151

the divine Maximus, "beholding the light of the invisible and ineffable glory, they themselves also become receptive of the blessed purity with the powers above."

And if we examine the reason for which this innovator constructed the deifying gift of the Spirit, or rather all the powers of God, to be created—apart from that evil source of heresies which we refuted above—we shall find no other reason than that the great Dionysius said that God hypostasized these things, and this signifies only existence, but not the mode of existence; therefore it could be said of things that exist by creation as well as of things that exist uncreatedly (p. 678) from God. For the great Basil used this word both for the Son, saying, "For did not He who begot the clods of dew hypostasize both the clods and the Son in the same way?," and for the Holy Spirit, for he says, "Spirit of the mouth of God, so that you might not judge it to be something external and of creatures, but glorify it as having its hypostasis from God;" and again, "this it has as a sign of its hypostatic property, to be known through the Son and to subsist from the Father." And in many places Gregory the Theologian also calls the pre-eternal generation of the Son 'hypostasis'. You, therefore, because of such terms, might soon prove to us that the Son or even the Holy Spirit is a creature, you who declare the divine powers to be created for no other reason than that the cause of all is also their hypostatizer. And you have not even understood this, that there the great Dionysius showed these powers not to exist by way of transcendence; for having said, "the providential powers given forth from the unparticipated God," he added, "by participating in which existing things are also called existing things," clearly showing that those powers are beyond existing things. And indeed Maximus, wise in divine things, while saying that the participants have a beginning, says that the participated things do not have a beginning.

So then, do you think that the deifying or ousiopoietic or wisdom-bestowing powers which proceed from the super-essential hiddenness belong to the participants or to the participated? But if they belong to the participants, it will be necessary to seek other, similar powers, in which they will participate. Do you see how the powers by necessity belong to the participated, but not to the participants? Furthermore, if the deifying power needs another deifying power—for in that case it would be a participant and not something participated—then that one will need another, and this one in turn (p. 680) another, and this to infinity. The deifying power, therefore, is participated, but not participant. Moreover, since there are those that participate in God, they will participate either in His essence or in His power or in His energy. But they will not participate in the power and energy; for these too are participants and created according to your wisdom; therefore they will participate in the essence of God, which is absurd. Furthermore, if these powers belong not to the participated but to the participants, in what else will they participate than in the super-essential essence of God? For not in other, similar powers again. Two absurdities, therefore, will result: that the essence of God is participated, and that the powers have become essence, and not simply essence, but the essence of God; for power proceeds to energy and from the energy comes the result; but essence is this very thing that is participated, and it makes the participants to be of the same essence by participation. Do you see how great the absurdity is, and how he who says that the powers belong to the participants and are created, just like this man, is truly a polytheist, showing not that the essence of God is one, but many and diverse?

We, therefore, who worship one omnipotent God, know that the powers of God belong to the participated, in agreement with the saints, and that they all never had a beginning, not as acting but as existing, even if not in themselves; for the great Dionysius said they are participated, as pre-existing in God, but the participated never had a beginning, according to the

151

πολύν τά θεῖα Μάξιμον «τῆς ἀφανοῦς καί ὑπεραρρήτου δόξης τό φῶς ἐποπτεύοντες, τῆς μακαρίας μετά τῶν ἄνω δυνάμεων καί αὐτοί δεκτικοί γίνονται καθαρότητος».

Εἰ δέ καί τήν αἰτίαν, ἐξετάσομεν, δι᾿ ἥν ὁ καινοφανής οὗτος τήν θεοποιόν δωρεάν τοῦ Πνεύματος, μᾶλλον δέ πάσας τάς δυνάμεις τοῦ Θεοῦ, κτιστάς εἶναι κατεσκεύασε, μετά τήν πονηράν ἐκείνην τῶν αἱρέσεων πηγήν, ἥν ἀνωτέρω ἀπηλέγξαμεν, οὐδεμίαν εὑρήσομεν ἑτέραν ἤ ὅτι τόν Θεόν ὑποστῆσαι ταύτας ὁ μέγας ἔφη ∆ιονύσιος, τοῦτο δέ ὕπαρξιν δηλοῖ μόνον, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί καί τόν τρόπον τῆς ὑπάρξεως˙ τοιγαροῦν καί ἐπί τῶν κτιστῶς ὄντων καί ἐπί τῶν ἀκτίστως ὄντων (σελ. 678) ἐκ Θεοῦ ρηθείη ἄν. Ὁ γάρ μέγας Βασίλειος ἐπί τε τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐχρήσατο τῇ λέξει ταύτῃ εἰπών, «ὁ γάρ τετοκώς βώλους δρόσου οὐχ ὁμοίως τάς τε βώλους καί τόν Υἱόν ὑπεστήσατο;», κἀπί τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, «Πνεῦμα» γάρ, φησί, «στόματος Θεοῦ, ἵνα μή τῶν ἔξωθέν τι καί τῶν κτισμάτων αὐτό κρίνῃς, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἐκ Θεοῦ τήν ὑπόστασιν ἔχον δοξάζῃς»˙ καί πάλιν, «τοῦτο τῆς κατά τήν ὑπόστασιν ἰδιότητος σημεῖον ἔχει, τό διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ γνωρίζεσθαι καί ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ὑφεστάναι». Πολλαχοῦ δέ καί Γρηγόριος ὁ θεολόγος ὑπόστασιν ὀνομάζει τήν τοῦ Υἱοῦ προαιώνιον γέννησιν. Σύ τοίνυν τάχ᾿ ἄν ἡμῖν διά τά τοιαῦτα προσρήματα καί τόν Υἱόν ἤ καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἀποδείξῃς κτίσμα, ὁ δι᾿ οὐδέν ἕτερον τάς θείας δυνάμεις κτιστάς εἶναι ἀποφαινόμενος ἤ ὅτι καί τούτων ὑποστάτις ἐστίν ἡ πάντων αἰτία. Καί οὐδέ τοῦτο συνεώρακας ὡς ἐκεῖ ταύτας τάς δυνάμεις καθ᾿ ὑπεροχήν μή οὔσας ἔδειξεν ὁ μέγας ∆ιονύσιος˙ εἰπών γάρ, «τάς ἐκδιδομένας ἐκ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀμεθέκτου προνοητικάς δυνάμεις», ἐπήγαγεν, «ὧν τά ὄντα μετέχοντα καί ὄντα λέγεται», πάντως ὡς τῶν δυνάμεων ἐκείνων οὐσῶν ὑπέρ τά ὄντα. Καί μήν ὁ σοφός τά θεῖα Μάξιμος ἠργμένα λέγων τά μετέχοντα, οὐκ ἠργμένα φησί τά μεθεκτά.

Τάς γοῦν ἐκ τῆς ὑπερουσίου κρυφιότητος προϊούσας δυνάμεις ἐκθεωτικάς ἤ οὐσιοποιούς ἤ σοφοδώρους τῶν μετεχόντων εἶναι νομίζεις ἤ τῶν μεθεκτῶν; Ἀλλ᾿ εἰ τῶν μετεχόντων, δεήσει δυνάμεις ὁμοίας ζητεῖν ἑτέρας, ὧν μεθέξουσιν. Ὁρᾷς ὡς αἱ δυνάμεις ἐξ ἀνάγκης τῶν μεθεκτῶν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τῶν μετεχόντων εἰσί; Πρός δέ, εἴπερ ἡ ἐκθεωτική δύναμις ἑτέρας ἐκθεωτικῆς δεῖται, καί γάρ οὕτω μετέχον, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ μεθεκτόν ἄν εἴη, κἀκείνῃ δεήσει ἄλλης καί ταύτῃ πάλιν (σελ. 680) ἑτέρας καί τοῦτο ἐπ᾿ ἄπειρον. Ἡ ἐκθεωτική ἄρα δύναμις μεθεκτόν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ μετέχον ἐστίν. Ἔτι, ἐπειδήπερ εἰσί τά μετέχοντα Θεοῦ, ἤ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ μεθέξουσιν ἤ τῆς δυνάμεως ἤ τῆς ἐνεργείας. Ἀλλά τῆς δυνάμεως καί ἐνεργείας οὐ μεθέξουσι˙ μετέχοντα γάρ καί ταῦτά εἰσι καί κτιστά κατά τήν σήν σοφίαν˙ οὐκοῦν τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ μεθέξουσιν, ὅπερ ἄτοπόν ἐστι. Προσέτι καί αὗται αἱ δυνάμεις, εἰ μή τῶν μεθεκτῶν, ἀλλά τῶν μετεχόντων εἶεν, τίνος γε ἄλλου μεθέξουσιν ἤ τῆς ὑπερουσίου οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ; Οὐ γάρ δυνάμεων ἑτέρων πάλιν ὁμοίων. ∆ύο τοίνυν τά ἄτοπα συμβήσεται˙ τό τε μεθεκτήν εἶναι τήν οὐσίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ καί τό τάς δυνάμεις οὐσίας γεγενῆσθαι καί οὐχ ἁπλῶς οὐσίας, ἀλλ᾿ οὐσίας Θεοῦ˙ ἡ μέν γάρ δύναμις πρόεισιν εἰς ἐνέργειαν καί ἐκ τῆς ἐνεργείας τό ἀποτέλεσμα γίνεται˙ ἡ δέ οὐσία τοῦτ᾿ αὐτό ἐστι μετεχομένη καί τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας κατά μετοχήν ποιεῖται τά μετέχοντα. Ὁρᾷς τήν ἀτοπίαν ὅσην, καί ὡς ὁ λέγων τῶν μετεχόντων εἶναι τάς δυνάμεις καί κτιστάς, καθάπερ οὗτος, ὄντως πολύθεός ἐστιν, οὐχί μίαν εἶναι δεικνύς τήν οὐσίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλά πολλάς καί διαφόρους;

Ἡμεῖς οὖν οἱ Θεόν ἕνα προσκυνοῦντες παντοδύναμον, τῶν μεθεκτῶν εἶναι τάς δυνάμεις ἴσμεν τοῦ Θεοῦ, συμφώνως τοῖς ἁγίοις, καί οὐδέποτε ἠργμένας πάσας, οὐχ ὡς ἐνεργεῖν ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ὑπάρχειν, εἰ καί μή καθ᾿ ἑαυτάς˙ μεθεκτάς μέν γάρ, ὡς ἐν Θεῷ προϋπαρχούσας, ὁ μέγας ἔφη ∆ιονύσιος, τά δέ μεθεκτά οὐδέποτε ἤρξατο, κατά τόν