(14) "Wherefore," he says, "ye are justified in the name of the Lord." Ye are made, so to speak, by Him to be righteous as He is, and are blended as far as possible with the Holy Spirit. For "are not all things lawful to me? yet I will not be brought under the power of any," so as to do, or think, or speak aught contrary to the Gospel. "Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats, which God shall destroy," - that is, such as think and live as if they were made for eating, and do not eat that they may live as a consequence, and apply to knowledge as the primary end. And does he not say that these are, as it were, the fleshy parts of the holy body? As a body, the Church of the Lord, the spiritual and holy choir, is symbolized. Whence those, who are merely called, but do not live in accordance with the word, are the fleshy parts. "Now" this spiritual "body," the holy Church, "is not for fornication." Nor are those things which belong to heathen life to be adopted by apostasy from the Gospel.

(110) Inasmuch as thou art acquainted with the Master of all; Be a man, and not another man's beast of burden! Follow thine own way and lose not thy head!" In one 'twas said, "All we see is One. Whoever says 'tis two is suffering from double vision." In one 'twas said, "A hundred are even as one." Each scroll had its contrary piece of rhetoric, In form and substance utterly opposed to it; This contrary to that, from first to last,

(13) Then the tongue said to him: 'If I am the richest, thou art the richest.' The eye said to him: 'If I am the firm rest, thou art the firm rest 2.'

(335) The members of the body are a burden to those who do not use them.

(54) Are better than exile from God and neglect of Him; For the former pass away, but the latter abide; He is happy who carries a wary heart before God." Each of our members testifies to God's bounties towards us. Inquire now, I pray, of each one of your members; Inquire the detail of the bounties of the All-sustainer, Day and night you are eagerly asking for news, Since each member of your body issued from Not-being, How much pleasure has it seen, and how much pain? For no member grows and flourishes without pleasure,

(2) Now to begin with, the unity of soul, mine and another's, is not enough to make the two totals of soul and body identical. An identical thing in different recipients will have different experiences; the identity Man, in me as I move and you at rest, moves in me and is stationary in you: there is nothing stranger, nothing impossible, in any other form of identity between you and me; nor would it entail the transference of my emotion to any outside point: when in any one body a hand is in pain, the distress is felt not in the other but in the hand as represented in the centralizing unity.

In order that my feelings should of necessity be yours, the unity would have to be corporeal: only if the two recipient bodies made one, would the souls feel as one.

We must keep in mind, moreover, that many things that happen even in one same body escape the notice of the entire being, especially when the bulk is large: thus in huge sea-beasts, it is said, the animal as a whole will be quite unaffected by some membral accident too slight to traverse the organism.

Thus unity in the subject of any experience does not imply that the resultant sensation will be necessarily felt with any force upon the entire being and at every point of it: some transmission of the experience may be expected, and is indeed undeniable, but a full impression on the sense there need not be.

That one identical soul should be virtuous in me and vicious in someone else is not strange: it is only saying that an identical thing may be active here and inactive there.

We are not asserting the unity of soul in the sense of a complete negation of multiplicity- only of the Supreme can that be affirmed- we are thinking of soul as simultaneously one and many, participant in the nature divided in body, but at the same time a unity by virtue of belonging to that Order which suffers no division.

In myself some experience occurring in a part of the body may take no effect upon the entire man but anything occurring in the higher reaches would tell upon the partial: in the same way any influx from the All upon the individual will have manifest effect since the points of sympathetic contact are numerous- but as to any operation from ourselves upon the All there can be no certainty.

(341) What do you mean? I mean what I may illustrate negatively by the example of the body. Suppose you were to ask me whether the body is self-sufficing or has wants, I should reply: Certainly the body has wants; for the body may be ill and require to be cured, and has therefore interests to which the art of medicine ministers; and this is the origin and intention of medicine, as you will acknowledge. Am I not right? Quite right, he replied. But is the art of medicine or any other art faulty or deficient in any quality in the same way that the eye may be deficient in sight or the ear fail of hearing, and therefore requires another art to provide for the interests of seeing and hearing—has art in itself, I say, any similar liability to fault or defect, and does every art require another supplementary art to provide for its interests, and that another and another without end? Or have the arts to look only after their own interests? Or have they no need either of themselves or of another?—having no faults or defects, they have no need to correct them, either by the exercise of their own art or of any other; they have only to consider the interest of their subject-matter. For every art remains pure and faultless while remaining true—that is to say, while perfect and unimpaired. Take the words in your precise sense, and tell me whether I am not right. Yes, clearly.

(20) And preachers tell his story from times of yore;" You say true, for you know him by report, On the other hand, if you say, "What know I of Noah As his contemporaries knew him? I am a poor ant what can I know of the elephant? What knows a fly of the motions of the elephant?" This statement also is true, O brother, But this impotence to perceive real essence, Though common to ordinary men, is not universal;

(22) it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

(71) In one 'twas said, "Reference to thine own weakness Is ingratitude for God's mercies towards us. Rather regard thy power, for thou hast power from God. Know thy power to be God's grace, for 'tis of Him." In one 'twas said, "Leave power and weakness alone; Whatever withdraws thine eyes from God is an idol." In one 'twas said, "Quench not thy earthy torch, If thou neglectest regard and care for it, Thou wilt quench at midnight the lamp of union." In one 'twas said, "Quench that torch without fear,

(3) Is it a question of part in the sense that, taking one living being, the soul in a finger might be called a part of the soul entire?

This would carry the alternative that either there is no soul outside of body, or that- no soul being within body- the thing described as the soul of the universe is, none the less, outside the body of the universe. That is a point to be investigated, but for the present we must consider what kind of soul this parallel would give us.

If the particular soul is a part of the All-Soul only in the sense that this bestows itself upon all living things of the partial sphere, such a self-bestowal does not imply division; on the contrary, it is the identical soul that is present everywhere, the one complete thing, multi-present at the one moment: there is no longer question of a soul that is a part against a soul that is an all- especially where an identical power is present. Even difference of function, as in eyes and ears, cannot warrant the assertion of distinct parts concerned in each separate act- with other parts again making allotment of faculty- all is met by the notion of one identical thing, but a thing in which a distinct power operates in each separate function. All the powers are present either in seeing or in hearing; the difference in impression received is due to the difference in the organs concerned; all the varying impressions are our various responses to Ideal-forms that can be taken in a variety of modes.

A further proof is that perception demands a common gathering place; every organ has its distinct function, and is competent only upon its own material, and must interpret each several experience in its own fashion; the judgement upon these impressions must, then, be vested in some one principle, a judge informed upon all that is said and done.

But again: "Everywhere, Unity": in the variety of functions if each "part of the soul" were as distinct as are the entrant sensations, none of those parts could have knowledge; awareness would belong only to that judging faculty- or, if local, every such act of awareness would stand quite unrelated to any other. But since the soul is a rational soul, by the very same title by which it is an All-Soul, and is called the rational soul, in the sense of being a whole , then what is thought of as a part must in reality be no part but the identity of an unparted thing.

(1) LOOK thou have no wonder why that I speak thus childishly, and as it were follily and lacking natural discretion; for I do it for certain reasons, and as me thinketh that I have been stirred many days, both to feel thus and think thus and say thus, as well to some other of my special friends in God, as I am now unto thee.

(14) The ear said to him: 'If I am success, thou art success.' The mind said to him: 'If I am the home, thou art the home.'

(41) This truth-fraught saying of mine is no vain pretence, 'Though I talk half the night I am superior to you;' And again, 'Fear not the night; here am I, your kinsman.' These two assertions of mine will both seem true to you Superiority and kinsmanship are both mere assertions, The nearness of the voice proves to such an one The sweetness of the kinsman's voice, too, O beloved, But the uninspired fool who from ignorance Cannot tell the voice of a stranger from a friend's, To him the friend's saying seems a vain pretension,