Книга 7

“And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). We began the previous book with a consideration of these words of Scripture, and about the created man himself, mainly about his body, we said what seemed to us consistent with the Scriptures, as much as we considered sufficient. But since the question of the human soul is a very complex question, we preferred to postpone it until this book, not knowing how much the Lord will help our desire to speak about it correctly, but knowing for sure that we will speak correctly only as much as He wishes. And right means truthfully, not boldly rejecting anything and not recklessly affirming anything, while doubts remain for faith or Christian science, whether they are true or false; the same thing that can be known either from the obvious order of things, or from the undoubted authority of the Scriptures, accepted without any doubt. But, first of all, let us pay attention to the saying itself: “I breathed into his face the breath of life.” For in some codes one can find “breathed” or “gave up his breath on his face.” But since the Greeks read: ἐνεφύσησεν, then, undoubtedly, we should understand “blown” or “blown.” In the previous book we already spoke of the hands of God when we discussed the formation of man from dust; the same must be said regarding the saying “God blew”: just as He did not create man with His hands, He did not blow with His throat and lips. With all this, in my opinion, with these words Scripture helps us in considering the present extremely difficult question. Others, on the basis of the expression, believed that the soul was either a certain part of the divine substance, or of the same nature as God; they thought this because when a person breathes, he emits something from himself. But this is precisely what should prompt us to reject such an opinion as hostile to the Catholic faith. We believe that the nature or substance of God, which many recognize in the Trinity, but few speculate, is absolutely immutable. And who doubts that the soul can change for the better or for the worse? Therefore, the opinion that the soul and God are one substance is an impious opinion. For what follows from it, if not that God is changeable? Hence, one must believe and think as the right faith teaches, namely: that the soul (has existence) from God as something created by Him, and not as something born or in any way derived from His very nature. But, they will object to us, how is it written: “The breath of life breathed into his nostrils, and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). if the soul is not a part or even a substance. On the contrary, from this saying it is precisely clear that it is something completely different. For when a man breathes, there is no doubt that his soul moves the subordinate nature of the body and produces breath from it, and not from itself; Are these inveterate debaters really so stupid that they don’t know: breathing comes from that periodic inhalation and exhalation with which we either take in or release the air from the air around us. But (breathing is not only the movement) of inhaled and exhaled air that is outside of us, but when we breathe we emit something from the very nature of our body, then still the nature of the body and the nature of the soul are not the same, with which, of course, they also agree. Therefore, even in this case, the substance of the soul, which controls and moves the body, is one thing, and quite another thing is the breath that the governing and moving soul produces from the body subordinate to it, and not from itself, to which the body is subordinate. This means that since the soul controls the body subordinate to it, and God controls the creature subordinate to Him, then why not understand the word “breathed” to mean that God created the soul from the creature subordinate to Him, because although the soul rules over its body and not in the same way as God rules over the universe, which He created, yet it produces breath by the movement of the body, and not from its substance. And although it can be said that the soul of man is not the very breath of God, but that God created the soul in man by breath, one should not consider what He created through the word to be better than what He created through breath, on the sole basis that with us the word is better than breath. However, from the above it does not at all follow that we cannot call the soul the breath of God, understanding not that the soul is the nature and substance of God, but that to blow (from God) means the same as creating breath, and creating breath is the same as creating a soul. This opinion is also confirmed by what God says through Isaiah: “The spirit and every breath that I have made will fail before Me.” And that He is not talking about any bodily respiration is shown by the further course of the story. For these words are followed by: “Because of the sin of his covetousness I was angry and struck him down” (Is. 57:16-17). What does He call breath, if not a soul that is saddened and stricken because of sin? In this case, “every breath that I created” means the same as “every soul that I created.” Thus, if we considered God as the soul of our world, for which the world appears as the body of a single living being, then we would thereby say that God, by breathing, created the bodily soul of man from the air subject to Him, that is, from His body; however, what He in this case would have created and given with His breath, we should consider as given not from Himself, but from the air of His body subordinate to Him, in the same way as our soul produces breath from an object subordinate to it, that is, from our body, and not from itself. But since not only the body of the world is subordinate to God, but He is above every physical and spiritual creature, we must think that He did not create the soul with His breath either from Himself or from the bodily elements. But from what: from something that did not exist at all, or from something that was already created spiritually by Him, but was not yet a soul? If we do not think that God still continues to create something out of nothing after having created everything at once, but believe that He “rested ... from all His works that He had done” (Gen. 2:2), so that everything that He creates afterwards is created from those (deeds), then I do not know how it is possible to think that He creates souls out of nothing. Is it possible to assume that in the affairs of the first six days God created that hidden day, or, better said, the spiritual-mental nature, that is, the nature of the angelic union, and the world, that is, heaven and earth, and in these already existing natures He created the principles of other, future (natures), but not these natures themselves; otherwise, if they had already been created as they were meant to be (in reality), they would not have been future. And if so, then no nature of the human soul yet existed in created things, and it began its existence when God created it with His breath and put it into man. But this still does not resolve the question of whether God created nature, which is called the soul and which did not exist before, out of nothing, as if His breath appeared not from some substance subordinate to Him, as we said about the breath produced by the soul from its body, but out of absolutely nothing, when He deigned to breathe and this breath became the soul of man; or there was already something spiritual, although it, whatever it was, was not the nature of the soul, but from it came the breath of God, which became the nature of the soul, just as the nature of the human body did not yet exist before God formed it from the dust of the earth, for this dust was not the flesh of man, but there was something from which flesh came, which did not yet exist. But is it possible that in the first acts of six days God created not only the causal principle of the future human body, but also its very matter, that is, the earth, from the dust of which it was formed; and at the same time created only the beginning of the soul, and not some kind of matter from which it would appear? For if the soul were unchangeable, then in this case we should not raise the question of its matter; Meanwhile, the changeability of the soul shows quite clearly that sometimes it is disfigured by vices and lies, but is formed by virtue and instruction in the truth. But (she is like this) already by her nature, by which she is a soul, just like, in turn, flesh by her nature, by which she is flesh, is both decorated with health and disfigured by illnesses and wounds. And since this latter, in addition to the fact that it is flesh and therefore either improves, becoming beautiful, or declines and becomes ugly, also has matter, i.e. the earth from which it arose in order to finally become flesh, then, perhaps, the soul, before becoming nature, which is already called the soul either beautiful from virtue, or ugly from vice, could have some kind of spiritual matter consistent with its kind, which was not yet a soul, just as the earth from which flesh was created was already something, although not yet flesh. But the earth, before the human body emerged from it, had already filled the lower part of the world with itself, imparting integrity to the universe, so that even if the flesh of some animal had not appeared from it, yet with its appearance it would have filled that world structure and that world mass, according to which the world is called heaven and earth; but if there was or exists some kind of spiritual matter from which the soul appeared or souls appear, then what is it? What name, what form, what meaning does it have among created things? Is she alive or not? If alive, what does it do and what does it bring to the life of the universe? Does she live a blessed life, or a miserable one, or is she free even from this and remains idle in some hidden place of the universe, deprived of wakefulness and the movement of life? If it is completely devoid of life, then how could the matter of the future life be some incorporeal but lifeless matter? This is either false or extremely mysterious. On the other hand, if she lived neither blissfully nor miserably, then how was she reasonable? And if it became rational when human nature was created from this matter, then the rational matter, that is, the human soul, was irrational life. What, then, is the difference between it and the (soul) of an animal? Or maybe she was already intelligent, but only in the possibility, and not yet the ability itself? For if we see that a child’s soul, already fully human, has not yet begun to use reason, and yet we call it rational, then why not think that the ability to think in a calm state was inherent in the matter from which the soul was created in the same way as the child’s soul, which, being already a human soul, is capable of reasoning, although (this ability) still remains in a calm state? In fact, if there already existed a blessed life from which the human soul was created, then, obviously, it (in the form of the soul) became worse, and therefore it should be considered not the matter of the soul, but the soul - its emanation. For when any matter is processed, especially by God, it is undoubtedly processed for the better. But even if the human soul could be considered an emanation of some life created by God in some blissful state, in any case we must understand that it began to manifest itself in some act of its merits only from the moment from which it began its own life, that is, it became a soul that animates the flesh, using its organs as its messengers, and realizing that it lives in itself, by its own will, reason and memory. For if there is something from which God breathed this emanation into the flesh He formed, as if by this breath creating the soul, and if this something is blessed, it can in no case move or change, and does not lose anything when that from which the soul is emanated. It is not a body that can change, as if evaporating. If, however, the irrational soul serves as a kind of matter from which the rational soul is formed, then the question arises where this irrational soul itself comes from, for it is created by none other than the Creator of all natures. Perhaps from corporeal matter? Why, then, is the rational soul not made from it? After all, no one will deny that God can create simultaneously what we imagine happening sequentially. And no matter what intermediate links we assume here, but since the body is the matter of the irrational soul, and the irrational soul is the matter of the rational soul, it is clear that the body is the matter of the rational soul. But who would dare to suggest such a thing? Unless it is a person who puts the soul itself in the category of some kind of body. Further, if we admit that the irrational soul serves as a kind of matter from which the rational soul is born, then we should beware lest anyone imagine that it is possible for the soul to move from an animal to a human being (which is completely contrary to Catholic faith and truth); Moreover, having changed for the better, it will be the soul of a person, and having changed for the worse, it will become the soul of an animal. Even their descendants are ashamed of this fable invented by some philosophers and say that they did not think so, but were misunderstood. And it seems to me that it is as if someone began to deduce a similar thought from our Scriptures, which say: “A man who is in honor and foolish is like animals that perish” (Ps. 49:21); or: “Do not give up the soul of your turtledove to the beasts” (Ps. 73:19). After all, heretics read the Catholic Scriptures and are heretics only because, misunderstanding the Scriptures, they affirm their false opinions contrary to their truth. But whatever the opinion of philosophers about the transformation of souls, in any case, it is disgusting to the Catholic faith to think that the souls of animals transmigrate into people and the souls of people into animals. There is no doubt that people are similar to animals in their way of life; The experience of human life speaks loudly about this, and Scripture testifies. This includes the passage I mentioned: “A man who is in honor and foolish is like animals that perish” (Ps. 49:21); but, of course, (this applies) to this life, and not to what is after death. That is why he who asked: “Do not betray the soul of your turtledove to the beasts” (Ps. 73:19) meant those beasts from which the Lord warns, saying that they are dressed in sheep’s clothing, but inside they are ravenous wolves (Matthew 7:15), or the devil himself and his angels, for he is also called a lion and a dragon (Ps. 90:13). In fact, what argument do philosophers give when they claim that the souls of people move after death into animals, and the souls of animals into people? Of course, the fact that such a relocation is driven by their similarity of morals, for example, stingy - with ants, bloodthirsty - with kites, cruel and proud - with lions, fans of unclean pleasure - with pigs, etc. This is precisely the proof they cite, but do not notice that such an argument in no case can prove the possibility of the posthumous transition of the soul of an animal into a human. For a hog will never be more like a man than a hog, and when lions are tamed, they are more like dogs, or even sheep, than like men. Hence, if animals do not lag behind the morals of animals, and even those of them that are sometimes dissimilar from the rest are still more similar to their own race than to the human race, and are much further removed from people than from animals, then human souls will never be the souls of animals, although they will adopt morals that make them somewhat similar to animals. And if this argument is false, then how can the opinion itself be true, since nothing else is given that would make this opinion, if not true, then at least plausible? Therefore, I myself am inclined to believe that the people who first expressed themselves in this way in their writings were, as their later followers want to understand, of the opinion that people become like animals in real life and, through some perversity and shamefulness of their morals, to a certain extent turn into beasts, but in such a way that, having cast off this shame, they can lag behind their perverse desires. In fact, if, as they say, it happens that some seem to remember in the bodies of which animals they were, then either such stories are false, or this recollection in their souls is the fruit of the mockery of demons. For if in a dream it seems to a person that he was something that he was not, did something that he did not do, then what is surprising if, according to the fair judgment of God, demons can produce something similar in the hearts of those who are awake? But the Manichaeans, who want to consider themselves Christians, in their teaching about the transmigration or transformation of souls are much worse and more outrageous than pagan philosophers and other people who think in a similar way: the latter distinguish the nature of the soul from the nature of God, and they, preaching that the soul is nothing other than the very substance of God and is exactly the same as God, at the same time are not afraid to call it so shamefully changeable that there is no such kind of grass or worm as to which, in their opinion, it would not be mixed or into which, due to incomprehensible unreason, it could not turn. However, if, having distracted their minds from questions about mysterious objects, indulging in them with their carnal hearts, the Manichaeans inevitably fall into false, harmful and absurd opinions, they had firmly held on to that one thought, naturally and truly inherent in every rational soul, that God is completely unchangeable and incorporeal, then this whole fairy tale, repeated in a thousand ways by them, which they invented about nothing other than unworthy, would have instantly collapsed. changeability of God. So, the unreasonable soul does not serve as the matter of the human soul. What is it, from what is the soul created by the breath of God? Maybe this is some kind of earthly and moist body? No way; on the contrary, this is where flesh was created. For what else is dirt but wet earth? One should also not think that the soul is created from moisture alone, as if the flesh is from earth, and the soul from water. For it is extremely absurd to think that the soul of man is created from the same thing from which the flesh of fish and birds is made. But maybe out of thin air? True, breathing also comes close to this element; but ours, not God's. That’s why we said above that we could think this way if we imagined God as the world’s soul, as if the soul of one greatest living being: in this case, He would produce the soul by breathing from the air of His body, just as our (soul) produces breath from its body. But once it has been decided that God is incomparably higher than every body in the world and every spirit He created, then how can such a thing be asserted? Is it possible to say that the more incomprehensibly omnipresent He is in all creation, the sooner He could produce from the air a breath that would become the soul of man? But since the soul is incorporeal, and yet everything that comes from the corporeal elements of the world is necessarily corporeal, and air is also among the elements of the world, then one should not even believe that the soul was created from the element of pure and heavenly fire. True, there were many who argued that any body can be transformed into any (other) body. But I do not know anyone who would think that any earthly or heavenly body turns into a soul and becomes incorporeal; Yes, and faith denies this. Finally, you should pay attention to what doctors say. And they not only say it, but also consider it proven. According to them, although all flesh consists mainly of (elements of) earth, it also contains some air, which is contained in the lungs and diverges from the heart through veins called arteries; then - fire, and its thermal property is concentrated in the liver, while the light property, they say, rises to the upper part of the brain, as if to the sky of our body, from where the rays of vision flow. From this brain, as from a kind of center, thin tubes go not only to the eyes, but also to other organs: ears, nostrils, palate, thanks to which hearing, smell and taste exist. The sensory organ itself, which belongs to the whole body, is controlled by the same brain with the help of the cervical and bone marrow located in the spinal ridge, from where the thinnest tubules diverge throughout all the members, which make up the sensory organs. Thus, with the help of these messengers, the soul perceives everything that becomes known to it from the realm of bodily objects. Meanwhile, she herself is something so different that when she wants to have knowledge about the divine, or about God, or about herself and to concentrate her strength on comprehending the true and undoubted, she is distracted even from the light of her eyes, feeling that not only can he not help here, but even serves as a hindrance, and rushes to mental contemplation. And if so, how can it be considered to belong to the same region of (sensible) objects, if the highest of them is the light emanating from the eyes, thanks to which forms and colors are perceived? Therefore, although the nature of the soul does not consist of earth, nor of water, nor of air, nor of fire, it controls the matter of its gross body, that is, some moist earth converted into the properties of flesh, with the help of the nature of a subtler body, that is, light and air. For without these two (elements) there is no sensation on the part of the soul, no voluntary movement in the body. And just as vision must precede action, so sensation must precede movement. Thus, the soul, being incorporeal, acts first on a body close to the incorporeal, i.e. fire, or better yet, light and air, and through them on other, more coarse (elements) of the body, i.e. water and earth, of which the dense mass of our corporeality consists and which are more susceptible to suffering, while the former are more susceptible to action. Thus, the words: “And man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7) are said, it seems to me, in the sense that he acquired sensations in his body, which undoubtedly serves as a sign of living and animate flesh. For trees also move, not only under the influence of external force, for example, swaying from the wind, but also by internal movement, thanks to which moisture is directed to the roots and transformed into what the nature of plants consists of, ensuring their growth and formation of the proper form. But this internal movement cannot be called a voluntary movement, which is combined with sensation to control the body, as we see in animals, and which in Scripture is called the “living soul.” Of course, if we did not have movement of the first kind (vegetative), then our bodies, hair and nails would not grow. But if only such movement were inherent in us, without sensation and voluntary movement, then it would not be said about man that he became a “living soul.” So, since the anterior part of the brain, from where all the senses are distributed, is located in the forehead, and the main sense organs are located on the face, with the exception of the organs of touch, which, however, although distributed throughout the whole body, have their origin in the same anterior part of the brain, from where through the crown and neck they reach the spinal cord (as mentioned above), as a result of which the sense of touch is inherent in the face no less than the rest of the body, while vision, hearing, smell and taste are associated only with the face, insofar as it seems to me, it is said that God breathed into man’s face the breath of life, so that he would become “a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). Therefore, the front part is preferable to the back: it goes forward, and the latter already follows it; from that one comes sensation, and from this one comes movement, just as thinking precedes action. And since the bodily movement that follows a sensation does not happen without intervals of time, and we can go through such voluntary movements only with the help of memory, there are three divisions of the brain: the anterior one, which is responsible for sensations, the posterior one, which controls movement, and the middle one, in which, in fact, the memory is located, which carries out, as it were, the relationship between sensation and movement. All this, they say (doctors), is proven by the fact that when these areas of the brain are affected by an illness, exactly those (functions) for which they are responsible become disordered. In addition, it is already known how to treat these ailments. But the soul, although it acts in these organs, does not itself belong to their number: it animates everything and controls everything, and this takes care of the body and that life in which man became a “living soul” (Gen. 2:7). So, when they ask where the soul comes from, that is, from what matter God produced the breath called soul, one should not imagine anything corporeal. For just as God surpasses every creature, so the soul, by the dignity of its nature, surpasses everything corporeal. However, she controls the body, but she controls through the medium of light and air, which, in turn, are the best bodies in our world; action is more appropriate for them than for earth and water, the characteristic quality of which is the receptive (action) mass. The bodily light serves as a kind of messenger for the soul, but it is of a completely different kind than it, its messenger. And when she feels the suffering of the body, she worries that this bodily disorder will hinder her activities, and this worry is called grief. In the same way, the air diffused in the nerves serves to enable the will to move the members (of the body), but it itself is not the will. Likewise, the middle part (of the brain) makes known the movements of the members so that they are stored in memory, but it itself is not memory. Finally, when these, so to speak, servants (souls) come into complete decline due to some damage or disorder, then with the disappearance of the messengers of sensation and the servants of movement, the soul, no longer having any reason for its further presence in the body, leaves it. If the decline has not yet reached the stage followed by death, then medicine comes to the rescue, as far as possible. And that the soul is one thing, and quite another thing are its bodily servants, or messengers, or organs, or whatever you want to call it - this is clearly evident from the fact that very often, with a strong tension of thought, it is distracted from everything, so that it does not notice what is happening in full view of open and completely healthy eyes. With even stronger concentration, a person freezes, because the soul ceases to control the organs of movement; if the tension (of thought) is somewhat weaker, although still quite strong, then the person, continuing to move, may not notice where he is going, as if forgetting about the purpose of his movement and mechanically passing by the house where he was heading. But it is useless to ask whether from the sky stretched above us, the Lord mixed or attached to the body of an already living (man) some material particles, i.e. (particles of) light and air, which, being closer to incorporeal nature than water and earth, are more likely to receive the inspiration of the soul that animates the body, so that under their immediate influence the entire mass of our body is controlled, or whether God created them, like the body, from dust of the earth. For it is probable that any body can change into any other, but it is impossible that any body can change into a soul. Therefore, one should not pay attention to the opinion of those who claim that there is a certain fifth body from which the soul comes and which is neither earth, nor water, nor air, nor fire, and neither ours, more cloudy, nor heavenly, pure and bright, and I don’t know what, but in any case - a body. If those who posit in this way call body the same thing as we do, that is, every nature that occupies a place in space by its length, breadth and height, then this will not be either the soul or that from which it is created. For everything like this is, among other things, divisible and spatially limited; nothing of the kind can be said about the soul, but even if it were possible, then how, in this case, does it know the boundaries that cannot be crossed for a long time, when such boundaries cannot exist in the body. And the soul does not encounter anything like this in itself, even when it examines itself for the purpose of self-knowledge. In fact, when the soul is engaged in this research, it knows what exactly it is researching, and this it could not know if it did not know itself. For she studies herself not from somewhere else, but from within herself. And since she is known, she herself is exploring herself, then it means that she is known to herself; further, everything that she knows, she knows not with just any part of herself, but with all of her; therefore, she knows herself not as something else (her part), but precisely as all of herself. Why, then, should she examine herself, since she already knows all of herself as exploring herself? But she knows herself as she is, and explores what she was or will be. So, such knowledge is not similar to the knowledge of the body, and therefore the soul should not consider itself a body: it knows itself more than the earth and sky, which it observes with the help of bodily eyes. Not to mention the fact that that ability, which some people think animals and birds also possess, always finding their way into their holes and nests, and with which they perceive images of bodily things, is itself in no way similar to any body. At the same time, it is obvious that that faculty of the soul by which images of corporeal things are perceived must be more like the body than any other. But if it is not a body, since it is known that bodily images in the soul are not only retained by memory, but can also arise in it at will as many times as desired, then how many times are the other abilities of the soul, as well as the soul itself, less similar to the body! If, for some other reason, everything that exists, that is, every nature and substance, is called body, then although such verbal generalizations should not be allowed, so that the meaning of the spoken phrases does not slip away and we can somehow separate the sensible from the intelligible, still we should not bother too much about names. After all, we also say that the soul does not belong to the known four elements, since they are bodies, and at the same time we insist that it is not what God is. It turns out that its best definition would be precisely that it is a soul, or the breath of life. I add the word “life,” because air is sometimes called breath. However, the air is also called the soul, so it is difficult to choose a name to designate that nature, which is neither body, nor God, nor life without sensations, which can be assumed in trees, nor life without a thinking mind, which is observed in animals, but life at the present time is lower than the life of angels, and in the future, if we live on earth according to the commandments of our Creator, it will be the same as theirs. But although the question of what the soul was created from - from some perfect and blessed nature or from nothing - remains open, no one should have the slightest doubt that, both before and now, it was created by God to be a “living soul” (Gen. 2:7), since it (initially) either was nothing, or something that it is not now. However, on the essence of the (question) we have posed, i.e. (the question) about what kind of matter the soul is created from, we have already said enough. The question arises: if there was no soul at all, then how can we understand the idea expressed above that its causal principle already existed in the first six-day works of God, when God created man in His image, and He created him as such only according to the soul? Should we not be afraid here that the stated position that God, when he created everything at once, created not the natures and substances themselves, but some of their causal principles, may seem to someone complete nonsense? For what were these principles by which it can be said that God created man in His own image, when the body had not yet been created from the dust of the earth and his soul had not yet been created by a breath? And if there was matter from which the body was to be formed, that is, earth, in which, as in a seed, its (body’s) beginning could be hidden, then where was the causal principle of the soul hidden, i.e. (the beginning) of that breath, which later became the soul of man, at the time when God said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness” (Gen. 1:26) (and this should be understood only in relation to the soul), if then there was no nature in which this principle would have been laid? For if this beginning was in God, and not in creation, then, therefore, it had not yet been created: how then can we understand what was said, that God created man in His own image? And if it was in creation, that is, in what God created at once, then in what creature - spiritual or physical? If spiritual, then did it take any active part in the bodies of the world, heavenly or earthly, or did it remain idle in its own nature before man was created, just as in man himself, who already lives his own life, the power of procreation remains hidden and idle, acting only at the moment of intercourse? Or, perhaps, the very nature of the spiritual creature, in which this principle existed hidden, was not busy with any of its own business? If so, why was it created? Is it perhaps in order to contain within itself the beginning of the future soul or all future souls, as if they could not exist in themselves, but only in some creature already living its own life, just as the power of birth can only exist in already existing and perfect natures? In this case, the ancestor of the soul is a certain spiritual creature, in which lies the beginning of the future soul, but the soul, however, receives its existence from this beginning only when God produces it in man with His breath. After all, both the seed in a person and his very offspring are formed by none other than God with His Wisdom, which penetrates everything, and in this penetration of it “from end... to end,” in which She “controls all good” (Wis. 8:1), nothing unclean (i.e., bodily) sticks to it. But I don’t know how to explain that it was for this purpose that a certain spiritual creature was created, which, by the way, is not mentioned in the series of things created during six days, whereas it is said that on the sixth day God created man, but he did not create it in his own nature, but only causally in some unmentioned creature. Rather, this particular creature should have been indicated, which had already been created, and should not have yet been created according to a previous causal principle. But, perhaps, God laid the causal principle of the soul in the nature of that day, which He created initially (after all, by this day we mean the intelligent spirit), laid it when, on the sixth day, He created man in His image, that is, according to the nature and according to the principle by which He created him later, after six days. It turns out that God created the causal principle of the human body in the nature of the earth, and the causal principle of the soul - in the nature of that day. From this we can conclude that the angelic spirit is, as it were, the ancestor of the human soul, for the reason for the creation of this soul was laid down in it, just as the reason for his future offspring was laid down in man himself. Hence, people are the ancestors of human bodies, and angels are the ancestors of souls; The Creator of both is God, but only bodies are from people, and souls are from angels; or: the first body - from the earth, and the first soul - from the angelic nature, where their causal principles pre-existed, when God initially created man in what he created at once. Of course, to call the soul the daughter of an angel or angels is rude, but it is much more rude to call it the daughter of a heavenly body or, even worse, the sea and earth. Therefore, if it is absurd to believe that God created souls causally from an angelic nature, it is even more absurd to think that the causal principle of the soul was laid down in some corporeal nature, when God created man in His own image, before, having formed him from the dust of the ground, He animated him with His breath. Let us now see whether such a view can be true (and at first glance it seems the most plausible) that among the first and simultaneously created works God created the human soul, which He at the appropriate time breathed into a body formed from the dust of the earth, for which a corresponding beginning was also created. For “in His image” can only be understood in the sense of the soul, and “male and female” (Gen. 1:27) - in the sense of the body. Hence, unless it contradicts the authority of the Scriptures or the evidence of truth, one can think that man on the sixth day was created in such a way that the causal principle of his body was created in the elements of the world, but his soul was created in the same way as the original day itself, and, already created, was hidden in the works of God until God put it with His breath into the body formed from the dust of the earth. But here a question arises that cannot be dismissed: if the soul was already created and remained hidden, then, obviously, it was better there (than in the body). For what reason was she, living innocently, brought into the life of this flesh, by sinning in which she offended the Creator, as a result of which she suffered the hardships of labor and the punishment of condemnation? Or should we believe that she herself voluntarily chose for herself the path of living in the body and managing it, so that, having the opportunity to live righteously or unrighteously, she would receive what she deserved: a reward for righteousness and punishment for unrighteousness? And this (opinion) does not contradict the words of the apostle that those not yet born have done neither good nor bad (Rom. 9:11). Indeed, inclination towards the body is not yet an action, righteous or unrighteous, for which an account must be held at the judgment of God, when everyone will receive “according to what he did while living in the body, good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10). But why then not think that the soul entered the body at the behest of God, and if it lives here according to His commandment, it deserves the reward of eternal life, i.e. angelic union, and if he neglects this commandment, he suffers the just punishment of eternal fire? Is it because such an assumption is somewhat at odds with the apostle’s assertion that those who are not yet born do nothing good or bad, while the very obedience (of the soul) to the will of God is, of course, a good action? And if so, then we will have to admit that the soul was not originally created in such an order that it could foresee its future righteous and unrighteous deeds. For it is extremely incredible that she could, of her own free will, incline to life in the body if she foresaw that in other (bodies) she would be such a sinner that she would be subjected to deserved eternal punishment. The Creator is justly glorified for having created all things “good” (Gen. 1:31), and He should also be glorified not only for those to whom he gave foreknowledge, but also for having created animals, over which human nature has superiority even with all its sins. True, man’s nature is from God, and not his depravity, into which he fell by making bad use of his freedom; however, if he did not have this freedom, he would be less perfect in this world. After all, a person who lives righteously does not have foresight, and the superiority of good will must be seen in the extent to which it does not interfere with living with dignity and pleasing to God, because not knowing the future, the righteous person lives by faith. Therefore, anyone who does not want this creature (man) to exist in the world is opposed to the goodness of God, and whoever does not want it to suffer punishment for sins is an opponent of justice. But if the soul is created in order to be sent to the body, then one can ask: is it drawn here by force if it does not want it? Let us better think that this is her natural desire, just as it is natural for us to want to live; to live badly is no longer a need of nature, but a choice of a perverted will, which deservedly awaits punishment. Therefore, it is in vain to ask from what kind of matter the soul was created, as long as we believe that it was created among the first things, when “one day” arose (Gen. 1:5). For just as these things were carried out, which had not happened before, so she was carried out among them. If, however, there existed some formable matter, bodily or spiritual, but created, of course, by God, from Whom are all things, matter that preceded its formation not in time, but in origin, as a voice (precedes) singing, then is it not more logical to think that the soul was created from spiritual matter? And if anyone wants to believe that the soul was created only when it was blown into an already formed body, let him think about how to answer the question of what it was created from. In fact, he will either say that God created something or creates something out of nothing after the completion of His (creative) works, and will then have to explain (what was said) that on the sixth day man was created in the image of God (and this can only be correctly understood in application to the soul), that is, in that nature in which the causal principle of that object was created that did not yet exist; or he will assert that the soul was created from something that already existed, and in this case he will be forced to investigate the question of what kind of nature it was - bodily or spiritual, that is, the question that we also examined above, for he too will need to solve the difficult problem, in what substance of the creatures created within six days God created the causal principle of the soul, which He had not yet created itself either from nothing or from anything. If he wants to bypass this question by saying that from the dust of the earth man was created already on the sixth day, and then this is mentioned a second time, then let him pay attention to what is said about woman: “Male and female he created them. And he blessed them” (Gen. 1:27–28). If he answers that woman was created from the rib of man on the same day, then let him think about how (Scripture) states that on the sixth day the birds that were brought to Adam were created, while the same Scripture reports that the whole race of birds was created from water on the fifth day; the same can be asked about the trees planted in paradise: were they really created on the sixth day, when the Scripture also says that on the third? Let him think about what the words mean: “And the Lord God made every tree that was pleasant to the sight and good for food grow out of the ground” (Gen. 2:9); could it be that the trees that He created on the third day were unpleasant to look at and unfit for food, although all this was recognized by God as “good”? And what do the words mean: “Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air” (Gen. 2:19)? Was it really possible that not all of them were educated before, or not at all?! And it is not said that He formed some other previously unformed breeds, but all of them. Let him also think about how, on the one hand, God created everything within six days, namely: on the first day - this day itself, on the second - the firmament, on the third - the image of the earth and the sea, and from the earth - grass and trees, on the fourth - stars and luminaries, on the fifth - animals from the water, on the sixth - animals from the earth, and on the other hand, then it says: “At the time when the Lord God created the heavens and the earth, and every bush of the field that was not yet on the earth, and every herb of the field that has not yet grown” (Gen. 2:4–5)? How did God create bushes and grasses before they grew out of the ground? Let him also think about how it is possible to create everything at once, and at the same time separate the creation of one from the creation of another, not just by hours, but even by days. Let him show how it is possible to combine without internal contradiction what is said in the book of Genesis, that He rested “on the seventh day from all His work” (Gen. 2:2), and what He “does until now,” as the Lord said (John 5:17)? Let him also pay attention to how what is called accomplished is also called begun. All these testimonies of Divine Scripture, the truth of which only the unbeliever and the wicked can doubt, led us to the opinion we expressed that from the beginning of the century God created everything at once: something in His own, already completed form, something in preparatory reasons, that is, He, the Almighty, created not only as the present, but also as the future, and rested from the completed deeds, then arranging by His management and industrial is already the very order of times and everything temporal, and therefore, on the one hand, it completed creation, putting a limit to all its types, and on the other hand, it began it, laying the beginning of times; so from the point of view of what was completed, he rested, but from the point of view of what was begun, he is still doing it. However, if someone explains all this better, I will gladly accept and obey. About the soul, which God breathed into man with the breath in his face, I only affirm: that it is from God, but not His substance; that it is incorporeal, that is, not a body, but a spirit, not originating from His substance, but not created in such a way that any nature of the body or an irrational soul was transformed into its nature; that she was created out of nothing; that she is immortal due to a certain way of her life, which she cannot lose in any case, however, due to some of her changeability, due to which she can be better or worse, she can rightly be called mortal, for only He has true immortality, about whom it is said: “He alone has immortality” (1 Tim. 6.16). However, everything else that I have discussed in this book, I hope, will be useful to the reader, so that he will know how to investigate subjects about which Scripture does not speak clearly enough without bold statements, and if he does not like this method of research, then let him investigate better, in order to then teach me, or look for a more knowledgeable person to teach us both. You might be interested in: