145

is the essential splendor of God. But those who saw “the hidden lightning under the flesh of the essential comeliness” of Christ, what lightning do you think they saw? For surely the sensible light is not the essential comeliness of God. And how can the essential light of the highest Trinity be created? Why then, man, do you write that such things belong to the Massalians and contradict so many and so great men? Is it to declare the Massalians orthodox, or the orthodox to be Massalians and abominable? For either of these could result from your words. In what company then shall we place you?

“For the arguments of the Blachernite,” he says, “are, in summary, as follows: and it happens that these are contrary to almost the most manifest dogmas of the Church. For first, while it is firmly confessed that there is one and only thing unoriginate and unending, 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 reality between the essence of God and generated things, this man has 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 person of sense with such words, (p. 654) and this when the great Dionysius explicitly states that the illuminations which are engendered by God in the supercosmic powers are also unoriginate and unending, with which Gregory the Theologian also agrees, who called the glory of God visible to angels eternal. But this new theologian, initiated I know not whence, says, “one only thing is unoriginate and unending, 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. The things, then, that are about this essence, O blessed one, are surely besides it; for they are about it. Therefore, according to your words, nothing that is about it is unoriginate, but there was a time when all such things absolutely were not; for according to you, only the essence is unoriginate. Therefore there was a time when God the Father was not; for this is not essence, but is besides the essence, being about the essence. But if He is Father from eternity and the unbegotten is unoriginate for Him, and according to you only the essence of God is unoriginate, this unbegottenness itself is the essence of God, which is the chief point of the wicked dogmas of Eunomius. But also, either the Son does not possess begottenness unoriginately and there was a time when He was not begotten and there will be when He is not, as Sabellius might have said, or, if begottenness is unoriginate for Him, this itself is His essence, since only the essence is unoriginate; therefore the Son is not of the same essence as the Father, but even of the opposite. And one might say the same things about 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 acknowledged dogma of the Church, from which every heresy is drawn up, as from some wicked spring? Therefore, not one thing only is unoriginate, the essence of God; for also all the things defined as being about it are unoriginate, such as the hypostases, the relations, (p. 556) the distinctions and simply all the manifestations of the supra-essential divine generation; and this is what is confessed, but not that. And this is so confessed that after the divine manifestation 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 unoriginate, the essence of God, implying that all the hypostases and all the hypostatic properties of the highest Trinity are created.

And indeed I would gladly ask the one who says that one thing alone is unoriginate, the essence of God, and that things besides this are of a generated nature: does he consider this omnipotent or not? For instance

145

οὐσιώδης αἴγλη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν. Οἱ δ᾿ ἰδόντες «τήν κεκρυμμένην ἀστραπήν ὑπό τήν σάρκα τῆς οὐσιώδους εὐπρεπείας» τοῦ Χριστοῦ, τίνα σοι δοκοῦσιν ἀστραπήν ἰδεῖν; Οὐ γάρ δή τό αἰσθητόν φῶς οὐσιώδης ἐστίν εὐπρέπεια Θεοῦ. Πῶς δέ καί κτιστόν τό τῆς ἀνωτάτω Τριάδος οὐσιῶδες φῶς; Τί τοίνυν βουλόμενος Μασσαλιανῶν τά 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