94

so that God is revealed through both the soul and the body.” Therefore, both the intellect and the sense will perceive the same light, each, however, according to its own capacity, but beyond both sense and intellect. And what the great Dionysius says, a visible theophany there and a union beyond intellect, are not very different from one another; besides, since according to the theologians we have no need there of air and place, how shall we have need of sensible light?

But when Paul was in God and had seen the invisible things of God in ecstasy, did he see the essence of God? And who would say this? In the same way, therefore, those purified through stillness are deemed worthy of invisible visions, while the essence of God remains untouched, but also those deemed worthy of it are initiated and reflect upon that vision and thus they partake of the intelligible light-bestowal of God in their passionless and immaterial intellect, but also beyond these visions and the initiations according to them they know the divine; and so they have this (p. 460) supra-intellectual apprehension in a way better than we do, not from not seeing, as those who theologize by way of abstraction, but by the vision itself knowing that which is beyond vision, experiencing, as it were, the abstraction, but not reasoning it. Therefore, just as to experience and see divine things is different from and superior to theologizing cataphatically, so to experience abstraction in the spiritual vision because of the transcendence of the thing seen is different from and superior to theologizing by way of abstraction. For if someone were to see in a mirror a shadow of the sun brighter than the one in the sky, so that his own sight is overcome even by the shadowy flash, he would certainly have perceived the invisibility of the archetype due to its transcendence, but not from its invisibility, but from the vision; thus, then, also those who are deemed worthy of that most blessed vision know what is beyond vision not from negation but from the spiritual vision of this deifying energy, how much more so of the one who energizes this. As many as are taught by them, partake of the intelligible light-bestowal and are able to ascend to theology by way of negation; but to attain the same vision and through it and with it to perceive the unseeable of God, is among the impossible things, unless they also attain the supernatural and spiritual and supra-intellectual union.

For thus also Stephen, according to the divine Gregory of Nyssa, “does not see the divine by remaining in human nature and power, but by being commingled with the grace of the Holy Spirit, because it is witnessed by Scripture that like is seen by like; for if the glory of the Father and of the Son became comprehensible to human nature and power, false is he who declared the vision to be incomprehensible; but it is necessary that he did not lie and that the story is true.” Rightly, therefore, we also said before that the glory beheld at the transfiguration of Christ was the glory of the Father, (p. 462) since the glory of the Father and of the Son is one; for now also Stephen, having clearly become in God, saw not only God in glory but also the glory itself, being the glory of the Father. “Was the achievement, then, of human nature? Was it of some angel who raised the lower nature up to that height? These things are not so; for it is not written that Stephen, being great in power or full of angelic assistance, saw what he saw, but that Stephen, being full of the Holy Spirit, saw the glory of God and the only-begotten of God; for it is not possible, as the prophet said, for the light to be seen unless it is seen in light.” But if in the paternal light, the Spirit, we see the Son as light, then there is for us a certain immediate union with God and a transmission of light from there, not partaken of through the medium of angels, even if this philosopher refuses it and thinks that the great Dionysius teaches this, not understanding precisely the power of the theology of this hierophant.

For he, explaining the reason for the angelic appellation, says that many visions are revealed to us through them, but not all of the self-manifesting ones,

94

ὥστε τόν Θεόν διά τε τῆς ψυχῆς καί τοῦ σώματος φαίνεσθαι». Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἄρα φωτός καί ὁ νοῦς καί ἡ αἴσθησις ἀντιλήψεται, ἑκάτερον μέντοι ἀναλόγως ἑαυτῷ, ἀλλ᾿ ὑπέρ αἴσθησιν καί νοῦν. Καί ὅ φησιν ὁ μέγας ∆ιονύσιος ὁρατήν θεοφάνειαν ἐκεῖ καί ὑπέρ νοῦν ἕνωσιν οὐ πάνυ διενηνόχασιν ἀλλήλων˙ ἄλλως τε καί ἀέρος ἐκεῖ καί τόπου κατά τούς θεηγόρους μή δεόμενοι, πῶς αἰσθητοῦ δεησόμεθα φωτός;

Ἀλλ᾿ ἐν Θεῷ γενόμενος ὁ Παῦλος καί τά τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀόρατα τεθεαμένος ἐν ἐκστάσει τήν οὐσίαν ἆρ᾿ εἶδε τοῦ Θεοῦ; Καί τίς ἄν τοῦτο εἴποι; Τόν αὐτόν οὖν τρόπον καί οἱ δι᾿ ἡσυχίας κεκαθαρμένοι τῶν ἀοράτων καταξιοῦνται θεαμάτων, ἀνεπάφου μενούσης τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλά καί μυοῦνται καί διανοοῦνται περί τῆς θεάς ἐκείνης οἱ καταξιωμένοι ταύτης καί οὕτω τῆς νοητῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ φωτοδοσίας ἐν ἀπαθεῖ καί ἀΰλῳ τῷ νῷ μετέχουσιν, ἀλλά καί ὑπέρ τάς θεωρίας ταύτας καί τάς κατ᾿ αὐτάς μυήσεις ἴσασι τό θεῖον˙ καί οὕτω τήν (σελ. 460) ὑπέρ νοῦν ταύτην κρεῖττον ἤ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἔχουσιν ἐπιβολήν, οὐκ ἀπό τοῦ μή ὁρᾶν, ὡς οἱ ἐξ ἀφαιρέσεως θεολογοῦντες, ἀλλ᾿ αὐτῇ τῇ ὁράσει τό ὑπέρ ὅρασιν εἰδότες, πάσχοντες οἷον τήν ἀφαίρεσιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ διανοούμενοι. Ὡς οὖν τοῦ καταφατικῶς θεολογεῖν τό τά θεῖα πάσχειν καί ὁρᾶν ἕτερον καί ὑπέρτερόν ἐστιν, οὕτω τοῦ κατά ἀφαίρεσιν θεολογεῖν τό κἀν τῇ πνευματικῇ ὁράσει διά τό τοῦ ὁρωμένου ὑπερβάλλον πάσχειν τήν ἀφαίρεσιν ἕτερον καί ὑπέρτερόν ἐστιν. Εἰ γάρ τις ἡλίου σκιάν ἐν κατόπτρῳ καθορῴη τοῦ κατ᾿ οὐρανόν τούτου λαμπροτέραν, ὡς καί ὑπό τῆς σκιώδους ἀστραπῆς τήν οἰκείαν ὄψιν ἡττωμένην ἔχειν, πάντως τό δι᾿ ὑπεροχήν ἀόρατον τοῦ ἀρχετύπου συνεώρακεν ἄν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐξ ἀορασίας, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ τῆς ὁράσεως˙ οὕτω τοίνυν καί οἱ τῆς μακαριωτάτης ἐκείνης θεάς ἀξιούμενοι, οὐκ ἐξ ἀποφάσεως ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ τῆς ἐν πνεύματι ὁράσεως τῆς θεοποιοῦ ταύτης ἐνεργείας τό ὑπέρ ὅρασιν γινώσκουσι, πόσῳ γε μᾶλλον τοῦ ταύτην ἐνεργοῦντος. Ὅσοι δ᾿ ἄν ὑπ᾿ ἐκείνων διδαχθεῖεν, τῆς μέν νοητῆς φωτοδοσίας μεταλαγχάνουσι καί πρός τήν κατά ἀπόφασιν θεολογίαν ἀνιέναι δύνανται˙ τυχεῖν δέ τῆς ὁμοίας θέας καί δι᾿ αὐτῆς καί μετ᾿ αὐτῆς συνορᾶν τό τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀθέατον, τῶν ἀδυνάτων, εἰ μή καί τῆς ὑπερφυοῦς καί πνευματικῆς καί ὑπέρ νοῦν ἑνώσεως τεύξονται.

Οὕτω γάρ καί ὁ Στἐφανος, κατά τόν Νύσσης θεῖον Γρηγόριον, «οὐκ ἐν τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ φύσει τε καί δυνάμει μένων τό θεῖον βλέπει, ἀλλά πρός τήν τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος χάριν ἀνακραθείς, ὅτι τῷ ὁμοίῳ καθορᾶσθαι τά ὅμοια παρά τῆς Γραφῆς μεμαρτύρηται˙ εἰ γάρ ἀνθρωπίνῃ φύσει τε καί δυνάμει ἡ τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ δόξα χωρητή κατέστη, ψευδής ὁ ἀχώρητον ἀποφηνάμενος εἶναι τό θέαμα˙ ἀλλά μή οὐδέ ἐκεῖνον ψεύδεσθαι καί τήν ἱστορίαν ἀληθεύειν ἐπάναγκες». Καλῶς ἄρα καί πρότερον ἐλέγομεν ὅτι ἡ ἐπί τῇ μεταμορφώσει τοῦ Χριστοῦ θεωρηθεῖσα δόξα τοῦ Πατρός ἦν, (σελ. 462) ἐπεί Πατρός τε καί Υἱοῦ δόξα μία˙ καί νῦν γάρ σαφῶς ἐν Θεῷ γενόμενος ὁ Στέφανος, οὐ τόν Θεόν ἐν δόξῃ εἶδε μόνον ἀλλά καί αὐτήν τήν δόξαν, δόξαν οὖσαν τοῦ Πατρός. «Ἆρ᾿ οὖν ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως ἦν τό κατόρθωμα; Ἆρά τινος τῶν ἀγγέλων πρός τό ὕψος ἐκεῖνο τήν κάτω κειμένην φύσιν ἀναβιβάσαντος; Οὐκ ἔστι ταῦτα˙ οὐ γάρ οὕτω γέγραπται ὅτι Στέφανος τῇ δυνάμει πολύς ἤ τῆς ἀγγελικῆς βοηθείας πλήρης γενόμενος εἶδεν ἅ εἶδεν, ἀλλ᾿ ὅτι Στέφανος, πλήρης ὤν Πνεύματος ἁγίου, εἶδε τήν δόξαν τοῦ Θεοῦ καί τόν μονογενῆ τοῦ Θεοῦ˙ οὐ γάρ ἔστι, καθάπερ ὁ προφήτης εἶπε, τό φῶς ὀφθῆναι μή ἐν φωτί καθορώμενον». Εἰ δέ ἐν φωτί πατρικῷ τῷ Πνεύματι φῶς ὁρῶμεν τόν Υἰόν, ἔστιν ἄρ᾿ ἡμῖν ἕνωσίς τις ἄμεσος πρός τόν Θεόν καί μετάδοσις φωτός ἐκεῖθεν, μή διά μέσων μετεχομένη τῶν ἀγγέλων, εἰ καί ὁ φιλόσοφος οὗτος ἀπαναίνεται καί τόν μέγαν ∆ιονύσιον τοῦθ᾿ οὕτως οἴεται διδάσκειν, μή τήν δύναμιν ἀκριβῶς τῆς τοῦ ἱεροφάντορος τούτου θεολογίας συνιείς.

Τήν γάρ αἰτίαν οὗτος τῆς ἀγγελικῆς ἐκκαλύπτων ἐπωνυμίας, ὁράσεις μέν πολλάς δι᾿ αὐτῶν ἡμῖν ἐκφαίνεσθαί φησιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί καί τάς αὐτοφανεῖς ἁπάσας,