2

by that which is unchangeable He might heal our own changeability toward evil. But this fellow says not that God was manifested in the flesh, which is the same as saying that the Word did not become flesh, who in the likeness of man and in form conversed with the life of men through the servile person, but he fashions for the Word some divine incarnation, I know not what he means by the expression, whether it be a change of the Godhead from His simple and uncompounded nature, altered into a fleshy counterpart, or, the divine essence remaining in itself, another divine incarnation appeared, intermediate between the nature of men and of God, being neither man nor God, but partaking somehow of both, which, in that it is an incarnation, is akin to what is human, but in that it is divine, is greater than what is according to man. But surely it cannot be God; for the divine is by nature simple and uncompounded; but that from which simplicity is separated, from it divinity has by all means been separated in like manner. And again, it is not man; for he who is composed of a rational soul and a body is called man; but to whom the two are not conceived together, how shall the title of man be applied? For we speak of the body of a man and the soul of a man, as long as each of these is considered by itself; but the coming together of these two both is and is called man. What, then, is the divine 3,1.134 incarnation, which is neither man nor God, which the inscription of the treatise fashions? It is not possible to discover from the things examined.

A demonstration, he says, concerning the divine incarnation according to the likeness of man. What again does this show, this 'according to the likeness of man'? That the divine incarnation is constituted in the same way as the human. When is this? Is it in the last days? And where is the mystery of the virginity? For the Lord is not incarnate 'according to the likeness of man,' as the writer says, but by divine power and the Holy Spirit, as the gospel says. But before the ages? And how is that which exists likened to that which does not exist? For man is the last of things in creation, but the Lord is king before the ages. According to the likeness of what man, then, does that divine incarnation take place in the pre-eternal? According to that of Adam? But he did not yet exist. But according to some other man? And who is this man who is foreseen before Adam, so that according to the underlying model the incarnation of God might be likened? For that which is like is by all means like to that which exists, not to that which does not exist. So that according to him two absurdities appear in his argument: either the creature is found to be older than the creator, or the divine being incarnate is likened to that which is not; for in the beginning the Godhead was, but Adam was not. Therefore if the divine nature is incarnate 'according to the likeness of man,' the divine incarnation is likened to that which is not; and that which is likened to that which is not would not itself exist at all. But he says that that incarnation came to be in some other way than the human. And what is the likeness of things of a different nature? If, therefore, it is neither possible for the divine incarnation to have taken place 'according to the likeness of man' in the pre-eternal, nor in the last of times does the incarnation take place 'according to the likeness of man' (when the Lord's economy was according to man, in which God was manifested in 3,1.135 the flesh) (for the mystery concerning the virginity does not admit such a concept), he would have made this inscription of his treatise in vain according to both concepts. That the inscription, therefore, is unexamined and does not rest on any coherent meaning, I think has been moderately shown through what has been said to those who listen attentively. But it would be time to set forth for examination the argument itself which is indicated by this writing. And I will write the first things in my own words, running through the thought briefly, in those parts where it is safe to pass by something of what has been written without examination.

He says, it was good to consider only the pious faith a good thing; for unexamined faith did not profit even Eve; so that it was fitting for the Christians' faith also to be examined, lest it should unawares fall in with those of the Greeks or of the Jews

2

ἀτρέπτῳ τὴν ἡμετέραν πρὸς τὸ κακὸν τροπὴν ἐξιάσηται. οὑτοσὶ δὲ φησὶν οὐ θεὸν ἐν σαρκὶ πεφανερῶσθαι, ὅπερ ταὐτόν ἐστι τῷ μὴ τὸν λόγον σάρκα γενέσθαι, τὸν ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπου καὶ σχήματι τῇ ζωῇ τῶν ἀνθρώπων διὰ τοῦ δουλικοῦ προσώπου καθομιλήσαντα, ἀλλὰ θείαν τινὰ σάρκωσιν ἀνατυποῦται τῷ λόγῳ, οὐκ οἶδα τί σημαίνων τῷ ῥήματι, πότερον τροπὴν τῆς θεότητος ἀπὸ τῆς ἁπλῆς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀσυνθέτου φύσεως εἰς σαρκώδη ἀντιτυπίαν ἀλλοιωθείσης ἢ μενούσης τῆς θείας οὐσίας ἐφ' ἑαυτῆς ἄλλην τινὰ σάρκωσιν θείαν μεθόριον τῆς τῶν ἀνθρώπων τε καὶ τοῦ θεοῦ φύσεως ἀναφανῆναι οὔτε ἄνθρωπον οὖσαν οὔτε θεόν, μετέχουσαν δέ πως ἀμφοτέρων, ἥτις τῷ μὲν σάρκωσις εἶναι συγγενῶς πρὸς τὸ ἀνθρώπινον ἔχει, τῷ δὲ θεία εἶναι κρείττων ἐστὶν ἢ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον. ἀλλὰ μὴν θεὸς εἶναι οὐ δύναται· ἁπλοῦν γὰρ τῇ φύσει τὸ θεῖόν ἐστι καὶ ἀσύνθετον· οὗ δὲ ἡ ἁπλότης, τούτου κατὰ τὸ ἴσον πάντως καὶ ἡ θεότης κεχώρισται. ἄνθρωπος δὲ αὖ πάλιν οὐκ ἔστιν· ὁ γὰρ ἐκ ψυχῆς νοερᾶς καὶ σώματος συν εστηκὼς ἄνθρωπος λέγεται· ᾧ δὲ μὴ συνεπινοεῖται τὰ δύο, πῶς ἡ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου κλῆσις ἐφαρμοσθήσεται; ἀνθρώπου γὰρ σῶμα λέγομεν καὶ ψυχὴν ἀνθρώπου, ἕως ἂν ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ ἑκάτερον τούτων θεωρῆται· ἡ δὲ συνδρομὴ τούτων τῶν δύο ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἔστι καὶ λέγεται. τί οὖν ἐστιν ἡ θεία 3,1.134 σάρκωσις ἡ μήτε ἄνθρωπος οὖσα μήτε θεός, ἣν ἀναπλάσσει ἡ τοῦ λόγου ἐπιγραφή, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τῶν ἐξητασμένων εὑρεῖν.

Ἀπόδειξις, φησί, περὶ τῆς θείας σαρκώσεως τῆς καθ' ὁμοίωσιν ἀνθρώπου. τί τοῦτο πάλιν ἐν δείκνυται, τὸ καθ' ὁμοίωσιν ἀνθρώπου; ὅτι ἡ θεία σάρκωσις ὁμοίως τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ συνίσταται. πότε τοῦτο; ἆρα ἐπ' ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν; καὶ ποῦ τὸ τῆς παρθενίας μυστήριον; οὐ γὰρ καθ' ὁμοίωσιν ἀνθρώπου σαρκοῦται ὁ κύριος, καθὼς ὁ λογογράφος φησίν, ἀλλὰ θείᾳ δυνάμει καὶ πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, καθὼς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον λέγει. ἀλλὰ πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων; καὶ πῶς ὁμοιοῦται τῷ μὴ ὄντι τὸ ὄν; τελευταῖος μὲν γὰρ τῶν κατὰ τὴν κτίσιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὁ δὲ κύριος βασιλεὺς πρὸ αἰώνων. κατὰ ποίου τοίνυν ἀνθρώπου ὁμοίωσιν ἐκείνη ἡ θεία σάρκωσις κατὰ τὸ προαιώνιον γίνεται; κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Ἀδάμ; ἀλλ' οὔπω ἦν. ἀλλὰ καθ' ἕτερόν τινα ἄν θρωπον; καὶ τίς οὗτος ὁ προνοούμενος τοῦ Ἀδὰμ ἄνθρωπος, ἵνα κατὰ τὸ ἐγκείμενον ὑπόδειγμα ὁμοιωθῇ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ σάρκωσις; τὸ γὰρ ὅμοιον τῷ ὄντι πάντως, οὐ τῷ μὴ ὄντι ὅμοιον γίνεται. ὥστε δύο κατ' αὐτὸν φαίνεται τῷ λόγῳ τὰ ἄτοπα· ἢ γὰρ πρεσβύτερον εὑρίσκεται τὸ πλάσμα τοῦ πλάσαντος ἢ τῷ μὴ ὄντι ὁμοιοῦται τὸ θεῖον σαρκούμενον· κατ' ἀρχὰς γὰρ ἡ μὲν θεότης ἦν, ὁ δὲ Ἀδὰμ οὐκ ἦν. οὐκοῦν εἰ καθ' ὁμοίωσιν ἀνθρώπου σαρκοῦται ἡ θεία φύσις, τῷ μὴ ὄντι ὁμοιοῦται ἡ θεία σάρκωσις· τὸ δὲ τῷ μὴ ὄντι ὁμοιού μενον οὐδ' ἂν αὐτὸ πάντως εἴη. ἀλλ' ἕτερόν τινα τρόπον παρὰ τὸν ἀνθρώπινον τὴν σάρκωσιν ἐκείνην γεγενῆσθαί φησιν. καὶ τίς τῶν ἑτεροφυῶν ἡ ὁμοίωσις; εἰ οὖν μήτε κατὰ τὸ προαιώνιον ἐνδέχεται τὴν θείαν σάρκωσιν καθ' ὁμοίωσιν ἀνθρώπου γενέσθαι μήτε ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων, ὅτε κατὰ ἄνθρωπον ἡ τοῦ κυρίου οἰκονομία, καθ' ἣν ἐν 3,1.135 σαρκὶ θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, καθ' ὁμοίωσιν ἀνθρώπου ἡ σάρκωσις γίνεται (οὐ γὰρ παραδέχεται τὴν τοιαύτην ἔννοιαν τὸ κατὰ τὴν παρθενίαν μυστήριον), μάτην ἂν εἴη κατ' ἀμφοτέρας τὰς ἐννοίας ταύτην τοῦ λόγου τὴν ἐπιγραφὴν ποιησάμενος. ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἀνεπίσκεπτος ἡ ἐπιγραφὴ καὶ οὐδενὶ συνεστῶτι ἐπερειδομένη νοήματι, μετρίως οἶμαι διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων πεφανερῶσθαι τοῖς ἐπιστατικῶς ἐπαΐουσιν. Καιρὸς δ' ἂν εἴη καὶ αὐτὸν προθεῖναι τῇ ἐξετάσει τὸν λόγον τὸν ὑπὸ τῆς γραφῆς ταύτης δηλούμενον. γράψω δὲ τὰ πρῶτα τῇ ἐμαυτοῦ λέξει δι' ὀλίγων ἐπιδραμὼν τὴν διάνοιαν, ἐν οἷς ἀκίνδυνόν ἐστι τὸ παραδραμεῖν τῶν γεγραμ μένων τι ἀνεξέταστον.

Μόνον, φησί, τὴν εὐσεβῆ πίστιν ἀγαθὸν ἦν νομίζεσθαι· μηδὲ γὰρ τῇ Εὔᾳ συνενεγ κεῖν τὴν ἀνεξέταστον πίστιν· ὥστε προσῆκε καὶ τὴν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἐξητασμένην εἶναι, μή που λάθῃ ταῖς τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἢ τῶν Ἰουδαίων συνεμπεσοῦσα