114

a vision of God revealed to the purified, and after he said that "it would be possible even for the wise of this age to comprehend God from the harmony of the cosmos" and added, "but the genius of the beatitude seems to me to suggest something else," they clearly affirm what did not seem so to him. And when the great Dionysius the Areopagite asks how we know God "being neither intelligible nor sensible," and adds, albeit aporetically, "perhaps, then, it is true to say that we know him not from his own nature, but from the ordering of beings," and then revealed to us the most divine knowledge, which is perfected beyond mind and knowledge in the supernatural union with the superluminous light, they themselves have abandoned the knowledge beyond mind as being nothing, and that aporetic utterance, as if added in vain, they did not deem worthy of any inquiry, but they put forward the saint's utterance, stripped on both sides of its most crucial parts, as if it maintained that God is known from creatures alone. And not even this was the philosopher able to comprehend, that the saint's discourse here is about human (p. 546) knowledge, that which is naturally inherent in all, not that which is granted by the Spirit. For since, he says, every human being has sensation and mind, the natural faculties of knowledge, how shall we, by means of them, know God who is neither sensible nor intelligible? Surely from nowhere else than from beings, both sensible and intelligible; for knowledge, being of beings and having its limit in beings, also points to the divine from this source. But those who have not only sensory and intellectual faculties, but have also been blessed with spiritual and supernatural grace, will know God, who is Spirit, no longer from beings alone but also spiritually, beyond sensation and mind, becoming wholly of God and knowing God in God. Therefore, divine things are to be understood in this way, as the same saint exhorts, and not according to ourselves, but by standing completely outside of ourselves and becoming wholly of God; for it is better to be of God and not of ourselves; for in this way divine things will be given to those who have become with God.

Do you see how he has led us away from seeking to know God from beings, having revealed another knowledge, supernatural and divine and spiritual, which comes to us after the abstraction of beings, in the union beyond mind, and having said that in this way divine things are given, and in this way it is right to understand divine things, that is, spiritually and not according to ourselves, nor by gleaning knowledge of God from beings by sensation and mind? For this knowledge is imperfect and befitting imperfect minds. But what does the saint mean by the appended "perhaps," concerning the knowledge of the divine from beings and according to ourselves, which has been overlooked by the philosopher as superfluous? Since with sensible eyes and sensible ears we have ineffably seen light and heard the voice of God, for this reason it seemed to him a matter of reverence not to declare definitively (p. 548) that God is known from creatures alone and by these cognitive and human faculties themselves. And yet to those who are able to grasp with precision those words of the saint, it is clear he is teaching there only the introductory knowledge about God that comes from the knowledge of beings, for which reason he added: "from this we ascend, by a path and in order according to our capacity, to that which is beyond all things."

For this reason it was also suitable before the law for those still infants in the knowledge of God, and Abraham is said to have received the beginning of the knowledge of God from this, but later he did not converse with and know God from this. And what of Job, who cried out, seeing more clearly, "By the hearing of the ear I heard of you before, but now my eye has seen you"? And what of Moses, who in the darkness beyond beings saw God for forty whole days? For it was fitting that the visible world be set before the invisible things of God for those imperfect in knowledge, just as for those wrapped up in the senses the symbolic ordinances of the law were delivered through sensible things

114

κεκαθαρμένοις ἀποκαλυπτομένη Θεοῦ θωρία καί μετά τό εἰπεῖν ὅτι «γένοιτ᾿ ἄν καί τοῖς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου σοφοῖς ἐκ τῆς εὐαρμοστίας τοῦ κόσμου κατανοῆσαι Θεόν» ἐπενεγκόντος, «ἀλλ᾿ ἕτερόν μοι δοκεῖ ὑφηγεῖσθαι ἡ τοῦ μακαρισμοῦ μεγαλοφυΐα», τό ἐκείνῳ μή δοκοῦν αὐτοί σαφῶς διαβεβαιοῦνται. Τοῦ δέ Ἀρεοπαγίτου μεγάλου ∆ιονυσίου λέγοντος, πῶς ἡμεῖς γινώσκομεν Θεόν «οὔτε νοητόν ὄντα οὔτε αἰσθητόν», καί ἐπιφέροντος, διαπορητικῶς μέντοι, «μήποτε οὖν ἀληθές εἰπεῖν, ὡς οὐκ ἐκ τῆς αὐτοῦ φύσεως, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ τῆς τῶν ὄντων διατάξεως γινώσκομεν αὐτόν», εἶτα καί τήν θειοτάτηνγνῶσιν ἐκκαλύψαντος ἡμῖν, κατά τήν πρός τό ὑπερφαές φῶς ὑπερφυᾶ ἕνωσιν ὑπέρ νοῦν καί γνῶσιν τελουμένην, αὐτοί τήν μέν ὑπέρ νοῦν γνῶσιν ὡς οὐδέν οὖσαν ἀπολελοίπασι, τήν δέ διαπορητικήν φωνήν ἐκείνην, ὡς μάτην προσκειμένην, οὐδεμιᾶς ζητήσεως ἠξίωσαν, ἀλλά προβάλλονται τήν τοῦ ἁγίου φωνήν περιῃρημένην τῶν καιριωτάτων ἑκατέρωθεν, ὡς ἰσχυριζομένην ἐκ τῶν κτισμάτων μόνων τόν Θεόν γινώσκεσθαι. Καί οὐδ᾿ ἐκεῖνο συνιδεῖν ἴσχυσεν ὁ φιλόσοφος, ὅτι περί τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης (σελ. 546) γνώσεως ὁ λόγος ἐνταῦθα τῷ ἁγίῳ, τῆς φυσικῶς ἐνούσης πᾶσιν, οὐ τῆς ὑπό τοῦ Πνεύματος χροηγουμένης. Ἐπειδή γάρ, φησί, πᾶς ἄνθρωπος αἴσθησιν καί νοῦν ἔχει, φυσικάς τάς γνωστικάς δυνάμεις, πῶς γνωσόμεθα κατ᾿ αὐτάς τόν μήτε αἰσθητόν ὄντα μήτε νοητόν Θεόν; Οὐκ ἄλλοθέν γε πάντως ἤ ἐκ τῶν ὄντων, αἰσθητῶν καί νοητῶν˙ καί γάρ αἱ γνώσεις, τῶν ὄντων οὖσαι καί εἰς τά ὄντα τό πέρας ἔχουσαι, καί τό θεῖον ἐντεῦθεν δεικνύουσιν. Οἱ δέ μή μόνον αἰσθητικάς καί νοητικάς ἔχοντες δυνάμεις, ἀλλά καί τῆς πνευματικῆς καί ὑπέρ φύσιν χάριτος εὐμοιρηκότες, οὐκέτ᾿ ἐκ τῶν ὄντων μόνων ἀλλά καί πνευματικῶς, Πνεῦμα ὄντα τόν Θεόν, ὑπέρ αἴσθησιν γνώσονται καί νοῦν, ὅλοι Θεοῦ γινόμενοι καί ἐν Θεῷ γινώσκοντες Θεόν. Κατά ταύτην οὖν τά θεῖα νοητέον, ὡς ὁ αὐτός ἅγιος προτρέπεται, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς, ὅλους δ᾿ ἑαυτούς ὅλων ἑαυτῶν ἐξισταμένους καί ὅλους Θεοῦ γεγομένους˙ κρεῖττον γάρ εἶναι Θεοῦ καί μή ἑαυτῶν˙ οὕτω γάρ ἔσται τά θεῖα δοτά τοῖς μετά Θεοῦ γενομένοις.

Ὁρᾷς ὅπως ἀπήγαγεν ἡμᾶς τοῦ ζητεῖν ἐκ τῶν ὄντων γινώσκειν τόν Θεόν, ἀνακαλύψας γνῶσιν ἑτέραν ὑπερφυᾶ καί θείαν καί πνευματικήν, ἥτις μετά τήν ἀφαίρεσιν τῶν ὄντων κατά τήν ὑπέρ νοῦν ἕνωσιν ἡμῖν προσγίνεται, καί εἰπών ὅτι κατά ταύτην γίνεται δοτά τά θεῖα καί κατά ταύτην δίκαιον νοεῖν τά θεῖα, δηλαδή πνευματικῶς ἀλλ᾿καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς, οὐδ᾿ αἰσθήσει τε καί νῷ τήν ἐκ τῶν ὄντων ἐρανιζομένους γνῶσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ; Ἀτελής γάρ ἡ γνῶσις αὕτη καί ἀτελέσι πρέπουσα φρονήμασιν. Ἀλλά γάρ τί βούλεται τῷ ἁγίῳ ἐπί τῆς τῶν ὄντων καί καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς τοῦ θείου γνώσεως τό «μήποτε» προσκείμενον, ὅ παρῶπται τῷ φιλοσόφῳ ὡς παρέλκον; Ἐπεί καί αἰσθητοῖς ὄμμασι καί αἰσθητοῖς ὠσίν ἀπορρήτως φῶς εἴδομεν καί ἠκούσαμεν Θεοῦ φωνήν, διά τοῦτο τελέως ἀποφήνασθαι (σελ. 548) γινώσκειν ἐκ τῶν κτισμάτων μόνων τόν Θεόν καί κατ᾿ αὐτάς τάς γνωστικάς καί κατ᾿ ἄνθρωπον δυνάμεις εὐλαβητέον ἔδοξεν αὐτῷ. Καί μήν τοῖς ἐφικέσθαι δυναμένοις δι᾿ ἀκριβείας τῶν ρημάτων ἐκείνων τοῦ ἁγίου κἀκεῖ σαφῶς μόνην τήν εἰσαγωγικήν περί Θεοῦ γνῶσιν ἐκ τῆς τῶν ὄντων γνώσεως προσγινομένην δῆλός ἐστι διδάσκων, διό ἐπήγαγεν˙ «ἀπό ταύτης εἰς τό ἐπέκεινα πάντων ὁδῷ καί τάξει κατά δύναμιν ἄνιμεν».

∆ιά τοῦτο καί πρό νόμου τοῖς νηπίοις ἔτι πρός θεογνωσίαν κατάλληλος ἦν, καί Ἀβραάμ τήν ἀρχήν τῆς θεογνωσίας ἀπό ταύτης εἰληφέναι λέγεται, ἀλλ᾿ ὕστερον οὐκ ἀπό ταύτης ὡμίλει τε καί ἐγίνωσκε Θεόν. Τί δέ ὁ Ἰώβ, ὅς καί ἀνεβόησεν ἰδών τρανότερον, ὡς «ἀκοῇ μέν ὠτός ἤκουόν σου τό πρότερον, νῦν δέ ὁ ὀφθαλμός μου ἑώρακέ σε»; Τί δέ ὁ Μωϋσῆς, ὁ ἐν τῷ ἐπέκεινα τῶν ὄντων γνόφῳ τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρας ὅλας τόν Θεόν ὁρῶν; Καί γάρ ἦν εἰκός προβεβλῆσθαι τῶν ἀοράτων τοῦ Θεοῦ καί τό τοῦ κόσμου φαινόμενον τοῖς ἀτελέσι τήν γνῶσιν, ὥσπερ καί τοῖς ἐνειλουμένοις αἰσθήσεσιν αἱ συμβολικαί νομικαί δι᾿ αἰσθητῶν παρεδόθησαν