Еще на написанное Акиндином против света благодати и духовных даров – слово возражения пятое.

CHAPTER 1. That Akindinus is blinder by reason than those who are blind by sensory vision, as not only not knowing, but asserting things that are opposite to each other about the divine light. 1. But what word could convince those who voluntarily turn away from the light of truth, who, having completely closed or turned the eye of the soul to darkness and filled it with darkness, then consider as similar to themselves those who from the ages have been honored with “the lightness of God to see and experience” 597? And even if one of the present, having himself tried and been honored with the mercy of God, blissfully experiences this blessed vision, then they undertake to re-teach him as if he had never seen anything like that. But they look [even] not like those who turn their gaze to an unlit place, but also like those who have gouged them out. For just as those, touching but not seeing objects, often liken the tangible to different [things], considering now one thing, now another, and form different ideas about the same object, so these, with a dark understanding, as if perceiving the most divine light, introduce many and different ideas about it, even outstripping even the blind themselves in the worst. For they do not have negative ignorance (κατά άπόφασιν αγνοιαν) 598, as they do - ignorance; and they do not simply resort to different judgments, like those who judge the visible through contact, but, alas, they declare the very opposite about the same and also such a great light. CHAPTER 2. Sayings of Akindinus, based on the analysis of which it is revealed in detail that about the same light he claims that this is both the creation and the essence of God. 2. For now the one who previously proved in all ways that this light is creation, and brought down with it, as I found it from him, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - for one of the one divinities is the shining of the Three - now he, transferring deceit to those who live according to God, is trying to tear away from there “those who have ascended to the measure of the age of the fulfillment of Christ” (Eph. 4:13). Listen to what he says again. “It must also be taken into account that not a single recognized theologian taught that this light is common to others, even if someone has ascended to the pinnacle of contemplation of God, but they testified only to the divine apostles, and then to the divine condescension that was theirs. Since theologians would contradict themselves and each other, insisting that it is impossible for anyone to see God in any other way except from the creatures, “whether one be Moses or Paul who ascended into the third heaven (2 Cor. 12:2), or even even higher than him, if someone were lucky enough to achieve the angelic or archangelic position and rank" 599, and also other and those God-given virtues in us, with the help of which we are purified in the Spirit, and the gifts of the Spirit." 3. Ay, ay, what happens to a soul completely captured by envy and greedy for human glory, and with these passions taking up speeches about God, and moreover, for the sake of an argument! Who among those who have been attached to piety for centuries has ever introduced such great wickedness? Who so cleverly played with words, as if with the frequent ebb and flow of Euripus 600, and, moreover, constantly changing vicious opinions for vicious ones, in order to gradually move on to the completely opposite, but always even worse? After all, now this [man], who previously, with the help of long reasonings, reduced this light to the level of creation, then - alas for his insolence! - in his recent speeches he declares the essence of God, trying with great deceit to show him as uncreated, or, rather, inventing that he is, as it were, something created-uncreated. That is why I quoted his entire speech, so that it would become clear to everyone what is now being offered to them. After all, what is not possible for anyone to see, be it even Moses, even Paul, who ascended to the third heaven, or even higher than him, who was lucky enough to achieve the angelic or archangelic position and rank, what is this other than the absolutely non-originating (άνεκφοίτητος) and undetectable and invisible to everyone essence of God? But the unfortunate man was not ashamed of either the Gospel narrative or the voice of the Lord. For He announced that some, because of this light, would see “the Kingdom of God come with power” (Mark 9:1), to show that this is that non-evening light, which, after the end of this age, will be clearly visible to all the sons of the next age. And the evangelists showed that not only the apostles saw this indescribable glory, but also Moses and Elijah, who miraculously came there and talked with Christ and predicted “His outcome, which He wanted to die in Jerusalem” (Luke 9:31, Matt. 17:3, Mark 9:4–5). 4. And Akindinus says that “not a single recognized theologian taught that this light is common to others, even if someone ascended to the pinnacle of contemplation of God, even if he were Moses himself, but they testified only to the divine apostles, and then to the divine condescension that was theirs.” Here he says that only three of the apostles saw this light, but by divine condescension. And a little higher, he says: “The apostles on Tabor saw the glory and divinity of Jesus, but not by it itself, “for divinity in itself is invisible” 601. What does [the theologian] call divinity here? The essence of God: after all, it is never revealed by itself. So, when he writes that the apostles saw a light on the mountain, but [as if] loaned out of condescension and [that they saw it] not on its own, because the essence of God in itself is invisible, then does he not clearly consider that light to be the essence of God? And, however, this light, since they saw it, again, according to him, is a creation, for he declares that nothing that has become visible is in any way uncreated, and since it was visible only to those alone, again in his opinion, and it is not possible for anyone else to see it, even if he were an angel, then it is different in relation to the creatures and is the essence of God, according to him, in many places of his words saying that “there is no shining and uncreated grace, which would not be the essence of God.” But to what was said above, having further added something else, which also relates to a corrupted understanding, as our speech will show along the way, he then again, with the help of other statements, returns to the same understanding, proving that this light is the essence of God. For he then says: “but that sacrament has a different meaning, and another – the contemplation and theology of other people, all of them, no matter how many of them there are.” 5. So, if the contemplation on Tabor of this light is different from that of all other people, as being extremely removed from everything, even if it were Moses who contemplated it, or Paul himself, or even higher than them, who was lucky enough to achieve an angelic or archangelic position and rank, then, consequently, the remaining face of the twelve, except for those three, was completely devoid of contemplation, for beyond their measure was that light about which he had previously insisted Akindin, that he is created. Although what kind of creation, and even just [his] vision, are these god-like and great lamps unworthy, together with Moses and Paul and with the archangels themselves, and, moreover, forever [unworthy]? Why does this sacrament have a different meaning, and a different meaning for the contemplation and theology of other people, all of them, no matter how many of them there are? “Because,” says [Akindin], “it is impossible for anyone to see God in any other way except from His creations.” Consequently, that light is uncreated, which neither Moses, nor Paul, nor the angel, nor the archangel, according to Akindinus, ever saw. If he is uncreated, then he is the essence of God, “for everything uncreated is essence,” in his opinion. And then how did they see the three apostles? Explain [to us] again, oh, the secret place of ineffable [secrets]! “Because,” he says, “there was a divine condescension.” Thanks to condescension, it means that they saw it, even if dimly, or is it some kind of created and sensory light? “Come on,” he says, “they saw the wrong light: after all, nothing that spontaneously comes into the vision of the bodily eyes is in any case uncreated, even if one approaches divine contemplation as Moses, even as Paul, who ascended to the third heaven, even as an angel,” and “it is not possible for anyone to see God in any other way, except from His creations.” So this unfortunate man obviously again reduced that light to the level of the creature, cutting off the lightness of the divine nature in a strange way from itself. Do you see how it turns from the closest to the opposite? 6. But in order to say that that light is uncreated, he involuntarily comes, being bound by the conciliar decision 602, due to which he approaches this with crafty duality and in some ambiguities and retreats rather than approaches, and in order to declare [this light] created, he spreads, as they say, all sails, proposing this with all zeal, and again here he adds that “it is not possible for anyone to see God in any other way, except as from His creations,” and claims that this is the saying of all theologians, madly believing to remain unnoticed, using their statements against their understanding. CHAPTER 3. That, due to the polysemy of the word “God,” the fathers either taught or forbade seeing God, and that Akindinus, who did not understand this, [as if] forces the words of the saints to contradict themselves, using them against each other. 7. The word “see” carries a double meaning: it happens when it means that someone mentally comprehends God to the best of his ability, and sometimes it means to have Him living within oneself and, due to mixing with divine grace, to enjoy Him in ineffable vision and communication (όμιλία), and not to comprehend Him, as the God-bearers teach us. “For divine grace,” says [the father], “although it gives pleasure to those who partake by grace, it does not comprehend” 603. But also the name “God” is common to the divine essence, and to the divine power and energy, and to the hypostases themselves. Seeing God is both forbidden and promised: God “no one has seen anywhere” (John 1:18), “Whom no one has seen is from man, he can see” (1 Tim. 6:16), and “no one will see My face and live” (Ex. 33:20) - God said to Moses; but also “from the beauty of the creatures” the Creator is seen (Wis. 13:5), “the blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” (Matt. 5:8), and we will see, says the apostle, “face to face” (1 Cor. 13:12), the “angels” approaching God “behold the face of their Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 18:10, 14) and Jacob says: “For I saw God face to face, and my soul was saved” (Gen. 32:30). These [concepts] do not relate to one another in an opposite way, but are extremely consonant and close, since the interchange of meanings of names gives theology agreement in meaning. 8. For seeing God is prohibited by theologians, who consider Him incomprehensible in hypostasis and essence. “For blessed divinity,” according to the divine Maximus, “is in essence super-ineffable and super-unknowable, and does not leave for those who follow it any, not even a small, trace of comprehension” 604. And, according to the prophetic [word], no one “was in the hypostasis” of God 605; and no one “will see the face” of God, and “will live” (Ex. 33:20), and, according to Gregory the Theologian, “no one has seen or declared the nature of God” 606, and, according to John Chrysostom, “when someone thinks that he has found God’s essence, then behind this lies the one who said: “I will set my throne above the heavenly” (Is. 14:13) 607. So, seeing God is prohibited by theologians, who consider Him in all respects incomprehensible in essence; and that the Creator is visible from creation they said, not teaching that the divine essence is visible from creation - this is what they explicitly forbade - but saying that divine power and energy is understood from actions. 9. “For how is it possible,” says [the father], “to infer essence from works?” 608 And again: “It is not from the works of the master that we come to understand the essence of the master, but from what is born we understand the nature of the one who gave birth” 609 ; and again: “Creations are indications of wisdom, art and power, and not of the essence itself, and do not necessarily show the full power of the Creator” 610. And Akindinus opposes those who say exactly this in accordance with the fathers, that is, that from creatures we come to understand not the divine essence, but the divine power, theologians who talk about seeing God from creation, as if the divine essence itself were visible and knowable from creation. But is it not that he is raising theologians against themselves, as far as it is possible for him? CHAPTER 4. By making the same thing out of the word “see,” which has a double meaning, he is at the same time exposed as thinking that divine providence is created. 10. “But the Lord reveals Himself to the venerable ones,” according to the divine Cyril, “not by acquaintance conceivable in knowledge, but there will be for them some exceptional image of illumination: after all, they will consider the Lord who dwells within them with the eyes of reasoning with the help of the Holy Spirit” 611. And according to the divine Gregory of Nyssa, “the beauty that surpasses all that is worldly and heavenly, which, as the undeceitful Word declared, is seen by the pure in heart, is the best of all hope, and the highest likeness [derived] from assumptions” 612. This is the most blessed contemplation of those who are purified in heart: this is defined by Christ-like vision and communion of the light of the face of God, according to who said: “The light of Your countenance is marked upon us, O Lord” (Ps. 4:7). “For when you hear about the Face of God,” says the theologian Chrysostom, “do not assume anything corporeal: for here [the prophet] points to His energy, His [miraculous] appearance (επιφάνειαν)" 613. So, according to the theologian from Damascus, “Moses saw the face of God on Tabor” 614. So, not “mirror” , not “in fortune-telling,” but “face to face” (1 Cor. 13:12) will see, according to the apostolic voice, purifying themselves in such great hope. “And cover Your darkness” (Ps. 17:12), says Gregory, who got his name from theology, “so that dark nature does not easily see the hidden beauty worthy of a few. For the light will converge with the light, eternally attracting to heights through aspiration, and the purified mind will approach the purest, and one will appear now, and the other later, as a reward for virtue and hence the inclination towards it” 615. 11. And Akindinus, again rejecting this image of divine illumination, exclusive to the saints, which for those who faithfully come to him is different from knowledge in acquaintance, counterbalances the theologians’ speech about acquaintance in knowledge, when they say that God is seen from the creatures, that is, thought by everyone, through the wisdom manifested in everything, seeing Him who in wisdom created all things, or, in other words, concluding about Him, and claims that these things so distant [from each other] are one and the same. For what do reasoning and divine communion, inference and ineffable illumination, knowledge (and what is more, which comes from inference) and the acquisition and tasting of the inexpressible and endless light, which, according to the great Basil, occurs from mixing [it] with the worthy, have in common? How can it be that what is unique to the divinely inspired [ascetics] is one and not distinct in anything, and what is inherent to all of us, and even to some of the Hellenic sages, as the divine Gregory of Nyssa says? So, is it not out of malice and recklessness that Akindinus uses their [own] statements against the thoughts of theologians, weaponizing their sayings against each other? 12. So, [the expression] “to see God” has, as our word has shown, two meanings: when someone has acquired God within himself and, thanks to the radiance from Him, sees Him; and then to come to the knowledge and recognition of God not according to the exclusive image of the illumination [revealed] by the monk. But again, the very act of being in the consciousness (έν είδήσει) of God has two meanings, as Basil the Great will now show us. For he speaks to those who claim that they know the essence of God, and who say that “we worship a God whom we do not know, but whom we know”: “[The expression] “to know God” has many meanings: after all, we say that we know the greatness of God, and power, and wisdom, and goodness, and providence, and the justice of His judgment, and [His] creative principle, and foreknowledge, and reward, but not the essence itself. Let them not deceive us because of His simplicity: for the energies of God are varied, but the essence is simple. We say that we know our God from energies, but we do not assure that we are approaching His essence” 616. 13. So, since we say that we know God from divine energies, providence, wisdom, goodness, creative and foreknowledge power, and Akindinus says that, according to theologians, it is impossible for anyone to know God except from His creations, is it not obvious that he considers divine providence, and creative and foreknowledge power, and divine goodness and wisdom to be the creatures, from which we know God, and slander that it is theologians who think about it this way, directing their pious reasoning in the other direction, reinterpreting, and expanding, and raising their words against each other? But let him not mislead us because the word “God” is common to both God’s essence and divine energies: for God alone abides in essence and energy, alone being the omnipotent essence. So from creatures we do not acquire God, but we know; and [we know] not His essence, but His uncreated powers and energies. And from these uncreated forces and energies we know our God that He is an omnipotent being. CHAPTER 5. Proof from his own words that the light that shone on Tabor is uncreated and is not a divine essence, even if he himself did not want it. 14. Nevertheless, since it has become completely obvious that it is impossible to know the essence of God from creation, Barlaam and Akindinus, insisting that with the help of created light the apostles saw uncreated light on Tabor, which they are trying to deny, involuntarily themselves again prove that light is something uncreated, which [at the same time] is not the essence of God. For the uncreated, which is what they call this light, is energy, and not the essence of God, if it is known with the help of something created. So they know “neither what they say, nor what they affirm” (1 Tim. 1:7). If they themselves insist, as they insist, that the essence and very hypostasis of the Word of God is that uncreated - which they themselves call that light - which was known by the apostles on Tabor through visible light, and the essence of God is known to exist, according to theologians, through uncreated energies, then the light that the apostles saw on Tabor is the uncreated energy of God. Thus, against themselves, without realizing it, they weave sophisms, not understanding not only [the sayings of] theologians, or voluntarily [concerning them] being mistaken, but also their own. 15. About the ineffable divine illumination that occurs only to the venerable, and about the fact that [the words] “God is seen by no one anywhere” (John 1:18), and “Whom no one can see from man, can see below” (1 Tim. 6:16), and the like show God as being invisible in essence and to the saints themselves, this is us both in the words composed to Barlaam and in the second and the fourth of what we said on these works of Akindinus was most clearly revealed. Since Akindinus now says that the apostles even on Mount Tabor saw God from the creatures like all other [people], then how does he again insist that that light is not common to others, as if it were super-remote [from everything], and that there is one meaning of that sacrament, and another - of the contemplations and theologies of all that is [other theologians], be the theologian or deified even by Moses, even by Paul, who ascended to the third heaven, or even beyond them, having been awarded the angelic or archangelic position and rank? 16. But this happens to the unfortunate because he greedily strives to please everyone, adapting himself in various ways to the opinions of everyone and not paying any attention to God and the truth. Therefore, he calls this light either creation or uncreated, but even this [he does the latter] is bad; and sometimes again neither one nor the other, but it happens that it is also a [ghost] that is absolutely non-existent in reality (άνυπόστατον), which - it’s scary to even say - he then ranked among the evil [visions]. First, by all means, he reduced this light to the level of creation, then, wanting to simultaneously cover himself, and at the same time resist both the saints and us, like-minded with them, with the help of other wickedness he tries to hide the former wickedness, saying: “We must take into account the fact that not a single recognized theologian taught that this light is common to others, even if someone has ascended to the pinnacle of the contemplation of God, but they testified only to the divine apostles." CHAPTER 6. Re-examination of his statement, which when again examined, it becomes clear that this divine light is the common sacred vision of the saints; and he himself is exposed as not considering any of them to be a true theologian and opposing the prophecies of the Gospel. 17. What are you saying: this light is not a common reward for those who live according to God? 617 Then not everyone will reach the Kingdom of God, for the Lord himself said that this light is the Kingdom of God 618. And this Daniel lied, and his prophecy, which foreshadowed that the “Kingdom of the Most High” would be given (Dan 7:18), and that the Kingdom of God and the saints would be one and the same. Rather, and even much sooner, it will not be and will not be given for the sake of all the others, of whom there are so many, than it will be given for the sake of the three who then ascended the mountain. 18. How then does the great Dionysius say: “when we become incorruptible and immortal, and reach the Christlike and most blessed destiny (λήξεως) 619, then, according to the Saying, “we will always be with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:17) filled with His visible theophany in all-pure contemplation, illuminating us with the brightest brilliance, as disciples in that most divine Transfiguration” 620? How then will the Lord come again, according to the great Athanasius, “emitting from His holy body [received] from Mary the radiance of ineffable glory, as He showed in part on the mountain” 621, and according to Gregory the Theologian, “as He was seen on the mountain by the disciples or as He showed Himself when divinity overcame the carnal” 622, if that light is not common for all other saints, but visible in an indescribable way only three of the apostles? 19. However, since now the enemy of light, wanting to deprive the sons of light of light (1 Thessalonians 5:5, Luke 16:8), out of extreme madness, is trying to make them like-minded people against themselves, slandering them all and presenting the matter as if none of them called the light common to the enlightened, then let us bring almost everyone who called [it] common to all, so that he or, looking at such a great build the witnesses of the light and, casting aside the darkness of reason, would peer into the radiance of truth, or, even in this way, without repenting of a vicious opinion, already here would receive the beginning of future shame and from it [the resulting] pain, which rightly extends to all eternity. 20. So, Father Chrysostom in his “Admonition to Theodore” says: “Everything related to that life will be day, brightness and light: not this present one, but another, as brighter than this one as this one is brighter than the lamp. For there is neither night nor evening there, but such a different state that only those who are worthy know it. And what is even greater than this is to enjoy communion with Christ continuously, together with the powers above. And to see that these statements are not empty words, let us go with our thoughts to the mountain where Christ was transfigured; We will see Him, shining as He did [there], although even then He did not show us all the brightness of the future age” 623. And in the essay “To the Young Widow” he again says: “The bodies of those who have pleased God will be clothed with such great glory that it is not even possible to see with these eyes, and God has prepared certain signs and vague traces of this in both the Old and New Testaments to give us. For there the face of Moses then shone with such glory that it was unapproachable to the eyes of the Israelites, and in the New [Testament] the face of Christ shone much more than it." 624 And the divine Cyril says: “The Lord, showing that the resurrection of the saints will be most glorious, says that “then the righteous will shine like the sun” (Matthew 13:43); and so that they would again be convinced that He was speaking the truth, He gave the disciples a premature contemplation of these [things], having been transfigured on the mountain” 625. Since there this is a common reward for all true Christians, and a guarantee of future benefits is given here, then how could it be that now the common [good] is not partly offered to those who struggle? 21. And what about the one who says that for this reason the Lord ascended the mountain, withdrawing from others, and in prayer showed that indescribable radiance of this light in order to show the fruit of sacred silence and prayer, and adds: “For the mother of prayer is silence, and silence is the manifestation of divine glory. For when we close our feelings and get closer to ourselves and to God, and, freed from the rotation within the world, we stand within ourselves, then we will clearly see the Kingdom of God in ourselves. For the kingdom of heaven, which is “the kingdom of God, is within you” (Luke 17:21), - declared God Jesus” 626 - does not he also consider this light to be the general spectacle of those who are truly committed to silence and prayer? After all, he calls this light the Kingdom of God, just like the Lord 627. Andrew, the brightest lamp of Crete, says: “The Savior brings disciples up to the mountain to do what, or teach what? So that, showing the super-shining glory and lightness of his divinity, into which He transformed nature, hearing: “you are earth and you have come to earth” (Gen. 3:19). From here, according to the true mysteries of theologians, as if from some ever-flowing source, through an outpouring of pure deification filled with endless gifts, a great gift comes to us” 628. “For He wants us, having realized the depth of what [He] has done in accordance with this, by knowledge to attract to ourselves, by imitation of the Transfigured One, the most active grace that works in us this wondrous and strange sacrament” 629. You see that for this reason the Savior shone on the mountain in order to teach us: what the gift of deification is, that is, that it is this light, and so that when we know and believe, this strange sacrament would take place in ourselves, in a mysterious and ineffable way leading out of darkness, in the words of the Apostle, “into His wonderful light” (1 Peter 2:9). 22. And the great Basil says: “the reward for virtue is to become a god and be enveloped in the purest light, becoming the son of that day that is not interrupted by darkness. For this day creates another Sun, emitting true light, which, when it once illuminates us, no longer hides in the west, but declares everything with its enlightening power, produces continuous and enduring light in the saints, and makes those who partake of that light themselves into other suns. For “then,” it is said, “the righteous will shine like the sun.” 630 Doesn’t he also proclaim that what is common to those who live virtuously is this light, in which the Lord shone when He appeared, and will shine again when He comes? But in another place he calls “kindness” the truly “Mighty” (Ps. 44:4-5) His intelligible and contemplated divinity, which Peter and the Sons of Thunder saw on the mountain 631. And again: “true and most desirable beauty, accessible to contemplation only to those who have purified their minds, existing in the vicinity of the most divine and blissful nature, in the radiance and grace of which if one gazes intently, he adopts something from it, as if from a certain paint his appearance was colored with a certain radiant brilliance, which is why Moses, having partaken of this beauty during a conversation with God, was glorified by his face.” 632. So, saying this, doesn’t the great Basil consider that light to be common to all those who have purified themselves? And his brother and akin (άδελφά) to him wisely, speaking about the great Paul that he “immediately became a guardian of the divine beauty that sparkled in his eyes” 633, doesn’t he also claim that the divine Paul saw that light, calling it beauty? 23. And Macarius the Great, in the “Chapters” translated by Metaphrastus, says: “and the light that shone on the path of blessed Paul (Acts 9:3), thanks to which he was taken to the third heaven (2 Cor. 12:2), and became a listener of unspoken mysteries, was not enlightenment [from] meanings and knowledge, but a shining in the hypostasis 634 of the power of the good Spirit in the soul, through which, unable to withstand the excess of lightness, the eyes of the flesh are blinded, and through which all knowledge is revealed, and God is truly known by a worthy and beloved soul” 635. Do you see that this [father] also insists that that light is common to every God-loving and God-loving soul? Because in another place he says: “the glory of the face of Moses is now received by the saints in their souls” 636, and in another place he says that “that immortal glory of the Spirit, which [appeared] in the mortal body of Moses in revelation, now inevitably shines in the immortal face of the inner man of the worthy” 637. 24. Again, Gregory, the famous theologian, speaks of “the brief radiance of the great light, from which Paul was damaged in his sight when he met him before purification” 638, and “the brief outflow of the highest (ακροτάτου) light and reflection, reaching only the saints, for “God has hidden His darkness” (Ps. 17:12; 2 Samuel 22:12), so that the dark nature does not easily see the hidden beauty, worthy of a few, and so that, having caught the light, it would not easily discard [it], because of the ease of acquisition, and so that the light would converge with the light, eternally attracting to heights through aspiration,” and “the purified mind would approach the Purest,” and “so that one thing would appear now, and the other later, as a reward for virtue and hence the attraction to him” 639, don’t you think it is consistent with great [theologians] like him? 25. And what does the one say: “The abyss of sorrow saw consolation, and the purity of the heart received light; radiance is an inexpressible energy, seen invisibly and thought in the unknown” 640 - what kind of light do you think he is talking about? And Saint Isaac, when he writes: “Prayer is purity of mind, which alone is formed from the light of the Holy Trinity (τένεται) 641 with amazement” 642, and again: “there is purity of mind in which the light of the Holy Trinity shines during prayer 643, ... and then the mind is above prayer” 644, and again: “we contemplate His glory holy nature, when God deigns to introduce us into spiritual mysteries” 645 - isn’t that the glory and the light that Basil the Great said about, that it is around the divine and blessed nature? 26. For again, Basil the Great himself, who insisted that the light miraculously revealed to the saints of God at different times is one, and then declares that it is the enlightenment of holy souls, “for which we should also pray that it may reach us too” 646. The whole church prays about this with sacred songs every day, and especially on the annual memory of the Divine Transfiguration 647. And that for [the] great Basil this prayer became effective, and that light descended on him, which is the enlightenment of holy souls, the divine Gregory of Nyssa revealed to us in his “Funeral Homily.” For he says: “Was Moses shone with light through the bush? We can also say something akin to this phenomenon about him (Vasily - “trans.”), how at night there was a ray of light for him when he was praying at home. That light, illuminating the dwelling with divine power, was something immaterial” 648. 27. But Akindinus, who decided to make war with the saints, says: “Not a single recognized theologian taught that this light is common to others, even those who have ascended to the pinnacle of contemplation of God, but they testified this only about the divine apostles.” So he considers neither the great Dionysius, nor the great Athanasius, nor the great Basil, nor the theologian Gregory, nor anyone else among us revered - not to mention everyone by name - a recognized theologian. And he obviously opposes the God of theologians himself. For He showed this radiance for this purpose, praying on the mountain, a continuous, unquenchable and unobscured radiance of light, in order to reveal the common reward of those who believed in Him. And this one teaches everyone unbelief, clearly forbidding and prescribing the opposite [of what the fathers forbid and prescribe] and even the viewer of the greatest [sacraments] Paul himself, believing this [light] invisible - and not just [only] now, but also in the next century. CHAPTER 7. That he seems to not only show this light, sometimes by creation, sometimes by the essence of God, but also that it is invisible to those three themselves, to whom alone, as he previously declared, it was visible. 28. If the created thing is seen, and, moreover, it is light, as you yourself have previously proven, then what kind of creation - and [even] only [its] contemplation - is Paul, and not only Paul, but also the archangels, unworthy of? How and for what reason do you think that for those who see only created things and from them only people, angels and archangels who see and know God, this creation alone is invisible and incomprehensible? And if [this light] is uncreated and a divine essence, as you yourself, the wise one, proved this here, saying that it is invisible to both Paul himself and the angels, then how, tell me, did you first prove in all ways that it is created? Let what was previously created be uncreated because of the extraordinary diversity of your wisdom and theology; How then was Paul not worthy of what Peter, James and John saw? Is it because Christ was in heaven when Paul was called? But He Himself was the One who called Paul, appearing through the same light, as the divine Luke writes, and we said a little higher the words of the fathers who spoke about this, but Paul himself also testifies about himself. Let it be that Paul was on earth, and Christ was in heaven, and, according to your height or depth of theology, the light of the divine light could not reach us from above. But weren't there angels and archangels with Him? With what calculation do you, man, deprive them of light, despite the fact that the fathers clearly say that “the entire intelligible order of the supermundane [forces] immaterially nourished by the light that shone on Tabor can be considered the clearest proof of the love of humanity of the Word about us” 649? 29. And the fact that Akindinus, who is in danger of falling into diametrically opposed wickedness, proving that this light is uncreated, and sometimes speaking [this] for fun, not only fantasizes that this light is the essence of God, but also to those to whom alone, as he said before, it was visible, now believes it to be invisible, will be obvious in the course of his speech. For he says that “the only uncreated light and uncreated glory, that is, the divine nature, is completely invisible in itself.” So, since he calls the divine nature the only uncreated light and uncreated glory, it is clear that when he calls or thinks that light uncreated, he considers it the essence of God; and does not allow him to be seen even by the three apostles on the mountain. After all, according to him, the divine nature is completely invisible in itself. And yet, not only based on what he says next, but also from what he said before, it is obvious that he considers this light to be the essence of God and excludes from contemplation of the most divine light on Mount Tabor those of the apostles who ascended [there] with Jesus, when he lies against Father Chrysostom. For he, first urging us to leave untouched and without careful examination, or rather unheard, what the saints said about this light, so that we do not honor the two divinities - the invisible and the seen light - then immediately encourages [to this], going crazy and beating himself, and doing exactly what he himself forbids, and with the addition of what is truly forbidden. So, he adds: “All this is obviously cut off by the divine Chrysostom in one fell swoop, speaking about this in [his interpretation] on [the Gospel words] “we have seen His glory, the glory as the only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14): “They would not have seen if He had appeared to us through something related (συντρόφου) body" 650 So, then the glory and divinity of Jesus appeared to the apostles, but not naked and not in itself. “For divinity,” says the theologian, “is in itself invisible” 651. So, that which in itself is invisible to holy angels and men, what else is it but the essence of God? For God, being invisible to everyone through it, becomes visible in various ways through energies 652. CHAPTER 8. About the fact that, having presented two witnesses - Chrysostom and Gregory the Theologian - he exposes the latter against himself, and also slanderes the Golden-Speaking Father. 30. Gregory, who received the nickname from theology, spoke about the divine essence when he said that “divinity in itself is invisible,” or even the very hypostasis of the Word, by which He was united with our mixture. For it is to those who claim that after suffering He threw away this flesh, which He assumed for our sake, and no longer remains and will not come with the human body He assumed, turning this word, he says: “Where, then, is that He was tangible after the Resurrection, and what will be seen by those who perforated 653? For divinity in itself is invisible" 654. For by Itself, he says, the invisible Word of God itself was tangible, and by Itself would have been seen, that is, by Its own hypostasis and nature, if, having cast off the flesh, It would then have been touched by the apostolic hands (John 20:26-29; Mark 16:14; Luke 24:39), according to the Gospel narration, and would have no time to be seen, according to prophecy, by the perforated ones (Zech. 12:10). However, the lightness of the divine nature, according to which “the Word of God will come with a body, such as It was seen by the disciples on the mountain” 655, will not be seen by those who have penetrated and those who are similar to them, for it is said: “Let the wicked be lifted up, let him not see the glory of the Lord” (Is. 26:10). Therefore, she herself is invisible to them. But the namesake of theology, Gregory, talked about the divine essence and the hypostasis itself that took on the body. So, attacking him, and asserting, along with this, that through the body of Christ the apostles saw the most divine light on the mountain, since the Theologian says that “divinity in itself is invisible,” the opponent of light himself clearly shows himself here to be imagining this light to be the very essence and hypostasis of the Word of God, which was discussed, as [we] have shown, by the Theologian. At the same time, he points out that they were not visible to three of the apostles at that time. And now, in his opinion, this light is invisible to everyone in itself. 31. Thus, he sets Gregory, the namesake of theology, against himself. And he openly slanderes the Golden-Speaking Father, saying that it is about this world that he announces, speaking in response to the Gospel words “we have seen His glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14), that “they would not have seen if He had appeared to us through a related body” 656. For Chrysostom did not consider that the evangelist here calls glory the light that shone on the mountain from the Savior, but the power of the Savior [expressed] in deeds and words, at which “the people marveled” (Matthew 9:33; Luke 11:14) and what related to the conception, and what happened during that miraculous birth, and the extraordinary things that happened to Him after His birth, and at At baptism, a voice from heaven proclaimed sonship, and according to the voice of the Father, the Comforter descended upon Him. Having listed all this in great detail, the Golden-tongue continues: “truly for this reason the evangelist said: “We have seen His glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father.” But not only for this reason, says the golden theologian, but also because after this, he says this: after all, the very nature of affairs, and everything from everywhere, cried out that the King of heaven had come. For the dead were sent away to the graves, the frantic to the demons, the sick to illness. And it was possible to see with eyes formed from the earth what the prophets, and everyone else, would like to see: how Adam was formed from the earth, and disparate members [to see] copulating, and the dead and paralyzed - moving and jumping, and blocked ears - opening, and the previously bound tongue - very sounding. As if someone believed the healing of souls to be obvious, how everything was straightened out and every kind of evil was driven out, and [people] were not only delivered from evil, but also raised to the very pinnacle of virtue: the Magi - teachers, the publican - an apostle, the persecutor and blasphemer - a preacher of the universe, the thief - a citizen of paradise. What would anyone say about the philosophy of institutions, the virtue of heavenly laws, the order of angelic residence? 657 32. Having again listed all this in great detail, the Golden One, emitting the clearest voice, himself also speaks about the son of thunder: “the evangelist, having brought all this [together]: miracles - in bodies, in souls, in the elements, commands, those ineffable and highest gifts of heaven, laws, residence, the art of persuasion, future promises, His sufferings, issued this wonderful and a voice filled with lofty teachings: “We have seen His glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father, filled with grace and truth” (John 1:14). For we are amazed at Him not only because of miracles, but also because of His suffering. For in relation to these [sufferings] themselves, which seem shameful, it is worthy to pronounce the same word, since he himself called it glory. For the former served as a sign not only of care, but also of unspeakable power, with the help of which the most paradoxical thing was invisibly accomplished. Something happened then and in a visible way, showing that He was truly the only begotten Son of God and the ruler of creation. But even after death, buried, when stones were attached to His tomb and seals were applied, He rose up. And having filled the disciples with some irresistible and divine power, He sent them to people throughout the entire universe, so that they would correct the lives of people, scatter everywhere the knowledge of heavenly teachings, teach great and ineffable things and preach the gospel, surpassing understanding and never ending in rewards” 658. To this again adds the one whose words are much purer than gold: “So, meaning this and much more than this, this blessed one,” that is, he again speaks of the evangelist, cried out: “We have seen His glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father, filled with grace and truth” 659. 33. Why did I focus the entire conversation here on the [Gospel] saying, shortening it as much as possible and trimming it? So that everyone would know that the Golden-Speaker, having so expanded the explanation and expounding [the acts of] the Savior from beginning to end, only missed that glory without explicitly speaking about it, which shone on the mountain from the Savior. And the slanderer of the saints, Akindinus, having omitted so much, only that which he passed by without saying, brings into evidence as the only thing said, not being afraid that the transparent and abundant and clear flow of the words of Father Chrysostom, standing above absolutely any concealment, will be his reproof. Why did the saint, having listed everything related to Christ, not now add this glory to the rest? Because he interprets the glory here, and the other world, knowing that he is the deposit and the firstfruits of “the glory that would be revealed” (Rom. 8:18), put him on a par with it, transferring the teaching to morals. “For it is necessary,” he says, “to show a life worthy of such gifts and teachings, so that we can see not only His glory here, but also the future, as the Lord himself says: “I will, that where I am, they also may see my glory” (John 17:24). If this glory became so bright and obvious, then who would say anything about it, about which the prophet says: “Let the wicked be lifted up, and not see the glory of the Lord” (Is. 26:10)? But let none of us be destroyed and let none of us become blind to her: for if we had not seen her, “it would have been good for us if we had not been born” (Matthew 26:24) 660. This [speaks] Father Chrysostom. And Akindinus says: “None of the saints taught that this light is common to others.” 34. And what the theologian Chrysostom here calls this light the glory of the Lord becomes completely clear from what follows. “For if,” he says, “those who do not see the light of the sun lead a life worse than any death, then what must those who are deprived of that light endure? Verily, it is as much heavier as that Sun is incomparably better than this” 661. So, isn’t he talking about the Sun shining with true light, about that glory of which the wondrous and ineffable vision and communion are destined only for those who are Christ-like? And the glory of Christ, which, thanks to miracles, teachings and passions, was then seen by many of those who are not such, which even the apostles of the Lord themselves would not have well understood if they had not seen [it revealed] through the worshiped body [of Christ]. For how could they see God baptized, conversing, crucified, risen, lifted up, if not through the body? Therefore, the evangelist, having said before that “the Word became flesh and dwelt in us” (John 1:14), and showed Him “having lived with men” according to the prophecy of Jeremiah (Bar. 3:38), then immediately adds: “and we saw” - that is, all of us with whom He lived - “His glory, the glory as the only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14). So the well-spoken Chrysostom showed everyone the visible glory and added that they would not have seen it if not through the divine and worshiped body. And the glory of God, which is in the light, was seen by both Moses and Isaiah, albeit more dimly, for their sacred visions are symbols and images of the theophany on Tabor, just as the light that shone on the mountain from the Savior is the firstfruits and symbol of the “glory that wants to be revealed” of God. CHAPTER 9. More about how he deprives those who ascended Mount Tabor with the Lord from the vision of that sacred light. 35. Akindinus is obviously slandering the golden-haired theologian. Since he himself says that that light was visible to the apostles thanks to the worshiped body, but not directly, then let us ask him: how was it visible to them thanks to the body? If [he was visible], shining through the body, as from a mirror (από δίσκου) 662, then he lies, saying that this light itself did not truly appear. If, seeing the body with their own eyes, through faith they saw the light of divinity dwelling in it - for then they would have seen that light, and it would have remained invisible in itself - then it is extremely obvious that he thereby deprives those who ascended the mountain with Jesus from the sight of light, just as slightly above all from the century to this day the [former] prophets, apostles and martyrs. For if they saw [the light] through the worshiped body, and so saw that it remained invisible, then they did not see at all. Then they were not the only ones who saw this, and not only on the mountain, but also those of the apostles who did not ascend together [with Jesus], but remained under the mountain. And what am I saying about that apostolic face? After all, all those who then truly saw this body of the Lord, and to this day, believing, see thus by faith the divinity of Christ. But it was not in this way that Peter, James and John on the top of Tabor saw the divine light through the body of Christ, but as [the light of] the divine splendor hidden within it, truly revealed, just as through the glass shells of [a lantern] the light that resides within 663 shines through, although dimly and applying condescension. For neither the angels, nor the archangels, nor their higher ones can contain all the divine lordship. Therefore, the cherubim cover their faces with their wings (Isa. 6:2), being unable to bear this constant lightning-like radiance and the excess of indescribable beauty. CHAPTER 10. About the fact that the Holy Spirit, from what he says, is shown to be created. 36. And he who tries everywhere to blaspheme the ever-present energies of the Spirit and tries to declare them created because they are called gifts (Acts 10:45; Rom. 5:15; Eph. 3:7), fruits (Gal. 5:22) and virtues of the Spirit, when he writes: “It is not possible for anyone to see God otherwise than from His creations, from other [gifts] and from [born] in us of God-given virtues, thanks to which we are cleansed in the Spirit, and from the fruits of the Spirit,” not being afraid, the unfortunate one, even of the divine provision that “from the fruit is the tree known” (Matthew 12:33; Luke 6:44). So, in fairness, someone could turn to him the voice of the Lord previously spoken to the Jews: a fool who has clothed himself with the inevitable blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, for which there is no remission (Matthew 12:31), “either make a good tree and its fruit good, or make an evil tree and its evil fruit” (Matthew 12:33; Luke 6:43). After all, if the divine Spirit is uncreated, then how does He bear uncreated fruits? If His fruits are creations, then how is He not a creation? 37. After all, Cyril, strong in divine things, wanting to show that the Son is uncreated, called Him the fruit of the Father. For having first presented what He spoke to the Jews: “If God were your father, you would sooner love Me. “For I have departed from God and come back to life” (John 8:42), then he speaks on his own: “They who did not love the Son who came from God the Father, how can they speak the truth, claiming that they loved Him from whom He is? Those who disgrace the fruit, what honor will they give to the tree? If the fruit of God and the Father is the Son - for this is meant by the words “from the Father he went out and came back” - then how could He be created (γενητός)? How could the ineffable nature of divinity give birth to something alien and alien to itself, when even the created entity does not allow such things to happen to it? Therefore, it is necessary to confess the Son as God from God who appeared, so that the Father does not appear worse than his creations” 664. But isn’t it appropriate to say the same in relation to the words of Akindinus? How will he who dishonors the fruits of the Spirit give glory to the Spirit? And how can he not show Him to the worst of creations, if none of them bears fruits unsuitable for him, but the divine Spirit, according to him, bears [fruits] of a foreign nature and so devoid of this dignity? 38. But the divine Cyril in many places of his words called such a fruit, together with the Son, the Holy Spirit, and to the Eunomians, who told him the same thing that Akindinus now tells us - that “you make God complex, giving Him both judgment and nature, for how can one who is made up of these be simple?” 665, he again writes defensively: “If you think that God becomes complex because He has a nature and a judgment, that is, a will, then consider this too. The father by nature has [the ability] to give birth; also has [the ability] to create creatively through the Son - and is not difficult because of this. For such things are the fruit of one nature. The same will apply to goodness, incorruptibility, invisibility and everything that is inherent in the divine nature" 666. Do you see that each of the divine energies is a fruit of the divine nature, just like that pre-eternal birth? How then will they not be higher than creation, although they differ from nature, being inherent in it, like [the ability to] give birth? But this [i.e. e. the ability to give birth], characterizing not only nature, but also hypostasis, belongs only to the Father, while divine judgment, and will, and creative energy, and the like, which characterize only nature, and not also hypostasis, are the common energies of the Father, Son and Spirit. CHAPTER 11. Another statement of Akindinus, thanks to which he is exposed as saying that God is weak-willed and inactive, and creations are co-eternal with Him. 39. Therefore, and from here it is obvious that Akindinus reduces to the level of the creature every gift and energy of the Spirit and through them blasphemes the divine Spirit Himself. But let’s add here what he wrote in other works about this, so that his opinion becomes even more obvious, and then we can immediately expose his blasphemy. So, he says in his essay “On Grace”: “If anyone calls grace a gift and giving, meaning the divine, then it is uncreated, and it would be wicked to say otherwise, for this is not other than in relation to the divine essence; but the gifts and gifts are created - works of divine power and [its] results that are good for us.” Obviously, here he says that God is a weak-willed and inactive entity. After all, if the divine and the uncreated are not [something] different in relation to the divine essence, then the other in relation to it is not divine and not uncreated. Consequently, the divine nature either does not have will and energy, or, if it does, it has it created, according to Akindinus. And if, according to theologians, the nature of each is characterized by a corresponding will and energy, so that uncreated energy points to the uncreated nature, and created energy to the created one, 667 and what characterizes is different from what is characterized and is different because it is different [from it], then, according to Akindinus, not only the will and energy of the divine nature is created, but also the divine nature characterized by them. 40. However, the divine and uncreated is God himself. If this is nothing other than the divine essence, according to Akindinus, then God, in his opinion, is nothing other than the divine essence, not because everything that He possesses He possesses by nature, and nothing is acquired, but because He has nothing that is not essence. Then the creation, which exists from God, is from the divine essence. For how can it not be from it, if God is nothing other than it? “But this is the proper property of the Only Begotten, since He is both from God and the creation from God,” according to the great Athanasius and the wise in the divine Damascene, “but He alone is only timelessly born from the essence of God and the Father, and the creation is not from the essence of the Father, but by His will is brought from non-existence into being” 668. So these created things, which Akindinus calls the works and results of divine grace and power, are, according to him, works of the divine nature, unless uncreated grace and power are [something] different from the essence of God, as he tries to show both by what has now been said and by all his words. Since, according to the divine Cyril, “it belongs to nature to give birth, but to energy to create” 669, and again, according to the theologian from Damascus, “the work of the divine nature is the eternal birth” 670, then Akindinus, saying and inventing that creations are works of the divine essence, considers everything to be divine creations and rejects the only-begotten Word, His very own dignity, precisely to Him related, making it common to everyone and canceling it. But he also shows them to be coeternal with the divine nature, and not to have arisen when God wanted: for the work of nature is not later than nature and is not subject to will. Consequently, he overthrows, placing in the series of creations, the divine itself, about which he himself says that it is not other than the essence. CHAPTER 12. Other statements of his, thanks to which he is exposed as declaring that all divinely inspired theologians and those who agree with them are polytheists. 41. But everything that is in one way or another called work, in many places of his words declaring created, he also reduces the pre-eternal birth, as called work, to the level of creation, and is an atheist and along with this polytheist, having recently found some permanent method with the help of which he, the unfortunate one, gathered all types of wickedness and wickedness into his own soul. Such, of course, the entire Church of Christ - now “the right of those who rule the word of truth” ( 2 Tim. 2:15) and from the ages of reliable theologians - declaring them slanderous, he continues, saying: “Divine and uncreated grace and energy is not [something] different from the divine essence, neither inferior, nor accomplished (ένεργούμενον), nor immaterial and hypostatic, nor visible in itself with bodily eyes. in any way. For this is wickedness and at the same time the wisdom of Arius, Macedonia, Sabelli and the Messalians.” And who, through the above, he calls wicked and impious, I think, is worth explaining now. 42. So, that the entire Church of God proclaimed the uncreated grace ineffably seen by the apostles on Tabor as the divine and ineffable light and luminosity of the divine nature, but not [the] nature itself - for this is above any appearance and communion - this, in addition to everyone who happened to hear with their own ears, is what the “Conciliar Tomos” most clearly represents 671, pointing out at the same time that former theologians have been preaching this since centuries. So, he who calls new Arius, Sabellius and Macedonius [everyone] who calls uncreated something that has become in one way or another visible, obviously asserts that all of these [theologians] are slanderous and, moreover, in a variety of ways: not only because they say that this most divine light was visible through the eyes of the apostles, but also because they say that it is not the divine nature, and that the nature that gives it surpasses it, as existing above all appearance and [itself] being the cause of every phenomenon. And [the words] “by itself” was added by the visible-denying accuser of the pious, proposing one of two things: either not to say at all that a certain uncreated light was visible through the eyes of the apostles, or to say this in order to lure the listeners, but in such a way that the speaker still did not mean the same thing, since, according to him, [that uncreated light] was visible through created light. And that anything uncreated does not exist without essence and hypostasis, he asserts in order to show that this light, if it is truly uncreated, is essence and hypostasis, and not common [for divine hypostases] grace and energy. But he calls it not inferior and not active, denying that God is the cause of it in essence, and does not allow that the Cause and Giver of all illumination is above all illumination. 43. But, however, if, according to Akindinus, uncreated energy, gift and grace are not [something] different in relation to the divine essence and are not active, and to say that it is different and active is [a sign of] the Messalians, Arius, Sabellia and Macedonia, then how will Father Chrysostom and Gregory, who received nicknames from theology, not be such: the latter when he says: “He who desires something else, and other – desire; giving birth - and birth; speaking - and the word, if we are not drunk" 672, and the Golden-speaking - when, after he said that the Savior spoke to the apostles: “Stay in Jerusalem, “until you are endued with power from on high” (Luke 24:49), and “Receive the power that has come to the Holy Spirit upon you” (Acts 1:8), he added: “otherwise - given strength, and other things - the giving Spirit" 673 ? Both the great Vasily and the wonderful Cyril are the first when he writes that “another is an essence for which even the word expressing it (λόγος μηνυτής) has not been found, another is the meaning of the names around it” 674, and again: “If we attribute all divine names to the essence, then we will show God not only as a complex composite, but also composed of heterogeneous parts, due to the fact that each of the names denotes something else and another” 675, and the divine Cyril - [saying that] “to create belongs to energy, and to nature - to give birth; nature and energy are not the same thing” 676? And in addition to them, the Damascus God-bearer also writes: “other is will, and another is the volitional principle (τό θελητικόν). For will is the power to will, and the volitional principle is that which has [this] power” 677, and also: “in relation to God, the other is the active principle (ένεργητικόν), and the other is activity (ενέργεια): the first is nature, and energy is the essential movement of nature” 678, and adds: “You need to know that energy acts rather than acts (ένεργείται μάλλον ή ένεργεί)” 679? 44. And what is the great Dionysius, who writes: “So, Self-Goodness, which first offers [the gift of] Self-Existence (τού αυτοείναι) 680, is sung by the elders first of the sacraments, and from it and in it there is both being itself and the principles of beings” 681? For how will these sacraments, and principles, and gifts be of the divine nature, being many and originating from the divine nature? He himself further calls them divine models (παραδείγματα), beingness, life, wisdom, providence, through which beings came into existence and took place. And again he, having become his own interpreter, says: “We call examples [existent] in God the essentially created and uniquely pre-existent logoi of beings, which theology calls predestination and divine and good wills, delimiting and creating existing things, according to which the Superexistent predetermined all things and brought them [into being]” 682. How, then, will the divine and good wills be created, and even more so, being the delimiters and creators of beings? What will be the results of the essence-creating logoi of beings, and also those pre-existing in God, according to which He predetermined and brought everything? 45. But he again in the twelfth chapter of “The Names of God” says: “To the extent that the self-communions predominate over those who partake, the non-participating Cause is super-exalted above the participles themselves” 683. Here he undoubtedly showed not only the superiority of the unparticipated Cause, but also the uncreatedness of the participles superior to [it], calling them self-participles, and saying that they prevail over those [beings] that have existence through the sacrament, or, in other words, over all created things. So is he, along with the theologians cited above, but rather with all theologians from the ages - for who does not agree with them? - will not hear in a variety of ways from Akindinus, who belongs to the part of the wicked and polytheistic, when he clearly says: “We cannot think of God’s essential and natural power and energy as something different from His essence and nature, but to measure God - so that in the dimension there is something else and another, and thus there would be many uncreated things, different from the divine essence and from ourselves - is the height of wickedness, for it introduces the most absurd and most senseless polytheism"? 46. ​​Doesn’t he, by openly saying this, reject agreement with the sacred fathers and argue that it is impossible to think of God like them, above clearly accusing them of polytheism, because they say that something else is the essence, and another is the essential energy of God; another is volitional power, and another is possessing volition, and that each of the divine names signifies something else and another, and not all of them - essence? He speaks about them again, simultaneously attacking his opponents along the way and attacking their opinion: “They say that one thing is the essential and natural goodness of God, and another is the essence, another is wisdom, another is life, but we, as we learned from the saints, do not think and confess otherwise, for [the saints] say that one is the essence and life, and power, and goodness.” So, who are those whose accusers he is, as those who teach the opposite of his opinion, that the other is the uncreated essence, and the other is each of the number of things that are essentially intuited around it? All the above saints from whom he says he learned the opposite. Which? Let him who has learned the opposite say. “And I have already written,” perhaps he would have said, “for the great Dionysius the Areopagite teaches us, who says this in his essay “On Existing Things” 684. CHAPTER 13. His other statements, including evidence from the writings of the great Dionysius, thanks to which he is exposed as distorting and reinterpreting him and himself worshiping many gods and many divinities. 47. Of course, he, as shown above, clearly agrees with them, but in order to show the difference in relation to each other of the divine essence and these very naturally contemplated surrounding [properties]: goodness, essence, life, wisdom, and the like, he undertook [the work of compiling] this entire most amazing treatise “On the Divine Names.” So, he alone is opposite to himself and to everyone else, and you are a witness to such great outrage of the one whom you call great? Let the theology of the saint appear [before us], contrary to [the theology of other] saints, as it seems to Akindinus, who says: “For the great Dionysius the Areopagite teaches us, who speaks in the work “On Being” as follows: “I say that there is not another good and another that is, another is life, another is wisdom, and that there are not many causes and other [divine properties] other producing divinities, higher and lower, but that all good manifestations [the essence of the performance] of one God” 685. 48. Truly, Akindinus appears here to those who are even a little attentive, not only a detractor, but also a slanderer of the one whom he himself calls great. For the great Dionysius here is not talking about the divine essence and energy, but about divine energies alone. For at first he excluded that super-essence from consideration, and first testified at the beginning of the words “On Being” that “the purpose of this word is not to show the super-essential essence, [that is] how it is super-essential - for this is inexpressible and unknown and completely inexpressible - but to glorify the essential-creating appearance to all beings” 686. And still restraining the shamelessness of Akindin’s slander, he again warns twice about the same thing, and insists, repeating this word, that he wants “not to express and sing of the self-super-essential goodness and essence, which is above all goodness and divinity, but the expressed beneficial providence, goodness par excellence and the cause of all good things glorifies, and existence, and life and wisdom, essential-creating and wise-creating and the life-giving cause of those involved in the essence and life and mind” 687. 49. So, the great one has so clearly distanced himself from the divine and uncreated energies - that is, from divine providence and that which is according to it - the divine super-essence, and clearly showing that it is superior, as the highest of all manifestation and appearance, even if it is named from all of them, whereas in itself it is absolutely nameless and super-named, and unparticipated, and these [energies] have been called manifested, named and participated in the manifestations of God and thus completely destroyed Akindinus’ charm, and having previously stipulated that he does not use the following in relation to this super-essence, then adds: “there is nothing else that is good and another that exists, another is life, another is wisdom,” speaking about what is participated and named, and in general about the revealed providence of God, and about that which is according to him, and not about the essence itself. Therefore, having finally collected here all of the above, he called them the appearances of God, again clearly separating them from the unoriginal and absolutely unique super-essence. For how could it be a performance of God, much less [many] performances? 50. Isn’t it obvious from this that Akindinus is shamelessly slandering and absolutely unfairly slandering this great man as saying, contrary to himself and other theologians, that this uncreated super-essence is not other, and its uncreated energy, or rather energy, is not other; and especially since he had already said everything [that we have cited here] against this, so as not to fall under such slander? But also about the divine and uncreated energies of the divine and beneficent providence and that which is according to it: life-giving life, wise wisdom and the like, how each [of them] is not other and other, and how he says that there are not many reasons, let him himself, who brilliantly shamed the slanderer of his words, Akindinus, teach again. For he represents this very clearly when he writes: “I say that each of them is not other and other, and that there are not many [there are] causes and other other producing divinities, higher and lower, but that all good manifestations [the essence of the performance] of one God” 688 . 51. So, who is this who says that it is not one God who are all the divine energies, but in addition to them their highest super-essence, but the providence of one god, the life-giving life of another, the wisdom-creating wisdom of another, and of another, in addition to all these gods, this predominant super-essence? Having shown this, Akindinus, whoever it is, who says that each other of this [listed] is another god, let him bring against him: “not another is good and another is existence, another is life or wisdom, and other other divinities, but one God.” 52. Who is this who says that the essence of others is other divinities, higher and lower, Akindinus would never allow to be investigated, so as not to be self-incriminating. For this is he himself, although he frightens and intimidates many here, fearing to be caught, insidiously trying to hide behind the noise he makes. So let him be exposed by us, so that he will know that he is also holding the words of the great Dionysius against himself. After all, since above this [Akindinus] clearly stated that everything different from the divine super-essence is creation, and the great Dionysius taught that what is different from it is divine providence, and life-giving life, and wisdom-giving wisdom, and in general all beneficial and divine energy, since this super-essence is above [any] revelation, expression and communion, and these are the things that are participated and named, as and revealed, then Akindinus considers them created, since they differ from that essence. Created energy also belongs to created nature: therefore, created, according to Akindinus, providence is the divinity of the created god, and the uncreated God [divinity] is uncreated, and as uncreated it, of course, is a superior essence. And this one truly is the one who says that there are other divinities, higher and lower. So let him hear what he has put forward against himself, that nothing else is the essence of divinity, and thus nothing else is good, and another is life, and another is this super-essence, and another is its essential energy. And let him unlearn the most shameful heresy and truly the most insane bitheism and relearn the true faith in the one omnipotent God over all uncreated things, and stop dividing the one omnipotent God into created and uncreated things, supposedly defending unity. For the One will also be created if His omnipotence is not uncreated. 53. But how, if all these are uncreated and therefore are the essence of one God, each of them - again according to theologians - is different and different? Because all of these are not one [and the same], but differ from each other, although they are the essence of one God, and in this sense they are not one and the other, as the great Dionysius clearly stated in his theology. For how would they [i.e. that is, other theologians] disagreed so much with this great [man], speaking from the same Spirit and not being deprived of the same greatness? Akindinus, mixing everything and merging [into one] in order to show only the essence of God as uncreated, and its divine energy as created, says: “we think and say and confess that these are not another and another” - not because these are the essence of one God, as the God-speaking Dionysius said, but distorting and reinterpreting, and thereby again slandering him, but rather, clearly altering his words, he says: “All this exists as one and is not different from each other. For the holy fathers say that there is one thing – essence and life and power and goodness.” But they don’t say that it’s one thing – away with lies! - but that there is only God. And that Akindinus, who denies the difference between such things from each other, said “one” instead of “One,” becomes clear through his speeches presented above, when he says: “introduces the most absurd polytheism [the opinion] that there is another and another, and thus many uncreated things, different from the divine essence and from each other.” And in his further words: “how is it not overthrown that one is divinity, if His natural and essential power and omnipotent (παντουργός) energy, and wisdom, and life are different from His essence and nature? For this is what the new theology proclaims to us, which is extremely contrary to the ancient confession and pious faith that has come down to us from the divine fathers.” Thus, he freely expresses this in writing, disparaging, unfortunate one, the teaching of the saints as newly revealed and falsified, and apparently calls Aetius, Eunomius, Macedonius divine fathers and shows himself to be like-minded with them in the faith. For it is their slander, and not the theology of the divine fathers, that they do not distinguish divine energy from the divine essence, as [our] word will clearly show below. CHAPTER 14. Another statement of his, thanks to which he is exposed as fabricating that God did not truly promise us the Spirit, without distinguishing between the pious and the wicked. 54. Now, since Akindinus also enumerated spiritual gifts, let us consider his understanding about them, unless [only] it is despicable and forbidden, and is rather madness than understanding, and obvious instruction for those bursting with the spirit of wickedness (των πνευματικών τής πονηρίας ). For he says: “But grace in the proper sense, poured out by itself by the Holy Spirit, is [something] ethereal, invisible and endless, inherent in angels, souls and the demons themselves.” Does this need denunciation, or is it quite enough to present it to expose the madness of the author of these [words]? And he also includes other [signs] related to created things: “the mind of the verbal, the feeling of the sentient, the life of the living.” What does he want to show by this again? That in relation to which he was exposed just above as a bad thinker is that there are only created things and divine nature, which has no grace and uncreated energy. 55. At the same time, like the evil serpent, he in turn tries to slander God as the falsely promised Spirit to us, who was foreshadowed by the prophet Joel: “In the last days I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh” (Joel 2:28). For not later, and not from the Spirit Himself, according to Akindinus’s theology, He poured out on us, if in the proper sense the grace poured out from the Spirit is also our feeling, or even [the feeling] of dumb animals, and the rational [beginning] of the soul existing in us, and everything like that that is in us, which [things] are created and inherent in us from the beginning. But what a wonderful justification and proof that he places the promise of the Spirit on a par with creation and is thus a lie! “For this reason,” he says, “it is not the Holy Spirit Himself, but the creation that is given to those who believe in Christ, because it is more humbly written about Him, that He was given from the Father. For in this way He is called grace, and even more humbly it is said that He is poured out, so that it may be shown from whom 689 [He is], that is, [so that the timeless principle of the Spirit may be shown." 56. And yet this is precisely what shows most of all that the promise is not false, but has reached its limit. And Akindinus, with the help of such inventions, would easily have prohibited the coming of the Word of God to earth, since it was also proclaimed about Him: “I sent His Word, and I healed” (Ps. 106:20). Who sent? Every Father, like the Word Himself in the Gospels, says: “You sent Me into the world” (John 17:18), addressing the Father, “to Whom,” in the words of Gregory the Theologian, “He refers [all] His own, and honoring [Him] as the timeless Beginning” 690. So, since the Son is also said in a humble sense that He was sent and, “that it may be shown from Whom,” then He was not truly sent, according to Akindinus, but a certain created nature was sent - for the creation is spoken of in the Spirit in the proper sense that is poured out - “since in a more humble sense it is said of Him that He was sent and given from the Father.” But didn’t the unfortunate man thereby gather together in his soul the slander of Arius, and Macedonius, and Nestorius, as we showed in detail in the word we promised in a letter to the wise Primate of Cysis 691? How, then, is the grace of the Spirit poured out on the faithful alone, if it is both incorporeal and invisible, and a word, and a feeling, and the like? 57. That, undoubtedly, the grace of the Spirit is poured out on the faithful alone, the Evangelist made this obvious, saying: “This is what the Lord said about the Dus, whom those who believe” in Him wanted to receive” (John 7:39). But Gregory, who received the nickname from theology, remembering this prophetic word, “I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh,” adds “that is, on those who believe” 692. And the prophet Isaiah says: “Establish the earth and what is on it, and give breath to the people who are on it, and Spirit to those who walk on it” (πατούσιν αύτήν) 693 (Is. 42:5), which, remembering, the great Basil says: “those who trample ( καταπατούντες) earthly things and those who have risen above them are attested as worthy of the gift of the Holy Spirit” 694. So, if in its proper sense the poured-out grace of the Spirit is the life of those who live, who have feelings and reason, who have a verbal soul, and, rather, even of all rational people, then why is it necessary to distinguish the pious from the wicked? For from these words it does not follow that the good angels can be distinguished from the evil ones. CHAPTER 15. Proof that the seven spirits who rested on Christ, according to prophecy, are the Holy Spirit himself. And what Akindinus calls the Holy Spirit a creation, saying that these seven spirits are creations. 58. Akindinus, increasing the slander, tries to show those who rested on the Lord, according to the prophecy of Isaiah, the seven created spirits, not being ashamed, the unfortunate one, of the very prophetic voice, so written: “a rod will come out of the root of Jesus, and a flower will arise from its root, and the Spirit of God will rest on it” (Is. 11: 1-2). Then the prophet, as if interpreting and explaining what kind of Spirit of God this is, says: “The spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and strength, the spirit of knowledge and godliness, the spirit of the fear of God” (Isa. 11: 2-3). So these [spirits] are the Spirit of God, and Akindinus calls Himself creation when he calls them creatures. You might notice that Gregory, the great theologist, points out that these seven spirits are the Holy Spirit Himself, as he presented it to us in his “Word on Holy Pentecost,” saying: “This Holy Spirit was preached by the prophets, as in [the words] “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for the sake of my anointing” (Isa. 61:1), and “seven spirits will rest on him” (Isa. 11:1-2)" 695, and a little higher, saying: "[The Holy Spirit] always was, and is, and will be" 696, and then, after a little, says: "The Spirit of wisdom, understanding, knowledge, godliness, counsel, strength, fear" enumerated [in Scripture]" 697. Therefore, he also says that these and similar [spirits] are the Holy Spirit. But even higher, having mentioned these seven spirits, he then adds: “for Isaiah is pleased to call the energies of the Spirit spirits” 698. This means that it is the same thing to say: “wisdom and power of the Spirit” and “spirit of wisdom and power.” How then will the wisdom and power of the Spirit be created? And the great Athanasius says: “There is one and the same Spirit, of Whose all divisions are, and He Himself is indivisible by nature” 699. 59. And yet, in the Gospels the Lord calls one of the energies of the Spirit, according to Luke, “the finger of God” (Luke 11:20), and according to Matthew, “the spirit of God” (Matthew 12:28). Having experienced terrible misfortunes, the soothsayers in Egypt exclaimed: “This is the finger of God” (Ex. 8:19). The Great Basil in “Words of Objection” says that “this finger is one of the individual gifts [of the Holy Spirit]” 700. Which creation could be called the finger of God? By what spirit did the Lord, as He said, cast out demons, if not “about the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 12:28)? Is the Holy Spirit one of the separate gifts? If it is one, then, in every way, others. Therefore, in the “Heads of Objection” the great Basil, having collected everything together - the gifts of the Spirit and all that Paul called His fruits (Gal. 5:22) and those spirits that Isaiah, - having collected and listed everything together, then adds: “The Holy Spirit has none of this acquired for Himself, but everything is ever present, as the Spirit of God and from Him. But He, flowing from God, exists in hypostasis, and they, flowing from Him, are His energies” 701. Consequently, there are many energies of the Divine Spirit, and they are all uncreated and [at the same time] not the essence of essence: for He alone, existing in hypostasis, ever has them all. So, therefore, [said] this great [teacher]. 60. And the prophet and the word “to rest” sufficiently demonstrated the superiority of these spirits, for to rest is [a sign of] the Sovereign dignity. Since the spirits rested on the “flower from the root of Jesus,” [that is,] on what was received by the Lord, how can they be a creation? For only from us is what He took created. However, due to the differentiation of the energies of the Spirit, many uncreated spirits do not [appear], for such [spirits] are manifestations, manifestations, and natural energies of the one Spirit. That is why Maximus, wise in the divine, said that the Lord possesses them by nature, like God and the Son of God 702. How can these natural energies of the Son be creations? How can the divine nature not be shown as created by the one who reduces these natural energies of God to the level of the creature? And the wise Akindinus especially grasps at the latter, truly not having acquired the fear of God and fearlessly speaking out against the fear of God, when he says: “How is this fear uncreated, unless the deity is afraid, if only this [deity] is natural and essential for Him? For this [logically] follows for one who calls these energies of the Spirit uncreated, since fear is also the energy of the Spirit.” CHAPTER 16. About fear [coming from] the Spirit: what it is, and how it arises in those who are worthy. 61. But let him be ashamed of the one who wrote a little higher in the third of the theological Centuries that these energies are inherent in the Son by nature and who says: “that “fear is pure” (Ps. 18:10), which always consists of no sorrow for sins, and will never cease, because in some way it is essentially implanted by God into creation, making His natural venerability of superiority over every kingdom and power evident.” 703. For this fear is the one about which the Psalmist speaks: “The fear of the Lord remains pure for ever and ever” (Ps. 19:10). This, therefore, is the spirit of fear: the natural venerability of God, the very fact that He is terrible. How then will the natural honorability of God be created? The Son of God also had this fear. 62. And whoever says that fear is not inherent in God, unless the deity is also afraid, will not allow it to be inherent in Christ, and represents the prophet as having lied. For whom did Christ fear, upon whom, according to prophecy, the “spirit of fear” rested (Isa. 11:3)? And yet, according to Gromov’s son John, “perfect love casts out fear, as if fear causes torment; fear that you will not be perfect in love” (1 John 4:18). So, he who assures that there is a created “spirit of fear” resting on the Lord - and all the more contrary to the fact that [it is proper] to fear Him who acquired this spirit - obviously thinks of the super-perfect God-man and equal to the Father as imperfect and [even] more imperfect than God-bearing people. So, it is right that we, together with other energies of the Spirit, consider the spirit of fear to be uncreated, even if this caused displeasure in Akindinus. For God does not possess the property of being terrible in a created form, and, despite this, he is not afraid, as Akindinus blabbers. 63. The Prophet Isaiah, in enumerating these spirits, pointing out the divinity of this fear and prophetically shaming those who, like Akindinus, because of it, reduces the Holy Spirit to the level of creation, in relation to other gifts of the Spirit, he was content with the word that they rest on the One about whom the prophecy, and included fear in the number with the addition, saying: “The spirit of the fear of God will fill Him” (Is. 11:3). The spirit that filled the “Color”, in which “lives the fulfillment of the deity” (Col. 2:9), is creation? What wickedness! The Prophet, along with this addition, showed those who have a mind what this spirit of God is. For, having said: “He will fill Him,” that is, the Lord, “with the spirit of the fear of God,” he added: “He will not judge according to his glory, but will reprove him according to his words” (Isaiah 11:3). Isn’t this the most terrible thing that Christ showed then when, knowing the hearts of those with whom He met, he said to the glorious Pharisees at that time: “And you, “What are you thinking in your hearts” (Luke 5:22)? 64. So, this spiritual fear of those who were more perfectly endowed with the gifts of the Spirit makes, giving them the power of insight, terrible for everyone, for thanks to them the “secret of the heart” of those who come, as Paul says, “is revealed, and so, falling on their faces, they worship God, proclaiming that truly God is with them” (1 Cor. 14:25). And in those who are not at all capable of this, but have felt the terrible venerability of the Spirit, it produces a preparatory fear (είσαγωγικόν δέος), which turns them away from sinning against God, and thus imparts to them the gift of inviolability when they become more suitable for accepting [this gift] by virtue of knowledge and appropriate knowledge of effort. Therefore, the great Basil, listing the energies that the Holy Spirit always has, called the spirit of fear the inviolability of the divine Spirit 704. How will the ever-present energy of the Spirit be created, by the participation of which we, as far as we can accommodate, are given inviolability? 65. The prophet Zechariah said about these seven energies of the Spirit: “These are the seven tosses of the Lord, which look down upon the whole earth” (Zechariah 4:10). And the most theological of the Lord’s disciples and especially beloved by Him, when he writes in “Revelation”: “Grace to you and peace from... God and from the seven spirits who are before the throne of God, and from Christ” (Rev. 1:4-5), doesn’t he clearly represent to all the faithful that these are the Holy Spirit? CHAPTER 17. Another thing about these seven spirits is that they are uncreated. And an explanation of the evidence that Akindinus poorly brought against them. This chapter also talks about the meaning of the words “create” and “act.” 66. Akindinus, who fearlessly makes speeches against God and, through the fear of God, reduces His Spirit to the level of creation, also cited this [saying] of the theologian: “[He] is called the “Spirit of sonhood” (Rom. 8:15), truth” (John 14:17), freedom” (2 Cor. 3:17), the Spirit of wisdom, reason, knowledge, piety, counsel, strength, fear God" (Is. 11:2, 3), for He is the [beginning] who creates all this (ποιητικόν τούτων απάντων)" 705. Then he, himself drawing conclusions and conclusions from this, says: “what the Holy Spirit does, how can it be uncreated and co-essential with God?”, clearly not only fear, but also all the energies of the Spirit, declaring created by Gregory the Theologian, he brings another witness, however, first becoming a false witness against him, [speaking] not only against his thought, as in the case of the above saying, but also against the words themselves, when he writes: “and again the divine Chrysostom speaks the same admonition that “In the same way the Spirit works” (1 Cor. 12:11): for as He wills, so He creates (ποιεί)" 706, inventing and showing [the consequence] from these words that the energies of the Spirit are created, since it is said that their Spirit “acts” and creates, without taking into account the fact that [the verbs] “create” (ποιείν) and “act" the essence of those that are pronounced in many senses. For this means not only “to create” (κτιζειν), but also (in addition to many other meanings) to act naturally, just as we say about the sun that it creates the day and is the creative [beginning] for the day, as it naturally makes it, moreover, to use an appropriate example, says Basil the Great: “the reward for virtue is to become a god.” and be enveloped in the purest light, becoming the son of that day, which is not interrupted by darkness, for this day creates another Sun, emitting true light” 707. 67. In this way, Gregory the Great says that the Spirit is the creative [beginning] for its inherent and natural energies. And just as the rays of true light are uncreated, or, in other words, this day, and remain uncreated, despite the fact that another Sun, that is, God, creates and “acts” them, so the “Spirit of truth”, and everything that is listed with it, remains uncreated, because the Holy Spirit creates and acts them as innate (έμφυτους) energies. If, thanks to the fact that we mingle with the true light, we become sons, according to what was said here by the great Basil, then the true light is the “Spirit of sonhood.” This is what Gregory the Theologian added to the above by the prophet and added “the spirit of sonhood, truth, freedom” to show that this is precisely the Holy Spirit, since the great Athanasius says: “Nowhere in Scripture can you find anything other than the Holy Spirit Himself being called the spirit of truth; and the apostle writes to the Romans: “For we have not received the spirit of work, but the spirit of sonhood, for which we cry: “Abba Father” (Rom. 8:15); and sending a letter to the Galatians, he says: “He sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying: Abba Father” (Gal. 4:6) 708. So the Spirit of the Son is the “Spirit of sonship” and “freedom,” in other words, the Holy Spirit. If so, then the above listed together. So is it not against the very divine Spirit and the true light that Akindinus is fighting, fighting against these [spirits]? 68. Nevertheless, since, in imitation of Arius through the word “create” and others like him, as he then of the Son, so now Akindinus, trying to show the energies of the Spirit - or, in other words, [the] Holy Spirit [Himself] by creation - thinks to say something strong, then, in imitation of our honest fathers, as they, so we will answer this, saying: not in names - oh, man! – things are rearranged, but by things the meaning of statements is pulled and repositioned: for things are the causes of names, and not the names of things. And, therefore, when it is said about something brought by God from non-existence into being that it is “created”, or “arises”, or “acts”, then we understand from [the very essence of] the matter that each of the things named shows us [thus] its createdness. And when we find any of these names in something that is by nature inherent in God and naturally comes from God, and the same thing is said to be active and to be the Holy Spirit, just as the great Basil says: “When we mean the dignity of the Spirit, we consider Him together with the Father and the Son, and when we mean grace acting in the participants, we say that the Spirit is in us” 709. And when that which acts itself is called the “finger of God” (Ex. 8:19; Luke 11:20), and “fruit” (Gal. 5:22), and “eye” (Zech. 3:9), and “the spirit of truth” (John 14:17, 16:13), and “the birth of sons” (Rom. 8:15) and so on, as the Lord said in the Gospels (Luke 11:20), and before the Gospel Moses told (Exodus 8:15), and Isaiah (Isaiah 11:2–3) and Zechariah (Zechariah 3:9) prophesied, and after the Gospel the great Paul taught (Rom. 8:15), and the great Basil interpreted 710, and the theologian Gregory sang, and moreover, not once, but many times, and when the same thing is said to be active and created (ποιείσθαι), and “rests on the flower from the root of Jesse” (Is 11:2), and by nature inherent in the Son of God, and naturally and essentially abides in God, and that the Holy Spirit always possesses this, as the prophet again said, and the great Basil, and also the divine Maximus 711, and when the One and the same thing is called both “created” (ποιούμενον), and “acted”, and having in Itself “the fulfillment of the Divinity” fulfilling (Col. 1:19, 2:9), then how, having a mind, can we conceive This as a creation (κτίσμα) because of the fact that it is said about Him “to be created” (ποιείσθαι) and “to act”? Or will we call the true light creation (κτίσμα), because the great Basil, as we said above, said that another sun creates (ποιειν) the non-evening day, emitting the true light? For what else is that day if not the true light? Therefore, he is also created (κτιστόν), if everything that is done in one way or another (ποιούμενον) is created (κτιστόν), according to Akindinus. But when we say “to create (ποιείσθαι) reflection” or “to create a conversation with someone with the tongue,” are we creating (κτιζομεν) reflection or conversation, or are we naturally acting on it? And if someone says “to produce a son” 712 - for everything that by nature [comes] from [someone or] something is not in the same way - then does he not say that his own son by nature [came] from him, because of what is said “produced”? 69. For one who thinks of the energies of the Spirit as creatures because of this expression, it would be easy to consider children as the creations of their fathers, due to the fact that they are “made” and brought into being by them (δια τό πεποιήσθαι τε και γεγενήσθαι τούτοις ). It is written nowhere about Job: “bysha” (έγένοντο) “he has seven sons and three daughters” (Job 1:2); and the patriarch Jacob said to Joseph, according to what is written in “Genesis”: “your two sons who were like you” (γενόμενοι) “to you in Egypt, before I came, they are mine” (Gen. 48:5); and Moses, laying down the law, says: “if there be” (γένωνται) “who have sons, and if they create” (ποιηση) “son or daughter” 713 and Hezekiah, when he miraculously received an increase in [years] of life, says to God: “from here I will create children” ( ποιήσω), “they who will proclaim Your righteousness, O Lord of my salvation” (Isa. 38:19). 714 70. So, let those who wickedly declare the energies of the Spirit to be created, as abandoned by the “spirit of the understanding” and given over to “an unskilled mind” (Rom. 1:28), consider the same fathers and creators, so that, mixing everything possible, they may be ungodly in everything. But no word can ever convince us to place the divine energies of the Divine Spirit, which the prophet generally called seven [spirits], on a par with creation. After all, one of the divine and natural energies of God is judgment, since God is a judge by nature. Is it really that judgment is one of the creations, since it is said that God creates it, just as Abraham said to Him: “Judge of all the earth, wilt thou not create judgment” (Gen. 18:25)?” Or will God bring his own judgment to judgment, according to Akindinus, who confuses everything due to homonymy and his own insanity, since, according to Solomon, “God will bring all creation to judgment” (Eccl. 12:14)? How and by what kind of judgment will God's judgment be judged? How will the divine court, judged by another divine court, not extend into infinity? And what about the divine Cyril? Did he show the Father in a created image having [the property of] giving birth, when, addressing the followers of Eunomius, he wrote in the sixth chapter of “Treasures”: “If God and the Father are above every created (γενητής) essence, then He will be above it also according to the tropos [contemplated] in birth, creating (ποιών) this ineffable and divine" 715 ? 71. But we, not deceiving and deceiving by the sounds of expressions (2 Tim. 3:13), but immersing in the mind what is being discussed, and being guided by the truth of things (τή τών πραγμάτων άληθεια) 716, if we say or hear that the Spirit is “creative” (ποιητικόν) for power and knowledge and the like, which by nature is inherent in created things, hence we consider “creative” creative (δημιουργικόν) of these things that arose from non-existence. And thus we come to understand not the divine essence, but the uncreated energies and powers of the Spirit, 717 understanding that the Spirit has life-giving and wisdom-creating energy, from what is called the Spirit creating the life of the living and the wisdom of the wise, even if it is natural and created. For [only] an absolutely unreasonable and, one might say, bestial mind does not comprehend the activity of the agent from his creations, but either places it together with the creations, or considers it no different from the active essence. CHAPTER 18. About the fact that Akindinus and the saying of Father Chrysostom, having forged it, brought it against the gifts of the Spirit. 72. Let us take the [speech] of the golden-speaking father cited by Akindinus and consider what kind of exhortation there was, he says, and to whom, and from whom; and even first of all [let us consider] what the word previously designated. For the enemy of grace, insidiously spoiling everything said by the fathers in another way, sometimes even openly falsifies it, as we have repeatedly shown above. And now, despite the fact that Chrysostom theologian gave many talks about this exhortation and nowhere did he say that the Spirit “creates” gifts, but “acts,” “divides,” “gives,” “gives,” for he says: “For this reason, Paul put forward many arguments that could exhort their cowardice; for the same Spirit gives, and gives for benefit, and divides as he wishes, and, giving, does not necessarily divide, and acts in everything, and acts as he wishes” 718. So, although Father Chrysostom never said that the Spirit creates gifts, Akindinus, shamelessly slandering him and falsifying his words, writes: “After all, the divine Chrysostom says about the All-Holy Spirit that He does as He wants.” Therefore, he did not dare to indicate where Chrysostom said this, for fear of being caught, although he [already] did this more than once. But, extending his shamelessness even further, and having forged the entire passage, he continues and writes, as we said a little higher, that “the divine Chrysostom again lays down the same admonition,” that the same Spirit acts in everything, “for,” he says, “as he wills, so he does.” So, we present here this golden saying untouched and undistorted. CHAPTER 19. Presentation and correct explanation of this saying of Chrysostom. 73. For, interpreting the First Epistle to the Corinthians of the Apostle [Paul], the golden tongue and God-like understanding [father], after clearly explaining the gifts of the Spirit named by the apostle, says: “that exhortation that he placed above, saying about the same Dus” (1 Cor. 12: 8, 9), he also believes here when he says: “All things act in one and the same Spirit, dividing authority according to anyone's will" (1 Cor. 12:11) 719. And below he repeatedly says this, that as He wants, so He divides, and as He wants, so He acts. The fact that Akindinus shortens the speech of Chrysostom theologian is not bad; but that instead of “act” (ένεργείν) he uses “to do” (ποιειν), and “to do” takes in the meaning of “to create” (κτίζείν) - this is very bad. But perhaps he will say that “acting” means the same thing as “creating”? Why then, having scraped off that [word], wrote in [instead of it] “to create,” if he did not see that this word [approaches] closer to creation? Therefore, together with the apostle, the Golden-Speaker, exactly following his verbs, retained [the same] word, although he spoke about the same thing “act” more than ten times. But that, even if distorted, this word did not bring Akindinus any benefit, is shown above (for in everything that was spoken by the saints, it was so contrary to his opinions); that “to act” does not usually mean “to create” is shown by the writer: “Let [the word] “Father” be the name of energy; even then you will not convince us, but this consubstantial thing itself [then] would be [understood] energetically” 720. And the Damascus father says: “Christ sits at the right hand of the Father, divinely working providence for everything” 721. But we will see what kind of exhortation this is, and to whom, and from whom, and for what purpose. CHAPTER 20. Another explanation of what, and to whom, and from whom, is the exhortation that he speaks of in this saying. 74. The church in Corinth at first acquired every possible wealth of divine and spiritual gifts, greater and lesser, so that the apostle writes to them: “I thank my God...for in Him you have been enriched in all manner of speech and in all understanding...for you will not lack any gift” (1 Cor. 1:4-7). This caused this church pride and jealousy, and caused terrible discord, since those who received more were proud, and those who received less were cowardly. So, Paul, removing these thorns and temptations and restraining those who exalt themselves, and exhorting those who mourn by making them equal with each other and uniting them, saying: “Now these are divisions of gifts, but the same is the Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:4). Therefore, the golden one, explaining this, says: “take into account the fact that if you were honored with a smaller measure of the gift given [by God], then by the fact that you were worthy to accept from the same place from where you received the more, you have equal honor [with him].” 722 And again, in response to what the apostle said in continuation, that “to one is given the word of wisdom by the Spirit, and to another the word of understanding concerning the same Spirit, and to another faith is given by the same Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:8–9), the Golden-Speaker says: “Do you see how he makes this addition everywhere, saying “by the same Dus” and “by the same Spirit” 723? But in response to what was said by the Apostle, following the enumeration of the following [then gifts]: “But all things work in one and the same Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:11), Chrysostom says: “he again applied the universal medicine of exhortation” 724 - so that you once again learn that the same dignity [of the various gifts]. 75. But not only from here does the apostle make them of equal honor [to each other], but also by showing that they are one body - “the body of Christ and partake of” (1 Cor 12:27), as partakers of the same Spirit. “Just as,” he says, “they are one body, so is Christ; and we were all baptized into one body by the Spirit, and we were all drunk on one Spirit" (1 Cor 12:12-14). And with a golden voice, the interpreter of such [words] [the father] says: “Well, he said “all of us,” adding [here] himself. He [seems to] say by this: “even I, the apostle, have no more in this [relation] than you, for you are a body just like me; and I am just like you; and we all have the same head, and the same ones [having been born] ceased torment, therefore we are one and the same body, “and we have all drunk on one Spirit”; speaks, it seems to me, of that enlightenment of the Spirit that arises within us from baptism and before the sacraments. And he said “let’s get drunk” as if he were talking about plants and paradise, because all the trees are irrigated from the same source, from the same water” 725. But, casting down the arrogance of those who have received more, Paul says: “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘Thou shalt not demand from me,’ or again the head of the feet, but much more, those who think that they are weaker than the body, are the most necessary, and to whom we think that they are the most dishonest, hereby we attach the greatest honor” (1 Cor. 12:21-23), and also: “God dissolve the body, giving honor to the worst” (1 Cor. 12:24). And with golden verbs, He who reveals to us the radiance of the words [of Scripture] says: “Perhaps,” someone could say, “in the body it makes sense that the worst received greater honor. How can this [be understood] in relation to people? But in public you will mainly see this come true: for the workers of the eleventh hour were the first to receive their wages, and the lost sheep that was found (Matthew 18:12) was taken up (Luke 15:5) and was not driven away, and the prodigal son, having returned, tasted more honor than the well-intentioned one, and the thief was crowned before the apostles” 727. And when the apostle also said: “Let there be no strife in the body, but let one fish take care of each other, and if one fish suffers, let all the fish suffer with it; If one ud is glorified, let all uds rejoice with him" (1 Cor. 12:25–26), the golden one says with his lips: “And [also] he makes them equal in terms of the providence that happens for each other: and not only from here, but also from the sad and favorable [circumstances] that happen. For when one [member] suffers, then everything hurts, and when the head is crowned, then the whole person rejoices, and the whole body is glorified” 728. And again: “If our body should not rebel against itself, then much less Christ’s, and insofar as grace is stronger than nature” 729. 76. Therefore, such an exhortation is an incentive and a call to unanimity, addressed by Paul to the Corinthians, [based] on the [position] that all those who have been worthy of the gifts of the Spirit are one body, and also Christ’s, and receive from one Spirit, and also divine and worshipped. I have now shown this in more detail, so that we would know what superiority spiritual things have over those that are natural, and Akindinus would understand that he is holding all the words of the saints against himself. CHAPTER 21. The proof derived from this is that Akindinus invents that both infidels and dumb animals, and themselves - alas! - demons are members of Christ and, before the faithful, are worthy of the future promise. 77. If, as he says, “the grace poured out from the Spirit and active is [something] incorporeal, invisible and infinite, that which [constitutes] the mind of verbal [beings] and the sense of sentient beings, and the life of the living, like the spirit of truth, sonship and freedom” - for he added and counted those to these things, and said that all this is grace poured out from the Spirit - if, therefore, this so, and those things also belong to spiritual gifts, then, according to Akindinus, the entire human race - not only those now living, but also all who descended from Adam, the evil and the good, the pious and the wicked, are one body, and also Christ's, and, moreover, they are Christ himself, according to the word of Paul. Consequently, they are all “filled with one Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:13), and then they are not only one body, but also one spirit, and moreover, with the Lord, since “being joined to the Lord, there is one spirit” (1 Cor. 6:17). And together with those who were baptized into Christ and those who were not baptized, they resolved the same sacred [birth] pangs and the same, thus, have dignity, and became members of each other, and all have one head - Christ - no less than Paul and Peter, and the like. This means that they will be glorified and rejoice with them, both now and in the next century, for “if one oud is glorified, all ouds rejoice with him” (1 Cor. 12:26). 78. Moreover, since not only this, but also all members suffer, when one of the members of the body suffers, then everything there will be overthrown through each other. After all, if the wicked suffer and are tormented, then it is impossible for the pious to experience bliss and be partakers of rest because of compassion for the members of the same body. And if the pious prosper and rejoice, then it is impossible for the wicked to be tormented and unhappy because of their participation in one body. And what am I talking about only people, and not about dumb animals? For Akindinus insists that their feeling is one of the spiritual gifts. And then they too - oh, foolishness and insanity! - members of the body of Christ. But again, what am I talking about only about them, who by nature do not even tend to sin like us? For Akindinus classifies both incorporeality and that which is inherent in demons, as he himself says there, among spiritual gifts. Consequently, these also belong to the members of his church, and they and he and those who follow him are truly connected and juxtaposed with each other, since all of them, as he himself says, receive spiritual gifts of the same order, that is, the gifts of wickedness, from which they seem to draw this abundant knowledge, so that they are unable to see what is the height of divine grace and what is the logos of created nature. 79. But perhaps he will say that the gifts of the Spirit given to the pious are greater than those given to those who are not, even if all this was an outpouring of grace? But let him hear that spiritual gifts are mixed with each other, and God gives greater honor to those who received less, for it is said: “God dissolved the body, giving honor to the worst” (1 Cor. 12:24). Let Akindinus then say, since he counted both dumb animals and crafty angels among those blessed by the Spirit, which of these is less than the other? For, as Chrysostom theologian, interpreting [Scripture], showed that the excess goes beyond [the limits of] this honor, and if the demonic race is involved in lesser talents, then first of all they, according to Akindinus, will be crowned in the next century; and if the feeling inherent in dumb animals is the least of the talents, then they will be the first to snatch the crown. And here they will have equal honor with the great ones and belong to the fullness of the church, contributing no less than others to the structure of the divine body! So, I will again use the same words of the golden-tongued man, exposing the madness of Akindinus, who says: “Less than others, but [still] among the spiritual gifts belongs the verbal mind, the sense of the wordless and the incorporeality inherent in demons.” 80. After all, Father Chrysostom says to those who have acquired the lesser of the gifts: “Even though you have received little, you are equally in the Body and even so enjoy much honor; and he who has more needs you, who has less” 730. And to those who have accepted more: “For just as you, since you are greater, make up the Body, so this one, since he is lesser, becomes equal to you in the structure of the Body. For he can [bring] the same thing as you into this partnership (έπανον)" 731. But isn’t Akindinus’s teaching on grace a sign of a corrupted and completely uninitiated mind in the teaching of Christians, which confuses and merges everything and sweeps away every divine institution, and destroys almost every kind of piety, and introduces all ungodliness, and giving, as it were, some new life to the Sabellians, Aryans and Macedonians, and all the ill-famed ones who came before and after them? This, I believe, has already become quite obvious in many respects. CHAPTER 22. Showing, based on division, which gifts are spiritual and which are not spiritual. 81. But in this place of our speech we must separate spiritual gifts from those that are not, and show that in these spiritual ones there is uncreated, and that we learned from our holy fathers to think and talk about them, for the benefit of the readers and in order to make completely obvious to everyone the slander of Akindinus, who says that we “call sorrow, and weeping, and tenderness, and the fear of death uncreated, because they are also called gifts of God,” as well as “wisdom, knowledge and virtue inherent in rational [beings] by nature,” and also “a new creation, and a new and pure heart, and the like.” Based on what has been said, I will make a distinction that is as clear as possible. 82. Of all things that exist and arise, some exist naturally and arise from natural sequence, while others do not follow it. Of those who are not according to nature, some are contrary to it, and others are above it. There is no need to talk about what is against nature now. But the study of supernatural [phenomena], which in other creations either once happened, or is happening now, or will happen [in the future], does not relate to the question facing us. And which of them are inherent in those who live according to God, and are accomplished by them, and of which, if someone is worthy of one or more, then he is and is called spiritual, as acting and moved by the Spirit - these are spiritual gifts. And the apostle points to this when he writes to the Corinthians: “I do not want you to be ignorant about those who are spiritual” (1 Cor. 12:1) - that is, about those who paradoxically abide and are perfected in them, and about those who are blessed from here. All [these gifts] were and were completed in them: therefore Paul does not speak “about some,” but simply “about spiritual ones,” which he lists further, for he generally covers them all with those that he listed then. He again, having shown himself that all these gifts are those that acted in them, says that he “gives thanks to God for them” (1 Cor. 1:4), “for they will not lack a single gift” (1 Cor. 1:7). 83. I would gladly ask here Akindinus, who calls all creations spiritual gifts, as being brought into being by grace by the divine Spirit from non-existent ones, whether all creations were in the Corinthians? And is this the subject of the apostolic thanksgiving, and was this his desire - “not to be ignorant” of all creation - when he says: “we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that is from God, that which is given to us by God” (1 Cor. 2:12)? But don’t those who have not received the “Spirit from God” know what feeling is and what reason is, and what life is according to these things? After all, Akindinus calls this spiritual gifts. Is it that “a natural man does not accept, ... and cannot understand” (1 Cor. 2:14)? And whoever has this is a spiritual person who “challenges all,” according to the apostle, “but himself contends not for one” (1 Cor. 2:15)? Since, “the spiritual also judges by the spiritual” (1 Cor. 2:13), we become taught by the All-Holy Spirit, perceiving [gifts] evidenced through each other, and revealing [them] to others [people], then is it really true that what is by feeling, and mind, and understanding, corresponds to what is above the feeling, and mind, and reason, and in general, what is by nature, is evidenced by what happens supernaturally and is placed next to it? 84. What is he, again admonishing them and saying: “Be zealous for the spiritual, and above all let you prophesy” (1 Cor. 14:1), again speaking about all [spiritual gifts] - for he does not mention some spiritual [gifts] - convinces them to be zealous for what is inherent in everyone by nature and happens to everyone, and to strive for this, and to be zealous for the very thing that is inherent in demons - invisibility, incorporeality and infinity? For this, says Akindinus, is in the proper sense of the word grace poured out from the Holy Spirit. And again, when the apostle writes to the same [Corinthians]: “For they are zealous for nature in the Spirit” (1 Cor. 14:12), that is, stewards of spiritual gifts, does he really testify that they are stewards of those [properties] that are in evil spirits, and exhorts [them] to seek, “so that they may abound to build up” (1 Cor. 14:12)? If they and all those who worship the spirit are stewards of all the gifts of the Spirit, and it is precisely to this end that the apostle instructs us that he says: “be zealous for the spiritual,” and, according to Akindinus, all the creations of the Spirit are spiritual, and among the creations of the divine Spirit there are also evil spirits, then Akindinus [thereby] shows those who worship the divine Spirit as zealots and stewards of evil spirits, and Paul represents them to this calling. 85. I’m afraid that I might become an accomplice of Akindin’s nonsense, revealing and developing some of them, and often unfolding them. Is it not because of this that Solomon advised: “Do not answer a fool according to his foolishness” (Prov. 26:4)?” But I do not think that the Wise One said this, for he did not say not to defend himself, but not to respond. And now we defend ourselves, but even while defending ourselves, we do not commit madness like [our] accuser. For while he slanderously attacks us and almost all theologians from the century, and lies against God and all who worship God, we contrast the truth with lies. And everything that we say against him, we do not say from ourselves, but we show it truly by the following (τικτόμενον) 732 from his words, not first perverting the reasoning he wrote and then preserving the following, as he does with ours and the divine fathers' writings to deceive those who read, but [we show] what he not only wrote, but also clearly thought. And from this we do not experience everything in a row, but where to inattentive listeners he may seem to be saying something [important], and at the same time we make clear his slander against us. CHAPTER 23. About the fact that all spiritual gifts are not uncreated, and what is uncreated among them. 86. So, since here too he slanderes us, as if we call uncreated sorrow, and crying, and tears, and the fear of death or of God, and the new creation, and related to it, and, in short, we consider some of the natural things uncreated, along with all spiritual things, he informs, and, wanting to show himself what kind of created things they are, he put with them the uncreated, and the spiritual - in a row with the natural, merging and mixing everything, and without making any distinction between the divine and the human, the demon-possessed and the God-bearing. In all these things, we have already shown him to be a completely obvious idle talker and a blasphemer, in addition to everything else, now distinguishing between spiritual gifts and those that are not. And now let us expose [his] slander against us and our [like-minded] fathers and show that we have learned from the divine fathers to think about the uncreated, in order to keep our fatherly – or rather spiritual and divine – thought unharmed and undistorted. And, taking the above-mentioned distinction and tracing everything back to our God-inspired fathers, we will again make as short and understandable a definition as possible, reliable and reliable on all sides. 87. Of that which arises or is generated in beings, one belongs to nature, and the other does not. All of this, which is not a [manifestation] of nature, not due to lack, but due to superiority, is spiritual, but not all are called spiritual gifts, and not all are uncreated. That not everything is called gifts, we clearly showed a little higher, and that not everything is uncreated - this [we] must show briefly. So, the resurrection of the Lord is spiritual, as Father Chrysostom says, but neither the Resurrection nor that which was resurrected is uncreated: after all, this is the resurrection of created [humanity, previously] fallen, or, in other words, re-creation and restoration (άνάκτισίς τε και ανάπλασις). Such is also the new creation, and the new man, and the new and pure heart: for a certain renewal and re-creation of the distinctive characteristics (χαρακτήρων) of the soul is accomplished by grace in the divine “wash of regeneration” (Titus 3:5) and through righteous works of faith is increased and completed. Both the Virgin’s womb-bearing and the birth of God the Word from her are spiritual, as the Golden-Speaker speaks about this. And the very body of the Lord “is holy from the Spirit” (Matt. 1:20), but as a creation “of the Spirit,” as the great Basil showed 733. 88. And it is not untimely to say here to one who calls all created things spiritual, and belonging to the Spirit itself 734 of outpouring grace, that all embryos are God’s creatures, but about the Virgin Mother alone it is said that “What is born in Her of the Spirit is Holy” (Matthew 1:20), since conception was truly supernatural. But [let us return] to what we are now talking about: the divine Paul calls manna “spiritual waste” and “water from the stone” (Ps. 77:16; Is. 48:21) “spiritual beer”: and he called the “stone” itself “spiritual” (1 Cor. 10:4), showing that they are at the same time symbolic indications of most ineffable [mysteries] 735. But Jonah’s stay in the whale, and his miraculous liberation from it, and in general everything that is ineffably accomplished by God is spiritual, as Father Chrysostom says, but not everything is also uncreated. Since, if gift and grace really are something uncreated, and it is necessary for them to be among spiritual things, - for from that which exists and is accomplished in accordance with nature (κατά την φυσικήν άκολουθιαν), to which belongs the wisdom and knowledge inherent in rational [creatures] by nature, It is impossible for something to remain uncreated - then it is appropriate for us to sort it out into categories, even more diligently distinguishing between spiritual gifts, so that we can grasp what this uncreated thing is in general and which [of them]: is it one of them, or none, or more than one? 89. So, our word indicated above, and the apostle confirmed that all those [phenomena] from among [occurring] not due to nature, which are inherent in those who [live] according to God, and through them are accomplished, and of which [phenomena] if anyone is worthy of one or more, he is and is called spiritual, as acting and moved by the divine Spirit - these are spiritual gifts. Of these, some consist of words, and others of deeds. In words - “the birth of tongues” and their “tales” (1 Cor. 12:10, 28), as from here it is absolutely clear, “the word of wisdom” and “the word of understanding”, as the apostle himself, setting this out in basic terms, made it obvious to us (1 Cor. 12:8), and in deeds and deeds - “the actions of powers” (1 Cor. 12:10), grace-filled “gifts of healing” (1 Cor. 12:9), “powerful faith that removes mountains” (1 Cor. 13:2; Matt. 17:20). “And prophecy” and “spiritual discernment” (1 Cor. 12:10) seem to apply to both, and especially to the ability to distinguish between divine spirits and non-divine ones, since it runs through all of the above, making clear both deeds and words - whether they are of the Spirit or not, and whether they are good or not. May we also receive some divine inspiration from there, so that we do not err here in true discernment and do not be mistaken in what we are now exploring. For even of these, nothing is in any way uncreated, whether from words or from deeds. For both of them are sensual, like sorrow, and tears, and the very thing that [is] that of love, which is both a gift, and an intercessor of gifts, and the greatest of all gifts. So, both are created - both words and deeds - and are subject to sensory power, which not only cannot perceive anything from what is above the mind, but also from what is above the senses, that is, from the intelligible. And the uncreated is above the mind, and those that are combined with it are combined with some better power that exceeds the nature of the mind, according to the great Dionysius 736. And that those signs are sensual and subject to sensual power, Father Chrysostom also taught when he said: “Grace gave a certain sensual verification of that energy, so that one spoke in the language of the Persians, another - the Romans, another - the Hindus, another - some other such. And this demonstrated to those outside that the Spirit is in the speaker himself” 737. 90. So, since [these phenomena] revealed to those external, and not only to those who were worthy - let us say again in the words of the great Dionysius - the best of our essence and energy of unity 738, then they were created and subject to sensual power, but not also that grace and energy, which, being in them, through those sensual signs became obvious to those who hear and see. For it is impossible for her to be one of the created things, since she is the Holy Spirit, and [therefore] these [things], paradoxically accomplished thanks to her, are called spiritual. And Chrysostom also pointed out this when he said: “it revealed to those outside that the Spirit is in the speaker himself,” for he called [here] this energy Spirit. But in response to the words of the apostle, who said: “Whenever I pray with my tongue, my spirit prays” (1 Cor. 14:14), Chrysostom says: “that is, the gift given to me and moving the tongue” 739. So these gifts are called spiritual because of this gift that moves. For the apostle himself made it obvious that this moving gift is not the mind, adding: “But my mind is unfruitful. What else is there? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the mind; I will sing in the spirit, and I will also sing in the mind” (1 Cor. 14:14–15). And again, when the apostle added: “Before you bless with the spirit” (1 Cor. 14:16), Chrysostom says: “You therefore give thanks for good” (1 Cor. 14:17), for you speak while being moved by the Spirit” 740. By what Spirit are we moved? It is clear that the Saints. And why he puts this word here without adding an article, we will say later. Now we must again listen to the apostle, who said with the addition of an article and showed that moving grace and this energy is the Holy Spirit, for he says: “To everyone the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the benefit” (1 Cor. 12:7). This is the One because of Whom he said that all those blessed are of the same dignity, for even the one with the lesser [gift] is shown [by the Holy Father] to be the organ of the divine energy existing in Him. 91. Thus, the grace truly poured out from the divine Spirit is the Holy Spirit, and not the incorporeality, invisibility and infinity inherent in creatures, and word, and feeling, and the like, as Akindinus madly taught, reducing the divine Spirit to the level of the creature under the pretext that He is called grace by the energy inherent in Him, which [rests] on those who dwell in God, and the teaching of Himself according to it to them, in relation to whom they only say “to give” and “to pour out.” In this, Akindinus is exactly of the same mind with the Doukhobors, about whom Basil the Great says, that they say: “The Spirit abides in us as a gift from God; but the gift is by no means exalted in equal honor with the Giver” 741. Against them he cites again: “The Spirit, of course, is the gift of God, but the gift of life and the gift of power, for [it is written]: “You will receive the power that the Holy Spirit has brought upon you” (Acts 1:8). Does that make Him unimportant?” 742 What kind of life, what kind of strength? Is it really the one that is in feeling, mind and word? No way. But immortal and strong to do what is above feelings, mind and words, and giving not only immortality, but also sinlessness, as far as this is possible for her. “The law of the Spirit of life... set me free,” says Paul, “from the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2), so that this life would be the highest and [most] immortal life, impervious not only to corruption, but also to any evil. 92. That those who, thanks to this new-created energy and grace in the “bath of rebirth” (Tit. 3:5; Gal. 6:15) became “a new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17) and through new life and habitation either saved themselves from ancient shame, or were cleansed anew by repentance, even if something had time to stick, and thanks to the righteousness of faith, renewed themselves and grew up, and achieved health and maturity according to Christ, they see their own renewal from the inside and not like those who see from the outside, and with the help of certain signs, ineffable and invisible to many, and other certain [the same things], I will not now expand, seeing that the speech is stretched into length. CHAPTER 24. More detailed proof that the uncreated energy and grace of the Spirit is not the essence of the Spirit. 93. Since this renewing and miraculous energy and grace is uncreated - after all, it is the Holy Spirit Himself - is it really just one and absolutely indivisible, or is it divided into parts and diversified [turning] into different energies? And is it unassimilated and absolutely not participatory, so that only renewal is given to those who have been worthy, or is it itself participated and, in addition to renewal, is given itself in various ways? And is renewal only from the Holy Spirit, or is uncreated energy and grace itself from the Holy Spirit, if it is also the Holy Spirit Himself, just as the radiance that comes from a ray is both light and from light? For if it is absolutely indivisible, and incomprehensible, and unparticipated, and undetectable, and does not appear to anyone, is not given and does not participate in anyone, is not divided into parts and is not diversified, and is not from the Spirit, then the essence of God is this uncreated energy. If it is divided into parts, and is given, and is received, and participates, and is diversified, and appears, and from the Spirit there is this spirit of grace, this uncreated energy, then how will it be an unparticipated and absolutely indivisible, undetectable, unoriginating, and causeless essence? 94. And that not only renewal, but also the Holy Spirit itself is given to those who are worthy, the Lord showed us in deed and word, who breathed and said to the disciples: “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22), and who foretold with Ezekiel: “I will give you a new heart and a new spirit, and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh, and I will put My Spirit in you” (Ezek. 36:26, 11:19), and before him Moses said to Joshua: “Are you jealous of Me for food? And who will cause all the Lord's people to be prophets, when the Lord gives His Spirit on them" (Num. 11:29) Paul, knowing this from experience, says: "We have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God" (1 Cor. 2:12), and to the saints who are in Rome: "But you are not in the flesh, but in the soul, because the Spirit of God lives in you" (Rom. 8:9), and to the Thessalonians: "Likewise, he who sweeps away does not sweep away man, but God, who gave His Holy Spirit in us" (1 Thessalonians 4:8). It was also said by the Golden-Speaking Father and before him by the great Athanasius: “Nowhere in Scripture does it say: “The Spirit who is from God,” or for God Himself to say: “My Spirit,” speaking not about this Holy Spirit Himself” 743. But even without the word “holy,” with or without the addition of an article, “Πνεύμα άγιον” or “Πνεύμα τό άγιον,” He was never called created by anyone, except only the Doukhobors before and the Barlaamite Akindinus now. 95. The fact that the Holy Spirit Himself is given and received can no longer be disputed by anyone who has chosen to abide under the guidance of the Teacher who spoke the prophets 744, and those sent “to teach all languages” (Matthew 28:19), and Himself who sent. And that He Himself is and partakes of the worthy, no one will doubt, hearing truly that He is given to them and accepted by them, for no other way could He be received or partake. Let Paul, however, assure us of this: “For it is impossible,” he says, “for those who have been enlightened by one thing, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and are partakers of the Holy Spirit” (Heb. 6:4). And that He grants and participates in different ways, and not to all created things, is represented by the interpreter of the heavenly hierarchy, Dionysius, who says: “The unevenness of the intelligent eyes makes the super-full light-giving of paternal goodness either completely non-participating and incommunicable for reflection in them, or produces different [degrees] of participation - small or great, vague or bright - to the one and simple and always the same and filled with the source ray" 745. 96. This is enough to convince us that the grace and energy of the Spirit given and received by those blessed with grace is not created - for it is the Holy Spirit Himself - and that it is also not the essence of the Spirit. For God does not give his own essence to anyone, and it is impossible for it to become perceived by anything, and not show that which was perceived to be composed of two natures, that is, of divine and human nature, and this if [the received] is united with it by hypostasis, which is impossible when both of those formed previously existed, and even more so - each in its own hypostasis. Therefore, the Son of God, who received from us not hypostasis, but nature, was united with it by hypostasis, for nature, having united in itself, will, of necessity, both create and undergo confusion. That is why the unmixed and non-essential things that are united have unity from what is around them. So, by itself, the participatory and adopted divine nature will either itself submit to confusion, or destroy the changeable nature before it has time to perceive it. The latter is even more likely. “No one will see,” says [the Lord], “My face, and live” (Ex. 33:20), and no one, according to what is written, “was “in the council” and essence of “the Lord” 746, and did not see and declare the nature of God” 747. If no one can stand the sight of [Him], then what about communion? Therefore, the God-bearing fathers proclaimed that God, in essence, is absolutely unparticipated and ungraspable. So, for those who have chosen to offer themselves in obedience to the truth, it will be sufficient for them to be convinced that the energy in those blessed is neither created nor the essence of the Spirit. If this energy appears to be divisible into parts - that is, the spirit that is in them - and to exist from the Spirit, then it will be even more obvious that this is not the essence and not the hypostasis of the Spirit. 97. That it is both divided into parts and is from the Spirit, God foretold this through the prophet Joel, not saying: “in the last days I will pour out” My Spirit,” but: “I will pour out My Spirit” (Joel 2:29). And Isaiah, as we showed in detail above, listed the spirits that are from the Spirit in general terms, clearly showing the division of divine energies. And the Lord in the Gospels, having said that He “with the finger of God will cast out demons” (Luke 11:20), simultaneously shows that this finger is both the Holy Spirit, as another of the evangelists declared (Matthew 12:28), and one of those spirits that are from this very Spirit, as the great Basil says, remembering the signs performed by Moses in Egypt 748. Since the Lord does not act only with these separate gifts, John, who is “more than a prophet” (Matthew 11:9), says: “God does not give the Spirit in moderation. The Father loves the Son, and gives all things in His hand” (John 3:34–35). And John Chrysostom says: “We have all received the energy of the Spirit in measure (for here he calls energy Spirit, since it is divisible into parts), but He has all energy indivisible and whole. Knowing this from experience, the son of thunder John says: “We understand this, because we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit to eat” (1 John 4:13), and again: “We have all received from His fulfillment” (John 1:16)” 749. Therefore, the Golden-Speaker says again: “All grace was poured into this Church. For “the Father does not give Him the Spirit in measure,” but [this] Church received all grace, and we have something small and a splash from that grace. However, this drop and splash filled the entire universe with knowledge. Thanks to her, signs were performed and sins were resolved. Nevertheless, in so many countries the grace given is [only] a certain part of the gift and betrothal. For [Paul] says: “He who gave the betrothal of the Spirit into our hearts” (2 Cor. 1:22), speaks of a portion of energy: since the Comforter is not divided” 750. And this part and drop, in turn, is distributed according to the measure of purity that occurs for the sake of virtue and faith of each of those receiving. “For the Holy Spirit, being communed only with those who are worthy,” according to the great Basil, “does not participate in one measure, but shares the energy according to [everyone’s] faith” 751. Therefore, the Spirit becomes contained (χωρητόν) in energy by those who are divinely blessed, although by nature they are human, since it is precisely by this energy that He is measured in this way. And being indivisible in essence and hypostasis, how can He be contained by any of the created things? 98. Pointing to this division, Paul says in the Epistle to the Hebrews that the salvation proclaimed by the Lord is confirmed by “signs and wonders, and divers powers, and the dividing of the Holy Spirit” (Heb. 2:4). Therefore, turning to the Corinthians, he calls spiritual gifts spirits, and says that they are given from the same Spirit (παρά τού αύτού Πνεύματος), and according to the same Spirit (κατά τό αυτό Πνεύμα), and about “Tomzhe Dus” (έν τώ αύτώ Πνεύματι) 752. In the same way, the One with the Golden Word says to one who has the gift of prayer: “You therefore give thanks well” (1 Cor. 14:16), for you speak as you are moved by the Spirit” 753; and about the one who acquired the gift of tongues: “the fact that [each of the apostles] spoke in an alien tongue showed to those outside that the Spirit was in the speaker himself” 754. He speaks without an article to show that in each of them there is a part of the single energy of the Spirit. Consequently, spiritual grace is not nature, but the uncreated energy of the divine Spirit, through which, indivisibly distributed according to the measure of those who receive, each of those thus blessed, being moved, is subjected to divine influence (ενεργείται θειως) 755. That is why the Apostle said that this serves as a consolation for those who have acquired less, and Chrysostom explained, showing them all as equally honest and divinely united, because all these [various gifts] are the essence of one Spirit, with which all are given drink, having received Him not as a creation - then this admonition would not be worthy of mention and true: for what unity, what unity of honor, and especially in the best, can produce creations, even if they were created by one creator? But created gifts - and even more so, being many and having great differences from each other - cannot bring them into “one body”, and [at the same time] the body of Christ, and into “one spirit with the Lord” (1 Cor. 6:16-17). 99. Of course, according to Isaiah, as we said above, “Establish the earth and what is on it, gives breath to the people who are on it, and the Spirit to those who trample 756 yu” (Is. 42:5), that is, to those who are higher than the earthly, for, according to the psalmist, “God’s powers of the earth are greatly exalted” (Ps. 47:10). What spirit? “The Spirit of truth” (John 14:17, 15, 26, 16:13, 1 John 4:6), freedom, “the birth of sons” (Rom. 8:15) 757, “Whom,” according to the word of the Truth, of which this Spirit, “the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him, it knows Him. But you,” the disciples are told, “know Him as He is in you.” abides and will be in you” (John 14:17). 100. Thus, “we have one God” (1 Cor. 8:6) and one uncreated Spirit, since not only the essence is uncreated, but also the three divine hypostases, and not only these, but also all divine energies. If any of these energies were a creation, then God would not be uncreated either in essence or in hypostasis: for the nature of each is characterized by the corresponding energy, according to theologians 758. Since all of God is characterized through each of the energies, those who call all of them created make all of God a creation through each of them. The field of godlessness is so fruitful and generous for them. CHAPTER 25. The fact that Akindinus, by poorly interpreting the word “all” in relation to God, shows himself to be the highest - alas for his madness! – even Christ Himself. 101. But “all God adores me, and I unite with all God, becoming deified,” says Akindinus, calling “all God” the essence, all the hypostases, and all uncreated energy. But all angels in general and at the same time holy people are not all adored and sanctified by God in this sense - but a certain part of the energy, as Chrysostom said when he called it a drop and a small splash 759. Therefore, Gregory, called from theology, says: “Christ” [He is named] - because of divinity; for this is the anointing of humanity [in Him], not by sanctifying energy, like other anointed ones, but by the coming of the whole Anointing One” 760 . The one who, like a bee, collects theological honey from flowers from everywhere, agrees with him, saying: “Christ is not a God-bearing man, but God incarnate, not as a prophet anointed with energy, but by the coming of all the Anointing One, so that the Anointing One became man, and the anointed one became God.” 761 So, since everyone - both God-bearing people and together holy angels - are deified thanks to the energy of God alone, and even then not all, but some small part [of it] and as if a meager drop in comparison with that sea, and what is received from us by the Word is [deified] thanks to [union with it] of one of the three hypostases, then Akindinus does not miss any excess of madness and insanity, showing himself to be superior not only to God-bearers, and even all angels and men in general, but also Himself - alas! - the only Christ, according to whom the Anointing One became man, and the Anointed One became God, not according to all, but according to only one of the hypostases, united with divinity. Perhaps, in this too, Akindinus thinks to have the advantage that not only is the one who anointed him all God, but also that all God in him has become a man, if in all not only energies, but also in divine hypostases God has united with him, as he asserts and as he urges his followers to speak and think, so that God would not suffer, as he says, division, without being united with them entirely in all ways, not realizing that the divine is not divided into parts in a corporeal way. And then, even if one of the worshiped three hypostases became human, and through her alone God was united to the human mixture, but to me the whole of Him was immutably united, and the whole of God accepted the human, since the incorporeal is not divided in a corporeal way, and even more so the divine and God Himself, so that there is a part of Him in a part; but according to hypostases and energies He is inseparably divided and combined separately. CHAPTER 26. That the word “all” in relation to God is understood by the saints in different ways, and in how many ways, and that the sayings of Akindinus here clearly contradict the saints and turn out to be monstrous blasphemies. 102. That is why the word “all” in relation to Him is thought and spoken differently by theologians. For the great Dionysius says: “All godly names, not in part, but in relation to the entire and all-perfect, and whole, and complete divinity, are sung by the Sayings”; and again: “Whatever we undertake to reveal the universal naming of God, we must interpret it in relation to all divinity” 762. What does he call here all and all-perfect, and complete, and complete divinity? Three hypostases, but not also any uncreated energy of divinity, so that the divine simplicity would be called Sayings 763 mercy, or judgment, or wisdom, or the energy of creation and foreknowledge, and again the judgment would be called incorruptibility, immutability, simplicity and all the rest, as Akindinus madly took this, putting it out and saying: “In any case, not in relation to anything that is in God, it is said a kind of God-naming, but each is a designation of both the essence itself and all its innate energies.” 103. Therefore, he declares in writing: “he who names the essential and natural [properties] of God, and posits the essence as supra-changeable, and who determines that others are one and the other is this, clearly blasphemes and dares to cut off the super-united unit” 764, not being ashamed, the unfortunate one, if nothing else, then at least in exact agreement with the worthy of spitting on Eunomius, and not fearing that all theologians together believe the opposite of what they are told. For [the saint] says that “the name “God” is obviously energetic, since it does not represent to us the very essence of God, for it is impossible to know, but indicates only His visual (θεωρητικήν) 765 energy” 766, and again: “one should think about each of [the names] used in relation to God that it does not mean anything according to essence, but that it indicates either what He is not, like “incorporeality,” or some relation, like “Creator” and “Lord,” or something following nature, like “goodness,” “justice,” or “energy,” like “God” is the One who sees, and oversees, and takes care of everything” 767, and again: “The Divine nature in all imaginary names remains without designation [regarding] the way it is. For, having learned [the names] “benefactor”, and “good judge” and “righteous” and others like that, no matter how many of them there are, we learn the difference between energies, and we cannot learn the nature of the actor any better through comprehension of energies. For when someone gives a certain meaning to each of the names and to the very nature around which the names are, not one will give a meaning to both: but what has a different meaning, has a different nature” 768 . 104. But Akindinus, who, due to his very daring madness, decided to bring charges of wickedness against the fair and great Basil and those who before him and after him carefully examined the word of piety, and in general to everyone who agreed with them, himself, it seems, wishing to enroll himself among [the number of] the best criminals [against] God and the saints of God; and truly be accused of extreme wickedness, and “be written,” according to the prophetic word, “a rejected man” (Jer. 22:30) - he says verbatim: “Everything that is said to belong to God is not another uncreated thing, different from the divine nature. For if the divine names are indications of various uncreated energies, then the Greeks were zero in polytheism, [since] in this way we will serve countless uncreated gods: after all, there are a lot of divine names.” 105. Let then again the great Basil himself in everything denounce the folly and at the same time the exact agreement with the rejected Eunomius of the one who so much slandered the truly pious, so much so that he called the Greeks also incomparable with them in polytheism. For he says: “Shall we refuse to call God incorruptible, invisible, unchangeable, creator, judge, and all those [names] that we now use in praise? Or, accepting these names, what shall we do? Shall we not, having collected them all, attribute them to essence? Then we will show Him not only composite, but also composed of uneven parts, due to the fact that different things are denoted by each of the names” 769; and again: “If everything that is attributed to God refers to one designated thing, according to Eunomius, then it is in every possible way necessary that the names have the same power, as [this happens] among those with many names. And what would be more absurd than this confusion, abstracting from each of the names its own meaning, to legislate against the general use and teaching of the Spirit? 770; and again: “How is it not obvious madness to say that behind each of the names there is not a special signified?” 771. Isn't it obvious that Akindinus is another Eunomius? For this one, being mad in the same way and confusing the divine, and opposing the teaching of the Spirit, and contradicting the dogmas generally recognized by the entire Church of God, again says: “How are two divinities not uncreated, not to say more [than two], if the power of God and all-performing energy, and wisdom, and life, and goodness, and everything that is said to be essentially divine is different and different, and everything is different from the divine essence and from each other? friend? This is a new theology preaching to us, which is extremely contrary to pious faith and which we should not accept and succumb to those who teach [such things].” 106. Unbeknownst to you, man, you have disgraced yourself by casting aside shame and mocking true theology, and not being ashamed in the face of true theologians, and daring to propose not to obey them, and not to accept those whom all right-thinking people honor and whom everyone bows down as divinely inspired. “But there is no difference at all,” he says, “in the one and whole and completely trinitarian divinity in any way, except for the difference in the divine and super-essential three persons.” What are you saying? There is no difference between divine wisdom and divine justice, simplicity from eternity, goodness from immutability, because it is not by face (μή προσωπικώς) that they differ from one another? But let the language of theologians sound louder in response, very [self]sufficient and not in need of an assistant against him who has now chosen to rebel against them again. 107. After all, [the saint] says: “Eunomius returns again to his own confusion - the same thing to say, Akindinus - and, leaving the word about essence, he compiled the energies contemplated with it all into one concept, and made everything one. For it cannot be, he says, that there is one essence, and that the logos of incorruption is not the same as the logos of ungeneracy. Well, noble one, you add, it seems to me that neither the logos of justice is different in relation to what is named, nor the logos of wisdom, strength, goodness and each of the godly names. And let no logos be thought of separately, but behind the entire list of names there must be one signified, and one word of description must replace the definition of each of the pronounced [names]. And if you are asked what judge means, you answer with the interpretation of ungeneracy, and if it is necessary to give a definition of justice, let incorporeality be suitable for your answer. What does incorruption mean? - That, you will say, is what represents the meaning of mercy or judgment. So everything separately will be transferred one to the place of the other, if there is no special meaning separating one from the other... “And if this is laid down by Eunomius - the same thing can be said, Akindinus, who says similarly that there is no difference in any sense between the divine nature and what is naturally contemplated around it - then why then do the Scriptures call the divine nature by many names in vain, calling God, judge, just, strong, generous, true, merciful, and other similar [names]? For if none of the names is taken in relation to some special concept, and all of them are confused in meaning with each other due to fusion, then it would be in vain to use many names in relation to Him, since no difference in what is designated separates the names from each other” 772. 108. And the philosopher among the martyrs, Justin, says: “Since God has the essence to exist, and the will to create, then he who rejects the difference between essence and will, rejects both the existence of God and creation: His own existence, and the creation of non-existent [previously things]” 773. And the great Athanasius says: “of what is said about God, not everything is called essence, but around the essence” 774. And Gregory, the great theologist, says: “either immortality, innocence, immutability are the essence of God, and if so, then there are many essences of God, and not one, or the Divinity will be a composite of them: for these [qualities] will not be incomposite if they are essences” 775. 109. So the great Dionysius did not indicate by means of the above statement that each of the names of God is taken in relation to all energy, and in the same way [is taken] in relation to them and to essence, but that each of them is indivisibly said in relation to the three Persons. He himself clarifies this when he writes that he who understands [the expressions] “Good,” “Existing,” “Lord,” “to give life” and “to idolize,” and all that is inherent in the entire Godhead, not in a general and united sense in relation to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, dares to unlawfully tear apart the super-united omnipotent Unit (μονάδα) 776. That this is so - and the divine Maximus noted in the scholia, saying: “It is good that the great man put “not particular” (ού μερικώς) 777, for the energies and all theological hymns are not appropriated exclusively to [any] one of the persons of the divine Trinity, but are common [to the entire] Trinity, with the exception of hypostatic features” 778. The divine Gregory of Nyssa teaches this when he writes in his essay “Against Eunomius”: “By the number of names the associated dignities of God are contemplated, and since the dignities are the same in relation to each of the hypostases, the identity in essence of the subjects of the same dignities is clearly shown” 779 . 110. It happens when theology, speaking about the whole of God, points to three hypostases, and it happens that it puts [the definition] “all” in relation to one hypostasis, because divinity is not divided into parts in a corporeal way, but resides entirely in each of the hypostases. Likewise, by experiencing the love of truth, you can learn about energies. Just as, therefore, all of God became man, although not all hypostases became human, and although not in essence, but in hypostasis - one of three - He united with our mixture, so all God adores the worthy, not according to hypostasis, of course, uniting with them - after all, this belongs only to Christ - and not according to essence - as our word above showed - but also not according to all divine grace and energy, but according to some a small part of the uncreated energies of uncreated divinity, - as has already been shown, - all coming to everyone and all being in all, “dispassionately (απαθώς) 780 divisible, and wholly participating in the image of a solar ray” 781, - as the great Basil says, - of which perceiving a small part, each of the two eyes sees the whole sun. 111. Such is the simplicity of God that from the small signs that appear in creation, something is revealed that is beyond it, as far as possible; and thus divided, God remains indivisible in everything. And as Akindinus suggested, God will not only be composite, as theologians indicated a little higher, but also bi-natural. Therefore, the divine Gregory of Nyssa speaks to Eunomius, who thought the same thing before as [now] Akindinus, and then reproached the pious for the same thing and in the same way as Akindinus [reproaches] us now; Gregory, who is wise in the divine, speaks to him: “Who else says that God is two-natural, except you, who merges every meaning of the name with the essence of the Father and says that nothing external [to God] is inherent, but grafts each of the names related to the divine into the essence of God?” 782. After all, isn’t Akindinus obviously doing the same thing when he writes again: “The names of God are spoken about all of God, whatever He may be, in no way about a certain part or parts, such as [for example] the essential and natural energies and powers of God. For this means blaspheming and unlawfully tearing apart the super-connected Unit (ένάδα)"? 112. After all, he says that names do not refer to what is around God, but belong to the divine essence. If he says that he is saying that they belong to both—both essential [properties] and [the] essence itself—then a little higher he denied that essential [properties] are something different from essence. Consequently, by saying “whatever He is,” he here designated the essence of God and, referring to it every name of God, almost in the same way as Eunomius grafted and fused [it with it], and he calls those who do not do this tearing apart the super-unified Unit, so bluntly and insanely speaking, that if anyone does not say that God is two-natured, then he cuts the one into two. He fell into such great wickedness, not knowing that the divine is divided inseparably, not only according to hypostases, but also according to energies, as we explained in a special treatise, citing the testimony of sacred theologians in confirmation. CHAPTER 27. That since the distinction relating to God is twofold, as is customary among theologians, then when one of them is said “all,” this [word] does not include the other, and that it is the divine energy, and not the divine essence, that those who partake of God partake of. 113. But truly, for such things, as one of the fathers said, a favorable, faithful and thorough ear is required. After all, since the Divinity differs in both hypostases and energies, then for each distinction one sees otherness, since they intersect with each other. For the proper names of the divine hypostases are common to the energies, and the common to the hypostases are the proper names of the divine energies. Life is the common name of the Father, Son and Spirit, but foreknowledge of life, or simplicity, or immutability, or any other of these is not called. Thus, each of the above is a common name of the Father, Son and Spirit, but one energy, and not all, for each indicates one meaning. And one hypostasis has its own name “Father,” but it embraces all of them: not only true life, but also immutability, and mercy, and divine simplicity, and everything like that. So is the “Son”, so is the “Holy Spirit”, for “all that is mine is thine, and thine is mine” (John 17:10), the original Word said to His Father. And conversely, what belongs to the Father and Him belongs generally and is united to the God-originating Spirit. And thus God is divided according to hypostases, being united according to energies: for the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have the same energies. And they will separate according to energies, being united according to hypostases: for each of the energies is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. That is why theologians sometimes apply the word “all” to energies and sometimes to hypostases. 114. But when, according to the hypostatic distinction, “all” is said, then [this “all"] does not include the other hypostases, but without them [embraces] all the divine energies together with the divine nature. After all, in this way, what is according to the hypostases is preserved without confusion, since the whole of God became incarnate, and thus everything is immutably united to me, finishing my salvation with the suffering of the flesh, that is, the divine nature and all the power and energy in one of the divine hypostases. When, according to the distinction of energies, “everything” is said by theologians in relation to one of them, it does not include the other energies, which again preserve what is according to them, without confusion, but without them [encompasses] all the hypostases. And thus, through each [of these energies] the whole of God is participated and thanks to each, the whole is called the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Every energy is named and participated through one energy. 115. Therefore it is always said that those who exist partake of the whole of God, that is, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So the great Dionysius says that “and this is common and united and one for all goodness - so that all of it participates in each of those who partake” 783, and not as a heretical word Akindina interprets “all” and “entirely,” asserting therefore that everything participates in both the essence and energy of God. For as the same theophany said in the fourth chapter “On the Heavenly Hierarchy”: “all beings participate in the providence that pours out from the super-essential and all-causal divinity” 784 and a little lower: “it is obvious that those around it are those of the entities that partake of it in a variety of ways” 785, and in the fourth chapter “On the Divine Names”: “Extends to the last [limits] all-perfect goodness, for some it is completely present, for others it is less, for others it is extremely [little]: and some fully participate in the good, while others are more or less deprived of it” 786 ? For how does the whole partake of all, for some being fully present, and for others not, and for some participating fully and in a variety of ways, and for others not fully and in a variety of ways, if not in the way that this word showed, the whole of God participates, that is, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit? How, being in essence absolutely indivisible, would He participate in it with each of the existing ones differently, and with some in different ways? That is why the great Dionysius himself again said: “all are partakers of providence, pouring out from the all-causal divinity,” and in the third chapter “On the Church Hierarchy” he says: “The highest of all is God’s initial bliss, although by divine goodness it comes into sacred communion with those who partake of it, but does not become outside the essentially motionless state and foundation” 787. 116. So that some partake only of the essence-creating energy of God, although through it they partake of all of God, but not also of the life-giving energy; others - life-giving, but not wisdom-giving; and others - this one in addition to others. Only the angels who have retained their rank, and those of people who have returned to the supernatural dignity given to rational [beings] from above, become partakers of the idolizing energy and grace of the most divine and ineffable enlightenment. “For alone,” according to the divine Maximus, “it is characteristic of divine grace to bestow deification on beings accordingly [to the extent of each], illuminating nature with a light that exists beyond nature, and making it higher than its limits by the excess of glory” 788. What kind of beings? - Angels, of course, and people, those who have preserved or restored, and [depending on] how much [they have preserved or restored], the harmony of morals given by the Creator, so as to be His instruments that contain His divine energy, although not everyone all, since it is divided indivisibly. “For if about fire, where the subject is essence and body, [it is said] both “divides” and “does not divide,” says Chrysostom theologian, “then much more when it comes to energy, and even more so when it comes to energy from an incorporeal essence” 789. 117. For even among musical instruments, percussion and wind, each contains not all human energies, but only one, and, moreover, not all, and from the human essence - nothing. And each of those illuminated by the sun does not all contain the sun’s rays, and no one participates in the essence. And just as the ray of the sun, being inseparable from the sun, alone we participate in those illuminated by the sun, just as in a vague image [given] in sensible things - and the god-creating grace, those who partake of which are deified, is a certain divine grace, but not the nature of God: not as absent from those blessed by the absurd slander of Akindinus - for the nature of God is everywhere - but as not being participatory, since neither one of the created beings, as was previously shown, cannot participate in it, since the light of the sun is inseparable from the ray and the heat it supplies, but those who taste it who do not have eyes do not participate in the light, and they perceive only heat from the ray. Therefore, just as there is no perception of light by those who are not endowed with eyes, so to an even greater extent, none of all will be able to partake of the essence of the Creator. For there is not a single creation that has the power to contain the nature of the Creator. 118. For the divine energy, and grace, and power, which is present everywhere, does not participate in the reception of the light for those who are unfit due to impurity, as if it were absent. Therefore, as Basil the Great says, “the Holy Spirit is present for everyone, since everyone is not without [His] own power, for it is inseparable, but He shows His power to those who are pure from passions, but to those who have the sovereign [beginning of the soul] upset from the stains of sin - not” 790, and again: “Just as images of faces are not obtained in every material, but in those who have a certain smoothness and transparency, so not in all souls [reveals itself] as the energy of the Spirit, but without [in itself] anything twisted and confused” 791. CHAPTER 28. That the wisdom and valor that God bestows on those who are in God is the divine activity of the divine Spirit. 119. Such is every virtue: not that which is inherent in creatures by nature, but really existing and given by unity with God to those who are in God (τοις ένθέοις), according to which they live in a divine way, according to the top of the divine choir of the apostles, Peter, proclaiming the virtues of Him who called from darkness into the wonderful Your light (1 Peter 2:9). Therefore, Maximus, strong in the divine, says: “Every virtue is without beginning, having no time that would be older than it, since it always has God as its only parent” 792. 120. So, “love” and “joy, peace” and “long-suffering” (Gal. 5:22), and the like, are inherent in nature - or, in other words, in a created way - to all rational [creatures], as if echoes of truly existing ones: therefore, someone can use them for evil, arbitrarily rejecting divine laws. And there are also supernatural ones and the Spirit alone [inherent], which the Spirit always possesses, as the great Basil said. So those who are worthy of the grace of the Spirit eat these fruits and partake of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). For wisdom is in us by nature, brought to prosperity by our studies, and the saints, according to the Gospel promise, are given wisdom (Luke 21:15) of the Spirit speaking through them (Matthew 10:20), which, according to Solomon’s saying, “does not dwell in a body guilty of sin” (Wisdom 1:4), and even if it manages to dwell, then with a change to the worst, will fly away: “The Holy Spirit of punishment... will be taken away from foolish thoughts” (Wis. 1:5), - again according to him, who was honored with God’s wisdom and wrote about it. Gregory the Theologian. Word 38, 11 – PG 36, 324A That is, their ignorance is not just a lack of knowledge, which is indicated by the negative particle “α -” Gregory the Theologian. Word 28, 3 – Barbel 68–70 PG 36, 29B The strait separating the island. Euboea from Boeotia. The inconsistency of its flow has been known to everyone since ancient times Gregory the Theologian. Letter 101 to Clidonius – PG 37, 181A Council decision Aug. 1341 – Cathedral Tomos, 51–53 – PG 151, 691–692 Maxim the Confessor. To Thalassia 61, explanation 18 – PG 90, 644D In fact, these words belong to Basil the Great: Against Eunomius, 1, 12 – PG 29, 540A Jer. 23:18. Εν ύποστήματι – translated as “in council” in the Slavic Bible, but the Lampe dictionary gives for the Greek “ύπόστημα” the meaning “ύπόστασις in sense of substance”, citing as an example the citation of this verse by Gregory the Theologian (Word 28, 19, PG 36, 52B). Also, Russian translators of the Words of St. Gregory, although they kept the Slavic “in council,” they provided this place with a note: “In Greek έν ύποστήματι, that is, almost the same as “in essence” (See: Creations, vol. 1, p. 403) 856 Gregory the Theologian. Word 28, 19 – Barbel 100 PG 36, 52V In fact, these words belong to Basil the Great: Against Eunomius, 1, 12-PG 29, 540A Basil the Great. Against Eunomius 2, 32 – PG 29, 648A Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, 10 – PG 74, 289BC Compare: Gregory of Nyssa, To Eunomius, 3 – Jaeger 2, 40 PG 45, 604B John Chrysostom, Commentary on Psalm 9, 3 – PG 55, 125B Acrostic Canon on the Transfiguration – PG 96, 848A Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 32, 15 – PG 36, 192A Basil the Great, Letter 234, 1 – Courtonne 3, 42 – PG 32, 868С-869А Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names, 1, 4 – PG 3, 592BC Athanasius of Alexandria (pseudepigrapha), On the incarnation of God the Word 4 – PG 28, 96A Gregory the Theologian, Letter 101 to Clidonius – PG 37, 181 AB John Chrysostom, Exhortation to Theodore, 11 – Dumortier 136–140 PG 47, 291–292 AKA, To a Young Widow, 3 – SC 138, 130 PG 48, 603 Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, 12 – PG 74, 716D John of Damascus, Homilia in transfigurationem domini, 10 – PG 96, 561AB Andrey Kritsky, Homily on the Transfiguration – PG 97, 932С-933В In fact, this passage belongs to Gregory of Nyssa: Gregory of Nyssa, In sextum Psalmum – McDonough, J. (ed.), Gregorii Nysseni opera, vol. 5, Leiden, 1962, p. 189–190 Basil the Great, Discourse on Psalm 44, 5, PG 29, 400С Aka, Conversation on 29, 5, PG 29, 317B Gregory of Nyssa, Funeral Oration for Basil the Great – PG 46, 793C Scholium: “Here he calls the radiance according to hypostasis the radiance of the spirit, as abiding [unchangeable]. For [the illumination that occurs] through [the discovery of] meanings, like lightning, is fleeting, as Gregory the Theologian says" Macarius of Egypt, On freedom of mind, 23 – PG 34, 957AB He, On the elevation of the mind, 1 – PG 34, 889C; Conversation 5, 11–12 – PG 34, 516V-517V AKA, On Freedom of Mind, 21 – PG 34, 956BC Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 39, 9 – PG 36, 344B Gregory the Theologian, Homily 32, 15 – PG 36, 189D-192A John of Sinai, Ladder, 7, 55 – PG 88, 813AB We start here from the meaning of “τέμνω” as “to cut out.” In the Russian translation of Isaac the Syrian, this passage reads: “Prayer is purity of mind, which alone, in the amazement of a person, is given from the light of the Holy Trinity” (Ascetical Homilies of Our Father Abba Isaac the Syrian, M., 1993, p. 67.), and in English: “..., and it is terminated only by the light of the Holy Trinity” (The Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian, Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Boston, Massachusetts, 1984); and the modern Greek translator of Palamas: “... νού μόνο αύτη αποσπάται από τό φώς της αγίας Τριάδος” (which is the only one torn away from the light of the Holy Trinity) Isaac the Syrian, Homily 32 – Σ πετσιέρη, σ . 140. In Russian translation – Word 16; in English - Word 23. The Rev. himself. Isaac presents this phrase as a quotation from Gregory the Theologian, but it is not found in the latter Isaac the Syrian also presents this phrase as a quote from Gregory the Theologian He is the Word 72 – Σ πετσιέρη, σ. 281 Wed: On Shestodnev 2, 8 – PG 29, 52V See: Troparion of the Transfiguration: “Let Your ever-present light shine upon us sinners too” Gregory of Nyssa, Funeral Oration for Basil the Great – PG 46, 809C Andrey Kritsky. Word on the Transfiguration – PG 97, 933 C John Chrysostom, Discourse 12 on the Gospel of John, 1 – PG 59, 81 Gregory the Theologian, Letter 101 to Clidonius – PG 37, 181A Wed: Gregory of Nyssa, Interpretation of the Beatitudes, 6 – PG 44, 1269A Compare: Zech. 12 (this passage is not in the Septuagint, it can only be found in Theodotion's translation); In. 19 Gregory the Theologian, Letter 101 to Clidonius – PG 37, 181A; Wed. also: Word 40, 25 – PG 36, 424С Gregory the Theologian, Letter 101 to Clidonius – PG 37, 181 A John Chrysostom, Discourse 12 on the Gospel of John, 2 – PG 59, 83B-84A John Chrysostom, Discourse 12 on the Gospel of John, 3 – PG 59, 84B-D John Chrysostom, Discourse 12 on the Gospel of John, 3 – PG 59, 85С Option: from the [solar] disk See: Basil the Great. Conversation at Christmas - PG 31, 1473D Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate, 32 – PG 75, 553C-556A Maxim the Confessor. Dispute with Pyrrhus – PG 91, 341A John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4, 8 – PG 94, 1116BC Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate, – PG 75, 312C John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 1, 8 – PG 94, 813A Cathedral Tomos of 1341 – PG 151, 679–692 Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 29, 6 – Barbel 138 "PG 36, 81B Quote not identified Basil the Great. Letter 189 to Eustathius – Courtonne 2, 140 PG 32, 696B Same, Against Eunomius 2, 29 – PG 29, 640С John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 2, 22 – PG 94, 948С Ibid., 2, 15 – PG 94, 948A In the original – “του αύτό είναι” Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names, 5, 6 – PG 3, 820C Dionysius Arepagite, On the Divine Names, 5 – PG 3, 816–825 Ibid., 5, 2 – PG 3, 816CD Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 31, 30 – Barbel 272 PG 36, 168C Gregory the Theologian, Homily 45, 27 – PG 36, 660C Athanasius, Bishop of Cyzicus Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 41, 13 – PG 36, 448A Translation option: “treading on her.” This meaning, further strengthened by the prefix “κατα -”, is chosen by Basil the Great in the interpretation quoted below Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 22, 53 – Bruche 212 PG 32, 168C Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 41, 13 – PG 36, 445С Athanasius of Alexandria, Epistula ad Marcellinum de interpretation Psalmorum, – PG 27, 20A Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 5 – PG 29, 716D Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 5 – PG 29, 772С 100 Maxim the Confessor, Theological Chapters, 3, 38 – PG 90, 1276BC Maxim the Confessor. Theological chapters, 1, 69 – PG 90, 1208B. Compare: To Thalassia – PG 90, 289B Against Eunomius 5 – PG 29, 772С Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 31, 29 – Barbel 268 PG 36, 165С. Wed: Word 41, 9 – PG 36, 441С Wed: John Chrysostom, Conversation 29 on 1 Cor., 4 – PG 61, 245 Athanasius of Alexandria, Letter 1 to Serapion, 25 – PG 26, 589A Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 26, 63 – Bruche 230 PG 32, 184C To Thalassia 29 – ?G 90, 365A Literally: "to create a son" (υίόν ποιήσαι); Compare: vulgar Russian expression “to make a child” We do not find such words in Scripture The verb “γιγνομαι” is used, which, among other things, means “to do”, to prove that this verb does not always mean an act of creation, leading from non-existence into being, but also birth by nature, as well as the verb “ποιεω” - “to create” or “to do” Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate, 6 – PG 75, 77C Wed: Gregory of Nyssa, Interpretation of the Beatitudes, 6 – PG 44, 1268D John Chrysostom, Discourses on 1 Corinthians, 34, 1 – PG61, 285D John Chrysostom, Discourses on 1 Corinthians, 4, 1 – PG61, 245CD Gregory the Theologian. Word 29, 16 – Barbel 156 PG 36, 96A John of Damascus, An Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4, 1 – PG 94, 1104A John Chrysostom, Discourses on 1 Corinthians, 29, 2 – PG 61, 243 John Chrysostom, Discourses on 1 Corinthians, 29, 3 – PG 61, 244 John Chrysostom, Discourses on 1 Corinthians, 30, 2 – PG 61, 251 See: Same, Discourses on 1 Corinthians, 31, 1 – PG 61, 257 John Chrysostom, Discourses on 1 Corinthians, 31, 2 – PG 61, 259 John Chrysostom, Discourses on 1 Corinthians, 31, 3 – PG 61, 261 Ibid., 32, 1 – PG 61, 263 John Chrysostom, Discourses on 1 Corinthians, 31, 3 – PG 61, 258 See: Basil the Great (pseudepigrapha), Against Eunomius, 5 – PG 29, 716B See: John Chrysostom. Discourse 23 on 1 Corinthians 2 – PG 61, 191 Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names, 7, 1 – PG 3, 865С. See: also: 1, 1 – 585V John Chrysostom, Discourses on 1 Corinthians, 29, 1 – PG 61, 239 See: Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names 1, 3 – PG 3, 592 C; 2, 4 – 640D-641C John Chrysostom, Discourses on 1 Corinthians, 35, 3 – PG 61, 300 John Chrysostom, Discourses on 1 Corinthians, 35, 3 – PG 61, 300D Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 24, 57 – Bruche 218 PG 32, 173A Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 24, 57 – Bruche 218 PG 32, 173B Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed Dionysius the Areopagite, On the celestial hierarchy, 9, 3 – PG 3, 260D Jer. 23:18. See: above note to paragraph 8 Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 28, 19 – Barbel 100 PG 36, 52B See: Basil the Great (pseudepigrapha), Against Eunomius 5 – PG 29, 716C John Chrysostom, Discourses on the Gospel of John, 30, 2 – PG 59, 174 John Chrysostom, Commentary on the 44th Psalm, 2–3 – PG 55, 186 Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit 9, 22 – Bruche, 146 PG 32, 108С See: 1 Cor. 12:8–11. The words “τιαρά τού αύτού Πνεύματος” are not in the text of the Epistle, but the expressions “κατά τό αύτό Πνεύμα” and “έν τω αύτώ Πνεύματι" in the Slavic Bible corresponds to the same thing "about Tomzhe Dus" John Chrysostom, Discourses on 1 Corinthians, 35, 3 – PG 61, 300 Ibid., 29, 1 – PG 61, 239 It is also possible to translate it into the active voice: “acts divinely” See: above note to paragraph 57 Gregory the Theologian. Word 31, 29 – Barbel 268 PG 36, 165С See: Maximus the Confessor, Dispute with Pyrrhus – PG 91, 341A; John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 3, 15 – PG 94, 1056C. See:: 5, 11, 39 Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 30, 21 – Barbel, 214 PG 36, 132B John of Damascus, An Accurate Statement of the Orthodox Faith, 4, 14 – PG 94, 1160D-1161A On divine names 2, 1 – PG 3, 636С In the Christ edition, this sentence refers to the previous paragraph, but we follow Meretakis here, since otherwise the grammatical coherence is broken This refers to the product of the noun “θεός” from the verb “θεάομαι” - “to see”, or “θεωράο” - “to contemplate” Anastasy Sinait, Guide, 2 – PG 89, 53C John of Damascus, An Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 1, 9 – PG 94, 836A-837B. Ps. - Cyril of Alexandria. About Trinity 11 – PG 77, 1145B Basil the Great, Letter 189, 8 – Courtonne 2, 140 PG 32, 696AB Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 2, 29 -PG 29, 640С Basil the Great, To Eunomius 12, 67 – Jaeger 1, 363–364 PG 45, 1068С-1069А Justin Philosopher (pseudepigrapha), Christian Questions to the Hellenes 3, 1 – PG 6, 1429C Athanasius of Alexandria (pseudepigrapha), Homily on the Annunciation, 3 – PG 28, 920С Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 29, 10 – Barbel 144–146 PG 36, 88B Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names, 2, 1 – PG 3, 637A. In the original text Areopagitik stands "ένάδα" That is, “not in relation to some part” Maximus the Confessor, Scholium on “On the Divine Names 2, 1” – PG 4, 212B Gregory of Nyssa, To Eunomius, 1, 46 – Jaeger 1, 163 PG 45, 396D Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 9, 22 – Bruche, 147 PG 32, 108C Gregory of Nyssa, To Eunomius, 12, 91 – Jaeger 1, 403 PG 45, 1113D On divine names, 2, 5 – PG 3, 644A Dionysius the Areopagite, On the heavenly hierarchy, 4, 1 – PG 3, 177С Same, On the Divine Names, 4, 20 – PG 3, 717D-720A He, On the Church Hierarchy, 3, 3 – PG 3, 429A Maximus the Confessor, Questions and Answers to Thalassius, 22 – PG 90, 321A; Theological chapters, 1, 76 – PG 90, 1212A John Chrysostom, Discourses on the Gospel of John, 14, 1 – PG 59, 92 Basil the Great (pseudepigrapha), Note on Isaiah, introduction 3 – PG 30, 121C Maximus the Confessor, Theological Chapters, 1, 58 – PG 90, 1101A You might be interested in: