Numbers 16:22

22.O God, the God of the, spirits of all flesh. The old interpreter renders the first אל , el, as an adjective, in which some others have followed him; (93) but, in my opinion, the name of God is rather repeated by way of adding force to the sentence. It does not, however, so clearly appear to me why all render the word flesh, in the genitive case. But, since I do not think that the ל , lamed, is superfluous here, but that it is used for ב , beth, as often elsewhere, I have accurately expressed the sense by my translation, “in all flesh.” (94) There is no question but that Moses applies this epithet to God in connection with the present matter; as if he desired to induce God to preserve His own work, just as a potter spares the vessels formed by himself. To the same effect is the prayer of Isaiah:

“But now, O Lord, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand. Be not wroth very sore,” (Isaiah 64:8 :)

for hence he alleges a reason why God should relent, and be inclined to mercy. There is this difference, that Isaiah refers to that special grace wherewith God had embraced His people, whereas Moses carries his address further, viz., to the general grace of creation. It is of little importance whether we choose to expound this (95) with reference to all animals, or only to the human race, since Moses merely prays that, since God is the Creator and Maker of the world, He should not destroy the men whom He has formed, but rather have pity upon them, as being His work. In passing, however, we may infer from this passage, (96) that all (men) have their separate souls, for God is not said to have inspired all flesh with life, but to have created their spirits. Hence the monstrous delusion of the Manicheans is refuted, that our souls are so infused by the transmission of the Spirit of God, as that there should still be only one spirit. (97) But if it be preferred to include the animals, we must mark the grades of distinction between the spirit of man and the spirit of a dog or an ass. It is, however, more fitting to restrict it to men.

This doctrine of the Manicheans is often referred to in the writings of Augustine. The Benedictine Editors, in their index to his works, point out by citations the following particulars: “Manichaeorum error circa animam. Docent animam nostram hoc esse quod Deus est; esse partem, seu particulam Dei; animas non solum hominum, sed etiam pecorum, de Dei esse substantia, et partes Dei asserunt.”

The word which I have translated transmission, is in the Latin ex traduce, a well-known metaphor in theological controversy, derived from the practice of inarching, or grafting by approach, when two neighboring branches are tied together so as to cohere and form one, whilst the parent stocks, to which they belong, continue still to possess a separate and individual vitality. Thus Prudentius, Apoth. 919-921.

Vitandus tamen error erit, ne traduce carnis
Transfundi in sobolem credatur fons animarum,
Sanguinis exemplo, etc.

C. makes frequent allusions to this heretical doctrine as having been resuscitated by Servetus, amongst his other pantheistic notions. See Instit. Book 1. ch. 15. Section 5.C. Soc. Edit., vol. 1, p. 223; and also on Psalms 104:30. C. Soc. Edit., vol. 4, p. 168.