On the Flesh of Christ.

 V.

 Chapter II.—Marcion, Who Would Blot Out the Record of Christ’s Nativity, is Rebuked for So Startling a Heresy.

 Chapter III.—Christ’s Nativity Both Possible and Becoming. The Heretical Opinion of Christ’s Apparent Flesh Deceptive and Dishonourable to God, Even o

 Chapter IV.—God’s Honour in the Incarnation of His Son Vindicated.  Marcion’s Disparagement of Human Flesh Inconsistent as Well as Impious. Christ Has

 Chapter V.—Christ Truly Lived and Died in Human Flesh. Incidents of His Human Life on Earth, and Refutation of Marcion’s Docetic Parody of the Same.

 Chapter VI.—The Doctrine of Apelles Refuted, that Christ’s Body Was of Sidereal Substance, Not Born. Nativity and Mortality are Correlative Circumstan

 Chapter VII.—Explanation of the Lord’s Question About His Mother and His Brethren. Answer to the Cavils of Apelles and Marcion, Who Support Their Deni

 Chapter VIII.—Apelles and His Followers, Displeased with Our Earthly Bodies, Attributed to Christ a Body of a Purer Sort. How Christ Was Heavenly Even

 Chapter IX.—Christ’s Flesh Perfectly Natural, Like Our Own. None of the Supernatural Features Which the Heretics Ascribed to It Discoverable, on a Car

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

 Chapter XI.—The Opposite Extravagance Exposed.  That is Christ with a Soul Composed of Flesh—Corporeal, Though Invisible. Christ’s Soul, Like Ours, Di

 Chapter XII.—The True Functions of the Soul. Christ Assumed It in His Perfect Human Nature, Not to Reveal and Explain It, But to Save It. Its Resurrec

 Chapter XIII.—Christ’s Human Nature.  The Flesh and the Soul Both Fully and Unconfusedly Contained in It.

 Chapter XIV.—Christ Took Not on Him an Angelic Nature, But the Human. It Was Men, Not Angels, Whom He Came to Save.

 Chapter XV.—The Valentinian Figment of Christ’s Flesh Being of a Spiritual Nature, Examined and Refuted Out of Scripture.

 Chapter XVI.—Christ’s Flesh in Nature, the Same as Ours, Only Sinless. The Difference Between Carnem Peccati and Peccatum Carnis: It is the Latter Whi

 Chapter XVII.—The Similarity of Circumstances Between the First and the Second Adam, as to the Derivation of Their Flesh. An Analogy Also Pleasantly T

 Chapter XVIII.—The Mystery of the Assumption of Our Perfect Human Nature by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. He is Here Called, as Often Else

 Chapter XIX.—Christ, as to His Divine Nature, as the Word of God, Became Flesh, Not by Carnal Conception, Nor by the Will of the Flesh and of Man, But

 Chapter XX.—Christ Born of a Virgin, of Her Substance. The Physiological Facts of His Real and Exact Birth of a Human Mother, as Suggested by Certain

 Chapter XXI.—The Word of God Did Not Become Flesh Except in the Virgin’s Womb and of Her Substance. Through His Mother He is Descended from Her Great

 Chapter XXII.—Holy Scripture in the New Testament, Even in Its Very First Verse, Testifies to Christ’s True Flesh.  In Virtue of Which He is Incorpora

 Chapter XXIII.—Simeon’s “Sign that Should Be Contradicted,” Applied to the Heretical Gainsaying of the True Birth of Christ. One of the Heretics’ Para

 Chapter XXIV.—Divine Strictures on Various Heretics Descried in Various Passages of Prophetical Scripture. Those Who Assail the True Doctrine of the O

 Chapter XXV.—Conclusion. This Treatise Forms a Preface to the Other Work, “On the Resurrection of the Flesh,” Proving the Reality of the Flesh Which W

Chapter XIX.—Christ, as to His Divine Nature, as the Word of God, Became Flesh, Not by Carnal Conception, Nor by the Will of the Flesh and of Man, But by the Will of God. Christ’s Divine Nature, of Its Own Accord, Descended into the Virgin’s Womb.

What, then, is the meaning of this passage, “Born262    Tertullian reads this in the singular number, “natus est.” not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God?”263    John i. 13. I shall make more use of this passage after I have confuted those who have tampered with it.  They maintain that it was written thus (in the plural)264    We need not say that the mass of critical authority is against Tertullian, and with his opponents, in their reading of this passage. “Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” as if designating those who were before mentioned as “believing in His name,” in order to point out the existence of that mysterious seed of the elect and spiritual which they appropriate to themselves.265    He refers to the Valentinians. See our translation of this tract against them, chap. xxv., etc., p. 515, supra. But how can this be, when all who believe in the name of the Lord are, by reason of the common principle of the human race, born of blood, and of the will of the flesh, and of man, as indeed is Valentinus himself? The expression is in the singular number, as referring to the Lord, “He was born of God.”  And very properly, because Christ is the Word of God, and with the Word the Spirit of God, and by the Spirit the Power of God, and whatsoever else appertains to God. As flesh, however, He is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of man, because it was by the will of God that the Word was made flesh.  To the flesh, indeed, and not to the Word, accrues the denial of the nativity which is natural to us all as men,266    Formalis nostræ nativitatis. because it was as flesh that He had thus to be born, and not as the Word. Now, whilst the passage actually denies that He was born of the will of the flesh, how is it that it did not also deny (that He was born) of the substance of the flesh?  For it did not disavow the substance of the flesh when it denied His being “born of blood” but only the matter of the seed, which, as all know, is the warm blood as convected by ebullition267    Despumatione. into the coagulum of the woman’s blood. In the cheese, it is from the coagulation that the milky substance acquires that consistency,268    Vis. which is condensed by infusing the rennet.269    Medicando. [This is based on Job x. 10, a favourite passage with the Fathers in expounding the generative process.] We thus understand that what is denied is the Lord’s birth after sexual intercourse (as is suggested by the phrase, “the will of man and of the flesh”), not His nativity from a woman’s womb. Why, too, is it insisted on with such an accumulation of emphasis that He was not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor (of the will) of man, if it were not that His flesh was such that no man could have any doubt on the point of its being born from sexual intercourse?  Again, although denying His birth from such cohabitation, the passage did not deny that He was born of real flesh; it rather affirmed this, by the very fact that it did not deny His birth in the flesh in the same way that it denied His birth from sexual intercourse. Pray, tell me, why the Spirit of God270    i.e., The Son of God. descended into a woman’s womb at all, if He did not do so for the purpose of partaking of flesh from the womb. For He could have become spiritual flesh271    Which is all that the heretics assign to Him. without such a process,—much more simply, indeed, without the womb than in it. He had no reason for enclosing Himself within one, if He was to bear forth nothing from it. Not without reason, however, did He descend into a womb. Therefore He received (flesh) therefrom; else, if He received nothing therefrom, His descent into it would have been without a reason, especially if He meant to become flesh of that sort which was not derived from a womb, that is to say, a spiritual one.272    Such as Valentinus ascribed to Him. See above, c. xv. p. 511.

CAPUT XIX.

Quid est ergo, non ex sanguine, neque ex voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntate viri, sed ex Deo nati sunt ? Hoc quidem capitulo ego potius utar, cum adulteratores 0784B ejus obduxero. Sic enim scriptum esse contendunt: Non ex sanguine, nec ex carnis voluntate, nec ex viri, sed ex Deo natus est, quasi supra dictos credentes in nomine ejus designet, ut ostendat esse semen illud arcanum electorum, et spiritalium , quod sibi imbuunt. Quomodo autem ita erit, cum omnes qui credunt in nomine Domini, communi lege generis humani, ex sanguine, et ex carnis, et ex viri voluntate nascantur, etiam Valentinus ipse? Adeo singulariter, ut de Domino scriptum est: Et ex Deo natus est. Merito, quia Verbum Dei, et cum Verbo Dei spiritus, et in spiritu Dei virtus, et quidquid Dei est Christus. Qua caro autem, non ex sanguine, nec ex carnis et viri voluntate: quia ex Dei voluntate Verbum caro factum est. Ad carnem enim, non ad 0784C verbum pertinet negotiatio formalis nostrae nativitatis, quia caro sic habebat nasci, non verbum. Negans autem ex carnis quoque voluntate natum, cur non negavit etiam ex substantia carnis? Neque enim, quia ex sanguine negavit, substantiam carnis renuit, sed materiam seminis, quam constat sanguinis esse 0785A calorem, ut despumatione mutatam in coagulum sanguinis foeminae. Nam ex coagulo in caseo vis est substantiae, quam medicando constringit, id est lactis. Intelligimus ergo, ex concubitu nativitatem Domini negatam, quod sapit voluntas viri et carnis, non ex vulvae participatione. Et quid utique tam exaggeranter inculcavit, non ex sanguine, nec ex carnis voluntate, aut viri, natum; nisi quia ea erat caro, quam ex concubitu natam nemo dubitaret? Negans porro ex concubitu, non negavit ex carne; imo confirmavit ex carne, quia non proinde negavit ex carne, sicut ex concubitu negavit. Oro vos, si Dei spiritus non de vulva carnem participaturus descendit in vulvam, cur descendit in vulvam? potuit enim extra eam fieri caro spiritalis simplicius multo, quam intra vulvam 0785B fieret extra vulvam . Sine caussa eo se intulit, unde nihil extulit. Sed non sine caussa descendit in vulvam: ergo ex illa accepit. Quia si non ex illa accepit, sine caussa in illam descendit, maxime ejus qualitatis caro futurus, quae non erat vulvae, id est spiritalis.