148

super-essentially the originating and creative essences of things that have come to be, but as one, rejecting all doubleness and according to a single, uniform, and super-unified simplicity bringing forth the multiform and the particular, but we know this to be all-powerful and cohesive of all things, as having all things in itself (p. 692) even before creation.” “For if the sun,” to speak according to the great Dionysius, “has pre-conceived in itself in a uniform manner the causes of the many participations, much more in the case of the cause of it and of all things must it be conceded that the paradigms of all existing things pre-exist according to one super-essential union.”

Therefore, predestination and foreknowledge and providence and such things exist and always exist and exist in the proper sense, and they are indivisibly united to God and are other than that super-essentiality, and it is beyond them; for how could it not be? What then? Since these things exist always according to some existence, and God also exists always, will there be two or many gods? Because these are indivisibly united to him, will God be composite for us? Or because we have come to be according to them, are we the creations not of God, but of others? Will you perhaps make the emperor on earth, who has been raised up for us by God, into two emperors and prove his kingdom to be composite from two kingdoms and will you say that someone else and not he himself is the master of the offices, because by his own decree and will he makes the arrangements and his decree becomes a venerable name and office for each of those in authority? For here too the command is necessarily between the one commanding and those who obey. But neither would anyone say that the emperor does not precede us in being able, and in some way also in foreknowing, even if not in all things and always. And so shall we place the decree itself with the senate, because the decree is not the kingdom, just as you there [call] the participable things created, because these are not the essence of God? From such principles and so confessed, you have shown the orthodox to be ditheists and polytheists.

THE THIRD AGAINST THE SECOND ONES (p. 694)

CATALOGUE OF THE RESULTING ABSURDITIES

FROM THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE PHILOSOPHER BARLAAM

The things, then, that strike against the truth and the God of truth through the acknowledged principles and propositions that seem good to him, which he put forward against the truth itself, are so many and of such a kind and have come to this point of false opinion. But as for the things which he thinks he concludes, though unwillingly, he nevertheless happens to testify against himself again (for it was not by his will that his writings came into our hands and announced their author as if he were wicked); what, then, again appears from his writings in our hands to be of wrong opinion, in no way disagrees with those things previously said about him. For, to speak concisely, it has such an excess of ill-will, as to show that the prophets were energized by demons, and that the saints who lived according to the gospel of God were ranked with the heretics, and to declare that the virtue of the prophets and apostles and those after them is vice and not virtue. Has there ever been anyone from of old more heterodox than one who composes such arguments? Will anyone be able to be indignant with one who contradicts the one writing such things? Will anyone have a share with the saints who loves such writings and accuses those who do not love them? For what if what he says is not manifestly these things, but is deduced from what he says? Such are the deep things of Satan, the mysteries of the evil one, which he whispers to those who offer him their ears, (p. 696) not loosening and relaxing the tone of

148

ὑπερουσίως ἀρχικάς τε καί ποιητικάς τῶν γεγονότων οὐσίας, ἀλλ᾿ ἕν πᾶσαν διπλόην ἀπαναινόμενον καί κατά μίαν ἑνοειδῆ καί ὑπερηνωμένην ἁπλότητα τά πολυειδῆ καί μερικά προάγον, ἀλλά παντοδύναμον τοῦτ᾿ ἴσμεν καί συνεκτικόν ἁπάντων, ὡς ἐν ἑαυτῷ (σελ. 692) τά πάντα ἔχον καί πρό κτίσεως.» Εἰ γάρ ὁ ἥλιος», κατά τόν μέγα ∆ιονύσιον φάναι, «τάς τῶν πολλῶν μετοχῶν αἰτίας ἐν ἑαυτῷ μονοειδῶς προείληφε, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἐπί τῆς αὐτοῦ καί πάντων αἰτίας προϋφεστάναι τά πάντων τῶν ὄντων παραδείγματα κατά μίαν ὑπερούσιον ἕνωσιν συγχωρητέον».

Ἔστι οὖν καί ἀεί ἐστι καί κυρίως ἐστί προορισμός καί πρόγνωσις καί πρόνοια καί τά τοιαῦτα, καί ἀδιαιρέτως ἥνωνται τῷ Θεῷ καί τῆς ὑπερουσιότητος ἐκείνης ἕτερά ἐστι, καί ὑπέρ αὐτά ἐστιν ἐκείνη˙ πῶς γάρ οὔ; Τί οὖν; ἐπεί ταῦτα κατά τινα ὕπαρξίν ἐστιν ἀεί, ἔστι δέ καί ὁ Θεός ἀεί, δύο ἤ πολλοί ἔσονται θεοί; ∆ιότι δ᾿ αὐτῷ ταῦτα ἥνωνται ἀδιαιρέτως, σύνθετος ἔσται ὁ Θεός ἡμῖν; Ὅτι δ᾿ αὖ κατ᾿ αὐτά γεγόναμεν, οὐ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾿ ἑτέρων ποιήματά ἐσμεν; Ἦ που σύ καί τόν ἐπί γῆς ἐκ Θεοῦ ἡμῖν ἐπηργμένον βασιλέα δύο ποιήσεις βασιλέας καί ἐκ δύο βασιλειῶν σύνθετον ἀποδείξεις τό βασίλειον αὐτῷ καί ἄλλον δή τινα καί οὐκ αὐτόν ἐρεῖς τῶν ἀξιωμάτων πρύτανιν, ὅτι ὁρισμῷ καί θελήματι οἰκείῳ τά σχήματα ποιεῖται καί ὁ ὁρισμός αὐτῷ γίνεται σεπτόν ὄνομά τε καί ἀξίωμα ἑκάστῳ τῶν ἐν τέλει; Κἀνταῦθα γάρ μεταξύ τοῦ ἐπιτάττοντος καί τῶν ὑπακουόντων ἐξ ἀνάγκης τοὐπίταγμά ἐστιν. Ἀλλ᾿ οὐδέ τό δύνασθαί τις ἄν εἴποι μή προέχειν ἡμῖν τόν βασιλέα, ἔστι δ᾿ ὅπη καί τό προειδέναι, εἰ καί μή ἐπί πᾶσι καί διά παντός. Ἆρα δέ καί τόν ὁρισμόν αὐτόν μετά τῆς συγκλήτου θήσομεν, ὅτι μή βασιλεία ἐστίν ὁ ὁρισμός, καθάπερ ἐκεῖ σύ τά μεθεκτά κτιστά, ὅτι μή ταῦτ᾿ ἐστίν ἡ οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ; Ἐκ τοιούτων ἀρχῶν καί οὕτως ὁμολογουμένων διθεΐτας καί πολυθεΐτας ἔδειξας τούς ὀρθοδόξους.

ΚΑΤΑ ΤΩΝ ∆ΕΥΤΕΡΩΝ Ο ΤΡΙΤΟΣ (Σελ. 694)

ΚΑΤΑΛΟΓΟΣ ΤΩΝ ΕΚΒΑΙΝΟΝΤΩΝ ΑΤΟΠΩΝ

ΕΚ ΤΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΟΥ ΒΑΡΛΑΑΜ ΣΥΜΠΕΡΑΣΜΑΤΩΝ

Ἅ μέν οὖν προσκρούει τῇ ἀληθείᾳ καί τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας Θεῷ διά τῶν αὐτῷ δοκούντων ἀνωμολογημένων ἀρχῶν καί προτάσεων, ἅς οὗτος κατ᾿ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας προὐβάλλετο, τοσαῦτά ἐστι καί τοιαῦτα καί εἰς τοῦθ᾿ ἥκοντα κακοδοξίας. Ἅ δ᾿ ἐξ ὧν οἴεται συμπεραίνειν, ἄκων μέν, ἑαυτοῦ δ᾿ ὅμως αὖθις τυγχάνει καταμαρτυρῶν (ἐκείνου γάρ οὐκ ἑκόντος εἶναι πρός τάς ἡμετέρας ἥκει χεῖρας τά ἐκείνου συγγράμματα καί τόν συγγραφέα σφῶν οἷα πονηρόν ὡσανεί προήγγειλεν)˙ ἅ τοίνυν αὖθις ἐκ τῶν μετά χεῖρας ἡμῖν αὐτοῦ συγγραμμάτων ἀναφαίνεται κακῶς φρονῶν, κατ᾿ οὐδέν ἀπάδει τῶν περί αὐτοῦ προειρημένων ἐκείνων. Ἔχει γάρ ὡς συνελόντα φάναι τοσαύτην κακονοίας ὑπερβολήν, ὡς τούς μέν προφήτας ὑπό δαιμόνων ἐνεργεῖσθαι δεικνύναι, τούς δέ κατά τό τοῦ Θεοῦ εὐαγγέλιον πολιτευσαμένους ἁγίους τοῖς αἱρετικοῖς συντετάχθαι, τήν δέ προφητῶν καί ἀποστόλων καί τῶν κατ᾿ αὐτούς ἀρετήν κακίαν εἶναι καί οὐκ ἀρετήν ἀποφαίνεσθαι. Ἆρά τις γέγονεν ἐξ αἰῶνος τοῦ τοιούτους συντιθέντος λόγους κακοδοξότερος; Ἆρά τις δυνήσεται νεμεσῆσαι τῷ πρός τόν τοιαῦτα συγγραφόμενον ἀντιλέγοντι; Ἆρά τινι μετά τῶν ἁγίων ἔσται μερίς τά τοιαῦτα συγγράμματα στέργοντι καί κατηγοροῦντι τῶν μή ταῦτα στεργόντων; Τί γάρ εἰ μή φανερῶς ἐστιν ἅ λέγει τούτων, ἀλλ᾿ ἐξ ὧν λέγει συνάγεται; Τοιαῦτα τά βαθέα τοῦ σατανᾶ, τά τοῦ πονηροῦ μυστήρια, ἅ τοῖς ὑπέχουσιν αὐτῷ τά ὦτα ψιθυρίζει, (σελ. 696) οὐ χαλῶν καί ὑπεκλύων τόν τόνον τῆς