85

esteeming the stars as bodies, nor those who say the horses of the gods leap as far as an eye sees from a watchtower over the wine-dark sea. Since all, then, have now known God beyond perception—through the light that has shone in the darkness—better than those once admired for their wisdom, so that they cannot endure at all to characterize him by forming images from created things, how did you dare to bring such a charge against the disciples of the Gospel, who received the divinely delivered oracles by the hearing of the ear, who were initiated by mouths tempered with fiery tongues of the Spirit, whom neither angel nor man, but the Lord Himself taught through His adorable mouth ("for the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him"), how against these elect from every nation, the holy nation, the Church of God, that they think the essence of God is sensible, having shape and bulk and quality, and that as such a light it is mixed with the air, which is receptive of the emanation from thence and circumscribes it locally and sensibly? Did it not occur to you, in considering this, to see why someone does not call the sun God, if he has such an opinion about God? And how does he think to escape the perception of others, if he considers the divine to be sensible? For what reason does he despise sensual pleasures, a thing which they especially do, those so slandered by you? For the belly is a sensible god, according to Paul, to those who are slaves of the belly, and the avaricious and covetous establish a second idolatry; but they are not able to believe in Christ, according to the Gospel's decree, (p. 422) those who receive glory from men, but do not seek the glory that is from the only God. But those who have disdained all these things, and this for the sake of God who is above all, do they not show by their deeds that they truly worship the God who is beyond all things? Or because they advise others to abstain from these things, which take away the glory from the only God, not only will someone not be persuaded by them, but he would even slander them as not having a sound opinion concerning the divine? For what you say at the end of your lengthy discourse against these men has made clear to me your willful slander against them: "for now," he says, "we speak of the light called hypostatic by some, without previously stating our own opinion about it, that what they say they see is an intelligible and immaterial light, existing in its own hypostasis." And here again he weaves in a bit of slander; for that a light is seen in hypostasis is stated by the great Macarius and Maximus, so rich in divine things, and those like them, but not in its *own* hypostasis. Nevertheless, even if he did not bring this forth unmixed with slander, still he confesses that they call such a light intelligible and immaterial. But the intelligible and immaterial is not sensible, nor, as sensible, symbolic. How then at the beginning did he portray them as saying that the essence of God is a sensible light, mixed with the air and contained by it, and having shape and quality and bulk, all of which belongs to sensible light? And yet they, even if they call the light of grace intelligible, yet not in the proper sense; for they know it to be beyond mind, as coming into being in the mind only by the power of the Spirit, through the cessation of all noetic energy. But not even so did any of them call this the essence or an emanation of God, such as this man thinks; and if anyone, by misinterpreting, deduces any such thing (p. 424) from the things said by them paradigmatically about this light, it is he who says it, and not they. To think, therefore, that those who say this light is not only beyond perception but also beyond mind, and who then also hold the essence of God to be beyond this, are saying that the essence of God is a sensible and visible light—is this not beyond all slander? But what does this slanderer of those enlightened beyond thought go on to say? "If, on the one hand, they wish this intelligible and immaterial light which they speak of to be that very superessential God Himself, preserving for Him His invisibility and intangibility to all senses, or to see

85

σώματα τούς ἀστέρας δοξάζοντες, οὐδ᾿ οἱ τόσον λέγοντες τούς θεῶν πηδᾶν ἵππους, ὅσον ἀπό σκοπιᾶς ὀφθαλμός ὁρᾷ ἐπί οἴνωπα πόντον. Πάντων οὖν ἀρτίως διά τοῦ ἐν σκοτίᾳ λάμψαντος φωτός κρεῖττον ἤ κατά τούς ἐπί σοφίᾳ ποτέ θαυμαζομένους ἐκείνους ὑπέρ αἴσθησιν ἐγνωκότων τόν Θεόν, ὡς μηδ᾿ ἀπό τῶν ὄντων ἔτι διαπλάττοντας χαρακτηρίζειν ὅλως ἀνέχεσθαι, πῶς οὐ τοῖς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου μαθηταῖς, τοῖς εἰς ἀκοήν ὠτίου δεξαμένοις τά θεοπαράδοτα λόγια, τοῖς διά στομάτων μεμυημένοις πυρίναις γλώσσαις τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐστομωμένων, οὕς οὐκ ἄγγελος, οὐκ ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλ᾿ αὐτός ὁ Κύριος διά τοῦ προσκυνητοῦ στόματος ἐδίδαξεν («ὁ γάρ μονογενής Υἱός, ὁ ὤν εἰς τόν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο»), πῶς οὐ τούτοις τοῖς ἐκ παντός ἔθνους ἀπολέκτοις, τῷ ἔθνει τῷ ἁγίῳ, τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοιαύτην ἐτόλμησας προστρίψασθαι μέμψιν, ὅτι αἰσθητήν οἴονται τήν οὐσίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, σχῆμά τε ἔχουσαν καί ὄγκον καί ποιότητα, καί ὡς φῶς τοιοῦτον κιρνᾶσθαι τῷ ἀέρι, δεκτικῷ ὄντι τῆς ἐκεῖθεν ἀπορροίας καί περιγράφοντι αὐτό τοπικῶς καί αἰσθητῶς; Ἆρ᾿ οὐκ ἐπῆλθέ σοι τοῦτ᾿ ἀναλογισαμένῳ συνιδεῖν, ὡς τί μή τόν ἥλιον λέγει τις Θεόν, εἰ τοιαύτην περί Θεοῦ τήν δόξαν ἔχει; Πῶς δέ διαφεύγειν οἴεται τήν τῶν ἄλλων αἴσθησιν, εἴπερ αἰσθητόν ἥγηται τό θεῖον; Τοῦ δ᾿ ἕνεκεν τάς κατ᾿ αἴσθησιν ἀτιμάζει ἡδονάς, ὅ μάλιστα πάντων ποιοῦσιν οἱ παρά σοῦ τοιαῦτα συκοφαντούμενοι; Θεός μέν γάρ αἰσθητός ἡ κοιλία, κατά τόν Παῦλον, τοῖς γαστρός οὖσι δούλοις, καί δευτέραν ἱστᾶσιν εἰδωλολατρίαν οἱ φιλάργυροι καί πλεονέκται˙ πιστεύειν δέ εἰς Χριστόν οὐ δύνανται, κατά τήν εὐαγγελικήν ψῆφον, (σελ. 422) οἱ δόξαν παρά ἀνθρώπων λαμβάνοντες, τήν δέ παρά τοῦ μόνου Θεοῦ δόξαν οὐ ζητοῦντες. Οἱ δέ πάντων τούτων ὑπερφρονήσαντες, καί ταῦτα διά τόν ὑπέρ πάντα Θεόν, ἆρ᾿ οὐ δι᾿ ἔργων δεικνύουσι Θεόν ὄντως σέβοντες τόν ἐπέκεινα πάντων; Ἤ διότι καί τοῖς ἄλλοις τούτων ἀποσχέσθαι συμβουλεύουσιν, ἅ τήν παρά τοῦ μόνου Θεοῦ δόξαν ἀφαιρεῖ, μή μόνον οὐ πείσεταί τις τούτοις, ἀλλά καί συκοφαντήσειεν ὡς ἀσφαλῆ δόξαν οὐκ ἔχοντας περί τό θεῖον; Ὅ γάρ λέγεις τελευτῶν τῆς κατά τῶν ἀνδρῶν τούτων πολυρρημοσύνης φανεράν ἐποίησέ μου τήν ἑκούσιον κατ᾿ αὐτῶν συκοφαντίαν˙ «νῦν» γάρ, φησί, «περί τοῦ παρά τισιν ἐνυποστάτου λεγομένου φωτός λέγομεν, μή πρότερον περί αὐτοῦ ἰδίαν ἀποφηνάμενοι γνώμην, ὡς ὅ λέγουσιν ὁρᾶν, νοητόν καί ἄϋλον, ἐν ἰδίᾳ ὑποστάσει ὄν φῶς». Κἀνταῦθα τοίνυν συμπλέκει τι συκοφαντίας˙ ἐν ὑποστάσει μέν γάρ φῶς ὁρᾶσθαί φησιν ὁ μέγας Μακάριος καί ὁ πολύς τά θεῖα Μάξιμος καί ὅσοι κατ᾿ αὐτούς, ἐν ἰδίᾳ δέ οὔ. Ὅμως γε μήν, εἰ καί μηδέ τοῦτο συκοφαντίας ἀμιγές προήνεγκεν, ἀλλ᾿ ὁμολογεῖ νοητόν καί ἄϋλον αὐτούς λέγειν τό τοιοῦτον φῶς˙ τό δέ νοητόν καί ἄϋλον οὐκ αἰσθητόν, οὐδέ, ὡς αἰσθητόν, συμβολικόν. Πῶς οὖν ἀρχόμενος ἐδείκνυ τούτους αἰσθητόν φῶς λέγοντα τήν οὐσίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, κιρνώμενον ἀέρι καί ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ περιεχόμενον καί σχῆμα καί ποιότητα καί ὄγκον ἔχον, ἅ πάντα τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ ἐστι φωτός; Καίτοι ἐκεῖνοι, κἄν νοητόν λέγωσι τό τῆς χάριτος φῶς, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ κυρίως˙ καί ὑπέρ νοῦν γάρ ἴσασιν αὐτό, ὡς μόνῃ τῇ τοῦ Πνεύματος δυνάμει κατά ἀπόπαυσιν πάσης νοερᾶς ἐνεργείας ἐγγινόμενον τῷ νῷ. Ἀλλ᾿ οὐδ᾿ οὕτω τοῦτό τις ἐκείνων οὐσίαν εἶπεν ἤ ἀπόρροιαν, οἵαν οὖτος οἴεται, Θεοῦ˙ κἄν τις ἐκ τῶν παραδειγματικῶς περί τούτου τοῦ φωτός ὑπ᾿ἐκείνων εἰρημένων κακουργῶν συνάγῃ τι (σελ. 424) τοιοῦτον, αὐτός φησιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐκεῖνοι. Τούς οὖν μή μόνον ὑπέρ αἴσθησιν, ἀλλά καί ὑπέρ νοῦν λέγοντας τουτί τό φῶς, εἶτα καί ὑπέρ τοῦτο δοξάζοντας τήν οὐσίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, αἰσθητόν φῶς καί ὁρατόν οἴεσθαι λέγειν τήν οὐσίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἆρ᾿ οὐ πάσης ἐπέκεινα συκοφαντίας; Ἀλλά τί φησι προϊών ὁ τῶν ὑπέρ ἔννοιαν πεφωτισμένων συκοφάντης οὖτος; «Εἰ μέν τό νοητόν καί ἄϋλον ὅ λέγουσι φῶς αὐτόν ἐκεῖνον τόν ὑπερούσιον Θεόν τοῦτ᾿ εἶναι βούλονται, φυλάττοντες αὐτῷ τό πάσαις αἰσθήσεσιν ἀόρατον καί ἀνέπαφον, ἤ ὁρᾶν