10

to partake in some power, however small, as having a soul it will obviously share in such a power (for without a soul a form of life could never exist at all among those things that are referred to nature and are clearly comprehended within the ever-moving heavenly revolution, and in accordance with logical consistency, a form of life is never at all without a soul), but whatever sort of life you suppose that which is sown to have at conception, you have revealed only a certain property of a soul, a difference which is constitutive of the substance in which it is, and is definitive of those that are not such. But if, pushed by the force of truth toward what is necessary, you say that the embryo also has a soul, it is consequent and fitting for you to say what 14Ε_046 and of what sort this is, and how it is contemplated or spoken of. And if you assert that it has only the nutritive and augmentative soul, then, according to you, this nourished and growing body will obviously be that of some plant and not a human. And how a man will be the father of a plant I cannot comprehend, considering many things, since it has its being entirely from a man according to nature.

But if you assign only the sensitive soul to the embryo, the embryo will be shown at conception to have the soul of a horse or an ox or some other of the land or air animals, and according to you, a man will not be by nature the father of a human at its first constitution, but of some plant, as I said, or of an animal on the earth. What could be more absurd or more senseless than this? For to assert that the proper definitions of existence do not unfailingly coexist with the first constitution of beings according to the natural difference of each, is to confuse all things with one another, and to maintain that none of the beings is properly that which it is and is called. And indeed a greater evil, it will surely be shown to have a very clear slander 1340 of the divine wisdom and power. For if all things that exist in any way have their perfection in their own principle according to the foreknowledge of God before their generation, clearly also, at the same time as they are brought into being for generation according to their own principle, they will unfailingly have their perfection in that very act. But if beings have what is perfect according to foreknowledge, but what is imperfect according to their production and generation into being, either they will not be the very things that were foreknown, but different things for different ones, or this 14Ε_048 would be a manifest and clear weakness of the creator, not being able, according to foreknowledge, to present more fully the foreknown thing at once with its generation, in actuality as it is by nature in its substance.

But if, wary of these refutations, you should finally take refuge in this, asserting that it is not right for that which is in the image of God and divine (thus calling the rational soul) to coexist with a flow and a foul pleasure, and that you think it necessary to say more fittingly that it is introduced after the forty days of conception, you will be seen to be clearly blaming the creator of nature, and you will be shown to be reasonably subject to the terrible danger of blasphemy that appears from this. For if marriage is evil, then clearly so is the natural law of generation; and if such a law of natural generation is evil, then he who obviously made nature, and gave it a law of generation, will rightly be blamed by us. And why do we turn away from those from Manes and the heretics before him, who for this reason alone, in a way, posited two principles and denied the God over all, having found you saying the same thing, even if not through the same means? But if for this reason you decline out of a reverence for modesty to say that the rational and intelligent soul coexists with the body at conception you will not dare to say that what is born has the rational and

10

τινος κἄν ποσῶς μετέχειν δυνάμεως, ὡς ψυχήν ἔχον δηλονότι τῆς τοιαύτης μεθέξει δυνάμεως (χωρίς γάρ ψυχῆς εἶδος ζωῆς οὐκ ἄν εἴη πώποτε καθάπαξ ἐν τοῖς ὑπό φύσιν ἀναγομένοις καί τῆς οὐρανίου δῆλον ἀεικινήτου περιφορᾶς ἐντός διειλημμένοις, ἀεί δέ ζωῆς εἶδος ἄνευ ψυχῆς τό παράπαν οὐκ ἔστι κατά τήν λογικήν ἀκολουθίαν), οἷον δ᾿ ἄν ὑποτίθεσθε ζωῆς εἶδος τό καταβαλλόμενον ἔχειν κατά τήν σύλληψην, ψυχῆς τινος μόνον ἰδιότητα ἐνεφήνατε, συστατικήν μέν τῆς ἐν ᾗπέρ ἐστιν οὐσίας ἀφοριστικήν δέ τῶν μή τοιούτων διαφοράν. Εἰ δέ καί ψυχήν ἔχειν τό ἔμβρυον βίας πρός τό δέον ὑπό τῆς ἀληθείας ὠθούμενοι λέγετε, τίνα τε 14Ε_046 καί ὁποίαν ταύτην, καί πῶς θεωρουμένην ἤ λεγομένην, ὑμᾶς λέγειν ἐστίν ἀκόλουθόν τε καί πρόσφορον. Καί εἰ μέν μόνην τήν θρεπτικήν τε καί αὐξητικήν ἔχειν αὐτό διαβεβαιοῦσθαι ψυχήν, φυτοῦ τινος δηλονότι καί οὐκ ἀνθρώπου τῷ λόγῳ τούτῳ καθ' ὑμᾶς τό τρεφόμενον καί αὐξόμενον ἔσται σῶμα. Καί πῶς τοῦ φυτοῦ πατήρ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἔσται σινιδεῖν οὐκ ἔχω, πολλά σκοπῶν, ἐξ ἀνθρώπου παντελῶς τό εἶναι κατά φύσιν ἔχοντος.

Εἰ δέ τήν αἰσθητικήν μόνην τῷ ἐμβρύῳ προσνέμετε ψυχήν, ἵππου πάντως ἤ βοός ἤ ἑτέρου τινός τῶν χερσαίων ἤ ἐναερίων ζώων ψυχήν ἔχων δειχθήσεται κατά τόν σύλληψιν τό ἔμβρυον, καί πατήρ οὐκ ἔσται κατά φύσιν ἀνθρώπου καθ᾿ ὑμᾶς ὁ ἄνθρωπος, κατά τήν πρώτην σύστασιν· ἀλλά φυτοῦ τινος, καθώς ἔφην, ἤ ζώου τῶν ἐπί γῆς. Οὗ τί γένοιτ᾿ ἄν ἀτοπώτερον ἤ φρενοβλαβέστερον; Τό γάρ μή συνυπάρχειν διαβεβαιοῦσθαι τῇ πρώτῃ συστάσει τῶν ὄντων κατά τήν ἑκάστου φυσικήν διαφοράν ἀπαραλείπτως τούς οἰκείους τῆς ὑπάρξεως ὁρισμούς, φύρειν ἐστίν εἰς ἄλληλα τά πάντα, καί μηδέν εἶναι κυρίως τῶν ὄντων ὅπερ ἐστί τε καί λέγεται διισχυρίζεσθαι. Καί τό δή μεῖζον κακόν, διαβολήν 1340 τῆς θείας σοφίας τε καί δυνάμεως ἀρίδηλον ἔχον μεγίστην πάντως δειχθήσεται. Εἰ γάρ πάντα τά ὁπωσοῦν ὄντα πρό γενέσεως αὐτῶν κατά τήν πρόγνωσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ οἰκείῳ λόγῳ τό τέλειον ἔχει, δηλονότι καί ἅμα τῷ εἶναι κατά τόν ἴδιον λόγον πρός γένεσιν παραγόμενα ἀπαραλείπτως αὐτῇ τῇ ἐνεργείᾳ τό τέλειον ἕξει. Εἰ δέ τό μέν τέλειον κατά τήν πρόγνωσιν ἔχει τά ὄντα, κατά δέ τήν εἰς τό εἶναι παραγωγήν τε καί γένεσιν τό ἀτελές, ἤ οὐκ αὐτά ἐκεῖνα ἔσται τά προγνωσθέντα, ἀλλ᾿ καθ᾿ ἑτέρων ἕτερα, ἤ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ πρόδηλος ἀσθένεια 14Ε_048 τοῦτο ἄν εἴη καί σαφής, μή δυνηθέντος κατά τήν πρόγνωσιν τό προγνωσθέν ἀθρόως ἅμα τῇ γενέσει κατά τήν ἐνέργειαν ὡς εἶναι πέφυκε κατά τήν οὐσίαν, παραστῆσαι πληρέστερον.

Εἰ δέ τούτους ὑφορώμενοι τούς ἐλέγχους ἐπ᾿ ἐκεῖνο καταφύγοιτε τελευταῖον, φάσκοντες μή δίκαιον εἶναι τό κατ᾿ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ καί θεῖον (οὕτω τήν νοεράν καλοῦντες ψυχήν) ῥεύσει καί ἡδονῇ ῥυπαρᾷ συνυπάρχειν, μετά δέ τάς τεσσαράκοντα τῆς συλλήψεως ἡμέρας ἐπεισκρίνεσθαι λέγειν εὐσχημονέστερον οἴεσθαι δεῖν, τόν τῆς φύσεως δημιουργόν σαφῶς αἰτιώμενοι φανήσεσθε, καί τόν ἐντεῦθεν τῆς βλασφημίας ἀναφαινόμενον εἰκότως ὑπέχοντες φοβερόν δειχθήσεσθε κίνδυνον. Εἰ γάρ κακός ὁ γάμος, δηλονότι καί ὁ κατά φύσιν τῆς γενέσεως ὁ νόμος· εἰ δέ κακός ὁ τοιοῦτος τῆς κατά φύσιν γενέσεως νόμος, ὁ τήν φύσιν δηλονότι πεποιηκώς, καί δούς αὐτῇ νόμον γενέσεως, δικαίως ἄν καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς αἰτιαθήσεται. Καί τί τούς ἀπό Μάνεντος καί τούς πρό αὐτοῦ αἱρετικούς, ταύτης ἕνεκα τρόπον τινά καί μόνης τῆς αἰτίας, δύο ἀρχάς ὑποστησαμένους, καί τόν ἐπί πάντων Θεόν ἀρνησαμένους, ἀποστρεφόμεθα, τό αὐτό λέγοντας, εἰ καί μή διά τῶν αὐτῶν, καί ὑμᾶς εὑρηκότες; Εἰ δέ ταύτης ἕνεκα τῆς αἰτίας συνυπάρχειν τῷ σώματι κατά τήν σύλληψιν τήν λογικήν τε καί νοεράν ψυχήν λέγειν δι᾿ αἰσχύνης εὐλάβειαν παραιτεῖσθε μηδέ μετά τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρας, μήτε μετά τόν ἐννεαμηνιαῖον τῆς κυοφορίας χρόνον, μήτε μήν μετά τόν τόκον, πρό τῶν μ´ ἡμερῶν τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ φάναι τολμήσετε τό γεννηθέν ἔχειν τήν λογικήν τε καί