132

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 its symbol by use, let him show where and what this is, and this being revealed by experience itself as inaccessible, and not simply inaccessible to the eyes, for, it says, “the disciples fell on their faces to the ground,” and indeed from nowhere else than from the adorable face and body alone did it shine forth resplendently; besides, if it were one of those things that subsist in themselves, and it will be with Christ perpetually in the ages to come, Christ there will be a composite of three natures and essences: 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 alien to the divinity. However, it is necessary now to say, having arrived at this point in the argument, how the saints call this deifying (p.600) grace, that is, this divine light, enhypostatic.

That they do not, therefore, testify to its being self-subsistent by such an appellation, is clear both from their never saying this is in its own hypostasis, as also appeared from the division set forth before. But since 'unhypostatic' is said not only of what is not, nor only of a phantom, but also of that which quickly falls apart and flows away, coming into being in the process of perishing and having ceased as soon as it has come to be, such as the nature of lightning and thunder, but also indeed 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, like lightning or speech or thought, pass by those who see it. But this most wise man, before he knew the meaning of this 'enhypostatic,' attacks those who have said it as if they were impious. And yet, had he abstained from those who have spoken well and not interpreted 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 if he accused them, but not as heretics, none of us would have deigned to speak against him. But enough of these things. That there is also a second, different meaning of this 'enhypostatic,' which is both pious and right, we have already said. But now it is necessary to return to what follows of the proposed demonstration.

If, then, that light, which shone on the mountain from the Savior, is a natural symbol, it is not a natural symbol of both His natures; for the natural properties of each of these are different. For it is impossible for it to be of the human nature; for our nature is not light, and such a light as that was; and indeed the Lord did not then ascend Tabor, taking with him the chosen (p. 602) of the disciples, in order to show that he was a man (for for three years now he had been seen living and associating with them and, to use the scriptural expression, eating salt with them), but to show, according to what is sung, that he is the radiance of the Father. And besides these things, not even you yourself, nor if anyone should appear more daring than you, would say that this is a symbol of the humanity, but of the divinity. If, therefore, it is a natural symbol, but it is not of the human nature, then that light is a natural symbol of the only-begotten divinity, just as the divine John of Damascus has most clearly taught us: for, he says, “the Son, begotten of the Father without beginning, possesses the unoriginate natural ray of the divinity; and the glory of the divinity becomes also the glory of the body.” Therefore, it did not come into being, nor begin, nor cease; for natural symbols are always with the nature of which they are symbols, not always being symbols, but always coexisting, since also Maximus, great in divine things, says that all things essentially contemplated concerning God are without beginning and without end. And since there are, according to him, many things essentially contemplated concerning God and by reason of simplicity

132

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 ἔχον, ἔφθημεν εἰπόντες. Νῦν δ᾿ ἐπανελθεῖν δέον εἰς τά ἑξῆς τῆς προκειμένης ἀποδείξεως.

Εἰ τοίνυν φυσικόν σύμβολόν ἐστι τό φῶς ἐκεῖνο, τό λάμψαν ἐπ᾿ ὄρους ἀπό τοῦ σωτῆρος, οὐκ ἀμφοτέρων τῶν αὐτῷ φύσεών ἐστι φυσικόν˙ διάφορα γάρ ἑκατέρας τούτων ἐστί τά φυσικά. Τῆς γοῦν ἀνθρωπίνης εἶναι φύσεως ἀδύνατον˙ οὐ γάρ φῶς ἡμῖν ἡ φύσις καί ταῦθ᾿ οἷον ἦν ἐκεῖνο˙ καί μήν οὐδ᾿ ἀνέβη τότε τό Θαβώριον τούς ἐκκρίτους ἐπαγόμενος (σελ. 602) ὁ Κύριος τῶν μαθητῶν, ἵνα δείξῃ ἄνθρωπος ὑπάρχων (τριετίαν γάρ ἤδη ἑωρᾶτο συνδιαιτώμενος καί συμπολιτευόμενος καί, κατά τό λόγιον εἰπεῖν, συναλιζόμενος αὐτοῖς), ἀλλ᾿ ἵνα δείξῃ, κατά τό ᾀδόμενον, ὅτι αὐτός ἐστι τό τοῦ Πατρός ἀπαύγασμα. Πρός δέ τούτοις οὐδέ σύ ἄν αὐτός, οὐδ᾿ εἴ τις τολμηρότερον ἀναφανείη σοῦ, σύμβολον τοῦτ᾿ ἄν τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος φαίη, ἀλλά τῆς θεότητος. Εἰ τοίνυν φυσικόν σύμβολόν ἐστι τῆς δέ φύσεως τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης οὐκ ἔστι, φυσικόν ἄρα σύμβολον τό φῶς ἐκεῖνο τῆς μονογενοῦς θεότητος ὑπάρχει, καθά καί ὁ ἐκ ∆αμασκοῦ θεῖος Ἰωάννης ἀριδήλως ἐδίδαξεν ἡμᾶς˙ «ἀνάρχως» γάρ, φησίν, «ὁ Υἱός ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός γεννηθείς, τήν φυσικήν ἀκτῖνα ἄναρχον κέκτηται τῆς θεότητος˙ ἡ δέ τῆς θεότητος δόξα, καί δόξα τοῦ σώματος γίνεται». Τοιγαροῦν οὐ γέγονεν, οὐ᾿ ἤρξατο, οὐδ᾿ἔληξε˙ τά γάρ φυσικά σύμβολα σύνεστιν ἀεί τῇ φύσει ἧς σύμβολά ἐστι, οὐκ ἀεί μέν ὄντα σύμβολα, συνόντα δέ ἀεί, ἐπεί καί ὁ πολύς τά θεῖα Μάξιμος ἄναρχα καί ἀτελεύτητά φησι πάντα τά περί Θεόν οὐσιωδῶς θεωρούμενα. Πολλῶν δ᾿ ὄντων κατ᾿ αὐτόν τῶν περί Θεόν οὐσιωδῶς θεωρουμένων καί τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ἁπλότητος