137

This then the great Dionysius, elsewhere having called it a primal ray and a divine light, but here a deifying gift and a principle of divinity, that is, of deification, in response to the one who asked how God exists beyond the divine principle, that is, beyond the principle of divinity, says, that if hearing of God (p. 620) being seen 'in a form and not through enigmas,' and in the manner of a soul to a body being entwined with the worthy as with His own members and being so united to them that He as a whole encompasses them wholly, and they in turn wholly encompass Him, and the Spirit through the Son being richly poured out upon us, but not created, and being partaken of by us and speaking through us—hearing these things, then, if you do not think that God is seen according to His superessential essence, but according to His deifying gift and energy, the grace of adoption, the uncreated deification, the enhypostatic illumination according to a form, if you understand this as the principle of divinity, the deifying gift, that which is participated in and seen supernaturally, then beyond this principle is the super-principle essence of God. For that is a relation, even if not natural, and it is unrelated, not only as being supernatural, but also as being a relation; for how will a relation in turn have a relation? But the essence of God is unrelated not in the way of a relation, but as being beyond even the supernatural relations themselves. And of that, each of the worthy partakes appropriately and fittingly for all; but the essence of God is exalted beyond all participated things.

But he who calls 'the deifying gift a disposition' 'perfecting the rational nature, beginning from the first ordering and ending in the last of rational beings,' is clearly opposing the gospel of Christ. For if deification perfects the rational nature, but does not make the godlike ones beyond it, being a disposition of the rational nature, as having proceeded from a natural power into energy, the saints being deified do not become beyond nature, nor are they born of God, nor are they Spirit, as having been born of the Spirit, nor was it only 'to those who believe in His name' that Christ upon His coming 'gave the power to become children of God'; 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 present impious and ungodly. Further, if deification is a disposition perfecting 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 disposition according to it. How then are they justly responsible? And yet even the gentile wise men say that one essence is not more of an essence than another. How then are some angels more rational than other angels, or some souls than other souls? For those imperfect in age have their imperfection not in the nature of the soul, but in that of the body. Is deification, then, the age which gives understanding? And we consider that some are more cognitive 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 for natural talent? And we know that natural talent is a gift of God, and knowledge not only a gift of God, but also a disposition perfecting the rational nature, but not a deifying gift, for it is not supernatural, whereas that is beyond nature. And all men and angels might be, some more and some less, yet nevertheless all would be gods; but the demonic tribe would always be imperfect gods and demigods. This disposition, therefore, is not deification; for whatever disposition might be perfective of the rational nature, whether knowledge, or temperament, or talent of both body and soul, whether it comes from without or from within, would make those to whom it comes precisely rational, but not also gods.

But indeed, as has been shown above, the saints clearly state that this adoption which proceeds from faith into energy and this deifying gift are enhypostatic; but this man, alone of all, the imitation of God which he calls a divine principle and deifying gift

137

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 γνῶσιν οὐ μόνον Θεοῦ δῶρο, ἀλλά καί τελειωτικήν τῆς λογικῆς φύσεως ἕξιν, οὐ δῶρον δέ θεοποιόν, οὐ γάρ ὑπερφυές, ἐκείνου ὄντος ὑπέρ φύσιν. Εἶεν δ᾿ ἄν καί πάντες, οἱ μέν μᾶλλον οἱ δ᾿ ἧττον, θεοί δ᾿ ὅμως ἁπαξάπαντες ἄνθρωποι καί ἄγγελοι˙ ἀεί δέ ἀτελεῖς θεοί καί ἡμίθεοι τό δαιμόνιον φῦλον. Οὐκ ἄρα θέωσις ἤ ἕξις αὕτη˙ ἥτις γάρ ποτ᾿ ἄν εἴη τελιωτική τῆς λογικῆς φύσεως ἕξις, εἴτε γνῶσις, εἴτε κρᾶσις, εἴτε εὐφυΐα σώματός τε καί ψυχῆς, θύραθεν ἤ οἴκοθεν προσγινομένη, λογικούς ἀκριβῶς οἷς ἄν ἐπιγένοιτο τελέσειεν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί καί θεούς.

Ἀλλά γάρ, ὅπερ ἀνωτέρω δέδεικται, τήν μέν ἐκ πίστεως εἰς ἐνέργειαν προβᾶσαν υἱοθεσίαν καί τήν θεοποιόν δωρεάν ταύτην οἱ ἅγιοι σαφῶς ἐνυπόστατόν φασιν˙ οὗτος δέ τήν θεομιμησίαν ἥν θεαρχίαν καί θεοποιόν δῶρον μόνος ἁπάντων