About Divine Union and Separation

The treatise “On Divine Unity and Distinction” (35 chapters) was written by St. Gregory Palamas in 1341 and is dedicated to the interpretation of the work “On the Divine Names” from the Areopagitik corpus. Relying on the authority of Dionysius the Areopagite, Saint Gregory defends the Orthodox teaching about the difference and inseparability of the Divine essence and Her uncreated energies. He explains that “divine unions” are “secret and inextricable superabidences” of the superunknowable constancy of God in Himself, and “divisions” are “beautiful appearances and manifestations” of God’s Principality. These "performances" include "irrepressible teachings", "realizations", "vivifications", "wisdom" and other gifts that are absolutely uncreated Divine actions. St. Gregory Palamas criticizes Barlaam of Calabria and Gregory Akindinus for their heretical division of God into created and uncreated. They mistakenly attribute a created character to the Divine energies – common to all Persons of the Trinity, calling them “lower” divinity, while they consider only the essence of God to be “higher” and uncreated. The saint likens their errors to Arianism, which divided the Divinity according to hypostases, while Barlaam and Akindinus divide Him according to energies. The central argument of the treatise is the assertion that all Divine manifestations and energies, being distinct from essence, remain absolutely uncreated and eternal. They are not effects or creations, but the original “providences and goodnesses,” “pre-existent logoi,” and “creative wills” of God. Based on the Epistle to the Romans (Rom. 1:20), the author shows that from creation it is not the essence of God that is known, but His “invisible” “power and Divinity,” that is, His uncreated energies. The saint clarifies that the term “Divinity” primarily refers to Divine energy, and not to essence. Thus, we are talking about one Divinity (in energy) of the three Persons of the Trinity, and not about two divinities, as opponents accuse. He emphasizes the unity of the actions of the Trinity (“the energy of the three hypostases is one”) and the mutual existence of the hypostases as uncreated aspects of Divine life. To prove his positions, St. Gregory Palamas cites evidence from the Holy Scriptures (for example, the “seven spirits” as the energy of the Holy Spirit in the prophet Isaiah and in the Apocalypse) and the works of the Fathers of the Church, such as St. Maxim the Confessor (on “creative crafts and goodness”), St. Basil the Great and St. John of Damascus (about essential energies). *Title of the work in Greek – Ποσαχῶς ἡ θεία ἕνωσις καὶ διάκρισις, καὶ ὅτι μὴ κατὰ τὰς ὑποστάσεις μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ τὰς κοινὰς προόδους καὶ ἐνεργείας διάκρισιν ἐδιδάχθημεν ἐπὶ θεοῦ, καὶ ὅτι καθ᾿ ἕνωσίν τε καὶ διάκρισιν ἄκτιστον φρονεῖν παρελάβομεν αὐτόν, κἂν Βαρλαὰμ καὶ ᾿Ακίνδυνος ἀπαρέσκωνται. In how many meanings is divine union and division understood, and that we are taught to understand the difference in God not only according to the hypostases, but also according to the appearances and energies common to them, and that we have accepted, in accordance with each union and division, to think of Him as uncreated, even though Barlaam and Akindinus did not like it 1 1. The great Dionysius, who was honored to hear the voice of Christ’s apostles, which was heard in every way from the fiery tongue 2, and with intense and perfect teaching in what relates to the divine, having fairly trained (γεγυμνασμενος) [his] mind and tongue, and not without divine inspiration ( επιπνοιας) having moved for the benefit of those who will come after [him], to expound [the doctrine] of the divine union and separation, he clarified to the wise the most thorough and true theological teaching on these subjects, so that we, using this [teaching] as a canon and light, and with its help, “the right ruling word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15), would easily notice and for [their own] benefit they would correct those who deviate or pervert it in any way, as far as possible, extending, by the grace of God, a helping hand to them, if they want it; and if not, then at least swayed by the dexterity and credibility of their eloquence. 2. So, this great [teacher], testifying that he is philosophizing and saying the same thing as all the former God-bearers before him, says: “those initiated into the sacred sacraments of our theological tradition call the secret and inextricable super-abidences (υπεριδρυσεις) of super-ineffable and super-unknowable constancy divine unions; divisions are magnificent performances (προοβους) and manifestations (εκφανσεις) of the rulership. And they say, following the sacred Sayings, that in particular both the mentioned union, and also the division, have [more] some of their own connections and divisions” 3. And again: “If the divine division is a magnificent appearance, while the divine union super-connectedly increases and multiplies itself by goodness, then irrepressible teachings (μεταδοσεις), realizations (ουσιωσεις), revival, wisdom and other gifts are united in relation to the divine division which is the cause of all Goodness, in accordance with which [gifts] the non-participant is glorified [based] on the [comprehensibility] of the participants and the sacraments” 4 . And a little lower: “the same divine reasons for these connections and divisions that we found in the Sayings, we, as far as possible, outlined them in “Theological Essays” 5, considering each of them separately” 6. 3. So, this is how the great Dionysius formulated it, adding to what he said that “in this way we try, speaking, to both unite the divine and separate, since the divine itself is both united and divided” 7 . But Varlaam and Akindinus do not speak like this, and this is not how the divine, in their opinion, is united and divided, as the God-bearing theologians explain. But just as Arius and Eunomius and Macedonius, under the pretext of division into hypostases, divided the Divinity into created and uncreated, so now, under the pretext of division according to common [for divine Persons] appearances, they divide God into two - into created and uncreated. And how those who were not ungodly on a par with them, but who represented God as uncreated in all three hypostases and were confident that the concept of greater and lesser as applied to Him in no way interferes with uncreatedness, were called tritheists, as supposedly worshiping three uncreated gods - greater and lesser - although in fact they themselves suffered from this; So now these too, speaking about the existence of two divinities of God - created and uncreated - and calling the essence the highest divinity, as uncreated, and every common appearance and splendid and divine action [i.e. e. energy] - lower, like created things, and then those who do not undertake to equally ungodly with them, but who think of God as uncreated both in essence, and in hypostases, and in magnificent energies and general appearances, and who show by the works of theologians that they have nothing higher attached to the uncreated and one, are loudly accused of speaking [as if] about two uncreated divinities (δυο ακτιστους θεοτητς) – higher and lower. 4. But Arius and Eunomius did not consider all divine hypostases to be created, but Barlaam and Akindinus reduced all the divine manifestations and energies of the Trinitarian Deity to the level of creation. And so as not to leave any of these to the higher creatures, as far as it depends on them, they actually show what is told about in the myths, and that they have the strength to imitate the fabulous things about the Aloads 8 . For having gathered together the greatest of heresies, and in addition to the evil Aryan disunity [of the hypostases], having applied the no less God-fighting Sabellian confusion [of them], and, as it were, having built a certain [new] Hallan 9 tower (we will use examples from true history) - and even worse than that tower, for instead of stones they unite heresies with each other - and, thus having prepared themselves, they oppose all energies God, either reducing them to the level of creation, or confusing them with essence and proving that uncreated energy does not differ in any way from the divine essence, and in every possible way denying in God the division according to common energies and manifestations. 5. So, we should repeat what the great [Dionysius] theologized about above, and carefully examine each [his position] as far as possible, and truly be convinced of what is proven by them. For in every theology the inexpressible is intertwined with the expressible, and one in it, to speak in its own words, being secret and associated with initiation into the sacraments (μυστικον και τελεστικον), acts and confirms in God through arcane teachings that are not the fruit of teaching, and the other, being philosophical and apodictic [component of theology], convinces and binds [together] the truth of what is said 10, which we must now reveal, as far as possible, from the words of this great [teacher], as not requiring proof and self-authentic principles. For he is for us, more than any other such [teacher], a trustworthy mystagogue; and from him, perhaps the first, and from Hierotheus, who taught in accordance with him, 11 the Church learned the fundamentals of theology, so that what they wrote are the fundamental principles of theology 12. So, after he has thoroughly outlined and revealed all the directions (παντα τροπον) of connecting and dividing theology, the great Dionysius says: “in this way we try [with our] word to unite and separate the divine” 13, and not the divine from the created. How is this possible? “Since the divine itself,” he says, “is both united and divided,” 14 and not the created and God. Therefore, all divisions correspond to the unions of God and remain uncreated, since the unions are uncreated. And none of the prudent will call any of these divisions created, having obeyed Barlaam and Akindinus, so as not to [thus] reduce the corresponding connection to the level of creation, or rather, through one, not to declare all divine unions and divisions created, for they are of the same order (ομοταγεις), and they are collectively said to be divine, as having no difference among themselves in relation to divinity. 6. But Akindinus found it not difficult for himself to cross out [this] testimony, [saying] that the great [Dionysius] did not say: “divine unions and divisions,” but [said] that “the divine was divided and united,” for in this way he says that God acts, but does not have action [i.e. e. energy]. And with such meaningless words, distorting the truth, little by little he entices those seduced by him to consider divine energies as created. And the great Dionysius, taking away this unpardonable pretext from him, adds: “all the godly reasons for these unions and divisions, which we only found in the Sayings, we separately set forth” 15. Consequently, in God there are various combinations and divisions, but they are all together divine, that is, equally uncreated. And in the words preceding this [place] the great one calls divine division “the magnificent manifestation of divine unity, super-united with itself through goodness, increasing and multiplying many times over” 16. And, having spoken about this speech in general, he then divides it into many speeches, calling them “realizations,” “vivifications,” and “wisdoms.” 7. So, if they are created, as Varlaam and Akindinus say, then how did the God-speaking [Dionysius] call their division a divine division, and also the union of creatures - a divine union? If, according to Akindinus, that manifestation is also counted among creatures, which, generally speaking, embraces them by itself, and which is super-united by goodness, increasing and multiplying [the union] many times over, is uncreated (for how can that which goodness does not belong to the creature not be uncreated?), then it would be appropriate to say that both union and division are [union and division] of the uncreated with the created. But the God-speaker, adding to “super-united” also “it increases itself through goodness and multiplies many times over,” showed that after union, division is also uncreated, since it divides itself and multiplies many times over. But those who supply the divine performances, together with the creatures, attack this repeated multiplication, speaking badly, or rather thinking that God is multiplied by the production of many creatures from Himself. To such it must be said that the manifestations by which the Divinity is multiplied are uncreated, but that the consequences of these manifestations are creations, as a result of which the manifestations of God became known to us. After all, for those who have intelligence, it is not the essence of God that becomes apparent from creation, but power and energy. 8. After all, what do we understand from created things? That their creator is God. If He is their creator, then [it means He] is good, and wise, and strong. And by these signs we know God from His creations, and not by essence, just as Paul taught us that “the invisible things... of Him from the creation of the world have been understood by the things that are created, the essence is visible, and His ever-present power and Divinity” (Rom. 1:20). So, is the essence of God “visible ... to be” by creatures? Not at all. After all, this refers to the madness of Barlaam and Akindinus, and before them - to the madness of Eunomius, for he, too, before them, in agreement with them, wrote that from creation nothing other than the essence of God is known; but the divine apostle taught far from this. For having said before that “it is even possible to understand the reality of God” (Rom. 1:19), and showing that there is something else beyond what is “possible to understand of God,” and clearly showing this to everyone who has an understanding, he then added that “the essence of Him which was invisible from the creation of the World was conceived by the created beings, and His ever-present power and Divinity.” And what is “even possible to understand about Bose”, you will find out as follows. The God-bearing fathers, explaining this, say that with God one thing is unknowable, that is, His essence, and the other is knowable, that is, everything that is around the essence (περιτην ουσιαν) 17, that is, goodness, wisdom, power, divinity, that is, majesty, which Paul calls invisible, but understandable through creations. And what is intelligible from creation [being] around the essence of God, as if [itself] was also a creature? 9. And so, in the one uncreated divinity, there is one uncreated God, as being uncreated not only by an absolutely incomprehensible essence on all sides, but also by what is around the essence, which, according to the divine Paul, is understood from creation. Varlaam and Akindinus call this invisible God, existing around the essence of God, goodness, wisdom, power, divinity, that is, majesty, and the like, created, since all this is around the essence, and not [the] essence itself. For, not having the mind to think and see the invisible from God’s creations, they assert that God is only essence, and that only essence is uncreated, and thus, unfortunate ones, they divide God into two parts - into created and uncreated, and foolishly teach that uncreated energy is indistinguishable from uncreated essence. And her [i.e. e. calling the essence] one uncreated and (as uncreated) the highest divinity, and all those existing around the essence of energy and the very divinity that the fathers counted among them - created, fall not only into ditheism, but also into atheism, since through energies they reduce the divine essence to the level of creatures, and by denying their difference, they mutually cancel them through each other, and thus through ignorance of God, [happening] due to lack of [mind], They seem to find themselves in some kind of darkness. For how do they know God in general if they do not see what can be understood about Him from creatures, but add this either to the essence that is above all knowledge, or to the very creatures from which it is known, although it is impossible to know anything else about power and energy except what [or whom] it is force and energy, and what it does? For by the power of mental representation from actions (ενεργηματων) it becomes clear about the active essence, for energy corresponds to the essence to which it belongs, so that the energy of a created essence is created, and that of an uncreated one is uncreated. 10. So, [only] the mind of a completely unreasonable and, so to speak, bestial [man] is not capable of discerning action from the works along with the action, but either positing it together with the works, or considering it indistinguishable from the active essence, as if God were only an essence devoid of energy. Truly, to count among the creations and results the power and energy contemplated near the divine nature, since it is in some way different from nature, is, in addition to madness, no less, and perhaps even more, the highest degree of wickedness. For it is impossible to separate from the active nature, whether in relation to the created or the uncreated, the corresponding force and energy, although it differs from it in some other way. That is why created energy, according to the fathers, “characterizes created nature” 18. Hence it is clear that the heretical position of Varlaam and Akindinus reduces the divine nature to created nature, and in vain, or rather to deceive [those who listen to them], they proclaim the uncreated as one, for they prepare [the ground for the assertion] that there is nothing uncreated. 11. Due to extreme madness, Varlaam and Akindinus, seeing the result of divine actions, do not see these energies themselves well. And the great Dionysius, who sang them in twelve books, does not just sing the empty sound of names, but what they signify (“... υπο τουτων σημαινομενα ... "), and in this place of his speech, after explaining the division according to the hypostases of God, he says that since “the divine division is also a magnificent performance, then irrepressible teachings are united in relation to the divine division” 19. “Teachings” he collectively called here all the performances and energies of God. And he added that they are “uncontrollable,” so that no one would think that these are the results [of divine actions], such as, for example, the essence of each of the existing ones, or the sensory life that resides in living [creations], or the intellect and intellect inherent in verbal and mental things. For how will they be [abiding] in God and uncontrollable, being created? How then will God’s uncontrollable speaking and teaching be created by creatures, when irrepressible teaching by nature abides in the Teacher, as we see in the example of light? Going further, the great one lists these teachings separately. For having said: “uncontrollable teachings,” he then says: “realizations, quickenings, wisdom and other gifts that are the abyss of all Goodness, according to which [based on] the [comprehensibility] of those who partake and the sacraments, the unparticipated is glorified” 20 . What exactly is [being sung]? Father and Son and Holy Spirit. 12. So, these things are sung by theologians [based] on the participles, that is, those who possess being through the sacrament, that is, created things, but also from the sacraments, that is, teachings, which do not have existence through the sacrament, for otherwise they would not be participles, but partakers. If they do not possess being by participation, then they are not created; not being created, they are not outside of God, but are from Him and in Him, as this great [teacher] further shows. So, not only in essence and in division into three hypostases is the Divinity uncreated, but also in the difference in Their manifestations and energies, which are the sacraments of beings. After all, if [the] sacrament itself has existence by communion, then this [participle] will have it by another participle, and this by another, and so on ad infinitum. 13. Also, the participle must necessarily exist before the participant. And the sacraments are shared by all creations: therefore, they exist before all creations, or, in other words, they are uncreated. And nothing of created things is higher than those that exist. And although the great Dionysius calls these sacraments and principles and divine gifts existing, he says in many places in his writings that they are higher than existing. But also likenesses (παραδειγματα) 21 existing [he calls them], pre-existing in God by supersubstantial unity. How then will they be creatures? Then, teaching what these similarities are, he adds: “We call similarities the essentially pre-existing (ουσιοποιους) logoi of beings that are uniquely pre-existing in God, which theology calls predestination and divine and good wills (θεληματα), determining and those who create existing things, according to which the Super-Essential One predetermined and produced all existing things” 22 . How then will the plans and divine desires that create things be created? And how invisible will those be who reduce God’s providence to the level of creation, considering these manifestations and energies to be created? For these divine desires and gifts, which are the cause of all Goodness - fulfillment, quickening, wisdom - are the essential and life-giving, and wise, and, simply put, creative and containing in a created way energy [in being]. 14. Let the divine Maxim say with us that these performances are the creative providence of God for those who exist. After all, he writes in the Scholia: “What is common to the Unit, divided into three hypostases, are creative providences and goodness,” 23 that is, fulfillment, vitalization, wisdom. After all, by calling them many and different, he showed that they are not the essence of God, since it is one and absolutely indivisible. And since he said that they are common to the Unit divided into three hypostases, then, therefore, he confirmed to us that this is not the Son and the Holy Spirit, for none of Them is the common energy of the Three. And by calling them not just providences and blessings, but also creative, he showed them to be uncreated. For if it were not so, then the creative itself would be created. And then this creative thing would be created by another, and then by another, and so it would extend further, right up to extreme meaninglessness, without stopping until infinity. 15. Thus, God's appearances and energies, realizations, quickening, wisdom and the like, are the uncreated providences (προνοιαι) and the goodness of God, and they are God Himself, although not in essence, for according to it He is indivisible and unparticipated, being completely separate (απολελυμενος) from everything, so that no one who knows the exact meaning of piety will ever try to understand or express God from it, but all hierophants always try to think and talk about His providence and goodness, by which He is the cause of all things, for thanks to the fact that they exist, the creation and existence of everything took place. For divine providence is nothing other than God’s treatment and good will towards the lower ones (θελησις). And he was, first of all, like a certain general foreknowledge (προμηθεια) of future [creations], and because of him everything was produced in due time, as from creative will and action, and in him everything took place (Compare: (Col. 1:17), as if in a prison containing everything and an all-encompassing dwelling (... ως εν σθνεκτικη φρουρα και περιληπτικη εστια του παντος ). For this reason, the one providence and goodness, by which God cares for His lower ones, is not only one, but is called by theologians and many providences and goodness. 16. Since, due to the inexpressible excess of goodness, the Producer and Organizer (παραγωγευς και κοσμητωπ) made everything diverse, deigning to some [His creations] to [bestow] only existence, and to others to receive life in addition to being; and one [of these latter] is to be involved in the [rational] life (νοερας), and the other is to enjoy only the sensual. There are also those whom [He allowed] to have a life mixed from both; and of those who received verbal and mental life from Him - those who, by voluntary inclination towards Him, were worthy of unity with Him and thus live divinely and above-naturally, being awarded His God-creating grace and energy. For His will is the becoming of those who exist, either brought from non-existence [into being] or changed for the better, and this [happens] in various ways. Because of this difference in the will of God regarding those who exist, this one providence and goodness, or, in other words, the appeal of God in goodness to those below [His], are and are called many providences and goodness, being inseparably divided and diversified in the divided [existent among themselves], so that the power of God is called according to these above-mentioned divided [providences and goodness] foreknowledge ( προγνωστικη), then creative and containing (συνεκτικη). Then also some of Them, according to the great Dionysius, are called realizations, others - revivals, and others - wisdom. Each of them is common to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and according to each of them, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the fulfilling, life-giving and wisdom-giving power and energy. 17. Hear from them [i.e. e. these fathers], as they teach that these energies are the eternal thoughts (νοησεις) and movements of God. After all, the great Dionysius said that God moves when He brings into existence and contains everything, and He called His direct movement the steady movement of energies, and the spiral movement - motionless appearance and fruitful standing, and the circular movement - when He returns those who exist to Himself 24. And the divine Maximus says: “The movement of God is His will (βουλησις) so that existing things arise, and the outflow of His providence [penetrating] into everything” 25. How then can [His] movements towards beings not [belong to] the essence, nor around the essence, but [the] essence itself, and even more so when there are many of them? And when the great [Dionysius] writes to Titus, explaining that there is a “house of Wisdom” (Prov. 9:1), and that the essence of what is in it, and the roundness and openness of Her “cup” (Prov. 9:2), calls the beginninglessness and infinity of all providences 26, then the divine Maximus again says: “He called the providence of everything without beginning, because all that exist [pre-exist] in the eternal thoughts of God, which Paul called predestination, according to which the eternal thoughts of God were prefigured what was to happen, and the providence of God pre-existed without beginning. For providence had to desire to produce a creature that could enjoy His providential goodness” 27. How then can many thoughts and the images of the future corresponding to them and the providence about them, and the will corresponding to it, not [belong to] the essence, but the essence itself, and even more so when in them is seen a connection (σχεσις) that appears in essence [Its] absolutely Irrelative (ασχεσις) with existing things? 18. Then, when the great Dionysius again writes in the chapter “On Being” that being itself and the beginnings of the being of beings are from God and in God, 28 then Maximus, zealous in divine objects, says: “[existing] from Him and in Him the minds are like scientific theorems (εοικοτες θεωρημασι της επιστημης ). They exist together and separately in Him, just as many knowledges that are in the soul remain unmerged and act outward one by one, when it is necessary” 29 . Consequently, Barlaam and Akindinus, calling these manifestations created, according to which the divinely united is divided, make God a creature, and most wickedly dissect Him into created and uncreated, believing the essence of the Holy Trinity to be uncreated, and Her general manifestations, energies and proclamations - created. Although the great Dionysius, in the first saying we proposed at the beginning [of this treatise], expressed in one word the distinction between hypostases and teachings, or even all divine unions and divisions in general (since those listed are not the only ones, even if Varlaam and Akindinus did not notice those listed). So, the great one, he embraced them all in one word, so that not one of these equally honorable [unions and divisions] would be dared by some wicked person to lawlessly reduce them to the level of a creature. Therefore, after he has explained what is related to the hypostatic division, he, returning to what has been said, says: “It is fitting for us, as I think, to go back and fully explain the nature of the divine union and division,” 30 showing that there are other unions and divisions in God. Then, so that none of the pious neglects what has been said, he cites the definitions of those who initiated [us] into the sacred sacraments and from the beginning handed down [to subsequent generations everything] related to theology [they made] about these divine unions and divisions: “For,” he says, “those initiated into the sacred sacraments of our theological tradition call the secret and inextricable super-abundances of the super-ineffable and super-unknowable the divine unions.” constancy" 31. That is, the fathers call the union the absolutely incomprehensible for us basis and the abiding of God in Himself - the fact that He abides in Himself and, in essence, does not at all appear outside and does not move towards declaring [Himself to the creature]. 19. The reason why the great one cited the superunknowable connection and foundation in the plural will be obvious as [his] word progresses. In the meantime, having said that the fathers call the unification of God, which does not begin to be declared, he says that they also call the magnificent appearances and proclamations of God’s leadership divisions, 32 teaching that the fathers also called division of God’s movement towards the declaration [of Himself as a creature]. “And they, - according to him, - also say (but not speaking on their own, but following the sacred Sayings) that both the mentioned union, and also the division, have [still] some kind of their own connections and divisions" 33. That is why the great one cited this connection and separation in the plural a little higher, because there is not only one image of the divine union and separation. But with the exception of the divine incarnation - for it belongs only to the Son - the union and division of the Trinitarian Deity will be found threefold by the one who inquisitively examines [this question] on the basis of the subsequent words of the great [Dionysius], for It jointly possesses everything that is said about It affirmatively or negatively (εχει τας τε θεσεις και τας αφαιρεσεις ) 34, but not in the same way. So, It possesses everything that is affirmed positively and of which the all-embracing name is goodness, since “all”, whatever “good” is His, as it is written (James 1:17). But how do we know that all good things are His? From the fact that “all”, whatever it may be, “good” is from Him. 20. Therefore, as the Creator and Cause of these [goods], God from them is known and named according to those [energies] by which in some respect he is contemplated. That is why the great [Dionysius] above named the following [names] as etiological: “Good”, “Existing”, “Generating Life” (ςωογονον), “Wise” and all the like 35 . But in essence, God, being super-remote (υπερεζηρημενος) and separated from everything, transcends such [cause-and-effect] relations. After all, not as the center, which is nothing other than the beginning of the straight lines located in a circle, so God is nothing other than the beginning and cause of creation, but truly in essence He is above all relation and participation, and the cause itself, as super-removed from any relation. Thus, in addition to the positive names, the Trinitarian Godhead all together also possesses negative ones that are superior to them, for which the all-encompassing thing is that which surpasses all negation and affirmation, for this is “the Name which is greater than every name” (Phil. 2:9). So, this [Name] is the [collective] name of everything that is said positively about the Trinitarian God, and it is also superior to any statement, even if it did not please Barlaam and Akindinus, who therefore revile us, slandering us, as if we call God higher than Himself, not being ashamed even of the great Dionysius, who said that God simultaneously possesses both. 21. However, in addition to the two above-mentioned connections of the Trinitarian Deity, there is also a mutual residence of the hypostases in each other and perichorisis, since They are completely and constantly and indissolubly embraced by each other, so that the energy of the three hypostases is one. Not like with people, where the action of three will be similar, but - since each acts on his own - special. Not so, therefore, but truly one and the same [they have energy], since there is one movement of the divine will, produced from the immediately preceding cause of the Father and sent down through the Son and manifested in the Holy Spirit 36. And this is obvious from the results, for from them, as has been said, all energy becomes manifest. And that means, not like shoemakers, when each shoe is made differently, even though the labors of all of them were aimed at the same thing, so with the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit the same result is seen from the [activity] of each of the hypostases. But every creation is a single work of Three, and we learned from the fathers, when considering it, to think of the same divine energy in the three worshiped Persons, and not distributed between each [of Them]. And since, according to the tradition of theologians, “Divinity” is primarily the name not of God’s essence, but of God’s energy, then we are talking about the same divinity of the three worshiped Persons, but about “one” not in the sense of “similar” (ομοιαν), as [this is said] about the natural (φυσικην) or acquired and achieved by experience activity of three people. 22. So, let Varlaam and Akindinus learn from this, declaring the very divinity of God created in the proper sense and madly writing that “there is one beginningless and infinite - the essence of God, and everything that is outside of it is the essence of created nature.” And also: “the only uncreated divinity is the essence of God, and what is around it is all created.” For the term "divinity" is the name of the divine energy proceeding from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit and revealing itself to us through [its] results, and not a name in the proper sense of the word of the divine essence. After all, energy is the movement of essence, and not [the] essence itself. Who is this movement and energy? Of course, God! Therefore, divinity is God. This means that they speak of two divinities of God, uncreated and created, calling the first higher, as uncreated, and the second lower, as created, calling the nature of God the only uncreated divinity, and its energy existing next to it, created divinity. Or rather, they madly dissect the one divinity of God into uncreated and created; after all, to act and energy (το ενεργειν και η ενεργεια) are one and the same thing, just like moving and movement. So who, if he is not yet completely crazy, will say that the agent and the mover have many mutually opposite [characteristics] about the cause of action and movement, like uncreated and created? For it is one and the same as if he says that he who stands is many because of standing, since standing is different from him who is standing, [as well as] movement is from what is moving, and according to this difference, each of them is different; and if it is not in the sense of opposites that these have a difference in relation to each other, then nothing prevents them all from being one. In the same way, although the divine energy is different from the divine essence, yet in essence and energy there is one divinity of God. And not only one, but also a simple one, for what is the addition of the moving with the movement or, in other words, the active and the action? For even one who stops is not folded because of standing. So, is it not clear that those who falsely accuse us of bitheism are attributing their own crime to us because of the difference of the divine essence in relation to the divine energy that we defend? 23. But, however, let those who call only the divine essence uncreated tell us, and everything that is apart from it, who classify it as creation, is the essence of both the divine hypostases in each other, indwelling and perichorisis? Shall we put it with creatures, since it is not an essence, so that each of the divine hypostases does not seem complex, or so that there are not many uncreated ones, and as a result we do not fall into polytheism, considering both the divine hypostases and their perichorisis into each other as uncreated? These are the accusations against us by Varlaam and Akindinus, with which they plunge themselves into the ditch of polytheism and atheism, dividing the one God into created and uncreated, and through what is called created, they no less humiliate the uncreated. For how will the hypostases be uncreated, whose mutual perichorisis, according to them, is not uncreated? After all, he is neither an essence nor any of the hypostases to which alone they attribute uncreatedness. How can an entity whose energy, in their opinion, is created, be uncreated? 24. Having briefly presented what relates to the divine union, as we learned from those who initiated us into the sacraments of piety, we will now explain, as far as possible, what relates to the divine division. For he who approaches divinely inspired theology with reasoning is threefold and will also see the divine division. After all, the super-essential name and essence (χοημα) of the Father and [name and essence] of the Son and also the Holy Spirit are distinguished, so that no permutation or general [any] community is allowed in them, but the immutable peculiarity of each of the hypostases is preserved - not only because, according to their presence in each other and perichorisis, they are not merged and are not mixed with one another, but also in in relation to cause and causation, for there is one beginning, source and root of the Son and Spirit - the Father. 25. So, although we say this, everything that relates to the essential union, and to the hypostatic separation, and to the absolutely unfused and unmixed fusion 37 remains super-unknowable and super-unspeakable. It is the same because it is completely unparticipatory. Therefore, one cannot even find an example of this in creation. For what can we say about an essence that cannot be expressed or even contemplated in any way? From here we can conclude that the relationship and distinction of hypostases is completely incomprehensible; there are fathers and sons among us, having the same nature, but not being inseparable from each other, nor existing in each other. But [maybe] someone will name the sun, ray and light, or our mind, word and spirit? But of these, each is inseparable from the others, but is not separated from the one who gave birth to what he produced according to hypostasis. 26. This is exactly what Gregory, nicknamed from theology, says, saying: “I remembered the sun, the ray and the light, but I was afraid that it would not happen that one [i.e. e. Father] we will endow with essence, and others [i.e. e. We will not give hypostasis to the Son and the Spirit, but we will make Them the powers of God, existing [only] in Him and not independent” 38 . Therefore, the great Dionysius, having resolved this question, then concludes his speech about these [subjects], saying: “Such, therefore, corresponding to the inexpressible unity of connection and separation” 39, for it is impossible to name them [starting from] creations. For this reason, the Divinity is above number rather than a monad, since it is not included in the multitude; and above the monad [It] is rather than a number, since even in division it does not accept in addition [to Itself] anything else from what is outside, but is a number indivisible into parts. Or rather, It is one above the [observable] one among beings, being the most unique and in the proper sense of the word one, as a super-unity, and is calculated, being divided, above all the individually (ενικως) divided, [as] the only thing that, above all reason and words, ever certifies both the difference of the united and the unity of the divided. 27. At the same time, the great Dionysius, after saying that “such is, therefore, corresponding to the inexpressible unity of union and division,” adds: “If the divine division is also a magnificent manifestation, while the divine union multiplies and expands itself in a super-unified manner through goodness, then the irrepressible teachings are united in relation to the divine division” 40. Therefore, the division corresponding to them is different in comparison with both previous ones, because in addition to these super-ineffable divisions, there is a divine division according to these appearances and phenomena, and the energies of God, according to which He is a participating being. That is why He is understood by them and is called partakers. About which division again, the great Dionysius, after citing the sayings of the God-speaking Hierotheus, says: “So, these words are enough, let us move on [now] to the purpose of our word, revealing to the best of our ability the common and united names of the divine division” 41. How are they “common and connected”? Since they are the common [names] of three Persons, for the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit possess them together. But even from this it is clear that the whole intention of his words and the whole purpose of the treatise on the divine names does not relate to [explaining] the divine essence and the unity [of the hypostases] according to it, nor to the hypostatic difference, but to the divine division according to the common [for the hypostases] appearances and appearances. And this is even more obvious from what follows. For he adds: “And in order to make a clear definition about everything that follows, let us say that the divine division represents, as has already been said, the magnificent appearances of the Godhead. After all, given to all things and overflowing with the sacraments of all blessings, it is divided unitedly, and multiplied individually and increases many times, remaining inseparable from one” 42, not calling creations divine manifestations and phenomena, as Varlaam and Akindinus insanely interpreted this, but divine energies, of which creations are the result. 28. And what it means to “be unitedly divided” - we clarified this a little higher. And how “the Godhead multiplies individually and increases many times, remaining inseparable from one,” then further clarifying this great [man] writes: “this One Existing is called increasing many times due to the appearance of many existing things from it” 43 . By many existing things he now calls the essences of creations, which God produced from non-existence, many and different, while He Himself adheres to unity inseparably, that is, in essence. Is it really said about the Divinity that it increases many times as a result of the creation of creatures with it? Away! For how will created things be counted together with uncreated things? Therefore, the wise Maximus in the divine, making this multiplication more obvious, says: “it is said that God, from the desire to bring [into being] each of the existing ones, multiplies, multiplying with providential actions, but remains inseparably one, like the sun, sending out many rays and abiding in unity” 44. So, this means that the great Dionysius did not say that the Divinity is multiplied by the application [to Him] of many existing things, but by the production [of them into being], thus calling providential action and divine will from what was brought [by him into being]. Of these many and varied beings, the difference and separateness of the divine manifestations and powers are shown, which the great [Dionysius] cited above in the plural, calling them also participles and pre-existent images of beings in God, and substantive logoi, and predestinations, and divine wills that determine and create beings, and also irrepressible and irreducible teachings, and magnificent talents and performances. And then, making even more clear their separateness and mutual difference, he gives each of them a special name, saying: “realization, quickening, wisdom,” showing them through these and many other [names] to be both uncreated and different from the divine essence. Uncreated - because they existed before beings and above beings and are the creators of beings. Not by essence - because they are performances; and because there are many of them, and she is one; and because they differ from each other. After all, it is impossible to treat equally those who differ from each other. 29. In this way, Maximus, who is zealous in the divine, after he has clarified the hypostatic difference, adds: “there is also a divine division in another sense, that is, [accomplished] by the multitude of goodness, the appearance of God into the diversity of creation” 45. So, he does not call the diversity of creation a divine division along with other hypostatic [differences], but the appearance [of God] in this diversity. Therefore, indicating more clearly that there is this division, he further writes: “What is common to the Unit divided into three hypostases (εναδος) are creative crafts and goodness” 46. So, having produced many essences that are different in relation to each other, God Himself in essence persistently adheres to unity, being according to it completely inseparable and inexpressible. And from many and different essences we are by no means raised to the divine essence, - as Eunomius said and after him Akindinus, - but with attentiveness to the divine forces and energies we will achieve the distinction from them of the omnipotent God, no less [from this] being not only one in essence in the multitude [of energies], but also united in hypostases in relation to the general appearance, also existing fully in division for the reason that He is superessentially transcendental in relation to beings 47 , that is, because He is essentially separated from beings and is non-participating for everyone (for the superessential and inseparable, as not communicated to anyone, will necessarily be complete), but also because of the single product of everything 48 , that is, because He does not tolerate any addition, for the fact that none of the many beings produced by Him does not add [to itself], but remains alone, adding nothing to itself, as having no need for anything. And that which does not need anything will necessarily be complete, but also because of the “inexhaustible outpouring,” he says, “of His undiminished teachings,” 49 that is, because it does not tolerate any withdrawal, even in relation to the teachings and performances themselves; for that which is irreducible does not admit of subtraction, but that which is overflowing and does not admit of any subtraction will necessarily be complete. But He, whose speeches and teachings are complete because of their infinity and indiminibility, how will He Himself not be complete, or better yet, more than complete in essence? 30. And just as the sun, without diminishing, imparting warmth and light to the participants, has them as inherent and essential energies, so the divine teachings, without diminishing, immanently inherent in the Teacher, are His natural and essential energies, and therefore uncreated. And that the essential energies of God are something other than essence is worthy of faith in the theologian of Damascus and the great Basil. After all, just as not even a trace of sunlight remains when the sun [hides] underground and leaves those who exist on earth, and it is impossible for the gaze enjoying its radiance not to mingle with it [i.e. e. radiance], and through it - not to connect with the light-shedding [sun], but the warmth [arising] from there and everything that comes from it, contributing to the emergence and growth of sensual [beings] and the diverse variety of [their] juices and qualities, does not leave them, even if it is not connected through a ray with the sun, in the same way - as [can be concluded] from the unclear similarity [contemplated] in the sensual [objects] - [this happens to] only those who strive to fully partake of the supernatural and most divine light of idolizing grace and through it to unite with God. Everything else is the result of creative energy, by grace, that is, by gift, produced from non-existence, but not enlightened by grace, which is the eponym of the Lordship of God. 31. But we spoke at length about this inexpressible deification in many places [of our book] to Barlaam and to those who follow him and like him deny this 50. And the great [Dionysius], showing that he is not speaking here about a hypostatic difference, but, so to speak, about an energetic one, and teaching those who have ears to hear that these energies are neither the divine essence (for it is one and does not [come] from anyone), nor the divine hypostases (for there are no more than three of them, and not all of them [come] from a cause, since the Father is not from any cause, but each of them hypostases existing from the Cause - from the one Father, while these phenomena and energies are common to the Father, Son and Spirit and [come] from the Father, Son and Spirit), then, repeating again, he says: “These common and united divisions of the entire divinity, or splendid manifestations, we will try to the best of our ability to sing, based on the names of Gods revealed in the Sayings ( θεωνυμιων)" 51. 32. So, it is clearer than clear that the entire book “On the Divine Names” is a hymn glorifying these speeches and energies of God. So they are uncreated and do not exist outside of God, for the hymnologist claims that it is to Him that he sends up his hymns, singing performances. How could he allow himself to sing such sublime hymns about creation, being the greatest of the divine singers? But Varlaam’s disciple Akindinus says that it is not creations, but from creations the names of the divine essence, the God-speaking one sings here. However, this is not what the God-verbal says, but: “the common and united divisions of the entire divinity, or splendid manifestations, we will try to sing to the best of our ability, based on the names of God that are revealed in the Sayings.” And the one who says: “By the number of names, the natural virtues (σθμφθεις αζιαι) of God are contemplated” 52 what [means]? But by calling here “divine names” and the names of appearances, the great [Dionysius] showed that these appearances are God, although not in essence. Therefore, when we say that God is known and named from creatures, we will say that He is known and named by these appearances and energies, and not by essence, for it is absolutely beyond the possibility of naming and without image (υπερωνυμος τε και ανεικαστος), and It is impossible to think of it, or to name it, or to contemplate it in any way at all, as this theologian himself says, due to the fact that it is transcendental to everything and super-unknowable and with boundless power surpasses everyone and [even] the heavenly minds themselves. Therefore, let those who consider these manifestations to be created be ashamed, as reducing God to the level of a creature. 33. If anyone is at a loss why this God-revealing [teacher] (θεφαντωρ) made such an effort at the beginning to teach about this division, and the theologians who came after him did not talk much about it, then it will not be difficult to show by the example of their own words that they theologize in accordance with him. However, we have already shown this in many of the works we have written [addressed] to Varlaam and, like him, who raged against this divine division. Not only those who came after him, but also before him, and in general all the divinely inspired theologians from the ages can be seen practicing theology in the same way. For the great Paul called God “co-witnessing” with the Gospel not only with “signs... and wonders,” but also “with divers powers and the dividing of the Holy Spirit” (Heb. 2:4). And John, the most theological of the evangelists, in the Apocalypse classifies the “seven spirits” with the Father and the Son, using these seven instead of one Holy Spirit, undoubtedly as His natural energies, says: “grace and peace to you from God and from the seven spirits... and from Jesus Christ” (Rev. 1:4–5). But he also sees Christ in the spirit as “a Lamb... having seven horns and seven hairs” (Rev. 5:6). Having also foreshadowed this before the apostles, Isaiah clearly says that on the “flower” that has “to come up from the rod from the root of Jesse, seven spirits will rest” (Is. 11: 1–3). And when Zechariah saw “the seven candlesticks” and above them cups of equal number [with oil], the angel explaining these visions said to him: “the seven towels of the Lord are the seven, which look upon the whole earth” (Zech. 4:2, 10), showing that these seven spirits are the providential manifestations and energies inherent in God by nature, as Gregory, who received the nickname from theology, subsequently taught us. “For Isaiah is pleased,” he says, “to call the energies of the Spirit spirits” 53 . Following him, the divine Maxim writes that they are inherent in Christ as the Son of God by nature. Where are those who represent to us duality and plurality in relation to the natural energies of God? May they be ashamed seven times, remaining adamant in their evil thoughts. 34. And the reason that subsequent theologians were not particularly concerned with this division was that at that time the atheists were fiercely opposed to the hypostatic distinction. And since, therefore, it was rejected and denied by the instigators of heresy, and thereby damage was caused to the glory of God, who was divided by madmen into created and uncreated, and those who chose piety for themselves were subjected to the pious distinction of [hypostases] to reproaches for polytheism, as those who worship many uncreated [Persons], then [theologians], as champions of piety, plunged themselves into the struggle for him, opponents denouncing both in writing and orally, and in every way, and offering to those who obey [the true teaching] the truth of piety imprinted in writing, so that they, having made it the subject of their study, would easily discern and throw away the error and lies of wickedness. 35. Now, since Barlaam and Akindinus, attacking the difference in the common energies of the Trinitarian Deity, dissect for their sake the single divinity into created and uncreated, and like Arius of the Son and the Holy Spirit, so these all divine power and energy and the very lightness of God manifested on Mount Tabor are expelled from the divine nature, and those who piously lead the uncreated and according to these [forces and energies of those who recognize] Divine division are condemned as worshiping many uncreated divinities and dragging along with them [into ungodliness] many inexperienced, then it is appropriate to explain about this divine division and the energies corresponding to it and, no less, to create a study, so that from what was said about this subject by the divine fathers we could easily consider and overthrow the Barlaamite error. By translating “ενωσις” and “διακρισις” as “union” and “separation,” we follow the tradition of the Russian translations of Dionysius the Areopagite and John of Damascus, from which Palamas borrows these terms, although some modern patrolologists prefer to translate them as “unity” and “difference.” To avoid misunderstandings, let us explain in the words of St. Maximus the Confessor, that “unions” are called “incomprehensible knowledge of what relates to the divine essence,” and “divisions” are “hypostatized worshiped existences” (Maximus the Confessor, Scholium on “On the Divine Names,” 2, 4). In other words, “divine connections” are the signs and properties of an entity that unites hypostases; and “divine divisions” are various tropos of the existence of hypostases, as well as many differently contemplated energies of the Divine or the diverse logoi contained in Him, corresponding to the diversity of the created world and God’s providence and judgment about it: “So, when we exclude that higher and apophatic theology of the Logos, according to which He is neither called nor thought, nor is it the totality of what relates to the signs of something else, as super-essential, and also does not participate in anyone or in any way, then it will be that many logos are One Logos, and One is many: according to the splendid creative and meaningful [i.e. that is, holding in being] the procession of One - by many; and according to the construction and providence, returning and directing to the Almighty Beginning or Center, containing in itself the beginnings of all the direct ones [emanating] from it and gathering them all [together], many - One” (Maximus the Confessor. On Perplexities to John, 2. PG 91 1081BC (p. p.: Venerable Maximus the Confessor. About various perplexities among Saints Gregory and Dionysius (Ambigwa). Per. from Greek and notes by Archimandrite Nektarios. M.: Institute of Philosophy, Theology and History of St. Thomas, 2006. P.68). That is, from the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 2:3). Dionysius the Areopagite. On the divine names, 2, 4 / Dionysius the Areopagite. Essays. Interpretations of Maximus the Confessor. St. Petersburg: Aletheia; Oleg Abyshko Publishing House, 2002. pp. 250–252 (r.p.: Ibid. pp. 251–253) Ibid., 2, 5. pp. 258–260 (r. p.: pp. 259–261). This work of the Areopagite has not survived. Dionysius the Areopagite. On the Divine Names, 2, 7. P. 262 (r. p.: P. 263). Ibid., 2, 6. P. 262 (r. p.: P. 263). Aloads - Ot and Ephialtes, sons of Aloe, grandsons of Poseidon (option: sons of Poseidon). Since childhood, the brothers were distinguished by their extraordinary strength. According to one of the myths, they decided to climb to heaven in order to, having expelled Zeus and other gods, achieve the love of Hera and Artemis, and themselves reign over heaven and earth. To do this, they tried to pile Mount Pelion on top of Mount Ossu. Apollo killed them and only by this prevented the intentions of Otas and Ephialtes. Those. Babylon (see Gen. 10:10). Dionysius the Areopagite. Message 9.1. P. 836 (r.p.: P. 837). The Hieromartyr Hierotheos, according to legend, the first bishop of Athens, was a member of the Athenian Areopagus and was converted to Christ by the Apostle Paul, together with Dionysius the Areopagite, the Saint was ordained by the Apostle Paul to the rank of bishop. According to legend, Bishop Hierotheos was present together with Bishop Dionysius at the burial of the Most Holy Theotokos. Saint Hierotheos died a martyr's death in the 1st century. Considered the teacher of Dionysius, he is at the same time the person to whom the first of the works of the Areopagite corpus, “On the Heavenly Hierarchy,” is addressed. “στοιχεθωδεις θεολογιας.” Wed. “Theological Fundamentals” mentioned by the Areopagite (τας Θεολογικας στοιχειωσεις) is the work of Hierotheus (On the Divine Names, 3.2. P. 282 (r. p.: P. 283)). Dionysius the Areopagite. On the Divine Names, 2, 6. P. 262 (r. p.: P. 263). Ibid, 2.7. P. 262 (r.p.: P. 263). Ibid., 2, 5. P. 258 (r. p.: P. 259). Basil the Great. Message 234.1. PG 32.869A (r. p.: Works like the saints of our father Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia. Publishing house P. P. Soykin, 1911. P. 282–283). John of Damascus. An Accurate Statement of the Orthodox Faith, 10/De Gruyter (ed.) Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos. Vol. 2. Berlin, 1973 (Series: Patristische Texte und Studien 12), 10, 8-I (p. n An exact exposition of the Orthodox faith. The work of John of Damascus. St. Petersburg: I.L. Tuzov publishing house, 1894 (reprint: M.-Rostov-on-Don, 1992). P. 29 (101)). Maxim the Confessor. Dialogue with Pyrrhus. PG 91, 341A (r. p.: Dispute with Pyrrhus: St. Maximus the Confessor and Christological disputes of the 7th century. Responsible ed. 4 – A. Pospelov. M.: Church of Sophia the Wisdom of God in Sredniye Sadovniki, 2004. P. 219). Dionysius the Areopagite. On the Divine Names, 2, 5. P. 258 (r. p.: P. 259). One can also translate "παραδειγματα" as "samples" or "models"; i.e., we are talking here about the divine plan for creation. Dionysius the Areopagite. On the Divine Names, 5, 8. pp. 430–432 (r. p.: pp. 431–433). Maxim the Confessor. Scholium to “On the Divine Names”, 2.5. Right there. P. 258 (r.p.: P. 259). Dionysius the Areopagite. On Divine Names, 9, 9. pp. 510–512 (r. p.: pp. 511–513). Maxim the Confessor. Scholium to “On the Divine Names”, 9.9. Right there. P. 510 (r.p.: P. 511). Dionysius the Areopagite. Epistle 9, 3. P. 846 (r.p.: P. 847). Maxim the Confessor. Scholium to Epistle 9.3. Right there. Dionysius the Areopagite. On the Divine Names, 5, 6. P. 416 (r. p.: P. 417). Maxim the Confessor. Scholium to “On the Divine Names”, 5, 6. Ibid. P. 418 (r. p.: P. 419). Dionysius the Areopagite. On the divine names, 2, 4. P. 250 (r. p.: P. 251). Right there. pp. 250–252 (r.p.: pp. 251–253). “αφαιρεσεις” – “withdrawal”, “deprivation”, “distraction”, i.e., those properties of God that are described through His lack of passion, beginning, end, etc. inherent in the creature. Dionysius the Areopagite. On the Divine Names, 2, 3. P. 250 (r. p.: P. 251). Wed. from Gregory of Nyssa: “All energy, extending from God to the creature and named according to diverse meanings, is directed from the Father and passes through the Son and is accomplished in the Holy Spirit” (To Avlavius, PG 45, 125C; r.p.: St. Gregory of Nyssa. Dogmatic works: in 2 volumes. Krasdar: Text, 2006. Vol. 1. P. 62). "... "" Gregory the Theologian. Homily 31, 32, pg 36, 169b (r. p.: St. Gregory the Theologian, Archbishop of Constantinople. Collection of works in 2 volumes. Reprint edition: Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, 1994. Vol. 1. pp. 461–462). Ibid., 2, I.S. 274 (r.p.: P. 275). Maxim the Confessor. Scholium to “On the Divine Names”, 2, I. S. 276 (r. p.: P. 277). Dionysius the Areopagite. On the Divine Names, 2, I. S. 274 (r. p.: P. 275). Right there. Palamas here obviously follows one of the discrepancies, since he reads this phrase as “τη ενιαια των ολων παραγωγη”, while in modern critical editions it is “προαγωγη” (except for the edition to which we usually refer, see De Gruyter (publisher), Suchla, B.R (editor), Corpus Dionysiacum ï PseudoDionysius Areopagita. De divinis, Berlin, 1990, Series: Patristische Texte und Studien 33, p. 136). However, just like St. Gregory reads this passage, etc. Maximus the Confessor, commenting on him in his Scholia. Right there. pp. 274–276 (r.p.: pp. 275–277). See Gregory Palamas. Triads in defense of the sacredly silent, 3.1. χρηστοθ, vol. 1, a. 615 ff. (p. p.: St. Gregory Palamas. Triads in defense of the sacredly silent. M.: Kanon, 1995. P. 267 ff.). Dionysius the Areopagite. On divine names, 2.11. P. 278 (r.p.: P. 279). Gregory of Nyssa. Against Eunomius, pg 45, 1024A (r. p.: St. Gregory of Nyssa. Dogmatic works. T.2. S.) Gregory the Theologian. Slovo 41, 3, PG 36, 431С (r. p.: Decree ed. T. 1. P. 576). You might be interested in: