On the Soul and the Resurrection.

 With a heart still fermenting with my pain, I asked— How can that ever be practised by mankind? There is such an instinctive and deep-seated abhorrenc

 Why, what is the especial pain you feel, asked the Teacher, in the mere necessity itself of dying? This common talk of unthinking persons is no suffic

 What! is there no occasion for grieving, I replied to her, when we see one who so lately lived and spoke becoming all of a sudden lifeless and motionl

 Whilst I was thus enlarging on the subject, the Teacher signed to me with her hand , and said: Surely what alarms and disturbs your mind is not the th

 I answered rather audaciously, and without due consideration of what I said, for my passionate grief had not yet given me back my judgment. In fact, I

 Away, she cried, with that pagan nonsense! For therein the inventor of lies fabricates false theories only to harm the Truth. Observe this, and nothin

 And pray how, I asked, are we to get a firm and unmovable belief in the soul’s continuance? I, too, am sensible of the fact that human life will be be

 Well, replied the Teacher, we must seek where we may get a beginning for our discussion upon this point and if you please, let the defence of the opp

 When she made this request, and I had deprecated the suspicion that I was making the objections in real earnest, instead of only wishing to get a firm

 Would not the defenders of the opposite belief say this: that the body, being composite, must necessarily be resolved into that of which it is compose

 The Teacher sighed gently at these words of mine, and then said Maybe these were the objections, or such as these, that the Stoics and Epicureans col

 That is the very point, I said, upon which our adversaries cannot fail to have doubts viz. that all things depend on God and are encompassed by Him,

 It would be more fitting, she cried, to be silent about such doubts, and not to deign to make any answer to such foolish and wicked propositions for

 And pray how, I asked, does this belief in the existence of God prove along with it the existence of the human soul? For God, surely, is not the same

 She replied: It has been said by wise men that man is a little world in himself and contains all the elements which go to complete the universe. If th

 I rejoined, Nay, it may be very possible to infer a wisdom transcending the universe from the skilful and artistic designs observable in this harmoniz

 Most certainly, the Virgin replied, the soul herself, to those who wish to follow the wise proverb and know themselves, is a competent instructress o

 What then, I asked, is the soul? Perhaps there may be some possible means of delineating its nature so that we may have some comprehension of this su

 Its definition, the Teacher replied, has been attempted in different ways by different writers, each according to his own bent but the following is o

 But what, I asked, if, insisting on the great differences which, in spite of a certain quality of matter shared alike by all elements in their visible

 Your instance, she replied, and your reasoning upon it, though belonging to the counter-argument, may both of them be made allies of our statement, an

 Why, how can you say that?

 Because, you see, so to understand, manipulate, and dispose the soulless matter, that the art which is stored away in such mechanisms becomes almost l

 That the thing perceived, I replied, is not the same as the thing not perceived, I grant but I do not discover any answer to our question in such a s

 We do learn, she replied, much about many things by this very same method, inasmuch as, in the very act of saying a thing is “not so and so,” we by im

 Here I interrupted her discourse: If you leave all these out of the account I do not see how you can possibly avoid cancelling along with them the ver

 Shame on such absurdity! said she, indignantly interrupting. A fine conclusion this narrow-minded, grovelling view of the world brings us to! If all t

 Well, then, I retorted, we only exchange one paradox for another by arguing in this way for our reason will be reduced to the conclusion that the Dei

 Say not so, she replied to talk so also is blasphemous. Rather, as the Scripture tells you, say that the one is like the other. For that which is “ma

 That those atoms, I rejoined, should unite and again be separated, and that this constitutes the formation and dissolution of the body, no one would d

 But the intelligent and undimensional, she replied, is neither contracted nor diffused (contraction and diffusion being a property of body only) but

 Upon this I recurred to the definition which she had previously given of the soul, and I said that to my thinking her definition had not indicated dis

 You are quite justified, she replied, in raising this question, and it has ere this been discussed by many elsewhere namely, what we are to think of

 What then, I asked the Teacher, are we to think about this? For I cannot yet see how we can fitly repudiate faculties which are actually within us.

 You see, she replied, there is a battle of the reason with them and a struggle to rid the soul of them and there are men in whom this struggle has en

 And yet, I rejoined to the virgin, we see no slight help afforded for improvement to the virtuous from all these conditions. Daniel’s desire was his g

 I think, replied the Teacher, that I am myself responsible for this confusion arising from different accounts of the matter for I did not state it as

 Much moved by these words, I said: To any one who reflects indeed, your exposition, advancing as it does in this consecutive manner, though plain and

 And who, she replied, could deny that truth is to be found only in that upon which the seal of Scriptural testimony is set? So, if it is necessary tha

 She ceased after this statement and allowed the discussion a short interval, in which I reviewed mentally all that had been said and reverting to tha

 Clearly, replied the Teacher, you have not quite attended to the argument. In speaking of the soul’s migration from the seen to the unseen, I thought

 And how, then, I asked, is it that some think that by the underworld is meant an actual place, and that it harbours within itself

 Well, replied the Teacher, our doctrine will be in no ways injured by such a supposition. For if it is true, what you say above

 But what, I asked, if your opponent should shield himself behind the Apostle, where he says that every reasoning creature, in the restitution of all t

 We shall stand by our doctrine, answered the Teacher, even if we should hear them adducing these words. For the existence of the soul (after death) we

 But if some were to ask the meaning of the Apostle in this utterance, what is one to say? Would you remove all signification of place from the passage

 I do not think, she replied, that the divine Apostle divided the intellectual world into localities, when he named part as in heaven, part as on earth

 When she had finished, I hesitated a moment, and then said: I am not yet satisfied about the thing which we have been inquiring into after all that h

 She waited a moment and then said: Give me leave to invent a fanciful simile in order to illustrate the matter before us: even though that which I sup

 You seem, I interrupted, in this passing remark to have made an excellent defence of the faith in the Resurrection. By it, I think, the opponents of t

 That is very true, the Teacher replied. For we may hear these opponents urging the following difficulty. “The atoms are resolved, like to like, into t

 Then to meet such an objection, I rejoined, the above opinion about the soul will, as I said, avail namely, that she remains after dissolution in tho

 The following illustration also, the Teacher went on, might be very properly added to those already brought forward, to show that the soul has not nee

 I applauded this as well devised to bring out the natural features of the case before us and I said: It is very well to speak like this and to believ

 The Teacher answered: The expressions of that narrative of the Word are certainly material but still many hints are interspersed in it to rouse the s

 What then, I asked, are the fire and the gulf and the other features in the picture? Are they not that which they are said to be?

 I think, she replied, that the Gospel signifies by means of each of them certain doctrines with regard to our question of the soul. For when the patri

 What then, I asked, is the doctrine here?

 Why, seeing that Lazarus’ soul is occupied with his present blessings and turns round to look at nothing that he has left, while the rich man is still

 Then, after a moment’s reflection on the meaning of these latter words, I said: I think that a contradiction now arises between what you have said and

 How so? she asked.

 Why, when every unreasoning instinct is quenched within us after our purgation, this principle of desire will not exist any more than the other princi

 To that objection, she replied, we answer this. The speculative and critical faculty is the property of the soul’s godlike part for it is by these th

 Then it seems, I said, that it is not punishment chiefly and principally that the Deity, as Judge, afflicts sinners with but He operates, as your arg

 That, said the Teacher, is my meaning and also that the agony will be measured by the amount of evil there is in each individual. For it would not be

 But, said I, what help can one find in this devout hope, when one considers the greatness of the evil in undergoing torture even for a single year an

 Why , either we must plan to keep the soul absolutely untouched and free from any stain of evil or, if our passionate nature makes that quite impossi

 What then, I asked, are we to say to those whose hearts fail at these calamities ?

 We will say to them, replied the Teacher, this. “It is foolish, good people, for you to fret and complain of the chain of this fixed sequence of life’

 But it somehow seems to me now, I said, that the doctrine of the Resurrection necessarily comes on for our discussion a doctrine which I think is eve

 As for the thinkers, the Teacher went on, outside our own system of thought, they have, with all their diverse ways of looking at things, one in one p

 The Teacher finished her exposition and to the many persons sitting by her bedside the whole discussion seemed now to have arrived at a fitting concl

 But, said she, which of these points has been left unnoticed in what has been said?

 Why, the actual doctrine of the Resurrection, I replied.

 And yet, she answered, much in our long and detailed discussion pointed to that.

 Then are you not aware, I insisted, of all the objections, a very swarm of them, which our antagonists bring against us in connection with that hope o

 She, however, replied, First, I think, we must briefly run over the scattered proclamations of this doctrine in Holy Scripture they shall give the fi

 But that, said I, was not the point in question. Most of your hearers will assent to the fact that there will some day be a Resurrection, and that man

 When I had finished, the Teacher thus replied, You have attacked the doctrines connected with the Resurrection with some spirit, in the way of rhetori

That is very true, the Teacher replied. For we may hear these opponents urging the following difficulty. “The atoms are resolved, like to like, into the universe; by what device, then, does the warmth, for instance, residing in such and such a man, after joining the universal warmth, again dissociate itself from this connection with its kindred75    ἀμιγὲς τοῦ συγγενοῦς πάλιν ἀποκριθῆναι. Krabinger’s and Oehler’s reading. But Krabinger, more correctly than Oehler, opposes ἐν τῷδε to ἐν τῷ καθ᾽ ὅλου (quod est hic calidum, si fuerit in universo): though neither he, nor Oehler, nor Schmidt himself appears to have any suspicion that τῷδε maymean “so and so:” and yet it is quite in accordance with Gregory’s usage, and makes better sense, as contrasting the particular and universal heat more completely. ᾽Αμιγὲς is proleptic: the genitive may depend either on it or on the verb. Just below ἀναπλασσόμενον is read by 5 of Krabinger’s Codd. (including the Hasselmann). This is better than Migne’s ἀπαλλασσόμενον, which is hardly supported by 1 Cor. xv. 51., so as to form this man who is being ‘remoulded’? For if the identical individual particle does not return and only something that is homogeneous but not identical is fetched, you will have something else in the place of that first thing, and such a process will cease to be a resurrection and will be merely the creation of a new man. But if the same man is to return into himself, he must be the same entirely, and regain his original formation in every single atom of his elements.”

_Μ. Καί φησιν ἡ διδάσκαλος: Ἀληθὲς τοῦτο λέγεις. Ἔστι γὰρ λεγόντων ἀκούειν τῶν πρὸς τὸν λόγον τοῦτον ἐνισταμένων, ὅτι Εἰς τὸ πᾶν κατὰ τὸ συγγενὲς γινομένης τῶν στοιχείων τῆς ἀναλύσεως: τίς μηχανὴ τὸ ἐν τῷδε θερμὸν ἐν τῷ καθόλου γενόμενον συμμιγὲς, τοῦ συγγενοῦς πάλιν ἀποκριθῆναι πρὸς τὸ συστῆναι τὸν ἀπαλλασσόμενον ἄνθρωπον; Εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἀκριβῶς τὸ ἴδιον ἐπανέλθοι, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ ὁμογενοῦς ἀντὶ τοῦ ἰδιάζοντός τι παραληφθείη: ἕτερον ἀνθ' ἑτέρου γενήσεται, καὶ οὐκέτι ἂν εἴη τὸ τοιοῦτον ἀνάστασις, ἀλλὰ καινοῦ ἀνθρώπου δημιουργία. Εἰ δὲ χρὴ τὸν αὐτὸν εἰς ἑαυτὸν πάλιν ἐπανελθεῖν, δι' ὅλου εἶναι προσήκει τὸν αὐτὸν, ἑαυτοῖς πᾶσι τοῖς τῶν στοιχείων μέρεσι τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐπαναλαβόντα φύσιν.