IntraText Table of Contents | Words: Alphabetical - Frequency - Inverse - Length - Statistics | Help | IntraText Library |
Chapter XII. ---- The True Functions of the Soul. Christ Assumed It in His Perfect Human Nature, Not to Reveal and Explain It, But to Save It. Its Resurrection with the Body Assured by Christ. |
Chapter XII. ---- The True Functions of the Soul. Christ Assumed It in His Perfect Human Nature, Not to Reveal and Explain It, But to Save It. Its Resurrection with the Body Assured by Christ.
[1] Well,
now, let it be granted that the soul is made apparent by the flesh, on the assumption that it was
evidently necessary
that it should be made apparent in
some way or other, that is, as being incognizable to itself and to us: there is
still an absurd distinction in this hypothesis, which implies that we
are ourselves separate from our soul, when all that we are is soul. Indeed,
without the soul we are nothing;
there is not even the name of a human being, only that of a carcase. If, then,
we are ignorant of the soul, it is in fact the soul that is ignorant of itself.
[2] Thus the only remaining
question left for us to look into is, whether the soul was in this matter so
ignorant of itself that it became known in any way it could.
The soul, in my opinion,
is sensual.
Nothing, therefore, pertaining to
the soul is unconnected with sense,
nothing pertaining to sense is
unconnected with the soul.
And if I may use the expression for
the sake of emphasis, I would say, "Animae anima sensus est"
---- "Sense is the soul's very soul." [3] Now, since it is the soul that imparts the faculty
of perception
to all (that have sense), and since
it is itself that perceives the very senses, not to say properties, of them all
how is it likely that it did not itself receive sense as its own natural
constitution? Whence is it to know what is necessary for itself under given
circumstances, from the very necessity of natural causes, if it knows not its
own property, and what is necessary for it? To recognise this indeed is within
the competence of every soul; it has, I mean, a practical knowledge of itself,
without which knowledge of itself no soul could possibly have exercised its own
functions.
[4] I suppose, too, that it is
especially suitable that man, the only rational animal, should have been
furnished with such a soul as would make him the rational animal, itself being
pre-eminently rational. Now, how can that soul which makes man a rational
animal be itself rational if it be itself ignorant of its rationality, being
ignorant of its own very self? So far, however, is it from being ignorant, that
it knows its own Author, its own Master, and its own condition. [5] Before it learns anything about God, it names the
name of God. Before it acquires any knowledge of His judgment, it professes to
commend itself to God. There is nothing one oftener hears of than that there is
no hope after death; and yet what imprecations or deprecations does not the
soul use according as the man dies after a well or ill spent life! These
reflections are more fully pursued in a short treatise which we have written,
"On the Testimony of the Soul."
[6] Besides, if the soul was
ignorant of itself from the beginning, there is nothing it could
have learnt of Christ except its
own quality.
It was not its own form that it
learnt of Christ, but its salvation. For this cause did the Son of God descend
and take on Him a soul, not that the soul might discover itself in Christ, but
Christ in itself. For its salvation is endangered, not by its being ignorant of
itself, but of the word of God. [7] "The
life," says He, "was manifested,"
not the soul. And again, "I am
come to save the soul." He did not say, "to explain"
it. We could not know, of course,
that the soul, although an
invisible essence, is born and dies, unless it were exhibited corporeally. We
certainly were ignorant that it was to rise again with the flesh. This is the
truth which it will be found was manifested by Christ. But even this He did not
manifest in Himself in a different way than in some Lazarus, whose flesh was no
more composed of soul
than his soul was of flesh.
What further knowledge, therefore,
have we received of the structure
of the soul which we were ignorant
of before? What invisible part was there belonging to it which wanted to be
made visible by the flesh?