135

saying that we are equal to and worse than those heretical Massalians, at other times impious and polytheists; but indeed he did not refrain from calling us impious and atheists and utterly wicked. But 'Ditheists' is, as he himself both in writing and by mouth claims and proclaims to all, the epithet more fitting to us than others, and yet by the very things he says he unwillingly exempts us from all blame; for since he says that we say that which is beyond all is one, this testifies that we say that that superessential nature is one God, and that that light is not (p. 612) an essence, but an energy of that essence, which essence we have said is both one and beyond all as energizing all things. But not even if we should say this energy is inseparable from that one essence, would that superessentiality thereby be composite; for there would be no simple essence, if this were so; for you could not see any essence at all without its natural energy. But how would the deifying light not bear the characteristics of the Lord, which you yourself, constrained by the truth of the matter, have called a symbol of divinity? And since the saints here say 'enhypostatic' and not 'self-subsistent', how could it be some other essence in itself, or how could it be another, a second God, which does not have its own existence? But if because this energy is also unoriginate, uncreated, and inconceivable, you fashion another God in your sagacious suppositions, you will also fashion for us the will of God as another God, since the venerable Maximus says, 'just as the divine nature, which is in three hypostases, is unoriginate, uncreated, inconceivable, simple and uncomposite in its totality, so too is its will'; and you would say the same also of all its natural energies.

“But the deifying,” he says, “gift is the imitation of God, being a state of the intellectual and rational nature, beginning from the first ordering and ending with the last of rational beings, since the great Dionysius also, explaining how God is beyond the Godhead, says, ‘if you would understand divinity as the matter of the deifying gift and the inimitable imitation of the super-divine and super-good.’ But, my good man, first, the saint added 'inimitable' to 'imitation'; it is therefore no more imitation than non-imitation; how then will you yourself be acceptable, adhering to only one part? Then, he said two things, both the deifying gift and the inimitable imitation, seeming to me (p. 614) to be teaching us this, that although it is impossible for a man to be deified by himself, being made like the inimitable God through imitation, yet one must imitate the inimitable; for thus one might obtain the deifying gift and be called a god by grace. Therefore, since the great one says that there are two things productive of deification, you yourself have cut out one of them, falsifying, but not explaining; and scraping away the conjunction, and writing the pronoun in its place, you thus read the saying, supposedly clarifying it for us: 'if you will understand divinity and goodness as the matter of the deifying gift, itself the inimitable imitation of the super-divine'.

And in addition to these things you also say that the grace of deification is a natural state, that is, the actualization and manifestation of a natural power, whereby you have truly, though you know it not, fallen into the deceit of the Massalians; for by all necessity he who is being deified will be God by nature, if deification is to be according to a natural power and is naturally comprehended within the limits of nature. Do not, then, call your own perversion that of those who stand securely, nor attempt to attach blame to those who are blameless in the faith, wiping off your own true disgraces onto others, or rather, shamelessly bearing false witness against them as such. But learn yourself from those who know or from those taught by them, that the grace of deification is altogether unrelated, having no capacity whatever in nature receptive of itself; since it is no longer grace,

135

αἱρετικῶν ἐκείνων Μασσαλιανῶν ἴσους τε καί χείρους λέγων, ἄλλοτε δυσσεβεῖς καί πολυθέους˙ ἀλλά γάρ οὐδ᾿ἀσεβεῖς καί ἀθέους καί παντάπασιν ἀλιτηρίως καλεῖν παρῃτήσατο. ∆ιθεΐται δέ ἐστιν, ὡς αὐτός καί διά γραμμάτων καί διά στόματος ἰσχυρίζεται καί περιαγγέλλει πᾶσιν, ἡ μᾶλλον τῶν ἄλλων ἡμῖν ἐπωνυμία προσήκουσα, καίτοι παρ᾿ αὐτῶν τῶν ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ λεγομένων πάσης ἡμᾶς ἄκων ἐξαιρεῖται μέμψεως˙ ἐπεί γάρ φησιν ἕν ἡμᾶς λέγειν τό ἐπέκεινα πάντων, καί τοῦτο τήν ὑπερούσιον ἐκείνην ἕνα Θεόν ἡμᾶς λέγειν μαρτυρεῖ, τό δέ φῶς ἐκεῖνο οὐκ (σελ. 612) οὐσίαν, ἀλλά τῆς οὐσίας ἐκείνης ἐνέργειαν, ἥν οὐσίαν μίαν τε οὖσαν εἴπομεν καί ἐπέκεινα πάντων ὡς πάντα ἐνεργοῦσαν. Ἀλλ᾿ οὐδ᾿, εἰς τήν ἐνέργειαν ταύτην τῆς μιᾶς ἐκείνης οὐσίας φαίημεν ἀχώριστον, σύνθετος ἡ ὑπερουσιότης ἐκείνη παρά τοῦτο ἔσται˙ ἦ γάρ ἄν οὐδεμία ἦν ἁπλῆ οὐσία, εἴγε τοῦτο ἦν˙ οὐσίαν γάρ φυσικῆς ἄνευ ἐνεργείας οὐδ᾿ ἠντινοῦν ἄν ἴδοις. ∆εσποτικούς δέ πῶς οὐκ ἄν φέροι χαρακτῆρας τό θεοποιόν φῶς, ὅ καί αὐτός ὑπό τῆς τῶν πραγμάτων ἀληθείας συνωσθείς θεότητος προσεῖπες σύμβολον; Ἐνυπόστατον δέ οὐ τό αὐθυπόστατον ἐνταῦθα λεγόντων τῶν ἁγίων, πῶς ἄλλη τις οὐσία καθ᾿ αὑτήν, ἤ πῶς ἕτερος δεύτερος Θεός ὁ μή ὕπαρξιν ἰδίαν ἔχων; Εἰ δέ διά τό ἄναρχον εἶναι καί ταύτην τήν ἐνέργειαν, ἄκτιστόν τε καί ἀπερινόητον, Θεόν ἄλλον ἀπαρτίζεις ἐν ταῖς συνεταῖς σου ὑπονοίαις καί τό τοῦ Θεοῦ θέλημα Θεόν ἡμῖν ἄλλον ἀπαρτίσεις, τοῦ σεπτοῦ Μαξίμου λέγοντος, «ὥσπερ ἡ θεία φύσις ἡ τρισυπόστατος, ἄναρχος, ἄκτιστος, ἀπερινόητος, ἁπλῆ καί ἀσύνθετος ὁλότητι ὑπάρχει, οὕτω καί τό ταύτης θέλημα»˙ τό αὐτό δ᾿ ἄν εἴποις καί ἐπί πασῶν τῶν φυσικῶν ἐνεργειῶν αὐτῆς.

«Ἀλλά θεοποιόν», φησί, «δῶρόν ἐστιν ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ μίμησις, ἕξις οὖσα τῆς νοερᾶς καί λογικῆς φύσεως, ἀπό τῆς πρώτης διακοσμήσεως ἀρχομένη καί τοῖς ἐσχάτοις τῶν λογικῶν περατουμένη, ἐπεί καί ὁ μέγας ∆ιονύσιος, ἑρμηνεύων πῶς ὑπέρ θεαρχίαν ὁ Θεός ἐστιν, "εἰ θεότητα", φησί, "νοήσαις τό χρῆμα τοῦ θεοποιοῦ δώρου καί τά ἀμίμητον μίμημα τοῦ ὑπερθέου καί ὑπεραγάθου". Ἀλλ᾿ ὦγαθέ, πρῶτον μέν ὁ ἅγιος τῷ μιμήματι τό ἀμίμητον προσέθηκεν˙ οὐ μᾶλλον οὖν μίμησις ἤ ἀμιμησία˙ πῶς οὖν εὐπαράδεκτος αὐτός ἔσῃ θατέρᾳ μερίδι μόνῃ προσθέμενος; Ἔπειτ᾿ ἐκεῖνος δύο εἶπε, τό τε θεοποιόν δῶρον καί τό ἀμίμητον μίμημα, ἐμοί δοκῶν (σελ. 614) τοῦθ᾿ ἡμᾶς διδάσκων, ὡς εἰ καί παρ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ θεωθῆναι ἄνθρωπον ἀδύνατον, ἀφωμοιωμένον τῷ ἀμιμήτῳ Θεῷ διά μιμήσεως, ἀλλά δεῖ μιμεῖσθαι τόν ἀμίμητον˙ οὕτω γάρ ἀν τύχοι τοῦ δώρου τοῦ θεοποιοῦ καί Θεός θέσει χρηματίσειε. ∆ύο τοίνυν τοῦ μεγάλου τά παρεκτικά φαμένου τῆς θεώσεως, αὐτός θάτερον ἐξέκοψας, παραχαράξας, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐξηγησάμενος˙ καί ἀποξέσας μέν τόν σύνδεσμον, ἀντ᾿ αὐτοῦ δέ προσγράψας τήν ἀντωνυμίαν, οὕτω τό ρητόν ἡμῖν δῆθεν διευκρινῶν ἀνέγνως, «εἰ θεότητα καί ἀγαθότητα νοήσεις τό χρῆμα τοῦ θεοποιοῦ δώρου, αὐτό τό ἀμίμητον μίμημα τοῦ ὑπερθέου».

Πρός δέ τούτοις καί φυσικήν ἕξιν λέγεις τήν χάριν τῆς θεώσεως, τουτέστι δυνάμεως φυσικῆς ἐντελέχειάν τε καί φανέρωσιν, ἀφ᾿ οὗ τῇ τῶν Μασσαλιανῶν ὄντως, ὡς οὐκ οἶσθα, περιπέπτωκας ἀπάτῃ˙ φύσει γάρ ἔσται κατά πᾶσαν ἀνάγκην Θεός θεούμενος, εἰ κατά φυσικήν δύναμιν ἡ θέωσις ἔσται καί τοῖς ὅροις τῆς φύσεως ἐμπεριλαμβάνεσθαι πέφυκε. Μή τοίνυν τήν σαυτοῦ περιτροπήν τῶν ἀσφαλῶς ἑστώτων λέγε, μηδέ μῶμον τοῖς ἀμωμήτοις τήν πίστιν ἐπιχείρει προστρίψασθαι, τά πρός ἀλήθειαν αἴσχη σά τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀποματτόμενος, μᾶλλον δ᾿ ἀναιδῶς ἐκείνων ὡς τοιούτων καταψευδόμενος. Ἀλλά καί αὐτός διδάσκου παρά τῶν εἰδότων ἤ παρά τῶν ὑπ᾿ ἐκείνων δεδιδαγμένων, ὡς ἄσχετός ἐστι παντάπασιν ἡ τῆς θεώσεως χάρις, οὐκ ἔχουσα τήν οἱανοῦν δεκτικήν ἑαυτῆς ἐν τῇ φύσει δύναμιν˙ ἐπεί οὐκέτι χάρις ἐστίν,