90

of the one who created them, but a vision not of the divine nature, lest the slanderers again have a pretext, but of the glory of His nature, which the Lord gave to the disciples and through them to all who believed in Him and showed their faith through works, which He also willed them to see. “I will,” He says to the Father, “that they also may behold my glory, which You have given me, because You loved me before the foundation of the world.” and again, “glorify me, Father, in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” So also to the human nature He gave the glory of the divinity, but not the nature. Therefore the nature of God is one thing and its glory another, even if they are inseparable from each other. But even if it is other than the divine nature, for those who are under time it would not be countable, not being pre-eminently, but being in the divine nature itself in an ineffable manner. He did not, however, give this glory that is above all beings only to the lump hypostatically united to Himself, but also to the disciples. “for I,” He says, “the glory which you gave me, Father, I have given them, that they may be one, even as we are one, I in them and you in me; that they may be made perfect in one.” But He also willed them to see. This, then, is the glory, through which we acquire in ourselves and truly see God.

How then do we acquire and see this glory of the divine nature? Is it by examining the principles of beings and through them pursuing the knowledge of the power and wisdom and providence of God? But it is another eye of the soul that sees these things, by which the divine light, the glory of His nature, according to what was said above by Saint Isaac and all the other fathers, is not seen. Therefore this light is other than the light which is named of knowledge. Therefore not everyone who has knowledge of beings or sees through it (p. 444) has God dwelling in him, but has the knowledge of created things, from it conjecturing God as from a likeness. But he who has that light ineffably and sees, no longer from a likeness, but with a true vision that is established above all created things, both knows and has God in himself; for he is never separated from the eternal glory. But let us not, on account of the excess of the benefaction, disobey and become unruly, but having believed in the One who partook of our nature and imparted the glory of His nature, let us seek how one acquires and sees this. How then? By keeping the divine commandments. For to him who keeps them the Lord promised His own manifestation, which, proceeding in order, He also named “an abode of Himself and of the Father,” saying, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him,” and “I will manifest myself to him.” That He calls His commandments His word is therefore clear, since also above, instead of the “word” now mentioned, He put them: “For he who has,” He says, “my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me.”

So also from this it is shown, and especially according to the words of the philosopher and the doctrines according to him, that this vision of God is in no way knowledge, even if he wants anything rather than this. But we too must know this, saying that the vision is not knowledge by way of pre-eminence, just as God is not a being; for we have believed Him to be beyond beings. But how, even against the philosopher's will, is it shown from his own words that this divine light is other than knowledge? The keeping of the commandments, he says, is not able to drive away the darkness of ignorance from the soul, but rather learning and persistent study according to it. But that which does not drive away ignorance could never provide knowledge. Therefore that which, according to him, does not provide knowledge, provides this vision (p. 446), according to the words of the Lord; therefore this vision is not knowledge, not only should one not consider and call this knowledge, but not even knowable, except perhaps improperly and homonymously, or rather properly, but in an exceptional sense. Not only, then, should one not consider this knowledge, but also

90

κτίσαντος αὐτά, τό δέ θεωρίαν οὐ τῆς θείας φύσεως, μή πάλιν σχοῖεν ἀφορμήν οἱ συκοφάνται, ἀλλά τῆς δόξης τῆς φύσεως αὐτοῦ, ἥν ἔδωκεν ὁ Κύριος τοῖς μαθηταῖς καί δι᾿ αὐτῶν πᾶσι τοῖς πιστεύσασιν αὐτῷ καί δι᾿ ἔργων τήν πίστιν ἐπιδειξαμένοις, ἥν καί ἠθέλησεν ὁρᾶν αὐτούς˙ «θέλω» γάρ, φησί πρός τόν πατέρα, «ἵνα θεωρῶσιν οὗτοι τήν δόξαν τήν ἐμήν, ἥν δέδωκάς μοι, ὅτι ἠγάπησάς με πρό καταβολῆς κόσμου»˙ καί πάλιν, «δόξασόν με σύ, πάτερ, παρά σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρό τοῦ τόν κόσμον εἶναι παρά σοί». Ὥστε καί τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ φύσει τήν δόξαν ἔδωκε τῆς θεότητος, τήν φύσιν δέ οὔ˙ ἄλλο ἄρα φύσις Θεοῦ καί ἡ δόξα ταύτης ἕτερον, εἰ καί ἀχώριστα ἐστιν ἀλλήλων˙ ἀλλ᾿ εἰ καί τῆς θείας φύσεως ἕτερόν ἐστι, τοῖς ὑπό χρόνον οὖσιν οὐκ ἄν εἴη ἐναρίθμιος, οὐκ οὖσα καθ᾿ ὑπεροχήν, αὐτῇ δέ τῇ θείᾳ φύσει τόν ἄφραστον ἐνοῦσα τρόπον. Οὔ μέντοι μόνῳ τῷ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἡνωμένῳ ἑαυτῷ φυράματι ταύτην ἔδωκε τήν ὑπέρ τά ὄντα πάντα δόξαν, ἀλλά καί τοῖς μαθηταῖς˙ «ἐγώ» γάρ, φησί, «τήν δόξαν ἥν ἔδωκάς μοι, πάτερ, δέδωκα αὐτοῖς, ἵνα ὦσιν ἕν, καθώς ἡμεῖς ἕν ἐσμεν, ἐγώ ἐν αὐτοῖς καί σύ ἐν ἐμοί˙ ἵνα ὦσι τετελειωμένοι εἰς ἕν». Ἀλλά καί ὁρᾶν αὐτούς ἠθέλησεν. Αὕτη ἄρα ἐστίν ἡ δόξα, δι᾿ ἧς κτώμεθα ἐν ἑαυτοῖς καί ὁρῶμεν κυρίως τόν Θεόν.

Πῶς οὖν τήν δόξαν ταύτην τῆς θείας φύσεως κτώμεθά τε καί ὁρῶμεν; Ἆρα τούς λόγους τῶν ὄντων ἐξετάζοντες καί δι᾿ αὐτῶν θηρώμενοι τήν γνῶσιν τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ δυνάμεως καί σοφίας καί προνοίας; Ἀλλ᾿ ἕτερος ὀφθαλμός ἐστι ψυχῆς ὁ ταῦθ᾿ ὁρῶν, ᾧ τό θεῖον φῶς, ἡ δόξα τῆς φύσεως αὐτοῦ, κατά τό ὑπό τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰσαάκ καί τῶν ἄλλων πάντων πατέρων ᾶνωτέρω εἰρημένον, οὐχ ὁρᾶται˙ ἕτερον ἄρα τουτί ἐστι τό φῶς παρά τό φῶς ὅ τῆς γνώσεως ἐπώνυμόν ἐστιν. Οὐκοῦν οὐ πᾶς ὁ τήν τῶν ὄντων γνῶσιν ἔχων ἤ δι᾿ αὐτῆς (σελ. 444) ὁρῶν ἔνοικον ἔχει τόν Θεόν, ἀλλ᾿ αὐτήν τήν γνῶσιν τῶν κτισμάτων, ἐξ αὐτῆς ὡς ἐξ εἰκότος στοχαζόμενος Θεόν. Ὁ δέ τό φῶς ἐκεῖνο ἔχων ἀπορρήτως καί ὁρῶν οὐκέτ᾿ ἐκ τοῦ εἰκότος, ἀλλ᾿ἀληθεῖ καί τῶν κτισμάτων πάντων ὑπερανιδρυμένῃ θέᾳ, γινώσκει τε καί ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἔχει τόν Θεόν˙ οὐ γάρ χωρίζεταί ποτε τῆς ἀϊδίου δόξης. Ἀλλά μή διά τό ὑπερβάλλον τῆς εὐεργεσίας ἀπειθήσαντες ἀφηνιάσωμεν, πιστεύσαντες δέ τῷ μεταλαβόντι τῆς φύσεως ἡμῶν καί μεταδόντι τῆς δόξης τῆς φύσεως αὐτοῦ ζητήσωμεν πῶς κτᾶταί τις τοῦτο καί ὁρᾷ. Πῶς οὖν; Τῇ τῶν θείων ἐντολῶν τηρήσει˙ τῷ γάρ τηροῦντι ταύτας τήν ἑαυτοῦ ἐμφάνειαν ἐπηγγείλατο ὁ κύριος, ἥν ἐφεξῆς προϊών καί «μονήν ἑαυτοῦ καί τοῦ Πατρός» ὠνώμασεν εἰπών, «ἐάν τις ἀγαπᾷ με, τόν λόγον μου τηρήσει καί ὁ Πατήρ μου ἀγαπήσει αὐτόν καί ἐλευσόμεθα πρός αὐτόν καί μονήν παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ ποιήσομεν», καί «ἐμφανίσω αὐτῷ ἐμαυτόν». Ὅτι μέν οὖν λόγον αὐτοῦ τάς ἐντολάς αὐτοῦ λέγει δῆλον, ἐπεί καί ἀνωτέρω ἀντί τοῦ νῦν εἰρημένου "λόγου" τέθεικεν αὐτάς˙ «ὁ ἔχων» γάρ, φησί, «τάς ἐντολάς μου καί τηρῶν αὐτάς, ἐκεῖνος ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαπῶν με».

Ὥστε καί ἀπό τούτου δείκνυται, καί μάλιστα κατά τούς τοῦ φιλοσόφου λόγους καί τά κατ᾿ἐκεῖνον δόγματα, μηδαμῶς οὖσα γνῶσις ἡ θεωρία αὕτη τοῦ Θεοῦ, κἄν ἐκεῖνος πάντα μᾶλλον ἤ τοῦτο βούληται. ∆εῖ δέ καί ἡμᾶς εἰδέναι ταύτην οὐκ εἶναι γνῶσιν λέγοντας τήν θεωρίαν καθ᾿ ὑπεροχήν, ὡς καί τόν Θεόν μή ὄντα˙ καί γάρ ὑπέρ τά ὄντα πεπιστεύκαμεν αὐτόν. Ἀλλά πῶς καί μή βουλομένου τοῦ φιλοσόφου ἀπό τῶν ἐκείνου λόγων δείκνυται τό θεῖον τοῦτο φῶς ἕτερον παρά τήν γνῶσιν; Τήν τῶν ἐντολῶν τήρησιν ἐκεῖνος οὔ φησι δύνασθαι τό σκότος τῆς ἀγνοίας ἀπελαύνειντῆς ψυχῆς, ἀλλά τήν μάθησιν καί τήν κατ᾿ αὐτήν ἐπίμονον μελέτην˙ τό δέ μή ἀπελαῦνον τήν ἄγνοιαν γνῶσιν οὔποτ᾿ ἄν δύναιτο παρέχειν. Τό τοίνυν κατ᾿ ἐκεῖνο μή παρέχον γνῶσιν τήν θεωρίαν ταύτην (σελ. 446) χορηγεῖ, κατά τούς τοῦ Κυρίου λόγους˙ οὐκ ἄρα γνῶσίς ἐστιν ἡ θεωρία αὕτη, μή ὅτι δέ γνῶσιν ἡγεῖσθαί τε καί λέγειν ταύτην οὐ χρεών, ἀλλ᾿ οὐδέ γνωστήν, εἰ μή ἄρα καταχρηστικῶς καί ὁμωνύμως, ἤ κυρίως μᾶλλον, ἀλλ᾿ ὑπεξῃρημένως. Μή ὅτι οὖν γνῶσιν ταύτην οὐχ ἡγεῖσθαι χρή, ἀλλά καί