Against Eunomius.

 Contents of Book I.

 Contents of Book II.

 Contents of Book III.

 Contents of Book IV.

 Contents of Book V.

 Contents of Book VI.

 Contents of Book VII.

 Contents of Book VIII.

 Contents of Book IX.

 Contents of Book X.

 Contents of Book XI.

 Contents of Book XII.

 §1. Preface.—It is useless to attempt to benefit those who will not accept help.

 §2. We have been justly provoked to make this Answer, being stung by Eunomius’ accusations of our brother.

 §3. We see nothing remarkable in logical force in the treatise of Eunomius, and so embark on our Answer with a just confidence.

 §4. Eunomius displays much folly and fine writing, but very little seriousness about vital points.

 §5. His peculiar caricature of the bishops, Eustathius of Armenia and Basil of Galatia, is not well drawn.

 §6. A notice of Aetius, Eunomius’ master in heresy, and of Eunomius himself, describing the origin and avocations of each.

 §7. Eunomius himself proves that the confession of faith which He made was not impeached.

 §8. Facts show that the terms of abuse which he has employed against Basil are more suitable for himself.

 §9. In charging Basil with not defending his faith at the time of the ‘Trials,’ he lays himself open to the same charge.

 §10. All his insulting epithets are shewn by facts to be false.

 §11. The sophistry which he employs to prove our acknowledgment that he had been tried, and that the confession of his faith had not been unimpeached,

 §12. His charge of cowardice is baseless: for Basil displayed the highest courage before the Emperor and his Lord-Lieutenants.

 §13. Résumé of his dogmatic teaching. Objections to it in detail.

 §14. He did wrong, when mentioning the Doctrines of Salvation, in adopting terms of his own choosing instead of the traditional terms Father, Son, and

 §15. He does wrong in making the being of the Father alone proper and supreme, implying by his omission of the Son and the Spirit that theirs is impro

 §16. Examination of the meaning of ‘subjection:’ in that he says that the nature of the Holy Spirit is subject to that of the Father and the Son. It i

 §17. Discussion as to the exact nature of the ‘energies’ which, this man declares, ‘follow’ the being of the Father and of the Son.

 §18. He has no reason for distinguishing a plurality of beings in the Trinity. He offers no demonstration that it is so.

 §19. His acknowledgment that the Divine Being is ‘single’ is only verbal.

 §20. He does wrong in assuming, to account for the existence of the Only-Begotten, an ‘energy’ that produced Christ’s Person.

 §21. The blasphemy of these heretics is worse than the Jewish unbelief.

 §22. He has no right to assert a greater and less in the Divine being. A systematic statement of the teaching of the Church.

 §23. These doctrines of our Faith witnessed to and confirmed by Scripture passages .

 §24. His elaborate account of degrees and differences in ‘works’ and ‘energies’ within the Trinity is absurd .

 §25. He who asserts that the Father is ‘prior’ to the Son with any thought of an interval must perforce allow that even the Father is not without begi

 §26. It will not do to apply this conception, as drawn out above, of the Father and Son to the Creation, as they insist on doing: but we must contempl

 §27. He falsely imagines that the same energies produce the same works, and that variation in the works indicates variation in the energies.

 §28. He falsely imagines that we can have an unalterable series of harmonious natures existing side by side.

 §29. He vainly thinks that the doubt about the energies is to be solved by the beings, and reversely.

 §30. There is no Word of God that commands such investigations: the uselessness of the philosophy which makes them is thereby proved.

 §31. The observations made by watching Providence are sufficient to give us the knowledge of sameness of Being.

 §32. His dictum that ‘the manner of the likeness must follow the manner of the generation’ is unintelligible.

 §33. He declares falsely that ‘the manner of the generation is to be known from the intrinsic worth of the generator’.

 §34. The Passage where he attacks the ‘ Ομοούσιον , and the contention in answer to it.

 §35. Proof that the Anomœan teaching tends to Manichæism.

 §36. A passing repetition of the teaching of the Church.

 §37. Defence of S. Basil’s statement, attacked by Eunomius, that the terms ‘Father’ and ‘The Ungenerate’ can have the same meaning .

 §38. Several ways of controverting his quibbling syllogisms .

 §39. Answer to the question he is always asking, “Can He who is be begotten?”

 §40. His unsuccessful attempt to be consistent with his own statements after Basil has confuted him.

 §41. The thing that follows is not the same as the thing that it follows.

 §42. Explanation of ‘Ungenerate,’ and a ‘study’ of Eternity.

 Book II

 Book II.

 §2. Gregory then makes an explanation at length touching the eternal Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

 §3. Gregory proceeds to discuss the relative force of the unnameable name of the Holy Trinity and the mutual relation of the Persons, and moreover the

 §4. He next skilfully confutes the partial, empty and blasphemous statement of Eunomius on the subject of the absolutely existent.

 §5. He next marvellously overthrows the unintelligible statements of Eunomius which assert that the essence of the Father is not separated or divided,

 §6. He then shows the unity of the Son with the Father and Eunomius’ lack of understanding and knowledge in the Scriptures.

 §7. Gregory further shows that the Only-Begotten being begotten not only of the Father, but also impassibly of the Virgin by the Holy Ghost, does not

 §8. He further very appositely expounds the meaning of the term “Only-Begotten,” and of the term “First born,” four times used by the Apostle.

 §9. Gregory again discusses the generation of the Only-Begotten, and other different modes of generation, material and immaterial, and nobly demonstra

 §10. He explains the phrase “The Lord created Me,” and the argument about the origination of the Son, the deceptive character of Eunomius’ reasoning,

 §11. After expounding the high estate of the Almighty, the Eternity of the Son, and the phrase “being made obedient,” he shows the folly of Eunomius i

 §12. He thus proceeds to a magnificent discourse of the interpretation of “Mediator,” “Like,” “Ungenerate,” and “generate,” and of “The likeness and s

 §13. He expounds the passage of the Gospel, “The Father judgeth no man,” and further speaks of the assumption of man with body and soul wrought by the

 §14. He proceeds to discuss the views held by Eunomius, and by the Church, touching the Holy Spirit and to show that the Father, the Son, and the Hol

 §15. Lastly he displays at length the folly of Eunomius, who at times speaks of the Holy Spirit as created, and as the fairest work of the Son, and at

 Book III

 Book III.

 §2. He then once more excellently, appropriately, and clearly examines and expounds the passage, “The Lord Created Me.”

 §3. He then shows, from the instance of Adam and Abel, and other examples, the absence of alienation of essence in the case of the “generate” and “ung

 §4. He thus shows the oneness of the Eternal Son with the Father the identity of essence and the community of nature (wherein is a natural inquiry int

 §5. He discusses the incomprehensibility of the Divine essence, and the saying to the woman of Samaria, “Ye worship ye know not what.”

 §6. Thereafter he expounds the appellation of “Son,” and of “product of generation,” and very many varieties of “sons,” of God, of men, of rams, of pe

 §7. Then he ends the book with an exposition of the Divine and Human names of the Only-Begotten, and a discussion of the terms “generate” and “ungener

 Book IV

 Book IV.

 §2. He convicts Eunomius of having used of the Only-begotten terms applicable to the existence of the earth, and thus shows that his intention is to p

 §3. He then again admirably discusses the term πρωτότοκος as it is four times employed by the Apostle.

 §4. He proceeds again to discuss the impassibility of the Lord’s generation and the folly of Eunomius, who says that the generated essence involves t

 §5. He again shows Eunomius, constrained by truth, in the character of an advocate of the orthodox doctrine, confessing as most proper and primary, no

 §6. He then exposes argument about the “Generate,” and the “product of making,” and “product of creation,” and shows the impious nature of the languag

 §7. He then clearly and skilfully criticises the doctrine of the impossibility of comparison with the things made after the Son, and exposes the idola

 §8. He proceeds to show that there is no “variance” in the essence of the Father and the Son: wherein he expounds many forms of variation and harmony,

 §9. Then, distinguishing between essence and generation, he declares the empty and frivolous language of Eunomius to be like a rattle. He proceeds to

 Book V

 Book V.

 §2. He then explains the phrase of S. Peter, “Him God made Lord and Christ.” And herein he sets forth the opposing statement of Eunomius, which he mad

 §3. A remarkable and original reply to these utterances, and a demonstration of the power of the Crucified, and of the fact that this subjection was o

 §4. He shows the falsehood of Eunomius’ calumnious charge that the great Basil had said that “man was emptied to become man,” and demonstrates that th

 §5. Thereafter he shows that there are not two Christs or two Lords, but one Christ and one Lord, and that the Divine nature, after mingling with the

 Book VI

 Book VI.

 §2. Then he again mentions S. Peter’s word, “made,” and the passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which says that Jesus was made by God “an Apostle a

 §3. He then gives a notable explanation of the saying of the Lord to Philip, “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father ” and herein he excellently di

 §4. Then returning to the words of Peter, “God made Him Lord and Christ,” he skilfully explains it by many arguments, and herein shows Eunomius as an

 Book VII

 Book VII.

 §2. He then declares that the close relation between names and things is immutable, and thereafter proceeds accordingly, in the most excellent manner,

 §3. Thereafter he discusses the divergence of names and of things, speaking, of that which is ungenerate as without a cause, and of that which is non-

 §4. He says that all things that are in creation have been named by man, if, as is the case, they are called differently by every nation, as also the

 §5. After much discourse concerning the actually existent, and ungenerate and good, and upon the consubstantiality of the heavenly powers, showing the

 Book VIII

 Book VIII.

 §2. He then discusses the “willing” of the Father concerning the generation of the Son, and shows that the object of that good will is from eternity,

 §3. Then, thus passing over what relates to the essence of the Son as having been already discussed, he treats of the sense involved in “generation,”

 §4. He further shows the operations of God to be expressed by human illustrations for what hands and feet and the other parts of the body with which

 §5. Then, after showing that the Person of the Only-begotten and Maker of things has no beginning, as have the things that were made by Him, as Eunomi

 Book IX

 Book IX.

 §2. He then ingeniously shows that the generation of the Son is not according to the phrase of Eunomius, “The Father begat Him at that time when He ch

 §3. He further shows that the pretemporal generation of the Son is not the subject of influences drawn from ordinary and carnal generation, but is wit

 §4. Then, having shown that Eunomius’ calumny against the great Basil, that he called the Only-begotten “Ungenerate,” is false, and having again with

 Book X

 Book X.

 §2. He then wonderfully displays the Eternal Life, which is Christ, to those who confess Him not, and applies to them the mournful lamentation of Jere

 §3. He then shows the eternity of the Son’s generation, and the inseparable identity of His essence with Him that begat Him, and likens the folly of E

 §4. After this he shows that the Son, who truly is, and is in the bosom of the Father, is simple and uncompounded, and that, He Who redeemed us from b

 Book XI

 Book XI.

 §2. He also ingeniously shows from the passage of the Gospel which speaks of “Good Master,” from the parable of the Vineyard, from Isaiah and from Pau

 §3. He then exposes the ignorance of Eunomius, and the incoherence and absurdity of his arguments, in speaking of the Son as “the Angel of the Existen

 §4. After this, fearing to extend his reply to great length, he passes by most of his adversary’s statements as already refuted. But the remainder, fo

 §5. Eunomius again speaks of the Son as Lord and God, and Maker of all creation intelligible and sensible, having received from the Father the power a

 Book XII

 Book XII.

 §2. Then referring to the blasphemy of Eunomius, which had been refuted by the great Basil, where he banished the Only-begotten God to the realm of da

 §3. He further proceeds notably to interpret the language of the Gospel, “In the beginning was the Word,” and “Life” and “Light,” and “The Word was ma

 §4. He then again charges Eunomius with having learnt his term ἀγεννησία from the hieroglyphic writings, and from the Egyptian mythology and idolatry,

 §5. Then, again discussing the true Light and unapproachable Light of the Father and of the Son, special attributes, community and essence, and showin

§8. He further very appositely expounds the meaning of the term “Only-Begotten,” and of the term “First born,” four times used by the Apostle.

The mighty Paul, knowing that the Only-begotten God, Who has the pre-eminence in all things273    Cf. Col. i. 18, is the author and cause of all good, bears witness to Him that not only was the creation of all existent things wrought by Him, but that when the original creation of man had decayed and vanished away274    Cf. Heb. viii. 13, whence the phrase is apparently adapted., to use his own language, and another new creation was wrought in Christ, in this too no other than He took the lead, but He is Himself the first-born of all that new creation of men which is effected by the Gospel. And that our view about this may be made clearer let us thus divide our argument. The inspired apostle on four occasions employs this term, once as here, calling Him, “first-born of all creation275    Col. i. 15.,” another time, “the first-born among many brethren276    Rom. viii. 29.,” again, “first-born from the dead277    Col. i. 18 (cf. Rev. i. 5).,” and on another occasion he employs the term absolutely, without combining it with other words, saying, “But when again He bringeth the first-born into the world, He saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him278    Heb. i. 6..” Accordingly whatever view we entertain concerning this title in the other combinations, the same we shall in consistency apply to the phrase “first-born of all creation.” For since the title is one and the same it must needs be that the meaning conveyed is also one. In what sense then does He become “the first-born among many brethren?” in what sense does He become “the first-born from the dead?” Assuredly this is plain, that because we are by birth flesh and blood, as the Scripture saith, “He Who for our sakes was born among us and was partaker of flesh and blood279    Cf. Heb. i. 14,” purposing to change us from corruption to incorruption by the birth from above, the birth by water and the Spirit, Himself led the way in this birth, drawing down upon the water, by His own baptism, the Holy Spirit; so that in all things He became the first-born of those who are spiritually born again, and gave the name of brethren to those who partook in a birth like to His own by water and the Spirit. But since it was also meet that He should implant in our nature the power of rising again from the dead, He becomes the “first-fruits of them that slept280    1 Cor. xv. 20.” and the “first-born from the dead281    Col. i. 18.,” in that He first by His own act loosed the pains of death282    Cf. Acts ii. 24. See note 2, p. 104, supra., so that His new birth from the dead was made a way for us also, since the pains of death, wherein we were held, were loosed by the resurrection of the Lord. Thus, just as by having shared in the washing of regeneration283    The phrase is not verbally the same as in Tit. iii. 5. He became “the first-born among many brethren,” and again by having made Himself the first-fruits of the resurrection, He obtains the name of the “first-born from the dead,” so having in all things the pre-eminence, after that “all old things,” as the apostle says, “have passed away284    Cf. 2 Cor. v. 17,” He becomes the first-born of the new creation of men in Christ by the two-fold regeneration, alike that by Holy Baptism and that which is the consequence of the resurrection from the dead, becoming for us in both alike the Prince of Life285    Cf. Acts iii. 15, the first-fruits, the first-born. This first-born, then, hath also brethren, concerning whom He speaks to Mary, saying, “Go and tell My brethren, I go to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God286    Cf. S. John xx. 17: the quotation is not verbal..” In these words He sums up the whole aim of His dispensation as Man. For men revolted from God, and “served them which by nature were no gods287    Cf. Gal. iv. 8,” and though being the children of God became attached to an evil father falsely so called. For this cause the mediator between God and man288    Cf. 1 Tim. ii. 5 having assumed the first-fruits of all human nature289    The Humanity of Christ being regarded as this “first-fruits:” unless this phrase is to be understood of the Resurrection, rather than of the Incarnation, in which case the first-fruits will be His Body, and ἀναλαβὼν should be rendered by “having resumed.”, sends to His brethren the announcement of Himself not in His divine character, but in that which He shares with us, saying, “I am departing in order to make by My own self that true Father, from whom you were separated, to be your Father, and by My own self to make that true God from whom you had revolted to be your God, for by that first-fruits which I have assumed, I am in Myself presenting all humanity to its God and Father.”

Since, then, the first-fruits made the true God to be its God, and the good Father to be its Father, the blessing is secured for human nature as a whole, and by means of the first-fruits the true God and Father becomes Father and God of all men. Now “if the first-fruits be holy, the lump also is holy290    Rom. ix. 16. The reference next following may be to S. John xii. 26, or xiv. 3; or to Col. iii. 3..” But where the first-fruits, Christ, is (and the first-fruits is none other than Christ), there also are they that are Christ’s, as the apostle says. In those passages therefore where he makes mention of the “first-born” in connexion with other words, he suggests that we should understand the phrase in the way which I have indicated: but where, without any such addition, he says, “When again He bringeth the first-born into the world291    Heb. i. 6.,” the addition of “again” asserts that manifestation of the Lord of all which shall take place at the last day. For as “at the name of Jesus every knee doth bow, of things in heaven and things in earth and things under the earth292    Phil. ii. 10, 11.,” although the human name does not belong to the Son in that He is above every name, even so He says that the First-born, Who was so named for our sakes, is worshipped by all the supramundane creation, on His coming again into the world, when He “shall judge the world with righteousness and the people with equity293    Cf. Ps. xcviii. 10..” Thus the several meanings of the titles “First-born” and “Only begotten” are kept distinct by the word of godliness, its respective significance being secured for each name. But how can he who refers the name of “first-born” to the pre-temporal existence of the Son preserve the proper sense of the term “Only-begotten”? Let the discerning reader consider whether these things agree with one another, when the term “first-born” necessarily implies brethren, and the term “Only-begotten” as necessarily excludes the notion of brethren. For when the Scripture says, “In the beginning was the Word294    S. John i. 1,” we understand the Only-begotten to be meant, and when it adds “the Word was made flesh295    S. John i. 14” we thereby receive in our minds the idea of the first-born, and so the word of godliness remains without confusion, preserving to each name its natural significance, so that in “Only-begotten” we regard the pre-temporal, and by “the first-born of creation” the manifestation of the pre-temporal in the flesh.

Ὁ μέγας Παῦλος εἰδὼς ὅτι παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ ἀρχηγός τε καὶ αἴτιος ὁ μονογενής ἐστι θεὸς ὁ ἐν πᾶσι πρωτεύων, προσμαρτυρεῖ αὐτῷ τὸ μὴ μόνον τὴν τῶν ὄντων κτίσιν δι' ἐκείνου γενέσθαι, ἀλλ' ὅτι τῆς ἀρχαίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων κτίσεως παλαιωθείσης τε καὶ ἀφανισθείσης, καθὼς αὐτὸς ὀνομάζει, ἄλλης δὲ καινῆς κτίσεως ἐν Χριστῷ γενομένης, οὐδὲ ταύτης ἄλλος τις καθηγήσατο, ἀλλὰ πάσης τῆς διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῶν ἀνθρώπων γενομένης κτίσεως αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ πρωτότοκος. καὶ ὡς ἂν σαφέστερον γένοιτο τὸ περὶ τούτου νόημα, οὑτωσὶ τὸν λόγον διαληψόμεθα. τετράκις τῆς φωνῆς ταύτης μέμνηται ὁ θεῖος ἀπόστολος, ἅπαξ μὲν οὕτως εἰπὼν ὅτι πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, πάλιν δὲ ὅτι πρωτότοκος ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς, ἐκ τρίτου δὲ ὅτι πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ ἀπόλυτόν τε καὶ ἀσυζυγῆ τὴν φωνὴν παρατίθεται εἰπών: Ὅταν δὲ πάλιν εἰσαγάγῃ τὸν πρωτότοκον εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην, λέγει Καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ. οὐκοῦν ἥνπερ ἂν διάνοιαν ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων συζυγιῶν τοῦ ὀνόματος τούτου κατανοήσωμεν, ἀκολούθως τὴν αὐτὴν καὶ τῷ πρωτοτόκῳ τῆς κτίσεως ἐφαρμόσομεν. μιᾶς γὰρ καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς οὔσης φωνῆς, ἀνάγκη πᾶσα μίαν εἶναι καὶ τὴν σημαινομένην διάνοιαν. πῶς γίνεται τοίνυν πρωτότοκος ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς; πῶς δὲ ἐκ νεκρῶν πρωτότοκος; ἢ τοῦτο πάντως ἐστὶ δῆλον, ὅτι διὰ τὸ γενέσθαι ἡμᾶς αἷμα καὶ σάρκα, καθώς φησιν ἡ γραφή, ὁ δι' ἡμᾶς γενόμενος καθ' ἡμᾶς καὶ σαρκὸς καὶ αἵματος κοινωνήσας, μέλλων ἡμᾶς μεταποιεῖν ἐκ τοῦ φθαρτοῦ πρὸς τὸ ἄφθαρτον διὰ τῆς ἄνωθεν γεννήσεως τῆς δι' ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος αὐτὸς τοῦ τοιούτου τόκου καθηγήσατο, διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου βαπτίσματος τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα ἐπὶ τὸ ὕδωρ ἐπισπασάμενος, ὥστε πάντων τῶν πνευματικῶς ἀναγεννωμένων πρωτότοκον αὐτὸν γενέσθαι καὶ ἀδελφοὺς ὀνομάσαι τοὺς τῆς ὁμοίας αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ ὕδατος καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος μετεσχηκότας γεννήσεως. ἐπειδὴ δὲ καὶ τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστάσεως ἔδει αὐτὸν ἐναποθέσθαι τῇ φύσει τὴν δύναμιν, πάλιν γίνεται ἀπαρχὴ τῶν κεκοιμημένων καὶ πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν ὁ πρῶτος δι' ἑαυτοῦ λύσας τὰς ὠδῖνας τοῦ θανάτου, ὥστε καὶ ἡμῖν ὁδοποιηθῆναι τὴν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου παλιγγενεσίαν, διὰ τῆς τοῦ κυρίου ἀναστάσεως τῆς ὠδῖνος τοῦ θανάτου λυθείσης, ἐν ᾧ κατειχόμεθα. ὥσπερ οὖν μετασχὼν τῆς διὰ τοῦ λουτροῦ ἀναγεννήσεως ἀδελφῶν πρωτότοκος γίνεται, καὶ πάλιν ἀπαρχὴν τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὑτὸν ποιήσας πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν ὀνομάζεται, οὕτως ἐν πᾶσι πρωτεύων μετὰ τὸ παρελθεῖν τὰ ἀρχαῖα πάντα, καθώς φησιν ὁ ἀπόστολος, τῆς καινῆς ἐν Χριστῷ κτίσεως τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρωτότοκος γίνεται, διὰ τῆς διπλῆς παλιγγενεσίας, τῆς τε κατὰ τὸ ἅγιον βάπτισμα καὶ τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστάσεως, ἀρχηγὸς τῆς ζωῆς καθ' ἑκάτερον ἡμῖν γενόμενος καὶ ἀπαρχὴ καὶ πρωτότοκος. οὗτος οὖν ὁ πρωτότοκος καὶ ἀδελφοὺς ἔχει, περὶ ὧν φησι πρὸς τὴν Μαρίαν ὅτι Πορεύθητι καὶ εἰπὲ τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου, πορεύομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν καὶ θεόν μου καὶ θεὸν ὑμῶν. ὅλον γὰρ τῆς κατὰ ἄνθρωπον οἰκονομίας ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται τὸν σκοπὸν διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων. ἀποστάντες γὰρ τοῦ θεοῦ οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἐδούλευσαν τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσι θεοῖς, καὶ ὄντες τέκνα θεοῦ τῷ πονηρῷ τε καὶ ψευδωνύμῳ πατρὶ προσῳκειώθησαν. διὰ τοῦτο ὁ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων πάσης τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως τὴν ἀπαρχὴν ἀναλαβὼν οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ θείου προσώπου, ἀλλ' ἐκ τοῦ ἡμετέρου πέμπει τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ἑαυτοῦ τὰ δηλώματα, λέγων ὅτι: πορεύομαι δι' ἐμαυτοῦ ποιῆσαι ὑμῶν πατέρα τὸν ἀληθινὸν πατέρα, οὗ ἐχωρίσθητε, καὶ ποιῆσαι δι' ἐμαυτοῦ θεὸν ὑμῶν τὸν ἀληθινὸν θεόν, οὗ ἀπέστητε: διὰ γὰρ τῆς ἀπαρχῆς, ἣν ἀνέλαβον, προσάγω ἅπαν τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ἐν ἐμαυτῷ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον.
Τῆς οὖν ἀπαρχῆς θεὸν ἑαυτῆς ποιησαμένης τὸν ὄντα θεὸν καὶ πατέρα τὸν ἀγαθὸν πατέρα, πάσῃ κατορθοῦται τῇ φύσει τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ πάντων ἀνθρώπων γίνεται διὰ τῆς ἀπαρχῆς πατὴρ καὶ θεός. εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀπαρχὴ ἁγία, φησί, καὶ τὸ φύραμα. ὅπου δὲ ἡ ἀπαρχή [Χριστός], Χριστὸς δὲ ἡ ἀπαρχή, ἐκεῖ καὶ οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καθώς φησιν ὁ ἀπόστολος. ἐν οἷς οὖν διὰ συζυγίας τὴν μνήμην τοῦ πρωτοτόκου πεποίηται νεκρῶν τε καὶ κτίσεως καὶ ἀδελφῶν μνημονεύσας, ταῦτα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα νοεῖν ὑποτίθεται: ὅπου δὲ δίχα τῆς τοιαύτης προσθήκης φησὶν Ὅταν δὲ πάλιν εἰσαγάγῃ τὸν πρωτότοκον εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην, λέγει, ἡ τοῦ πάλιν προσθήκη τὴν ἐπὶ τέλει γενησομένην τοῦ δεσπότου τῶν ὅλων ἐμφάνειαν προσαγορεύει. ὡς γὰρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ πᾶν γόνυ κάμπτει, ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων, καίτοι ὁ υἱὸς τὸ ἀνθρώπινον ὄνομα οὐκ ἔχει τῷ ὑπὲρ πᾶν εἶναι ὄνομα, οὕτως παρὰ πάσης τῆς ὑπερκοσμίου κτίσεως προσκυνεῖσθαι τὸν πρωτότοκον λέγει τὸν δι' ἡμᾶς οὕτως ὠνομασμένον, πάλιν εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην εἰσιόντα, ὅταν κρίνῃ τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ λαοὺς ἐν εὐθύτητι. οὕτω διακρίνεται παρὰ τοῦ λόγου τῆς εὐσεβείας τό τε τοῦ πρωτοτόκου καὶ τὸ τοῦ μονογενοῦς σημαινόμενον, ἑκατέρῳ τῶν ὀνομάτων τῆς καταλλήλου σημασίας φυλασσομένης: ὁ δὲ εἰς τὴν προαιώνιον ὕπαρξιν ἀνάγων τοῦ πρωτοτόκου τὸ ὄνομα πῶς διασῴζει τὴν τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἔννοιαν; ὁ συνετὸς ἀκροατὴς ἐπισκεψάσθω, εἰ συμβαίνει ταῦτα πρὸς ἄλληλα, μήτε τοῦ πρωτοτόκου χωρὶς ἀδελφῶν νοουμένου μήτε τοῦ μονογενοῦς μετὰ ἀδελφῶν. ὅταν μὲν γὰρ εἴπῃ ὅτι Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, διὰ τούτου τὸν μονογενῆ ἐνοήσαμεν: ὅταν δὲ ἐπαγάγῃ ὅτι Ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, διὰ τούτου τὸν πρωτότοκον τῇ διανοίᾳ παρεδεξάμεθα: καὶ οὕτως ἀσύγχυτος μένει τῆς εὐσεβείας ὁ λόγος, φυλάσσων ἑκατέρῳ τῶν ὀνομάτων τὰς προσφυεῖς σημασίας, ὡς ἐν μὲν τῷ μονογενεῖ βλέπειν τὸ προαιώνιον, διὰ δὲ τοῦ πρωτοτόκου τῆς κτίσεως τὴν διὰ σαρκὸς τοῦ προαιωνίου φανέρωσιν.