TWO DISCOURSES
Which some who are of the faction of Acindynus produce against the Orthodox—the first of which concerns a certain statement of Saint Basil, and the second concerns the nature of the light seen by the disciples on Mount Tabor.FIRST DISCOURSE
Come now, once again, most noble and most studious of friends, let us proceed to the solutions of your questions—or rather, let us, as is our custom, take our stand against the stratagems, problems, and apparent objections and traps set against us by those who oppose our teaching. Let us, as we did of old, now overcome by the power of the Spirit the devices, walls, ramparts, and "every height raised up" A against the knowledge of God, to speak apostolically—or, to speak more appropriately, let us strike down and destroy these things with the striking and thunder of his intellectual trumpet, no less than Jesus, the great general of God after the renowned Moses, did of old with the Jericho walls, with seven trumpets, and priests, and days, and circuits. For he clearly and fittingly signified the supernatural concourse of the seven gifts of the Spirit B shining forth later, which destroys all the ramparts, walls, and problems of error, both of old and now, in a manner befitting God. For it would be truly wretched, and not at all worthy of divine power—or even of the saving doctrine, one might say—for those who speak the things of the Spirit to seem to speak them, according to the one who said "without the Spirit," while the instruments of the Spirit—I mean these theologians—speak of the things of the Spirit in a hidden corner, and for the torch of their teaching and the divine light to be concealed under a bushel, as it were, by our silence.
Since there are two questions put forward at that time by you, which you say you heard from the opponents in the debate against us, come, let us first bring the former of these into the open. You said that they—or rather, those who slander us—attack the words of the theologians in many places, even changing and twisting some of them C openly, so as to alter them to suit our intention and opinion, just as they do with that statement of the wondrous Basil which he said in his defense against Eunomius, who asserted that the Son is unlike the Father in essence: "For the one who has brought forth [τετοκὼς] the drops of dew, according to the word of Job, did not generate the drops and the Son in the same way," he said, having substituted the word "established" [ὑπεστήσατο] for "generated" [ἐτεκνώσατο]. But as it is not our custom, but rather that of those who, from the beginning, wrongly cite those things against us, which is a strong proof against them—our writings and those of piety itself—let us for the time being turn our discourse toward those who accuse us regarding the word, its distortion, and its transposition. Tell us then, oh blessed ones, from where...
D ...books of the theologians, present and seen until now. Whence we have no need of words or arguments on behalf of such things, possessing the refutation from themselves. But let us rather come to the examination of the proposed text.
...before, and indeed also the things twisted by them, they think that the physical properties of God and the sacred names for these, which the ornament of theology, Dionysius, hymn-singing in a manner fitting to God, called powers of God, and processions, and energies, and participations, and distributions, and illuminations, and whatever else is divine and lofty according to the theologians who initiated him, as he himself says—these things, then, they hasten with bold mind and tongue to drag down into the category of creatures; and in this they perversely fasten upon this word "established" [ὑπεστήσατο], saying that it signifies "created" everywhere, and that the creator is likewise always called the one who establishes [ὑποστάτην], and that the name signifies nothing else, since that venerable theologian also appears to use it throughout that whole venerable book; and now saying "he established" [ὑπεστήσατο] and "he caused to stand" [ὑπέστησε], and now calling him the "establisher" [ὑποστάτην] of each of the energies and powers and providences projected from him C for the sake of participation for those who partake of God according to his own definition, I mean the creatures, as many as are intellectual and as many as fall under perception.
We, however, with regard to the uncreated and timeless nature of these very powers and providences of God, although having already shown this not perfunctorily in many places and through many arguments, will here too immediately make it known in our discourse, having brought their interpreters and theologians back into the open, as much as possible D while especially against those who do not rightly cite those things against us—the proof is strong against them. But toward those who accuse us regarding the word and its distortion and its transposition, let us for now turn our discourse. Tell us then, oh blessed ones, from where
A you were motivated by any significant reason to write this accusation against us. For the charge is not a small one, nor is it of those of no account, as one might conjecture, but it is among the greatest and most absurd; and not only of us and of the entire court of the pious is it to be rejected and cast out as alien, but one would not be wrong to call the practitioners of such things liars, slanderers, and evildoers, and full of envy, deceit, and treachery; and I shall add, furthermore, that they are pirates and footpads, worse by far than those who attack the merchants and travelers on land and sea in a predatory manner. Indeed, I would add that they are also hucksters of words and letters—and not just any words, but words specifically regarding God Himself and the matters most pertaining to Him, for which reason it would indeed be just to count such people among those who commit sacrilege, in addition to the things already mentioned. B Basil the Great, in his works against Eunomius, rightfully indignant, says that it is the work of the impious Marcion and those who emulate him to attack the holy Scriptures, and partly to excise, and partly to add [from their own resources]. What person, then, from our association can you show ever to have been caught in such things? Name and show both the evildoer and the books and the very discourses that have undergone these things, if indeed you are able. But you would not be able to do this; for how could that which does not exist in any way, shape, or form be shown, since it has never even been done by them? But you will certainly say that you did not read it that way yourself, nor did you produce the reading, but rather you found the one that has been "engendered" [etēknōsato] lying in the discourses of the Great Basil instead of the other, and from there you conclude, as is likely, that our people have altered this. C But how, oh admirable one, did you not consider in addition to this that our people are also permitted, once they have taken these premises of yours, to assemble the same things against you in like manner? For they will say, indeed, against you—and much more justly and reasonably—that not as you say, but that the other reading [hypestēsato] is found everywhere. And our witnesses are the inviolable books and all the discourses concerning these matters. And from there we conclude, as is likely, that the reading has been transposed by you, those who have deceitfully introduced "engendered" [etēknōsato] in its place. For you have also taken the occasions for such discussions from your own readings, as is reasonable. D If, then, you say that that which is assembled by you is necessary, then you must say that the one from them is likewise necessary. And how can both be true? Or how is it possible to say that the contradiction does not conflict? For it is necessary that one of the parts by all means opposes the other. But if it is not necessary for our side to say these things—for it is possible that this is not the case—then they will necessarily say this very thing themselves, and they will show that your argument was not necessary in the first place, and that you ran in vain against those who are unaccountable, as if these were admitted facts. For even if you yourself had gone through all the holy books that contain those things—all that this great city, I say, holds—even if you had found them all as they are and as you read them, not even so would there be the advantage. For it is likely that these people have also had dealings with other churches and many other books, from which the movement regarding the holy dogmas from the Calabrian Barlaam had its origin from above, just as it is both read and written by them. And it was altogether fitting for you to take this into your mind and to consider the probabilities. But you, without having gone through all the volumes of the Church and this city—that is, the ones that bear the stated discourses of the Great Basil—and without having an accurate knowledge of all these, from just one or two (as you yourself might say—for I dispute even those very ones), you have as you pleased instituted such a great and significant writing against these "Nazarenes" of our communion.
Thus, it has been demonstrated that the argument for this accusation against our people is not necessary, and thus those who are harassed by you escape the unjust rebuke. But so that we might not merely demonstrate that this is also what is possible, but rather that it is an out-and-out lie and slander against the truth, come, let us set forth from the discourses of the wise Father himself that the word "engendered" [etēknōsato] is not fitting for God, nor is it considered proper to Him; for which reason one ought not to think this is His genuine text, even if it has been found lying in some of the copies, as you yourself say, while the other [hypestēsato] is dear, customary, and in many ways necessarily possesses the mark of authenticity. For the wise one, conversing with the Galatian about the Only-Begotten Son of God, and Eunomius frequently calling Him "ingenerate" [gennēton] and "offspring" [gennēma], but not "Son," and refuting the innovation and the strangeness of the expression through many arguments, then adds those things: "For this reason, I think, the common usage has dishonored the title of 'offspring,' and the divine Scripture also appears to avoid it, especially in the case of the Only-Begotten Son of God. But it did not accept the title of 'child' [teknon], as it has much of the human about it as well." Do you see how the teacher rejected the title of "child" [teknon] no less than "offspring" [gennēma] in the case of God? Moreover, it is not he himself alone, but he also introduces the common usage along with the divine Scripture as dishonoring this as unworthy of God, and as having much of the human. How then could the word he rejected—and that with such great condemnation and significant reason—a little further along in the same discourse, again, as if out of repentance, have accepted it, and especially when writing against a foe and a fighter-against-God so violent and indulging himself in innovations of thoughts and words, whom that noble man frequently and nobly attacking there refutes, and openly demonstrates that he is an innovator and one who speaks everything "from his belly"? By no means at all, if indeed one cares as much as possible for accuracy.
A
It was already sufficient, and this alone, as proof for the argument of truth. For with that spurious and illegitimate expression having been crossed out, of necessity the genuine one is demonstrated from that which is read and written by us, to which almost all books alike bear witness, as I have just said. And so that we may also, from an abundance of caution, remove any other pretext from those who contradict us, since we have discarded what is alien according to the speaker, we will establish our own, or rather that of our father and teacher, by using his own words again in opposition to those who slander him.
Therefore, the wise man says the following concerning the birth of the Son from the Father without beginning, writing again to Eunomius himself: "One must consider the image of the invisible God not as something technical, fashioned afterward according to the archetype, but as co-existing and as having co-subsisted with the One who primarily subsisted, being the archetype." And again to the same: "But if all ages are thought of as being somewhere below the birth of the Only-Begotten, being its creations, he who seeks for something older than the hypostasis of the Son is vain. For he asks nothing different than if he were inquiring about the Father, whether He existed before His own subsistence or not." B And in the parts concerning the Holy Spirit, the same man, theologizing again, says: "The Spirit has this as a sign of its hypostatic property, that it is known through the Son and subsists from the Father."
You have heard how not once, but twice, and three times, and often, the admirable Basil used the word "subsisted" and "made to subsist" in regard to the before-all-ages birth and existence of the Only-Begotten Son of God, and indeed also in regard to the procession of the consubstantial Spirit. And the strange and graceful thing is that he does this in the same argument and book, because of you and your prejudices and suppositions, so that if you are not persuaded by the first, the second may teach you; but if you also disregard the second, the third and the one after it may awaken and stir you toward the purpose of the teacher and the sound of the spiritual trumpet speaking in him. It is not, therefore, because of "ours"—as you said, slandering—that the books of the theologians have been changed and corrupted, but rather because of your association, whose custom it is from of old to act maliciously in these matters, as I have already mentioned. And if you wish, we will go through the manuals and point out even these to you, as they carry secret deletions and erasures of swords. C But rather, you yourself know those things, and you are complicit in what was badly handled by those who handled things badly, of whom you now show yourself to us to be a guide and a champion after their first guide, and an enemy of the right faith. But let us return again to the wise Basil and his words.
For the great man, interpreting the words of the great Moses concerning the creation of the world by God, and these, D not regarding created things but regarding uncreated things, most especially uses the word "made to subsist" and "subsisted." For having set before himself, for interpretation, the passage, "In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth," and having discoursed much about the "beginning," and some things also about "made," he then adds: "So that it may be shown that this world is a technical craftsmanship set before all for contemplation, so that through it the wisdom of the One who made it might be recognized, the wise Moses did not use any other voice concerning it, but said, 'In the beginning He made,' not 'He energized' (enêrgêsen), nor yet 'He subsisted' (hypestêsen), but 'He made' (epoiêsen)." [C(bis)] And inasmuch as many of those who imagined the world to co-exist with God from eternity did not concede that it was made by Him, but [thought of it] as a sort of reflection of His power, to have subsisted automatically; and we confess God to be the cause of it, but an involuntary cause, as the body is of the shadow, and the radiating light is of the brightness—it is this delusion, then, that the prophet corrects, using this precision of words, saying, "In the beginning God made"; that is to say, He did not provide the cause of existence for this very thing, but He made it.
Do you hear, my good man, how the wise Basil understands and teaches the word "subsisted" (hypestêse) here, too? Because, he says, the wise men of the Greeks thought of God not as the Creator, but as the cause of created things from eternity, claiming these to be co-eternal with the Maker, for this reason the wise Moses did not say, "God energized" (enêrgêsen) or "subsisted" (hypestêsen), but "made" (epoiêsen), as if to say this: that "He made" sets forth the world as this very product and creature of the Maker, whereas "energized" and "subsisted," since they do not reveal the mode of the existence of the one who has subsisted, but only indicate existence itself for him simply, can for this reason be said even of uncreated things—and indeed they are said, and most often [used] of these. For this reason, the great Moses did not condone using these words for the creatures of God. For he did not say, he says, "He energized" or "He subsisted," so that one might not think those things to be uncreated and co-eternal with God, clearly through these words, according to the Greek fables; but "He made," correcting this delusion and teaching that the world is a creature of God.
Learn therefore, or if you already know, do not act maliciously and contentiously, but simply and truthfully and according to ecclesiastical and paternal custom—or if you wish, use even your own grammar and wisdom—in using the words, and do not desire to cause offense over these and those [terms] because of strife and untimely objection, and to cut for yourself and for those with you a path of words and ideas that is, rather, not only empty, but also contains much that is harmful. For "made to subsist" (hypestêsato) and "subsisted" (hypestêse) and "energized" (enêrgêse), as we have already said, reveal only subsistence simply, and that the thing that has subsisted and been energized is from some cause, but they do not reveal existence of such a kind, and such a caused thing. For if this were not so, but also the mode itself
A of existence were known to you yourselves, we say it is self-being, self-life, and self-divinity—just as he who created and made also said. For what reason did the wise Moses refrain from saying "energized" and "substantiated"? Lest someone, according to certain people, suppose the world to be co-eternal—as the great Basil had said a short while ago. But "he made," inasmuch as it also declares the mode of the existence of created things, and being proper both to the maker and to the created things, he introduced in its place. Do they not say that it is clear, even to a blind man, that there is a difference between the words themselves and the things signified by them? Moreover, if "substantiated" were everywhere used instead of "created," according to those who argue this, then every substance would necessarily have to be a created thing, and there would be nothing at all that is uncreated. Or how could an existence having a temporal beginning have produced something uncreated and altogether without beginning? For just as from "he made" and "he created" it is not possible to conceive of anything at all that subsists outside of a temporal beginning, but rather we immediately think of products and created things when we hear those words in sequence, so too, surely, from "he substantiated" and "he has substantiated" and "every substance," it should have been B both obvious and considered a created thing—if, according to them, "created" is altogether and indiscriminately the same as "substantiated."
But our argument regarding the words and the testimonies of the teachers concerning them is sufficient. Let us, however, if you please, examine the very target of your discourse, for which you are struggling with such courage against both the words and those who use them, so that we may know, at least in part, what this intention of yours is, and whose side you have taken in this battle and whom you are defending, for the sake of which you have undertaken this fight. Or rather, speak yourself and teach us these things, so that we might not have your views from another, but from you yourself and your own words. Dionysius, he says, the Great, while discussing in his own writings much about Being and Wisdom and Life and Light and Peace and such like, identifies these as creatures of God—firstly, that they are beings, and before other beings, that is, other created things, and that these also have been substantiated by God, and that he is the substantiator—that is, the creator—that they have naturally becoming, by which he provides and distributes these to each of the created things after them for their participation. Since then, he having spoken thus, you say that these are not among external things, nor are they creatures of God, but are rather natural and co-eternal powers and providences of God, in relation to his nature, and calling them many energies, you introduce many uncreated things, which we have not learned to say.
C But we, O best of men, would say to them in turn, we confess and worship not only one or two, but three uncreated substances. And for this reason we know the one and only God by nature to be uncreated over all, or rather, the maker and Lord of all created things, not according to nature only, but also according to the substances themselves, and indeed also the natural powers and all the natural properties. For there is nothing at all in the divine nature that is created, according to the theological Fathers, just as there is nothing uncreated in man—that is to say, among those things which are natural and proper to him. And do not think that we call the natural powers and processions of God, and the properties, "substances"; nor should you wrongly drag the argument toward the absurd, by gathering "substance" from "he substantiated" and "he has substantiated," just as "a poem" is gathered from "he made." For no energy, says the great Basil, is "substantiated," that is, "self-substantiated." And again he himself, having enumerated the divine energies by name, adds this: All these things consistently D belong to the Holy Spirit, as Spirit of God and appearing from Him; but the one, being a spring from God, is substantiated, whereas those springing from it are His energies.
And the wise Maximus again: The energies, he says, are not substances, nor are they by themselves, but they occur in the substance, and without it they do not have being. And Dionysius the Wise, whom you especially oppose more than all others, continuously calling God the substantiator of his own natural powers, says something like this concerning these very things: We do not say that these are some divine or angelic substance. And again: Nor, to speak collectively, are they leading and creative substances and foundations of beings. And after a little: But we know that only the nature of God is uncreated, and all that differs from it in any way is created.
Well done, that you have brought the estimable Acindynus to us again with that long-windedness of yours, and [with] the calumny against the Godhead and the theologians of it, and [with] the sophistries. For that these are his, and indeed also Barlaam’s, who provided him with the seeds and the beginnings of the error, is attested by many and the best of men, or almost all who at least know how to say or hear anything at all; and the arguments and writings of those men are with us. I, therefore, that I may state my own view for the time being, did not think that you would so openly and shamelessly [show yourself] an adherent to...
follower and companion of Acindynus, and that especially on such matters, seeing that he is ignorant and untrained in almost all divine and human wisdom, and that he has often been seen [to be condemned] by synods of holy Fathers and by Emperors, and has been at once convicted and cast out by the entire holy Church for those reasons; he is not only someone who goes around, but one who has fallen away through his own words, that is, his doctrines—just like Origen and his followers of old, and like those who, after many long years had passed since their own deaths, were condemned and cast out by a synod of holy Fathers and Emperors along with the greatest and most fearful curses, together with their corrupt and most wicked writings. Now, this surely—justly and rightly, as I said—befell Acindynus also, as he had fallen into the same, or rather, even worse blasphemies, and for these reasons had been condemned by the holy assembly of the pious, together with those who share his way of thinking, with the greatest and most fearful curses combined. For these reasons, therefore, I did not suppose, as I said, that you would wish to bring yourself voluntarily to that man’s side and make his position your own, but rather that, in addition to the disgrace and the conspicuous condemnation of these matters, you would flee with all your might from the fearful condemnation and the common curse of the holy Church, to which those who hold his views according to his public lectures and decrees—decrees uttered, that is to say, by Divine Spirit both then and now—subject themselves. B But since, to their own misfortune, the matter is clearly seen to be this way, it would be superfluous and far beneath the occasion and the need to want to speak again and again about the same things to those who do not wish to hear. For if they had wished to, they would have long since been persuaded, having heard those many and fine words and discourses. Or, having been persuaded by that man, they would have been humbled under the mighty hand of God, and would have submitted themselves well to the Holy Spirit, who speaks through the choir of the theologians. For it is not they themselves who are speaking therein, according to the saying of Christ, but the Spirit of God who speaks in them. And so that we may not seem to leave our discourse as something incomplete here, we shall refer the general arguments concerning the divine energy and divinity, and those who are seeking into these very things, to the books and to those many and fine discourses, written by others who are wise and great in the power of the Spirit and the Word, after the ancient teachers—that is, the Fathers of the Word—and also to our own works, not cursorily; but concerning the expression he set forth, and how that theologian constantly praises God as the One who gives subsistence to His own natural powers and participations—which is what was the intended goal of our discourse from the beginning—we shall bring that into the middle, and having sought the goal of the passage from him and learned it as well as possible, we shall bring our discourse on this topic to a pause here for the time being. C You, on the other hand, I know not how, suppose that God gives subsistence, within the realm of the created, to His own natural powers, and through this [suppose] that He is also the creator of the one who gives them subsistence, and especially D concerning such matters, he considers the holy theologian himself, who explains his own works, and who intentionally interprets and clarifies himself, and clears away all doubt and contradiction. Let us hear, through a few brief words, what he says concerning these very things.
For in the discourse which he performs for the holy Timothy concerning these divine names and realities, he speaks as follows, word for word, in the eleventh chapter: "But because you asked me at another time by letter what I mean by 'Self-Being,' 'Self-Life,' 'Self-Wisdom,' and stated that you were perplexed as to how I say that God is at one time Self-Life, and at another time the One who gives subsistence to Self-Life, I thought it necessary, O holy man of God, to resolve this perplexity of yours for our part." For how much would one pay to find now that same interpreter and teacher, the Father of the discourses, regarding the things being pondered upon in the theology of the Great One? And behold, it is present, effortlessly and freely, for anyone who wishes to obtain it, provided that it was sufficient—as it needed to be for both, I say, the one teaching and the one learning these things—with the solutions having been made long ago through the questioning of this man. But before we humble ourselves into the solutions of the teacher, I think it necessary to consider and to learn more clearly, from what has been said, what were the things that were being pondered upon by this apostle concerning the wise Dionysius. For he was indeed a divine and wise man, and one who was a companion of Paul, that is to say, of the chosen vessel; he was the one who stood out, under whom he was a beloved child and a fellow athlete and a fellow apostle, and one who had followed his teaching, and was a co-worker with him and a fellow striver for the Gospel, and all those things are testified of him. And such a man would not have made this inquiry and these questions continually without diligence and without the Spirit. What, then, is the question? We have already heard just a moment ago that the teacher said to him: "Because you asked me at another time by letter what I mean by 'Self-Being,' 'Self-Life,' 'Self-Wisdom,' and stated that you were perplexed as to how I say that God is at one time Self-Life, and at another time the One who gives subsistence to Self-Life, I thought it necessary, O holy man of God, to resolve this perplexity of yours for our part." What then is the thing here being pondered upon by the wise Timothy? Could it be that he, too, like some of those who are arguing now, has taken 'Self-Life,' or 'Self-Wisdom,' or 'Self-Being' to be a created thing? And if this were the case and it were so thought by him, what was the thing being pondered upon, and what was the question put to the teacher? Was there need of long arguments and syllogisms in order to learn that God is the Maker and Creator of human life, and likewise of the wisdom of all created things simply? For this, I think, would never be pondered upon by any of the common and unlearned believers, such that there would be need of a teacher for this, let alone by that man, who was full of both divine and human wisdom, and
A deemed worthy of pastoral authority and of the manifold gifts of the Spirit. For this is the same as if one, while raising a doubt as to whether God is the Maker of his own creatures, were subsequently to inquire about this from those who are knowledgeable. But just as any madman or demented person might say this outright, so too, of course, is that other claim. There was, therefore, no dispute for him regarding creatures and creation, as I have said. But since he knew that "being," and "life," and "wisdom"—when predicated of created beings who participate in them, I mean, and who are living and wise—are also predicated of God Himself, properly, as the Cause of all those things, whereas "Self-being," "Self-life," "Self-wisdom," and things akin to these, are things that belong to God alone, and befit Him by that dignity and power alone which is above all power and dignity—for such things do not belong to Him extrinsically and by participation, but rather He *is* those things—for Christ says to the Jews, "I am the light of the world," and again to Martha, "I am the resurrection and the life," and again the wise Paul to the Ephesians, "Christ is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of partition," and to Moses earlier, God, being sent into Egypt on behalf of Israel, says, "I am," and "this you shall say to those who ask you who sent you and what My name is"—since the wise Timothy knew these things, he neither has doubts within himself regarding these admitted and established principles, as it were, of axioms and postulates—for how could he?—nor does he need to learn them from the teacher. Rather, he inquires of him, while pondering this: how is it that the same One whom he worthily and divinely names according to human capacity, he calls again the hypostatic subsistence, and the provider, and the donor of these very things? Hence, that great and in truth wise theologian discusses nothing at all about creatures to his friend who is asking, knowing as he does precisely that man and his sacred knowledge and wisdom, with which he had been nurtured from childhood by the most wonderful teacher in the habitable world. But taking up rather the complete distinction and union of the Divinity, so that he might set forth and teach comprehensively—in accordance with that teacher himself, and proceed from it towards those individual divine names and the solutions to the questions of that man, which are themselves parts of the entire union and distinction of the theology according to him—he teaches.
What, then, does he say after that, in resolving the difficulty just as he promised? "In order that we may now take up again these manifold expressions," he says, "it is not contradictory to call God 'Self-power' or 'Self-life,' and the hypostatic subsistence of 'Self-life,' or of 'peace,' or of 'power.' For the former are spoken of as coming from beings, and especially from the primarily existing beings, as He is the Cause of all beings; the latter, as He is above all, and exists superessentially above the primarily existing ones. What, then, do we say in general is 'Self-being,' or 'Self-life,' B and whatever else we posit as subsisting primarily from God? We say that this is not crooked, but straight, and has a simple clarification. For we do not say that 'Self-being' is some divine or angelic essence, which is the cause of being for all existing things. For the superessential Principle and Cause and Aition of the being of all existing things is alone He who is the very 'Being' itself. And a little later: 'Neither, when you sum it all up, do we call these the archical and creative essences and hypostases, which some, after improvising them, have blurted out as being gods of existing things and creators.' And after a short while: 'But we say that 'Self-being,' and 'Self-life,' and 'Self-divinity' are, archically and divinely and causatively, the one superarchical and superessential Principle and Cause of all things; but participatively, they are those providential powers given forth from God, who is unparticipated—the self-subsistence, self-vivification, self-deification—of which existing things, in a manner appropriate to themselves, partaking, both are and are called existing, and living, and divine, and so on with the rest.' Do you hear how the teacher explains himself? Or rather, before we process these solutions and unfold the things said as far as is possible in a condensed form, let us consider how the things of the unified and distinguished theology, and the things predicated of the divine names by him as theology, and written here, are not—according to him and the God-bearing apostles and teachers—spoken simply or often, C but he has also put forth these manifold expressions in a certain newer manner, manifesting his own exceeding and intense concern and study about them, and about the theologians who are according to him and above him, and pointing out these things, as it were, as certain elements and foundations of the mystery of the faith according to us, and of the theology which is practically connective of everything, as much as that which is according to the unity-in-distinction of the great and archical Trinity, I say, and as much as that which is according to the mystery of Christ through the incarnation—whence come the distributions of the Spirit and the divine and supernatural energies, and the abundant outpouring of the gifts, according to the divine promise from above through the wonderful Joel, who said after these things, 'I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh,' and the subsequent mission and manifestation of these same things by Christ again according to His own word, 'Behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem, until you are clothed with power from on high,' having said these things to His own disciples. To which, oh alas! the many who are now living are so far from attending worthily, and from being taught and learning divine things divinely from those who know, that these manifold expressions are even suppressed, and the words concerning the true life and the self-light and the self-wisdom are boldly—alas!—hidden away in darkness by some, who, according to what is said, know neither what they speak nor whereof they affirm. But let us return again to the matter at hand, hearing the interpretation of the divine teacher. 'In order that we may now take up again,' he says, 'these manifold expressions, it is not contradictory...
A to call God Self-Life, and Self-Peace, or the Subsistent of Power. For those things [which are derived] from beings, and especially from the primary beings, are spoken of as God, insofar as He is the Cause of all beings. Self-Power, he says, and Self-Life, and whatever similar titles are applied by us to God, are said insofar as He is the Cause of the existence of these very things, but indeed also of all the things which are secondarily and catachrestically called beings—that is to say, the creatures. For He alone is the Subsistent and Cause both of the aforementioned participations, which is to say of His own powers and energies, and of those things that participate in them, I mean the creatures. But B they are spoken of, he says, as being beyond all and beyond the primary beings, in a super-essential manner.' He says that God is again called the Subsistent of Self-Life and Self-Peace and Self-Power, as not being these by essence, but rather as being above them. For this reason, he added 'super-essential' and 'beyond being,' in order to show that while these [creatures] are beings by subsistence, He Himself is rather beyond being, as super-essential and as their Cause. Do you ask, he says, why we speak at all of the existence of Self-Being or Self-Life, and of all that we say subsists primarily from God, and is absolutely and archetypically existence? We say that this is not oblique—that is to say, not some enigmatic and difficult thing to understand—but straight, and possesses a simple explanation. The teacher says these things to show that the being and life of all creatures, I mean both of the rational and irrational, and indeed of the others as well, does not possess being and being-life as something absolute, such that these [last] are prior to those of which they are clearly the subsistence and life, or that they are able in any way to live or exist at all apart from those things of which they are the recipients. But those gifts and natural powers of God, which are put forth by Him for the participation of creatures, do not possess being by being entangled with any of the participating creatures; but, as has been said, being contemplated in the essence of God, they are absolute, as being natural [properties] of God. For as the nature of God is without cause, so also are His natural [properties] according to what is called the final cause.
They do not possess being and life, however, not only absolutely, but also archetypically, and all other things, whatever they are, as having the Principle of all beings and living things, having these from there by participation, and being the effects of those divine energies and powers. For of these participations, this same theologian says that beings which participate in them according to their own capacity are and are called beings, living, and godlike, and so on; just as if someone were to call a house the effect of the builder's craft, and the saw and the drill [effects] of the smith's craft likewise, insofar as the crafts pre-exist in the mind and soul of the craftsman, and are brought forth from there into energy whenever he specifically wills, and in the energy and even after the effect, they remain in the craftsman who possesses them, no less than before.
However, theosis, and the participation according to it, and C the participation in the natural energy and grace of God, are clearly participated in by those who are graced and deified. Hence this is also called the likeness of God, and those who are counted worthy of this super-essential gift by the Spirit are called gods according to grace itself, and they send this forth towards others, as the great Basil also says about this in his discourses concerning the divine Spirit. For the spirit-bearing souls, he says, having been illuminated by the Spirit, are both perfected by the Spirit and send forth the grace to others. And again: just as the power of sight is in the healthy eye, so is the energy of the Spirit in the purified soul. And as the craft in one who has taken it up, so is the grace of the Spirit in the one who has received it, always co-present, but not always continuously active. Then, constructing the argument again, the holy Dionysius, showing how it is straightforward and possesses a simple explanation, adds: 'For we do not say that Self-Being is some divine or angelic essence, the cause of all beings being D; for the super-essential, the Principle, the essence, and the Cause, is alone the cause of the being of all beings, and of being itself.' And whatever things the teacher has already said following these, he does so to cast out the Hellenic strife of polytheism along with the Platonic ideas; and furthermore, because he opposes the so-called angelic heresy, which babbles that the whole is subject to angels as to some gods—for this was also [a problem] at that time—teaching that the Cause of all, super-essential and unparticipable, is God, by this very fact; and teaching likewise regarding that which is participable of Him and communal in creatures, according to the providential powers given forth from Him and these self-participations, of which, he says, beings that participate according to their own capacity are and are called beings, living, and godlike, and the rest likewise. Thus most beautifully and most wisely did the sage truly explain his own words and taught them both to the one asking, and after him to all who wish, so as not to leave any riddle or obscurity for them at all, according to his own word.
But what do you say, O companion, to these things? Have you now understood, even you, the things which are spoken by him clearly and directly, as he himself says? Or do you take 'he made to subsist' and 'he caused to subsist' and 'the Subsistent' in place of 'the Creator,' and again turn about the same things and think about these divine and lofty names and realities of God as if they were creatures? And does not even this itself lead you to reverence for the time being—[the fact] that these have been called names of the God of all, and that He constantly calls these things divine, and that this great man often calls the words concerning Him 'hymns,' and not simply hymns, but hymns of the blessed and all-sovereign Trinity itself, whom the whole creation of intelligible and sensible things alone hymns as Mistress? But of the created things, tell me, who has ever heard any called 'divine' by themselves, and ever sung piously by the holy theologians? Or how, according to you, can things participate in creatures, being and living,
A and being possessed of God? And if these things are so, then God and creature are the same thing, and there is absolutely nothing between the maker and the thing made, but these things and those are jumbled and mixed, and all things are one. B But why does the teacher say that these divine powers are of providence and goodness, proceeding from the super-essential, and participated in by beings? Who, then, of those in the divine courtyard ever said that the providence and goodness of God are produced in time and are created? And of whom are the highest powers around God also participants, if they are created, and are wise and ancient and good, and live a divine life? In what do these fall short of those 'Ideas' which the son of Aristo [Greek-mythically] fabricated and set forth? Or rather, to one who examines accurately, the things being bruited about now are far worse than his. C For that man, and the Stagirite with him and after him, and as many as are of the Stoa—even if they differ from one another regarding this in other ways—never said that the 'Self-Being,' or His life, or the 'Self-Light' have their existence from another, or are light by external participation; but they stated that these things themselves are by subsistence—even though they said this badly and atheistically—which is also what is meant, and especially by the aforementioned teacher of such things. And that, in this, the 'Self-Being,' the 'Self-Life,' and the 'Self-Light' differ from those things that are called existing, living, and luminous, is that they do not have what they are said to be by participating in something else that is prior to them, but rather that existing things obtain existence, living things live, and things capable of receiving light obtain light, by participating in these.
D But let us hear again, in brief, the words of the wise teacher that follow regarding these very things. "And what need is there," he says, "to speak of these, where some of our holy teachers say that the One who is super-good and super-divine is the subsistence of 'Self-Goodness' and 'Divinity,' saying that 'Self-Goodness' and 'Divinity' are the good-making and god-making grace that has come forth from God?" And a little later: "And as many other things as have been said and will be said in the same way, signifying providence and goodness, being participated in by beings, proceeding from God who is unparticipated, in an abundant pouring forth and overflowing, so that the Cause of all may be strictly beyond all, and the super-essential and super-natural may in every way transcend every essence and nature whatsoever."
And these things are from that great theologian, who is the teacher of the first theologians and apostles after Christ, yet again.
But you, O best of men, my friend—for it is to you that [1154 A] the discourse must look at the end, just as it did at the beginning—you must now inquire and learn from those very ones themselves—I mean those who gainsay—what they say to these things, and especially to this summary, as it were, of what the great man has said at length in many places. For see, say to them, we hear in the same way that the super-good and super-divine is also the subsistence of 'Self-Goodness' and 'Divinity' itself, B and he does not have this theology having received it first from himself, as this man says, but from those who taught him these sacred things, the first, as I said, the apostles and theologians. What then shall we say, or what shall we answer, say to this for the time being: do we consider God to be the creator of His own divinity, and shall we worship a God who has divinity that is produced in time and is created? And further, inquire again, is God Himself, whom you say has a created divinity, created along with it, or is He Himself uncreated as God, but He possesses a created divinity? And if they should say the former, from that they will show their impiety and atheism, C clearly worshipping the creature instead of the Creator, and worshipping one, certainly, but a created one, just like some idol and work of hands, or one of these created and dissolving elements of the world. But if they say that God is uncreated—for they could never endure to worship a creature—but that His divinity is by nature created—for theologians, the Fathers, say that each essence is characterized from its energy, the uncreated energy showing an uncreated nature, and the created [energy showing] a created [nature]—besides the impossibility, as I said, see here again the crowd of gods and the entrance of polytheism, which at once perishes, and the Greek nonsense, which they themselves, slandering, wrote against the Church of Christ long ago.
For they think and worship, as they say, two [things], not differing in subsistence. According to this logic, we pious ones worship not only two, but three: the Father, that is, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. But D they worship two, as we said, as regards existence itself, alienated and differing from one another. For this is what is created and what is uncreated. And besides the polyarchy, they do not escape the worship of the creation, as they themselves say again, by worshipping God as uncreated, but His divinity as created. But if they should say that this is not the divinity of God, for we say that that is uncreated, but that this is another 'divinity,' and it is a creature of God, and provided by God to those who are in need, then let them be questioned again in this way: "And if that divinity is not, most wise ones, the divinity of God, according to your logic, but as a creature, whose other God is it?" Or did the God of all create another God, and is this created divinity also of that created God? And if this is so, see here, according to them again, not only Arius and Eunomius and the evil faction according to them rises up, but a swarm of gods and divinities at once is introduced, both uncreated and created. Yet if, say, by this very divinity the saints are united to God—for this is deification, the god-making gift, which the same theologian elsewhere calls 'Self-Divinity' and 'Divine Principality' and 'Good Principality,' of which those who are being deified, partaking, are united by grace to the only God by nature, and become partakers of the divine nature, and gods, according to what has been said, are finished
A How is it, A through this which is outside of His nature, that they claim there is no difference between God and a creature—speaking, that is, of created divinity—[and how is it that] the deification and union with God, which the only-begotten Son of God, having become man for the sake of unspeakable philanthropy, has bestowed upon men in a supernatural way, surpassing all reason and mind, [is achieved] in the Holy Spirit?
Hence also Cyril, the wise theologian, when asked by Hermias how the indwelling of the Father and the Son, according to His teaching, might be understood and operate within us, [being] one and undifferentiated, says: "There is no difficulty or impossibility in this whatsoever. For how could it be otherwise than through the Holy Spirit, who fills us with divine gifts through Himself and renders us partakers of the ineffable nature?" And again, in the *Thesaurus*, the same author says: "But if, according to the madness of the heterodox, the Holy Spirit were a creature, how could He possess the entire energy of God? For I do not think anyone is so far gone in right reason as to dare say this alone: that the divine essence is ministered to by certain external instruments brought into being, in order to [effect] an energy that proceeds naturally from it toward those who are apt to receive it."
Otherwise, if it were a creature according to our logic, it would not be divinity; but if it is divinity, and deification, and divine authority, according to the sacred choir of theologians, how is it a creature? For these things are by far and, as one might say, diametrically opposed to one another. Or do you not hear, tell me, the glorious Gregory in his theology speaking against those who formerly wrongly argued that the Son of God is a creature, saying: "If He is God, He is not a creature; for the creature is with us, who are not gods. If He is a creature, He is not God; for He began in time. But that which began, existed [at a time] when it was not. And that which is older—'it was not'—is not truly being; and that which is not truly being, how can it be God?" B But the one who is being miserably destroyed, or rather, who has been most wretchedly ruined, alas, by the things he says, introduces again, as I said, Acindynus along with those small triflings of his, and the polytheistic error, and the worship of creatures, B which he falsely attributed to the pious while trying to establish himself, even though he had no power to escape notice at all. Do you not laugh, or rather, to speak more appropriately, do you not mock, you most noble of friends, at such stupidity or madness, or lack of perception, or I know not what I should call it, of those who have chosen to think and speak such things?
And it occurs to me to strongly wonder how it is that the multitude of the pious do not stone them with stones, just as those of old did to the followers of Dathan and Abiron, who offered incense with strange fire, or cast them down from some precipice, since they wish to wrongly introduce into the Church of Christ a created divinity and a created God after the saving incarnation, passion, and resurrection of Christ, through which the worship of creatures has been once and for all eliminated. For as long as they call divinity something created at all, they will neither escape polytheism nor the worship of a creature, even if they study the philosophy of the Stagirite and Chrysippus, or the nature and motion of the celestial bodies throughout their entire life. We, however, having been taught by the disciples and successors of the fishermen, worship one God, ingenerate, tri-hypostatic, and omnipotent, possessing one and ingenerate divinity, Him as the Creator of all things, both visible and invisible, bearing nothing created within Himself, while setting all creation below as a servant together with those of us who worship Him, even if in position and order it differs from our material selves as something other.
THE SECOND DISCOURSE
Since we have briefly exposed, as far as possible, the slanders and innovations against us concerning words, and the interpretations of those men that are not good concerning divinity and its theologians, come, let us move toward the second and final [part] of the questions, guided by the prophetic word, toward the light of the glory of the face of the Master who has shone upon us. What, then, is this that is said by them, as you say, concerning this Masterly light, I mean the inaccessible and natural glory of the divinity, and its eternal and co-eternal brightness and unsunset ray? If those who then went up with Christ onto the mountain did not see that light with their eyes, says he, it was entirely divine and ingenerate, and for this reason they, bearing body and bodily eyes, were entirely unable to look upon it. C For how could C an ingenerate light become at all graspable by a created nature? For God says to Moses of old: "No man shall see my face and live." And the evangelist later says again: "No one has ever seen God." But if they did see that light, he says, it is immediately clear that it is both created, and coming to be and passing away, and having a beginning and an end—for such are the things that fall under the sight of human eyes; since it is for like things to be seen by like.
Alas, alas! And who on earth is this one who even now says these new things, and is so ambiguously and ignorantly disposed toward those evangelical words which are even now being proclaimed with a bright voice upon the high mountains—I mean the Church—those which have gone out into all the earth, biblically speaking, and have run through the ends of the world like lightning, or rather, dare I say, like solar rays, long ago? For if, from the far east and from those facing the rising sun, or even from those dwelling by the British islands, and indeed by the western ocean, they have just now reached us and the world according to us, not even thus would the [light]—
A be uncreated according to you, nor would the angel, as you yourself might say, nor would the demon be created; for what is it that is invisible—and what indeed of your own mind and soul? Is it because you are not accustomed to see these things, that they are for this very reason uncreated and divine? And how is this possible? Unless perhaps you wish to deprive God himself of the creation of these things, or rather to deprive the things of God of such great honor; for not even this is small for them, nor would you, having much authority, say that the earth created in the beginning along with the heaven is uncreated, since he who philosophized about the generation of the world said it was invisible at that time, whether because of the darkness covering it along with the abyss in the absence of light, or because the one who sees had not yet appeared, or for both of these reasons. But it is not so, most wise one; for neither would any sensible person say that all things of God are naturally uncreated, nor that all that is invisible to human eyes is absolutely and in every way uncreated; but rather that which is uncreated is also invisible by necessity, since it is divine and entirely above the nature of anything generated, but not everything that is invisible is also already uncreated; for it does not work in reverse, since there are many invisible things among created beings, in addition to those mentioned, for various reasons and causes.
But these things, such as they are, [are sufficient] to show that this supposed rational objection, and the clever division of the argument, and the foundation are rotten and untrue; but let us return again to the matter at hand. C Matthew, therefore, first of the other disciples to arrive at the writing of the Gospel, coming to the explanation of the mystery of the divine transfiguration, introduces Christ himself, the cause of the mystery, six days earlier speaking beforehand to the apostles about himself as follows: “Amen I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” Did you hear? “Until they see,” says Christ the truthful prophet and Master of the future. Therefore they saw; for it is not possible for the Truth himself to ever falsify his promise; and therefore he has not falsified it. “And after six days,” he says, “Jesus takes Peter and James and John his brother, and brings them up to a high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them.” Did you pay attention? “Before them,” he says, “he was transfigured, that they might certainly see the glory of his transfiguration, not that they might not see; for what need was there to speak before, and to select them from the other disciples, and to bring them up apart to the mountain, D and to be transfigured before them, if he were intending to hide from them the glory of his own transfiguration? From which it is clear that they also saw what is invisible to human eyes, and have shared in the divinity of the fearful mystery, for which [purpose] also all those things happened. Whence, as they were coming down from the mountain, the same evangelist says again, Jesus charged them, saying, “Tell the vision to no one, until the Son of man be
risen.” By which, he shows that the Lord commanded them—not regarding what they had not seen (for how could he?), but rather what, as he himself says, they had seen. A Mark, the evangelist who followed him, the second disciple and witness of the sufferings of Christ—let us hear how he theologizes concerning this mystery. For he too is trustworthy, not only because of the things previously mentioned, but because he was a son and companion to Peter, the chief of the disciples, and from him heard both this and the entire evangelical history in detail, having not learned it from others, as he himself says, but as an eyewitness of the great glory of God that occurred on Tabor. “For we have not followed cleverly devised myths,” he says, “when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” Behold, you have Peter himself, the chief, testifying to the mystery; or rather, not himself alone, but also those who were there with him at that time. For he did not say “I was an eyewitness,” but “we were eyewitnesses of his majesty,” saying that together with him they were on the holy mountain, and joining his fellow students and friends with himself in the accounts, and bearing witness to the same things as them. So much, then, for the divinely inspired Peter. B
Let us now also hear from the admirable Mark, as he learned from this Father and teacher, and wrote the Gospel that is faithful concerning these very things. Introducing Christ according to the holy Matthew, he shows that he predicts to the twelve the same things as those who preceded him regarding his divine transfiguration. “Truly, I say to you,” he says, “there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God come in power.” And that “after six days he brings them up to a high mountain by themselves, and he was transfigured before them.” C Then, proceeding from there after the explanation—clearly, of the mystery—he says, “As they were coming down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no one what they had seen, except when the Son of man should rise from the dead.” Through which it appears that he is in agreement with the wise Matthew in all things—just as I said—not only regarding those previously mentioned, but that he also goes further at the end of the discourse, clarifying for us once more the point at issue through the phrase “what they had seen.” For what Matthew, describing the vision, called “an appearance” there—saying, “As they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, ‘Tell the vision to no one’”—the good Mark, recounting this same thing, says, “As they were coming down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no one what they had seen,” showing this very thing, which the friend Matthew had called “the vision,” and further clarifying the word and that prediction of Christ; and through the identity of the word, as it were, D removing in a sense the pretext of those who doubt.
But let also a third witness be introduced to us in these matters, the wise Luke, whose praise, Paul says, is in the Gospel of Christ—he who was a guide after Christ—in order that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established, according to what is said. For to this, even to this venerable mystery and to the discourses concerning it, it would be most fitting for every word to be spoken; and I think that the lawgiver, Moses, foretold about this very thing, according to the great Maximus in divine matters. For through the mystery of the transfiguration, he says, we are taught every kind of safe theology, and the spiritual meanings of the mysteries. What, then, does this aforementioned evangelist and teacher also say? He also introduces the Lord, as they did, predicting the same things to the apostles concerning the mystery: “For I say to you truly,” he says, “that there are some of those standing here who will not taste of death until they see the kingdom of God.” Then, as the history progresses for him concerning the whole mystery, “Peter and those who were with him,” he says, “were weighed down with sleep. But having become fully awake, they saw his glory.”
Can anyone now hear of the harmony and the voice of these brilliant proclaimers of the Gospel, who went out into all the earth and grasped the ends of the inhabited world, and still play the hypocrite regarding the doubt of them, saying that if the light of Christ was not seen by the apostles, it is entirely uncreated; but if it was seen by them, it is clearly created? Did he grasp what is said so simply and so frequently by the evangelists, or rather, who introduce the Lord and teacher himself to the disciples, now saying, “until they see the Son of man coming in his own and the Father’s kingdom”—for this is unique to both, just as, indeed, the divinity is—and now again, “As they were coming down from the mountain,” charging them in the same way to tell no one at all what they had seen until he himself should rise from the dead, and that “he was transfigured before them,” and, “having become fully awake, Peter and those with him saw his glory,” being said in the same way by the same evangelists? Or does he still require from us trumpets, lamps, voices, and sounds mightier than those from heaven, by which the heavy-hearted Israel, being given the law on Sinai, was formerly made to stand apart, and was shown to be full of trembling and fear, so that they even said to the great leader and lawgiver at that time, “Speak to us, and let not God speak to us, lest we die”? Or rather, did the shadows and the types of those spiritual trumpets and voices persuade those people, despite their being such as they were, to be so minded and disposed toward the things being done then; and to those who hold to the reality—
A those who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, you also shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, and that the righteous shall shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father, and shall be equal to the angels and sons of God, and similar things—since then they had learned these things sufficiently by words, as I said, but by experience nearly not at all, Christ fittingly brings in here, immediately after the promise of his own kingdom and those future rewards, preparing the argument: "Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom," B or, as other evangelists say, "until they see the kingdom of God," drawing them to this very experience of the divine and lofty things previously proclaimed, and to the divinity of his own promised kingdom. For even the divine things previously proclaimed obscurely by those who had the Spirit, they do not hear the voice itself, even though the Spirit is present and resounding with something great and clear, and is repeatedly and vehemently sounding the same things about the same subjects, just as those who are in some state of seizure and stupor, or are suffering from dizziness and nausea, and are spinning in their brains. For the "until they see," as I had already said, and the "they saw," even though they hear these divine voices and sounds many times, they are unable to sense them healthily, but instead of them, they rather dispute, raising the "If indeed they saw," and "If they did not see" in a ridiculous way, even though the holy evangelists and heralds of those holy voices—and it is more appropriate to say Christ himself, their Master and Teacher—taught not only that they saw, but also what they saw, in as much as it was possible for them and us who came after them to learn. For He prophesied both His own kingdom and the glory of His own transfiguration, just as we have already heard. But if anyone would ever say that the kingdom of the Father and the Son, and it is the same to say the Holy Spirit, is created and subject to time, would he not be declaring the Son Himself, with the Father and the Spirit, a creature, in the Hellenic and impious manner?
But even having spoken and taught these things so clearly, He does not stop the instruction regarding the mystery even at this point; rather, He reveals more clearly beforehand what the kingdom of the Father and of Himself is, which is about to be seen in power a little later by His disciples, and what is the new and strange character of the spectacle. For having foretold the things concerning His own cross and death and resurrection, and having exhorted the disciples to bear their own crosses, and having shown that a man profits nothing at all, even if he gain the whole world, having forfeited his own soul—"And there is not," he says, "anything at all among all things equivalent to them"—he mentions in connection with this also the kingdom of Himself and of the Father, with which in the age to come, as God, He shall come with angel precursors and guards, to make distributions of the appropriate rewards and the allotment of the prizes to those who have struggled. For the Son of man, he says, is about to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He shall render to each according to his action.
Now, since the apostles had indeed heard these things many times from Him, that the Son is of God, equal and of equal honor, "All things have been delivered to me," for He says, "by my Father," and, "No one knows who the Son is, except the Father, and who the Father is, except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him"; and again, "As the Father knows me, I also know the Father," and the "I and the Father are one," and such things—and also concerning the kingdom and the rewards in the future, He had previously spoken to them many most important things in the same way, "You," for He says— C as to the other evangelists, to bring them to the very experience of the divine and lofty things previously predicted, and to the divinity of His promised kingdom. Wherefore also of these mysteries that are above the mind, in a manner worthy of God, through the days during which He was acting on the mountain, and the Father from above confirming the things set forth to Christ, and showing that He is also the Son, consubstantial with Him—at least according to the things spoken to them by Him—and that this is the kingdom predicted by Him, of which He promised them the sight, and that this is common to the Father and to the Son, and therefore it is called both the Father’s and the Son’s kingdom; to these things, therefore, He also gives evidence by His own Spirit, and from that bright cloud—for they say the voice broke forth, which is a symbol of the Spirit—"This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased; hear Him"—commanding the others to render ourselves obedient and submissive to Him, and I think concerning this mystery before others, so that we may not, as the great John says, dare to spread human reasonings and the words of that ancient foolish wisdom over the words of the wisdom of God with super-natural arguments, which Barlaam the Latin, as I had said before, having suffered most shamelessly, has been seen to do, but rather to hear from Him alone according to the decree from above, through His divine Gospels and their interpreters and theologians.
D It was sufficient, then, and indeed quite enough for those able to hear and understand the evangelical words, this superabundant and all-encompassing disclosure and clarity of this divine mystery. For both that the apostles saw this, and that it is divine and uncreated, and that it is the natural glory and kingdom of God and, as it were, a beginning of the divine glory and kingdom that will appear more brightly and perfectly with Christ in the future, in which along with Him also the choirs of all the holy and righteous together will participate, shining, according to His prediction, as the sun, and being designated as equal to the angels and sons of God, as I had said before, has been sufficiently and worthily explained by the saving Word.
And in order that we may again prune away every catch A and captious objection of certain men’s idle talk, which they offer in abundance, and further, that we may instruct those who are ignorant as fully as possible concerning the mystery, so that they may not be hampered by the stumbling blocks strewn about by them, let us inquire about these same things from those who were the disciples of Christ after the first evangelists and apostles—those who are none the less evangelists and apostles of Him, the leaders and Fathers and teachers after those first Fathers and teachers—so that we may not seem to some of those who are ready to invent everything to be introducing something of our own accord into the word and, as it were, twisting it toward what our own opinion desires. Inquire, for it is said B through the divine David: "The Holy Spirit shall reveal to you your father, and shall announce to you your elders, and they shall tell you."
Let, then, the first among others to teach about these things be the one who is alone the most worthy, if anyone is, as an interpreter of the Gospels of Christ, the golden mouth of the Church, I mean, John, the common teacher of the world. Therefore, explaining the evangelist Matthew to us, let us hear what he says concerning Christ and His divine transfiguration. Since, he says, He had spoken much concerning dangers and death and His own passion and the slaughter of the disciples, and had commanded those stern things, and while some of these things were in the present life and at hand, while the good things were in hopes and expectations, such as the saving of the soul for those who lose it, His coming in the glory of His Father, the rewarding of the prizes—wishing also to assure their understanding, and to show what that glory is with which He is about to arrive, as it was possible for them to learn even in the present life—He reveals and discloses this to them, so that they might no longer grieve over their own death or that of the Master. Hold these things for me securely in yourself, and especially those things above others: that, wishing to assure their understanding, and desiring to show what that glory is with which He is to arrive in His second coming, as it was possible for them to learn in the present life, He reveals and shows it to them through His own transfiguration. Hear also from me, once again, the same golden trumpet D sounding forth something great and wonderful concerning these same things, and as it were speaking from heaven and teaching the divine mysteries. For the wise one, expounding the words of the wise David, says: "Jesus went up into the mountain, and was transfigured before them." What is "was transfigured"? He opened up, he says, a little of the divinity, and showed them the God indwelling, and His face shone as the sun. And His garments became white as snow. The evangelist wished to show His brightness, and says "He shone." How did He shine? He shone brightly, tell me, and how? "As the sun." Do you say, "As the sun"? Yes. Why? I have no other star bright and white. It was white as snow. I have no other matter whiter. For that it did not shine thus, is shown from what follows. "And the disciples fell to the ground." And if He had shone as the sun, the disciples would not have fallen. For they saw the sun daily, and did not fall. But because He shone more than the sun and more than snow, for this reason, not bearing the brilliance, they fell.
And after a little: These things I said, he says, so that you might not remain in the lowliness of the word. I have shown you the fall of the disciples. "And they fell to the ground." They were struck and were being buried. Rising up, He raised them, and they were weighed down. For they did not bear the excess of the brilliance, but a lethargy seized their eyes. Thus the manifested light was above the sun. You have, having learned again, what "was transfigured" is. Because, he says, He opened up a little of the divinity and showed the indwelling God, and because that light was incomparably brighter than every nature of sensible light, and because the apostles saw it with their eyes, and for this reason, having been struck by the excess of the brilliance, as you have heard, they fell to the ground. Which one not looking at Him in nowise could suffer, clearly, ever.
But if they should say again—for they say even this, being shameless—that if these men said they saw the light, they did not say they saw it with their eyes, nor a natural glory, as you do, but they say it is only glory; this, indeed, C is altogether absurd and unthinkable—and clearly resembles the things frequently said by Acindynus and those around him, that God effects such and such things, yet possesses in no way any energy; as if one were to say He exists without existence, and to say things, yet possess no reason. But nevertheless, the transcendent and philanthropic doctrine of these theologians will not disdain even this argument, although it is held so basely and in such a small way, but they will show even literally the thing sought, prophetically, as it seems, descending from above and, in direct imitation of the divine, toward your own small-minded or contentious spirit, and they will explain the natural [aspect] of this divine glory and brightness. Not only this, but they will also say that this was a precursor of His coming kingdom and glory, and will add how they saw it as much as was possible, even if this is ineffable to men and, in turn, uninterpretable as per its nature.
Basil, therefore, who is transcendent in both mind and wisdom, and having learned and been taught such things by the Spirit, says this, as he expounds the sacred Psalms of David: Peter and the sons of thunder beheld the beauty of Christ on the mountain, shining brighter than the brightness of the sun, and were deemed worthy to take into their eyes the precursors of His glorious coming. You have what you sought, or rather, as you have believed, and having learned from this great man, with the very...
A words, that the apostles truly saw that divine light. For, having kept vigil with the Evangelist, this great man also says, "They saw His glory."
Let Gregory of the Theology, in harmony with him and sharing his name, also come forward to teach and briefly show us what the mystery of that divine transfiguration really was. For writing against Apollinaris of Syria to Cledonius, he says: "If anyone says that the flesh is now laid aside and that the divinity is bare of the body, and not with the assumption, and both is and will be, may he not see the glory of the coming. For where is the body now, if not with the One who assumed it? But He will indeed come with the body, as my discourse holds, yet of such a kind as He was seen by the disciples B on the mountain where it was shown, the divinity overcoming the little flesh." And again: "It was a light, the divinity shown to the disciples on the mountain, a little stronger than their eyesight." Do you hear this brilliant teacher also, who is in agreement with the theologians and evangelists before him? Christ will come, he says, for His future coming, such as He was seen by the disciples on Tabor, the light of the divinity overcoming the natural movements and powers of the flesh. Therefore, He was seen by the apostles, and they saw Him with their own eyes, opened by the divine Spirit, and not, as some say, that they did not see. And regarding "it was shown, and the divinity shown," he added also, "a little stronger than eyesight," both revealing the excess of that divine lightning and its brightness, and that it was a portion, and as much as those who saw were supernaturally able C to bear, but He did not show them all the glory of the divinity. Regarding which, indeed, John the Golden-Tongued was speaking a little before, as you heard: now that the disciples had fallen, and were stupefied and overwhelmed, for they could not bear the excess of the radiance, since what appeared was above the sun; and now again, that Christ showed to His disciples here the glory of His invisible kingdom and did not show it—that is, He opened the divinity a little, and not completely, not as much as it was, but as much as they were able to bear, carrying bodily eyes, on the one hand assuring them, and on the other sparing them.
But also Dionysius, who is after the first theologians and apostles, and a disciple of those men, and a friend, and a theologian, and another apostle, shows the common element of the glory of God in the transfiguration D toward the future glory and kingdom of God. "Then," he says, "when we become incorruptible and immortal, and attain to that golden and most blessed lot, we shall always be with the Lord, according to the scripture, being filled with the sight of His visible theophany in most pure contemplations, as it shines forth upon us with most shining rays, just as it did to the disciples in that most divine transfiguration, and partaking of His intelligible illumination with an impassible and selfless mind, and in the unknowable and blessed encounters of the super-luminous rays, in the union beyond mind..."
and in the change A that is above nature, unto the ecstasies and transformations. For this reason he says, Christ brought the chosen ones of the apostles up onto the mountain, so as to demonstrate to them the glory and brightness of His own divinity, to which He deigned to join the human nature—mystically and ineffably before, when, manifested as having been conceived in the womb, He united the whole human to His whole Self, but now more clearly through the transformation of His own self. Therefore, he says, we celebrate this today: the deification of our nature, its change towards things above nature, and its ascent.
Learn, therefore, also from this teacher, who was instructed both in word and in experience and who teaches these things, that this light of the divinity is both a natural glory and brightness, and a deification of human nature, and a change towards things above nature; and those who celebrate the divine transformation are celebrating this very thing—I mean, the deification of nature, which the Only-begotten Son of God, having been united to it according to hypostasis, wrought in a strange manner and in a way above nature.
Hear also from me what follows from this God-bearing man, I mean, as he discourses more broadly on these same things. Whence, he says, according to the truthful mystagogy of the theologians, just as if from some ever-flowing fountain, the great gift of immaculate deification proceeds towards us according to an infinitely-gifting grace. The angels marvel at this. The archangels glorify this. The intelligible order of the super-celestial beings, being nourished by this in another way, establishes it as an evidence most manifest and most truthful regarding the Word’s love for mankind. B Alas! This very thing which the angels marvel at, which the archangels glorify, which in another way feeds the entire intelligible order of the super-celestial beings—this, those who are below and of corruptible matter and of earth and dust, include with bold tongue in the creation, and they draw it together with things that have been set in motion and have ceased, that come into being and depart into earth; and this, regarding the deification of their very nature according to an infinitely-gifting grace, as if proceeding from that ever-flowing, super-essential, and blessed nature of God! And this, as he himself says, the nature of the super-celestial angels is set as the most manifest and most truthful evidence of the Word’s love for mankind. And of what thunderbolts and firestorms are these things not worthy, tell me? Or rather, of rivers of fire and of Gehenna, and of all things simply that have been prepared for the devil and his angels.
But let us, if it please you, continue a little longer with this word of the teacher. The proof, he says, of what is being said would be that blessed and much-sung passion which the apostles suffered upon the mountain, C when the inaccessible and timeless light, by the overwhelming abundance of its own effulgence, super-essentially illuminated by transformation that flesh of His own. For, not being able to bear the ray of that immaculate flesh—which, from the divinity of the Word that was united according to hypostasis to the flesh, through it was shining forth above nature—they fell upon their faces. D