116 That is, by using as the terms of his antithesis, not "Son" and "Father," but "Son" and "Ungenerate," he avoids suggesting relationship between the two Persons, and does suggest that the Second Person stands in the same opposition to the First Person in which all created objects stand as contrasted with Him.
118 tomh genesqaiti toutwn epishj omologeitai. This may possibly mean "it is acknowledged that each of those alternatives" (viz. that that which comes into being is uncreate, and that that which creates should itself be created) "is equally untrue." But this view would not be confined to those who held the Catholic doctrine: the impossibility of the former alternative, indeed, was insisted upon by the Arians as an argument in their own favour.
121 Ps. cxiv. 4, in Septuagint.
124 Rom. i. 25, where para ton ktisanta may be better translated "besides the Creator," or "rather than the Creator," than as in the A.V.
126 Prov. viii. 22 (LXX.). The versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus (to one or more of which perhaps §9 refers), all render the Hebrew by ekthsato ("possessed"), not by ektise ("created"). But Gregory may be referring to mss. of the LXX. version which read ekthsato. It is clear from what follows that Mr. Gwatkin is hardly justified in his remark (Studies of Arianism, p. 69), that "the whole discussion on Prov. viii. 22 (LXX.), Kurioj ektise me k.t.l., might have been avoided by a glance at the original." The point of the controversy might have been changed, but that would have been all. Gregory seems to feel that ekthsato requires an explanation, though he has one ready.
134 Prov. viii. 23-25 (not quite verbal, from the LXX.).
135 Or "to be brought into harmony with Christian doctrine" (efarmosqhnai tw logw)
151 Cf. S. Matt. ix. 12, and parallel passages.
152 Cf. Is. xl. 12 and Is. xl. 24. The quotation is not verbally from the LXX.
157 Reading authj, with Oehler. The general sense is the same, if autw be read; "does yet more strongly attest His existence from all eternity."
165 If this phrase is a direct quotation from Eunomius, it is probably from some other context: its grammatical structure does not connect it with what has gone before, nor is it quite clear where the quotation ends, or whether the illustration of the instrument is Eunomius' own, or is Gregory's exposition of the statement of Eunomius.
170 Here again the exact connexion of the quotation from Eunomius with the extracts preceding is uncertain.
176 This is apparently a quotation from Eunomius in continuation of what has gone before.
177 The word employed is energeia; which might be translated by "active force," or "operation," as elsewhere.
180 Cf. the use of eggastrimuqoj in LXX. (e.g. Lev. xix. 31, Is. xliv. 25.
190 Eph. iv. 6. The application of the words to the Son is remarkable.