134

not foreign, but natural to the Godhead, again hear the one wise in divine things, Damascene, saying, "not acquired, as Moses did, did he have the adornment of the divine glory, but from the innate divine glory and brilliance"; and again, "he takes the chief of the apostles as witnesses to his own glory and Godhead, and he reveals to them his own Godhead," that which is beyond all things, that which is sole and super-perfect and pre-perfect. That it is not visible through the air, the great Dionysius shows and all those with him who call this light the light of the age to come, when we will have no need of air (p. 608) according to them, and in addition to these, also the great Basil saying this is visible to the eyes of the heart. That it is not perceptible can be understood both from its not being visible through the air, but also because though it shone on Tabor brighter than the sun, it was not seen even by those nearby. But you, opposing so many saints who extolled such a light to such an extent, are you not clearly seen to be willingly blaspheming against God?

Will you not cease, therefore, O man, from declaring the light of the divine and essential comeliness to be not only perceptible and created, but even inferior to our own understanding? Inferior to understanding, O earth and heaven, and all you in them who see the light of the divine kingdom, the beauty of the age to come, the glory of the divine nature? A light, which in an ecstasy beyond all sensible and intellectual perception the apostles saw, according to the divinely-inspired Andrew of Crete, "by not seeing at all having been admitted to truly see, and by suffering divine things having received the perception of things beyond nature"? For what? Is not the ecstasy inferior to thought demonic in the case of such things? Therefore the initiates of the Lord suffered a demonic ecstasy, O unheard of report, although we have received it to say in common to Christ that

"the preeminent among the apostles, having beheld on the mountain the uncontainable outpouring of your light and the unapproachable nature of your Godhead,

were changed by a divine ecstasy"? How would you not also be convicted of calling God a creature, you who declare His essential energies

to be created? For no one having a mind would say this, that the essential goodness and life is the super-essential essence of God; for the essential is not that which has the essentials; but according to the great Dionysius, "whenever we name the super-essential hiddenness God or life or essence, (p. 610) we understand nothing other than the providential powers given forth from the unparticipated God." These, then, are essential powers, but that which has these powers collectively and unitively is super-essential, or rather, even super-essentially super-essential in itself; thus, therefore, that deifying light is essential, but it is not itself the essence of God.

But this philosopher, proceeding, declares not only this but also every power and energy of God to be created, although the saints clearly say that of the uncreated nature both all its natural properties and all its power and energy are uncreated, just as those of a created nature are created. "But how," he says, "is it not the super-essential essence of God, if it bears lordly characteristics, if it is beyond all visible and intelligible creation, that which is beyond sense, that which is beyond thought, that which truly is, that which always is, the immaterial, the unchangeable, and this being called by you hypostatic? And how do you say that the essence of God is beyond such a light?". And he says these things not inquiringly, desiring from someone a clarification of obscurities or a solution to difficulties for all, but he refutes us, as he thinks, or rather, intending to refute, then, as if unable, having gone mad he rails against us, now claiming that the soul's faculty of judgment has been wretchedly corrupted, now of those who ever

134

οὐκ ἀλλότριον, ἀλλά φυσικόν θεότητος, αὖθις ἄκουσον τοῦ τά θεῖα σοφοῦ ∆αμασκηνοῦ λέγοντος, «οὐκ ἐπίκτητον, ὡς ὁ Μωϋσῆς, ἔσχε τό τῆς θείας δόξης ὡράϊσμα, ἀλλ᾿ἐκ τῆς ἐμφύτου θείας δόξης τε καί λαμπρότητος»˙ καί πάλιν, «τούς κορυφαίους τῶν ἀποστόλων προσλαμβάνεται μάρτυρας τοῖς οἰκείας δόξης τε καί θεότητος, ἀποκαλύπτει δέ αὐτοῖς τήν οἰκείαν θεότητα», τήν ἁπάντων ἐπέκεινα, τήν μόνην καί ὑπερτελῆ καί προτέλειον. Ὅτι δέ οὐδέ δι᾿ἀέρος ὁρατόν, δείκνυσιν ὁ μέγας ∆ιονύσιος καί ὅσοι μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος φῶς τοῦτο ὀνομάζουσιν, ὅτε οὐκ ἀέρος (σελ. 608) ἡμῖν ἔσται χρεία κατ᾿ αὐτούς, πρός δέ τούτοις καί ὁ μέγας Βασίλειος τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς τῆς καρδίας τοῦτο λέγων ὁρατόν. Ὅτι δέ οὐδ᾿ αἰσθητόν, ἔστι συνιδεῖν καί τῷ μή δι᾿ ἀέρος εἶναι ὁρατόν, ἀλλά κἀν τῷ Θαβωρίῳ λάμψαν ὑπέρ ἥλιον οὐδέ τοῖς πλησιοχώροις ὦπται. Σύ δέ τοσούτοις καί ἐπί τοσοῦτον ἐξυμνοῦσι τό τοιοῦτο φῶς ἀντικείμενος ἁγίοις, ἆρ᾿ οὐ δῆλος εἶ βλασφημῶν ἐκών εἰς τόν Θεόν;

Οὐ παύσῃ τοιγαροῦν, ὦ ἄνθρωπε, τό φῶς τῆς θείας καί οὐσιώδους εὐπρεπείας, οὐκ αἰσθητόν μόνον καί κτιστόν, ἀλλά καί χεῖρον τῆς ἡμετέρας νοήσεως ἀποφαινόμενος; Χεῖρον νοήσεως, ὦ γῆ καί οὐρανέ, καί πάντες οἱ ἐν αὐτοῖς τό φῶς ὁρῶντες τῆς θείας βασιλείας, τήν καλλονήν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος, τήν δόξαν τῆς φύσεως τῆς θείας; Φῶς, ὅ κατ᾿ἔκστασιν πάσης αἰσθητῆς καί νεορᾶς ἀντιλήψεως οἱ ἀπόστολοι, κατά τόν Κρήτης θεσπέσιον Ἀνδρέαν, εἶδον, «τῷ μηδόλως ὁρᾶν τό ὄντως ὁρᾶν εἰσδεδεγμένοι καί τῷ πάσχειν τά θεῖα τῶν ὑπέρ φύσιν τήν αἴσθησιν προσιέμενοι»; Τί γάρ; Οὐ δαιμονιώδης ἡ χείρων διανοίας ἐπί τῶν τοιούτων ἔκστασις; ∆αιμονιώδη τοίνυν ἔπαθαν ἔκστασιν, ὤ τῆς ἀνηκούστου ἀκοῆς, οἱ τοῦ Κυρίου μύσται, καίτοι κοινῇ λέγειν παρελάβομεν πρός τόν Χριστόν ὅτι

«τό ἄσχετον τῆς σῆς φωτοχυσίας καί ἀπρόσιτον τῆς θεότητος θεασάμενοι τῶν ἀποστόλων οἱ πρόκριτοι ἐπί τοῦ ὄρους,

τήν θείαν ἠλλοιώθησαν ἔκστασιν»; Πῶς δ᾿ οὐκ ἄν ἁλοίης καί κτίσμα λέγων τόν Θεόν, ὁ τάς οὐσιώδεις ἐνεργείας

αὐτοῦ κτιστάς ἀποφαινόμενος; Οὐ γάρ ἄν τοῦτο φαίη τις νοῦν ἔχων, ὅτι ἡ οὐσιώδης ἀγαθότης καί ζωή ἡ ὑπερούσιος οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν˙ οὐ γάρ τό οὐσιώδες ἡ τά οὐσιώδη ἔχουσα˙ κατά δέ τόν μέγαν ∆ιονύσιον, «ὅταν τήν ὑπερούσιον κρυφιότητα Θεόν ἡ ζωήν ἤ οὐσίαν ὀνομάσωμεν, (σελ. 610) οὐδέν ἕτερον νοοῦμεν ἤ τάς ἐκδιδομένας ἐκ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀμεθέκτου προνοητικάς δυνάμεις». ∆υνάμεις μέν οὖν αὗται οὐσιώδεις, ὑπερούσιον δέ, μᾶλλον δέ καί αὐθυπερουσίως ὑπερούσιον, τό ταύτας τάς δυνάμεις συνειλημμένως τε καί ἑνιαίως ἔχον˙ οὕτω τοίνυν καί τό θεουργόν ἐκεῖνο φῶς οὐσιῶδές ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ αὐτό οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ.

Ὁ δέ φιλόσοφος οὗτος προϊών, οὐ τοῦτο μόνον ἀλλά καί πᾶσαν δύναμιν καί ἐνέργειαν Θεοῦ κτιστήν εἶναι ἀποφαίνεται, καίτοι τῶν ἁγίων λεγόντων φανερῶς ὅτι τῆς ἀκτίστου φύσεως καί τά φυσικά πάντα καί πᾶσα δύναμίς τε καί ἐνέργεια ἄκτιστός ἐστιν, ὥσπερ καί τά τῆς κτιστῆς φύσεως κτιστά. «Ἀλλά πῶς», φησίν, «οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ ὑπερούσιος οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ, εἴπερ δεσποτικούς φέρει χαρακτῆρας, εἰ πάσης ὁρωμένης τε καί νοουμένης κτίσεως ἐπέκεινα, τό ὑπέρ αἴσθησιν, τό ὑπέρ νόησιν, τό κυρίως ὄν, τό ἀεί ὄν, τό ἄϋλον, τό ἀναλλοίωτον, καί ταῦτα παρ᾿ ὑμῶν ἐνυπόστατον λεγόμενον; Πῶς δέ τοῦ τοιούτου φωτός τήν οὐσίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπέκεινά φατε;». Ταῦτα δέ οὐ διαπορητικῶς ἐκεῖνος λέγει, ποθῶν παρά του τῶν ἁπάντων εὐκρίνειαν τῶν ἀσαφῶν ἤ λύσιν τῶν ἀπόρων, ἀλλ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἐξελέγχει, ὡς νομίζει, μᾶλλον δέ προθέμενος ἐλέγχειν, εἶθ᾿ ὡς μή δυνάμενος, μανείς ἐξυβρίζει καθ᾿ ἡμῶν, νῦν μέν ἀθλίως διεφθάρθαι τό κριτικόν τῆς ψυχῆς ἰσχυριζόμενος, νῦν δέ τῶν πώποτε