Chapter 21 [XV.]—Recognition and Form Belong to Souls as Well as Bodies.

But you say: “If the soul is incorporeal, what was it that the rich man saw in hell? He certainly recognised Lazarus; he did [not143    Luke xvi. 19–31. Non noverat Abraham. But some mss. omit non; rightly, one would think. The meaning then is: “He recognised Abraham.”] know Abraham. Whence arose to him the knowledge of Abraham, who had died so long before?” By using these words, I suppose that you do not think a man can be recognised and known without his bodily form. To know yourself, therefore, I imagine that you often stand before your looking-glass, lest by forgetting your features you should be unable to recognise yourself. But let me ask you, what man does anybody know more than himself; and whose face can he see less than his own? But who could possibly know God, whom even you do not doubt to be incorporeal, if knowledge could not (as you suppose) accrue without bodily shape; that is, if bodies alone can be recognised? What Christian, however, when discussing subjects of such magnitude and difficulty, can give such little heed to the inspired word as to say, “If the soul be incorporeal, it must of necessity lack form”? Have you forgotten that in that word you have read of “a form of doctrine”? 144    Rom. vi. 17. Have you forgotten, too, that it is written concerning Christ Jesus, previous to His clothing Himself with humanity, that He was “in the form of God”?145    Phil. ii. 6. How, then, can you say, “If the soul is incorporeal, it must of necessity lack form;” when you hear of “the form of God,” whom you acknowledge to be incorporeal; and so express yourself, as if form could not possibly exist except in bodies?

CAPUT XV.

21. Sed inquis, «Si anima caret corpore, quid est quod apud inferos dives ille cognoscit? Certe,» inquis, «noverat jam Lazarum, non noverat Abraham (Luc. XVI, 19-31): unde illi tanto ante tempore defuncti Abrahae provenit agnitio? Haec dicens, si agnitionem hominis provenire non putas sine corporis forma; ut noveris te ipsum, credo quod assidue speculum attendis, ne si fueris oblitus faciem tuam, non te possis agnoscere. Rogo te, quem magis hominum novit homo quam se ipsum, et cujus minus potest faciem videre quam suam? Quis autem potest cognoscere Deum, quem tu quoque incorporeum esse non dubitas; si praeter corporis formam, sicut putas, non potest cognitio provenire, id est, si corpora possunt sola cognosci? Quis autem christianus de tam magnis difficillimisque rebus disputans, animum in verba divina tam negligenter intendat, ut dicat, «Si incorporea est anima, necesse est careat forma?» Oblitus es, te formam legisse doctrinae (Rom. VI, 17)? Ergo corporea est forma doctrinae. Oblitus es scriptum esse de Christo Jesu, antequam hominem fuisset indutus, quod in forma Dei erat (Philipp. II, 6)? Quomodo ergo dicis, «Si incorporea est anima, necesse est careat forma;» cum audias formam Dei, quem non esse corporeum confiteris; et ita loqueris tanquam forma nisi in corporibus esse non possit?