Chapter 20.—Victor Quotes Scriptures for Their Silence, and Neglects the Biblical Usage.

As for the passage which affirms that “God hath made of one blood all nations of men,”86    Acts xvii. 26. and that in which Adam says, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh,”87    Gen. ii. 23. inasmuch as it is not said in the one, “of one soul,” and in the other, “soul of my soul,” he supposes that it is denied that children’s souls come from their parents, or the first woman’s from her husband just as if, forsooth, had the sentence run in the way suggested, “of one soul,” instead of “of one blood,” anything else than the whole human being could be understood, without any denial of the propagation of the body. So likewise, if it had been said, “soul of my soul,” the flesh would not be denied, of course, which evidently had been taken out of the man. Constantly does Holy Scripture indicate the whole by a part, and a part by the whole. For certainly, if in the passage which this man has quoted as his proof it had been said that the human race had been made, not “of one blood,” but “of one man,” it could not have prejudiced the opinion of those who deny the propagation of souls, although man is not soul alone, nor only flesh, but both. For they would have their answer ready to this effect, that the Scripture here might have meant to indicate a part by the whole, that is to say, the flesh only by the entire human being. In like manner, they who maintain the propagation of souls contend that in the passage where it is said, “of one blood,” the human being is implied by the term “blood,” on the principle of the whole being expressed by a part. For just as the one party seems to be assisted by the expression, “of one blood,” instead of the phrase, “of one man,” so the other side evidently gets countenance from the statement being so plainly written, “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for in him all sinned,”88    Rom. v. 12. instead of its being said, “in whom the flesh of all sinned.” Similarly, as one party seems to receive assistance from the fact that Scripture says, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh,” on the ground that a part covers the whole; so, again, the other side derives some advantage from what is written in the immediate sequel of the passage, “She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of her husband.” For, according to their contention, the latter clause should have run, “Because her flesh was taken out of her husband,” if it was not true that the entire woman, soul and all, but only her flesh, was taken out of man. The fact, however, of the whole matter is simply this, that after hearing both sides, anybody whose judgment is free from party prejudice sees at once that loose quotation is unavailing in this controversy; for against one party, which maintains the opinion of the propagation of souls, those passages must not be adduced which mention only a part, inasmuch as the Scripture might mean by the part to imply the whole in all such passages; as, for instance, when we read, “The Word was made flesh,”89    John i. 14. we of course understand not the flesh only, but the entire human being; nor against the other party, who deny this doctrine of the soul’s propagation, is it of any avail to quote those passages which do not mention a part of the human being, but the whole; because in these the Scripture might possibly mean to imply a part by the whole; as we confess that Christ was buried, whereas it was only His flesh that was laid in the sepulchre. We therefore say, that on such grounds there is no ground on the one hand for rashly constructing, nor on the other hand for, with equal rashness, demolishing the theory of propagation; but we add this advice, that other passages be duly looked out, such as admit of no ambiguity.90    Compare on this chapter Book i. 29.

20. Item quod scriptum est, ex uno sanguine Deum fecisse omne genus hominum (Act. XVII, 26); vel quod ait Adam, Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, et caro de carne mea. (Gen. II, 23): quia neque ibi dictum est, Ex una anima; neque hic, Anima de anima mea; putat negari animas filiorum ex parentibus, vel illius mulieris ex viro: quasi vero si non, ex uno sanguine, sed, Ex una anima diceretur, aliud quam totus homo intelligeretur, nec corporis propagatio negaretur. Sic etiam si dictum esset, Anima de anima mea; non utique negaretur caro, quam de illo exemptam fuisse constabat. A parte enim totum, sicut etiam a toto partem plerumque Scriptura significat. Nam certe si non, ex uno sanguine, sed, Ex uno homine, illo loco scriptum esset, institutum esse genus humanum, unde iste adhibuit testimonium, non praejudicaret istis qui negant animarum propaginem; quamvis non sola anima, nec sola caro, sed utrumque sit homo. Responderent enim a toto partem, id est, ab homine solam hominis carnem, Scripturam significare potuisse. Sic ergo et ii qui defendunt animarum propaginem, illud quod dictum est, ex uno sanguine, per sanguinem scilicet hominem, id est, a parte totum significatum esse contendunt. Sicut enim videtur illos juvare quod dictum est, ex uno sanguine, nec dictum est, Ex uno homine: sic videtur et istos juvare quod dictum est, Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum, et per peccatum mors; et ita in omnes homines pertransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt (Rom. V, 12); nec dictum est, In quo omnium caro peccavit. Itemque sicut illos videtur juvare quod dictum est, Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, et caro de carne mea; quia pars est dicta, non totum: sic iterum istos, quod ibi continuo sequitur, Haec vocabitur mulier, quoniam de viro suo sumpta est.0508 Debuit enim dici, aiunt, Quoniam de viro suo caro ejus sumpta est; si non tota mulier, id est, cum anima, sed sola caro sumeretur ex viro. Porro autem utrisque auditis, qui sine studio partium judicat, videt profecto, nec contra istos qui propaginem animarum defendunt proferenda illa testimonia ubi pars nominatur; quia potuit Scriptura significare illic a parte totum, sicut Verbum caro factum est (Joan. I, 14), cum legimus, non utique carnem solam, sed hominem totum intelligimus: nec contra illos qui propaginem animarum destruunt, ista proferenda, ubi non pars hominis, sed totum commemoratur; quia potuit ibi Scriptura a toto partem significare, sicut sepultum confitemur Christum, cum ejus caro sola sepulta sit. Ac per hoc propaginem animarum nec temere astruendam, nec temere destruendam dicimus: sed admonemus, alia testimonia esse quaerenda, quae non inveniantur ambigua.