That the Divine Energy Is Called ‘Godhead’ by the Saints

¹ After this it was inquired whether the divine and uncreated energy is addressed as “Godhead” by the saints. For neither did the present contradictors accept this. And this too appeared to be proclaimed by the theologians. For straightway the great Basil, in the books Against Eunomius: “And the very name of Godhead,” he says, “whether it signifies the overseeing or the providential authority, fittingly belonged to the human.” And again the same, in the letter to Eustathius the physician: “Therefore,” he says, “the identity of energy in the case of Father and Son and Holy Spirit shows the unchangeableness of the nature. So that, whatever the name of Godhead may signify, the commonness of the essence concurs in applying this appellation also to the Holy Spirit. But I know not how those who fabricate everything carry the appellation of Godhead over to the indication of nature.” And after some words: “Therefore the appellation conveys the indication of some authority, whether of oversight or of operation. But the divine nature, in all the names conceived of it, remains, as to what it is, unsignified, as our discourse holds. For having learned of a benefactor and a judge, the good and the just, and whatever else of the kind, we were taught differences of energies; but the nature of the one energizing we are no more able to recognize through the comprehension of the energies. For when one renders the account of each of the names, and of the very nature about which the names are, he will not render the same account of both. And of those whose account is different, the nature also is diverse. Therefore essence is one thing—whose declaring account has not yet been found—and the signification of the names about it is another, named from some energy or dignity.”

² named. And again the same great Basil, in the same letter: “Whether Godhead is a name of energy, then—so that, as there is one energy of Father and Son and Holy Spirit, so we say there is also one Godhead; or whether, according to the opinions of the many, the name of Godhead is indicative of nature, since we find no variation in the nature, we not unreasonably define the Holy Trinity to be of one Godhead.” And Saint Anastasius says: “The appellation ‘God’ is plainly active in meaning; for it does not present the very essence of God—for it is impossible to know this—but presents and shows to us his contemplative energy.” And again the same: “The name ‘God’ does not signify the essence of the Godhead—for this is incomprehensible and nameless—but he is called ‘God’ from his contemplative energy, as Saint Dionysius says, either from theein, that is, to run through, or from aithein, which is to set ablaze.” And the same great Dionysius: “If we name the supersubstantial hiddenness ‘God’ or ‘life’ or ‘essence’ or ‘light’ or ‘word,’ we conceive nothing other than the powers brought forth from it to us, deifying or essence-making or life-giving or wisdom-giving. And we apply ourselves to it by the laying-aside of all the noetic energies, seeing no deification or life or essence which is exactly like the Cause that is exalted above all things in every transcendence.” And again the same says: “Godhead is the providence that contemplates all things.” And that providence is an energy is known both from other sources, and especially from what the great Athanasius writes, saying: “Not according to one providence and another do the Father and the Son work, but according to one and the same essential energy of the Godhead.” But also the great Dionysius again, in the second letter to Gaius, says that Godhead is the thing of the deifying gift, and the inimitable imitation of the supra-divine and supra-good, according to which we are deified and made good.