Opening the library…

Home Bible Corpus Discover You

Search the Bible

A Treatise on the Soul

Tertullian

Chapter 16

About this work

Author: Tertullian

Chapter XVI.—The Soul’s Parts. Elements of the Rational Soul.

That position of Plato’s is also quite in keeping with the

‹ Chapter 15 Chapter 17 ›

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

.

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

.

”

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

.

”

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

,

”

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

,

”

and

has

the

actual

designation

of

“

father

:

”

“

Ye

are

of

your

father

the

devil

.

”

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

.

Notes

1
Luke xxii. 15.
2
1 Tim. iii. 1.
3
Gal. v. 12.
4
Eph. ii. 3.
5
Matt. vi. 24.
6
John vi. 44.
7
Matt. xiii. 25.