Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| 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.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
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, 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,7374
| 7374
“Frictricis” is Oehler’s reading. | 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,”7375
it is yet
designated by the same apostle as “the outward
man,”7376
—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;”7377
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,”7378
—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.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
