Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| The Soul's Parts. Elements of the Rational Soul.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter
XVI.—The Soul’s Parts. Elements of the Rational
Soul.
That position of Plato’s is also quite in keeping
with the faith, in which he divides the soul into two parts—the
rational and the irrational. To this definition we take no
exception, except that we would not ascribe this twofold distinction to
the nature (of the soul). It is the rational element which we must
believe to be its natural condition, impressed upon it from its very
first creation by its Author, who is Himself essentially rational. For
how should that be other than rational, which God produced on His own
prompting; nay more, which He expressly sent forth by His own
afflatus or breath? The irrational element, however, we must
understand to have accrued later, as having proceeded from the
instigation of the serpent—the very achievement of (the first)
transgression—which thenceforward became inherent in the soul,
and grew with its growth, assuming the manner by this time of a natural
development, happening as it did immediately at the beginning of
nature. But, inasmuch as the same Plato speaks of the rational
element only as existing in the soul of God Himself, if we were to
ascribe the irrational element likewise to the nature which our soul
has received from God, then the irrational element will be equally
derived from God, as being a natural production, because God is the
author of nature. Now from the devil proceeds the incentive to sin. All
sin, however, is irrational: therefore the irrational proceeds from the
devil, from whom sin proceeds; and it is extraneous to God, to whom also the irrational is
an alien principle. The diversity, then, between these two
elements arises from the difference of their authors. When, therefore,
Plato reserves the rational element (of the soul) to God alone, and
subdivides it into two departments: the irascible, which they
call θυμικόν, and the
concupiscible, which they designate by the term ἐπιθυμητικόν
(in such a way as to make the first common to us and lions, and
the second shared between ourselves and flies, whilst the rational
element is confined to us and God)—I see that this point will
have to be treated by us, owing to the facts which we find operating
also in Christ. For you may behold this triad of qualities in the Lord.
There was the rational element, by which He taught, by which He
discoursed, by which He prepared the way of salvation; there was
moreover indignation in Him, by which He inveighed against the
scribes and the Pharisees; and there was the principle of
desire, by which He so earnestly desired to eat the passover
with His disciples.1599
In our own cases,
accordingly, the irascible and the concupiscible elements of our soul
must not invariably be put to the account of the irrational (nature),
since we are sure that in our Lord these elements operated in entire
accordance with reason. God will be angry, with perfect reason, with
all who deserve His wrath; and with reason, too, will God desire
whatever objects and claims are worthy of Himself. For He will
show indignation against the evil man, and for the good man will He
desire salvation. To ourselves even does the apostle allow the
concupiscible quality. “If any man,” says he,
“desireth the office of a bishop, he desireth a good
work.”1600
Now, by saying
“a good work,” he shows us that the desire is a reasonable
one. He permits us likewise to feel indignation. How should he
not, when he himself experiences the same? “I would,” says
he, “that they were even cut off which trouble
you.”1601
In perfect
agreement with reason was that indignation which resulted from his
desire to maintain discipline and order. When, however, he says,
“We were formerly the children of wrath,”1602
he censures an irrational irascibility, such
as proceeds not from that nature which is the production of God, but
from that which the devil brought in, who is himself styled the lord or
“master” of his own class, “Ye cannot serve two
masters,”1603
and has the actual
designation of “father:” “Ye are of your
father the devil.”1604
So that you
need not be afraid to ascribe to him the mastery and dominion over that
second, later, and deteriorated nature (of which we have been
speaking), when you read of him as “the sewer of tares,”
and the nocturnal spoiler of the crop of corn.1605
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
