But again, why you would have the soul to be a body, and refuse to deem it a spirit, I cannot see. For if it is not a spirit, on the ground that the apostle named it with distinction from the spirit, when he said, " I pray God your whole spirit, and soul, and body be preserved," ' the same is a good reason why it is not a body, inasmuch as he named the body, too, as distinct from it. If you affirm that the soul is a body, although they are both distinctly named; you should allow it to be a spirit, although these are also distinctly named. Indeed, the soul has a much greater claim to be regarded by you as a spirit than a body; because you acknowledge the spirit and the soul to be of one substance, but deny the soul and the body to be of one substance. On what principle, then, is the soul a body, when its nature is different from that of a body; and not a spirit, although its nature and a spirit's is one and the same? Why, according to your argument, must you not confess that even the spirit is a body? For otherwise, if the spirit is not a body, and the soul is a body, the soul and the spirit are not of one and the same substance. You, however, allow them both (although believing them to be two separate things) to have one substance. Therefore, if the soul is a body, the spirit is a body also; for under no other condition can they be regarded as being of one and the same nature. On your own principles, therefore, the statement of the apostle, who mentions, " Your spirit, and soul, and body," must imply three bodies ; yet the body, which has likewise the name of flesh, is of a different nature. And of these three bodies, as you would call them, of which one is of a different, and the other two of one and the same substance, the entire human being is composed — one thing and one existence. Now, although you assert this, yet you will not allow that the two which are of one and the same substance, that is, the soul and the spirit, should have the one designation of spirit; whilst the two things which are not of one and the same substance ought, as you suppose, to have the one name of body.
CHAP. 20 [XIV.] THE BODY DOES NOT RECEFVE god's LMAGE.
But I pass by all this, lest the discussion between us should degenerate into one of names rather than things. Let us, then, see whether the inner man be the soul, or the spirit, or both. I observe, however, that you have expressed > I Thess. V. 23.
Chap. 21.]
;63 your opinion on the point in writing, calling the inner man the soul; for of this you spoke when you said: " And as the substance congealed, which was incapable of comprehension, it would produce another body within the body rounded and amassed by the force and twirl of its own nature, and thus an inner man would begin to appear, who, being moulded in a corporeal sheath, would in its lineaments be shaped after the likeness of its outer man." And from this you draw the following inference: " God's breath, therefore, made the soul; yea, that breath from God was made the soul, an image, substantial, corporeal according to its own nature, like its own body, and conformed to its image." After this you proceed to speak of the spirit, and say: " This soul which had its origin from the breath of God could not exist without an innermost sense and intellect of its own; and such is the spirit." As I, then, understand your statement, you mean the inner man to be the soul, and the inmost one to be the spirit; as if the latter were inferior to the soul, as this is to the body.
Whence it comes to pass, that just as the body receives another body pervading its own inner cavity, which (as you suppose) is the soul; so in its turn must the soul be regarded as having its interior emptiness also, where it could receive the third body, even the spirit; and thus the whole man consists of three, the outer, the inner, and the inmost. Now, do you not yet perceive w4iat great absurdities follow in your wake, when you attempt the asseveration that the soul is corporeal? Tell me, I pray you, which of the two is it that is to be renewed in the knowledge of God, after the image of Him that created him? ' The inner, or the inmost?
For my own part, indeed, I do not see that the apostle, besides the inner and the outer man, knows anything of another man inside the inner one, that is, of an inmost man. But you must decide which it is you would have to be renewed after the image of God. How is he to receive this, who has already got the image of the outer man? For if the inner man has run throughout the limbs of the outward one, and congealed (for this is the term you have used; as if a molten shape were formed out of soft clay, which was thickened out of the dust), how, if this same figure which has been impressed upon it, or rather expressed out of a body, is to retain its place, could it be refashioned after the image of God? Is it to have two images — God's from above, that of the body from below — as is said in the case of money, "Heads and Tails''?^ Will you perhaps say, that the soul received the ' Col. iii. 10.
^ Caput et N'avia, literally " head and ship," the piece of money havini; a head of Janus on one side, and a ship on the other. See the matter illustrated in Macrobius, Saturnalia, i. 7, Aur. Vict.
bodily image, and that the spirit takes God's image, as if the former were contiguous to the body, and the latter to God; and that, therefore, it is really the inmost man which is refoshioned after the image of God, and not the inner man? Well, but this pretence is useless. For if the inmost man is as entirely diffused through all the members of the soul, as the inner man of the soul is through the limbs of the body; even it has now, through the soul, received the image of the body, as the soul moulded the same; and thus it results that it has no means whereby to receive God's ima^^e, while the afore-mentioned image of the body remains impressed upon it; except as in the case of the money which I have just quoted, where there is one form on the upper surface, and another on the lower one. These are the absurd lengths to which you are driven, whether you will or no, when you apply to the consideration of the soul the material ideas of bodily substances. But, as even you yourself with perfect propriety confess, God is not a body. How, then, could a body receive His image?. " I beseech you, brother, that you be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind; " ^ and cherish not " the carnal mind, which is death." •♦ CHAP. 2 1 [XV.] — RECOGNITION AND FORM BE- LONG TO SOULS AS WELL AS BODIES.
But you say: " If the soul is incorporeal, what was it that the rich man saw in hell? He certainly recognised Lazarus; he did [not s] know Abraham. Whence arose to him the knowledge of Abraham, who had died so long before?" By using these words, I suppose that you do not think a man can be recognised and known without his bodily form. To know yourself, therefore, I imagine that you often stand before your looking-glass, lest by forgetting your features you should be unable to recognise yourself. But let me ask you, what man does anybody know more than himself; and whose face can he see less than his own? But who could possibly know God, whom even you do not doubt to be incorporeal, if knowledge could not (as you suppose) accrue without bodily shape; that is, if bodies alone can be recognised? What Christian, however, when discussing subjects of such magnitude and difficulty, can give such little heed to the inspired word as to say, " If the soul be incorporeal, it must of necessity lack form "? Have you forgotten that in that word you have read of" a form of doctrine "?** Have you forgotten, too, that it is written con- 5 Luke xvi 19-31. Non noverat.\braham. But some MSS. omit noit; rightly, one would think. The meaning then is: " He recognised Abraham."
'i Rom. vi. 17.
l64 [Book IV.
cerning Christ Jesus, previous to His clothing Himself with humanity, that He was " in the form of God "? ' How, then, can you say, " If the soul is incorporeal, it must of necessity lack form; " when you hear of " the form of God," whom you acknowledge to be incorporeal; and so express yourself, as if form could not possibly exist except in bodies?
CHAP. 2 2. — NAMES DO NOT IMPLY CORPOREITY.
You also say, that " names cease to be given, when form is not distinguished; and that, where there is no designation of persons, there is no giving of names." Your aim is to prove that Abraham's soul was corporeal, inasmuch as he could be addressed as " Father Abraham." Now, we have already said, that there is form even where there is no body. If, however, you think that where there are not bodies there is no assigning of names, I must beg of you to count the names which occur in this passage of Scripture, " But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-sufiering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance," ^ and tell me whether you do not recognise the very things of which these are the names; or whether you recognise them so as to descry some outlines of bodies. Come, tell me, to mention only love, for instance, what are its members, its figure, its colour? For if you are not yourself empty-headed, these appurtenances cannot possibly be regarded by you as an empty thing. Then you go on to say: " The look and form must, of course, be corporeal of him whose help is implored." Well, let men hear what you say; and let no one implore God's help, because no one can possibly see anything corporeal in Him.
CHAP. 23 [XVI.] FIGURATIVE SPEECH MUST NOT BE TAKEN LITERALLY.
" In short," you say, " members are in this parable ascribed to the soul, as if it were really a body." You will have it, that "by the eye the whole head is understood," because it is said, that " he lifted up his eyes." Again you say, that " by tongues are meant jaws, and by finger the hand," because it is said, " Send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue." ^ And yet to save yourself from the inconsistency of ascribing corporeal qualities to God, you say that " by these terms must be understood incorporeal functions and powers; " because with the greatest propriety you insist on it, that God is not corporeal. What is the reason, therefore, that the names of these limbs do not argue corporeity in God, although they do in the case of the soul? Is it that these terms must be understood literally when spoken I Phil. ii. 6 Gal.
V. 22, 23.
3 Luke xvi. 24.
of the creature, and only metaphorically and figuratively when predicated of the Creator? Then you will have to give us wings of literal bodily substance, since it is not the Creator, but only a human creature, who said, " If I should take my wings like a dove." •* Moreover, if the rich man of the parable had a bodily tongue, on the ground of his exclaiming, " Let him cool my tongue," it would look very much as if our tongue, even while we are in the flesh, itself possessed material hands, because it is written, " Death and life are in the hands of the tongue." s I suppose it is even to yourself self-evident, that sin is neither a creature nor a bodily substance; why, then, has it a face? For do you not hear the psalmist say, " There is no peace in my bones, in \\\tface of my sins "?^ As to your supposing that " the Abraham's bosom referred to is corporeal," and your further assertion, that " by it is meant his whole body," I fear that you must be regarded (even in such a subject) as trying to joke and raise a laugh, instead of acting gravely and seriously. For you could not else be so foolish as to think that the material bosom of one person could receive so many souls; nay, to use your own words, " bear the bodies of as many meritorious men as the angels carry thither, as they did Lazarus." Unless it happen to be your opinion, that his soul alone deserved to find its way to the said bosom. If you are not, then, in fun, and do not wish to make childish mistakes, you must understand by " Abraham's bosom " that remote and separate abode of rest and peace in which Abraham now is; and that what was said to Abraham '' did not merely refer to him personally, but had reference to his appointment as the father of many nations,"* to whom he was presented for imitation as the first and principal example of faith; even as God willed Himself to be called " the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," although He is the God of an innumerable company.
CHAP. 25 [XVII.] THE disembodied SOUL M.AY THINK OF ITSELF UNDER A BODILY FORM.
You must not, however, suppose that I say all this as if denying it to be possible that the soul of a dead man, like a person asleep, may think either sfood or evil thoughts in the similitude of his body. For, in dreams, when we suffer anything harsh and troublesome, we are, of course, * Augustin's reading of Ps. cxxxix. g., 5 In manzius linguae = the Hebrew phrase ^^^/"TB.
I' Prov.
XVIU. 21.
6 Ps. xxxviii. 3, 'nXDH "JDO. * Gen. xvii. 5.
7 In Luke xvi. 24.
CiiAr. 27.]
still ourselves; and if the distress do not pass away when we awake, we experience very great suffering. T.ut to suppose that they are veritable bodies in which we are hurried, or flit, about hither antl thither in dreams, is the idea of a person who has thouglit only carelessly on such subjects; for it is in fact mainly l)y these imaginary sights that the soul is proved to be noncorporeal; unless you choose to call even the objects which we see so often in our dreams, besides ourselves, bodies, such as the sky, the earth, the sea, the sun, the moon, the stars, and rivers, mountains, trees, or animals. Whoever takes these phantoms to be bodies, is incredibly foolish; although they are certainly very like bodies. Of this character also are those phenomena which are demonstrably of divine significance, whether seen in dreams or in a trance. ^Vho can possibly trace out or describe their origin, or the material of which they consist? It is, beyond question, spiritual, not corporeal.
Now things of this kind, which look like bodies, but are not really corporeal, are formed in the thoughts of persons when they are awake, and are held in the depths of their memories, and then out of these secret recesses, by some wonderful and ineffable process, they come out to view in the operation of our memory, and present themselves as if palpably before our eyes. If, therefore, the soul were a material body, it could not possibly contain so many things and such large forms of bodily substances in its scope of thought, and in the spaces of its memory; for, according to your own definition, " it does not exceed this external body in its own corporeal substance." Possessing, therefore, no magnitude of its own, what capacity has it to hold the images of vast bodies, spaces, and regions? What wonder is it, then, if it actually itself appears to itself in the likeness of its own body, even when it appears without a body? For it never appears to itself in dreams with its own body; and yet in the very similitude of its own body it runs hither and thither through known and unknown places, and beholds many sad and joyous sights. I suppose, however, that you really would not, yourself, be so bold as to maintain that there is true corporeity in that form of limb and body which the soul seems to itself to possess in dreams. For at that rate that will be a real mountain which it appears to ascend; and that a material house which it seems to enter; and that a veritable tree, with real wood and bulk, beneath which it apparendy rechnes; and that actual water which it imagines itself to drink. All the things with which it is conversant, as if they were corporeal, would be undoubted bodies, if the soul were itself corporeal, as it ranges about amongst them all in the likeness of a body.
CHAP. 26 [xVin.].ST. PERPETUA SEEMED TO HERSELF, IN SOME DREA.MS, TO HAVE BEEN TURNED INTO A MAN, AND THEN HAVE WRESTLED WITH A CERTAIN EG\PriAN.
Some notice must be taken of sundry accounts of martyrs' visions, because you have thought proper to derive some of your evidence therefrom. St. Perpetua, for instance, seemed to herself in dreams to be wrestling with an Egyptian, after being changed into a man. Now, who can doubt that it was her soul in that apparent bodily form, not her body, which, of course, remained in her own sex as a woman, and lay on the bed with her senses steeped in sleep, whilst her soul was struggling in the similitude of a man's body? \Vhat have you to say to this? Was that male likeness a veritable body, or was it no body at all, although possessing the appearance of a body? Choose your alternative. If it was a body, why did it not maintain its sexual integrity? For in that woman's flesh were found no virile functions of generation, whence by any such process as that which you call coiigclatioti could be moulded this similitude of a man's body. We will conclude then, if you please, that, as her body was sdll alive while she slept, notwithstanding the wrestling of her soul, she remained in her own natural sex, enclosed, of course, in all her proper limbs which belong to her in her living state, and was still in possession of that bodily shape and the lineaments of which she had been originally formed. She had not resigned, as she would by death, her joints and limbs; nor had she withdrawn from the transposing power, which arises from the operation of the power of death, any of her members which had already received their fixed form. Whence, then, did her soul get that virile body in which she seemed to wrestle with her adversary? It", however, this [male likeness] was not a body, although such a semblance of one as admitted the sensation in it of a real strut^gle or a real joy, do you not by this time see, as far as may be, that there can be in the soul a certain resemblance of a bodily substance, while the soul is not itself a body?
CHAP. 27. IS THE SOUL WOUNDED WHEN THE BODY IS WOUNDED?
What, then, if some such thing is exhibited among the departed; and souls recognise themselves among them, not, indeed, by bodies, but by the semblances of bodies? Now, when we suffer pain, if only in our dreams, although it is only the similitude of bodily limbs which is in action, and not the bodily limbs themselves, still the pain is not merely in semblance, but in reality; as is also the case in the instance of joyous sensations. Inasmuch, however, as St. Perpetua was not yet dead, you probably are [Book IV.
unwilling to lay down a precise rule for yourself from that circumstance (although it bears strongly on the question), as to what nature you will suppose those semblances of bodies to partake of, which we have in our dreams. If you allow them to be like bodies, but not bodies actually, then the entire question would be settled. But her brother Dinocrates was dead; she saw him with the wound which he received while alive, and which caused his death. Where is the ground for the earnest contention to which you devoted your efforts, when you laboured to show, that when a limb is cut off, the soul must not be supposed as suffering a like amount of bss by amputation? Observe, the wound was inflicted on the soul of Dinocrates, expelling it by its force from his body, when it was inhabiting that body. How, then, can your opinion be correct, that " when the limbs of the body are cut off, the soul withdraws itself from the stroke, and after condensation retires to other parts, so that no portion of it is amputated with the \yound inflicted on the body," even if the person be asleep and unconscious when the loss of limb is suffered? So great is the vigilance which you have ascribed to the soul, that even should the stroke fall on any part of the flesh without its knowledge, when it is absorbed in the visions of dreams, it would instantly, and by a providential instinct, withdraw itself, and so render it impossible for any blow, or injury, or mutilation to be inflicted upon it. However, you may, as much as you will, ransack your ingenuity for an answer to the natural question, how the soul withdraws the portions of its own existence, and retreats within itself, so that, whenever a limb of the body is cut off or broken, it does not suffer any amputation or fracture in itself; but I cannot help asking you to look at the case of Dinocrates, and to explain to me why his soul did not withdraw from that part of his body which received the mortal wound, and so escape from suffering in itself what was plainly enough seen in his face, even after his body was dead?
Is it, perchance, your good pleasure that we should suppose the phenomena in question to be rather the semblances of bodies than the reality; so that as that which is really no wound seems to be a wound, so that which is no body at all wears the appearance of corporeity? If, indeed, the soul can be wounded by those who wound the body, should we not have good reason to fear that it can be killed also by those who kill the body? This, however, is a fate which the Lord Himself most plainly declares it to be impossible to happen.' And the soul of Dinocrates could not at any rate have died of the blow which killed his body: its wound, too, » Matt. X. 23.
was only an apparent one; for not being corporeal, it was not really wounded, as the body had been; possessing the likeness of the body, it shared also the resemblance of its wound. Still it may be further said, that in its unreal body the soul felt a real misery, which was signified by the shadow of the body's wound. It was from this real misery that he earned deliverance by the prayers of his holy sister.
chap. 28. is the soul deformed by the body's imperfections?
Now, again, what means it that you say, "The soul acquires form from the body, and grows and extends with the increase of the body," without keeping in view what a monstrosity the soul of either a young man or an old man would become if his arm had been amputated when he was an infant? " The hand of the soul," you say, " contracts itself, so that it is not amputated with the hand of the body, and by condensation it shrinks into other parts of the body." At this rate the aforesaid arm of the soul will be kept, wherever it holds its ground, as short as it was at first when it received the form of the body, because it has lost the form by the growth of which it might itself ha\e increased at an equal degree of expansion. Thus the soul of the young man or the old man who lost his hand in his infancy advances with two hands, indeed (because the one which shrank back escaped the amputation of the bodily limb), but one of these was the hand of an adult, young or old, according to the hypothesis, while the other was only an infant's hand, just as it was when the amputation happened. Such souls, believe me, are not made in the mould and form of the body, but they are fictitiously framed under the deformed stamp of error. It seems to me impossible for you to be rescued from this error, unless with God's help you fully and calmly examine the visions of those who dream, and from these convince yourself that some forms are not real bodies, but only the semblances of bodies. Now, although even those objects which we suppose to be like bodies are of the same class,^ yet so far as the dead are concerned, we can form an after guess about them from persons who are asleep. For it is not in vain that Holy Scripture describes as " asleep " those who are dead,^ were it only because in a certain sense " sleep is akin to death." ■»