131

to the zealous, but in another way to those who have already become gods. But also in the divine vision itself there are many differences; for to the prophets, to one in a dream, to another while awake, yet through riddles and mirrors, but to Moses He appeared “in form and not through riddles.” But when you hear of a vision of God in form and not through riddles, remember him who says, “deification, the enhypostatic illumination according to form, which does not have a beginning, but an inconceivable manifestation in the worthy, and the mystical union with God that is beyond mind and reason in the incorruptible age of beings, by which the saints, beholding the light of the unmanifest and ineffably glorious splendor, themselves also become receptive of the blessed purity with the powers above, and the invocation of the great God and Father, which is a symbol of the enhypostatic and real sonship by the gift and grace of the Holy Spirit, by which, at the visitation of grace, all the saints are named and will be sons of God.”

This, then, the great Dionysius, having elsewhere called it the archetypal ray and theurgic light, but here the deifying gift and principle of divinity, that is, of deification, responding to the one who asked how God exists beyond the Godhead, that is, beyond the principle of divinity, says, that if you hear of God (p. 620) being seen “in form and not through riddles,” and in the manner of a soul to a body, cleaving to the worthy as to its own members and being so united to them that He as a whole interpenetrates them as wholes, and they in turn wholly interpenetrate Him, and the Spirit poured out richly upon us through the Son, but not created, and partaken of by us and speaking through us, if, then, hearing these things, you do not think that God is seen according to His superessential essence, but according to His deifying gift and energy, the grace of sonship, the uncreated deification, the enhypostatic illumination according to form, if you understand this to be the principle of divinity, the deifying gift, that which is participated in and supernaturally seen, then the super-principal essence of God is beyond this principle. For that is a relation, though not a natural one, and is unrelatable, not only as being supernatural, but also as a relation; for how will a relation in turn have a relation? But the essence of God is unrelatable not as a relation, but as being beyond even the supernatural relations themselves. And of that, each of the worthy appropriately and suitably partakes in full; but the essence of God is utterly transcendent of all participated things.

But he who says “the deifying gift is a state” that is “perfective of the rational nature, beginning from the first ordering and ending in the last of rational beings,” is clearly opposed to the Gospel of Christ. For if deification perfects the rational nature, but does not make the godlike ones to be above it, being a state of the rational nature, as if proceeding from a natural power into energy, the saints who are being deified do not become supernatural, nor are they born of God, nor are they spirit, as having been born of the Spirit, nor did Christ, by His coming, give “authority to become children of God” only to “those who believe in His name”; for even before His coming it was inherent in all nations, if (p. 622) it is naturally present in the rational soul, and now in all the presently impious and ungodly. Furthermore, if deification is a perfective state of the rational nature, the Greeks were not perfectly rational, nor were the fallen angels; therefore, they do not use knowledge badly, but are deprived of the natural state according to it. How then are they justly responsible? And yet even the gentile wise men say that there is not an essence more of an essence. How then are some angels more rational than other angels, or a soul than another soul? For those who are imperfect in age have their imperfection not in the nature of the soul, but in that of the body. Is deification, then, the age that grants understanding? And we reckon that some are more knowledgeable than others not because of the nature of their soul, but because of the temperament of their body. Is deification, then, the temperament that perfects one towards natural talent? And we know that natural talent is a gift of God, but the

131

σπουδαίοις, ἑτέρως δέ θεοῖς ἤδη γεγονόσιν. Ἀλλά καί κατ᾿ αὐτήν τήν θείαν ἐποψίαν πολλαί διαφοραί˙ καί τοῖς προφήταις γάρ, τῷ μέν ὄναρ, τῷ δ᾿ ὕπαρ, δι᾿ αἰνιγμάτων μέντοι καί ἐσόπτρων, τῷ δέ Μωϋσῆς «ἐν εἴδει καί οὐ δι᾿ αἰνιγμάτων» ὤφθη. Θεοῦ δέ ὅρασιν ἀκούων ἐν εἴδει καί οὐ δι᾿ αἰνιγμάτων ἀναμνήσθητι τοῦ λέγοντος, «θέωσιν, τήν κατ᾿ εἶδος ἐνυπόστατον ἔλλαμψιν, ἥτις οὐκ ἔχει γένεσιν, ἀλλ᾿ ἀνεπινόητον ἐν τοῖς ἀξίοις φανέρωσιν, καί τήν ὑπέρ νοῦν καί λόγον ἐν τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ τῶν ὄντων αἰῶνι μυστικήν ἕνωσιν πρός τόν Θεόν, καθ᾿ ἥν τό φῶς τῆς ἀφανοῦς καί ὑπεραρρήτου δόξης οἱ ἅγιοι ἐποπτεύοντες, τῆς μακαρίας μετά τῶν ἄνω δυνάμεων καί αὐτοί δεκτικοί γίνονται καθαρότητος, καί τήν τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καί Πατρός ἐπίκλησιν, σύμβολον οὖσαν τῆς ἐνυποστάτου τε καί ἐνυπάρκτου κατά δωρεάν καί χάριν τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος υἱοθεσίας, καθ᾿ ἥν τῇ ἐπιφοιτήσει τῆς χάριτος υἱοί Θεοῦ χρηματίζουσί τε καί ἔσονται πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι».

Τοῦτο τοίνυν ὁ μέγας ∆ιονύσιος, ἀλλαχοῦ μέν ἀρχίφωτον ἀκτῖνα καί θεουργικόν καλέσας φῶς, ἐνταῦθα δέ θεοποιόν δῶρον καί ἀρχήν θεότητος, δηλαδή θεώσεως, πρός τόν ἐρωτήσαντα πῶς ὑπέρ θεαρχίαν, τουτέστιν ὑπέρ ἀρχήν θεότητος, ὑπάρχει Θεός, ἀποκρινόμενός φησιν, ὡς εἰ Θεόν (σελ. 620) ἀκούων ὁρώμενον «ἐν εἴδει καί οὐ δι᾿ αἰνιγμάτων», καί ψυχῆς πρός σῶμα τρόπον τοῖς ἀξίοις ὡς οἰκείοις μέλεσι περιφυόμενον καί κατά τοσοῦτον ἑνούμενον αὐτοῖς ὡς ὅλον μέν αὐτόν περιχωρεῖν ἐκείνοις ὅλοις, ὅλους δέ αὐτούς αὖθις ὁλικῶς ἐκείνῳ, καί Πνεῦμα δι᾿ υἱοῦ πλουσίως ἐφ᾿ ἡμᾶς χεόμενον, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ κτιζόμενον, καί ματαλαμβανόμενον ἡμῖν καί δι᾿ ἡμῶν λαλοῦν, ταῦτα τοίνυν ἀκούων, εἰ μή κατά τήν ὑπερούσιον οὐσίαν νομίσεις ὁρᾶσθαι τόν Θεόν, ἀλλά κατά τήν θεοποιόν δωρεάν τε καί ἐνέργειαν αὐτοῦ, τήν χάριν τῆς υἱοθεσίας, τήν ἀγένητον θέωσιν, τήν κατ᾿ εἶδος ἐνυπόστατον ἔλλαμψιν, εἰ τοῦτο νοήσεις θεότητος ἀρχήν, τό θεοποιόν δῶρον, τό μετεχόμενον καί ὁρώμενον ὑπερφυῶς, ὑπέρ τήν ἀρχήν ταύτην ἐστίν ἡ ὑπεράρχιος οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ. Ἐκείνη μέν γάρ σχέσις, εἰ καί μή φυσική, καί ἄσχετος, οὐχ ὡς ὑπερφυής μόνον, ἀλλά καί ὡς σχέσις˙ πῶς γάρ ἡ σχέσις σχέσιν αὖθις ἕξει; Ἡ δέ οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐχ ὡς σχέσις ἄσχετος, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς καί αὐτῶν τῶν ὑπερφυῶν σχέσεων ἐπέκεινα. Κἀκείνης μέν ἑκάστῳ τῶν ἠξιωμένων οἰκείως τε καί καταλλήλως πᾶσι μέτεστιν˙ ἡ δέ οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ καί πάντων τῶν μεθεκτῶν ὑπερεξῄρηται.

Ὁ δέ «τό θεοποιόν δῶρον ἕξιν» λέγων «τελειωτικήν τῆς λογικῆς φύσεως ἀπό τῆς πρώτης διακοσμήσεως ἀρχομένην καί τοῖς ἐσχάτοις τῶν λογικῶν περατουμένην», καί τῷ τοῦ Χριστοῦ εὐγγελίῳ δῆλός ἐστιν ἀντιταττόμενος. Εἰ γάρ ἡ θέωσις τελειοῖ τήν λογικήν φύσιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὑπέρ ταύτην ποιεῖται τούς θεοειδεῖς, ἕξις οὖσα τῆς λογικῆς φύσεως, ὡς ἐκ φυσικῆς δυνάμεως προελθούσης εἰς ἐνέργειαν, οὐχ ὑπέρ φύσιν γίνονται οἱ ἅγιοι θεούμενοι, οὐδ᾿ ἐκ Θεοῦ γεννῶνται, οὐδέ Πνεῦμά εἰσιν, ὡς ἐκ Πνεύματος γεγεννημένοι, οὐδέ μόνοις «τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τό ὄνομα αὐτοῦ τέκνα Θεοῦ γεννέσθαι» ὁ Χριστός «ἐξουσίαν ἔδωκεν» ἐπιδημήσας˙ καί πρό τῆς ἐπιδημίας γάρ αὐτοῦ πᾶσιν ἐνυπῆρχεν ἔθνεσιν, εἴτε (σελ. 622) φυσικῶς ἔνεστι τῇ λογικῇ ψυχῇ, καί νῦν τοῖς νῦν δυσσεβέσι τε καί ἀσεβέσιν ἅπασιν. Ἔτι, εἴπερ ἡ θέωσις ἕξις ἐτί τελειωτική τῆς λογικῆς φύσεως, οἱ Ἕλληνες λογικοί τελείως οὐκ ἦσαν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐδ᾿ οἱ ἐκπεσόντες ἄγγελοι˙ τοιγαροῦν οὐ κακῶς τῇ γνώσει χρῶνται, τῆς δέ κατ᾿ αὐτήν φυσικῆς ἕξεως ἐστέρηνται. Πῶς οὖν δικαίως ὑπεύθυνοι; Καί μήν οὐκ ε ἶναι μᾶλλον οὐσίας οὐσίαν καί οἱ ἔξω φασί σοφοί. Πῶς οὖν ἄγγελοι ἀγγέλων λογικοῖ μᾶλλον ἤ ψυχή ψυχῆς; Οἱ γάρ ἀτελεῖς τήν ἡλικίαν οὐκ ἐν τῇ φύσει τῆς ψυχῆς, ἀλλ᾿ ἐν τῇ τοῦ σώματος ἔχουσι τό ἀτελές. Ἆρ᾿ οὖν θέωσις ἡ τό φρονεῖν διδοῦσα ἡλικία; Καί γνωστικωτέρους δέ μᾶλλον ἄλλους ἄλλων, οὐ παρά τήν τῆς ψυχῆς φύσιν πεφυκέναι λογιζόμεθα, παρά δέ τήν τοῦ σώματος κρᾶσιν. Ἆρ᾿ οὖν θέωσις ἡ τελεστική πρός αὐφυΐαν κρᾶσις; Καί τήν εὐφυΐαν δέ δῶρον οὖσαν ἴσμεν Θεοῦ, τήν δέ