§5. Thereafter he shows that there are not two Christs or two Lords, but one Christ and one Lord, and that the Divine nature, after mingling with the Human, preserved the properties of each nature without confusion, and declares that the operations are, by reason of the union, predicated of the two natures in common, in the sense that the Lord took upon Himself the sufferings of the servant, and the humanity is glorified with Him in the honour that is the Lord’s, and that by the power of the Divine Nature that is made anew, conformably with that Divine Nature Itself.

His next charge too has its own absurdity of the same sort. For he reproaches us with saying that there are “two Christs,” and “two Lords,” without being able to make good his charge from our words, but employing falsehood at discretion to suit his fancy. Since, then, he deems it within his power to say what he likes, why does he utter his falsehood with such care about detail, and maintain that we speak but of two Christs? Let him say, if he likes, that we preach ten Christs, or ten times ten, or extend the number to a thousand, that he may handle his calumny more vigorously. For blasphemy is equally involved in the doctrine of two Christs, and in that of more, and the character of the two charges is also equally devoid of proof. When he shows, then, that we do speak of two Christs, let him have a verdict against us, as much as though he had given proof of ten thousand. But he says that he convicts us by our own statements. Well, let us look once more at those words of our master by means of which he thinks to raise his charges against us. He says “he” (he, that is, who says “Him God made Lord and Christ, this Jesus Whom ye crucified”) “is not setting forth to us the mode of the Divine existence, but the terms which belong to the Incarnation…laying stress by the demonstrative word on that in Him which was human and was seen by all.” This is what he wrote. But whence has Eunomius managed by these words to bring on the stage his “two Christs”? Does saying that the demonstrative word lays stress on that which is visible, convey the proof of maintaining “two Christs”? Ought we (to avoid being charged with speaking of “two Highests”) to deny the fact that by Him the Lord was highly exalted after His Passion? seeing that God the Word, Who was in the beginning, was Highest, and was also highly exalted after His Passion when He rose from the dead, as the Apostle says. We must of necessity choose one of two courses—either say that He was highly exalted after the Passion (which is just the same as saying that He was made Lord and Christ), and be impeached by Eunomius, or, if we avoid the accusation, deny the confession of the high exaltation of Him Who suffered.

Now at this point it seems right to put forward once more our accuser’s statement in support of our own defence. We shall therefore repeat word for word the statement laid down by him, which supports our argument as follows:—“The blessed John,” he says, “teaches us that God the Word, by Whom all things were made, has become incarnate, saying ‘And the Word was made flesh.’” Does he understand what he is writing when he adds this to his own argument? I can hardly myself think that the same man can at once be aware of the meaning of these words and contend against our statement. For if any one examines the words carefully, he will find that there is no mutual conflict between what is said by us and what is said by him. For we both consider the dispensation in the flesh apart, and regard the Divine power in itself: and he, in like manner with ourselves, says that the Word that was in the beginning has been manifested in the flesh: yet no one ever charged him, nor does he charge himself, with preaching “two Words”, Him Who was in the beginning, and Him Who was made flesh; for he knows, surely, that the Word is identical with the Word, He who appeared in the flesh with Him Who was with God. But the flesh was not identical with the Godhead, till this too was transformed to the Godhead, so that of necessity one set of attributes befits God the Word, and a different set of attributes befits the “form of the servant679    That is, in the sacramental doctrine with regard to Holy Baptism.    This statement would seem to imply that, at some time after the Incarnation, the Humanity of Christ was transformed to the Divine Nature, and made identical with It. From other passages in what has preceded, it would seem that this change in the mutual relation of the two Natures might, according to the words of S. Gregory, be conceived as taking place after the Passion. Thus it might be said that S. Gregory conceived the union of the two Natures to be, since the Passion (or, more strictly, since the “exaltation”), what the Monophysites conceived it to be from the moment of the Incarnation. But other phrases, again, seem to show that he conceived the two Natures still to remain distinct (see note 4 inf.). There is, however, ample justification in S. Gregory’s language for the remark of Bp. Hefele, that S. Gregory “cannot entirely free himself from the notion of a transmutation of the Human Nature into the Divine.” (Hefele, Hist. of the Councils, Eng. Trans. vol. iii. p. 4.).” If, then, in view of such a confession, he does not reproach himself with the duality of Words, why are we falsely charged with dividing the object of our faith into “two Christs”?—we, who say that He Who was highly exalted after His Passion, was made Lord and Christ by His union680    S. John i. 13    ἑνωσέως. with Him Who is verily Lord and Christ, knowing by what we have learnt that the Divine Nature is always one and the same, and with the same mode of existence, while the flesh in itself is that which reason and sense apprehend concerning it, but when mixed681    S. John iii. 3, where ἄνωθεν may be interpreted either “from above” or as in A.V.    ἀνακραθεῖσα πρὸς τὸ θεῖον. with the Divine no longer remains in its own limitations and properties, but is taken up to that which is overwhelming and transcendent. Our contemplation, however, of the respective properties of the flesh and of the Godhead remains free from confusion, so long as each of these is contemplated by itself682    Reading εἰ for εἰς, according to Oehler’s suggestion.    Here S. Gregory seems to state accurately the differentiation of the two Natures, while he recognizes the possibility of the communicatio idiomatum: but it is not clear that he would acknowledge that the two Natures still remain distinct. Even this, however, seems to be implied in his citation of Phil. ii. 11, at a later point., as, for example, “the Word was before the ages, but the flesh came into being in the last times”: but one could not reverse this statement, and say that the latter is pretemporal, or that the Word has come into being in the last times. The flesh is of a passible, the Word of an operative nature: and neither is the flesh capable of making the things that are, nor is the power possessed by the Godhead capable of suffering. The Word was in the beginning with God, the man was subject to the trial of death; and neither was the Human Nature from everlasting, nor the Divine Nature mortal: and all the rest of the attributes are contemplated in the same way. It is not the Human Nature that raises up Lazarus, nor is it the power that cannot suffer that weeps for him when he lies in the grave: the tear proceeds from the Man, the life from the true Life. It is not the Human Nature that feeds the thousands, nor is it omnipotent might that hastens to the fig-tree. Who is it that is weary with the journey, and Who is it that by His word made all the world subsist? What is the brightness of the glory, and what is that that was pierced with the nails? What form is it that is buffeted in the Passion, and what form is it that is glorified from everlasting? So much as this is clear, (even if one does not follow the argument into detail,) that the blows belong to the servant in whom the Lord was, the honours to the Lord Whom the servant compassed about, so that by reason of contact and the union of Natures the proper attributes of each belong to both683    It is not quite clear whether any of this passage, or, if so, how much of it, is a direct quotation from Eunomius. Probably only the phrase about the imparting and receiving of the essence is taken from him, the rest of the passage being Gregory’s expansion of the phrase into a distinction between the essence and the thing of which it is the essence, so that the thing can be viewed apart from its own essence.    Here is truly stated the ground of the communicatio idiomatum: while the illustrations following seem to show that S. Gregory recognized this communicatio as existing at the time of our Lord’s humiliation, and as continuing to exist after His “exaltation”; that he acknowledged, that is, the union of the two Natures before the “exaltation,” and the distinction of the two Natures after that event., as the Lord receives the stripes of the servant, while the servant is glorified with the honour of the Lord; for this is why the Cross is said to be the Cross of the Lord of glory684    ὁμοούσιον    1 Cor. ii. 8., and why every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father685    This seems to be the force of ἀκοινώνητον: it is clear from what follows that it is to be understood as denying community of essence between the Father and the Son, not as asserting only the unique character alike of the Son and of His relation to the Father.    Phil. ii. 11..

But if we are to discuss the other points in the same way, let us consider what it is that dies, and what it is that destroys death; what it is that is renewed, and what it is that empties itself. The Godhead “empties” Itself that It may come within the capacity of the Human Nature, and the Human Nature is renewed by becoming Divine through its commixture686    This is the LXX. version of the last part of Ps. xxxv. 15, a rendering with which the Vulgate version practically agrees.    ἀνακρασεως with the Divine. For as air is not retained in water when it is dragged down by some weighty body and left in the depth of the water, but rises quickly to its kindred element, while the water is often raised up together with the air in its upward rush, being moulded by the circle of air into a convex shape with a slight and membrane-like surface, so too, when the true Life that underlay the flesh sped up, after the Passion, to Itself, the flesh also was raised up with It, being forced upwards from corruption to incorruptibility by the Divine immortality. And as fire that lies in wood hidden below the surface is often unobserved by the senses of those who see, or even touch it, but is manifest when it blazes up, so too, at His death (which He brought about at His will, Who separated His soul from His Body, Who said to His own Father “Into Thy hands I commend My Spirit687    S. Luke xxiii. 46.,” Who, as He says, “had power to lay it down and had power to take it again688    S. John x. 18”), He Who, because He is the Lord of glory, despised that which is shame among men, having concealed, as it were, the flame of His life in His bodily Nature, by the dispensation of His death689    Altering Oehler’s punctuation, which would connect ἐν τῇ κατὰ τὸν θάνατον οἰκονομί& 139·, not with συγκαλύψας, but with ἀνῆψε., kindled and inflamed it once more by the power of His own Godhead, fostering into life that which had been brought to death, having infused with the infinity of His Divine power that humble first-fruits of our nature, made it also to be that which He Himself was—making the servile form to be Lord, and the Man born of Mary to be Christ, and Him Who was crucified through weakness to be Life and power, and making all that is piously conceived to be in God the Word to be also in that which the Word assumed, so that these attributes no longer seem to be in either Nature by way of division, but that the perishable Nature being, by its commixture with the Divine, made anew in conformity with the Nature that overwhelms it, participates in the power of the Godhead, as if one were to say that mixture makes a drop of vinegar mingled in the deep to be sea, by reason that the natural quality of this liquid does not continue in the infinity of that which overwhelms it690    Here may be observed at once a conformity to the phraseology of the Monophysites (bearing in mind that S. Gregory is not speaking, as they were, of the union of the two Natures in the Incarnation, but of the change wrought by the “exaltation”), and a suggestion that the Natures still remain distinct, as otherwise it would be idle to speak of the Human Nature as participating in the power of the Divine.. This is our doctrine, which does not, as Eunomius charges against it, preach a plurality of Christs, but the union of the Man with the Divinity, and which calls by the name of “making” the transmutation of the Mortal to the Immortal, of the Servant to the Lord, of Sin691    Cf. 2 Cor. v. 21 to Righteousness, of the Curse692    Cf. Gal. iii. 13 to the Blessing, of the Man to Christ. What further have our slanderers left to say, to show that we preach “two Christs” in our doctrine, if we refuse to say that He Who was in the beginning from the Father uncreatedly Lord, and Christ, and the Word, and God, was “made,” and declare that the blessed Peter was pointing briefly and incidentally to the mystery of the Incarnation, according to the meaning now explained, that the Nature which was crucified through weakness has Itself also, as we have said, become, by the overwhelming power of Him Who dwells in It, that which the Indweller Himself is in fact and in name, even Christ and Lord?

Καὶ γὰρ ἡ ἐφεξῆς κατηγορία παραπλήσιον τὸ παράλογον ἔχει. « δύο » γὰρ « Χριστοὺς καὶ δύο κυρίους » λέγειν ἡμᾶς ᾐτιάσατο, οὐκ ἐκ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἐλέγχειν τὴν αἰτίαν ἔχων, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ δοκοῦν κατ' ἐξουσίαν τῷ ψεύδει χρώμενος. ἐπεὶ οὖν ἐπ' αὐτῷ ποιεῖται τὸ λέγειν ἃ βούλεται, τί μικρολόγως φέρει τὸ ψεῦδος, δύο μόνους Χριστοὺς λέγεσθαι παρ' ἡμῶν κατασκευάζων; λεγέτω κατ' ἐξουσίαν εἰ δοκεῖ καὶ δέκα Χριστοὺς πρεσβεύειν ἡμᾶς καὶ δεκάκις τοσούτους καὶ εἰς χιλίους τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἐκτεινέτω, ὡς ἂν νεανικώτερον τῆς συκοφαντίας ἀντιλαμβάνοιτο. ἥ τε γὰρ βλασφημία καὶ ἐπὶ δύο καὶ ἐπὶ πλειόνων Χριστῶν τὸ ἴσον ἔχει καὶ τὸ ἀναπόδεικτον τῶν ἐγκλημάτων ὡσαύτως ἴσον ἐστί. δείξας τοίνυν τὸ δύο λέγειν ἡμᾶς κυρίους καὶ δύο Χριστούς, ὡς περὶ μυρίων τὸν ἔλεγχον ποιησάμενος τὴν καθ' ἡμῶν ψῆφον ἐχέτω. ἀλλ' ἐκ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἡμᾶς διελέγχειν φησί. πάλιν τὰ εἰρημένα τῷ διδασκάλῳ διασκεψώμεθα, δι' ὧν οὗτος οἴεται κινεῖν καθ' ἡμῶν τὰ ἐγκλήματα. „οὐ θεολογίας ἡμῖν παραδίδωσι τρόπον, φησίν, ἀλλὰ τοὺς τῆς οἰκονομίας λόγους„ ὁ λέγων ὅτι Κύριον αὐτὸν καὶ Χριστὸν ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός, τοῦτον τὸν Ἰησοῦν ὃν ὑμεῖς ἐσταυρώσατε, ”τῇ δεικτικῇ φωνῇ πρὸς τὸ ἀνθρώπινον αὐτοῦ καὶ βλεπόμενον πᾶσιν ἐπερειδόμενος.” τὰ μὲν οὖν γεγραμμένα ταῦτα. οἱ δὲ δύο Χριστοὶ πόθεν παρὰ τοῦ Εὐνομίου διὰ τοῦ εἰρημένου εἰσεκυκλήθησαν; ἆρα τὸ τὴν δεικτικὴν φωνὴν πρὸς τὸ φαινόμενον εἰπεῖν ἀπερείδεσθαι, τοῦτο τῆς τῶν δύο Χριστῶν κατασκευῆς τὴν ἀπόδειξιν ἔχει; οὐκοῦν ἀρνεῖσθαι προσήκει καὶ τὸ ὑπερυψωθῆναι παρ' αὐτοῦ μετὰ τὸ πάθος τὸν κύριον, ὡς ἂν μὴ καὶ δύο ὑψίστους λέγειν αἰτιαθείημεν, εἴπερ ὕψιστος μὲν ὁ ἐν ἀρχῇ ὢν λόγος θεός, ὑπερυψώθη δὲ μετὰ τὸ πάθος ὁ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστάς, καθώς φησιν ὁ ἀπόστολος. τῶν δύο γὰρ ἔστιν ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἑλέσθαι τὸ ἕτερον, ἢ λέγοντας ὑπερυψῶσθαι μετὰ τὸ πάθος, ὅπερ ἴσον ἐστὶ τῷ κύριον γενόμενον καὶ Χριστόν, ἀσεβείας παρὰ τῷ Εὐνομίῳ φεύγειν γραφήν, ἢ τὴν κατηγορίαν ἐκκλίνοντας ἀρνεῖσθαι τὴν ὁμολογίαν τῆς τοῦ παθόντος ὑπερυψώσεως. ἀλλὰ χρὴ πρὸς ταῦτα πάλιν τὸν τοῦ κατηγόρου λόγον συνήγορον τῆς ἡμετέρας ἀπολογίας προστήσασθαι. οὐκοῦν ἐροῦμεν ἐπὶ λέξεως τὰ παρ' ἐκείνου τεθέντα, δι' ὧν ὁ ἡμέτερος συνίσταται λόγος, τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον. « ὁ μακάριος », φησίν, « Ἰωάννης τὸν θεὸν λόγον, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα γέγονεν, ἐν σαρκὶ γεγενῆσθαι διδάσκει λέγων Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο ». ἆρα συνιεὶς ἃ γράφει ταῦτα τῷ ἰδίῳ λόγῳ προστίθησιν; ἐγὼ μὲν οὐκ οἶμαι τὸν αὐτὸν καὶ τὴν τούτων εἰδέναι διάνοιαν καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἡμέτερον διαμάχεσθαι λόγον. εἰ γάρ τις ἀκριβῶς ἐπισκέψαιτο τὰ λεγόμενα, οὐδεμίαν ἐν τούτοις εὑρήσει πρὸς ἄλληλα τῶν τε παρ' ἡμῶν καὶ τῶν παρ' ἐκείνου λεγομένων τὴν μάχην. ἡμεῖς τε γὰρ καὶ τὰ διὰ σαρκὸς οἰκονομηθέντα κατ' ἰδίαν ὁρῶμεν καὶ τὴν θείαν δύναμιν ἐφ' ἑαυτῆς νοοῦμεν, ἐκεῖνός τε παραπλησίως ἡμῖν τὸν ἐν ἀρχῇ λόγον ἐν σαρκὶ πεφανερῶσθαι λέγει, καὶ οὔτε ἄλλος τις αὐτὸν οὔτε αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν ᾐτιάσατο πώποτε ὡς δύο λόγους κηρύσσοντα, τόν τε ἐν ἀρχῇ ὄντα καὶ τὸν σάρκα γενόμενον, οἶδε γὰρ πάντως ὅτι ὁ μὲν λόγος ὁ αὐτός ἐστι τῷ λόγῳ ὁ ἐν σαρκὶ φανεὶς τῷ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ὄντι. ἡ δὲ σὰρξ οὐχ ἡ αὐτὴ τῇ θεότητι πρὶν μεταποιηθῆναι καὶ ταύτην πρὸς τὴν θεότητα, ὡς ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἄλλα μὲν ἐφαρμόζειν τῷ θεῷ λόγῳ, ἕτερα δὲ τῇ τοῦ δούλου μορφῇ. εἰ οὖν ἐκεῖνος οὐκ ἐγκαλεῖ αὑτῷ διὰ τῆς τοιαύτης ὁμολογίας [διὰ] τὴν τῶν λόγων δυάδα, πῶς ἡμεῖς πρὸς δύο Χριστοὺς διαμερίζειν τὴν πίστιν διαβαλλόμεθα, οἱ τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πάθους ὑπερυψωθέντα τοῦτον κύριόν τε καὶ Χριστὸν γεγενῆσθαι λέγοντες διὰ τῆς πρὸς τὸν ὄντως κύριον καὶ Χριστὸν ἑνώσεως, εἰδότες δι' ὧν μεμαθήκαμεν, ὅτι ἡ μὲν θεία φύσις ἀεὶ μία καὶ ἡ αὐτὴ καὶ ὡσαύτως ἔχουσα, ἡ δὲ σὰρξ καθ' ἑαυτὴν μέν ἐστι τοῦτο ὅπερ καταλαμβάνει περὶ αὐτῆς ὁ λόγος τε καὶ ἡ αἴσθησις, ἀνακραθεῖσα δὲ πρὸς τὸ θεῖον οὐκέτι ἐν τοῖς ἑαυτῆς ὅροις τε καὶ ἰδιώμασι μένει, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ ἐπικρατοῦν τε καὶ ὑπερέχον ἀναλαμβάνεται, διαμένει δὲ ἀσύγχυτος τῶν τε τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τῶν τῆς θεότητος ἰδιωμάτων ἡ θεωρία, ἕως ἂν ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ θεωρῆται τούτων ἑκάτερον. οἷόν τι λέγω: ὁ λόγος πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων ἦν, ἡ σὰρξ δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐσχάτων ἐγένετο χρόνων, καὶ οὐκ ἄν τις ἀναστρέψας εἴποι ἢ ταύτην προαιώνιον εἶναι ἢ ἐν τοῖς ἐσχάτοις γεγενῆσθαι τὸν λόγον: ἡ σὰρξ παθητικῆς ἐστι φύσεως, ἐνεργητικῆς δὲ ὁ λόγος, καὶ οὔτε αὐτὴ δημιουργικὴ τῶν ὄντων οὔτε ἡ θεότης παθητικὴν ἔχει τὴν δύναμιν: ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ὁ λόγος, ἐν τῇ τοῦ θανάτου πείρᾳ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, καὶ οὔτε ἐξ ἀϊδίου τὸ ἀνθρώπινον οὔτε θνητὸν τὸ θεῖον. καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν θεωρεῖται τρόπον: οὔτε ζωοποιεῖ τὸν Λάζαρον ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις οὔτε δακρύει τὸν κείμενον ἡ ἀπαθὴς ἐξουσία, ἀλλ' ἴδιον τοῦ μὲν ἀνθρώπου τὸ δάκρυον, ἡ δὲ ζωὴ τῆς ὄντως ζωῆς: οὔτε τρέφει τὰς χιλιάδας ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη πτωχεία οὔτε τρέχει ἐπὶ τὴν συκῆν ἡ παντοδύναμος ἐξουσία. τίς ὁ κοπιῶν ἐκ τῆς ὁδοιπορίας καὶ τίς ὁ ἀπόνως ὅλον τὸν κόσμον ὑποστήσας τῷ λόγῳ; τί τὸ τῆς δόξης ἀπαύγασμα, τί τὸ τοῖς ἥλοις διαπειρόμενον; ποία μορφὴ ἐπὶ τοῦ πάθους ῥαπίζεται καὶ ποία ἐξ ἀϊδίου δοξάζεται; φανερὰ γὰρ ταῦτα κἂν μή τις ἐφερμηνεύσῃ τῷ λόγῳ, ὅτι αἱ μὲν πληγαὶ τοῦ δούλου ἐν ᾧ ὁ δεσπότης, αἱ δὲ τιμαὶ τοῦ δεσπότου περὶ ὃν ὁ δοῦλος: ὡς διὰ τὴν συνάφειάν τε καὶ συμφυΐαν κοινὰ γίνεσθαι τὰ ἑκατέρας ἀμφότερα, τοῦ τε δεσπότου τοὺς δουλικοὺς μώλωπας εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἀναλαμβάνοντος καὶ τοῦ δούλου τῇ δεσποτικῇ δοξαζομένου τιμῇ: διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ τοῦ κυρίου τῆς δόξης ὁ σταυρὸς λέγεται καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογεῖται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός.
Εἰ δὲ χρὴ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν διελεῖν τρόπον, σκεψώμεθα τί τὸ ἀποθνῆσκον καὶ τί τὸ καταλύον τὸν θάνατον, τί τὸ ἀνακαινούμενον καὶ τί τὸ κενούμενον. κενοῦται μὲν γὰρ ἡ θεότης, ἵνα χωρητὴ τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ φύσει γένηται, ἀνακαινοῦται δὲ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον, διὰ τῆς πρὸς τὸ θεῖον ἀνακράσεως θεῖον γινόμενον. ὡς γὰρ οὐ κρατεῖται πνεῦμα ἐν ὕδατι, ὅταν τινὶ τῶν βαρυτέρων συγκατασπασθὲν ἐναποληφθῇ τῷ βάθει τοῦ ὕδατος, ἀλλ' ἐπὶ τὸ συγγενὲς ἀνατρέχει, τὸ δὲ ὕδωρ πολλάκις τῇ ἀναδρομῇ τοῦ πνεύματος συνεπαίρεται, ἐν λεπτῇ τινι καὶ ὑμενώδει τῇ ἐπιφανείᾳ τῷ ἀερώδει κύκλῳ περικυρτούμενον, οὕτω καὶ τῆς ἀληθινῆς ζωῆς τῆς ἐγκειμένης τῇ σαρκὶ πρὸς ἑαυτὴν μετὰ τὸ πάθος ἀναδραμούσης καὶ ἡ περὶ αὐτὴν σὰρξ συνεπήρθη, ὑπὸ τῆς θεϊκῆς ἀθανασίας ἀπὸ τῆς φθορᾶς συνανωσθεῖσα ἐπὶ τὸ ἄφθαρτον. καὶ ὥσπερ τὸ ἐν τῷ ξύλῳ πῦρ ἐντὸς πολλάκις τῆς ἐπιφανείας κρυπτόμενον λανθάνει τῶν ὁρώντων ἢ καὶ τῶν ἁπτομένων τὴν αἴσθησιν, ἀναζωπυρούμενον δὲ φανεροῦται, οὕτως καὶ ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ ὢν πεποίηται κατ' ἐξουσίαν ὁ διαζεύξας τὴν ψυχὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος, ὁ εἰπὼν πρὸς τὸν ἴδιον πατέρα ὅτι Ἐν ταῖς χερσί σου παρατίθεμαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου, ὁ καθώς φησιν ἐξουσίαν ἔχων θεῖναι αὐτὴν καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχων πάλιν λαβεῖν αὐτήν: οὗτος ὁ τῆς ἐν ἀνθρώποις αἰσχύνης καταφρονήσας διὰ τὸ εἶναι τῆς δόξης κύριος, οἱονεὶ συγκαλύψας τὸ τῆς ζωῆς ἐμπύρευμα τῇ φύσει τοῦ σώματος ἐν τῇ κατὰ τὸν θάνατον οἰκονομίᾳ πάλιν ἀνῆψέ τε καὶ ἀνεζωπύρησε τῇ δυνάμει τῆς ἰδίας θεότητος, τὸ νεκρωθὲν ἀναθάλψας καὶ οὕτως τῷ ἀπείρῳ τῆς θεϊκῆς δυνάμεως τὴν βραχεῖαν ἐκείνην τῆς φύσεως ἡμῶν ἀπαρχὴν ἀναχέας, ὅπερ αὐτὸς ἦν, τοῦτο κἀκεῖνο ἐποίησε, τὴν δουλικὴν μορφὴν κύριον καὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν ἐκ Μαρίας Χριστὸν καὶ τὸν σταυρωθέντα ἐξ ἀσθενείας ζωὴν καὶ δύναμιν καὶ πάντα, ὅσα ἐν τῷ θεῷ λόγῳ κατὰ τὸ εὐσεβὲς θεωρεῖται, καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀναληφθέντι παρὰ τοῦ λόγου ποιήσας: ὡς μὴ κατά τινα διαίρεσιν ἰδιαζόντως ἐφ' ἑκατέρου ταῦτα δοκεῖν εἶναι, ἀλλὰ τῇ πρὸς τὸ θεῖον ἀνακράσει κατὰ τὸ ἐπικρατοῦν ἀναποιηθεῖσαν τὴν ἐπίκηρον φύσιν μεταλαβεῖν τὴν τῆς θεότητος δύναμιν, ὡς εἴ τις λέγοι ὅτι τὴν σταγόνα τοῦ ὄξους ἐμμιχθεῖσαν τῷ πελάγει θάλασσαν ἡ μίξις ἐποίησε τῷ μηκέτι τὴν κατὰ φύσιν ποιότητα τοῦ ὑγροῦ τούτου ἐν τῇ ἀπειρίᾳ τοῦ ἐπικρατοῦντος συμμένειν. οὗτος ὁ ἡμέτερος λόγος, οὐκ ἀριθμὸν Χριστῶν, καθὼς κατηγορεῖ ὁ Εὐνόμιος, ἀλλὰ ἕνωσιν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πρὸς τὸ θεῖον πρεσβεύων, τὴν τοῦ θνητοῦ πρὸς τὸ ἀθάνατον καὶ τὴν τοῦ δούλου πρὸς τὸν κύριον καὶ τὴν τῆς ἁμαρτίας πρὸς τὴν δικαιοσύνην καὶ τὴν τῆς κατάρας πρὸς τὴν εὐλογίαν καὶ τὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πρὸς τὸν Χριστὸν μεταστοιχείωσιν « ποίησιν » ὀνομάζων. τίς οὖν ἔτι τοῖς συκοφάνταις ὑπολείπεται λόγος, ὡς δύο Χριστοὺς ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ δόγματι κηρυσσόντων, εἰ τὸν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἀκτίστως ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ὄντα κύριον καὶ Χριστὸν καὶ λόγον καὶ θεὸν οὐ λέγομεν « πεποιῆσθαι », τὸν δὲ μακάριον Πέτρον ἐν βραχεῖ τὸ κατὰ τὴν σάρκα μυστήριον παροδικῶς ἐνδεικνύμενον λέγειν διοριζόμεθα κατὰ τὴν προαποδεδειγμένην διάνοιαν, ὅτι τὸ σταυρωθὲν ἐξ ἀσθενείας καὶ αὐτὸ διὰ τὴν ἐπικρατήσασαν τοῦ ἐνοικήσαντος δύναμιν ἐκεῖνο γέγονεν, ὅπερ ὁ ἐνοικήσας ἐστί τε καὶ ὀνομάζεται, ὀνομάζεται δὲ Χριστὸς καὶ κύριος, καθὼς εἰρήκαμεν;