§4. He shows the falsehood of Eunomius’ calumnious charge that the great Basil had said that “man was emptied to become man,” and demonstrates that the “emptying” of the Only-begotten took place with a view to the restoration to life of the Man Who had suffered673    This seems to be the sense of the Greek title. The Latin version of the earlier editions appears to represent a different reading, “contigisse, quando in passione homo Christus passus est.”.

He asserts that we say that man has emptied Himself to become man, and that He Who by obedience humbled Himself to the form of the servant shared the form of men even before He took that form. No change has been made in the wording; we have simply transferred the very words from his speech to our own. Now if there is anything of this sort in our writings, (for I call my master’s writings ours) let no one blame our orator for calumny. I ask for all regard for the truth: and we ourselves will give evidence. But if there is nothing of all this in our writings, while his language not merely lays blame upon us, but is indignant and wrathful as if the matter were clearly proved, calling us full of absurdity, nonsense, confusion, inconsistency, and so on, I am at a loss to see the right course to take. Just as men who are perplexed at the groundless rages of madmen can decide upon no plan to follow, so I myself can find no device to meet this perplexity. Our master says (for I will again recite his argument verbally), “He is not setting forth to us the mode of the Divine existence, but the terms which belong to the Incarnation.” Our accuser starts from this point, and says that we maintain that man emptied Himself to become man! What community is there between one statement and the other? If we say that the Apostle has not set forth to us the mode of the Divine existence, but points by his phrase to the dispensation of the Passion, we are on this ground charged with speaking of the “emptying” of man to become man, and with saying that the “form of the servant” had pretemporal existence, and that the Man Who was born of Mary existed before the coming in the flesh! Well, I think it superfluous to spend time in discussing what is admitted, seeing that truth itself frees us from the charge. In a case, indeed, where one may have given the calumniators some handle against oneself, it is proper to resist accusers: but where there is no danger of being suspected of some absurd charge, the accusation becomes a proof, not of the false charge made against him who is calumniated, but of the madness of the accuser. As, however, in dealing with the charge of being ashamed of the Cross, we showed by our examination that the charge recoiled upon the accuser, so we shall show how this charge too returns upon those who make it, since it is they, and not we, who lay down the doctrine of the change of the Son from like to like in the dispensation of the Passion. We will examine briefly, bringing them side by side, the statements of each party. We say that the Only-begotten God, having by His own agency brought all things into being, by Himself674    This seems to be the force of αὐτῷ; αὐτὸν might give a simpler construction, but the sense would not be changed. Oehler, who here restores some words which were omitted in the earlier editions, makes no mention of any variation of reading. has full power over all things, while the nature of man is also one of the things that were made by Him: and that when this had fallen away to evil, and come to be in the destruction of death, He by His own agency drew it up once more to immortal life, by means of the Man in whom He tabernacled, taking to Himself humanity in completeness, and that He mingled His life-giving power with our mortal and perishable nature, and changed, by the combination with Himself, our deadness to living grace and power. And this we declare to be the mystery of the Lord according to the flesh, that He Who is immutable came to be in that which is mutable, to the end that altering it for the better, and changing it from the worse, He might abolish the evil which is mingled with our mutable condition, destroying the evil in Himself. For “our God is a consuming fire675    Heb. xii. 29.,” by whom all the material of wickedness is done away. This is our statement. What does our accuser say? Not that He Who was immutable and uncreated was mingled with that which came into being by creation, and which had therefore suffered a change in the direction of evil; but he does say that He, being Himself created, came to that which was kindred and homogeneous with Himself, not coming from a transcendent nature to put on the lowlier nature by reason of His love to man, but becoming that very thing which He was.

For as regards the general character of the appellation, the name of “creature” is one, as predicated of all things that have come into being from nothing, while the divisions into sections of the things which we contemplate as included in the term “creature”, are separated one from the other by the variation of their properties: so that if He is created, and man is created, He was “emptied,” to use Eunomius’ phrase, to become Himself, and changed His place, not from the transcendent to the lowly, but from what is similar in kind to what (save in regard of the special character of body and the incorporeal) is similar in dignity. To whom now will the just vote of those who have to try our cause be given, or who will seem to them to be under the weight of these charges? he who says that the created was saved by the uncreated God, or he who refers the cause of our salvation to the creature? Surely the judgment of pious men is not doubtful. For any one who knows clearly the difference which there is between the created and the uncreated, (terms of which the divergence is marked by dominion and slavery, since the uncreated God, as the prophet says, “ruleth with His power for ever676    Ps. lxvi. 6 (LXX.).,” while all things in the creation are servants to Him, according to the voice of the same prophet, which says “all things serve Thee677    Ps. cxix. 91.,”) he, I say, who carefully considers these matters, surely cannot fail to recognize the person who makes the Only-begotten change from servitude to servitude. For if, according to Paul, the whole creation “is in bondage678    Cf. Rom. viii. 21.,” and if, according to Eunomius, the essential nature of the Only-begotten is created, our adversaries maintain, surely, by their doctrines, not that the master was mingled with the servant, but that a servant came to be among servants. As for our saying that the Lord was in the form of a servant before His presence in the flesh, that is just like charging us with saying that the stars are black and the sun misty, and the sky low, and water dry, and so on:—a man who does not maintain a charge on the ground of what he has heard, but makes up what seems good to him at his own sweet will, need not be sparing in making against us such charges as these. It is just the same thing for us to be called to account for the one set of charges as for the other, so far as concerns the fact that they have no basis for them in anything that we have said. How could one who says distinctly that the true Son was in the glory of the Father, insult the eternal glory of the Only-begotten by conceiving it to have been “in the form of a servant”? When our author thinks proper to speak evil of us, and at the same time takes care to present his case with some appearance of truth, it may perhaps not be superfluous or useless to rebut his unfounded accusations.

Φησὶ « τὸν ἄνθρωπον εἰς ἄνθρωπον κεκενῶσθαι » λέγειν ἡμᾶς καὶ « τὸν ἐξ ὑπακοῆς ἑαυτὸν ταπεινώσαντα τῇ τοῦ δούλου μορφῇ σύμμορφον εἶναι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις καὶ πρὶν ταύτην ἀναλαβεῖν τὴν μορφήν ». οὐδὲν ὑπημείφθη τῆς λέξεως, ἀλλ' αὐτὰ τὰ ῥήματα παρ' ἡμῶν μετενήνεκται ἀπὸ τῶν ἐκείνου λόγων πρὸς τὸν ἡμέτερον. εἰ μὲν ἔστι τι τοιοῦτον ἐν τοῖς παρ' ἡμῶν γεγραμμένοις (ἡμέτερα γὰρ τὰ τοῦ διδασκάλου φημί), μηδεὶς ἐγκαλείτω συκοφαντίαν τῷ ῥήτορι: πᾶσαν αὐτῷ φροντίδα τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ ἡμεῖς μαρτυρήσομεν. εἰ δὲ τούτων μὲν ἔστιν ἐν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις οὐδέν, ὁ λόγος δὲ οὐκ αἰτίαν ἐπάγει ψιλήν, ἀλλ' ὡς ἐπιφανῶς ἀποδεδειγμένοις ἀγανακτεῖ καὶ ὀργίζεται « τερατείας καὶ λήρους καὶ ταραχῆς πλήρεις καὶ ἀνωμαλίας » καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα καλῶν, τί χρὴ πράττειν οὐ συνορῶ. καθάπερ οἱ πρὸς τὰς ἀπροφασίστους ὀργὰς τῶν φρενιτιζόντων ἀμηχανοῦντες οὐκ ἔχουσιν ὅ τι βουλεύσονται, οὕτως οὐδὲ αὐτὸς ἐξευρίσκω τινὰ πρὸς τὴν ἀμηχανίαν ταύτην ἐπίνοιαν. φησὶν ὁ διδάσκαλος (πάλιν γὰρ ἐπὶ λέξεως αὐτοῦ τὸν λόγον ἐπαναλήψομαι) ὅτι ”οὐχὶ θεολογίας ἡμῖν παραδίδωσι τρόπον, ἀλλὰ τοὺς τῆς οἰκονομίας λόγους.” ὁ δὲ κατήγορος ἐκ τούτων ὁρμηθεὶς « ἄνθρωπον εἰς ἄνθρωπον κεκενῶσθαι » λέγει κατασκευάζειν ἡμᾶς. τίς κοινωνία τούτων κἀκείνων; εἴ φαμεν τὸν ἀπόστολον μὴ θεολογίας ἡμῖν παραδεδωκέναι τρόπον, ἀλλὰ τὴν κατὰ τὸ πάθος οἰκονομίαν ὑποδεῖξαι τῷ λόγῳ, διὰ τοῦτο ἀνθρώπου εἰς ἄνθρωπον κένωσιν καὶ δούλου μορφὴν προαιώνιον καὶ τῆς ἐν σαρκὶ παρουσίας πρεσβύτερον τὸν ἐκ Μαρίας ἄνθρωπον λέγειν διαβαλλόμεθα; ἀλλὰ περιττὸν οἶμαι τοῖς ὁμολογουμένοις ἐνδιατρίβειν, αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας ἀφιείσης ἡμᾶς τοῦ ἐγκλήματος. τότε γὰρ χρὴ τοῖς κατηγοροῦσιν ἀντικαθίστασθαι, ὅταν τις παράσχῃ καθ' ἑαυτοῦ τῷ συκοφάντῃ λαβήν: ἐφ' ὧν δὲ κίνδυνος ἔστιν οὐδεὶς ὑπονοηθῆναί τι τῶν ἀτόπων, οὐ τῆς τοῦ συκοφαντουμένου διαβολῆς, ἀλλὰ τῆς τοῦ κατηγοροῦντος μανίας ἔλεγχος ἡ κατηγορία καθίσταται. ἀλλ' ὥσπερ « ἐπαισχύνεσθαι τῷ σταυρῷ » τὴν αἰτίαν ἔχοντες ἐδείξαμεν διὰ τῶν ἐξητασμένων εἰς τοὐναντίον περιτρεπόμενον τῷ κατηγόρῳ τὸ ἔγκλημα, οὕτω καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν ταύτην εἰς αὐτοὺς τοὺς κατηγόρους ἐπαναστρέφουσαν δείξομεν, ὡς ἐκείνων, οὐχ ἡμῶν τὴν ἐξ ὁμοίου πρὸς τὸ ὅμοιον τοῦ υἱοῦ μετάστασιν ἐν τῇ κατὰ τὸ πάθος οἰκονομίᾳ δογματιζόντων. ἐξετάσωμεν γὰρ παρ' ἄλληλα θέντες ἐπὶ κεφαλαίου τὰ παρ' ἑκατέρων λεγόμενα. ἡμεῖς φαμεν τὸν μονογενῆ θεὸν δι' ἑαυτοῦ παραγαγόντα τὰ πάντα εἰς γένεσιν « ἐν » αὑτῷ περικρατεῖν τὰ πάντα, ἓν δὲ τῶν παρ' αὐτοῦ γεγονότων καὶ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν, ἧς πρὸς κακίαν ἀπορρυείσης καὶ διὰ τοῦτο γενομένης ἐν τῇ τοῦ θανάτου φθορᾷ, πάλιν αὐτὴν δι' ἑαυτοῦ πρὸς τὴν ἀθάνατον ζωὴν ἐφελκύσασθαι, διὰ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ᾧ κατεσκήνωσεν ὅλον ἀναλαβόντα πρὸς ἑαυτὸν τὸ ἀνθρώπινον, καὶ τὴν ζωοποιὸν ἑαυτοῦ δύναμιν τῇ θνητῇ καὶ ἐπικήρῳ καταμίξαι φύσει καὶ τὴν ἡμετέραν νέκρωσιν διὰ τῆς πρὸς ἑαυτὸν ἀνακράσεως εἰς ζωτικὴν μεταποιῆσαι χάριν καὶ δύναμιν. καὶ τοῦτό φαμεν εἶναι τὸ κατὰ τὴν σάρκα τοῦ κυρίου μυστήριον, ὅτι ὁ ἄτρεπτος ἐν τῷ τρεπτῷ γίνεται, ἵνα πρὸς τὸ κρεῖττον ἀλλοιώσας καὶ μεταβαλὼν ἐκ τοῦ χείρονος τὴν ἐμμιχθεῖσαν τῇ τρεπτῇ διαθέσει κακίαν ἐξαφανίσῃ ἀπὸ τῆς φύσεως ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὸ κακὸν δαπανήσας. ὁ γὰρ θεὸς ἡμῶν πῦρ καταναλίσκον ἐστίν, ᾧ ἐναφανίζεται πᾶσα κακίας ὕλη. οὗτος ὁ ἡμέτερος λόγος, ὁ δὲ κατήγορος τί φησι; οὐ τὸν ἄτρεπτόν τε καὶ ἄκτιστον τῷ διὰ κτίσεως γεγονότι καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πρὸς κακίαν ἀλλοιωθέντι καταμιχθῆναι, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸν κτιστὸν ὄντα πρὸς τὸ συγγενὲς ἐλθεῖν ἑαυτῷ καὶ ὁμόφυλον, οὐκ ἐξ ὑπερεχούσης φύσεως διὰ φιλανθρωπίαν τὴν ταπεινοτέραν ὑποδύντα φύσιν, ἀλλ' ὅπερ ἦν, τοῦτο γενόμενον. τῷ γὰρ γενικῷ τῆς προσηγορίας ἓν κατὰ πάντων ἐστὶ τῶν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος ὑποστάντων τὸ τῆς κτίσεως ὄνομα, αἱ δὲ μερικαὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ κτίσει θεωρουμένων διαφοραὶ ταῖς τῶν ἰδιωμάτων παραλλαγαῖς ἑτέρα τῆς ἑτέρας διενηνόχασιν: ὥστε εἰ κτιστὸς μὲν ἐκεῖνος, κτιστὸς δὲ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, αὐτὸς εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἐκενώθη κατὰ τὴν Εὐνομίου φωνήν, καὶ οὐ πρὸς τὸ ταπεινὸν ἐκ τοῦ ὑπερέχοντος, ἀλλ' ἐκ τοῦ ὁμοίου πρὸς τὸ ὁμότιμον μετεχώρησε, πλὴν τῆς κατὰ τὸ σῶμα καὶ τὸ ἀσώματον ἰδιότητος. πρὸς τίνα τοίνυν ἡ δικαία τῶν δικαζόντων ἐνεχθήσεται ψῆφος ἢ τίς τοῖς ἐγκλήμασιν ἐκείνοις ὑπεύθυνος ἀναφανήσεται; ὁ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀκτίστου τὸν κτιστὸν σεσῶσθαι λέγων ἢ ὁ τῷ κτίσματι τῆς σωτηρίας ἡμῶν ἀνατιθεὶς τὴν αἰτίαν; ἀλλ' οὐκ ἄδηλος τῶν εὐσεβούντων ἡ κρίσις. ὁ γὰρ ἀκριβῶς ἐπιστάμενος τὴν διαφορὰν τοῦ κτιστοῦ πρὸς τὸ ἄκτιστον, ὧν ἡ παραλλαγὴ κυριότητι καὶ δουλείᾳ χαρακτηρίζεται, τοῦ μὲν ἀκτίστου θεοῦ δεσπόζοντος ἐν τῇ δυναστείᾳ αὐτοῦ τοῦ αἰῶνος, καθώς φησιν ὁ προφήτης, πάντων δὲ τῶν ἐν τῇ κτίσει δουλευόντων κατὰ τὴν τοῦ αὐτοῦ προφήτου φωνήν, ἥ φησιν ὅτι Τὰ σύμπαντα δοῦλα σά, ὁ ταῦτα τοίνυν δι' ἐπιμελείας κατανοήσας οὐκ ἀγνοεῖ πάντως τὸν ἐκ δουλείας εἰς δουλείαν τὸν μονογενῆ μετοικίζοντα. εἰ γὰρ δουλεύει μὲν ἡ κτίσις πᾶσα κατὰ τὸν Παῦλον, κτιστὴ δὲ κατ' Εὐνόμιον τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἡ οὐσία, οὐ δεσπότην καταμιχθῆναι δούλοις, ἀλλὰ δοῦλον ἐν δούλοις γενέσθαι διὰ τῶν δογμάτων οἱ ἐναντίοι πάντως κατασκευάζουσιν. ἀλλὰ μὴν τὸ πρὸ τῆς ἐν σαρκὶ παρουσίας ἐν δούλου μορφῇ λέγειν εἶναι τὸν κύριον ἴσον ἐστὶ τῷ διαβάλλειν ἡμᾶς ὡς μέλανας τοὺς ἀστέρας καὶ ζοφώδη τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν χθαμαλὸν καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ ξηρὸν καὶ πάντα λέγοντας τὰ τοιαῦτα. ὁ γὰρ οὐκ ἐξ ὧν ἀκήκοέ τι κατασκευάζων, ἀλλὰ κατ' ἰδίαν ὁρμὴν τὸ δοκοῦν ἀναπλάσσων? μηδὲ τῶν τοιούτων φειδέσθω καθ' ἡμῶν ἐγκλημάτων. ἴσον γάρ ἐστιν ὑπέρ γε τούτων ἡμᾶς καὶ ὑπὲρ ἐκείνων εὐθύνεσθαι τῷ μηδὲν τούτων τὰς ἀρχὰς ἐκ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἔχειν. ὁ γὰρ ἐν τῇ τοῦ πατρὸς δόξῃ τὸν ἀληθινὸν υἱὸν εἶναι διοριζόμενος πῶς ἂν ἐν δούλου μορφῇ τὴν αἰώνιον τοῦ μονογενοῦς δόξαν ὑβρίζοι; ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν δοκεῖ τῷ λογογράφῳ λέγειν κακῶς, φροντίζει δὲ τοῦ δοκεῖν εὐπροσώπους τὰς αἰτίας κατασκευάζειν, οὐδὲν περιττὸν ἂν εἴη καὶ ἄχρηστον τοῖς ἀσυστάτοις τῶν ἐγκλημάτων ἐναγωνίζεσθαι.