26

the speechwriter, through which he constructs what he wants, proves that the Lord is not an incarnate mind. Such is the proposition, and such is the construction in the middle. The conclusion is also worthy of both. What does he say?

The presence of Christ was not a visitation of God, but the birth of a man. Let as many as are arrogant laugh at these statements; but we, judging it opportune to weep over the deceit and vanity of what has been said, decline to refute the argument any further, lest we should seem to be jesting. For who would not rightly laugh at the incoherent texture of the syllogism? But I will set forth the very wording, which runs as follows: If the Lord is not an incarnate mind, he would be wisdom illuminating the mind of man; and this is what is in all men. But if these things are so, the presence of Christ was not a visitation of God, but the birth of a man. Now, that the Lord is wisdom surpassing every mind, no one among the pious would deny, being led to this by the voices of the holy fathers and apostles. For that 3,1.189 he became for us wisdom from God, Paul cries out explicitly; and that "The grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to us, teaching us to say 'No' to ungodliness," but through holiness and righteousness to "wait for the blessed hope." And we have heard the apostle go through these things; but that the only-begotten God, who is over all and through all and in all, is an incarnate mind, we have neither heard from any of the saints, nor do we accept the insertion of this strange neologism into the divine utterances, especially when we look to the aim of the new speechwriter, who wishes through this frigid construction of his sophism to cast out the confession of wisdom concerning the Lord, by which we have believed every mind is illuminated, and to introduce in its place this irrational neologism, so that the only-begotten may be named an incarnate mind and not wisdom. "For if," he says, "the Lord is believed to be wisdom," that which is present in all who receive grace, "we will no longer confess the presence of Christ to be a visitation of God, as though wisdom were alienated from God." Who would not pity the man for this melancholy? "If we believe he is wisdom," he says, "the presence of Christ will not be a visitation of God"—he who became for us wisdom from God—"but the birth of a man." If he is wisdom? Have you not heard the prophet crying out that "The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son?" And that "A child is born to us?" And that a Son "has the government on his shoulder," as mighty and strong and father not only of the past but also of the age to come?

But let us leave this dreamy nonsense, through which he has declared 3,1.190 that we must call him an incarnate mind, neither an illuminating wisdom nor the passage into our life through birth. Another argument: "If the Word has not become incarnate mind," he says, "but wisdom." In this, what has come over our wise man again that he contrasts mind with wisdom as if they were opposites? Those who divide reality with precision say that contrasted terms withdraw from each other's presence, as life does from death and death in turn from life, vice from virtue and virtue from vice, and whatever else is spoken of in the same way. How then does this man contrast wisdom with mind in the same way as with opposites, as if it were impossible for the two to be in the same thing and about the same thing? Therefore he says, "If he was not incarnate mind, he was wisdom." As if one were to say, "if it is not health, it is sickness." What then is the construction? "If wisdom," he says, "was in the mind, the Lord did not descend nor empty himself." Oh, the irresistible necessity! How does he construct the argument that the Lord did not descend from the proof that he was wisdom? Therefore, if the descent is nullified by the fact that he is wisdom, he who confesses the descent necessarily constructs the argument that he is not wisdom. But indeed, a descent is confessed by Apollinarius. Therefore, it has been agreed by him that the one who descended is not wisdom. Such are the clever arguments of the noble man against the truth.

26

λογογράφος, δι' ὧν κατα σκευάζει ὃ βούλεται, τὸ μὴ εἶναι ἔνσαρκον νοῦν τὸν κύριον ἀποδείκνυσιν. τοιαύτη ἡ πρότασις, τοιαύτη καὶ ἡ διὰ μέσου κατασκευή. Ἄξιον ἀμφοτέρων καὶ τὸ συμπέρασμα. τί λέγει;

Οὐκ ἦν ἐπιδημία θεοῦ ἡ Χριστοῦ παρουσία, ἀλλ' ἀν θρώπου γέννησις. γελάτωσαν ἐπὶ τοῖς εἰρημένοις ὅσοι ἀγέρωχοι· ἡμεῖς δὲ δακρύειν εὔκαιρον ἐπὶ τῇ ἀπάτῃ τῶν εἰρημένων καὶ τῇ ματαιότητι κρίναντες ἐπὶ πλέον διελέγχειν τὸν λόγον, ὡς ἂν μὴ γελοιάζειν δόξαιμεν, παραιτούμεθα. τίς γὰρ οὐκ ἂν εἰκότως γελάσειεν ἐπὶ τῇ ἀσυναρτήτῳ τοῦ συλλογισμοῦ πλοκῇ; ἐκθήσομαι δὲ τὴν λέξιν αὐτὴν κατὰ τὸ ἀκόλουθον οὕτως ἔχουσαν· Εἰ μὴ νοῦς ἔνσαρκός ἐστιν ὁ κύριος, σοφία ἂν εἴη φωτίζουσα νοῦν ἀνθρώ που· αὕτη δὲ τὸ ἐν πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις. εἰ δὲ ταῦτα, οὐκ ἦν ἐπιδημία θεοῦ ἡ Χριστοῦ παρουσία, ἀλλ' ἀνθρώπου γέννησις. τὸ μὲν οὖν σοφίαν εἶναι τὸν κύριον ὑπερέχουσαν πάντα νοῦν οὐδεὶς ἂν τῶν εὐσεβούντων ἀρνήσαιτο, ταῖς φωναῖς τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων καὶ ἀπο στόλων πρὸς ταῦτα χειραγωγούμενος. καὶ γὰρ ὅτι 3,1.189 σοφία ἐγενήθη ἡμῖν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, διαρρήδην ὁ Παῦλος βοᾷ· καὶ ὅτι Ἐπεφάνη ἡμῖν ἡ σωτήριος χάρις, παιδεύουσα ἡμᾶς ἀρνήσασθαι μὲν τὴν ἀσέβειαν, δι' ὁσιότητος δὲ καὶ δικαιοσύ νης προσδέχεσθαι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα. καὶ ταῦτα τοῦ ἀποστόλου διεξιόντος ἠκούσαμεν· νοῦν δὲ ἔνσαρκον τὸν μονογενῆ θεόν, τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν, οὔτε ἠκούσαμεν τῶν ἁγίων τινὸς οὔτε παρενθεῖναι ταῖς θείαις φωναῖς τὴν ἀλλόκοτον ταύτην καινοφωνίαν κατα δεχόμεθα καὶ μάλιστα πρὸς τὸν σκοπὸν ὁρῶντες τοῦ καινοῦ λογογράφου, ὃς βούλεται διὰ τῆς ψυχρᾶς ταύτης κατασκευῆς τοῦ σοφίσματος ἐκβαλεῖν μὲν ἐπὶ τοῦ κυρίου τὴν τῆς σοφίας ὁμολογίαν, δι' ἧς πάντα νοῦν φωτίζεσθαι πεπιστεύκαμεν, ἀντεισαχθῆναι δὲ τὴν παράλογον ταύτην καινοφωνίαν, ἵνα νοῦς ἔνσαρκος ὁ μονογενὴς καὶ μὴ σοφία κατονομάζηται. Ἐὰν γὰρ σοφία, φησίν, πιστευθῇ εἶναι ὁ κύριος, ἡ ἐν πᾶσι γινομένη δηλαδὴ τοῖς δεχομένοις τὴν χάριν, οὐκέτι ἐπιδημίαν θεοῦ τὴν Χριστοῦ παρου σίαν ὁμολογήσομεν, ὡς ἠλλοτριωμένης τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς σοφίας. τίς οὐκ ἂν τὸν ἄνδρα τῆς μελαγχολίας ταύτης οἰκτείρειεν; ἐὰν σοφίαν, φησίν, εἶναι πιστεύσωμεν, οὐκ ἔσται θεοῦ ἐπιδημία ἡ Χριστοῦ παρουσία, ὃς ἐγεννήθη ἡμῖν σοφία ἀπὸ θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ ἀνθρώπου γέννησις. ἐὰν σοφία ᾖ; οὐκ ἤκουσας τοῦ προφήτου βοῶντος ὅτι Ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ λήψεται καὶ τέξεται υἱόν; καὶ ὅτι Παιδίον ἐγεννήθη ἡμῖν; καὶ ὅτι Υἱὸς τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐπὶ τοῦ ὤμου ἔχει, ὡς ἰσχυρὸς καὶ δυνατὸς καὶ οὐ μόνον τοῦ παρελθόντος, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος πατήρ;

Ἀλλ' ἐάσωμεν τοῦτον τὸν ὀνειρώδη λῆρον, δι' οὗ ἀπε 3,1.190 φήνατο νοῦν ἔνσαρκον αὐτὸν δεῖν εἶναι λέγειν, μήτε σοφίαν φωτίζουσαν μήτε τὴν διὰ γεννήσεως εἰς τὴν ζωὴν ἡμῶν πάροδον. ἕτερον ἐπιχείρημα· Εἰ μὴ νοῦς ἔνσαρκος, φησίν, γέγονεν ὁ λόγος, ἀλλὰ σοφία. ἐν ᾧ τί πάλιν παθὼν ὁ σοφὸς ἀντιδιαστέλλει τὸν νοῦν τῇ σοφίᾳ καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀντιδιακειμένων; οἱ δι' ἀκριβείας τὰ ὄντα διαιροῦντές φασι τὰ ἀντιδιαστελλόμενα τῶν ὀνομάτων τῆς ἀλλήλων ὑποχωρεῖν παρουσίας ὡς τῷ θανάτῳ τὴν ζωὴν καὶ τῇ ζωῇ πάλιν τὸν θάνατον, τῇ ἀρετῇ τὴν κακίαν κἀκείνῃ ταύτην καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν λέγεται τρόπον. πῶς τοίνυν οὗτος κατὰ τὸ ἴσον τοῖς ἀντιθέτοις ἀντιδιαστέλλει τῷ νῷ τὴν σοφίαν ὥσπερ ἀμήχανον ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ καὶ περὶ τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι τὰ δύο; διό φησιν Εἰ μὴ νοῦς ἔνσαρκος ἦν, σοφία ἦν. ὡς εἴ τις λέγοι, εἰ μὴ ὑγεία ἐστι, νόσον εἶναι. τίς οὖν ἡ κατασκευή; Εἰ σοφία, φησίν, ἦν ἐν τῷ νῷ, οὐ κατέβη ὁ κύριος οὐδὲ ἐκένωσεν ἑαυτόν. ὢ τῆς ἀνανταγωνίστου ἀνάγκης! πῶς κατασκευάζει τὸ μὴ καταβεβηκέναι τὸν κύριον ἐκ τοῦ δεῖξαι, ὅτι σοφία ἦν; οὐκοῦν εἰ ἐκ τοῦ σοφίαν αὐτὸν εἶναι ἀθετεῖται ἡ κάθοδος, ὁ τὴν κατάβασιν ὁμολογῶν τὸ μὴ εἶναι σοφίαν ἐξ ἀνάγκης κατασκευάζει. ἀλλὰ μὴν ὁμολογεῖται παρὰ τοῦ Ἀπολιναρίου κάθοδος. ἄρα τὸ μὴ εἶναι σοφίαν τὸν κατεληλυθότα παρ' ἐκείνου συνωμολόγηται. τοιαῦτα τοῦ γενναίου τὰ σοφὰ κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐπιχειρήματα.