With this, so to speak, universal and principal enemy and avenger, He also destroyed another special enemy and avenger, the envious and impious crowd of the Jews, especially the scribes and Pharisees, who out of envy became enemies to Him and pretended to be avengers of the law given through Moses by Christ, and reproached the healing of the sick on the Sabbath and such things, judging these to be violations of the law. Therefore, the psalmist, after saying in the plural 'because of your enemies', added in the singular 'to destroy the enemy and the avenger' (Ps 8:2); for the devil and the Jews are equally and commonly enemies, because one and the same hostile and envious disposition toward God and hatred of men is in them, but individually each is enemy and avenger for the reasons I said. And again they are struck together, when from the mouth of infants and sucklings He prepares praise (Ps 8:2); for to the Jews, according to the history itself, this happened immediately, when they saw how children, carrying palm branches with the crowds, went before Him sitting on a donkey's colt, and entered the holy temple, crying out 'Hosanna to the Son of David' and 'Hosanna in the highest' (Mt 21:9); and they were indignant and rebuked Him, who was now glorified in a manner befitting God, and thought that He would reject the praise as blasphemy, and said: 'Do you hear what these are saying?' (Mt 21:16), but He answered them that He accepted the praise as befitting and appropriate to Him; for He was truly God and unchangeably made man, who said: 'Yes; have you never read, "Out of the mouth of infants and sucklings you have perfected praise"?' (Mt 21:16). The devil also experienced this shortly after, when he saw all peoples, so to speak, who had behaved childishly in their thoughts, converted from their foolishness, rejecting the ancestral error of idol worship; like children, they received the preaching of the kingdom of heaven in divine love, unfeigned faith and certain assent (Mt 18:3); thus they became infants in malice, but mature in understanding (1 Cor 14:20); first they drank the word like milk that leads to godliness from those who, like Paul, taught, saying: 'I fed you with milk, not solid food' (1 Cor 3:2); and so they gave perfect and full praise to God who called them to this. And seeing this now also, the enemy and avenger, the devil who is destroyed, is pierced, but certainly with him the Jews are also pierced.
But what does the saying mean, 'Your majesty is exalted above the heavens' (Ps 8:1)? Scripture often calls the heavens the intellectual and angelic and celestial powers, as in Ezra it is said of truth: 'All the earth calls upon truth, and heaven blesses it' (3 Esd 4:36), and the Lord in the Gospel teaches us, saying: 'There will be joy in heaven over one sinner who repents' (Lk 15:7). So also must be understood what is said in Isaiah the prophet: 'Rejoice, O heavens, for the Lord has had mercy on Israel' (Is 49:13), and again: 'Let the heavens pour down righteousness' (Is 45:8). In the same way is to be understood what David sings: 'Let the earth exult, for the Lord reigns' (Ps 96:1). For when the Lord reigns in us through knowledge and justice, which is in works and contemplation, instead of sin, which formerly reigned over us, or rather rebelled against us, the heavens and the earth, that is, those who dwell in them, rejoiced. From many places it can be shown that Scripture spoke this also of the earth; and at once, for example, in Genesis: 'All the land of Egypt was famished' (Gen 41:55), and again: 'All countries came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe in all the earth' (Gen 41:57); and in 1 Samuel: 'All the people tasted no food; and all the land was delighted' (1 Sm 14:24); for regarding those words it is clear that neither did the land hunger, nor was it delighted, nor again did the countries come to Egypt to buy grain, but these refer to the inhabitants.
Therefore, because Paul, writing to the Ephesians and showing that by the divine incarnation the heavenly powers learned what they previously did not know, and that through the Church the manifold wisdom of God was made known to them, wrote thus: "That through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places" (Eph 3:10); it is evident to all that the lofty and eminent word of the incarnation has been exalted and raised above the measure of knowledge that the heavenly and immaterial spirits previously possessed, which shows the variety of God's wisdom. Wherefore David, foreseeing the future mystery and depicting it in his mind, sang: "You have set your glory above the heavens" (Ps 8:1); and Habakkuk, magnifying the same and marveling greatly, said: "The earth was full of His praise" (Hab 3:3). Now, how was He, who became poor voluntarily though He was rich, that we by His poverty might be made rich, as Paul said (2 Cor 8:9), going to reject words fitting poverty and self-emptying—He whose glory and majesty covered the heavens and was exalted above the heavens? And therefore, He Himself who was emptied and made man said: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mt 27:46) and "Let this cup pass from me" (Mt 26:39), words spoken for our entire nature and race, bringing to us reconciliation and peace from above, planting in us strength in place of fear, and teaching us to pray in trials for righteousness that the hidden danger might pass, and not trusting in our own strength, to say: "Nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will" (Mt 26:39). For St. Cyril teaches: CYRIL: "Being one of us, He spoke such words also on behalf of the whole nature." And again, in the twelfth book of his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, he said: CYRIL: "The saying 'Not as I will, but as you will' (Mt 26:39) signifies most of all the transformation and translation of human nature from timid fear to spiritual strength. For that we must not choose and love whatever is sweet and pleasant to us more than what pleases God, even if a great and grave danger threatens, we first learned in Christ and through Him. Likewise, He prayed as man, but was glorified with the Father as God." For we have also heard the teacher saying: CYRIL: "Since He is by nature the Son and, as it were, owes nothing to God and the Father by duty, but rather with Him receives thanks and praise, yet because He became man, He fulfills what befits man, and in this also keeps the form of a servant."
These things, therefore, we ought to admire, not rather consider them small and base, as if they brought disgrace to Him who is perfect in glory and despised shame for our sake (Heb 12:2), nor divide Him into two and assign proper words and actions to the human nature and form of a servant, as those falsely claim who profess the duality of sons. For removing us from this folly, St. Cyril, in the second book of the commentary on John, also says: CYRIL: "Indeed, even when He fulfills something fitting a servant, He does not cease to be God and Lord and to be adored; for He remains the same, even if made man, everywhere preserving the logic of the dispensation with the flesh. And if you see the extraordinary and beyond-nature humility of Him, wonder and marvel—not be an accuser or critic, but rather an imitator. Paul wants us to be such, saying: 'Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself' (Phil 2:5–8)." And again, in the fifth book: "Moreover, it now seems necessary to tell you this as well: that the Son took great care and concern to diminish His dignity, and to speak not much in a manner befitting God, on account of the form of a servant and the humility assumed for our sake. For where did He lower Himself, or from what to what did He descend, unless He also spoke something lowly and less worthy of divine glory? Therefore, He often pretends not to know as man what He knows as God. You will see this clearly in the story of Lazarus, whom, though four days dead and stinking, He restored to life with wondrous power and a voice befitting God.
But see in this the dispensation arranged as if with skill. For although He knew Lazarus was dead and had foretold it to His disciples as God, He asked as man, saying: 'Where have you laid him?' (Jn 11:34). O marvelous thing! He who, being far from Bethany, knew as God that Lazarus was dead, how could He ask to learn the tomb? But, you will say wisely, He asked by way of pretense, arranging something useful. Then receive also in this case that by dispensation He claims to have learned from the Father what He already knows as God."
Taught by the same sound doctrine, the wise John, bishop of Constantinople, writes in the sixty-fourth homily on the Gospel of John: JOHN: "What I have said often, I say now again: God does not so much consider His dignity as our salvation, nor does He seek to say anything great, but only what might attract us. Therefore, He spoke only a few great and sublime things, and obscurely; but many humble and base things were poured into His words. For since the listeners were more drawn by these, He lingered on them; yet He did not speak them always, lest future generations suffer harm; and again, He did not omit them altogether, lest the present hearers be scandalized. For those who reached perfection could perceive everything even from one lofty doctrine; but those standing by, being imperfect, unless they heard these things often, would not have understood. Indeed, not even after all these things did they rest, but attacked Him with stones, persecuted Him, and tried to kill Him, and called Him a blasphemer when He made Himself equal to God (Jn 10:33). Sometimes they said: 'You are blaspheming, because you, being a man, make yourself God' (Jn 10:33); at other times, 'This man is blaspheming' (Mt 9:3), because He said: 'Your sins are forgiven' (Mt 9:2). Again, they called Him demon-possessed when He said that whoever hears His words will never see death (Jn 8:51); and when He said: 'I am in the Father and the Father is in me' (Jn 10:38), they left Him and were scandalized also when He said He had come down from heaven (Jn 6:38). If therefore they could not bear even these rare high sayings, certainly, if all His speech had been lofty, they would not have listened at all.
So when He said: 'I speak as the Father has taught me' (Jn 8:28), and 'I do nothing on my own authority' (Jn 8:28), then they believed in Him; then also the Evangelist notes that they believed, saying: 'As He was saying these things, many believed in Him' (Jn 8:30). If, therefore, the utterance of humble words drew them to believe, and the utterance of lofty words repelled them, how is it not extreme madness not to consider the reason for the humble sayings—namely, that they are uttered for the sake of the hearers? For elsewhere, when He wished to say something great, He was silent and gave this reason, saying: 'Lest they be scandalized, cast a hook into the sea' (Mt 17:27). So here also He does the same; for after saying: 'I know that you always hear me' (Jn 11:42), He added: 'But I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe' (Jn 11:42). Are these our words? Are they human speculation? Since we are thus clearly shown by the facts themselves that they were scandalized by the sublime words, and He Himself says, 'I speak humbly, so that they may not be scandalized', who will now suppose that the humble words pertain to His nature, and not rather to condescension? And elsewhere, when a voice came from heaven, He said: 'This voice has come for your sake, not mine' (Jn 12:30). Now indeed, a great person may say many lowly things about himself; but a lowly person may never say something great and sublime about himself: for that would be condescension and has a reason—namely, the weakness of the learners and leading them to humility, and the flesh He wore, and the instruction of the hearers, lest they say great things of themselves, or think Him opposed to God, or refuse to believe that He came from God, or suspect Him of dissolving the Law; also, the envy of the hearers and the firm word of the Old Testament: 'The Lord your God is one Lord' (Dt 6:4). But that a lowly man should say something great about himself has absolutely no cause—neither just nor unjust—but is only pride and impudent and inexcusable audacity. Why then does He speak humbly, though His nature is sublime and ineffable? Both for the reasons already stated and lest He be thought unbegotten."
And shortly after: "And why speak of the Son doing this, when even the Father, who did not assume flesh, allowed many lowly things to be said of Himself for the sake of the hearers' salvation? For example, 'Adam, where are you?' (Gen 3:9), and 'I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry' (Gen 18:21), and 'Now I know that you fear God' (Gen 22:12), and 'Perhaps they will hear, perhaps they will understand' (Jer 26:3), and 'Who will give them such a heart?' (Dt 5:29), and that it is said: 'There is none like you among the gods, O Lord' (Ps 86:8), and many other such things in the Old Testament—if anyone collects them, he will find them unworthy of God's majesty. And what is said about Ahab, 'Who will entice Ahab?' (1 Kgs 22:20), and those sayings, when compared with the gods of the nations, that He applies to Himself, are all unworthy of God, but become worthy by a different reason—namely, that He is so gracious toward humans that for our salvation He refrains even from words fitting His dignity. Indeed, that He became man is both unworthy and worthy: unworthy, if one looks to His majesty; but worthy, if one considers the ineffable greatness of His kindness." And later: "But I know that you always hear me (Jn 11:42), that is: that my will is done—I do not need prayer to persuade you; for we have one will. Why then do you pray? For the weak and imperfect. 'And when He had said these things, He cried out with a loud voice, Lazarus, come out' (Jn 11:43). Why did He not say, 'In the name of the Father, come out'? Why did He not say, 'Raise him, Father', but left all this aside and took the appearance of one praying, while in the very act He showed authority? Because this also pertains to His wisdom—to descend in words, but to reveal power in deeds." And later: "When the miracle was done, some marveled, but others reported it to the Pharisees. What then did they do? When they ought to have been amazed and astounded, they wished to kill Him who had raised the dead. O foolishness! They thought they could hand over to death the One who had overcome death in the bodies of others. And they said: 'What are we to do? For this man performs many signs' (Jn 11:47). Do you still call Him a man, after you've received such a demonstration of His divinity? 'What are we to do?'
You ought to believe and worship and adore, and no longer regard Him as a man." Likewise, in the commentary on Matthew, explaining the saying "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only" (Mt 24:36), he wrote: JOHN: "By saying 'nor the angels', He restrained them from seeking to learn things unknown to them; but by saying 'nor the Son', He prohibited them not only from learning, but even from seeking. This was said for this reason: see after the resurrection how, because He saw them more curious, He more sharply rebuked them. For now He spoke many signs of the last day, but then He simply replied: 'It is not for you to know times or seasons' (Acts 1:7). And later: 'For He who made the ages, how could He not know what He Himself made?'"
However, if after the ineffable union someone had known Christ as divided by the duality of forms or natures, and had also extended the difference of words to a division, he ought to have said, like the impious Theodoret: THEODORET: "When, therefore, you hear various sayings about the one Son, rightly divide what is said according to the natures," and: "Therefore, ignorance is not of the Word of God, but of the form of the servant, which then knew only as much as the indwelling divinity revealed." But now many arguments have been supplied from inspired Scripture proving that the incarnate God is indivisible, and that He spoke both divine and exalted things and, by dispensation, also human and lowly things.
This very thing was also taught by the most excellent and great Basil, when he delivered a discourse on the faith, saying: BASIL: "Whatever things afterwards He says from bodily constitution, dispensing the salvation of men, which He exhibited to us manifested in the flesh, in saying that He was sent and could do nothing from Himself, and that He received a command, and all other such things, let them not provide for you occasions to undervalue the divinity of the Only-Begotten. For His condescension to your weakness should not become a diminution of the dignity of the Mighty One; but understand the nature as fitting to God, and receive the humbler words according to the dispensation." Therefore, he knows the Only-Begotten to be God, condescending and speaking to us according to bodily disposition; for it is proper by dispensation that the one who is by nature incorporeal be made corporeal, and the exalted one be brought low and proceed through all things humble, both deeds and words.
Thus, it is of the one who became man and was emptied and humbled—not, as those who foolishly separate and divide the indivisible incarnation say, of human nature, or the form of a servant, or of one who is of the seed of David—that He says He was sent, could do nothing from Himself, received a command, and other such and similar things. For if we say by division that such things are spoken by human nature, then the very name of dispensation, and of self-emptying, and of condescension is utterly meaningless; for human nature speaks human things fittingly and properly to itself, and in no way does so by condescension, or by acting dispensatively, or by attributing or receiving anything inferior to itself. But it is very clear how Saint Cyril exposes Nestorius, who attributed the name and role of apostle to human nature, in the second tome of what he wrote against that man's blasphemies: NESTORIUS: "For, he says, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law (Gal 4:4). In this place He indicates indeed two natures; but what happened, he says, pertains to the incarnation. Otherwise, I ask contentiously: who was made under the Law? The Word of God?" And again, in the third tome: "For when they hear the name apostle, they understand the Word of God to be the apostle; when they read the name high priest, they imagine the divinity to be the high priest. A remarkable example of madness! For who, learning of the ministry of an apostle, does not at once understand a man to be indicated? Who, hearing the name of high priest, imagines the substance of divinity to be the high priest?"
This wretched man, dividing the one Christ by a duality of natures after the ineffable union, attributes mission and other such things to human nature separately, and by absurd reasoning removes the Word of God, made man, from His most gracious and voluntary self-emptying. But Basil, most skilled in divine matters, knowing these to be His own and in no way foreign to Him, said: BASIL: "Let not such things provide occasions to undervalue the divinity of the Only-Begotten. For His condescension to your weakness should not become a diminution of the dignity of the Mighty One." Thus both he and all who have explained the sound word and the dogma of true faith did not divide the incarnate Word, but preserved Him indivisible and in no way dissected Him by a duality of natures after the union; and they knew that the things done and said in His incarnation were indeed diverse—some exalted and worthy of God, others lowly, dispensative, and human—but in no way divided among separate natures, because they knew one and the same God and man, who did and spoke both the former and the latter, and again endured voluntary sufferings in the flesh, capable of suffering, with a rational soul, without incurring any guilt of sin.
CHAPTER—SEVEN
When the Doctors distinguished between the times, they referred to the time before the incarnation and the time after the incarnation, as if comparing the Word of God with Himself—first indeed without flesh, later clothed in flesh—while they forbade the Arians from attributing to the eternal essence the lowly things which He bore in the flesh through voluntary poverty; yet they preserved without division the same One who, both divinely and humanly, acted, spoke, and suffered in the flesh.
Therefore, the God-bearing Doctors distinguished times: the time before the incarnation and the time after the incarnation; for when the impious Arians referred to the things done by the Word of God after the incarnation according to the dispensation as belonging to His eternal essence and divinity, the Fathers, by comparing the times, refuted their blasphemous artifice. Thus, for example, when the Apostle Peter said in Acts while addressing the Jews, "Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:36), the mad dogs of Arius, in their incomprehensible madness, attacked this saying and claimed that it showed the Word of God, who is before the ages, to be a creature, since Peter says "God made him." But the teachers of truth, by distinguishing times, refuted their folly; for "In the beginning was the Word" (Jh 1:1), and afterwards "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (Jh 1:14). Therefore, when He immutably became flesh and was born according to the flesh from Mary the God-bearer, then it is said that God the Father made Him Lord and Christ; otherwise it would not be fitting for Him to be anointed, unless He had become man, to whom it is fitting to be anointed. He was anointed, however, with His own Spirit, which He had in Himself as God according to essence, but He received the same Spirit as man for our sake, coming externally in the form of a dove, so that He might impart grace to the whole human race, having become for us a second beginning and a second Adam—not as if He were receiving the Spirit for Himself, whom He naturally possessed. For in this sense He said, "For their sake I sanctify myself" (Jh 17:19).
Therefore, He who was made man was made Christ and Lord and King; for although He was naturally Lord and reigned with God the Father, He heard: "Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession" (Ps 2:8). Then He was made Christ and Lord when He also became flesh—that is, when He was immutably incarnated from Mary and born from her according to the flesh. Accordingly, the statement "God made him Christ" should be aligned with "the Word became flesh" (Jh 1:14), for both occurred at the same time; let these sayings not be exalted to refer to "In the beginning was the Word" (Jh 1:1). For He who was God in the beginning was not simultaneously a creature, since for the same being to exist eternally and without limit with God the Father, who is ever-existing, and to become a creature in time, is impossible; rather, it is clear that the phrase "was" refers to Him as God and from God the Father, but "was made" and "was made to be" refers to Him inasmuch as He, in these last days, was incarnated and made man for our sake.
Thus, distinguishing times but not dividing Emmanuel, Saint Basil wrote in the oration of syllogisms against Eunomius: BASILIUS: "If the Son is of generation and not of making, how does Scripture say, 'Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified' (Acts 2:36)?" Therefore, it must be said that this refers to Him who is from Mary according to the flesh, just as the angel, bringing good news to the shepherds, said: "Today a Savior has been born to you, who is Christ the Lord" (Lk 2:11). For the word "today" cannot refer to the one who is before the ages; and what follows makes this even clearer, where it says, "this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:36).
Thus the Doctor clearly indicates, by saying "of him who is from Mary according to the flesh," that he recognizes the same one was not born of the Father according to the flesh; for if a generation is according to the flesh, it is bodily, and it is evident that the incorporeal generation is not according to the flesh. Indeed, no rational person says that a man is born from his mother "according to the flesh"; but Christ, since He as the Word is generated before the ages in an incorporeal way, as from some intellect, from God and the Father, is also most fittingly said to be born according to the flesh from a woman. The eminent Cyril teaches the same in his second oration to Theodore of Mopsuestia: CYRILLUS: "That it is said only of our Savior Christ by inspired Scripture that He was born according to the flesh seems to me to show that, though He was God, He was made in our form. I mean this: no one would presume to say of Moses, or any of the saints, that he was born according to the flesh from the Jews or from a woman; for the mothers of flesh are flesh, and no other kind of generation is possible. But if Christ is said to be from the Jews according to the flesh, that is, from a woman, then this addition 'according to the flesh' has a prudent meaning, and the indication it gives conveys something necessary to the hearers. For lest we think that the nature of the Word—that is, the divinity—had its beginning of existence in or from the flesh, the phrase 'according to the flesh' is cautiously and necessarily added. For, being God by nature and true Son of God and the Father, He was made in the likeness of men and made the flesh taken from the holy Virgin His own" (cf. Phil 2:7).
What the wise Basil said—"For that 'today' cannot be understood of him who is before the ages"—most clearly shows that he was distinguishing times, not dividing the unincarnate Word, in saying these things. For he states: the things that pertain to "today," which are fitting to the incarnate one, you must not, O Eunomius, refer to his condition before the incarnation and without flesh, so that you may not belittle his essence, which is more ancient than the ages. For it is known to all that the one who was incarnate "today" in time, was also before the ages. For comparisons made with respect to time often seem to divide the one and same person into two.
Likewise, if someone were to speak of a young man who once excelled and was victorious in many battles, joining victory to victory, but who later grew very old, became weak, leaned on a staff or was carried, and said this man is the weakest of all men everywhere—but as an old man, not as a youth, and as one weakened, not as one glorious—such a one does not divide the one real person, who was once young and is now old, but distinguishes times, even if the statement appears to refer to two men. So also, Saint Basil, by making a distinction of times, said that the phrase "God made him Christ" and that "today" pertain to him who is from Mary according to the flesh, knowing that he is not from the Father according to the flesh, and that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Heb 13:8).
In his second oration, in the Antirrhetici against Eunomius, Basil stated this very point most clearly, writing thus: BASIL: "The apostle's statement does not present to us the hypostasis of the Only-Begotten as more ancient than the ages, of which we now speak. For he is clearly not speaking about the substance of the Word of God, which was in the beginning with God (Jh 1:1), but about him who emptied himself by taking the form of a servant (Phil 2:7), and was made conformable to the body of our humility, and was crucified in weakness (2 Cor 13:4). And this is known to anyone who has even slightly grasped the apostolic sense, that he is not handing on to us a theological doctrine, but revealing the mode of the dispensation. For 'God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified' (Acts 2:36). By the demonstrative expression, he clearly refers to his humanity and to the visible aspect of his entire being. But this man, transferring the word 'made' to the generation of the Only-Begotten that was from the beginning, is not refuted even by the fact that the word 'Lord' is not a term of substance but of authority. Therefore, the one who said 'God made him Lord and Christ' refers to the supreme rule and lordship which the Father granted to him, not to his coming into existence."
Again from this, it is shown most clearly that the Only-Begotten Word compares himself to himself according to the distinction of times, and is understood to have been emptied in the last days, insofar as he was incarnate and took the form of a servant and endured the weakness of the cross, which he bore in the flesh, to which suffering properly belongs—this is the "weakness"—and through the resurrection and by destroying the prince of the power of the air, he perfected the armor of virtue; and the same one is known apart from the emptying, in the time prior to the inhumanation. For he who is full was emptied—he who is in the form of God, and is God, and is with God, and is in the beginning (Jh 1:1)—by taking the form of a servant in the last times of the world, when God and Father made him Christ and Lord (Acts 2:36). For then he was also called Jesus, when he was made man. But the phrase "made Christ" and "anointed" is to be applied to the Word when he was already emptied, not to the time prior to the emptying and incarnation, in which he was without flesh; for the anointing pertains to the humanity and visible part which he united to himself hypostatically. Thus also Saint Cyril, writing to Diodore, said: CYRIL: "The Word, which proceeds from God the Father, is known before he became man; for 'Christ' indicates the anointing, but 'Jesus' is clearly a name assigned by the voice of the angel even before the conception in the holy Virgin to him who was born of her according to the flesh" (Lk 1:31).
Therefore, this Jesus, who is the Word of God incarnate, was said by the most learned Basil in divine matters to have been made Christ and Lord because he was made man and was anointed according to his humanity, and ruled and reigned through our recognition of ineffable things; for here he is understood to have emptied himself. Indeed, he says, no one attributes these things to him before the emptying, since he was only the Word from the beginning and is God (Jh 1:1), and is conceived as being with God, and had not yet endured becoming man for us, lest anything newly assumed or added by dispensation be blasphemously referred to the essence existing before the ages.
For this is what the wicked Eunomius deceitfully and impiously did, whom Basil rebuked, saying: BASIL: "This man transfers the word 'made' to the generation of the Only-Begotten, which was from the beginning." Therefore, by temporal distinction, he distinguishes the one who today is in the body from the one who was previously without the body, and the one who emptied himself from the one conceived apart from this emptying and who is understood only insofar as he is what he was from the beginning, before he descended to voluntary emptying. He is one and the same. Yet, if Basil had intended to divide Emmanuel, he would not have said that the statement "God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:36) was said by the apostle Peter "about the one who emptied himself in the form of a servant and was made conformable to the body of our humility" (Phil 2:7), but like the miserable anthropolaters he would have said: HERETICS: "Of the Son by grace; of the one from the seed of David; of the man from Mary; of Christ according to the flesh; of human nature; of the form of a servant."
And making this clear, the Doctor, namely that he does not divide Christ but distinguishes the times, also wrote the following in the oration of syllogisms against Eunomius: BASIL: "If it was God the Son who said 'The Lord created me,' he would rather have said 'The Father created me.' For he never called him Lord but always Father. Let 'begot' therefore be understood of the Son of God, but 'created' of him who took the form of a servant. Yet in all this, we do not speak of two—God separately and man separately—for he is one—but we consider the nature of each. For Peter did not understand two when he said 'Christ suffered for us in the flesh' (1Pt 4:1)." See here too he distinguishes the time before the incarnation from the time after the incarnation, and knows the Son of God, before he became incarnate and took the form of a servant, to have been without flesh and then to have become incarnate and taken the form of a servant, and to be by nature God even when he took our nature, because he is one from two. For who is it who took the form of a servant, if not indeed the one who was not in the form of a servant before he took it? He is Lord of all, powerful and free; for all who are after God are not free but subject and servants and under his hand.
Therefore, Basil compares him to himself temporally in thought, as incarnate and as without flesh, lest the lowly and dispensed aspects of the incarnation be referred to the incorporeal condition prior to the incarnation, as though implying a diminution of the divine substance—which the Arians did zealously, thinking by confusing the times they could corrupt the elements of which Emmanuel is composed. They did not consider what was prior according to substance and what immutably came to be in the end for our sake. Thus the things pertaining to the incarnation remain undivided, and the incarnate Word assumes all of them—both lowly and exalted. But he distinguished the time preceding the incarnation, lest anyone impiously attribute to the Only-Begotten or to the fleshless divinity the things proper to the incarnate one because of the humility of the dispensation.
Which Basil very clearly shows in many places in this same oration against Eunomius, saying: BASIL: "If after the incarnation, because of obedience, the Father gave to the Son—who is God—the name which is above every name, and every tongue confessed him to be Lord (Phil 2:9-11), then before the incarnation he neither had the name which is above every name nor received confession from every tongue that he is Lord. Therefore, he became greater after the incarnation than he was before the incarnation, which is absurd. Such also is this statement: 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me' (Mt 28:18). These things must therefore be understood of the incarnation, not of the divinity." AND AGAIN: "If the Son lives because of the Father, then he lives because of another, not because of himself. But one who lives because of another cannot be life itself; for he is not himself holy who is holy by grace. Therefore, the Son lied when he said, 'I am the life' (Jh 14:6), and again, 'The Son gives life to whom he will' (Jh 5:21). These things, therefore, must be understood as spoken of the incarnation, not of the divinity."
Therefore, by all these things, Basil shows that the unincarnate divinity is compared to the incarnate one by distinguishing the time before and after the incarnation; the Arians transfer and refer the humble and dispensational things to the bare divinity, but the intention of divine Scripture and truth pushes these things to the time of incarnation, that is, to the incarnate and incarnated, and not to the bare divinity of the Only Begotten. Thus the great Basil says plainly: "These things must be understood of the incarnation, not of the divinity." For then the Son of God, having taken a measure suitable to man, rightly says that he lives because of the Father, and that power has been given to him, and that he has received a name above every name. And although in substance and naturally he is God, he says that he has received the same as a man, and sends grace to us, for whose sake he came down and of whom he became the firstfruits. For he who is made man, who has all gifts, does not need to have received anything for himself; therefore it is understood and said that he received nothing for himself but for us. Therefore, Saint Basil distinguishes not the one who is incarnate and incarnated—since he knows one without division or separation, to whom belong all things pertaining to the incarnation, whether actions or words—but distinguishes the time of incarnation from the time before incarnation, the coming and condition in the flesh of the Word from his divinity, which is without flesh and conceived separately before he assumed a body. Therefore, he says the humble things are not to be understood of divinity but of the incarnation or of the dispensation of humanity, or again of the humanity of the Word; for no difference is held, whatever name is used, where times are distinguished, not the incarnate Word being cut by the incomprehensible union of the duality of natures. Hence, he who said these things are to be understood of the incarnation and not the divinity, in another chapter of the same oration against the impious Eunomius says again: "If he truly sought the glory which he had before the world was made from the Father, as one who had lost it, he sought it; for he did not demand to receive what he had. If this is so, he lost not only glory but also divinity, for glory is not separated from divinity.
Therefore he was a pure man, as Photinus said. Hence such things are spoken according to the dispensation of humanity, not according to the defect of deity." AND AGAIN: "If the Father created the Son in works, not for himself but for the works, then he created him. But if created for another and not for himself, or part of him for whom he was created, or less because of this, then our Savior will be either a part of creation or less than it. Therefore it is necessary to understand this of his humanity."
That the times are distinguished, but the incarnate is not divided nor is the Word of God separated from his flesh rationally animated by the duality of natures after the union, is established not only by this but also by all that he wrote differently. Therefore, writing to Amphilochius, whose letter begins, "It has already been investigated by many concerning the gospel, that our Lord Jesus Christ does not know the day of consummation or the hour" (Mk 13:32), Basil wrote thus: "How then does the Father, through whom the ages were made, not show him this smallest part of the ages, that day and hour? Or how is the creator of all things deprived of knowledge of the smallest part of those things that were created by him? But he who says, with the approaching end these signs in the heavens and on earth will be seen, how does he not know the end himself? For in these things he said, 'But the end is not yet' (Mk 13:7), not as one ignorant, but as one who declares knowingly. And if anyone considers with a calm mind, the Lord speaks many things also from a human perspective; for the saying 'Give me to drink' (Jn 19:28) is a voice expressing bodily need. Yet he who asked was not an inanimate flesh but the divinity using animated flesh. Thus if anyone attributes ignorance to him who was progressing in wisdom and grace with God and men (Lk 2:52), this opinion will not be endured piously."
Who would not marvel at the diligence of the Doctor who shows in all things that he recognizes the incarnate as indivisible, yet distinguishes the time before and after the incarnation, and compares Christ to himself—before as without flesh, afterwards as clothed in flesh? For what does he say?
"The Lord speaks many things also from the human side." And he shows that it is the Lord who also speaks divine things from the divine side, not that one nature speaks the divine and the other the human. And when he had torn out the empty opinion that devised to call one Lord two natures, he clearly added who this Lord is who speaks many things from the human side. He said: "The divinity using animated flesh, which is also said to grow in wisdom and grace with God and men (Lk 2:52), to it appropriately is referred the ignorance of the day and hour of consummation" (Mk 13:32). Therefore, O Arians, he does not say "Refer the ignorance to the divinity not yet using animated flesh," but he places it at the later time, when Christ was both incarnate and humanized. For he who said to the Samaritan woman, "Give me to drink" (Jn 4:7), also says that he does not know the day and hour of consummation. Basil: "For the saying 'Give me to drink' is a voice expressing bodily need. Yet he who asked was not inanimate flesh, but divinity using animated flesh."
But if the one who said "Give me to drink" (Jn 4:7), expressing a human voice and bodily need, was divinity incarnate with rational soul and flesh, then where is there room for division of sayings, such that, according to Theodoret, the divine nature says what is proper to divinity and the human nature says what is proper to humanity? And if it was divinity using an animated body that said it did not know the day and hour (Mk 13:32), it spoke suitably according to the measure and dispensation of humanity—for ignorance of the future is proper to humans—yet not ignorant in order, but for usefulness, submitting itself to ignorance and restraining the disciples from investigation, presuming to say this by attributing to the emptied and humbled form what pertains to such. For "the self-emptying of the Word of God, who is impassible to change, is to do and say something human for the sake of the dispensation's union with the flesh," as Saint Cyril says to the wicked Theodoret, who was building a defense against the fourth chapter.
Let also the saying of the most wise Basil be brought forth, who said that ignorance should be attributed to the divinity using animated flesh—which is also said in Scripture to have grown in wisdom and grace (Lk 2:52)—and not to the divinity considered apart from flesh before the time of incarnation; indeed, he teaches that Christ said he did not know the day and hour to turn the disciples away from excessive and useless curiosity, as well as all of us who seek vainly to know the last day and hour. For in his oration against Eunomius, which we cited above, Basil writes: "Therefore, because it would not benefit humans to hear it, the time of judgment was concealed. For constant expectation makes us more fervent in piety; but knowing that much time would intervene would have made us more negligent in piety, hoping we could be saved by repenting at the end." Otherwise, how could he, who knows everything up to this hour and said it, not also know that hour? And in vain would the Apostle say, "In whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Col 2:3). And in his letter to Amphilochius, wishing indeed that ignorance be referred to the incarnate Word who took on the measure of human ignorance, but also stating that the hour was not hidden from him, rather well known to him just as to the Father—as God—he shows this: "But if the Father fully knows the whole Son, so as to perceive all wisdom hidden in him, then he is equally known by Christ, of course with all wisdom and foreknowledge of future things." And again: "The meaning of Mark is this: of the day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of God, nor would the Son know, unless the Father knew, since he had knowledge given from the Father. And this sounds good and fitting to God, namely, that it is said of the Son that he has even knowledge from the one with whom he is consubstantial, and that he appears in all wisdom and glory fitting to divinity."
Therefore, he of whom it is written that he advanced in wisdom and grace (Lk 2:52)—and who was divinity using animated flesh—said: "Of that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels of God, nor the Son" (Mk 13:32); he would not have known unless the Father knew, for he had knowledge from the Father, since from the one with whom he is consubstantial he also has what he knows, and is beheld in all wisdom and glory fitting to his divinity.
He, for the benefit of humankind, although he knew it, kept silent about the hour, making ignorance—suitable to human measure—his own; and this ignorance, before he was incarnate, did not befit him, but once incarnate, it was not foreign to him. Thus he is also said to have grown in bodily stature, fittingly revealing his divinity, and so was thought to grow in wisdom and grace, that in this too he might appear emptied and not reject the humility of voluntary poverty. For how could he grow, who knows the Father just as the Father knows him (Mt 11:27)?
But these things do not please those who, after the union, divide the inhumanated Word by a duality of forms and natures; for they do not distinguish the times, nor do they say that the lowly things pertain to the inhumanation or to the divinity using animated flesh, as the great Basil taught, so that immunity from humiliation is preserved for the Word not yet incarnate and before he entered into voluntary self-emptying, but to the incarnate Word are attributed humiliation and mercy toward us, while his majesty remained neither diminished nor changed. Instead, they tear apart the very inhumanation, so to speak, with their teeth and boldly divide it into two. For the impious Theodoret, adversary of Saint Basil, in his criticism of the fourth chapter or anathema, wrote thus: THEODORET: "Therefore the ignorance is not of the Word of God, but of the form of a servant, which knew during that time only as much as the divinity dwelling within revealed to it." But the eminent Cyril, saying similar things in the words of the teacher—that is, the wise Basil—refuted the impious man in his defense of the chapter, saying: CYRIL: "Therefore, if you are not lying when you say that Christ and the Lord Jesus is one—that is, God and man at once—why do you divide and shamelessly say two sons? Are they not plainly two if the one who possesses measured knowledge is not the same as the one who knows all things, and the one who receives partial revelation is not the same as the one who is perfect in wisdom and knows as much as the Father (Jn 10:15)? And if he is one and the same because of the reality of the union, and not another and another, divided and separate, then it is entirely his both to know and again to appear not to know. Therefore, he knew in his divinity, as the Wisdom of the Father (1 Cor 1:24); but because he took on the measure of ignorant humanity, he made this his own by dispensation, along with other human things, although, as I just said, he knew nothing by ignorance but knew all things with the Father (Jn 16:15)."
Again, in the oration titled To those who say that the Son does not know the last day, CYRIL writes: "Because the disciples desired to learn things beyond themselves, he helpfully gave the reason for his ignorance as having been made man, and said that not even the holy angels in heaven know it, lest they be afflicted with sorrow as those to whom the mystery had not been revealed" (Mt 24:36). Likewise, in the second book of the Treasury: "It is not because the Word, insofar as he is the Word and Wisdom of the Father (1 Cor 1:24), does not know, that he says 'I do not know,' but in showing within himself the human element, to which ignorance especially belongs; for this is proper to humanity. For since he put on our body, he also received the appearance of our ignorance." And again: "When God appears in Paradise and says to Adam 'Where are you?' (Gen 3:9) and to Cain 'Where is Abel, your brother?' (Gen 4:9), what do you say about this? For if you say that God asks as one who is ignorant, you are clearly found blaspheming. But if you admit that a certain mode of dispensation is at work here, do not be surprised that the Word of God, through whom God then questioned Adam and Cain, foreseeing some benefit, also said that he did not know the day, as man, though he knows all things as the Wisdom of the Father." And again: "Christ therefore acts dispensatively when he says he does not know that hour, yet in truth he does not ignore it." In another explanation, agreeing with the most wise Basil, he says we must distinguish the time before the inhumanation from the time after the inhumanation, and not attribute to the as yet unembodied Only-Begotten Word those things which pertain to the incarnate one, nor refer to the pre-eternal essence those things which he endured to do, suffer, and say at the end of the ages, immutably having become man and effecting our redemption; for these things are proper to the inhumanation, not to the divinity of the Only-Begotten considered in itself and apart before he was inhumanated. For his incorporeal and corporeal condition is distinguished according to time, but the incarnation or inhumanation itself is inseparable and indivisible, since the one inhumanated Son is one, and after such a divine and ineffable union, he is not divided by a duality of natures, lest the indissoluble union be also rent and each nature necessarily retain separately its own works and words.
For in the first book of the Treasury, addressing the crowd of God-hating Arians, CYRIL wrote: "The enemies of Christ act wrongly when, in investigating those things that pertain to the divinity of the Son and inquiring into the relation he naturally has to the Father, they use the words spoken in a human manner, which the Lord uttered when he assumed our flesh. For from those things which he says dispensatively as man, his incorporeal substance is not to be designated. Rather, it must be known and believed that, being God and the Word and in all things like the Father, he assumed human nature and became man, so that he also sometimes speaks as man for the sake of the dispensation with the flesh. Yet he also speaks as God things that exceed humanity, since this is what he is by nature, and when the time brings forth their occasion. But if anyone should wish to refer what was spoken, as I said, humanly and dispensatively to the order of his divinity, and again to refer what was spoken divinely to the time when he became man, he will corrupt the nature of things and destroy the dispensation. For sometimes, as God, he says, 'Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I am' (Jn 8:58), and again, 'I have come down from heaven' (Jn 6:38). But if someone wishes to reserve only that dignity which befits God to him, he will plainly destroy the fact that in the last times he became man. For he was not in humanity before Abraham was, nor did he descend from heaven as a man. Again, if someone wishes to attribute the words and actions of the humanity to the bare Word of God before the inhumanation, he acts very impiously. For what will he do when Christ says, 'Now is my soul troubled' (Jn 12:27), and 'My soul is sorrowful even to death' (Mt 26:38)? Will he concede that sorrow and anxiety befell the nature of God, and that fear of death dominated it? And what when he sees him crucified? Will he also concede that the Son's divinity suffered this, just like a man? Or will he avoid blasphemy? Let what is proper be preserved to each — to time and to thing — and let the principle of theology be sought not from the things he appears to say as man, but from the fact that he is from the Father as Son and God. Let it therefore be granted to the dispensation with the flesh that he also sometimes speaks those things which do not befit the bare and separately considered divinity. Therefore, when he says as man that he is not good as the Father is (Mk 10:18), let even that be referred rather to the dispensation with the flesh."
Behold how, by distinguishing times, he compares himself with himself—first without flesh, and afterwards clothed with flesh—yet never separates himself from his own rationally animated flesh after the inhumanation, and thus most fittingly repels the dogs of Arius, who wish to refer the things our Savior spoke fittingly as man during the time of the inhumanation also to the times prior to the incarnation, though it would not have been proper for him then to speak humanly or suffer anything human; see indeed how he says: CYRIL: "If anyone wishes to attribute the words and actions of the humanity to the bare Word of God before the inhumanation, he acts very impiously." By this he signifies that those things which did not befit him when still bare and without flesh do befit him when clothed with flesh, and that nothing in his nature is thereby harmed; for when he grieved and bore the saving passion of the cross, he, having become man, accepted these things. This is what the wise teacher means when he says: CYRIL: "Let it be granted to the dispensation with the flesh that he also sometimes speaks those things which do not befit the bare and separately considered divinity."
Affirming that the times of the incorporeal condition and of the incarnation must be distinguished, Saint Cyril also says in the first book of the Thesaurus: "Therefore, since an incorporeal nature does not in itself admit of more and less, when Christ says that the Father is greater than he, the saying must again be referred to the humanity, and not be a reproach against the divine substance, as though it were constituted in something less than that in which is found the one who begot him" (cf. Jn 14:28); thus, the incorporeal nature of the Word does not in itself admit more or less, for how could he who in all things possesses equality (to isóthron) with the Father receive more or less in himself? But through his humanity he receives what he does not receive in himself; therefore, the Doctor says, "When Christ says the Father is greater than I," and Christ is the incarnate Word of God, to whom it did not befit to say "The Father is greater than I" before he became Christ—that is, the Son of Man immutably, when he was anointed for our sake by his Spirit. Hence, the statement belongs to the humanity and arises from the humanity; but it is spoken by Christ, the incarnate Word of God, not by the humanity or human nature or form of a servant as a separate person, as the Tome of Leo asserts, which says: "It is not the same nature that says 'I and the Father are one' (Jn 10:30) and 'The Father is greater than I' (Jn 14:28)." For it is one thing to understand what befits the Only-Begotten Word when still unincarnate and what when incarnate; it is another to divide him when he has been hypostatically united to flesh endowed with reason, attributing sayings to each nature separately and claiming that such a statement belongs to one nature and another to the other.
While rejecting this, Saint Cyril showed that it is one thing to distinguish the time before the incarnation and the time after the incarnation, and to compare himself with himself—formerly indeed incorporeal, but afterwards incarnate—and quite another thing to divide him after he has been incarnated and to ignore that the same one, as man, speaks and suffers all human things irreproachably because of his voluntary self-emptying; and in the second book of the Thesaurus, he wrote: "It is necessary that those who wish to rightly understand what is said in the divine Scriptures about our Savior Christ should examine the moments and times in which either he appears to have said something about himself, or the divine Scriptures said something about him. If, therefore, before the Word of God became flesh, he is seen ever to have wept, or feared death, or suffered anything else human, then let those things now said about him also hold. But if it was when he became man that the divine Scriptures spoke such things of him, why should we not rather say that these were spoken in a human manner, so that we may escape the evil of blasphemy?" And again: "A certain natural law forbids that a man should possess greater prudence than the age of his body allows; but in us, wisdom, as it were, progresses together with the growth of the body. The Word therefore was made flesh, a man, as it is written, and he was perfect, since he is the wisdom and power of the Father. But because he had to yield to the custom of our nature, so that he might not be judged a stranger by those who saw him, he, as a man growing gradually to bodily stature, revealed himself and appeared increasingly wise day by day to those who saw and heard him—being perfect in all things, as was said before, yet following the common way of nature. Therefore, when you hear that he progressed in wisdom and grace, do not suppose that some increase in wisdom took place in him—for the Word of God is in need of nothing—but because he appeared increasingly wise and gracious to those who beheld him, he is said to have progressed, so that we might think this growth to belong rather to those who admired than to himself." And later he adds: "Note, however, that the Evangelist did not say 'the Word,' but 'Jesus' progressed, so that you may not understand it of the bare Word, but when it was made flesh" (cf. Lk 2:52).
You see how the Word compares himself to himself, first naked of flesh and afterward clothed with flesh and called Jesus according to the word of the archangel Gabriel to the Virgin Mother of God.
This is also what the wise Basil said in a letter to Amphilochius: "Therefore, if anyone attributes ignorance to him who was progressing in wisdom and grace before God and men, he will be judged outside of piety," having earlier said that he who was progressing, the one who asked for water from the Samaritan woman, did not have an inanimate flesh but a divinity animated by flesh (cf. Lk 1:31; Jn 4:7).
Therefore, the Word of God is compared to himself according to temporal distinction, being incorporeal before time and before the ages, but after the dispensation concerning us, made and existing in the flesh, lest the madness of the Arians, hostile to God, exalt ignorance, progress, and other humble things pertaining to dispensation to the naked nature of the Word before incarnation. This is also decided by the keen mind and tongue of Cyril, who most accurately agrees with earlier teachers and fathers. For in his oration to the Queens, beginning "To those who administer divine and heavenly preaching," Cyril wrote: "For the mode and reason of the dispensation with the flesh knows him to be according to us and above us, indeed exceeding the measure of a creature as God, yet somehow lesser as he appeared man. Where would be the humility he willingly underwent if he refused human things? However, in these things the nature of the Word is not recognized but rather made its own with his own flesh, such as hunger, thirst, and being weary from travel. Therefore, when you hear 'The boy grew and was strengthened, full of wisdom' (Lk 2:40), take it as proof of the mystery of the dispensation with flesh. For the blessed evangelist confirms what God incarnate was, saying, 'And the grace of God was upon him' (Lk 2:40); not as if he had grace from another God, but because the boy had the grace befitting God; for he was and is God the Word even when he appeared incarnate, that is, man like us. If it is said he had grace or progressed in grace before God and men, nothing absurd is found in this; for the Father accepted the dispensation and the Son, increasing with those things belonging to the flesh for the fittingness and utility of the mystery" (cf. Lk 2:40).
Therefore, according to the doctor's teaching, he existed as somewhat lesser than himself insofar as he appeared as man. For when the nature of the Word is known naked and apart from the flesh, it truly adds nothing of what belongs to the body to itself; but when incarnate, that is, when through the hypostatic union he made his own a body endowed with soul and mind, which is also naturally suited to endure human things, then he existed as somewhat lesser than himself, not changed in impassibility which he has according to substance, but assuming passions proper and irreproachable to the flesh with his own flesh, and approaching them, he deigned to suffer as if inferior to himself, insofar as he subjected himself as bodily to those things not fitting to the incorporeal, by voluntary emptying, so that no detriment came to him, but rather great benefit, namely our redemption. For what could harm him who does not know how to suffer anything? Therefore the Doctor said: Cyril: "He was indeed and is God the Word even when he appeared incarnate, that is, man like us" (Jh 1:1).
For when the only-begotten Word of God is compared with himself according to temporal distinction, emptied and not yet emptied, since he is one and the same subject person and hypostasis, first simple and incorporeal, then composed and incarnate, it is rightly considered that a distinction is made concerning two things; this is clearly shown again from the words of Saint Cyril. For in the seventh book of his exposition of the Gospel of John, he wrote: "Although he has power over all, he is said to ask of the Father and to receive peoples and the ends of the earth as a glorious inheritance. But how and when he receives them must be inquired into; it is truly useful and necessary to examine these times and consider the moments, and to establish a subtle investigation of persons. Thus, after he was made man, after he emptied himself, as it is written, after he descended to the likeness of those to whom it is fitting to pray, then he works and speaks those things fitting to man" (Jh 1:1). See how, according to the distinction of moments and comparison of times, comparing himself with himself, when he had not yet emptied himself and afterward voluntarily humbled himself and was made man, he speaks in the plural of persons, saying a subtle investigation of persons must be established.
For the only-begotten Word of God, who emptied himself and took the form of a servant, is not alien to that which is not yet emptied, but one and the same according to the temporal distinction of incorporeal and corporeal condition, which is compared with himself as if two different things, first indeed incorporeal and without flesh, and afterward incarnate (Jh 1:1).
Using this temporal distinction, Gregory the Theologian, closing the blasphemous mouth of the Arians and not dividing the inseparable inhumanation, but distinguishing the Word from God the Father, who existed before the ages, from the following time of incarnation, wrote in the first discourse on the Son: "In sum, grant to the divine nature and to the passionless and more excellent body the highest and loftiest; but to the composite, humbled, emptied, and incarnate [nature], the lowly; it is not inappropriate also to say: first uninhabited and afterward exalted; so that when you have cast off this fleshly and earthly element that is in your sentiments, you may learn to be made more exalted and to be raised with divinity, and not to adhere to visible things, but to rise together with the intelligible, and to know what the nature's reason is, and what the law of dispensation is. For he who is now despised by you was once above you; he who is now man was once without composition; what was, he remained, but what was not, he assumed" (Jh 1:1).
Therefore, the Word compared Himself to Himself according to times; for Gregory said: "He who is now man was without composition," and again he said that lowly things are to be attributed "to the composite and for your sake incarnate and emptied," preserving immunity for the inhumanation from division and separation.