37

saying he will not sin. But also a heavenly man, he says this concerning the Lord, and a life-giving spirit. And these things we accept; for they are ours, if their meaning were taken as it ought. For he who was mingled with the heavenly and transformed the earthly through mixture with the better, would no longer be called earthly, but heavenly; and he who in us performs the work [but he] by the life-giving spirit is also a life-giving spirit. But let us see for what purpose the author uses what has been said.

“If,” he says, “the heavenly man is in all things equal to us earthly ones, so that he also has a spirit equal to the earthly, he is not heavenly but a receptacle of the heavenly God.” Much in what has been said is obscure and hard to detect because of interpretive weakness; nevertheless it is easy to uncover his intention. For he says, if that man were deficient 3,1.214 in mind, he would be heavenly; but if he were perfect, he would no longer be heavenly, but would have become a receptacle of the heavenly God. And in these things which of what has been said should one detest before the other? To think that the divine is impeded by perfection, as if the flesh were more akin than the mind to union with the Godhead; or to believe that God is heavenly, but that he who received the heavenly God in himself is not there, where God is believed to be, but is elsewhere apart from the heavenly one and is called something other than this? For if, Apollinarius says, he is a receptacle of the heavenly God, and God is in heaven above, as Ecclesiastes says. Therefore he who contained God in himself is, with the one contained, properly called heavenly instead of earthly; so that even through what the author says, if indeed he understood what follows from his own words, the dogma of truth is clearly established, being strengthened by the wisdom of its enemies. But let us examine what follows. “But if we,” he says, “are from three, but he from four, he is not a man, but a god-man.” Let not the one who encounters the argument laugh at the foolish-sounding and senselessness of the phrase, but rather let him groan at the voluntary maiming of those who have been enslaved by this irrationality. If all human nature is saved by the indwelling of the divine power, the God Logos will be named god-man; and just as the myths, by combining different natures, create monstrous animals and forms and names, fashioning and naming horse-stags and goat-stags and such things, so also this new myth-maker, following his masters of fabrication, mocks the divine 3,1.215 mystery. And when the apostle clearly cries out that "Through man is the resurrection from the dead," not half a man nor one having a little more than half, but by the absolute quality of his voice showed undiminished the nature signified in the name, this man, through this shameful coinage of a name, makes a Minotaur of the mystery for us, providing many occasions for those foreign to the faith, through what he has said, to mock the word of faith. For it is not possible for one who wants to ridicule the dogmas to be turned away from this absurd composition of words, whether the author's view or ours should seem to prevail; for whatever you might say from either side, you will not remove the composition from two natures from the argument. For he who said the flesh was from above does not establish that it is not even flesh; but the flesh, being governed by some ensouled nature and having a life-giving power in itself, as Apollinarius also wishes, properly has the name of man; but he who assumed it and revealed himself through it is certainly other in nature than it; for the very name of "assumption" shows the otherness in nature of the one assuming from the thing assumed. What then will prevent, even if these things prevail, the God manifested in the flesh from being insulted by that absurd coinage of a name, so that he who is thus constituted is called a god-man, according to the bold utterance of Apollinarius? For not even the goat-stag, since from the whole stag...

37

λέγων οὐχ ἁμαρτήσεται. Ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπουράνιος ἄνθρωπος, περὶ τοῦ κυρίου τοῦτο λέγει, καὶ πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν. καὶ ταῦτα δεχόμε θα· ἡμετέρα γάρ, εἰ πρὸς τὸ δέον ἐκληφθείη αὐτῶν ἡ διάνοια. ὁ γὰρ ἀνακραθεὶς τῷ ἐπουρανίῳ καὶ μεταποιήσας διὰ τῆς πρὸς τὸ κρεῖττον ἐπιμιξίας τὸ γήϊνον οὐκέτ' ἂν χοϊκός, ἀλλ' ἐπουράνιος λέγοιτο· καὶ ὁ τῷ ζωοποιῷ πνεύματι [ὁ δὲ] ποιῶν ἐφ' ἡμῶν τὴν ἐνέργειαν καὶ πνεῦμά ἐστι ζωοποιοῦν. ἀλλ' ἴδω μεν πρὸς τί χρῆται τοῖς εἰρημένοις ὁ λογογράφος.

Εἰ ἐκ πάντων, φησί, τῶν ἴσων ἡμῖν ἐστι τοῖς χοϊκοῖς ὁ ἐπου ράνιος ἄνθρωπος, ὥστε καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ἴσον ἔχειν τοῖς χοϊκοῖς, οὐκ ἐπουράνιος ἀλλ' ἐπουρανίου θεοῦ δοχεῖον. πολὺ μὲν ἐν τοῖς εἰρημένοις ἐστὶ τὸ ἀσαφὲς καὶ δυσφώρατον διὰ τὴν ἑρμηνευτικὴν ἀτονίαν· πλὴν ἀλλὰ ῥᾴδιον ἀνακαλύψαι τὸ βούλημα. φησὶ γάρ, εἰ μὲν ἐλλιπὴς 3,1.214 εἴη τῷ νῷ ἐκεῖνος ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἐπουράνιον αὐτὸν εἶναι· εἰ δὲ ἄρτιος εἴη, μηκέτι ἐπουράνιον, ἀλλὰ δοχεῖον γενέσθαι τοῦ ἐπουρανίου θεοῦ. ἐν τούτοις δὲ τί ἄν τις τῶν εἰρημένων πρὸ τοῦ ἑτέρου βδελύξαιτο; τὸ ἐμποδίζεσθαι τῇ ἀρτιότητι τὸ θεῖον οἴεσθαι, ὡς οἰκειο τέρας παρὰ τὸν νοῦν τῆς σαρκὸς οὔσης πρὸς τὴν τῆς θεότητος ἕνωσιν· ἢ τὸ τὸν θεὸν μὲν ἐπουράνιον πιστεύειν εἶναι, τὸν δὲ δεξάμενον ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὸν θεὸν τὸν οὐράνιον μὴ ἐκεῖ εἶναι, ὅπου ὁ θεὸς εἶναι πιστεύεται, ἀλλ' ἑτέρωθι παρὰ τὸν οὐράνιον εἶναι καὶ ἄλλο τι παρὰ τοῦτο κατονομάζεσθαι; Εἰ γάρ, φησὶν ὁ Ἀπολινάριος, οὐρανίου θεοῦ δοχεῖόν ἐστιν, ὁ δὲ θεὸς ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἄνω, καθὼς ὁ Ἐκ κλησιαστὴς λέγει. ἄρα ὁ χωρήσας ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὸν θεὸν μετὰ τοῦ χωρηθέντος ἐστὶν ἐπουράνιος ἀντὶ χοϊκοῦ κυρίως λεγόμενος· ὡς καὶ δι' ὧν φησιν ὁ λογογράφος, εἴπερ τὸ ἀκόλουθον τοῖς ἰδίοις λόγοις ἠπίστατο, σαφῶς τὸ δόγμα τῆς ἀληθείας κατασκευάζεται, τῇ σοφίᾳ τῶν ἐχθρῶν κρατυ νόμενον. Ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐφεξῆς ἐξετάσωμεν. Εἰ δὲ ἡμεῖς μέν, φησίν, ἐκ τριῶν, αὐτὸς δὲ ἐκ τεσσάρων, οὐκ ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλὰ ἀνθρωπόθεος. μὴ γελάτω πρὸς τὸ μωροφανὲς τοῦ ῥήματος καὶ ἀνόητον ὁ ἐντυγχάνων τῷ λόγῳ, στεναζέτω δὲ μᾶλλον πρὸς τὴν ἑκούσιον πήρωσιν τῶν τῇ ἀλογίᾳ ταύτῃ δεδουλωμένων. ἐὰν πᾶσα ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις τῇ ἐπισκηνώσει τῆς θείας δυνάμεως σῴζηται, ἀνθρωπόθεος ὁ θεὸς λόγος ὀνομασθήσεται· καὶ καθάπερ οἱ μῦθοι ἐκ διαφόρων συμπλέ κοντες φύσεων τερατεύονται ζῷον καὶ σχήματα καὶ ὀνόματα ἱππελάφους καὶ τραγελάφους καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα πλάσσοντές τε καὶ ὀνομάζοντες, οὕτως καὶ ὁ νέος μυθοποιὸς κατὰ τοὺς διδασκάλους αὐτοῦ τῆς ποιήσεως καταχλευάζει τὸ θεῖον 3,1.215 μυστήριον. Καὶ τοῦ ἀποστόλου διαρρήδην βοῶντος ὅτι ∆ι' ἀνθρώπου ἀνάστασις ἐκ νεκρῶν, οὐχ ἡμίσεως ἀνθρώπου οὐδὲ μικρόν τι ὑπὲρ τὸ ἥμισυ ἔχοντος, ἀλλὰ τῷ ἀπολύτῳ τῆς φωνῆς ἀμείωτον ἐνδειξαμένου τὴν φύσιν τὴν σημαινομένην ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι, οὗτος Μινώταυρον ἡμῖν διὰ τῆς αἰσχρᾶς ταύτης ὀνοματοποιΐας τερατεύεται τὸ μυστήριον, πολλὰς παρέχων τοῖς ἀλλοτρίοις τῆς πίστεως ἀφορμάς, δι' ὧν εἴρηκεν, εἰς τὸ χλευάζειν τὸν λόγον τῆς πίστεως. οὐ γὰρ ἔστι τὸν διασύρειν ἐπὶ γέλωτι τὰ δόγματα θέλοντα τῆς ἀτόπου ταύτης συνθέσεως τῶν λόγων ἀποτραπῆναι, κἂν τὸ τοῦ λογο γράφου κἂν τὸ ἡμέτερον ἐπικρατέστερον εἶναι δόξῃ· ὅ τι γὰρ ἂν ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων εἴπῃς, τὴν ἐκ τῶν δύο φύσεων σύνθεσιν οὐκ ἀφαιρήσεις τοῦ λόγου. οὐ γὰρ ὁ ἄνωθεν φήσας εἶναι τὴν σάρκα τὸ μηδὲ σάρκα αὐτὴν εἶναι κατασκευάζει· ἡ δὲ σὰρξ ἐμψύχῳ τινὶ φύσει διοικουμένη καὶ ζωτικὴν ἐν ἑαυτῇ δύναμιν ἔχουσα, καθὼς καὶ ὁ Ἀπολινάριος βούλεται, τὴν τοῦ ἀν θρώπου προσηγορίαν κυρίως ἔχει· ὁ δὲ προσλαβόμενος αὐτὴν καὶ ἑαυτὸν δι' ἐκείνης φανερώσας ἕτερος τῇ φύσει πάντως παρ' ἐκείνην ἐστίν· αὐτὸ γὰρ τὸ τῆς προσλήψεως ὄνομα τὴν κατὰ φύσιν ἑτερότητα τοῦ προσλαβομένου παρὰ τὸ προσειλημμένον ἐνδείκνυται. τί οὖν τὸ κωλῦον ἔσται, κἂν ταῦτα κρατῇ, τὸν ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθέντα θεὸν διὰ τῆς ἀτόπου ἐκείνης ὀνοματοποιΐας ὑβρίζεσθαι, ὥστε καὶ τὸν οὕτω συνεστηκότα κατὰ τὴν τολμηρὰν τοῦ Ἀπολιναρίου φωνὴν ἀνθρωπόθεον λέγεσθαι; οὐδὲ γὰρ τὸν τραγέλαφον, ἐπειδὴ ὅλῳ τῷ ἐλάφῳ ἐξ