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,” 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?”