the flesh, was still in his loins in the same way as Abraham had been in his
BookX 421 the body of Mary, because this too was conceived and born in that way. Christ, however, indeed took the substance of his flesh from the flesh of the Virgin; but the formula for his conception did not come from male seed, but in a very different way and from above. Accordingly, following this line of argument, what he received from his mother was also in the loins of Abraham.
36. So that one then was tithed in Abraham who, though only there as regards the flesh, was still in his loins in the same way as Abraham had been in his father's, that is, who was born of his father Abraham in the same way as Abraham was born of his father, through the law, to wit, in the membersfighting back against the law of the mind (Rom 7:23) and through invisible concupis cence, although the chaste and good rights of marriage do not allow it to prevail except insofar as by means of it they can provide for replacements to continue the human race.
Not also tithed there, however, was that other one, whose flesh drew from there not the inflammation of the wound but the material for healing it. That tithing, after all, was about prefiguring the healing,34 so while that which was to be cured was tithed in the flesh ofAbraham, that by which it was to be cured was not. The very flesh indeed, not just of Abraham but of that first and earth-made man, had in it simultaneously the wound caused by the transgression and the medicine to heal the wound; the wound from the transgression in the law of the members fighting back against the law of the mind, which through all the flesh propagated from there is, so to say, encoded in the seminal formula; and the medicine for the wound in what, without any lustful activity, was taken from there of the Virgin in its bodily material alone by means of a divine formula for its conception and formation—this for the sake of sharing in death without iniq uity, and of providing an instance of resurrection without falsity.
Accordingly, that the soul of Christ does not come by transmission from that soul which was the first to transgress is something, I think, that even those who support the transmission of souls will agree, because their idea is that the seed of the soul is also transfused with the father's seed in the sexual act, a kind of conception quite foreign to Christ. Again they will agree that if he had been in Abraham as regards the soul, he too would have been tithed; but scripture testi fies to his not having been tithed, distinguishing his priesthood from the Levitical priesthood as it does by this very fact.
21, 37.0r perhaps they will say: "Just as he could be there as regards the flesh and not be tithed, why not also as regards the soul without any tithing?" Here is the answer: Because not even those who reckon the soul to be a body—that means most of the people who are of the opinion that it is created from the parents—have thought that its simple substance can be increased by bodily
34. He is here referring to Melchizedek tithing Abraham, not to the consequent tithing of Levi in Abraham's loins.