§2. He convicts Eunomius of having used of the Only-begotten terms applicable to the existence of the earth, and thus shows that his intention is to prove the Son to be a being mutable and created.

And this he shows very plainly by his contention against our arguments, where he says that “the essence of the Son came into being from the Father, not put forth by way of extension, not separated from its conjunction with Him that generated Him by flux or division, not perfected by way of growth, not transformed by way of change, but obtaining existence by the mere will of the Generator.” Why, what man whose mental senses are not closed up is left in ignorance by this utterance that by these statements the Son is being represented by Eunomius as a part of the creation? What hinders us from saying all this word for word as it stands, about every single one of the things we contemplate in creation? Let us apply, if you will, the definition to any of the things that appear in creation, and if it does not admit the same sequence, we will condemn ourselves for having examined the definition slightingly, and not with the care that befits the truth. Let us exchange, then, the name of the Son, and so read the definition word by word. We say that the essence of the earth came into being from the Father, not separated by way of extension or division from its conjunction with Him Who generated it, nor perfected by way of growth, nor put forth by way of change, but obtaining existence by the mere will of Him Who generated it. Is there anything in what we have said that does not apply to the existence of the earth? I think no one would say so: for God did not put forth the earth by being extended, nor bring its essence into existence by flowing or by dissevering Himself from conjunction with Himself, nor did He bring it by means of gradual growth from being small to completeness of magnitude, nor was He fashioned into the form of earth by undergoing mutation or alteration, but His will sufficed Him for the existence of all things that were made: “He spake and they were generated562    γέννημα. This word, in what follows, is sometimes translated simply by the word “product,” where it is not contrasted with ποίημα (the “product of making”), or where the argument depends especially upon its grammatical form (which indicates that the thing denoted is the result of a process), rather than upon the idea of the particular process.    Cf. Ps. xxxiii. 9, and Ps. cxlviii. 5, in LXX. (reading ἐγεννήθησαν).    The words referred to are those in Acts ii. 36.,” so that even the name of “generation” does not fail to accord with the existence of the earth. Now if these things may be truly said of the parts of the universe, what doubt is still left as to our adversaries’ doctrine, that while, so far as words go, they call Him “Son,” they represent Him as being one of the things that came into existence by creation, set before the rest only in precedence of order? just as you might say about the trade of a smith, that from it come all things that are wrought out of iron; but that the instrument of the tongs and hammer, by which the iron is fashioned for use, existed before the making of the rest; yet, while this has precedence of the rest, there is not on that account any difference in respect of matter between the instrument that fashions and the iron that is shaped by the instrument, (for both one and the other are iron,) but the one form is earlier than the other. Such is the theology of heresy touching the Son,—to imagine that there is no difference between the Lord Himself and the things that were made by Him, save the difference in respect of order.

Who that is in any sense classed among Christians admits that the definition563    Cf. S. John xvi. 21    The force of λόγος here appears to be nearly equivalent to “idea,” in the sense of an exact expression of the nature of a thing. Gulonius renders it by “ratio.”    S. Basil: the passages discussed are afterwards referred to in detail. of the essence of the parts of the world, and of Him Who made the world, is the same? For my own part I shudder at the blasphemy, knowing that where the definition of things is the same neither is their nature different. For as the definition of the essence of Peter and John and other men is common and their nature is one, in the same way, if the Lord were in respect of nature even as the parts of the world, they must acknowledge that He is also subject to those things, whatever they may be, which they perceive in them. Now the world does not last for ever: thus, according to them, the Lord also will pass away with the heaven and the earth, if, as they say, He is of the same kind with the world. If on the other hand He is confessed to be eternal, we must needs suppose that the world too is not without some part in the Divine nature, if, as they say, it corresponds with the Only-begotten in the matter of creation. You see where this fine process of inference makes the argument tend, like a stone broken off from a mountain ridge and rushing down-hill by its own weight. For either the elements of the world must be Divine, according to the foolish belief of the Greeks, or the Son must not be worshipped. Let us consider it thus. We say that the creation, both what is perceived by the mind, and that which is of a nature to be perceived by sense, came into being from nothing: this they declare also of the Lord. We say that all things that have been made consist by the will of God: this they tell us also of the Only-begotten. We believe that neither the angelic creation nor the mundane is of the essence of Him that made it: and they make Him also alien from the essence of the Father. We confess that all things serve Him that made them: this view they also hold of the Only-begotten. Therefore, of necessity, whatever else it may be that they conceive of the creation, all these attributes they will also attach to the Only-begotten: and whatever they believe of Him, this they will also conceive of the creation: so that, if they confess the Lord as God, they will also deify the rest of the creation. On the other hand, if they define these things to be without share in the Divine nature, they will not reject the same conception touching the Only-begotten also. Moreover no sane man asserts Godhead of the creation. Then neither—I do not utter the rest, lest I lend my tongue to the blasphemy of the enemy. Let those say what consequence follows, whose mouth is well trained in blasphemy. But their doctrine is evident even if they hold their peace. For one of two things must necessarily happen:—either they will depose the Only-begotten God, so that with them He will no more either be, or be called so: or, if they assert Godhead of Him, they will equally assert it of all creation:—or, (for this is still left to them,) they will shun the impiety that appears on either side, and take refuge in the orthodox doctrine, and will assuredly agree with us that He is not created, that they may confess Him to be truly God.

What need is there to take time to recount all the other blasphemies that underlie his doctrine, starting from this beginning? For by what we have quoted, one who considers the inference to be drawn will understand that the father of falsehood, the maker of death, the inventor of wickedness, being created in a nature intellectual and incorporeal, was not by that nature hindered from becoming what he is by way of change. For the mutability of essence, moved either way at will, involves a capacity of nature that follows the impulse of determination, so as to become that to which its determination leads it. Accordingly they will define the Lord as being capable even of contrary dispositions, drawing Him down as it were to a rank equal with the angels, by the conception of creation564    If, that is, they speak of the “generated essence” in contra-distinction to “ungenerate essence” they are precluded from saying that the essence of the Son is that He is begotten, and that the essence of the Father is that He is ungenerate: that which constitutes the essence cannot be made an epithet of the essence.    The argument appears to be this:—The Anomœans assert, on the ground that He is created, that the Son’s essence is τρεπτὸν, liable to change; where there is the possibility of change, the nature must have a capacity of inclining one way or the other, according to the balance of will determining to which side the nature shall incline: and that this is the condition of the angels may be seen from the instance of the fallen angels, whose nature was inclined to evil by their προαίρεσις. It follows that to say the Son is τρεπτὸς implies that He is on a level with the angelic nature, and might fall even as the angels fell.    With the following passage may be compared the parallel account in the Book of Wisdom (ch. xiii.).. But let them listen to the great voice of Paul. Why is it that he says that He alone has been called Son? Because He is not of the nature of angels, but of that which is more excellent. “For unto which of the angels said He at any time, ‘Thou art My Son, This day have I begotten Thee’? and when again He bringeth the first-begotten into the world He saith, ‘And let all the angels of God worship Him.’ And of the angels He saith, ‘Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire’: but of the Son He saith, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom565    Gen. i. 28.    Cf. Heb. i. 4, and foll. It is to be noted that Gregory connects πάλιν in v. 6, with εἰσαγάγῃ, not treating it, as the A.V. does, as simply introducing another quotation. This appears from his later reference to the text.    Cf. Is. xli. 4, xliv. 6, xlviii. 12 (LXX.). If the whole passage is intended to be a quotation, it is not made exactly from any one of these; the opening words are from the second passage referred to; and perhaps this is the only portion intended to be a quotation, the second clause being explanatory; the words of the second clause are varied in the repetition immediately afterwards.,’” and all else that the prophecy recites together with these words in declaring His Godhead. And he adds also from another Psalm the appropriate words, “Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Thine hands,” and the rest, as far as “But Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail566    S. Luke x. 16    Cf. Ps. cii. 25, 26.    εὐαγγελισάμενος,” whereby he describes the immutability and eternity of His nature. If, then, the Godhead of the Only-begotten is as far above the angelic nature as a master is superior to his slaves, how do they make common either with the sensible creation Him Who is Lord of the creation, or with the nature of the angels Him Who is worshipped by them567    Oehler’s punctuation here seems to be unsatisfactory.    πρὸς οὐδὲν ὁριζόμενος; i.e. before the name of “God” could be applied, as now, in contradistinction to creation, it was applied in contradistinction to nothing, and that distinction was in a sense the definition of God. Or the words may be turned, as Gulonius turns them, “nulla re determinatus,” “with no limitation”—the contradistinction to creation being regarded as a limitation by way of definition., by detailing, concerning the manner of His existence, statements which will properly apply to the individual things we contemplate in creation, even as we already showed the account given by heresy, touching the Lord, to be closely and appropriately applicable to the making of the earth?

Καὶ τοῦτο δείκνυσι περιφανῶς δι' ὧν τοῖς εἰρημένοις ἐπαγωνίζεται λέγων « γεγεννῆσθαι παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ υἱοῦ τὴν οὐσίαν. οὐ κατὰ ἔκτασιν προβληθεῖσαν, οὐ κατὰ ῥεῦσιν ἢ διαίρεσιν τῆς τοῦ γεννήσαντος συμφυΐας ἀποσπασθεῖσαν, οὐ κατὰ αὔξησιν τελειωθεῖσαν, οὐ κατὰ ἀλλοίωσιν μορφωθεῖσαν, μόνῃ δὲ τῇ βουλήσει τοῦ γεννήσαντος τὸ εἶναι λαχοῦσαν ». τίς γὰρ ἀγνοεῖ [διὰ τούτων] τῶν μὴ παντελῶς μεμυκότων τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς αἰσθητήρια, ὅτι μέρος τῆς κτίσεως ὁ υἱὸς εἶναι διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων παρὰ τοῦ Εὐνομίου κατασκευάζεται; τί γὰρ κωλύει ταῦτα πάντα, καθώς ἐστιν, ἐπὶ λέξεως καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἑκάστου τῶν ἐν τῇ κτίσει θεωρουμένων εἰπεῖν; καὶ εἰ δοκεῖ, συναρμόσωμέν τινι τῶν κατὰ τὴν κτίσιν φαινομένων τὸν λόγον, κἂν μὴ τὴν αὐτὴν ἀκολουθίαν ἔχῃ, καθ' ἡμῶν αὐτῶν τὴν ψῆφον ἐξοίσομεν ὡς ἐπηρεαστικῶς καὶ οὐ μετὰ τῆς πρεπούσης τῇ ἀληθείᾳ φροντίδος ἐξεταζόντων τὸν λόγον. ὑπαλλάξαντες τοίνυν τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τὸν ὅλον ἐπὶ λέξεως ἀναγνωσόμεθα λόγον. « φαμὲν γὰρ γεγεννῆσθαι παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς τῆς γῆς τὴν οὐσίαν, οὐ κατ' ἔκτασιν ἢ διαίρεσιν τῆς τοῦ γεννήσαντος συμφυΐας ἀποσπασθεῖσαν, οὐδὲ κατὰ αὔξησιν τελειωθεῖσαν, οὐ κατὰ ἀλλοίωσιν προβληθεῖσαν, μόνῃ δὲ τῇ βουλήσει τοῦ γεννήσαντος τὸ εἶναι λαχοῦσαν ». μή τίς ἐστι τῶν εἰρημένων πρὸς τὴν τῆς γῆς ὑπόστασιν ἀναρμοστία; οὐδένα ἂν οἶμαι τοῦτο εἰπεῖν: οὔτε γὰρ ἐκταθεὶς ὁ θεὸς τὴν γῆν προεβάλετο οὔτε ῥυεὶς ἢ τεμὼν ἑαυτὸν τῆς πρὸς ἑαυτὸν συμφυΐας τὴν οὐσίαν ταύτης ὑπέστησεν οὔτε ἐκ μικροῦ πρὸς μέγεθος διὰ τῆς κατ' ὀλίγον αὐξήσεως ἐτελείωσεν οὔτε τινὰ τροπὴν ἢ ἀλλοίωσιν ὑποστὰς εἰς τὸ τῆς γῆς εἶδος διεμορφώθη, ἀλλ' ἤρκεσεν αὐτῷ πρὸς ὑπόστασιν τῆς τῶν γεγονότων οὐσίας ἡ βούλησις: Αὐτὸς γὰρ εἶπε, καὶ ἐγενήθησαν, ὥστε καὶ τὸ τῆς γεννήσεως ὄνομα μὴ ἀπᾴδειν τῆς κατὰ τὴν γῆν ὑποστάσεως. εἰ οὖν ἐπὶ τῶν μορίων τοῦ κόσμου ταῦτα λέγειν ἀληθές ἐστι, τίς ἔτι λείπεται περὶ τοῦ δόγματος τῶν ἐναντίων ἀμφιβολία, ὅτι μέχρι ῥημάτων τὸν υἱὸν ὀνομάζοντες ἓν τῶν διὰ κτίσεως γεγονότων εἶναι κατασκευάζουσι, μόνοις τοῖς κατὰ τὴν τάξιν πρεσβείοις προτεταγμένον τῶν ἄλλων; καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῆς χαλκευτικῆς ἔστιν εἰπεῖν πάντα μὲν ἐκ ταύτης εἶναι τὰ ἐκ σιδήρου κατασκευάσματα, προγεγενῆσθαι δὲ τῆς τῶν λοιπῶν ἀπεργασίας τό τε τῆς πυράγρας καὶ τὸ τῆς σφύρας ὄργανον, δι' ὧν τυποῦται πρὸς τὴν χρείαν ὁ σίδηρος, οὐ μὴν ἐπειδὴ προτερεύει τοῦτο τῶν ἄλλων, ἤδη τις καὶ διαφορὰ κατὰ τὴν ὕλην ἐστὶ τοῦ τε ἐκτυποῦντος ὀργάνου καὶ τοῦ σχηματιζομένου σιδήρου κατὰ τὸ ὄργανον (σίδηρος γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο κἀκεῖνο), τὸ δὲ σχῆμα προγενέστερον τοῦ ἑτέρου τὸ ἕτερον: τοιαύτη τῆς αἱρέσεως ἡ περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ θεολογία, τὸ μηδὲν οἴεσθαι διαφέρειν κατ' οὐσίαν αὐτόν τε τὸν κύριον καὶ τὰ παρ' αὐτοῦ γεγονότα πλὴν τῆς κατὰ τὴν τάξιν διαφορᾶς.
Τίς τοίνυν τῶν καὶ ὁπωσοῦν εἰς Χριστιανοὺς συντελούντων τῶν τε μορίων τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τοῦ πεποιηκότος τὸν κόσμον τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι τῆς οὐσίας λόγον συνθήσεται; ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ φρίττω τὴν βλασφημίαν, εἰδὼς ὅτι ὧν ὁ λόγος ὁ αὐτός, τούτων πάντως οὐδὲ ἡ φύσις διάφορος. ὡς γὰρ Πέτρου καὶ Ἰωάννου καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἀνθρώπων ὅ τε λόγος τῆς οὐσίας κοινὸς καὶ ἡ φύσις μία, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον εἰ ὡσαύτως ἔχοι κατὰ τὴν φύσιν ὁ κύριος τοῖς τοῦ κόσμου μέρεσιν, ἅπερ ἂν ἐν ἐκείνοις κατανοήσωσι, τούτοις ὑποκεῖσθαι καὶ τοῦτον κατ' ἀνάγκην ὁμολογήσουσιν. ἀλλὰ μὴν ὁ κόσμος οὐκ εἰσαεὶ διαμενεῖ: ἄρα κατ' αὐτοὺς καὶ ὁ κύριος μετὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς παρελεύσεται, εἴπερ ὁμογενῶς ἔχοι τῷ κόσμῳ. εἰ δὲ αὐτὸς ἀΐδιος ὁμολογεῖται, ἀνάγκη πᾶσα μηδὲ τὸν κόσμον τῆς θείας φύσεως ἄμοιρον οἴεσθαι, εἴπερ τῷ μονογενεῖ κατὰ τὴν κτίσιν συμβαίνοι. ὁρᾷς πρὸς ὅ τι φέρεται διὰ τῆς καλῆς ταύτης ἀκολουθίας ὁ λόγος, οἷόν τις λίθος ἀπορραγεὶς ἀκρωρείας καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ πρανὲς ὑπὸ τοῦ ἰδίου βάρους συνελαυνόμενος. ἀνάγκη γὰρ ἢ καὶ τὰ τοῦ κόσμου στοιχεῖα κατὰ τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν ματαιότητα σεβάσμια φαίνεσθαι ἢ μηδὲ τὸν υἱὸν προσκυνεῖσθαι. οὑτωσὶ δὲ σκοπήσωμεν. ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων γεγενῆσθαι τὴν κτίσιν φαμὲν τήν τε νοητὴν καὶ ὅση τῆς αἰσθητῆς ἐστι φύσεως: ταῦτα καὶ περὶ τοῦ κυρίου κηρύσσουσι. θελήματι θεοῦ πάντα συστῆναι τὰ γεγονότα λέγομεν: ταῦτα καὶ περὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς διεξέρχονται. οὐκ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας εἶναι τοῦ πεποιηκότος οὔτε τὴν ἀγγελικὴν κτίσιν οὔτε τὴν ἐγκόσμιον πεπιστεύκαμεν: κἀκεῖνον ὁμοίως τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας ἀλλοτριοῦσι. δουλεύειν τὰ σύμπαντα τῷ θελήματι τοῦ πεποιηκότος ὁμολογοῦμεν: ταύτην ἔχουσι καὶ περὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς τὴν διάνοιαν. οὐκοῦν ἐξ ἀνάγκης καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα, ὅσαπερ ἂν ἐπὶ ταύτης νοήσωσι, ταῦτα καὶ τῷ μονογενεῖ ἐφαρμόσουσι, καὶ ὅπερ ἂν ἐν ἐκείνῳ πιστεύσωσι, τοῦτο καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς κτίσεως ὑπολήψονται: ὥστε εἰ θεὸν ὁμολογοῦσι τὸν κύριον, καὶ τὴν λοιπὴν κτίσιν θεοποιήσουσιν, εἰ δὲ ταῦτα τῆς θείας φύσεως ἀμοιρεῖν διορίζονται, τὴν αὐτὴν ὑπόληψιν καὶ περὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς οὐκ ἀρνήσονται. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδεὶς τῶν σωφρονούντων τῇ κτίσει προσμαρτυρεῖ τὴν θεότητα: οὐκ ἄρα_καὶ σιωπῶ τὸ λειπόμενον, ὡς ἂν μὴ χρίσαιμι τῇ τῶν ἐχθρῶν βλασφημίᾳ τὴν γλῶσσαν: ἐκεῖνοι λεγέτωσαν τὸ ἐκ τῆς ἀκολουθίας ἐπιφερόμενον, οἷς τὸ στόμα πρὸς τὴν βλασφημίαν καταγεγύμνασται. ὁ δὲ λόγος καὶ σιωπώντων δῆλός ἐστι. τῶν δύο γὰρ τὸ ἕτερον ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἔσται: ἢ φανερῶς ἀποχειροτονήσουσι τὸν μονογενῆ θεόν, ὥστε μηκέτι παρ' ἐκείνοις καὶ εἶναι τοῦτο καὶ λέγεσθαι: ἢ εἰ προσμαρτυροῦσιν αὐτῷ τὴν θεότητα, καὶ πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει τὸ ἴσον προσμαρτυρήσουσιν: ἢ τὸ λειπόμενον, φεύγοντες τὴν ἐφ' ἑκάτερα προφαινομένην ἀσέβειαν ἐπὶ τὸν εὐσεβῆ καταφεύξονται λόγον καὶ τὸ μὴ κτιστὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι πάντως συγκαταθήσονται, ἵνα θεὸν αὐτὸν ἀληθῶς εἶναι ὁμολογήσωσι.
Τί δεῖ τὰ ἄλλα λέγοντα διατρίβειν ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ταύτης ὅσα κατ' ἀνάγκην ὕπεστι τῷ λόγῳ τὰ βλάσφημα; συνήσει γὰρ διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων ὁ πρὸς τὸ ἀκόλουθον βλέπων, ὅτι καὶ ὁ τοῦ ψεύδους πατήρ, ὁ τοῦ θανάτου δημιουργός, ὁ τῆς κακίας εὑρετής, κτιστὸς ὢν ἐν νοερᾷ τε καὶ ἀθανάτῳ καὶ ἀσωμάτῳ τῇ φύσει, οὐκ ἐκωλύθη ὑπὸ τῆς φύσεως διὰ μεταβολῆς γενέσθαι ὅπερ ἐστί. τὸ γὰρ τρεπτὸν τῆς οὐσίας ἐφ' ἑκάτερον κατ' ἐξουσίαν κινούμενον ἀκολουθοῦσαν ἔχει τῇ τῆς προαιρέσεως ῥοπῇ τὴν τῆς φύσεως δύναμιν, ὥστε ἐκεῖνο γενέσθαι πρὸς ὅπερ ἂν ἡ προαίρεσις αὐτῆς ἀφηγήσηται. οὐκοῦν δεκτικὸν καὶ τῶν ἐναντίων τὸν κύριον διορίσονται, ὡς πρὸς τὴν ἀγγελικὴν ὁμοτιμίαν αὐτὸν κατασπῶντες διὰ τῆς κτίσεως. ἀλλ' ἀκουσάτωσαν τῆς μεγάλης τοῦ Παύλου φωνῆς. πῶς μόνον τοῦτον υἱὸν κεκλῆσθαί φησι; διὰ τὸ εἶναι οὐχὶ τῆς τῶν ἀγγέλων, ἀλλὰ τῆς κρείττονος φύσεως. Τίνι γὰρ εἶπέ ποτε τῶν ἀγγέλων Υἱός μου εἶ σύ; καὶ ὅταν πάλιν εἰσαγάγῃ τὸν πρωτότοκον εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην, λέγει Καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ. καὶ πρὸς μὲν τοὺς ἀγγέλους λέγει Ὁ ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ πνεύματα καὶ τοὺς λειτουργοὺς αὐτοῦ πυρὸς φλόγα: πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱὸν Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, ῥάβδος εὐθύτητος ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου, καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα μετὰ τούτων ἡ προφητεία θεολογοῦσα διέξεισι. προστίθησι δὲ καὶ ἀφ' ἑτέρας ὑμνωδίας τὰ πρόσφορα τὸ Σὺ κατ' ἀρχὰς τὴν γῆν ἐθεμελίωσας, κύριε, καὶ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν σου εἰσὶν οἱ οὐρανοί, καὶ τὰ ἐφεξῆς πάντα ἕως τοῦ Σὺ δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς εἶ καὶ τὰ ἔτη σου οὐκ ἐκλείψουσι, δι' ὧν τὸ ἀναλλοίωτόν τε καὶ τὸ ἀΐδιον ὑπογράφει τῆς φύσεως. εἰ οὖν τοσοῦτον ὑπέρκειται τῆς ἀγγελικῆς φύσεως τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἡ θεότης, ὅσον διαφέρει τῶν δούλων ὁ κεκτημένος, πῶς κοινοποιοῦσιν ἢ πρὸς τὴν αἰσθητὴν κτίσιν τὸν τῆς κτίσεως κύριον ἢ πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἀγγέλων φύσιν τὸν ὑπ' αὐτῶν προσκυνούμενον, ταῦτα περὶ τοῦ τρόπου τῆς ὑπάρξεως αὐτοῦ διεξιόντες, ἃ τοῖς καθ' ἕκαστον τῶν ἐν τῇ κτίσει θεωρουμένων κυρίως ἐφαρμοσθήσεται, καθὼς ἤδη τὸν ἀποδοθέντα περὶ τοῦ κυρίου λόγον ὑπὸ τῆς αἱρέσεως τῇ κατασκευῇ τῆς γῆς προσφυῶς ἔχοντα καὶ οἰκείως ἐδείξαμεν;