Opening the library…

Search the Bible

On the Resurrection of the Flesh

Tertullian

Chapter 16

About this work

Author: Tertullian

Chapter XVI.—The Heretics Called the Flesh “The Vessel of the Soul,” In Order to Destroy the Responsibility of the Body. Their Cavil Turns Upon Themselves and Shows the Flesh to Be a Sharer in Human Actions.

When, however, we attribute to the soul authority

‹ Chapter 15 Chapter 17 ›

,

and

to

the

flesh

submission

,

we

must

see

to

it

that

(

our

opponents

)

do

not

turn

our

position

by

another

argument

,

by

insisting

on

so

placing

the

flesh

in

the

service

of

the

soul

,

that

it

be

not

(

considered

as

)

its

servant

,

lest

they

should

be

compelled

,

if

it

were

so

regarded

,

to

admit

its

companionship

(

to

the

soul

)

.

For

they

would

argue

that

servants

and

companions

possess

a

discretion

in

discharging

the

functions

of

their

respective

office

,

and

a

power

over

their

will

in

both

relations

:

in

short

,

(

they

would

claim

to

be

)

men

themselves

,

and

therefore

(

would

expect

)

to

share

the

credit

with

their

principals

,

to

whom

they

voluntarily

yielded

their

assistance

;

whereas

the

flesh

had

no

discretion

,

no

sentiment

in

itself

,

but

possessing

no

power

of

its

own

of

willing

or

refusing

,

it

,

in

fact

,

appears

to

stand

to

the

soul

in

the

stead

of

a

vessel

as

an

instrument

rather

than

a

servant

.

The

soul

alone

,

therefore

,

will

have

to

be

judged

(

at

the

last

day

)

pre

-

eminently

as

to

how

it

has

employed

the

vessel

of

the

flesh

;

the

vessel

itself

,

of

course

,

not

being

amenable

to

a

judicial

award

:

for

who

condemns

the

cup

if

any

man

has

mixed

poison

in

it

?

or

who

sentences

the

sword

to

the

beasts

,

if

a

man

has

perpetrated

with

it

the

atrocities

of

a

brigand

?

Well

,

now

,

we

will

grant

that

the

flesh

is

innocent

,

in

so

far

as

bad

actions

will

not

be

charged

upon

it

:

what

,

then

,

is

there

to

hinder

its

being

saved

on

the

score

of

its

innocence

?

For

although

it

is

free

from

all

imputation

of

good

works

,

as

it

is

of

evil

ones

,

yet

it

is

more

consistent

with

the

divine

goodness

to

deliver

the

innocent

.

A

beneficent

man

,

indeed

,

is

bound

to

do

so

:

it

suits

then

the

character

of

the

Most

Bountiful

to

bestow

even

gratuitously

such

a

favour

.

And

yet

,

as

to

the

cup

,

I

will

not

take

the

poisoned

one

,

into

which

some

certain

death

is

injected

,

but

one

which

has

been

infected

with

the

breath

of

a

lascivious

woman

,

or

of

Cybele’s

priest

,

or

of

a

gladiator

,

or

of

a

hangman

:

then

I

want

to

know

whether

you

would

pass

a

milder

condemnation

on

it

than

on

the

kisses

of

such

persons

?

One

indeed

which

is

soiled

with

our

own

filth

,

or

one

which

is

not

mingled

to

our

own

mind

we

are

apt

to

dash

to

pieces

,

and

then

to

increase

our

anger

with

our

servant

.

As

for

the

sword

,

which

is

drunk

with

the

blood

of

the

brigand’s

victims

,

who

would

not

banish

it

entirely

from

his

house

,

much

more

from

his

bed

-

room

,

or

from

his

pillow

,

from

the

presumption

that

he

would

be

sure

to

dream

of

nothing

but

the

apparitions

of

the

souls

which

were

pursuing

and

disquieting

him

for

lying

down

with

the

blade

which

shed

their

own

blood

?

Take

,

however

,

the

cup

which

has

no

reproach

on

it

,

and

which

deserves

the

credit

of

a

faithful

ministration

,

it

will

be

adorned

by

its

drinking

-

master

with

chaplets

,

or

be

honoured

with

a

handful

of

flowers

.

The

sword

also

which

has

received

honourable

stains

in

war

,

and

has

been

thus

engaged

in

a

better

manslaughter

,

will

secure

its

own

praise

by

consecration

.

It

is

quite

possible

,

then

,

to

pass

decisive

sentences

even

on

vessels

and

on

instruments

,

that

so

they

too

may

participate

in

the

merits

of

their

proprietors

and

employers

.

Thus

much

do

I

say

from

a

desire

to

meet

even

this

argument

,

although

there

is

a

failure

in

the

example

,

owing

to

the

diversity

in

the

nature

of

the

objects

.

For

every

vessel

or

every

instrument

becomes

useful

from

without

,

consisting

as

it

does

of

material

perfectly

extraneous

to

the

substance

of

the

human

owner

or

employer

;

whereas

the

flesh

,

being

conceived

,

formed

,

and

generated

along

with

the

soul

from

its

earliest

existence

in

the

womb

,

is

mixed

up

with

it

likewise

in

all

its

operations

.

For

although

it

is

called

“

a

vessel

”

by

the

apostle

,

such

as

he

enjoins

to

be

treated

“

with

honour

,

”

it

is

yet

designated

by

the

same

apostle

as

“

the

outward

man

,

”

—

that

clay

,

of

course

,

which

at

the

first

was

inscribed

with

the

title

of

a

man

,

not

of

a

cup

or

a

sword

,

or

any

paltry

vessel

.

Now

it

is

called

a

“

vessel

”

in

consideration

of

its

capacity

,

whereby

it

receives

and

contains

the

soul

;

but

“

man

,

”

from

its

community

of

nature

,

which

renders

it

in

all

operations

a

servant

and

not

an

instrument

.

Accordingly

,

in

the

judgment

it

will

be

held

to

be

a

servant

(

even

though

it

may

have

no

independent

discretion

of

its

own

)

,

on

the

ground

of

its

being

an

integral

portion

of

that

which

possesses

such

discretion

,

and

is

not

a

mere

chattel

.

And

although

the

apostle

is

well

aware

that

the

flesh

does

nothing

of

itself

which

is

not

also

imputed

to

the

soul

,

he

yet

deems

the

flesh

to

be

“

sinful

;

”

lest

it

should

be

supposed

to

be

free

from

all

responsibility

by

the

mere

fact

of

its

seeming

to

be

impelled

by

the

soul

.

So

,

again

,

when

he

is

ascribing

certain

praiseworthy

actions

to

the

flesh

,

he

says

,

“

Therefore

glorify

and

exalt

God

in

your

body

,

”

—

being

certain

that

such

efforts

are

actuated

by

the

soul

;

but

still

he

ascribes

them

to

the

flesh

,

because

it

is

to

it

that

he

also

promises

the

recompense

.

Besides

,

neither

rebuke

,

(

on

the

one

hand

)

,

would

have

been

suitable

to

it

,

if

free

from

blame

;

nor

,

(

on

the

other

hand

)

,

would

exhortation

,

if

it

were

incapable

of

glory

.

Indeed

,

both

rebuke

and

exhortation

would

be

alike

idle

towards

the

flesh

,

if

it

were

an

improper

object

for

that

recompence

which

is

certainly

received

in

the

resurrection

.

Notes

1
“Frictricis” is Oehler’s reading.
2
1 Thess. iv. 4.
3
2 Cor. iv. 16.
4
Rom. viii. 3.
5
1 Cor. vi. 20.