36

of the said gifts. How then, forgetting themselves, do they think that those who say the divine light is not sensible are worthy of being accused? Do you see their uncertainty and how easily they are entangled? For they are, it seems, skilled in speaking ill, but not in perceiving anything good. But when the accurate interpreters of the ancient and common manifestation of light said this, if an irrational animal had happened to be present then on the mountain, would it have perceived that radiance that outshone the sun? I for one do not think so; for it is not written that the flocks perceived the glory of the Lord that shone around the shepherds at the birth of Christ. How then is a light sensible which is not seen by the eyes of irrational animals that see sensible things, when it shines upon them present with open eyes? And if it was seen by human sensible eyes, then they saw it in that by which they differed from the sight of irrational animals. What then is this? What else but the mind seeing through human sight? If not by the faculty of sense, for perhaps then even the irrational animals would have seen, but by the intellectual faculty apprehending through the sense (p. 208), or rather, not even by this, for then every eye would have seen it, especially those nearby, shining brighter than the sun. If, therefore, they did not see that light properly even by this faculty, then this light is not properly sensible. And yet nothing sensible is eternal; but the light of the Godhead, which is also often called the glory of God, is pre-eternal and unending. Therefore, it is not sensible.

But if it is not sensible, even if the apostles were deemed worthy to receive it with their eyes, it was by some other power, and not by the faculty of sense; wherefore all the theologians also say that the brightness of Jesus’ face is ineffable and unapproachable and timeless, as being something ineffable, but not properly sensible, just like the light, which is also the place of the saints after their departure from here according to the allotments in heaven, where the light is, of which this brightness was a prelude and has been given to the saints here as a pledge. For even if all these things are called by the name of light and seem at times paradoxically to fall under sense, yet they are higher than the mind and their names fall short of their own reality, how then are they properly sensible? And, when we make sacred prayers for the departed, do we not cry out earnestly to the divine goodness, "assign their souls... in a place of light"? What need, then, do souls have of sensible light? And what distress would come to them from its opposite, but equally sensible, darkness? Do you see how none of such things are properly sensible? But that this knowledge is not simply ignorance, we have shown before, when we also reminded you of the dark fire prepared for the demonic tribe. It was necessary, therefore, concerning the ineffable manifestation of light of Jesus on Tabor, not to declare it with timid reasonings, that is, human ones, and with precarious notions, but to obey the patristic voices and to await the accurate knowledge through experience in purity (p. 210) of heart. For this, effecting the union with that light, mystically teaches the blessed that this light is none of the things that exist, as it surpasses all existing things. How then is that which is beyond all existing things sensible? And what among sensible things is not a creature? And how can a creature be the brightness of God? Therefore, it is not properly sensible.

Macarius the Great says, "When the soul, with fear and love and shame, like the prodigal son, returns to its own master and Father and God, He receives it, not reckoning its transgressions, and gives it a garment of glory, of the light of Christ." What other glory and light of Christ is there than that which Peter, being awake, saw, "being with him on the holy mountain"? How then could this become a garment of the soul, if it were sensible? Elsewhere the same theologian says "this light is heavenly." What then among sensible things is heavenly? And elsewhere again, "the lump of human nature, which the Lord assumed, sat down," he says, "at the right hand of the majesty in the heavens, full of glory, no longer only in the

36

λεγόντων χαρισμάτων. Πῶς οὖν, ἑαυτῶν ἐπιλαθόμενοι, τούς μή αἰσθητόν τό φῶς τό θεῖον λέγοντας κατηγορεῖσθαι οἴονται ἀξίους; Ὁρᾷς τό ἀβέβαιον καί εὐπερίστατον αὐτῶν; ∆εινοί γάρ εἰσιν ὡς ἔοικε κακῶς λέγειν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί καλόν τι συνορᾶν. Οὐ μήν ἀλλά τοῦτ᾿ εἰπόντων οἱ τῆς παλαιᾶς καί κοινῆς φωτοφανείας ἀκριβεῖς ἐξηγηταί, εἰ ζῶον ἄλογον ἐτύγχανε τότε παρόν ἐπί τοῦ ὄρους, ἆρ᾿ ἄν ἤσθετο τοῦ τόν ἥλιον ὑπερλάμψαντος ἐκείνου φέγγους; Οὐκ ἔγωγε οἶμαι˙ καί γάρ οὐδέ τῆς περιλαμψάσης δόξης Κυρίου τούς ποιμένας ἐπί τῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ γεννήσει αἰσθέσθαι γέγραπται τά ποίμνια. Πῶς τοίνυν αἰσθητόν φῶς ὅ τοῖς τά αἰσθητά ὁρῶσι τῶν ἀλόγων ζώων οὐχ ὁρᾶται ὄμμασι, παροῦσι καί ἀνεῳγμένους ἐπιλάμπον; Εἰ δέ τοῖς ἀνθρωπίνοις αἰσθητοῖς ὄμμασιν ὡράθη, κατά τοῦτ᾿ ἄρ᾿ ἑωράκασιν αὐτό, καθ᾿ ὅ τῶν ἀλόγων ὄψεων διενηνόχασι. Τί δή τοῦτό ἐστι; Τί γε ἄλλο ἤ τό δι᾿ ἀνθρωπίνων ὄψεων τον νοῦν ὁρᾶν; Εἰ δέ μή τῇ αἰσθητικῇ δυνάμει, τάχα γάρ ἄν καί τά ἄλογα ἑώρων, ἀλλά τῇ διά τῆς αἰσθήσεως (σελ. 208) ἀντιλαμβανομένῃ νοητικῇ δυνάμει, μᾶλλον δέ οὐδέ ταύτῃ, πᾶς γάρ ἄν εἶδεν ὀφθαλμός, μάλιστα οἱ πλησιόχωροι, λάμψαν ὑπέρ ἥλιον. Εἰ τοίνυν μηδέ ταύτῃ κυρίως τό φῶς ἐκεῖνο εἶδον, οὐκ ἄρ᾿ οὐδέ τό φῶς τοῦτο κυρίως αἰσθητόν. Καί μήν οὐδέν αἰσθητόν ἀΐδιον˙ τό δέ τῆς θεότητος φῶς, ὅ καί δόξα τοῦ Θεοῦ καλεῖται πολλαχοῦ, προαιώνιόν τε καί ἀτελεύτητόν ἐστιν. Οὐκ ἄρα αἰσθητόν.

Εἰ δέ μή αἰσθητόν, εἰ καί ὀφθαλμός λαβεῖν αὐτό οἱ ἀπόστολοι κατηξιώθησαν, ἀλλ᾿ ἑτέρᾳ τινί δυνάμει, καί οὐχί τῇ αἰσθητικῇ˙ διό καί τήν λαμπρότητα τοῦ προσώπου Ἰησοῦ ἄρρητον καί ἀπρόσιτον καί ἄχρονον οἱ θεολόγοι πάντες λέγουσιν, ὡς ἀπόρρητόν τι οὖσαν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ αἰσθητήν κυρίως, ὥσπερ καί τό φῶς, ὁ καί τῶν ἁγίων ἐστί τόπος μετά τήν ἐνθένδε ἐκδημίαν κατά τάς ἐν οὐρανῷ λήξεις, ὅπου τό φῶς, οὗ καί προοίμιον αὕτη ἡ λαμπρότης ἦν καί ἐν ἀρραβῶνος μέρει τοῖς ἁγίοις δέδοται ἐνταῦθα. Εἰ γάρ καί φωτωνυμικῶς καλεῖται ταῦτα πάντα καί δοκεῖ αἰσθήσει ὑποπίπτειν παραδόξως ἔστιν ὅτε, ἀλλά καί νοῦ ὑψηλότερά ἐστι καί τῆς καθ᾿ ἑαυτά ἀληθείας ἀποδεούσας ἔχει τάς ἐπωνυμίας, πῶς οὖν αἰσθητά κυρίως; Καί μή, ὑπέρ τῶν κεκοιμημένων εὐχάς ἱεράς ποιούμενοι, «κατάταξον αὐτῶν τάς ψυχάς» πρός τήν θεαρχικήν ἐκτενῶς βοῶμεν ἀγαθότητα «ἐν τόπῳ φωτεινῷ». Τίς οὖν χρεία ταῖς ψυχαῖς τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ φωτός; Τίς δ᾿ ἆρ᾿ ἀνία ταύταις κἀκ τοῦ ἐναντίου μέν, αἰσθητοῦ δ᾿ ὁμοίως σκότους; Ὁρᾷς ὡς οὐδέν τῶν τοιούτων κυρίως αἰσθητόν; Ὅτι δ᾿ οὐδέ ἁπλῶς ἄγνοια ἡ γνῶσις ταῦτα, πρότερον ἐδείξαμεν, ἡνίκα καί περί τοῦ ἡτοιμασμένου σκοτεινοῦ πυρός τῷ δαιμονίῳ φύλῳ ὑπεμνήσαμεν. Ἐχρῆν οὖν καί περί τῆς ἐν Θαβώρ ἀπορρήτου Ἰησοῦ φωτοφανείας, μή λογισμοῖς δειλοῖς, ἀνθρωπίνοις δηλονότι, καί ἐπισφαλέσιν ἐπινοίαις ἀποφαίνεσθαι, ἀλλά πειθαρχεῖν ταῖς πατερικαῖς φωναῖς καί τήν ἐν καθαρότητι (σελ. 210) καρδίας ἀκριβῆ διά τῆς πείρας ἀναμένειν εἴδησιν. Αὕτη γάρ τήν πρός τό φῶς ἐκεῖνον ἕνωσιν ἱερουργοῦσα, μυστικῶς ἐκδιδάσκει τούς εὐμοιρηκότας ὅτι τό φῶς τοῦτο τῶν ὄντων ἐστίν οὐδέν, ὡς τά ὄντα πάντα ὑπερέχον. Πῶς οὖν τό ὑπέρ τά ὄντα πάντα αἰσθητόν; Τί δέ τῶν αἰσθητῶν οὐ κτίσμα; Πῶς δέ τό κτίσμα ἡ λαμπρότης τοῦ Θεοῦ; Οὐκ ἄρα αἰσθητή κυρίως.

Ὁ μέγας Μακάριος, «ὅταν ἡ ψυχή», φησί, «φόβῳ καί ἀγάπῃ καί αἰσχύνῃ, ὡς καί ὁ ἄσωτος υἱός, ἐπιστρέψῃ πρός τόν ἴδιον δεσπότην καί Πατέρα καί Θεόν, προσδέχεται αὐτήν, μή λογιζόμενος τά παραπτώματα αὐτῆς, καί δίδωσιν αὐτῇ σχολήν δόξης, τοῦ φωτός τοῦ Χριστοῦ». Τίς δ᾿ ἄλλη δόξα καί φῶς ἐστι Χριστοῦ ἤ ἥνπερ διαγρηγορήσας εἶδεν ὁ Πέτρος «σύν αὐτῷ ὤν ἐν τῷ ὄρει τῷ ἁγίῳ»; Πῶς οὖν στολή ψυχῆς τοῦτο γένοιτ᾿ ἄν, εἴπερ αἰσθητόν; Ἀλλαχοῦ δ᾿ ὁ αὐτός θεολόγος «ἐπουράνιόν» φησι «τουτί τό φῶς». Τί τοίνυν ἐπουράνιον τῶν αἰσθητῶν; Ἀλλαχοῦ δ᾿ αὖ «τό φύραμα τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως, ὅπερ ὁ Κύριος ἀνέλαβεν, ἐκάθησε», φησίν, «ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν οὐρανοῖς, πλῆρες δόξης, οὐκέτι μόνῳ τῷ