§2. Then he again mentions S. Peter’s word, “made,” and the passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which says that Jesus was made by God “an Apostle and High Priest”: and, after giving a sufficient answer to the charges brought against him by Eunomius, shows that Eunomius himself supports Basil’s arguments, and says that the Only-begotten Son, when He had put on the flesh, became Lord.

And although we make these remarks in passing, the parenthetic addition seems, perhaps, not less important than the main question before us. For since, when St. Peter says, “He made Him Lord and Christ707    Or “resuming.” Cf. Book II. §8 (sup. p. 113, where see note 7).    Acts ii. 36.,” and again, when the Apostle Paul says to the Hebrews that He made Him a priest708    With S. Gregory’s language here may be compared that of S. Athanasius (Or. adv. Arian. iii. 53), “It was not the Wisdom, quâ Wisdom, that ‘advanced’; but the humanity in the Wisdom that did advance, gradually ascending above the human nature and being made Divine (θεοποιούμενον).”    Cf. Heb. v. 5, Eunomius catches at the word “made” as being applicable to His pre-temporal existence, and thinks thereby to establish his doctrine that the Lord is a thing made709    1 Tim. iii. 16, where it would appear that Gregory read θεός; not ὅς.    Altering Oehler’s punctuation., let him now listen to Paul when he says, “He made Him to be sin for us, Who knew not sin710    S. John i. 14    2 Cor. v. 21..” If he refers the word “made,” which is used of the Lord in the passages from the Epistle to the Hebrews, and from the words of Peter, to the pretemporal idea, he might fairly refer the word in that passage which says that God made Him to be sin, to the first existence of His essence, and try to show by this, as in the case of his other testimonies, that he was “made”, so as to refer the word “made” to the essence, acting consistently with himself, and to discern sin in that essence. But if he shrinks from this by reason of its manifest absurdity, and argues that, by saying, “He made Him to be sin,” the Apostle indicates the dispensation of the last times, let him persuade himself by the same train of reasoning that the word “made” refers to that dispensation in the other passages also.

Let us, however, return to the point from which we digressed; for we might gather together from the same Scripture countless other passages, besides those quoted, which bear upon the matter. And let no one think that the divine Apostle is divided against himself in contradiction, and affords by his own utterances matter for their contentions on either side to those who dispute upon the doctrines. For careful examination would find that his argument is accurately directed to one aim; and he is not halting in his opinions: for while he everywhere proclaims the combination of the Human with the Divine, he none the less discerns in each its proper nature, in the sense that while the human weakness is changed for the better by its communion with the imperishable, the Divine power, on the other hand, is not abased by its contact with the lowly form of nature. When therefore he says, “He spared not His own Son,” he contrasts the true Son with the other sons, begotten, or exalted, or adopted711    S. John i. 5 (not verbally).    Reading, as Gulonius seems to have done, and according to Oehler’s suggestion (which he does not himself follow), υἱοθετηθεῖσι for ἀθετήσασι. In the latter reading the mss. seem to agree, but the sense is doubtful. It may be rendered, perhaps, “Who were begotten and exalted, and who rejected Him.” The quotation from S. Paul is from Rom. viii. 32. (those, I mean, who were brought into being at His command), marking the specialty of nature by the addition of “own.” And, to the end that no one should connect the suffering of the Cross with the imperishable nature, he gives in other words a fairly distinct correction of such an error, when he calls Him “mediator between God and men712    S. Luke i. 2    1 Tim. ii. 5.” and “man713    Bar. iii. 37.    1 Tim. ii. 5.,” and “God714    See Note 2, p. 104, sup.    The reference is perhaps to 1 Tim iii. 16, but more probably to 1 Tim. ii. 5.,” that, from the fact that both are predicated of the one Being, the fit conception might be entertained concerning each Nature—concerning the Divine Nature, impassibility, concerning the Human Nature, the dispensation of the Passion. As his thought, then, divides that which in love to man was made one, but is distinguished in idea, he uses, when he is proclaiming that nature which transcends and surpasses all intelligence, the more exalted order of names, calling Him “God over all715    Reading αὐτοῦ (for which Oehler cites good ms. authority), for ἑαυτοῦ (the reading of his text, as well as of the Paris editions).    Rom. ix. 5.,” “the great God716    Gal. vi. 14 (not verbally).    Tit. ii. 13.,” “the power” of God, and “the wisdom” of God717    Cf. 1 Cor. i. 18    1 Cor. i. 24., and the like; but when he is alluding to all that experience of suffering which, by reason of our weakness, was necessarily assumed with our nature, he gives to the union of the Natures718    Cf. Eph. iii. 18    τὸ συναμφότερον that name which is derived from ours, and calls Him Man, not by this word placing Him Whom he is setting forth to us on a common level with the rest of nature, but so that orthodoxy is protected as regards each Nature, in the sense that the Human Nature is glorified by His assumption of it, and the Divine is not polluted by Its condescension, but makes the Human element subject to sufferings, while working, through Its Divine power, the resurrection of that which suffered. And thus the experience of death is not719    Acts ii. 36.    Reading οὔτε, in favour of which apparently lies the weight of mss. The reading of the Paris edition gives an easier connection, but has apparently no ms. authority. The distinction S. Gregory draws is this:—“You may not say ‘God died,’ for human weakness does not attach to the Divine Nature; you may say ‘He who died is the Lord of glory,’ for the Human Nature is actually made partaker of the power and majesty of the Divine.” referred to Him Who had communion in our passible nature by reason of the union with Him of the Man, while at the same time the exalted and Divine names descend to the Man, so that He Who was manifested upon the Cross is called even “the Lord of glory720    It can hardly be supposed that it is intended by S. Gregory that we should understand that, during the years of His life on earth, our Lord’s Humanity was not so united with His Divinity that “the visible man” was then both Lord and Christ. He probably refers more especially to the manifestation of His Messiahship afforded by the Resurrection and Ascension; but he also undoubtedly dwells on the exaltation of the Human Nature after the Passion in terms which would perhaps imply more than he intended to convey. His language on this point may be compared with the more guarded and careful statement of Hooker. (Eccl. Pol. V. lv. 8.) The point of his argument is that S. Peter’s words apply to the Human Nature, not to the Divine.    1 Cor. ii. 8.,” since the majesty implied in these names is transmitted from the Divine to the Human by the commixture of Its Nature with that Nature which is lowly. For this cause he describes Him in varied and different language, at one time as Him Who came down from heaven, at another time as Him Who was born of woman, as God from eternity, and Man in the last days; thus too the Only-begotten God is held to be impassible, and Christ to be capable of suffering; nor does his discourse speak falsely in these opposing statements, as it adapts in its conceptions to each Nature the terms that belong to it. If then these are the doctrines which we have learnt from inspired teaching, how do we refer the cause of our salvation to an ordinary man? and if we declare the word “made” employed by the blessed Peter to have regard not to the pre-temporal existence, but to the new dispensation of the Incarnation, what has this to do with the charge against us? For this great Apostle says that that which was seen in the form of the servant has been made, by being assumed, to be that which He Who assumed it was in His own Nature. Moreover, in the Epistle to the Hebrews we may learn the same truth from Paul, when he says that Jesus was made an Apostle and High Priest by God, “being faithful to him that made Him so721    Cf. S. Mark xiv. 38    Cf. Heb. iii. 1, 2..” For in that passage too, in giving the name of High Priest to Him Who made with His own Blood the priestly propitiation for our sins, he does not by the word “made” declare the first existence of the Only-begotten, but says “made” with the intention of representing that grace which is commonly spoken of in connection with the appointment of priests. For Jesus, the great High Priest (as Zechariah says722    Cf. Zech. iii. 1), Who offered up his own lamb, that is, His own Body, for the sin of the world; Who, by reason of the children that are partakers of flesh and blood, Himself also in like manner took part with them in blood723    Cf. Heb. ii. 14 (not in that He was in the beginning, being the Word and God, and being in the form of God, and equal with God, but in that He emptied Himself in the form of the servant, and offered an oblation and sacrifice for us), He, I say, became a High Priest many generations later, after the order of Melchisedech724    Cf. Heb. vii. 21. Surely a reader who has more than a casual acquaintance with the discourse to the Hebrews knows the mystery of this matter. As, then, in that passage He is said to have been made Priest and Apostle, so here He is said to have been made Lord and Christ,—the latter for the dispensation on our behalf, the former by the change and transformation of the Human to the Divine (for by “making” the Apostle means “making anew”). Thus is manifest the knavery of our adversaries, who insolently wrest the words referring to the dispensation to apply them to the pretemporal existence. For we learn from the Apostle not to know Christ in the same manner now as before, as Paul thus speaks, “Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now know we Him no more725    Cf. 2 Cor. v. 16,” in the sense that the one knowledge manifests to us His temporary dispensation, the other His eternal existence. Thus our discourse has made no inconsiderable answer to his charges:—that we neither hold two Christs nor two Lords, that we are not ashamed of the Cross, that we do not glorify a mere man as having suffered for the world, that we assuredly do not think that the word “made” refers to the formation of the essence. But, such being our view, our argument has no small support from our accuser himself, where in the midst of his discourse he employs his tongue in a flourishing onslaught upon us, and produces this sentence among others: “This, then, is the conflict that 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 he fits together “statements that are mutually conflicting.” Why, this is actually our statement which Eunomius repeats, who says that “the Word that was in the beginning and was God became Lord.” For, being what He was, God, and Word, and Life, and Light, and Grace, and Truth, and Lord, and Christ, and every name exalted and Divine, He did become, in the Man assumed by Him, Who was none of these, all else which the Word was and among the rest did become Lord and Christ, according to the teaching of Peter, and according to the confession of Eunomius;—not in the sense that the Godhead acquired anything by way of advancement, but (all exalted majesty being contemplated in the Divine Nature) He thus becomes Lord and Christ, not by arriving at any addition of grace in respect of His Godhead (for the Nature of the Godhead is acknowledged to be lacking in no good), but by bringing the Human Nature to that participation in the Godhead which is signified by the terms “Christ” and “Lord.”

τοῦτο δὲ κἂν ἐκ παρόδου λέγωμεν, οὐκ ἀχρηστότερον ἴσως δοκεῖ τοῦ προκειμένου τὸ ἐπεισόδιον. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ εἰπόντος τοῦ ἁγίου Πέτρου Κύριον αὐτὸν καὶ Χριστὸν ἐποίησεν, καὶ πάλιν τοῦ ἀποστόλου Παύλου πρὸς Ἑβραίους ὅτι ἱερέα ἐποίησεν, ἁρπάζει τὴν Ἐποίησε φωνὴν ὁ Εὐνόμιος ὡς ἐνδεικτικὴν τῆς προαιωνίου ὑπάρξεως καὶ διὰ τούτου « ποίημα » εἶναι τὸν κύριον κατασκευάζειν οἴεται δεῖν. ἀκουσάτω τοίνυν τοῦ Παύλου λέγοντος ὅτι Τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν. εἰ τὸ Ἐποίησεν ἐπὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἔκ τε τῆς πρὸς Ἑβραίους ἐπιστολῆς καὶ ἐκ τῆς Πέτρου φωνῆς εἰς τὸ προαιώνιον ἀναπέμπει νόημα, καλῶς ἂν ἔχοι καὶ τὴν ἐνταῦθα φωνήν, ἥ φησιν ὅτι ἁμαρτίαν αὐτὸν ὁ θεὸς „ἐποίησεν„, εἰς τὴν πρώτην τῆς οὐσίας ἀνάγειν ὑπόστασιν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο « πεποιῆσθαι » αὐτὸν καθ' ὁμοιότητα τῶν ἄλλων μαρτυριῶν ἀποδεικνύειν πειρᾶσθαι, ἵνα τὴν Ἐποίησεν λέξιν εἰς τὴν οὐσίαν ἀνενέγκοι, ἀκολούθως ἑαυτῷ ποιῶν, καὶ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῇ οὐσίᾳ βλέποι. εἰ δὲ τοῦτο διὰ τὸ περιφανὲς τῆς ἀτοπίας αἰσχύνοιτο καὶ τὴν ἐπ' ἐσχάτων οἰκονομίαν διὰ τοῦ εἰπεῖν Ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν ἐνδείκνυσθαι τὸν ἀπόστολον λέγοι, πεισάτω ἑαυτὸν διὰ τῆς αὐτῆς ἀκολουθίας κἀκεῖ τὸ Ἐποίησε πρὸς τὴν οἰκονομίαν βλέπειν.
Ἀλλ' ἐπανέλθωμεν πάλιν ὅθεν ἐξέβημεν. μυρία γὰρ πρὸς τούτοις ἄλλα δυνατόν ἐστιν ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς γραφῆς πρὸς τὸν σκοπὸν ἀναλέξασθαι. καὶ μηδεὶς οἰέσθω τὸν θεῖον ἀπόστολον καθ' ἑαυτοῦ πρὸς τὰ ἐναντία μερίζεσθαι καὶ τοῖς μαχομένοις κατὰ τὰ δόγματα πρὸς τὴν εἰς ἑκάτερον ἐπιχείρησιν ἐκ τοῦ ἴσου παρέχειν διὰ τῶν ἰδίων τὰς ὕλας. εὕροι γὰρ ἄν τις ἀκριβῶς ἐξετάζων ὅτι πρὸς ἓν αὐτῷ βλέπει δι' ἀκριβείας ὁ λόγος. καὶ οὐκ ἐπιδιστάζει ταῖς ἐπινοίαις: πανταχοῦ γὰρ τὴν τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου πρὸς τὸ θεῖον ἀνάκρασιν κηρύσσων οὐδὲν ἧττον ἐν ἑκατέρῳ τὸ ἴδιον καθορᾷ, ὡς καὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ἀσθενείας διὰ τῆς πρὸς τὸ ἀκήρατον κοινωνίας πρὸς τὸ κρεῖττον ἀλλοιωθείσης καὶ τῆς θείας δυνάμεως οὐ συγκαταπιπτούσης τῇ πρὸς τὸ ταπεινὸν συναφείᾳ τῆς φύσεως. ὅταν οὖν λέγῃ ὅτι Τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ οὐκ ἐφείσατο, τὸν ἀληθινὸν υἱὸν ἀντιδιαστέλλει τοῖς ἄλλοις υἱοῖς τοῖς γεννηθεῖσι καὶ ὑψωθεῖσι καὶ ἀθετήσασι, τούτοις λέγω τοῖς διὰ προστάγματος παραχθεῖσιν εἰς γένεσιν, τῇ τοῦ ἰδίου προσθήκῃ τὸ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν οἰκεῖον ἐπισημαίνων. καὶ ὡς ἂν μή τις τῇ ἀκηράτῳ φύσει τὸ κατὰ τὸν σταυρὸν πάθος προστρίβοιτο, δι' ἑτέρων τρανότερον τὴν τοιαύτην ἐπανορθοῦται πλάνην, μεσίτην αὐτὸν θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἄνθρωπον καὶ θεὸν ὀνομάζων, ἵνα ἐκ τοῦ τὰ δύο περὶ τὸ ἓν λέγεσθαι τὸ πρόσφορον νοοῖτο περὶ ἑκάτερον, περὶ μὲν τὸ θεῖον ἡ ἀπάθεια, περὶ δὲ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον ἡ κατὰ τὸ πάθος οἰκονομία. τῆς οὖν ἐπινοίας διαιρούσης τὸ κατὰ φιλανθρωπίαν μὲν ἡνωμένον, τῷ δὲ λόγῳ διακρινόμενον, ὅταν μὲν τὸ ὑπερκείμενόν τε καὶ ὑπερέχον πάντα νοῦν κηρύσσῃ, τοῖς ὑψηλοτέροις κέχρηται τῶν ὀνομάτων, ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸν καὶ μέγαν θεὸν καὶ δύναμιν θεοῦ καὶ σοφίαν καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα καλῶν: πᾶσαν δὲ τὴν ἀναγκαίως διὰ τὸ ἡμέτερον ἀσθενὲς συμπαραληφθεῖσαν τῶν παθημάτων πεῖραν ὑπογράφων τῷ λόγῳ ἐκ τοῦ ἡμετέρου κατονομάζει τὸ συναμφότερον, ἄνθρωπον αὐτὸν προσαγορεύων, οὐ κοινοποιῶν πρὸς τὴν λοιπὴν φύσιν διὰ τῆς φωνῆς τὸ δηλούμενον, ἀλλ' ὥστε περὶ ἑκάτερον τὸ εὐσεβὲς φυλαχθῆναι, τοῦ τε ἀνθρωπίνου διὰ τῆς ἀναλήψεως δοξαζομένου καὶ τοῦ θείου διὰ τῆς συγκαταβάσεως μὴ μολυνομένου, ἀλλὰ διδόντος μὲν τοῖς παθήμασιν τὸ ἀνθρώπινον μέρος, ἐνεργοῦντος δὲ τὴν τοῦ πεπονθότος ἀνάστασιν διὰ τῆς θείας δυνάμεως. καὶ οὕτως οὔτε ἡ τοῦ θανάτου πεῖρα ἐπὶ τὸν κεκοινωνηκότα τῆς ἐμπαθοῦς φύσεως ἀναφέρεται διὰ τὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πρὸς αὐτὸν ἕνωσιν, καὶ τὰ ὑψηλά τε καὶ θεοπρεπῆ τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐπὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον καταβαίνει, ὡς καὶ κύριον τῆς δόξης τὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ φανέντα κατονομάζεσθαι, τῇ τῆς φύσεως αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸ ταπεινὸν ἀνακράσει καὶ τῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων χάριτος ἐκ τοῦ θείου πρὸς τὸ ἀνθρώπινον συμμετελθούσης. διὰ τοῦτο ποικίλως καὶ διαφόρως αὐτὸν παραδίδωσι, νῦν μὲν τὸν ἐξ οὐρανῶν κατελθόντα, νῦν δὲ τὸν ἐκ γυναικὸς γεννηθέντα, καὶ θεὸν προαιώνιον καὶ ἐπ' ἐσχάτων ἡμερῶν ἄνθρωπον: οὕτως καὶ ἀπαθὴς ὁ μονογενὴς θεὸς καὶ παθητὸς ὁ Χριστὸς εἶναι πιστεύεται, καὶ ὁ λόγος διὰ τῶν ἐναντίων οὐ ψεύδεται τὸ πρόσφορον ἑκατέρῳ τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐν τοῖς νοήμασιν ἐφαρμόζων. εἰ οὖν ταῦτα φρονεῖν ἐκ τῆς θεοπνεύστου διδασκαλίας ἐμάθομεν, πῶς ἀνθρώπῳ κοινῷ τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς σωτηρίας ἡμῶν ἀνατίθεμεν; εἰ δὲ [τὴν] τοῦ μακαρίου Πέτρου τὴν Ἐποίησεν φωνὴν οὐκ εἰς τὸ προαιώνιον τῆς ὑποστάσεως, ἀλλ' εἰς τὸ πρόσφατον τῆς οἰκονομίας βλέπειν διοριζόμεθα, τί τοῦτο κοινωνεῖ τῷ ἐγκλήματι; ὁ γὰρ μέγας οὗτος ἀπόστολος τὸ περὶ τὴν τοῦ δούλου μορφὴν ὁρώμενον ἐκεῖνο διὰ τῆς ἀναλήψεως ”πεποιῆσθαι” φησιν, ὅπερ ὁ ἀναλαβὼν κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φύσιν ἦν. καὶ γὰρ ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἑβραίους ἐπιστολῇ τὸ ἴσον ἔστι παρὰ τοῦ Παύλου μαθεῖν, λέγοντος ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα τὸν Ἰησοῦν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγενῆσθαι, πιστὸν ὄντα τῷ „ποιήσαντι„ αὐτόν. κἀκεῖ γὰρ τὸν τῷ ἰδίῳ αἵματι περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν ἱερατικῶς ἱλεωσάμενον ἀρχιερέα κατονομάσας οὐ τὴν πρώτην τοῦ μονογενοῦς ὑπόστασιν διὰ τῆς Ἐποίησεν λέξεως ἀπαγγέλλει, ἀλλὰ τὴν συνήθως ἐπὶ τῆς τῶν ἱερέων ἀναδείξεως ὀνομαζομένην χάριν παραστῆσαι θέλων φησὶ τὸ Ἐποίησεν. Ἰησοῦς γάρ, καθώς φησι Ζαχαρίας, ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς ὁ μέγας, ὁ τὸν ἴδιον ἀμνόν, τουτέστι τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα, ὑπὲρ τῆς κοσμικῆς ἁμαρτίας ἱερουργήσας, ὁ διὰ τὰ παιδία τὰ κεκοινωνηκότα σαρκός τε καὶ αἵματος καὶ αὐτὸς παραπλησίως συμμετασχὼν τοῦ αἵματος, οὐ καθὸ ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν, λόγος ὢν καὶ θεὸς καὶ ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων καὶ ὢν ἴσα θεῷ, ἀλλὰ καθὸ ἐκένωσεν ἑαυτὸν ἐν τῇ τοῦ δούλου μορφῇ καὶ προσήγαγε προσφορὰν καὶ θυσίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, οὕτως ἐγένετο ἱερεὺς πολλαῖς ὕστερον γενεαῖς κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ. οἶδε δὲ πάντως τὸ περὶ τούτου μυστήριον ὁ μὴ παρέργως τῷ πρὸς Ἑβραίους καθομιλήσας λόγῳ. ὁμοίως οὖν ἐνταῦθά τε ἱερεὺς καὶ ἀπόστολος κἀκεῖ κύριος καὶ Χριστὸς ”πεποιῆσθαι” λέγεται, τὸ μὲν ὡς πρὸς τὴν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν οἰκονομίαν, τὸ δὲ διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸ θεῖον τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου μεταβολήν τε καὶ μεταποίησιν. ποίησιν γὰρ ὁ ἀπόστολος λέγει τὴν μεταποίησιν. οὐκοῦν πρόδηλος ἡ συκοφαντία τῶν ἐναντίων τὰ τῆς οἰκονομίας ῥήματα εἰς τὴν προαιώνιον ὑπόστασιν ἐπηρεαστικῶς ἁρπαζόντων. οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁμοίως ἐμάθομεν παρὰ τοῦ ἀποστόλου γινώσκειν Χριστὸν νῦν τε καὶ πρότερον, οὕτως εἰπόντος τοῦ Παύλου ὅτι Εἰ καὶ ἐγνώκαμέν ποτε κατὰ σάρκα Χριστόν, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐκέτι γινώσκομεν, ὡς ἐκείνης μὲν τῆς γνώσεως τὴν πρόσκαιρον οἰκονομίαν δηλούσης, ταύτης δὲ τὴν ἀΐδιον ὕπαρξιν. οὐκοῦν μετρίως ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐγκλημάτων ἀπολελόγηται τὸ μήτε δύο νομίζειν Χριστοὺς ἢ κυρίους μήτε ἐπαισχύνεσθαι τῷ σταυρῷ μήτε κοινὸν ἄνθρωπον ὑπὲρ τοῦ κόσμου πεπονθέναι δοξάζειν μήτε μὴν τὸ Ἐποίησεν εἰς τὴν τῆς οὐσίας κατασκευὴν οἴεσθαι φέρειν. τῆς δὲ τοιαύτης ἡμῶν ὑπολήψεως οὐ μικρὰν ἔχει παρ' αὐτοῦ τοῦ κατηγόρου τὴν συμμαχίαν ὁ λόγος, ἐν οἷς μεταξὺ καταφορικῶς ἡμῖν ἐπελαύνων τὴν γλῶσσαν καὶ τοῦτο προφέρει ὅτι: « ταύτην μέντοι τὴν μάχην αὐτὸς πρὸς ἑαυτὸν ἀναφέρει Βασίλειος καὶ δείκνυται σαφῶς οὔτε τῷ βουλήματι τῶν ἀποστόλων ἑαυτὸν 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 συνάπτει ». οὗτος γὰρ καὶ ὁ ἡμέτερος λόγος ὅν φησι καὶ ὁ Εὐνόμιος, ὁ τὸν ἐν ἀρχῇ ὄντα λόγον καὶ θεὸν ὄντα γεγονέναι κύριον λέγων. ὢν γὰρ ὅπερ ἦν, καὶ θεὸς καὶ λόγος καὶ ζωὴ καὶ φῶς χάρις τε καὶ ἀλήθεια καὶ κύριος καὶ Χριστὸς καὶ πᾶν ὑψηλόν τε καὶ θεῖον ὄνομα, ἐν τῷ προσληφθέντι ἀνθρώπῳ, ὃς οὐδὲν τούτων ἦν, τά τε ἄλλα ἐγένετο, ὅσα ὁ λόγος ἦν, καὶ μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων καὶ Χριστὸς καὶ κύριος κατά τε τὴν διδασκαλίαν Πέτρου καὶ κατὰ τὴν ὁμολογίαν τοῦ Εὐνομίου, οὐχὶ τῆς θεότητος κατὰ προκοπήν τι προσλαμβανούσης, ἀλλὰ τῇ φύσει τῇ θείᾳ πάσης ὑψηλῆς ἀξίας ἐνθεωρουμένης: οὕτω γίνεται καὶ κύριος καὶ Χριστός, οὐ τῇ θεότητι ἐπὶ τὴν τῆς χάριτος προσθήκην ἐρχόμενος (ἀνελλιπὴς γὰρ ἀγαθοῦ παντὸς ἡ τῆς θεότητος ὡμολόγηται φύσις), ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον εἰς τὴν τῆς θεότητος μετουσίαν ἄγων, ἣ διὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τε καὶ τοῦ κυρίου σημαίνεται.