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 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 XII.—Difference Between the Mind and the Soul, and the Relation Between Them.
Chapter XIII.—The Soul’s Supremacy.
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 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 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 XXX.—Further Refutation of the Pythagorean Theory. The State of Contemporary Civilisation.
Chapter XXXI.—Further Exposure of Transmigration, Its Inextricable Embarrassment.
Chapter XXXIII.—The Judicial Retribution of These Migrations Refuted with Raillery.
Chapter XXXVI.—The Main Points of Our Author’s Subject. On the Sexes of the Human Race.
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 XLII.—Sleep, the Mirror of Death, as Introductory to the Consideration of Death.
Chapter XLV.—Dreams, an Incidental Effect of the Soul’s Activity. Ecstasy.
Chapter XLVIII.—Causes and Circumstances of Dreams. What Best Contributes to Efficient Dreaming.
Chapter XLIX.—No Soul Naturally Exempt from Dreams.
Chapter LI.—Death Entirely Separates the Soul from the Body.
Chapter LVII.—Magic and Sorcery Only Apparent in Their Effects. God Alone Can Raise the Dead.
Chapter XV.—The Soul’s Vitality and Intelligence. Its Character and Seat in Man.
In the first place, (we must determine) whether there be in the soul some supreme principle of vitality and intelligence95 Sapientialis. which they call “the ruling power of the soul”—τὸ ἡγεμονικόν 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. One Dicæarchus, a Messenian, and amongst the medical profession Andreas and Asclepiades, have thus destroyed the (soul’s) directing power, by actually placing in the mind the senses, for which they claim the ruling faculty. Asclepiades rides rough-shod over us with even this argument, that very many animals, after losing those parts of their body in which the soul’s principle of vitality and sensation is thought mainly to exist, still retain life in a considerable degree, as well as sensation: as in the case of flies, and wasps, and locusts, when you have cut off their heads; and of she-goats, and tortoises, and eels, when you have pulled out their hearts. (He concludes), therefore, that there is no especial 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). However, Dicæarchus has several authorities against him—and philosophers too—Plato, Strato, Epicurus, Democritus, Empedocles, Socrates, Aristotle; whilst in opposition to Andreas and Asclepiades (may be placed their brother) physicians Herophilus, Erasistratus, Diocles, Hippocrates, and Soranus himself; and better than all others, there are our Christian authorities. We are taught by God concerning both these questions—viz. that there is a ruling power in the soul, and that it is enshrined96 Consecratum. in one particular recess of the body. For, when one reads of God as being “the searcher and witness of the heart;”97 Wisd. i. 6. when His prophet is reproved by His discovering to him the secrets of the heart;98 Prov. xxiv. 12. when God Himself anticipates in His people the thoughts of their heart,99 Ps. cxxxix. 23. “Why think ye evil in your hearts?”100 Matt. ix. 4. when David prays “Create in me a clean heart, O God,”101 Ps. li. 12. and Paul declares, “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness,”102 Rom. x. 10. and John says, “By his own heart is each man condemned;”103 1 John iii. 20. when, lastly, “he who looketh on a woman so as to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart,”104 Matt. v. 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 part105 In eo thesauro. of our body to which God especially looks: so that you must not suppose, with Heraclitus, that this sovereign faculty of which we are treating is moved by some external force; nor with Moschion,106 Not Suidas’ philosopher of that name, but a renowned physician mentioned by Galen and Pliny (Oehler). that it floats about through the whole body; nor with Plato, that it is enclosed in the head; nor with Zenophanes, that it culminates in the crown of the head; nor that it reposes in the brain, according to the opinion of Hippocrates; nor around the basis of the brain, as Herophilus thought; nor in the membranes thereof, as Strato and Erasistratus said; nor in the space between the eyebrows, as Strato the physician held; nor within the enclosure107 Lorica. of the breast, according to Epicurus: but rather, as the Egyptians have always taught, especially such of them as were accounted the expounders of sacred truths;108 The Egyptian hierophants. in accordance, too, with that verse of Orpheus or Empedocles:
“Namque homini sanguis circumcordialis est sensus.”109 The original, as given in Stobæus, Eclog. i. p. 1026, is this hexameter: Αἶμα γὰρ ἀνθρώποις περικάρδιόν ἐστι νόημα.
“Man has his (supreme) sensation in the blood around his heart.”
Even Protagoras110 Or probably that Praxagoras the physician who is often mentioned by Athenæus and by Pliny (Pamel.). likewise, and Apollodorus, and Chrysippus, entertain this same view, so that (our friend) Asclepiades may go in quest of his goats bleating without a heart, and hunt his flies without their heads; and let all those (worthies), too, who have predetermined the character of the human soul from the condition of brute animals, be quite sure that it is themselves rather who are alive in a heartless and brainless state.
CAPUT XV.
0670A
In primis an sit aliquis summus in anima gradus vitalis, et sapientalis, quod ἡγεμονικὸν appellant, id est principale, si negetur, totus animae status periclitatur. Denique, qui negant principale, ipsam prius animam nihil censuerunt. Messenius aliquis Dicaearchus, ex medicis autem Andreas et Asclepiades, ita abstulerunt principale, dum in animo ipso volunt esse sensus, quorum vindicatur principale. Asclepiades etiam illa argumentatione vectatur, quod pleraque animalia, ademptis eis partibus corporis, in quibus plurimum aestimatur principale consistere, et insuper vivant aliquatenus, et sapiant nihilominus, ut muscae, et vespae, et locustae, si capita decideris; ut caprae et testudines, et anguillae, si corda detraxeris: 0670B itaque principale non esse: quod si fuisset, amisso cum suis , vigor animae non perseveraret. Sed plures et philosophi adversus Dicaearchum, Plato, Strato, Epicurus, Democritus, Empedocles, Socrates, Aristoteles; et medici adversus Andream et Asclepiadem, Herophilus, Erasistratus , Diocles , Hippocrates, et ipse Soranus; jamque omnibus plures christiani, qui apud Deum de utroque 0671A ducimur , et esse principale in anima, et certo in corporis recessu consecratum. Si enim scrutatorem et dispectorem cordis (Sap. I; Prov. XXIV) Deum legimus; si etiam prophetes ejus occulta cordis traducendo probatur (Ps. CXXXVIII): si Deus ipse recogitatus cordis in populo praevenit (Matt. IX): Quid cogitatis in cordibus vestris nequam? si et David (Ps. L): Cor mundum conde in me Deus; et Paulus (Rom. X) corde ait credi in justitiam; et Joannes (I Joan. III) corde ait suo unumquemque reprehendi; si postremo (Matt. V), qui viderit faeminam ad concupiscendum, jam adulteravit in corde; simul utrumque dilucet, et esse principale in anima, quo intentio divina conveniat, id est, vim sapientialem atque vitalem (quod enim sapit, vividum est), et in eo 0671B thesauro corporis haberi, ad quem Deus respicit: ut neque extrinsecus agitari putes principale istud secundum Heraclitum, neque per totum corpus ventilari secundum Moschionem, neque in capite concludi secundum Platonem, neque in vertice potius praesidere secundum Xenocratem, neque in cerebro cubare secundum Hippocratem; sed nec circa cerebri fundamentum ut Herophilus, nec in membranulis ut Strato et Erasistratus, nec in superciliorum meditullio ut Strato Physicus, nec in tota 0672A lorica pectoris ut Epicurus. sed quod et Aegyptii renuntiaverunt, et qui divinarum commemoratores videbantur, ut et ille versus Orphei vel Empedoclis; Namque homini sanguis circumcordialis est sensus. Etiam Protagoras, etiam Apollodorus et Chrysippus haec sapiunt; ut vel ab istis retusus Asclepiades capras suas quaerat sine corde balantes, et muscas suas abigat sine capite volitantes; et omnes jam sciant se potius sine corde et cerebro vivere, qui dispositionem animae humanae de conditione bestiarum praejudicarint.