Книга 10

The very order (of the narrative) leads us to begin discussing the sin of the first man. But having told how the wife’s flesh was formed and keeping silent about her soul, Scripture encourages us to carefully examine the question whether it is possible, and if so, how to refute those who believe that the wife’s soul came from the husband’s soul, as her body from his body, on the sole ground that the firstfruits of body and soul are passed on to children from their parents. At the same time, they refer to the fact that God, with His breath on the face of a man previously formed from the earth, created one soul, so that from it all other human souls are created, just as from his flesh all human flesh is created. (Scripture) only speaks about where Adam received his body and where he received his soul, namely: the body is from the earth, and the soul from the breath of God; but having said that the wife was created from the rib of her husband, Scripture does not say that she also received a soul from the breath of God, as if making it clear that both in her are from her husband. For, they say, Scripture either had to remain silent about the husband’s soul, so that we could think or believe that his soul was given from above; or, if it was not silent about this, so that we would not think that the soul, like the body, came from the earth, then it should not have been silent about the soul of the wife. But since, they say, it is not said that God breathed on the wife’s face, then it means that her soul came from her husband. This assumption is refuted quite simply. If, in fact, we consider the soul of the wife to have come from the soul of the husband on the sole basis that Scripture does not say that God breathed on the face of the wife, then why should one necessarily think that the wife was animated by the husband, when it is not written about this? Hence, if God creates all the souls of people being born in the same way as he created the first soul, then Scripture is silent about the others because it is natural to extend the story about one to all the others. Therefore, if something had been done to the wife that was not done to the husband, that is, if her soul had been created from animate flesh, and not like a husband’s - flesh from one source, and soul from another, then Scripture should not have been silent about this, so that we would not think that the same thing was done again, which has already been said before. But since the Scripture does not say that the soul of the wife is made from the soul of the husband, that is why we can believe that by this it makes us understand: in this case the same thing happened as before, that is, the soul of the wife was created in the same way as the soul of the husband. In fact, a little later Adam directly says: “Behold, this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2.23). Why didn’t he add: “Soul from my soul”? However, this issue is too complex to unconditionally insist on any one of its possible solutions. Here, first of all, we should pay attention to whether the book of Holy Scripture, which we have been studying from its very beginning, leaves us any room for doubt; in such a case we will be justified in asking what opinion is best to take on this uncertain subject. Surely God created man in His own image on the sixth day; then the following is said: “Male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27). Of these passages, we accepted the first, which mentions the image of God, as applied to the soul, and the second, which refers to the difference in sex, as applied to the body. And since the evidence we examined did not give reason to think that a husband was formed from the earth, and a wife from a husband’s rib, was formed on the sixth day, but that this was done later, after those deeds in which God created everything at once, we then raised the question of what we should think about the soul of man, and, after a comprehensive discussion of this issue, we came to the most probable and acceptable conclusion that the soul of man was created in a series of the mentioned deeds, while the foundation of his body, as it were, seed, created in the corporeal world. We stopped here, on the one hand, for fear of saying something contrary to the words of Scripture, namely: that both the man from the earth and the wife from his rib were created on the sixth day, or that man was not created at all in the series of six-day works, or that then the causal basis of only the human body was created, but not the soul, although in the image of God man was created after the soul; on the other hand, based on the consideration that although it would not be a direct contradiction to the words of Scripture to say that the basis of the human soul was created in such a spiritual creature, which was created solely for this purpose, although such a creature itself is not mentioned in the works of God, or that the basis of the soul was created in some creature mentioned among the works of God, just as the basis of their future children is hidden in already existing people, but such an assumption would be rude and absurd, for then we would have to consider the human soul or the daughter of an angel, or, what is even more unacceptable, the product of some bodily element. But if we assert that the wife did not receive the soul from her husband, but like him, from God, on the basis that God created the soul for each person separately, then it turns out that the wife’s soul was not created in the first cases mentioned above; or, if the common basis of all souls was created, just as in people the cause of procreation, then the matter comes down to that incongruous idea that human souls are the offspring of either angels, or, what is even worse, of the corporeal heaven, or even of some lower element. Therefore, we should consider (although this is hidden) what is more correct or at least more permissible to say: either what I said now, or that in the series of the first works of God only the soul of the first man was created, from which all human souls are created, or, finally, that new souls are created each time, for which there was no basis in the first six-day works of God. Of these three assumptions, the first two are not in conflict with those works of creation in which everything was created at once. According to these assumptions, either the basis of the soul was created in some creature, as if in its ancestor, so that all souls are born from it, and are created by God when they are given to each individual person, like bodies from parents; or it was not the basis of the soul that was created, as in the parents - the basis of the offspring, but the soul itself when there was “one day” (Gen. 1:5) - created in the same way as that day itself, like the sky, the earth and the heavenly bodies, according to which it is said that God created man in His image. It is more difficult to understand how the third assumption is consistent with the opinion that man was created in the image of God on the sixth day, although it does not contradict the fact that he was created on the seventh day. For if we say that new souls are created, which are not created on the sixth day either themselves or in their basis, as in parents - the basis of offspring, in the series of those works from which, together begun and completed, God rested on the seventh day, then in this case we must fear that the Holy Scripture in vain reminds us with such insistence that God completed on the sixth day all His works, which were created “very good” (Gen. 1:31), since He still had to create new natures, which were not then created either by themselves or causally. Such a fear, however, is only possible if we think that the reason for the creation of the soul for each of those born does not lie in God himself, but was created by Him in some creature; but since the soul is a creation, according to which man was created on the sixth day in the image of God, it cannot be said that God is now creating something that He did not create then. For even then He created such a soul as He creates now, and therefore He does not create anything now that He did not then create in the series of His perfect works. His action is not carried out contrary to the causal foundations of future things that He then laid down in the universe, but, on the contrary, in accordance with them; for in human bodies, the spread of which from the first creative works continues uninterruptedly to this day, He decided to place precisely such souls as He now creates and places in them. Therefore, since none of these three opinions clearly contradicts the words of the present book (Genesis) about the first six-day creation, let us now proceed to a more careful consideration of this question. It may happen that we will come, if not to a firm opinion about which it will no longer be possible to doubt, then at least to one so plausible that it will not be absurd to hold on to it until something more certain is revealed. And even if we don’t come, we will at least show that our indecision stems not from laziness to investigate, but from a reluctance to assert anything unfoundedly; so if anyone knows the exact answer, let him teach me too, but if his confidence is not based on the authority of divine sayings or obvious arguments, but on prejudice, then he had better not disdain to remain ignorant with me. First of all, one must firmly adhere to the idea that the nature of the soul does not turn into the nature of the body, nor into the nature of the irrational soul, that is, that the soul of a person cannot become the soul of an animal, nor into the nature of God; Thus, the human soul does not turn and become alternately either the body, the irrational soul, or the substance of God. It is no less obvious that the soul is nothing more than a creation of God. Therefore, if God did not create the human soul either from the body, or from the irrational soul, or from Himself, it remains to conclude that He created it either from nothing, or from some spiritual and rational creature. But the supposition that something was created from nothing after the completion of those works in which God accomplished everything at once is very incongruous, and I do not know how it can be proven on the basis of clear evidence. Yes, we should not be required to understand something that a person is not given to understand, and if it is given to someone, it is not so much that he can convince others of it. Therefore, it is better to reason about subjects of this kind not on the basis of human guesses, but based on divine testimony. So, that God creates souls from angels, who are, as it were, the parents of souls, there is no evidence of this in the canonical books. Even less likely is the assumption that He creates them from the world’s bodily elements, unless we are confused by the fact that in the prophet Ezekiel, when he speaks of the resurrection of the dead, the spirit that revives them is called into the restored bodies from the four heavenly winds. For here it is written: “Then He said to me, Prophesy to the spirit, prophesy, O son of man, and say to the spirit, Thus says the Lord God: Come from the four winds and breathe on these slain, and they will live. And I prophesied as He commanded me, and the spirit entered into them, and they lived and stood on their feet—a very, very great army” (Ezek. 37:9–10). Here, it seems to me, it is prophetically indicated that people will be resurrected not only on the field on which the described event takes place, but also on the entire face of the earth, represented by the prophet in the image of the breath of the wind from the four cardinal directions. For that breath from the body of the Lord was not the substance of the Holy Spirit when He blew and said: “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22), but by this action the Lord showed that just as this breath comes from His body, so the Holy Spirit comes from Him. But since the world is not accepted by God into personal unity with Himself in the same way as the flesh was accepted by His Word, the only begotten Son, we cannot say that the soul comes from the substance of God in the same way as the blowing of the four winds was produced from the nature of the world; I think, however, that this very breath was one thing, but meant something else, as can be concluded from the example of the breath that came from the body of the Lord, although the prophet Ezekiel in the present case, under the image of revelation, contemplated not the resurrection of the flesh, as it would be, but the unexpected restoration of a despairing people by the spirit of the Lord. Now let's see which opinion is more favorable from divine evidence - either that God created one soul, gave it to the first man, and from it began to create the rest, as from his body - all other bodies, or that He creates for each person his own special soul, as He created one of them for the first man, and not from it - all the others. In fact, what God said through the prophet Isaiah: “Every breath that I created” (Is. 57:16) (and what this is said about the soul is clearly shown by subsequent words) can be understood in the sense of both opinions. For there is no doubt that God creates all souls either from one soul of the first man, or from some secret places known only to Him. Likewise, what is written: “He created the hearts of them all” (Ps. 32:15), if by hearts we mean souls, does not contradict either one or the other of those opinions that we have in mind in this case, although, in my opinion, these words rather relate to that renewal in the image of God, which is communicated to our souls by grace. Therefore the apostle says: “For by grace you have been saved, through faith; and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works” (Eph. 2:8–10). After all, we will not think that our bodies are created or formed by grace, but as it is written in the psalm: “Create in me a clean heart, O God” (Ps. 50:12). This, I believe, also includes the saying: “The Lord... formed the spirit of man within him” (Zech. 12:1), for it is one thing to send a created soul, and another to create it in man himself, that is, to restore and renew it. But even if we understand this saying not in the sense of grace by which we are renewed, but in the sense of the nature into which we are born, it still does not contradict any of the opinions, since God either from one soul of the first man creates in man a kind of seed of the soul, so that it vivifies the body, or not from this, but from some other principle, He infuses the spirit of life into the body through mortal organs, so that man becomes a “living soul” (Gen. 2:7). A more careful consideration requires a place from the Book of Wisdom, where it is said about a youth who “received a good soul” directly into the body (Wis. 8:19). Apparently, this passage speaks rather in favor of the opinion that souls do not come from one soul, but appear in bodies from above. But what do the words mean: “I received the soul for good”? It turns out that either in the source of souls, if there is such a thing, some souls are good and others are not, and that they come out from there according to a certain lot as they are predestined for which people, or that God, during conception and birth, makes some souls good and others evil, and thus they are formed in each as if by a random lot. But it would be even more surprising if this place favored those who believe that souls created somewhere are sent by God each into their own body, and not those who assert that souls are sent into bodies in accordance with the merits of their deeds that they performed before bodily life. For why do some of them enter bodies good, and others evil, if not according to their own deeds? In any case, not according to nature, in which they are created by Him Who creates all natures good. But let us not contradict the apostle, who, speaking about the twins who were still in Rebekah’s womb, says that they, not yet being born, could do anything good or bad, which is why it is stated that “not from works, but from Him who called, it was said to her: the older will be enslaved by the younger” (Rom. 9:12). Therefore, let us leave this testimony for now, because it is impossible not to pay attention to those who believe that this saying speaks about the soul of the Intercessor of God and people, the man Jesus Christ. If necessary, let us consider later what it means, and if it turns out that this saying cannot be applied to Christ, then we will examine how we should understand it, so as not to contradict the apostolic faith and at the same time continue to think that souls have some merit for their deeds before they begin to live in bodies. Let us now pay attention to the sense in which it is said: “If you take away their spirit, they die and return to their dust; send forth Your spirit, they will be created, and You will renew the face of the earth” (Ps. 103:29–30). This saying seems to speak in favor of those who believe that souls, like bodies, are created from parents, if we understand it in the sense that the spirit is called here “their spirit” because they receive it from people; when they die, the spirit can no longer be returned to them by people so that they can be resurrected, for it now does not come from the parents, as at birth, but is returned by God, who resurrects the dead. Therefore, the same spirit is called both “theirs” when they die, and God's when they are resurrected. But since those who believe that souls are sent not from their parents, but from God, can understand this saying in the sense that the spirit is called “theirs” when they die, for it was in them and came out of them, and God’s when they are resurrected, for it is sent from God and returns from Him, then it is clear: this testimony does not contradict either one or the other. For my part, I am inclined to think that it is better to understand this as being said about grace, by which we are inwardly renewed. In fact, the spirit of all those overwhelmed by pride and exalted in their futility is in some way taken away when they put off the old man and, renouncing vanity, are strengthened on the path of perfection, saying to the Lord: “He knows our composition, remembers that we are dust” (Ps. 103:14). Looking with the eyes of faith at the truth of God, so that, “not understanding the righteousness of God,” they do not want to “establish their own righteousness” (Rom. 10:3), they, as Job says, turn their gaze to themselves, humiliate themselves and consider themselves earth and ashes, and this means “returning to their own dust.” Having received from the Spirit of God, they say: “And it is no longer I who live, but he who lives in Christ to me” (Gal. 2:20). Thus, through the grace of the New Testament, the face of the earth is renewed thanks to the multitude of saints! Even what is written in Ecclesiastes: “And the dust will return to the earth, as it was; and the spirit will return to God, who gave it” (Eccl. 12:7) does not favor one of these opinions over the other, but is reconciled with both. For when some say: “This saying justifies the idea that the soul is given not from parents, but from God, since after the dust, that is, the flesh created from dust, is returned to its land, the spirit returns to God who gave it,” others answer: “Undoubtedly, so. The spirit truly returns to God, who gave it to the first man when he breathed it into his face; it returns after the dust, that is, the human body, turns into the earth from which it was originally created. The spirit should not return to the parents, although it is created from them from the spirit that was given to the first person, just as the flesh after death does not return to the parents, from whom, as everyone knows, it comes. Hence, just as the flesh returns not to the people from whom it was created, but to the earth from which it was formed by the first man, so the spirit returns not to the people from whom it was transfused, but to God, from whom it was given to the first flesh.” But from this testimony it is unequivocally clear that God created the soul and gave it to the first man not from some already created creature, like the body from the earth, but from nothing; and therefore, when it returns, it has no place to return except to the Creator, who gave it, and not to the creature, for it is from nothing; so, returning, she returns to the Creator, by whom she was created out of nothing. For not everyone returns; there are those about whom it is said: “Breath that goes away and does not return” (Ps. 77:39). It is difficult to collect all the evidence of Holy Scripture on this subject, and if we undertook not only to recall them, but also to examine them, it would extremely delay our speech; Moreover, if they did not present something as indubitable as the evidence that God created the soul, or that He gave it to the first man, is indubitable, I still would not dare to say how this question should be resolved on the basis of the evidence of divine sayings. For if it were written that God breathed breath into the face of the woman and she became “a living soul” (Gen. 2:7), then this would undoubtedly strengthen our belief that the soul of every formed human flesh is not given from the parents; but even in this case, it would still be desirable for us to know what opinion we should hold regarding the offspring that occurs in the usual way for us; for the (first) woman was created differently, and therefore one could say that the soul was given to Eve from above, and not from Adam, because she did not come from him as his offspring. But if Scripture mentioned that the person who was born first from them received his soul not from his parents, but from above, this would have to be understood in relation to all others, even if Scripture was silent on this matter. Let us now consider whether both opinions are confirmed by the saying: “Just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, so death spread to all men, because all sinned in him,” and a little further: “As through the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:12, 19). Defenders of the origin of souls from parents try to support their opinion with these words of the apostle in this way: “If only the flesh can be sinful, then, of course, these words do not mean that the soul comes from parents, but if, even at the instigation of the flesh, it is the soul that sins, then what is the meaning of the words: “All have sinned in him,” if the soul does not, like the flesh, come from Adam? Or how did many become sinners because of Adam’s disobedience, if they were in him only according to the flesh and not according to the soul?” And in fact, one must be wary lest it seem to anyone that either God is the author of sin if He gives a soul to such flesh in which it necessarily sins, or that besides the soul of Christ there is another, for the liberation of which from sin Christian grace is not necessary, since it did not sin in Adam, if it is said that everyone in him sinned only according to the flesh created from him, and not according to the soul; this, of course, is contrary to the church faith that parents strive to receive the grace of holy baptism even with their small children and infants. But if in children the yoke of sin is loosed in the carnal and not in the spiritual nature, then it is natural to ask, what harm will there be if they leave the body at this age without receiving baptism? Further, if this sacrament benefits the body and not the soul, then the dead should also be baptized; but since, according to church custom, this sacrament is performed only on the living, we can explain this custom to ourselves only in such a way that every baby is nothing more than Adam in body and soul, and therefore the grace of Christ is necessary for him. For this age in itself does not do anything good or bad; therefore, the soul in him is the most innocent, since it does not come from Adam. Therefore, anyone who holds such an opinion about the soul would be worthy of surprise if he could explain to us how an infant can deserve condemnation if he leaves the body without receiving baptism. Of course, it is absolutely true and truly written: “The flesh desires what is contrary to the spirit, and the spirit what is contrary to the flesh” (Gal. 5:17), but I think every learned and unlearned person will agree that the flesh absolutely cannot lust without a soul. Hence, the cause of lust lies not in the soul alone, much less in the flesh alone. It comes from both of them, from the soul because without the soul there is no feeling of pleasure, from the flesh because without the flesh there is no feeling of carnal pleasure. Thus, by the flesh desiring what is contrary to the spirit, the apostle calls the carnal pleasure which the spirit has from the flesh and with the flesh, contrary to the pleasure which it alone has. He alone, if I am not mistaken, has that desire alien to carnal pleasure, with which “the soul was weary, longing for the courts of the Lord” (Ps. 84:3). For when the spirit commands the members of the body so that they serve the desire with which it alone is imbued, when, for example, something is written, read, listened to, when bread is broken for the hungry and other acts of humanity and mercy are performed, then the flesh obeys the spirit, and does not arouse lust. When these and other good desires with which one soul is permeated are opposed by something that the soul delights in in a carnal way, then it is said that the flesh desires what is contrary to the spirit, and the spirit what is contrary to the flesh. Indeed, when the apostle says that the flesh desires what is contrary to the spirit, by flesh he means what the soul itself does according to the flesh, just as we say that “the ear hears,” “the eye sees.” For who does not know that it is the soul itself that hears through the ear and sees through the eye? In the same way, we say: “Thy hand helps a man,” when with an outstretched hand something is given that helps a neighbor. And even if it is said about the eyes of faith, by which the ability to believe in what is invisible, is said: “And all flesh will see the salvation of God” (Lk. 3:6) - will see, of course, the soul by which the flesh is quickened, since reverently contemplating Christ through our flesh, that is, through the form with which He was clothed for our sakes, does not refer to lust, but to the service rendered by the flesh to the soul - then it is much more appropriate to say that the flesh desires what is contrary to the spirit, when the soul not only imparts animal life to the flesh, but also desires something in accordance with flesh; because it is not in her power not to desire in this way while some irresistible charm of the flesh lives in this mortal body, stemming from the punishment for that sin, from where we originate, according to which we are all children of wrath before grace. Those who are under grace fight against this sin, not so that it does not exist in their body, while it is so mortal that it is rightly called even dead, but then so that it does not reign over them. But he no longer reigns over them when their body does not obey his desires, that is, those desires that according to the flesh are opposed to the spirit. Therefore, the apostle did not say: “Let there be no sin in your mortal body” (for he knew that the nature, damaged by the first crime, is inherent in sinful pleasure, which, in fact, he calls sin), but: “Let not sin reign in your mortal body, so that you obey it in its lusts” (Rom. 6:12). Remaining with this opinion, we, on the one hand, do not express such an extremely absurd thought that the flesh lusts without a soul, on the other hand, we do not agree with the Manichaeans, who, seeing that the flesh cannot lust without a soul, came to the idea that the flesh has some other, special soul, coming from a different nature, contrary to God, which is why it desires what is contrary to the spirit. We should not express the idea that there are souls that do not need the grace of Christ, when we discuss what the soul of a baby did, why it would be dangerous for it, if it did not receive Christian baptism, to leave the body, since it has not committed any sin of its own and does not come from the soul that first sinned in Adam. In fact, we are not even talking about those children who are old enough to have their own sin attributed to them before they are fourteen years old and their lips are covered with fluff. Such a view would be correct if there were no other sins except those committed by the reproductive members; but who would dare to assert that theft, lying, perjury are not sins, except perhaps the one who wants to commit them with impunity? Meanwhile, childhood is filled with such sins, but only such misdeeds of children are not considered to be as deserving of punishment as (the same misdeeds) of adults, for there is hope that over time, when their minds become more mature, they will be able to better understand saving instructions and more willingly obey them. But we are not talking about youths who often, wanting, contrary to instructions, to receive childish pleasure of body or soul, resort to lies, since, in their opinion, only by untruth can they ensure for themselves either the achievement of what they desire, or the elimination of what they do not like; we are talking about babies, and not because very often they are born from fornication (for even among corrupted morals one should not blame the gifts of nature: shouldn’t seeds sprout because they were planted by a thief, or will debauchery harm parents if they turn to God and correct themselves, and even more so - their children if they live honestly?), but because this age causes the following bewilderment: if the soul of a baby does not have any sin according to his own will, then how can he be justified by the obedience of one person, if he is not guilty of the disobedience of another? This is what they say, according to whom the souls of people are created only by their parents, and not by the Creator God. But it is not only parents who create bodies, although not only He who says: “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you” (Jer. 1:5). The answer to this should be that God gives the bodies of people each time new souls so that in sinful flesh, which comes from original sin, they, through a good life and the subjugation of carnal lusts by the sweet yoke of God’s grace, will gain a reward, so that at the same time they will inherit a better fate on the day of resurrection and live forever with the angels in Christ. They must be united in an amazing way with earthly and mortal members, originating from sinful flesh, so that they can first revive them, and then, as they grow older, control them: this is for souls a kind of state of oblivion. If this state were hopeless for them, it should be attributed to the Creator. But since, little by little, coming back from this oblivion as if to itself, the soul can turn to its God and earn His merciful forgiveness and truth, first by the very piety of its conversion, and then by constancy in fulfilling His commandments, how can a temporary immersion in this kind of sleep harm it, awakening from which to the light of understanding, for which the rational soul was created, it can, of its own free will, choose a virtuous life, however, no other way than through the grace of the Intercessor? If a person does not do this, he is Adam not only in the flesh, but also in the spirit; living correctly in spirit, he will cleanse from sinful filth that which he received from Adam that is reprehensible. But before he can live according to the spirit with age, he needs the sacrament of an Intercessor, so that what he cannot yet do by his own faith can be accomplished by the faith of those who love him. By this sacrament of His, the punishment of original sin is resolved already in infancy; Without being supported by this sacrament in infancy, a person will then be unable to curb carnal lust; and having conquered it, he will be able to receive the reward of eternal life only in the house of the One whom he is trying to win. That is why he must be baptized while still a baby, so that the soul is not harmed by community with sinful flesh, sharing which the soul cannot understand anything in the spirit. It is this attachment that weighs on the soul, which is separated from the body, unless, while living in the body, the soul is redeemed by the single sacrifice of the Priest and the Intercessor. And if, someone objects, the relatives do not take care of this, either out of unbelief or negligence, then what then? The same can be said for adults. And they can either die suddenly or get sick in such people where there is no one to take care of their baptism. But, they will say, adults also have their own sins, the remission of which they need, and if these are not resolved, everyone will agree that they will deservedly suffer for sins committed during life of their own free will; Meanwhile, the soul, which in no case can be imputed to some kind of infection arising from sinful flesh, unless the soul was created from the first sinner soul (hence, without any sin, but with such a nature that was created and given by God), why will such a soul be alienated from eternal life if no one takes care to baptize the baby? Or maybe in this case there will be no harm to him? What is the benefit to the one who is helped to be baptized, if there is no harm to the one who is not helped? What in this case could those answer who, in accordance with the Holy Scripture, either on the basis of what is found in it, or on what does not contradict it, assert that new souls are not given to bodies from parents? I admit, I have never heard or read this anywhere. Because of this, of course, one should not immediately abandon the matter itself, because over time, who knows, something might present itself that could help him. In the meantime, they can say this: God, knowing in advance how each soul will live if it remains in the body longer, takes care of performing a saving bath on that one, which He foresees will be pious when it reaches the age capable of faith, unless for some hidden reason He precedes them with death. So, to the human mind, at least to my mind, the reason why a baby is born who is now or soon going to die is completely incomprehensible, but it is hidden in such a way that this circumstance does not give precedence to either one or the other of those opinions, which we are analyzing in the present case. For if we reject the opinion according to which souls are sent into bodies for the merits of a previous life, so that a soul that has sinned little, it would seem, deserves a speedy solution - reject it for fear of contradicting the apostle, according to whose testimony those not yet born have done anything good or bad, then they cannot explain why the death of some occurs prematurely, and others - later, neither those who claim that souls pass from their parents, nor those who, in their opinion, are given new ones in each individual case. souls. Thus, this reason, in my opinion, neither favors nor opposes both in the same way. Therefore, if those who, regarding the death of infants, ask the question why the sacrament of baptism is necessary for everyone, since souls do not come from that soul, by whose transgression many have become sinners (Rom. 5:19), this question will be answered in such a way that everyone became sinners in the flesh, and in the soul only those who lived badly at a time when they could have lived well; nevertheless, all souls, including the souls of infants, need the sacrament of baptism because the sinful infection from the sinful flesh that clothes the soul, penetrating into it through the bodily organs, will harm it even after death, if it is not cleansed by the sacrament of the Intercessor while still alive in this flesh; and this help from above is given to that soul about which God knows in advance that, having reached the age capable of faith, she will live piously (or would have lived so if she had achieved it), for which, in fact, He allowed her to be born in the body - if, I say, they answer this question in this way, then what can be said against them, except perhaps that we remain in the dark about salvation and those who, having spent a real life virtuously, rested in the world of the Church, once everyone is subject to judgment not only for how he lived, but also for how he would have lived if he had lived longer. In the eyes of God, not only past but also future crimes matter, from responsibility for which even death does not exempt if it occurs before they are committed; There is no benefit to anyone who admires from this life before anger changes his mind. For God, knowing in advance his future malice, will judge him for this malice, since he deigned to benefit the baby’s soul through baptism, so that the filth received from the sinful flesh would not harm it, because he knew in advance that if she lived longer, she would live piously and faithfully? But to what extent does this kind of judgment not contradict the apostle, who, focusing on the grace that saves us, says: “As in Adam all die, so in Christ all will live” (1 Cor. 15:22) and also: “As through the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19)? Wanting to show that under these sinners not just some of the people, but all, he also said: “In him all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12), which obviously implies the souls of infants, in view, on the one hand, of what is said “all”, and on the other hand, of the fact that baptism is performed on infants, as is not without reason believed by those who think that souls come from one, unless this opinion of theirs is refuted either by some clear and consistent data with the Holy Scriptures, or by the authority of these Scriptures themselves. Let us now see what the saying means, given in the Book of Wisdom, where it is said about the youth who “received a soul for good” (Wis. 8:19). Apparently, this testimony favors those who say that souls are not created from parents, but are sent into the body by God; but, on the other hand, it is also unfavorable for them, since from their point of view, the souls sent by God either flow from the same source as a kind of stream, or are created of the same nature, and not so that some are good or more kind, and others are unkind or less kind. How are they more or less good if they do not become so as a result of their morals and in accordance with the free choice of their will? But before souls enter bodies, there is no action of individual souls by which their morals differ. So why is such a division possible? Thus, the quoted words from the Book of Wisdom as a whole do not harm either supporters of one point of view or admirers of another. If we wanted to attribute this saying to the incarnation of the Lord, we could not help but notice that there are words there that do not correspond to His superiority, for example, that the “child” (Wis. 8:19) from the seed of a man was condensed in the blood (Wis. 7:2), which method of birth is alien to one born of the Virgin, who conceived the flesh of Christ not from the seed of a husband, which no Christian doubts. But just as in the psalms, in which He speaks about Himself: “You could count all my bones; and they look and make a spectacle out of me; they divide my garments among themselves and cast lots for my clothes” (Ps. 21:18-19), which in the proper sense befits Him alone, and He also says: “My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me? The words of my cry are far from my salvation” (Ps. 21:2), which already befits Him in the only sense that He transforms the body of our humility, for we are members of His body; and since the Gospel itself says that the youth “advanced in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men” (Lk. 2:52); then, if the words read in the book of Wisdom can be applied to the Lord for the sake of the humble form of a servant and the unity of the body of the Church with its Head, then indeed, who could be smarter than that Youth, whose wisdom even at the age of twelve amazed the elders? What is better than that soul, regarding which, even though those who affirm the transition of souls turned out to be winners not only in the argument, but also in the evidence, would anyone dare to think that it also originated from the first disobedient soul, for in this case, through the disobedience of one, He himself would have turned out to be a sinner, by whose obedience many, having been cleansed of guilt, became righteous? what is purer than the womb of that Virgin, whose flesh, although it comes from a sinful source, did not conceive from a sinful source, for otherwise the body of Christ in the womb of Mary would have been generated by that law, which, being embedded in the members of the mortal body, opposes the law of the mind and, curbing which, the holy fathers who were in marital union, although they permitted it, did not allow its passionate excitement? Therefore, the body of Christ, although received from the flesh of a woman, conceived from a sinful source, however, being conceived differently, was not the flesh of sin, but only the likeness of the flesh of sin. For He did not receive from her the jurisdiction of death, which is revealed in an involuntary, although overpowered by the will, carnal movement, which the spirit resists, but He received that which was not subject to disobedience to the infection, but contributed to the destruction of undue death and the demonstration of immortality, and this matters for us in the sense that we should not fear death and look forward to the resurrection. Finally, if I were asked where Jesus Christ received his soul, then I would prefer here to learn from people more learned and worthy than me; For my part, I would rather answer like this: “From where Adam comes from” than: “From Adam.” For if the dust taken from the earth, from which no man had previously been formed, deserved to be animated from above, did not the body, taken from the flesh, from which no man was formed a second time, deserve it, having received “a soul for good”? In the first case, the one who was about to fall was raised up, in the second, He who came to restore. And, perhaps, the words: “received (sortitus sum) a soul for good.” (if only these words are to be understood in application to Him) were said because what is given by lot (ash) is given, as a rule, from above; or perhaps it was necessary to say this so that even this soul would not be considered raised by certain previous deeds to such a height that with it the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14), i.e. the lot is said only to eliminate any assumption about previous merits. There is one passage in the book of Hebrews that deserves careful consideration. This is when, regarding Melchizedek, who was, as it were, an image of the future, (the apostle) distinguishes the priesthood of Christ from the Levitical priesthood and says: “See how great is he, to whom Abraham the patriarch gave tithes of his best spoils. Those who receive the priesthood from the sons of Levi have a commandment to take tithes according to the law from the people, that is, from their brothers, although these also came from the loins of Abraham. But this one, who was not descended from their lineage, received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. Without any contradiction, the lesser is blessed by the greater. And here the tithes are taken by mortal men, and there by the one who has a testimony about himself that he lives. And, so to speak, Levi himself, who receives tithes, in the person of Abraham gave tithes: for he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him” (Heb. 7:4–10). So, if in determining how much the priesthood of Christ surpasses the Levitical priesthood, it also matters that the priest Christ was represented as the one who received the tithe from Abraham, in whom Levi also gave the tithe, then Christ, of course, did not give the tithe in the person of Abraham. But if Levi gave the tithe because he was in the loins of Abraham, then Christ did not give the tithe because he was not in the loins of Abraham. Meanwhile, if Levi was in Abraham not according to the soul, but only according to the flesh, then Christ was also there, since Christ according to the flesh is from the seed of Abraham; therefore He also gave tithes. Why, then, in favor of the great difference between the priesthood of Christ and the Levitical priesthood is the fact that Levi gave tithes to Melchizedek, since he was in the loins of Abraham, where Christ was, therefore, they both gave tithes - why, if not because Christ, one should think, in some respects was not in Abraham? And who will deny that according to the flesh He was in him? This means He was not to his liking. So, the soul of Christ did not appear by transition from the disobedience of Adam, otherwise it would have been in Abraham. Here the defenders of the transition of souls come in and say that their opinion is confirmed, since Levi was in the loins of Abraham according to his soul, in whom he gave the tithe to Melchizedek, so that it is precisely this circumstance of giving the tithe that determines the difference between him and Christ, namely: since Christ did not give the tithe, and yet was in the loins of Abraham according to the flesh, it remains to conclude that according to the soul He was not there, and from this it follows that Levi was in the loins of Abraham according to soul. This has little concern for me: I am more willing to listen to the debate of both sides than to defend the opinion of any one of them. All I want to do is to show, based on the evidence given, that the soul of Christ does not participate in this kind of transition. There will, perhaps, be those who will answer for everyone else and will say that for me an important difficulty is that although the souls of people are not in the loins of their fathers, Levi was in the loins of Abraham according to the seminal principle, according to which he had to be born from his mother as a result of the intercourse of his parents; but Christ, it turns out, was not there, although Mary’s flesh was, according to this beginning, in the loins of Abraham. Therefore, neither Levi nor Christ were in the loins of Abraham by soul, but both Levi and Christ were by flesh, but Levi by carnal lust, and Christ by bodily substance. For if in the seed there is both visible corporeality and an invisible principle, then both of them from Abraham and even from Adam himself reach the body of Mary, because it was conceived in the same way; but Christ borrowed the visible substance of the body from the flesh of Mary, while the cause of His conception was received not from the male seed, but in a completely different way and from above. Hence, He was in the loins of Abraham according to what He received from His mother. So, in Abraham he gave the tithe who, although only in the flesh, was in his loins in the same way as Abraham himself was in the loins of his father, that is, who was born of the father of Abraham in exactly the same way as Abraham himself was born, namely: according to the operation of the law opposed in the members to the law of the mind and invisible lust, although the pure and good rights of marriage do not prevent this law from having its meaning, insofar as with its help people can achieve restitution of the race; but he did not give tithes, whose flesh borrowed from Abraham not the ulcer of an inflamed wound, but matter for healing. For if we attribute the giving of tithes to a foreshadowing of healing, then in the flesh of Abraham what was given was what required treatment, and not the treatment itself. And such is the flesh not only of Abraham, but also of the very first earthly man: at the same time it contains both the ulcer of disobedience and the cure for this ulcer: the ulcer of disobedience is in the law opposing the law of the mind in the members, the cure is that without the participation of lust in one bodily matter, through the action of divine conception and formation, it was borrowed from the Virgin for the guiltless incurrence of death and a false example of the resurrection. Therefore, I think, even the defenders of the transition of souls themselves will agree that the soul of Christ did not appear through a transition from the first disobedient soul, for, in their opinion, the seed of the soul is poured out from the father’s seed in intercourse (and this kind of conception is alien to Christ); They will also agree that if He had been in Abraham according to His soul, He would have given tithes, but Scripture testifies that He did not give tithes, suggesting in this the difference between His priesthood and the Levitical priesthood. But perhaps they will object to us: why could He not be in the loins of Abraham in soul without giving tithes, just as He could be there in body and not give tithes? Yes, because even those who consider the soul to be a body (and among them mainly supporters of the assertion that the soul is created from parents) do not allow the idea that the simple substance of the soul increases with bodily growth. In the bodily seed there may be an invisible force, which is incorporeally distinguished not by the eyes, but by the mind from the corporeality accessible to our sight and touch; The very size of the human body, incomparably exceeding the measure of the seed, sufficiently shows that only something can come from it that contains not the seminal force, but only a bodily substance, which is from above, and not from those entering into intercourse, and was received and formed into the flesh of Christ. But who can claim about the soul that it has both, that is, both the visible matter of the seed and its hidden beginning? However, why work on a subject in which words can hardly convince anyone, except perhaps a person with such a sharp mind who could understand the speaker’s thought in advance, without waiting for its full expression in words? Therefore, I will say briefly that if what we said about the flesh can happen to the soul (if what we said is understood), then the soul of Christ appeared through transition in such a way that it did not bring with it the stain of disobedience; and if she could not appear by way of transfer without this jurisdiction, then she did not appear by way of transfer. As for the origin of the remaining souls, let those who like it argue until they are hoarse whether they are from their parents or from above; I am still in doubt and sometimes am inclined in favor of one opinion, sometimes another; but I do not believe and will never believe that the soul is either a body, or some kind of bodily property, or some kind of consent, if this is how the Greek word αρμουια can be translated. One should not lose sight of another testimony that can be cited in their favor by those who believe that souls are from above, namely, the words of the Lord himself: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6). What else, they will say, is needed in order to understand: the soul cannot be born from the flesh! For what is the soul if not the spirit of life, although created and not creative? But what, others will object to them, do we say otherwise when we affirm that the flesh comes from the flesh, and the soul from the soul? For man consists of both; So we think that both come from him: the flesh comes from the flesh that produces, and the spirit from the spirit that lusts; At the same time, we must not forget that the Lord spoke these words not about carnal birth, but about spiritual rebirth. So, having examined, as far as circumstances allow, the above passages of Holy Scripture, I would say that all the particular points of argument and evidence are equally favorable to both sides, and only the fact of infant baptism tips the scales somewhat in favor of the opinion of those who believe that souls are created from parents. For now, it is difficult for me to say anything about this, but if God deigns to reveal something to me later, I will not consider it difficult to immediately inform people who are interested in this kind of subjects about it. In the present case, I declare in advance that the fact of infant baptism cannot be considered so insignificant that it is not worth investigating. There is no need to raise the question about this subject at all, considering it sufficient for our faith to know where we will go after a pious life, even if we do not know where we came from; or, if a reasonable soul strives to know this about itself, let it discard the insolence of assertion, stock up on the diligence of research, the humility of petition and the constancy of that knocking, thanks to which “it will be revealed”; so that if it can explain this to us, then the ability is given to it by He who knows better than us what requires explanation for us, i.e. He who gives gifts of good things to His children (Matt. 7:7, 11). However, The custom of the Mother Church to baptize infants should in no case be dismissed because of this, nor should it be considered unnecessary, but should be considered nothing other than an apostolic tradition, for even this small age has the significance of testimony, since he was the first to shed his blood for Christ. I would advise those who hold the opinion that souls come from parents to turn, as far as possible for them, attention to themselves and think that their souls are not bodies. For there is no closer nature, by carefully peering into which one could think of God, who is motionless above all His creation, in an incorporeal way, as nature created in His image, and, on the contrary, it is quite logical, believing that the soul is a body, to believe that God is a body. Therefore, people, having become accustomed and attached to bodily feelings, do not want to consider the soul as anything other than the body, fearing that if it is not the body, then it is nothing; hence, they are as afraid to consider God as not a body as they are afraid to consider Him as nothing. They are so immersed in ghosts or fantastic images that their thinking draws from the body that, having renounced them, they are afraid to disappear, as if into emptiness. Therefore, they picture in their hearts both truth and wisdom with a kind of form and color, for they cannot think of them as incorporeal, although, being animated by truth and wisdom to such an extent that they either praise them or do something in accordance with them, they do not say what color, what size, in what image or form they imagine them. But we have already spoken about this in another place and, if God pleases, we will say it again when circumstances require it. Now we began to talk about this because whether some are sure about the transition of souls or are not sure, let them not dare to think or say that the soul is a body, for then they will consider something good and God himself to be a body, indeed, a most excellent body, special, standing above everything else, but still a body. Finally, Tertullian, considering the soul to be a body solely because he could not think of it as incorporeal, and therefore was afraid that it, if not the body, would not be anything, could not think differently about God; but possessing a penetrating mind, he at times rose above his opinions, approaching the truth. What, for example, could he say more accurately than the following: “Everything corporeal is subject to suffering? Based on these words, he should have changed his opinion that God is a body. For, I think, he was not so stupid as to imagine the nature of God as subject to suffering, considering Christ not only according to the flesh, or even according to flesh and soul, but also in the Word itself, by Whom all things were created, subject to suffering and changeable: let such a thought be far from the Christian heart! In the same way, as soon as he attributes airiness and transparent color to the soul, it also comes to the feelings with which he tries to provide the soul, attributing to it, like the body, his members: “This,” he says, “will be the inner man, and the other will be the outer man, one in two; for the first has his own eyes and ears, with which he must listen and see the Lord, and other members, which he uses in thinking and in dreams.” These are the ears and eyes with which the people were supposed to listen and see the Lord, these are the ones the soul uses in dreams, although if someone saw Tertullian himself in a dream, he would under no circumstances say that Tertullian saw him, talked to him, whom he himself did not see! Then, if the soul sees itself in a dream, although while the members of its body are in one place, it itself is carried away into the various images that it sees, who has ever seen it in a dream, clothed in a transparent color, except perhaps a person who sees everything else just as false? Maybe he, of course, sees her like this, but let him not consider her like this when he awakens; otherwise, that is, if he sees himself differently, in most cases either his soul changes, or what is visible to him is not the substance of the soul, but an incorporeal image of the body, which seems to be composed in an amazing way in his thinking. For what Ethiopian does not see himself almost always black in his dreams, or, if he saw himself painted in a different color, would not be extremely amazed if he remembered it? However, I don’t know if anyone would see themselves painted in a transparent color if they had never read or heard about such a color... Why do people become attached to such visions and, in their justification, refer to Scripture that, they say, something like this is not the soul, but God himself, as He figuratively appeared to the spirit of the saints and as He appears even in allegorical speech? Indeed, their visions are similar to such speech. But they are mistaken, forming in their hearts the ghosts of an empty opinion and not realizing that the saints judged their visions in the same way as they would have judged them if they had read or heard of them as spoken from above, for example, that seven ears of corn and seven cows signify seven years (Gen. 41:26), a linen tied at the four corners, or a shroud full of various animals, signifies the whole earth with all the nations (Acts. 10:11–12), and everything else, especially that which in relation to incorporeal objects is designated not by corporeal things, but by images. However, Tertullian was afraid that someone would think that the soul increases in substance like the body, and even gave the reason for his fear: “Lest,” he notes, “they would say that it increases in substance and, thus, decide that it is mortal.” But, however, he seemed to stretch it over the body and thought that from a small seed it became in some way equal to the body: “Its power,” he says, “in a person in whom natural gifts are preserved, in a healthy state of the substance, through the action of the One by whom it was blown in at the beginning, increases gradually along with the flesh.” We would not have understood this if he himself had not explained his words to us, using an analogy from the field of visible objects: “Take an unprocessed piece of gold or silver of a certain gravity: the property of the metal is concentrated in it and, although in a smaller form compared to the future, it contains everything that belongs to its nature; then, when this piece is rolled out into a sheet, it becomes larger than it was at the beginning, but in area, not in weight, stretching, not increasing, although at the same time it increases in size. For it can increase not in volume, but in quality. Thus, the shine of gold or silver increases, which existed before, but was darker, although not completely absent; other new properties are added as the matter is processed, to which the master brings it, giving its volume only an external appearance. This is how we must understand the growth of the soul, that is, not in the sense of substance, but of manifestation.” Who would have believed that with such a (light) heart he could be so eloquent? But we shouldn’t laugh at this, but be horrified. In fact, would he have come to such views if he could understand that there is something that both exists and is not a body? Meanwhile, what could be more absurd than this thought of his? Can the mass of any metal increase on one side without decreasing on the other, or increase in length without decreasing in thickness? And is there such a body that, while maintaining the qualities of its nature, grows on all sides without becoming more and more rarefied? How, one may ask, can a soul fill the size of the body it animates from a drop of semen, if it is itself a body whose substance does not increase? How, I say, will it fill the flesh that it animates, if it does not become less and less frequent, the more and more that which it animates becomes? Tertullian was afraid to prevent a certain decline in the soul, assuming that it was increasing, and at the same time did not hesitate to allow refinement or rarefaction in it, as soon as it was increasing. But there is no need to dwell on this question for long: my speech has already gone on too long and I should have finished it long ago, especially since my opinion about what I should hold on to or what and why to doubt has already become sufficiently clear. Therefore, let’s finish this book and move on to what follows. You might be interested in: