57

Since the uncertainty is equal in both of the things being investigated, how does Eunomius say that the things unknown through them are comprehended through each other 1.1.433? For when the substance of the Father is in doubt, he says that what is sought is revealed through the energy accompanying him and through the work produced by this energy; but again, when the substance of the Only-begotten is being investigated as to what it is—whom he calls either an energy or some result of the energy (for he has used both terms)—he says that it is easy to resolve the dispute about the Only-begotten from the substance of the one who made him. 1.1.434 I would gladly also learn this from him. Does he say that the ambiguity concerning the energies is resolved from the substance that produced them only in the case of the divine nature, or also, in the case of every thing to which some creative power coexists, does one recognize the nature of the things that have come to be through the substance of the maker? If, then, he declares such a doctrine only in the case of the divine power, let him show how 20the dispute20 concerning the works of God he 20resolves20 through the nature of the one who 1.1.435 energized. For behold, an unquestionable work of God: heaven, earth, sea, the whole cosmos. But let the substance of one of these be investigated hypothetically, and let heaven be set forth for the consideration of the argument. Therefore, when the substance of heaven is in doubt on account of the various opinions on this subject of those who discourse on nature differently about it according to what seems right to each, how does the consideration of the one who made heaven bring to us the resolution of the ambiguity of what is sought? He is immaterial, invisible, unformed, unbegotten and ever-abiding, remaining incapable of corruption and change and alteration and all such 1.1.436 things. How then will he who has received such a conception concerning the one who energized be led to the knowledge of the nature of heaven? How from the invisible will he comprehend the visible, from the incorruptible that which is subject to corruption, from that which exists unbegottenly that which has its constitution from time, from that which is ever-abiding that which possesses a temporary existence, and from all the contraries will he make 1.1.437 the comprehension of what is sought? Let him who has carefully examined existing things say, let him say how it is possible for things that are unlike in nature to be recognized through each other. And yet, through these very things which he himself says, if he knew how to follow his own arguments, he would have been led to assent to the ecclesiastical 1.1.438 dogma. For if the nature of the maker shows what has been brought forth by it, as this man says, and according to them the Son is a 20work20 of the Father, then surely he who has understood the nature of the Father has also known that of the Only-begotten through it, if indeed the nature of the one who energized signified what was energized, so that also through this for them the of unlikeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.439 . . . the Only-begotten to be separated from the works of providence. Let the generation not be meddled with, nor let the unlikeness of the Only-begotten be forcibly refuted from that source. For the difference of choices is also sufficient to reveal the 1.1.440 otherness of nature. Because, since the first substance is acknowledged to be simple even by our opponents, it is necessary to conceive of choice as concurrent with nature; and since the choice is shown to be good through providence, the nature from which the choice comes is also shown to be good. But if the Father alone energizes good things, and the Son does not choose the same things (I speak hypothetically for the sake of our opponents), the difference in substance would be manifest, being testified to by the 1.1.441 divergence of choices. But if the Father has providence for all things, and the Son likewise has providence (for what things he sees the Father doing, these the Son also does likewise), the identity of choices altogether indicates the commonality of nature of those who choose the same things. Why then is the argument from providence dishonored, as providing no 1.1.442 assistance for what is sought? And yet many examples from life also contend alongside our argument; I speak of those from the

57

ἐπίσης ἐν ἀμφοτέροις ᾖ τοῖς ζητουμένοις τὸ ἄδηλον, πῶς τὰ δι' αὐτῶν ἀγνοούμενα δι' ἀλλήλων καταλαμβάνεσθαί 1.1.433 φησιν ὁ Εὐνόμιος; ἀμφιβαλλομένης γὰρ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας, διὰ τῆς παρεπομένης αὐτῷ ἐνεργείας καὶ τοῦ παρὰ ταύτης ἀποτελεσθέντος ἔργου φανεροῦσθαι τὸ ζητούμενον λέγει· πάλιν δὲ τῆς τοῦ μονογενοῦς οὐσίας ζητουμένης ἥτις ἐστίν, ὃν εἴτε ἐνέργειαν εἴτε τι τῆς ἐνεργείας ἀποτέλεσμα λέγει (κέχρηται γὰρ ἑκατέρῳ τῶν λόγων), ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πε ποιηκότος φησὶν οὐσίας εὔκολον εἶναι διαλύειν τὴν περὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἀμφισβήτησιν. 1.1.434 Ἡδέως δ' ἂν καὶ τοῦτο παρ' αὐτοῦ μάθοιμι. ἐπὶ μόνης τῆς θείας φύσεως τὴν ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐνεργείαις ἀμφιβολίαν ἐκ τῆς ἐργασαμένης οὐσίας διαλύεσθαι λέγει, ἢ καὶ ἐπὶ παντὸς πράγματος, ᾧ τις δύναμις ποιητικὴ συνυπάρχει, διὰ τῆς τοῦ ποιοῦντος οὐσίας καὶ τὴν τῶν γεγονότων φύσιν ἐπι γινώσκει; εἰ μὲν οὖν ἐπὶ μόνης τῆς θείας δυνάμεως τὸ τοιοῦτον ἀποφαίνεται δόγμα, δειξάτω πῶς 20τὴν ἀμφισβή τησιν20 τῶν τοῦ θεοῦ ἔργων 20διαλύει20 διὰ τῆς τοῦ ἐνεργή 1.1.435 σαντος φύσεως. ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἀναμφίβολον ἔργον θεοῦ οὐρανὸς γῆ θάλασσα, ὅλος ὁ κόσμος. ζητείσθω δὲ καθ' ὑπόθεσιν τούτων ἑνὸς ἡ οὐσία, καὶ ἔστω οὐρανὸς τῇ θεωρίᾳ τοῦ λόγου προκείμενος. ἀμφιβαλλομένης τοίνυν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τῆς οὐσίας διὰ τὰς ποικίλας ἐπὶ τούτῳ δόξας τῶν διαφόρως κατὰ τὸ φανὲν ἑκάστῳ περὶ αὐτοῦ φυσιολογούντων, πῶς ἡμῖν ἐπάγει τὴν διάλυσιν τῆς τοῦ ζητουμένου ἀμφιβολίας ἡ τοῦ πεποιηκότος τὸν οὐρανὸν θεωρία; ἐκεῖνος ἄϋλος ἀόρατος ἀσχημάτιστος ἀγέννητός τε καὶ εἰσαεὶ διαμένων, φθορᾶς καὶ τροπῆς καὶ ἀλλοιώσεως καὶ τῶν τοιούτων πάν 1.1.436 των ἀνεπίδεκτος μένων. πῶς οὖν ὁ τοιαύτην περὶ τοῦ ἐνεργήσαντος λαβὼν τὴν διάνοιαν πρὸς τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ φύσεως ἐναχθήσεται; πῶς ἐκ τοῦ ἀοράτου τὸ ὁρατόν, ἐκ τοῦ ἀφθάρτου τὸ φθορᾷ ὑποκείμενον, ἐκ τοῦ ἀγεννήτως ὄντος τὸ ἀπὸ χρόνου τὴν σύστασιν ἔχον, ἐκ τοῦ εἰσαεὶ διαμένοντος τὸ πρόσκαιρον κεκτημένον τὴν ὕπαρξιν, καὶ ἐκ πάντων τῶν ἐναντίων τὴν περὶ τοῦ ζητουμένου ποιή 1.1.437 σεται κατανόησιν; εἰπάτω ὁ περιεσκεμμένος δι' ἀκριβείας τὰ ὄντα, εἰπάτω πῶς ἐστι δυνατὸν τὰ ἀνομοίως κατὰ τὴν φύσιν ἔχοντα δι' ἀλλήλων ἐπιγινώσκεσθαι. καίτοι γε δι' αὐτῶν τούτων ὧν αὐτός φησιν, εἴπερ τοῖς ἰδίοις κατα κολουθεῖν ἠπίστατο λόγοις, ὡδηγήθη ἂν πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ἐκ 1.1.438 κλησιαστικοῦ δόγματος συγκατάθεσιν. εἰ γὰρ ἡ τοῦ ποιή σαντος φύσις τὸ παρ' αὐτῆς γεγενημένον δείκνυσι, καθὼς οὗτός φησι, 20ποίημα20 δὲ κατ' αὐτοὺς ὁ υἱός ἐστι τοῦ πατρός, πάντως ὁ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς φύσιν κατανοήσας καὶ τὴν τοῦ μονογενοῦς δι' ἐκείνης ἐγνώρισεν, εἴπερ ἡ τοῦ ἐν εργήσαντος φύσις τὸ ἐνεργηθὲν ἀπεσήμηνεν, ὡς καὶ διὰ τούτου τὸν τῆς ἀνομοιότητος αὐτοῖς . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.439 . . . μονογενῆ τῶν τῆς προνοίας ἔργων ἀποσχοινίζεσθαι. μηδὲν πολυπραγμονείσθω ἡ γέννησις μηδὲ βεβιασμένως ἐκεῖθεν ἡ ἀνομοιότης τοῦ μονογενοῦς διελεγχέσθω. αὐτάρ κης γὰρ καὶ ἡ τῶν προαιρέσεων διαφορὰ τὴν τῆς φύσεως 1.1.440 ἑτερότητα φανερῶσαι. διότι ἁπλῆς εἶναι συνομολογηθείσης καὶ παρὰ τῶν ἐναντίων τῆς πρώτης οὐσίας, ἐπάναγκές ἐστι τῇ φύσει σύνδρομον ἐννοεῖν τὴν προαίρεσιν, τῆς δὲ προαιρέ σεως ἀγαθῆς διὰ τῆς προνοίας ἀποδειχθείσης, ἀγαθὴ συν απεδείχθη καὶ ἡ φύσις, ἀφ' ἧς ἡ προαίρεσις. μόνου δὲ τοῦ πατρὸς τὰ ἀγαθὰ ἐνεργοῦντος, τοῦ δὲ υἱοῦ μὴ τὰ αὐτὰ προαιρουμένου (λέγω δὲ καθ' ὑπόθεσιν τῶν ἐναντίων ἕνεκεν), πρόδηλος ἂν ἦν ἡ κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν διαφορὰ τῷ 1.1.441 παρηλλαγμένῳ τῶν προαιρέσεων μαρτυρουμένη. εἰ δὲ προ νοεῖ μὲν ὁ πατὴρ τῶν ἁπάντων, προνοεῖ δὲ ὡσαύτως καὶ ὁ υἱός (ἃ γὰρ βλέπει τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ), ἡ τῶν προαιρέσεων ταὐτότης τὸ κοινὸν τῆς φύσεως τῶν τὰ αὐτὰ προαιρουμένων πάντως ἐνδείκνυται. διὰ τί οὖν ἀτιμάζεται ὁ τῆς προνοίας λόγος, ὡς οὐδεμίαν 1.1.442 παρέχων πρὸς τὸ ζητούμενον τὴν συνεργίαν; καίτοι πολλὰ καὶ τῶν κατὰ τὸν βίον ὑποδειγμάτων τῷ ἡμετέρῳ λόγῳ συναγωνίζεται· λέγω δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν