Is the providence which is excelled by that essence as by a cause—this also being called divinity as not being outside the fullness of the one divinity—uncreated? It is most clear that this too is uncreated; for it makes divine those capable of deification, as it is not outside the one God, and by their partaking of it they are made divine, as it is not by participation that this providence possesses its deifying power, since it is also deification-itself.

But also in the twelfth chapter, having said, "the all-seeing providence is divinity" and having divinely extolled it there also, he then says that "every good providence, which beholds and sustains the objects of its care, proceeds from the excelling and supereminent and most simple holiness and lordship and kingship and divinity, bestowing itself in a manner worthy of its goodness for the deification of those who have turned to it." This good providence, then, which proceeds from the supereminent and excelling and most simple holiness and lordship and kingship and divinity (that is, from the essence of God; for that essence is most simple, as being entirely indivisible, and because it is in itself super-named and unnamed, it is called with preeminence by all its proper energies), which is also called divinity as the overseer and beholder of all things, what else is it but an energy of God, and not essence, differing from that essence by the fact of proceeding from it, and being excelled by that essence as being its cause and super-named? How then is this providence which proceeds from that essence not uncreated, being the beholder and sustainer of the objects of its care, and bestowing itself in a manner worthy of its goodness for the deification of those who have turned to it?

But having shown that this is also something participable—which is to say a participation, as he himself calls it in many places of his treatises (for he says "bestowing itself in a manner worthy of its goodness")—he immediately added the following: Since the cause of all is super-full, according to a single excess that excels all things he is hymned as "holy of holies, according to an overflowing causality and a transcendent preeminence, as one might say, inasmuch as holy or lordly or divine or kingly beings excel non-beings, and the self-participations in turn excel their participants, by so much is the unparticipated Cause established above all things, both participants and participations," that is to say, in essence. Are then these self-participations, which are excelled by the unparticipated Cause—among which is also every good providence, as it is the sustainer and beholder of the objects of its care and the deifier of those turned to it, being called divinity—are they created things, because they are excelled by the unparticipated Cause, just as this heavenly-minded man has taught us, saying that the unparticipated Cause is established not only above the participants, that is, both others and the deified, but also above the participations, that is, both of the deifying providence itself and of similar things, according to an overflowing causality and a transcendent preeminence? And how could things that do not have their being by participation and which excel all participants be created?

That none of these uncreated and divine energies is an essence, the same revealer-of-God clearly indicated in the preceding chapter, saying: "we do not say that intellection-itself is some divine or angelic essence, but we say that intellection-itself and life-itself and divinity-itself are the very powers of God, being-itself, life-giving-itself, deification-itself." Indeed, this transcendent and surpassing preeminence of God in essence, even with respect to the uncreated energies themselves, the great and lofty Dionysius, who was no less precise than great in divine matters, hymns throughout his entire treatise On the Divine Names (p. 608), making this very thing, in addition to the distinctions of God according to the divine energies, the subject of his discussions. But also writing to the therapeut Gaius, who had asked how He who is beyond all things is also beyond the Godhead and beyond

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 ὑπερκειμένης καί ἁπλουστάτης ἁγιότητος καί κυριότητος καί βασιλείας καί θεότητος εἶναι πᾶσαν ἀγαθήν πρόνοιαν, θεωρόν καί συνοχικήν τῶν προνοουμένων, ἑαυτήν ἀγαθοπρεπῶς ἐπιδιδοῦσαν πρός ἐκθέωσιν τῶν ἐπεστραμμένων». Ἡ τοίνυν ἐκ τῆς ὑπερκειμένης καί ὑπερεχούσης καί ἁπλουστάτης ἁγιότητος καί κυριότητος καί βασιλείας καί θεότητος (δηλαδή τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ˙ ἐκείνη γάρ ἁπλουστάτη τέ ἐστιν, ὡς παντάπασιν ἀμέριστος, καί διά τό καθ᾿ ἑαυτήν ὑπερώνυμος εἶναι καί ἀνώνυμος μεθ᾿ ὑπεροχῆς ἐκ πασῶν καλεῖται τῶν οἰκείων ἐνεργειῶν), ἡ γοῦν ἐξ ἐκείνης ἀγαθή πρόνοια καί θεότης ὀνομαζομένη ὡς πάντων ἔφορος καί πάντων θεωρός, τί ἄλλο ἤ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐνέργειά ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ οὐσία, τῷ ἐξ ἐκείνης εἶναι τῆς οὐσίας ἐκείνης διαφέρουσα καί ὑπερεχομένη παρ᾿ ἐκείνης ὡς αἰτίας οὔσης καί ὑπερωνύμου; Πῶς οὖν οὐκ ἄκτιστος ἡ ἐξ ἐκείνης αὕτη πρόνοια, θεωρός οὖσα καί συνοχική τῶν προνοουμένων, καί ταῦτα ἑαυτήν ἀγαθοπρεπῶς ἐπιδιδοῦσα πρός ἐκθέωσιν τῶν ἐπεστραμμένων;

Ἀλλά γάρ δείξας καί μεθεκτήν τἀυτό δ᾿ εἰπεῖν μετοχήν, οὖσαν ταύτην, ὡς καί αὐτός πολλαχοῦ τῶν λόγων ὀνομάζει ταύτην ( «ἑαυτήν» γάρ φησιν «ἀγαθοπρεπῶς ἐπιδιδοῦσαν»), ἐφεξῆς εὐθύς ἐπήγαγεν˙ ἐπεί δέ ὑπερπλήρης ἐστίν ὁ πάντων αἴτιος, κατά μίαν τῶν πάντων ὑπερέχουσαν ὑπερβολήν ἅγιος ἁγίων «ὑμνεῖται, κατά ὑπερβλύζουσαν αἰτίαν καί ἐξῃρημένην ὑπεροχήν, ὡς ἄν τις φαίη, καθ᾿ ὅσον ὑπερέχουσι τῶν οὐκ ὄντων τά ὄντα ἅγια ἤ κύρια ἤ θεῖα ἤ βασιλικά, καί αὗ τῶν μετεχόντων αἱ αὐτομετοχαί, κατά τοσοῦτον ὑπερίδρυται πάντων καί τῶν μετεχόντων καί τῶν μετοχῶν ὁ ἀμέθεκτος αἴτιος», κατ᾿ οὐσίαν δηλονότι. Ἆρ᾿ οὖν αἱ ὑπερεχόμεναι αὐτομετοχαί αὗται παρά τοῦ ἀμεθέκτου αἰτίου, ὧν ἐστι καί πᾶσα ἀγαθή πρόνοια ὡς συνεκτική καί θεωρός οὖσα τῶν προνοουμένων καί ἐκθεωτική τῶν πρός αὐτήν ἐπεστραμμένων, θεότης ὀνομαζομένη, κτίσματά ἐστι, διότι ὑπερέχονται παρά τοῦ ἀμεθέκτου αἰτίου, καθάπερ ἡμᾶς ἐδίδαξεν ὁ οὐρανόφρων οὗτος, οὐ τῶν μετεχόντων μόνων εἰπών, δηλονότι τῶν τε ἄλλων καί τῶν τεθωμένων, ὑπεριδρῦσθαι τῶν ἀμέθεκτον αἴτιον, ἀλλά καί τῶν μετοχῶν τουτέστι καί αὐτῆς τῆς ἐκθεωτικῆς προνοίας καί τῶν παραπλησίων, κατά ὑπερβλύζουσαν αἰτίαν καί ἐξῃρημένην ὑπεροχήν; Καί πῶς ἔσται κτιστά τά μή μετοχῇ τό εἶναι ἔχοντα καί τῶν μετεχόντων πάντων ὑπερέχοντα;

Ὅτι δέ οὐδεμία τῶν ἀκτίστων καί θείων ἐνεργειῶν τούτων οὐσία ἐστίν, ὁ αὐτός θεοφάντωρ ἐν τῷ πρό τούτου κεφαλαίῳ φανερῶς ὑπέδειξεν εἰπών˙ «οὐκ οὐσίαν τινά θείαν ἤ ἀγγελικήν εἶναί φαμεν τό αὐτονοεῖναι, ἀλλ᾿ αὐτονοεῖναι καί αὐτοζωήν καί αὐτοθεότητά φαμεν καί αὐτάς τάς τοῦ Θεοῦ δυνάμεις, τήν αὐτουσίαν, αὐτοζώωσιν, αὐτοθέωσιν». Τήν γε μήν ἐξῃρημένην ταύτην καί ὑπερβάλλουσαν κατ᾿ οὐσίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑπεροχήν καί πρός αὐτάς τάς ἀκτίστους ἐνεργείας, ὁ τά πάντα πολύς καί ὑψηλός ∆ιονύσιος καί μηδέν ἧττον ἠκριβωμένος ἤ πολύς τά θεῖα, διά πάσης ὑμνεῖ τῆς Περί τῶν θείων (σελ. 608) ὀνομάτων πραγματείας, πρός τῇ κατά τάς θείας ἐνεργείας διακρίσεις τοῦ Θεοῦ καί τοῦτ᾿ αὐτό τῶν λόγων ὑπόθεσιν ποιούμενος. Ἀλλά καί τῷ θεραπευτῇ Γαΐῳ γράφων, ἐρωτήσαντι πῶς ὁ πάντων ἐπέκεινα καί ὑπέρ θεαρχίαν ἐστί καί ὑπέρ