98

of intellectual beings," he says, "the self-chosen self-mastery, if it should boldly attempt to leap over the boundaries of the visible moderately given to it, the light will effect absolutely nothing contrary to the [nature] of light, but it [the self-mastery] will, because of itself, fail even of the moderate [gift]." If, then, the vision of intellectual beings is not separated from things beyond sense, even though it be visible, how will the vision of those who can attain the Christ-like end not be beyond sense, because it is visible? And not only is that visible theophany beyond sense, but also beyond intellect, just as Saint Maximus has made clear: "for," he says, "the Spirit will then grant us, through deification, the cessation of all natural energies of body and intellect, so that God may be seen through both the soul and the body." Therefore, both the intellect and sense will apprehend the same light, each, however, according to its own analogy, but [the light itself is] beyond sense and intellect. And what the great Dionysius calls there a visible theophany and a union beyond intellect are not at all different from each other; especially since, according to the divinely-inspired fathers, not needing air and place there, how shall we need a sensible light?

But Paul, having been in God and having seen the invisible things of God in ecstasy, did he then see the essence of God? And who would say this? In the same way, therefore, those purified through stillness are deemed worthy of invisible spectacles, while the essence of God remains untouched; but also those deemed worthy of this vision are initiated into and contemplate that vision, and thus they partake of the intelligible light-bestowal of God in an impassible and immaterial intellect, but they also know the divine to be beyond these visions and the initiations according to them; and thus they have this (p. 460) supra-intellectual apprehension in a way better than is ours, not from not seeing, as those who theologize by way of negation, but by knowing through the vision itself that which is beyond vision, experiencing, as it were, the negation, but not conceiving it. As, therefore, experiencing and seeing the divine things is different from and superior to theologizing cataphatically, so experiencing negation in the spiritual vision itself on account of the transcendence of that which is seen is different from and superior to theologizing by way of negation. For if someone should see in a mirror a shadow of the sun brighter than this sun in the sky, so as to have his own sight overcome by the shadowy flash, he would have certainly perceived the invisibility-through-excellence of the archetype, but not from its invisibility, but from the vision; thus, therefore, also those deemed worthy of that most blessed vision know what is beyond vision not from negation but from the spiritual vision of this deifying energy, and how much more so of Him who effects this. As many as may be 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 impossibilities, unless they should also attain the supernatural and spiritual and supra-intellectual union.

For thus also Stephen, according to the divine Gregory of Nyssa, "sees the divine not by remaining in human nature and power, but having been mingled with the grace of the Holy Spirit, because it has been 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, he is false who declared the sight to be incomprehensible; but it is necessary that he should not be speaking falsely and that the account should be true." Well, therefore, did we also say before that the glory beheld at the Transfiguration of Christ was the Father's, (p. 462) since the glory of the Father and of the Son is one; for now also Stephen, having clearly been 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 that raised the nature lying below to that height? No

98

νοερῶν», φησίν, «αὐθαίρετος αὐτοεξουσιότης, εἰ τοῦ μετρίως αὐτῇ δοθέντος ὁρατοῦ τούς ὅρους ὑπερπηδῆσαι τολμηρῶς ἐπιχειρῆσοι, τό μέν φῶς ἐνεργήσει παρά τάς φωτός οὐδέ ἕν, αὐτή δέ καί τοῦ μετρίου δι᾿ ἑαυτήν ἀποτεύξεται». Εἰ γοῦν τῶν νοερῶν ἡ θεωρία τῶν ὑπέρ αἴσθησιν οὐκ ἀποδιαστέλλεται, κἄν ὁρατή, πῶς ἡ τῶν τῆς χριστοειδοῦς ἐφικομένων λήξεως ὑπέρ αἴσθησιν οὐκ ἔσται, διότι ὁρατή; Καί μή οὐ μόνον ὑπέρ αἴσθησιν ἡ ὁρατή ἐκείνη θεοφάνεια, ἀλλά καί ὑπέρ νοῦν, καθάπερ καί ὁ ἅγιος Μάξιμος διετράνωσε˙ «πασῶν» γάρ, φησί, «τότε τῶν κατά σῶμα καί νοῦν φυσικῶν ἐνεργειῶν τήν ἀπόπαυσιν ἡμῖν χαριεῖσθαι τό Πνεῦμα διά τῆς θεώσεως, 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