99

in no way partook of essence; and the essence of God is thus beyond that which pre-eminently is not, just as He is also beyond-God, and He is pre-eminently that which is not, being seen spiritually through noetic perception, which is by no means the essence of God, but the inseparable glory and radiance of His nature, through which He is united to the worthy alone, both angels and men. Yet, since just as the angels, so too men in these ways see God and are united to God and hymn God, perhaps an angel too, if he were to describe that transcendent vision of his, would have said exactly what Paul said, that "I know an angel who saw, I do not know if he was even an angel, God knows." To call these visions of the saints, therefore, which God alone knows and those who are energized according to them, just as Gregory the Theologian also says, to call these, therefore, sensible and imaginary and symbolic like sensible things and to compare them to human knowledge, is this the mark of a man who comprehends the infinity of the divine height and to what He has philanthropically drawn our lowliness?

(σελ. 482) But behold, three have been brought forward for us, one from each of the three orders in the Christ-named plenitude: from the apostles, Peter the chief; from the hierarchs, Dionysius the expounder of every divinely-inspired hierarchy; from the anchorites, Isaac the mystagogue and initiator of the hesychastic way of life. And as it is written concerning the shepherds at the birth of Christ that immediately with the word of the angel a multitude of the heavenly host appeared, bearing witness with them, so too with the word of the apostle a multitude of apostles appeared in agreement, and of holy ones and priests for each of the others. This whole multitude therefore sent up a single, concordant voice that there is a light which appears to the saints, a thing other than the knowledge derived from all created things, and more holy inasmuch as it is also the glory of God's nature, and is seen only by those who have become godlike; and it is so far from being imaginary or like sensible lights or symbolically fashioned after them, that this is the substance and beauty of the age to come, the only true, eternal, unchanging, unsetting, unalterable light, through which we become light, offspring of perfect light. Do you then, O philosopher, disparage so many men, calling them "effluents and influents" and saying that they sin concerning the essence of God—these seers of God, these wise in God, these preachers of God? I fear lest you fall away from the lot of the saints in light; lest, opening your mouth, you draw in not the Spirit, but that which is opposed to the truth; lest you dogmatize that the essence of God is that which has no existence. For what is the point of that struggle of yours, setting out with the greatest zeal to show that there is no contemplation beyond the noetic energies, even though it is through this very contemplation that transcends the noetic energies that it is known most clearly and pre-eminently that God truly is and that God is beyond beings? For how would the essence of God not be, (σελ. 484) if to those who through sincere prayer have ascended beyond everything sensible and intelligible, the glory of that divine nature is seen in that very prayer? And how much more beyond everything sensible and intelligible would the essence of God be, if it were beyond this vision, which is beyond all sensation and intellection?

And what of the good things of the age to come? Are they not beyond all our sensory and noetic faculties? "For what eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and has not entered into the heart of man, what God has prepared," it says, "for those who love Him"; and yet these things "the purity of heart will then see," according to Saint Maximus. How then is there in no way a vision beyond all acts of intellection? Do not, then, sophistically again, through homonymy, since you can no longer contradict us, pretend to agree. For one who calls that which is beyond intellection 'intellection' metaphorically and homonymously, because it is also beyond-name, will not then change his tune and struggle to show that it is not beyond intellection. And yet he who has said that which is beyond intellection is not beyond intellection, as

99

οὐσίας μετέσχεν οὐδαμῶς˙ καί ὑπέρ τό καθ᾿ ὑπεροχήν μή ὄν ἄρα ἡ οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ, καθάπερ καί ὑπέρθεος, καί ἔστι καθ᾿ ὑπεροχήν μή ὄν, διά νοερᾶς αἰσθήσεως πνευματικῶς ὁρώμενον, ὅ οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἥκιστά ἐστι, δόξα δέ καί λαμπρότης τῆς αὐτοῦ φύσεως ἀχώριστος, δι᾿ ἧς ἑνοῦται τοῖς ἀξίοις μόνοις, καί ἀγγέλοις καί ἀνθρώποις. Οὐ μήν ἀλλ᾿ ἐπείπερ ὡς οἱ ἄγγελοι οὕτω κάι οἱ ἄνθρωποι κατά τούς τρόπους τούτους ὁρῶσι τόν Θεόν καί ἑνοῦνται τῷ Θεῷ καί ὑμνοῦσι τόν Θεόν, τάχ᾿ ἄν καί ἄγγελος, εἰ τήν ἑαυτοῦ ὑπερφυᾶ ἐκείνην ὅρασιν ἐξεῖπε, τά τοῦ Παύλου ἄντικρυς ἄν εἶπεν, ὅτι «οἶδα ἄγγελον ἴδόντα, οὐκ οἶδα εἴγε ἦν κἄν ἄγγελος, ὁ Θεός οἶδεν». Τάς οὖν ὁράσεις ταύτας τῶν ἁγίων, ἅς οἶδε μόνος ὁ Θεός καί οἱ κατ᾿ ἐκείνας ἐνεργούμενοι, καθάπερ καί Γρηγόριος ὁ θεολόγος λέγει, ταύτας οὖν αἰσθητάς λέγειν καί φαντασιώδεις καί συμβολικάς ὡς αἰσθητάς καί πρός τήν ἀνθρωπίνην γνῶσιν παραβάλλειν, ἆρ᾿ ἀνδρός ἐστι συνορῶντος τήν τοῦ θείου ὕψους ἀπειρίαν καί πρός τί φιλανθρώπως εἵλκυσε τήν ἡμῶν ἐσχατιάν;

(σελ. 482) Ἀλλ᾿ ἰδού τρεῖς ἡμῖν παρήχθησαν, εἷς ἀφ᾿ ἑκάστου τῶν τριῶν ἐν τῷ χριστωνύμῳ πληρώματι ταγμάτων, ἐκ τῶν ἀποστόλων Πέτρος ὁ κορυφαῖος, ἐκ τῶν ἱεραρχῶν ∆ιονύσιος ὁ πάσης ἐνθέου ἱεραρχίας ὑποφήτης, ἐκ τῶν ἀναχωρητῶν Ἰσαάκ ὁ μύστης καί τελετής τῆς καθ᾿ ἡσυχίαν ἀγωγῆς, καί κατά τό γεγραμμένον ἐπί τῶν κατά τήν Χριστοῦ γέννησιν ποιμένων ὅτι εὐθύς σύν τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ ἀγγέλου πλῆθος οὐρανίου στρατιᾶς ἐπέστη συμμαρτυροῦν, οὕτω καί σύν τῷ τοῦ ἀποστόλου λόγῳ πλῆθος ἐπέστη ἀποστόλων συμφωνοῦν, ὁσίων τε καί ἱερέων ἐφ᾿ ἑκατέρου τῶν λοιπῶν. Τοῦτο τοίνυν τό πλῆθος ὁμόλογον ἅπαν ἀνέπεμψαν φωνήν ὡς ἔστι φῶς τοῖς ἁγίοις φαινόμενον, ἄλλο μέν παρά τήν ἀπό τῶν κτιστῶν ἁπάντων γνῶσιν, τοσούτῳ δ᾿ ἱερώτερον ὅσῳ καί δόξα ἐστί φύσεως Θεοῦ, καί τοῖς θεοειδέσι μόνοις γενομένοις καθορᾶται, τοσούτῳ δ᾿ ἀπέχον τοῦ φαντασιῶδες εἶναι ἤ τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς παραπλησίον φωσίν ἤ συμβολικῶς κατ᾿ αὐτά διαπεπλάσθαι, ὡς καί τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος τοῦθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν καί καλλονήν ὑπάρχειν, μόνον φῶς ἀληθινόν, αἰώνιον, ἄτρεπτον, ἀνέσπερον, ἀναλλοίωτον, δι᾿ οὗ φῶς ἡμεῖς γενόμεθα, τελείου φωτός γεννήματα. Τούτους οὖν τούς τοσούτους «ἀπορρέοντάς τε καί εἰσπνέοντας» καλῶν διασύρεις καί περί τήν τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐσίαν ἁμαρτάνειν λέγεις, φιλόσοφε, τούς θεόπτας, τούς θεοσόφους, τούς θεοκήρυκας; ∆έδοικα μή τοῦ ἐν φωτί κλήρου τῶν ἁγίων ἀπορρυῇς, μή, τό στόμα ἀνοίξας, ἑλκύσῃς Πνεῦμα, ἀλλά τό ἀντικείμενον τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, μή οὐσίαν δογματίσῃς Θεοῦ τό ἀνύπαρκτον. Τί γάρ σοι βούλεται ὁ ἀγών ἐκεῖνος, δεῖξαι τιθεμένῳ διά σπουδῆς μεγίστης ὡς οὐκ ἔστι θεωρία ὑπέρ τάς νοεράς ἐνεργείας, καίτοι δι᾿ αὐτῆς μόνης τῆς ὑπερβαινούσης τάς νοεράς ἐνεργείας θεωρίας καί τό ὄντως εἶναι τόν Θεόν τρανότατα καί ἐς τά μάλιστα διαφερόντως καί τό ὑπέρ τά ὄντα εἶναι τόν Θεόν; Πῶς γάρ οὐκ ἄν εἴη ἡ οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ, (σελ. 484) εἴγε τοῖς διά τῆς εἰλικρινοῦς προσευχῆς ὑπεραναβᾶσι πᾶν ὅ τί περ αἰσθητόν καί νοητόν ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ προσευχῇ ἡ δόξα τῆς θείας ἐκείνης ἐνορᾶται φύσεως; Πόσῳ δ᾿ ἄν εἴη ὑπέρ πᾶν αἰσθητόν καί νοητόν ἡ οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ, εἴπερ ὑπέρ ταύτην εἴη τήν θέαν, τήν ὑπέρ πᾶσαν αἴσθησιν καί νόησιν οὖσαν;

Τί δέ τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος ἀγαθά; Οὐχ ὑπέρ πάσας ἐστί τάς αἰσθητικάς ἠμῶν δυνάμεις καί τάς νοεράς; «Ἅ γάρ ὀφθαλμός οὐκ εἶδε καί οὖς οὐκ ἤκουσε καί ἐπί καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἀνέβη ἡτοίμασε», φησίν, «ὁ Θεός τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν»˙ ἀλλά μήν ταῦτα τότε «ἡ καθαρότης τῆς καρδίας ὄψεται», κατά τόν ἅγιον Μάξιμον. Πῶς οὖν οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδαμῶς ὅρασις ὑπέρ πάσας τάς νοήσεις; Μηδέ γάρ σοφιστικῶς αὖθις διά τῆς ὁμωνυμίας, ἅτε μηκέθ᾿ ἡμῖν ἔχων ἀντιλέγειν, ὑποκρίναιο τόν συμφθεγγόμενον. Οὐδέ γάρ ὁ λέγων μεταφορικῶς καί ὁμωνύμως νόησιν τό ὑπέρ νόησιν, διά τό καί ὑπερώνυμον ἐκεῖνο εἶναι, μεταβαλών αὖθις ἀγωνιεῖται δεῖξαι μή ὑπέρ νόησιν ἐκεῖνο εἶναι. Καί μήν ὁ μέν εἰπών οὐχ ὑπέρ νόησιν τό ὑπέρ νόησιν, ὡς