27

Then he adds, through an incoherent sequence to this proposition, a construction from things not posited, which runs thus: For this reason he was also a man; for man is a mind in flesh according to Paul. But I ask the readers not to suppose that such things are fabricated by us as some joke for a laugh, as if from the person of Apollinaris; for it is possible to learn even from the very things written by him that the 3,1.191 argument brought forward by him runs thus, word for word. According to which Paul, then, is an incarnate mind called a man? Let him say what other Paul he has in secret? For the servant of Jesus Christ, the called apostle, said no such thing in all the things written by him. If, therefore, neither the sequence nor the testimony supports the argument, whence does this strange dogmatizing have its credibility? Again he adds another thought to what has been said.

Since he was a man, he says, and heavenly, this one who is of dust. Again I say that he has forgotten Mary, to whom Gabriel brings the good news, upon whom the Holy Spirit is believed to have come, whom the power of the Most High overshadows, from whom is born Jesus who has the government upon his shoulder, that is, who bears the government upon himself. And the government is surely God the Word who was in the beginning and is the beginning, as the word of scripture says somewhere, that *I am the beginning*. Therefore, let him either show that the virgin was not on earth, or let him not fashion a heavenly man, nor frighten the more unlearned as if they sin against the divine, as if by accepting the human they do not confess the divine. For the birth from a woman has the human element, but the virginity which served the birth showed that which is above man. So that what was born is man, but the power for the birth is not from men, but through the Holy Spirit and the power of the Most High. Therefore according to the true account he is both man and God, man in what is seen, God in what is conceived by the mind. But he does not say this, defining the divine in the apparent conclusion, not in the intelligible. But let us proceed in our discourse to the next argument. If with God, he says, who is mind, there was also a human mind in Christ. This is the proposition. But we propose in opposition to what was said: which of the saints has defined the 3,1.192 divine as mind? In which scriptures have we been taught that God is the same as mind, so as to accept what is said, that the man in Christ is mindless, but God becomes mind to the mindless one? Should we then also write down the whole disgrace of this argument? But I fear lest we might seem to be certain scoffers to the readers, as if publishing the indecency of the speech-writer for a laugh. However, so that the proposition may not remain incomplete, I must add only the conclusion, I will skip over the rubbish in between. If with God, he says, who is mind, there was also a human mind in Christ; then the work of the incarnation is not accomplished in him. But if the work of the incarnation is not accomplished in the self-moved and uncompelled mind, the work, which is the dissolution of sin, is accomplished in the flesh that is moved by another and activated by the divine mind; and the self-moved mind in us partakes of the dissolution, insofar as it appropriates itself to Christ. Do you see how the conclusions are suited to the proposition? Perhaps we need some enchanter and Gazarene to distinguish for us the riddles of dreams, so as to say what this neologism of words means: the self-moved mind and the other-moved, flesh accomplishing the work of dissolution. But let these things also be left to be mocked by the arrogance of the young, and let us proceed to the next parts of the argument.

If one, he says, obtains something more than another, this happens through training; but there is no training in Christ; therefore it is not a human mind. How does he remember the God-inspired scripture? What training in the arts guided Bezalel? 3,1.193 And whence to Solomon the knowledge of so many things? And Amos, who dressed sycamore-trees, how from among goat-herds did he have such power in prophecy? And yet none of the

27

εἶτα ἐπάγει διὰ τῆς ἀσυναρτήτου ἀκολουθίας τῇ προτάσει ταύτῃ τὴν ἐκ τῶν μὴ τεθέντων κατα σκευήν, ἔχουσαν οὕτως· ∆ιὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἄνθρωπος ἦν· ἄνθρωπος γὰρ νοῦς ἐν σαρκὶ κατὰ τὸν Παῦλον. παραιτοῦμαι δὲ τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας μὴ παρ' ἡμῶν οἴεσθαι κατά τινα παιδιὰν ἐπὶ γέλωτι τὰ τοιαῦτα, ὡς ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ Ἀπολιναρίου συμπλάσσεσθαι· ἔξεστι γὰρ καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν παρ' αὐτοῦ γεγραμμένων μαθεῖν, ὅτι κατὰ τὴν λέξιν ὁ 3,1.191 παρ' ἐκείνου προενήνεκται λόγος οὕτως ἔχων. κατὰ ποῖον τοίνυν Παῦλον νοῦς ἔνσαρκος ἄνθρωπος λέγεται; εἰπάτω τίνα ἕτερον ἐν κρυπτῷ ἔχει Παῦλον; ὁ γὰρ δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ κλητὸς ἀπόστολος ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς παρ' αὐτοῦ γεγραμμένοις τοιοῦτον εἶπεν οὐδέν. εἰ οὖν μήτε ἡ ἀκολουθία μήτε ἡ μαρτυρία τὸν λόγον συνίστησι, πόθεν ἡ ἀλλόκοτος αὕτη δογματοποιία τὸ πιστὸν ἔχει; πάλιν ἕτερον τοῖς εἰρημένοις ἐπάγει νόημα.

Ἐπειδὴ ἄνθρωπος, φησίν, ἦν καὶ ἐπουράνιος, οὗτος ὁ χοϊκός. πάλιν λέγω ἐπιλελῆσθαι τῆς Μαρίας, ᾗ εὐαγγελίζεται ὁ Γαβριήλ, ἐφ' ἣν ἐληλυθέναι τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα πιστεύεται, ᾗ ἐπισκιάζει τοῦ ὑψίστου ἡ δύναμις, ἀφ' ἧς τίκτεται ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὁ ἔχων τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐπὶ τοῦ ὤμου αὐτοῦ, τουτέστιν ὁ βαστάζων ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ τὴν ἀρχήν. ἀρχὴ δὲ πάντως ἐστὶν ὁ θεὸς λόγος ὁ ἐν ἀρχῇ ὢν καὶ ἀρχὴ ὤν, καθώς φησί που τῆς γραφῆς ὁ λόγος, ὅτι Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀρχή. ἢ τοίνυν δειξάτω μὴ ἐν γῇ τὴν παρ θένον ἢ ἄνθρωπον οὐράνιον μὴ πλασσέτω μηδὲ φοβείτω τοὺς ἀμαθεστέρους ὡς εἰς τὸ θεῖον ἐξαμαρτάνοντας, ὡς τὸ ἀνθρώπινον παραδεξάμενοι μὴ συνομολογοῖεν τὸ θεῖον. ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἐκ γυναικὸς γέννησις τὸ ἀνθρώπινον ἔχει, ἡ δὲ παρθενία ὑπηρετήσασα τῷ τόκῳ τὸ ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον ἔδειξεν. ὥστε τὸ μὲν γεννηθὲν ἄνθρωπος, ἡ δὲ πρὸς τὴν γέννησιν δύναμις οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλὰ διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ τῆς τοῦ ὑψίστου δυνάμεως. οὐκοῦν κατὰ τὸν ἀληθῆ λό γον καὶ ἄνθρωπός ἐστι καὶ θεός, τῷ ὁρωμένῳ ἄνθρωπος, τῷ νοουμένῳ θεός. ὁ δὲ οὐ τοῦτό φησιν, ἐν τῷ συμπεράσματι τῷ φαινομένῳ τὸ θεῖον, οὐ τῷ νοητῷ ὁριζόμενος. Ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ ἐφεξῆς ἐπιχείρημα τῷ λόγῳ μετέλθωμεν. Εἰ μετὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, φησί, νοῦ ὄντος, καὶ ἀνθρώ πινος νοῦς ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ. τοῦτο ἡ πρότασις. ἡμεῖς δὲ τῷ εἰρημένῳ ἀντιπροτείνομεν· τίς τῶν ἁγίων νοῦν τὸ 3,1.192 θεῖον ὡρίσατο; παρὰ ποίαις γραφαῖς ταὐτὸν εἶναι τῷ νῷ τὸν θεὸν ἐδιδάχθημεν, ὥστε παραδέξασθαι τὸ λεγόμενον, ὅτι ὁ μὲν κατὰ Χριστὸν ἄνθρωπος ἄνους, ὁ δὲ θεὸς νοῦς τῷ ἀνοήτῳ γίνεται; ἄρα χρὴ καὶ ὅλον τοῦ ἐπιχειρήματος τούτου καταγράψαι τὸν ὄνειδον. ἀλλὰ δέδοικα, μὴ χλευασταί τινες τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσι δόξωμεν ὡς ἐπὶ γέλωτι τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην τοῦ λογογράφου δημοσιεύοντες. πλὴν ὡς ἂν μὴ ἀτελὴς μένοι ἡ πρότασις, τὸ συμπέρασμα μόνον ἐπαγαγεῖν δέον, τὸν διὰ μέσου συρφετὸν ὑπερβήσομαι. Εἰ μετὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, φησί, νοῦ ὄντος, καὶ ἀνθρώπινος ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ νοῦς· οὐκ ἄρα ἐπιτελεῖται ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ τῆς σαρ κώσεως ἔργον. εἰ δὲ μὴ ἐπιτελεῖται τὸ τῆς σαρ κώσεως ἔργον ἐν τῷ αὐτοκινήτῳ καὶ μὴ ἀναγ καστῷ νοΐ, ἐν τῷ ἑτεροκινήτῳ καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ θείου νοῦ ἐνεργουμένῃ σαρκὶ τελεῖται τὸ ἔργον, ὅ ἐστι λύσις ἁμαρτίας· μεταλαμβάνει δὲ τῆς λύσεως ὁ ἐν ἡμῖν αὐτοκίνητος νοῦς, καθ' ὅσον οἰκειοῖ ἑαυτὸν Χριστῷ. ὁρᾷς πῶς οἰκεῖα τῇ προτάσει τὰ συμπεράσματα; τάχα δέ τινος ἐπαοιδοῦ καὶ γαζαρηνοῦ προσδεόμεθα πρὸς τὸ διακρῖναι ἡμῖν τὰ τῶν ἐνυπνίων αἰνίγ ματα, ὥστε εἰπεῖν τί σημαίνει ἡ τῶν ῥημάτων τούτων και νοφωνία· ὁ αὐτοκίνητος νοῦς καὶ ἑτεροκίνητος, σὰρξ ἡ ἐπιτελοῦσα τὸ ἔργον τῆς λύσεως. ἀλλ' ἀφείσθω καὶ ταῦτα τῇ ἀγερωχίᾳ τῶν νέων καταχλευάζεσθαι, ἡμεῖς δὲ πρὸς τὰ ἐφεξῆς τοῦ λόγου προΐωμεν.

Εἴ τι πλέον, φησίν, ἕτερος ἑτέρου κομίζεται, τοῦτο δι' ἄσκησιν γίνεται· οὐδεμία δὲ ἄσκησις ἐν Χριστῷ· οὐκ ἄρα νοῦς ἐστιν ἀνθρώπινος. πῶς μέμνηται τῆς θεοπνεύστου γρα φῆς; ποία τοῦ Βεσελεὴλ ἄσκησις τῶν τεχνῶν καθηγήσατο; 3,1.193 πόθεν δὲ τῷ Σολομῶντι τῶν τοσούτων ἡ γνῶσις; ὁ δὲ τὰ συκάμινα κνίζων Ἀμὼς πῶς ἐξ αἰπόλων τοσαύτην ἔσχεν ἐν προφητείᾳ τὴν δύναμιν; καὶ ὅμως οὐδεὶς τῶν