317

Basil is also shown clearly neither to have submitted himself to the will of the apostles nor to have preserved the consistency of his own arguments; from which, either perceiving the inconsistency he will concede that the Word who was in the beginning, being God, became Lord, or he joins contradictions to contradictions20. For this is also our doctrine which Eunomius also states, he who says that the Word who was in the beginning, being God, became 3.4.22 Lord. For being what he was, both God and Word and life and light and grace and truth and Lord and Christ and every lofty and divine name, in the man who was assumed, who was none of these things, he became the other things, as many as the Word was, and among the others also Christ and Lord according to both the teaching of Peter and the confession of Eunomius, not with the divinity receiving something by way of progress, but with every high dignity being contemplated in the divine nature; thus he becomes both Lord and Christ, not with the divinity coming to an addition of grace (for the nature of the divinity is confessed to be lacking in no good thing), but leading the human to participation in the divinity, which is signified through "Christ" and "Lord." 3.4.23 And about these things, enough has been said. But what is said by Eunomius for the slandering of our doctrine, as if Christ was emptied into himself, has already been sufficiently examined through what has been said, by which it has been demonstrated that he fastens his own blasphemy onto our doctrine. For he who confesses that the unchangeable nature put on the created and mortal nature does not speak of a transition from like to like, but he who conceives of no removal from the greatness of the nature to what is more humble. For if he was created, according to their argument, and man is created, the wonder of the account is entirely stolen away and there is nothing paradoxical in what is said, creation itself having occurred within itself. 3.4.24 But we, having learned from prophecy of the changing of the right hand of the Most High— and by the right hand of the Father we mean the power of God that created the universe, which is the Lord, not as a part dependent on the whole, but as being from him, yet contemplated in its own proper hypostasis—this we say: that neither has the right hand been altered according to the nature of him whose right hand it is, nor can any other changing of it be spoken of apart from the economy of the flesh. For the right hand of God was truly God himself manifested in the flesh, seen through the flesh itself by those with discerning eyes, insofar as he did the works of the Father, being and being conceived as the right hand of God, but while he was enclosed by the covering of the flesh according to what was seen, he was contemplated as different from what he was by nature. 3.4.25 For this reason he says to Philip, who was gazing only at what was changed, "See through what is changed that which is unchangeable, and if you see this, you will have seen the Father himself, whom you seek to see; for he who has seen me—not the one appearing in the change, but the true me who is in the Father—will have seen that very one in whom I am, because the same character of the divinity is seen in both." We therefore, believing that the pure and impassible and uncreated nature has come to be in the passible part of creation, and understanding the changing in this, how are we accused of saying 20that he was emptied into himself20 by those who mutter their own argument against our doctrines? 3.4.26 For the communion of the created with the created is no changing of the right hand. For to say then that the right hand of the uncreated nature is created is characteristic only of Eunomius and those who think like him. For he who has an eye that sees the truth, as he sees the Most High, such also will he perceive the right hand of the Most High to be, uncreated of the Uncreated, good of the Good, eternal of the Eternal, with its being begotten in the Father in no way harming its eternity; so that the accuser is unaware that he is using his own reproaches against us. 3.4.27 But to those who stumble at the passion and through this construct the otherness of the substances, as that of the Father on account of his pre-eminence

317

Βασίλειος καὶ δείκνυται σαφῶς οὔτε τῷ βουλήματι τῶν ἀποστόλων ἑαυτὸν ἐπιστήσας οὔτε τῶν οἰ κείων λόγων φυλάττων τὴν ἀκολουθίαν· ἐξ ὧν ἢ συναισθόμενος τῆς ἀνωμαλίας συγχωρήσει τὸν ἐν ἀρχῇ ὄντα λόγον καὶ θεὸν ὄντα γεγο νέναι κύριον, ἢ μαχομένοις μαχόμενα συν άπτει20. οὗτος γὰρ καὶ ὁ ἡμέτερος λόγος ὅν φησι καὶ ὁ Εὐνόμιος, ὁ τὸν ἐν ἀρχῇ ὄντα λόγον καὶ θεὸν ὄντα γεγο 3.4.22 νέναι 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 προσ ληφθέντι ἀνθρώπῳ, ὃς οὐδὲν τούτων ἦν, τά τε ἄλλα ἐγέ νετο, 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 Χρι στός, οὐ τῇ θεότητι ἐπὶ τὴν τῆς χάριτος προσθήκην ἐρχό μενος (ἀνελλιπὴς γὰρ ἀγαθοῦ παντὸς ἡ τῆς θεότητος ὡμο λόγηται φύσις), ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον εἰς τὴν τῆς θεότητος μετουσίαν ἄγων, ἣ διὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τε καὶ τοῦ κυρίου ση μαίνεται. 3.4.23 Καὶ περὶ μὲν τούτων ἀπόχρη. τὸ δ' ἐπὶ διαβολῇ τοῦ καθ' ἡμᾶς δόγματος παρὰ τοῦ Εὐνομίου λεγόμενον ὡς εἰς ἑαυτὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ κενωθέντος ἤδη μὲν ἱκανῶς διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων ἐξήτασται, δι' ὧν ἀποδέδεικται τὴν ἑαυτοῦ βλα σφημίαν τῷ ἡμετέρῳ δόγματι προστριβόμενος. οὐ γὰρ ὁ τὴν ἄτρεπτον φύσιν ὁμολογῶν ὑποδῦναι τὴν κτιστὴν καὶ ἐπίκηρον τὴν ἐκ τοῦ ὁμοίου πρὸς τὸ ὅμοιον μεταχώρησιν λέγει, ἀλλ' ὁ μηδεμίαν μετάστασιν ἀπὸ τοῦ μεγαλείου τῆς φύσεως ἐπὶ τὸ ταπεινότερον ἐννοῶν. εἰ γὰρ κτιστὸς μὲν ἐκεῖνος κατὰ τὸν λόγον αὐτῶν, κτιστὸς δὲ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, διεκλάπη πάντως τὸ θαῦμα τοῦ λόγου καὶ παράδοξον ἐν τοῖς λεγομένοις ἔστιν οὐδέν, τῆς κτίσεως αὐτῆς ἐν ἑαυτῇ 3.4.24 γενομένης. ἀλλ' ἡμεῖς μεμαθηκότες παρὰ τῆς προφητείας τὴν ἀλλοίωσιν τῆς δεξιᾶς τοῦ ὑψίστου- δεξιὰν δὲ τοῦ πατρὸς τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ λέγομεν δύναμιν τὴν ποιητικὴν τοῦ παντός, ἥτις ἐστὶν ὁ κύριος, οὐχ ὡς μέρος ἐξηρτημένη τοῦ ὅλου, ἀλλ' ὡς ἐξ ἐκείνου μὲν οὖσα, ἐφ' ἑαυτῆς δὲ κατ' ἰδίαν ὑπόστασιν θεωρουμένη-τοῦτό φαμεν ὅτι οὔτε ἡ δεξιὰ κατὰ τὸν λόγον τῆς φύσεως ἐκείνου παρήλλακται, οὗ ἐστι δεξιά, οὔτε ἀλλοίωσις αὐτῆς ἄλλη τις παρὰ τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς οἰκονομίαν λέγεσθαι δύναται. ἦν γὰρ ὡς ἀληθῶς ἡ δεξιὰ τοῦ θεοῦ αὐτὸς ὁ ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθεὶς θεός, δι' αὐτῆς τῆς σαρκὸς τοῖς διορατικοῖς καθορώμενος, καθὸ μὲν ἐποίει τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πατρός, δεξιὰ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ὢν καὶ νοούμενος, ἐν ᾧ δὲ περιείχετο τῷ τῆς σαρκὸς προ καλύμματι κατὰ τὸ βλεπόμενον, ἀλλοῖος παρ' ὃ τῇ φύσει 3.4.25 ἦν θεωρούμενος. διὰ τοῦτο πρὸς Φίλιππον λέγει τὸν πρὸς μόνον τὸ ἀλλοιωθὲν ἀτενίζοντα ὅτι βλέπε διὰ τοῦ ἀλλοιω θέντος τὸ ἀναλλοίωτον, κἂν τοῦτο ἴδῃς, αὐτὸν τὸν πατέρα, ὃν ζητεῖς ἰδεῖν, ἑωρακὼς ἔσῃ· ὁ γὰρ ἑωρακὼς ἐμέ, οὐ τὸν ἐν τῇ ἀλλοιώσει φαινόμενον, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἀληθῶς ἐμὲ τὸν ἐν τῷ πατρὶ ὄντα, αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον ἑωρακὼς ἔσται τὸν ἐν ᾧ εἰμι, τῷ τὸν αὐτὸν χαρακτῆρα τῆς θεότητος ἐπ' ἀμφοῖν καθορᾶσθαι. τὴν οὖν ἀκήρατον καὶ ἀπαθῆ καὶ ἄκτιστον φύσιν ἐν τῷ παθητῷ τῆς κτίσεως γεγενῆσθαι πιστεύοντες καὶ ἐν τούτῳ νοοῦντες τὴν ἀλλοίωσιν, πῶς 20αὐτὸν εἰς ἑαυτὸν κεκενῶσθαι20 λέγειν κατηγορούμεθα παρὰ τῶν τὸν ἴδιον λόγον τοῖς ἡμετέροις δόγμασιν ἐπιθρυλούντων; 3.4.26 τοῦ γὰρ κτιστοῦ πρὸς τὸ κτιστὸν ἡ κοινωνία οὐδεμία δεξιᾶς ἐστιν ἀλλοίωσις. κτιστὴν γὰρ <τὴν> δεξιὰν τῆς ἀκτίστου φύσεως λέγειν Εὐνομίου μόνου καὶ τῶν τὰ ὅμοια τούτῳ φρονούντων ἐστίν. ὁ γὰρ ὀφθαλμὸν ἔχων πρὸς τὴν ἀλή θειαν βλέποντα οἷον τὸν ὕψιστον ὁρᾷ, τοιαύτην καὶ τὴν δεξιὰν τοῦ ὑψίστου κατόψεται, ἄκτιστον ἀκτίστου, ἀγαθοῦ ἀγαθήν, ἀϊδίου ἀΐδιον, μηδὲν τὴν ἀϊδιότητα τοῦ γεννητῶς εἶναι αὐτὴν ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καταβλάπτοντος· ὥστε λέληθεν ἑαυτὸν ὁ κατήγορος τοῖς ἰδίοις ὀνείδεσι καθ' ἡμῶν χρώμενος. 3.4.27 Πρὸς δὲ τοὺς τῷ πάθει προσπταίοντας καὶ διὰ τούτου κατασκευάζοντας τὴν τῶν οὐσιῶν ἑτερότητα, ὡς τοῦ πα τρὸς μὲν διὰ τὸ ὑπερέχον