149

of a voice, but hiding the harmful aspect of the meaning. But we shall briefly reveal here how he attempts to establish each of the things that have been said, and first, through what means his argument shows, alas, the divinely-inspired prophets to be possessed by demons.

He constructs their visions as being inferior to intellection and declares them to be fantasies, even if perceptible, in order to demonstrate that knowledge is superior to them; then, proceeding further, he himself says again, "a mind happens to be impassioned or possessed by a demon, which might be active according to an energy inferior to intellection". Since, therefore, the prophets saw with the mind ('for the vision of the prophets,' says the great Basil, 'is not something perceptible, but is comprehended by the mind, with God illuminating it'; and again, 'the prophets foresaw the future, their governing faculty being shaped by the Spirit'), if, then, the prophets saw with the mind in the Spirit, but 'by an energy inferior to intellection', as this man has said, and this energy is demonic when it is not active with respect to possessions and base pleasures and opinions, is not that divine vision demonic according to the one who says such things? And what of the divine Spirit and that light which produces this vision? But may such blasphemy turn upon the head of the one who composes such words, or rather, having fallen away from his head, may it be as far away as possible, proceeding to non-existence, as he repents and learns the truth anew.

Whence, then, did he fall into so great a pit? one might ask. Since by reason and natural philosophy he has investigated things beyond reason and nature, disobeying the fathers who say, 'it is not possible for the manner of prophetic vision to be interpreted by reason, but he alone knows it clearly who has learned it by experience; for if reason could often represent none of the works and passions of nature, (p. 698) much more so the energies of the Spirit', which one might see testified in many places also by the saints after Christ. So then, while they say this, he himself says that those who say such things must be known by experience, or that they have known them by experience, are Messalians. Therefore, he is revealed, as if from a geometrical corollary, to have received no experience whatsoever of a divine mystery or of an energy of the Holy Spirit; for he would not have proclaimed himself a Messalian. If, then, he who has learned by experience alone knows the energies of the Spirit, but he himself has not known by experience and in no way accepts those who have known by experience, who will still doubt that all the idle talk that has come from him concerning the deifying energy of the Spirit is falsehood, and this directed by him against those who have experience of it, since he in no way knows either what he is saying or about what things he is making assertions? 'For will one announce the sweetness of honey to those who have not tasted it?', says the proverb; but those who have not tasted, how will they announce it? tell me; and if they should even contradict those who have tasted, will they not, in addition to being clearly revealed as liars, also incur the utmost ridicule? Much more, indeed, would he be a liar and more ridiculous who utters such marvels concerning the supernatural energies of the Spirit and, according to the apostle, 'intrudes into what he has not seen, puffed up without cause by his fleshly mind'. This alone was not enough, not only to convict him as a false writer, but in addition to this also as one who ranks the saints with the heretics (for it is their saying 'only the one who has learned by experience knows clearly' the energies of the Spirit, but he insists that those who say this are heretics); this, therefore, was enough to convict him as an accuser of the saints after Christ as well; but for him it was not (p.700) sufficient, but he used a second and a third and still more methods against them, or rather, against himself.

For of the saints, in their respective writings, there are places where they seem to disagree with one another, he himself, sometimes siding with the saying of this one, sometimes of that one, through that one shamelessly attacks the others and makes them utterly proscribed and outcast, so as even to subject them to excommunications and anathemas. Thus, the divine Gregory of Nyssa, who says that the mind is neither outside nor inside the body on account of

149

φωνῆς, ἀλλά τό βλαβερόν ὑποκρύπτων τοῦ νοήματος. Ἡμεῖς δ᾿ ὅπως ἕκαστον τῶν εἰρημένων κατασκευάσαι πειρᾶται, διά βραχέων ἐνταῦθα φανερώσομεν, καί πρῶτον διά τίνων δαιμονιώδεις, φεῦ, τούς ἐνθέους προφήτας δείκνυσιν ὁ λόγος αὐτῷ.

Τάς ὁράσεις τούτων χείρους εἶναι νοήσεως κατασκευάζει καί ἀποφαίνεται ὡς φαντασίας οὔσας, εἰ καί αἰσθητάς, ἵνα τήν γνῶσιν ὑπερέχουσαν τούτων ἐπιδείξῃ˙ εἶτα προϊών αὐτός φησι πάλιν «ἐμπαθῆ τυγχάνειν ἤ δαιμονιώδη νοῦν, ὅς ἄν ἐνεργοίη κατά χείρω νοήσεως ἐνέργειαν». Ἐπεί τοίνυν οἱ προφῆται νῷ ἐώρων («οὐ γάρ αἰσθητή τις», φησίν ὁ μέγας Βασίλειος, «ἡ τῶν προφητῶν ὅρασις, ἀλλ᾿ ὑπό τοῦ νοῦ κατανοουμένη, τοῦ Θεοῦ φωτίζοντος αὐτόν»˙ καί πάλιν, «προεώρων οἱ προφῆται τά μέλλοντα, τυπούμενοι τῷ Πνεύματι τό ἡγεμονικόν»), εἰ γοῦν νῷ ἐν Πνεύματι ἑώρων οἱ προφῆται, «ἐνεργείᾳ δέ χείρονι νοήσεως», ὡς οὗτος εἶπεν, αὕτη δέ δαιμονιώδης, ὅταν μή περί χρήματα καί τάς κάτω ἡδονάς καί δόξας ἐνεργῇ, ἆρ᾿ οὐ κατά τόν τά τοιαῦτα λέγοντα δαιμονιώδης ἡ θεία ὅρασις ἐκείνη; Τί δέ τό θεῖον Πνεῦμα καί τό φῶς ἐκεῖνο, τό τήν ὅρασιν ταύτην ἐμποιοῦν; Ἀλλά τρέποιτο ἐπί τήν κεφαλήν τό τοιοῦτο βλάσφημον τοῦ τοιούτους λόγους συντιθέντος, μᾶλλον δέ καί τῆς αὐτοῦ κεφαλῆς διαπεσόν ὡς πορρωτάτω γένοιτο, πρός τό μή ὄν χωρῆσαν, μετάμελον λαβόντος καί μεταμαθόντος τήν ἀλήθειαν.

Πόθεν δή τῷ τηλικούτῳ βόθρῳ περιέπεσεν; ἔροιτό τις ἄν. Ἐπεί λόγῳ καί φιλοσοφίᾳ φυσικῇ τά ὑπέρ λόγον τε καί φύσιν ἐξερεύνησεν, ἀπειθήσας τοῖς πατράσι λέγουσιν, «οὐ δυνατόν ἑρμηνευθῆναι λόγῳ τόν τρόπον τῆς προφητικῆς ὄψεως, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκεῖνος μόνον οἶδε σαφῶς, ὁ τῇ πείρᾳ μαθών˙ εἰ γάρ φύσεως ἔργα καί πάθη πολλάκις οὐδείς ἄν παραστήσειε (σελ. 698) λόγος, πολλῷ μᾶλλον τῆς τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐνεργείας», ὅ καί τοῖς μετά Χριστόν ἁγίοις ἴδοι τις ἄν πολλαχοῦ μαρτυρούμενον. Τοῦτο τοίνυν τούτων οὕτω λεγόντων, αὐτός φησι Μασσαλιανούς εἶναι τούς πείρᾳ δεῖν γινώσκειν ἤ πείρᾳ ἐγνωκέναι τά τοιαῦτα λέγοντας. Οὐκοῦν αὐτός ὡς ἐκ γεωμετρικοῦ πορίσματος ἀναφαίνεται, πεῖραν μυστηρίου θείου ἤ Πνεύματος ἁγίου ἐνεργείας οὐδ᾿ ἡστινοσοῦν λαβών˙ οὐ γάρ ἄν Μασσαλιανόν ἑαυτόν ἀνεκήρυττεν. Εἰ γοῦν ὁ πεῖρᾳ μαθών μόνος οἶδε τάς ἐνεργείας τοῦ Πνεύματος, αὐτός δέ πείρᾳ οὐκ ἔγνωκε καί τούς πείρᾳ γνόντας οὐδαμῶς παραδέχεται, τίς ἔτ᾿ ἄμφιγνοήσει μή ψευδολογίαν εἶναι πᾶσαν τήν περί τῆς θεοποιοῦ τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐνεργείας αὐτῷ γεγενημένην ἀδολεσχίαν, καί ταῦτα κατά τῶν ἐν πείρᾳ ταύτης γεγονότων ἐξενηνεγμένην αὐτῷ, μηδαμῶς εἰδότι μήτε ἅ λέγει, μήτε περί τίνων διαβεβαιοῦται; «Γλυκύτητα γάρ μέλιτος ἀναγγελεῖ τοῖς μή γευσαμένοις;», ἡ παροιμία φησίν˙ οἱ δέ μή γευσάμενοι, πῶς ἀναγγελοῦσιν; εἰπέ μοι˙ εἰ δέ καί τοῖς γευσαμένοις ἀντιλέγοιεν, ἆρ᾿ οὐ μετά τοῦ ψευδόμενοι δῆλοι πεφηνέναι καί γέλωτα ὀφλήσουσιν ἔσχατον; Πολλῷ μέντ᾿ ἄν εἴη ψευδηγόρος καί καταγέλαστος μᾶλλον ὁ περί τάς ὑπερφυεῖς ἐνεργείας τοῦ Πνεύματος τοιαῦτα τερατευόμενος καί κατά τόν ἀπόστολον «ἅ μή ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύων, εἰκῇ φυσιούμενος ὑπό τοῦ νοός τῆς σαρκός αὐτοῦ». Ἤρκει μέν οὐ τουτί μόνον, οὐ μόνον ψευδογράφον αὐτόν ἀπελέγξαι, πρός δέ τούτῳ καί τοῖς αἱρετικοῖς τούς ἁγίους συντάττοντα (καί γάρ ἐκείνων ἐστι λόγος «μόνον εἰδέναι σαφῶς τόν πείρᾳ μαθόντα» τάς ἐνεργείας τοῦ Πνεύματος, ὁ δέ τούς τοῦτο λέγοντας αἱρετικούς εἶναι διισχυρίζεται)˙ τουτί μέν οὖν ἤρκει καί τῶν μετά Χριστόν ἁγίων κατήγορον αὐτόν ἀπελέγξαι˙ τῷ δέ οὐκ (σελ.700) ἀπέχρησεν, ἀλλά καί δευτέρᾳ καί τρίτῃ καί ἔτι πλείστοι κατ᾿ αὐτῶν, μᾶλλον δέ καθ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ μεθόδοις ἐχρήσατο.

Τῶν γάρ ἁγίων έν τοῖς καθ᾿ ἑαυτούς συγγράμμασιν ἔστιν οὗ πρός ἀλλήλους δοκούντων διαφωνεῖν, αὐτός ποτέ μέν τούτου, ποτέ δέ ἐκείνου ρήσει προσθέμενος, δι᾿ ἐκείνης τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀναιδῶς ἐπιτίθεται καί ἐκκηρύκτους καί ἀποβλήτους ποιεῖται παντάπασιν ὡς καί ἀφορισμοῖς ὑποβάλλειν καί ἀναθέμασιν. Οὕτω τόν Νύσσης θεῖον Γρηγόριον μήτ᾿ ἐκτός μήτ᾿ ἐντός εἶναι τοῦ σώματος λέγοντα τόν νοῦ διά τό