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

§4. He then again charges Eunomius with having learnt his term ἀγεννησίαfrom the hieroglyphic writings, and from the Egyptian mythology and idolatry, and with bringing in Anubis, Osiris, and Isis to the creed of Christians, and shows that, considered as admitting His sufferings of necessity and not voluntarily, the Only-begotten is entitled to no gratitude from men: and that fire has none for its warmth, nor water for its fluidity, as they do not refer their results to self-determining power, but to necessity of nature1006    The grammar of this section of the analysis is very much confused..

Let us once more notice the passage cited. “If he can show,” he says, “that the God Who is over all, Who is the Light unapproachable, was incarnate, or could be incarnate,….then let him say that the Light is equal to the Light.” The purport of his words is plain from the very form of the sentence, namely, that he does not think that it was by His almighty Godhead that the Son proved strong for such a form of loving-kindness, but that it was by being of a nature subject to passion that He stooped to the suffering of the Cross. Well, as I pondered and inquired how Eunomius came to stumble into such notions about the Deity, as to think that on the one side the ungenerate Light was unapproachable by its contrary, and entirely unimpaired and free from every passion and affection, but that on the other the generate was intermediate in its nature, so as not to preserve the Divine unsullied and pure in impassibility, but to have an essence mixed and compounded of contraries, which at once stretched out to partake of good, and at the same time melted away into a condition subject to passion, since it was impossible to obtain from Scripture premises to support so absurd a theory, the thought struck me, whether it could be that he was an admirer of the speculations of the Egyptians on the subject of the Divine, and had mixed up their fancies with his views concerning the Only-begotten. For it is reported that they say that their fantastic mode of compounding their idols, when they adapt the forms of certain irrational animals to human limbs, is an enigmatic symbol of that mixed nature which they call “dæmon,” and that this is more subtle than that of men, and far surpasses our nature in power, but has the Divine element in it not unmingled or uncompounded, but is combined with the nature of the soul and the perceptions of the body, and is receptive of pleasure and pain, neither of which finds place with the “ungenerate God.” For they too use this name, ascribing to the supreme God, as they imagine Him, the attribute of ungeneracy. Thus our sage theologian seems to us to be importing into the Christian creed an Anubis, Isis, or Osiris from the Egyptian shrines, all but the acknowledgment of their names: but there is no difference in profanity between him who openly makes profession of the names of idols, and him who, while holding the belief about them in his heart, is yet chary of their names. If, then, it is impossible to get out of Holy Scripture any support for this impiety, while their theory draws all its strength from the riddles of the hieroglyphics, assuredly there can be no doubt what right-minded persons ought to think of this. But that this accusation which we bring is no insulting slander, Eunomius shall testify for us by his own words, saying as he does that the ungenerate Light is unapproachable, and has not the power of stooping to experience affections, but affirming that such a condition is germane and akin to the generate: so that man need feel no gratitude to the Only-begotten God for what He suffered, if, as they say, it was by the spontaneous action of His nature that He slipped down to the experience of affections, His essence, which was capable of being thus affected, being naturally dragged down thereto, which demands no thanks. For who would welcome as a boon that which takes place by necessity, even if it be gainful and profitable? For we neither thank fire for its warmth nor water for its fluidity, as we refer these qualities to the necessity of their several natures, because fire cannot be deserted by its power of warming, nor can water remain stationary upon an incline, inasmuch as the slope spontaneously draws its motion onwards. If, then, they say that the benefit wrought by the Son through His incarnation was by a necessity of His nature, they certainly render Him no thanks, inasmuch as they refer what He did, not to an authoritative power, but to a natural compulsion. But if, while they experience the benefit of the gift, they disparage the lovingkindness that brought it, I fear lest their impiety should work round to the opposite error, and lest they should deem the condition of the Son, that could be thus affected, worthy of more honour than the freedom from such affections possessed by the Father, making their own advantage the criterion of good. For if the case had been that the Son was incapable of being thus affected, as they affirm of the Father, our nature would still have remained in its miserable plight, inasmuch as there would have been none to lift up man’s nature to incorruption by what He Himself experienced;—and so it escapes notice that the cunning of these quibblers, by the very means which it employs in its attempt to destroy the majesty of the Only-begotten God, does but raise men’s conceptions of Him to a grander and loftier height, seeing it is the case that He Who has the power to act, is more to be honoured than one who is powerless for good.

Πάλιν δὲ τὰ εἰρημένα κατανοήσωμεν. « εἰ μὲν ἔχει δεικνύναι », φησί, « τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων θεόν, ὅσπερ ἐστὶν ἀπρόσιτον φῶς, ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενον ἢ γενέσθαι δυνάμενον, ἴσον λεγέτω τῷ φωτὶ τὸ φῶς ». πρόδηλος γὰρ ὁ τῶν εἰρημένων σκοπὸς δι' αὐτῆς τῆς τῶν ῥημάτων κατασκευῆς, ὅτι οὐκ οἴεται τῇ παντοδυνάμῳ θεότητι τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πρὸς τὸ τοιοῦτον εἶδος τῆς φιλανθρωπίας ἰσχύσαι, ἀλλὰ τῷ φύσεως ἐμπαθοῦς εἶναι τὸ κατὰ τὸν σταυρὸν δέξασθαι πάθος. ἀλλά μοι σκοπουμένῳ καὶ ἀναζητοῦντι, πόθεν ταῖς τοιαύταις τῶν ὑπολήψεων περὶ τὸ θεῖον συνέπεσεν, ὡς τὸ μὲν ἀγέννητον φῶς ἀπρόσιτον εἶναι τῷ ἐναντίῳ καὶ καθαρῶς ἀπαθὲς καὶ ἀκήρατον οἴεσθαι, τὸ δὲ γεννητὸν ἐπαμφοτερίζειν κατὰ τὴν φύσιν, ὡς οὐκ ἀκραιφνές τε καὶ καθαρὸν ἐν ἀπαθείᾳ φυλάσσειν τὸ θεῖον, ἀλλά τινα συμμιγῆ τε καὶ σύγκρατον ἐκ τῶν ἐναντίων τὴν οὐσίαν ἔχειν τὴν καὶ τῆς τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ μετουσίας ὀρεγομένην καὶ πρὸς ἐμπαθῆ διάθεσιν μεταρρέουσαν, ἐπειδὴ παρὰ τῆς γραφῆς οὐκ ἦν τῆς τοιαύτης ἀτοπίας τὰς ὑποθέσεις εὑρεῖν, ἐπῆλθέ μοι λογίσασθαι, μή ποτε ἄρα τὰς τῶν Αἰγυπτίων περὶ τὸ θεῖον μυθολογίας θαυμάσας τὰς ἐκείνων δόξας τοῖς περὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἐγκαταμίγνυσι λόγοις. φασὶ γὰρ ἐκείνους τὴν ἀλλόκοτον εἰδωλοποιΐαν, ὅταν ἀνθρωπίνοις μέλεσιν ἀλόγων τινῶν μορφὰς ἐφαρμόζωσιν, αἴνιγμα λέγειν εἶναι τῆς συμμίκτου φύσεως, ἣν προσαγορεύουσι δαίμονα, ταύτην δὲ λεπτοτέραν μὲν τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἶναι καὶ πολὺ τῇ δυνάμει τὴν ἡμετέραν ὑπερφέρουσαν φύσιν, τὸ δὲ θεῖον οὐκ ἀμιγὲς οὐδὲ ἄκρατον ἔχειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ψυχῆς φύσει καὶ σώματος αἰσθήσει συγκεκραμένον, ἡδονήν τε καὶ πόνον ἀναδεχόμενον, ὧν οὐδὲν περὶ τὸν ἀγέννητον εἶναι θεόν. καὶ γὰρ κἀκεῖνοι λέγουσι τοῦτο τὸ ὄνομα, τῷ ὑπερέχοντι κατὰ τὰς ὑπολήψεις αὐτῶν θεῷ τὴν ἀγεννησίαν ἐπιφημίζοντες. ἔοικεν οὖν ἡμῖν ὁ σοφὸς θεολόγος οὗτος ἐκ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων ἀδύτων Ἄνουβιν ἢ Ἶσιν ἢ Ὄσιριν τῷ κηρύγματι τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἐπεισάγειν πλὴν τῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων ὁμολογίας: διαφέρει δὲ πάντως οὐδὲν εἰς ἀσέβειαν ὅ τε ὁμολογῶν τὰ τῶν εἰδώλων ὀνόματα καὶ ὁ τὰς περὶ τούτων δόξας ἐν ἑαυτῷ κρατύνας, τῶν δὲ ὀνομάτων φειδόμενος. εἰ τοίνυν ἐκ μὲν τῆς θείας γραφῆς συνηγορίαν τινὰ τῆς ἀσεβείας ταύτης εὑρεῖν οὐκ ἔστιν, ἐκ δὲ τῶν ἱερογλυφικῶν αἰνιγμάτων ὁ λόγος αὐτοῖς τὴν ἰσχὺν ἔχει, πάντως οὐκ ἄδηλον τί προσήκει τοὺς εὖ φρονοῦντας περὶ τούτων λογίσασθαι. ὅτιδ' οὐκ ἐπηρεαστικῶς ταύτην τὴν διαβολὴν ἐπιφέρομεν, αὐτὸς ἂν γένοιτο ἡμῖν μάρτυς διὰ τῶν ἰδίων λόγων Εὐνόμιος, ὁ τὸν ἀγέννητον μὲν ἀπρόσιτον φῶς λέγων καὶ εἰς πεῖραν παθημάτων ἐλθεῖν μὴ δυνάμενον, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ γεννητοῦ κατάλληλόν τε καὶ συγγενῆ τὴν τοιαύτην διάθεσιν εἶναι διοριζόμενος: ὡς μηδὲ χάριν τῷ μονογενεῖ θεῷ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ὧν ἕνεκεν ἔπαθεν ἔχειν, εἴπερ αὐτομάτως κατὰ τὸν λόγον αὐτῶν πρὸς τὴν τῶν παθημάτων πεῖραν κατώλισθεν, τῆς ἐμπαθοῦς οὐσίας φυσικῶς πρὸς τοῦτο κατασυρείσης, ὅπερ οὐδεμιᾶς ἄξιον εὐχαριστίας ἐστί. τίς γὰρ ἂν ἐν χάριτος δέξαιτο μέρει τὸ κατ' ἀνάγκην συμβαῖνον, κἂν ἐπικερδὲς καὶ ὠφέλιμον ᾖ; οὔτε γὰρ τῷ πυρὶ τῆς θερμότητος οὔτε τῷ ὕδατι τῆς ῥοῆς χάριν γινώσκομεν, εἰς τὴν ἀνάγκην τῆς φύσεως ἀνάγοντες τὸ γινόμενον, διὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι τὸ πῦρ τῆς θερμαντικῆς ἐνεργείας ἀπολειφθῆναι ἢ στάσιμον ἐπὶ πρανοῦς μεῖναι τὸ ὕδωρ, αὐτομάτως τῆς τοπικῆς ἐπικλίσεως ἐφελκομένης ἐπὶ τὸ πρόσω τὴν κίνησιν. εἰ οὖν φύσεως ἀνάγκῃ τὴν διὰ σαρκὸς εὐεργεσίαν παρὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ γεγενῆσθαι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις λέγουσιν, οὐδεμίαν πάντως χάριν γινώσκουσιν, ὅτι οὐκ εἰς δύναμιν ἐξουσιαστικήν, ἀλλ' εἰς φυσικὴν ἀνάγκην τὸ γεγονὸς ἀναφέρουσιν. εἰ δὲ τῆς δωρεᾶς αἰσθανόμενοι τὴν εὐεργεσίαν ἀτιμάζουσι, δέδοικα μὴ πρὸς τοὐναντίον περιτραπῇ πάλιν αὐτοῖς ἡ ἀσέβεια καὶ προτιμοτέραν ποιήσωνται τὴν ἐμπαθῆ τοῦ υἱοῦ διάθεσιν τῆς πατρικῆς ἀπαθείας, ἐν τῷ καθ' ἑαυτοὺς ἀγαθῷ τὴν τοῦ καλοῦ κρίσιν ποιούμενοι. εἰ γὰρ καὶ τὸν υἱόν, καθὼς περὶ τοῦ πατρὸς δογματίζουσιν, ἀπαράδεκτον εἶναι συνέβη τοῦ πάθους, ἀδιόρθωτος ἔμεινεν ἂν ἡ τῆς φύσεως ἡμῶν συμφορά, οὐκ ὄντος τοῦ διὰ τῆς οἰκείας πείρας εἰς ἀφθαρσίαν ἐξαιρουμένου τὸν ἄνθρωπον, καὶ οὕτω λανθάνει τῶν σοφιστῶν ἡ δεινότης, δι' ὧν καθαιρεῖν ἐπιχειρεῖ τοῦ μονογενοῦς θεοῦ τὸ μεγαλεῖον, εἰς μείζονάς τε καὶ προτιμοτέρας ὑπολήψεις αὐτὸν περιάγουσα, ἐπείπερ ὁ δυνάμενος δρᾶσαι τοῦ ἀδυνατοῦντος πρὸς τὸ ἀγαθὸν προτιμότερος.