115

fashioning.” If, therefore, nothing that the intellect contemplates through itself is fashioned, and all things that are fashioned are phantasms or even sensible things, and in this respect are much worse than the things conceived by us, then the Dominions and Powers do not have an intelligible resemblance to God, but a corporeal and phantasmal one, worse than human thought, since it is fashioned. And if they have such a resemblance to God, how could they be intellectual in nature?

But the philosopher again from another saying of the same deduces the same thing; for having heard of the imprinting of the vision of an angel, who imparts his own sacred knowledge to the theologian according to his capacity, he says, “how would the imprinted vision not be a phantasm?” But we will once again turn him aside with the Heavenly Hierarchy. “For the holy,” he says, “orders of the heavenly essences, imprinting themselves intelligibly toward the imitation of God and striving to form their intelligible aspect into the divine-ruling resemblance, reasonably partake more abundantly of the divine communion.” Do you see intelligible types too? How then, from these names, did you suppose that the prophets suffer a worse ecstasy? For from these names I am led to believe that the prophetic visions are not worse than human thought (p. 530), but are better than our intellect, and I am taught to know their contemplations as equal to the angels'. For those men, having made themselves fit for angelic union through purity and being joined to them by their ascent toward the divine, are themselves also fashioned and imprinted by them, just as they are by the angels who precede them in rank, and their intelligible aspect is transformed into a godlike formation, and through this sacred formation they, as it were, cultivate in themselves the sacred knowledge sown from there. And what is surprising, if prophetic purity attains the fashionings of types equal to the angels, being their co-minister according to theology, when it is testified that it is able to receive even the types of God Himself? “For a pure heart,” he says, “is that which has presented the intellect to God completely without form and is ready to be stamped with His types, through which He is wont to become manifest.”

But Zechariah son of Barachiah taught that even the Spirit in us is formed by God, whether showing that the bringing forth of our spirit from non-being into being is from God, or its re-formation to the better and its remaking into well-being: for “an oracle,” he says, “of the word of the Lord concerning Israel: Thus says the Lord, who stretches out the heaven and lays the foundation of the earth and forms the spirit of man within him.” What then? Is the spirit in us a body, because it is formed when brought forth or transformed? And he who prays that he himself may be a good former for those who desire it, and who says that his dear companion was fashioned while still a boy by the common teacher of Pontus, with “the best and purest formation,” is he then praising the formative art of bodies and considering it desirable and praying for it? And how does God understand all our works, according to the divine David, because He “formed our hearts one by one,” unless by a heart (p. 532) formed by Him here we understand the inner man? And did not Moses, spending day and night in the darkness in that formless life, see divine types? For, He says, all things “you shall make according to the type shown to you on the mountain.” What then? Did he too, having been in the divine darkness, fall into a worse ecstasy and see phantasmatically, because it is written that he saw a type?

But the philosopher, knowing no difference between sensible and phantasmal and intelligible and divine types, hearing that the theologian was learning by the things seen the

115

διαπλάττουσα». Εἰ τοίνυν μηδέν ὅσα ὁ νοῦς δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ θεᾶται διαπέπλασται καί τά διαπλαττόμενα πάντα φανταστά ἐστιν ἤ καί αἰσθητά καί κατά τοῦτο πολλῷ χείρῳ τῶν νοουμένων ὑφ᾿ ἡμῶν, οὐ νοητήν λοιπόν ἔχουσιν αἱ κυριότητές τε καί δυνάμεις τήν πρός τόν Θεόν ἐμφέρειαν, ἀλλά σωματοειδῆ καί φαντασιώδη καί ἀνθρωπίνης χείρονα νοήσεως, ὡς διαπεπλασμένην οὖσαν. Εἰ δέ τήν πρός Θεόν ἐμφέρειαν τοιαύτην ἔχουσι, πῶς ἄν εἶεν ἐκεῖναι νοεραί τήν φύσιν;

Ὁ δέ φιλόσοφος καί ἐξ ἑτέρας αὖθις τοῦ αὐτοῦ ρήσεως συνάγειν τό αὐτό˙ τοῦ τυποῦντος γάρ ἀκούσας τήν ὅρασιν ἀγγέλου, κατά δύναμιν τῷ θεολόγῳ μεταδιδόντος τῆς οἰκείας ἱερογνωσίας, «πῶς», φησίν, «ἡ τυπωθεῖσα ὅρασις οὐκ ἄν εἴη φανταστόν»; Ἀλλ᾿ ἡμεῖς πάλιν ἐκ τῆς Οὐρανίου χορείας ἐκτρέψομεν αὐτόν. «Αἱ γάρ ἅγιαι», φησί, «τῶν οὐρανίων οὐσιῶν διακοσμήσεις, νοητῶς ἐπί τό θεομίμητον ἑαυτάς ἀποτυποῦσαι καί πρός τήν θεαρχικήν ἐμφέρειαν μορφοῦν ἐφιέμεναι τό νοερόν αὐτῶν εἶδος, ἀφθονωτέρας εἰκότως μετέχουσι τῆς θείας κοινωνίας». Ὁρᾷς καί τύπους νοητούς; Πῶς οὖν ἀπό τῶν ὀνομάτων τούτων τήν χείρω πάσχειν ἔκστασιν ὠήθης τούς προφήτας; Ἐγώ γάρ ἀπό τῶν ὀνομάτων τούτων οὐκ ἀνθρωπίνης χείρω διανοίας τά προφητικά θεάματα ἐνάγομαι (σελ. 530) νομίζειν, ἀλλά νοῦ τοῦ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς κρείττω, καί ἰσαγγέλους εἰδέναι διδάσκομαι τάς αὐτῶν θεωρίας. Πρός γάρ ἀγγελικήν ἕνωσιν ἐπιτηδείους ἑαυτούς ἐκεῖνοι διά καθαρότητα ποιήσαντες καί τῇ πρός τό θεῖον ἀνατάσει συνημμένοι τούτοις, διαπλάττονται καί αὐτοί τυποῦνται ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν ὡς ἐκεῖνοι ὑπό τῶν προβεβηκότων ἀγγέλων κατά τάξιν καί τό νοερόν αὐτῶν εἶδος πρός θεοειδῆ μόρφωσιν μετασκεύαζονται καί διά τῆς ἱερᾶς μορφώσεως ταύτης τήν ἱερογνωσίαν ὥσπερ ἑαυτοῖς ἐγγεωργοῦσιν ἐκεῖθεν καταβεβλημένην. Καί τί θαυμαστόν, εἰ τῶν ἰσαγγέλων τύπων διαπλάσεων ἡ προφητική τυγχάνει καθαρότης, συλλειτουργός κατά τήν θεολογίαν ὑπάρχουσα αὐτῶν, ὅτε καί αὐτούς τούς τοῦ Θεοῦ τύπους αὕτη δέχεσθαι μαρτυρεῖται δύνασθαι; «Καρδίαι» γάρ, φησί, «καθαρά ἐστιν ἡ παντάπασιν ἀνείδεον τῷ Θεῷ παραστήσασα τόν νοῦν καί τοῖς αὐτοῦ ἕτοιμον ἐνσημαίνεσθαι τύποις, δι᾿ ὧν ἐμφανής πέφυκε γίνεσθαι».

Ζαχαρίας δέ ὁ Βαραχίου καί αὐτό τό ἐν ἡμῖν Πνεῦμα πλάττεσθαι ὑπό Θεοῦ ἐδίδαξεν, εἴτε τήν ἐκ τοῦ μή ὄντος εἰς τό εἶναι προαγωγήν ἐκ Θεοῦ εἶναι τοῦ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς Πνεύματος δεικνύς, εἴτε τήν ἐπί τό κρεῖττον ἀνάπλασιν καί εἰς τό εὖ εἶναι μεταποίησιν˙ «λῆμμα» γάρ, φησί, «λόγου Κυρίου ἐπί τόν Ἰσραήλ˙ λέγει Κύριος, ὁ ἐκτείνων τόν οὐρανόν καί θεμελιῶν τήν γῆν καί πλάσσων πνεῦμα ἀνθρώπου ἐν αὐτῷ». Τί οὖν; Καί τό ἐν ἡμῖν πνεῦμα σῶμα, ἐπειδή πλάττεται προαγόμενον ἤ μετασκευαζόμενον; Ὁ δέ πλάστης μέν ἀγαθός αὐτός εἶναι καί τοῖς ποθοῦσι εὐχόμενος, διαπλασθῆναι δέ φάσκων ἔτ᾿ ὄντα παῖδα τόν φίλον ἑταῖρον ὑπό τῷ κοινῷ παιδευτῇ τοῦ Πόντου, «πλάσιν τήν ἀρίστην τε καί καθαρωτάτην», ἆρα τήν πλαστικήν τῶν σωμάτων τέχνην ἐγκωμιάζει καί ποθεινήν ἡγεῖται καί εὔχεται; Πῶς δέ καί συνίησιν ὁ Θεός εἰς πάντα τά ἔργα ἡμῶν κατά τόν θεῖον ∆αυίδ διά τό πλάσαι κατά μόνας τάς καρδίας ἡμῶν, εἰ μή καρδίαν ἐνταῦθα (σελ. 532) παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ πλασθεῖσαν τόν ἔσω νοήσομεν ἄνθρωπον; Καί ὁ Μωϋσῆς δέ, διημερεύων τε καί διανυκτερεύων ὑπό τόν γνόφον ἐν τῇ ἀνειδέῳ ἐκείνῃ ζωῇ, οὐ θείους τύπους εἶδε; «Ποιήσεις» γάρ, φησί, πάντα «κατά τόν τύπον τόν δειχθέντα σοι ἐν τῷ ὄρει». Τί οὖν; κἀκεῖνος ἐν τῷ θείῳ γνόφῳ γεγονώς ἐπί τό χεῖρον ἐξέστη καί φανταστικῶς ἑώρα, ἐπειδή τύπον ἀναγέγραπται ἰδών;

Ἀλλ᾿ ὁ μηδεμίαν διαφοράν αἰσθητῶν καί φανταστῶν καί νοητῶν καί θείων τύπων ἐπιστάμενος φιλόσοφος, ἀκούων ὅτι ἐμάνθανε τοῖς ὁρωμένις ὁ θεολόγος τά