To Florus 4.49
As the matter shows, such flattery gravely damages the catholic faith. It is not merely unnecessary but profane. By wishing to show something superior in Christ’s body, lest sharing our flesh should diminish it, Apollinaris deprived him of the full possession of natural sensations. He did not see how far the ruin would extend when truth was damaged even by flattery. For an objection raised by the catholics thundered against him: under such a belief, Christ’s saving mysteries would suffer a greater loss than his members. “If,” (Luke 4:2) they said, “Christ was made from David’s seed (Romans 1:3), made from a woman and made under the Law (Galatians 4:4), in order to give us an example, so that we might follow the footsteps of the one who committed no sin and in whose mouth no deceit was found (1 Peter 2:21–22), yet he did not put on all the properties of our substance—if he bore either flesh without a soul or a human being without the sensations nature gives us—then he is not shown to have fulfilled the model of an example and a law. What was praiseworthy in despising the enticements of the senses if, through nature’s favor, he was incapable of them? What was remarkable in restraining eyes that did not wander because his flesh kept them from doing so? What was great in turning his nostrils away from enticing scents if they did not know how to receive them? What was astonishing in maintaining strict restraint over meals every day if he could not feel their appeal? Finally, what difficulty was there in fasting for forty days if hunger could not trouble him (compare Matthew 4:2; Luke 4:2)? What reverence did the discipline of ears deserve, receiving only honorable words, if they had an inborn deafness to improper ones? And what glory was there in chastity if manhood, rather than willingness, was absent, and what was thought to arise from strength of mind came from weakness of the members?” (Matthew 4:2)
Latin
Tam gravi, ut res indicat, in fidem Catholicorum adulatione, non solum nihil necessaria, verum etiam profana. Cum enim vult ostendere plus aliquid fuisse in Christi corpore, ne carnis nostrae communione vilesceret, naturalium eum sensuum integritate fraudavit; non videns in quantum iret exitium damnum veritatis vel adulatione corruptae. Infremuit quippe a Catholicis excitata praescriptio; quia apud talem fidem maius damnum mysteria Christi, quam membra perferrent. Si enim propter hoc, inquiunt, factus est Christus ex semine David [n83] , factus ex muliere, factusque sub lege [n84] , ut nobis daret exemplum, et sequeremur vestigia eius, qui peccatum non fecit, nec inventus est dolus in ore eius [n85] ; nec tamen per omnia substantiae nostrae induit proprietatem, si vel carnem sine anima, vel hominem sine sensibus, quibus nos imbuit natura, gestavit, exempli formam et legis non docetur implesse. Quid enim fuit laude dignum, contemnere illecebras sensuum, quarum incapax erat beneficio naturae? Quid mirum, cohibere oculos carnis suae auxilio non vagantes? Quid magnum, abducere ab illecebrosis odoribus nares, quibus nescirent patere? Quid stupendum, tenere arduam quotidie in epulis parcitatem, quarum nequibat irritamenta sentire? Quid postremo ardui haberent in quadragesimum diem prolata ieiunia, si esuries molesta esse non poterat? Quid venerationis disciplina aurium mereretur, numquam nisi honestarum vocum receptrix, si nativam patiebatur in indebitas surditatem? Quae autem gloria castitatis, si virilitas magis aberat quam voluntas, et quod putabatur fieri de vigore animi, veniebat de debilitate membrorum?