Chapter 30—The Danger of Arguing from Silence.

Now, while the disputants are thus contending with one another in alternate argument, I so judge between them that they must not rely on uncertain evidence; nor make bold assertions on points of which they are ignorant. For if the Scripture had said, “God breathed into the woman’s face the breath of life, and she became a living soul,” it would not have followed even then that the human soul is not derived by propagation from parents, except the same statement were likewise made concerning their son. For it might have been that whilst an unensouled50    “Animari,” or endued with the “anima,” or soul. member taken from the body might require to be ensouled,51    “Animari,” or endued with the “anima,” or soul. yet that the soul of the son might be derived from the father, transfused by propagation through the mother. There is, however, an absolute silence on the point; it is entirely concealed from our view. Nothing is denied, but at the same time nothing is affirmed. And thus, if in any place the Scripture is possibly not quite silent, the point requires to be supported by clearer proofs. Whence it follows, that neither they who maintain the propagation of souls receive any assistance from the circumstance that God did not breathe into the woman’s face; nor ought they, who deny this doctrine on the ground that Adam did not say, “This is soul of my soul,” to persuade themselves to believe what they know nothing of. For just as it has been possible for the Scripture to be silent on the point of the woman’s having received her soul, like the man, by the inbreathing of God, without the question before us being solved, but, on the contrary, remaining open; so has it been possible for the same question to remain open and unsolved, notwithstanding the silence of Scripture, as to whether or not Adam said, This is soul of my soul. And hence, if the soul of the first woman comes from the man, a part signifies the whole in his exclamation, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh;” inasmuch as not her flesh alone, but the entire woman, was taken out of man. If, however, it is not from the man, but came by God’s inbreathing it into her, as at first into the man, then the whole signifies a part in the passage, “She was taken out of the man;” since on the supposition it was not her whole self, but her flesh that was taken.

30. Cum itaque isti sic inter se alternante sermone certaverint; ego inter eos sic judico, ut ne incognitis fidant, et temere audeant affirmare quod nesciunt, utrosque commoneam. Si enim scriptum esset, Insufflavit flatum vitae in faciem mulieris, et facta est in animam vivam; nec sic esset jam consequens, ut non propagaretur ex parentibus anima, nisi etiam de filio eorum hoc scriptum similiter legeretur. Fieri enim potuit ut membrum non animatum de corpore extractum indigeret animari, filii vero anima ex patre per matrem propaginis transfusione traheretur. Cum vero tacitum est, occultatum est, non negatum; sed neque affirmatum. Ac per hoc sicubi forte non tacitum est, clarioribus documentis est astruendum. Unde nec illi qui defendunt animarum propaginem, ex eo quod non sufflavit Deus in faciem mulieris, aliquid adjuvantur; nec illi qui eam negant, ideo quia non dixit Adam, Anima de anima mea, debent sibi persuadere quod nesciunt. Sicut enim eadem non soluta, sed manente quaestione, potuit tacere Scriptura, quod mulier Deo sufflante sicut vir ejus acceperit animam: sic eadem non soluta, sed manente quaestione, potuit tacere Scriptura, ut Adam non diceret, Anima de anima mea. Ac per hoc si primae mulieris anima ex viro est, a parte totum significatum est, ubi legitur, Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, et caro de carne mea; cum tota ex viro, non caro sola sit sumpta. Si autem non est ex viro, sed eam Deus insufflavit sicut viro; a toto pars significata est, ubi legitur, De viro suo sumpta est: cum caro ejus non tota sit sumpta.