151

a prophet said, for the light to be seen not being perceived in light. He therefore spoke here of a vision attainable through the Spirit, but not of knowledge, and the “no one has seen God”; having taken it in this sense and having set it against the spiritual vision of Stephen in an aporetic manner, he brought forth the solution most beautifully and most piously. In addition to these things, he did not say that the essence was attainable or visible, but the glory of the Father and the grace of the Spirit.

“But I,” he says, “hearing this grace and glory to be supernatural and like God, ‘for by like,’ he says, ‘is like perceived,’ for which reason also, since it is uncreated and unoriginate, I say that this is the essence of God.” And it cannot be, O theologian opposed to the saints (for know well that you will in no way escape the notice of those who know, even if by hiding names you meddlesomely propose the holy thought of the saints as if it were of some alien mind), can it not be, then, that a supernatural, unoriginate, and uncreated energy of God exists and is like God because it reveals the whole God (p. 706) through itself to those who see supernaturally in the Spirit? “Away with it,” he says; “for there is one uncreated and unoriginate thing, the essence of God; but every energy of His is created.” O impiety! For either God does not have natural and essential energies and he who says this is an atheist (for this is plainly to say that God does not exist, for the holy fathers, according to the Divine Maximus, clearly say that any nature whatsoever neither exists nor is known without its essential energy), or, therefore, there are no essential and natural divine energies and thus God does not exist, or if indeed there are divine, natural, and essential energies, but these are created, then the essence of God which has them will also be created; for of whatever essence and nature the natural and essential energies are created, that nature and essence which has them is also both created and known as such.

Tell me then: from where did we know Christ in two energies and natures, if the natural energies of God are not uncreated? And from where do we know Him in two wills, if God did not also have a natural and divine will? What then is the will of God, is it not an energy of God’s nature? Is then the will of the Uncreated created? And is it subject to time and a beginning and did He have a will which He did not have before the ages? What then? By compulsion or by changing His mind? Thus by his novelties this wretched man insults not only the divine nature but also the sojourn in the flesh of the Savior, and wishing to be an accuser of Christians, he has cast himself out of the pious fullness of the Christians, being convicted by his own words as a Monophysite and a Monothelite and worse than any who have ever appeared. For if every energy of God, apart from the essence of God which first energizes all things, according to his words, had a beginning in time, and every energy of God is by necessity created, then Christ did not have created and uncreated energies by nature, (p. 708) but only created ones, so He was of one energy, and this not divine, as those heterodox ones used to say, for they are all under the created; and if He was of one energy, He was of necessity also of one nature, and this again not divine, according to the Monophysites of old, but created; for of whatever nature the energy is created, that nature itself is not uncreated.

Furthermore, if God does not have unoriginate energies, being beyond them, inasmuch as that which energizes thus surpasses the things energized, how is He pre-unoriginate and supra-unoriginate? For He would not be supra-divine, according to the great Dionysius, if divinity were not spoken of as the reality of the deifying gift, which always is from the always existing God according to the divine Maximus (for if one did not grant this, those who are deified will partake of the nature of God and will be gods by nature); as therefore, if the grace of deification did not exist, God would not be called supra-divine, so also He would not be called supra-unoriginate, if, as the divine Maximus says, “the unoriginate works of God are immortality and infinity and beingness and as many things as are essentially contemplated concerning God.” And how also by participation in the

151

προφήτης εἶπε, τό φῶς ὀφθῆναι μή ἐν φωτί καθορώμενον. Ὅρασιν οὖν ἐνταῦθ᾿ εἶπε χωρητήν διά Πνεύματος, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί γνῶσιν, καί τό «οὐδείς ἑώρακε Θεόν»˙ ἐπί ταύτης τῆς σημασίας ἐκλαβόμενος καί διαπορητικῶς ἀντιθείς τῇ πνευματικῇ τοῦ Στεφάνου θεωρίᾳ, τήν λύσιν ἐπήνεγκε κάλλιστά τε καί εὐσεβέστατα. Πρός δέ τούτοις οὐδέ τήν οὐσίαν εἶπε χωρητήν ἤ ὁρατήν, ἀλλά τήν δόξαν τοῦ Πατρός καί τήν χάριν τοῦ Πνεύματος.

«Ἀλλ᾿ ἐγώ», φησί, «τήν χάριν καί τήν δόξαν ταύτην ὑπερφυῆ καί ὁμοίαν ἀκούων τῷ Θεῷ, "τῷ γάρ ὁμοίῳ", φησί, "καθορᾶται τά ὅμοια", διό καί, ἄκτιστον οὖσαν καί ἄναρχον, οὐσίαν ταύτην εἶναι λέγω τοῦ Θεοῦ». Καί οὐ δύναται εἶναι, ὦ τῶν ἁγίων ἀντικείμενε θεολόγε (λήσεις γάρ εὖ ἴσθι τούς εἰδότας οὐδαμῶς, εἰ καί τά ὀνόματα κρύπτων τήν ἁγίαν τῶν ἁγίων διάνοιαν ὡς ἀλλοτριόφρονός τινος προτείνεις περιέργως), οὐ δύναται τοίνυν ἐνέργεια Θεοῦ ὑπερφυής, ἄναρχός τε καί ἄκτιστος ὑπάρχειν καί διά τό τόν Θεόν ὅλον φανεροῦν (σελ. 706) δι᾿ ἑαυτοῖς τοῖς ὑπερφυῶς ἐν Πνεύματι ὁρῶσιν ὁμοία τῷ Θεῷ; «Ἄπαγε», φησίν˙ «ἕν γάρ ἄκτιστόν τε καί ἄναρχον, ἡ οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ˙ πᾶσα δέ ἐνέργεια αὐτοῦ κτιστή». Τῆς ἀσεβείας ἤ γάρ οὐκ ἔχει φυσικάς καί οὐσιώδεις ἐνεργείας ὁ Θεός καί ἄθεός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦτο λέγων (τοῦτο γάρ ἄντικρυς, φησίν, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι ὁ Θεός, οἱ γάρ ἅγιοι πατέρες φανερῶς λέγουσι, κατά τόν Θεῖον Μάξιμον, μήτε εἶναι μήτε γινώσκεσθαι χωρίς τῆς οὐσιώδους αὐτῆς ἐνεργείας τήν οἱανδήποτε φύσιν), ἤ οὖν οὐκ εἰσίν οὐσιώδεις καί φυσικαί θεῖαι ἐρνέργεαι καί οὐδέ Θεός ἐστι λοιπόν, ἤ εἴπερ εἰσίν ἐνέργειαι θεῖαι, φυσικαί καί οὐσιώδεις, κτισταί δέ εἰσιν αὗται, κτιστήν ἔσται καί ἡ ταύτας ἔχουσα οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ˙ ἧς γάρ οὐσίας τε καί φύσεως αἱ φυσικαί καί οὐσιώδεις ἐνέργειαι κτισταί, καί αὐτή ἡ ταύτας ἔχουσα φύσις καί οὐσία κτιστή καί ἔστι καί γινώσκεται.

Εἰπέ δή μοι˙ πόθεν ἐν δυσίν ἐνεργείαις καί φύσεσιν ἔγνωμεν Χριστόν, εἰ μή αἱ τοῦ Θεοῦ φυσικαί ἐνέργειαι ἄκτιστοί εἰσι; Πόθεν δέ καί ἐν δυσί θελήσεσι γινώσκομεν αὐτόν, εἰ μή καί ὁ Θεός θέλησιν εἶχε φυσικήν καί θείαν; Τί οὖν τό τοῦ Θεοῦ θέλημα, οὐχί φύσεώς ἐστιν ἐνέργεια Θεοῦ; Ἆρ᾿ οὖν κτιστόν ἐστι τό τοῦ ἀκτίστου θέλημα; Ἆρα δέ καί ὑπό χρόνον καί ἀρχήν ἐστι καί θέλησιν ἔσχεν, ἥν οὐκ εἶχε πρό αἰώνων; Τί οὖν; Ἀναγκασθείς ἤ μεταβουλευθείς; Οὕτω ταῖς καινοφωνίαις ὁ ταλαίπωρος οὗτος, οὐ τῇ θείᾳ φύσει μόνον ἀλλά καί τῇ διά σαρκός ἐπιδημίᾳ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἐπηρεάζει καί χριστιανοκατήγορος ἐθέλων εἶναι τοῦ χριστιανῶν εὐσεβοῦς πληρώματος ἑαυτόν ἐξέβαλε, μονοφυσίτης τε καί μονοθελήτης καί τῶν πώποτε ἀναφανέντων χείρων ὑπό τῶν οἰκείων λόγων ἐξελεγχθείς. Εἰ γάρ πᾶσα ἐνέργεια Θεοῦ, χωρίς τῆς τά πάντα πρώτως ἐνεργούσης οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, κατά τούς ἐκείνου λόγους, χρονικήν ἔσχεν ἀρχήν, καί κτιστή ἐστιν ἐξ ἀνάγκης πᾶσα ἐνέργεια Θεοῦ˙ λοιπόν οὐκ εἶχεν ὁ Χριστός κτιστάς καί ἀκτίστους ἐνεργείας φυσικῶς, (σελ. 708) ἀλλά κτιστάς μόνον, μιᾶς ἄρα ἐνεργείας ἦν καί ταύτης οὐ θείας, ὡς οἱ κακόδοξοι ἐκεῖνοι ἔλεγον, ὑπό γάρ τό κτιστόν ἅπασαί εἰσιν˙ εἰ δέ μιᾶς ἦν ἐνεργείας καί μιᾶς φύσεως ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἦν, καί ταύτης αὖθις οὐ θείας, κατά τούς πάλαι ποτέ μονοφυσίτας, ἀλλά κτιστῆς˙ ἧς γάρ φύσεως ἡ ἐνέργεια κτιστή, ἄκτιστος αὐτή οὐκ ἔστι.

Πρός δέ, εἰ μή ἀνάρχους ἔχει ἐνεργείας ὁ Θεός, τούτων ὤν ἐπέκεινα, καθ᾿ ὅσον τό ἐνεργοῦν οὕτω τῶν ἐνεργουμένων ὑπερέχει, πῶς προάναρχος καί ὑπεράναρχος ἐστιν; Ὡς γάρ ὑπέρθεος οὐκ ἄν ἦν, κατά τόν μέγαν ∆ιονύσιον, εἰ μή θεότης ἐλέγετο τό χρῆμα τοῦ θεοποιοῦ δώρου, ὁ ἀεί ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ ἀεί ὄντος Θεοῦ κατά τόν θεῖον Μάξιμον (εἰ γάρ μή τοῦτο δοίη τις, τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ φύσεως μεθέξουσιν οἱ θεούμενοι καί φύσει ἔσονται θεοί)˙ ὡς οὖν, εἰ μή ἡ χάρις τῆς θεώσεως ἦν, οὐκ ἄν ὑπέρθεος ἐκαλεῖτο ὁ Θεός, οὕτως οὐδέ ὑπεράναρχος κληθεί ἄν, εἰ μή, καθάπερ ὁ θεῖος Μάξιμός φησιν, «ἄναρχα ἔργα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν ἡ ἀθανασία καί ἡ ἀπειρία καί ἡ ὀντότης καί ὅσα περί τόν Θεόν οὐσιωδῶς θεωρεῖται». Πῶς δέ καί κατά μέθεξιν τῆς