126

age, but that in the time in between this glory had been altered, having been put aside. But that even now "at the right hand of the Majesty on high" he sits thus shining, all must follow and be persuaded by the one who says, "Come, having ascended the holy mountain, the heavenly one, we shall see the immaterial divinity of the Father and the Spirit shining forth in the only-begotten Son." But if anyone thinks he ought not yield to one, let him obey the two, or rather all the saints. For he who used Crete instead of a lamp, like a rational and sacred lamp, the blessed Andrew, praising the light that shone on Tabor, "this," he says, "the intelligible adornment, immaterially feasted upon, is set forth as a proof of the Word's love for humanity toward us." Almost this very thing the great Dionysius also says (p. 598), hymning the highest ranks of the super-cosmic minds; for they become, he says, partakers and spectators not only of the Triadic glory, but also of the light-manifestation of Jesus; for they are initiated, having been deemed worthy of this vision, He being a divine light Himself, "as truly approaching Him and becoming partakers in the first participation of the knowledge of His divine lights." And the great Macarius, as if using the wise Symeon for a tongue, or rather using him together, so that with two tongues he might more clearly proclaim the truth, "the lump," he says, "of human nature, which the Lord assumed, He seated at the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens, full of glory, no longer in the face alone, like Moses, but in the whole body." Therefore Christ has that light unalterable, or rather He both always had and always has and always will have this with Himself. But if it was and is and will be, then the light in which the Lord shone on the mountain was not a phantom, nor was it this alone, an unsubstantial symbol.

But if anyone should say that it is one of those things that subsist in themselves, separated from the nature of the thing signified, but has become a symbol of that thing by use, let him show where and of what kind this is, and this having been revealed through experience itself as inaccessible, and not simply inaccessible to the eyes, for "the disciples," he says, "fell on their faces to the ground," and indeed from nowhere else did it shine forth so brightly except from His adorable face and body alone; besides, if it were one of those things subsisting in themselves, and it will be with Christ continually in the ages to come, then Christ there will be a composite of three natures and substances: human, divine, and that of that light. It has therefore become clear and has been brilliantly demonstrated that that light is neither one of those things that subsist in themselves nor is it foreign to the divinity. However, we must now say, having arrived at this point in the argument, how the saints say that this divine (p. 600) grace, that is, this divine light, is enhypostatic.

That they do not, therefore, attribute self-subsistence to it through such a term is clear both from their never saying this is in its own hypostasis, as was also shown in the distinction set forth before. But since "unsubstantial" is said not only of that which does not exist, nor only of a phantom, but also of that which quickly falls apart and flows away, coming to be in perishing and having ceased as soon as it has come to be, such as the nature of lightning and thunder, but also our speech and thought, they, showing the permanence and stability of that light, have rightly called it enhypostatic, as something that endures and does not run past those who see it in the manner of lightning or speech or thought. But this most wise man, before knowing the meaning of this "enhypostatic," attacks those who have said it as if they were impious. And yet, refraining from those who have spoken well and not explaining their words against them with his own fabrications, if indeed he did not choose to call this enhypostatic in this way because it does not have its own hypostasis, or he accused them but not as heretics, none of us would have deigned to speak against him. But enough of these things. But that there is also another, second meaning of this "enhypostatic," piously and well

126

αἰῶνα, τόν δέ μεταξύ χρόνον ἠλλοιῶσθαι τήν δόξαν ταύτην ἀποθέμενον. Ὅτι δέ καί νῦν «ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς» οὕτω λάμπων κάθηται, δεῖ μέν πάντας ἕπεσθαί τε καί πείθεσθαι τῷ λέγοντι, «δεῦτ᾿ ἐπί τό ὄρος ἀναβάντες τό ἅγιον, τό ἐπουράνιον, ὀψόμεθα θεότητα ἄϋλον Πατρός καί Πνεύματος ἐν Υἱῷ μονογενεῖ ἀπαστράπτουσαν». Εἰ δέ τις ἑνί μή δεῖν εἴκειν οἴεται, πειθαρχείτω τοῖς δυσί, μᾶλλον δέ πᾶσι τοῖς ἁγίοις. Ὁ γάρ ἀντί λυχνίας τῇ Κρήτῃ χρησάμενος, οἷα λύχνος λογικός καί ἱερός, Ἀνδρέας ὁ Μακάριος, ἐξυμνῶν τό ἐν Θαβωρίῳ λάμψαν φῶς, «τοῦτο», φησίν, «ἡ νοητή διακόσμησις ἀΰλως ἑστιωμένη τεκμήριον τίθεται τῆς περί ἡμᾶς τοῦ λόγου φιλανθρωπίας». Τοῦτ᾿ αὐτό σχεδόν καί ὁ (σελ. 598) μέγας ∆ιονύσιος λέγει, τάς ἀνωτάτω τάξεις τῶν ὑπερκοσμίων νόων ἐξυμνῶν˙ οὐ γάρ τῆς τριαδικῆς, φησί, δόξης μόνης μέτοχοι γίνονται καί θεωροί, ἀλλά καί τῆς Ἰησοῦ φωτοφανείας˙ μυοῦνται γάρ τῆς θεωρίας κατηξιωμέναι ταύτης, θεουργόν φῶς ὄντα καί αὐτόν, «ὡς ἀληθῶς αὐτῷ πλησιάζουσαι καί τῆς γνώσεως τῶν θεουργῶν αὐτοῦ φώτων ἐν πρώτῃ μετουσίᾳ γινόμενοι». Ὁ δέ μέγας Μακάριος, οἷα γλώττῃ χρώμενος τῷ σοφῷ Συμεώνῃ, μᾶλλον δέ συγχρώμενος, ὡς ἄρα δυσί γλώτταις τρανότερον ἀνακηρύξῃ τήν ἀλήθειαν, «τό φύραμα», φησί, «τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως, ὅπερ ὁ Κύριος ἀνέλαβεν, ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν οὐρανοῖς, πλῆρες δόξης, οὐκέτι μόνῳ τῷ προσώπῳ, ὡς ὁ Μωϋσῆς, ἀλλ᾿ ὅλῳ τῷ σώματι». Τοιγαροῦν ἀναλλοίωτον ἔχει τό φῶς ἐκεῖνο ὁ Χριστός, μᾶλλον δέ καί ἀεί εἶχε καί ἀεί ἔχει καί ἀεί ἕξει τοῦτο σύν αὑτῷ. Εἰ δ᾿ ἦν καί ἔστι καί ἔσται, οὐκ ἦν ἄρα φάσμα τό φῶς καθ᾿ ὅ ἔλαμψεν ἐπί τοῦ ὄρους ὁ Κύριος, οὐδ᾿ αὐτό τοῦτο μόνον ἀνυπόστατον σύμβολον.

Εἰ δέ τις φαίη τῶν καθ᾿ ἑαυτό μέν ὑφεστηκότων εἶναι τῆς τοῦ σημαινομένου ἀπεσχοινισμένον φύσεως, σύμβολον δ᾿ ἐκείνου κατά χρῆσιν γεγονός, δειξάτω ποῦ καί ποῖόν ἐστι τοῦτο, καί ταῦτα δι᾿ αὐτῆς τῆς πείρας πεφηνός ἀπρόσιτον, καί οὐχ ἁπλῶς ὄμμασιν ἀπρόσιτον, «πρηνεῖς» γάρ, φησίν, «εἰς γῆν ἔπεσον οἱ μαθηται», καί μήν οὐδαμόθεν ἄλλοθεν, ὅτι μή ἐκ τοῦ προσκυνητοῦ μόνου τηλαυγῶς ἀπήστραψε προσώπου τε καί σώματος˙ ἄλλως τε, εἰ τῶν καθ᾿ ἑαυτό μέν ὑφεστηκότων εἴη, συνέσται δέ τῷ Χριστῷ διηνεκῶς ἐν τοῖς αἰῶσι τοῖς ἐπερχομένοις, ἐκ τριῶν φύσεων καί οὐσιῶν σύνθετος ἔσται ὁ Χριστός ἐκεῖ, ἀνθρωπίνης τε καί θείας καί τῆς τοῦ φωτός ἐκείνου. Σαφές ἄρα γέγονε καί ἀποδέδεικται λαμπρῶς ὡς οὔτε τῶν καθ᾿ ἑαυτό ὑφεστηκότων καί τῆς θεότητος οὐκ ἀλλότριόν ἐστι τό φῶς ἐκεῖνο. ∆εῖ μέντοι νῦν εἰπεῖν, ἐνταῦθα τοῦ λόγου γενομένοις, πῶς τήν θεουργόν (σελ.600) ταύτην χάριν, τό θεῖον τοῦτο δηλονότι φῶς, ἐνυπόστατον οἱ ἅγιοί φασιν.

Ὡς μέν οὖν οὐχί τό αὐθυπόστατον διά τοῦ τοιούτου προσρήματος αὐτῷ προσμαρτυροῦσι, δῆλον μέν καί ἀπό τοῦ μηδέποτε αὐτούς εἰπεῖν ἐν ἰδίᾳ ὑποστάσει τοῦτο, καθάπερ καί προτεθειμένης ἀνεφάνη διαιρέσεως. Ἐπεί δέ ἀνυπόστατον οὐ τό μή ὄν μόνον λέγεται, οὐδέ τό φάσμα μόνον, ἀλλά καί τό ταχύ διαπίπτον καί παραρρέον, ἐν τῷ φθείρεσθαί τε γινόμενον καί πεπαυμένον εὐθύς γενόμενον, ὁποῖον ἀστραπῆς τε καί βροντῆς φύσις, ἀλλά δή καί ὁ ἡμέτερος λόγος καί τό νόημα, τό μόνιμον ἐκεῖνοι δεικνύντες τοῦ φωτός ἐκείνου καί καθεστηκός, ἐνυπόστατον προσειρήκασιν αὐτό καλῶς, οἷον ὑπομένον καί μή ἀστραπῆς δίκην ἤ λόγου ἤ νοήματος παρατρέχον τούς ὁρῶντας. Ὁ δέ σοφώτατος οὗτος, πρίν ἤ γνῶναι τήν τοῦ ἐνυποστάτου τούτου σημασίαν, τοῖς εἰρηκόσιν ὡς ἠσεβηκόσιν ἐπιτίθεται. Καίτοι τῶν καλῶς εἰρηκότων ἀπεχόμενος καί μή τοῖς οἰκείοις ἀναπλασμοῖς τά ἐκείνων κατ᾿ἐκείνων ἐξηγούμενος, εἴπερ μή ἐνυπόστατον τοῦθ᾿ οὕτω λέγειν οὗτος προῃρεῖτο παρά τό μή ὑπόστασιν ἰδίαν ἔχειν, ἤ κατηγόρει μέν ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὡς αἱρετικῶν, οὐδείς ἄν ἡμῶν ἠξίωσεν ἀντιλέγειν πρός αὐτόν. Ἀλλά τούτων μέν ἅλις. Ὅτι δέ καί δεύτερον ἕτερον σημαινόμενόν ἐστι τοῦ ἐνυποστάτου τούτου, εὐσεβῶς τε καί καλῶς