COMMENTARY: TERTULLIAN'S "ON THE SOUL"
G.D.O'BRADOVICH III
NOVEMBER 13, 2015
NB -UNFINISHED
Background
While Apprentice Tyler continues his multi week study of “The City of God” for heresy and impiety, I have chosen Tertullian's “Treatise on the Soul” for select commentary, so as to not build on another man's foundation. If not “select”, then my commentary would be enormous and impractical for the purpose of exposing the curious reader to Tertullian's subtle deism and impiety. In the English translation, there are 47, 219 words or 3.2 times the volume of the Gospel of Saint Mark. [vide] We mention the size of Tertullian's commentary so that it can be contrasted with the simplicity of the Good News. The Jews do not know of an immortal soul (the Old Testament) and there is no explicit reference to the immortal soul in the New Testament. Therefore, the concept of the immortal soul has its origin in one source: Plato.
As Hardouin maintained, there is only one copy of the alleged works of the alleged Church Fathers:
“The only extant manuscript is the 9th century codex Agobardinus (Parisinus Latinus 1622). This however is incomplete, although the contemporary list of contents at the front labels the work De censu animae. It follows on from De idololatria without a break, indicating that some pages were missing in the manuscript from which it was copied. However the work is complete, together with a summary at the start, in the 1545 Gagny/Mesnart edition. Likewise it is preceded by De idololatria, which is again complete with its missing final chapters. This suggests that Gagny had obtained an Agobardinus-class manuscript, of the same family, but containing fewer works (Ad Nationes was not present) and in a better condition.”
Due to the unnecessary "wordiness" that is a hallmark of the alleged writings of the Church Fathers, I have not always used the ellipse (...) correctly; at times I have removed only one word.
Gentle Reader, based on our previous experiences with the alleged writings of the church fathers, we expect to find evidence of atheism, impiety, denial of the immortal soul and other unexpected treats for the careful reader.
While Apprentice Tyler continues his multi week study of “The City of God” for heresy and impiety, I have chosen Tertullian's “Treatise on the Soul” for select commentary, so as to not build on another man's foundation. If not “select”, then my commentary would be enormous and impractical for the purpose of exposing the curious reader to Tertullian's subtle deism and impiety. In the English translation, there are 47, 219 words or 3.2 times the volume of the Gospel of Saint Mark. [vide] We mention the size of Tertullian's commentary so that it can be contrasted with the simplicity of the Good News. The Jews do not know of an immortal soul (the Old Testament) and there is no explicit reference to the immortal soul in the New Testament. Therefore, the concept of the immortal soul has its origin in one source: Plato.
As Hardouin maintained, there is only one copy of the alleged works of the alleged Church Fathers:
“The only extant manuscript is the 9th century codex Agobardinus (Parisinus Latinus 1622). This however is incomplete, although the contemporary list of contents at the front labels the work De censu animae. It follows on from De idololatria without a break, indicating that some pages were missing in the manuscript from which it was copied. However the work is complete, together with a summary at the start, in the 1545 Gagny/Mesnart edition. Likewise it is preceded by De idololatria, which is again complete with its missing final chapters. This suggests that Gagny had obtained an Agobardinus-class manuscript, of the same family, but containing fewer works (Ad Nationes was not present) and in a better condition.”
Due to the unnecessary "wordiness" that is a hallmark of the alleged writings of the Church Fathers, I have not always used the ellipse (...) correctly; at times I have removed only one word.
Gentle Reader, based on our previous experiences with the alleged writings of the church fathers, we expect to find evidence of atheism, impiety, denial of the immortal soul and other unexpected treats for the careful reader.
Chapter 1.
It is Not to the Philosophers that We Resort for Information About the Soul But to God.
Interestingly, the death of Socrates begins this supposed Christian discussion of the soul: “Especially would this be the case with that glorious creature, the philosopher, to whom injurious treatment would not suggest a craving for consolation, but rather the feeling of resentment and indignation. ...[after Socrates' death sentence, when his wife came to him and said] ... O Socrates, you are unjustly condemned! He seemed already to find joy in answering, Would you then wish me justly condemned?”
The charges against Socrates were denying the gods, creating new gods and corrupting the youth. We understand that while Socrates' wife thought her husband was unjustly condemned, Socrates knew that he was guilty on all three counts. “All the wisdom of Socrates, at that moment [of asserting the immortality of the soul], proceeded from the affectation of an assumed composure, rather than the firm conviction of ascertained truth.” Socrates did not know about the nature of the soul, but deduced its qualities.
“For they say that a demon [deamon] clave to him [Socrates] from his boyhood— the very worst teacher certainly, notwithstanding the high place assigned to it by poets and philosophers— even next to, (nay, along with) the gods themselves.” Christianity “denies the gods of this world ... no new gods and demons does it introduce... it corrupts not youth... and so it bears the unjust condemnation not of one city only, but of all the world, in the cause of that truth which incurs indeed the greater hatred in proportion to its fullness: so that it tastes death not out of a (poisoned) cup ... but it exhausts it in every kind of bitter cruelty... and in holocausts.”
“For it is really better for us not to know a thing, because He has not revealed it to us, than to know it according to man's wisdom, because he has been bold enough to assume it.” "Man's wisdom" is understood as result of philosophy when it is applied to Nature.
The charges against Socrates were denying the gods, creating new gods and corrupting the youth. We understand that while Socrates' wife thought her husband was unjustly condemned, Socrates knew that he was guilty on all three counts. “All the wisdom of Socrates, at that moment [of asserting the immortality of the soul], proceeded from the affectation of an assumed composure, rather than the firm conviction of ascertained truth.” Socrates did not know about the nature of the soul, but deduced its qualities.
“For they say that a demon [deamon] clave to him [Socrates] from his boyhood— the very worst teacher certainly, notwithstanding the high place assigned to it by poets and philosophers— even next to, (nay, along with) the gods themselves.” Christianity “denies the gods of this world ... no new gods and demons does it introduce... it corrupts not youth... and so it bears the unjust condemnation not of one city only, but of all the world, in the cause of that truth which incurs indeed the greater hatred in proportion to its fullness: so that it tastes death not out of a (poisoned) cup ... but it exhausts it in every kind of bitter cruelty... and in holocausts.”
“For it is really better for us not to know a thing, because He has not revealed it to us, than to know it according to man's wisdom, because he has been bold enough to assume it.” "Man's wisdom" is understood as result of philosophy when it is applied to Nature.
Chapter 2.
The Christian Has Sure and Simple Knowledge Concerning the Subject Before Us
“We shall not deny that philosophers have sometimes thought the same things as ourselves.” “In nature... most conclusions are suggested... by that common intelligence wherewith God has been pleased to endow the soul of man.” Tertullian admits that the conclusions from Nature can be understood by the application of "common intelligence".
“This intelligence has been caught up by philosophy, and, with the view of glorifying her own art, has been inflated (it is not to be wondered at that I use this language) with straining after that facility of language which is practised in the building up and pulling down of everything, and which has greater aptitude for persuading men by speaking than by teaching. She [philosophy] assigns to things their forms and conditions; sometimes makes them common and public, sometimes appropriates them to private use; on certainties she capriciously stamps ... uncertainty; she appeals to precedents... she describes all things by rule and definition, ... she attributes nothing to the divine permission, but assumes as her principles the laws of nature.” Sophists, not philosophers, strain after language. Philosophy attributes nothing to the unexplained and second hand stories about the Divine, but appeals to that eternal constant that is seen, although no understood correctly, by all: Nature.
“I could bear with her [philosophy's] pretensions, if only she were herself true to nature, and would prove to me that she had a mastery over nature as being associated with its creation." “She thought... that she was deriving her mysteries from sacred sources, as men deem them, because in ancient times most authors were supposed to be (I will not say godlike, but) actually gods: as, for instance, the Egyptian Mercury, to whom Plato paid very great deference...” Tertullian confuses or obscures sacred sources, that is, revealed religion, with philosophy. The Egyptian Mercury is the God of Wisdom, Thoth, "Beaky" to his friends.
“Since these philosophers have also made their attacks upon those writings which are condemned by us under the title of apocryphal, certain as we are that nothing ought to be received which does not agree with the true system of prophecy, which has arisen in this present age". If the philosophers attack writings, the form of the attack is that the writings are revealed from God and philosophy can not determine the validity of a revealed text, to wit, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are revealed religions and contradictory, so two are corrupt.
“Because we do not forget that there have been false prophets, and long previous to them fallen spirits, which have instructed the entire tone and aspect of the world with cunning knowledge of this (philosophic) cast?” Tertullian intimates that "fallen spirits" are the origin of philosophy and encourages the curious reader to familiarize himself with the different schools of philosophy:
“If you take the philosophers, you would find in them more diversity than agreement, since even in their agreement their diversity is discoverable.” One can replace "philosophers" with "Church Fathers" and the statement remains verifiable.
“The truth has... been nearly excluded by the philosophers, through the poisons with which they have infected it...” Tertullian is familiar with the writings of philosophers, but neglects to state what consists of these "poisons".
“Now I am not unaware what a vast mass of literature the philosophers have accumulated concerning the subject before us, in their own commentaries thereon— what various schools of principles there are, what conflicts of opinion, what prolific sources of questions, what perplexing methods of solution.” “Wide are men's inquiries into uncertainties; wider still are their disputes about conjectures.”
“Heraclitus was quite right, when, observing the thick darkness which obscured the researches of the inquirers about the soul, and wearied with their interminable questions, he declared that he had certainly not explored the limits of the soul, although he had traversed every road in her domains.” "To the Christian... few words are necessary for the clear understanding of the whole subject. But in the few words there always arises certainty to him; nor is he permitted to give his inquiries a wider range than is compatible with their solution; for endless questions the apostle [Saint Paul] forbids. [1 Timothy 1:4] It must, however, be added, that no solution may be found by any man, but such as is learned from God; and that which is learned of God is the sum and substance of the whole thing."
“This intelligence has been caught up by philosophy, and, with the view of glorifying her own art, has been inflated (it is not to be wondered at that I use this language) with straining after that facility of language which is practised in the building up and pulling down of everything, and which has greater aptitude for persuading men by speaking than by teaching. She [philosophy] assigns to things their forms and conditions; sometimes makes them common and public, sometimes appropriates them to private use; on certainties she capriciously stamps ... uncertainty; she appeals to precedents... she describes all things by rule and definition, ... she attributes nothing to the divine permission, but assumes as her principles the laws of nature.” Sophists, not philosophers, strain after language. Philosophy attributes nothing to the unexplained and second hand stories about the Divine, but appeals to that eternal constant that is seen, although no understood correctly, by all: Nature.
“I could bear with her [philosophy's] pretensions, if only she were herself true to nature, and would prove to me that she had a mastery over nature as being associated with its creation." “She thought... that she was deriving her mysteries from sacred sources, as men deem them, because in ancient times most authors were supposed to be (I will not say godlike, but) actually gods: as, for instance, the Egyptian Mercury, to whom Plato paid very great deference...” Tertullian confuses or obscures sacred sources, that is, revealed religion, with philosophy. The Egyptian Mercury is the God of Wisdom, Thoth, "Beaky" to his friends.
“Since these philosophers have also made their attacks upon those writings which are condemned by us under the title of apocryphal, certain as we are that nothing ought to be received which does not agree with the true system of prophecy, which has arisen in this present age". If the philosophers attack writings, the form of the attack is that the writings are revealed from God and philosophy can not determine the validity of a revealed text, to wit, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are revealed religions and contradictory, so two are corrupt.
“Because we do not forget that there have been false prophets, and long previous to them fallen spirits, which have instructed the entire tone and aspect of the world with cunning knowledge of this (philosophic) cast?” Tertullian intimates that "fallen spirits" are the origin of philosophy and encourages the curious reader to familiarize himself with the different schools of philosophy:
“If you take the philosophers, you would find in them more diversity than agreement, since even in their agreement their diversity is discoverable.” One can replace "philosophers" with "Church Fathers" and the statement remains verifiable.
“The truth has... been nearly excluded by the philosophers, through the poisons with which they have infected it...” Tertullian is familiar with the writings of philosophers, but neglects to state what consists of these "poisons".
“Now I am not unaware what a vast mass of literature the philosophers have accumulated concerning the subject before us, in their own commentaries thereon— what various schools of principles there are, what conflicts of opinion, what prolific sources of questions, what perplexing methods of solution.” “Wide are men's inquiries into uncertainties; wider still are their disputes about conjectures.”
“Heraclitus was quite right, when, observing the thick darkness which obscured the researches of the inquirers about the soul, and wearied with their interminable questions, he declared that he had certainly not explored the limits of the soul, although he had traversed every road in her domains.” "To the Christian... few words are necessary for the clear understanding of the whole subject. But in the few words there always arises certainty to him; nor is he permitted to give his inquiries a wider range than is compatible with their solution; for endless questions the apostle [Saint Paul] forbids. [1 Timothy 1:4] It must, however, be added, that no solution may be found by any man, but such as is learned from God; and that which is learned of God is the sum and substance of the whole thing."
Chapter 3.
The Soul's Origin Defined Out of the Simple Words of Scripture
"Would to God that no heresies had been ever necessary, in order that they which are approved may be made manifest! [1 Corinthians 10:19]" “We should ... be never required to try our strength in contests about the soul with philosophers, those patriarchs of heretics...”
Any contest with philosophers will demonstrate that the soul is understood only through speculation.
“The apostle [Saint Paul]... foresaw... that philosophy would do violent injury to the truth.” The irony that the lovers of wisdom injure the truth.
“Some of them [philosophers] deny the immortality of the soul; others affirm that it is immortal, and something more. Some raise disputes about its substance; others about its form; others, again, respecting each of its several faculties. One school of philosophers derives its state from various sources, while another ascribes its departure to different destinations. The various schools reflect the character of their masters...” Tertullian points to philosophical truth. When dealing with natural objects, there is no conflict, because there are no opinions, only facts. However, people will have various opinions on justice, since it is a man made concept.
“The fault, I suppose, of the divine doctrine lies in its springing from Judæa [Isaiah 2:3] rather than from Greece. Christ made a mistake, too, in sending forth fishermen to preach, rather than the sophist.” Tertullian intimates that Christ did not act rationally in two instances: by being born in Judea and using fishermen for His message. We Christians claim that “the soul to be formed by the breathing of God, and not out of matter.” The soul is not matter.
Any contest with philosophers will demonstrate that the soul is understood only through speculation.
“The apostle [Saint Paul]... foresaw... that philosophy would do violent injury to the truth.” The irony that the lovers of wisdom injure the truth.
“Some of them [philosophers] deny the immortality of the soul; others affirm that it is immortal, and something more. Some raise disputes about its substance; others about its form; others, again, respecting each of its several faculties. One school of philosophers derives its state from various sources, while another ascribes its departure to different destinations. The various schools reflect the character of their masters...” Tertullian points to philosophical truth. When dealing with natural objects, there is no conflict, because there are no opinions, only facts. However, people will have various opinions on justice, since it is a man made concept.
“The fault, I suppose, of the divine doctrine lies in its springing from Judæa [Isaiah 2:3] rather than from Greece. Christ made a mistake, too, in sending forth fishermen to preach, rather than the sophist.” Tertullian intimates that Christ did not act rationally in two instances: by being born in Judea and using fishermen for His message. We Christians claim that “the soul to be formed by the breathing of God, and not out of matter.” The soul is not matter.
Chapter 4.
In Opposition to Plato, the Soul Was Created and Originated at Birth
After settling the origin of the soul, its condition or state is discussed: “When we acknowledge that the soul originates in the breath of God, it follows that we attribute a beginning to it. This Plato... refuses to assign to it, for he will have the soul to be unborn and unmade.”
“Therefore, as concerns our belief in the souls being made or born, the opinion of the philosopher is overthrown by the authority of prophecy ....”
“Therefore, as concerns our belief in the souls being made or born, the opinion of the philosopher is overthrown by the authority of prophecy ....”
Chapter 5.
Probable View of the Stoics, that the Soul Has a Corporeal Nature
Certain individuals may "possibly hold themselves ready for stripping the soul of its corporeity, unless they happen to see other philosophers opposed to them in their purpose.... asserting for the soul a corporeal nature. Now I am not referring merely to those who mould the soul out of manifest bodily substances, ...out of fire; ... water; ... blood; ... atoms, ... out of a certain indescribable quintessence, if that may be called a body which rather includes and embraces bodily substances..."
“I call on the Stoics ... to help me, who, while declaring almost in our own terms that the soul is a spiritual essence (inasmuch as breath and spirit are in their nature very near akin to each other), will yet have no difficulty in persuading (us) that the soul is a corporeal substance.” “Zeno, defining the soul to be a spirit generated with (the body, ) [and] That substance which by its departure causes the living being to die is a corporeal one.”
“The soul... is (proved to be) corporeal from this inter-communion of susceptibility.” “When the body is deserted by the soul, it is overcome by death. The soul... is endued with a body; ... if it were not corporeal, it could not desert the body.”
“I call on the Stoics ... to help me, who, while declaring almost in our own terms that the soul is a spiritual essence (inasmuch as breath and spirit are in their nature very near akin to each other), will yet have no difficulty in persuading (us) that the soul is a corporeal substance.” “Zeno, defining the soul to be a spirit generated with (the body, ) [and] That substance which by its departure causes the living being to die is a corporeal one.”
“The soul... is (proved to be) corporeal from this inter-communion of susceptibility.” “When the body is deserted by the soul, it is overcome by death. The soul... is endued with a body; ... if it were not corporeal, it could not desert the body.”
Chapter 6.
The Arguments of the Platonists for the Soul's Incorporeality, Opposed, Perhaps Frivolously
Platonists maintain that if a body "has the inanimate nature, it receives motion externally to itself; if the animate one, internally. Now the soul receives motion neither externally nor internally: not externally, since it has not the inanimate nature; nor internally, because it is itself rather the giver of motion to the body.” The soul does not receive motion externally or internally, therefore, it is doubtful that it exists.
Philosophers argue that "every bodily substance is nourished by bodily substances; whereas the soul, as being an incorporeal essence, is nourished by incorporeal aliments— for instance, by the studies of wisdom.” “Soranus.. after .... filling four volumes with his dissertations.... defends the corporeality of the soul, although in the process he has robbed it of its immortality.” The learned Soranus denies the immortal soul.
“For it is not the soul's actual substance which is benefited by the aliment of learned study, but only its conduct and discipline...” "Now that which proceeds from some other thing must ... be second to it. Nothing... proceeds out of another thing except by the process of generation; but then they are two (things)."
Philosophers argue that "every bodily substance is nourished by bodily substances; whereas the soul, as being an incorporeal essence, is nourished by incorporeal aliments— for instance, by the studies of wisdom.” “Soranus.. after .... filling four volumes with his dissertations.... defends the corporeality of the soul, although in the process he has robbed it of its immortality.” The learned Soranus denies the immortal soul.
“For it is not the soul's actual substance which is benefited by the aliment of learned study, but only its conduct and discipline...” "Now that which proceeds from some other thing must ... be second to it. Nothing... proceeds out of another thing except by the process of generation; but then they are two (things)."
Chapter 7.
The Soul's Corporeality Demonstrated Out of the Gospels
“The Gospel ... will be found to have the clearest evidence for the corporeal nature of the soul. In hell the soul of a certain man is in torment..., and imploring ...a happier soul... the solace ... of water. [Luke 16:23-24] Do you suppose that this ... is only imaginary? Then why the name of Lazarus in this narrative, if the circumstance is not in (the category of) a real occurrence? But even if it is to be regarded as imaginary, it will still be a testimony to truth and reality. For unless the soul possessed corporeality, the image of a soul could not possibly contain a finger of a bodily substance; nor would the Scripture feign a statement about the limbs of a body, if these had no existence.”
“But what is that which is removed to Hades after the separation of the body... which is reserved until the day of judgment; to which Christ..., on dying, descended? ... if the soul is nothing in its subterranean abode? For nothing it [the soul] certainly is, if it is not a bodily substance.” The soul is definitely a "bodily substance".
“Whatever is incorporeal is incapable of being kept and guarded in any way [restrained in Hades]; it is also exempt from either punishment or refreshment.” We conclude that it is beyond God's power to restrain souls in Hades. Tertullian argues that an incorporeal soul can not be subjected to punishment. “Whatever amount of punishment or refreshment the soul tastes in Hades...[either] in the fire or in Abraham's bosom, it gives proof ... of its own corporeality. For an incorporeal thing suffers nothing, not having that which makes it capable of suffering; ... if it has such capacity, it must be a bodily substance. For in as far as every corporeal thing is capable of suffering, in so far is that which is capable of suffering also corporeal.”
“But what is that which is removed to Hades after the separation of the body... which is reserved until the day of judgment; to which Christ..., on dying, descended? ... if the soul is nothing in its subterranean abode? For nothing it [the soul] certainly is, if it is not a bodily substance.” The soul is definitely a "bodily substance".
“Whatever is incorporeal is incapable of being kept and guarded in any way [restrained in Hades]; it is also exempt from either punishment or refreshment.” We conclude that it is beyond God's power to restrain souls in Hades. Tertullian argues that an incorporeal soul can not be subjected to punishment. “Whatever amount of punishment or refreshment the soul tastes in Hades...[either] in the fire or in Abraham's bosom, it gives proof ... of its own corporeality. For an incorporeal thing suffers nothing, not having that which makes it capable of suffering; ... if it has such capacity, it must be a bodily substance. For in as far as every corporeal thing is capable of suffering, in so far is that which is capable of suffering also corporeal.”
Chapter 8.
Other Platonist Arguments Considered
“Although corporeal essences are opposed to incorporeal ones, they ... differ from each other in such sort as to amplify their species by their variety, without changing their genus, remaining all alike corporeal; contributing to God's glory in their manifold existence by reason of their variety...” “How much truer and stronger... is the soul's corporeal essence, which carries about the body, which eventually assumes so great a weight with the nimblest motion!” Tertullian suggests that the soul is stronger than the body.
“Even if the soul is invisible, it is only in strict accordance with the condition of its own corporeality, and suitably to the property of its own essence, as well as to the nature of even those beings to which its destiny made it to be invisible.” A quality of the corporeal soul is invisibility. “The soul's corporeality, which is (perhaps) invisible to the flesh, but ... visible to the spirit. Thus John, being in the Spirit of God, [Revelation 1:10] beheld ... the souls of the martyrs. [Revelation 6:9]”
“Even if the soul is invisible, it is only in strict accordance with the condition of its own corporeality, and suitably to the property of its own essence, as well as to the nature of even those beings to which its destiny made it to be invisible.” A quality of the corporeal soul is invisibility. “The soul's corporeality, which is (perhaps) invisible to the flesh, but ... visible to the spirit. Thus John, being in the Spirit of God, [Revelation 1:10] beheld ... the souls of the martyrs. [Revelation 6:9]”
Chapter 9.
Particulars of the Alleged Communication to a Montanist Sister
“We shall not be ... inconsistent if we declare that the more usual characteristics of a body... belong also to the soul— such as form and limitation; and .... length, and breadth and height— by which philosophers gauge all bodies.” “What now remains but for us to give the soul a figure? Plato refuses to do this, as if it endangered the soul's immortality.” “For everything which has figure is... compound, and composed of parts; whereas the soul is immortal; and being immortal, it is therefore indissoluble; and being indissoluble, it is figureless...”
“We have now among us a sister ... favoured with ... gifts of revelation, which she experiences ... [and]... she converses with angels, and sometimes even with the Lord; she both sees and hears mysterious communications; ... [She relates how she] has been shown ... a soul in bodily shape, and a spirit ... not, however, a void and empty illusion, but such as would offer itself to be even grasped by the hand, soft and transparent and of an etherial colour, and in form resembling that of a human being in every respect. This was her vision, and for her witness there was God...” Tertullian states that God was the witness to the sister's ecstasies.
Since "the soul is a corporeal substance, ... it possesses qualities such as ... the property of colour, which is inherent in every bodily substance. Now what colour would you attribute to the soul but an etherial transparent one?” Tertullian suggests that transparency is a color.
“Everything which is very attenuated and transparent bears a strong resemblance to the air, such would be the case with the soul, since in its material nature it is wind and breath, (or spirit); whence it is that the belief of its corporeal quality is endangered, in consequence of the extreme tenuity and subtlety of its essence.” “After God has breathed upon the face of man the breath of life, and man ... become a living soul, surely that breath ... passed ... at once into the interior structure, and have spread itself throughout all the spaces of the body...” The soul is found throughout the body, not in one location, such as the heart.
“The rich man in hell has a tongue and poor (Lazarus) a finger and Abraham a bosom. [Luke 16:23-24] By these features ... the souls of the martyrs under the altar are distinguished and known. [Revelation xxx] The soul ... which in the beginning was associated with Adam's body, which grew with its growth and was moulded after its form proved to be the germ both of the entire substance (of the human soul) and of that (part of) creation.” Tertullian is incorrect, since Abraham does not possess a "bosom". The "Bosom of Abraham" is a euphemism for the abode of the dead. An individual's soul has its beginning in the Adam's soul.
“We have now among us a sister ... favoured with ... gifts of revelation, which she experiences ... [and]... she converses with angels, and sometimes even with the Lord; she both sees and hears mysterious communications; ... [She relates how she] has been shown ... a soul in bodily shape, and a spirit ... not, however, a void and empty illusion, but such as would offer itself to be even grasped by the hand, soft and transparent and of an etherial colour, and in form resembling that of a human being in every respect. This was her vision, and for her witness there was God...” Tertullian states that God was the witness to the sister's ecstasies.
Since "the soul is a corporeal substance, ... it possesses qualities such as ... the property of colour, which is inherent in every bodily substance. Now what colour would you attribute to the soul but an etherial transparent one?” Tertullian suggests that transparency is a color.
“Everything which is very attenuated and transparent bears a strong resemblance to the air, such would be the case with the soul, since in its material nature it is wind and breath, (or spirit); whence it is that the belief of its corporeal quality is endangered, in consequence of the extreme tenuity and subtlety of its essence.” “After God has breathed upon the face of man the breath of life, and man ... become a living soul, surely that breath ... passed ... at once into the interior structure, and have spread itself throughout all the spaces of the body...” The soul is found throughout the body, not in one location, such as the heart.
“The rich man in hell has a tongue and poor (Lazarus) a finger and Abraham a bosom. [Luke 16:23-24] By these features ... the souls of the martyrs under the altar are distinguished and known. [Revelation xxx] The soul ... which in the beginning was associated with Adam's body, which grew with its growth and was moulded after its form proved to be the germ both of the entire substance (of the human soul) and of that (part of) creation.” Tertullian is incorrect, since Abraham does not possess a "bosom". The "Bosom of Abraham" is a euphemism for the abode of the dead. An individual's soul has its beginning in the Adam's soul.
Chapter 10.
The Simple Nature of the Soul is Asserted with Plato. The Identity of Spirit and Soul
“It is essential to a firm faith to declare with Plato that the soul is simple; in other words uniform and uncompounded... in respect of its substance. Never mind men's artificial views and theories...!” Since Tertullian is eager to ignore men's theories about the substance of the soul, we expect repeated references to a multitude of pagan authors. Although man is "furnished with lungs and windpipes, [he] will not ... be proved to breathe by one process, and to live by another...”
”Herophilus... in order to investigate the secrets of nature... ruthlessly handled human creatures to discover (their form and make)...” Tertullian expresses his opinion on autopsies: "I have my doubts whether he [Herophilus] succeeded in clearly exploring all the internal parts of their structure, ... especially when the death is not a natural one, but such as must cause irregularity and error amidst the very processes of dissection."
“Philosophers have affirmed it to be a certain fact, that gnats, and ants, and moths have no pulmonary or arterial organs.” “You can more readily believe this, if you remember that God manifests His creative greatness quite as much in small objects as in the very largest. If... you suppose that God's wisdom has no capacity for forming such infinitesimal corpuscles, you can still recognise His greatness, in that He has furnished even to the smallest animals the functions of life...” God's greatness is confirmed by acknowledging that the smallest animals exist, yet is powerless to restrain incorporeal souls in Hades.
“To live is one thing, and to breathe is another. Substances are distinguished by their operations. How much firmer ground have you for believing that the soul and the spirit are but one, since you assign to them no difference, so that the soul is itself the spirit, respiration being the function of that of which life also is!”
“There be different sorts of spirits, according as they emanate from God or from the devil. Whenever... the question is about soul and spirit, the soul will be (understood to be) itself the spirit...” The soul and the spirit are synonymous.
”Herophilus... in order to investigate the secrets of nature... ruthlessly handled human creatures to discover (their form and make)...” Tertullian expresses his opinion on autopsies: "I have my doubts whether he [Herophilus] succeeded in clearly exploring all the internal parts of their structure, ... especially when the death is not a natural one, but such as must cause irregularity and error amidst the very processes of dissection."
“Philosophers have affirmed it to be a certain fact, that gnats, and ants, and moths have no pulmonary or arterial organs.” “You can more readily believe this, if you remember that God manifests His creative greatness quite as much in small objects as in the very largest. If... you suppose that God's wisdom has no capacity for forming such infinitesimal corpuscles, you can still recognise His greatness, in that He has furnished even to the smallest animals the functions of life...” God's greatness is confirmed by acknowledging that the smallest animals exist, yet is powerless to restrain incorporeal souls in Hades.
“To live is one thing, and to breathe is another. Substances are distinguished by their operations. How much firmer ground have you for believing that the soul and the spirit are but one, since you assign to them no difference, so that the soul is itself the spirit, respiration being the function of that of which life also is!”
“There be different sorts of spirits, according as they emanate from God or from the devil. Whenever... the question is about soul and spirit, the soul will be (understood to be) itself the spirit...” The soul and the spirit are synonymous.
Chapter 11.
Spirit— A Term Expressive of an Operation of the Soul, Not of Its Nature. To Be Carefully Distinguished from the Spirit of God
Tertullian calls the soul either "spirit or breath, because to breathe is ascribed to another substance. We, however, claim this (operation) for the soul, which we acknowledge to be an indivisible simple substance, and therefore we must call it spirit ...— not because of its condition, but of its action; not in respect of its nature, but of its operation; because it respires, and not because it is spirit in any special sense.” Tertullian calls the soul either spirit or breath and thereby he creates unnecessary confusion in identifying the soul.
The basic mythology of Gnosticism are explained: “Heretics ... introduce into the soul some spiritual germ which passes my comprehension: (they make it to have been) conferred upon the soul by the secret liberality of her mother Sophia (Wisdom), without the knowledge of the Creator. But (Holy) Scripture, which has a better knowledge of the soul's Maker, or rather God, has told us nothing more than that God breathed on man's face the breath of life, and that man became a living soul, by means of which he was both to live and breathe; at the same time making a sufficiently clear distinction between the spirit and the soul... wherein God Himself declares: My Spirit went forth from me, and I made the breath of each. And the breath of my Spirit became soul. And again: He gives breath unto the people that are on the earth, and Spirit to them that walk thereon. [Isaiah 42:5]"
"First of all there comes the (natural) soul, that is to say, the breath, to the people ... who act carnally in the flesh; then afterwards comes the Spirit to those who walk thereon—that is, who subdue the works of the flesh; because the apostle [Saint Paul] also says, that that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, (or in possession of the natural soul,) and afterward that which is spiritual. “
“For, inasmuch as Adam straightway predicted that great mystery of Christ and the church, [Ephesians 5:31-32] when he said, This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they two shall become one flesh, [Genesis 2:24-25] he experienced the influence of the Spirit. For there fell upon him that ecstasy, which is the Holy Ghost's operative virtue of prophecy."
"And even the evil spirit too is an influence which comes upon a man. Indeed, the Spirit of God not more really turned Saul into another man, 1 Samuel 10:6 that is to say, into a prophet, when people said one to another, What is this which has come to the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets? 1 Samuel 10:11 than did the evil spirit afterwards turn him into another man— in other words, into an apostate. Judas likewise was for a long time reckoned among the elect (apostles), and was even appointed to the office of their treasurer; he was not yet the traitor, although he was become fraudulent; but afterwards the devil entered into him.
“Consequently, as the spirit neither of God nor of the devil is naturally planted with a man's soul at his birth, this soul must evidently exist apart and alone, previous to the accession to it of either spirit: if thus apart and alone, it must also be simple and uncompounded as regards its substance; and therefore it cannot respire from any other cause than from the actual condition of its own substance.”
The basic mythology of Gnosticism are explained: “Heretics ... introduce into the soul some spiritual germ which passes my comprehension: (they make it to have been) conferred upon the soul by the secret liberality of her mother Sophia (Wisdom), without the knowledge of the Creator. But (Holy) Scripture, which has a better knowledge of the soul's Maker, or rather God, has told us nothing more than that God breathed on man's face the breath of life, and that man became a living soul, by means of which he was both to live and breathe; at the same time making a sufficiently clear distinction between the spirit and the soul... wherein God Himself declares: My Spirit went forth from me, and I made the breath of each. And the breath of my Spirit became soul. And again: He gives breath unto the people that are on the earth, and Spirit to them that walk thereon. [Isaiah 42:5]"
"First of all there comes the (natural) soul, that is to say, the breath, to the people ... who act carnally in the flesh; then afterwards comes the Spirit to those who walk thereon—that is, who subdue the works of the flesh; because the apostle [Saint Paul] also says, that that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, (or in possession of the natural soul,) and afterward that which is spiritual. “
“For, inasmuch as Adam straightway predicted that great mystery of Christ and the church, [Ephesians 5:31-32] when he said, This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they two shall become one flesh, [Genesis 2:24-25] he experienced the influence of the Spirit. For there fell upon him that ecstasy, which is the Holy Ghost's operative virtue of prophecy."
"And even the evil spirit too is an influence which comes upon a man. Indeed, the Spirit of God not more really turned Saul into another man, 1 Samuel 10:6 that is to say, into a prophet, when people said one to another, What is this which has come to the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets? 1 Samuel 10:11 than did the evil spirit afterwards turn him into another man— in other words, into an apostate. Judas likewise was for a long time reckoned among the elect (apostles), and was even appointed to the office of their treasurer; he was not yet the traitor, although he was become fraudulent; but afterwards the devil entered into him.
“Consequently, as the spirit neither of God nor of the devil is naturally planted with a man's soul at his birth, this soul must evidently exist apart and alone, previous to the accession to it of either spirit: if thus apart and alone, it must also be simple and uncompounded as regards its substance; and therefore it cannot respire from any other cause than from the actual condition of its own substance.”
Chapter 12.
Difference Between the Mind and the Soul, and the Relation Between Them
The necessity of clarifying Gnostic cosmology with Plato's idea: “The mind ... which the Greeks designate ΝΟΥΣ [nous], is taken by us ...as indicating that faculty ... which is inherent ... in the soul, and ... proper to it, whereby it acts, ... acquires knowledge, and by the possession of which it is capable of a spontaneity of motion within itself, and of ... appearing to be impelled by the mind, as if it were another substance, as is maintained by those who determine the soul to be the moving principle of the universe — the god of Socrates, Valentinus' only-begotten of his father Bythus, and his mother Sige.” The mind can move within itself.
“The soul is susceptible of those emotions which it falls to it naturally to suffer, it must ... suffer either by the mind or with the mind... if the soul is by nature associated with the mind, [then] it is impossible to draw the conclusion that the mind is impassible... if the soul suffers not either by the mind or with the mind, [then] it cannot possibly have a natural association with the mind, with which it suffers nothing, and which suffers nothing itself. ... if the soul suffers nothing by the mind and with the mind, [then] it will experience no sensation, nor will it acquire any knowledge, nor will it undergo any emotion through the agency of the mind, as they maintain it will. “
“The question will arise how two can be one— whether by the confusion of two substances, or by the disposition of one? We... affirm that the mind coalesces with the soul—not indeed as being distinct from it in substance, but as being its natural function and agent.” The mind is the natural function and agent of the soul.
“The soul is susceptible of those emotions which it falls to it naturally to suffer, it must ... suffer either by the mind or with the mind... if the soul is by nature associated with the mind, [then] it is impossible to draw the conclusion that the mind is impassible... if the soul suffers not either by the mind or with the mind, [then] it cannot possibly have a natural association with the mind, with which it suffers nothing, and which suffers nothing itself. ... if the soul suffers nothing by the mind and with the mind, [then] it will experience no sensation, nor will it acquire any knowledge, nor will it undergo any emotion through the agency of the mind, as they maintain it will. “
“The question will arise how two can be one— whether by the confusion of two substances, or by the disposition of one? We... affirm that the mind coalesces with the soul—not indeed as being distinct from it in substance, but as being its natural function and agent.” The mind is the natural function and agent of the soul.
Chapter 13.
The Soul's Supremacy
The confusion of the mind and soul is the result of careless speaking: “How many souls, says the rich man, do I maintain? Not how many minds. The pilot's desire,... is to rescue so many souls from shipwreck, not so many minds; ...and the soldier on the field of battle, affirms that he lays down his soul (or life), not his mind.”
“Which of the two has its perils ... and wishes more frequently on men's lips— the mind or the soul? ... In short, philosophers themselves...when it is their purpose to discourse about the mind, do in every instance inscribe on their title-page and table of contents, De Anima ( A treatise on the soul).” Tertullian charges that philosophers contribute to the confusion between the mind and soul.
"It is the soul which He [God] addresses; it is the soul which He exhorts and counsels, to turn the mind and intellect to Him. It is the soul which Christ came to save; it is the soul which He threatens to destroy in hell; it is the soul (or life) which He forbids being made too much of; it is His soul, too (or life), which the good Shepherd Himself lays down for His sheep ... It is to the soul... that you ascribe the supremacy; in it also you possess that union of substance, of which you perceive the mind to be the instrument, not the ruling power.”
“Which of the two has its perils ... and wishes more frequently on men's lips— the mind or the soul? ... In short, philosophers themselves...when it is their purpose to discourse about the mind, do in every instance inscribe on their title-page and table of contents, De Anima ( A treatise on the soul).” Tertullian charges that philosophers contribute to the confusion between the mind and soul.
"It is the soul which He [God] addresses; it is the soul which He exhorts and counsels, to turn the mind and intellect to Him. It is the soul which Christ came to save; it is the soul which He threatens to destroy in hell; it is the soul (or life) which He forbids being made too much of; it is His soul, too (or life), which the good Shepherd Himself lays down for His sheep ... It is to the soul... that you ascribe the supremacy; in it also you possess that union of substance, of which you perceive the mind to be the instrument, not the ruling power.”
Chapter 14.
The Soul Variously Divided by the Philosophers; This Division is Not a Material Dissection
“Being thus single, simple, and entire in itself, it is as incapable of being composed ... from external constituents, as it is of being divided in and of itself, inasmuch as it is indissoluble.” “For if it had been possible to construct it and to destroy it [the soul], it would no longer be immortal. Since... it is not mortal, it is also incapable of dissolution and division.” Tertullian states the obvious: if the soul can be destroyed , then it is not immortal. He claims it is not mortal.
“To be divided means to be dissolved, and to be dissolved means to die. Yet (philosophers) have divided the soul into parts..... the soul dissected by the different [philosophical] schools.” “Such divisions...ought not to be regarded so much as parts of the soul, as powers, or faculties, or operations thereof, …, but functions of the soul— such as those of motion, of action, of thought, and whatsoever others they divide in this manner; such, likewise, as the five senses themselves” Tertullian's soul maintains an active lifestyle.
“Under what designations these energies [of the soul] are to be known, and by what divisions of themselves they are to be classified, and to what special offices and functions in the body they are to be severally confined... the philosophers must consider and decide” Tertullian allows the important subject of the classification of the divisions of the soul to be taken up, and explained, by the heathen and heretical philosophers.
“To be divided means to be dissolved, and to be dissolved means to die. Yet (philosophers) have divided the soul into parts..... the soul dissected by the different [philosophical] schools.” “Such divisions...ought not to be regarded so much as parts of the soul, as powers, or faculties, or operations thereof, …, but functions of the soul— such as those of motion, of action, of thought, and whatsoever others they divide in this manner; such, likewise, as the five senses themselves” Tertullian's soul maintains an active lifestyle.
“Under what designations these energies [of the soul] are to be known, and by what divisions of themselves they are to be classified, and to what special offices and functions in the body they are to be severally confined... the philosophers must consider and decide” Tertullian allows the important subject of the classification of the divisions of the soul to be taken up, and explained, by the heathen and heretical philosophers.
Chapter 15.
The Soul's Vitality and Intelligence. Its Character and Seat in Man
"(We must determine) whether there be in the soul some supreme principle of vitality and intelligence ... for if this be not admitted, the whole condition of the soul is put in jeopardy. Indeed, those men who say that there is no such directing faculty, have begun by supposing that the soul itself is simply a nonentity." Some men suppose that the soul does not exist and by extension, there is no vitality or intelligence. Certain individuals have "destroyed the (soul's) directing power, by actually placing in the mind the senses, for which they claim the ruling faculty."
Asclepiades argues "that ... many animals, after losing those parts of their body in which the soul's principle of vitality and sensation is thought ... to exist, still retain life in a considerable degree... as ... of she-goats, and tortoises, and eels, when you have pulled out their hearts. (He concludes)... that there is no special principle or power of the soul; for if there were, the soul's vigour and strength could not continue when it was removed with its domiciles (or corporeal organs).”
“We are taught by God ... that there is a ruling power in the soul, and that it is enshrined in one particular recess of the body. For, when one reads of God as being the searcher ... of the heart; [Wisdom 1:6] ... discovering.. the secrets of the heart; [Proverbs 24:12] ... the thoughts of their heart, ...[Matthew 9:4] ... and Paul declares, With the heart man believes unto righteousness, [Romans 10:10] and John says, By his own heart is each man condemned; [1 John 3:20 ]when, lastly ... in his heart, [Matthew 5:28] — then both points are cleared fully up, that there is a directing faculty of the soul, with which the purpose of God may agree; in other words, a supreme principle of intelligence and vitality (for where there is intelligence, there must be vitality), and that it resides in that most precious part of our body to which God especially looks...”
“You must not suppose... that this sovereign faculty of which we are treating is moved by some external force; nor ... that it floats about through the whole body; nor ... that it is enclosed in the head; nor ... that it culminates in the crown of the head; nor that it reposes in the brain... nor around the basis of the brain... nor in the membranes thereof, ...nor in the space between the eyebrows,...; nor within the enclosure of the breast...: but rather, as the Egyptians have always taught... Man has his (supreme) sensation in the blood around his heart."
We learn that the soul is found in the heart. Tertullian denies the idea that the soul floats through the whole body and he denies the speculations of the location of the soul as expounded by various commentators and he agrees with what the Egyptians have always taught, the soul is found in the heart. Tertullian concludes with an ad hominem attack on the the philosophers “ who have predetermined the character of the human soul from ... brute animals" and the reader can "be quite sure that it is themselves rather who are alive in a heartless and brainless state.”
Asclepiades argues "that ... many animals, after losing those parts of their body in which the soul's principle of vitality and sensation is thought ... to exist, still retain life in a considerable degree... as ... of she-goats, and tortoises, and eels, when you have pulled out their hearts. (He concludes)... that there is no special principle or power of the soul; for if there were, the soul's vigour and strength could not continue when it was removed with its domiciles (or corporeal organs).”
“We are taught by God ... that there is a ruling power in the soul, and that it is enshrined in one particular recess of the body. For, when one reads of God as being the searcher ... of the heart; [Wisdom 1:6] ... discovering.. the secrets of the heart; [Proverbs 24:12] ... the thoughts of their heart, ...[Matthew 9:4] ... and Paul declares, With the heart man believes unto righteousness, [Romans 10:10] and John says, By his own heart is each man condemned; [1 John 3:20 ]when, lastly ... in his heart, [Matthew 5:28] — then both points are cleared fully up, that there is a directing faculty of the soul, with which the purpose of God may agree; in other words, a supreme principle of intelligence and vitality (for where there is intelligence, there must be vitality), and that it resides in that most precious part of our body to which God especially looks...”
“You must not suppose... that this sovereign faculty of which we are treating is moved by some external force; nor ... that it floats about through the whole body; nor ... that it is enclosed in the head; nor ... that it culminates in the crown of the head; nor that it reposes in the brain... nor around the basis of the brain... nor in the membranes thereof, ...nor in the space between the eyebrows,...; nor within the enclosure of the breast...: but rather, as the Egyptians have always taught... Man has his (supreme) sensation in the blood around his heart."
We learn that the soul is found in the heart. Tertullian denies the idea that the soul floats through the whole body and he denies the speculations of the location of the soul as expounded by various commentators and he agrees with what the Egyptians have always taught, the soul is found in the heart. Tertullian concludes with an ad hominem attack on the the philosophers “ who have predetermined the character of the human soul from ... brute animals" and the reader can "be quite sure that it is themselves rather who are alive in a heartless and brainless state.”
Chapter 16.
The Soul's Parts. Elements of the Rational Soul
“That position of Plato's is... in keeping with the faith, in which he divides the soul into two parts— the rational and the irrational.” Surprisingly, Plato's division of the soul into the rational and the irrational is consistent with the Christian faith. “We would not ascribe this twofold distinction to the nature (of the soul). It is the rational element which we must believe to be its natural condition, impressed upon it from its very first creation by its Author...” Tertullian gives no reasoning why the soul's natural condition must be rational.
The Author of the soul “who is Himself essentially rational.” The essence of the Author is reason and it is reasonable to suppose that the essence of God is Divinity. Therefore, the Author or Creator and God are not identical, as they possess different essences. "For how should that be other than rational, which God produced [and] which He expressly sent forth by His own ... breath?"
“The irrational element... we must understand to have accrued later, as having proceeded from the instigation of the serpent— the very achievement of (the first) transgression— which thenceforward became inherent in the soul, and ... assuming the manner by this time of a natural development, happening as it did immediately at the beginning of nature.” Tertullian claims that man's irrational nature is a natural development at the immediate beginning of nature. The Fall did not happen immediately after creation of Adam. but after an indeterminate time [Genesis 2:7]. Tertullian contradicts himself by stating the irrational "accrued later" and "at the beginning".
“Plato speaks of the rational element only as existing in the soul of God Himself, if we were to ascribe the irrational element likewise to the nature which our soul has received from God, then the irrational element will be equally derived from God, as being a natural production, because God is the author of nature.” The "natural production" is not a Divine production.
“Now from the devil proceeds the incentive to sin. All sin... is irrational: therefore the irrational proceeds from the devil... and it is extraneous to God, to whom also the irrational is an alien principle.” Unfortunately, Tertullian has not defined “sin” before declaring that it is irrational and comes from the devil.
"The diversity... between these two elements arises from the difference of their authors. When... Plato reserves the rational element (of the soul) to God alone, and subdivides it into ... the irascible, which they call θυμικόν, and the concupiscible, which they designate by the term ἐπιθυμητικόν (in such a way as to make the first common to us and lions, and the second shared between ourselves and flies, while the rational element is confined to us and God)— I see that this point will have to be treated by us, owing to the facts which we find operating also in Christ."
"For you may behold this triad of qualities in the Lord. There was the rational element... by which He prepared the way of salvation; there was moreover indignation in Him, by which He inveighed against the ... the Pharisees; and there was the principle of desire, by which He so earnestly desired to eat the passover ... [Luke 22:15]"
“In our own cases... the irascible and the concupiscible elements of our soul must not invariably be put to the account of the irrational (nature), since we are sure that in our Lord these elements operated in entire accordance with reason. God will be angry, with perfect reason... and with reason... will God desire whatever objects and claims are worthy of Himself.” Tertullian appeals to reason.
The Author of the soul “who is Himself essentially rational.” The essence of the Author is reason and it is reasonable to suppose that the essence of God is Divinity. Therefore, the Author or Creator and God are not identical, as they possess different essences. "For how should that be other than rational, which God produced [and] which He expressly sent forth by His own ... breath?"
“The irrational element... we must understand to have accrued later, as having proceeded from the instigation of the serpent— the very achievement of (the first) transgression— which thenceforward became inherent in the soul, and ... assuming the manner by this time of a natural development, happening as it did immediately at the beginning of nature.” Tertullian claims that man's irrational nature is a natural development at the immediate beginning of nature. The Fall did not happen immediately after creation of Adam. but after an indeterminate time [Genesis 2:7]. Tertullian contradicts himself by stating the irrational "accrued later" and "at the beginning".
“Plato speaks of the rational element only as existing in the soul of God Himself, if we were to ascribe the irrational element likewise to the nature which our soul has received from God, then the irrational element will be equally derived from God, as being a natural production, because God is the author of nature.” The "natural production" is not a Divine production.
“Now from the devil proceeds the incentive to sin. All sin... is irrational: therefore the irrational proceeds from the devil... and it is extraneous to God, to whom also the irrational is an alien principle.” Unfortunately, Tertullian has not defined “sin” before declaring that it is irrational and comes from the devil.
"The diversity... between these two elements arises from the difference of their authors. When... Plato reserves the rational element (of the soul) to God alone, and subdivides it into ... the irascible, which they call θυμικόν, and the concupiscible, which they designate by the term ἐπιθυμητικόν (in such a way as to make the first common to us and lions, and the second shared between ourselves and flies, while the rational element is confined to us and God)— I see that this point will have to be treated by us, owing to the facts which we find operating also in Christ."
"For you may behold this triad of qualities in the Lord. There was the rational element... by which He prepared the way of salvation; there was moreover indignation in Him, by which He inveighed against the ... the Pharisees; and there was the principle of desire, by which He so earnestly desired to eat the passover ... [Luke 22:15]"
“In our own cases... the irascible and the concupiscible elements of our soul must not invariably be put to the account of the irrational (nature), since we are sure that in our Lord these elements operated in entire accordance with reason. God will be angry, with perfect reason... and with reason... will God desire whatever objects and claims are worthy of Himself.” Tertullian appeals to reason.
Chapter 17.
The Fidelity of the Senses, Impugned by Plato, Vindicated by Christ Himself
“The fidelity of these senses is impugned ... by the Platonists, and ... Plato... declares the operations of the senses to be irrational, and vitiated by our opinions or beliefs.” “According to them, our senses deceive us, when all the while we are (the cause of the discrepancies, by) changing our opinions.”
“The Epicureans [state] It is not our organs of sensation that are at fault, but our opinion. The senses only experience sensation, they do not exercise opinion; it is the soul that opines. They separated opinion from the senses, and sensation from the soul. Well, but whence comes opinion, if not from the senses?” Tertullian appeals to the perception of the natural order for the origin of opinions.
“Sensation comes from the soul, and opinion from sensation; and the whole (process) is the soul.” Tertullian claims that opinion comes from the senses and sensation from the soul. But, he applies the term "soul" to the process.
"It may well be insisted on that there is a something which causes the discrepancy between the report of the senses and the reality of the facts. Now, since it is possible, (as we have seen), for phenomena to be reported which exist not in the objects, why should it not be equally possible for phenomena to be reported which are caused not by the senses, but by reasons and conditions which intervene, in the very nature of the case? If so, it will be only right that they should be duly recognised."
"We are bound ... to claim for the senses truth, and fidelity, and integrity, seeing that they never render any other account of their impressions than is enjoined on them by the specific causes or conditions which in all cases produce that discrepancy which appears between the report of the senses and the reality of the objects. ... "
Platonists "overthrow the entire condition of human life; you disturb the whole order of nature; you obscure the good providence of God Himself: for the senses of man which God has appointed over all His works, that we might understand, inhabit, dispense, and enjoy them... But is it not from these that all creation receives our services? Is it not by their means that a second form is impressed even upon the world?— so many arts, so many industrious resources, so many pursuits, such business, such offices, such commerce, such remedies, counsels, consolations, modes, civilizations, and accomplishments of life! All these things have produced the very relish and savour of human existence; while by these senses of man, he alone of all animated nature has the distinction of being a rational animal, with a capacity for intelligence and knowledge..."
“But Plato, in order to disparage the testimony of the senses, ... denies (in the person of Socrates) his own ability to know even himself, according to the injunction of the Delphic oracle; and ... he deprives himself of the faculties of knowledge and sensation; and ... he postpones till after death the posthumous knowledge... of the truth; and yet for all he went on playing the philosopher even before he died.” While the existence of the next life can be speculated upon during this life, the knowledge of the next life will only come after death. Either one wakes up to a new existence or not.
If we doubt the senses, then we "bring doubt upon the truth of their sensation; lest perchance it should be said that He [Christ] did not really behold Satan as lightning fall from heaven; [Luke 10:18] that He did not really hear the Father's voice testifying of Himself; [Matthew 3:17] or that He was deceived in touching Peter's wife's mother; [Matthew 8:15]" [also Matthew 26:7-12] .
Marcion believed Christ "was a phantom, denying to Him the reality of a perfect body. Now, not even to His apostles was His nature ever a matter of deception. He was truly both seen and heard upon the mount; [Matthew 17:3-8] true and real was the draught of that wine at the marriage of (Cana in) Galilee; [John 2:1-10] true and real also was the touch of ... Thomas. [John 20:27] ... That which we have seen, which we have heard, which we have looked upon with our eyes, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life. [1 John 1:1] False.., and deceptive must have been that testimony, if the witness of our eyes, and ears, and hands be by nature a lie."
“The Epicureans [state] It is not our organs of sensation that are at fault, but our opinion. The senses only experience sensation, they do not exercise opinion; it is the soul that opines. They separated opinion from the senses, and sensation from the soul. Well, but whence comes opinion, if not from the senses?” Tertullian appeals to the perception of the natural order for the origin of opinions.
“Sensation comes from the soul, and opinion from sensation; and the whole (process) is the soul.” Tertullian claims that opinion comes from the senses and sensation from the soul. But, he applies the term "soul" to the process.
"It may well be insisted on that there is a something which causes the discrepancy between the report of the senses and the reality of the facts. Now, since it is possible, (as we have seen), for phenomena to be reported which exist not in the objects, why should it not be equally possible for phenomena to be reported which are caused not by the senses, but by reasons and conditions which intervene, in the very nature of the case? If so, it will be only right that they should be duly recognised."
"We are bound ... to claim for the senses truth, and fidelity, and integrity, seeing that they never render any other account of their impressions than is enjoined on them by the specific causes or conditions which in all cases produce that discrepancy which appears between the report of the senses and the reality of the objects. ... "
Platonists "overthrow the entire condition of human life; you disturb the whole order of nature; you obscure the good providence of God Himself: for the senses of man which God has appointed over all His works, that we might understand, inhabit, dispense, and enjoy them... But is it not from these that all creation receives our services? Is it not by their means that a second form is impressed even upon the world?— so many arts, so many industrious resources, so many pursuits, such business, such offices, such commerce, such remedies, counsels, consolations, modes, civilizations, and accomplishments of life! All these things have produced the very relish and savour of human existence; while by these senses of man, he alone of all animated nature has the distinction of being a rational animal, with a capacity for intelligence and knowledge..."
“But Plato, in order to disparage the testimony of the senses, ... denies (in the person of Socrates) his own ability to know even himself, according to the injunction of the Delphic oracle; and ... he deprives himself of the faculties of knowledge and sensation; and ... he postpones till after death the posthumous knowledge... of the truth; and yet for all he went on playing the philosopher even before he died.” While the existence of the next life can be speculated upon during this life, the knowledge of the next life will only come after death. Either one wakes up to a new existence or not.
If we doubt the senses, then we "bring doubt upon the truth of their sensation; lest perchance it should be said that He [Christ] did not really behold Satan as lightning fall from heaven; [Luke 10:18] that He did not really hear the Father's voice testifying of Himself; [Matthew 3:17] or that He was deceived in touching Peter's wife's mother; [Matthew 8:15]" [also Matthew 26:7-12] .
Marcion believed Christ "was a phantom, denying to Him the reality of a perfect body. Now, not even to His apostles was His nature ever a matter of deception. He was truly both seen and heard upon the mount; [Matthew 17:3-8] true and real was the draught of that wine at the marriage of (Cana in) Galilee; [John 2:1-10] true and real also was the touch of ... Thomas. [John 20:27] ... That which we have seen, which we have heard, which we have looked upon with our eyes, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life. [1 John 1:1] False.., and deceptive must have been that testimony, if the witness of our eyes, and ears, and hands be by nature a lie."
Chapter 18.
Plato Suggested Certain Errors to the Gnostics. Functions of the Soul
Interestingly, Tertullian is desirous that the reader believes that the pagan Plato is responsible for Christian heresies:
"I turn now to ... our intellectual faculties, such as Plato has handed it over to the heretics..., having obtained the knowledge of them before death. He asks in the Phædo, ... Will the body be a hindrance to it [possession of knowledge] or not, if one shall admit it as an associate in the search after knowledge? I have a similar question to ask: Have the faculties of their sight and hearing any truth and reality for human beings or not? ...even the poets are always muttering against us, that we can never hear or see anything for certain? He remembered... what Epicharmus the comic poet had said: It is the mind which sees, the mind that hears— all else is blind and deaf. ... he says ... that man is the wisest whose mental power is the clearest; who never applies the sense of sight, nor adds to his mind the help of any such faculty, but employs the intellect itself in unmixed serenity when he indulges in contemplation for the purpose of acquiring an unalloyed insight into the nature of things; divorcing himself with all his might from his eyes and ears and (as one must express himself) from the whole of his body, on the ground of its disturbing the soul, and not allowing it to possess either truth or wisdom, whenever it is brought into communication with it. We see..., that in opposition to the bodily senses another faculty is provided of a much more serviceable character, even the powers of the soul, which produce an understanding of that truth whose realities are not palpable nor open to the bodily senses, but are very remote from men's everyday knowledge, lying in secret— in the heights above, and in the presence of God Himself."
The Gnostic concept of eons are found in Plato's theory of forms: "Plato maintains that there are certain invisible substances, incorporeal, celestial, divine, and eternal, which they call ideas, that is to say, (archetypal) forms, which are the patterns and causes of those objects of nature which are manifest to us, and lie under our corporeal senses: the former, (according to Plato,) are the actual verities, and the latter the images and likenesses of them. ...are there not here gleams of the heretical principles of the Gnostics and the Valentinians?" "It is from this philosophy that they ... adopt the difference between the bodily senses and the intellectual faculties"
"(We have) the mystic original of the ideas of these heretics. For in this philosophy lie both their Æons and their genealogies. Thus,... do they divide sensation, both into the intellectual powers from their spiritual seed, and the sensuous faculties from the animal, which cannot by any means comprehend spiritual things. From the former germ spring invisible things; from the latter, visible things which are grovelling and temporary, and which are obvious to the senses, placed as ... in palpable forms. It is because of these views that we have ... stated ... that the mind is nothing else than an ...instrument of the soul, and that the spirit is no other faculty, separate from the soul, but is the soul itself exercised in respiration; although that influence which either God on the one hand, or the devil on the other, has breathed upon it, must be regarded in the light of an additional element."
"With respect to the difference between the intellectual powers and the sensuous faculties, we only admit it so far as the natural diversity between them requires of us."
"(There is, of course, a difference) between things corporeal and things spiritual, between visible and invisible beings... because the one class are attributed to sensation, and the other to the intellect." Tertullian states the obvious.
"For is it not true, that to employ the senses is to use the intellect? And to employ the intellect amounts to a use of the senses? What indeed can sensation be, but the understanding of that which is the object of the sensation? And what can the intellect or understanding be, but the seeing of that which is the object understood?" "Why adopt such excruciating means of torturing simple knowledge and crucifying the truth?"
"If corporeal things are the objects of sense, and incorporeal ones objects of the intellect, it is the classes of the objects which are different, not the domicile or abode of sense and intellect; in other words, not the soul (anima) and the mind (animus)." "By what... are corporeal things perceived? If it is by the soul, then the mind is a sensuous faculty, and not merely an intellectual power; for while it understands, it also perceives, because without the perception there is no understanding. If... corporeal things are perceived by the soul, then it follows that the soul's power is an intellectual one, and not merely a sensuous faculty; for while it perceives it also understands, because without understanding there is no perceiving."
"By what are incorporeal things understood? If it is by the mind, where will be the soul? If it is by the soul, where will be the mind? For things which differ ought to be mutually absent from each other, when they are occupied in their respective functions and duties. It must be your opinion, indeed, that the mind is absent from the soul on certain occasions; for (you suppose) that we are so made and constituted as not to know that we have seen or heard something, on the hypothesis that the mind was absent at the time. I must therefore maintain that the very soul itself neither saw nor heard, since it was at the given moment absent with its active power— that is to say, the mind." Tertullian continues confusing the reader by stating that the mind and the soul are synonymous.
"The truth is, that whenever a man is out of his mind, it is his soul that is demented— not because the mind is absent, but because it is a fellow-sufferer (with the soul) at the time. Indeed, it is the soul which is principally affected by casualties of such a kind. Whence is this fact confirmed?" Demented souls cause physiological problems.
"It is confirmed from the following consideration: that after the soul's departure, the mind is no longer found in a man: it always follows the soul; nor does it at last remain behind it alone, after death." "Since it [the mind] follows the soul, it is also indissolubly attached to it; just as the understanding is attached to the soul, which is followed by the mind, with which the understanding is indissolubly connected." The mind follows the soul.
"Understanding is superior to the senses, and a better discoverer of mysteries, what matters it, so long as it is only a peculiar faculty of the soul, just as the senses themselves are?" Understanding and sensation are faculties of the soul. We wonder if the "mysteries" the soul understands are not Gnostic mysteries.
"It does not at all affect my argument, unless the understanding were held to be superior to the senses, for the purpose of deducing from the allegation of such superiority its separate condition likewise. After thus combating their alleged difference, I have also to refute this question of superiority, previous to my approaching the belief (which heresy propounds) in a superior god. On this point, however, of a (superior) god, we shall have to measure swords with the heretics on their own ground."
"Our present subject concerns the soul, and the point is to prevent the insidious ascription of a superiority to the intellect or understanding. Now, although the objects which are touched by the intellect are of a higher nature, since they are spiritual, than those which are embraced by the senses, since these are corporeal, it will still be only a superiority in the objects— as of lofty ones contrasted with humble— not in the faculties of the intellect against the senses." The intellect is of a higher spiritual nature and the senses are of a lower corporeal nature.
"How can the intellect be superior to the senses, when it is these which educate it for the discovery of various truths? ... truths are learned by means of palpable forms; in other words, invisible things are discovered by the help of visible ones, even as the apostle tells us in his epistle: For the invisible things of Him are clearly seen from the creation of the world, being understood by the things that are made; [Romans 1:20] and as Plato too might inform our heretics: The things which appear are the image of the things which are concealed from view, whence it must ... follow that this world is by all means an image of some other: so that the intellect evidently uses the senses for its own guidance, and authority, and mainstay; and without the senses truth could not be attained." This world is an image of another. We are reminded of that Occult saying, "As above, so below".
"Can a thing be superior to that which is instrumental to its existence, which is also indispensable to it, and to whose help it owes everything which it acquires? Two conclusions therefore follow from what we have said: (1) That the intellect is not to be preferred above the senses, on the (supposed) ground that the agent through which a thing exists is inferior to the thing itself; and (2) that the intellect must not be separated from the senses, since the instrument by which a thing's existence is sustained is associated with the thing itself."
"I turn now to ... our intellectual faculties, such as Plato has handed it over to the heretics..., having obtained the knowledge of them before death. He asks in the Phædo, ... Will the body be a hindrance to it [possession of knowledge] or not, if one shall admit it as an associate in the search after knowledge? I have a similar question to ask: Have the faculties of their sight and hearing any truth and reality for human beings or not? ...even the poets are always muttering against us, that we can never hear or see anything for certain? He remembered... what Epicharmus the comic poet had said: It is the mind which sees, the mind that hears— all else is blind and deaf. ... he says ... that man is the wisest whose mental power is the clearest; who never applies the sense of sight, nor adds to his mind the help of any such faculty, but employs the intellect itself in unmixed serenity when he indulges in contemplation for the purpose of acquiring an unalloyed insight into the nature of things; divorcing himself with all his might from his eyes and ears and (as one must express himself) from the whole of his body, on the ground of its disturbing the soul, and not allowing it to possess either truth or wisdom, whenever it is brought into communication with it. We see..., that in opposition to the bodily senses another faculty is provided of a much more serviceable character, even the powers of the soul, which produce an understanding of that truth whose realities are not palpable nor open to the bodily senses, but are very remote from men's everyday knowledge, lying in secret— in the heights above, and in the presence of God Himself."
The Gnostic concept of eons are found in Plato's theory of forms: "Plato maintains that there are certain invisible substances, incorporeal, celestial, divine, and eternal, which they call ideas, that is to say, (archetypal) forms, which are the patterns and causes of those objects of nature which are manifest to us, and lie under our corporeal senses: the former, (according to Plato,) are the actual verities, and the latter the images and likenesses of them. ...are there not here gleams of the heretical principles of the Gnostics and the Valentinians?" "It is from this philosophy that they ... adopt the difference between the bodily senses and the intellectual faculties"
"(We have) the mystic original of the ideas of these heretics. For in this philosophy lie both their Æons and their genealogies. Thus,... do they divide sensation, both into the intellectual powers from their spiritual seed, and the sensuous faculties from the animal, which cannot by any means comprehend spiritual things. From the former germ spring invisible things; from the latter, visible things which are grovelling and temporary, and which are obvious to the senses, placed as ... in palpable forms. It is because of these views that we have ... stated ... that the mind is nothing else than an ...instrument of the soul, and that the spirit is no other faculty, separate from the soul, but is the soul itself exercised in respiration; although that influence which either God on the one hand, or the devil on the other, has breathed upon it, must be regarded in the light of an additional element."
"With respect to the difference between the intellectual powers and the sensuous faculties, we only admit it so far as the natural diversity between them requires of us."
"(There is, of course, a difference) between things corporeal and things spiritual, between visible and invisible beings... because the one class are attributed to sensation, and the other to the intellect." Tertullian states the obvious.
"For is it not true, that to employ the senses is to use the intellect? And to employ the intellect amounts to a use of the senses? What indeed can sensation be, but the understanding of that which is the object of the sensation? And what can the intellect or understanding be, but the seeing of that which is the object understood?" "Why adopt such excruciating means of torturing simple knowledge and crucifying the truth?"
"If corporeal things are the objects of sense, and incorporeal ones objects of the intellect, it is the classes of the objects which are different, not the domicile or abode of sense and intellect; in other words, not the soul (anima) and the mind (animus)." "By what... are corporeal things perceived? If it is by the soul, then the mind is a sensuous faculty, and not merely an intellectual power; for while it understands, it also perceives, because without the perception there is no understanding. If... corporeal things are perceived by the soul, then it follows that the soul's power is an intellectual one, and not merely a sensuous faculty; for while it perceives it also understands, because without understanding there is no perceiving."
"By what are incorporeal things understood? If it is by the mind, where will be the soul? If it is by the soul, where will be the mind? For things which differ ought to be mutually absent from each other, when they are occupied in their respective functions and duties. It must be your opinion, indeed, that the mind is absent from the soul on certain occasions; for (you suppose) that we are so made and constituted as not to know that we have seen or heard something, on the hypothesis that the mind was absent at the time. I must therefore maintain that the very soul itself neither saw nor heard, since it was at the given moment absent with its active power— that is to say, the mind." Tertullian continues confusing the reader by stating that the mind and the soul are synonymous.
"The truth is, that whenever a man is out of his mind, it is his soul that is demented— not because the mind is absent, but because it is a fellow-sufferer (with the soul) at the time. Indeed, it is the soul which is principally affected by casualties of such a kind. Whence is this fact confirmed?" Demented souls cause physiological problems.
"It is confirmed from the following consideration: that after the soul's departure, the mind is no longer found in a man: it always follows the soul; nor does it at last remain behind it alone, after death." "Since it [the mind] follows the soul, it is also indissolubly attached to it; just as the understanding is attached to the soul, which is followed by the mind, with which the understanding is indissolubly connected." The mind follows the soul.
"Understanding is superior to the senses, and a better discoverer of mysteries, what matters it, so long as it is only a peculiar faculty of the soul, just as the senses themselves are?" Understanding and sensation are faculties of the soul. We wonder if the "mysteries" the soul understands are not Gnostic mysteries.
"It does not at all affect my argument, unless the understanding were held to be superior to the senses, for the purpose of deducing from the allegation of such superiority its separate condition likewise. After thus combating their alleged difference, I have also to refute this question of superiority, previous to my approaching the belief (which heresy propounds) in a superior god. On this point, however, of a (superior) god, we shall have to measure swords with the heretics on their own ground."
"Our present subject concerns the soul, and the point is to prevent the insidious ascription of a superiority to the intellect or understanding. Now, although the objects which are touched by the intellect are of a higher nature, since they are spiritual, than those which are embraced by the senses, since these are corporeal, it will still be only a superiority in the objects— as of lofty ones contrasted with humble— not in the faculties of the intellect against the senses." The intellect is of a higher spiritual nature and the senses are of a lower corporeal nature.
"How can the intellect be superior to the senses, when it is these which educate it for the discovery of various truths? ... truths are learned by means of palpable forms; in other words, invisible things are discovered by the help of visible ones, even as the apostle tells us in his epistle: For the invisible things of Him are clearly seen from the creation of the world, being understood by the things that are made; [Romans 1:20] and as Plato too might inform our heretics: The things which appear are the image of the things which are concealed from view, whence it must ... follow that this world is by all means an image of some other: so that the intellect evidently uses the senses for its own guidance, and authority, and mainstay; and without the senses truth could not be attained." This world is an image of another. We are reminded of that Occult saying, "As above, so below".
"Can a thing be superior to that which is instrumental to its existence, which is also indispensable to it, and to whose help it owes everything which it acquires? Two conclusions therefore follow from what we have said: (1) That the intellect is not to be preferred above the senses, on the (supposed) ground that the agent through which a thing exists is inferior to the thing itself; and (2) that the intellect must not be separated from the senses, since the instrument by which a thing's existence is sustained is associated with the thing itself."
Chapter 19.
The Intellect Coeval with the Soul in the Human Being. An Example from Aristotle Converted into Evidence Favourable to These Views
"Nor must we fail to notice those writers who deprive the soul of the intellect even for a short period of time. They do this in order to prepare the way of introducing the intellect— and the mind also— at a subsequent time of life, even at the time when intelligence appears in a man. They maintain that the stage of infancy is supported by the soul alone, simply to promote vitality, without any intention of acquiring knowledge also, because not all things have knowledge which possess life." The soul, the intellect and the mind are bound together from conception.
"Trees... to quote Aristotle's example, have vitality, but have not knowledge; and with him agrees every one who gives a share to all animated beings of the animal substance, which, according to our view, exists in man alone as his special property,— not because it is the work of God, which all other creatures are likewise, but because it is the breath of God, which this (human soul) alone is, which we say is born with the full equipment of its proper faculties." "Animated beings " possess an "animal substance", but man also has "the breath of God".
Well, let them meet us with the example of the trees: we will accept their challenge, ... for it is an undoubted fact, that while trees are yet but twigs and sprouts, and before they even reach the sapling stage, there is in them their own proper faculty of life." "But then, as time goes on, the vigour of the tree slowly advances, as it grows and hardens into its woody trunk, until its mature age completes the condition which nature destines for it."
"Else what resources would trees possess in due course for the inoculation of grafts, and the formation of leaves, and the swelling of their buds, and the graceful shedding of their blossom, and the softening of their sap, were there not in them the quiet growth of the full provision of their nature, and the distribution of this life over all their branches for the accomplishment of their maturity? Trees, therefore, have ability or knowledge; and they derive it from whence they also derive vitality— that is, from the one source of vitality and knowledge which is peculiar to their nature, and that from the infancy which they, too, begin with."
"On my side, then, why should I not contend for these wise and sagacious natures of trees? Let them have vitality, as the philosophers permit it; but let them have knowledge too, although the philosophers disavow it." Tertullian maintain that trees possess knowledge, thereby, as sophists are apt to do, confusing the nature of knowledge.
The soul of a human being "has been derived from Adam as its root, and has been propagated among his posterity ... to whom it has been entrusted for transmission, and thus has sprouted into life with all its natural apparatus, both of intellect and of sense!" The souls of men have been derived from Adam.
"I am much mistaken if the human person, even from his infancy... does not testify to his actual possession of the faculties of sensation and intellect by the fact of his birth, vindicating at one and the same time the use of all his senses... This earliest voice of infancy... is the first effort of the senses, and the initial impulse of mental perceptions. ... some persons understand this plaintive cry of the infant to be an augury of affliction in the prospect of our tearful life, whereby from the very moment of birth (the soul) has to be regarded as endued with prescience, much more with intelligence. "
"Now from what source does he [the newborn] acquire this discernment of novelty and custom, if not from instinctive knowledge? How does it happen that he is irritated and quieted, if not by help of his initial intellect? It would be very strange indeed that infancy were naturally so lively, if it had not mental power; and naturally so capable of impression and affection, if it had no intellect. ... For Christ, by accepting praise out of the mouth of babes and sucklings, has declared that neither childhood nor infancy is without sensibility, — the former of which states, when meeting Him with approving shouts, proved its ability to offer Him testimony; Matthew 21:15 while the other, by being slaughtered, for His sake of course, knew what violence meant. Matthew 2:16-18"
"Trees... to quote Aristotle's example, have vitality, but have not knowledge; and with him agrees every one who gives a share to all animated beings of the animal substance, which, according to our view, exists in man alone as his special property,— not because it is the work of God, which all other creatures are likewise, but because it is the breath of God, which this (human soul) alone is, which we say is born with the full equipment of its proper faculties." "Animated beings " possess an "animal substance", but man also has "the breath of God".
Well, let them meet us with the example of the trees: we will accept their challenge, ... for it is an undoubted fact, that while trees are yet but twigs and sprouts, and before they even reach the sapling stage, there is in them their own proper faculty of life." "But then, as time goes on, the vigour of the tree slowly advances, as it grows and hardens into its woody trunk, until its mature age completes the condition which nature destines for it."
"Else what resources would trees possess in due course for the inoculation of grafts, and the formation of leaves, and the swelling of their buds, and the graceful shedding of their blossom, and the softening of their sap, were there not in them the quiet growth of the full provision of their nature, and the distribution of this life over all their branches for the accomplishment of their maturity? Trees, therefore, have ability or knowledge; and they derive it from whence they also derive vitality— that is, from the one source of vitality and knowledge which is peculiar to their nature, and that from the infancy which they, too, begin with."
"On my side, then, why should I not contend for these wise and sagacious natures of trees? Let them have vitality, as the philosophers permit it; but let them have knowledge too, although the philosophers disavow it." Tertullian maintain that trees possess knowledge, thereby, as sophists are apt to do, confusing the nature of knowledge.
The soul of a human being "has been derived from Adam as its root, and has been propagated among his posterity ... to whom it has been entrusted for transmission, and thus has sprouted into life with all its natural apparatus, both of intellect and of sense!" The souls of men have been derived from Adam.
"I am much mistaken if the human person, even from his infancy... does not testify to his actual possession of the faculties of sensation and intellect by the fact of his birth, vindicating at one and the same time the use of all his senses... This earliest voice of infancy... is the first effort of the senses, and the initial impulse of mental perceptions. ... some persons understand this plaintive cry of the infant to be an augury of affliction in the prospect of our tearful life, whereby from the very moment of birth (the soul) has to be regarded as endued with prescience, much more with intelligence. "
"Now from what source does he [the newborn] acquire this discernment of novelty and custom, if not from instinctive knowledge? How does it happen that he is irritated and quieted, if not by help of his initial intellect? It would be very strange indeed that infancy were naturally so lively, if it had not mental power; and naturally so capable of impression and affection, if it had no intellect. ... For Christ, by accepting praise out of the mouth of babes and sucklings, has declared that neither childhood nor infancy is without sensibility, — the former of which states, when meeting Him with approving shouts, proved its ability to offer Him testimony; Matthew 21:15 while the other, by being slaughtered, for His sake of course, knew what violence meant. Matthew 2:16-18"
Chapter 20.
The Soul, as to Its Nature Uniform, But Its Faculties Variously Developed. Varieties Only Accidental
"All the natural properties of the soul are inherent in it as parts of its substance; and that they grow and develop along with it, from the very moment of its own origin at birth."
"Seneca says... There are implanted within us the seeds of all the arts and periods of life. And God... secretly produces our mental dispositions; that is, from the germs which are implanted and hidden in us by means of infancy, and these are the intellect: for from these our natural dispositions are evolved. Now, even the seeds of plants have, one form in each kind, but their development varies: some open and expand in a healthy and perfect state, while others either improve or degenerate, owing to the conditions of weather and soil, and from the appliance of labour and care; also from the course of the seasons, and from the occurrence of casual circumstances. In like manner," The immortal soul of Plato has been replaced with natural instinct by Tertullian.
"The soul may well be uniform in its seminal origin, although multiform by the process of nativity." "Empedocles... places the cause of a subtle or an obtuse intellect in the quality of the blood, from which he derives progress and perfection in learning and science." The intellect "is sharpened by learned pursuits, by the sciences, the arts, by experimental knowledge, business habits, and studies; it is blunted by ignorance, idle habits, inactivity, lust, inexperience, listlessness, and vicious pursuits."
"The supreme powers... are the Lord God and His adversary the devil; but according to men's general opinion about providence, they are fate and necessity; and about fortune, it is man's freedom of will." "Even the philosophers allow these distinctions; while on our part we have already undertaken to treat of them, on the principles of the (Christian) faith, in a separate work."
"It is evident how great must be the influences which so variously affect the one nature of the soul, since they are commonly regarded as separate natures. Still they are not different species, but casual incidents of one nature and substance— even of that which God conferred on Adam, and made the mould of all (subsequent ones). Casual incidents will they always remain, but never will they become specific differences. However great, too, at present is the variety of men's maunders, it was not so in Adam, the founder of their race. But all these discordances ought to have existed in him as the fountainhead, and thence to have descended to us in an unimpaired variety, if the variety had been due to nature."
"Seneca says... There are implanted within us the seeds of all the arts and periods of life. And God... secretly produces our mental dispositions; that is, from the germs which are implanted and hidden in us by means of infancy, and these are the intellect: for from these our natural dispositions are evolved. Now, even the seeds of plants have, one form in each kind, but their development varies: some open and expand in a healthy and perfect state, while others either improve or degenerate, owing to the conditions of weather and soil, and from the appliance of labour and care; also from the course of the seasons, and from the occurrence of casual circumstances. In like manner," The immortal soul of Plato has been replaced with natural instinct by Tertullian.
"The soul may well be uniform in its seminal origin, although multiform by the process of nativity." "Empedocles... places the cause of a subtle or an obtuse intellect in the quality of the blood, from which he derives progress and perfection in learning and science." The intellect "is sharpened by learned pursuits, by the sciences, the arts, by experimental knowledge, business habits, and studies; it is blunted by ignorance, idle habits, inactivity, lust, inexperience, listlessness, and vicious pursuits."
"The supreme powers... are the Lord God and His adversary the devil; but according to men's general opinion about providence, they are fate and necessity; and about fortune, it is man's freedom of will." "Even the philosophers allow these distinctions; while on our part we have already undertaken to treat of them, on the principles of the (Christian) faith, in a separate work."
"It is evident how great must be the influences which so variously affect the one nature of the soul, since they are commonly regarded as separate natures. Still they are not different species, but casual incidents of one nature and substance— even of that which God conferred on Adam, and made the mould of all (subsequent ones). Casual incidents will they always remain, but never will they become specific differences. However great, too, at present is the variety of men's maunders, it was not so in Adam, the founder of their race. But all these discordances ought to have existed in him as the fountainhead, and thence to have descended to us in an unimpaired variety, if the variety had been due to nature."
Chapter 21.
As Free-Will Actuates an Individual So May His Character Change
"If the soul possessed this uniform and simple nature from the beginning in Adam, ...it is not rendered multiform by such various development, nor by the triple form predicated of it in the Valentinian trinity (that we may still keep the condemnation of that heresy in view), for not even this nature is discoverable in Adam." "What had he [Adam] that was spiritual? Is it because he prophetically declared the great mystery of Christ and the church? [Ephesians 5:32] This is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman. Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and he shall cleave unto his wife; and they two shall be one flesh. [Genesis 2:23-24]'
Tertullian understands the entire text as spoken by Adam, but we understand "she...flesh" as scribal commentary, for it is anachronistic for Adam to discuss subjects that do not exist, namely fathers and mothers. The gift of prophecy came to Adam after "God infused into him the ecstasy, or spiritual quality, in which prophecy consists." Adam could not prophecy without God.
"If... the evil of sin was developed in him, this must not be accounted as a natural disposition: it was... produced by the instigation of the (old) serpent as far from being incidental to his nature as it was from being material in him, for we have already excluded belief in Matter." We are disappointed by Tertullian's use of the conditional "if" when referring to Adam's sin.
"If neither the spiritual element, nor what the heretics call the material element, was properly inherent in him (since, if he had been created out of matter, the germ of evil must have been an integral part of his constitution), it remains that the one only original element of his nature was what is called the animal (the principle of vitality, the soul), which we maintain to be simple and uniform in its condition."
"It remains for us to inquire whether, as being called natural, it ought to be deemed subject to change. (The heretics ...) deny that nature is susceptible of any change, in order that they may be able to establish ... their threefold theory, or trinity, in all its characteristics as to the several natures... [Luke 6:43-44]" "If so, then God will not be able any longer to raise up from the stones children unto Abraham; nor to make a generation of vipers bring forth fruits of repentance. Matthew 3:7-9"
"And if so, the apostle too was in error when he said in his epistle, You were at one time darkness, (but now are you light in the Lord:) [Ephesians 5:8] and, We also were by nature children of wrath; [Ephesians 2:3] and, Such were some of you, but you are washed.
[1 Corinthians 6:11]" "The statements... of holy Scripture will never be discordant with truth." An obligatory pious statement.
"A corrupt tree will never yield good fruit, ... nor will a good tree produce evil fruit, except by the same process of cultivation. Stones also will become children of Abraham, if educated in Abraham's faith; and a generation of vipers will bring forth the fruits of penitence, if they reject the poison of their malignant nature." When Jesus says that god can turn stones into thexxx
"This will be the power of the grace of God, more potent ... than nature, exercising its sway over the faculty that underlies itself within us— even the freedom of our will, which is described as αὐτεξούσιος (of independent authority); and inasmuch as this faculty is itself also natural and mutable, in whatsoever direction it turns, it inclines of its own nature." "There does exist within us naturally this independent authority (τὸ αὐτεξούσιον), ... If,... the natural condition has to be submitted to a definition, it must be determined to be twofold— there being the category of the born and the unborn, the made and not-made."
"Now that which has received its constitution by being made or by being born, is by nature capable of being changed, for it can be both born again and re-made; whereas that which is not-made and unborn will remain for ever immoveable." We find subtle support for the transmigration of souls, for anything that can be born, can be born again and remade.
"Since... this state is suited to God alone, as the only Being who is unborn and not-made (and therefore immortal and unchangeable), it is absolutely certain that the nature of all other existences which are born and created is subject to modification and change; so that if the threefold state is to be ascribed to the soul, it must be supposed to arise from the mutability of its accidental circumstances, and not from the appointment of nature."
Tertullian understands the entire text as spoken by Adam, but we understand "she...flesh" as scribal commentary, for it is anachronistic for Adam to discuss subjects that do not exist, namely fathers and mothers. The gift of prophecy came to Adam after "God infused into him the ecstasy, or spiritual quality, in which prophecy consists." Adam could not prophecy without God.
"If... the evil of sin was developed in him, this must not be accounted as a natural disposition: it was... produced by the instigation of the (old) serpent as far from being incidental to his nature as it was from being material in him, for we have already excluded belief in Matter." We are disappointed by Tertullian's use of the conditional "if" when referring to Adam's sin.
"If neither the spiritual element, nor what the heretics call the material element, was properly inherent in him (since, if he had been created out of matter, the germ of evil must have been an integral part of his constitution), it remains that the one only original element of his nature was what is called the animal (the principle of vitality, the soul), which we maintain to be simple and uniform in its condition."
"It remains for us to inquire whether, as being called natural, it ought to be deemed subject to change. (The heretics ...) deny that nature is susceptible of any change, in order that they may be able to establish ... their threefold theory, or trinity, in all its characteristics as to the several natures... [Luke 6:43-44]" "If so, then God will not be able any longer to raise up from the stones children unto Abraham; nor to make a generation of vipers bring forth fruits of repentance. Matthew 3:7-9"
"And if so, the apostle too was in error when he said in his epistle, You were at one time darkness, (but now are you light in the Lord:) [Ephesians 5:8] and, We also were by nature children of wrath; [Ephesians 2:3] and, Such were some of you, but you are washed.
[1 Corinthians 6:11]" "The statements... of holy Scripture will never be discordant with truth." An obligatory pious statement.
"A corrupt tree will never yield good fruit, ... nor will a good tree produce evil fruit, except by the same process of cultivation. Stones also will become children of Abraham, if educated in Abraham's faith; and a generation of vipers will bring forth the fruits of penitence, if they reject the poison of their malignant nature." When Jesus says that god can turn stones into thexxx
"This will be the power of the grace of God, more potent ... than nature, exercising its sway over the faculty that underlies itself within us— even the freedom of our will, which is described as αὐτεξούσιος (of independent authority); and inasmuch as this faculty is itself also natural and mutable, in whatsoever direction it turns, it inclines of its own nature." "There does exist within us naturally this independent authority (τὸ αὐτεξούσιον), ... If,... the natural condition has to be submitted to a definition, it must be determined to be twofold— there being the category of the born and the unborn, the made and not-made."
"Now that which has received its constitution by being made or by being born, is by nature capable of being changed, for it can be both born again and re-made; whereas that which is not-made and unborn will remain for ever immoveable." We find subtle support for the transmigration of souls, for anything that can be born, can be born again and remade.
"Since... this state is suited to God alone, as the only Being who is unborn and not-made (and therefore immortal and unchangeable), it is absolutely certain that the nature of all other existences which are born and created is subject to modification and change; so that if the threefold state is to be ascribed to the soul, it must be supposed to arise from the mutability of its accidental circumstances, and not from the appointment of nature."
Chapter 22.
Recapitulation. Definition of the Soul
"We have assigned... to the soul ... freedom of the will ... and its dominion over the works of nature" and the soul has "its occasional gift of divination, independently of ... prophecy which accrues ... expressly from ... God. " "The soul... we define to be ... from the breath of God, immortal, possessing body, having form, simple in its substance, intelligent in its own nature, developing its power in various ways, free in its determinations, subject to be changes of accident, in its faculties mutable, rational, supreme, endued with an instinct of presentiment, evolved out of one (archetypal soul). It remains for us now to consider how it is developed out of this one original source; in other words, whence, and when, and how it is produced."
Chapter 23.
The Opinions of Sundry Heretics Which Originate Ultimately with Plato
The heretics of old and certain Modern Evangelicals share one belief: "Some suppose that they came down from heaven...when they indulge in the prospect of an undoubted return there."
The heresy of Saturninus is explained and we quote it in full: "Saturninus, the disciple of Menander, who belonged to Simon's [Magus] sect, introduced this opinion: he affirmed that man was made by angels. A futile, imperfect creation at first, weak and unable to stand, he crawled upon the ground like a worm, because he wanted the strength to maintain an erect posture; but afterwards having, by the compassion of the Supreme Power (in whose image, which had not been fully understood, he was clumsily formed), obtained a slender spark of life, this roused and righted his imperfect form, and animated it with a higher vitality, and provided for its return, on its relinquishment of life, to its original principle. Carpocrates, indeed, claims for himself so extreme an amount of the supernal qualities, that his disciples set their own souls at once on an equality with Christ (not to mention the apostles); and sometimes, when it suits their fancy, even give them the superiority— deeming them, forsooth, to have partaken of that sublime virtue which looks down upon the principalities that govern this world. Apelles tells us that our souls were enticed by earthly baits down from their super-celestial abodes by a fiery angel, Israel's God and ours, who then enclosed them firmly within our sinful flesh. The hive of Valentinus fortifies the soul with the germ of Sophia, or Wisdom; by means of which germ they recognise, in the images of visible objects, the stories and Milesian fables of their own Æons. I am sorry from my heart that Plato has been the caterer to all these heretics."
Tertullian notices an example of esoteric writing, a contradiction, between Plato's works: "For in the Phædo he imagines that souls wander from this world to that, and thence back again hither; while in the Timæus he supposes that the children of God, to whom had been assigned the production of mortal creatures, having taken for the soul the germ of immortality, congealed around it a mortal body—thereby indicating that this world is the figure of some other. Now, to procure belief in all this— that the soul had formerly lived with God in the heavens above, sharing His ideas with Him, and afterwards came down to live with us on earth, and while here recollects the eternal patterns of things which it had learned before— he elaborated his new formula, μαθήσεις ἀναμνήσεις, which means that learning is reminiscence; implying that the souls which come to us from thence forget the things among which they formerly lived, but that they afterwards recall them, instructed by the objects they see around them. Forasmuch, therefore, as the doctrines which the heretics borrow from Plato are cunningly defended by this kind of argument, I shall sufficiently refute the heretics if I overthrow the argument of Plato."
The heresy of Saturninus is explained and we quote it in full: "Saturninus, the disciple of Menander, who belonged to Simon's [Magus] sect, introduced this opinion: he affirmed that man was made by angels. A futile, imperfect creation at first, weak and unable to stand, he crawled upon the ground like a worm, because he wanted the strength to maintain an erect posture; but afterwards having, by the compassion of the Supreme Power (in whose image, which had not been fully understood, he was clumsily formed), obtained a slender spark of life, this roused and righted his imperfect form, and animated it with a higher vitality, and provided for its return, on its relinquishment of life, to its original principle. Carpocrates, indeed, claims for himself so extreme an amount of the supernal qualities, that his disciples set their own souls at once on an equality with Christ (not to mention the apostles); and sometimes, when it suits their fancy, even give them the superiority— deeming them, forsooth, to have partaken of that sublime virtue which looks down upon the principalities that govern this world. Apelles tells us that our souls were enticed by earthly baits down from their super-celestial abodes by a fiery angel, Israel's God and ours, who then enclosed them firmly within our sinful flesh. The hive of Valentinus fortifies the soul with the germ of Sophia, or Wisdom; by means of which germ they recognise, in the images of visible objects, the stories and Milesian fables of their own Æons. I am sorry from my heart that Plato has been the caterer to all these heretics."
Tertullian notices an example of esoteric writing, a contradiction, between Plato's works: "For in the Phædo he imagines that souls wander from this world to that, and thence back again hither; while in the Timæus he supposes that the children of God, to whom had been assigned the production of mortal creatures, having taken for the soul the germ of immortality, congealed around it a mortal body—thereby indicating that this world is the figure of some other. Now, to procure belief in all this— that the soul had formerly lived with God in the heavens above, sharing His ideas with Him, and afterwards came down to live with us on earth, and while here recollects the eternal patterns of things which it had learned before— he elaborated his new formula, μαθήσεις ἀναμνήσεις, which means that learning is reminiscence; implying that the souls which come to us from thence forget the things among which they formerly lived, but that they afterwards recall them, instructed by the objects they see around them. Forasmuch, therefore, as the doctrines which the heretics borrow from Plato are cunningly defended by this kind of argument, I shall sufficiently refute the heretics if I overthrow the argument of Plato."
Chapter 24.
Plato's Inconsistency. He Supposes the Soul Self-Existent, Yet Capable of Forgetting What Passed in a Previous State
The charge of Socrates' creation of new Gods is explained: "I cannot allow that the soul is capable of a failure of memory; because he [Plato] has conceded to it so large an amount of divine quality as to put it on a par with God. He makes it unborn... immortal, incorruptible, incorporeal-- since he believed God to be the same— invisible, incapable of delineation, uniform, supreme, rational, and intellectual. What more could he attribute to the soul, if he wanted to call it God?
"We...allow no appendage to God (in the sense of equality), by this very fact reckon the soul as very far below God: for we suppose it to be born, and hereby to possess something of a diluted divinity and an attenuated felicity, as the breath (of God), though not His spirit; and although immortal, as this is an attribute of divinity, yet for all that passible, since this is an incident of a born condition, and consequently from the first capable of deviation from perfection and right, and by consequence susceptible of a failure in memory." The soul has "something of a diluted divinity". Is immortality an attribute of divinity, or should Tertullian have written "eternality"?
"If the soul is to merit being accounted a god, by reason of all its qualities being equal to the attributes of God, it must then be subject to no passion, and...no loss of memory; for this defect of oblivion is as great an injury to that of which you predicate it, as memory is the glory thereof, which Plato himself deems the very safeguard of the senses and intellectual faculties..." The soul can not be accounted a god, but it can be considered divine, but not a Divinity or the Divinity.
"We need not raise the doubt whether so divine a faculty as the soul was capable of losing memory: the question ... is, whether it is able to recover ... that which it has lost. I could not decide whether that, which ought to have lost memory, if it once incurred the loss, would be powerful enough to recollect itself. Both alternatives... will agree very well with my soul, but not with Plato's.... (Plato,) do you endow the soul with a natural competency for understanding those well-known ideas of yours? Certainly I do, will be your answer. Well, now, no one will concede to you that the knowledge, (which you say is) the gift of nature, of the natural sciences can fail. But the knowledge of the sciences fails; the knowledge of the various fields of learning and of the arts of life fails; and so perhaps the knowledge of the faculties and affections of our minds fails, although they seem to be inherent in our nature, but really are not so: because, as we have already said, they are affected by accidents of place, of manners and customs, of bodily condition, of the state of man's health— by the influences of the Supreme Powers, and the changes of man's free-will."
"Now the instinctive knowledge of natural objects never fails, not even in the brute creation. A wild beast['s] .. natural instincts will not be forgotten." When reading unreasonably lengthy treatises by the Church Father, it is accurate to describe man as "perhaps the most forgetful of all creatures".
In man, "the knowledge of everything natural to him will remain ineradicably fixed in him... as being alone a natural instinct. He will never forget to eat ... or to drink ... or to use his eyes ... or his ears, ... or his nose.. or his mouth... or his hand, to touch. " "Philosophy depreciates [the senses] by her preference for the intellectual faculties."
"But if the natural knowledge of the sensuous faculties is permanent, how happens it that the knowledge of the intellectual faculties fails, to which the superiority is ascribed? Whence...arises that power of forgetfulness... which precedes recollection? From long lapse of time, he says. Length of time cannot be incidental to that which... is unborn, and which... must be deemed ... eternal. For that which ... admits neither of beginning nor end of time, is subject to no temporal criterion. And that which time does not measure, undergoes no change in consequence of time; nor is long lapse of time ... influential over it."
"If time is a cause of oblivion, why, from the time of the soul's entrance into the body, does memory fail, as if thenceforth the soul were to be affected by time? For the soul, being ... prior to the body, was of course not irrespective of time. Is it.. immediately on the soul's entrance into the body that oblivion takes place, or some time afterwards? If immediately, where will be the long lapse of the time which is as yet inadmissible in the hypothesis? Take... the case of the infant. If some time afterwards, will not the soul, during the interval previous to the moment of oblivion, still exercise its powers of memory? And how comes it to pass that the soul subsequently forgets, and then afterwards again remembers? How long... must the lapse of the time be regarded as having been, during which the oblivion oppressed the soul?
"The whole course of one's life... will be insufficient to efface the memory of an age which endured so long before the soul's assumption of the body. But then... Plato throws the blame upon the body, as if it were at all credible that a born substance could extinguish the power of one that is unborn.
"There exist... among bodies a great many differences, by reason of their rationality, ... bulk, ... condition, ... age, and their health. Will there then be supposed to exist similar differences in obliviousness? Oblivion... is uniform and identical. Therefore bodily peculiarity... will not become the cause of an effect which is an invariable one. There are ... according to Plato's own testimony, many proofs to show that the soul has a divining faculty... But there is not a man living, who does not himself feel his soul possessed with a presage and augury of some omen, danger, or joy. ...if the body is not prejudicial to divination, it will not, ... be injurious to memory.
"One thing is certain, that souls in the same body both forget and remember. If any corporeal condition engenders forgetfulness, how will it admit the opposite state of recollection? Because recollection... is actually the resurrection of the memory. Now, how should not that which is hostile to the memory at first, be also prejudicial to it in the second instance? ...who have better memories than little children, with their fresh, unworn souls, not yet immersed in domestic and public cares, but devoted only to those studies the acquirement of which is itself a reminiscence?
"Why.. do we not all of us recollect in an equal degree, since we are equal in our forgetfulness? But this is true only of philosophers! But not even of the whole of them. ...in so great a crowd of sages, Plato... is the only man who has combined the oblivion and the recollection of ideas. ...since this main argument of his by no means keeps its ground, it follows that its entire superstructure must fall with it, namely, that souls are supposed to be unborn, and to live in the heavenly regions, and to be instructed in the divine mysteries thereof; moreover, that they descend to this earth, and here recall to memory their previous existence, for the purpose... of supplying to our heretics the fitting materials for their systems."
"We...allow no appendage to God (in the sense of equality), by this very fact reckon the soul as very far below God: for we suppose it to be born, and hereby to possess something of a diluted divinity and an attenuated felicity, as the breath (of God), though not His spirit; and although immortal, as this is an attribute of divinity, yet for all that passible, since this is an incident of a born condition, and consequently from the first capable of deviation from perfection and right, and by consequence susceptible of a failure in memory." The soul has "something of a diluted divinity". Is immortality an attribute of divinity, or should Tertullian have written "eternality"?
"If the soul is to merit being accounted a god, by reason of all its qualities being equal to the attributes of God, it must then be subject to no passion, and...no loss of memory; for this defect of oblivion is as great an injury to that of which you predicate it, as memory is the glory thereof, which Plato himself deems the very safeguard of the senses and intellectual faculties..." The soul can not be accounted a god, but it can be considered divine, but not a Divinity or the Divinity.
"We need not raise the doubt whether so divine a faculty as the soul was capable of losing memory: the question ... is, whether it is able to recover ... that which it has lost. I could not decide whether that, which ought to have lost memory, if it once incurred the loss, would be powerful enough to recollect itself. Both alternatives... will agree very well with my soul, but not with Plato's.... (Plato,) do you endow the soul with a natural competency for understanding those well-known ideas of yours? Certainly I do, will be your answer. Well, now, no one will concede to you that the knowledge, (which you say is) the gift of nature, of the natural sciences can fail. But the knowledge of the sciences fails; the knowledge of the various fields of learning and of the arts of life fails; and so perhaps the knowledge of the faculties and affections of our minds fails, although they seem to be inherent in our nature, but really are not so: because, as we have already said, they are affected by accidents of place, of manners and customs, of bodily condition, of the state of man's health— by the influences of the Supreme Powers, and the changes of man's free-will."
"Now the instinctive knowledge of natural objects never fails, not even in the brute creation. A wild beast['s] .. natural instincts will not be forgotten." When reading unreasonably lengthy treatises by the Church Father, it is accurate to describe man as "perhaps the most forgetful of all creatures".
In man, "the knowledge of everything natural to him will remain ineradicably fixed in him... as being alone a natural instinct. He will never forget to eat ... or to drink ... or to use his eyes ... or his ears, ... or his nose.. or his mouth... or his hand, to touch. " "Philosophy depreciates [the senses] by her preference for the intellectual faculties."
"But if the natural knowledge of the sensuous faculties is permanent, how happens it that the knowledge of the intellectual faculties fails, to which the superiority is ascribed? Whence...arises that power of forgetfulness... which precedes recollection? From long lapse of time, he says. Length of time cannot be incidental to that which... is unborn, and which... must be deemed ... eternal. For that which ... admits neither of beginning nor end of time, is subject to no temporal criterion. And that which time does not measure, undergoes no change in consequence of time; nor is long lapse of time ... influential over it."
"If time is a cause of oblivion, why, from the time of the soul's entrance into the body, does memory fail, as if thenceforth the soul were to be affected by time? For the soul, being ... prior to the body, was of course not irrespective of time. Is it.. immediately on the soul's entrance into the body that oblivion takes place, or some time afterwards? If immediately, where will be the long lapse of the time which is as yet inadmissible in the hypothesis? Take... the case of the infant. If some time afterwards, will not the soul, during the interval previous to the moment of oblivion, still exercise its powers of memory? And how comes it to pass that the soul subsequently forgets, and then afterwards again remembers? How long... must the lapse of the time be regarded as having been, during which the oblivion oppressed the soul?
"The whole course of one's life... will be insufficient to efface the memory of an age which endured so long before the soul's assumption of the body. But then... Plato throws the blame upon the body, as if it were at all credible that a born substance could extinguish the power of one that is unborn.
"There exist... among bodies a great many differences, by reason of their rationality, ... bulk, ... condition, ... age, and their health. Will there then be supposed to exist similar differences in obliviousness? Oblivion... is uniform and identical. Therefore bodily peculiarity... will not become the cause of an effect which is an invariable one. There are ... according to Plato's own testimony, many proofs to show that the soul has a divining faculty... But there is not a man living, who does not himself feel his soul possessed with a presage and augury of some omen, danger, or joy. ...if the body is not prejudicial to divination, it will not, ... be injurious to memory.
"One thing is certain, that souls in the same body both forget and remember. If any corporeal condition engenders forgetfulness, how will it admit the opposite state of recollection? Because recollection... is actually the resurrection of the memory. Now, how should not that which is hostile to the memory at first, be also prejudicial to it in the second instance? ...who have better memories than little children, with their fresh, unworn souls, not yet immersed in domestic and public cares, but devoted only to those studies the acquirement of which is itself a reminiscence?
"Why.. do we not all of us recollect in an equal degree, since we are equal in our forgetfulness? But this is true only of philosophers! But not even of the whole of them. ...in so great a crowd of sages, Plato... is the only man who has combined the oblivion and the recollection of ideas. ...since this main argument of his by no means keeps its ground, it follows that its entire superstructure must fall with it, namely, that souls are supposed to be unborn, and to live in the heavenly regions, and to be instructed in the divine mysteries thereof; moreover, that they descend to this earth, and here recall to memory their previous existence, for the purpose... of supplying to our heretics the fitting materials for their systems."
Chapter 25.
Tertullian Refutes, Physiologically, the Notion that the Soul is Introduced After Birth
"I shall now return to the cause of this digression, in order that I may explain how all souls are derived from one, when and where and in what manner they are produced. Now...it matters not whether the question be started by the philosopher, by the heretic, or by the crowd. Those who profess the truth care nothing about their opponents, especially such of them as begin by maintaining that the soul is not conceived in the womb, nor is formed and produced at the time that the flesh is moulded, but is impressed from without upon the infant before his complete vitality, but after the process of parturition.” All souls are derived from one.
"They say... that the human seed having been duly deposited ex concubiter in the womb, and having been by natural impulse quickened, it becomes condensed into the mere substance of the flesh, which is in due time born, warm from ... the womb, and then released from its heat. (This flesh) resembles the case of hot iron, which is in that state plunged into cold water; for, being smitten by the cold air (into which it is born), it at once receives the power of animation, and utters vocal sound. This view is entertained by the Stoics, along with Ænesidemus, and occasionally by Plato himself..." Plato occasionally states that the soul "is inhaled when the new-born infant first draws breath, and by and by exhaled with the man's latest breath.”
“Now, whenever a livid hue and redness are incidents of the blood, the blood will not be without the vital principle, or soul; or when disease attacks the soul or vitality, (it becomes a proof of its real existence, since) there is no disease where there is no soul or principle of life.” The vital principle is also called the soul, once again, Tertullian is confusing the reader by a multitude of definitions. Occasionally "infants are still-born; but how.. unless they had life? For how could any die, who had not previously lived?”
The methods for performing an induced abortion is described in detail and we quote in full: “But sometimes ... while yet in the womb, an infant is put to death, when lying awry in the orifice of the womb he impedes parturition, and kills his mother, if he is not to die himself. Accordingly, among surgeons' tools there is a certain instrument, which is ... a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus ... and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs within the womb are dissected ... its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fœtus is extracted ... There is also (another instrument in the shape of) a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed... they give it, from its infanticide function, the name of ἐμβρυοσφάκτης, the slayer of the infant, which was of course alive. Such apparatus was possessed both by Hippocrates, and Asclepiades, and Erasistratus, and Herophilus, ... and the milder Soranus himself, who all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived... which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive. Of the necessity of such harsh treatment I have no doubt even Hicesius was convinced, although he imported their soul into infants after birth from the stroke of the frigid air, because the very term for soul, forsooth, in Greek answered to such a refrigeration! Well, then, have the barbarian and Roman nations received souls by some other process, (I wonder;) for they have called the soul by another name than ψυχή?”
“Plato, supposes that two souls cannot... co-exist in the same individual... but of seven spirits as in the case of the Magdalene... [Mark 16:9]” Plato "shows us that the soul proceeds from human seed (and warns us to be on our guard about it), not, (as he had said before,) from the first breath of the new-born child.”
"They say... that the human seed having been duly deposited ex concubiter in the womb, and having been by natural impulse quickened, it becomes condensed into the mere substance of the flesh, which is in due time born, warm from ... the womb, and then released from its heat. (This flesh) resembles the case of hot iron, which is in that state plunged into cold water; for, being smitten by the cold air (into which it is born), it at once receives the power of animation, and utters vocal sound. This view is entertained by the Stoics, along with Ænesidemus, and occasionally by Plato himself..." Plato occasionally states that the soul "is inhaled when the new-born infant first draws breath, and by and by exhaled with the man's latest breath.”
“Now, whenever a livid hue and redness are incidents of the blood, the blood will not be without the vital principle, or soul; or when disease attacks the soul or vitality, (it becomes a proof of its real existence, since) there is no disease where there is no soul or principle of life.” The vital principle is also called the soul, once again, Tertullian is confusing the reader by a multitude of definitions. Occasionally "infants are still-born; but how.. unless they had life? For how could any die, who had not previously lived?”
The methods for performing an induced abortion is described in detail and we quote in full: “But sometimes ... while yet in the womb, an infant is put to death, when lying awry in the orifice of the womb he impedes parturition, and kills his mother, if he is not to die himself. Accordingly, among surgeons' tools there is a certain instrument, which is ... a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus ... and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs within the womb are dissected ... its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fœtus is extracted ... There is also (another instrument in the shape of) a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed... they give it, from its infanticide function, the name of ἐμβρυοσφάκτης, the slayer of the infant, which was of course alive. Such apparatus was possessed both by Hippocrates, and Asclepiades, and Erasistratus, and Herophilus, ... and the milder Soranus himself, who all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived... which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive. Of the necessity of such harsh treatment I have no doubt even Hicesius was convinced, although he imported their soul into infants after birth from the stroke of the frigid air, because the very term for soul, forsooth, in Greek answered to such a refrigeration! Well, then, have the barbarian and Roman nations received souls by some other process, (I wonder;) for they have called the soul by another name than ψυχή?”
“Plato, supposes that two souls cannot... co-exist in the same individual... but of seven spirits as in the case of the Magdalene... [Mark 16:9]” Plato "shows us that the soul proceeds from human seed (and warns us to be on our guard about it), not, (as he had said before,) from the first breath of the new-born child.”
Chapter 26.
Scripture Alone Offers Clear Knowledge on the Questions We Have Been Controverting
“Now there is no end to the uncertainty and irregularity of human opinion, until we come to the limits which God has prescribed.”
"I shall ... retire within our own lines and firmly hold my ground there, for the purpose of proving to the Christian (the soundness of) my answers to the Philosophers and the Physicians. Consider the wombs of the most sainted women instinct with the life within them, and their babes which not only breathed therein, but were even endowed with prophetic intuition. See how the bowels of Rebecca are disquieted, [Genesis 25:22-23] though her child-bearing is as yet remote, and there is no impulse of (vital) air. Behold, a twin offspring chafes within the mother's womb, although she has no sign as yet of the twofold nation. Possibly we might have regarded as a prodigy the contention of this infant progeny, which struggled before it lived, which had animosity previous to animation, if it had simply disturbed the mother by its restlessness within her. But when her womb opens, and the number of her offspring is seen, and their presaged condition known, we have presented to us a proof not merely of the (separate) souls of the infants, but of their hostile struggles too. He who was the first to be born was threatened with detention by him who was anticipated in birth, who was not yet fully brought forth, but whose hand only had been born. Now if he actually imbibed life, and received his soul, in Platonic style, at his first breath; or else, after the Stoic rule, had the earliest taste of animation on touching the frosty air; what was the other about, who was so eagerly looked for, who was still detained within the womb, and was trying to detain (the other) outside? I suppose he had not yet breathed when he seized his brother's heel; [Genesis 25:26] and was still warm with his mother's warmth, when he so strongly wished to be the first to quit the womb. What an infant! so emulous, so strong, and already so contentious; and all this, I suppose, because even now full of life!"
“Consider... those extraordinary conceptions... of the barren woman and the virgin: these women would only be able to produce imperfect offspring against the course of nature, from the very fact that one of them was too old to bear seed [Sarah], and the other was pure from the contact of man. [Mary] If there was to be bearing at all in the case, it was only fitting that they should be born without a soul, (as the philosopher would say,) who had been irregularly conceived.”
"I shall ... retire within our own lines and firmly hold my ground there, for the purpose of proving to the Christian (the soundness of) my answers to the Philosophers and the Physicians. Consider the wombs of the most sainted women instinct with the life within them, and their babes which not only breathed therein, but were even endowed with prophetic intuition. See how the bowels of Rebecca are disquieted, [Genesis 25:22-23] though her child-bearing is as yet remote, and there is no impulse of (vital) air. Behold, a twin offspring chafes within the mother's womb, although she has no sign as yet of the twofold nation. Possibly we might have regarded as a prodigy the contention of this infant progeny, which struggled before it lived, which had animosity previous to animation, if it had simply disturbed the mother by its restlessness within her. But when her womb opens, and the number of her offspring is seen, and their presaged condition known, we have presented to us a proof not merely of the (separate) souls of the infants, but of their hostile struggles too. He who was the first to be born was threatened with detention by him who was anticipated in birth, who was not yet fully brought forth, but whose hand only had been born. Now if he actually imbibed life, and received his soul, in Platonic style, at his first breath; or else, after the Stoic rule, had the earliest taste of animation on touching the frosty air; what was the other about, who was so eagerly looked for, who was still detained within the womb, and was trying to detain (the other) outside? I suppose he had not yet breathed when he seized his brother's heel; [Genesis 25:26] and was still warm with his mother's warmth, when he so strongly wished to be the first to quit the womb. What an infant! so emulous, so strong, and already so contentious; and all this, I suppose, because even now full of life!"
“Consider... those extraordinary conceptions... of the barren woman and the virgin: these women would only be able to produce imperfect offspring against the course of nature, from the very fact that one of them was too old to bear seed [Sarah], and the other was pure from the contact of man. [Mary] If there was to be bearing at all in the case, it was only fitting that they should be born without a soul, (as the philosopher would say,) who had been irregularly conceived.”
Chapter 27.
Soul and Body Conceived, Formed and Perfected in Element Simultaneously
“We ... maintain that both [the body and the soul] are conceived, and formed, and perfectly simultaneously, as well as born together; and that not a moment's interval occurs in their conception, so that, a prior place can be assigned to either." "As death is defined to be ... the separation of body and soul, life...is susceptible of no other definition than the conjunction of body and soul.” The union of the body and soul is reminiscent of Plato's concept.
“We allow that life begins with conception, because we contend that the soul also begins from conception...” This is an extraordinary and explicit statement regarding ensoulment that was not made doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church until 1854. Life takes "its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does. ... the processes which act together to produce separation by death, also combine in a simultaneous action to produce life."
"If we assign priority to (the formation of) one of the natures,... we shall have further to determine the precise times of the semination, according to the condition and rank of each. And that being so, what time shall we give to the seed of the body, and what to the seed of the soul? ... if different periods are to be assigned to the seminations then arising out of this difference in time, we shall also have different substances. For although we shall allow that there are two kinds of seed— that of the body and that of the soul— we still declare that they are inseparable, and therefore contemporaneous and simultaneous in origin.
"Now let no one take offense... at an interpretation of the processes of nature which is rendered necessary (by the defence of the truth). Nature should be to us an object of reverence, not of blushes. It is lust... which has brought shame on the intercourse of the sexes. It is the excess... which is immodest and unchaste: the normal condition has received a blessing from God... Be fruitful, and multiply, (and replenish the earth.) [Genesis 1:28] Excess...has He cursed, in adulteries, and wantonness, and chambering."
"The soul supplies desire, the flesh contributes the gratification of it; the soul furnishes the instigation, the flesh affords the realization. The entire man being excited by the one effort of both natures, his seminal substance is discharged, deriving its fluidity from the body, and its warmth from the soul."
Tertullian touches upon philology and then recounts coitus from the male perspective. We quote in full: "Now if the soul in Greek is a word which is synonymous with cold, how does it come to pass that the body grows cold after the soul has quitted it? Indeed (if I run the risk of offending modesty even, in my desire to prove the truth), I cannot help asking, whether we do not, in that very heat of extreme gratification when the generative fluid is ejected, feel that somewhat of our soul has gone from us? And do we not experience a faintness and prostration along with a dimness of sight? This, then, must be the soul-producing seed, which arises at once from the out-drip of the soul, just as that fluid is the body-producing seed which proceeds from the drainage of the flesh. Most true are the examples of the first creation. Adam's flesh was formed of clay. Now what is clay but an excellent moisture, whence should spring the generating fluid? From the breath of God first came the soul. But what else is the breath of God than the vapour of the spirit, whence should spring that which we breathe out through the generative fluid? Forasmuch, therefore, as these two different and separate substances, the clay and the breath, combined at the first creation in forming the individual man, they then both amalgamated and mixed their proper seminal rudiments in one, and ever afterwards communicated to the human race the normal mode of its propagation, so that even now the two substances, although diverse from each other, flow forth simultaneously in a united channel; and finding their way together into their appointed seed-plot, they fertilize with their combined vigour the human fruit out of their respective natures. And inherent in this human product is his own seed, according to the process which has been ordained for every creature endowed with the functions of generation. Accordingly from the one (primeval) man comes the entire outflow and redundance of men's souls— nature proving herself true to the commandment of God, Be fruitful, and multiply. Genesis 1:28 For in the very preamble of this one production, Let us make man, man's whole posterity was declared and described in a plural phrase, Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, etc. And no wonder: in the seed lies the promise and earnest of the crop.
“We allow that life begins with conception, because we contend that the soul also begins from conception...” This is an extraordinary and explicit statement regarding ensoulment that was not made doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church until 1854. Life takes "its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does. ... the processes which act together to produce separation by death, also combine in a simultaneous action to produce life."
"If we assign priority to (the formation of) one of the natures,... we shall have further to determine the precise times of the semination, according to the condition and rank of each. And that being so, what time shall we give to the seed of the body, and what to the seed of the soul? ... if different periods are to be assigned to the seminations then arising out of this difference in time, we shall also have different substances. For although we shall allow that there are two kinds of seed— that of the body and that of the soul— we still declare that they are inseparable, and therefore contemporaneous and simultaneous in origin.
"Now let no one take offense... at an interpretation of the processes of nature which is rendered necessary (by the defence of the truth). Nature should be to us an object of reverence, not of blushes. It is lust... which has brought shame on the intercourse of the sexes. It is the excess... which is immodest and unchaste: the normal condition has received a blessing from God... Be fruitful, and multiply, (and replenish the earth.) [Genesis 1:28] Excess...has He cursed, in adulteries, and wantonness, and chambering."
"The soul supplies desire, the flesh contributes the gratification of it; the soul furnishes the instigation, the flesh affords the realization. The entire man being excited by the one effort of both natures, his seminal substance is discharged, deriving its fluidity from the body, and its warmth from the soul."
Tertullian touches upon philology and then recounts coitus from the male perspective. We quote in full: "Now if the soul in Greek is a word which is synonymous with cold, how does it come to pass that the body grows cold after the soul has quitted it? Indeed (if I run the risk of offending modesty even, in my desire to prove the truth), I cannot help asking, whether we do not, in that very heat of extreme gratification when the generative fluid is ejected, feel that somewhat of our soul has gone from us? And do we not experience a faintness and prostration along with a dimness of sight? This, then, must be the soul-producing seed, which arises at once from the out-drip of the soul, just as that fluid is the body-producing seed which proceeds from the drainage of the flesh. Most true are the examples of the first creation. Adam's flesh was formed of clay. Now what is clay but an excellent moisture, whence should spring the generating fluid? From the breath of God first came the soul. But what else is the breath of God than the vapour of the spirit, whence should spring that which we breathe out through the generative fluid? Forasmuch, therefore, as these two different and separate substances, the clay and the breath, combined at the first creation in forming the individual man, they then both amalgamated and mixed their proper seminal rudiments in one, and ever afterwards communicated to the human race the normal mode of its propagation, so that even now the two substances, although diverse from each other, flow forth simultaneously in a united channel; and finding their way together into their appointed seed-plot, they fertilize with their combined vigour the human fruit out of their respective natures. And inherent in this human product is his own seed, according to the process which has been ordained for every creature endowed with the functions of generation. Accordingly from the one (primeval) man comes the entire outflow and redundance of men's souls— nature proving herself true to the commandment of God, Be fruitful, and multiply. Genesis 1:28 For in the very preamble of this one production, Let us make man, man's whole posterity was declared and described in a plural phrase, Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, etc. And no wonder: in the seed lies the promise and earnest of the crop.
Chapter 28.
The Pythagorean Doctrine of Transmigration Sketched and Censured
"What... means that ancient saying, mentioned by Plato, concerning the reciprocal migration of souls; how they ... return hither and pass through life, and then again depart from this life, and afterwards become alive from the dead? ... Albinus supposes it to be a divine announcement, perhaps of the Egyptian Mercury." The Egyptian Mercury is Thoth the God of Wisdom, "Beaky" to his friends.
"But there is no divine saying, except of the one true God, by whom the prophets, and the apostles, and Christ... declared their grand message. More ancient than Saturn a good deal (by some nine hundred years or so), and even than his grandchildren, is Moses; and he is certainly much more divine, recounting and tracing out... the course of the human race from the... beginning of the world, indicating the several births (of the fathers of mankind) according to their names and their epochs; giving thus plain proof of the divine character of his work, from its divine authority and word."
"If...the sophist of Samos is Plato's authority for the eternally revolving migration of souls out of a constant alternation of the dead and the living states, then no doubt did the famous Pythagoras... for the purpose of fabricating such an opinion as this, rely on a falsehood, which was not only shameful, but also hazardous. Consider it, you that are ignorant of it, and believe with us. He feigns death, he conceals himself underground, he condemns himself to that endurance for some seven years, during which he learns from his mother, who was his sole accomplice and attendant, what he was to relate for the belief of the world concerning those who had died since his seclusion; and when he thought that he had succeeded in reducing the frame of his body to the horrid appearance of a dead old man, he comes forth from the place of his concealment and deceit, and pretends to have returned from the dead. Who would hesitate about believing that the man, whom he had supposed to have died, had come back again to life? Especially after hearing from him facts about the recently dead, which he evidently could only have discovered in Hades itself! Thus, that men are made alive after death, is rather an old statement. But what if it be rather a recent one also? The truth does not desire antiquity, nor does falsehood shun novelty. This notable saying I hold to be plainly false, though ennobled by antiquity. How should that not be false, which depends for its evidence on a falsehood?— "
"How can I help believing Pythagoras to be a deceiver, who practises deceit to win my belief?" Tertullian questions the honesty of Pythagoras, as we question the honesty of the alleged writings of the Church Fathers.
"How will he convince me that, before he was Pythagoras, he had been Æthalides, and Euphorbus, and the fisherman Pyrrhus, and Hermotimus, to make us believe that men live again after they have died, when he actually perjured himself afterwards as Pythagoras. In proportion as it would be easier for me to believe that he had returned once to life in his own person, than so often in the person of this man and that, in the same degree has he deceived me in things which are too hard to be credited, because he has played the impostor in matters which might be readily believed. Well, but he recognised the shield of Euphorbus, which had been formerly consecrated at Delphi, and claimed it as his own, and proved his claim by signs which were generally unknown. Now, look again at his subterranean lurking-place, and believe his story, if you can. For, as to the man who devised such a tricksty scheme, to the injury of his health, fraudulently wasting his life, and torturing it for seven years underground, amidst hunger, idleness, and darkness— with a profound disgust for the mighty sky— what reckless effort would he not make, what curious contrivance would he not attempt, to arrive at the discovery of this famous shield? Suppose now, that he found it in some of those hidden researches; suppose that he recovered some slight breath of report which survived the now obsolete tradition; suppose him to have come to the knowledge of it by an inspection which he had bribed the beadle to let him have--we know very well what are the resources of magic skill for exploring hidden secrets: there are the catabolic spirits, which floor their victims; and the paredral spirits, which are ever at their side to haunt them; and the pythonic spirits, which entrance them by their divination and ventriloquistic arts. For was it not likely that Pherecydes also, the master of our Pythagoras, used to divine, or I would rather say rave and dream, by such arts and contrivances as these? Might not the self-same demon have been in him, who, while in Euphorbus, transacted deeds of blood? But lastly, why is it that the man, who proved himself to have been Euphorbus by the evidence of the shield, did not also recognise any of his former Trojan comrades? For they, too, must by this time have recovered life, since men were rising again from the dead.
"But there is no divine saying, except of the one true God, by whom the prophets, and the apostles, and Christ... declared their grand message. More ancient than Saturn a good deal (by some nine hundred years or so), and even than his grandchildren, is Moses; and he is certainly much more divine, recounting and tracing out... the course of the human race from the... beginning of the world, indicating the several births (of the fathers of mankind) according to their names and their epochs; giving thus plain proof of the divine character of his work, from its divine authority and word."
"If...the sophist of Samos is Plato's authority for the eternally revolving migration of souls out of a constant alternation of the dead and the living states, then no doubt did the famous Pythagoras... for the purpose of fabricating such an opinion as this, rely on a falsehood, which was not only shameful, but also hazardous. Consider it, you that are ignorant of it, and believe with us. He feigns death, he conceals himself underground, he condemns himself to that endurance for some seven years, during which he learns from his mother, who was his sole accomplice and attendant, what he was to relate for the belief of the world concerning those who had died since his seclusion; and when he thought that he had succeeded in reducing the frame of his body to the horrid appearance of a dead old man, he comes forth from the place of his concealment and deceit, and pretends to have returned from the dead. Who would hesitate about believing that the man, whom he had supposed to have died, had come back again to life? Especially after hearing from him facts about the recently dead, which he evidently could only have discovered in Hades itself! Thus, that men are made alive after death, is rather an old statement. But what if it be rather a recent one also? The truth does not desire antiquity, nor does falsehood shun novelty. This notable saying I hold to be plainly false, though ennobled by antiquity. How should that not be false, which depends for its evidence on a falsehood?— "
"How can I help believing Pythagoras to be a deceiver, who practises deceit to win my belief?" Tertullian questions the honesty of Pythagoras, as we question the honesty of the alleged writings of the Church Fathers.
"How will he convince me that, before he was Pythagoras, he had been Æthalides, and Euphorbus, and the fisherman Pyrrhus, and Hermotimus, to make us believe that men live again after they have died, when he actually perjured himself afterwards as Pythagoras. In proportion as it would be easier for me to believe that he had returned once to life in his own person, than so often in the person of this man and that, in the same degree has he deceived me in things which are too hard to be credited, because he has played the impostor in matters which might be readily believed. Well, but he recognised the shield of Euphorbus, which had been formerly consecrated at Delphi, and claimed it as his own, and proved his claim by signs which were generally unknown. Now, look again at his subterranean lurking-place, and believe his story, if you can. For, as to the man who devised such a tricksty scheme, to the injury of his health, fraudulently wasting his life, and torturing it for seven years underground, amidst hunger, idleness, and darkness— with a profound disgust for the mighty sky— what reckless effort would he not make, what curious contrivance would he not attempt, to arrive at the discovery of this famous shield? Suppose now, that he found it in some of those hidden researches; suppose that he recovered some slight breath of report which survived the now obsolete tradition; suppose him to have come to the knowledge of it by an inspection which he had bribed the beadle to let him have--we know very well what are the resources of magic skill for exploring hidden secrets: there are the catabolic spirits, which floor their victims; and the paredral spirits, which are ever at their side to haunt them; and the pythonic spirits, which entrance them by their divination and ventriloquistic arts. For was it not likely that Pherecydes also, the master of our Pythagoras, used to divine, or I would rather say rave and dream, by such arts and contrivances as these? Might not the self-same demon have been in him, who, while in Euphorbus, transacted deeds of blood? But lastly, why is it that the man, who proved himself to have been Euphorbus by the evidence of the shield, did not also recognise any of his former Trojan comrades? For they, too, must by this time have recovered life, since men were rising again from the dead.
Chapter 29.
The Pythagorean Doctrine Refuted by Its Own First Principle, that Living Men are Formed from the Dead
“It is ... manifest that dead men are formed from living ones; but it does not follow ... that living men are formed from dead ones.” "From the beginning the living came first ... and ... the dead came afterwards in order. But these proceeded from no other source except from the living." “The living had their origin in any other source (you please) than in the dead; while the dead had no source ... except from the living.”
"If... from the very first the living came not from the dead, why should they afterwards (be said to) come from the dead? Had that original source, whatever it was, come to an end? Was the form or law thereof a matter for regret? Then why was it preserved in the case of the dead?"
“Does it not follow that, because the dead came from the living at the first, therefore they always came from the living?” “Now it does not follow that the unborn proceeds from the born, on the ground that a contrary issues from a contrary...” “Nor is it, for the matter of that, true that life is restored out of death, because it happens that death succeeds life.”
"If... from the very first the living came not from the dead, why should they afterwards (be said to) come from the dead? Had that original source, whatever it was, come to an end? Was the form or law thereof a matter for regret? Then why was it preserved in the case of the dead?"
“Does it not follow that, because the dead came from the living at the first, therefore they always came from the living?” “Now it does not follow that the unborn proceeds from the born, on the ground that a contrary issues from a contrary...” “Nor is it, for the matter of that, true that life is restored out of death, because it happens that death succeeds life.”
Chapter 30.
Further Refutation of the Pythagorean Theory. The State of Contemporary Civilisation
“Then there must always remain unchanged one and the selfsame number of mankind” , however, “the human race has progressed with a gradual growth of population...” “Our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly supply us from its natural elements; our wants grow more ... while Nature fails in affording us her usual sustenance.” “We must not believe that men come back to life from the dead (in the way surmised in this philosophy).”
Chapter 31.
Further Exposure of Transmigration, Its Inextricable Embarrassment
“If souls depart at different ages of human life, how is it that they come back again at one uniform age?" "All men are imbued with an infant soul at their birth. But how happens it that a man who dies in old age returns to life as an infant?" "If the soul, while disembodied, decreases... by retrogression of its age, how much more reasonable would it be, that it should resume its life with a richer progress in all attainments of life after the lapse of a thousand years!"
The soul "should return with the age it had attained at its death, that it might resume the precise life which it had relinquished. But ... if... they should reappear the same evermore in their revolving cycles, it would be proper for them to bring back with them... at least their original peculiarities of character, taste, and disposition, because it would be hardly possible for them to be regarded as the same, if they were deficient in those characteristics by means of which their identity should be proved. (You, however, meet me with this question): How can you possibly know, you ask, whether all is not a secret process?” For unexplained reasons, Tertullian requires evidence, in the form of character and disposition, for proving the identities of reincarnated individiuals.
"May not the work of a thousand years take from you the power of recognition, since they return unknown to you? But I am quite certain that such is not the case, for you yourself present Pythagoras ... as (the restored) Euphorbus. Now look at Euphorbus: he was evidently possessed of a military and warlike soul, as is proved by the very renown of the sacred shields. As for Pythagoras, however, he was
“I ask... how the same souls ... can offer no proof of their identity, either by their disposition, or habits, or living? ... (we find that) only four souls are mentioned as recovering life out of all the multitudes of Greece.”
"But limiting ourselves merely to Greece, as if no transmigrations of souls and resumptions of bodies occurred, and that every day, in every nation, and among all ages, ranks, and sexes, how is it that Pythagoras alone experiences these changes into one personality and another? Why should not I too undergo them? Or if it be a privilege monopolized by philosophers... how is it that Epicurus had no recollection that he had been once another man, nor Chrysippus, nor Zeno, nor ... Plato himself...?"
The soul "should return with the age it had attained at its death, that it might resume the precise life which it had relinquished. But ... if... they should reappear the same evermore in their revolving cycles, it would be proper for them to bring back with them... at least their original peculiarities of character, taste, and disposition, because it would be hardly possible for them to be regarded as the same, if they were deficient in those characteristics by means of which their identity should be proved. (You, however, meet me with this question): How can you possibly know, you ask, whether all is not a secret process?” For unexplained reasons, Tertullian requires evidence, in the form of character and disposition, for proving the identities of reincarnated individiuals.
"May not the work of a thousand years take from you the power of recognition, since they return unknown to you? But I am quite certain that such is not the case, for you yourself present Pythagoras ... as (the restored) Euphorbus. Now look at Euphorbus: he was evidently possessed of a military and warlike soul, as is proved by the very renown of the sacred shields. As for Pythagoras, however, he was
“I ask... how the same souls ... can offer no proof of their identity, either by their disposition, or habits, or living? ... (we find that) only four souls are mentioned as recovering life out of all the multitudes of Greece.”
"But limiting ourselves merely to Greece, as if no transmigrations of souls and resumptions of bodies occurred, and that every day, in every nation, and among all ages, ranks, and sexes, how is it that Pythagoras alone experiences these changes into one personality and another? Why should not I too undergo them? Or if it be a privilege monopolized by philosophers... how is it that Epicurus had no recollection that he had been once another man, nor Chrysippus, nor Zeno, nor ... Plato himself...?"
Chapter 32.
Empedocles Increased the Absurdity of Pythagoras by Developing the Posthumous Change of Men into Various Animals
"Empedocles... declares... I once was Thamnus, and a fish. Why not rather a melon... or a cameleon, for his inflated brag? It was, no doubt, as a fish... that he escaped the corruption of some obscure grave, when he preferred being roasted by a plunge into Ætna; after which accomplishment there was an end for ever to his μετενσωμάτωσις or putting himself into another body— (fit only now for) a light dish after the roast-meat. ...we must likewise contend against that still more monstrous presumption, that in the course of the transmigration beasts pass from human beings, and human beings from beasts. Let (Empedocles') Thamnuses alone. Our slight notice of them in passing will be quite enough: ... lest we should be obliged to have recourse to raillery and laughter instead of serious instruction. Now our position is this: that
“The human soul cannot... be transferred to beasts, even when they are supposed to originate, according to the philosophers, out of the substances of the elements.”
"For I maintain that, of whichsoever of the before-mentioned natures the human soul is composed, it would not have been possible for it to pass for new forms into animals so contrary to each of the separate natures, and to bestow an origin by its passage on those beings, from which it would have to be excluded and rejected rather than to be admitted and received, by reason of that original contrariety which we have supposed it to possess, and which commits the bodily substance receiving it to an interminable strife; and then again by reason of the subsequent contrariety, which results from the development inseparable from each several nature." Tertullian has knowledge of the natures of the human souls, however, he does not state how he came to this secondary. and even tertiary, knowledge. Of course, Socrates would state that Tertullian's knowledge of natures is opinion only, not knowledge.
“Now it is on quite different conditions that the soul of man has had assigned to it (in individual bodies ) its abode, and aliment, and order, and sensation, and affection, and sexual intercourse, and procreation of children; also (on different conditions has it, in individual bodies, received special) dispositions, as well as duties to fulfil, likings, dislikes, vices, desires, pleasures, maladies, remedies— in short, its own modes of living, its own outlets of death.”
“Every individual body ... is filled up by the soul, and that the soul is entirely covered by the body. “
“If it undergoes such a transformation, and loses what it once was, the human soul will not be what it was; and if it ceases to be its former self, the metensomatosis, or adaptation of some other body, comes to nought..., and is not of course to be ascribed to the soul which will cease to exist, on the supposition of its complete change. For only then can a soul be said to experience this process of the metensomatosis, when it undergoes it by remaining unchanged in its own (primitive) condition."
"Since... the soul does not admit of change, lest it should cease to retain its identity; and yet is unable to remain unchanged in its original state, because it fails then to receive contrary (bodies),— I still want to know some credible reason to justify such a transformation as we are discussing."
"For although some men are compared to the beasts because of their character, disposition, and pursuits.... it does not ... follow that rapacious persons become kites, lewd persons dogs, ill-tempered ones panthers, good men sheep, talkative ones swallows, and chaste men doves, as if the selfsame substance of the soul everywhere repeated its own nature in the properties of the animals (into which it passed)."
"Besides, a substance is one thing, and the nature of that substance is another thing; inasmuch as the substance is the special property of one given thing, whereas the nature thereof may possibly belong to many things. Thus, if a man likewise be designated a wild beast or a harmless one, there is not for all that an identity of soul." There are a limited number of natures of mankind, but as many substances as souls in existence.
"Now the similarity of nature is even then observed, when dissimilarity of substance is most conspicuous: for, by the very fact of your judging that a man resembles a beast, you confess that their soul is not identical; for you say that they resemble each other, not that they are the same. This is also the meaning of the word of God ...: it likens man to the beasts in nature, but not in substance. Besides, God would not have actually made such a comment as this concerning man, if He had known him to be in substance only bestial."
“The human soul cannot... be transferred to beasts, even when they are supposed to originate, according to the philosophers, out of the substances of the elements.”
"For I maintain that, of whichsoever of the before-mentioned natures the human soul is composed, it would not have been possible for it to pass for new forms into animals so contrary to each of the separate natures, and to bestow an origin by its passage on those beings, from which it would have to be excluded and rejected rather than to be admitted and received, by reason of that original contrariety which we have supposed it to possess, and which commits the bodily substance receiving it to an interminable strife; and then again by reason of the subsequent contrariety, which results from the development inseparable from each several nature." Tertullian has knowledge of the natures of the human souls, however, he does not state how he came to this secondary. and even tertiary, knowledge. Of course, Socrates would state that Tertullian's knowledge of natures is opinion only, not knowledge.
“Now it is on quite different conditions that the soul of man has had assigned to it (in individual bodies ) its abode, and aliment, and order, and sensation, and affection, and sexual intercourse, and procreation of children; also (on different conditions has it, in individual bodies, received special) dispositions, as well as duties to fulfil, likings, dislikes, vices, desires, pleasures, maladies, remedies— in short, its own modes of living, its own outlets of death.”
“Every individual body ... is filled up by the soul, and that the soul is entirely covered by the body. “
“If it undergoes such a transformation, and loses what it once was, the human soul will not be what it was; and if it ceases to be its former self, the metensomatosis, or adaptation of some other body, comes to nought..., and is not of course to be ascribed to the soul which will cease to exist, on the supposition of its complete change. For only then can a soul be said to experience this process of the metensomatosis, when it undergoes it by remaining unchanged in its own (primitive) condition."
"Since... the soul does not admit of change, lest it should cease to retain its identity; and yet is unable to remain unchanged in its original state, because it fails then to receive contrary (bodies),— I still want to know some credible reason to justify such a transformation as we are discussing."
"For although some men are compared to the beasts because of their character, disposition, and pursuits.... it does not ... follow that rapacious persons become kites, lewd persons dogs, ill-tempered ones panthers, good men sheep, talkative ones swallows, and chaste men doves, as if the selfsame substance of the soul everywhere repeated its own nature in the properties of the animals (into which it passed)."
"Besides, a substance is one thing, and the nature of that substance is another thing; inasmuch as the substance is the special property of one given thing, whereas the nature thereof may possibly belong to many things. Thus, if a man likewise be designated a wild beast or a harmless one, there is not for all that an identity of soul." There are a limited number of natures of mankind, but as many substances as souls in existence.
"Now the similarity of nature is even then observed, when dissimilarity of substance is most conspicuous: for, by the very fact of your judging that a man resembles a beast, you confess that their soul is not identical; for you say that they resemble each other, not that they are the same. This is also the meaning of the word of God ...: it likens man to the beasts in nature, but not in substance. Besides, God would not have actually made such a comment as this concerning man, if He had known him to be in substance only bestial."
Chapter 33.
The Judicial Retribution of These Migrations Refuted with Raillery
Chapter 33.
The Judicial Retribution of These Migrations Refuted with Raillery
"Forasmuch as this doctrine is vindicated even on the principle of judicial retribution, on the pretence that the souls of men obtain as their partners the kind of animals which are suited to their life and deserts,— as if they ought to be, according to their several characters, either slain in criminals destined to execution, or reduced to hard work in menials, or fatigued and wearied in labourers, or foully disgraced in the unclean; or, again, on the same principle, reserved for honour, and love, and care, and attentive regard in characters most eminent in rank and virtue, usefulness, and tender sensibility—I must here also remark, that
"If souls undergo a transformation, they will ... not be able to accomplish and experience the destinies which they shall deserve; and the aim and purpose of judicial recompense will be brought to nought, as there will be wanting the sense and consciousness of merit and retribution." The soul has no awareness that it needs to be punished for works in a previous life.
"There must be this want of consciousness, if souls lose their condition; and there must ensue this loss, if they do not continue in one stay. But even if they should have permanency enough to remain unchanged until the judgment..." “A point which Mercurius Ægyptius recognised, when he said that the soul, after its separation from the body, was not dissipated back into the soul of the universe, but retained permanently its distinct individuality...” The Egyptian Mercury is Thoth; "Beaky" to his friends. The soul retaining its individuality is a Christian concept. We are gratefull that Tertullian does not need any recourse to Pagan philosophies.
"In order that it [the soul] might render... an account to the Father of those things which it has done in the body; — (even supposing all this, I say,) I still want to examine the justice, the solemnity, the majesty, and the dignity of this reputed judgment of God, and see whether human judgment has not too elevated a throne in it— exaggerated in both directions, in its office both of punishments and rewards, too severe in dealing out its vengeance, and too lavish in bestowing its favour."
"What do you suppose will become of the soul of the murderer? (It will animate), I suppose, some cattle destined for the slaughter-house and the shambles, that it may itself be killed, even as it has killed; and be itself flayed, since it has fleeced others; and be itself used for food, since it has cast to the wild beasts the ill-fated victims whom it once slew in woods and lonely roads. Now, if such be the judicial retribution which it is to receive, is not such a soul likely to find more of consolation than of punishment, in the fact that it receives its coup de grâce from the hands of most expert practitioners— is buried with condiments served in the most piquant styles of an Apicius or a Lurco, is introduced to the tables of your exquisite Ciceros, is brought up on the most splendid dishes of a Sylla, finds its obsequies in a banquet, is devoured by respectable (mouths) on a par with itself, rather than by kites and wolves, so that all may see how it has got a man's body for its tomb, and has risen again after returning to its own kindred race— exulting in the face of human judgments, if it has experienced them?
For these barbarous sentences of death consign to various wild beasts, which are selected and trained even against their nature for their horrible office the criminal who has committed murder, even while yet alive; nay, hindered from too easily dying, by a contrivance which retards his last moment in order to aggravate his punishment.
But even if his soul should have anticipated by its departure the sword's last stroke, his body at all events must not escape the weapon: retribution for his own crime is yet exacted by stabbing his throat and stomach, and piercing his side.
After that he is flung into the fire, that his very grave may be cheated. In no other way, indeed, is a sepulture allowed him. Not that any great care, after all, is bestowed on his pyre, so that other animals light upon his remains. At any rate, no mercy is shown to his bones, no indulgence to his ashes, which must be punished with exposure and nakedness. The vengeance which is inflicted among men upon the homicide is really as great as that which is imposed by nature. Who would not prefer the justice of the world, which, as the apostle himself testifies, bears not the sword in vain, Romans 13:4 and which is an institute of religion when it severely avenges in defence of human life? When we contemplate, too, the penalties awarded to other crimes— gibbets, and holocausts, and sacks, and harpoons, and precipices— who would not think it better to receive his sentence in the courts of Pythagoras and Empedocles?
For even the wretches whom they will send into the bodies of asses and mules to be punished by drudgery and slavery, how will they congratulate themselves on the mild labour of the mill and the water-wheel, when they recollect the mines, and the convict-gangs, and the public works, and even the prisons and black-holes, terrible in their idle, do-nothing routine? ...in the case of those who, after a course of integrity, have surrendered their life to the Judge, I likewise look for rewards, but I rather discover punishments. To be sure, it must be a handsome gain for good men to be restored to life in any animals whatsoever!
"Homer...remembered that he was once a peacock; however, I cannot ... believe poets, even when ...awake."
A peacock, no doubt, is a very pretty bird, pluming itself, at will, on its splendid feathers; but then its wings do not make amends for its voice, which is harsh and unpleasant; and there is nothing that poets like better than a good song. His transformation, therefore, into a peacock was to Homer a penalty, not an honour. The world's remuneration will bring him a much greater joy, when it lauds him as the father of the liberal sciences; and he will prefer the ornaments of his fame to the graces of his tail! But never mind! let poets migrate into peacocks, or into swans, if you like, especially as swans have a respectable voice: in what animal will you invest that righteous hero Æacus? In what beast will you clothe the chaste and excellent Dido? What bird shall fall to the lot of Patience? What animal to the lot of Holiness? What fish to that of Innocence? Now all creatures are the servants of man; all are his subjects, all his dependants.
"If by and by he is to become one of these creatures, he is by such a change debased and degraded, he to whom, for his virtues, images, statues, and titles are freely awarded as public honours and distinguished privileges, he to whom the senate and the people vote even sacrifices! Oh, what judicial sentences for gods to pronounce, as men's recompense after death! They are more mendacious than any human judgments; they are contemptible as punishments, disgusting as rewards; such as the worst of men could never fear, nor the best desire; such indeed, as criminals will aspire to, rather than saints—the former, that they may escape more speedily the world's stern sentence—the latter that they may more tardily incur it. How well, (forsooth), O you philosophers do you teach us, and how usefully do you advise us, that after death rewards and punishments fall with lighter weight!
"Whereas, if any judgment awaits souls at all, it ought ... to be supposed that it will be heavier at the conclusion of life than in the conduct thereof, since nothing is more complete than that which comes at the very last— nothing, moreover, is more complete than that which is especially divine."
"God's judgment will be more full and complete, because it will be pronounced at the very last, in an eternal irrevocable sentence, both of punishment and of consolation, (on men whose) souls are not to transmigrate into beasts, but are to return into their own proper bodies. And all this once for all, and on that day, too, of which the Father only knows; [Mark 13:32] (only knows,) in order that by her trembling expectation faith may make full trial of her anxious sincerity, keeping her gaze ever fixed on that day, in her perpetual ignorance of it, daily fearing that for which she yet daily hopes."
"If souls undergo a transformation, they will ... not be able to accomplish and experience the destinies which they shall deserve; and the aim and purpose of judicial recompense will be brought to nought, as there will be wanting the sense and consciousness of merit and retribution." The soul has no awareness that it needs to be punished for works in a previous life.
"There must be this want of consciousness, if souls lose their condition; and there must ensue this loss, if they do not continue in one stay. But even if they should have permanency enough to remain unchanged until the judgment..." “A point which Mercurius Ægyptius recognised, when he said that the soul, after its separation from the body, was not dissipated back into the soul of the universe, but retained permanently its distinct individuality...” The Egyptian Mercury is Thoth; "Beaky" to his friends. The soul retaining its individuality is a Christian concept. We are gratefull that Tertullian does not need any recourse to Pagan philosophies.
"In order that it [the soul] might render... an account to the Father of those things which it has done in the body; — (even supposing all this, I say,) I still want to examine the justice, the solemnity, the majesty, and the dignity of this reputed judgment of God, and see whether human judgment has not too elevated a throne in it— exaggerated in both directions, in its office both of punishments and rewards, too severe in dealing out its vengeance, and too lavish in bestowing its favour."
"What do you suppose will become of the soul of the murderer? (It will animate), I suppose, some cattle destined for the slaughter-house and the shambles, that it may itself be killed, even as it has killed; and be itself flayed, since it has fleeced others; and be itself used for food, since it has cast to the wild beasts the ill-fated victims whom it once slew in woods and lonely roads. Now, if such be the judicial retribution which it is to receive, is not such a soul likely to find more of consolation than of punishment, in the fact that it receives its coup de grâce from the hands of most expert practitioners— is buried with condiments served in the most piquant styles of an Apicius or a Lurco, is introduced to the tables of your exquisite Ciceros, is brought up on the most splendid dishes of a Sylla, finds its obsequies in a banquet, is devoured by respectable (mouths) on a par with itself, rather than by kites and wolves, so that all may see how it has got a man's body for its tomb, and has risen again after returning to its own kindred race— exulting in the face of human judgments, if it has experienced them?
For these barbarous sentences of death consign to various wild beasts, which are selected and trained even against their nature for their horrible office the criminal who has committed murder, even while yet alive; nay, hindered from too easily dying, by a contrivance which retards his last moment in order to aggravate his punishment.
But even if his soul should have anticipated by its departure the sword's last stroke, his body at all events must not escape the weapon: retribution for his own crime is yet exacted by stabbing his throat and stomach, and piercing his side.
After that he is flung into the fire, that his very grave may be cheated. In no other way, indeed, is a sepulture allowed him. Not that any great care, after all, is bestowed on his pyre, so that other animals light upon his remains. At any rate, no mercy is shown to his bones, no indulgence to his ashes, which must be punished with exposure and nakedness. The vengeance which is inflicted among men upon the homicide is really as great as that which is imposed by nature. Who would not prefer the justice of the world, which, as the apostle himself testifies, bears not the sword in vain, Romans 13:4 and which is an institute of religion when it severely avenges in defence of human life? When we contemplate, too, the penalties awarded to other crimes— gibbets, and holocausts, and sacks, and harpoons, and precipices— who would not think it better to receive his sentence in the courts of Pythagoras and Empedocles?
For even the wretches whom they will send into the bodies of asses and mules to be punished by drudgery and slavery, how will they congratulate themselves on the mild labour of the mill and the water-wheel, when they recollect the mines, and the convict-gangs, and the public works, and even the prisons and black-holes, terrible in their idle, do-nothing routine? ...in the case of those who, after a course of integrity, have surrendered their life to the Judge, I likewise look for rewards, but I rather discover punishments. To be sure, it must be a handsome gain for good men to be restored to life in any animals whatsoever!
"Homer...remembered that he was once a peacock; however, I cannot ... believe poets, even when ...awake."
A peacock, no doubt, is a very pretty bird, pluming itself, at will, on its splendid feathers; but then its wings do not make amends for its voice, which is harsh and unpleasant; and there is nothing that poets like better than a good song. His transformation, therefore, into a peacock was to Homer a penalty, not an honour. The world's remuneration will bring him a much greater joy, when it lauds him as the father of the liberal sciences; and he will prefer the ornaments of his fame to the graces of his tail! But never mind! let poets migrate into peacocks, or into swans, if you like, especially as swans have a respectable voice: in what animal will you invest that righteous hero Æacus? In what beast will you clothe the chaste and excellent Dido? What bird shall fall to the lot of Patience? What animal to the lot of Holiness? What fish to that of Innocence? Now all creatures are the servants of man; all are his subjects, all his dependants.
"If by and by he is to become one of these creatures, he is by such a change debased and degraded, he to whom, for his virtues, images, statues, and titles are freely awarded as public honours and distinguished privileges, he to whom the senate and the people vote even sacrifices! Oh, what judicial sentences for gods to pronounce, as men's recompense after death! They are more mendacious than any human judgments; they are contemptible as punishments, disgusting as rewards; such as the worst of men could never fear, nor the best desire; such indeed, as criminals will aspire to, rather than saints—the former, that they may escape more speedily the world's stern sentence—the latter that they may more tardily incur it. How well, (forsooth), O you philosophers do you teach us, and how usefully do you advise us, that after death rewards and punishments fall with lighter weight!
"Whereas, if any judgment awaits souls at all, it ought ... to be supposed that it will be heavier at the conclusion of life than in the conduct thereof, since nothing is more complete than that which comes at the very last— nothing, moreover, is more complete than that which is especially divine."
"God's judgment will be more full and complete, because it will be pronounced at the very last, in an eternal irrevocable sentence, both of punishment and of consolation, (on men whose) souls are not to transmigrate into beasts, but are to return into their own proper bodies. And all this once for all, and on that day, too, of which the Father only knows; [Mark 13:32] (only knows,) in order that by her trembling expectation faith may make full trial of her anxious sincerity, keeping her gaze ever fixed on that day, in her perpetual ignorance of it, daily fearing that for which she yet daily hopes."
Chapter 34.
These Vagaries Stimulated Some Profane Corruptions of Christianity. The Profanity of Simon Magus Condemned
"No tenet...under cover of any heresy has as yet burst upon us, embodying any such extravagant fiction as that the souls of human beings pass into the bodies of wild beasts; but yet we have deemed it necessary to attack and refute this conceit, as a consistent sequel to the preceding opinions.... by the demolition of the metempsychosis and metensomatosis by the same blow, the ground might be cut away which has furnished no inconsiderable support to our heretics."
The Gnostic creation myth is explained: "Simon [Magus] of Samaria in the Acts of the Apostles, who chaffered for the Holy Ghost: after his condemnation by Him, and a vain remorse that he and his money must perish together, he applied his energies to the destruction of the truth, as if to console himself with revenge.
Besides the support with which his own magic arts furnished him, he had recourse to imposture, and purchased a Tyrian woman of the name of Helen out of a brothel, with the same money which he had offered for the Holy Spirit—a traffic worthy of the wretched man. He... feigned himself to be the Supreme Father, and ... pretended that the woman was his own primary conception, wherewith he had purposed the creation of the angels and the archangels; ... after she was possessed of this purpose she sprang forth from the Father and descended to the lower spaces, and ... anticipating the Father's design had produced the angelic powers, which knew nothing of the Father, the Creator of this world; that she was detained a prisoner by these from a (rebellious) motive ... like her own, lest after her departure from them they should appear to be the offspring of another being; and that, after being on this account exposed to every insult, to prevent her leaving them anywhere after her dishonour, she was degraded even to the form of man, to be confined, as it were, in the bonds of the flesh.
Having during many ages wallowed about in one female shape and another, she became the notorious Helen who was so ruinous to Priam, and afterwards to the eyes of Stesichorus, whom, she blinded in revenge for his lampoons, and then restored to sight to reward him for his eulogies. After wandering about in this way from body to body, she, in her final disgrace, turned out a viler Helen still as a professional prostitute."
Helen "was the lost sheep, upon whom the Supreme Father, even Simon, descended, who, after he had recovered her and brought her back... cast an eye on the salvation of man, ... by liberating them from the angelic powers. Moreover, to deceive these he also himself assumed a visible shape; and feigning the appearance of a man among men, he acted the part of the Son in Judea, and of the Father in Samaria. "
"Only her rescue from Troy is a more glorious affair than her extrication from the brothel. .... Fie on you, Simon, to be so tardy in seeking her out, and so inconstant in ransoming her!"
The Gnostic creation myth is explained: "Simon [Magus] of Samaria in the Acts of the Apostles, who chaffered for the Holy Ghost: after his condemnation by Him, and a vain remorse that he and his money must perish together, he applied his energies to the destruction of the truth, as if to console himself with revenge.
Besides the support with which his own magic arts furnished him, he had recourse to imposture, and purchased a Tyrian woman of the name of Helen out of a brothel, with the same money which he had offered for the Holy Spirit—a traffic worthy of the wretched man. He... feigned himself to be the Supreme Father, and ... pretended that the woman was his own primary conception, wherewith he had purposed the creation of the angels and the archangels; ... after she was possessed of this purpose she sprang forth from the Father and descended to the lower spaces, and ... anticipating the Father's design had produced the angelic powers, which knew nothing of the Father, the Creator of this world; that she was detained a prisoner by these from a (rebellious) motive ... like her own, lest after her departure from them they should appear to be the offspring of another being; and that, after being on this account exposed to every insult, to prevent her leaving them anywhere after her dishonour, she was degraded even to the form of man, to be confined, as it were, in the bonds of the flesh.
Having during many ages wallowed about in one female shape and another, she became the notorious Helen who was so ruinous to Priam, and afterwards to the eyes of Stesichorus, whom, she blinded in revenge for his lampoons, and then restored to sight to reward him for his eulogies. After wandering about in this way from body to body, she, in her final disgrace, turned out a viler Helen still as a professional prostitute."
Helen "was the lost sheep, upon whom the Supreme Father, even Simon, descended, who, after he had recovered her and brought her back... cast an eye on the salvation of man, ... by liberating them from the angelic powers. Moreover, to deceive these he also himself assumed a visible shape; and feigning the appearance of a man among men, he acted the part of the Son in Judea, and of the Father in Samaria. "
"Only her rescue from Troy is a more glorious affair than her extrication from the brothel. .... Fie on you, Simon, to be so tardy in seeking her out, and so inconstant in ransoming her!"
Chapter 35.
The Opinions of Carpocrates, Another Offset from the Pythagorean Dogmas, Stated and Confuted
"Carpocrates ... asserted that souls are reinvested with bodies, in order to ensure the overthrow .... of divine and human truth. For... this life became consummated to no man until all those blemishes which are held to disfigure it have been fully displayed in its conduct; because there is nothing which is accounted evil by nature, but simply as men think of it." It is clear that Carpocrates is familiar with Saint Paul: "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean." [Romans 14:14]
"The transmigration of human souls..., into any kind of heterogeneous bodies, he thought by all means indispensable, whenever any depravity whatever had not been fully perpetrated in the early stage of life's passage. Evil deeds (one may be sure) appertain to life. Moreover, as often as the soul has fallen short as a defaulter in sin, it has to be recalled to existence, until it pays the utmost farthing, [Matthew 5:26] thrust out from time to time into the prison of the body."
"To this effect does he tamper with the .... that allegory of the Lord which is ... clear and simple in its meaning, and ... from the first understood in its plain and natural sense. Thus our adversary (therein mentioned ) is the heathen man, who is walking with us along the same road of life which is common to him and ourselves."
"Now we must needs go out of the world, [1 Corinthians 5:10] if it be not allowed us to have conversation with them. He bids us, therefore, show a kindly disposition to such a man. Love your enemies, says He, pray for them that curse you,[ Luke 6:27] lest such a man in any transaction of business be irritated by any unjust conduct of yours, and deliver you to the judge of his own (nation Matthew 5:25), and you be thrown into prison, and be detained in its close and narrow cell until you have liquidated all your debt against him. Then, again, should you be disposed to apply the term adversary to the devil, you are advised by the (Lord's) injunction, while you are in the way with him, to make even with him such a compact as may be deemed compatible with the requirements of your true faith. Now the compact you have made respecting him is to renounce him, and his pomp, and his angels.
"Such is your agreement in this matter. Now the friendly understanding you will have to carry out must arise from your observance of the compact: you must never think of getting back any of the things which you have abjured, and have restored to him, lest he should summon you as a fraudulent man, and a transgressor of your agreement, before God the Judge (for in this light do we read of him, in another passage, as the accuser of the brethren, [Revelation 12:10] or saints, where reference is made to the actual practice of legal prosecution); and lest this Judge deliver you over to the angel who is to execute the sentence, and he commit you to the prison of hell, out of which there will be no dismissal until the smallest even of your delinquencies be paid off in the period before the resurrection."
What can be a more fitting sense than this? What a truer interpretation?
"If... according to Carpocrates, the soul is bound to the commission of all sorts of crime and evil conduct, [then] what must we from his system understand to be its adversary and foe? I suppose it must be that better mind which shall compel it by force to the performance ... of virtue, that it may be driven from body to body, until it be found in none a debtor to the claims of a virtuous life."
"This means, that a good tree is known by its bad fruit— in other words, that the doctrine of truth is understood from the worst possible precepts. I apprehend that heretics of this school seize with special avidity the example of Elias, whom they assume to have been so reproduced in John (the Baptist) as to make our Lord's statement sponsor for their theory of transmigration, when He said, Elias has come already, and they knew him not; Matthew 17:12 and again, in another passage, And if you will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. Matthew 11:14
"Well, then, was it really in a Pythagorean sense that the Jews approached John with the inquiry, Are you Elias? [John 1:21] and not rather in the sense of the divine prediction, Behold, I will send you Elijah the Tisbite? [Malachi 4:5] The fact, however, is, that their metempsychosis, or transmigration theory, signifies the recall of the soul which had died long before, and its return to some other body."
Tertullian refutes the belief found among certain heretics that John the Baptist is Elias: "But Elias is to come again, not ...(in the way of dying), but after his translation (or removal without dying); not for the purpose of being restored to the body, from which he had not departed, but for the purpose of revisiting the world from which he was translated; not by way of resuming a life which he had laid aside, but of fulfilling prophecy—really and truly the same man, both in respect of his name and designation, as well as of his unchanged humanity. How, therefore could John be Elias? You have your answer in the angel's announcement: And he shall go before the people, says he, in the spirit and power of Elias— not (observe) in his soul and his body. These substances are, in fact, the natural property of each individual; while the spirit and power are bestowed as external gifts by the grace of God and so may be transferred to another person according to the purpose and will of the Almighty, as was anciently the case with respect to the spirit of Moses." Numbers 12:2
Unfortunately, Tertullian does not comment on the following passage where Herod "said unto his servants, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him [Christ]." Matthew 14:2
"The transmigration of human souls..., into any kind of heterogeneous bodies, he thought by all means indispensable, whenever any depravity whatever had not been fully perpetrated in the early stage of life's passage. Evil deeds (one may be sure) appertain to life. Moreover, as often as the soul has fallen short as a defaulter in sin, it has to be recalled to existence, until it pays the utmost farthing, [Matthew 5:26] thrust out from time to time into the prison of the body."
"To this effect does he tamper with the .... that allegory of the Lord which is ... clear and simple in its meaning, and ... from the first understood in its plain and natural sense. Thus our adversary (therein mentioned ) is the heathen man, who is walking with us along the same road of life which is common to him and ourselves."
"Now we must needs go out of the world, [1 Corinthians 5:10] if it be not allowed us to have conversation with them. He bids us, therefore, show a kindly disposition to such a man. Love your enemies, says He, pray for them that curse you,[ Luke 6:27] lest such a man in any transaction of business be irritated by any unjust conduct of yours, and deliver you to the judge of his own (nation Matthew 5:25), and you be thrown into prison, and be detained in its close and narrow cell until you have liquidated all your debt against him. Then, again, should you be disposed to apply the term adversary to the devil, you are advised by the (Lord's) injunction, while you are in the way with him, to make even with him such a compact as may be deemed compatible with the requirements of your true faith. Now the compact you have made respecting him is to renounce him, and his pomp, and his angels.
"Such is your agreement in this matter. Now the friendly understanding you will have to carry out must arise from your observance of the compact: you must never think of getting back any of the things which you have abjured, and have restored to him, lest he should summon you as a fraudulent man, and a transgressor of your agreement, before God the Judge (for in this light do we read of him, in another passage, as the accuser of the brethren, [Revelation 12:10] or saints, where reference is made to the actual practice of legal prosecution); and lest this Judge deliver you over to the angel who is to execute the sentence, and he commit you to the prison of hell, out of which there will be no dismissal until the smallest even of your delinquencies be paid off in the period before the resurrection."
What can be a more fitting sense than this? What a truer interpretation?
"If... according to Carpocrates, the soul is bound to the commission of all sorts of crime and evil conduct, [then] what must we from his system understand to be its adversary and foe? I suppose it must be that better mind which shall compel it by force to the performance ... of virtue, that it may be driven from body to body, until it be found in none a debtor to the claims of a virtuous life."
"This means, that a good tree is known by its bad fruit— in other words, that the doctrine of truth is understood from the worst possible precepts. I apprehend that heretics of this school seize with special avidity the example of Elias, whom they assume to have been so reproduced in John (the Baptist) as to make our Lord's statement sponsor for their theory of transmigration, when He said, Elias has come already, and they knew him not; Matthew 17:12 and again, in another passage, And if you will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. Matthew 11:14
"Well, then, was it really in a Pythagorean sense that the Jews approached John with the inquiry, Are you Elias? [John 1:21] and not rather in the sense of the divine prediction, Behold, I will send you Elijah the Tisbite? [Malachi 4:5] The fact, however, is, that their metempsychosis, or transmigration theory, signifies the recall of the soul which had died long before, and its return to some other body."
Tertullian refutes the belief found among certain heretics that John the Baptist is Elias: "But Elias is to come again, not ...(in the way of dying), but after his translation (or removal without dying); not for the purpose of being restored to the body, from which he had not departed, but for the purpose of revisiting the world from which he was translated; not by way of resuming a life which he had laid aside, but of fulfilling prophecy—really and truly the same man, both in respect of his name and designation, as well as of his unchanged humanity. How, therefore could John be Elias? You have your answer in the angel's announcement: And he shall go before the people, says he, in the spirit and power of Elias— not (observe) in his soul and his body. These substances are, in fact, the natural property of each individual; while the spirit and power are bestowed as external gifts by the grace of God and so may be transferred to another person according to the purpose and will of the Almighty, as was anciently the case with respect to the spirit of Moses." Numbers 12:2
Unfortunately, Tertullian does not comment on the following passage where Herod "said unto his servants, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him [Christ]." Matthew 14:2
Chapter 36.
The Main Points of Our Author's Subject. On the Sexes of the Human Race
"We had established the position that the soul is seminally placed in man, and by human agency, and that its seed from the very beginning is uniform, as is that of the soul also..." The soul is placed in man by human activity.
"The soul, being sown in the womb at the same time as the body, receives likewise along with it its sex; and ... neither of the two substances can be alone regarded as the cause of the sex. ... if in the semination of these substances any interval were admissible in their conception, in such wise that either the flesh or the soul should be the first to be conceived, one might then ascribe a special sex to one of the substances, owing to the difference in the time of the impregnations, so that either the flesh would impress its sex upon the soul, or the soul upon the sex; even as Apelles (the heretic...) gives the priority over their bodies to the souls of men and women... and in consequence makes the flesh... receive its sex from the soul. "
"They ... make the soul supervene after birth on the flesh predetermine... the sex of the previously formed soul to be male or female, according to (the sex of) the flesh. But the truth is, the seminations of the two substances are inseparable in point of time, and their effusion is also one and the same, in consequence of which a community of gender is secured to them; so that the course of nature, whatever that be, shall draw the line (for the distinct sexes)."
"When the male was moulded and tempered in a completer way, for Adam was first formed; and the woman [Eve] came far behind him... So that her flesh was for a long time without specific form (such as she afterwards assumed when taken out of Adam's side); but she was... a living being, because I should regard her at that time in soul as even a portion of Adam. Besides, God's afflatus would have animated her too, if there had not been in the woman a transmission from Adam of his soul also as well as of his flesh."
Based on Tertullian's reasoning that Adam's soul was breathed into him by God, we can conclude that Eve does not have a soul. Tertullian addresses this discrepancy by stating that Adam and Eve have the same soul. After 36 chapters, the critical reader wonders if anyone has a soul.
"The soul, being sown in the womb at the same time as the body, receives likewise along with it its sex; and ... neither of the two substances can be alone regarded as the cause of the sex. ... if in the semination of these substances any interval were admissible in their conception, in such wise that either the flesh or the soul should be the first to be conceived, one might then ascribe a special sex to one of the substances, owing to the difference in the time of the impregnations, so that either the flesh would impress its sex upon the soul, or the soul upon the sex; even as Apelles (the heretic...) gives the priority over their bodies to the souls of men and women... and in consequence makes the flesh... receive its sex from the soul. "
"They ... make the soul supervene after birth on the flesh predetermine... the sex of the previously formed soul to be male or female, according to (the sex of) the flesh. But the truth is, the seminations of the two substances are inseparable in point of time, and their effusion is also one and the same, in consequence of which a community of gender is secured to them; so that the course of nature, whatever that be, shall draw the line (for the distinct sexes)."
"When the male was moulded and tempered in a completer way, for Adam was first formed; and the woman [Eve] came far behind him... So that her flesh was for a long time without specific form (such as she afterwards assumed when taken out of Adam's side); but she was... a living being, because I should regard her at that time in soul as even a portion of Adam. Besides, God's afflatus would have animated her too, if there had not been in the woman a transmission from Adam of his soul also as well as of his flesh."
Based on Tertullian's reasoning that Adam's soul was breathed into him by God, we can conclude that Eve does not have a soul. Tertullian addresses this discrepancy by stating that Adam and Eve have the same soul. After 36 chapters, the critical reader wonders if anyone has a soul.
Chapter 37.
On the Formation and State of the Embryo. Its Relation with the Subject of This Treatise
"Now the entire process of sowing, forming, and completing the human embryo in the womb is no doubt regulated by some power, which ministers ... to the will of God, whatever may be the method which it is appointed to employ." "We... believe the angels to officiate herein for God. The embryo ... becomes a human being in the womb from the moment that its form is completed. The law of Moses... punishes ... the man who shall cause abortion... as there exists already the rudiment of a human being, which has imputed to it ... the condition of life and death, since it is already liable to the issues of both... by living still in the mother, it for the most part shares its own state with the mother."
"A mature and regular birth takes place... at the commencement of the tenth month. But inasmuch as birth is also completed with the seventh month, ... and yet to occur in fit and perfect accordance with an hebdomad or sevenfold number, as an auspice of our resurrection, and rest, and kingdom." Tertullian strains the reader's credibility by linking birth with the resurrection. Again, Tertullian maintains the infusion of the soul at conception:
"We have already demonstrated the conjunction of the body and the soul, from the concretion of their very seminations to the complete formation of the fœtus. We now maintain their conjunction likewise from the birth onwards... because they both grow together, only each in a different manner suited to the diversity of their nature— the flesh in magnitude, the soul in intelligence— the flesh in material condition, the soul in sensibility."
"We are... forbidden to suppose that the soul increases in substance, lest it should be said also to be capable of diminution in substance, and so its extinction even should be believed to be possible; but its inherent power, in which are contained all its natural peculiarities... is gradually developed along with the flesh, without impairing the germinal basis of the substance, which it received when breathed at first into man."
"A mature and regular birth takes place... at the commencement of the tenth month. But inasmuch as birth is also completed with the seventh month, ... and yet to occur in fit and perfect accordance with an hebdomad or sevenfold number, as an auspice of our resurrection, and rest, and kingdom." Tertullian strains the reader's credibility by linking birth with the resurrection. Again, Tertullian maintains the infusion of the soul at conception:
"We have already demonstrated the conjunction of the body and the soul, from the concretion of their very seminations to the complete formation of the fœtus. We now maintain their conjunction likewise from the birth onwards... because they both grow together, only each in a different manner suited to the diversity of their nature— the flesh in magnitude, the soul in intelligence— the flesh in material condition, the soul in sensibility."
"We are... forbidden to suppose that the soul increases in substance, lest it should be said also to be capable of diminution in substance, and so its extinction even should be believed to be possible; but its inherent power, in which are contained all its natural peculiarities... is gradually developed along with the flesh, without impairing the germinal basis of the substance, which it received when breathed at first into man."
Chapter 38.
On the Growth of the Soul. Its Maturity Coincident with the Maturity of the Flesh in Man
"All the natural properties of the soul which relate to sense and intelligence are inherent in its very substance, and spring from its native constitution, but that they advance by a gradual growth through the stages of life and develope themselves in different ways by accidental circumstances, according to men's means and arts, their manners and customs their local situations, and the influences of the Supreme Powers;"
"but in pursuance of that aspect of the association of body and soul which we have now to consider, we maintain that the puberty of the soul coincides with that of the body, and that they attain both together to this full growth at about the fourteenth year of life, speaking generally—the former by the suggestion of the senses, and the latter by the growth of the bodily members; and (we fix on this age) not because, as Asclepiades supposes, reflection then begins, nor because the civil laws date the commencement of the real business of life from this period, but because this was the appointed order from the very first." Tertullian leads the reader to believe that Adam was a man of fourteen years old. [Vide here for our agreement regarding Adam's.]
"For as Adam and Eve felt that they must cover their nakedness after their knowledge of good and evil so we profess to have the same discernment of good and evil from the time that we experience the same sensation of shame. Now from the before-mentioned age (of fourteen years) sex is suffused and clothed with a special sensibility, and concupiscence employs the ministry of the eye, and communicates its pleasure to another, and understands the natural relations between male and female, and wears the fig-tree apron to cover the shame which it still excites, and drives man out of the paradise of innocence and chastity, and in its wild pruriency falls upon sins and unnatural incentives to delinquency; for its impulse has by this time surpassed the appointment of nature, and springs from its vicious abuse."
"But the strictly natural concupiscence is simply confined to the desire of those aliments which God at the beginning conferred upon man. Of every tree of the garden He says, you shall freely eat; [Genesis 2:16] and then ... after the flood He enlarged the grant: Every moving thing that lives shall be meat for you; behold, as the green herb have I given you all these things, [Genesis 9:3] — where He has regard rather to the body than to the soul, although it be in the interest of the soul also.
"For we must remove all occasion from the caviller, who, because the soul apparently wants ailments, would insist on the soul's being from this circumstance deemed mortal, since it is sustained by meat and drink and after a time loses its rigour when they are withheld, and on their complete removal ultimately droops and dies. Now the point we must keep in view is not merely which particular faculty it is which desires these (aliments), but also for what end; and even if it be for its own sake, still the question remains, Why this desire, and when felt, and how long? Then again there is the consideration, that it is one thing to desire by natural instinct, and another thing to desire through necessity; one thing to desire as a property of being, another thing to desire for a special object. The soul, therefore, will desire meat and drink— for itself indeed, because of a special necessity; for the flesh, however, from the nature of its properties. For the flesh is no doubt the house of the soul, and the soul is the temporary inhabitant of the flesh.
"The desire, then, of the lodger will arise from the temporary cause and the special necessity which his very designation suggests—with a view to benefit and improve the place of his temporary abode, while sojourning in it; not with the view, certainly, of being himself the foundation of the house, or himself its walls, or himself its support and roof, but simply and solely with the view of being accommodated and housed, since he could not receive such accommodation except in a sound and well-built house. (Now, applying this imagery to the soul,) if it be not provided with this accommodation, it will not be in its power to quit its dwelling-place, and for want of fit and proper resources, to depart safe and sound, in possession, too, of its own supports, and the aliments which belong to its own proper condition—namely immortality, rationality, sensibility, intelligence, and freedom of the will."
"but in pursuance of that aspect of the association of body and soul which we have now to consider, we maintain that the puberty of the soul coincides with that of the body, and that they attain both together to this full growth at about the fourteenth year of life, speaking generally—the former by the suggestion of the senses, and the latter by the growth of the bodily members; and (we fix on this age) not because, as Asclepiades supposes, reflection then begins, nor because the civil laws date the commencement of the real business of life from this period, but because this was the appointed order from the very first." Tertullian leads the reader to believe that Adam was a man of fourteen years old. [Vide here for our agreement regarding Adam's.]
"For as Adam and Eve felt that they must cover their nakedness after their knowledge of good and evil so we profess to have the same discernment of good and evil from the time that we experience the same sensation of shame. Now from the before-mentioned age (of fourteen years) sex is suffused and clothed with a special sensibility, and concupiscence employs the ministry of the eye, and communicates its pleasure to another, and understands the natural relations between male and female, and wears the fig-tree apron to cover the shame which it still excites, and drives man out of the paradise of innocence and chastity, and in its wild pruriency falls upon sins and unnatural incentives to delinquency; for its impulse has by this time surpassed the appointment of nature, and springs from its vicious abuse."
"But the strictly natural concupiscence is simply confined to the desire of those aliments which God at the beginning conferred upon man. Of every tree of the garden He says, you shall freely eat; [Genesis 2:16] and then ... after the flood He enlarged the grant: Every moving thing that lives shall be meat for you; behold, as the green herb have I given you all these things, [Genesis 9:3] — where He has regard rather to the body than to the soul, although it be in the interest of the soul also.
"For we must remove all occasion from the caviller, who, because the soul apparently wants ailments, would insist on the soul's being from this circumstance deemed mortal, since it is sustained by meat and drink and after a time loses its rigour when they are withheld, and on their complete removal ultimately droops and dies. Now the point we must keep in view is not merely which particular faculty it is which desires these (aliments), but also for what end; and even if it be for its own sake, still the question remains, Why this desire, and when felt, and how long? Then again there is the consideration, that it is one thing to desire by natural instinct, and another thing to desire through necessity; one thing to desire as a property of being, another thing to desire for a special object. The soul, therefore, will desire meat and drink— for itself indeed, because of a special necessity; for the flesh, however, from the nature of its properties. For the flesh is no doubt the house of the soul, and the soul is the temporary inhabitant of the flesh.
"The desire, then, of the lodger will arise from the temporary cause and the special necessity which his very designation suggests—with a view to benefit and improve the place of his temporary abode, while sojourning in it; not with the view, certainly, of being himself the foundation of the house, or himself its walls, or himself its support and roof, but simply and solely with the view of being accommodated and housed, since he could not receive such accommodation except in a sound and well-built house. (Now, applying this imagery to the soul,) if it be not provided with this accommodation, it will not be in its power to quit its dwelling-place, and for want of fit and proper resources, to depart safe and sound, in possession, too, of its own supports, and the aliments which belong to its own proper condition—namely immortality, rationality, sensibility, intelligence, and freedom of the will."
Chapter 39.
The Evil Spirit Has Marred the Purity of the Soul from the Very Birth
"All these endowments of the soul which are bestowed on it at birth are still obscured and depraved by the malignant being who, in the beginning, regarded them with envious eye, so that they are never seen in their spontaneous action, nor are they administered as they ought to be." While Plato states that soul forgets because of the body, Tertullian writes that the "endowments" of the soul are "obscured" by "the maligant being".
"For to what individual of the human race will not the evil spirit cleave, ready to entrap their souls from the very portal of their birth, at which he is invited to be present in all those superstitious processes which accompany childbearing?"
"Thus it comes to pass that all men are brought to the birth with idolatry for the midwife, while the very wombs that bear them, still bound with the fillets that have been wreathed before the idols, declare their offspring to be consecrated to demons: for in parturition they invoke the aid of Lucina and Diana; for a whole week a table is spread in honour of Juno; on the last day the fates of the horoscope are invoked; and then the infant's first step on the ground is sacred to the goddess Statina. After this does any one fail to devote to idolatrous service the entire head of his son, or to take out a hair, or to shave off the whole with a razor, or to bind it up for an offering, or seal it for sacred use— in behalf of the clan, of the ancestry, or for public devotion? On this principle of early possession it was that Socrates, while yet a boy, was found by the spirit of the demon. Thus, too, is it that to all persons their genii are assigned, which is only another name for demons. Hence in no case (I mean of the heathen, of course) is there any nativity which is pure of idolatrous superstition. It was from this circumstance that the apostle said, that when either of the parents was sanctified, the children were holy; 1 Corinthians 7:14 and this as much by the prerogative of the (Christian) seed as by the discipline of the institution (by baptism, and Christian education). Else, says he, were the children unclean by birth: 1 Corinthians 7:14 as if he meant us to understand that the children of believers were designed for holiness, and thereby for salvation; in order that he might by the pledge of such a hope give his support to matrimony, which he had determined to maintain in its integrity."
Tertullian causes doubt regarding the teachings between Jesus and Saint Paul regarding baptism: "Besides, he [Saint Paul] had certainly not forgotten what the Lord had so definitively stated: Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God; John 3:5 in other words, he cannot be holy."
"For to what individual of the human race will not the evil spirit cleave, ready to entrap their souls from the very portal of their birth, at which he is invited to be present in all those superstitious processes which accompany childbearing?"
"Thus it comes to pass that all men are brought to the birth with idolatry for the midwife, while the very wombs that bear them, still bound with the fillets that have been wreathed before the idols, declare their offspring to be consecrated to demons: for in parturition they invoke the aid of Lucina and Diana; for a whole week a table is spread in honour of Juno; on the last day the fates of the horoscope are invoked; and then the infant's first step on the ground is sacred to the goddess Statina. After this does any one fail to devote to idolatrous service the entire head of his son, or to take out a hair, or to shave off the whole with a razor, or to bind it up for an offering, or seal it for sacred use— in behalf of the clan, of the ancestry, or for public devotion? On this principle of early possession it was that Socrates, while yet a boy, was found by the spirit of the demon. Thus, too, is it that to all persons their genii are assigned, which is only another name for demons. Hence in no case (I mean of the heathen, of course) is there any nativity which is pure of idolatrous superstition. It was from this circumstance that the apostle said, that when either of the parents was sanctified, the children were holy; 1 Corinthians 7:14 and this as much by the prerogative of the (Christian) seed as by the discipline of the institution (by baptism, and Christian education). Else, says he, were the children unclean by birth: 1 Corinthians 7:14 as if he meant us to understand that the children of believers were designed for holiness, and thereby for salvation; in order that he might by the pledge of such a hope give his support to matrimony, which he had determined to maintain in its integrity."
Tertullian causes doubt regarding the teachings between Jesus and Saint Paul regarding baptism: "Besides, he [Saint Paul] had certainly not forgotten what the Lord had so definitively stated: Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God; John 3:5 in other words, he cannot be holy."
Chapter 40.
The Body of Man Only Ancillary to the Soul in the Commission of Evil
"Every soul... has its nature in Adam until it is born again in Christ; ... it is unclean ... without this regeneration; [Romans 6:4] and ... it is actively sinful, and suffuses even the flesh (by reason of their conjunction) with its own shame. " Tertullian seems to be stating that the flesh is not sinful until the moments it acts upon an impulse from the soul.
"Although the flesh is sinful, and we are forbidden to walk in accordance with it, [Galatians 5:16] and its works are condemned as lusting against the spirit, and men on its account are censured as carnal, [Romans 8:5] yet the flesh has not such ignominy on its own account." In and of itself, the flesh is not "deserving or causing public disgrace or shame".
"For it is not of itself that it thinks anything or feels anything for the purpose of advising or commanding sin. It is only a ministering thing...like ... that of a vessel...it is body, not soul." "Therefore the differentia, or distinguishing property, of man by no means lies in his earthy element; ... but it is a thing of quite a different substance and different condition, although annexed to the soul as ... an instrument for the offices of life.
"The flesh is blamed in the Scriptures, because nothing is done by the soul without the flesh in operations of concupiscence, appetite, drunkenness, cruelty, idolatry, and other works of the flesh—operations... which are not confined to sensations, but result in effects." Although Scripture blames the flesh for sin, it should more accurately, according to Tertullian, condemn the soul. Since Scripture does not condemn the soul, what is this omission, but a denial or ignorance of the soul?
"The emotions of sin... when not resulting in effects, are usually imputed to the soul: Whosoever looks on a woman to lust after, has already in his heart committed adultery with her. Matthew 5:28 But what has the flesh alone, without the soul, ever done in operations of virtue, righteousness, endurance, or chastity?" "What absurdity, however, it is to attribute sin and crime to that substance to which you do not assign any good actions or character of its own!"
"Although the flesh is sinful, and we are forbidden to walk in accordance with it, [Galatians 5:16] and its works are condemned as lusting against the spirit, and men on its account are censured as carnal, [Romans 8:5] yet the flesh has not such ignominy on its own account." In and of itself, the flesh is not "deserving or causing public disgrace or shame".
"For it is not of itself that it thinks anything or feels anything for the purpose of advising or commanding sin. It is only a ministering thing...like ... that of a vessel...it is body, not soul." "Therefore the differentia, or distinguishing property, of man by no means lies in his earthy element; ... but it is a thing of quite a different substance and different condition, although annexed to the soul as ... an instrument for the offices of life.
"The flesh is blamed in the Scriptures, because nothing is done by the soul without the flesh in operations of concupiscence, appetite, drunkenness, cruelty, idolatry, and other works of the flesh—operations... which are not confined to sensations, but result in effects." Although Scripture blames the flesh for sin, it should more accurately, according to Tertullian, condemn the soul. Since Scripture does not condemn the soul, what is this omission, but a denial or ignorance of the soul?
"The emotions of sin... when not resulting in effects, are usually imputed to the soul: Whosoever looks on a woman to lust after, has already in his heart committed adultery with her. Matthew 5:28 But what has the flesh alone, without the soul, ever done in operations of virtue, righteousness, endurance, or chastity?" "What absurdity, however, it is to attribute sin and crime to that substance to which you do not assign any good actions or character of its own!"
Chapter 41.
Notwithstanding the Depravity of Man's Soul by Original Sin,
There is Yet Left a Basis Whereon Divine Grace Can Work for Its Recovery by Spiritual Regeneration
"There is... besides the evil which supervenes on the soul from the intervention of the evil spirit, an antecedent, and in a certain sense natural, evil which arises from its corrupt origin. ... the corruption of our nature is another nature having a god and father of its own, namely the author of (that) corruption."
"There is a portion of good in the soul, of that original, divine, and genuine good, which is its proper nature. For that which is derived from God is rather obscured than extinguished. It can be obscured... because it is not God; extinguished, however, it cannot be, because it comes from God." The good in soul is from God and obscured. This observation can be applied to the previous experiences that are forgotten, or obsured, in the current life.
"The good in the soul, being weighed down by the evil, is, owing to the obscuring character thereof, either not seen at all, its light being wholly hidden... where it struggles through by an accidental outlet. Thus some men are very bad, and some very good; but yet the souls of all form but one genus: even in the worst there is something good, and in the best there is something bad. " The memory of the soul is weighed down by evil, or as Plato would state, by the body. We understand why the Gnostics would equate the "body" with "evil".
Tertullian makes an Orthodox statement regarding the nature of Christ: "For God alone is without sin; and the only man without sin is Christ, since Christ is... God. Thus the divinity of the soul bursts forth ... in consequence of its primeval good; and being conscious of its origin, it bears testimony to God (its author) in exclamations such as: Good God! God knows! and Good-bye!" Colloquial sayings and customary words of departure are the result of the soul knowing its divine origin. This reasoning may create doubt in the mind of the careful reader regarding Tertullian's sincerity or his competency to accurately discuss the soul.
"Just as no soul is without sin, so neither is any soul without seeds of good.... when the soul embraces the faith, being renewed ... then the veil of its former corruption being taken away, it beholds the light in all its brightness. It is also taken up (in its second birth) by the Holy Spirit, just as in its first birth it is embraced by the unholy spirit. The flesh follows the soul now wedded to the Spirit, as a part of the bridal portion— no longer the servant of the soul, but of the Spirit.!"
"There is a portion of good in the soul, of that original, divine, and genuine good, which is its proper nature. For that which is derived from God is rather obscured than extinguished. It can be obscured... because it is not God; extinguished, however, it cannot be, because it comes from God." The good in soul is from God and obscured. This observation can be applied to the previous experiences that are forgotten, or obsured, in the current life.
"The good in the soul, being weighed down by the evil, is, owing to the obscuring character thereof, either not seen at all, its light being wholly hidden... where it struggles through by an accidental outlet. Thus some men are very bad, and some very good; but yet the souls of all form but one genus: even in the worst there is something good, and in the best there is something bad. " The memory of the soul is weighed down by evil, or as Plato would state, by the body. We understand why the Gnostics would equate the "body" with "evil".
Tertullian makes an Orthodox statement regarding the nature of Christ: "For God alone is without sin; and the only man without sin is Christ, since Christ is... God. Thus the divinity of the soul bursts forth ... in consequence of its primeval good; and being conscious of its origin, it bears testimony to God (its author) in exclamations such as: Good God! God knows! and Good-bye!" Colloquial sayings and customary words of departure are the result of the soul knowing its divine origin. This reasoning may create doubt in the mind of the careful reader regarding Tertullian's sincerity or his competency to accurately discuss the soul.
"Just as no soul is without sin, so neither is any soul without seeds of good.... when the soul embraces the faith, being renewed ... then the veil of its former corruption being taken away, it beholds the light in all its brightness. It is also taken up (in its second birth) by the Holy Spirit, just as in its first birth it is embraced by the unholy spirit. The flesh follows the soul now wedded to the Spirit, as a part of the bridal portion— no longer the servant of the soul, but of the Spirit.!"
Chapter 42.
Sleep, the Mirror of Death, as Introductory to the Consideration of Death
"It now remains (that we discuss the subject) of death, in order that our subject-matter may terminate where the soul itself completes it; although Epicurus, indeed, in his pretty widely known doctrine, has asserted that death does not appertain to us. That, says he, which is dissolved lacks sensation; and that which is without sensation is nothing to us. Well, but it is not actually death which suffers dissolution and lacks sensation, but the human person who experiences death. Yet even he has admitted suffering to be incidental to the being to whom action belongs. Now, if it is in man to suffer death, which dissolves the body and destroys the senses, how absurd to say that so great a susceptibility belongs not to man!
Tertullian quotes two pagan writers: "With much greater precision does Seneca say: After death all comes to an end, even (death) itself. From which position of his it must needs follow that death will appertain to its own self, since itself comes to an end; and much more to man, in the ending of whom among the all, itself also ends. Death, (says Epicurus) belongs not to us; then at that rate, life belongs not to us."
"For certainly, if that which causes our dissolution have no relation to us, that also which compacts and composes us must be unconnected with us. If the deprivation of our sensation be nothing to us, neither can the acquisition of sensation have anything to do with us." "He who destroys the very soul, (as Epicurus does), cannot help destroying death also. As ... [Christians] ... must treat of death just as we should of the posthumous life and of some other province of the soul, (assuming) that we at all events belong to death, if it does not pertain to us. And on the same principle, even sleep, which is the very mirror of death, is not alien from our subject-matter."
Tertullian quotes two pagan writers: "With much greater precision does Seneca say: After death all comes to an end, even (death) itself. From which position of his it must needs follow that death will appertain to its own self, since itself comes to an end; and much more to man, in the ending of whom among the all, itself also ends. Death, (says Epicurus) belongs not to us; then at that rate, life belongs not to us."
"For certainly, if that which causes our dissolution have no relation to us, that also which compacts and composes us must be unconnected with us. If the deprivation of our sensation be nothing to us, neither can the acquisition of sensation have anything to do with us." "He who destroys the very soul, (as Epicurus does), cannot help destroying death also. As ... [Christians] ... must treat of death just as we should of the posthumous life and of some other province of the soul, (assuming) that we at all events belong to death, if it does not pertain to us. And on the same principle, even sleep, which is the very mirror of death, is not alien from our subject-matter."
Chapter 43.
Sleep a Natural Function as Shown by Other Considerations, and by the Testimony of Scripture
"Let us therefore first discuss the question of sleep, and afterwards in what way the soul encounters death. Now sleep is certainly not a supernatural thing, as some philosophers will have it be, when they suppose it to be the result of causes which appear to be above nature." Since sleep is found in Nature, it can not be supernatural. One wonders why Tertullian would write that certain philosophers would write that sleep is beyond Nature.
Tertullian gives an overview of sleep according to various authors: "The Stoics affirm sleep to be a temporary suspension ... of the senses; the Epicureans define it as an intermission of the animal spirit; Anaxagoras and Xenophanes as a weariness of the same; Empedocles and Parmenides as a cooling down thereof; Strato as a separation of the (soul's) connatural spirit; Democritus as the soul's indigence; Aristotle as the interruption of the heat around the heart."
"I can safely say that I have never slept in such a way as to discover even a single one of these conditions. Indeed, we cannot possibly believe that sleep is a weariness; it is rather the opposite, for it undoubtedly removes weariness, and a person is refreshed by sleep instead of being fatigued." Repeating common knowledge is a technique used by the Church Fathers to expand their books.
"There is also the further fact that perspiration indicates an over-heated digestion; and digestion is predicated of us as a process of concoction, which is an operation concerned with heat and not with cold. In like manner, the immortality of the soul precludes belief in the theory that sleep is an intermission of the animal spirit, or an indigence of the spirit, or a separation of the (soul's) connatural spirit. The soul perishes if it undergoes diminution or intermission. Our only resource, indeed, is to agree with the Stoics, by determining the soul to be a temporary suspension of the activity of the senses, procuring rest for the body only, not for the soul also. For the soul, as being always in motion, and always active, never succumbs to rest—a condition which is alien to immortality: for nothing immortal admits any end to its operation; but sleep is an end of operation. It is indeed on the body, which is subject to mortality, and on the body alone, that sleep graciously bestows a cessation from work. He, therefore, who shall doubt whether sleep is a natural function, has the dialectical experts calling in question the whole difference between things natural and supernatural— so that what things he supposed to be beyond nature he may, (if he likes,) be safe in assigning to nature, which indeed has made such a disposition of things, that they may seemingly be accounted as beyond it; and so, of course, all things are natural or none are natural, (as occasion requires.)
"With us (Christians), however, only that can receive a hearing which is suggested by contemplating God, the Author of all the things which we are now discussing. For we believe that nature, if it is anything, is a reasonable work of God." Tertullian proposes that Nature is a reasonable work of God.
Tertullian, as Church Fathers frequently do, appeals to reason: "Now reason presides over sleep; for sleep is so fit for man, so useful, so necessary, that were it not for it, not a soul could provide agency for recruiting the body, for restoring its energies, for ensuring its health, for supplying suspension from work and remedy against labour, and for the legitimate enjoyment of which day departs, and night provides an ordinance by taking from all objects their very colour."
"Since sleep is indispensable to our life, and health, and succour, there can be nothing pertaining to it which is not reasonable, and which is not natural." Tertullian notes that sleep is reasonable and natural.
"Physicians banish beyond the gateway of nature everything which is contrary to what is vital, healthful, and helpful to nature; for those maladies which are inimical to sleep— maladies of the mind and of the stomach— they have decided to be contrariant to nature, and by such decision have determined as its corollary that sleep is perfectly natural. Moreover, when they declare that sleep is not natural in the lethargic state, they derive their conclusion from the fact that it is natural when it is in its due and regular exercise. For every natural state is impaired either by defect or by excess, while it is maintained by its proper measure and amount. That, therefore, will be natural in its condition which may be rendered non-natural by defect or by excess. Well, now, what if you were to remove eating and drinking from the conditions of nature? If in them lies the chief incentive to sleep.
"It is certain that, from the very beginning of his nature, man was impressed with these instincts (of sleep). [Genesis 2:21] If you receive your instruction from God, (you will find) that the fountain of the human race, Adam, had a taste of drowsiness before having a draught of repose; slept before he laboured, or even before he ate, nay, even before he spoke; in order that men may see that sleep is a natural feature and function, and one which has actually precedence over all the natural faculties." In the example of Adam, sleep occurs before work, eating or speaking. We note that God caused Adam to sleep, thereby, in addition to making God rational, making God natural. Sleep is natural and reasonable and God induces sleep. God, it seems, is another name for Nature.
"From this primary instance also we are led to trace even then the image of death in sleep."
"For as Adam was a figure of Christ, Adam's sleep shadowed out the death of Christ, who was to sleep a mortal slumber, that from the wound inflicted on His side might, in like manner (as Eve was formed), be typified the church, the true mother of the living. This is why sleep is so salutary, so rational, and is actually formed into the model of that death which is general and common to the race of man."
"God... has willed ... to set before us, in a manner more fully and completely than Plato's example, by daily recurrence the outlines of man's state, especially concerning the beginning and the termination thereof; thus stretching out the hand to help our faith more readily by types and parables, not in words only, but also in things."
"He accordingly sets before your view the human body stricken by the friendly power of slumber, prostrated by the kindly necessity of repose immoveable in position, just as it lay previous to life, and just as it will lie after life is past: there it lies as an attestation of its form when first moulded, and of its condition when at last buried— awaiting the soul in both stages, in the former previous to its bestowal, in the latter after its recent withdrawal. Meanwhile the soul is circumstanced in such a manner as to seem to be elsewhere active, learning to bear future absence by a dissembling of its presence for the moment. We shall soon know the case of Hermotimus. But yet it dreams in the interval. Whence then its dreams?
"The fact is, it cannot rest or be idle altogether, nor does it confine to the still hours of sleep the nature of its immortality. It proves itself to possess a constant motion; it travels over land and sea, it trades, it is excited, it labours, it plays, it grieves, it rejoices, it follows pursuits lawful and unlawful; it shows what very great power it has even without the body, how well equipped it is with members of its own, although betraying at the same time the need it has of impressing on some body its activity again."
"Accordingly, when the body shakes off its slumber, it asserts ... the resurrection of the dead by its own resumption of its natural functions. Such, therefore, must be both the natural reason and the reasonable nature of sleep. If you only regard it as the image of death, you initiate faith, you nourish hope, you learn both how to die and how to live, you learn watchfulness, even while you sleep." The resurrection of the dead may be a natural function of the human condition. Once again, an appeal to nature, not to Scripture.
Tertullian gives an overview of sleep according to various authors: "The Stoics affirm sleep to be a temporary suspension ... of the senses; the Epicureans define it as an intermission of the animal spirit; Anaxagoras and Xenophanes as a weariness of the same; Empedocles and Parmenides as a cooling down thereof; Strato as a separation of the (soul's) connatural spirit; Democritus as the soul's indigence; Aristotle as the interruption of the heat around the heart."
"I can safely say that I have never slept in such a way as to discover even a single one of these conditions. Indeed, we cannot possibly believe that sleep is a weariness; it is rather the opposite, for it undoubtedly removes weariness, and a person is refreshed by sleep instead of being fatigued." Repeating common knowledge is a technique used by the Church Fathers to expand their books.
"There is also the further fact that perspiration indicates an over-heated digestion; and digestion is predicated of us as a process of concoction, which is an operation concerned with heat and not with cold. In like manner, the immortality of the soul precludes belief in the theory that sleep is an intermission of the animal spirit, or an indigence of the spirit, or a separation of the (soul's) connatural spirit. The soul perishes if it undergoes diminution or intermission. Our only resource, indeed, is to agree with the Stoics, by determining the soul to be a temporary suspension of the activity of the senses, procuring rest for the body only, not for the soul also. For the soul, as being always in motion, and always active, never succumbs to rest—a condition which is alien to immortality: for nothing immortal admits any end to its operation; but sleep is an end of operation. It is indeed on the body, which is subject to mortality, and on the body alone, that sleep graciously bestows a cessation from work. He, therefore, who shall doubt whether sleep is a natural function, has the dialectical experts calling in question the whole difference between things natural and supernatural— so that what things he supposed to be beyond nature he may, (if he likes,) be safe in assigning to nature, which indeed has made such a disposition of things, that they may seemingly be accounted as beyond it; and so, of course, all things are natural or none are natural, (as occasion requires.)
"With us (Christians), however, only that can receive a hearing which is suggested by contemplating God, the Author of all the things which we are now discussing. For we believe that nature, if it is anything, is a reasonable work of God." Tertullian proposes that Nature is a reasonable work of God.
Tertullian, as Church Fathers frequently do, appeals to reason: "Now reason presides over sleep; for sleep is so fit for man, so useful, so necessary, that were it not for it, not a soul could provide agency for recruiting the body, for restoring its energies, for ensuring its health, for supplying suspension from work and remedy against labour, and for the legitimate enjoyment of which day departs, and night provides an ordinance by taking from all objects their very colour."
"Since sleep is indispensable to our life, and health, and succour, there can be nothing pertaining to it which is not reasonable, and which is not natural." Tertullian notes that sleep is reasonable and natural.
"Physicians banish beyond the gateway of nature everything which is contrary to what is vital, healthful, and helpful to nature; for those maladies which are inimical to sleep— maladies of the mind and of the stomach— they have decided to be contrariant to nature, and by such decision have determined as its corollary that sleep is perfectly natural. Moreover, when they declare that sleep is not natural in the lethargic state, they derive their conclusion from the fact that it is natural when it is in its due and regular exercise. For every natural state is impaired either by defect or by excess, while it is maintained by its proper measure and amount. That, therefore, will be natural in its condition which may be rendered non-natural by defect or by excess. Well, now, what if you were to remove eating and drinking from the conditions of nature? If in them lies the chief incentive to sleep.
"It is certain that, from the very beginning of his nature, man was impressed with these instincts (of sleep). [Genesis 2:21] If you receive your instruction from God, (you will find) that the fountain of the human race, Adam, had a taste of drowsiness before having a draught of repose; slept before he laboured, or even before he ate, nay, even before he spoke; in order that men may see that sleep is a natural feature and function, and one which has actually precedence over all the natural faculties." In the example of Adam, sleep occurs before work, eating or speaking. We note that God caused Adam to sleep, thereby, in addition to making God rational, making God natural. Sleep is natural and reasonable and God induces sleep. God, it seems, is another name for Nature.
"From this primary instance also we are led to trace even then the image of death in sleep."
"For as Adam was a figure of Christ, Adam's sleep shadowed out the death of Christ, who was to sleep a mortal slumber, that from the wound inflicted on His side might, in like manner (as Eve was formed), be typified the church, the true mother of the living. This is why sleep is so salutary, so rational, and is actually formed into the model of that death which is general and common to the race of man."
"God... has willed ... to set before us, in a manner more fully and completely than Plato's example, by daily recurrence the outlines of man's state, especially concerning the beginning and the termination thereof; thus stretching out the hand to help our faith more readily by types and parables, not in words only, but also in things."
"He accordingly sets before your view the human body stricken by the friendly power of slumber, prostrated by the kindly necessity of repose immoveable in position, just as it lay previous to life, and just as it will lie after life is past: there it lies as an attestation of its form when first moulded, and of its condition when at last buried— awaiting the soul in both stages, in the former previous to its bestowal, in the latter after its recent withdrawal. Meanwhile the soul is circumstanced in such a manner as to seem to be elsewhere active, learning to bear future absence by a dissembling of its presence for the moment. We shall soon know the case of Hermotimus. But yet it dreams in the interval. Whence then its dreams?
"The fact is, it cannot rest or be idle altogether, nor does it confine to the still hours of sleep the nature of its immortality. It proves itself to possess a constant motion; it travels over land and sea, it trades, it is excited, it labours, it plays, it grieves, it rejoices, it follows pursuits lawful and unlawful; it shows what very great power it has even without the body, how well equipped it is with members of its own, although betraying at the same time the need it has of impressing on some body its activity again."
"Accordingly, when the body shakes off its slumber, it asserts ... the resurrection of the dead by its own resumption of its natural functions. Such, therefore, must be both the natural reason and the reasonable nature of sleep. If you only regard it as the image of death, you initiate faith, you nourish hope, you learn both how to die and how to live, you learn watchfulness, even while you sleep." The resurrection of the dead may be a natural function of the human condition. Once again, an appeal to nature, not to Scripture.
Chapter 44.
The Story of Hermotimus, and the Sleeplessness of the Emperor Nero. No Separation of the Soul from the Body Until Death
"Since the vulgar belief so readily holds sleep to be the separation of the soul from the body, credulity should not be encouraged..." . Suetonius... informs us that Nero never dreamt, and Theopompus says the same thing about Thrasymedes; but Nero at the close of his life did with some difficulty dream after some excessive alarm. What indeed would be said, if the case of Hermotimus were believed to be such that the repose of his soul was a state of actual idleness during sleep, and a positive separation from his body? You may conjecture it to be anything but such a licence of the soul as admits of flights away from the body without death, and that by continual recurrence, as if habitual to its state and constitution. If indeed such a thing were told me to have happened at any time to the soul— resembling a total eclipse of the sun or the moon— I should verily suppose that the occurrence had been caused by God's own interposition, for it would not be unreasonable for a man to receive admonition from the Divine Being either in the way of warning or of alarm, as by a flash of lightning, or by a sudden stroke of death; only it would be much the more natural conclusion to believe that this process should be by a dream, because if it must be supposed to be, (as the hypothesis we are resisting assumes it to be,) not a dream, the occurrence ought rather to happen to a man while he is wide awake."
Chapter 45.
Dreams, an Incidental Effect of the Soul's Activity. Ecstasy
"We ... expound ... what is the opinion of Christians respecting dreams, as incidents of sleep, and as no slight or trifling excitements of the soul, which we have declared to be always occupied and active owing to its perpetual movement, which again is a proof and evidence of its divine quality and immortality." Dreams are evidence of the souls' divinity and its immortality.
"The soul, disdaining a repose which is not natural to it, never rests; and since it receives no help from the limbs of the body, it uses its own. Nevertheless the whole procedure seems to be gone through, although it evidently has not been really effected. There is the act, but not the effect."
"This power we call ecstasy, in which the sensuous soul stands out of itself, in a way which even resembles madness. Thus in the very beginning sleep was inaugurated by ecstasy: And God sent an ecstasy upon Adam, and he slept. [Genesis 2:21] The sleep came on his body to cause it to rest, but the ecstasy fell on his soul to remove rest: from that very circumstance it still happens ordinarily (and from the order results the nature of the case) that sleep is combined with ecstasy."
"In fact, with what real feeling, and anxiety, and suffering do we experience joy, and sorrow, and alarm in our dreams! Whereas we should not be moved by any such emotions, by what would be the merest fantasies of course, if when we dream we were masters of ourselves, (unaffected by ecstasy.)"
"In these dreams, indeed, good actions are useless, and crimes harmless; for we shall no more be condemned for visionary acts of sin, than we shall be crowned for imaginary martyrdom." Tertullian's understanding of sinless dreams may indicate he is unaware of Deuteronomy 23:9-11: " If any man among you becomes unclean because of a nocturnal emission..."
"But how... can the soul remember its dreams, when it is said to be without any mastery over its own operations? This memory must be a special gift of the ecstatic condition of which we are treating, since it arises .... entirely from natural process; nor does it expel mental function— it withdraws it for a time. It is one thing to shake, it is another thing to move; one thing to destroy, another thing to agitate."
"That... which memory supplies betokens soundness of mind; and that which a sound mind ecstatically experiences while the memory remains unchecked, is a kind of madness. We are accordingly not said to be mad, but to dream, in that state; to be in the full possession also of our mental faculties, if we are at any time. For although the power to exercise these faculties may be dimmed in us, it is still not extinguished; except that it may seem to be itself absent at the very time that the ecstasy is energizing in us in its special manner, in such wise as to bring before us images of a sound mind and of wisdom, even as it does those of aberration."
"The soul, disdaining a repose which is not natural to it, never rests; and since it receives no help from the limbs of the body, it uses its own. Nevertheless the whole procedure seems to be gone through, although it evidently has not been really effected. There is the act, but not the effect."
"This power we call ecstasy, in which the sensuous soul stands out of itself, in a way which even resembles madness. Thus in the very beginning sleep was inaugurated by ecstasy: And God sent an ecstasy upon Adam, and he slept. [Genesis 2:21] The sleep came on his body to cause it to rest, but the ecstasy fell on his soul to remove rest: from that very circumstance it still happens ordinarily (and from the order results the nature of the case) that sleep is combined with ecstasy."
"In fact, with what real feeling, and anxiety, and suffering do we experience joy, and sorrow, and alarm in our dreams! Whereas we should not be moved by any such emotions, by what would be the merest fantasies of course, if when we dream we were masters of ourselves, (unaffected by ecstasy.)"
"In these dreams, indeed, good actions are useless, and crimes harmless; for we shall no more be condemned for visionary acts of sin, than we shall be crowned for imaginary martyrdom." Tertullian's understanding of sinless dreams may indicate he is unaware of Deuteronomy 23:9-11: " If any man among you becomes unclean because of a nocturnal emission..."
"But how... can the soul remember its dreams, when it is said to be without any mastery over its own operations? This memory must be a special gift of the ecstatic condition of which we are treating, since it arises .... entirely from natural process; nor does it expel mental function— it withdraws it for a time. It is one thing to shake, it is another thing to move; one thing to destroy, another thing to agitate."
"That... which memory supplies betokens soundness of mind; and that which a sound mind ecstatically experiences while the memory remains unchecked, is a kind of madness. We are accordingly not said to be mad, but to dream, in that state; to be in the full possession also of our mental faculties, if we are at any time. For although the power to exercise these faculties may be dimmed in us, it is still not extinguished; except that it may seem to be itself absent at the very time that the ecstasy is energizing in us in its special manner, in such wise as to bring before us images of a sound mind and of wisdom, even as it does those of aberration."
Chapter 46.
Diversity of Dreams and Visions. Epicurus Thought Lightly of Them, Though Generally Most Highly Valued. Instances of Dreams
"We now find ourselves constrained to express an opinion about the character of the dreams by which the soul is excited. And when shall we arrive at the subject of death? And on such a question I would say, When God shall permit: that admits of no long delay which must needs happen at all events. Epicurus has given it as his opinion that dreams are altogether vain things; (but he says this) when liberating the Deity from all sort of care, and dissolving the entire order of the world, and giving to all things the aspect of merest chance, casual in their issues, fortuitous in their nature."
"Well, now, if such be the nature of things, there must be some chance even for truth, because it is impossible for it to be the only thing to be exempted from the fortune which is due to all things. Homer has assigned two gates to dreams, — the horny one of truth, the ivory one of error and delusion. For, they say, it is possible to see through horn, whereas ivory is untransparent. Aristotle, while expressing his opinion that dreams are in most cases untrue, yet acknowledges that there is some truth in them. The people of Telmessus will not admit that dreams are in any case unmeaning, but they blame their own weakness when unable to conjecture their signification. Now, who is such a stranger to human experience as not sometimes to have perceived some truth in dreams? I shall force a blush from Epicurus, if I only glance at some few of the more remarkable instances. Herodotus relates how that Astyages, king of the Medes, saw in a dream issuing from the womb of his virgin daughter a flood which inundated Asia; and again, in the year which followed her marriage, he saw a vine growing out from the same part of her person, which overspread the whole of Asia. The same story is told prior to Herodotus by Charon of Lampsacus. Now they who interpreted these visions did not deceive the mother when they destined her son for so great an enterprise, for Cyrus both inundated and overspread Asia. Philip of Macedon, before he became a father, had seen imprinted on the pudenda of his consort Olympias the form of a small ring, with a lion as a seal. He had concluded that an offspring from her was out of the question (I suppose because the lion only becomes once a father), when Aristodemus or Aristophon happened to conjecture that nothing of an unmeaning or empty import lay under that seal, but that a son of very illustrious character was portended. They who know anything of Alexander recognise in him the lion of that small ring. Ephorus writes to this effect. Again, Heraclides has told us, that a certain woman of Himera beheld in a dream Dionysius' tyranny over Sicily. Euphorion has publicly recorded as a fact, that, previous to giving birth to Seleucus, his mother Laodice foresaw that he was destined for the empire of Asia. I find again from Strabo, that it was owing to a dream that even Mithridates took possession of Pontus; and I further learn from Callisthenes that it was from the indication of a dream that Baraliris the Illyrian stretched his dominion from the Molossi to the frontiers of Macedon. The Romans, too, were acquainted with dreams of this kind. From a dream Marcus Tullius (Cicero) had learned how that one, who was yet only a little boy, and in a private station, who was also plain Julius Octavius, and personally unknown to (Cicero) himself, was the destined Augustus, and the suppressor and destroyer of (Rome's) civil discords. This is recorded in the Commentaries of Vitellius. But visions of this prophetic kind were not confined to predictions of supreme power; for they indicated perils also, and catastrophes: as, for instance, when Cæsar was absent from the battle of Philippi through illness, and thereby escaped the sword of Brutus and Cassius, and then although he expected to encounter greater danger still from the enemy in the field, he quitted his tent for it, in obedience to a vision of Artorius, and so escaped (the capture by the enemy, who shortly after took possession of the tent); as, again, when the daughter of Polycrates of Samos foresaw the crucifixion which awaited him from the anointing of the sun and the bath of Jupiter. So likewise in sleep revelations are made of high honours and eminent talents; remedies are also discovered, thefts brought to light, and treasures indicated. Thus Cicero's eminence, while he was still a little boy, was foreseen by his nurse. The swan from the breast of Socrates soothing men, is his disciple Plato. The boxer Leonymus is cured by Achilles in his dreams. Sophocles the tragic poet discovers, as he was dreaming, the golden crown, which had been lost from the citadel of Athens. Neoptolemus the tragic actor, through intimations in his sleep from Ajax himself, saves from destruction the hero's tomb on the Rhoetean shore before Troy; and as he removes the decayed stones, he returns enriched with gold. How many commentators and chroniclers vouch for this phenomenon? There are Artemon, Antiphon, Strato, Philochorus, Epicharmus, Serapion, Cratippus, and Dionysius of Rhodes, and Hermippus— the entire literature of the age. I shall only laugh at all, if indeed I ought to laugh at the man who fancied that he was going to persuade us that Saturn dreamt before anybody else; which we can only believe if Aristotle, (who would fain help us to such an opinion,) lived prior to any other person. Pray forgive me for laughing. Epicharmus, indeed, as well as Philochorus the Athenian, assigned the very highest place among divinations to dreams. The whole world is full of oracles of this description: there are the oracles of Amphiaraus at Oropus, of Amphilochus at Mallus, of Sarpedon in the Troad, of Trophonius in Bœotia, of Mopsus in Cilicia, of Hermione in Macedon, of Pasiphäe in Laconia. Then, again, there are others, which with their original foundations, rites, and historians, together with the entire literature of dreams, Hermippus of Berytus in five portly volumes will give you all the account of, even to satiety.
"But the Stoics are very fond of saying that God, in His most watchful providence over every institution, gave us dreams among other preservatives of the arts and sciences of divination, as the special support of the natural oracle. So much for the dreams to which credit has to be ascribed even by ourselves, although we must interpret them in another sense.
"As for all other oracles, at which no one ever dreams, what else must we declare concerning them, than that they are the diabolical contrivance of those spirits who even at that time dwelt in the eminent persons themselves, or aimed at reviving the memory of them as the mere stage of their evil purposes, going so far as to counterfeit a divine power under their shape and form, and, with equal persistence in evil, deceiving men by their very boons of remedies, warnings, and forecasts—the only effect of which was to injure their victims the more they helped them; while the means whereby they rendered the help withdrew them from all search after the true God, by insinuating into their minds ideas of the false one? And of course so pernicious an influence as this is not shut up nor limited within the boundaries of shrines and temples: it roams abroad, it flies through the air, and all the while is free and unchecked. So that nobody can doubt that our very homes lie open to these diabolical spirits, who beset their human prey with their fantasies not only in their chapels but also in their chambers.
"Well, now, if such be the nature of things, there must be some chance even for truth, because it is impossible for it to be the only thing to be exempted from the fortune which is due to all things. Homer has assigned two gates to dreams, — the horny one of truth, the ivory one of error and delusion. For, they say, it is possible to see through horn, whereas ivory is untransparent. Aristotle, while expressing his opinion that dreams are in most cases untrue, yet acknowledges that there is some truth in them. The people of Telmessus will not admit that dreams are in any case unmeaning, but they blame their own weakness when unable to conjecture their signification. Now, who is such a stranger to human experience as not sometimes to have perceived some truth in dreams? I shall force a blush from Epicurus, if I only glance at some few of the more remarkable instances. Herodotus relates how that Astyages, king of the Medes, saw in a dream issuing from the womb of his virgin daughter a flood which inundated Asia; and again, in the year which followed her marriage, he saw a vine growing out from the same part of her person, which overspread the whole of Asia. The same story is told prior to Herodotus by Charon of Lampsacus. Now they who interpreted these visions did not deceive the mother when they destined her son for so great an enterprise, for Cyrus both inundated and overspread Asia. Philip of Macedon, before he became a father, had seen imprinted on the pudenda of his consort Olympias the form of a small ring, with a lion as a seal. He had concluded that an offspring from her was out of the question (I suppose because the lion only becomes once a father), when Aristodemus or Aristophon happened to conjecture that nothing of an unmeaning or empty import lay under that seal, but that a son of very illustrious character was portended. They who know anything of Alexander recognise in him the lion of that small ring. Ephorus writes to this effect. Again, Heraclides has told us, that a certain woman of Himera beheld in a dream Dionysius' tyranny over Sicily. Euphorion has publicly recorded as a fact, that, previous to giving birth to Seleucus, his mother Laodice foresaw that he was destined for the empire of Asia. I find again from Strabo, that it was owing to a dream that even Mithridates took possession of Pontus; and I further learn from Callisthenes that it was from the indication of a dream that Baraliris the Illyrian stretched his dominion from the Molossi to the frontiers of Macedon. The Romans, too, were acquainted with dreams of this kind. From a dream Marcus Tullius (Cicero) had learned how that one, who was yet only a little boy, and in a private station, who was also plain Julius Octavius, and personally unknown to (Cicero) himself, was the destined Augustus, and the suppressor and destroyer of (Rome's) civil discords. This is recorded in the Commentaries of Vitellius. But visions of this prophetic kind were not confined to predictions of supreme power; for they indicated perils also, and catastrophes: as, for instance, when Cæsar was absent from the battle of Philippi through illness, and thereby escaped the sword of Brutus and Cassius, and then although he expected to encounter greater danger still from the enemy in the field, he quitted his tent for it, in obedience to a vision of Artorius, and so escaped (the capture by the enemy, who shortly after took possession of the tent); as, again, when the daughter of Polycrates of Samos foresaw the crucifixion which awaited him from the anointing of the sun and the bath of Jupiter. So likewise in sleep revelations are made of high honours and eminent talents; remedies are also discovered, thefts brought to light, and treasures indicated. Thus Cicero's eminence, while he was still a little boy, was foreseen by his nurse. The swan from the breast of Socrates soothing men, is his disciple Plato. The boxer Leonymus is cured by Achilles in his dreams. Sophocles the tragic poet discovers, as he was dreaming, the golden crown, which had been lost from the citadel of Athens. Neoptolemus the tragic actor, through intimations in his sleep from Ajax himself, saves from destruction the hero's tomb on the Rhoetean shore before Troy; and as he removes the decayed stones, he returns enriched with gold. How many commentators and chroniclers vouch for this phenomenon? There are Artemon, Antiphon, Strato, Philochorus, Epicharmus, Serapion, Cratippus, and Dionysius of Rhodes, and Hermippus— the entire literature of the age. I shall only laugh at all, if indeed I ought to laugh at the man who fancied that he was going to persuade us that Saturn dreamt before anybody else; which we can only believe if Aristotle, (who would fain help us to such an opinion,) lived prior to any other person. Pray forgive me for laughing. Epicharmus, indeed, as well as Philochorus the Athenian, assigned the very highest place among divinations to dreams. The whole world is full of oracles of this description: there are the oracles of Amphiaraus at Oropus, of Amphilochus at Mallus, of Sarpedon in the Troad, of Trophonius in Bœotia, of Mopsus in Cilicia, of Hermione in Macedon, of Pasiphäe in Laconia. Then, again, there are others, which with their original foundations, rites, and historians, together with the entire literature of dreams, Hermippus of Berytus in five portly volumes will give you all the account of, even to satiety.
"But the Stoics are very fond of saying that God, in His most watchful providence over every institution, gave us dreams among other preservatives of the arts and sciences of divination, as the special support of the natural oracle. So much for the dreams to which credit has to be ascribed even by ourselves, although we must interpret them in another sense.
"As for all other oracles, at which no one ever dreams, what else must we declare concerning them, than that they are the diabolical contrivance of those spirits who even at that time dwelt in the eminent persons themselves, or aimed at reviving the memory of them as the mere stage of their evil purposes, going so far as to counterfeit a divine power under their shape and form, and, with equal persistence in evil, deceiving men by their very boons of remedies, warnings, and forecasts—the only effect of which was to injure their victims the more they helped them; while the means whereby they rendered the help withdrew them from all search after the true God, by insinuating into their minds ideas of the false one? And of course so pernicious an influence as this is not shut up nor limited within the boundaries of shrines and temples: it roams abroad, it flies through the air, and all the while is free and unchecked. So that nobody can doubt that our very homes lie open to these diabolical spirits, who beset their human prey with their fantasies not only in their chapels but also in their chambers.
Chapter 47.
Dreams Variously Classified. Some are God-Sent, as the Dreams of Nebuchadnezzar; Others Simply Products of Nature
“We declare... that dreams are inflicted on us mainly by demons, although they sometimes turn out true and favourable to us.”
“But [dreams] from God— who has promised... to pour out... the Holy Spirit upon all flesh, and has ordained that His servants ... should see visions as well as utter prophecies [Joel 3:1] — must all those visions be regarded as emanating, which may be compared to the actual grace of God, ..., since God, with grand impartiality, sends His showers and sunshine on the just and on the unjust.” Matthew 5:45
“Almost the greater part of mankind get their knowledge of God from dreams.”
“The third class of dreams will consist of those which the soul itself apparently creates for itself from an intense application to special circumstances.”
“But [dreams] from God— who has promised... to pour out... the Holy Spirit upon all flesh, and has ordained that His servants ... should see visions as well as utter prophecies [Joel 3:1] — must all those visions be regarded as emanating, which may be compared to the actual grace of God, ..., since God, with grand impartiality, sends His showers and sunshine on the just and on the unjust.” Matthew 5:45
“Almost the greater part of mankind get their knowledge of God from dreams.”
“The third class of dreams will consist of those which the soul itself apparently creates for itself from an intense application to special circumstances.”
Chapter 48.
Causes and Circumstances of Dreams. What Best Contributes to Efficient Dreaming
"They say that dreams are more sure and clear when they happen towards the end of the night, because then the vigour of the soul emerges, and heavy sleep departs. As to the seasons of the year, dreams are calmer in spring, since summer relaxes, and winter somehow hardens, the soul; while autumn, which in other respects is trying to health, is apt to enervate the soul by the lusciousness of its fruits. Then, again, as regards the position of one's body during sleep, one ought not to lie on his back, nor on his right side, nor so as to wrench his intestines, as if their cavity were reversely stretched: a palpitation of the heart would ensue, or else a pressure on the liver would produce a painful disturbance of the mind. But however this be, I take it that it all amounts to ingenious conjecture rather than certain proof (although the author of the conjecture be no less a man than Plato); and possibly all may be no other than the result of chance. But, generally speaking, dreams will be under control of a man's will, if they be capable of direction at all; for we must not examine what opinion on the one hand, and superstition on the other, have to prescribe for the treatment of dreams, in the matter of distinguishing and modifying different sorts of food. As for the superstition, we have an instance when fasting is prescribed for such persons as mean to submit to the sleep which is necessary for receiving the oracle, in order that such abstinence may produce the required purity; while we find an instance of the opinion when the disciples of Pythagoras, in order to attain the same end, reject the bean as an aliment which would load the stomach, and produce indigestion. But the three brethren, who were the companions of Daniel, being content with pulse alone, to escape the contamination of the royal dishes, received from God, besides other wisdom, the gift especially of penetrating and explaining the sense of dreams. For my own part, I hardly know whether fasting would not simply make me dream so profoundly, that I should not be aware whether I had in fact dreamt at all. Well, then, you ask, has not sobriety something to do in this matter? Certainly it is as much concerned in this as it is in the entire subject: if it contributes some good service to superstition, much more does it to religion. For even demons require such discipline from their dreamers as a gratification to their divinity, because they know that it is acceptable to God, since Daniel (to quote him again) ate no pleasant bread for the space of three weeks. Daniel 10:2 This abstinence, however, he used in order to please God by humiliation, and not for the purpose of producing a sensibility and wisdom for his soul previous to receiving communication by dreams and visions, as if it were not rather to effect such action in an ecstatic state. This sobriety, then, (in which our question arises,) will have nothing to do with exciting ecstasy, but will rather serve to recommend its being wrought by God.
Chapter 49.
No Soul Naturally Exempt from Dreams
"As for those persons who suppose that infants do not dream, on the ground that all the functions of the soul throughout life are accomplished according to the capacity of age, they ought to observe attentively their tremors, and nods, and bright smiles as they sleep, and from such facts understand that they are the emotions of their soul as it dreams, which so readily escape to the surface through the delicate tenderness of their infantine body. The fact, however, that the African nation of the Atlantes are said to pass through the night in a deep lethargic sleep, brings down on them the censure that something is wrong in the constitution of their soul. Now either report, which is occasionally calumnious against barbarians, deceived Herodotus, or else a large force of demons of this sort domineers in those barbarous regions. Since, indeed, Aristotle remarks of a certain hero of Sardinia that he used to withhold the power of visions and dreams from such as resorted to his shrine for inspiration, it must lie at the will and caprice of the demons to take away as well as to confer the faculty of dreams; and from this circumstance may have arisen the remarkable fact (which we have mentioned ) of Nero and Thrasymedes only dreaming so late in life. We, however, derive dreams from God. Why, then, did not the Atlantes receive the dreaming faculty from God, because there is really no nation which is now a stranger to God, since the gospel flashes its glorious light through the world to the ends of the earth? Could it then be that rumour deceived Aristotle, or is this caprice still the way of demons? (Let us take any view of the case), only do not let it be imagined that any soul is by its natural constitution exempt from dreams.
Chapter 50.
The Absurd Opinion of Epicurus and the Profane Conceits of the Heretic Menander on Death,
Even Enoch and Elijah Reserved for Death
"We have by this time said enough about sleep, the mirror and image of death; and likewise about the occupations of sleep, even dreams. Let us now go on to consider the cause of our departure hence— that is, the appointment and course of death— because we must not leave even it unquestioned and unexamined, although it is itself the very end of all questions and investigations.
“According to the general sentiment of the human race, we declare death to be the debt of nature.” But Epicurus “.. says that no such debt is due from us...”
"He pretends to have received such a commission from the secret power of One above, that all who partake of his baptism become immortal, incorruptible and instantaneously invested with resurrection-life. We read, no doubt, of very many wonderful kinds of waters: how, for instance, the vinous quality of the stream intoxicates people who drink of the Lyncestis; how at Colophon the waters of an oracle-inspiring fountain affect men with madness; how Alexander was killed by the poisonous water from Mount Nonacris in Arcadia. Then, again, there was in Judea before the time of Christ a pool of medicinal virtue. It is well known how the poet has commemorated the marshy Styx as preserving men from death; although Thetis had, in spite of the preservative, to lament her son. And for the matter of
If “Menander himself to take a plunge into this famous Styx, he would certainly have to die after all; for you must come to the Styx, placed as it is by all accounts in the regions of the dead.”
"Well, but what and where are those blessed and charming waters which not even John Baptist ever used in his preministrations, nor Christ after him ever revealed to His disciples? What was this wondrous bath of Menander? He is a comical fellow, I ween. But why (was such a font) so seldom in request, so obscure, one to which so very few ever resorted for their cleansing? I really see something to suspect in so rare an occurrence of a sacrament to which is attached so very much security and safety, and which dispenses with the ordinary law of dying even in the service of God Himself, when, on the contrary, all nations have to ascend to the mount of the Lord and to the house of the God of Jacob, who demands of His saints in martyrdom that death which He exacted even of His Christ. No one will ascribe to magic such influence as shall exempt from death, or which shall refresh and vivify life, like the vine by the renewal of its condition. Such power was not accorded to the great Medea herself— over a human being at any rate, if allowed her over a silly sheep.
“Enoch ... was translated, and so was Elijah; [2 Kings 2:11] nor did they experience death: it was postponed, (and only postponed,) most certainly: they are reserved for the suffering of death, that by their blood they may extinguish Antichrist. [Revelation 11:3] “
Tertullian states that the two unnamed witnesses will be Enoch and Elijah.
“According to the general sentiment of the human race, we declare death to be the debt of nature.” But Epicurus “.. says that no such debt is due from us...”
"He pretends to have received such a commission from the secret power of One above, that all who partake of his baptism become immortal, incorruptible and instantaneously invested with resurrection-life. We read, no doubt, of very many wonderful kinds of waters: how, for instance, the vinous quality of the stream intoxicates people who drink of the Lyncestis; how at Colophon the waters of an oracle-inspiring fountain affect men with madness; how Alexander was killed by the poisonous water from Mount Nonacris in Arcadia. Then, again, there was in Judea before the time of Christ a pool of medicinal virtue. It is well known how the poet has commemorated the marshy Styx as preserving men from death; although Thetis had, in spite of the preservative, to lament her son. And for the matter of
If “Menander himself to take a plunge into this famous Styx, he would certainly have to die after all; for you must come to the Styx, placed as it is by all accounts in the regions of the dead.”
"Well, but what and where are those blessed and charming waters which not even John Baptist ever used in his preministrations, nor Christ after him ever revealed to His disciples? What was this wondrous bath of Menander? He is a comical fellow, I ween. But why (was such a font) so seldom in request, so obscure, one to which so very few ever resorted for their cleansing? I really see something to suspect in so rare an occurrence of a sacrament to which is attached so very much security and safety, and which dispenses with the ordinary law of dying even in the service of God Himself, when, on the contrary, all nations have to ascend to the mount of the Lord and to the house of the God of Jacob, who demands of His saints in martyrdom that death which He exacted even of His Christ. No one will ascribe to magic such influence as shall exempt from death, or which shall refresh and vivify life, like the vine by the renewal of its condition. Such power was not accorded to the great Medea herself— over a human being at any rate, if allowed her over a silly sheep.
“Enoch ... was translated, and so was Elijah; [2 Kings 2:11] nor did they experience death: it was postponed, (and only postponed,) most certainly: they are reserved for the suffering of death, that by their blood they may extinguish Antichrist. [Revelation 11:3] “
Tertullian states that the two unnamed witnesses will be Enoch and Elijah.
Chapter 51.
Death Entirely Separates the Soul from the Body
“But the operation of death is plain and obvious: it is the separation of body and soul.”
"Some... in reference to the soul's immortality, on which they have so feeble a hold through not being taught of God, maintain it with such beggarly arguments, that they would fain have it supposed that certain souls cleave to the body even after death."
Plato "dispatches at once to heaven such souls as he pleases"
"yet in his Republic exhibits to us the corpse of an unburied person, which was preserved a long time without corruption, by reason of the soul remaining... unseparated from the body."
"Democritus remarks on the growth ... of ... human nails and hair in the grave. Now, it is quite possible that the nature of the atmosphere tended to the preservation of the above-mentioned corpse. What if the air were particularly dry, and the ground of a saline nature? What, too, if the substance of the body itself were unusually dry and arid? What, moreover, if the mode of the death had already eliminated from the corpse all corrupting matter? As for the nails, since they are the commencement of the nerves, they may well seem to be prolonged, owing to the nerves themselves being relaxed and extended, and to be protruded more and more as the flesh fails. The hair, again, is nourished from the brain, which would cause it endure for a long time as its secret aliment and defence. Indeed, in the case of living persons themselves, the whole head of hair is copious or scanty in proportion to the exuberance of the brain. You have medical men (to attest the fact). But not a particle of the soul can possibly remain in the body, which is itself destined to disappear when time shall have abolished the entire scene on which the body has played its part. And yet even this partial survival of the soul finds a place in the opinions of some men; and on this account they will not have the body consumed at its funeral by fire, because they would spare the small residue of the soul. There is, however, another way of accounting for this pious treatment, not as if it meant to favour the relics of the soul, but as if it would avert a cruel custom in the interest even of the body; since, being human, it is itself undeserving of an end which is also inflicted upon murderers.
“The truth is, the soul is indivisible, because it is immortal; (and this fact) compels us to believe that death itself is an indivisible process, accruing indivisibly to the soul, not indeed because it is immortal, but because it is indivisible.”
"Death...would have to be divided in its operation, if the soul were divisible into particles, any one of which has to be reserved for a later stage of death. At this rate, a part of death will have to stay behind for a portion of the soul. I am not ignorant that some vestige of this opinion still exists. I have found it out from one of my own people. I am acquainted with the case of a woman, the daughter of Christian parents, who in the very flower of her age and beauty slept peacefully (in Jesus), after a singularly happy though brief married life. Before they laid her in her grave, and when the priest began the appointed office, at the very first breath of his prayer she withdrew her hands from her side, placed them in an attitude of devotion, and after the holy service was concluded restored them to their lateral position. Then, again, there is that well-known story among our own people, that a body voluntarily made way in a certain cemetery, to afford room for another body to be placed near to it.
“If... similar stories are told among the heathen, (we can only conclude that) God everywhere manifests signs of His own power— to His own people for their comfort, to strangers for a testimony unto them.”
"I would indeed much rather suppose that a portent of this kind happened from the direct agency of God than from any relics of the soul: for if there were a residue of these, they would be certain to move the other limbs; and even if they moved the hands, this still would not have been for the purpose of a prayer. Nor would the corpse have been simply content to have made way for its neighbour: it would, besides, have benefited its own self also by the change of its position. But from whatever cause proceeded these phenomena, which you must put down among signs and portents, it is impossible that they should regulate nature."
An appeal to natural phenomena:
“Death, if it once falls short of totality in operation, is not death. If any fraction of the soul remain, it makes a living state. Death will no more mix with life, than will night with day.”
"Some... in reference to the soul's immortality, on which they have so feeble a hold through not being taught of God, maintain it with such beggarly arguments, that they would fain have it supposed that certain souls cleave to the body even after death."
Plato "dispatches at once to heaven such souls as he pleases"
"yet in his Republic exhibits to us the corpse of an unburied person, which was preserved a long time without corruption, by reason of the soul remaining... unseparated from the body."
"Democritus remarks on the growth ... of ... human nails and hair in the grave. Now, it is quite possible that the nature of the atmosphere tended to the preservation of the above-mentioned corpse. What if the air were particularly dry, and the ground of a saline nature? What, too, if the substance of the body itself were unusually dry and arid? What, moreover, if the mode of the death had already eliminated from the corpse all corrupting matter? As for the nails, since they are the commencement of the nerves, they may well seem to be prolonged, owing to the nerves themselves being relaxed and extended, and to be protruded more and more as the flesh fails. The hair, again, is nourished from the brain, which would cause it endure for a long time as its secret aliment and defence. Indeed, in the case of living persons themselves, the whole head of hair is copious or scanty in proportion to the exuberance of the brain. You have medical men (to attest the fact). But not a particle of the soul can possibly remain in the body, which is itself destined to disappear when time shall have abolished the entire scene on which the body has played its part. And yet even this partial survival of the soul finds a place in the opinions of some men; and on this account they will not have the body consumed at its funeral by fire, because they would spare the small residue of the soul. There is, however, another way of accounting for this pious treatment, not as if it meant to favour the relics of the soul, but as if it would avert a cruel custom in the interest even of the body; since, being human, it is itself undeserving of an end which is also inflicted upon murderers.
“The truth is, the soul is indivisible, because it is immortal; (and this fact) compels us to believe that death itself is an indivisible process, accruing indivisibly to the soul, not indeed because it is immortal, but because it is indivisible.”
"Death...would have to be divided in its operation, if the soul were divisible into particles, any one of which has to be reserved for a later stage of death. At this rate, a part of death will have to stay behind for a portion of the soul. I am not ignorant that some vestige of this opinion still exists. I have found it out from one of my own people. I am acquainted with the case of a woman, the daughter of Christian parents, who in the very flower of her age and beauty slept peacefully (in Jesus), after a singularly happy though brief married life. Before they laid her in her grave, and when the priest began the appointed office, at the very first breath of his prayer she withdrew her hands from her side, placed them in an attitude of devotion, and after the holy service was concluded restored them to their lateral position. Then, again, there is that well-known story among our own people, that a body voluntarily made way in a certain cemetery, to afford room for another body to be placed near to it.
“If... similar stories are told among the heathen, (we can only conclude that) God everywhere manifests signs of His own power— to His own people for their comfort, to strangers for a testimony unto them.”
"I would indeed much rather suppose that a portent of this kind happened from the direct agency of God than from any relics of the soul: for if there were a residue of these, they would be certain to move the other limbs; and even if they moved the hands, this still would not have been for the purpose of a prayer. Nor would the corpse have been simply content to have made way for its neighbour: it would, besides, have benefited its own self also by the change of its position. But from whatever cause proceeded these phenomena, which you must put down among signs and portents, it is impossible that they should regulate nature."
An appeal to natural phenomena:
“Death, if it once falls short of totality in operation, is not death. If any fraction of the soul remain, it makes a living state. Death will no more mix with life, than will night with day.”
Chapter 52.
All Kinds of Death a Violence to Nature, Arising from Sin.— Sin an Intrusion Upon Nature as God Created It
Death is "the separation of the soul from the body. Putting out of the question fates and fortuitous circumstances, it has been, according to men's views, distinguished in a twofold form— the ordinary and the extraordinary. The ordinary they ascribe to nature, exercising its quiet influence in the case of each individual decease; the extraordinary is said to be contrary to nature, happening in every violent death."
“We know what was man's origin, and we boldly assert and persistently maintain that death happens not by way of natural consequence to man, but owing to a fault and defect which is not itself natural.”
"although it is easy enough, no doubt, to apply the term natural to faults and circumstances which seem to have been (though from the emergence of an external cause ) inseparable to us from our very birth.
"If man had been... appointed to die as the condition of his creation, then ... death must be imputed to nature. ...he was not...appointed to die, is proved by ... his condition depend on a warning, and death result from man's arbitrary choice."
Tertullian writes that Adam's behavior was "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system".
“Indeed, if he [Adam] had not sinned, he ... would not have died.”
"That cannot be nature which happens by the exercise of volition after an alternative has been proposed to it, and not by necessity— the result of an inflexible and unalterable condition. Consequently, although death['s] ... causes are manifold, we cannot say that the easiest death is so gentle as not to happen by violence (to our nature)."
“The ... law which produces death, simple though it be, is yet violence.”
"How can it be otherwise, when so close a companionship of soul and body, so inseparable a growth together from their very conception of two sister substances, is sundered and divided? For although a man may breathe his last for joy... or for glory... or in a dream, like Plato; or in a fit of laughter, like Publius Crassus,--"
“Death is ... too violent, coming as it does upon us by strange and alien means, expelling the soul by a method all its own.”
"calling on us to die at a moment when one might live a jocund life in joy and honour, in peace and pleasure. That is still a violence to ships: although far away from the Capharean rocks, assailed by no storms, without a billow to shatter them, with favouring gale, in gliding course, with merry crews, they founder amidst entire security, suddenly, owing to some internal shock. Not dissimilar are the shipwrecks of life—the issues of even a tranquil death. It matters not whether the vessel of the human body goes with unbroken timbers or shattered with storms, if the navigation of the soul be overthrown.
“We know what was man's origin, and we boldly assert and persistently maintain that death happens not by way of natural consequence to man, but owing to a fault and defect which is not itself natural.”
"although it is easy enough, no doubt, to apply the term natural to faults and circumstances which seem to have been (though from the emergence of an external cause ) inseparable to us from our very birth.
"If man had been... appointed to die as the condition of his creation, then ... death must be imputed to nature. ...he was not...appointed to die, is proved by ... his condition depend on a warning, and death result from man's arbitrary choice."
Tertullian writes that Adam's behavior was "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system".
“Indeed, if he [Adam] had not sinned, he ... would not have died.”
"That cannot be nature which happens by the exercise of volition after an alternative has been proposed to it, and not by necessity— the result of an inflexible and unalterable condition. Consequently, although death['s] ... causes are manifold, we cannot say that the easiest death is so gentle as not to happen by violence (to our nature)."
“The ... law which produces death, simple though it be, is yet violence.”
"How can it be otherwise, when so close a companionship of soul and body, so inseparable a growth together from their very conception of two sister substances, is sundered and divided? For although a man may breathe his last for joy... or for glory... or in a dream, like Plato; or in a fit of laughter, like Publius Crassus,--"
“Death is ... too violent, coming as it does upon us by strange and alien means, expelling the soul by a method all its own.”
"calling on us to die at a moment when one might live a jocund life in joy and honour, in peace and pleasure. That is still a violence to ships: although far away from the Capharean rocks, assailed by no storms, without a billow to shatter them, with favouring gale, in gliding course, with merry crews, they founder amidst entire security, suddenly, owing to some internal shock. Not dissimilar are the shipwrecks of life—the issues of even a tranquil death. It matters not whether the vessel of the human body goes with unbroken timbers or shattered with storms, if the navigation of the soul be overthrown.
Chapter 53.
The Entire Soul Being Indivisible Remains to the Last Act of Vitality; Never Partially or Fractionally Withdrawn from the Body
"But where at last will the soul have to lodge, when it is bare and divested of the body? We must certainly not hesitate to follow it there, in the order of our inquiry. We must, however, first of all fully state what belongs to the topic before us, in order that no one, because we have mentioned the various issues of death, may expect from us a special description of these, which ought rather to be left to medical men, who are the proper judges of the incidents which appertain to death, or its causes, and the actual conditions of the human body. Of course,
“With the view of preserving the truth of the soul's immortality, while treating this topic, I shall have... to introduce phrases about dissolution of such a purport as seems to intimate that the soul escapes by degrees, and piece by piece; for it withdraws (from the body) with all the circumstances of a decline, seeming to suffer consumption, and suggests to us the idea of being annihilated by the slow process of its departure.”
"But the entire reason of this phenomenon is in the body, and arises from the body. For whatever be the kind of death (which operates on man), it undoubtedly produces the destruction either of the matter, or of the region, or of the passages of vitality: of the matter, such as the gall and the blood; of the region, such as the heart and the liver; of the passages, such as the veins and the arteries. Inasmuch, then, as these parts of the body are severally devastated by an injury proper to each of them, even to the very last ruin and annulling of the vital powers— in other words, of the ends, the sites, and the functions of nature— it must needs come to pass, amidst the gradual decay of its instruments, domiciles, and spaces, that the soul also itself, being driven to abandon each successive part, assumes the appearance of being lessened to nothing; in some such manner as a charioteer is assumed to have himself failed, when his horses, through fatigue, withdraw from him their energies. But this assumption applies only to the circumstances of the despoiled person, not to any real condition of suffering. Likewise
“The body's charioteer, the animal spirit, fails on account of the failure of its vehicle, not of itself— abandoning its work, but not its vigour— languishing in operation, but not in essential condition— bankrupt in solvency, not in substance— because ceasing to put in an appearance, but not ceasing to exist.”
"Every rapid death— such as a decapitation... which opens at once a vast outlet for the soul; or a sudden ruin, which at a stroke crushes every vital action, like that inner ruin apoplexy— retards not the soul's escape, nor painfully separates its departure into successive moments. Where... the death is a lingering one, the soul abandons its position in the way in which it is itself abandoned. And yet it is not by this process severed in fractions: it is slowly drawn out; and while thus extracted, it causes the last remnant to seem to be but a part of itself. No portion, however, must be deemed separable, because it is the last; nor, because it is a small one, must it be regarded as susceptible of dissolution. Accordant with a series is its end, and the middle is prolonged to the extremes; and the remnants cohere to the mass, and are waited for, but never abandoned by it. And I will even venture to say, that the last of a whole is the whole; because while it is less, and the latest, it yet belongs to the whole, and completes it. Hence, indeed, many times it happens that the soul in its actual separation is more powerfully agitated with a more anxious gaze, and a quickened loquacity; while from the loftier and freer position in which it is now placed, it enunciates, by means of its last remnant still lingering in the flesh, what it sees, what it hears, and what it is beginning to know."
“In Platonic phrase... the body is a prison, but in the apostle's [Saint Paul] it is the temple of God, because it is in Christ. Still, (as must be admitted,) by reason of its enclosure it obstructs and obscures the soul, and sullies it by the concretion of the flesh.. whence it happens that the light which illumines objects comes in upon the soul in a more confused manner, as if through a window of horn. Undoubtedly, when the soul, by the power of death, is released from its concretion with the flesh, it is by the very release cleansed and purified...”
"It is... certain that it [the soul] escapes from the veil of the flesh into open space, to its clear, and pure, and intrinsic light."
The soul “ itself enjoying its enfranchisement from matter, and by virtue of its liberty it recovers its divinity... according as it finds what lodging is prepared for it, as soon as it sees the very angel's face, that arraigner of souls, the Mercury of the poets.”
“With the view of preserving the truth of the soul's immortality, while treating this topic, I shall have... to introduce phrases about dissolution of such a purport as seems to intimate that the soul escapes by degrees, and piece by piece; for it withdraws (from the body) with all the circumstances of a decline, seeming to suffer consumption, and suggests to us the idea of being annihilated by the slow process of its departure.”
"But the entire reason of this phenomenon is in the body, and arises from the body. For whatever be the kind of death (which operates on man), it undoubtedly produces the destruction either of the matter, or of the region, or of the passages of vitality: of the matter, such as the gall and the blood; of the region, such as the heart and the liver; of the passages, such as the veins and the arteries. Inasmuch, then, as these parts of the body are severally devastated by an injury proper to each of them, even to the very last ruin and annulling of the vital powers— in other words, of the ends, the sites, and the functions of nature— it must needs come to pass, amidst the gradual decay of its instruments, domiciles, and spaces, that the soul also itself, being driven to abandon each successive part, assumes the appearance of being lessened to nothing; in some such manner as a charioteer is assumed to have himself failed, when his horses, through fatigue, withdraw from him their energies. But this assumption applies only to the circumstances of the despoiled person, not to any real condition of suffering. Likewise
“The body's charioteer, the animal spirit, fails on account of the failure of its vehicle, not of itself— abandoning its work, but not its vigour— languishing in operation, but not in essential condition— bankrupt in solvency, not in substance— because ceasing to put in an appearance, but not ceasing to exist.”
"Every rapid death— such as a decapitation... which opens at once a vast outlet for the soul; or a sudden ruin, which at a stroke crushes every vital action, like that inner ruin apoplexy— retards not the soul's escape, nor painfully separates its departure into successive moments. Where... the death is a lingering one, the soul abandons its position in the way in which it is itself abandoned. And yet it is not by this process severed in fractions: it is slowly drawn out; and while thus extracted, it causes the last remnant to seem to be but a part of itself. No portion, however, must be deemed separable, because it is the last; nor, because it is a small one, must it be regarded as susceptible of dissolution. Accordant with a series is its end, and the middle is prolonged to the extremes; and the remnants cohere to the mass, and are waited for, but never abandoned by it. And I will even venture to say, that the last of a whole is the whole; because while it is less, and the latest, it yet belongs to the whole, and completes it. Hence, indeed, many times it happens that the soul in its actual separation is more powerfully agitated with a more anxious gaze, and a quickened loquacity; while from the loftier and freer position in which it is now placed, it enunciates, by means of its last remnant still lingering in the flesh, what it sees, what it hears, and what it is beginning to know."
“In Platonic phrase... the body is a prison, but in the apostle's [Saint Paul] it is the temple of God, because it is in Christ. Still, (as must be admitted,) by reason of its enclosure it obstructs and obscures the soul, and sullies it by the concretion of the flesh.. whence it happens that the light which illumines objects comes in upon the soul in a more confused manner, as if through a window of horn. Undoubtedly, when the soul, by the power of death, is released from its concretion with the flesh, it is by the very release cleansed and purified...”
"It is... certain that it [the soul] escapes from the veil of the flesh into open space, to its clear, and pure, and intrinsic light."
The soul “ itself enjoying its enfranchisement from matter, and by virtue of its liberty it recovers its divinity... according as it finds what lodging is prepared for it, as soon as it sees the very angel's face, that arraigner of souls, the Mercury of the poets.”
Chapter 54.
Whither Does the Soul Retire When It Quits the Body? Opinions of Philosophers All More or Less Absurd. The Hades of Plato
"To the question... whither the soul is withdrawn, we now give an answer. Almost all the philosophers, who hold the soul's immortality ... still claim for it this (eternal condition), as ... Plato, and as they who indulge it with some delay from the time of its quitting the flesh to the conflagration of all things, and as the Stoics, who place ... the souls of the wise, in the mansions above."
“Plato, it is true, does not allow this destination [the mansions above] to all the souls, indiscriminately, of even all the philosophers, but only of those who have cultivated their philosophy out of love to boys.”
"So great is the privilege which impurity obtains at the hands of philosophers! In his system, .. the souls of the wise are carried up on high into the ether:... I wonder, indeed, that they abandon to the earth the souls of the unwise, when they affirm that even these are instructed by the wise, so much their superiors. For where is the school where they can have been instructed in the vast space which divides them? By what means can the pupil-souls have resorted to their teachers, when they are parted from each other by so distant an interval? What profit... can any instruction afford them at all in their posthumous state, when they are on the brink of perdition by the universal fire?"
“All other souls [non philosphic] they [the philosphers] thrust down to Hades, which Plato... describes as the bosom of the earth, where all the filth of the world accumulates, settles, and exhales, and where every separate draught of air only renders denser ... the impurities of the seething mass.”
“Plato, it is true, does not allow this destination [the mansions above] to all the souls, indiscriminately, of even all the philosophers, but only of those who have cultivated their philosophy out of love to boys.”
"So great is the privilege which impurity obtains at the hands of philosophers! In his system, .. the souls of the wise are carried up on high into the ether:... I wonder, indeed, that they abandon to the earth the souls of the unwise, when they affirm that even these are instructed by the wise, so much their superiors. For where is the school where they can have been instructed in the vast space which divides them? By what means can the pupil-souls have resorted to their teachers, when they are parted from each other by so distant an interval? What profit... can any instruction afford them at all in their posthumous state, when they are on the brink of perdition by the universal fire?"
“All other souls [non philosphic] they [the philosphers] thrust down to Hades, which Plato... describes as the bosom of the earth, where all the filth of the world accumulates, settles, and exhales, and where every separate draught of air only renders denser ... the impurities of the seething mass.”
Chapter 55.
The Christian Idea of the Position of Hades; The Blessedness of Paradise Immediately After Death. The Privilege of the Martyrs
Christians maintain that Hades is “a vast deep space in the interior of the earth, and a concealed recess in its very bowels; inasmuch as we read that Christ in His death spent three days in the heart of the earth... [Matthew 12:40]”
“Now although Christ is God, yet, being also man, He died according to the Scriptures... [1 Corinthians 15:3]”
and according to the same Scriptures was buried.
"With the same law of His being He fully complied, by remaining in Hades in the form and condition of a dead man; nor did He ascend into the heights of heaven before descending into the lower parts of the earth, “that He [Christ] might there make the patriarchs and prophets partakers of Himself. [1 Peter 3:19]”
"(This being the case), you must suppose Hades to be a subterranean region, and keep at arm's length those who are too proud to believe that the souls of the faithful deserve a place in the lower regions. These persons, who are servants above their Lord, and disciples above their Master, [Matthew 10:24] would no doubt spurn to receive the comfort of the resurrection, if they must expect it in Abraham's bosom."
“But it was for this purpose, say they, that Christ descended into hell, that we might not ourselves have to descend there. ...what difference is there between heathens and Christians, if the same prison awaits them all when dead?”
"How... shall the soul mount up to heaven, where Christ is... sitting at the Father's right hand, when as yet the archangel's trumpet has not been heard by the command of God, — when as yet those whom the coming of the Lord is to find on the earth, have not been caught up into the air to meet Him at His coming, [1 Thessalonians 4:17] in company with the dead in Christ, who shall be the first to arise? [1 Thessalonians 4:16] To no one is heaven opened; the earth is still safe for him, I would not say it is shut against him. When the world, indeed, shall pass away, then the kingdom of heaven shall be opened."
“Shall we... have to sleep high up in ether, with the boy-loving worthies of Plato...”?
Tertullian wonders if Christians will share Heaven with the ephebophilian followers of Plato.
"No, but in Paradise, you tell me, whither already the patriarchs and prophets have removed from Hades in the retinue of the Lord's resurrection."
"How is it.., that the region of Paradise... lay under the altar, [Revelation 6:9] displays no other souls as in it besides the souls of the martyrs?"
"How is it that the... martyr Perpetua on the day of her passion saw only her fellow martyrs there, in the revelation which she received of Paradise, if it were not that the sword which guarded the entrance permitted none to go in thereat, except those who had died in Christ and not in Adam? A new death for God, even the extraordinary one for Christ, is admitted into the reception-room of mortality, specially altered and adapted to receive the new-comer. Observe, then, the difference between a heathen and a Christian in their death..."
“if you have to lay down your life for God, as the Comforter counsels, it is ... in the sharp pains of martyrdom...”
you must take up the cross and bear it after your Master, as He has Himself instructed you. [Matthew 16:24]
“The sole key to unlock Paradise is your own life's blood.”
A reference to another writing:
“You have a treatise by us, (on Paradise), in which we have established the position that every soul is detained in safe keeping in Hades until the day of the Lord.”
“Now although Christ is God, yet, being also man, He died according to the Scriptures... [1 Corinthians 15:3]”
and according to the same Scriptures was buried.
"With the same law of His being He fully complied, by remaining in Hades in the form and condition of a dead man; nor did He ascend into the heights of heaven before descending into the lower parts of the earth, “that He [Christ] might there make the patriarchs and prophets partakers of Himself. [1 Peter 3:19]”
"(This being the case), you must suppose Hades to be a subterranean region, and keep at arm's length those who are too proud to believe that the souls of the faithful deserve a place in the lower regions. These persons, who are servants above their Lord, and disciples above their Master, [Matthew 10:24] would no doubt spurn to receive the comfort of the resurrection, if they must expect it in Abraham's bosom."
“But it was for this purpose, say they, that Christ descended into hell, that we might not ourselves have to descend there. ...what difference is there between heathens and Christians, if the same prison awaits them all when dead?”
"How... shall the soul mount up to heaven, where Christ is... sitting at the Father's right hand, when as yet the archangel's trumpet has not been heard by the command of God, — when as yet those whom the coming of the Lord is to find on the earth, have not been caught up into the air to meet Him at His coming, [1 Thessalonians 4:17] in company with the dead in Christ, who shall be the first to arise? [1 Thessalonians 4:16] To no one is heaven opened; the earth is still safe for him, I would not say it is shut against him. When the world, indeed, shall pass away, then the kingdom of heaven shall be opened."
“Shall we... have to sleep high up in ether, with the boy-loving worthies of Plato...”?
Tertullian wonders if Christians will share Heaven with the ephebophilian followers of Plato.
"No, but in Paradise, you tell me, whither already the patriarchs and prophets have removed from Hades in the retinue of the Lord's resurrection."
"How is it.., that the region of Paradise... lay under the altar, [Revelation 6:9] displays no other souls as in it besides the souls of the martyrs?"
"How is it that the... martyr Perpetua on the day of her passion saw only her fellow martyrs there, in the revelation which she received of Paradise, if it were not that the sword which guarded the entrance permitted none to go in thereat, except those who had died in Christ and not in Adam? A new death for God, even the extraordinary one for Christ, is admitted into the reception-room of mortality, specially altered and adapted to receive the new-comer. Observe, then, the difference between a heathen and a Christian in their death..."
“if you have to lay down your life for God, as the Comforter counsels, it is ... in the sharp pains of martyrdom...”
you must take up the cross and bear it after your Master, as He has Himself instructed you. [Matthew 16:24]
“The sole key to unlock Paradise is your own life's blood.”
A reference to another writing:
“You have a treatise by us, (on Paradise), in which we have established the position that every soul is detained in safe keeping in Hades until the day of the Lord.”
Chapter 56.
Refutation of the Homeric View of the Soul's Detention from Hades Owing to the Body's Being Unburied.
That Souls Prematurely Separated from the Body Had to Wait for Admission into Hades Also Refuted
"There arises the question, whether this takes place immediately after the soul's departure from the body; whether some souls are detained for special reasons in the meantime here on earth; and whether it is permitted them of their own accord, or by the intervention of authority, to be removed from Hades at some subsequent time?
"Even such opinions as these are not by any means lacking persons to advance them with confidence. It was believed that the unburied dead were not admitted into the infernal regions before they had received a proper sepulture; as in the case of Homer's Patroclus, who earnestly asks for a burial of Achilles in a dream, on the ground that he could not enter Hades through any other portal, since the souls of the sepulchred dead kept thrusting him away. "
"We know that Homer exhibited more than a poetic licence here; he had in view the rights of the dead. Proportioned, indeed, to his care for the just honours of the tomb, was his censure of that delay of burial which was injurious to souls. (It was also his purpose to add a warning), that no man should, by detaining in his house the corpse of a friend, only expose himself, along with the deceased, to increased injury and trouble, by the irregularity of the consolation which he nourishes with pain and grief. He has accordingly kept a twofold object in view in picturing the complaints of an unburied soul: he wished to maintain honour to the dead by promptly attending to their funeral, as well as to moderate the feelings of grief which their memory excited.
"But, after all, how vain is it to suppose that the soul could bear the rites and requirements of the body, or carry any of them away to the infernal regions! And how much vainer still is it, if injury be supposed to accrue to the soul from that neglect of burial which it ought to receive rather as a favour! For surely the soul which had no willingness to die might well prefer as tardy a removal to Hades as possible. It will love the undutiful heir, by whose means it still enjoys the light. If, however, it is certain that injury accrues to the soul from a tardy interment of the body— and the gist of the injury lies in the neglect of the burial— it is yet in the highest degree unfair, that that should receive all the injury to which the faulty delay could not possibly be imputed, for of course all the fault rests on the nearest relations of the dead.
"They also say that those souls which are taken away by a premature death wander about here and there until they have completed the residue of the years which they would have lived through, had it not been for their untimely fate. Now either their days are appointed to all men severally, and if so appointed, I cannot suppose them capable of being shortened; or if, notwithstanding such appointment, they may be shortened by the will of God, or some other powerful influence, then (I say) such shortening is of no validity, if they still may be accomplished in some other way.
"If, on the other hand, they are not appointed, there cannot be any residue to be fulfilled for unappointed periods. I have another remark to make. Suppose it be an infant that dies yet hanging on the breast; or it may be an immature boy; or it may be, once more, a youth arrived at puberty: suppose, moreover, that the life in each case ought to have reached full eighty years, how is it possible that the soul of either could spend the whole of the shortened years here on earth after losing the body by death? One's age cannot be passed without one's body, it being by help of the body that the period of life has its duties and labours transacted.
“Let our own people, moreover, bear this in mind, that souls are to receive back at the resurrection the self-same bodies in which they died.”
"Therefore our bodies must be expected to resume the same conditions and the same ages, for it is these particulars which impart to bodies their special modes. By what means, then, can the soul of an infant so spend on earth its residue of years, that it should be able at the resurrection to assume the state of an octogenarian, although it had barely lived a month?
"Or if it shall be necessary that the appointed days of life be fulfilled here on earth, must the same course of life in all its vicissitudes, which has been itself ordained to accompany the appointed days, be also passed through by the soul along with the days? Must it employ itself in school studies in its passage from infancy to boyhood; play the soldier in the excitement and vigour of youth and earlier manhood; and encounter serious and judicial responsibilities in the graver years between ripe manhood and old age? Must it ply trade for profit, turn up the soil with hoe and plough, go to sea, bring actions at law, get married, toil and labour, undergo illnesses, and whatever casualties of good and woe await it in the lapse of years? Well, but how are all these transactions to be managed without one's body? Life (spent) without life? But (you will tell me) the destined period in question is to be bare of all incident whatever, only to be accomplished by merely elapsing. What, then, is to prevent its being fulfilled in Hades, where there is absolutely no use to which you can apply it?
“We therefore maintain that every soul, whatever be its age on quitting the body, remains unchanged in the same, until the time shall come when the promised perfection shall be realized in a state duly tempered to the measure of the peerless angels.”
"Hence those souls must be accounted as passing an exile in Hades, which people are apt to regard as carried off by violence, especially by cruel tortures, such as those of the cross, and the axe, and the sword, and the lion; but we do not account those to be violent deaths which justice awards, that avenger of violence. So then, you will say, it is all the wicked souls that are banished in Hades. (Not quite so fast, is my answer.)"
“I must compel you to determine (what you mean by Hades), which of its two regions, the region of the good or of the bad. If you mean the bad, (all I can say is, that) even now the souls of the wicked deserve to be consigned to those abodes; if you mean the good why should you judge to be unworthy of such a resting-place the souls of infants and of virgins, and those which, by reason of their condition in life were pure and innocent?”
"Even such opinions as these are not by any means lacking persons to advance them with confidence. It was believed that the unburied dead were not admitted into the infernal regions before they had received a proper sepulture; as in the case of Homer's Patroclus, who earnestly asks for a burial of Achilles in a dream, on the ground that he could not enter Hades through any other portal, since the souls of the sepulchred dead kept thrusting him away. "
"We know that Homer exhibited more than a poetic licence here; he had in view the rights of the dead. Proportioned, indeed, to his care for the just honours of the tomb, was his censure of that delay of burial which was injurious to souls. (It was also his purpose to add a warning), that no man should, by detaining in his house the corpse of a friend, only expose himself, along with the deceased, to increased injury and trouble, by the irregularity of the consolation which he nourishes with pain and grief. He has accordingly kept a twofold object in view in picturing the complaints of an unburied soul: he wished to maintain honour to the dead by promptly attending to their funeral, as well as to moderate the feelings of grief which their memory excited.
"But, after all, how vain is it to suppose that the soul could bear the rites and requirements of the body, or carry any of them away to the infernal regions! And how much vainer still is it, if injury be supposed to accrue to the soul from that neglect of burial which it ought to receive rather as a favour! For surely the soul which had no willingness to die might well prefer as tardy a removal to Hades as possible. It will love the undutiful heir, by whose means it still enjoys the light. If, however, it is certain that injury accrues to the soul from a tardy interment of the body— and the gist of the injury lies in the neglect of the burial— it is yet in the highest degree unfair, that that should receive all the injury to which the faulty delay could not possibly be imputed, for of course all the fault rests on the nearest relations of the dead.
"They also say that those souls which are taken away by a premature death wander about here and there until they have completed the residue of the years which they would have lived through, had it not been for their untimely fate. Now either their days are appointed to all men severally, and if so appointed, I cannot suppose them capable of being shortened; or if, notwithstanding such appointment, they may be shortened by the will of God, or some other powerful influence, then (I say) such shortening is of no validity, if they still may be accomplished in some other way.
"If, on the other hand, they are not appointed, there cannot be any residue to be fulfilled for unappointed periods. I have another remark to make. Suppose it be an infant that dies yet hanging on the breast; or it may be an immature boy; or it may be, once more, a youth arrived at puberty: suppose, moreover, that the life in each case ought to have reached full eighty years, how is it possible that the soul of either could spend the whole of the shortened years here on earth after losing the body by death? One's age cannot be passed without one's body, it being by help of the body that the period of life has its duties and labours transacted.
“Let our own people, moreover, bear this in mind, that souls are to receive back at the resurrection the self-same bodies in which they died.”
"Therefore our bodies must be expected to resume the same conditions and the same ages, for it is these particulars which impart to bodies their special modes. By what means, then, can the soul of an infant so spend on earth its residue of years, that it should be able at the resurrection to assume the state of an octogenarian, although it had barely lived a month?
"Or if it shall be necessary that the appointed days of life be fulfilled here on earth, must the same course of life in all its vicissitudes, which has been itself ordained to accompany the appointed days, be also passed through by the soul along with the days? Must it employ itself in school studies in its passage from infancy to boyhood; play the soldier in the excitement and vigour of youth and earlier manhood; and encounter serious and judicial responsibilities in the graver years between ripe manhood and old age? Must it ply trade for profit, turn up the soil with hoe and plough, go to sea, bring actions at law, get married, toil and labour, undergo illnesses, and whatever casualties of good and woe await it in the lapse of years? Well, but how are all these transactions to be managed without one's body? Life (spent) without life? But (you will tell me) the destined period in question is to be bare of all incident whatever, only to be accomplished by merely elapsing. What, then, is to prevent its being fulfilled in Hades, where there is absolutely no use to which you can apply it?
“We therefore maintain that every soul, whatever be its age on quitting the body, remains unchanged in the same, until the time shall come when the promised perfection shall be realized in a state duly tempered to the measure of the peerless angels.”
"Hence those souls must be accounted as passing an exile in Hades, which people are apt to regard as carried off by violence, especially by cruel tortures, such as those of the cross, and the axe, and the sword, and the lion; but we do not account those to be violent deaths which justice awards, that avenger of violence. So then, you will say, it is all the wicked souls that are banished in Hades. (Not quite so fast, is my answer.)"
“I must compel you to determine (what you mean by Hades), which of its two regions, the region of the good or of the bad. If you mean the bad, (all I can say is, that) even now the souls of the wicked deserve to be consigned to those abodes; if you mean the good why should you judge to be unworthy of such a resting-place the souls of infants and of virgins, and those which, by reason of their condition in life were pure and innocent?”
Chapter 57.
Magic and Sorcery Only Apparent in Their Effects. God Alone Can Raise the Dead
"It is either a very fine thing to be detained in these infernal regions with the Aori, or souls which were prematurely hurried away; or else a very bad thing indeed to be there associated with the Biaeothanati, who suffered violent deaths.
“I may be permitted to use the actual words and terms with which magic rings again, that inventor of all these odd opinions...”
with its Ostanes, and Typhon, and Dardanus, and Damigeron, and Nectabis, and Berenice. There is a well-known popular bit of writing, which undertakes to summon up from the abode of Hades the souls which have actually slept out their full age, and had passed away by an honourable death, and had even been buried with full rites and proper ceremony. What after this shall we say about magic? Say, to be sure, what almost everybody says of it— that it is an imposture. But it is not we Christians only whose notice this system of imposture does not escape.
“We, it is true, have discovered these spirits of evil, not, to be sure, by a complicity with them, but by a certain knowledge which is hostile to them; nor is it by any procedure which is attractive to them, but by a power which subjugates them that we handle (their wretched system)— that manifold pest of the mind of man, that artificer of all error, that destroyer of our salvation and our soul at one swoop.”
"In this way, even by magic, which is indeed only a second idolatry, wherein they pretend that after death they become demons, just as they were supposed in the first and literal idolatry to become gods (and why not? Since the gods are but dead things), the before-mentioned Aori Biaeothanati are actually invoked,— and not unfairly, if one grounds his faith on this principle, that it is clearly credible for those souls to be beyond all others addicted to violence and wrong, which with violence and wrong have been hurried away by a cruel and premature death and which would have a keen appetite for reprisals.
“Under cover, however, of these souls [of the dead], demons operate, especially such as used to dwell in them when they were in life, and who had driven them, in fact, to the fate which had at last carried them off. For, as we have already suggested, there is hardly a human being who is unattended by a demon; and it is well known to many, that premature and violent deaths, which men ascribe to accidents, are in fact brought about by demons. This imposture of the evil spirit lying concealed in the persons of the dead, we are able, if I mistake not, to prove by actual facts, when in cases of exorcism (the evil spirit) affirms himself sometimes to be one of the relatives of the person possessed by him, sometimes a gladiator or a bestiarius, and sometimes even a god; always making it one of his chief cares to extinguish the very truth which we are proclaiming, that men may not readily believe that all souls remove to Hades, and that they may overthrow faith in the resurrection and the judgment. “
"And yet for all that, the demon, after trying to circumvent the bystanders, is vanquished by the pressure of divine grace, and sorely against his will confesses all the truth. So also in that other kind of magic, which is supposed to bring up from Hades the souls now resting there, and to exhibit them to public view, there is no other expedient of imposture ever resorted to which operates more powerfully. Of course, why a phantom becomes visible, is because a body is also attached to it;
“and it is no difficult matter to delude the external vision of a man whose mental eye it is so easy to blind.”
"The serpents which emerged from the magician.' rods, certainly appeared to Pharaoh and to the Egyptians as bodily substances. It is true that the verity of Moses swallowed up their lying deceit. Exodus 7:12 Many attempts were also wrought against the apostles by the sorcerers Simon and Elymas, but the blindness which struck (them) was no enchanter's trick.
“What novelty is there in the effort of an unclean spirit to counterfeit the truth? At this very time, even, the heretical dupes of this same Simon (Magus) are so much elated by the extravagant pretensions of their art, that they undertake to bring up from Hades the souls of the prophets themselves.”
And I suppose that they can do so under cover of a lying wonder. For, indeed, it was no less than this that was anciently permitted to the Pythonic (or ventriloquistic) spirit — even to represent the soul of Samuel, when Saul consulted the dead, after (losing the living) God.
“God forbid... that we should suppose that the soul of any saint, much less of a prophet, can be dragged out of (its resting-place in Hades) by a demon.”
"We know that Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light [2 Corinthians 11:14] — much more into a man of light— and that at last he will show himself to be even God, [2 Thessalonians 2:4] and will exhibit great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, he shall deceive the very elect. [Matthew 24:24] He hardly hesitated on the before-mentioned occasion to affirm himself to be a prophet of God, and especially to Saul, in whom he was then actually dwelling.
“You must not imagine that he who produced the phantom was one, and he who consulted it was another; but that it was one and the same spirit, both in the sorceress and in the apostate (king), which easily pretended an apparition of that which it had already prepared them to believe as real— (even the spirit) through whose evil influence Saul's heart was fixed where his treasure was, and where certainly God was not.”
"Therefore it came about, that he saw him through whose aid he believed that he was going to see, because he believed him through whose help he saw. But we are met with the objection, that in visions of the night dead persons are not unfrequently seen, and that for a set purpose. For instance, the Nasamones consult private oracles by frequent and lengthened visits to the sepulchres of their relatives, as one may find in Heraclides, or Nymphodorus, or Herodotus; and the Celts, for the same purpose, stay away all night at the tombs of their brave chieftains, as Nicander affirms. Well, we admit apparitions of dead persons in dreams to be not more really true than those of living persons; but we apply the same estimate to all alike— to the dead and to the living, and indeed to all the phenomena which are seen.
“Now things are not true because they appear to be so, but because they are fully proved to be so."
"The truth of dreams is declared from the realization, not the aspect. Moreover, the fact that Hades is not in any case opened for (the escape of) any soul, has been firmly established by the Lord in the person of Abraham, in His representation of the poor man at rest and the rich man in torment. No one, (he said,) could possibly be dispatched from those abodes to report to us how matters went in the nether regions—a purpose which, (if any could be,) might have been allowable on such an occasion, to persuade a belief in Moses and the prophets.”
"The power of God has... sometimes recalled men's souls to their bodies, as a proof of His own transcendent rights; but there must never be, because of this fact, any agreement supposed to be possible between the divine faith and... sorcerers, ...f dreams, and the licence of poets."
"But yet in all cases of a true resurrection, when the power of God recalls souls to their bodies, either by the agency of prophets, or of Christ, or of apostles, a complete presumption is afforded us, by the solid, palpable, and ascertained reality (of the revived body), that its true form must be such as to compel one's belief of the fraudulence of every incorporeal apparition of dead persons."
“I may be permitted to use the actual words and terms with which magic rings again, that inventor of all these odd opinions...”
with its Ostanes, and Typhon, and Dardanus, and Damigeron, and Nectabis, and Berenice. There is a well-known popular bit of writing, which undertakes to summon up from the abode of Hades the souls which have actually slept out their full age, and had passed away by an honourable death, and had even been buried with full rites and proper ceremony. What after this shall we say about magic? Say, to be sure, what almost everybody says of it— that it is an imposture. But it is not we Christians only whose notice this system of imposture does not escape.
“We, it is true, have discovered these spirits of evil, not, to be sure, by a complicity with them, but by a certain knowledge which is hostile to them; nor is it by any procedure which is attractive to them, but by a power which subjugates them that we handle (their wretched system)— that manifold pest of the mind of man, that artificer of all error, that destroyer of our salvation and our soul at one swoop.”
"In this way, even by magic, which is indeed only a second idolatry, wherein they pretend that after death they become demons, just as they were supposed in the first and literal idolatry to become gods (and why not? Since the gods are but dead things), the before-mentioned Aori Biaeothanati are actually invoked,— and not unfairly, if one grounds his faith on this principle, that it is clearly credible for those souls to be beyond all others addicted to violence and wrong, which with violence and wrong have been hurried away by a cruel and premature death and which would have a keen appetite for reprisals.
“Under cover, however, of these souls [of the dead], demons operate, especially such as used to dwell in them when they were in life, and who had driven them, in fact, to the fate which had at last carried them off. For, as we have already suggested, there is hardly a human being who is unattended by a demon; and it is well known to many, that premature and violent deaths, which men ascribe to accidents, are in fact brought about by demons. This imposture of the evil spirit lying concealed in the persons of the dead, we are able, if I mistake not, to prove by actual facts, when in cases of exorcism (the evil spirit) affirms himself sometimes to be one of the relatives of the person possessed by him, sometimes a gladiator or a bestiarius, and sometimes even a god; always making it one of his chief cares to extinguish the very truth which we are proclaiming, that men may not readily believe that all souls remove to Hades, and that they may overthrow faith in the resurrection and the judgment. “
"And yet for all that, the demon, after trying to circumvent the bystanders, is vanquished by the pressure of divine grace, and sorely against his will confesses all the truth. So also in that other kind of magic, which is supposed to bring up from Hades the souls now resting there, and to exhibit them to public view, there is no other expedient of imposture ever resorted to which operates more powerfully. Of course, why a phantom becomes visible, is because a body is also attached to it;
“and it is no difficult matter to delude the external vision of a man whose mental eye it is so easy to blind.”
"The serpents which emerged from the magician.' rods, certainly appeared to Pharaoh and to the Egyptians as bodily substances. It is true that the verity of Moses swallowed up their lying deceit. Exodus 7:12 Many attempts were also wrought against the apostles by the sorcerers Simon and Elymas, but the blindness which struck (them) was no enchanter's trick.
“What novelty is there in the effort of an unclean spirit to counterfeit the truth? At this very time, even, the heretical dupes of this same Simon (Magus) are so much elated by the extravagant pretensions of their art, that they undertake to bring up from Hades the souls of the prophets themselves.”
And I suppose that they can do so under cover of a lying wonder. For, indeed, it was no less than this that was anciently permitted to the Pythonic (or ventriloquistic) spirit — even to represent the soul of Samuel, when Saul consulted the dead, after (losing the living) God.
“God forbid... that we should suppose that the soul of any saint, much less of a prophet, can be dragged out of (its resting-place in Hades) by a demon.”
"We know that Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light [2 Corinthians 11:14] — much more into a man of light— and that at last he will show himself to be even God, [2 Thessalonians 2:4] and will exhibit great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, he shall deceive the very elect. [Matthew 24:24] He hardly hesitated on the before-mentioned occasion to affirm himself to be a prophet of God, and especially to Saul, in whom he was then actually dwelling.
“You must not imagine that he who produced the phantom was one, and he who consulted it was another; but that it was one and the same spirit, both in the sorceress and in the apostate (king), which easily pretended an apparition of that which it had already prepared them to believe as real— (even the spirit) through whose evil influence Saul's heart was fixed where his treasure was, and where certainly God was not.”
"Therefore it came about, that he saw him through whose aid he believed that he was going to see, because he believed him through whose help he saw. But we are met with the objection, that in visions of the night dead persons are not unfrequently seen, and that for a set purpose. For instance, the Nasamones consult private oracles by frequent and lengthened visits to the sepulchres of their relatives, as one may find in Heraclides, or Nymphodorus, or Herodotus; and the Celts, for the same purpose, stay away all night at the tombs of their brave chieftains, as Nicander affirms. Well, we admit apparitions of dead persons in dreams to be not more really true than those of living persons; but we apply the same estimate to all alike— to the dead and to the living, and indeed to all the phenomena which are seen.
“Now things are not true because they appear to be so, but because they are fully proved to be so."
"The truth of dreams is declared from the realization, not the aspect. Moreover, the fact that Hades is not in any case opened for (the escape of) any soul, has been firmly established by the Lord in the person of Abraham, in His representation of the poor man at rest and the rich man in torment. No one, (he said,) could possibly be dispatched from those abodes to report to us how matters went in the nether regions—a purpose which, (if any could be,) might have been allowable on such an occasion, to persuade a belief in Moses and the prophets.”
"The power of God has... sometimes recalled men's souls to their bodies, as a proof of His own transcendent rights; but there must never be, because of this fact, any agreement supposed to be possible between the divine faith and... sorcerers, ...f dreams, and the licence of poets."
"But yet in all cases of a true resurrection, when the power of God recalls souls to their bodies, either by the agency of prophets, or of Christ, or of apostles, a complete presumption is afforded us, by the solid, palpable, and ascertained reality (of the revived body), that its true form must be such as to compel one's belief of the fraudulence of every incorporeal apparition of dead persons."
Chapter 58.
Conclusion. Points Postponed. All Souls are Kept in Hades Until the Resurrection, Anticipating Their Ultimate Misery or Bliss
“All souls... are shut up within Hades: do you admit this? (It is true, whether) you say yes or no...”
“Why... cannot you suppose that the soul undergoes punishment and consolation in Hades in the interval, while it awaits its alternative of judgment, in a certain anticipation either of gloom or of glory? You reply: Because in the judgment of God its matter ought to be sure and safe, nor should there be any inkling beforehand of the award of His sentence; and also because (the soul) ought to be covered first by its vestment of the restored flesh, which, as the partner of its actions, should be also a sharer in its recompense. What, then, is to take place in that interval? Shall we sleep? But souls do not sleep even when men are alive: it is indeed the business of bodies to sleep, to which also belongs death itself, no less than its mirror and counterfeit sleep. Or will you have it, that nothing is there done whither the whole human race is attracted, and whither all man's expectation is postponed for safe keeping?"
“Do you think this state is a foretaste of judgment, or its actual commencement? A premature encroachment on it, or the first course in its full ministration?”
"Now really, would it not be the highest possible injustice, even in Hades, if all were to be .. well with the guilty ... there, and not well with the righteous even yet? What, would you have hope be still more confused after death? Would you have it mock us still more with uncertain expectation? Or shall it now become a review of past life, and an arranging of judgment, with the inevitable feeling of a trembling fear?
"Must the soul always tarry for the body, in order to experience sorrow or joy? Is it not sufficient, even of itself, to suffer both one and the other of these sensations? How often, without any pain to the body, is the soul alone tortured by ill-temper, and anger, and fatigue, and very often unconsciously, even to itself? How often..., on the other hand, amidst bodily suffering, does the soul seek out for itself some furtive joy, and withdraw for the moment from the body's importunate society? I am mistaken if the soul is not in the habit, indeed, solitary and alone, of rejoicing and glorifying over the very tortures of the body. Look for instance, at the soul of Mutius Scævola as he melts his right hand over the fire; look also at Zeno's, as the torments of Dionysius pass over it. The bites of wild beasts are a glory to young heroes, as on Cyrus were the scars of the bear.
“Full well... does the soul even in Hades know ... joy and... sorrow ...without the body... Now if such sensations occur at its will during life, how much rather may they not happen after death by the judicial appointment of God!” God can appoint joy and sorrow to the soul, but can not restrain it in Hades.
"Moreover, the soul executes not all its operations with the ministration of the flesh; for the judgment of God pursues even simple cogitations and the merest volitions. Whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart. [Matthew 5:28]"
“Therefore, even for this cause it is most fitting that the soul, without at all waiting for the flesh, should be punished for what it has done without the partnership of the flesh."
"So, on the same principle, in return for the pious and kindly thoughts in which it shared not the help of the flesh, shall it without the flesh receive its consolation. Nay more, even in matters done through the flesh the soul is the first to conceive them, the first to arrange them, the first to authorize them, the first to precipitate them into acts.”
"And even if it is sometimes unwilling to act, it is still the first to treat the object which it means to effect by help of the body. In no case, indeed, can an accomplished fact be prior to the mental conception thereof. It is therefore quite in keeping with this order of things, that that part of our nature should be the first to have the recompense and reward to which they are due on account of its priority. In short, inasmuch as we understand the prison pointed out in the Gospel to be Hades, [Matthew 5:25] and as we also interpret the uttermost farthing to mean the very smallest offense which has to be recompensed there before the resurrection,
“No one will hesitate to believe that the soul undergoes in Hades some compensatory discipline, without prejudice to the full process of the resurrection, when the recompense will be administered through the flesh besides.”
"This point the Paraclete has also pressed home on our attention in most frequent admonitions, whenever any of us has admitted the force of His words from a knowledge of His promised spiritual disclosures. And now at last having, as I believe, encountered every human opinion concerning the soul, and tried its character by the teaching of (our holy faith,) we have satisfied the curiosity which is simply a reasonable and necessary one. As for that which is extravagant and idle, there will evermore be as great a defect in its information, as there has been exaggeration and self-will in its researches."
“Why... cannot you suppose that the soul undergoes punishment and consolation in Hades in the interval, while it awaits its alternative of judgment, in a certain anticipation either of gloom or of glory? You reply: Because in the judgment of God its matter ought to be sure and safe, nor should there be any inkling beforehand of the award of His sentence; and also because (the soul) ought to be covered first by its vestment of the restored flesh, which, as the partner of its actions, should be also a sharer in its recompense. What, then, is to take place in that interval? Shall we sleep? But souls do not sleep even when men are alive: it is indeed the business of bodies to sleep, to which also belongs death itself, no less than its mirror and counterfeit sleep. Or will you have it, that nothing is there done whither the whole human race is attracted, and whither all man's expectation is postponed for safe keeping?"
“Do you think this state is a foretaste of judgment, or its actual commencement? A premature encroachment on it, or the first course in its full ministration?”
"Now really, would it not be the highest possible injustice, even in Hades, if all were to be .. well with the guilty ... there, and not well with the righteous even yet? What, would you have hope be still more confused after death? Would you have it mock us still more with uncertain expectation? Or shall it now become a review of past life, and an arranging of judgment, with the inevitable feeling of a trembling fear?
"Must the soul always tarry for the body, in order to experience sorrow or joy? Is it not sufficient, even of itself, to suffer both one and the other of these sensations? How often, without any pain to the body, is the soul alone tortured by ill-temper, and anger, and fatigue, and very often unconsciously, even to itself? How often..., on the other hand, amidst bodily suffering, does the soul seek out for itself some furtive joy, and withdraw for the moment from the body's importunate society? I am mistaken if the soul is not in the habit, indeed, solitary and alone, of rejoicing and glorifying over the very tortures of the body. Look for instance, at the soul of Mutius Scævola as he melts his right hand over the fire; look also at Zeno's, as the torments of Dionysius pass over it. The bites of wild beasts are a glory to young heroes, as on Cyrus were the scars of the bear.
“Full well... does the soul even in Hades know ... joy and... sorrow ...without the body... Now if such sensations occur at its will during life, how much rather may they not happen after death by the judicial appointment of God!” God can appoint joy and sorrow to the soul, but can not restrain it in Hades.
"Moreover, the soul executes not all its operations with the ministration of the flesh; for the judgment of God pursues even simple cogitations and the merest volitions. Whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart. [Matthew 5:28]"
“Therefore, even for this cause it is most fitting that the soul, without at all waiting for the flesh, should be punished for what it has done without the partnership of the flesh."
"So, on the same principle, in return for the pious and kindly thoughts in which it shared not the help of the flesh, shall it without the flesh receive its consolation. Nay more, even in matters done through the flesh the soul is the first to conceive them, the first to arrange them, the first to authorize them, the first to precipitate them into acts.”
"And even if it is sometimes unwilling to act, it is still the first to treat the object which it means to effect by help of the body. In no case, indeed, can an accomplished fact be prior to the mental conception thereof. It is therefore quite in keeping with this order of things, that that part of our nature should be the first to have the recompense and reward to which they are due on account of its priority. In short, inasmuch as we understand the prison pointed out in the Gospel to be Hades, [Matthew 5:25] and as we also interpret the uttermost farthing to mean the very smallest offense which has to be recompensed there before the resurrection,
“No one will hesitate to believe that the soul undergoes in Hades some compensatory discipline, without prejudice to the full process of the resurrection, when the recompense will be administered through the flesh besides.”
"This point the Paraclete has also pressed home on our attention in most frequent admonitions, whenever any of us has admitted the force of His words from a knowledge of His promised spiritual disclosures. And now at last having, as I believe, encountered every human opinion concerning the soul, and tried its character by the teaching of (our holy faith,) we have satisfied the curiosity which is simply a reasonable and necessary one. As for that which is extravagant and idle, there will evermore be as great a defect in its information, as there has been exaggeration and self-will in its researches."
Conclusion
or
Everything I need to Know about the soul, I learned from Tertullian
The soul is not matter [chapter 4].
The soul is corporeal [chapter 5]
The soul is definitely a "bodily substance". [chapter 7]
The soul is found throughout the body [chapter 9].
The soul is simple [chapter 10].
The soul is supreme [chapter 13].
The soul is not found throughout the body [chapter 15].
The soul is found in the heart [chapter 15].
The mind follows the soul [chapter 18].
The soul has the occasional gift of divination [chapter 22].
The soul has "something of a diluted divinity" [chapter 24].
All souls are derived from one soul. [chapter 25]
The soul is the vital principle [chapter 25].
The warmth of the seminal substance is from the soul [chapter 27]
"The soul is entirely covered by the body."[chapter 32]
The soul is placed in man by human activity. [chapter 36]
The soul determines gender [chapter 36].
The soul does not rest [chapter 45].
If all books, except for the Church Fathers, were lost in an Apocalypse, zombie or otherwise, we would retain detailed instructions on how to perform inducted abortions [chapter 25].