118

and Him, with the Father, the only-begotten Word of the Father; He made his own mind full of such light and truth.

But since there is the same perception of opposites, you, O philosopher, when are you then warm, when your body is disposed according to this quality, or when, having it chilled, you might know the opposite heat? Surely you then feel the heat, bearing it in yourself, when you are disposed according to it. Then, therefore, you will have God in yourself truly, when you have the divine state in yourself according to the soul; for the divine state is truly love for God; and this is acquired only through the sacred practice of the divine commandments; for it is not only their beginning, but also their middle and summit; for God is love, who in this alone promised His own coming and abiding and manifestation. Then, therefore, you will truly use yourself for the correction of others, when you shall have such a disposition from such states; for now, pretending to be the corrector, you are clearly perverting and slandering. But how you pervert while professing to correct will become clearer as the discourse proceeds. A clear proof of your eagerness to slander under the guise of correction is that you have made the greatest effort so that these writings, which seem to you conducive to our correction, should not come to our sight, just as if one of the physicians said he had prepared a most beneficial potion for the sick, but forbade its use entirely. Whence this also has surely become clear, that you yourself knew this beforehand, what has now been revealed, that the so-called medicines have the power of poisons; and you knew this, then, that you would not escape notice as a thief, when these things were revealed to us.

And so now, against your will, these writings of yours have come into our (p. 564) hands, in which you say at the end that you have blamelessly used yourself for correction concerning what one of your friends has said incorrectly about the knowledge of God.And what was said incorrectly by the friend you say is this: 'those who are purified in heart know through the sacred illumination that comes to them, that God is and what kind of light He is, or rather a source of intelligible and immaterial light; but those who have not ascended to this contemplation perceive the common provider from His providence over all things, from those made good the self-goodness, from those made alive the self-life, and simply from all things Him who is all things and established above all things'. This is what the philosopher says is incorrect. And I know that he was ill-disposed towards it at another time also; for being ignorant that "what kind of" is attached to the light as an example, he said that we claim to know what kind of light God is. But we, pointing out the adjacent phrase "source of light," and reading it connectedly that 'God is like a source of light,' we asked him what then "what kind of" means here; and he unwillingly confessed his ignorance and asked for pardon; for it is not possible for it to be taken otherwise than as 'as it were'. But now he has attacked it in another way: 'For it being manifest,' he says, 'that even to the most contemplative, God is known from existing things alone, the knowledge of God handed down here through an intelligible illumination, being other than that from existing things, is in no way true'. It is necessary, then, to reply to this, that since it has been made manifest through many of the things said above, that God is known not only from existing things, but also from things which by pre-eminence are non-existent, that is, the uncreated, and also through a light which is eternal and established above all existing things, now given in part as a pledge to the worthy and through the unceasing age illumining them unceasingly, of necessity (p. 566) this contemplation is also true, and he who says it is not true has fallen away from the divine knowledge of God. 'But from the things around Him,' he says, 'not from the things according to Him, is all knowledge of God'. And where in this statement do we say that this theophany is not one of the things around God? For we place it above all other existing things; but that it is from the things according to Him in God, is in no way added.

118

καί αὐτόν μετά τοῦ Πατρός τόν τοῦ Πατρός μονογενῆ Λόγον˙ τοιούτου φωτός καί ἀληθείας τόν οἰκεῖον νοῦν ἔμπλεων κατεσκεύασεν.

Ἀλλ᾿ ἐπεί καί τῶν ἐναντίων ἡ αὐτή ἐστιν αἴσθησις, σύ, ὦ φιλόσοφε, πότ᾿ ἄρ᾿ εἶ θερμός, ὅταν κατά τήν ποιότητα ταύτην διακέηταί σου τό σῶμα, ἤ ὅτε κατεψυγμένον τοῦτ᾿ ἔχων τήν ἐναντίαν εἰδείης θερμότητα; Πάντως τότε καί τήν θερμότητα ἐν σεαυτῷ φέρων αἰσθάνῃ, ὅτε κατά ταύτην διάκεισαι. Τότε τοίνυν καί τόν Θεόν ἕξεις ἐν σεαυτῷ ἀληθῶς, ὅτε τήν θείαν ἕξιν ἐν σεαυτῷ κατά ψυχήν ἔχεις˙ θεία δέ ὄντως ἕξις ἡ πρός τόν Θεόν ἀγάπη ἐστί˙ προσγίνεται δ᾿ αὕτη διά μόνης τῆς τῶν θείων ἐντολῶν ἱερᾶς ἐργασίας˙ εἰ γάρ καί ἀρχή τούτων ἐστίν, ἀλλά καί μέσῃ καί κορυφαία˙ ὁ Θεός γάρ ἀγάπη ἐστίν, ὅς ἐν τούτῳ μόνῳ καί τήν οἰκείαν ἔλευσιν καί μονήν καί ἐμφάνειαν ἐπηγγείλατο. Τότε τοίνυν καί σαυτῷ χρήσῃ πρός διόρθωσιν ἑτέρων ἀληθῶς, ὅτε τήν τοιαύτην σχήσεις ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων διάθεσιν˙ νῦν γάρ, τόν διορθοῦντα ὑποκρινόμενος, διαστρέφων καί διασύρων δῆλος εἶ. Ἀλλ᾿ ὡς μέν διαστρέφεις διορθοῦν ἐπαγγελόμενος, ἐκδηλότερον ἔσται προϊόντος τοῦ λόγου. Τοῦ δ᾿ ἐν σχήματι διορθώσεως διασύρειν προθυμεῖσθαι δεῖγμα σαφές τό διά μεγίστης σε σπουδῆς ποιήσασθαι μή ἐλθεῖν ἡμῖν εἰς ὄψιν τά πρός ἡμετέραν διόρθωσιν ἐπιστρεπτικά σοι δοκοῦντα ταυτί συγγράμματα, ὥσπερ ἄν εἴ τις ἰατρῶν πόμα μέν σκευάσαι τῷ νοσοῦντι λυσιτελέστατον ἔφασκε, χρήσασθαι δέ παντάπασιν ἀπηγόρευσεν. Ὅθεν καί τοῦτο γέγονεν δήπου δῆλον, ὡς καί αὐτός τοῦτ᾿ οἶσθα, πρότερον, ὅ νῦν ἐξεφάνη, δηλητηρίων ἔχοντα δύναμιν τά κεκλημένα φάρμακα˙ καί τοῦτ᾿ ἄρα προσεγίνωσκες ὡς οὐ λήσῃ κλέπτων, τούτων προφανέντων ἡμῖν.

Ταῦτ᾿ ἄρα καί νῦν οὐχ ἑκόντος εἶναι καί πρός τάς ἡμετέρας (σελ. 564) ἥκει χεῖρας ταυτί σου τά γράμματα, ἐν οἷς τελευτῶν φής ὡς ἀνεμέσητον ἐπί διορθώει χρήσασθαι σαυτῷ, ὧν οὐκ ὀρθῶς περί θεογνωσίας εἴρηκέ τις τῶν σῶν φίλων.Τό δέ μή ὀρθῶς εἰρημένον τῷ φίλῳ τοῦτο λέγεις εἶναι˙ «ἴσασιν οἱ κεκαθαρμένοι τήν καρδίαν διά τῆς ἐγγινομένης αὐτοῖς ἱερᾶς φωτοφανείας, ὅτι ἔστι Θεός καί οἷον φῶς ἐστι, μᾶλλον δέ πηγή φωτός νοεροῦ τε καί ἀΰλου˙οἱ δέ μή πρός τοῦτο θεωρίας ἀναβεβηκότες ἐκ τῆς περί πάντα προμηθείας τόν κοινόν προμηθέα συνορῶσιν, ἐκ τῶν ἀγαθυνομένων τήν αὐτοαγαθότητα, ἐκ τῶν ζωοποιουμένων τήν αὐτοζωήν, καί ἁπλῶς ἐκ πάντων τόν τά πάντα ὄντα καί ὑπερανιδρυμένον πάντων». Τοῦτό ἐστιν ὅ φησιν ὁ φιλόσοφος οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἔχειν. Οἶδα δέ αὐτόν καί ἄλλοτε κακῶς πρός αὐτό διατεθέντα˙ 'γνοήσας γάρ ὅτι τό "οἷον" παραδειγματικῶς τῷ φωτί προσήρτηται, τόν Θεόν ἔλεγε φάσκειν ἡμᾶς εἰδέναι, ὁποῖον φῶς ὑπάρχει. ∆είξαντες δέ ἡμεῖς προσπαρακείμενον τό "πηγή φωτός" , καί συνημμένως ἀναγνόντες ὅτι «ἔστι Θεός οἷον πηγή φωτός», ἠρωτῶμεν αὐτόν, τί βούλεται λοιπόν ἐνταυθοῖ τό "οἷον"˙ ὁ δ᾿ ἄκων ὡμολόγησε τήν ἄγνοιαν καί ἤτησε συγγνώμην˙ οὐδέ γάρ δυνατόν ἄλλως ἤ ἀντί τοῦ ὡσανεί παραληφθῆναι. Νῦν δ᾿ ἄλλως ἐπελάβετο˙ «φανεροῦ γάρ ὄντος», φησίν, «ὡς καί τοῖς θεωρητικωτάτοις ἐκ μόνων τῶν ὄντων ὁ Θεός γινώσκεται, ἡ ἐνταῦθα παραδιδομένη γνῶσις Θεοῦ διά νοερᾶς φωτοφανείας, ὡς ἑτέρα τῆς ἐκ τῶν ὄντων οὖσα, οὐδαμῶς ἐστιν ἀληθής». Ἀνθυπενεγκεῖν δή πρός τοῦτο δεῖ, ὡς φανεροῦ γενομένου διά πλείστων τῶν ἀνωτέρω εἰρημένων, ὡς οὐκ ἐκ τῶν ὄντων μόνων ὁ Θεός γινώσκεται, ἀλλά καί ἐκ τῶν καθ᾿ ὑπεροχήν μή ὄντων, τουτέστι τῶν ἀκτίστων, πρός δέ καί διά φωτός αἰωνίου καί τῶν ὄντων πάντων ὑπερανῳκισμένου, νῦν τε ἐν ἀρραβῶνος μέρει τοῖς ἀξίοις διδομένου καί κατά τόν ἄληκτον αἰῶνα περιαυγάζοντος αὐτούς ἀλήκτως, ἐξ ἀνάγκης (σελ. 566) καί ἡ θεωρία αὕτη ἀληθής ἐστι καί ὁ μή ἀληθῆ λέγων ταύτην Θεοῦ θείας γνώσεως ἐκπέπτωκεν. «Ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ τῶν περί αὐτόν», φησίν, «οὐκ ἐκ τῶν κατ᾿ αὐτόν πᾶσα γνῶσις τοῦ Θεοῦ». Καί ποῦ ἐν τῇ ρήσει ταύτῃ λέγομεν ὡς ἡ θεοφάνεια αὕτη τῶν περί Θεόν οὐκ ἔστι; Πάντων μέν γάρ τῶν ἄλλως ὄντων ὑπερτίθεμεν αὐτήν˙ ὡς δ᾿ ἐκ τῶν κατ᾿ αὐτόν ἐστι Θεῷ, οὐδαμῶς ἐστι προσκείμενον.