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 in their own conceit.  They affirm that the flesh of Christ is composed of soul,142    Animalem: “etherialized; of a finer form, differing from gross, earthy matter” (Neander). 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,143    Animalem. 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,144    Non carneas. 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,145    Præsumant. 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,146    Scilicet. 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.

CAPUT X.

Convertor ad alios aeque sibi prudentes, qui carnem Christi animalem affirmant, quod anima caro sit facta, ergo et caro anima, et sicut caro animalis, ita et anima carnalis. Et hic itaque caussas requiro. Si, ut animam salvam faceret, in semetipso suscepit animam Christus, quia salva non esset nisi per ipsum, dum in ipso; non video cur eam carnem fecerit animalem, induendo carnem, quasi aliter animam salvam 0773B facere non posset, nisi carneam factam. Cum enim nostras animas non tantum non carneas, sed etiam a carne disjunctas salvas praestet; quanto magis illam, quam ipse suscepit, etiam non carneam redigere potuit in salutem! Item cum praesumant non carnis, sed animae nostrae solius liberandae caussa processisse Christum; primo, quam absurdum est, ut animam solam liberaturus, id genus corporis eam fecerit, quod non erat liberaturus! Deinde, si animas nostras per illam, quam gestavit, liberare susceperat, illam quoque, quam gestavit, nostram gestasse debuerat, id est, nostrae formae, cujuscumque formae est in occulto anima nostra, non tamen carneae. Caeterum, non nostram animam liberavit, si carneam habuit; nostra enim carnea non est. 0773C Porro si non nostram liberavit, quia carneam liberavit , nihil ad nos ; quia non nostram liberavit. Sed nec liberanda erat, quae non erat nostra, ut scilicet carnea; non enim periclitabatur, si non erat nostra, id est, non carnea. Sed liberatam constat illam. Ergo non fuit carnea; et fuit nostra, si ea fuit quae liberaretur, quoniam periclitabatur. Jam ergo, si anima non fuit carnalis in Christo, nec caro potest animalis fuisse.