98

and not to be held back again at all by any word or manner, for some according to an abundant, good-giving effusion, for others moderately, and for others to be able at least in some way to image him. And this might be, perhaps, according to my foolishness, the pouring forth of the good and its journeying, the one God being multiplied analogously to the receptive capacities by the sharing of good things.”

ƒΗ (98). ..».HE SHARES A SECOND COMMUNION, MUCH MORE

PARADOXICAL THAN THE FIRST» From the same discourse, on the text, “He shares a second communion, much more

paradoxical than the first.” It was not so wondrous, I think, great though it was, for God to bring the nature of men, being pure at the first creation, since indeed it was honored by the hand of God, into communion with himself through the in-breathing, imparting to that which was like him the divine beauty according to the image, as it was that he deigned to associate with this nature (14∆_402> which had been defiled and had fled from God, through the passions with which it was stained, and to partake of the worse, and for him who is in every way unmixed with things to augment the wonder by the paradoxical union. For previously, nature had received union with God in no manner or principle of essence or hypostasis, among those in which all beings are universally considered, but now it received hypostatic union with him through the ineffable union, preserving, that is, its own principle of being different from the divine essence according to its essence, unchangeably, with which it has, through the union, that which is hypostatically one and different, so that on the one hand, by the principle of its being, according to which it came to be and is, it might remain possessing properly its own being, undiminished in every way, and on the other hand, by the principle of its mode of being, having received to subsist divinely, it might neither know nor admit at all the inclination to move towards anything else. In this way, therefore, the Logos effected a communion with the nature of men much more paradoxical than the first, having united the nature itself essentially to himself hypostatically.

ƒΘ (99). ..».... AND IF NOT LIKE JOHN FROM THE WOMB, THEN LIKE DAVID AT THE

RESTING OF THE ARK» From the same [discourse], on the text, “But now receive for me the conception, and leap for joy, and if

not like John from the womb, then like David at the resting of the ark.” John the great is an image not only of repentance, and of dispassion according to the 1292 practical

philosophy, and of gnostic contemplation—of the first as herald and baptist, of the second as a hermit and one completely separated from the world, and of the third as a Levite and priest and forerunner of the Word of God—but he is also a symbol of immutability in these things according to state, since from the womb and until death he preserved the tenor of his soul in these things unyielding. But David (14∆_404> is himself also an image of confession, of practice and of contemplation, as being of the Jewish tribe and first a shepherd and later a king, and a slayer of foreigners, but not, however, a symbol of immutability in these things according to state. For he fell away after he came to knowledge, suffering something human, and did not keep the state of virtue and of knowledge immutable. For this reason, perhaps, it is not written that he leaped for joy at the Word from the womb like the great John, but after the complete destruction of the foreigners and the restoration of the ark, that is, after the withdrawal of the passions and the return of knowledge again.

98

καί μηδενί λόγῳ ἤ τρόπῳ τό σύνολον πάλιν κατέχεσθαι, τοῖς μέν κατά περιττήν ἀγαθόδωρον χύσιν, τοῖς δέ μέσως, τοῖς δέ τό κατά τι γοῦν ἐξεικονίζειν αὐτόν δύνασθαι. Καί τοῦτο ἄν εἴη τυχόν, κατά τήν ἐμήν ἀφροσύνην, τό χεῖσθαι τό ἀγαθόν καί ὁδεύειν, τό τόν ἕνα Θεόν ἀναλόγως πρός τά δεκτικά τῇ μεταδόσει τῶν ἀγαθῶν πληθύνεσθαι».

ƒΗ (98). ..».∆ΕΥΤΕΡΑΝ ΚΟΙΝΩΝΕΙ ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑΝ, ΠΟΛΥ ΤΗΣ ΠΡΟΤΕΡΑΣ

ΠΑΡΑ∆ΟΞΟΤΕΡΑΝ» Ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ λόγου, εἰς τό, «∆ευτέραν κοινωνεῖ κοινωνίαν, πολύ τῆς

προτέρας παραδοξοτέραν». Οὐκ ἦν θαυμαστόν, ὡς οἶμαι, τοσοῦτο, καίπερ ὅν τηλικοῦτο, τό κατά τήν

πρώτην πλάσιν καθαράν οὖσαν τήν φύσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἅτε δή χειρί Θεοῦ τιμηθεῖσαν, πρός κοινωνίαν ἑαυτοῦ διά τῆς ἐμπνεύσεως ἀγαγεῖν τόν Θεόν, τῷ ὁμοίῳ μεταδιδόντα τῆς κατ᾿ εἰκόνα θείας ὡραιότητος, ὅσον τό ῥυπωθεῖσαν ταύτην (14∆_402> καί Θεοῦ δραπετεύσασαν, δι᾿ ὧν ἀνεμάξατο παθῶν, ταύτῃ προσομιλῆσαι καταδέξασθαι, καί τοῦ χείρονος μετασχεῖν, καί τῷ πάντη τῶν πραγμάτων ἀμίκτῳ τῇ παραδόξῳ ἑνώσει προσεπιτεῖναι τό θαῦμα. Πρότερον μέν γάρ κατ᾿ οὐδέν τρόπον ἤ λόγον οὐσίας ἤ ὑποστάσεως, τῶν ἐν οἷς τά ὄντα πάντα καθολικῶς θεωρεῖται, τό ἕν πρός τόν Θεόν ἡ φύσις εἰλήφει, νῦν δέ τό καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἕν πρός αὐτόν διά τῆς ἀφράστου ἑνώσεως ἔλαβε, τόν οἰκεῖον δηλαδή κατά τήν οὐσίαν ἀναλλοιώτως πρός τήν θείαν οὐσίαν διάφορον διαφυλάττουσαν λόγον, πρός ἥν ἔχει διά τῆς ἑνώσεως τό καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἕν καί διάφορον, ἵνα τῷ μέν τοῦ εἶναι λόγῳ, καθ᾿ ὅν γεγένηται καί ἔστι, διαμένοι τό ἑαυτῆς ὅν κυρίως ἔχουσα κατά πάντα τρόπον ἀμείωτον, τῷ δέ τοῦ πως εἶναι λόγῳ τό ὑφεστάναι θεϊκῶς λαβοῦσα τῆς περί τι ἄλλο κινήσεως τήν ῥοπήν παντελῶς μήτε γινώσκῃ, μήτε προσίηται. Ταύτῃ γοῦν πολύ τῆς προτέρας παραδοξοτέραν τήν πρός τήν φύσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὁ Λόγος ἐποιήσατο κοινωνίαν, αὐτήν τήν φύσιν οὐσιωδῶς ἑαυτῷ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἑνώσας.

ƒΘ (99). ..».... ΚΑΙ ΕΙ ΜΗ ΩΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΣ ΑΠΟ ΓΑΣΤΡΟΣ, ΑΛΛ' ΩΣ ∆ΑΒΙ∆ ΕΠΙ ΤΗ

ΚΑΤΑΠΑΥΣΕΙ ΤΗΣ ΚΙΒΩΤΟΥ» Ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ, εἰς τό, «Νυνί δέ μοι δέξαι τήν κύησιν, καί προσκίρτησον, καί εἰ

μή ὡς Ἰωάννης ἀπό γαστρός, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ∆αβίδ ἐπί τῇ καταπαύσει τῆς κιβωτοῦ». Ἰωάννης ὁ μέγας οὐ μόνον μετανοίας καί τῆς 1292 κατά τήν πρακτικήν

φιλοσοφίαν ἀπαθείας καί γνωστικῆς θεωρίας ἐστίν εἰκών, τῆς μέν ὡς κῆρυξ καί βαπτιστής, τῆς δέ ὡς ἐρημίτης καί τοῦ κόσμου πάντη κεχωρισμένος, τῆς δέ ὡς Λευίτης καί ἱερεύς καί Θεοῦ Λόγου πρόδρομος, ἀλλά καί τῆς ἐν τούτοις κατά τήν ἕξιν ἀτρεψίας σύμβολον, ὡς ἀπό γαστρός καί μέχρι θανάτου τόν ἐν τούτοις τῆς ψυχῆς τόνον ἐμείλικτον διατηρήσας. Ὁ δέ ∆αβίδ (14∆_404> ἐξομολογήσεως πράξεώς τε καί θεωρίας καί αὐτός ἐστιν εἰκών, ὡς τῆς ἰουδαϊκῆς φυλῆς καί ποιμήν πρότερον καί ὕστερον βασιλεύς, καί τῶν ἀλλοφύλων ἀναιρέτης, οὐ μήν δέ καί τῆς τούτων κατά τήν ἕξιν ἀτρεψίας σύμβολον. Παρέπεσε γάρ μετά τήν ἐπίγνωσιν, ἀνθρώπινόν τι παθῶν, καί τήν ἕξιν τῆς ἀρετῆς καί τῆς γνώσεως οὐκ ἐφύλαξεν ἄτρεπτον. ∆ιό τυχόν οὐδέ ἀπό γαστρός τοῦ Λόγου προσκιρτῆσαι γέγραπται κατά τόν μέγαν Ἰωάννην, ἀλλά μετά τήν τῶν ἀλλοφύλων τελείαν ἀναίρεσιν καί τήν τῆς κιβωτοῦ ἀποκατάστασιν, τουτέστι μετά τήν τῶν παθῶν ὑποχώρησιν καί τήν τῆς γνώσεως αὖθις ἐπάνοδον.