§2. He then explains the phrase of S. Peter, “Him God made Lord and Christ.” And herein he sets forth the opposing statement of Eunomius, which he made on account of such phrase against S. Basil, and his lurking revilings and insults.

Now that we have had presented to us this preliminary view of existences, it may be opportune to examine the passage before us. It is said, then, by Peter to the Jews, “Him God made Lord and Christ, this Jesus Whom ye crucified642    Cf. Col. i. 15Πρωτότοκος may be, as it is in the Authorized Version, translated either by “first born,” or by “first-begotten.” Compare with this passage Book II. §8, where the use of the word in Holy Scripture is discussed.    Acts ii. 36.    The passage in S. Peter’s speech (Acts ii. 36) discussed in the preceding book.,” while on our part it is said that it is not pious to refer the word “made” to the Divine Nature of the Only-begotten, but that it is to be referred to that “form of a servant643    Cf. Col. i. 15    Phil. ii. 7.    Cf. Gal. i. 8, 9,” which came into being by the Incarnation644    Rom. viii. 29.    οἰκονομικῶς γενομένην    1 Cor. i. 13., in the due time of His appearing in the flesh; and, on the other hand, those who press the phrase the contrary way say that in the word “made” the Apostle indicates the pretemporal generation of the Son. We shall, therefore, set forth the passage in the midst, and after a detailed examination of both the suppositions, leave the judgment of the truth to our reader. Of our adversaries’ view Eunomius himself may be a sufficient advocate, for he contends gallantly on the matter, so that in going through his argument word by word we shall completely follow out the reasoning of those who strive against us: and we ourselves will act as champion of the doctrine on our side as best we may, following so far as we are able the line of the argument previously set forth by the great Basil. But do you, who by your reading act as judges in the cause, “execute true judgment,” as one of the prophets645    Col. i. 18.    Zech. vii. 9.    The sense of this passage is rather obscure. S. Gregory intends, it would seem, to point out that, although an acknowledgment that the suffering Christ was more than man may seem at first sight to support the Eunomian view of the passibility of the Godhead of the Son, this is not its necessary effect. Apparently either οὐ μὴν must be taken as equivalent to οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ, or a clause such as that expressed in the translation must be supplied before τοῖς μὲν γὰρ κ.τ.λ. says, not awarding the victory to contentious preconceptions, but to the truth as it is manifested by examination. And now let the accuser of our doctrines come forward, and read his indictment, as in a court of law.

“In addition, moreover, to what we have mentioned, by his refusal to take the word ‘made’ as referring to the essence of the Son, and withal by his being ashamed of the Cross, he ascribes to the Apostles what no one even of those who have done their best to speak ill of them on the score of stupidity, lays to their charge; and at the same time he clearly introduces, by his doctrines and arguments, two Christs and two Lords; for he says that it was not the Word Who was in the beginning Whom God made Lord and Christ, but He Who ‘emptied Himself to take the form of a servant646    Cf. Heb. i. 6    Cf. Phil. ii. 7    Altering Oehler’s punctuation, which here follows that of the earlier editions.,’ and ‘was crucified through weakness647    Ps. xcviii. 10.    Cf. 2 Cor. xiii. 4.    Cf. S. John i. 1.’ At all events the great Basil writes expressly as follows648    Cf. Phil. ii. 10    The quotations are from S. Basil c. Eunomius II. 3. (pp. 239–40 in the Benedictine edition.)    Cf. Bar. iii. 37:—‘Nor, moreover, is it the intention of the Apostle to present to us that existence of the Only-begotten which was before the ages (which is now the subject of our argument), for he clearly speaks, not of the very essence of God the Word, Who was in the beginning with God, but of Him Who emptied Himself to take the form of a servant, and became conformable to the body of our humiliation649    Oehler’s punctuation, which is probably due to a printer’s error, is here a good deal altered.    Cf. Phil. iii. 21.    Rom. viii. 32., and was crucified through weakness.’ And again, ‘This is known to any one who even in a small degree applies his mind to the meaning of the Apostle’s words, that he is not setting forth to us the mode of the Divine existence, but is introducing the terms which belong to the Incarnation; for he says, Him God made Lord and Christ, this Jesus Whom ye crucified, evidently laying stress by the demonstrative word on that in Him which was human and was seen by all650    Cf. Rom. viii. 19–23.    The latter part of the quotation from S. Basil does not exactly agree with the Benedictine text, but the variations are not material.    Cf. Rom. viii. 3.’

“This, then, is what the man has to say who substitutes,—for we may not speak of it as ‘application,’ lest any one should blame for such madness men holy and chosen for the preaching of godliness, so as to reproach their doctrine with a fall into such extravagance,—who substitutes his own mind651    This interpretation is of course common to many of the Fathers, though S. Augustine, for instance, explains the “ninety and nine” otherwise, and his explanation has been often followed by modern writers and preachers. The present interpretation is assumed in a prayer, no doubt of great antiquity, which is found in the Liturgy of S. James, both in the Greek and the Syriac version, and also in the Greek form of the Coptic Liturgy of S. Basil, where it is said to be “from the Liturgy of S. James.”    Reading ἑαυτοῦ for the ἑαυτῶν of Oehler’s text, for which no authority is alleged by the editor, and which is probably a mere misprint.    1 Cor. xv. 21. for the intention of the Apostles! With what confusion are they not filled, who refer their own nonsense to the memory of the saints! With what absurdity do they not abound, who imagine that the man ‘emptied himself’ to become man, and who maintain that He Who by obedience ‘humbled himself’ to take the form of a servant was made conformable to men even before He took that form upon Him! Who, pray, ye most reckless of men, when he has the form of a servant, takes the form of a servant? and how can any one ‘empty himself’ to become the very thing which he is? You will find no contrivance to meet this, bold as you are in saying or thinking things uncontrivable. Are you not verily of all men most miserable, who suppose that a man has suffered death for all men, and ascribe your own redemption to him? For if it is not of the Word Who was in the beginning and was God that the blessed Peter speaks, but of him who was ‘seen,’ and who ‘emptied Himself,’ as Basil says, and if the man who was seen ‘emptied Himself’ to take ‘the form of a servant,’ and He Who ‘emptied Himself’ to take ‘the form of a servant,’ emptied Himself to come into being as man, then the man who was seen emptied himself to come into being as man652    Acts ii. 24.    The argument here takes the form of a reductio ad absurdum; assuming that S. Peter’s reference is to the “visible man,” and bearing in mind S. Basil’s words that S. Peter refers to Him Who “emptied Himself,” it is said “then it was the ‘visible man’ who ‘emptied himself.’ But the purpose of that ‘emptying’ was the ‘taking the form of a servant,’ which again is the coming into being as man: therefore the ‘visible man’ ‘emptied himself,’ to come into being as man, which is absurd.” The wording of S. Basil’s statement makes the argument in a certain degree plausible;—if he had said that S. Peter referred to the Son, not in regard to his actual essence, but in regard to the fact that He “emptied Himself” to become man, and as so having “emptied Himself” (which is no doubt what he intended his words to mean), then the reductio ad absurdum would not apply; nor would the later arguments, by which Eunomius proceeds to prove that He Who “emptied Himself” was no mere man, but the Word Who was in the beginning, have any force as against S. Basil’s statement.    Cf. Rom. viii. 3. The very nature of things is repugnant to this; and it is expressly contradicted by that writer653    See Book II. §§4 and 8, and note on the former passage.    S. John i. 1 sqq.    2 Cor. xiii. 4. who celebrates this dispensation in his discourse concerning the Divine Nature, when he says not that the man who was seen, but that the Word Who was in the beginning and was God took upon Him flesh, which is equivalent in other words to taking ‘the form of a servant.’ If, then, you hold that these things are to be believed, depart from your error, and cease to believe that the man ‘emptied himself’ to become man. And if you are not able to persuade those who will not be persuaded, destroy their incredulity by another saying, a second decision against them. Remember him who says, ‘Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant.’ There is none among men who will appropriate this phrase to himself. None of the saints that ever lived was the Only-begotten God and became man:—for that is what it means to ‘take the form of a servant,’ ‘being in the form of God.’ If, then, the blessed Peter speaks of Him Who ‘emptied Himself’ to ‘take the form of a servant,’ and if He Who was ‘in the form of God’ did ‘empty Himself’ to ‘take the form of a servant,’ and if He Who in the beginning was God, being the Word and the Only-begotten God, is He Who was ‘in the form of God,’ then the blessed Peter speaks to us of Him Who was in the beginning and was God, and expounds to us that it was He Who became Lord and Christ. This, then, is the conflict which Basil wages against himself, and he clearly appears neither to have ‘applied his own mind to the intention of the Apostles’, nor to be able to preserve the sequence of his own arguments; for, according to them, he must, if he is conscious of their irreconcilable character, admit that the Word Who was in the beginning and was God became Lord; or if he tries to fit together statements that are mutually conflicting, and contentiously stands by them, he will add to them others yet more hostile, and maintain that there are two Christs and two Lords. For if the Word that was in the beginning and was God be one, and He Who ‘emptied Himself’ and ‘took the form of a servant’ be another, and if God the Word, by Whom are all things, be Lord, and this Jesus, Who was crucified after all things had come into being, be Lord also, there are, according to his view, two Lords and Christs. Our author, then, cannot by any argument clear himself from this manifest blasphemy. But if any one were to say in support of him that the Word Who was in the beginning is indeed the same Who became Lord, but that He became Lord and Christ in respect of His presence in the flesh, He will surely be constrained to say that the Son was not Lord before His presence in the flesh. At all events, even if Basil and his faithless followers falsely proclaim two Lords and two Christs, for us there is one Lord and Christ, by Whom all things were made, not becoming Lord by way of promotion, but existing before all creation and before all ages, the Lord Jesus, by Whom are all things, while all the saints with one harmonious voice teach us this truth and proclaim it as the most excellent of doctrines. Here the blessed John teaches us that God the Word, by Whom all things were made, has become incarnate, saying, ‘And the Word was made flesh654    With this passage may be compared the parallel passage in Bk. II. §8. The interpretation of the “many brethren” of those baptized suggests that Gregory understood the “predestination” spoken of in Rom. viii. 29 to be predestination to baptism.    S. John i. 14    Rom. vi. 10.’; here the most admirable Paul, urging those who attend to him to humility, speaks of Christ Jesus, Who was in the form of God, and emptied Himself to take the form of a servant, and was humbled to death, even the death of the Cross655    Cf. Col. iii. 9, and Eph. iv. 24.    Cf. Phil. ii. 7, 8.    2 Cor. v. 21.; and again in another passage calls Him Who was crucified ‘the Lord of Glory’: ‘for had they known it,’ he says, ‘they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory656    Cf. 2 Cor. v. 17    1 Cor. ii. 8.’. Indeed, he speaks far more openly than this of the very essential nature by the name of ‘Lord,’ where he says, ‘Now the Lord is the Spirit657    Rom. xiv. 9.    2 Cor. iii. 17.’. If, then, the Word Who was in the beginning, in that He is Spirit, is Lord, and the Lord of glory, and if God made Him Lord and Christ, it was the very Spirit and God the Word that God so made, and not some other Lord Whom Basil dreams about.”

Ταύτης τοίνυν προεκτεθείσης ἡμῖν τῆς περὶ τῶν ὄντων θεωρίας, καιρὸς ἂν εἴη τὸν προκείμενον ἐξετάσαι λόγον. οὐκοῦν εἴρηται μὲν παρὰ τοῦ Πέτρου πρὸς τοὺς Ἰουδαίους ὅτι Κύριον αὐτὸν καὶ Χριστὸν ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός, τοῦτον τὸν Ἰησοῦν ὃν ὑμεῖς ἐσταυρώσατε. λέγεται δὲ παρ' ἡμῶν οὐ πρὸς τὸ θεῖον τοῦ μονογενοῦς εὐσεβὲς εἶναι τὸ Ἐποίησεν ἀναφέρειν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ δούλου μορφὴν τὴν κατὰ καιρὸν τῆς ἐν σαρκὶ παρουσίας οἰκονομικῶς γενομένην. οἱ δὲ πρὸς τοὐναντίον τὸν λόγον βιαζόμενοι τὴν προαιώνιον τοῦ υἱοῦ γέννησιν τῇ Ἐποίησεν φωνῇ παρὰ τοῦ ἀποστόλου διασημαίνεσθαι λέγουσι. προθέντες τοίνυν ἐν τῷ μέσῳ τὸν λόγον καὶ δι' ἀκριβείας ἀμφοτέρας τὰς ὑπολήψεις ἐπισκεψάμενοι τῷ ἀκροατῇ τὴν κρίσιν τοῦ ἀληθοῦς καταλείψομεν. ἀλλὰ τῆς μὲν τῶν ἐναντίων διανοίας ἱκανὸς ἂν εἴη συνήγορος αὐτὸς ὁ Εὐνόμιος οὐκ ἀγεννῶς ἐν τούτοις ἀγωνισάμενος, ὥστε τὸν ἐκείνου λόγον ἐπὶ λέξεως διεξελθόντες ἐντελῶς τὸν ὑπὲρ τῶν μαχομένων ἡμῖν λόγον διελευσόμεθα: τοῦ δὲ καθ' ἡμᾶς δόγματος ἡμεῖς κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν προστησόμεθα, τοῖς παρὰ τοῦ μεγάλου Βασιλείου προεκτεθεῖσιν ὅπως ἂν οἷοί τε ὦμεν κατ' ἴχνος ἑπόμενοι. οἱ δὲ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ διὰ τῆς ἀναγνώσεως δικάζοντες, καθώς φησί τις τῶν προφητῶν, Κρίμα δίκαιον κρίνατε, μὴ ταῖς φιλονείκοις προλήψεσιν, ἀλλὰ τῇ δεικνυμένῃ διὰ τῆς ἐξετάσεως ἀληθείᾳ δόντες τὰ νικητήρια. καὶ παρίτω γε πρῶτος ὁ τῶν ἡμετέρων κατήγορος, ὥσπερ ἐν δικαστηρίῳ τὰ γεγραμμένα λέγων.
« Πρὸς δὲ τοῖς εἰρημένοις καὶ τὸ Ἐποίησεν ἐπὶ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ υἱοῦ λαβεῖν παραιτούμενος ὁμοῦ τε τῷ σταυρῷ ἐπαισχυνόμενος τίθησι μὲν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις ἃ μηδεὶς μηδὲ τῶν εἰς σκαιὰ βλασφημεῖν αὐτοὺς ἐσπουδακότων, δύο δὲ σαφῶς Χριστοὺς καὶ δύο κυρίους ἐπεισάγει τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ δόγμασι καὶ λόγοις: φησὶ γὰρ ὡς οὐ τὸν ἐν ἀρχῇ ὄντα λόγον κύριον καὶ Χριστὸν ὁ θεὸς ἐποίησεν, ἀλλὰ τὸν κενώσαντα ἑαυτὸν εἰς μορφὴν δούλου καὶ σταυρωθέντα ἐξ ἀσθενείας. γράφει δὲ διαρρήδην οὕτως: »ἔτι δὲ „οὐδὲ ἡ τοῦ ἀποστόλου διάνοια τὴν πρὸ αἰ”ῶνος ὑπόστασιν τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἡμῖν παρί„στησι, περὶ ἧς ὁ λόγος ἐν τῷ παρόντι: οὐ γὰρ ”περὶ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτῆς τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου τοῦ ἐν „ἀρχῇ ὄντος πρὸς τὸν θεόν, ἀλλὰ περὶ τοῦ ”κενώσαντος ἑαυτὸν ἐν τῇ τοῦ δούλου μορφῇ „καὶ γενομένου συμμόρφου τῷ σώματι τῆς τα”πεινώσεως ἡμῶν καὶ σταυρωθέντος ἐξ ἀσθε„νείας σαφῶς διαλέγεται. καίτοι τοῦτο παντὶ ”γνώριμον τῷ καὶ μικρὸν ἐπιστήσαντι τῆς ἀποστο„λικῆς λέξεως τῷ βουλήματι, ὅτι οὐχὶ θεολογίας ”ἡμῖν παραδίδωσι τρόπον, ἀλλὰ τοὺς τῆς οἰκονο„μίας λόγους παρεισάγει. Κύριον γὰρ αὐτὸν, φησί, ”καὶ Χριστὸν ὁ θεὸς ἐποίησε, τοῦτον τὸν Ἰησοῦν „ὃν ὑμεῖς ἐσταυρώσατε, τῇ δεικτικῇ φωνῇ πρὸς τὸ ”ἀνθρώπινον αὐτοῦ καὶ βλεπόμενον πᾶσι προδή„λως ἐπερειδόμενος.„ ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ὁ τῷ τῶν ἀποστόλων βουλήματι τὸν ἑαυτοῦ νοῦν ὑπαλλάξας, οὐ γὰρ δὴ θέμις εἰπεῖν ἐπιστήσας: μή ποτέ τις τοσαύτην καταψηφίσαιτο παράνοιαν ἀνδρῶν ὁσίων καὶ πρὸς τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας κήρυγμα λογάδων, ὥστε τὴν ἐκείνων διδασκαλίαν εἰς τοσαύτην ὑπερβολὴν † ἀπολείπουσαν εἰς ὕβριν ***. οἱ τὸν ἑαυτῶν λῆρον εἰς τὴν τῶν ὁσίων μνήμην ἀναφέροντες ποίας οὐ μεστοὶ ταραχῆς; ποίας οὐκ ἀτοπίας γέμοντες οἱ τὸν ἄνθρωπον εἰς ἄνθρωπον κεκενῶσθαι δοξάζοντες καὶ διὰ τούτου τὸν ἐξ ὑπακοῆς ἑαυτὸν ταπεινώσαντα τῇ τοῦ δούλου μορφῇ σύμμορφον εἶναι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις καὶ πρὶν ταύτην ἀναλαβεῖν τὴν μορφὴν κατασκευάζοντες; καὶ τίς, ὦ πάντων ὑμεῖς ῥᾳθυμότατοι, μορφὴν ἔχων δούλου μορφὴν ἀναλαμβάνει δούλου; πῶς δ' ἄν τις ἑαυτὸν εἰς τοῦτο κενώσειεν ὅπερ ἐστίν; οὐ μὲν οὖν εὑρήσετε τούτων τινὰ μηχανὴν καίπερ ὄντες τολμηροὶ λέγειν καὶ φρονεῖν ἀμήχανα. πῶς δὲ οὐκ ἐλεεινότατοι πάντων ὑμεῖς ἄνθρωπον ὑπὲρ ἁπάντων ἀνθρώπων πεπονθέναι δοξάζοντες καὶ τούτῳ τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀνατιθέντες λύτρωσιν; εἰ γὰρ μὴ περὶ τοῦ ἐν ἀρχῇ ὄντος λόγου καὶ θεοῦ ὄντος ὁ μακάριος διαλέγεται Πέτρος, ἀλλὰ περὶ τοῦ βλεπομένου καὶ κενώσαντος ἑαυτόν, καθώς φησι Βασίλειος, ἐκένωσεν δὲ ὁ βλεπόμενος ἄνθρωπος ἑαυτὸν εἰς δούλου μορφήν, ὁ δὲ κενώσας ἑαυτὸν εἰς δούλου μορφὴν εἰς ἀνθρώπου γένεσιν ἐκένωσεν ἑαυτόν, ὁ βλεπόμενος ἄνθρωπος εἰς ἀνθρώπου γένεσιν ἐκένωσεν ἑαυτόν. ἀλλ' ἀντιμάχεται μὲν τούτοις καὶ αὐτὴ τῶν πραγμάτων ἡ φύσις, ἀντιφθέγγεται δὲ περιφανῶς καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ τῇ θεολογίᾳ τὴν οἰκονομίαν ταύτην ὑμνήσας, οὐ τὸν βλεπόμενον ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλ' αὐτὸν τὸν ἐν ἀρχῇ ὄντα λόγον καὶ θεὸν ὄντα σάρκα ἀνειληφέναι λέγων, ὅπερ ἄλλαις φωναῖς ἴσον ἐστὶ τῷ μορφὴν δούλου λαβεῖν. εἰ μὲν οὖν ταῦτα νομίζετε πιστά, μετάθεσθε τοῦ πλάνου, παύσασθε τὸν ἄνθρωπον εἰς ἄνθρωπον κεκενῶσθαι δοξάζοντες. εἰ δὲ οὐχ ἱκανοί ἐστε πείθειν ἀπείστους, ἑτέρᾳ φωνῇ καὶ δευτέρᾳ ψήφῳ τὴν ἀπιστίαν λύσατε. ὑπομνήσθητε τοῦ φήσαντος Ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, ἀλλ' ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε μορφὴν δούλου λαβών. οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἀνθρώπων οὐδεὶς ὃς τοῦτον οἰκειώσεται τὸν λόγον. οὐδεὶς τῶν πώποτε γενομένων ἁγίων μονογενὴς ἦν θεός, γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος. τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ τυγχάνοντα μορφὴν δούλου λαβεῖν. εἰ τοίνυν περὶ τοῦ κενώσαντος ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὴν τοῦ δούλου μορφὴν ὁ μακάριος διαλέγεται Πέτρος, ἐκένωσεν δὲ ἑαυτὸν εἰς δούλου μορφὴν ὁ ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, ὁ δὲ ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων ἐστὶν ὁ ἐν ἀρχῇ ὢν λόγος καὶ θεὸς ὢν μονογενής, περὶ τοῦ ἐν ἀρχῇ ὄντος καὶ θεοῦ ὄντος ὁ μακάριος διαλέγεται Πέτρος, καὶ τοῦτον ἐκδιδάσκει γεγονέναι κύριον καὶ Χριστόν. ταύτην μέντοι τὴν μάχην αὐτὸς πρὸς ἑαυτὸν ἀναστρέφει Βασίλειος καὶ δείκνυται σαφῶς οὔτε τῷ βουλήματι τῶν ἀποστόλων τὸν ἑαυτοῦ νοῦν ἐπιστήσας οὔτε τῶν οἰκείων λόγων φυλάττων τὴν ἀκολουθίαν: ἐξ ὧν ἢ συναισθόμενος τῆς ἀνωμαλίας συγχωρήσει τὸν ἐν ἀρχῇ ὄντα λόγον καὶ θεὸν ὄντα γεγονέναι κύριον, ἢ μαχομένοις μαχόμενα συνάπτων καὶ τούτοις παραμένων φιλονείκως ἕτερα προσθήσει πολεμιώτερα, δύο κατασκευάζων εἶναι Χριστοὺς καὶ δύο κυρίους. εἰ γὰρ ἕτερος μὲν ὁ ἐν ἀρχῇ ὢν θεὸς λόγος, ἕτερος δὲ ὁ κενώσας ἑαυτὸν καὶ μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, κύριος δὲ καὶ ὁ θεὸς λόγος δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα, κύριος δὲ καὶ Χριστὸς οὗτος ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὁ σταυρωθεὶς μετὰ τὸ γενέσθαι τὰ πάντα, δύο κατ' αὐτὸν κύριοι καὶ Χριστοί. τοῦτον μὲν οὖν οὐδεὶς παραιτήσεται λόγος τῆς οὕτως περιφανοῦς βλασφημίας. εἰ δέ τις τούτῳ συνιστάμενος φαίη τὸν αὐτὸν μὲν εἶναι τὸν ἐν ἀρχῇ λόγον καὶ γενόμενον κύριον, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἐν σαρκὶ παρουσίαν γεγενῆσθαι κύριον καὶ Χριστόν, ἀναγκασθήσεται πάντως εἰπεῖν πρὸ τῆς ἐν σαρκὶ παρουσίας μὴ εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν κύριον. ἀλλὰ γὰρ εἰ καὶ Βασιλείῳ καὶ τοῖς κατ' αὐτὸν ἀπίστοις δύο κύριοι καὶ Χριστοὶ καταγγέλλονται ψευδῶς, ἀλλ' ἡμῖν γε εἷς κύριος καὶ Χριστὸς δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα γέγονεν, οὐ κατὰ προκοπὴν γενόμενος κύριος, ἀλλὰ πρὸ πάσης κτίσεως καὶ πρὸ πάντων αἰώνων ὑποστὰς κύριος Ἰησοῦς, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα, τοῦτο πάντων ἡμᾶς τῶν ἁγίων συμφώνως ἐκδιδασκόντων καὶ καταγγειλάντων τῶν δογμάτων τὸ κάλλιστον. ὅ τε γὰρ μακάριος Ἰωάννης τὸν θεὸν λόγον δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα γέγονεν ἐν σαρκὶ γεγενῆσθαι διδάσκει λέγων Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, ὅ τε θαυμασιώτατος Παῦλος εἰς ταπεινοφροσύνην ἐνάγων τοὺς προσέχοντας αὐτῷ τὸν νοῦν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν λέγει τὸν ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχοντα καὶ κενώσαντα ἑαυτὸν εἰς δούλου μορφὴν καὶ ταπεινωθέντα μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ, καὶ πάλιν ἐν ἑτέροις κύριον τῆς δόξης ὀνομάζει τὸν σταυρωθέντα. Εἰ γὰρ ἔγνωσαν, φησίν, οὐκ ἂν τὸν κύριον τῆς δόξης ἐσταύρωσαν. καὶ πολύ γε τούτου γυμνότερον αὐτὴν τὴν οὐσίαν ὀνομάζει κύριον εἰπὼν Ὁ δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν. εἰ τοίνυν ὁ ἐν ἀρχῇ λόγος, καθὸ πνεῦμα, κύριος καὶ τῆς δόξης κύριος, τοῦτον δὲ τὸν κύριον καὶ Χριστὸν ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός, αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸν θεὸν λόγον ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς καὶ οὐκ ἄλλον τινὰ κύριον, ὃν ὀνειροπολεῖ Βασίλειος”.