90

would call intelligible, which is neither God nor angel nor human mind? For one could not even imaginatively fashion an intelligible light in its own hypostasis outside of these. But let us grant this impossibility, let us grant then that one of the hesychasts said this to your learnèdness; I do not know who, for you yourself cannot point him out; yet you say that he is one of the unlearned. If, then, he was not able to interpret it well, which I am more inclined to believe, or even not to discern it well—for let this also be so, since knowledge is not for all—should you not have inquired (p. 426) and learned from those who have the charism of discernment, as far as possible, what this great spectacle of light is, but instead immediately condemn the God-inspired as madmen and clearly suffer what was said by the divine Paul? For if someone comes in among you, he says to the Corinthians, an unlearned man or an unbeliever, and does not also hear those who are able to discern, he will say that you are mad. Thus, you yourself, the monk and philosopher, have suffered, alas, the fate of the unlearned and unbelievers. But let it be that not one, nor some, but many and all of us say this; was it not enough for you to say this, which you said after long struggles, that 'this light I know that it is not'? For all would have agreed with you that a light in its own hypostasis, which is neither God nor angel nor man, does not exist at all, but also all would have immediately understood that, if someone were to say he sees an intelligible light in its own hypostasis, he is saying he sees one of these, and you yourself have said quite correctly that he thinks this. Against whom, then, are your blasphemies and censures and slanders throughout so many books? Is it not against such men, whom you later declared to think correctly, your slander not having been refuted?

For I do not say this, that they think about this light as you do or theologize as you do, but they are so far exalted above your slanders and censures against them. For you say concerning them: 'if they call God an intelligible light, preserving for Him that which is invisible and intangible to all the senses, they speak well'; but they know the essence of God to be even beyond what is intangible to all the senses, since He is not only God who is beyond beings, but also super-divine, and not only is He beyond all affirmation, but the pre-eminence of Him Who is beyond all things is also beyond all negation and has transcended (p. 428) every pre-eminence that can in any way come to mind. However, the light which the saints see spiritually in its hypostasis, as they themselves say, they know through experience itself that it is real and not symbolic, like the apparitions fashioned for contingent circumstances, and that it is an immaterial divine illumination and grace seen invisibly and understood unknowingly; but what it is, they say they do not know.

But you, by applying the methods of definition, analysis, and division, know and deign to teach us who are unlearned. For it is not the essence of God, for that is intangible and unparticipated; it is not an angel, for it bears the marks of the Lord and sometimes it raises one from the body or not without the body and brings one up to an unutterable height, at other times the body itself having been transformed and having partaken of its own brightness, as the great Arsenius was once seen struggling in stillness, and Stephen while being stoned, and Moses coming down from the mountain, so then also the body, having been deified, O the wonder, becomes perceptible to bodily eyes; and there are times when it speaks clearly to the one seeing through, so to speak, unutterable words, just as to the divine Paul, 'descending from its own vantage-point, so that it might at least be moderately contained by a created nature,' according to Gregory the Theologian, He who according to His own nature is from ages and unto ages and still invisible and uncontainable to all. Then, therefore, the name which the children of the Jews gave to that which from above upon

90

φαίη νοητόν, ὅ μήτε Θεός ἐστι μήτ᾿ ἄγγελος μήτε νοῦς ἀνθρώπινος; Οὐδέ γάρ φανταστικῶς γοῦν ἀναπλάσαι δύναιτ᾿ ἄν τις τό τούτων ἐκτός νοητόν ἐν ἰδίᾳ ὑποστάσει φῶς. Ἀλλά δῶμεν τουτί τό ἀδύνατον, δῶμεν τοίνυν ὅτι τοῦτ᾿ ἔφη τις τῶν ἡσυχαζόντων πρός τήν σήν λογιότητα˙ οὐκ οἶδα μέν ὅστις, οὐδέ γάρ αὐτός ὑποδεῖξαι δύνασαι˙ τῶν οὐκ ἐλλογίμων δ᾿ ὅμως εἶναι λέγεις αὐτόν. Εἰ τοίνυν ἐκεῖνος μή καλῶς ἑρμηνεῦσαι ἐδύνατο, ὅ καί μᾶλλον πείθομαι, ἤ καί μή διαγνῶναι καλῶς ἔστω γάρ καί τοῦτο, καί γάρ οὐ πάντων ἡ γνῶσις , οὐκ ἔδει σε παρά τῶν ἐχόντων τό τῆς διακρίσεως χάρισμα πυθέσθαι (σελ426) καί μαθεῖν, ὡς ἐφικτόν, τί τό μέγα θέαμα τοῦ φωτός τούτου, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς μαινομένων εὐθύς τῶν θεολήπτων καταψηφίζεσθαι καί τό παρά τοῦ θείου Παύλου λεγόμενον φανρῶς παθεῖν; Εἰ γάρ εἰσέλθοι τις, πρός τούς Κορινθίους, ἐν ὑμῖν, φησίν, ἰδιώτης ἤ ἄπιστος καί μή ἀκούσει καί τῶν διακρίνειν δυναμένων, ἐρεῖ ὅτι μαίνεσθε. Τό τῶν ἰδιωτῶν τοίνυν καί ἀπίστων, φεῦ, καί αὐτός ἔπαθες, ὁ μοναχός καί φιλόσοφος. Ἔστω δέ μή ἕνα, μηδ᾿ ἐνίους, ἀλλά πολλούς καί πάντας τοῦτο λέγειν ἡμᾶς˙ οὐκ ἤρκει σοι τοῦτ᾿ εἰπεῖν, ὅ μετά τούς μακρούς εἴρηκας ἀγῶνας, ὅτι «τοῦτο τό φῶς οἶδα ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι»; Πάντες γάρ σοι συνεῖπον ἄν ὅτι φῶς ἐν ὑποστάσει ἰδίᾳ, ὅ μήτε Θεός ἐστι μήτ᾿ ἄγγελος μήτ᾿ ἄνθρωπος, οὐκ ἔστιν ὅλως ἀλλά καί πάντες ἄν εὐθύς συνεῖδον ὡς, εἰ φῶς νοητόν ἐν ὑποστάσει φαίη τις ὁρᾶν ἰδίᾳ, τούτων τί φησιν ὁρᾶν, ὅ λέγοντα, πάνυ καί αὐτός ὀρθῶς εἴρηκας φρονεῖν. Κατά τίνων οὖν αἱ διά τοσούτων σοι βιβλίων βλασφημίαι καί μέμψεις καί συκοφαντίαι; Ἆρ᾿ οὐ κατά τῶν τοιούτων, οὕς ὀρθῶς ὕστερον ἀπεφήνω φρονεῖν, καί τῆς παρά σοῦ συκοφαντίας οὐκ ἐξεληλεγμένης;

Οὐ γάρ τοῦτο λέγω, ὡς κατά σέ φρονοῦσι περί τοῦ φωτός ἐκεῖνοι τούτου ἤ κατά σέ θεολογοῦσιν, ἀλλά καί ὑπέρ σέ τοσοῦτον ὑπεραναστήκασι τῶν σῶν κατ᾿ αὐτῶν διαβολῶν καί μέμψεων. Σύ μέν γάρ φής περί αὐτῶν˙ «εἰ νοητόν λέγουσι φῶς τόν Θεόν, φυλάττοντες αὐτῷ τό πάσαις αἰσθήσεσειν ἀόρατον καί ἀνέπαφον, καλῶς λέγουσιν»˙ ἐκεῖνοι δέ καί ὑπέρ τό πάσαις αἰσθήσεσιν ἀνέπαφον τήν οὐσίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ γινώσκουσιν, ἐπεί μή μόνον Θεός ἐστιν ὑπέρ τά ὄντα ὤν, ἀλλά καί ὑπέρθεος, καί μή μόνον ὑπέρ πᾶσαν θέσιν ἐστίν, ἀλλά καί ὑπέρ πᾶσαν ἀφαίρεσιν ἡ ὑπεροχή τοῦ πάντων ἐπέκεινα καί πᾶσαν ὑπεροχήν ὁπωσοῦν ἐπί νοῦν γινομένην (σελ. 428) ὑπερβέβηκεν. Ὅ μέντοι φῶς ἐνυποστάτως οἱ ἅγιοι πνευματικῶς ὁρῶσιν, ὡς αὐτοί φασιν, ὄν μέν καί μή συμβολικόν τοῦτον, οἷα τά διαπλαττόμενα πρός τάς συμβαινούσας περιστάσεις φάσματα, ἄϋλόν τε θείαν ἔλλαμψιν καί χάριν ὁρωμένην ἀοράτως καί νοουμένην ἀγνώστως, δι᾿ αὐτῆς τῆς πείρας ἴσασι˙ τί δέ ἐστιν, ἐκεῖνοι μέν οὐκ εἰδέναι λέγουσι.

Σύ δέ, προσαγαγών τάς ὁριστικάς καί ἀναλυτικάς καί διαιρετικάς μεθόδους, γνῶθι καί τούς ἀμαθεῖς ἡμᾶς διδάξαι καταξίωσον. Οὐσία μέν γάρ Θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστι, καί γάρ ἀνέπαφος ἐκείνη καί ἀμέθεκτος˙ ἄγγελος οὐκ ἔστι, δεσποτικούς γάρ φέρει χαρακτῆρας καί ποτέ μέν τοῦ σώματος ἀπανιστᾷ ἤ οὐκ ἄνευ σώματος καί εἰς ὕψος ἀναφέρει ἄρρητον, ἄλλοτ᾿ αὖθις καί τό σῶμα μεθαρμοσάμενον καί τῆς οἰκείας μεταδεδωκός λαμπρότητος, οἷός ποτε καί ὁ μέγας Ἀρσένιος ὤφθη καθ᾿ ἡσυχίαν ἀγνωνιζόμενος καί ὁ Στέφανος λιθαζόμενον καί ὁ Μωϋσῆς ἀπό τοῦ ὄρους κατερχόμενος, οὕτω τοίνυν καί τό σῶμα θεουργῆσαν σωματικοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς, ὤ τοῦ θαύματος, γίνεται ληπτόν ἔστι δ᾿ ὅτε καί τῷ ὁρῷντι τρανῶς δι᾿ ἀρρήτων, ὡς εἰπεῖν, ρημάτων ὁμιλεῖ, καθάπερ καί τῷ θείῳ Παύλῳ, «καταβαῖνον τῆς οἰκείας περιωπῆς, ὡς ἄν μετρίως γοῦν κτιστῇ φύσει χωρηθῇ», κατά τόν θεολόγον Γρηγόριον, ὁ κατά τήν οἰκείαν φύσιν ἐξ αἰώνων καί ἐπ᾿ αἰῶνας καί ἔτι τοῖς πᾶσιν ὤν ἀόρατός τε καί ἀχώρητος. Τότε τοίνυν ἥν ἐπωνυμίαν προσεῖπον Ἰουδαίων παῖδες τῷ ἄνωθεν ἐπ᾿