5

But God, he says, in the spirit that was incarnate, but man in the flesh that was assumed by God. What again is the incarnation of the spirit apart from the union with our flesh? And from where was man assumed, if not from the first man, whose first generation from the earth, not from heaven, we heard Moses recounting? For God, having taken dust from the earth, formed man; but we have learned from no one that another constitution of man was formed from heaven. Then he adds to what has been said that The mystery was revealed in the flesh, speaking this well, this argument of ours, and that The Word became flesh according to the union, and these are the words of a sound voice; for he who said that the Word was united to the flesh says nothing other than the concurrence of the two. But the flesh, he says, is not without a soul; for it is said to war against the spirit and to war against the law of the mind. Bravo for his fairness! He does not fashion for God a soulless flesh. Therefore let us ask, if the flesh was assumed by the Word of God with a soul, as the writer says; but we also say the bodies of irrational animals are ensouled; he who assigns to the Word human flesh, and this ensouled, does nothing other than join the whole man; for there is no other property besides the rational nature of the human soul, because in all other things we have communion with the irrational animals; the desiring part, the spirited part, the appetite for food, the power for growth, satiety, sleep, digestion, 3,1.141 alteration, the expulsion of what has become useless, all are managed equally in us and in the irrational animals by some power of the soul. He therefore who says that the one assumed is a man, and grants that this man is ensouled, has done nothing other than also testify to an intellectual power in him, which is a property of the human soul, from the very words of the apostle which he has set before us; for he who said that The mind of the flesh is enmity against God (for it is not subject to the law of God) speaks of the clear properties of the faculty of choice and of thought; for to be obedient or resistant to the law is a property of choice, and the very name of 'mind' one could not separate from the activity of thinking. And that 'thinking' is the same as 'understanding', not even one of those who are complete infants would deny; and how could he who wars against and takes captive be without the activity of the intellect? For the fact that the choice of the wicked is moved toward base things is not proof that there is no mind in them, but they are outside of good thought, yet they think nonetheless; since indeed that serpent, whom we have been taught by the Scriptures to be the author and inventor of wickedness, the God-inspired word does not say is without understanding, but testifies that he has more wisdom than the others.

Therefore, from the very passages by which he thinks to establish his own argument, the words set before us refute the impiety of his dogma. For not in these alone does the apostle set the flesh against the spirit, that is, the evil choice against the more refined life, but also to the Corinthians, reproaching their passion, he says that You are carnal. Were, then, at that time, when the word came to them, according to the tripartite division of men by Apollinarius, those men without a share in the activity of the mind? Or were they in every way called 'carnal' by Paul because of their immoderate disposition 3,1.142 towards the flesh, receiving their name from what was predominant? And the context of what is written shows this sort of argument: For where there is jealousy and strife among you, he says, are you not carnal? But being jealous and contentious is of the activity of the mind. And what follows these things in the treatise contains, forsooth, a proof through many testimonies that man is composed of three things, from flesh and soul and mind, which is not far from our own argument. For it is the same thing to say that man is of a rational soul and a body, and, by counting the mind separately on its own, to divide him into three parts

5

Ἀλλὰ θεὸς μέν, φησί, τῷ πνεύματι τῷ σαρκωθέντι, ἄνθρωπος δὲ τῇ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ προσληφ θείσῃ σαρκί. τί ἐστι πάλιν τοῦ πνεύματος σάρκωσις ἐκτὸς τῆς πρὸς τὴν ἡμετέραν σάρκα ἑνώσεως; πόθεν δὲ προσελήφθη ἄνθρωπος, εἰ μὴ ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου ἀνθρώπου, οὗ τὴν πρώτην γένεσιν ἐκ γῆς, οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ γενεαλο γοῦντος τοῦ Μωυσέως ἠκούσαμεν; λαβὼν γὰρ ὁ θεὸς χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἔπλασεν· ἄλλην δὲ ἀνθρώπου κατασκευὴν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ συστῆναι παρ' οὐδενὸς μεμαθήκαμεν. εἶτα ἐπάγει τοῖς εἰρημένοις ὅτι Τὸ μυστήριον ἐν σαρκὶ ἐφανερώθη, καλῶς τοῦτο λέγων, οὗτος ὁ ἡμέτερος λόγος, καὶ ὅτι Ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο κατὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν, καὶ ταῦτα τῆς ὑγιαινούσης φωνῆς ἐστι τὰ ῥήματα· ὁ γὰρ ἡνῶσθαι τῇ σαρκὶ τὸν λόγον εἰπὼν οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἢ τῶν δύο τὴν συνδρομὴν λέγει. Ἀλλ' οὐκ ἄψυχος, φησίν, ἡ σάρξ· στρατεύεσθαι γὰρ κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος εἴρηται καὶ ἀντιστρατεύεσθαι τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ νοός. ὑπέρευγε τῆς εὐγνωμοσύνης! οὐκ ἄψυχον τῷ θεῷ περιπλάσσει τὴν σάρκα. οὐκοῦν ἐρωτήσωμεν, εἰ ἔμψυχος προσελήφθη παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου ἡ σάρξ, καθώς φησιν ὁ λογογράφος· ἔμψυχα δέ φαμεν καὶ τῶν ἀλόγων τὰ σώματα· ὁ ἀνθρωπίνην σάρκα καὶ ταύτην ἔμψυχον προσοικίζων τῷ λόγῳ οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἢ ὅλον συνάπτει τὸν ἄνθρωπον· οὐδὲν γὰρ ἄλλο παρὰ τὴν νοερὰν φύσιν τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ψυχῆς ἐστιν ἰδίωμα διὰ τὸ ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἄλλοις κοινωνίαν εἶναι ἡμῖν πρὸς τὰ ἄλογα· τὸ ἐπιθυμητικόν, τὸ θυμοειδές, ἡ κατὰ τροφὴν ὄρεξις, ἡ πρὸς τὴν αὔξησιν δύναμις, ὁ κόρος, ὁ ὕπνος, ἡ πέψις, 3,1.141 ἡ ἀλλοίωσις, ἡ τοῦ ἀχρειωθέντος ἐκποίησις, πάντα κατὰ τὸ ἴσον ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ τοῖς ἀλόγοις διά τινος ψυχικῆς δυνάμεως οἰκονομεῖται. ὁ τοίνυν λέγων ἄνθρωπον εἶναι τὸν προσειλημ μένον, ἔμψυχον δὲ τοῦτον διδοὺς οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἢ καὶ νοητὴν αὐτῷ προσεμαρτύρησε δύναμιν, ὅπερ ἴδιον τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ἐστὶ ψυχῆς, ἐξ αὐτῶν, ὧν παρέθετο ἡμῖν, τῶν τοῦ ἀποστόλου ῥημάτων· ὁ γὰρ εἰπὼν ὅτι Τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκὸς ἔχθρα εἰς θεόν (τῷ γὰρ νόμῳ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐχ ὑποτάσσεται) τῆς προαιρετικῆς τε καὶ διανοητικῆς δυνάμεως ἐναργῆ τὰ ἰδιώ ματα λέγει· τὸ γὰρ ἐπιπειθῶς ἢ ἀντιτύπως πρὸς τὸν νόμον ἔχειν προαιρέσεως ἴδιον αὐτό τε τὸ τοῦ φρονήματος ὄνομα οὐκ ἄν τις τῆς κατὰ τὸ φρονεῖν ἐνεργείας ἀποχωρίσειεν. τὸ δὲ φρονεῖν ταὐτὸν εἶναι τῷ νοεῖν οὐδ' ἂν τῶν κομιδῇ τις νηπιαζόντων ἀντείποι· ὅ τε ἀντιστρατευόμενος καὶ αἰχμαλωτίζων πῶς ἂν τῆς ἐνεργείας τοῦ νοεῖν ἀμοιρήσειεν; οὐ γὰρ τὸ πρὸς τὰ φαῦλα κινεῖσθαι τοῖς κακοῖς τὴν προαίρεσιν ἀπόδειξις τοῦ μὴ εἶναι νοῦν ἐν ἐκείνοις ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ καλῆς μὲν διανοίας ἐκτός εἰσι, νοοῦσι δὲ ὅμως· ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸν ὄφιν ἐκεῖνον, ὃν δὴ τῆς κακίας ἀρχηγὸν καὶ εὑρετὴν παρὰ τῶν γραφῶν ἐδιδάχθημεν, οὐκ ἀνόητον εἶναί φησιν ὁ θεόπνευστος λόγος, πλείονα τῶν ἄλλων προσμαρτυρῶν τούτῳ τὴν φρονι μότητα.

Οὐκοῦν ἐξ αὐτῶν, δι' ὧν οἴεται συνιστᾶν τὸν ἑαυτοῦ λόγον, αἱ παρατεθεῖσαι ἡμῖν φωναὶ τὸ ἀσεβὲς τοῦ κατ' αὐτὸν δόγματος διελέγχουσιν. οὐ γὰρ ἐν τούτοις μόνοις ὁ ἀπόστολος ἀνθίστησι τὴν σάρκα τῷ πνεύματι, τουτέστι τὴν πονηρὰν προαίρεσιν τῇ ἀστειοτέρᾳ ζωῇ, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς Κορινθίους φησὶ τὸ ἐμπαθὲς αὐτοῖς ὀνειδίζων ὅτι Σάρκινοί ἐστε. ἆρα κατὰ τὸν χρόνον ἐκεῖνον, καθ' ὃν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὁ λόγος ἐγένετο, κατὰ τὴν τριμερῆ τοῦ Ἀπολιναρίου τῶν ἀνθρώπων τομὴν ἀμέτοχοι τῆς κατὰ τὸν νοῦν ἐνεργείας ἦσαν οἱ ἄν θρωποι; ἢ πάντως ἐκ τῆς ἀμέτρου πρὸς τὴν σάρκα διαθέσεως 3,1.142 σάρκινοι παρὰ τοῦ Παύλου προσηγορεύθησαν ἐκ τοῦ πλεονάζοντος τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν λαβόντες; καὶ δείκνυσι τὸν τοιοῦτον λόγον ἡ σύμφρασις τῶν γεγραμμένων· Ὅπου γὰρ ἐν ὑμῖν, φησί, ζῆλος καὶ ἔρις, οὐχὶ σαρκικοί ἐστε; τὸ δὲ ζηλοῦν καὶ ἐρίζειν τῆς κατὰ τὸν νοῦν ἐνεργείας ἐστίν. τὰ δὲ τούτων ἐχόμενα τῆς λογογραφίας ἀπόδειξιν δῆθεν περιέχει διὰ πλειόνων μαρτυριῶν τοῦ ἐκ τριῶν συνεστάναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀπὸ σαρκός τε καὶ ψυχῆς καὶ νοῦ, ἅπερ οὐ πόρρω τοῦ καθ' ἡμᾶς ἐστι λόγου. ταὐτὸν γάρ ἐστιν ἐκ νοερᾶς ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος τὸν ἄνθρωπον λέγειν καὶ ἰδιαζόντως τὸν νοῦν ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ ἀριθμήσαντα τριχῆ διελεῖν