Ἡμῖν δὲ πρὸς μὲν τοὺς οὐδὲ εἶναι ὑπειληφότας οὐδεὶς λόγος, ἢ τοὺς ληροῦντας ἐν Ἕλλησιν. μηδὲ γὰρ ἁμαρτωλῶν ἐλαίῳ πιανθείημεν εἰς τὸν λόγον. πρὸς δὲ τοὺς ἄλλους οὕτω διαλεξόμεθα. τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἢ τῶν καθ’ ἑαυτὸ ὑφεστηκότων πάντως ὑποθετέον, ἢ τῶν ἐν ἑτέρῳ θεωρουμένων· ὧν τὸ μὲν οὐσίαν καλοῦσιν οἱ περὶ ταῦτα δεινοί, τὸ δὲ συμβεβηκός. εἰ μὲν οὖν συμβέβηκεν, ἐνέργεια τοῦτο ἂν εἴη θεοῦ. τί γὰρ ἕτερον, ἢ τίνος ; τοῦτο 5 νομιζοντας] -τες b 6. 7 ουδεις] ουδεις ο b: ουδε εις ce ‘duo Reg.’ || 9 διαλεξωμεθα b 2. ἄλλον τρόπον μιμ.] ‘imitating, though in a somewhat different form, those,‘ etc. He seems to mean Arius. 4. τάξιν καὶ χάριν] The word χάρις appears to be used in the sense which Lidd. and Scott put as iv 2 viz. ‘homage due,’ ‘majesty’; and τάξις accordingly will be, not exactly the order in which the names stand in the Bible, but the rank which is inherent in each. ‘Who think that the rank and dignity of the respective names denotes a gradation of the realities which they represent.’ The πράγματα, of course, are the three Blessed Persons themselves. 6. Against Sadducee and Greek I shall not indulge myself to argue, but only against the others. The Holy Ghost is either a contingent or a substantive existence. If contingent, He must be a Divine operation or influence; but this does not agree with the personal language of Scripture. If He is a substantive existence, He is either God or a creature; there is no betwixt and between. If He is a creature, how can we ‘believe in’ Him? He must be God. 8. ἁμαρτ. ἐλαίῳ] Ps. cxl (cxli) 5. It may be asked, why it would be an anointing of himself with the oil of sinners for his oration to enter into controversy with such persons, while he feels himself at liberty to argue with the Macedonians. The answer is, that the ἁμαρτωλοὶ are not opponents (as the Donatists might have said) too bad even to be argued with. He means that, although it might add a richness and profusion to his discourse, there would be a kind of sinful self-indulgence in demolishing opinions with which he was not practically confronted. 9. τῶν καθ’ ἑατυτὸ ὑφ.] ‘either an independent subsistence, or a thing observed in something else.’ 12. συμβεβηκός] something contingent, ‘a contingency’; a thing which happens to be so, but might have been otherwise. 13. ἐνέργεια τοῦτο ἂν εἴη θ.] ‘it (the Holy Spirit so conceived of) will be an operation of God’— an influence, an inspiration, or the like—‘for what else could it be, or from whom besides could it come?’ γάρ πως μᾶλλον καὶ φεύγει σύνθεσιν. καὶ εἰ ἐνέργεια, ἐνεργηθήσεται δῆλον ὅτι, οὐκ ἐνεργήσει, καὶ ὁμοῦ τῷ ἐνεργηθῆναι παύσεται. τοιοῦτον γὰρ ἡ ἐνέργεια. πῶς οὖν ἐνεργεῖ, καὶ τάδε λέγει, καὶ ἀφορίζει, καὶ λυπεῖται, καὶ παροξύνεται, καὶ ὅσα κινουμένου σαφῶς ἐστίν, οὐ κινήσεως; εἰ δὲ οὐσία τις, οὐ τῶν περὶ τὴν οὐσίαν, ἤτοι κτίσμα ὑποληφθήσεται, ἢ θεός. μέσον γάρ τι τούτων, ἤτοι μηδετέρου μετέχον, ἢ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν σύνθετον, οὐδ’ ἂν οἱ τοὺς τραγελάφους πλάττοντες ἐννοήσαιεν. ἀλλ᾿ εἰ μὲν κτίσμα, πῶς εἰς αὐτὸ πιστεύομεν, ἢ ἐν αὐτῷ τελειούμεθα ; οὐ γὰρ ταὐτόν ἐστι πιστεύειν εἴς τι, καὶ περὶ αὐτοῦ πιστεύειν. τὸ μὲν γάρ ἐστι θεότητος, τὸ δὲ παντὸς πράγματος. εἰ δὲ θεός, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ κτίσμα, οὐδὲ ποίημα, οὐδὲ σύνδουλον, οὐδ᾿ ὅλως τι τῶν ταπεινῶν ὀνομάτων.

1 και ει] om ει b || 2 τω] το b || 7 υπολειφθησεται ‘Or. 1’1. φεύγει σύνθεσιν] It is assumed that all will agree that the simpler the account, the better.2. ἐνεργηθήσεται . . . παύσεται] The fut. is logical, not temporal. It is of the very nature of an ‘operation ’ to be incapable of independent action, or to continue when the operator stops.3. πῶς οὖν ἐνεργεῖ] The Bible, however, attributes to the Holy Spirit operations of His own, such as ‘saying’ this and that (τάδε), ‘separating’ (an inexact reminiscence of Acts xiii 2).4. λυπεῖται] Eph. iv 30.5. παροξύνεται] Is. lxiii 10.ib. κινουμένου] middle voice. These are notes, Gr. says, not of a motion in the abstract (such as an ἐνέργεια is), but of the thing which is in motion.6. τῶν περὶ τὴν οὐ.] ‘an existence, and not an attribute of existence.’9. τραγελάφους] the typical fabulous compound.10. τελειούμεθα] in baptism; cp. § 29.ib. οὐ γὰρ ταὐτόν] ‘it is not the same thing to believe in anything, and to believe statements about it; the first is peculiar to God, the second can be done with any thing.’ See Pearson on the Creed I believe in God; who rightly says that the distinction is more characteristic of Western than of Eastern theology.13. οὐδὲ ποίημα] sc. ἐστί. The apodosis begins at this point, not at ἀλλ᾿ οὐ κτίσμα.7. Now it is your turn. ‘Is He begotten, or unbegotten? If begotten, of whom ? If of the Father, there are two Sons; if of the Son, He is a grandson.’ Your names do not terrify me. Because we are obliged to speak of ‘Sonship’ in the Godhead, it does not follow that all earthly nomenclature would apply; or at that rate you will have to say ali manner of strange things.

Ἑνταῦθα σὸς ὁ λόγος ’ αἱ σφενδόναι πεμπέσθωσαν, οἱ συλλογισμοὶ πλεκέσθωσαν. ἢ ἀγέννητον πάντως, ἢ γεννητόν. καὶ εἰ μὲν ἀγέννητον, δύο τὰ ἄναρχα. εἰ δὲ γεννητόν, ὑποδιαίρει πάλιν· ἢ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦτο, ἢ ἐκ τοῦ υἱοῦ. καὶ εἰ μὲν ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, υἱοὶ δύο καὶ ἀδελφοί. σὺ δέ μοι πλάττε καὶ διδύμους, εἰ βούλει, ἢ τὸν μὲν πρεσβύτερον, τὸν δὲ νεώτερον ’ ἐπειδὴ λίαν εἶ φιλοσώματος. εἰ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ υἱοῦ, πέφηνέ, φησι, καὶ υἱωνὸς ἡμῖν θεός· οὗ τί ἂν γένοιτο παραδοξότερον ; ταῦτα μὲν οὖν οἱ σοφοὶ τοῦ κακοποιῆσαι, τὰ δὲ ἂγ ἀθ’ ἁ γράφειν οὐ θέλοντες. ἐγὼ δὲ εἰ μὲν ἑώρων ἀναγκαίαν τὴν διαίρεσιν, ἐδεξάμην ἂν τὰ πράγματα, οὐ φοβηθεὶς τὰ ὀνόματα. οὐ γάρ, ἐπειδὴ κατά τινα σχέσιν ὑψηλοτέραν υἱὸς ὁ υἱός, οὐ δυνηθέντων ἡμῶν ἄλλως ἢ οὕτως ἐνδείξασθαι τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ὁμοούσιον, ἤδη καὶ πάσας οἰητέον ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὰς κάτω κλήσεις, καὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας συγγενείας, μεταφέρειν ἐπὶ τὸ θεῖον. ἢ τάχα ἃν σύ γε καὶ ἄρρενα τὸν θεὸν ἡμῖν ὑπολάβοις, κατὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦτον, ὅτι θεὸς ὀνομάζεται, καὶ πατήρ ; καὶ θῆλύ τι τὴν θεότητα, ὅσον ἐπὶ ταῖς κλήσεσι ; καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα οὐδέτερον, ὅτι μὴ γεννητικόν ; εἰ δέ σοι καὶ τοῦτο παιχθείη, τῇ ἑαυτοῦ 7, 4 υποδιαιρησει ’Reg. Copr.' || 15 τῆς] τὰς b ΙΙ 18 omn ’Reg. a’ 1. ἐνταῦθα σὸς 6 λ.] ‘now for your say’ It begins at ἢ ἀγέννητον. 3. δύο τὰ ἄναρχα] viz. the Father and the Spirit. 6. σὺ δέ μοι πλ.] This is Gr.'s interpolation into his adversary's argument. 7. φιλοσώματος] i.e. determined to refer everything to material standards. 9. σοφοὶ τοῦ κακ’.] Jer. iv 22. It is hard to see why Gr. balances this clause by ‘ and will not write what is good.' It is not a reference to anything in Scripture. No doubt the Eunomian literature was as extensive as its oral polemic. 11. τὰ πράγματα] much as at the end of § 5. The ’names’ which he says would not scare him ὅσ’ are such as that of υἱωνός. Not that he admits that such a name would necessarily be applicable, even if the ‘ facts ’ were as suggested. is shewn in the next sentence. 12. κατά τινα σχ. ὑψ.] ‘according to sonic relationship too lofty for us to understand' the Son is Son. No other language would express at once His derivation from the Father and His being of one substance with Him. It does not follow, however, that all the nomenclature of our earthly relationships is to be trans- ferred straightway to the Godhead. 20. εἰ δέ σοι κ· τοῦτο π·] ’and if you like to carry the gamt farther i cp. iii 7 προσπαιξω τὸν π. θελήσει τὸν θεὸν συγγενόμενον, κατὰ τοὺς παλαιοὺς λήρους καὶ μύθους, γεννήσασθαι τὸν υἱόν, εἰσήχθη τις ἡμῖν καὶ Μαρκίωνος καὶ Οὐαλεντίνου θεὸς ἀρρενόθηλυς, τοῦ τοὺς καινοὺς αἰῶνας ἀνατυπώσαντος.

Ἐπεὶ δέ σου τὴν πρώτην διαίρεσιν οὐ δεχόμεθα, τὴν μηδὲν ἀγεννήτου καὶ γεννητοῦ μέσον ὑπολαμβάνουσαν, αὐτίκα οἰχήσονταί σοι μετὰ τῆς σεμνῆς διαιρέσεως οἱ ἀδελφοὶ καὶ οἱ υἱωνοί, ὥσπερ τινὸς δεσμοῦ πολυπλόκου τῆς πρώτης ἀρχῆς λυθείσης συνδιαλυθέντες, καὶ τῆς θεολογίας ὑποχωρήσαντες. ποῦ γὰρ θήσεις τὸ ἐκπορευτόν. εἰπέ μοι, μέσον ἀναφανὲν τῆς σῆς διαιρέσεως, καὶ παρὰ κρείσσονος ἢ κατὰ σὲ θεολόγου, τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, εἰσαγόμενον; εἰ μὴ τὴν φωνὴν ἐκείνην τῶν σῶν ἐξεῖλες εὐαγγελίων, διὰ τὴν τρίτην σου διαθήκην, Τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται· ὃ καθ’ ὅσον μὲν ἐκεῖθεν ἐκπορεύεται, οὐ κτίσμα· καθ’ ὅσον δὲ οὐ γεννητόν, οὐχ 3 om καὶ Οὐαλεντίνου aceg 8, 8 οἱ υἱωνοὶ] om οι df || 9 λυθεισης] διαλυθείσης bdf || 16 om ἐκπορεύεται f 1. συγγενόμενον] ‘ by intercourse with His own ’; cp. iii 6. The ’ancient ’ are prob. those of heathen mythology, not of Gnosticism. 3. Μαρκίωνος] Marcion's system has really nothing to do with Gnosticism and its fantastic inventions, although he is usually reckoned among the Gnostics. Perh. therefore Gr. uses his name with that of Valentinus to denote in contemptuous indifference Gnosticism in general ; or perh. he confuses Marcion with Marcus, the disciple of Val., from whom the Marcosians take their name. ib. θεὸς ἀρρενόθηλυς] Gr. does not mean that Val. taught that God was ἀρρ., but only compares the God who has just been imagined with the bisexual beings of the Valentinian system. See Iren. I i 1 εἶναι γὰρ αὐτῶν ἕκαστον ἀρρενόθηλυν, οὔτως· τως· πρῶτον rbv Προπάτορα ἡνῶσθαι κατὰ συζυγίαν τῆ ἑαυτοῦ Ἐννοίᾳ κτλ. 4. αἰῶνας] ’who devised those strange Acons.’ 8. I do not admit thai He must be either begotten or unbegotten. Christ says that He ’proceeds? You ask what that means. Our powers are insufficient to explain. 9. ἀρχῆς] as in ii 25, an ‘ end? Δεσμός seems to be used in the sense of a hnot. ib. τῆς θ. ὑποχωρήσαντες] ‘retiring ing from your account of the God- head.’ 14. διὰ τὴν τρίτην σ. δ.] ‘ to suit your Third Testament? or, as we might say, ’your Newest Testament.’ ib. τὸ πν.... ἐκπορεύεται] John xv 26. 15. ἐκεῖθεν] from such a source as the Father. υἱός· καθ’ ὅσον δὲ ἀγεννήτου καὶ γεννητοῦ μέσον, θεός. καὶ οὕτω σου τὰς τῶν συλλογισμῶν ἄρκυς διαφυγὸν θεὸς ἀναπέφηνε, τῶν σῶν διαιρέσεων ἰσχυρότερος. τίς οὖν ἡ ἐκπόρευσις; εἰπὲ σὺ τὴν ἀγεννησίαν τοῦ πατρός, κἀγὼ τὴν γέννησιν τοῦ υἱοῦ φυσιολογήσω, καὶ τὴν ἐκπόρευσιν τοῦ πνεύματος, καὶ παραπληκτίσωμεν ἄμφω εἰς θεοῦ μυστήρια παρακύπτοντες· καὶ ταῦτα τίνες; οἱ μηδὲ τὰ ἐν ποσὶν εἰδέναι δυνάμενοι, μηδὲ ψάμμον θαλασσῶν, καὶ σταγόνας ὑετοῦ, καὶ ἡμέρας αἰῶνος ἐξαριθμεῖσθαι, μὴ ὅτι γε θεοῦ βάθεσιν ἐμβατεύειν, καὶ λόγον ὑπέχειν τῆς οὕτως ἀρρήτου καὶ ὑπὲρ λόγον φύσεως.

Τί οὖν ἐστί, φησιν, ὃ λείπει τῷ πνεύματι, πρὸς τὸ εἶναι υἱόν; εἰ γὰρ μὴ λεῖπόν τι ἦν, υἱὸς ἃν ἦν. οὐ λείπειν φαμέν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐλλειπὴς θεός· τὸ δὲ τῆς ἐκφάνσεως, ἵν οὕτως εἴπω, ἢ τῆς πρὸς ἄλληλα σχέσεως διάφορον διάφορον αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν κλῆσιν πεποίηκεν. οὐδὲ γὰρ τῷ υἱῷ λείπει τι πρὸς τὸ εἶναι πατέρα, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔλλειψις ἡ υἱότης, ἀλλ’ οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο πατήρ. ἢ οὕτω γε καὶ τῷ πατρὶ λείψει τι πρὸς τὸ εἶναι υἱόν· οὐ γὰρ υἱὸς ὁ πατήρ. ἀλλ’ οὐκ 2 διαφυγὼν d || 3 ισχυροτεροσ] υφηλοτερος ’tres Colb.' || 6 παραπληκτισομεν bedf 9, 13 υιον] υιω b || 14 ἐλλιπὴς cd2f2 || 15 om διάφορον sec. loco e || 17 om τι b || ουδε] οὐ c || 18 λειψει] λείπει c || 19 υἱὸν] υἱὼ b 1. ἀγενν. κ. γενν. μέσον] Theterm ἐκπορεύεσθαι denotes a relationship to the Unbegotten Father which is at least not more distant than that of Generation, and therefore implies the essential Deity of Him who so proceeds. 5. φυσιολογήσω] ‘ will tell you the natural history of.’ 6. παραπληκriσωμεν] ‘ and let us both go mad for prying into the secrets of God' ; a well-known superstition. 7. καἰ ταῦτα τίνες] ‘ and who are we that we should pry into them ?' 8. ψάμμον θαλασσῶν κτλ.] Ecclus. i 2. 10. θεοῦ βάθεσιν] ι Cor. ii 10. ib. λόγον πἐχειν] ‘ to submit’ ’present an account.’ 9. ‘Where does He come short of being a Son ? yon ask. . It is no defect, any more than it is a defect in the Son not to ἠ’ Father, or in the Father not to be Son. The names ’denote unalterable relationships within a single nature. 14. ἐκφάνσεως] The difference of designation corresponds to B real difference in the mode of Their coming forth into existence, and of Their mutual relation. Ἔκφανσις does not mean Their manifestation to us, but Their eternal issuing forth from the First Source. 19. ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐλλ. τ. ποθεν] ’but this language does not indicate a in any direction, nor the inferiority of essence.' The ταῦτα not refer only to what has immediately preceded, viz. that the Father is not Son ; this would not suggest any thought of ὕφεσις. It refers also to the ’s not being Father, nor the Spirit Son. ἐλλείψεως ταῦτά ποθεν, οὐδὲ τῆς κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν ὑφέσεως · αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ μὴ γεγεννῆσθαι, καὶ τὸ γεγεννῆσθαι, καὶ τὸ ἐκπορεύεσθαι, τὸν μὲν πατέρα, τὸν δὲ υἱόν, τὸ δὲ τοῦθ’ ὅπερ λέγεται πνεῦμα ἅγιον προσηγόρευσεν, ἵνα τὸ ἀσύγχυτον σώζηται τῶν τριῶν ὑποστάσεων ἐν τῇ μιᾷ φύσει τε καὶ ἀξίᾳ τῆς θεότητος. οὔτε γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς πατήρ, εἷς γὰρ πατήρ, ἀλλ’ ὅπερ ὁ πατήρ· οὔτε τὸ πνεῦμα υἱὸς ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, εἷς γὰρ ὁ μονογενής, ἀλλ’ ὅπερ ὁ υἱός· ἓν τὰ τρία τῇ θεότητι, καὶ τὸ ἓν τρία ταῖς ἰδιότησιν· ἵνα μήτε τὸ ἓν Σαβέλλιον ᾖ, μήτε τὰ τρία τῆς πονηρᾶς νῦν διαιρέσεως.

Τί οὖν ; θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα ; πάνυ γε. τί οὖν, ὁμοούσιον ; εἴπερ θεός. δὸς οὖν μοί, φησιν, ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ 2 τὸ γεγεννησθαι] το γεγενῆσθαι a: om καὶ τὸ γεγεννῆσθαι f || 3 εκπεπορευσθαι αἰ ’Reg. Cypr.' || 6 αξια] εξουσια e || 7 ὑίος] ο ὑίος a || 8 o ὑίος] om ο d || om τὰ f || 9 om τῆ bed || 10 νυν] σου νυν b ’Reg. Cypr.' : om νυν c : νυνι e 4. προσηγόρευσεν] The abovementioned facts ’proclaim Them ’ respectively Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The aor. takes us back to the moment when these titles were first assigned in Scripture. 5. ποστάσεων] here used in the recognised ’personal’ sense. 7. δπερ ὁ πατήρ] He is not the Father, but He is all that the Father is. ib. δτι ἐκ τοῦ θ.] The fact that He is of the Father's essence (1 Cor. ii 12) does not make Him Son. 8. ἐν τὰ τρία τῆ θ.] The Three (Gr. again avoids the masc.) are One — an undivided unit — in their nature; the One is Three — a Trinity — in the ineffaceable distinction between the persons. The latter observation removes the Sabellian conception of the unity ; the former removes the Eunomian division of the natures. In the construction of the last clause, τῆς π. ν. διαιρέσεως is the predicate after ἦ understood, like οὐκ ἐλλείψεως above. 10 You are surprised at our calling Him God, consubstantial with the Father. He must be so if there is only God God and one Godhead. I am ashamed to use earthly illustrations; but even in natural history there are very different modes of reproduction which it might help you to consider. 12. δὸς οὖν μοι] The word διδόναι is not used here in its frequent sense of a logical concession ; for it would be no concession to the Eunomians to ’give’ what is here required. It means rather, ’shew me’ ‘convince me that it is so.’ The Eunomian offers, if convinced that two consubstantial persons issue from the same Divine Source, to acknow- ledge each of them to be a God. Gr. illustrates the illogical character of the offer by a counter-paralogism. ‘Shew me,’ he says, ‘that there is than one sort of God, and I will shew you the same Trinity that we now believe in, name and thing.’ It is as unreasonable to deduce ditheism or tritheism from the Catholic doctrine of the relation of the Son and Spirit to the Father, as it would be to deduce the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity from a belief in Godheads of varying quality. τὸ μὲν υἱόν, τὸ δὲ οὐχ υἱόν, εἶτα ὁμοούσια, καὶ δέχομαι θεὸν καὶ θεόν. δός μοι καὶ σὺ θεὸν ἄλλον, καὶ Φύσιν θεοῦ, καὶ δώσω σοι τὴν αὐτὴν τριάδα μετὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ὀνομάτων τε καὶ πραγμάτων. εἰ δὲ εἰς θεὸς μία φύσις ἡ ἀνωτάτω, πόθεν παραστήσω σοι τὴν ὁμοίωσιν; ἢ ζητεῖς πάλιν ἐκ τῶν κάτω καὶ τῶν περὶ σέ; λίαν μὲν αἰσχρόν, καὶ οὐκ αἰσχρὸν μόνον, ἁλλὰ καὶ μάταιον ἐπιεικῶς, ἐκ τῶν κάτω τῶν ἄνω τὴν εἰκασίαν λαμβάνειν, καὶ τῶν ἀκινήτων ἐκ τῆς ῥευστῆς φύσεως, καί, ὅ Φησιν Ἠσαίας, ἐκζητεῖσθαι τὰ ζῶντα ἐν τοῖς νεκροῖς· ὅμως δὲ πειράσομαι, σὴν χάριν, κἀντεῦθεν δοῦναί τινα τῷ λόγῳ βοήθειαν. τὰ μὲν οὖν ἄλλα παρήσειν μοι δοκῶ, πολλὰ ἃν ἔχων ἐκ τῆς περὶ ζώων ἱστορίας εἰπεῖν, τὰ μὲν ἡμῖν γνώριμα, τὰ δὲ τοῖς ὀλίγοις, ὅσα περὶ τὰς τῶν ζώων γενέσεις ἡ Φύσις ἐφιλοτεχνήσατο. γεννᾶσθαι γὰρ λέγεται, οὐκ ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν τὰ αὐτὰ μόνον, οὐδὲ ἐξ ἑτέρων ἕτερα, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ἑτέρων τὰ αὐτά, καὶ ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν ἕτερα. εἰ δέ τῳ πιστὸς ὁ λόγος, καὶ ἄλλος ἐστὶ τρόπος γεννήσεως, αὐτό τι ὑφ’ ἑαυτοῦ δαπανώμενον καὶ τικτόμενον. ἔστι δὲ ἃ καὶ 10. 1 δεχομαι] + καὶ c || 2 ἄλλον θέον dfg || 4 εἰς θεὸς μία φυσις] εἰς ο θεὸς καὶ μία φύσις b ’Reg. Cypr.’: εἰς θεὸς καὶ μία φύσις f ‘ plures Reg. et Colb.’: εἰς θεὸς τε καὶ μία Φυσις de || 6 η] εἰ ’δε ‘ Reg. Cypr.’ || το τα ζωντα] τον ὄντα ‘Or. 1’ 9. ῤευστῆς] ‘changeable,’ ‘transitory’ tory’; cp. ii 22 πῶς κάτω μῶ. 10. ἐκζητεῖσθαι τὰ ζ.] Is. viii 19; cp. Luke xxiv 5. 13. ἡμῖν γνώριμα] known to us all by direct observation; opp. to what only few have had the opportunity of noting. Gr.’s lore on subject is derived from Aristotle. 16. ἐξ ἑτέρων τὰ αὐτά κτλ.] instance given by Elias is that of frogs, some of which are the off- spring of frogs, and others the spontaneous product of the marsh, and yet equally frogs. His instance of the converse is more true to nature, but a less exact illustration of his subject. 19.δαπανώμενον] ‘consumed,’ cp. iv 6. The ref. of course is to the phoenix (Herod, ii 73); see Lightfoot's note on Clem, ad cor. § 25. Gr. himself evidently does not quite believe the fable. ἐξίσταταί πὼς ἑαυτῶν, ἐξ ἄλλων ζώων εἰς ἄλλα μεθιστάμενά τε καὶ μεταποιούμενα, Φιλοτιμίᾳ Φιλοτιμίᾳ ἤδη δὲ καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ, τὸ μὲν οὐ γέννημα, τὸ δὲ γέννημα, πλὴν ὁμοούσια· ὃ καὶ τῷ παρόντι πὼς μᾶλλον προσέοικεν. ἓν δέ τι τῶν ἡμετέρων εἰπών, ὃ καὶ πᾶσι γνώριμον, ἐφ’ ἕτερον μεταβήσομαι λόγον.