Letter to Akindinus, sent from Thessalonica before the conciliar condemnation of Varlaam and Akindinus

“Letter to Akindinus, sent from Thessalonica before the conciliar condemnation of Barlaam and Akindinus” (14 chapters) was addressed to Gregory Akindinus, who would later become one of the main opponents of St. Gregory Palamas, but at the time of writing the letter, friendly relations remained between them. This is the 3rd surviving letter from the saint to Akindinos, dated to the beginning of 1341 (before the first Council of Constantinople, which condemned Barlaam of Calabria). The central theme of the letter is the defense of the Orthodox teaching about God, in particular, about the uncreatedness of Divine energies (actions), from the heretical views of Varlaam. Saint Gregory refutes Barlaam’s accusations of “ditheism,” which he puts forward, based on the Palamite teaching about the difference between the incomprehensible Divine essence and His comprehensible, but also uncreated, energies. The saint builds his argument based on the authority of Holy Scripture and patristic works. The author of the letter points out that accusations of polytheism (tritheism, bitheism) were previously brought against many holy fathers (St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Maximus the Confessor) for their firmness in theology. Such accusations against him only confirm the Orthodoxy of his teaching. The saint claims that God is “one in essence and multiple in energy,” for He is omnipotent. The Divine essence is unknowable and incommunicable, while His energies (goodness, wisdom, power, providence, light) are knowable and communicable to man. The author rejects Barlaam's notion of an "inactive God", arguing that if God has no natural actions, He can be neither a Creator nor a Theurgist. The absence of uncreated actions leads to the non-existence or createdness of the Divine nature itself. The most important point is that both components - both the “overlying essence” and the “descending actions” - are called “Divinity”, since God is one. St. Gregory refutes Varlaam’s assertion that only the Divine nature is uncreated, and all its actions and energies (including Divine Providence, contemplative power, the Tabor light) are created. If energies are created, then the very essence that possesses them must be created. The saint proves that the Light of Tabor, Divine Providence and the grace of deification cannot be created, since they flow from God as His own uncreated actions and impart uncreatedness to those who receive them. Particular attention is paid to deification, which is identified with “uncreated grace,” through which people can become “beginningless” and “infinite” by communion (like the Apostle Paul or Melchizedek), which is impossible if grace itself is created. Also in this letter to St. Gregory Palamas indicates that it was he who compiled the Svyatogorsk Tomos (Tomos of the Holy Mountain) in 7 chapters, rejecting the writings of Varlaam against the Orthodox. This letter is a key source for understanding the early hesychast debate and the formation of Palamite theology. In it, Saint Gregory lays the foundations of his teaching on essence and energies, which would later be detailed in his “Triads in Defense of the Sacred-Silent” and would receive dogmatic approval at the Councils of Constantinople. *The title of the essay in Greek is πρὸς ᾿Ακίνδυνον ἐστάλη δ᾿ ἀπὸ Θεσσαλονίκης πρὸ τῆς τοῦ Βαρλαὰμ καὶ αὐτοῦ συνοδικῆς καταδίκης. Introduction We offer our readers a Russian translation of a letter written by St. Gregory Palamas, later Archbishop of Thessaloniki, to his future opponent, Gregory Akindinus, before the start of a theological dispute between them. This letter, unpublished to this day, is contained in numerous manuscripts: the proposed text is translated based on two manuscripts of the Paris National Library (Parisinus graecus 1238, ff. 262v - 266v and Coislinus 99, ff. 102 - 109v), - 15th century. The Greek text of the letter and a more detailed introduction were published by us in the journal The Athenian God. Faculty of “Pheology” (1953. IV). Without being able to give a full analysis of the letter here, we limit ourselves to brief notes: Time of writing: – beginning of 1341. This date follows from the title of the letter, indicating a council held in June-August 1341, and from the mention of this letter in a memorandum subsequently submitted by Akindinos to Patriarch John Kaleka, partially published by F. Uspensky (“Synodik on the Week of Orthodoxy”, Odessa, 1893, pp. 87–88, r. trans. “Essays on the history of Byzantine education" St. Petersburg 1892, pp. 327–331). This letter is the third surviving letter from Palamas to Akindinus, with whom he initially had the most friendly relations. Content. – From a historical perspective, it is interesting to note that the Svyatogorsk Tomos was compiled by Palamas himself, and not by his student Philotheus Kokkin, as some historians think. From a theological point of view, it is especially important that the original text of the letter refutes the accusation brought against Palamas by his opponents, who refer specifically to this letter and incorrectly quote it, as if he, in his teaching about divine “actions” or “energies,” used expressions like “deities” (in the plural) or “superior Deity,” contrasting it with the “descending Deity”: St. Gregory never used the word “Divinity” in the plural, and contrasted only the “overlying Essence” with “descending actions,” applying the name “Divinity” to both, since God is one. In this he exactly follows the then generally accepted terminology of pseudo-Dionysius (see § 10). For the translation of the Greek word ἐνέργεια, we retain the term “energy”, with the exception of those places (for example, §2) when the comprehension of the Russian text benefits from the use of the Russian word “action”. It is also very interesting to identify St. Gregory of “divine actions” with “divine Life” (§ 12). This undoubtedly lies the key to understanding Palamite theology, which is evident, among other things, from a comparison of the text of the letter with his previously written and not yet published books “in defense of the sacredly silent” - his main theological work - where this idea is developed in detail in connection with the doctrine of the Incarnation. It is only in this light that the other, somewhat scholastic, reasoning of St. should be understood. Gregory, based on the terminology of the Areopagite. I bring special thanks to Prof. O. Archimandrite Cyprian, for the assistance provided to me in the literary improvement of the Russian translation and in establishing links to the cited saints. Gregory's patristic works. St. Gregory Palamas. Letter to Akindinus, sent from Thessalonica before the conciliar condemnation of Varlaam and Akindinus 1. The fact that the malicious Varlaam says that we are two-theists directly proves our piety and his wickedness. For the great Basil was also accused of tritheism by the blasphemers of the Son and the Holy Spirit 1 . Isn’t this a great proof of the firmness of the great man’s theology that he speaks of the One God as trinity according to the Hypostases? And what greater evidence could there be of the slander of those who, for this reason, said that he was a trebobnik? And Gregory the Theologian’s associates stoned him and dragged him to trial 2 , accusing him of bitheism, because he thought the Word - the God-man - was perfect in both natures. For Maximus, wise in the divine, the supporters of Sergius and Pyrrhus did not fail to cut off both his hand and his tongue, accusing him of two-theism and polytheism, because he preached in Christ two wills and two actions, created and uncreated, according to natures; for according to his teaching, not only is the divine nature uncreated, but also the divine will and all the natural energies of the divine nature, which are not natures, but divine movements, as he often asserts in his works. They are slandering us now too. But if, as I said, this accusation clearly shows the firmness of the theology of the saints (men), then we find in it no less clear proof of the slander of those who accused them of polytheism. The same applies to us, when we say to those who now unreasonably divide the one Divinity into created and uncreated, they say that only the divine essence is the uncreated Divinity, and that everything uncreated is not at all different from the divine essence, and every power and energy that differs in anything from It is created, when we tell these people that God, one in essence and multiple in energy, is uncreated, since He is omnipotent. For, as the divine Maximus 4 says, God “increases” in his will for every being in order to bring it into existence; being multiple in providential appearances, He remains completely unknowable in His essence, but knowable in these appearances, that is, in His goodness, wisdom, power, divinity or majesty and simply in everything that is “around His essence,” as Father Chrysostom literally says 5. 2. So, when we say this to such people, it becomes clear that the one who accuses us of bitheism worships not the Creator of all things, but some inactive God; for he can no longer call Him either Creator, or Theurgist, or generally active, since Saint Maximus clearly showed that it is impossible to act without a corresponding action, just as it is impossible to exist without a being 6. But he will not say that God, about whom Barlaam speaks, is uncreated; for according to the same theologian 7, “uncreated nature is characterized through uncreated action,” and what characterizes differs from what is characterized. So, if the divine nature does not have an action that is different from Her and, like She, uncreated and cognizable by us from his works - this nature that surpasses all perception - then how is it at all possible to know that an uncreated nature exists? For She is incomprehensible in herself, but is knowable from the fact that “around Her” and to which, according to the great Athanasius, Her power and action belong 8. But why do I talk so much about this when holy men teach word for word that the nature of God and His actions are not the same thing? For “it belongs to nature to give birth, and to action to create” 9. One is the nature of God, the other is the essential action of God. One is the essence of God, and the other is the meaning of the names that speak about Her. So, why talk at length about this? The words of Barlaam introduce a non-existent God, since that which has neither power nor natural action does not exist, is not something about which neither affirmation nor denial is possible, following the theologians. 3. This insane accuser of our piety said that there is no God in his heart if he does not verbally affirm His existence! “However, God,” he says, has actions, but created ones, for all the energy of God, in addition to the essence acting in everything, is created; The divine nature alone is beginningless and infinite, and only it is the uncreated Light and the uncreated glory of God” 10. What wickedness! Or rather, what godlessness and complete wickedness! Indeed, either God does not have natural and essential energies and the one who claims this is an atheist, since he clearly says that there is no God, for the saints clearly say that if there is no natural and essential energy, then Christ will be neither God nor man, since He is worshiped in two such energies and two natures 11; or, if God has natural and essential energies, but are created, then the essence of God, possessing them, will also be created. Indeed, that nature and that essence, whose natural and essential energies are created, is not uncreated. But then the divine Providence, and the contemplative power, and the radiance of God, which appeared on Tabor to Moses, Elijah and those who ascended the mountain with Christ, who showed His own Divinity and Kingdom, are also creatures, if nature alone is beginningless and infinite, if it alone is the uncreated light and the uncreated glory of God, and if the unity of the uncreated Divinity must be understood in the sense that only the divine essence remains uncreated. For Providence is the relation of God to that which experiences the action of His providence, and contemplative power is His relation to visible things, and radiance is His relation to that which is divinely illuminated, while the divine nature is not a relation, but is completely separate from everything and surpasses everything. The act of creation does not belong to the contemplative action, for God contemplated everything even before the existence of the world, but He did not create it before it came into existence. Thus, if this nature is not the nature that acts in everything, then the contemplative energy of the Spirit will, according to Barlaam, be created. 4. Divine Providence is communicated to those who achieve it, since it is said that “everything that exists participates in the providence flowing from the Divine, as the Cause of everything” 12. In essence, God is incommunicable, according to the Divine Maxim 13, and according to Barlaam, in essence alone, God is uncreated. Is it not true that it follows from this, in his opinion, that divine Providence is created? The radiance of God is both communicated and shared, for it is said that the Lord on the mountain revealed a “faint shine” and the initiates did not see all of this shine, so as not to lose their lives along with the vision. Separability is a property of energy, not essence, as Father Chrysostom explains 14. And the prophet psalmist, on the other hand, says: “The lordship... of our God be upon us” (Ps. 89:17). And Gregory the Theologian teaches: “This is what the partial light leads me to here: to see and experience the radiance of God” 15. And according to the Great Basil, “the sparkling, true and indescribable light transforms those who partake of it into other suns 16, for “the righteous will shine like the sun” (Matthew 13:43). The divine nature, which alone is the uncreated light, according to Varlaam, is above all communion. In his opinion, the most divine light is also created, since it is in some way called light, while the divine nature is nameless and surpasses every name. 5. When we say this and similar words against the wicked writings and sermons of Barlaam, then he should, having learned the truth, discard his wicked opinion. “With what joy,” you say! You know well that even before our denunciations, we spent a lot of time bringing all this up in defense of piety. But Varlaam, not even heeding the reproof, just as before he did not accept the words of suggestion and exhortation 17, still, it seems, declares more strongly that the most divine light, like all divine power and energy, is created. From the paternal expressions we offer in defense of our teaching, he cited and invented against us, or rather, against the sacred fathers themselves, “a superior and descending Divinity” 18. Proclaiming this, he raises against us both those who listen without delving into the meaning of the matter, and those who are afraid of the nonsense arising from here, he convinces them to say that “this light is created, as well as every power and energy of God differing in any way from the divine essence,” so as not to fall into similar ditheism. “For, he says, if the light caused, communicated and made visible on the mountain and in some way called Divinity, and the nature of God, which is above all reason, communion, vision, perception, naming and appearance, are (equally) uncreated, then how will there be one, and not two Deities, one superior and one descending?” However, he does not see, unfortunate one, that if the divine light were a creature, as well as any divine energy, which, as he himself says, differs from the divine essence, then it is all the more impossible for there to be a single Divinity. For there will be no uncreated Deity at all, since that nature in which the action is created is also created. But it is also impossible to combine uncreated being with creatures into one Deity. For from such a union, as he himself says, two Deities actually appear in God: one, superior in all respects and always abiding as the uncreated Deity; the other is descending and, in all respects and always divided and abiding by the created Divinity. 6. In the uncreated essence, natural force, will, radiance and energy there is one Divinity, since everything natural is of itself inseparably united with the corresponding nature and, due to its uncreatedness, is one, equal to itself and simple, since that which does not have a natural action is not simple, but does not exist at all. And what is communicated and not communicated in relation to the cause and the caused, characterizes and is characterized (in this sense it is superior and subordinate), does not in the least interfere with the unity and simplicity of God, who has one, equal to himself and simple Deity. In fact, both “the Father... is greater than the Son” (John 14:28) in relation to cause and as regards the humanity of the Son. So, according to the Great Basil and the divine Cyril, the Spirit is subordinate to the Son in order and in dignity corresponding to this order, since it is given through the Son 19. But He is not secondary in nature, as Eunomius was the first to go mad, but equal, because just as the Son is the Lord, so the Spirit is the Lord, but both of them are One God, in one Divinity, simple and equal to Himself. Likewise, with regard to essence, power, action, will and all such things, superiority in order, causality and the like does not contradict the unity of the Divine, for all this is uncreated. All this is a single Deity of the Three Worshiped Persons: essence, will, power, action and the like, not because all this is one and not at all different from one another, and not because all this is only essence, as Barlaam is crazy, but because all this is singular and inseparably contemplated in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 7. Therefore, the Great Athanasius, having collected and enumerated everything that is around the essence, says: “not all this is called essence, but what is around the essence” 20, which Scripture calls the collection and fulfillment of the Divinity, and which is equally contemplated and comprehended by theologians in each of the Three Holy Hypostases. This is the one, simple and only uncreated Deity, to whom pious people offer prayer. And the one who says that only the essence of God is the uncreated Divinity belittles the Divinity, or rather, as was proven above, abolishes It altogether. Whoever affirms definitively that essence, strength, will and energy are uncreated, without any distinction, is in no way different from one who belittles and abolishes, since through this unholy confusion he acts in exactly the same way: turning one into another, he plunges everything, one after another, into non-existence. And the one who asserts that only the essence is uncreated, and that power, will and energy, different from it in this respect, are created, he divides the one Divinity into created and uncreated, dividing himself and cutting himself off from divine grace and completely breaking away from the pious, no better, and perhaps worse, than Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius. So, those who wish with the reasoning “the right to rule the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15), it is necessary to preserve the superiority of the divine essence over the divine energies, for in this way both their difference and the uncreatedness of the divine energies are shown, despite their difference from the essence, for in this way the unity of the Divinity becomes clear, since outside the one God there is nothing uncreated. 8. Now, however, it is necessary to present some of the numerous expressions of holy men, which very piously explain the superiority of the uncreated essence over the uncreated energy, and especially the expressions of the Great Dionysius, who was almost the first to initiate the Church into the most fundamental rudiments of theology. Starting to chant the names that reveal the truly Existent, the great man says: “let us remember this: the purpose of the word is not to reveal the super-essential Essence, in which way it is super-essential, since it is ineffable, unknowable, completely inexpressible and surpasses unity itself; but its purpose is to glorify the fulfilling appearance of the God-primary Essence into all beings” 21. This unity, which the God-Viewer has just mentioned with delight, is deification, “thanks to which, as he himself says at the beginning of his book on the names of the divine, we are inexpressibly and unknowably connected with that which is inexpressible and unknowable, thanks to a unity that transcends our essence and our energy” 22. However, we will talk about it further. Here, however, it is already clear that not only the essence of God, which, together with everything else, surpasses this fulfilling manifestation, but also this surpassing manifestation of God itself, being “fulfilling,” is uncreated. How, in fact, that which is the creative and constructive principle - in relation to everything that exists - how could it be created and created and, therefore, one of such beings? And a little further he says again: “the word promises to express not the self-super-essential Grace, the Essence, Life and Wisdom of the Self-super-essential Goodness, established in secret, as the Scriptures say above all goodness, all deity, all essence, all life, but the revealed beneficent Providence” 23. It is to this Providence that he sings decent songs here. In the XIth chapter, he calls it Divinity and writes: “we call the one, super-initial and super-essential Beginning and Cause of all things Divinity, as Beginning, God and Cause; As for communion, we call this providential power given by an unparticipated God self-deification; what is received from him is divine and is called such” 24 . So, is it only the inexpressible and supra-primary essence of God, which surpasses this providence by its inexpressibility, non-participation, non-revealability and causelessness, that is uncreated? Or is industry, surpassed by this essence as a cause, just like it called Divinity, not being outside the fullness of the one Divinity - also uncreated? It is absolutely clear that It is also uncreated. For It makes divine those who accept deification, since It Itself is not outside the One God; and by communion of this providence these beings become divine, for this providence is deification in itself, and not by communion has the power to make others divine. 9. But in chapter XII (Dionysius) says that all deifying providence is Divinity and, having sung it divinely, continues: “from the superior, superior and simplest Holiness, Dominion, Kingdom and Divinity, every good providence comes into being, accomplishing and collecting the objects of its providence and decently presenting itself for deification to those converted” 25. So good providence, arising from the superior, superior and simplest Holiness, Dominion, Kingdom and Divinity, i.e. from the essence of God, [since this essence is completely simple, for it is completely indivisible and is named according to all the energies characteristic of it, with the reservation of its superiority, for it itself surpasses naming and is nameless], this is a good providence that comes from It, and is also called Divinity, for it sees everything and contemplates everything; What is it if not God’s energy, but not essence, distinguished from essence by its origin from it, surpassed by Essence, which is its cause and surpasses naming? How can the industry that comes from it not be uncreated, if “it contemplates and collects the objects of its industry and decently presents itself to them for the deification of the converted”? But after he had shown that it is a sacrament, or, what is the same, that it is a sacrament, for he says that it “presents itself decently,” Dionysius then added: “since the Cause of everything is an overflow, by virtue of an excess that surpasses everything, it is glorified as the Holy of Holies, as an overflowing cause and an exclusive excellence; one can say that just as what is truly holy, lordly, divine or royal is superior to those who do not truly exist, just as self-communions are superior to those who partake, so also the non-participatory cause is established above everything that partakes and all the sacraments” 26, of course, in its essence. Are, however, these superior self-participations to the unparticipated Cause, to which all good industry, called Divinity, belongs, for It collects and contemplates the objects of its industry and adores those who turn to It, are created, because the unparticipated Cause surpasses them as a cause, as the heavenly wise man taught us? Didn't he say that the unparticipated Cause is established above not only the participants, among other things, the adorers, but also above these sacraments, that is, the deifying Industry itself and all the like, as an iridescent Cause and exclusive superiority? How, in this case, can that which has existence not by participation and which surpasses all participants be a creature? 10. And the fact that none of these uncreated and divine energies is an essence, the same viewer of God clearly shows in the previous chapter, saying: “we do not assert that self-existence is any divine or angelic essence, but we say that the very powers of God, self-realization, self-life, self-deification are Self-Existence, Self-Life and Self-Divinity” 27. This exclusive and essentially superior superiority of God, even in relation to uncreated energies, Dionysius, who was rich and supreme in everything, and who spoke no less precisely and much about the divine, praises Him in his entire book “On the Divine Names” and puts this precisely at the basis of his words, along with the distinction that exists in God according to His divine actions. But in response to the question of the servant Gaius, how is it that He Who, exceeding everything, surpasses both God’s authority and goodness, Dionysius writes: “if by Divinity and Goodness you mean the very content of the beneficent gift of the so-called Divinity, understood as Godhead and Goodness, then He who surpasses every principle is above this” 28 . Also at the end of the chapter on the divine world, he cites all our divine teachers as evidence of the same thing 29. According, therefore, to the God-wise theologians, as the great Dionysius says here, the Deity is descending, this is deification, which is a gift from the overlying essence of God. And in vain does Barlaam reproach us here for ditheism, for he clearly cries out about this in order to slander impeccable theologians, claiming himself that this divine gift is created and that thus there is only one uncreated Divinity - the essence of God. Thus dividing God into created and uncreated, he slanderes those who piously think of Him and act as uncreated. The deifying gift of God is His action, which the great Dionysius and all other theologians often speak of as the Divinity, arguing that the name “Divinity” is more suitable to the divine action than to the divine essence. After all, according to Gregory the Theologian, “Isaiah likes to call the actions of the Spirit spirits” 30. Therefore, like the prophet, by calling the actions of the Spirit seven spirits, he did not damage the unity of the Spirit, just as shown above, and the name “Divinity” is applied by the saints to providence, which is the action of God, and to the contemplative power, and to the deifying grace of God, that is, to deification, and does not abolish the unity of the Divinity 31 . 11. But God's powers and energy, as shown above, are uncreated. Therefore, the deifying grace of God is not only called Divinity, but is also uncreated, according to God-wise theologians. And if the great man further called it “relationship” 32, then the relationship of God to the deified, for such are divine providence and contemplative power. Calling her “likeness,” he added that she is inimitable 33; and having said that she is the beginning of the deified, the superiority and goodness of God - which belong only to God - he added that she is god-creating, but not idolized, in order to show that she is perfect in uncreatedness. The fact that this idolizing grace, that is, deification, is uncreated, is also proclaimed by Maximus, who is divine in his boldness. He writes: “This is the gospel of God; message to people through the Son incarnate and giving as a reward to those who believe in Him - unborn deification” 34. And again (says Maxim): “Divine grace remains incomprehensible even when those who receive it partake of it, for uncreated by nature, it is indefinable” 35. And again (he says): “We endure, but do not create deification, for it is above nature, by grace” 36. And again (he writes): “divine grace alone is capable of granting deification according to its correspondence to what exists, enlightening nature with supernatural light and elevating it above its inherent laws, according to the superiority of glory” 37. Therefore, Basil the Great says: “God richly poured out the Holy Spirit on us through Jesus Christ; He poured out, but did not create; bestowed, not created; filed, but didn’t do it” 38. What has God poured out upon us, given us, and given us through Jesus Christ? The essence or grace of the Holy Spirit? Of course, God-creating grace, like the 3rd Mouth theologian John, says that it is not God, but “grace that was poured out,” 39 for through it the nature of the Spirit, being uncreated, is known and appears, without in any way revealing itself. 12. So it is obvious that this grace is uncreated. And this is so obvious that what was accomplished by her, that is, each of the creatures who received divine grace and were deified, is called beginningless, eternal, infinite, and, which is the same thing, according to her, uncreated. For again, according to the divine Maximus, “the logos of eternal goodness is communicated to those who are worthy by grace, carrying with them God, who by nature exceeds every beginning and end and communicates by grace beginninglessness and infinity to those who by nature have beginning and end” 40 . Therefore, the great Paul, no longer living a temporary life, but the divine eternal life of the Word indwelling him, became by grace beginningless and endless (Gal. 2:20); and Melchizedek, having neither the beginning of his days nor the end of his life (Gen. 14:18; Heb. 7:2-3) not by his created nature, by which he began and ended his existence, but by divine and uncreated grace, always exceeding all nature and time, coming from the eternally existing God. So, Paul was created only as long as he lived a life that came from non-existence, according to God’s determination, and when he began to live not this life, but the one that comes with the indwelling of God, then he became uncreated by grace, like Melchizedek and everyone who acquired it so that only God’s Word would live and act in him. The Great Basil also says this: “What is moved by the Holy Spirit has become an eternal, living, holy movement; with the infusion of the Spirit into him, man received the dignity of a prophet, apostle, angel, God, having previously been earth and ashes” 41. And besides: “through the Holy Spirit, participation in the grace of Christ, anointing to become a child of light, participation in eternal glory” 42. And the divine Gregory of Nyssa says: “man emerges from his nature: the mortal becomes immortal, the corruptible becomes incorruptible, the temporary becomes eternal and man becomes completely God, for having been honored to become the son of God, he will fully have in himself the dignity of the Father” 43 . Such are all godlike men, like gods by grace. But this grace is not uncreated by grace, for in that case it would be the grace of grace, which in turn would be the gift of another, and thus the generation would not cease ad infinitum. Grace, therefore, is truly uncreated. For if you allow the superstitious to go crazy, saying that this grace is a natural image, and taking into account that from this too numerous and terrible heresies arise and that, again according to the divine Maxim, “nothing that happens by nature produces deification” and “that deification in no case is the crown of natural possibility” 44, then you therefore preserve the good tradition of the fathers that divine grace is uncreated, as the action of God’s nature and, according to Saint Isaac, “the glory of His nature” 45. And when someone says that only God is uncreated, he also includes all His natural energies. What else needs to be looked for and shared? But this vain-wise man, initiated into the abysses of Satan and wickedly imagining that divine actions are created, slyly proclaims that there is only one uncreated Deity - only one divine nature, which would be acceptable to those who do not know the Scriptures well. He proves that divine actions are created, and especially the deifying grace of the Holy Spirit, wickedly separating it from the super-essential Nature. 13. So, having noticed his cunning, we did not agree with his arguments, but rather preferred not to say anything until an exact investigation, but invited him for an interview so that his pious way of thinking would become clear. But he was scared and, believe me, he didn’t even dare to mutter anything in the presence of many. And if now he slanderes ourselves on this matter, then he thereby brings us joy and a great reward in heaven. That is why we say to the One who promised us this: “Do not impute this sin to him,” although we suffer from those who harm us. Almost everyone here will testify that this is so. And so, after our journey to the Holy Mountain, where we compiled a Tomos in seven chapters, rejecting what he wrote against the Orthodox, signed by the Most Reverend Protos, the abbots, the elected elders and the Most Reverend Bishop of Jeris, when everyone agreed with us and declared that they would not accept into communion anyone who disagreed with us, no matter who he was 46; after all this we had to immediately go to the city of Constantine. But, firstly, we thought that the God of our fathers would raise up those there who would speak in their defense; then I said to myself: let’s give this unfortunate man time to breathe a little in his empty hopes, so as not to become a suicide. And indeed, when he was here in person and speaking, I heard how several times he was in danger of bursting from impotence and anger. When I, taking pity on him, told him that there was nothing else that would force us to sharply argue with him, except that he accuses the monks of heresy and that if he renounces this, as well as his writings on this matter, and says that he no longer professes beliefs contrary to them, then the dispute will cease, for we care little about him. That's what I told him. He agreed and promised to do it. When the Great Manager 47 was deliberately present with us, Varlaam began to assert that he had changed his writings against the monks and that, first of all, he would soon show me the changes made, and if it seemed to me that they needed any further alterations, so as not to offend anyone, he would obey and redo them. For then he was not yet frank and did not rage against me. But he promised this, but he wrote what you see, and instead, he completely attacked me personally. We have this scripture with us and interrogate it, as if we were captured foreigners. But I do not have enough time to tell what happened in the meantime, and how he did not manage to escape from my hands. And now he has clearly shown in practice that the person who directly enters into a dispute and finally breaks these evil scriptures will show him great mercy. For this person will not receive peace, being subjected to their attacks and foreseeing that some have bad intentions against him. 14. Delay me, therefore, his evil writings and their author, because he will run away when he learns that I am coming. And I will come, God willing, with our most powerful and holy autocrat, to crush this man in words and heal him. Most of all, however, I now have to wonder how he deceived us when, caught in a written or expressed innovation, he raised a charge of bitheism against us. You know well that from the very beginning, before meeting us and until the end, he says exactly this: “if you claim that someone, now or in the past, sees God in the light, and God is invisible, then it means that there are two Gods and Deities - visible and invisible, descending and superior.” It seems to him that then we will speak correctly when we say that the light that shone upon the apostles on Tabor, and illumination and grace similar to it, is either a created ghost, visible through the air, or a creation of the imagination, inferior in relation to thought and harmful to every rational soul, as originating from the imagination and feelings; in a word, a symbol - about which it cannot be said that it belongs to things that exist or are contemplated around something - which sometimes appears ghostly, but never exists, because it has absolutely no existence. But that's not how we were taught. This is what we say: if someone shows that we are introducing any innovation with our writings, or that we are writing and thinking something alien to what the fathers said and knew, then we will accept him as a corrector of our involuntary errors and treat him with all possible joy. And if someone wants to slander us and harm us, even if we agree with the saints, then we agree to endure this too, just so that we can be in communion with the saints, receiving blessing and bliss in God. But we do not agree to stop speaking against the one who accuses them. For know that a battle has been raised against the saints and accusations of bitheism have been raised, for the vain-wise thinks to draw such a conclusion from what the saints said. And wanting to mislead his listeners, he finds a pretext for his words either in an anonymous writer, or in one of us, or in one of the ancient heretics. So, let no one, out of fear, avoid an imaginary accusation, for he himself will be punished by erasing himself from the consent and divine face of the saints and will punish the one whom he foolishly convinces to leave this face and darken the wondrous consent, inspiring him with considerable insolence. Source: Orthodox thought Vol. 10 (Paris: Imka-press, 1955) Ps. Bas. Hom. "proVtouVsukojantountaVhmaV,otitreiVqeouVlegomen" (PG 30, 1488–1496). Wed. DeSp. S.: 18 (PG 32, 149). Vita St. Greg. Th. (PG. 35, 277BC). Acta Maximi (PG. 90, 172). "Scholia in Div. Nom.”, 13, 2 (PG 4, 409 B); cp. De car. 1, 100 (PG 90, 984A). Homilia 74, in Iohan. 1, – РG 59, 401). See, for example, the Letter to Nikander (РG 91, 96В-97B), also available in passages in the Dogmatic Panoplia of Euthymius IIIgavinus (РГ 130, 1113СD), from which Palamas often draws patristic quotations. Wed. Opusl. theol. et pol. (PG 91, 200C; 205AC); Disp. cum Pyrrho, (340D). This text is taken from the patristic collection (Paris, gr. 970, fol. 316 r-v), which St. Gregory undoubtedly used the cat when compiling his writings. it is attributed to St. Afanasy. In fact, the text belongs to a later era of Christological controversy. St. Cyril Alex. Thesaurus, 18 (PG 75, 812C). Quote the work of Varlaam against the hesychasts, which has not reached us. One can assume that under the opinions of the holy fathers, at least St. Maximus the Confessor “Opuscula theolog. et polemica" (РG 91, 200ВС), where a similar thought is expressed. See Pseudo-Dion."Div. Nom." 4, 23 (PG 3, 733). Schol. in "Div. Nom." (PG 4, 221 C). In Johan. Homil. 14, 1 (РG 49, 91–92). Orat. 38, 11 (PG 36, 324 A). Text attributed to St. Basil in the above-mentioned collection (Paris. gr. 970, fol. 325 v). By "denunciations" is meant the "Triads in Defense of the Hesychasts", compiled by Palamas between 1337 and 1340. And in the “words of suggestion and exhortation” one must see letters sent to St. Gregory Varlaam through Akindinus in 1336–1337. See partial publication by their prof. G. Papamihail in the journal “Ekklesiasticos Pharos”, XII-XIII 1913–1914. That is, Palamas’s accusation is that he teaches about two Deities, “superior” and “descending.” St. Basil the Great, Adv. Eunom. 2, 1 (PG 29, 656 A; 657 C), St. Cyril of Alexandria, - see, for example, “De Adoratione in Sp. et ver." (PG 68, 148 A); De Trin., dial., 6 (PG 75, 1009). Text taken by St. Gregory from the same passage, attributed to the patristic collection of Athanasius the Great, but dating to a later era (see note 8). De Divin. nomin. 5, 1 (РGr 3, 816 V). Ibid., 1, 1 (585 V – 588 A). Ibid., 9, 6 (953 D – 956 A). De divin. nomin.12, 3 (972 A). Ibid., 11, 6 (953 D – 956 A). De divin. nomin. 11, 6 (956 A). Oratio 41, 3 (PG 36, 43l C). This means Isa. 40 2. Wed. No. Div. 5, 2 (816). Ad Thalass. (PG 90, 637 D). Ibid. (324 A). Wed. Capit. quinquies centenorum I, 75 (1209 C). Ibid. (321A). Cf. 644 D. Cp. Capit. quinqu. centen. I, 76 (1212 AB). Adv. Eunom. 5 (PG 29, 772 D), St. Doesn't belong to Vasily. Ab Tit. Hom. 6, 5 (РG 62, 696). Capit. quinqu. centen. IV, 54 (PG 90, 1329), V, 13 (1353 V); Ad Thalass. 61, shol. (645 A, 645 V, C). Adv. Eunom. 5 (PG 29, 769 V), St. Was attributed to Vasily by mistake. De Spiritu Sancto, 15 (PG 32, 132 V). "De beatitudinibus", Oratio VII (PG 44, 1280 C). Word 72, ed. Nikephoros Theotoki, Leipzig, 1770, p. 415; reprinted by Spezieri, Athens, 1895, p. 281. Here we mean the “Svyatogorsk Tomos” (РG 101, 1225–1236). You might be interested in: