Interview of Orthodox Theophan with Theotimos, who returned from the Barlaamites, or About divinity and what is involved in it and what is not involved

Treatise of St. Gregory Palamas’s “Interview of the Orthodox Theophan with Theotim, who returned from the Barlaamites, or On divinity and what is involved in it and what is not” (33 chapters, 1342) continues the plot with “The Orthodox Interview with the Barlaamite, refuting in detail the Barlaamite error.” In this dialogue, Orthodox Theophan instructs Theotimus, who, having once been carried away by Barlaamite ideas, is now sincerely seeking the truth and returning to the fold of Orthodoxy. The central theme of the work is the Orthodox teaching on the distinction between the incomprehensible Divine essence and the knowable, but not created Divine energies. Saint Gregory explains that it is through these uncreated energies that a person can commune with God, contemplate the uncreated Tabor light and achieve deification, while remaining outside direct access to His unparticipated essence. The work covers questions about the nature of Divine grace, the authenticity of mystical experience, the significance of mental activity (mental prayer) as a path to real communication with God, as well as how a person can be a “participant of the Divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4) without essentially merging with God. *Title of the work in Greek – Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ὀρθοδόξου Θεοφάνους διάλεξις πρὸς τὸν ἀπὸ βαρλααμιτῶν ἐπιστρέψαντα Θεότιμον. Θεοφάνης, ἢ περὶ θεότητος καὶ τοῦ κατ᾿ αὐτὴν ἀμεθέκτου τε καὶ μεθεκτοῦ. 1. THEOPHANES: When you came to your senses, brother Theotim, did you consider what was said recently 1, or did you ignore it as some kind of unnecessary idle talk, and, allowing it to gradually evaporate, completely excluded it from the thoughts of your soul? THEOTIMUS: Well, what are you saying, dear Theophanes? It seems to you that I will so easily throw out of my memory this conversation, beautiful and which served as a source for me of even more beautiful things, through which I got rid of such a great error, an error that this Italian Varlaam gave birth to, and from which, having been condemned to exile, he died, and who joined [among its defenders], I don’t know how, Akindinus, became truly dangerous ( κύνδινος ) for himself and for the deceivers who follow him? FEOFAN: I know that you are surrounded by many things, and I also know about the commotion that recently befell everyone, because of which, I think, your friends more than ever felt the need for your resourcefulness. That's why I asked you like this. THEOTIMUS: But I, understand this well, above any occupation I made it a point to think about such [subjects], so that from constant study it was as if some imprint entered my soul, so that even when I fall asleep, I do not let [them out of my attention], and when I get up, they are immediately found [in my mind], and I, as far as possible, experience them all with my thought. And it seemed to me that I, as if standing securely on some visible [mental] elevation of the true teachings about God from everywhere, to which I was honored to be elevated with the help of your words, from there, as if from some observation point, I see, as if located somewhere below, a deep abyss and a hidden chasm, full of darkness, that is, outright lies, the wisdom of those who, having placed their hope entirely in a lie, delight in it so much and spread error so much that they voluntarily deceive and deceive themselves. For those who openly call the god-creating gift of the Spirit a creature, by which the saints become partakers of God, or, better said, “one spirit with God” (1 Cor. 6:17), and make great efforts to convince everyone of this through arguments and evidence from Scripture, now say that we will become partakers of the very essence of God, besides the fact that we are mistaken in both at the same time, do we not sin in every part against themselves and their own words, and do they not deceive themselves? For how, according to them, will one who partakes of God’s essence be a partaker of not the uncreated, but the created? And how, again, will one who is deified by creation, in their opinion, partake of the essence of God? THEOPHAN: Theotimus, it is not surprising that their words resemble the passion of the soul that gives birth to them, since they came to this idle talk. For envy (φθόνος) usually causes consumption in those who envy (φθισιν), and the words of these [people] contradict those who speak 2, revealing in those who pronounce them not some idiots (ήμιμοχθήρους), but complete scoundrels ( παμπονήρους): after all, an absolutely bad [person] is not good even for himself. But these are among those who destroy themselves, and you, if you have not completely gotten rid of perplexities, fearlessly ask whatever you want. For I, be absolutely sure of this, am very glad to talk with those who are inquisitive not for the sake of argument, but for the sake of truth. 2. THEOTIMUS: First of all, tell me this, Theophan: who started this dispute, as a result of which Barlaam, having been defeated, condemned himself out of shame to eternal exile? After all, he claimed to have writings, from which he showed, having chosen, verbose sayings, because of which it was confirmed that he was damaged in soul - not because he himself suffered any damage, but because in relation to what was written, he accepted assumptions that were not good, but rather even very bad, for he assumed that they contained an evil teaching, refuting which he wrote the Antirritical Words. Therefore, you cannot say that it was he who started the controversy. THEOPHANES: One of the ancient Caesars said well that it is not proper to expose both ears to the one accusing, but one must keep one ear clean for the one who will justify himself, so as not to agree with anything or decide anything before you have heard both of them 3 . For Varlaam said the same thing almost verbatim at Council 4, and among his words a significant part was: “I was traumatized and suffered in soul.” This means that from the scriptures that you mentioned. Here we need a few words, for we have an irrefutable objection from the works [themselves]. After all, we have shown, by opening, his writings, much earlier than ours, also related to the subject of the present discussion, to which ours were opposed. Leaving Thessalonica, he destroyed them, because he thought that by showing what he had written a year later in response to the denials from our side, it would now be easier for him to convince those who did not know [all the circumstances of the case] that he did not start [the first dispute]. But, however, in this way he only seemed more likely to be insidious and deceitful, since when they began to investigate the very beginning [of the dispute], there were also Thessalonian men who knew [all this]. And thus it was shown that even four years earlier, when he did not even know where in the world we were, and did not even communicate with us in writing, he - so much time [before meeting us] - feigning obedience to one of the simple [ascetic] monastics, took from here a reason for accusations, as the Cathedral Tomos clearly shows to everyone who wants to [understand]. And besides what has been said: who starts the business? Wasn't he the accuser, the plaintiff, which he obviously was? Didn’t we arrive seven months later, having been summoned by the patriarchal letters? How then is it not clearer than clear that we are not the ones who initiated the dispute with him? However, whether he started the argument or we, but the one who speaks wickedly is more worthy of censure (or even disgust) than the one who simply started it. 3. THEOTIMUS: Well you say. This, indeed, would be both more important and more difficult to find out. But I no longer have any doubts, for I have learned with certainty how great the slander of this husband is. Since it is extensive and ramified and is still extremely strengthened by its successors, I ask for some research, as brief as possible, not for comprehension, but for its clarification and exposure. And, I beg you, do not cease, as far as possible, to lead [me] in such a way, so that, walking along it on all sides, protected as if by a weapon by the truth, 5 we see how their empty speculations fall, speaking psalmically, “from the country... and to the right hand” (Ps. 90:7), without even approaching us. FEOFAN: This is not a trifling request, my kind [friend], and I am neither capable enough to understand such things, nor so skilled as to express them. However, for your sake, since love encourages you to take on what is beyond your strength, hoping to have the God of love as your assistant, I will try to lay out in detail a certain rule of dogma, by means of which it will be possible to distinguish between what is said well and what is said poorly. Which rule will also seem to you such that, by applying to it everything you want - not only from what has recently arisen, but almost from centuries past - you will recognize the truth in all [questions]. This will be no small sign, or even proof, of the truth we preach and the error widespread among those who prefer to object to us. For if it is shown that the words of both the ancient heretics and those who now contradict us are equally in no way correlated with this canon, but that both the pious words of the fathers from time immemorial and those recently spoken by us correspond, then won’t it be obvious which side to attribute both [teachings] to? After all, statements that are identical to one and the same thing will necessarily be identical to each other; and what is different from any of them will be different from the other. And it is not surprising if what is said will continue in every way my other words, as if I had now decided to briefly show the underlying root and cause of all good and bad teachings about God. THEOTIMUS: What a welcome offer! So don’t hesitate, because those who are eager to learn something don’t like lengthy introductions! 4. FEOFAN: I’m already saying. Do you notice that things related to theology are sometimes self-evident, and sometimes they invite the mind of the learner to consider and investigate? THEOTIMUS: Is it the same thing - both reliable and not? I don't understand what you're saying. FEOFAN: Let me explain what I am saying. THEOTIMUS: Explain, and then I will agree with what seems true. THEOPHANES: Moses said, having learned from God: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord your God is one Lord” (Deut. 6:4). Isn't this self-evident? THEOTIMUS: Yes, if you call self-evident what we believe without evidence. Therefore, Moses, having commanded to listen, then did not add anything more about this. FEOFAN: And he did well. For just as feeling in those things that are subject to feeling does not need logical proof, so faith does not need proof of such things. Therefore, only unbelievers could anyone make a long speech about this. But the same Moses, having learned this from God, says that “the Lord rained fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, and a bogey from the Lord from heaven” (Gen. 19:24). And the Lord, who appeared at the same time to Lot in Sodom, appeared in two persons (Gen. 19:1). Do we accept this in the same way by faith? THEOTIMUS: Why not? What then? THEOPHAN: We believe both that the Lord is one and that there is not one. Is it not, then, that faith itself forces us and in every possible way commands us to consider [this] and give an answer (especially if someone mocks it) about how He is one and how He is not one, so that we do not turn out to be absurd and do not teach and speak inconsistently in relation to ourselves? THEOTIMUS: Extremely so. After all, no one who is reasonable will offer the questioner, as a precursor to his question, a word about the incomprehensible: how it happens this way or that way, since he examines not the reason for the existence of each [statement], but the difference between one and the other. FEOFAN: I admire your intelligence. Indeed, in such subtleties of theology you will see almost any heresy that has arisen cunningly. But he who answers in such a way as to remain faithful to both parts [of the antinomy] no less than before is pious; and whoever uses in any case any one [position] against another is a heretic or even a complete atheist, according to the logic of each hypothesis put forward. 5. THEOTIMUS: For God’s sake, clarify what you are talking about now. FEOFAN: That's what I do. The entire host of holy fathers called God one in essence and three in hypostases, since essence is one thing, and hypostasis is another, so that each of them means something different, although hypostases and essence are uncreated and mutually inseparable from each other, 6 thus maintaining unshakable faith in both the Trinity and the unity of command. And Sabellius, having thus accused those who taught of tritheism and himself merged the three [Persons] into one, abolished the trinity of the Divinity for the sake of unity, and collected words from the Holy Scriptures about the Unity, such as: “I am God the first, I am both to this day and forever, saith the Lord” (Is. 41:4), and as was said by the Lord Himself in the Gospels, that “I and the Father are one” ( John 10:30), and the like, offered as evidence and refutation of the trinity of hypostases. Isn’t that what Sabellius and others like him do? THEOTIMUS: We all know that this is so. FEOFAN: I brought this up for the sake of clarity, because it is obvious to everyone. But you, by applying such words of his to the rule of faith, which calls one and the same God both one and three, will show it to the unfaithful and slanderous, as abolishing the trinity of the one God, and you will proclaim those whom he calls polytheists for this reason to be pious and faithful. Arius, who himself called those who spoke of three uncreated things polytheists, argued that there is one uncreated one - the Father, reducing other hypostases to the level of creation. And having collected evidence from the Holy Scriptures that establishes the difference between the hypostases, such as: “My Father is sick of Me” (John 14:28), and “I have heard this from My Father, these things I say” (John 15:15), and others similar to these, emphasizing and showing the one Source of divinity, he used them against those who piously worship the Holy Trinity. But you, by applying the Arian words to the same rule of faith, which calls the same God one and three, will rather show him himself to be truly a polytheist, calling the One and the same God created and uncreated, which properties cannot converge in one nature. 6. THEOTIMUS: Indeed, an excellent canon! After all, he not only shows, but also, as it were, cuts off and throws away the distortions. Is it possible, with the help of such a canon, to expose those who are mistaken regarding the Master’s economy? THEOTIMUS: So, what is this canon? THEOPHANES: Such that we believe in one Lord Jesus Christ 7, that is, in the one Son of God incarnate or, in other words, complex (διπλούν). Therefore, if Nestorius says that one is [born] from God and another from the Virgin Mother, and Eutyches, on the contrary, that Christ has one nature, then you apply their words to the rule of faith, which calls the same Christ one complex God-man. And immediately Eutyches will be exposed as denying complexity by using unity against him; and Nestorius - that, rejecting the unity of the hypostasis, he tries to abolish the unity of the Person by the duality of natures. 7. THEOTIMUS: Will you be able to refute the teachings of Barlaam and those who are in danger of joining him in the same way? THEOTIMUS: Then explain this to us better in words. FEOFAN: Of course, I’ll explain. Just as I composed the first rule for you from the words of Moses, so I derived it from the fatherly [sayings]. For they are all one, according to the Master’s prayer (John 17:11), and although it would be possible to prepare this rule from [the words of] one of them, many are required for those who are especially stubborn. THEOTIMUS: Name, for God’s sake, Theophanes, in relation to each of the [sayings] you cited and who said it, and where in his works he said it, so that it would be possible for those who wish to read any [of them] in their own books. 8. FEOFAN: I will do this: especially in relation to what is most necessary for the present subject of research. So, Basil the Great, interpreting the forty-fourth psalm of David, says that “the beauty of the truly Mighty is His intelligible and contemplated divinity” 8. And Gregory the Theologian, inclining people to accept divine baptism, calls “the divinity shown on the mountain to the disciples, which is stronger than weak eyesight,” as “light.” And also in a letter to Clidonius he says: “He will come, as my word showed, such as he was seen by the disciples or as he appeared when divinity conquered the flesh” 10. And Macarius the Great, revealing, as far as possible, spiritual contemplation and clarifying about the light of revelation, says: “since every thought, due to the imagination of certain sensual [objects], enters the heart, then [only] the blessed light of the Divine enlightens it when it is completely freed from all of them and becomes pure from any image of them, if only this lightness really appears to the pure mind after the cessation of all thoughts” 11. And the divine Mitrofan, who combined the words with the melody: “Who is essentially the invisible and omnipotent Word, was seen by man, calling man to the communion of Your deity” 12. And Gregory of Nyssa, refuting the [fabrications] of the Doukhobors, says that “the name “divinity” expresses not the nature of the Spirit, but visual power. For if anything is said about it, it means something from what is around it, and the divine nature itself remains inexpressible and ineffable, surpassing any meaning [expressed] through speech” 13. And he also, in a letter to Aulavius, says that “[the word] “God” indicates the Acting One, and “divinity” indicates energy, so that none of the three [Persons] is energy, but rather each of Them is active” 14 . And the great Athanasius, in his essay against Macedonius, says: “The fact that He is God is secondary in relation to nature; after all, we also become gods, but we cannot become of the same nature [as He]” 15. And then the great Basil writes to the doctor Eustathius: “I don’t know how everyone who comes up with it relates the name “divinity” to an indication of nature. After all, this name carries an indication of a certain force (έξουσία) - be it visual or active. And the divine nature remains in all conceivable names inexpressible in the sense of what it is, as our word showed, since thanks to them we learned the differences between energies, and we could no more know the nature of the Acting through the understanding of energies. After all, when someone explains the meaning of each of these names and the very nature of these names, then it is not the same meaning that is given to both. And those who have different meanings have different natures. Therefore, something else is the essence for which no word has yet been found to express it, and another is the meaning of the names [acquired] with it, named from a certain energy or dignity. So, the fact that in energies there is no difference of persons, we discover from the commonality of names; and we do not find any obvious evidence of changes in nature, as has already been said, for the identity of energies also indicates the community of nature” 16 . And the great Dionysius, chanting the divine and being the connecting principle of the world (θείαν και άρχισυνάγωγον ειρήνην), says: “We call divinity in itself, in the categories of the original, divine and causal, one super-initial and super-essential Beginning and Cause; and meaning what is participated - the providential power given from the non-participating God, deification in itself, of which, by partaking in their own way, beings are and are called deified (ένθεα)" 17. And revealing the divine name “Existence,” he says: “[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 the secret [spheres] (Ps. 17:12; Ps. 80:8), but glorifies the revealed beneficial Providence as primarily goodness and the cause of all good things” 18. And in a letter to Gaius, he says: “If by divinity you understand a god-creating and beneficent gift, then in relation to the thus defined divinity, as the superiority and goodness of God, the One who is superordinate in relation to every principle will be transcended” 19 . But then, again theologically speaking about the Existent, he, since he spoke about a divinity that surpasses the divinity that serves as the cause of all good things, so that it would not seem to the listeners that he himself considers this cause to be a self-hypostatic, and not a providential force and a manifestation of a super-essentiality [residing] in the secrecy, and that in this way he is saying that these [divinities] are essences, more than one in number, he says: “I am not talking about many reasons and many divinities, higher and lower, but about all the good manifestations of the one God” 20. And again, the great Basil, in his letter to Eustathius, “do not accept too much,” he says, “those who use the name “divinity” in relation to God’s nature. However, even if someone calls the nature of God divinity, the Three have one nature; even if anyone calls energy divinity, the three Persons have one energy” 21 . And also Gregory, the great Theologian, says: “be illuminated by the one Light in the sense of essence and, therefore, divinity” 22. And in the second Word about the Son: “the names “I am” and “God” will rather be, in a certain way, names of essence, and of these, “He who is” will be more likely. For the name “God” (Φεός), although derived from [the verb] “to run” (θέειν) or “to burn” (αίθειν), is one of those [words] that is spoken in relation to something 23, and not to detached ones” 24. And the great Maxim: “There is one God, because there is one divinity, a Unit without beginning, simple, super-essential, indivisible and inseparable” 25, invisible and incomprehensible to the mind. And Sophrony, who adorned the Jerusalem patriarchal throne: “Just as we have learned to think of one God, so we have accepted [from the fathers] to confess one divinity” 26. So, don’t we learn from the fathers that the “divinity” of God Himself is sometimes called the essence, and sometimes not only this? However, the difference here is not in relation to uncreatedness. For who of those who wish to philosophize piously would call the beneficial providence that serves as the cause of all good things as created, under the pretext that the theologian from the Areopagus Dionysius said that his word refers to him, and not to an absolutely inexpressible and divine super-essence; or divine power, since the name “divinity” carries within itself, according to the great Basil, an indication of it, and not of the essence of God; or the deifying power of the Spirit, since the nature of the Spirit surpasses it in its ineffability and supername (ύπερώνυμον), as the divine Primate Gregory of Nyssa theologically expressed it? So, are we not learning that the divinity of the one God is one, but that it is not only an essence? 9. THEOPHANES: Well, don’t we certainly need someone who would judge how there is one and not one, and how, despite the fact that the Holy Spirit is one, Isaiah saw “seven spirits” (Is. 11:2), resting on the perceived Lord [of humanity] (επαναπαυσάμενα τω δεσποτικώ προσλήμματι), about which Zechariah learned from the angel that they are “the seven... tows of the Lord” (Zechariah 4:10)? THEOTIMUS: We need it in the highest degree, so that we do not contradict ourselves, and not think that this happened to former fathers before us in this vital issue of pious confession. Therefore, tell me, how is the divinity of God Himself one and [at the same time] not only an essence? FEOFAN: And I also say this as is clear from the fatherly sayings themselves. For when we pronounce the name “divinity” as a name for an essence that exceeds naming, that is, one Divinity of God - simple, indivisible, inseparable, invisible, incomprehensible. And this was demonstrated by the one who said: “be illuminated by a single Light in the sense of essence and, therefore, divinity” 27. But the three Persons have one divinity, with the exception of personal distinctive features (ιδιωμάτων) in all other respects they are not at all different [From Each Other]: “for whatever you call divinity: even strength and energy, even essence - it is one in the three [Persons],” as the great Basil literally said, whose words we cited just above 28. If someone combines the totality of all this and calls it divinity, then even then the three Persons will have one divinity, that is, the essence and that which is contemplated and theologized around it, as the great Athanasius says in the sermon he composed on the occasion of the annual celebration of the divine Annunciation 29 . When we call some divine power or energy of God divinity, then there are many energies of God that have received the same name. After all, there is visual, purifying, deifying and contemplative [energy] and being everywhere and nowhere, or, in other words, ever-moving, and the light that shone on Tabor of the chosen disciples, as we undoubtedly learned a little higher from the saints. But among other things, the great Basil, in many other places of his writings, defends [this teaching], and in some places he clearly states that the Holy Spirit is “simple in essence, but diverse in powers” ​​30 ; and also that “His energies are manifold, but His essence is simple” 31. What energies is he talking about? About those that he himself mentioned there: about providence, about power, about goodness, about foreknowledge, creativity and reward, and the like, which, having in mind the theologian Gregory, having mentioned the seven spirits in Isaiah, says that “Isaiah is pleased to call the spirits of the energy of the Spirit” 32. And the God-bearing Damascene says that “even the powers of the Spirit are called spirits” 33. However, let’s get back to what we are talking about now. Since both essence, although not in the proper sense of the word, and energy - in the proper sense - are called the divinity of God, then divinity is both intelligible and incomprehensible, being one, since it is one God, “so that,” according to Gregory the Theologian, “the comprehensible may attract to Himself, and the incomprehensible may surprise” 34. “For works,” according to the great Vasily, “serve as an indication of strength, wisdom, art, and not of the essence itself; and even the very power of the creator they do not necessarily fully demonstrate” 35. So, have you received this rule of piety well done? 10. THEOTIMUS: Excellent and perfect, it seems to me. It remains for you to use him to expose this Barlaam and his disciple and heir of his slander, Akindinus. THEOPHANES: This Barlaam and after him that other, became dangerous for us and for piety, because, being jealous not only of Aria but of Sabelli the Libyan, they called the saints and all Orthodox Christians polytheists, who sometimes spoke of one - in many senses - divinity, and sometimes called not only the essence, but also the uncreated power and energy, as shown above, the divinity of the same God. And they themselves once called the uncreated divinity of God only this superessentiality, and the energies rooted in it - created (just as Arius called the only uncreated hypostasis of the Father, and the others - created); and now they call energy indistinguishable from essence (as Sabellius said that hypostasis is indistinguishable from essence), and thus, opposing the unity of divinity with differentiation and collecting statements from the Holy Scriptures about one divinity, they speak out badly against those who think Orthodoxy about both. But you, bringing their words to the rule of piety, which the divinity of the One and the same God sometimes calls one, and sometimes says that it is not only one essence, will show that they themselves are truly polytheists, as they speak ill of the created and uncreated divinity of God and teach that His essence alone is the uncreated divinity, and the visual power of “Knowing all things before being” (Dan. 13:42) and His dignity, and power, and providence are reduced to the level of a creature. After all, God for them will be in some places created, in others uncreated, and divided into opposites. They do not even want to take into account either the Son or the Holy Spirit: after all, each of them is ineffable (sic) equally with the Father. If again they say that energy is indistinguishable from essence, merging them into one, then again, according to the same rule of piety, say: “how then is the one described as intelligible, and the other as the incomprehensible divinity of the same God; ineffably visible to those worthy in the power of the Spirit and absolutely invisible to everyone; communion and non-participation? After all, it is not pious to even think of the essence of God as intelligible or shared or visible by creatures, as we showed in the last conversation. 11. But do you see how well such things, coming into conflict with each other, kindle the light of piety to the faithful, and emit the fire of condemnation against the disobedient? THEOTIMUS: Very good. For I myself learned from experience, having already acquired a clearer mind from this, in order to see the truth of piety more clearly. After all, in this way we say that we affirm the one Spirit as indivisible when we call the very essence or hypostasis Spirit; and at other times, speaking separately about the divine manifestations and energies of the one divine Spirit, we call Him many-part and learn that One is seven, and that He admits communion to Himself. You call the essence and nature of God non-participating? FEOFAN: Yes - the nameless one and the one above. THEOTIMUS: And what about the participating and intelligible power and energy, about which the great Basil said that it is comprehended from created things? FEOFAN: Exactly. Moreover, there are many differences in communion with God, as we said in the treatise “On Divine Energies and Their Communion” and in the interview preceding this. 12. THEOTIMUS: And do you call energy something other than essence, since it is different from it, but inseparable from it? THEOPHAN: Just like hypostasis from essence: for each of these concepts differs in the meaning of the name. THEOTIMUS: Maybe you consider energy to be a hypostasis? FEOFAN: Yes, it won’t. For none of these energies is hypostatic, that is, self-hypostatic, so that we can speak in the words of the great Basil. THEOTIMUS: However, you say that through this energy God also participates in communion? FEOFAN: As far as they can accommodate. THEOTIMUS: But in essence you call the same God unparticipated. THEOTIMUS: Their speeches against you are truly absurd. For how can the same one be different? How then will speaking be one and the same with immobility, and communion with non-participation, and appearance with hiddenness? After all, they are necessarily different from each other, but cannot be considered different since they are uncreated. THEOPHANES: If some of them are created and others uncreated, oh, honest Theotim, then they will be of different essences. THEOPHAN: Truly polytheists are those who divide them in this way. When, on the other hand, they consider the phenomenon of secrecy and immobility and constancy of appearance, and non-participation, divine communion and communion, or, which is the same thing, divine grace and energy to be absolutely identical to the Divine essence, then it is obvious that the Divinity becomes absolutely comprehensible, which is no less an evil than polytheism. However, we have already said enough about this. I think you'll say so yourself. THEOTIMUS: To the highest degree, and also undoubtedly accurate and pious. 13. THEOPHAN: Having reached this point, I must clarify something else. THEOTIMUS: What is this? THEOPHANES: As the coryphaeus of the apostles says in the second of his Epistles: “that... you may be partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4)? But Maximus, wise in the divine: “For this purpose God created us, so that we might be partakers of the divine nature and partakers of His ever-present” 36. The divine primate of Nyssa, Gregory, says: “once becoming a vessel the chosen one, the divine Paul, became a church that contained an incontainable nature” 37 . THEOTIMUS: May it be good for you, Theophanes, not just for show and not only to convince the listeners of the conductor of this interview, but for accurate research and proof of the truth. For now, thanks to your reminder, I have come to the conclusion that they, citing such sayings as strong evidence, say that the essence and nature of God is involved. Since this is most important in the discussion to be discussed, then explain this as much as possible. FEOFAN: And this, like what was said above, has an equally double meaning, my friend. Listen again to the same Maximus, who says: “He who, being not in essence, participates with those who exist, but desiring in a different way to participate in those who are capable of this, does not at all leave [his inherent] innermost nature” 38 . And also: “we all become gods entirely, except for identity in essence” 39. And again: “the blessed and holy Deity is essentially super-ineffable and super-incomprehensible 40 , and infinitely greater than any infinity 41 , leaving no trace of comprehension to those who come after Him” 42 . And the great Athanasius: “by God-creating grace we both participate and are seen as worthy, but in essence he is not a participant” 43. And again his: “that He is God is secondary in relation to nature; after all, we also become gods, but we cannot become of the same nature [as He]” 44. And again: “it is obvious that the saints did not see the essence of God, but the glory” 45, as it is written about the apostles: “And Peter, and those with him, saw His glory” (Luke 9:32). And the great Basil: “His energies descend to us, but His essence remains unapproachable” 46. And again: “we say that we know our God from energies, but we do not claim that we are approaching Him in essence” 47. And Father Chrysostom: “Scripture sometimes calls the grace of the Spirit water, and sometimes fire, showing that these are names not of essence, but of energy” 48. And again: “For God does not give the Spirit by measure” (John 3:34) - that is, by this Christ’s Forerunner and Baptist wants to show that we all receive the energy of the Spirit by measure - for here he calls energy Spirit, since it is divisible. - This, that is, Christ, has all energy immeasurable and indivisible. If His energy is immeasurable, then even more so is His essence” 49 . You see that both the one and the other have been taught to us by venerable theologians - and that the essence of God is not participatory and is in some way participatory μεθεκτη πως), and that we partake of the divine nature and in no way partake of it? So, it is fitting for us to hold both [statements] and consider this a rule of piety, and those who use one against the other and consider them [i.e. e., energy and essence] identical to each other, should be rejected as evil and insane, who do not agree with anyone on anything and contradict themselves and each other; It is appropriate for saints to think [teachers] equally about such [subjects], understanding that this teaching about the contradiction [of saints to each other] is a sign of people who are truly ignorant, while for someone who has intelligence and, in addition to intelligence, looks at God, all [the father’s sayings] are coherent and agree [with each other]. 14. THEOTIMUS: So, how, O wise Theophanes, are both of these [statements] true in relation to truth? FEOFAN: For your sake, I will explain this too. But first, let us show how completely insane those who cite those apostolic and patristic sayings are acting, which say that we partake of the nature of God, not only because this [leads] to the denial that the divine nature and essence is for all creatures non-participating and non-participating, as it is proclaimed throughout the entire inspired Scripture, but also because the way they, taking advantage of those [sayings], behaved, refutes this teaching of theirs. After all, you know more accurately than others what they teach. So, tell me for the sake of truth, don’t they all say about everything that it partakes of God, while everything that partakes of God partakes of the essence of God, since God is nothing other than mere essence, so that He would not be complex among them, and so that there would not be many uncreated? THEOTIMUS: That’s exactly what they think and say. 15. THEOPHANES: But the sayings that our opponents cite as supposedly confirming their point of view say that not only everything is different in general, but not even all people belong to the fellowship of the Divine Essence, and even those [who are worthy of this] will become [such] sometime later, and are not initially [its] fellowshippers. For Peter, the luminaries of the main choir of the apostles, when he writes “to those who have received as their inheritance a faith that is equal to [him]” (2 Pet. 1:1), calls for piety and virtue, saying: “whose honor was given to me, that for these sakes you may be partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4). Do you see that the gift is a promise to those who live according to Christ? Who promises anyone what [already] belongs to everyone from birth? The Divine Maximus says: “For this purpose God created us, so that we might become partakers of the divine nature,” 50 as if we were not previously such, and were not created from birth as partakers of it. The divine Paul, wasn’t it when he became not only faithful to Christ, but also an “imitator” (1 Cor. 11:1) of Him, that he became the abode of infinite nature? So, where are those who say that all beings partake of it, since everything partakes of God? THEOTIMUS: Damn them! After all, being like children in mind, youths in rebellion and arrogance, they seem to be infants in reason, and not in malice. I believe that I have now understood from what has been said in what sense it is said that God in essence is both a participant and a non-participant. 16. THEOPHAN: Then tell me what you managed to understand. THEOTIMUS: Since only the saints are given to be partakers of the divine nature: for others, we say, the essence and nature of God does not participate, but for those who have pleased Him, it participates, especially in that future lot. And this same thing follows from what was said by Gregory, nicknamed from theology: “God will be all things in all” (1 Cor. 15:28) during the restoration (έν καιρώ της αποκαταστάσεως) 51, when we will no longer be many as we are now, because spiritual movements and passions, carrying absolutely nothing of God in ourselves or carrying very little, but we will be completely God-like, containing all of God and only Him; for this is the perfection to which we diligently strive” 52. So, do you think I understood it well, Feofan, and do you think so, and will you confirm, if the issue needs to be resolved by voting, that this is not otherwise? FEOFAN: Away with [such an assumption]. For the Messalians, who thought precisely that they, having purified themselves, accept the hypostasis of the All-Holy Spirit and ascend to that [divine] nature, were decisively and publicly rejected by the divine fathers, saying that there is a certain indwelling of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in those who have been properly purified, and [They] dwell in such according to the Gospel promise (John 14:23), and not as divinity appears by nature. But don’t let that theological opinion that the saints contain all of God again disturb your mind. Remember those words that we said recently, showing that in no way does it violate the non-participation of the essence that it is said that the whole of God participates and is mentally comprehended by each of the energies, for the incorporeal is not divided into a corporeal image. Therefore, through one hypostasis He is completely and invariably united with all of me. Thus, those who have become a receptacle for divine and idolizing energy become a receptacle for all of God. When, having immaculately surpassed [their] nature, they restrain all activity of the soul and body, as having acquired only divine energy, then they become the container of all of God and only Him. For such is the perfection to which we strive, putting aside, in the words of the apostles: “the will of the flesh and the mind” (Eph. 2:3). After all, Maximus, the best interpreter of these words, says: “all Divine energy indivisibly reveals through itself the whole of God” 53 . And that even for the saints the essence of God is not participatory, Maxim himself testified to us in the words quoted above, saying that God “does not at all emerge from [the inherent hiddenness of Him] in essence” 54 . And one more thing: “we all completely become gods except for identity in essence” 55. And the great Athanasius: “by God-creating grace we both participate and are seen as worthy, but in essence he is not a participant” 56 . And one more thing: “after all, we also become gods, but we cannot become of the same nature [as He]” 57. And Father Chrysostom, having heard from the Baptist that “the Spirit is not given by measure” (John 3:34), says that he “wants to show that we all receive the energy of the Spirit by measure - for here he calls energy Spirit, since it is divisible” 58, while the essence is indivisible. So he does not allow even those who partake of the Spirit to be considered partakers of the essence of the Spirit. And besides the divine teachings of these godly [men], the fact that the saints should be partakers of the essence of God does not agree with the rule of piety we presented just above; after all, it establishes that the essence is simply involved and not involved, and not that it is involved in some and not in others. 17. THEOTIMUS: So, if this distinction is not allowed in parts - and after all [it is] indivisible - and not so that it applies to some and does not apply to others, then how can each of these [statements be] true? THEOPHANES: Listen and understand: divine superessence is impossible to express, nor to think 59, nor to contemplate in any way, due to the fact that it is transcendental in relation to everything and super-unknowable, and with boundless power stands above [themselves] the most heavenly minds and is absolutely incomprehensible and inexpressible for all ages. For there is no name for it, in the present age or in the future named, nor a word composed in the soul or spoken with the tongue, nor any touch, sensual or mental, nor any representation at all - unless someone deduces from the negations its complete incomprehensibility, since it is to the highest degree removed from everything that exists or is generally [any] called. And now it is impossible to name anyone who would rightfully name the very essence or nature, no matter how much he may be an expert on the truth above all truth. Since, on the other hand, [essence] is the cause of everything, everything around it and for its sake, and it itself, first of all, and contains everything in itself simply and indefinitely, then it should be named after all [its manifestations] approximately, but not in the proper sense of the word. Consequently, it is not the essence or nature itself that should be named, but precisely the essential procession of God (ούσιοποιόν του θεού πρόοδον) and energy. Since she too is called essentially (ούσιωνυμείται), and it is she, then listen to the great Dionysius, who said: “It is appropriate to move on to the truly existing theological naming of the essence of the truly Existing. Let us recall that the goal is not to express in words the super-essential essence as super-essential, for it is ineffable and incognizable, and completely inexpressible, and above unity itself, but [is to] glorify the essential-creative appearance of the God-originating essence of the essence (θεαρχικής) to all beings ούσιαρχίας )" 60. Do you see that he calls the truly existing name of the essence divine manifestation? However, in this way he also names here what is absolutely hidden, not original and not manifest [what we call essence]. You can similarly find the name of nature applied to what is inherent in [God] by nature, as the most theologian of Gregory says somewhere in the Poems: “for such is the nature of my King - to bring happiness” 61. After all, giving is not the nature of anyone, but it is inherent in the nature of the benefactor. And about fire, someone would say that its nature is to rush upward and shed light on those who look, but movement is not its nature, nor is it simply to produce [light], but [its nature is] the beginning of movement. Therefore, natural properties are also called nature, as the great Dionysius himself says in another place: “the nature of the Good [is] to produce and preserve” 62, that is, it is inherent in Him by nature. So, when you hear the fathers saying that the nature of God is not participatory, then think of it as unoriginating and unmanifested. When, on the other hand, [they call her] a participant, then think about the nature of the appearance, appearance and energy inherent in God. And thus, agreeing with both, remain in agreement with the fathers. But even by naming this divine nature itself, although not in itself, but through this energy participating, you will remain within the limits of piety ( αύτήν, εί και μη καθ´ εαύτήν, την θείαν φύσιν λέγων μεθεκτήν εν τοις οροις μενείς της εύσεβείας ...), for in this way the non-participation and non-manifestation of this non-original nature is preserved. You can even see external philosophers calling essence not only nature, but also the natural and essential properties of each [being], for they define all this, distinguishing it from essence. We, by applying hiddenness and non-revelation to the consideration of the non-participated, will explain, as far as possible to us, the height of the divine nature. 18. So, answer my question, my good Theotimus, doesn’t even the smallest part of the essence possess all its powers? THEOTIMUS: I think everyone will agree with you on this, knowing from [their] feeling that [for example] a spark, being the smallest [particle] of fire, is radiant and luminous, helping to distinguish [objects with its light] and burning those approaching, self-propelled by nature and rushing upward, and, generally speaking, everything is the same as fire, of which it is a particle; and the drop is all the same as the water, of which it is a drop; and the ingot is the same as the metal of which it remains a piece. THEOPHANES: Therefore, if we partake of the essence of God, then whoever partakes of all of it or [a certain] part, he would become omnipotent; and thus each of the existing ones would become omnipotent, which we do not have together, even if you, generalizing, talk about all creation. Explaining this in detail, Paul testifies to those who have been worthy of the adoring gifts of the Spirit that not all gifts are given to everyone, but “to one... the word of wisdom is given, to another... the word of understanding,... to another something different about the same Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:8-10). Father Chrysostom, clearly reflecting the error of Varlaam and Akindinus even then, says: “no one has everything without thinking that grace is nature” 63 . 19. THEOTIMUS: This is truly a clear refutation of the reproach that has now risen against piety. For the opponents of divine grace cannot convince [anyone] to consider grace here as a creature opposed to the divine nature. For who ever feared that someone would consider the nature of God to be a creature? THEOPHANES: These unfortunates, Theotim, understand this difference as separation. For not noticing that the grace of the Spirit, although different from nature, is not separated from it, but rather attracts those worthy to be united with the divine Spirit, they do not feel that they are blaspheming the very nature of the Father, Son and Spirit, speaking against its grace. They also do not hear the divinely inspired Gregory of Nyssa, who speaks against the Macedonians: “just as grace continuously moves from the Father through the Son and the Spirit, pouring out on the worthy, so blasphemy, spreading in the opposite direction, ascends from the Spirit through the Son and reaches the God of all” 64. The essence, however, has as many hypostases as it participates in; after all, no matter how many lamps you light from one, you will create as many hypostases of fire 65. 20. THEOTIMUS: Thus, it turns out, oh, wise Theophan, that if, according to our opponents, the essence of God participates - and, moreover, by everyone - then it is not trinitarian, but becomes thousand-hypostatic. FEOFAN: Exactly. Being smart, you perfectly deduced the consequence [from their provisions]. Even worse and at the same time more paradoxical is that those who contradict us, thus making the essence of God thousand-hypostatic, merge, like Sabellius, three divine hypostases into one. For in each of those who partake [of God] they bring three hypostases into one, so that each of those who teach that the essence of God is partakers becomes a thousand times a new Sabellius. It was necessary for the evil one, who could not overcome piety through one, to attack again with the help of thousands, or, more precisely, with many thousands of evil ones. But even in this way he will not gain an advantage over the truth; the madness of those who obey him will become more obvious. For, in addition to other wickedness, Akindinus - alas for his madness! - places himself above the only Christ, saying that he is united with the whole God - essence, energies and three divine hypostases. If he said that through one of the hypostases he is united with the whole God, and with the divine essence, and with all the divine energies, then [thereby] he asserts that he is no different from the only Christ. But Gregory, great in theology, refuting these crazy idle talkers in advance, said: “Christ [He is called] because of divinity, for it is the anointing of humanity [Christ], not sanctifying with energy, like other anointed ones, but by the presence of all the Anointing One” 66. They did it [i.e. That is, all the God-wise Fathers refuted the Barlaamite error, converging [in opinion] and showing, as we said just above, that the Divine dwells in those who have been purified properly, but does not dwell in the way that It is by nature. So, it is not by essence or by any hypostasis that someone becomes a partaker of God. For none of this is in any way shared or transmitted to anyone at all. Therefore, according to them, God is completely inconceivable for everyone, although he is everywhere according to them. And the divine power and energy common to the trinitarian nature is creative for that which is outside, and is divided into thousands, for the Divinity is omnipotent. That is why many are united with God through her, communing with Him in many and various ways. And part of the energy is again divided, according to Father Chrysostom 67 and according to the great Basil [who said]: “The Holy Spirit is not worthy in equal measure, but in accordance with faith distributes energy, being simple in being, but diverse in powers” ​​68. THEOTIMUS: I admire your most theological thought, oh, wonderful Theophan. It is supremely divine when it shows the super-essential essence absolutely indivisibly and indivisibly divides the divine energy of God. And the property of being acceptable (τό εύπαράδεκτον) is no less characteristic of it? Indeed, for this reason, the Holy Spirit becomes contained in energy for those blessed, although they are human by nature, because He is thus divided in energy. And being indivisible in essence and hypostasis, how can He be completely contained for anyone? 21. THEOPHANES: And the one who receives communion, O wondrous Theotim, has a part of the person receiving the communion. After all, if it partakes not of a part, but of the whole, then it would be necessary in the proper sense to speak of possession (έχειν) of this, and not of participation (μετέχειν) of this 69. Therefore, the sacrament is divisible, since the communion necessarily partakes of the part. The essence of God is absolutely indivisible, and, therefore, completely non-participatory. And the divisibility of divine energy is repeatedly shown by Father Chrysostom. This means that she is a partaker of God-creating grace. After all, Maximus, who is strong in theology, says that “to bestow, in accordance with those who exist, deification is a property of divine grace, illuminating [their] nature with a light that is above nature, and by the abundance of glory making them beyond their inherent boundaries” 70 . Listen again to the Golden One, who teaches both that it is energy, and not essence, that is participated, and that that which is inseparably divisible is also participated, and not the non-participated essence from which divine energy comes. For in addition to the apostolic words that “from His fullness we all partake” (John 1:16), [Chrysostom] says: “If in relation to fire, where the essence is divisible 71 and corporeal, we both separate and do not separate it, then all the more so when it comes to energy, and [especially] energy [emanating] from the incorporeal essence 72? In addition, the one who partakes of something in essence must necessarily have a common essence with the participant and in some way the same. Has anyone ever heard that God and we have in any sense the same [and the same] essence? And Basil the Great said about this: “His energies descend to us, but His essence remains inaccessible” 73. And the divine Maximus says: “He who is deified by grace will be all the same as God, except identity in essence” 74 . So, it is impossible to partake of the divine essence, even for those deified by divine grace, but it is possible to partake of the divine energy. “The moderate light of truth [visible] here leads me to this, in order to see and experience the lordship of God,” says Gregory the Theologian 75. And “the lordship... of our God is upon us” (Ps. 89:17), according to the prophet-psalmist. And Maximus, who is numbered among them, directly writes: “one energy of God and the saints” 76, and that they are “living icons of Christ, and even the same as He, by grace or likeness” 77. 22. THEOTIMUS: Your speculations about divine non-participation are very sound and highly consistent with the saints, Theophan. But there are also those who say that the essence of God is incomprehensible to the mind and is not participatory, and [at the same time] supernaturally in itself (καθ´ έαυτήν) is comprehended by the mind and participated, and they believe that they are thus rather pious by attributing supernaturalism to the divine. THEOPHANES: However, this is not supernatural and is not befitting God in any way, but rather against nature and generally impossible. After all, for one and the same thing to be both participatory and non-participatory, intelligible and incomprehensible, is completely irreconcilable and internally contradictory, and very far from true being due to extreme inconsistency. For according to the divine Gregory of Nyssa, everything that is said about God is such that, even if it differs in meaning, it does not contain any contradiction in relation to what is said along with it (προς τό συνονομαζόμενον) 78. He who says this, comparing it with himself and denying it, again contradicts his own words and reduces the supernatural of God to be contrary to nature and through both, abolishing the nature of each, completely denies the existence of God and counts himself among the atheists. Therefore, the namesake of theology, Gregory, says that not from what is in Him, but from the fact that around Him God is understood 79, and the great Dionysius - that “everything participates in providence flowing from the all-causal divinity” 80. The Divine Maximus says: “the mind, having become in God, first of all seeks concepts of essence, being inflamed by desire, but does not find peace, for this is equally impracticable and impossible for any created nature. [This mind] is comforted by what is around it: I mean, by the fact that it is around eternity, infinity and invisibility, around goodness, wisdom and power, creating, providing and judging beings” 81. 23. So, this incomprehensible, unnameable and incommunicable essence (χρήμα) of the divine superessence is called by the God-speaking [fathers] not only essence, although not in the proper sense of the word, as we said, but also divinity, goodness, wisdom and life, and in general everything that His divine appearances and energies are called. After all, “our word,” says [the Areopagite], “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], but glorifies the revealed beneficial Providence as primarily goodness and the cause of all goods, existence, life, wisdom, the essential and life-giving and wise cause of those who are involved in the essence, life, mind, reason and feeling” 82. Where are those who do not tolerate placing the essence of God above uncreated [energies]? After all, the great Dionysius clearly placed her above both divinity, and the cause of goods, and in general all sacraments - not as existing in themselves, but as her energies, which are participatory for us; after all, He Himself is the One Who participates in energy with everyone. 24. And about the fact that the uncreated participles, which God surpasses in essence, listen again to him, who says a little higher, as we have already said, that “the purpose of the word is not to express the super-essential essence as super-essential, for it is inexpressible, but to glorify the essential-creative appearance to the existing. After all, the divine name of the Good extends to all beings and is above all beings; and [name] of Life extends to all living things and is above the living; and [the name] of Wisdom extends to everything mental, verbal and sensory and is above all this” 83. Do you see that these sacraments are above all things? After all, it is they who are commanded to sing, and not the ineffable and unmanifest essence. But once again listen to him, who clearly theologizes that God is transcendental even in relation to these exceeding existing sacraments. For he says in the twelfth chapter of the hymn to the Divine Names: “as far as those who do not exist are superior to those who are, holy, or lordly, or divine, or royal, and then the sacraments themselves (αύτομετοχαί) [exceed] all those who partake, so much is the non-participating Cause abiding above all the sacraments that partake.” After all, since the sacraments themselves are superior to all those who partake, and the angels are also communioners, then those who are superior to the angels as partakers are not created, but the One who does not partake in essence, as you have heard, is superior to these sacraments. This is where our word is now [directed]. Since this unnameable is not only the essence, but also divinity, and goodness, and wisdom, and life, and in general everything that is called partaker, then if you suddenly hear about God that His essence is goodness, and His nature is sanctification, and that holiness is nothing other than Himself, and that divinity is not divided into parts, nor poured out, nor sent, and the like - do not think that each of the divine energies can be called an essence, but know that the supra-nominal essence can be called homonymously, [starting] from what is inherent in it by nature. 25. When you then happen to hear theologians saying that “we say that we know the goodness and wisdom of our God, but not the essence” 85 , and that “we become gods, but cannot become of the same nature [as He]” 86 , and everything similar to this, then do not understand by divinity and goodness that incomprehensible and completely unapproachable essence - for they themselves clearly prohibit this - but its Divine energy, into the knowledge and communion of which we come - each according to the measure of its purification, according to which it itself is diversely divided and multiplied according to the saving justice of the Teacher. Therefore, the divine Maxim, having said that “for this purpose God created us, so that we might be partakers of the divine nature and partakers of His ever-present,” added: “by deification from grace,” 87 since through deification communion with God is accomplished. Therefore, in another place he completely denies identity with God in essence, but proclaims [identity] in energy and grace 88. How then will not divinity and goodness, supremely simple, indivisible and existing above all naming, communion, understanding and all contact, surpass goodness and divinity that is multiplied, divided, participated, comprehended, although not clearly, and fully named? Therefore, the theologian Dionysius answered well the question of Gaius, that not only the gods by grace - for this would not be enough - but also the rulership and goodness and divinity itself, that is, the deifying gift and grace, is superior to God, Who is superordinate in relation to every principle 89. If, also according to him, God is the cause not only of those who partake, but also of the sacraments, then how can He, as the cause, not be greater than what is caused? 26. If it is appropriate through us, as through an unclear image (δί άμυδράς εικόνος) of God, to give a clearer example of what has been said, then is not the wisdom of the mind the mind? Is it not according to it that he is divided into parts and diversified, poured out and made wise, being united and participating in various ways, manifesting himself in the rational and the unreasonable? For by likening some to himself, so that they, in energy, have the same mind as he, and others, from among the sensual and dumb, although not bringing from non-existence - after all, he is not God by nature - but transforming them and worthy of [all] possible care, [although] not at all likening [them to himself] - because they are not capable of thinking - he is, in essence, not passing on to another hypostasis, indivisible, simple and not mixed with those who partake [of it]. Our mind is neither nameless, nor supernameable, nor incomprehensible to everyone - although we are created in the image of God - since the image is not completely indistinguishable. And the indistinguishable image of the Father, the Only Begotten Son of God, as well as the Spirit of God, is everything that the Father is, and, therefore, indistinguishably has the same energies, and not Himself, as these wise men say, is such energy, but He Himself, being through them a participant in each of those that exist, in essence remains unparticipated. After all, although the human mind, speaking according to the word of the God-speaking Gregory of Nyssa, because of the many knowledge, skills and names attached to it, does not suffer any damage in [its] simplicity, then how will anyone think about God - if He is called Wise, Righteous, Good, Eternal and all the names of God, and if one does not consider that all names have one meaning - either that He will become composed of many parts, or that from the possession of these [names] comes the perfection of [His] nature 90? He says a little further: “all names, the meaning of which is to prove a certain position and existence, carry within themselves an indication not of the divine nature itself, but of what is piously thought about around it” 91 . How can we agree with such idlers (κακοσχόλοις), who think and teach that everything around God is created, and that the uncreated and divine energies are not common to the three worshiped Persons, as those contemplated around the entities, but are the Son and the Holy Spirit, although the same God-speaking [father] in the same second Word against Eunomius said: “everything that is imaginable around God existed before the creation of the world, but we say that it began to be named after the appearance of the namer” 92? And there is no doubt that the Son and Spirit of God are in no way essentially a gift, grace or such energy, shows that He calls the Trinity revealing all of Its supremely good providences and teaches us that we should approach and draw closer to Her in prayer, in order to thereby be enlightened by the all-good gifts that surround Her 93 . Who of those who have intelligence will call His providence the non-participating essence of God, or [call it] created, since it is not an essence? Who will imagine that the all-good gifts established around the Most Holy Trinity are the Son and the Spirit of the Father? Or who will dare to classify Them among the creatures? For the Son and the Spirit of the Father are superior to them, as is the Father, as being superior to every name and every sacrament, and as being by nature the Giver and Cause of these supernatural gifts. 27. THEOTIMUS: In this way, therefore, O wise Theophan, through the inspired Scripture it is proclaimed that the face of God is visible to those worthy - and “our angels see the face of our Father in heaven” (Matthew 18:10), with whom Moses was honored to converse (Exodus 33:23; Num. 12:7–8; Deut. 5:24.), and we have The promise of contemplation [face] “face to face” (1 Cor. 13:12) is that it is completely invisible to anyone and never, “no one will see,” as He Himself, on the other hand, says to the same Moses, “whoever is My face will live” (Ex. 33:20). FEOFAN: No other way. For both the fact that “no one has seen God anywhere” (John 1:18), and the fact that “those who are pure in heart... will see God” (Matthew 5:8), since the Only Begotten Son of God showed Him Himself to us - invisible in essence, visible, especially for those who have become God-like, in energy and grace - and not another instead of Him, much less a created one, as they teach in the highest degree wickedly Varlaam and Akindin. In the same way, the omnipresent, invisible, indivisible and inexorably holding on to His unity, the Spirit is poured out, comes, sent and dwells, although not in everyone, is seen, measured out, divided, being acceptable and given. For in the same way, the theologian Chrysostom, as we said above, hearing the Baptist speaking about our Lord Jesus Christ that He “received the Spirit without measure” (John 3:34), says: “He here calls energy Spirit, since it is divisible” 94. And the great Basil, saying that God is known from creations, adds: “for works serve as an indication of strength, wisdom, art, and not of the essence itself” 95. So, here he calls God knowable by power and not by essence. And these weak-minded people, if they hear that God or the Holy Spirit is anywhere called manifested or participating, or coming and creating an abode, then they either call it creation, or claim that this is the essence of God. And those who do not agree to blaspheme like them, they call falling into double theism, not taking into account - unfortunate ones - the fact that the Spirit Himself descended on only the Mother and the Virgin, and the Son, but this one by hypostasis, and the other only by energy, which is why only the Son, and not also the Spirit, became human. 28. So, when we say “God”, or “Spirit”, or “Divinity”, we do not always mean the same thing, that is, the divine essence or separately one of the hypostases of the Holy Trinity, or their common energy, but sometimes all, sometimes many, and sometimes one of these. After all, when the great Dionysius speaks of the God-bearing divinity and the source divinity 96, don’t we understand that he is calling this only the Fatherly hypostasis? THEOTIMUS: Thanks to this, we now more easily humble the pride of the Latins than they assert it, [the Latins] with whom they seem to be of the same mind, confusing everything due to homonymy, or even rather merging everything into one. THEOPHANES: And when in another place the same [Areopagite] again says that “God-originating bliss, divinity by nature, the beginning of deification, from which those who are deified must be deified” 97, then isn’t he talking about the Trinitarian essence? THEOTIMUS: Indeed, the Father, through the Son in the Holy Spirit, deifies those who are deified. THEOPHANES: And when he says that deification itself is for the deified the beginning of being deified, and he also calls divinity the superiority and goodness of God, as a god-creating gift, about which he says that God surpasses him, as super-primary in relation to every beginning, 98 then is he not only deifying energy and grace that he calls divinity? THEOTIMUS: After all, how then will God, worshiped in three Hypostases, be superior to her, if she is not one? 29. THEOPHAN: It is appropriate, however, to think about something else here. THEOPHANES: That although this divinity is not a hypostasis, and not a divine essence, it is no less uncreated and ever-present, like the divine power that exists around God even before the creation of the world 99 . Since [she is] both the cause and beginning of all those deified, undoubtedly changed by her for the better, for they [thanks to her] become above nature, then the beginning and reason are necessarily very distant from what she caused, and what improves is better than what is improved, and what makes others above nature is in itself supernatural. After all, angels are also deified, but what is the best of angels and that which exists above their nature and which in itself is supernatural, how will it be a creature? THEOTIMUS: I myself, of course, think about it the same way. After all, how can anything created be called God’s authority, or benevolence, or an adoring gift? However, by “imitation” 100 (μιμησίαν) and “imitation of God” (θεομιμησίαν) 101 this great [father] usually calls the divine radiance, as likening God, and also as a relation, as a union and supernatural connection of God with good rational [beings]. THEOPHAN: But when he again says that “we call divinity, in the categories of the primordial, divine and causal, one super-primary and super-essential Beginning and Cause; and having in mind what is participatory - the providential power given from the non-participating God, deification in itself” 102, then isn’t it clear that he calls both the same thing - the divine nature and energy? And yet, to someone skilled [in theology] this will not seem like anything new. For when we said that you allowed the previous conversation to breathe out of [your] soul, leaving it without due attention, then what did we call the soul if not memory? For it is she who does not hold the subject of consideration in place if it has escaped [from her]. And when [Scripture] encourages us to “rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28), then what then shall we call the soul, if not the very essence of the soul? 30. THEOTIMUS: Thus it is fitting to receive this [from the fathers] and pass it on [further], proving it not only from [considerations of logical] consistency, but with the help of the Spirit-moved power of theologians. But since the essential creating force is the natural energy of God - for the Divinity is creative by nature - and everything that is created exists by participation in it, does it mean that all this participates in the natural forces and energies of God? THEOPHAN: Of course, everything in general participates not only in the creative energy of God, but also in His providence. Isn't it? THEOTIMUS: Without her, how would [all this] have come about? THEOPHAN: So, providence is the natural and essential energy of God. For the great Athanasius says: “The Father and the Son do not do it according to another and different providence (John 5:17), but according to one and the same essential energy of the Divinity” 103. Thus, everything partakes of the creative and providential power of God, just as the house shares the thoughts of the builder and the possible providence of [its] owner, if only it is supposed that it will be built. Rational [creatures] also see in creations - of course, [only] with thought - the inherent goodness and power of the Creator by nature. And only the saints receive communion and see in the proper sense of the word, having become God-like through communion with the Spirit, and with God-like power they contemplate and experience the lordship of God and, filled with supernatural jubilation, they themselves, thanks to this lordship, appear indescribably radiant. For the Holy Spirit, in the words of the great Basil, “fills everything with power, but we partake only of those who are worthy” 104 . And being “inconceivable for the world, we are seen only by the saints for the sake of the purity of [their] hearts” 105, He abides in everyone, but He reveals His power to those who have been cleansed of passions, and never to those who have a rational principle (τό ήγεμονικόν) damaged by the stains of sin. For just as images of faces are not obtained on every substance, but on those that have smoothness and shine [surfaces], so the energy of the Spirit [shines] not in all souls, but in those that have nothing [in themselves] “nothing... obstinately, lower depraved” (Proverbs 8:8). Do you see that the Holy Spirit is present in everyone in essence or, if you prefer, then in strength and energy, and participates and appears not in essence, but in energy only to those who have removed from themselves the filth [that occurs] from evil passions? 31. THEOTIMUS: Truly, everyone who tries to object to us confuses themselves and entangles themselves in sophisms. After all, although both of them are clearly indicated on the tablets of the Holy Scriptures, they either strive for one, as if only this is said, then they oppose the other as if this is not said [in Scripture], despite the fact that [they do this] in relation to each not definitely, so that they happen to both affirm and themselves refute the same [position]. When they call this super-essentiality shared by all, then they necessarily recognize that all those who partake partake of the uncreated, and when they talk about created grace, then [it turns out that] even those very premium [ranks] partake of the uncreated. FEOFAN: They are looking, my dear, for an antithesis that is only by name, and not by what is expressed by that name. If they, to one degree or another, turn their minds to the signified, then they do not distinguish between the types of the signified, so that, having grasped exactly [its meaning], they would comprehend what the dispute [arose] about. Consequently, they involuntarily contradict themselves, in the cunning of their minds, as if in a game of dice, rolling and turning words so that they always seem to be something else. It seems to me that, realizing this, those who defend [the teachings] of Varlaam no longer dare to present as reliable what they themselves affirmed, and in writing. After all, how could they not take into account the Council Resolution 106, which applies not only to those who write, but also to those who teach [sic], and also to these two, who themselves are the instigators and accusers, and not to us, who of necessity speak out in our own defense. 32. THEOTIMUS: But since you, Theophan, justly and well defended yourself, divided the name of essence, or rather showed it in a twofold way understood by Scripture: then in relation to its non-participating superessentiality, then to natural and essential [properties, that is, energies], in the proper sense of the word, participated only for saints, by which [energies] the connection is made ( ένωσις ) God and people, then can you now show the saints themselves, who would confirm your words with their testimony, since they participate in these natural [properties] of God and through them they see Him, and not only from creation, like us? FEOFAN: Yes, and who would have dared to talk about this if [this had not been previously] expressed by those taught by experience? For only those who are taught by experience know the energies of God. THEOTIMUS: So, who is it, who expressed [this thought]? FEOFAN: Everything: not only with words, but also with your deeds and miracles; all those who have passed away from here, who are still with us in the divinely inspired works they created, have not even to this day ceased and will not cease to clearly proclaim this in the future. THEOTIMUS: Three is enough for me to confirm, Feofan. Show them to me right now, without delay. FEOFAN: I’m showing you! For the divine John of Damascus [names] the light that shone on the mountain from the Savior, “seeing which as a prelude to His future coming, Peter and the sons of Thunder,” according to the great Basil, “were worthy to perceive it with their eyes” 107 ; with which, according to the words of the great Dionysius, all who become like Christ will be filled 108; by which “they will be enlightened like the sun” (Matthew 13:43), again according to Basil, who also called it the enlightenment of holy souls in the present [century] 109. So, the divine John of Damascus called this light “the natural ray of the Divine” 110, and the sweet singer Cosmas called it the essential beauty of the Word of God 111; the great Athanasius teaches that God possesses him by nature: “for, having ascended into heaven,” he says, “the Lord will come in natural glory (έν δόξη φυσική), and not in grace; in His divinity, pouring out from His holy body, received from Mary, the light of ineffable glory, as He partially revealed it on the mountain” 112. Now you have as much [evidence] as you consider sufficient. We will generously present you with a greater number of witnesses to the truth. Divine Maximus says: “He who is deified by grace will be all the same as God, except identity in essence” 113. And in another place he again teaches: “The Word, through hope, makes [them] ready to be animated by the acceptance of the archetype of [true] goods and to become living icons of Christ, and even the same as He by grace or likeness” 114. And in the Theological chapters he clearly says: “The Kingdom of God is the teaching by grace of that which is naturally inherent in God” 115. Saint Cyril, citing the words of the Lord, “My peace I leave with you” (John 14:27), says that [the Lord] calls this world His own, since it is the special good that abides in Him 116. And in the fourteenth word of “Treasures,” he, again citing [the words of the Lord] “believe in Me to have eternal life” (John 6:47), says: “He promises to give the life inherent in Him and essentially abiding [in Him] to those who believe in Him; for, having come from the Father, He provides everything that belongs to the Father by nature, and one of the things that belong to the Father is life” 117. Do you see that this life is given to those who are worthy, and that it is inherent in God by nature, but is not [itself] nature? For the divine nature is one, and this life is one of the properties inherent in God, and as inherent in nature, it itself is uncreated. Having said that it is one of the properties inherent in God by nature, he [thereby] showed that many things are inherent in God by nature and are also uncreated. That is why he says about the Son: “He provides everything that belongs to the Father by nature.” 33. Where are those who foolishly say that there is one uncreated thing, not meaning simply God or the divine (ού τον Φεόν ή τό θείον λέγοντες απλώς), that is, the divine nature and the hypostases corresponding to it, and all natural and hypostatic [properties] of the Most Holy Trinity, but only the essence separates from the created, just as if they resolutely asserted that the sun emits radiance, and the rays around it are full of darkness, or that there are many suns, since the rays are light. THEOTIMUS: It is fair, O Theophanes, that, without imputing the displeasure of many into anything, you did not stop, saying such things in defense of the truth. For you are due praise for these words, not from men, but from God, now and in the age to come. THEOPHANES: Praise is due to God, brother Theotim, now and forever, who gave “the word for the opening of our mouths.” This refers to the previous Dialogue, during which the former Barlaamite becomes Orthodox. That is, their own words contain a contradiction with what they claim. It is said about Alexander the Great that, when listening to his accuser, he always closed one ear. When they asked him why this was being done, he answered: “I leave my other ear to listen to the accused.” See: Plutarch. Life of Alexander, 42. This refers to the Council in June 1341. “... όπλω κυκλούμενοι τη αλήθεια” - in the original there is an allusion to Ps. 90, 4 (όπλω κυκλώσει σε ή άλήθεια αυτού). Since there is neither essence without hypostases, nor hypostasis without essence. Nicene–Constantinopolitan Creed. Basil the Great. Conversation on Psalm 44, 5. PG 29, 400С (r. p.: p. 326). Gregory the Theologian. Word 40, 6. PG 36, 365A (r. p.: p. 546). It's him. Message 101. PG 37,181 AB. These are exactly the words of St. Macarius was not found, but we find a similar place. See Macarius the Great (Simeon of Mesopotamia). On the Elevation of the Mind, 13. PG 34, 901 AB. Octoechos, On the week of the morning at the Midnight Office, the canon is trinitarian, 4th tone, hymn 7, Theotokos. In the Slavic Octoechos “ώφθης” instead of “thou hast seen” is translated as “thou hast appeared.” About the author of the canon, see above note. 421. Gregory of Nyssa. On the divinity of the Son and the Spirit. PG 46, 573D–576A (r. p.: p. 160). See: Same. To Aulavius ​​that there are not three gods. PG 45.124 – 125 (r.p.: pp. 60–61). Palamas here, instead of quoting, gives a free retelling of the thoughts of Gregory of Nyssa. Athanasius of Alexandria. Dialogi duo contra Macedonianos [Sp.], 1, 14. PG28, 1313A. Basil the Great. Message 189, 8. PG 32, 696AB (r. p.: p. 210). Dionysius the Areopagite. On the divine names, I, 6. P. 540 (r. p.: P. 541). Dionysius the Areopagite. On the Divine Names, 5, 2. P. 404 (r. p.: P. 405). It's him. Epistle 2. pp. 768–770 (r.p.: pp. 769–771). It's him. On the Divine Names, 5, 2. P. 406 (r. p.: P. 407). Basil the Great, Epistle 189, 8, PG 32, 696AC. Gregory the Theologian. Word 39, 11. PG 36, 345С (r. p.: p. 537). Since you can only run to or from somewhere, and not at all; and you can only burn something. Gregory the Theologian. Word 30, 18. PG 36,125С–128А (r. p.: p. 440). Maxim the Confessor. Chapters on theology, 2, 1. PG 90, 1124D–1125A (r.p.: Book 1, p. 233); Various chapters, 1, 5. PG 90, 1180F (r.p.: Book 1, p. 257). Sophronius of Jerusalem. Council message to Sergius. PG 87 3, 3156A. See Basil the Great, Epistle 189, 8, PG 32, 696AB. This is not actually a verbatim quote. See footnote 577. See: Athanasius Alexandrinus [Sp.] Sermo in annuntiationem deiparae, 2. PG 920B. Basil the Great. On the Holy Spirit, 9, 22. PG 32,108С, (r. p.: p. 265). It's him. Message 234, 1. PG 32, 869A (r. p.: p. 283). Gregory the Theologian. Word 41, 3. PG 36, 431 C (r. p.: P. 576). John of Damascus. An Accurate Statement of the Orthodox Faith, 1, 13. Op. cit., 13, 98 (r. p.: P. 41 (113)). Gregory the Theologian. Word 38, 7. PG 36, 317С (r. p.: p. 525). Basil the Great. Against Eunomius, 2. PG 29, 648A (r. p.: p. 121). Maxim the Confessor. Κεφάλαια διάφορα θεολογικά τ with και οικονομικά και περι απετής και κακιας, 1, 42. PG 90, 1193D (r.p.: Speculative and active chapters selected from seven hundred chapters of the Greek Philokalia, 99 / Philokalia. M., 1900. T. 3, (reprint: Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, 1992), P. 253. Gregory of Nyssa. Commentary on the Song of Songs, 3. PG 44, 821BC. Maxim the Confessor. Κεθάλαια διάφορα θεολογικά τε και οικονομικά και περι απετής και κακίας, 1, 7. PG 90, 1180С. It's him. Message 1. PG 91, 376AB. Compare: Dionysius the Areopagite. On the Divine Names, 2, 4. pp. 250–252 (r. p.: pp. 253). Compare: Maxim the Confessor. Theological and economic chapters, 1, 7. PG 90, 1085B (r. p.: p. 216). It's him. On perplexities to John, 45. PG 91, 1168A (r. p.: p. 146). Athanasius the Great (pseudepigraph). To Antiochus, 28. PG 28, 613D–616A. Athanasius of Alexandria. Dialogi duo contra Macedonianos [Sp.], 1, 14. PG 28, 131FOR. Athanasius the Great. To Antiochus, 28. PG 28, 616A. Basil the Great. Message 234, 1. PG 32, 869A. John Chrysostom. Discourse on the Gospel of John 32:1. PG 59, 183B (r.p.: T. 8. P. 205). John Chrysostom. Discourse on the Gospel of John 30:2. PG 59, 174A (r. p.: p. 193). Maxim the Confessor. Κεφάλαια διάφορα θεολογικά τε και οικονομικά και περί άρετής και κακίας, 1, 42. PG 90, 1193d. Acts 3 – “άχρι χρόνων αποκαταοτάσεως” – “until the years of the dispensation.” Gregory the Theologian. Word 30, 6. PG 36, 112AB (r. p.: pp. 432–433). Source of quotation not found. Maxim the Confessor. Various chapters, 1, 7. PG 90, 1180С (r.p.: Book 1. P. 258). Athanasius of Alexandria. Dialogi duo contra Macedonianos [Sp.], 1, 14, PG 28, 1313A. John Chrysostom. Discourse on the Gospel of John 30:2. PG 59, 174A (r. p.: T. 8, P. 193). Dionysius the Areopagite. On the Divine Names, 1, 1. P. 208 (r. p.: P. 209). Ibid., 5, 1. P. 402 (r. p.: P. 403). Gregory the Theologian. Poems, 4, 84. PG 37, 422A (r. p.: T. 2, p. 26). Dionysius the Areopagite. On the Divine Names, 4, 19. P. 346 (r. p.: P. 347). John Chrysostom. On the Holy Spirit, 3. PG 52, 817. Gregory of Nyssa. On the Holy Spirit against the Macedonians, 20. PG 45,1325CD (r. p. p. 183). See: Same. Message 24. PG 46, 1089С. Gregory the Theologian. Word 30. PG 36.132B (r.p.: T. 1, P. 417). See: John Chrysostom. Discourse on the Gospel of John 14:1. PG 59, 91D–92A (r. p.: pp. 90–91). Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 9, 22, PG 32,108С (r. p.: p. 265). The Russian word “communion” also conveys this concept of divisibility, since it means being “in part.” Maxim the Confessor. Questions and Answers to Fallasius, 61. PG 90, 637D. In the original, Chrysostom “participates.” See John Chrysostom. Discourse on the Gospel of John 14:1. PG 59, 91D–92A (r. p.: pp. 90–91). Basil the Great. Epistle 234, 1. PG 32, 869AB (r. p.: p. 283). Maxim the Confessor. Questions and answers to Thalassia, 22. PG 90, 320A (r. p.: Book 2. P. 64). Also see: On Perplexities to John, 110 (36). PG 91.1308B (r. p.: p. 280). Gregory the Theologian. Word 38, 11. PG 36, 324A (r. p.: T. S. 527). Maxim the Confessor. Πρός M αρινον . PG 91, ZZA. It's him. About perplexities to John, 78 (16). PG 91, 1253D (r. p.: p. 229). Gregory of Nyssa. To Eunomius, 2, 1, 678. W. Jaeger, 1, p. 364; PG 45, 461AB (r. p.: p. 118). Gregory the Theologian. Word 45, 3. PG 36, 625C (r. p.: P. 663). Dionysius the Areopagite. About the heavenly hierarchy, 4.1. P. 78 (r.p.: P. 79). Maxim the Confessor. Chapters on Love, 1, 100. PG 90, 981D–984A (r.p.: Works of St. Maximus the Confessor. ?., Martis, 1993. Book 1. pp. 106–107). Ibid., 5, 1. pp. 402–404 (r. p.: pp. 403–405). Ibid., 12, 4. P. 546 (r. p.: P. 547). Basil the Great. Message 234. PG 32, 868С (r. p.: p. 282). Maxim the Confessor. Κεφάλαια διάφορα θεολογικά τε και οικονομικά και περί άρετής και κακίας, 1, 42. PG 90, 1193d (r. p.: p. 253). It's him. On perplexities to John, 2. PG 91, 1076C (r. p.: p. 64). Dionysius the Areopagite. Epistle 2. pp. 768–770 (r.p.: pp. 769–771). Gregory of Nyssa. To Eunomius, 2, 572–579. W. Jaeger, 1, 393–395; PG 45, 1101D–1105A. Right there. W. Jaeger, 1, 396. PG 45, 1105С. Right there. W. Jaeger, 1, 273. PG 45, 965B. Dionysius the Areopagite. On divine names, 3.1. P. 280 (r. p.: P. 281). Basil the Great. Against Eunomius, 2. PG 29, 648A (r. p.: p. 120). Dionysius the Areopagite. On the Divine Names, 2, 7. P. 262 (r. p.: P. 263). It's him. On the Church Hierarchy, 1, 4. P. 574 (r. p.: P. 575). Gregory of Nyssa. To Eunomius, 2, 166. W. Jaeger, 1, 271. Dionysius the Areopagite. On the heavenly hierarchy, 1, 3. P. 40 (r. p.: P. 41); 3, 3, p. 76 (r.p.: p. 77). Ibid., 12, 3. P. 158 (r. p.: P. 159); 13, 3. pp. 166–168 (r. p.: pp. 167–169). Dionysius the Areopagite. On the Divine Names, 11, 6. P. 540 (r. p.: P. 541). Athanasius of Alexandria. Sermo in annuntiationem deiparae [Sp.]. PG 28, 924B. Basil the Great. On the Holy Spirit, 9, 22. PG 32, 108С (r. p.: p. 265). Ibid., 22, 53. PG 32, 168С (r. p.: p. 315). This refers to the decree of the August Council of 1341 prohibiting disputes about energies. See: Cathedral Tomos. PG 151, 692C. Basil the Great. Discourses on Psalms, 44, 6. PG 29, 400D (r. p.: p. 326). "... Wed. in Dionysius the Areopagite: “αθάνατοι γενώμεθα και της χριστοειδής... έφικώμεθα λήξεως” (On the divine names, 1, 4, p. 222 (r. p.: p. 223)). See: Basil the Great. On the Holy Spirit, 9, 23. PG 32,109B (r. p.: p. 266). John of Damascus. Ομιλία 1 εις M εταμόρφωσιν 12. PG 96, 564B. See: Menaion, On the sixth day of the month of August, at Matins in Polyeleos, the second sat on Glory, and now: “The hidden lightning... of Thy being, O Christ, and the divine splendor of the saints, thou hast shown unto this mountain.” Source of quotation not found. According to the link of the Greek edition to the “Sermon on the Incarnation of God the Word and His Coming to Us in the Flesh,” such words or at least words close in meaning are not found. A search in TLG also yielded no results. Maxim the Confessor. Questions and answers to Thalassia, 22. PG 90, 320A (r. p.: Book 2, p. 64). Also see: On Perplexities to John, 110 (36). PG 91, 1308B (r.p.: p. 280). Maxim the Confessor. About perplexities to John, 79 (17). PG 91, 1253D (r. p.: p. 229). It's him. Chapters on theology and the economy of the incarnation of the Son of God, 2, 90. PG 90, 1168С (r. p.: p. 253). See Cyril of Alexandria. Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate, 32. PG 75, 453CD; De sancta trinitate dialogi, 3. PG 75, 857B. Cyril of Alexandria. Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate, 14. PG 75, 236BC. You might be interested in: