12

taking food and asking for water; is this one, according to His very fleshly and human nature, conceived before the constitution of existing things, and is the nature of the flesh, which is composite and solid and resistant, called God? Let every ear of the pious be stopped, and let not the divine and pure doctrines be polluted by the rather fleshly passions, being outraged by those who make the divine human. For who does not know that the God who appeared to us in the flesh, according to the account of the pious tradition, was and is immaterial and invisible and uncompounded, undefined and uncircumscribed, being everywhere and pervading all of creation, but according to His appearance was seen in a human circumscription? For it is entirely necessary that every body be contained by some surface. This surface, therefore, is the limit of the body contained in it; and everything contained by a limit is confined by a certain definite quantity; but that which is defined cannot be undefined. And yet the prophet says that Of his greatness there is no end. If, therefore, the divine nature, as the author says, is flesh, and this is necessarily encompassed by the limit of a surface, how does the greatness of God, according to the prophet, proceed to infinity? Or how is the undefined conceived through the defined, the infinite through the finite?

But rather, 3,1.157 which we have already stated in the preceding remarks, how can the strong come from death? For if, as he says, the man himself who spoke is the creator of the ages, he who through himself, that is, through his flesh, as Apollinarius interprets it, makes all things, but the flesh was called weak by the divine voice itself, the author thinks nothing other than that dominion and strength and power and all such lofty and God-befitting concepts are the offspring of weakness. And this is not yet so terrible, but the argument, proceeding through the consequent examination, touches upon the very blasphemy against the Father. For he says that the man is the radiance of God's glory and that in the fleshly God, whom he fashioned into an idol through the futility of his reasonings, the substance of God is characterized. Therefore, just as the ray is kindred to the sun, and the light gleaming from the lamp is to the lamp, and the character of a man shows a human substance, so in every way, if that which appeared to us was radiated from the glory of the Father and the character of His substance is flesh, the nature of the Father is consequently constructed as fleshly. For he would not say that the incorporeal is characterized by a body, nor that the visible is radiated from the invisible. But of whatever kind the glory is, of such a kind clearly is also the radiance, and of whatever kind the character is, of such a kind in every way is also the substance, so that if this is a body, that other should in no way be thought incorporeal. But he also remembers the dogma of Nicaea, in which the common synod of the fathers proclaimed the homoousion. But one would not call something of a different kind homoousion, but the homoousion in every way applies to those things of which the definition of substance is one and the same. If, therefore, the Son is a fleshly God, being that very thing which is flesh by nature according to the pre-eternal name, and that he is homoousios with the Father is not doubted 3,1.158 even by the author himself, and those things are homoousios with one another which are described by the same definition of substance, then Apollinarius also supposes the nature of the Father to be a certain human and fleshly one, in order to preserve the name of the homoousion for both, so that it is one of two things: either, in calling the Father incorporeal, he will agree that the divinity of the Son is fleshly by the heteroousion, or, in confessing the community of divinity and substance alike for both Father and Son, he will divest of flesh also for the Father the nature of the divinity. But as if correcting this absurdity, he says in the preceding remarks, interpreting the saying of Zechariah according to his opinion as spoken from the person of the Father concerning the Son, that the term symphylon was used, which means connate and homoousios; whether, therefore, he has understood this rightly or not, is for another

12

τροφὴν προσιέμενος καὶ ὕδωρ αἰτῶν· οὗτος κατ' αὐτὸ τὸ σαρκῶδές τε καὶ ἀνθρώ πειον τῆς τῶν ὄντων προεπινοεῖται συστάσεως καὶ θεὸς ἡ τῆς σαρκὸς φύσις λέγεται, ἡ σύνθετος καὶ στερρὰ καὶ ἀντίτυπος; ἐπιφραξάσθω πᾶσα τῶν εὐσεβῶν ἀκοὴ μηδὲ μολυνθείη τὰ θεῖα καὶ ἀκήρατα δόγματα τοῖς σαρκωδεστέροις πάθεσι παρὰ τῶν ἐξανθρωπιζόντων τὸ θεῖον καθυβριζόμενα. τίς γὰρ οὐκ οἶδεν, ὅτι ὁ φανερωθεὶς ἡμῖν ἐν σαρκὶ θεὸς κατὰ μὲν τὸν λόγον τῆς εὐσεβοῦς παραδόσεως ἄϋλος καὶ ἀφανὴς καὶ ἀσύνθετος καὶ ἦν καὶ ἔστιν ἀόριστος καὶ ἀπερίγραπτος, πανταχοῦ ὢν καὶ διὰ πάσης τῆς κτίσεως διήκων, κατὰ δὲ τὸ φαινόμενον ἐν ἀνθρωπίνῃ περιγραφῇ ἑωρᾶτο; ἀνάγκη γὰρ πᾶσα πᾶν σῶμα ὑπὸ ἐπιφανείας τινὸς περιέχεσθαι. αὐτὴ τοίνυν ἡ ἐπιφάνεια τοῦ ἐν αὐτῇ περιειλημμένου σώματος ὅρος ἐστί· πᾶν δὲ τὸ ὅρῳ περιεχόμενον ὡρισμένῃ τινὶ ποσότητι περι είργεται· τὸ δὲ ὡρισμένον ἀόριστον εἶναι οὐ δύναται. ἀλλὰ μὴν ὁ προφήτης φησὶν ὅτι Τῆς μεγαλωσύνης αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστι πέρας. εἰ οὖν ἡ θεία φύσις, καθώς φησιν ὁ λογογράφος, σάρξ ἐστιν, αὕτη δὲ ἀναγκαίως τῷ τῆς ἐπιφανείας περιλαμβάνεται πέρατι, πῶς ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ μεγαλωσύνη κατὰ τὸν προφήτην εἰς ἄπειρον πρόεισιν; ἢ πῶς διὰ τοῦ ὡρισμένου νοεῖται τὸ ἀόριστον, διὰ τοῦ πεπερασμένου τὸ ἄπειρον;

Μᾶλλον δέ, 3,1.157 ὃ καὶ φθάσαντες ἐν τοῖς προλαβοῦσιν εἰρήκαμεν, πῶς ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου τὸ ἰσχυρόν; εἰ γάρ, καθώς φησιν, αὐτὸς ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ λαλήσας, ποιητὴς τῶν αἰώνων ἐστίν, αὐτὸς ὁ δι' ἑαυτοῦ, τουτέστι διὰ τῆς σαρκός, καθὼς ὁ Ἀπολινάριος ἑρμηνεύει, τὰ πάντα ποιῶν, ἀσθενὴς δὲ παρ' αὐτῆς τῆς θείας φωνῆς ἡ σὰρξ ὠνομάσθη, οὐδὲν ἕτερον εἰ μὴ τὸ κράτος καὶ τὴν ἰσχὺν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν καὶ ὅσα ὑψηλὰ καὶ θεοπρεπῆ νοήματα ἔκγονα τῆς ἀσθενείας ὁ λογογράφος οἴεται. Καὶ οὔπω τοσοῦτον τοῦτο δεινόν, ἀλλὰ προϊὼν ὁ λόγος διὰ τῆς κατὰ τὸ ἀκόλουθον ἐξετάσεως αὐτῆς ἅπτεται τῆς κατὰ τοῦ πατρὸς βλασφημίας. λέγει γὰρ τὸν ἄνθρωπον εἶναι τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ δόξης ἀπαύγασμα καὶ ἐν τῷ σαρκίνῳ θεῷ, ὃν διὰ τῆς ματαιότητος τῶν λογισμῶν εἰδωλοποιήσας ἀνέπλασε, τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπόστασιν χαρακτηρίζεσθαι. ὥσπερ τοίνυν συγγενῶς ἔχει πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον ἡ ἀκτὶς καὶ πρὸς τὸν λύχνον τὸ ἐκ τῆς λαμπάδος ἀπαυγαζόμενον φῶς καὶ ὁ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου χαρακτὴρ ἀνθρωπίνην ὑπόστασιν δείκνυσιν, οὕτως πάντως, εἴπερ τὸ ἡμῖν φανὲν παρὰ τῆς δόξης τοῦ πατρὸς ἀπηυγάσθη καὶ ὁ χαρακτὴρ αὐτοῦ τῆς ὑποστάσεως σάρξ ἐστι, σαρκώδης ἐκ τοῦ ἀκολούθου καὶ ἡ τοῦ πατρὸς φύσις κατασκευάζεται. οὐ γὰρ ἂν εἴποι χαρακτηρίζεσθαι μὲν σώματι τὸ ἀσώματον, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ ἀοράτου τὸ ὁρατὸν ἀπαυ γάζεσθαι. ἀλλ' οἵα ἡ δόξα, τοιοῦτον δηλονότι καὶ τὸ ἀπαύ γασμα, καὶ οἷος ὁ χαρακτήρ, τοιαύτη πάντως καὶ ἡ ὑπό στασις, ὥστε εἰ τοῦτο σῶμα, μηδὲ ἐκεῖνο πάντως ἀσώματον οἴεσθαι. ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ κατὰ Νίκαιαν μέμνηται δόγματος, ἐν ᾧ τὸ ὁμοούσιον ἡ κοινὴ τῶν πατέρων ἐξεφώνησε σύνοδος. οὐκ ἂν δέ τις εἴποι τι ἑτερογενὲς ὁμοούσιον, ἀλλ' ὧν εἷς καὶ ὁ αὐτός ἐστι τῆς οὐσίας λόγος, τούτοις ἐφαρμόζει πάντως τὸ ὁμοούσιον. εἰ οὖν σάρκινος θεὸς ὁ υἱός, αὐτὸ ὅπερ ἐστὶ τῇ φύσει σὰρξ ὢν κατὰ τὸ προαιώνιον ὄνομα, ὁμοούσιος δὲ τῷ πατρὶ καὶ παρ' αὐτοῦ τοῦ λογογράφου 3,1.158 εἶναι οὐκ ἀμφιβάλλεται, ἐκεῖνα δὲ ἀλλήλοις ἐστὶν ὁμοούσια, τὰ τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ τῆς οὐσίας ὑπογραφόμενα, ἄρα καὶ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς φύσιν ἀνθρωπίνην τινὰ καὶ σαρκικὴν ὁ Ἀπολινάριος ὑποτίθεται, ἵνα σώσῃ ἐπ' ἀμφοτέρων τοῦ ὁμοουσίου τὸ ὄνομα, ὥστε δυοῖν θάτερον, ἢ ἀσώματον τὸν πατέρα λέγων, σαρκίνην δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ τὴν θεότητα τῷ ἑτεροουσίῳ συνθήσεται, ἢ τὸ κοινὸν τῆς θεότητός τε καὶ τῆς οὐσίας ὁμολογῶν ὁμοίως ἐπὶ πατρός τε καὶ υἱοῦ ἀποσαρκώσει καὶ ἐπὶ πατρὸς τὴν τῆς θεότητος φύσιν. ἀλλ' ὥσπερ διορθούμενος τὴν ἀτοπίαν ταύτην ἐν τοῖς πρὸ τούτου φησί, τοῦ Ζαχαρίου τὴν ῥῆσιν πρὸς τὸ δοκοῦν ἑρμηνεύων ὡς ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ πατρὸς περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ λέγων, εἰρῆσθαι τὸ σύμφυλον, ὅπερ ἐστὶ συμφυῆ τε καὶ ὁμοούσιον· εἰ μὲν οὖν ὀρθῶς ἢ μὴ τοῦτο ὑπείληφεν, ἑτέρου