103

to live by the elements of the world as a teacher, O man? What are you saying? "We await a new heaven and a new earth according to His promise," and will we not comprehend and glorify God in a supracelestial manner from that, but will we know him only from this old and alterable one? Not only alterable but also corruptible. For in calling that one new, he showed this one to be old; and everything that grows old and ages is on its way to disappearing.

But from where were we taught about this new world and the life that does not grow old? Was it from the contemplation of creatures or from the one "declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord"? Is not Christ our one master? Where, then, in his words were we taught about the nature of the corruptible world? Did he not himself command not to call anyone master on earth? How then shall we go to the Greeks and Egyptians to learn something salvific? Our knowledge of God boasts God as its teacher; not an angel, not a man, but the Lord himself taught and saved us. No longer do we know God from probability; for such is the knowledge of God from creatures; but now "the life was made manifest, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us" and it announced to us that "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all," and those who believed in him he made children of light, "and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be," because "if he is revealed, we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is." You have again an attack of slander: "for we shall see him as he is." But he who says these things, having been built up closely on the stone laid in Zion, is like it in all things: "therefore he who falls on it will be broken, and on whomever it falls, it will crush him."

(p. 500) But let us consider from where the philosopher constructs the argument that there is no vision above all intellectual energies, having first said that we know that that about which our discourse is, is both nameless and above every name. For if we indeed call it vision, we also know that it exists beyond vision, and if someone wishes to call it intellection, believing or knowing by experience that it is also beyond intellection, he agrees with us on this. Therefore, let all the thoughts and visions that are affirmed and negated in an orderly way be dismissed by him as vain and having nothing to do with us and the present discussion. But that there is a vision beyond all intellection, he neither understood nor believed, and we would have pardoned him for not understanding, since to understand what is beyond understanding is not in our nature and its practices, and we would have accepted him for not entirely believing, knowing that it is necessary according to the apostle "to welcome the one who is weak in faith." But to attempt to turn believers away and to use polemical writings against them and against the truth and in every way to hasten to scandalize not only the little ones, but also those who have advanced in virtue and piety, who, choosing to be a servant of the truth, could bear this in silence? He, therefore, did not understand nor believe that there is a vision and intellection beyond all vision and intellection, which is both above name and possesses names that are inadequate to it, and what he thinks the theologians say is beyond the mind, namely, apophatic theology, even he himself confesses is not beyond the mind. "For," he says, "they negate things that are known, not things that are not known"; and we know that in this theology the mind thinks through the things that are negated of God, so that not even this theology has surpassed the intellectual energies.

And concerning the vision beyond the mind, we would say this, that if our mind did not have the ability to transcend itself, (p. 502) neither would there be a vision and intellection beyond the intellectual energies; but since it does have this power and according to this alone is it properly united to God, going forth through it at the time of prayer

103

διδασκάλου τοῖς τοῦ κόσμου ζῆν στοιχείοις, ἄνθρωπε; Τί λέγεις; «Καινόν οὐρανόν καί καινήν γῆν κατά τό ἐπάγγελμα αὐτοῦ προσδοκῶμεν», καί οὐκ ἐκ ἐκείνου τόν Θεόν ὑπερκοσμίως νοήσομέν τε καί δοξάσομεν, ἀλλ᾿ἐκ τοῦ παλαιοῦ τούτου μόνου καί ἀλλοιωτοῦ ἐπιγνωσόμεθα αὐτόν; Οὐκ ἀλλοιωτοῦ δέ μόνον ἀλλά καί φθαρτοῦ. Καί γάρ καινόν εἰπών ἐκεῖνον, παλαιόν τοῦτον ἐδειξε˙ πᾶν δέ τό παλαιούμενον καί γηράσκον εἰς ἀφανισμόν.

Ἀλλά πόθεν τόν καινόν τοῦτον ἐδιδάχθημεν κόσμον καί τήν μή παλαιουμένην ζωήν; Ἆρ᾿ ἀπό τῆς τῶν κτισμάτων θεωρίας ἤ παρά τοῦ «ὁρισθέντος Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει, κατά Πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν»; Οὐχ εἷς ἡμῶν καί καθηγητής, ὁ Χριστός; Ποῦ τοίνυν τῶν αὐτοῦ λόγων περί τῆς τοῦ φθειρομένου κόσμου φύσεως ἐδιδάχθημεν; Οὐ αὐτός ἐνετείλατο μή καλεῖν καθηγητήν ἐπί τῆς γῆς; Πῶς οὖν ἡμεῖς Ἕλλησι καί Αἰγυπτίοις ὡς σωτήριόν τι μαθησόμενοι φοιτήσομεν; Θεόν αὐχεῖ διδάσκαλον ἡ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς θεογνωσία˙ οὐκ ἄγγελος, οὐκ ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλ᾿ αὐτός ὁ Κύριος ἐδίδαξε καί ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς. Οὐκέτι ἐκ τοῦ εἰκότος γινώσκομεν Θεόν˙ τοιαύτη γάρ ἡ ἀπό τῶν κτισμάτων γνῶσις τοῦ Θεοῦ˙ νῦν δέ «ἡ ζωή ἐφανερώθη, ἥτις ἦν πρός τόν Πατέρα καί ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν» καί ἀνήγγειλεν ἡμῖν ὅτι «ὁ Θεός φῶς ἐστι καί σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ ὑπάρχει οὐδεμία», καί τούς πιστεύσαντας αὐτῷ τέκνα ἐποίησε φωτός, «καί οὔπω ἐφανερώθη τί ἐσόμεθα», ὅτι «ἐάν φανερωθῇ, ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα, ὅτι καί ὀψόμεθα αὐτόν καθώς ἐστιν». Ἔχεις πάλιν ἔφοδον συκοφαντίας˙ «καθώς γάρ ἐστιν ὀψόμεθα αὐτόν». Ἀλλ᾿ ὁ ταῦτα λέγων, τῇ ἐν Σιών τεθείσῃ πέτρᾳ προσεχῶς ἐπῳκοδομημένος, ταύτῃ παραπλήσιός ἐστιν ἐν πᾶσιν˙ «ὁ πεσών οὖν ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν συντριβήσεται, καί ἐφ᾿ ὅν ἄν πέσῃ, λικμήσει αὐτόν».

(σελ. 500) Ἡμεῖς δέ σκεψώμεθα πόθεν ὁ φιλόσοφος κατασκευάζει ὡς ὑπέρ πάσας τάς νοεράς ἐνεργείας ὅρασις οὐκ ἔστιν, ἐκεῖνο πρότερον εἰπόντες, ὡς ἀνώνυμόν τε καί ὑπερώνυμον ἐκεῖνο ἴσμεν, περί οὗ ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος. Εἰ γοῦν καί ὅρασιν αὐτό φαμεν, ἀλλά καί ὑπέρ ὅρασιν αὐτό ὑπάρχον ἐπιστάμεθα, κἄν τις ἐθέλῃ νόησιν αὐτό καλεῖν, ὅτι καί ὑπέρ νόησίν ἐστιν ἐκεῖνο πιστεύων ἤ διά τῆς πείρας ἐπιστάμενος, κατά τοῦθ᾿ ἡμῖν ὁμολογεῖ. Τά γοῦν συντεταγμένως καταφασκόμενά τε καί ἀποφασκόμενα νοήματά τε καί ὁράματα αὐτῷ παρείσθω πάνθ᾿ ὡς μάταια καί μηδέν ὄντα πρός ἡμᾶς καί τόν προκείμενον λόγον. Ὅτι δέ ἐστιν ὅρασις ὑπέρ πᾶσαν νόησιν, ἐκεῖνος μέν οὐκ ἐνόησεν οὐδέ ἐπίστευσεν, ἡμεῖς δέ καί μή νοοῦντι συνέγνωμεν ἄν, ἐπειδή τό ὑπέρ νοῦν νοεῖν οὐκ ἔνι φύσει τῇ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς καί ταῖς κατ᾿ αὐτήν μελέταις, καί μή πάντῃ πιστεύοντα παρεδεξάμεθ᾿ ἄν, χρῆν εἰδότες κατά τόν ἀπόστολον «τόν ἀσθενοῦντα τῇ πίστει προσλαμβάνεσθαι». Τό δέ καί τούς πιστεύοντας περιτρέπειν ἐγχειρεῖν καί συγγράμμασιν ἐναγωνίοις χρῆσθαι κατ᾿ αὐτῶν τε καί τῆς ἀληθείας καί παντί τρόπῳ σκανδαλίζειν σπεύδειν οὐ τούς μικρούς μόνον, ἀλλά καί τούς προήκοντας ἀρετῇ καί εὐσεβείᾳ, τοῦτο δέ τίς ἄν ἐνέγκοι σιωπῇ τῆς ἀληθείας θεραπευτής εἶναι προαιρούμενος; Ἐκεῖνος μέν οὖν ὡς ἔστιν ὅρασις καί νόησις ὑπέρ πᾶσαν ὅρασιν καί νόησιν, ὑπερώμενός τε οὖσα καί ἀποδεούσας ἑαυτῆς κεκτημένη τάς ἐπωνυμίας οὐκ ἐνόησεν, οὐδέ ἐπίστευσε, καί ὅ δέ ὑπέρ νοῦν λέγειν τούς θεολόγους οἴεται, τήν κατά ἀπόφασιν θεολογίαν, οὐδέ τοῦτ᾿ εἶναι ὑπέρ νοῦν καί αὐτός ὁμολογεῖ. «Τά γάρ ἐγνωσμένα», φησίν, «ἀποφάσκουσιν, οὐ τά μή ἐγνωσμένα»˙ καί ἡμεῖς ἴσμεν ὡς ἐν τῇ θεολογίᾳ ταύτῃ τά ἀπεφαίνοντα τῷ Θεῷ διανοεῖται ὁ νοῦς, ὥστ᾿ οὐδ᾿ αὕτη ἡ θεολογία τάς νοεράς ἐνεργείας ὑπερβέβηκε.

Περί δέ τῆς ὑπέρ νοῦν ὁράσεως τοῦτ᾿ ἄν εἴποιμεν, ὡς, εἰ μέν οὐκ εἶχεν ὁ ἡμέτερος νοῦς ὑπεραναβαίνειν ἑαυτόν, (σελ. 502) οὐδ᾿ ἄν ἦν ὑπέρ τάς νοεράς ἐνεργείας ὅρασις καί νόησις˙ ἐπεί δέ καί ταύτην ἔχει τήν δύναμιν καί κατά ταύτην μόνην κυρίως ἑνοῦται τῷ Θεῷ, δι᾿ αὐτοῦ κατά τόν καιρόν τῆς προσευχῆς προϊοῦσαν