That Varlaam and Akindinus are dichotomites, truly evil and godless, cutting into two unequal divinities

In the treatise of St. Gregory Palamas “That Barlaam and Akindinus are dichotomites, truly evil and godless, dividing one into two unequal divinities” (19 chapters, 1342) denounces Barlaam of Calabria and his follower Gregory Akindinus for their heretical division of a single Divinity. They argued that only the Divine essence is uncreated divinity, while all Divine powers, energies, radiance (including the Tabor light), providence, will, goodness, etc. are created. Thus, they divided the one Godhead into “two unequal divinities” - the uncreated (essence) and the created (His actions and manifestations), reducing God to the level of a creature in His self-revelation. Saint Gregory, relying on the patristic works, proves that the Divinity is one and entirely uncreated. He emphasizes that both the Divine essence and His uncreated energies, powers, glory and light (with which He communicates to the world and man) are equally uncreated. The author asserts that the difference between the incomprehensible Divine essence and the knowable Divine energies does not violate the unity of the Divine and does not create any composition or dismemberment in Him. On the contrary, it is the key to understanding the possibility of real communion with God and the deification of man, which does not lead to confusion with the Divine essence. *Title of the work in Greek – ῞Οτι Βαρλαὰμ καὶ ᾿Ακίνδυνός εἰσιν οἱ διχοτομοῦντες κακῶς ὄντως καὶ ἀθέως εἰς δύο ἀνίσους θεότητας τὴν μίαν. 1. Following the spirit-driven commands of the holy fathers and the Council decisions that have passed in our days, we reject and anathematize, both before and now, if they do not repent, those who speak in accordance with Barlaam and Akindinus about the two divinities of God - created and uncreated - and call the divine nature the only uncreated divinity, and the radiance of the divine nature, with which the Lord at Tabor showered the disciples, and all divine power and energy, and everything that is contemplated and theologized [that it is] around the divine nature, [called] created divinity. We affirm and honor one divinity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, [consisting] not only in essence, but also in uncreated power and energy, and in everything that is contemplated and theologized around the essence. 2. “For we theologize,” according to the great Athanasius, “about one God in three hypostases, having one essence, power, energy and everything else that is seen to be theologized and sung [as existing] around the essence. And in order to give [our] word [concrete] outlines (τυπον) or [a certain] totality or completeness (αθροισμα η πληρωμα) in what relates to theology, [say]: uncreatedness, timelessness, beginninglessness and everything that is said about God apophatically, and light, life, goodness, omnipotence and everything that is said about God cataphatically are not called each [separately] essence, but that which is around the essence. This [all] is called in Scripture the totality and fulfillment of the deity ( Col. 2:9, Col. 1:19, Eph. 3:19), being equally contemplated and theologized in relation to each of the three holy hypostases (for “all that the Father has is Mine” (John 16:15), says the Lord, “and I will be glorified in them” ( John 17:10), since [Each of Them] has no lack of the fullness [contemplated] around the divinity, but [Each] possesses uniformity, that is, equality, of all distinctive properties (ιδιωματων), [the totality of] which the fullness of divinity is also seen" 1 . 3. Thus we have learned to worship the one uncreated divinity, contemplated not only in essence, but also in all-perfect [revealed] perfection, since the fullness of divinity, that is, essence, power, energy and everything that is around the essence, is equally contemplated in each of the three holy hypostases. Moreover, everything that is cataphatically and apophatically theologized [that it is contemplated] around the divine essence is uncreated, as inherent in God by nature, but none of this is essence. “For unbornness is not the essence,” says Saint Cyril, “or incorruptibility, or immortality, or invisibility. After all, if each of these [names] denoted an essence, then God would be composed of as many essences as the [properties] inherent in Him would be shown” 2. “And what we say about God cataphatically,” says the divine John of Damascus, “does not indicate nature. And whether goodness, righteousness, wisdom or anything else you call it, you will not talk about the nature of God, but about what is around nature” 3 . And again: “goodness, righteousness and the like accompany the divine nature, and do not show the essence itself” 4. For just as hypostatic properties are not hypostasis, but are characteristic features of hypostasis, so natural properties are not nature, but characteristic features of nature. “We call natural properties,” according to the god-speaking Damascene, “volition and energy” 5 ; I mean the most willful force and energy according to which those who want and act want and act. 4. So, since the Church of God and we, its disciples, confess and honor one divinity - in all respects uncreated and without any defect, then the attacking [us] Barlaam from Calabria and Akindinus from the environs of Prilap, who seem at the present time to be the most choice weapons of him who from the beginning was the enemy of the Divinity, most wickedly tearing apart the one divinity, cut it apart, alas, on the created and uncreated, calling the divine nature the only incorruptible, and reducing all divine power and energy, and in general everything that exists around the divine nature and naturally inherent in God, to the level of creation, as not being nature, but somehow different from it, which alone, according to them, is uncreated divinity. By dismembering divinity in this way, these unfortunates completely abolished the existence of God, becoming not just wicked (δυσσεβεις), but [completely] wicked (ασεβεις) 6 and godless. For “if you take away [from Him] natural energy, then He will be neither God nor man,” 7 says Maximus, strong in divine things. 5. So, those who say that God does not have natural and essential [properties] that are in one way or another different from nature, so that, as they think, there would not be many uncreated things, reject this very essence about which they speak and become atheists. For by reducing to the level of a creature the divine power, energy and everything inherent in God by nature - since none of this is nature as different from it, and they consider everything that in any way differs from the divine nature to be a creature - they make God a creature. After all, [based] on the energy of each, according to the same wise one in the divine Maxim, the essence of each is characterized, for “uncreated energy points to the uncreated nature, and created energy to the created” 8 . Since they profess that divinity is called both God's power and energy, which they consider created, and God's essence, which alone they call uncreated and superior to created, in their opinion, divinity, then they are truly godless and creature-worshippers (κτισματολατραι), speaking about the created and uncreated divinity of God, and the highest [divinity] calling uncreated, and the lower - created. Thus, these unfortunates, having themselves become godless bigoists, call those who agree with the God-bearing fathers that the essence of God, and power, and energy, and everything that is theologized about, is uncreated, and everything that is theologized about is uncreated. 6. After all, since God’s nature is also called divinity, and in a more precise sense [this is called] energy, as the great Basil says that “if nature is designated by the name “divinity,” then the community of essence allows in a strict sense to apply this name to the Holy Spirit; but this name carries an indication of a certain force, be it visual or active” 9, then, therefore, in relation to both [that is, to essence and energy], theologians encounter the name “divinity,” and they also call the essence of God superior to all power and energy, not because the power and energy were created, but the only uncreated one - the essence (away from such a thought, for this relates to the error of Barlaam and Akindinus), but because the essence is the cause of what is around it, and because the essence of God is absolutely incomprehensible and inexpressible (after all, God is understood and participated in, and is named [based on] what is around Him). [And these] shout loudly, as if they call uncreated together with the essence of God and the essentially contemplated surrounding [properties] speak of two uncreated divinities, not understanding that the uncreated is not torn away from one another, although they are different from each other, or that the superiority in relation to causality, non-participation and inexpressibility does not violate equivalence and sameness ( ομοφυια) essence and energy, and the difference in natural [properties] in relation to nature never reaches the degree of opposition, as it does for createdness and uncreatedness introduced by the madness of Varlaam and Akindinus. 7. And that God, according to theologians, [by His] essence surpasses the divine energies and powers [existing] around Him, we learn this too from the same [their] speeches. And when the great Dionysius writes: “the purpose of the word is not to express the super-essential essence as super-essential, for it is ineffable and incomprehensible, and completely inexpressible, and above unity itself, but [is] to glorify the essential-creating appearance of the God-originating essence to all beings” 10 ; and again: “[our] word does not promise to express the self-super-essential goodness, essence, life and wisdom of the self-super-essential divinity, super-founded, as the Sayings say, above all goodness, divinity, essence, life and wisdom in secret [spheres] (Ps. 17:12, 80:8), but glorifies the revealed beneficial Providence as primarily goodness and the cause of all goods” 11; and again: “Being-in-itself, life-in-itself and divinity-in-itself we call, in the categories of the primordial, divine and causal, one super-initial and super-essential Beginning and Cause; and having in mind what is participated - the providential power given from the non-participating God, deification in itself, of which, by partaking in their own way, beings appear and are called deified” 12 - then he thereby shows that the providential powers of God are above existing ones, that is, uncreated. For he says that beings are partakers of them, but he also called their Cause Superprimitive and Superessential. 8. In the twelfth chapter of the “Divine Names,” having named the participles themselves, he says that they “exceed all those who participate,” 13 that is, everything created, since besides God there is nothing that has existence other than by participle. But again he says that the non-participating Cause is above all communions and sacraments 14 in every way as a cause, although in a different way as a cause 15. And in the eleventh chapter of the same ["Divine Names"] he says about one of these powers that it is “a beneficent and idolizing gift originating from God” 16 . And in the [Epistle] to Gaius, calling her the superiority of God, the goodness and divinity, and the substance (χρημα) of the god-creating gift, then he says that “He who is superordinate in relation to every beginning will also be transcendent in relation to the so-called divinity” 17. And in the fourth chapter of “Divine Names” and in general in all his writings, he teaches [the doctrine] that both the powers and energies of God are uncreated, and that God is beyond them due to the incomprehensibility, inexpressibility and non-participation of [His] superessence. 9. And the divine [primate] Gregory of Nyssa, citing this prophetic [word]: “who measured the water in a handful, and the sky in a span, and the whole earth in a handful” (Is. 40:12), then says: “the prophetic word in such praises showed a certain part of the divine energy; the very force from which energy, so as not to talk about the nature from which force, was not named or even considered” 18; and again: “Invisible by nature,” he says, “becomes visible by energies, being contemplated in certain distinctive properties existing around Him” 19. Who will dare to call the distinctive properties in which He is seen created [contemplated] around Him? After all, according to the divine Cyril, “not one of the divine distinctive properties is acquired” 20. So, from the results [of divine actions], that is, creations, God is seen in accordance with these [result-producing] energies, and not in essence, “for works,” says the great Basil, “serve as an indication of power, wisdom, art, and not of the essence itself” 21. And the divine Gregory of Nyssa himself, who had ears to hear, said there that these energies, through which God becomes visible, are the creative power and holiness, and the goodness of God, and His immutability, and simplicity, and everything like that 22. Who will dare to call these energies of God created, except for Barlaam and Akindinus, who reduce to the level of creation everything that in any way differs from the divine nature? 10. But speaking against the Doukhobors, this same saint says: “the divine nature remains ineffable and ineffable, surpassing any meaning [transmitted] through speech. Consequently, the name “divinity” expresses not the nature of the Spirit, but visual power” 23. So, who, besides Barlaam and Akindinus and those who fell into the same evilness as them, will classify the visual power of the One Who Leads everything before being (Dan. 13:42) among the creatures, since the divine nature surpasses it in inexpressibility? The great Athanasius says that “to be God is secondary in relation to nature; after all, we also become gods, but we cannot become of the same nature [as He]” 24. So, who, if he does not want to be involved in the wickedness of Barlaam and Akindinus, will call the creaturely existence of God God because He has this in common with the saints, although in essence He is not involved in them either? But who can count all the sayings of the saints, with which they testify to the uncreatedness of both the essence of God and the powers and energies of God, and show their difference in relation to each other, and affirm that all this is one divinity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, since it comes together as uncreated, but rather, united and united, ever abides and [moreover] is equally contemplated and theologized in relation to each of the saints Hypostasis, as the great Athanasius taught [us], and points to the same constant and perfect divinity of God? 11. So, since Barlaam and Akindinus, who dissected this one divinity into created and uncreated, knew about this distinction in the theological works of the fathers that we have cited - [that is,] that both God's nature and energy are called divinity - then, wanting to turn people away from the fatherly confession and by cunning to attract to their side and transfer them to their wickedness, they loudly accuse those who observe unanimity with the saints as supposedly teaching about two uncreated divinities - the highest and the lowest. And those who do not understand that this imaginary accusation is leveled against our holy fathers, and that the uncreated inherent [of God] property (το ακτιστον προσκειμενον) shows that this divinity contemplated in the distinction [of nature and energy] is one, equal and simple - after all, [in general] all uncreated things are equal and one (ηνωμενον), and there can be no complexity in the uncreated things that come together, and division in the uncreated and the superiority of [one of them] in order, causality, and so on does not in the least interfere with unity - they themselves, one way or another, directly accuse those who assert this. 12. So, these unfortunates, not understanding that they become accusers of the saints, and enduring, in the words of the Theologian, “something similar to when others, out of fear of death, [themselves] are strangled” 25 not to bother a little, examining what the essence of these divinities are, and what is piously called the highest in them (for if there is God’s visual power and nature, and both of them are called “divinity”, and nature is the highest as a cause and also because of its ineffability and non-participation, and the prophets also participated in God’s visual power, and the name of divinity also befits it, as the divine [Primate] Gregory of Nyssa said above, then it also has existence from this nature as from the cause, “for,” says Chrysostom theologian, “not essence is from wisdom, but wisdom is from essence” 26, “so as not to work with With the fear of God and attention, looking for proof of what has been said, especially since the addition of [the word] “uncreated” encourages research and suggests [the path] to the discovery of the truth, and makes it clear that the accusers have reduced the deity to the level of a creature, they easily betray to their enemies what they are looking for and cause damage to [the doctrine of] divinity, becoming, alas, creature-worshippers and godless monotheists, or rather, truly two-theists. For both those [that is, Barlaam and Akindinus] are ready to teach contrary to this [fatherly teaching], and these, following them, [are ready] to recognize the only uncreated divinity as the divine nature, which in itself is absolutely invisible, intangible and intangible for everyone, and the radiance of the divine nature, through which God communicates with those who are worthy, according to Gregory the Theologian, “to see and experience the lightness God" 27; and the light that shone from the Savior on Tabor, which the same Theologian called divinity, saying that “the light is the divinity shown on the mountain to the disciples” 28 ; and the timeless and “permanent and imperishable glory” 29 of divinity, “beyond everything, the only super-perfect and pre-perfect (μονην υπερτελη και προτελειον)” 30, - according to the God-speaking Damascus, - through which Christ, and to those who ascended the mountain with Him [the disciples], who received eyes that they had not previously had, allowed Himself to be seen as God, and in the future [age] He will be ineffably seen by the saints, and from which, having transferred to them [a certain part], He will make them, according to the great Basil, other suns, united with the unalloyed and true Light, and becoming “sons of the day” ( 1 Thessalonians 5:8) of the Lord, seeing and experiencing this divine kindness 31, about which he also said: “true and desired goodness is that which surrounds the divine and blessed nature, and whoever strives towards its radiances and beauties is himself transformed into the divine [likeness]” 32. And again: “Peter and the Sons of Thunder saw His beauty on the mountain, brighter than the brightness of the sun, and they were worthy to perceive with their eyes the firstfruits of His glorious [second] coming” 33. So, this kingdom of God, the radiance of His nature, revealed to the worthy in the power of the Spirit, they call created divinity, as well as the visual and voluntary power of God, and His providence and justice, and relegating to the level of creation everything that in any way differs from the divine nature - be it goodness, or goodness, or divinity, or God's authority, be it a god-creating gift and grace, and power, and everything that is called divine and lofty, above which there is nothing - through this they undoubtedly reduce at the same time the divine nature itself. 13. But do not be afraid of the distinction [that happens] in reasoning between divinity and the piously conceived superiority in relation to it, for without this there is no reasoning. So do not be afraid of such reasoning until the equality and unity of what is correctly distinguished is established by uncreatedness, and all evil belittling and exaggeration is thrown away. Be afraid to bring into the fullness of divinity creatureliness, which alienates divine power and energy from the divine essence and dissects the one [consisting] in essence, power and energy, and in everything that is uncreated and inseparably divided and inseparably united, which is contemplated around the essence, divinity into truly unequal and dissimilar, and incompatible divinities. And let not you take away and drive away from the uncreated divinity the piously contemplated surrounding the divine essence, being ashamed of the [false] accusation of ditheism or polytheism on the part of those who shamelessly attribute their own faults to others, and let not all this be removed from the essence so that it is inactive and powerless, either insanely united, or godlessly truncated. 14. This was also demanded of us before by those who taught soundly about the Son and theologized about the Spirit, who were troubled [in their speculations] regarding both. But [the fathers] did not abandon, despite this, this most pious division. After all, they heard the Theologian commanding: “Do not honor unity of command badly by shortening or truncating divinity, nor be ashamed of accusations of tritheism” 34 . So you, too, do not follow the bad lead of those who, supposedly defending the unity of divinity, in reality reject the one divinity, even if they accuse [you], even if they frighten you, even if they blame you. But if you need to work a little in the word, do not betray God to those who tear and abolish Him as best they can, and, on the one hand, everything that is around this blessed nature, cutting off from divinity and reducing to the level of the created, and on the other hand, showing the divine nature itself as devoid of internal connection (ασυστατον) and completely non-existent. For “what kind of nature is,” in the words of the divine Maximus, “without natural strength and energy?” 35 15. Tell them boldly: we do not, like the Jews, worship one God in one divinity; not like Sabellius; not like Arius and Eunomius, who even earlier invented what Akindinus now preaches and captured it in writing, that is, that God is only an essence, and in order to be simple to Him, He must be either completely incomprehensible or completely comprehensible, which is why every divine name is a designation of the divine essence, and we are raised from creatures to the very essence of God. And the witness of this is the great Basil, and after him, who is his brother and akin to the philosophizing God-speaking [Gregory of Nyssa], and with them, together with Gregory the Theologian, who [with their] writings branded his philosophies. So, tell [them] that we do not honor the one God, but [we honor Him] as trinitarian, active (ενεργη) and omnipotent: one in essence; trinitarian - as being known in three hypostases; and active and omnipotent - as possessing energies and powers. Uncreated [we honor Him] both in essence, and in hypostases, and in powers, and in energies, “for neither human nature,” says the divine Maximus again, “has anything uncreated, nor the divine nature anything created” 36 . How then will we accept Barlaam, who writes: “there is one beginningless and infinite - the essence of God, and everything that is outside of it is the essence of created nature”? In the same way, Akindinus, who writes: “the only uncreated divinity is the essence of God, and what is around it is all created”? How can we not accept [better] the priest of God Gregory 37, who objects to this and preaches God over all uncreated things, especially since [he says this] in accordance with the God-bearing [fathers], for no one can show that he calls anything of the nature inherent in God created, or distinguished into created and uncreated and higher? How can the one who deposes him be responsible and [himself] adhering to the error of Akindinus and Barlaam? 16. If Palamas is accused by Barlaam and after him by Akindinus, who inherited his delusion, of saying that he speaks of two uncreated divinities, [that is] of the divine deposition and radiance, and of nature, from which this deposition and from which the radiance itself comes, superior to them as their cause and giver, and also [surpassing] the voluntary, visual and providential power of God, because none of this: neither the divinity and radiance of God's nature shown on the mountain, by which God inexpressibly communicates with those who are worthy, nor the mysterious and divine devouring, which, according to the promise, happens to a purified heart (Matthew 5:8) through [the fulfillment of] God's commandments, nor, moreover, the visual, voluntary and providential power of God, and everything like that - he does not allow to be called created; then from this very accusation it is clear to the prudent that he is not only more pious than anyone, but is also a champion of piety, not thinking about anything related to the fullness of divinity as created and containing [in his teaching] divinity equal and equal to itself, and readily opposing those who tear it apart into created and uncreated and those who badly divide the one and only divinity into [two] truly unequal and alien through truly unjust and monstrous dissections. 17. And since it belongs to the same series and belongs to the same wickedness to decompose and confuse all uncreated power, energy, radiance and grace with the divine nature as in no way different from it, so that everything that is in any way different from it turns out, according to them, created, - [everything] adjoining the highest in the non-participation, inviolability and ineffability of the divine nature - then [Palama] rejects the disorder and confusion they introduce. However, it was not Palamas, but Varlaam, who came up with the idea that there are two divinities - the highest and the lowest. And his writings and many people still testify to this. For many know that it was he [Barlaam] who initiated these [disputes], and the Conciliar Tomos itself points to this, for it was proclaimed by the Conciliar. 18. But Barlaam said this to show the created divinity and visual power of the Spirit revealed on the mountain by Christ, so that there would not be a single uncreated divinity if both the lightness and power of the divine nature were uncreated. And Palamas declared uncreated, together with the divine nature, the ineffably revealed divine radiance there, as well as power, and perfectly theologized that the distinction of divinity does not conflict with its unity. For although the ability to act (εξουσια) is distinct from the essence (ουσιας), as the great Basil said, - or the will and lightness of the divine nature, and power in general - from the divine nature, its lightness and strength are not separable from nature, and it is impossible, having separated one from the other, to comprehend the remaining [imagining it] deprived of the other. But he who undertook to talk about power or lordship immediately [thereby] inseparably thought about the nature to which each of these two belongs. And even more so [this is true] in relation to the divine [power and nature], for whom, according to the God-bearing fathers, unions prevail over divisions and precede them, 38 without abolishing them, but also not experiencing any obstacles from them. Thus we have one God in one divinity. Indeed, in relation to God, one thing is the Willing One, and another thing is the will, 39, according to the great theologian Gregory, or, in other words, another thing is the Acting One, and another thing is energy, according to the God-speaking Damascene, for one is the Moving One, and the other is, as it were, a movement, 40 but not in such a way that they are separated because of this. For how can anyone separate motion from what moves? And it is not that one is created and the other is uncreated. For how [can this be] when they are not separated from each other and cannot even be comprehended separately by the mind? Well, is it because both are uncreated that there is not one God? Or if one, is it composed of these [parts]? What kind of division or composition of moving and movement, and even more so, divine movement, is there, according to which no addition or subtraction takes place? 19. If anyone says that God does not move, as the great Dionysius said in “Mystical and Apophatic Theology,” then let him know that, according to such theology, He is not at rest, is not a force, does not have power, is neither one nor the truth 41. But this apophatic theology does not contradict the cataphatic one, according to which God moves, and as truly a Power, and possessing power, is theologized and receives worship from us as the One and as Self-Truth. For to Him belongs all glory, honor and worship, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen. Athanasius of Alexandria. Sermo in annuntiationem deiparae, 2–3, [Sp.]. PG 28, 920B-D. Cyril of Alexandria. De sancta trinitate dialogi, 2. PG 75, 733CD. John of Damascus. An Accurate Statement of the Orthodox Faith, 1, 4. Op. cit., 4, 33–36 (pp.: pp. 8–9 (80–81) Ibid., 1, 9. Op. cit., 9, 25–26 (r. p.: P. 28 (100)). Ibid., 3, 14. Op. cit., 58, 24–25 (r. p.: P. 153 (225)). “Wicked” are those who do not worship God at all, in contrast to “wicked”, that is, those who honor Him poorly, that is, insufficiently or incorrectly. Maxim the Confessor, To Marin. PG 91, 96B and 201AB. It's him. Dialogue with Pyrrhus. GS 91, 341A (r. p.: P. 219). Basil the Great. Message 189, 8. PG 32, 693D – 696A (r. p.: S. Dionysius the Areopagite. On the Divine Names, 5, 1. P. 402 (r. p.: P. 403). Dionysius the Areopagite. On the Divine Names, 5, 2. P. 404 (r. p.: P. 405). Ibid., I, 6. P. 540 (r. p.: P. 541). Ibid., 12, 4. P. 546 (r. p.: P. 547). That is, God is the cause of both beings and forces and energies; but the first - like their Creator, and the second - by nature, for nature is primary in relation to its properties. Dionysius the Areopagite. On the Divine Names, 11, 6. P. 542 (r. p.: P. 543). It's him. Epistle 2. pp. 768–770 (r.p.: pp. 769–771). Gregory of Nyssa. Words on the Beatitudes, 7. PG 44, 1280AB. Above, this quote refers to Palamas to Gregory of Nyssa, see note. 425. The publishers of the Greek text give a reference to the word of St. Cyril of Alexandria “On Worship in the Spirit”, 9. (PG 68, 608A), but no similar words are found there. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius, 2. PG 29, 648A (r. p.: p. 120). Gregory of Nyssa. Words on the Beatitudes, 6. PG 44, 1272C. It's him. On the divinity of the Son and the Spirit. PG 46, 573D-576A (r. p.: C 160). Athanasius of Alexandria. Dialogi duo contra Macedonianos [Sp.], 1, 14. PG28,1313A. Gregory the Theologian. Word 31.17. PG 36.152С (r. p.: p. 453). John Chrysostom. De incomprehensibili dei natura (Contra Anomoeos, homiliae), 1,194–195, Malingrey, A.-M. (editor), Jean Chrysostome. Sur l'incomprnhensibilitn de Dieu, Paris, 1970 (series: Sources chrntiennes 28 bis), p. 13 (pp.: T. l.C. 497). Gregory the Theologian. Word 38, 11. PG 36, 324A (r. p.: p. 527). It's him. Word 40, 6. PG 36, 365A (r. p.: p. 546). John of Damascus. Word on Transfiguration, 17. PG 96, 572B. See Basil the Great. Discourse on Psalm 33, 4. PG 29, 360BC (r. p.: p. 290). It's him. Conversation on Psalm 29, 5. PG 29, 317B (r. p.: p. 257). It's him. Discourse on Psalm 44, 5. PG 29, 400CD (r. p.: p. 326). Gregory the Theologian. Word 25, 18. PG 35, 1224B (r. p.: p. 371). Maxim the Confessor. Εκοηγησις της κιωησεως. PG 90, 121C. See also: To Marin. PG 91, 200C. It's him. To Marin. PG 91, 96A. Here Palamas speaks about himself in the third person. Dionysius the Areopagite. On the Divine Names, 2, 11. P. 278 (r. p.: P. 279). Gregory the Theologian. Word 29, 6. PG 36, 81B (r. p.: p. 417). John of Damascus. An Accurate Statement of the Orthodox Faith, 3, 15. Op. cit., 59, 6–8 (r. p.: P. 162 (234)). Dionysius the Areopagite. On mystical theology, 5. P. 758 (r. p.: P. 759) You might be interested in: