Второе слово возражения к Акиндину, приверженцу ереси варлаамова злославия, писавшему в ее защиту после бегства и соборного осуждения первого.

CHAPTER 1. About the fact that it is a common place for all heretics, under the pretext of the simplicity of God, to call the Orthodox two-theists or tritheists, of which Akindinus was jealous of the heretics, having slandered Palamas in two-theism. 1. Of the three, generally speaking, [means] by which those who, after the appearance in the flesh of the Word of God, fell into evil heresies, deceived themselves and their followers into holding to lies as if truth, not one, as can be seen, is absent from our opponents. What are these [means]? - A feigned reverence for the divine, the sayings of the prophets, apostles and fathers that they misinterpret, and, moreover, God’s unity and simplicity, under the pretext of which they trumpet everywhere, like Orthodox Ditheists, supposedly not observing divine simplicity. So Sabellius the Libyan called tritheists those who worship one God in three perfect hypostases, himself reducing Them to a single hypostasis under the pretext of simplicity. So Arius and Eunomius and those like them, supposedly for the sake of the unity of God, believing only the Father to be the uncreated God, argued that tritheists are those who teach that not only the Father, but also the Son and the Spirit of God are uncreated, so that the great Basil was forced to write an apology to those who accused him of tritheism. As proof of their teaching, each brought a selection of passages from the inspired Scripture that seemed to confirm it, and, feigning extreme reverence for them, they did not accept the additions allowed by piously wise ones to [clearly] reveal the truth. 2. For Sabellius cited [in his defense] what was said by the Lord in the Gospels: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), and those who said that They are one, but [only] in essence, being different in hypostasis - and [who spoke] with many evidence - considered disgusting and evil, believing and calling them innovators, as inventing additions to Speeches. Arius also exhibited what was said by the Lord, that “My sick Father is not Me” (John 14:28), and proving that He called the Father greater than Himself in humanity, or in the sense of reason, being by nature of one honor and one in essence with Him, He did not even tolerate hearing, loudly scolding them as inventors of new words, consubstantials and polytheists. So Nestorius, not accepting the hypostatic unity received from us [humanity] and, out of love for mankind, having accepted the Word that is not akin to Himself, believed that he kept the Hypostasis of the Word of God unharmed and not doubled, and also laid the accusation on all the rightful philosophists that they make the Word of God complex. But both Dioscorus and Eutyches denied the difference between Christ’s two natures, madly believing in this a defense of simplicity, and raised the accusation of ditheism against those who recognized the difference of unfused [natures], as if [this difference] did not inseparably divide, but simply separated [the Divinity and humanity in Christ]. Pyrrhus and Sergius in the same way persecuted those who, according to two natures, spoke of two actions and wills in Christ, foolishly believing that each energy introduces a [special] person, and asserting that the distinction of actions and wills is a distinction of persons. 3. So now, in imitation of them, those who now, under the pretext of the divine simplicity of the “Spirit of grace,” in apostolic words, “reprove” (Heb. 10:29) and reduce the non-evening light to the level of the creature, and reject the most divine radiance [sent] to the worthy, falsely accuse us, leading the grace and glory, and lordship of the divine nature, since we are talking about the difference essence and energy and show [what it consists of], in ditheism. And hypocritically feigning reverence for the accuracy of the right confession, they refuse to convince other saints, and those whom they themselves proclaim to be recognized theologians have words about which they say that they take literally (which every heretic could say, and even at times they said this, but were exposed by the then champions of the Spirit of truth), and which they reinterpret and distort. Without accepting their scriptures, which clarify the truth, they were completely absorbed in error. 4. So now those who oppose the truth are in a hurry to consign to oblivion in every possible way, as if they were exposing them to the slander that they still adhere to. We, by the power and grace of the Giver of truth, will not cease with our writings to help the truth and show the intact meaning of the Sayings to those who listen to what we say. 5. So, since they have now found themselves in Thessalonica and presented to us the evil writings of Akindinus, who led their heresy after the flight of that Barlaam, it is fitting for us to expose them in a clear light, contrasting them in writing with an exposition of the truth, so that, just as then he was exposed by us who confronted him face to face when he said wicked things at the great council this year, so now, when he put them in writing, being ashamed of our writings in defense of the truth, he would, as far as possible, be restrained from spreading his malice. But, however, where can I begin to talk about [a person] who was previously exposed by the council and who not only did not want to change for the better, but who is also trying to establish his wickedness through long writings? Where, if not from the words of the most noble Isaiah? 6. “Woe to those who write wickedness: for those who write wickedness write, and what will they do on the day of visitation” (Isa. 10:1, 3): not only [the visitation, that is, the judgment] awaiting them when the “Lord of vengeance” (Ps. 93:1) “comes,” according to the words of false theologians, “Such as he was seen by the disciples or as he appeared when divinity prevailed.” flesh” 97, but even now [judgment] from us, according to the venerable and paternal instructions and the knowledge of the truth given to us by God’s grace? For since they lacked dummies to hide themselves in opposing the saints, they took advantage of us instead, it is impossible to justly reproach us for the fact that we decided, or rather were forced, as far as we were able, to carefully disassemble and carefully examine in the face of the truth, using precise criteria, the truly evil works published, alas, against Orthodoxy by these unfortunates, through which they reduce to the level of creation the radiance of the Only Begotten, by which He shone through the body on the mountain of the disciples; with the help of which he revealed before their eyes the brilliance of divinity hidden under the flesh 98; in which he will come, shining upon all the sons of the future century, as the “Father of the future century” 99, or better yet, producing in them a constant and unchanging light, and making the participants of this light themselves into different suns. CHAPTER 2. That all the verbal efforts of Akindinus are aimed at showing creatures the radiance of the divine nature, with which the Lord showered the disciples on Tabor. 7. After all, this light, unsetting, unceasing, unevening, beginningless, ever-present, the goodness of the age to come, the glory of the Father - for we believe that “the Son will come in glory” (Matthew 25:31) of the Father, and no less the Spirit (since the glory of the Father, the Son and the Spirit is one), - they dishonor through their writings presented here - alas for their error, - they are maliciously trying to show it as created and by all means contrive to convince the pious of this. “For the only uncreated light and uncreated glory,” they say, “is the nature of God; and the light that shone on Tabor is not even a natural symbol. How can he be uncreated?” And this despite the fact that not more than a year ago, by the official “Conciliar Tomos,” as you all know, [all] those who think so wisely were excommunicated and declared alien to the Church of God and cut off, unless they repent, from all Christian fullness. 8. So, to this day, the enemy of the great world did not at all dare to express his evil teaching to the local [inhabitants] in writing (however, without weakening, he continued to pour the poison of malice into those whom he could), although he was greatly favored by the outbreak of civil revolts. And to those who were far from us, as far as Thessalonica and Verria, he sent [his] teachings in written form, from where the wicked manuscripts they had collected were recently sent to us from the men there, distinguished by their intelligence and virtue. The damage in them is not such as would be in the case of some husband gifted by nature with good qualities (ευφυής), who has deviated from the straight [path], but such as are [characteristic of a person] crafty by will and not right by nature, having, moreover, blossomed and multiplied deceit, deceit and malice, abundantly drawn from evil source - Varlaam, who laid the foundation for this error. So, since they have already been thoroughly exposed before, now there is almost nothing more to expose. But since the teachers themselves and the authors of such [writings], having not known such important subjects, think to speak to many who have not known what they have not known, we need to consider this, and first of all, the ditheism attributed to us by Akindinus, about which he constantly repeats. 9. For he says: “Who has ever heard of two uncreated, co-essential, supra-temporal divinities, one higher and the other lower, one active and the other operative, one invisible and the other perceived in the Spirit even with bodily eyes, or one of such, which we hear about today?” Isn’t the figure of speech itself prepared to shock the readers? For, knowing the unacceptability of what follows, he confuses the minds of his listeners with his cry in advance, so that, having thus slipped through, he appears acceptable, pouncing on us as if we were exhausted. For I do not think that the mental serpent would have been able to attract Eve to the interview if, through the paradoxical nature of the rational speech of the dumb serpent, he had not at the same time drawn her attention to himself and brought confusion into her mind, and then, having thus stolen [her attention], he had not implanted [into her head] destructive advice. But so much like an evil-doer, he prepares the entrance and maliciously smears poison on the arrow, supposedly striving for a single divinity, the one who - alas for his audacity! – reduces her to the level of a creature. What should I weep about first? About his tongue that serves lies or about his maddened mind? What to expose first? Is it the corruption from which he tries to transfer the reason, which, as he thinks, the fathers give against themselves, to us, deceiving those who listen, or the multitude and degree of absurdities into which he threatens to fall, since he completely rejects some words of the saints, and reinterprets and distorts others and attracts them to his teaching, with which they are not compatible? CHAPTER 3. That on the basis of what he allegedly deduces the accusation of bitheism, Akindin himself is shown to be godless, and which also contains a brief summary of Varlaam’s wickedness and his conciliar condemnation concerning the same issues. 10. For, as our word will further show, this unfortunate man himself became an atheist, just to condemn us in two-theism. He puts on a verbal performance and prepares for the fight, kindling within himself a righteous zeal, as if we were preaching two divinities. And first we must, if possible, briefly touch on how he understands this. When this Barlaam, out of a desire to harm those who had devoted themselves to God in silence, slandered every manifestation of God and declared secondary [knowledge], far superior to the knowledge of beings revealed from the lessons of philosophy and the knowledge of God flowing from it, and the light that shone on the mountain from the Savior tried to show created, describable and in the proper sense of the word sensory, beginning and ending, and one of the sensory phenomena ( φασμάτων), and also the worst thought, as imaginary, then we, on the one hand, at the request of the sacredly silent, and on the other, ourselves realizing the need to come out in defense of the light, with the help of the Light itself, showed it as it was: uncreated, ever-present, indescribable, existing not only above our feelings, but also above the mind, even if it was visible with our eyes the apostles, who then received the power and grace of the future age, and are also called saints by divinity 100. So, since this has been proven by us through many arguments and testimonies, he then tried to classify us among those who think evil about the created and participatory nature of God. When he heard that we, according to the fathers, consider and call this [light] the radiance, grace, glory and lordship of God, which is divinely worthy, and not nature (for “no one was in hypostasis” (έν ύποστήματι) 101 and the essence of God, according to what is written, neither saw nor expressed the nature of God 102 "); when, therefore, he heard this, then, changing tactics, he began to say that if this light is uncreated and is called divinity, being the lightness of the divine nature, but not [the] nature itself, then there are two uncreated divinities, again proving by means of reduction to the absurd that this divine light, as it seems to him, is created. As if someone were to demand that thought should not be called mind (μή νουν καλείσθαι την διάνοιαν) and should not be incorporeal, so that every person does not have two minds, since he has both mind and thought, through which the mind makes movements [outward] towards [its own] detection, remaining essentially non-transient (αμετάβατος). 11. So, having been publicly declared slanderous for this, he immediately withdrew from shame and, not caring about anything else, flowed to the Italians. And his co-conspirator, successor and follower, Akindinus, as if wearing the same rags of evil inside out in order to hide from those who see him wearing the costume of that one, and to appear to some as denying communication with him, cleverly turns everything upside down and makes the first last, first of all, presenting as a pretext two uncreated divinities, as absolutely unheard of and absurd, and exposing those who receive them to irreparable troubles in one way or another, so that The simplest of people, fleeing from apparent harm, necessarily agreed with him [that] the divinity that shone on the mountain from the Savior was created - [thus, he] was doing something like what those who bet on fish in rivers do. CHAPTER 4. About the fact that with his cunning Akindin is trying to drag everyone along with him into godlessness. 12. For these [the latter], having blocked the channel with pegs, stones and poles, and in the deepest places, from where prey, swimming deep under water, can more easily escape, setting up, as it were, sharp blades, then on top - after all, it is the custom of grazing river fish to rise to the top - as if opening a truly hellish mouth for those living in the water, tying them, they fasten the net so that the fish, trying to avoid apparent danger from the stockade, as if they would voluntarily hasten to capture an unforeseen and inevitable danger. This is the trick of those who drag us into atheism through the fear of bitheism. For it is equally [ungodly]—or rather absolutely one and the same thing—to think that God does not exist at all, and to believe that the divinity shown by Christ on the mountain is created. After all, there is one divinity in Christ and in Christ’s Father and Spirit. But the lightness of the divine nature is inseparable from the divine nature. So what kind of god will remain for the one who worships her as a creature? CHAPTER 5. The fact that Palamas is not talking about two divinities, but rather saves those carried away by Akindinus and Barlaam from their atheism and at the same time ditheism, showing that the lightness of the divine nature, being uncreated and called divinity, does not in the least prevent divinity from being unique and simple. 13. So, we do not worship two divinities. Away from the evil of those who said: “We will cover ourselves with lies,” and “those who put their hope in lies” (Is. 28:15), whose “tongue is like a serpent, the poison of asps is under their lips” (Ps. 139:3–4). But this is the purpose of all our words - to break the ruts that drive [Christians] into wickedness - which are now the writings of Akindinus, as before - of Barlaam, who was his teacher of error - and to clearly show that the lightness of the divine nature, being uncreated and called divinity, in no way prevents divinity from being unique and simple and does not cancel [this simplicity and uniqueness]. After all, the visual power of the “knowing all things before their existence” (Dan. 13:42) of the Spirit is also not nature, according to the fathers, but is uncreated and is called divinity, and does not cancel the simplicity and uniqueness of divinity. In the same way, the god-creating and providential power of God, being so [that is, divinity] is called, as the great Dionysius says 103, and the cleansing, [manifesting in the ability] to burn and destroy all filth, and the fact that God is everywhere and nowhere, and in general ever-moving - from [the verb] “to run” (θειν) and, so to say, running away and approaching everyone with timeless speed. 14. So, since none of these [forces], even though they have a difference in relation to each other (for not everything that God sees, He deifies), from which it is clear that each of them is different from the divine nature, since everything that is absolutely identical to the same thing is not at all different from each other; so, since none of them prevents divinity from being unique and simple, then how is it that the light of the future and abiding [unchangeable] age, the common hope of the pious, the lightness of the divine nature, most justly called divinity - for it is more than all [divine energies] an idolizing gift, since with it “they will be enlightened like the Sun of the righteous” (Matthew 13:43), among whom God will be [as among] the gods 104, distributing the honors of the bliss there - then in what way, then, will she, called the divinity and lordship of the divine nature, but not [the] nature itself, not allow those who worship her uncreated to worship the one and simple divinity? Or you yourself, as we said earlier, will not consider at all and will not at all call our thought mind, due to the fact that it is transferred to what is perceived [by the senses], while the mind in us essentially remains unoriginating, or then, thanks to it, due to the fact that the mind [of the teacher] puts the mind [into the heads] of the unenlightened, you, perhaps, will also consider that the mental essence is transmitted by the teachers to the students, just as you you say that partakers of God partake of the divine nature. Or will you try to convince us to consider thought no different from the mental essence (just as you say that the uncreated energy [derived] from it is no different from the divine essence), fearing that just as there [it turns out], in your opinion, there are two gods, so here each of us will have two minds. So, these are not our words, as if there are two or more divinities, but villainously slandering us to deceive the inexperienced, for it is they who insidiously compose and propose [such speeches], bringing them in favor of the evil they themselves have invented. CHAPTER 6. That it is impossible and prophetically forbidden for anyone living after Christ to fall into bitheism, and that those who slanderously bring this accusation against the Orthodox are themselves plunged into it by their own malice. 15. Having examined [this question], anyone will see that truly none of those who are called by the name of Christ have ever fallen into two-theism, for this is impossible. And what can we say about Christians, when even among those who now - after Christ - indulge in wickedness, polytheism does not prevail? For this, too, is one of the signs of Christ’s coming, according to the inspired prophets, that polytheistic error is destroyed and consumed from the earth. Therefore, when we see this accusation constantly slanderously brought forward against the saints by heretics, we see rather that [even] the accusers of praiseworthy [saints] themselves from slander reach this malice, and do not consciously turn to it. CHAPTER 7. About the fact that Akindinus is led by a different path either to the same abyss as Arius, or to the same as Sabellius. 16. So, listen to the speeches of Arius, which are exactly in agreement with these speeches of Akindinus against us. For this Arius, calling the Son of God a creature against those who were still living then, and also those who passed away from men, the fathers, just as at the present time Barlaam and Akindinus, against us and our fathers, call the Lordship of God a creature, and against those who, together with the Father, consider the Son uncreated, then he uttered exactly the same speeches as Akindinus recently made against us, saying: “who has ever heard of two uncreated, co-essential, super-temporal gods, or that “Who is above all is one” and simple “God” (Eph. 4:6) was two: one, born, and the other, unborn; one, inferior and occupying second place, and the other, greater and superior; one who somehow became visible and descended from heaven to earth, and another who was forever invisible and abiding in heaven?” Who, having intelligence and hearing this preached simply and in many words, will nevertheless calmly and serenely endure and restrain himself, so as not to shout with all his might at those who speak and write such things? Sabellius would have uttered the same words, although not with the same evil intent, against those who divide the one God according to hypostases. And the fact that each of them, one dividing, and the other poorly uniting the Divinity, served as a reason for the saints to compose and use sometimes dividing, sometimes connecting expressions and [with their] writings to proclaim the unity and difference of the divinity reigning over all (παμβασιλίδος θεότητος); and that they themselves, therefore, gave those who write in defense of piety a reason to write lengthy works on the difference of divinity, they tried to completely consign to oblivion, although they were engaged [themselves] in vain [verbal disputes]. 17. Thus Athanasius the Great was slandered by the minions of Arius, who falsely claimed that he himself [on his own] began [the theological dispute], and not as having stood up for the truth. This is how Eunomius begins his crafty writings, as if others were rejecting the generally accepted truth about God, although he himself was its main denier. So those who adhere to the Nestorian way of thinking, even after these councils and the immutable definitions against them, blamed [everything] the stubbornness of Cyril and declared his divine writings an innovation, and, taking advantage of the time of civil rebellion under the emperor Zeno, sent out letters everywhere ordering them to be burned. 18. So, Akindinus, stretching out his noble hand, acquired [himself] the art that came from Eunomius and others like him, which was already in danger of crumbling with time. Is it that Eunomius supported himself with another part of the error, and Akindinus bravely plunged into both and [not only] keeps on his tongue the errors that are opposite [to each other], but also himself invented a third, newer one, in order to surpass the leaders of evil not only [each] one at a time, but also two [at once]. For when he hears the saints clearly saying that even the angels themselves do not see this super-essence, but its lordship, and that “the name “divinity” refers not to the nature of the Spirit, but to His visual power” 105, and that the Spirit is poured out and given in measure 106, since it is not the essence of the Spirit, but energy, that is poured out on the believers and is shared and shared by them 107; when he hears such things from us, citing them as proof of difference, then he immediately calls created, the unfortunate one, the divine energy, the Holy Spirit Himself, the very ever-present power of the Spirit, the very lordship of this super-essence that is uniquely shared by the saints; after all, the lightness and power of the Spirit are inseparable from the Spirit, which blissfully unites those worthy of it, deifying, with God and makes them churches of the Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19). “For,” says [Basily the Great], “the life that the Spirit gives to the hypostases of another is not separated from Him, but He also has life in Himself, and those who partake of Him live like God, having acquired divine and heavenly life” 108. Divine life and the participation of every good for those who are worthy of [this] is the lightness of the divine nature. 19. But Akindinus says that “if we, despite the fact that the difference between [them] in relation to each other is clearly visible, call both the energy and the essence of God uncreated, then we will fall into ditheism.” And this is why he claims that we worship two divinities. So, in this way, Barlaam and Akindinus, alas, planted in their souls the teaching of Arius, who was the first after the [incarnation] of Christ to classify God among the creatures, because they too make God a creature. For what if they rush in a different, yet adjacent [way] to the same abyss of wickedness? 20. When will they hear again that the same word [serves as a definition] of the divine essence and energy 109, and that those who are purified in heart “will see God” (Matthew 5:8), and not creation, and that “the essence of everyone is characterized [based] on energy, so that uncreated energy indicates the uncreated nature, and created energy indicates the created nature” 110; when, it means, they again hear this from us, citing this as proof that God’s energy is uncreated, as being inseparable from essence, then they say that uncreated energy and essence are absolutely one [and the same] and are in no way different [from one another]. And that God is essentially invisible and incomprehensible, and that what is known will in one way or another be different from what is absolutely incomprehensible, and that those to which the same word is applied are not necessarily absolutely the same [and the same], and therefore in some way differ [from each other], although inseparable [from one another], then without taking any of this into account, they merge [it] into one; It’s better to say that they abbreviate (συντέμνουσι) God like Sabellius. For what if they rush towards the same wickedness in another [way], depriving [the inherent qualities], narrowing and diminishing the highest riches of divinity 111 and driving God into one thing, [that is] into only one essence? After all, this is precisely what they want to prove here through the fact that energy [allegedly] is no different from essence, and in other places, openly asserting, they write that “it is generally accepted that there is only one beginningless and infinite, the essence of God, and everything that is apart from it is created nature, and that the only uncreated light and uncreated glory is the nature of God,” neglecting themselves - alas for their insolence! – [existing] hypostatic properties around nature. But what is this third evil that they themselves have invented? CHAPTER 8. About the fact that he invented, in addition to these, another, third evil, and what it is. 21. Being in a difficult situation, since around them on all sides there is a strong noose of many testimonies from the divine Scripture, [confirming] that God's essence and God's energy are both in some way different from one another, and [both] are uncreated, they did not want to at least partially depart from [their] evil dogmas, and find [themselves] refuge in adding yet another evil. For they say that “the uncreated energies of God are only the Son and the Holy Spirit,” being unable to even understand that they willy-nilly mention the uncreated energies of God in the plural, and God’s essence can never and in no way be represented in the plural. If they say that they do not posit them in quantities greater than two, then it is impossible to posit two essences of God. If they also say that from these two uncreated things one is made, then this is the opposite of what they emitted against us with that stentor voice 112, that “who has heard of one divinity [which would consist] of two uncreated [parts]?” 22. And yet, in their opinion, the uncreated essence and energy is one and the same as divinity, and is not different from it. So, if the uncreated energy is only the Father's Son or the Father's Spirit, then each of Them is the divinity of the Father. Then the Father, in His turn, whose divinity will be? Or is He no divinity, no energy, no essence at all? Well, then, said the wise Maximus in the divine, that not each of Them [is divinity], nor one for the other, but divinity is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit 113. For, according to the namesake theology Gregory, “what the three [Persons] have in common is that [Their] divinity was not created” 114 ; and, according to the god-verbal Gregory of Nyssa, “[the word] “God” indicates the Actor, and “divinity” indicates energy, so that none of the three [Persons] is energy, but rather each of Them is an agent.” 115 Therefore, if someone calls the energy of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit, then at the same time with these energies he will mean, or pronounce, the hypostatic (τό ένυπόστατον). The great Basil, in his chapters about Him, showed the ever-present and inseparable energies of the Spirit as many and not hypostatic 116. 23. In the same way and in another way, the Son and the Holy Spirit are rightly called by the holy fathers the energies of the Father: for example, because of inseparability and co-essence, as [they are called] the rays of the Father, although they possess the same ray and energy as the Father. “For this,” says [Gregory the Theologian], “wealth is fusion and a single eruption (τό εξαλμα) of lordship” 117. But this has been discussed in more detail in our other [works], and will become clearer as our word progresses. However, since we, together with the saints of God, recently fell under the accusation of double theism, not only because, speaking according to them, we became guilty, but also because today’s accusers say the same things against us as those of that time did against those, then let’s see how they threw off the accusations brought against them. Did some [of them justify themselves] by refusing to call the three uncreated one God and God from God and saying that in regard to cause and causation, They occupy second place after the Father, and He is “the greater one” (Jn. 14:28), as Athanasius, Basil and Gregory 118 the great wrote, and after them the divine Cyril 119; and others - refusing to call the one Christ two natures? Or rather [on the contrary], having openly agreed to this orally and in writing, they then proved in the wisdom of the Spirit that nothing in any way prevents these, variously inseparably divided [hypostases and natures], from being one God and one Christ? We intend to do exactly the same thing, imitating them. 24. Therefore, since we, knowing the light that shone on Tabor from the Savior as uncreated and calling it divinity as the lightness of the divine nature, but not [as] nature itself, and besides asserting that all divine power and energy is uncreated, together with the essence that exudes it, for this reason we have recently been unjustly accused of ditheism by those who reduce this unalloyed and unevening light to the level of creation, being wholly and always [adherents] “even according to the piety of the truth” (Titus 1:1), and not counting their idle talk contrary to it as anything, and rejoicing in the test of suffering for it, they repeatedly dared and now, by the grace of Christ, dare [to declare] that we have been wise in this way before, and now we are wise, and we will continue to be wise [in the same way]. 25. So, it remains to be shown by the assistance of the Spirit, although we have already shown this many times and in various ways, that this in no way in any way interferes with the confession and worship of the one divinity. For it is, so to speak, inseparably divided and coupled separately. And he is truly pious who thinks about both of them in this way, and through both of them adheres to the [golden] mean of pious confession, neither making the union a withdrawal, nor the separation an alienation, which those clearly did who, limiting the uncreated to God’s essence alone, excluded from the uncreated divinity the light that shone on the mountain of the chosen apostles, so that the lordship of God would fade away for them, so that if anyone obeys, he will be consumed by fire, having learned through experience as fire in the upcoming ineffable [His] appearance of Him Whom they did not know and in Whom they did not believe as light. 26. Not only this light, divine and supernatural and unevening, the glory of the Father, in which, according to the promise, the Savior will appear again (Matthew 25:31), and thanks to which “the righteous will be enlightened like the sun” (Matthew 13:43), so that He Himself will stand among them as if in an immaculate face, shining together with those divinely illuminated by Him; not only this, therefore, light, “it has no change or transformation wall” (James 1:17), shining through equally divine (όμοθέου) flesh - flesh, abundantly containing and giving the ever-present glory of divinity - but also every divine power and energy either indistinguishable from the essence, or They say that they are numbered among the creatures, but not we, who by the grace of Truth Itself are the defenders of the truth. For, realizing, on the one hand, that to speak without distinction about the divine essence and energy truly means atheism (after all, such a force or energy cannot at all reside in its own hypostasis, being only this, while the highest essence is trinitarian); and, on the other hand, to call divine power and energy created means division and truncation of divinity, unnatural and monstrous, and not far removed from Ariev’s madness; well, therefore, realizing this, we have observed the inseparability of essence and energy. After all, it is nowhere seen in itself, without the essence, energy and strength possessing it, but it is always observed in the essence [energy and strength] of which it is. For if the Son is called the power of the Father, as existing inseparably from the Father, but [He is also called] the Son, so that you know Him as independently existing and would not think, being deceived, that He is such a power - not [hypostatically] existing, but immanent (ένυπάρχουσαν) 120. In this way, therefore, we have respected the inseparability of essence and energy of good, without splitting into created and uncreated, and we have spoken about the difference piously and in accordance with the fathers. For energy is from the trinitarian and worshiped essence, and divinely descends to creation, without separating from it, and is known and named by creation, according to the great Basil. And the essence is its cause and is absolutely unknowable and inaccessible, and nameless, and in itself exceeding every perceptive thought and designating name, and absolutely inaccessible to the conclusion of [any] assumptions [about it]. For no, there is not a single creature that has the power to know the nature of the Creator, while its creative and providential energy and power are themselves contemplated by rational created beings. CHAPTER 9. Repetition and partial denunciation of what Akindinus said about divinity, and proof that Palamas' words about it are thorough. 27. And while we said this to this Barlaam, who united and divided evilly, and [ourselves] avoided both of them, as opposing evils and belonging to the same wickedness, then the persecutor of piety who came after him becomes our persecutor. And he mixes the unmixed, and moves the motionless, and shouts loudly, and trumpets terribly, and makes piercing and very unusual sounds out of jealousy not according to reason (but rather out of hypocrisy), almost tearing, like Caiaphas, the very vestments (Matthew 26:65, Mark 14:63) and saying: “who has heard of two uncreated and different divinities, or of one [which would consisted] of two such [parts], what are we hearing about now?” And at the same time he himself compiles and lists distinctions and oppositions, thereby prompting those who hear this to defend themselves, saying: “one higher and another lower, one active and another active, one invisible and another perceived in the Spirit even with bodily eyes.” 28. But hold back your shameful jealousy and shouting so that we can understand what you are saying, and with what kind of syllogisms you are consolidating [your accusations] against us, and sending [them] everywhere, and raising everyone against us as much as you can, and making all the noise, or rather doing everything, although you do not succeed much, so that, pretending [yourself] to be embarrassed, to confuse [others]. So, restrain a little your passion for speaking recklessly and know yourself, and give a [reasonable] answer so that we can understand what you are saying at all. And not only us, but you yourself are with us. After all, you yourself seem to be in difficulty, saying: “Who has heard of two uncreated and different divinities, or of one [which would consist of] two [parts] and, moreover, opposite ones, which we now hear about?” 29. So, which of the two, having heard, did you find unbearable to hear? If you don’t know (for [your voice] is the voice of a doubter), then come to your senses and look carefully at what you say: won’t the unheard-of turn out to be a construction of your [own] imagination? Or, perhaps, you did not wisely turn your ear [to what we were saying], and did not understand the thought of the speaker, and therefore in vain (or, rather, to the detriment of your own soul) you are embarrassed and confuse Christians? For you say that you heard us talking about either one or two [divinities]. After all, if we are talking about two, then not about one, because how [otherwise]? And if about one [composed] of such [parts], then how [are there] two? For one might still think that we preach a complex [divinity], but that there are two - by no means. But if we defend one and simple divinity, as we proclaim this many times and in many places openly with our lips and constantly write with our hands, then it is impossible for us to honor two divinities, as you slander and slander us, or one complex one. After all, we also do not say that one God is composed of three Persons, since in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit we worship one and simple God. Likewise, in essence and energy, we honor God as one in three Persons, and do not call Him one complex of essence and energy. 30. If, because the essence has the name of divinity, and also the visual, purifying and idolizing energy of the Spirit, you thought that we honor two divinities, then why don’t you think that we also honor the two fathers in the highest Trinity? After all, we call father not only the Father of the Lord, but also the Lord Himself [Jesus Christ], since He also says: “children... I give you a new commandment” (John 13:33–34); and again: “I will not leave you orphans” (John 14:18). But Each of Them Two is called Father in a different way. And here each of the two, or better yet, simply each, is called divinity in a different way. Consequently, just as we worship the one Father, even though the Son was our father, both as the one who created in the beginning and as the one who subsequently recreated, so we worship one divinity, this supra-named super-essence, even though the deifying power by means of a significant name (φερωνύμως) was called divinity, as deifying those who receive deification. And how, together with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit accept worship, for They are not separate, although Each of Them exists in a special hypostasis; thus, together with the trinitarian essence, worship and all divine power and energy are accepted, for they do not [exist] separately and not in a special hypostasis. After all, the great Basil, who listed everything that is customary to mention, says that “the Spirit always possesses them, being one hypostatic” 121 . 31. Why else collect close [examples]? For both the Father is spirit and the Holy Spirit, according to the word of the Lord, who said to the Samaritan woman: “The Spirit is God, and whoever worships Him is worthy to worship in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). But this in no way prevents the great Basil from saying: “one Father, one Son, one Holy Spirit” 122. So, what is the need to list all this now? But since, according to the paternal instruction, we glorify the deifying, purifying, and visual power and energy, and also the divine light, with the name of divinity and from these we borrow the name for the essence that exudes them (for, according to the divine Maxim, “essence is the source of energies” 123); Since, therefore, we, according to paternal tradition, say that there are more than two denoted by the word “divinity,” then why do you claim that we are talking [only] about two divinities, and not about a greater number of them? Or, considering it a matter of honor for yourself to be a slanderer in this too, you are not only to your own mind, but also to your own ears, being, as Paul says, “a liar with a seared conscience in hypocrisy” (1 Tim. 4:2), are you making false accusations? We, however, so neglect this sermon of yours against us that, as you see, we criticize you for the fact that you did not speak about a larger number [of deities that we should worship] - according to your, that is, assumptions. It is impossible to silence us when “the truth according to godliness” is attacked (Titus 1:1). 32. But do you see how, by slandering and slandering [us], you come across like those old men who grew old in evil deeds from the story of Susanna (Dan. 13), and even much worse than them? For they disagreed with each other, and you seem to disagree with yourself. So, being a fighter against piety, much worse and more violent than those fighters against chastity, you rebel against those who are completely devoted to it, just as Susanna was devoted to chastity; At first you rise up implicitly, insidiously fawning and hypocritically charming, and feigning friendship, and from time to time carefully tossing out words of seduction. And when you understand that you have been thrown back once and for all, as if from unshakable fortifications, then you rage against them and speak out indomitably, and fill everything with your cries, and become the father of inconsistent lies, and “boast,” according to the word of the psalmist, “in malice” (Ps. 51:3), and speak obvious nonsense, like waves breaking against the rocks, “those who sing praises,” according to the word of the apostle, “have their own shame” (Jude 1:13). 33. For whose, tell me, is this dangerous and dubious combination of so many and so opposite [elements]? It is impossible that it belonged to the accused, because no one doubts himself - what he thinks - and especially in such matters. After all, whoever has doubts does not have [a certain] teaching. Therefore, such a person cannot be justly accused, and especially if he has not yet gained [clarity] by now. Consequently, if those [words] that you yourself cite against them as forbidden are not exact quotations, because they did not compose them in this order, then this is a reproach to you (if they are reproachful), who collected them and concluded, as you please, in one phrase that which does not agree with one another. If you claim that you have collected this from what they said in different places, and they say that they take it from what the saints said, which you agree with when you write: “collecting fragments from the writings of the saints does not in the least contribute to the clear teaching of piety.” And when you say that they themselves choose “dark and hitherto unheard [passages from their fathers’ works,” then they claim that you are saying this, slandering, as this will [soon] become clear. 34. But why, when we collect scattered words in the writings of the saints, this does not in the least contribute to a clear [understanding] of the piety of the saints, and when you collect scattered words from our writings, this is nothing for our, by the grace of Christ, clear confession and piety, especially since many times a day we confess before God and people that we believe in one God? But if you would bring together what we have written in different places, but without distorting by additions and subtractions, without distorting or truncating, but would present it, choosing what is justly related [to the circumstances of the case], so that from this itself you would be exposed, like that Barlaam, who taught you error, and even earlier than you, forced us to compose speeches in defense of Orthodoxy by writing against it, as and you are now [doing] following him. But first of all, as I said, you [yourself] are in no way proof of your [words]. 35. Then, since we collect from what is written by the saints, and you condemn both the fact that we collect from them and what we have collected from them, is it not clear from this that you condemn these saints themselves? For it is clear that you yourself are caught [in the snare] with your own wings, attacking nothing other than what we have taken from what the saints have written. After all, you say that this “does not in the least contribute to the clear teaching of piety,” as it is obviously the opposite of it. For why would you disparage these [the words of the saints] together with us, who are accused by you, if our [words] did not coincide with them? Since, according to inspired theologians, “the meaning of any expression used in relation to the divine nature is such that even if it differs in meaning, it should not in the least contradict what is said simultaneously with it,” 124 then it is appropriate to consider those [statements] that you subject to your drunken jokes (παροινίαις), how and in what way the opposition is found between them. For if [this is a contrast] by contrast, and this is created and uncreated, then it is truly wicked and illogical, for in this way it is impossible to be [something] united and simple. But if, by reason and causality, one is superior and the other inferior, either in order or in merit, and you forbid them to be reduced to one and simple, then you are no different from Arius and Eunomius. For each of them brought this as a reproach: the first - to Athanasius the Great, and the second - to Basil, who after him was great like him. This great man wrote to him that “the Son is second according to the Father, and the Spirit is also inferior to the Son - in order and in dignity, and not in nature” 125, that is, not in the sense of uncreatedness and createdness, for by nature what is inferior to the uncreated will necessarily [itself] be of created nature. And if you are talking about the divine nature and not in its own hypostasis of the existent energy of the divine nature, since it is inseparable from nature and [at the same time] inferior to nature in order, for movement is preceded in order by what moves; If, therefore, you say that these are complex, and therefore you do not allow them to converge into one and simple, then at the same time - understand this well - you do not even allow the Son and the Spirit to converge with the Father into one and simple God, since in addition to the fact that one is superior and the other is inferior, each of These is also in a special hypostasis. 36. And what did we, persecuted by you, talk about subordination (ύποβεβηκός) - or, in other words, about the higher and lower - in the sense of cause and causality, and not created and uncreated, and especially since when Barlaam spoke [about this], we did not consider it necessary to respond to his words, but reduced this [opposition] to pious understanding - you yourself are a witness to this, insisting with all your might that we allegedly spoke about uncreatedness. Consequently, you yourself are a worthy and indisputable witness to yourself and to us. For us - in that we are pious by saying this; to yourself - in the fact that everything that is in one way or another inferior to God is considered created. And you, in our times, reveal yourself to be a new Arius, and then, putting on the fox skin and sheepskin of hypocrisy, you strive to devour the sheep of Christ unnoticed and boast that you have already swallowed and by force overcome those who did not submit [to you], not knowing that Christ’s [disciples] truly conquer through weakness, and “even though they suffer evil, like evildoers, even to the point of bondage” ( 2 Tim. 2:9) but are not ashamed to witness the truth, knowing that He believed and knew that He is able to preserve them on that day (2 Tim. 1:12). Because “and all who wish to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution” (2 Tim. 3:12), especially now, when “wicked men and sorcerers will prosper in the worst things that deceive and those who deceive” (2 Tim. 3:13), “and their word will become like gangrene fat” (2 Tim. 2:17), although they and “have erred in the truth” (2 Tim. 2:18), and those who “will not endure sound teaching according to their own lusts will choose for themselves teachers with scratchy ears” (2 Tim. 4:3). CHAPTER 10. Containing the testimony of the saints that the divine nature is the source of divine energies, and in which it is clearly shown that Akindinus is an Arian. 37. And that the essence is the source and cause of energy is shown by the speaker: “everything participates in providence flowing from the all-causal divinity” 126. And the brightest luminary Nissa [says]: “What word is capable of expressing divine energy, and especially the power from which energy, and especially the nature from which power?” 127 And Father Chrysostom says that “the prophets show themselves not only ignorant of what God is in essence, but they are also perplexed about wisdom itself - how great it is, although not the essence is from wisdom, but wisdom from the essence. Since they cannot comprehend this with accuracy, then what kind of madness would it be to think that you can subject the very essence [to analysis] of your reasoning?” 128. And the great Basil, having called the Holy Spirit “the source of ever-essential life” 129 and a little later enumerating the ever-present and inseparably inherent things of the divine Spirit 130, then adds: “The Spirit is from God, that is, from the Father, and He Himself is the source of the above-mentioned benefits, but what flows from God is hypostatic, and what flows from Him is His energy” 131. And the great Athanasius: “Everything that the Father has is Mine” (John 16:15), says [the Lord]. Therefore, we necessarily believe that in the Father there are eternal things, eternity, immortality, power, foreknowledge. And all this is His essence, not as an acquisition alien to Him [by nature], but abides as in a source, resting in Him” 132. But the Damascus theologian also called the Son “the source of wisdom and foreknowledge” 133. 38. And the sixth of the Ecumenical Councils says verbatim: “All nature is a source of energy, and along with various energies, natural wills are also divided. And if there are two natures in Christ, then how can each not exude a special and corresponding energy and will, so that the created energy and will will be of a created nature, and the uncreated – uncreated?” 134 Or will you accuse these [councils] of ditheism and tritheism, since they call uncreated not only the essence of the Son, but also energy and will, which differs from the essence, as the cause from which it emanates, and, on the one hand, they do not deny, like you, divinity, inventing that they are no different (for each will depart from what it is, passing one into the other and leaving you), and on the other hand, they do not reduce it to the level creatures, calling the energy of the divine essence created (for the essence that has created energy is not uncreated), and also do not, again like you, confuse the hypostases, and do not make the Son the Father, arguing, like you, that the only uncreated energy is the Son and the Holy Spirit? For if, as you heard, the Son exudes uncreated energy and will, and, moreover, exactly the same one, without the slightest difference, as the Father, and you call them, since they are uncreated, Spirit and Son, then according to you the Son will turn out to be the Father, since he exudes them. But now we are talking about this: if, according to the great Basil, “not by nature, but by order and by the dignity [arising] from him, the Son is second according to the Father, since He is from Him, and the Spirit is also inferior to the Son” 135, as given through Him, then the divine nature is something different from the divine dignity. You teach that [everything] in any way different from the divine nature or inferior to it is created. Therefore, what else do you affirm, except that the dignity of the Son and Spirit is created? For it is not something that is different from it, but, however, inferior to the divine nature, which alone you consider uncreated. And anyone who considers the divine essence alone to be uncreated is undoubtedly an Arian. For if it is impossible for the order naturally inherent in God to be created, and according to the theology of Akindinus there is nothing uncreated except the divine essence, then this order will be God's essence, and the Son, in accordance with it, will by nature occupy second place after the Father. Therefore, according to the pious word of truth, not only the essence is uncreated, but also what is naturally contemplated in the divine super-essence is uncreated, although it is not an essence. CHAPTER 11. Testimony of the saints that God's essence surpasses its uncreated energy, but the Divinity, nevertheless, does not go beyond the limits of simplicity. Here we also talk about participles themselves. 39. And about the fact that the energy of the divine nature, whose [energy] name is divinity, is secondary in relation to nature, listen to Athanasius the Great, who points out to you in his writing against Macedonius: “that He is God is secondary in relation to nature”; and adds the reason: “because divinity is participatory, but essence is not participatory. For we too,” he says, “if we become imitators of God, we become gods, but we cannot become of the same nature [as He]” 136. And when he writes against the Arians, he says: “if they admit that God wills about things that do not exist, then why do they not recognize from Him that which is higher than will? For to beget and be the Father of the Word Himself exceeds will.” 137 And one more thing: “the Arians saw the opposite of the will, but did not notice what was greater and superior. For just as what is opposed to will (τή βουλήσει) is what [happens] contrary to will (τό παρά γνώμην), so it surpasses and precedes what is desired by nature” 138. So, is God's will included among creatures for the reason that it is superior to what is [inherent in God] by nature? And how did God will about creatures that do not yet exist, if [that very property] willed is one of those existing in this way [i.e. e., from creations]? But the same [Saint Athanasius] said at the council, addressing Arius: “The Savior does not speak about created things: “All that My Father has is” (John 16:15)” 139. And what kind of [things] these are - he himself listed, as it is given a little higher in our word 140. 40. And the great Basil called the Father superior to these listed [properties]. For he writes to those who claim that the Son does not know everything that pertains to the Father, citing the Master’s voice: “As the Father knows Me, and I know the Father” (John 10:15), and then adding: “if another [means] to know the Father and another to know what pertains to the Father, then the greater will be the knowledge of the Father, since each one is greater than his own [characteristics], and he who knows more (“no one,” he says, “knows more”) Father, only the Son" (Matthew 11:27)) how can one not know less? 141 In the same way, the divine Cyril proves that the Son also has foreknowledge of the end of creation: “if to know the Father,” he says, “is superior to any [other] knowledge, then how can he who knows more not know less?” 142 41. And Saint Maximus in “Chapters on Love” says that “God, being Self-Existence and Self-Goodness, and Self-Wisdom, rather - to say closer to the truth - surpassing all this, has nothing contrary at all” 143. What then? Divine foreknowledge, self-existence and the like - since in God there is also contemplated [something] greater and superior to them - let us count them among creatures, obeying you, who teaches to consider as created everything that is in any way inferior [to the divine nature], and madly draws out the following witty [remark]: “if the lower is not uncreated, then how will the uncreated be lower”? After all, even a little thought about what we are talking about, and what, in accordance with its meaning, is the meaning of a superlative degree, or, what is the same thing, a diminution (for one, of necessity, simultaneously introduces the other); to those who think about what for the sake of [it is said this way], this wit of yours will seem not elegant, but funny, as if surrounded by rocks everywhere, but you [the one who said it], sending you on both sides into the abyss 144. 42. But the great Dionysius also writes: “[our] word does not promise to express the self-super-essential goodness, essence, life and wisdom of the self-super-essential divinity, super-founded, as the Sayings say, above all goodness, divinity, essence, life and wisdom in secret [spheres] (Ps. 17:12, 80:8), but glorifies the revealed beneficial Providence as primarily goodness and the cause of all good things” 145; So, will you call this cause of everything, providence and goodness, created because it is surpassed by self-supersubstantial goodness (ή αύτοϋπερούσιος άγαθότης)? And also, when in a letter to Gaius he says, as we have already cited in many places: “God is also a Supergod, being, as a super-primary, transcendental in relation to God’s superiority and goodness, and the god-creating divinity” 146, then are you really going to place this divinity, not being afraid even of the height [of the names] of divine authority and goodness, with created [entities], which has not yet been done? none of the heretics dared to say? Or are you stunned by the added “inimitable imitation of the Supergod” 147, which, as it seems, is far removed from your understanding and knowledge? But hear about uncreated imitation and finally bring your thought closer to the truth. For in his second “Sermon on the Son” the theologian Gregory says: “The Son is the image of the Father as consubstantial, and because He is from Him, and not from Him the Father. For the very nature of the image is an imitation of the archetype and the one whose image it is called, except that there [is something] more here.” 148 43. But this great [Dionysius] also considers the sacraments with the uncreated as not participating, but participating, and then says that “above all communions and sacraments is the unparticipated Cause” 149. The sacraments are those about which Saint Maximus said: “Self-existence, Self-goodness, and Self-wisdom” 150 and the like, which he also called God, and in relation to which, in a different sense, he called God supreme. Do all these [fathers] really compose the Divinity from the highest and the lowest, for which and for what reason do you accuse us? If someone says that only self-existence is a sacrament, as the only thing that does not partake of anything else, but only itself participates, for others partake of it, then this meaning is in no way violated by the Divine supremacy we glorify. After all, the Divinity surpasses and this absolutely in no way participates in self-existence. Let the one who says this know, however, that this is not clearly meant in relation to other sacraments: for living, holy and good [creatures] are said not simply because they exist and participate in self-existence, that they live, are sanctified and become good through participation, but [this happens to them] due to the fact that they participate in self-life, self-holiness and self-goodness. But self-life and other similar things do not become self-life through participation in another self-life. Therefore, and inasmuch as anything is self-life, it is one of those who participate and not those who partake. And what does not participate in life, but itself participate and give life to the living, how will it be created? And with regard to other participles [things are] similar. 44. And this heavenly one also in another place comprehensively sang this super-remote superiority, saying: “We speak apophatically about everything in God, and we speak about everything cataphatically, and [however] the negations surpass the propositions. He Himself, again, is above all denial and affirmation” 151. So, if [God] is everything, and [He] is above all, and even above this, and does not cease to be One because of this, then how will the presence of [something] in one sense or another inferior and superior to Him cancel the simplicity and unity of God? Therefore, we know God as the Good and the Most Good, God and the Supergod, the Beginning and the Superinitial, and in general the Existing and the Superexistent, and above all this. And neither as the Existing One and the Existing Beginning, as the Good and God, and the like, do we rank [Him] among the created [beings, principles, good, etc.], nor as surpassing goodness, divinity, and the like, but also not as the One about whom it is theologized that He is transcendental in relation to this superior one. And all [beings] participate in the goodness of God; there are also those who participate in divinity and similar [properties of God], but what is beyond these is by no means present. But even in this case, we have one God, who has one and simple divinity, contemplated not only in the essence, but also in the perfection of everything. What exactly? Autocracy, simplicity, wisdom, creative, deifying, volitional power and the like, which neither merge with each other nor are considered among created things, since they differ from each other. CHAPTER 12. Clear proof by a large number of examples that Akindinus is an Arian, presentation and refutation of the doctrine invented by him about the createdness of everything that, according to the divine Maximus, is essentially contemplated around God. 45. In the following, you clearly appear to be speaking at the same time as the namesake fury 152. After all, you insist that what is affected (ένεργούμενον) always means what is created, and therefore, in your opinion, “to act” means to create, and in the same way, “deed,” no matter what this word is said about, we must think about creation, according to your instructions. So, you openly teach this orally, going around [the entire city], and introduce it through lengthy writings, when you write unequivocally that “if [this is something] uncreated, then it is not the work of the God who is beyond everything, for one and the same thing is work, work and creation (έργον και ποιημα και κτίσμα ). Therefore, if this [is something] accomplished (ένεργούμενον) by God, then it is not uncreated, nor without beginning, nor co-eternal with God.” Consequently, if we listened to you, we would call both beginningless and eternal birth created, since it is a matter of divine nature. And even more so, according to you and your most precise words of God - since you clearly affirm this too - let us call creations works of the divine nature, because of which you loudly accuse us as if we are cutting God into many [parts], since we say that creations participate not in the divine nature, but in energy. The divine John of Damascus says in the eighth chapter of the Dogmas: “birth is without beginning and eternal, being a matter of nature and proceeding from essence, so that the One who gives birth does not undergo change, and there would be no first God and no subsequent God, and He would not have addition. Creation in God, being a work of will, is not co-eternal with God, since it is not characteristic of that which is brought into being from non-existence to be co-eternal with the beginningless and ever-existing” 153 . And Maximus, strong in the divine, says that “works are everything that is essentially contemplated around God: goodness, immortality, simplicity and everything that is similar to them” 154, which, moreover, in his opinion, “are the essence and works of God, and did not begin in time” 155. What mythical fables have you not left behind? What Hellenic nonsense has not been surpassed? What Platonic ideas or the pre-existence of souls have not been overtaken in wickedness? After all, you say: “not in time, but once in eternity before the angels, immortality, holiness, virtue, goodness, immutability and simplicity were created, and also the essence of all things (την των όντων πάντων οντότητα); and that all of them, being in essences and hypostases, as created before the angels, in their essence and hypostasis are essentially contemplated around God and partake of angels and men and all beings.” 46. And while you yourself introduce such a great innovation and prove in every possible way, as it seems to you, and write such strange and unprecedented things (for immortality and immutability were, as it were, in themselves in hypostasis, and how they, as well as holiness, and simplicity, and virtue and everything corresponding, were contemplated according to their own essence and hypostasis, neither in God is eternally existing, nor in the angels and men who partake of them?); and after you yourself introduce such an innovation and through it you reduce the Divinity to the level of a creature, you also accuse us of this very innovation because we consider immortality, holiness, virtue, goodness, immutability, simplicity and the like to be eternally contemplated in an essential way around God, since the divine Maximus said that “all this is essentially one contemplates the surroundings of God.” For just as essence and nature are one and the same, so essential and natural are one and the same; This is why we speak together with the saint, or rather, we present [to you] him, saying that all these [properties of God] are without beginning. For how would God be without immutability, immortality, simplicity and goodness, and would simplicity, life, immortality and everything like that, naturally contemplated in the beings participating in him, be created? And this is why Akindinus says that we allegedly introduce many uncreated divinities into the Church, that we do not consider, like he and his mentor Varlaam, that only the essence of God is beginningless, but also His goodness, simplicity, immutability and immortality. And how, in his opinion, are these works [of God] called holy, if not beginningless? [Therefore] we will again tell him, “the spiritual is determined by the spiritual” (1 Cor. 2:13), according to the commandment of the Apostle: and how did the divine John of Damascus call the very pre-eternal birth a matter? And now in order for us to also defend the saints against you, who accuse them, [let us point out that] they here call natural energy “work,” and natural energies always coexist with nature, from which and in which they have existence, being created in all created things and uncreated in the only uncreated nature. 47. And this one, not taught to “reason spiritually” and to know them one through the other, but who readily contrasted them with the Spirit, says: “this work is done (έργον) and [together with it] action (ένέργεια); without action it is impossible to act (ένεργεια) 156, according to Saint Maximus. Consequently, this energy is created through other energy, and so on ad infinitum.” 48. Truly he fooled himself, “saying to himself to be wise” (Rom. 1:22), and deceiving himself. After all, when we in some places [of our writings] cited as proof that God has not only essence, but also energy, [the argument] that the inactive (ανενέργητον) is also non-existent, and, therefore, if there [is] God, then [is] also active (ένεργης), and if [God] acts, then [means] he also has energy, since it is impossible to act without having energy - he did not understand that by not agreeing with the fact that God has [in addition to essence] energy, he completely denies [thereby] the existence of God. For he madly uses this position against the divine Maximus and John of Damascus himself, and in general against all the holy fathers who call the uncreated energies of God works, destroying their thought by reducing it to the point of absurdity. “After all, if,” he says, “this energy, being a deed, is done, then it will be done through another energy, and so on ad infinitum.” 49. What new nonsense! After all, he could easily have collected endless words, reasonings and writings for himself; Moreover, what is even more paradoxical, he could call only his reasoning and writing and one word infinite, since none of the named objects could be named without a word. We say that the very word by which the object is designated is called, but not in the same way, O wise one: after all, we reason about something and we reason about reasoning, but these [reasonings] do not have the same image. For the one who speaks about the word and the one who reasons about the reasoning is [in relation to them] in the same position as the one who moves in relation to the innate [for him] movement, and the object about which someone speaks or reasons is not something from them, as being absolutely different in relation to the reasoning and the word and [also in relation to the speaker and the reasoner himself. And the same [is the case] with regard to scripture, no matter what scripture anyone talks about, and you can understand the same thing with regard to energy if you consider [it] wisely. So, since it is not said in the same way about the creation and about the birth of God, that they are accomplished by God and are a divine work, - as the divine John of Damascus said, 157 - and also about everything that is essentially contemplated around God, 158, according to Maximus, who is zealous in divine things, how can that which is not the same twice be extended into infinity? “And how,” he says, “he himself said about these things that have not begun, that they are in time? Everything - as if it exists, if not under time, then under the age.” 50. You, however, - so that we can express ourselves similarly to him, - would easily present the Son as having begun and [being] under the age, while the namesake of theology Gregory says about Him: “if you take the beginning in relation to time, then [He] is also without beginning, because the Creator of times is not under time” 159. What does it mean that He also began in eternity (έν αιώνι), since He did not begin in the sense of a beginning related to time? And is He not the Creator of ages, since He is called [the Creator] of times, unless He exists under time? Isn’t it clear that time is also called a century, just as time is called a century? After all, we are talking about the present and future centuries. For everything in which what is before and what is after is necessarily temporary, although Maximus, wise in divine things, having spoken about those that did not begin in time, added: “for it never happened that there was no virtue, goodness, holiness and immortality,” 160, clearly throwing away your verbal intricacies. And [Akindinus], who considers his nonsense to be the generally accepted theology and us, who do not submit to it, falsely accusing us of innovation through other nonsense, again responds to this. “For,” he says, “there was not [such a moment] when there were none, but [this] concerns time.” And this serves as proof not that they began, but [rather] that time is beginningless. After all, if there were no, whenever they were not in time, then time was necessarily without beginning: for that in relation to which there was no [time], when it was not, is not something that has begun 161 . Saint Maximus, according to Akindinus, should have said about the angels that there was no such thing when they did not exist: after all, their beginning is in eternity (έν αίώνι). 51. Well, aren’t the angels created by God in eternity the essences and hypostases? If, according to Akindinus, what is essentially intuited around God are created beings and hypostases, then the divine Maximus would have to call the angels essentially intuited around God. But he calls the immortals, the living, the saints - that is, [including] the ranks of angels - that arose in time. And as for immortality, life and holiness, which are not inherent in created things by nature (for all these [ranks] are created), but are essentially contemplated around God, then there was no [time] when they did not exist 162 . Therefore, the great Dionysius says: “we do not call life-in-itself, goodness-in-itself, and the like, not the essence of the divine or angelic” 163 . The same is true for the divine Maximus in these “Chapters,” overthrowing all vain controversy, adding: “For every virtue is beginningless, having no time preceding itself, since ever (άϊδίως) it has God as its only Parent” 164. 52. And what do you say, what do you think about this, who calls every work [of God] created and considers it a matter of honor for yourself to surpass that Barlaam in villainy? For he, having heard these “Chapters,” was embarrassed and retreated, trying to call them spurious rather than reinterpret them; which is why we then tried in every possible way to prove their authenticity. You, having an excess of zeal to defend lies to a greater extent than logical abilities, irrepressibly rebelled against the obvious truth, offering statements that completely refute you as confirming [your point of view]. 53. Since you think that both acting and creating are always one and the same, then, in your opinion, it turns out that the Father creates consubstantial with Himself, while the namesake of theology Gregory writes: “If “Father” is the name of energy, then this consubstantial itself will be [understood] energetically (ένεργηκώς 165)" 166. And even the pre-eternal divinity and power itself will be, according to your thought - or better to say, madness - a creature, for you say: “we understand what is created as something created, and not as uncreated or without beginning, or co-essential (συναΐδιον) with God”, while Gregory of Nyssa writes [in his essay] “To Avlavius” that “the supervising and contemplative power, which we call divinity, the Father brings into action (ένεργει) through the Only Begotten” 167; and again: “one logos of the supervising and contemplative power [is contemplated] in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, from the Father, as from a certain source, emanating, brought into action by the Son ( ενεργούμενος), and by the power of the Spirit he accomplishes grace” 168. Likewise, the Fifth Holy and Ecumenical Council, objecting to the false fabrications of Origen, says that “God, from not creating, having come to create, did not change in nature, but in energy, or rather not even in it. For He eternally had the power to create and create, but this power was brought into action (ένηργήθή) when God willed” 169. Do you see what happens when what is done (ένεργούμενον) is uncreated, [that is] force and energy itself? But what am I saying about the fact that you yourself exaggerate or understate, sometimes calling them the very divine essence, unnameable and above-named, sometimes relegating them and classifying them among creatures? But you also classify the Holy Spirit Himself among creatures, if you understand everything that acts as created, while the great Basil writes: “The Holy Spirit Himself, when we reflect on His own dignity, we contemplate [Him] with the Father and the Son, but when we remember the grace acting in the participants, we say that the Spirit abides in us” 170 . 54. So, have you now understood that not only what is done (ενεργούν), but also what is done (έργον) - and sometimes even what is done (ένεργούμενον) - can be uncreated? Truly, that which in God is inseparably divided and distinguished from one another, but which also does not remain separate, is essence and energy. After all, he who imagines lordship in his mind has [thus already] thought simultaneously with it and about what exudes it. In the same way, whoever thinks about any other force or energy immediately takes into account the nature of which this force is, and even more so when it comes to God, who has nothing acquired and subsequently does not acquire anything with success. So it is in no way possible to conceive of the dissection or division of the essence and energy of God. CHAPTER 13. Further proof that uncreated energy is different from uncreated essence. This is also about divinity. 55. For how can one know that [any] entity exists if it does not act in any way? And how will she act without strength and energy? How, again, will force and energy exist if there is no powerful and active being? And how the force will be separated, being inherent [by nature], and not the result of [outwardly directed action]. However, it is not [appropriate] due to the fact that essence and energy are united [with each other], in relation to which a distinction is made that inseparably separates them, to merge them with each other; however, from the fact that they differ, it again does not follow that they are separated from each other. For one of them is [something] moving, and the other is like movement; and one is [something] detectable (δεικνύμενον), and the other is an indication (δεικτικόν) [of it], but is not for this reason separate. Just as we say that we name a certain object and 171 pronounce the word itself by which the object is designated, but not in the same way. For if someone says that the oral word is accomplished by the inner word, and this [in relation to it] is different, then this too is called a different word (λέγεται). Thus, we say “made” about what happened as a result of some act (πράξεως); and also “done” - about [the] action itself (ένεργειαν), but [we speak] not in the same way, as was said. 56. And yet, you heard someone say that “beginningless and eternal birth is a matter of divine nature” 172. So, when the theologian Gregory says: “one is the Begetter and another is the Birth, if [only] we are not drunk” 173, then do we get two gods or two divinities, since both are uncreated? Or [perhaps it turns out] the addition of these, since God is one? So, which of the two will you choose? Will you choose to condemn the saints who theologize about these subjects in this way - just as [you condemn] us, who say like them that both the active God and His divine energy are uncreated, and that energy is different from the active (for One is moving, and the other is like movement 174, and [at the same time] they are one God, since they are not separated) - and therefore treat drunken people “neither from strong drink, nor from wine" (Is. 29:9), as the prophet says, but from a certain madness, being unable to understand that there is another movement and another - the moving one, and that [by nature] the movement inherent in the Ever-Moving One coexists eternally with Him, and does not produce any complexity in Him? So, neglecting this, you decide to condemn us and the truth, even hearing this from the champions of the truth; or, having seen the truth of the evidence and having confessed it well, will you choose to end the demonic confrontation and get rid of your [currently] insanity? 57. And in particular, having heard his [words]: “the work of the divine nature is birth, and creation is the work of divine will, for everything is creatively brought [into being] by the will of God” 175. Isn’t this the same thing for which you condemn us, who say that not one of all [beings] participates in the divine nature, but in God’s energies: those that simply exist – in the essential-creating power; living - life-giving; and others - corresponding to them. You say that we “contrary to this make [one] God two, as if His nature were powerless to do everything.” Thus, you turn out to be a ditheist and the most faithful singer of the divine, more than anyone else. But you, teaching that all [beings] are works of divine nature, and not so that God does one thing (ένεργεϊν) by will and creative energy, and produces others by nature and from Himself, either you classify the Son and the Spirit among created things, or you consider everything uncreated (άγένητα) and co-essential To my father. 58. Moreover, since the work of the divine nature is birth, and the work of the divine will is creation, then nature is different from will. Well, is the divine will not uncreated [now] since it is different from nature? Or is it separate from the divine nature because it differs from it? Or does it make the divine nature complex because it coexists with it, and somehow damage God's simplicity? Not at all, although the will is, according to the fathers, the willful energy and force of nature. Consequently, it acts (ενεργείται) as a force, as you heard from the fathers a little higher, and necessarily has an active nature as its cause, since nature is also a source of energies. But the divine will is in some way understood by us through God’s commands (προσταγμάτων) and creations, while the divine nature is absolutely incomprehensible. Is it because of this that you will call God two or [consisting of] two [parts] - higher and lower, active and operative, somehow intelligible and incomprehensible? These are the conclusions and objections (προβλήματα) against us from [the number] of these that this man has. He added the uncreated divinity visible with bodily eyes to the list of antitheses for our condemnation, himself clearly blaspheming against the divinity shown to the apostles at Tabor, 176 which then becomes even more obvious. CHAPTER 14. That Akindinus, citing the saying of the inspired Gregory of Nyssa as if said by Palamas, madly contradicts him. 59. For he - after, misleading his listeners, quotes verbatim the statement of the divine Gregory of Nyssa as supposedly belonging to Palamas and persistently assures that the author of this [saying] allows for two natures of God, as he convinces himself - begins to clearly prove that the light seen by the apostles on Tabor is a creature; [and proves this] as it seems to him, through what are called geometric patterns (γεωμετρικούς άνάγκαις), which, however, appear to us and to the truth as the devil’s falsehood. I should please myself as much because of these writings slandering me as I should feel sorry for Akindinus who published them. For what is more blessed than for me to appear to be numbered with the blessed fathers (and especially by those whose testimony is reliable, who are hostile towards me) and even to [seem] akin and unanimous to them, since my voice is not only similar, but also one with their voice? If [this is said to them] with the purpose of insult and attack, then this inexpressibly increases my blessedness, for with whom we have compassion, we will undoubtedly be glorified with them (Rom. 8:17). Thanks be to God, who uses those who are against us for our benefit, whose love for mankind even evil [people] willy-nilly contribute to [their] bad will. 60. And the one who, together with us, slandered the God-bearers and, for the sake of reckless enmity against us, chose an irreconcilable battle against the truth, and who again kindled an open war against the saints, who will be able to mourn with dignity? But what is the word of the Nyssa blasphemer attributed to us by Akindinus, and how, and in what way is it perverted and devalued and brought to the opposite meaning? This [Akindinus], going further in his insane writing against me, adds: “he also,” meaning me, “says that the divine nature will be for us in the next century instead of everything,” 177, while he himself, showing this to the wicked through reduction to the absurd, says: “but the essence of God is inviolable.” And since we say this, then he concludes: “so that there are two natures, the essence of God and this light, which he (here again he means me) calls God and divinity,” and clarifies: “but inappropriate.” The enemy of light brought light here too, since both the saint slandered along with us, and we - in agreement with him and the entire face of God-bearers - say that the sons of light in the future century, instead of sensory light, will be honored with divine light (1 Thessalonians 5:5). But it is appropriate, however, to show where the god-speaking [teacher] uses this expression. 61. So, interpreting the apostolic saying, which contains this joyful news for Christians that “God will be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28), he says: “when life [present] at the present time acts in us in many different ways and in many ways, there are many things that we participate in: time, air, place, food and drink, clothing, sun and lamp, and many other things necessary for life, of which nothing is God. And the desired bliss does not require anything of this, but everything and instead of everything for us will be the divine nature, properly distributing itself according to every need of this life” 178. 62. And that he is not the first to say this, but also [that he says this] not without [the help of] the Spirit, Paul makes it quite obvious, like some kind of sun of theology, casting off a ray of reason [with his] words, towards the radiance of whose light all theologians are directed. Therefore, Gregory, the namesake of theology, says: “You will be all God in all” (1 Cor. 15:28) during the restoration (έν καιρώ της αποκαταστάσεως) 179 "180. And the wise in the divine Maximus, interpreting his words and somewhat clarifying [this] mystery, he writes: “man, by the gift of 181 grace, having been completely clothed (περιχωρήσας) with all God, becomes everything that God is, except for identity in essence.” 63. And to say that we will have the divine nature for everything and instead of everything in the bliss promised to us, absolutely does not interfere with the non-participation and inviolability of the divine essence; and what is said about God and that He has goodness as [His] essence, and that He is also far removed from it in excellence, being partakers of it (for the opinion that the saints contradict themselves and each other is truly a sign of foolish people), we show in the dialogue, which is inscribed “On the non-participation of the divine nature” 183, and there we prove this by the power of inspired [speeches] theologians. After all, theologians usually call nature and essence not only this nameless and supra-named super-essence, but also the essential-creating power and everything inherent in God by nature, they are honored with the name nature and essence, and even rather them: for this name is transferred from them to it, as exceeding everything that can be designated by speech. The proof that Nyssa is not talking here about this absolutely ineffable and incomprehensible nature is that, finishing his speech [about it], he says that it is divided according to every need of this life; after all, the divine and nameless nature is indivisible. That’s why Blessed Maximus said that he who is worthy of this indescribable union “by the gift of grace is completely clothed in all of God” and becomes everything that God is, except for identity in essence” 184 . You will also find the theologian of Nyssa in many other places [of his writings] clearly theological in the same way. 64. And he who arms himself against the mysteries of the Spirit with a hand accustomed to writing lies, after much slander and blasphemy against the saints of God disguised as an objection to us, begins to clearly raise this hand that serves darkness towards the most divine light. For while Barlaam considered this light inferior even to human thinking, since we rather through it [i.e. That is, thinking, according to Varlaam] we see God, and we - again, together with the God-bearing fathers - said that it is possible for the sages of this age to discern the Creator from the order of the world, but this does not mean to come in the proper sense to the contemplation of God. And in the proper sense of the word, the one who comes into the contemplation of God is the one who, having surpassed human nature by the power of the Spirit, “sees and experiences experientially the lightness of God” 185, according to the theologian Gregory and the great Basil, who says: “true and desired goodness, visible only to one who has purified his mind, is that which surrounds the divine and blessed nature, and strives towards its radiances and beauty and he himself accepts something from it, as if from some paint, casting some colored reflections on his own face. Therefore, Moses, having become a partaker of this beauty during an interview with God, had a glorified face” 186. And again: “now even if someone were Paul or Peter, he would see truly and would not be deceived or fantasize, but he “sees”, however, “with a mirror” (1 Cor. 13:12), and now gratefully accepts what is partially accomplished with great joy awaits in the future” 187. CHAPTER 15. An explanation of another statement of Akindinus against the Divine Light, and a clear proof from his examination that he makes the inspired Scripture sound against itself, and that he does not defend any divinity. 65. And while we say and propose such things and add that in this way the first of the martyrs Stephen, at the very moment of his feat, “he was full of the Spirit, looking up to heaven, seeing the glory of God” (Acts 7:55), and that to Peter and the Sons of Thunder, who received the grace of the next century on the mountain, Christ Himself showed the glory of His divinity 188, Akindinus says: “but these words destroy the definition John the Evangelist, the great theologian, and also the holy Creed. For the first says: “No one has seen God anywhere” (John 1:18), - and besides, this is not said by the evangelist, but by the “Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:18), - and the second says: “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, visible to all and invisible” 189. How can it be pious to say in one way or another about the Creator of all things visible and invisible, that He is visible in Himself and in the proper sense of the word?” 66. Again he is clothed with deception, again he frightens, again he imitates the incipiently evil serpent, who, with the hope of deification, by cunning removes man from God. For even this hope of preserving the Gospel preaching and the Symbol of Faith tries to entice everyone to reject and be unfaithful to God and deny the Symbol of pious confession. This new method and common place against all kinds of piety is to defend [allegedly] the Symbol of Faith, to abolish this Symbol itself, and by offering a universally recognized statement of pious faith (λίβελλον εύσεβείας), with secret and conscious (βαθει) cunning to overthrow generally accepted piety. This is truly “the depths of Satan” (Rev. 2:24), so that I, reflecting on this secret meaning (τό κρυψινουν τούτο) and the scale of the wickedness revealed [by him], I see the very first apostate, now pouring out [his] poison with the tongue of men, just as in the beginning he talked to Eve through the serpent. 67. But such is truly the beginning of malicious envy that when it strikes the soul, then, having crippled everything else [in it], it does not allow you to see anything else except how to say or do something bad to the one you envy. And the one who is strongly enslaved by this mania and is involved in the terrible rage of the incipiently evil dog 190, [who became such] because of envy, runs away from the sweet drink of love, considers the spiritual flow of grace hostile to himself, rejects words, even if they were sacred, goes to the lost places, does not spare himself, being insensitive to the ulcers and wounds that he inflicts on himself, constantly being hurt by [his] mania. But at least someday come to your senses again, human being, gain a sense of your vices, realize how and into what abysses you are rushing, unfortunate one, throwing yourself head first into the abyss of wickedness and hitting the very bottom and breaking your head, breaking your neck, depriving yourself of true life, so that now what you say does not belong to you, but to the one who fell from heaven and is constantly trying to drag [after you and] man. 68. After all, what are you saying, and what opinion are you offering us? Should we consider as a creature the divinity shown on the mountain and the ineffable light corresponding to it, the glory of God, the kingdom itself, “coming with power” (Mark 9:1) then according to the Lord’s word, that is, appearing through that which gave those who beheld the power to see the invisible? You convince us to consider this a creature - what was ineffably seen by Peter and others like him (Matthew 17:2, Mark 9:3, Luke 9:29), Stephen (Acts 7:55-56) and Paul (Acts 9:3, 22:6, 1 Cor. 9:1, 15:8), and then others like them saints], - so that we, calling this [divinity] uncreated that has become visible, would not honor two divinities, or one complex one, adding to the one, uncreated and invisible this, which has become somehow visible, and would not reject the gospel voice preaching to everyone the invisible God, and would not deny the Creed, which says that God is the Creator of everything visible? What do you say about the next one? Isn’t it said in the Gospel that this light is the glory and kingdom of the Father and the Son? How can the kingdom of the Father and the Son be servile and created? How can the highest glory also be inglorious? 69. So, shall we reject both [i.e. e., Symbol and Gospel] one through the other, and through the Symbol of Faith, which preaches God as the Creator of all visible things, let us show the kingdom of God to created beings - since it once appeared visible on the mountain and in the next century will be incomprehensibly visible to the sons of the future century - and then, for the sake of the uncreatedness and eternity of the divine kingdom, let us reject the Symbol of Faith, since it calls God the Creator of all visible things? Or, accepting one, let's reject the other? If one of the two is to be preferred, as you clearly insanely teach - and, moreover, as they say, by royal hands 191 - then the Gospel will be preferable. Again, how will God’s kingdom be defeated by anything? For it alone is most of all beyond the control of the [earthly] king and invincible, being on the other side of both time and age. “For it must not be said that centuries or times are ahead of God’s Kingdom. And we believe that it is the inheritance of those who are saved,” 192, says [the divine Maximus], which “is the teaching by grace of what is naturally inherent in God” 193, and “the very appearance of divine beauty” 194. 70. Then what does the holy Symbol say? “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of all things visible and invisible” 195. Therefore, according to your methods (εφόδους) and your syllogisms and wise reflections, the one and invisible divinity for which you strive with this good feat, as you see it, is created. After all, God is the Creator of the invisible. If this one - and, in your opinion, invisible - divinity is uncreated, then the holy Symbol, which calls God the Creator of everything invisible, is denied. 71. Do you clearly see that you [yourself] have slipped into godlessness and are dragging others into it? For you, and according to your teaching, [it turns out], as you see, there is not one [single] divinity, but not one. After all, since you, who have not tasted the divine contemplation of God, did not believe those who spoke from experience, and not only this, but also fiercely rebelled against them, then faith in God was taken from you, “though you thought you had it” (Matthew 25:29). And before that day you were cut “in half” (Matthew 24:51) (έδιχοτομήθής), rest assured, “and you were laid down with the unbelievers” 196, and you will certainly lie [with them] if you do not repent and do not hasten to relearn piety. After all, tell me, isn’t the Holy Spirit Himself invisible and [at the same time] uncreated? Anyway, you will agree. So, does this deny the Creed, which calls God the Creator of all invisible things? And what can we say about other things? After all, you, citing here the Gospel words, attested to “by Him who is in the bosom of the Father,” that “God is not seen anywhere” (John 1:18). So, will you say that the confession of faith is violated if we call the invisible God uncreated? Or will you prove and teach that He is also created, so that we too may preserve [your] firm and unshakable confession, which truly gloriously places the Uncreated with created things, and tears apart creation and drives it to rush towards non-existence, as not containing the infinity of divinity, and blasphemes and overthrows God as numbered with creatures? 72. This is what you teach your relatives orally, and those who are distant - in writing, having now seized a favorable moment for this, which naturally was greatly facilitated by civil unrest. And you, “though you were a teacher of the law, have you wandered away from the unfeigned faith, not understanding the things you say or affirm about them” (1 Tim. 1:5-7) with verbose speeches and writings. I “believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of everything visible and invisible” 197, that is, [the Creator] of everything sensible and intelligible. CHAPTER 16. Once again about the most divine light: that, although it is uncreated, it is not an essence; and that he is visible not by any created force, but inexpressibly, although it is written that he was visible with the eyes. 73. However, you do not call this light intelligible, since it was visible with bodily eyes. But [was it the light of] fire or the stars, or anything that is under the sky, or visible to all who have eyes? Not at all. Therefore, he is not sensual. So, since it is neither sensory nor mental, but is beyond everything, according to him who said: “this light surpasses all nature” 198; and again: “the perfect are those who properly contemplate the divine glory, transcendental in relation to everything, the only one superperfect and going beyond the limits of perfection (ύπερτελή και προτέλειον)” 199; and also: “the abiding and eternal glory ( διηνεκής και διαιωνιζουσα ) is shown" 200; and also: "The Son, born without beginning from the Father, has a beginningless natural ray of divinity, and the glory of the deity becomes [with Him] the glory of the body" 201; Sensible and intelligible light is uncreated, then [does this mean that] the holy Creed is denied as saying that God is the Creator of everything sensible and mental? Away from such insane opposition and wickedness! 74. But for this you go around [the entire city] and do everything, and almost everywhere you send and offer gifts, writings, messengers, and press, so to speak, all the levers 202, having as employees those whom I do not know what to call, and how to present them as not [being] under the restrictions officially imposed by these sacred and great councils on you and on all those who follow you philosophizes, or will philosophize, like Varlaam. So, you are trying in every way so that no one hears about our writings, which seem disgusting to you, in defense of the truth, explaining, if there is anything incomprehensible to many in the inspired Scripture, which prompts people like you to deviate from the right [confession]. And what do you think you will win and what you will accomplish? [You want] to deprive everyone of God, entangling them in godlessness, as was clearly shown based on what [you] said. 75. After all, that Gospel [expression], which was previously opposed [by you] to the Creed, that “God is not seen anywhere” (John 1:18), as if it proves that this light, the beginningless glory and kingdom of God, is a creature, and which Barlaam cited even earlier, we explained at length and in a variety of ways in our letters to him, showing that it does not help him at all and does not agree with his position: firstly, because the evangelist is talking about the divine essence; and, secondly, since the Son of Thunders here calls knowledge and understanding vision, and not eating (άπολαυσιν) and participation. “Divine grace,” in the words of the wise Maximus, “even if it gives self-enjoyment (άπόλαυσιν) to those who partake of it by grace, it does not give comprehension; after all, it always - even in the communion of those who enjoy it - remains incomprehensible, since by nature, as unborn, it has infinity" 203. “And since,” according to the divine Gregory of Nyssa, “there is a double meaning in the promise to see God: one is to know the nature that surpasses all; the other is to unite with Him through purity of life, then the first type of understanding in the words of the saints is defined as impossible, and the second was promised to human nature by the Lord, pleasing the pure in heart (Matthew 5:8)” 204. 76. But even what is visible with the eyes, if [it is visible] through created [visual] power, is in every way sensual, if, being above all such perception, it is contemplated by the power of the Spirit, according to who said about this light: “God is seen nowhere” (John 1:18) what [Elijah] saw, he saw in the Spirit” 205. So, if this is seen as worthy by the power of the Spirit, then it is not sensual in the proper sense of the word and is in no way created. So, after all, the divine Gregory of Nyssa responds to this apparent contradiction, speaking of Stephen, who looked up to heaven and penetrated with his gaze into the beyond, and saw the invisible glory. And after the evidence, he says, already drawing a conclusion: “So, the dishonesty of the Doukhobors is clearly visible, since we have learned from Scripture that like sees like. After all, Stephen, not remaining in human nature and power, sees the divine, but, uniting with the grace of the Holy Spirit, thanks to Him, he was elevated to the comprehension of God” 206. He called it comprehension, not because this vision is amenable to understanding (for this he had previously rejected), but because it is not amenable to human words, just as the divine glory and this light are not amenable to the gaze, and therefore is sometimes called vision, sometimes understanding, and sometimes a mental feeling [consisting of both]. But it is better and more sublime to [call it] revelation, unity, mixing, spiritual feeling, since the simultaneous interchangeability and combination of names shows that this light does not belong either to the soul or to the body, but to the Spirit indwelling and acting in worthy souls and bodies. And that we did not say that through [some] created power this great vision became accessible to the apostles, a reliable witness is the accuser himself, who deduced and concluded from this and brought [the accusation] against us that we call one divinity, that is, the essence of God, invisible, and the other, that is, this light, visible, thanks to the Spirit, and with bodily eyes. 77. However, that [only] with spiritual eyes [is it possible] to see such [objects] and to hear [spiritual] hearing, this is clearly established by both the prophet and Chrysostom theologian. One - saying: “attend my ear to hear” (Is. 50:4); the other, adding that “he speaks of the application of the Spirit” 207 . And again the golden-tongued one says: “Didn’t the prophets hear? But this prophetic ear was not human” 208; and in another place again: “the prophets had such souls, and for this reason they received other eyes, for it was a matter of their own diligence to turn them aside from present [objects], and so that then other eyes were opened to the contemplation of future [goods], it was a matter of God’s grace” 209. Just as the Damascus theologian definitely writes about the Tabor vision: “the Lord was transfigured, neither accepting what He was not, nor turning into what He was not, but revealed to His disciples what He was, opening their eyes and making them sighted from the blind” 210. And again: “No one has seen God anywhere” (John 1:18), but what [Elijah] saw—that is, this light (for that is what we are talking about)—he saw in the Spirit” 211 . 78. From this it is clear that this light is not the essence of God: not because according to it God is completely invisible, but because according to it He is absolutely indivisible. And He commensurates the manifestation of this light with the dignity of those who are honored with it, just as Father Chrysostom says that “The Lord, in confirming, showed to His mysteries (μύσταις) the glory of His invisible divine kingdom, not as it was, but as far as those with bodily eyes could bear” 212. This [father] is the same one who, having heard the Baptist saying that “God does not give the Spirit by measure” (John 3:34), says: “He here calls energy Spirit, for it is divisible” 213; and, interpreting this psalm [saying] - “grace was poured out on Your lips” (Ps. 44:2) - he says: “[poured out], that is, as someone would say, it clearly appeared, what was inside broke out, was drained. What kind of grace is this? The one through which He taught, through which He worked miracles. [The Prophet] speaks here of grace filling the flesh, for all grace was “poured out” into this church. After all, “God does not give the Spirit by measure,” but the church [of His body] received complete grace; and we possess a certain small part and a drop of this grace. For “from His fulfillment,” says [Scripture], “we are all received” (John 1:16), or, as someone would say, from the overflowing, from the abundant [source]” 214. And again: “[The Lord] did not say, “I give the Spirit,” but “I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh” (Joel 2:28, Acts 2:17). This is exactly what He did, for this drop or small stream of grace filled the entire universe with knowledge. Signs were performed by her, sins were forgiven by her. But, however, the grace given to so many ends [of the world] is [only] a certain part of the gift and betrothal, for [Scripture, when] says that He “gave the betrothal of the Spirit into our hearts” (2 Cor. 1:22), means part of the energy, since [Himself] the Comforter is not divided into parts” 215. This is what the Golden Tongue says. 79. Akindinus also reproaches us for saying that the apostles saw with their bodily eyes this beneficent (καλλοποιόν) splendor, and without even heeding 216 the words of the Gospel, which say: “even before they see” (Mk. 9:1) and “they have seen it” (Lk. 9:32), says: “but we did not see with our bodily eyes.” Oh, what pedantry, or rather, what madness, or, more precisely, malice and feigned reverence! The one who, having heard about the light, reduced it to the level of creation - and this despite the fact that it is called the kingdom of God - carefully examines [the word] “see”, despite the fact that it was added after “awakening” 217! But neither Father Chrysostom [does this], nor the great Basil, who says: “Peter and the Sons of Thunder saw His beauty on the mountain, brighter than the light of the sun, and were honored to perceive with their eyes the firstfruits of His glorious [second] coming” 218. Also, a little higher, he called the divine beauty they saw “intelligible and contemplated divinity” 219. “But about the Creator of all things visible and invisible,” says [Akindin], “is it pious to say that He is visible in Himself and in the proper sense of the word?” But tell this to yourself and to the one who taught you in evil dogmas and teachings. After all, it is you, having deprived God of what is inherent in Him by nature, leaving Him with a bare essence, which alone you proclaim uncreated, poorly separating from it [its] natural properties and placing them together with creation: you - when you write about “the only uncreated light and uncreated glory,” that is, the divine nature, without even sparing the hypostatic idioms [contemplated] around it; and he, before you, that “there is only one beginningless and infinite - this is the essence of God, and everything besides it is of created nature.” CHAPTER 17. About the fact that the evidence from the divine fathers that Akindinus cites is against himself, and therefore they expose him as the same believer of Eunomius. 80. So you yourself, following him, collecting well-known [statements] from everywhere, say: “The Holy Spirit is good, since the Father is good, and He who is born of the good [Father] is good, having goodness as [His] essence” 220, and “the nature of the Holy Spirit is sanctification, as well as for the Father and the Son” 221, and “for if holiness is something other than Him [i.e. e., the Holy Spirit], then let someone say what is meant by it” 222, and the divine Mitrofan “single and tri-radiant light, a beginningless being, unknown goodness, the church of Your deity has taken up residence in my heart, light-like and pure, show me, singing” 223. What did you collect and what did you build from it? That everything that is said in relation to God - holiness, goodness, life, light - means one thing - the essence itself. And you, not being ashamed of any unity in word with Eunomius, although Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa clearly show such in you, nor to these beautiful and lengthy refutations (I mean their [works] against Eunomius) without feeling reverence, do not show yourself obedient, subordinating your own thought to them, but [on the contrary] you madly put their words against them [themselves], most of all - against your own head and soul. 81. For you do not understand the meaning of each of the [sayings] you propose and, as if by marriage combining madness with despair, you give rise to vicious teachings for yourself, alienating yourself from those whom you boasted of having as fathers and teachers of the best [life], and becoming, as it were, a self-generated (αύτοπάτωρ) 224 monk, and in a new way you have built for yourself a hypocritical not only life, but also faith, bearing the “image” of a pious profession, “denying its power” (2 Tim. 3:5) and apostatizing from God, and “to the ungodly in the world” (Eph. 2:12) showing that he had acquired [it]. Then, you collect and bring from the saints evidence (πίστεις) by the saints of the abolished slander, which still does not relate to what [what you mean]. For the darkness that has covered your mind does not even allow you to see this. 82. And now we will show, as briefly as possible, this difference, and what speaks least for you is what you offer in evidence of your opinion. For what do you think the divine Mitrofan asked for when he sang what you quoted? About the fact that, in essence, God would move into his heart? And how [would he ask for this] of the One who remains there even without asking (τόν και χωρίς αιτήσεως ενόντα)? For “The Spirit,” says Gregory the Theologian, “fills [with Himself] everything in essence” 225. So, he does not ask for such an infusion, according to which the Divinity is everywhere and nowhere, but that infusion, according to which the body of those who are worthy of deification is deified along with the soul in accordance with its corresponding participation in deification. Therefore, he considered it necessary to call him “light-like,” that is, god-like. 83. So, for evidence of this indwelling - that it is not in essence, and that whoever says wrong is a Messalian - the [fathers] of the council against the Messalians is sufficient, who write verbatim: “there is a certain dwelling (επιδημία) of the Father and the Son, and divinity, according to the promise, dwells in those who are worthy, but not as if by nature” 226. The most theologian of Gregory also testifies in favor of this, speaking in the second of the [Words] “On the Son”: “Christ [He is called] because of divinity, for it is the anointing of humanity [Christ], not sanctifying with energy, like other anointed ones, but with the presence of the whole Anointing One.” 227 Do you see that everyone is adored by energy, but not by essence and by no means by hypostasis [of the Holy Spirit], for the latter is an exclusive feature of [humanity] received by the Lord? So, it is you, deifying through the divine essence, and not divine energy, who present to us many equally divine (όμογέους) and such Christs, and not the divinely inspired hymnist Mitrofan. But he seeks infusion, which [comes] through grace and energy, and says otherwise, praising the Giver of the gift. As if someone, spending his life in places covered with darkness, then begged to see with his eyes the One who is superior in essence to the four elements, Who is greater in majesty than the whole earth, Who exceeds all the stars in brilliance, then he does not want to see with his eyes either the greatness of the Sun, as much as it is, or the essence as it is, but only His ray and lordship, rather even a certain part of lordship, as far as is accessible to his eyes, and in other [words] he glorifies the Giver the most desirable light to the eyes. So it is with Mitrofan. 84. And that holiness is nothing other than the Holy Spirit, this is well developed in theology. After all, dominion, and simplicity, and eternal life and incorruptibility, and uncreated light, and terrible, righteous and humane, and, if you like, then invisible, and limitless, and unsearchable - are nothing else than the Holy Spirit. Only He possesses all these [properties] by nature, according to Paul, who says: “Blessed and the only mighty one, ... alone having immortality and being unapproachable in the light of life” (1 Timothy 6:15-16), and therefore each of these is nothing other than God. But because of this, each of these is by no means the essence of God. For then He would have many essences, since dominion differs from holiness, and simplicity differs from both of them, and nature itself differs from the three of them, and further, incorruptibility differs from the four; and the same can be said about others. The fathers truly teach well that there are many uncreated energies of God, but the super-essence to which they belong is one. 85. However, thought is nothing other than the mind, but despite this, thought is not the essence of the mind. And from this it is obvious that Akindinus agrees with Eunomius. After all, this is what Eunomius says: “Nothing else is unborn except the Father, for He is the only unborn. So this is the essence of the Father - unbornness. So, if someone says that what is born is uncreated, then it is clear that he either glorifies two uncreated gods, or one composite of these two.” And we, contrary to Eunomius and Akindinus, attribute ungeneracy to the Father alone, and holiness, dominion and such to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit alone, but we do not consider any of this to be the essence of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, just as ungeneracy is the essence of the Father. So the wise Damascene in the divine says: “not only what [is said about God] apophatically, but also what we say cataphatically about God reveals not the essence, but what is around the essence. And whether you say “good”, “wise”, “just” or something else, you do not name the nature of God, but what is around nature” 228. 86. And how it is said that the Superessential and Supergood has goodness in its essence and sanctification in its nature, we have already explained this many times before here and in other places. And that the nature of God, which is above all naming, takes on the names of energies, being called by them life, goodness, light and generally anything else: and among the energies one can find the name of nature. Since the very name of nature and essence is not in the proper sense of the word the name of this super-essence, as the theologian Dionysius says - for it is absolutely nameless as super-nominal - it happens that the wise fathers use this name in relation to natural [properties], just as the theologian Gregory says somewhere in his poems: “After all, this is the nature of my King - to bring happiness” 229. That is, it is inherent in God to create the maximum good. For it is no one’s nature to give, any more than it is to receive. And immersing in the mind the meaning of the word, and not mindlessly attached to sounds, sounds and syllables, reflects on what the intention of the writer is and understands it. CHAPTER 18. That from what Akindinus writes and thinks, [it is clear that] he invents that the essence of God is visible in itself. 87. But, as I said before, Akindinus and his speeches necessarily have to say that God is seen in Himself. For since, according to the God-speaking [fathers], there is a true contemplation of God, then Moses, and Paul, and similar seers of God truly saw God, according to the great Basil, and according to the Cretan lamp, the sacred Andrew: “Christ shone above all measure on the mountain, not then becoming brighter or higher than Himself, away [from such wickedness], but being contemplated as He was before, perfected from [the number of] disciples and truly initiated into the highest [sacraments]” 230. But Akindinus believes that He is only essence, and teaches that through it He is contemplated by true contemplatives, and this is precisely “In Himself”; and also according to it, he thinks, God is participatory and named, dwells and departs, as follows from his words, but does not appear and act where and as He wants, respectively contemplating and containing [His actions], as in essence He is everywhere and performs everything 231. 88. We know that our God also has an essence, completely incomprehensible and ineffable, for everyone and always, but there is also simplicity, also uncreated, which is inherent in Him by nature, but is not His nature, like goodness, wisdom, strength and everything else that is contemplated around Him and is conceived [starting] from what He has created (Rom. 1:20). “For creations,” says [the paternal tradition], “serve as an indication of strength, wisdom, art, and not of the essence itself. Even the very power of the creator they do not necessarily fully demonstrate 232. And, looking at the order [reigning] in creation, we form a concept not of the essence, but of the wisdom of Him who wisely created everything. And if we think about the reason for our life, then again in the same way we will come to understand goodness, and not essence” 233. Moreover, we believe that He also possesses lordship, which, as was shown above, is visible and shared only by those who are worthy. 89. And that she is also among those who are by nature [contemplated] around God, let Gregory of Nyssa convince you of this, who writes in the first word of “Against Eunomius”: “we understand the Son not as a ray from the sun-Father, but as from the unborn sun another sun, which, as soon as we think about the first, simultaneously shines with him in the image of birth, and in everything the same: beauty, strength, brilliance, greatness, lightness and everything at the same time that is contemplated around the sun" 234. But the great Athanasius, who created a list of what is constantly contemplated around God’s essence, also wrote down light there. And above all of them, the great Paul himself (1 Tim. 6:16), as the divine Gregory of Nyssa clearly presents this in his essay “On the Perfection Befitting Christians, to Olympius” 235. So by following [the teaching of those] who went before us, it is possible to contemplate God from what is around Him, and to truly see Him. And the one who is blind to the true light is deaf to the proclamations of the truth. Therefore, after “from the opposite,” as he thinks, “composite divinity,” he says: “What do we now hear, who has ever heard?”, as if it was from us that he first heard what he considers, according to his vicious thought, vicious. 90. So, when we have reached the present place in our speech, it is appropriate in the future to even more bring [to the attention of the readers] the voices of the saints, from whom we have the immutability of piety, since we agree with the fathers in both [aspects]. Those who slander the truth have collected and composed, in imitation of the pioneers of similar slander who once appeared, this cry, which seems inconsonant to unspoiled [people]. For if someone, according to the energies, calls one God or one divinity many, then, being correctly understood, this [statement] will be in our favor, but poorly understood, that is, that [this multiplicity is understood to consist of] created and uncreated, and not in the sense of cause and causation, but created-uncreated, superior and not, is far from our piety, and is clearly the teaching of those who contradict us, or rather a gain, collected by them for themselves, and the fruit they reaped from [their] demonic and frantic opposition to us. But we must return to what was promised and present some of the inspired sayings so that it becomes absolutely clear with whom these sayings agree, and with whom those who rage against us are fighting. CHAPTER 19. Testimony of the saints that divine energy, which is both called divinity and is different from the divine essence, is not a hypostasis, and at the same time uncreated. And whoever deduces from this that God is complex is the one who believes in Eunomius. 91. So, that the super-essential essence of God is uncreated, we least of all need evidence; and the fact that, although it is super-nominal, it is nevertheless called “divinity,” according to the one who said: “[the names] “Existent” and “God” will rather be in a certain way names of essence” 236, is one of those obvious to all things, with which those who agree and contradict us. And that the power and energy of God is both uncreated and [at the same time] different from essence, we learn here. For Damascene, strong in divine things, says in the fifty-ninth chapter: “If the Lord Christ has one energy, then it will be either created or uncreated. For there is no intermediate energy between them, just like nature. For if it is created, it will indicate created nature; and if uncreated, then it will characterize only the uncreated essence. For everything is necessary for the natural to correspond to the natures: after all, it is impossible for existence to exist without nature. But energy consistent with nature is not one of the external phenomena [in relation to it], and it is clear that it is impossible for nature to either exist or be cognizable without energy consistent with nature” 237 . 92. In the first of his “Refutations,” the great Basil says: “If Eunomius does not infer anything from a [mental] idea, so as not to seem to honor God with human names, then he will equally recognize everything that is said about God as essence. Isn't it funny to say that creativity is the essence; industry is again an essence; foreknowledge - the same thing again; and in general consider all energy to be an essence? And if all this refers to one meaning, then by all necessity the names will be equivalent to each other, as [this happens] with those with many names, when we call the same person Simon, Peter, and Cephas. Thus, he who hears about the immutability of God will be raised to ungeneracy; and whoever hears about indivisibility will come to [the concept of] creativity. And what could be more inappropriate than such a merger, when, taking away from each name its own meaning, they legislate something contrary to the general [word] use and teaching of the Spirit?” 238 And the great Athanasius, driving away Arian madness, says: “he does not do it according to another providence” (John. 5:17) Father and Son, but according to the same essential energy of the Divine” 239. 93. And that “divinity” is the name not of essence, but of energy - we hear this from many places, or rather, from everywhere from the inspired Scriptures proclaimed. However, let three witnesses be presented and this one from among those who came to mind. So, says blessed Anastasius from Mount Sinai: “the name “God” is obviously energetic, for it does not represent to us the very essence of God - for it is impossible to know - but only its visual (θεωρητικήν) activity indicates [naming] "Θεός" 240. And the divine Gregory of Nyssa in in the essay “To Aulavius” he writes: “[the word] “Θεός” (God) is a name indicating energy, since it is etymologized from “θέειν” (to run) everywhere, or from “θέασθαι” (to look), or from “αίθειν” (to burn) wickedness. And as the above-mentioned energy -. is one and does not change at all (απαράλλακτος) in three, then there is one divinity, and one God in three hypostases. In the uncreated Trinity one cannot find a name indicating its nature" 241 And again the same: "[the word] “God” indicates the active one, and “divinity” indicates energy (activity). None of the three [Persons] is energy, but rather each of Them acts” 242. 94. The Great Basil, in a letter to the physician Eustathius, says: “The identity of energy in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit clearly shows the immutability of nature, so that [even] if nature is designated by the name “divinity,” then the commonality of essence allows this name to be applied in the proper sense of the word to the Holy Spirit. But I do not know how those who make things up use the name “divinity” to refer to nature, as if they had not heard from Scripture that nature does not result from election. Moses in Egypt was chosen by God when he was told this when conferring the title: “Behold, I have given you God to Pharaoh” (Ex. 7:1). So, this name indicates a certain power, either contemplative or active, and the divine nature, therefore, remains undesignated by all conceivable names, which is what our word speaks of” 243. 95. Us, who agree with these [fathers], who unequivocally say that [the word] “divinity”, being the name not of essence, but of divine power (ού της ουσίας, άλλά της θείας εξουσιας) and some others It happens that the good Akindinus considers the uncreated energies of God to be ditheists and does not tire of proclaiming this all around. And he insists that we worship two uncreated divinities: not only one essence, which he calls one uncreated divinity, and one only he considers God, but also divine energy. And the one who wants to be pious will not call such uncreated energy either Son or Spirit, and having listened to others [the fathers], and having been convinced by brothers and brotherly-minded people [Basily the Great and Gregory of Nyssa], who preach the unity, identity and immutability of the common energy of the three [divine Persons], and that such energy is not one of Them. 96. From the above saying of the great Basil, it became completely clear that the teaching of Barlaam and Akindinus is in no way different from the teaching of Eunomius, who also put forward the dogma that the essence is everything that is attributed to God, as [they do] and for the same reason [as they]: so that we do not fall into polytheism (according to the madness of Eunomius), or so that our deity does not become composite, being reducible into one of the parts that are opposite [to each other in relation to createdness and uncreatedness]. Therefore, he called the unborn essence, since it is uncreated, just as these consider uncreated energy to be essence, since it is uncreated. Their agreement with Eunomius is also evidenced by the latter’s [own] voice. For the divine Gregory of Nyssa writes in the “Antirrhetics” addressed to him: “Eunomius says that with us God cannot be simple, for He is involved in the meanings denoted by each name, and through participation in them He completes His existential perfection” 244. But it’s good to listen to objections too. For [Gregory of Nyssa] says this, defending not only the godly and great Basil, but no less us, who are accused by Akindinus of the same thing that Eunomius accused that wise man of. So, he says: “Who is [so] mad that, having heard that pious assumptions about God are collected by us from many meanings, he thinks that the Divinity is composed of various [elements], or from participation in something he collects perfection for himself? If someone invented, say, geometry, we can assume that he is the inventor of astronomy, and also medicine, grammar, and agriculture, and some other such activities. But if many and different reflections belonging to these activities can be seen [coexisting] in one soul, will the soul be considered composite because of this? However, the meaning of medical science is very different from astronomical science, and grammar in its meaning has nothing in common with geometry, just as navigation has nothing in common with agriculture. But in one soul the rational meaning of each of these [sciences] can be collected, and because of this the soul does not become multi-component, and all the names of occupations are not mixed into one concept. So, if the human mind, due to so many names pronounced in relation to it, is in no way damaged in its simplicity, then how can anyone think that God - if He is wise and just, good and eternal and can be called by all names appropriate to God, and if we do not consider that all names have one meaning - either becomes composed of many parts, or from participation in these [named properties] collects for Himself the perfection of nature? 245. CHAPTER 20. That Akindinus is of the same opinion with the Hellenes, and even with Epicurus himself. And that from what Palamas says, there appears one God, simple and uncomplicated, in one divinity. 97. But it is not only Eunomius alone who has the same faith in this [question] (ομόδοξος) of Akindinus, but even the Hellenes themselves. And the witness [to this] is the martyr Justin, like the philosophers, who himself says that “God does not create by being, but by will. For, being one, simple, and uniform, He is the creator of various essences,” 246 and cites the Hellenes as saying that “one should not think that just as in us it is one thing to be, and another to will, so it is in God; but, on the contrary, in God to be and to will are one and the same. What He is, He wills, and what He wills, He is, and there is no division with God due to the fact that God is self-willed 247 . So, in relation to God, the division of will from being must be rejected” 248. But isn’t Akindinus saying the same thing, [albeit] not in the same words? For will is the energy of God. So, just as the Hellenes say that in relation to God there is no separation of essence and will, so he, even more generally, says that with God there is no separation of essence and energy. And again, just as they say that “What God is, he wills, and what he wills, that is,” so he: “God does not act with energy, but with His essence,” for “what is” and essence are one and the same. What is he inventing with this? That energy is indistinguishable from essence, just like the Hellenes - that will is from essence. But he also magnifies their wickedness, for what they said [only] about will, he speaks about all divine activity. But the witness of the truth, destroying Hellenic teaching, enters into battle against this opinion of Akindinus. He says: “Since God has the essence to exist, and the will to create, then he who rejects the difference between essence and will, or, in other words, essence and energy, rejects both the existence of God and creation: the existence is His, and the creation is of non-existent things” 249. 98. Truly, therefore, we said that the dogmatic teaching of Akindinus is a general ruin and a clear denial of God, and, as it were, a kind of snare or net that entangles [and draws] those caught in it to atheism. Now he is obviously exposed as a wise martyr for introducing the “automatism” of the Epicureans. And thus, having rejected this, the martyr clearly assimilates our [teaching] to himself in the following words when he writes: “Moreover, to desire is either the essence, or is inherent in the essence. If this is an essence, then there is no willing one, and if this is inherent in the essence, then, of necessity, it turns out to be different and different. For the existing and the inherent (τό όν και τό προσόν) are not the same thing” 250. And again: “If something else is [simply] abiding (ύπάρχειν), and another is abiding in [something] (ένυπάρχειν), and the essence of God [simply] abides, and will abides in essence, then the other is the essence of God, and the other is will” 251. And then: “if God desires many things, but [He Himself] is not many, then it is not the same thing for God to be and to desire” 252. And again: “The essence of God does not tolerate not being an essence, but the will of God allows not to desire. So, God wanted to create one sun, but did not want to create a second sun. So, one is the essence of God, and the other is the will” 253. 99. And is the divine will, since it is different from God's essence, to be numbered among created things? Away with such evil. Since both are uncreated, and since they are one and the other, does the one who says this fall into ditheism? Give up the shameless, ugly and destructive nonsense. But can anyone say, if he does not rage after Sabellius, that the Son or the Holy Spirit is this uncreated energy? But the divine will, as here presented by the wise witness of the truth, is not an essence, but is inherent in the essence; and not in a special hypostasis, but in essence is contemplated by those who wish to think piously. And although this is neither the divine essence nor the hypostasis, but is contemplated in the essence and the hypostases corresponding to it, does this prove that the Divinity is complex? But this also belongs to the Hellenic debate. For, then, how do they say that “if God has an existing (υπάρχουσα) hypostasis, and an inherent (ένυπάρχουσα) will, and an existing Son, then how, being composed of so many things, is He called simple?” 254, the wise martyr again, answering, says: “God, as [Himself] is all everywhere, and all in everyone, and all in Himself,” and we believe in this, “so is His simplicity. She is all the Son, and all has the Son, all is will, and all has will. For God is not similar to created nature, so that being and possession in Him would be thought of in composition, but since He exists above nature, so also being and possession in Him are above composition” 255. CHAPTER 21. Another proof that the uncreated force, which is given the name of divinity, is neither an essence nor a hypostasis, and at the same time does not prevent the existence of divinity alone. 100. So, thoughts about the divine are godly, but do not think that it is subject to our natural sequence. For, without renouncing the knowledge of God and theology that is possible for us, we use the names assigned to created things and in relation to uncreated things. For we by no means believe that the divine is located in our own way, and expressing this in human verbs, since we cannot do otherwise, we know within ourselves that this is so much higher than human states (παθών) that it is impossible to say. This is enough to brand Akindin’s malice and free us from the charges brought forward. It wouldn’t be a bad idea to talk a little about strength. So, says the great Athanasius: “We theologize about one God in three hypostases, Who has one essence, power and energy and everything else that is seen to be theologized and sung around the essence” 256. And the wise Damascene in the divine says: “hypostatic [properties] are not a hypostasis, but a characteristic of a hypostasis: so natural [properties] are not a nature, but a characteristic of a nature” 257 . “We call natural properties,” he continues, “volition and energy. I am talking about the most desirable and active force, according to which those who desire and act desire and act” 258 . And in another place he theologizes more generally, saying: “And what we say about God cataphatically does not point to nature, but to what is around nature. And whether goodness, righteousness, wisdom or anything else you call it, you will not talk about the nature of God, but about what is around nature” 259. 101. And the God-speaking Gregory of Nyssa in the word “On Perfection” says about the great Paul that he “naming everything that is contemplated around the divine nature: peace, power, life, justice, light, truth and such things, determined that the concept of it itself is completely elusive, saying that God has never been and will never be visible: “Whom no one has seen from man can see” (1 Tim. 6:16)" 260. 102. And that the god-creating power is also called divinity, the great Dionysius teaches when he writes: we call divinity itself, in the categories of the primordial, divine and causal, the super-primary and super-essential Beginning and Cause; and meaning what is participated - the providential power given from the non-participating God, in itself deification, of which, by partaking in their own way, beings are and are called deified” 261 . The providential, idolizing, and visual power of the divine Gregory of Nyssa calls divinity when he writes “To the Anomeae”: “not nature, but visual power is represented by the name “divinity” 262. A little higher, he says that power is around nature, and that nature, in its ineffability and inaccessibility, surpasses power, saying: “We know that the divine nature does not have a name denoting [it], but if it is called something, then either from human habit, or from the Holy Scriptures, it indicates something from what is around it. The divine nature itself remains ineffable and ineffable, surpassing any meaning [transmitted] through speech” 263. 103. But you, O Akindinus, consider all this to be created: the goodness of God, justice, providential, visual, idolizing, desirable, active force, peace, life, light? So you consider all this to be created, because all this is not nature, but the surroundings of nature, and that this is what characterizes it, and not [itself] characterized, so that there are not two uncreated or two uncreated divinities, that is, the divine nature and its divine power, because power is also called divinity, and because the divine nature surpasses it? Truly, these are the teachings and speeches of drunken people, or, more appropriately, demoniacs, as will be more obvious from what follows. Gregory the Theologian, Letter 101, PG 37, 181 AB. Wed: Menaion, August 6, stichera self-concordant, tone 5 on Polyeleos Matins Transfiguration of the Lord: “Your Divinity, O Savior, revealed the little dawn to those who ascended the mountain with You.” Palamas speaks here of the third “Triad in defense of the sacredly silent.” Jer. 23:18. In the Slavic Bible "έν ύποστήματι" is translated as "in council", following the Vulgate, where these words are translated as "in consilio", but the Lampe dictionary gives the following meaning: "ύπόστημα ύπόστασις in sense of substance", which is more consistent with the present context. Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 28, 19, PG 36, 52B. Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names, 5, 1, p. 402. Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 40, 6, PG 36, 365B. Wed. also: troparion 9 songs of the canon at the Matins of the Transfiguration: “may the highest God appear, standing in the midst of the gods, the apostle on Tabor” (Mineaion August 6). Gregory of Nyssa, On the divinity of the Son and Spirit, PG 46, 573D. John Chrysostom, Commentary on the 44th Psalm, 2, PG 55, 185D-186A. Same, Discourse 30 on the Gospel of John, 2, PG 59, 174A. Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 5, PG 29, 772B. Maximus the Confessor, Dispute with Pyrrhus, PG 91, 341 A. Didimus Caecus, Fragmenta in Psalmos, 59 Stentor copper-voiced (Σ τέντωπ χαλκεόφωνος) - in Greek mythology, one of the Achaeans, a participant in the Trojan War. He had a voice equal in strength to the voices of 50 people. He died competing in his skill with the god Hermes. τέντωρ χαλκεόφωνος is a stable expression denoting a very loud voice. Maximus the Confessor, Chapters on Theology, 2, 1, PG 90, 1125A. The quote is not identified. See: He, To Aulavius ​​about the fact that there are not three gods, PG 45, 124–125. Gregory Palamas here, instead of quoting, gives a free retelling of the thoughts of Gregory of Nyssa. See: Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 5, PG 29, 772С. Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 40, 5 See: Gregory the Theologian, “Words”, 29, 15, PG 36, 93B; Word 40, 43, PG 36, 420BC. See: Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate, 5, PG 75, 68BC. Compare: Gregory the Theologian, “Words”, 31, 32, PG 36, 169B. Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 5, PG 29, 772C. Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 5, PG 29, 733 C; See also: aka, On the Holy Spirit, 18, 44, PG 32, 149A. See: Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 2, 4–5, PG 29, 580CD; Gregory of Nyssa, To Eunomius, 1, PG 45, 461AB and Ibid., 2, PG 45, 1105B. Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 3, 1, PG 29, 656A. Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Heavenly Hierarchy, 4, 1, p. 78. Gregory of Nyssa, Words on the Beatitudes, 7, PG 44, 1280B. John Chrysostom, De incomprehensibili dei natura (Contra Anomoeos, homiliae), 1, 4,: Malingrey, A. M. (editor), Jean Chrysostome. Sur l'incompmhensibilitu de Dieu, Paris, 1970 (Sources chrotiennes, 28 bis), 1, 192–198. Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 5, PG 29, 769A. Athanasius of Alexandria, In illud: Omnia mihi tradita sunt, 4, PG 25, 216B. Athanasius of Alexandria, Dialogi duo contra Macedonianos [Sp.], 1, 14, PC28, 1313A. He, Against the Arians, 2, 2, PG 26, 149C. He, Against the Arians, 3, 62, PG 26, 453B. Athanasius of Alexandria, Disputatio contra Arium [Sp.], PG 28, 473C. Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 4, PG 29, 696C. Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate, 22, PG 75, 373A. Maximus the Confessor, Chapters on Love, 3, 27, PG 90, 1025A. Τό βάραθρον - “baratr” - an abyss in ancient Athens into which those condemned to death were thrown. Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names, 5, 2, p. 404. Paraphrase of his own Message 2, p. 768–770. Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 30, 20, PG 36, 129B. Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names, 12, 4, p. 546. Dionysius the Areopagite, On Mystical Theology, 1, 2, p. 740. John of Damascus, "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith", 1, 8, op. cit., 8, 67–72. Maximus the Confessor, Chapters on theology and the economy of the incarnation Son of God, 1, 48, PG 90, 1100D. See: Maximus the Confessor, Εργα θεολογικά και πολεμικά, PG 91, 200C. Maximus the Confessor, Chapters on theology and the economy of the incarnation of the Son of God, 1, 48, PG 90, 1100D. Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 39, 12, PG 36, 348B. Maximus the Confessor, Chapters on Theology, 1, 50, PG 90, 1101B. Εΐ γαρ ουκ ήν ταύτα, ότε ουκ ήν χρονικώς, και χρόνος ήν λοιπόν έξ ανάγκης άναρχος ο γαρ ουκ ήν, ότε ουκ ήν, ουκ άρκτόν. – A difficult phrase to translate. The Modern Greek translation gives the following reading: “If they were not when time did not exist, then time was necessarily without beginning: for what was not when there was nothing is not what has begun.” But we do not think that it finds sufficient justification in the original text. See: Maximus the Confessor, Chapters on theology and the economy of the incarnation of the Son of God, 1, 48, PG 90, 1100D. Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names, 11, 6, p. 538. So with Gregory Palamas; Gregory the Theologian – “ένηργηκώς”. Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 29, 16, PG 36, 96A. Gregory of Nyssa, To Aulavius on the fact that there are not three gods, PG 45, 128B. J. D. Mansi. Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, Venezia, 1757–98, vol. 9, p. 489. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 26, 63, PG 32, 184C. In the original, where we translate “named” and “uttered”, the same verb form is used - “λέγεσθαι”, since the verb “λέγω” has both of these meanings: “to speak” and “to name”. Similarly, in Church Slavonic, the verbs “reshchi” and “verbolati” are used in both of these meanings (Cf.: “to whom do I speak as slaves” (John 15:15) and “verbs that I speak” (John 6:63)), but in modern Russian we have to use prefixes that delimit these meanings. However, we find similar examples of word usage in Russian, when we are talking not about objects, but about some abstract concepts. So, one could say: “I speak the truth and speak the words by which this truth is expressed.” John of Damascus, An Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 1, 8, op. cit., 8, 67–72. Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 29, 6, PG 36, 81B. See: Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 40, 6, PG 36, 365A. The highlighted words belong to St. Gregory of Nyssa (Dialogus de anima et resurrectione, PG 46, 104B). Gregory of Nyssa, Dialogus de anima et resurrectione, PG 46, 104AB. Acts 3 – “άχρι χρόνων αποκαταστάσεως “ – “until the years of the dispensation.” Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 30, 6, PG 36, 112AB. Literally: “possession” – “έξιν”. Maximus the Confessor, On Perplexities towards John, 110 (36), PG 91, 1308B. This refers to “Theophanes’ Interview with Theotimos,” published in the previous volume of this series. Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 38, 11, PG 36, 324A. Basil the Great, Discourse on Psalm 29, 5, PG 29, 317B. Basil the Great, On Faith, 2, PG 31, 681 A. See: Basil the Great, Discourse on Psalm 44, 5, PG 29, 400CD. "Βασιλικω πήχει" - that is, by the power of royal power, which Akindinus resorted to to establish his teaching. Maximus the Confessor, Κεφάλαια θεολογικά, 2, 86, PG 90, 1165AB. Ibid., 2, 90, PG 90, 1168C. Ibid., 2, 93, PG 90, 1169A. John of Damascus, Homilia in transfigurationem domini, 16, PG 96, 569B. In the original: "πάντα κάλων κινείς" - “you pull on every rope.” The same, Questions and Answers to Thalassia 61, scholium 18, PG 90, 644D-645A. Gregory of Nyssa, Words on the Beatitudes, 7, PG 44, 1275BC. John of Damascus, Homilia in transfigurationem domini, 15, PG 96, 569A. Gregory of Nyssa, Encomium in sanctum Stephanum protomartyrem I, PG 46, 717B. John Chrysostom. Discourses on 1 Corinthians, 2, PG 61, 58C. John Chrysostom, Ad Stelechium de compunctione (lib. 2): PG47, 413D. Leontius of Byzantium, In transfigurationem (homilia 14) (in ancient times this work was attributed to St. John Chrysostom), S. Datema and R. Allen (ed.), John Chrysostom, Discourse 30, 2 on the Gospel of John, 2, PG 59, 174A. John Chrysostom, Commentary on the 44th Psalm, 3, PG 55, 185C. Literally: “without turning your ears.” That is, the mention of sleep as a state opposite to vision indicates that we are talking about bodily vision. Basil the Great, Discourse on Psalm 44, 5, PG 29, 400CD. He, On the Holy Spirit, 19, PG 32, 1 56B. Same, Against Eunomius, 3, PG 29, 660B. Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 31, 4 – Barbel 224 PG 36, 137A. On the week of the morning at the Midnight Office, canon of the Trinity, tone 4, hymn 8. In the original package: “the light of the One” and “show me, calling.” That is, one who is his own father. Here Palamas hints at the fact that Akindinus, when he was on Athos, had him as his spiritual father, but did not remain faithful and obedient to him. Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 31, 29 – Barbel 268 PG 36, 165С. In the original text of the Word: “fulfilling the world in essence.” The acts of the local council against the Messalians (390) have not survived. Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 30, 21 – Barbel 214 PG 36, 132B. John of Damascus, An Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1, 4, op. Cit., 4, 32 PG 94, 800BC. Gregory the Theologian, Mysterious Hymns, Homily 4, 84, PG 37, 422A. Andrey Kritsky, Homily on the Transfiguration, PG 97, 948AB. Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 2, PG 29, 648A. Gregory of Nyssa, Orationes VIII de beatitudinibus, PG 44, 1268D. He, Against Eunomius, 11 – Jaeger 1, 180 PG 45, 416BC. Gregory of Nyssa, Orationes VIII de beatitudinibus, Jaeger 8, 1, 187–188 PG 46, 264D. Gregory the Theologian. Word 30, 18, Barbel 206 PG 36, 125С. John of Damascus, An Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 3, 15 – PG 94, 1056C, John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 3, 15, op. Cit., 59, 128–134. Compare: Maximus the Confessor, Dispute with Pyrrhus – PG 91, 341 ABC. Same, Against Eunomius, 1, 8, PG 29, 528BC. Athanasius of Alexandria, Sermo in annuntiationem deiparae [Sp.], PG 28, 924B. Anastasius Sinait, 'Οδηγός, 2, PG 89, 53C. The Greek edition indicates the source of the quotation: “Gregory of Nyssa, To Aulavius, that there are not three gods 3, 1 – Jaeger 46 PG 45, 124D-125A,” but neither in the indicated place nor in any other by St. Gregory of Nyssa, we did not find the words given. Part of the phrase seems to be borrowed from the 30th Word of St. Gregory the Theologian, and the rest is of unknown origin. The quote is also not identifiable. Basil the Great, Letter 189, 7–8, Courtonne 2, 140 PG 32, 693C-696A. Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium: Book 2, chapter 1, section 499, line 3–8. Ibid., section 501, line 1 – section 503, line 7. Justin the Philosopher (pseudepigrapha). Christian Questions to the Hellenes, 3, 2 – PG 6, 1433B. "αύτοπάρακτος" – the word appears only in the indicated work. Lampe gives a translation for it: “self-originate”. Ibid., 3, 1 – 1428D; 1429С. Justin Philosopher (pseudepigrapha), Replies to the Orthodox, 144 – PG 6, 1396D. Athanasius of Alexandria (pseudepigrapha), Homily on the Annunciation, 2 – PG 920B. The quote is not identified. Compare: John of Damascus, An exact exposition of the Orthodox faith, 3, 6, op. cit., 50, 9–10. John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 3, 14, op. cit., 58, 24–25. Ibid., 1, 4, op. cit., 4, 33–36. Gregory of Nyssa, On Perfection 8, 1 – Jaeger 187–188 PG 46, 264D. Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names, 11, 6, p. 540 – PG 3, 953D-956A. Gregory of Nyssa, On the divinity of the Son and Spirit - PG 46, 576A. You might be interested in: