116

to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, these same things are effects; for example, "why is the Father, properly the Father of the Son? Because He is by nature Father of Him". It is similar with respect to the Son and the Spirit.

Then, it is not the mode of existence, but that of the relationship that is shown from this. Therefore it is not wrong here to call the cause "that which declares the relationship," "with the mode of existence being kept ineffable," just as the great Basil writes to the divine Serapion, clarifying to him how the Holy Spirit is said to be from God; so he who speaks in the Spirit about the Spirit accurately agrees with our own positions. So then, let these things stand in this way.

But concerning touch and knowledge, how it happens with respect to divine things, we have spoken at the beginning; but he clearly falsifies the great Dionysius, saying that he said that the seers of God among the fathers "did not encounter even the shadow of God's shadow" (p. 566), shamelessly rising up against them and him like some false witness and fighting against us through them, or rather, to speak more truly, with them; for the great Dionysius himself says that fire and air and water and earth have manifest types of the divine property, and Paul, the greater of these great ones, says, "the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead." But if this does not hold some character from thence, how could those things be seen in the things that are made? And so, the inanimate things of creation themselves have manifest types of God; but of those among them having a rational, intelligent soul, do those who have surpassed all their fellows in contemplation not have even a 'shadow of a shadow' of God?

And the law had a shadow of the good things to come, but when grace appeared and the truth came, is the vision of God of those who were well-pleasing according to it not even a shadow of a shadow? And the apostle says to all in common, "do you not know that Christ dwells in you, unless you are reprobate?", but you say that those who have ascended in contemplation do not encounter even a shadow of a shadow? And the Spirit of God cries in the hearts of those deemed worthy through purity, "Abba, Father", but you do not grant that this "full knowledge" and indwelling and intimacy is even a shadow of a shadow? And the Lord blesses the pure in heart, as they will see God; when? when the purification is also. And he himself says concerning himself, "I will manifest myself to him," and again, "he who loves me will fulfill my commandments, and I and the Father will come and make our home with him (p. 568)." So then, the truth of the oracles says so many such things, and more than these, but you think that those who have ascended beyond even the intellectual energies and have been united to the all-brilliant rays do not have even a shadow of a shadow, and yet, can that which does not have a shadow of a shadow of God not even be divine? How then are not such the godlike, who have not only known, but also experienced, divine things?

And why do I say that what does not even have a shadow of a shadow of God is not divine? For it is not at all possible for it to be among existing things; for there is no being that is entirely deprived of participation in the good; but how would that which does not even have a shadow of a shadow not be entirely deprived of the good? What then? He who desires even the worst life, full of passionate impulse, and of thoughtless and materialistic attachment, according to the very one slandered by your philosophy, participates in the good as a faint echo, but those who have not only desired the best way of life, but have also succeeded and have run up to passionless contemplation through the complete uplifting towards the truly good, do they not even have a shadow of a shadow of the good?

And every man is in the image of God, and perhaps also the likeness; but those who by devoting themselves throughout life to God with the immaterial and pure and unceasing

116

Υἱῷ καί τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, ταῦτ᾿ αὐτά αἰτιατά˙ οἷον "διατί ὁ Πατήρ, Πατήρ κυρίως τοῦ Υἱοῦ; διότι φύσει ἐστί Πατήρ ἐκείνου". Ἐπί τοῦ Υἱοῦ καί τοῦ Πνεύματος ὁμοίως.

Ἔπειτα οὐδ᾿ ὁ τρόπος τῆς ὑπάρξεως, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ τῆς οἰκειότητος ἐντεῦθεν δεικνύμενός ἐστιν. Οὔκουν πλημελές ἐνταῦθ᾿ αἴτιον «τό τήν οἰκειότητα δηλοῦν» εἰπεῖν, «τοῦ τρόπου τῆς ὑπάρξεως ἀρρήτου φυλαττομένου», καθάπερ καί ὁ μέγας Βασίλειος πρός Σεραπίωνα τόν θεῖον γράφει, διευκρινῶν αὐτῷ πῶς ἐκ Θεοῦ λέγεται τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον˙ οὕτω τοῖς ἐν Πνεύματι λαλοῦσι περί Πνεύματος ἀκριβῶς ὁμολογεῖ τά ἡμέτερα. Ταύτῃ μέν οὖν ταῦτ᾿ ἐχέτω.

Περί δέ ἁφῆς καί ἐπιστήμης, ὅπως ἐπί τῶν θείων γίνεται, εἰρήκαμεν ἀρχόμενοι˙ τοῦ δέ μεγάλου ∆ιονυσίου καταψεύδεται σαφῶς λέγων αὐτόν λέγειν «μηδέ τῇ σκιᾷ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ σκιᾶς ἐντυχεῖν» (σελ. 566) ἐντυχεῖν τούς θεόπτας τῶν πατέρων, τούτοις τε κἀκείνῳ οἷά τις ψευδομάρτυς ἀναιδῶς ἐπανιστάμενος καί δι᾿ ἐκείνων πολεμῶν ἡμῖν, μᾶλλον δ᾿ ἵν᾿ ἀληθέστερον εἴπων, σύν ἐκείνοις˙ αὐτός γάρ ὁ μέγας ∆ιονύσιος καί τό πῦρ καί τόν ἀέρα καί τό ὕδωρ καί τήν γῆν ἐμφανεῖς τύπους ἔχειν λέγει τῆς θεαρχικῆς ἰδιότητος, καί ὁ μέν μείζων τῶν μεγάλων τούτων Παῦλος «τά ἀόρατά» φησι «τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀπό κτίσεως κόσμου τοῖς ποιήμασι νοούμενα καθορᾶται, ἥ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καί θειότης». Εἰ δέ μή χαρακτῆρά τινα τοῦθ᾿ ἐκεῖθεν ἴσχει, πῶς ἄν ὁρῷτο τοῖς ποιήμασιν ἐκεῖνα; Καί αὐτά μέν οὖν τά τῶν κτισμάτων ἄψυχα ἐμφανεῖς τύπους ἔχει τοῦ Θεοῦ˙ τῶν δ᾿ ἐν αὐτοῖς λογικήν ψυχήν νοεράν ἐχόντων οἱ τούς ὁμοφυεῖς πάντας τῇ θεωρίᾳ ὑπερακοντίσαντες οὐδέ 'σκιάν σκιᾶς' ἔχουσι Θεοῦ;

Καί ὁ μέν νόμος σκιάν εἶχε τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν, ὅτε δ᾿ ἡ χάρις ἐπέφανε καί ἡ ἀλήθεια ἦλθε, τῶν εὐδοκιμησάντων κατ᾿ αὐτήν ἡ θεοπτία οὐδέ σκιά σκιᾶς ἐστι; Καί ὁ μέν ἀπόστολος κοινῇ πᾶσιν «ἤ οὐκ ἐπιγινώσκετέ» φησιν «ὅτι Χριστός οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν, εἰ μή τι ἄρα ἀδόκιμοί ἐστε;», σύ δέ φῄς ὡς οἱ τῇ θεωρίᾳ ὑπεραναβεβηκότες οὐδέ σκιᾷ σκιᾶς ἐντυχάνουσι; Καί τό μέν Πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ κράζει ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις τῶν διά καθαρότητα ἠξιωμένων «ἀββᾶ ὁ Πατήρ», σύ δέ ταύτην τήν «ἐπίγνωσιν» καί τήν ἐνοίκησιν καί τήν οἰκείωσιν οὐδέ γοῦν σκιάν σκιᾶς εἶναι δίδως; Καί ὁ μέν Κύριος μακαρίζει τούς καθαρούς τῇ καρδίᾳ ὡς τόν Θεόν ὀψομένους˙ πότε; ὅτε καί ἡ κάθαρσις. Καί αὐτός περί ἑαυτόῦ φησιν ὅτι «ἐγώ ἐμφανίσω αὐτῷ ἐμαυτόν», καί αὖθις «ὁ ἀγαπῶν με τάς ἐντολάς μου πληρώσει, καί ἐγώ καί ὁ Πατήρ ἐλευσόμεθα καί μονήν παρ᾿ αὐτῷ (σελ. 568) ποιήσομεν». Τοιαῦτα μέν οὖν τοσαῦτα καί πλείω τούτων ἡ τῶν λογίων φησίν ἀλήθεια, σύ δ᾿ οὐδέ σκιάν σκιᾶς ἔχειν οἴει τούς καί τάς νοεράς ἐνεργείας ὑπεραναβεβηκότας καί ταῖς παμφαέσιν ἑνωθέντας ἀκτῖσι, καίτοι τό μή σκιάν σκιᾶς ἔχον τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐδέ θεῖον εἶναι δύναται; Πῶς οὖν οὐ τοιοῦτοι οἵ γε θεοειδεῖς καί μή γνόντες μόνον, ἀλλά καί παθόντες τά θεῖα;

Καί τί λέγω ὡς οὐδέ θεῖον τό μηδέ σκιάν σκιᾶς ἔχον τοῦ Θεοῦ; Καί γάρ οὐδ᾿ ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν ὅλως εἶναι δυνατόν˙ ἔστι γάρ ὄν οὐδέν ὅ τῆς τοῦ καλοῦ παντάπασι μετουσίας ἐστέρηται˙ τό δέ μηδέ σκιάν σκιᾶς ἔχον, πῶς οὐκ ἄν τ᾿ ἀγαθοῦ παντάπασιν ἐστερημένον εἴη; Τί οὖν; Ὁ μέν καί τῆς χειρίστης ἐφιέμενος ζωῆς, ἐμπαθοῦς τε ὁρμῆς, ἀπερισκέπτου τε καί προσύλου προσπαθείας ἀνάπλεως, κατ᾿ αὐτόν τόν ὑπό τῆς σῆς φιλοσοφίας συκοφαντούμενον, μετέχει τ᾿ ἀγαθοῦ κατ᾿ ἀμυδρόν ἀπήχημα, οἱ δέ τῆς ἀρίστης πολιτείας μή μόνον ἐπιθυμήσαντες, ἀλλά καί εὐμοιρήσαντες καί πρός τήν ἀπαθῆ θεωρίαν ἀναδραμόντες διά τῆς πρός τό ὄντως ἀγαθόν ὁλικῆς ἀνατάσεως, οὐδέ σκιάν σκιᾶς ἔχουσι τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ;

Καί πᾶς μέν ἄνθρωπος κατ᾿ εἰκόνα ἐστί τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἴσως καί ὁμοίωσιν˙ οἱ δέ τῷ προσανέχειν διά βίου τῷ Θεῷ τῇ ἀΰλῳ καί ἀπειλικρινημένῃ καί ἀδιαλείπτῳ