149

But will he say that he means by substance that which uniquely and unitively holds in itself all these powers? But first, he should have called this God; for this is the name we have received from the Church for him. And when God spoke to Moses, he did not say, "I am the substance," but "I am he who is"; for he who is is not from the substance, but the substance is from him who is; for he who is has comprehended all of being in himself. Then, even if he had used the word "God" instead of "substance," he should have added "by nature," and this when the subject of the discussion was grace and the gods by grace, whom the saints also call unoriginate and uncreated by grace. He should, therefore, have said, "one God unoriginate by nature." But he, having changed "God" and omitted "by nature," brought forth his argument in such a way as to deceive his hearers, not saying that that alone is unoriginate, which unitively contains and (p. 670) precedes all things; for if he had said this, how would he have been eager to show that the natural powers in it are created?

That he considers the powers of God to be created, hear him saying this clearly. For having brought forth the great Dionysius, who says, "the providential powers given forth from the unparticipated God are participated self-being and self-life and self-divinity, by which beings, participating in a manner proper to themselves, both live and are divine and exist and are so called, for which reason also the good is primarily said to be their hypostates," reasoning from these things in succession, he says, "Therefore, the self-divinity here and the others, which the great one clearly named powers, are not eternal, but the good is also their hypostates"; and again, "Someone said that there is a certain thearchy and divinity, from which the principle of all things is excepted, but he in no way said it is eternal; for the cause of all things is also its hypostates"; and again, "The unparticipated glory of God is eternal, but not other than the substance, whereas the participated is other than the substance of God, but not eternal; for the cause of all things is also its hypostates." That it is therefore false that the eternal glory of God is the unparticipated substance of God, he showed who said the angels are beholders of eternal glory, which I also said above, by which it is also jointly demonstrated that the eternal glory of God is participated; for what is visible of God is in some way also participated. But also the great Dionysius says, "the divine minds move circularly, being united to the unoriginate and unending illuminations of the beautiful and the good." How then are these unoriginate and unending illuminations not other than the unparticipated substance of God, having a difference with respect to it, even if they are inseparable from it? For first, that is one, but these illuminations are many, being imparted appropriately according to the participants and multiplied by their differing receptive (p. 672) power; for thus also "distributions of the Holy Spirit," according to Paul. Then, that is supersubstantial substance, but I think no one will deny that these illuminations are energies or an energy of it, nor that they are participated, while it is unparticipated.

And indeed every union is through contact, sensible in the case of sensible things, and intelligible in the case of intelligible things; since there is a union of those illuminations, there is also contact, clearly intelligible, or rather spiritual. But the substance of God is in itself untouchable. Further, what else is the union with the illuminations but vision? Therefore those illuminations are visible to those who have been deemed worthy; but the substance of God is altogether invisible; and indeed the unoriginate and unending illuminations are an unoriginate and unending light. There is therefore an eternal light other than the substance of God, not being itself a substance, far from it, but an energy of that supersubstantiality. Since this light is unoriginate and unending, it is neither sensible nor properly intelligible, but spiritual and divine, eminently excepted from all created things; but that which is neither

149

Ἀλλ᾿ ἐρεῖ διά τῆς οὐσίας ἐκεῖνο λέγειν, τό μοναχῶς καί ἑνιαίως ἔχον ἐν ἑαυτῷ πάσας τάς δυνάμεις ταύτας; Ἀλλά πρῶτον μέν Θεόν ἔδει τοῦτο ὀνομάσαι˙ ταύτην γάρ τήν φωνήν ὑπό τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἐπ᾿ ἐκείνου παρελάβομεν. Καί τῷ Μωϋσῇ δέ χρηματίζων ὁ Θεός, οὐκ εἶπεν «ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ οὐσία», ἀλλ᾿ «ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν»˙ οὐ γάρ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας ὁ ὤν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ τοῦ ὄντος ἡ οὐσία˙ αὐτός γάρ ὁ ὤν ὅλον ἐν ἑαυτῷ συνείληφε τό εἶναι. Ἔπειτα, εἰ καί ἀντί τῆς "οὐσίας" τῇ "Θεός" ἐχρήσατο φωνῇ, ἔδει προσχρήσασθαι τῷ "φύσει", καί ταῦτα περί τῆς χάριτος καί τῶν χάριτι θεῶν, οὕς καί χάριτι ἀνάρχους καί ἀκτίστους οἱ ἅγιοί φασι, τῆς ὑποθέσεως τῶν λόγων οὔσης. Ἔδει τοίνυν λέγειν, «εἷς ὁ φύσει ἄναρχος Θεός». Οὗτος δέ καί τό Θεός ἀμείψας καί τό φύσει καταλιπών, ὡς ἐνῆν κλέψαι τούς ἀκούοντας προήνεγκε τόν λόγον, οὐκ ἐκεῖνο λέγων μόνον ἄναρχον, τό ἑνιαίως τά πάντα συνέχον καί (σελ. 670) προέχον˙ εἰ γάρ τοῦτο ἔλεγε, πῶς ἀν τάς ἐν αὐτῷ δυνάμεις φυσικάς δεικνύειν ἐσπούδαζε κτιστάς;

Ὅτι δ᾿ οὗτος τάς δυνάμεις κτιστάς ἡγεῖται τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἄκουσον φανερῶς αὐτοῦ τοῦτο λέγοντος. Προενεγκών γάρ τόν μέγαν ∆ιονύσιον φάσκοντα «μεθεκτῶς αὐτοεῖναι καί αὐτοζωήν καί αὐτοθεότητα τάς ἐκδιδομένας ἐκ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀμεθέκτου προνοητικάς δυνάμεις, ὧν τά ὄντα οἰκείως ἑαυτοῖς μετέχοντα καί ζῶντα καί ἔνθεα καί ἔστι καί λέγεται, διό καί πρώτως αὐτῶν ὁ ἀγαθός ὑποστάτης λέγεται εἶναι», συλλογιζόμενος ἐκ τούτων ἐφεξῆς οὗτος, «οὐκοῦν», φησίν, «ἡ ἐνταῦθα αὐτοθεότης καί τἄλλα, ἅ σαφῶς δυνάμεις ὁ μέγας ὠνόμασεν, οὐκ ἀεί εἰσιν, ἀλλά καί τούτων ὑποστάτης ἐστίν ὁ ἀγαθός»˙ καί πάλιν, «ἔφη μέν τις θεαρχίαν εἶναί τινα καί θεότητα, ἧς ἐξῃρῆσθαι τήν πάντων ἀρχήν, ἀεί δέ οὐδαμῶς εἶπεν αὐτήν˙ εἶναι γάρ καί ταύτης ὑποστάτιν τήν πάντων αἰτίαν»˙ καί πάλιν, «ἡ μέν ἀμέθεκτος δόξα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀΐδιον μέν, οὐ μήν ἕτερον τῆς οὐσίας, ἡ δέ μεθεκτή ἕτερον μέν τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐ μήν ἀΐδιον˙ καί ταύτης γάρ ὑποστάτις ἐστίν ἡ πάντων αἰτία». Ὅτι μέν οὖν ψεῦδός ἐστιν ὡς ἡ ἀΐδιος δόξα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν ἡ ἀμέθεκτος, ἔδειξεν ὁ θεωρούς δόξης ἀϊδίου τούς ἀγγέλους εἰρηκώς, ὅ καί ἀνωτέρω εἶπον, δι᾿ οὗ καί ὡς ἡ ἀΐδιος τοῦ Θεοῦ δόξα μεθεκτή συναποδείκνυται˙ τό γάρ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁρατόν ὁπωσδήποτε καί μεθεκτόν. Ἀλλά καί ὁ μέγας ∆ιονύσιος, «κυκλικῶς», φησίν, «οἱ θεῖοι κινοῦνται νόες, ἑνούμενοι ταῖς ἀνάρχοις καί ἀτελευτήτοις ἐλλάμψεσι τοῦ καλοῦ καί ἀγαθοῦ». Πῶς οὖν αἱ ἄναρχοι καί ἀτελεύτητοι ἐλλάμψεις αὗται οὐχ ἕτεραί εἰσι τῆς ἀμεθέκτου οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, διαφοράν πρός ταύτην ἔχουσαι, εἰ καί ἀχώριστοι αὐτῆς εἰσι; Πρῶτον μέν γάρ ἐκείνη ἕν, αἱ δέ ἐλλάμψεις αὗται πλείους, ἀναλόγως καί τοῖς μετέχουσιν οἰκείως ἐνιέμενοι καί τῇ διαφόρῳ τούτων δεκτικῇ (σελ. 672) δυνάμει πληθυνόμεναι˙ καί γάρ οὕτω καί «Πνεύματος ἁγίου μερισμοί», κατά τόν Παῦλον. Ἔπειτ᾿ ἐκείνη μέν ὑπερούσιος οὐσία, ταύτης δ᾿ εἶναι τάς ἐλλαμψεις ταύτας ἐνεργείας ἤ ἐνέργειαν οὐδένα οἶμαι ἀντερεῖν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐδ᾿ ὅτι μεθεκταί εἰσιν, ἐκείνης οὔσης ἀμεθέκτου.

Καί μήν πᾶσα ἕνωσις δι᾿ ἐπαφῆς αἰσθητῆς μέν ἐπί τῶν αἰσθητῶν, νοερᾶς δ᾿ ἐπί τῶν νοερῶν˙ ἐπεί δ᾿ ἕνωσίς ἐστι τῶν ἐλλάμψεων ἐκείνων, καί ἐπαφή ἄρα, δηλονότι νοερά, μᾶλλον δέ πνευματική. Ἡ δέ οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀνέπαφος καθ᾿ ἑαυτήν. Ἔτι ἡ πρός τάς ἐλλάμψεις ἕνωσις, τί γε ἄλλο ἤ ὁρασίς ἐστιν; Ὁραταί ἄρ᾿ εἰσίν ἐκεῖναι αἱ ἐλλάμψεις τοῖς ἠξιωμένοις˙ ἡ δέ οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀόρατός ἐστι παντάπασι˙ καί μέν δή αἱ ἄναρχοι καί ἀτελεύτητοι ἐλλάμψεις φῶς εἰσιν ἄναρχον καί ἀτελεύτητον. Ἔστιν ἄρα φῶς ἀΐδιον ἄλλο παρά τήν οὐσίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐχί οὐσία καί αὐτό ὑπάρχον, ἄπαγε, ἀλλ᾿ ἐνέργεια τῆς ὑπερουσιότητος ἐκείνης. Ἐπεί δ᾿ ἄναρχόν ἐστι καί ἀτελεύτητον τουτί τό φῶς, οὔτε αἰσθητόν ἐστιν οὔτε νοητόν κυρίως, ἀλλά πνευματικόν καί θεϊκόν, τῶν κτιστῶν πάντων ὑπεροχικῶς ἐξῃρημένον˙ τό δέ μήτε