Apologetics -- History -- Early church, ca. 30-600; Celsus (Platonic philosopher), active 180; Theology -- History -- Early Church, ca. 30-600
breathed into his countenance the breath of life, and man became a
living soul.”[269] It remains that we inquire respecting the angelic
order whether they also have souls, or are souls; and also respecting
the other divine and celestial powers, as well as those of an opposite
kind. We nowhere, indeed, find any authority in holy Scripture for
asserting that either the angels, or any other divine spirits that are
ministers of God, either possess souls or are called souls, and yet they
are felt by very many persons to be endowed with life. But with regard
to God, we find it written as follows: “And I will put my soul upon that
soul which has eaten blood, and I will root him out from among his
people;”[270] and also in another passage, “Your new moons, and
sabbaths, and great days, I will not accept; your fasts, and holidays,
and festal days, my soul hateth.”[271] And in the twenty-second Psalm,
regarding Christ—for it is certain, as the Gospel bears witness, that
this Psalm is spoken of Him—the following words occur: “O Lord, be not
far from helping me; look to my defence: O God, deliver my soul from the
sword, and my beloved one from the hand of the dog;”[272] although there
are also many other testimonies respecting the soul of Christ when He
tabernacled in the flesh.
2. But the nature of the incarnation will render unnecessary any inquiry
into the soul of Christ. For as He truly possessed flesh, so also He
truly possessed a soul. It is difficult indeed both to feel and to state
how that which is called in Scripture the soul of God is to be
understood; for we acknowledge that nature to be simple, and without any
intermixture or addition. In whatever way, however, it is to be
understood, it seems, meanwhile, to be named the soul of God; whereas
regarding Christ there is no doubt. And therefore there seems to me no
absurdity in either understanding or asserting some such thing regarding
the holy angels and the other heavenly powers, since that definition of
soul appears applicable also to them. For who can rationally deny that
they are “sensible and moveable?” But if that definition appear to be
correct, according to which a soul is said to be a substance rationally
“sensible and moveable,” the same definition would seem also to apply to
angels. For what else is in them than rational feeling and motion? Now
those beings who are comprehended under the same definition have
undoubtedly the same substance. Paul indeed intimates that there is a
kind of animal-man[273] who, he says, cannot receive the things of the
Spirit of God, but declares that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit seems
to him foolish, and that he cannot understand what is to be spiritually
discerned. In another passage he says it is sown an animal body, and
arises a spiritual body, pointing out that in the resurrection of the
just there will be nothing of an animal nature. And therefore we inquire
whether there happen to be any substance which, in respect of its being
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account