Tertullian · a new plain-English translation from the original language
ON THE SIMPLICITY OF ITS SUBSTANCE, AND THAT THE SOUL ITSELF IS SPIRIT. [1] It belongs to the standard of the faith to define the soul, along with Plato, as simple — that is, uniform, at least in respect of the name 'substance.' Let the arts and disciplines see to that, and let its shape see to that too. [2] For some want it to have breath as another, natural substance distinct from it, as though living, which comes from the soul, were one thing, and breathing, which is done by breath, were another. For not all animals have both, they say: most merely live, without also breathing, because they lack the organs of breath, lungs and windpipes. [3] But what sort of thing is it, in examining the human soul, to look to the evidence of the gnat and the ant, when God the craftsman has fitted out every living thing with vital equipment proper to its own kind and disposition, such that no inference can properly be drawn from it? For neither will a man, just because he is furnished with lungs and windpipes, therefore breathe from one source and live from another, nor will an ant, just because it lacks limbs of that sort, be denied the power of breathing, as though it merely lived. [4] But to whom has so much of God's workmanship been laid open that he should presume some creature lacks these things? That Herophilus, the physician or rather the butcher, who dissected six hundred bodies to search out nature, who hated man in order to know him — I doubt he examined clearly all of man's inner parts, since death itself changes what had been alive, and not a simple death either, but one made erratic amid the very techniques of dissection. [5] Philosophers have declared for a certainty that gnats and ants and moths lack lungs and windpipes. Tell me, most curious inspector: do they have eyes to see with? Well, they go where they wish, and avoid and pursue what they know by sight — so point out their eyes, mark out their pupils. And moths gnaw things too — show me their jaws, produce their molars. And gnats buzz, not even blind of ear in the dark — show me likewise the trumpet and the lance of that mouth of theirs. Any living creature, even one the size of a mere point, must be fed by something — exhibit the organs for taking in food, digesting it, and expelling waste. [6] What then shall we say? If it is by these organs that life is lived, then they will certainly be present in all things that live, even if they are not seen, even if they cannot be detected because of their smallness. You will believe this the more readily if you consider that God is as much the craftsman in small things as in the greatest. [6b] But if you do not think God's skill capable of grasping such minute bodies, then acknowledge His greatness on this count instead — that He has equipped the smallest creatures to live nonetheless without the necessary organs, sight preserved without eyes, eating without little teeth, digestion without a gut, just as some creatures move without feet — by a flowing thrust, as serpents do, by a rising effort, as worms do, and by a foaming crawl, as slugs do. [7] So too, why should you not suppose that breathing happens without the bellows of lungs and without the pipes of windpipes — rather than embracing as a great argument the claim that breath is added to the human soul because there exist creatures that lack breath, and that these lack breath because they are not built with breathing apparatus? Do you reckon it something to live without breath, yet not believe it possible to breathe without lungs? What, I ask you, is 'to breathe'? To drive breath, I suppose, out of oneself. What is 'to live'? To not drive breath out of oneself, I suppose — for that is the answer I would have to give, if breathing and living were not the same thing. But surely it belongs to the dead not to drive breath: therefore it belongs to the living to drive breath. But it also belongs to the one breathing to drive breath: therefore breathing too belongs to the living. If either of these could run its course without the soul, then breathing would not belong to the soul but merely be a moistening. But as things stand, living amounts to drawing breath, and drawing breath amounts to living; so this entire activity, both the drawing of breath and the living, belongs to that one thing which owns the living — namely, the soul. [8] Finally, if you separate breath from the soul by nature, separate their operations too: let each act on its own, apart — the soul by itself, breath by itself; let the soul live without breath, let breath breathe without soul; let one leave the body while the other remains, and let death and life coincide. For if soul and breath are two things, they can be divided, so that by their division — one departing, the other remaining — death and life would occur together. But this never happens in any way; therefore they are not two things which cannot be divided, when they could have been divided had they truly been two. [9] 'But,' you say, 'two things can also be conjoined.' But they will not be conjoined, if living is one thing and breathing another: operations distinguish substances. And how much more solid is it now for you to believe them one, when you allow no distance between them, so that the soul itself is breath, since breathing belongs to that very thing to which living belongs? What, after all, if you wanted day to be one thing and light, which is added to day, another, when day itself is light? Clearly there will be other kinds of light too, as from the service of fires. So too there will be other species of spirit, as from God, as from the devil. Thus, when we are dealing with soul and spirit, the soul itself will be spirit, just as day itself is light. For that by which a thing is, is the very thing itself.