For all such things, passing into one another through one another, proceed towards non-being. But he who affirms that only the essence is uncreated, but that its power and will and energy, which so differ from it, are created, dichotomizes the one divinity into created and uncreated things, being himself dichotomized and cut off from divine grace and completely torn away from the pious, no less than Arius and Eunomius and Macedonius, if not even more so. Therefore, it is necessary for those who choose to rightly divide the word of truth with understanding both to cherish the pre-eminence of the divine essence over the divine energies, as the difference between them is shown from this, and the uncreatedness of the divine energies, even if they differ from the essence, as the unity of the divinity is shown from this; for apart from the one God, nothing is uncreated.

It is necessary now to set forth a few voices of the saints from among many, by whom the pre-eminence of the uncreated essence over the uncreated energy is most piously demonstrated, and especially those of the great Dionysius, from whom almost first the church has been initiated into (p. 592) the very elements of theology. Undertaking to celebrate the revelatory essential name of Him who truly is, the great one says, "let us recall this much, that the purpose of our discourse is not to reveal the super-essential essence in its super-essentiality (for this is ineffable and unknowable and entirely unmanifest, and transcends union itself), but to hymn the essence-creating procession of the divine essential-principality into all beings." The union, therefore, which the revealer of God has now mentioned with wonder, is deification, according to which, as he himself says at the beginning of the treatise *On the Divine Names*, "we are united ineffably and unknowingly to the ineffable and unknowable, according to the union which is superior to our essence and energy." About this, then, it will be clear as the discourse proceeds. And here it is very clear that not only is the essence of God, which transcends all other things and the essence-creating procession, uncreated, but also this procession of God, which is transcended, being essence-creating, is uncreated; for how could that which is causative and creative, and this of all beings without exception, be created and made and one of those things which so exist?

And a little later the same one says again, "the discourse does not profess to express the self-superessential goodness and essence and life and wisdom of the self-superessential divinity, which is established beyond all goodness and divinity and essence and wisdom and life in secret places, as the oracles say, but the manifested good-making providence"; and to this providence here also he offers up most God-befitting hymns. And in the eleventh chapter he also calls this a divinity, writing: "we call divinity, in a primary and divine and causal sense, the one super-princely and super-essential principle and cause of all things; but in a participated sense, the providential power given forth from the unparticpated God, the self-deification, by participating in which things are and are called divine." (p. 604) Is, then, the inexpressible and super-princely essence of God, which transcends this providence according to what is ineffable and unparticipated and unmanifest and uncaused, alone uncreated? Or is the providence which is transcended by that essence as by a cause—this also being called divinity as not being outside the fullness of the one divinity—also uncreated? It is most manifest that this also is uncreated; for it makes divine those things capable of deification, as this is not outside the one God, and by their partaking of it they are made divine, as it is not by participation that it has the power to make divine, since it is also self-deification.

But also in the twelfth chapter, having said "divinity is the providence that beholds all things" and having divinely hymned this here also, he then says "from the transcendent and

εἰς ἄλληλα γάρ μεταχωροῦντα δι᾿ ἀλλήλων πάντα τά τοιαῦτα χωρεῖ πρός τό μή ὄν. Ὁ δέ τήν οὐσίαν ἄκτιστον εἶναι μόνην διαβεβαιούμενος, τήν δέ ταύτης οὕτω διενηνοχυῖαν δύναμιν καί θέλησιν καί ἐνέργειαν κτιστήν, εἰς κτιστά καί ἄκτιστα διχοτομεῖ τήν μίαν θεότητα, διχοτομούμενος αὐτός καί ἀποτεμνόμενος τῆς θείας χάριτος καί τελέως ἀπορρηγνύμενος τῶν εὐσεβῶν, Ἀρείου καί Εὐνομίου καί Μακεδονίου μηδέν ἧττον, ὅτι μή καί μᾶλλον. ∆εῖ τοιγαροῦν τοῖς ὀρθοτομεῖν αἱρουμένοις τόν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας μετά συνέσεως καί τήν ὑπεροχήν στέργειν τῆς θείας οὐσίας πρός τάς θείας ἐνεργείας, ὡς ἐντεῦθεν δεικνυμένης τῆς πρός ἄλληλα διαφορᾶς, καί τό ἄκτιστον τῶν θείων ἐνεργειῶν, εἰ καί τῆς οὐσίας διενηνόχασιν, ὡς ἐντεῦθεν δεικνυμένου τοῦ ἑνιαίου τῆς θεότητος˙ ἐκτός γάρ τοῦ ἑνός Θεοῦ ἄκτιστον οὐδέν.

∆εῖ δέ προθεῖναι νῦν ἐκ πολλῶν ὀλίγας τῶν ἁγίων φωνάς, παρ᾿ ὧν ἡ τῆς ἀκτίστου οὐσίας πρός τήν ἄκτιστον ἐνέργειαν ὑπεροχή λίαν εὐσεβῶς διαδείκνυται, καί μάλιστα τῶν τοῦ μεγάλου ∆ιονυσίου, παρ᾿ οὗ σχεδόν πρώτου καί (σελ. 592) αὐτά τά στοιχεῖα τῆς θεολογίας ἡ ἐκκλησία μεμύηται. Τήν δή τοῦ ὄντως ὄντος ἐκφαντορικήν οὐσιωνυμίαν ἐξυμνεῖν ὁ μέγας ἐπιβαλλόμενος, «τοσοῦτον», φησίν, «ὑπομνήσωμεν ὅτι τῷ λόγῳ σκοπός οὐ τήν ὑπερούσιον οὐσίαν ᾗ ὑπερούσιος ἐκφαίνειν (ἄρρητον γάρ τοῦτο καί ἄγνωστόν ἐστι καί παντελῶς ἀνέκφαντον καί αὐτήν ὑπεραῖρον τήν ἕνωσιν), ἀλλά τήν οὐσιοποιόν εἰς τά ὄντα πάντα τῆς θεαρχικῆς οὐσιαρχίας πρόοδον ὑμνῆσαι». Ἡ μέν οὖν ἕνωσις, ἧς μετά θαύματος ἐμνήσθη νῦν ὁ θεοφάντωρ, θέωσίς ἐστι καθ᾿ ἥν, ὡς αὐτός φησιν ἀρχόμενος τῆς Περί τῶν θείων ὀνομάτων πραγματείας, «τοῖς ἀφθέκτοις καί ἀγνώστοις ἀφθέγκτως καί ἀγνώστως συναπτόμεθα κατά τήν κρείττονα τῆς καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς οὐσίας τε καί ἐνεργείας ἕνωσιν». Περί ταύτης τοίνυν δῆλον ἔσται προϊόντος τοῦ λόγου. Ἐνταῦθα δέ κατάδηλον ὡς οὐ μόνον ἡ μετά τῶν ἄλλων πάντων καί τῆς οὐσιοποιοῦ προόδου ὑπερέχουσα οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλά καί ἡ ὑπερεχομένη πρόοδος αὕτη τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐσιοποιός οὖσα, ἄκτιστός ἐστι˙ τό γάρ ποιητικόν τε καί δημιουργικόν καί ταῦτα πάντων ἁπαξαπλῶς τῶν ὄντων, πῶς ἄν εἴη δεδημιουργημένον καί πεποιημένον καί τῶν οὕτως ὄντων ἕν;

Μετ᾿ ὀλίγα δέ πάλιν ὁ αὐτός φησιν, «οὐκ ἐκφράσαι τήν αὐτοϋπερούσιον ἀγαθότητα καί οὐσίαν καί ζωήν καί σοφίαν τῆς αὐτοϋπερουσίου θεότητος ὁ λόγος ἐπαγγέλλεται, τήν ὑπέρ πᾶσαν ἀγαθότητα καί θεότητα καί οὐσίαν καί σοφίαν καί ζωήν ἐν ἀποκρύφοις, ὡς τά λόγιά φησιν, ὑπεριδρυμένην, ἀλλά τήν ἐκπεφασμένην ἀγαθοποιόν πρόνοιαν»˙ εἰς ταύτην δέ τήν πρόνοιαν κἀνταῦθα θεοπρεπεστάτους ὕμνους ἀνατίθησιν. Ἐν δέ τῷ ἑνδεκάτῳ κεφαλαίῳ καί θεότητα ταύτην ὀνομάζει γράφων˙ «θεότητά φαμεν ἀρχικῶς μέν καί θεϊκῶς καί αἰτιατῶς τήν μίαν πάντων ὑπεράρχιον καί ὑπερούσιον ἀρχήν καί αἰτίαν˙ μεθεκτῶς δέ τήν ἐκδιδομένην ἐκ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀμεθέκτου προνοητικήν δύναμιν, τήν αὐτοθέωσιν, ἧς τά μετέχοντα ἔνθεά ἐστί τε καί λέγεται». (σελ. 604) Ἆρ᾿ οὖν ἡ ἀνέκφραστος καί ὑπεράρχιος οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἡ κατά τό ἄφραστον καί ἀμέθεκτον καί ἀνέκφαντον καί ἀναίτιον ὑπερέχουσα ταύτης τῆς προνοίας, μόνη ἄκτιστός ἐστιν; Ἤ καί ἡ ὑπερεχομένη παρά τῆς οὐσίας ἐκείνης ὡς αἰτίας πρόνοια, θεότης καί αὗτη ὀνομαζομένη ὡς οὐκ ἐκτός οὖσα τοῦ πληρώματος τῆς μιᾶς θεότητος, ἄκτιστός ἐστιν; Τῶν ἀριδηλοτάτων ὅτι καί αὕτη ἄκτιστός ἐστιν˙ ἔνθεα γάρ ποιεῖ τά δεκτικά θεώσεως, ὡς αὕτη μή ἐκτός οὖσα τοῦ ἑνός Θεοῦ, καί τῷ μετέχειν αὐτά ταύτης ἔνθεα τελεῖται, ὡς μή μετοχῇ ταύτης ἐχούσης τό τελεῖν θείας, ἐπεί καί αὐτοθέωσίς ἐστιν.

Ἀλλά καί ἐν τῷ δωδεκάτῳ κεφαλαίῳ, «θεότης ἐστίν» εἰπών «ἡ πάντα θεωμένη πρόνοια» καί ταύτην κἀνταῦθα θείως ἐξυμνήσας, εἶτά φησιν «ἐκ τῆς ὑπερεχούσης καί