89

to the holy nation, to the Church of God, have you dared to attach such a charge, that they consider the essence of God to be perceptible, having both shape and mass and quality, and that as such a light it is mixed with the air, which is receptive of the emanation from there and circumscribes it locally and perceptibly? Did it not occur to you, upon considering this, to see, that why does not someone call the sun God, if he has such an opinion about God? And how does he think to escape the perception of others, if indeed he considers the divine to be perceptible? And for what reason does he dishonor the pleasures of the senses, which is what those slandered by you in this way do most of all? For the belly is a perceptible god, according to Paul, for those who are slaves to their stomach, and the avaricious and greedy set up a second idolatry; but they are not able to believe in Christ, according to the gospel decree, (p. 422) those who receive glory from men, but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God. But those who have disdained all these things, and this for the sake of the God who is above all, do they not show by their works that they truly worship the God who is beyond all things? Or because they advise others also to abstain from these things, which take away the glory from the only God, will not only no one be persuaded by them, but will even slander them as not holding a sound opinion about the divine?

For what you say at the end of your lengthy speech against these men has made clear your deliberate slander against them; "for now," he says, "we speak about the light said by some to be hypostatic, not having first declared our own opinion about it, that what they say they see is an intelligible and immaterial light, existing in its own hypostasis." And here, then, he weaves in some slander; for the great Macarius and Maximus, who is great in divine things, and as many as follow them, say that a light is seen in a hypostasis, but not in its own. Nevertheless, even if he did not put this forward unmixed with slander, still he confesses that they call such a light intelligible and immaterial; but the intelligible and immaterial is not perceptible, nor, as perceptible, symbolic. How then at the beginning did he show that these men call the essence of God a perceptible light, mixed with air and contained by it and having shape and quality and mass, all of which are properties of perceptible light? And yet they, even if they call the light of grace intelligible, do so not in the proper sense; for they know it is even beyond the mind, as coming into being in the mind by the power of the Spirit alone, through the cessation of all intellectual activity. But not even so did any of them say that this is the essence or an emanation of God, of the sort that this man thinks; and if someone, by misinterpreting what was said by them paradigmatically about this light, draws some (p. 424) such conclusion, he says it, but not they. Therefore, for those who say this light is not only beyond sense, but also beyond mind, and then also glorify the essence of God as beyond this, to suppose that they say the essence of God is a perceptible and visible light, is this not beyond all slander?

But what does this slanderer of those who are illumined beyond conception say as he proceeds? "If, on the one hand, they wish the intelligible and immaterial light which they speak of to be that very superessential God, preserving for him that which is invisible and intangible to all the senses, or, saying they see, they think it is an angel, or the very essence of the mind, when, having been purified from the passions and at the same time from ignorance, it sees itself and in itself, as in its own image, God; if, indeed, what is said by them is one of these things, it is necessary to think that they are altogether correct in their opinion about this and that it is in agreement with the tradition of the Christians; but if they say this is neither the superessential essence, nor angelic, nor the mind itself, but that the mind sees it as another hypostasis, I for my part do not know what this light is, but I do know what it is not." And who among men, O you high-sounding speaker against men who really exist, a light in its own hypostasis

89

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 λέγοντες ἄγγελον εἶναι οἴονται, ἤ αὐτήν τήν οὐσίαν τοῦ νοῦ, ὅταν τῶν παθῶν ἅμα καί τῆς ἀγνοίας καθαρθείς ὁρᾷ αὐτός ἑαυτόν καί ἐν ἑαυτῷ ὡς ἐν ἰδίᾳ εἰκόνι τόν Θεόν˙ εἰ δή ἕν τι τούτων τό παρ᾿ αὐτῶν λεγόμενόν ἐστι, πάνυ γε ὀρθῶς περί τούτου φρονεῖν αὐτούς καί συμβαίνοντα τῇ τῶν χριστιανῶν παραδόσει οἴεσθαί γε χρή˙ εἰ δέ μήτε τήν ὑπερούσιον οὐσίαν τοῦτ᾿ εἶναι λέγουσι, μήτ᾿ ἀγγελικήν μήτε τόν νοῦν αὐτόν, ἀλλ᾿ ὁρᾶν τόν νοῦν εἰς αὐτό ὡς εἰς ἑτέραν ὑπόστασιν, τοῦτο ἔγωγε τό φῶς ὅ τι μέν ἐστιν οὐκ οἶδα, ὅτι δέ οὐκ ἔστιν οἶδα». Καί τίς ποτε ἀνθρώπων, ὦ κατά τῶν ὄντων ἀνθρώπων ὑψηγόρε σύ, φῶς ἄν ἐν ἰδίᾳ ὑποστάσει