What more do you wish to exist after death—one that trifles with a confused hope and an uncertain expectation, or one that already trembles at the review of its life and the ordering of judgment? But does the soul always await the body in order to grieve or to rejoice? Is it not sufficient of itself for either title of suffering? How often, while the body is unharmed, is the soul alone tormented by bile, anger, weariness, and often by something not even known to itself? How often, again, while the body is afflicted, does the soul seek out a stolen joy for itself and then withdraw from the untimely company of the body? I lie, if the soul alone is not wont even to glory and rejoice in the very torments of the body. Look at the soul of Mucius, when he dissolved his right hand in the flames; look at that of Zeno, when the tortures of Dionysius passed over it.
The bites of wild beasts are ornaments of youth, as were the scars of the bear in Cyrus. So thoroughly does the soul know, even in the underworld, both to rejoice and to grieve without the flesh, since even in the flesh it grieves though unhurt if it wills, and rejoices though hurt if it wills. If it does this from its own choice in life, how much more from the judgment of God after death? But the soul does not share all its works [best works] with the ministry of the flesh; for the divine scrutiny pursues even bare thoughts and naked wishes. Whoever has looked to lust, has already committed adultery in his heart. Therefore, on account of these very things, it is most fitting that the soul be punished, even though the flesh is not awaited, for what it committed without the flesh as its ally. So too, on account of pious and benevolent thoughts, in which it had no need of the flesh, it will be refreshed without the flesh.
What now, if even in fleshly matters that which conceives, arranges, commands, and impels is prior? And if at any time it is unwilling, still it deals beforehand with what it is about to do through the body; in short, the consciousness will never be later than the deed. Thus it also befits this order that she who is prior should first weigh out the wages that are owed to her as prior. In sum, when we understand the underworld to be that prison which the Gospel points out, and interpret the very last farthing as even the slightest fault to be paid off there by the delay of the resurrection, no one will doubt that the soul pays something in the underworld, the fullness of the resurrection through the flesh remaining intact. This too the Paraclete has most frequently commended, if anyone will admit His words out of a recognition of the promised charismata.
Having engaged, as I think, from the teaching of the faith, every human opinion concerning the soul, we have satisfied at least a just and necessary curiosity; but a monstrous and idle curiosity will lack learning only as much as it pleases to inquire. The text edited by J.H. Waszink. Scanned by Roger Pearse, Ipswich, 2003.
我想，我們已憑著信仰的教導，探討了關於靈魂的一切人類見解，至少滿足了正當而必要的好奇心；至於那過度而懶散的好奇心，它欠缺的學問將僅與它樂於探究的程度相當。（本文由 J.H. Waszink 編訂。由 Roger Pearse 掃描，伊普斯威奇，二〇〇三年。）