52

Rather, therefore, thinking highly of himself and being ambitious, if he could persuade by saying the opposite things about the same matter; so he both has and provides an opinion that is unstable and easily changed, rendering useless the transitional and divisible aspect of the soul's thinking, so that such a person would not even be precisely rational, how much more so not intellectual. What means, then, is there for one who starts from such a mindset to contemplate the immaterial archetypes of the divine symbols in the Church of Christ, as this noble champion of Hellenic studies explains? But the one who seeks the will of God and does it is that philosopher, having a word in action and an action in word, through these very things demonstrates the unerring nature of the transition of his own thoughts and, being already completely rational, is able to be led up from the divisible sacred symbols to the unitive form of the archetypes, perfecting intellectually through himself the things set before him and being himself mystically perfected through them; who at times also attains the super-perfect vision and ascent through spiritual prayer.

Could anyone still say that the knowledge of existing things which God gave directly to the prophets and apostles, we find through secular studies? But no, since the best thing in us is the knowledge of existing things, and the philosophical studies lead to this through themselves, and while the Holy Scripture sets forth symbols of this, the philosophical studies lead up to the immaterial archetypes, as the philosopher says, these studies are the best for us, and are as much better than the divine Scripture as the truth of the archetypes is than symbols; and if they are not better than it, they are of necessity not inferior either, since knowledge is the best thing in us. For of those things that lead into and up to it, what else could possibly do more? There is, then, something that comes to us from the divinely-inspired (p. 178) Scripture that is incomparably better than the knowledge of existing things, for which reason the divine oracles are incomparably better than that philosophy, since the studies of that philosophy of themselves neither lead into nor lead up to that which is better than knowledge. And medicine and God, how do they provide the same health, unless one were to say this of a very small fraction of it? For the philosopher was not even strong enough to see this, that the greater part of the healing and wisdom from God looks to the soul, whereas these human inventions, having brought a small cure to the body alone, are then ineffective, when death dissolves the subject.

But he, having declared that the truth lies in this, says, “there are those who dispute these things with us; for some think that the reading of the oracles is a confusion, while others think that philosophical studies and all engagement with discourses are in no way a gift of God.” Do you see the slanders openly put forward? For of these, he says the one against the hesychasts, the other against our words. But of the hesychasts among us he says, the other against our words. But of the hesychasts among us we have known no one who, having learned letters, does not attend to the oracles, and one might see those who do not know letters, as other living books, skilfully reciting from memory most of the oracles. Since, therefore, these men are clearly such, his argument seems to be directed against the fathers; for one of them, he says, “labors and not tablets,” and another, “the heart of one who merely reads many pages is stripped bare,” and another, “a monk who reads for the sake of knowledge and not for compunction acquires conceit.” Therefore, whether the argument is against these or against those, it is a clear slander. For such things were not said by them for the purpose of slandering the Holy Scripture (p. 280); but knowing that action, not knowledge, saves, and having learned from the apostle who says that not the hearers of the law but the doers will be saved, they too, through such words, urge their hearers toward this.

52

μᾶλλον μέν οὖν μέγα φρονῶν καί φιλοτιμούμενος, εἰ τἀναντίας δύναιτο λέγων πείθειν περί τοῦ αὐτοῦ πράγματος˙ οὕτως ἔχει τε καί παρέχει γνώμην ἄστατόν τε καί εὐμετάβολον, τό μεταβατικόν καί μεριστόν τοῦ φρονοῦντος τῆς ψυχῆς ἀχρειοῦσαν, ὥστ᾿ οὐδ᾿ ἀκριβῶς ἄν εἴη λογικός ὁ τοιοῦτος, πόσῳ γε μᾶλλον οὐ νοερός. Τίς οὖν μηχανή τόν ἐκ τοιαύτης διανοίας ὁρμώμενον τάς ἀΰλους ἀρχετυπίας τῶν ἐν τῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκκλησίᾳ θείων ἐποπτεύειν συμβόλων, ὡς ὁ τῶν ἑλληνικῶν μαθημάτων γενναῖος οὗτος ὑπασπιστής ἐξηγεῖται; Ὁ δέ τό τοῦ Θεοῦ θέλημα ζητῶν καί ποιῶν ἐκεῖνο φιλόσοφος, λόγον ἔχων ἔμπρακτον καί πρᾶξιν ἐλλόγιμον, δι᾿ αὐτῶν τῶν πραγμάτων τό ἀπλανές τοῦ μεταβατικοῦ τῶν οἰκείων νοήσεων ἀποδείκνυσι καί ὡς λογικός ὤν ἤδη τελέως καί πρός τό ἑνοειδές τῶν ἀρχετύπων ἀπό τῶν μεριστῶν ἱερῶν συμβόλων ἀνάγεσθαι δύναται, τελειῶν δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ νοητῶς τά προκείμενα καί αὐτός δι᾿ αὐτῶν μυστικῶς τελειούμενος˙ ὅς ἔσθ᾿ ὅτε καί τῆς ὑπερτελοῦς θέας καί ἀναβάσεως διά τῆς πνευματικῆς ἐπιτυγχάνει προσευχῆς.

Ἆρ᾿ ἄν ἔχοι τις ἔτι λέγειν ὡς ἥν ἀμέσως προφήταις καί ἀποστόλοις γνῶσιν τῶν ὄντων Θεός ἔδωκε, ταύτην ἡμεῖς διά τῶν ἔξω μαθημάτων εὑρίσκομεν; Οὐ μήν ἀλλ᾿ ἐπεί τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν ἄριστον ἡ γνῶσις τῶν ὄντων, εἰσάγει δέ δι᾿ ἑαυτῶν πρός ταύτην τά κατά φιλοσοφίαν μαθήματα, καί ἡ μέν ἱερά Γραφή σύμβολα προτίθεται ταύτης, ἀνάγει δέ πρός τάς ἀΰλους ἀρχετυπίας τά κατά φιλοσοφίαν μαθήματα, ὡς ὁ φιλόσοφος λέγει, ἄριστα μέν ἡμῖν μαθημάτων ταῦτα, τοσοῦτο δέ κρείττω τῆς θείας Γραφῆς, ὁπόσον συμβόλων ἡ τῶν ἀρχετύπων ἀλήθεια˙ εἰ δέ μή κρείττω ταύτης, ἐξ ἀνάγκης οὐδ᾿ ἥττω, τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν ἀρίστου τῆς γνώσεως οὔσης˙ τῶν γάρ εἰσαγόντων εἰς ταύτην καί ἀναγόντων, τί ποτ᾿ ἄρ᾿ ἄλλο μεῖζον δράσειεν ἄν; Ἔστιν ἄρα τι τῶν ἐκ τῆς θεοπνεύστου (σελ. 178) Γραφῆς ἡμῖν προσγινομένων τῆς τῶν ὄντων γνώσεως ἀσυγκρίτως κρεῖττον, δι᾿ ὅ τά θεουργικά λόγια τῆς φιλοσοφίας ἐκείνης ἀσυγκρίτως ὑπάρχει κρείττω, πρός τό τῆς γνώσεως ἐκεῖνο κρεῖττον μήτ᾿ εἰσαγόντων μήτ᾿ ἀναγόντων παρ᾿ ἑαυτῶν τῶν κατ᾿ αὐτήν μαθημάτων. Ἰατρική δέ καί Θεός, πῶς τήν αὐτήν παρέχει ὑγίειαν, εἰ μή τις ἐπί πολλοστημορίου τοῦτ᾿ εἴποι ταύτης; Οὐδέ γάρ ἐκεῖνο συνιδεῖν ἴσχυσεν ὁ φιλόσοφος, ὡς τῆς μέν παρά Θεοῦ ἰατρείας τε καί σοφίας ἐπί τήν ψυχήν βλέπει τό πλέον, τά δ᾿ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων εὑρήματα ταῦτα, τῷ σώματι μόνῳ μικράν ἐπενεγκόντα τήν θεραπείαν, ἀπρακτοῦσιν ἔπειτα, διαλύσαντος τοῦ θανάτου τό ὑποκείμενον.

Ἀλλ᾿ ἐκεῖνος ταύτῃ τἀληθές ἔχειν ἀποφηνάμενος, «εἰσί», φησίν, «οἵ πρός ταῦτα ἀμφισβητοῦσιν ἡμῖν˙ ἔνιοι μέν γάρ τήν τῶν λογίων ἀνάγνωσιν σύγχυσιν οἴονται, οἱ δέ τά κατά φιλοσοφίαν μαθήματα καί πᾶσαν τήν περί λόγους διατριβήν μηδαμῶς εἶναι δόσιν Θεοῦ». Ὁρᾷς ἀνακεκαλυμμένας τάς συκοφαντίας προβεβλημένας; Τούτων γάρ τό μέν κατά τῶν ἡσυχαζόντων λέγει, τό δέ κατά τῶν λόγων τῶν ἡμετέρων. Ἀλλά τῶν μέν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῶν ἡσυχαζόντων λέγει, τό δέ κατά τῶν λόγων τῶν ἡμετέρων. Ἀλλά τῶν μέν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῶν ἡσυχαζόντων οὐδένα ἔγνωμεν ὅς τοῖς λογίοις οὐ προσανέχει, γράμματα μεμαθηκώς, καί τούς μή γράμματα εἰδότας ἴδοι τις ἄν βίβλους ἄλλας ἐμψύχους ἀπό στήθους τά πλείονα τῶν λογίων εὐφυῶς ἀπαγγέλοντας. Ἐπεί τοίνυν οὗτοι σαφῶς τοιοῦτοι, πρός τούς πατέρας τείνειν ἔοικεν ὁ λόγος αὐτῷ˙ ὁ μέν γάρ αὐτῶν, φησί, «κόπους καί μή δέλτους», ὁ δέ «τοῦ ἐν πολλοῖς φύλλοις ἀναγινώσκοντος ψιλῶς ψιλοῦται ἡ καρδία», καί ἕτερος «μοναχός διά γνῶσιν καί μή διά κατάνυξιν ἀναγινώσκων οἴησιν κτᾶται». Εἴτε τοίνυν πρός τούτους εἴτε πρός ἐκείνους ὁ λόγος, συκοφαντία σαφής. Οὐ γάρ ἐπί διαβολῇ τῆς ἱερᾶς Γραφῆς (σελ. 280) τοιαῦτ᾿ ἄττα παρ᾿ ἐκείνων εἴρηται˙ τήν πρᾶξιν δέ εἰδότες, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τήν γνῶσιν σώζουσαν, καί τοῦ ἀποστόλου πυθόμενοι μή τούς ἀκροατάς τοῦ νόμου, τούς δέ ποιητάς σωθήσεσθαι λέγοντος, ἐπί τοῦτο καί αὐτοί τούς πυθμένους διά τῶν τοιούτων λόγων προτρέπονται.