1. Now it is necessary to speak of human temptations, which are sometimes born of flesh and blood, which is said to be hostile to God. After expounding the doctrine of the temptations that we experience from principalities and powers, and from the rulers of the darkness of this world, and from the heavenly spirits of lewdness, as well as from evil spirits and unclean demons, we will also say whether the opinion of some is correct that each person has two souls. In this question it is appropriate to inquire whether there is anything else in us, men who are composed of soul and body and vital spirit, which has its own excitement and excitement which leads to evil. Some people usually ask the following questions.

First, should we not recognize in us two souls, one divine and celestial, and the other inferior?

Secondly, do we incline to evil that is pleasing to the body by the fact of union with bodies? And bodies, as we know, are by nature completely inanimate, because the material body is animated by us, that is, by souls, and it is opposite and hostile to the spirit.

Thirdly, our soul, as some Greeks thought, is one in essence, but consists of many parts, and one part of it is called rational, the other irrational, and that part which they call irrational, in turn, is divided into two passions, lust and anger?

Concerning the soul, then, some have these three opinions above. However, the opinion of the Greek philosophers regarding the three parts of the soul is not supported by the authority of the divine Scriptures. For the other two opinions, however, there are some passages in the divine Scriptures which seem to apply to them.

3.<… >It is better for the soul to follow the spirit if the spirit has conquered the flesh. But perhaps it is sometimes more useful for the soul to be in the power of the flesh, for being, as they say, neither hot nor cold, it can find conversion quickly and with difficulty. If the soul clings to the flesh, then, saturated and filled with those misfortunes, and as if tired by the heaviest burden of intemperance and lust, it can more easily and more quickly turn from material impurities to heavenly desire and spiritual beauty. The Apostle says that the spirit fights against the flesh, and the flesh against the spirit, so that we do not do what we want. In the last words is indicated that which is outside the will of the spirit and outside the will of the flesh.

In other words, it may be said that it is better for a man to be either in virtue or in vice than in neither. A soul that has not yet turned to the spirit and still continues to think about the things of the flesh is neither in a good nor in an obviously evil state. Such a soul is like the soul of an animal. It is better, as far as possible, for it to cling to the spirit and become spiritual. If this is impossible, then it is more useful for her even to follow the vice of the flesh than to be in the state of an irrational animal.

We have discussed this with a view to considering different opinions. At the same time we have stepped aside more than we wished, lest it should seem that we are ignorant of the doubts which are usually aroused by people who ask whether, besides this heavenly and rational soul, there is in us another soul, which is by nature hostile to it, and which is called either the flesh, or the wisdom of the flesh, or the soul of the flesh.

4. Now let us see what the advocates of the idea that there is one soul in us, whose salvation or destruction, according to its actions, is ascribed to it proper. And let us see what spiritual sufferings we experience when our soul is torn to pieces, when some kind of conflict of thoughts takes place in our hearts, and what probabilities present themselves to us, which incline us now to this and that, and now denounce us, now approve of us. It is no exaggeration to call bad the mind which has a different, contradictory, and self-disagreeable judgment. Yet this is exactly what happens to all people, when they have to reason about an unknown subject, or to advise what is more correct or useful to choose.

It is not surprising, then, if two probabilities, mutually contradictory and suggesting the opposite, draw the spirit in different directions. For example, if meditation incites someone to faith and fear of God, then it cannot be said that the flesh is enmity against the spirit. No, but the spirit is drawn to different things as long as the truth is unknown. In the same way, when the body inclines to lust, and the best intention resists these impulses, it should not be thought that any particular life is struggling with another life, but that the bodily nature, full of seminal moisture, longs to empty the member through the discharge. For it is impossible to think that some opposing force or life of another soul arouses thirst in us and makes us drink, or produces hunger and induces us to eat. But as food and drink are required and expelled by the natural movements of the body, so the moisture of the natural seed, which has collected for a certain time in its place, tends to erupt and go out. And this does not depend on the action of any other excitation to such an extent that it sometimes even happens by itself. The words that the flesh fights with the spirit mean that the need of the flesh distracts a person from spiritual things. Indeed, distracted by bodily need, we have no opportunity to occupy ourselves with things divine and eternal. On the other hand, the soul, which is concerned with the divine and spiritual, is opposed to the flesh, because it does not allow it to indulge in pleasures and swim in pleasures that are naturally pleasing to the body. In the same way they understand the saying: "The carnal mind is enmity against God" (Romans 8:7). According to their interpretation, these words do not mean that the body really has a soul or its own wisdom. Just as we usually say that the earth thirsts and wants to drink water, using the word "will" not in its proper sense, but in a figurative sense, so we must understand the wisdom of the flesh or the saying that "the flesh desires that which is contrary to the spirit." Usually they add the saying: "The voice of your brother's blood cries out to Me from the ground" (Gen. 4:10). That which cries out to God is not in the proper sense shed blood, but in a figurative sense it is said that the blood cries out as long as punishment is still required for the one who sheds the blood.

The words of the Apostle: "In my members I see another law, which is contrary to the law of my mind" (Romans 7:23) must be understood in this way: whoever wants to study the word of God is torn away and hindered by the needs of the body and the needs inherent in the body as a certain law, so that, in studying this wisdom, he could not contemplate the divine mysteries with full attention.

5. But among the works of the flesh are also indicated heresies, envy, disputes, and so on. They understand this indication to mean that the soul, through its subjection to bodily passions, becomes flesh, and borrows this name from that to which it is more zealous and disposed.

They supplement their investigation with the following question: Who can be called the creator of this evil feeling, which is called the feeling of the flesh, since one should not believe in any other creator of the soul and flesh than God? And if we say that the good God in His very creation created something hostile to Himself, this will prove absurd. For if it is written that "carnal thoughts are enmity against God," and we call this wisdom created from the very creation, then it will be necessary to say that God Himself created a certain nature, hostile to Himself, which cannot submit to Him and His law, if only we recognize the wisdom of the soul of which this is spoken. But if we accept this opinion, how shall we differ from those who admit that souls are created different in nature, and that by nature they must either perish or be saved? Such a teaching is pleasing, of course, only to heretics, who invent these inventions, not being able to prove the truth of God rationally and piously. As far as possible, we have quoted on behalf of various people what can be said of each individual opinion in the form of reflection. Let the reader choose from this which thought is better to accept.

Triadological and Christological Controversies of the Fourth Century