Первое из слов возражения к Акиндину, содержащее в себе перечень ересей, впасть в которые подвергся опасности он, а также и те, кто заодно с ним говорит, что сущность и энергия применительно к Богу – одно и то же и совершенно не различаются друг от друга.

CHAPTER 1. That we have duly resolved to write again. 1. It would be unfair to deprive the accused [of the opportunity] to answer until the one who demands it by means of accusation appears. After all, even if this attacker in vain is exposed at the council examining the litigation, but does not remain silent, since the judges did not have the opportunity to pronounce a condemnation, then what can restrain the one who is justifying himself? So, Hercules must be sent again to the hydra, which again produces a head (or heads) after cutting off [the previous ones], and the judges [again] be ready to kindle the fire of judgment for the newly decapitated neck 1 . Or rather, - in order to use our two examples - a considerably enlarged Mosaic revived rod would be absolutely necessary, so that from among not [only] the living, but [even] those who exist, to remove sorcery (μαντικήν), which pretends to be almost as alive (Ex. 7:10-12), even though malice strives to compete and resist God, who advises good (τα φιλα), boasting as if it has equal strength. And therefore, the wise men (οι μάντεις) oppose their own strength to the induced plagues (Ex. 7:20–22; Ex. 8:6–7, 17–18). So, I believe, it is fitting for the word that defends the godly [teaching] to make their faces boil with “scabs” (Ex. 8:9-11), so that the soothsayers (θεοπρόπους) will no longer expose themselves to the king of lies. 2. For there are many kings 3 for those who are seized by a passion for human glory and for the sake of it enviously renew the dispute. “For if anyone is overcome, he will work for him” (2 Peter 2:19). And among those who now resist the obvious truth, so that almost everything with them would be like before, there is also a certain special queen 4 with whom and for whose sake they all, rejoicing [at the opportunity presented by] disobedience, with all their might avoid the ignominy of defeat, not realizing that it is possible to endure defeat with glory, or, better said, well and with benefit. But Hercules, who is revered as something [great], and Moses, truly great, I did not propose to call myself here, but the true word itself (τόν αληθή λόγον), which, according to Zerubbabel [who lived] under Darius and Cyrus (1 Ezra 4:35-41), ruling over everything, remains invincible in eyelids, although they are at enmity against him. CHAPTER 2. What is the purpose of the word, and for what statements of ours do the atheists falsely accuse us of bitheism. 3. So, you can see from my recent and current words the scabs lying on the lips of opponents, that is, the evil teachings (κακοδοξιας) that they proclaim. For so that they could be easily recognized by everyone because of their obviousness, I considered it necessary, having collected, as far as possible, the most important [of their errors], to present them here. So, when we call the God-creating grace of God uncreated, and also all of His natural energy, inseparable from the supersubstantial essence, but not identical with it in meaning (for thanks to the supersubstantial essence we know that God is supersubstantial, and thanks to energy we understand His appearance to beings and the power corresponding to this), they accuse [us] as [supposedly] speaking about two gods: one - essence, and the other - energy. They themselves, in order to avoid the same thing, say that there is only one uncreated thing: the essence of God. Therefore, they call the idolizing gift of the Spirit created, and about essence and natural and essential energy they say that in relation to God this [means] one and the same thing and does not carry any difference. Wanting to deceive the most ingenuous, Akindinus came up with the idea of ​​calling the Son or Spirit this uncreated energy. Therefore, here too it is necessary to briefly talk a little about this in advance, because in subsequent words, God willing, this will be said in more detail. CHAPTER 3. About the general uncreated energies of the Supreme Trinity, which Akindinus tries to reject in various ways. 4. So, the divine Paul, diverting those approaching [to faith] from things sacrificed to idols, said that “mind” (γνώσις) “is not” [the property] of “all” (1 Cor. 8:7). So, how much more permissible is it to say this to us when we try, as far as there is enough strength, agreeing with the new wickedness, to ward [from it] and give an answer about the truly worldly and [existing] before the world and in the world ( και εγκόσμιων ) energies of God, being forced by those who deny them? However, to all those initiated into the divine mysteries and to those who, doing good, are ready to offer them an obedient ear [to revelation], welcome what I am about to say. 5. God, whatever He may be in essence, being super-transcendent and absolute in relation to everything, is undoubtedly superior to every mind and every word, every connection and communion, irrespective, incomprehensible, incomprehensible, invisible, inconceivable, nameless and completely ineffable. But He Who is so absolutely supernaturally super-extended to inaccessible [heights], according to His inherent excess of goodness, always providing for all His lower and not yet existing [His creations], foreknew and predestined each [of them], having thought out timelessly. He premeditated then, before bringing them into existence (εις γένεσιν) at the appropriate time; and, having desired, he produced each in [its] time, giving each of them a corresponding beauty (καλλονήν κατάλληγον), supports [them in being] and preserves, and improves, and guides, correcting - if it somehow shakes - and returning, and [again] connecting each of the existing ones with itself and with others; and not only this, but also uniting with Himself the saving and stable yoke of righteousness, as far as they are able to contain, in accordance with each of its properties. 6. Thus, according to these energies He, essentially irrespective, is in some respect contemplated. What kind of [energy] is this? According to the desirable, creative, containing and contemplative, according to which He is called “Φεός” 5. Thus, Gregory the Theologian says that this divine name “is one of those that is said in relation to something 6, and not detached” 7. So, according to these and similar energies, He Who is essentially irrespective of nature is contemplated in relation [to something] as the Beginning, the Creator and the Cause of those who exist for a reason. Therefore, He participates in some way through them, being essentially unparticipated, for it is said that “everything participates in the providence that flows from the all-cause of divinity.” 8 And in some way He is understood through them, being in essence incomprehensible to the mind. energies, greatness and creative and providential power and the like, but we do not claim that we are approaching Him in essence” 9 . So, He is in some way understood and named after them, remaining essentially nameless and ineffable. And, in the words of the great Dionysius, He “due to the excess of goodness becomes outside of Himself through [His] providences in relation to all things, and is, as it were, attracted by goodness, love and attraction (έρωτι), and from [the state of] exceeding everyone and all transcendence is brought down to [the state of being] in everyone through protruding from itself ( έκστατικήν) super-essential power, inseparable from Himself” 10. So, about this providence, which is the cause of everything, or, if you like, providences and energies, we have learned that they are the common energies of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. “For what is common,” according to the wise in the divine Maximus, “are the creative providences and goodness (αι αγαθότητες) of the Unit divided into three hypostases” 11. And by calling them creative, he showed that they are uncreated. CHAPTER 4. Proof by more examples that this [man] wickedly says that these energies are the Son and the Holy Spirit. 7. We are, of course, taught that the uncreated energies are common, but do not exist in themselves, as Akindinus says and invents in many places [of his writings], nor are they each a Son or a Spirit, although they are not apart from Them. That is why the namesake of theology, Gregory, says: “I remembered the sun, the ray and the light, but I was afraid that it would not turn out that one [i.e. e. Father] we will endow with essence, and others [i.e. e. We will not give hypostasis to the Son and the Spirit, but we will make Them the powers of God, existing [only] in Him and not independent” 12. And in the words [addressed] to Clidonius, he says that this refers to the wickedness of Apollinaris - calling the Son the ray of the Father, like [a certain] sun 13. For He is another Sun, equal to the Father in majesty, power, lightness and all those contemplated around Him 14. For “Their wealth,” he says, “is the fusion and single outflow (τό εξαλμα) of lightness” 15 and “as if in three suns there is one dissolution of light” 16. 8. So, just as it is forbidden to call the Son the ray of the Father in this sense, but in another sense we say this piously, in order to express the impassibility of His birth and eternal presence with the Father, thinking then along with the ray and hypostasis, so it is said that the Son is the power of the Father, energy, wisdom, advice and the like, so that through these [names], according to the great Athanasius, “to conclude about impassivity, eternity and the splendor of birth" 17 and that "through Him all things were created" 18. 9. And that there are uncreated energies of God, equally contemplated in three Persons, then all theologians jointly repeat this more than anything else. For Basil, skilled in everything and great, proving precisely this and through this showing that the Son is not such an energy of God, says: “if the Son is a work (ενέργημα), and not a generation, then He is neither the one who acted nor the one that was affected (after all, energy is something different from these [concepts]), but is also non-hypostatic ( ανυπόστατος): for no energy is hypostatic (ένυπόστατος)" 19. Do you see clearly that God’s energies are not creations, for those “affected” are creations, nor by the Son, since He is hypostatic? But also in the “Words about Spirit,” having listed, as far as possible, these energies, he then adds: “All of this is constantly possessed by the Holy Spirit, but what flows from God is hypostatic, and what flows from Him are His energies” 20 . So, calling only the Holy Spirit enhypostatic, and showing these energies as not being enhypostatic, and saying that the Spirit always possesses them, he proclaimed their uncreatedness. How can the hypostatic be [at the same time] and none of the creations? How, again, will these many be the essence of God - and, even more so, those flowing from the Spirit? “Therefore,” he says again, “His energies are manifold, but His essence is simple” 21 . What energies is he talking about? About those that he himself mentioned there: “providence, strength, goodness, foreknowledge, creativity, reward and all the like” 22. 10. And the divine Cyril, addressing the semi-Arians, who claim that the Son is similar to the will (βουλήσει) of the Father, says: “The Son, being hypostatic, will in no way resemble the non-hypostatic will” 23. And again: “for those who are in essence and hypostasis, the similarity [is observed] in relation to the subsubstantial (ένούσια) and hypostatic, and not to that which has existence in other [essences or hypostases], such as [for example] wisdom in the wise, and will in the willing.” 24 And the namesake of philosophy and martyr of Christ Justin says: “If another [means] to exist (ύπάρχειν), and another to remain in something (ένυπάρχειν), and the essence of God exists, and the will abides in the essence, then it means that the other is the essence of God, and the other is the will.” 25. And again: “[the property] to arbitrate is either the essence or is inherent in the essence (πρόσεστι τή ουσια). But if this is the essence, then there is no willer; and if it is inherent in essence, then of necessity they will be different things. For the existing and the inherent are not one and the same” 26. And again: “If God wills many things, but is not many,” meaning in essence, “then, therefore, it is not the same thing for God to be and to will” 27 . So, isn’t the difference in the divine essence obvious in relation to the divine energy, and together in relation to each of the hypostases? After all, it is possible, therefore, to say about the Son that He wills many things, but is not many according to hypostasis. This means that will and hypostasis are not the same thing. The same can be said about the Father and the Spirit. But the same thing that can be said about will can be said about every natural energy: after all, will is a certain natural energy of God. Therefore, the divine Primate of Nyssa, Gregory, says that “[the word] “God” indicates the Acting One, and “divinity” indicates energy, so that none of the three [Persons] is energy, but rather each of Them is active” 28 . So divinity also belongs to the number of energies contemplated in the three [Persons], but not to the number of those existing in a special hypostasis, although it is not separate from them. For besides these Three, there is nothing hypostatic, that is, self-hypostatic, in God. CHAPTER 5. Another proof that he is evil when he says that the only uncreated divinity is the essence of God. 11. And that this divinity, equally contemplated in three [Persons], is not an essence, besides all other theologians, this one has taught us through many examples. After all, having written about this to Aulavius ​​and shown it in various ways, he, already at the conclusion of his speech, says: “it has been established through the above that the name “divinity” denotes energy, and not nature” 29 . What kind of energy? “Observant and contemplative” 30, as this god-seer said there. And Akindinus says that “there is no other uncreated divinity and energy besides the nature of God,” clearly excluding from divinity this contemplative energy - or, in other words, divine foreknowledge and providence - as not being the divine nature, and obviously reducing it to the level of the creature. And again: “the word of piety does not allow for any other uncreated divinity other than the divine nature,” obviously calling “the word of piety” only one’s own and Barlaam’s slander, which is the opposite of what the divine theologians teach. And here’s another thing: “we cannot think of anything from the uncreated and naturally inherent in God as anything other than in relation to His essence, nor that the wisdom, glory, goodness and in general the general uncreated energy of the Holy Trinity is immaterial, hypostatic and [anything at all] other than the Son,” then representing as created the general uncreated energies of the three worshiped Persons described a little higher by theologians, then calling each of them self-hypostatic, and sometimes badly mixing them with the nature of God, as if they are no different from it. CHAPTER 6. The fact that the chapter of the divine Maxim, [where it is said] that “God is neither among those who think nor are thought” 31, he brings against himself. 12. However, he and others like him have at the ready, very wisely written by the venerable Maximus, that “all thinking undoubtedly takes place in essence, as [its] quality, and its movement takes place around the essence; for it is impossible to recognize it as something simple and free (άφετον) 32 existing in itself, because it is not free and not simple. God, being absolutely simple in both, - [that is,] Essence without what is in the subject (ύποκειμένω), and Thought, having no subject at all, does not belong to the number of those who think or are thought, as being above essence and thinking" 33 . This, then, is what they have at hand, who do not understand [neither of] what kind of thinking this godly [teacher] is talking about - [and he speaks] about that [thinking] (as he himself, by the way, designated) according to which God is absolutely detached [from everything], thinking about Himself and being inseparable from Himself 34, whereas we are talking about those who recently began to revile us, about appearances and energies, according to which [appearances and energies] God is contemplated in some connection, as has been shown, and not that this illustrious theologian writes this from the point of view of apophatic theology. Because it is common for theologians to use certain cataphatic expressions, which have an extremely apophatic meaning for them, as he himself stated at the end of the chapter, saying that the reason for such his words is that “God is not one of those who think or think.” Of which [two provisions], especially about the second, no one can say that the God-verbal [teacher said this] was not extremely apophatically theological, especially since he denies thinking in God as a quality, and not as energy - however, this is clearly present [in Maximus] from the very beginning [of the chapter] and shows the supernaturalism of the [properties] contemplated in God. 13. But having said that God is simple in relation to both, 35 the divine Maximus thereby showed that He has essence and energy - which, of course, he called here thinking - and that they have a difference between themselves. For [it is] he who owns the phrase: “without difference it is impossible to discover a number” 36. But apophatic theology is not opposed to cataphatic theology, but rather represents its supernaturalism, for although everything we affirm about God is true, God possesses this beyond what we can say and think. CHAPTER 7. That from the way Akindinus and those who agreed with him taught about the divine essence and energy, [it turns out that] they fall into more than fifty blasphemies, and that they open the door for the entry of all in general from the age of former evil heresies. 14. So, without taking any of this into consideration, Akindinus and those like him argue that with God the uncreated essence and uncreated energy are one and the same and are absolutely indistinguishable [from one another]. Therefore, of necessity, they have to say that one of these names is an absolutely empty phrase, or rather both - one through the other - push towards this. For just as it is impossible to say that the nature of God has essence, because nature and essence, as applied to God, are absolutely the same thing, so they cannot, if they are consistent, say that God's essence has energy, since, in their opinion, divine energy is no different from the divine essence. 15. I. So, since they call energy an empty sound, as if it were not natural divine energy, they fall into atheism, denying the existence of God. After all, it is impossible to act (ένεργεϊν) without energy, as well as to exist without existence; that which is inactive also does not exist 37 . For Damascene, wise in the divine, says that “it is impossible for an insufficient nature to have existence, and by nature [the inherent energy] does not belong to the number of things that are outside [this nature], and it is obvious that it is impossible for nature to exist or be known without natural energy” 38 . And again, the divine Maximus, bringing as witnesses all the God-bearing [teachers] like him, says: “the holy fathers clearly teach that no nature exists or is cognizable separately from its essential energy” 39 . And also: “What nature is inactive or [exists] outside of natural energy? For since it is by no means alien to existence, it is not alien to natural force; and if it is deprived of it, then it will lose its existence” 40. And then, when he writes about the same thing to Nikander, he says: “How will [the Savior] be God or man if we take away [from Him] the natural will and essential energy, and how will [He] show Himself to be essentially this or that, without retaining entirely the properties of each nature? After all, what has come beyond the limits of what [is characteristic of it] by nature has become outside the essence itself, no longer having any existence at all” 41. You see [now] clearly, Akindinus, that [that which] is by nature is many, while she herself is one; and that its specific property is natural will (τό φυσικόν θέλημα) and natural energy; and that without them it is defective, or rather non-existent; and that through them nature shows that it exists one way or another, but that they themselves are not nature, much less that inexpressible [divine nature]? 16. And the wisest of the martyrs, Justin, objected to the Hellenes, who already in those days said the same thing that we now hear from Akindinus, that is, that “in God there is no division at all into essence and energy.” For this [Akindinus] says: “what is said in relation to God is not different and different, and all this is not different either from the divine essence or from each other, for in God there is no difference at all in any way, except for the differences of the three Persons,” and those [Greeks] - [whose words] were quoted by the martyr of Christ himself, who objected to them, that “It is not proper to think that there is another being in us (τό ειναι), the other is volition (τό βούλεσθαι), and in God; but being and volition are exactly one and the same in Him. After all, what exists, it wills, and what it wills, it exists; and He has no difference between this and that” 42. So, while the Greeks, like Akindinus, said this in those days, the wise witness of the truth Justin says: “Since God has essence for being (προς υπαρξιν), and will for creation, then he who rejects the difference between essence and will rejects God’s both being and creation: the existence of Him [Himself] and the creation of non-existents [before]" 43. 17. II. Thus, at the present time, Akindinus - since he contradicts us, transferring to the divine energy what was previously said badly by the Hellenes about the divine will - revives their error, imagining that God does not exist, and that everything [that exists] is uncreated. And why say that he applied to energy what the Hellenes had previously ungodly said about volition? For Julian the Apostate, who surpassed the Hellenes in godlessness, glorifying the Sun as his god, shows himself to adhere to the same teaching as Akindinus, [which is expressed in him] in the same words when he writes: “The essence of God is not another, but power (δύναμις) is another, and [something] third besides these is energy: after all, everything that he desires, then he [and] is, can (δύναται) and acts (ενεργει). For he does not desire anything that is not; He is not powerless to do what he wants; neither does he want to do what he cannot do” 44. So it is not unjustly that those who say that uncreated energy is indistinguishable from the divine nature are subject to the same [condemnation] as the Greeks: after all, the fact that God exists is known only from the energies inherent in [Him]. So the rejection of the divine energies that reveal [the nature of God] will necessarily be followed by ignorance of the existence of God, even if the one who rejects them pretends to be in defense of God. 18.III. But even when they say - and, even more so, they undertake to assert in writing - that deifying grace is neither created nor uncreated, then they say precisely that God does not exist, for what is neither uncreated nor created does not exist at all. For just as he who declares that there is no enlightening energy at all eliminates light from the number of beings, so he who rejects God-creating grace rejects the existence of God. And just as someone who denies the light-giving rays of the sun, if he then begins to assert the existence of the sun, will be ridiculous, so are these [ridiculous] who claim that there is a divine essence and there is no God-creating grace and other energies. 19.IV. After all, [then] God will be in essence a partaker of all, and also seen by the saints, if, firstly, by His participation all things were made, and according to the Gospel promise He is seen only by the worthy; and, secondly, His energy and idolizing - or, in other words, uncreated - lordship and grace, in their opinion, are completely indistinguishable from essence. But this is rejected by the [holy] fathers, who say that in essence God does not participate. V. So, those who say this (and they sometimes say this openly), in addition to contradicting the fathers, also classify themselves as Messalians. For just as, having a sensual and rational essence, we are all by nature sensual and rational, so if we partake of the divine essence, we will be gods by nature. For only the Messalians think badly that men become gods by nature, [that is,] those of men who are distinguished by virtue. These also surpassed the Messalians in wickedness. For, calling natural deification imitation (μιμγσιν), they introduce exactly what [Saint Maximus] said, that “a deified [man] would necessarily be by nature God, if deification were by [the action of] a receptive natural force, and could be called such a god by nature” 45 . Those who say that everything participates in the divine essence, foolishly justifying this by the fact that it is present everywhere, make every creature divine by nature. VI. Moreover, since, in their opinion, the divine energy is in no way different from the divine essence, and the action (τό ένεργείν) of God will not be in any way different from His being (του είναι), then it follows, according to them, that it will be the same thing to say that [God] creatively accomplished ( ενήργησε) any of all [beings], and that He was God. VII. So, from the teaching of these [people] it follows that God then began to exist (ύπήρξεν) when He brought what [He] created into being. And, moreover, Akindin says that “to act” always means “to create.” VIII. If God is nature without energy, possessing it as something indistinguishable from that, then He exists without will, for will is the action of nature. Consequently, the divine will did not precede the creation of existing things, for that which precedes creation will necessarily be uncreated (άγένητον), and Akindinus calls any uncreated energy no different from the divine essence. So, according to him, it will be the same thing to say that everything is brought into being by the will or nature of God, and since we are created and exist by the will of God, then [therefore, it can be said that] we are created and exist by the nature of God. IX. So, rightly and most consistently, to those who are sick of atheism, creatures appear to be gods. 21. X. So, because [they consider] energy an empty sound, they fall into atheism and make gods of creation. And because they not only reject it, but also claim that [all] energies that in one way or another differ from the divine nature are created, they thereby make God a creature. After all, Maximus, wise in divine things, again speaks to those who claim that Christ has one energy: “if this energy is created, then it will indicate a created nature; and if uncreated, then it will characterize the uncreated essence: after all, natural [signs] must be corresponding to natures” 46. For what characterizes is different from what is characterized, and the corresponding, that is, suitable, must necessarily fit something else, one way or another existing. 22.XI. Although they affirm that only the Son is the uncreated energy, as they say, [but] without thinking to make a contrast in relation to the created, and [although they say] that there is not one of the uncreated general energies that is not His, but [they say this] by interpreting [the word] “one” in favor of rejecting the general uncreated energies of the worshiped Trinity. If they say that the Son has the same energy as the Father (and He, of course, does), then, according to them, He will also have another son, for the Son alone, in their opinion, is the uncreated energy of the Father. And if He does not have the same essence as He, then He will not have the same essence, for essence is characterized [based on] energy. So, energy does not belong to the number of hypostatic [idioms], for they characterize not the essence, but the hypostasis. Therefore, the divine Maximus again says, addressing these newly minted theologians: “Who [of the theologians] has ever spoken about the hypostatic energy, and where does this [opinion] come from, and from whom, having borrowed it, do they express [it]?” 47 XII. So, if the uncreated energy does not belong to the number of hypostatic [idioms], and the Son, according to Akindinus, does not immutably have the same uncreated energy as the Father, then He will differ from the Father in that which relates to nature (έν τοις κατά θύσιν). And if the Son has energy not only different [from the Father], but also created, then He will also have a created nature, which, of course, is fitting for Arius, Eunomius and [all] those who, in [their] strange frenzy, “untruth as high as the verb” (Ps. 72:8). For created energy, as we learned above, represents created nature. XIII. If the Son does not have energy at all - neither the same as the Father, nor any other, then he will be non-existent (ανυπόστατος) in Himself and contemplated only in the Father. 23.XIV. Therefore, according to the God-wise theologians, the Son, no different from the Father, possesses the same - not one, but many - energies, not one of which belongs to the number of created ones, for creations are the consequences of them, from which everyone who is prudent comes to the knowledge of these energies and powers inherent in the Creator [understanding them] from [these] consequences, but is not granted an understanding of His nature. And not only the Son, but also the Holy Spirit, possesses them, so that both of them, according to the inspired theologians, together with the Father, are the source of these ever-present energies, as we explained at the beginning and as we will express more fully in subsequent words. Akindinus admits that each of the uncreated energies exists independently (αύθυπόστατον), and that the Son Himself or the Holy Spirit remain [in the same way] as if They had no difference in comparison with these [energies]. And who can count the many absurdities that arise from this? 24. It is the same thing to say “energies” or in some cases “energy” in relation to what is inherent in God by nature. For, according to the sacred fathers, just as the sun, through its ray, warms, illuminates, gives life, and grows, so God accomplishes everything. And, therefore, as in relation to the sun, if you speak generally about this [ray], then [thereby] you will say about all [these actions], and if you name them all, then [thereby] you will again speak about one [ray], and so in relation to God. In the same way, the God-speaking [Dionysius] of the Areopagus calls divine goodness and providence in some (or rather in many) places of his writings providences and goodness, and the divine super-essence - always in the singular. And after him, in accordance with him, you will find theologians speaking about divine energy, sometimes in the singular, and sometimes in the plural. “For the flesh of the Lord,” says [Damascene], “due to the purest union with the Word, was enriched with divine energies, since the Word through it revealed His energy” 48. Do you see that the same [energy] is both many and one? 25.XV. But those who call them created are [also] monothelites, worse than those who once were, and, having nothing to do, completely reject the council [convened] against them 49 . For they teach about only one created will in Christ and about only one created energy, if [according to them] everything that is not the divine essence is created, from which [it turns out that] they reduce the divine essence to the level of a creature. XVI. And not only for this reason do they make God a creature, but also because they call the light that shone on the mountain from the Savior created. XVII. After all, this [light], according to the saints, is the natural glory of God 50 and the beginningless natural ray of divinity 51, and the essential and all-perfect beauty of God 52, and the original beauty (προτέλειον κάλλος). And whoever has created his natural [manifestations] is himself, by necessity, created by nature. XVIII. Then, since they, alienating this light from the divine nature and expelling it from the uncreated divinity, say that it receives its beginning from Tabor 53, but will remain with Christ for endless ages, as, undoubtedly, it will remain with the sons of light, ineffably illuminating them, then, therefore, they teach that Christ was made up of three natures: human, divine and this light. 26. XIX. Truly, by calling creation what the saints receive from the fullness that dwells in Christ (Col. 2:9), they directly call creation the fullness itself, or, in other words, divine energy and nature. And since the Great Basil in the words “Against Eunomius” showed that in God there is a natural order, according to which and according to the dignity consistent with which the Son occupies second place, and not according to nature, then this ordinal dignity of the Son will, according to Akindinus, be created if everything is created, which in any respect is not identical with the divine nature. XX. And this [teaching] is straight out of Aryan coinage, and is like an outgrowth of his madness, if only it does not surpass him, since it does not spare even the Father. Nevertheless, since none of the prudent would ever call this natural order in relation to God and the dignity corresponding to it something created, and according to the newly-minted theology of Akindinus, everything uncreated is essence, then both this order and dignity are considered to be essence, and the Son will then be in essence in second place after the Father, and this is the most important [position] of Aryan fury. XXI. Even if he cites from his own [works] the opposite [of this], then this is also characteristic of the corrupt mind of Akindinus throughout. XXII. But even what is “poured out” on us, according to the prophecy of Joel, “from the Spirit” (Joel 2:28–29), calling it a creature (and this is deifying grace, which they consider created), Akindinus and those like him make the Holy Spirit, from Whom the deifying grace is poured out, into a creature. XXIII. Since they, calling created what they call in the proper sense of the word grace, say that the Holy Spirit given to the apostles through the breath of Christ (John 20:22) is not, being uncreated, grace, but the very hypostasis of the Spirit, then they are clearly Latinists. For the Spirit is emitted, given and sent, and from the Son; The Latins tend to say that this is not grace, but the very hypostasis of the Spirit. 27.XXIV. And besides, those who say that only the essence of God is uncreated, and everything that surrounds it is created, will either call hypostatic [idioms] essence, or will reduce them to the level of creation. But if they call them essence, they will be Eunomians, and if they say that they are created, then they will surpass Eunomius himself in wickedness: after all, he did not call them all created. XXV. But what am I saying about the energies [contemplated] around the hypostases and around nature? After all, [Akindinists] not only call energies created, from which one could assume that they are carried away [to this] by homonymy (for it happens that the result is also called action (ενέργεια), but - in order for them to be ungodly without any justification - they openly declare that the powers of God are also created. XXVI. For when we say that God is omnipotent, and that He has not just many uncreated powers, but also all [they are uncreated with Him], and we cite what the great Basil said, that the Holy Spirit is “simple in essence, but diverse in powers” 54 , they claim that these powers are created, [saying] “well, well, if not so, then there will be many uncreated and different ones,” and from this, according to these blessed ones, many will be obtained gods, while the essence always remains simple, and the energy sometimes becomes manifold according to providence, just as Paul said that the angels from the Church learn the manifoldness of the wisdom of God (Eph. 3:10). 28.XXVII. But when we put forward [the argument] that “therefore, in your opinion, God was not omnipotent before creation,” they (in the presence of many who would testify) asserted that God was not omnipotent before creation. But even if they did not say this explicitly, then [all the same] from their teaching this, and much more, worse than [this], follows. Since, according to Saints Athanasius and Maximus, or rather according to all [the holy fathers] in general, “everything that God possesses, He has by nature, and not acquired” 55, then by nature He also possesses His powers, having them from eternity and without beginning. 29.XXVIII. So, since both the essence and the powers of God are without beginning, then, calling the essence uncreated and the forces created, they create two without beginning: one uncreated and the other created. And the created and the uncreated are diametrically opposed to each other in their meaning; and then it turns out almost like this godless teaching of Mani, [according to which there are] two beginningless principles opposing each other. XXIX. But this stems from their reckless and corrupt thoughts - perhaps involuntarily for themselves - like some monstrous creation of a worthless mind ( απονενοημένων ). And not only from this it is clear that they truly preach bitheism, in which they are trying in vain to slander us, but also from what they talk about the created and uncreated rulership and goodness of God. 30. XXX. What [means] when they [abide] in God and from God are the communions [μετοχάς] and the beginnings of beings, by participation in which (ών τή μεθέξει) everything was made up - goodness, life, essence (την οντότητα), immortality, holiness and the like, are called essences or hypostases, contemplated with God and before the angels, created in time (εν αίώνι) 56, as well as those who participate in them? Are they not bringing Platonic ideas into the Church of Christ and enticing people to believe in many gods, in whose participation everything was made up? But when they again learn from the sayings of the Spirit that we quote that these [energies] are eternal, they become stronger [to prove] that the essence of God does not exceed them. Therefore, according to them, these [energies] are not from her, and she is not their cause. For if [she] is the cause, then she surpasses [them]; and if it does not exceed, then there will not be one reason. So, according to them, there are many reasons, and [hence] by necessity [it results] polytheism. 31. XXXI. For us, who speak not only of two, but also of many beginningless ones, nothing prevents us from calling God one and simple. For we not only call unoriginate, but also uncreated, the worshiped hypostases, and also all the hypostatic [idioms] of the Most High Trinity, the unified nature of the Three, and all the natural forces and energies that come with it. For, according to Maximus, who was experienced in the divine, “anything created is not inherent in the divine nature, nor anything uncreated in human nature” 57 . So, since they are all not only beginningless, but also uncreated, there is no contradiction that can completely separate them from each other. “For each position,” says [Gregory of Nyssa], “of what is said about the divine nature, is such that even if it differs in meaning, it does not carry in itself any contradiction in relation to what is said along with it (προς τό συνονομαζόμενον)” 58. But even of the natural energies and forces, one is the highest, as [their] cause - the trinitarian essence; and for the trinitarian essence, one thing is superior, as [its] cause - imprecise, according to the great Dionysius, divinity, from which the super-essential lights of divinity arise and to which are raised 59. So we worship the one God, trinitarian and omnipotent, and let our opponents at least burst [with anger]! And there will never be a composition either from the perfect hypostases, or from the essence and its forces or energies, which these [lights] keep unsubject to [change] (απαθή), and the essence remains unchanged. For that which has no force or energy is not simple, but non-existent. Thus, our Deity is simple, and let the slanderers at least hurt themselves. After all, it is not with us, but with them, as follows from their teachings, that there are many and opposing [each other] gods, or one, composed of opposites. And what opposites? - Created and uncreated, although He is without beginning according to the single uncreated essence they consider, and according to His created powers, in their opinion. XXXII. If they say that the powers of God are not and without beginning, then they will greatly surpass the very madness of Mani. For according to their teaching, it turns out that God not only was not omnipotent before creation, but is not so now either; after all, if He began to be omnipotent with the beginning of creation, then [that means] He finished after He created [everything]. 32. XXXIII. After all, Mani took away from God the power of evil, or, in other words, the power of non-existence. And rightly so, for God cannot be the creator of evil, since He is not evil. And the worst thing about Mani is that he attributed this [the force of evil] to another principle, not being able to understand that it is also characteristic of him to happen by just permission (ύποχωρήσει δικαία) of the Good, and not from a special beginning. So, Mani took away from God only the power of evil, but these take away all the powers from God. And besides, if the powers and energies of God have no difference between themselves and in relation to the essence, then the divine will does not differ in any way from foreknowledge, and truly God, who foresees everything, will, according to Akindinus, desire evil, which even Mani did not reach in his wisdom. Having thus declared this Self-goodness to be the cause of evil and rejecting the omnipotence of God in order not to teach about many uncreated things and so that they would not have many gods (for the word “all” [is used] in relation to many and in some way [from each other] different), they again think that everything that is said about God means essence, and everything inherent in Him is no different from nature itself, not just complex, but polysyllabic and They make God multi-essential, while the divine Cyril says: “if each of the [properties] inherent in God by nature means an essence, then God consists of as many essences as are seen by the nature of [properties] inherent in Him” 60; and the great Basil writes: “if, having collected all the divine names, we enclose them in essence, then we will show God not only complex, but also composed of heterogeneous parts, because each of these names denotes something else” 61 . XXXIV. So, here it is sufficiently shown how, considering that what is inherent in God by nature is different from nature itself, we preserve the simplicity of God intact. 33. XXXV. Also, since the divine nature alone is uncreated, so that there would not be many uncreated and many gods, according to the Barlaamite Akindinus and others like him, since, according to Gregory the Theologian, “divine simplicity is not divine nature” 62, for them it is created. XXXVI. So, if they say that this [divine simplicity] is eternally inherent in God, then they compose Him from created and uncreated; if it is not eternal, like a created thing, then their God was not simple from the beginning, and [that means] it is not inherent in God by nature. Therefore, they do not say that God is simple by nature. Thus, while supposedly defending the unity of God, they madly oppose God's simplicity. 34. XXXVII. Perhaps you will find that these words of theirs do not escape these words of the essence, which alone they call beginningless and uncreated, which is infinite. For they say that it is absolutely the same thing and there is no difference - to say “beginningless and uncreated essence” and “beginningless and uncreated energy.” However, the great Basil calls God's foreknowledge of something to have no beginning, but [to have] an end when what was foreknown reaches [its fulfillment] 63 . So if, in their opinion, the beginningless essence is indistinguishable in relation to the beginningless energy, then it will, according to them, have an end. If not, then again there will be two gods. After all, when the difference between essence and energy is clearly seen, then one God for them is the beginningless and infinite essence, and the other is the beginningless and finite energy, since these are their own words that two gods are conjoined if any difference in the divine essence in relation to the divine energy is discovered. 35. XXXVIII. Following their own dogmas, they speak of many Christs, for otherwise they would not have had to reject the One. After all, hearing the saints talking about uncreated deification 64, which is a god-creating gift 65, given to those who exactly follow 66 the Gospel of Christ, and about illumination, which has no origin, but [has] an incomprehensible manifestation in the worthy 67, uncreated light 68 and grace, ever existing from the ever existing God 69 , they say that this is the essence and hypostasis of the Son or the Holy Spirit, and that there is nothing that has not arisen [in time] and uncreated that is not the divine essence and hypostasis. Therefore, if the god-creating gift or the deification granted to the saints, or the illumination that they receive, or the light from which they “will be enlightened like the sun” (Matt. 13:43), there is a divine essence and hypostasis, then they are all equal to Christ and equally divine, like that sovereign composition (κατά τό δεσποτικόν εκείνο θύραμα), whose deification is hypostatic unity [with him] God the Word, with whom the Spirit also abided, not as active, as in the saints, but as accompanying the equal 70. 36. XXXIX. But, however, since, according to the Gospel promise, the Lord “comes with the Father” to the worthy “and makes his abode with them” (John 14:23), then if the ever-existing grace from the ever-existing Being that dwells in the worthy is not the lightness and grace common to the three worshiped Persons, according to which He who does not go from nowhere is called coming, that is, appearing, but God Himself in essence and hypostasis, as this states Akindinus, who writes: “The entire Deity itself, whatever It may be, is uncreated illumination and grace and the entire God in His partakers; whatever It may be, It is not [any] other uncreated deification other than the divine nature.” And also: “we do not see any uncreated deification and grace, which would not be the essence of God.” And if this is so, according to Akindinus, then neither the trinitarian nature itself, nor even the Father Himself is uncaused, for He, according to him, receives His existence from someone from whom ever-present grace flies to the saints in a timely manner. 37. XL. But despite the fact that all holy angels and men are deified through God’s energy alone - and even then not all, but some small part and, as it were, an insignificant drop in comparison with that sea, according to the words of Chrysostom theologian 71 - and [humanity] received by the Word from us is one of the three hypostases, Akindinus, who did not miss a single greatest evil and madness, shows himself to be the highest not only God-bearers and all angels and men in general, but also Himself - alas! - the only Christ. For he claims that God unites with him and his followers in all not only divine energy, but also essence. After all, this is precisely what he himself introduces through his writings, and persuades his followers to think and speak, so that, as he says, God will not suffer division into parts unless he is completely united with them. 38. XLI. But after this, what else do these unfortunate people dare to say? - The exact opposite! For they call deification, by which Christ’s human [nature] is deified, created, which I say with trembling, even if [citing] as what they said, and which I would not dare to tell about - you know this well - if I had not seen the harm that the inexperienced suffer from them. We will present these words themselves here. For they say that “everything seen by the prophets arose and disappeared, having fulfilled the purpose for which it was used by God, and the lordship and deification of the body of the Lord arose on Mount Tabor and will remain forever for the enjoyment of those who have achieved perfection through faith and virtue.” In another place, the author of these [words], as if forgetting what he said about where the beginning of the emergence of deification [comes from], again does it according to his custom and concludes: “So, if the deification of [humanity] received from us by the Word arises simultaneously with the acceptance of flesh, then how will it be uncreated and without beginning and without beginning?” 39.XLII. But we have already previously denounced all this nonsense of Akindinus and others like him as wicked in the notes sent [by us] to the wise primate Cyzicus 72 . They also say that “as in everything, so in Christ and in the saints abides the essence of God, which is present in Christ in such a way that it produced [in Him] “seven spirits” (Rev. 3:1, 4:5)” - alas! - which, according to the divine Maximus, He possessed by nature as the true Son of God; “and in the saints [she is present] in such a way that she works [in them] deifying grace” - oh, if only! - for the sake of which, according to him and other holy fathers, they themselves would be called beginningless, eternal and heavenly. XLIII. And they don't even feel that they are contradicting themselves to the highest degree. For that essence, which they spoke of as ever-existing grace from God, uncreated light, and deification that did not arise [in time], now, having changed as if from repentance, they call created and began and produced from what was not. “For if,” they say, “the deifying gift and this grace are not created, then how will God surpass it, as it is written in the works of the fathers?” What madness! After all, the saints say that God transcends all affirmation and negation 73 . 40. What then? And shall we call His immortality, and life, and infinity, and eternity, and immateriality, and the fact that He “is Spirit” (John 4:24), and in general everything related to God created, and thus place Him above all affirmation and negation? But we will deceive ourselves, rather by overthrowing Him than by isolating Him (καθαρούντες μάλλον ή έξαιρούντες), if we do not say that He has eternally inherent in everything that is divinely intelligible around Him, and thus we place above [of all] this His absolutely incomprehensible and super-essential, - better to say, the super-essence itself, according to the word of the wise Maximus in the divine, infinitely greater in number of times 74 - essence. 41.XLIV. But in order to leave aside the rest of the multitude of absurdities and blasphemies against the Son and the Spirit [arising] from their words, and that, according to them, God will be the creator not of qualitative (πεποιωμένων) essences, but [contemplated] in existing qualities, as the Hellenes taught; In order, therefore, to leave this aside, [we will only say that] if God, in the same way in which he [abides] in the saints, [abides] in everyone, then they will have to say that everything is holy and that all are “the joy of Christ” (1 Cor. 6:15) and partakers of the divine Spirit (2 Peter 1:4), even the uninitiated. XLV. It is better if in some way the Divinity dwells in all, in the same way in the saints, and in the same way in the saints, the Divinity dwells in Christ, and equally coexists with those who create (for how great is the difference between the creator and the creation?); So, if it abides equally in everyone and reveals the same contact (συνάφειαν), then everything is equally divine, or even that Sovereign mixture, which for our sake the Son of God received from us, is not equally divine. 42. XLVI. [Our] word is again afraid to approach their further [madness], no less than the previous ones, if not more, but it is necessary to defeat this [their] charm. So, it is necessary to quote their words again: after all, they say that “all the prophets and apostles, and after them the former seers of God, saw God through sensual images and symbols,” although a little higher in the same work they declare that “everything that is sensually revealed to contemplatives in [any] image comes from the insidious tricks of the enemy, and that every sensual manifestation of light with them is in one way or another a satanic charm.” So, I invite listeners [themselves] to think about the conclusion from this. And the zealous Akindinus believes that for each of these [statements] he brings evidence from his father’s words, to the meaning of which he cannot penetrate through the thoughts of his [own] soul; but, deafening [with his speeches] the ears of fools, he thereby drags them into the same destruction. 43. So, from the rejection of the essential energies of God, they accumulate on their heads such a great heap of wickedness, or better yet, such that our word, avoiding excess, leaves most of it unattended. Therefore, in the following words we will consider in more detail what was briefly said here, and also much of what is not mentioned here. Now, even if, when they say that God’s essence is indistinguishable from energy, and call Him this way and that, they begin to say that not energy, but essence is an empty phrase with Him, as if God were only energy without essence, then no less, if not more, they will fall into the same snares, for blasphemies against energy will transfer to their essence. 44.XLVII. In addition to what has been said, they also make the trinitarian essence non-hypostatic (άνυπόστατον). For “not one of the energies of the Spirit is independent (αύθυπόστατος)" 75. So, they will turn out to be worse than even Sabellius himself. After all, it was he who made the Son and the Spirit non-hypostatic, saying that They are in everything one with the Father, and no different from Him, as these do in what they affirm. XLVIII. After all, by completely failing to distinguish uncreated energy from uncreated essence and then declaring that the Son is such energy of the Father, as well as the Holy Spirit, do they not thereby secretly introduce the Sabellian confusion [of hypostases]? For he made the Son and the Holy Spirit non-hypostatic, saying that They differ in no way from the Father; and these, moreover, make the trinitarian essence itself non-hypostatic, calling it in all respects one and the same with energy, which in itself is non-hypostatic. 45. XLIX. And he spoke about the three-named essence, poorly reducing the hypostases to it 76; and these are about the two-named, calling it either essence or energy, arbitrarily merging them with each other. And he said that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are [only] names devoid of essential content (κενά πραγμάτωτ), [used] in relation to one Designated; and these say the same thing about all divine names, for they believe that they all mean the same thing, sometimes essence, sometimes energy. Thus, they seem to be preparing for their own souls some, alas, poisonous mixture of Sabellian and Eunomian heresies. For Sabellius, hypostatic, and Eunomius, natural [properties], madly reduced them to one meaning. However, their malice is exposed not only from here as complex, but also [based] on other [moments] – as polysyllabic. 46. ​​L. For when they hear theologians speaking about “uncreated and ever-present grace from God” 77, so that it does not turn out, as they say, that many uncreated things will appear, they affirm that this is not the common energy of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but call the grace of God - that is, the Father - the Son and the Spirit. He who speaks like this cannot worship each of these in a separate hypostasis. Consequently, they distinguish them in the Father, the only one who exists by Himself (μόνω καθ´εαυτόν ύφεστώτι), - as if certain forces inherent in [Him], but independently non-existent (ούχ ύφεστώσας). After all, if, according to them, the Father is the only one from whom grace [comes], then the Son will not possess the same grace, being like the Sun from the Sun, in everything similar to the One who gave birth in grace, glory, lightness and in general everything that is contemplated around Him, but will be like a Ray; and the Spirit is like Radiance; as if the Trinity were composed of the greater, the greater and the greatest, which, according to the great Gregory the Theologian, is clearly written in the books of Apollinaris 78. CHAPTER 8. About their corrupt character and how, in a manner appropriate for them, taking advantage of the time of civil unrest, they again shamelessly rebel against Orthodoxy, although they have already been completely defeated twice. 47. Do you see how great evil Barlaam entangled his followers, into what abysses he pushed - or, rather, carried away - those who studied with him, or better yet, those who studied who entrusted their souls to him and considered him their teacher in divine [subjects]? And what’s even worse is that he not only taught them, but also his morals. Therefore, according to what is written, they, even when exposed, do not want to remain silent, but unanimously and non-stop repeat: “We will make noise and shout so that our lies do not become obvious.” 48. What remains of the vile teachings of the ancient heretics that they were not jealous of? What confidence is there in those who have neither word nor scripture, nor their own signature, who do not honor either the sacred councils, or the decrees of civil rulers, distinguished by education and prudence, and even those who themselves were appointed to judge the universe, or the king who confirmed their judgment and added edification on his own - a king most pious and wise, and no more superior in dignity to those over whom he reigns, rather than high talent and greatness of thought? But what can we say about this [when it comes to those] for whom even the fact that they will be declared alien to Orthodoxy and cut off from the Church that contains it, as well as separation from God, does not seem something terrible and terrible? These are truly, according to the supreme apostle, “who do not tremble at glory, who care not for dominion, who are arrogant, who please themselves, for whose sake the true way is blasphemed, who deceive unsteady souls and deceive the simple-minded with flattering words (2 Peter 2:10, 2:14). 49. For they first made every effort to ensure that the conciliar definitions were not written down at all, and when they could not achieve this, since they saw the Conciliar Tomos already written in defense of the truth, which was about to be sealed with the signatures of the all-holy bishops, they formed their own faction, saying nothing, doing anything, in order to prevent the signing from taking place. After all, they went around all the bishops one by one, threatening and at the same time ingratiating themselves, either saying that the signature would be a stain on their priesthood, or singling out each of them separately and advising them not to follow the others. When they were above these intrigues, and when the patriarchal hand was the first to sign, and the seven chosen [men] in a row were sealed according to their degree, faithful witnesses of the truth, of whom there were enough [to sign] instead of all [the others], then the adherents of disobedience, having rejected everyone, were temporarily engulfed in muteness, fearing at the same time the imminent cruel shame. 50. When, after a little time, political affairs were seized by confusion, they, seizing the moment (after all, they also say about wolves that they fearlessly attack herds, rejoicing in the storm), again stir, in the Attic 79 expression, anagyris 80 . Since we spent time outside this metropolis for the sake of silence, 81 they, hoping to gain something and thanks to this, first of all made efforts to be the first to intercept those of the monastics [arrived] from afar who were found [in the city], and when they succeeded, they also showed great effort in order to bind him to themselves and convince him to think in accordance with them. Thus, catching these, who did not really know about the events that had taken place, either unfairly slandering us, or reinterpreting the fatherly words, and along with them some others, they again form a faction around themselves. And the faction is not rootless. After all, there are those who are struck by epilepsy at certain periods of the lunar cycle (for the demon, according to Father Chrysostom, chooses the time to convince the unreasonable that our circumstances depend on the heavenly [bodies] 82), and the rest are not much inferior to them in the image of [madness], for they consider it necessary to live under the guidance of such. So, when the demon, blocking the passages of the psychic spirit in the brain and damaging the energies arising from there, does not seem appropriate to produce a spasm in the organs that contain the body [in proper order] and thereby throw them to the ground and strangle them there, then he drives them throughout the city, directing them now to the city markets and crossroads, now to the archons and into their very houses, in order to buzz around their spouses, saying the same thing as in the smallest upon examination, anyone will recognize it as truly [the product of] a demonic and despicable thought, which does not even know how to be consistent in relation to itself. CHAPTER 9. About the fact that they are not consistent in relation to their own words, but rather even fall into bad [opinions] that contradict each other, which is why they become guilty of diametrically opposed wickedness. 51. For what is more foolish than to say that God [abides] in the saints in the same way as in the insensitive and dumb, and who insists on the greatest difference in [His presence in some and in others], so that it is not at all said “I will dwell in them and resemble” (2 Cor. 6:16) [about anyone or anything] except about the saints alone, to testify about those that they therefore are they evil? So, when they completely deny that the Divinity, as super-essential, participates by energy, then they claim that It participates by all by essence? So, when they say that God acts, they say that He has no energy at all? Well, when they insist that they recognize both the essence and the energy of God as uncreated, they then assert that the uncreated energy is one and the same with the uncreated essence and is absolutely indistinguishable from it, and those who do not consider them one and the same and absolutely indistinguishable [from each other] are said to be held accountable for wickedness? For if these are absolutely the same thing, then they are doing wrong, saying that they recognize both. And if there is clearly some difference between them, then why such a war against those who claim this? 52. What, then, when, hearing about an idolizing (and not about a deified) gift, they call it creation, hearing about deification and uncreated grace, they say that it is the Holy Spirit [Himself]? For how is deification different from the gift of deification? What, then, when they reject Barlaam as slanderous and anathematize him, like the Arians of Aetius 83, and the Armenians of Eutyches 84 and Dioscorus 85, and then again, like these [heretics], teach the same thing as he? What, then, when they, without blushing, say that this is not with us, but the conciliar document agrees with them, which was issued for the sake of us, who opposed them, and was given to us, and we keep it as justification and proof of the truth they dispute? CHAPTER 10. That they are trying to reinterpret the Cathedral Tomos to their own advantage, and that by its terrible reproaches and official denials they are shown to be guilty in many ways. 53. But the light that shone on the mountain from the Savior, which they previously, openly blaspheming, called a ghost and a creature, now with deceit they call uncreated. If someone says to them: “After all, you argued that the only uncreated thing is the essence of God: so what, this revealed light is the essence of God?” - then these wise ones (γενναιόφρονες), immediately overacting, say that “we, they say, call it uncreated homonymously,” that is, falsely 86. This is how the conciliar document agrees with them. And however, if someone, reproaching, tells them not to dare to dare anymore in vain (or, rather, to the greatest harm to themselves) to be shameless - for [Tomos] is subject to official excommunication and is declared alien and rejected from the Catholic and Apostolic Church by anyone who again accuses the monks or generally appears as an adherent of the ideas of Barlaam 87; and it is also officially prohibited in the future to touch upon any of these and similar [topics] 88 - then what will be their indisputable answer? “The conciliar document,” they say, “excommunicated those who said anything poorly interpreted by Barlaam, and refutes the words of our opponents, not ours.” How is it, dears? “He wrote unorthodoxly,” they answered 89 . And [after all] they themselves showed the same thing, and the judges agreed. Как же [теперь] отменяются их слова? And, however, [Tomos] clearly determines the punishment not for those who were justified before, but for those who will henceforth touch upon [these and similar issues]. And this is who you are, as has now become clear to everyone. We did not initiate [disputes] before, but standing up for the truth and refuting what was slanderously said by Varlaam, as the “Tomos” testifies to this, we uttered and wrote words in agreement with the saints, which exposed Varlaam, who slanderously attacked the monks, and with him the disciple and heir of his evil teaching, Akindinus, which, after the conciliar condemnation of both of them, was confirmed in writing document (δι έγγραφου κεκύρωται συμβόλου). So, our disputes with them received the most favorable conclusion. So what else is there to say about this? Isn’t it clear that the Church of Christ, proactively, kindly and justly, publicly rejected and subjected you to a terrible excommunication, who later touched upon the same [issues] and accused the same of the same. 54. Well, isn’t it about the same thing that you are currently announcing everywhere, [says the “Tomos”, that] “Barlaam tried to bring the accusation of bitheism upon the monks” 90 - who consider not only God’s essence uncreated, but also the idolizing grace, the very lordship of the divine nature - because of which it became clear that he, in saying [this], was slanderous, and the monks - innocent and the highest accusations [brought] against them, as obeying and remaining faithful to the interpretations and traditions of the saints about such grace, as the conciliar document 91 shows verbatim, with which Barlaam himself now agrees, having fled from shame? So, Akindinus not once and not only in one way, but many times and in a variety of written documents and these terrible proclamations [to his alien Church, rendered] by impartial judges seems rightly [declared] guilty. After all, even if I miss his condemnation that preceded the official council decision (although, according to this official decision, “whoever appears again accusing the monks of anything of the blasphemous and slanderous things said or written by Barlaam against the monks, or rather, against the Church itself, or generally attacking them in such [issues], is subject to the same condemnation” 92), [then and then] how will the one who comes after what he said to say and write such things against them, or rather - who will try to attack them again in everything, even though, slyly trying to remain unnoticed, he expresses something in other words, firmly adhering [nevertheless] to the thoughts of him [Barlaam]? But this [Akindinus] does not want to hear [anything] else that concerns [the destruction] of his soul and those insidiously carried away by him, but, perverting the letter of this [conciliar] resolution, he writes that “the one who again accuses the monks is guilty [of the resolution], [condemning] not in general what Varlaam said, but what he spoke blasphemously and slanderously against the monks,” although it clearly establishes that [all] what he said against them, he said blasphemously and slanderously [and] he. 55. But, however, if the “Tomos” mentioned only monks, then there would be some deficiency, although very unnoticeable. Since, having spoken about “blasphemous and slanderous things said or written against the monks,” [“Tomos”] adds: “or, rather, against the Church itself,” does this not mean that the monks are the same as the Church of Christ, as being more firm in piety than anyone else, and that this results in a common accusation between them and the Church on his part? Is it really possible that anything he said against the Church, or, in other words, against the monks - after all, the decree covers both - was not blasphemous or slanderous? And the fact that he says that the Church testifies this in the “Tomos” against itself, isn’t it [a sign] in addition to obvious slander also of extreme madness? 56. And yet the Church of Christ, in the words of Paul, is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15), which, according to the God-speaking evangelist, “the gates of hell will not prevail” (Matthew 16:18), that is, the blasphemous lips of Barlaam and those like him. For even though by deception they draw some, no matter how many, by deception, they drive them out of the sacred Church, and she herself remains no less unshakable and unshakable, being immovably established by that by which the truth is established. For those who are [members of] the Church of Christ are also [adherents of] the truth, and those who are not [adherents of] the truth are by no means [members] of the Church of Christ. Therefore, how is it that everything that Barlaam said or wrote “against the monks or, rather, against the Church itself,” he said and wrote was not “blasphemous and slanderous”? Of course, among [all this] he said something from the right [dogmas], and not even just one thing, but many things. However, Nestorius, Eutyches and Pyrrhus said something blasphemous and slanderous, except that relating to the divine economy in the flesh; and even in relation to him - besides what they said [actually] blasphemous and slanderous? There is also something that even Arius and Sabellius said well about God. So does Varlaam. That is why it is added: “blasphemous and slanderous.” 57. You, as they say, were caught [in the net] by your own wings. For it has already become clear that everything you say or write, you say and write against the holy Church. After all, you openly assert that “there is something that Varlaam said against the Church that he said correctly, and for which he rightly accuses her.” And even more so now that you yourself have become his successor, proving this through lengthy speeches and writings. Then, pretending to be like-minded with her, you dare to [speak] against her in the most sacred Church, trying to present her as both Orthodox and slanderous. Is it possible for anyone to show a duality more wicked and nasty than this duality of yours? CHAPTER 11. The fact that everything that the first Varlaam, and after him Akindinus tried to say against Orthodoxy, is covered and specified by the “Tomos” that appeared as a result of the great councils that condemned them. 58. Over which of the accusations made by Varlaam against the monks, the “Tomos” did not triumph? Is this not what [he said] about the divine essence? Is it not about uncreated and idolizing energy and grace? Isn’t it yours and his crazy and truly vain invention about these [subjects] - I’m talking about the accusation of bitheism and your demonic resistance that stems from this? Is this not what refers to the beginningless and non-evening light? Isn’t that what is said about mental silence and sobriety (νήψεως) leading everyone to him? Is it not about the very words of the most sacred prayer accompanying it? Isn’t the “Tomos” established about all this through the [quotations] given by the monks from the inspired Scripture, which they unmistakably speak and philosophize? So, if ["Tomos"], having gone through everything in order, made a decision, then how did he not speak out against all [of this]? 59. But he mentions everything, especially the light that appeared on Mount Tabor, since it embraces all such [phenomena] and is the [most characteristic] example. For through it, according to the divine Maximus, [there is] every kind of theology, and we learn the spiritual logoi of the sacraments. So, since through this light Barlaam attacked all theology and divine contemplation, just as you followed him, then we do well when, speaking in defense of contemplation and theology, with all its means, and after him you, with God’s help, we cover with obvious shame. But now and in the future, no less through these letters we shame and will shame those who, like you, try to reduce to the level of creation the glory and kingdom of God, the lightness of His nature, that great and beginningless, ever-present, and ineffable light. CHAPTER 12. A gentle exhortation to the Barlaamites to convert and to those who chose piety to turn away from them until they converted. 60. If you strive, one could say as such, to get rid of shame - both present and future terrible - then get rid of lies and, ceasing to defend darkness, make peace with the light and hasten to build the works of light on the basis of faith in the light, and with a temperate life δι εμμελούς αγωγής ) “go to radiance” (Baruch 4:2) of him, for this is the light of the “Sun of righteousness” (Mal. 4:2) and truth, which not only does not tend to shine for those who move away from these [virtues], but even for them to believe in it. So, kiss virtue and truth, so that, thereby approaching the light and unashamedly looking at it during the promised and future of its inexpressible appearance, with its ineffable radiance, divinely and ineffably capture the eye (όψιν) of the soul, and through it - the body, becoming sons of the unsetting light. 61. But, however, it seems that we are singing to the deaf, turning speech to them and explaining all this. Therefore, you who have “ears to hear” (Matthew 13:9, 43; Mark 4:9, 23), beware of harm from them. For it is not a trifle to communicate with the defenders of darkness; it is not a trifle to give them any reason for boldness against the beginningless and unevening light, the common hope of the pious; This is no small harm - and “rejoice to say” (2 John 1:10-11) officially, and moreover, on such an occasion, those who were excommunicated and declared [outside the Church], subjected to penance and rejected from God and His Catholic Church. “Do not partake of the unfruitful work of darkness,” says the apostle, “rather, reprove” (Eph. 5:11). And words against piety are even more dangerous for communion than deeds of darkness. “For having all sinned,” he says, “and come short of the glory of God, we will be justified through His grace” (Rom. 3:23–24). For our lack of action in doing the divine commandments makes up for the excess of divine love for mankind. About those who do not ardently adhere to the truth of Orthodoxy, but seem to have cooled a little in communication with heretics, the Lord said in the Apocalypse: “Thou art neither cold nor warm; and because you are stupefied, the Imam will vomit you out of My mouth” (Rev. 3:15–16). But it is not a trifle that the newly-minted teachers, as they call themselves, of dogmatic acrivia distort pious dogmas. You have heard what blasphemies arise from what they defend and propose: is not their wickedness the bringing together of every evil heresy? CHAPTER 13. That timely and consistently in relation to his evil tricks, the evil-doer, through those who obeyed him, has now set out on a campaign against the divine grace of God. 62. And it seems that in time the first apostate and the crafty skirmisher raised his allies against the divine grace of God. For when the Father was preached by Moses, [the devil] took advantage of the Gentiles as allies to destroy [him]. And after them Arius, Aetius and Eunomius went into a frenzy against the revealed divinity of the Son; then - against the divine Spirit - Macedonia. Now, consistently, after the war against the Trinity, there is a war against the energy of deification and grace common to the three [Persons]. For he knows that if he manages to make sure that they do not believe in it, then at the same time he will again fulfill his entire intention, leaving us no opportunity to benefit from God’s former manifold providence for us. But let us, imitating the holy fathers, stand up valiantly and let us “resist [the devil], and he flees,” according to the [apostolic] saying, “from us” (James 4:7), and reluctantly, as an example of flight, with shame, shows his flight to those fighting with him. 63. And if the representatives of the new heresy persist in throwing out [from confessional definitions] words that exactly refute them and [as if] a wall separating all their wicked inventions, just as once the Arians [sought to throw out the expressions] “consubstantial” and “from essence,” calling them unusual and alien to Scripture, then we will give them the words the great Basil, that “even if someone says that these words are not characteristic of Scripture, then there is no difference, since they have a pious meaning; whereas heretics, even if they use words from the Scriptures, are no less suspicious and corrupt in mind” 93 . However, we did not use new words unknown to the fathers. CHAPTER 14. That the expressions with which Varlaam and Akindinus pretend to be seduced expose their slander. 64. And if they again put forward as a pretext that there are those who are seduced by [our] expressions, we will again answer them with the words of the same [St. Basil]: “if the words themselves serve to seduce such people, then not [only] some, but all, should equally suffer from them” 94 . If, however, they are dear to everyone else, and more than others to those who are [distinguished] by reason and the exact experience of what is said, and if their opinion is confirmed in writing by those chosen from those who live their entire lives on the Holy Mountain and from those who lead a holy and silent life in Thessalonica, then is it not clear from here that it is not words that are the reason for some, but the malice of those who [mis]interpret them? For those who condemned the Epistles of the Apostle [in fact] were not the accusers of him, but of their own perverted mind. So who is it, whose temptation and embarrassment they use as an excuse? There are none of the others. If those to whom this happened are from among those who studied with Varlaam, and from among these last ones, they were more damaged by him than others, then what is surprising if they are offended by those who dismiss their follies, and strive to defend their lies? Consequently, [our] words publicly branding their slander are a burden for them, and not a temptation. So, would they stop grumbling, so as not to openly show themselves to be afflicted with the same disease as he, and would not force us, “to spy on them” according to the commandment (Numbers 1:3, 3:15, 4:23, 27, 29, 32, Sir. 7:24) and at the same time counting the harm from silence, so that if we remain silent, evil will not has spread - to apply to them drugs appropriate to their illness, which are the essence of the following works. For in the preceding word 95 we have shown, with God's help, that the divine energy is distinct from the divine essence; and in what is now coming to an end it is clearly shown that those who reject this pious distinction and the corresponding division in God 96 again open the gates to all the evil heresies that have existed since the ages. And in the following [works], we, having detailed the blasphemies they wrote against the divine light and divine energy and grace, inflamed by which, they rebelled against every sacred man and against every shrine, we will expose them, again with the assistance of the same divine energy of the divine Spirit. This refers to the second labor of Hercules, when Eurystheus sent him to kill the Lernaean Hydra - a monster with the body of a snake and nine dragon heads, which had the property of growing back after being cut off. But Hercules’ assistant Iolaus set fire to part of a nearby grove and, with burning tree trunks, burned the hydra’s necks, from which Hercules knocked off the heads with his club; as a result, the hydra stopped growing new heads, and Hercules was able to defeat it. That is, taken from Scripture, and not from pagan mythology. Palamas here means the young king John V Palaiologos, his mother Anna of Savoy and the guardians of the throne - Patriarch John Kalek and Navarch Alexius Apokavkos. (Publisher's note.) This refers to Irina (in monasticism Eulogius) Khumnena, the widow of Tsarevich John, son of Andronikos II. This refers to the work "θεός" from "θεάσθαι". The verbs “to run” and “to burn” (θέειν and αιθειν), to which St. Gregory the Theologian raises the word “θεός”, are relative, because you can only run somewhere or from somewhere, and not in general, just as you can only burn something. Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 30, 18, PG 36, 125С-128А. Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Heavenly Hierarchy, 4, 1, p. 78. Basil the Great, Epistle 234, 1, PG 32, 869A. Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names, 4, 13, p. 334. Maximus the Confessor, Scholium on the treatise “On the Divine Names”, 2, 5, p. 258. Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 31, 32, PG 36, 169B. See: aka, Letter 101, PG 37, 192B. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 1, 1, PG 45, 416BC. Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 40, 5, PG 36, 365A. He is the same, Word 31, 14, PG 36, 149A. Athanasius of Alexandria, Orationes tres contra Arianos, 1, 28, PG 26, 69B. The same, Epistula ad episcopos Aegypti et Libyae, PG 25, 573A; Epistula ad Afros episcopos, PG 26, 1036C; De incarnatione contra Apollinarium, PG 26, 1157D. (John 1:3) Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 4, PG 29, 689C. Same, Message 234, 1, PG 32, 869A. Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate, 8, PG 75, 101D. Justin Philosopher (pseudepigrapha), Quaestiones Christianorum ad gentiles, 1, 3, PG 6, 1432. Ibid., 2, 6, PG 6, 1433. See: Gregory of Nyssa, To Aulavius on the fact that there are not three gods, PG 45, 124D-125A. St. Gregory Palamas, instead of a quotation, gives here a free retelling of the thoughts of St. Gregory of Nyssa. Maximus the Confessor, Chapters on theology and the economy of the incarnation of the Son of God, 2, 2; 2, 3, PG 90, 1125CD. That is, detached - free from connection with anything else conceivable by it. Aka, Επιστολή τιρός Ιωάννην Κουβικουλάριον, PG 91, 485C. See: aka, Πρός Μάρινον, PG 91, 200С. John of Damascus, An Accurate Statement of the Orthodox Faith, 15 (59) / De Gruyter (ed.) Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, vol. 2, Berlin, 1973 (Patristische Texte und Studien, 12), 59, 132–134. Maximus the Confessor, Εξήγησις τής κινήσεως, 8, PG 90, 121C. Aka, Πρός Μάρινον, PG 91, 200V. Aka, Πρός Νικανδρον, PG 91, 96B. Justin Philosopher (pseudepigraph), Ερωτήσεις χριστιανικαι προς ελληνας, 3, PG 6, 1428D. Emperor Julian, Εις τόν βασιλέα H λιον πρός σ αλούστιον , 20, Lacombrade, S. (editor), L'empereur Julien. Oeuvres complutes, vol. 2. 2, Paris, 1964, p. 17. Maximus the Confessor, On Perplexities towards John, 77 (15), PG 91, 1237B. Aka, Disputation with Pyrrhus, PG 91, 341 A. Aka, Πρός Μάρινον, PG 91, 200A. John of Damascus, An Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 3, 17, op. Cit., 61, 16–21. This refers to the VI Ecumenical Council of 681–682. See: Octoechos, canon of the Trinity, 2nd tone, canto 5. John of Damascus, Homilia in transfigurationem domini, 12, PG 96, 564B. See: Menaion, On the sixth day of the month of August, at Matins in Polyeleos, the second sat on Glory, and now: “The hidden lightning... of Thy being, O Christ, and the divine splendor of the saints, thou hast shown unto this mountain.” Col. 2 That is, that it, not being beginningless, first arose on Mount Tabor. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 9, 22, PG 32, 108C. In his various works, St. Gregory attributes this quote to Rev. Maxim, then St. Athanasius the Great; and in the treatise “On the fact that Varlaam and Akindinus are dichotomites” a very similar passage is given as belonging to St. Cyril of Alexandria. However, it is not literally found in the works of these saints. However, there is a similar passage in the “Interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer” by St. Maxima (PG 90, 884BC). Although the main meaning of the word “ό αιών” is “age”, “eternity”, but, unlike “τό αϊδιον”, meaning eternity as a timeless category, it should often be understood rather as a large or indefinite period of time. That’s why we translated “έν αίώνι” not as “in eternity,” but “in time.” Maxim the Confessor, To Marin, PG 91, 96A. Gregory of Nyssa, To Eunomius, 2, 1, 678, W. Jaeger, 1, p. 364; PG 45, 461AB. Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names, 2, 7, p. 264–266. Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate, 31, PG 75, 448D. Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 2, 29, PG 29, 640C. Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 38, 7, PG 36, 317D – 320A; Word 45, 3, PG 36, 628B. See: Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 4, PG 29, 680B. Maximus the Confessor, Questions and Answers to Thalassius, 61, PG 90, 637D. Dionysius the Areopagite, Epistle 2, p. 768–770. Maximus the Confessor, Questions and Answers to Thalassius, 61, scholium 16, PG 90, 644D. John of Damascus, Homilia in transfigurationem domini, 13, PG 96, 564D. Maximus the Confessor, On Perplexities towards John, 25 (5, 21), PG 91, 1141AB. Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 41, 11, PG 36, 444B. See: John Chrysostom, Discourse on Psalm 44, 2–3, PG 55, 186. See: Επιστολή προς Αθανάσιον Κυζικου, 24–25, P. Χρήστου, vol. 434–436. Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names, 2, 4, p. 254. See also: On mystical theology, 5, p. 762.c Maximus the Confessor, Chapters on Theology, 1, 49, PG 90, 1101A. Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 4, PG 29, 689C. In the text of St. Vasily stands not “self-hypostatic” (αύθυπόστατος), as in Palamas, but “hypostatic” (ένυπόστατος). That is, Sabellius said that in God there is only essence, which in different Maximus the Confessor, On Perplexities towards John, 25 (5, 21), PG 91, 1141A. See: Gregory the Theologian, Επιστολή 101, PG 37, 192B Anagyris is a foul-smelling shrub, Anagyris foetida, from the moth family, the smell of the leaves and taste of the fruits cause severe nausea. This is where the ancient saying came from: “don’t move the anagyris.” See: Discourses on the Gospel of Matthew, 58, 3, PG 58, 562. Aetius (died 367) – heretic; was successively a slave, a traveling mechanic, a goldsmith, a doctor, a shoemaker, a theologian and, finally, a teacher of the new church. He was a representative of the most widespread faction within the Arian party; taught that the Son is not like the Father - ανόμοιος, a different essence - έξ έτέρας ουσιας, created from nothing - έξ ουκ όντων, as a result of which his adherents were called Anomians, Eterusians or exukontians. They were also called Eunomians, after Eunomius, a student and friend of Aetius. Eutyches is the founder of the Christological heresy of the Eutychians. According to his teaching, in Christ everything human was completely absorbed by the divine, and therefore Christ had only apparent flesh. This heresy was condemned by the “house” council of Constantinople in 448, chaired by Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Eutyches, who was the archimandrite of one of the monasteries, was deposed. Dioscorus - Patriarch of Alexandria, successor in the department of St. Cyril, who supported Eutyches. He presided over the Ephesian “robber” council of 449, which acquitted Eutyches and condemned St. Flavian. At the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon, in 451, Dioscorus was condemned - formally only for the violence he used during the “robber” council in Ephesus against Orthodox opponents. Then he was exiled to Paphlagonia, to Gangry, where he died in 464. Akindinus, polemicizing with Varlaam, called the divine light uncreated, and polemicizing with Palamas, created. At the same time, he explained that only the Tabor light, seen by the three apostles, was mysterious and uncreated, and every other light - even if it appears to contemplatives - is different from it and is created. See: Επίστολή προς Αθανάσιον Κυζίκου, 8, P. Χρήστου, σ. 418–419 (ed. note). See: Σ υνοδικός τόμος A, PG 151, 691D-692A. Ibid., 51, PG 151, 691C. Ibid., 52, PG 151, 691D-692A. The quote is not identified. This refers to the treatise “On Divine Union and Separation.” For the understanding of the term “separation” in relation to God, see note. 1 to the above treatise. You might be interested in: