A Treatise on the Soul.1    [It is not safe to date this treatise before a.d. 203, and perhaps it would be unsafe to assign a later date. The note of the translator, which follows, relieves me from any necessity to add more, just here.]

Chapter I.—It is Not to the Philosophers that We Resort for Information About the Soul But to God.2    In this treatise we have Tertullian’s speculations on the origin, the nature, and the destiny of the human soul. There are, no doubt, paradoxes startling to a modern reader to be found in it, such as that of the soul’s corporeity; and there are weak and inconclusive arguments. But after all such drawbacks (and they are not more than what constantly occur in the most renowned speculative writers of antiquity), the reader will discover many interesting proofs of our author’s character for originality of thought, width of information, firm grasp of his subject, and vivacious treatment of it, such as we have discovered in other parts of his writings. If his subject permits Tertullian less than usual of an appeal to his favourite Holy Scripture, he still makes room for occasional illustration from it, and with his characteristic ability; if, however, there is less of his sacred learning in it, the treatise teems with curious information drawn from the secular literature of that early age. Our author often measures swords with Plato in his discussions on the soul, and it is not too much to say that he shows himself a formidable opponent to the great philosopher. See Bp. Kaye, On Tertullian, pp. 199, 200.

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 adaptation3    Suggestu. [Kaye, pp. 60 and 541.] of matter than of the inspiration4    Flatu “the breath.” of God, I now turn to the other questions incidental to the subject; and (in my treatment of these) I shall evidently have mostly to contend with the philosophers. In the very prison of Socrates they skirmished about the state of the soul. I have my doubts at once whether the time was an opportune one for their (great) master—(to say nothing of the place), although that perhaps does not much matter. For what could the soul of Socrates then contemplate with clearness and serenity? The sacred ship had returned (from Delos), the hemlock draft to which he had been condemned had been drunk, death was now present before him: (his mind) was,5    Utique. as one may suppose,6    Consternata. naturally excited7    Consternata. at every emotion; or if nature had lost her influence, it must have been deprived of all power of thought.8    Externata. “Externatus = ἐκτὸς φρενῶν. Gloss. Philox. Or let it have been as placid and tranquil so you please, inflexible, in spite of the claims of natural duty,9    Pietatis. at the tears of her who was so soon to be his widow, and at the sight of his thenceforward orphan children, yet his soul must have been moved even by its very efforts to suppress emotion; and his constancy itself must have been shaken, as he struggled against the disturbance of the excitement around him. Besides, what other thoughts could any man entertain who had been unjustly condemned to die, but such as should solace him for the injury done to him?  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. Accordingly, after his sentence, when his wife came to him with her effeminate cry, O Socrates, you are unjustly condemned! he seemed already to find joy in answering, Would you then wish me justly condemned? It is therefore not to be wondered at, if even in his prison, from a desire to break the foul hands of Anytus and Melitus, he, in the face of death itself, asserts the immortality of the soul by a strong assumption such as was wanted to frustrate the wrong (they had inflicted upon him). So that all the wisdom of Socrates, at that moment, proceeded from the affectation of an assumed composure, rather than the firm conviction of ascertained truth. For by whom has truth ever been discovered without God? By whom has God ever been found without Christ? By whom has Christ ever been explored without the Holy Spirit?  By whom has the Holy Spirit ever been attained without the mysterious gift of faith?10    Fidei sacramento. Socrates, as none can doubt, was actuated by a different spirit. For they say that a demon clave to him 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. The teachings of the power of Christ had not yet been given—(that power) which alone can confute this most pernicious influence of evil that has nothing good in it, but is rather the author of all error, and the seducer from all truth. Now if Socrates was pronounced the wisest of men by the oracle of the Pythian demon, which, you may be sure, neatly managed the business for his friend, of how much greater dignity and constancy is the assertion of the Christian wisdom, before the very breath of which the whole host of demons is scattered!  This wisdom of the school of heaven frankly and without reserve denies the gods of this world, and shows no such inconsistency as to order a “cock to be sacrificed to Æsculapius:”11    The allusion is to the inconsistency of the philosopher, who condemned the gods of the vulgar, and died offering a gift to one of them. no new gods and demons does it introduce, but expels the old ones; it corrupts not youth, but instructs them in all goodness and moderation; 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 fulness:  so that it tastes death not out of a (poisoned) cup almost in the way of jollity; but it exhausts it in every kind of bitter cruelty, on gibbets and in holocausts.12    Vivicomburio. Meanwhile, in the still gloomier prison of the world amongst your Cebeses and Phædos, in every investigation concerning (man’s) soul, it directs its inquiry according to the rules of God. At all events, you can show us no more powerful expounder of the soul than the Author thereof. From God you may learn about that which you hold of God; but from none else will you get this knowledge, if you get it not from God. For who is to reveal that which God has hidden? To that quarter must we resort in our inquiries whence we are most safe even in deriving our ignorance. 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.

CAPUT PRIMUM

De solo censu animae congressus Hermogeni, quatenus et istum ex materiae potius suggestu, quam ex Dei flatu constitisse praesumpsit, nunc ad reliquas conversus quaestiones, plurimum videbor cum philosophis dimicaturus. Etiam in carcere Socratis de animae statu velitatum est. Nescio jam hoc primum, an opportuno in tempore magistri , etsi nihil 0646D de loco interest. Quid enim liquido saperet 0647A anima tunc Socratis, jam sacro navigio regresso, jam cicutis damnationis exhaustis, jam morte praesente, utique consternata ad aliquem motum secundum naturam, aut externata, si non secundum naturam. Quamvis enim placida atque tranquilla, quam nec conjugiis fletus statim viduae, nec liberorum conspectus exinde pupillorum, lege pietatis inflexerat, vel in hoc tamen mota, ne moveretur, ipsa constantia concussa est adversus inconstantiae concussionem. Quid autem aliud saperet vir quilibet injuria damnatus, praeter injuriae solamen, nedum philosophus, gloriae animal, cui nec consolanda injuria, sed potius insultanda? Denique, post sententiam, obviae conjugi et muliebriter inclamanti: Injuste damnatus es, Socrates; jam et de gratulatione responderat: Volebas 0647B autem juste? Nihil mirandum, si et in carcere lemniscatas Anyti et Meliti palmas gestiens infringere, ipsa morte coram, immortalitatem vindicat animae necessaria praesumptione ad injuriae frustrationem. Adeo omnis illa tunc sapientia Socratis de industria venerat consultae aequanimitatis, non de fiducia compertae veritatis. Cui enim veritas comperta sine Deo? cui Deus cognitus sine Christo? cui Christus exploratus sine Spiritu Sancto? cui Spiritus Sanctus accommodatus sine fidei sacramento? Sane Socrates facilius diverso spiritu agebatur. Siquidem aiunt daemonium illi a puero adhaesisse, pessimum revera paedagogum, etsi post deos et cum deis daemonia deputantur penes poetas et philosophos. Nondum enim christianae potestatis documenta 0647C processerant, quae vim istam perniciosissimam, nec unquam bonam, antiqui erroris artificem, omnis veritatis avocatricem sola traducit. Quod si idcirco 0648A sapientissimus Socrates secundum Pythii quoque daemonis suffragium, scilicet negotium navantis socio suo, quanto dignior atque constantior christianae sapientiae assertio, cujus adflatui tota vis daemonum cedit? Haec sapientia de schola coeli deos quidem saeculi negare liberior, quae nullum Aesculapio gallinaceum reddi jubens praevaricetur, nec nova inferens daemonia, sed vetera depellens; nec adolescentiam vitians, sed omni bono pudoris informans, ideoque non unius urbis, sed universi orbis iniquam sententiam sustinens pro nomine veritatis, tanto scilicet perosioris quanto plenioris, ut et mortem non de poculo per habitum jocunditatis absorbeat, sed de patibulo et vivicomburio per omne ingenium crudelitatis exhauriat, interea in isto tenebrosiore carcere saeculi inter 0648B suos Cebetas et suos Phaedonas, si quid de anima examinandum est, ad Dei regulas dirigat. Certe nullum alium potiorem animae demonstratorem quam auctorem reperiet; a Deo discat , quod a Deo habeat ; aut nec ab alio, si nec a Deo. Quis enim revelabit quod Deus texit? Inde sciscitandum est, unde et ignorare tutissimum est: praestat per Deum nescire, quia non revelaverit, quam per hominem scire, quia ipse praesumpserit.