Against Eunomius — Book V

It may now be time to examine what Eunomius himself said concerning the words of the Apostle Peter, and what our father said about him. If a thorough examination makes our discussion quite long, the fair-minded reader will surely forgive this and will not blame us for wasting time on words, but will instead blame the one who created the need for them. Let me also make some brief preliminary remarks before the proposed examination: perhaps they too will prove relevant to the purpose of our discussion.

It is now, perhaps, time to make enquiry into what is said concerning the words of the Apostle Peter, by Eunomius himself, and by our father concerning the latter. If a detailed examination should extend our discourse to considerable length, the fair-minded reader will no doubt pardon this, and will not blame us for wasting time in words, but lay the blame on him who has given occasion for them. Let me be allowed also to make some brief remarks preliminary to the proposed enquiry: it may be that they too will be found not to be out of keeping with the aim of our discussion.

That no created thing deserves human worship is declared so clearly as a law by the divine word that this truth can be learned from almost all of inspired Scripture. Moses, the Tables, the Law, the following Prophets, the Gospels, and the decrees of the Apostles all alike forbid the act of reverencing creation. It would be too lengthy to set out in order the particular passages that refer to this matter, but even if we present only a few from among the many instances of inspired testimony, our argument is equally convincing, since each divine word, however small, has equal force for declaring the truth. Now, since our conception of what exists is divided into two—creation and the uncreated Nature—if our adversaries' current position should prevail, so that we would say the Son of God is created, we would be absolutely forced either to disregard the Gospel's proclamation and refuse to worship God the Word who was in the beginning, on the ground that we must not offer worship to creation, or, if the marvels recorded in the Gospels are too compelling for us and lead us to reverence and worship Him who is revealed in them, to place the created and the Uncreated on the same level of honor. For if, according to our adversaries' opinion, even the created God is worshipped despite having no superiority in His physis above the rest of creation, and if this view should prevail, the doctrines of religion will be completely transformed into a kind of anarchy and democratic independence. When people believe that the nature they worship is not one, but have their thoughts turned away to diverse Godheads, no one will stop the conception of Deity as it progresses through creation. Instead, the Divine element, once recognized in creation, will become a stepping-stone to the same conception in whatever is contemplated next, and that in turn for the next in order. As a result of this inferential process, the error will extend to all things, as the first deceit makes its way through contiguous cases even to the very last.

That no created thing is deserving of man's worship, the divine word so clearly declares as a law, that such a truth may be learned from almost the whole of the inspired Scripture. Moses, the Tables, the Law, the Prophets that follow, the Gospels, the decrees of the Apostles, all alike forbid the act of reverencing the creation. It would be a lengthy task to set out in order the particular passages which refer to this matter; but though we set out only a few from among the many instances of the inspired testimony, our argument is surely equally convincing, since each of the divine words, albeit the least, has equal force for declaration of the truth. Seeing, then, that our conception of existences is divided into two, the creation and the uncreated Nature, if the present contention of our adversaries should prevail, so that we should say that the Son of God is created, we should be absolutely compelled either to set at naught the proclamation of the Gospel, and to refuse to worship that God the Word Who was in the beginning, on the ground that we must not address worship to the creation, or, if these marvels recorded in the Gospels are too urgent for us, by which we are led to reverence and to worship Him Who is displayed in them, to place, in that case, the created and the Uncreated on the same level of honour; seeing that if, according to our adversaries' opinion, even the created God is worshipped, though having in His nature no prerogative above the rest of the creation, and if this view should get the upper hand, the doctrines of religion will be entirely transformed to a kind of anarchy and democratic independence. For when men believe that the nature they worship is not one, but have their thoughts turned away to diverse Godheads, there will be none who will stay the conception of the Deity in its progress through creation, but the Divine element, once recognized in creation, will become a stepping-stone to the like conception in the case of that which is next contemplated, and that again for the next in order, and as a result of this inferential process the error will extend to all things, as the first deceit makes its way by contiguous cases even to the very last.

To show that I am not making a random statement beyond what is reasonable, I will cite as credible testimony for my assertion the error that still prevails among the pagans. Since they, with their untrained and limited intelligence, were inclined to look with wonder at the beauties of nature, they did not use the things they saw as a leader and guide to the beauty of the Nature that transcends them. Instead, they made their intelligence stop at the objects it perceived and marveled at each part of creation separately. For this reason they did not limit their conception of the Deity to any single thing they saw, but considered everything they looked at in creation to be divine. Thus among the Egyptians, as the error developed more strongly in regard to intellectual objects, the countless forms of spiritual beings were reckoned to be many natures of Gods. Among the Babylonians the unerring circuit of the firmament was considered a God, whom they also named Bel. Likewise, the foolishness of the pagans deified individually the seven successive spheres, with one person bowing down to one, another to another, according to some individual form of error. Since they perceived all these circles moving in relation to one another, and since they had gone astray regarding the highest, they maintained the same error by logical sequence down to the last of them. In addition to these, the ether itself, and the atmosphere spread beneath it, the earth and sea and the region below ground, and in the earth itself all things useful or necessary for human life—of all these there was none which they held to be without part or share in the Divine physis (nature), but they bowed down to each of them, bringing themselves through some object visible in creation into bondage to all the successive parts of creation. Had the act of worshiping creation been clearly unlawful to them from the beginning, they would not have been led astray into this deception of polytheism. Let us be careful, then, that we do not share the same fate—we who, being taught by Scripture to worship the true Godhead, were trained to consider all created existence as external to the Divine physis, and to worship and revere that uncreated Nature alone, whose mark and sign is that it never either begins to be or ceases to be. For the great Isaiah speaks of the Divine physis concerning these doctrines in his exalted utterance—speaking in the person of the Deity: I am the first, and hereafter am I, and no God was before Me, and no God shall be after Me. Knowing more perfectly than all others the mystery of the religion of the Gospel, this great prophet, who foretold even that marvelous sign concerning the Virgin and gave us the good news of the birth of the Child, and clearly pointed out to us that Name of the Son—he, in short, who through the Spirit includes in himself all the truth—in order that the characteristic of the Divine Nature by which we distinguish that which really is from that which came into being might be made as plain as possible to all, utters this saying in the person of God: I am the first, and hereafter am I, and before Me no God has been, and after Me is none. Since, then, neither is that God which was before God, nor is that God which is after God—for that which is after God is the creation, and that which is before God is nothing, and Nothing is not God (or one should rather say, that which is before God is God in His eternal blessedness, defined in contrast to Nothing)—since, I say, this inspired utterance was spoken through the mouth of the prophet, we learn through him the doctrine that the Divine Nature is one, continuous with itself and indivisible, not admitting in itself priority and posteriority, though it is declared in Trinity, and with none of the things we contemplate in it more ancient or more recent than another. Since, then, the saying is the saying of God, whether you grant that the words are the words of the Father or of the Son, the orthodox doctrine is equally upheld by either. For if it is the Father who speaks thus, He bears witness to the Son that He is not after Himself: for if the Son is God, and whatever is after the Father is not God, it is clear that the saying bears witness to the truth that the Son is in the Father, and not after the Father. If, on the other hand, one were to grant that this utterance is of the Son, the phrase, None has been before Me, will be a clear sign that He whom we contemplate in the Beginning is understood together with the eternity of the Beginning. If, then, anything is after God, this is discovered, by the passages quoted, to be a creature and not God, for He says, That which is after Me is not God.

To show that I am not making a random statement beyond what probability admits of, I will cite as a credible testimony in favour of my assertion the error which still prevails among the heathen. Seeing that they, with their untrained and narrow intelligence, were disposed to look with wonder on the beauties of nature, not employing the things they beheld as a leader and guide to the beauty of the Nature that transcends them, they rather made their intelligence halt on arriving at the objects of its apprehension, and marvelled at each part of the creation severally — for this cause they did not stay their conception of the Deity at any single one of the things they beheld, but deemed everything they looked on in creation to be divine. And thus with the Egyptians, as the error developed its force more in respect of intellectual objects, the countless forms of spiritual beings were reckoned to be so many natures of Gods; while with the Babylonians the unerring circuit of the firmament was accounted a God, to whom they also gave the name of Bel. So, too, the foolishness of the heathen deifying individually the seven successive spheres, one bowed down to one, another to another, according to some individual form of error. For as they perceived all these circles moving in mutual relation, seeing that they had gone astray as to the most exalted, they maintained the same error by logical sequence, even to the last of them. And in addition to these, the æther itself, and the atmosphere diffused beneath it, the earth and sea and the subterranean region, and in the earth itself all things which are useful or needful for man's life — of all these there was none which they held to be without part or lot in the Divine nature, but they bowed down to each of them, bringing themselves, by means of some one of the objects conspicuous in the creation, into bondage to all the successive parts of the creation, in such a way that, had the act of reverencing the creation been from the beginning even to them a thing evidently unlawful, they would not have been led astray into this deceit of polytheism. Let us look to it, then, lest we too share the same fate — we who in being taught by Scripture to reverence the true Godhead, were trained to consider all created existence as external to the Divine nature, and to worship and revere that uncreated Nature alone, Whose characteristic and token is that it never either begins to be or ceases to be; since the great Isaiah thus speaks of the Divine nature with reference to these doctrines, in his exalted utterance — who speaks in the person of the Deity, I am the first, and hereafter am I, and no God was before Me, and no God shall be after Me. For knowing more perfectly than all others the mystery of the religion of the Gospel, this great prophet, who foretold even that marvellous sign concerning the Virgin, and gave us the good tidings of the birth of the Child, and clearly pointed out to us that Name of the Son — he, in a word, who by the Spirit includes in himself all the truth — in order that the characteristic of the Divine Nature, whereby we discern that which really is from that which came into being, might be made as plain as possible to all, utters this saying in the person of God: I am the first, and hereafter am I, and before Me no God has been, and after Me is none. Since, then, neither is that God which was before God, nor is that God which is after God, (for that which is after God is the creation, and that which is anterior to God is nothing, and Nothing is not God — or one should rather say, that which is anterior to God is God in His eternal blessedness, defined in contradistinction to Nothing — since, I say, this inspired utterance was spoken by the mouth of the prophet, we learn by his means the doctrine that the Divine Nature is one, continuous with Itself and indiscerptible, not admitting in Itself priority and posteriority, though it be declared in Trinity, and with no one of the things we contemplate in it more ancient or more recent than another. Since, then, the saying is the saying of God, whether you grant that the words are the words of the Father or of the Son, the orthodox doctrine is equally upheld by either. For if it is the Father that speaks thus, He bears witness to the Son that He is not after Himself: for if the Son is God, and whatever is after the Father is not God, it is clear that the saying bears witness to the truth that the Son is in the Father, and not after the Father. If, on the other hand, one were to grant that this utterance is of the Son, the phrase, None has been before Me, will be a clear intimation that He Whom we contemplate in the Beginning is apprehended together with the eternity of the Beginning. If, then, anything is after God, this is discovered, by the passages quoted, to be a creature, and not God: for He says, That which is after Me is not God.

Now that this preliminary view of existences has been presented to us, it may be the right time to examine the passage before us. Peter says to the Jews, "Him God made Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:36), while on our part we say that it is not reverent to apply the word "made" to the divine nature of the Only-begotten, but rather that it should be applied to that form of a servant (Philippians 2:7), which came into being through the Incarnation at the proper time of his appearing in the flesh. On the other hand, those who interpret the phrase in the opposite way say that in the word "made" the Apostle indicates the pre-temporal generation of the Son. Therefore, we will present the passage in the middle, and after a detailed examination of both interpretations, leave the judgment of the truth to our reader. Eunomius himself may be a sufficient advocate for our adversaries' view, for he argues strenuously on the matter, so that by going through his argument word by word we shall completely follow the reasoning of those who oppose us. We ourselves will champion the doctrine on our side as best we can, following as closely as possible the line of argument previously set forth by the great Basil. But you who act as judges in this matter by your reading, execute true judgment, as one of the prophets says (Zechariah 7:9), not awarding the victory to contentious preconceptions, but to the truth as it is shown by examination. And now let the accuser of our doctrines come forward and read his indictment, as in a court of law.

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 you crucified Acts 2:36, 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 servant Philippians 2:7, which came into being by the Incarnation, 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 prophets Zechariah 7:9 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.

Beyond what we have already mentioned, by refusing to apply the word 'made' to the ousia of the Son and by being ashamed of the Cross, he accuses the Apostles of something that not even those who have tried hardest to criticize them for stupidity have charged against them. At the same time, through his teachings and arguments, he clearly introduces two Christs and two Lords. He claims it was not the Word Who was in the beginning that God made Lord and Christ, but rather the One Who 'emptied Himself to take the form of a servant' and 'was crucified through weakness.' In any case, the great Basil writes explicitly as follows: 'Moreover, the Apostle does not intend 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 ousia 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 humiliation, and was crucified through weakness.' And again, 'Anyone who even slightly pays attention to the meaning of the Apostle's words knows that he is not setting forth to us the mode of the Divine existence, but is introducing the terms that belong to the Incarnation. For he says, Him God made Lord and Christ, this Jesus Whom you crucified, clearly emphasizing through the demonstrative word that aspect in Him which was human and was seen by all.'

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 servant,' and 'was crucified through weakness 2 Corinthians 13:4.' At all events the great Basil writes expressly as follows:– '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 humiliation Philippians 3:21, 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 you crucified, evidently laying stress by the demonstrative word on that in Him which was human and was seen by all. '

Here is what this man says—the man who substitutes his own thinking for the Apostles' intention. We cannot speak of this as 'application,' lest anyone blame those holy men chosen to preach godliness, or accuse their teaching of falling into such absurdity. What confusion fills those who impose their own nonsense on the memory of the saints! What absurdity they display when they imagine that the man 'emptied himself' to become man, and when they claim that He who through obedience 'humbled himself' to take the form of a servant was made like men even before He took that form! Who, tell me, you most reckless of men, takes the form of a servant when he already has the form of a servant? And how can anyone 'empty himself' to become the very thing he already is? You will find no way around this, bold as you are in saying or thinking impossible things. Are you not truly the most miserable of all men—you who suppose that a man has died for all people, and attribute your own redemption to him? For if blessed Peter does not speak of the Word who was in the beginning and was God, but of the one 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 if 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 man. The very nature of reality rejects this, and it is explicitly contradicted by the writer who celebrates this dispensation in his discourse on 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 means the same thing as taking 'the form of a servant.' So if you hold these things to be true, abandon your error and stop believing that the man 'emptied himself' to become man. And if you cannot persuade those who refuse to be persuaded, demolish their disbelief with another statement, a second argument against them. Remember the one 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.' No human being will claim this phrase for himself. None of the saints who ever lived was the Only-begotten God and became man—for that is what it means to 'take the form of a servant' while 'being in the form of God.' Therefore, if 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 blessed Peter speaks to us of Him who was in the beginning and was God, and explains to us that it was He who became Lord and Christ. This, then, is the conflict that Basil wages against himself, and he clearly appears neither to have 'applied his own mind to the Apostles' intention' nor to be able to preserve the consistency of his own arguments. For according to his arguments, if he recognizes their irreconcilable character, he must admit that the Word who was in the beginning and was God became Lord; or if he tries to fit together mutually conflicting statements and stubbornly stands by them, he will add to them others even more contradictory, and maintain that there are two Christs and two Lords. For if the Word that was in the beginning and was God is one being, and He who 'emptied Himself' and 'took the form of a servant' is another, and if God the Word, by whom are all things, is Lord, and this Jesus, who was crucified after all things had come into being, is also Lord, then according to his view there are two Lords and Christs. Our author, then, cannot by any argument clear himself from this obvious blasphemy. But if anyone were to say in his defense that the Word who was in the beginning is indeed the same one who became Lord, but that He became Lord and Christ with respect to His presence in the flesh, he will surely be forced to say that the Son was not Lord before His presence in the flesh. In any case, 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 unified voice teach us this truth and proclaim it as the most excellent of doctrines. Here blessed John teaches us that God the Word, by whom all things were made, has become incarnate, saying, 'And the Word was made flesh'; here the most admirable Paul, urging those who listen to him toward 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 Cross; and again in another passage he calls Him who was crucified 'the Lord of Glory': 'for had they known it,' he says, 'they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.' Indeed, he speaks far more openly than this about the very essential nature using the name 'Lord,' where he says, 'Now the Lord is the Spirit.' 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 that Basil dreams about.

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 mind 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, you 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 man. The very nature of things is repugnant to this; and it is expressly contradicted by that writer 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 flesh '; 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 Cross Philippians 2:7-8; 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 Glory 1 Corinthians 2:8 '. 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 Spirit 2 Corinthians 3:17 '. 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.

Well, that is his accusation. But I think it is necessary first to review briefly the main points he raises, and then to proceed to correct his statements through my argument. This way, those who are judging the truth can easily remember the charges against us that we must answer, and we can address each accusation in proper order. He says that we are ashamed of the Cross of Christ, that we slander the saints, that we claim a man emptied himself to become man, that we suppose the Lord had the form of a servant before his appearance through the Incarnation, that we attribute our redemption to a man, and that we speak in our teaching of two Christs and two Lords. Or, if we do not do this, then we deny that the Only-begotten was Lord and Christ before the Passion. To avoid this blasphemy, he wants us to confess that the ousia of the Son was created, claiming that the Apostle Peter established such a teaching by his own voice. This is the substance of the accusation. As for all his abuse directed at us, I will pass over it in silence, since it is completely irrelevant. Perhaps this rhetorical display of carefully crafted phrases is the usual habit of those who play the rhetorician—a device to inflate the size of their indictment. Let our sophist then use his skill to show his insolence and boast of his strength in attacking us, showing off his blows in the breaks between arguments. Let him call us foolish, the most reckless of all people, the most miserable of all people, full of confusion and absurdity, and mock us however he pleases in any way he likes, and we will endure it. For a reasonable person, disgrace lies not in hearing someone who abuses him, but in responding to what he says. There may even be some benefit in his attacks against us, for perhaps while he occupies his abusive tongue in denouncing us, he will at least pause in his conflict against God. So let him indulge in as much insolence as he wants—no one will respond to him. For if a man has foul and disgusting breath because of bodily illness or some infectious and harmful disease, he would not provoke any healthy person to imitate his misfortune by acquiring the disease himself in order to repay the unpleasantness of the man's bad odor in the same evil manner. Common human nature tells us to pity such people, not to imitate them. So let us pass over everything of this sort—all the mockery, indignation, provocation, and abuse he has carefully woven into his argument—and examine only his arguments as they relate to the doctrinal issues at stake. We will begin again from the beginning and address each of his charges in turn.

Well, such is his accusation. But I think it necessary in the first place to go briefly, by way of summary, over the points that he urges, and then to proceed to correct by my argument what he has said, that those who are judging the truth may find it easy to remember the indictment against us, which we have to answer, and that we may be able to dispose of each of the charges in regular order. He says that we are ashamed of the Cross of Christ, and slander the saints, and say that a man has emptied himself to become man, and suppose that the Lord had the form of a servant before His presence by the Incarnation, and ascribe our redemption to a man, and speak in our doctrine of two Christs and two Lords, or, if we do not do this, then we deny that the Only-begotten was Lord and Christ before the Passion. So that we may avoid this blasphemy, he will have us confess that the essence of the Son has been made, on the ground that the Apostle Peter by his own voice establishes such a doctrine. This is the substance of the accusation; for all that he has been at the trouble of saying by way of abuse of ourselves, I will pass by in silence, as being not at all to the point. It may be that this rhetorical stroke of phrases framed according to some artificial theory is the ordinary habit of those who play the rhetorician, an invention to swell the bulk of their indictment. Let our sophist then use his art to display his insolence, and vaunt his strength in reproaches against us, showing off his strokes in the intervals of the contest; let him call us foolish, call us of all men most reckless, of all men most miserable, full of confusion and absurdity, and make light of us at his good pleasure in any way he likes, and we will bear it; for to a reasonable man disgrace lies, not in hearing one who abuses him, but in making retort to what he says. There may even be some good in his expenditure of breath against us; for it may be that while he occupies his railing tongue in denouncing us he will at all events make some truce in his conflict against God. So let him take his fill of insolence as he likes: none will reply to him. For if a man has foul and loathsome breath, by reason of bodily disorder, or of some pestilential and malignant disease, he would not rouse any healthy person to emulate his misfortune so that one should choose, by himself acquiring disease, to repay, in the same evil kind, the unpleasantness of the man's ill odour. Such men our common nature bids us to pity, not to imitate. And so let us pass by everything of this kind which by mockery, indignation, provocation, and abuse, he has assiduously mixed up with his argument, and examine only his arguments as they concern the doctrinal points at issue. We shall begin again, then, from the beginning, and meet each of his charges in turn.

The beginning of his accusation was that we are ashamed of the Cross of the one who underwent the Passion for our sake. Surely he doesn't intend to charge us also with preaching a doctrine of dissimilarity in ousia! In fact, this reproach of making the Cross a shameful thing belongs rather to those who turn aside to this opinion. For both parties alike hold the dispensation of the Passion as part of the faith. We hold it necessary to honor the God who was manifested by the Cross just as the Father is honored. They, however, find the Passion a hindrance to glorifying the Only-begotten God equally with the Father who begot him. Therefore our sophist's charges recoil upon himself, and in the words with which he imagines himself to be accusing us, he is actually publishing his own doctrinal impiety. For it is clear that the reason he sets the Father above the Son and exalts him with supreme honor is this: in the Father the shame of the Cross is not seen. And the reason he asserts that the physis of the Son varies in the sense of inferiority is this: the reproach of the Cross is referred to him alone and does not touch the Father. Let no one think that in saying this I am only following the general drift of his composition, for in going through all the blasphemy of his speech, which is laboriously brought together there, I found in a passage later than the one before us this very blasphemy clearly expressed in undisguised language. I propose to set forth in the orderly course of my own argument what they have written, which runs thus: If, he says, he can show that the God who is over all, who is the unapproachable Light, was incarnate or could be incarnate, came under authority, obeyed commands, came under the laws of men, bore the Cross, then let him say that the Light is equal to the Light. Who then is it who is ashamed of the Cross? Is it the one who, even after the Passion, worships the Son equally with the Father, or the one who even before the Passion insults him, not only by ranking him with the creation but by maintaining that he is of passible physis on the ground that he could not have come to experience his sufferings had he not had a physis capable of such sufferings? We on our part assert that even the body in which he underwent his Passion, by being mingled with the Divine Nature, was made by that commixture to be that which the assuming Nature is. So far are we from entertaining any low idea concerning the Only-begotten God that if anything belonging to our lowly nature was assumed in his dispensation of love for man, we believe that even this was transformed to what is divine and incorruptible. But Eunomius makes the suffering of the Cross to be a sign of divergence in ousia in the sense of inferiority, considering, I know not how, the surpassing act of power by which he was able to perform this to be an evidence of weakness. He fails to perceive the fact that while nothing which moves according to its own physis is looked upon as surprisingly wonderful, all things that overpass the limitations of their own physis become especially the objects of admiration, and to them every ear is turned, every mind is attentive, in wonder at the marvel. And hence it is that all who preach the word point out the wonderful character of the mystery in this respect: that God was manifested in the flesh, that the Word was made flesh, that the Light shined in darkness, the Life tasted death, and all such declarations which the heralds of the faith are wont to make, whereby is increased the marvelous character of the one who manifested the superabundance of his power by means external to his own physis. But though they think fit to make this a subject for their insolence, though they make the dispensation of the Cross a reason for partitioning off the Son from equality of glory with the Father, we believe, as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered to us by the Holy Scriptures, that the God who was in the beginning afterwards, as Baruch says, was seen upon the earth and conversed with men, and becoming a ransom for our death, loosed by his own resurrection the bonds of death, and by himself made the resurrection a way for all flesh, and being on the same throne and in the same glory with his own Father, will in the day of judgment give sentence upon those who are judged according to the desert of the lives they have led. These are the things which we believe concerning the one who was crucified, and for this cause we cease not to extol him exceedingly, according to the measure of our powers, that he who by reason of his unspeakable and unapproachable greatness is not comprehensible by any except by himself and the Father and the Holy Spirit—he, I say, was able even to descend to community with our weakness. But they adduce this proof of the Son's alienation in physis from the Father: that the Lord was manifested by the flesh and by the Cross, arguing on the ground that the Father's physis remained pure in impassibility and could not in any way admit of a community which tended to passion, while the Son, by reason of the divergence of his physis by way of humiliation, was not incapable of being brought to experience the flesh and death, seeing that the change of condition was not great but one which took place in a certain sense from one like state to another state kindred and homogeneous, because the physis of man is created and the physis of the Only-begotten is created also. Who then is fairly charged with being ashamed of the Cross? The one who speaks basely of it, or the one who contends for its more exalted aspect? I know not whether our accuser, who thus abases the God who was made known upon the Cross, has heard the lofty speech of Paul, in what terms and at what length he discourses with his exalted lips concerning that Cross. For Paul, who was able to make himself known by miracles so many and so great, says, God forbid that I should glory in anything else than in the Cross of Christ. And to the Corinthians he says that the word of the Cross is the power of God to them that are in a state of salvation. To the Ephesians, moreover, he describes by the figure of the Cross the power that controls and holds together the universe, when he expresses a desire that they may be exalted to know the exceeding glory of this power, calling it height and depth and breadth and length, speaking of the several projections we behold in the figure of the Cross by their proper names, so that he calls the upper part height and that which is below, on the opposite side of the junction, depth, while by the name length and breadth he indicates the cross-beam projecting to either side, that hereby might be manifested this great mystery: that both things in heaven and things under the earth and all the furthest bounds of the things that are, are ruled and sustained by the one who gave an example of this unspeakable and mighty power in the figure of the Cross. But I think there is no need to contend further with such objections, as I judge it superfluous to be anxious about urging arguments against calumny when even a few words suffice to show the truth. Let us therefore pass on to another charge.

The beginning of his accusation was that we are ashamed of the Cross of Him Who for our sakes underwent the Passion. Surely he does not intend to charge against us also that we preach the doctrine of dissimilarity in essence! Why, it is rather to those who turn aside to this opinion that the reproach belongs of going about to make the Cross a shameful thing. For if by both parties alike the dispensation of the Passion is held as part of the faith, while we hold it necessary to honour, even as the Father is honoured, the God Who was manifested by the Cross, and they find the Passion a hindrance to glorifying the Only-begotten God equally with the Father that begot Him, then our sophist's charges recoil upon himself, and in the words with which he imagines himself to be accusing us, he is publishing his own doctrinal impiety. For it is clear that the reason why he sets the Father above the Son, and exalts Him with supreme honour, is this — that in Him is not seen the shame of the Cross: and the reason why he asseverates that the nature of the Son varies in the sense of inferiority is this — that the reproach of the Cross is referred to Him alone, and does not touch the Father. And let no one think that in saying this I am only following the general drift of his composition, for in going through all the blasphemy of his speech, which is there laboriously brought together, I found, in a passage later than that before us, this very blasphemy clearly expressed in undisguised language; and I propose to set forth, in the orderly course of my own argument, what they have written, which runs thus:– If, he says, he can show that the God Who is over all, Who is the unapproachable Light, was incarnate, or could be incarnate, came under authority, obeyed commands, came under the laws of men, bore the Cross, then let him say that the Light is equal to the Light. Who then is it who is ashamed of the Cross? He who, even after the Passion, worships the Son equally with the Father, or he who even before the Passion insults Him, not only by ranking Him with the creation, but by maintaining that He is of passible nature, on the ground that He could not have come to experience His sufferings had He not had a nature capable of such sufferings? We on our part assert that even the body in which He underwent His Passion, by being mingled with the Divine Nature, was made by that commixture to be that which the assuming Nature is. So far are we from entertaining any low idea concerning the Only-begotten God, that if anything belonging to our lowly nature was assumed in His dispensation of love for man, we believe that even this was transformed to what is Divine and incorruptible; but Eunomius makes the suffering of the Cross to be a sign of divergence in essence, in the sense of inferiority, considering, I know not how, the surpassing act of power, by which He was able to perform this, to be an evidence of weakness; failing to perceive the fact that, while nothing which moves according to its own nature is looked upon as surprisingly wonderful, all things that overpass the limitations of their own nature become especially the objects of admiration, and to them every ear is turned, every mind is attentive, in wonder at the marvel. And hence it is that all who preach the word point out the wonderful character of the mystery in this respect — that God was manifested in the flesh, that the Word was made flesh, that the Light shined in darkness, the Life tasted death, and all such declarations which the heralds of the faith are wont to make, whereby is increased the marvellous character of Him Who manifested the superabundance of His power by means external to his own nature. But though they think fit to make this a subject for their insolence, though they make the dispensation of the Cross a reason for partitioning off the Son from equality of glory with the Father, we believe, as those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word delivered to us by the Holy Scriptures, that the God who was in the beginning, afterwards, as Baruch says, was seen upon the earth, and conversed with men Baruch 3:37, and, becoming a ransom for our death, loosed by His own resurrection the bonds of death, and by Himself made the resurrection a way for all flesh, and being on the same throne and in the same glory with His own Father, will in the day of judgment give sentence upon those who are judged, according to the desert of the lives they have led. These are the things which we believe concerning Him Who was crucified, and for this cause we cease not to extol Him exceedingly, according to the measure of our powers, that He Who by reason of His unspeakable and unapproachable greatness is not comprehensible by any, save by Himself and the Father and the Holy Spirit, He, I say, was able even to descend to community with our weakness. But they adduce this proof of the Son's alienation in nature from the Father, that the Lord was manifested by the flesh and by the Cross, arguing on the ground that the Father's nature remained pure in impassibility, and could not in any way admit of a community which tended to passion, while the Son, by reason of the divergence of His nature by way of humiliation, was not incapable of being brought to experience the flesh and death, seeing that the change of condition was not great, but one which took place in a certain sense from one like state to another state kindred and homogeneous, because the nature of man is created, and the nature of the Only-begotten is created also. Who then is fairly charged with being ashamed of the Cross? He who speaks basely of it, or he who contends for its more exalted aspect? I know not whether our accuser, who thus abases the God Who was made known upon the Cross, has heard the lofty speech of Paul, in what terms and at what length he discourses with his exalted lips concerning that Cross. For he, who was able to make himself known by miracles so many and so great, says, God forbid that I should glory in anything else, than in the Cross of Christ. And to the Corinthians he says that the word of the Cross is the power of God to them that are in a state of salvation. To the Ephesians, moreover, he describes by the figure of the Cross the power that controls and holds together the universe, when he expresses a desire that they may be exalted to know the exceeding glory of this power, calling it height, and depth, and breadth, and length, speaking of the several projections we behold in the figure of the Cross by their proper names, so that he calls the upper part height, and that which is below, on the opposite side of the junction, depth, while by the name length and breadth he indicates the cross-beam projecting to either side, that hereby might be manifested this great mystery, that both things in heaven, and things under the earth, and all the furthest bounds of the things that are, are ruled and sustained by Him Who gave an example of this unspeakable and mighty power in the figure of the Cross. But I think there is no need to contend further with such objections, as I judge it superfluous to be anxious about urging arguments against calumny when even a few words suffice to show the truth. Let us therefore pass on to another charge.

He says that we slander the saints. Well, if he heard it himself, let him tell us the words of our slander. If he thinks we said it to others, let him prove his accusation with witnesses. If he can show it from what we have written, let him read the words, and we will accept the blame. But he cannot produce anything of the kind—our writings are available for anyone who wants to examine them. If it was not said to him, and he has not heard it from others, and he has no evidence to offer from our writings, I think the person who must respond to this point may well remain silent. Silence is surely the proper answer to a baseless accusation.

He says that by us the saints are slandered. Well, if he has heard it himself, let him tell us the words of our defamation: if he thinks we have uttered it to others, let him show the truth of his charge by witnesses: if he demonstrates it from what we have written, let him read the words, and we will bear the blame. But he cannot bring forward anything of the kind: our writings are open for examination to any one who desires it. If it was not said to himself, and he has not heard it from others, and has no proof to offer from our writings, I think he who has to make answer on this point may well hold his peace: silence is surely the fitting answer to an unfounded charge.

The Apostle Peter says, "God made this Jesus, whom you crucified, Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36). Learning this from him, we say that the whole context of the passage points in one direction—the Cross itself, the human name, the way the phrase is expressed. For Scripture says that regarding one person two things were done—by the Jews, the Passion, and by God, honor. This doesn't mean one person suffered while another was honored by exaltation. Peter explains this even more clearly in what follows: "being exalted by the right hand of God." Who then was exalted? The one who was lowly, or the One who was the Highest? What else is the lowly but the Humanity? What else is the Highest but the Divinity? Surely God does not need to be exalted, since He is the Highest. It follows, then, that the Apostle means that the Humanity was exalted, and its exaltation happened by its becoming Lord and Christ. This took place after the Passion. Therefore the Apostle's word "made" does not indicate the Lord's pre-eternal existence, but rather the change from lowly to lofty that was accomplished by the right hand of God. Even this phrase declares the mystery of godliness. For when he says "exalted by the right hand of God," he clearly reveals the unspeakable dispensation of this mystery: that the Right Hand of God, who made all things that exist (which is the Lord, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing that exists subsists), itself raised to its own height the Man united with it, making him also to be what it is by nature. Now it is Lord and King. Christ is the King's name—it made him these things too. For just as he was highly exalted by being in the Highest, so too he became all else—Immortal in the Immortal, Light in the Light, Incorruptible in the Incorruptible, Invisible in the Invisible, Christ in the Christ, Lord in the Lord. For even in physical combinations, when one of the combined parts greatly exceeds the other, the inferior tends to change completely into what is more potent. We are plainly taught this by the voice of the Apostle Peter in his mystical discourse: that the lowly nature of him who was crucified through weakness (and weakness, as we have heard from the Lord, marks the flesh)—that lowly nature, I say, by virtue of its combination with the infinite and boundless element of good, no longer remained in its own measures and properties, but was raised up together with itself by the Right Hand of God, and became Lord instead of servant, Christ a King instead of a subject, Highest instead of lowly, God instead of man. What handle against the saints, then, did he who pretends to give warning against us in defense of the Apostles find in the material of our writings? Let us pass over this charge in silence as well, for I think it a petty and unworthy thing to defend against charges that are false and unfounded. Let us move on to the more pressing part of his accusation.

The Apostle Peter says, God made this Jesus, Whom you crucified, Lord and Christ Acts 2:36. We, learning this from him, say that the whole context of the passage tends one way — the Cross itself, the human name, the indicative turn of the phrase. For the word of the Scripture says that in regard to one person two things were wrought — by the Jews, the Passion, and by God, honour; not as though one person had suffered and another had been honoured by exaltation: and he further explains this yet more clearly by his words in what follows, being exalted by the right hand of God. Who then was exalted? He that was lowly, or He that was the Highest? And what else is the lowly, but the Humanity? What else is the Highest, but the Divinity? Surely, God needs not to be exalted, seeing that He is the Highest. It follows, then, that the Apostle's meaning is that the Humanity was exalted: and its exaltation was effected by its becoming Lord and Christ. And this took place after the Passion. It is not therefore the pre-temporal existence of the Lord which the Apostle indicates by the word made, but that change of the lowly to the lofty which was effected by the right hand of God. Even by this phrase is declared the mystery of godliness; for he who says exalted by the right hand of God manifestly reveals the unspeakable dispensation of this mystery, that the Right Hand of God, that made all things that are, (which is the Lord, by Whom all things were made, and without Whom nothing that is subsists,) Itself raised to Its own height the Man united with It, making Him also to be what It is by nature. Now It is Lord and King: Christ is the King's name: these things It made Him too. For as He was highly exalted by being in the Highest, so too He became all else — Immortal in the Immortal, Light in the Light, Incorruptible in the Incorruptible, Invisible in the Invisible, Christ in the Christ, Lord in the Lord. For even in physical combinations. when one of the combined parts exceeds the other in a great degree, the inferior is wont to change completely to that which is more potent. And this we are plainly taught by the voice of the Apostle Peter in his mystic discourse, that the lowly nature of Him Who was crucified through weakness, (and weakness, as we have heard from the Lord, marks the flesh,) that lowly nature, I say, by virtue of its combination with the infinite and boundless element of good, remained no longer in its own measures and properties, but was by the Right Hand of God raised up together with Itself, and became Lord instead of servant, Christ a King instead of a subject, Highest instead of Lowly, God instead of man. What handle then against the saints did he who pretends to give warning against us in defense of the Apostles find in the material of our writings? Let us pass over this charge also in silence; for I think it a mean and unworthy thing to stand up against charges that are false and unfounded. Let us pass on to the more pressing part of his accusation.

He claims that we say man has emptied Himself to become man, and that He Who humbled Himself to the form of the servant through obedience shared the form of men even before He took that form. The wording hasn't been changed; we've simply transferred his exact words from his speech to ours. Now if anything like this appears in our writings (for I consider my master's writings to be ours as well), then no one should accuse our speaker of slander. I ask only for respect for the truth, and we ourselves will provide the evidence. But if none of this appears in our writings, while his language not only blames us but is indignant and angry as if the matter were clearly proven, calling us full of absurdity, nonsense, confusion, inconsistency, and so on, I don't know what the right response is. Just as people who are confused by the groundless rages of madmen can't decide on any plan of action, I myself can find no way to address this confusion. Our master says (for I will again quote his argument word for word): He is not explaining to us the mode of the Divine existence, but the terms that belong to the Incarnation. Our accuser starts from this point and says that we maintain man emptied Himself to become man! What connection is there between one statement and the other? If we say that the Apostle has not explained to us the mode of the Divine existence, but points through his phrase to the dispensation of the Passion, we are on these grounds charged with speaking of the emptying of man to become man, and with saying that the form of the servant existed before time, and that the Man Who was born of Mary existed before the coming in the flesh! Well, I think it's unnecessary to spend time discussing what is already agreed upon, since truth itself clears us of the charge. In a case where someone may have given slanderers some grounds against themselves, it's proper to resist accusers. But where there's no danger of being suspected of some absurd charge, the accusation becomes proof not of the false charge made against the person being slandered, but of the accuser's madness. However, just as in dealing with the charge of being ashamed of the Cross, we showed through our examination that the charge rebounded on the accuser, so we will show how this charge too returns upon those who make it, since they, not we, teach the doctrine of the Son's change from like to like in the dispensation of the Passion. We will briefly examine the statements of each side, placing them side by side. We say that the Only-begotten God, having brought all things into being through His own agency, has full power over all things by Himself, while human nature is also one of the things He made. When this nature had fallen away to evil and come to be in the destruction of death, He drew it up once more to immortal life through His own agency, by means of the Man in whom He dwelt, taking to Himself complete humanity, and He mingled His life-giving power with our mortal and perishable nature, and changed our deadness to living grace and power through union with Himself. We declare this to be the mystery of the Lord according to the flesh: that He Who is immutable came to be in that which is mutable, in order that by altering it for the better and changing it from the worse, He might abolish the evil that is mingled with our mutable condition, destroying the evil in Himself. For our God is a consuming fire, 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 through creation and had therefore suffered a change toward evil. Rather, he says that He, being Himself created, came to that which was related and of the same kind as Himself, not coming from a transcendent nature to put on the lower nature because of His love for humanity, but becoming the very thing which He already was.

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 Himself 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 fire Hebrews 12:29, 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.

When it comes to the general character of the term, the name "creature" is one label applied to all things that have come into being from nothing. However, the different categories of things we observe under the term "creature" are separated from one another by their varying properties. So if He is created and man is created, then He was emptied—to use Eunomius' expression—to become Himself, and changed His position not from the transcendent to the lowly, but from what is similar in kind to what is similar in dignity (except regarding the specific characteristics of the bodily and the incorporeal). To whom will the fair verdict of those judging our case now be given? Who will appear to them to be under the weight of these accusations? The one who says the created was saved by the uncreated God, or the one who attributes the cause of our salvation to a creature? Surely the judgment of devout people is not in doubt. Anyone who clearly knows the difference between the created and the uncreated—terms whose separation is marked by lordship and slavery, since the uncreated God, as the prophet says, rules with His power forever, while all things in creation are servants to Him, according to the voice of the same prophet who says "all things serve You"—anyone, 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 bondage, and if, according to Eunomius, the essential nature of the Only-begotten is created, our opponents are surely maintaining through their doctrines not that the master was mingled with the servant, but that a servant came to be among servants. As for our supposedly saying that the Lord was in the form of a servant before His presence in the flesh, that is just like accusing us of 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 base his accusation on what he has actually heard, but makes up whatever seems good to him at his own whim, need not hold back from making such charges against us. It is exactly the same thing for us to be called to account for one set of accusations as for the other, considering that they have no basis in anything we have actually said. How could someone who says clearly 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 decides to speak evil of us while also taking care to present his case with some appearance of truth, it may perhaps not be unnecessary or useless to refute his baseless accusations.

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, rules with His power for ever, while all things in the creation are servants to Him, according to the voice of the same prophet, which says all things serve You,) 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 bondage Romans 8:21, 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.

His next accusation has the same kind of absurdity. He charges us with saying that there are two Christs and two Lords, but he cannot prove this charge from our actual words. Instead, he freely uses falsehood to suit his purposes. Since he apparently thinks he can say whatever he wants, why does he state his lie so carefully and specifically claim that we speak of only two Christs? He might as well say, if he wishes, that we preach ten Christs, or a hundred, or stretch the number to a thousand, so he could make his slander more forceful. For the blasphemy involved in the doctrine of two Christs is the same as in the doctrine of more, and both charges are equally lacking in proof. When he shows that we actually do speak of two Christs, then let him have a verdict against us, just as if he had proved ten thousand. But he says he convicts us by our own statements. Well, let us examine once more those words of our teacher by which he thinks he can make his charges against us. He says that the one who says God made Him Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified, is not setting forth to us the mode of the Divine existence, but the terms which belong to the Incarnation, emphasizing by the demonstrative word that in Him which was human and was seen by all. This is what he wrote. But how has Eunomius managed by these words to introduce his two Christs? Does saying that the demonstrative word emphasizes what is visible prove that we maintain two Christs? Should we, to avoid being charged with speaking of two Highests, deny the fact that the Lord was highly exalted after His Passion? Since 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 necessarily choose one of two options: either say that He was highly exalted after the Passion, which is the same as saying that He was made Lord and Christ, and be accused by Eunomius, or, if we avoid the accusation, deny the confession of the high exaltation of Him Who suffered.

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 you 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 defense. 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 think that the same man can both be aware of the meaning of these words and contend against our statement. For if anyone examines the words carefully, he will find that there is no conflict between what we say and what he says. We both consider the dispensation in the flesh separately, and regard the Divine power by itself, and he, like us, 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 surely knows 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, until this too was transformed to the Godhead, so that necessarily one set of attributes belongs to God the Word, and a different set of attributes belongs to the form of the servant. 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 say that He Who was highly exalted after His Passion was made Lord and Christ by His union with Him Who is truly Lord and Christ, knowing from what we have learned that the Divine nature (physis) is always one and the same, and with the same mode of existence, while the flesh in itself is that which reason and sense perceive concerning it, but when mixed 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 itself, 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 before time, or that the Word has come into being in the last times. The flesh is of a passible nature, 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 exist? What is the brightness of the glory, and what is that which was pierced with the nails? What form is it that is struck in the Passion, and what form is it that is glorified from everlasting? This much 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 honors to the Lord Whom the servant surrounded, so that by reason of contact and the union of the natures the proper attributes of each belong to both, as the Lord receives the stripes of the servant, while the servant is glorified with the honor of the Lord. For this is why the Cross is said to be the Cross of the Lord of glory, and why every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Now at this point it seems right to put forward once more our accuser's statement in support of our own defense. 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 servant. 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 union with Him Who is verily Lord and Christ, knowing by what we have learned 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 mixed 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 itself, 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 both, 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 glory 1 Corinthians 2:8, and why every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father Philippians 2:11.

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 so that it may come within the capacity of human nature, and human nature is renewed by becoming divine through its commixture with the divine. For just as air is not retained in water when it is dragged down by some heavy 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 molded by the circle of air into a convex shape with a thin, membrane-like surface, so too, when the true Life that underlay the flesh sped upward, after the Passion, to itself, the flesh also was raised up with it, being forced upward from corruption to incorruptibility by the divine immortality. And as fire that lies hidden beneath the surface in wood is often unnoticed 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 by his own will, who separated his soul from his body, who said to his own Father "Into your hands I commend my spirit" (Luke 23:46), who, as he says, had power to lay it down and had power to take it again—he who, because he is the Lord of glory, despised what is considered shameful among men, having concealed, as it were, the flame of his life in his bodily nature through the dispensation of his death, 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 that humble first-fruits of our nature with the infinity of his divine power, he 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 physis by way of division, but that the perishable physis, being made anew through its commixture with the divine in conformity with the physis that overwhelms it, participates in the power of the Godhead. This is like saying that mixture makes a drop of vinegar mingled in the deep to be sea, because the natural quality of this liquid does not continue in the infinity of that which overwhelms it. 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 sin to righteousness, of the curse 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 physis 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?

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 commixture 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 Your hands I commend My Spirit Luke 23:46, Who, as He says, had power to lay it down and had power to take it again), 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 death, 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 it. 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 Sin to Righteousness, of the Curse 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?