На написанное Акиндином против света божественной благодати и ею облагодатствованных божественно слово возражения четвертое.

CHAPTER 1. That Akindinus, through many tricks instilling prejudice in the listener, then clearly separates the light of the divine Transfiguration from uncreated divinity. 1. So, again whispering blasphemy against the great world and, as if by some kind of scarecrow, frightening them with bitheism, but rather himself, being afraid of verification according to the sacred Scriptures and turning away those who believed him from their study under the pretext of prudence, and presenting himself as great, as with the meaning of the name Akindinus, and having surrounded some with twists of techniques, and intimidating others with the greatness of the supposedly imminent danger, and if anyone could avoid and on both sides of the trap [set by him], then thinking of [making] such a one bow before his grandeur, and thus surrounding everyone, as he thinks, with insurmountable walls, he begins to gradually remove the veils from wickedness and more clearly enter into the struggle with the help of blasphemy against the light. So, he says: “If Saint Maximus is acceptable and not rejected, then we must accept his chapter on the Holy Transfiguration, which says that that light is a symbol of the implicit hiddenness 458 of the glory of God, and the divine representations (θεοπρεπή δραματουργήματα) 459; and the symbol is not natural, - as the new theology talks about the divine from a natural science point of view, - for this is not what the saint says, but only a “symbol”, and adds “divine ideas”, since in another place he speaks of God: “There is only one God, incomprehensible, not known by any of the existing ones from natural manifestation” 460. How does the new theology call a sacred symbol a natural symbol? CHAPTER 2. About the fact that, having confused himself, he, among other things, shows himself to be a bigot. 2. Ah, ah! Akindinus clearly fell into danger, and in regard to caution and reliability, not subject to change, as he boastfully testified about himself, suddenly appeared unstable and shameless in many ways. And what is even more paradoxical is that he himself is the proof of his own stumbling block. For if, according to his own words, spoken a little above, “it is a sign of pious and safe reflection to allow the light that has shone on Tabor to remain without careful examination,” then now he himself has taken up and carefully examined, so that he is no longer safe and prudent. Since, for the sake of this, he said that “it must be left without research and palpation” so that “what arose then was truly a mystery of God,” now, therefore, he, having thrown “what arose then” far from the truly mysteries of God, places it at a distance, deliberately, as it seems, raising [it to a height] in order to [then] more strongly overthrow it. If, according to him, one “shouldn’t be one who touches and examines, so as not to fall into two-theism,” then the great, in his own words, champion of monotheism showed himself to us to be a two-theist. But that this truly happened to him, not as someone who was searching for [the truth] about this, not as someone who was fired up with the study of what was divinely inspired by the saints, but as someone with a proud, crafty, envious and variously sick heart. For it is not safe to extend sick pupils to such a great light, or, in other words, covered on all sides with spots of [heresy] thoughts (λογισμούς). So, that he truly fell into bitheism, he himself clarified a little higher; and that, having reached this point in his speech, he not only touched on what, according to himself, is inviolable, but also became curious - let this become obvious further. CHAPTER 3. Proof that he touches and is curious about what he himself called inviolable. 4. While the divine Maxim said only that this light is a symbol, and in no way added that it is not natural, he adds [this] on his own behalf, trying to slander. If he says that from what the saint said somewhere in other places, he deduces [these] words, then this is precisely an excessive investigation, and especially since for [his] juggling he cites a word that is not the one that [the saint] himself uses for this world, but which he said in another place and on another occasion. However, almost the entire book published by this blessed [father] and the varied and multi-part work 461 [speaks] about this light and about the transfiguration of Christ on the mountain, from which we will show in the course of the word that he considers this light of divinity to be a natural symbol and not an alien one, although it is subject to slander from the common enemy of the saints. And now, taking the words of the piously-minded accuser, let us first of all consider what it was that he had previously said hesitantly: “If Saint Maximus is acceptable and not rejected, then we must also accept his head for the Holy Transfiguration”? CHAPTER 4. Analysis of Akindinus's saying, which shows that he thinks that the saints thought inconsistently in relation to themselves and each other. 4. So, does he himself consider this [father] doubtful, or does he think that he does not belong to the number of those recognized and truly revered by the church and us? Most likely, the first. After all, the church shows him veneration every year and obedience for many years, and we, following her, using his words, are justified. If he does not consider it doubtful, then it is obvious that he is inventing something else besides this and, as it were, clearly tells us that [de] since you bring other saints and him, calling this light divine, supernatural and uncreated, then accept it and when he says that this light is not a natural symbol, but alien to divinity. It is needless to even say what shamelessness and damage to the mind it indicates to undertake to prove that in such things the saints thought contrary to themselves and each other, or even to what an impious understanding, when this is already clear to everyone. “But the saint,” says [Akindin], “said that this light is only a symbol of implicit secrecy; and you add “natural” on your own behalf. Don’t you blame yourself by adding “unnatural,” while you yourself admit that the saint did not add anything to the word “symbol”? 5. But since both sides are allowed to use different additions, shall we first expose him for the bad addition of “not natural,” or shall we show ours not just by adding, but that this is a bond and combination of what was said by the saints in various places, in order to make clear the truth that these new heresiarchs imputed to nothing? But since we have already exposed them many times in the perversity of their words, let us now first of all deduce their exposure from the correctness of our words. But whoever has a desire to hear a more detailed word about this, let him study the first of the second refutations then written [by us] to Barlaam the Italian 462. For there we did not falsify this statement of the saint - as he slanderously hints - but it was more extensively proven, based on the spiritual power of theologians, that this light is the natural [light] of divinity. It is necessary, however, here too to cite two or three of the divinely inspired theologians who clearly profess it to be natural. CHAPTER 5. That the light that shone on Tabor of the disciples is inseparable from divinity, since it is naturally inherent in it and is the lightness of the divine nature. 6. So, the great Athanasius says: “the Lord who ascended into heaven will come in natural glory, and not in grace, in His own divinity, clearly emanating from His holy body, which is from Mary, an ineffable glory, as He showed in part on the mountain, teaching that He is both now and before the same, being ever unchangeable, and having no change in relation to divinity” 463. And the divine John of Damascus says: “Christ, born without beginning from the Father, has a beginningless natural ray of divinity, so that the glory of divinity becomes the glory of the body” 464; and again: “Since Christ has two natures, divinity and humanity, then the glory that naturally comes from divinity becomes common to both, due to the identity of the hypostasis” 465. And in God, the musical singer of the sacred Church, Cosmas, says: “The hidden lightning under the flesh of Thy essence, Christ, and the divine splendor of the disciple, having ascended with Thee, showing.” 466 And “natural” and “essential” are one and the same, since nature and essence are one and the same. 7. So, since this light is natural for divinity, and since Barlaam, your teacher, wickedly alienates it from it and reduces it to the level of a creature, just as now you, in support of this wickedness, evilly propose to say that it is a symbol, then we are correct in considering the diversity of symbols, for the divine [primate] Gregory of Nyssa says: “you will distinguish the homonymy of names and the meaning of verbs, and the own properties of words, through which the truth is comprehended" 467 - so, we, distinguishing between natural symbols and non-natural ones, and finding some [borrowed] from another nature, and existing by themselves, and not eternally coexisting with the signified, - such as, for example, the focus of an enemy invasion, - and others - natural symbols, not ever-existing, but ever-coexisting with the nature from which they have being, and not in itself, but abiding around it, as a symbol of daylight is the dawn, when the sun should rise 468; and having heard how the saints proclaimed that the Savior invariably possessed that light, as a little higher and Athanasius the Great, like John of Damascus, says: “He is transformed, not into what He was not, having received, nor into what He was not, having been transformed, but showing Himself to His disciples by what He was” 469, and having learned and developed this well, we have collected the sayings into one saints, showing them to agree [with each other], blaspheming this divine light and arming the saints against each other, and not repenting, surrounding him with obvious shame. 8. This is the matter of our addition; this is where the purpose of the study extends; from here it is clearly indicated to everyone that such an addition is not ours, but from the Spirit. And that the divine Maxim himself knows that such light is a natural symbol, we will show this in the course of our words. The one who, from the war with the truth, acquired importance for himself, did not even have the patience, as he should, to listen to the end of what was written, but immediately, from the very beginning of the words, rebelled against him, and because of him, against us, and then accused us of citing “utterances completely unheard of in the scriptures of the saints,” which [in fact] are fulfilled by almost every divinely inspired Scripture, to which he, it seems, never made a reasonable inclination ear, as well as to the works of the wise Maxim. That’s why he says that his “Chapter” says that on Tabor the light that shone from the Savior is a symbol, not knowing that this is a composition consisting of many lines and many parts, in which he sings in various and varied ways, using the words of analogies, allegorically interpreting everything there [i.e. e. on Tabor] perfect. That’s why he labels it “contemplation” and calls it divine ideas, just as Gregory the Theologian says that this is contemplation, allegorically interpreting that sensual “tree, red in sight and good” in sensual taste (Gen. 2:9), which is why he himself says: “this plant was a contemplation, as [suggests] my contemplation” 470. But Maximus the Confessor, adding [and the word] “godly,” averts those who read him intelligently from the base and vile opinion. For what, wasn’t Elijah truly there, and Moses, if he uses them as symbols of many and different things? Peter and the Sons of Thunder weren't present either? For they too are assigned the role of symbols. Well, weren’t all these truly present there, and the mountain was not a mountain, since it is also a symbol of the ascent [that occurs] through virtue, but all this was a stage and a pretense? It won't happen. So, this light is a symbol and true light, and not just true, but it was the true Light itself 471, as the great Basil says: “If the true light is the Son: “he is the true Light, who enlightens every man who comes into the world” (John 1:9); God “is unapproachable in the living light” (1 Tim. 6:16), for everything that is unapproachable is both true, and what is true is unapproachable. So the apostles fell, not having the strength to look at the glory of the light of the Son, due to the fact that He is an unapproachable Light. Light is also the spirit, “which is shining in our hearts” (2 Cor. 4:6), through the Holy Spirit” 472. 9. But somewhere between those words, the wise Maximus in the divine says: “It was necessary for Him to become the image and symbol of Himself and symbolically show Himself by the example of Himself, and by Himself, who appears, to bring all creation to Himself, invisibly hiding from everyone” 473. Of course, in non-natural things one is a symbol of another, but not of itself; and when a symbol, being from that of which it is a symbol, turns out to be by nature [akin] and from the number of that which is inseparably united with it, like morning light in relation to daylight, we say that it becomes a symbol of itself 474. Consequently, since this is so, and Maximus, skilled in the divine, says that Christ Himself became a symbol of Himself on the mountain, then by this he showed us that this light is a natural symbol. And since Christ exists in two natures, and the nature that [He has] like ours does not in the least degree possess such light, then of necessity that light was [the light of] the divine nature, which again the divine Maximus himself presented to us no worse. For such a symbol is natural for the same [nature] of which it is a symbol. And the symbol of implicit secrecy 475 he called precisely this [symbol], thanks to which, having appeared, to the true knowledge of it (i.e., secrecy - “trans.”), it attracts those who see, as if they do not have to know what it is in general, but [simply] that it is. CHAPTER 6. That the divine nature itself is not revealed to those to whom this divine light appears inexpressibly. 10. For those who do not contain even this phenomenon [which occurs] through symbols (συμβολικήν έπιφάνείαν), and, moreover, manifested indistinctly, “for God is light,” according to Gregory the Theologian, “and the highest light, of which by a certain brief outflow and reflection, reaching down, every light appears, even if it seems super-light, but, you see, it conquers (πατεί) 476 our darkness, so that the darkened nature does not easily see the hidden beauty worthy of a few” 477 - so, the disciples who could not accommodate this phenomenon fell prostrate to the ground, and this despite the fact that, according to the divine John of Damascus, they received eyes they never had before. How then will it be possible to know what this mystery actually is? For as far as sensory light is concerned, not only the symbol, that is, the light of dawn, is subject to our senses, but also the daylight itself, and we are not able to look closely at what naturally produces them, which is the sun. And if this happens to us in relation to the spectacle of dawn, or even to its unclear dawn, then which of us could know what the sun is and what light is? Thus, the divine is recognized by the sacraments, but no one has known what it is in its hidden foundation, even if he derives names from these theophanies. But he who speaks about these things not from science, but [based] on the most divine idea, as far as possible, has learned that that [what the divine is in itself] is always beyond any name. But such ideas are not worse than the mind, but better, and much higher, since they are accomplished by the power of the divine Spirit, and not by feelings associated with matter (προσύλου). 11. This is what the divine Maxim himself expounds in his speech, saying: “The secrets of the Lord passed from flesh to spirit by the change of feelings that the Spirit produced in them” 478. Do you see that, having become spirit and looking by Spirit, they contemplated that light? The divine John of Damascus speaks about this: “this is “whose eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and the heart of man has not breathed what God has prepared for those who love Him” (1 Cor. 2:9). So in the next century we “will always be with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:17), in vain of Christ, sparkling with the light of divinity” 479. Well, the divine Maximus says in the “Chapters”: “The Kingdom of God is the teaching by grace of what is naturally inherent in God” 480 and “the very appearance of divine beauty of those who bear the “image of the Heavenly” (1 Cor. 15:49)” 481. CHAPTER 7. That not those who say that the divine nature exceeds any external phenomenon, but those who do not say this, truly fall into polytheism. 12. But they will ask [us] again: how do you say that the essence of God is above this light? And again they will hear what has been said many times by us, or rather by the God-bearers, that it is not only above all communion and manifestation, but also above all affirmation and subtraction (αφαιρέσεως) 482 483: one of the subtractions is [the concept] “uncreated.” So, grace, being uncreated and surpassing all created things, as being inseparably from nature within the divine nature, has this nature superior to itself as [its] cause and giver. And, despite this, it is shown that there are not many, as those who contradict [us] vainly say, but one is God, who also abolishes their polytheistic delusion. 13. For, since what is contemplated around Him by nature is different [from each other], as has been repeatedly and extensively shown, then if they honor more than one cause and many caused [by it], then polytheism will necessarily be present in [their] worship of God (τό σέβας). So, let them either say that it is absolutely identical and indistinguishable from the beginningless, infinite compassion, from justice, and in general everything that is inherent in God by nature, so that they may be eunomians, lawless and extremely unreasonable; or, wishing to become pious and reasonable, let them confess that all such [divine properties] differ from each other, and that their Cause, in Which and from Which they exist, exists above these. For the deity is essentially superior to all affirmation and subtraction, as was said a little above: not only above created things, but also those existing above existing ones (αυτών των υπέρ τα όντα όντων) surpasses, and above the super-essence itself, self-super-essentially rises infinitely, according to skilled in the divine Maxim 484: for he is infinite and even above infinity, Honored and Glorified by us. What kind of envy is there, what will be the limit of ascent, O superstitious ones, and more ungrateful to the one who has benefited (αγνώμονες περι τον εύηργετηκότα) 485. Are your verbal creations a continuous movement forward for the better? CHAPTER 8. That not those who say about the divine light that it is uncreated, but those who say that it is created, argue about the nature of the divine 486. 14. So, who is it who argues about the nature of the divine? Are we, who show that the lightness of the divine nature is inherent in God by nature, or, in other words, who proclaim it to be the most supernatural, or are you, who imagine that it belongs to created nature, and who say that the divine light is in no way different from the sensible light, and, moreover, who say that it differs from the sensible light in a worse way? Since the latter, from the time it arose, remains unquenchable, and the light that shone on the mountain of the disciples from the Savior, having flashed, immediately went out, according to you, retreating to non-existence, unless it differs from [ghosts] (φαντάσματα). For those who opposed the madness of Arius, who declared that the Son was created, “In Whom all things were,” 487 did not, from what is said that He is by nature the Son of God, prove that He is uncreated? So, did they also reason about the nature of the divine, or, recognizing the Son as corresponding to the Father, showed that He is also supernatural? In exactly the same way, we, objecting to you who believe the lordship of the divine nature to be created, by showing its [own] lordship corresponding to this nature, rather proved its supernaturalism. 15. However, in our words to Varlaam we said this in more detail 488. Since here too our [opinion] is explained and shown as the superior of any reason [for attacks], then let’s consider the opinion of the enemy. So, he says: “That light, although it is a symbol of divinity, is not natural.” One could answer him that “if not natural, O wisest one, then certainly not nature, since [this is precisely] a symbol.” Therefore, even though you consider this light to be uncreated, you are obviously dishonoring it to everyone by introducing another God, and you truly become atheist and a two-theist: after all, besides God, there is nothing uncreated. If you openly say that that light is created, then everyone will raise stones against you, again, like Barlaam, blasphemously calling the God who shone on Tabor as a creation, Who, being hitherto hidden in the flesh, “revealed, as he deigned, a little of divinity,” according to the Golden-tongued theologian, “and showed to the secret places the God living within” 489 . Do you see that you should not emerge from the depths of wickedness to the surface until someone considers the light of divinity to be natural? CHAPTER 9. That the impossibility of cognizing God from natural expressiveness does not take away the possibility of cognizing Him from His divine appearances [outside] and energies. In it, Akindinus is exposed for making divine providence created and the divine nature comprehensible. 16. And the fact that God did not become known to anyone through natural expressiveness is true, but this in no way contributes to his wickedness. For comprehension and communion are not the same thing (κατάληψις και μετάληψις), and even more so - [communion] supernatural, as Akindinus insanely thinks, not even taking into account that one is forbidden for everyone, and the other is promised to the worthy. From this it is obvious that he does not know the difference between tasting and comprehending 490. For, speaking here about the ineffable vision on the mountain with the bodily eyes of the ineffable light, or, in other words, about tasting, he brought here what was said by the saints about gnostic contemplation according to the mind, as said about that tasting. And in another place, having put forward what is said about such mental contemplation - that life-giving life surpasses knowledge, that everything comprehended is not life-giving life - having put this out, he immediately again mentions that tasting of the divine light through the eyes of those who abided in God, saying: “And if everything comprehended is not life, nor brings life to those who follow Moses in virtue, then how will some uncreated divinity be somehow visible to the bodily with your eyes? He directly says that if someone does not comprehend [something] with his mind, how can he see with his eyes? As if comprehension is vision, and, moreover, [vision] with the help of eyes, and the eyes of the body, not to mention those participating in divine grace and the power of the divine Spirit, for it is testified that others have received eyes that see through it? 17. So it is obvious that he opposes them to each other, abolishing each through the other, since he does not know any distance between divine comprehension and communion. But it is also obvious that he was not lucky enough to achieve either of these two, even as much as is possible and allowed to all initiates. For otherwise he would not have been absolutely ignorant of such a great difference in such great things. Who through reflection has learned what this light is? Who of those who have tasted, as if in the form of a pledge, of this light of eternal life has ever insisted that they recognized this light-like radiance? Whereas, according to the divine Maxim: “and the very way in which God participates always remains unidentified for everyone” 491. “For the divine life is unimaginable to the mind (άνεννόητος), - again according to Maximus, - and although it gives itself to those who partake of it by grace, it does not comprehend it. For even in the communion of those who partake [of it], it eternally remains incomprehensible, because by nature it has infinity as uncreated” 492, and “nature does not have the power to comprehend what is beyond nature. For nothing created by nature is one that creates deification, since it is not one that comprehends God. For the property of granting deification to beings in proportion to [their ability to perceive] belongs only to divine grace, which enlightens nature with a higher light of nature and makes it higher than its own limits, according to the excess of glory” 493. 18. But it is also appropriate to consider that the divine Maxim did not say that no one can recognize God from His natural appearances and energies, but “from natural manifestation” 494, that is, from what makes His nature clear as it is. That is why he did not say “not to know” (μή διαγινώσκεσθαι), but “not to recognize” (μή διαγινώσκεσθαι), rejecting our exact comprehension of God from [His] natural manifestation. For from the natural energies of God, [His] providence, love for mankind, goodness and the like, we learn about the divine nature, what it is, but not what it is. We understand such energies of God from what is happening to us, albeit dimly, to that greatness that “surpasses all understanding” (Phil. 4:7). And what is this amazing understanding and advice from Akindinus that no one should recognize God from His providence and love for mankind? After all, providence is inherent in God by nature. But [this means that] he says that no one can know God based on what is inherent in [Him] by nature, unless [unless] he says that [God’s] providence for everything is created, badly cutting it off from what is inherent in God by nature, because God is known from him, whereas, according to him, [He is not known] thanks to something inherent in Him by nature. 19. Moreover, this is exactly what he says, and very much even says, and in many ways invents that divine providence is created, teaching that the only uncreated essence is the essence of God, while all of His energy, in any way different from His nature, is created. And that divine providence is both cognizable by us and distinct from divine nature is shown in a few words by Basil the Great, who writes: “we say that we know the greatness of God, the power, wisdom, goodness and providence with which He cares for us, and the justice of His judgment, and not the essence itself” 495. So, since Akindinus dogmatizes that everything that differs in any way from the divine nature is created, and he does not consider anything that we know to be uncreated, it is clear that he recognizes divine providence as created. And the pretext [he has is]: “so that, together with an absolutely incomprehensible nature, having the uncreated providence and energy cognizable by us, God would not be complex for him, and so that many uncreated things would not turn out, and because of this many gods, greater and lesser, would not arise, which he lists [slander] against us. We honor the one uncreated God, Whom, dividing Himself into created and uncreated and truly becoming an atheist theist, he then falsely accuses us of twotheism, due to the fact that we do not allow anything that is inherent in God to be reduced to the created level. 20. For we not only call God uncreated by nature, but also by hypostases, and by powers, and by energies. And we are also taught that His love for mankind and kindness to us, and His providence for everything, and in general everything like that, are not essences, nor hypostases, but energies contemplated around God, inseparable from His nature, in other words, uncreated. For of that which is inherent in God by nature, nothing is created, and outside of God there is nothing uncreated. But we, having come into communion and knowledge from God and in God of the [existent] providence, and eternally coming and looking at it, [starting] from him we know our God, and not from the highest of all exposition, communion and comprehension of the essence. And Akindinus says that from what happens to us it is not the divine providence that is known, but the divine nature, and thus, believing the divine nature to be comprehensible, he thinks it is mentally damaging to fight the incomprehensibility of God. And wanting to imagine that we know God not from His providence, he brings us Maximus, skilled in the divine, who writes: “no one can recognize God from natural manifestation,” 496 foolishly believing that natural expressiveness is providence, and goodness, and love of mankind, and in general all the uncreated and divine energies from which the Acting One is shown, but not the nature of the Acting One. 21. The Divine Maximus does not think or teach about this at all. After all, he himself says: “[the words] “Existent”, “Good”, “God”, “Creator” and the like, are names that denote what is contemplated around God, but do not reveal anything that is in His essence and nature. For they point to something appropriate to the divine nature, but do not point to the divine nature itself." 497 Let the divine Gregory of Nyssa also speak out in defense of this, now slandered by Akindinus, saying: “and if we reflect on the reason for our life, that not out of necessity, but out of good will, God came to create man, then again and in this way we say that we see God, coming to the understanding of goodness, and not essence. The same applies to everything else: what is invisible by nature becomes visible from energies, being contemplated in certain idioms that exist around Him” 498. So Maximus, wise in the divine, did not say that it is not given to anyone to recognize God from His natural manifestations, that is, energies, but that no one is able to recognize God from what manifests His nature, what it is, from which this providence comes and reaches everyone, and remains inseparable from its presence in it. 22. Moreover, Akindinus believes in what he wrote about the “Heads” of the divine Maximus, where he also about this, around God essentially contemplated, impiously and at the same time illiterately says that this “is a certain numerous multitude of essences and hypostases created in eternity (έν αίώνι) before the angels and around God contemplated before all creations,” which we have already exposed both in the second Word 499 and in the letters (καν έπιστολιμαίοις λόγοις) 500, - in this work he intends to prove at greater length that the divine does not become comprehensible to anyone from what is inherent in Him by nature. So, since our word, selecting from everywhere from his words the strongest of his arguments against piety, grapples with them in opposition, then let us also, taking this from there and now listing it here, present it. CHAPTER 10. Other sayings of Akindinus and the testimonies of the saints, poorly understood by him, who tries to imagine that God is not incomprehensible by nature and knowable from His energies. 24. Having cited, therefore, the chapter of blessed Maximus, in which he says: “One through every contemplative action and art [performed] by the mind and understanding is revealed (αναφαίνεται) God, beyond all infinity, and not at all cognizable to any of the existing ones, except by faith, and even then - from Him creations and only what He is, and not what exactly He is, and [what He is] of all eternity and time, and everything that is in eternity and in time, the Creator and Creator, having absolutely nothing conceived of eternally [existent] with Him” 501 - bringing, therefore, this Akindinus in order to seem to echo the saint and thus stealthily hide from the attention of the inexperienced, fighting with revered by Maximus and with theologians like him, he himself adds, teaching: “Learn therefore from the present that none of the things that exist can in any way be thought from eternity with God, and that none of the things that exist can be known by anything, unless [can be known] by faith alone, and that from His creations, that He exists. And thus avoid, turning away, the one who declares that in essence the Divine is incomprehensible as the highest, but His own in nature and essence - which is different [in relation to Him] and inferior [to Him] in an infinite number of times - is both thought and seen spiritually with bodily eyes. CHAPTER 11. About the fact that Akindinus interprets everything contrary to the testimony he himself cites from the words of the divine Maximus, and exposes the saint as saying the opposite of the theologians who preceded him, and inclines [those who listen to him] to avoid and turn away from all our divine fathers. 24. What is mixed and unclear in these words, from which, as if walking in deep darkness, he often stumbles, will be clearly shown as the word progresses. And now we will make it absolutely clear that he instills in those who agreed to learn from him the exact opposite of the testimony he cited from the words of the divine Maximus, and shows him (Maxim - “trans.”) teaching the opposite of the theologians who preceded him. “For the divine is limitless and difficult to contemplate, and this alone is completely comprehensible to Him - infinity,” says Gregory the Theologian 502. And that God surpasses infinity - this divine Maxim theologized here. So, is it because God’s infinity is comprehensible that it is a creation? Or does infinity not belong to the number of things that are eternally and naturally inherent in God? “But despite the fact that the infinite is contemplated in two ways, in relation to the beginning and the end, the infinite is above them and does not [lies in them]” 503 - says the same theologian. How then will it not belong to God alone to be above the beginning and the end, which [actually] is infinity? 25. So, since this is perceptible with God - infinity and the eternity inherent in Him by nature, but not nature as existing beyond all infinity and comprehension, as the divine Maximus and the theologian Gregory said, is it not Akindinus who convinces them to avoid and turn away when he says: “Flee, turning away, from the one who declares that the divine is elusive in essence, as superior, but is thought and named after His natural [properties]”? What are you saying - so that we would avoid and consider disgusting those who teach that God is known and named not only on the basis of infinity, but also on the basis of God’s inherent providence and goodness towards us, and in essence remains entirely superior to naming and comprehension? And who is there among the divinely inspired theologians from time immemorial who would not insist and declare that this is so? For the willful and efficient power from which God is known is natural, but not nature, according to the wise in the divine [teacher] of Damascus 504. But what is said apophatically about God is naturally inherent in God, but is not nature, according to the divine Cyril. “For,” he says, “ungeneracy, or incorruptibility, or immortality, or invisibility is not an essence: after all, if each of them denoted an essence, then God would be composed of as many essences as [different properties] are seen to be inherent in Him by nature” 505. 26. How then does Gregory, who received the nickname from theology, say that infinity is [a property of] God Himself as inherent in Him from eternity, and by it God is perceptible [in thought], just as, in the same way, by virtue of divine simplicity, “from the beginning coexists with the Son of God, by reason of nature, and not grace, life, judgment, power, and in general everything about which it is said that the Lord received it from the Father” 506. And, following the great Basil, “the holiness of the Spirit is co-replenishing” 507, and “the Spirit co-essentially possesses everything (συνουσιωμένως) by nature: goodness, justice, sanctification, life” 508. And, according to Cyril, who is skilled in the divine, “none of the natural and divine idioms is acquired by God” 509. And, according to the divinely inspired church hymns, “the Trinity offers the co-essential glory of the one and only” 510. And, according to the viewer and writer of the mysterious vision, “co-essential with God is providence, understood from [His] guidance in relation to us” 511. And what, the divine Maximus alone theologizes in opposition to all of them, saying that God is above infinity and is in no way perceptible to any of those who exist, except for that which is known by faith alone from His creations, and has nothing in any way conceived from eternity with Himself? How then is he not opposed to them, according to Akindinus’ teaching and understanding? 27. After all, if, in his opinion, everything that is inferior in any way is creation, then Saint Maximus showed infinity by creation, saying that God is on the other side of all infinity 512, which the great Gregory the Theologian, calling the highest beginning and end, showed uncreated. But the divine Maximus, declaring that “God is not at all comprehensible to any of the existing ones in any way,” if he had not said this [only] about the divine essence, and about what makes it obvious, but also about the naturally contemplative properties around God, as interpreted by Akindinus, he would have shown those who called comprehensible not nature, but the infinity of God, and simplicity, and justice, and providence, it is not safe theologians. And if, according to Akindinus, in this very sense, nothing that exists is in any way conceivable to God, as having only nature, without what naturally exists around it, then God has no eternal co-conceivable either infinity, or simplicity, or justice, or providence, or the divine will itself, or anything like that. CHAPTER 12. Proof of what the divine Maximus said well, that God is above infinity, [for] although infinity is uncreated, it is not as Akindinus understood it, having impiously perverted [the words of the saint]. 28. But we are not taught to think like that - so be it! - but that nothing can be conceivable to God in any way - means that nothing of what has begun and is created, but not of what has been naturally contemplated around God from eternity. “And what we say about God cataphatically,” says the Damascus theologian, “does not indicate nature. And whether goodness, righteousness, wisdom, or whatever else you call it, you will not talk about the nature of God, but about what is around nature” 513. And one more thing: “goodness, righteousness, wisdom and the like accompany the divine nature, and do not show the essence itself” 514. From this we understand that the divine Maximus also knew that infinity is uncreated, and thus said this in agreement with the one who determined that it is above the beginning and the end, 515 for, teaching us that God has nothing comparable to [Him] among those existing in a created way, as having received a beginning, he did not include infinity among the number of created things. For it is above that which has a beginning and an end, as the Theologian said, in the same way as the simplicity of God, and justice, and providence, as shown above. And not only these [divine properties] are higher than existing ones, even if they were called existing, but also every general divine manifestation and energy, as the great Dionysius shows us when he says: “By itself-in-itself, life-in-itself and divinity-in-itself we call, in the categories of the primordial, divine and causal, one super-initial and super-essential Beginning and Reason; and meaning what is participated - the providential power given from the non-participating God, deification in itself, of which, by partaking in their own way, beings are and are called deified” 516. For, having said that existing ones partake of these [energies], he indicated that they are above existing ones. 29. In another place he says even more clearly that the powers and sacraments themselves are higher than those who partake, or, in other words, higher than creations, since everything created has existence by communion. And he again calls God the highest of these powers and sacraments, saying: “to the extent that the things that do not exist are holy, or divine, or lordly, or royal, and further - [as far as] the sacraments themselves [superior] those who partake [of them], so the non-participating Cause is above all those who partake and sacraments” 517 . These powers are God Himself, for they are those by which those who exist partake of God. “For all creatures,” according to the divine Maximus, “both partake and transmit 518, and only God Himself is the one who partakes, but not the one who partakes” 519. How, then, will the Participant be superior to such sacraments and be the Cause for all those who partake? As a non-participant in essence: for it is beyond all communion. 30. Akindinus also condemns the infinity of superiority, envying, it seems, God Himself because of such [His] superiority, and God who magnified the fathers, and us, who recognize their ascent to great [heights]. And this is what both the divine Maxim and the entire choir of divinely inspired theologians sing. If Akindinus is dissatisfied, then let him, having measured it, proclaim how great this superiority is. For we, too, were taught by our fathers to extol this absolutely incomprehensible and inexpressible height, due to its infinitely multiple infinity. But how is God, according to the divine Maxim, beyond the [most] highest beginning and end of infinity? As he is not embraced by it, but He Himself embraces it, as well as being its cause. And for being, He is infinity. Therefore, He has infinity, and He is infinity. For there is nothing else besides Him, beyond the beginning and the end. So, only this is comprehensible to Him: infinity, simplicity, good and divine will, whose works are all creations, according to him who said: “The work of the divine will is creation” 520. CHAPTER 13. That, starting from creations, we come to understand not the divine essence, but divine energies, and Akindinus, who rejects this, considering creations co-eternal with God, is exposed as agreeing with the Hellenes and Eunomius. 31. But where does this good and divine will come from - or, in other words, - goodness, simplicity and infinity, and in general everything that the Damascus theologian called accompanying the divine nature 521? How did all this become comprehensible to us? From creations. And how do we learn from them that there is a God who is completely incomprehensible in essence? Thanks to faith. Because this is what the divine Maxim said: “God is in no way comprehensible to anyone, unless he is known through faith, and even then from His creations” 522. From them, we come to understand divine wisdom, strength, goodness, as the great Basil says, that “works serve as an indication of strength, wisdom, art, and not of the essence itself” 523; and thus, this incomprehensible and incomprehensible super-essence, to which these powers belong, we recognize by faith alone, [and only] what it is, preserving the impeccable confession of the divine of our fathers. 32. For what is the energy that moves and contains beings [in being], it occurred to the wise of the Hellenes to notice when they contemplated this, not by chance, so-called “cosmos” and the harmony of everything; and they did not believe in a desirable nature, omnipotent and using energy when it wants, and immediately producing [existents] from non-existent things, which is why they declared the world (κόσμος) co-eternal with God. Akindinus is forced to think the same thing by the logic of his heresy. After all, if uncreated nature, force, desire, energy do not have any difference in relation to each other, then there will be no distinction of force or energy, nor [difference] of essence, according to him, [will not be] in relation to each of them, and creative energy will not be subject to the will, and thus creatures will coexist with the power and energy of God eternal time, and rather even timelessly, and the same thing will be said - essences will coexist: after all, according to him, it is not different from power and energy. And not only with the Hellenes alone, Akindinus is clearly of the same mind and agrees, but also with Eunomius, who writes clearly like this: “whoever considers [based] on creatures, is raised from them to essences; and because the divine is simple, it is either wholly incomprehensible or wholly comprehensible” 524. As can be seen, both of these evils against God are derived from the words of Akindinus. 33. For when he teaches that the nature of God is comprehended from creatures, he makes Him completely comprehensible; and when he rejects the comprehension of what is naturally contemplated around Him, he shows Him to be completely incomprehensible, believing Him to be [such and] not realizing that in essence the Divinity is absolutely incomprehensible, but from those contemplated around this essence [properties] - infinity, simplicity, providence, goodness and the like - becomes comprehensible. “For in theology, according to the divine Maximus, we do not look for logoi corresponding to Him, for the human mind will not find [such], but those around Him, as far as possible, we consider, such as: about eternity, infinity and indefinability, goodness, wisdom and power that creates, provides and judges beings” 525. Thus, our God remains both comprehensible to us and incomprehensible, “so that those who are comprehensible can attract to Himself,” according to the theologian Gregory, “and those who are incomprehensible can be amazed; surprising, to be even more strongly desired, and being desired, to purify; having purified them, make them godlike; and with those who have become such He already communicates as with those at home,” this word is somewhat youthfully daring, “God is united with the gods and is known [by them], and as much as [He Himself] already knows those who know” 526. 34. But the accuser of those who say this, Akindinus, urges to avoid and consider disgusting those who declare God incomprehensible by nature, but by infinity, by goodness, and by everything that is contemplated around Him by nature, saying that He is thought and named, as far as possible. CHAPTER 14. Another refutation of the teachings of Akindinus, which prohibits spiritually seeing the most divine light. Here is also proof that not only light is uncreated, but also the power by which it is visible. 35. And to this he adds [and other wickedness], forbidding spiritually to see God with the eyes, confusing the mysterious vision (μυστικήν έποψίαν) 527 with what is thought about God, not knowing any distance between the vision of God and theology. After all, he excluded this for no other reason than because of the light that shone on Tabor the eyes of those who had descended with the Lord, since he presents him as a created being, as accessible, in his opinion, to the senses, as if God, out of creatures alone, was participatory and comprehensible to all. For he does not know that this ineffable vision, being above all theology, is neither a feeling nor an understanding, but “ineffable energy, invisibly visible and incomprehensibly conceived” 528 by those worthy of “the Lordship of God to see and endure” 529, but that this inexplicable vision and communion is not revealed except through faith. “For where there is faith, there is fear of threats and desire for what is promised. And where there is fear, there is keeping the commandments, says the Theologian (and the God of theologians also says: “He who loves Me... will keep my commandments” (John 14:15, 21, 23)). – And where the keeping of the commandments is, there is the cleansing of the flesh from the cloud that has enveloped the soul and does not allow one to clearly see the divine ray. And where there is purification, there is radiance. Illumination is the fulfillment of desire for those who achieve the greatest, or the greatest, or [that which is] beyond the great" 530. 36. So, is it really the divine ray that is the greatest and beyond the great, this creation? And which of creations is divine and beyond great? For God alone surpasses all great things, Who comes by promise to those who love Him (John 14:23) and reveals Himself to them (John 14:21), without showing the essence, for it is undetectable, being present everywhere and not being shown anywhere in any way. So, he does not come according to the essence, showing it to them and giving it to them - let it not be! - but by the most mysterious manifestation of Himself, illuminating them with the lightness of His own nature and communion with it [i.e. e. giving them light, and - in the words of the great Basil - “makes them other suns, not sensory, but God’s light” 531, and the very [light] of the face of the Lord in an indescribable way, marks (Ps. 4:7) 532 their faces. 37. And what can we say about the exact comprehension of this light or about the method of communion, when even just seeing [it], as we have been taught, does not belong to created power? For it is said: “No one has seen God anywhere” (John 1:18), “and what he has seen is seen in the Spirit” 533, and this means seeing spiritually. Therefore, Basil the Great in “Moral Words”, calling this light “the kindness of the truly “Mighty One” (Ps. 45:4-5)” and “His intelligible and contemplated divinity,” added: “after all, [only] that is truly beautiful that surpasses all human comprehension and strength, and is comprehensible only by thought. Peter and the Sons of Thunder saw this on the mountain and were worthy to perceive with their eyes the firstfruits of His [glorious second] coming” 534. For although he was visible to human eyes and shone within the mind - which is why he is called intelligible and visible divinity - it is said [at the same time] that he surpasses all comprehension and power. And Father Chrysostom, interpreting the same psalm, says: “Transformed. What does “transformed” mean? He revealed the smallness of divinity and showed them the God living inside” 535. 38. But do you see how what the divine Maxim called the symbol of divinity 536, Basil the Great called divinity, and Father Chrysostom called the smallness of divinity, just as the morning unclear dawn and light could be called “the smallness of the day” and “the symbol of the day”? For this light is natural for the day, and not at all alien, not delimited and not separable from it. And did you hear that, by slightly revealing [divinity], showing this small and hidden dawn, “He showed them the God living within,” Himself, and not another second, according to the vain inventions of your contentiousness? Wasn't it against them that you released your abusive tongue? Didn’t you call them the most wicked and most absurd, when you considered it worthy to call us, who are of one mind with them in this, two-theists and polytheists, as [allegedly] calling God Himself different from Himself, and greater and lesser than Himself, and having a small and great divinity, as you declare to everyone? 39. And to reduce this light to the level of a creature, supposedly so as not to inadvertently endure this, how great is it as a sign of stupidity and impiety, or, more appropriately, wickedness? And to call the divinity of God created and uncreated, what abyss of absurdity is not left behind? To enroll those who lead towards piety into the camp of wickedness, which has not surpassed madness? Isn’t it a sign of a Christianity completely uninitiated in the mysteries to not chant in wonder, but doubtfully not believe in this great and supernatural spectacle? CHAPTER 15. Presentation and refutation of another saying of Akindinus, again trying to show the divine energy indistinguishable from the divine essence and the created grace of God, which appeared to the apostles at Tabor. 40. “For if the Uncreated One,” he says, “is all essence and energy, as it [in fact] is, for the Divinity is an active essence, and not an inactive one, then how will created nature see the uncreated energy with bodily eyes, even if someone is equal to the angels, or even an angel?” What does he want to teach when he writes that God is all essence and all energy, for the Divinity is an active essence? He says the same thing, that the Divinity is active, and His energy does not differ from essence, because God is all essence and all energy. Although Akindinus does not say “God”, but “uncreated”, in imitation of Eunomius, who did not say either “Father” or “Son”, but “unborn”, “born”, preparing blasphemy from these names. So this one, having said [this], and then showing how he thinks that energy is indistinguishable from essence, thus proves that the uncreated is one and that it is completely incomprehensible, as if God does not have uncreated both essence and energy, and as if He is not in essence absolutely inconceivable, but cognizable from energies. But that the Divinity, being an essence, is active and has energy, is demonstrated briefly and clearly by the divine Maximus. For he says: “just as it is impossible to exist without existence, so it is impossible to act without energy” 537. 41. And the fact that God is all essence and all energy does not in the least prevent us from distinguishing energy from essence, but rather even more facilitates it. For God is all beginningless and all infinite; So, are infinity and beginninglessness the same thing, or are they different? And He is the “alpha and omega, the beginning and the end,” as John said in Revelation (Rev. 1:8, 21:6, 22:13); So, is God the whole beginning and the whole end, or is He divided with them and, like bodies, falls apart [into parts]? And who, because the whole of God is each of the two, will consider that the end is identical with the beginning and indistinguishable from it, unless he is mad? But God is both wholly justice and wholly compassion; But compassion is different from justice. In the same way, God is both wholly essence and wholly energy; Divine energy is different from the divine essence, and, moreover, in many tropos, as we have shown in many places and in many ways. One of these tropos is that the divine essence is completely unknowable to everyone, and the divine energies are familiar. “We say that we know the greatness of our God,” proclaims the great Basil, “and strength and wisdom, but not the essence itself” 538 ; and again: “we say that we know our God from energies, but we do not affirm that we are approaching His essence” 539 ; and again: “having learned [the names] “benefactor” and “judge”, “good”, “righteous” and other such things, no matter how many there are, we learned the difference in energies. We cannot learn any more about the nature of the active through the comprehension of energies” 540. And Akindinus, not believing and at the same time perplexed, leads in refutation of the fact that the uncreated Lordship of God, revealed at Tabor to the chosen of the apostles, [argument]: “how will created nature see uncreated energy with bodily eyes, even if someone is equal to the angel, or even an angel?” 42. Truly, [a sign of] reckless thoughts and doorless lips [are] such statements. How will one who is blessed see the illuminating grace from above? How He who bestowed grace knows and how He has deigned. For the divine does not lie within our knowledge of man. How did an eye not adapted to this see uncreated energy? Because she appeared, invisible. It is not I who say this, but Father Chrysostom: “For the Lord showed on the mountain to His disciples the glory of His invisible Kingdom” 541. But those with a doorless and ready-to-hunt tongue will immediately say: “And if the divine glory of God the Word is invisible, then how was it shown? After all, if it is visible, it is not invisible; and if it is invisible, then it is not visible.” But listen wisely. “He showed the glory of His invisible Kingdom and did not show it, that is, he revealed the smallness of his divinity, and not completely. For, fully confirming, He revealed the divine glory of His invisible Kingdom, not to the extent that it exists, but to the extent that those with bodily eyes were able to bear it." 542 Therefore, as visible and contained, and participatory, and in some way shared - and after all, it did not appear so much [that it was clear] that it exists, but a little, as far as those who saw it contained - it clearly shows itself not as an essence, but as energy. For it is measured, according to the same [Chrysostom] 543. And as the divine glory of God the Word, as invisible, as divinity, as surpassing all comprehension - even if only in communion - it is uncreated. CHAPTER 16. That the divine light was visible, although with bodily eyes, but rearranged by the power of the Spirit. 43. But this little thing [that appeared], you ask, if uncreated, then how was it seen with bodily eyes? I will now tell you the ineffable, as the invisible is seen, that is, [I will say as much] as the tongue and ears, and especially ours, can accommodate, just as you heard this about the eyes, or, rather, not even so, since we are inferior to the apostles who saw [this]. However, although they saw at a higher level than ours, they nevertheless talked about this through bodily sounds and [images] familiar to us, that is, created ones. “So will you theologize, even if you were Moses, or Paul, or even higher than them” 544: however, they did not contemplate how it is possible to speak and hear, but “of whom eye has not seen, and ear has not heard” (1 Cor. 2:9) and “about them you must not speak” (2 Cor. 12:4). How did the eyes see the uncreated glory? Reformed by the power of the Spirit, and having gained strength which they did not have before, and having become spirit, and seeing in the spirit, beheld the glory of the Spirit. For they “passed from the flesh to the spirit by a change in the action of the senses wrought in them by the Spirit” 545 . Listen to Paul: “for whom no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor has the heart of man sighed... God has revealed Himself to us by His Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:9). Listen to the golden tongue of John: “The prophetic ear was not the ear of the [ordinary] man. That’s why the [prophet] says: “Apply my ear to hear” (Is. 50:4), speaking about the direction of the Spirit” 546, and also: “after the giving of the Spirit, the heart of the prophets was [no longer] the heart of an [ordinary] person, but a spiritual heart” 547. Listen to the theologian of Damascus: “His face shone so brightly 548 like the sun” (Matthew 17:2), not because He was not brighter than the sun, but the beholders were able to see so much” 549; “for “no one has seen God anywhere” (John 1:18), as is natural for nature, and what anyone saw was seen in the Spirit: “this is the betrayal of the right hand of the Most High” (Ps. 76:11)” 550. So, a certain eruption (έξαλμα) of the local lordship 551 is seen as worthy, but even in this vision it remains invisible, for “no eye sees it, no ear hears, and it does not ascend to the human heart.” For all this [i.e. e. eye, ear and heart], having received from the “right hand of the Most High” or, in other words, from the Spirit - “change”, divinely and supernaturally sees in the Spirit that which belongs to the Spirit. 44. But the spiritual person not only remains on the other side and is driven far away from the change in contemplation that occurs as a result of this, but also rejects and disparages the narrative of such things. If he also possesses a “flattering spirit” (1 John 4:6), being driven by it to the opposite, and thinks that truly accurate and reliable theologians are blaspheming; and if by this “flattering spirit” he is driven into a Bacchic frenzy, then he initiates an undeclared war against those who believe in this, to those who are close, crying out, and to those who are far away, sending letters, slandering everyone, confusing and perverting everything, divine and human, and rebelling against the witnesses of the truth. And here is a close example of such things: Akindin himself. CHAPTER 17. Another speech of Akindinus, through which he is exposed as completely godless, when he undertakes to deny that Christ is God, and to show all the saints as opponents to the Lord himself and to each other. 45. Akindinus says, once again repeating what we have already exposed before: “all theologians said that God is invisible, and that He is not characterized by any light and is contemplated from creatures by analogy, and not from what is in Him, and that for none of those that exist He is not recognizable from the natural reflection, and is incomprehensible, and incomprehensible, and indivisible, and simple, and unchangeable, and inaccessible, and the like - to which the one who speaks in opposition is either that this light, one way or another visible with bodily eyes, is the uncreated and supersubstantial God; or that the one God [consists] of this light and the essence of God, which is higher than it.” 46. ​​What are you saying? Wasn’t He the One God who shone on Mount Tabor, and Who is essentially higher than this [divine] appearance (επιφανείας), because on it He is absolutely invisible and undetectable? Therefore, Christ was not God, according to your statement: after all, it is He who has shone. But both the Father and the co-risen Spirit are testified by the bright cloud, and from there to Him who shone through the body [that came] with a voice. Therefore, the Lord Himself called this light the glory of the Father and the Kingdom of God. So, if, in your opinion, there is more than one God from this light and essence of God, which surpasses this unclear dawn, according to theologians, then your God is other than the God whom we worship in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. If you worship Him too, then you are truly a hypotheist. And if, in order to be a monotheist, you reject Him, then you are truly a godless monotheist. Well, didn’t we call this light uncreated, the divine glory of God the Word, as you heard, the beginningless natural ray of divinity 552, the beauty and divinity of the truly Strong One, which [is given] in communion or, in other words, in vision, for it, being partaken, is seen, and is light, although ineffable? Didn’t we call uncreated that which surpasses even any comprehension [that occurs] in communion? Who and what theologians does he call opposing? Saying that this light is the divinity and beauty of God, the great Basil 553; calling it the natural glory of God, the great Athanasius 554; who said that he is the invisible divine glory of the Word, Father Chrysostom 555, who also said that [the Lord] revealed [something] small and showed them God living in Him 556? Or Christ himself - so as not to talk now about others - who revealed [to us] that this is the Kingdom of God? So which theologians do they contradict? No one else, except perhaps him and those who theologize in agreement with him, that Barlaam and those who are called by them because of their involvement in error 557, whom he considers the most reliable [of all] former theologians from the century and [Himself] Christ, the God of theologians. For now you clearly see the agreement with Barlaam of the one who feignedly renounced agreement with him. CHAPTER 18. Showing with many examples that Akindinus agrees with Varlaam, and simultaneously containing a brief refutation of the opinions of both. 47. He called those who say that this light is unapproachable and unlimited ungodly, but this one called them opposed to the saints. So how do they differ from one another? However, who said that this light is unapproachable and unlimited? Is it not together with all those who think piously that the divine John of Damascus writes: “today the abyss of unapproachable light and the unlimited outpouring of divine radiance on Mount Tabor is seen by the apostles” 558 . And what, don’t those who a little higher call this invisible light the highest of all comprehension and the invisible glory [of divinity] directly say that it is unapproachable because of the supernatural nature of the phenomenon and the excessiveness of its luminosity? And Varlaam said that he is composite and manifest, that he is decomposed. And this one contradicts those who show it to be unchangeable, although how can the beginningless and timeless not change? For everything that is subject to change is in time. “For the Lord,” it is said, “takes John with him as the virgin and purest organ of theology, so that he, seeing the timeless glory of the Son, thunders: “In the beginning was the Word” (Jn. 1:1)" 559, for "one born without beginning from the Father has a natural, beginningless ray of divinity, without subsequently receiving being and this glory itself; and the glory of divinity becomes the glory of the body" 560. 48. He again calls this light material, shaped (έσχηματισμένον), and limited to [a certain] place; and this one, placing it among the many sensual lights, as having become visible with bodily eyes, - why denies that through such light God is characterized, that is, shows and reveals Himself - is he really thinking about anything else? He declared this light divisible [into parts], not as indivisibly divided in communion and rather the divided alterities of those who partake of it folds it [together] and brings it together with themselves and with each other and with the Giver of such radiance and combines it with a supermundane unity, but as separated from the divine nature and placed in the category of sensible [things]. So, he called it divisible and composite, but this one does not tolerate saying that it is indivisible [into parts]. And he says that this will introduce complexity into the divine nature if it has some ineffable enlightening power, revealed and transmitted to the worthy, when, how and to what extent the Giver of eternal and supernatural gifts deigns. And he who thoughtlessly imagines compositions in such things could not even comprehend that the coming together of the uncreated and truly simple does not produce any synthesis in him, of which the closest proof is the hypostases and all the hypostatic properties of the highest and worshiped Trinity, as well as the one nature of the Three, and the common and natural, according to the fathers, their own properties, one of which is to idolize. For this is a common [property] of the God-working Trinity, “enlightening nature with a supernatural light” and making its participants other suns, eternal and God-like. If, however, having, as omnipotent, all powers, God is not composed [of them, as of parts], then how will He be composed because of this deifying grace alone? And Barlaam argued that this light is a creature, and this one accuses those who declared it uncreated of the greatest wickedness, and says that “although this is a sacred symbol, all sacred symbols are corporeal and created, and alien to the divine nature, and that although God is contemplated from it, He is always and by all contemplated exclusively from creatures.” However, Gregory, the clearest lamp of Nyssa, having described in detail the image of the understanding of God from [His] creations, then says: “but this is not what meditation on divine bliss leads to, in order to infer from some energy by analogy about the Acting One. For then it would be equally accessible to the wise men of this age, through the improvement of the world, the understanding of the highest wisdom and power” 561. For the beginning of this understanding from creation is the natural law, and not only the spiritual, but also the written law surpasses it to a significant extent. Akindinus, incomparable (άπαράμιλλος) in the exact understanding of what relates to the divine, even the theologizing [fathers] themselves in the Spirit - not to mention those who see the ineffable [divine] - considers that they have acquired knowledge from [examination of] created [phenomena], and, moreover, tries to slander them, as if they too but they are wise, as we showed in more detail in the third [word] of the second denunciations against Barlaam 562. 49. But this Barlaam called this light the worst of both the angels and our mind; and this [Akindinus], saying that this light is sensual, how can he not consider it inferior to all understanding? And then the knowledge of the “wise men who have become wise” will be, according to him, higher than the hopes of future blessings, for they too, from the well-being of the world, would be able to understand the Creator of the world, just as now [can be done] those who are alien to the Gospel laws. Consequently, the light of the next age will be worse than the understanding of the wicked, according to Akindinus. And, what is even more paradoxical and senseless, he says: “even if the light were not perceived by any created force, even if it was seen with the help of the divine Spirit, even then it is not uncreated.” For he did not see that the created has a limit in the created, and that everything is covered by the power corresponding to it. That which exists beyond all this and is contemplated by the power of the Spirit, and cannot be from among created things. CHAPTER 19. That what is not characteristic of being contemplated by created power is also not created, and that those who see God from what is around Him see precisely by the power of the Spirit. 50. And what is he slandering us, as if therefore we say that God is known from what is in Him (έκ των κατ´ αυτόν), and especially by those about whom [he himself] testified that they proved that the divine is incomprehensible in essence, where should we put this? For it is not so that he who does not know from creatures alone knows [therefore] God from what is in Him. For the creative and providential power does not belong to the number of what is in Him, but from the number of what is around Him, as the God-bearing Maximus says, whose words are given in the thirteenth chapter of this word 563. The Divine light, in whose defense we are speaking, is not an essence, according to theologians, but it is both surrounding the essence and uncreated: for it is divine activity and lightness. He is a manifestation - for he is shown very dimly and as visible from afar, now and in the next century, according to the purification of each of those worthy - not out of likeness, but truly making God known. And what is thus distributed, according to the Eloquent Theologian, is divine energy, 564 while the essence is absolutely indivisible [into parts], and according to it God, who is not only not divisible into parts, but also completely invisible and incomprehensible, will not be multiplied and will not be composed of natural energies, according to the theologians, being in various ways visible and conceivable. But if He does not have such activities, then He will also be God, moreover, He will not be at all. And the one who falsely accuses us of polytheism is exposed from his own words and dogmatic teachings as godless. 51. Nevertheless, we consider this incomprehensible light to be visible in this way. For if we know it both as divine grace, manifested to the worthy, and as idolizing energy and the weak dawn of divinity, and as something that has in relation to itself a divine nature that is superior, as a source, as a cause, as a giver, then we also know that this light is uncreated and incomprehensible even for those who see it, and for the unworthy it is invisible. For seeing spiritually is far removed from thinking; and from seeing - to know what exactly that which is thus visible is. CHAPTER 20. That the light that shone upon the apostles on Tabor is not one of the sensory phenomena. 52. You, who do not allow yourself to think anything lofty or supernatural about this light, still have to say what it is: for you have already managed to explain that it is among the many lights when you said that the deity is not characterized by anything, including it. Which one is he of all, if he is one of all? Is it lunar, or one of the stars that appears at night along with the moon? How did he shine during the day? And how – “like the sun?” But then solar, if it is written that he shone “like the sun” (Matthew 17:2)? And how then was he, so shining, not visible to the surrounding residents? Why did the disciples stand without squinting their eyes, unable to bear the excess of lordship, but fell prostrate to the ground, as if their whole body and even their soul could not bear them? Therefore, Basil the Great says that this is the true light. 53. But [if it] was not ethereal 565, then [maybe] from our earthly things, or from any of the fires [existing] on earth? And how did it not burn everything to ashes, being so inflamed that it shone stronger than the sun? And how will Christ, when he shines upon him at the second coming, appear, according to his own word, from east to west, while then, shining on one small mountain peak, he showed himself to only three disciples? What sensory light is invisible unless there is an obstacle in its path? And how did this light make His clothes white? For light does not tend to make [objects] illuminated white, but to show the [existing] color; and this, it seems, covered them or even changed them, which is by no means characteristic of light. If, because of the name “light,” you reduce this divine thing to the level of a creature, then learn now that at the same time with this name supernatural, great and high [epithets] are pronounced, among which are “beginningless,” “infinite,” and “eternal.” And if you do not know this, then in any case do not pervert voluntarily, but learn the truth, and repent of the rashness due to which you were dark in relation to the light and a false champion of the truth. CHAPTER 21. A hymn to this light, and that it exalts and what seems to be written about it in a humble way 566. 54. For if the light has a nickname, then it is called the true light, but rather the true light itself 567, with which God is clothed “like a robe” (Ps. 103:2), the light which the excess of lightness cannot contain in any created thing 568, the light which has victorious [honors] over all nature 569, the light which “no ear has heard, no eye has seen, and no heart has ever seen” (1 Cor. 2:9) 570, light which is only visible to the saints alone, and even to those in the Spirit, the light which makes those who see light, and, moreover, perfect light, the offspring of perfect light 571, the light on which angels cannot direct their gaze 572, the light that the angels glorify, which the archangels glorify, at the feast of which the entire intelligible dispensation of the supermundane, being immaterially treated, posits the most visible evidence of the love of mankind for us Words 573, a simple, supernatural light, ugly, and not at all similar to fractional symbols, a non-evening light, unceasing, immaterial, unbearable, unapproachable, incomparable, uncreated, the light thanks to which God is truly seen, the light thanks to which all knowledge is revealed, and God is truly known by the beloved soul 574, the light that foretells the future restoration, the light that the Lord's apostles saw in the removal of all sensual and mental perception, by not seeing, according to this, having perceived the true vision, and by enduring the divine, receiving the feeling of what is beyond nature 575, the light of the heavenly Kingdom, the light that is the most honest and highest of all that is desired, the light that brings continuous joy to those who see 576, the light that has concealment 577 and revelation, the most luminous darkness 578, invisible vision, blissful and many-chanted endurance 579, the light of divinity, the lightning of divinity 580, the beginningless ray of divinity 581, the unapproachable abyss of light, the boundless outpouring of the divine dawn 582. 55. Are you not embarrassed by the multitude of theologians? Aren't you afraid of the heights of what has been said? You do not accept the evidence of the truth, but against so many and so great [witnesses] will you still be shameless, and oppose [the tricks] of your uninitiated and base verbiage? After all, what you bring does not belong to those who said it, as you yourself think, but to your dark reasoning about this light. For he was seen with the eyes, but with the eyes of the apostles, and those of them who were then chosen, and even those in the Spirit, who “tests the depths” of God (1 Cor 2:10), and moreover, dimly. And who can contain all the infinite power of the Spirit, so that with its help he can know everything that relates to God? So, the light was seen with human eyes, but it is also written that even angels cannot gaze intently at it 583. And this [light], and so superior to these [angels], is creation? He is visible only to holy angels and men, and even then not without the power of the Spirit, but inferior or secondary in relation to this super-essence, but as superior to it as a source, as a cause, as a giver of the magnificent gifts located around it, from which [his] inseparability with it is evident? How is it not uncreated? Although she remains unparticipated and non-originating and non-transferable, he participates, and is transmitted, and descends to creation, that is, he appears worthy and deifies them. How then can that which deifies those who contain deification be a creation? And since it remains absolutely invisible, for [it is said] “put up His darkness” (Ps. 17:12), it is equal [one can say]: this bright darkness, since it is written that He “lives unapproachable in the light” (1 Tim. 6:16), and “is clothed with light like a robe” (Ps. 103:2). How then is he created? And since this [super-essence] is completely nameless: for [divine names are] the names of what is thought around it; and “everything that is conceivable around God,” says the divine Gregory of Nyssa in “Antirrhetics,” “all this was before the creation of the world, but we say that it is named [only] after the emergence of the namer” 584. How will that which exists before creation be created? Yes, this is a symbol, but one through which Christ showed Himself, revealing a little of [His] divinity, and showing the disciples the God who dwells [in Him] 585; but together with this [symbol], He will come and appear worthy in the next century; but according to it the righteous will be convicted and “will be enlightened like the sun” (Matthew 13:43); moreover, they will remain together in eternity, illuminated and co-shining with the Super-Shining One in the most wonderful way. 56. How many of these names do you need in order to use them to vainly show ignorance of this most divine light? And I will immediately, as if running through it, briefly show you another sea of ​​praise, so that if you think sensibly, having immersed yourself in it, you will be reborn well and savingly. For “the Lord,” in Davidic terms, “inhabits this flood” (Ps. 28:10), and He will be your King forever. And if, without repenting, you adhere to wickedness, finding yourself under the floods, then you will be kept in the depths of eternal darkness, as if you have become very far from the light of truth. CHAPTER 22. Another hymn to the same light and a gentle encouragement to the infidels to return. 57. For even if that ineffable light is called light, the common hope of our calling (Eph. 4:4), then [at the same time it is called] the divinity of God and the glory of His nature: The glory of the Father, the glory of the Son, the glory of the Spirit, the glory of the light of the Son, the natural and beginningless, invisible divine glory of God the Word 586, of which, having shown a small part on the mountain, Christ revealed God living in the flesh 587, and His most divine and essential splendor 588;the glory of the Divine Kingdom, endless and lasting forever 589;primordial glory, and super-perfect, and existing beyond everything 590;the Kingdom of heaven, the Kingdom of God, visible and coming in the power of revelation;the goodness of the truly Mighty One, visible only to one purified from all depravity 591;the appearance of divine beauty, shared only by those who bear the image Living in heaven 592; the gift of deification, the unspeakable 593 uncreated deification, which has no origin, but is an incomprehensible manifestation in those worthy 594 ; the grace of the Holy Spirit, through which God alone reveals Himself through the soul and body of those truly worthy, when natural signs are overcome by the excessiveness of glory 595, which is why it is called in its own sense the Kingdom; the outpouring of an infinite gift, which we - each according to purification - adore when it illuminates nature with a light that is beyond nature, and makes it superior to all its inherent [signs] by the abundance of glory 596; the lordship of God and the divine nature itself, not only visible, but also indwelling in the worthy; the shining of the power of the Spirit; divine power, ineffable energy; the prelude of the second coming in the light and with the angels of Christ; the common reward of all who live according to God; the victorious prize of virtue; the betrothal of future benefits (Heb. 9:28); the fruit of sacred silence, born in a heart pure from every form and image after the removal of all thoughts; the unfinished end of true prayer, shown in the power of the Spirit from the excess of the sacred desire associated with it, and producing the best and highest understanding of frenzy and change, moreover, going beyond the limits of these best things themselves; for it far exceeds pure prayer itself. Do you see how many voices of the Spirit you contradict and, moreover, which ones? Of the many, we were able to bring a few. Finally, come to your senses: know your limits. You are a man, and the reasoning of mortals is shaky and deceptive. Do not entrust divine things to them, for it is destructive for the soul to be mistaken in such matters. Hold fast, I pray you, to the trustworthiness of the Spirit, and believe in those who Him [i.e. e. by the Spirit] says so that you know that it is not impossible for God to send His holy gift into [His] verbal creations. Maximus the Confessor, On perplexities towards John, 41 (5, 37), PG 91, 1160С Ibid., 43 (5, 39), PG 91, 1165B The same, Chapters theological and economic 1, 1, PG 90, 1084A Palamas is referring to the corresponding chapters of Ambigv by Rev. Maxima This means: Triads 3, 1, Χρήστου, σ. 623–630 Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation of God the Word, 4, PG 28, 96A John of Damascus, Homilia in transfigurationem domini, 12, PG 96, 564B 1 Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 3, 15 – PG 94, 1057B In the month of August, on the sixth day, at Matins in Polyeleos, the second sedan on Slava, and now Gregory of Nyssa, Liber de cognitione dei (Φεογνωσία) (fragmenta Ar. Euthymium Zigabenum, Panoplia dogmatica) [Sp.], PG130, 269D Compare: John Chrysostom, De Eleazaro et Septem pueris, PG63, 526A; Triads, 3, 1, 14, Χρήστου, τ.Α, σ. 628 John of Damascus, Homilia in transfigurationem domini, 12, PG 96, 564C Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 38, 12, PG 36, 324С; Word 45, 632D Wed: John of Damascus, Homilia in transfigurationem domini, 13 – PG 96, 564D The quote is not identified. Compare: Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium: Book 3, chapter 10, section 21, line 11 Maximus the Confessor, On Perplexities towards John, 43 (5, 40), PG 91, 1165D In the edition to Christ, the phrase after the semicolon reads like this: “οταν δε τό συμβολον έξ εκείνου όν τυγχάνη φυσικώς, ού σύμβολόν έστι και των άχωρίστως εκεινω συνημμένων, ώς κατ τω "" It seems to us that in this form it does not make sense, and that for a meaningful reading the punctuation marks in it should be placed differently: φυσικώς, ού σύμβολόν έστι, και τών άχωρίστως έκείνω συνημμένων, ώς και τω ήμερινώ φωτί τό όρθρινόν, αύτό έαυτού σύμβολον γενέσθαι "λέγομεν" Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 32, 15, PG 36, 189D-192A. Wed: Word 40, 5, PG 36, 364B Maximus the Confessor, On perplexities towards John, 22 (5, 18), PG 91, 1128A John of Damascus, Homilia in transfigurationem domini, 15, PG 90, 1169A Maximus the Confessor, Theological and economic chapters, 2, 90, PG 90, 1168С Maximus the Confessor, Theological and economic chapters, 2, 93 – PG 90, 1169A Compare: Dionysius the Areopagite, On Mystical Theology, 3, PG 3, 1048B Works, p. 752–754; See also Ibid. Scholium 12 of Maximus the Confessor to Chapter 3 Wed: Maxim the Confessor, Theological Chapters, 1, 7, PG 90, 1085B Wed: In the week at Vespers, tone 4, stichera on the stichera: “People are lawless... ungrateful for the Benefactor (λαός... άγνώμων περι τόν εύεργέτην)" “τό θείον φυσιολογούσιν” – it is also possible to translate: “they talk about the divine from a natural science point of view” Creed, 2; In. 1:3. Palamas here, probably by mistake, uses the singular form "γέγονεν" instead of the plural "έγένετο" See: Triads in defense of the sacredly silent, 3, 1 John Chrysostom, Eclogae ex diversis homiliis [Sp.], 21, PG 63, 700A Maximus the Confessor, Various Chapters, 1, 7, PG 90, 1180С Scholium 18 on Questions and Answers to Thalassia, 61, PG 90, 644D – 645A Maximus the Confessor, Questions and Answers to Thalassius, 22, PG 90, 321A; Various chapters, 1, 76, PG 90, 1212A He, Chapters on the theology and economy of the incarnation of the Son of God, 1, 1, PG 90, 1083A Basil the Great, Epistle 234, 1, Courtonne 3, 42 PG 32, 868С Maximus the Confessor, Chapters on the theology and economy of the incarnation of the Son of God, 1, 1 – PG 90, 1083A Quote not identified Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on the Beatitudes, 6, PG 44, 1268D-1269A Letter to Athanasius of Cyzicus 36–38; Letter to John Le Havre 4–5 Maximus the Confessor, On perplexities towards John, 58 (5, 54), PG 91, 1188AB Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 38, 7, PG 36, 317С; Word 45, 3, PG36, 628A Ibid., PG 36, 320A; 628V See: John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 3, 14, op. cit., 58, 24–25 Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate, 31, PG 75, 448D Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 30, 9, Barbel, 188 "PG 36, 113C Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit 19, 48 – Bruche 199 PG 32, 156B Same, Discourse 15 on faith, 3 – PG 31, 468CD Canon of the Trinity for the week of the Midnight Office, ch. 2., song 5 Wed: Isaac the Syrian, Homily 72 Maximus the Confessor, On Perplexities to John 58 (5, 54), PG 91, 1188A John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 1, 4, op. cit., 4, 33–36 There, 1, 9, op. cit., 9, 25–26 That is, with Gregory the Theologian (See: 4, 11, 24) Maximus the Confessor, Chapters on Love, 4, 11 Ceresa Gastaldo, ?., Massimo confessore. Capitoli sulla carita, Rome, 1963 The entire quote is not identified John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 1, 8, PG 94, 813A, op. cit., 8, 67–72. Compare: Cyril of Alexandria. About Trinity 7 – PG 77, 1133C Compare: John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 1, 9, PG 94, 837B, op. cit., 9, 2–6 Maximus the Confessor, On perplexities towards John, 57 (5, 55), PG 91, 1188A Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 2, PG 29, 648A See: Eunomius. Απολογητικόν, 28 – PG 30, 868; Basil the Great. Against Eunomius 2, 32 – PG 29, 645 ff. Wed. See also: Gregory the Theologian. Homily 38 on Epiphany 7; Homily 45 for Holy Easter 3 – PG 36, 317D; 628A Maximus the Confessor, Chapters on Love 1, 100, PG 90, 981D-984A Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 38, 7; Word 45, 3 – PG 36, 317C; 628A Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Church Hierarchy, 3, 4, PC 3, 429D John Sinait, Ladder, 7, PG 88, 813B Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 38, 11; Word 45, 3 – PG 36, 324A; 632V Gregory the Theologian. Word 39, 8 – PG 36, 344A The quote is completely unidentifiable. The words “makes them other suns” belong to Gregory of Nyssa. See: his In sextum Psalmum, McDonough (ed.), Gregorii Nysseni opera, vol. 5, Leiden, 1962, p. 189 “The light of Your countenance, O Lord, is upon us” John of Damascus, Homilia in transfigurationem domini, 15 – PG 96, 569A Basil the Great, Discourse on Psalm 44, 5, PG 29, 400CD John Chrysostom [Sp.], Eclogae I-XLVIII ex diversis homiliis, 21, PG 63, 700A See: Maximus the Confessor, On perplexities towards John, 41 (5, 37), PG 91, 1160C Maxim Confessor, To Marin, PG 91, 200С Basil the Great. Letter 234, 1 – Courtonne 3, 42 PG 32, 868С Basil the Great. Letter 189, 8 – Courtonne 2, 140 PG 32, 696A John Chrysostom (pseudepigrapha), Discourse on the Transfiguration – Savile 7, 339 Same, Discourses on the Gospel of John, 30, 2 – PG 59, 174 Gregory the Theologian. Word 28, 3 – Barbel 68–70 "PG 36, 29B Maxim the Confessor. About perplexity towards John - PG 91, 1128A John Chrysostom, Discourses on 1 Corinthians, 7, 3 – PG 61, 58 John of Damascus, Homilia in transfigurationem domini, 13 – PG 96, 565C Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 40, 5, PG 36, 364B Wed: Basil the Great, Discourse on Psalm 44, 5, PG 29, 400С That is, the Varlaamites and Akindinists John of Damascus, Homilia in transfigurationem domini, 2 – PG 96, 545B John of Damascus, Homilia in transfigurationem domini, 9 – PG 96, 560C; 740 Gregory of Nyssa, Interpretation on the Beatitudes, 6, PG 44, 1269B 741 This refers to “Triads in defense of the sacredly silent”, 3, 3 Compare: John Chrysostom. Discourse 30 on John 2 – PG 59, 174 745 That is, belonging to the upper layers of the atmosphere 746 We decided to follow here the modern Greek edition of Sakalis, who provided this chapter with the following note: “The text of chapters 21 and 22, consisting of two hymns to the divine light, is one of the most beautiful texts of Palamas. Although it is a summary of various texts, its poetic rhythm is obvious." Hence the line breakdown John of Damascus, Homilia in transfigurationem domini, 13 – PG 96, 564D Andrey Kritsky, Homily on the Transfiguration – PG 97, 949B John of Damascus, Homilia in transfigurationem domini, 16 – PG 96, 569B Wed: John of Damascus, Ibid. – 569A Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 39, 2 – PG 36, 336C John of Damascus, Homilia in transfigurationem domini, 3 – PG 96, 549C Andrey Kritsky, Homily on the Transfiguration – PG 97, 933C Macarius of Egypt. On freedom of mind 23 – PG 34, 957B Andrey Kritsky. Word on the Transfiguration – PG 97, 949C Ibid., 949C; Dionysius the Areopagite, On Mystical Theology 1, 1 – PG 3, 997B Andrey Kritsky, Homily on the Transfiguration – 949B John of Damascus, Homilia in transfigurationem domini 12 – PG 96, 564B Gregory of Nyssa, To Eunomius, 12, 24 – Jaeger 1, 273 PG 45, 965B John Chrysostom, Selections from various words, 21 – PG 63, 700 John Chrysostom (pseudepigrapha), On the Transfiguration – Savile, 7, 339 John Chrysostom. Selections from various words, 21 – PG 63, 700 See: Menaion, On the sixth day of the month of August, at Matins in Polyeleos, the second sat on Glory, and now: “The hidden lightning... of Thy being, O Christ, and the divine splendor of the saints, thou hast shown unto this mountain.” John of Damascus. Homilia in transfigurationem domini, 17 – PG 96, 572B Basil the Great. Discourse on 29 Ps. 5 – PG 29, 317V. Wed: Discourse on 44 Ps. 5 – PG 29, 400С, Gregory of Nyssa. About the soul and resurrection – PG 46, 152A Maxim the Confessor. Theological and economic chapters 2, 93 – PG 90, 1169A Andrey Kritsky. Word on the Transfiguration – PG 97, 933B Maxim the Confessor. To Thalassius 61 explanations 16 – PG 90, 644D Maxim the Confessor. Theological and economic chapters 2, 88 – PG 99, 1168AB Maxim the Confessor. To Thalassia 22 – PG 90, 321A, Various Chapters 1, 76 – PG, 90, 1212A You might be interested in: