157

the teaching of evil men; for having been initiated there, you have become an accuser of the saints." But not even when the emperor wishes to deem a soldier worthy of face-to-face conversation, would he for that reason immediately be a general, nor, because he then stands nearer, has he on this account put on the form of a commander-in-chief. "But it is not possible," he says, "for God to meet with man except through an angel; for through angels we are ruled in a hierarchy." What are you doing, man? Do you impose necessities upon the very Master of necessities, who dissolves them whenever He wishes, and sometimes even completely refashions them? Tell me: which of the angels was it who said to Moses, "I am who I am, the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob," if not the Son of God, as Basil the Great also says? And what is it that is written in the Exodus of Israel, that "the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend"? And the one speaking to Abraham, when "He swore by Himself," if He were an angel, how does the apostle say that "He had no one greater by whom to swear"? But if under the shadow of the law God Himself was pleased to speak with the fathers, how, when the truth has been revealed and the law of grace made clear, according to which not an angel, not a man, but the Lord Himself saved us and the very Spirit of God taught us all truth, will God not manifest Himself to the saints? Or did He not disdain to become man for our sake and undergo the cross and death for us, and this while we were still impious (p. 704) according to the apostle, but He will disdain to dwell in, and be manifested to, and speak directly with a man, and that one not only pious, but also sanctified and having his body and mind previously cleansed through the observance of the divine commandments, and having made these a vehicle and a straight yoke of the all-powerful Spirit? And divine Gregory of Nyssa himself, proving this, after mentioning that heavenly and supernatural vision of Stephen, says, "Was this achievement of human nature? Was it of some angel having raised the nature that lay below to that height? This is not so; for it is not written thus, that Stephen, great in power or full of angelic assistance, saw what he saw, but that Stephen, being full of the Holy Spirit, saw the glory of God and the Only-Begotten of God. For it is not possible, as the prophet said, for the light to be seen except by being seen in light. He therefore here spoke of a vision accessible through the Spirit, but not of knowledge, and as for "no one has seen God," having understood it in this sense and having contrasted it questioningly with the spiritual vision of Stephen, he brought forth the solution most excellently and most piously. And besides these things, he did not say that the essence is accessible or visible, but the glory of the Father and the grace of the Spirit.

"But I," he says, "hearing that this grace and glory is supernatural and like God, 'for like,' he says, 'is seen by like,' for this reason also, since it is uncreated and without beginning, I say that this is the essence of God." And can it not be, O theologian who opposes the saints (for be well assured that you will in no way deceive those who know, even if by hiding the names you officiously put forward the holy thought of the saints as if it were from some heterodox thinker), can it not be, then, that an energy of God is supernatural, without beginning and uncreated, and because it reveals the whole God (p. 706) through itself to those who see supernaturally in the Spirit, is like God? "Away with it," he says; "for there is one uncreated and beginningless thing, the essence of God; but every energy of His is created." What impiety! For either God does not have natural and essential energies, and he who says this is an atheist (for this, he says, is openly to say that God does not exist, for the holy fathers, according to the Divine Maximus, clearly say that no nature whatsoever can either exist or be known without its own essential energy), or therefore they are not essential and

157

πονηρῶν παίδευμα˙ καί γάρ ἐκεῖθεν μυηθείς τῶν ἁγίων κατήγορος γέγονας". Ἀλλ᾿ οὐδ᾿ ὅταν ὁ βασιλεύς ἐθελήσῃ τῆς κατά πρόσωπον ὁμιλίας ἀξιῶσαι τόν στρατιώτην, στρατηγός ἄν εἴη δι᾿ αὐτό πάραυτα, οὐδ᾿ ὅτι ἐγγύτερος τότε παρίσταται, παρά τοῦτο τό τοῦ ἀρχισρατήγου σχῆμα παρήνεγκεν. «Ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἔνι», φησίν, «εἰ μή δι᾿ ἀγγέλου τόν Θεόν ἀνθρώπῳ συντυχεῖν˙ δι᾿ ἀγέλλων γάρ ἱεραρχούμεθα». Τί ποιεῖς, ἄνθρωπε; Ἀνάγκας ἐπιτίθῃς τῷ καί τῶν ἀναγκῶν δεσπότῃ, τῷ καί ταύτας ἡνίκ᾿ ἄν ἐθέλῃ λύοντι, ἐνίοτε δέ καί μετασευάζοντι τελέως; Εἰπέ δή μοι˙ τίς ἦν ἀγγέλων ὁ τῷ Μωϋσῇ εἰπών, «ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, ὁ Θεός Ἀβραάμ καί Ἰσαάκ καί Ἰακώβ», εἰ μή ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ Υἱός, ὡς καί Βασίλειος ὁ μέγας λέγει; Τί δέ ἐστι τό ἐν τῇ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ Ἐξόδῳ γεγραμμένον ὅτι «ἐλάλησε κύριος πρός Μωσῆν ἐνώπιος ἐνωπίῳ, ὡς εἴ τις λαλήσει πρός τόν ἑαυτοῦ φίλον»; Τῷ δέ Ἀβραάμ ὁ ὁμιλῶν, ἡνίκα «ὤμοσε καθ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ», εἴγε ἄγγελος ὑπῆρχε, πῶς ὁ ἀπόστολός φησιν ὡς «οὐκ εἶχε κατ᾿ οὐδενός μείζονος ὀμόσαι»; Εἰ δ᾿ ἐπί τῆς νομικῆς σκιᾶς αὐτός ὁ Θεός εὐδόκησεν ὁμιλῆσαι τοῖς πατράσι, πῶς, τῆς ἀληθείας ἐκφανείσης καί τοῦ τῆς χάριτος νόμου τρανωθέντος, καθ᾿ ὅν οὐκ ἄγγελος, οὐκ ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλ᾿ αὐτός ὁ Κύριος ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς καί αὐτό τό Πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ πᾶσαν τήν ἀλήθειαν ἐδίδαξεν ἡμᾶς, οὐκ ἐμφανισθήσεται δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ τοῖς ἁγίοις ὁ Θεός; Ἤ γενέσθαι μέν ἄνθρωπος δι᾿ ἡμᾶς οὐκ ἀπηξίωσε καί σταυρόν ὑπέστη καί θάνατον ὑπέρ ἡμῶν, καί ταῦτα ἀσεβῶν (σελ. 704) ὄντων ἔτι κατά τόν ἀπόστολον, ἀνθρώπῳ δέ ἀμέσως ἀπαξιώσει καί ἐνοικῆσαι καί ἐμφανισθῆναι καί ὁμιλῆσαι, καί τοῦτ᾿ οὐκ εὐσεβεῖ μόνον, ἀλλά καί ἡγιασμένῳ καί διά τῆς τῶν θείων ἐντολῶν τηρήσεως προκαθηραμένῳ σῶμά τε καί νοῦν, καί τοῦ πάντα δυναμένου Πνεύματος ὄχημα καί ζεῦγος εὐθυές ταῦτ᾿ ἐξειργασμένῳ; Τοῦτο δή καί αὐτός ὁ Νύσσης θεῖος Γρηγόριος ἀποδεικνύς, μετά τό μνησθῆναι τῆς οὐρανίου καί ὑπερφυοῦς ἐκείνης τοῦ Στεφάνου θεωρίας, «ἆρα», φησίν, «ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως ἦν τό κατόρθωμα; Ἆρά τινος τῶν ἀγγέλων πρός τό ὕψος ἐκεῖνο τήν κάτω κειμένην φύσιν ἀναβιβάσαντος; Οὐκ ἔστι ταῦτα˙ οὐ γάρ οὕτω γέγραπται, ὅτι Στέφανος τῇ δυνάμει πολύς ἤ τῆς ἀγγελικῆς βοηθείας πλήρης γενόμενος εἶδεν ἅ εἶδεν, ἀλλ᾿ ὅτι Στέφανος πλήρης ὤν Πνεύματος ἁγίου εἶδε τήν δόξαν τοῦ Θεοῦ καί τόν μονογενῆ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Οὐ γάρ ἔστι, καθάπερ ὁ προφήτης εἶπε, τό φῶς ὀφθῆναι μή ἐν φωτί καθορώμενον. Ὅρασιν οὖν ἐνταῦθ᾿ εἶπε χωρητήν διά Πνεύματος, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί γνῶσιν, καί τό «οὐδείς ἑώρακε Θεόν»˙ ἐπί ταύτης τῆς σημασίας ἐκλαβόμενος καί διαπορητικῶς ἀντιθείς τῇ πνευματικῇ τοῦ Στεφάνου θεωρίᾳ, τήν λύσιν ἐπήνεγκε κάλλιστά τε καί εὐσεβέστατα. Πρός δέ τούτοις οὐδέ τήν οὐσίαν εἶπε χωρητήν ἤ ὁρατήν, ἀλλά τήν δόξαν τοῦ Πατρός καί τήν χάριν τοῦ Πνεύματος.

«Ἀλλ᾿ ἐγώ», φησί, «τήν χάριν καί τήν δόξαν ταύτην ὑπερφυῆ καί ὁμοίαν ἀκούων τῷ Θεῷ, "τῷ γάρ ὁμοίῳ", φησί, "καθορᾶται τά ὅμοια", διό καί, ἄκτιστον οὖσαν καί ἄναρχον, οὐσίαν ταύτην εἶναι λέγω τοῦ Θεοῦ». Καί οὐ δύναται εἶναι, ὦ τῶν ἁγίων ἀντικείμενε θεολόγε (λήσεις γάρ εὖ ἴσθι τούς εἰδότας οὐδαμῶς, εἰ καί τά ὀνόματα κρύπτων τήν ἁγίαν τῶν ἁγίων διάνοιαν ὡς ἀλλοτριόφρονός τινος προτείνεις περιέργως), οὐ δύναται τοίνυν ἐνέργεια Θεοῦ ὑπερφυής, ἄναρχός τε καί ἄκτιστος ὑπάρχειν καί διά τό τόν Θεόν ὅλον φανεροῦν (σελ. 706) δι᾿ ἑαυτοῖς τοῖς ὑπερφυῶς ἐν Πνεύματι ὁρῶσιν ὁμοία τῷ Θεῷ; «Ἄπαγε», φησίν˙ «ἕν γάρ ἄκτιστόν τε καί ἄναρχον, ἡ οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ˙ πᾶσα δέ ἐνέργεια αὐτοῦ κτιστή». Τῆς ἀσεβείας ἤ γάρ οὐκ ἔχει φυσικάς καί οὐσιώδεις ἐνεργείας ὁ Θεός καί ἄθεός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦτο λέγων (τοῦτο γάρ ἄντικρυς, φησίν, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι ὁ Θεός, οἱ γάρ ἅγιοι πατέρες φανερῶς λέγουσι, κατά τόν Θεῖον Μάξιμον, μήτε εἶναι μήτε γινώσκεσθαι χωρίς τῆς οὐσιώδους αὐτῆς ἐνεργείας τήν οἱανδήποτε φύσιν), ἤ οὖν οὐκ εἰσίν οὐσιώδεις καί