96

appearing, will seem less brilliant by so great a light. He, therefore, who then shines like the sun, outshining the sun, shines not as the sun, but beyond the sun; thus also, though spoken of by way of likeness, he has no equality, and though compared by way of example, he has no similarity of equal honor. But that the light which appeared on Tabor to the chosen disciples of the Lord is not properly perceptible by the senses nor by the intellect, has been sufficiently demonstrated beforehand to the best of my ability in the discourse *On Divine Illumination and Holy Blessedness*.

But those who contend against such an illumination and light say that all the lights shown by God to the saints are symbolic phantoms, and riddles of certain immaterial and intelligible realities, and are shown economically and as apparitions according to the circumstances that arise, and they falsely accuse the holy Dionysius the Areopagite of agreeing with them, although he clearly says that the light which shone around the disciples at the most divine transfiguration will illuminate us in the age to come with the most brilliant splendors, unceasingly and unendingly, we being always with the Lord according to the promise. Of all the symbols and riddles, therefore, which are fashioned according to the circumstances that arise, which come to be and pass away, and which exist now, or rather, appear at some time but are properly almost never existent, how will this most brilliant and most divine light, which is ever-existent and properly existent and unalterably existent, not be distinct from them? Or while we will say that the sun, the most brilliant of all perceptible things, which is derived from a turning and is subject to many annual turnings and is obstructed by many (p. 452) bodies, and is now eclipsed and now hidden, and is at times even subject to the commands of saints, and hence also is stopped in its motion, going backward and standing still—this sun, I say, and the light from it, we will say exists in substance, but that light, "with whom is no variation, neither shadow of turning," the radiance of the consubstantial flesh which possesses and gives the glory of the Godhead, this light, therefore, the beauty of the age to come and that abides, shall we call it a symbol and a phantom and unsubstantial? Not while we are lovers of that light.

For Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom and Basil the Great clearly call this light 'divinity.' "Light," he says, "is the divinity shown on the mountain to the disciples"; and again, "the Lord appeared more brilliant than himself, the divinity having shown its rays"; and again, "to the pure in heart, such a translucent power appeared through the adorable body, as through glass lamps." So that this glory was not simply of the body, but of the divine nature, which, being united in one of its holy hypostases to that adorable body, imparted to it all this its own glory and God-befitting splendor. Wherefore also Macarius the Great called this the glory of the Spirit. How then can the divinity, the splendor and glory of that super-essentiality, now exist and now not exist, coming to be and ceasing to be, appearing and disappearing, not being hidden from the unworthy but passing into non-being, like the phantoms and such symbols and riddles and whatever is named by these all-daring men, who also brought forth their own refuters as witnesses for them, both the divine Dionysius and Maximus, not understanding that the wise in divine things, Maximus, called the light at the Lord's transfiguration a symbol of theology analogically and anagogically (p. 454)?

For of the symbols which both are and are called homonymously with all subsisting things in theologies according to analogy and anagogy, such a symbol also

96

τοσούτῳ φαινόμενος φωτί ἀλαμπέστερος φανεῖται. Ὁ τοίνυν ὡς ἥλιος τότε λάμπων τόν ἥλιον ὑπερλάμπων, οὐχ ὡς ὁ ἥλιος λάμπει, ἀλλ᾿ ὑπέρ τόν ἥλιον˙ οὕτω καί ὁμοιωματικῶς λεγόμενος οὐδεμίαν ἔχει τήν ἰσότητα, καί παραδειγματικῶς συγκρινόμενος οὐδεμίαν ἔχει ὁμοιότητα ὁμότιμον. Ἀλλ᾿ ὅτι μέν οὐκ αἰσθητόν κυρίως οὐδέ νοητόν τό φανέν φῶς ἐν Θαβωρίῳ τοῖς τῶν μαθητῶν τοῦ Κυρίου ἀπολέκτοις, ἐν τῷ Περί φωτισμοῦ θείου καί ἱερᾶς εὐδαιμονίας λόγῳ κατ᾿ ἐμήν δύναμιν ἱκανῶς προαποδέδεικται.

Φασί δ᾿ οἱ κατά τοῦ τοιούτου φωτισμοῦ καί φωτός ἀγωνισάμενοι καί συμβολικά εἶναι φάσματα πάντα τά παρά Θεοῦ δειχθέντα τοῖς ἁγίοις φῶτα, καί ἀΰλων δή τινων καί νοητῶν αἰνίγματα πραγμάτων, καί οἰκιονομικῶς καί φανταστικῶς, δεικνύμενα πρός τάς συμβαινούσας περιστάσεις, καί τοῦ Ἀρεοπαγίτου ἁγίου καταψεύδονται ∆ιονυσίου ὡς συμφθεγγομένου τούτοις, καίτοι σαφῶς οὗτος τό ἐν τῇ θειοτάτῃ μεταμορφώσει τούς μαθητάς περιαστράψαν φῶς φανοτάταις μαρμαρυγαῖς ἐπί τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος περιαυγάζειν φησίν ἡμᾶς ἀδιαλείπτως καί ἀτελευτήτως, πάντοτε σύν Κυρίῳ κατά τήν ἐπαγγελίαν ὄντας. Τῶν οὖν συμβόλων τε καί αἰνιγμάτων πάντων, τῶν πρός τά συμβαινούσας περιστάσεις διαπλαττομένων, γινομένων τε καί ἀπογινομένων, καί νῦν μέν ὄντων, μᾶλλον δέ φαιομένων μέν ποτε, κυρίως δέ ὄντων σχεδόν οὐδέποτε, τό ἀεί ὄν καί κυρίως ὄν καί ἀναλλοιώτως ὄν φανότατον τοῦτο καί θειότατον φῶς πῶς οὐκ ἀφειμένον ἔσται; Ἤ τόν μέν ἐν αἰσθητοῖς φανότατον ἁπάντων ἥλιον ἐκ τροπῆς ἠργμένον καί πολλαῖς ἐτησίοις ὑποκείμενον τροπαῖς καί πολλοῖς (σελ. 452) σώμασιν ἀντιφραττόμενον, καί νῦν μέν ἐκλείποτα νῦν δέ κρυπτόμενον, ἔστι δ᾿ ὅτε καί ἁγίων ἐπιτάγμασιν ὑποταττόμενον, κἀντεῦθεν καί κινήσεως ἀνακοπτόμενον, ἀναποδίζοντά τε καί ἱστάμενον, τοῦτον μέν καί τό ἀπό τούτου φῶς ὅ ἐροῦμεν ἐν ὑποστάσει, τό δέ φῶς ἐκεῖνο, «παρ᾿ ᾧ οὐκ ἔστι παραλλαγή ἤ τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα», τό ἀπαύγασμα τῆς ὁμοθέου σαρκός τῆς πλουτούσης καί διδούσης τήν δόξαν τῆς θεότητος τοῦτο τοίνυν τό φῶς, τήν καλλονήν τοῦ μέλλοντος καί μένοντος αἰῶνος, σύμβολον καί φάσμα καί ἀνυπόστατον ἐροῦμεν; Οὐχ, ἕως ῶμεντοῦ φωτός ἐκείνου ἀρασταί.

Τοῦτο γάρ τό φῶς καί Γρηγόριος ὁ θεολόγος καί Ἰωάννης ὁ τήν γλῶτταν χρυσοῦς καί Βασίλειος ὁ μέγας θεότητα σαφῶς καλοῦσι. «Φῶς», φησίν, «ἡ παραδειχθεῖσα θεότης ἐπί τοῦ ὄρους τοῖς μαθηταῖς»˙ καί αὖθις, «λαμπρότερος ἑαυτοῦ ἐφαίνετο ὁ Κύριος, τῆς θεότητος παραδειξάσης τάς ἀκτῖνας αὐτῆς»˙ καί πάλιν, «ἐφαίνετο τοῖς καθαροῖς τήν καρδίαν, ὡς δι᾿ ὑελίνων λαμπτήρων, διά τοῦ προσκυνητοῦ σώματος ἡ τοιαύτη διαυγάζουσα δύναμις». Ὥστε οὐ τοῦ σώματος ἦν ἁπλῶς ἡ δόξα αὕτη, ἀλλά τῆς θείας φύσεως, ἥτις ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ ἁγίων ὑποστάσεων τῷ προσκυνητῷ ἐκείνῳ συνημμένη σώματι, πᾶσαν τήν ἰδίαν ταύτην δόξαν καί θεοπρεπῆ λαμπρότητα ἐνέθηκεν αὐτῷ. ∆ιό καί ὁ μέγας Μακάριος δόξαν τοῦτο προσηγόρευσε τοῦ Πνεύματος. Πῶς οὖν ἡ θεότης, ἡ λαμπρότης καί δόξα τῆς ὑπερουσιότητος ἐκείνης, νῦν μέν ἔσται νῦν δ᾿ οὐκ ἔσται, γινομένη τε καί ἀπογινομένη, φαινομένη τε καί ἀφανιζομένη, οὐκ ἀπό τῶν ἀναξίων κρυπτομέη, ἀλλ᾿ εἰς τό μή ὄν χωροῦσα, οἶα τά φάσματα καί τά τοιαῦτα σύμβολα καί αἰνίγματα καί ὅσα παρά τῶν παντόλμων ὀνομάζεται τούτων, οἵ καί τούς σφῶν ἐλέγχους ὡς αὐτοῖς συμμαρτυροῦντας παρήγαγον, ∆ιονύσιόν τε τόν θεῖον καί Μάξιμον, οὐ συνορῶντες ὡς ἀναλογικῶς τε καί ἀναγωγικῶς (σελ. 454) θεολογίας σύμβολον τό ἐν τῇ μεταμορφώσει τοῦ Κυρίου φῶς ὁ σοφός τά θεῖα προσηγόρευσε Μάξιομος;

Συμβόλων γάρ ὁμωνύμως καί τῶν ὑφεστώτων πάντων γινομένων τε καί λεγομένων ἐν ταῖς κατ᾿ ἀναλογίαν καί ἀναγωγήν θεολογίαις, τοιοῦτο σύμβολον καί