56

remains uncertain, if indeed the energy has been testified by you to be one of the things that follow the first substance. 1.1.424 For this is co-extended with the work accomplished by it, as you say, and is shown through the result, not the energy itself according to its nature, what it is, but its quantity alone is contemplated in the work. For just as not the entire power of the coppersmith, being set in motion, fashioned the drill, but the craft worked through the one working with his hands just as much as was commensurate for the fashioning of the implement, being able to fashion many and various things, so the measure of the energy in itself 1.1.425 is shown by that which came to be from it. But the thing being sought is not the quantity of the energy, but the very substance of the one who acted. And by the same reasoning, even if he should say that he has comprehended the nature of the Only-begotten through the Spirit (which he names the work of the energy that follows the Son), the argument has no consistency, since again here also the energy is co-extended with the result, but it does not show the nature of itself and of the one who acts through what was fashioned. 1.1.426 But that we might grant this also, let it be granted that substances are known by their energies. Therefore the first substance is known through its own work, and likewise the work that came from the second shows it. Tell us, then, O most wise one, what shows the third, since no such work of the third substance is observed. For if substances are comprehended by their energies, as you say, you will confess that the nature of the Spirit is incomprehensible, since you do not have such an immediate energy of this one, and cannot, by adducing it, reason about the nature of the Spirit through that energy. 1.1.427 Either, then, show some substantial work of the Spirit, through which you claim to have comprehended the substance of the Spirit, or your whole spider's web will be torn away by the touch of reason. For if substance is known from its immediate energy according to your argument, and there is no substantial energy of the Spirit, just as you say the Son is of the Father, and the Spirit of the Son, the nature of the Spirit is certainly acknowledged through these things to be unknown and incomprehensible, with no energy, understood according to hypostasis, 1.1.428 revealing it. But if this has escaped comprehension, how is the substance that is above it comprehended through that which has not been comprehended? For if the work of the Son is unknown, which is, as they say, the Spirit, he also would certainly not be known, being overshadowed by the uncertainty of that which provides the proof; and if the substance of the Only-begotten escapes notice in this way, how will 20the highest and most sovereign20 be revealed through that which escapes notice, since the uncertainty of the Spirit is transmitted backwards through the Son to the Father? so that from these things it is clearly demonstrated, even through the testimony of the enemies, 1.1.429 that the substance of the Father is in every way incomprehensible. From where then does this sharp-sighted one, who sees non-existent things, both himself see the nature of things unseen and incomprehensible through one another, and also command us, saying that substances are comprehended from their works and works from them? 1.1.430 But let us also examine the next argument. He says that he also resolves the ambiguity concerning energies from substances. How could one lead him from his vain suppositions to human reasonings? Does he think it is possible for the ambiguities concerning energies to be resolved through the comprehension of substances? How 1.1.431 does he bring what is doubtful to certainty through things that have not been comprehended? For if the substance were comprehended, what need is there to busy oneself with the energy, as if we were going to be led through it to the comprehension of what is being sought? But if for this reason the examination of the energy is necessary, so that through it we might be guided to the understanding of the substance that energizes it, how will the nature not yet known to us be able to resolve the ambiguity concerning the energies? For of every doubtful matter, 1.1.432 the proofs are made through things that are agreed upon. But when

56

ἀδήλῳ μένει, εἴπερ ἡ ἐνέργεια τῶν παρεπομένων τις εἶναι τῇ πρώτῃ οὐσίᾳ καὶ παρὰ σοῦ μεμαρτύρηται. 1.1.424 αὕτη γὰρ τῷ ἔργῳ τῷ παρ' αὐτῆς ἀποτελεσθέντι συμ παρεκτείνεται, καθὼς σὺ λέγεις, καὶ δείκνυται διὰ τοῦ ἀποτελέσματος, οὐ δὲ αὐτὴ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν ἡ ἐνέργεια ἥτις ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ <τὸ> ποσὸν αὐτῆς μόνον ἐνθεωρεῖται τῷ ἔργῳ. ὡς γὰρ οὐ πᾶσα ἡ τοῦ χαλκεύοντος δύναμις συγκινηθεῖσα τὸ τρύπανον ἐξειργάσατο, ἀλλ' ὅσον σύμμετρον ἦν πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σκεύους ἀπεργασίαν, τοσοῦτον ἡ τέχνη διὰ τοῦ χειρουρ γοῦντος ἐνήργησε, πολλὰ καὶ παντοδαπὰ κατεργάσασθαι δυνατῶς ἔχουσα, οὕτω τὸ μέτρον τῆς ἐνεργείας ἐν ἑαυτῷ 1.1.425 δείκνυσιν ὁ παρ' ἐκείνης γενόμενος. τὸ δὲ ζητούμενον οὐχὶ τὸ ποσόν ἐστι τῆς ἐνεργείας, ἀλλ' αὐτὴ τοῦ ἐνεργήσαντος ἡ οὐσία. κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ λόγον καὶ εἰ διὰ τοῦ πνεύ ματος (ὅπερ ἔργον ὀνομάζει τῆς τῷ υἱῷ παρεπομένης ἐν εργείας) κατειληφέναι λέγοι τοῦ μονογενοῦς τὴν φύσιν, οὐ δεμίαν σύστασιν ὁ λόγος ἔχει, πάλιν καὶ ἐνταῦθα τῆς ἐν εργείας μὲν τῷ ἀποτελέσματι συμπαρεκτεινομένης, τὴν δὲ φύσιν ἑαυτῆς τε καὶ τοῦ ἐνεργοῦντος διὰ τοῦ κατεργασθέντος οὐ δεικνυούσης. 1.1.426 Ἵνα δὲ καὶ τοῦτο συγχωρήσωμεν, δεδόσθω ταῖς ἐν εργείαις τὰς οὐσίας γινώσκεσθαι. οὐκοῦν ἡ πρώτη οὐσία διὰ τοῦ ἐξ αὐτῆς ἔργου γνωρίζεται καὶ τὴν δευτέραν ὡσαύτως τὸ ἔργον τὸ παρ' αὐτῆς γενόμενον δείκνυσι. τὴν τρίτην τοίνυν εἰπέ, ὦ σοφώτατε, τί τὸ δεικνύον ἐστί, μηδενὸς ἔργου τοιούτου τῆς τρίτης οὐσίας θεωρουμένου. εἰ γὰρ ταῖς ἐν εργείαις, ὡς σὺ φῄς, αἱ οὐσίαι καταλαμβάνονται, ἀκατάλη πτον εἶναι τὴν τοῦ πνεύματος φύσιν ὁμολογήσεις, οὐκ ἔχων κατὰ τὸ προσεχὲς τοιαύτην ἐνέργειαν καὶ τούτου παραστη σάμενος δι' ἐκείνης τὴν τοῦ πνεύματος φύσιν ἀναλογίσασθαι. 1.1.427 ἢ τοίνυν δεῖξόν τι οὐσιῶδες ἔργον τοῦ πνεύματος, δι' οὗ κατειληφέναι φῂς τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ πνεύματος, ἢ ὅλος ὑμῖν ὁ ἱστὸς τῆς ἀράχνης τῇ ἐπαφῇ τοῦ λόγου περιρρυήσεται. εἰ γὰρ ἐκ τῆς προσεχοῦς ἐνεργείας ἡ οὐσία γνωρίζεται κατὰ τὸν ὑμέτερον λόγον, ἐνέργεια δὲ οὐσιώδης τοῦ πνεύ ματος οὐδεμία, καθάπερ τοῦ πατρὸς μὲν τὸν υἱόν, τοῦ δὲ υἱοῦ τὸ πνεῦμά φατε, ἀνεπίγνωστος πάντως ἡ τοῦ πνεύ ματος φύσις καὶ ἀκατάληπτος διὰ τούτων συνωμολόγηται, μηδεμιᾶς αὐτὴν ἐνεργείας τῆς καθ' ὑπόστασιν νοουμένης 1.1.428 παραδηλούσης. εἰ δὲ τοῦτο διαπέφευγε τὴν κατάληψιν, πῶς διὰ τοῦ μὴ κατειλημμένου ἡ ὑπερκειμένη οὐσία κατα λαμβάνεται; εἰ γὰρ ἀγνοεῖται τοῦ υἱοῦ τὸ ἔργον, ὅπερ ἐστίν, ὥς φασι, τὸ πνεῦμα, οὐδ' ἂν ἐκεῖνος ἐπιγνωσθείη πάντως, τῇ ἀδηλίᾳ τοῦ τεκμηριοῦντος συσκιαζόμενος· καὶ εἰ τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἡ οὐσία τῷ τρόπῳ τούτῳ διαλανθάνει, πῶς διὰ τῆς λανθανούσης 20ἡ ἀνωτάτω καὶ κυριωτάτη20 φανερωθήσεται, τῆς τοῦ πνεύματος ἀδηλίας κατὰ ἀνάλυσιν διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα διαδοθείσης; ὡς ἐκ τούτων σαφῶς ἀποδείκνυσθαι καὶ διὰ τῆς τῶν ἐχθρῶν μαρτυρίας 1.1.429 τὸ ἀκατάληπτον εἶναι πάντη τοῦ πατρὸς τὴν οὐσίαν. πόθεν οὖν ὁ ὀξυδερκὴς οὗτος ὁ τὰ ἀνύπαρκτα βλέπων τὴν τῶν ἀφανῶν τε καὶ ἀκαταλήπτων φύσιν δι' ἀλλήλων αὐτός τε βλέπει καὶ ἡμῖν ἐγκελεύεται, ἐκ τῶν ἔργων τὰς οὐσίας καὶ ἐξ ἐκείνων τὰ ἔργα λέγων καταλαμβάνεσθαι; 1.1.430 Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν ἐφεξῆς λόγον ἐπισκοπήσωμεν. καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐνεργείαις φησὶν ἀμφιβολίαν διαλύειν ἐκ τῶν οὐσιῶν. πῶς ἄν τις αὐτὸν ἐκ τῶν ματαίων ὑπολήψεων ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀνθρωπίνους λογισμοὺς μεταγάγοι; τὰς ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐν εργείαις ἀμφιβολίας οἴεται δυνατὸν εἶναι διὰ τῆς καταλή ψεως τῶν οὐσιῶν διαλύεσθαι; πῶς διὰ τῶν μὴ κατειλημ 1.1.431 μένων τὸ ἀμφιβαλλόμενον εἰς πίστιν ἄγει; εἰ μὲν γὰρ κατεί ληπτο ἡ οὐσία, τίς χρεία πολυπραγμονεῖσθαι τὴν ἐνέργειαν, ὡς δι' ἐκείνης μελλόντων ἡμῶν τῇ καταλήψει τοῦ ζητου μένου προσάγεσθαι; εἰ δὲ διὰ τοῦτο ἀναγκαία ἡ τῆς ἐν εργείας ἐξέτασις, ὡς ἂν διὰ ταύτης πρὸς τὴν σύνεσιν τῆς ἐνεργούσης αὐτὴν οὐσίας ὁδηγηθείημεν, πῶς ἡμῖν ἡ μήπω γνωσθεῖσα φύσις τὴν ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐνεργείαις ἀμφιβολίαν δια λῦσαι δυνήσεται; παντὸς γὰρ πράγματος ἀμφιβαλλομένου 1.1.432 διὰ τῶν ὁμολογουμένων αἱ ἀποδείξεις γίνονται. ὅταν δὲ