19

From both of the conceptions of the dogma, let the intelligent hearer judge for himself who is the unbeliever in the guise of faith.

But, he says, we say that the one crucified had nothing divine in his own nature, not even the most essential part, which is spirit. And against such a slander, the defense from denial is ready at hand. For if Apollinarius thinks spirit is mind, no Christian says that the man mingled with God is half, but that the whole man was attached to the divine power. Therefore by all the names one might wish to call the parts of man, whether mind or spirit or heart; for the three are spoken of by Scripture with reference to the ruling faculty; the "Create in me a clean heart, O God"; and "The man of understanding will acquire guidance"; and "No one knows the things of a man except the spirit that is in him." Therefore neither without spirit, nor without mind, nor without heart by the overshadowing of the power of the Most High and the coming upon of the Holy Spirit. Therefore the reproach would not look to us, as saying that that man came to be not having in himself the spirit, 3,1.173 which is the mind, but to that very worker of reproach who strikes us with his own insults. For he who calls mind 'spirit', and says that the man in Christ does not have a mind, is the one who makes out the Lord not to have a spirit. But what is the charge brought against us? He says that we do wrong in saying this, that beyond his own nature the man had something else greater, the divinity dwelling in him. But if this is counted among the charges, we do not flee the accusation, being cast out together with the apostle. For having learned such a thing from him we believe, that existing in the form of God according to what is understood, he comes to be in the form of a servant according to what is seen. And if the divine form is more honorable than the servile person, the visible is by no means of equal honor with the hidden. Therefore, that which was seen according to the flesh and associated with men had in itself something more honorable than itself, which the writer makes a charge against the faith. But the apostle also says that in him all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily; and he who said "in him" did not signify half of what was indicated, but included the whole subject in the meaning. If therefore it was a human body in which the divinity dwelt, and a body not without a soul, and the rational part is proper to the human soul—for if this were separated, as we have often said, what is left is bestial—does not the noble man then attack not us, but the apostle with his reproaches? Or rather, even the great voice of John, which says that "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." For not in a part of us, but all things conceived in the nature he signified together by the plural voice, and first he distinguished the Word from the flesh, then thus brought them into union. 3,1.174 For the Word was in himself and was with God. And what God was, this also the Word was; for he too was God. But when he came to his own and shone in the darkness, then the Word became flesh, becoming flesh by his own power in the virgin. Therefore let him refrain from his reproach against us, so that he may not include the saints in his insolence. But omitting the things in between, by which he thinks those who do not hold the same opinions as he deny the things of the mystery, I will mention one of the things said in the invective for our slander. For he says that we, if we do not say that, say that he neither pre-existed his birth on earth, nor was before all things, nor was of the same nature as God. But we confess that he pre-existed his earthly birth, if indeed the flesh is not doubted to be from an earthly constitution; but as for being of the same nature as God, away with it! Let no one among Christians thus coin words so base and alien to the divine majesty, as to proclaim the truly existing God to be of the same nature as God and not true God. Not even Eunomius would shrink from such a phrase, I suppose, concerning the Lord. for he too would say, not accepting his true [nature] of

19

ἑκατέροις τῆς τοῦ δόγματος ὑπολήψεως ὁ συνετὸς ἀκροατὴς ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ κρινέτω τίς ὁ σχήματι πίστεως ἄπιστος.

Ἀλλά, φησί, λέγειν ἡμᾶς ὅτι ὁ σταυρωθεὶς οὐ δὲν εἶχε θεϊκὸν ἐν τῇ ἑαυτοῦ φύσει οὐδὲ αὐτὸ τὸ κυριώτατον, ὅ ἐστι πνεῦμα. πρὸς δὲ τὴν τοιαύτην συκοφαντίαν πρόχειρος ἡ ἐκ τῆς ἀρνήσεώς ἐστιν ἀπολογία. εἰ γὰρ τὸ πνεῦμα νοῦν ὁ Ἀπολινάριος οἴεται, οὐδεὶς τῶν Χριστιανῶν λέγει τὸν ἀνακραθέντα τῷ θεῷ ἄνθρωπον ἥμισυν εἶναι, ἀλλ' ὅλον προσφυῆναι τῇ θείᾳ δυνάμει. πᾶσιν οὖν ἂν ἐθέλοι τις τὰ μέρη τοῦ ἀνθρώπου προσαγορεύειν ὀνόμασιν, εἴτε νοῦν εἴτε πνεῦμα εἴτε καρδίαν· λέγεται γὰρ παρὰ τῆς γραφῆς ἐπὶ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ τὰ τρία· τὸ Καρδίαν καθαρὰν κτίσον ἐν ἐμοί, ὁ θεός· καὶ Ὁ νοήμων κυβέρνησιν κτήσεται· καὶ Οὐδεὶς οἶδε τὰ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἰ μὴ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ. οὔτε οὖν ἄπνους οὔτε ἄνους οὔτε ἀκάρδιος τῇ ἐπισκιάσει τῆς τοῦ ὑψίστου δυνάμεως καὶ τῇ ἐπελεύσει τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. οὐκοῦν οὐ πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἂν βλέποι ἡ λοιδορία ὡς τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐκεῖνον οὐκ ἔχοντα ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὸ πνεῦμα, 3,1.173 ὅ ἐστιν ὁ νοῦς, γεγενῆσθαι λέγοντας, ἀλλὰ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον τὸν τῆς λοιδορίας ἐργάτην τὸν τοῖς ἰδίοις ὀνείδεσιν ἡμᾶς βάλλοντα. ὁ γὰρ πνεῦμα τὸν νοῦν ὀνομάζων, μὴ ἔχειν δὲ νοῦν τὸν κατὰ Χριστὸν ἄνθρωπον λέγων ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν ὁ μὴ ἔχειν πνεῦμα κατασκευάζων τὸν κύριον. ἀλλὰ τί τὸ ἐπαγόμενον ἔγκλημα; φησὶν ἐκεῖνος ἀδικεῖν ἡμᾶς τοῦτο λέγοντας, ὅτι ὑπὲρ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φύσιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἔσχε τι μεῖζον ἕτερον, τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικοῦσαν θεότητα. εἰ δὲ τοῦτο ἐν ἐγκλήμασι τίθεται, οὐ φεύγομεν τὴν κατηγορίαν τῷ ἀποστόλῳ συνεκβαλλόμενοι. παρ' αὐτοῦ γὰρ τὸ τοιοῦτον μαθόντες πιστεύομεν, ὅτι θεοῦ μορφὴ κατὰ τὸ νοούμενον ὑπάρχων ἐν δούλου μορφῇ κατὰ τὸ φαινόμενον γίνεται. εἰ δὲ προτιμοτέρα ἡ θεία μορφὴ τοῦ δουλικοῦ προσώπου, οὐχ ὁμότιμον πάντως τῷ κρυπτῷ τὸ φαινόμενον. οὐκοῦν τὸ κατὰ σάρκα βλεπόμενον καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συναναστρε φόμενον εἶχέ τι ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἑαυτοῦ τιμιώτερον, ὅπερ ὁ λογο γράφος ἔγκλημα ποιεῖται κατὰ τῆς πίστεως. ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ φησιν ὁ ἀπόστολος κατοικεῖν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς· ὁ δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ εἰπὼν οὐ τὸ ἥμισυ τοῦ δηλουμένου ἐσήμανεν, ἀλλ' ὅλον τὸ ὑποκείμενον τῇ σημασίᾳ συμπεριέλαβεν. εἰ οὖν ἀνθρώπινον σῶμα, ἐν ᾧ κατῴκησεν ἡ θεότης, σῶμα δὲ οὐκ ἄψυχον, ἴδιον δὲ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ψυχῆς τὸ νοερόν ἐστι μέροςεἰ γὰρ τοῦτο χωρισθείη, καθὼς πολλάκις εἰρήκαμεν, κτηνῶδές ἐστι τὸ λειπόμενον ἄρ' οὐχ ἡμῶν ὁ γεννάδας, ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἀποστόλου ταῖς λοιδορίαις καθάπτεται· μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ τῆς μεγάλης τοῦ Ἰωάννου φωνῆς, ἥ φησιν ὅτι Ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν. οὐ γὰρ ἐν μέρει ἡμῶν, ἀλλὰ πάντα τὰ ἐν τῇ φύσει νοούμενα τῇ πληθυντικῇ φωνῇ συνεσήμανε καὶ τὸν λόγον τῆς σαρκὸς πρότερον μὲν προδιέστειλεν, εἶθ' οὕτως εἰς ἕνωσιν 3,1.174 ἤγαγεν. ἦν γὰρ ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ ὁ λόγος καὶ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἦν. καὶ ὅπερ ὁ θεὸς ἦν, τοῦτο καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν· θεὸς γὰρ καὶ οὗτος ἦν. ἀλλ' ὅτε εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθε καὶ ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ ἔλαμψε, τότε ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, τῇ ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμει ἐν τῇ παρθένῳ σὰρξ γενόμενος. οὐκοῦν φειδέσθω τῆς καθ' ἡμᾶς λοιδορίας, ὡς ἂν μὴ συμπεριλάβοι τοὺς ἁγίους διὰ τῆς ὕβρεως. Τὰ δὲ διὰ μέσου παρείς, δι' ὧν ἀρνήσασθαι τὰ κατὰ τὸ μυσ τήριον οἴεται τοὺς μὴ τὰ αὐτὰ φρονοῦντας αὐτῷ, ἑνὸς τῶν ἐν τῇ καταφορᾷ πρὸς διαβολὴν ἡμετέραν εἰρημένων ἐπι μνησθήσομαι. φησὶ γὰρ ἡμᾶς, εἰ μὴ ἐκεῖνο λέγομεν, μήτε προϋπάρχειν τῆς ἐν γῇ γεννήσεως μήτε πρὸ πάντων εἶναι λέγειν μήτε σύμφυλον εἶναι θεοῦ. ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν προϋπάρχειν αὐτὸν τῆς γηΐνης αὐτοῦ γεννήσεως ὁμολογοῦμεν, εἴπερ ἐκ τῆς γηΐνης συστάσεως ἡ σὰρξ εἶναι οὐκ ἀμφιβάλλεται· τὸ δὲ σύμφυλον εἶναι θεοῦ, ἄπαγε, μηδεὶς οὕτως ἐν Χριστιανοῖς ταπεινά τε καὶ ἔκφυλα τῆς θείας μεγαλοπρεπείας ὀνοματοποιήσειε ῥήματα, ὥστε τὸν ὄντως ὄντα θεὸν σύμφυλον θεοῦ καὶ μὴ ἀληθινὸν ἀνακηρύσ σειν θεόν. οὐδ' ἂν ὁ Εὐνόμιος τῆς τοιαύτης που φείσαιτο ἐπὶ κυρίου φωνῆς. εἴποι γὰρ ἂν καὶ ἐκεῖνος μὴ παραδεχόμενος αὐτοῦ τὸ ἀληθινὸν τῆς