Chapter 32 — The error of Arius and Apollinaris concerning Christ’s soul

There have been false views not only about Christ’s body, but also concerning his soul.

Arius asserted that Christ had no soul, and that he assumed only a body, the divinity supplying the place of a soul. Apparently he was forced to hold this view through maintaining that the Son of God is a creature and less than the Father. For, in order to prove this latter statement, he chose those texts of Scripture that stress human weakness in Christ; and lest any one should refute his argument by saying that these texts refer to Christ not in his divine, but in his human nature, he wickedly denied that Christ had a soul. Thus when things were said of Christ which could not be said of the human body (for instance, that he marvelled, feared, prayed), it was necessary to conclude that the Son of God was an inferior being. In support of his view he quoted the above text of John: The Word was made flesh (John 1:14); which, according to him, proved that the Word took flesh alone, and not a soul. In this particular point Apollinaris followed him.

From what we have already said it is clear that we cannot hold this opinion. For we have proved (Bk. 1, ch. 27.) that God cannot be the form of a body. Since, then, the Word of God is God, (Chs. 3, 11, 14.) it is impossible for him to be the form of a body, so as to take the place of a soul in a body.

This argument avails against Apollinaris, who confessed that the Word of God is God. Though Arius denied this, the same argument still avails against him, since it is impossible not only for God to be the form of a body, but also for any of the supercelestial spirits, supreme among whom Arius placed the Son of God. This is unless one follows the opinion of Origen, who held human souls to be of the same species as the supercelestial spirits; but we have already refuted this opinion. (Bk. 2, ch. 95.)

Again, if you subtract what is essential to man, that which remains is not a real man. Now it is evident that the soul is especially essential to man, since it is his form. Hence, if Christ had no soul, he was no real man. And yet the Apostle says: There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5).

Further. The essence not only of man, but of each of his parts depends on the soul. Hence when the soul has departed, the eyes, flesh, and bones of a dead man are so called equivocally, like an eye in a picture or statue. Accordingly, if Christ had no soul, it follows that neither his flesh nor any of his human parts were real. And yet our Lord witnesses to the contrary: A spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have (Luke 24:39).

Further. That which is engendered of a living being cannot be called its son unless it be produced by it in the same species. Thus a worm is not the son of the animal in which it is engendered. Now, if Christ had no soul, he would not be of the same species as other men, because difference of form causes difference of species. Consequently, we would be unable to say that Christ is the son of the Virgin Mary, or that she is his mother. Yet this is asserted in the Gospels.

Moreover. It is explicitly stated in the Gospel that Christ had a soul. For instance: My soul is very sorrowful, even to death (Matt 26:38), and: Now is my soul troubled (John 12:27).

And, should they say that by soul is meant the Son of God, because in their opinion he takes the place of soul and flesh, we refer them to the words of our Lord: I have power to lay my soul (RSVCE, it.) down, and I have power to take it again (John 10:18). (Thomas combines John 10:17 and 18: Quia ego pono animam meam, ut iterum sumam eam . . . potestatem habeo ponendi eam, et potestatem habeo iterum sumendi eam.) From these words we gather that in Christ there was something besides his soul that had the power to lay down that soul and to take it up again. But it was not in the power of his body to be united to the Son of God, or to be separated from God, since this surpasses the power of nature. Therefore, we are given to understand that Christ’s soul was distinct from the divinity of the Son of God, to whom rightly that power is ascribed.

Again. Sorrow, anger, and the like are passions of the sensitive soul, as the Philosopher asserts. (Aristotle, Physics 7.) Now these things were in Christ, as the Gospels declare. Therefore, in Christ there was a sensitive soul, which evidently differs from the divine nature of the Son of God.

Since, however, it might be said that the Gospels ascribe human things to Christ metaphorically, even as Sacred Scripture in many places ascribes such things to God, we must refer to something that must be taken in its proper sense. For just as we must understand literally and not metaphorically the other bodily things which the evangelists relate about Christ, so must we not give it a metaphorical interpretation when we read that he ate or was hungry. Now hunger is only in one having a sensitive soul, since hunger is the appetite for food. Therefore, Christ had a sensitive soul.