Третье слово возражения на написанное Акиндином против Божией божественной благодати и ею божественно облагодатствованных.

CHAPTER 1. About the fact that it is not unfair that Akindin surpassed Varlaam with the inconsistency of his speeches and the variety of errors and frauds in accordance with them. 1. So, Barlaam and Akindinus strive to surpass each other in blasphemy against God. She, without allowing any advantage in relation to herself, presents them both as practically equal. But in malice, [derived] from recklessness or bewilderment, shamelessness, and inconsistency of statements and thoughts arising from madness or malicious intent, Akindinus surpasses Varlaam many times over. For with corrupt morals, a false tongue and a hand that writes lies, he rightly eclipsed him. Being a disciple of that evil teaching, he became skilled and more perfect than anyone else, like a teacher, according to God-inspired judgment 264. 2. Since he voluntarily trampled on the pious truth, which he knew before and better than Barlaam, having learned - albeit not completely - from us, but “do not tempt him to have God in your mind” (Rom. 1:28), in the words of Paul, and, knowing the truth about God’s dogmas, did not appreciate and honor it as divine truth, then “God gave him over to an unskilled mind” 265 to speak and to write not only inappropriate, but also unable to come together and agree with one another, except perhaps in targeting a bad and insane disposition, and in opposition to the truth, for this seems to be a thread running through the entire fabric of his writings. CHAPTER 2. About the fact that Barlaam, from the fact that the most divine light was visible through the eyes of the apostles, undertook to prove that it was created, and about how it was exposed. 3. So, Varlaam believed that divine radiance, that pure grace, that ineffable light, was created, using, among other things, the argument that that light was visible with bodily eyes, which is why he was sure that that lightness was created, as he believed. When we contrasted this premise (λήμμα) of false knowledge with the light of true knowledge in defense of the light of Self-truth, [saying] that even though that light was once visible with bodily eyes, it was not created by a created and, according to them, sensory force - for the spectators are rebuilt by the Spirit. After all, it is precisely this body that will continue to coexist in the next century, contemplating this light, but becoming spiritual, as the apostle explained (1 Cor 15:44); when we [therefore] say this and also show this - or rather we show the fathers who clearly say this - that those who have been worthy of this communion and become partakers of uncreated grace do not degrade it, but rather elevate themselves to its dignity - then how is it not uncreated grace, because of which those who partake of it are called fathers without beginning in it, and endless, and eternal, and heavenly? - and Akindinus resists this and, vainly wanting to defeat the baseness of Varlaam in the fight, dared to speak and commit to writing. Listen and marvel at the man: [his] wisdom, piety and accuracy in relation to the divine, and I do not know what else to say corresponding to the genius of his methods. But it is even more necessary to hear first the very voices of the saints, which we used then to show that the one who first included ineffable grace among the creations does not at all agree with the choir of the blessed [fathers]. CHAPTER 3. Testimonies of the saints, showing that those who have become partakers of grace are called by it beginningless and endless. 4. So, says the wise Maximus in the divine: “All those that are after God, deeds, names and honors (αξιώματα) will be lower than those that arise in God through grace. And if the inheritance of the saints is God himself, then he who is worthy of this grace will be above all ages, times and places” 266. And again: “the logos of ever-good-being by grace abides with those who are worthy, bringing [with it] God, who by nature is the highest of all beginnings and ends, creating those who by nature have a beginning and an end, beginningless by grace and infinite” 267 . And again: “He who is deified by grace will be all the same as God, except for identity in essence” 268. Also: “below the beginning of days, having no end to life” (Heb. 7:3), the great Melchizedek is depicted, as this true word about him from God-bearing men has made clear to us, not according to created and from non-existence [arising] nature, according to which he began to be and ended, but according to divine and uncreated grace, eternally existing above all nature and all time, [originating] from the eternally existing God.” 269. 5. And no less accurate and wise in everything, Basil the Great says: “That to which the Holy Spirit imparted eternal motion became a holy animal. When the Spirit entered man, he, who had previously been earth and dust, received the dignity of a prophet, apostle, angel, god. And again: “thanks to the Holy Spirit, [it is possible for a person] to become a partaker of the grace of Christ, to be called a child of light, to partake of the ever-present glory” 272. And also: “And the life that the Spirit gives to the hypostases of another is not separated from Him, but He also has life in Himself, and those who partake of Him live like God, having acquired divine and heavenly life” 273. 6. And the great Athanasius in the words “To Apollinaris” says: “The Lord is a heavenly man (έπουράνιος) not because he showed flesh from heaven, but because he made earthly flesh heavenly. Therefore, “as he is in heaven, he is also in heaven” (1 Cor 15:48) – according to the communion of His holiness” 274. The divine Gregory of Nyssa says that “man emerges from [the limits of] his own nature, becoming immortal from the mortal, incorruptible from the corruptible, eternal from the ephemeral, and entirely god from man. For he who is worthy to become the son of God will have in himself the dignity of the Father and will become the heir of all his father’s blessings” 275. And again the divine Maximus says: “So, everyone who has put to death “the evils that are on the earth” (Col. 3:5), and rejected all carnal and worldly attributes for the sake of divine grace, acquires only the one and only Word of God living and active [in himself], extending virtue and knowledge “even to the division of soul and spirit” (Heb. 4:12) and having absolutely nothing [in himself] uninvolved in His coming, then he became both beginningless and endless, no longer carrying within himself a movable temporary life that has a beginning and an end” 276. CHAPTER 4. The sayings of Akindinus, contrary to these sayings of the saints, and his false accusations against the saints, supposedly directed at Palamas, whose antithesis is immediately set forth, defending the saints and representing a pious confession. 7. While the saints wrote this clearly and in agreement with each other, and we, who are now given the gift to fight in defense of the grace of God, for the sake of testimony we provide this to those who accept grace as created, Akindinus was not amazed at the height of divine grace that was evident from what was said, supernaturally elevating the mountain and its participants; but, having undertaken to insult and blaspheme both grace and the saints sanctified by it, and then, fearing the ears of Christians, for whom every dogma of the God-wise [fathers] is revered and true, he pretended that it was me - as someone who could be accused - that he was bringing reproach on, whereas [in fact] he was directly writing against the God-bearers. Alas for [his] power and strength [to speak out with impunity]! [So, he writes] that “you have shown both the most obvious creations and yourself - as a spiritual man - to be beginningless and endless, which we previously believed to be a property of God alone. What could be greater than this madness? 8. Wouldn’t we, in all fairness, object to him: Oh, busy with nothing more than slander, lies and denunciation, like this, when we cited the words of the saints there, and added nothing of our own, you transfer what seems shameful to you onto us, and attack the word of truth as if it were ours, mocking [it] so unbridledly? How, hearing that those who have a beginning by nature become “beginningless” by the communion of grace and are above “all ages, times and places,” not by nature and not because of their own nature, but by grace and with the help of divine and uncreated grace, and that the deified live a divine and uncreated life, participating in the life sent down, but not separated from the divine Spirit, according to what was said: “I live not by anyone, but lives in me Christ" (Gal. 2:20); How, having heard this, do you still accuse me and them as having called uncreated human nature, which is obviously created, which they also clearly called such? How is it that you yourself, willy-nilly agreeing to call “spiritual” those worthy of that glory and grace, are not convinced even by this name - after all, “spiritual” [means] “divine” - to at least partially come to an understanding of the greatness of that incorruptible and ineffable grace and those divinely blessed by it? 9. Truly, nothing is more obvious than your foolishness. After all, you were not even able to realize that just as we are clothed with body and incorporeal in soul, so the saints, being created by their own nature, are called uncreated and without beginning because of the uncreated grace of God that rested on them and has to abide with them forever? “For I have contained both the soul, and the word, and the mind, and the Holy Spirit [alone],” 277 says Gregory the Theologian. So, just as by reason of [the gift of] the word [man] is verbal, so by reason of the indwelling of the grace of the Spirit he is supernatural, divine and spiritual. How great is your madness that you dare to openly attack what was said by Basil the Great, Gregory, the venerable Maxim, and in general by all the fathers living in [their] writings! What an abundance of envy, which is why you attribute to Palamas what seems to you to be bad among them! And the fact that you are trying to insidiously convince others that you will have fellowship with you in destruction is downright diabolical [the work]. “But what,” says [Akindinus], “what you now assert—that those who participate in the grace of the Spirit become uncreated, unoriginate and heavenly—when someone spoke about the human [element] of Christ, he was rejected by the holy Church of God 278 . And now such a teaching continues to be considered heretical by the church and [that he himself] gave a wonderful account [of his beliefs] with words in defense of piety.” CHAPTER 5. The fact that Akindinus, rejecting the dignity that came to the Lord [humanity] received from us, which was spoken about by the Lord Himself, and preached by Paul, and after him by the former seers of God, again shows himself, based on what he says, to be godless. 10. First of all, where is the consistency in putting those who called the saints heavenly and eternal not by human nature, but by divine grace, on the same level with those who said that Christ’s human [nature] is eternal, and demanding the same answer? You will not allow us to recognize Christ as pre-eternal in divinity, without us being numbered among those who think badly about the human [nature] of Christ. After all, who said this about the humanity of Christ - that it became in dignity beginningless and heavenly from merging with the Word and communion with the grace and energy of the Spirit? For Apollinaris and those who, bearing his name, shared a similar destruction, 279 did not say that the flesh became heavenly from communication with the heavenly, but taught that the Son from all eternity had a carnal nature, and that He came down from heaven having it, and as if he passed through the Virgin through a trumpet; and Dioscorus and Eutyches - that He received from us our nature, but subject to change and confusion 280 so that it is no longer created, but is completely united with the divine nature into one and the same thing. 11. Paul, who himself became heavenly in the Spirit (2 Cor. 12:3), so that this voice, having experienced this, published: “I am like the one who is in heaven, and also those who are in heaven” (1 Cor. 15:48). So, he, having become such, speaks of Christ: “the second man is the Lord from heaven” (1 Cor 15:47). What is he saying? That this was always the second person? Stop being evil. But that the second man became such, since what was received, which the Son of God received from us, became heavenly in dignity, but not in nature, and because of the unity by hypostasis with the Word of God, it was worthy of this title, and received not only this, but also all the high titles of divinity, and gave [to the Divinity] in exchange all the names of created and human nature, since the names also pass on inextricably and immutably ( περιχωρούσιν) one into another, like nature, due to fusion 281, - in the words of Gregory the Theologian. So the Son of Man was in heaven, living in Judea, and came down from heaven, having never [before] ascended to heaven in a bodily form. For it is said: “No one ascends into heaven except the Son of Man who came down from heaven and is in heaven” (Jn. 3:13); thus He is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (Heb. 13:8); thus, “before even Abraham was not” (John 8:58), there was One who sensually conversed with the Jews. Thus, the angels of the Son of Man are the angels of God, for it is said: “The Son of Man will come after His angels” (Matthew 13:41). What more can I say? For thus the Son of Man is called the true son of the highest Father; and the Father himself, having proclaimed from above, did not say that “in this is My Son,” but “This is My Son” (Matthew 3:17), who in the flesh we see as men, since the flesh has in every way become worthy of such names due to communion [with divinity], since it is inseparably united with the hypostasis and nature of the Son of God. Moreover, she is hypostatically united with the One [of] the highest Trinity, “Who,” according to the divine Cyril, “becomes one with the flesh, assimilating to Himself what belongs to it, and also Himself introducing into it the energy of His own nature. For the Uncreated is created, the Beginningless begins, and the Word becomes white 282, becoming flesh” 283. But also according to the divine hymnist from Damascus: “Equal to the Father is the Son of the Virgin, co-creator of the primordial Adam, not a creature, even if he accepted the flesh” 284. 12. So, since it is not Dioscorus or Apollinaris who says that the human [nature] of Christ has become super-celestial and divine in dignity, and he himself calls and considers it fair that everyone should call by all godly names this mixture received from us for the sake of [its] communication with the heavenly and eternal, as well as for the sake of the nature of the Word that is accomplished in the perceived energy, - for they say that [the humanity of Christ such] not by communication [of properties], and not by virtue, but by nature itself, and the second [of them] is that it is such from the beginning. Paul, however, considers it fair to call the one who became “the second man” (1 Cor 15:47) because of communion [in] divinity, and Gregory and Cyril and the entire sacred regiment of saints, and before them, God Himself of saints and apostles. And Akindinus proclaims that those who say so are expelled from the Church; Isn’t it clear from this that he is trying for the church of the wicked? From this church of his is rightly cast out everyone who agrees with the sacred fathers and the right of the ruling word of truth 285. Thus, let his words also expose the supporters of the evil he defends. CHAPTER 6. As brief as possible, a summary of the sacrament, how there is one Christ and many who are Christlike. And why are they called either a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), or beginningless and eternal. And that by this grace we are born, and not created. 13. So, having become a complete profane and fallen from divine grace, let him put doors on his ears. May admirers (θιασώται) listen to the harmonious music playing of the saints above the supplied eternal movement and energy, faithful guardians of the inspiration of the divine Spirit, not deprived of the hope of a great heavenly gift (μεγαλοδορεας). For the Son of God is one with the nature received [from us]: after all, He was united by hypostasis with the firstfruits of men, therefore He adopts the names [derived] from there, and bestows His own on him. And with each of those blessed He is not one as with those received, since He united with each of them not according to hypostasis, but according to energy and grace. Therefore, there is one Christ, because of the one and absolutely indivisible hypostasis of the Word of God. “For this is the anointing of humanity [Christ], not with sanctifying energy, as with other anointed ones, but with the presence of the whole Anointing One” 286 . For everything that belongs to the Father has always been in the Word 287, and everything that is in the Word was received by the received flesh, therefore it is said that the Lord also in humanity accepted what [already] had. “So,” says [the divine Maximus], “there is one Christ, but not one Christ-like. For by the wave of God both Moses and David were moved, and all those who, by the sedimentation of human and carnal characteristics, became receptacles of divine energy 288 and “living images of Christ, and even the same as He by grace or likeness” 289 . 14. And these are numerous, and not only numerous, but also differ from each other in the amount of communion of this inseparably shared God-giving energy and grace 290. “Godly beauty,” according to the god-speaking Dionysius of the Areopagus, “has absolutely no admixture of any dissimilarity, but imparts its own light to everyone with dignity” 291 ; “and the dissimilarity of the intelligent eyes makes [the divine illumination] either completely non-participatory and incommunicable for their immunity (άντιτυνίας), or produces various sacraments, small or great, vague or bright, while the ray of the source is one, simple, always the same and overextended” 292. So, in a different way, each of those worthy partakes of the great gift of the Spirit according to the measure of their own purity, acquiring a form consistent with this beauty. But even one who has a small and unclear [illumination] - in comparison with his highest ones, for in reality there is nothing small there - and thanks to him, he is united with the entire divine light, for it is divided inseparably, and not like bodies. 15. Therefore, according to again a fair amount of the divine Maximus, “God and the saints have one energy, as those united with Him through it,” 293 but in no case according to hypostasis, for this is the only thing that belongs to Christ alone. And, therefore, since, according to the same God-speaking Maxim, “the deified man by the gift of grace 294 is one and the same, having been completely clothed (περιχωρήσας) with all God and becoming everything that God is, except for identity in essence, and having received in place of himself the whole of God” 295, then here too the names change from each other in other places. And a person who has been worthy of deification is rightly called this way and that: either “beginningless, eternal and heavenly,” as we heard a little higher, “because of grace, divine and uncreated, eternally existing above all nature and all time from the eternally existing God” 296, then “a new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15), and “a new man” (Col. 3:10 ) and other similar [names] for its own sake and its own nature, although it is called so together with the grace united with it. After all, that by grace we are divinely born of God rather than created, this is clearly demonstrated by the great Athanasius, who says: “Otherwise men would not have become sons, being created by nature, if they had not received the Spirit who is by nature and the true Son. Therefore, “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14), so that humanity (τό άνθρώπινον) could be made capable of receiving the Divinity and calling it a son” 297. 16. And the great Basil says: “we, being creatures, thanks to the sonship of the Holy Spirit, become sons” 298; and again: “if in the same way God creates and gives birth, then Christ is in the same way both our creator and father, - after all, He is God, - and there is no need for sonship through the Holy Spirit,” 299 showing with the help of this word that for those worthy of the idolizing gift of the Spirit, God by grace is the Father, and not the Creator, and they, therefore, are truly transcendental in relation to creatures. “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6) and “cleave to the Lord—there is one Spirit” (1 Cor. 6:17), according to the evangelical and apostolic voice, “With whom the whole God, embracing 300 in everything, everything completely in energy, and not in the nature of divinity,” as the divine Maximus and Gregory the Theologian says, “makes it a divine organ, and fulfills His glory and beatitude, giving and bestowing upon them eternal and ineffable life, so that the whole man may be deified, idolized by the grace of God incarnate, all remaining human by nature in soul and body, and all becoming god in soul and body by grace and the divine lightness of blessed glory befitting him in every possible way, after which nothing more pious and reasonable can be thought of as brighter and higher” 301. And whoever undertakes to bring down this lordship and place it down with creation, it is not surprising if he places both Christ Himself and Him for the sake of the anointed (τούς δι εκείνον χριστούς) and considers it to be no different from creation. But in Christ you perhaps allow the communion of uncreated divinity, but in those who have truly put on it (Gal. 3:27), you do not allow it? And why is He like this for our sake, if He does not make us who come to Him like this: I don’t say unchangeable, but likened to Him and united with Him by grace? What does it matter to us if He made the firstfruits of men a church for Himself, but does not make us churches of His divinity? How then do we communicate with Him in divinity if we do not have communication in uncreated energy? After all, it is impossible [for us to have with Him] communion of nature or hypostasis. CHAPTER 7. About the fact that as a man it is said about Christ that He received the uncreated grace of the Spirit and that from this uncreated grace He allocated and is allocating to His own. 17. And that “Christ, who is God above all” (Rom. 9:5; Eph. 4:5), not only had the Holy Spirit co-existing and accompanying him as God by nature, but also as a man received the grace and energy of the Spirit - this is why you say that we teach about two divinities in Christ; that he, therefore, as a person, received it from above, learn from the one who foretold (προσκιρτήσαντος), who foretold, who foretold - from the one who, baptizing Him, saw with his eyes the Spirit descending from above and resting on that Church. And after a few days, he said to those who were tormented by envy at the success of the Baptized One: “A man cannot accept anything unless it is given to him from heaven” (John 3:27) 302, and that “For God has sent Him, He speaks the words of God; For God gives the Spirit beyond measure” (John 3:34). Explaining this, John says in golden language: “He here calls energy spirit, for it is divisible. After all, we have all received the energy of the Spirit in measure, and this One has fully received all the energy; and if His energy is immeasurable, then even more so is His essence” 303. And in another place: “the holy flesh, which received the energy of the Holy Spirit, did not, like the apostles or prophets, accept one grace or another, for a person cannot contain everything. So it is for us that gifts are measured, but in the flesh of Christ all the charisms, all the gifts, were according to the essence of the flesh” 304. “And all this,” according to Athanasius the Great, “the Logos, being God, always had; but it is said that He received it humanly, so that, since the flesh received all this in Him, it would eventually, from it, constantly abide in us” 305. Therefore, according to the theologian Chrysostom, “all grace was poured out” (Ps. 44:3) into that Church, and we have something small and a drop from that grace” 306. So, the Lord had divine energy and grace as a person who received [it]. 18. And she is, - again according to Father Chrysostom, - “the one thanks to whom He taught, thanks to which he worked miracles” 307. “I marveled,” says the evangelist, “at the words of grace that proceeded from His mouth” (Luke 4:22); and that “from Him came all power and healed it” (Luke 6:19). But is the power emanating from Him an essence? And how can it, without leaving anywhere and being absolutely inseparable and ineffable and innocuous for everyone, be some kind of created force due to the fact that it is not an essence? And how did she heal everyone? Do you see her acting and healing through Paul and Peter and others like them? “For power comes from Christ,” according to the sacred fathers, “not moving from place to place, but being distributed to others, and continuing to remain in Christ without diminishment, just as knowledge remains with the teachers and is passed on to the students” 308. This is what uncreated energy is, which the saints partake of. 19. Let the divine Cyril also bear witness in favor of the truth of the Gospel and the Eloquent One [teacher]. For he, having established that the Savior gave the disciples the Holy Spirit through inhalation, says: “first of all, it is not human [this matter] to give the Spirit through inhalation; then, great and above the creation, to provide such power to retain and forgive sins to whomever they want (John 20:22–23)” 309. Do you see that energy, grace and power are shared above creation, or rather infused in those who are truly adored, with which the equally divine and worshiped Church alone has been justly enriched in its entirety, while others draw from there as if from a reservoir, for the grace and energy of the Divine Spirit became not only participatory, but also in some way divisible, so that each was granted a part as much as he could contain? Thus, “from His fullness,” says [Scripture], “we are received” (John 1:16). Thus He pours out His Spirit on everyone according to the love and faith of those who come. So Paul encountered a brief blaze of great light on his way to Damascus (Acts 9:3). So before him, Peter, James and John saw on the mountain the vague dawn of divinity, while the grace, lightness and energy of the Spirit 310 was indivisibly distributed, not incapable of holy dispensation. For every divine consecration and every divine sacrament would be completely useless for us if, according to the Damascus theologian, the Lord, having received from the Virgin flesh similar to ours, had not given us the divine Spirit. And He, in the words of the wise in the divine Cyril, for this reason He Himself became the first born [of] the Holy Spirit according to the flesh, so that when grace passes to us as if by some way “not from blood, nor from the lust of the flesh, nor from the lust of men” (John 1:13), we too would have a spiritual (νοητήν) rebirth. And, according to the great Athanasius, “The Word of the Father, united with the flesh, became flesh, so that people, united with the Spirit, became one spirit. So He is a flesh-bearing God, and we are spirit-bearing people” 311. “And the workers of Christ and truth,” according to the divine Gregory of Nyssa, “thanks to faith and the works of virtue, receiving from the grace of the Spirit benefits that exceed their nature, they enjoy them with indescribable pleasure” 312. And again: “Christ, having received through the soul and body the firstfruits of the common nature, made him holy, so that, having placed him on the incorruptible mountain, he could through him draw together all that was akin to his nature and fellow tribe, and accept the rejected as sons and the enemies of God into the communion of His divinity” 313. And also: “just as Christ assimilated His man 314 by the power of divinity, so He will bring each individual by the touch (συναφεία) of divinity, if they do not bring anything unworthy of kinship with the divine” 315. 20. You are saying something as if a certain architect built himself a house, most beautifully beautiful, with the most reliable foundations, unshakable and impregnable to all attacks, and left us to weep on useless ruins, when enemies stand around us and hurricane winds rush in, and a multitude of all kinds of storms attack from all sides, and you yourself would invite [us] to rejoice, as if it were that architect for us prepared the house by making his own better. Or rather, the daring Akindin does not even say this; for in his words “On deification” he declares created things - what audacity! - deification and [the very] firstfruits of men, which the Son of God received for us, as we proved in the chapters sent to the wise Primate Cyzicus, and which we completely refuted. CHAPTER 8. About the fact that Akindinus sometimes calls the idolizing grace of the Spirit, given by God and accepted by the saints, creation, then God himself, His very essence, which is why he is exposed in many absurdities, into which he thereby falls. 21. And since Akindinus is talking to us about what [precisely] accepting, the adored is adored (for this is the deifying grace in the saints) - then let us see what, as he says, the saints accept in order to be deified. So, in his work “On Grace,” Akindinus quotes the words of John Chrysostom, who said that the grace given to believers is the Holy Spirit, and he himself continues about this, saying: “about this grace he speaks, about the Holy Spirit Himself, about that power with which the Savior promised His holy disciples to be clothed from above (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8), and with which they truly clothed." He also gives evidence on the basis of which he shows that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are called “power” and “grace.” And he continues: “so when Saint Maximus says: “because of uncreated grace, ever existing from the ever existing God” 316, it is quite clear that he points to the Holy Spirit or the Son Himself, Whom Saint Gregory of Nyssa many times calls grace and self-grace. And God Himself, whatever He may be, is called grace and radiance by the saints.” 22. Great! Then both the Son Himself and the Holy Spirit Himself are the grace that the saints receive and the power with which they are clothed; and not only the Son and the Holy Spirit, but also the Father. For the Son Himself says that “if you love Me, you will keep My commandments... and I and the Father will come and make our abode with him” (John 14:21, 23). So, since God is the One whom the saints, by acquiring and taking into themselves, deify, and not only the Son or the Son and the Holy Spirit, but also the Father himself, then from what god, [say] Akindinus, does the Father exist, if, in your opinion, He is an ever-present grace from God? 23. But Akindinus also cites the words of the divine Diadochos that “some suspected that grace and sin, that is, the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error, were hidden together in the mind of those being baptized” 317; and also: “saying that two faces - [the face of] grace and [the face of] sin - are present together in the hearts of the faithful” 318; and again: “if anyone, on the basis that we think about good and evil, assumes that the Holy Spirit and the devil dwell together in the mind...” 319 ; and, citing these statements of the divine Diadochus, he concludes and writes: “it follows that this God-bearing father says that grace and the Holy Spirit are one and the same thing, meaning grace appearing in those who are baptized,” and then he concludes the most important thing: “thus the Holy Spirit and the Son Himself, and in general the Divinity itself, our divine fathers call grace and self-grace.” 24. So, from what god, say again, does the Divinity as a whole exist - that is, the essence, the hypostases, and all uncreated energy, so that it is, as you say, that the Divinity as a whole is ever-present grace from God? And if God Himself is the grace that we receive at divine baptism, and the power in which, according to the promise of the Savior, the divine apostles (Luke 24:49) and after them [all] who lived according to the Gospel of grace were clothed, then how do you then invent that it is created, Akindinus, and with those who consider it uncreated, you fight fiercely and directly write that “God creates idolizing grace in His participants,” and again: “in the proper sense of the word, grace poured out from God and from His Spirit is [something] incorporeal and invisible, and the feeling of those who feel, and the word of words, and the life of the living”? Are you not waging war 320 with God and with yourself, when you reduce Him to the level of a creature, and appropriate the opposite to yourself, and, moreover, in close proximity? And do not tell me that we find the name of grace also used in relation to created things 321. For there is nothing surprising if there is some created grace, and another uncreated grace. But if what the saints receive, the very thing according to which they are adored, is God himself, then how do you think it is also created grace? And do not lie to the one called Gregory from theology when you write that “the Divinity itself is called grace, no doubt in a humble sense, according to the Theologian.” After all, he did not say about grace (χάριν) that God is called by it in a humble sense, but about the “gift of grace” (χ´αρισμα). And it was not this super-essence that he called so, nor the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - as you say, clearly distorting and maliciously interpreting, maliciously applying the expression “more humble” to the divine essence and Fatherly dignity - but only the Spirit 322. And besides, this is not in essence, as you distort, distorting and misunderstanding. But having said that the Holy Spirit in a humble sense is called a gift of grace, he immediately indicated the reason: “so that it can be seen from whom He is” 323. So, since the Holy Spirit is called in a humble sense a gift of grace, “so that it can be seen from Whom He is,” that is, that it is from the Father, and you teach that both a gift of grace and grace mean the same thing, and you say that this very grace is a trinitarian essence, then from what Father is the trinitarian essence, so that grace, according to you, is so called in order to indicate “from whom” it is? If, again, not only the Son and the Holy Spirit are deifying grace, but also the Father himself, as was shown above and as you yourself confess, then, being from whom, is the Father called grace in a humble sense, “so that it can be seen from whom He is”? And grace is called not only grace, but also divine power, in which the apostles clothed themselves (Luke 24:49). Where, in this case, is the humble meaning for power, and, moreover, for divine power? CHAPTER 9. About how many senses the name "grace" is applied to God, and that divine grace is one of the things signified by it, and that it is different from the divine nature. 25. Know, therefore, although you are very wise, that “grace” is sometimes called a thing given freely, and sometimes the act of giving something for free, and sometimes neither one nor the other: it can be called the beauty, comeliness, grace and lightness of the nature of everyone, in which sense we say both “the grace of words” and “the grace of conversation”, showing their pleasantness, and we also speak of “grace” relating to the leading principle souls, as the divine Gregory of Nyssa calls mental preferences 324. In this meaning, the saints call grace and the lightness of the divine nature, which only the saints see and blissfully endure, in the words of Gregory the Theologian, “worthy of both the one who bound, and the one who allowed, and the one who has to bind again in the most excellent way” 325. This is idolizing grace. Since it is common to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - “Whose wealth,” he says, “is the fusion and single outpouring ( τό έξαλμα ) of lordship” 326 - then therefore the divinely inspired singer Theophan sings to the theologian: “To the dawn of the triscendent lordship, from the one proceeding Divinity we shine forth, Holy Hierarch Gregory" 327. And the god-speaking Damascene, composing the words to the melody, [thus] says: “Sing to the three-light Divinity, one shining dawn from one trinitarian nature" 328. So, since this grace and lordship is common to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Father Himself is called from it, and so is power, and not only this, but also energy. For the lordship of the beginning of the bright (άρχιφώτου) nature is undoubtedly the enlightening force and energy of the worthy, in no way separable from this nature, given from it only by those who do not bring into themselves anything unworthy of divine communication and inexpressibly unites those illumined [by it] with God, and in this from it [i.e. e. nature] different. For it is nowhere written that anyone should see or suffer the nature of God, and neither will he see nor suffer. And the lightness of the divine nature or, in other words, its indescribable beauty and most divine radiance, according to the great Basil, “Peter and the sons of thunder saw on the mountain the prelude of Christ’s coming and were worthy to perceive with their eyes” 329. And, according to the theologian Gregory: “Light is the light [flowing] from there for those who have been purified here, when “the righteous will be enlightened like the sun” (Matthew 13:43), of whom God will be among the gods (Ps. 81:1)” 330. This is the Lordship of God, which, as he said above, the adored see and endure, gravitating towards God 331. And [it is] according to this, and not according to essence and not according to hypostasis, that God is united with the saints. For Basil the Great also says: “the reward of virtue is to become a god and be enveloped in the purest light 332, becoming the son of that day that is not interrupted by darkness, since it is created by another Sun, emitting true light” 333. CHAPTER 10. Exposition and refutation of the sayings of Akindinus, with the help of which he invents that this grace is the essence of God, and thanks to which he is exposed as the most wicked even of Eunomius, being at the same time an atheist and a polytheist, constituting divinity and thinking the same thing about both created and uncreated. 26. But we have already shown this in many places in these “Words.” And now, since in the same words “On Grace” Akindinus insists even more clearly that this grace is the very essence of God, although in many other places he declares that it is created, let’s look at how and with the help of what arguments he is going to prove this here? Having said that “the ever-existing grace from the ever-existing is the Son and the Holy Spirit,” and above that “it is also the Father Himself and it is Their essence,” for according to it he calls Them uncreated grace, and does not recognize any other uncreated thing in common with Them, except for one essence. Having interpreted this in this way, Akindinus adds: “If the saint did not say this precisely, then he kept silent not because he wanted to discover something else. But the said [indirect] signs are quite sufficient for proof.” Having said this, he himself explains the signs that uncreated grace from God is the essence of God, saying: “for when the saint had already fully hinted that what he called “ever existing” is itself an essence - for [the] name “essence” (ουσία) is derived from “to exist” (τό είναι) - and especially since it is not just existing, but ever existing; and he didn’t even stop there, but added: “from the ever-existing God”; then can anyone now consider it to have no essence (άνούσιον)?" 27. It is characteristic of Akindinus’ audacity, shamelessness and at the same time the desire and ability to deceive, to declare that it is impossible to understand the divine Maximus in any other way, except according to his most vile and impious explanation. He diverts the inexperienced from implying anything other than a mere figure of speech, as if it could not possibly be otherwise than what he thinks and invents. We, destroying this, like his vicious bastion, will also explore his seemingly implicit deviations into lies. For he asks: “how did the saint already fully hint that what he called “ever existing” is itself an essence?” And [gives] what seems to be a very philosophical construction and proof: “after all, [the] name “essence” itself is derived from “to exist.” 28. And how do you, the wisest one, having heard “existence,” think about essence? After all, it is you who use [the word] with surprise and bewilderment that what exists is not an essence. We can only marvel at this, how this being is essence, being the general name of one way or another existing [things], so that essence is necessarily an existing thing; and being is not necessarily an essence. “But I have,” he says, “proof that being is an essence closely related to the question.” – What proof is this? Which? - “That the name “essence” is derived from “to exist.” 29. Oh, what scientific proof! You will also prove to us that these words of yours, since they say that the essence of God is the deifying grace of the Spirit; that is the hypostasis itself; sometimes - creation, and so rushing from one to another, they do not stand still at all - they are stars, saying that what does not stop (άστατούν) is a star (αστήρ), and from “do not stand [in place]” (άστατείν) and the name “star” (αστέρος) comes from, not noticing even what children, when they are just beginning to be introduced to the circle of sciences, learn from their mentors - that is, that etymologies are irreversible. I’m not even saying that you don’t even achieve this in your knowledge - which is not unknown to those youths who are just beginning to turn their ears to philosophical conversation - that in classification the higher is determined through the lower, and not the lower through the higher. “But Saint Maximus,” he says, “said not just “existent”, but “ever existing”; and he didn’t even stop there, but added: “from ever-existing things.” 30. But this, O highly intelligent and most theological one, does not cover your inability to think about the highest, starting from the lowest, but even reveals it to be the most wicked. If, of necessity, ever-existing things are essences, then Eunomius speaks well, calling the ungenerated the essence in God, and also the begotten. After all, the unborn and according to him is an ever-existing thing, and the born is an ever-existing thing, as we truly know and believe, and from an ever-existing thing. For according to the divine John of Damascus, as we showed in the previous word, “the work of the divine nature is the pre-eternal and ever-present birth” 334, and if so, then the procession [of the Holy Spirit], for how could it be otherwise? But you call everything that ever exists from ever existing essence, so that, according to you, both birth and procession will be essence. Of course, no one argues that procession differs from birth, and that “one is the One who gives birth, and another is the birth,” 335 says Gregory, nicknamed from theology. In general, not only “the One who gives birth is another, and the birth is another,” but the Begotten is also another in relation to birth and another in relation to the One who gives birth. And if so, then the outgoing is different in relation to the Outgoing and the Outgoing, and the Outgoing is again different in relation to both. And all this ever exists and is uncreated, and this does not negate the fact that there is one uncreated God. Moreover, if any of these were among created things, then God would not be uncreated. Therefore, Akindinus is here again in danger of being both godless and polytheistic, thinking the same thing about both created and uncreated things. For he interprets each of the things listed as ever-existing as an ever-existing divine essence, and shows himself to think that there are many, and different from each other, divine essences. Again, declaring that everything is created that is somehow different from the divine nature, he shows himself to be teaching that these works of the divine nature are created - this is birth and procession - and thus the unfortunate man declares God to be a creature, and not God. 31. We, together with the divine fathers, thinking that this very nature and the works of the nature of God, that is, what is inherent in God by nature, are uncreated, we honor the only uncreated God and do not call anything other than Him uncreated. For His nature, lordship, strength, energy, will, apart from nature, do not exist apart from nature, but none of this is insubstantial and hypostatic, not because each of these is essence and hypostasis, but since it is not separate from that trinitarian nature, even if a word about them, when undertaking to say something, seems to separate the inseparable, as when it separates what is related to the hypostasis. And yet, how can there be a hypostasis without essence? So the arguments put forward by Akindin against us are obvious nonsense. He, inventing and saying that everything ever existing is essence, clearly continues to be like-minded with Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius, and even increases their wickedness for the worse. For he shows himself to be thinking not only of the divine essence, as they [esteemed as essences] [not only] ungeneracy, but also birth, and procession, and also the lightness of the divine nature, and power, and divine and uncreated energy. So can he who calls all this, so different from each other, essences, worship one or simple essence? And even more so when the wise Cyril in the divine writes about this: “if everything that exists with God alone is also His essence, then for us He will be composed of many essences” 336; and again: “So if each of His inherent [properties] is elevated to the rank of essence, then how will the Simple not be complex? And to think like that is the height of madness” 337. CHAPTER 11. Other statements of Akindinus, among which is evidence from the writings of Basil the Great - torn, but even in this form it turns out to be in every possible way the opposite of his very blasphemous opinion, as is shown here. 32. Akindinus also calls on Basil the Great for protection, for he was ashamed to call on Eunomius, and insists that the “unborn”, as an ever-existing being, is the essence of God. But he also calls him out not without obvious slander. After his truly delusional and unfounded reasoning, which he madly dreamed of compiling and concluding from the words of the divine Maxim, adding that “even in a sleepy dream the divine Maxim would not have assumed that the ever-existing from the ever-existing is not a certain essence,” he sums up the words: “however, “from something” 338, as the great Basil says, it is said or in the sense of creation ( δημιουργικώς), as in: “all things are from God,” or in the sense of birth (γεννητικώς), as in “I am born from God” (John 8:42), and “from the womb before the star I begat Thee” (Ps. 109:3), or in the sense of nature ( φυσικώς), as “our activity from us” or “solar illumination from the sun” 339. Having cited this statement of the great Basil, Akindinus himself then adds: “So, since Saint Maximus said that this grace is from God, how should it be considered when it is said that it is from God? In the creative sense? But she is uncreated, not a creature. But then in the natural sense, how is “our activity of us”? But then “in a simple and incorporeal nature, energy takes on the same meaning as essence” 340, also in the sense of birth: “what is born of the Spirit is spirit,” just as “what is born of the flesh is flesh” (John 3:6). So not in the sense of creation. It remains that in the sense of nature or the sense of birth “from God” there is ever-present grace. But in whichever of these senses is understood, it is clear that this is the Son or the Holy Spirit. 33. Really, O Akindinus, you, having presented here the saying of Basil the Great and thus thinking brilliantly, did not notice that this great man here says that the Son is not the uncreated energy of God? For he, saying that that which is “from something,” if it does not happen in the creative sense to be “from it,” then exists either in the sense of birth, like the Son of God from the Father, or in the sense of nature, like “our activity from us” and “solar illumination from the sun,” - he contrasts the Son with the natural energy of God. And the opposite cannot but differ from each other. Are you saying that the Spirit is the natural energy of God? If He, as energy, differs from the Son, then the energy will be hypostatic, and this entire noblest feat, the whole intention of which is to show that uncreated energy is an essence, is taken away from you. And you could not even take into account that the Son in the natural sense is from the Father, so that you could understand from here that Basil the Great is not talking about the things you are talking about here, and you did not hide from those who have intelligence, indulging in, in addition to insanity, also excessive dishonesty. So, by reading this statement just above right now, we will show how evil your wisdom is here and reveal the deception you have prepared. 34. For the great [Basily], having shown that the Holy Spirit is the Creator, and citing what was said in the Gospels to Joseph by an angel about the conception of the Lord, that “that which is born in Her of the Spirit is Holy” (Matthew 1:20), then, explaining, he himself says that “from something” is said either in the sense of creation, as: “everything is from God,” or in the sense of birth, as “I am born of God.” (John 8:42), and “from the womb before the morning star I gave birth to Thee” (Ps. 109:3), or in the sense of nature, as “our activity from us” or “solar illumination from the sun.” So, if the premium body of Christ is not from the Holy Spirit as a generation - “For that which is begotten of the Spirit is the Spirit” (John 3:6) - and, on the other hand, does not [come] from Him as His energy - because in a simple and incorporeal nature energy takes on the same meaning as essence - then it remains that it is from Him as a creation" 341. 35. So, while the great one said that “that which is born of the Spirit” is spirit, and that the energy [proceeding] from the Spirit is not a creation, being in the natural sense is from this Spirit, Akindinus says that this energy is “ever existing grace from ever existing” 342, and then, concluding, proclaims: “whatever it may be, in the sense of nature or in the sense birth, she is either the Son or the Holy Spirit,” without clearly saying anything else, except that “that which is born of the Spirit,” since that by which it is born is not a creation, is the Son or the Holy Spirit, and that in the natural sense that which is “of the Spirit,” since it is ever-existing from ever-existing, is the Son or the Holy Spirit. Therefore, according to him, the Son was not born from the Father, but from the Spirit, and the Holy Spirit Himself did not come from the Father, but from Himself. 36. Since he tries to imagine that the ever-existing energy and grace are no different from the divine essence, then sometimes he says that it is the Father himself, which means, according to him, the trinitarian essence is from the Spirit, and even the Father himself, so that what is said is not only, according to the proverb, “upside down,” but also surpasses this proverb, which is so impious in relation to divine dogmas innovation of Akindinus' words. Thus, as he himself boasts in his writings: “The [teaching] being preached is not at all different or changed in comparison with the ancient tradition and definitions of the holy fathers, but is precisely recognized and loved by all the pious,” thereby robbing unwise listeners. In order to remain unnoticed here, making such conclusions, and to mislead those listening, as if the great Basil was saying that everything that exists eternally is essence, Akindinus hid that the Great One was talking about the Spirit and what is from the Spirit. So, paying attention to what he said “from something”, and from what [exactly] - without adding, and without clarifying what Vasily is talking about and what the division he is making refers to, and at the same time finding the speech suitable in order to give room to his wicked perversion [of the true meaning] and slander against the writer. Since [Basily] proposed the Only Begotten from the Highest Father as an example of being “from someone” in the sense of birth, and then added that “that which is born of the Spirit” is not from Him in the creative sense, since it is called a derivative of Him [word] 343, and not only is it called, but [is] such, whereas none of the [number] existing in the creative sense is from Him. is called for this reason by names derived from It. He said this without teaching that those things that are from the Spirit in the sense of being born by grace are no different from the only-begotten Word of the Father, but only that they do not in the creative sense, but in a different way [come] from the Spirit, even if Akindinus were torn apart [trying to prove otherwise]. For he himself, like other theologians, teaches about this in many other places in the words, as we have already presented in detail above in our word. He says: “Being creatures, we become sons through the sonship of the Holy Spirit” 344; That’s why he remembers there the Gospel saying that “what is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6), undoubtedly said about sons by grace. 37. Akindin - alas for his insolence! - says about the true Son of the Father Himself that He was born of the Spirit. And his pretext for thinking and teaching that the eternal Word of God was born from the Spirit is so as not to fall into polytheism, admitting along with Him others who were divinely born by the divine grace of the Divine Spirit, and not creatively brought into being. But is it not a sign of an uninitiated and depraved mind to put forward such and such reckless pretexts? Who does not know among those initiated into the Christian sacraments and those who prudently listen to the prophecies of the Gospels that “that which is born of the Spirit is the spirit” was said by the Lord to Nicodemus, and that this is said about those who believe in Him (John 3:15-17) and through baptism into Him by grace are born of the Spirit and become spirit, that is, spiritual, thanks to the sonship of the Holy Spirit? Therefore, He, in accordance with what was said a little higher, further says to the same Nicodemus: “Do not be surprised that you said: it is fitting for you to be born again. The Spirit breathes wherever He wants and hear His voice, but do not know where it comes from and where it goes. This is whoever is born of the Spirit” (John 3:7–8). 38. And Akindinus, in addition to what was said above, says that the essence of God and “everyone born of the Spirit” have the same meaning, so that those who have become spirit, or, in other words, spiritual, do not in any way, according to him, differ from the divine essence. For having said that “in a simple and incorporeal nature,” he means God, “energy takes on the same meaning as essence,” he added: “as well as [the expression] “according to the image of generation,” for “what is born of the Spirit is spirit,” directly saying that even by the image of generation, that which is from the Spirit admits the same meaning as the essence of God. Therefore he declares that the Son is also begotten of the Spirit, just as that which is in the natural sense from the Spirit is again the Spirit Himself. For in conclusion he says: “in whatever sense, whether natural or in the sense of generation, she may be, that is, this grace and energy [arising] from the Spirit, she is the Son or the Holy Spirit.” So, nothing that would not be known and recognized by all the pious, as he himself insists in writing, is not said by the one who, in addition to other greatest and most ungodly innovations, represents the Holy Spirit as existing from Himself, and the only begotten Word of God as adopted and generated by the Spirit; those who, by the grace of God, are called sons of God - no different from His essence. CHAPTER 12. Other sayings of Akindinus, testifying to the same thing, from which it is clear that it is still by no means impossible for him to be of the same mind with the saints. 39. But having cited in his speech prepared for the council a certain fragment of this saying of the Great [Basily], he thereby tries to prove there that uncreated energy is essence, saying: “since, according to the great Basil, “in simple and incorporeal nature, energy takes on the same meaning as essence” 345, then we cannot conceive of the natural energy of God as something other than His essence and nature, but also, and in no way different from this divine essence, uncreated and co-essential with God, light, or glory, or grace, or radiance,” - never, as it seems, hearing the common choir of all the pious people singing in the Church: “Offering the natural co-essential glory, the one and only Holy Trinity, those who sing of Thee with the Orthodox faith, are likened to see Thy glory as the originless and one trisolar dawn” 346. “O trisolar light, Thy essential light, shine upon me the only deity, uncreated nature and light-giver, and the source of every light-giving dawn, so that I may contemplate Your ineffable kindness” 347. “By the indescribable abyss of the inconceivable goodness of Thy radiance and the trishied deity, grant me the illuminating dawn” 348. 40. So, alas, Akindinus has become so detached from the face and cohabitation of the godly that it is no longer possible to say that one day he will come together [with them] and have the same opinion [as they do], and pray together with the God-bearers, who by deed persuaded the pious to pray to see the radiance of that essential light and that glory, and about the essence to which that glory and lordship belongs, taught, having themselves learned from the Spirit, that even a trace never appears to those who come after it. CHAPTER 13. Proof that what admits [for its designation] the same word is not always and not in everything the same, and that the uncreated essence admits not only the same word as uncreated energy, but also not the same, according to Basil the Great. Here is also a varied refutation of all Akindinus’s bad thinking. 41. “And how is it,” says Akindinus, “that the great Basil said that “in simple and incorporeal nature, energy takes on the same meaning (λόγον) as essence” 349? And we, in turn, ask [him] who presents this as proof that energy is in no way different from essence: are those [things] that mutually admit the same definition (λόγον) two [realities] or simply one? If they are one, then how and in relation to whom can they be called “one and the other” if they are entirely one and the same? If they are not completely one - after all, what is identical to one and the same is identical to each other - then they are no longer two, but more identical and admitting the same definition. So, if [things with a number] more than one admit of the same definition, then how can [they be] without any difference from each other, especially since the divine fathers determine that it is by no means possible to obtain a number without difference? 42. Of course, all [things] of the same name admit of the same definition, but there are many things of the same name and they are not one. After all, you and I belong to the same group as people, and therefore admit the same definition, but we are two people, not one. And if you begin to say that [such and such] a person is defined synonymously and in relation to you alone, and you say so because you are in some way different from him, for you are not only an essence; and if, when defining yourself, you add what is actually inherent to you in addition to the general nature, you will immediately show that it is not the same definition (λόγον) that you and [that] person accept. Thus, even among those who are not of the same name, it happens that each of the two will be found in a different way. 43. This is exactly what the great Basil writes [in a letter] “To Eustathius,” saying that the divine energy does not take on the same meaning as the divine essence. For, having said that “the identity of energy in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit clearly shows the immutability of nature” 350 and thereby showing the difference of the divine essence in relation to the divine energy - for what indicates is different from what it points to - he added that “it is not nature that the name “divinity” denotes, but this name carries an indication of some visual or active force” 351. And therefore he represents not only the difference between the divine essence in relation to the divine energy, but also clearly shows that this energy, different from the divine essence, is uncreated: for how can the visual and active power of God not be uncreated? Adding to the same enumeration of the uncreated energies of God, he says that “having heard about the Benefactor, the good and righteous Judge and the like [His names], we have learned the difference between energies, and we cannot better learn the nature of the action by understanding the energies” 352, and, based on this, he again not only pointed out, but also proved that divine energy differs from the divine essence: for the latter is not only one, as he showed at the very beginning of the word, but even many [there are energies], as he indicated by enumerating here, while the divine essence is everywhere and always in the singular, and it is never presented in the plural and is in no way divided. And there are not only many divine energies, but they also differ from each other, for he says that “we have learned to distinguish between energies.” Differing from one another, they are necessarily different from a single essence, for it is impossible for those who do not differ from [something] one to have a difference from each other. So, having shown from this that the divine energy differs from the divine essence, he gives, adding the difference between them in relation to each other, [the following argument]: “for if I give a certain meaning to each of these names, and to the nature itself, around which these names are [thought], then [my word] will not convey the meaning of both; and those who have different meanings have different natures” 353. 44. Do you see the most obvious difference in the divine essence in relation to the divine energy, and that they do not receive the same meaning in everything? For the latter, among other things, with divine names shows in relation to itself, even if it is not clear what it is, and indicates the divine essence, as more understandable than this [last], [although it shows] only that it is. And the divine essence is not shown by names at all, and is revealed only through energy. The Great One, also wary of the truly dangerous idle talk of people like Akindinus - after all, it is easy for such to say that the Great One is saying that only the formulations of bare names differ - adds, showing that he is talking not just about names, but about the meaning of names: “so, another is the essence for which a word will never be found expressing it, and another is the meaning of the names [thought of] around it, named from any energy or dignity" 354. Through [the pronoun] “any” he shows here too that there are many divine energies, and also that they differ from one another, as affecting everything external, which is not only numerous, but also diverse. 45. So, in so far as the divine essence and the divine energy are different from each other, they do not assume the same meaning; and in those in which they do not differ from each other, they take on the same meaning. What does this mean? We need to say a little about this too. 46. ​​The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit have the same divine essence. They have the same divine energy in common. Essence is uncreated, and energy is also uncreated. Essence is incorporeal, and energy is also incorporeal. According to these [parameters], divine energy admits of the same definition as divine essence. What they have in common is that they themselves (αύτόθεν) have unity with each other: after all, none of them was ever seen as deprived of the other. And that, according to the ways in which they differ, they do not admit of the same definition - this is what the divine Gregory of Nyssa in [the work] “To Eunomius” shows in various ways, testifying at the same time to the fact that it is characteristic of Eunomius’s madness to say that uncreated energy takes on in everything the same meaning as uncreated essence, as if they have no difference from each other. And the great Vasily, in the place of his words where he spoke about one definition of energy and essence, also shows their difference in relation to each other. 47. So, let those who call God’s energies creations hear him saying: “The body of Christ is not like energy from the Spirit, because it is created” 355. So, nothing created is divine energy, for creations are the results of divine energies. But we have also been taught that uncreated energy comes from essence, whereas no one has ever said that uncreated essence comes from energy. Therefore, God’s essence and energy are not absolutely the same thing. Showing in how many meanings that which is from the Spirit is understood, [Basily] the Great divided the energy of the Spirit from that which, in the image of creation, comes from Him, and taught that it by nature exists from the Spirit, as in the previous Word we cited his statement that the energies eternally inherent in Him emanate from the Spirit 356 . So, since he said here that uncreated energy is from the Spirit, he clearly expressed the difference between divine energy in relation to the divine essence. For the divine nature is not from the Spirit. So from here we can see a certain difference that exists in this uncreated energy in relation to the Holy Spirit Himself. For something that is absolutely indistinguishable, no one would ever say that one is from the other. After all, we do not say that man is from a mortal (έκ του μέροπος είναι τον άνθρωπον); or about God, that the essence is from nature. 48. Of course, the Holy Spirit is also called energy and power, but as possessing powers and energies, for in essence He is nameless as super-named. That is why the Holy Spirit, when He is called power or energy, has [a certain] implied or even aloud at the same time called hypostatic [quality]. Like this one, who laid out everything in detail [Basily the Great], he immediately says a little higher that “The Holy Spirit is a sanctifying power, possessing essence, presence, hypostasis” 357; and that all energies remain without hypostasis is shown in [chapter] “On the Holy Spirit” 358. From this it again becomes clear that he is their [i.e. e. energy] also distinguishes from creations: for [everything produced] from the Spirit as a creation is hypostatic, since God created qualityized essences. But even regarding the Son, the great Basil, as we mentioned above in the first word of “To Akindinos” 359, definitely ruled out that He could be energy. And what is written there can [logically] be consistently applied to the Holy Spirit. However, here [Basily the Great] said not only that uncreated energy is from the Spirit, but also that it is from the Spirit in the natural sense; and the natural coexists with nature, from which it has its being, and [at the same time] is not nature. But that they exist inseparably is recognized by everyone; and that in relation to God, the natural is not only different from nature, but also does not assign [to itself with the latter] any addition, then we have just, at the end of the previous word (Ch. 19-21), established, supported by the testimony of sacred theologians, that it is characteristic of the madness of the Hellenes and the evil mind of Eunomius to derive from this the idea of ​​​​complexity in God. And now we have enough hypostatic [properties] for proof. For just as there are many of them around each of the divine hypostases, and each of them is not a hypostasis, but they are characterizing features of each hypostasis, and this does not create any complexity, so in the same way, natural features are inherent in the divine nature, and each of them is not nature, but [they are] characteristics of nature, and no complexity is introduced into the divine nature, even if they differ from it. 49. Since energy is almost a common name for what is contemplated around God in the natural sense, - because of which we are taught to speak about many divine energies, and as the omnipotent 360 we glorify Him - then we must consider these divine energies, whether they differ from each other. After all, if they differ [from each other] (as they [in fact] do differ), as the great Basil quite clearly showed a little higher, and as anyone with intelligence understands, for the Holy Spirit does not want everything that he can; not everything that creatively brings [into being] also gives life; not everything that he sees, he idolizes - then how then does each of these, different from each other - [that is,] power, will, foreknowledge, deification and the like - have no difference in comparison with the same [and the same] divine Spirit or divine nature? 50. Isn’t Akindinus, blind in thought, seeing as one that which in everything differs from one another; and is it not because of his extreme madness that he decides to guide and teach those who see clearly; and is it not out of complete insensibility that he offers as witnesses those very people who clearly testify against himself? But may he be put to shame in this way and through what is presented to him; We, having exposed through the words 361 we promised in letters 362 what then follows in his writings “On Energy”, having now slightly revised our word, we will apply it to what follows. CHAPTER 14. A stronger and more extensive proof that the saints partake of the uncreated energy of God, and not of the essence. 51. Since God is power and grace, as Akindinus himself says, in which the divine apostles were clothed (Luke 24:49), and grace, which is perceived by all who, having been reborn “by water and the Spirit” (John 3:5) in the mysterious “bath of rebirth” (Titus 3:5), are united in every possible way with God himself, so that they become one with Him, since “Be cleave to the Lord, according to the apostle; there is one Spirit” (1 Cor. 6:17). Why do they become one with God? Really in essence? And does not he who speaks thus obviously surpass even the Monophysites in wickedness? But perhaps they are united by hypostasis, as if they and God had one hypostasis? But this way, firstly, the result would be a Sabellian confusion in relation to God, when the three divine hypostases converge into one. For the saints are united not only with the Son, but also with the Father and with the Spirit, and are clothed with power, which is worshiped in three hypostases. Then, unity according to hypostasis belongs to the one and only Christ. So, if those worthy of union are united with God, so as to be “one spirit” with Him, not in essence and not in hypostasis - for [our] word has shown that both are ungodly - then it remains that [they are with Him] united in energy and uncreated grace. 52. The divine Maximus says the same thing, that “the saints by grace are rather the same as the Son of God, rather than [merely] like [Him]” 363, and in another place he also speaks of “the single energy of God and those worthy of Him” 364. Therefore, this is uncreated grace, which is from the uncreated God, for the reason of which he called the dignity of the saints in another place 365 beginningless, which dignity he himself was awarded according to the testimony of the hymnist of Damascus, embraced by God, singing to him: Receiving the life-giving radiance from the one Trinitarian Deity, you appeared to those who were in darkness as the sun and misleading 366. And the great Gregory in theology says: “Christ [He is called] because of divinity, for it is the anointing of humanity [Christ], not sanctifying with energy, like other anointed ones, but with the presence of the whole Anointing One” 367. 53. Where are those who insist that in essence and energy everything partakes of God? Let them listen to the most prominent of the theologians who were after the holy apostles, that in this way [as they say] even the saints themselves do not participate in all of God, for this belongs to Christ alone - to be anointed with the presence of the whole Anointing One, and each of the others, partaking only of energy, is thus clothed in this power and thus has God [in himself]. Akindinus sometimes says that this power is the essence of God; sometimes - both essence and energy; and sometimes - that the hypostases themselves. Besides, what inconsistent and impudent nonsense! - he declares that it is created, and excludes those who consider it uncreated from among those who think piously. 54. But what proof is there that Christ is the true God, if He promises and gives us created grace? For we also exchange with each other created wisdom and teaching, virtue, and many other gifts that are useful and greatly contribute to decency. “By the fact that we are called partakers of Christ and partakers of God, the anointing [abiding] in us (1 John 2:27) and the seal are shown, that is, the deifying grace of the Spirit and energy, which does not exist by the nature of [things] created” 368, as Athanasius the Great again theologizes. If, according to Akindinus, she is one of the created things, then it would be logical to say exactly the opposite, that since the “anointing that is in us” and the seal are from the nature of created things, then we are not at all partakers of Christ and not partakers of God, according to what Akindinus thinks. But the anointing of those who are called by Christ 369 and who have made this calling true is not a creation, let it not be. After all, according to the great Basil, “no creation participates in the verbal soul to dwell in it essentially, that is, penetrating into its very essence, but the Holy Spirit dwells in it” 370. For He, according to [the book of] the Wisdom of Solomon, “passes through all the spirits of understanding, pure, and subtle” (Wis. 7:23). So, this is what, by God-created grace, sealed us “on the day of redemption” (Eph. 4:30), according to which “when natural signs are overcome by the abundance of the Divine glory” 371, we will rightly be called from it what it is, unless, due to the present negligence in this life, we are tragically separated from it then. 55. And whoever the light of divinity, and moreover, shining on the mountain from the One from the highest Trinity, called - alas for his thoughtlessness! - created, how could he leave unaffected [by his wickedness] anything that is otherwise called uncreated? This [man], although he spoke so much insolently against this [light] and uttered so many blasphemies against it, contrasting it with the symbol of piety and the voices of the Gospel, and placing the eternal and unchangeable Kingdom on a par with things that began and are capable of transformation, and associating with the slave creation everything that is superior in its power and super-absorbing power and splendor above everything, which is the divine the hymnist David, singing, called it limitless, or, which is the same thing, beginningless, - after all, the limit of everything that exists in time is the beginning in time, and the splendor of the glory of God’s holiness has no limit, as this divinely inspired [man] sings (Ps 145:3-5); So, having overthrown this [glory], or rather being overthrown from God, [this man] then pretends that he has not yet said anything worse or better about this world. For his speech, he says, “was about what has somehow become visible, because it is wicked to call something uncreated as such, and especially if it is called divinity.” CHAPTER 15. Exposition of another saying of Akindinus, on the basis of which it is shown that he agrees that the saints and the light of divine transfiguration were called uncreated divinity, but he himself urges not to listen to them as the theists and false witnesses. 56. So, he says that he forbade [speaking like this] and insisted on this, so that there would not be two uncreated divinities, and not about the light that shone on Tabor. And, therefore, as if he had not yet said anything about this, he now turns to this and writes: “There is no need to accept the light of the divine transfiguration on Mount Tabor as the establishment of two such divinities, as well as the laudatory words of the saints for this [holiday], for to imagine two divinities, or one consisting of two such, is contrary to the word of piety conveyed to us.” What are you saying? We should not accept the hymns of the Saints to the light of the Lord’s transfiguration, so that together with the saints we too may sing this light, as “the superperfect and pre-perfect glory (ύπερτλή και προτέλειον), beyond everything” 372, as “the glory of the Kingdom of God, constant and imperishable” 373, as “the invisible and divine glory of God the Word, of which Christ, having shown a certain small part on the mountain, inexpressibly showed God dwelling in the flesh and His divine and essential beauty” 374, as “unspeakable and unborn deification” 375, as “a natural, beginningless ray of divinity” 376, “the light of divinity,” “the lightning of divinity” 377, “unlimited outpouring of divine radiance” 378, “the divinity of God,” “immaterial light,” “eternal,” “incomparable,” “uncreated” 379. This and the like never cease to be proclaimed by the eyewitnesses, the mysteries and stewards (έρασται) of the true light, who from the mysterious union with it have learned to sing it in this way. 57. But you yourself testify here that the saints proclaim that this light is uncreated, and call it divinity. For how would you convince us not to accept the words of praise of the saints regarding divine transfiguration as proof that the light accompanying it is uncreated divinity, if this were not contained in the words of praise for it? If, while praising, they said such things about the light of transfiguration, but that light itself was not truly such, then the saints of God would turn out to be false witnesses, testifying that He showed a light that He did not show, and they composed and sent false hymns to Christ the Truth. And how are [they then] saints? Moreover, how do you think they are not enemies and opponents of Self-Truth? If they said exactly what they said and said the truth, then how could it be otherwise? - and from this two uncreated divinities are deduced, just as you yourself testify to this, and then you say that this is ungodly, then are you not clearly declaring the saints ungodly? After all, the conclusion belongs no more to the one who makes it than to those who say what it is drawn from. 58. Very opportunely, we could, together with the theologian Gregory, tell you that “we would not fail to say [clearly], out of fear of you, slanderer, if we found anything in Scripture not clearly stated or not easily understood by many” 380. And now I say this, bearing in mind your argumentative disposition, since those who disinterestedly turn their ears to Scripture hear that they proclaim this light, which is the lightness of the divine nature, to be uncreated and divinity, and the nature to which this lightness belongs. Likewise, the visual power of God, and nature, to which the power belongs 381: “Nature is inexpressible and ineffable, surpassing any meaning [expressed] through speech” 382, ​​and the visual power of nature, and autocracy, and lordship, and the like, although vaguely, are still indicated and called by the name of divinity 383. But it is also implied that it is proclaimed that nothing prevents them from being one uncreated divinity, perfect in everything, and worshiped by the right-minded in uncreated essence, power, and energy. So [it turns out that] Akindinus himself raised his voice [in support of the fact that] the one divinity should not be abolished because of the light [that appeared] on Tabor. CHAPTER 16. That he who calls this light created cannot speak of one divinity, and that from what Palamas says, one divinity is truly proclaimed. 59. For at the beginning we had no talk at all about divinity, but, having composed words of objection to him who slandered every manifestation of God and along with him slandered this light, we sang the superiority of this divine light, meaning to restrain the vicious impulse of that man 384. But that [man], and after him this one, did not pay attention and did not honor that clearest light of divinity and the super-exalted dignity of the divine Kingdom over all, that even to this day they boldly write and proclaim and insist that there is no longer one divinity, but two opposite ones, or one [composite] of two opposite ones, if only that light is uncreated. “For if,” they say, “divinity is from divinity, from non-participating - participating, then how is this not bitheism?” 60. And we [answer] them: “If, O such as you are, you, together with us, are worshipers of the highest Trinity, then answer how, when we say: “God from God,” “Born from the Unbegotten,” do we honor God alone?” For with what word do we reflect this two-theism, this weighs heavily on us more than many other things and against the two-theism that you invent [as an accusation] against us. After all, if this is because [we are monotheists] because God [who is born] from Him is not separated [as a certain part] from the Father, then here too who, wanting to be pious, will say that the lordship of the divine nature is separate from the divine nature? For no one could separate power and action from the able and the active. Indeed, among other things, the fact that energy and lightness are not contemplated in one’s own hypostasis clearly shows their inseparability in relation to nature. 61. And if this is because [we affirm that we honor the one God] that none of Them is first or later in time, then of these we have not called anything having a beginning, in agreement with the God-bearing fathers, if beginning is understood in the sense of time. If this is because in relation to causality-causality, and not createdness-uncreatedness, One is “more painful” ( John 14:28 ) than the Other in order [of enumeration] and the dignity corresponding to this order, as Basil the Great says 385, and in general in relation to that which does not tear the uncreated nature, then here the same thing is shown by our word, - or rather the theology of the wise fathers, - that not in the sense of createdness-uncreatedness, but causality-causation and something else that does not in any way violate uncreatedness, is understood here as “superiority” (τό ύπερεχον) and “subordination” (τό υποβεβηκός). 62. But [at the same time] with the Son is meant the Father, and the Son in Him? And how then is it that the radiance and lightness of nature is not [implied simultaneously] with that [nature] that emits it from itself? Moreover, the divine and luminous nature must be implied simultaneously with the shining from it by those who have ears 386. Do you see that uncreatedness, more than anything else, serves to preserve the unity of divinity? For the uncreated with the uncreated is one and always united, and the tropos of idioms do not separate them from each other. Therefore, if someone says in this way that, as he who said about the Father that “one is the true God, and He alone is uncreated, and He alone is good,” he piously and at the same time rationally theologizes, if only he confesses the Son to be the true God, equally uncreated and good, because in the Father he also included Him and the Holy Spirit, so that by saying the same thing about each of them, he does not at all damage the word of piety. Likewise, if someone says that “one divinity is true and only it is uncreated,” then, whether he speaks about the divine lordship or about the nature that possesses it, unless he classifies one of them among the creatures, he speaks piously, for each of them sings the praises of the other. 63. If Arius says that the one true God and the only uncreated one is the Father of the Lord, we will exclaim: “away.” For He alone is not uncreated, since God is also from God—true God and truly uncreated. So when Varlaam and Akindinus call the essence of God a single uncreated divinity, tearing away from it, alienating it, and putting its natural lordship on a par with created things, we cannot stand it. For we resolutely affirm that this [lordship] is uncreated and true divinity, and thus we are in the proper sense talking about one divinity, not only in essence, but also in its entire perfection contemplated. For divinity is not imperfect, not unbeautiful, not lacking in luminosity or visual, creative and idolizing energy and power. CHAPTER 17. Then another saying of Akindinus, from the analysis of which it will immediately become clear that the divine light is uncreated, and Akindinus himself will be shown in various ways disparaging the writings of our divine fathers and openly calling them worthless. 64. But [Akindinus] abolished in this way one divinity (for without a corresponding lordship, that is, existing above creatures, there could not be a divine and luminous nature, but also not without an uncreated nature an uncreated lordship); [Akindinus] abolished one, and divided it into two, and into such two that cannot converge into one (for one divinity will never arise from created and uncreated divinity); [Akindinus] boldly did, but rather miserably endured, this [also] says: “So that this does not happen to us, it will be a sign of pious and safe (άκυνδίνου) reverence to allow the light that shone on Tabor to remain without careful investigation ( απολυπραγηόνητον ) 387 in an inexplicable mystery." 65. Look at Akindinus’ reverence, although he does not preserve it in subsequent words. But look, nevertheless, at this face of reverence and at his pious reverence. After all, this is nothing more than a lie, and a mockery, and an ambush, and again a secretly prepared raid, truly irreverent, against God and the saints. For he has not forgotten his art, nor the ornaments and the disastrous duality of his words, when, under the guise of exaltation, he overthrows the divine, and abolishes piety with counterfeits of piety. Therefore, now and here [he] has some kind of strong reverence for the light [expressed] in the form of speech and in the names [used]. “This is,” he says, “an inexplicable, unexplored mystery...”, and fear, like some kind of striking dagger, hanging and threatening from there, and the security of precision, like some kind of bait, adjusted and extended from here. But was it, O man, that the light seen by the luminaries of the apostles in an inexplicable mystery that did not at all admit of investigation was a creation? After all, this is what you, directly and without blushing, declare in your previous and subsequent words. And how will this “inexplicable mystery” be the sight of created light, and this not only for us, but also for the saints, and for the apostles, and for the chosen ones of the apostles themselves? 66. But “neither created nor uncreated,” which is also your expression and opinion, and even captured in writing, [is a sign of a person] who in every possible way avoids faith in the uncreated. So it is not just an hypostatic ghost, as Varlaam thought badly, but, according to you, such a light does not exist at all, and never has appeared. And what am I saying that he never existed and never appeared? For such a light is impossible even to imagine, since Gregory, who received the nickname from theology, says that “even the creator of goats and deer cannot invent an average between the created and the uncreated.” So confess that that light is truly uncreated, putting off the manifold disguises and deceptions, and considering and saying that it is not in itself, but by homonymy [called uncreated], and sometimes hiding in the recesses of your thoughts an unholy addition, and cunningly pronouncing out loud, misleading your listeners, the pious [teaching] free from [any] addition and vicious curiosity, in which you Now, as if by putting on clothes, you cover up the rottenness of your teaching, when you do not converse with your true [co]hidden people: for it is impossible that that light in any way could be created or neither one nor the other. 67. And then, having agreed on this with the truth and with us, leave other things without careful investigation in the inexplicable mystery. How was [this light] seen by those who ascended, being uncreated? How was it not visible even at the foot of the mountain to the hidden places left behind that shone brighter than the sun? How did it not burn up, along with those who saw it, and everything [that was] nearby, flaring up in this way? How did he not wither the eyes of those who see, shining beyond their measure, but weaken the tone of the soul and body, so that they fell on their faces, although the light remains immaterial, as can be concluded from [his] deeds (έργων), and how are we taught by the Holy Scriptures? Therefore, glorifying such things without examination with sacred reverence, keep amazement in the ineffability of thoughts, putting everything aside, and subordinating yourself through faith to the power and power of the Spirit. 68. What is your reverent and safe proposal now? If that light cannot be explored, then why should we not understand by nature the lordship of His nature relating to God, not consider this lordship uncreated, but, having been assured from you that it is created, separate it from the one and uncreated divinity? But we, O wise counselor of destruction, know and believe without research, having been taught by the divine fathers. “For the Son,” says [the divine Damascus], “begotten without beginning from the Father, has a beginningless natural ray of divinity, and not later received being and glory itself: and the glory of divinity becomes the glory of the body” 389. Therefore, your reverence is not some kind of safe prudence, but unbelief and disobedience and the cause (πρόξενος) of great danger, and you lie to us, accusing us of empty curiosity. You also reproach the saints of God, as if, out of curiosity, they declared this light to be without beginning, and you entice many, under a plausible pretext, kidnapping them, and remove them from saving obedience to the saints, and you easily set them up to be careless in relation to the divine, insidiously inclining them, so as to easily mislead them with your own innovations. 69. And since this [man] does not consider the saints worthy of trust, and about those who believe [that it is necessary] to believe them in everything when they theologize, he thinks that they turn away from unshakable faith in God - after all, he thinks that they hit far past the goal - then to those whom he considers his true disciples, he reports that the fathers, not fully grasping the truth, allow excess in their words 390 and shake the thoughts of those who look on them with faith. From whom [the students] we also heard this, since they made it public in many places, whereas, when talking with others, he does not say it 391, feigning the opposite. In [his] writings, he puts forward this thesis not too clearly, but treacherously, and, preparing for this, he stretches [his arguments] throughout the entire composition of the work, then indirectly showing [the fathers] writing against themselves and each other; then making it clear that they provide no small grounds for the greatest absurdities, if anyone is convinced by what they write; and sometimes by [first] presenting them [the writings] as if they were ours, and [then] objecting to them. 70. However, it almost escaped me that he both explicitly writes this and very explicitly insists: for a little higher he exhorted, saying that it is appropriate not to pay attention to the words of praise written by the saints about the divine Transfiguration and not to accept what they said about the light of the Lord's Transfiguration, clearly publicly rejecting what comes out of what they said. Reinterpreting in another place of his words the “Chapters” of the revered Maximus, in which he calls uncreated everything that is essentially contemplated around God 392, and attracts them to his own opinion, as soon as he sees that they clearly contradict him (after all, he speaks of one beginningless - the essence of God, and the divine Maximus calls without beginning and [everything] around it by nature contemplated, and thus speaks of one beginningless - God Himself, considering Him to be beginningless in everything, but not dividing Him into an uncreated essence and some created forces); So, as soon as Akindinus saw that these [the words of Maximus] were completely clearly opposed to this [his teaching], turning to other verbal intricacies, he also dared to say that “it is absolutely obvious that much is found in the writings of the sacred fathers that the divine councils and subsequent godlike fathers rejected as unsuitable.” 71. What an insolent soul and a tongue that loves blasphemy! What of what was written by the divine Maximus, or by those great ones who were before him, or after him, who agreed with him and those, and especially [from what was written] about divinity and about created and uncreated things, was considered unfit by the subsequent God-like [fathers], unless he proclaimed Barlaam and himself as God-like fathers? So in those [words] he clearly declares the theology of the saints to be erroneous, but here he, who just above completely forbade the investigation of [anything] about this light, well said by the revered Maximus in some places of his contemplations about the divine light, subjected to careful study, and [did it] very poorly. [So] he indirectly shows that the saints are opposed to each other because he believes that some of them, as it seems to him, say that that light is not the natural lordship of God. In relation to which, with the help of the light of truth, we will expose him in the following words “On Light” as a most brilliant liar. CHAPTER 18. The following speech of Akindinus, upon examination of which it turns out that he establishes a law contrary to the Gospel of Christ, speaking in concert with Barlaam and all heretics, being godless and opposing the saints, and inventing that God has two essences opposite to each other. 72. But, having shown this [as if] by the way, according to his custom, he also adds: “if it is necessary to leave this without touching and research, which, I believe, will be better, then why is nothing else that was spoken by the saints about the divine transfiguration, so that what happened then (γενόμενον) would truly be a mystery of God, which it is appears, and so that we do not honor two gods and two uncreated divinities - the superior and the subordinate, the visible and the invisible - this polytheistic and undoubtedly Hellenic dogma? It gives me no pleasure at all to fight against these insignificant conclusions, especially those expressed now, but let us bow to this low reasoning in order, perhaps, to straighten some of those carried away [by it] to such baseness, distinguished by an elusive ugliness, as if overlaid with restored skin of a good color, [obtained] from the names of false piety and [derived] from a lie of a play on words. Why don’t you say this to yourself and don’t turn these reproaches towards yourself, who have retold [in your own words] almost every book and reinterpreted and distorted everything and distorted it in various ways in order to make the divinity shown on the mountain appear to be a ghost and the most insignificant of all ghosts? Why don’t you write this to Varlaam, who - after all, anyone who wants can look at what is proposed in his writings, since no one else from today’s people has said anything about this light - rushing on his own to slander every divine manifestation of light, says that “if we, now dealing with the most blessed of all light manifestations, which is what is on Mount Tabor, prove that in it there is nothing higher than visible sensory image [of phenomena], then what needs to be thought about other light phenomena - we will leave this for those who have the mind"? 73. So, why are you not writing these sublime proposals and disgusting injunctions not to him and not for his sake, but to us, who intend to speak against him in defense of the divinity mysteriously shown on Tabor? Or will you then agree that the divine sacraments are sacraments, if no one will speak out against those who dishonor and humiliate them, and ruin them with the help of long scriptures? After all, you think that we need a thorough study, which you ridicule, that we exposed this well-known [person], a bad thinker, holding a vicious opinion, and the Gospel, apostolic and patristic writings, following the divine and Master's command, “tested” (John 5:39), and, comparing them with the conclusions he made, showed him before the judging council 393 - which he, and not we, initiated - is truly a blasphemer. Is this what you call curiosity, when you yourself are now defending it [the theses]? 74. So, since you call this curiosity - when they proclaim what is collected from Scripture with a test of the truth and through it “unrighteousness on high that speaks” to bring down and bridle, then you introduce us to another Gospel, and another teaching, contrary to the teaching of Christ and His disciples, to whom the proclamation of eternal life serves as an incentive to “test the Scriptures” (John 5:39) and “putting down all high things, charged to the mind of God” (2 Cor. 10:4–5). I believe that all the leaders of vicious heresies of all ages have strong gratitude to your wisdom because of this interpretation. For what if Sabellius, so that we could skip those who came before him, said the same sayings, as if it were not necessary to carefully examine the various manifestations of God, as you now say about what happened on the mountain [appearance], but not about what was said by the saints about each of them, so that they were truly sacraments, as they are [in fact], and that we did not honor the three uncreated gods, the lower and the higher (for he accuses the Orthodox of this, just like you now in two divinities); So, if Sabellius proposed this, and we offered him an ear ready to listen, then where could we learn the trinity of the deity? But no one with intelligence will listen to him or you. Arius will immediately jump up, saying: “What is more mysterious than the birth of the Son? It should be honored with the most perfect silence, and the begotten-unbegotten God, consisting of a superior and inferior, or two [gods], and [so that] should not be shown,” and calling it “undoubtedly a Hellenic dogma,” like you. 75. And Macedonius, would not have said the same about the Spirit? After all, if, in saying this, you think to say something about the manifestation of God, at which God Himself revealed Himself more than ever before, and thanks to which, as St. Maximus says, He “firmly and clearly taught every kind and mystery of theology,” then why didn’t they say [so] when talking about the hypostases themselves and the divine nature? Nestorius and Eutychus are two evils opposite to each other and equal in terms of evil - how would they not rejoice at your words, since the birth of Christ in the flesh is also a sacrament? After all, each of them will tell us: “Stop seeking and investigating what is before Christmas, what is during Christmas, and what is after Christmas, so that the Nativity of Christ may truly be a mystery, and so that you do not become two-theists, concluding one God in two, and speaking about Him in two ways, or speaking about two different Sons of God - one way or another, visible and invisible.” For in this he accuses those who say that there are two natures in Christ, the unfortunate Eutychus (ο δύοτυχής Εύτυχής), just as Akindinus, who is now in danger of being caught by the snare of wickedness, calls ditheists those who consider God uncreated both in essence and in energy, despite the fact that he himself has collected almost all and the opposite wickedness into one, his own, soul, poor fellow, although we don’t even have time to name them all now. 76. The dogma that is exclusive to him, and the one most worthy of effort, is atheism and bringing many to complete ignorance of God. And even more so, he brings himself to this point with his words and writings. For there is no one, there is no one who would comprehend the existence of God from His essence, since it is completely inviolable for all beings, “and for all imaginations it is inconceivable, for it is self-superessentially for every contemplative ability (έξεως) and power (αύθυπερουσίως) 394 super-erected in impassable [places], and in a way of supernatural superiority” 395, according to the God-speaking Dionysius, being a kind of silence (άλογία) and namelessness, and ignorance 396. So, since it is incomprehensible and absolutely incomprehensible to all beings, then if we do not know God as the Resurrection of the divinely enlightened and the Godhead of the divinely illuminated adored and do not recognize the sacred and premium communion [of the saints] with Him - either from [our own] experience, living according to the Gospel, or with faith exploring what the saints said about this communion - can we from somewhere else by to truly know God? - No way. 77. For if anyone says that [we can know God] from the harmony of creation, then in the divine knowledge [arising] from it, according to what has been said, even the wise men of this age boast, about whom Paul said that “the world did not know the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:21). So again Barlaam and Akindinus “return to their vomit” (2 Pet. 2:22), only caring about the knowledge of God, which is no less the ignorance of God; but from the true knowledge of God, [stemming] from the divine appearance (επιφανείας) and communication, they detract from themselves and those who listened to them, raising blasphemies against her in various ways. After all, isn’t it clear that this too [is a sign of] those raising blasphemies against the great one. light and also on the saints who dwell with us in [their] writings - to teach us to think that if anyone experiences this and the writings of the fathers [written] in defense of this, he will fall into ditheism, and that what contains the entire treasure of theology, who undertake to thoroughly consider it, as the divine fathers commanded, will become the cause of polytheism, darkness and lies, for those who look, alas, to the very light of truth? 78. I fear for the soul that conceived (βουλεούση) such a thing; has it not become completely mated to one who eternally opposes the intentions (βουλαίς) of God? I am afraid, hearing the speaker: “God wants (βούλεται) that we, having realized the depth of what we have done for the sake of this, by gnosis would attract to ourselves the strongest grace, by imitation of the Transformed One, working in us this wonderful and strange sacrament” 397, reducing which to the level of the created, the one who contradicts us could not hide, [as this is clear] and from what has just been given. For since he opposes himself to those who, with the help of the Holy Scriptures, show this light to the uncreated, and, in addition, insists that they fall into many absurdities, it is obvious that he himself puts this light on a par with created things, and also no less [he shows this] by urging “not to examine what the saints said about this light, lest we defend two gods and two uncreated divinities, superior and inferior, visible and invisible." For he calls it impious not to worship two divinities, but two uncreated divinities; and not to [call them] superior and inferior. After all, if the other [divinity] is created, then it will necessarily have both otherness and subordination, not only in causality, but also in essence. So he does not generally say that it is wicked to honor two [divinities], but [considers it wickedness] to consider the other light uncreated along with that nature, and against this he incites an irreconcilable war. Still, making other things a scarecrow, he adapts the simplest people. He adds something else, frightening the simpletons. 79. For while all the God-speaking [fathers] considered that light to be without beginning and ever-present, as we have repeatedly and at length shown, and also, since it is deification, they called it divinity, visible ineffably only to those who were worthy, and for some of them intelligible, since not only in the eyes of the body, but also in the eyes of the soul of those who were worthy of [it] is incomprehensible [for the mind] this divine radiance happens, this [Akindinus] urges us not to carefully examine the writings of the saints about this [radiance], so that we do not consider this radiance uncreated, together with the essence that gives it. So, if it were not for [the] fathers themselves to clearly theologize that it is divinity and visible by the power of the divine Spirit only by the saints, a natural ray of divinity, uncreated and without beginning, 398 and we, examining [their writings would draw such conclusions], it might somehow seem that, by calling not to be curious, he prevents too meticulous research. But now, when it is clear that the fathers theologize this way, he obviously does not say anything else except: “having abandoned the fatherly traditions and the teaching of the Spirit, everyone listen to me and without testing submit to my new voices (καινοφωνίαις), and, having distorted the voices of the saints, accept me as the leader of the new worship of God, as the highest in comparison with all them and an extremely accurate theologian.” 80. From such folly, he secretly prepares [the listeners for the fact that] the explanations of the saints about light, as clear as light, should be thrown away, instilling such thoughts, “so that we,” as he says, “do not honor two uncreated divinities, calling uncreated divinity both the radiance, which in one way or another became visible, and the essence, the highest and invisible.” So, you call this radiance created. Why not? As you speak, you quite openly say that you think so. Who then belongs to this created divinity and lordship, visible only to the saints and making those deified God-like through the sacrament, in your opinion? Is it not God and His very divine nature, as He Himself, shining upon it on the mountain, showed, and how we learned from those who from time to time were honored with this lordship? So you also speak of two divinities of God, one uncreated and the other created, but it is impossible either for the created to belong to the uncreated essence, or for the uncreated to belong to the created. Thus, the one whom you call the one God is composed of uncreated and created nature. 81. Rather, since these cannot come together, you honor two gods and two opposite [each other] principles, going mad like Mani (μανείς κατά Μάνεντα); or rather, you remain in an even more strange and absolutely inconsistent and worse opinion than his, as we showed in the List of your many absurdities 399. So, we compared and reconciled the words spoken in the Spirit by the saints about the light that shone on Tabor with each other, and brought them together into one, not in order to introduce, as you slander and denounce, two-theism, but in order to turn you away from two-theism, which is truly shameful and wicked, or, it would be more appropriate to say, wicked. 82. Arius, in his madness, called the Son and the Holy Spirit created, and you, as if considering it a matter of honor for yourself to surpass his folly, reduce him to the level of a creature and the Father. For this radiance and brightness and energy is common to the Father, the Son and the Spirit; and whoever has created energy is not uncreated himself, according to the God-wise theologians. Thus, from the fact that you slander and slander the worshipers of the one and only uncreated, trinitarian and omnipotent divinity, you yourself show yourself to be a polytheist and at the same time an atheist, which is extremely paradoxical, but even more so – very conditional. For the one who thinks to surpass the piety of the saints and exalts himself against those who agree with them in everything, as against polytheists, in justice, having fallen away from the one God, is punished with complete ignorance of God and does not see when he falls into opposite and identical in their malice [opinions]. CHAPTER 19. That from what Palamas says, one God is shown in one, simple and equal uncreated divinity; and from what Akindinus says, two gods and two divinities are shown, unequal, dissimilar, and truly superior and inferior. 83. How did you expose us, and with what help did you show us as two-theists? Because we are talking about both the visible and, moreover, the intelligible divinity of God Himself, as the theologians embraced by God teach? 400 And we must now ignore that these are said by those whose word is the law of piety, whose every saying has gone around the whole earth and is revered by every holy church, from whose mouths nothing else has come 401 except the word of piety and salvation for the whole world? But since we say that it belongs to Him Himself, and, moreover, is in no way separable from Him (for rather, it unites those who are worthy of it, deifying it, with God, so that they become God-like, but it does not itself break away from the One who, through love for mankind, raises and binds the human race with unflagging bonds); since, therefore, we say [that this is the divinity] of Himself, then how is the Same One another, or how is it One or two? Or are you not the same to yourself, but someone else? Or rather, you have [really] become different and thus double - a kind of strange and two-faced monster, which, according to the [ancient] myths, man once was 402, so that you too, perhaps, will frighten your own, who are much better in truth and piety, just as those [androgynes], according to the same myths, were frightened by their best 403. 84. “But seeing,” he says, “uncreated divinity from uncreated divinity, deduced from what you said, I show from this that you honor two gods.” And why, O monotheist in everything, don’t you see that the pious glorify the uncreated God, the Son, born of the uncreated God, the Father. How is it that when God is uncreated, and the Son is from the uncreated God the Father, then there is one God; and when energy is uncreated divinity [arising] from uncreated essence, then two divinities are derived, or two - what is even more paradoxical - Gods? Because, just as the Son, being God from God the Father, as the uncreated God is not other, but other as the Son; and as the uncreated God He is equal in everything to the Father, and as the Son, having the Father greater than Himself in the sense of causality, He remains second to the Father (not a second God - let it not be! – but second in order [of hypostases], as Basil the Great says); so also [arising] from uncreated divinity - essence - energy is uncreated divinity, not being other than uncreated divinity, but being other than energy; not distinguished by uncreatedness from essence and not separating [from it] at all, as having it superior to itself [only] for a reason. Although the Son exists in his own hypostasis, the energy we are talking about does not exist in his own hypostasis. For the great Basil, having collected and enumerated, as far as possible, all the energies, among which, in accordance with the enumeration of gifts, he called fear security (ασφάλειαν) 404, divinely adapting to the divine Spirit. Then he, repeating, writes: “The Holy Spirit has all this eternally, as the Spirit of God and who appeared from God, but He, flowing from God, is hypostatic, and what flows from Him is the essence of His energy” 405. So, if the Father existed (ύφέστηκε) by Himself, and in exactly the same way [exists] both the Son and the Spirit - God from God, who received independent existence (ύφεστηκός), and [at the same time] the three [Persons] are one God, and none of the prudent people accuse those who think so of double-theism or tritheism, then all the more [one should not blame for this] those who call both the divine essence uncreated divinity and the radiance given from it, which no one has ever thought to exist independently. 85. Why do we say that Arius made a dissection of divinity? Is it not because he called one uncreated and the other created God? Therefore, he does not divide the uncreated - for he rather unites it - but he badly divides divinity into created and uncreated, and makes polytheists and at the same time atheists of those who, like you, call divinity created and uncreated, and even more so - the lordship of God himself. And those who say that the essence of God is uncreated, and from it the ineffable radiance that appears, truly worship the uncreated God alone. You are about those who have truly seen and experienced the Lordship of God, and from unity with God have learned that He, whatever He is in essence, is beyond all vision and communion, knowledge and description, and by appearances (προόδους) and phenomena (εκφάνσεις), forces and energies and participates, and is intelligible, and is named, being many-named and super-named, you say that they compose God from the highest and the lowest, and make Him different in relation to Himself and second, and greater and higher than Himself, not having the strength to realize that this is done by the one who, like you, calls the divinity of God created and uncreated, and even more so by the one who, like now you yourself, being bound by the unreasonable [with fear] so as not [to somehow] say that there are many uncreated, he declares that all the forces and energies of uncreated nature are created. And he who believes that the essence, and hypostases, and powers, and activities of God, and in general everything that is God, is uncreated, continues to piously and reliably consider Him in relation to Himself to be inseparable, and equal, and uncomplicated: after all, the uncreated with the uncreated is always equal, and is united inseparably, and is one, since it is uncreated, and the tropos of natural and hypostatic idioms are in no way damaged by this unity. And you, if you were not entirely a spiritual person, about whom the apostle says that he “does not receive the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 2:14), you would recognize and accept the words of the Spirit and, “discerning spiritual things with spiritual things” (1 Cor. 2:13) or, in other words, recognizing the divine by the divine through comparison, you would not dare to say such things against God and the saints of God, and us, one with them in word. CHAPTER 20. Proof that everything that God has prepared for those who love Him, which no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor breathed into the heart of man (1 Cor. 2:9), is uncreated; and the denunciation of the words of Akindinus, which represent that it is created. 86. And “what God has prepared for those who love Him, for whom eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and the heart of man has not sighed” (1 Cor. 2:9), you would not unreasonably place them in the ranks of creation. For if here, to those who, by doing the divine commandments, show [their] love for Him, the Lord promises, as if as a deposit, His and His Father’s coming, and abiding, and appearance (John 14:23), then as the promise of “good things to come” (Heb. 9:11, 10:1), of which the deposit is such, will be creation, especially since what He proclaimed is above the senses and the mind, as The mystery of what was announced was explained by the apostle Paul, who gave an explanation in connection with this and said: “God has revealed it to us by His Spirit: for the Spirit tests all things, even the deep things of God” (1 Cor. 2:10)?” What about that which is hidden in the depths of God, which is above all feeling and all mind, which is known only to the Spirit, “who searches the depths of God,” which is revealed only to the saints, and even to them - with the help of the Spirit itself, as if it were from among created things? 87. “But it is said,” declares Akindinus, “that God himself is the inheritance of the saints. It is said that there are other benefits set aside for the enjoyment of the righteous, brought into being by God, and which are different in relation to Him: “what God has prepared for those who love Him.” So do not imagine God Himself as different from Himself, nor greater than Himself, nor lesser, nor superior, nor inferior, nor anything else in relation to Him, brought into being by Him - uncreated and without beginning. For whoever expresses one of these two [positions] will by no means escape the highest degree of absurdity.” He calls both of them extremely absurd to say that what is uncreated is prepared by God for those who love Him, and [believes that it would be just as absurd to say] that God is above them if they are uncreated; and he considers those who say the first or the second to have not passed by any peak of wickedness, and those who say both of them are even more [wicked]. So, let's see who says this: after all, these will be those whom he, speaking without the slightest exaggeration, declares to be wicked. The first is the divine Paul: “When,” he says, “all things are subjected to the Son, then the Son Himself will submit all things to him, that God may be all things in all” (1 Cor. 15:28). Has Paul left anything else but God for us to enjoy? Exactly following him, Gregory the Theologian said: “God will be all things in all” during the restoration (έν καιρω της αποκαταστάσεως) (Acts 3:21) 406, when we will no longer be many, as we are now, due to mental movements and passions, carrying absolutely nothing of God within ourselves or carrying very little, but we will be completely God-like, containing all of God and only Him; for this is the perfection to which we diligently strive.” 407 So, if [the saints are] entirely God-like and containing only God, then how will the pleasure prepared for them be [anything] other than Him? 88. And the great Athanasius says: “When the prophets said that the inheritance of the saints is the Lord, Paul said that the Holy Spirit is the inheritance of the saints, “who in him and believed was marked by the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the betrothal of our inheritance” (Eph. 1:13-14), just as Moses was sealed on his face by the Holy Spirit when he received the law from God (Exod. 34:29–30), and no one could “look at him from the sons of Israel” (2 Cor. 3:7), for “the light of the countenance” of the Lord is marked on him (Ps. 4:7), and as it is written in the Gospel: “then the righteous will shine like the Sun in the Kingdom of their Father” (Matthew 13:43)” 408. Do you see that the inheritance of the saints is the ineffable light, which is the light of the face of the Lord, as He Himself showed on the mountain, with which [light] the face of Moses was sealed, like which the righteous will shine in the future? What you classify as created, Paul says that it is the Holy Spirit, and the prophets - that it is the Lord - not another, but the One who shines with this light and associates the saints with the lordship corresponding to it. 89. But let the fourth witness also enter, more clearly than others, proclaiming what is now being investigated: “Since life [flowing] in the present [age],” says the [bishop] of Nyssa, the divine Gregory, “acts in us changeably and diversely, there are many things that we participate in, such as: time, air, place, food, drink, clothing, the sun, a lamp and many other things for everyday needs, of which none is God. The desired bliss does not need any of this. For [all] this and instead of everything for us will be the divine nature, properly measuring itself to every need of this life" 409. What is the meaning of “divine nature” here, we explained in the previous word. 90. But if the desired bliss does not need any of the above, and instead of this and everything we will receive the divine nature, which is measured to every need of this life, then how will what is prepared for pleasure for those who love Him be different in relation to God? How, when the only thing truly desired is presented, will something else be attracted from everything [existing]? After all, [everything else] would give way: [so] when the sun rises, the moon and many stars do not go into oblivion, but we [then] do not need either the stars or the shining moon, even if there was a full moon, and it would be in all its light when the sun is above the earth. But it seems that this unfortunate man raised his hand against the sons of the next century, depriving them of God’s love. While He freely presents himself to their enjoyment, they, according to these mysterious words of Akindinus about future things, put another pleasure before God, as if they did not love Him at all. But each of the existing ones takes a nickname from one superior to it, and especially [this is true] for those who prefer to speak in a favorable sense (τοις εύφημείν προθυμουμένοις). So if [along with the uncreated] created things are also given to the heirs of God, joint heirs of Christ (Rom. 8:17), then it would be fair that their inheritance should be called from the best. Akindinus fights with those who consider it necessary to name the inheritance from this, himself, as it seems, considering it fair to mock [to call it that way] so that it reminds of something less. 91. And what God offers himself to the saints for possession (πρός μετουσίαν), let the same [teacher] teach again. For, interpreting this apostolic [saying]: “it is sown into corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is sown not in honor, it is raised in glory; the natural body is sown, the spiritual body is raised” (1 Cor. 15:42, 44), he says: “it is believed that incorruption and glory, and honor, and power are the proper [properties] of the divine nature, which previously surrounded man created in the image [of God] and which we hope for in the future” 410. And a little later: “To all who have been cleansed from evil, God will offer participation (μετουσίαν) in the good things [that exist] in Him, about which Scripture speaks, that neither eye has seen them, nor has hearing perceived them, and they have not become accessible to reflection (1 Cor. 2:9)” 411. And this is nothing other than, in my mind, at least, how to become in God himself. After all, that good that is above the eye, ear and heart will be above all. Therefore, if “what God has prepared for those who love Him” is above sight, hearing and understanding, and this is what surpasses everything [in general], then he who calls “what God has prepared for those who love Him” as created, does not he explicitly call creation what is above everything? How [then] will God be the inheritance of the saints, if what is prepared for his enjoyment is creation? Or is it [only] said, but in reality it is not so? Such is your faith and worship of God. Therefore, you are trying to show from what the saints theologize that they are not alien to all sorts of excessive absurdity, since, probably, they too, in your opinion, are called [such], but [in fact] they are not, according to your idea of ​​​​the divine heritage. 92. But since he calls created the inheritance that “God has prepared for those who love Him,” and it is beyond the reach of every mind and feeling, then again this unfortunate one, through these words, blasphemes that divine light, while the Damascus theologian directly teaches about it in the most distinct language: “This is what “eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and has not entered into the heart of man” (1 Cor. 2:9): thus in the age to come we will see Christ sparkling with the light of divinity" 412. And the divinely inspired [Saint] Gregory of Nyssa testifies that in the vision of God there is a fullness of blessings: “For he who has seen God,” he says, “has everything that is in the list of blessings, thanks to this vision: endless life, eternal incorruptibility, immortal bliss, an endless Kingdom, unceasing joy, true light, spiritual and sweet food, unapproachable glory, constant rejoicing, every good thing.” 413. Before these [teachers], the God-speaking Dionysius himself from the Areopagus said: “Not by feeling, nor by proceeding from existing things, but above all existing things, we will be filled with visible theophany, as [were] the disciples of the Savior at the most divine transfiguration, when we reach the Christlike and most blessed destiny (λήξεως)” 414 415. 93. It is necessary to find out from the Savior Himself what this “prepared thing” is and what this promise is. Let us now listen to the Speaker, and then let it be heard by us: “Come, blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matthew 25:34). Whose kingdom will the “heirs,” according to Paul, “of God, heirs of Christ” (Rom. 8:17) inherit? Of course, God's. In this case, is the Kingdom of God prepared for those who love God created, “which, according to the divine Maximus, is not just for centuries or times to be ahead. And we believe,” he says, “that it is the inheritance of those who are being saved” 416; which, again according to him, “is the teaching by grace of that which is naturally inherent in God” 417, and “the very form of divine beauty” 418? How can something be created that from the dispensation of the world was not created, but prepared? And although the Lord did not specify anything regarding [these His] words, He, of course, embraced the intelligible world with them, placing it also after “the Kingdom prepared for us.” 94. But let Paul teach us again when and how the grace of eternal life is prepared for us: for all such things are embraced by the Kingdom of God. So, he says in Timothy: “according to his own offer and the grace that was given to us in Christ Jesus before the years of eternity” (2 Tim. 1:9). Do you see that grace is prepared for us from eternity? How can something prepared before the ages be created? But for the sake of these new sexts and pirons (Σ έξτους και Πύρωνας) 419, directing effective 420 and burning (πύρωνείους) objections against the divine, let the great Afanasy. “How would we,” he says, “receive before eternal times, having not yet arisen [then], but having arisen in time, if the grace that came to us had not been set aside in Christ? For in nothing else is it fitting to base our life except in the Lord, who was before the ages, “in whom the worlds also came into being” (Heb. 1:2), so that when it is in Him, we too might inherit eternal life.”421 Therefore, the divine Cyril says: “The Father through the Son in the age to come “all things will be in all” (1 Cor. 15:28): and life, and incorruptibility, and joy, and holiness, and power, and everything that will be for the saints who are in hypostasis" 422. Thalassius, who competes with them in knowledge, says that “eternal, and before every age, and above mind and word, are the blessings laid aside for the heirs of the promise” 423. And the reverently revered Epiphanius introduces the Lord Himself, speaking to those in hell: “Arise, let us go” (John 14:31; Matt. 26:45), for the treasuries of good things (οί θγσαυροί των αγαθών) 424 have been opened and the kingdom of heaven has been opened before the ages. prepared" 425 . CHAPTER 21. Another thing that appears is that Akindinus calls the saints themselves polytheists and new theologians, as if they teach that the divine above and above is in essence slightly higher than the spoken uncreated inheritance. 95. Akindinus, alas for [his] wicked and monstrous audacity, putting forward the very voice of the Lord: “Come, blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matthew 25:34), then adds, saying: “if these future things and the very inheritance of the saints are uncreated, then you are contrary to the saints and polytheistic - what a new theology! “You are being philosophic and dogmatic.” Truly, wickedness is the inventor of evil things and is very bold in its undertakings. After all, the unfortunate man declares this very Kingdom of God to be created, and those who think of it as uncreated in plain text calls them new voices (καινοφωνίαν), and insists that they are polytheists, and he presents himself and his company (συμμορίαν) as saints and traditionally minded ( παλαίφρονας) theologians; contrary to which Paul, Dionysius, Athanasius, Gregory, and all the leaders and luminaries of the choir of saints, and the God of saints himself, think and theologize. 96. And it is not the first time now that we are saying this, but there is something that we have uttered from the [sayings] of these [saints], and nothing that we would have added on our own, and despite the fact that we did not address the word to him, he himself, voluntarily acting as a champion of the wickedness of Barlaam, [allegedly] countered such objections, insanely uttering so many [blasphemies] against the very Kingdom of God and against the saints, under [false] pretence, as if he was speaking to us. Since we also took from the saints that “if the energy of God is immeasurable, then how much more is the essence” 426, and “if wisdom is incomprehensible, then how much more is nature?” and “if “His judgments” cannot be tested and “His way” are not explored (Rom. 11:33), and the promise of blessings exceeds any possible assumption, then how much more is the Divinity Himself (αυτό then θείον) in ineffability and inaccessibility higher and more excellent than what is mentally contemplated around Him” 427. When we have said this together with what is given above, then again this Polykindinus 428 himself says: “If the Divinity (that is, θείον) is above this inheritance of the saints, which is uncreated, and above it, then God is higher than Himself, what more ungodly can anything else be said?” 97. And yet the saint says here that the heritage of the saints - of which the Divinity is higher, as he theologizes - exceeds any likeness [derived] from inferences 429. And earlier he said that it exists above all. But here he also included God’s untraceable ways among the untraceable ways - is there anything in creation that is untraceable? - but also to untested judgments, that is, divine predestination and will, and not to what has become the subject of judgment and will (αλλού τοις κριθείσι και θεληθείσιν). So he theologized that the Divinity, in its ineffability and inaccessibility, is higher and more excellent not than these, which subsequently arose, but those pre-eternal, as thought around Him, thinking like [his] brother (αδελφα τώ άδελφώ φρονών), who says, speaking about the pre-eternal energies, that “if you think of anything beyond the ages, then this too will be lower than the Spirit” 430, clearly showing that the divine energies of the Spirit are lower than the Spirit, that is, the essence of the Spirit. 98. And Akindinus, being wise with the word “God,” confuses the inexperienced. But the divine [Bishop] Gregory of Nyssa himself, who here called the Divinity higher and more excellent than what is thought around Him, in the same words “To Eunomius” says: “Everything that is thought around God was before the creation of the world, but we say that it is named after the appearance of the namer.”431 What exists first of all the world around God, from whose [number] there is and exceeds all likeness [arising] from inferences, the promise of blessings 432, and “unsearchable paths”, and “untested judgment” (Rom. 11:33) or, to put it briefly, the super-wise providence of God, how could there be a creation? 99. And, therefore, if this ineffable and incomprehensible promise and inheritance of goods, of which the Divinity is higher and more excellent, as the wise Gregory in the divine said, we, and not again he, called everything superior and ranked with the eternal, then use this against us with your abusive tongue, if we cannot prove and confirm from [the words] of other saints that “theirs eye has not seen, and not hearing the ear, and not rising into the heart of man, what God has prepared for those who love Him” (1 Cor. 2:9), nothing else is like God himself, “who is all things to all” then by grace (1 Cor. 9:22). If this divine Gregory of Nyssa himself, in agreement with the chorus of all the theologians, theologizes about this in this way, then it is clear that he himself, together with all of them - may [God] be merciful to us, that we pronounce your [blasphemies] against them with our tongues, since we are speaking in their defense - then you clearly call them polytheists and new theologians, and saints - I don’t know which ones - opposing, wicked and the most absurd, allegedly saying that God is higher than Himself, [or Himself in relation to Himself] is greater and less, inferior and superior, and reducing Him to the level of creation, and considering creation to be God. 100. And you yourself, I think, would easily show each of the worshiped and divine hypostases as a composite of such [parts], considering it greater and lesser than itself; both first and second place; more significant and less important. “For, being by nature God and Father,” according to Cyril, who is skilled in the divine, “the Father of the Son and our God, firstly the Father, and then only God, although these [coexist in Him] together and fused” 433, and that he who calls Him Father “gives Him more [thus respect], and not less” 434. Therefore, about Arius, Eunomius and their followers, he says: “If those who oppose Christ think that they are doing some great favor to God, not confessing Him from the beginning as the Father, but allowing Him to be God, then let them hear that they greatly insult Him, depriving Him of the most important thing of the divine nature. For He is God in relation to servants, and the Father in relation to the Son. So they give God a relationship with the slave world, depriving Him of more” 435. But the Son, in addition to the fact that He is both Son and God, has knowledge of everything and knowledge of the Father, which, according to the God-bearers, surpasses that [knowledge] as less 436, as we previously showed in the second Word 437. Therefore, who made a synopsis of the Gospels [for greater] clarity [of their perception, commenting on that place], when the Lord said that “no one knows the Father but the Son” (Matthew 11:27), he himself, explaining, adds: “He says [something] more: it is not surprising if I am the Lord of all, when I also have more [namely] to know the Father Himself” 438. The same can be said about the Spirit: for having dominion over all and knowing everything, He “tests the depths of God” (1 Cor. 2:10). So your business is to say that since each of Them by nature has both the lesser (that is, the ability to know and rule over everything) and the greater (that is, the ability to know each other and naturally unite with each other), then It is both greater and lesser than Itself. 101. But you, who, because of the divine energies and the fact that the surroundings of the divine nature or each of the hypostases are thought of from eternity, think this and directly declare, why don’t you consistently say what we said before about the very trinity of nature? Well, because the “sick Father” (John 14:28) is the cause of the Son, as the Lord Himself said, and [since the Son] is sent by the Father (John 5:36, 6:57, 20:21), and “as he hears, he judges” (John 5:30), and the Spirit is inferior in order to the Son, for he was revealed after Him and through Him we send and give, as the great say Basil 439 and Cyril, and from the Son “he receives, and proclaims, and if he hears, he speaks” (John 16:13-15), we will now call the one God greater than Himself, and Him, again, in relation to Himself, other and second, and lower, and higher, sent and sending, and teaching Himself, and learning from Himself? What are you saying? Having verbally discouraged people from over-investigating, you then again persuade and compel curiosity with your writings. Can you rid us of this confusion? But if he could, he would not blame us for this. CHAPTER 22. Another proof that it is impossible for God to be in one divinity otherwise, if not as Palamas says, following the fathers. This chapter also contains the resolution of some antitheses. 102. Let us now reluctantly learn and become a complete [adherent] of the truth, discarding false opinions. For we confess and honor one God, but Trinitarian, by nature active (ενεργής) 440 and omnipotent. To the extent that we say that He is one, as having one nature, we call Him one and [as one] we worship, and [one] we honor; after all, if nature is simple and absolutely indivisible, then how could one see in God some kind of duality in it? And since the one nature is trinitarian, active and omnipotent, insofar as trinitarian it has various hypostases, and as active and omnipotent - various natural forces and energies, being inseparably divided, while pious discrimination, knowing the difference, does not separate what is united in one and inseparable fusion. 103. But the most inventive of [all] who have ever [been in the world] regarding empty squabbles say: “Because He can do everything, He is omnipotent, and not because He has strength; and because it acts, it is active, and not because it has energies.” Then, O wise ones, He is tripartite because He was threefold (τω τριοσώς ύφίστασθαι), and not because He has three hypostases. However, even if He had this, then [the property] of being able to act in all things and in a variety of ways would nevertheless differ from the uniqueness of God in essence, and would equally hinder those who say that the Divinity is contemplated in essence alone. But how, being Trinitarian, He has three worshiped hypostases; so, being active, it possesses divine energies; and with all his might, like the omnipotent. Therefore, the great Dionysius in the eighth chapter of “The Divine Names” says: “God is called power, as He who possesses and is superior to all power in Himself” 441. And the great Athanasius in his essay “Against the Hellenes” says: “The almighty and all-perfect holy Word of the Father, having come to everyone and spreading His powers everywhere, contains and gathers everything visible and invisible in Itself (συσφίγγει)” 442; and also: “The Son alone is the unchanging image of the Father 443. Who will count the Father in order to find the power of this Word? 444 And Maximus, skilled in the divine, says: “It is impossible to act without energy, just as it is impossible to exist without existence” 445. 104. But considerable masters of sophistry again say: “Activity also acts (ενεργείται και ή ενέργεια). Therefore, it will not operate without activity. And this one again in the same way, and before it another one, and so on ad infinitum.” What empty nonsense! After all, as I said before, they will easily collect for themselves endless words, reasonings (βουλ´ας), and writings, or even, what is even more paradoxical, this very writing and reasoning of theirs, and one word will be called infinite. After all, nothing that is said will be said without a word. It is said, we say, the word itself, but, however, not in the same way, O wise ones. We reason (βουλευόμεθα) about something, and we discuss discussion (βουλευόμεθα βουλήν), but in these cases it is not the same way. The speaker [is related] to the word, and the reasoner to the reasoning, as well as the one who moves to the innate movement, and the thing about which someone speaks or reasons is none of these, as being different in relation to reasoning and the word, to the speaker and the reasoner. The same applies to scripture, no matter what scripture anyone is talking about. The same applies to activity: if you look at it wisely, you will understand. But since God has different hypostases and many powers and activities, then if not just one reason is in them, then the principles of divinity will be many and different, which is more befitting Hellenic idle talk than pious thinking. And the cause in them is necessarily followed by the caused. And behind the cause and the caused, and what was said a little higher, and everything like that. So, the Son and the Spirit are from the Father. Having Him as the cause, They have Him as the cause, both different and greater in relation to themselves. And since He is the cause of [the Son and the Spirit] in different ways, 446, then by this [attribute] and from each other they differ in hypostases, and allow pious theologians to give different indications of [their] hypostatic characteristics. So the Son and the Spirit are from the Father, and strength and energy are from a single trinitarian essence: “for essence is not from wisdom, but wisdom is from essence 447,” says Chrysostom theologian, “and not essence is from energy, but activity is from essence.” And again: “inexpressible is the divine power 448, and how much more is the nature from which the power 449.” Since, therefore, they [come] from nature, then they also have nature as a cause. And if they [have nature] as their cause, then accordingly they have it as a different [to themselves] and higher self. Those who partake are diversified and divided in different ways according to each [of them], according to true theologians: Christ alone, according to the Baptist, “without measure” received the activity of the Spirit (John 3:34). CHAPTER 23. As if in the form of an epilogue, a brief overview of the wickedness of Akindinus, although not all. And about his boasting of the eloquence of his name. 105. You, because of your ignorance, assume that such things introduce division [into parts] into the divine nature. Having often heard the truth from us and agreed with it in front of many witnesses, so that with his own writings he openly testified to our complete agreement with the saints, and after that he himself was again convicted of resisting the conciliar triumph, and, having been publicly shamed, again, acting with evil intent, trying with the help of various sophisms and lies to slander [us] in front of inexperienced, confusing anyone possible, despite the fact that civil rebellion greatly contributed to such your affairs. Therefore, you dare and betray [your] wickedness to the scripture, in which scripture, paving the untrodden [new fathers] path of theology, you dogma that the divinity of God is created and uncreated, and you abolish the distinction between the divine essence and energy, and you say that God is in essence alone without energy, and you assert that everything else is divine - with the exception of the divine essence, and everything around it that is conceivable - created; and you insist that everything participates in the essence of God; and you call only the Son and the Spirit the uncreated energy and essence of the Father, and all the common powers and energies of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - created; and everything that is essentially contemplated around God, you call created essences and hypostases, created before the angels in the age and contemplated around God; and through all this you create the truncation and dismemberment of divinity, fusion and confusion, and you clearly show that you consider Him to be God to yourself, not in the sense of cause and caused, but One-and-Same - by nature greater and lesser, and inferior and superior, and even better and worse, created and created, alas for [your] foolishness. 106. But Akindinus, exposed to the danger of being caught by such a great danger of wickedness - as we have shown at length and variously from what he wrote, and [will] show again - proudly thinks about the supposed eloquence of the name, and is obviously pretending and thereby trying to mislead his listeners when he says that these [words are a sign of] "safe" reflection (της " ακίνδυνου "διανοίας) 450, as if someone wicked by name were not Eusebius 451; and ill-fated in the veneration of [God] - Eutyches 452; and ill-famed - the name Eudoxiem 453; and the author of the most illegal dogmas - Eunomius 454. However, he did not get this name from his fathers. For the [name] that came to him from there, as not corresponding to [his] newfound respectability, was left here unheard by their child; and he gave himself that [name], which is acquired and at the same time special, to hide, it seems, his former fate, and [his well-known] behavior for a long time, and the current vicious dogmas and writings. Now called by this [name], he is pleased with himself, imputing at nothing the monastic [name], to which, having been tonsured 455, he, as usual, changed his nickname. And he did this correctly - although not from the right will - for, fighting with the monks and with their common hope, he would not rightly have fellowship with them in name. But he considers this a sign of “safe” reflection - to try and strive in every possible way to make implicit the manifestation of God, which God Himself was pleased to accomplish, and thanks to which, as Maximus, skilled in the divine, says, we have learned every kind of reliable theology and the spiritual meanings (λόγους) of the sacraments 456. And we [based] on these spiritual meanings that we have learned, will further expose against the light the exaltation and malice, because of which Akindinus became the multi-dangerous Polykindinus 457. This refers to the conciliar ruling against Akindinus Maxim the Confessor, Κεφάλαια γνωστικά, 2, 27 – PG 90, 1137B These are exactly the words in the works of St. Maxim was not found. Wed: Maxim the Confessor, perplexity to John, 28 (5, 24) PG 91, 1144C Maximus the Confessor, Questions and Answers to Thalassius, 22, PG 90, 320A. Also see: On Perplexities to John 110 (36), PG 91, 1308B Maximus the Confessor, On perplexities to John 25 (5, 21), PG 91, 1141AB “αγγέλου, θεού “ – in the original text of St. Basil (according to the Greek Patrology of Min) there is no comma between these words, and therefore they should be translated as “angel of God” Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 5, PG 29, 769B Same, On the Holy Spirit, 15, PG 32, 132B Same, Against Eunomius, 5, PG 29, 772B Athanasius of Alexandria (pseudepigrapha). On the saving appearance of Christ, against Apollinaris, 2, 16, PG 26, 1160A Gregory of Nyssa, Words on the Beatitudes, 7, PG 44, 1280AB Maximus the Confessor, On perplexities towards John, 27–28 (5, 23–24) PG 91, 1144ВС Gregory the Theologian, Epistulae theologicae, 101, 38, 1–2 This refers to Apollinaris. See Athanasius the Great in his treatise “On the Incarnation against Apollinaris”: “But you say that the flesh became uncreated from union with the uncreated. This very thing shows that your delusion exposes itself. The union of the flesh with the Divinity of the Word took place in the mother’s womb, because the Word, having descended from heaven, from the womb raised up flesh for Himself, which did not pre-exist before the descent of the Word... So, Christ is born in Bethlehem of Judea, calls Joseph father..., is placed in swaddling clothes, is carried into the church by Simeon, accepts the circumcision of the flesh according to the law and grows with the years... To attribute growth to the uncreated unholy. For the uncreated is called uncreated by its very nature, and does not allow for either increase or decrease. And what is in communion or union with the uncreated is called, although actually belonging to the uncreated, not the uncreated itself” (De incarnatione contra Apollinarium libri II [Sp.], PG 26, 1097C-1100A) Wed: “has undergone no change or confusion” (Octoechus, dogmatist of the 3rd tone on Saturday evening) Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 40, 5, PG 36, 364B Compare: Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 38, 3, PG 36, 313B Quote not identified Wed: Canon of the Theotokos on the week at Matins, tone 3, hymn 5 The liturgical name is an epithet of bishops. Compare: 2 Tim. 2 42 Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 30, 21, Barbel 214 PG 36, 132B. Compare: John of Damascus. Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4, 14 – PG 94, 1161A Compare: Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names, 2, 1, p. 246 Maximus the Confessor, Dispute with Pyrrhus, PG 91, 297A Same, On Perplexities to John, 79 (17), PG 91, 1253D Compare: John Chrysostom. Discourse on the Gospel of John 30, 2 – PG 59, 174; Conversation 14, 1 – PG 59, 92 Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Heavenly Hierarchy 3, 1, p. 70 PG 3, 164D Ibid., 9, 3, p. 140 PG 3, 260D Maxim the Confessor, To Marin PG 91, ZZAV; Wed. See also: On the Perplexities of John 2, PG 1076C Literally: “possession” – “έξιν” Maximus the Confessor, On Perplexities towards John, 110 (36), PG 91, 1308B; Compare: Letter 1, PG 91, 376AB. Ibid., 25 (5, 21), PG 91, 1141AB Athanasius of Alexandria, Against Arian, 2, 59, PG 26, 273A Basil the Great. Against Eunomius, 4, PG 29, 692A Compare: Dionysius the Areopagite, Epistle 8, 1, p. 800 Maximus the Confessor, On the Perplexities of John, 2, PG 91, 1088BC. This chapter of the work of Saint Maximus resolves the bewilderment of John, Archbishop of Cyzicus, regarding Words 14, 7 of Saint Gregory the Theologian In the original biblical text, instead of “from heaven” - “from above” John Chrysostom, Discourse 30, 2 on the Gospel of John, 2, PG 59, 174A Athanasius of Alexandria, Against the Arians 3, 40, PG 26, 409A John Chrysostom, Commentary on the 44th Psalm, 2, PG 55, 186 Wed: John Chrysostom, Discourses on the Gospel of John, 30, 2, PG 59, 174; Ibid., 14, 1, PG 59, 92 Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation of the Word, 8, PG 26, 996C Gregory of Nyssa, On the Christian Establishment, – Jaeger 8, 1, 85, 10–13 He, On Christian perfection to Olympius the monk, PG 46, 280AB Gregory of Nyssa, On Christian perfection to Olympius the monk PG 46, 277C Maximus the Confessor, On perplexities towards John, 25 (5, 21), PG 91, 1141B Diadochos of Photiki, Κεφάλαια, 76 – de Places 5, p. 134 war is obvious for everyone around C1 P1 R1 Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 31, 30, PG 36, 168C Wed: Gregory of Nyssa, Epistulae, 11, 5, line 3–4 Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 38, 11; Word 45, 7 – PG 36, 324A; 632V Canon to Gregory the Theologian. 25 Jan canto 9 Tone 8, Trinity of the 8th song of the Sunday canon of the week at Matins Basil the Great, Homiliae super Psalmos, 44, 6 PG 29, 400D Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 40, 6, PG 36, 365B He, Word 38, 11; Word 45, 7 – PG 36, 324A; 632V Gregory the Theologian, Letter 178, 11 Compare: Basil the Great, Homiliae super Psalmos 33, 9, PG 29, 373A John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 1, 8, op. cit., 8, 67–72 Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 29, 6, PG 36, 81B Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate, 31, PG 75, 444BC “From something” and “from someone” in Greek will be the same: “έκ τινός” Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 5 – PG 29, 716AB Maximus the Confessor, On perplexities towards John, 25 (5, 21), PG 91, 1141AB Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 4, 2, PG 29, 692A Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 5, PG 29, 716B On the week of the Midnight Office, the Trinity Canon, Tone 2, Song 5, on “Glory” Canon of the Trinity, Tone 4, Song 5 Canon of the Trinity, Tone 2, Song 6 Basil the Great, Letter 189, 7 – Courtonne, 140 PG 32, 693D. More often this letter is now attributed to Gregory of Nyssa (Jaeger 3, 1, 1–16) Ibid., Courtonne, 140 PG 32, 696A Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 5, PG 29, 772C. See above: Antirretic 2, 10, 37 Ibid., 4, PG 29, 689С; See: also: 5, PG 29, 772С That is, possessing all powers Maximus the Confessor, On Perplexities towards John, 78 (16), PG 91, 1253D Ibid., 28 (5, 24) PG 91, 1144 AD Gregory the Theologian, Homily 30, PG 36, 132B Athanasius of Alexandria, To Serapion, Bishop of Temuis Epistle 1, 24, PG 26, 585BC Basil the Great (pseudepigrapha), Against Eunomius, 5, PG 29, 713A Maxim the Confessor. Theological chapters 2, 88, PG 90, 1168B John of Damascus, Homilia in transfigurationem domini, 8, PG 96, 560B Maximus the Confessor, To Thalassius 61, scholium 16, PG 90, 637D; 644D John of Damascus, Homilia in transfigurationem domini, 12, PG 96, 564B John of Damascus, Discourse on the Transfiguration, 2, PG 96, 545B Expressions borrowed from church hymns about divine light Gregory the Theologian, Homily 31, 24, Barbel 260 « PG 36, 160B, paraphrase Gregory of Nyssa, On the Beatitudes, 7, PG 44, 1280V Gregory of Nyssa. On the Divinity of the Son and Spirit, PG 46, 573D This implies: In defense of the sacredly silent 1, 3; 2, 3 Basil the Great, Against Eunomius 3, 1, PG 29, 656A Here we use the verb “implied” to translate the Greek “συνυπακούεται”, literally meaning “together heard.” Therefore, mention of ears is appropriate here The noun “πολυπραγμοσύνη” from which this adjective is derived will appear many times over a number of pages, and depending on the context we will translate it either as “careful research” or as “curiosity”, since in Greek it has both of these meanings Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 31, 6, Barbel, 228 PG 36, 140V "Τάς των λόγων ύπερπέμπουσι βολάς " – literally: “they direct the blow of their words too far” Literally: “hides behind teeth” See: Maximus the Confessor, Chapters on Theology, 1, 48–50, PG 90, 1100С-1101В This refers to the council in June 1341 Here, apparently, is a neologism of St. Gregory, because this or a similar word is not found not only in the Areopagite, but also in other Fathers or ancient writers. At least it is not in the electronic library “Thesaurus Linguae Graecae” Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names, 1, 1, p. 208 PG 3, 588V Andrey Kritsky, Homily on the Transfiguration, PG 97, 936CD See: John of Damascus. Homilia in transfigurationem domini, 12 – PG 96, 564B Scholium: from Basil the Great: “The beauty of the Strong Being is His intelligible and contemplated divinity.” Compare: Basil the Great. Interpretation of 44 Ps. 5 – PG 29, 400С Literally: “who never exhaled…” This refers to androgynes. See: Plato, Symposium, 189–190 Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 5, PG 29, 772С "άχρι χρόνων αποκαταστάσεως " – “until the years of the dispensation” Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 30, 6, Barbel, 148 PG 36, 112AV Athanasius of Alexandria (pseudepigrapha), On the manifestation of the Word of God in the flesh, 15, PG 26, 1009B Gregory of Nyssa, On the soul and resurrection, PG 46, 104AB Gregory of Nyssa, On the soul and resurrection, PG 46, 157A Gregory of Nyssa, On the soul and resurrection, PG 46, 152A John of Damascus, Homilia in transfigurationem domini, 15, PG 96, 569A Gregory of Nyssa, Words on the Beatitudes, 6, PG 44, 1265B The noun “λήξις” can be derived from two verbs – “λαγχάνω” and “λήγω” – and mean, respectively: “lot”, “destiny” and “end”, “cessation”. And although the Areopagite most likely used it in the second meaning, the context of Palamas’ words prompts us to choose the first here Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names, 1, 4, p. 222–224 PG 3, 592ВС Maxim the Confessor, Κεφάλαια θεολογικά, 2, 86, PG 90, 1165AV Ibid., 2, 90, PG 90, 1168С Ibid., 2, 93, PG 90, 1169A Sextus, nicknamed Empiricus, and Piron (Pyrrho) - ancient skeptical philosophers Skeptical philosophers who proposed abstinence from any judgments were called effektiki (εφεκτικοί), among whom Sextus belonged Athanasius of Alexandria, Orationes tres contra Arianos, 2, 76–77, PG 26, 308B-309B Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate, 29, PG 75, 433C Abba Thalassius of Libya, Sotnitsa 4, 81, PG 91, 1465B Wed: Prayer to the “Heavenly King” Epiphanius of Cyprus, Homilia in divini corporis sepulturam [Sp.], PG 43, 464BC Gregory of Nyssa, Προς Εύνόμιον αντιρργτικός, 3, PG 45, 604B Palamas uses a pun here: the name "Ακίνδυνος" means "safe"; and the opposite of this, he calls his opponent - “πολυκίνδυνος” (multiple danger). This ironic nickname was also included in the hymnography of the Orthodox Church: “The assembly of Polikindinus is defeated and in distress” (Second Sunday of Holy Lent, at Matins, canon, canticle 8, 3rd troparion) Gregorius Nyssenus Theol.: Contra Eunomium: Book 3, chapter 1, section 108, line 4 Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 19, PG 32, 156D Gregory of Nyssa, To Eunomius, 12 – Jaeger 1, 173 PG 45, 965B Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate, 5 – PG 75, 69A Compare: Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate, 22 – PG 75, 372D –373A; Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 4 – PG 29, 696C Antirrhetics, 2, 11, 40–41 Theophylact of Bulgaria, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 11 – PG 123, 357B See: Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 3 – PG 29, 656A Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names 8, 2 – PG 3, 889D Athanasius of Alexandria, Against the Hellenes, 42 – PG 25, 84B Wed: Stichera on “I cried to the Lord” at Vespers of the Nativity of Christ Athanasius of Alexandria, Against the Hellenes, 47 – 93С Maxim the Confessor, To Marin – PG 91, 200C For One as one who gives birth; for the Other – as a harasser John Chrysostom, De incomprehensibili dei natura (Contra Anomoeos, homiliae 1–5): Homily 1, line 194 PG 48, 705 Wed: John Chrysostom, In adorationem venerandae crucis [Sp.], PG 62, 754D Compare: Gregory of Nyssa, Orationes VIII de beatitudinibus, PG 44, 1280B Akindin wrote in one place “τής ακίνδυνου διανοίας”; since in those days capital letters were not used, instead of “Akindinus’ thought” one could read here: “safe thought” Εύσέβιος – “pious” Ευτυχής – “prosperous” Εύδόξιος – “blessed” Εΰνόμιος – “benevolent” Akindina's monastic name is Gregory Compare: Maximus the Confessor, On Perplexities to John, 22 (V, 15), PG 91, 1128A You might be interested in: