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

Contents of Book I.

§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, is feeble.

§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 Holy Spirit.

§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 improperly spoken of, and is inferior.

§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 is shewn that the Holy Spirit is of an equal, not inferior, rank to the Father and the Son.

§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 beginning.

§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 contemplate the Son apart with the Father, and believe that the Creation had its origin from a definite point.

§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.

αʹ. Προοίμιον ὅτι οὐ συμφέρει τοὺς μὴ καταδεχομένους τὴν ὠφέλειαν εὐεργετεῖν πειρᾶσθαι.
βʹ. Ὅτι δικαίως πρὸς τὴν ἀντίρρησιν ἤλθομεν τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ κατηγορηθέντος ὑπεραλγήσαντες.
γʹ. Ὅτι οὐδὲν μέγα κατὰ τὴν τοῦ λόγου δύναμιν ἐνιδόντες τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ Εὐνομίου εἰκότως κατεθαρσήσαμεν τῆς ἀντιρρήσεως.
δʹ. Ὅτι πολλῇ ματαιότητι καὶ περιττολογίᾳ ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ λόγῳ ἐχρήσατο ὁ Εὐνόμιος, μὴ πάνυ σπουδάζων περὶ τὰ καίρια.
εʹ. Ὅτι οὐ καλῶς ἐποίησεν Εὐστάθιον τὸν Ἀρμένιον καὶ Βασίλειον τὸν Γαλάτην τοὺς ἐπισκόπους ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις κωμῳδήσας λόγοις.
Ϛʹ. Μνήμη τοῦ προστάτου τῆς ἀσεβείας Ἀετίου καὶ αὐτοῦ Εὐνομίου, δι' ὀλίγων καὶ τὰ γένη καὶ τὰ ἐπιτηδεύματα τῶν ἀνδρῶν περιέχουσα.
ζʹ. Ὅτι αὐτὸς ὑφ' ἑαυτοῦ ἐλέγχεται ὁ Εὐνόμιος ἀκατηγόρητος τὴν ἀπολογίαν ποιησάμενος.
ηʹ. Ὅτι αἱ λοιδορίαι, αἷς κατὰ Βασιλείου ἐχρήσατο, τούτῳ μᾶλλον ἢ ἐκείνῳ πρέπουσαι ἐκ τῶν πραγμάτων δείκνυνται.
θʹ. Ὅτι ἐγκαλῶν Βασιλείῳ τὸ μὴ προστῆναι τοῦ λόγου ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῶν ἀγώνων οὐδὲ αὐτὸς ἐπιδείκνυται ἀλλότριος ὢν τοῦ ἐγκλήματος.
ιʹ. Ὅτι πάντα ὅσα ὠνόμασεν αὐτὸν ὑβριστικὰ ῥήματα ἀπ' αὐτῶν τῶν πραγμάτων ψευδῆ διελέγχεται.
ιαʹ. Ὅτι ψυχρῶς ἐχρήσατο τῷ κατὰ τὸ ἆθλον σοφίσματι, δι' οὗ κατασκευάζει παρ' ἡμῶν ὁμολογεῖσθαι τὸ κεκρίσθαι αὐτὸν καὶ μὴ ἀκατηγόρητον τὴν ἀπολογίαν ποιήσασθαι.
ιβʹ. Ὅτι μάτην ἐπονειδίζει τὴν δειλίαν τῷ τοσαύτην ἀνδρείαν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀγώνων πρὸς βασιλέας τε καὶ ὑπάρχους δείξαντι.
ιγʹ. Μνήμη τῶν δογματικῶς αὐτῷ εἰρημένων καὶ κατὰ διαίρεσιν πρὸς τὰ εἰρημένα μάχη.
ιδʹ. Ὅτι κακῶς ἐποίησε μνημονεύων τοῦ σωτηρίου δόγματος, μὴ πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν καὶ ἅγιον πνεῦμα καθὼς παραδέδοται ὀνομάζων, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλοις ὀνόμασι χρησάμενος κατὰ τὸ ἴδιον βούλημα.
ιεʹ. Ὅτι κακῶς ἐποίησε μόνην τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίαν κυριωτάτην εἰπὼν καὶ ἀνωτάτω, κατασκευάζων κατὰ τὸ σιωπώμενον ἄκυρόν τε εἶναι τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος τὴν οὐσίαν καὶ κάτω.
ιϚʹ. Ἐξέτασις τοῦ τῆς ὑποταγῆς σημαινομένου, καθ' ὃ λέγει ὑποτετάχθαι τῇ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ οὐσίᾳ τὴν τοῦ πνεύματος φύσιν: ἐν ᾧ κατεσκευάσθη ὅτι συντάσσεται τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ, οὐχ ὑποτάσσεται.
ιζʹ. Ἐξέτασις τῶν ἐνεργειῶν τίνες κατὰ τὴν φύσιν εἰσίν, ἃς ἕπεσθαι οὗτος λέγει τῇ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ οὐσίᾳ.
ιηʹ. Ὅτι οὐ κατὰ λόγον ποιεῖ εἰς πλῆθος οὐσιῶν τὸ δόγμα διαμερίζων, οὐδεμίαν ἀπόδειξιν τοῦ ταῦτα οὕτως ἔχειν παρεχόμενος.
ιθʹ. Ὅτι ἁπλῆν λέγων τὴν θείαν οὐσίαν μέχρις ὀνόματος συγχωρεῖ τὴν ἁπλότητα.
κʹ. Ὅτι κακῶς ποιεῖ τῆς τοῦ μονογενοῦς ὑπάρξεως ἐνέργειάν τινα προεπινοῶν ἀπεργαστικὴν τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὑποστάσεως.
καʹ. Ὅτι χαλεπωτέρα τῆς Ἰουδαϊκῆς πλάνης ἡ τούτων βλασφημία.
κβʹ. Ὅτι οὐ χρὴ τὸ μεῖζον καὶ τὸ ἔλαττον ἐπὶ τῆς θείας οὐσίας δογματίζειν: ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἔκθεσις τεχνικὴ τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν δογμάτων.
κγʹ. Ὅτι οὐκ ἀμάρτυρός ἐστιν ἡ τῆς πίστεως διδασκαλία ταῖς γραφικαῖς μαρτυρίαις ἠσφαλισμένη.
κδʹ. Ὅτι ματαιολογεῖ μεγέθη καὶ διαφορὰς ἔργων καὶ ἐνεργειῶν ἐν τοῖς δόγμασι τῆς εὐσεβείας τεχνολογῶν.
κεʹ. Ὅτι ὁ πρεσβύτερον κατά τι διαστηματικὸν νόημα τοῦ υἱοῦ τὸν πατέρα κατασκευάζων ἀναγκασθήσεται μηδὲ τὸν πατέρα ἄναρχον λέγειν.
κϚʹ. Ὅτι οὐχ ἁρμόσει καὶ τῇ κτίσει τὸ τοιοῦτον θεώρημα ὃ ἐπὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐξητάσθη, ὅπερ ἐκεῖνοι βιάζονται, ἀλλὰ χρὴ τὸν μὲν υἱὸν ἀϊδίως σὺν τῷ πατρὶ θεωρεῖσθαι, τὴν δὲ κτίσιν ἀπό τινος ὡρισμένου « χρόνου » τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐσχηκέναι ὁμολογεῖν.
κζʹ. Ὅτι μάτην ὑπέλαβε τὰς αὐτὰς ἐνεργείας τὰ αὐτὰ ἔργα ποιεῖν καὶ τὴν παραλλαγὴν τῶν ἔργων παρηλλαγμένας τὰς ἐνεργείας ἐνδείκνυσθαι.
κηʹ. Ὅτι μάτην ὑπέλαβεν ἀπαράβατον εἱρμὸν ἐν τῇ τῶν φύσεων συμφωνίᾳ δύνασθαι συστῆναι.
κθʹ. Ὅτι μάτην ᾠήθη τὴν ἐν ταῖς ἐνεργείαις ἀμφιβολίαν διαλύειν ἐκ τῶν οὐσιῶν, καὶ τὸ ἔμπαλιν.
λʹ. Ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἔστι λόγος θεϊκὸς ὁ τὰ τοιαῦτα ζητεῖν κελεύων: ἐν ᾧ κατεσκευάσθη καὶ τὸ μάταιον τῆς ἐν τούτοις φιλοσοφίας.
λαʹ. Ὅτι ἱκανή ἐστιν εἰς γνῶσιν τῆς κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν ταὐτότητος ἡ διὰ τῆς προνοίας κατανόησις.
λβʹ. Ὅτι ἀδιανόητος ἡ ἀπόφασις τοῦ εἰπόντος ἀκολουθεῖν τὸν τρόπον τῆς γεννήσεως τῷ τρόπῳ τῆς ὁμοιότητος.
λγʹ. Ὅτι μάτην ἀπεφήνατο τῇ φυσικῇ τοῦ γεννῶντος ἀξίᾳ διαδείκνυσθαι τὸν τῆς γεννήσεως τρόπον.
λδʹ. Μνήμη τῶν ἐπὶ διαβολῇ τοῦ ὁμοουσίου παρ' αὐτοῦ ῥηθέντων καὶ πρὸς τὰ εἰρημένα μάχη.
λεʹ. Κατασκευὴ τοῦ πρὸς τὸν μανιχαϊσμὸν ῥέπειν τὸ δόγμα τῶν Ἀνομοίων.
λϚʹ. Μνήμη πάλιν τοῦ ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ δόγματος ἐν παραδρομῇ.
λζʹ. Συνηγορία τῶν παρὰ τοῦ μακαρίου Βασιλείου ῥηθέντων παρὰ τούτου δὲ διαβαλλομένων, ἐν οἷς φησιν ὁ ἡμέτερος τὴν « τοῦ » πατρὸς προσηγορίαν καὶ τὴν τοῦ ἀγεννήτου δύνασθαι τὴν αὐτὴν σημαίνειν διάνοιαν.
ληʹ. Μάχη πρὸς τοὺς σοφισματώδεις αὐτοῦ συλλογισμοὺς δι' ἐπιχειρημάτων πλειόνων.
λθʹ. Ἀπόκρισις πρὸς τὸ ἐπιφερόμενον παρ' αὐτοῦ ἐρώτημα, εἰ ὁ ὢν γεννᾶται.
μʹ. Ὅτι ψυχρῶς συστῆναι ἑαυτῷ ἐπεχείρησεν, ἐλεγχθεὶς παρὰ τοῦ μακαρίου Βασιλείου.
μαʹ. Ὅτι τὸ ἐπακολουθοῦν οὐ ταὐτόν ἐστιν ἐκείνῳ ᾧ ἐπηκολούθει.
μβʹ. Ἑρμηνεία τῆς τοῦ ἀγεννήτου σημασίας καὶ τοῦ ἀϊδίου θεωρία.