139

You write such things and contradict so many and such great men, O man? Is it to declare the Massalians orthodox or the orthodox Massalians and abominable? For from your words either could result. To what chorus, then, shall we assign you?

“For the arguments of the Blachernite,” he says, “are, in summary, as follows: and it happens that these are contrary to nearly the most manifest dogmas of the Church. For first, while it is firmly confessed that one and only one thing is without beginning and without end, the essence of the God who made all things, and that all things besides this are of a generated nature, and that there is no other entity between the essence of God and generated things, this man dared to place something in between.”

O, the ignorance, if he thinks this to be a dogma of the Church firmly confessed; O, the folly, if he hoped to deceive any of those who have sense by such words, (p. 654) and this, when the great Dionysius explicitly states that the illuminations engendered by God in the super-cosmic powers are also without beginning and without end, in harmony with whom Gregory the Theologian also called the glory of God visible to the angels eternal. But this new theologian, initiated I know not whence, says, “one thing alone is without beginning and without end, the essence of God; and all things besides this are of a generated nature,” that is, they are created and had a beginning and there was a time when they were not. Now, the things concerning this essence, O blessed one, are surely beside it; for they are about it. Therefore, nothing concerning it is without beginning, according to your words, but there was a time when all such things absolutely were not; for only the essence is without beginning, according to you. Therefore there was a time when God the Father was not; for this is not essence, but something beside the essence, concerning the essence. But if He is Father from eternity and unbegottenness is without beginning for Him, and according to you only the essence of God is without beginning, then this very unbegottenness is the essence of God, which is the chief point of the wicked dogmas of Eunomius. But also begottenness—either the Son does not have it without beginning and there was a time when he was not as begotten and there will be a time when he is not, as Sabellius might have said, or, if begottenness is without beginning for Him, this very thing is His essence, since only the essence is without beginning; therefore the Son is not of the same essence as the Father, but of an opposite one. And one might say the same things also concerning the Holy Spirit, and just as there you would appear to side with those who deny the divinity of the Son, so here with the Pneumatomachoi. Is this, then, a manifest and confessed dogma of the Church, from which every heresy is drawn, as from some wicked spring? It is not, then, one thing alone that is without beginning, the essence of God; for all the things defined concerning it are also without beginning, such as the hypostases, the relations, (p. 556) the distinctions and simply all the manifestations of the super-essential theogony; and this is what is confessed, but not that. And this is so confessed that after the divine epiphany in the flesh no one has yet dared to declare, not even those who have fallen into wicked heresies, what this man has just now introduced by saying that one thing alone is without beginning, the essence of God, as though all the hypostases and all the hypostatic properties of the most high Trinity are created.

And indeed I would gladly ask the one who says that one thing alone is without beginning, the essence of God, and that things besides this are of a generated nature: does he consider this omnipotent or not? I mean, does it have the cognitive, the fore-knowing, the creative, the sustaining, the providential, the deifying, and simply all such powers, or does it not have them? For if it does not have them, then this sole unbegun essence is not even God. But if it does have them, if it acquired these powers at some later time, then there was a time when it was imperfect, which is to say not even God; but if it had these powers from eternity, then not one thing alone is without beginning, the essence of God, but also each of these powers of it. But one unbegun essence, the

139

τοιαῦτα γράφεις εἶναι καί τοσούτοις τε καί τηλικούτοις ἀντιλέγεις, ἄνθρωπε; Ἆρα τούς Μασσαλιανούς ὀρθοδόξους ἤ τούς ὀρθοδόξους ἀποφῆναι Μασσαλιανούς καί μυσαρούς; Καί γάρ ἐκ τῶν σῶν λόγων ἑκάτερον ἐκβαίη ἄν. Σέ δή ποῦ χοροῦ τάξομεν ἡμεῖς;

«Οἱ μέν γάρ τοῦ Βλαχερνίτου λόγου», φησίν, «ὡς ἐν κεφαλαίῳ τοιοῦτοι˙ συμβαίνει δέ τούτους τοῖς φανερωτάτοις σχεδόν τῶν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας δογμάτων ἐναντίως ἔχειν πρῶτον μέν γάρ, ὄντος ὁμολογουμένου βεβαίως ἕν καί μόνον ἄναρχον καί ἀτελεύτητον, τήν οὐσίαν τοῦ τά πάντα πεποιηκότος Θεοῦ, τά δέ παρά ταύτην πάντα γενητῆς εἶναι φύσεως, καί μηδεμίαν ἄλλην ὀντότητα εἶναι μεταξύ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ καί τῶν γενητῶν, οὗτος ἐτόλμησε μεταξύ τι θεῖναι».

Ὤ τῆς ἀμαθίας, εἴπερ οἴεται τοῦτ᾿ εἶναι δόγμα τῆς Ἐκκλησίας βεβαίως ὁμολογούμενον˙ ὤ τῆς ἀπονοίας, εἴπερ ἤλπισέ τινα τῶν νοῦν ἐχόντων διά τῶν τοιούτων ἀπατήσειν ρημάτων, (σελ. 654) καί ταῦτα τοῦ μεγάλου ∆ιονυσίου ἀνάρχους καί ἀτελευτήτους διαρρήδην φάσκοντος καί τάς ὑπό τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐγγινομένας ταῖς ὑπερκοσμίοις δυνάμεσιν ἐλλάμψεις, ᾧ συνῳδά καί Γρηγόριος ὁ θεολόγος τήν ὁρατήν ἀγγέλοις δόξαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀΐδιον προσεῖπεν. Ἀλλ᾿ οὗτος ὁ καινός θεολόγος, οὐκ οἶδ᾿ ὅθεν μυηθείς, «ἕν», φησί, «μόνον ἄναρχον καί ἀτελεύτητον, ἡ οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ˙ τά δέ παρά ταύτην πάντα γενητῆς ἐστι φύσεως», τουτέστι κτιστά ἐστι καί ἀρχήν ἔσχε καί ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν. Τά γοῦν περί τήν οὐσίαν ταύτην, ὦ μακάριε, παρά ταύτην δήπουθεν˙ περί αὐτήν γάρ εἰσιν. Οὐκοῦν οὐδέν τῶν περί αὐτήν ἄναρχον κατά τούς σούς λόγους, ἀλλ᾿ ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν τά τοιαῦτα πάνθ᾿ ἁπαξαπλῶς˙ μόνον γάρ ἄναρχον ἡ οὐσία κατά σέ. Οὐκοῦν ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν ὁ Θεός Πατήρ˙ οὐκ οὐσία γάρ τοῦτο, ἀλλά παρά τήν οὐσίαν, περί τήν οὐσίαν ὄν. Εἰ δέ ἐξ ἀϊδίου ἐστί Πατήρ καί ἄναρχόν ἐστιν αὐτῷ τό ἀγέννητον, μόνον δέ κατά σέ ἄναρχον ἡ οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοῦτ᾿ αὐτό ἐστι τό ἀγέννητον, οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὅ τῶν Εὐνομίου κακοδόξων δογμάτων ἐστί τό κεφάλαιον. Ἀλλά καί τό γεννητόν ἤ οὐκ ἄνάρχως ἔχει ὁ Υἱός καί ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν γεννητῶς καί ἔσται ὅτε μή, ὡς καί Σαβέλλιος ἄν εἶπεν, ἤ, εἴπερ ἄναρχον αὐτῷ γεννητόν, τοῦτ᾿ αὐτό ἐστιν αὐτοῦ οὐσία, μόνης ἀνάρχου τῆς οὐσίας οὔσης˙ οὐ τῆς αὐτῆς ἄρ᾿ οὐσίας ὁ Υἱός ὑπάρχει τῷ Πατρί, ἀλλά καί τῆς ἀντικειμένης. Τούς αὐτούς δ᾿ ἄν τις φαίη λόγους καί περί τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, καί ὥσπερ ἐκεῖ τοῖς ἀθετοῦσι τήν τοῦ Υἱοῦ θεότητα, οὕτως ἐνταῦθα τοῖς πνευματομάχοις ἀναφανήσῃ συνιστάμενος. Τοῦτο τοίνυν φανερόν καί ἀνωμολογημένον δόγμα τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, παρ᾿ οὗ πᾶσα αἵρεσις ἀνεῖται, καθάπερ ἀπό πονηρᾶς τινος πηγῆς; Οὐκ ἄρα ἕν μόνον ἄναρχον, ἡ οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ˙ καί γάρ καί τά περί αὐτήν ἀφοριζόμενα πάντα ἄναρχά ἐστιν, οἷον αἱ ὑποστάσεις, αἱ σχέσεις, (σελ. 556) αἱ διακρίσεις καί ἁπλῶς αἱ τῆς ὑπερουσίου θεογονίας ἐκφάνσεις ἅπασαι˙ καί τοῦτό ἐστιν ὁμολογούμενον, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐκεῖνο. Καί τοσοῦτο τοῦθ᾿ ὁμολογούμενόν ἐστιν ὡς μετά τήν διά σαρκός θείαν ἐπιφάνειαν μηδένα πω τολμῆσαι ἀποφήνασθαι, μηδέ τῶν αἱρέσεσι περιπεσόντων πονηραῖς, ὅ διά τοῦ λέγειν οὗτος ἕν μόνον ἄναρχον, τήν οὐσίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, παρεισήγαγεν ἀρτίως, ὡς αἱ ὑποστάσεις τε πᾶσαι καί τά ὑποστατικά τῆς ἀνωτάτω Τριάδος ἅπαντα κτιστά.

Καί μήν ἐροίμην ἄν ἡδέως τόν λέγοντα ἕν εἶναι μόνον ἄναρχον, τήν οὐσίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τά δέ παρά ταύτην γενητῆς φύσεως˙ παντοδύναμον ἡγεῖται ταύτην ἤ οὔ; Οἷον τί λέγω˙ ἔχει τό γνωστικόν, τό προγνωστικόν, τό δημιουργικόν, τό συνεκτικόν, τό προνοητικόν, τό θεουργικόν καί ἁπλῶς πάντα τά τοιαῦτα, ἤ οὔκ ἔχει; Εἰ μέν γάρ οὐκ ἔχει, οὐδέ Θεός ἐστι λοιπόν ἡ μόνη αὕτη ἄναρχος οὐσία. Εἰ δέ ἔχει, εἰ μέν ὕστερόν ποτε ταύτας τάς δυνάμεις προσεκτήσατο, λοιπόν ἦν ὅτε ἀτελής ἦν, ταὐτόν δ᾿ εἶπεῖν οὐδέ Θεός˙ εἰ δ᾿ ἐξ ἀϊδίου εἶχε ταύτας τάς δυνάμεις, οὐχ ἕν μόνον ἄναρχον, ἡ οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλά καί τῶν ταύτης δυνάμεων ἑκάστη τούτων. Μία δέ ἄναρχος οὐσία, ἡ