One hundred and fifty chapters devoted to natural scientific, theological and moral issues

In the treatise “One hundred and fifty chapters devoted to questions of natural science, theology, moral and related to spiritual work, as well as intended for cleansing from the Barlaamite destruction” (1349-1350) St. Gregory Palamas sets out the main themes of his teaching in short chapters. The essay consists of 2 parts. The 1st part examines the question of the nature of human knowledge and its application to natural and spiritual areas (chapters 1-34), reasoning about the image of God in man (chapters 34-40), the consequences of the Fall and the need for salvation (chapters 41-63). In the 2nd part (chapters 64-150), Saint Gregory proceeds to review the main issues of the controversy and refutation of the Barlaamite heresy, where he briefly outlines the Orthodox teaching about God. The author explains in detail the doctrine of the Triune God, the nature of the Divine essence and uncreated energies, the possibility of knowledge of God and the deification of man through communion with these energies, the nature of the Tabor light as an uncreated Divine manifestation. The saint touches on issues of virtue, sin, free will, the path of spiritual improvement and purification of the heart, showing the inextricable connection between theology and righteous life. In the light of hesychast teaching, the treatise also explains the meaning of mental prayer, asceticism, repentance and other practices leading to human transformation and real communion with God. *Title of the work in Greek – κεφάλαια κατὸν πεντήκοντα φυσικὰ καὶ θεολογικά, ἠθικά τε καὶ πρακτικὰ καὶ καθαρτικὰ τῆς Βαρλααμίτιδος λύμης. Contents Part one. Divine Economy of creation and salvation I. The world is not eternal II. Celestial Sphere III. Terrestrial sphere IV. Natural human abilities V. Spiritual knowledge VI. Intelligent Nature VII. Divine nature and image of the Holy Trinity in man VIII. Awareness of human frailty and the need for healing Part two. Refutation of the teachings of Varlaam and Akindinus I. Divine illumination II. Many Divine Energies III. Basic provisions IV. The teaching of Dionysius the Areopagite on unity and distinction V. The absurdities of the teaching of Akindinus VI. Impossibility for the essence of God to participate VII. The answer regarding [the words] of St. Kirill VIII. Against Akindinus IX. The difference between the Divine essence and Divine energy X. Light of Tabor Part one. Divine Economy of Creation and Salvation 1. That the world had a beginning, both nature teaches and history certifies; This is clearly confirmed by the invention of crafts, the establishment of laws, and the useful structures of states. For we know the inventors of almost all crafts, legislators and founders of state power. In addition, we also know writers who [in their writings] in one way or another touched on the beginning [of everything], but among them we do not see anyone who would surpass Moses in his narration about the origin of the world and time. He, who described the beginning of the origin of the world, presented such undeniable evidence of the truth of what he wrote through his extraordinary words and deeds that he convinced almost the entire human race, prompting [humanity] to expel and ridicule the sophists who claim the opposite. Since the nature of this world is such that in each individual case it needs a new beginning and cannot exist without it, this proves the [existence] of the First Beginning of this nature - that Beginning that is not produced from another. 2. And the fact that the world not only had a beginning, but will also have an end, is also evidenced by the nature of the things existing in this world, since it constantly perishes in its individual parts. Solid and indisputable proof [of the destruction of the world] is the prophecy of Christ, the God of all, and other inspired [men] - and not only pious people, but even the wicked must trust them as [uttering the immutable] truth, since it is obvious that everything else predicted by them corresponds to reality. From them we can learn that this world will not fade into oblivion in its entirety, but, like our bodies, having been dissolved and changed, it will be transformed by the power of God’s Spirit into a more divine world. 3. The Hellenic sages say that the sky rotates with the help of the nature of the World Soul and that it teaches justice and reason. What justice and what reason? If the sky rotates not due to its own nature, but with the help of the nature of the so-called World Soul, and if this Soul belongs to the entire cosmos, then why does not the earth, water and air also rotate? Further, according to them, although the Soul is ever-moving, the earth, in accordance with its own nature, remains motionless, and water occupies the lowest place in it; on the contrary, the sky, being by nature ever-moving and rotating in a circle, occupies the highest region. What, then, is the World Soul, by whose nature the heavens are set in motion? Is She Reasonable? Then She would be self-generating and would not set in motion the same way that She herself moves, for self-generating [entities] move in different ways at different times. What traces of the rational Soul do we see in the lowest sphere of the earth or in the [parts] closest to it, i.e. [in the regions] of water, air or fire itself, although the World Soul also belongs to them? Further, why, according to them, are some [creatures] animate and others inanimate? And this applies not just to randomly taken [things], but every stone, every metal, every earth, water, air and fire [are inanimate]. For fire, they say, is set in motion by its own nature, and not by the Soul. If this Soul is common [to the whole world], then why is only heaven moved by It, and not set in motion by itself? [Another question arises]: why is the Soul that moves the celestial body not rational if, in their opinion, It is the source of our souls? – Further, if She is not rational, then [at least] she must be sentient or vegetative. However, as is known, none of these souls moves the body without the help of [corresponding] organs, and neither the earth, nor the sky, nor the elements that are contained in them have any similar member [of the body] serving as an organ [of movement], since every organ consists of various natural parts, and each of the elements, especially the sky, has a simple nature. “After all, the soul is the entelechy of an organic body that potentially has life.” The sky does not have a member or part of the body that serves as an organ [of movement], and therefore it cannot live. Can something incapable of life have a soul? “But those who are futile in their speculations from a foolish heart” (Rom. 1:21) have invented [some] Soul that does not exist, has not existed and will not exist. They declare her to be the Creator, Helmsman and Provider of the entire sensory world and our souls. Moreover, She, who has existence from the Mind, [they consider] as the Root and Source of all souls. And this Mind itself is alien, according to them, to the highest [Principle], which they call God. This is how those who [among the Hellenes] most excelled in wisdom and theology dogmatize. They are no better than those who deify animals and stones, and even worse than the latter in their subject of reverent veneration. For animals, gold, stone and copper are something [real], although they occupy the last place among creatures, and the star-bearing World Soul does not exist, has never existed and is not something [real], but is a figment of the imagination of a thought possessed by the evil power. 4. Since, as they say, the celestial body needs to move, but there is no place further where it could move, it returns to itself and its forward motion becomes a rotation. Perfect. Therefore, if the celestial body had such a place, it would ascend upward, like fire, and even above fire, since its nature is lighter than fire. But such a movement is not characteristic of the nature of the soul, but is a property of the nature of the lung [body]. Then, if the forward motion of the sky is a circular motion and such motion is natural for it, then the celestial body rotates not due to the nature of the soul, but due to its own nature. Therefore it does not possess a soul, and [in general it can be said that] there is no heavenly or universal Soul. The only rational soul is the human soul - not heavenly, but supra-heavenly; it is such not because of its location, but because of its own nature, since it is an intelligent essence. 5. The celestial body does not have forward motion and does not rush upward. And this is not because there is no further space [where it could move], since the sphere of ether, which resides with the given body and is contained in it, also does not ascend upward. Not because there is no room for the advancement of [this body], for the celestial space also embraces this sphere. It does not spread upward, since [the region located] above the sphere of ether is lighter than ether. Therefore, [the celestial body] is by its nature higher than the sphere of ether. Therefore, the sky does not extend upward, not because there is no place higher than it, but because there is no body lighter and thinner than it. 6. So, there is no body that is higher than the celestial body. But this is not because there is no higher [any region of existence] capable of containing a body, but because the sky embraces every body and there is no other body beyond it. And if it were possible to pass through heaven, as we piously believe, then that [region] which is higher than heaven would not be inaccessible. For God, who fills everything and who extends to infinity beyond the sky, existed before the world, filling [with Himself], as He now fills, every place in the world. And there was nothing that could become a body in him. Therefore, outside the sky (as well as on the circumference of the world or inside it) there is no obstacle to the existence of a place in which a body [could] be. 7. Why, therefore, if there is no obstacle, does the celestial body not rush upward, but perform a circular motion? - Because it moves above, like the lightest, highest and most mobile of all bodies. For just as that which is compressed to the limit and which is the heaviest is at the very bottom and is the most motionless, so that which is the loosest and lightest is at the very top and is the most mobile. Since it is inherent in its nature to move from above, and that which moves in this way cannot, by virtue of its nature, be separated from the surface on which it moves, [so it can be assumed that a similar thing happens with the celestial body]. Further, since that on which the celestial body moves is spherical, then it must necessarily rotate continuously not because of its spiritual nature, but because of its inherent corporeal nature. This means that it gradually moves from place to place, and such movement is most characteristic of bodies of this kind, just as the opposite immobility is most characteristic of those [creatures] that have bodies of a completely different kind. 8. The same could be noted about the winds in the spheres closest to us: they tend to blow from above, but not to separate from the regions over which they blow, and not to be carried away to higher regions - not because there is no place for them there, but because these regions are lighter than the winds themselves. The winds remain in the places over which they blow, since by their nature they are lighter than these places. They move around those places not because of their natural animation, but according to their own [inanimate] nature. And wanting to show, as I think, this proportionate similarity, the wise Solomon in all things calls the heavenly body by the name of “winds” when he writes: “the wind whirls and whirls” as it goes, and the wind returns to its circles (Eccl. 1:6). The nature of the winds that are around us differs from the highest [celestial] spheres and the speed of movement, since it is inferior to them in lightness. 9 . According to the Hellenic sages, the earth has two opposite temperate and inhabited zones, each of which is divided into two inhabited parts, so that there are four such regions in total. Therefore, they claim that there are four kinds of people on earth who cannot communicate with each other. For, in their opinion, diagonally from us are the inhabitants of the opposite temperate zone, separated from us by a hot strip of land. And the opposite place to these latter is occupied by those who live under our zone. [These sages also] say that of those who relate to us in a similar way, some are opposite, while others are antipodes and face the other direction. After all, they did not know that, with the exception of a tenth of the earth’s sphere, almost everything else is washed by the abyss of water. 10. You should know that besides the region inhabited by us, there is no other part of the earth suitable for habitation, since it is surrounded by an abyss [of water]. It should also be taken into account that the four elements that make up the world have equality; each of them, in proportion to its density, occupies its own size of the sphere, many times larger than the other, with which Aristotle agrees. For, as he says: “There are five elements arranged spherically in five regions; in this case, the smaller one is always covered by the larger one, for example, the earth is surrounded by water, water by air, air by fire, fire by ether, and this is the structure of the world.” 11. Ether is incomparably more brilliant than fire, which is why it is called a flammable substance; fire occupies a much larger volume than the air sphere, air, in turn, larger than water, and water larger than earth, which, being the most compressed, occupies the smallest volume among the four celestial elements. Thus, the size of the water sphere is much larger than that of the earth, and if it were spread over the entire surface of the earth so that both spheres, that is, the sphere of water and the sphere of earth, revolved around one center, then the water would not allow earth-born animals to use any part of the earth, for it would flood the entire land, many times exceeding its surface. But since it does not embrace the entire surface of the earth, and the land we inhabit remains uncovered by water, the water sphere is necessarily eccentric. Therefore, we should examine how eccentric it is and where its center is in relation to us: lower or higher? It is impossible to assume that he was higher than us, for we partially see the surface of the water below us. Therefore, it is located below us, and the center of the water sphere is the same as the center of the earth itself. It remains only to find out how far the center of the water sphere is from the center of the earth. 12. If we try to understand how much lower, as it seems to us, from the center of the earth the center of the water surface is located, then we must take into account that the surface of the water visible to us and located below us, as well as the base of the earth on which we walk, almost coincides with the surface of the earthly sphere that we inhabit. And the part of the earth inhabited by us is approximately a tenth of its circumference, for the earth has five zones and half of one of them is inhabited by us. If anyone wishes to attach the sphere that surrounds the earth to this tenth part of the surface, he will find that the diameter of the outer sphere, which also embraces the inner, is twice as large as the latter, and that the outer sphere is eight times larger in size, having its center in the lowest, from our point of view, part of the earth. This is clear from the drawing. 13. Let the sphere of the earth be represented by a circle, within which the letters Α, Β, Γ, Δ are inscribed, and around it let another circle be drawn, representing the water sphere, a tenth of the surface of which corresponds to the inner circle inscribed in it; The letters Ε, Ζ, Η, Θ are written around the circumference of the large circle. Then it turns out that the lower extremity of the inscribed circle coincides with the center of the outer circle. If the diameter of this outer circle be greater than the inscribed circle, then it follows from geometrical proofs that a sphere whose diameter is twice that of another is eight times its size. Therefore, the eighth part of this watery sphere corresponds to the earth it embraces, mixed with water. As a result, many springs gush out from the earth, and abundant and inexhaustible streams of rivers flow out, which flow into the bays of not a few seas; many lake waters are also filled. And it is difficult to find a place on earth where, when digging, one would not be able to detect groundwater. 14. Both the above drawing and reason teach us that there is no other land than the one we inhabit. For if earth and water had the same center, then the earth would be completely uninhabited. In the same way, and even with much greater confidence, we can say that if water has as its center the lowest tip of the earth in relation to us, then in addition to the one inhabited by us, i.e. the upper part of this [smaller] sphere cannot be otherwise inhabited, since all other parts are washed by water. And as has already been pointed out, only one inhabited part of the earth is inhabited by a rational soul living in a body - further evidence has now been given in favor of this. And from such a statement it follows that among the irrational animals, earth-born ones also live only in this part of the earth. IV. Natural human abilities 15. Visual perception is formed from variously arranged colors and shapes, smell - from vapors, taste - from juices, hearing - from noise, touch - from the roughness or smoothness of a surface. The images that arise in the senses originate from bodies, but are not themselves bodies, although they are corporeal, for they arise not simply from bodies, but from forms that are related to bodies. However, they are not these forms of bodies themselves, but their impressions, representing, as it were, images inseparably separated from the forms in bodies. This is most obvious in the example of vision, especially the vision of objects reflected in mirrors. 16. The ability of imagination of the soul, having assimilated these sensory impressions from the senses, completely separates from the bodies and from the forms that are in these bodies, not the sensations themselves, but the images contained, as we said, in the sensations. This ability preserves them like hidden treasures, extracting them for one's own use, even in the absence of [any] body, one after another and each in its own time, imagining to oneself everything that it saw, heard, tasted, smelled and touched. 17. This faculty of imagination of the soul in a rational being occupies a middle place between the mind and sensation. For the mind, contemplating and dwelling on images perceived from sensations, separated from bodies and which have already become incorporeal, produces thoughts in many different ways through reasoning, assumption and inference; this happens in different ways: passionately, dispassionately and indifferently, as well as being mistaken and not falling into error. From this are born both the majority of virtues and vices, both good and bad opinions. Since not every thought arises in the mind from given [sensory impressions] and in relation to them, but one can also find such thoughts that do not fall under the [category] of the sensory, but are given to reasoning by the mind, that is why I said that not every truth or error, not every virtue or vice in our thoughts originates from the imagination. 18. It is worthy of surprise and consideration how unchangeable beauty or ugliness, wealth or poverty, glory or infamy are born in the soul from these transitory and sensory [things]; in a word, how there is [in the soul] either intelligible light, which brings eternal life, or intelligible and punishing darkness. 19. The mind, using the ability of imagination of the soul and through this connecting with the senses, produces mixed knowledge. If, for example, you look with your sensory eye at the setting sun and at the moon that follows it, the small part of which facing the sun is illuminated by it, which then, in subsequent days, gradually moves away from the sun and glows brighter until it is on the opposite side; then, if one sees how it gradually approaches another part [of the sky], more and more diminishing in its radiance and moving away from the place where it was originally illuminated, then, having comprehended with the mind these [visual] ideas, previously perceived by the imagination, always present in the senses, one can come to the conclusion, based on feeling, imagination and reflection, that the moon has its light from the sun when its orbit is closest to the earth and is significantly lower than the orbit of the sun. 20. We know not only what happens to the moon, but also what happens to the sun: its eclipse and related phenomena, the movements of other celestial planets, the distances between them and their various combinations; in a word, we know what concerns celestial phenomena. Moreover, [we are also knowledgeable] in the laws of nature, in the methods [of their comprehension] and in all the arts [of their use]. Briefly speaking, [we have] all knowledge of everything, created from partial perceptions and obtained through the mind from feeling and imagination. However, this knowledge cannot be called spiritual and the name “natural” is more appropriate for it, since it does not contain what belongs to the Spirit. 21. Where do we learn about God? How do we learn about the whole world? Where do we get firm and unfalse knowledge about ourselves? Is it not from the teaching of the Spirit? It taught us that God alone is truly existing, eternally existing and unchanging; that He did not receive His existence from non-existence and will not return to non-existence; that He is Trinitarian and Almighty; that in six days, through the Word, He brought into being existence from non-existence, or, more precisely, as Moses says, God established everything at once. For we listen to him, who says: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1); and he created the earth not completely empty and not without any [bodies] that are in the middle, for the earth was mixed with water, and each of these elements was pregnant with air and various types of animals and plants, while the sky was pregnant with luminaries and fires, on which the universe was founded. Therefore, in this way, God first created heaven and earth as a kind of all-encompassing matter containing within itself everything in possibility. This perfectly and completely refutes the bad opinion of those who consider matter to be pre-existent. 22. After this, [God], who brought everything into existence from nothing, as if perfecting and beautifying the world, distributed in six days the [corresponding] order characteristic and appropriate to each [species of creatures] belonging to Him and filling His world. Having separated each [of these types] with one command, He, as if from secret treasuries, took out the hidden things there for contemplation, distributing and combining them harmoniously, exemplarily and appropriately - one with the other, each with all and all with each. Around the motionless earth, as if near a motionless center, He placed the ever-moving sky in the highest circle, wisely connecting the earth and the sky with middle [regions], so that the same world would be both at rest and in motion. Since bodies, constantly and rapidly moving, are located around a stationary body, the latter, by force of necessity, occupies a middle place, balancing the movement with its immobility, so that the universal sphere does not move like a cylinder. 23. Having allocated such a position to each of the [two] limits of the universe, the Best Artist, one might say, both divinely established [in a motionless state] and set in motion the whole world, also distributing its proper place to each body from those that are in the middle between these limits. He placed some of them at the top and commanded them to rotate in the uppermost limit of the universe, moving harmoniously, orderly and unceasingly, since they are light, mobile and adapted to the benefit of the lower [regions]. It is quite clear that, located so high above the middle [part of the universe], they are able to sufficiently weaken the immoderate cold in it and keep the excess of their own heat within their limits. In some way, the disproportionality of the rotation of the highest limits, which have their own opposite movement, is also maintained, so that they retain the named bodies in their place by the opposite rotation, providing us with a very useful change of seasons as a measure of intervals of time and bestowing upon rational [creatures] the knowledge of God, who created, arranged and adorned [the entire created world]. Thus, He allowed certain bodies to rotate in the sublime and highest [sphere] for two reasons: for the sake of the beauty of the universe and for the sake of the manifold benefits [of living beings]. He placed other bodies below around the middle [part of the universe]: they have heaviness, are passionate by nature, they tend to be born and change, separate and unite, or rather, they are capable of changing for the sake of [mutual] suitability. Consequently, [God] arranged [all] these things in order and in proportion to each other, so that the universe could rightly be called “cosmos.” 24. And thus a certain first of the existing things was created, followed by a second, then a third and those following in order, and after all - man. He was honored by God with such care that this entire sensory world was brought into existence before him and for his sake; and immediately from the creation of the world to man and for him the kingdom of heaven was prepared; before him and about him the [eternal] Council took place, and by the hand of God and in the image of God he was created. Unlike other living beings, he did not consist entirely of this matter and that which belongs to the sensory world, that is, he did not only have a body, but received a soul from the supermundane, more precisely, from God Himself through an ineffable inspiration, as something great and wonderful, surpassing everything [created] and capable of contemplating everything, guiding everyone, cognizing God and accepting Him, best of all testifying that it is a work of excellent greatness Artist. However, [the human soul] is not only capable of accepting God, but it can also be united through feat and grace with Him in one Hypostasis. 25. In this and similar things, true wisdom and saving knowledge are found, which bring heavenly bliss. What then is Euclid? What Marin? What can Ptolemy understand? What about Empedocles, Socrates, Aristotle and Plato with their logical methods and mathematical proofs? Or let us ask another question: what feeling perceived such things? What mind has entered into them? If spiritual wisdom seemed mundane to these natural philosophers and their followers, then the excess [of external knowledge] seemed to them superior to it. This is almost reminiscent of the attitude of irrational animals towards the wisdom of the philosophers themselves (or, if you like, the attitude of children who would consider that the cakes in their hands are better than the royal crown and all the knowledge of the philosophers): the philosophers themselves have the same attitude towards the true and most excellent wisdom and teaching of the Spirit. 26. However, not only the knowledge of God in truth is incomparably higher than Hellenic philosophy, but also the understanding of what place man occupies with God surpasses all their wisdom. For man alone, of all earthly and heavenly [creatures], was created in the image of the Creator in order to direct his gaze to Him, to love Him, to be a secret man and a worshiper of Him Alone, and by his faith in Him, inclination and disposition towards Him to preserve his own beauty; yet consider everything else that the earth and sky contain below oneself and completely devoid of intelligence. Since the Hellenic sages could not accept this, they dishonored our nature and showed themselves wicked towards God: they “both worshiped and served the creature instead of the Creator” (Rom. 1:25), endowed the sentient and insensitive stars with intelligence, [honoring] each of them with strength and dignity commensurate with the size of their bodies. And, honoring them in such a pitiful manner, they addressed them as greater and lesser gods, entrusting them with dominion over the universe. Do not [these sages], starting only from sensual [things] and taking them as the basis of their philosophy, prepare for their souls shame, ignominy, the final miserable fate and truly intelligible and punishing darkness? 27. Knowing that we are created in the image of the Creator does not allow us to deify the intelligible world either. For “in the image” is not the external structure of the body, but, of course, the nature of the mind, better than which there is nothing in [created] nature. After all, if there was something better, then it would be in it “in the image.” And since the best thing in us is the mind, then, although it is [created] in the Divine image, it is still created by God. Then why is it difficult to understand (or, rather, isn’t this in itself obvious) that the Creator of the intelligent [beginning] in us is also the Creator of every intelligent being? Therefore, every intelligent nature is our fellow servant [in the service of] God and is created in the image of the Creator, although [Angels] are more venerable than us, since they are devoid of bodies and are undoubtedly closer to the incorporeal and uncreated Nature. Or rather, those of them who have retained their rank and love that for which they were created, although they are our fellow servants, are revered by us and in their rank [in created existence] are much more venerable than us. Those of them who did not maintain their rank, but became apostates and rejected that for which they were created, moved far from those near God and fell away from their honor. If they seek to drag us down to fall, then they do this not only as worthless and dishonest, but also as opponents of God, and destroyers and the greatest enemies of our race. 28. But natural philosophers, astrologers and those who boast of knowing everything are unable to learn from their philosophy any of the above; they considered the chief of intelligible darkness and all the apostate forces subordinate to him not only higher than themselves, but also higher than the gods, they honored them with churches, made sacrifices to them, subjected themselves to their destructive oracles, through which they, of course, were completely deceived by unholy cults and desecrating purifications, as well as by those who inspire damned conceit, prophets and prophetesses, leading away from genuine truth. 29. And not only that a person knows God and knows himself and his order (that is, that knowledge is meant that is characteristic of [all] Christians, even those considered simple) - not only this, I repeat, is a more sublime knowledge than natural science, astronomy and any philosophy relating to these [sciences], but also the knowledge by our mind of our own weakness, and the desire to heal it seems to be incomparably more important than knowledge and the study of the size of the stars, the laws of natural phenomena, the origin of the lower [kinds of beings] and the rotation of the higher [luminaries], their changes and risings, their distances and combinations: in a word - the whole diverse form of their relations arising from the diversity of their movements. Therefore, the mind, having recognized its weakness, would discover where it can come to salvation, approach the Light of knowledge and perceive true wisdom, which does not perish with the [destruction] of this age. 30. Every rational and intelligent nature, whether angelic or human, has life in essence, thanks to which it equally remains immortal in its existence, not accepting corruption. However, the rational and intelligent nature that is in us has not only life in essence, but also activity, for it gives life to the body connected to it. Therefore, the body can also be considered life, but it is considered life in relation to another and is the action of this [reasonable and intelligent nature], and life, depending on another, cannot be called an essence in itself. As for the intelligent nature of the Angels, it does not possess life as this kind of activity, for it did not receive from God a body united with it, taken from the earth, in order to acquire life-giving power in relation to it. However, the angelic nature is capable of perceiving opposites, that is, perceiving depravity and goodness. This is confirmed by the crafty angels who fell away [from God] due to exaltation. Consequently, Angels, in a sense, are complex [creatures], consisting of their essence and one of the opposite qualities, that is, of virtue and guile. From this it is clear that they have goodness as their essence. 31. The soul of each of the irrational animals is the life of the body it animates; and each of the animals has this life not in essence, but as an action, for it depends on the other, and does not exist on its own. It is obvious that a given soul has nothing other than the actions carried out through the body, and therefore, when the body disintegrates, it is dissolved along with it. For she is no less mortal than the body, since everything that she is exists in relation to the mortal and is counted among him; therefore this soul dies along with the mortal body. 32. The soul of each person is also the life of the body it animates and, considered in relation to another, that is, in relation to the body it animates, has life-giving activity. But it has life not only as an action, but also as an essence, for it lives in itself. After all, it is clearly evident that she has a rational and intelligent life, different from the life of the body and various bodily phenomena. And besides the fact that the soul is not dissolved [along with the body] and remains immortal, [one can also point out that] it is not considered [only] in relation to another, but has life in itself as an essence. 33. A rational and thinking soul has life in essence, but is capable of perceiving opposites, that is, evil and goodness. From this it is clear that it possesses goodness, as well as evil, not as an essence, but as a certain quality, being disposed towards any one of these opposites when it is present. It is available, of course, not in the spatial sense, but in the sense that the intelligent soul, having received freedom of self-determination from the Creator, can incline towards any one of the named opposites and want to live in accordance with it. Therefore, the rational and intelligent soul is in some way complex, consisting not of the above-mentioned action (for this action is related to something else, and therefore it is not inherent in it to produce combinations [with the soul]), but of its essence and of the mentioned opposite qualities, that is, of virtue and guile. VII. Divine nature and image of the Holy Trinity in man 34. The Highest Mind, the supreme Good, the superliving and pre-divine Nature, being completely and in every way incapable of perceiving opposites, obviously possesses the Good not as a quality, but has It as Its essence. Therefore, every [partial] good that can be mentally imagined is contained in It, or, better to say, this Mind Itself is [all good] and is above it. On the other hand, everything that can be mentally imagined in Him is Good, or, more precisely, Goodness and pre-blessing Goodness. Likewise, Life is in Him, or rather, He is Life, for Life is Good, and Life is Goodness in Him. And Wisdom is in Him, or rather, He Himself is Wisdom, for Wisdom is Good, and Wisdom is Goodness in Him. And Eternity, and Bliss, and in general every good that can be imagined, is in Him. For Goodness in Him embraces everything, unites everything and contains everything in simplicity, being conceived and called [so] based on the totality of goods. She is the one and true Good that can only be thought or spoken about. This Goodness is not only what those who think about it with their God-wise mind and theologize with God-inspired language truly think, but also what is ineffable and incomprehensible, above all [these names], is not inferior to the only and supernatural Simplicity; [in one word], there is one, all-good and super-good Goodness. For in accordance with this alone, that is, with the fact that the Creator and Ruler of creation, Who is all-good and super-good Goodness and has Goodness as His essence, is addressed to creatures by His actions, He is known and named. Therefore, He is in no way and completely capable of receiving [something] the opposite into Himself, since no essence has [in itself any] opposite. 35. This all-holy and all-blessing Goodness is the Source of [all] goodness. And this is Good and the pinnacle of [all] good, and It [in no way] can be deprived of perfect Goodness. And since the most perfect and all-perfect Goodness is Mind, then what else could come from It, as from a Source, if not the Word? Moreover, It is not like our spoken word, for this word of ours is not [the action of only] the mind, but also the action of the body set in motion by the mind. It is not like our inner word, which seems to have an inherent disposition towards the images of sounds. It is also impossible to compare Him with our mental word, although it is silently carried out by completely incorporeal movements; however, it needs intervals and considerable periods of time in order, gradually proceeding [from the mind], to become a perfect conclusion, being initially [something] imperfect. Rather [this Word can be] compared to the word or knowledge innate in our mind, which always coexists with the mind, due to which [we should think that] we were brought into being by Him who created us in His image. This Knowledge is predominantly inherent in the Highest Mind of all-perfect and super-perfect Goodness, Which has nothing imperfect, for except for the fact that Knowledge comes from It, everything [relating to it] is the same unchangeable Goodness as She Itself. That is why the Son is and is called by us the Highest Word, so that we know Him as Perfect in our own and perfect Hypostasis; after all, this Word is [born] from the Father and is in no way inferior to the Fatherly essence, but is completely identical with the Father, with the exception of [only His being] according to Hypostasis, which shows that the Word is divinely born from the Father. 36. Since Goodness, which is born from the intellectual Source of Goodness, is the Word, and since no one with intelligence can conceive a word without spirit, God the Word, [born] from God, has the Holy Spirit, proceeding with Him from the Father. The spirit cannot be likened to that breath that is connected with the word coming through our lips, for this breath is bodily and is combined with our word through bodily organs; It is impossible to liken Him to the spirit that is associated, albeit in a non-corporeal way, with our inner and mental word, for this spirit is a certain aspiration of the mind, extending in time [to the subject of knowledge] together with our [inner] word, and therefore requiring time intervals and occurring [as a movement] from imperfection to perfection. The Spirit of the Highest Word is, as it were, some kind of ineffable Love of the Parent for the ineffably born Word Himself. The Beloved Son Himself and the Word of the Father use this same Love, having It in relation to the Parent, as having come with Him from the Father and resting unitedly in Him. From this Word, communicating with us through [His] flesh, we are taught about the name of the Spirit, which differs in [hypostatic] existence from the Father, and also about the fact that He is not only the Spirit of the Father, but also the Spirit of the Son. For He says: “The Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father” (John 15:26), so that we may know not only the Word, but also the Spirit, which is from the Father, not begotten, but proceeding: He is also the Spirit of the Son, who has Him from the Father as the Spirit of Truth, Wisdom and Word. For Truth and Wisdom are the Word corresponding to the Parent and rejoicing with the Father, according to what He said through Solomon: “I was and rejoiced with Him.” He did not say “rejoiced,” but precisely “rejoiced,” because the eternal Joy of the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit as common to both, according to the saying [of the Holy Scriptures]. That is why the Holy Spirit is sent by both to [people] worthy, having its being from the Father alone and proceeding from Him alone in being. 37. Our mind also has the image of this Highest Love, created in the image of God, [feeding it] to knowledge that constantly abides from Him and in Him; and this love is from Him and in Him, emanating from Him along with the inner Word. And this insatiable desire of people for knowledge serves as clear evidence [of such love] even for those who are not able to comprehend the innermost depths of themselves. But in that Prototype, in that all-perfect and superperfect Goodness, in Which there is nothing imperfect, except for what comes from It, Divine Love is completely Goodness Itself. Therefore, this Love is the Holy Spirit and “another Comforter” (John 14:16), and is so called by us, since He accompanies the Word, so that we may know that [the Holy Spirit], being perfect in a perfect and own Hypostasis, is in no way inferior to the essence of the Father, but is invariably identical [by nature] with the Son and the Father, [differing from Them] in Hypostasis and presenting to us [His] divine coming from the Father. Therefore, we honor the one God, true and perfect, in three true and perfect Persons - God, of course, not threefold, but simple. For neither is Goodness triple and there are no three goodnesses, but the Supreme Goodness is the Holy Trinity, revered and worshiped; She pours out from Herself and into Herself without pouring out, residing magnificently in Herself before [all] ages. Being unlimited, She is limited only by Herself, [but She] limits everything, extends beyond everything and does not allow anything that exists to be outside of Her. 38. The intelligent and rational nature of the Angels [also] possesses both mind and word, originating from the mind, and the love of the mind for the word; This love [again comes] from the mind, is always co-present with the mind and the word and can be called “spirit”, since by nature it accompanies the word. However, this spirit is not life-giving, for the angelic nature did not receive from God a body united with it and [taken] from the earth so as to have life-giving and sustaining power. On the contrary, the intelligent and rational nature of the soul, since it was created together with the earthly body, received from God a life-giving spirit, thanks to which it preserves and gives life to the body connected to it. By this, intelligent people are convinced that the human spirit, which gives life to the body, is intelligent love; it is from the mind and the word, it is in the mind and the word, and it contains the mind and the word. Thanks to him, the soul naturally has such a longed-for connection with its own body that it never wants to leave it and generally [strives] not to leave it, unless some serious illness forces it to do so. 39. [Consequently], only one intelligent and rational nature of the soul has both mind, and word, and life-giving spirit; only this one, more than the incorporeal Angels, was created by God in His image. And this possession of the image is unchangeable, although this nature may not realize its dignity, thinking and living unworthy of Him who created it in His image. So after the ancestral crime in paradise, [occurring as a result of eating] from the tree, when before bodily death we underwent spiritual death, which is separation from God, we, having rejected [living] in the divine likeness, did not lose [life] in the image. Therefore, if the soul hates [its] connection with the worst and cleaves with love to the Best, submitting to Him by deeds and ways of [implementing] virtue, then it is enlightened by this Best and ennobled by Him, improving and being convinced by His advice and admonitions, thanks to which it receives truly eternal life. Through this life, she makes immortal the body united with her, which at a [certain] time will receive the promised resurrection and become a participant in eternal glory. However, if the soul does not reject [its] connection with the worst and does not refuse subordination to it, by which it dishonors and puts to shame the image of God, then it is alienated and moves away from the true bliss of God and true life, since, as having previously abandoned the Best, it is rightly abandoned by Him. 40. The trinitarian nature, following the highest Trinity, more than all other [created beings] created in Her image, namely, the intelligent, rational and spiritual nature, that is, the human soul, must maintain its rank and be lower than God alone; she must only submit to Him alone, be subservient and obedient, look at Him alone, adorn herself with constant remembrance of Him, contemplation of Him and ardent and fiery love for Him. Thus, she miraculously attracts Him to herself, or better said, she can sometimes attract the mysterious and ineffable radiance of that Nature [of God]. Then she truly possesses the image and likeness of God, which through this [radiance] realize [in their fullness] pleasantness, wisdom and divinity. Whether [this radiance] is present explicitly or approaches implicitly, the soul through it learns in the present [age] to love God more and more, itself, its neighbor as itself, and from here - to know and observe its dignity and rank, and also to truly love itself. For he who loves unrighteousness hates his own soul, destroys and makes useless that which is in the image of God, likening those people possessed by madness who mercilessly tear apart their own flesh without feeling [pain] at all. After all, [such a person] himself imperceptibly destroys and cruelly destroys his innate beauty, insanely tearing [to pieces] the trinitarian and supermundane world of his soul, filled with love inside. What could be more unrighteous, more destructive than not remembering, not contemplating, constantly not desiring and not loving Him who created and adorned Him in His image, Who bestowed the power of knowledge and love and generously endowed with His ineffable gifts and eternal life those who correctly use this power? VIII. Awareness of human frailty and the need for healing 41. One of [those rational beings] that are lower than our soul, and a creature many times more insignificant than other [reasonable beings], is a spiritual and incipiently evil serpent, who has now become, as a result of his crafty advice to people, an angel of his own wickedness. He became so lower and worse than everyone else that in his pride he desired to become like the Creator in power; and he was as righteously abandoned by Him as he himself had previously abandoned Him, for he so abandoned [God] that he became an enemy, an adversary of the Creator and a clear adversary. After all, if God is living Goodness, life-giving to living beings, then the devil is downright dead and deadening evil. For God essentially possesses Goodness and His nature is not capable of perceiving the opposite, i.e. evil, so that none of those who are in any way involved in evil can approach Him. How much more and further does God reject from Himself the creator and founder of evil, who serves as the culprit of this evil in other [creatures]! Moreover, the evil one has as his essence not wickedness, but life, as a result of which he remains immortal by this essence, which is nevertheless capable of perceiving evil. He was honored by free will, so that, by voluntarily submitting to [God] and clinging to the ever-flowing Source of Goodness, he could become a partaker of true Life. But since he voluntarily ran over to evil, he lost this true Life, being rightly rejected by the One from Whom he himself first retreated. And he became a dead spirit, not in essence, of course (after all, deadness has no essence), but through rejection of true Life. Unsatisfied in [his] desire for evil and becoming more and more vicious, he made himself a deadly spirit, diligently trying to lure man and introduce him to his deadness. 42. As sophisticated in methods [of seduction] and strong in deceit, this mediator and patron of mortality once clothed himself in the Paradise of God in the cunning serpent. He himself did not become a serpent (after all, this was possible only in accordance with the ability of imagination [of the first man], and the evil one did not yet know how to use it properly, without fear of being caught), but, not daring to open communication, he preferred cunning. He chooses this trick, being confident that in this way he can better hide [himself] in order, under the guise of a friend, to imperceptibly introduce [into the hearts of people] the hated through the unprecedented [serpent's] ability to utter words: after all, the sensual serpent had never before been a verbal [creature] and had never appeared capable of uttering sounds. [Therefore, the devil dared to do such an unusual thing] in order to amaze and completely attract to himself [Eve], who listened to him, to make her pliable with his machinations and thus accustom her immediately after this to submit to the worst and slavishly serve him, that is, to serve that over which she, according to the lot she received, should worthily rule as the only one of [all] sensible beings, honorable [to be created] by the Hand and Word of God and existing in the image of the Creator. God allows this so that a person, seeing advice coming from a worse being (after all, it is self-evident how much worse the serpent was than a man), understands that this advice is not at all useful to him, becomes indignant at [the attempt] to subordinate it to a clearly worse being, and preserves his dignity along with faith in the Creator and observance of His commandments. [God allows this] so that man can easily become the conqueror of the apostate from true Life, righteously accept blessed immortality and remain alive and immortal forever. 43. Not a single [created being] is so superior to a person that it could advise him and offer him an idea, thanks to which he would know and gain something useful for himself. Only a person himself observes his rank, knows himself and the One Who is above him, protects what he has been taught by Him - only then does a person accept Him as the only Advisor. For even the Angels, although they surpass us in dignity, are still subject to His commands regarding us, “sent out to minister for those who are to inherit salvation” (Heb. 1:14). This, of course, does not apply to all Angels, but to those who are good and maintain their rank. After all, they have from God a mind, a word and a spirit, which are closely united in them, and must, like us, obey the Creator, Who is the Mind, the Word and the Spirit. Angels are superior to us in many ways, but in some respects, they are lower than us, which we have already said and will talk about again, namely, that we are in the image of the Creator, as a result of which we have become greater than them, in the image of God. 44. Although the Angels were determined to serve the Creator to the best of their ability and were given the Destiny only to be under [God’s] command, and they were not assigned to rule over those [created] after them (unless they were sent to this by the Lord of all), Satan still proudly wanted to rule contrary to the will of the Creator. And, leaving his rank together with his fellow angels, he was righteously abandoned by the true Source of Life and Light, clothed in death and eternal darkness. And since man was destined not only to be under [God’s] command, but also to rule over all earthly [creatures], then the evil one [tempter], foreseeing this with envious eyes, uses every trick to deprive man of this leadership. But, not having the possibility of violence, for this was forbidden by the Lord of all, Who created the rational nature free and autocratic, the devil cunningly offers man advice that deprives him of authority. And he robs a person, or, more precisely, convinces him to neglect, consider insignificant, reject and even resist the commandments and advice given by the Highest, and act contrary to them, so that he, as an accomplice of apostasy, will associate him with his eternal darkness and deadness. 45. And the great Paul teaches us that the rational soul is [as a result of the Fall] as if killed, although it has life as its being, when he writes: “the voluptuous widow died alive” (1 Tim. 5:6). He speaks about the same thing that we are talking about, that is, about the rational soul, and it is difficult to say anything worse about it. In fact, a soul deprived of a spiritual Bridegroom, if it does not humble itself and grieve, leading a close and narrow life of repentance, but relaxes, indulges in pleasures and lust, then it will die alive (for in essence it is immortal). After all, she is capable of perceiving both death as the worst and life as the best. Although [the Apostle] speaks of a widow who has lost her bodily husband, he implies that one who indulges in voluptuousness and is alive in the body is already completely dead in soul. Therefore, the same Paul in another place says: “And we, who were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ” (Eph. 2:5). And what does [the Apostle John] say: “There is sin that leads to death... but there is sin that does not lead to death” (1 John 5:16–17)? However, the Lord, who commanded one of the [disciples] to leave the dead to bury their dead, thereby showed that these buryers, although alive in body, are completely dead in soul. 46. The ancestors of the [human] race, voluntarily retreating from the remembrance of God and from contemplating Him, and also neglecting the commandment received from Him, became unanimous with the dead spirit of Satan and, contrary to the will of the Creator, ate from the forbidden tree. Having been stripped of the bright and life-giving robes of the heavenly radiance, they, alas, became, like Satan, dead in spirit. Since Satan is not only a dead spirit, but also kills those who approach him, and since those who participated in his deadness had a body through which the killing council was carried out, then, alas, the ancestors transferred these dead and deadening spirits of deadness to their own bodies. And the human body would immediately disintegrate and return to the earth from which it was taken, if it had not been kept from disintegration by Providence and the strong Power [of God]; it patiently pronounced the sentence of the One who holds everything in one word, for without this sentence nothing that is done is accomplished, and it is always pronounced righteously. After all, as the divine Psalmist says, “The Lord is righteous and loves righteousness” (Ps. 10:7). 47. According to what is written, “God did not create death” (Wis. 1:13), but prevented it from happening, as far as it was necessary and just to prevent [the creatures] created by Him as autocratic. After all, from the beginning He set in motion His intention, which could immortalize [man], and strengthened [him] in advance with life-giving advice: He gave [him] His commandment and openly warned that neglecting this life-giving commandment would entail death. This was done so that people could save themselves from the experience of death through either desire, knowledge, or fear. For God loves and knows what is good for each of His creatures, and can [give it to any of them]. Therefore, if He only knew and did not love, He might not have allowed and left unfulfilled what He knew perfectly well. And if He, loving, did not know [this useful thing] or could not [give it], then, perhaps, even without His will, what He desired and knew would have remained unfulfilled. However, since God especially loves, and knows what is useful to us, and is able to [carry it out], then [everything] that happens to us and comes from Him, even against our will, serves for our benefit. But that which we ourselves voluntarily adhere to, belonging to nature, which has free will, should be greatly feared, for it may not be useful to us. When, according to God’s Providence, something is clearly forbidden, as, for example, it was forbidden in Paradise, in the Gospel by the Lord Himself, among the descendants of Israel through the prophets, in the law of grace through the Apostles of the Lord and their successors, then to desire this and strive for it is obviously the most harmful and destructive thing. And if someone offers us this and encourages us to strive for it, convincing with words or enticing with enchanting images, then he is clearly an adversary and enemy of our life. 48. So, it was necessary either with the help of desire - since God wants us to live (for why did He create us alive if He did not love us as such?), or with the help of knowledge - since He knows better than us what is useful to us (for does not the Giver of knowledge and the Lord of knowledge know this incomparably better than us?), or fearing His omnipotent power, not to succumb to our delusion then [in Paradise], not to be enchanted and not inclined to persuade [the evil one] to reject the commandment God and God's advice. The same is true now with the saving commandments and advice given to us after the first commandment. Just as today those who refuse to courageously resist sin consider the divine commandments to be nothing and rush to the opposite, that is, to internal and eternal death (unless, of course, they regain their souls through repentance), in the same way the couple of our first parents, not resisting the slander of disobedience, neglected the commandment. And then the sentence of the Righteous Judge, previously predicted to the ancestors, was carried out: according to the sentence, they, having eaten from the tree, immediately died. And in fact they knew what that commandment of truth, love, wisdom and strength was, given to them and forgotten by them. Out of shame they hid, exposing themselves to glory, which richly gives life to immortal spirits, and without which the life of these spirits is considered and is worse than many deaths. 49. The fact that it was not at all beneficial for [our] ancestors to eat from that tree is shown by the speaker: “This tree, in my opinion, was contemplation, which only the most perfect in the skill [of doing virtue] can safely approach, but it is not good for those who are still simple and immoderate in their desire; just as perfect food is not healthy for the weak and those in need of milk.” However, if someone does not want to interpret this tree and eating from it in a spiritual sense, that is, as contemplation, then, I think, it is not very difficult to understand that such food was not useful for them, who were still imperfect. For it seems to me that this tree, and according to the feeling, was the most pleasant to look at among [all] those trees of paradise, and [its fruit] was the sweetest to the taste. And the sweetest food is not truly and in all respects good; it is not always and not good for everyone. But for those who know how to use it so as not to be enslaved by it, [eat it] when necessary, as far as necessary and for the glory of the One who created it, it is good; for those who do not know how to use it in this way, it does not benefit them. Therefore, as I believe, this tree was called “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. 2:17). For [only] those who are perfect in the skill of divine contemplation and [success in] virtue tend to be in close contact with the most pleasant of sensory things and at the same time not turn their minds away from the contemplation of God, from singing songs to Him and praying to Him. Moreover, they tend to make these things the material and basis of ascent to God and completely master sensual pleasure with the help of intelligent movement towards the better; and even if this movement is unusual, then, due to such unusualness, it will become great and very strong; it does not deprive the soul of its rationality and [does not turn this rationality] to evil, which at times is considered to be good by those [persons] who are completely captured and defeated by it. 50. Consequently, this is how it happened with our ancestors, who should, while living in that sacred place, never forget God, practice more and more in simple and true blessings and, as it were, learn them, improving in the skill of contemplation. However, [people] who are not yet perfect, who are, as it were, in the middle and, in comparison with those who are strong in the use of [sensual things], who are easily inclined either to good or to the opposite of good, have no need to gain experience [of what is pleasant to the senses]. The same applies to those [people] who are very naturally attracted to the future, who, together with their feelings, drag down the whole mind and, overcoming it, give way to evil passions and demonstrate [the power of] the convictions of the ancestor and creator of these passions. After the evil one, the beginning of such passions is the passionate tasting of the sweetest dishes. For if only one sight of that tree, according to the narrative, made the serpent quite acceptable [to the first people] and a trustworthy adviser, then how much more powerful [the effect] should the eating have produced in their descendants? And if we talk about eating, then how much more [effect does] a meal until satiation? Is it really not clear that eating from that tree in a sensual way was completely unprofitable for the ancestors? Shouldn’t they have been expelled from God’s Paradise, who began to eat outside of school hours, so that they would not turn that God’s country into a place of evil deliberations and a den of vice? Shouldn't the criminals have been subjected to bodily death immediately? However, the Lord was long-suffering. 51. So, by the crime of [the ancestors] the death sentence of the soul was put into effect according to the Righteousness of the Creator, for He left those who left [Him], without forcing those who were created autocratic. This sentence was humanely pronounced in advance by God for the reasons we have already mentioned. However, He first delayed and postponed His sentence on the death of the body and, when He pronounced it, then, according to the depth of Wisdom and the abundance of His Philanthropy, He determined its fulfillment for the future. After all, he did not say to Adam: “Return to where you were taken from,” but: “You are earth, and to earth you will return” (Gen. 3:19). Those who listen with understanding can conclude from these words that God did not create the death of either soul or body. In the same way, when He first spoke His command [to the ancestors], He did not say: “You will die on the day on which you eat,” but: “If you drink a day from it, you will surely die” (Gen. 2:17). And now He did not say: “return,” but: go back, foretelling and allowing, but not preventing from happening what in justice should have happened. 52. This means that death had to accompany our first parents, just as it was prepared for those who will live after us, since our body has become mortal. Speaking about death, [one should understand it] as something that lasts for a long time, or, more precisely, to talk about myriads of deaths, successively inheriting each other until we reach the very last and lasting death. For we have come into corruptible existence and, arising, we pass away until we cease to both arise and pass away. And we ourselves are never truly the same, although we seem so to the inattentive. Just as fire, capturing light straw from the top and being different in different places, has the size of the straw as the measure of its existence, so for us, [always] changing, the measure of [existence] is the lifespan available to each one. 53. But so that we would not be ignorant of the abundance of [His] love for mankind and the depth of Wisdom, God postponed the execution of death and allowed man to live for quite a short time. First of all, He showed [Himself] to be mercifully upbringing, or, more precisely, He allowed righteous upbringing to take place, so that we would not fall into complete despair. He also granted time for repentance and pleasing Him, [allowing people, as it were] to live again. A succession of generations softened the sorrow of death. He multiplied the human race with heirs, so that the great number of those born would outnumber the number of those dying. Instead of one Adam, who became pitiful and poor through the beauty of the sensory tree, [God] revealed many [righteous people who came] from the sensory and blissfully enriched with knowledge of God, virtue, knowledge and divine favor; witnesses to this: Seth, Enos, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham and those among them, before and after them, were similar or close to them [in virtue]. However, since among so many and such [men] not a single one lived completely sinless and could not correct the fall of the first parents, heal the damage to the root of the [human] race and be sufficient for the sanctification, blessing and return to life of all subsequent generations, then God foresaw this and at the appropriate time chose from among the generations and tribes that [people] from which the much-sung rod came and [from the root] of which the flower sprang - through it the saving grace was to be accomplished The economy of the entire [human] race. 54. Oh, “the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!” (Rom.11:33). If there had been no death and, before death, our race would not have been mortal, [coming] from such a root, then in reality we would not have been enriched with the firstfruits of immortality, would not have been called to heaven, and our nature would not have been seated “at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven” (Heb. 8:1) “and above all Principality and Power” (Eph. 1:21). Thus, God knew how, through His Wisdom and Power, to humanely change for the better our disastrous fall that occurred as a result of our autocracy. 55. Many may blame Adam for being so easily convinced by evil counsel, rejecting God's commandment, and through this rejection bringing about death in us. However, it is not the same thing to desire to taste from some deadly plant before experience and to desire to eat [the fruit] of it after one has learned from experience that it is deadly. Therefore, each of us is much more worthy of blame and condemnation than that Adam. However, isn’t that tree in us? Do we not now have a commandment from God prohibiting us from eating from that tree? It is not in us in exactly the same way [as it was in Paradise], but the commandment of God still remains in us. She frees those who obey her and wish to live according to her, both from punishment for their own sins and from their ancestral curse and condemnation, and those who even now reject her, preferring to her the excuse and advice of the evil one, [expect] a fall from that [blessed] life and stay in Paradise, as well as a fall into the terrible Gehenna of eternal fire. 56. What is God's commandment now offered to us? – Repentance, the main meaning of which is to no longer touch what is forbidden. After all, we were expelled from the place of divine bliss, the Paradise of God was rightly closed to us, we fell into this perilous abyss and were condemned to live together with dumb animals and communicate with them, having lost the hope of being called back to Paradise. Therefore, the One who then Himself righteously pronounced the sentence (or rather, Who justly allowed this sentence to be carried out on us), He now, due to the excess of philanthropy and goodness and “according to gracious mercy” (Luke 1:78), came down to us for His sake. And He deigned to become a sinless Man, like us, in order to teach like and save like; brought us saving advice and the commandment of repentance, turning to us with the words: “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4:17). Before the incarnation of the Word of God, the Kingdom of Heaven was as far from us as heaven is from earth. But when the King of Heaven settled among us and deigned to unite with us, then the Kingdom of Heaven came closer to all of us. 57. Since now the Kingdom of Heaven has approached us, let us not move away from it, living without repentance. Let us especially avoid the pitiful fate of those who sit “in darkness and the shadow of death” (Ps. 107:10). We acquire works of repentance: humility, tenderness, spiritual contrition, a meek heart, filled with mercy, loving righteousness, seeking purity, peace-loving and pacifying, patient, rejoicing in persecution, punishment, reproach, slander and suffering for truth and righteousness. After all, the Kingdom of Heaven, or rather the King of Heaven (oh, ineffable generosity!), “is within” us (Luke 17:21). To Him, through works of repentance and patience, we must always cleave, loving, as far as possible, the One who loved us so much. 58. The absence of passions and the abundance of virtues produce love for God. For hatred of evil, from which the absence of passions occurs, introduces instead [into the soul] an ardent love for the acquisition of [spiritual] benefits. But will not the lover and owner of goods love the Lord, Who is the good itself, the only Giver and Preserver of all good? In this Master he himself abides in a special way and, thanks to love, carries Him within himself, according to who said: “he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him” (1 John 4:16). One can [easily] notice that not only love of God [comes] from virtues, but that virtues are also born from love. That is why the Lord once said in the Gospel: “Whoever has My commandments and keeps them, he loves Me” (John 14:21), adding in another place: “Whoever loves Me keeps My commandments.” However, deeds of virtue are unworthy of praise and are not useful for those who do them [if they are accomplished] without love; however, love without deeds is [also unhelpful]. This was demonstrated in detail by [Apostle] Paul, who wrote to the Corinthians: If I do this and that, “but do not have love, it profits me nothing” (1 Cor. 13:1-3). And Christ’s especially beloved disciple says: “Let us love not in word or tongue, but in deed and in truth” (1 John 3:18). 59. The Most High and Worshipful Father is the Father of Truth Itself, that is, of the Only Begotten Son; and He has the spirit of Truth - the Holy Spirit, as the Word of Truth showed earlier. Therefore those who worship the Father in Spirit and Truth, thus believing, are brought into action by Them. For, as the Apostle says, “It is the Spirit through whom we worship and by whom we pray.” And the Only Begotten Son of God says: “no one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). Therefore, those who worship the Most High Father “in spirit and in truth are true worshipers” (John 4:2). 60. “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24), that is, thinking of the Incorporeal in an incorporeal manner. For [only] then will those who worship truly see Him in His spirit and truth. After all, since God is spirit, He is incorporeal, and the incorporeal is not located in [any] place and is not limited to spatial boundaries. Therefore, whoever says that God should be worshiped in any particular place out of all the places in heaven and earth speaks contrary to the truth and worships untruthfully. For since God is incorporeal, He is nowhere, but since He is God, He is everywhere. As a result, if there is a mountain or a place or a creature where there is no God, it means that He will be limited in something. Therefore, [God] is everywhere, for He is infinite. How is it that He is everywhere? Is it not so that He is embraced not by a part [of the world], but by the whole [of this world]? - In no way, since [this would mean] again that He is a body. So, containing and embracing everything, God is in Himself everywhere and above all, and He is worshiped by true worshipers in His spirit and truth. 61. The angel and the soul, being incorporeal, are not located in [any] place, but are not omnipresent either; they do not contain everything [the universe], but they themselves need the Container. Consequently, they [are] in the One who contains and embraces the whole [creation], being accordingly limited by Him. As for the soul, it, containing the body with which it was created, is everywhere in the body, but not as in a [certain] place and not as embraced [by the body], but as containing, embracing and life-giving this body, since it possesses this in the image of God. 62. But not only in this respect is man more created in the image of God than the Angels, that he has within himself a containing and life-giving power, but also because he is in charge. For in the nature of our soul there is both a dominant and ruling principle and a serving and subordinate principle. Desire, aspiration, feeling and in general [everything] that comes after the mind - [all this] was created together with the mind by God, even if we, [impelled by] a sin-loving will, sometimes rebel not only against God Almighty, but also against the autocratic [beginning] inherent in us by nature. Nevertheless, because of the rulership within us, God has given us dominion over the whole earth. Angels do not have a body associated with them so that it is subordinate to the mind. The angels who fell away [from God] acquired a mental desire that is constantly evil, but among the good Angels this desire is always good and does not need a charioteer at all. The evil one did not have earthly power, but stole it, from which it is clear that he was not created to rule over the earth. And the good Angels were appointed by the Almighty to oversee earthly affairs after our fall and the subsequent diminishment of our dignity, although not complete due to God’s love for mankind. For God, as Moses says in [his] song, set limits for the Angels when he divided the nations. This division took place after Cain and Seth; the descendants of Cain were called “[sons of] men,” and the descendants of Seth were called “sons of God.” It seems to me that from that time of division by name the generation from which the Only Begotten Son of God was to take flesh was foreshadowed. 63. Along with many others, one could say that the trinity of our knowledge shows that we are more than angels [created] in the image of God. This is not only because our knowledge is threefold, but also because it embraces every kind of knowledge. After all, of all creatures, we alone possess, in addition to the thinking and rational [principles], also the ability to feel. Man alone was given that which is naturally connected with the rational [principle of the soul] and which reveals a most varied variety of arts, sciences and knowledge: agriculture, architecture and the creation of [things] from nothing, although not from absolute non-existence (which is characteristic [only] of God). For, I believe, nothing that is accomplished by God arises or disappears; but, mixing one with the other, it takes on a different form for us. Further, only to one people did God grant that the invisible word of the mind, united with the air, was perceived by the sense of hearing; but not only: being written down, it is seen together with the body and through the body. [Thus, God] leads us to sufficient faith in the coming and manifestation through the flesh of the Most High Word - and the Angels do not take part in this. Part two. Refutation of the teachings of Varlaam and Akindinus 64. But if we are more than the Angels, and to this day we possess what is “in the image,” then in the fact that “in the likeness of God” we are significantly inferior to the good Angels, especially now. Leaving aside [everything else] for now, I will say that the perfection of being in the likeness of God is accomplished through Divine illumination [emanating] from God. I think that none of those who have carefully and intelligently read the inspired verbs remain ignorant of the fact that the wicked angels are deprived of this illumination, since they are under darkness (Jude 1:6); and God’s minds are saturated with it, which is why they are called “the second light” and “the outflow of the first Light.” From here [it becomes clear that] the good Angels have knowledge of sensory [things]; they do not comprehend them through sensory and natural power, but they know these [things] with the help of a god-like power, from which nothing can be hidden: neither the present, nor the past, nor the future. 65. Those who are partakers of this illumination, possessing it to [any] extent, also have knowledge of beings in accordance with this measure. And the fact that Angels are partakers of this illumination, that it is uncreated and is not the Divine essence, is known to everyone who has properly read [the works of] God-wise theologians. But those who think like Barlaam and Akindinus blaspheme this Divine illumination and insist that it is either a creation or the essence of God. When they say that it is a creature, they do not allow [the thought] of it as the light of Angels. Let the Revealer of God now come forward from the Areopagus and briefly explain these three [things]. For he says: “Divine minds move in a circle when they are united by the beginningless and endless illuminations of the Beautiful and the Good.” It is clear to everyone that he calls good Angels “divine minds.” Speaking about these insights in the plural, he distinguishes them from the Divine essence, for it is one and indivisible. And when he adds [defining them as] “beginningless and infinite,” what else does he represent to us, if not that they are uncreated? 66. Having taken pity on the ugliness of our nature, exposed as a result of the crime [of our ancestors] from this divine illumination and radiance, the Word of God, in the compassion of His mercy, accepted this nature and again revealed it at Tabor to the chosen ones from among the disciples, clothed in greater glory. He showed what we were once and what we will be through Him in the future century, if only here we choose, as far as possible [for us], a life consistent with Him, as John Chrysostom says. 67. And Adam, before the transgression [of the commandments], being a participant in this divine illumination and radiance, as if truly clothed in the robe of glory, was not naked and did not appear ugly due to his nakedness, for he was more adorned, so to speak, than those who [in this world] are clothed in many golden robes and adorned with diadems with sparkling stones. The great Paul calls this divine illumination and grace our heavenly dwelling, saying: “That is why we groan, desiring to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling; Let us not, even though we are clothed, find ourselves naked” (2 Cor. 5:2-3). And the same Paul, on the way from Jerusalem to Damascus, received from God the pledge of this divine illumination and the vestment in it, so that, in the words of Gregory, who bears the glorious name of the Theologian, “before cleansing from persecution, he could enter into communication with the Persecuted One, or, better to say, with the small brilliance of the great Light.” II. Many divine energies 68. Divine presubstantiality was never called plural. But the divine and uncreated grace and energy of God, inseparably divided like the radiance of the sun, warms, and illuminates, and gives life, and grows, and sends its own radiance to those who are illuminated, and appears to the eyes of those who see it. According to this seemingly vague image, the divine energy of God is not called by theologians only one, but they speak of many [energies]. For example, Basil the Great says: “What are the actions of [the Spirit]? Inexpressible in greatness, innumerable in number. For how can we imagine in thought what is beyond the ages? What were His actions before the mental creature? Therefore, not one of the created beings can express anything or comprehend anything with the mind from what [was] before the intelligible creation and what [is] beyond the ages (after all, the ages are intelligible creatures). Therefore, the powers and energies of God's Spirit are not created; since in theology they are thought of as many, they are inseparably distinguished from the completely indivisible essence of the [Holy] Spirit. 69. The uncreated energy of God, inseparably divided, is presented by theologians as multiple, as was explained above by Basil the Great. And since divine and deifying illumination and grace are not the essence, but the energy of God, then it appears not only in the singular, but also in the plural. Proportionately communicated to those who participate in it, it, according to the ability of those who perceive [it], sends them more or less deifying illumination. 70. Isaiah numbers these divine energies as seven; Among the Jews, the number seven means multitude. He says: “And a branch will come from the root of Jesse, and a flower will come from it; and seven spirits will rest upon him: the spirit of wisdom and understanding, knowledge and godliness, counsel, strength and fear” (Is. 11:1-2). The dividing views of Varlaam and Akindinus are madly trying to [prove] that these seven spirits are created. In our “Objections to Akindinus”, having presented [these views in detail], we sufficiently exposed them. However, Gregory the Theologian, having mentioned these divine energies of the Spirit, says: “spirits, as I think, Isaiah was pleased to call the actions of the Spirit.” The most brilliant of the prophets not only clearly showed through this number the difference between the divine energies and the divine essence, but also through the word “rest” presented their uncreatedness. For “to rest” is a sign of superior dignity. Indeed, how can those [spirits] who rest on the dominating nature received from us be creatures? 71. Our Lord Jesus Christ, according to [Evangelist] Luke, says that He casts out “demons” with the “finger of God” (Luke 11:20), and according to [Evangelist] Matthew – “by the Spirit of God” (Matthew 12:28). Basil the Great [on the same occasion] says that the “finger of God” is one of the energies of the Spirit. Therefore, if one of these energies is the Holy Spirit, then the others, of course, are also Him, as [St.] Basil teaches us. But this does not mean that there are many gods or spirits. This is the essence of the performances, manifestations and natural energies of the one Spirit and through each [of them] one acting [Person] is manifested. And evil-minded [heretics] claim that these [energies] are creatures, sevenfold lowering the Spirit of God to the level of creation. So let them be put to shame sevenfold! For the prophet also speaks of these [energies]: “These are the seven toes of the Lord, which look down upon the whole earth” (Zech. 4:10). And in the Apocalypse it is written: “Grace to you and peace from God and from the seven spirits who are before His throne” (Rev. 1:4). He clearly shows to the faithful that these [energies] are the Holy Spirit. 72. God and the Father, through the prophet Micah, announcing in advance the birth according to the flesh of the Only Begotten, and also wanting to show the originlessness of His Divinity, says: “He came forth from the beginning from the days of the world” (Mic. 5:2). According to the interpretation of the divine fathers, these emanations are the energies of the Divine, for they are the forces and energies of the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit. But those who try to think like Barlaam and Akindinus and defend their opinions proclaim that these energies are creatures. But someday later, having come to their senses, let them understand who this is, about whom David says: “from everlasting” (which means “from the days of the world”) and “until everlasting art Thou art” (Ps. 89:3). And let them carefully examine (if, of course, they wish) how God, through the mouth of the prophet, says that these things existed from the beginning, but does not say that they occurred, were created, or were created. And Basil [the Great], theologizing in the Spirit of God, [did not say] that they happened, but said: “The energies of the Spirit were before the intelligible creation and beyond the ages.” Consequently, there is one God who has been active and omnipotent from all eternity, for He has pre-eternal powers and energies. 73. Those who clearly oppose the holy fathers and defend the opinion of Akindinus say: “One thing is uncreated - the Divine nature, and that which in one way or another differs from it is created.” In this way they make both the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit into creatures. [These] Three have a single energy, and the one whose energy is created cannot himself be uncreated. Therefore, Divine energy is not a creature - this should not be allowed under any circumstances! But a creature is that which comes from [Divine] energy and is accomplished by it. Therefore, the divinely inspired Damascene teaches that energy, different from the Divine nature, is an essential, that is, natural, movement. Since the divine Cyril said that creation is inherent in God’s energy, how can it be created if it is not produced by another energy, and that by another, and so on ad infinitum? This means that the uncreated [cause of this] energy is always [only] sought and proclaimed. 74. Since the Divine essence and Divine energy are everywhere present inseparably, God’s energy is also available to us, creatures, since, according to theologians, it is inseparably divided, while the Divine nature, according to the same theologians, remains completely indivisible. Therefore, Father Chrysostom said: “A drop of grace has filled everything with knowledge; miracles were performed by it, sins were resolved.” Having shown that a drop of grace is uncreated, he tries further to show that it is energy, and not essence. For further he adds [the provision about] the difference between the Divine energy from the Divine essence and from the Hypostasis of the [Holy] Spirit, and writes: “I speak of a part of the energy, for the Comforter is not divided.” So, Divine grace and energy are available to each of us, since it is inseparably shared. But since the essence of God is completely inseparable in itself, how can it be accessible to any creature? 75. In God [one can distinguish] three real [things]: essence, energy and the Trinity of Divine Hypostases. As was shown above, those who are worthy to be united with God are, as it were, one spirit with Him - as the great Paul said: “he who is united with the Lord is one spirit with the Lord” (1 Cor. 6:17). Since those who are worthy are not united [with Him] by essence, and since all theologians say that God is not involved in essence, and also since hypostatic union occurred only with the God-Man Word, it remains [to conclude] that those who are worthy to be united with God are united with Him by Energy; and the spirit in which the one who unites is one with God represents the uncreated energy of the [Holy] Spirit and is called it, but is not the essence of God, even if Barlaam and Akindinus do not like this. Therefore, God through the prophet did not predict “My Spirit,” but “I will pour out My Spirit on those who believe” (Joel 2:28). 76. [Maximus the Confessor] says: “Moses, David and those who are able to contain Divine energy, putting aside their carnal properties, were moved by the beck of God.” Also: “They are certain living icons of Christ and even like Him, [only] by grace and likeness.” And again: “There is one purity in Christ and in the saints.” And as the most divinely inspired singer sings: “And the Lordship... of God... be upon us” (Ps. 89:17). Finally, according to Basil the Great, “spirit-bearing souls, being illuminated by the Spirit, themselves become spiritual and pour out grace on others. Hence - foreknowledge of the future, understanding of the sacraments, comprehension of the unseen, the distribution of gifts, heavenly residence, face-to-face with the Angels, endless joy, abiding in God, becoming like God and the extreme limit of what is desired - deification.” 77. In grace and illumination, as well as in relation to unity with God, Angels are superior to people. Therefore, they are “second lordships, servants of the highest Lordship,” and “the essence of the second lights, reflections of the first Light,” intelligent forces and serving spirits; [they are called] “the first bright nature after the first Nature, which flows from Him”; [it is also said]: “the second light is an Angel - a certain stream or communion of the first Light”; also: “divine minds move in a circle when they are united by the beginningless and endless illuminations of the Beautiful and the Good.” [In addition, it is said]: “God is Light Himself for ever-bearing creatures, and not anyone else,” and also: “what the sun is for sensible [creatures], the same God is for intelligible ones, and He is the highest and unapproachable Light, enlightening all rational nature.” Father Chrysostom also says: “If you hear a prophet saying: “I have seen the Lord sitting on the throne,” then do not assume that he saw the essence [of God, for he contemplated only] the condescension of [His], and that more vaguely than the heavenly powers.” 78. Every [created] nature is extremely removed from the Divine nature and is alien to it. For if God is nature, then [everything] else is not him, and if [everything else] is nature, then He is not him. If [everything] else is a being, then God is not Him, and if He is a Being, then [everything] else is not Him. This applies to Wisdom, Goodness and in general to everything that is around God - if you understand [this teaching] in this way, then you theology correctly and according to the saints [men]. But God is the Nature of all beings and is called Him, since they all participate in Him and through this participation gain existence - of course, by participation not of His nature (in no way!), but of His energies. After all, He is the First Principle of those who exist, the Image in images as the Prototype, the Wisdom of those who become wise and, simply to say, the All of everything. God is not nature, since He exceeds all nature; He is not an Image and has no image, since He exceeds [every] image. But then, how can we get closer to God? Is it just that we get closer to His nature? But not one of all created beings has or will have [any] communication or proximity to the Highest Nature. Therefore, if someone became close to God, then he approached Him, of course, [not thanks to nature, but] thanks to energy. How? How to participate in this energy in a natural way? “Then it would be common to all creatures.” Therefore, to be close or far from God is characteristic not of those [beings] who approach [Him] as a result of [their] nature, but of those who unite [with Him] as a result of [their] will. And volition is inherent only in rational beings. Of all other [creatures], they alone become further or closer from God, approaching Him through virtue and moving away from Him through vice. Again, only they alone are capable of perceiving either misfortune or bliss. But we will hasten to achieve bliss. 79. When one of the creatures is compared with another, it is said that it is either related in nature to God or alien to Him. Akin to the Divine, it is said, are intelligent natures, comprehended only by the mind; completely alien to Him are those natures that are comprehended by the senses, and even further [from God] than these are completely soulless and motionless [things]. Thus, when creatures are compared with each other, it is said about them that they are either related or alien by nature to God, but in themselves they are all alien by nature to Him. For one can rather say how far the sense and the beings perceived by this sense are from the intelligent [natures] than to speak out about how far the intelligent nature is from God. Therefore, by nature we are so removed from God that, indeed, woe to us if we, by good will, do not find ourselves close to Him through good deeds and images [the implementation of virtues]. 80. In the second of his theological chapters, the God-inspired and common language of divine theologians, the God-bearing Damascene says: “Whoever wants to talk or listen about God, of course, must clearly know that of what pertains to the doctrine of God and the Incarnation, not everything is inexpressible, and not everything can be expressed in speech; and not everything is inaccessible to knowledge, and not everything is accessible to it.” We know that the Divine, about which we wish to speak, exceeds the word due to His superiority [over all created things]. For It [is] outside the word, not because of Its defectiveness, but [is] outside the word that dwells within ourselves, which we also pronounce so that others can hear. Therefore, neither the listener, explaining [what is said], can imagine [this Divine], nor the speaker himself, exploring [It], is able to comprehend [It] with his own strength, as a result of which we are not allowed to say anything about God from ourselves, but we should turn to those [men] who speak in the Spirit about spiritual things, even if opponents demand [from us] a word. 81. It is said that on the outer gate of Plato's school it was written: “Let no one who does not know geometry enter [here].” But he who is not able to think and reason about indivisible [things] as if they are divisible does not know geometry. After all, the existence of a limit without something limited by a limit belongs to the realm of the impossible. And geometry almost entirely teaches about limits, which are sometimes defined and presented in themselves, separately from limited [things], because the mind divides the indivisible. If a person has never learned to separate in his mind the body from what is around this body, then how can he heed [the teaching of] nature in itself? For nature is not only inseparable from [its] natural [properties], existing in them, but can never exist apart from them. How can a person comprehend universals that exist as such in individual [things], but are distinguished from them only by the mind and understanding and are thought, at least in correct reasoning, to be prior to the many, although they generally have no existence apart from the many. How can such a person truly comprehend [the doctrine of] intelligible and intelligent [beings]? How will he understand us who claim that every mind has thoughts and that these thoughts [in turn] are our mind? Will he not mock and [indignantly] shout, [accusing us] that we teach that every person has two or more minds? Anyone who cannot hear and speak about these indivisibles as if they were divisible, is he really able to speak or teach the same about God, in relation to whom, according to theologians, many unities and differences exist and are seen? But “unities dominate [divine] distinctions and prevail [over them],” without destroying them or being in any way hindered by them. Supporters of Akindinus do not perceive and cannot comprehend the indivisible division in God, even if they hear us, in consonance with the saints [fathers], saying that one thing with God is incomprehensible, and the other is comprehensible. God is one, being incomprehensible in essence and comprehensible from His creatures according to His Divine energies, that is, according to His eternal Providence about us, according to His eternal Wisdom about us; or, to put it in the words of the divine Maxim, “according to His boundless Power, Wisdom and Goodness.” When Barlaam, Akindinus and their followers are forced to listen from us that this should be so, they [immediately] accuse us of talking about many gods and many uncreated [beings], and also of making God complex. For they do not know that God is inseparably divided and separately combined, but at the same time He does not undergo either plurality or complexity. 82. Great Paul; The mouth of Christ, the vessel of election and the most brilliant chariot of the name of God, says: “His invisible things, his eternal power and Godhead, have been visible from the creation of the world through the consideration of creation” (Rom. 1:20). Does the essence of God, comprehended by the mind, become visible in creatures? Truly not! For this is the madness of Barlaam and Akindinus, and before them the madness of Eunomius. For it was Eunomius, even before them, but like them, who wrote that from creation it is not something else that is comprehended, but precisely the very essence of God. The Divine Apostle is very far from such [statements], for he first teaches: “what can be known about God” is revealed (Rom. 1:19), as if showing that there is something beyond this knowable about God, which he discovered to those who have an [enlightened by grace] mind. Then he added, “His invisible things... have been seen since the creation of the world by looking at the things that have been made” (Rom. 1:20). In this way you can learn what is knowable in God. The God-bearing fathers, explaining this, say that one thing in God, that is, His essence, is unknowable, and the other, that is, everything that is around Him - Goodness, Wisdom, Power, Divinity or Greatness, is knowable. [Apostle] Paul calls them “invisible,” although this invisible is comprehended by the mind in creatures. But can those who are around God and who are comprehended from creation [beings] be called creatures? [Of course not]. Therefore, the energy of God, comprehended by the mind from creations, is uncreated and is not an essence, since it appears not only as individual, but also as multiple. 83. Basil the Great, objecting to Eunomius, who claims that based on creatures one can discover the essence of God, says: “Works serve as an indication of power, wisdom, art, and not the essence itself.” Therefore, the energy of God, manifested in creations, is uncreated and is not an essence. And it is clear that the followers of Barlaam and Akindinus, who claim that there is no difference between the Divine energy and the Divine essence, are [in fact] Eunomians. 84. Therefore, the brother of Basil the Great, who thinks unanimously with [his elder] brother, speaks well in his “Refutations”: “Comprehending with our mental gaze the beauty and greatness of the wonderful [phenomena] in creation, from them and others like them we comprehend other speculations about the Divine, explaining each of the speculations that are born in us with the help of their proper names. “It is from the majesty and beauty of creatures that the creator of them is known comparatively” (Wis. 13:5). We call the Creator “Creator”, “[All] Mighty” we call the One Who has enough strength to fulfill [any of His] desires, and “Righteous” we call the incorruptible Judge. However, we also comprehend the word “God” as originating from the action of secret visual contemplation. Therefore, although we have been taught by this regarding a certain partial energy of God’s nature, nevertheless we have not achieved with the help of this word a [full] understanding of the very essence [of God].” IV. The teaching of Dionysius the Areopagite on unity and distinction 85. Dionysius the Areopagite, the most prominent among theologians after the inspired Apostles, after researching the difference between the divine Hypostases, says: “If the divine distinction is a magnificent procession outward, since the divine Unity, in a way that surpasses all unities, multiplies and increases Itself in goodness.” And further: “We call divine discernment the magnificent procession outward of the Godhead. Abundantly bestowing upon all beings the participation of all blessings, It is unitedly differentiated, multiplied individually and increased many times over, without being separated from Unity.” Also: “We will try to sing these common and united distinctions or God-befitting outward flows of the whole Divinity to the best of [our] strength.” [Dionysius] clearly shows that, in addition to the hypostatic difference, there is another difference in God, which he calls “divine distinction,” for the difference according to the hypostases is not [specifically] divine. He says that according to these divine outward processes and energies, God multiplies and increases, and he calls the procession itself “processions.” But, on the other hand, the Divinity does not multiply (under no circumstances!) and as God does not differ, for He is not threefold, but is a Trinity. [Dionysius] also shows the uncreated character of these outward outflows and energies, for he calls them “divine” and says that they are the distinctions of the entire Divinity. He also says that the Godhead itself multiplies and increases in these outward outflows and energies, without accepting anything from the outside - under no circumstances! But this most eminent of [all] divine hymns declares that he will sing of these outward processes and adds: “to the best of [his] ability,” thereby demonstrating their superiority over all praise. 86. The same discoverer of God, having said above that the outward procession is a divine distinction, adds: “The irrepressible endowments [of goods] are united according to the divine distinction.” Here he calls all outward outflows and energies of God “endowments.” And he added that they are irresistible, so that no one considers them [created] works, which are the essence of each of the existing ones, or sensory life in living beings, or mind and intelligence existing in rational and intelligent [beings]. Could these [energies] exist in God and be uncontrollable if they were created? Can uncontrollable outward flows and endowments be creatures when uncontrollable endowment is naturally inherent in the Giver, as we can see in the example of the sun? 87. Developing [his thoughts], this great [man] glorifies such outward processes and calls them by other God-appropriate names, such as “sacraments and self-participations.” Often in his writings he shows that they exceed existing things and are the prototypes of these beings, pre-existing in God according to a super-essential unity. How can they be creatures? And further, teaching what these prototypes are, he adds: “We call prototypes the meanings of beings that pre-exist in God in unity, creating the essence, which theology calls predestination and divine and good wills, dividing and creating existence, in accordance with which the Superessential both predetermined and realized all that exists.” How can these predestinations and the divine wills that create existing [things] be creatures? Isn’t it obvious that those who consider these external outflows and energies to be created also reduce the Providence of God [to the level of] creatures? After all, the fulfilling, life-giving and wisdom energy, which creates and protects created beings, is identical to the divine wills, the very divine sacraments and gifts of Goodness, which is the Cause of everything. 88. Therefore, according to the words of the great Dionysius, communion with Self-Existence in no way participates in anything. Other participles, since they are the essence of participles and principles of beings, do not participate in anything at all, because Providence does not participate in Providence, or Life does not participate in Life. Since they have existence, they are spoken of as having participation in Self-Existence, for without Him they do not exist and do not have participation, just as foreknowledge does not exist without knowledge. Therefore, as self-participles, they are not created. Thus, according to the divine Maximus, they never began to be, they are essentially contemplated around God, and there was no time when they were not. The Vaarlamites impiously consider Self-Life, Self-Good and similar [entities] created, because they participate in the general name of beings, not seeing that, although they are spoken of as beings, they are above beings - the great Dionysius himself speaks about this. Those who easily classify self-participation among creatures may well also consider the Holy Spirit to be created, although Basil the Great says that He participates in names proper to God. 89. If someone says that only one Self-existence is a participle, since It alone does not participate, but only one partakes, and the others participate in It, then let him know that his reasoning about other participles is not reasonable. For that which lives, which is holy and which is good, is said to live by participation, but not because it participates simply in being or Self-Existence and [thus] is sanctified and made good, but because it participates in Self-Life, Self-Holiness and Self-Goodness. But Self-Life and the like become Self-Life not at all because it participates in [any] other Self-Life. Therefore, as Self-Life, She belongs not to those who participate, but to those who participate. That which does not participate in life, but which itself is involved, and which gives life to living [beings], how can this be a creature? The same can be said about other participles. 90. The divine Maximus also agrees with us on this, who, [considering] the creative Providence to be identical with these divine outward processes, in [his] Scholia writes: “What is common to the Unit divided into three Hypostases are creative providences and beneficence,” that is, “the creation of new beings, their life-giving, endowing them with reason.” Thus, having said that they are many and different, he showed that they are not the essence of God, for it is completely one and inseparable. And since he called them “common to the Unit divisible into three Hypostases,” he thereby presented to us that they are neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit, since none of Them represents the common energy of the three [Hypostases]. Having said that they are not only “providences and blessings,” but also “creative,” he showed [thereby] their uncreated nature. For if this is not so, the creative will be created by someone else, and this, in turn, will be created by a third - and so you can reach the limit of nonsense, and “going into infinity, it will be impossible to stop.” Consequently, outward processes and energies of God are uncreated and are neither essence nor hypostasis. 91. Since the One who brought everything [into being] and the Decorator of everything made it all diverse thanks to the incomparable abundance of [His] goodness, He wished that some [creatures] would only exist, while others, in addition to being, would also acquire life; He gave to some [creatures] a good destiny to [participate in] the intellectual life, and to others to taste only the sensual life. But He also willed that there should be [beings] possessing a mixed life, consisting of both. And when they received from Him rational and intelligent life, then, [according to God’s plan], they should, thanks to their voluntary attraction [towards the Creator], unite with Him and live in a divine and transcendental way, having been rewarded with His deifying grace and energy. For His will is [the cause of] being for those who exist: brought [into being] from non-existence or changed for the better - and this [happens] in different ways. Due to the difference of God's will for beings, that one Providence and that one Goodness (or one can say: the appeal of God as a result of His Goodness to lower [creatures]) become many providences and many goodnesses and are so called by God-wise theologians - [this Providence and this Goodness] are inseparably divided and become diverse in divided [creatures]. Sometimes [this Providence] is called “the power of God’s Foreknowledge,” as well as “creative power” and “the power that preserves [all created existence]”; according to the great Dionysius, some of these [forces] are “realizations,” others are “revival,” and still others are “wisdom.” Each of these [forces] is common to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; and in accordance with every good and divine will for us, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the fulfilling, quickening and wise power and energy. [Dionysius] called them limitless and irreducible endowments, removing them from all creatures and teaching that they are naturally inherent in the One who bestows communion [on all beings]. 92. Just as the sun, without being diminished itself, transmits heat and light to those who participate [in it], possessing this heat and light as natural and essential energies, so the divine distributions, in an indiminutive way connected with the Dispenser [gifts], are His natural and essential energies, and therefore are uncreated. The light of the sun leaves no trace when the sun sets underground and leaves those on earth, and therefore it is impossible for the eye that enjoys its radiance to connect with it, and through it with the one shedding light; however, the solar heat and the consequences of this heat, contributing to the birth and growth of sensual [creatures] and producing differences in [their] juices and qualities, do not leave those who are on earth, even if they do not come into contact with the sun through its radiance. In the same way, as if according to a vague sensual image, only those who strive towards the supernatural and most divine Light are able to partake in a pure way of deifying grace and through it unite with God. All other [things] are consequences of creative energy; they are brought [into being] from non-existence and represent a gift, and are not sparkles of grace; God's Radiance is called grace. 93. This Divine Radiance and deifying energy, which deifies those who are involved [in it], is some kind of divine grace, and not the nature of God. Which, however, does not mean, as Akindinus absurdly slanderes, that this nature is far from those blessed, for the nature of God is everywhere, but [it is everywhere] not as accessible to the sacrament, since no creature, according to the above explanation, is capable of participating in it. After all, the divine energy and grace of the Spirit, being present everywhere and remaining inseparable from Him, is inaccessible to communion and, as it were, absent for those who, due to their impurity, are incapable of communion with it. For [St. Basil] says: “Just as we see the images of faces not in every substance, but only in smooth and transparent substances, so the actions of the Spirit are not in every soul, but only in souls that do not have in themselves anything “obstinate” and nothing “corrupt” (Prov. 8:8).” And he also says: “The Holy Spirit is in everyone, but He reveals His own power in those who are pure from passions, and not in those whose sovereignty of the soul is darkened by sinful impurities.” 94. Sunlight is inseparable from the radiance of the rays [of the sun] and the heat delivered [by these rays], but among those who enjoy [all] this, the light remains uninvolved for those who do not have vision, and therefore they perceive only the warmth of this radiance, for the perception of light is generally impossible for those without eyes. Moreover, communion with the essence of the Creator is impossible for any [of those creatures] that enjoy the Divine Radiance, since none of them has the power capable of containing the nature of the Creator. 95. The fact that the sacramental energy is not created and is not the essence of God is testified here with us by both John, the Baptist of Christ, and John, whom Christ loved more than other disciples, and John Chrysostom. One, [that is, the beloved disciple of the Lord, testifies to this] with his own written narrative; The Forerunner and Baptist of Christ - by the fact that he says: “the Spirit is given without measure” by God the Father to Christ (John 3:34), and the Eloquent One [father] - by the fact that in his interpretation he writes: “He calls energy the Spirit. For we, to a certain extent, receive the energy of the Spirit. And Christ has all the energy, immeasurable and complete. If His energy is immeasurable, then even more so is His essence.” By calling the Spirit, especially the Spirit of God Himself, “energy,” and saying that this energy is immeasurable, the Baptist [clearly] represented it as uncreated. And pointing out that we accept this energy to a certain extent, [he showed] the difference between uncreated essence and uncreated energy. For no one ever accepts the essence of God; [this does not happen], even if you gather all [people] together, each of whom [receives the energy of God] separately, in proportion to their purity. Later, Father Chrysostom notes another difference between uncreated energy and uncreated essence, saying: “If the energy of the Spirit is immeasurable, then how much more so is His essence.” V. The absurdities of the teachings of Akindinus 96. If we follow the idle talk of Akindinus and his followers, then [one must admit that] Divine energy is no different from the Divine essence, and therefore creation, which is characteristic of energy, is no different from birth and procession, which are characteristic of essence. If creation is no different from birth and procession, then the creatures will be no different from the Born and the Evolved. And if this is the case, then the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are no different from creatures, and all creatures [in this case become] the generation and output of God the Father; therefore, the creature will be deified, and God will be numbered among the creatures. Therefore, the divine Cyril, pointing out the difference between the essence and energy of God, says: “Birth is characteristic of the Divine nature, and creation is characteristic of Divine energy,” adding this clear judgment: “Nature and energy are not the same thing.” 97. If the Divine essence is no different from the Divine energy, then the birth of the [Son] and the procession of the Holy Spirit will be no different from creation. And God the Father creates [the world] through the Son in the Holy Spirit; therefore, according to Akindinus and his followers, He gives birth and brings forth [the world] also through the Son in the Holy Spirit. 98. If the Divine essence is no different from the Divine energy, then it is, therefore, no different from the [Divine] will. Then, according to them, the Only Begotten from the essence of the Father will, as it seems, be created by His will. 99. If the Divine essence is no different from the Divine energy, and if, as the God-bearing [fathers] testify, God has many energies, which are His creative providences and goodness (as was shown above), then, therefore, God also has many essences - and this none of those bearing the name of Christ’s race can ever say or think. 100. If God's energies are no different from the Divine essence, then they will have no difference in relation to each other. Therefore, [Divine] will is no different from God's foreknowledge. And this means that either God does not foresee everything, since He does not will [the existence of] everything that happened, or He is also the will of the evil one - and this is identical to the statement that He is either not foreseeing everything, or is not God. Therefore, [God's] foreknowledge is different from the Divine will, and each of these two is different from the Divine essence. 101. If the Divine energies have no difference among themselves, then [God's] ability to create does not differ from [His] ability to foresee [everything]. Therefore, if God once began to create, then this means that He once began to foretell. But how can He be God if He did not know in advance about everything before [all] ages? 102. If the creative energy of God is no different from Divine foreknowledge, then [God’s] creatures will coincide with [His] foreknowledge, that is, those created without beginning, just as [the Creator] Himself creates [them] without beginning, since He foreknows without beginning, and, accordingly, what is foreseen is foreshadowed without beginning. But how can He be God whose creatures are in no way later than He Himself? 103. If creative energy is no different from the foreknowledge of God, then the act of creation does not obey the will of [the Creator], since foreknowledge does not obey it. Then God creates not through [His] will, but only because it is inherent in [Him] by nature. But how can He who creates against [His] will be God? VI. Impossibility for the essence of God to participate 104. God Himself abides in Himself, since the three Divine Hypostases are inextricably and eternally united with each other and inextricably interpenetrate each other. [On the other hand], God is in everything, and everything is in God: He contains everything in Himself, and everything is contained by Him. Therefore, all [beings] participate not in the essence of God, but in [His] containing energy. And thus all theologians [unanimously] affirm, speaking about the energy of God, that it exists everywhere. 105. Those who have pleased God and achieved the goal for which they were brought into being, that is, deification - for, as [the saints] say, God created us for this purpose, so that we “became partakers” of His own Divinity (2 Pet. 1:4) - such abide in God, since they are deified by Him, and God abides in them, since He deifies them. Therefore, they participate not in the essence of God, but in Divine energy, albeit in [some] other way. Therefore, theologians say that the word “Divinity” is a designation of Divine energy. 106. The super-essential, super-living, super-divine and super-good Nature, since It is It that is super-good, super-divine and the like, cannot be expressed in words, comprehended by thought or in any way contemplated, because it surpasses everything, is above all knowledge, and, hoisting itself with incomprehensible power over super-heavenly minds, It is completely elusive to everyone and always ineffable. For He has no name in this present age, and in the [age] to come He will also not be designated by a name; there is no word [for Him] that arises in the soul or is pronounced by the tongue; there is no contact or participation, sensory or mental, [with Him], and [He] is completely impossible to imagine. Therefore, theologians prefer to be closer to this Nature by asserting [Its] perfect incomprehensibility, for [It] completely transcends everything that is, or that about which anything is stated. And he who knows what the Truth is, which exceeds all truth, will not allow himself to name, in the proper sense of the word, either the essence or the nature [of God]. But since [this Truth] is the Cause of everything, and everything is around Her and for Her sake, since She also, before everything, simply and without defining anything, contains everything in advance, She must be called from everything not in the proper sense of the word, but [one can speak of Her only] in the improper sense of the word. Therefore, It can be called “essence” and “nature,” but in the proper sense of the word It should be called “the outward procession that creates the essence” and the “energy” of God. This is, as the great Dionysius says, “the truly existing theological name of a being.” 107. Someone may find it necessary to apply the name “nature” to naturally inherent properties, both in relation to created beings and in relation to God. On this score, the highest of theologians, Gregory, says somewhere in [his] “Poems”: “For this is the property of my King - to communicate bliss.” After all, gifting is not the nature of someone, but is naturally inherent in him as a benefactor. Also in regard to fire it can be said that it has the nature of ascending upward and sending light to those who see; however, movement is not its nature, nor is simply the creation of [something], since [only] the beginning of movement can be called nature. Therefore, natural [properties] are called [sometimes] “nature,” as the great Dionysius himself writes in another place: “The nature of Good is to produce and preserve,” that is, this is inherent in Good by nature. Therefore, when you hear the statements of the fathers that the essence of God is not involved, then [if you develop these statements], you can think of it as [also] dissimilar and non-revealed. [When you hear the statements of the same fathers that] she is involved, then [if you develop them], you can think that God naturally has an outward procession, manifestation and energy. And thus, accepting both with love, you will be unanimous with the [holy] fathers. 108. [Each] part of the essence, even the smallest, has all its powers, just as a spark shines and shines, allows one to distinguish those approaching and burns them, is self-moving by nature and ascends upward - that is, to put it simply, it has [all] the same [properties] as the fire of which it is a particle. In the same way, a drop has [all] the properties of water, and an ingot has the properties of the metal of which it is a piece. Consequently, if we were partakers of that unmanifested essence of God, partaking either of it entirely or of its part, then we would be omnipotent, and thus [one can say that] each of the [created] beings will be omnipotent. But we and all together do not have this, even if you [mentally] embrace [with your spiritual eye] all creation. [The Holy Apostle] Paul convincingly shows this and testifies that [even] among those blessed with the deifying gifts of the [Holy] Spirit, not everyone has all these gifts at once, but, in his words, “to one is given... the word of wisdom; to another a word of knowledge”, to each in a different way “by the same Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:8). And Father Chrysostom, clearly curbing the lies of Varlaam and Akindinus in advance, says: “No one has everything without believing that nature is grace.” However, no one with intelligence will draw a [wrong] conclusion from these words [and say] that this grace, opposed to the Divine nature, is created, because, recognizing it as such, he [will reveal himself to those] who do not reverently honor the nature of God, and also because, although the grace of the Spirit differs from [this] nature, it does not separate [people] from Him, but, on the contrary, rather brings closer those worthy of [this] to unite with the Divine Spirit. 109. The essence has as many hypostases as it participates in. For as many lamps can be lit from one, so many hypostases of fire will be created. Consequently, if, according to our opponents, the essence of God is accessible through communion (and it is accessible to everyone), then it is not Trinitarian, but has countless hypostases. And who among those brought up in divine dogmas does not know that this coincides with Messalian nonsense? For according to the Messalians, those who have reached the heights of virtue become partakers of the essence of God. However, the supporters of Akindinus, trying to surpass this blasphemy, argue that not only people outstanding in their virtue, but also all [beings] in general, participate in the Divine essence, using the pretext that it is present everywhere. However, Gregory, strong in theology, long before refuting the opinions of both these and those [ancient heretics], says: “[The Lord is] “Christ” according to the Divinity; for the anointing itself sanctifies [His] humanity, not by its action, as in other anointed ones, but by the entire presence of the Anointing One.” And [all] the wise fathers expressed the general opinion that the Divine dwells [only] in those [men] who have been properly purified, but [It does not simply dwell] by virtue of [Its] nature. Therefore, it is not by essence or by hypostasis that someone becomes a partaker of God, for not a single essence and not a single hypostasis is divided and they are in no way transferred to anyone. Therefore God is completely inconceivable to everyone, although he is everywhere in other respects. The general power and energy of the Trinitarian Deity, divided in different ways and proportionately among those participating, is available for accommodation in those blessed. For the Holy Spirit, in the words of Basil the Great, “is not communicated in one measure to the worthy, but divides [God’s] energy in proportion to faith. He is simple in essence, but diverse in strength.” 110. When we talk about communion, it [means that the person participating] has a part of the participle, for if [he] participates not in part, but in the whole, then [we can talk] not about communion, but about possession. But what is communed is divisible, and therefore what partakes necessarily partakes of the part. However, the essence of God is completely indivisible, and therefore completely inaccessible to communion. On the contrary, Father Chrysostom repeatedly speaks in his writings about the fact that Divine energy is divided. It is what those who are worthy of deifying grace partake of. Listen again to the Golden Mouth, which clearly teaches about both, that is, about the fact that the participle is not an essence, but an energy, and also about the fact that the inseparably divided [energy] is identical to the participatory [energy], but not identical to the inaccessible participatory essence from which the Divine energy comes. In addition to the Gospel words: “of His fullness we have all received” (John 1:16) - he says: “For if [we are talking about] fire, where the essence is divisible and is a body, and we divide this [body] and do not divide, then how far is this [the judgment about divisibility and indivisibility true] in relation to energy, and energy [coming] from an incorporeal essence.” 111. Further, that which participates in essence must necessarily have a common essence with the participant and be in some respect the same. But has anyone ever heard that God and we have something one in essence? Basil the Great speaks about this: “Although the actions of God descend to us, His essence remains inaccessible.” And the divine Maximus says: “Everything that God is, the same will be [man] deified by grace, with the exception of identity in essence.” Therefore, it is impossible for those who are deified by God’s grace to participate in the Divine essence, but it is possible for them to be partakers of the Divine energy. “For the moderate light of truth here serves for me to see and bear the Lordship of God,” says Gregory the Theologian. And according to the prophet-psalmist, “the lordship of our God is upon us.” Also: “God and the saints have one energy,” writes Maxim clearly, who [himself] is numbered among the saints. [He also says] that these saints are “living icons of Christ and are one with Him by grace or likeness.” 112. God is the same in Himself, since the three Divine Hypostases naturally, holistically, eternally and without origin, as well as unmixed and unmerged, relate to each other, penetrating each other, since They have the same energy. For related [beings have many] similar things, but each hypostasis acts on its own, so that each has its own energy. This is not the case with those three Divine and worshiped Persons. For here the energy is truly one and the same, and there is one movement of the Divine will, beginning from the First Cause, [that is,] the Father, passing through the Son and manifested in the Holy Spirit. This is clear from [Their] works, since in them all natural energy is made known. So, for example, swallows build their nests in different ways, and the pages written by different scribes differ from one another, although the letters in them are the same. In like manner, the works of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, being considered [as produced] by each Hypostasis, although the whole creation is the [common] work of the three [Hypostases]. And we are taught by the [holy] fathers to understand one and the same Divine energy as belonging to the three worshiped Persons, but not to think of it as similar and belonging to each [Person]. VII. The answer regarding [the words] of St. Kirill 113. Since the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are unconfused and unmixed in each other, we know for sure that They have one energy and one movement: the life and power that the Father possesses in Himself are not any other than those that the Son has, since the Son has the same life and the same power as the Father. The same is true with the Holy Spirit. And those who believe that Divine energy is no different from the Divine essence, because none other than God Himself is our Life, and because He is the pre-eternal Life not in relation to [anything] else, but Himself in Himself, such are the wicked and ignorant. They are ignorant insofar as they have not been taught that the highest Trinity is not something else, but God Himself, just as the highest Unity is the same God; however, this in no way prevents the Unity from being distinguished from the Trinity. But they are wicked because they destroy through each other both essence and energy. For that which is related to another is not an essence, and that which [has existence] in itself is not related to another. Therefore, if [essence and energy] are no different from each other, then they cancel each other. Or rather, those who deny the difference [of essence and energy] are excluded from the list of [men] pious. 114. And we confess that the Son of God is our Life by reason and effect, and that He is Life in Himself, completely irrespectively and absolutely, possessing both cause and energy in an uncreated way. The same [can be said] about the Father and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, this Life itself, by which we are quickened as the Cause of living, is nothing other than the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. For our Trinitarian God is called Life because He is the Cause of [all] life; and not even as a Cause and not in relation to another, but without relation and in Itself, the Divine Life is conceived by theologians as nothing other than the Father or the Son and the Holy Spirit. And this in no way contradicts the statements of those who believe that God is uncreated, and not only in essence and Hypostases, but also in terms of the energy common to the three [Persons]. [This is what is said]: “we theologize about one God in three Hypostases, having one essence, power and energy, and also possessing that which is contemplated around the essence and which, according to the [Holy] Scripture, is called the totality and fullness of the Divinity - this is theologized and this is accessible to contemplation in each of the three Holy Hypostases.” 115. Those who reject Divine energy and sometimes say that it is created, and sometimes claim that it is no different from the Divine essence, sometimes invent a new wickedness, dogmatizing that the Only Begotten [Son] of the Father is the only uncreated energy. Wanting to substantiate this opinion, they cite the following words of Saint Cyril: “The life that the Father possesses in Himself is nothing other than the Son; and since Life in the Son is not anything other than the Father, then He who speaks the truth says: “I am in the Father and the Father in Me” (John 14:10).” We will briefly show, as far as possible, the meaning of these sayings of the holy [father] and expose the wickedness of those who object to us, [being] in indiscernible darkness. For the divine Cyril stands against those who slander the Son and assert not only that He is unlike the Father, but also that He is after the Father, and also that He lives and possesses life not by nature, but as alien, by participation and addition, as having received and taken it from the Father, according to what is written: “As the Father has life in Himself, so He gave to the Son to have life in Himself” ( John 5:26). And to those who so impiously [understand] this Gospel saying, the divine Cyril objects, [saying]: “God is also called Life in energy, since He gives life to the living. For He is the Life of those who live according to nature, as the Creator of nature, but He is also the Giver of grace for those who live according to God. However, He is also called Life in Itself, and not in relation to another, [since this Life] is completely and completely free.” The Divine Cyril, wanting to show that in neither one nor the other [respect] the Son differs in any way from the Father, and also that, perceiving something from the Father, the Son does not reveal Himself as [a certain entity that is] after the Father, [affirms that the Son] is not in a temporary sense secondary in essence. And among many other things, he says the following: “He (the Son) has being not because he perceives something, but because He [already] exists perceives something.” And in conclusion he adds: “Consequently, accepting something from the Father does not necessarily mean for the Son that He is, in a temporary sense, secondary in essence compared to the Father.” From here. [it is clear] that [Saint Cyril] does not consider the Life that the Father possesses and which the Son receives from the Father as an essence. 116. The divine Cyril also shows that although the Son of God is spoken of as Life in accordance with energy in relation to living [creatures], since He gives life to them and is called their Life, then in this He is by no means dissimilar to the Father; on the contrary, [it should be affirmed that] He is by nature their Life and gives them life in the same way as the Father. Further [St. Cyril] writes: “If the Son is not Life by nature, then how will He verify the words: “Whoever believes in Me has eternal life” (John 6:47), and also: “My sheep obey My voice... and I give them eternal life” (John 10:27-28).” And further [St. Cyril] says: “Since He promises to grant those who believe in Him the Life inherent in Him by nature and in an essential way, how can one think that the Son does not have It, but received It from the Father?” So let those be ashamed who madly claim that Life is the essence of God, having heard the words that it belongs to God by nature. For neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit gives His essence to believers. Away from [such] wickedness! 117. And in subsequent [his reasonings], the great Cyril no less refutes the positions of those who fell ill with the [heresy] of Barlaam, saying: “The Son, descending from the Father, naturally brings with Him everything that belongs to the Father; and Life is one of the characteristic properties of the Father.” Having said “one of the characteristic properties,” [St. Cyril] clearly showed that there are many such properties. And if Life is the essence of God, then, according to those who adhere to this way of thinking, God has many essences. In addition to the fact that the assertion of the identity of beings and properties (excluding any [special] case) is impious, it also reveals an excess of ignorance. And even more insane is the assertion that beings and properties (and this is identical to the statement: “one” and “that which exceeds one”) are in no way different [from each other]. For it seems to be the highest degree of unreason to assert that “one” and “many” are the same thing. 118. The Divine Cyril, having said that Life is one of the characteristic properties of the Father, thereby showed that he here does not [at all] call the essence of God “Life.” Developing these thoughts [of the saint], we can say that God has many such properties. [St. Cyril] says: “It is affirmed that the Father has many excellent properties, but the Son cannot be deprived of them.” How can these many properties inherent in God be the Divine essence? Wanting to show some of these most excellent properties inherent in the Father, he cited the words of [Apostle] Paul: “to the incorruptible, invisible, only wise God” (1 Tim. 1:17). From here it becomes even more obvious that not one of the properties of God is an essence. For how can incorruptibility, invisibility, and in general all negative or apophatic [definitions of God, whether we consider them] all together or each separately be an essence? After all, there is no essence if there is no “this” or “these”. As for the cataphatic properties attributed to God by theologians along with negative ones, not one of them also reveals the essence of God, even if, out of necessity, we use all these names to [designate] this Super-essence, which is completely unnameable. 119. [If we are talking about] properties, then it is necessary to investigate who has them. And if they are not inherent to anyone, then they are not properties. However, if they are inherent in someone, then this is an essence; after all, according to our opponents, it differs in no way either from each of the properties, or from all these properties together. And since there are many properties, then one essence will be many essences, and that which is one in essence will become many in essence and will have many essences. If it is one and [at the same time] has many essences, then it is necessarily complex. And, saving believers from such great and ungodly errors, the divine Cyril in the “Treasury” says: “If something inherent only in God will certainly be His essence, then He will be composed of many essences, [like] us. After all, there is much that is inherent by nature only to Him, and not to any of the existing ones. For the Divine Scriptures speak of Him as “King, Lord, incorruptible, invisible,” and apply many other [names] to Him. And if each of His properties is attributed to the rank of essences, then won’t the Simple become complex? “And this would be the greatest absurdity.” 120. Cyril, wise in divine [things], presented through many [proofs] that, although the Son is Life and is called by energy Life, as he gives life to us and is the Life of the living, He is in no way unlike the Father in this, for the Father also gives life. Desiring further to prove that not in relation to anything else, but completely independently, the Son is Life and is called having Life, [St. Cyril says that] it is not at all thanks to this that He is not dissimilar to the Father in Life. After all, we do not call God our Life when He gives us life, but we then [so] call His essence (naming it completely freely and unconditionally) when we [talk about] the energy inherent in Him by nature, as, for example, [speaking in a similar way about] Wisdom, Goodness and all other [properties]. Wanting to prove this, [St. Cyril] says: “When we say in this way that the Father has Life in Himself, then we also call the Son Life, for He is different from the Father only by Hypostasis, and not by Life. Therefore, no complexity or duality can be conceived regarding Him. And again, when we say that the Son has Life in Himself, thinking this Life [totally] without reference, then we also call the Father Life. For He is Life not in relation to another, but [completely] freely in relation only to Himself; The Father and the Son are in each other. After all, [the Son] Himself said: “I am in the Father and the Father in Me” (John 14:10).” This is precisely what the divine Cyril affirms, showing that the Life Which is in the Father, that is, the Son, is something different and [at the same time] not different in comparison with the Father. However, [our opponents] say that the Son is in no way other than the Father, and that the Life that is in Him is in every way identical with the Life in the Father and is in no way different from It. In putting forward such [propositions] and asserting that the Only Begotten of the Father is the same [Life as the Father], they, by necessity, adhere not to the dogmas of the reverently revered Cyril, but to the [false teachings] of Sabellius. 121. But if the followers of Varlaam and Akindinus cite [the words of] the divine Cyril [which speak] against themselves, then do they not [thus] bring upon themselves the greatest condemnation? For to affirm one thing or the other, when both statements [are equally] true, is [sometimes] characteristic of a pious theologian, but no one with a [sound] mind will contradict himself. For if he who rightly says that the Son by nature has Life, which He bestows on those who believe in Him, he immediately proves that not only the essence of God, which no one perceives, but His natural energy is also called Life, which those who are given life by Him in this way receive by grace (so that through themselves they are able to save, or, in other words, make immortal in the spirit of those who previously did not live in the spirit, and to resurrect those who any member of the body or the whole body was dead), then how can one correctly and wisely prove this then assert that the essence of God is called Life, and deny [this name applied to] Divine energy? And those who now carry out violence against the words of Saint Cyril, or, more precisely, slander [him, only] prove their madness. 122. Not only the Only Begotten [Son] of God, but also the Holy Spirit is called by the holy [fathers] energy and power. And since They possess powers and energies in the same way as the Father, according to the great Dionysius, God is called [among other things also] Power, “because He has in Himself and surpasses all power.” Therefore, both of these [concepts] are perceived together and pronounced together [with the word Holy Spirit], when the hypostatic is called “power” or “energy”. The great Basil in all things says: “The Holy Spirit is a sanctifying Power, which is substantial, truly existing and hypostatic.” In [the books] “On the [Holy] Spirit” [Basily] showed that not all energies that [come] from the Spirit are hypostatic, and thanks to this [proof] it immediately becomes obvious that he distinguishes these [energies] from creatures. For there are things which are hypostatized from the Spirit as creatures, since God created created beings. 123. Apophatic theology does not contradict cataphatic theology and does not deny it, but it shows that [judgments] expressed in an affirmative manner regarding God are true, and their expression does not contradict the Orthodox way of thinking. [Such judgments also show that] God possesses [His properties] differently from the way we possess [ours]. For example, God has knowledge of beings, and we also have some knowledge of them, but we [cognize them] as now existing and having arisen, and God [cognizes them] not as such, for he knew them no worse and even before they came into being. Therefore, whoever says about God that He does not know things as existing does not contradict him who says that God knows about things that exist and knows them as existing. There is cataphatic theology, which contains within itself the possibility of apophatic theology. As one person once said about this: “All knowledge is related to some object, that is, to what is known, but the knowledge of God is not related to any object.” These words mean the same thing as the statement: God does not know beings as existing and does not have the same knowledge of beings that we have. In this way, they speak about God, due to [His] Superiority, as about Non-Existence. However, those who say this in order to show that those who say that God exists speak incorrectly, use apophatic theology not in proportion to [God's] Excellence, but in accordance with [His imaginary] insufficiency, [thinking] that God does not exist at all and in no way. And this is already the highest degree of wickedness, which, unfortunately, suffers from those who try, through apophatic theology, to deny that God has both essence and uncreated energy. We love both [theologies], which do not deny each other, but thanks to which we are strengthened in piety. 124. In order to completely overthrow all the sophistic inventions of the Barlaamites and show their nonsense, I consider it sufficient to quote a brief patristic saying. For [St. Gregory the Theologian] says: “The Beginningless, the Beginning and the Existing with the Beginning is one God... And the Beginning, by the fact that it is a beginning, is not separated from the Beginning: for for Him to be a beginning does not constitute nature, just as for the first to be beginningless; because this relates only to nature, and is not nature itself.” So what [can be said about this]? – Can anyone, except a madman, assert that if the Beginning and the Beginningless are not nature, but represent what is around nature, then as a result of this they are created? And if they are uncreated and inherent in the nature of God, then is it possible [on this basis to say that] God is complex? No way! For [God is in no way complex] if they differ from the Divine nature. But if this nature were the same as the [properties] naturally inherent in God, then the Deity would then be complex. Along with other fathers, the great Cyril teaches this in many places [of his creations]. You carefully study with me the writings of Basil the Great against Eunomius, as well as the books of his brother, who thinks like him, for there you will find that Barlaam, Akindinus and their followers are in agreement with Eunomius, and you will also find a sufficient number of refutations of them. 125. The Eunomians believe that the Father and the Son do not have the same essence, since they believe that everything that is said about God is said about [His] essence, and, having a passion for disputes, [assert] that since [the words] “to give birth” and “to be born” are different, the essences [denoted by these words] are also different. The followers of Akindinus also believe that He who has the Divine essence and the Possessor of the Divine energy is not the same God, since they believe that everything said about God is an essence and, [like the Eunomians] having a passion for controversy, [assert] that if there is some difference between the Divine essence and the Divine energy, then, therefore, there are many different gods. Therefore, [we] show that not everything that is said about God is said about [His] essence, but there is also something that is said relatively, that is, said in relation to something that is not [God] Himself. For example, [the word] “Father” is said in relation to the Son, but [this does not mean] that the Son is the Father. [Also, the word] “Lord” [is used] in relation to the creation that serves [God as Master], for God rules over those [creatures] that [are] in time and age, and also rules over the centuries themselves. And dominion is the uncreated energy of God, different from essence, since it is said in relation to something else that is not [God] Himself. 126. The Eunomians assert that everything that is said about God is essence, in order to dogma that ungeneracy is essence. And based on this, they reduce the Son, as different from the Father, to the [level of] the creature, that is, to the [level of] themselves. And the basis for them, in their own words, is [the fear] that there should not be two gods, one of whom would be unborn, and the other born. Imitating them, the Akindians claim that everything that is said about God is said about the essence of God, in order to also wickedly reduce to the [level of] the creature the energy that is not separated, but [only] different from the essence of God and in which creatures participate (for, as [Dionysius the Areopagite] says, “all [things] partake of the Providence that flows from the Divine - the Cause of everything”). And the basis for them, in their own words, is the [fear] that there would not be two deities, one of which would be the Trinitarian essence, exceeding [every] name, [every] reason and [every] communion, and the other - the participating and named energy of God arising from this essence. They do not know that just as God and the Father is called “Father” in relation to His own Son, and His Fatherhood has uncreated existence, although “Fatherhood” does not mean essence, so God has [a similar] uncreated image and energy, although energy is different from essence. And when we talk about the one Divinity, then we are talking about everything that God is, [that is, we are talking about] essence and energy. [And our opponents, therefore] are those who wickedly divide the one Divinity of God into created and uncreated. 127. A random property is something that appears and disappears; Based on this, we understand inseparable random properties. But there is also such a random property that is inherent in [something] naturally and which can increase and decrease; [an example of this is] knowledge in the rational soul. But there is nothing like this in God, because He remains completely unchanged; for this reason, nothing corresponding to a random property can be expressed regarding Him. However, not everything that is said about God denotes the essence [of Him], for something relative is also said [about Him], which correlates with [something] else, but does not reveal the essence. Such in God is Divine energy, for it is neither an essence nor a random property. And if some theologians call it a random property, then this is only to show that it exists in God, but is not an essence. 128. Gregory, called “Theologian,” speaking about the Holy Spirit, teaches us that Divine energy, although sometimes called a random property, is contemplated in God and does not produce complexity [in Him]. He says: “The Holy Spirit is something either independent or represented in another; and those who know this call the first essence, and the last - belonging. Therefore, if the Spirit is an accessory, then He will be the action of God. For what can we call Him then, except action, and whose action, besides God's? The same situation is more decent and does not introduce complications.” In saying this, [he] clearly [indicates] that if [the Spirit] belongs to that which is contemplated in God, and also that if He is not an essence, but is an accidental property and is called “Spirit,” then He cannot be anything other than energy. After all, [Saint Gregory] shows this with the words: “For what can we call Him then, except action, and whose action, except God’s?” In addition, noting that [the Spirit] cannot be either quality, quantity, or anything else of what is contemplated in God, but only energy, he adds: “The same position is more decent, and does not introduce complexity.” But how does the energy contemplated in God avoid complexity? – Because [only] one [God] has the most dispassionate energy, since He only acts, but does not undergo [any] influence, neither arising nor changing. 129. [Gregory] the Theologian knew that this energy is uncreated, and a little higher he showed this by contrasting it with creation. For he says: “As for our sages, some understood the Spirit as energy, others as a creature, and others as God.” Here he calls the Hypostasis itself “God” and, pointing out the difference between energy and creation, clearly shows that this energy is not a creature. And a little further [St. Gregory] calls this energy the movement of God. But how can the movement of God not be uncreated? And the God-bearing Damascene writes in the fifty-ninth chapter: “Action, of course, is an active and independent movement of nature; and that which is capable of action is the nature from which action proceeds; and what is produced is the result of action; the one who acts is the one who uses action, or hypostasis.” 130. Supporters of Akindinus, based on the words of [St. Gregory] the Theologian: “If [the Spirit is] action, then, without a doubt, it will be produced, not producing, and will cease along with production,” assumed and proclaimed that this Divine energy is created. For they did not know that the word “produced” is also expressed in relation to uncreated [Beings], as [St. Gregory] the Theologian showed elsewhere when he wrote: “If “Father” is the name of action, then consubstantial will be the consequence of action.” And the God-bearing Damascene says: “Christ sits at the right hand of the Father, divinely providing for all things,” but he does not apply [the word] “rested” to uncreated energy. For at the creation [of the world] God begins and ceases [to create], just as Moses says: “And he rested... from all His work” (Gen. 2:2). And this creation [of the world], in which God begins and ceases [to create], is the natural and uncreated energy of God. 131. Again, the divine Damascene, after the words: “Action is an active and independent movement of nature,” wanting to show that [St. Gregory] the Theologian spoke about such energy, which is put into action and ceases, added: “You must know that action is movement, and it is more produced than it produces, as Gregory the Theologian says in the “Sermon on the Holy Spirit”: “if there is action, then, without a doubt, it will be produced, and not to produce, and at the same time as it is produced, it will cease." Therefore, it is clear that those who adhere to the way of thinking of Varlaam and Akindinus, dogmatizing that the energy about which Gregory the Theologian spoke is created, insanely reduce this natural and essential energy of God to the [level of] creation. And the sacred Damascus, having shown that this energy not only is accomplished, but also accomplishes, presented it as uncreated. And that here he does not at all come into conflict with the Theologian has been sufficiently shown in my lengthy [previous] discussions. IX. Distinction between Divine Essence and Divine Energy 132. The hypostatic peculiar properties in God are [thought of] in relation to each other, and the [Divine] Hypostases differ from each other, but they do not differ in essence. In addition, God is sometimes spoken of in relation to creation. For God - the Most Holy Trinity - is called the Eternal, the Primordial, the Great and the Good; but this does not mean that He can be called Father, since not each of the Hypostases, but [only] one is the Father, and [everything] that follows is raised from Him and to Him. However, in relation to creation, He can be called both the Father and the Trinity, since the single work of the three [Hypostases] is the bringing into existence [of all created things] from complete non-existence, and also since [people] become sons [of God] because of the bestowed grace, common to the three [Hypostases]. For [the words]: “The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29) and “Our Father who art in heaven” (Matthew 6:9) speak of the Holy Trinity as the one Lord and our God, who is also the Father who regenerates [us] with His grace. However, as we have already said, only one Father is called Father in relation to the consubstantial Son. He is also called the Origin in relation to the Son and the [Holy] Spirit; The Father is also called the Beginning in relation to creation, but already as the Creator and Ruler of all creatures. And when the Father is called so in relation to the creature, then the Son is also the Beginning; however, [this does not mean that there are] two principles, for there is [only] one. For the Son is also called the Beginning in relation to creation, as the Master in relation to slaves. Therefore, the Father and the Son together with the [Holy] Spirit in relation to creation are one Beginning, one Lord, one Creator, one God, Father, Guardian, Guardian and everything else. However, each of these [designations] is not an essence, for if it were His essence, it would not be expressed in relation to the other. 133. Positions, states, places, times and [all other] similar things are expressed about God not in the true sense of the word, but in a metaphorical one. But creation and action in the truest sense of the word can only be said about God alone. For God alone creates, but He neither becomes nor endures [anything] as far as His essence is concerned; He alone creates each [of existence] in every possible way, and He alone creates [everything] from perfect non-existence, possessing omnipotent energy; According to this energy [something about Him] is expressed in relation to the creature [and according to it] He has the ability [to act]. For in His nature [God] cannot endure anything, but He can add anything to [His] creatures if He wishes. After all, the ability to endure, have and attach something is inherently characteristic of weakness. And the ability to create, possess [Your] creatures and attach [something] to them, whenever you wish, is characteristic of the divine and all-powerful Power. 134. While all beings (including those which are conceived as being next to essence) are reduced to ten categories: essence, quantity, quality, relation, where, when, action, suffering, possession and position, God is a super-essential essence in which relation and action are contemplated, and they do not produce in this [super-essential essence] any complexity and no change. For God creates everything, Himself in [His] essence, without suffering anything. He is the Creator, the Beginning and the Ruler in relation to creation, since it began and begins [in Him] and serves [Him]. But there is also our Father, who regenerates us by grace. At the same time, He is also the Father in relation to the Son, who in no way began [to be] in time, and the Son [is the Son] in relation to the Father; The Spirit is the Educated One, He is co-eternal with the Father and the Son, belonging to the same essence. And those who say that God is only an essence in which nothing else is observed represent God as not [having the ability] to create, act and relate to anything. If they believe that God does not have [all] this, it means that He is not active, is not the Creator, and does not possess energy. [In this case] He is also neither the Beginning, nor the Creator, nor the Master, nor our Father by grace. After all, how could He be [all] this if He did not have in Himself the relationship and action contemplated in His essence? And if there is no relation in the essence of God, then the Trinitarian nature of the Divine is thereby denied. And he who is not Trinitarian is neither the Lord of all nor God. Therefore, those who think in agreement with Varlaam and Akindinus [in fact] are atheists. 135. God has that which is not an essence. However, this does not mean that what is not an entity is an accidental property. For that which not only does not perish, but does not accept or produce an increase or decrease, cannot in any way be considered a random property. However, [if something] is neither an accidental property nor an essence, [then this does not mean that] it refers to something completely non-existent; on the contrary, it is and is in the true sense of the word. It is not a random property, because it is completely unchangeable, but it is not an essence either, because it does not belong to those that exist in themselves. Therefore, theologians, who only want to show that this is not an essence, call it a random property. What then? Can each of the hypostatic properties or each of the Hypostases, which are neither an essence nor an accidental property, be ranked [on this basis] as something that does not exist at all? No way! In the same way, Divine energy, being neither the essence of God nor an accidental property of God, does not belong to the non-existent. And, to say in unanimity with all theologians, if God creates [everything] according to [His] will, and not because it is inherent in Him by nature, then, consequently, something else is volition, and something else is inherent in nature. From this we can conclude that the Divine will is different from the Divine nature. So what of this? Does this mean that since the will in God is different from nature and is not an essence, it does not exist at all? Not at all! On the contrary, it exists and belongs to God, Who possesses not only essence, but also will, in accordance with which He creates. And one could call this will, which is neither an essence nor a random property and does not produce [any] complexity or change, as if it were some kind of random property. Therefore, God has both what is essence and what is not; this is Divine will and Divine energy, even if they could be called a random property. 136. If an essence does not possess energy different from the essence itself, then this means that such an essence will not have an independent hypostatic existence at all and [is] only a mental representation. For the so-called “man in general” does not think, does not think, does not see, does not smell, does not speak, does not hear, does not eat, and, to put it simply, does not possess an energy different from the essence and showing that [this person] exists in hypostasis. Therefore, “man in general” does not have an independent hypostatic existence. And a person who has an innate energy that is different from the essence - be it one [energy], or many [energies], or all of those [energies] in question - is known thanks to these energies as existing in hypostasis and not lacking independent hypostatic existence. And since there is not one, not two, or three such energies, but they are contemplated in numerous [people], this reveals that a person exists in countless hypostases. 137. God, according to the pious teaching of His Church, which [became our Church] thanks to His grace, has an innate energy that reveals Him and therefore differs from His essence (for He foreknows and provides for the lower [beings], creates them, protects them, rules over them and remakes them according to His will as He knows). Thus, He reveals that He exists in hypostasis, and is not just an entity that does not have independent hypostatic existence. Since all such energies are contemplated not in one, but in three Persons, then God is known to us as the One Who is one essence in three Hypostases. And the supporters of Akindinus, who say that God does not possess an innate energy that reveals Him and therefore differs from His essence, [thus] assert that He is not in hypostasis and make the Trinitarian Lord not possessing an independent hypostatic existence. And in [their] heretical malice they are as much superior to Sabellius the Libyan as atheism is worse than wickedness. 138. The single energy of the Three Divine Hypostases is one not only in the sense of similarity, as is the case with us; but also in the sense of number. Those who think in tune with Akindinus cannot affirm this, since they do not recognize that there is a common uncreated energy of the Three [Hypostases], but, not recognizing the common Divine energy, they say that the Hypostases are energies for each other. Therefore, they cannot talk about one energy of the Three [Hypostases], but by denying one or the other, they make the Trinitarian God deprived of independent existence. 139. Those who are sick in their souls with the lies of Akindinus and who claim that energy, which is different from the essence of God, is created, are of the opinion that God, in a created way, has the ability to create, that is, he has created creative power. For it is impossible to act and create without energy, just as it is impossible to exist without existence. Therefore, it is impossible for someone who asserts that God’s existence is created to consider His existence to be uncreated. In the same way, it is impossible for someone who asserts that the energy of God is created to believe that He acts and creates in an uncreated way. 140. Those who think piously [in the spirit of Church Tradition believe that] the energy of God is not and is not called [similar] to the creatures of God, as the supporters of Akindinus babble (away from such wickedness!), but [believe] that creatures are products of Divine energy. After all, if energy [correlates with] creatures, or these creatures [are] uncreated (what madness!), as created before or before [other] creatures (what wickedness!), then [it follows that] God does not have energy. However, [it is known that He] is active and omnipotent from eternity; therefore, not the energy of God, but the products and implementations [of it], no matter how they are called, are creatures. And the energy of God, according to [our] theologians, is uncreated and co-eternal with God. 141. (Not) energy is known from essence, but essence from energy; however, only being is known, and not what it is. Therefore, according to [church] theologians, the existence of God is known not from [His] essence, but from [God’s] Providence. Accordingly, energy differs from essence, because energy is that which makes known, and that whose existence is made known through it is essence. The defenders of the wickedness of Akindinus, who are zealous in instilling the conviction that the Divine energy is no different from the Divine essence, also try to convince us (denying what makes [God] known) that we are ignorant of the existence of God, just as they themselves are completely ignorant. 142. When they say that God has energy, but such an energy that is no different from the essence, then they are trying in this way to hide their own wickedness and sophistically mislead their listeners. After all, the Libyan Sabellius mentioned above said that God the Father had a Son who was no different from Him. Therefore, just as Sabellius was accused of speaking about the Father without the Son, denying their hypostatic difference, so today’s [heretics], who claim that the Divine energy is no different from the Divine essence, are accused of holding the doctrine that God has no energy at all. After all, according to [church] theologians, it is impossible to act without energy, just as it is impossible to exist without existence. And from here it would become [absolutely] obvious to right-thinking people that Divine energy differs from the Divine essence, for energy produces something else, that is, something that the actor himself is not. God, [for example], produces and creates creation, but He Himself is uncreated. [The category of] relationship is always expressed in relation to another, for the son is spoken of in relation to the father, but the son is never the father of [his] father. And just as it is impossible for a relation not to differ in any way from essence and not to be contemplated in essence, but to be [the] essence itself, it is also impossible for energy not to differ at all from essence, but to be [the] essence itself, although Akindinus does not like this. 143. Basil the Great, in his “Syllogistic Chapters,” discussing God, says: “Energy is neither the agent nor that which is produced by the action; thus energy is not [something] indistinguishable from essence.” And the divine Cyril, also speaking about God, theologizes: “To create is characteristic of energy, and to give birth is characteristic of nature; nature and energy are not the same thing.” And the God-bearing Damascene [says]: “Birth is a work of Divine nature, and creation is a work of Divine will.” And in another place he clearly says: “Another is the action and another is the agent. Action is the essential movement of nature, and the agent is the nature from which [this] action comes.” Therefore, energy, according to the God-like fathers, differs in many different ways from the Divine essence. 144. The essence of God is completely nameless because it is completely incomprehensible. Therefore, it is named from all its energies and not one of the names differs from the other in meaning. For by each [of these names] and by all [of them together] nothing else is designated as “That Hidden One,” and it is completely impossible to know that It exists. However, in relation to each of the names of energies, there is a difference in meaning. After all, who does not know that creation, dominion, judgment, providence and adoption of us by God through His grace are different from each other? And those who claim that these natural Divine energies, different from each other and from the Divine nature, are created, do they not do anything else but reduce God to the [level of] a creature? For what is created, what is ruled, what is subject to judgment, and in general everything like that, are creatures, but not the Creator, not the Ruler, and not the Judge; they are not identical with creation, dominion and creation, which are naturally contemplated in Him. 145. Since the essence of God, according to [our] theologians, is completely nameless, as exceeding every name, insofar, according to these same theologians, it is also uncomplicated, as exceeding [any] communion. Therefore, those who do not now obey the teaching of the Spirit [given] through our holy fathers, blame us, who are in agreement with these holy fathers, saying that if the Divine energy is different from the Divine essence, then either there will be many gods, or one [God] will become complex (even if something is entirely contemplated in the Divine essence). For they do not know that it is not action or energy, but endurance and passion that produce complexity. God acts without Himself undergoing or changing anything, and as a result He will not be complex due to [His] energy. God [is also in a certain sense] a relation, correlating with creation as its Beginning and Lord, but as a result of this He is by no means counted among the creatures. And again, because God possesses energy, why should there be many gods if this energy belongs to one God and, even more, if the Divine essence and Divine energy [both] are the same God? It is clear that [such reproaches] are nonsense, [generated by] their insanity. 146. The Lord said to His disciples: “there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the Kingdom of God come with power” (Mark 9:1), and “after six days” He “took Peter, James and John” and, ascending Mount Tabor, shone “like the sun, His clothes became white like light” (Matthew 17:1-2). They could no longer look and did not have the strength to gaze intently at this radiance, [and therefore] fell prostrate to the ground. Nevertheless, they saw, according to the Savior’s promise, the Kingdom of God, that Divine and ineffable Light. The Great Gregory and Vasily call him Divinity. “Light is the Divinity revealed... on the mountain” and “The kindness of the truly Mighty is the intelligible and contemplated Divinity.” For Basil the Great says that that Light is the Goodness of God, contemplated only by saints in the power of the Divine Spirit. That’s why he says again: “Peter and the sons of Thunder saw His Kindness on the mountain... which was brighter than the brightness of the sun, and they were worthy to see with their eyes the foreshadowing of His glorious Coming.” And the Damascene Theologian and John Chrysostom call that Light the natural radiance of the Divine. The first writes: “The Son, born of the Father, has in Himself a beginningless and natural radiance... and the glory of the Divinity also becomes the glory of the body.” Chrysostom [Father] says: “The Lord appeared on the mountain in His highest radiance, when the Divinity revealed His glory.” 147. This Divine and ineffable Light, the Divinity and Kingdom of God, the Goodness and Lightness of God's nature, the vision and pleasure of the saints in endless centuries, the natural radiance and glory of the Divine, the Akindians call a ghost and a creature. And those who do not support their blasphemy against the Divine Light, but think that God is uncreated both in essence and in energy, they slanderously declare bitheists. Let them be put to shame, for, although the Divine Light is uncreated, there is one God for us in one Divinity, as has been shown many times above, since [to this one God] belongs both the uncreated essence and uncreated grace, that is, God’s grace and its radiance. 148. Since the Akindians tried to think and assert that the Light that radiated from the Savior on Tabor was a ghost and a creature, then, having been repeatedly exposed, but not convinced, they were subjected to written excommunication from the Church and anathema. They blaspheme the Economy of God according to the flesh and madly assert that His Divinity is created, reducing to the level of creation, as far as is accessible to them, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, for the Three [Hypostases] have one and the same Divinity. And if they say that they consider the Divinity to be uncreated, then [thereby] they clearly affirm the existence of two deities with God: one created, and the other uncreated. And here they stubbornly strive to surpass all the ancient heretics in wickedness. 149. And another time, plotting to conceal their malice in this matter, they claim that the Light shining on Tabor is uncreated, but at the same time it is the essence of God. [Asserting this], they utter even more terrible blasphemies. For if that Light was visible to the Apostles, then, according to their malice, the essence of God is also accessible to [bodily] vision. However, let them hear the saying: no one has been in the “essence of the Lord” (Jer. 23:18) and no one has seen or known the nature of God - and not only none of the people, but also none of the Angels. For even the six-winged Cherubim cover their faces due to the abundance of radiance sent down from there. And since the presubstantiality of God has never been visible to anyone, the Akindians, who say that it is that Light, [despite themselves] testify to the complete inaccessibility of the vision of this Light. And even those chosen from the Apostles were not honored with a vision of him on the mountain, and therefore, the Lord’s promise regarding this is not true. Then he who speaks a lie speaks: “We have seen His glory... being with Him on the holy mountain"; and “Peter and those who were with him... awoke and saw His glory” (John 1:14; 2 Peter 1:18; Luke 9:32). And another [writer] says that John, especially beloved by Christ, “saw on the mountain the naked Divinity of the Word.” Therefore, [the chosen disciples of the Lord] saw, and saw for certain, that uncreated and Divine Radiance, while God Himself remained invisible in [His] all-essential Hiddenness, although Varlaam, Akindinus and their like-minded people deny this. 150. When someone says that the Akindians, who claim that this Light is the essence of God, [assume thereby that] this essence of God is visible, then they, forced to reveal their deception, declare: because they call this Light the essence, because through it the essence of God is made visible. For this essence becomes visible through creatures. And again these wretches invent that the Light of the Transfiguration of the Lord is a creation. However, [it should be objected to this statement that] through creatures it is not the essence that is seen, but the creative energy of God. Therefore, their statement is blasphemous and consonant with the heresy of Eunomius, since they [like him] say that the essence of God is made visible through creatures. And this is how the field of their wickedness bears abundant fruit. Consequently, [every pious person] needs to avoid them and [generally shun all] communication with them. One should run away from them, as from a strangled, many-headed hydra and the manifold destruction of piety. You might be interested in: