Chapter 27 [XVII.]—Augustin Did Not Venture to Define Anything About the Propagation of the Soul.

For whence comes it that he is so careless about the Scriptures, which he talks of, as not to notice that when he reads of human beings being from God, it is not merely, as he contends, in respect of their soul and spirit, but also as regards their body? For the apostle’s statement, “We are His offspring,”36    Acts xvii. 28. this man supposes must not be referred to the body, but only to the soul and spirit. If, indeed, our human bodies are not of God, then that is false which the Scripture says: “For of Him are all things, through Him are all things, and in Him are all things.”37    Rom. xi. 36. Again, with reference to the same apostle’s statement, “For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman,”38    1 Cor. xi. 12. let him explain to us what propagation he would choose to be meant in the process,—that of the soul, or of the body, or of both? But he will not allow that souls come by propagation: it remains, therefore, that, according to him and all who deny the propagation of souls, the apostle signified the masculine and feminine body only, when he said, “As the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman;” the woman having been made out of the man, in order that the man might afterwards, by the process of birth, come out of the woman. If, therefore, the apostle, when he said this, did not intend the soul and spirit also to be understood, but only the bodies of the two sexes, why does he immediately add, “But all things are of God,”39    1 Cor. xi. 12. unless it be that bodies also are of God? For so runs his entire statement: “As the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman; but all things are of God.” Let, then, our disputant determine of what this is said. If of men’s bodies, then, of course, even bodies are of God. How comes it to pass, therefore, that whenever this person reads in Scripture the phrase, “of God,” when man is in question, he will have the words understood, not in reference to men’s bodies, but only as concerning their souls and spirits? But if the expression, “All things are of God,” was spoken both of the body of the two sexes, and of their soul and spirit, it follows that in all things the woman is of the man, for the woman comes from the man, and the man is by the woman: but all things of God. What “all things” are meant, except those he was speaking of, namely, the man of whom came the woman, and the woman who was of the man, and also the man who came by the woman? For that man came not by woman, out of whom came the woman; but only he who afterwards was born of man by woman, just as men are now born. Hence it follows that if the apostle, when he said the words we have quoted from him, spoke of men’s bodies, undoubtedly the bodies of persons of both sexes are of God. Furthermore, if he insists that nothing in man comes from God except their souls and spirits, then, of course, the woman is of the man even as regards her soul and spirit; so that nothing is left to those who dispute against the propagation of souls. But if he is for dividing the subject in such a manner as to say that the woman is of the man as regards her body, but is of God in respect of her soul and spirit, how, then, will that be true which the apostle says, “All things of God,” if the woman’s body is of the man in such a sense that it is not of God? Wherefore, allowing that the apostle is more likely to speak the truth than that this person must be preferred as an authority to the apostle, the woman is of the man, whether in regard to her body only, or in reference to the entire whole of which human nature consists (but we assert nothing on these points as an absolute certainty, but are still inquiring after their truth); and the man is through the woman, whether it be that his whole nature as man is derived to him from his father, and is born in him through the woman, or the flesh alone; about which points the question is still undecided. “All things, however, are of God,” and about this there is no question; and in this phrase are included the body, soul, and spirit, both of the man and the woman. For even if they were not born or derived from God, or emanated from Him as portions of His nature, yet they are of God, inasmuch as whatever is created, formed, and made by Him, has from Him the reality of its existence.

CAPUT XVII.

27. Nam unde est, quod ita Scripturas, de quibus loquitur, non curat advertere, ut cum legerit homines esse ex Deo, non eos etiam secundum corpus, sed tantum secundum animam et spiritum ex Deo esse contendat? Quod enim ait Apostolus, Ex ipso sumus (Act. XVII, 28); non vult iste ad corpus, sed tantum ad animam et spiritum esse referendum. Si ergo ex Deo non sunt corpora, falsum est quod scriptum est, Ex quo omnia, per quem omnia, in quo omnia (Rom. XI, 36). Deinde ubi dicit idem apostolus, Sicut enim mulier ex viro, ita et vir per mulierem; exponat nobis iste quam propaginem significare voluerit, animae, an corporis, an utriusque. Sed non vult esse animas ex propagine. Restat ergo, ut secundum ipsum atque omnes qui animarum propaginem destruunt, corpus tantum masculinum et femininum significaverit Apostolus, dicens, Sicut enim mulier ex viro, ita et vir per mulierem: quia mulier ex viro facta est, ut etiam vir per mulierem postea nasceretur. Si ergo haec Apostolus dicens, non etiam animas et spiritus, sed tantum corpora utriusque sexus volebat intelligi, cur continuo subjunxit, Omnia autem ex 0490 Deo (I Cor. XI, 12); nisi quia et corpora ex Deo? Ita quippe ait: Sicut enim mulier ex viro, ita et vir per mulierem; omnia autem ex Deo. Eligat ergo iste unde sit dictum. Si de corporibus, profecto et corpora ex Deo sunt. Quid est ergo, quod ubicumque iste in Scripturis legit, ex Deo, quando de hominibus agitur, non et corpora, sed tantum animas et spiritus vult intelligi? Si vero quod dictum est, Omnia autem ex Deo; et de corpore utriusque sexus, et de anima ac spiritu dictum est: ergo secundum omnia est mulier ex viro. Mulier enim ex viro, vir per mulierem; omnia autem ex Deo. Quae omnia, nisi de quibus loquebatur, id est, et ille vir ex quo mulier, et illa mulier quae ex viro, et ille vir qui per mulierem? Neque enim ille vir per mulierem, ex quo viro mulier: sed vir qui natus est postea ex viro per mulierem, quemadmodum hodieque nascuntur. Ac per hoc si cum ista diceret Apostolus, de corporibus loquebatur, procul dubio corpora utriusque sexus ex Deo. Porro si non vult esse ex Deo hominum nisi animas et spiritus; profecto etiam secundum animam et spiritum mulier ex viro, et nihil jam relinquetur eis qui contra animarum propaginem disputant. Si autem ita dividit, ut dicat mulierem ex viro esse secundum corpus, ex Deo autem secundum animam et spiritum; quomodo erit verum quod ait Apostolus, Omnia autem ex Deo, si mulieris corpus ita est ex viro, ut non sit ex Deo? Quapropter ut Apostolus potius verum loquatur, quam iste Apostolo praeferatur, mulier ex viro est, sive secundum solum corpus, sive secundum totum, quo constat humana natura (nihil enim horum tanquam certum affirmamus, sed quid horum verum sit adhuc quaerimus): et vir per mulierem, sive ex patre tota hominis natura ducatur, quae per mulierem nascitur, sive sola caro, unde adhuc quaestio est: omnia tamen ex Deo, unde nulla quaestio est, id est, et corpus et anima et spiritus, et viri et mulieris. Et si enim non ex Deo nata vel tracta sunt, vel manarunt, ita ut ejus naturae sint; tamen ex Deo sunt. A quo enim creata, condita, facta sunt, ab illo habent ut sint.