Opening the library…

Search the Bible

On the Flesh of Christ

Tertullian

Chapter 10

About this work

Author: Tertullian

Chapter X.—Another Class of Heretics Refuted. They Alleged that Christ’s Flesh Was of a Finer Texture, Animalis, Composed of Soul.

I now turn to another class, who are equally wise

‹ Chapter 9 Chapter 11 ›

in

their

own

conceit

.

They

affirm

that

the

flesh

of

Christ

is

composed

of

soul

,

that

His

soul

became

flesh

,

so

that

His

flesh

is

soul

;

and

as

His

flesh

is

of

soul

,

so

is

His

soul

of

flesh

.

But

here

,

again

,

I

must

have

some

reasons

.

If

,

in

order

to

save

the

soul

,

Christ

took

a

soul

within

Himself

,

because

it

could

not

be

saved

except

by

Him

having

it

within

Himself

,

I

see

no

reason

why

,

in

clothing

Himself

with

flesh

,

He

should

have

made

that

flesh

one

of

soul

,

as

if

He

could

not

have

saved

the

soul

in

any

other

way

than

by

making

flesh

of

it

.

For

while

He

saves

our

souls

,

which

are

not

only

not

of

flesh

,

but

are

even

distinct

from

flesh

,

how

much

more

able

was

He

to

secure

salvation

to

that

soul

which

He

took

Himself

,

when

it

was

also

not

of

flesh

?

Again

,

since

they

assume

it

as

a

main

tenet

,

that

Christ

came

forth

not

to

deliver

the

flesh

,

but

only

our

soul

,

how

absurd

it

is

,

in

the

first

place

,

that

,

meaning

to

save

only

the

soul

,

He

yet

made

it

into

just

that

sort

of

bodily

substance

which

He

had

no

intention

of

saving

!

And

,

secondly

,

if

He

had

undertaken

to

deliver

our

souls

by

means

of

that

which

He

carried

,

He

ought

,

in

that

soul

which

He

carried

to

have

carried

our

soul

,

one

(

that

is

)

of

the

same

condition

as

ours

;

and

whatever

is

the

condition

of

our

soul

in

its

secret

nature

,

it

is

certainly

not

one

of

flesh

.

However

,

it

was

not

our

soul

which

He

saved

,

if

His

own

was

of

flesh

;

for

ours

is

not

of

flesh

.

Now

,

if

He

did

not

save

our

soul

on

the

ground

,

that

it

was

a

soul

of

flesh

which

He

saved

,

He

is

nothing

to

us

,

because

He

has

not

saved

our

soul

.

Nor

indeed

did

it

need

salvation

,

for

it

was

not

our

soul

really

,

since

it

was

,

on

the

supposition

,

a

soul

of

flesh

.

But

yet

it

is

evident

that

it

has

been

saved

.

Of

flesh

,

therefore

,

it

was

not

composed

,

and

it

was

ours

;

for

it

was

our

soul

that

was

saved

,

since

that

was

in

peril

of

damnation

.

We

therefore

now

conclude

that

as

in

Christ

the

soul

was

not

of

flesh

,

so

neither

could

His

flesh

have

possibly

been

composed

of

soul

.

Notes

1
Animalem: “etherialized; of a finer form, differing from gross, earthy matter” (Neander).
2
Animalem.
3
Non carneas.
4
Præsumant.
5
Scilicet.