“For as,” you say, “by man came death, so by man came also the resurrection of the dead.” Do you actually try to prove your wrong and impious notion by the witness of the Apostle? And do you bring the “chosen vessel” into disgrace by mixing him up with your wicked ideas? I mean, that, as you cannot understand the author of your Salvation, therefore the Apostle must be made out to have denied God. And yet, if you wanted to make use of Apostolic witnesses, why did you rest contented with one, and pass over all the others in silence? and why did you not at once add this: “Paul, an Apostle not of men neither by man, but by Jesus Christ:” or this: “We speak wisdom among the perfect:” and presently: “Whom none,” says he, “of the princes of this world knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” Or this: “For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” And: “One Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things.” Or do you partly agree, and partly disagree with the Apostle, and only receive him so far as in consequence of the Incarnation he names Christ man, and repudiate him where he speaks of Him as God? For Paul does not deny that Jesus is man, but still he confesses that man is God: and declares that to mankind the resurrection came by man in such a way that he shows that in that man God arose. For see whether he declares that He who rose was God, as he bears his witness that He who was crucified was the Lord of glory.
Reproduced in full. Translation: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 2, vol. 11 (Schaff and Wace, 1894), public domain (Public domain).