3

and he excellently sets forth a seal of the activity of the Almighty and of his works.Cap.2.13ιγʹ. After this he interprets the gospel saying, The Father judges no one; further, concerning the man assumed with soul and body by the Lord, he clarified both the transgression of Adam and the death and the resurrection from the dead. Cap.2.14ιδʹ. In addition to these things, he goes through the opinion which the church and Eunomius have concerning the Holy Spirit, and that there are not three Gods but one, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; in addition to which he also sets forth different subjections, in which he also showed the subjection of all to the Son <and that> of the Son to the Father to be the same. Cap.2.15 ιεʹ. Then, having shown through many proofs the unintelligibility of Eunomius, who at one time says the Holy Spirit is created and a most beautiful work of the Son, and at another time from his activities confesses him as God, he completes the discourse. Cap.3.1 αʹ. This third discourse shows a third fall of Eunomius, as he refutes himself, at one time saying that because of being begotten according to nature the Only-begotten must be called Son, as Holy Scripture, he says, shows this from the beginning, and at another time that because of being created he should no longer be called Son but a product.Cap.3.2βʹ. Then again, having examined the saying The Lord created me excellently and suitably and accurately, he sets it forth. Cap.3.3 γʹ. Next he shows from Adam and Abel and other examples that begotten and unbegotten do not mean an alienation of substance. Cap.3.4δʹ. And so the unity of the Son to the Father and the sameness of substance and the commonality of nature; in which there is also a natural discourse concerning the generation of wine, and that both the son and the offspring, in the case of the appellation of the Only-begotten, have a cognate relationship.Cap.3.5εʹ. In addition to these things, he sets forth the incomprehensibility of the divine substance and interprets the saying spoken to the Samaritan woman, You worship what you do not know. Cap.3.6 ʹ. After these things, he sets forth the calling of the son and <that> of the offspring, and very many differences of sons of God and of men and of rams and of perdition, of light and of day. Cap.3.7 ζʹ. In addition to which, having interpreted the divine and human appellations of the Only-begotten and having examined the begotten and unbegotten, he completes the discourse. Cap.4.1αʹ. This fourth discourse clearly interprets the natural discourse concerning the offspring and concerning the impassible generation of the Only-begotten and In the beginning was the Word, and further the birth from a virgin.Cap.4.2 βʹ. And so, having refuted Eunomius for saying these things concerning the Only-begotten which are fitting for an earth<ly> substance, he demonstrates that he wishes to show him to be mutable and created. Cap.4.3γʹ. Then he again marvelously sets forth the argument concerning the firstborn, as mentioned four times by the apostle.Cap.4.4 δʹ. After this again, the impassibility of the Lord's generation and the foolishness of Eunomius, who says that the begotten substance has the appellation of Son, but again forgets and denies the relation of the Son to the Father; in which he also sets forth the thing concerning Circe and the drug <of> the mandrake. Cap.4.5εʹ. And again he shows Eunomius, compelled by the truth, supporting the right doctrine, confessing as most proper and first not only the substance of the Father, but also that of the Only-begotten.Cap.4.6ʹ. Then he exercises the argument concerning offspring and product and creature and demonstrates the unmediated and undivided nature of the substance and the relation to the one who created and made, things impiously said by both Eunomius and Theognostus. Cap.4.7 ζʹ. In addition to these things, the incomparability of the things that came to be after the Son, and he wisely and artfully refutes the hidden idolatry wickedly devised by Eunomius through the naming of the Only-begotten and of the Son for the deception of the hearers.Cap.4.8 ηʹ. And so he shows the substance of the Father and Son to be unchangeable; in which he also teaches many variations and harmonies, both the form and seal and character

3

καὶ σφρα γῖδα τῆς τοῦ παντοκράτορος ἐνεργείας καὶ τῶν ἔργων παγ κάλως διέξεισιν.Cap.2.13ιγʹ. Μετὰ τοῦτο τὴν εὐαγγελικὴν διερμηνεύει ῥῆσιν Ὁ πατὴρ κρίνει οὐδένα· ἔτι τοῦ μετὰ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος ἀνα ληφθέντος ἀνθρώπου παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου τήν τε παράβασιν τοῦ Ἀδὰμ καὶ τὸν θάνατον καὶ τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐξανάστασιν διε σάφησε. Cap.2.14ιδʹ. Πρὸς τούτοις τὴν δόξαν ἣν ἡ ἐκκλησία ὅ τε Εὐνόμιος περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου ἔχουσι πνεύματος διεξέρχεται, καὶ ὅτι οὐ τρεῖς θεοὶ ἀλλ' εἷς, ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ὁ υἱὸς καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα· πρὸς οἷς καὶ διαφόρους ὑποταγὰς ἐκτίθεται, ἐν οἷς καὶ τὴν παρὰ πάντων πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν ὑποταγὴν <καὶ τὴν> τοῦ υἱοῦ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα τὴν αὐτὴν ἀπέδειξεν. Cap.2.15 ιεʹ. Εἶτα τὸ ἀδιανόητον τοῦ Εὐνομίου διὰ πολλῶν ἀπο δείξας ποτὲ μὲν κτιστὸν τὸ ἅγιον λέγοντος πνεῦμα καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἔργον κάλλιστον, ποτὲ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐνεργειῶν αὐτοῦ θεὸν ὁμολογοῦντος τελειοῖ τὸν λόγον. Cap.3.1 αʹ. Ὁ τρίτος οὗτος λόγος τρίτην πτῶσιν τοῦ Εὐνομίου δεικνύει ὡς ἑαυτὸν διελέγχοντος καὶ ποτὲ μὲν λέγοντος ὅτι διὰ τὸ γεννηθῆναι κατὰ φύσιν δεῖ υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ὀνομά ζεσθαι, ὡς τῆς ἁγίας γραφῆς, φησίν, ἄνωθεν τοῦτο δηλού σης, ποτὲ δὲ ὅτι διὰ τὸ κτισθῆναι μηκέτι υἱὸν ἀλλὰ ποίημα λέγεσθαι.Cap.3.2βʹ. Εἶτα πάλιν τὴν τοῦ Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ῥῆσιν παγ κάλως καὶ ἁρμοδίως καὶ ἀκριβῶς διεξετάσας ἐκτίθεται. Cap.3.3 γʹ. Ἔπειτα τὴν τοῦ γεννητοῦ καὶ ἀγεννήτου οὐκ ἀλλο τρίωσιν οὐσίας ἔκ τε τοῦ Ἀδὰμ καὶ Ἄβελ καὶ ἑτέρων ὑπο-δειγμάτων δείκνυσιν. Cap.3.4δʹ. Εἶθ' οὕτως τὴν τοῦ υἱοῦ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ἑνότητα καὶ τὸ ταὐτὸν τῆς οὐσίας καὶ κοινὸν τῆς φύσεως· ἐν ᾧ καὶ φυσιολογία περὶ γεννήσεως οἴνου, καὶ ὅτι ὅ τε υἱὸς καὶ τὸ γέννημα ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ μονογενοῦς προσηγορίας ὁμογενῆ τὴν οἰκειότητα ἔχουσιν.Cap.3.5εʹ. Πρὸς τούτοις τὸ ἀκατάληπτον τῆς θείας οὐσίας διέξεισι καὶ τὸ πρὸς τὴν Σαμαρεῖτιν ῥηθὲν Ὑμεῖς προσκυνεῖτε ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε ἑρμηνεύει. Cap.3.6 ʹ. Μετὰ ταῦτα τὴν τοῦ υἱοῦ κλῆσιν καὶ <τὴν> τοῦ γεννήματος διαφοράς τε υἱῶν θεοῦ πλείστας καὶ ἀνθρώπων καὶ κριῶν καὶ ἀπωλείας φωτός τε καὶ ἡμέρας ἐκτίθεται. Cap.3.7 ζʹ. Πρὸς οἷς τὰς τοῦ μονογενοῦς προσηγορίας θεϊκάς τε καὶ ἀνθρωπίνας διερμηνεύσας τὸ γεννητὸν καὶ ἀγέννητον διεξετάσας τὸν λόγον πληροῖ. Cap.4.1αʹ. Ὁ τέταρτος οὗτος λόγος τὴν περὶ τοῦ γεννήματος φυσιολογίαν καὶ τὴν περὶ τῆς ἀπαθοῦς γεννήσεως τοῦ μονο γενοῦς καὶ τὸ Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος ἔτι τε τὴν ἐκ παρθένου γέννησιν σαφῶς διερμηνεύει.Cap.4.2 βʹ. Εἶθ' οὕτως τὰ ἁρμόζοντα περὶ τῆς ὑποστάσεως τῆς γη<ίνη>ς ταῦτα περὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς τὸν Εὐνόμιον εἰρη κέναι διελέγξας τρεπτὸν αὐτὸν καὶ κτιστὸν βουλόμενον δεῖξαι ἀποδείκνυσιν. Cap.4.3γʹ. Εἶτα τὸν περὶ τοῦ πρωτοτόκου λόγον πάλιν ὡς παρὰ τοῦ ἀποστόλου τετράκις μνημονευθέντα θαυμασίως διέξ εισιν.Cap.4.4 δʹ. Μετὰ τοῦτο πάλιν τὸ ἀπαθὲς τῆς τοῦ κυρίου γεν νήσεως καὶ τὸ τοῦ Εὐνομίου ἀνόητον ὡς τὴν γεννηθεῖσαν οὐσίαν τὴν τοῦ υἱοῦ προσηγορίαν ἔχειν εἰπόντος, πάλιν δὲ ἐπιλαθομένου καὶ τὴν τοῦ υἱοῦ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα σχέσιν ἀρνουμένου· ἐν οἷς καὶ τὸ κατὰ τὴν Κίρκην καὶ τὸ <τοῦ> μανδραγόρου διέξεισι φάρμακον. Cap.4.5εʹ. Πάλιν τε τὸν Εὐνόμιον ὑπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας ἀναγκα ζόμενον τῷ ὀρθῷ συνηγοροῦντα δείκνυσι δόγματι, κυριωτάτην καὶ πρώτην οὐ μόνον τὴν τοῦ πατρός, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν τοῦ μονογενοῦς οὐσίαν ὁμολογοῦντα.Cap.4.6ʹ. Εἶτα τὸν περὶ τοῦ γεννήματος καὶ ποιήματος καὶ κτίσματος γυμνάζει λόγον καὶ τὸ ἀμεσίτευτον καὶ ἀμέριστον τῆς οὐσίας καὶ τὴν πρὸς τὸν κτίσαντα καὶ πεποιηκότα σχέσιν ἀσεβῶς παρά τε Εὐνομίου καὶ Θεογνώστου λεγόμενα ἀποδείκνυσι. Cap.4.7 ζʹ. Πρὸς τούτοις τὸ ἀσύγκριτον τῶν μετὰ τὸν υἱὸν γενο μένων, καὶ τὴν κακούργως παρὰ τοῦ Εὐνομίου ἐπινοηθεῖσαν διὰ τῆς τοῦ μονογενοῦς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ ὀνομασίας εἰς ἀπάτην τῶν ἀκροωμένων ἐπικεκρυμμένην εἰδωλολατρείαν σοφῶς καὶ ἐντέχνως διελέγχει.Cap.4.8 ηʹ. Εἶθ' οὕτως τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ οὐσίαν ἀπαρ άλλακτον δείκνυσιν· ἐν ᾧ καὶ πολλὰς παραλλαγὰς καὶ ἁρμονίας ἐκδιδάσκει, τήν τε μορφὴν καὶ σφραγῖδα καὶ χα ρακτῆρα