Еще на написанное Акиндином против божественного света и общих божественных деятельностей Отца, Сына и Святого Духа слово возражения шестое.

CHAPTER 1. What is the purpose of each type of each philosophy: that which is according to the world, and that which is according to Christ, and that in relation to words for each, the subject of study is the truth, those who fall away from it are necessarily struck by lies. 1. The purpose of worldly philosophy in relation to activities (περί πράξιν), with the help of which morals are embellished for immediate benefit, arts are created and that which concerns [the organization of] houses and cities is properly located, is the benefit of present life. If there is any work that does not lead to this, then it will rightly be called wasted labor, belonging to this world itself. And the work of philosophy, which in relation to words, with the help of which we study the logoi of nature and movement and analogy, the outline and quantity of that which is inseparably separated from matter, is the study of the truth in beings. If someone speaks outside the attainable truth, then if [he does this] voluntarily, he is a crafty hearsayer, and if involuntarily, then he is alien to philosophy, insane, and as much more so as he thinks that he is connected with philosophy, not even realizing his own ignorance. And the goal of philosophy according to Christ in deeds looks at what “eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and the heart of man has not dreamed” (1 Cor. 2:9), which is now partially revealed only to the worthy, as if as a pledge, but in the endless age is more perfect. In words, the most useful thing is the study of divine dogmas, which posits, as clearly as possible, the truth about truly existing things, super-exalted above all existing things, in relation to which stronger than any proof and as if some unprovable beginning of sacred proof is faith, the constant foundation of those who trust (των πεπεισμένων) [to it] 793, with which the Word, explaining what follows, unites in the most perfect way the truth and confirms [the latter] in the faithful thanks to sacred and corresponding knowledge, firmly binding those who know with the known 794, so that they, having been established from here, will no longer be removed from the sacred hearth of faith 795, neither by refined and verbose verbal persuasion, nor by the terrible attacks of tormentors, testifying unity of piety by invincible identity [of faith] 796 . 2. And those who have fallen away from this one and only piety, being carried by a changeable and varied whirlwind of error, with which is connected a lie that separates the soul from what truly exists, but does not bring constant contact with anything falsely represented, but as if some painful disorder creates in the soul, a certain fickle and changeable sensation (πάθος), very often leading those caught [by it] not only to another, but also to the opposite evil. Therefore, all slander is characterized by inconsistency, it plots against itself and denounces itself, and so much more insofar as it is more slander and to the extent that it is a part of falsehood that it prevails over [other false teachings] standing in the same row with it. For the great Athanasius also called the lie common to all heretics, calling the pretense and slander from them lies, and that they deny with some words what they prove with others, since each [their word] is characterized by a falling away in all respects from the correct understanding, consistent with piety 797. CHAPTER 2. About Akindinovo, therefore, false writing. 3. For Akindinus, therefore, the abundance of words of lies is proof of the greatness of his own slander. For it is such that if someone, leaving aside his own innovations in relation to divine dogmas and slander against those whom he clearly seeks to oppose, the various distortions and interpretations of paternal sayings and thoughts that he puts forward, and the court cases and meetings mentioned by him, but not former, and in general all his lies, which need to be exposed by others, would offer [to those listening] only what is exposed by his own words, then no ear will bear it unless he, having shown it briefly, decides not to expound the greater part of it. After all, he calls Varlaam, his very mentor in error, in a fabricated speech for the Council slanderous and a blasphemer, and an outcast, as one who monks against the divine light, and sometimes verbally even directly anathematizes him. And when he wrote to Lapine, who was among the Latins, or rather wrote back to [him], who asked in his letters to him how Barlaam, while in Constantinople, had sinned regarding the dogmas of piety, he said: “I cannot say that he would have sinned in anything regarding the dogmas of piety while he was there.” So the council, which in his presence condemned [Barlaam] by vote as a blasphemer, and the decisions made about him at this council - without which he fled - he again rejects. 4. But he himself, again, when, at the same time with affection and gifts, having attracted to himself those who were greedy for them, he competed with [those sitting] on the revered platform and, having been immediately exposed by the best of the bishops, was officially (εγγράφως) deposed by them ( άπεχειροτονείτο) 798 and when he was expelled from the walls of the holy church by the pious kings and representatives of the authorities, and in general by all Orthodox Christians, like some kind of plague, he immediately wrote a pamphlet [outlining] his teaching, being confident that he could mislead everyone if only he presented his [teaching] in a false light, but in this way he did not was able to avoid condemnation, since everyone actually knew the true [his confession], which became clearly visible at the general Council. So, in this very pamphlet he again says: “We accept and heartily welcome the Council convened in the presence of our most pious, blessedly reposed and ever-memorable Tsar, which examined and rejected everything that Barlaam said blasphemously and slanderously about the unapproachable and divine light of the Transfiguration.” And at the end of this pamphlet he insists that he thinks so and always remains in these [teachings], and will never think differently, even if someone brings thousands of deaths on him. But four full months had not yet elapsed when, without being forced by anyone at all, but simply in response to Lapin’s question, he writes, as I said, that Varlaam was by no means exposed here as a blasphemer and slanderer of divine things. 5. But in that speech he fabricated, he says that the council convened after Varlaam’s flight on his behalf recognized him as a defender of piety, and claims that he decreed and approved everything that was kind to him. And, extending a long speech to those of the bishops who were then present, he says, as if to confirm the truth of what he wrote: “Isn’t this so, O most solemn ones, and I am adding something?” So, without blushing, he abuses lies. A short time later, in a letter to one Thessalonian from among those who knew about his condemnation at that trial, he calls this Council “satanic and in no way inferior to the Jewish Sanhedrin [convened] against Christ.” But he clearly calls the Tomos that was issued at these two Councils accurate in piety, and in all his other writings - and even in those written after that speech - he tries to show it as full of all kinds of wickedness. What should we say about ourselves, against whom he obviously rages so much, [about] how he testified his agreement with us with his own writings, since having carefully tested, as he himself writes there, he learned that in everything we write and say, we exactly agree with the saints? Truly, his words, inconsistent and contradictory [to each other], about divine light and divine grace, our entire book, sent to the wise Primate of Cyzicus, barely covered the most part. And the multitude of divinities that he introduces supposedly in defense of the one [divinity], and the inequality, and dissimilarity, and the complete opposition of these divinities he introduces in relation to each other, who can express in a few words? But this can also be seen from previous denunciations. CHAPTER 3. That from what he writes about the light [that appeared] in the transfiguration of the Lord, it is clear that he considers it a kind of impermanent phenomenon, created and sensual, and invents that Christ has three natures and two divinities: the highest and in every sense inferior. 6. What else, as I see, I did not mention throughout the words to him is that this champion, as he himself says, of one divinity, and to the two natures we piously reverence in Christ, impiously adds a third, thinking not one divinity of the Lord in two natures, but two divinities of one Christ in three natures. And the most paradoxical thing is that he says that Christ did not immediately appear as such in the conception of the Virgin and from Her seedless birth, but later, from the Mount Tabor - I don’t know how, for the mountain is not light - he assumed the third light-like nature and the second divinity. And what also surpasses this evil new verb (καινοφωνίαν) is [what] he says: “Unless someone believes that Christ has two divinities: one is lower in every sense, and the other is higher; one is beginningless, and the other - from the appearance on the mountain, which received its beginning and from that time inseparably coexists with the human [nature] of Christ, then he speaks of two divinities - the highest and the lowest" 799. 7. For, having proposed what we have cited and the high name testifying to the uncreatedness of light, in contrast to what was said by Barlaam, who was the first to unlawfully reduce the most divine light to the level of creation, [the words of the chants], that the dawn has passed away, - as we all sing together annually, But Christ the Truth has come, Moses cried out on Tabor, seeing Christ’s deity 800 and: like an unclear dawn of divinity Christ exposed on the mountain 801, hiding the flesh's perception and incipient kindness, revealing splendor, and even then not completely 802 and according to the theologian Gregory, “light is the revealed divinity” 803; and “the Lord will come again as he was seen by the disciples on the mountain or appeared when the carnal was defeated by divinity” 804; and that, according to the Damascus theologian, “the uncreated light of divinity appeared to the chosen of the apostles on the mountain” 805; having exposed and emitted a great many mockery against those who think uncreated this most divine light, as if they were therefore talking about two divinities - that is, about the light-primary essence of God and the worthy radiance given from it - he then himself, being, in his words, an admirer of the one divinity - not bright and devoid of corresponding lightness - says: “What has been said can be understood and interpreted without damage or temptation, to prevent this risky innovation. For just as some have seen God in human form, either as an old man or as a young man, and [however] He is not this, and this is not the Divine, for it is absolutely devoid of form, image and appearance, so [one must understand] the [expression] “the light is the revealed divinity,” and thus the uncreated light, “was seen by the disciples on the mountain.” Moreover, those [phenomena] equally arose and disappeared, having fulfilled what was necessary in those [circumstances] in which they were used by God, and the body of the Lord's lordship and deification, which is here called divinity, will be, say the saints, forever to the glory and pleasure of our nature, which comes to completion through faith and valor. 8. So, having said that divinity appeared to the apostles on the mountain in the form of light, as it happened that God appeared to the prophets in human form, he thinks that he showed that this light is absolutely in no way divine. For the Divine is not something anthropomorphic, just as he himself says in these words that neither these [phenomena] nor this [light] are the Divine. Therefore, he, like Varlaam, declares this light to be a hypostatic ghost, sensory and created, and once arose, but never existing, which, if, having appeared, did not retreat back into non-existence, it is still created, since it arose [from non-existence]. This is how he wholeheartedly accepts and kisses, as he assured in writing, the Council, which exposed the blasphemous and slanderous words of Barlaam about the divine light of the Transfiguration. He added [something] of his own to the evil innovations of Barlaam, teaching that this light eternally coexists with the body of the Lord, being in everything different in relation to both human and divine nature - for neither of them is a ghost or some kind of sensual and hypostatic light - he indicated that together with human nature - alas for the alien teaching! - the true God and Son of God took from the mountain this fantastic and hypostatic nature, so that He now and forever consists of three natures: divine, human and [nature] of that world, one of which - that is, humanity - is in no way divinity; the other is a false-named divinity that arose, according to him, later than her, as [merely] apparent divinity that both began and arose; and the third is true divinity. This is his “word faithful to God,” as he boasts, he says, “reverent in relation to the divine, and reliable in relation to the established limits of piety.” “Such, therefore,” he says, “created, and sensible, and illusory (φασματώδες) light will coexist with the human [body] of Christ to the glory and enjoyment of those perfected through faith and virtue.” From here it is obvious that it is not that light, whatever it is, but he considers God himself to be created, sensual and hypostatic. CHAPTER 4. Proof that although Akindinus pretends to defend one divinity, he [in fact] does not consider any uncreated. 9. “For then the sons of the future age,” according to theologians, “will not need air, nor light, nor place and the like, but instead of everything there will be for them the divine” 806, “and God will be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28), according to the apostle “when,” according to the theologian Gregory, “we will no longer be many, as now, movements and sufferings, carrying nothing at all from God in ourselves ourselves or [wearing very little], but we will be completely God-like, containing everything and only God, for this is the perfection to which we strive” 807. Since this is perfection for us - to become containing only one God, and God will then be instead of everything for those perfected through virtue and faith, and the glory and pleasure, according to Akindinus, of our nature, which has reached its goal in the future thanks to valor and faith, is, according to him, a non-hypostatic and ghostly light, created and sensible, then God Himself, according to him, will be a created, sensory and non-hypostatic ghost. Consequently, he does not honor any uncreated divinity and, being truly godless, just as in everything else he pretends, misleading many, that he thinks [prudently], in order to tear away from reliable opinion, by cunning attracting those who are deceived, so [here] he pretends that he speaks in defense of one uncreated divinity. Filled with this most godless thought, he declares the divine light not only created and sensual, but also extremely worse than the sensual light, and at the same time, with some new and alien ideas, he constantly tries to overshadow the very wisdom of Varlaam with [his] blasphemies poured out against this divine light. 10. For he said: “Everything that thinks and is imaginable is more revered than the light [revealed] during the divine transfiguration, since he achieved vision through the air - as he believes mentally damaged - and fell under the sensual power, and indicates to those who see only the sensible, being material and endowed with form (έσχηματισμένου), and appears in the place and in time, and colors the air,” in connection with which he was exposed conciliarly 808 as extremely evilly wise. And this one blasphemes not only against the light that shone on the mountain from the Savior, just as thoughtlessly [as the other one], but grasping at what, in his opinion, is a pretext: that [this light] was seen on earth by people, and, moreover, those rotating in this corruptible (έπικήρω) world, but also against the most heavenly, and pre-mundane, and super-worldly ( ύπερουράνιον και προκόσμιον και ύπερκόσμιον) the light in which all the angelic ranks [reside] 809, which are either in order of position [in the hierarchy] they share enlightenment among themselves, or to the extent of enlightenment they accept [this or that] position, in the words of Gregory the Theologian 810. So, he declares that this light of the eternal angels is also created, and tries to show it as inferior to the sensory light. CHAPTER 5. About the fact that Akindinus invents both about the pre-heavenly and pre-worldly and pre-worldly light, as if he is a creation, and explicitly expresses this. 11. For then, how did the great Basil, speaking in passing about darkness, which before the creation of sensory light was “the top of the abyss” (Gen. 1:2): “What kind of light suddenly found a place in the world for those deprived of it, so that darkness was “the top of the water” (Gen. 1:2)?” 811, and then adding his own opinion, says: “We think that if there was anything before the composition of this sensory and perishable world, then it was obviously in the light: for neither the angelic ranks, nor all the heavenly armies, nor in general everything that is named or not named among the verbal natures and “ministering spirits” (Heb. 1:14), did not live in darkness, but in the light and all spiritual joy they had their proper state. And no one will argue against this, especially the one who is in. Among the promises awaits the heavenly light, about which Solomon speaks: “there is always light for the righteous” (Prov. 13:9), and the Apostle: “giving thanks to God the Father, who has called us to partake of the inheritance of the saints in light” (Col. 1:12). For if the condemned are sent into utter darkness, then it is obvious that those who have accomplished worthy rewards have peace in the worldly light. When, by the command of God, the sky arose, immediately stretched around what is contained within its surface, possessing a solid body sufficient to separate what is inside from what is outside, then it necessarily made the remaining space in it dim, cutting off the radiance [coming] from without” 812. Having put this forward, Akindinus says that “he thinks that by this chapter we are misled and teach about a lower, uncreated and in itself visible with the bodily eyes of divinity, not understanding that the uncreated and super-essential light is not blocked by a solid body, but is present everywhere and penetrates through everything uncontrollably and unhindered.” For if the angelic nature, which is created, is not prevented by the heavenly surface from descending even to us, when it is sent to serve those who created [it], then how would the body of heaven prevent the uncreated light? However, how did anyone see or see this [light] with bodily eyes, when the great Basil said that it was initially blocked by the heavenly surface, and its radiance was interrupted? Having composed all this nonsense about the incorruptible and worldly light, impiously and at the same time mentally damaged, he then, speaking out against us, concludes: “it is obvious that this man is mistaken in everything.” 12. “He thinks” he said about us at the beginning, because nowhere in [our] words did he see us mention this saying. For if [it] is about the worldly light, then it easily lends itself to those who wish to distort it due to its inherent obscurity, and should have been put forward by Akindinus, as it was put forward and greatly distorted and distorted, as [our] word will show along the way. For since ancient times it has been the custom of crafty heresiarchs to give a different meaning to clear passages of Scripture by means of unclear ones, and thus sophistically confuse those who are seduced by them. We show pious teaching in defense of the divine light from [the words of] those whose understanding is clear and precise, and not only unclouded in all respects, but also brightest like light. But since he, based on the fact that he himself “thinks” that someone has fallen into error, declared that this is obvious, it will be obvious that he himself is no less, if not more, in error, since some - and, moreover, not a few and not random [people] - “think” that he is so. For according to his evidence, this will also be useful to us for proof; and if the fact that he is mistaken is shown by his own methods, [then it is clear that] we are not mistaken. 13. What he is amazed at and what he mocks is how can someone say that this light was seen or is [now] visible with bodily eyes, which, according to his understanding received in the instructions of the great Basil, is blocked by the heavenly shell and shines only to the most heavenly angels, as not being able to pass through the heavenly body and be seen by those on earth, as being bodily, material, sensory and plump (παχυμερές) 813? For how could [light] be otherwise, which does not tend to pass through a body, and even more so through such a body? So this rightly [makes us] surprised at the one who thinks that he is rightly scolding: for how, having not heard from any of us about this light such things as he himself thinks, completely inconsistent and incoherent, and internally contradictory (αύτεπίβουλα) 814, he then thinks that we are saying that such light is from the supercelestial [spheres] 815 shines through the beings on earth, in which, condemning us, he is surprised (δια θαύματος ποιείται) 816? And where in our words did he find the [expression] composed in such a sequence, which he calls an error: “lower, uncreated divinity, visible with bodily eyes in itself”? After all, there is no such thing anywhere, unless we addressed the speech to him and those like him, when they were the first to say [this] and composed it on their own, as now. But just as [before] he said that he considers us to have fallen into error, [starting] from a saying that we have never uttered, so again [and now], deducing from the sayings of the saints we cited what he first deduced from them, he again thinks that this is an error, hurting [thus] those God-bearers, using us instead of a screen 817, thus deceiving the simpletons. CHAPTER 6. Proof that Akindinus calls not only us alone, but also the God-bearing fathers, and the church and empire that condemned Varlaam, ditheists. 14. Theologians call the light of the divine Transfiguration divinity and testify that it was visible through the eyes of the apostles, and confirm its uncreatedness, from which Akindinus concluded about “uncreated visible divinity,” and that it is inferior - from the fact that the essence of God is theologized that it is higher than the ineffable vision. Because in the “Conciliar Tomos” it is recorded that the most God-loving emperor, who then presided over the council, said: “Although the mysteries of the Lord ascended to such a height of contemplation, [however] they saw divine grace and glory, but not the very nature that bestows grace. For we know her, having been taught by divine words, unparticipated, incomprehensible, invisible even to the most worldly and highest [angelic] powers themselves, as “not leaving even a trace of comprehension to those who come after her” 818 "819. For the most theological Gregory, having first listed some of the prophetic visions, then immediately added: “But neither these, about whom the word, nor anyone else after them, “was in hypostasis” 820 and the essence of God, according to what is written, nor the nature of God saw or expressed” 821. So, from here Akindinus deduced “lower divinity,” just as Barlaam [drew similar conclusions] from what was said in a similar way by the saints; and [the expression] “by itself” - from what the God-bearing Damascene said: “Christ 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” 822. So he attributes this error not only to us, and not only to us he calls wicked and bitheistic because of it, but also much more - to this most divine emperor and the patriarch who sat with him at that time and [in everything with him] agreed with him, and the synclite who sat with them and voted in agreement, and the entire sacred host of bishops, and in general everyone who sat and stood around him, except Varlaam himself, who alone remained dissenters, and even more so from the ages of [former] divinely inspired theologians, from whose [words] the “Tomos” presents such things piously and in detail. CHAPTER 7. The fact that, hearing the God-bearers saying that the pre-worldly light and that which appeared on Tabor are one and the same light, it was necessary to move away from the delusion and not think that this light began from the mountain, and he, insidiously neglecting them, condemns us for calling this light the worldly light. 15. But let’s also consider where he got that very thing that we call the heavenly light. [So] he heard here the great Basil speaking about the heavenly light, in which all the heavenly armies and which the faithful expect in promises of good things 823, and that “those who have done what is worthy of reward have peace in the worldly light, about which Solomon says: “there is always light for the righteous” (Prov. 13:9), and the Apostle: “giving thanks to God and the Father, who has called us to the sacrament.” inheritance of the saints in the light" (Col. 1:12)" 824, and in the "Tomos" showing our unanimity with the saints [read the words] of the divinely inspired Damascus, writing about the divine light of the Lord's transfiguration, that "on the mountain those chosen from the apostles see Him who has shone forth with the glory of His Kingdom, on whom in heaven the angels cannot steadily fix their gaze" 825, and “This is what “eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has the heart of man conceived” (1 Cor. 2:9): thus in the next century we will see Christ sparkling with the light of divinity” 826 “This light conquers all nature; this is the life that has overcome the world” 827. “For glory is shown to be beginningless, constant and abiding forever (αίωνίζουσα)" 828, “beyond everything” 829. [I heard] Andrew, the wonderful primate of Crete, saying: “On the mountain the Lord shone beyond all measure, being contemplated as He was before, perfected from [numbers] of disciples and truly initiated into the highest [sacraments]" 830, "for they, having become, as far as possible, outside the flesh and the world, [still] here learned from what they experienced what relates to the future state" 831, and that "the entire intelligible dispensation of the supermundane, being immaterially nourished by this light, posits the most visible evidence of the love of mankind for us in the Word" 832 [I also heard] Gregory, nicknamed from theology, who said: “On the mountain it shines and becomes more luminous than the sun, secretly leading to the future 833, for He will come, as I think, as He was seen on the mountain by the disciples or as He showed Himself when divinity overcame the carnal.”834. And the divine Maximus, who teaches that “for those who can follow Christ, ascending the high mountain of His Transfiguration, He is revealed “in the form” of God (Phil. 2:6), in which He dwelt before the world existed” 835. And Athanasius the Great, in precise terms declaring that “it is not the essence of God that the saints see, but glory” 836, and that “the Lord who ascended into heaven will come again in natural glory, and not in grace, as He partially showed on the mountain: for it is not by grace that the Lord possesses this glory” 837. And Dionysius, the great lamp of God [saying that] in the same way all those who reach the Christlike and most blessed destiny (λήξεως) 838 are illuminated, just as the disciples of the Lord [were illuminated] at the most divine transfiguration 839. And Basil the Great himself, who says: “the reward of virtue is to become a god and be enveloped in the purest light, for in this way “the righteous will be enlightened (λάμψουσιν) 840 like the sun” (Matthew 13:43)” 841. And the Golden-Speaking Father: “It was not just [that] Christ was transfigured, but to show us a glimpse of [His] future second saving coming on the clouds in the light with the angels” 842, and again: “He showed the disciples the glory of His invisible Kingdom of God: not as much as [great] it was, but as much as the beholders could comprehend (περιφέροντες ) 843 with bodily eyes" 844 . [So] Akindinus, having heard all the saints speaking together in this way, understood that one and the same thing is the pre-worldly, pre-worldly and pre-heavenly light, in which the angelic ranks and all the heavenly armies have their proper state, and the light of the Lord’s transfiguration on the mountain, which should receive [into itself] the sons of the future age. 16. This means that it was fitting for him from that moment to put aside the impious opinion that this light received its origin from the mountain (for how would it then be pre-mundane?) and that it is therefore corporeal and material, and is blocked by the density of the body (for how would it then be pre-mundane and angelic light?), and that it is created and sensible (for how would it be the light of the future age, when, according to theologians, there will be no need for air, light, place and the like, but instead of everything for those who are Christ-like there will be God?) 845 ; It was fitting, therefore, for him to get rid of his delusion from now on. And he, having decided that the saints who spoke so much were mistaken, insidiously leaves them aside, and persecutes us - those who echo them - instead of them and through us imperceptibly brings accusations against them, and, as he thinks, he considers everyone to be engulfed in error. But in fact, it is he himself, being terribly seduced, who shows in a completely obvious way that his soul is filled with all kinds of wickedness and stupidity. For how would it not be a sign of extreme madness to think that light, which [was] before the formation of the sensory world, is sensory, material and corporeal - previously formed from matter and the very existence of matter? For how would it be that [the light], blocked by a dense shell, and even more so by the subtlest body, would be completely impossible to express, according to his understanding and interpretation, which he uses, having heard from the great Basil what he said? 17. How, then, will the state appropriate for angels be bodily, material and sensory light? How then does it remain both a joy for them, and even more so a spiritual one: material for the immaterial, bodily for the incorporeal, sensual for the intelligent? How then, being such, will he not be perishable, existing before the formation of the perishable world? Isn’t he himself, who writes and thinks about such things, quite obviously deluded and, moreover, completely deprived of the ability to think? How [can it be that] the angels, “sent for those who wish to inherit salvation” (Heb. 1:14), are not hindered by the density of the heavenly shell, but the light of the angels, “in which all the ranks of angels and all the heavenly armies, and everything that is named or unnamed from among the verbal natures and ministering spirits, have their proper state” 846, is hindered by the same density, and it does not pass [through it] to those who are worthy on earth and, according to the great Dionysius, angelically united 847 with the light? Are the divine angels, passing unhindered through that shell, no longer in the light, but falling away from that light? And it seems that Akindinus believes that the fact that servants are sent to those who want to inherit his salvation means that those sent [themselves] have fallen away from this light and salvation. Do you see the abomination and depravity of his reasoning? CHAPTER 8. That the pre-worldly and pre-worldly and eternal light of the angels is God himself, and that Akindinus, showing this light to creatures, declares that He is created. 18. How then did he not intend to entangle the angels of light, as far as it depends on him, in darkness, who classifies among the creations the pre-mundane, and the super-mundane, and the super-heavenly light of the heavenly angels, because of which only the divine and god-like angels are called ever-present, or, in other words, explicitly declares God to be a creation? “For God, who wanted to arrange this world, which consists of the visible and the invisible,” according to Gregory the Theologian, “for the ever-present (that is, for the God-like angels) Himself is Light, and not anything else, for what need is there for those who have the greatest light?” 848 Akindinus teaches about this greatest light, illuminating the ever-present and god-like angels and people like them, which is nothing other than God Himself, that it is a creation and is a corporeal and material light, so that it therefore cannot pass through the heavenly shell and reach the circumterrestrial end, whereas sensory light easily passes through the celestial poles. 19. For the sun, walking among the wandering [planets], obviously extends light to the fixed sphere. And those who have devoted themselves to the study of astronomy know that it makes the moon, making a circular motion on the last of the spheres, like some other great luminary after itself, unhindered by illuminating from above and, as it were, little by little feeding, and when it is at the greatest distance from it, then it reveals this luminary as perfect, which is in no way hindered by so many shells and distances [between them]. What need is there to say that light descends to us and to the bottom of the sea, [and to] all who feel, even those who have weak visual ability? Although air is so much denser than both the celestial and etheric bodies, and water is so much denser than air, insofar as they are inferior in lightness, their density and coherence do not interrupt the radiance of either the sun, or the moon, or any other of the stars, or even the stars themselves established on the fixed sphere itself. For they too shine at night for those who are on earth. And Akindinus believes that the heavenly shell can shield from the divine light, as if from the material: therefore, he considers God limited, and puts the curvature of the sky as a fence for Him, becoming more wicked than Aristotle [849], for he makes the place of the moon the border of providence, and this one says that the curvature of the heavenly shell limits the divine light, as if it were corporeal, material and consists of dense parts. CHAPTER 9. Proof that it is not we, but Barlaam and Akindinus who teach that between God and the angels there is a light that is neither God nor an angel. Here we also talk about the fact that God is called light not by essence, but by energy. 20. He himself was truly caught, falling into what he and those like him constantly accuse us in vain. For if, in his opinion, the light in which the ranks of angels and all the heavenly hosts is something corporeal and material, then, according to him, it will be an [intermediate] light between God and the angels, which is neither God nor an angel, for the divine light cannot but pass through everything, and the sent angel is not difficult to pass through the density of the heavenly shell, and this light is closed and is always limited to this shell. But let him again listen to Gregory, who received the nickname from theology, who says: “God is the highest and unapproachable light, neither comprehended by the mind nor expressed by word, enlightening all rational nature: the same among intelligible [entities] as the sun is among sensible ones. And the second light, the angel, is a kind of outflow or communion of the first light” 850. Where then is the light invented by Barlaam and Akindinus, who followed him in his heresy, between God and the angels, which is neither God nor an angel, but some material and dense nature? How is it that the divine angels do not [abide] in the divine light, just as sensual [creatures] abide in the sensual [light], and even more so when [Gregory] the Theologian says that among the intelligible the same is the highest light, that is, God, than the sun is among the sensual? How is it that the god-like angels do not have their proper state in the divine light, “by striving for God and serving Him, they acquire enlightenment for themselves, either according to their position [in the angelic hierarchy] being endowed with it, or according to the measure of enlightenment receiving [this] position” 851, but in the sensual, related to matter and the physical, according to the wicked fabrications of Barlaam and Akindinus, light, in which even the radiance is interrupted by the density of the [celestial] body? Doesn’t the most heavenly and highest light of the heavenly angels, which is the enlightenment of all rational nature, not even reach the earth and enlighten those worthy of people [living] on it? 21. But in what way, however, are angels also the second light? Is it their nature to be such a light? And how is it that the apostate powers, being angels by nature, are darkness, and not light, and darkness opposing precisely that kind of light from which enlightenment comes to the God-like angels? From here it is again obvious that this light is not essence: for essence is not the opposite of essence. In addition, the one who, not yet deprived of his lightness, was and was called Lucifer, and by deviating to the worse became darkness, shows that those angels who are light because of the strict striving for the true good are not by nature, but by grace, the essence of light. How can light in general be nature, and not the energy of nature - natural or acquired? Unless darkness is nature, and not deprivation. Moreover, the fact that one of the angelic ranks partakes of this light more than the other shows that it is not an essence, for an essence is not greater or less [another] essence. But the fact that the angels have this light through [their] attraction and service to God shows that this light not only is not nature for them, but is not inherent in them by nature. Since they also possess this light by communion (“for an angel,” says [the Theologian], “is a second light, a certain outflow or communion of the first light”), then they represent God as being called light by energy, and not by essence. For in essence God is unparticipated and nameless, according to theologians, which is why this [teacher], clear and precise as no one else in theology, having said that God is “the highest and first light” and the like, adds: “flowing a little outward” 852. To be poured out is characteristic of divine grace, and not of divine nature—all God-speaking men teach us, 853 for the essence of God is absolutely undetectable and inextricable. Therefore, while celebrating the New Week 854, the namesake of theology, when he said calling God such a light, he added: “He is contemplated by a few, as far as he is. I think, hardly and only a few” 855. And what is contemplated by the few, whether it is or not, is not the essence of God, but energy, and grace, and glory, and lordship. It is also the great Dionysius who says: “if we call superessential secrecy light, then we mean nothing more than the sacrament derived from it” 856. And the golden-tongued theologian, chanting the divine glory of the Savior at the Transfiguration, says: “The Lord showed His disciples the divine glory, not as much as it was, but as far as they could contain it,” 857 just as in another place he says that to separate is characteristic of divine energy, and not of divine nature 858 . This is also showing - [that is] that God is called light not by nature, but by glory, and grace, and lordship - and Gregory the Theologian called the bright angels His outflow and communion 859, which he would never say about the divine essence, since he knows that it is not participatory and inextricable. Indeed, in the “Sermon on Baptism”, after he said: “pouring outward a little,” he added: “about the light I speak of that which is contemplated in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, whose wealth is the fusion and single outflow of lightness” 860. 22. So, who says that the lightness of the divine nature, in which the angels who serve God also partake, through which “the righteous will be enlightened like the sun” (Matthew 13:43), “is neither a divine essence nor an angelic one” 861, does not place between God and the angels a light that is neither God nor an angel. Since the great Dionysius says that the primordial communions and principles, and the logoi of beings [residing] in God and the predestinations in which angels and people participate, “are not the essence of either divine or angelic”; and in the chapter “On the Most Divine Light” he says: “divine minds move in a circular pattern, united by the beginningless and endless radiances of the Beautiful and the Good” 862. Having pronounced these “radiances” in the plural, he showed that they are not the essence of the divine nature - for nowhere is it given in the plural - and by adding “beginningless and infinite”, he showed that they remain uncreated and do not exist outside of God: for outside of God there is nothing uncreated. 23. So, he who does not say that God is uncreated not only in essence, but also in his god-created radiance and grace and lightness, by which He is called light, speaks of some other light between God and those who are divinely illuminated by Him, or, in other words, deified, but who, like Barlaam and Akindinus, calls material, corporeal, sensual, created pre-mundane and pre-mundane, and pre-heavenly the light in which the ranks of angels and all the heavenly armies, by which “the righteous will be enlightened like the sun” (Matthew 13:43) - each, according to purification through virtue, divinely partaking of the divine lightness of the One who sparkled on Mount Tabor more than the sun and showed the apostles His divinity, and foreshadowed the lightness that would be received by those who truly believed in Him. For such light, being, according to Barlaam and Akindinus, sensory, material and corporeal, cannot be an angel, even if it were created, but it will also not be the light of angels, neither pre-worldly, nor super-worldly, nor heavenly. How could God be and be called such light, when he is even created, according to Barlaamite Akindinus? CHAPTER 10. Proof that the great Basil said that the supercelestial light is interrupted by the heavenly shell, not because it is material and therefore cannot pass through it, as Akindinus insanely understood, but because sensory [objects] cannot accommodate this radiance, and it is also not characteristic of them to be visible through it. 24. “But why,” he says, “the great Basil wrote that “the sky, stretched around the [objects] it contained, interrupted the radiance [emanating] from above, making what was inside unilluminated” 863?” Thus, the ill-famed always find themselves in a difficult situation on all sides, and consider as a welcome refuge that which is written, which seems ambiguous and incomprehensible and not clear. But here it is worth, I think, to cite another saying of the great Basil, which Varlaam and Akindinus also in vain constantly repeat against us. Or rather, not entirely in vain. For we can use a ready-made [argument] against them, perverting what is [quite] clear, through what is written unclearly, in order to show through creation the light that enlightens and divinely illuminates, and spiritually rejoices the holy angels and people, which Christ also showed on the mountain, shining more than the sun and showing the beauty of the future age. For the great Basil, advising and suggesting how not to suffer harm from the ambiguities of Scripture, says: “We must, starting from general concepts about God, when Scripture calls Him angry or grieving, or repentant, to examine the intention of this word and reflect on how it is possible to restore, and not destroy, assumptions worthy of God. And in this way we will read the Scriptures without harm, receiving benefit from what is easily understood, and suffering no harm from what is more obscure” 864. And again: “It is necessary, following the general concept of piety, if there is something that seems contrary to it in Holy Scripture, either interpret it in accordance with the general concept of piety, or admit that we do not understand it” 865. 25. So, is it not common [place] and not recognized by all pious thinkers that God is the light that enlightens the heavenly angels, in which the ranks of angels and all the heavenly hosts in all spiritual joy have their proper state, so that we again need to repeat what was said before: “as the sun is among the sensible, so is God among the intelligible, and He is the first and highest light that enlightens all rational nature.” 866, and “the second lights, reflections of the first light are intelligent powers and serving spirits” 867, and that [they are] the first light nature after [the] first one, because from there they are illuminated, “and the second light is an angel, a certain outflow or communion of the first light” 868, and “for those who are ever present, He Himself is Light, and not anything else, for what need is there for those who have the greatest light? 869? Is it really because it seems that these [sayings] are contrary to what was written [by Basil the Great], that this [coming] radiance from above is blocked by a heavenly shell stretched around what is inside, we will make God a creation, material, corporeal and sensual, and we will think that before the work of the material, corruptible and sensual there was something material, corruptible and sensual, according to the concept of Akindinus, or after all Let us bring into conformity with the generally accepted pious concept that which seems contrary to it and inconsistent with it, if, of course, we can? And if we cannot, then we will leave it as if we could not understand, and we will remain no less committed to recognized piety, in accordance with these admonitions of the great Basil. It is clear that in every way we will heed the generally accepted concepts of piety. 26. Let’s try to return to them [that is, to these concepts] the meaning of the proposed obstacle. And if our word turns out to be able to resolve the contradiction with what appears [at first glance], then thanks be to God, who gives us, who are in extreme ignorance, knowledge consistent with the truth contained in Him (γνώσιν συνήγορον της έν αύτώ αληθείας ) 870 . If we cannot find such a word, then the one who is perfect and wise in Christ in the divine and spiritual, having praised our will, let him of himself teach us a better word, who are passionately desiring and striving to learn as much as possible, and, having filled in what we lack, he will more completely put to shame those who are trying to derive from here an understanding that is contrary to piety. But what is our word to those who look at what is set before them with a corrupt mind? 27. The Great Dionysius, praising the divine darkness that exists above all, says: “we cut off everything in order to see this super-essential darkness, hidden by all the light that exists in those that exist” 871. What kind of divine darkness is this - he himself teaches in a letter to the servant Dorotheus: “Divine darkness is an impregnable light, which is said to be where God dwells. And although it is invisible due to its extreme luminosity, and inaccessible due to the excess of super-essential luminosity, everyone who is worthy to know and see God enters it” 872. In this light, they have a decent state and rank of angels, most of all worthy not only to know, but also to see God. In this worldly light, the righteous will also receive peace, as the great Basil himself says 873. For in this way the saints will inherit both the heavenly and God’s Kingdom, just as the Lord, foretelling the future and at the same time giving some preliminary concept of it προϋπογράφων), this unapproachable light due to the excess of super-essential illumination shone on His disciples on the mountain, and called this light the Kingdom of God (Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27). This light is hidden by all that light that is in existing things, not as if it does not pass through everything, but because all existing things cannot reveal it by natural force. And if others of [the number of] beings cannot reveal it, then even more so those existing sensually, for whom the mental is incomprehensible, inconceivable, and undetectable. For to be hidden and to be blocked are one and the same thing. It is hidden, therefore, and blocked, and separated, and dissected by the heavenly shell, which is a sensory body and showing the region of all sensory [objects] the place newly determined by it. So, the illumination that flows from above is fenced off and separated from what is inside, not because it is incapable of passing through everything, like some corporeal and material light, but because the sensual are not able to contain this lightness and are not made manifest through it, which does not have the property, like the sensual light, to lead to perfection (εις έντελέχειαν ) vision and what is below it. And thus they remained unilluminated until God produced the light corresponding to them. 28. The great Basil said that the heavenly shell stretched around [the visible world] not only separated the premium light from what is in the world, but in general, what is outside it from what is inside 874. For just as there is nothing internal that is not distant from the supermundane, so everything supermundane is distant from the internal: therefore, both the ministering spirits and all angelic power were distant. But did the great [Vasily] also call them distant as incapable of passing? Not at all. But as inaccessible to sense, as not being in it, and for whom it is not characteristic to be seen living according to it. But what do I call those living according to mere feeling who were not even such then? For even people who live according to the flesh and, in caring for it, completely suppress the rational principle, cannot accept the coming and conversation of angels. Therefore, after a person disobeyed God and heard from Him: “you are earth, and you will return to earth” (Gen. 3:19), heaven was locked for him. And it is written that not only is Adam separated from the angels, who was formerly united in his way of life with them, but he is also stripped of the garments of imperishable light, according to the golden-tongued John 875, in which Moses and Elijah again clothed themselves at Tabor when the Lord shone upon them. Is it because after disobedience the body of heaven became more dense or solid that we are separated from the angelic light and from the angels themselves? Not at all. But since man can no longer contain what is there, and is thus separated from the angels, as if from those who are at war with him, it is written that heaven is locked. Therefore, again, when, due to the inimitable abyss of love for mankind, the Son of the Highest Father became the only begotten Son of Man, and raised His creation to the highest dignity, He says: “from here you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man” (John 1:51). 29. And, however, who does not know that the Holy Spirit can pass through everything without hindrance? But when the Lord was baptized, they were dissolved, it is said, and the heavens were opened, and the Spirit descended on Him (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:21–22), as if the density of the body of heaven, if it had not parted, would have prevented the passage of the All-Holy Spirit to the earth. From here Akindinus’s intelligence will [perhaps] prove that the Holy Spirit is also created, as is the pre-mundane and pre-mundane illumination. But why does Scripture show the heavens to be opened at the passage of the Spirit? To show that previously it was closed due to sin and prevented the descent of the Spirit on us, since those who sin cannot contain the Divine Spirit. In the same way, the sky, stretched everywhere, blocked and interrupted the light from above - not because it was impossible for it to pass through, but because the sensual cannot accommodate this ineffable radiance, and are not able to see thanks to it with the sensual power [of vision]. 30. But “Stephen, filled with faith and the Holy Spirit,” according to what is written in the “Acts” of the divine apostles, looked up into heaven, seeing the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said: “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” (Acts 7:55–56). And that the heavenly glory of God, which Stephen also “looked up to” then, is uncreated - this, together with all the other saints, the divine Primate of Nyssa Gregory presented to us, praising the champion in the martyrs 876. If it is invisible when the heavens are not open, and, therefore, is blocked by them, then how is it then uncreated and immaterial? But neither the heavenly shell is ever dissected or revealed, nor is the glory and illumination [coming] from above blocked by its density. But with the help of such [images], Scripture demonstrates that for those who have not acquired the power of the Holy Spirit, but who see with created and natural power, and even more so sensually (κατ´ αίσθησιν), the divine is completely inconceivable and inconceivable. For those who, with God-like power, see such divine visions (θεοπτίας), everything that seems to obscure [the view] becomes invisible, not disintegrating or passing into oblivion, but overcome by the inexpressible phenomenon (επιφανείας) of this light. 31. Therefore, the great Anthony, according to the great Athanasius, being under the roof and diligent in prayer, when he was surrounded by demons and attacked in the most frantic and varied manner, “looking up, he saw the roof as if opening up, and a certain ray of light descending towards him. And the demons suddenly became invisible, the bodily pain immediately stopped, and the house was whole again. Anthony, feeling this help and breathing more freely, feeling relief from suffering, prayed to the vision that appeared, saying: “Where have you been until now? Why didn’t you come from the very beginning to end my suffering?” And a voice came to him: “Antony, I was here, but I was waiting to see your struggle. And since you endured and were not defeated, I will always be your helper and will make sure that you become famous everywhere” 877. Who is it to whom the great Anthony prayed? For it is said that he prayed to the vision that appeared. Who is this one who waits to see the deeds of the saints and, after the deeds, gives rewards for the deed? Who is always present and always helps them? Who makes them famous? What kind of light is this, which, as soon as it appeared, put all the multitude of demons to flight, stopped suffering, and gave spiritual joy? Isn’t this the Comforter himself, Whose opposing darkness is Satan, and not the saints alone, the ineffable lightness of the trinitarian nature, because of which Theophan, the divine musician, sings to this deified: “With the three-solar radiance, all-wise, we illuminate, the evil, blessed, the demons’ ferocity, and the wounds of illness, like a spider, have destroyed you" 878 ? What is this light that was present and not visible, to which the one who, thanks to this vision, became a viewer of God, like Moses and Elijah, said: “Where have you been until now? Why didn’t you come from the very beginning to end my suffering?” What kind of light is this, by the appearance of which the house parted and the roof opened and fell apart, without moving, for it immediately appeared whole and continued to exist, but, as I said, being overcome by the inexpressible phenomenon of the ineffable light? 32. The upper part of the house has undergone this to a greater extent, since, as we have learned from the experienced, the unfalse manifestation of light and the divine illumination of light to those who are divinely enlightened always appears to be pouring out from above, and at first immediately lifts (άνατείνει) 879 upward all those who are worthy of it. And not seeing anything as an obstacle, they consider everything to be open: the air, the ether, the sky itself. And if they happen to voluntarily move into underground caves, then they will see the very earth above their heads parted, when grace shows some great mystery there too. And the vision that suddenly appeared and everything parted, and whether it parted or not, and how, scattering and expelling from consideration, it completely captures the seer (μόνης εαυτής όλον ποιείται τον όρώντα) 880, so that he cannot even understand whether he is clothed with a body or not, for [he then] does not know not only what is visible, but even what he sees. When that ineffable contemplation ends, then, to the extent possible, he concludes and argues about it by analogy, or rather, to the extent possible, reveals the high and no less reliable understanding granted by the divine [contemplation]. And he speaks about the opening and blocking (διάφραξιν) of sensory bodies in order to show that not just thought (νόημα) and some knowledge [consisting] of thoughts is that most divine light, which is so alien and exalted in relation to all sensory things that when they appear, then this one is implicit, and when this one appears, it is impossible for it to appear. And the understanding of the Barlaamite Akindinus therefore reduces to the level of matter, body and creation this pre-worldly and pre-worldly, and pre-heavenly, and endless, and non-evening light, being truly something “spiritual” and “not accepting”, and incapable of knowing “even the Spirit,” as the divine Paul said (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, Basil the Great, presenting this [understanding] as an obvious error, then called this light intelligent 881. CHAPTER 11. Proof based on the quotations given by Akindinus from the great Dionysius and also written by him on his own, that we worship one divinity, and he worships two alien and unequal, and completely separate from each other. 33. But Akindinus’s blasphemy against the pre-worldly and pre-worldly light is a certain contribution of his to the slander of Barlaam, increasing and reinforcing the latter’s evil atrocities against the light of the Lord’s transfiguration. Then, having become his tongue and clearly taking over from him [the baton, Akindinus] calls us erring and on the basis of the words of the great Dionysius, who writes: “Then, when we become incorruptible and immortal and achieve the Christ-like and most blessed ending, we are “always with the Lord,” according to the Saying, “we will be” (1 Thess. 4:17), full of visible His theophany in all-pure contemplations, illuminating us with the clearest illuminations, as disciples in the most divine transfiguration, with a dispassionate and disembodied mind partaking of the intelligible His light-giving (φωτοδοσίας) and the unity that exceeds the mind in the unknown and blissful finding of the most luminous ( ύπερφανών) rays" 882. So, again citing this [passage from the Areopagite], he says that we conclude from this “that in Christ there are two uncreated divinities, and we consider one to be a visible manifestation of God, and the second to be an intelligible illumination. Or rather, the first - not even this, but about the other we think that she herself is [at the same time] a visible theophany, and an intelligible light-giving, and a unity that exceeds the mind, not realizing that since Christ has a Body, and He enlightens it more than the sun, then the lofty Dionysius calls it His visible theophany; and by the intelligible illumination of His invisible and one uncreated divinity, as far as possible, representation, and comprehension, and [which is] a higher state in comparison with that [that is, with the visible manifestation of God].” 34. Who, then, thinks that there are two divinities in Christ? This is Akindinus, who is clearly speaking here about one of His uncreated divinity, to which, according to him, belongs both the intelligible light-giving and the unity that exceeds the mind, and the other - His created divinity, in which “Christ will come again,” according to the great Athanasius, “radiating from the body ineffable glory, as He showed in part on the mountain” 883, being unchanged forever, without any change in relation divinity, according to which it will eternally illuminate those who have reached the Christ-like end, or we, who say, as he himself here testifies, that both the intelligible light-giving and the unity that transcends the mind belong to Christ’s divinity alone? Do you see the denunciation he himself brings both of his [own] wickedness and of his slander against us? “But I call,” he says, “the one uncreated, to which [belongs] the intelligible light-giving and the unity that transcends the mind.” But also one, O valiant one, [you call] created: the visible theophany that illuminated the apostles on Tabor, which theologians in many places call [existent] both above sight, and even above thought, as the most supernatural. For it says [the divine chant] that “throwing down the disciples to the earth, they cannot bear to see the invisible sight” 884. And one and one are two. And the fact that, in your opinion, one remains uncreated and the other created, in no way allows the two to converge into one. One will not have the nature or energy of the other so that they will henceforth be inseparable, neither will both have the same nature or energy so that they can be united according to this [sign]. For created [nature and energy] is created, and uncreated is uncreated. So you not only say that there are two divinities of Christ, but that they are in every way foreign, and alienated, and separated from each other in the highest degree. “But you,” he says, “say that there are two divinities, even if both were uncreated.” And yet, you yourself find yourself testifying verbatim that I call the same [divinity] visible, and intelligible, and [existent] above the mind. Then why do you again reject what you say? What is it, if it is neither visible, nor intelligible, nor above the mind? And how is it possible to talk about two, talking about one and the same thing according to all these [characteristics]? Do you see the baselessness of the lie? 35. But even if I call God supreme of all affirmation and negation, then even then I will not say that there are many divinities. For I have been taught and worship one divinity in one trinitarian essence, omnipotent and active, [divinity] uncreated not only in essence, but also in hypostases, and in powers, and in energies. “For in God there is nothing created,” according to the divine Maximus, “just as in man there is nothing uncreated” 885. So, this God, one in a single divinity, invisible in essence, according to theologians, “becomes visible by energies, being contemplated in certain properties [observed] around Him” 886, “and none of the divine properties is acquired” 887. So we are not talking about two uncreated divinities, but while Barlaam and Akindinus impiously dissect one divinity into created and uncreated and call only the highest essence of all vision uncreated, and the energies and properties by which God is seen - created, we, piously uniting the divinity they impiously tear apart, say that both are uncreated - both the essence of God and energy. And we cite the God-bearing fathers who call uncreated divinity either the highest essence of all manifestation and expression, or the godly revealed and named energies, so that neither one nor the other is outside the one uncreated divinity. That is why the great Dionysius here shows the lightness of the divine nature, which in the next century the godlike will eternally see ineffably illuminating them from the godly body, as uncreated, since it is god-creating energy. 36. After all, just above what was just cited, he said that “now we are initiated into the intelligible [mysteries] with the help of sensible [things], and with the help of existing ones into the superessential, and with the help of private symbols into supernatural and imageless simplicity” 888, then he adds: “and then, when we become incorruptible and immortal, and we achieve the Christ-like and the most blessed ending, we will be illuminated by the visible manifestation of God, like the disciples in the most divine transfiguration” 889. Therefore, it is obvious that he showed that this theophany is not only above the sensible, but also above all things, or, in other words, that it is super-essential and uncreated. After all, it is now, he says, that we are initiated into the heavenly things by beings, and not then. For then there will be no need for air, or light, or place, or other such things, but instead of everything we will then, according to the apostolic and paternal traditions, have God 890. So this visible theophany is not sensual light, and it is not through it, which is sensual, as Akindinus foolishly says, that the uncreated light is then seen. But what was then visible and ineffably seen on the mountain by the apostles is the uncreated light, for “the unapproachable and timeless light that transformed His flesh,” as the divinely inspired Primate of Crete Andrew writes, “shone super-essentially with the excess of its luminosity” 891. How will the super-essential light be a created and sensory light? How is he, being lordship, called divinity? How does he [stay] beyond everything? How does one conquer all nature? Why is there not one of the existing ones that could accommodate his excess of lordship? How is he food for angels? Why is it not only seen, but also praised by them? Why is he the original beauty (άρχέτυπον κάλλος), the beginningless ray, unlimited radiance and the like? And what is the need to re-list everything that has already been said a thousand times? 37. So, since [this divinity] was visible - although ineffable and supernatural, for [that light] was visible "by the change of feelings that the Spirit wrought in them who passed from the flesh to the spirit" 892 - it is called visible and intelligible divinity, as showing what is knowable in God, and positive determinations about Him ( καταφατικούς λόγους ) representing in words of truth: not only [what is said about Him] that He is Lightness, and ineffable Beauty, and the highest Light, the Enlightenment of all verbal nature, and That among the intelligible, as among the sensible is the sun, but also that He is Wisdom and Goodness, and Power. And since an unbearable spectacle was offered, and, moreover, [unbearable] for those so experienced in the divine [men], who supernaturally accept and [at the same time] do not accept, what is most paradoxical, the feeling of what is beyond nature, and initiation into it, is and is called the highest mind and the highest vision of not only people, but also the angels themselves. “For the glory was hidden,” says [John of Damascus], “in the visible body for those who cannot perceive what is invisible to the angels, until their eyes changed, so that from the blind they became seeing” 893, and: “they saw in a frenzy from all sensory and mental perception” 894. But this revealed the incomprehensibility and super-unknowability of God’s essence, or, in other words, indicated the method of superior and apophatic theology, as the divine Maximus said. And thus this lordship, in itself showing the greatness of the divine nature that gives it, showed [its] inseparability from it, demonstrating that the one divinity of God, in the uncreated essence, and uncreated power and energy, and radiance, and grace, and lordship, is recognizable, which [themselves] dissecting into created and uncreated, Varlaam and Akindinus then call those who consider more than one uncreated to be ditheists. only the divine essence, but also the glory, and grace, and lordship of the divine nature, just as Arius [called ditheists] those who thought not only the Father, but also the Son, uncreated. “But,” he says, “the lofty Dionysius calls the body of Christ a visible theophany.” Yes, but contemplated in the ever-present light, and illuminating those who see, like disciples in that most divine transformation, which is the light we are talking about. And you clearly and in many places of your writings have this light - I don’t know what happened to you! – you call it created and sensual; We are of one mind with the God-enlightened fathers - uncreated, timeless, incomparable, beginningless, unevening, endless. “But I,” he says, “extol him, although he is sensual, and call him higher than any sun, as you have heard.” It seems that your senses are also perverted, and you are not even able to see that in the sensory world there is only one sun, for “all sorts of things” are said not about one, but about many, and “sun” is the singular number. So you, having imagined and put together many suns, also imagined that [thereby] you exalt over many creations that which you consider to be a creation. But the divinely inspired Damascene is not like that, but rejecting your superlatives as wicked and following the gospel words of God, he says: “he shone like the sun, not because He was not brighter than the sun, but turning to those bound by the bonds of the flesh, he gives an example that is not completely likened. For it is impossible for the uncreated to be reflected in creation without omissions” 895. CHAPTER 12. About the fact that in a distorted form he also cited the speech of honest Maxim, thanks to which it is exposed that he fell into many oddities, inventing that the light of transfiguration is flesh, and from different sides showing himself to be a polytheist and at the same time an atheist. 38. Akindinus again says: “But the wondrous Maximus, interpreting this statement of the great Dionysius, says that the great man here called the animate flesh of Christ a visible theophany, against those who think that Christ is not with the body.” Truly, Akindinovo's understanding, which he acquired in the teachings of the God-bearers, is a kind of ordinary truncation and perversion of divine [words]. For he not only dissects one divinity into two heterogeneous ones, but also tears the divine utterances of the saints into opposing [each other] thoughts, in which he was exposed in many cases before, [so] and in the slightly higher [cited] spiritually moving words of God’s lamp Dionysius. Now he not only truncates what honest Maximus wrote to explain these [words of Dionysius] in order to give them the opposite meaning, but also forges the words themselves, since if not distorted, they would never be able to accommodate his malice. After all, the divine Maximus, having previously said about the contemplation of Christ-like [men] that they will be, according to the Apostle, “like Him, that is, like Christ” 896, that is, not only people, but also gods, becoming not only contemplators, but also partakers of divinity (2 Peter 1:4) by grace, then added: “It should be noted that [the teacher] calls His divine body visible theophany” 897, and showed that the great Dionysius taught that not only the lightness of the divine nature in Christ is visible to Christ-like people, but also His body illuminated by it, co-present as on Tabor. And although the honest Maxim said both of these things explicitly, Akindinus, having completely cut off some of the words and in others cleared up the connection indicating the connection of lordship with this [previously said], says that the wise Maxim called only the body itself, and the animate flesh of the Lord, a visible theophany. Consequently, according to Akindinus, that light is nothing other than flesh, which obviously [serves as a sign of] wickedness: after all, it is impossible to even imagine how the light will be animate flesh 898 . Truly, if simply the Master’s body, His animate flesh, is a visible manifestation of God, then what then is transfiguration? Or, according to Akindin, nothing? Why, then, was it visible to them only on the top of Tabor and only to those who ascended with Jesus [the disciples], and did it clearly shine to them, and not throughout all of Judea and not to everyone who lived then, or at least to [everyone] who accepted the incarnate Word as the true Son of God? Isn’t Akindinus’s doctrine of light completely devoid of light? 39. But the divine Maximus echoes the God-speaking Dionysius and says that the intelligible theophany will then be more fully participated by us 899. Akindinus calls it a kind of representation and understanding of uncreated divinity - but you will not find someone who has not acquired it even now, unless it is someone completely uninitiated. And communion is far removed from understanding. After all, acquiring the understanding of love and goodness, and in general any virtue (even the most perfect one) is easy, but becoming involved [in it] is [among] extremely difficult [things]. And the wise Maximus in the divine there calls the most perfect manifestation of God not that which is above the intellect, but the intelligible itself, without separating it from that [most perfect]. But Akindinus calls only the highest of the mind the most perfect, which he also calls the highest state, poorly separating it from others, not understanding that these things are divided inseparably and are composed separately. But the intelligible [theophany] itself, strong in the divine, was called by Maximus to be more perfectly participated, not in comparison with what is visible, but with what now arises in the worthy. That’s why he said: “Then we will be more perfect.” And Akindinus, comparing with each other those theophany and light-giving, which he himself does not distinguish well, calls one higher than the other and a more perfect state. 40. And it is obvious that the divine Maximus then calls it there both visible and intelligible, and more than the mind, a theophany. “When,” he says, “turning to God, and from there being perfectly illuminated, we become one in one form (έν γενώμεθα), freed from the contradictions inherent in our composition [of soul and body] (έτεροτήτων)” 900, which he himself makes even more clear in another place, saying: “The soul becomes God by communion of divine grace, and itself finding peace from all the actions characteristic of the mind and feeling (ενεργειών), and at the same time restraining the natural energies of the body, deified along with it according to its corresponding participation in deification: so that one God appears through the soul and body, when natural signs are overcome by the excess of glory 901 And Akindinus does not even give this to Christ, but teaches that through His animate flesh the created and sensual light always appears, and declares that the contemplation of this sensual light is a constant reward for those who see God-like and above the senses forever. 41. After all, Gregory, nicknamed from theology, says: “And a little later the soul, having again received the related flesh, with which together it philosophized about the things there, together with it inherits the glory there, having absorbed all [the flesh] into itself and becoming with it one spirit, and mind, and god, when the mortal and the current are swallowed up by life” 902. And Akindinus grants to them the taste of created and sensual light and deification [accessible] through it, dissecting, unfortunate one, the deity into created and uncreated, and offering communion to the created divinity to godlike [people], and to the uncreated - only imagination and naked mental representation, since, in his opinion, even the uncreated divinity is not idolizing, but that which he calls created. So, is it not he who misunderstands and reinterprets the divine, and therefore cuts [it] in two, and is rejected from the true worshipers of God? And even if someone stops considering his very opinions and such and such innovations regarding the veneration of Christ, then the very fact that he fearlessly distorts and falsifies some of the fatherly sayings, and even more so in such [questions], is it not possible to “put a part of him with the unbelievers” (Luke 12:46)? And the fact that he is trying to show the theologians themselves, and in particular - the luminaries, among others, who do not agree with themselves and with each other, and especially in relation to piety, does not this definitely place him in the camp of opponents? 42. The very fact that he calls slanderous and openly anathematizes those with whom he is of the same mind shows that he is a complete atheist, and does not even consider the one whom [he] calls God to be the true God. And [his godlessness is also evidenced] by the fact that he speaks about the same thing and invents the opposite, and especially not just once, but many times, but [also] that he calls God an essence without energy, under the pretext of [His] simplicity: for that which does not possess any energy is not simple, but not existing. “For what nature is inactive,” says the God-bearing Maxim, “or [exists] outside of natural energy? For since it is by no means alien to existence, it is not alien to natural force; and if it is deprived of it, then it will lose its existence” 903. So Akindinus, following his own opinions, will declare the deification of [humanity] perceived by the Lord to be created. And not only here and under the pretext of the light of divine transfiguration, but also in every way, as in the letter to the wise primate Cyzicus, we have given verbatim [his words] with the help of which he dared to prove this, and are completely refuted 904. 43. Of course, when he says that God is an essence without energy, and when he calls the essence of God the only uncreated one, he also imagines in Christ one will and energy, and that is not uncreated, but created. For in Christ the divine nature, according to him, has no energy. And since that which does not have energy does not exist at all, then, following his own dogmas, he will glorify one nature in Christ, and that not uncreated, but created: for the nature of each corresponds to its own energy. But isn’t his opposition [to the fathers] obvious, even to the point of complete contradiction of words, in relation to the divine incarnation itself? For he either represents Christ as composed of three natures, or denies that there are two; and sometimes he speaks of His two divinities, sometimes of one. It happens - alas for his godlessness! - when he says that none of them is uncreated. This, however, will be seen even more clearly throughout his words by those who consider [the following conclusions] with all necessity. CHAPTER 13. About the fact that earlier the inventor of evil tried to seduce with polytheism, and now, supposedly defending unity, he insidiously tries to divert from the one God. 44. Once the inventor of error, tearing the human race away from God, proclaimed in Hellenic language that there are many gods - heavenly, earthly, underground - and almost all people persuaded with the help of the eloquence of those [Hellenes] to honor them, as if God alone could not preserve this heavenly and earthly, and everywhere (παντοδαπόν ) animal - human. Since the error was exposed, when Christ appeared as the only God of all, omnipotent and omnipotent, Who, having come from heaven to earth and then descending from it into hell, and again coming out from there, and returning to heaven together with the human [nature] that He had assumed, “created everything according to His will” in all [these regions] (Ps. 113:11, 134:6), then the leader of error chose a different path. He [now] pretends that he has abandoned the polytheistic error, and pretends to push everyone towards the one God, each time with the voices of slander, but in reality - to remove them from the one God. For he convinces heretics with sophistic reasoning that He is not Trinitarian and not omnipotent. For they say: “How is it that God is from God, and uncreated divinity from uncreated divinity? Are there not then two uncreated Gods and two divinities? If, of these uncreated ones, one is greater and superior, and the other is in second place and in one way or another inferior, then [it turns out that there are] either two Gods, or one composite of these [two], made up of the superior and inferior. Consequently, if the Son (or the Holy Spirit) is also uncreated, then He is in no way different from the Father, but one and the same - Father and Son. And if the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct from the Father, then the one uncreated God is the Father, who is above all God 905, having in essence his own ungeneracy and all the power and energy corresponding to Him. And He who comes from Him is somehow inferior to Him, being one of those created by Him.” 45. What do they want to introduce with this? No longer polytheism, but rather atheism. After all, [if] what Father has a Son who is not the true God, then how will the Father [of such a Son] be true God? How will he who begat created things be truly uncreated? How will there be a Father or a Son if each of them is one and the same, when each will be directed towards non-existence by the Other? Therefore, in this too the leader of deception is exposed, while the fathers preached in three uncreated Persons, hypostatically distinct, one God and therefore wisely rejected both fusion and composition. For the One in three hypostases, unfused and incomposite, since the three God-originating hypostases are united not only by the same nature, but also by the same desire, strength and energy, which most of all demonstrates the unity of divinity (since, since the divine nature is above all identification, naming and expression, divinity is the name of activity, namely visual, and god-creating, and the like, and not like ours, isolated [from each other], in one person is contemplated, but [flowing] from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit is proclaimed by God-given utterances and is known by all creatures) shows the unity and simplicity in the divinity of the three God-originating Persons. 46. But even in this, having been thus exposed, the incredibly skillful 906 in deception [Satan] did not finally want to calm down, and did not tolerate those listening to him departing from the path leading to atheism, but, having feigned hatred for part of the former error, so that he could hide from the attention of many, and taking part back, so that with its help he would drag at least some to the abyss no worse, he again incites the servants It is a mistake to say that they worship one God, and, moreover, a Trinitarian one, however, not so that nature, will, strength, energy, the Kingdom, wisdom, goodness, infinity, simplicity and the like are common and united for the Three [Persons], but so that all this is one, only the essence, and everything that is apart from it would be created. “After all, if the divine,” they say, “the power and energy called divinity, will be uncreated and [arising] from uncreated divinity, the essence of God, then how can there not be two uncreated gods and [two uncreated] divinities? If, of these uncreated ones, one, as a cause, is located above, and the other is in second place and inferior [to the first] in that it is from it, then there will be either two divinities, or one composite of them, composed of a higher and lower divinity. So, if the divine will, power, and energy are uncreated, then they are in no way different from the uncreated essence, for so there will be one divinity and one uncreated God. If they are different from it, then one uncreated divinity is the essence of God, which surpasses them as their cause; and these, from it [originating] and in one way or another inferior to it and different from it, are among the creations of God.” 47. What do they prove through this and what are they trying to convince? That no divinity is in any way uncreated. For if any essence’s strength, energy, and desire are created, then how can it itself be uncreated? How will there be essence and energy in general if each of them remains identical in everything to the other? For [then] each, being supplanted by the other, will with all necessity rush towards non-existence, and through each other - both. It is also impossible for them to alternate successively with each other, so that first one and then that one would exist in beings without the other, and even more so constantly. “For what,” says the divine Maximus, “nature [exists] outside of natural energy? For since it is by no means alien to existence, it is not alien to natural force; and if it is deprived of it, then it will lose its existence” 907. The same can be consistently said about energy. For what is natural energy without nature, from which and in which it has its being, and from which it differs in what [comes from] it? If it is not involved in the nature from which it is and in which it is, then it will be absolutely not involved in existence. 48. So, we, having exposed and rejected this error leading to atheism, worship the one divinity of the one God in uncreated essence, and strength, and desire, and energy, well refuting with the grace of Christ both the fusion and the composition, or, in other words, the atheism clearly defended by Akindinus and the polytheism slanderously attributed to us by him. Atheism - since we know well the difference [of essence and energy] in relation to each other, and do not allow both to be abolished through each other; and slander - because we know both essence and energy belong to one God and have unity from Him, unfused with each other. For no essence has ever been perceived without standing (στάσεως) or movement; in other words, without energy and strength. If there is anyone here initiated into the excellent withdrawals of God 908, then let him know that as applied to Him, the withdrawals are in no way opposed to the statements 909. Just as the essence is not composite due to standing, although standing is clearly different from standing, so because of movement, the same thing can be said - energy, the active essence will not be composite. CHAPTER 14. About what Akindinus says nonsense, as if it is because of the impotence of our knowledge that we call the energies of God many and different. 49. But Akindinus’s wavering tongue and reason, which cannot stop anywhere, just as Plato’s myth speaks of the still disordered and formless matter of everything 910, sometimes openly imposes an anathema on those who say that God’s energies are created. And thus, having deceived many of the simple ones, he acted as if we had slandered him, as if he called the divine energies created. If someone stops him and asks: “How can you still accuse them of polytheism, as thinking that God is uncreated not only in essence, but also in energy?” - he immediately returns again to calling them created, and to the merging of essence and energy, embarking on many reasonings and not using the same [arguments] in all [cases]. And he tries to catch the inexperienced, saying, as if something wise - which he even dared to commit to writing - that “due to the fragmentation (τό μεριστόν) we pronounce in the plural the uncreated powers and energies of God, being unable to speak or even think, without sharing ( άμερίστως), about the indivisible (περί των αμέριστων). But these uncreated ones, whether we call them power or forces, energy and grace or energies and graces, are not something other than the divine essence. For everything besides it, whether it is called energy, or grace, or anything else, we know as creation.” 50. If someone, after thinking a little again and turning his mind to these statements, says: “Okay, dear, after all, according to the proverb, you come home from home, constructing a slander against yourself - and, moreover, a double one instead of a simple one - and subjecting yourself to your own anathema. For you lie against them, as if they slandered you, when they did not slander, but against yourself - as if you think that the divine energies are not created, when you clearly think that they are created. For nothing other than essence is nothing other than essence. So, either God, in your opinion, does not have energies, or they are created for Him, if He has them, since, in your opinion, everything except the divine nature is creation. Therefore, in this way you show yourself to think exactly as they say about you, and after that you also anathematize those who call divine energies created.” If, then, someone tells him something like that, he will again see him easily turn around to the other side. 51. Nevertheless, if, due to the fragmentation of our knowledge, we pronounce in the plural the powers and energies of God, as he says, then, even if he did not want this, and according to him, the energies of God will be different in relation to the essence of God, since in relation to it everything is the other way around. For none of those who chose to be pious ever spoke of it in the plural. However, we think of it as indivisible, and we always talk about it as absolutely indivisible. And therefore we know that the divine energy is different from it, since we are sometimes taught to call this in the plural, but the divine essence is always in the singular. If we are not incapable of reasoning about essence and thinking that it is indivisible, then obviously this is nonsense - that “due to the fragmentation of our knowledge, we pronounce in the plural the uncreated forces and energies of God, being unable to speak or even think, without dividing, about the indivisible.” For in a similar way we would experience this in relation to the uncreated essence, and especially, according to the teacher (ύφηγήτην) of this amazing invention, since, in his opinion, the uncreated energy is no different from the uncreated essence. 52. But how does the powerlessness and fragmentation of our knowledge not prevent us from saying and thinking about God that He is one, although, according to Akindinus, God is not other in relation to uncreated energy? How then does he himself consider not only the divine essence, but it and the divine energy [to be] one and indistinguishable, and, since they are absolutely inseparable from each other, insist and reason about them, although human knowledge cannot, without dividing, think and reason about the inseparable? Or was he alone of all who was granted supernatural knowledge and reasoning, that alone, without dividing, he thinks and reasons about the indivisible? And what about Sabellius the Libyan? Wouldn't he say the same thing, if it were true, he would immediately seem not only freed from accusations of slander, but also superior to [all] former theologians from the century? The whole tribe, which still adheres to the Law-based [Mosaic] worship 911, will rejoice that we, due to the impotence of knowledge, have not reached [the level of] their indivisible and absolutely indistinguishable theology 912. After all, we are taught by God-transmitted sayings exactly the opposite: that because of the powerlessness of their knowledge, God through the prophets did not clearly reveal the division of a single divinity into hypostases. 53. So, it serves as a sign of the highest and strongest way of thinking, and not - as Akindinus said - crawling on the ground and powerless, to notice divisibility in the indivisible. For God is indivisibly divided not only according to hypostases, but also according to general appearances and energies, as we have explained at length in a special treatise devoted to this [issue] 913, and considered in the preceding present word. And division (μερισμός) is not dissection (τομή) and separation (χωρισμός), but difference. For hypostasis differs from the divine essence; and three hypostases - from each other; and the energies of the Trinitarian God differ from each other and from the essence, but are not separated from each other. For all this is one God in one trinitarian and omnipotent essence. Therefore, to recognize the difference of such [things] in the one God is [a sign of] a more insightful thought, reliable and perfect in relation to the worship of God. Akindinus, considering his ignorance as common sense, and the low level of knowledge as the height of understanding, and thus in vain exalted himself, even more “foolishly, saying to be wise” (Rom. 1:22), and as completely “devoted to an unskilled mind” (Rom. 1:28), always jumps, poor fellow, alternately from one heresy to another. For, having said this to the inexperienced, as we have said, he, if anyone answers it in the manner aforesaid, will readily answer these objections again by writing and saying: “The uncreated and divine powers and energies of the Father are the Son and the Holy Spirit.” CHAPTER 15. That, since he says that the Son and the Holy Spirit are energy, he agrees with Sabellius. 54. And if that [his opponent] once again, having enough intelligence to consider in totality what was said at different times and survey what comes out of it, again says to him: “You are the one who said a little higher that “due to the fragmentation of our knowledge, we pronounce in the plural the uncreated powers and energies of God, not being able to speak or even think, without dividing, about the indivisible,” and now you say that these energies and forces are the Father’s Son and Holy Spirit. Therefore, in your opinion, we say that They are three, and we separate Them from each other because of the fragmentation and powerlessness of our knowledge, while They Themselves are not three in hypostases, and are not separated from each other, and you have appeared in our times as a new Sabellius.” But even now let him also be ashamed of God’s lamp Dionysius, who says: “In this way we try to both unite the divine and divide, because the divine itself is both united and divided” 914. So, if anyone, having connected this again, speaks wisely, then Akindinus, easily imputing shame into nothing, and considering the impermanence of his own words as nothing, asserts that “the only uncreated power and energy is the Son.” So he seems to be saying [that one must] pronounce Him in the plural, since men cannot call Him in the singular, although almost no man has ever been able to call the one Son of God more than one. Thus, in a variety of ways and [even] more than those who were equally crazy before him, he mocks the dogmas of truth. CHAPTER 16. That he poorly understands in what sense it is said that the power and energy of the Father is the Son alone. And that, rightly understood, this statement shows that the common power and energy of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is uncreated and distinct from the common essence. 55. But let us leave the inconsistency and contradiction of his previous words in relation to his subsequent ones, and let us examine how he calls the Son the only uncreated power and energy. For this, being well understood, shows that the common power and energy of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is uncreated. And leading us to this pious thought, the divine fathers call not only the Son, but sometimes the Spirit alone, such power and energy, and it happens that they also call the Father, Whom they sometimes call the power of the Son. For [interpreting the words] of the psalmist David, who said: “The Lord reigned, clothed with beauty... and girded with strength” (Ps. 93:1), [Saint Gregory] says that “the strength and beauty of the Son is the Father” 915. But the wise and divine Maximus also speaks to the wickedly teaching about one will and energy in Christ, that the source of uncreated energy and will is the essence of God; the divinely inspired singers call Him the source of wisdom and foreknowledge. But in other places [of their writings] theologians deny that any of the three hypostases would be and be called energy. After all, according to the divine Gregory of Nyssa, “[the word] “God” indicates the agent, and “divinity” indicates the action. And none of the Three is an action, but rather each of them is an agent” 916. And Gregory, nicknamed from theology, says: “I remembered the sun, ray and light. But here it is appropriate not to attribute essence to the Father, but to leave others without hypostasis, but to make the powers of God inherent (ένυπάρχουσας) [to hypostases], and not [hypostatically] existing (ύφεστώσας)" 917. 56. So, if only the Son were uncreated force and energy, not having nature as the source of uncreated will and energy, and if He alone was [it], and not also the Holy Spirit and the Father himself, and if it was said about each of them only that He is energy, and not also what He is not, then perhaps very wandering sophisms would be somewhat appropriate ( πολυπλανή σοφίσματα) words of Akindinus. Now it turns out to be completely obvious that they are filled with all kinds of deceit and all kinds of evil frivolity. Indeed, just as, by denying the existence of many divinities, he was exposed as impious, for [he did this] not in order to piously proclaim one [divinity], but in order to impiously tear it apart, so now he calls only the Son uncreated energy, so that, under the pretext of defending one uncreated energy, he can hide the fact that he divided into created and uncreated the one energy of the Father, Son and Spirit. 57. Let us therefore see how he says that the Son alone is uncreated power and energy. Does he teach that strength and energy are hypostatic [features]? Consequently, it is impossible for it to be said about the Son that He is not energy, and the Father and the Holy Spirit are not an activity, and not one and common, and the uncreated power and energy will be the same in three Persons, but in two - one, but rather in one of the two, and not in both. And the Son does not have uncreated power and energy, since He does not have [another] son; and there will never be uncreated energy from Him, since there will never be a son. How then does the divine Luke, preaching the gospel, say that “the power of the Lord did not heal” those who came together “from all sorts of things” (Luke 5:17), and that “all the people sought to touch Him, for the power came from Him and healed all” (Luke 6:19), and the Lord Himself told His disciples when a woman suffering from bleeding was imperceptibly healed only by grasping the edge cloak: “Someone will touch Me: I sensed the power that came from Me” (Luke 8:46). 58. If the active and creative power and energy and grace, as Akindinus writes, is the Son Himself, not in the sense that He has such power, energy and grace, but as being nothing else besides it, then what is the healing power emanating from Him? Moreover, how then is it not His son and from Him [born], if the uncreated power is His and from Him? If, together with the Son, the Father, the Holy Spirit, and God in general, whatever He may be, is active divine power and energy, not as possessing divine power and energy, but as being nothing else besides it, - as Akindinus writes this literally, - then such power and energy emanate from the Son, and the Son is their source, like the Holy Spirit, according to the great Basil 918, then who could count the multitude of those who follow from here absurdities? 59. Really, if the Son is power, not as having power, then how is He, according to the Apostle, “bearing all things with His power” (Heb. 1:3)? By saying the “verb,” Paul indicated the instantaneous and unhindered fulfillment of the divine will. “For the divine will of Christ is, according to the sacred Damascus, beginningless and omnipotent (παντουργός), having the power that follows it” 919. So, if there is one uncreated power, and it is only the Son, and everything that is apart from it is creation, according to Akindinus, then the power that follows the omnipotent will of Christ, being uncreated, is the Son himself, and it alone is uncreated. It turns out that His beginningless and omnipotent will is created, according to Akindinus. Since Athanasius the Great said [in his work] “To the Hellenes”: “The omnipotent and all-perfect holy Word of the Father, having come to everyone and spreading His powers everywhere, everything that is visible and invisible in Itself contains and gathers (συσφίγγει)” 920, then [it turns out that] Akindinus teaches us that there is not only one son Son, but also many sons of one Son - that is, these powers. And the pretext is especially remarkable - so that we do not fall into polytheism! For he cannot call these forces of the Son created, which contain everything, since in subsequent [words] the Great indicates that such forces are divine providence, saying that “the Word of God contains invisible forces, and lives by His beck and His providence” 921. 60. So, let us omit the rest, of which there is no number, since there are many uncreated powers, but the Son is one, and there is no son of the Son, or sons, and the powers of the Son are uncreated, and after the beginningless and omnipotent will follows His divine power, and not only power, but also will, followed by power - uncreated, and the son does not come from the Son, but the divine “power proceeded from Him and healed all things” (Lk. 6:19), then it is not the Son Himself who is the divine power, so that He would be nothing other than an uncreated power, and this power would be the Son alone, as Akindinus decided to theologize (or rather, innovate). And that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit have a common and one uncreated power and will and energy - this is again represented by the Father of Damascus when he says in the same expressions: “One and the same, not similar, but the same will, energy and power of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” 922. 61. So, if she, according to Akindinus, is the Son - not in the sense that He has the same power as the Father, but as if He Himself was their power, then the Son is not the Father alone - He whom this [Akindinus] calls uncreated energy and power, since He is not the common will, power and energy of the Three. Consequently, according to Akindinus, the Son of God will not be the only Son of the Father. And if the Spirit is added in a similar way, and He is divided in Himself, then not only a quaternity, but also a quintuple of Persons will be presented by his theology in addition to the destruction of the one divinity. After all, if the divine hypostases do not have common power, will and energy, which is collectively contemplated in them, but is not hypostatic in itself, then how, according to the great theologist Gregory, “what is common to the Three is the non-beginning of being (τό μή γεγονέναι) and divinity” 923, when he again speaks in one place [of his] poems: “Three gods should be called Those who were separated from each other by power and will: But my Trinity has one power, one thought, One glory, one power. Therefore, she is an unchanging Unit (αρρευστος?), In the single harmony of the deity, having great glory” 924? And the divine primate of Nissa, Gregory, in the work “To Aulavius”, having said that the “Name” Θεός “ (God) is an indication of “ θεάσθαι “ (look) or “ θέειν “ (run) or “ αίθειν “ (burn), but not of the divine essence,” then adds: “since each Person has such energy completed, it will also have a complete name indicating it, and will be in the proper sense God, and [so] will be called. Since the energy mentioned above is one and unchangeable in the Three, then [Them] have one divinity” 925. So, the fact that this energy is not the divine essence is clearly stated by the theologian; and that it is neither a hypostasis nor any of the hypostatic properties is clearly evident from the fact that it is said that for the Three it is one and unchangeable. And that this general energy, being neither essence, nor hypostasis, nor any of the hypostatic properties, is uncreated, [is shown] by the fact that it is in the proper sense divinity, and that according to it God in the proper sense is called God. And Akindinus, as if covering his ears with wax [in order to remain immune] to so many and such voices of the saints, insanely thinking that he is laughing and mocking us, and not the sacred fathers themselves, says: “From which saint, having taken this, the new theologians further spread that, in addition to the divine nature, there is another uncreated common divinity, the power and energy of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit?” And the God-speaking Gregory, turning to Eunomius, as if to another Akindinus, again says: “this divinity, wisdom, power is by nature an inherent (συμφυές) dignity of God, about which we say that it is all in its own sense and natural (συμφυώς) is contemplated in the only begotten Son” 926. 62. So, it is extremely obvious that uncreated strength and energy are not hypostatic properties, and that thus not only the Son is called strength and energy, since the Lord also said to the Jews: “See the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power” (Matthew 26:64), that is, [at the right hand] of the Father, and to His disciples: “Sit in... Jerusalem until you have been clothed.” by power from above” (Luke 24:49), that is, by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the divine Maximus said to the heretics who once said the same thing in ancient times: “Who has ever spoken about hypostatic energy, and where and from whom do they take this from?” 927 And the great Athanasius, having called the power of the Holy Spirit, then adds: “and in theological discussions (κατά κοινολογίαν δε της θεολογίας) the Son is also called power” 928. And that although uncreated force and energy are common to the Three, it is not the very nature of the Three, this is what he taught. For he not only says that the Three have one power, wisdom, goodness and everything else, but also that [all] this is around the essence, and forbids each of them to be called an essence 929. 63. And Akindinus, who unlawfully dissected the theology of the saints and contrasted it with himself, reducing to the level of creation the common powers and energies of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and opposing us, who insist that they are uncreated, says that “there is no uncreated wisdom and life, and goodness, and strength, and energy, and the like, common to the Holy Trinity, which in one way or another differs from the divine nature.” And, trying to introduce such an evil innovation, he allegedly cites paternal evidence that nothing is co-eternal with God, and that God, the provider and creator of everything, is the only uncreated one, and that nothing else is pre-eternal except the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and many other such things, chattering unreasonably. For how would it not be a sign of extreme madness and at the same time impiety to attribute this opposition not to creatures, but to that which is inherent in God by nature, of which nothing is recent, nothing acquired, nothing exists outside of Him? 64. And another time, freed from such stupidity, he brings the great Athanasius, who said: “The Word alone is the wisdom and reflection of the Father” 930, and “Since there is one God, then there must be one His wisdom” 931, and everything that he and the honest Cyril wrote to those who blasphemed the Son and the Holy Spirit, as if They were the creation. After all, since “one and the same, not similar, but the same wisdom, and power, and energy of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” 932, then if the Son were a creation, then the Father would have no uncreated wisdom, no strength, no energy. Therefore, turning to those who call the Son a creation, it would be pious to say that the Son alone is uncreated wisdom and power: for He is not different from the Father in regard to these things. For in the same way the divine Gregory of Nyssa [in the treatise] “To Apollinaris,” who said that the divinity of the Son died, says that “the Father did not have wisdom, strength, life, or anything else 933 of what the Only Begotten remains and is called” 934. CHAPTER 17. What is the pious understanding, according to which each of the three worshiped Persons is called power and energy. Here again we talk about the general power and energy of the Three. 65. So, the Son alone is the energy of the Father [in the case] when “alone” is opposed not to uncreated energies, but to created things. Since among those who have existence by the sacrament (μετοχή), there are those who are called the powers of God, not only in the plural, but also in the singular, then the Son, if not by the sacrament (μετουσία), has [the property] to be and is called power, but wholly and completely possesses everything that belongs to the Father - not like that, but by that very thing - alone is called by force, as opposed to those named after the sacrament. So is the Father, so is the Holy Spirit, so is the only uncreated force belonging to the Three. But when we call the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit force or energy, then at the same time we mean (or mention it out loud) hypopostacy. And about the eternal energies of the Spirit, as I have said many times, Basil the Great, enumerating them in a list, said: “The Holy Spirit always possesses them, only being hypostatic” 935 . So, each of the three Persons is a [hypostatically] realized (ύθεστώσα) power, however, because of this, the power contemplated by them together is not separated from Them, but because of the constant possession of it, each of the Persons and [all] They together are called power. “For if in essence the Son invariably has,” according to the great Basil, “then he will invariably have in strength: and those who have equal strength have equal energy, for “Christ is God’s power and God’s wisdom” (1 Cor. 1:24).” 936 And according to the divine Cyril: “The Holy Spirit is equal in power and consubstantial with God, having divine energy in Himself by nature.” 937. And according to the great Dionysius: “God is Power, as having in Himself all power in advance and to a superlative degree” 938. 66. In this way, each of them individually and the three together are called one force and energy. The Father is called the power and splendor of the Son, according to the divine psalmist David (Ps. 93:1) and the Nyssa priest Gregory, since from Him the Son has, in addition to everything else, strength. The Son is called the power and energy of the Father, as being from Him, but not being Him by hypostasis. “For the Son is a power, just like the Father 939,” says the all-great Athanasius, “but so that it can be shown that He is not the Father Himself 940, therefore He is the power and energy of the Father. For the Father is not from someone, but He has from the Father 941 the power to be,” and again: “If the will of the Father is in the Son, then how is it possible for Him to become in the will and intention of the Father? After all, it is necessary that the intention about Him take place in some other word (Col. 1:17), in which He also would have been (John 1:3). For the intention of the Father is revealed not in what comes into being, but in that through which” 942. Here he called wisdom by intention, as he himself further explains when he says: “for just as “strength and confirmation” are one and the same, so are “counsel and understanding” (Prov. 8:14), which [all] is the Lord” 943. But do you see to whom this word is addressed, that it is addressed to those who foolishly think of the Son as a creation? And what does this have to do with us when we affirm that not only the divine essence, but also the divine forces and energies are uncreated, and for this we are attacked by Akindinus and Barlaam? Do you also notice why the Son alone is the power and energy and wisdom of the Father? Because He has in Himself the Father’s wisdom, desire and strength - not similar, but the same. Therefore, he again says: “Wisdom says: “My understanding, my strength, my counsel and confirmation” (Proverbs 8:14). This means that He Himself is the living council of the Father, and He is called the will of the Father. For this is how it is fitting to expose them, who think about the God of men: after all, in this way the Son will not be among those who come into being through intention” 944. 67. Nevertheless, since it was previously shown that uncreated force and energy are not hypostases, nor hypostatic [features], but also not nature, it remains that they are inherent in God by nature. Just as the Damascus theologian literally says that “we call wills and energies natural, not hypostatic: I mean the very volitional and active force by which those who desire and act desire and act. If we recognize them as hypostatic, then we will be forced to say that the three hypostases of the Holy Trinity have excellent will and excellent energy (' έτεροθελείς και έτεροενεργεις)" 945. "After all, if each of the nature of what exists in God, - says the divine Cyril, - means essence, then God consists of as many essences as there are inherent [signs] contemplated in Him by nature” 946. 68. So, when it is said about God “the only uncreated,” this is contrasted with creation, and not with that which is inherent in God by nature, which includes both the divine power and the energy corresponding to it. So it is in vain that Akindinus uses this against us, but rather against God and His divine power and energy, and even more precisely, against his own soul. After all, the fact that only the Son is uncreated power and energy does not interfere, but rather even simultaneously shows that the power and energy common to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is uncreated. For, being natural, and not hypostatic, as was said, such power belongs to nature; and whose nature, those and the corresponding strength. And the nature of the Three is common: common, therefore, is natural force and energy. And because of the divine nature, each of the hypostases possesses this natural force and energy and what is called “uncreated force” and “energy.” For, according to the divine Maximus, “nothing natural [property] relates primarily to the individual, but to his nature and essence” 947 . Therefore, and according to what was said above by the fathers, each of the three Persons of divinity is rather active, and not action, unless someone together [with “action”] means (or also pronounces), as we said, “hypostatized.” 69. The Son is also called the power of the Father, according to the great Athanasius, “so that we may think about the impassibility of birth and [its] eternity and the character befitting God” 948. Well, then, we said that the fact that the Son is called the power of the Father serves as an indication of the uncreatedness of the common power of the three worshiped Persons. This is why He is called power, so that His eternity can be shown, since it is generally accepted that power is eternal. And you might notice that theologians use this theological thought in conversations addressed to the Hellenes, since from here it is easier to comprehend the dispassion of birth, and eternity, and everything that befits God. Also, because through Him the Father is the Creator, the Son is called the power and energy of the Father. “This, according to the great Basil, shows the energy of the Son is not relaxed (´ατονον)” 949, for then neither the Father would have need of the Son, creating by will alone, but he desires through the Son, nor the Son would have the need to collaborate (συνεργίας), acting in the likeness of the Father, but the Son also wants [One's deeds] to be carried out (τελείουν) through the Spirit. CHAPTER 18. About the fact that while theologians say that energy is not God, and is, and each of these statements [is] understood in two ways, and also shows that uncreated power and energy is common to three Persons, Akindinus, with the exception of what is called “power and energy,” rejects everything else. 70. So, although the God-bearing theologians, in accordance with the methods shown above [theology], say that each of the three Persons of divinity is not energy, that each of them is energy, and at another time - that energy is common to the Three and unchangeable, despite the fact that we agree with them in everything, Akindinus, exposing only those sayings that testify that the Son and the Holy Spirit are energies, and for those pointing to something else, as if Having become deaf, he says: “So, these are the natural and essential energies of God and powers; and the Theologian teaches us about energy that it is not the same as the essence of God, but different and active and ceasing. For he says: “about the Holy Spirit, it must certainly be assumed that He belongs either to those who exist hypostatically in themselves, or to those contemplated in another, of which one those skilled in such things call essence, and the other - accident (συμβεβηκός). If He is an accident, then He would be the energy of God, for how could He be anything else, or whose? This is in some ways preferable, and avoids drafting. And if [He] is energy, then it is obvious that he will act, and will not act, and at the same time as he does, he will cease” 950. 71. That the great Akindinus, therefore, thinks that it is not necessary to follow the divine fathers in everything, but like a kind of judge, but rather a tyrant presiding [at the trial, in order to] reject and sweep away some of what they said, imputing it to nothing with much shamelessness, without even deigning a single word, but to admit and accept something, tearing it away from another, with much power, and forcing everyone else to follow only these fragments - we will not talk about this now, since it is obvious from what was said before. But the proof that it is wicked to say, as he did, that the Son and the Spirit are the essence of God, must be postponed a little. And as for the energy of God, about which Gregory, nicknamed from theology, said that it is not from among the things [hypostatically] existing in themselves, but from those that are contemplated in another, and that it acts and as soon as it is done, it ceases, then let us see, since it is one of those contemplated in another, in what [precisely it] is contemplated, and which of the two it is: whether it is the action of God itself, or the results of God's action? CHAPTER 19. Proof that the energy contemplated in the essence of the Holy Spirit, according to the Theologian, is uncreated, and does not cause any composition, although it differs from the essence. 72. But the fact that it is not results is obvious: after all, God is the creator of created beings. By themselves, therefore, there are angels, souls, the entire sensory world, and this energy of God is from among those contemplated in another. So it does not belong either to intelligible creations or to sensible ones, but is the very action and creation of God. For what need is there to say that it does not belong to the number of things contemplated in essences? After all, it cannot be that essences are results, and are not such energy of God, and their qualities are not results. How is this energy of God not uncreated, when it is not anything from the intelligible or sensible creations and, of course, not from the results of this energy? Angels and souls will have no end, as we all know, but none of them will in any way ever be called an accident, and this energy is said to cease, and that it is in some way an accident. Therefore, from here it is obvious that she is not any of the intelligible creations and, even more so, not one of the sensible ones: for how will she be from some, and not from others? So, it is extremely obvious that it is not one of the results. And not being anything from among the results, how would this energy be a creation? 73. And since it does not belong to the number of things contemplated in creations - for they too are results - then it belongs to the things contemplated in God. After all, it is according to her that God is called Creator and Creator. Therefore, the Theologian, having said: “if it is not an essence, then it will be the energy of God,” added “what is different and in relation to what? This is in some way what runs the composition” 951, directly saying that even if the energy contemplated in it differs from the essence of God - for one is from among those contemplated in another, and the other is from existing in itself - but because of this the deity does not become complex. And how [this is so], for which the great one attributed “in some way,” we said in the treatise: “On divine energies and communion according to them” 952. And now our word is that if this energy belongs to the number of things contemplated in God, then how is it not uncreated? For nothing that is contemplated in God is created. For how could this [could be] when theologians say: “Of what is [contemplated] in God, there is nothing created, just as of what is in man, there is nothing uncreated” 953? “But it’s written,” says [Akindin], “it works.” So what of this? After all, divine providence is also at work, according to who said: “Christ sat down at the right hand of the Father, working divine providence for all [beings]” 954. And Nyssa [primate], the divine Gregory, says: “We cannot call three gods collectively and indistinguishably from each other, who activate (τούς ένεργοϋντας) visual and supervising power and energy in relation to us and to the whole creation” 955, but from this no one will call divine providence creation and the visual power of God, if one wishes to be pious. CHAPTER 20. That Akindinus, who explicitly teaches that this [divine power] is created, completely rejects the fifth and sixth of the ecumenical councils. 74. Moreover, in order to imagine both at once - that not everything that acts is creation, and that this energy is contemplated in God - it is now worth remembering the holy and ecumenical Fifth Council. For they write verbatim [the fathers who composed] this most divine council: “Origen said that “God, having come from non-creation to creation, turned in every way from one to another.” We say that he was not converted by nature, but by energy, or rather, he was not converted by it either. For He always had the power to create and create, and such power was activated when He wanted” 956. So, isn’t Akindinus obviously insane when he writes: “we understand what is done as what is done”? For the ever-present power was activated, not created. 75. “But this energy also ceases,” he says. But the great Basil also says: “God’s foreknowledge of anything ceases when what is foreknown appears [on the stage]” 957 . And the sixth of the Ecumenical Councils was the work and divine care to show that when Christ forgave the sins of the paralytic (Matthew 9:2) and revived the young woman of the ruler of the synagogue (Matthew 9:25) - this was divine and uncreated energy corresponding to the divine nature of Christ, and the fact that He held [the hand] of the young woman with a human hand and uttered sounds with his tongue forms created energy, corresponding to the human nature of Christ. Such a great council is rejected and dared to be denied by those who reduce the energy of God to the level of creation, as being called [by the fathers] active or ceasing. After all, revival began and ended at the same time as the young woman came to life, but because of this, revival is not the created energy of God. And the paralytic, having received remission of his previous sins, no longer needed (in this regard) the effect of it. In such [cases], the beginning and cessation refer to the manifestation, but not to the energy itself, which is the divine power manifested through results, since they do not contain [its] constancy, for it is inexhaustible. CHAPTER 21. Demonstration that although this activity is called in some way an accident, it is not in the sense that it is not inherent in God. Here is also a lengthy proof that uncreated energy differs from uncreated essence. 76. But why am I going on and on about the same thing? After all, due to the fact that God began and finished creating when He Himself wanted, we will not say that it is not by nature that God has [the ability] to create, or, in other words, this energy. If it is inherent in God by nature, then how is it not uncreated? After all, since it is from among that which is contemplated in God, but does not exist in itself - but from that which is contemplated in another, one is natural, and the other by accident, and yet not a single accident in God is contemplated (and, of course, nothing acquired or changing, which is in the proper sense an accident), - then by nature this energy is inherent in God. And what is inherent by nature, although at times it is called an accident in contrast to essence, is not entirely an accident, and is not such as what [our] word a little higher denied to be inherent in God. 77. This is precisely what we learned from the wise in the divine Cyril, writing to those who claim that ungeneracy in God is an accident, since it is not an essence: “It is wise to say that nothing is added (συμβαίνειν) 958 to the essence of God, because it has perfection from itself. However, we see that a strong reason will force us to think of some things about God as accidents, even if they are not entirely accidents. For what should we [else] say, taking into account that before the dispensation (διακοσμήσεως) of all this (τούδε του πανός) 959 God was the creator in essence, but was not yet such in reality (τή ενεργεια), due to the fact that He [has] not yet brought into existence anything that exists? After everything was created, He seemed to become the creator, and in some way this was attached (συμβέβηκε) to Him, and He really (ενεργεία) was seen as such. So, if some things are thought of as having come to God, then why do you insist in vain that it is not proper to say 960 that ungeneracy is an accident of God (συμβεβηκέναι τω θεώ), when in such an image certain [things] appear that by nature belong to Him? 961 And again, after listing what is inherent in God by nature, he says: “So, if not everything that is called inherent in God by nature will also be His essence, then it remains to call them accidents of the essence itself, realizing that this is only what is said” 962. But isn’t it clear from here with mathematical precision 963 that Akindinus, in imitation of Arius and Eunomius and the like, under the pretext of divine simplicity and out of unwillingness to allow the accident, piously conceived in God, to be uncreated, teaches that each of the number of things that are natural and essentially inherent in God is essence, and that everything that is not essence is created, and that we are good do we object to him, just as the God-like fathers objected to those [heretics]? 78. Nevertheless, since the theologian called this energy applied and accidental, which, according to Akindinus, is creation, then all creation, according to him, will be accidents. And if he says that only the accidents of beings are in one way or another this energy of God, since it is an accident, then, by saying this, he introduces the uncreated essences of beings, calling back the ancient nonsense of the Hellenes 964 . After all, undoubtedly, the consequence of this will be to think that God, through this energy, makes creations uncreated, and thus to deify creations. And since this energy is not one of the accidents of creatures, it is necessary that it be in God, not entirely being an accident, but as inherent in nature. But just as Gregory the Theologian called the divine energy, about which we speak, an accident, which is not entirely abiding, as has been shown, an accident, so [he called it] active, not entirely abiding active, but [also] active; and ceasing - not completely ceasing. For, speaking about the essence of the Spirit and objecting to those who say that He is only energy, the Theologian contrasts the uncreated essence of the Spirit with the uncreated energy of the Spirit, showing their difference from each other. After all, an essence that exists by itself can never be called an accident, but energy can sometimes be called without being an essence and not existing in itself, even if it cannot be so called in every sense, because it is contemplated naturally and not by accident. And the essence does not act in any way, but energy acts, but not completely or, in other words, not as a creation, and because it not only acts, but also acts divinely, according to what was said, “it belongs to the divine nature to give birth, but to energy to create” 965. After all, as we say (λέγεται) by us [about] a certain object that exists from among that which is outside of us, we also speak our word, but as being our natural (' έμφυτος) movement, therefore about our word we can say that it speaks, and not only is spoken, but we cannot [we can call it a “word”] also what is named through it ( λεγόμενον); so it can be said with sufficient reason that it both acts and acts. And the essence of the Spirit is absolutely undetectable, and the energy of the divine Spirit, being revealed through its results, begins and ends in its manifestation, since creations, as we said before, do not contain the eternal essence. Therefore, one of the fathers was asked why. creations are not co-essential with God, answered: “Because they do not contain beginninglessness.” But because of this, the energy of God does not entirely begin and cease. For the ever-active God has energy, always seeing and providing for everything, for “My Father,” says [the Lord], “he works, and I do” (John 5:17). CHAPTER 22. That this energy is attested by theologians both as essentially inherent in God and as active; and that by openly calling it a creation, Akindinus makes it a creation of God. 79. So, it would be necessary for Akindinus, having learned from the Theologian the difference in God’s essence and energy, to stop merging them together and destroying them through each other and calling God complex, if He has an uncreated energy different from the uncreated essence; and he found here a pretext to call it a creation and through it to make it a creation of God. For every nature and essence corresponds to its own natural and essential [properties], although it is not about creative energy that we speak to Akindinos, but about the lightness of God, by which Christ shone upon the disciples on the mountain, about which it is written that He has it without beginning, as the true Son of God, and that He constantly illuminates with it those who are worthy in the future century. Nevertheless, since Akindinus himself calls the essential and natural energy of God uncreated, but not [something] other than in relation to the essence, now it is also necessary to show him that the words of 966 theologians testify that the energy that the Theologian called active is both the essential [energy] of God and [something] other than in relation to God’s essence. Maybe then he will retreat from wickedness, being convinced by the evidence of the truth, if [only he], according to the apostolic word, is not completely “depraved... and is self-condemned” (Titus 3:11). 80. Who will be the common language of theologians, if not the divine Damascene, who collected the words of divine dogmas from everywhere? So, this one, having said that our Lord Jesus Christ has two energies (one as God, and the other as a man), added: “You must know that one is action (ενέργεια), another is acting (ένεργητικόν), and [still] another is action ( ενέργημα ). For action is an active (δραστική) and essential movement of nature; active - the nature from which the action occurs; and the deed is the result. Both action is called action, and action is called action” 967. Wanting then to show that this essential energy of God is that which the one named from theology calls other in relation to the essence of God, he also adds: “You must know that energy is movement, and rather acts than acts, as Gregory the Theologian says in the word “On the Holy Spirit”: “If [this is] an action, then it will obviously act, and not act, and at the same time as it is done, it will cease” 968 " 969. But the namesake of theology himself further showed this by the fact that he himself called this energy the movement of God. And Akindinus, again clearly declaring the opposite of the theologians, adds to what he said before, saying: “So, neither the Son and the Spirit of God are different in relation to the essence of God, nor this, which is acted by God and at the same time as it is done, ceases, is not the uncreated, essential and natural energy of God,” not knowing “neither what he says, nor about them he affirms” (1 Tim. 1:7). So, “even though I am not led away, I walk in vain from the mind of my flesh” (Col. 2:18), he reduces the uncreated energy of God to the level of creation and, together with it, brings down the divine nature: for it is impossible that, even though the energy is created, the essence would be uncreated. 81. Although the divine Damascene, completely blocking his mouth and taking away any pretext [for reinterpretation], said that not just with God, but with the Son of God Himself and our Lord Jesus Christ, there is another uncreated essence, and another is uncreated energy, and openly added that it is essential, and that it acts rather than acts. And, indirectly showing it to be active, as we explained a little above, he himself in another place very clearly presents it, saying: “Christ’s divine will is without beginning and omnipotent, having the power that follows it” 970. And here he, going further, makes the difference obvious in a variety of ways, sometimes saying that the uncreated essence of Christ is followed by uncreated energy, sometimes saying that it is inherent in it. And another time, along the way, he says that the corresponding energy and will emanate from the divine essence. And not just will and energy, but he says that the divine nature is inherent in the willful and active force itself, but this is not nature, and writes: “The number of wills and energies essentially inherent in the [two] natures of Christ does not introduce the division of the one Christ: let it not be so! After all, we call volitions and energies natural, not hypostatic. I mean the desired and active force itself, according to which those who desire and act desire and act” 971, and again: “If all energy is defined as a certain essential movement of nature, then where can one find energy that is not the movement of natural force?” 972 Isn’t the Damascus theologian in everything the opposite of Akindinus, as he truly errs in everything in his reasoning about the divine? CHAPTER 23. That it is very illogical to say, like him, that the Son and Spirit of God is the essence of God, and even more wicked; in which chapter it again appears that the divine energy, which differs from the divine essence, is also beginningless. 82. For, of course, to say that “the essential energies are the Son and the Holy Spirit,” and then add that “they are not different from the essence of God” is very illogical, and even more impious 973. Firstly, the essence of God, always theologized in the singular, is pronounced by him in the plural. For he says: “Essential energies are not other than essence.” Are they not, O new-thinker (καινόφρον), if only because no one would ever pronounce the “essence of God” in the plural if he chose to be pious, but we pronounce the essential energies of God in the plural? Then, if the Son and Spirit of God are not other in relation to the essence, then the Son and the Holy Spirit themselves, according to Akindinus, are the essence of God. Who of all has ever said that the essence of a man is a man, or again that the essence of an angel is an angel, or that Paul, or Gabriel, or the Son of Man is the essence of a man? For, anyone with sufficient grounds can say that each of them is or has an essence - verbal or mental - and to call the essence of an angel again an angel, or the [essence] of a person - again a man or a son, which is a designation of hypostasis, is [a sign] of a foolish both tongue and mind. And whoever writes such things about the Father of God and the Son of God and the Spirit of God has reached the limit of not only stupidity, but also wickedness. 83. So, it would be worth asking him: what kind of God is the essence of the Son and Spirit of God? For if the Father, then, firstly, then the Father Himself will be devoid of essence, contemplated only in the Son and in the Spirit, and These will be monohypostatic, and Themselves completely non-hypostatic, each not existing according to His own hypostasis, as being the essence of the Father’s hypostasis, that is, the [hypostatic] idioms corresponding to it. Not ours, but from his words, this inconsistency emerges. Then, if, as we are taught from the saints, the Son is from the essence of the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the essence of the Father, according to Akindinus’ idle talk, then the Son will be from the Spirit; in the same way, the Spirit is from the Son, for He also came from the Father’s essence (not in the sense of birth, but in the sense of procession), and the essence of the Father is the Son, according to Akindinus. He did not seem to have heard or believed that: “What pertains to the super-essential birth of God is not mutually reversible with one another” 974. 84. If he says that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not the essence of the Father, as His essential energies, insisting [at the same time] that They are the essence of God, but simply God, then why are the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to him, the essence of God, and the Father is not, as either immaterial, or a different essence than They? But we believed that They are from the Father’s essence, which is why They are consubstantial with the Father and with each other. None of the consubstantial ones is insubstantial or other-essential, or the essential movement of one another, but [each of them] has one (in the sense of similar) movement and energy. But with God it is one, not as similar, but as the same and unchangeable for the three Persons, which is why each of Them is called energy. If Akindinus says that the Father is the essence of God, then what kind of God will he call the essence of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? After all, all of us, the pious, jointly confess that the essence of God is one, invisible, incomprehensible, unidentifiable, inexpressible, unnameable, that is, [the essence of] the Father, the Son and the Spirit, and to call the essence of God the Son and the Holy Spirit - or the Father together with Them - is the most shameful of heresies, and something new and strange. For he who calls three or two Persons of one divinity the essence of God, what else but hypostases does he call essences, is he truly a polytheist? Since this newly-minted theologian called the uncreated powers of God the essence of God, saying that they are no different from it, and we all know God as having a lot of powers, rather even omnipotent by nature - for we hear that “everything” is said about many things and in something different - then he assures that God has many different essences. 85. However, we were not talking about the Son and the Spirit, but we contrasted Akindinus and others like him, who call the common and natural energy of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit created, with the saints, who call providence the general and essential energy of God, and not only his, but also other divine energies: power, will and the like. [Such] as the great Athanasius, [who said]: “He does not do it according to another providence” (Jn. 5:17) Father and Son, but according to the same essential energy of the Divine” 975; and the divine Cyril: “The Holy Spirit is equal in power and consubstantial with God, and by nature there is divine energy in Him” 976; and the great Basil: “if in essence the Word has no difference with the Father, then it will have no difference in strength: and those who have equal strength, have equal energy” 977; and the divine Gregory of Nyssa: “a single certain movement and spread of good will, conducted from the Father through the Son to the Holy Spirit” 978; and the wise Maximus in the divine says: “It is necessary that those who profess the two natures of Christ must certainly honor the natural wills that are equal to them and profess the same number of essential energies” 979; and at court (έν σεκρέτω) 980, discussing these things, he says: “If creative energy is essentially inherent in God, and what is inherent is essentially and inalienable” 981; and again: “it is absolutely necessary that in relation to Christ we speak about desires and energies: after all, nothing that exists exists without natural energy” 982. 86. So, we have brought these and other saints who clearly call these [divine properties] the essential energies of God: not only the Father, but also His, then the Son, and even the Spirit himself. And [this] opponent of his own and many [other] souls [that is, Akindinus], passionately wanting to contradict us, composes and sends out almost everywhere these so numerous and such wickedness, which we have exposed in so many words, trying to show everyone that the Son and the Holy Spirit are the essence of God - for They alone, according to him, are in no way different from the essence of God - teaching, as it seems, that They have no hypostases, for that which is in no way different from essence is only essence, and his incessantly repeated statement that God’s essence and energy are one and the same and indistinguishable [from one another] is a heap of all sorts of crafty heresies, as we previously showed in a special treatise, and about which he himself now shows diligence. 87. Moreover, he did not stop blaming us for this, [that is] that we say that uncreated power and energy differ from the uncreated essence, worshiping the one God - Trinitarian, active and omnipotent, Whom this - by what he writes - either dissects into created and uncreated, or even completely deprives of existence. But “those who seek their own, and not even Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:21), are so indifferent to everything that they also accuse us, who speak out in defense of piety to the best of our ability. And there are those who use all means 983 in defense of the opinion that such dogmas, or rather fables, are the basis of a pious confession. For although he cites something from the God-bearing fathers in his supposed defense, then, if not misunderstood, this is a refutation of his slander, and for reasonable people serves to condemn him. Therefore, he always made the incomprehensible, and for many the incomprehensible, his refuge, and he cited the [statement] of the great theologian Gregory on energy to cover up his evil mind, while it also exposes his slander. After all, it shows the energy of God contemplated in God, and not being the essence of God, [and] however, not being created due to the fact that it is not an essence. For nothing would be the essence of creatures if it itself were creatures: after all, it is necessary for it to be all creatures if, according to Akindinus, it is the created energy of God. But, weakening, he immediately resorts to the cessation of this energy, piously pronounced by the Theologian, as if it were an impregnable fortress and, because of the height, difficult to see, not realizing that it “ceases” due to the revelation of it, which is opposed [thus] to the essence, as it is said, so that through this the difference between the divine essence and the divine energy is shown. 88. Well, did he hear Gregory, but did not hear Vasily, so as not to be a laughing stock when he said such a thing?: “For isn’t it funny,” he says, “to call creation (τό δημιουργικόν) essence and providence (τό προνοητικόν) - again by essence, foreknowledge (το προγνωστικόν) - again in the same way, and in general to consider all energy to be essence? 984 Did the creative, providential, foreknowledge power and energy ever begin or cease, if only not in terms of detection? Undoubtedly, God uses each of them when and as much as he wants, allowing those who look wisely to notice the eternal power of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit Himself, which, it seems, he has never heard with his ears, although the priests proclaim it in churches many times a day, [Akindinus] considers it worthy to call power only the Son and the Spirit, and then not as having along with the essence and power, but rather as natural forces. He, as if reveling in wickedness, again repeating words poorly understood and perverted by him and slandering those who do not at all want to submit to his madness, says: “So, the essential energy and power in God is the Son and the Holy Spirit: it means that if they, according to Palamas, are [something] different in relation to the essence of God, and are inferior to it, and are not equal, and are not similar, then dogmas The Palamas are no different from the dogmas of Arius and Eunomius.” CHAPTER 24. Proof that it is not we, but Varlaam and Akindinus who teach that the divine essence and divine energy are not equal and not similar, and therefore speak about two divinities - the highest and the lowest. 89. Truly, the one who says this, Akindinus, is, alas, in danger of being exposed to the action of the father of lies (' υπό του πατρός του ψεύδους ένεργεισθαι). For where did we call His divine energy unlike and unequal to the essence of God? How could we say this, considering it uncreated, and not once or twice, but many, many times, saying that: “[based] on the energy of each, the essence of each is characterized, so that uncreated energy indicates uncreated nature, and created – created” 985? After all, what is characterized is characterized [based] not on the basis of dissimilarity, but on the basis of similarity. So the slanderer’s head, or rather his soul, is blasphemed, for he is the one who calls the energy of an uncreated essence created, or, in other words, unlike. Therefore, hearing that the Son is called uncreated energy, he says that He is the essence of God, since besides the divine essence, according to him, there is nothing uncreated with God. But we who worship and honor the one God, the Trinitarian, the worker and “author of mercy” (Mic. 7:18), and the omnipotent, we do not worship and honor one of Him, and not the other, but with one worship we glorify the one essence and strength, and will, and energy, perfect divinity. Where is the inequality in united worship? [So] this also applies to the slanderer himself, who wickedly dissects the one divinity into created and uncreated and mentally damagingly used such unequal dissections against divinity, but rather against himself. 90. When Barlaam said that the lightness seen by the apostles on the mountain is a lower divinity, as created, then we objected to him and showed that it is uncreated, as being the lightness of the divine nature and [existing] not outside the one uncreated divinity, even, we said, the divine and absolutely nameless super-essence of God was called by the fathers superior to it in causality and undetectability and inexpressibility, but it is also written that it surpasses both divine providence, and the visual power of God, and in general - any general divine energy. However, on the basis of this we will not call divine providence and the visual power of “Knowing everything before being” 986 created. Likewise, on this basis we will not call the lightness of the divine nature created. 91. And now the disciple and successor of the heresy of Barlaam, Akindinus, [likewise] himself explicitly calling this divine lordship created and truly inferior, and thus dividing the one divinity into two, unequal and dissimilar, then, from an excess of madness, considers his own shame to belong to those to whom this shame is vile, and from shamelessness attributes it to those who consider it disgusting nasty, and out of ingratitude tries to bring it on those who are trying to cleanse him himself. CHAPTER 25. That Akindinus, in addition to many other wickednesses, shows the divine hypostases as unequal in relation to each other, and abolishes the one sacrament of God and the Holy Trinity in many ways, while Palamas truly is the one who worships the one trinitarian God in one divinity. 92. And it is not from here that shame attaches to the slanderer, but since we said that in relation to causality the divine essence is above its own energy, in agreement with the God-wise fathers, and from this he draws against us [the accusation that we are talking about] inequality and dissimilarity, then how can he not, therefore, deprive the Son of God of likeness and equality in relation to the Greater (John 14:28) for reason, and in justice will he hear from us [the name] “another Arius and Eunomius” who unfairly calls us such? What then [so] that, according to Palamas, the essential energies of God are different in relation to the essence, that is, they have some difference from it? And no matter how many [differences] from one; naturally inherent - from [the very] nature to which they are inherent? Or are not the hypostatic [properties] different from the hypostasis, as being more numerous than each [individual hypostasis], and as not being - each [separately] - a hypostasis? This means that not each of the natural [properties] thus [contemplated] will be nature. Therefore, the divine Cyril says: “if each of the [properties] inherent in God by nature means an essence, then God consists of as many essences as the [properties] inherent in Him are seen to be by nature” 987, after all, according to Gregory, who received the nickname from theology, the Divinity [will be] not simple and not uncomplicated if these [properties] are essences 988. But why should we describe too much verbatim what the fathers said? For, as [our] word has previously indicated in many places, the dogma and all the obvious preaching of the God-like fathers themselves is [the position] that there is something else in the one God that is the essence, and something else is its essential and natural energy. 93. But Akindinus and others like him refer general piety and the words of common teachers of piety to Palamas alone, in order to be able to disguise and hide their rejection of these [fathers], saying that “we reject what [constitutes the teaching of] Palamas, and persecute those who agree with [the dogmas of] Palamas.” And if for that in which Palamas agrees with all the saints, he is persecuted by you and seems to you to be no different from Arius and Eunomius, then how much more [will, in your opinion, be similar to these heretics] those who were the first to theologize and preach this? Truly, without any desire, Akindinus, you have now made this Palamas blessed, making him a companion of your fury against the saints, which is obvious to rational people, for he, of course, will also be involved in the bliss of these saints. Although, as was said before, he had no speech at all about the Son and the Spirit, but, disgracing [Barlaam] who taught you in wickedness and who blasphemed the divine light in writing, he quoted the inspired Scripture. Against this [Palama], you, having become the successor of the evil-mindedness of him [Barlaam], again fighting against God, expose your blasphemies. 94. After all, since you call only the Son, as well as the Spirit of God, the essential energies of God, you have completely destroyed, unfortunate one, the worshiped mystery of the Trinity 989. For the Son will in turn have a son, since it is theologized about Him that He has essential energy. If she is not the son of the Son, but the Spirit, then it is obvious that the one who says this, in addition to agreeing with other evil heresies, also adheres to the wisdom of the Latins, but rather has overtaken them in the worst. And the Spirit, in turn - since He, according to the fathers, possesses essential energy, or rather even energies - will Himself have either a son or another spirit, or rather even both; and thus the Trinity will be a strange multitude. After all, since the essential energy is also called holy and common to the Father, Son and Spirit, then the Son will not be from the Father and the Holy Spirit, but each of them will be from the Father, Son and Spirit. However, if the natural will is taken into account and all that is said about God affirmatively and negatively - that is, the properties inherent in the divine nature by nature - then who will enumerate the many absurdities resulting from saying that nothing else except the Son and the Spirit is inherent in God by nature? After all, according to the divine Cyril again, “none of the natural and divine proper properties is acquired” 990. 95. But you cannot glorify the one divinity of truly three Persons unless you believe that their natural energy is common. For to it belongs in the proper sense the name of “divinity,” and from it we are taught to name God, the nameless, as absolutely superchangeable in nature. And why am I talking at length about these things? After all, you will not be able to say that the Son exists at all, nor that the Holy Spirit exists, nor that the Father exists at all, nor that anything is the divine nature in general, since, according to theologians, “it is impossible to find a nature devoid of natural and essential energy” 991. And you call either nature or hypostases forces and energies, depriving them of their common forces and energies. That is why you call the common power of the Father, the Son and the Spirit creation, so that you supposedly have one uncreated, and you reduce the divine to the level of a creature, truly positing not one uncreated, but not one. However, to leave us to enumerate the other heap of absurdities, [let us say]: from this, which has become obvious, Akindinus is not in danger of surpassing Sabellius, and Arius, and Eunomius, and all of them? 96. We know, of course, that some divine fathers sometimes call the Son the natural energy of the Father, which is fair, since every true Son is also natural. There is also what is natural, corresponding to every nature, will and desire, and everything like that, which is necessarily natural to the Son: for all natural things do not [exist] in the same way. Just as we call wisdom common to the Father, Son and Spirit, one and the same in the Three and unchangeable, even if Akindinus did not like it, we call the Wisdom of the Father and the Son, but [wisdom] self-hypostatic and changed according to His hypostasis alone, so that if someone calls the Son or the Holy Spirit the essential energy or power of the Father, then together with this energy he will think or express how we have previously shown 992 self-hypostasis, and thus will separate [it] from the general natural energy, not separating it, but knowing the difference between the hypostases from it, and rather even exposing, as far as possible, the supernatural nature of this affinity, for [comprehension] of which no mind, not a word is enough. 97. If anyone again insists that there is no common wisdom and power, and especially since the great Basil says: “since He is unchangeable in essence, then He will be unchangeable in power” 993; If, therefore, someone does not listen that wisdom and power are common to the Father, Son and Spirit, as if the Son alone were “the power and wisdom of God” 994, [then he] will again rightly hear from us that, in addition to the fact that he opposes all theologians, [also] in the Sabellian error, as if falling into some abyss, he unhappily broke his neck. For if the Son is only power or wisdom, and He Himself does not have wisdom and power, then how can He be a Son? How will He be a special person? After all, this is why we call Him the wisdom and power of the Father, in order to show His inseparable union with the Father. And the Son, possessing the same power and wisdom as the Father and the Spirit - in order, together with the indissoluble union, to think about His self-hypostasis, and to worship the one essence, the one power, the one energy, in three perfect and equal Persons, in no way separated from each other, with the exception of personal distinctive properties, of which the power is one, of which the work is one, of whom the divinity and glory and kingdom are one, before centuries, and forever, and beyond. Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names, 7, 4 Maximus the Confessor, Scholium on “On the Divine Names, 7, 4” The entire sentence is a paraphrase of the passages of Dionysius and Maximus quoted above See: Athanasius of Alexandria, Letter to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya, 2–3 – PG 25, 541–544 Meretakis understands this "άπεχειροτονείτο" in the sense of defrocking (Modern Greek translation: "καθαιρέθηκε"), but since there is no historical evidence for such defrocking of Akindinus, we prefer to understand this verb in a more general sense: that the bishops, having voted, they gave a negative verdict about him The phrase seems meaningless. Meretakis in the modern Greek translation transfers the closing quotation marks and reads: “And what also surpasses this evil innovation is that he says: “unless someone believes that Christ has two divinities: one is lower in all senses, and the other is higher; one is beginningless, and the other, which received its beginning from the appearance on the mountain and from that time inseparably coexists with the human component of Christ”; therefore, it is he who speaks of two divinities - the highest and the lowest" John of Damascus, Canon August 6th, canto 6, troparion 2 – PG 96, 849A Paraphrase of the stichera on the stichera at Vespers on August 7th, “Glory even now” The month of August on the sixth day of the third stichera litia Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 40, 6 – PG 36, 365A Aka, Letter 101 to Clidonius – PG 37, 181B Quote not identified Gregory of Nyssa, On the soul and resurrection, 3 – PG 46, 104B Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 30, 6 – Barbel, 184 PG 36, 112B At the council in June 1341. See: Cathedral Tomos 8 – PG 151, 682 See: Vasily the Great, Shestodnev, 2, 5 – PG 29, 40C Quote or allusion not identified Basil the Great, Shestodnev, 2, 5 – PG 29, 40 Vasily the Great, Shestodnev, 2, 6 – PG 29, 40С-41А Literally: “composed of dense parts” Literally: “those who conspire against themselves” That is, from those located above the firmament This expression is not found in other authors, but Liddell-Scott gives similar ones: “έν θαύματι ποιείσθαι” (Plu. Pomp. 14) and “δια θαύματος σχεί" (Hdn. 2. 2. 7) Literally: "masks" (προσωπείου) Maximus the Confessor, On perplexities towards John, 45 (5, 41) – PG 91, 1168A 1st Cathedral Tomos, 46 – PG 151, 688С Jer 23:18. See: above note. to 2, 4, 10 Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 28, 19, PG 36, 52B John of Damascus, Homilia in transfigurationem domini, 12 – PG 96, 564C Basil the Great, Conversations for the Six Days, 2, 5 – PG 29, 40C Basil the Great, Conversations for the Six Days, 2, 5 – PG 29, 40С-41А John of Damascus, Homilia in transfigurationem domini, 3 – PG 96, 549C John of Damascus, Homilia in transfigurationem domini, 15, PG 96, 569A Andrey Kritsky, Homily on the Transfiguration, PG 97, 948AB Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 29, 19 Aka, Letter 101 to Clidonius – PG 37, 181AB Maximus the Confessor, Chapters on the theology and economy of the incarnation of the Son of God, 2, 13 Athanasius of Alexandria (pseudepigraph), To Antiochus the Chief, 28 – PG 28, 616A He, On the appearance in the flesh of God the Word, 4 – PG 28, 96A. Ibid., 16 – 569B The noun “λήξις” can be derived from two verbs – “λαγχάνω” and “λήγω” – and mean, respectively: “lot”, “destiny” and “end”, “cessation”. And although the Areopagite most likely used it in the second meaning, the context of Palamas’ words prompts us to choose the first here Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names, 1, 4, p. 222–224 PG 3, 592ВС In the Gospel text: “έκλάμψουσιν” The entire quotation is not identified, but its first part belongs to Gregory the Theologian (Letter 178, I) John Chrysostom (pseudepigrapha), On the Transfiguration – Saville 7, 339 Great Vasily. For six days 2, 5 – PG 29, 40С-41А Dionysius the Areopagite. On divine names 1, 5 – PG 3, 593B Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 44, 3 – PG 36, 609BC The original is a play on words: “Αριστοτέλους ασεβέστερος τελών” Gregory the Theologian, Homily 40, 5 – PG 36, 364B Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 40, 5 – PG 36, 364B. Wed: John Chrysostom, Discourses on the Gospel of John, 14, 1 – PG 59, 92 That is, Antipascha, the first Sunday after Easter Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 44, 3 – PG 36, 609B Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names 2, 7 – PG 3, 645A John Chrysostom, Discourse on the Transfiguration – Savile 7, 339 Same, Discourses on the Gospel of John, 30, 2 – PG 59, 174 Conversation 40 for Holy Epiphany 5 – PG 36, 364B Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names 11, 6 – PG 3, 953C Ibid., 4, 8 – PG 3, 704D Vasily the Great, Shestodnev, 2, 5 – PG 29, 41A Same (pseudepigraph), Note on Isaiah, introduction, 6 – PG 30, 128AB Aka Word 44, 3 – PG 36, 609B Aka Word 40, 5 – PG 36, 364B Aka, Word 44, 3 – PG 36, 609С Translation option: “to the one who gives knowledge in defense of the truth contained in Him” Dionysius the Areopagite, On Mystical Theology, 2 – PG 3, 1025B The same, Letter 5, to Dorotheus, deacon – PG 3, 1073A See: Vasily the Great, Shestodnev 2, 5 – PG 29, 41A See: Vasily the Great, Shestodnev, 2, 5 – PG 29, 41A See: John Chrysostom, Conversations on the Book of Genesis, 16, 1; 5 – PG 53, 128; 131 See: Gregory of Nyssa, Eulogy to the First Martyr Stephen I – PG 46, 716D – 717B Athanasius of Alexandria, Life of St. Anthony, 10 – PG 26, 860A Menaion, January 17 at Matins, canon to Saint Anthony, hymn 1, troparion 4 Literally: “makes everyone who sees it belong only to himself” See: Vasily the Great, Shestodnev, 2, 8 – PG 29, 52B About divine names 1, 4 – PG 3, 592ВС Athanasius of Alexandria (pseudepigraph), On the appearance in the flesh of God the Word, 4 – PG 28, 96A Menaion, August 6 at the great vespers stichera on “I cried to the Lord,” “Glory, even now” Compare: Maximus the Confessor, Dispute with Pyrrhus – PG 91, 341A Gregory of Nyssa, Interpretation on the Beatitudes, 6 – PG 44, 1269A See: above note to 1, 7, 28 Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names 1, 4 – PG 3, 592B Wed: 1 Cor. 15:28 ; Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and Resurrection, 3 – PG 46, 104B Andrey Kritsky, Homily on the Transfiguration – PG 97, 949B Maximus the Confessor, On perplexities towards John, 22 (5, 18), PG 91, 1128A Andrey Kritsky. Word on the Transfiguration – PG 97, 949C Wed: John of Damascus, Homilia in transfigurationem domini, 13 – PG 96, 564D-565C Maxim the Confessor. Scholium on “On the Divine Names”, 1, 4 – PG 4, 197С In the original the phrase “..., ώς μετά τού προφανούς της δυσσεβείας μηδέ έχειν άναπλάσαι “γούν τινα πώς έσται σαπξ έψυχωμένη τό φώς” seems dark, possibly corrupted. Therefore, we translated it based on the general meaning of the paragraph. Modern Greek translation “..., ώοτε εκτός από τήν προφανή δυσσέβεια να μή έχει κανείς ούτε να Not only does it not correspond to the original, but it also replaces the preposition “μετά” – “with” – with the exact opposite. Our reading would correspond to the option: “..., ο μετά τού προφανούς τής δυσσεβείας [εστί], μηδέ έχειν άναπλάσαι γούν..." See: Maximus the Confessor, Scholium on “On the Divine Names”, 1, 4 – PG 4, 197D Maximus the Confessor, Theological Chapters, 2, 88 – PG 90, 1168A Gregory the Theologian, Homily 7, 21 – PG 35, 781B – 784A Maxim the Confessor, Πρός Μάρινον, PG 91, 200V See: Gregory Palamas, Letter to Athanasius of Cyzicus, 24–26 Menaion, November 8 at Small Vespers, stichera 3rd at stichera. Compare: Eph. 4 The original is a play on words: “άμηχάνως εύμήχανος” Maxim the Confessor, Προς Μάρινον, PG 91, 200V This refers to apophatic theology That is, cataphatic theology This means that Jewish theology does not distinguish between hypostases in God "On Divine Union and Separation" Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names, 2, 6 – PG 3, 644CD Gregory of Nyssa, In inscriptiones Psalmorum, 8 / McDonough, J. (ed.), Gregorii Nysseni opera, vol. 5, Leiden, 1962, p. 98 Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 31, 32 – Barbel, 274 PG 36, 169B Wed: Basil the Great (pseudepigrapha), Against Eunomius, 5 – PG 29, 772С An accurate statement of the Orthodox faith 3, 18 – PG 94, 1076D Athanasius of Alexandria, Against the Hellenes, 42 – PG 25, 84B John of Damascus, An exact exposition of the Orthodox faith, 4, 18 – PG 94, 1181 C. Compare: Cyril of Alexandria (pseudepigraph), On the Trinity, 23 – PG 77, 1164D Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 25, 16 – PG 35, 1221C He, Mysterious Hymns, 3, 84–89 – PG 37, 414D-415A There are no such words in the mentioned work of Gregory of Nyssa. See also above: note to 2, 19, 93 Gregory of Nyssa, To Eunomius 1, 46 – Jaeger 1, 161–162 – PG 45, 393D-396A Maxim the Confessor, Προς Μάρινον – PG 91, 200A Athanasius of Alexandria [Sp.], Sermo in annuntiationem deiparae, 9 – PG 28, 929A Athanasius of Alexandria, Letter 1 to Serapion, 19; 20 – PG 26, 573С-576А John of Damascus. Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4, 18 – PG 94, 1181С; Cyril of Alexandria (pseudepigrapha), On the Trinity, 23 – PG 77, 1164D Gregory of Nyssa, Adversus Apollinarem, 5 – PG 45, 1132D Same, Contra Eunomium, 3, 1 – PG 45, 593 C W. Jaeger (ed.), Gregorii Nysseni opera, vols. 1.1 & 2.2. Leiden: Brill, 1960, p. 437 Basil the Great, Against Eunomius 5 – PG 29, 772D Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 8, 19 – Bruche, 141 PG 32, 104A See: Cyril of Alexandria, De sancta trinitate dialogi, 7 – PG 75, 1097B; Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate, 33 – PG 75, 573C Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names, 8, 2 – PG 3, 889D Athanasius of Alexandria [Sp.], Disputatio contra Arium, 37 – PG 28, 488C Aka, Orationes tres contra arianos, 3, 35 – PG 26, 400C Athanasius of Alexandria, Orationes tres contra arianos, 3, 61 – PG 26, 452BC Athanasius of Alexandria, Orationes tres contra arianos, 3, 65 – PG 26, 460B Athanasius of Alexandria, Orationes tres contra arianos, 3, 63 – PG 26, 457A John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 3, 14 – PG 94, 1036A Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate, 31 – PG 75, 448D Maximus the Confessor, Προς Μάρινον – PG 91, 197C Athanasius of Alexandria, Orationes tres contra arianos, 1, 28 – PG 26, 69B Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 8, 21 – Bruche, 144 PG 32, 105С Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 31, 6 – Barbel, 228 PG 36, 140A Compare: Maxim the Confessor. To Marin – PG 91, 96A John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4, 1 – PG 94, 1104A Gregory of Nyssa, To Aulavius – Jaeger 3, 1, 49 PG 45, 128A Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 4 – PG 29, 680V "Accident" (τό συμβεβήκύς) in Greek is formed from the verb "συμβαίνω". Hence the translation option: “...nothing is an accident in relation to the essence...” That is, the real world, this universe So at St. Kirill: “μή δείν έπισυμβεβηκέναι λέγειν τω θεώ τό άγένητον.” In the edition of Christ, instead of “μή δείν” there is “μηδέν”, which is obviously a typo, because it makes the phrase incomprehensible Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate, 31 – PG 75, 445D-448A Ibid – 449A. The quotation is again given inaccurately: “... φωνής " instead of "... νοούμενα " The expression “καθάπερ έκ γεωμετρικού τίνος πορίσματος άναφανέν “we translated according to the meaning Literally: “as shown from some geometric derivation” Compare: Gregory the Theologian. Word 31 (Theology 5), 5–6 – Barbel 224–228 PG 36, 137V-140V Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate, 18 – PG 75, 312C Literally: "with the tongue" (δια γλώττης) John of Damascus, An Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 3, 15 – PG 94, 1 048A Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 31, 6 – Barbel 228 PG 36, 140A John of Damascus, An Accurate Statement of the Orthodox Faith, 3, 15 – PG 94, 1048B John of Damascus, An Accurate Statement of the Orthodox Faith, 3, 1 8 – PG 94, 1076D In the Christ edition this sentence refers to the previous chapter, but we follow Meretakis here Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names 2, 5 – PG 3, 641D Athanasius of Alexandria, Sermo in annuntiationem deiparae [Sp.], PG 28, 924B See: Cyril of Alexandria, De sancta trinitate dialogi, 7 – PG 75, 1087B; Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate, 33 – PG 75, 573C Gregory of Nyssa, To Aulavius that there are not three gods – Jaeger 3, 1, 48–49 PG 45, 128A Maximus the Confessor, To Nikandr – PG 91, 96C. Wed: Dispute with Pyrrhus – PG 91, 289BC Literally: in the “Secret” - i.e., the premises of the royal office Maximus the Confessor, Dispute with Pyrrhus – PG 91, 349B Aka, Εξήγησις της κινήσεως, 8 – PG 90, 121C In the original: “πάντα κάλων τό τού λόγου κινούσιν” – “pulling, so to speak, by every rope” Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 1, 7 – PG 29, 528B Maximus the Confessor, Dispute with Pyrrhus – PG 91, 341A. Compare: John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 3, 15 – PG 94, 1 056C Dan. 13 (in the Septuagint – Susanna 35) Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate, 31, PG 75, 448D Compare: Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 29, 10 – Barbel 146 PG 36, 88B It seems to us that the punctuation of the edition of Christ is incorrect, following which Meretakis translates this phrase: “After all, since you call only the Son the essential energies of God, you, therefore, cast down the Spirit of God, unfortunate one, the worshiped mystery of the Trinity,” omitting the adverb “perfectly” (τελέως), which really turns out to be superfluous in this construction See: note to 1, 7, 28 Compare: Maximus the Confessor, ´Εξήγησις της κινήσεως, 8 – PG 90, 121C; Dispute with Pyrrhus – PG 91, 341C Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 8, 19 – Bruche 141 PG 32, 104A Footnote content missing You might be interested in: