunc loquimur, quarum nativitas apud impios et ex impiis nulla talia potuerit invenire praesidia. Quae quidem si adhiberi possent, procul dubio non baptizatis prodesse non possent: sicut nec illa quae de libro Machabaeorum commemoravit sacrificia facta pro peccatoribus mortuis (Cf. 2 Mach 12, 43), eis aliquid profuissent, si circumcisi non fuissent.
Here surely all argumentation fails. For we are not asking from where souls deserved to be damned after fellowship with sinful flesh, but we are asking from where souls deserved to be damned so as to undergo fellowship with sinful flesh, having no sin before fellowship with sinful flesh. It cannot be said, The contagion of another's sin, shared for a little while, did them no harm, for whom redemption had been prepared in God's foreknowledge. For we are now speaking of those for whom, departing from the body before Baptism, no redemption comes to aid. It cannot be said, Those whom Baptism does not wash, frequent sacrifices for them will cleanse; and God, foreknowing this, willed that they should cling for a little to others' sins, with no destruction of eternal damnation, and with the hope of eternal happiness. For we are now speaking of those whose birth among the impious and from the impious could find no such safeguards. And even if such safeguards could be applied, without doubt they could be of no profit to the unbaptized—just as not even the sacrifices that he recalled from the book of Maccabees, made for the sinful dead (Cf. 2 Macc 12:43), would have profited them anything, had they not been circumcised.
DAeE.1.11.1311. 14. Inveniat ergo, si potest, iste quid dicat, cum ab illo quaeritur, quid meruerit anima, sine ullo peccato, vel originali, vel proprio, sic ad subeundum alienum peccatum originale damnari, ut non ab illo valeat liberari: et videat quid eligat e duobus, utrum dicat etiam eas animas morientium parvulorum, quae hinc sine lavacro regenerationis abscedunt, et pro quibus nullum sacrificium corporis Dominici offertur, a nexu peccati originalis absolvi; cum Apostolus doceat, ex uno ire omnes in condemnationem (Cf. Rom 5, 16, 18), quibus utique non subvenit gratia, ut per unum eruantur in redemptionem; an dicat animas non habentes ullum vel proprium, vel originale peccatum, et omni modo innocentes, simplices, puras, a iusto Deo, cum eas ipse non liberandas carni inserit peccatrici, aeterna damnatione puniri.
11. 14. Let this man, then, find, if he can, what he is to say when he is asked what a soul deserved, without any sin, whether original or its own, so to be condemned to undergo another's original sin that it cannot be freed from it; and let him see which of two things he chooses—whether he will say that even those souls of dying little ones, who depart from here without the bath of regeneration, and for whom no sacrifice of the Lord's body is offered, are absolved from the bond of original sin, although the Apostle teaches that through one all go into condemnation (Cf. Rom 5:16, 18), those, namely, whom grace does not help to be rescued, through one, into redemption; or whether he will say that souls having no sin, whether their own or original, and in every way innocent, simple, and pure, are punished with eternal damnation by a just God, when he himself inserts them, not to be freed, into sinful flesh.
DAeE.1.11.1412. 15. Ego nihil istorum duorum dicendum esse confirmo; nec illud tertium, alibi peccasse animas ante carnem, ut damnari mererentur in carnem. Apostolus quippe apertissime definivit, nondum in carne natos nihil egisse boni seu mali (Cf. Rom 9, 11). Unde constat, parvulos, ut remissione indigeant peccatorum, nonnisi originale contraxisse peccatum. Nec illud quartum, eas animas parvulorum sine Baptismate moriturorum a iusto Deo in carnem peccatricem relegari atque damnari, quas praescivit, si ad aetatem pervenissent, in qua libero uterentur arbitrio, male fuisse victuras.
12. 15. I maintain that neither of these two things is to be said; nor that third thing, that souls sinned elsewhere before the flesh, so as to deserve to be condemned into the flesh. For the Apostle most plainly determined that those not yet born in the flesh had done nothing good or evil (Cf. Rom 9:11). From which it is clear that little ones, in order to need the remission of sins, have contracted nothing but original sin. Nor that fourth thing, that those souls of little ones, who are to die without Baptism, are banished and condemned into sinful flesh by a just God because he foreknew that, had they reached the age at which they would use free choice, they would have lived badly.
DAeE.1.12.15Hoc namque nec iste ausus est dicere, in tantis angustiis constitutus: imo etiam contra istam vanitatem iam satis manifeste ac breviter est locutus, ubi ait, "iniustum Deum futurum fuisse, si non perfectis propriae voluntatis operibus, vellet hominem iudicare non natum". Hoc enim respondit, cum tractaret quaestionem adversus eos qui dicunt: Cur Deus hominem faciebat, quem, utpote praescius, sciebat futurum non bonum? Non natum enim iudicaret, si propterea creare noluisset, quia non bonum futurum esse praescisset.
For not even this man dared to say this, placed in such straits; indeed he even spoke against this vanity already clearly and briefly enough, where he says that God would be unjust if, before the works of one's own will were accomplished, he willed to judge a man who had not been born. For he gave this answer when he was treating the question against those who say: Why was God making a man whom, as foreknowing, he knew would not be good? For he would be judging one not born, if he had on that account refused to create him, because he foreknew that he would not be good.
DAeE.1.12.15Et utique sicut et huic visum est, de perfectis eius operibus debuisset hominem iudicare, non de praecognitis, nec fieri aliquando permissis. Nam si peccata, quae si homo viveret commissurus esset, etiam non commissa damnantur in mortuo, nullum beneficium collatum est illi qui raptus est ne malitia mutaret intellectum eius (Sap 4, 11): quandoquidem iudicabitur secundum eam, quae in illo fuerat futura, malitiam; non secundum eam, quae in illo inventa est, innocentiam:
And surely, as it seemed even to this man, he ought to judge a man by his accomplished works, not by those foreknown and never permitted to come to pass. For if sins which, if a man lived, he would commit, are condemned in him though dead though not committed, no benefit was conferred on him who was caught up lest wickedness change his understanding (Wis 4:11)—since he will be judged according to the wickedness that was going to be in him, not according to the innocence that was found in him;
DAeE.1.12.15et de nullo mortuo baptizato poterit esse securitas; quia et post Baptismum, non qualitercumque peccare, verum etiam apostatare homines possunt. Quid si ergo qui baptizatus hinc raptus est, apostata erat futurus, si viveret; nullumne illi beneficium putabimus esse collatum, quod raptus est ne malitia mutaret intellectum eius; et propter Dei praescientiam, non sicut fidele membrum Christi, sed sicut apostatam iudicandum esse censebimus? Quanto enim melius, si peccata nondum facta, nondum cogitata, sed praecognita et futura puniuntur, proicerentur illi duo de paradiso ante peccatum, ne in loco tam sancto et beatifico peccaretur?
and there could be security about no baptized dead person, since even after Baptism men can not only sin in any way whatever but even apostatize. What, then, if one who was baptized and caught up from here was going to be an apostate, had he lived? Shall we think that no benefit was conferred on him in that he was caught up lest wickedness change his understanding, and shall we judge that, on account of God's foreknowledge, he is to be judged not as a faithful member of Christ but as an apostate? For how much better, if sins not yet done, not yet even thought, but foreknown and future, are punished, that those two should have been cast out of paradise before sin, lest a sin be committed in so holy and beatifying a place!
DAeE.1.12.15Quid, quod ipsa exinanitur omnino praescientia, si quod praescitur non erit? Quomodo enim recte dicitur praesciri futurum, quod non est futurum? Quomodo ergo puniuntur peccata quae nulla sunt; id est, quae nec vita ista nondum incipiente commissa sunt ante carnem, nec morte praeveniente post carnem?
And further, foreknowledge itself is altogether emptied out, if what is foreknown will not be. For how is it rightly said that something future is foreknown, which will not be future? How, then, are sins punished which are nothing—that is, which were neither committed before the flesh, since this life had not yet begun, nor after the flesh, since death intervened?
DAeE.1.12.1513. 16. Hoc itaque medium, ex quo anima missa est in carnem, quo usque solveretur a carne, quoniam parvuli anima est, nec liberi arbitrii gessit aetatem, non invenit unde damnaretur non percepto Baptismo, nisi originale peccatum. Ex hoc peccato iuste damnari animam non negamus: quia peccato supplicium lex iusta constituit. Sed ad hoc peccatum subeundum cur damnata sit, quaerimus, si non ex illa una trahitur, quae in generis humani primo patre peccavit.
13. 16. This interval, then, from when the soul was sent into the flesh until it would be released from the flesh—since it is the soul of a little one and has not lived the age of free choice—he finds nothing on account of which it would be condemned, Baptism not having been received, except original sin. We do not deny that the soul is justly condemned for this sin, since a just law has appointed punishment for sin. But we are asking why it was condemned to undergo this sin, if it is not drawn from that one soul which sinned in the first father of the human race.
DAeE.1.13.16Quamobrem si Deus non damnat innocentes, nec facit nocentes quos perspicit innocentes; et si animas non liberat sive ab originalibus, sive a propriis peccatis, nisi in Ecclesia Christi Baptismus Christi; et si animae ante carnem nullum habuerunt omnino peccatum; et si peccata antequam committantur, et multo magis quae nunquam commissa sunt, damnari iusta lege non possunt; nihil horum quatuor iste dicat: et, si potest, explicet, parvulorum animae, quae sine Baptismo exeuntes in damnationem mittuntur, quo merito in carnem peccatricem quae nihil peccaverunt, missae sunt, ut illic invenirent peccatum, propter quod merito damnarentur.
Wherefore, if God does not condemn the innocent, nor make guilty those whom he perceives to be innocent; and if the Baptism of Christ in the Church of Christ does not free souls except from sins, whether original or their own; and if souls had absolutely no sin before the flesh; and if sins before they are committed—and much more those that have never been committed—cannot be condemned by a just law: let this man say none of these four things, and let him explain, if he can, by what desert the souls of little ones, who depart without Baptism and are sent into damnation, were sent into sinful flesh—they who committed no sin—so that they might there find a sin on account of which they would be deservedly condemned.
DAeE.1.13.16Porro si quatuor ista devitans, quae sana doctrina condemnat, id est, si non audens dicere, vel sine ullo peccato existentes, a Deo fieri animas peccatrices, aut sine Christi Sacramento in eis solvi originale peccatum, aut eas alicubi peccasse, antequam mitterentur in carnem, aut ea quae nunquam habuerunt in eis peccata damnari: si haec nolens dicere, quoniam non sunt utique dicenda, dixerit parvulos non trahere originale peccatum, nec habere unde damnentur, si non accepto Sacramento regenerationis hinc exeant; in haeresim Pelagianam sine dubitatione damnabilem damnandus incurret. Quod ei ne contingat, quanto melius tenet de animae origine cunctationem meam, ne audeat affirmare, quod nec humana ratione comprehendit, nec divina auctoritate defendit; ne cogatur insipientiam profiteri, dum veretur ignorantiam confiteri.
Moreover, if, avoiding these four things which sound doctrine condemns—that is, if not daring to say either that souls existing without any sin are made sinners by God, or that original sin is loosed in them without the sacrament of Christ, or that they sinned somewhere before they were sent into the flesh, or that sins which they never had are condemned in them—if, unwilling to say these things, since they are by no means to be said, he should say that little ones do not draw original sin, and have nothing for which they may be condemned if they depart from here without receiving the sacrament of regeneration, he will fall, without doubt, into the damnable Pelagian heresy, deserving to be damned. That this may not befall him, how much better he holds to my hesitation about the origin of the soul, lest he dare to affirm what he neither grasps by human reason nor defends by divine authority—lest he be forced to profess foolishness while he is afraid to confess ignorance.
DAeE.1.13.1614. 17. Hic forte dicat, sententiam suam divina auctoritate defendi: quoniam sanctarum Scripturarum testimoniis probare se existimat, animas a Deo, non ex propagine fieri, sed novas singulis insufflari. Probet, si potest, et fatebor me didicisse ab illo, quod magna intentione quaerebam. Sed quaerat alia, ne fortassis inveniat: nam hoc istis testimoniis, quae iam posuit, non probavit.
14. 17. Here perhaps he may say that his opinion is defended by divine authority, since he thinks he can prove by the testimonies of the holy Scriptures that souls are made by God, not from propagation, but breathed in newly to individuals. Let him prove it, if he can, and I will confess that I have learned from him what I was seeking with great earnestness. But let him seek other testimonies, lest perhaps he find them: for he has not proved this by the testimonies that he has already set down.
DAeE.1.14.17Omnia quippe quae hic adhibuit, ad aliquid certa sunt; ad hoc vero, quod de animae origine quaeritur, demonstrantur ambigua.
For all that he brought forward here are certain as to something; but as to that which is asked about the origin of the soul, they are shown to be ambiguous.
DAeE.1.14.17Certum est enim Deum dedisse hominibus flatum et spiritum, dicente propheta: Sic dicit Dominus qui fecit coelum, et fundavit terram, et quae sunt in ea, qui dat flatum populo super eam, et spiritum calcantibus eam (Is 42, 5). Hoc testimonium iste in eam sententiam vult accipi, quam defendit, ut quod ait, dat flatum populo, non ex propagine facere animas populo, sed novas insufflare credatur. Audeat ergo dicere non ipsum nobis dedisse carnem, quia de parentibus origo carnis attracta est.
For it is certain that God gave men breath and spirit, as the prophet says: Thus says the Lord, who made heaven and founded the earth and the things that are in it, who gives breath to the people upon it, and spirit to those who tread it (Isa 42:5). This man wants this testimony to be taken in the sense he defends, so that when it says, he gives breath to the people, it should be believed that he makes souls for the people not from propagation but by breathing them in newly. Let him dare, then, to say that he did not give us our flesh, because the origin of the flesh is drawn from the parents.
DAeE.1.14.17Et ubi ait Apostolus de frumenti grano: Deus illi dat corpus quomodo voluerit (1 Cor 15, 38); neget, si audet, de tritico triticum nasci, et herbam eius ex semine secundum genus. Quod si negare non audet; unde igitur scit quomodo dictum sit, dat flatum populo: utrum eum trahens de parentibus, an insufflans novum?
And where the Apostle says of a grain of wheat, God gives it a body as he has willed (1 Cor 15:38), let him deny, if he dares, that wheat is born from wheat, and its blade from the seed according to its kind. But if he does not dare to deny it, how then does he know in what sense it was said, he gives breath to the people: whether drawing it from the parents, or breathing it in new?
DAeE.1.14.1714. 18. Unde etiam scit, utrum repetitio sententiae sit: Qui dat flatum populo super eam, et spiritum calcantibus eam (Is 42, 5): ut de una re utrumque dictum intellegatur, et non animam vel spiritum quo natura vivit humana, sed Spiritum sanctum significare voluerit? Si enim flatu non posset significari Spiritus sanctus, non Dominus post resurrectionem insufflasset discipulis, et dixisset: Accipite Spiritum sanctum (Io 20, 22). Neque scriptum esset in Actibus Apostolorum: Factus est subito de coelo sonus, quasi ferretur flatus vehemens, et visae sunt illis linguae divisae sicut ignis, qui et insedit super unumquemque eorum, et impleti sunt omnes Spiritu sancto (Act 2, 2-4). Quid si hoc Propheta praenuntiavit, dicens: Qui dat flatum populo super eam? et tamquam exponens quid dixerit flatum, repetivit atque ait, et spiritum calcantibus eam?
14. 18. How, too, does he know whether it is a repetition of the statement, who gives breath to the people upon it, and spirit to those who tread it (Isa 42:5)—so that both are understood as said of one thing, and he meant to signify not the soul or the spirit by which human nature lives, but the Holy Spirit? For if the Holy Spirit could not be signified by breath, the Lord would not, after the resurrection, have breathed on the disciples and said, Receive the Holy Spirit (John 20:22). Nor would it be written in the Acts of the Apostles, There came suddenly a sound from heaven, as of a violent breath being borne along, and there appeared to them divided tongues as of fire, which also settled upon each one of them, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:2–4). What if the Prophet foretold this, saying, who gives breath to the people upon it? and, as if explaining what he meant by breath, repeated it and said, and spirit to those who tread it?
DAeE.1.14.18Tunc enim evidentissime factum est, quando impleti sunt omnes Spiritu sancto. Aut si nondum dicendus est populus, centum viginti homines, qui tunc in loco uno aderant, certe quando simul quatuor vel quinque millia crediderunt, et baptizati acceperunt Spiritum sanctum (Cf. Act 4, 31), quis dubitaverit simul populum accepisse Spiritum sanctum, et multitudinem quae ambulabat in terra, id est, homines calcantes terram? Nam ille qui datur ad naturam hominis pertinens, sive ex propagine detur, sive novus insuffletur (quorum nihil affirmandum esse dico, donec alterutrum sine ulla dubitatione clarescat) non datur calcantibus terram, sed adhuc materno utero inclusis.
For then it most evidently came to pass, when they were all filled with the Holy Spirit. Or if the hundred and twenty men who were then present in one place are not yet to be called a people, certainly when at once four or five thousand believed, and being baptized received the Holy Spirit (Cf. Acts 4:31), who would doubt that a people received the Holy Spirit at once, and a multitude that walked on the earth—that is, men treading the earth? For that spirit which is given as belonging to the nature of man, whether it be given from propagation or breathed in new (of which I say neither is to be affirmed, until one or the other becomes clear without any doubt), is not given to those treading the earth, but to those still enclosed in the maternal womb.
DAeE.1.14.18Dedit ergo flatum populo super terram, et spiritum calcantibus eam, quando multi simul credentes repleti sunt Spiritu sancto. Et ipse dat eum populo suo, etsi non simul omnibus, sed suo cuique tempore, donec discedendo de hac vita, et succedendo in hanc vitam, universus eiusdem populi numerus compleatur: ut hoc sanctae Scripturae loco non aliud sit flatus, aliud spiritus: sed eiusdem sententiae repetitio.
He gave breath, then, to the people upon the earth, and spirit to those treading it, when many believing at once were filled with the Holy Spirit. And he himself gives it to his people, though not to all at once, but to each in his own time, until, by departing from this life and succeeding into this life, the whole number of that same people is completed—so that in this passage of holy Scripture breath is not one thing and spirit another, but a repetition of the same statement.
DAeE.1.14.18Sicut non est alius "qui habitat in coelis", et alius "Dominus"; nec aliud est "irridere", et aliud "subsannare": sed eadem sententia repetita est, ubi legitur: Qui habitat in coelis, irridebit eos, et Dominus subsannabit eos (Ps 2, 4). Vel cum dictum est: Dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam, et possessionem tuam fines terrae (Ps 2, 8). Non utique aliud dixit haereditatem, aliud possessionem; nec aliud gentes, aliud fines terrae: sed eiusdem sententiae repetitio est. Et innumerabiles inveniet huiusmodi locutiones divinorum eloquiorum, si advertat quod legit.
Just as he who dwells in the heavens is not one and the Lord another, nor is to deride one thing and to mock another, but the same statement is repeated, where we read: He who dwells in the heavens will deride them, and the Lord will mock them (Ps 2:4). Or when it was said: I will give you the nations for your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for your possession (Ps 2:8). He did not mean one thing by inheritance, another by possession; nor one thing by nations, another by the ends of the earth: but it is a repetition of the same statement. And one will find countless expressions of this kind in the divine eloquence, if one attends to what one reads.
DAeE.1.14.1814. 19. Quod autem graecus dicit %pnohvn%, hoc Latini varie interpretati sunt; aliquando "flatum", aliquando "spiritum", aliquando "inspirationem". Nam hoc verbum habent codices graeci in isto prophetico testimonio, de quo nunc agimus, ubi dictum est: Qui dat flatum populo super eam (Is 42, 5): hoc est, %pnohvn%. Ipsum verbum est et ubi homo animatus est: Et insufflavit Deus in faciem eius flatum vitae (Gen 2, 7). Sed ipsum verbum est et in Psalmo ubi canitur: Omnis spiritus laudet Dominum (Ps 150, 6). Ipsum est et in libro Iob, ubi scriptum est: Aspiratio autem Omnipotentis est quae docet (Iob 32, 8 (sec. LXX)).
14. 19. But what the Greek says, %pnohvn%, the Latins have variously rendered: sometimes "breath," sometimes "spirit," sometimes "inspiration." For the Greek codices have this word in that prophetic testimony with which we are now dealing, where it was said, who gives breath to the people upon it (Isa 42:5)—that is, %pnohvn%. It is the same word too where man was given life: And God breathed into his face the breath of life (Gen 2:7). But it is the same word also in the Psalm where it is sung: Let every spirit praise the Lord (Ps 150:6). It is the same too in the book of Job, where it is written: But it is the inspiration of the Almighty that teaches (Job 32:8 (LXX)).
DAeE.1.14.19Noluit dicere, "Flatus"; sed, aspiratio; cum in graeco sit %pnohv%: quod etiam in illis verbis est Prophetae, de quibus nunc disputamus. Et certe hoc loco, nescio utrum debeat dubitari Spiritum sanctum esse significatum. Agebatur enim de sapientia, unde sit in hominibus: Quia non ex numero annorum, sed Spiritus, inquit, est in hominibus; aspiratio autem Omnipotentis quae docet (Iob 32, 7-8): ut intellegeretur ista repetitione, non se de spiritu hominis dixisse, quod ait: Spiritus est in hominibus. Volebat enim ostendere unde habeant sapientiam, quia non a se ipsis; et repetendo id exposuit dicens: Aspiratio Omnipotentis est quae docet.
He did not wish to say "breath," but inspiration, when in the Greek it is %pnohv%—which is also in those words of the Prophet about which we are now disputing. And certainly in this place I do not know whether it ought to be doubted that the Holy Spirit was signified. For the discussion was about wisdom, from where it is in men: For it is not from the number of years, he says, but the Spirit that is in men; and the inspiration of the Almighty is what teaches (Job 32:7–8)—so that by this repetition it might be understood that he did not say of the spirit of man what he said, the Spirit is in men. For he wished to show from where they have wisdom, namely, not from themselves; and by repeating it he explained this, saying, It is the inspiration of the Almighty that teaches.
DAeE.1.14.19Item alio loco in eodem libro: Intellectus, inquit, labiorum meorum pura intellegit: Spiritus divinus qui fecit me, inspiratio autem Omnipotentis, quae docet me (Iob 33, 3-4). Et hic quod ait, aspiratio, vel inspiratio, in graeco est %pnohvn%, qui in illis prophetae verbis interpretatus est, flatus. Quamobrem cum temere negetur de anima hominis vel de spiritu hominis esse dictum: Qui dat flatum populo super eam, et spiritum calcantibus eam; quamvis ibi et Spiritus sanctus multo credibilius possit intellegi: qua tandem ratione audebit aliquis definire, animam vel spiritum, quo natura nostra vivit, loco illo voluisse significare Prophetam ? Cum profecto si apertissime diceret, Qui dat animam populo super terram, adhuc quaerendum esset, utrum eam Deus ex origine praecedentis generis ipse det, sicut ex origine praecedentis generis, ipse tamen dat corpus, non solum homini aut pecori, sed etiam semini tritici, aut alicuius caeterorum quomodo voluerit (Cf. 1 Cor 15, 38): an vero novam, sicut homo primus accepit, insufflet.
Likewise in another place in the same book: The understanding of my lips, he says, understands pure things: the divine Spirit that made me, and the inspiration of the Almighty that teaches me (Job 33:3–4). And here too what he says, inspiration or breathing-in, is in the Greek %pnohvn%, which in those words of the prophet was rendered "breath." Wherefore, since it is rash to deny that it was said of the soul of man or of the spirit of man, who gives breath to the people upon it, and spirit to those who tread it—although there the Holy Spirit too can far more credibly be understood—by what reasoning, then, will anyone dare to determine that the Prophet meant in that place to signify the soul or the spirit by which our nature lives? Since surely, even if he said most plainly, "who gives the soul to the people upon the earth," it would still have to be asked whether God himself gives it from the origin of a preceding generation—as from the origin of a preceding generation he himself nonetheless gives the body, not only to a man or a beast, but even to a grain of wheat, or of any of the rest, as he has willed (Cf. 1 Cor 15:38)—or whether he breathes in a new one, as the first man received it.
DAeE.1.14.1914. 20. Sunt etiam qui haec verba prophetica sic intellegant, ut quod ait: Dedit flatum populo super eam, id est, super terram, non nisi animam velint accipi flatum: quod vero adiunxit, et spiritum calcantibus eam (Is 42, 5), Spiritum sanctum significatum arbitrantur: illo scilicet ordine, quo et Apostolus dicit: Non primum quod spiritale est, sed quod animale; postea, spiritale (1 Cor 15, 46). Nam ex hac prophetica sententia etiam elegans ille sensus exsculpitur, quod ita dixerit, calcantibus eam, ut vellet intellegi, Contemnentibus eam.
14. 20. There are also those who so understand these prophetic words that, where it says, He gave breath to the people upon it, that is, upon the earth, they want breath to be taken as nothing but the soul; but what he added, and spirit to those who tread it (Isa 42:5), they judge to signify the Holy Spirit—in that order, namely, in which the Apostle too says: Not first that which is spiritual, but that which is animal; afterward, the spiritual (1 Cor 15:46). For from this prophetic statement that elegant sense too is carved out, that he said those who tread it in such a way as to wish it understood, "those who despise it."
DAeE.1.14.20Qui enim accipiunt Spiritum sanctum, amore coelestium terrena contemnunt. Hae omnes sententiae non sunt contra fidem; sive utrumque, id est, et flatum et spiritum qui pertinet ad humanam naturam, quisque intellegat; sive utrumque dictum accipiat de Spiritu sancto; sive flatum ad animam, spiritum vero ad Spiritum sanctum referat. Sed si anima et spiritus hominis et hic intellegendus est, sicut non dubitandum est quod eum Deus det; ita quaerendum est adhuc unde det, utrum ex propagine sicut ipse quidem dat, sed tamen ex propagine dat corporis membra; an vero novum, neque propagatum singulis insufflando distribuat: quod non ambigua, sicut iste facit, sed aliqua certissima volumus divinorum eloquiorum auctoritate defendi.
For those who receive the Holy Spirit, by the love of heavenly things, despise earthly ones. All these opinions are not against the faith—whether one understands both, that is, both the breath and the spirit belonging to human nature; or takes both as said of the Holy Spirit; or refers the breath to the soul and the spirit to the Holy Spirit. But if the soul and the spirit of man are to be understood here too, then, as it is not to be doubted that God gives it, so it must still be asked from where he gives it—whether from propagation, as indeed he himself gives, but nonetheless gives from propagation, the members of the body; or whether he distributes it new, and not propagated, by breathing it into individuals: which we wish to be defended not ambiguously, as this man does, but by some most certain authority of the divine eloquence.
DAeE.1.14.2014. 21. Eadem ratione etiam quod dicit Deus: Spiritus enim a me exiet, et omnem flatum ego feci (Is 57, 16): de Spiritu quidem sancto accipiendum est quod ait: Spiritus a me exiet; de quo et Salvator ait: A Patre procedit (Io 15, 26): sed quod dictum est: Omnem flatum ego feci, de omni anima dictum negari non potest. Sed omne etiam corpus ipse facit: quod autem ex propagine corpus humanum faciat, nullus ambigit. Ac per hoc de anima, cum eam constet ab illo fieri, unde eam faciat, utrum ex propagine sicut corpus, an insufflando sicut primam fecit, adhuc utique requirendum est.
14. 21. By the same reasoning, what God also says—For the Spirit will go forth from me, and I have made every breath (Isa 57:16)—what he says, The Spirit will go forth from me, is indeed to be taken of the Holy Spirit, of whom the Savior too says, He proceeds from the Father (John 15:26); but what was said, I have made every breath, cannot be denied to have been said of every soul. But he also makes every body; and that he makes the human body from propagation no one doubts. And through this, concerning the soul, since it is agreed that it is made by him, it must still surely be inquired from where he makes it—whether from propagation, like the body, or by breathing it in, as he made the first one.
DAeE.1.14.2114. 22. Adiecit etiam tertium testimonium, quia scriptum est: Qui fingit spiritum hominis in ipso (Zach 12, 1). Quasi hoc negetur: sed unde eum fingat, hoc quaeritur. Nam et corporalem hominis oculum quis nisi Deus fingit? Et puto quod non extra, sed in ipso; et tamen, ut certum est, ex propagine. Cum ergo et spiritum hominis in ipso fingat, quaerendum est, utrum nova insufflatione, an tractum ex propagine.
14. 22. He added also a third testimony, that it is written: Who forms the spirit of man within him (Zech 12:1). As if this were denied: but from where he forms it, this is what is asked. For who but God forms even the bodily eye of a man? And, I think, not outside, but within him; and yet, as is certain, from propagation. Since, then, he also forms the spirit of man within him, it must be asked whether by a new breathing-in, or drawn from propagation.
DAeE.1.14.2214. 23. Novimus etiam Machabaeorum iuvenum matrem, fecundiorem virtutibus quando filii passi sunt, quam fetibus quando nati sunt, eos sic fuisse adhortatam, ut diceret: Filii, nescio quomodo paruistis in ventrem meum. Neque enim ego spiritum et animam donavi vobis, nec singulis vobis vultus et membra formavi: sed Deus qui fecit mundum et omnia quae in eo sunt, fecitque hominum genus, et omnium inquirit actum, et ipse vobis spiritum et animam reddet cum magna misericordia (2 Mach 7, 22-23). Novimus haec quidem; sed huic quomodo suffragentur ad id quod asserit, non videmus. Quis enim Christianorum neget Deum donare hominibus animam et spiritum? Sed eodem modo existimo istum negare non posse, Deum donare hominibus linguam, aurem, manum, pedem, omnesque corporis sensus et omnium formam naturamque membrorum. Quomodo enim haec Dei dona esse negaturus est, nisi se obliviscatur esse christianum? Sed sicut constat ex propagine ab illo haec fieri atque donari: ita quaerendum est etiam, spiritus et anima hominis unde ab illo efficiatur, a quo efficiente donatur; utrum ex parentibus, an ex nihilo; an quod iste affirmat, sed omni modo cavendum est, ex aliqua flatus eius existente natura, non de nihilo creata, sed de ipso.
14. 23. We know too that the mother of the young Maccabees, more fruitful in virtues when her sons suffered than in offspring when they were born, exhorted them thus, 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 was it I who formed the features 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 back to you spirit and soul with great mercy (2 Macc 7:22–23). We know these things indeed; but how they support this man in what he asserts, we do not see. For what Christian would deny that God gives men soul and spirit? But in the same way I think this man cannot deny that God gives men tongue, ear, hand, foot, and all the senses of the body, and the form and nature of all the members. For how is he going to deny that these are gifts of God, unless he forgets that he is a Christian? But just as it is agreed that these are made and given by him from propagation, so it must also be asked from where the spirit and soul of man is produced by him, by whom, as their producer, it is given—whether from the parents, or from nothing, or—what this man affirms, but which is in every way to be guarded against—from some existing nature of his breath, not created from nothing, but from himself.
DAeE.1.14.2315. 24. Cum igitur Scripturarum testimonia quae commemorat, nequaquam doceant id quod persuadere conatur (quod enim ad hanc quaestionem attinet, omnino non exprimunt); quid est quod dicit: Animam ex flatu Dei constanter asserimus, non ex traduce, quia ex Deo datur? Quasi corpus ex alio detur, quam ex illo a quo creatur, ex quo omnia, per quem omnia, in quo omnia (Cf. Rom 11, 36): quamvis non ex eius natura, sed ex eius opificio. Neque ex nihilo, inquit, quia ex Deo proficiscitur.
15. 24. Since, then, the testimonies of the Scriptures that he recalls by no means teach what he tries to persuade us of (for, as concerns this question, they do not express it at all), what is it that he says: We steadfastly assert that the soul is from the breath of God, not from transmission, because it is given from God? As though the body were given from anything other than from him by whom it is created, from whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things (Cf. Rom 11:36)—although not from his nature, but from his workmanship. Nor from nothing, he says, because it proceeds from God.
DAeE.1.15.24Hoc plane non adhuc quaerendum monemus, utrum ita sit: sed prorsus verum non esse quod dicit, id est, quod anima nec ex traduce sit, nec ex nihilo; hoc, inquam, verum non esse sine dubitatione firmamus. Unum est enim e duobus, si ex traduce non est, ex nihilo est; ne ita sit ex Deo, ut naturae sit Dei, quod omnino sacrilegum est credere. Sed adhuc utrum non sit ex traduce, certa testimonia flagitamus aut quaerimus: non qualia iste posuit, quibus hoc quod quaerimus non ostenditur.
We advise that it is not this that must still be asked, whether it is so; but rather that what he says is altogether untrue—that is, that the soul is neither from transmission nor from nothing; this, I say, we affirm without doubt to be untrue. For it is one of two things: if it is not from transmission, it is from nothing—lest it be so from God as to be of the nature of God, which it is altogether sacrilegious to believe. But as to whether it is not from transmission, we still demand or seek sure testimonies—not such as this man set down, by which what we are asking is not shown.
DAeE.1.15.2415. 25. Qui utinam in tanta profunditate quaestionis, quamdiu quid dicat ignorat, imitaretur Machabaeorum matrem: quae cum sciret de viro se filios concepisse, et a Creatore omnium, sive secundum corpus, sive secundum animam et spiritum sibi creatos esse, ait tamen: Nescio quomodo paruistis in ventrem meum (2 Mach 7, 22). Vellem iste diceret, quid ista nesciebat. Haec enim quae dixi, utique sciebat, quomodo secundum corpus in eius uterum venerint; quia de viro eos se concepisse dubitare non poterat. Confitebatur etiam, quia et hoc utique sciebat, quod Deus illis animam et spiritum dederit, quod ipse illis vultus et membra formaverit. Quid ergo nesciebat?
15. 25. Would that, in so great a depth of the question, so long as he does not know what he is saying, he imitated the mother of the Maccabees—who, although she knew that she had conceived her sons of a husband, and that they had been created for her by the Creator of all, whether according to the body or according to soul and spirit, nevertheless said: I do not know how you appeared in my womb (2 Macc 7:22). I would have this man say what she did not know. For these things which I have mentioned she surely knew: how, according to the body, they had come into her womb, since she could not doubt that she had conceived them of a husband. She confessed also—for she surely knew this too—that God had given them soul and spirit, that he himself had formed for them their features and limbs. What, then, did she not know?
DAeE.1.15.25An forte quod nescimus et nos, utrum animam et spiritum, quem Deus illis sine dubio dedit, de parentibus traxerit, an novum sicut homini primo insufflaverit? Sed sive hoc sive aliud aliquid de naturae humanae institutione nesciebat, nescire se dicebat; non quod nesciebat, temere defendebat. Nec tamen iste huic diceret, quod nobis dicere non erubuit: Homo in honore positus non intellexit; comparatus est pecoribus insensatis, et similis factus est eis (Ps 48, 13):
Was it, perhaps, what we too do not know—whether God drew from the parents the soul and spirit which he without doubt gave them, or breathed it in new, as for 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 it; she did not rashly defend what she did not know. Nor yet would this man say to her what he was not ashamed to say to us: Man, placed in honor, did not understand; he has been compared to the senseless beasts, and is made like them (Ps 49 (48):13).
DAeE.1.15.25Ecce ista mulier dixit de filiis suis: Nescio quomodo paruistis in ventrem meum: nec tamen comparatur pecoribus insensatis. Nescio, dixit: et quasi quaererent ab ea, cur nesciret, adiunxit: Neque enim ego spiritum et animam donavi vobis. Ille ergo qui donavit, scit unde fecerit quod donavit, utrum ex propagine attraxerit, an novum insufflaverit:
Behold, this woman said of her sons: I do not know how you appeared in my womb; and yet she is not compared to the senseless beasts. I do not know, she said; and, as though they asked her why she did not know, she added: For it was not I who gave you spirit and soul. He, then, who gave it knows from where he made what he gave—whether he drew it from propagation, or breathed it in new;
DAeE.1.15.25quod ego, inquit, nescio. Nec singulis vobis vultus et membra formavi (2 Mach 7, 22): ille scit qui formavit, utrum simul cum anima formaverit, an vero iam formatis animam dederit. Quo ergo modo, utrum illo an isto in eius ventrem venerint filii, nesciebat; et illud tamen sciebat, totum quod dedit redditurum esse qui dedit. Sed eligat iste in naturae humanae tam profundo abditoque secreto, quid mulier ista nescierit: tantum non iudicet mentientem, nec pecoribus insensatis comparet nescientem. Quidquid erat quod illa nesciebat, profecto ad naturam hominis pertinebat: quod tamen sine culpa homo nesciebat. Quapropter dico etiam ego de anima mea, Nescio quomodo venerit in corpus meum; neque enim ego illam mihi donavi: scit ille qui donavit, utrum illam de parte meo traxerit, an sicut primo homini novam creaverit. Sciam etiam ego si ipse docuerit, quandocumque voluerit. Nunc autem nescio; nec me pudet, ut istum, fateri nescire quod nescio.
which I, she says, do not know. Nor was it I who formed the features and limbs of each of you (2 Macc 7:22): he who formed them knows whether he formed them together with the soul, or gave the soul to them already formed. In what way, then—whether this way or that—her sons came into her womb, she did not know; and yet she knew this, that he who gave the whole would give it back. But let this man choose, in so deep and hidden a secret of human nature, what this woman did not know—only let him not judge her a liar, nor compare to the senseless beasts one who does not know. Whatever it was that she did not know, it surely pertained to the nature of man; yet a man could not know it without fault. Wherefore I too say of my own 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 parent, 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; nor am I ashamed, like this man, to confess that I do not know what I do not know.
DAeE.1.15.2516. 26. "Disce, inquit, ecce Apostolus docet". Discam plane, si Apostolus docet: non enim nisi Deus per Apostolum docet. Sed quid est tandem quod docet Apostolus? "Ecce, inquit, cum Atheniensibus loqueretur, hoc constanter exposuit, dicens: Cum ipse det omnibus vitam et spiritum (Act 17, 25)". Quis enim hoc negat? "Sed intellege, inquit, quod ait Apostolus: "det", inquit; non "dedit"; ad infinitum et iuge tempus revocans, non de praeterito et perfecto pronuntians. Et quod sine cessatione dat, semper dat: sicut semper est ipse qui dat". Verba eius posui, sicut in eorum quos misisti, secundo libro eius inveni.
16. 26. Learn, he says, behold, the Apostle teaches. I will plainly learn, if the Apostle teaches: for it is none but God who teaches through the Apostle. But what, after all, is it that the Apostle teaches? Behold, he says, when he was speaking with the Athenians, he steadfastly set this forth, saying: Since he himself gives to all life and spirit (Acts 17:25). For who denies this? But understand, he says, what the Apostle says: "gives," he says, not "gave"; recalling it to an infinite and perpetual time, not pronouncing of the past and completed. And what he gives without ceasing, he always gives—just as he himself who gives always is. I have set down his words as I found them in the second book of those that you sent.
DAeE.1.16.26Ubi primum vide quo progressus fuerit, dum nititur affirmare quod nescit. Ausus est enim dicere, Deum non nunc solum atque in isto tantummodo saeculo, sed per infinitum tempus sine cessatione, atque omnino semper animas nascentibus dare. "Semper, inquit, dat, sicut semper est ipse qui dat". Quid Apostolus dixerit, quia satis apertum est, me intellegere, absit ut negem: quod autem iste dicit, debet etiam ipse intellegere contra fidem esse christianam, atque ulterius cavere ne dicat. Cum enim mortui resurrexerint, iam nemo nascetur: atque ideo tunc non dabit nascentibus animas, sed eas quas dat in isto saeculo cum corporibus iudicabit. Non ergo semper dat, quamvis ipse semper sit qui nunc dat.
First, see here how far he has gone while he strives 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 present age only, but through infinite time without ceasing, and altogether always. He always gives, he says, just as he himself who gives always is. That I understand what the Apostle said, since it is plain enough, God forbid that I should deny; but what this man says he himself ought to understand to be against the Christian faith, and to guard hereafter against saying it. For when the dead have risen, no one will be born any longer; and therefore he will not then give souls to those being born, but will judge those whom he gives in this age together with their bodies. He does not, then, always give, although he himself always is who now gives.
DAeE.1.16.26Nec tamen quoniam beatus Apostolus non dixit: Dedit; sed, det; inde conficitur quod vult iste conficere, non eum ex propagine animas dare. Ipse quippe dat, etiam si de propagine dat. Quia et corporis membra, et corporis sensus, et corporis formam, et corporis omnino substantiam ipse hominibus dat, quamvis ex propagine det. Neque enim quia Dominus ait: Si fenum agri, quod hodie est et cras in clibanum mittitur, Deus sic vestit (Mt 6, 30); nec ait: "Vestivit", sicut primum quando instituit; sed ait, vestit, quod et nunc facit; ideo negabimus lilia de origine sui generis procreari.
Nor yet, because the blessed Apostle did not say "gave" but gives, does there follow from this what this man wants to conclude, that God does not give souls from propagation. For he himself gives, even if he gives from propagation. For the members of the body, and the senses of the body, and the form of the body, and altogether the substance of the body, he himself gives to men, although he gives from propagation. For, because the Lord says, If God so clothes the grass of the field, which is today and tomorrow is cast into the oven (Matt 6:30), and does not say "clothed," as at first when he established it, but says clothes, which he does even now—shall we for that reason deny that lilies are brought forth from the origin of their kind?
DAeE.1.16.26Quid si ergo sic etiam anima et spiritus hominis et a Deo datur, quamdiu datur; et tamen ex propagine sui generis datur? Quod ego nec defendo, nec refello. Sed si defendendum est, vel refellendum, perspicuis, non ambiguis testimoniis id agendum esse commoneo. Nec propterea pecoribus insensatis sum comparandus, quia hoc me nondum scire pronuntio; sed potius cautis hominibus, quia non audeo docere quod nescio. Istum autem non ego vicissim, quasi rependens maledictum pro maledicto, pecoribus comparo; sed tamquam filium moneo, ut quod nescit, se nescire fateatur, neque id quod nondum didicit, docere moliatur: ne comparetur, non pecoribus, sed illis hominibus quos dicit Apostolus, volentes esse legis doctores, non intellegentes neque quae loquuntur, neque de quibus affirmant (1 Tim 1, 7).
What, then, if the soul and spirit of man is so given by God too, so long as it is given, and yet is given from the propagation of its kind? This I neither defend nor refute. But if it is to be defended or refuted, I advise that it must be done by clear, not ambiguous, testimonies. Nor am I on that account to be compared to the senseless beasts, because I declare that I do not yet know this; but rather to cautious men, because I do not dare to teach what I do not know. This man, however, I do not in turn, as if repaying a curse for a curse, compare to the beasts; but I admonish him as a son, that he should confess that he does not know what he does not know, and not undertake to teach what he has not yet learned—lest he be compared, not to the beasts, but to those men of whom the Apostle says, wishing to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertions (1 Tim 1:7).
DAeE.1.16.2617. 27. Nam unde est, quod ita Scripturas, de quibus loquitur, non curat advertere, ut cum legerit homines esse ex Deo, non eos etiam secundum corpus, sed tantum secundum animam et spiritum ex Deo esse contendat? Quod enim ait Apostolus: Ex ipso sumus (Act 17, 28); non vult iste ad corpus, sed tantum ad animam et spiritum esse referendum. Si ergo ex Deo non sunt corpora, falsum est quod scriptum est: Ex quo omnia, per quem omnia, in quo omnia (Rom 11 36).
17. 27. For how is it that he so fails to attend to the Scriptures of which he speaks that, when he reads that men are from God, he contends that they are from God not according to the body too, but only according to soul and spirit? For what the Apostle says, We are from him (Acts 17:28), this man wants referred not to the body, but only to 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 (Rom 11:36).
DAeE.1.17.27Deinde ubi dicit idem apostolus: Sicut enim mulier ex viro, ita et vir per mulierem (1 Cor 11, 12); exponat nobis iste quam propaginem significare voluerit, animae, an corporis, an utriusque. Sed non vult esse animas ex propagine. Restat ergo, ut secundum ipsum atque omnes qui animarum propaginem destruunt, corpus tantum masculinum et femininum significaverit Apostolus, dicens: Sicut enim mulier ex viro, ita et vir per mulierem: quia mulier ex viro facta est, ut etiam vir per mulierem postea nasceretur. Si ergo haec Apostolus dicens, non etiam animas et spiritus, sed tantum corpora utriusque sexus volebat intellegi, cur continuo subiunxit: Omnia autem ex Deo; nisi quia et corpora ex Deo? Ita quippe ait: Sicut enim mulier ex viro, ita et vir per mulierem; omnia autem ex Deo.
Next, where the same Apostle says, For as woman is from man, so also man is through woman (1 Cor 11:12), let this man explain to us what propagation he meant to signify—of the soul, or of the body, or of both. But he does not want souls to be from propagation. It remains, then, that, according to him and all who do away with the propagation of souls, the Apostle signified only the male and female body, saying, For as woman is from man, so also man is through woman: because the woman was made from the man, so that the man too might afterward be born through woman. If, then, the Apostle in saying these things 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 so he says: For as woman is from man, so also man is through woman; but all things are from God.
DAeE.1.17.27Eligat ergo iste unde sit dictum. Si de corporibus, profecto et corpora ex Deo sunt. Quid est ergo, quod ubicumque iste in Scripturis legit, ex Deo, quando de hominibus agitur, non et corpora, sed tantum animas et spiritus vult intellegi?
Let this man, then, choose of what it was said. If of bodies, then surely bodies too are from God. What is it, then, that wherever this man reads in the Scriptures from God, when it is a matter of men, he wants understood not bodies too, but only souls and spirits?
DAeE.1.17.27Si vero quod dictum est: Omnia autem ex Deo; et de corpore utriusque sexus, et de anima ac spiritu dictum est: ergo secundum omnia est mulier ex viro. Mulier enim ex viro, vir per mulierem; omnia ex Deo. Quae omnia, nisi de quibus loquebatur, id est, et ille vir ex quo mulier, et illa mulier quae ex viro, et ille vir qui per mulierem?
But if what was said, but all things are from God, was said both of the body of either sex and of soul and spirit, then woman is from man according to all things. For woman is from man, man is through woman; all things are from God. What all things, except those of which he was speaking—that is, both that man from whom the woman is, and that woman who is from man, and that man who is through woman?
DAeE.1.17.27Neque enim ille vir per mulierem, ex quo viro mulier: sed vir qui natus est postea ex viro per mulierem, quemadmodum hodieque nascuntur. Ac per hoc si cum ista diceret Apostolus, de corporibus loquebatur, procul dubio corpora utriusque sexus ex Deo. Porro si non vult esse ex Deo hominum nisi animas et spiritus; profecto etiam secundum animam et spiritum mulier ex viro, et nihil iam relinquetur eis qui contra animarum propaginem disputant. Si autem ita dividit, ut dicat mulierem ex viro esse secundum corpus, ex Deo autem secundum animam et spiritum; quomodo erit verum quod ait Apostolus: Omnia autem ex Deo, si mulieris corpus ita est ex viro, ut non sit ex Deo?
For it is not that man who is through woman, from which man the woman is; but the man who was afterward born from man through woman, just as men are born today too. And through this, if the Apostle in saying these things was speaking of bodies, then without doubt the bodies of either sex are from God. Moreover, if he wants only the souls and spirits of men to be from God, then surely woman is from man according to soul and spirit too, and nothing will any longer be left to those who dispute against the propagation of souls. But if he so divides as to say that the woman is from the man according to the body, but from God according to soul and spirit, how will what the Apostle says be true—but all things are from God—if the woman's body is so from the man that it is not from God?
DAeE.1.17.27Quapropter ut Apostolus potius verum loquatur, quam iste Apostolo praeferatur, mulier ex viro est, sive secundum solum corpus, sive secundum totum, quo constat humana natura (nihil enim horum tamquam certum affirmamus, sed quid horum verum sit adhuc quaerimus): et vir per mulierem, sive ex patre tota hominis natura ducatur, quae per mulierem nascitur, sive sola caro, unde adhuc quaestio est: omnia tamen ex Deo, unde nulla quaestio est, id est, et corpus et anima et spiritus, et viri et mulieris. Et si enim non ex Deo nata vel tracta sunt, vel manarunt, ita ut eius naturae sint; tamen ex Deo sunt. A quo enim creata, condita, facta sunt, ab illo habent ut sint.
Wherefore, that the Apostle may rather speak the truth than this man be preferred to the Apostle, woman is from man, whether according to the body alone or according to the whole of which human nature consists (for we affirm none of these as certain, but are still asking which of them is true); and man is through woman, whether the whole nature of man, which is born through woman, is drawn from the father, or only the flesh—on which there is still a question; yet all things are from God, on which there is no question—that is, both body and soul and spirit, both of man and of woman. For even if they were not born or drawn from God, or did not flow from him, so as to be of his nature, nevertheless they are from God. For from him by whom they were created, founded, and made, they have it that they exist.
DAeE.1.17.2717. 28. "Sed dicendo, inquit, Apostolus: Et ipse det omnibus vitam et spiritum; deinde addendo: Fecitque ex uno sanguine omne genus hominum (Act 17, 25-26): animam et spiritum originaliter retulit ad auctorem, corpus ad traducem". Imo vero qui non vult temere animarum negare propaginem, antequam liquido clareat utrum ita, an non ita sit, habet quod in istis verbis Apostoli intellegat, ex uno cum sanguine dixisse, ex uno homine, a parte totum significante locutionis modo.
17. 28. But, 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 (Acts 17:25–26), the Apostle referred the soul and spirit originally to their author, the body to transmission. On the contrary, one who does not wish rashly to deny the propagation of souls, before it becomes clearly evident whether it is so or not so, has something in these words of the Apostle that he may understand: that by from one with blood he meant "from one man," signifying the whole by a part in the manner of speech.
DAeE.1.17.28Si enim ipsi licet intellegere a parte totum quod scriptum est: Et factus est homo in animam vivam (Gen 2, 7); ut illic intellegatur et spiritus, de quo Scriptura ibi tacuit: cur aliis non liceat sic accipere quod dictum est, ex uno sanguine; ut illic et anima et spiritus possit intellegi, quoniam homo significatus nomine sanguinis, non solo constat ex corpore, verum etiam ex anima et spiritu?
For if it is permitted to him to understand the whole by a part in what is written, And man became a living soul (Gen 2:7)—so that there the spirit too is understood, of which the Scripture there was silent—why is it not permitted to others so to take what was said, from one blood, so that there too both soul and spirit can be understood, since the man signified by the name of blood consists not of body alone, but also of soul and spirit?
DAeE.1.17.28Sicut enim qui propaginem defendit animarum, non hinc istum debet opprimere, quia de primo homine scriptum est: In quo omnes peccaverunt (Rom 5, 12): non enim dictum est, In quo omnium caro peccavit; sed, omnes dictum est, id est, omnes homines; cum homo non sola sit caro: sicut ergo hinc iste non debet opprimi, quia forte ita dictum est, Omnes homines, ut secundum solam carnem intellegerentur; sic iste non hinc debet premere defensores propaginis animarum, quia dictum est: Omne genus hominum ex uno sanguine (Act 17, 26), tamquam propterea sola caro pertineat ad propaginem. Si enim hoc est verum, quod isti asserunt, ut non sit anima ex anima, sed caro ex carne sit tantum; ita dictum est, ex uno sanguine, ut non totus homo significaretur a parte, sed tantum unius hominis caro: illud vero quod dictum est: In quo omnes peccaverunt, sola omnium hominum caro intellegenda est, quae inde transfusa est, a toto partem significante Scriptura. Si autem illud est verum, quod totus homo ex toto homine propagatur, id est, corpus, anima et spiritus: ibi proprie dictum est, In quo omnes homines peccaverunt; hic autem tropice, ex uno sanguine, totum significatur a parte, id est, totus homo, qui ex anima constat et carne, vel potius, ut iste amat loqui, ex anima et spiritu et carne.
For just as one who defends the propagation of souls ought not to overwhelm this man on the ground that it was written of the first man, In whom all sinned (Rom 5:12)—for it was not said, "in whom the flesh of all sinned," but all was said, that is, all men, though man is not flesh alone—just, then, as this man ought not to be overwhelmed on this ground, because perhaps it was said "all men" in such a way that they were understood according to the flesh alone, so this man ought not on this ground to press the defenders of the propagation of souls, because it was said, every race of men from one blood (Acts 17:26), as though for that reason only the flesh belonged to propagation. For if this is true which they assert, that the soul is not from the soul, but only the flesh from the flesh, then it was said from one blood in such a way that not the whole man was signified by a part, but only the flesh of one man; and that which was said, In whom all sinned, the flesh alone of all men is to be understood, which was transfused from there, the Scripture signifying the part by the whole. But if that is true, that the whole man is propagated from the whole man—that is, body, soul, and spirit—there it was said properly, "in whom all men sinned"; but here, figuratively, from one blood, the whole is signified by a part—that is, the whole man, who consists of soul and flesh, or rather, as this man likes to speak, of soul and spirit and flesh.
DAeE.1.17.28Nam et ex parte totum, et ex toto partem divina eloquia significare consuerunt. Ex parte enim totum significatum est, ubi legitur: Ad te omnis caro veniet (Ps 64, 3): quia ex carne intellegitur totus homo. Ex toto autem pars, cum dicitur Christus sepultus, cum sola eius caro sepulta sit. Iam illud quod in hoc Apostoli testimonio positum est, quia ipse dat omnibus vitam et spiritum (Cf. Act 17, 25), secundum superiorem disputationem puto quod neminem moveat. Ipse enim dat: sed adhuc quaerimus unde det, utrum ex nova insufflatione, an ex propagine. Ipse quippe dare etiam carnis substantiam rectissime dicitur, quam tamen dare ex propagine non negatur.
For the divine eloquence is accustomed to signify both the whole by a part and the part by the whole. For the whole is signified by a part where we read: To you all flesh will come (Ps 65 (64):3), since by flesh the whole man is understood. But the part by the whole, when Christ is said to be buried, though his flesh alone was buried. As for that which is set down in this testimony of the Apostle, that he himself gives to all life and spirit (Cf. Acts 17:25), I think that, according to the earlier discussion, it moves no one. For he himself gives; but we are still asking from where he gives—whether from a new breathing-in, or from propagation. For he is most rightly said to give even the substance of the flesh, which nevertheless it is not denied that he gives from propagation.
DAeE.1.17.2818. 29. Nunc videamus illud de Genesi testimonium, ubi facta mulier de latere viri, adducta est ad eum, et dixit: Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, et caro de carne mea (Gen 2, 23). Hoc quippe putat iste, quod dicere debuerit Adam, Anima ex anima mea, vel, Spiritus de spiritu meo, si etiam hoc de illo tractum esset. Sed illi qui propaginem asserunt animarum, hinc se putant invictius suam munire sententiam, quia cum scriptum sit, detraxisse Deum costam de latere viri, eamque aedificasse in mulierem, non est additum quod in eius faciem sufflaverit flatum vitae (Cf. Gen 2, 7): ideo, inquiunt, quia iam de viro fuerat animata. Nam si non fuisset, nequaquam nos, inquiunt, sancta Scriptura huius rei cognitione fraudasset (Cf. TERTULLIANO, De anima 36, 4). Ad illud vero quod ait Adam: Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, et caro de carne mea; nec ait: Spiritus vel anima, de spiritu meo vel de anima mea: sic ab eis responderi potest, quemadmodum superius demonstratum est, ut a parte totum intellegatur hoc dictum, os et caro mea; sed quae animata fuerint detracta, non mortua. Neque enim, hoc Omnipotentem facere potuisse, ideo negandum est, quia nullus hominum potest aliquid cum anima de humana carne praecidere.
18. 29. Now let us look at that testimony from Genesis, where the woman, made from the side of the man, was brought to him, and he said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh (Gen 2:23). For this man thinks that Adam ought to have said, "soul of my soul," or, "spirit of my spirit," if this too had been drawn from him. But those who assert the propagation of souls think they thereby fortify their opinion more invincibly, 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 (Cf. Gen 2:7): therefore, they say, because she had already been given a soul from the man. For if she had not, they say, holy Scripture would by no means have defrauded us of the knowledge of this matter (Cf. Tertullian, De anima 36, 4). But as to what Adam said, This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh, and did not say, "spirit or soul, of my spirit or of my soul," it can be answered by them, just as was shown above, that this, bone and my flesh, was said with the whole understood by a part; but that what was drawn out had been given a soul, not dead. For it is not to be denied that the Almighty could do this, merely because no man can cut off anything with a soul from human flesh.
DAeE.1.18.29Nam quod Adam secutus adiunxit: Haec vocabitur mulier, quia de viro suo sumpta est (Gen 2, 23); cur non ait potius, unde opinio confirmaretur istorum: quoniam de viro suo caro eius sumpta est? Hic itaque illi qui contra sentiunt, possunt dicere, quia non scriptum est carnem mulieris, sed mulierem de viro suo sumptam, totam debere accipi cum anima et spiritu. Nam etsi anima sexu caret, non tamen quando appellantur mulieres, excepta anima eas necesse est intellegi. Alioquin non ita se admonerentur ornare: Non in tortis crinibus, aut auro, vel margaritis, aut veste pretiosa, sed quod decet, inquit, mulieres, promittentes pietatem per bonam conversationem (1 Tim 2, 9-10). Utique pietas intus est in anima vel in spiritu, et tamen mulieres appellatae sunt, etiam ut se intus ornarent, ubi nullus est sexus.
For as to what Adam went on to add, She shall be called woman, because she was taken from her man (Gen 2:23), why did he not rather say, in a way that would confirm the opinion of these men, "because her flesh was taken from her man"? And so here those who think otherwise can say that, because it was not written that the flesh of the woman, but the woman, was taken from her man, she must be taken as the whole, with soul and spirit. For although the soul lacks sex, nevertheless, when women are spoken of, it is not necessary to understand them apart from the soul. Otherwise they would not be admonished to adorn themselves thus: Not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly attire, but, he says, as becomes women, professing piety through good conduct (1 Tim 2:9–10). Surely piety is within, in the soul or in the spirit, and yet they were called women, even to adorn themselves within, where there is no sex.
DAeE.1.18.2918. 30. Cum itaque isti sic inter se alternante sermone certaverint; ego inter eos sic iudico, ut ne incognitis fidant, et temere audeant affirmare quod nesciunt, utrosque commoneam. Si enim scriptum esset, Insufflavit flatum vitae in faciem mulieris, et facta est in animam vivam; nec sic esset iam consequens, ut non propagaretur ex parentibus anima, nisi etiam de filio eorum hoc scriptum similiter legeretur. Fieri enim potuit ut membrum non animatum de corpore extractum indigeret animari, filii vero anima ex patre per matrem propaginis transfusione traheretur. Cum vero tacitum est, occultatum est, non negatum; sed neque affirmatum.
18. 30. Since, then, these men have so contended among themselves in alternating discourse, I judge between them in such a way as to admonish both sides not to trust in things unknown, and not rashly to dare to affirm what they do not know. For if it were written, "He breathed the breath of life into the face of the woman, and she became a living soul," not even so would it yet follow that the soul is not propagated from the parents, unless this too were likewise read written of their son. For it could be that a member not given a soul, drawn out from the body, needed to be given a soul, while the soul of the son was drawn from the father through the mother by the transfusion of propagation. But where it is passed over in silence, it is concealed, not denied; yet neither is it affirmed.
DAeE.1.18.30Ac per hoc sicubi forte non tacitum est, clarioribus documentis est astruendum. Unde nec illi qui defendunt animarum propaginem, ex eo quod non sufflavit Deus in faciem mulieris, aliquid adiuvantur; nec illi qui eam negant, ideo quia non dixit Adam, Anima de anima mea, debent sibi persuadere quod nesciunt.
And through this, if anywhere perhaps it is not passed over in silence, it must be established by clearer documents. Hence neither are those who defend the propagation of souls helped at all by the fact that God did not breathe into the face of the woman; nor ought those who deny it to persuade themselves of what they do not know, because Adam did not say, "soul of my soul."
DAeE.1.18.30Sicut enim eadem non soluta, sed manente quaestione, potuit tacere Scriptura, quod mulier Deo sufflante sicut vir eius acceperit animam: sic eadem non soluta, sed manente quaestione, potuit tacere Scriptura, ut Adam non diceret, Anima de anima mea. Ac per hoc si primae mulieris anima ex viro est, a parte totum significatum est, ubi legitur: Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, et caro de carne mea (Gen 2, 23); cum tota ex viro, non caro sola sit sumpta. Si autem non est ex viro, sed eam Deus insufflavit sicut viro; a toto pars significata est, ubi legitur: De viro suo sumpta es (Gen 2, 23): cum caro eius non tota sit sumpta.
For just as, the question being not resolved but remaining, the Scripture could be silent that the woman, God breathing, received a soul as her man did, so, the question being not resolved but remaining, the Scripture could be silent so that Adam did not say, "soul of my soul." And through this, if the soul of the first woman is from the man, the whole was signified by a part where we read, This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh (Gen 2:23), since the whole was taken from the man, not the flesh alone. But if it is not from the man, but God breathed it into her as into the man, the part was signified by the whole where we read, You were taken from your man (Gen 2:23), since not her whole flesh was taken.
DAeE.1.18.3018. 31. Quapropter, cum his testimoniis, quod ad hanc rem pertinet, utique ambiguis, non solvatur haec quaestio; illud tamen scio, sic argumentari homines, qui ex hoc putant animam mulieris non esse de anima viri, quia non est dictum, Anima de anima mea; sed, caro de carne mea (Cf. AUG, De haeres. 55): quemadmodum argumentantur Apollinaristae, vel quicumque sunt alii, adversus animam Domini; quam propterea negant, quia scriptum legunt: Verbum caro factum est (Io 1, 14).
18. 31. Wherefore, since by these testimonies—which, as far as concerns this matter, are surely ambiguous—this question is not resolved, this nonetheless I know: that men argue in this way, who from this think that the soul of the woman is not from the soul of the man, because it was not said, "soul of my soul," but flesh of my flesh (Cf. Aug., De haeres. 55), just as the Apollinarists argue, or whoever else there are, against the soul of the Lord, which they deny on the ground that they read it written, The Word was made flesh (John 1:14).
DAeE.1.18.31Si enim et anima, inquiunt, ibi esset, debuit dici, Verbum homo factum est. Sed istis propterea dicitur, carnis nomine solere Scripturam totum hominem nuncupare, sicut est: Et videbit omnis caro salutare Dei (Is 40, 5; Lc 3, 6); non enim caro sine anima aliquid videre potest: quia plurimis aliis sanctarum Scripturarum locis, non solam carnem, verum etiam animam humanam, id est, rationalem inesse homini Christo, sine ulla ambiguitate monstratur. Unde et isti, a quibus animarum propago defenditur, possent accipere a parte totum esse dictum: Os de ossibus meis, et caro de carne mea (Gen 2, 23); ut illic intellegeretur et anima, quemadmodum Verbum carnem factum non sine anima accipimus:
For if a soul too were there, they say, it ought to have been said, "the Word was made man." But to these it is said that the Scripture is accustomed to name the whole man by the word "flesh," as it is: And all flesh will see the salvation of God (Isa 40:5; Luke 3:6)—for flesh without a soul can see nothing—since in very many other places of the holy Scriptures it is shown, without any ambiguity, that not flesh alone, but also a human, that is, rational, soul is in the man Christ. Hence these men too, by whom the propagation of souls is defended, could take it that bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh (Gen 2:23) was said with the whole understood by a part, so that there the soul too was understood, just as we take the Word made flesh to be not without a soul:
DAeE.1.18.31si quemadmodum alia testimonia docent habere humanam animam Christum, ita et isti aliquibus non ambiguis testimoniis propaginem astruerent animarum. Pari vice igitur admonemus etiam hos, qui animarum propaginem destruunt, ut novas a Deo sufflari animas certis documentis asserant; et tunc illud quod dictum est: Os ex ossibus meis, et caro de carne mea, non tropice a parte totum, ut simul intellegatur et anima, sed proprie de sola carne dictum esse defendant.
if only, as other testimonies teach that Christ has a human soul, so these men too would establish the propagation of souls by some testimonies that are not ambiguous. By like turn, therefore, we admonish also those who do away with the propagation of souls, to assert by sure documents that new souls are breathed in by God; and then to defend that what was said, bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh, was said not figuratively, the whole by a part, so that the soul too is understood along with it, but properly, of the flesh alone.
DAeE.1.18.3119. 32. Quae cum ita sint, video librum istum iam esse claudendum. Omnia quippe, quae mihi maxime necessaria videbantur, continet; quibus hi qui legerint, sciant se cavere debere, ne huic homini, cuius duos libros mihi misisti, in hoc consentiant, ut credant animas sic ex flatu Dei esse, ut non sint ex nihilo. Hoc enim qui credit, etsi verbis neget, re ipsa clamat animas Dei habere substantiam (Cf. Act 17, 28), et ipsius genus esse, non munere, sed natura. Nam de quo quisque naturae suae originem ducit, de illo naturae suae genus ducere negari sobrie nullo pacto potest. Iste autem ita sibi est ipse contrarius, ut "genus Dei esse animas dicat, non natura, sed munere; et tamen non factas ex nihilo, sed ex illo dicat originem ducere": ac sic eas, quod prius negaverat, ad Dei naturam revocare non dubitat.
19. 32. Since these things are so, I see that this book must now be closed. For it contains all that seemed to me most necessary, by which those who read it may know that they ought to beware lest they agree with this man, whose two books you sent me, on this point: namely, lest they believe that souls are so from the breath of God that they are not from nothing. For whoever believes this, even if he denies it in words, by the thing itself cries out that souls have the substance of God (Cf. Acts 17:28), and are of his kind, not by gift but by nature. For from whom anyone draws the origin of his nature, that from him he draws the kind of his nature can in no way be soberly denied. But this man is so contrary to himself that he says souls are of the kind of God, not by nature but by gift, and yet not made from nothing, but draw their origin from him; and so he does not hesitate to recall them—what he had first denied—to the nature of God.
DAeE.1.19.3219. 33. Animarum autem novarum sine propagine insufflationem, defendi quidem minime prohibemus, sed ab eis qui potuerint aliquid invenire, vel in canonicis Libris, quod non sit ambiguum dissolvendae huic obligatissimae quaestioni; vel in ratiocinationibus suis, quod non sit contrarium catholicae veritati: non a talibus qualis iste apparuit, qui non inveniendo quid diceret, et deliberationem suam nolendo suspendere, vires suas omnino non metiens, ne taceret, ausus est dicere, "inquinari animam meruisse per carnem, et esse meruisse animam peccatricem"; cuius nullum meritum, seu bonum seu malum, ante carnem potuit invenire. Et "parvulis sine baptismo de corpore exeuntibus solvi posse originale peccatum, et offerendum pro eis sacrificium corporis Christi", qui Christo non sunt incorporati per eius Sacramenta in eius Ecclesia: "eosque sine lavacro regenerationis de hac vita emigrantes, non ad requiem tantum ire, sed ad regnum coelorum posse etiam pervenire". Et alia multa absurda, quae omnia colligere, atque in isto libro digerere longum visum est. Absit ergo ut animarum propago, si falsa est, a talibus refellatur; et animarum novarum insufflatio, si vera est, a talibus defendatur.
19. 33. But the breathing-in of new souls without propagation we by no means forbid to be defended—but by those who can find something, whether in the canonical Books that is not ambiguous, for resolving this most knotty question, or in their own reasonings that is not contrary to Catholic truth; not by such men as this one has shown himself, who, finding nothing to say, and unwilling to suspend his deliberation, not measuring his powers at all, lest he keep silent, dared to say that the soul deserved to be defiled through the flesh, and the soul deserved to be a sinner—of which he could find no desert, whether good or evil, before the flesh. And that original sin can be loosed in little ones departing from the body without Baptism, and that the sacrifice of the body of Christ is to be offered for them, who are not incorporated into Christ through his sacraments in his Church; and that they, departing from this life without the bath of regeneration, do not go only to rest, but can even reach the kingdom of heaven. And many other absurdities, all of which it seemed too long to gather and arrange in this book. Far be it, then, that the propagation of souls, if it is false, should be refuted by such men; and that the breathing-in of new souls, if it is true, should be defended by such men.
DAeE.1.19.3319. 34. Quamobrem, quicumque volunt defendere quod dicuntur animae novae nascentibus insufflari, non de parentibus trahi, aliquid illorum quatuor quae supra commemoravi, caveant omni modo: hoc est, ne dicant, a Deo fieri animas peccatrices per alienum originale peccatum: ne dicant, parvulos qui sine Baptismo exierint, pervenire posse ad vitam aeternam regnumque coelorum, originali peccato per quodlibet aliud resoluto: ne dicant, animas peccasse alicubi ante carnem, et hoc merito in carnem peccatricem fuisse detrusas: ne dicant, peccata, quae in eis inventa non sunt, quia praescita sunt, merito fuisse punita, cum ad eam vitam, ubi ea committerent, permissae non fuerint pervenire. Nihil ergo istorum quatuor dicentes, quoniam quodlibet eorum falsum atque impium est; inveniant etiam Scripturarum de hac re certissima testimonia, et hanc sententiam suam, non solum me non vetante, verum etiam favente et gratias agente, defendant.
19. 34. Wherefore, whoever wishes to defend that, as is said, new souls are breathed into those being born, and are not drawn from the parents, let them guard in every way against any of those four things which I mentioned above: that is, let them not say that sinful souls are made by God through another's original sin; let them not say that little ones who depart without Baptism can reach eternal life and the kingdom of heaven, original sin being loosed by any other means whatever; let them not say that souls sinned somewhere before the flesh, and on that desert were thrust down into sinful flesh; let them not say that sins which were not found in them, because they were foreknown, were deservedly punished, when they were not permitted to reach that life in which they would commit them. Saying, then, none of these four things, since any of them is false and impious, let them also find most certain testimonies of the Scriptures on this matter, and let them defend this opinion of theirs—not only with no forbidding on my part, but even with my favor and thanks.
DAeE.1.19.34Si autem non inveniunt certissimam de hac re auctoritatem divinorum eloquiorum, et aliquid illorum quatuor per inopiam dicere compelluntur; cohibeant se, ne per ipsam inopiam etiam parvulorum animas non habere originale peccatum, secundum Pelagianam haeresim olim damnabilem, nuperrimeque damnatam, dicere compellantur. Melius est enim homini fateri se nescire quod nescit, quam in haeresim vel damnatam incurrere, vel novam condere, dum temere audet defensare quod nescit. Alia huius hominis falsa et absurda, in quibus non tam periculose, verumtamen a tramite veritatis exorbitat, quoniam multa sunt, et ad ipsum etiam, si Dominus voluerit, aliquid de libris eius volo scribere, ibi forsitan omnia, vel si omnia non potuero, plurima ostendam.
But if they do not find a most certain authority of the divine eloquence on this matter, and are compelled by their poverty to say any of those four things, let them restrain themselves, lest through that very poverty they be compelled to say also that the souls of little ones do not have original sin, according to the Pelagian heresy, long ago damnable and most recently damned. For it is better for a man to confess that he does not know what he does not know, than to fall into a heresy either already damned or to found a new one, while he rashly dares to defend what he does not know. The other false and absurd things of this man, in which he strays from the path of truth not so dangerously, but nonetheless does stray, since they are many, and since, if the Lord wills, I want to write something to him too about his books—there perhaps I will show all of them, or, if I cannot all, very many.
DAeE.1.19.3420. 35. Istum autem librum, quem ad te potius, qui curam et fidei nostrae et existimationis meae, ut verus catholicus et bonus amicus, fideliter benigneque gessisti, quam ad alium quemquam scribendum putavi, tu legendum dabis vel describendum quibus potueris, vel quibus dandum esse iudicaveris. In quo istius iuvenis praesumptionem ita reprimendam et redarguendam putavi, ut tamen eum diligam; nec damnari, sed emendari velim: atque ita proficere in domo magna, quae est Ecclesia catholica, quo eum misericordia divina perduxit, ut sit in illa vas in honore sanctificatum, utile Domino, ad omne opus bonum semper paratum (Cf. 2 Tim 2, 20-21), et bene vivendo, et sana dicendo. Porro autem si ipsum oportet ut diligam sicut, facio; quanto magis te, frater, cuius erga me benevolentiam, et cuius catholicam fidem cautam et sobriam optime novi. Unde factum est ut eos libros qui tibi displicuerunt, et in quibus nomen meum aliter quam velles positum comperisti, describendos mihique mittendos vere fraterna planeque sincera dilectione curares. Tantum ergo abest ut hinc tuae caritati succenseam, quia fecisti; ut potius nisi fecisses, integro iure amicitiae succensere deberem. Ago itaque uberes gratias. Quemadmodum autem acceperim factum tuum, hinc manifestius indicavi, quod hunc ad te librum, mox ut illos legi, sine aliqua dilatione conscripsi.
20. 35. But this book, which I thought should be written to you rather than to anyone else—you who, as a true Catholic and a good friend, have faithfully and kindly taken care both of our faith and of my reputation—you will give to be read, or to be copied, to whomever you can, or to whomever you judge it should be given. In it I thought the presumption of this young man should be so restrained and refuted that nonetheless I love him, and would have him not condemned but corrected, and so advance in the great house, which is the Catholic Church, to which divine mercy has brought him, that he may be in it a vessel sanctified unto honor, useful to the Lord, prepared always for every good work (Cf. 2 Tim 2:20–21), both by living well and by speaking soundly. Moreover, if I ought to love him, as I do, how much more you, brother, whose goodwill toward me, and whose Catholic faith, cautious and sober, I know most well. Hence it came about that you took care to have those books copied and sent to me, which displeased you, and in which you found my name set down otherwise than you would wish, with a truly brotherly and plainly sincere love. So far, then, am I from being angry at your love because you did it, that rather, had you not done it, I ought by the full right of friendship to be angry. I give, therefore, abundant thanks. But how I have received your deed, I have indicated more plainly by this, that I composed this book to you, as soon as I read those, without any delay.
DAeE.1.20.35Bk. 2To the priest PeterAd Petrum presbyterum
DOMINO DILECTISSIMO FRATRI ET COMPRESBYTERO PETRO, AUGUSTINUS EPISCOPUS, IN DOMINO SALUTEM.
To the most beloved lord and brother and fellow priest Peter, Augustine the bishop sends greeting in the Lord.
DAeE.1.20.351. 1. Pervenerunt ad me duo libri Vincentii Victoris, quos ad Sanctitatem tuam scripsit, mittente mihi eos fratre nostro Renato, homine quidem laico, sed pro sua fide et eorum quos diligit, prudenter religioseque sollicito. Quibus lectis vidi hominem in sermone quidem, non solum usque ad sufficientiam, verum etiam usque ad redundantiam profluentem; sed in rebus de quibus loqui voluit, nondum sicut oportet instructum: quod si ei fuerit Domino donante collatum, poterit esse utilis pluribus. Habet enim non minimum facultatis, qua possit explicare atque ornare quae sentit, si prius det operam recta sentire. Valde quippe sunt noxia prava diserta; quia hominibus minus eruditis, eo quod diserta sunt, videntur et vera.
1. 1. There have come to me two books of Vincent Victor, which he wrote to your Holiness, our brother Renatus having sent them to me—a man indeed a layman, but, for his faith and that of those he loves, prudently and religiously solicitous. When I had read them, I saw a man who flows in speech not only to sufficiency but even to overflowing, but in the matters of which he wished to speak, not yet instructed as he ought to be: which, if it be granted him by the Lord's gift, he will be able to be useful to many. For he has no small faculty by which he can unfold and adorn what he thinks, if he first takes care to think rightly. For things eloquently said yet wrong are very harmful, because to less learned men, in that they are eloquently said, they seem also true.
DAeE.2.1.1Quomodo autem eosdem libros ipse acceperis, nescio: verumtamen si verum est quod audivi, diceris eis recitatis ita exsiluisse laetitia, ut caput iuvenis illius senex, et laici presbyter osculatus, didicisse te quod ignorabas, gratias egeris. Ubi quidem non improbo humilitatem tuam, imo vero etiam laudo quod honorasti doctorem tuum: nec hominem, sed ipsam quae tibi per illum loqui dignata est veritatem; si tamen potueris demonstrare, quid per illum veritatis acceperis. Vellem itaque rescriptis tuis, quid te docuerit, me doceres. Absit enim ut erubescam a presbytero discere, si a laico tu non erubuisti, praedicanda et imitanda humilitate, si vera didicisti.
But how you yourself received those books I do not know; yet if what I heard is true, you are said, when they were recited, to have leapt up with such joy that you, an old man, kissed the head of that young man, you, a priest, the head of a layman, and gave thanks that you had learned what you did not know. In which indeed I do not disapprove your humility; rather, I even praise that you honored your teacher—not the man, but the very truth that deigned to speak to you through him; provided, however, that you can show what truth you received through him. I would wish, therefore, that by your reply you would teach me what he taught you. For far be it that I should blush to learn from a priest, if you did not blush to learn from a layman, with a humility to be praised and imitated, if you learned true things.
DAeE.2.1.12. 2. Proinde, frater dilectissime, quid ab eo didiceris, nosse cupio, ut si iam id sciebam, gratuler pro te; si autem nesciebam, discam per te. Itane tu ignorabas duo quaedam esse, animam et spiritum, secundum id quod scriptum est: Absolvisti ab spiritu meo animam meam (Iob 7, 15 (sec. LXX))? Et utrumque ad naturam hominis pertinere, ut totus homo sit spiritus et anima et corpus: sed aliquando duo ista simul nomine animae nuncupari, quale est illud: Et factus est homo in animam vivam (Gen 2, 7)?
2. 2. Accordingly, most beloved brother, I desire to know what you learned from him, so that, if I already knew it, I may congratulate you; but if I did not know it, I may learn through you. Were you, then, unaware that soul and spirit are two distinct things, according to what is written: You have freed my soul from my spirit (Job 7:15 (LXX))? And that both belong to the nature of man, so that the whole man is spirit and soul and body, but that sometimes these two together are named by the word "soul," as is that: And man became a living soul (Gen 2:7)?
DAeE.2.2.2Ibi quippe et spiritus intellegitur. Itemque aliquando utrumque nomine spiritus dici, sicuti est: Et inclinato capite tradidit spiritum (Io 19, 30)? ubi et anima necesse est intellegatur. Et utrumque unius esse substantiae? Puto quod ista iam sciebas. Si autem nesciebas, non te aliquid quod magno periculo nescitur, didicisse scias.
For there the spirit too is understood. And likewise that sometimes both are called by the word "spirit," as is: And bowing his head, he gave up the spirit (John 19:30)? where the soul too must necessarily be understood. And that both are of one substance? I think you already knew these things. But if you did not know them, know that you have not learned something which it is of great peril not to know.
DAeE.2.2.2Et si quid hinc subtilius disputandum est, melius cum ipso agitur, cuius iam novimus et eloquium: utrum cum dicitur anima, ita ut simul intellegatur et spiritus, utrumque anima sit, spiritus autem aliquid animae sit; an, sicut ei visum est, a parte totum appelletur hoc nomine: sive etiam utrumque spiritus sit, pars vero eius sit quae proprie dicitur anima; an et hoc a parte totum vocetur, quando ita dicitur spiritus, ut simul intellegatur et anima: sic enim huic placet. Verum ista, ut dixi, et subtiliter disseruntur, et sine ullo vel certe sine magno periculo nesciuntur.
And if anything is to be disputed about this more subtly, it is better dealt with with him, whose eloquence too we now know: whether, when "soul" is said in such a way that the spirit too is understood along with it, both are soul, but the spirit is something of the soul; or whether, as it seemed to him, the whole is named by this word from a part; or whether also both are spirit, but a part of it is what is properly called soul; or whether this too is named the whole from a part, when "spirit" is said in such a way that the soul too is understood along with it: for so it pleases this man. But these things, as I said, are both subtly discussed and are not known without any, or at least without great, peril.
DAeE.2.2.22. 3. Itemque alios esse corporis, alios autem animae sensus, miror si iste te docuit; et tu homo id aetatis et honoris, antequam istum audires, unum atque idem putabas esse, quo album nigrumque discernitur, quod nobiscum vident etiam passeres; et quo iustum atque iniustum diiudicatur, quod videbat Tobias (Cf. Tob 4) etiam carnis luminibus perditis. Hoc si ita est, profecto quando audiebas vel legebas: Illumina oculos meos, ne unquam obdormiam in mortem (Ps 12, 4): nonnisi carnis oculos cogitabas. Aut si hoc obscurum est, certe quando illud Apostoli recolebas: Illuminatos oculos cordis vestri (Eph 1, 18); nos sub fronte et supra buccas cor habere credebas. Absit ut de te hoc sentiam. Neque hoc te igitur iste docuit.
2. 3. And likewise that there are some senses of the body, others of the soul, I am surprised if this man taught you; and that you, a man of such age and honor, before you heard this man, thought it to be one and the same thing by which white and black are distinguished, which even the sparrows see along with us, and by which just and unjust are discerned, which Tobit saw (Cf. Tob 4) even when the lights of his flesh were lost. If this is so, then surely when you heard or read, Lighten my eyes, lest I ever sleep in death (Ps 13 (12):4), you thought only of the eyes of the flesh. Or if this is obscure, certainly when you recalled that saying of the Apostle, the eyes of your heart enlightened (Eph 1:18), you believed that we have a heart beneath the forehead and above the cheeks. Far be it that I should think this of you. Neither, then, did this man teach you this.
DAeE.2.2.32. 4. Aut si forte ante huius doctrinam, quam modo te invenisse laetaris, animae naturam Dei putabas esse portionem; hoc plane cum horrendo periculo falsum esse nesciebas. Et si ab isto didicisti quod anima portio Dei non sit; age Deo gratias quantas potes, quod non antequam hoc didicisti, de corpore existi. Exisses enim magnus haereticus, et blasphemator horrendus. Nullo modo tamen etiam id de te existimaverim, quod homo catholicus, neque contemptibilis presbyter, animae naturam portionem Dei sentiebas esse. Unde fateor Dilectioni tuae, timeo ne forte hoc te iste docuerit, quod potius sit contrarium ei fidei quam tenebas.
2. 4. Or if perhaps, before this man's teaching, which you now rejoice to have found, you thought the nature of the soul to be a portion of God, you plainly were unaware that this, with dreadful peril, is false. And if you have learned from this man that the soul is not a portion of God, give God as much thanks as you can that you did not depart from the body before you learned this. For you would have departed a great heretic and a dreadful blasphemer. In no way, however, would I think even this of you, that you, a Catholic man and not a contemptible priest, held the nature of the soul to be a portion of God. Hence I confess to your Charity, I fear that perhaps this man taught you what is rather contrary to the faith you held.
DAeE.2.2.43. 5. Sicut enim non arbitror te unquam in Catholica animam credidisse Dei esse portionem, vel ullo modo animae et Dei eamdem esse naturam: ita metuo ne forte consenseris huic homini, "quod animam Deus non de nihilo fecerit, sed ita ex ipso sit, ut ab ipso emanaverit". Hoc enim etiam verbum iste posuit inter caetera, quibus in hac quaestione ad immane praecipitium exorbitavit. At vero hoc si te docuit, nolo me doceas: imo etiam volo ut quod didiceras, ipse dediscas.
3. 5. For just as I do not think that you ever believed in the Catholic Church that the soul is a portion of God, or that in any way the soul and God are of the same nature, so I fear that perhaps you agreed with this man, that God did not make the soul from nothing, but that it is so from him that it emanated from him. For this word too this man set down among the rest, by which in this question he strayed to a monstrous precipice. But if he taught you this, I do not want you to teach me; rather, I even want you yourself to unlearn what you had learned.
DAeE.2.3.5Parum est enim non credere neque dicere quod pars Dei sit anima. Neque enim et Filium vel Spiritum sanctum partem Dei esse dicimus: et tamen dicimus Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum unius eiusdemque esse naturae. Parum est ergo ut non dicamus animam esse partem Dei: sed hoc etiam opus est ut dicamus, non eam et Deum unius eiusdemque esse naturae. Unde ille recte quidem ait, "genus Dei esse animas, munere, non natura", ac per hoc non omnium, sed fidelium: sed rursus ad id quod declinaverat devolutus est, et Deum atque animam eiusdem dixit esse naturae; non quidem his verbis, sed aperta manifestaque sententia. Cum enim animam ita esse dicit ex Deo, ut eam nec ex alia natura, nec ex nihilo, sed ex semetipso creaverit; quid persuadere conatur, nisi id quod aliis verbis negat, animam scilicet eiusdem cuius Deus est, esse naturae?
For it is not enough not to believe or say that the soul is a part of God. For neither do we say that the Son or the Holy Spirit is a part of God; and yet we say that Father and Son and Holy Spirit are of one and the same nature. It is not enough, then, that we should not say the soul is a part of God; but this too is needful, that we should say it and God are not of one and the same nature. Hence he says rightly indeed that souls are of the kind of God, by gift, not by nature, and through this not of all, but of the faithful; but again he has slipped back into that from which he had turned aside, and has said that God and the soul are of the same nature—not indeed in these words, but in a clear and manifest sense. For when he says that the soul is so from God that he created it neither from another nature, nor from nothing, but from his very self, what is he trying to persuade us of, except that which in other words he denies—namely, that the soul is of the same nature as God is?
DAeE.2.3.5Omnis quippe natura vel Deus est, qui nullum habet auctorem; vel ex Deo est, quia ipsum habet auctorem. Sed quae habet auctorem Deum ex quo est, aliqua facta non est, aliqua facta est. Porro quae facta non est, et tamen ex ipso est, aut genita est ab illo, aut procedit ex illo: quae genita est, Filius est unicus; quae procedit, Spiritus sanctus: et haec Trinitas unius est eiusdemque naturae. Nam haec tria unum sunt, et singulum quidque Deus, et simul omnia unus Deus immutabilis, sempiternus, sine temporis ullo initio sive termino. At vero illa natura quae facta est, creatura nuncupatur: Creator autem Deus, illa scilicet Trinitas.
For every nature is either God, who has no author, or is from God, because it has him as its author. But of what has God as its author, from whom it is, something was not made, something was made. Moreover, what was not made, and yet is from him, was either begotten by him, or proceeds from him: what was begotten is the only Son; what proceeds, the Holy Spirit; and this Trinity is of one and the same nature. For these three are one, and each single one God, and all together one God, immutable, everlasting, without any beginning or end of time. But that nature which was made is called a creature; and the Creator is God, namely, that Trinity.
DAeE.2.3.5Creatura ergo ita esse dicitur ex Deo, ut non ex eius natura facta sit. Ex illo enim propterea dicitur, quia ipsum auctorem habet ut sit: non ita, ut ab illo nata sit, vel processerit; sed ab illo creata, condita, facta sit, partim ex nulla alia, id est, omnino ex nihilo, sicut coelum et terra, vel potius universae mundanae molis universa cum mundo concreata materia;
A creature, then, is said to be from God in such a way that it was not made from his nature. For it is said to be from him for this reason, that it has him as its author, so that it exists—not in such a way that it was born of him, or proceeded; but that it was created, founded, made by him, partly from no other thing, that is, altogether from nothing, like heaven and earth, or rather the universal matter created together with the world, of the whole worldly mass;
DAeE.2.3.5partim vero ex alia iam creata atque existente natura, sicut vir ex limo, mulier ex viro, ex parentibus homo: creatura tamen omnis ex Deo, sed creante vel ex nihilo vel ex aliquo, non autem gignente vel producente de se ipso.
but partly from another nature already created and existing, as man from clay, woman from man, a man from his parents: yet every creature is from God, but by his creating it either from nothing or from something, not by his begetting or producing it from his very self.
DAeE.2.3.53. 6. Si haec cum catholico loquor, magis commonens quam docens. Neque enim esse tibi arbitror nova, vel audita quidem et antea, non tamen credita: sed, ut existimo, sic legis epistolam meam, ut hic agnoscas etiam fidem tuam, quae nobis in catholica Ecclesia, Domino donante, communis est. Si ergo haec, ut dicere coeperam, cum catholico loquor; unde obsecro credis esse animam, non uniuscuiusque nostrum dico, sed primam primo illi homini datam? Si ex nihilo, et factam tamen insufflatamque a Deo: id credis quod ego. Si autem ex aliqua alia creatura, quae unde anima fieret, tamquam materies subiacebat artifici Deo; sicut pulvis unde fieret Adam, vel costa eius unde Eva, vel sicut aquae unde pisces et volucres, vel sicut terra unde animalia quaeque terrestria (Cf. Gen 2, 7. 22): non est catholicum, non est verum. Quod si neque ex nihilo, neque ex alia quacumque creatura, sed ex semetipso Deum, hoc est, ex natura sua fecisse, vel facere animas, quod absit, existimas: hoc quidem ab isto didicisti; sed non tibi gratulor, neque blandior; longe cum illo a fide catholica exorbitasti.
3. 6. I speak these things with a Catholic, admonishing rather than teaching. For I do not think they are new to you, or even heard before, yet not believed; but, as I judge, you so read my letter that here you recognize also your own faith, which, by the Lord's gift, is common to us in the Catholic Church. If, then, I speak these things, as I had begun to say, with a Catholic, from where, I beseech you, do you believe the soul to be—I do not say of each of us, but the first soul given to that first man? If from nothing, and yet made and breathed in by God: you believe what I do. But if from some other creature, which lay before God the maker as it were a material from which the soul would be made—as the dust from which Adam would be made, or his rib from which Eve, or as the waters from which fish and birds, or as the earth from which all the land animals (Cf. Gen 2:7, 22)—it is not Catholic, it is not true. But if you think that God made, or makes, souls neither from nothing, nor from any other creature whatever, but from his very self, that is, from his nature—which God forbid—this indeed you learned from this man; but I do not congratulate you, nor flatter you; you have strayed, along with him, far from the Catholic faith.
DAeE.2.3.6Tolerabilius enim; quod quidem falsum est; tamen, ut dixi, tolerabilius, ex aliqua alia creatura, quam quidem iam fecerat Deus, quam ex Dei natura animam conditam crederes, ut quod est mutabilis, quod peccat, quod fit impia, quod etiam si impia perduraverit in fine, sine fine damnabitur, non ad Dei naturam cum horrenda blasphemia referretur. Abice, frater, abice, obsecro, istam, non plane fidem, sed exsecrandae impietatis errorem, ne homo gravis seductus a iuvene, et a laico presbyter, cum istam catholicam fidem esse arbitraris, de numero fidelium, quod a te avertat Dominus, eximaris.
For more tolerably—what is indeed false, yet, as I said, more tolerably—would you believe the soul fashioned from some other creature, which God had already made, than from the nature of God; so that what is mutable, what sins, what becomes impious, what, if it has persisted impious to the end, will be damned without end, might not be referred, with horrible blasphemy, to the nature of God. Cast away, brother, cast away, I beseech you, that error—not, plainly, a faith, but an error of execrable impiety—lest you, a serious man seduced by a young man, and a priest by a layman, while you judge this to be the Catholic faith, be removed from the number of the faithful, which may the Lord avert from you.
DAeE.2.3.6Non enim sic tecum agendum est, ut cum illo; aut ea venia tuus iste tam horrendus, qua iuvenis illius, licet ab illo ad te transierit, error est dignus. Ille ovili catholico sanandus nuper accessit, tu in catholicis pastoribus deputaris. Nolumus ita curetur quae venit ab errore ad dominicum gregem, ut prius pestifera contagione disperdat ovis ulcerosa pastorem.
For one must not deal with you as with him; nor is this so dreadful an error of yours worthy of the same pardon as that young man's, although it passed from him to you. He recently came to the Catholic sheepfold to be healed; you are counted among the Catholic shepherds. We do not want her who came from error to the Lord's flock to be so treated that the ulcerous sheep first destroys the shepherd by a pestilent contagion.
DAeE.2.3.63. 7. Quod si dicis, Hoc me ille non docuit, nec huic errori eius ullo modo, quamlibet diserti et ornati sermonis illectus suavitate consensi: ago ingentes Deo gratias. Sed quaero, unde illi caput exosculatus, ut dicitur, gratias egeris te didicisse quod usque ad auditam disputationem illius ignorabas: aut si falsum est, hoc te fecisse atque dixisse, hoc ipsum peto nobis intimare digneris, ut inanis rumor tuis litteris refellatur. Si autem verum est, illa humilitate homini egisse te gratias; gaudeo quidem si te illud non docuit, quod superius quam sit detestandum cavendumque monstravi;
3. 7. But if you say, This man did not teach me that, nor did I in any way consent to this error of his, however enticed by the sweetness of his eloquent and ornate speech: I give immense thanks to God. But I ask, why did you, having kissed his head, as is said, give thanks that you had learned what, until you heard his disputation, you did not know? Or if it is false that you did and said this, this very thing I ask you to deign to make known to us, so that an empty rumor may be refuted by your letter. But if it is true that you gave thanks to the man with that humility, I rejoice indeed if he did not teach you that which above I showed to be how detestable and to be guarded against;
DAeE.2.3.74. 7. Et non reprehendo quod gratus fueris tanta humilitate doctori, si aliquid aliud disputante illo, verum atque utile didicisti: sed hoc quid sit inquiro; an forte animam non spiritum esse, sed corpus? Non quidem magnum doctrinae christianae arbitror esse detrimentum ista nescire: et si de corporum generibus subtiliter disputetur, hoc maiore difficultate quam utilitate perdiscitur. Si autem Dominus voluerit ut ad illum ipsum iuvenem scribam, sicut desidero, ibi sciet fortasse Dilectio tua, etiam hoc quam non te docuerit: si tamen id te ab illo didicisse laetaris. Sed ne quid forte aliud sit, quod constat esse utile, et ad fidem necessariam pertinere, peto rescribere non graveris.
4. 7. And I do not blame your having been grateful with such great humility to a teacher, if, in his disputing, you learned something else true and useful; but I inquire what this is—whether, perhaps, that the soul is not a spirit, but a body? I do not indeed judge it a great loss to Christian doctrine to be ignorant of these things; and if one disputes subtly about the kinds of bodies, this is learned thoroughly with more difficulty than profit. But if the Lord wills that I write to that young man himself, as I desire, there perhaps your Charity will know even how he did not teach you this—if, however, you rejoice that you learned it from him. But lest perhaps there be something else which is agreed to be useful and to pertain to necessary faith, I ask that you not be reluctant to write back.
DAeE.2.4.74. 8. Nam illud quod rectissime et valde salubriter credit, iudicari animas cum de corporibus exierint, antequam veniant ad illud iudicium, quo eas oportet iam redditis corporibus iudicari, atque in ipsa in qua hic vixerunt, carne torqueri, sive gloriari; hoc itane tandem ipse nesciebas? Quis adversus Evangelium tanta obstinatione mentis obsurduit, ut in illo paupere qui post mortem ablatus est in sinum Abrahae, et in illo divite cuius in inferno cruciatus exponitur (Cf. Lc 16, 19-31), ista non audiat, vel audita non credat?
4. 8. For that which he most rightly and very wholesomely believes—that souls are judged when they have departed from their bodies, before they come to that judgment by which they must be judged with their bodies now restored, and be tormented or glorified in the very flesh in which they lived here—was this, after all, what you yourself did not know? Who has grown so deaf, with such obstinacy of mind, against the Gospel that, in that poor man who after death was carried into Abraham's bosom, and in that rich man whose torment in hell is set forth (Cf. Luke 16:19–31), he does not hear these things, or, hearing them, does not believe them?
DAeE.2.4.8Sed numquid te docuit, quomodo anima sine corpore de digito pauperis aquae stillam desiderare potuerit; cum ipse confessus sit, alimenta corporea nonnisi propter fulciendas ruinas corruptibilis corporis sui animam quaerere? Verba eius ista sunt: "numquid quia anima, inquit, aut cibum quaerit aut potum, ad ipsam transire credimus pastum"? Et paulo post: "unde intellegitur, inquit, et probatur, non ad animam pertinere ciborum sustentacula, sed ad corpus; cui etiam praeter cibum procuratur simili ratione vestitus, ut illi necessarius videatur pasturae suggestus, cui competit et ipsos habere vestitus". Hanc ille sententiam suam satis evidenter expositam, nonnulla etiam similitudine illustrans, adiecit, atque ait: "quid autem putamus inquilinum quemquam suae habitationi prospicere? Nonne si eam senserit aut tecto tremere, aut nutare pariete, aut labare fundamine, destinas quaerit, strues congerit, quibus imminentem possit ruinam sedulo diligenterque fulcire, ne sub periculo mansionis discrimen videatur pendere mansoris? Ita ergo et animam recognosce, inquit, carni suae desiderare cibum, ex qua ipsum concipit sine dubio desiderium". Haec nempe ille iuvenis sua sensa verbis luculentissimis et sufficientissimis explicavit, asserens non animae requiri alimenta, sed corpori; cura quidem illius, sed tamquam habitantis in domo, et moribundae carnis imminentes ruinas provida refectione fulcientis.
But did he teach you how a soul without a body could desire a drop of water from the poor man's finger, when he himself confessed that the soul seeks bodily nourishment only for the sake of propping up the falling-down of its corruptible body? These are his words: Do we believe, he says, that because the soul seeks either food or drink, the nourishment passes over to it? And a little after: From this it is understood, he says, and proved, that the supports of food belong not to the soul but to the body, for which also, besides food, clothing is procured by like reasoning, so that the supply of pasture seems necessary to that to which it also belongs to have the clothing itself. This opinion of his, set forth clearly enough, he added to, illustrating it also by a certain comparison, and said: But what do we think a tenant provides for his dwelling? Does he not, if he has felt it either tremble in its roof, or sway in its wall, or totter in its foundation, seek props and pile up heaps by which he may carefully and diligently shore up the impending ruin, lest the safety of the dweller seem to hang under the peril of the dwelling? So, then, recognize, he says, that the soul too desires food for its flesh, from which without doubt it conceives the very desire. These things, indeed, that young man unfolded with most lucid and most sufficient words, asserting that nourishment is required not for the soul but for the body, by the care of the soul indeed, but as one dwelling in a house and, by provident refreshment, shoring up the impending ruins of the dying flesh.
DAeE.2.4.8Et illud ergo explicet tibi, quid anima illa divitis ruiturum destinare cupiebat, quae mortale corpus iam utique non habebat, et tamen sitiebat, et aquae stillam de digito pauperis requirebat. Habet ubi se exerceat iste doctor senum: quaerat, et inveniat, si potuerit, cui rei anima illa apud inferos humidum alimentum, vel tam exiguum mendicaret, cum ruinoso habitaculo iam careret.
Let him, then, explain to you also this: what that soul of the rich man, which surely no longer had a mortal body, and yet thirsted and sought a drop of water from the poor man's finger, desired to prop up against falling. This teacher of old men has where to exercise himself: let him seek and find, if he can, for what purpose that soul among the dead would beg for moist nourishment, even so scanty, when it now lacked its ruinous dwelling.
DAeE.2.4.85. 9. Incorporeum sane Deum esse quod credit, gratulor eum hinc saltem a Tertulliani deliramentis esse discretum. Ille quippe sicut animam, ita etiam Deum corporeum esse contendit (Cf. AUG., Ep. ad Optatum 4, 14). A quo iste in hoc dissentiens, mirabiliora persuadere molitur, Deum incorporeum, non de nihilo facere, sed de semetipso flatum exhalare corporeum.
5. 9. That he believes God to be incorporeal, indeed, I am glad that in this at least he is set apart from the ravings of Tertullian. For Tertullian contends that, as the soul, so also God is corporeal (Cf. Aug., Ep. ad Optatum 4, 14). Dissenting from him in this, this man undertakes to persuade us of more astonishing things: that God, who is incorporeal, makes a breath not from nothing, but exhales a corporeal breath from his very self.
DAeE.2.5.9O doctrinam cui omnis aetas aures subrigat, quae homines annosos, quae denique presbyteros mereatur habere discipulos! Legat, legat in concione quod scripsit, notos atque ignotos, doctos atque indoctos recitaturus invitet. Seniores, cum iunioribus convenite, quod nesciebatis discite, quod nunquam audieratis audite.
O the doctrine at which every age should prick up its ears, which deserves to have men advanced in years, and even priests, as disciples! Let him read—let him read in assembly what he has written; let him invite the known and the unknown, the learned and the unlearned, to hear him recite it. Elders, come together with the younger; learn what you did not know; hear what you had never heard.
DAeE.2.5.9Ecce isto docente, non aliunde quod aliquo modo est, nec ex eo quod omnino non est, Deus flatum creat; sed ex eo quod ipse est, cum sit incorporeus, corpus sufflat. Naturam ergo suam, antequam mutetur in peccati corpore, ipse mutat in corpus.
Behold, by this man's teaching, God creates a breath not from something else that in some way exists, nor from that which altogether does not exist; but from that which he himself is, since he is incorporeal, he breathes out a body. His own nature, then, before it is changed in the body of sin, he himself changes into a body.
DAeE.2.5.9An dicit, quod ex sua natura non mutat aliquid, cum flatum facit? Non ergo eum de se ipso facit: non enim aliud est ipse, aliud natura eius. Quis hoc insanissimus opinetur? Quod si dicit, ita Deum de sua natura facere flatum, ut ipse integer maneat; non inde quaestio est; sed utrum quod non aliunde, nec de nihilo, sed de illo est: non hoc sit quod ille, id est, eiusdem naturae et essentiae.
Or does he say that he does not change anything from his nature, when he makes a breath? Then he does not make it from his very self: for he himself is not one thing, and his nature another. Who, most insane, would think this? But if he says that God so makes a breath from his nature that he himself remains entire, the question is not from there; but whether that which is not from something else, nor from nothing, but from him, is not the same as he is—that is, of the same nature and essence.
DAeE.2.5.9Nam et Filio genito integer manet; sed quia eum genuit de se ipso, non aliud genuit quam id quod ipse est. Excepto enim quod hominem assumpsit, et Verbum caro factum est (Cf. Io 1, 14), alius est quidem Verbum Dei Filius, sed non est aliud: hoc est, alia persona est, sed non diversa natura. Et unde hoc, nisi quia non creatus ex alio, vel ex nihilo, sed natus ex ipso est; non ut melior quam erat esset, sed omnino ut esset, et quod est ille, unde natus est, esset, hoc est, unius eiusdemque naturae, aequalis, coaeternus, omni modo similis, pariter immutabilis, pariter invisibilis, pariter incorporeus, pariter Deus; hoc omnino quod Pater, nisi quod Filius est ipse, non Pater?
For with the Son begotten too he remains entire; but because he begot him from his very self, he begot nothing other than that which he himself is. For, except that he assumed manhood, and the Word was made flesh (Cf. John 1:14), the Word, the Son of God, is indeed another person, but is not another thing—that is, he is another person, but not a different nature. And from where is this, except that he was not created from another, or from nothing, but born from him—not so as to be better than he was, but altogether so as to be, and to be that which is he from whom he was born; that is, of one and the same nature, equal, coeternal, in every way like, equally immutable, equally invisible, equally incorporeal, equally God; altogether that which the Father is, except that the Son is himself the Son, not the Father?
DAeE.2.5.9Si autem manet quidem ipse integer Deus, nec tamen de nullo, vel de alio, sed de se ipso diversum aliquid in deterius creat, et de incorporeo Deo corpus emanat; absit ut hoc catholicus animus bibat: non enim est fluentum fontis divini, sed figmentum cordis humani.
But if he himself indeed remains God entire, and yet creates something different and worse, not from nothing, nor from another, but from his very self, and a body emanates from the incorporeal God—God forbid that a Catholic mind should drink this in: for it is not a stream from the divine fountain, but a figment of the human heart.
DAeE.2.5.96. 10. Iamvero quam inepte laboret, animam, quam putat esse corpoream, vindicare a passionibus corporis, disputans de animae infantia, de paralyticis et oppressis animae sensibus, de amputatis membris corporis absque animae sectione, non tecum, sed cum illo potius agere debeo: illi quippe insudandum est, ut rationem reddat dictorum suorum; ne de opere iuvenis velle fatigare videamur gravitatem senis. Quod autem similitudines morum qui reperiuntur in filiis, non ex animae semine venire disputat: consequens est quidem, ut hoc sentiant quicumque animae propaginem destruunt; sed nec illi qui hanc astruunt, ibi constituunt pondus assertionis suae. Vident enim et filios parentum dissimiles moribus: quod ideo fieri putant, quia et ipse unus homo plerumque suis moribus alios mores dissimiles habet, non utique anima altera accepta, sed vita in melius vel in deterius commutata. Ita dicunt, non esse impossibile ut anima non habeat eos mores, quos habet illa ex qua propagata est;
6. 10. Now, how ineptly he labors to vindicate the soul, which he thinks to be corporeal, from the passions of the body, disputing about the soul's infancy, about the paralyzed and the oppressed senses of the soul, about the limbs of the body amputated without the cutting of the soul—I ought to deal not with you, but rather with him: for it is he who must sweat to give an account of his sayings; lest we seem to wish to weary the seriousness of an old man over the work of a young man. But as to his disputing that the likenesses of character found in sons do not come from the seed of the soul: it is indeed a consequence that whoever does away with the propagation of the soul should hold this; but not even those who establish it place the weight of their assertion there. For they see sons unlike their parents in character too; which they think comes about because one and the same man often has, in his own character, other characters unlike it—not, of course, another soul received, but his life changed for the better or for the worse. So they say it is not impossible that a soul does not have the character which that one has from which it was propagated;
DAeE.2.6.10quandoquidem ipsa una nunc alios, alias alios habere mores potest. Quare si hoc te credis ab isto didicisse, quod anima non sit ex traduce: utinam id vere didicisses; me tibi docendum libentissime traderem. Sed aliud est discere, aliud videri sibi didicisse. Si ergo te didicisse arbitraris quod adhuc nescis; non plane didicisti, sed temere credidisti quod libenter audisti, et subrepsit tibi falsiloquium per suaviloquium.
since one and the same soul can now have one character, at another time another. Wherefore, if you believe you learned this from him, that the soul is not from transmission: would that you had truly learned it; I would most gladly hand you over to be taught. But it is one thing to learn, another to seem to oneself to have learned. If, then, you think you have learned what you still do not know, you have plainly not learned, but rashly believed what you gladly heard, and a false speech crept upon you through a sweet speech.
DAeE.2.6.10Quod non ideo dico, quia falsum esse iam certus sum, animas potius insufflari novas, quam de origine parentum trahi; hoc enim adhuc ab eis qui docere id possunt, existimo requirendum: sed quia iste de hac re ita disseruit, ut non solum eam, quae adhuc discutienda est, non solveret quaestionem; verum etiam talia diceret, quae falsitatis non habeant dubitationem. Cum enim vellet probare dubia, ausus est dicere sine dubio reprobanda.
I do not say this because I am now certain that it is false that souls are rather breathed in new than drawn from the origin of the parents; for this I think must still be inquired of those who can teach it: but because this man has discussed this matter in such a way that he not only does not resolve the question, which must still be examined, but even says such things as have no doubt of their falsity. For when he wished to prove doubtful things, he dared to say things to be rejected without doubt.
DAeE.2.6.107. 11. An vero tu reprobare dubitabis, quod cum de anima loqueretur, "non vis", inquit, animam ex carne peccati contrahere valetudinem, ad quam vicissim sanctificationem videas transire per carnem, ut per ipsam reparet statum, per quam perdiderat meritum? Aut numquid quia Baptismo corpus abluitur, non transit ad animam vel spiritum, quod creditur conferri per Baptismum? Merito ergo per carnem, priscam reparat habitudinem, quam visa fuerat paulisper amisisse per carnem, ut per eam incipiat renasci, per quam meruerat inquinari".
7. 11. Or will you doubt to reject this, that, when he was speaking of the soul, he said: You do not want the soul to contract ill health from the flesh of sin, to which in turn you may see sanctification pass through the flesh, so that through it it may recover the state through which it had lost its merit? Or is it that, because in Baptism the body is washed, what is believed to be conferred through Baptism does not pass over to the soul or the spirit? Rightly, then, through the flesh it recovers its former condition, which it had seemed for a little while to have lost through the flesh, so that through it it may begin to be reborn, through which it had deserved to be defiled.
DAeE.2.7.11Vide in his verbis, quantum iste tuus erraverit doctor. Dixit: "animam per carnem reparare statum, per quam perdiderat meritum". Habuit ergo anima aliquem statum et aliquod meritum bonum ante carnem, quod vult eam reparare per carnem, quando caro lavacro regenerationis abluitur. Vixerat itaque alicubi ante carnem in statu et merito bono; quem statum et quod meritum perdidit, cum venisset in carnem. Dixit: "eam per carnem reparare habitudinem priscam, quam visa fuerat paulisper amisisse per carnem". Habuit ergo ante carnem habitudinem antiquam; hoc est enim "priscam" et ista qualis esse potuit, nisi beata atque laudabilis habitudo? Quam reparari per sacramentum Baptismatis asseverat; cum eam nolit ex illa originem trahere per propaginem, quam constat in paradiso aliquando fuisse felicem.
See in these words how greatly this teacher of yours has erred. He said that the soul recovers through the flesh the state through which it had lost its merit. The soul, then, had some state and some good merit before the flesh, which he wants it to recover through the flesh, when the flesh is washed by the bath of regeneration. It had therefore lived somewhere before the flesh in a good state and merit, which state and which merit it lost when it had come into the flesh. He said that it recovers through the flesh its former condition, which it had seemed for a little while to have lost through the flesh. It had, then, before the flesh an ancient condition—for this is what "former" means—and what could that condition be but a blessed and praiseworthy one? Which he asserts is recovered through the sacrament of Baptism; though he does not want it to draw its origin by propagation from that soul which is agreed once to have been happy in paradise.
DAeE.2.7.11Quomodo igitur alio loco "animam se dicit constanter asserere, non ex traduce, neque ex nihilo, neque per semetipsam, neque ante corpus"? Ecce isto loco vult animas ante corpus alicubi vivere tam beate, ut eadem illis per Baptismum beatitudo reddatur. Et tamquam sui rursus oblitus adiungit et dicit: "ut per eam", id est, per carnem, "incipiat renasci, per quam meruerat inquinari". Superius meritum significaverat bonum perditum fuisse per carnem: nunc autem significat malum meritum, quo factum est ut veniret vel mitteretur in carnem, dicendo: "per quam meruerat inquinari". Si enim meretur inquinari, non est utique meritum bonum. Dicat quid peccavit antequam per carnem inquinaretur, ut per carnem inquinari mereretur. Dicat, si potest, quod nullo modo potest; quia invenire hic quid verum dicat, omnino non potest.
How, then, does he say in another place that he steadfastly asserts the soul to be not from transmission, nor from nothing, nor through its very self, nor before the body? Behold, in this place he wants souls to live somewhere before the body so blessedly that the same blessedness is restored to them through Baptism. And, as though again forgetful of himself, he adds and says: so that through it, that is, through the flesh, it may begin to be reborn, through which it had deserved to be defiled. Above he had signified that a good merit had been lost through the flesh; but now he signifies an evil merit, by which it came about that it came or was sent into the flesh, by saying, through which it had deserved to be defiled. For if it deserves to be defiled, it is surely not a good merit. Let him say what it sinned before it was defiled through the flesh, so that it deserved to be defiled through the flesh. Let him say it, if he can—which he can in no way; because to find here what he may say that is true, he is altogether unable.
DAeE.2.7.118. 12. Item aliquanto post ait: "Anima itaque si peccatrix esse meruit, quae peccatrix esse non potuit, tamen neque in peccato remansit, quia in Christo praefigurata, in peccato esse non debuit, sicut esse non potuit". Rogo te, frater, putasne - ista saltem postea legisti et considerasti, et quid in recitante laudaveris, vel unde post recitationem gratias egeris cogitasti -, quid est, obsecro te: "Anima itaque si peccatrix esse meruit, quae peccatrix esse non potuit"? Quid est "meruit", et "non potuit;" cum mereri hoc non potuisset, nisi peccatrix fuisset; non autem fuisset, nisi esse potuisset; ut ante omne malum meritum peccans, inde sibi meritum faceret, unde ad alia peccata, deserente Domino, perveniret?
8. 12. Likewise somewhat after he says: And so the soul, if it deserved to be sinful, which could not be sinful, yet did not remain in sin, because, prefigured in Christ, it ought not to be in sin, just as it could not be. I ask you, brother, do you think—did you at least afterward read and consider these things, and did you consider what you praised in the reciter, or why after the recitation you gave thanks—what is it, I beseech you: And so the soul, if it deserved to be sinful, which could not be sinful? What is it deserved and it could not, when it could not have deserved this unless it had been sinful, and would not have been unless it could have been—so that, sinning before all evil merit, it made for itself thence a merit by which it might come to other sins, the Lord forsaking it?
DAeE.2.8.12An ideo dixit, "quae peccatrix esse non potuit", quia nisi in carnem veniret, peccatrix esse non posset? Quid ergo meruit, ut eo mitteretur, ubi peccatrix esse posset, quo nisi venisset, alibi peccatrix esse non posset? Dicat, quid meruit? Si enim meruit esse peccatrix; aliquid iam peccaverat, unde mereretur iterum esse peccatrix. Sed haec fortassis obscura videantur, aut obscura esse iactentur, cum sint apertissima. Neque enim dicere debuit, quod anima meruerit peccatrix esse per carnem, cuius nec bonum nec malum meritum reperire poterit ante carnem.
Or did he say which could not be sinful because, unless it came into the flesh, it could not be sinful? What, then, did it deserve, so as to be sent where it could be sinful, and where, had it not come, it could not be sinful elsewhere? Let him say what it deserved. For if it deserved to be sinful, it had already sinned something, whereby it deserved again to be sinful. But these things perhaps seem obscure, or are boasted to be obscure, though they are most plain. For he ought not to have said that the soul deserved to be sinful through the flesh, of which he can find neither a good nor an evil merit before the flesh.
DAeE.2.8.129. 13. Sed ad manifestiora veniamus. Cum enim magnis coarctaretur angustiis, quomodo animae originalis peccati vinculo teneantur obstrictae, si non ex illa trahunt originem quae prima peccavit, sed eas puras ab omni contagione et propagatione peccati, peccatrici carni Creator insufflat; ne dicatur illi, quod sic insufflando eas Deus efficit reas: primo de praescientia Dei hanc opinionem munire tentavit, "quod eis praeparaverit redemptionem". In cuius redemptionis Sacramento parvuli baptizantur, ut abluatur originale peccatum, quod de carne traxerunt; quasi facta sua Deus emendet, quod eas insontes fecerat inquinari.
9. 13. But let us come to clearer matters. For when he was hemmed in by great straits as to how souls are held bound by the bond of original sin, if they do not draw their origin from that one which first sinned, but the Creator breathes them, pure from all contagion and propagation of sin, into the sinful flesh—lest it be said to him that by so breathing them in God makes them guilty—he first tried to fortify this opinion by the foreknowledge of God, that he had prepared redemption for them. In the sacrament of which redemption little ones are baptized, that original sin may be washed away, which they drew from the flesh; as though God were amending his own deeds, in that he had made them, though innocent, to be defiled.
DAeE.2.9.13Sed posteaquam ventum est ut de illis loqueretur, quibus tali non subvenitur auxilio, et antequam baptizentur exspirant: "In hoc, inquit, loco non me quasi auctorem spondeo, sed aliquid de exemplo conicio. Habendam dicimus de infantibus istiusmodi rationem, qui praedestinati baptismo, vitae praesentis, antequam renascantur in Christo, praeveniuntur occiduo. Legimus enim, inquit, de talibus scriptum: Raptus est ne malitia mutaret illius intellectum, aut ne fictio decipiat animam eius. Propter hoc properavit de medio iniquitatis illum educere: placita enim Deo erat anima eius (Sap 4, 11. 14); et: Consummatus in brevi, replevit tempora longa" (Sap 4, 13).
But after it came to his speaking of those who are not aided by such help, and breathe out before they are baptized, he says: In this place I do not pledge myself as an author, but conjecture something from an example. We say that an account of this kind is to be held concerning infants who, predestined to Baptism, are overtaken by the death of the present life before they are reborn in Christ. For we read, he says, written of such: He was caught up lest wickedness change his understanding, or lest deceit beguile his soul. For this cause he hastened to lead him out of the midst of iniquity: for his soul was pleasing to God (Wis 4:11, 14); and: Being made perfect in a short while, he fulfilled long times (Wis 4:13).
DAeE.2.9.13Quis istum dedignetur habere doctorem? Ergone parvuli, quos plerumque volunt homines baptizari, et dum curritur, ante moriuntur, si retardarentur in ista paululum vita, ut baptizati continuo morerentur, malitia mutaret intellectum illorum, et fictio deciperet animam eorum, et ne hoc eis contingeret, subventum illis est, ut ante raperentur quam baptizarentur? In ipso ergo Baptismate mutarentur in peius, et fictione deciperentur, si post baptisma raperentur. O ammiranda atque sectanda immo vero detestanda et exsecranda doctrina! Sed hoc de vestra prudentia, qui adfuistis,
Who would disdain to have this man as a teacher? So, then, little ones, whom men often want baptized, and who, while there is a rush to do it, die before, if they were delayed in this life a little while, so that, baptized, they would die immediately, wickedness would change their understanding, and deceit would beguile their souls, and, lest this befall them, it was provided for them that they should be caught up before they were baptized? In the very Baptism, then, they would be changed for the worse and beguiled by deceit, if after Baptism they were caught up. O doctrine to be admired and followed—nay rather, to be detested and execrated! But this man presumed this from your prudence, you who were present
DAeE.2.9.13cum recitaret, iste praesumpsit, et de tua maxime ad quem scripsit, et cui recitatos libros tradidit, ut credituros vos esse confideret, de non baptizatis infantibus esse scriptum, quod de omnium sanctorum immaturis aetatibus scriptum est, cum quibus male actum stulti arbitrantur, si de hac vita celeriter rapti fuerint, nec ad annos quos homines pro magno divino munere sibi exoptant, pervenire potuerint.
when he recited it, and most of all from yours, to whom he wrote and to whom he handed over the recited books, that he might be confident you would believe to be written of unbaptized infants what is written of the immature ages of all the saints—those with whom fools judge it to have gone ill if they have been quickly caught up from this life, and could not reach the years that men wish for themselves as a great divine gift.
DAeE.2.9.13Quale est autem dicere, "infantes praedestinatos Baptismo, vitae praesentis, antequam renascantur in Christo, occiduo praeveniri;" velut aliqua vis fortunae seu fati sive cuiuslibet rei non permittat Deum quod praedestinavit implere? Et quomodo ipse illos rapit, quia placuerunt illi? An eos et ipse praedestinat baptizari, et ipse quod praedestinavit, non sinit fieri?
But what is it to say that infants predestined to Baptism are overtaken by the death of the present life before they are reborn in Christ, as though some force of fortune or fate or of any thing whatever did not permit God to fulfill what he had predestined? And how does he himself catch them up, because they pleased him? Or does he both predestine them to be baptized, and himself not allow what he predestined to come to pass?
DAeE.2.9.1310. 14. Sed attende quid adhuc audeat, cui displicet in tanta huius profunditate quaestionis cautior quam scientior nostra cunctatio. "Ausim dicere, inquit, istos pervenire posse ad originalium indulgentiam peccatorum, non tamen ut coeleste inducantur in regnum: sicuti latroni confesso quidem, sed non baptizato, Dominus non coelorum regnum tribuit, sed paradisum (Cf. Lc 23, 43); cum utique iam maneret: Qui non renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto, non intrabit in regnum coelorum (Io 3, 5). Praecipue quia multas esse mansiones apud Patrem suum Dominus profitetur (Cf. Io 14, 2), in quibus designantur merita multa et diversa mansorum: ut hic non baptizatus perducatur ad veniam, baptizatus ad palmam, quae est parata per gratiam".
10. 14. But attend to what he still dares, he to whom, in so great a depth of this question, our hesitation, more cautious than learned, is displeasing. I would dare to say, he says, that these can attain to the pardon of original sins, yet not so as to be led into the heavenly kingdom: just as to the thief who confessed indeed, but was not baptized, the Lord granted not the kingdom of heaven, but paradise (Cf. Luke 23:43); although surely that saying still stood: Whoever has not been reborn of water and the Holy Spirit will not enter the kingdom of heaven (John 3:5). Especially since the Lord professes that there are many mansions with his Father (Cf. John 14:2), in which are designated the many and diverse merits of the dwellers: so that here the unbaptized is led to pardon, the baptized to the palm, which is prepared through grace.
DAeE.2.10.14Cernis hominem, paradisum atque mansiones quae sunt apud Patrem, a regno separare coelorum, ut etiam non baptizatis abundent loca sempiternae felicitatis. Nec videt, cum ista dicit, ita se nolle baptizati cuiuspiam parvuli mansionem a coelorum regno separare, ut ipsam Dei Patris domum, vel aliquas partes eius inde separare non timeat. Neque enim Dominus Iesus, In universitate creaturae, vel in qualibet universitatis parte; sed: In domo Patris mei, dixit, mansiones multae sunt (Cf. Io 14, 2). Quomodo ergo erit in Dei Patris domo non baptizatus, cum Deum patrem habere non possit nisi renatus? Non sit ingratus Deo, qui eum dignatus est a Donatistarum vel Rogatistarum divisione liberare, ut ipsam domum Dei Patris quaerat dividere, et aliquam eius partem extra regnum coelorum ponere, ubi non baptizati valeant habitare. Et quo pacto ipse regnum coelorum se intraturum esse praesumit, de quo regno in quanta vult parte domum ipsius regis excludit?
You see the man separating paradise and the mansions that are with the Father from the kingdom of heaven, so that even to the unbaptized places of everlasting happiness abound. Nor does he see, when he says these things, that in so unwilling to separate the mansion of any baptized little one from the kingdom of heaven, he does not fear to separate from it the very house of God the Father, or some parts of it. For the Lord Jesus did not say, "In the universe of creation," or "in any part of the universe," but: In my Father's house, he said, are many mansions (Cf. John 14:2). How, then, will the unbaptized be in the house of God the Father, when he cannot have God as Father unless reborn? Let him not be ungrateful to God, who deigned to free him from the division of the Donatists or Rogatists, so as to seek to divide the very house of God the Father, and to place some part of it outside the kingdom of heaven, where the unbaptized may dwell. And by what reasoning does he presume that he himself will enter the kingdom of heaven, from which kingdom he excludes the house of the very king in as great a part as he wishes?
DAeE.2.10.14Sed de latrone illo, qui iuxta Dominum crucifixus speravit in Dominum etiam crucifixum, et de fratre sanctae Perpetuae Dinocrate argumentatur, quod etiam non baptizatis dari possit indulgentia peccatorum et sedes aliqua beatorum: quasi quisquam, cui non credere nefas esset, huic indicaverit quod non fuerint baptizati. De quibus tamen in eo libro, quem scripsi ad fratrem nostrum Renatum, plenius quid mihi videretur exposui. Quod tua dilectio poterit nosse, si non spreveris legere; nam ille petenti non poterit denegare.
But from that thief, who, crucified beside the Lord, hoped in the Lord though crucified, and from Dinocrates, the brother of holy Perpetua, he argues that pardon of sins and some seat of the blessed can be given even to the unbaptized: as though anyone whom it were impious not to believe had indicated to him that they had not been baptized. About whom, however, in that book which I wrote to our brother Renatus, I set forth more fully what seemed to me. Which your Charity will be able to know, if you do not scorn to read it; for he will not be able to deny it to one who asks.
DAeE.2.10.1411. 15. Aestuat tamen iste, atque horrendis suffocatur angustiis. Attentius enim fortasse quam tu quid mali dicat attendit, praeter Christi scilicet Baptismum solvi in parvulis originale peccatum. Denique, ut aliquatenus in hac causa vel sero ad Ecclesiae Sacramenta confugiat, "Pro his sane, inquit, oblationes assiduas, et offerenda iugiter sanctorum censeo sacrificia sacerdotum".
11. 15. Yet this man seethes, and is suffocated by dreadful straits. For perhaps he attends more closely than you to the evil he says—namely, that original sin is loosed in little ones apart from the Baptism of Christ. Finally, that in this cause he may to some extent, even if late, take refuge in the sacraments of the Church, For these, certainly, he says, I judge that constant offerings, and the sacrifices of the holy priests, should be offered continually.
DAeE.2.11.15Habeto istum, si placet, etiam censorem, si parum fuerat habere doctorem, ut sacrificium corporis Christi etiam pro his offeras, qui Christo non sunt incorporati. Rem quippe tam novam, atque a disciplina ecclesiastica et a regula veritatis alienam, cum libris suis auderet inserere, non ait: "puto", non ait: "existimo", non ait: "arbitror"; non ait saltem, "suggero", vel "dico", sed "censeo", ut scilicet si offenderemur novitate seu perversitate sententiae, terreremur auctoritate censurae.
Have this man, if you please, even as a censor, if it was too little to have him as a teacher, so that you offer the sacrifice of the body of Christ even for those who are not incorporated into Christ. For when he dared to insert into his books a thing so new, and so foreign to ecclesiastical discipline and to the rule of truth, he did not say "I think," he did not say "I suppose," he did not say "I judge"; he did not say even "I suggest" or "I say," but "I rule," so that, namely, if we were offended by the novelty or perversity of the opinion, we might be terrified by the authority of his ruling.
DAeE.2.11.15Videris tu, frater, quomodo sustinere possis istum docentem: Catholici tamen qui sanum sapiunt sacerdotes, quibus et te oportet adiungi, absit ut acquiescant istum audire censentem, quem potius optant resipiscentem ac dolentem, et quod ista senserit, imo vero etiam scripserit, correctione saluberrima poenitentem. "Sed hoc, inquit, exemplo Machabaeorum in praelio cadentium astruo faciendum, qui cum furtim de interdictis auferrent, atque in ipso certamine cecidissent, a sacerdotibus, ait, invenimus hoc initum consilium fuisse, ut quorum animas ex vetito reatus obstrinxerat, sacrificiorum oblatio repararet (Cf. 2 Mach 12, 39-46)". Ita istud dicit, quasi pro incircumcisis illa oblata legerit sacrificia, sicut haec nostra pro non baptizatis censuit offerenda. Circumcisio quippe fuit illius temporis sacramentum, quod praefigurabat nostri temporis Baptismum.
You must see, brother, how you can endure this man teaching: yet the Catholic priests who are soundly wise, among whom you too ought to be joined, far be it that they should consent to hear this man ruling—one whom they rather wish to be coming to his senses and grieving, and repenting, with a most wholesome correction, that he thought, nay rather even wrote, these things. But this, he says, I maintain must be done by the example of the Maccabees falling in battle, who, when they secretly carried off forbidden things and fell in the very contest, from the priests, he says, we find that this counsel was taken: that the offering of sacrifices should restore those whose souls guilt from a forbidden thing had bound (Cf. 2 Macc 12:39–46). So he says this, as though he had read those sacrifices offered for the uncircumcised, just as he ruled these of ours to be offered for the unbaptized. For circumcision was the sacrament of that time, which prefigured the Baptism of our time.
DAeE.2.11.1512. 16. Verumtamen iste in sui comparatione qualis posterius apparuit, tolerabilius adhuc errat. Nam velut poenituerit eum (non quod debuit poenitere, id est, quod ausus fuerit asserere non baptizatis relaxari originale peccatum, atque indulgentiam dari omnium peccatorum, ut in paradisum, hoc est, locum tantae felicitatis mittantur, et beatas mansiones in domo Patris habere mereantur); sed illud eum potius poenituerit, quod eis minoris beatitudinis extra regnum coelorum concesserit sedes; adiunxit, atque ait: "Aut si forte quispiam reluctetur, latronis animae vel Dinocratis interim temporarie collatum paradisum - nam superesse illis adhuc in resurrectione praemium regni coelorum: quamquam sententia illa principalis obsistat, Quia qui non renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto, non intrabit in regnum coelorum (Io 3, 5) - tamen teneat etiam meum in hac parte non invidentis assensum, modo misericordiae praescientiaeque divinae et effectum amplificet et affectum". Haec verba in secundo eius libro lecta descripsi. Numquid in hac causa erroris audaciam, temeritatem, praesumptionem habere quispiam posset ampliorem? Ipse sententiam dominicam recordatur, ipse commemorat, ipse suis litteris interponit, ipse dicit: "quamquam sententia illa principalis obsistat, quia: Qui non renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto, non intrabit in regnum coelorum"; et audet tamen suae censurae levare cervicem contra sententiam principalem! "Teneat, inquit, etiam meum non invidentis assensum": qui dicit animas non baptizatorum temporarie mereri paradisum - propter has enim, latronem atque Dinocratem, tamquam praescribendo, vel potius praeiudicando commemorat -, in resurrectione autem in meliora transferri et regni coelorum percipere praemium: "quamquam sententia, inquit, principalis obsistat". Iam ergo ipse considera, quaeso te, frater, quisquis cuipiam praebet assensum adversus auctoritatem sententiae principalis, quam sententiam merebitur principis?
12. 16. Nevertheless this man, in comparison with what he afterward appeared, still errs more tolerably. For, as though he repented—not of what he ought to have repented, that is, of having dared to assert that original sin is relaxed for the unbaptized, and pardon of all sins given, so that they are sent into paradise, that is, a place of such great happiness, and deserve to have blessed mansions in the Father's house; but rather of having granted them seats of lesser blessedness outside the kingdom of heaven—he added and said: Or if perhaps anyone struggles against it—that paradise was conferred for the present, temporarily, on the soul of the thief or of Dinocrates (for there still remains for them, in the resurrection, the reward of the kingdom of heaven, although that principal saying stands in the way, that whoever has not been reborn of water and the Holy Spirit will not enter the kingdom of heaven (John 3:5))—let him nonetheless hold also my assent in this part, as one not envying, provided he both enlarge the effect of divine mercy and foreknowledge, and its affection. These words I copied as read in his second book. Could anyone, in this cause, have greater audacity, rashness, presumption of error? He himself recalls the Lord's saying, he himself mentions it, he himself inserts it into his writings, he himself says: although that principal saying stands in the way, that whoever has not been reborn of water and the Holy Spirit will not enter the kingdom of heaven; and yet he dares to raise the neck of his ruling against the principal saying! Let him hold, he says, also my assent, as one not envying: he who says that the souls of the unbaptized deserve paradise temporarily—for on their account, the thief and Dinocrates, he makes mention, as though prescribing, or rather prejudging—but in the resurrection are transferred to better things and receive the reward of the kingdom of heaven: although, he says, the principal saying stands in the way. Now, then, consider yourself, I beg you, brother: whoever gives his assent to anyone against the authority of the principal saying, what saying will he deserve from the prince?
DAeE.2.12.1612. 17. Novellos haereticos Pelagianos iustissime conciliorum catholicorum et Sedis Apostolicae damnavit auctoritas, eo quod ausi fuerint non baptizatis parvulis dare quietis et salutis locum, etiam praeter regnum coelorum. Quod ausi non fuissent, nisi negarent eos habere originale peccatum, quod opus esset absolvi per Baptismatis sacramentum. Iste autem sicut catholicus dicit, parvulos originali obstrictos esse peccato, et tamen eos ab huiusmodi vinculo sine lavacro regenerationis absolvit, et post mortem in paradisum misericors mittit; post resurrectionem vero etiam in regnum coelorum misericordior introducit. Talis sibi Saül misericors visus est, quando pepercit regi quem Deus praecepit occidi (Cf. 1 Reg 15.-): sed merito inobediens misericordia, vel misericors inobedientia reprobata atque damnata est: ut caveat homo, ne ab illo misericordiam mereatur homo, contra eius sententiam a quo factus est homo.
12. 17. The novel Pelagian heretics the authority of the Catholic councils and of the Apostolic See most justly condemned, because they dared to give to unbaptized little ones a place of rest and salvation, even outside the kingdom of heaven. Which they would not have dared, unless they denied that they have original sin, which would need to be loosed through the sacrament of Baptism. But this man, like a Catholic, says that little ones are bound by original sin, and yet he absolves them from such a bond without the bath of regeneration, and mercifully sends them after death into paradise; but after the resurrection, more mercifully, even leads them into the kingdom of heaven. Such a merciful man Saul seemed to himself when he spared the king whom God had commanded to be killed (Cf. 1 Sam 15): but his disobedient mercy, or merciful disobedience, was deservedly reproved and condemned; that a man may beware lest he deserve mercy from him, against the saying of him by whom man was made.
DAeE.2.12.17Intonat per os proprii corporis Veritas: Si quis non fuerit renatus ex aqua et Spiritu, non potest introire in regnum Dei (Io 3, 5). Atque ut ab hac sententia exceptos martyres faciat, quibus contigerit ante pro Christi nomine occidi, quam Christi Baptismate dilui, dicit alio loco: Qui perdiderit animam suam propter me, inveniet ea (Mt 10, 39-). Et ne cuiquam qui non renatus fuerit christianae fidei lavacro, promittatur peccati originalis abolitio, clamat Apostolus: Per unius delictum in omnes homines ad condemnationem (Rom 5, 18). Contra quam condemnationem Dominus unum esse ostendens salutis auxilium: Qui crediderit, inquit, et baptizatus fuerit, salvus erit; qui autem non crediderit, condemnabitur (Mc 16, 16-). Cuius mysterium credulitatis in parvulis per eorum responsionem a quibus gestantur, impletur; ne si factum non fuerit, eant ex uno omnes in condemnationem. Et tamen contra tam manifestas voces, quas concinit veritas, procedit in medium magis vecors quam misericors vanitas, et dicit: "Non solum non eunt in damnationem parvuli, etsi nullum eos christianae fidei lavacrum a vinculo originalis peccati absolvat; verum etiam felicitate paradisi post mortem interim perfruuntur, post resurrectionem etiam regni coelorum felicitatem possidebunt". Haec iste contra catholicam fundatissimam fidem numquid dicere auderet, si quaestionem solvendam de animae origine vires suas excedentem suscipere non auderet?
The Truth thunders through the mouth of his own body: Unless one is born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5). And, that he may make the martyrs exempt from this sentence—those to whom it has fallen to be killed for the name of Christ before being washed by the Baptism of Christ—he says in another place: Whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it (Matt 10:39). And, lest to anyone who has not been reborn by the bath of the Christian faith the abolition of original sin be promised, the Apostle cries out: Through the offense of one upon all men unto condemnation (Rom 5:18). Against which condemnation the Lord, showing that there is one help of salvation, says: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; but whoever does not believe will be condemned (Mark 16:16). The mystery of which believing is fulfilled in little ones through the response of those by whom they are carried; lest, if it be not done, all go from one into condemnation. And yet, against such manifest voices, which the truth sings in harmony, there comes forth into the midst a vanity more witless than merciful, and says: Not only do little ones not go into damnation, even if no bath of the Christian faith absolves them from the bond of original sin; but they even enjoy meanwhile, after death, the happiness of paradise, and after the resurrection will possess also the happiness of the kingdom of heaven. Would this man dare to say these things against the most firmly founded Catholic faith, if he did not dare to take up the question of the soul's origin, which is to be resolved—a question exceeding his powers?
DAeE.2.12.1713. 18. Horrendis est enim coarctatus angustiis ab eis qui dicunt: "Cur Deus animam tam iniusta animadversione mulctavit, ut in corpus eam peccati relegare voluerit; cum consortio carnis peccatrix esse incipit, quae peccatrix esse non potuit"? Utique enim dicunt: "Non potuit anima esse peccatrix, nisi eam Deus miscuisset carnis consortio peccatricis". Qua ergo iustitia id fecerit Deus, cum iste invenire non posset; maxime propter aeternam damnationem morientium parvulorum, quibus non baptizatis expiatum non fuerit originale peccatum: cur itaque Deus iustus et bonus, parvulorum animas, quibus praescivit non subventurum christianae gratiae Sacramentum, ab omni noxa propaginis liberas, mittendo in corpus quod ex Adam trahitur, vinculo peccati originalis obstrinxerit, atque isto modo reas aeternae damnationis effecerit,
13. 18. For he was hemmed in by dreadful straits by those who say: Why did God punish the soul with so unjust a chastisement as to will to banish it into a body of sin, since it begins to be sinful through fellowship with the sinful flesh, when it could not be sinful? For surely they say: The soul could not be sinful unless God had mingled it with the fellowship of sinful flesh. By what justice, then, God did this, since this man could not find—especially because of the eternal damnation of dying little ones, for whom, unbaptized, original sin would not have been expiated: why, then, the just and good God, by sending into the body which is drawn from Adam the souls of little ones, for whom he foreknew the sacrament of Christian grace would not come to aid, souls free from all guilt of propagation, has bound them with the bond of original sin, and in this way made them guilty of eternal damnation,
DAeE.2.13.18cum invenire non posset; nec vellet dicere etiam ipsas ex illa una originem trahere peccatricem: maluit per naufragium miserabile exire, quam temerarium cursum velis depositis, et remis suae disputationis inhibitis, provida deliberatione frenare. Viluit quippe iuveni senilis nostra cunctatio, quasi huic molestissimae ac periculosissimae quaestioni magis fuerit impetus eloquentiae, quam consilium prudentiae necessarium. Et praevidit hoc etiam ipse, sed frustra. Nam haec sibi velut ab adversariis propositurus obiecta, "ex hinc alia, inquit, substruuntur opprobria querulis murmurationibus oblatrantium, et excussi quasi quodam turbine, identidem inter immania saxa collidimur". His praedictis quaestionem supra dictam scopulosissimam sibi proposuit, ubi a fide catholica naufragavit, nisi refecerit poenitendo quod fregit.
since he could not find this, and would not say that these too draw their sinful origin from that one: he preferred to depart by a miserable shipwreck rather than, with sails lowered and the oars of his disputation held back, to curb his rash course by provident deliberation. For our aged hesitation seemed cheap to the young man, as though for this most troublesome and most dangerous question an impulse of eloquence were more necessary than the counsel of prudence. And he himself foresaw this too, but in vain. For, about to set before himself these objections as though from adversaries, he says: Hence other reproaches are heaped up by the querulous murmurings of those who bark against us, and, shaken as if by some whirlwind, again and again we are dashed among monstrous rocks. Having foretold these things, he set before himself the most rocky question mentioned above, where he was shipwrecked from the Catholic faith, unless by repenting he repairs what he broke.
DAeE.2.13.18Illum ego turbinem atque illa saxa devitans, navem illis committere nolui: et de hac re ita scripsi, ut rationem potius cunctationis meae, quam temeritatem praesumptionis ostenderem. Quod opusculum meum cum apud te invenisset, irrisit, seque illis cautibus animosiore impetu quam consultiore commisit. Sed quo eum praefidentia ista perduxerit, puto quod nunc videas: uberius autem ago Deo gratias, si et antea iam videbas. Cum enim nollet cohibere praecipitem cursum, propter ancipitem excursum, miserabilem invenit incursum, asserens Deum parvulis sine christiana regeneratione defunctis, et modo paradisum, et postea regnum conferre coelorum.
Avoiding that whirlwind and those rocks, I was unwilling to commit my ship to them; and I wrote of this matter in such a way as to show the reasoning of my hesitation rather than the rashness of presumption. When he had found this little work of mine in your possession, he laughed at it, and committed himself to those crags with an impulse more spirited than considered. But where this overconfidence has brought him, I think you now see; and I give the more abundant thanks to God if you saw it even before. For when he would not restrain his headlong course because of the doubtful outcome, he found a miserable onset, asserting that God confers on little ones who have died without Christian regeneration both paradise now and afterward the kingdom of heaven.
DAeE.2.13.1814. 19. Scripturarum vero testimonia quaecumque posuit, quibus animas Deum non ex illius primae propagine attrahere, sed sicut ipsam primam suas quibusque singulis insufflare, velut probare conatus est, ita sunt, quod ad istam quaestionem attinet, incerta et ambigua, ut etiam aliter accipi, quam ipse vult, facillime possint. Quod iam in eo libro quem scripsi ad amicum nostrum, cuius commemorationem superius feci, satis, quantum existimo, demonstravi. Testimonia quippe ipsa quae adhibuit, ubi legitur Deus animas vel dare, vel facere, vel fingere; unde illas det, vel unde faciat sive fingat, non ostendunt; utrum ex propagine illius primae, an insufflando sicut illam primam. Iste autem ex eo ipso quod legitur animas Deus dare, sive faciat, sive fingat, iam putat animarum negatam esse propaginem: cum Deus, eadem Scriptura teste, etiam corpora det, sive faciat, sive fingat, quae tamen ab illo ex propagine seminis dari, fieri, fingi, nemo ambigit.
14. 19. But whatever testimonies of the Scriptures he set down, by which he tried, as it were, to prove that God does not draw souls from the propagation of that first one, but breathes their own into each individual, as he did that first one, they are, as far as this question is concerned, so uncertain and ambiguous that they can most easily be taken otherwise than he wishes. Which I have already, as I judge, sufficiently shown in that book which I wrote to our friend, whom I mentioned above. For the very testimonies that he adduced, where it is read that God either gives, or makes, or forms souls, do not show from where he gives them, or from where he makes or forms them—whether from the propagation of that first one, or by breathing in, as he did that first one. But this man, from the very fact that it is read that God gives souls, whether he makes or forms them, already thinks that the propagation of souls is denied: although God, the same Scripture witnessing, also gives, or makes, or forms bodies, which nonetheless no one doubts are given, made, formed by him from the propagation of seed.
DAeE.2.14.1914. 20. Item quod scriptum est, ex uno sanguine Deum fecisse omne genus hominum (Cf. Act 17, 26); vel quod ait Adam: Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, et caro de carne mea (Gen 2, 23): quia neque ibi dictum est: ex una anima; neque hic, Anima de anima mea;
14. 20. Likewise, that it is written that God made every race of men from one blood (Cf. Acts 17:26); or that Adam said, This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh (Gen 2:23): because neither there was it said "from one soul," nor here, "soul of my soul,"
DAeE.2.14.20putat negari animas filiorum ex parentibus, vel illius mulieris ex viro: quasi vero si non, "ex uno sanguine", sed: ex una anima diceretur, aliud quam totus homo intellegeretur, nec corporis propagatio negaretur. Sic etiam si dictum esset, Anima de anima mea; non utique negaretur caro, quam de illo exemptam fuisse constabat.
he thinks the souls of sons are denied to be from the parents, or that of that woman from the man: as though, indeed, if it were said not from one blood, but "from one soul," anything other than the whole man would be understood, and the propagation of the body would not be denied. So too, even if it were said, "soul of my soul," the flesh would surely not be denied, which it was agreed had been taken from him.
DAeE.2.14.20A parte enim totum, sicut etiam a toto partem plerumque Scriptura significat. Nam certe si non, "ex uno sanguine", sed: ex uno homine, illo loco scriptum esset, institutum esse genus humanum, unde iste adhibuit testimonium, non praeiudicaret istis qui negant animarum propaginem; quamvis non sola anima, nec sola caro, sed utrumque sit homo. Responderent enim a toto partem, id est, ab homine solam hominis carnem, Scripturam significare potuisse. Sic ergo et hi qui defendunt animarum propaginem, illud quod dictum est, "ex uno sanguine", per sanguinem scilicet hominem, id est, a parte totum significatum esse contendunt.
For the Scripture often signifies the whole by a part, as also the part by the whole. For certainly, if it were written in that place from which this man adduced his testimony, not from one blood, but "from one man," that the human race was established, it would not prejudge those who deny the propagation of souls; although man is not soul alone, nor flesh alone, but both. For they would answer that the Scripture could have signified the part by the whole—that is, by "man" the flesh of man alone. So, then, those too who defend the propagation of souls contend that what was said, from one blood,—by "blood," namely, "man"—that is, the whole was signified by a part.
DAeE.2.14.20Sicut enim videtur illos iuvare quod dictum est, "ex uno sanguine", nec dictum est: ex uno homine: sic videtur et istos iuvare quod dictum est: Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum, et per peccatum mors; et ita in omnes homines pertransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt (Rom 5, 12); nec dictum est, In quo omnium caro peccavit. Itemque sicut illos videtur iuvare quod dictum est: Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, et caro de carne mea (Gen 2, 23); quia pars est dicta, non totum: sic iterum istos, quod ibi continuo sequitur: Haec vocabitur mulier, quoniam de viro suo sumpta est (Gen 2, 24). Debuit enim dici, aiunt: Quoniam de viro suo caro eius sumpta est; si non tota mulier, id est, cum anima, sed sola caro sumeretur ex viro (Cf. TERTULLIANO, De anima 36, 4).
For just as it seems to help them that it was said from one blood, and it was not said "from one man," so it seems also to help these others that it was said: Through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death; and so it passed upon all men, in whom all sinned (Rom 5:12); and it was not said, "in whom the flesh of all sinned." And likewise, just as it seems to help them that it was said, This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh (Gen 2:23), because a part was named, not the whole, so again it helps these others what immediately follows there: She shall be called woman, because she was taken from her man (Gen 2:24). For it ought to have been said, they say, "because her flesh was taken from her man," if not the whole woman, that is, with the soul, but the flesh alone were taken from the man (Cf. Tertullian, De anima 36, 4).
DAeE.2.14.20Porro autem utrisque auditis, qui sine studio partium iudicat, videt profecto, nec contra istos qui propaginem animarum defendunt proferenda illa testimonia ubi pars nominatur; quia potuit Scriptura significare illic a parte totum, sicut Verbum caro factum est (Io 1, 14), cum legimus, non utique carnem solam, sed hominem totum intellegimus: nec contra illos qui propaginem animarum destruunt, ista proferenda, ubi non pars hominis, sed totum commemoratur; quia potuit ibi Scriptura a toto partem significare, sicut sepultum confitemur Christum, cum eius caro sola sepulta sit. Ac per hoc propaginem animarum nec temere astruendam, nec temere destruendam dicimus: sed admonemus, alia testimonia esse quaerenda, quae non inveniantur ambigua.
Moreover, when both sides are heard, one who judges without partisan zeal surely sees that neither are those testimonies, where a part is named, to be brought forward against those who defend the propagation of souls—because the Scripture could there signify the whole by a part, just as, when we read the Word was made flesh (John 1:14), we surely understand not flesh alone, but the whole man—nor are those to be brought forward against those who do away with the propagation of souls, where not a part of man but the whole is mentioned—because the Scripture could there signify the part by the whole, just as we confess Christ buried, though his flesh alone was buried. And through this we say that the propagation of souls is neither rashly to be established nor rashly to be done away with; but we admonish that other testimonies must be sought, which are not found ambiguous.
DAeE.2.14.2015. 21. Quamobrem, quid te iste docuerit, et unde gratias egeris, nondum scio. Manet quippe illa quaestio sicut erat, in qua quaeritur de animarum origine, utrum illas Deus ex propagine illius unius, quam primo insufflavit homini; an ex flatu suo, sicut primo homini, det, faciat, fingat hominibus, quas eum dare, facere, fingere, fides christiana non dubitat.
15. 21. Wherefore, what this man taught you, and why you gave thanks, I do not yet know. For that question remains as it was, in which it is asked about the origin of souls, whether God gives, makes, forms them for men from the propagation of that one which he first breathed into man, or from his breath, as he did for the first man—souls which the Christian faith does not doubt that he gives, makes, forms.
DAeE.2.15.21Quam quaestionem iste cum solvere conaretur, nec vires suas intueretur, destruens animarum propaginem, et asserens eas puras ab omni contagione peccati, non de nihilo, sed de se ipso insufflare Creatorem, et naturam Dei mutabilitatis opprobrio, quod necesse non fuerat, infamavit;
When this man tried to resolve this question, and did not regard his own powers, doing away with the propagation of souls, and asserting that the Creator breathes them, pure from all contagion of sin, not from nothing but from his very self, he defamed the nature of God with the reproach of mutability, which had not been necessary;
DAeE.2.15.21et dum vult reddere rationem, ne Deus credatur iniustus, si puras ab omni peccato animas, etiam illas quas christiana regeneratione non redimit, vinculo peccati originalis innectit, ea dixit quae te nolo docuerit. Tantum enim salutis et felicitatis non baptizatis parvulis tribuit, quantum nec Pelagiana haeresis potuit. Et tamen de tot millibus parvulorum, qui nascuntur ex impiis, et inter impios moriuntur, non quibus homines per Baptismum, cum velint, subvenire non possunt, sed de quibus baptizandis nemo potuit vel poterit cogitare; nec quisquam pro eis obtulit vel oblaturus est sacrificium, quod iste etiam pro non baptizatis censuit offerendum, quid diceret non invenit.
and while he wishes to give an account, lest God be believed unjust, if he binds with the bond of original sin souls pure from all sin, even those whom he does not redeem by Christian regeneration, he said things which I do not want him to have taught you. For he attributed to unbaptized little ones as much of salvation and happiness as not even the Pelagian heresy could. And yet, concerning so many thousands of little ones who are born of the impious and die among the impious—not those whom men, by Baptism, when they wish, cannot aid, but those about whose baptizing no one could or will be able to think; nor has anyone offered, or will offer, the sacrifice for them, which this man ruled to be offered even for the unbaptized—he found nothing to say.
DAeE.2.15.21De quibus si fuerit interrogatus, eorum animae quid meruerint, ut illas Deus nec abluendas Baptismo, nec expiandas Christi corporis et sanguinis sacrificio, et in aeternum damnandas carni inserat peccatrici; aut omnino haerebit, et ei nostra cunctatio vel sero placebit, aut simul pro omnibus parvulis, qui toto orbe terrarum sine christiano Baptismate moriuntur, etiam eorum nominibus tacitis, quoniam nesciuntur in Ecclesia Christi, non incorporatis corpori Christi, offerendum corpus Christi esse censebit.
About whom, if he be asked what their souls deserved, that God should insert them—neither to be washed by Baptism, nor to be expiated by the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, and to be damned forever—into sinful flesh, either he will be altogether stuck, and our hesitation will please him, even if late; or, for all little ones together who die throughout the whole world without Christian Baptism, even with their names passed over in silence, since they are not known in the Church of Christ, not incorporated into the body of Christ, he will rule that the body of Christ is to be offered.
DAeE.2.15.2116. 22. Absit a te, frater, ut haec tibi placeant, absit ut ista vel didicisse gaudeas, vel docere praesumas: alioquin longe melior invenietur ipse quam tu. Quia in exordio primi sui libri modeste atque humiliter praelocutus est, dicens: "Cum tibi parere desidero, notam praesumptionis incurri"; et paulo post: "Quando quidem, inquit, nec mihi ipse sim credulus, ea quae dixero posse probari; studeamque semper etiam propriam sententiam non tueri, si improbabilis detegatur; et sit mihi cordi, proprio iudicio damnato, meliora magis et quae sint veriora sectari.
16. 22. Far be it from you, brother, that these things should please you; far be it that you should rejoice either to have learned them, or presume to teach them: otherwise he himself will be found far better than you. For in the opening of his first book he spoke modestly and humbly, saying: While I desire to obey you, I have incurred the mark of presumption; and a little after: Since I am not myself so credulous as to think that what I shall say can be proved; and I am eager always not to defend even my own opinion, if it be detected as improbable; and it is at heart with me, my own judgment being condemned, rather to pursue better things and those that are truer.
DAeE.2.16.22Nam ut est optimi propositi laudandique consilii, facile ad veriora transduci; ita improbi obstinatique iudicii est, nolle citius ad tramitem rationis inflecti". Haec quippe ille si veraciter dixit, atque ut locutus est sentit, magnae profecto spei animum gerit. Item in fine libri secundi: "Nec putes, inquit, ad invidiam tuam forsitan revocandum, cum in tua dictorum meorum constituam potestate iudicium. Ac ne forte cuiusquam curiosi lectoris obtutus, inter illitas fibras elementorum vestigia remanentia sollicitent et offendant, contextam paginae seriem pollice severo discerpe: meque huius censionis experte, puni, atramenta quae indigna eloquia signaverunt; ne hac occasione et tuum erga me iudicium, quo mihi vehementer indulges, et meae quae latebant ineptiae rideantur".
For as it is the mark of an excellent purpose and praiseworthy counsel to be easily led across to truer things, so it is the mark of a wicked and obstinate judgment to be unwilling to be bent the sooner to the path of reason. For if he said these things truthfully, and feels as he spoke, he surely bears a mind of great hope. Likewise at the end of the second book: Nor think that it must perhaps be recalled to your displeasure, since I place the judgment of my sayings in your power. And lest perhaps the gaze of some curious reader be disturbed and offended by the traces of the letters remaining among the smeared fibers, tear apart the woven sequence of the page with a severe thumb; and, with me free from this censure, punish the ink that has marked unworthy utterances; lest on this occasion both your judgment toward me, by which you greatly indulge me, and my own ineptitudes that lay hidden, be laughed at.
DAeE.2.16.2217. 23. Isto igitur cum ille suos libros et initio praemuniverit, et termino communiverit, atque tuis humeris imposuerit onus religiosum correctionis et emendationis suae: hoc apud te inveniat quod petivit, ut emendes eum iustus in misericordia, et arguas eum; oleum autem peccatoris quo impinguetur caput eius (Cf. Ps 140, 5), absit a manibus atque oculis tuis, id est, assentatio indecens adulantis, et deceptoria lenitudo blandientis. Quod si emendare neglegis cum videas emendandum, adversus caritatem facis: si autem tibi emendandus propterea non videtur, quia putas eum recte ista sensisse; adversus veritatem sapis. Et ideo ille melior, qui emendari est paratior, si non defuerit emendator, quam tu, si vel sciens irridenter contemnis errantem, vel nesciens pariter sectaris errorem.
17. 23. Since, then, he both fortified his books at the beginning and secured them at the end with this, and laid upon your shoulders the religious burden of his correction and amendment, let him find with you what he asked: that, just in mercy, you amend him and reprove him; but the oil of the sinner, with which his head may be made fat (Cf. Ps 141 (140):5), far be it from your hands and eyes—that is, the unbecoming flattery of one who fawns, and the deceptive softness of one who soothes. But if you neglect to amend him, when you see that he is to be amended, you act against love; but if he does not seem to you to be amended for this reason, because you think he thought rightly about these things, you are wise against truth. And therefore he is better, being more ready to be amended, if an amender is not lacking, than you, if either knowingly you scornfully despise one erring, or unknowingly you alike pursue error.
DAeE.2.17.23Omnia itaque in eisdem libris ad te scriptis et tibi traditis sobrie vigilanterque considera, et plura quam ego invenies fortasse culpanda. Et quaecumque ibi sunt approbanda atque laudanda, si quid in eis revera forsitan ignorabas, atque isto disserente didicisti, evidenter profitere quid illud sit; ut de hoc te gratias egisse, non de his quae illic improbanda tam multa sunt, omnes noverint, qui vel recitante illo tecum simul audierunt, vel eosdem postea libros legerunt:
And so, in the same books written to you and handed over to you, consider all things soberly and watchfully, and you will perhaps find more to blame than I. And whatever things there are there to be approved and praised, if perhaps in them there was indeed something you did not know, and you learned it from this man's discoursing, plainly profess what it is; so that all who either heard along with you when he recited, or afterward read those same books, may know that for this you gave thanks, not for those many things there that are to be disapproved:
DAeE.2.17.23ne in eius ornato eloquio tamquam in pretioso poculo te invitante, etsi non bibente, venenum bibant, si tu quid inde biberis, et quid non biberis nesciunt, et propter laudem tuam omnia illic bibenda salubriter arbitrantur. Quamvis et audire, et legere, et quae dicta sunt haurire memoria, quid est nisi bibere?
lest in his ornate eloquence, as in a precious cup, with you inviting, even if not drinking, they drink poison, if they do not know what you drank from it and what you did not drink, and, on account of your praise, judge that everything there is to be drunk wholesomely. Although both to hear, and to read, and to draw into the memory what has been said—what is it but to drink?
DAeE.2.17.23Sed praedixit Dominus de fidelibus suis, quod et si mortiferum quid biberint, non eis nocebit (Mc 16, 18). Ac per hoc qui cum iudicio legunt, et secundum regulam fidei approbanda approbant, et improbant improbanda; etiamsi commendant memoriae quae improbanda dicuntur, nulla venenata sententiarum pravitate laeduntur. Haec me Gravitatem et Religionem tuam, sive mutua, sive praevia caritate monuisse vel commonuisse minime poenitebit, Domino miserante, quomodolibet accipias, quod tibi praerogandum putavi. Agam vero ei uberes gratias, de cuius misericordia saluberrimum est fidere, si ab his pravitatibus et erroribus, quos ex libris huius hominis ostendere his litteris potui, alienam atque integram fidem tuam, vel invenerit epistola ista, vel fecerit.
But the Lord foretold of his faithful that even if they drink anything deadly, it will not harm them (Mark 16:18). And through this, those who read with judgment, and according to the rule of faith approve what is to be approved and disapprove what is to be disapproved, even if they commit to memory the things said that are to be disapproved, are harmed by no poisoned perversity of the opinions. That I have admonished or warned your Seriousness and Religion of these things, whether by mutual or by anticipating love, I shall by no means repent, the Lord being merciful, however you take what I thought should be paid forward to you. But I shall give abundant thanks to him, in whose mercy it is most wholesome to trust, if this letter either finds your faith free and whole from these perversities and errors, which I have been able to show from this man's books in this letter, or makes it so.
DAeE.2.17.23Bk. 3To Vincent VictorAd Vincentium Victorem
1. 1. Quod mihi ad te scribendum putavi, hoc prius cogites, fili dilectissime Victor, volo, si te contemnerem, nequaquam id me fuisse facturum. Nec ideo tamen humilitate nostra sic abutaris, ut propterea te existimes approbatum, quia cernis non fuisse contemptum. Non enim sequendum, sed corrigendum te diligo: et quoniam nec corrigi posse despero, nolo mireris me contemnere non posse quem diligo.
1. 1. What I thought I ought to write to you, this I want you to consider first, most beloved son Victor: that if I despised you, I would by no means have done it. Nor yet, for that reason, should you so abuse our humility as to think yourself approved because you see that you were not despised. For I love you not to be followed, but to be corrected; and since I do not despair that you can be corrected, I do not want you to wonder that I cannot despise one whom I love.
DAeE.3.1.1Si enim te antequam nobis communicares, diligere debui, ut esses catholicus; quanto magis te iam communicantem diligere debeo, ne sis novus haereticus, et ut sis talis catholicus, cui resistere nullus possit haereticus?
For if I ought to love you before you were in communion with us, that you might be a Catholic, how much more ought I to love you now in communion, lest you be a new heretic, and that you may be such a Catholic that no heretic can resist you?
DAeE.3.1.1Quantum enim apparet ex donis ingenii, quae iam tibi largitus est Deus, profecto sapiens eris, si te non esse credideris; atque ut sis, ab illo qui facit sapientes, pie, suppliciter, instanterque poposceris; et malueris errore non decipi, quam errantium laudibus honorari.
For as far as appears from the gifts of talent which God has already bestowed on you, you will surely be wise if you believe that you are not so; and if, that you may be so, you ask of him who makes men wise, piously, suppliantly, and insistently; and if you prefer not to be deceived by error than to be honored by the praises of those who err.
DAeE.3.1.12. 2. Prius me in libris tuis titulus tui nominis pro te sollicitum reddidit. Cum enim quis esset Vincentius Victor, ab eis qui te noverant, et forte aderant, requisissem; audivi te fuisse Donatistam, vel potius Rogatistam, nuper autem communicasse Catholicae. Et cum gauderem tantum, quantum de his solemus, quos ab illo errore liberatos esse cognoscimus; imo vero etiam multo amplius, quod ingenium tuum, quod delectabar in litteris tuis, videbam non remansisse apud adversarios veritatis:
2. 2. First, in your books, the title of your name made me anxious for you. For when I had asked who Vincent Victor was, from those who knew you and happened to be present, I heard that you had been a Donatist, or rather a Rogatist, but had recently come into communion with the Catholic Church. And when I rejoiced as much as we are accustomed to rejoice over those whom we know to have been freed from that error—nay rather, even much more, because your talent, in which I delighted in your writings, I saw had not remained with the adversaries of truth—
DAeE.3.2.2additum est a referentibus, quo me inter illa gaudia contristaret, ideo te cognominari voluisse Vincentium, quod Rogati successorem, qui hoc nomine appellatus est, adhuc tamquam magnum et sanctum virum animo teneas; et ob hoc illius nomen, tuum volueris esse cognomen. Nec defuerunt qui dicerent, etiam hoc a te fuisse iactatum, quod ipse tibi nescio qua visione apparuerit, atque ad hos conficiendos libros, de quibus tecum agere isto nostro opusculo institui, sic adiuverit, ut ea tibi scribenda, quantum ad res ipsas rationesque attinet, ipse dictaret. Quod si verum est, iam te illa dicere potuisse non miror, quae, si patienter auscultes admonitioni meae, et eos libros catholica mente consideres atque pertractes, te dixisse procul dubio poenitebit. Ille quippe qui se, sicut eum prodit Apostolus, transfigurat in angelum lucis (2 Cor 11, 14), in eum tibi est transfiguratus, quem tu fuisse vel esse tamquam lucis angelum credis. Et eo quidem modo minus ad decipiendos Catholicos valet, quando se non in lucis angelos, sed in haereticos transfigurat: sed te ab eo falli iam catholicum nollem. Crucietur ergo te didicisse quae vera sunt, quanto magis laetatus fuerat se tibi persuasisse quae falsa sunt.
it was added by those who reported it, what saddened me amid those joys, that you had wished to be surnamed Vincent because you still hold in your mind, as a great and holy man, the successor of Rogatus, who was called by this name; and on that account you wished his name to be your surname. Nor were there lacking those who said that you had even boasted of this, that he himself had appeared to you in some vision, and so helped you to compose these books, about which I have undertaken to deal with you in this little work of ours, that, as far as concerns the matters themselves and their reasonings, he himself dictated to you what you should write. But if this is true, I no longer wonder that you could say those things which, if you listen patiently to my admonition, and consider and handle those books with a Catholic mind, you will without doubt repent of having said. For he who, as the Apostle reveals, transfigures himself into an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14), was transfigured for you into him whom you believe to have been, or to be, as it were an angel of light. And in that way, indeed, he avails less to deceive Catholics, when he transfigures himself not into angels of light, but into heretics; but I would not now want you, a Catholic, to be deceived by him. Let it, then, torment you to have learned what is true, by as much as he had rejoiced to have persuaded you of what is false.
DAeE.3.2.2Ut autem non diligas hominem mortuum, cuius dilectio tibi obesse potest, prodesse illi non potest; hoc breviter intuearis admoneo; quod utique ille non est sanctus et iustus, si tu haereticorum Donatistarum vel Rogatistarum laqueos evasisti: si autem illum sanctum et iustum arbitraris, tu communicando Catholicis interisti. Profecto enim te catholicum fingis, si animo illud es, quod erat ille quem diligis. Et nosti quam terribiliter scriptum sit, quod Spiritus sanctus disciplinae fugiet fictum (Sap 1, 5). Si autem veraciter communicans, non te catholicum fingis; quid adhuc haereticum mortuum sic diligis, ut eius velis te iactare adhuc nomine, cuius iam non teneris errore? Nolumus te habere tale cognomentum, tamquam sis haeretici mortui monumentum. Nolumus talem titulum habere librum tuum, qualem falsum esse diceremus, si in eius sepulcro legeremus. Non enim Vincentium victorem scimus esse, sed victum: et utinam fructuose, sicut te vinci volumus veritate.
But, that you may not love a dead man, whose love can harm you but cannot profit him, I admonish you to consider this briefly: that he surely is not holy and just, if you have escaped the snares of the Donatist or Rogatist heretics; but if you judge him holy and just, you, by being in communion with Catholics, have perished. For surely you feign yourself a Catholic, if in mind you are that which he was whom you love. And you know how terribly it is written, that the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee the feigned (Wis 1:5). But if, being truly in communion, you do not feign yourself a Catholic, why do you still so love a dead heretic that you wish to boast yourself still by the name of one whose error you no longer hold? We do not want you to have such a surname, as though you were the monument of a dead heretic. We do not want your book to have such a title as we would say to be false if we read it on his tomb. For we do not know Vincent to be a victor, but vanquished; and would that it were fruitfully, as we want you to be vanquished by truth.
DAeE.3.2.2Astute autem putaris et callide, cum libros tuos, quos credi cupis illo tibi revelante dictatos, appellas Vincentii Victoris, non tam Vincentium te quam illum vocari voluisse Victorem, velut tibi revelando quae scriberes, vicisset errorem. Utquid tibi ista, fili?
But you are thought to have wished, shrewdly and cunningly, when you call your books, which you desire to be believed dictated to you by his revealing, "Vincent Victor's," not so much that you should be called Vincent as that he should be called Victor, as though, by revealing to you what you should write, he had vanquished error. To what end these things for you, son?
DAeE.3.2.2Esto potius verus, non fictus catholicus, ne te fugiat Spiritus Sanctus, et nihil tibi possit prodesse Vincentius, in quem se ad te fallendum transfiguravit malignissimus spiritus: eius quippe sunt illa, qualibet tibi fraude persuasa.
Be rather a true, not a feigned, Catholic, lest the Holy Spirit flee you, and Vincent be able to profit you nothing—Vincent, into whom the most malignant spirit transfigured himself to deceive you: for those things are his, by whatever fraud persuaded to you.
DAeE.3.2.2Quae si admonitus pia humilitate et catholica pace correxeris, errores fuisse iudicabuntur studiosissimi iuvenis, emendari potius quam in eis remanere cupientis. Si autem pro eis tibi etiam contentionem, quod absit, persuaserit pervicacem; iam tamquam haeretica dogmata cum suo necesse erit auctore damnari, cura scilicet pastorali et medicinali, priusquam per incautum vulgus serpant dira contagia, cum dilectionis non veritate, sed nomine, salubris neglegitur disciplina.
Which things, if, being admonished, you correct them with pious humility and Catholic peace, they will be judged the errors of a most studious young man, desiring rather to be amended than to remain in them. But if for them he should persuade you even of obstinate contention—which God forbid—then it will be necessary that they be condemned, as heretical dogmas, together with their author, with pastoral and medicinal care, namely, before through the incautious crowd the dire contagions creep, when, not by the truth but by the name of love, wholesome discipline is neglected.
DAeE.3.2.23. 3. Si quaeris quaenam illa sint, poteris quidem legere mea scripta ad fratres nostros, Renatum Dei servum, et presbyterum Petrum, ad quem tu eadem ipsa, de quibus agimus, scribenda existimasti, "eius, ut asseris, voluntati petentis obtemperans". Dabunt enim tibi ut legas procul dubio, si volueris, et ingerent etiam non petenti. Verumtamen etiam hic, quae maxime in eisdem libris tuis, et in fide tua emendari cupiam, non tacebo.
3. 3. If you ask what those things are, you can indeed read my writings to our brothers, Renatus the servant of God, and the priest Peter, to whom you thought these very matters of which we are treating should be written, obeying, as you assert, the will of him who asked. For they will without doubt give them to you to read, if you wish, and will press them on you even unasked. Nevertheless, here too I will not be silent about what I most desire to be amended in those books of yours and in your faith.
DAeE.3.3.3Primum est, quod "animam non ita vis a Deo esse factam, ut eam ex nihilo fecerit, sed ex semetipso". Ubi non putas esse consequens ut naturae sit Dei: quia profecto quam sit impium, et ipse cognoscis. Qua impietate ut careas, ita oportet ut dicas animae auctorem Deum, ut ab illo facta sit, non de illo. Quod enim de illo est, sicut unigenitus Filius, eiusdem naturae cuius et ille est. Ut autem anima eiusdem naturae non sit cuius est ille, facta est quidem ab illo, sed non de illo. Aut ergo dic unde, aut fatere de nihilo.
The first is, that you do not want the soul to have been so made by God that he made it from nothing, but from his very self. In which you do not think it a consequence that it is of the nature of God: because surely how impious that is, you yourself recognize. That you may be free from this impiety, you must so say that God is the author of the soul, that it was made by him, not from him. For what is from him, like the only-begotten Son, is of the same nature of which he too is. But that the soul may not be of the same nature of which he is, it was indeed made by him, but not from him. Either, then, say from where, or confess from nothing.
DAeE.3.3.3Quid est quod dicis "eam particulam esse quamdam halitus naturae Dei"? Numquidnam ipsum halitum naturae Dei, cuius halitus est ista particula, negas eiusdem cuius Deus est esse naturae? Si negas, ergo de nihilo et istum halitum fecit Deus, cuius halitus animam vis esse particulam. Aut si non de nihilo, dic unde illum fecerit Deus. Si de se ipso, ergo ipse est, quod absit, materies operis sui. Sed dicis, "cum de se ipso halitum vel flatum facit, ipse integer manet": quasi non et ignis lucernae integer maneat, cum de illo altera accenditur, et tamen eiusdem, non alterius, sit naturae.
What is it that you say, that it is a certain particle of the breath of the nature of God? Do you deny that the very breath of the nature of God, of which this is a particle, is of the same nature of which God is? If you deny it, then God made from nothing this breath too, of whose breath you want the soul to be a particle. Or if not from nothing, say from where God made it. If from his very self, then he himself is—God forbid—the material of his own work. But you say, when he makes a breath or wind from his very self, he himself remains entire: as though the fire of a lamp too did not remain entire, when another is kindled from it, and yet is of the same, not another, nature.
DAeE.3.3.34. 4. "Sed, inquis, cum a nobis uter inflatur, non aliqua portio nostrae naturae, vel qualitatis infunditur; cum hic ipse spiritus, quo hausto uter impletus extenditur, sine aliqua nostri diminutione egeratur". His verbis tuis adhuc addis et immoraris, et inculcas similitudinem quasi necessariam, qua intellegamus quomodo Deus sine suae naturae aliquo detrimento, et de se ipso animam faciat, et facta de ipso, non sit quod ipse. Dicis enim: "Numquid animae nostrae est portio utris inflatio, aut homines fingimus cum utres inflamus, aut detrimentum nostri in aliquo patimur, cum flatus nostros in diversa partimur? Sed nullum patimur detrimentum, cum ex nobis ad aliquid transmittimus flatum; et manente in nobis plena flatus proprii qualitate et integra quantitate, nullum nos meminimus damnum ex utris inflatione sentire".
4. 4. But, you say, when a wineskin is inflated by us, no portion of our nature or quality is infused; since this very breath, by which, drawn in, the skin is filled and stretched, is given out without any diminution of ourselves. To these words of yours you still add and dwell, and press in a comparison as though necessary, by which we are to understand how God, without any detriment to his nature, both makes the soul from his very self, and the soul, made from him, is not what he is. For you say: Is the inflation of the skin a portion of our soul, or do we fashion men when we inflate skins, or do we suffer detriment of ourselves in anything, when we divide our breaths into different things? But we suffer no detriment, when we transmit breath from ourselves to something; and, the full quality and entire quantity of our own breath remaining in us, we do not remember to feel any loss from the inflation of the skin.
DAeE.3.4.4Ista similitudine, quae satis elegans et congruens tibi videtur, quantum fallaris attende. Deum quippe dicis incorporeum, non de nihilo a se factam, sed de se ipso animam sufflare corpoream: cum flatum nos, licet corporeum, subtiliorem tamen emittamus, quam nostra sunt corpora; nec eum de anima nostra, sed de hoc aere per viscera corporis exhalemus. Pulmones quippe anima, cuius nutu moventur etiam caetera corporis membra, ad hunc aerium spiritum ducendum atque reddendum, sicut folles movet. Praeter enim alimenta solida et fluxa, unde est cibus et potus, hoc tertium nobis Deus alimentum circumfudit aurarum, quas ita carpimus, ut sine cibo et potu diu esse possimus, sine hoc autem alimento tertio, quod aura nobis, quae undique circumsistit, spirantibus et respirantibus exhibet, nec exiguo temporis spatio possumus vivere. Sicut autem cibus et potus non solum ingerendi, verum etiam per meatus ad hoc institutos egerendi sunt, ne utroque laedant, vel non intrando, vel non exeundo: ita hoc tertium flabile alimentum, quia in nobis manere non sinitur, nec immorando corrumpitur, sed egeritur mox ut ingeritur; non alios, sed eosdem meatus, id est, os, aut nares, aut utrumque, et qua intraret, et qua exiret, accepit.
In this comparison, which seems to you elegant and fitting enough, attend to how greatly you are deceived. For you say that God is incorporeal, and breathes the soul, made not from nothing by himself, but from his very self, as corporeal: whereas we emit a breath, although corporeal, yet more subtle than our bodies; and we exhale it not from our soul, but from this air, through the inward parts of the body. For the soul, at whose nod the other members of the body too are moved, moves the lungs for drawing in and giving back this airy breath, as it moves bellows. For besides solid and liquid nourishments, from which come food and drink, God has poured around us this third nourishment of air, which we so take that we can be a long time without food and drink, but without this third nourishment, which the air surrounding us on every side furnishes to us as we breathe in and breathe out, we cannot live even for a brief space of time. But just as food and drink must not only be taken in, but also given out through the passages established for this, lest by either they harm us, either by not entering or by not going out, so this third breathable nourishment, because it is not allowed to remain in us, nor is corrupted by lingering, but is given out as soon as it is taken in, received not other passages, but the same—that is, the mouth, or the nostrils, or both—both by which it would enter and by which it would go out.
DAeE.3.4.44. 5. In te ipso tibi proba ipse quod dico: emitte spiritum flando, et vide utrum dures, si non receperis: recipe respirando, et vide quas patiaris angustias, si non rursus emiseris. Hoc igitur facimus, quando utrem, sicut dicis, inflamus, quod facimus ut vivamus: nisi quod tunc paulo plus ducimus, ut paulo plus emittamus, ut spiritum flabilem, id est, ventum in utrem implendum et extendendum non quiete spirandi et respirandi, sed anhelandi impetu coarctemus. Quomodo ergo dicis, "nullum patimur detrimentum, cum ex nobis ad aliquid transmittimus flatum; et manente in nobis plena flatus proprii qualitate et integra quantitate, nullum nos meminimus damnum ex utris inflatione sentire"? Apparet te, fili, si aliquando utrem inflasti, non advertisse quid egeris. Quod enim inflando amittis, statim recipiendo non sentis. Sed potes hoc facillime discere, si hoc potius velis, quam tua dicta, quia iam dicta sunt, non inflans utrem, sed inflatus ipse defendere, et auditores tuos, quos veris rebus aedificare debes, inani strepitu ventosi sermonis inflare.
4. 5. In yourself prove for yourself what I say: emit the breath by blowing, and see whether you last, if you do not take it back; take it back by breathing in, and see what straits you suffer, if you do not again emit it. This, then, we do when we inflate a skin, as you say, which we do in order to live: except that then we draw a little more, so as to emit a little more, so that we may force the breathable breath—that is, the wind—into the skin to be filled and stretched, not by the quiet of breathing in and breathing out, but by the impulse of panting. How, then, do you say, we suffer no detriment, when we transmit breath from ourselves to something; and, the full quality and entire quantity of our own breath remaining in us, we do not remember to feel any loss from the inflation of the skin? It appears, son, that if you ever inflated a skin, you did not notice what you did. For what you lose by blowing, you do not feel, taking it back at once. But you can learn this most easily, if you would rather do this than defend your sayings, because they have already been said—not by inflating a skin, but, inflated yourself, and by inflating your hearers, whom you ought to build up with true things, with the empty noise of windy speech.
DAeE.3.4.5In hac causa non te ad magistrum mitto, nisi ad te ipsum. Emitte flatum in utrem, et os claude continuo, naresque detine, et sic saltem senti verum esse quod dico. Cum enim coeperis angustias intolerabiles perpeti, quid cupies ore aperto naribusque recipere, si quando sufflasti, nihil te existimas amisisse? Vide in quo malo sis, nisi hauriendo resumas quod effundendo reddideras. Vide, illa insufflatio qualia damna et detrimenta fecisset, nisi ea respiratio reparasset. Nisi enim quod impenderis ad utrem implendum, ad te itidem alendum aditu patefacto redierit, quid tibi, non solum unde illum inflare, sed unde tu possis vivere, remanebit?
In this matter I send you not to a teacher, but to yourself. Emit a breath into a skin, and close your mouth at once, and hold your nostrils, and so at least feel that what I say is true. For when you begin to suffer intolerable straits, what will you desire to take back with open mouth and nostrils, if, whenever you have blown, you think you have lost nothing? See in what an evil you are, unless by drawing in you take back what by pouring out you had given. See what losses and detriments that breathing-in would have caused, unless the breathing-out had repaired them. For unless what you spent on filling the skin returns to you likewise, the entrance being opened, to nourish you, what will remain to you, not only from which to inflate it, but from which you yourself can live?
DAeE.3.4.54. 6. Haec debuisti considerare, cum scriberes; et non ista similitudine utrium inflatorum vel inflandorum introducere nobis Deum, aut ex alia natura quae iam erat, sicut nos ex isto circumfuso aere flatum facimus, animas flare: aut certe, quod et abhorret ab ista similitudine, et abundat impietate, Deum sine ullo quidem sui detrimento, sed tamen de sua natura mutabile aliquid vel proferre, vel, quod est peius, tamquam sui operis materies ipse sit, facere.
4. 6. These things you ought to have considered when you wrote; and not, by this comparison of skins inflated or to be inflated, to introduce to us a God who either, from another nature that already existed—as we make a breath from this air poured around us—breathes souls; or certainly, what both is abhorrent to that comparison and abounds in impiety, a God who, without any detriment indeed to himself, yet from his nature, either brings forth something mutable, or, what is worse, as though he himself were the material of his own work, makes it.
DAeE.3.4.6Ut ergo aliquam de nostro flatu ad hanc rem adhibeamus similitudinem, id potius est credendum: quod sicut nos non de natura nostra, sed quia omnipotentes non sumus, de isto aere circumfuso quem trahimus et reddimus, cum spiramus et respiramus, flatum facimus quando sufflamus, nec viventem nec sentientem, quamvis nos vivamus atque sentiamus; ita Deum non de sua natura, sed quia sic omnipotens est, ut possit creare quod vult, etiam ex eo quod omnino non est, id est, de nihilo flatum facere posse viventem atque sentientem; sed plane cum sit immutabilis ipse mutabilem.
In order, then, that we may apply some comparison from our own breath to this matter, this rather must be believed: that, just as we make a breath when we blow—not from our nature, but, because we are not almighty, from this air poured around us, which we draw in and give back when we breathe in and breathe out—a breath neither living nor perceiving, although we live and perceive; so God can make a breath living and perceiving, not from his nature, but because he is so almighty that he can create what he wills even from that which altogether does not exist, that is, from nothing—but, plainly, since he himself is immutable, a mutable one.
DAeE.3.4.65. 7. Quid autem sibi vult, quod huic similitudini addendum putasti ad exemplum de beato Elisaeo, quia flando in eius faciem mortuum suscitaverit (4 Reg 4, 34-35)? Itane tu flatum Elisaei factum fuisse putas animam pueri? Non usque adeo te a vero exorbitare crediderim.
5. 7. But what does it mean, that you thought you should add to this comparison the example of blessed Elisha, that by blowing into the boy's face he raised the dead one (2 Kgs 4:34–35)? Do you, then, think that the breath of Elisha became the soul of the boy? I would not believe that you stray so far from the truth.
DAeE.3.5.7Si ergo anima illa quae viventi ablata fuerat ut moreretur, eadem ipsa illi ut revivisceret reddita est; quid ad rem pertinet quod dixisti nihil Elisaeo fuisse diminutum", quasi ab illo aliquid transisse, unde viveret, credatur in puerum? Quod si propterea dictum est, quia flavit et integer mansit; quid opus erat ut hoc de Elisaeo mortuum resuscitante diceres, quod de quovis flante et neminem suscitante dicere nihilominus posses?
If, then, that soul which had been taken from the living boy so that he died was the very same one restored to him so that he revived, what is it to the matter that you said nothing was diminished from Elisha, as though something were believed to have passed from him, from which the boy might live? But if it was said for this reason, because he blew and remained entire, what need was there for you to say this of Elisha raising the dead, which you could no less say of anyone blowing and raising no one?
DAeE.3.5.7Incaute sane locutus es (cum absit ut credas flatum Elisaei factum fuisse reviviscentis animam pueri), quod primum Dei factum, ab istius prophetae facto hoc distare voluisti, quod ille semel, iste ter flaverit.
You spoke incautiously, indeed (since far be it that you should believe the breath of Elisha became the reviving soul of the boy), in that you wished to distinguish that first deed of God from this deed of the prophet by this, that the one blew once, the other thrice.
DAeE.3.5.7Dixisti quippe Elisaeum in faciem defuncti filii illius Sunamitis, ad instar primaevae originis insufflasse. "Et cum emortua membra, inquis, in vigorem pristinum redanimata, per halitum Prophetae divina virtus accenderet, nihil Elisaeo fuerit imminutum, per cuius flatum corpus emortuum redivivam animam recepit et spiritum: nisi quod semel Dominus in faciem hominis insufflavit, et vixit; tertio Elisaeus in faciem mortui aspiravit, et revixit". Sic sonant tua verba ista, quasi flandi tantum nume
For you said that Elisha breathed into the face of the deceased son of that Shunammite, after the likeness of the primeval origin. And when, you say, the divine power kindled the dead members, reanimated to their former vigor, through the breath of the prophet, nothing was diminished from Elisha, through whose breath the dead body received again a living soul and spirit: except that the Lord once breathed into the face of man, and he lived; Elisha three times breathed upon the face of the dead, and he revived. Thus these words of yours sound, as though only the number of blowings
DAeE.3.5.7rus interfuerit, ut non quod fecit Deus, etiam Propheta fecisse credatur. Et hoc ergo emendandum est. Tam multum quippe interfuit inter illud opus Dei, et hoc Elisaei, ut ille flaverit flatum vitae, quo fieret homo in animam viventem (Cf. Gen 2, 7); iste autem flaverit flatum, neque sentientem neque viventem, sed aliquid significandi gratia figurantem.
made the difference, so that the prophet too is believed to have done what God did. And this, then, must be amended. For so great a difference was there between that work of God and this of Elisha, that the one blew the breath of life, by which man became a living soul (Cf. Gen 2:7); but the other blew a breath neither perceiving nor living, but figuring something for the sake of signifying.
DAeE.3.5.7Denique ut puer iste revivisceret, non eum animando Propheta fecit, sed eum amando ut hoc Deus faceret impetravit. Quod autem illum ter flasse dicis, aut memoria, sicut fieri solet, aut mendositas codicis te fefellit. Quid plura? Non sunt tibi ad hoc astruendum aliqua exempla et argumenta quaerenda, sed potius emendanda et mutanda sententia. Noli ergo credere, noli ergo dicere, noli docere "quod non de nihilo, sed de sua natura fecerit animam Deus", si vis esse catholicus.
Finally, that this boy might revive, the prophet did not bring it about by giving him a soul, but by loving so that God might do this, he obtained it. But as to your saying that he blew thrice, either your memory, as is wont to happen, or a fault of the codex deceived you. What more? You need not seek some examples and arguments to establish this, but rather your opinion must be amended and changed. Do not, then, believe, do not say, do not teach that God made the soul not from nothing, but from his nature, if you wish to be a Catholic.
DAeE.3.5.76. 8. Noli credere, nec dicere, nec docere "per infinitum tempus, atque ita semper Deum animas dare, sicut semper est ipse qui dat", si vis esse catholicus. Erit enim tempus quando non dabit animas Deus, cum tamen esse ipse non desinat. Poterat quidem sic accipi, quod aisti, "semper dat" ut intellegeretur sine cessatione dare quamdiu homines generant et generantur (Cf. Lc 20, 34), sicut dictum est de quibusdam: Semper discentes, et ad veritatis scientiam nunquam pervenientes (2 Tim 20, 34): non enim sic accipitur quod hic positum est, "semper", velut nunquam desinant discere; cum procul dubio non discant, quando in hoc corpore destiterint vivere, vel cum coeperint supplicio gehennalis ignis ardere: sed tu non permisisti sic accipi verbum tuum, cum dixisti "semper dat", quando quidem id ad infinitum tempus revocandum putasti.
6. 8. Do not believe, nor say, nor teach that through infinite time, and so always, God gives souls, just as he himself who gives always is, if you wish to be a Catholic. For there will be a time when God will not give souls, while he himself nonetheless does not cease to be. What you said, he always gives, could indeed have been taken so as to be understood as giving without ceasing, so long as men beget and are begotten (Cf. Luke 20:34), just as it was said of certain ones: Always learning, and never coming to the knowledge of the truth (2 Tim 3:7)—for what is set down here, "always," is not so taken as though they never cease to learn, since without doubt they do not learn when they cease to live in this body, or when they begin to burn in the punishment of the fire of Gehenna; but you did not allow your word to be so taken, when you said he always gives, since indeed you thought it should be recalled to infinite time.
DAeE.3.6.8Et parum hoc fuit: sed tamquam quaereretur abs te, ut apertius explicares quomodo dixeris, "semper dat", addidisti atque dixisti "sicut semper est ipse qui dat". Hoc sana et catholica fides omnino condemnat. Absit enim ut credamus quod animas Deus semper dat, sicut semper est ipse qui dat. Sic enim semper est ipse, ut nunquam esse desistat: animas autem non semper dabit, sed eas finito generationis saeculo (2 Tim 3, 7), non iam nascentibus quibus dandae sunt, procul dubio dare cessabit.
And this was too little: but, as though it were asked of you that you should explain more openly how you said he always gives, you added and said just as he himself who gives always is. This the sound and Catholic faith altogether condemns. For far be it that we should believe that God always gives souls, just as he himself who gives always is. For he himself so always is that he never ceases to be; but he will not always give souls, but, the age of generation being finished (Cf. Luke 20:34–35), there being no longer any being born to whom they are to be given, he will without doubt cease to give.
DAeE.3.6.87. 9. Noli credere, nec dicere, nec docere, "animam meritum aliquod perdidisse per carnem, tamquam boni meriti fuerit ante carnem", si vis esse catholicus. Nondum enim natos Apostolus nihil egisse dicit boni vel mali (Cf. Rom 9, 11). Unde ergo anima potuit ante carnem habere meritum bonum, ubi nihil egerat boni? An forte audebis eam dicere ante carnem bene vixisse, quam non potes ostendere vel fuisse? Quomodo ergo dicis: "Non vis animam ex carne peccati contrahere valetudinem, ad quam vicissim sanctificationem videas transire per carnem, ut per ipsam reparet statum, per quam perdiderat meritum"? Haec dogmata, quibus putatur anima ante carnem habuisse aliquem statum bonum et meritum bonum, si forte nescis, exceptis antiquis haereticis, etiam recentius in Priscillianistis iam catholica damnavit Ecclesia.
7. 9. Do not believe, nor say, nor teach that the soul lost some merit through the flesh, as though it had a good merit before the flesh, if you wish to be a Catholic. For the Apostle says that those not yet born did nothing good or evil (Cf. Rom 9:11). From where, then, could the soul have a good merit before the flesh, where it had done nothing good? Or will you perhaps dare to say that it lived well before the flesh, which you cannot show even to have been? How, then, do you say: You do not want the soul to contract ill health from the flesh of sin, to which in turn you may see sanctification pass through the flesh, so that through it it may recover the state through which it had lost its merit? These dogmas, by which the soul is thought to have had some good state and good merit before the flesh, if perhaps you do not know it, the Catholic Church has condemned—apart from the ancient heretics—even more recently in the Priscillianists.
DAeE.3.7.97. 10. Noli credere, nec dicere, nec docere, "animam per carnem reparare habitudinem priscam et per illam renasci, per quam meruerat inquinari", si vis esse catholicus. Ut enim omittam in eo quod dixisti: "Merito ergo per carnem, priscam reparat habitudinem, quam visa fuerat paulisper amisisse per carnem, ut per eam incipiat renasci, per quam meruerat inquinari", tam in proximo te ipsum tibi ipsi exstitisse contrarium; ut homo qui paulo ante dixeras, animam per carnem reparare statum per quam perdiderat meritum -, ubi nullo modo potest nisi bonum meritum intellegi, quod vis utique per carnem in baptismate reparari -, rursus eam diceres inquinari meruisse per carnem -, ubi iam non potest bonum sed malum meritum intellegi -: ut ergo id omittam; prorsus vel bonum, vel malum meritum credere habuisse animam ante carnem, catholicum non est.
7. 10. Do not believe, nor say, nor teach that the soul recovers through the flesh a former condition, and is reborn through that through which it had deserved to be defiled, if you wish to be a Catholic. For—to pass over the fact that, in what you said, Rightly, then, through the flesh it recovers its former condition, which it had seemed for a little while to have lost through the flesh, so that through it it may begin to be reborn, through which it had deserved to be defiled, you proved yourself, so close at hand, contrary to your very self; so that you, a man who a little before had said that the soul recovers through the flesh the state through which it had lost its merit—where in no way can anything but a good merit be understood, which you surely want recovered through the flesh in Baptism—again said that it deserved to be defiled through the flesh, where now not a good but an evil merit can be understood—to pass over this, then: to believe at all that the soul had either a good or an evil merit before the flesh is not Catholic.
DAeE.3.7.108. 11. Noli credere, nec dicere, nec docere, "quod anima meruerit esse peccatrix ante omne peccatum" si vis esse catholicus. Valde enim malum meritum est, meruisse fieri peccatricem. Et utique tam malum meritum nullo modo habere potuit ante omne peccatum, praesertim priusquam veniret in carnem, quando meritum nec malum potuit habere, nec bonum. Quomodo igitur dicis: "Anima itaque si peccatrix esse meruit, quae peccatrix esse non potuit, tamen neque in peccato remansit, quia in Christo praefigurata in peccato esse non debuit (Cf. Eph 5, 26), sicut esse non potuit"? Attende quid dicas, et desiste iam dicere. Quomodo enim meruit, et quomodo non potuit esse peccatrix? Quomodo, quaeso te, peccatrix esse meruit, quae male non vixit? Quomodo, quaeso te, peccatrix facta est, quae peccatrix esse non potuit? Aut si "non potuit", ideo dicis, quia praeter carnem non potuit: quomodo ergo meruit esse peccatrix, quo merito in carnem mitteretur; quandoquidem ante carnem non potuit esse peccatrix, unde mali aliquid mereretur?
8. 11. Do not believe, nor say, nor teach that the soul deserved to be a sinner before all sin, if you wish to be a Catholic. For it is a very evil merit to have deserved to become a sinner. And surely so evil a merit it could in no way have had before all sin, especially before it came into the flesh, when it could have neither an evil merit nor a good one. How, then, do you say: And so the soul, if it deserved to be a sinner, which could not be a sinner, yet did not remain in sin, because, prefigured in Christ, it ought not to be in sin (Cf. Eph 5:26), just as it could not be? Attend to what you say, and now cease to say it. For how did it deserve, and how could it not be a sinner? How, I ask you, did it deserve to be a sinner, which did not live badly? How, I ask you, was it made a sinner, which could not be a sinner? Or if you say it could not for this reason, because apart from the flesh it could not: how, then, did it deserve to be a sinner, by which merit it would be sent into the flesh, since before the flesh it could not be a sinner, whence it might deserve something evil?
DAeE.3.8.119. 12. Noli credere, nec dicere, nec docere, "infantes antequam baptizentur morte praeventos, pervenire posse ad originalium indulgentiam peccatorum" si vis esse catholicus. Exempla enim quae te fallunt, vel de latrone qui Dominum est confessus in cruce (Cf. Lc 23, 43), vel de fratre sanctae Perpetuae Dinocrate, nihil tibi ad huius erroris sententiam suffragantur. Latro quippe ille, quamvis potuerit iudicio divino inter eos deputari, qui martyrii confessione purgantur, tamen etiam utrum non fuerit baptizatus, ignoras. Nam ut omittam quod creditur, aqua simul cum sanguine exsiliente de latere Domini, iuxta confixus potuisse perfundi, atque huiusmodi sanctissimo baptismate dilui: quid, si in carcere fuerat baptizatus, quod et postea persecutionis tempore nonnulli clanculo impetrare potuerunt? Quid, si et antequam teneretur? Neque enim propterea illi publicae leges parcere poterant, quantum attinet ad corporis mortem, quoniam divinitus remissionem acceperat peccatorum. Quid, si iam baptizatus in latrocinii facinus et crimen incurrerat, et non expers Baptismatis, sed tamquam poenitens accepit scelerum veniam quae baptizatus admisit? quandoquidem pietas tam fidelis, et Domino in animo eius, et nobis in verbis eius apparuit.
9. 12. Do not believe, nor say, nor teach that infants, overtaken by death before they are baptized, can attain to the pardon of original sins, if you wish to be a Catholic. For the examples that deceive you, whether about the thief who confessed the Lord on the cross (Cf. Luke 23:43), or about Dinocrates, the brother of holy Perpetua, support you nothing toward the opinion of this error. For that thief, although he could by divine judgment be counted among those who are purified by the confession of martyrdom, yet you are also ignorant whether he was not baptized. For—to pass over what is believed, that, the water gushing out together with the blood from the Lord's side, he, fixed beside him, could have been sprinkled, and washed by a baptism of this most holy kind—what if he had been baptized in prison, which some too were afterward able to obtain secretly in time of persecution? What if even before he was seized? For the public laws could not on that account spare him, as far as concerns the death of the body, because he had divinely received the remission of sins. What if, already baptized, he had fallen into the crime and offense of robbery, and, not lacking Baptism, but as a penitent, received pardon of the crimes which, baptized, he committed?—since so faithful a piety appeared both to the Lord in his mind, and to us in his words.
DAeE.3.9.12Nam si eos, de quibus non scriptum est utrum fuerint baptizati, sine Baptismo de hac vita recessisse contendimus; ipsis calumniamur Apostolis, qui, praeter apostolum Paulum (Cf. Act 9, 18), quando baptizati fuerint ignoramus. Sed si ipsos baptizatos esse per hoc nobis innotescere potuit, quod beato Petro Dominus ait; Qui lotus est, non indiget ut lavet (Io 13, 10): quid de aliis, de quibus vel tale nihil legimus dictum, de Barnaba, de Timotheo, de Tito, de Sila, de Philemone, de ipsis evangelistis Marco et Luca, de innumerabilibus caeteris; quos absit ut baptizatos esse dubitemus, quamvis non legamus?
For if we contend that those of whom it is not written whether they were baptized departed from this life without Baptism, we slander the Apostles themselves, of whom—except the apostle Paul (Cf. Acts 9:18)—we do not know when they were baptized. But if it could become known to us that they were baptized through this, that the Lord said to blessed Peter, He who has been washed has no need to wash (John 13:10), what of the others, of whom we read no such thing said—of Barnabas, of Timothy, of Titus, of Silas, of Philemon, of the very evangelists Mark and Luke, of the countless others, whom far be it that we should doubt to have been baptized, although we do not read it?
DAeE.3.9.12Dinocrates autem septennis puer, in quibus annis pueri cum baptizantur, iam Symbolum reddunt, et pro se ipsi ad interrogata respondent, cur non tibi visus fuerit baptizatus potuisse ab impio patre ad Gentilium sacrilegia revocari, et ob hoc fuisse in poenis, de quibus sorore orante liberatus est, nescio. Neque enim et ipsum vel nunquam fuisse christianum, vel catechumenum defunctum fuisse legisti? Quamquam ipsa lectio non sit in eo canone Scripturarum, unde in huiusmodi quaestionibus testimonia proferenda sunt.
But Dinocrates, a boy of seven years—at which years boys, when they are baptized, already recite the creed and answer for themselves to the questions—why he did not seem to you possibly to have been baptized, and recalled by an impious father to the sacrileges of the gentiles, and on that account to have been in the punishments from which, his sister praying, he was freed, I do not know. For did you read that he either was never a Christian, or died a catechumen? Although that very reading is not in that canon of the Scriptures from which in questions of this kind testimonies are to be brought forward.
DAeE.3.9.1210. 13. Noli credere, nec dicere, nec docere: "quos Dominus praedestinavit ad baptismum, praedestinationi eius eripi posse, et ante defungi quam in eis fuerit quod Omnipotens praedestinavit impletum", si vis esse catholicus. Nescio enim quae hic potestas contra potestatem Dei casibus datur, quibus irruentibus quod ille praedestinavit fieri non sinatur.
10. 13. Do not believe, nor say, nor teach that those whom the Lord predestined to Baptism can be snatched from his predestination, and die before what the Almighty predestined has been fulfilled in them, if you wish to be a Catholic. For I do not know what power here is given to chances against the power of God, by whose rushing in what he predestined is not allowed to come to pass.
DAeE.3.10.13Hic error quanta errantem voragine impietatis absorbeat, exaggerare non opus est; cum prudentem virum et corrigi paratum breviter admonuisse sufficiat. Tua quippe ista sunt verba: "Habendam dicimus, inquis, de infantibus istiusmodi rationem, qui praedestinati baptismo, vitae praesentis, antequam renascantur in Christo, praeveniuntur occiduo Ergone praedestinati baptismo, vitae praesentis, antequam ad eum perveniant, praeveniuntur occiduo", et praedestinaret Deus quod futurum non fuisse praescivit, aut hoc futurum non fuisse nescivit, ut eius aut praedestinatio frustraretur, aut praescientia falleretur? Vides quanta hinc dici possent, nisi quod paulo ante dixi tenerem, ut hinc te breviter admonerem.
How great a whirlpool of impiety this error swallows up the one erring, there is no need to amplify, since it suffices to have briefly admonished a prudent man, ready to be corrected. For these are your words: We say, you say, that an account of this kind is to be held concerning infants who, predestined to Baptism, are overtaken by the death of the present life before they are reborn in Christ. If, then, predestined to Baptism, they are overtaken by death before they come to it, either God predestined what he foreknew would not be, or he did not know this would not be—so that either his predestination was frustrated, or his foreknowledge deceived? You see how many things could be said here, did I not hold to what I said a little before, so as briefly to admonish you of this.
DAeE.3.10.1310. 14. Noli credere, nec dicere, nec docere, "de infantibus, qui priusquam renascantur in Christo, praeveniuntur occiduo, scriptum esse: Raptus est ne malitia mutet illius intellectum, aut ne fictio decipiat animam eius. Propter hoc properavit de medio iniquitatis illum educere; placita enim erat Deo anima eius: et: Consummatus in brevi, replevit tempora longa" (Sap 4, 11. 13-14), si vis esse catholicus.
10. 14. Do not believe, nor say, nor teach that of infants who, before they are reborn in Christ, are overtaken by death, it is written: He was caught up lest wickedness change his understanding, or lest deceit beguile his soul. For this cause he hastened to lead him out of the midst of iniquity; for his soul was pleasing to God; and: Being made perfect in a short while, he fulfilled long times (Wis 4:11, 13–14), if you wish to be a Catholic.
DAeE.3.10.14Hoc enim ad illos omnino non pertinet, sed ad eos potius, qui baptizati et pie viventes, diu non permittuntur hic vivere, non annis, sed sapientiae gratia consummati. Iste vero error, quo putatur hoc de parvulis antequam baptizentur morientibus esse dictum; ipsi sacrosancto lavacro intolerabilem facit iniuriam, si parvulus qui baptizatus rapi poterat, propterea prius rapitur, ne malitia mutet illius intellectum, aut ne fictio decipiat animam eius: quasi in eodem Baptismo haec esse malitia credatur, et fictio qua in peius mutetur et decipiatur, si non ante rapiatur.
For this does not pertain to them at all, but rather to those who, baptized and living piously, are not permitted to live here long, made perfect not in years but in the grace of wisdom. But this error, by which it is thought that this was said of little ones dying before they are baptized, does an intolerable injury to the most holy bath itself, if a little one who could be snatched away baptized is for this reason snatched away first, lest wickedness change his understanding, or lest deceit beguile his soul: as though in that same Baptism there were believed to be this wickedness and deceit by which he would be changed for the worse and beguiled, if he were not snatched away first.
DAeE.3.10.14Deinde quoniam placita erat Deo anima eius, properavit de medio iniquitatis illum educere, ita ut nec paululum remoraretur, ut quod in eo praedestinarat, impleret: sed contra suam praedestinationem facere maluit tamquam festinans, ne quod ei placuerat in non baptizato, exterminaretur in baptismo: tamquam moriturus infans ibi pereat, quo currendum est cum illo ne pereat. Quis ergo haec verba scripta in libro Sapientiae, de parvulis sine baptismate mortuis dicta esse crederet, diceret, scriberet, recitaret, si ea, sicut oportuerat, cogitaret?
Then, since his soul was pleasing to God, he hastened to lead him out of the midst of iniquity, in such a way as not to delay even a little, so that he might fulfill what he had predestined in him: but he preferred to act against his own predestination, as though hastening, lest what had pleased him in the unbaptized be destroyed in Baptism—as though an infant about to die should perish there to which one must run with him lest he perish. Who, then, would believe, say, write, recite that these words written in the book of Wisdom were said of little ones dead without Baptism, if he considered them, as he ought, thoughtfully?
DAeE.3.10.1411. 15. Noli credere, nec dicere, nec docere, "aliquas mansionum esse extra regnum Dei, quas esse Dominus dixit in domo Patris sui", si vis esse catholicus. Non enim ait, sicut hoc testimonium ipse posuisti: "Multae mansiones sunt apud Patrem meum"; quod si ita dixisset, non alibi essent intellegendae quam in domo Patris eius: sed aperte ait: In domo Patris mei mansiones multae sunt (Io 14, 2). Quis itaque audeat aliquas partes domus Dei separare a regno Dei; ut cum reges terrae non tantum in domo sua, nec tantum in patria sua, sed longe, lateque etiam trans mare regnare inveniantur; rex qui fecit coelum et terram nec in tota domo sua regnare dicatur?
11. 15. Do not believe, nor say, nor teach that some of the mansions which the Lord said are in his Father's house are outside the kingdom of God, if you wish to be a Catholic. For he did not say, as you yourself set down this testimony, "There are many mansions with my Father"; for if he had said so, they would have to be understood nowhere else than in his Father's house: but he plainly says, In my Father's house are many mansions (John 14:2). Who, then, would dare to separate some parts of the house of God from the kingdom of God; so that, whereas the kings of the earth are found to reign not only in their own house, nor only in their own homeland, but far and wide even across the sea, the king who made heaven and earth should be said not to reign even in his whole house?
DAeE.3.11.1511. 16. Sed forte dicas, omnia quidem pertinere ad Dei regnum, quia regnat in coelis, regnat in terris, in abyssis, in paradiso, in inferno, (ubi enim non regnat, cuius ubique summa potestas est?)
11. 16. But perhaps you say that all things indeed pertain to the kingdom of God, because he reigns in the heavens, reigns on the earth, in the depths, in paradise, in hell (for where does he not reign, whose supreme power is everywhere?);
DAeE.3.11.16sed aliud esse regnum coelorum, quo fas non est accedere, nisi lavacro regenerationis ablutos, propter dominicam veram fixamque sententiam (Cf. Tit 3, 5; 1 Cor 6, 11; Mc 16, 16); aliud autem esse regnum terrarum, vel aliarum creaturae partium,
but that the kingdom of heaven is one thing, to which it is not lawful to approach unless washed by the bath of regeneration, on account of the true and fixed saying of the Lord (Cf. Titus 3:5; 1 Cor 6:11; Mark 16:16); but the kingdom of the lands, or of other parts of creation, another,
DAeE.3.11.16ubi possunt esse aliquae mansiones domus Dei, quamvis pertinentes ad regnum Dei, non tamen ad regnum coelorum, ubi excellentius et beatius est regnum Dei:
where there can be some mansions of the house of God, although pertaining to the kingdom of God, yet not to the kingdom of heaven, where the kingdom of God is more excellent and more blessed:
DAeE.3.11.16ita fieri, ut nec aliquae domus Dei partes atque mansiones a regno Dei nefarie separentur; et tamen non omnes in regno coelorum mansiones praeparentur; atque in his quae in regno coelorum non sunt, possint feliciter habitare, quibus eas etiam non baptizatis Deus dare voluerit; ut in regno Dei sint, quamvis in regno coelorum, quia baptizati non sunt, esse non possint.
so that it comes about that neither are some parts and mansions of the house of God wickedly separated from the kingdom of God; and yet not all the mansions are prepared in the kingdom of heaven; and in those which are not in the kingdom of heaven, there can dwell happily those to whom God has willed to give them, even unbaptized; so that they are in the kingdom of God, although they cannot be in the kingdom of heaven, because they are not baptized.
DAeE.3.11.1611. 17. Hoc qui dicunt, videntur quidem sibi dicere aliquid, quia Scripturas neglegenter attendunt, et quomodo regnum Dei dicatur, unde oramus dicentes: Adveniat regnum tuum (Mt 6, 10), non intellegunt. Regnum Dei dicitur, ubi cum illo fidelis familia eius beate et sempiterne tota regnabit. Nam secundum potestatem quae illi super omnia est, etiam nunc utique regnat. Quid ergo est quod oramus ut veniat, nisi ut cum illo regnare mereamur? Sub eius autem potestate etiam illi erunt, qui poena aeterni ignis ardebunt: numquidnam ob hoc etiam ipsos in regno Dei futuros dicturi sumus? Aliud est enim regni Dei muneribus honorari, aliud regni Dei legibus coerceri.
11. 17. Those who say this seem indeed to themselves to say something, because they attend negligently to the Scriptures, and do not understand in what way the kingdom of God is spoken of, for which we pray, saying, Your kingdom come (Matt 6:10). The kingdom of God is said to be where his faithful household, the whole of it, will reign blessedly and everlastingly with him. For according to the power which is his over all things, even now he surely reigns. What, then, is it that we pray may come, except that we may deserve to reign with him? But under his power will be also those who will burn in the punishment of eternal fire: are we, on that account, going to say that they too will be in the kingdom of God? For it is one thing to be honored by the gifts of the kingdom of God, another to be restrained by the laws of the kingdom of God.
DAeE.3.11.17Ut autem tibi manifestissime appareat, non esse regnum coelorum distribuendum baptizatis, et alias partes regni Dei dandas quibus tibi visum est, non baptizatis; ipsum Dominum audi, qui non ait: Si quis non renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu, non potest intrare in regnum coelorum; sed, non potest, inquit, intrare in regnum Dei (Io 3, 5). Nam verba eius de hac re ista sunt ad Nicodemum: Amen, amen dico tibi, nisi quis natus fuerit denuo, non potest videre regnum Dei (Io 3, 3). Ecce non hic dixit: Regnum coelorum; sed: "Dei". Et cum respondisset Nicodemus atque dixisset: Quomodo potest homo nasci, cum senex sit? numquid potest in ventrem matris suae iterato introire, et nasci? (Io 3, 4) eamdem Dominus sententiam planius apertiusque repetens ait: Amen, amen dico tibi, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu, non potest introire in regnum Dei (Io 3, 4). Ecce nec hic dixit: Regnum coelorum; sed, "regnum Dei". Quod enim dixerat: Nisi quis natus fuerit denuo; hoc quid esset exposuit dicens: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu. Et quod dixerat, non potest videre; hoc exposuit dicendo, non potest introire. Illud tamen quod dixerat, "regnum Dei", non alio nomine repetivit.
But that it may appear to you most plainly that the kingdom of heaven is not to be distributed to the baptized, and other parts of the kingdom of God given to the unbaptized, as it seemed to you, hear the Lord himself, who does not say, Unless one is born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven; but, he cannot, he says, enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5). For his words on this matter to Nicodemus are these: Amen, amen I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God (John 3:3). Behold, here he did not say "the kingdom of heaven," but "of God." And when Nicodemus had answered and said, How can a man be born, when he is old? Can he enter again into his mother's womb, and be born? (John 3:4) the Lord, repeating the same saying more plainly and openly, says: Amen, amen I say to you, unless one is born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5). Behold, neither here did he say "the kingdom of heaven," but "the kingdom of God." For what he had said, Unless one is born anew, he explained what it was, saying, Unless one is born again of water and the Spirit. And what he had said, he cannot see, this he explained by saying, he cannot enter. Yet what he had said, "the kingdom of God," he did not repeat by another name.
DAeE.3.11.17Neque nunc opus est quaerere atque disserere, utrum regnum Dei regnumque coelorum cum aliqua differentia sit intellegendum, an res una sit duobus appellata nominibus: sufficit quod non potest introire in regnum Dei, qui non fuerit lavacro regenerationis ablutus. Mansiones autem aliquas constitutas in domo Dei separare a regno Dei, quam sit a veritate devium, puto quod iam intellegas. Et ideo quod putasti, in aliquibus mansionibus, quas Dominus multas esse dixit in domo Patris sui, mansuros quosdam etiam non renatos ex aqua et Spiritu, ut fidem catholicam teneas, admoneo, si permittis, emendare non differas.
Nor is there need now to ask and discuss whether the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are to be understood with some difference, or whether it is one thing called by two names: it suffices that he cannot enter the kingdom of God who has not been washed by the bath of regeneration. But to separate some mansions established in the house of God from the kingdom of God—how far that strays from the truth, I think you now understand. And therefore what you thought, that in some of the mansions which the Lord said are many in his Father's house there would dwell certain ones not even reborn of water and the Spirit, I admonish you—that you may hold the Catholic faith—not to delay, if you permit, to amend.
DAeE.3.11.1712. 18. Noli credere, nec dicere, nec docere, "sacrificium christianorum pro eis qui non baptizati de corpore exierint, offerendum", si vis esse catholicus. Quia nec illud quod de Machabaeorum libris (2 Mach 12, 39-46) commemorasti sacrificium Iudaeorum, pro eis qui non circumcisi de corpore exierant, ostendis oblatum. In qua tua sententia tam nova, et contra Ecclesiae totius auctoritatem disciplinamque prolata, verbo etiam insolentissimo usus es, dicens: "Pro his sane oblationes assiduas et offerenda iugiter sanctorum censeo sacrificia sacerdotum", ut te homo laicus sacerdotibus Dei nec discendo subderes, nec saltem simul quaerendo misceres, sed censendo praeponeres. Aufer tibi ista, fili: non sic in via, quam Christus humilis se ipsum esse docuit, ambulatur; nullus cum hoc tumore per angustam portam eius ingreditur (Cf. Io 14, 6; Mt 7, 13; Lc 13, 24).
12. 18. Do not believe, nor say, nor teach that the sacrifice of Christians is to be offered for those who have departed from the body unbaptized, if you wish to be a Catholic. For neither do you show that the sacrifice of the Jews which you mentioned from the books of the Maccabees (Cf. 2 Macc 12:39–46) was offered for those who had departed from the body uncircumcised. In which opinion of yours, so new, and brought forward against the authority and discipline of the whole Church, you used also a most insolent word, saying: For these, certainly, I judge that constant offerings, and the sacrifices of the holy priests, should be offered continually—so that you, a layman, neither subjected yourself to the priests of God by learning, nor at least joined yourself by inquiring together, but set yourself above them by ruling. Take these things from yourself, son: it is not thus that one walks on the way which Christ, in his humility, taught that he himself is; no one enters through his narrow gate with this swelling (Cf. John 14:6; Matt 7:13; Luke 13:24).
DAeE.3.12.1813. 19. Noli credere, nec dicere, nec docere "aliquos eorum qui sine baptismo Christi ex hac vita emigraverint, interim non ire in regnum coelorum, sed in paradisum; postea vero, in resurrectione mortuorum, etiam ad regni coelorum beatitudinem pervenire", si vis esse catholicus. Hoc enim eis dare nec Pelagiana haeresis ausa est, quae opinatur parvulos non trahere originale peccatum: quos tu quamvis sicut catholicus cum peccato nasci fatearis, nescio qua tamen perversioris novitate opinionis, sine baptismate salutari, et ab hoc peccato cum quo nascuntur absolvi, et in regnum coelorum asseris introduci, neque consideras, in hac causa quam deterius sapias quam Pelagius. Ille quippe dominicam sententiam pertimescens, qua non baptizati in regnum coelorum non permittuntur intrare, licet eos quos ab omni peccato liberos credit, non illo audet parvulos mittere: tu vero sic contemnis quod dictum est: Si quis non renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu, non potest introire in regnum Dei (Io 3, 5); ut excepto errore, quo audes a regno Dei paradisum separare, quibusdam quos reos nasci, sicut catholicus, credis, sine Baptismate mortuis, et illius reatus absolutionem, et regnum coelorum non dubites insuper polliceri:
13. 19. Do not believe, nor say, nor teach that some of those who have departed from this life without the Baptism of Christ do not, meanwhile, go into the kingdom of heaven, but into paradise; but afterward, in the resurrection of the dead, attain even to the blessedness of the kingdom of heaven, if you wish to be a Catholic. For not even the Pelagian heresy dared to give them this, which holds that little ones do not draw original sin: little ones whom you, although, like a Catholic, you confess that they are born with sin, nevertheless, by I know not what perversity of a more perverse novelty of opinion, assert to be absolved, without the bath of salvation, both from this sin with which they are born, and to be led into the kingdom of heaven; nor do you consider how, in this cause, you are worse wise than Pelagius. For he, fearing the Lord's saying, by which the unbaptized are not permitted to enter the kingdom of heaven, although he believes them free from all sin, does not dare to send little ones there: but you so despise what was said, Unless one is born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5), that—besides the error by which you dare to separate paradise from the kingdom of God—to certain ones whom, like a Catholic, you believe to be born guilty, dead without Baptism, you do not hesitate, over and above, to promise both the absolution of that guilt and the kingdom of heaven:
DAeE.3.13.19quasi contra Pelagium in originali peccato astruendo tunc esse possis catholicus verus, si contra Dominum fueris in destruenda eius de Baptismo sententia haereticus novus. Nos te, dilectissime, non sic volumus haereticorum esse victorem, ut error vincat errorem, et, quod est peius, maior minorem.
as though against Pelagius, in establishing original sin, you could be a true Catholic then, if against the Lord, in destroying his saying about Baptism, you were a new heretic. We do not, most beloved, want you so to be a victor over heretics that error vanquishes error, and, what is worse, the greater the lesser.
DAeE.3.13.19Dicis enim: "Aut si forte quispiam reluctetur, latronis animae vel Dinocratis interim temporarie collatum esse paradisum -; nam superesse illis adhuc in resurrectione praemium regni coelorum; quamquam sententia illa principalis obsistat, quia qui non renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non intrabit in regnum -, tamen teneat etiam meum in hac parte non invidentis assensum, modo misericordiae praescientiaeque divinae et effectum amplificet et affectum".
For you say: Or if perhaps anyone struggles against it—that paradise was conferred for the present, temporarily, on the soul of the thief or of Dinocrates (for there still remains for them, in the resurrection, the reward of the kingdom of heaven, although that principal saying stands in the way, that whoever has not been reborn of water and the Holy Spirit will not enter the kingdom)—let him nonetheless hold also my assent in this part, as one not envying, provided he both enlarge the effect of divine mercy and foreknowledge, and its affection.
DAeE.3.13.19Haec verba tua sunt, ubi te confiteris consentire dicenti, quibusdam non baptizatis sic temporarie collatum esse paradisum, ut supersit illis in resurrectione praemium regni coelorum, contra sententiam principalem, qua constitutum est, non intraturum in illud regnum, qui non renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto. Quam sententiam principalem timens violare Pelagius, nec illos sine Baptismo in regnum coelorum credidit intraturos, quos non credidit reos: tu autem et originalis peccati reos parvulos confiteris, et tamen eos sine lavacro regenerationis absolvis, et in paradisum mittis, et postea etiam in regnum coelorum intrare permittis.
These are your words, where you confess that you agree with one who says that paradise was so conferred temporarily on certain unbaptized ones that there remains for them, in the resurrection, the reward of the kingdom of heaven, against the principal saying, by which it is established that he will not enter that kingdom who has not been reborn of water and the Holy Spirit. Which principal saying Pelagius, fearing to violate, did not believe that even those whom he did not believe guilty would enter the kingdom of heaven without Baptism: but you both confess that little ones are guilty of original sin, and yet absolve them without the bath of regeneration, and send them into paradise, and afterward also permit them to enter the kingdom of heaven.
DAeE.3.13.1914. 20. Haec atque huiusmodi, si et alia forsitan in tuis libris attentior et otiosior invenire potueris, sine ulla dilatione iam corrige, si animum catholicum geris, id est, si veraciter praelocutus es, dicens, "quod tibi ipsi credulus non sis, ea probari posse quae dixeris; et quod semper studeas etiam propriam sententiam non tueri, si improbabilis detegatur; et sit tibi cordi, proprio iudicio damnato, meliora magis et quae sunt veriora sectari". Modo proba, carissime, non te fallaciter ista dixisse, ut de tua indole non solum ingeniosa, verum etiam cauta, pia, modesta, gaudeat catholica Ecclesia, non de contentiosa pertinacia haeretica exardescat insania.
14. 20. These things, and things of this kind—if perhaps, more attentive and at more leisure, you can find others too in your books—correct now without any delay, if you bear a Catholic mind; that is, if you spoke truthfully at the outset, saying that you are not so credulous toward yourself as to think that what you said can be proved; and that you are always eager not to defend even your own opinion, if it is detected as improbable; and that it is at heart with you, your own judgment being condemned, rather to pursue better things and those that are truer. Now prove, dearest one, that you did not say these things deceitfully, so that the Catholic Church may rejoice over your disposition, not only talented but also cautious, pious, modest, and not blaze up over a contentious heretical madness of obstinacy.
DAeE.3.14.20Nunc est ut ostendas, quanta post haec bona verba quae tua commemoravi, sinceritate pectoris dixeris, quod continuo subiecisti: "Nam ut est, inquis, optimi propositi laudandique consilii, facile ad veriora transduci; ita improbi obstinatique iudicii est, nolle citius ad tramitem rationis inflecti".
Now is the time for you to show with how great a sincerity of heart you said, after these good words of yours which I mentioned, what you immediately added: For as it is the mark of an excellent purpose and praiseworthy counsel to be easily led across to truer things, so it is the mark of a wicked and obstinate judgment to be unwilling to be bent the sooner to the path of reason.
DAeE.3.14.20Esto igitur optimi propositi laudandique consilii, et facile ad veriora transducere: nec sis improbi obstinatique iudicii, ut nolis citius ad tramitem rationis inflecti. Si enim haec liberaliter elocutus es, si non in labiis ista sonuisti, sed intus et germanitus in corde sensisti; in tuae correctionis tanto bono etiam moras odisti.
Be, then, of an excellent purpose and praiseworthy counsel, and easily led across to truer things; and do not be of a wicked and obstinate judgment, so as to be unwilling to be bent the sooner to the path of reason. For if you spoke these things freely, if you did not sound them on your lips, but felt them within and genuinely in your heart, then in so great a good as your correction you hate even delays.
DAeE.3.14.20Parum quippe tibi fuit dicere, "improbi obstinatique esse iudicii, nolle ad tramitem rationis inflecti", nisi adderes "citius", ut hinc ostenderes quam sit exsecrandus, qui bonum hoc nunquam facit; quandoquidem qui tardius facit, tanta tibi videatur severitate culpandus, ut merito improbi iudicii obstinatique dicatur.
For it was too little for you to say that it is the mark of a wicked and obstinate judgment to be unwilling to be bent to the path of reason, unless you added the sooner, so as thereby to show how execrable is he who never does this good; since one who does it more slowly seems to you to be blamed with such severity that he is deservedly called of a wicked and obstinate judgment.
DAeE.3.14.20Audi ergo te ipsum, tuque potissimum et maxime eloquii tui fructibus utere, ut citius te ad rationis tramitem gravitate mentis inflectas, quam te inde minus erudite parumque consulte lubrico aetatis averteras.
Hear, then, yourself, and use you most of all and above all the fruits of your own eloquence, so that you may the sooner bend yourself to the path of reason by seriousness of mind, than you had turned aside from it, less learnedly and less prudently, by the slipperiness of your age.
DAeE.3.14.2014. 21. Nimis longum est, omnia quae in tuis libris, vel potius in te ipso volo emendari, pertractare atque discutere, et saltem brevem tibi de singulis corrigendis reddere rationem. Nec ideo tamen te contemnas, et arbitreris ingenium et eloquium tuum parvi esse pendendum. Nec sanctarum Scripturarum memoriam in te parvam esse cognovi: sed eruditio minor est, quam tantae indoli laborique congruebat. Itaque te nec amplius quam oportet tibi tribuendo vanescere volo, nec rursus te abiciendo ac desperando frigescere. Utinam tua scripta tecum legere possem, et colloquendo potius, quam scribendo, quae sint emendanda monstrarem. Facilius hoc negotium perageretur nostra inter nos sermocinatione, quam litteris: quae si scribenda esset, multis voluminibus indigeret. Verum ista capitalia, quae certo etiam numero comprehendere volui, instanter admoneo, ne corrigere differas, et ea prorsus a fide et praedicatione tua facias aliena: ut quanta tibi facultas est disputandi, munere Dei utaris utiliter ad aedificationem, non ad destructionem sanae salubrisque doctrinae.
14. 21. It is too long to handle and discuss everything in your books, or rather in yourself, that I want amended, and at least to give you a brief account of each thing to be corrected. Nor yet, for that reason, should you despise yourself, and judge that your talent and eloquence are to be valued little. Nor have I found the memory of the holy Scriptures in you to be small; but your erudition is less than befitted so great a disposition and labor. And so I do not want you either to grow vain by attributing to yourself more than you ought, or, again, to grow cold by casting yourself down and despairing. Would that I could read your writings with you, and by conversing rather than by writing show what is to be amended. This business would be more easily accomplished by our conversation between us than by letters: which, if it had to be written, would need many volumes. But these capital matters, which I wished even to comprehend in a fixed number, I urgently admonish you not to delay to correct, and to make them altogether foreign to your faith and your preaching: so that what faculty of disputing you have, by the gift of God, you may use usefully for the building up, not for the destruction, of sound and wholesome doctrine.
DAeE.3.14.2115. 22. Sunt autem ista, de quibus, ut potui, iam disserui: sed breviter ea repetendo percurram. Unum est, quod animam non ex nihilo, sed de se ipso Deum fecisse dixisti; alterum, per infinitum tempus, atque ita semper Deum animas dare, sicut semper est ipse qui dat; tertium, animam meritum aliquod perdidisse per carnem, quod habuerit ante carnem; quartum animam per carnem reparare habitudinem priscam, et per eamdem carnem renasci, per quam meruerat inquinari; quintum, quod anima meruerit esse peccatrix ante omne peccatum; sextum, infantes antequam baptizentur, morte praeventos, pervenire posse ad originalium indulgentiam peccatorum; septimum, quos Dominus praedestinavit ad baptismum, praedestinationi eius eripi posse, et ante defungi, quam in eis fuerit quod Omnipotens praedestinavit impletum; octavum, de infantibus qui priusquam renascantur in Christo, praeveniuntur occiduo, scriptum esse: Raptus est ne malitia mutaret illius intellectum, et cetera quae in eam sententiam in Sapientiae libro leguntur (Sap 4, 11); nonum, aliquas mansiones esse extra regnum Dei, earum quas Dominus esse dixit in domo Patris sui; decimum est, sacrificium christianorum pro eis qui non baptizati de corpore exierint offerendum; undecimum, aliquos eorum qui sine baptismo Christi ex hac vita emigraverint, interim non ire in regnum, sed in paradisum; postea vero, in resurrectione mortuorum, etiam ad regni coelorum beatitudinem pervenire.
15. 22. These, now, are the things of which, as I could, I have already discoursed; but I will run briefly through them by recapitulating them. One is, that you said God made the soul not from nothing, but from his very self; the second, that through infinite time, and so always, God gives souls, just as he himself who gives always is; the third, that the soul lost some merit through the flesh, which it had before the flesh; the fourth, that the soul recovers through the flesh its former condition, and is reborn through that same flesh through which it had deserved to be defiled; the fifth, that the soul deserved to be a sinner before all sin; the sixth, that infants overtaken by death before they are baptized can attain to the pardon of original sins; the seventh, that those whom the Lord predestined to Baptism can be snatched from his predestination, and die before what the Almighty predestined has been fulfilled in them; the eighth, that of infants who, before they are reborn in Christ, are overtaken by death, it is written: He was caught up lest wickedness change his understanding, and the rest that are read to this purpose in the book of Wisdom (Wis 4:11); the ninth, that some mansions, of those which the Lord said are in his Father's house, are outside the kingdom of God; the tenth is, that the sacrifice of Christians is to be offered for those who have departed from the body unbaptized; the eleventh, that some of those who have departed from this life without the Baptism of Christ do not, meanwhile, go into the kingdom, but into paradise; but afterward, in the resurrection of the dead, attain even to the blessedness of the kingdom of heaven.
DAeE.3.15.2215. 23. Haec interim undecim multum aperteque perversa, et fidei catholicae adversa, nunc iam nihil cuncteris exstirpare atque abicere ab animo, a verbo, ab stilo tuo; si vis ut te, non solum ad altaria transisse catholica, sed vere catholicum esse gaudeamus. Nam haec si pertinaciter singula defendantur, tot haereses facere possunt, quot opiniones esse numerantur. Quocirca considera, quam sit horrendum ut omnes sint in uno homine, quae damnabiles essent in singulis singulae. Sed si tu pro eis nulla contentione pugnaveris, imo vero eas fidelibus verbis et litteris expugnaveris; laudabilior eris censor in te ipsum, quam si quemlibet alium recta ratione reprehenderes; et mirabilior eorum emendator, quam si nunquam illa sensisses.
15. 23. These eleven, meanwhile, much and openly perverse, and adverse to the Catholic faith, now at once do not hesitate to root out and cast away from your mind, from your word, from your pen, if you want us to rejoice that you have not only crossed over to the Catholic altars, but are truly a Catholic. For these, if obstinately defended one by one, can make as many heresies as there are opinions reckoned to be. Wherefore consider how dreadful it is that all should be in one man, which would be damnable each in each one. But if you fight for them with no contention—nay rather, if you storm them with faithful words and writings—you will be a more praiseworthy censor upon yourself than if you reproved anyone else with right reason; and a more admirable amender of them than if you had never thought them.
DAeE.3.15.23Adsit Dominus tuae menti, et tantam spiritui tuo spiritu suo facilitatem humilitatis, lucem veritatis, dulcedinem caritatis, pacem pietatis infundat, ut victor tui animi esse malis in veris, quam cuiuslibet contradicentis in falsis.
May the Lord be present to your mind, and pour into your spirit, by his Spirit, so great an ease of humility, light of truth, sweetness of love, peace of piety, that you would rather be a victor over your own mind in true things than over anyone who contradicts you in false ones.
DAeE.3.15.23Absit autem ut te arbitreris, haec opinando, a fide catholica recessisse, quamvis ea fidei sint adversa catholicae; si coram Deo, cuius in nullius corde oculus fallitur, veraciter te dixisse respicis, "non te tibi ipsi esse credulum, probari ea quae dixeris posse; ac studere te semper etiam propriam sententiam non tueri, si improbabilis detegatur, eo quod sit tibi cordi, proprio damnato iudicio, meliora magis et quae sint veriora sectari".
But far be it that you should judge that, by holding these opinions, you have withdrawn from the Catholic faith, although they are adverse to the Catholic faith—if, before God, whose eye is deceived in no one's heart, you regard that you truly said that you are not credulous toward yourself, that what you said can be proved; and that you are eager always not to defend even your own opinion, if it is detected as improbable, because it is at heart with you, your own judgment being condemned, rather to pursue better things and those that are truer.
DAeE.3.15.23Iste quippe animus etiam in dictis per ignorantiam non catholicis, ipsa est correctionis praemeditatione ac praeparatione catholicus. Sed iste sit modus huius voluminis, ubi requiescat paululum lector, ut ad ea quae sequuntur, eius intentio ab alio renovetur exordio.
For this mind, even in things said, through ignorance, that are not Catholic, is itself, by the very forethought and preparation of correction, Catholic. But let this be the end of this volume, where the reader may rest a little, so that for what follows his attention may be renewed by another beginning.
DAeE.3.15.23Bk. 4To Vincent VictorAd Vincentium Victorem
1. 1. Accipe nunc iam etiam de me ipso quae tibi dicere cupio, si possim, hoc est, si ille donaverit, in cuius manu sunt et nos et sermones nostri. Reprehendisti enim me bis numero, exprimens etiam meum nomen: et cum te in principio libri tui imperitiae tuae admodum conscium et doctrinae adminiculo destitutum, me vero ubi nominasti, doctissimum ac peritissimum dixeris; tamen quibus in rebus tibi visus es nosse quod ego vel nescire me fateor, vel, quamvis nesciam, scire prae sumo, libertate qua oportebat, non tantum senem iuvenis, et episcopum laicus, verum etiam hominem tuo iudicio doctissimum et peritissimum non dubitasti reprehendere.
1. 1. Receive now also concerning myself the things I desire to say to you, if I can—that is, if he grants it, in whose hand are both we and our words. For you reproved me twice over, expressing even my name: and although at the beginning of your book you called yourself quite conscious of your own inexperience and destitute of the support of learning, but called me, where you named me, most learned and most skilled, nevertheless, in those matters in which you seemed to yourself to know what I either confess that I do not know, or, though I do not know it, presume to know, with the liberty that was fitting, you did not hesitate to reprove—not only an old man as a young man, and a bishop as a layman, but even a man, by your own judgment, most learned and most skilled.
DAeE.4.1.1Ego autem et me doctissimum ac peritissimum nescio, imo vero me non esse certissime scio; et fieri posse non ambigo ut aliquid imperito et indocto cuipiam scire contingat, quod aliquis doctus et peritus ignorat: et in hoc te plane laudo, quod veritatem, etsi non quam percepisti, certe quam putasti, homini praetulisti; ideo quidem temere, quia existimasti scire te quod nescis; sed ideo libere, quia personam non reveritus, elegisti aperire quod sentis. Unde te intellegere oportet, quanto esse nobis debeat cura maior, dominicas oves revocare ab erroribus; si et ovibus turpe est, vitia pastorum, si qua cognoverint, eisdem occultare pastoribus.
But I both do not know myself to be most learned and most skilled—nay rather, I know most certainly that I am not—and I do not doubt that it can come to pass that something falls to the knowledge of some inexperienced and unlearned person which some learned and skilled person is ignorant of: and in this I plainly praise you, that you preferred truth, even if not such as you grasped, at least such as you thought, to a man; rashly, indeed, because you supposed you knew what you do not know, but freely, because, not revering a person, you chose to open what you think. Hence you ought to understand how much greater care ought to be ours to recall the Lord's sheep from errors, if even for sheep it is shameful to conceal from the shepherds themselves the vices of the shepherds, if they have known any.
DAeE.4.1.1O si illa reprehenderes mea, quae iusta reprehensione sunt digna! Neque enim negare debeo, sicut in ipsis moribus, ita multa esse in tam multis opusculis meis, quae possint recto iudicio, et nulla temeritate culpari. Ex quibus si aliqua ipse reprehenderes, illic tibi fortassis ostenderem, qualem te esse, in quibus non perperam reprehenderis, vellem;
Oh, if only you reproved those things of mine which are worthy of just reproof! For I ought not to deny that, as in my very character, so there are many things in my so many little works which could be blamed by right judgment and with no rashness. Of which, if you yourself reproved some, there perhaps I would show you what kind of person I would wish you to be, in those things in which you were not wrongly reproved;
DAeE.4.1.1meque tibi iuniori maior, et praepositus subdito, correctionis exemplum, quanto humilius, tanto salubrius exhiberem. Sed ea in me reprehendisti, quae non corrigere humilitas, sed partim fateri, partim defendere veritas cogit.
and I, your elder, to you the younger, and the one set over to the subordinate, would exhibit an example of correction, the more wholesome the more humble. But you reproved in me things which humility does not compel me to correct, but truth compels me partly to confess, partly to defend.
DAeE.4.1.12. 2. Haec autem sunt: unum, quod de origine animarum, quae post primum hominem datae sunt, vel dantur hominibus, non sum ausus aliquid definire, quia fateor me nescire; alterum, quod animam scire me dixi spiritum esse, non corpus. Sed in hoc altero duo reprehendisti: unum, quod non eam crederem corpus esse; aliud, quod eam spiritum crederem. Tibi enim videtur et corpus esse anima, et non esse spiritum.
2. 2. But these are the things: one, that about the origin of souls which were given, or are given, to men after the first man, I did not dare to determine anything, because I confess that I do not know; the other, that I said I knew the soul to be a spirit, not a body. But in this latter you reproved two things: one, that I did not believe it to be a body; the other, that I believed it to be a spirit. For it seems to you that the soul both is a body, and is not a spirit.
DAeE.4.2.2Audi igitur purgationem meam contra reprehensionem tuam, et ex hac occasione qua me tibi purgo, in te ipso disce quae purges. Recole verba libri tui, ubi me primitus nominasti. "Scio, inquis, plerosque et facile peritissimos viros, insuper et consultos tenuisse silentium, aut nihil expressius elocutos, cum definitionem disputationibus suis inchoata expositione subtraherent - sicuti nuper apud te Augustini doctissimi viri praedicatique episcopi comprehensum litteris lectitavi - modestius quidem, ut reor, ac verecundius huiusce rei arcana rimantes, intra se ipsos tractatus sui devorasse iudicium, neque se posse ex hinc aliquid determinare professos. Sed mihi, crede, satis superque videtur absurdum atque incongruum rationi, ut homo ipse expers sui sit, aut is qui rerum omnium creditur adeptus esse notitiam, sibi ipsi habeatur ignotus.
Hear, then, my defense against your reproof, and from this occasion, by which I clear myself to you, learn in yourself what you should purge. Recall the words of your book, where you first named me. I know, you say, that very many, and easily most skilled men, and moreover prudent ones, have kept silence, or said nothing more express, when they withdrew a definition from their disputations with the exposition begun—as I lately read repeatedly in your possession, comprised in the letters of Augustine, a most learned man and a celebrated bishop—more modestly indeed, as I think, and more bashfully, searching out the secrets of this matter, having swallowed within themselves the judgment of their own treatise, and having professed that they could determine nothing further about this. But to me, believe, it seems absurd enough and more, and incongruous with reason, that man himself should be without knowledge of himself, or that he who is believed to have attained the knowledge of all things should be held unknown to himself.
DAeE.4.2.2Quid autem differt homo pecore, si nescit de sua qualitate naturaque disquirere atque disserere; ut merito in illum conveniat quod scriptum est: Homo cum esset in honore, non intellexit; assimilatus est iumentis, et comparatus est eis (Ps 48, 13)? Nam cum Deus bonus nihil non ratione condiderit, ipsumque hominem animal rationale, intellectus capacem, rationis compotem, sensuque vivacem, qui omnia rationis expertia prudenti ordinatione distribuat, procreaverit; quid tam inconvenienter dici potest, quam ut eum sola sui notione fraudarit? Et cum sapientia mundi, quae sese usque ad veri cognitionem supervacua quidem investigatione protendit, quia scire nequit per quem licet quae sunt vera cognosci, aliqua tamen vicina, imo affinia veritati tentaverit super animae natura dispicere: quam indecens atque pudendum est, religiosum quemquam de hoc ipso aut nihil sapere, aut penitus sibi interdixisse ne sapiat!" (Qui e appresso VINCENZO VITTORE).
But how does man differ from a beast, if he does not know how to inquire and discourse about his own quality and nature; so that there deservedly applies to him what is written: Man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he was likened to the beasts, and compared to them (Ps 49 (48):13)? For since the good God founded nothing without reason, and procreated man himself a rational animal, capable of understanding, possessed of reason, and lively in sense, who distributes all things devoid of reason by a prudent ordering, what can be said so unfittingly as that he should have defrauded him of the knowledge of himself alone? And since the wisdom of the world, which extends itself, with a superfluous investigation indeed, even to the knowledge of the true—because it cannot know through whom it is permitted to know the things that are true—has nonetheless attempted to discern, concerning the nature of the soul, some things near, nay rather akin, to truth: how unbecoming and shameful it is that any religious man should about this very thing either know nothing, or have utterly forbidden himself to know! (Here and below, Vincent Victor)
DAeE.4.2.22. 3. Ista tua nostrae ignorantiae disertissima et luculentissima castigatio, omnia quae ad naturam hominis pertinent, sic te scire compellit, ut si eorum aliquid ignoraveris, non meo, sed tuo iudicio pecoribus compareris. Quamvis enim nos insignitius videaris attingere, eo quod dixisti: Homo cum esset in honore, non intellexit (Ps 48, 13), quia in quo tu non es, honore sumus Ecclesiae: tamen etiam tu in eo es honore naturae, ut pecoribus praeferaris, quibus secundum tuum iudicium comparandus es, si aliquid eorum quae ad naturam tuam constat pertinere, nesciveris. Neque enim eos aspersisti hac reprehensione tantummodo, qui hoc nesciunt quod ego nescio, hoc est, humanae animae originem - quam quidem non penitus nescio; scio enim Deum flavisse in faciem primi hominis, factumque esse hominem in animam vivam; quod tamen nisi legissem, per me ipse scire non possem -; sed dixisti: "Quid autem differt homo a pecore, si nescit de sua qualitate naturaque disquirere atque disserere?"
2. 3. This most eloquent and most lucid chastisement of yours, upon our ignorance, compels you so to know all things that pertain to the nature of man, that, if you were ignorant of any of them, you would be compared to the beasts, not by my judgment but by your own. For although you seem to touch us the more pointedly, in that you said, Man, when he was in honor, did not understand (Ps 49 (48):13)—because we are in that honor of the Church in which you are not—nevertheless you too are in that honor of nature, so that you are preferred to the beasts, to which, by your own judgment, you are to be compared, if you are ignorant of any of those things which are agreed to pertain to your nature. For you did not sprinkle this reproof only on those who do not know what I do not know—that is, the origin of the human soul—which indeed I do not utterly not know; for I know that God breathed into the face of the first man, and man became a living soul; which, however, unless I had read it, I could not know of myself—but you said: But how does man differ from a beast, if he does not know how to inquire and discourse about his own quality and nature?
DAeE.4.2.3Quod sensisse ita videris, tamquam de universa sua qualitate atque natura sic homo disquirere atque disserere debeat, ut nihil eum sui lateat. Quod si ita est, iam te pecoribus comparabo, si mihi non responderis tuorum numerum capillorum. Si autem quantumcumque proficiamus in hac vita, aliqua nos ad naturam nostram pertinentia nescire concedis, quaero id quantum quatenusque concedas; ne forte et hoc ibi sit, quod animae nostrae non omni modo scimus originem: quamvis quod ad salutem pertinet fidei, divinitus animam datam, eamque non eius cuius Deus est esse naturae, remotis ambagibus noverimus.
Which you seem so to have meant, as though man ought so to inquire and discourse about his whole quality and nature that nothing of himself should lie hidden from him. But if this is so, I will now compare you to the beasts, if you do not answer me the number of your hairs. But if you grant that, however far we advance in this life, we are ignorant of some things pertaining to our nature, I ask how far and to what extent you grant it; lest perhaps this too be among them, that we do not in every way know the origin of our soul: although, as far as pertains to the salvation of faith, we have known, all evasions removed, that the soul was divinely given, and that it is not of that nature of which God is.
DAeE.4.2.3An forte hactenus putas naturam suam cuique nesciendam, quatenus eam tu nescis; hactenusque sciendam, quatenus eam tu scire potueris: ut si paulo amplius te quisque nescierit, eum pecoribus compares, quod scientior illo esse potuisti; atque ita si quis eam paulo plus te scierit, eadem iustitia te ille pecoribus comparabit? Dic ergo quatenus nobis naturam nostram nescire concedas, ut a pecoribus salva sit nostra distantia: et considera tamen ne plus a pecoribus distet, qui eius aliquid nescire se scit, quam qui se putat scire quod nescit.
Or do you perhaps think that each one's nature is to be unknown only so far as you do not know it, and is to be known only so far as you have been able to know it: so that if anyone knew it a little more than you, you would compare him to the beasts, because you could have been more knowing than he; and so, if anyone knew it a little more than you, by the same justice he will compare you to the beasts? Say, then, how far you grant us to be ignorant of our nature, that our distance from the beasts may be safe: and consider, nevertheless, lest he be more distant from the beasts who knows that he does not know something of it, than he who thinks he knows what he does not know.
DAeE.4.2.3Natura certe tota hominis est spiritus, anima et corpus: quisquis ergo a natura humana corpus alienare vult, desipit. Medici tamen qui appellantur anatomici, per membra, per venas, per nervos, per ossa, per medullas, per interiora vitalia, etiam vivos homines quamdiu inter manus rimantium vivere potuerunt dissiciendo scrutati sunt, ut naturam corporis nossent: nec tamen nos, quia ista nescimus, pecoribus compararunt.
Surely the whole nature of man is spirit, soul, and body: whoever, then, wants to alienate the body from human nature is a fool. Yet the physicians who are called anatomists searched, by dissecting through the members, through the veins, through the nerves, through the bones, through the marrow, through the inner vital parts, even living men, so long as they could live among the hands of those probing them, in order to know the nature of the body: nor yet did they, because we do not know these things, compare us to the beasts.
DAeE.4.2.3Nisi forte dicturus es, eos pecoribus comparandos, qui animae naturam, non qui corporis nesciunt. Non ergo ita praeloqui debuisti. Neque enim aisti: Quid differt homo pecore, si nescit de animae suae qualitate atque natura: sed aisti, "si nescit de sua qualitate naturaque disquirere atque disserere". Qualitas utique nostra et natura nostra cum corpore computatur, quamvis de his quibus constamus singillatim singulis disseratur. Verum ego quam multa possim de hominis natura scientissime disputare, si explicare velim, plura volumina implebo: multa me tamen ignorare confiteor.
Unless perhaps you are going to say that those are to be compared to the beasts who do not know the nature of the soul, not those who do not know that of the body. Then you ought not to have spoken at the outset in that way. For you did not say, "How does man differ from a beast, if he does not know about the quality and nature of his soul"; but you said, if he does not know how to inquire and discourse about his own quality and nature. Surely our quality and our nature are reckoned with the body, although the things of which we consist are discoursed of each one singly. But how many things I could most knowingly dispute about the nature of man, if I wished to unfold them, I would fill many volumes: yet I confess that I am ignorant of many things.
DAeE.4.2.33. 4. Tu autem quo vis pertinere, quod in superiore libro de flatu hominis disputavimus, utrum ad animae naturam, quia ipsa id agit in homine; an ad corporis, quod ab ea movetur ut id agat; an ad huius aeris, cuius reciprocatu id agere declaratur; an potius ad omnia tria, ad animam scilicet quae corpus movet, et ad corpus quod motu flatum recipit atque reddit, et ad auram istam undique circumfusam quae intrando alit, relevat exeundo? Et tamen hoc litteratus homo atque facundus utique nesciebas, quando credebas, et dicebas, et scribebas, et in conventu multitudinis conrogatae legebas, ex natura nostra nos utrem inflare, et in natura nostra nos minus nihil habere:
3. 4. But to what do you wish to pertain what we disputed in the earlier book about the breath of man—whether to the nature of the soul, because it itself does this in man; or to that of the body, which is moved by it to do this; or to that of this air, by whose to-and-fro motion it is shown to do this; or rather to all three, namely, to the soul which moves the body, and to the body which by motion receives and gives back the breath, and to this air poured around on every side, which by entering nourishes, by going out relieves? And yet this you, a literate and eloquent man, surely did not know, when you believed, and said, and wrote, and read in the assembly of a gathered crowd, that from our nature we inflate a skin, and in our nature we have nothing the less:
DAeE.4.3.4cum hoc unde faciamus, facillime posses, non divinas et humanas paginas perscrutando, sed in te advertendo nosse cum velles. Quomodo igitur tibi committam ut me doceas de origine animarum, quod me nescire confiteor; qui quod tuis naribus atque ore sine intermissione facis, unde facias ignorabas? Et praestet Dominus, ut a me commonitus, cedas potius quam resistas tam in promptu positae atque apertissimae veritati: nec de utre inflando sic interroges pulmones tuos, ut eos adversus me habere malis inflatos, quam eis acquiescere te docentibus, et responsum tibi verum, non loquendo et altercando, sed spirando et respirando reddentibus. Proinde ignorantiam meam de origine animarum te corripientem atque obiurgantem non moleste ferrem, imo insuper et gratias magnas agerem, si eam mihi, non solum duris percuteres conviciis, sed veris etiam excuteres dictis. Si enim me posses docere quod nescio, non solum te verbis, sed et pugnis caedentem deberem patientissime sustinere.
whereas you could most easily, not by searching through the divine and human pages, but by attending to yourself, know, when you wished, from what we do this. How, then, shall I commit it to you to teach me about the origin of souls, which I confess I do not know—you who were ignorant from where you do what you do, with your nostrils and mouth, without interruption? And may the Lord grant that, admonished by me, you yield rather than resist a truth so ready at hand and most open: and that you not so question your lungs about inflating a skin that you prefer to have them inflated against me, rather than to acquiesce in them as they teach you, and give you a true answer, not by speaking and wrangling, but by breathing in and breathing out. Accordingly, I would not take it ill that you rebuke and chide my ignorance about the origin of souls—nay rather, I would even give great thanks—if you would not only strike it with hard insults, but also shake it out with true sayings. For if you could teach me what I do not know, I ought most patiently to endure you striking me not only with words but even with fists.
DAeE.4.3.44. 5. Nam fateor Dilectioni tuae, quantum attinet ad istam quaestionem, unum de duobus valde cupio nosse, si possim, vel de animarum origine quod ignoro, vel utrum pertineat ad nos hoc nosse cum hic vivimus. Quid si enim ex illis rebus est, de quibus nobis dicitur: Altiora te ne quaesieris, et fortiora te ne scrutatus fueris; sed quae praecepit tibi Dominus, illa cogita semper (Eccli 3, 22)? Verum hoc nosse cupio, aut ab ipso Deo sciente quod creat, aut etiam ab aliquo docto sciente quod dicat, non ab homine nesciente quod anhelat.
4. 5. For I confess to your Charity, as far as concerns this question, that I greatly desire to know one of two things, if I can: either, about the origin of souls, what I do not know, or whether it pertains to us to know this while we live here. For what if it is among those things of which it is said to us: Seek not the things that are too high for you, and search not the things that are too mighty for you; but think always on the things that the Lord has commanded you (Sir 3:21–22)? But I desire to know this either from God himself, who knows what he creates, or even from some learned person who knows what he says, not from a man who does not know what he pants out.
DAeE.4.4.5Infantiam suam quisque non recolit, et putas hominem nisi Deo docente posse cognoscere, unde in matris utero vivere coeperit; praesertim si usque adeo illum adhuc lateat humana natura, ut non solum quid intus habeat, verum etiam quid ad eam forinsecus accedat, ignoret? Itane, dilectissime, tu me docebis aut quemquam, unde homines nascentes animentur, qui nesciebas adhuc usque unde viventes sic alantur, ut illo alimento paululum subtracto continuo moriantur?
No one recalls his own infancy, and do you think that a man can know, unless God teaches him, from where he began to live in his mother's womb; especially if human nature still lies so hidden from him that he is ignorant not only of what it has within, but even of what comes to it from outside? And so, most beloved, will you teach me, or anyone, from where men, being born, are given a soul—you who did not yet know from where men, living, are so nourished that, that nourishment being a little withdrawn, they immediately die?
DAeE.4.4.5Tu me docebis aut quemquam, unde homines animentur, qui nesciebas adhuc usque unde utres, quando inflantur, impleantur? Utinam quemadmodum nescis unde origo sit animarum, sic ego saltem scirem utrum mihi in hac vita sciendum esset. Si enim ex illis est altioribus, quae inquirere scrutarique prohibemur; timendum est ne hoc, non ignorando, sed quaerendo peccemus. Neque enim propterea non esse de illis altioribus putare debemus, quia non ad Dei naturam pertinet, sed ad nostram.
Will you teach me, or anyone, from where men are given a soul—you who did not yet know from where skins, when they are inflated, are filled? Would that, just as you do not know from where is the origin of souls, so I at least knew whether it must be known by me in this life. For if it is among those higher things which we are forbidden to inquire into and search out, it is to be feared lest we sin in this, not by being ignorant, but by inquiring. For we ought not on that account to think it is not among those higher things, because it pertains not to the nature of God, but to ours.
DAeE.4.4.55. 6. Quid, quod nonnulla in operibus Dei, quam Deus ipse, in quantum cognosci potest, difficilius cognoscuntur? Nam didicimus Deum esse Trinitatem; quot autem animalium genera creaverit, saltem terrestrium, quae in arcam Noe intrare potuerunt, adhuc usque nescimus. Nisi hoc tu iam forte didicisti. In libro etiam Sapientiae scriptum est: Si enim tantum potuerunt valere, ut possent aestimare saeculum: quomodo eius Dominum non facilius invenerunt? (Sap 13, 9) An quia hoc intra nos est, ideo non altius nobis est?
5. 6. What of the fact that some things in the works of God are known with more difficulty than God himself, in so far as he can be known? For we have learned that God is a Trinity; but how many kinds of animals he created—at least of the land animals, which could enter into the ark of Noah—we still do not know. Unless perhaps you have already learned this. In the book of Wisdom too it is written: For if they were able to know so much as to be able to estimate the world, how did they not more easily find its Lord? (Wis 13:9) Or is it, because this is within us, that it is therefore not higher than we?
DAeE.4.5.6Interior enim est animae nostrae natura quam corpus. Quasi vero corpus ipsum non facilius nosse potuit anima extrinsecus per oculos ipsius corporis, quam intrinsecus per se ipsam. Quid enim est in intestinis corporis, ubi non est ipsa? Et tamen etiam quaeque interna atque vitalia oculis corporis inquisivit, et quidquid ex eis discere potuit, per oculos corporis didicit. Et certe ibi erat, etiam quando illa nesciebat. Et cum viscera intrinsecus nostra non possint sine anima vivere, facilius ea potuit anima vivificare quam nosse.
For the nature of our soul is more inward than the body. As though, indeed, the soul could not more easily know the body itself from outside, through the eyes of the body itself, than from within, through itself. For what is there in the inward parts of the body, where it itself is not? And yet even the various internal and vital parts it has inquired into with the eyes of the body, and whatever it could learn of them, it learned through the eyes of the body. And surely it was there, even when it did not know those things. And since our inward parts cannot live within without the soul, the soul could more easily give life to them than know them.
DAeE.4.5.6An forte ad eius cognitionem altius est corpus eius, quam ipsa; et ideo si velit inquirere atque disserere, quando semen hominis convertatur in sanguinem, quando in solidam carnem, quando ossa durari, quando incipiant medullari; quot sint genera venarum atque nervorum, quibus discursibus et anfractibus universum corpus illae irrigent, illi alligent; utrum in nervis deputanda sit cutis, utrum in ossibus dentes; distant enim, quod medulla carent; et quid ab utrisque differant ungues,
Or is its body perhaps higher, for its knowing, than itself; and therefore, if it should wish to inquire and discourse when the seed of man is turned into blood, when into solid flesh, when the bones begin to harden, when to be filled with marrow; how many kinds of veins and nerves there are, by what courses and windings those irrigate the whole body, these bind it; whether the skin is to be reckoned among the nerves, whether the teeth among the bones—for they differ in that they lack marrow—and how the nails differ from both,
DAeE.4.5.6quoniam his duritia similes sunt, praecidi autem et crescere, commune illis est cum capillis; quisnam sit usus venarum, non sanguinis, sed aeris, quas arterias vocant: haec atque huiusmodi de natura corporis sui si anima nosse desideret, tuncne dicendum est homini, Altiora te ne quaesieris, et fortiora te ne scrutatus fueris (Eccli 3, 22). si autem de sua origine quod nescit inquirat, non est altius neque fortius, quam ut id possit apprehendere?
since they are like these in hardness, but to be cut and to grow is common to them with the hairs; what is the use of those veins, not of blood but of air, which they call arteries: if the soul should desire to know these things and things of this kind about the nature of its own body, is it then to be said to a man, Seek not the things that are too high for you, and search not the things that are too mighty for you (Sir 3:21–22)? But if it inquires about its own origin, what it does not know, is it not higher nor mightier than that it can apprehend it?
DAeE.4.5.6Et absurdum existimas atque incongruum rationi, ut nesciat anima utrum nova divinitus insufflata sit, an de parentibus tracta, cum hoc iam praeteritum non meminerit, et inter illa deputet, quae irrevocabiliter, sicut infantiam, et caetera recentis ab utero aetatis oblita est, si tamen cum sensu eius aliquo factum est quando factum est: nec putas absurdum atque incongruum, ut corpus sibi subditum nesciat, et quod non est de praeteritis eius, sed de praesentibus prorsus ignoret, utrum venas moveat ut vivat in corpore, nervos autem ut membris corporis operetur: et si ita est, cur nervos non moveat, nisi velit; pulsus autem venarum, etiam si nolit, sine intermissione agat:
And do you think it absurd and incongruous with reason that the soul does not know whether it was breathed in new by God, or drawn from the parents, since it does not now remember this as past, and reckons it among those things which, irrevocably—like its infancy and the rest of the age recently from the womb—it has forgotten, if indeed it was done with any perception of its own when it was done: yet do you not think it absurd and incongruous that the soul does not know the body subject to it, and is utterly ignorant of what is not among its past things but among the present—whether it moves the veins in order to live in the body, but the nerves in order to act with the members of the body; and, if it is so, why it does not move the nerves unless it wills, but the pulse of the veins it carries on without interruption even if it does not will;
DAeE.4.5.6de qua parte corporis caeteris dominetur, quod %hIgemonikovn% vocant, utrum de corde, an de cerebro, an dispertite de corde motibus, de cerebro sensibus, an de cerebro et sensibus et voluntariis motibus, de corde autem non voluntariis venarum pulsibus; et si de cerebro illa duo facit, cur sentiat etsi nolit, membra vero non moveat nisi velit? cum igitur haec in corpore nisi ipsa non faciat; cur nescit quod facit, vel unde facit?
from what part of the body it rules the rest—what they call the %hIgemonikovn%—whether from the heart, or from the brain, or, distributed, from the heart for movements, from the brain for sensations, or from the brain for both sensations and voluntary movements, but from the heart for the involuntary pulses of the veins; and if it does those two from the brain, why it senses even if it does not will, but does not move the members unless it wills? Since, then, it does these things in the body, and none but itself does them, why does it not know what it does, or from where it does it?
DAeE.4.5.6Nec ei turpe est ista quod nescit; et turpe esse existimas, si nesciat unde vel quomodo facta sit, cum se ipsa non fecerit? An quia nonnulli sciunt, quomodo haec, et unde agat in corpore; ideo ad illa altiora atque fortiora id pertinere non putas?
And it is not shameful for it not to know these things; and do you think it shameful if it does not know from where or how it was made, since it did not make itself? Or, because some know how and from where it acts these things in the body, do you therefore not think that this pertains to those higher and mightier things?
DAeE.4.5.66. 7. At ego hinc tibi maiorem moveo quaestionem, cur paucissimi noverint unde agant, quod omnes agunt. Fortasse dicturus es: Quia illi didicerunt artem anatomicam vel empiricam, quas medicinalis continet disciplina, quam pauci assequuntur; caeteri vero ista discere noluerunt, cum potuissent si utique voluissent. Ubi omitto dicere, cur multi conentur discere ista, nec possint; quia tardo, quod multum mirum est, impediuntur ingenio, ea discere ab aliis, quae aguntur ab eis ipsis, et in eis ipsis.
6. 7. But from this I raise for you a greater question: why very few know from where they do what all do. Perhaps you are going to say: Because those learned the anatomical or empirical art, which the discipline of medicine contains, which few attain; but the rest were unwilling to learn these things, though they could have if they had wished. Here I omit to say why many try to learn these things and cannot, because—what is very wonderful—they are hindered by a slow talent from learning from others the things that are done by themselves, and in themselves.
DAeE.4.6.7Sed haec ipsa est maxima quaestio, cur arte non mihi opus sit ut esse in coelo sciam solem, et lunam, et alia sidera; et arte mihi opus sit ut sciam, quando digitum moveo, unde incipiam, a corde, an a cerebro, an ab utroque, an neutro; et doctore non egeam ut sciam quid sit tam longe altius super me, ab alio autem homine discere exspectem, unde agatur a me quod agitur in me. Nam cum in corde cogitare dicamur, et quod cogitamus, nullo alio homine sciente sciamus; ipsum tamen cor ubi cogitamus, nescimus in qua parte corporis habeamus, nisi ab alio discamus qui nescit quod cogitamus.
But this very thing is the greatest question: why I need no art to know that the sun, and the moon, and the other stars are in the heaven; and I need art to know, when I move a finger, from where I begin—from the heart, or from the brain, or from both, or from neither; and I need no teacher to know what is so far above me, but must wait to learn from another man from where is done by me what is done in me. For although we are said to think in the heart, and we know what we think, with no other man knowing it; yet the heart itself, where we think, we do not know in what part of the body we have, unless we learn from another, who does not know what we think.
DAeE.4.6.7Nec ignoro, cum audimus ut ex toto corde diligamus Deum, non hoc dici de illa particula carnis nostrae quae sub costis latet; sed de illa vi qua cogitationes fiunt: quae merito appellatur hoc nomine, quia sicut motus non cessat in corde, unde se pulsus diffundit usquequaque venarum, ita non quiescimus aliquid cogitando versare. Verumtamen cum omnis sensus ab anima insit et corpori, cur etiam in tenebris, et oculis clausis, sensu corporis qui vocatur tactus, membra forinsecus nostra numeremus; ipsius autem animae interiore praesentia, qua cunctis quae vivificat atque animat, praesto est, nulla intrinsecus nostra viscera noverimus, non medicos empiricos, nec anatomicos, nec dogmaticos, nec methodicos, sed hominem scire arbitror neminem.
Nor am I ignorant that, when we hear that we should love God with our whole heart, this is not said of that little piece of our flesh which lies hidden beneath the ribs, but of that power by which thoughts are made: which is deservedly called by this name, because, just as motion does not cease in the heart, from where the pulse diffuses itself everywhere through the veins, so we do not rest from turning something over in thought. Nevertheless, since all sense is present, from the soul, to the body too, why even in darkness, and with eyes closed, by the sense of the body which is called touch, we count our members from outside; but, by the inner presence of the soul itself, by which it is present to all the things it gives life to and animates, we know none of our inward parts within—I think that no one knows, neither the empiric physicians, nor the anatomists, nor the dogmatists, nor the methodists, but no man.
DAeE.4.6.76. 8. Et quisquis fuerit conatus haec discere, non frustra ei dicitur: Altiora te ne quaesieris, et fortiora te ne scrutatus fueris. Neque enim altiora sunt quam potest nostra statura contingere, sed quam potest nostra coniectura comprehendere; et fortiora quam potest vis humani ingenii penetrare: et tamen non est coelum coeli, non dimensio siderum, non modus maris atque terrarum, non infernus inferior: nos sumus, qui nos comprehendere non valemus; nos modulum scientiae nostrae altiores fortioresque superamus; nos non possumus capere nos, et certe non sumus extra nos. Nec ideo comparandi pecoribus, quia id quod sumus non penitus invenimus: et comparandos nos pecoribus putas, si quod fuimus obliti sumus, si tamen id aliquando noveramus. Neque enim nunc anima mea trahitur ex parentibus, aut insufflatur a Deo: utrumlibet horum fecerit, tunc fecit quando me creavit; non etiam nunc de me, vel in me facit: actum illud atque transactum est, nec praesens mihi est, nec recens. Ne id quidem scio, utrum id scierim, oblitusque sim; an vero nec tunc quando factum est, id sentire ac nosse potuerim.
6. 8. And whoever has tried to learn these things, it is not in vain said to him: Seek not the things that are too high for you, and search not the things that are too mighty for you. For they are not higher than our stature can reach, but than our conjecture can comprehend; and mightier than the force of human talent can penetrate: and yet it is not the heaven of heaven, not the dimension of the stars, not the measure of the sea and the lands, not the lower hell: it is we who are not able to comprehend ourselves; we exceed the measure of our own knowledge as things higher and mightier; we cannot grasp ourselves, and surely we are not outside ourselves. Nor for that reason are we to be compared to the beasts, because we do not utterly find out that which we are: and do you think we are to be compared to the beasts, if we have forgotten what we were, if indeed we ever knew it? For my soul is not now drawn from my parents, or breathed in by God: whichever of these he did, he did then, when he created me; he does not even now do it from me or in me: that was done and finished, nor is it present to me, nor recent. I do not even know this: whether I knew it, and have forgotten; or whether even then, when it was done, I could perceive and know it.
DAeE.4.6.87. 9. Ecce modo, modo dum sumus, dum vivimus, dum nos vivere scimus, dum meminisse nos, et intellegere, et velle certissimi sumus, qui nos naturae nostrae magnos cognitores esse iactamus, quid valeat memoria nostra, vel intellegentia, vel voluntas, omnino nescimus. Amicus quidam meus iam inde ab adolescentia, Simplicius nomine, homo excellentis mirabilisque memoriae, cum interrogatus esset a nobis, quos versus Virgilius in omnibus libris supra ultimos dixerit; continuo, celeriter, memoriterque respondit. Quaesivimus etiam superiores ut diceret, dixit. Et credidimus eum posse retrorsus recitare Virgilium. De quocumque loco voluimus, petivimus ut faceret, fecit. Prosa etiam de quacumque oratione Ciceronis, quam memoriae commendaverat, id eum facere voluimus; quantum voluimus sursum versus secutus est. Cum admiraremur, testatus est Deum, nescisse se hoc posse ante illud experimentum. Ita, quantum ad memoriam pertinet, tunc se eius animus didicit; et quandocumque disceret, nisi tentando et experiendo non posset. Et utique antequam tentaret, idem ipse erat: cur se igitur nesciebat?
7. 9. Behold, now, now while we are, while we live, while we know that we live, while we are most certain that we remember and understand and will—we who boast ourselves to be great knowers of our own nature—we are altogether ignorant of what our memory, or understanding, or will can do. A certain friend of mine from my youth, Simplicius by name, a man of excellent and wonderful memory, when he was asked by us what verses Virgil had said above the last ones in all his books, answered at once, quickly and from memory. We asked him also to say the verses above those; he said them. And we believed that he could recite Virgil backward. From whatever passage we wished, we asked him to do it; he did it. Even in prose, from whatever oration of Cicero which he had committed to memory, we wished him to do this; as far as we wished, he followed upward, verse by verse. When we marveled, he called God to witness that he had not known he could do this before that experiment. So, as far as pertains to memory, then his mind learned itself; and whenever it would learn, it could not except by trying and experiencing. And surely, before he tried, he was the very same: why, then, did he not know himself?
DAeE.4.7.97. 10. Saepe nos praesumimus aliquid memoria retenturos, et cum id putamus, non scribimus; nec nobis postea cum volumus venit in mentem, nosque poenitet credidisse venturum, vel litteris non illigasse ne fugeret; et subito rursus, cum id non quaeramus, occurrit. Numquid nos non eramus, quando id cogitabamus? nec tamen hoc sumus quod fuimus, quando id cogitare non possumus. Quid est ergo, quod nescio quomodo subtrahimur negamurque nobis; itemque nescio quomodo proferimur ad nos, reddimurque nobis? quasi alii simus, et alibi simus, quando quaerimus, nec invenimus quod in memoria nostra posuimus; neque nos ipsi ad nos ipsos veluti alibi positos pervenire possimus, et tunc perveniamus quando invenimus.
7. 10. Often we presume that we will retain something in memory, and when we think so, we do not write it down; nor does it afterward come to mind when we wish, and we repent of having believed it would come, or of not having bound it in letters lest it flee; and suddenly again, when we are not seeking it, it occurs to us. Were we not ourselves, when we were thinking it? Nor yet are we this which we were, when we cannot think it. What is it, then, that, I know not how, we are withdrawn and denied to ourselves; and likewise, I know not how, we are brought forth to ourselves and restored to ourselves? As though we were other, and were elsewhere, when we seek and do not find what we placed in our memory; and as though we ourselves could not reach ourselves, as if placed elsewhere, and then reach ourselves when we find it.
DAeE.4.7.10Ubi enim quaerimus nisi apud nos? et quid quaerimus nisi nos? quasi non simus in nobis, et aliquo recesserimus a nobis. Nonne attendis, et exhorrescis tantam profunditatem? Et quid est hoc aliud quam nostra natura, nec qualis fuit, sed qualis nunc est? Et ecce magis quaeritur, quam comprehenditur. Saepe mihi propositam quaestionem putavi me intellecturum, si inde cogitarem; cogitavi, nec potui: saepe non putavi, et tamen potui. Vires itaque intellegentiae meae non sunt mihi utique cognitae, et credo quia nec tibi.
For where do we seek but in ourselves? And what do we seek but ourselves? As though we were not in ourselves, and had withdrawn somewhere from ourselves. Do you not attend, and shudder at so great a depth? And what is this other than our nature—not such as it was, but such as it now is? And behold, it is more sought than comprehended. Often I have thought I would understand a question set before me, if I thought about it; I thought, and could not: often I did not think I would, and yet I could. The powers of my understanding, then, are surely not known to me, and I believe that neither are they to you.
DAeE.4.7.107. 11. Sed me contemnis forsitan confitentem, et propter hoc quoque pecoribus comparabis. Ego autem monere, vel si non dignaris, certe admonere non desino, ut agnoscas potius communem infirmitatem, in qua virtus perficitur (Cf. 2 Cor 12, 9): ne pro cognitis incognita praesumendo, ad veritatem pervenire non possis. Puto enim esse aliquid, quod et tu intellegere quaeris, nec potes, nec tamen quaereres, nisi te posse sperares. Ac per hoc et tu vires intellegentiae tuae nescis, qui naturae tuae scientiam profiteris, nec mecum ignorantiam confiteris.
7. 11. But perhaps you despise me confessing this, and for this too will compare me to the beasts. But I do not cease to advise, or, if you do not deign to accept it, at least to admonish, that you rather recognize the common weakness, in which strength is made perfect (Cf. 2 Cor 12:9): lest, by presuming things unknown as known, you be unable to reach the truth. For I think there is something which you too seek to understand and cannot, nor yet would you seek it unless you hoped you could. And through this you too do not know the powers of your understanding, you who profess the knowledge of your nature, and do not confess ignorance with me.
DAeE.4.7.11Quid dicam de voluntate, ubi certe liberum a nobis praedicatur arbitrium? Nempe beatissimus apostolus Petrus volebat pro Domino animam ponere (Cf. Io 13, 37; poco dopo Mt 16, 16): plane volebat; neque enim Deum id pollicendo fallebat: sed quantas vires haberet, voluntas ipsa nesciebat: proinde vir tantus, qui Iesum Filium Dei esse cognoverat, se latebat. Scimus nos itaque aliquid velle, seu nolle: sed voluntas nostra etiam cum bona est, quantum valeat, quantas vires habeat, quibus tentationibus cedat, quibusve non cedat, si nos non fallimus, fili dilecte, nescimus.
What shall I say of the will, where surely free choice is proclaimed to be ours? Surely the most blessed apostle Peter wished to lay down his life for the Lord (Cf. John 13:37): he plainly wished it; for he did not deceive God by promising it: but how great powers it had, the will itself did not know. Accordingly, so great a man, who had recognized that Jesus is the Son of God (Cf. Matt 16:16), was hidden from himself. We know, then, that we will or do not will something: but our will, even when it is good, how much it avails, how great powers it has, to what temptations it yields, or to which it does not yield, if we do not deceive ourselves, dear son, we do not know.
DAeE.4.7.118. 12. Vide igitur quam multa non praeterita, sed praesentia de natura nostra, nec tantum quod ad corpus, verum etiam quod ad interiorem hominem pertinet ignoremus, nec tamen pecoribus comparemur. Et tu, quia praeteritam originem animae meae non omnino nescio, sed non plene scio; nam scio mihi datam esse a Deo, nec tamen esse de Deo; tanto me convicio dignum putasti. Et quando possum de natura spiritus et animae nostrae commemorare omnia quae nescimus? Ubi potius exclamare debemus ad Deum, quod ille exclamavit in Psalmo: Mirificata est scientia tua ex me; invaluit, non potero ad illam (Ps 138, 6 (sec. LXX)). Cur enim adiecit, ex me, nisi quia ex se ipso quam incomprehensibilis esset Dei scientia coniciebat, quandoquidem se ipsum comprehendere non valebat?
8. 12. See, then, how many things, not past but present, about our nature—not only what pertains to the body, but even what pertains to the inner man—we are ignorant of, and yet are not compared to the beasts. And you, because I am not altogether ignorant of the past origin of my soul, but do not fully know it—for I know that it was given to me by God, and yet is not of God—judged me worthy of so great a reproach. And when can I recount all the things we do not know about the nature of our spirit and soul? Where we ought rather to cry out to God what he cried out in the Psalm: Your knowledge has become wonderful from me; it has grown strong, I shall not be able to reach it (Ps 139 (138):6). For why did he add, from me, except because from himself he conjectured how incomprehensible the knowledge of God is, since he was not able to comprehend himself?
DAeE.4.8.12Rapiebatur Apostolus in tertium coelum, et audiebat ineffabilia verba, quae non licet homini loqui, et utrum in corpore hoc illi accidisset, an extra corpus, nescire se dicit (Cf. 2 Cor 12, 2-4), nec a te comparari pecoribus pertimescit. Sciebat se spiritus eius esse in tertio coelo, esse in paradiso, et utrum esset in corpore nesciebat. Et utique tertium coelum et paradisus non erat ipse apostolus Paulus; corpus vero eius et anima atque spiritus eius ipse erat. Ecce sciebat magna, alta atque divina, quae ipse non erat; et hoc nesciebat, quod ad naturam ipsius pertinebat. Quis in tanta occultarum rerum scientia, tantam sui ipsius ignorantiam non miretur?
The Apostle was caught up into the third heaven, and heard ineffable words, which it is not lawful for a man to speak, and whether this happened to him in the body or outside the body, he says he does not know (Cf. 2 Cor 12:2–4), nor does he fear to be compared by you to the beasts. He knew that his spirit was in the third heaven, was in paradise, and whether it was in the body he did not know. And surely the third heaven and paradise were not the apostle Paul himself; but his body and soul and spirit were himself. Behold, he knew great, high, and divine things, which he himself was not; and this he did not know, which pertained to his own nature. Who would not marvel, in so great a knowledge of hidden things, at so great an ignorance of himself?
DAeE.4.8.12Quis postremo crederet, nisi qui non fallit hoc diceret: Quid oremus, sicut oportet, nescimus (Rom 8, 26)? Ubi esse nostra maxime debet intentio, ut nos in ea quae ante sunt extendamus: et me, si in eis quae retro sunt, aliquid de mea origine oblitus sum, pecoribus comparas, cum audias eumdem apostolum dicentem: Quae retro oblitus, in ea quae ante sunt extentus, secundum intentionem sequor ad palmam supernae vocationis Dei in Christo Iesu (Phil 3, 13-14)!
Who, finally, would believe it, unless he who does not deceive said it: We do not know what we should pray for as we ought (Rom 8:26)? Where our attention ought most to be, that we may extend ourselves to the things that are before: and do you compare me to the beasts, if, among the things that are behind, I have forgotten something about my origin, when you hear the same Apostle saying: Forgetting the things behind, stretched out to the things that are before, according to my intent I follow on to the palm of the heavenly calling of God in Christ Jesus (Phil 3:13–14)!
DAeE.4.8.129. 13. An forte etiam hoc quia dixi: Quid oremus, sicut oportet, nescimus (Rom 8, 26); irridendum me arbitraris, et irrationalibus similem animantibus iudicas? Et forte tolerabilius. Cum enim recto sanoque iudicio futura nostra praeteritis praeferamus, et oratio nobis non propter quod fuimus, sed propter quod erimus sit necessaria, multo est utique molestius nescire quid oremus, quam quemadmodum exorti fuerimus. Sed veniat tibi in mentem ubi hoc legeris, vel relegendo recole: et noli in me huius convicii lapidem iacere; ne ad quem non vis, perveniat.
9. 13. Or do you perhaps think that I should be laughed at for this too, because I said: We do not know what we should pray for as we ought (Rom 8:26), and judge me like the irrational living things? And perhaps more tolerably. For since by right and sound judgment we prefer our future things to our past, and prayer is necessary to us not for what we were but for what we shall be, it is surely much more troublesome not to know what we should pray for than how we arose. But let it come to your mind where you read this, or recall it by rereading: and do not throw at me the stone of this reproach, lest it reach one whom you do not want.
DAeE.4.9.13Ille ipse quippe doctor Gentium Apostolus dixit: Quid enim oremus, sicut oportet, nescimus. Quod non tantum verbo docuit, sed suo quoque demonstravit exemplo. Nam contra utilitatem et salutis suae perfectionem nesciens orabat ut discederet ab eo stimulus carnis, quem sibi datum dixit, ne magnitudine revelationum suarum extolleretur. Et quia illum Dominus diligebat, non fecit quod ignoranter petebat (Cf. 2 Cor 12, 7-9).
For that very Apostle, the teacher of the gentiles, said: For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought. Which he taught not only by word, but demonstrated also by his own example. For against the usefulness and the perfection of his own salvation, he ignorantly prayed that the thorn of the flesh might depart from him, which he said was given to him lest he be exalted by the greatness of his revelations. And because the Lord loved him, he did not do what he asked ignorantly (Cf. 2 Cor 12:7–9).
DAeE.4.9.13Sed tamen ubi ait: Quid enim oremus, sicut oportet, nescimus; mox adiunxit: Sed ipse Spiritus interpellat pro nobis gemitibus inenarrabilibus. Qui autem scrutatur corda, scit quid Spiritus sapiat, quia secundum Deum interpellat pro sanctis (Rom 8, 26-27); id est, interpellare sanctos facit. Ille utique Spiritus, quem Deus misit in corda nostra, clamantem, Abba, Pater (Gal 4, 6); et in quo clamamus, Abba, Pater (Rom 8, 15): utrumque enim dictum, est et accepisse nos Spiritum clamantem, Abba, Pater; et in quo clamamus, Abba, Pater; ut exponeretur quomodo dixit "clamantem", hoc est, "clamare facientem", ut ipso faciente clamemus.
But yet, where he says, For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, he soon added: But the Spirit himself intercedes for us with unutterable groanings. And he who searches the hearts knows what the Spirit desires, because he intercedes for the saints according to God (Rom 8:26–27); that is, he makes the saints intercede. That Spirit, surely, whom God sent into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father (Gal 4:6); and in whom we cry, Abba, Father (Rom 8:15): for both were said, both that we received the Spirit crying, Abba, Father, and in whom we cry, Abba, Father; that it might be explained how he said crying, that is, "making us cry," so that, with him doing it, we cry.
DAeE.4.9.13Doceat ergo et hoc me quando voluerit, si hoc mihi expedire novit, ut sciam unde secundum animam originem ducam. Sed ille hoc me doceat Spiritus, qui altitudines Dei scrutatur (Cf. 1 Cor 2, 10); non homo qui spiritum nescit, unde uter inflatur. Absit tamen ut ego hinc te pecoribus comparem. Non enim hoc, quia non poteras, sed quia non adverteras, nesciebas.
Let him, then, teach me this too when he wills, if he knows it is expedient for me, that I may know from where I draw my origin according to the soul. But let that Spirit teach me this, who searches the depths of God (Cf. 1 Cor 2:10); not a man who does not know the breath from where a skin is inflated. Yet far be it that I should on this account compare you to the beasts. For you did not know this, not because you could not, but because you had not attended.
DAeE.4.9.1310. 14. Verum tu fortasse, quamvis altiora sint, quae de animarum origine requiruntur, quam est unde ducimus et reddimus flatum; tamen eadem altiora de Scripturis sanctis te didicisse confidis, de quibus per fidem didicimus, quae nulla possent humana ingenia vestigare. Nam longe utique praestantius est, nosse resurrecturam carnem ac sine fine victuram, quam quidquid in ea medici scrutando discere potuerunt, quod nullo sensu anima percipit, cum praesentia sua vegetet cuncta quae nescit: et longe est melius, nosse animam, quae in Christo renata et renovata fuerit, in aeternum beatam futuram, quam quidquid de illius memoria, intellegentia, voluntate nescimus. Haec autem quae dixi praestantiora atque meliora, nullo modo nosse valeremus, nisi divinis crederemus eloquiis.
10. 14. But you perhaps, although the things sought about the origin of souls are higher than from where we draw and give back our breath, nevertheless trust that you have learned these same higher things from the holy Scriptures, from which we have learned by faith things that no human talents could trace out. For it is surely far more excellent to know that the flesh will rise again and live without end, than whatever the physicians could learn about it by searching—which the soul perceives by no sense, while by its presence it quickens all the things it does not know: and it is far better to know that the soul, which has been reborn and renewed in Christ, will be forever blessed, than whatever we do not know about its memory, understanding, will. But these things which I have called more excellent and better, we could in no way know, unless we believed the divine eloquence.
DAeE.4.10.14His ergo eloquiis fidere te fortassis existimas, ne de origine animarum sententiam definitam proferre cuncteris. Primum si ita esset, non ipsi humanae naturae tribuere debuisti, quod scit homo de sua qualitate atque natura disquirere atque disserere, sed Dei muneri. Dixisti enim: "Quid differt homo pecore, si hoc nescit?". Quid igitur opus est aliquid legere, ut hoc sciamus, si eo ipso quo a pecore distamus, iam hoc scire debemus? Sicut enim nihil mihi legis ut me vivere sciam, habet enim natura mea ut hoc nescire non possim: ita si et illud scire naturae est, cur mihi de hac re profers quibus credam testimonia Scripturarum? Numquid soli distant a pecore qui eas legunt?
These eloquences, then, you perhaps think you trust, so that you do not hesitate to bring forward a determined opinion about the origin of souls. First, if it were so, you ought not to have attributed to human nature itself that man knows how to inquire and discourse about his own quality and nature, but to the gift of God. For you said: How does man differ from a beast, if he does not know this? What need, then, is there to read anything, that we may know this, if by that very thing by which we differ from a beast we ought already to know this? For just as you read me nothing in order that I may know that I live—for my nature has it that I cannot not know this—so, if to know that too is of nature, why do you bring forward to me, on this matter, testimonies of the Scriptures for me to believe? Do only those who read them differ from a beast?
DAeE.4.10.14Nonne ita creati sumus, ut distemus a pecoribus, et antequam ad aliquas litteras pervenire possimus? Quid est quaeso quod tantum naturae nostrae arrogas, ut eo ipso quo distat a pecore, iam norit de origine animarum disquirere atque disserere; et rursus eam sic facis huius cognitionis expertem, ut hoc scire humanitus nequeat, nisi divinis testibus credat?
Were we not created so as to differ from the beasts, even before we could reach any letters? What is it, I ask, that you arrogate so much to our nature, that by that very thing by which it differs from a beast it already knows how to inquire and discourse about the origin of souls; and again you make it so devoid of this knowledge that it cannot know this in a human way, unless it believes divine witnesses?
DAeE.4.10.1411. 15. Deinde et in hoc falleris. Nam divina testimonia, quae ad istam quaestionem solvendam referre voluisti, non id aperiunt. Aliud est quod illa demonstrant, sine quo vere non possumus pie vivere, quod scilicet animarum nostrarum Deum habeamus datorem, creatorem, formatorem. Sed quomodo id faciat, utrum novas eas flando, an de parentibus trahendo, non exprimunt, nisi de illa una quam primo homini dedit. Lege diligenter quod scripsi ad fratrem nostrum Dei servum Renatum; ibi enim quia id ostendi, non fuit necesse et hic scribere.
11. 15. Next, in this too you are deceived. For the divine testimonies, which you wished to bring to bear for resolving this question, do not open it. It is another thing that they show, without which we truly cannot live piously—namely, that we have God as the giver, creator, former of our souls. But how he does this, whether by breathing them in new, or by drawing them from the parents, they do not express, except concerning that one which he gave to the first man. Read diligently what I wrote to our brother Renatus, the servant of God; for there, because I showed this, it was not necessary to write it here too.
DAeE.4.11.15Velles autem me definire quod ipse definisti, ut in tales angustias contruderer, in quales ipse contrusus, adversus catholicam fidem tot et tanta locutus es ut, ea si fideliter et humiliter recolas atque consideres, videas profecto quantum tibi profuisset, si scisses nescire quod nescis; et quantum tibi prosit, si vel nunc scias.
But you would want me to determine what you yourself determined, so that I might be thrust into such straits as those into which you yourself, thrust, spoke so many and so great things against the Catholic faith that, if you faithfully and humbly recall and consider them, you will surely see how much it would have profited you, had you known how not to know what you do not know; and how much it profits you, if even now you know it.
DAeE.4.11.15Nam si intellegentia tibi placet in natura hominis, quoniam revera si eam non haberet, nihil, quantum ad animas pertinet, a pecoribus distaremus; intellege quid non intellegas, ne totum non intellegas; et noli despicere hominem, qui ut veraciter intellegat quod non intellegit, hoc se non intellegere intellegit. Unde autem dictum sit in sacro Psalmo: Homo in honore cum esset, non intellexit; comparatus est pecoribus insensatis, et similis factus est eis (Ps 48, 13), lege, et intellege, ut hoc opprobrium humiliter potius ipse caveas, quam superbe alteri obicias.
For if understanding pleases you in the nature of man—since indeed, if it did not have it, we would, as far as souls are concerned, differ in nothing from the beasts—understand what you do not understand, lest you understand nothing at all; and do not despise a man who, in order truly to understand what he does not understand, understands that he does not understand this. But from where it was said in the sacred Psalm, Man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he was compared to the senseless beasts, and made like them (Ps 49 (48):13), read and understand, that you may rather humbly avoid this reproach yourself, than proudly cast it at another.
DAeE.4.11.15De his enim dictum est, qui istam vitam solam deputant vitam, secundum carnem viventes, et post mortem nihil sperantes, veluti pecora: non de his qui neque negant se scire quod sciunt, et confitentur se nescire quod nesciunt, et tutius intellegunt infirmitatem suam, quam de sua virtute confidunt.
For this was said of those who reckon this life alone to be life, living according to the flesh, and hoping for nothing after death, like the beasts: not of those who neither deny that they know what they know, and confess that they do not know what they do not know, and more safely understand their own weakness than trust in their own strength.
DAeE.4.11.1511. 16. Non itaque displiceat praesumptioni tuae iuvenili meus senilis timor, fili. Ego enim, si hoc quod de animarum origine quaerimus, nec Deo, nec aliquo spiritali homine docente, scire potuero, paratior sum defendere, quam recte etiam hoc Deus, sicut alia multa, nos scire noluerit, quam temere dicere,
11. 16. Let not, then, my aged fear displease your youthful presumption, son. For I, if I can know this which we ask about the origin of souls, with neither God nor any spiritual man teaching me, am more ready to defend that God rightly willed that we should not know this too, as many other things, than rashly to say
DAeE.4.11.16quod aut ita sit obscurum, ut hoc non solum ad aliorum intellegentiam perducere nequeam, sed nec ipse intellegam; aut certe etiam haereticos adiuvet, qui propterea persuadere conantur ab omni noxa puras esse animas parvulorum, ne scilicet eadem noxa in auctorem Deum recurrat et redeat, quod insontes animas, quibus nec lavacrum regenerationis subventurum esse praescivit, dando carni peccatrici, esse compulerit peccatrices, nulla Baptismatis gratia subventura, qua liberentur a damnatione perpetua: quandoquidem innumerabiles animae infantum antequam baptizentur, de corporibus exeunt.
something that either is so obscure that I can not only not bring it to the understanding of others, but not even understand it myself; or that certainly even helps the heretics, who for this reason try to persuade us that the souls of little ones are pure from all guilt—namely, lest that same guilt run back and return to God their author—because, by giving innocent souls, for whom he foreknew that the bath of regeneration too would not come to aid, to sinful flesh, he forced them to be sinful, with no grace of Baptism to come to aid, by which they might be freed from perpetual damnation: since innumerable souls of infants depart from their bodies before they are baptized.
DAeE.4.11.16Absit enim, ut hoc volens diluere, dicam quae ipse dixisti, "quod anima per carnem meruerit inquinari, et esse peccatrix", nullum habens ante peccatum, quo recte id meruisse dicatur, et "quod etiam sine baptismo originalia peccata solvantur", et "quod regnum quoque coelorum non baptizatis in fine tribuatur". Haec atque huiusmodi venena fidei nisi dicere timerem, fortasse de hac re definire aliquid non timerem. Quanto melius igitur non separatim de anima disputo et affirmo quod nescio; sed quod apertissime Apostolum video docuisse, simpliciter teneo. Ex uno homine omnes homines ire in condemnationem qui nascuntur ex Adam (Cf. Rom 5, 18), nisi ita renascantur in Christo, sicut instituit ut renascantur (Cf. Io 3, 3), antequam corpore moriantur, quos praedestinavit ad aeternam vitam misericordissimus gratiae largitor: qui est et illis quos praedestinavit ad aeternam mortem, iustissimus supplicii retributor; non solum propter illa quae volentes adiciunt, verum etiam si infantes nihil adiciant, propter originale peccatum. Haec est in hac quaestione definitio mea, ut occulta opera Dei habeant suum secretum, salva fide mea.
For far be it that, wishing to wash this away, I should say what you yourself said, that the soul deserved to be defiled through the flesh, and to be a sinner, having no sin before, by which it could rightly be said to have deserved this, and that even without Baptism original sins are loosed, and that the kingdom of heaven too is granted to the unbaptized in the end. Unless I feared to say these and such poisons of the faith, perhaps I would not fear to determine something about this matter. How much better, then, that I do not separately dispute about the soul and affirm what I do not know; but what I see the Apostle most plainly to have taught, I simply hold. That from one man all men who are born of Adam go into condemnation (Cf. Rom 5:18), unless they are so reborn in Christ, as he appointed that they should be reborn (Cf. John 3:3), before they die in the body—those whom the most merciful bestower of grace predestined to eternal life: who is also, to those whom he predestined to eternal death, the most just repayer of punishment; not only on account of those things which they willingly add, but even if infants add nothing, on account of original sin. This is, in this question, my determination, that the hidden works of God may have their secret, my faith being safe.
DAeE.4.11.1612. 17. Nunc iam, quantum Dominus donare dignatur, etiam ad illud debeo respondere, ubi de anima loquens, meum nomen iterasti, atque dixisti: "Non enim, sicut Augustinus peritissimus episcopus profitetur, incorpoream et eamdem spiritum esse permittimus". Prius itaque utrum anima incorporea, sicut ego dixi, an corporea, sicut tu, existimanda sit, disputemus. Deinde utrum etiam ipsa secundum Scripturas nostras dicatur spiritus; quamvis etiam proprie spiritus nuncupetur, non universa, sed aliquid eius. Ac primum scire vellem, corpus quid esse definias. Si enim non est corpus, nisi quod membris carnalibus constat; nec terra erit corpus, nec coelum, nec lapis, nec aqua, nec sidera, nec si quid huiusmodi est. Si autem corpus est quidquid maioribus et minoribus suis partibus maiora et minora spatia locorum obtinentibus constat; corpora sunt etiam ista quae commemoravi: corpus est aer, corpus est lux ista visibilis, et omnia sicut dicit Apostolus: Corpora coelestia, et corpora terrestria (1 Cor 15, 40).
12. 17. Now, as far as the Lord deigns to grant, I ought also to answer that place where, speaking of the soul, you repeated my name and said: For we do not allow, as Augustine, a most skilled bishop, professes, that it is incorporeal and the same as spirit. First, then, let us dispute whether the soul is to be thought incorporeal, as I said, or corporeal, as you do. Then whether it too, according to our Scriptures, is called spirit; although properly the spirit is named not the whole of it, but something of it. And first I would like to know what you define a body to be. For if there is no body except what consists of fleshly members, then neither will the earth be a body, nor the heaven, nor a stone, nor water, nor the stars, nor anything of this kind. But if a body is whatever consists of its greater and lesser parts occupying greater and lesser spaces of place, then these too which I have mentioned are bodies: air is a body, this visible light is a body, and all, as the Apostle says, are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies (1 Cor 15:40).
DAeE.4.12.1712. 18. Sed utrum aliquid tale sit anima, scrupulosissime ac subtilissime quaeritur. Verumtamen tu, unde tibi maxime gratulor, Deum corpus non esse confirmas. Sed me rursus sollicitum facis, ubi dicis: "Si anima caret corpore, ut sit, sicut quibusdam placet, cassae inanitatis, aeriae futilisque substantia". His enim tuis verbis videris credere, omne quod caret corpore, inanis esse substantiae. Quod si ita est, quomodo Deum audes dicere carere corpore, nec times ne sequatur inanis eum esse substantiae? Porro si et corpore caret Deus, quod iam confessus es; et eum inanis esse substantiae, absit ut dicas: non ergo inanis substantiae est, quidquid corpore caret. Et ideo qui incorpoream dicit esse animam, non est consequens ut eam velit videri inanis futilisque substantiae: quia et Deum, qui non est inane aliquid, simul incorporeum confitetur.
12. 18. But whether the soul is anything such is most scrupulously and most subtly asked. Nevertheless you—for which I most congratulate you—affirm that God is not a body. But you make me anxious again, where you say: If the soul lacks a body, so as to be, as it pleases some, a substance of empty void, of airy and futile being. For by these words of yours you seem to believe that everything which lacks a body is of an empty substance. But if this is so, how do you dare to say that God lacks a body, and not fear lest it follow that he is of an empty substance? Moreover, if God both lacks a body, which you have already confessed, and that he is of an empty substance—far be it that you should say so: therefore whatever lacks a body is not of an empty substance. And therefore one who says the soul is incorporeal does not consequently want it to seem of an empty and futile substance, because he confesses God too, who is not anything empty, to be at the same time incorporeal.
DAeE.4.12.18Vide autem quantum intersit inter id quod dico, et quod tu me existimas dicere. Ego enim nec aeriae substantiae animam dico; alioquin corpus esse confiteor. Aer quippe corpus est, secundum omnes qui de corporibus cum loquuntur, quid loquantur sciunt. Tu autem propter id quod incorpoream dixi animam, non solum cassae inanitatis, sed ob hoc aeriam me putasti eam dixisse substantiam: cum et corpus eam non esse dixerim, quod est aer; et quod aere impletur, inane esse non possit. Quod nec utres tui te admonere potuerunt. Quid enim aliud in eos, nisi aer, quando inflantur, arctatur? Qui usque adeo inanes non sunt, ut eadem plenitudine etiam pondera sufferant. Quod si forte aliud tibi videtur esse flatus, aliud aer; cum aer motus ipse sit flatus, quod et flabello agitato doceri potest: certe vasa quaelibet concava quae putas inania, ut plena esse cognoscas, ab ea parte qua implentur, deprime in aquam, et vide quod nihil humoris in ea possit intrare repellente aere, quo plena sunt. Cum autem ore sursum versus collocantur, sive ex latere, tunc recipiunt liquorem, si quis infunditur vel ingreditur, exeunte atque evadente aere, qua exitus patet. Hoc praesenti facilius posset demonstrari facto quam scripto.
But see how great a difference there is between what I say and what you suppose me to say. For I do not say that the soul is of an airy substance; otherwise I confess it to be a body. For air is a body, according to all who, when they speak about bodies, know what they speak. But you, because I said the soul is incorporeal, thought I had said it to be a substance not only of empty void, but, on this account, airy: whereas I both said that it is not a body, which air is; and what is filled with air cannot be empty. Which not even your skins could admonish you of. For what else but air is compressed into them when they are inflated? They are so far from being empty that by that same fullness they even support weights. But if perhaps it seems to you that breath is one thing and air another—since air, when moved, is itself breath, which can be taught even by a fan when waved—certainly, that you may know that any hollow vessels which you think empty are full, plunge them into water on that side by which they are filled, and see that no moisture can enter them, the air repelling it, with which they are full. But when they are placed with the mouth upward, or on the side, then they receive liquid, if any is poured in or enters, the air going out and escaping by the side where an exit lies open. This could be demonstrated more easily by a present deed than by writing.
DAeE.4.12.18Sed non est hic diutius immorandum, cum sive intellegas aeris naturam esse corpoream, sive non intellegas, me tamen putare non debes vel aeriam dixisse animam, sed omnino incorpoream: quod et tu esse confiteris Deum, quem dicere non audes inane esse aliquid; sed negare non potes omnipotentis et immutabilis esse substantiae. Cur ergo metuimus ne sit cassae inanitatis anima, si sit incorporea, cum Deum incorporeum esse fateamur, nec eum cassae inanitatis esse dicamus? Sic itaque potuit incorporeus incorpoream creare animam, quemadmodum vivens viventem, quamvis immutabilis mutabilem, et omnipotens longe imparem.
But there is no need to delay here longer, since, whether you understand the nature of air to be corporeal or do not understand it, you nevertheless ought not to think that I said the soul to be even airy, but altogether incorporeal: which you too confess God to be, whom you do not dare to say is anything empty; but you cannot deny that he is of the almighty and immutable substance. Why, then, do we fear lest the soul be of empty void, if it is incorporeal, since we confess that God is incorporeal, and do not say that he is of empty void? So, then, the incorporeal could create an incorporeal soul, just as the living the living, although the immutable the mutable, and the almighty one far unequal.
DAeE.4.12.1813. 19. Cur autem animam nolis esse spiritum, sed corpus eam velis esse, non video. Si enim propterea spiritus non est, quia distincte Apostolus nominavit spiritum dicens: Et integer spiritus vester, et anima, et corpus (1 Thess 5, 23); eadem causa est, cur ea non sit corpus, quia distincte nominavit et corpus. Si autem affirmas quod et anima corpus sit, quamvis distincte corpore nominato, permitte ut etiam spiritus sit, quamvis distincte spiritu nominato. Multo enim magis tibi debet videri anima spiritus esse quam corpus; quia spiritum et animam unius fateris esse substantiae, unius autem substantiae animam corpusque esse non dicis. Quo igitur pacto corpus est anima, cum eius et corporis sit diversa natura; et spiritus non est anima, cum eius et spiritus sit una eademque natura? Quid, quod ista tua ratione etiam spiritum corpus esse cogeris dicere? Alioquin si spiritus corpus non est, et anima corpus est; non sunt spiritus et anima unius eiusdemque substantiae. Tu autem utrumque, quamvis duo quaedam sentias, unam fateris habere substantiam. Ergo et spiritus corpus est, si anima corpus est: neque enim aliter possunt unius eiusdemque esse naturae.
13. 19. But why you would not want the soul to be a spirit, but would want it to be a body, I do not see. For if it is not a spirit on the ground that the Apostle distinctly named the spirit, saying, And may your whole spirit, and soul, and body (1 Thess 5:23), the same reason holds why it is not a body, because he distinctly named the body too. But if you affirm that the soul too is a body, although the body was distinctly named, allow that it is also a spirit, although the spirit was distinctly named. For the soul ought to seem to you much more to be a spirit than a body; because you confess that spirit and soul are of one substance, but you do not say that soul and body are of one substance. By what reasoning, then, is the soul a body, since its nature and the body's are diverse; and the soul is not a spirit, since its nature and the spirit's are one and the same? What of the fact that by this reasoning of yours you are forced to say that the spirit too is a body? Otherwise, if the spirit is not a body, and the soul is a body, then spirit and soul are not of one and the same substance. But you confess that both, although you think them two distinct things, have one substance. Therefore the spirit too is a body, if the soul is a body: for otherwise they cannot be of one and the same nature.
DAeE.4.13.19Proinde secundum te, illud quod ait Apostolus: Spiritus vester, et anima, et corpus (1 Thess 5, 23): tria sunt corpora; sed ex his duo, anima et spiritus unius naturae sunt corpora; corpus autem illud, quod etiam caro dicitur, diversae naturae est. Et ex his tribus, ut opinaris, corporibus, quorum unum diversae, duo vero sunt unius eiusdemque substantiae, constat totus homo, una quaedam res atque una substantia. Ista cum asseras, non vis tamen ut duae res unius eiusdemque substantiae, id est, anima et spiritus habeant unum spiritus nomen: cum duae res non unius eiusdemque, sed imparis diversaeque substantiae, id est, anima et corpus habeant unum, sicut putas, corporis nomen.
Accordingly, according to you, that which the Apostle says, your spirit, and soul, and body (1 Thess 5:23), are three bodies; but of these two, soul and spirit, are bodies of one nature; but that body, which is also called flesh, is of a diverse nature. And of these three bodies, as you suppose—of which one is of a diverse, but two are of one and the same substance—the whole man consists, one certain thing and one substance. Although you assert these things, you nevertheless do not want two things of one and the same substance—that is, soul and spirit—to have the one name of spirit: whereas two things not of one and the same, but of an unequal and diverse substance—that is, soul and body—have, as you think, the one name of body.
DAeE.4.13.1914. 20. Sed hoc omitto, ne de nominibus inter nos sit potius controversia, quam de rebus. Quisnam sit homo interior videamus, utrum anima, an spiritus, an utrumque. Sed sicut te scripsisse video, interiorem hominem animam dicis. De hac enim loquebaris, cum diceres: "Et gelante substantia quae comprehendi non poterat, efficeret corpus aliud intra corpus naturae suae vi et spiramine conglobatum, exindeque inciperet homo interior apparere, quem velut in formam vaginae corporalis inclusum, ad similitudinem sui delineavit exterioris hominis habitudo". Deinde infers: "Flatus ergo Dei animum fecit, imo flatus ex Deo anima factus est, effigiata substantialis, et secundum naturam suam corporea, et sui corporis similis, imaginique conformis". Post haec incipiens loqui de spiritu: "Haec, inquis, anima quae ex flatu Dei haberet originem, sine sensu proprio atque intellectu intimo esse non potuit, quod est spiritus".
14. 20. But this I omit, lest there be among us a controversy rather about names than about things. Let us see which is the inner man: whether the soul, or the spirit, or both. But, as I see you have written, you say the inner man is the soul. For of this you were speaking, when you said: And the substance which could not be grasped, congealing, made another body within the body, massed together by the force and breathing of its own nature, and thence the inner man began to appear, whom, enclosed as it were in the form of a corporeal sheath, the condition of the outer man delineated to its own likeness. Then you infer: The breath of God, therefore, made the mind—nay rather, the breath from God was made soul, a fashioned, substantial being, and according to its nature corporeal, and like its own body, and conformed to its image. After this, beginning to speak of the spirit: This soul, you say, which had its origin from the breath of God, could not be without its own sense and inmost understanding, which is the spirit.
DAeE.4.14.20Sicut ergo video, interiorem hominem vis esse animam; intimum, spiritum: tamquam et ipse interior sit animae, sicut illa corpori. Ita fit ut quemadmodum corpus per interiora cava sua recipit aliud corpus, quod est anima, sicut putas; sic et anima credenda sit habere interiora inania, qua corpus tertium receperit spiritum: atque ita totus homo constet ex tribus, exteriore, interiore, intimo. Itane nondum respicis, quanta te absurdissima consequantur, cum animam conaris asseverare corpoream?
As, then, I see, you want the inner man to be the soul; the inmost, the spirit: as though it too were more inward than the soul, as that is than the body. So it comes about that, just as the body, through its inner hollows, receives another body, which is the soul, as you suppose, so the soul too is to be believed to have inner empty places, by which it receives a third body, the spirit: and so the whole man consists of three—the outer, the inner, the inmost. Do you not yet, then, regard how many most absurd things follow you, when you try to assert that the soul is corporeal?
DAeE.4.14.20Deinde dic mihi: quis eorum renovabitur in agnitione Dei, secundum imaginem eius qui creavit eum (Cf. Col 3, 10)? interior, an intimus? Apostolus quidem, praeter interiorem et exteriorem, non video quod sciat alium interioris interiorem, id est, totius hominis intimum. Sed elige quem volueris, qui renovetur secundum imaginem Dei: quomodo hanc recipiet, qui iam sumpsit exterioris imaginem? Si enim per membra exterioris cucurrit interior et gelavit (hoc enim etiam verbo usus es, tamquam figmentum fusile fieret ex forma lutea, quae de pulvere facta est); quomodo eadem manente forma, quae impressa illi est vel expressa de corpore, potest reformari ad imaginem Dei? An duas habebit imagines, a summo quidem Dei, ab imo autem corporis; sicut in nummo dicitur "caput et navia"?
Then tell me: which of them will be renewed in the knowledge of God, according to the image of him who created him (Cf. Col 3:10)? The inner, or the inmost? The Apostle indeed, besides the inner and the outer, I do not see that he knows another, an inner one of the inner—that is, an inmost one of the whole man. But choose whichever you wish, which is to be renewed according to the image of God: how will it receive this, which has already taken the image of the outer? For if the inner ran through the members of the outer and congealed (for you used even this word, as though a molded figure were made from a clay form, which was made from dust), how, the same form remaining, which was impressed on it or expressed from the body, can it be reformed to the image of God? Or will it have two images, from the top indeed of God, but from the bottom of the body; as on a coin is said to be "head and ship"?
DAeE.4.14.20An forte dicis, quod anima ceperit imaginem corporis, et spiritus capiat imaginem Dei, tamquam illa contigua corpori, et ille sit Deo; ac sic ad imaginem Dei homo ille intimus, non iste interior reformetur? Sed frustra hoc dicis. Nam si et ille intimus ita est per animae omnia membra diffusus, ut illa per corporis; iam etiam ipse per animam cepit imaginem corporis, sicut illa eum forma formavit:
Or do you perhaps say that the soul took the image of the body, and the spirit takes the image of God, as though the one were contiguous to the body, and the other to God; and so that inmost man, not this inner one, is reformed to the image of God? But you say this in vain. For if that inmost one too is so diffused through all the members of the soul, as the soul is through those of the body, then it too has already, through the soul, taken the image of the body, as that form formed it:
DAeE.4.14.20ac per hoc non habet ubi capiat imaginem Dei, manente in se ista imagine corporis; nisi quemadmodum nummus, ut dixi, aliter ex inferiore, aliter ex parte superiore formetur.
and through this it has nowhere to take the image of God, that image of the body remaining in it; unless, just as a coin, as I said, it is formed otherwise from the lower, otherwise from the upper part.
DAeE.4.14.20Ad ista te absurda quando de anima cogitas, carnalis cogitatio corporum, velis nolisve, compellit. Sed Deus, ut etiam ipse rectissime confiteris, non est corpus: quomodo igitur capiat eius imaginem corpus? Obsecro te, frater, ut non conformeris huic saeculo, sed reformeris in novitate mentis tuae (Cf. Rom 12, 2), nec sapias secundum carnem, quoniam mors est (Cf. Rom 8, 6).
To these absurdities, when you think about the soul, the carnal thinking of bodies, whether you will or not, compels you. But God, as you yourself too most rightly confess, is not a body: how, then, can a body take his image? I beseech you, brother, that you be not conformed to this age, but be reformed in the newness of your mind (Cf. Rom 12:2), and be not wise according to the flesh, since it is death (Cf. Rom 8:6).
DAeE.4.14.2015. 21. "Sed inquis, si anima caret corpore, quid est quod apud inferos dives ille cognoscit? Certe, inquis, noverat iam Lazarum, non noverat Abraham. Unde illi tanto ante tempore defuncti Abrahae provenit agnitio (Cf. Lc 16, 19-31; TERTULL., De anima 7)?" Haec dicens, si agnitionem hominis provenire non putas sine corporis forma; ut noveris te ipsum, credo quod assidue speculum attendis, ne si fueris oblitus faciem tuam, non te possis agnoscere. Rogo te, quem magis hominem novit homo quam se ipsum, et cuius minus potest faciem videre quam suam? Quis autem potest cognoscere Deum, quem tu quoque incorporeum esse non dubitas; si praeter corporis formam, sicut putas, non potest cognitio provenire, id est, si corpora possunt sola cognosci? Quis autem christianus de tam magnis difficillimisque rebus disputans, animum in verba divina tam neglegenter intendat, ut dicat: "Si incorporea est anima, necesse est careat forma"? Oblitus es, te formam legisse doctrinae (Cf. Rom 6, 17)? Ergo corporea est forma doctrinae. Oblitus es scriptum esse de Christo Iesu, antequam hominem fuisset indutus, quod in forma Dei erat (Cf. Phil 2, 6)? Quomodo ergo dicis: "Si incorporea est anima, necesse est careat forma", cum audias formam Dei, quem non esse corporeum confiteris; et ita loqueris tamquam forma nisi in corporibus esse non possit?
15. 21. But, you say, if the soul lacks a body, what is it that the rich man recognizes among the dead? Surely, you say, he already knew Lazarus; he did not know Abraham. From where came to him the recognition of Abraham, who died so long before? (Cf. Luke 16:19–31; Tertullian, De anima 7) Saying this, if you think the recognition of a man does not come about without the form of the body, that you may know yourself, I believe you constantly look at a mirror, lest, if you have forgotten your face, you cannot recognize yourself. I ask you, what man does a man know more than himself, and whose face can he less see than his own? But who can know God, whom you too do not doubt to be incorporeal, if, apart from the form of the body, as you think, knowledge cannot come about—that is, if bodies alone can be known? But what Christian, disputing about such great and most difficult matters, would bend his mind so negligently upon the divine words as to say: If the soul is incorporeal, it must necessarily lack form? Have you forgotten that you read of a form of doctrine (Cf. Rom 6:17)? Then the form of doctrine is corporeal. Have you forgotten that it is written of Christ Jesus, before he had put on man, that he was in the form of God (Cf. Phil 2:6)? How, then, do you say: If the soul is incorporeal, it must necessarily lack form, when you hear of the form of God, whom you confess not to be corporeal; and you so speak as though form could not be except in bodies?
DAeE.4.15.2115. 22. Dicis etiam "cessare illic nomina, ubi non distinguitur forma; et nihil illic agere appellationem nominum, ubi nulla est designatio personarum". Hinc volens probare Abrahae animam fuisse corpoream, quia dici potuit: Pater Abraham. Iam diximus, etiam ubi corpus nullum est, esse formam. Si autem appellationem nominum nihil putas agere, ubi non sunt corpora; numera ista nomina, quaeso te: Fructus autem spiritus est caritas, gaudium, pax, longanimitas, benignitas, bonitas, fides, mansuetudo, continentia (Gal 5, 22-23): et dic mihi utrum res ipsas non agnoscas, quarum ista sunt nomina, vel sic agnoscas, ut aliqua lineamenta corporum videas. Ecce, ut alia taceam, dic mihi quam figuram, quae membra, quem colorem caritas habeat; quae certe, si ipse inanis non es, inane aliquid tibi videri non potest. "Cuius auxilium imploratum est, inquis, corporeus utique visus est atque formatus". Audiant te homines, et Dei nemo imploret auxilium, quia nemo eum potest videre corporeum.
15. 22. You say also that names cease there, where form is not distinguished; and that the appellation of names does nothing there, where there is no designation of persons. Hence wishing to prove that Abraham's soul was corporeal, because it could be said, Father Abraham. We have already said that even where there is no body, there is form. But if you think the appellation of names does nothing where there are no bodies, count these names, I ask you: But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, self-control (Gal 5:22–23): and tell me whether you do not recognize the things themselves of which these are the names, or whether you so recognize them that you see some outlines of bodies. Behold—to be silent about the rest—tell me what figure, what members, what color love has; love which surely, if you yourself are not empty, cannot seem to you anything empty. He whose help was implored, you say, was surely seen as corporeal and formed. Let men hear you, and let no one implore the help of God, because no one can see him as corporeal.
DAeE.4.15.2216. 23. "Denique, inquis, membra illic animae describuntur, ut vere sit corpus", et vis, "per oculum totum caput intellegi, quia dictus est levasse oculos suos; per linguam fauces, per digitum manum, quia dictum est: Mitte Lazarum, ut intinguat extremum digiti sui in aquam, ut refrigeret linguam meam (Lc 16, 24)". Tamen ne per membrorum nomina de Deo tibi corporeo praescribatur, dicis "per haec incorporeas intellegendas esse virtutes", quia Deum rectissime defendis non esse corporeum. Quid igitur causae est, cur nomina ista membrorum in Deo tibi corpus non faciant, in anima faciant? An vero quando de creatura haec dicuntur, proprie accipienda sunt; quando autem de Creatore, tropice atque translate?
16. 23. Finally, you say, members of the soul are there described, so that it is truly a body, and you want the whole head to be understood by the eye, because he is said to have lifted up his eyes; the throat by the tongue, the hand by the finger, because it was said: Send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, that he may cool my tongue (Luke 16:24). Yet, lest by the names of members a corporeal God be prescribed to you, you say that by these incorporeal powers are to be understood, because you most rightly defend that God is not corporeal. What reason, then, is there why these names of members do not make a body for you in God, but make one in the soul? Or are these things, when said of a creature, to be taken properly; but when of the Creator, figuratively and by transference?
DAeE.4.16.23Pinnas itaque corporeas daturus es nobis, quoniam non Creator, sed creatura, id est, homo dicit: Si assumpsero pinnas meas sicut columba (Cf. Ps 54, 7; 138, 9)? Porro autem, si propterea linguam habebat dives ille corpoream quoniam dixit: Refrigeret linguam meam: in nobis quoque adhuc in carne viventibus, manus habet ipsa lingua corporeas, quia scriptum est: Mors et vita in manibus linguae (Prov 18, 21). Puto etiam non tibi videri, vel esse creaturam, vel corpus esse peccatum: cur ergo habet faciem? An non audis in Psalmo: Non est pax ossibus meis, a facie peccatorum meorum (Ps 37, 4)?
Are you, then, going to give us corporeal wings, since it is not the Creator, but a creature, that is, a man, who says: If I take my wings like a dove (Cf. Ps 55 (54):7; 139 (138):9)? Moreover, if that rich man had a corporeal tongue for this reason, because he said, that he may cool my tongue: then in us too, still living in the flesh, the tongue itself has corporeal hands, because it is written: Death and life are in the hands of the tongue (Prov 18:21). I think too that it does not seem to you that sin is either a creature or a body: why, then, does it have a face? Or do you not hear in the Psalm: There is no peace in my bones, from the face of my sins (Ps 38 (37):4)?
DAeE.4.16.2316. 24. Quod vero "illum Abrahae sinum existimas esse corporeum, et per ipsum asseris totum corpus eius agnosci", vereor ne in re tanta ioculariter atque irridenter, non serio graviterque agere credaris. Neque enim usque adeo desiperes, ut arbitrareris corporeum unius hominis sinum ferre tot animas, immo, ut secundum te loquar, ferre tot corpora bene meritorum, quos illuc Angeli sicut Lazarum perferunt. Nisi opinaris fortasse illam unam animam solam, ad eumdem sinum pervenire meruisse. Si non iocaris, et errare pueriliter non vis, sinum Abrahae intellege, remotam sedem quietis atque secretam, ubi est Abraham.
16. 24. But as for your supposing that the bosom of Abraham is corporeal, and asserting that through it his whole body is recognized, I fear lest in so great a matter you be believed to act jestingly and mockingly, not seriously and gravely. For you would not be so foolish as to judge that the corporeal bosom of one man bears so many souls, or rather—to speak according to you—bears so many bodies of the well-deserving, whom the angels carry there as they did Lazarus. Unless perhaps you suppose that that one soul alone deserved to reach that bosom. If you are not jesting, and do not wish to err childishly, understand the bosom of Abraham to be a remote and secret seat of rest, where Abraham is.
DAeE.4.16.24Et ideo Abrahae dictum, non quod ipsius tantum sit, sed quod ipse pater multarum gentium sit positus, quibus est ad imitandum fidei principatu propositus (Cf. Gen 17, 4-5; Rom 4, 17-22): sicut Deum Abraham, et Deum Isaac, et Deum Iacob, se Deus vocari voluit (Cf. Ex 3, 6; Mc 12, 26), cum sit innumerabilium Deus.
And therefore it was said to be Abraham's, not because it is his alone, but because he is set as the father of many nations, to whom he is set forth, by the primacy of faith, for imitation (Cf. Gen 17:4–5; Rom 4:17–22): just as God willed to be called the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob (Cf. Exod 3:6; Mark 12:26), though he is the God of innumerable ones.
DAeE.4.16.2417. 25. Neque me haec ita disserere existimes, tamquam negem fieri posse ut anima mortui sicut dormientis, in similitudine corporis sui sentiat, seu bona, seu mala. Nam et in somnis quando aliqua dura et molesta perpetimur, nos utique sumus; et nisi evigilantibus nobis illa praetereant, poenas gravissimas pendimus. Sed corpora esse credere, quibus hac atque illac quasi ferimur et volitamus in somnis, hominis, est qui parum vigilanter de rebus talibus cogitavit: de his quippe visorum imaginibus, maxime anima probatur non esse corporea: nisi velis et illa corpora dicere, quae praeter nos ipsos tam multa videmus in somnis, coelum, terram, mare, solem, lunam, stellas, fluvios, montes, arbores, animalia (Cf. Contra ep. fundamenti 17-20). Haec qui corpora esse credit, incredibiliter desipit: sunt tamen corporibus omnino simillima. Ex hoc genere sunt etiam, quae aliqua significantia divinitus demonstrantur, sive in somnis, sive in ectasi. Quae unde fiant, id est, quaenam sit velut materies eorum, quis indagare possit aut dicere? Procul dubio tamen spiritalis est, non corporalis. Namque huiusmodi species velut corporum, non tamen corpora, et vigilantium cogitatione formantur, et profunditate memoriae continentur; et ex eius abditissimis sinibus, nescio quo mirabili et ineffabili modo, cum recordamur prodeunt, et quasi ante oculos prolata versantur. Tam multas igitur et tam magnas corporum imagines, si anima corpus esset, capere cogitando vel memoria continendo non posset. Secundum tuam quippe definitionem, "corporea substantia sua corpus hoc exterius non excedit". Qua igitur magnitudine, quae nulla illi est, imagines tam magnorum corporum et spatiorum atque regionum capit?
17. 25. Nor think that I discourse thus as though I deny that it can come to pass that the soul of one dead, like that of one sleeping, perceives, in the likeness of its body, things either good or evil. For in dreams too, when we endure some hard and troublesome things, it is surely we; and unless those things passed away when we awoke, we would pay the heaviest penalties. But to believe that those are bodies, by which we are as it were borne and fly here and there in dreams, is the mark of a man who has thought too little vigilantly about such matters: for from these images of things seen, the soul is most of all proved not to be corporeal—unless you would say that those too are bodies, which, besides ourselves, we see so many of in dreams: heaven, earth, sea, sun, moon, stars, rivers, mountains, trees, animals (Cf. Contra ep. fundamenti 17–20). Whoever believes these to be bodies is incredibly foolish: yet they are altogether most like bodies. Of this kind are also those things which are divinely shown as signifying something, whether in dreams or in ecstasy. From where these come, that is, what their material as it were is, who could trace out or say? Yet without doubt it is spiritual, not corporeal. For such forms as it were of bodies, yet not bodies, are both formed by the thinking of those awake, and contained in the depth of the memory; and from its most hidden recesses, in I know not what wonderful and ineffable way, when we remember, they come forth and are turned over as it were before the eyes. So many, then, and so great images of bodies the soul could not, if it were a body, take in by thinking or contain in memory. For, according to your definition, a corporeal substance does not exceed this outer body. By what magnitude, then—which is none to it—does it take in images of such great bodies and spaces and regions?
DAeE.4.17.25Quid ergo mirum, si et ipsa sibi in sui corporis similitudine apparet, et quando sine corpore apparet? Neque enim cum suo corpore sibi apparet in somnis, et tamen in ea ipsa similitudine corporis sui, quasi per loca ignota et nota discurrit, et laeta sentit multa vel tristia. Sed puto quod nec tu audeas dicere, figuram illam corporis atque membrorum, quam sibi habere videtur in somnis, verum corpus esse. Nam isto modo erit verus mons, quem sibi videtur ascendere; et corporea domus, quam sibi videtur intrare; et arbor vera lignumque verum corpus habens, sub qua sibi videtur iacere; et aqua vera, quam sibi videtur haurire; et omnia in quibus quasi corporibus versatur, corpora erunt si et ipsa corpus est, quae simili imagine inter cuncta illa versatur.
What wonder, then, if it appears to itself too in the likeness of its body, even when it appears without a body? For it does not appear to itself with its body in dreams, and yet in that very likeness of its body it runs as it were through known and unknown places, and perceives many glad or sad things. But I think that not even you would dare to say that that figure of the body and members, which it seems to itself to have in dreams, is a true body. For in that way the mountain it seems to itself to climb will be a true mountain; and the house it seems to itself to enter, a corporeal one; and a true tree and true wood having a body, under which it seems to itself to lie; and true water, which it seems to itself to draw; and all the things among which it moves as among bodies will be bodies, if it too is a body, which moves among all those by a like image.
DAeE.4.17.2518. 26. De conscriptis visionibus martyrum dicendum tibi est aliquid; quoniam tu etiam inde testimonium adhibendum putasti (Cf. TERTULL., De anima 9, 4). Nempe sancta Perpetua visa sibi est in somnis, cum quodam Aegyptio in virum conversa luctari. Quis autem dubitet, in illa similitudine corporis animam eius fuisse, non corpus, quod utique in suo femineo sexu manens, sopitis sensibus iacebat in stratis, quando anima eius in illa virilis corporis similitudine luctabatur? Quid hic dicis? verumne erat corpus illa viri similitudo, an non erat corpus, quamvis haberet similitudinem corporis? Elige quid velis. Si corpus erat, cur non servabat vaginae suae formam? Neque enim in illius feminae carne virilia repererat genitalia, unde ita posset sese coarctando, et, ut tu loqueris, "gelando" formari.
18. 26. Something must be said to you about the recorded visions of the martyrs, since you thought a testimony was to be adduced even from there (Cf. Tertullian, De anima 9, 4). Surely holy Perpetua seemed to herself in dreams to wrestle with a certain Egyptian, turned into a man. But who would doubt that in that likeness of a body it was her soul, not her body, which surely, remaining in its female sex, lay with its senses lulled on the bed, when her soul was wrestling in that likeness of a male body? What do you say here? Was that likeness of a man a true body, or was it not a body, although it had the likeness of a body? Choose what you will. If it was a body, why did it not keep the form of its sheath? For it had not found in the flesh of that woman male genitals, from which it could be so formed by contracting itself and, as you say, "congealing."
DAeE.4.18.26Deinde, obsecro te, cum corpus dormientis adhuc viveret, quando eius anima luctabatur, in sua vagina erat, utique omnibus membris viventis inclusa, et in eius corpore suam formam, de quo fuerat formata, servabat - nondum quippe artus illos, sicut fit in morte, reliquerat; nondum membra ex membris formata ex formantibus cogente vi mortis extraxerat -: unde igitur erat virile animae corpus, in quo sibi luctari cum adversario videbatur? Si autem non erat corpus, et tamen erat aliquid simile corporis, in quo sane verus labor aut vera laetitia sentiretur; iamne tandem vides, quemadmodum fieri possit ut sit in anima similitudo quaedam corporis, nec ipsa sit corpus?
Then, I beseech you, since the body of the sleeping woman still lived, when her soul was wrestling, it was in its sheath, surely enclosed in all the members of the living body, and kept in her body its own form, from which it had been formed—for it had not yet left those joints, as happens in death; it had not yet, by the compelling force of death, drawn out the members formed from the members forming them: from where, then, was the male body of the soul, in which she seemed to herself to wrestle with her adversary? But if it was not a body, and yet was something like a body, in which surely a true labor or true joy was perceived; do you now at last see how it can come to pass that there is in the soul a certain likeness of a body, and it is not itself a body?
DAeE.4.18.2618. 27. Quid si tale aliquid apud inferos geritur, et in eis se, non corporibus, sed corporum similitudinibus animae agnoscunt? Cum enim tristia patimur, quamvis in somnis, etsi membrorum corporeorum sit illa similitudo, non membra corporea; non est tamen poenae similitudo, sed poena: sic etiam ubi laeta sentiuntur. Sed quoniam sancta Perpetua nondum erat mortua, non vis hinc tibi fortasse praescribi: cum valde ad rem pertineat, cuius esse naturae existimes illas similitudines corporum quas habemus in somnis; et tota ista causa finita sit, si eas et similes corporibus, et non esse corpora confiteris.
18. 27. What if something of this kind takes place among the dead, and in them souls recognize themselves, not as bodies, but as likenesses of bodies? For when we suffer sad things, although in dreams, even if there is that likeness of corporeal members, not corporeal members, yet it is not a likeness of punishment, but punishment: so too where glad things are perceived. But because holy Perpetua was not yet dead, you do not perhaps want a prejudgment to be made for you from here: although it greatly pertains to the matter, of what nature you think those likenesses of bodies are which we have in dreams; and this whole case is finished, if you confess them both to be like bodies, and not to be bodies.
DAeE.4.18.27Verumtamen Dinocrates frater eius mortuus erat: hunc vidit cum illo vulnere quod vivus habuit, et unde est perductus ad mortem. Ubi est quod tantis conatibus laborasti, cum ageres de praecisione membrorum, ne simul concidi anima putaretur? Ecce vulnus erat in anima Dinocratis, quod eam vi sua, quando erat in eius corpore, exclusit e corpore. Quomodo ergo secundum tuam opinionem, "quando membra corporis praeciduntur, ab ictu se subtrahit, et in alias partes densendo se colligit, ne aliqua pars eius vulnere corporis amputetur, etiamsi dormienti atque nescienti membrorum aliquid praecidatur"? Tantam quippe illi tribuis vigilantiam, ut etiam visis occupata somniorum, si plaga irruerit ignoranti, qua caro feriatur, se illa providenter perniciterque subducat, ne possit feriri atque vexari, sive concidi: nec attendis, homo prudens, quod si se anima inde subduceret, nec illa percussio sentiretur.
Nevertheless Dinocrates, her brother, was dead: she saw him with that wound which he had while alive, and from which he was brought to death. Where is what you labored at with such great efforts, when you were treating of the cutting off of members, lest the soul be thought to be cut along with them? Behold, there was a wound in the soul of Dinocrates, which by its force, when it was in his body, drove it out of the body. How, then, according to your opinion, when the members of the body are cut off, does it withdraw itself from the blow, and gather itself by condensing into other parts, lest any part of it be amputated by the wound of the body, even if something of the members be cut off from one sleeping and unaware? For you attribute to it so great a vigilance that, even occupied with the visions of dreams, if a blow rush upon it unawares, by which the flesh is struck, it providently and swiftly withdraws itself, lest it be struck and vexed, or cut: nor do you attend, prudent man, that if the soul withdrew itself from there, that blow too would not be felt.
DAeE.4.18.27Sed inveni quod potueris, quid inde respondeas, quomodo anima partes suas abripiat, et recondat introrsus, ne ubi praeciditur seu percutitur corporis membrum, amputetur et ipsa atque vexetur. Dinocratem aspice, et dic cur eius anima non se subtraxerit ab eo corporis loco, qui mortifero vulnere vastabatur, ne in illa fieret quod in eius facie etiam post mortem ipsius corporis appareret.
But find what you can answer to this, how the soul snatches away its parts, and stores them within, lest, where a member of the body is cut off or struck, it too be amputated and vexed. Look at Dinocrates, and say why his soul did not withdraw itself from that place of the body which was being laid waste by the mortal wound, lest there come to be in it what would appear even after death in the face of his body.
DAeE.4.18.27An forte iam tibi placet, ut istas potius similitudines corporum quam corpora esse credamus; ut quomodo apparet quasi vulnus, quod non est vulnus, ita quod non est corpus, quasi corpus appareat? Nam si anima vulnerari potest ab eis qui vulnerant corpus, nihilne metuendum est, ne possit occidi ab eis qui occidunt corpus? Quod Dominus apertissime fieri non posse testatur (Cf. Mt 10, 28). Et tamen anima Dinocratis mori non potuit, unde corpus eius est mortuum: et quasi vulnerata visa est, sicut corpus fuerat vulneratum, quoniam corpus non erat, sed habebat in similitudine corporis etiam similitudinem vulneris: porro autem in non vero corpore vera miseria fuit animae, quae significabatur adumbrato corporis vulnere, de qua sororis sanctae orationibus meruit liberari.
Or does it now please you rather that we believe these to be likenesses of bodies than bodies; so that, just as a wound appears as it were, which is not a wound, so what is not a body may appear as it were a body? For if the soul can be wounded by those who wound the body, is nothing to be feared, lest it be able to be killed by those who kill the body? Which the Lord most plainly testifies cannot come to pass (Cf. Matt 10:28). And yet the soul of Dinocrates could not die, from where his body died: and it seemed as it were wounded, as the body had been wounded, since it was not a body, but had, in the likeness of a body, even a likeness of a wound: moreover, in a not-true body there was a true misery of the soul, which was signified by the shadowed wound of the body, from which it deserved to be freed by the prayers of its holy sister.
DAeE.4.18.2718. 28. Iam illud quale est, dicere "quod anima formam de corpore accipiat, et cum incremento corporis protendatur et crescat"; et non attendere quam monstruosa evadat anima iuvenis sive senis, si eius brachium praecidatur infantis. "Contrahit enim se, ut dicis; animae manus, ne ipsa etiam cum manu corporis amputetur, et in alias se partes corporis densendo concludit". Ac per hoc illud animae brachium, quam breve corporis fuit unde acceperat formam, tam breve servabitur ubicumque servetur; quia perdidit formam, cuius incremento posset pariter crescere. Exit ergo anima iuvenis aut senis, qui manum, cum esset parvus, amisit, habens quidem duas manus, quia una refugiens non est amputata cum corpore, sed alteram iuvenilem vel senilem, alteram vero sicut primum fuerat, infantilem. Tales animas, crede mihi, non forma corporis facit, sed erroris deformitas fingit.
18. 28. Now, what kind of thing is it to say that the soul takes its form from the body, and is extended and grows with the increase of the body, and not to attend how monstrous the soul of a young man or an old man turns out, if his arm was cut off as an infant? For it contracts itself, as you say; the hand of the soul, lest it too be amputated along with the hand of the body, and it encloses itself by condensing into other parts of the body. And through this that arm of the soul, however short was the body's from which it had taken its form, so short it will be kept wherever it is kept; because it has lost the form by whose increase it could grow likewise. There departs, then, the soul of a young man or an old man, who lost his hand when he was small, having indeed two hands, because the one fleeing was not amputated with the body, but the other youthful or aged, but the other as it first was, infantile. Such souls, believe me, the form of the body does not make, but the deformity of error fashions.
DAeE.4.18.28Non mihi videris ab isto errore posse erui, nisi Deo adiuvante diligenter consideraveris visa somniantium, et inde cognoveris esse quasdam quae non sint corpora, sed similitudines corporum. Quamvis enim et ea quae similia corporibus cogitamus, ex eo genere sint: tamen quod ad mortuos attinet, aptior coniectura de dormientibus ducitur. Neque enim frustra eos, qui mortui sunt appellat sancta Scriptura dormientes (Cf. 1 Thess 4, 12), nisi quia est quodammodo consanguineus lethi sopor (Cf. VIRG., Aen. 6, 278).
You do not seem to me to be able to be rescued from this error, unless, by God's help, you diligently consider the visions of dreamers, and from there recognize that there are certain things which are not bodies, but likenesses of bodies. For although those things too which we think as like bodies are of that kind, nevertheless, as far as concerns the dead, a more apt conjecture is drawn from those sleeping. For not in vain does holy Scripture call those who are dead "sleeping" (Cf. 1 Thess 4:13), except because sleep is in a manner the kindred of death (Cf. Virgil, Aeneid 6, 278).
DAeE.4.18.2819. 29. Proinde si anima corpus esset, et corporea esset figura in qua se videt in somnis, eo quod de corpore eius fuisset expressa; nullus hominum membro corporis amputato, sicut eo caret, ita sine illo se videret in somnis, sed potius semper integrum, eo quod animae ipsius nihil fuerit amputatum. Cum vero aliquando se integros videant, aliquando autem sicut sunt, ex quacumque parte truncatos; quid aliud ista res docet, nisi animam, sicut aliarum rerum quas sensit in somnis, ita et corporis, modo sic, modo sic, non veritatem, sed similitudinem gerere? Gaudium vero eius sive tristitia, delectatio vel offensio, sive sit in corporibus, sive in corporum similitudinibus, vera est.
19. 29. Accordingly, if the soul were a body, and the corporeal figure in which it sees itself in dreams were corporeal, because it had been expressed from its body, no man, a member of his body having been amputated, would, just as he lacks it, so see himself without it in dreams, but rather always whole, because nothing of the soul itself had been amputated. But since sometimes they see themselves whole, but sometimes, as they are, maimed in some part, what else does this fact teach but that the soul, as of the other things which it perceived in dreams, so also of the body, bears now in this way, now in that, not the truth, but a likeness? But its joy or sadness, delight or offense, whether it be in bodies or in likenesses of bodies, is true.
DAeE.4.19.29Tu ipse nonne dixisti, vereque dixisti "alimenta et vestimenta non esse animae, sed corpori necessaria"? Cur ergo aquae stillam desideravit apud inferos dives? Cur Samuel sanctus post mortem, ut ipse quoque commemorasti, solito indumento vestitus apparuit (Cf. 1 Reg 28, 14)? Numquid ille ruinas animae, sicut carnis, per humoris alimentum reficere cupiebat? Numquid iste de corpore vestitus exierat? Sed in illo vera erat molestia, qua cruciabatur anima; non tamen verum corpus, cui quaereret alimenta. Et iste sic potuit apparere vestitus, ut non corpus esset, sed similitudinem corporis haberet et anima et habitus. Neque enim se anima sicut in membra corporis, ita et in vestimenta porrigit et coarctat, ut etiam inde formetur.
Did you not yourself say, and truly say, that food and clothing are not necessary to the soul, but to the body? Why, then, did the rich man desire a drop of water among the dead? Why did holy Samuel after death, as you yourself also mentioned, appear clothed in his accustomed garment (Cf. 1 Sam 28:14)? Did he desire to repair the ruins of the soul, as of the flesh, by the nourishment of moisture? Had he departed from the body clothed? But in the one there was a true trouble, by which the soul was tormented; yet not a true body, for which it would seek nourishment. And the other could appear clothed in such a way that it was not a body, but both the soul and the garb had a likeness of a body. For the soul does not extend and contract itself into garments, as into the members of the body, so as to be formed from them too.
DAeE.4.19.2919. 30. Post mortem vero quam vim cognitionis corruptibilibus exoneratae corporibus animae accipiant etiam non bonae; ut vel pariter malas, vel etiam bonas valeant interioribus sensibus intueri et agnoscere, sive in ipsis non corporibus, sed similitudinibus corporum, sive in bonis aut malis affectionibus mentis, in quibus nulla sunt quasi lineamenta membrorum, quis valeat indagare? Unde est et illud, quod patrem Abraham dives ille, cum in tormentis esset, agnovit, cui figura corporis eius non erat nota, cuius corporis similitudinem quamvis incorpoream potuit anima retinere.
19. 30. But after death, what power of knowing souls, even those not good, receive, unburdened of their corruptible bodies, so that they can behold and recognize, by their inner senses, either souls likewise evil, or even good ones, whether in those very things which are not bodies but likenesses of bodies, or in the good or evil affections of the mind, in which there are no outlines as it were of members, who could trace out? From this comes also that the rich man, when he was in torments, recognized father Abraham, whose bodily figure was not known to him, but whose likeness of body, though incorporeal, the soul could retain.
DAeE.4.19.30Quis autem recte dicat, se aliquem hominem cognovisse, nisi in quantum potuit eius vitam voluntatemque cognoscere, quae utique moles non habet vel colores? Sic enim et nos ipsos certius quam caeteros novimus, quia nobis conscientia nostra nota est et voluntas: quam plane videmus, et in ea tamen aliquam corporis similitudinem non videmus. Hanc in alio quamvis praesente non cernimus, etiam cuius absentis faciem novimus, recolimus, cogitamus. Nostram vero faciem eo modo nosse, recolere, cogitare non possumus, et tamen nos ipsos nobis magis quam illum cognitum verissime dicimus: ita clarum est, ubi sit potior hominis veriorque notitia.
But who would rightly say that he had known any man, except in so far as he could know his life and will, which surely have no mass or colors? For so we know even ourselves more certainly than others, because our conscience and will are known to us: which we plainly see, and yet in it we do not see any likeness of a body. This we do not discern in another, though present—even one whose face, when absent, we know, recall, think of. But our own face we cannot in that way know, recall, think of, and yet we most truly say that we ourselves are known to us more than that other: so clear is it where the better and truer knowledge of a man lies.
DAeE.4.19.3020. 31. Cum ergo aliud sit in anima, quo corpora vera sentimus, quod facimus quinque sensibus corporis; aliud quo praeter ipsos similia corporibus non corpora cernimus, ubi et nos ipsos non aliter quam similes corporibus contuemur; aliud quo nec corpora nec similitudines corporum, sicut fidem, spem, caritatem, sine ullis coloribus et tumoribus eorumque similitudinibus, certius sane firmiusque conspicimus; ubi magis esse et quodam modo familiarius habitare debemus, ubi renovari in agnitione Dei secundum imaginem eius qui creavit nos (Cf. Col 3, 10)? nonne in hoc quod tertio loco posui? Ibi enim certe neque ullum sexum, neque ullam sexus similitudinem gerimus.
20. 31. Since, then, one thing in the soul is that by which we perceive true bodies, which we do by the five senses of the body; another that by which, besides these, we discern things like bodies that are not bodies, where we also behold ourselves not otherwise than as like bodies; another that by which we perceive neither bodies nor likenesses of bodies, such as faith, hope, love, without any colors and masses and their likenesses—and surely more certainly and more firmly: where ought we more to be, and in a manner more familiarly to dwell; where to be renewed in the knowledge of God according to the image of him who created us (Cf. Col 3:10)? Is it not in that which I placed in the third place? For there surely we bear neither any sex, nor any likeness of sex.
DAeE.4.20.3120. 32. Nam illa masculinae vel femininae animae forma, membris virilibus muliebribusque distincta, si non corporis similitudo, sed corpus est, velis nolis est masculus, velis nolis est femina, quaecumque aut masculus apparet aut femina. Sed tamen si secundum tuam opinionem et corpus est anima, et vivum corpus est, et habet mammas protumidas et propendulas, et non habet barbam, et habet vulvam et genitalia quae habent feminae corporis membra, et non est femina: egone non dicam vera constantius, Et habet oculum, et habet linguam, et habet digitum, et habet caetera similia corporis membra, et haec tota est corporis similitudo, non corpus: cum hoc quod ego dico probet apud se quisque, cum corpora imaginatur absentium; probet certe, cum figuras et suam et alias suorum recolit somniorum: a te autem huius monstri, ubi et verum est, et vivum est, et femineum est corpus, et femineus non est sexus, nullum in natura rerum proferatur exemplum?
20. 32. For that form of a male or female soul, distinguished by male and female members—if it is not a likeness of a body, but a body, then, like it or not, it is a male; like it or not, it is a female, whatever either appears as male or as female. But yet, if according to your opinion the soul is both a body, and a living body, and has swelling and pendulous breasts, and has no beard, and has a womb and the genitals which the members of a female body have, and is not a female: shall not I more constantly say true things—And it has an eye, and has a tongue, and has a finger, and has the other like members of a body, and this whole is a likeness of a body, not a body: since each one proves what I say in himself, when he imagines the bodies of the absent; let him prove it surely, when he recalls the figures both of his own and of others' dreams: but from you, of this monstrosity, where there is both a true and a living and a female body, and the sex is not female, no example is brought forward in the nature of things?
DAeE.4.20.3220. 33. Quod enim de phoenice loqueris (Cf. TERTULL., De resurr. mort. 13: CC 2, 936), ad rem de qua agitur omnino non pertinet. Resurrectionem quippe illa significat corporum, non sexum destruit animarum: si tamen, ut creditur, de sua morte renascitur. Sed arbitror quod tuum sermonem parum putaveris fore plausibilem, si non multa de phoenice more adolescentium declamares. Numquid enim sunt in eius corpore genitalia masculina et non est masculus, vel feminina et non est femina? Tu autem attende quid dicas, quid astruere, quid persuadere coneris. "Animam dicis per cuncta membra diffusam gelando riguisse, et a vertice usque ad ima vestigia, a medullis intimis usque ad superficiem cutis, totam totius accepisse corporis formam; ac per hoc accepit in feminae corpore quidquid habent femineorum viscerum feminae, et verum est hoc corpus, et haec vera sunt membra, et tamen non est femina".
20. 33. For what you say about the phoenix (Cf. Tertullian, De resurr. mort. 13) pertains not at all to the matter of which we are treating. For it signifies the resurrection of bodies, it does not destroy the sex of souls: if indeed, as is believed, it is reborn from its own death. But I judge that you thought your discourse would be too little plausible, if you did not declaim much about the phoenix, after the manner of young men. For are there in its body male genitals, and it is not a male, or female ones, and it is not a female? But attend to what you say, what you try to establish, what to persuade. You say that the soul, diffused through all the members, congealing, grew rigid, and from the crown to the lowest soles, from the inmost marrow to the surface of the skin, took the whole form of the whole body; and through this it took, in a female body, whatever females have of female inward parts, and this body is true, and these members are true, and yet it is not a female.
DAeE.4.20.33Cur, obsecro te, in vero et vivo corpore omnia sunt membra feminea, et non est femina? in vero et vivo corpore membra sunt omnia masculina, et non est masculus? Quis ista credere, dicere, docere praesumat? An quia non generant animae? Ergo nec muli et mulae sunt masculi et feminae. An quia nec concumbere poterunt sine carneis corporibus animae? Sed hoc aufertur et his qui castrantur: et tamen cum eis adimatur et opus et motus, non adimitur sexus, figura quantulacumque masculinorum manente membrorum. Nemo unquam masculum negavit eunuchum.
Why, I beseech you, in a true and living body are all the members female, and it is not a female? In a true and living body are all the members male, and it is not a male? Who would presume to believe, say, teach these things? Or is it because souls do not beget? Then neither are mules, male and female, male and female. Or is it because souls cannot lie together without fleshly bodies? But this is taken away too from those who are castrated: and yet, although both the function and the motion are taken from them, the sex is not taken, the figure of the male members, however small, remaining. No one ever denied that a eunuch is a male.
DAeE.4.20.33Quid quod apud te animae etiam eunuchorum testes integros habent, et si cuiquam genitalia prorsus tota tollantur, tota in eius anima, secundum opinionem tuam, et omnino integra permanebunt? "Novit enim se subtrahere, sicut dicis, cum ea pars carnis coeperit exsecari; ut ea forma quae inde sumpta est, quando illud unde sumpta est amputatur, non pereat; sed quamvis in fusa gelaverit, motu tamen celerrimo rapiatur, et interius recondatur, ut salva servetur: et tamen non sit masculus apud inferos, masculinorum genitalium secum afferens totum, qui cum illa in corpore non haberet, masculus fuit propter eorum solum locum". Falsa sunt haec, fili: si non vis ut sit in anima sexus; non sit et corpus.
What of the fact that with you the souls even of eunuchs have their testicles whole, and if from anyone the genitals are wholly and entirely taken away, whole in his soul, according to your opinion, and altogether entire, they will remain? For it knows how to withdraw itself, as you say, when that part of the flesh begins to be cut away; so that the form which was taken from there, when that from which it was taken is amputated, does not perish; but, although diffused it has congealed, yet by a most swift motion it is snatched away, and stored within, that it may be kept safe: and yet he is not a male among the dead, carrying with himself the whole of his male genitals, who, when he did not have them in the body, was a male only on account of their place. These things are false, son: if you do not want there to be sex in the soul, let it not be a body either.
DAeE.4.20.3321. 34. Non omnis similitudo corporis corpus est. Dormi, et videbis: sed cum evigilaveris, vigilanter discerne quod videris. In somnis enim tibi velut corporeus apparebis: neque id corpus tuum, sed anima tua, nec verum corpus, sed similitudo corporis erit. Iacebit enim corpus tuum, ambulabit ipsa: silebit lingua corporis tui, loquetur illa: clausi erunt oculi tui, videbit illa: et utique viventia iacebunt tui corporis membra, non mortua. Ac per hoc nondum extracta est velut de vagina sua, gelata illa forma, sicut putas, animae tuae, et in ea tamen tota atque integra cernitur similitudo carnis tuae. Ex hoc genere similitudinum corporalium, quae non corpora sicut corpora apparent, sunt omnia quae sanctos Libros legens in propheticis etiam visionibus non intellegis: quibus significantur ea quae geruntur in temporibus, vel praesenti, vel praeterito, vel futuro. Falleris autem in eis, non quia sunt ipsa fallacia, sed quia non ea sicut accipienda sunt accipis.
21. 34. Not every likeness of a body is a body. Sleep, and you will see: but when you have awakened, vigilantly discern what you have seen. For in dreams you will appear to yourself as it were corporeal: yet it will be not your body, but your soul; not a true body, but a likeness of a body. For your body will lie, that will walk: the tongue of your body will be silent, that will speak: your eyes will be closed, that will see: and surely the members of your body will lie living, not dead. And through this there has not yet been drawn out as it were from its sheath that congealed form, as you think, of your soul, and yet in it is discerned, whole and entire, the likeness of your flesh. Of this kind of corporeal likenesses, which are not bodies though they appear as bodies, are all the things which, reading the holy Books, you do not understand even in the prophetic visions: by which are signified the things that are done in time, whether present, or past, or future. But you are deceived in them, not because they themselves are deceptive, but because you do not take them as they are to be taken.
DAeE.4.21.34Ubi enim visae sunt animae martyrum (Cf. Apoc 6, 9), in eadem revelatione visus est et agnus quasi occisus, habens cornua septem (Cf. Apoc 5, 6): ibi equi, aliaque animalia, sicut oportuit figurata: ibi postremo et stellae ceciderunt, et coelum plicitum est ut liber; nec tamen tunc concidit mundus (Cf. Apoc 6, 13-14). Ista itaque omnia si sapienter accipimus, quamvis dicamus visa veracia, non tamen vera dicimus corpora.
For where the souls of the martyrs were seen (Cf. Rev 6:9), in the same revelation was seen also the lamb as it were slain, having seven horns (Cf. Rev 5:6): there horses, and other animals, figured as was fitting: there, finally, both the stars fell, and the heaven was folded like a book; nor yet did the world then fall (Cf. Rev 6:13–14). All these things, then, if we take them wisely, although we say the visions are truthful, yet we do not say the bodies are true.
DAeE.4.21.3421. 35. Prolixioris autem sermonis est, de isto genere similitudinum corporalium diligentissima disputatio, utrum et Angeli, seu boni, seu mali sic appareant, quando specie hominum, vel quorumlibet corporum apparent; an habeant aliqua vera corpora, et in ipsorum potius veritate videantur: an vero in somnis vel in ecstasi, in istis cernantur, non corporibus, sed similitudinibus corporum; vigilantibus autem vera cernenda, et si opus est, etiam tangenda ingerant corpora. Sed ista in hoc libro requirenda et pertractanda esse non arbitror. Nunc de anima incorporea satis dictum sit: quam sit corpoream mavis credere, prius tibi definiendum est quid sit corpus; ne forte cum de re ipsa inter nos constet, incassum de nomine laboremus. Quanta te tamen absurda secuta sint tale corpus in anima cogitantem, qualia sunt quae ab omnibus eruditis corpora nuncupantur, id est, quae per distantiam longitudinis, latitudinis, altitudinis, locorum occupant spatia, minora minoribus suis partibus, et maiora maioribus, puto quod iam prudenter advertas.
21. 35. But it is a matter of longer discourse, the most diligent disputation about this kind of corporeal likenesses: whether the angels too, whether good or evil, so appear, when they appear in the form of men, or of any bodies; or whether they have some true bodies, and are seen rather in the truth of those; or whether, indeed, in dreams or in ecstasy, they are discerned in these, not bodies, but likenesses of bodies; but to those awake they present true bodies to be discerned, and, if need be, even to be touched. But I do not think these things are to be inquired into and handled in this book. For now let enough have been said about the incorporeal soul: which, how you prefer to believe corporeal, you must first define what a body is; lest perhaps, when about the thing itself it is agreed between us, we labor in vain about the name. Yet how many absurdities have followed you in thinking such a body in the soul, as are those which by all the learned are called bodies—that is, those which, through the distance of length, breadth, height, occupy spaces of place, lesser with their lesser parts, and greater with the greater—I think you now prudently observe.
DAeE.4.21.3522. 36. Restat ostendere quemadmodum, quamvis et proprie dicatur spiritus, non universa anima; sed aliquid ipsius - sicut Apostolus dicit: Et integer spiritus vester, et anima, et corpus (1 Thess 5, 23); vel illud multo expressius in libro Iob: Absolvisti animam meam ab spiritu meo (Iob 7, 15 (sec. LXX)) -, tamen et universa anima appelletur hoc nomine; quamvis multo magis haec quaestio nominum videatur esse, non rerum. Cum enim constet esse aliquid in anima, quod proprie spiritus nominetur, quo excepto proprie nominatur et anima, iam de rebus ipsis nulla contentio est; praesertim quia illud etiam ego dico proprie vocari spiritum, quod et tu dicis, id est, quo ratiocinamur et intellegimus, quando ita distincte ista dicuntur, quemadmodum Apostolus ait: Et integer spiritus vester, et anima, et corpus (1 Thess 5, 23). Hunc autem spiritum etiam mentem videtur appellare, cum dicit: Mente servio legi Dei, carne autem legi peccati (Rom 7, 25). Nam ipsa sententia est: Et caro concupiscit adversus spiritum, spiritus adversus carnem (Gal 5, 17): ut quod ibi dixit, "mentem"; hoc intellegatur hic "spiritum" dicere: non sicut tu existimas, "universam mentem vocari, quae constat ex anima et spiritu", quod ubi legeris, nescio. Mentem quippe nostram, nisi rationale et intellectuale nostrum dicere non solemus: ac per hoc quod ait idem apostolus: Renovamini spiritu mentis vestrae (Eph 4, 23); quid aliud dixit, quam: Renovamini mente vestra? Sic enim spiritus mentis nihil est aliud quam mens, quomodo corpus carnis nihil aliud potest esse quam caro: nam et hoc scriptum est: In exspoliatione corporis carnis (Col 2, 11); ubi carnem corpus carnis appellat. Dicit sane et alio modo spiritum hominis, quem prorsus a mente discernit: Si enim oravero lingua, inquit, spiritus meus orat, mens autem mea infructuosa est (1 Cor 14, 14).
22. 36. It remains to show how, although the spirit is also properly so called—not the whole soul, but something of it (as the Apostle says: And may your whole spirit, and soul, and body (1 Thess 5:23); or that much more expressly in the book of Job: You have freed my soul from my spirit (Job 7:15 (LXX)))—nevertheless the whole soul too is called by this name; although this seems much more to be a question of names, not of things. For since it is agreed that there is something in the soul which is properly named spirit, with which excepted the soul too is properly named, now about the things themselves there is no contention; especially since I too say that what is properly called spirit is that which you also say, that is, that by which we reason and understand, when these things are said as distinctly as the Apostle says: And may your whole spirit, and soul, and body (1 Thess 5:23). But this spirit he seems also to call the mind, when he says: With the mind I serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin (Rom 7:25). For it is the same statement: And the flesh lusts against the spirit, the spirit against the flesh (Gal 5:17): so that what he there said, "mind," is understood here to be called "spirit": not, as you suppose, that the whole mind is called that which consists of soul and spirit, which where you read it, I do not know. For our mind we are not accustomed to call anything but our rational and intellectual part: and through this, what the same Apostle says, Be renewed in the spirit of your mind (Eph 4:23), what else did he say than, Be renewed in your mind? For so the spirit of the mind is nothing else than the mind, just as the body of the flesh can be nothing else than the flesh: for this too is written: In the despoiling of the body of the flesh (Col 2:11); where he calls the flesh the body of the flesh. He says, indeed, in another way too the spirit of man, which he plainly distinguishes from the mind: For if I pray in a tongue, he says, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful (1 Cor 14:14).
DAeE.4.22.36Verum nunc non de isto spiritu loquimur, qui est a mente distinctus. Habet iste suam eamdemque difficilem quaestionem: multis enim modis atque in diversis significationibus Scripturae divinae spiritum nominant: sed de quo nunc agimus, quo ratiocinamur, intellegimus, sapimus; constat inter nos sic eum etiam proprie spiritum nuncupari, ut non sit universa anima, sed aliquid eius. Tamen animam etiam spiritum esse, si propterea negas, quia eius intellegentia distincte dicitur spiritus; poteris negare universum semen Iacob appellari Israel, quoniam excepto Iuda, etiam distincte appellatus est Israel in tribubus decem, quae in Samaria tunc fuerunt (Cf. 3 Reg 12, 20). Sed quid opus est hic diutius immorari?
But now we are not speaking of that spirit which is distinct from the mind. That one has its own and equally difficult question: for in many ways and in diverse significations the divine Scriptures name the spirit: but of that of which we now treat, by which we reason, understand, are wise, it is agreed between us that it too is so properly named spirit that it is not the whole soul, but something of it. Nevertheless, that the soul too is a spirit, if you deny it for this reason, because its understanding is distinctly called spirit, you will be able to deny that the whole seed of Jacob is called Israel, since, except Judah, Israel was also distinctly the name of the ten tribes, which were then in Samaria (Cf. 1 Kgs 12:20). But what need is there to delay here longer?
DAeE.4.22.3623. 37. Iam nunc unde facilius ostendamus, attende eam quae anima est, etiam spiritum dici, cum audis vel legis, Domino moriente, quod scriptum est: Et inclinato capite tradidit spiritum (Io 19, 30): ita vis intellegi, tamquam a parte significaverit totum, non quod ea quae anima est, possit et spiritus nuncupari. At ego ut possim expeditius probare quod dico, te ipsum testem citius et commodius adhibebo. Sic enim spiritum definisti, ut pecora appareant non spiritum habere, sed animam. Irrationalia quippe ideo dicuntur, quod vim non habeant intellegentiae atque rationis. Unde cum hominem ipsum admoneres suam nosse naturam, ita locutus es: "Nam cum Deus bonus nihil non ratione condiderit, ipsumque hominem animal rationale, intellectus capacem, rationis compotem, sensuque vivacem, qui omnia rationis expertia prudenti ordinatione distribuat, procreaverit". His tuis verbis satis asseruisti, quod omnino verissimum est, hominem esse compotem rationis atque intellegentiae capacem, quod utique non sunt animalia rationis expertia. Unde et testimonio divino, eos qui non intellegunt, pecoribus comparasti, non utique habentibus intellectum (Cf. Ps 48, 13). Quod et alio loco scriptum est: Nolite esse sicut equus et mulus, quibus non est intellectus (Ps 31, 9).
23. 37. Now then, that we may more easily show it, attend: that which is the soul is also called spirit, when you hear or read, at the Lord's dying, what is written, And bowing his head, he gave up the spirit (John 19:30): you so want it understood, as though he signified the whole by a part, not that what is the soul can also be named spirit. But that I may be able more readily to prove what I say, I will adduce you yourself as a witness more quickly and conveniently. For you so defined the spirit that the beasts appear to have not spirit, but soul. For they are called irrational for this reason, that they do not have the force of understanding and reason. Hence, when you admonished man himself to know his own nature, you spoke thus: For since the good God founded nothing without reason, and procreated man himself a rational animal, capable of understanding, possessed of reason, and lively in sense, who distributes all things devoid of reason by a prudent ordering. By these words of yours you asserted enough, what is altogether most true, that man is possessed of reason and capable of understanding, which surely the animals devoid of reason are not. Hence by the divine testimony too you compared to the beasts those who do not understand, the beasts surely not having understanding (Cf. Ps 49 (48):13). Which is also written in another place: Do not be like the horse and the mule, which have no understanding (Ps 32 (31):9).
DAeE.4.23.37Quae cum ita sint, attende etiam quibus verbis spiritum definieris atque descripseris, cum illum ab anima distinguere nitereris: "Haec anima, inquis, quae ex flatu Dei habet originem, sine sensu proprio atque intellectu intimo esse non potuit, quod est spiritus"; et paulo post: "Et quamvis anima, inquis, animet corpus; tamen quod sentit, quod sapit, quod viget, spiritus sit necesse est"; item paulo post: "Aliud erit, inquis, anima, et aliud spiritus, sapientia et sensus animae". His verbis satis indicas quid esse spiritum hominis sentias, id est, rationale nostrum, quo sentit atque intellegit anima; non sicut sentitur corporis sensibus, sed sicut est ille intimus sensus, ex quo est appellata sententia.
Since these things are so, attend also to the words by which you defined and described the spirit, when you tried to distinguish it from the soul: This soul, you say, which has its origin from the breath of God, could not be without its own sense and inmost understanding, which is the spirit; and a little after: And although the soul, you say, gives life to the body, yet that which perceives, which is wise, which is vigorous, must necessarily be the spirit; likewise a little after: The soul will be one thing, you say, and the spirit another, the wisdom and the sense of the soul. By these words you indicate enough what you think the spirit of man to be, that is, our rational part, by which the soul perceives and understands; not as it is perceived by the senses of the body, but as is that inmost sense, from which the word "opinion" (sententia) is named.
DAeE.4.23.37Hinc autem pecoribus sine dubitatione praeponimur, eo quod sunt illa rationis expertia. Non habent itaque spiritum pecora, id est, intellectum et rationis ac sapientiae sensum, sed animam tantum. Nam et de illis dictum est: Producant aquae repentia animarum viventium, et: Producat terra animam viventem (Gen 1, 20. 24).
But from this we are without doubt set before the beasts, in that they are devoid of reason. The beasts, then, do not have spirit, that is, understanding and the sense of reason and wisdom, but soul only. For of them too it was said: Let the waters bring forth creeping things of living souls, and: Let the earth bring forth the living soul (Gen 1:20, 24).
DAeE.4.23.37Ut ergo plenissime ac planissime noveris, eam quae anima est, more divinorum eloquiorum etiam spiritum dici, appellatur pecoris spiritus. Et utique non habent pecora illum spiritum, quem tua Dilectio discernens ab anima definivit. Unde manifestum est quod generali vocabulo anima pecoris recte potuit sic vocari, sicut legitur in libro Ecclesiastae: Quis scit, spiritus filiorum hominis si ascendat ipse sursum, et spiritus pecoris si descendat ipse deorsum in terram (Eccle 3, 21)? Itemque in diluvii vastitate scriptum est: Et mortua est omnis caro, quae movebatur super terram, volatilium, pecorum, et iumentorum, et ferarum, et omnis serpens qui movetur super terram et omnis homo, et omnia quaecumque habent spiritum vitae (Gen 7, 21-22). ubi remotis omnibus dubitationis ambagibus, generale nomen animae esse intellegimus, spiritum. Cuius quidem nominis significatio tam late patet, ut etiam Deus vocetur spiritus (Cf. Io 4, 24). Et iste flatus aereus, quamvis sit corporeus, appellatur in Psalmo spiritus tempestatis (Cf. Ps 10, 7; 106, 25; 148, 8). Quapropter eam, quae anima est, etiam spiritum nuncupari, puto <secundum illud: Auferes spiritum eorum et deficiet (Ps 103, 9) , et iterum: Exiet spiritus eorum, et revertetur in terram suam (Ps 145, 4), hoc est corpus in pulverem suum. Ergo nomen animae spiritus est ab eo quod spiritalis est; animae nomen est ab eo quod corpus animet, hoc est vivificet. Aestimo> quod admonitus his, quae commemoravi, divinarum testimoniis paginarum, ubi et anima pecoris, cui non est intellectus, appellata legitur spiritus, non negabis ulterius. Quocirca si et illa quae de anima incorporea disputata sunt capis et sapis, non est unde tibi displiceam, quod eam me scire dixi non corpus esse, sed spiritum: quia et corpus non esse monstratur, et generali nomine spiritus nuncupatur.
That, then, you may most fully and most plainly know that what is the soul is, in the manner of the divine eloquence, also called spirit, the spirit of a beast is so named. And surely the beasts do not have that spirit which your Charity, distinguishing it from the soul, defined. Hence it is manifest that by the general word the soul of a beast could rightly be so called, as is read in the book of Ecclesiastes: Who knows whether the spirit of the sons of man goes upward, and whether the spirit of the beast goes downward into the earth (Eccl 3:21)? And likewise in the devastation of the flood it is written: And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, of fowls, of cattle, and of beasts, and of wild beasts, and every creeping thing that moves upon the earth, and every man, and all things whatsoever that have the spirit of life (Gen 7:21–22). Where, all the windings of doubt removed, we understand that "spirit" is a general name of the soul. The signification of which name lies open so widely that even God is called Spirit (Cf. John 4:24). And this airy breath, although it is corporeal, is called in the Psalm the spirit of the storm (Cf. Ps 11 (10):7; 107 (106):25; 148:8). Wherefore I think that which is the soul is also named spirit, according to that: You will take away their spirit, and they will fail (Ps 104 (103):29), and again: His spirit will go forth, and it will return to its own earth (Ps 146 (145):4)—that is, the body to its own dust. The name "spirit," then, belongs to the soul from the fact that it is spiritual; the name "soul" from the fact that it gives life to the body, that is, quickens it. I judge that, admonished by these testimonies of the divine pages which I have mentioned, where even the soul of a beast, which has no understanding, is read called spirit, you will no longer deny it. Wherefore, if you both grasp and are wise concerning those things that have been disputed about the incorporeal soul, there is no reason for me to displease you, because I said I know it to be not a body, but a spirit: since it is both shown not to be a body, and is named by the general name of spirit.
DAeE.4.23.3724. 38. Quamobrem si hos ad te libros impensa dilectione conscriptos, repensa dilectione sumis et legis; si in principio primi tui libri audis et te ipsum, et studes, sicut dixisti, "tuam sententiam non tueri, si improbabilis detegatur", illa praecipue undecim cave, de quibus te in libro superiore commonui: ne animam sic dicas ex Deo, ut eam non de nulla, nec de alia, sed de sua natura creaverit; aut quod per infinitum tempus, atque ita semper animas det, sicut semper est ipse qui dat; aut animam meritum aliquod perdidisse per carnem, quod habuerit ante carnem; aut animam per carnem reparare habitudinem priscam, perque ipsam carnem renasci, per quam meruerat inquinari; aut quod anima ante omne peccatum meruerit esse peccatrix; aut infantes sine regenerationis baptismate mortuos, ad indulgentiam pervenire originalium peccatorum; aut eos, quos Dominus praedestinavit ad baptismum, posse ante defungi nec in eis quod Omnipotens praedestinavit impleri; aut de his qui priusquam baptizentur exspirant, dictum esse quod scriptum est: Raptus est, ne malitia mutaret illius intellectum (Sap 4, 11); atque ad hunc sensum caetera pertinentia: aut earum aliquas mansiones extra regnum Dei esse, quas multas in domo Patris sui Dominus dixit esse (Cf. Io 14, 2);
24. 38. Wherefore, if you receive and read these books written to you with lavish love, with love repaid; if, at the beginning of your first book, you hear yourself too, and are eager, as you said, not to defend your opinion, if it is detected as improbable, beware especially those eleven things, of which I warned you in the earlier book: lest you so say the soul is from God that he created it neither from nothing, nor from another, but from his own nature; or that through infinite time, and so always, he gives souls, just as he himself who gives always is; or that the soul lost some merit through the flesh, which it had before the flesh; or that the soul recovers through the flesh its former condition, and is reborn through that same flesh through which it had deserved to be defiled; or that the soul, before all sin, deserved to be a sinner; or that infants dead without the baptism of regeneration attain to the pardon of original sins; or that those whom the Lord predestined to baptism can die before, and what the Almighty predestined not be fulfilled in them; or that of those who breathe out before they are baptized it was said what is written: He was caught up lest wickedness change his understanding (Wis 4:11); and the rest pertaining to this sense; or that some of the mansions which the Lord said are many in his Father's house are outside the kingdom of God (Cf. John 14:2);
DAeE.4.24.38aut sacrificium corporis et sanguinis Christi pro his qui non baptizati de corpore exierint offerendum; aut aliquos eorum qui sine Christi baptismate moriuntur, in paradisum interim recipi, ac postmodum et regni coelorum beatitudinem consequi". Haec praecipue cave, fili, nec cognominari Vincentius delecteris, si vis esse victor erroris. Nec te quando aliquid nescis, existimes scire: sed ut scias, disce nescire.
or that the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ is to be offered for those who have departed from the body unbaptized; or that some of those who die without the baptism of Christ are received meanwhile into paradise, and afterward attain also the blessedness of the kingdom of heaven. Beware especially these things, son, and do not delight to be surnamed Vincent, if you wish to be a victor over error. Nor, when you do not know something, think that you know it: but, that you may know, learn to not know.
DAeE.4.24.38Neque enim aliquid in occultis Dei operibus ignorando, sed temere incognita pro cognitis astruendo, et falsa pro veris proferendo ac defendendo, peccatur.
For one does not sin by being ignorant of something in the hidden works of God, but by rashly establishing things unknown as known, and by bringing forward and defending false things as true.
DAeE.4.24.38Ignorantiam vero meam, utrum animae hominum novae fiant, an de parentibus (quas tamen a creatore Deo non de ipsius substantia fieri dubitare fas non est), aut non debere reprehendi, aut ab eo debere, a quo potest docente et auferri: et habere in se animas corporum similitudines incorporeas; ipsas autem non esse corpora: et salva distinctione animae et spiritus, etiam universaliter animam spiritum nuncupari, puto quod persuaserim Caritati tuae.
But my ignorance—whether the souls of men are made new, or from the parents (which, however, it is not lawful to doubt are made by God the Creator, not from his own substance)—either ought not to be reproved, or ought to be reproved by him by whom, teaching, it can also be taken away: and that souls have in themselves incorporeal likenesses of bodies, but are not themselves bodies: and that, the distinction of soul and spirit being kept safe, the soul too is universally named spirit—I think I have persuaded your Charity.
DAeE.4.24.38Si autem persuadere non potui, utrum tamen ea dixerim quae persuadere debuerim, qui legent potius iudicabunt.
But if I could not persuade you, whether nevertheless I said the things I ought to have said to persuade you, those who read will rather judge.
DAeE.4.24.3824. 39. Si qua sane alia, quae plurima in tuis libris emendanda mihi videntur, scire fortasse desideras, venire tibi non sit onerosum, non tamquam discipulo ad magistrum, sed primaevo ad grandaevum, forti ad infirmum. Etsi enim non eos edere debuisti, maiore tamen et veriore gloria quisque correctus sua confessione reprehenditur, quam cuiuslibet errantis ore laudatur. Quamvis in eorumdem recitatione librorum auditores et laudatores tuos non omnes ista quae sana doctrina improbat, vel ante sensisse, vel ad ea tibi consensisse crediderim: sed acie mentis ipso tuae recitationis impetu cursuque perstricta, haec parum advertere potuisse; aut certe etiam illos qui advertere potuerunt, non in te rerum liquidissimam veritatem, sed verborum affluentiam et ingenii facultatem indolemque laudasse. Plerumque enim laudatur, praedicatur et amatur eloquium in spe iuvenis; etsi nondum habeat maturitatem fidemque doctoris. Quapropter ut et tu recte sapias, et alios non tantummodo delectare possit, verum etiam aedificare, quod loqueris; curam te oportet gerere de sermonibus tuis, remotis plausibus alienis.
24. 39. If indeed you perhaps desire to know any other things—of which very many seem to me to be amended in your books—let it not be burdensome to you to come, not as a disciple to a master, but as a young man to an aged one, as a strong man to a weak one. For although you ought not to have published them, yet with greater and truer glory is each one, corrected, reproved by his own confession, than praised by the mouth of any erring person. Although, in the recitation of those same books, I would not believe that all your hearers and praisers either thought beforehand these things which sound doctrine disapproves, or consented with you to them: but that, the edge of their mind being grazed by the very impulse and course of your recitation, they could attend too little to these things; or certainly that even those who could attend praised in you not the most limpid truth of the matters, but the affluence of words and the faculty and disposition of talent. For very often eloquence is praised, proclaimed, and loved in the hope of a young man; even if he does not yet have the maturity and trustworthiness of a teacher. Wherefore, that you both may be rightly wise, and that what you speak may not only be able to delight others, but even to build them up, you ought to take care about your discourses, putting aside others' applause.
DAeE.4.24.39