34

beyond the sensible and corporeal state. So insofar as both Eunomius and Apollinaris think it is necessary to worship the creature, they are equally matched in the argument of impiety and beyond dispute; but the one who assigns the primacy to the flesh over the intellectual nature has the greater share in impiety. Let the disciples of deceit hear against whom and concerning what their master's contest is.

But let us also see the succeeding inescapable bond, to use the phrase of Apollinaris's own teacher, which, having bound it fast with the indissoluble chains of his syllogisms, he proposes. If anyone, he says, thinks a man is united to God beyond all men and angels. Therefore, one must also examine the thought in these 3,1.7. But it would be like looking for a soul in a stone and intelligence in wood and in the words set forth an indication of some thought, I do not say of a better one, but at least of one contributing to impiety; rather, the thoughtlessness of what is said would be attested by the context. It will make angels and men not self-determining, just as the flesh is not self-determining. And the destruction of a self-determining creature is not to be self-determining; but nature is not destroyed by its creator; therefore, man is not united to God. Oh, the necessity! How indissoluble are the snares of the syllogisms! The union with the divine takes away the self-determination of men and angels, and the destruction of the self-determining creature becomes its not being self-determining, and if these things were posited, it is proven that man is not united to God. What sort of thing like this do the ventriloquists, what do those who speak from the earth and are trained in heartfelt divinations utter in prophecy, similar to these things? The self-determination of men and angels is taken away, if the human is united to God. Was he not a man who said, "But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth?" Was he not mingled with the divine nature, he who showed all the divine power in himself, working by authority whatever he wished? If, then, the one did not happen in the other, and the other in the one, let the evangelical testimony be rejected, and Paul will certainly be convicted of falsehood, and the prophets, and all who foretold the wonders concerning the Lord, and those who related what happened afterward. But if this truly happened, and God was manifested in the flesh, and the flesh that was mingled with the divine nature became one with it, then according to the poetic myth, self-determination has perished for human nature, and were enslaved 3,1.8 <the> angels, since this happened, being deprived of the grace of self-determination. Oh, the absurd neologism! And what an induction it is to say: "And the destruction of a self-determining creature is not to be self-determining." Does he then not count the household servant among living creatures, because he is not managed with self-determination throughout his life, having been enslaved to the ruling power? For the speech-writer defines a living creature as being something with self-determination; but he legislates that one who does not have the sovereign movement of the will is not even to be considered a living creature. Therefore, that Canaan was dead, when he was enslaved to his brothers because of his disorder, dead was the servant of Abraham, dead Gehazi the servant-boy of Elisha, and in the times after these, dead was Onesimus, dead all the centurions who were slaves.

And why do I say these things? All who are yoked to the authorities of rulers are dead, in whom the self-determined will is hindered. But also those whom Paul legislates to be subject to the higher authorities are certainly dead, even if they are souls, having been destroyed by the absence of self-determination and no longer able to be living creatures. For this is what the myth of Apollinaris commands, that he might join that soulless flesh to the God over all, whether soulless or senseless; for the myth looks equally to both. But what is soulless is dead; and what is ensouled without thought is a beast, which not even he himself avoids as absurd, by taking away the self-determination of that flesh; for it is a peculiar property of irrational creatures not to be in their own power, but to be subject to the

34

παρὰ τὴν αἰ σθητήν τε καὶ σωματώδη κατάστασιν. ὥστε καθὸ μὲν τῷ ποιήματι λατρεύειν οἴονται δεῖν Εὐνόμιός τε καὶ Ἀπολινάριος, ἰσοπαλεῖς ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ἀσεβείας εἰσὶ καὶ ἀμφήριστοι· ὁ δὲ τῇ σαρκὶ παρὰ τὴν νοερὰν φύσιν τὰ πρωτεῖα νέμων τὸ πλέον εἰς ἀσέβειαν ἔχει. ἀκουσάτωσαν οἱ μαθηταὶ τῆς ἀπάτης πρὸς τίνα τῷ διδασκάλῳ αὐτῶν καὶ περὶ τίνων ἡ ἅμιλλα.

Ἴδωμεν δὲ καὶ τὴν ἐφεξῆς ἀλυκτοπέδην, κατ' αὐτὸν εἰπεῖν τὸν Ἀπολιναρίου διδάσκαλον, ἣν ταῖς ἀλύτοις σειραῖς τῶν συλλογισμῶν διασφίγξας προτείνεται. Εἰ ἄνθρωπον, φησίν, οἴεταί τις ἑνοῦσθαι θεῷ παρὰ πάντας ἀν θρώπους καὶ ἀγγέλους. ἄρα χρὴ καὶ τὴν ἐν τούτοις 3,1.7 διεξετάζειν διάνοιαν. ἀλλ' ὅμοιον ἂν εἴη ψυχὴν ἐν λίθῳ ζητεῖν καὶ ἐν ξύλῳ φρόνησιν καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐκτεθεῖσι ῥήμασιν ἔμφασίν τινος ἐνθυμήσεως, οὐ λέγω τῆς κρείττονος, ἀλλὰ τῆς γοῦν εἰς τὸ ἀσεβὲς συντελούσης· μᾶλλον δ' ἂν ἐκ τῆς συμφράσεως μαρτυρηθείη τὸ τῶν λεγομένων ἀδιανόητον. Ποιήσει μὴ αὐτεξουσίους τοὺς ἀγγέλους καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ὡς οὐδὲ ἡ σὰρξ αὐτεξούσιος. φθορὰ δὲ τοῦ αὐτεξουσίου ζῴου τὸ μὴ εἶναι αὐτεξούσιον· οὐ φθείρεται δὲ ἡ φύσις ὑπὸ τοῦ ποιήσαντος αὐτήν· οὐκ ἄρα ἑνοῦται ὁ ἄνθρωπος θεῷ. βαβαὶ τῆς ἀνάγκης! ὡς ἄλυτοι τῶν συλλογισμῶν αἱ πλεκτάναι! ἀφαιρεῖται τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῶν ἀγγέλων τὸ αὐτεξούσιον ἡ πρὸς τὸ θεῖον ἕνωσις καὶ φθορὰ τοῦ αὐτε ξουσίου ζῴου τὸ μὴ εἶναι αὐτεξούσιον γίνεται, καὶ εἰ ταῦτα τεθείη, ἀποδείκνυται τὸ μὴ ἑνοῦσθαι ἄνθρωπον θεῷ. τί τοιοῦτον οἱ ἐγγαστρίμυθοι, τί δὲ οἱ ἐκ γῆς φωνοῦντες καὶ ἐγκαρδίους μαντείας πεπαιδευμένοι παραπλήσιον τούτοις ἀποφοιβάζου σιν; ἀφαιρεῖται τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῶν ἀγγέλων ἡ αὐτε ξουσιότης, ἐὰν ἑνωθῇ τῷ θεῷ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον. μὴ οὐκ ἦν ἄνθρωπος ὁ εἰπὼν Νῦν δὲ ζητεῖτέ με ἀποκτεῖναι, ἄνθρωπον ὃς τὴν ἀλήθειαν ὑμῖν λελάληκα; μὴ οὐκ ἀνεκράθη τῇ θείᾳ φύσει ὁ πᾶσαν τὴν θεϊκὴν δύναμιν ἐν ἑαυτῷ δεικνὺς κατ' ἐξουσίαν ἐνεργῶν ὅπερ ἐβούλετο; εἰ μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἐγένετο τοῦτο ἐν ἐκείνῳ καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἐκεῖνο, παραγραφέσθω τὴν εὐαγγελικὴν μαρτυρίαν, ψεύδους πάντως καὶ ὁ Παῦλος ἁλώσεται καὶ οἱ προφῆται καὶ πάντες οἱ τὰ θαύματα περὶ τοῦ κυρίου προκαταγγέλλοντες καὶ οἱ τὰ μετὰ ταῦτα γεγονότα διηγησάμενοι. εἰ δὲ ἀληθῶς γέγονε τοῦτο καὶ θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκὶ καὶ ἡ σὰρξ ἡ ἀνακραθεῖσα τῇ θείᾳ φύσει ἓν πρὸς ἐκείνην ἐγένετο, ἄρα κατὰ τὸν ποιητικὸν μῦθον ἀπόλωλε τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ φύσει τὸ αὐτεξούσιον καὶ κατεδουλώθησαν 3,1.8 <οἱ> ἄγγελοι, ἐπειδὴ τοῦτο ἐγένετο, ζημιωθέντες τοῦ αὐτεξου σίου τὴν χάριν. ὢ τῆς παραλόγου καινοφωνίας! οἵα δὲ καὶ ἡ ἐπαγωγὴ τὸ λέγειν· Φθορὰ δὲ τοῦ αὐτεξουσίου ζῴου ἐστὶ τὸ μὴ εἶναι αὐτεξούσιον. ἄρα οὐκ ἀριθμεῖ τὸ οἰκετικὸν ἐν τοῖς ζῴοις, ὅτι μὴ αὐτεξουσίως οἰκονομεῖται παρὰ τὸν βίον τῇ ἐπικρατούσῃ δυναστείᾳ δεδουλωμένον; ἐν γὰρ τῷ αὐτεξουσίῳ τὸ ζῷον εἶναί τινα ὁ λογογράφος ὁρίζεται· ᾧ δὲ μὴ πάρεστιν ἡ αὐτοκρατὴς τοῦ θελήματος κίνησις, μηδὲ ζῷον οἴεσθαι τοῦτον εἶναι νομοθετεῖ. οὐκοῦν νεκρὸς ἦν ἐκεῖνος ὁ Χαναάν, ὅτε τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς διὰ τὴν ἀταξίαν κατεδουλώθη, νεκρὸς ὁ οἰκέτης τοῦ Ἀβραάμ, νεκρὸς Γιεζὶ τὸ τοῦ Ἐλισσαίου παιδάριον, καὶ ἐν τοῖς μετὰ ταῦτα χρόνοις νεκρὸς ὁ Ὀνήσιμος, νεκροὶ πάντες οἱ ἑκα τοντάρχαι δουλεύοντες.

Καὶ τί ταῦτα λέγω; τεθνᾶσι πάντες οἱ ὑπεζευγμένοι ταῖς τῶν κρατούντων ἀρχαῖς, ἐν οἷς κωλύεται τὸ αὐτεξούσιον βούλημα. ἀλλὰ καὶ οἷς ὁ Παῦλος νομοθετεῖ ταῖς ὑπερεχούσαις ἐξουσίαις ὑποτάσσεσθαι, νεκροὶ πάντως εἰσί, κἂν ψυχαὶ ὦσι, τῇ ἀπουσίᾳ τοῦ αὐτεξουσίου φθαρέντες καὶ μηκέτι ζῷα εἶναι δυνάμενοι. τοῦτο γὰρ κελεύει τοῦ Ἀπολιναρίου ὁ μῦθος, ἵνα τὴν ἄψυχον ἐκείνην σάρκα συζεύξῃ τῷ ἐπὶ πάντων θεῷ, εἴτ' οὖν ἄψυχον εἴτ' οὖν ἀνόητον· πρὸς ἀμφότερα γὰρ ἐπίσης ὁ μῦθος βλέπει. ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν ἄψυχον νεκρός ἐστι· τὸ δὲ δίχα διανοίας ἔμψυχον κτῆνός ἐστιν, ὅπερ οὐδὲ αὐτὸς οὗτος ἀποφεύγει ὡς ἄτοπον, ἀφαιρούμενος τῆς σαρκὸς ἐκείνης τὸ αὐτεξούσιον· τῶν γὰρ ἀλόγων ἴδιον τὸ μὴ ἐφ' ἑαυτῶν εἶναι, ἀλλ' ὑποτετάχθαι τῇ