Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 14.djvu/180

 SOUL

154

SOUL

entelechy of a physical organized body potentially possessing life" emphasizes the closeness of the union of soul and body. The difficulty in his theory is to determine what degree of distinctness or separate- ness from the matter of the body is to be conceded to the human soul. He fully recognizes the spiritual element in thought and describes the "active intel- lect" (voOs TToiriTiKds) as "separate and impassible", but the precise relation of this active intellect to the individual mind is a hopelessly obscure question in Aristotle's psychology. (See Intellect; Mind.)

The Stoics taught that all existence is material, and described the soul as a breath pervading the body. They also called it Div-ine, a particle of God {aw6<rTa<rna toS 6eoS ) ; it was composed of the most refined and ethereal matter. Eight distinct parts of the soul were recognized by them: (a) the ruling reason (ri iiyenofiKdv); (b) the five senses; (c) the procreative powers. Absolute immortality they denied; relative immortality, terminating with the universal conflagration and destruction of all things, some of them (e. g. Cleanthes and Chrysippus) ad- mitted in the case of the wise man; others, such as Panaetius and Posidonius, denied even this, arguing that, as the soul began with the body, so it must end with it.

Epicureanism accepted the Atomist theorj' of Leucippus and Democritus. Soul consists of the finest grained atoms in the universe, finer even than those of wind and heat which they resemble: hence the exquisite fluency of the soul's movements in thought and sensation. The soul-atoms themselves, however, could not exercise their functions if they were not kept together by the body. It is this which gives shape and consistency to the group. If this is destroyed, the atoms escape and life is dissolved; if it is injured, part of the soul is lost, but enough may be left to maintain life. The Lucretian version of Epicureanism distinguishes between animus and anima: the latter only is soul in the biological sense; the former is the higher, directing principle (rd ■qyiiioviKSv) in the Stoic terminology, whose seat is the heart, the centre of the cognitive and emotional life.

The Soul in Christi.\n Thought. — Gra-co-Roman philosophy made no further progress in the doctrine of the soul in the age immediately preceding theChri.s- tian era. None of the existing theories had found general acceptance, and in the literature of the period an eclectic spirit nearly akin to Scepticism predom- inated. Of the strife and fusion of systems at this time the works of Cicero are the best example. On the question of the soul he is by turns Platonic and Pythagorean, while he confesses that the Stoic and Epicurean systems have each an attraction for him. Such was the state of the question in the West at the dawn of Christianity. In Jewish circles a Uke uncertainty prevailed. The Sadducees were Ma- terialists, denjdng immortality and all spiritual exist- ence. The Pharisees maintained these doctrines, adding belief in pre-existence and transmigration. The psychology of the Rabbins is founded on the Sacred Books, particularly the account of the crea- tion of man in Genesis. Three terms are used for the soul, nephesh, nuah, and neshamak; the first was taken to refer to the animal and vegetative nature, the second to the ethical principle, the third to the purely spiritual intelligence. At all events, it is evi- dent that the Old Testament tliroughout either asserts or implies the distinct reality of the soul. An important contribution to later Jemsh thought was the infusion of Platonism into it by Philo of Alex- andria. He taught the imme<liately Divine origin of the soul, its pre-existence and transmigration; hecontriists the pneitmn, or spiritual essence, with the soul proper, the source of vital phenomena, wlio.se Beat is the blood; finally he revived the old Platonic

Dualism, attributing the origin of sin and evil to the union of spirit with matter.

It was Christianity that, after many centuries of struggle, apphed the final criticisms to the various psychologies of antiquity, and brought their scattered elements of truth to full focus. The tendency of Christ's teaching was to centre all interest in the spiritual side of man's nature; the salvation or loss of the soul is the great issue of existence. The Gospel language is popular, not technical, ^"x^ and -rrviSiia are used indifferently either for the principle of natural life or for spirit in the strict sense. Body and soul are recognized as a dualism and their values contrasted: "Fear ye not them that kill the body. . . but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell."

In St. Paul we find a more technical phraseology employed with great consistency, '^vxn is now ap- propriated to the purely natural life; ttkeO^ to the life of supernatural religion, the principle of which Ls the Holy Spirit, dwelling and operating in the heart. The opposition of flesh and .spirit is accentuated afresh (Rom., i, 18 etc.). This Pauline system, presented to a world already prepossessed in favour of a quasi- Platonic Dualism, occasioned one of the earliest widespread forms of error among Christian writers — the doctrine of the Trichotomy. According to this, man, perfect man (r^Xeios), consists of three parts: body, soul, spirit (<rufia, ^i'x'7: Tveuiia). Body and soul come by natural generation; spirit is given to the regenerate Christian alone. Thus, the "new- ness of life", of which St. Paul speaks, was conceived by some as a superadded entity, a kind of oversoul sublimating the "natural man" into a higher species. This doctrine was variously distorted in the different Gnostic systems. The Gnostics divided man into three clas.ses (a) pneumaiici or spiritual, (b) psychici or animal, (c) choici or earthy, ascribing to each class a different origin and destiny. The spiritual were of the seed of Achemoth, and were destined to return in time whence they had sprung, viz. into the pleroma. Even in this life they are exempted from the possibiUty of a fall from their high calling; they therefore stand in no need of good works, and have nothing to fear from the contaminations of the world and the flesh. This class consists of course of the Gnostics themselves. The psychici are in a lower position: they have capacities for spiritual life which they must cultivate by good works. Thej' stand in a middle place, and may either rise to the spiritual or sink to the hylic level. In this category stands the Christian Church at large. Lastly, the earthy souls are a mere material emanation, destined to perish: the matter of which they are composed being inca- pable of salvation (m'I y°-P «?■'<" "'( ^'^v SeKTtKijv awTTfplas). This class contains the multitudes of the merely natural man.

Two features claim attention in this the earhest essay towards a complete anthropology within the Christian Church: (1) an extreme spirituahty is at- tributed to "the perfect"; (2) immortality is condi- tional for the second class of souls, not an intrinsic attribute of all souls. It is probable that originally the terms pnoimatici, psychici, and choici denoted at first elements which were observed to exist in all souls, and that it was only by an afterthought that they were employed, according to the respective pre- dominance of these elements in different cases, to represent supposed real chxsses of men. The doctrine of tlic fovn- tcmiJeraments and the Stoic ideal of the Wise Man affoid a parallel for the personification of abst ract qualities. The true genius of Christianity, expnsscil l)y the Fathers of the early centuries, re- jected Gnosticism. The iiscription to a creature of an absolutely spiritual nature, and the claim to end- less existence asserted as a strictly <lc jure privilege in the case of the "perfect", seemed to them an en-