Chapter 24.—How We Must Understand that Breathing of God by Which “The First Man Was Made a Living Soul,” And that Also by Which the Lord Conveyed His Spirit to His Disciples When He Said, “Receive Ye the Holy Ghost.”

Some have hastily supposed from the words, “God breathed into Adam’s nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul,597    Gen. ii. 7.” that a soul was not then first given to man, but that the soul already given was quickened by the Holy Ghost.  They are encouraged in this supposition by the fact that the Lord Jesus after His resurrection breathed on His disciples, and said, “Receive ye the Holy Spirit.”598    John xx. 22.  From this they suppose that the same thing was effected in either case, as if the evangelist had gone on to say, And they became living souls.  But if he had made this addition, we should only understand that the Spirit is in some way the life of souls, and that without Him reasonable souls must be accounted dead, though their bodies seem to live before our eyes.  But that this was not what happened when man was created, the very words of the narrative sufficiently show:  “And God made man dust of the earth;” which some have thought to render more clearly by the words, “And God formed man of the clay of the earth.”  For it had before been said that “there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground,”599    Gen. ii. 6. in order that the reference to clay, formed of this moisture and dust, might be understood.  For on this verse there immediately follows the announcement, “And God created man dust of the earth;” so those Greek manuscripts have it from which this passage has been translated into Latin.  But whether one prefers to read “created” or “formed,” where the Greek reads ἔπλασεν, is of little importance; yet “formed” is the better rendering.  But those who preferred “created” thought they thus avoided the ambiguity arising from the fact, that in the Latin language the usage obtains that those are said to form a thing who frame some feigned and fictitious thing.  This man, then, who was created of the dust of the earth, or of the moistened dust or clay,—this “dust of the earth” (that I may use the express words of Scripture) was made, as the apostle teaches, an animated body when he received a soul.  This man, he says, “was made a living soul;” that is, this fashioned dust was made a living soul.

They say, Already he had a soul, else he would not be called a man; for man is not a body alone, nor a soul alone, but a being composed of both.  This, indeed, is true, that the soul is not the whole man, but the better part of man; the body not the whole, but the inferior part of man; and that then, when both are joined, they receive the name of man, which, however, they do not severally lose even when we speak of them singly.  For who is prohibited from saying, in colloquial usage, “That man is dead, and is now at rest or in torment,” though this can be spoken only of the soul; or “He is buried in such and such a place,” though this refers only to the body?  Will they say that Scripture follows no such usage?  On the contrary, it so thoroughly adopts it, that even while a man is alive, and body and soul are united, it calls each of them singly by the name “man,” speaking of the soul as the “inward man,” and of the body as the “outward man,”600      2 Cor. iv. 16. as if there were two men, though both together are indeed but one.  But we must understand in what sense man is said to be in the image of God, and is yet dust, and to return to the dust.  The former is spoken of the rational soul, which God by His breathing, or, to speak more appropriately, by His inspiration, conveyed to man, that is, to his body; but the latter refers to his body, which God formed of the dust, and to which a soul was given, that it might become a living body, that is, that man might become a living soul.

Wherefore, when our Lord breathed on His disciples, and said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” He certainly wished it to be understood that the Holy Ghost was not only the Spirit of the Father, but of the only begotten Son Himself.  For the same Spirit is, indeed, the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, making with them the trinity of Father, Son, and Spirit, not a creature, but the Creator.  For neither was that material breath which proceeded from the mouth of His flesh the very substance and nature of the Holy Spirit, but rather the intimation, as I said, that the Holy Spirit was common to the Father and to the Son; for they have not each a separate Spirit, but both one and the same.  Now this Spirit is always spoken of in sacred Scripture by the Greek word πνεῦμα, as the Lord, too, named Him in the place cited when He gave Him to His disciples, and intimated the gift by the breathing of His lips; and there does not occur to me any place in the whole Scriptures where He is otherwise named.  But in this passage where it is said, “And the Lord formed man dust of the earth, and breathed, or inspired, into his face the breath of life;” the Greek has not πνεῦμα, the usual word for the Holy Spirit, but πνοή, a word more frequently used of the creature than of the Creator; and for this reason some Latin interpreters have preferred to render it by “breath” rather than “spirit.”  For this word occurs also in the Greek in Isaiah chapter vii, verse 16 where God says, “I have made all breath,” meaning, doubtless, all souls. Accordingly, this word πνοή is sometimes rendered “breath,” sometimes “spirit,” sometimes “inspiration,” sometimes “aspiration,” sometimes “soul,” even when it is used of God.  Πνεῦμα, on the other hand, is uniformly rendered “spirit,” whether of man, of whom the apostle says, “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?”601    1 Cor. ii. 11. or of beast, as in the book of Solomon, “Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?”602    Eccles. iii. 21. or of that physical spirit which is called wind, for so the Psalmist calls it:  “Fire and hail; snow and vapors; stormy wind;”603    Ps. cxlviii. 8. or of the uncreated Creator Spirit, of whom the Lord said in the gospel, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” indicating the gift by the breathing of His mouth; and when He says, “Go ye and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,”604    Matt. xxviii. 19. words which very expressly and excellently commend the Trinity; and where it is said, “God is a Spirit;”605    John iv. 24. and in very many other places of the sacred writings.  In all these quotations from Scripture we do not find in the Greek the word πνοή used, but πνεῦμα, and in the Latin, not flatus, but spiritus.  Wherefore, referring again to that place where it is written, “He inspired,” or to speak more properly, “breathed into his face the breath of life,” even though the Greek had not used πνοή (as it has) but πνεῦμα, it would not on that account necessarily follow that the Creator Spirit, who in the Trinity is distinctively called the Holy Ghost, was meant, since, as has been said, it is plain that πνεῦμα is used not only of the Creator, but also of the creature.

But, say they, when the Scripture used the word “spirit,”606    “Breath,” Eng. ver. it would not have added “of life” unless it meant us to understand the Holy Spirit; nor, when it said, “Man became a soul,” would it also have inserted the word “living” unless that life of the soul were signified which is imparted to it from above by the gift of God.  For, seeing that the soul by itself has a proper life of its own, what need, they ask, was there of adding living, save only to show that the life which is given it by the Holy Spirit was meant?  What is this but to fight strenuously for their own conjectures, while they carelessly neglect the teaching of Scripture?  Without troubling themselves much, they might have found in a preceding page of this very book of Genesis the words, “Let the earth bring forth the living soul,”607    Gen. i. 24. when all the terrestrial animals were created.  Then at a slight interval, but still in the same book, was it impossible for them to notice this verse, “All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died,” by which it was signified that all the animals which lived on the earth had perished in the deluge?  If, then, we find that Scripture is accustomed to speak both of the “living soul” and the “spirit of life” even in reference to beasts; and if in this place, where it is said, “All things which have the spirit of life,” the word πνοή, not πνεῦμα, is used; why may we not say, What need was there to add “living,” since the soul cannot exist without being alive? or, What need to add “of life” after the word spirit?  But we understand that Scripture used these expressions in its ordinary style so long as it speaks of animals, that is, animated bodies, in which the soul serves as the residence of sensation; but when man is spoken of, we forget the ordinary and established usage of Scripture, whereby it signifies that man received a rational soul, which was not produced out of the waters and the earth like the other living creatures, but was created by the breath of God.  Yet this creation was ordered that the human soul should live in an animal body, like those other animals of which the Scripture said, “Let the earth produce every living soul,” and regarding which it again says that in them is the breath of life, where the word πνοή and not πνεῦμα is used in the Greek, and where certainly not the Holy Spirit, but their spirit, is signified under that name.

But, again, they object that breath is understood to have been emitted from the mouth of God; and if we believe that is the soul, we must consequently acknowledge it to be of the same substance, and equal to that wisdom, which says, “I come out of the mouth of the Most High.”608    Ecclus. xxiv. 3.  Wisdom, indeed, does not say it was breathed out of the mouth of God, but proceeded out of it.  But as we are able, when we breathe, to make a breath, not of our own human nature, but of the surrounding air, which we inhale and exhale as we draw our breath and breathe again, so almighty God was able to make breath, not of His own nature, nor of the creature beneath Him, but even of nothing; and this breath, when He communicated it to man’s body, He is most appropriately said to have breathed or inspired,—the Immaterial breathing it also immaterial, but the Immutable not also the immutable; for it was created, He uncreated.  Yet that these persons who are forward to quote Scripture, and yet know not the usages of its language, may know that not only what is equal and consubstantial with God is said to proceed out of His mouth, let them hear or read what God says:  “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”609    Rev. iii. 16.

There is no ground, then, for our objecting, when the apostle so expressly distinguishes the animal body from the spiritual—that is to say, the body in which we now are from that in which we are to be.  He says, “It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.  There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.  And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.  Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.  The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.  As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.  And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.”610    1 Cor. xv. 44–49.  Of all which words of his we have previously spoken.  The animal body, accordingly, in which the apostle says that the first man Adam was made, was not so made that it could not die at all, but so that it should not die unless he should have sinned.  That body, indeed, which shall be made spiritual and immortal by the quickening Spirit shall not be able to die at all; as the soul has been created immortal, and therefore, although by sin it may be said to die, and does lose a certain life of its own, namely, the Spirit of God, by whom it was enabled to live wisely and blessedly, yet it does not cease living a kind of life, though a miserable, because it is immortal by creation.  So, too, the rebellious angels, though by sinning they did in a sense die, because they forsook God, the Fountain of life, which while they drank they were able to live wisely and well, yet they could not so die as to utterly cease living and feeling, for they are immortals by creation.  And so, after the final judgment, they shall be hurled into the second death, and not even there be deprived of life or of sensation, but shall suffer torment.  But those men who have been embraced by God’s grace, and are become the fellow-citizens of the holy angels who have continued in bliss, shall never more either sin or die, being endued with spiritual bodies; yet, being clothed with immortality, such as the angels enjoy, of which they cannot be divested even by sinning, the nature of their flesh shall continue the same, but all carnal corruption and unwieldiness shall be removed.

There remains a question which must be discussed, and, by the help of the Lord God of truth, solved:  If the motion of concupiscence in the unruly members of our first parents arose out of their sin, and only when the divine grace deserted them; and if it was on that occasion that their eyes were opened to see, or, more exactly, notice their nakedness, and that they covered their shame because the shameless motion of their members was not subject to their will,—how, then, would they have begotten children had they remained sinless as they were created?  But as this book must be concluded, and so large a question cannot be summarily disposed of, we may relegate it to the following book, in which it will be more conveniently treated.

CAPUT XXIV. Qualiter accipienda sit vel illa insufflatio, in qua primus homo factus est in animam viventem; vel illa quam Dominus fecit, dicens, Accipite Spiritum sanctum.

1. Unde et illud parum considerate quibusdam visum est, in eo quod legitur, Inspiravit Deus in faciem ejus spiritum vitae, et factus est homo in animam viventem (Gen. II, 7), non tunc animam primo homini datam, 0399 sed eam quae jam inerat, Spiritu sancto vivificatam. Movet enim eos, quod Dominus Jesus posteaquam resurrexit a mortuis, insufflavit, dicens discipulis suis, Accipite Spiritum sanctum (Joan. XX, 22). Unde tale aliquid existimant factum, quale tunc factum est: quasi et hic secutus Evangelista dixerit, Et facti sunt in animam viventem. Quod quidem si dictum esset, hoc intelligeremus, quod animarum quaedam vita sit Spiritus Dei, sine quo animae rationales mortuae deputandae sunt, quamvis earum praesentia vivere corpora videantur. Sed non ita factum, quando est conditus homo, satis ipsa libri verba testantur, quae ita se habent: Et formavit Deus hominem pulverem de terra . Quod quidam planius interpretandum putantes dixerunt, Et finxit Deus hominem de limo terrae. Quoniam superius dictum fuerat, Fons autem ascendebat de terra, et irrigabat omnem faciem terrae (Gen. II, 7, 6): ut ex hoc limus intelligendus videretur, humore scilicet terraque concretus. Ubi enim hoc dictum est, continuo sequitur, Et formavit Deus hominem pulverem de terra: sicut graeci codices habent, unde in latinam linguam Scriptura ista conversa est . Sive autem formavit, sive finxit, quis dicere voluerit, quod graece dicitur ἔπλασεν, ad rem nihil interest: magis tamen proprie dicitur, finxit. Sed ambiguitas visa est devitanda eis, qui formavit dicere maluerunt, eo quod in latina lingua illud magis obtinuit consuetudo, ut hi dicantur fingere, qui aliquid mendacio simulante componunt . Hunc igitur formatum hominem de terrae pulvere, sive limo (erat enim pulvis humectus); hunc, inquam, ut expressius dicam, sicut Scriptura locuta est, pulverem de terra, animale corpus factum esse docet Apostolus, cum animam accepit. Et factus est iste homo in animam viventem: id est, formatus iste pulvis factus est in animam viventem.

2. Jam, inquiunt, habebat animam, alioquin non appellaretur homo: quoniam homo non est corpus solum, vel anima sola, sed qui ex anima constat et corpore. Hoc quidem verum est, quod non totus homo, sed pars melior hominis anima est; nec totus homo corpus, sed inferior hominis pars est: sed cum est utrumque conjunctum simul, habet hominis nomen; quod tamen et singula non amittunt, etiam cum de singulis loquimur. Quis enim dicere prohibetur quotidiani quadam lege sermonis, Homo ille defunctus est, et nunc in requie est vel in poenis; cum de anima sola possit hoc dici: et, Illo aut illo loco homo ille sepultus est; cum hoc nisi de solo corpore non possit intelligi? An dicturi sunt, sic loqui Scripturam 0400 non solere divinam? Imo vero illa ita nobis in hoc attestatur, ut etiam cum duo ista conjuncta sunt et vivit homo, tamen etiam singula hominis vocabulo appellet; animam scilicet interiorem hominem, corpus vero exteriorem hominem vocans (II Cor. IV, 16), tanquam duo sint homines, cum simul utrumque sit homo unus. Sed intelligendum est, secundum quid dicatur homo ad imaginem Dei, et homo terra atque iturus in terram. Illud enim secundum animam rationalem dicitur, qualem Deus insufflando, vel, si commodius dicitur, inspirando indidit homini, id est hominis corpori: hoc autem secundum corpus, qualem hominem Deus finxit ex pulvere, cui data est anima, ut fieret corpus animale, id est homo in animam viventem.

3. Quapropter in eo quod Dominus fecit, quando insufflavit dicens, Accipite Spiritum sanctum, nimirum hoc intelligi voluit, quod Spiritus sanctus non tantum sit Patris, verum etiam Unigeniti ipsius Spiritus. Idem ipse quippe Spiritus est et Patris et Filii, cum quo est Trinitas Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, non creatura, sed Creator. Neque enim flatus ille corporeus de carnis ore procedens substantia erat Spiritus sancti atque natura, sed potius significatio, qua intelligeremus, ut dixi, Spiritum sanctum Patri esse Filioque communem: quia non sunt eis singulis singuli, sed unus amborum est. Semper autem iste Spiritus in Scripturis sanctis graeco vocabulo πνεῦμα dicitur, sicut eum et hoc loco Dominus appellavit, quando eum corporalis sui oris flatu significans, discipulis suis dedit: et locis omnibus divinorum eloquiorum non mihi aliter unquam nuncupatus occurrit. Hic vero, ubi legitur, Et finxit Deus hominem pulverem de terra, et insufflavit, sive inspiravit in faciem ejus spiritum vitae; non ait graecus πνεῦμα, quod solet dici Spiritus sanctus, sed πνοήν: quod nomen in creatura quam in Creatore frequentius legitur: unde nonnulli etiam Latini, propter differentiam, hoc vocabulum non spiritum, sed flatum appellare maluerunt. Hoc enim est in graeco etiam illo loco apud Isaiam, ubi Deus dicit, Omnem flatum ego feci (Isai. LVII, 16, sec. LXX), omnem animam sine dubitatione significans. Quod itaque graece πνοή dicitur, nostri aliquando flatum, aliquando spiritum, aliquando inspirationem, vel adspirationem, quando etiam Dei dicitur, interpretati sunt : πνεῦμα, vero nunquam nisi spiritum; sive hominis, de quo ait Apostolus, Quis enim scit hominum quae sunt hominis, nisi spiritus hominis qui in ipso est (I Cor. II, 11)? sive pecoris, sicut in Salomonis libro scriptum est, Quis scit si spiritus hominis ascendat sursum in coelum, et spiritus pecoris descendat deorsum in terram (Eccle. III, 21)? sive istum corporeum, qui etiam ventus dicitur: nam ejus hoc nomen est, ubi in Psalmo canitur, Ignis, grando, nix, glacies, spiritus tempestatis (Psal. CXLVIII, 8): sive jam non creatum, sed Creatorem, sicut est de quo dicit Dominus in Evangelio, 0401 Accipite Spiritum sanctum; eum corporei sui oris significans flatu. Et ubi ait, Ite, baptizate omnes gentes in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti (Matth. XXVIII, 19): ubi ipsa Trinitas excellentissime et evidentissime commendata est. Et ubi legitur, Deus spiritus est (Joan. IV, 24). Et aliis plurimis sacrarum Litterarum locis. In his quippe omnibus testimoniis Scripturarum, quantum ad Graecos attinet, non πνοήν videmus scriptum esse, sed πνεῦμα: quantum autem ad Latinos, non flatum, sed spiritum. Quapropter in eo quod scriptum est, Inspiravit, vel, si magis proprie dicendum est, Insufflavit in faciem ejus spiritum vitae; si graecus non πνοήν, sicut ibi legitur, sed πνεῦμα posuisset, nec sic esset consequens, ut Creatorem Spiritum, qui proprie dicitur in Trinitate Spiritus sanctus, intelligere cogeremur: quandoquidem πνεῦμα, ut dictum est, non solum de Creatore, sed etiam de creatura dici solere manifestum est.

4. Sed cum dixisset, inquiunt, spiritum, non adderet vitae, nisi illic Spiritum sanctum vellet intelligi: et cum dixisset, Factus est homo in animam, non adderet, viventem, nisi animae vitam significaret, quae illi divinitus impertitur dono Spiritus Dei. Cum enim vivat anima, inquiunt, proprio suae vitae modo, quid opus erat addere viventem, nisi ut ea vita intelligeretur, quae illi per Spiritum sanctum datur? Hoc quid est aliud, nisi diligenter pro humana suspicione contendere, et Scripturas sanctas negligenter attendere? Quid enim magnum erat non ire longius, sed in eodem libro ipso paulo superius legere, Producat terra animam viventem (Gen. I, 24); quando animalia terrestria cuncta creata sunt? Deinde aliquantis interpositis, in eodem tamen ipso libro, quid magnum erat advertere quod scriptum est, Et omnia quae habent spiritum vitae, et omnis qui erat super aridam, mortuus est (Id. VII, 22); cum insinuaret omnia quae vivebant in terra periisse diluvio? Si ergo et animam viventem, et spiritum vitae etiam in pecoribus invenimus, sicut loqui divina Scriptura consuevit; et cum hoc quoque loco, ubi legitur, Omnia quae habent spiritum vitae, non graecus πνεῦμα, sed πνοήν dixerit: cur non dicimus, Quid opus erat ut adderet, viventem, cum anima nisi vivat esse non possit? aut, Quid opus erat ut adderet, vitae, cum dixisset spiritum? Sed intelligimus spiritum vitae, et animam viventem Scripturam suo more dixisse, cum animalia, id est corpora animata, vellet intelligi, quibus inesset per animam perspicuus iste etiam corporis sensus. In hominis autem conditione obliviscimur, quemadmodum loqui Scriptura consueverit, cum suo prorsus more locuta sit: quo insinuaret hominem etiam rationali anima accepta, quam non sicut aliarum carnium aquis et terra producentibus, sed Deo flante creatam voluit intelligi; sic tamen factum, ut in corpore animali, quod fit anima in eo vivente, sicut illa animalia viveret, de quibus dixit, Producat terra animam viventem: et quae itidem dicit habuisse in se 0402 spiritum vitae; ubi etiam in graeco non dixit πνεῦμα, sed πνοήν: non utique Spiritum sanctum, sed eorum animam tali exprimens nomine.

5. Sed enim Dei flatus, inquiunt, Dei ore exisse intelligitur, quem si animam crediderimus, consequens erit ut ejusdem fateamur esse substantiae, paremque illius Sapientiae, quae dicit, Ego ex ore Altissimi providi (Eccli. XXIV, 5). Non quidem dixit Sapientia ore Dei efflatam se fuisse, sed ex ejus ore prodisse. Sicut autem nos possumus, non de nostra natura qua homines sumus, sed de isto aere circumfuso, quem spirando ac respirando ducimus ac reducimus , flatum facere cum sufflamus: ita omnipotens Deus, non de sua natura, neque de subjacenti creatura, sed etiam de nihilo potuit facere flatum, quem corpori hominis inserendo inspirasse vel insufflasse convenientissime dictus est, incorporeus incorporeum, sed immutabilis mutabilem; quia non creatus creatum. Verumtamen ut sciant isti, qui de Scripturis loqui volunt, et Scripturarum locutiones non advertunt, non hoc solum dici exire ex ore Dei, quod est aequalis ejusdemque naturae, audiant, vel legant quod Deo dicente scriptum est: Quoniam tepidus es, et neque calidus neque frigidus, incipiam te evomere ex ore meo (Apoc. III, 16).

6. Nulla itaque causa est, cur apertissime loquenti resistamus Apostolo, ubi ab spirituali corpore corpus animale discernens, id est, ab illo in quo futuri sumus, hoc in quo nunc sumus, ait: Seminatur corpus animale, surget corpus spirituale: si est corpus animale, est et spirituale, sicut scriptum est, Factus est primus homo Adam in animam viventem, novissimus Adam in spiritum vivificantem. Sed non primum quod spirituale est, sed quod animale; postea, quod spirituale. Primus homo de terra, terrenus; secundus homo de coelo, coelestis. Qualis terrenus, tales et terreni: qualis coelestis, tales et coelestes. Et quomodo induimus imaginem terreni, induamus et imaginem ejus qui de coelo est (I Cor. XV, 44-49). De quibus omnibus apostolicis verbis superius locuti sumus. Corpus igitur animale, in quo primum hominem Adam factum esse dicit Apostolus, sic erat factum, non ut mori omnino non posset; sed ut non moreretur, nisi homo peccasset. Nam illud quod spiritu vivificante spirituale erit et immortale, mori omnino non poterit. Sicut anima creata est immortalis, quae licet peccato mortua perhibeatur carens quadam vita sua, hoc est Dei Spiritu, quo etiam sapienter et beate vivere poterat: tamen propria quadam, licet misera, vita sua non desinit vivere; quia immortalis est creata. Sicut etiam desertores angeli, licet secundum quemdam modum mortui sint peccando; quia fontem vitae deseruerunt, qui Deus est, quem potando, sapienter beateque poterant vivere: tamen non sic mori potuerunt, ut omnnio desisterent vivere atque sentire; quoniam immortales creati sunt: atque ita in secundam mortem post ultimum praecipitabuntur judicium, ut nec illic vita careant; quandoquidem etiam sensu, 0403 cum in doloribus futuri sunt, non carebunt. Sed homines ad Dei gratiam pertinentes cives sanctorum Angelorum in beata vita manentium, ita spiritualibus corporibus induentur, ut neque peccent amplius, neque moriantur: ea tamen immortalitate vestiti, quae, sicut Angelorum, nec peccato possit auferri; natura quidem manente carnis, sed nulla omnino carnali corruptibilitate vel tarditate remanente.

7. Sequitur autem quaestio necessario pertractanda, et Domino Deo veritatis adjuvante solvenda. Si libido membrorum inobedientium ex peccato inobedientiae 0404 in illis primis hominibus, cum illos divina gratia deseruisset, exorta est; unde in suam nuditatem oculos aperuerunt, id est, eam curiosius adverterunt, et quia impudens motus voluntatis arbitrio resistebat, pudenda texerunt: quomodo essent filios propagaturi, si, ut creati fuerant, sine praevaricatione mansissent. Sed quia et liber iste claudendus est, nec tanta quaestio in sermonis angustias coarctanda, in eum qui sequitur, commodiore dispositione differatur.