125

a feigned divinity? And yet almost the whole chorus of inspired theologians, for this reason, were careful to simply call the grace of that light a symbol, so that no one, being led astray by such a term because of the homonymy, might think that most divine light to be created and foreign to the divinity; for there, being called and understood as a symbol of divinity wisely and soundly, you would in no way see it standing against the truth.

For let it be a symbol of divinity, as you yourself deem it right. Not even so will you conquer us, nor will you make us depart, know well, from the blessed hope; for every symbol is either from the nature of that of which it is a symbol, or it belongs entirely to another nature. For indeed, when the sun is about to rise, the dawn is a natural symbol of its light, and heat is a natural symbol of the burning power of fire. But that which is not natural, either being of a nature to subsist in itself, sometimes becomes a symbol for those who use it, like the beacon for an advancing enemy, or while not subsisting by its own nature, it becomes (p. 594) a kind of phantom according to the need of providence, which is this very thing: only a symbol. Such are the things shown to the prophets sensibly and in a figure, like the sickle of Zechariah and the axes of Ezekiel and anything similar to these. The natural, therefore, is always with the nature from which it has its being, for it is natural; but for that which is from another nature subsisting in itself to be always with what is signified is completely impossible; and nothing prevents it from being earlier or later, whatever it is in itself; but that which does not subsist in itself exists neither before nor after—for this is impossible—but having appeared for a short time, it then immediately goes toward non-being and completely disappears. Since, therefore, the light on Tabor is a symbol, it is either natural or not natural; and if not natural, it is either subsisting in itself or only an unsubstantial phantom; but if it is only an unsubstantial phantom, Christ neither was, nor is, nor will be such forever. But that Christ will be such forever, both Dionysius the Areopagite and Gregory the Theologian and all who expect him to come from heaven with glory, as has also been shown a little above, vigorously demonstrate; therefore, that light was not only an unsubstantial phantom.

And indeed, not only will He be such for the infinite future, but even before the ascent to the mountain Christ was such. Listen to Damascene, wise in divine matters: “Christ is transfigured, not by taking on what He was not, nor by changing into what He was not, but by manifesting what He was to His own disciples, opening their eyes and making them see, who had been blind; for remaining Himself in the same identity as before, He was seen by the disciples appearing; for He Himself is the true light, the beauty of glory.” (p. 596) The great Basil also shows this: for “there shone through,” he says, “like a light through glass membranes, that is, through the flesh of the Lord from us, His divine power shining clearly to those who have the eyes of their heart purified.” But also the things sung annually in the Church, “for what was hidden under the flesh is now being shown,” and “the archetypal and superluminous beauty is now being laid bare,” what else does it show than that it pre-existed? And what of the trans-elementation of our nature and its deification and the divine re-formation? Was it not accomplished right at the beginning with the assumption? Therefore, He was such even before, but then, having placed a divine power in the eyes of the apostles, He made them look up and see. Therefore, that light was not a phantom, for it both will be forever and was from the beginning.

If then it was and will be forever, then it is such also now. For it is most absurd that up to that most divine vision on Tabor and forever in the future He should be such

125

ὑποκρινομένην θεότητα; Καίτοι σχεδόν πᾶς ὁ χορός τῶν ἐνθέων θεολόγων τούτου χάριν σύμβολον ἁπλῶς ἐφυλάξαντο τήν τοῦ φωτός ἐκείνου χάριν προσειπεῖν, ἵνα μή τις ὑπό τοῦ τοιούτου προσρήματος διά τήν ὁμωνυμίαν ἐκτραπείς κτιστόν καί ἀλλότριον νομίσῃ θεότητος τό θειότατον ἐκεῖνο φῶς˙ ἐκεῖ σύμβολον θεότητος λεγόμενόν τε καί νοούμενον συνετῶς καί ὑγιῶς κατ᾿ οὐδέν ἄν ἴδοις τῇ ἀληθείᾳ προσιστάμενον.

Ἔστω γάρ καί σύμβολον θεότητος, καθάπερ δικαιοῖς αὐτός. Οὐδ᾿ οὕτως ἡμᾶς αἱρήσεις, οὐδ᾿ ἀποστήσεις, εὖ ἴσθι, τῆς μακαριστῆς ἐλπίδος˙ πᾶν γάρ σύμβολον ἤ ἐκ τῆς φύσεώς ἐστιν οὗ σύμβολόν ἐστιν, ἤ φύσεως ἑτέρας παντάπασιν ὑπάρχει. Καί γάρ, ἡλίου μέλλοντος ἀνίσχειν, τοῦ κατ᾿ αὐτόν φωτός φυσικόν σύμβολόν ἐστιν ὁ ὄρθρος, καί τῆς τοῦ πυρός καυστικῆς δυνάμεως ἡ θέρμη φυσικόν σύμβολόν ἐστι. Τό δέ μή φυσικόν ἤ καθ᾿ ἑαυτό πεφυκός ὑφεστηκέναι γίνεταί ποτε παρά τούς χρωμένους σύμβολον, ὡς ὁ πυρσός ἐπιόντων πολεμίων, ἤ κατ᾿ οἰκείαν μέν φύσιν οὐχ ὑφέστηκε, γίνεται δ᾿ οἷόν (σελ. 594) τι φάσμα κατά χρείαν τῆς προνοίας, ὅ καί τοῦτ᾿ αὐτό μόνον σύμβολόν ἐστι. Τοιαῦτα δέ ἐστι τά τοῖς προφήταις αἰσθητῶς καί ἐν σχήματι δεικνύμενα, οἷον τό τοῦ Ζαχαρίου δρέπανον καί αἱ πελέκεις τοῦ Ἰεζεκιήλ καί εἴ τι τούτων παραπλησίον. Τό μέν οὖν φυσικόν ἀεί σύνεστι τῇ φύσει παρ᾿ ἧς τό εἶναι ἔχει, φυσικόν γάρ˙ τό δ᾿ ἐξ ἑτέρας φύσεως καθ᾿ ἑαυτήν ὑφεστηκυίας ἀεί συνεῖναι τῷ σημαινομένῳ τῶν ἀδυνάτων παντάπασιν ὑπάρχει˙ κωλύει δέ οὐδέν εἶναι πρότερον ἤ ὕστερον ἐκεῖνο, ὅ τί ποτε καθ᾿ ἑαυτό ἐστι˙ τό δέ μή καθ᾿ ἑαυτό ὑφεστηκός οὔτε πρότερον οὔθ᾿ ὕστερον ὑπάρχει - τοῦτο γάρ ἀδύνατον - ἐπ᾿ ὀλίγον δέ φανέν, εἶτ᾿ εὐθύς πρός τό μή ὄν χωρεῖ καί ἀφανίζεται παντάπασιν. Ἐπεί τοίνυν σύμβολον τό ἐν τῷ Θαβωρίῳ φῶς, ἤ φυσικόν ἐστιν ἤ οὐ φυσικόν˙ καί εἰ μή φυσικόν, ἤ καθ᾿ ἑαυτό ὑφεστηκός ἤ φάσμα μόνον ἀνυπόστατον˙ ἀλλ᾿ εἰ φάσμα μόνον ἀνυπόστατον, οὔτε ἦν οὔτε ἔστιν οὔτε ἔσται ἐσαεί τοιοῦτος ὁ Χριστός. Ὅτι δ᾿ ἔσται ἐσαεί τοιοῦτος ὁ Χριστός, καί ὁ ἐξ Ἀρείου Πάγου ∆ιονύσιος καί Γρηγόριος ὁ θεολόγος καί πάντες ὅσοι τοῦτον ἐξ οὐρανοῦ μετά τῆς δόξης ἥξοντα προσδέχονται, καθάπερ καί μικρόν ἀνωτέρω δέδεικται, παριστᾶσιν ἐνεργῶς˙ οὐκ ἄρα φάσμα μόνον ἀνυπόστατον τό φῶς ἐκεῖνο ἦν.

Καί μήν οὐ μόνον ἐπί τοῦ μέλλοντος ἐς ἄπειρον τοιοῦτος ἔσται, ἀλλά καί πρό τῆς ἐπί τό ὄρος ἀναβάσεως τοιοῦτος ὑπῆρχεν ὁ Χριστός. Ἄκουσον τοῦ τά θεῖα σοφοῦ ∆αμασκηνοῦ˙ «μεταμορφοῦται Χριστός, οὐχ ὅ οὐκ ἦν προσλαβόμενος, οὐδέ εἰς ὅπερ οὐκ ἦν μεταβαλλόμενος, ἀλλ᾿ ὅπερ ἦν τοῖς οἰκείοις μαθηταῖς ἐκφαινόμενος, διανοίγων τούτων τά ὄμματα καί ἐκ τυφλῶν ἐργαζόμενος βλέποντας˙ μένων γάρ αὐτός ἐν ταὐτότητι παρ᾿ ὅ τό πρίν, τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἑωρᾶτο φαινόμενος αὐτός γάρ ἐστι τό φῶς τό ἀληθινόν, τό τῆς δόξης ὡράϊσμα». (σελ. 596) Τοῦτο δείκνυσι καί ὁ μέγας Βασίλειος˙ «διεφαίνετο» γάρ, φησίν, «οἷόν τι φῶς διά ὑελίνων ὑμένων, τουτέστι διά τῆς ἐξ ἡμῶν σαρκός τοῦ Κυρίου, ἡ θεία δύναμις αὐτοῦ διαυγάζουσα τοῖς ἔχουσι τούς ὀφθαλμούς τῆς καρδίας κεκαθαρμένους». Ἀλλά καί τά ἐτησίως ἐπ᾿ Ἐκκλησίας ᾀδόμενα, «τό γάρ ὑπό τήν σάρκα κεκρύφθαι τό νῦν παραδεικνυόμενον» καί «τό ἀρχέτυπον καί ὑπέρφωτον κάλλος τό νῦν παραγυμνούμενον», τί ἄλλο παρίστησιν ἤ ὅτι προϋπῆρχε; Τί δἐ καί ἡ μεταστοιχείωσις τοῦ ἡμετέρου φυράματος καί ἡ κατ᾿ αὐτό θεουργία καί ἡ θεϊκή ἀναμόρφωσις; Ἆρ᾿ οὐχ ἅμα τῇ προσλήψει τήν ἀρχήν εὐθύς ἐτελεσιουργήθη; Τοιγαροῦν ἐκεῖνος μέν τοιοῦτος ἦν καί πρότερον, τοῖς δέ τῶν ἀποστόλων ὄμμασι τότε θείαν δύναμις ἐνθείς, ἀναβλέψαι καί ἰδεῖν αὐτούς πεποίηκεν. Οὐκ ἄρα φάσμα ἦν τό φῶς ἐκεῖνο, καί γάρ ἐσαεί τε ἔσται καί ἦν ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς.

Εἰ δέ ἦν καί ἔσται ἐσαεί, καί νῦν ἐστι τοιοῦτος ἄρα. Τῶν γάρ ἀτοπώτατον μέχρι μέν τῆς θειοτάτης ἐν Θαβώρ ἐκείνης θέας καί ἐσαεί τοιῦτον εἶναι κατά τόν μέλλοντα