^{page 139 note 1} Lietzmann, H., Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule, Tübingen 1904Google Scholar (hereafter referred to as Lietzmann), 235, fragm. 116.

^{page 139 note 2} This particular step in the argument is not explicitly stated, but it seems necessary to understand it as being implicit in it, and required by the pregnant and compressed style of Apollinaris's reasoning. The Greek runs: τ δ θρεπτικν νεγν ὃν ν τῷ τρεφομνῳ μοοσιον αὐτῷ κα οὐ τρεφμενον μοως κα εἰ το ζωοποιν οὐ ζωοποιομενν στιν μοως τῷ ζωοποιουμνῳ, οὐκ μοοσιον αὐτῷ. The argument clearly proceeds by way of contrast, but there is nothing corresponding directly with κα οὐ τρεφμενον in the second part of the contrast. Unless we are to treat κα οὐ τρεφμενον as purely otiose, which is unlikely in a passage where every word is significant, the contrast must be found in the words εἰ δ τ ζωοιποιν οὐ ζωοποιομενν στιν. By the negative οὐ ζωοποιομενν στιν Apollinaris appears to understand it as obvious, and requiring no proof, nor even direct mention, that that which vivifies must itself be vivified. The negative then expresses the antithesis.

^{page 140 note 1} In the In Ex. Hom., xiii. 3, receiving the Word of God through the sense of hearing is regarded as at least as important as receiving it in the Eucharist. Elsewhere, e.g. In Lev. Hom., vii. 5, and Comm. in Mt. Series lxxxv, Christ's words about his Body and Blood are understood as allegories of deeper and more important spiritual realities, while in the Comm. in Johannem xxxii. 24 (16), Origen holds that these words of Christ about his Body and Blood, are only understood as referring to the Eucharist ‘by the more simple sort’. ‘Those who understand these things more deeply’ see them as referring to ‘the more divine promise of nourishment by the Word of Truth’.

^{page 140 note 2} Lietzmann, 249, fragm. 155.

^{page 140 note 3} De Incarnat., liv. 3. For similar sentiments in Apollinaris, see Ἡ κατ μερς πστις 31 (Lietzmann, 179) : .

^{page 141 note 1} See I. Karmiris, Σνοψις τς Δογματικς Διδασκαλας τς Ὀρθοδξου Καθολικς Ἐκκλησας, Athens 1957, 98–100.

^{page 141 note 2} See de Cavallera, F., Le Schisme d'Antioche (iv^e-v^e siècle), Paris 1905Google Scholar.

^{page 141 note 3} Ad Dionysium, i. 8: Lietzmann, 259.

^{page 141 note 4} Ibid., i. 2: Lietzmann, 257.

^{page 141 note 5} Apollinaris, Ep. ad Sarapionem: Lietzmann, 254, fragm. 160.

^{page 142 note 1} De Unione, 4: Lietzmann, 186–7.

^{page 142 note 2} Ibid., 5: Lietzmann, 187.

^{page 142 note 3} See de Riedmatten, H., ‘Some neglected aspects of Apollinarist Christology’, in Dominican Studies, i (1948), 239–60Google Scholar. Fr. de Riedmatten underlines the importance attached by Apollinaris to the biological mechanics of the Incarnation. Apollinaris's traducianist views are recognised as being of fundamental importance for any estimation of the nature of Apollinaris's anthropology in general and of his view of the Person of the Saviour in particular.

^{page 142 note 4} The most recent detailed discussion of the problems of Apollinarian Christology is set out by Fr. de Riedmatten in his essay ‘La Christologie d'Apollinaire’ in Studia Patristica, ed. Aland, and Cross, , Berlin 1957Google Scholar (Texte und Untersuchungen, lxiv, ii) 208–34. Here the Christology of Apollinaris is seen as a remarkable piece of original thought, standing strictly neither in the mainstream of thought either of Antioch or of Alexandria, as these streams of thought have been traditionally understood. The stress on ‘flesh’ as a major factor to be reckoned with in human personality suggests an Aristotelian rather than a Platonic background, which is rare enough in any of the earlier schools of Christian thought. Apollinaris was a good deal more eclectic than his contemporaries. This enables a more balanced view to be taken of the old problem of whether Apollinaris held a dichotomist or a trichotomist anthropology; see Raven, C. E., Apollinarianism, Cambridge 1923, 173Google Scholar ff. Hitherto the evidence of his works was seen as conflicting. Rufinus claimed that Apollinaris moved from a twofold to a threefold scheme under pressure of controversy. Lietzmann classifies the fragments as either dichotomite or trichotomite. But on Fr. de Riedmatten's analysis it emerges that while it is proper to regard Apollinaris as holding that, biologically speaking, human nature is composed of flesh and γεμονικν a three-fold scheme is not excluded. Ordinary men (e.g., the Apostles) have πνεμα as part of their natural make up (op. cit., 209). Passages adduced from the Commentary on Ezekiel (ibid., 228–34) seem to indicate that Apollinaris saw the γεμονικν as involving both πνεμα (the actual life spirit of man, which is received κ διαδοχς from his parents) and the reasoning faculty, or faculty of will. The biological dichotomy and the ‘moral’ trichotomy are found exemplified in Lietzmann 232, fragm. 107.

^{page 143 note 1} See Lietzmann, loc. cit.

^{page 143 note 2} Lietzmann, 247, fragm. 150: δνατν στιν ν ἕνι κα τῷ αὐτῷ ὑποκειμνῳ δυ τνντια θλοντας λλλοις συνυπρχειν, κατρου τ θεληθν αυτῷ καθ’ ὅρμην αὐτοκνητον νεργοντας.

^{page 143 note 3} Apollinaris, ad Iulianum: Lietzmann, 247–8, fragm. 151.

^{page 143 note 4} Ἡ κατ μερς πστις, 30: Lietzmann, 178.

^{page 143 note 5} Ep. ad Diocaesareenses, 2: Lietzmann, 256.

^{page 143 note 6} In one passage—ad Dioc., 2—εἰς ἄνθρωπον, ἄγιον πιδημηκναι … τν λγον is contrasted with σρκα γενσθαι. Elsewhere it refers directly to the Incarnation, e.g., Ἡ κατ μερς πστις 35; Lietzmann, 184: υἱς πεδμησε, κοσμῷ. See also ad Dion. i. 8: ν σρκι κα οὐκ ἃσαρκος υἱς πεδμησε, κοσμῷ and also (comment on Jn. i. 14) Lietzmann, 204, fragm. 2: ὅθεν κα σκνωσιν ρν πιδημαν αὐτο τν ξ οὐρανν νομζομεν. In one passage Apollinaris insists on the necessity of a proper Christology if we are going to be able to use the word πιδημα of the Incarnation: see Lietzmann, 220–1, fragm. 70. Christ was not merely a wise man, or even Wisdom itself. In the first case the παρουσα of Christ would not have been an πιδημα θεο but simply an νθρώπου; in the second, it still would not have been an πιδημα θεο, but only ὡς ἠλλοτριωμνης το θεο τς σοφας.

^{page 144 note 1} For occurrences of the word, see Liddel and Scott, s.v. πιδημεω-ω-α. From classical times the verb could be used in a semi-technical sense to describe the act of alien residence in a foreign city. The verb might always be used to describe visits of an ordinary social nature, but the idea of an official visit creeps in in an Egyptian papyrus of the fourth century A.D., which describes the visit of an imperial Notarius, possibly in connexion with army recruitment (Greek Papyri in the British Museum, ed. Kenyon, ii, No. 416 11. 5, 295–6.) Moreover, in the Christian period, the word was used of the official visit of an emperor: Herodian, iii. 14.1. See Dittenberger, Orientis Graecae Inscriptions Selectae, ii, No. 517, connected with the visit of Elagabalus to Thyateira. As the text, which is the record of a grant of certain rights and privileges as a consequence of this πιδημα, shows, it would be natural for an emperor to signalise his visit to a town by some gracious benefaction. See also Inscriptiones Graecae, iii part i, No. 1023, recording the πιδημα of Hadrian at Athens. It is noteworthy for the phrase τς πρώτης θεο Ἀδριανο (ε)ἰς Ἀθνας πιδημας which witnesses the possibility of a divine πιδημα.

^{page 144 note 2} Lietzmann, 222, fragm. 74.

^{page 145 note 1} P. van der Aalst, ‘Le Christ dans la piété orientale’ in Proche Orient Chrétien, viii, Fasc ii, 104.

^{page 146 note 1} Prestige, G. L., St. Basil the Great and Apollinaris of Laodicea, ed. Chadwick, H., London 1956Google Scholar; de Riedmatten, H., ‘La Correspondance entre Basile de Césarée et Apollinaire de Laodicée’ in J.T.S., N.S. vii (1956), 199–210Google Scholar, viii (1957), 53–70.

^{page 146 note 2} Apollinaris, ad Sarapionem; Lietzmann, 253–4, fragm. 159.

^{page 146 note 3} Ep. ad Diocaesar., i: Lietzmann, 255.

^{page 147 note 1} Messe und Herrenmahl, Eng. Tr., 63.

^{page 147 note 2} Cyril of Jerusalem, De Mysteriis, v. 7.

^{page 147 note 3} See e.g., Pitt, W. E., in this Journal, ix (1958), 1–7Google Scholar.

^{page 147 note 4} Possibly the language betrays Cappadocian influence. Cf. Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, 66; P.G., xxxii., col. 166: τ τς πικλσεως ῥματα π τῇ ναδεξει το ἄρτου τς εὐχαριστας κα το ποτηρου τς εὐλογας. Compare also the petition in the Liturgy of St. Basil: ἔλθεῖν τ Πνεμα … π τ προκεμενα δρα κα εὐλογσαι κα γισαι κα ναδεῖξαι …

^{page 147 note 5} F. X. Funk, Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum, Paderborn 1905, ii. 172, paragraphs 2–4.

^{page 148 note 1} Op. cit., 5. ll. 9–10.

^{page 148 note 2} See Michell, G. A., ‘Firmilian and Eucharistic Consecration’ in J.T.S., N.S., v (1954), 215–20Google Scholar, and also Cyril of Jerusalem, De Mysteriis, i. 7.

^{page 149 note 1} Ad Ephesios, ii. 20.

^{page 149 note 2} Funk, op. cit., ii. 175.

^{page 149 note 3} Eutychius, De Pascha et SS. Eucharistia: P.G., lxxxvi. col. 2401.

^{page 150 note 1} The language of Athanasius in his fourth Paschal Letter, dated 332, (P.G., xxvi. col. 1377–8), where he speaks of Christians ‘eating the Word’, instead of the Paschal Lamb of the old Dispensation, suggests that his own Eucharist was intended to produce a state of affairs similar to that of Sarapion.

^{page 150 note 2} Jerome, Comm. in Sophoniam, 3.

^{page 150 note 3} Gregory Nazianzen, Ep., clxxi: P.G., xxxvii. col. 280–1.

^{page 150 note 4} As is apparent from Funk's note (loc. cit.), the practice must have changed to a Spirit-epiclesis almost with the death of Athanasius. Peter II of Alexandria (ap. Theodoret H.E., iv. 22, 7), speaking of the Eucharist says, ἔνθα κθοδον το γου πνεματος πικαλομεθα, while Jerome (Ep., xcviii) quotes from a Paschal Letter of Theophilus of Alexandria, which states categorically, ‘panem dominicum et sacrum calicem per invocationem et adventum Sancti Spiritus sanctificari’. The occurrence of ‘adventum’ in a later passage still recalls the πιδημηστω of Sarapion's epiclesis, but now the Third Person has been substituted for the Second. Clearly the epiclesis of the Logos was soon held to be highly unsatisfactory, but for what reason, whether because of affinities with Apollinarian Christology, or as a result of the discussions about the Person and function of the Holy Spirit at the Council of Constantinople in 381, is impossible to say.

^{page 151 note 1} Sozomen, H.E., iv. 25: P.G., lxvii. col. 1360.

^{page 151 note 2} For example, at the beginning of the fourth century, Pamphilus of Caesarea felt obliged to defend Origen against the charge of being a follower of the ideas of Paul of Samosata (sic), simply because Origen had attributed a human soul to Christ: P.G., xvii. col. 578–9, and 584–5.

^{page 152 note 1} Ad Epictetum, 7: P.G., xxvi. col. 1061.

^{page 152 note 2} Ibid. 8. Cf. Contra Arianos, i. 4.3; note also Athanasius's stress on his exegesis of John, viii. 40. See also ad Sarapionem ii. 7, and ad Maximum Philosophum, 2.

^{page 152 note 3} Tomus Ad Antiochenos, 7: P.G., xxvi. col. 804.

^{page 153 note 1} Eusebius of Caesarea, De Eccles. Theol., i. 20, 39–48 (Eusebius Werke, ed. Klostermann, Berlin, iv. 87–9). The whole passage is of considerable importance as a statement of Eusebius's own Christological views. He apparently supports the view of the λγος ζν κα ὑφεστὼς κα τν σρκα κινν ψυχς δικν. The attribution of a human soul to Christ is stigmatised as Ebionite or Samosatene ‘psilanthropism’. He further rejects a view to which the refusal of Marcellus of Ancyra to treat the Logos as a full hypostasis might lead, i.e. that αὐτματον κινεῖσθαι τν σρκα ἄψυχον οὖσαν κα ἄλογον or that Christ's flesh was δχα πντος νοκου. As Eusebius points out, this view reduces the Incarnation to the level of a puppet show and it is quickly dismissed.

^{page 153 note 2} G. Muller, Index Athanasianum, s.v. Also above, 143 n. 6, 144 n. 1.