Opening the library…

Search the Bible

A Treatise on the Soul

Tertullian

Chapter 10

About this work

Author: Tertullian

Chapter X.—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

‹ Chapter 9 Chapter 11 ›

that

the

soul

is

simple

;

in

other

words

uniform

and

uncompounded

;

simply

that

is

to

say

in

respect

of

its

substance

.

Never

mind

men’s

artificial

views

and

theories

,

and

away

with

the

fabrications

of

heresy

!

Some

maintain

that

there

is

within

the

soul

a

natural

substance

—

the

spirit

—

which

is

different

from

it

:

as

if

to

have

life

—

the

function

of

the

soul

—

were

one

thing

;

and

to

emit

breath

—

the

alleged

function

of

the

spirit

—

were

another

thing

.

Now

it

is

not

in

all

animals

that

these

two

functions

are

found

;

for

there

are

many

which

only

live

but

do

not

breathe

in

that

they

do

not

possess

the

organs

of

respiration

—

lungs

and

windpipes

.

But

of

what

use

is

it

,

in

an

examination

of

the

soul

of

man

,

to

borrow

proofs

from

a

gnat

or

an

ant

,

when

the

great

Creator

in

His

divine

arrangements

has

allotted

to

every

animal

organs

of

vitality

suited

to

its

own

disposition

and

nature

,

so

that

we

ought

not

to

catch

at

any

conjectures

from

comparisons

of

this

sort

?

Man

,

indeed

,

although

organically

furnished

with

lungs

and

windpipes

,

will

not

on

that

account

be

proved

to

breathe

by

one

process

,

and

to

live

by

another

;

nor

can

the

ant

,

although

defective

in

these

organs

,

be

on

that

account

said

to

be

without

respiration

,

as

if

it

lived

and

that

was

all

.

For

by

whom

has

so

clear

an

insight

into

the

works

of

God

been

really

attained

,

as

to

entitle

him

to

assume

that

these

organic

resources

are

wanting

to

any

living

thing

?

There

is

that

Herophilus

,

the

well

-

known

surgeon

,

or

(

as

I

may

almost

call

him

)

butcher

,

who

cut

up

no

end

of

persons

,

in

order

to

investigate

the

secrets

of

nature

,

who

ruthlessly

handled

human

creatures

to

discover

(

their

form

and

make

)

:

I

have

my

doubts

whether

he

succeeded

in

clearly

exploring

all

the

internal

parts

of

their

structure

,

since

death

itself

changes

and

disturbs

the

natural

functions

of

life

,

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

.

Well

,

then

,

tell

me

,

you

curious

and

elaborate

investigator

of

these

mysteries

,

have

they

eyes

for

seeing

withal

?

But

yet

they

proceed

to

whatever

point

they

wish

,

and

they

both

shun

and

aim

at

various

objects

by

processes

of

sight

:

point

out

their

eyes

to

me

,

show

me

their

pupils

.

Moths

also

gnaw

and

eat

:

demonstrate

to

me

their

mandibles

,

reveal

their

jaw

-

teeth

.

Then

,

again

,

gnats

hum

and

buzz

,

nor

even

in

the

dark

are

they

unable

to

find

their

way

to

our

ears

:

point

out

to

me

,

then

,

not

only

the

noisy

tube

,

but

the

stinging

lance

of

that

mouth

of

theirs

.

Take

any

living

thing

whatever

,

be

it

the

tiniest

you

can

find

,

it

must

needs

be

fed

and

sustained

by

some

food

or

other

:

show

me

,

then

,

their

organs

for

taking

into

their

system

,

digesting

,

and

ejecting

food

.

What

must

we

say

,

therefore

?

If

it

is

by

such

instruments

that

life

is

maintained

,

these

instrumental

means

must

of

course

exist

in

all

things

which

are

to

live

,

even

though

they

are

not

apparent

to

the

eye

or

to

the

apprehension

by

reason

of

their

minuteness

.

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

,

however

,

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

,

although

in

the

absence

of

the

suitable

organs

,

—

securing

to

them

the

power

of

sight

,

even

without

eyes

;

of

eating

,

even

without

teeth

;

and

of

digestion

,

even

without

stomachs

.

Some

animals

also

have

the

ability

to

move

forward

without

feet

,

as

serpents

,

by

a

gliding

motion

;

or

as

worms

,

by

vertical

efforts

;

or

as

snails

and

slugs

,

by

their

slimy

crawl

.

Why

should

you

not

then

believe

that

respiration

likewise

may

be

effected

without

the

bellows

of

the

lungs

,

and

without

arterial

canals

?

You

would

thus

supply

yourself

with

a

strong

proof

that

the

spirit

or

breath

is

an

adjunct

of

the

human

soul

,

for

the

very

reason

that

some

creatures

lack

breath

,

and

that

they

lack

it

because

they

are

not

furnished

with

organs

of

respiration

.

You

think

it

possible

for

a

thing

to

live

without

breath

;

then

why

not

suppose

that

a

thing

might

breathe

without

lungs

?

Pray

,

tell

me

,

what

is

it

to

breathe

?

I

suppose

it

means

to

emit

breath

from

yourself

.

What

is

it

not

to

live

?

I

suppose

it

means

not

to

emit

breath

from

yourself

.

This

is

the

answer

which

I

should

have

to

make

,

if

“

to

breathe

”

is

not

the

same

thing

as

“

to

live

.

”

It

must

,

however

,

be

characteristic

of

a

dead

man

not

to

respire

:

to

respire

,

therefore

,

is

the

characteristic

of

a

living

man

.

But

to

respire

is

likewise

the

characteristic

of

a

breathing

man

:

therefore

also

to

breathe

is

the

characteristic

of

a

living

man

.

Now

,

if

both

one

and

the

other

could

possibly

have

been

accomplished

without

the

soul

,

to

breathe

might

not

be

a

function

of

the

soul

,

but

merely

to

live

.

But

indeed

to

live

is

to

breathe

,

and

to

breathe

is

to

live

.

Therefore

this

entire

process

,

both

of

breathing

and

living

,

belongs

to

that

to

which

living

belongs

—

that

is

,

to

the

soul

.

Well

,

then

,

since

you

separate

the

spirit

(

or

breath

)

and

the

soul

,

separate

their

operations

also

.

Let

both

of

them

accomplish

some

act

apart

from

one

another

—

the

soul

apart

,

the

spirit

apart

.

Let

the

soul

live

without

the

spirit

;

let

the

spirit

breathe

without

the

soul

.

Let

one

of

them

quit

men’s

bodies

,

let

the

other

remain

;

let

death

and

life

meet

and

agree

.

If

indeed

the

soul

and

the

spirit

are

two

,

they

may

be

divided

;

and

thus

,

by

the

separation

of

the

one

which

departs

from

the

one

which

remains

,

there

would

accrue

the

union

and

meeting

together

of

life

and

of

death

.

But

such

a

union

never

will

accrue

:

therefore

they

are

not

two

,

and

they

cannot

be

divided

;

but

divided

they

might

have

been

,

if

they

had

been

(

two

)

.

Still

two

things

may

surely

coalesce

in

growth

.

But

the

two

in

question

never

will

coalesce

,

since

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

!

But

what

if

you

insist

on

supposing

that

the

day

is

one

thing

,

and

the

light

,

which

is

incidental

to

the

day

,

is

another

thing

,

whereas

day

is

only

the

light

itself

?

There

must

,

of

course

,

be

also

different

kinds

of

light

,

as

(

appears

)

from

the

ministry

of

fires

.

So

likewise

will

there

be

different

sorts

of

spirits

,

according

as

they

emanate

from

God

or

from

the

devil

.

Whenever

,

indeed

,

the

question

is

about

soul

and

spirit

,

the

soul

will

be

(

understood

to

be

)

itself

the

spirit

,

just

as

the

day

is

the

light

itself

.

For

a

thing

is

itself

identical

with

that

by

means

of

which

itself

exists

.

Notes

1
See his Phædo, p. 80; Timæus, § 12, p. 35 (Bekker, pp. 264, 265).
2
We have here combined two readings, effigies (Oehler’s) and hæreses (the usual one).
3
Aliam.
4
This is the force of the subjunctive fiat.
5
Arterias.
6
Aliunde spirabit, aliunde vivet. “In the nature of man, life and breath are inseparable,” Bp. Kaye, p. 184.
7
Sexcentos.
8
Odit.
9
Aurium cæci.