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.