A Treatise on the Soul.

 Having discussed with Hermogenes the single point of the origin of the soul, so far as his assumption led me, that the soul consisted rather in an ada

 Chapter II.—The Christian Has Sure and Simple Knowledge Concerning the Subject Before Us.

 Chapter III.—The Soul’s Origin Defined Out of the Simple Words of Scripture.

 Chapter IV.—In Opposition to Plato, the Soul Was Created and Originated at Birth.

 Chapter V.—Probable View of the Stoics, that the Soul Has a Corporeal Nature.

 Chapter VI.—The Arguments of the Platonists for the Soul’s Incorporeality, Opposed, Perhaps Frivolously.

 Chapter VII.—The Soul’s Corporeality Demonstrated Out of the Gospels.

 Chapter VIII.—Other Platonist Arguments Considered.

 Chapter IX.—Particulars of the Alleged Communication to a Montanist Sister.

 Chapter X.—The Simple Nature of the Soul is Asserted with Plato. The Identity of Spirit and Soul.

 Chapter XI.—Spirit—A Term Expressive of an Operation of the Soul, Not of Its Nature.  To Be Carefully Distinguished from the Spirit of God.

 Chapter XII.—Difference Between the Mind and the Soul, and the Relation Between Them.

 Chapter XIII.—The Soul’s Supremacy.

 Chapter XIV.—The Soul Variously Divided by the Philosophers This Division is Not a Material Dissection.

 Chapter XV.—The Soul’s Vitality and Intelligence. Its Character and Seat in Man.

 Chapter XVI.—The Soul’s Parts. Elements of the Rational Soul.

 Chapter XVII.—The Fidelity of the Senses, Impugned by Plato, Vindicated by Christ Himself.

 Chapter XVIII.—Plato Suggested Certain Errors to the Gnostics.  Functions of the Soul.

 Chapter XIX.—The Intellect Coeval with the Soul in the Human Being. An Example from Aristotle Converted into Evidence Favourable to These Views.

 Chapter XX.—The Soul, as to Its Nature Uniform, But Its Faculties Variously Developed. Varieties Only Accidental.

 Chapter XXI.—As Free-Will Actuates an Individual So May His Character Change.

 Chapter XXII.—Recapitulation. Definition of the Soul.

 Chapter XXIII.—The Opinions of Sundry Heretics Which Originate Ultimately with Plato.

 Chapter XXIV.—Plato’s Inconsistency. He Supposes the Soul Self-Existent, Yet Capable of Forgetting What Passed in a Previous State.

 Chapter XXV.—Tertullian Refutes, Physiologically, the Notion that the Soul is Introduced After Birth.

 Chapter XXVI.—Scripture Alone Offers Clear Knowledge on the Questions We Have Been Controverting.

 Chapter XXVII.—Soul and Body Conceived, Formed and Perfected in Element Simultaneously.

 Chapter XXVIII.—The Pythagorean Doctrine of Transmigration Sketched and Censured.

 Chapter XXIX.—The Pythagorean Doctrine Refuted by Its Own First Principle, that Living Men are Formed from the Dead.

 Chapter XXX.—Further Refutation of the Pythagorean Theory.  The State of Contemporary Civilisation.

 Chapter XXXI.—Further Exposure of Transmigration, Its Inextricable Embarrassment.

 Chapter XXXII.—Empedocles Increased the Absurdity of Pythagoras by Developing the Posthumous Change of Men into Various Animals.

 Chapter XXXIII.—The Judicial Retribution of These Migrations Refuted with Raillery.

 Chapter XXXIV.—These Vagaries Stimulated Some Profane Corruptions of Christianity. The Profanity of Simon Magus Condemned.

 Chapter XXXV.—The Opinions of Carpocrates, Another Offset from the Pythagorean Dogmas, Stated and Confuted.

 Chapter XXXVI.—The Main Points of Our Author’s Subject. On the Sexes of the Human Race.

 Chapter XXXVII.—On the Formation and State of the Embryo. Its Relation with the Subject of This Treatise.

 Chapter XXXVIII.—On the Growth of the Soul. Its Maturity Coincident with the Maturity of the Flesh in Man.

 Chapter XXXIX.—The Evil Spirit Has Marred the Purity of the Soul from the Very Birth.

 Chapter XL.—The Body of Man Only Ancillary to the Soul in the Commission of Evil.

 Chapter XLI.—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

 Chapter XLII.—Sleep, the Mirror of Death, as Introductory to the Consideration of Death.

 Chapter XLIII.—Sleep a Natural Function as Shown by Other Considerations, and by the Testimony of Scripture.

 Chapter XLIV.—The Story of Hermotimus, and the Sleeplessness of the Emperor Nero. No Separation of the Soul from the Body Until Death.

 Chapter XLV.—Dreams, an Incidental Effect of the Soul’s Activity.  Ecstasy.

 Chapter XLVI.—Diversity of Dreams and Visions. Epicurus Thought Lightly of Them, Though Generally Most Highly Valued. Instances of Dreams.

 Chapter XLVII.—Dreams Variously Classified. Some are God-Sent, as the Dreams of Nebuchadnezzar Others Simply Products of Nature.

 Chapter XLVIII.—Causes and Circumstances of Dreams. What Best Contributes to Efficient Dreaming.

 Chapter XLIX.—No Soul Naturally Exempt from Dreams.

 Chapter L.—The Absurd Opinion of Epicurus and the Profane Conceits of the Heretic Menander on Death, Even Enoch and Elijah Reserved for Death.

 Chapter LI.—Death Entirely Separates the Soul from the Body.

 Chapter LII.—All Kinds of Death a Violence to Nature, Arising from Sin.—Sin an Intrusion Upon Nature as God Created It.

 Chapter LIII.—The Entire Soul Being Indivisible Remains to the Last Act of Vitality Never Partially or Fractionally Withdrawn from the Body.

 Chapter LIV.—Whither Does the Soul Retire When It Quits the Body?  Opinions of Philosophers All More or Less Absurd. The Hades of Plato.

 Chapter LV.—The Christian Idea of the Position of Hades The Blessedness of Paradise Immediately After Death. The Privilege of the Martyrs.

 Chapter LVI.—Refutation of the Homeric View of the Soul’s Detention from Hades Owing to the Body’s Being Unburied. That Souls Prematurely Separated fr

 Chapter LVII.—Magic and Sorcery Only Apparent in Their Effects.  God Alone Can Raise the Dead.

 Chapter LVIII.—Conclusion. Points Postponed. All Souls are Kept in Hades Until the Resurrection, Anticipating Their Ultimate Misery or Bliss.

Chapter XXXV.—The Opinions of Carpocrates, Another Offset from the Pythagorean Dogmas, Stated and Confuted.

However, it is not for you alone, (Simon), that the transmigration philosophy has fabricated this story. Carpocrates also makes equally good use of it, who was a magician and a fornicator like yourself, only he had not a Helen.239    For Carpocrates, see Irenæus, i. 24; Eusebius, H. E. iv. 7; Epiphan. Hær. 27. And why should he not? since he asserted that souls are reinvested with bodies, in order to ensure the overthrow by all means of divine and human truth. For, (according to his miserable doctrine,) 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.  The transmigration of human souls, therefore, 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,”240    Matt. v. 26. thrust out from time to time into the prison of the body. To this effect does he tamper with the whole of that allegory of the Lord which is extremely clear and simple in its meaning, and ought to be from the first understood in its plain and natural sense. Thus our “adversary” (therein mentioned241    Ver. 25.) 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,”242    1 Cor. v. 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,”243    Luke vi. 27. lest such a man in any transaction of business be irritated by any unjust conduct of yours, and “deliver thee to the judge” of his own (nation244    Matt. v. 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.245    Ver. 26. 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,”246    Rev. xii. 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.247    Morâ resurrectionis. For the force of this phrase, as apparently implying a doctrine of purgatory, and an explanation of Tertullian’s teaching on this point, see Bp. Kaye on Tertullian, pp. 328, 329. [See p. 59, supra.] What can be a more fitting sense than this? What a truer interpretation? If, however, according to Carpocrates, the soul is bound to the commission of all sorts of crime and evil conduct, 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 some act 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 apprehend248    Spero. that heretics of this school seize with especial 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 is come already, and they knew him not;”249    Matt. xvii. 12. and again, in another passage, “And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.”250    Matt. xi. 14. Well, then, was it really in a Pythagorean sense that the Jews approached John with the inquiry, “Art thou Elias?”251    John i. 21. and not rather in the sense of the divine prediction, “Behold, I will send you Elijah” the Tisbite?252    Mal. iv. 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. But Elias is to come again, not after quitting life (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; whilst “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.253    Num. xii. 2.

CAPUT XXXV.

Sed non tibi soli metempsychosis hanc fabulam instruxit. Inde etiam Carpocrates utitur pariter magus, 0710A pariter fornicarius, etsi Helena minus, quidni? cum propter omnimodam divinae et humanae disciplinae eversionem constituendam, recorporari animas adseveraverit: nulli enim vitam istam rato fieri, nisi universis, quae arguunt eam, expunctis, quia non natura quid malum habeatur, sed opinione, itaque metempsychosin necessarie imminere, si non in primo quoque vitae hujus commeatu omnibus inlicitis satisfiat: scilicet facinora tributa sunt vitae: caeterum totiens animam revocari habere, quotiens minus quid intulerit, reliquatricem delictorum, donec exsolvat novissimum quadrantem (Matt. V), detrusa identidem in carcerem corporis. Hunc enim temperat totam illam allegoriam Domini, certis interpretationibus relucentem: et primo quidem simpliciter 0710B intelligendam; nam et ethnicus homo adversarius noster est, incedens eamdem viam vitae communis. Caeterum, oportebat nos de mundo exire (I Cor. V), si cum illis conversari non liceret. Huic ergo bonum animi praestes jubet (Luc. VI): Diligite inimicos vestros, inquit, et orate pro maledicentibus vos, ne aliquo commercio negotiorum injuria provocatu, abstrahat te ad suum judicem, et in custodiam delegatus ad exsolutionem totius debiti arcteris. Tum si in diabolum transfertur adversarii mentio ex observatione comitante, cum illo quoque moneris eam inire concordiam, quae deputetur ex fidei conventione: pactus es enim renuntiare ipsi, et pompae, et angelis ejus. Convenit inter vos de isto. Haec erit amicitia observatione sponsionis, ne quid ejus postea 0710C resumas ex his quae ejerasti, quae illi reddidisti, ne te ut fraudatorem, ut pacti transgessorem judici Deo objiciat, sicut eum legimus alibi (Apocal. XII, 10) sanctorum criminatorem, et de ipso etiam nomine diaboli delatorem, et judex te tradat angelo executionis, et ille te in carcerem mandet infernum, unde non dimittaris, nisi modico quoque delicto 0711A mora resurrectionis expenso. Quid his sensibus aptius? quid his interpretationibus verius? Caeterum, apud Carpocratem, si omnium facinorum debitrix anima est, quis erit inimicus et adversarius ejus intelligendus? Credo, mens melior, quae illam in aliquid innocentiae impegerit, adigendam rursus ac rursus in corpus, donec in nullo rea deprehendatur bonae vitae. Hoc est ex malis fructibus bonam arborem intelligi , id est, ex pessimis praeceptis doctrinam veritatis agnosci. Spero hujusmodi haereticos Heliae quoque invadere exemplum, tanquam in Joanne sic repraesentati, ut metempsychosi patrocinetur pronuntiatio Domini (Matt. XVII): Helias jam venit, et non cognoverunt eum. Et alibi (Matt. XI): Et si vultis audire, hic est Helias qui venturus est. Numquid ergo 0711B et Judaei ex opinione pythagorica consulebant Joannem (Joan. I): Tu es Helias? et non ex praedicatione divina (Malach. IV): Et ecce mittam vobis Heliam thesbiten? Sedenim metempsychosis illorum, revocatio est animae jampridem morte functae, et in aliud corpus iteratae. Helias autem non ex decessione vitae, sed ex translatione venturus est; nec corpori restituendus, de quo non est exemptus (IV Reg. II); sed mundo reddendus, de quo est translatus; non ex postliminio vitae, sed ex supplemento prophetiae; idem et ipse, et sui nominis et sui hominis. Sed quomodo Helias Joannes? Habes angeli vocem (Luc. I) Et ipse, inquit, praecedet coram populo in virtute et spiritu Heliae, non in anima ejus, nec in carne. Hae enim substantiae sui cujusque sunt hominis. Spiritus 0711C vero et virtus extrinsecus conferuntur ex Dei gratia. 0712A ita et transferri in alterum possunt ex Dei voluntate, ut factum est retro de Moysis spiritu.