of Christ, and I cherish those whom she cherishes. Whatever I have hitherto written or said against them concerning the aforementioned dogmas, I hold all these to be straw and overturned. For this reason it was written by the hand of my son Gabalas, at my own dictation. It also bears the signature, by my own humility. In the year 6858, month of April, 22nd day, 3rd indiction.
A ...of the Church, while our same mighty and holy master and emperor presided over and supported them, and the accusations against the late most holy patriarch, Kyros Isidoros, and the most holy metropolitan of Thessalonike, Kyros Gregorios Palamas, and the other most honored monks, were shown to be free from error and reproach, it seemed good to our humility, for this very reason, and for the sake of the good of peace, to cast aside every doubt regarding those things that were spoken against them and charged to them, to gather together and to commune with the holy sacred synod, and no longer to be separated from the holy Church of Christ, but to be of one mind in all things according to the way that is possible for me, even if I was led astray; and from now on I reject what and whom the Church rejects.
And by my own hand and signature, the humble metropolitan of Ephesus, Matthaios.
The present copy was compared and found in all respects equivalent to the original, and was signed also by our humility.
The humble metropolitan of Herakleia, president of the imperial sees, and exarch of all Thrace and Macedonia, Philotheos.
PHILOTHEUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE, PATRIARCH, ANTIRRHETICS BOOKS XII AGAINST GREGORAS
OF OUR FATHER AMONG THE SAINTS, PHILOTHEOS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE
Against the writings composed by the philosopher Gregoras, both concerning the holy document of the Church, and divine energy, and deifying grace, and surely also concerning the supernatural theophany and divinity manifested on Tabor, against his first discourse.
FIRST ANTIRRHETIC.
I have received the writings composed against us and against piety by the philosopher Gregoras, O most mighty Emperor, and I have praised your zeal and invitation for their refutation. For it was indeed the work of your wisdom, and this too: that even from far off, and from their very prefaces, now together with my brother and like-minded fellow, I mean the late and admirable Emperor, and now also alone after his silence and departure, having cut off the evil roots of the heresy, Akindynos and Barlaam—that evil pair of the Evil One—B who are the originators for one another and successors of the madness against Christ and the Church, having cast them down with her in a public theater, and having most excellently prepared those who were to be separated, like rotting and dead limbs, from the healthy body—and having given the strength to the Church of Christ, then, even after the diadem and the royal power afterwards, having [crushed] the remaining odious faction of those men, like some snake whose head has been crushed but which is still writhing with its tail, and purportedly hastening to defend itself...
A in the same manner, to speak against it repeatedly, and to gainsay it; so that we might not ourselves seem to behave incorrectly by being tossed about by those who are wrongly carried away and turn aside in aimless confusion. And I would have abstained from this excessive occupation and toil, had not the affection I bear toward you—that most excellent man—and the awareness of my duty restrained me, and further, the realization that you would surely say that it is right to defend once more that great Council of the Fathers and its sacred writings and words, or rather, not to overlook those divinely pious acts of theirs that are being warred upon again with contrary arguments, but instead to arise and fight justly, having given back to the truth its own proper arguments most righteously. For when the Spirit’s sword—through that holy Council of the Fathers, of which you were also at that time a royal champion—caused the base, spurious, and completely foreign elements of the sacred words to be severed and put to death, you set them aside with that Council; and truly you strengthened, proclaimed, and confirmed the apostolic, patristic, and God-inspired word of the truth, both by words and by deeds. It was therefore necessary, as I said, for you, who have been appointed by God as minister, coworker, and steward of such things, to provide before all others for their establishment, their preservation, and their future safety, imitating God as far as possible in this, and showing His care and providence for His own. Or rather, the arguments and writings of orthodoxy, and this definition of the upright and unfailing faith, having been spoken by the divine Spirit, shall possess stability now and for all ages, according to the word of Christ: “Heaven and earth shall pass away,” he says, “but my words shall not pass away.”
Since you, caring most excellently for the common and universal Church of Christ and holding the safety of the many in the highest regard—for not all possess such knowledge—have brought forward the writings composed by the philosopher against that holy Council and its sacred tome—which is to say, against piety and its holy theologians and teachers—in order to refute them, and since you say that the darkness of falsehood must be openly chased away by the light of the truth, because a single man of that faction and party of Barlaam and Akindynos is even now B attempting to carry on as they did of old, or rather, to carry off the prize of being their first disciple—as those dialogues of that holy council showed more clearly, since he had nothing pertinent to say there, indeed, he had not a single word to say at all, as those who were present at that divine rite and completed the stadium know—and since he was stricken in his heart by the refutations of the sacred words of the truth as if by a goad, and, hearing that just condemnation finally falling upon his head, because he did not even know, nor hear those who were teaching, nor did he intend to look at all toward the good of repentance—for perhaps the dialectician and philosopher failed to learn from the one who is the source of true and primary wisdom, and who is a friend and teacher, his marvelous and philosophical counsel, which says that it is not in all circumstances virtuous to win, but there are times when it is more profitable to be defeated—he has broken out with insults against piety and this final war, both in words and in manuscripts, against his own teachers and their words and their empty babbling, just as if he were beginning from a different starting point, running around in an impassable circle, and imitating in this also the planets of his own astronomy.
Wherefore, I also, having been moved as much as possible to write this present discourse, and having deferred the matter, C acting faithfully for the sake of the argument itself, and using as guides those who, through that Spirit, theologize and teach with divine power, and following those unerring teachers whom we are accustomed to use in all things, let us hear the words of this philosopher, so that we may know more clearly what his accusations are against us and against piety, which that divine Council of the Fathers proclaimed through the holy tome.
I indeed wished, when entering into this struggle and taking up these anti-rhetorical arguments—the discourse on this novel decalogue, or rather the "ten-book work" of the philosopher—not to mention the first book at all, since it contains nothing that pertains directly to the argument, nor to the proposed subject, nor does it touch upon any dogmatic matters whatsoever. But since this book is, as it were, a certain preparation and gateway to what he will say hereafter, and since he has preceded this by laying down certain foundations and proems of his manifold slander and insults against us, it did not seem to me untimely or superfluous to add some of his words for the hearers to consider, and to show, so far as it is possible, how this dialectician and philosopher and bold interpreter of divine and most exalted things begins his dialectic and theology of the matters at hand, and how he cares for the truth and for the order of these dialogues, beginning with these very proems.
It is, in fact, not at all easy, in the face of such dreadful, incessant, and wave-upon-wave slanders, and such a heap of unspeakable insults, for the argument to be kept unspotted and pure even to the smallest degree. I will attempt, however, as far as I am able, by withdrawing from the one who is speaking and sparing his person, yet proceeding against his argument, his heresy, and his falsehood, according to the legislation of the wise theologian regarding such matters. For, as he says, we do not teach in an unlearned manner, nor do we attack with insults—something that the many suffer, not fighting with the argument but with those who speak, and sometimes covering up the weakness of their own reasoning with insults. This is what this philosopher seems clearly to have suffered, not merely, but in excess, as will be shown at length in what follows.
A But I also commended those who rightly received the laborers, in very truth, in accordance with the Lord’s commandment to the saints, not yielding to those cruel rending beasts of the discourse, nor casting their bright and pearly [teachings] shamefully to their feet. But now, those who do not even have the start of a grievance against the Church, they bring it forward as an accusation, acting well only in this: in holding the right opinions, and in what ought to have happened, even if they were false in other respects, as I have said.
From then on, the philosopher says, being afflicted in soul by the ensuing despondency, and with his calculations and his mind in confusion, and being indignant, he took his seat at the customary place, and from his little house, he looked out from a window B (although this too is a lie; for his house is low and humble and not at all designed for such things, but does not even approach the lanes, as is indeed visible), and he began to observe the streets and crossroads, desiring from there to provide some solace to his thoughts. C And indeed, he does provide something worthy of the place and the sight. For he says he heard certain blind pipers and lyre-players, or babblers, composing certain melodies to the lyre in the usual way—singing those very tragic songs of the blind, with which those people gather the wretched women at the crossroads, making a common market of the necessities [of life], the laments of grieving old women and poor idle housewives, for the reason that the melodies and songs provided by them stir them up. Mingling himself, as he says, with these wretched old women from above, and applying his hearing and his mind to those piping and weeping such things, he was collaborating with them in their dirge, and thus wonderfully betrothing consolation to himself. D For so it was fitting for the wise and philosopher, and for one who forcibly usurps for himself a teaching position against the Church—not to have the wise Jeremiah and those holy and god-like men with him as partners in his dirges, if one had to lament for such things, and to yield ground for wailing in general—but rather these charlatans and storytellers, and nonsense, and the pitiable and ridiculous chorus of those carousing or weeping wretched old women, taking the customary raids and looting by the neighboring barbarians, as he says, and the enslavement and captivity of the people of the surrounding lands and villagers, as an occasion for his dirges; and, indeed, taking the attack against the emperors and the common [body] of the faithful Church [as an occasion]. Thence he himself and his initiate and friend Agathangelos begin [to speak], saying these things are flatly a judgment against piety, and that God is indignant against its champions, and is employing these common scourges against the common [body] of the Church and the Romans. Since, he says, they have clearly exposed the impious dogma, and 25
A have obtained the appropriate curse and penalty, just as if one were to write that the brilliant sun here is darkness for those who have ocular disease, or were to attribute the Jewish disaster and final captivity, and their fall, and those myriads of slaughters, not to the Jewish conflict with God and their deicide, but inversely to the salvific advent of Christ, and His supernatural miracles, and the resurrection, and His wondrous ascension into the heavens.
These are the things which those irresponsible men—or rather, those who have deservedly been condemned by the common vote to crowns and public proclamation for those very things—have judged. The student Agathangelos asks the mystagogue, next, to use for himself and his writings in due time, against the common Church of the faithful, refutatory arguments composed against us and this holy Tome of hers, or rather, against the holy and divinely inspired Scripture itself, and all its interpreters and theologians together, from whom, indeed, the aforementioned Tome of the holy Church has received what it contains, having dogmatized and said nothing whatever of its own against anyone. For this too, Agathangelos says, he asks: that through me, [he asks regarding] the faction of those of like mind and his friends, and that I should now be present there with them for this very purpose, and [he is] removing certain parts and fragments of the whole body of that synodal Tome; and then, the Agathangelos of Gregoras—or this angel—adding to the lie again, says that those who published the Tome display as much zeal as possible so that it might be hidden in some corner B or darkness. For, he says, this man has deliberately kept silent about all that was truly said and acted upon in the synod, and gathers and brings forward only a total lie.
What then? For I shall ask them here a little, and is this also a lie against you, O blessed ones, that we and you were gathered together at all in the palace for the sake of a discussion, and that a great synod was convened, with the holy Gospels set in the midst, and the wondrous emperor presiding with the patriarch of this [Church], and the God-loving host of the orthodox standing by? Or that after Sabellius, and Arius, and Nestorius, and the swarm of those ancient heresies, and the long wars against the Church of Christ, and their defeat and destruction, Barlaam and Akindynos, having recently intruded upon her with the impiety or atheism dogmatized by them, were refuted and expelled by the orthodox Church in great and wondrous synods, with emperors and patriarchs presiding together, and were justly subjected to the most fearful penalties and the anathema from Christ, and cast out as incurable and dead members—is this, he says, a lie? Or will you say that that too is a lie, and a fabrication, and a calumny of the orthodox, that you also, having evilly succeeded to their evil opinion, and destruction along with them, are fighting in turn against the common body of the Church without mask and pretext? And would that this were a lie alone, and that the natural [properties] of God, and the deifying grace of the Spirit, and the natural and inaccessible light that shone from Christ upon the mountain C and shone round the elect of the disciples, or rather, the whole fullness of the Godhead, were not daringly blasphemed against by you through these [actions] once again! For in that case, with you behaving in such a way, and having corrupted nothing of the holy and ancestral [faith] wickedly, there would have been no need at all for councils, nor for discussions, nor for Tomes against you, with the holy Church of Christ rejoicing especially in peace and concord, and having obtained from Him this most precious and wondrous lot. But now, O the disaster! Alas for the pathos! You have so clung to those strange and deadly dogmas, and have so raged against the righteous opinion concerning God, as to bring those divine and sublime matters as an accusation against us and the common Church of Christ, and to use such impudent language and writings against them, on account of which our discourse is even now.
What, will you say that piece is a lie too, tell me, that both once and twice you all leapt upon that holy synod, although the emperor, and the patriarch, and all together were asking you to remain, and not to deliberately destroy the subject matter? But you, having said you would return at the new year, have come back just so. And if you say that the Tome falsely dictates these things, those who were present at the synod then will by no means permit it—and I mean the God-loving crowd standing around—and they will convict you in return of lying against the truth, and of saying and writing nothing sound. Since these things are thus proven, and possess the proof from their own sources and from your own selves, by the sentences of the divine Scriptures lying there, and by the divinely inspired expositions and writings D of the theologians—for by these that holy Tome is entirely filled, and upon these it is wholly supported—it remains, therefore, for you to call the lie against them, and this in three ways: for you either say that those divinely inspired voices themselves contain nothing sound, or those of us who have composed and written [it], or both them and you together. But as for the former, even if they say it, it is not so, and since they fear the host of the pious, they do not dare to speak freely and make public their impiety, lest they be found to have suffered what the teachers Barlaam and Akindynos suffered, or even worse. But they proceed against those of us who have written our holy Tome, and against that holy synod of teachers, bringing accusations of perversions of words, and subtractions, and additions, and misinterpretations, and all the rest to which the discourse of truth, as it proceeds forward little by little on the details, will clearly prove them liable, so that they will not have a "peep," as they say, to utter; and see how, from this, the lie habitual and dear to them [is found] even in the smallest and most minute details too. With all vigilance [it is necessary] to guard those of the Church...
A from this, and to make plain that it is not hidden from us, nor is it being hidden, but this very synodal tome of ours has been heralded and proclaimed publicly before the tribunal.
First of all, indeed, immediately after its composition, it is read openly in that holy synod, and according to custom it is subscribed. Then, a little later, upon the holy feast and assembly of the Theotokos, which we celebrate annually in the Great Church of the Consubstantial and Coeternal Wisdom of God for her holy and venerable dormition, gathering practically the whole city there, after the morning hymns—when the second hour of the day had already arrived—we performed the reading of this tome before the august council, in a brilliant and public manner. The one who was patriarch at that time presided, and the archpriests and priests, together with all the clergy standing by, and indeed the magistrates and the greater part of the populace of this great city, were gathered around. At that time, the most powerful Emperor, listening from the upper chambers above, was hearing the reading, along with the senate surrounding him, and of the military and the other ten thousand citizens as well. We were three who, in succession, read that tome: Galisiotes, I say, and Maximus the Wise, and thirdly the one from Heraclea, who was the last, and who, having been urged, uttered a short discourse from memory after the reading concerning the matters at hand. Thence the holy tome set out, as if from a starting line—or rather, the tomes, for there were three, identical, established by the synod, and subscribed to in the same way; two together and in connection, and the third similarly a little later. For thus the tome was hidden by us in darkness and in a corner. Thence, therefore, the tomes set out, and they did not merely pass through this great city, being read and transcribed by the students of the word of piety—or rather, by their opponents as well—but they also traveled rapidly to the regions beyond the borders, and advanced to Thessalonica and holy Athos, and took hold of the islands and cities that follow. Whence even those of the opposing faction have received and possess it with all freedom, with us not only not hindering them, but even giving it and encouraging those who wish [to copy it].
But enough of these things; we must now consider what follows. The philosopher promises to wage the battle against the Church, and he declares that he will publish refutatory discourses, saying that such things befit him, if anyone; but he does not reckon with the impotence of the lie, or the power of the truth B from thence, and with his own undisciplined and ignorant examination of the divine dogmas, he puts forth other arguments upon other arguments; simultaneously preparing and composing for himself an apology for his future blasphemies and lies, and simultaneously shrinking back, as it were, and growing timid, and fearing the condemnation of those of the same mind. And having indeed set up a certain position for himself, and having protested that he would not follow out everything, nor speak against the things contained in the holy tome—although it was necessary for him to do so for all, since all things are false according to the premises of that man—if not that, then at least to all the necessary things without omission at the time, and as many as are of the goal alone and of that very proposed premise itself, which is gathered into a few things, or divided into chapters: having therefore proposed this to himself, and being about to enter into the struggle, he immediately sets forth the causes of his feigned delay. And first, indeed, that one must not theologize, he says, nor move things at all concerning such matters, since this seemed best and safest even to the holy Fathers and theologians. And if one ought not to theologize, nor to move the things which were resolved long ago by the Holy Spirit and by those who, through Him, divinely and loftily theologized on things divine and lofty, then this is a sentence from them. As you yourself also say, O philosopher, why did you choose to overturn things long ago well decreed, and to attempt things that did not befit you—and especially those things against you—with such excessive rashness and boldness; or rather, not to theologize, but to war against the holy theologians and dare to speak against the Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, following Barlaam and Akindynos, the leaders of the heresy? By calling yourself wise, a philosopher, and an astronomer—for such titles Christians of old used to call you with great deference, a name you yourself have donned, which I, remembering or even only hearing of, am pained and ashamed. But if we seemed to you not to have spoken and written well concerning God and divine things from the beginning, while still fulfilling the duties of priests, and [if we] were resisting Barlaam and Akindynos, those teachers of the heresies, with words and writings—for no one can ever show that we initiated words and writings against anyone at all regarding sacred dogmas, but rather, as we were accused of ungodliness instead of godliness by them, we were placed by necessity into a state of apology, as the former synodal tome of ours, and emperors, and patriarchs, and almost everyone together bears witness—if, therefore, that Gregory who, after the theologian of the same name, was also a theologian, and wise, and godlike no less than that one, together with the holy and God-beloved circle about him, resisting and fighting on behalf of the truth according to godliness, both in writing and in the manner of a father, did not seem to us to have written, or spoken, or theologized well or healthfully, as you yourself would say, why do you not also [submit] yourself, just like that Barlaam, to the judgment of the Catholic Church, and to the synod of...
the leading priests—and to Apollos, if you wish, or Dionysius, or Polycarp, or Clement—as far, I mean, as your arguments and the wisdom you admire are concerned, which you place above these—I say—mystagogues, and Demosthenes, and Aristeides, and Plato, who is so trumpeted among you? This is because you yourself pass over these for the sake of willful ignorance. And you would have learned that they did not come from the spade and the quarry, nor from the oar to the episcopal seat, according to your logographies or insults, but from wisdom to wisdom—to the wisdom that is being brought to nothing—to that which is actuated by the divine Spirit: the first, the wisdom from above, the pure, the peaceful, the one full of mercy and good fruits, according to my theologians; and from the external schools and the tribunal to this holy school, and to the divine throne, and to the inner sanctum, and to the great and truly super-celestial altar. B But now, there is little need for their arguments of secular wisdom. For they know, being as they are disciples of fishermen and countryfolk—I mean those first chosen by Christ, the Wisdom itself, to be apostles and disciples, who went from the oar, and nets, and fish-traps to the high seat and to that awe-inspiring and impartial tribunal, according to the word of Christ, in which, indeed, they shall also sit as judges, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. For I do not now wish to speak of the theophanies seen by them in the Spirit, and the revelations of mysteries, and those great and supernatural theologies, and the finished and concise word, which brought to nothing the wisdom that is being brought to nothing.
D Such are the disciples and sons of these teachers and fathers, whom you yourself mock and ridicule in your writings, as having come to the tribunal, as you say, from farmers and sailors and I know not whom else. But they are not ashamed to acclaim as teachers for themselves even a shoemaker or a tent-maker, that you might know their philosophy, O philosopher, and how they not only are not stung by your insults against them, but even show further zeal, and abound [in generosity], and supply unstintingly to the insults against themselves, shouting, clearly, with the great Paul: "These hands have ministered to my necessities, and to those who were with me." "And you see your calling, brethren," he says, "that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise." "And I, when I came to you, brethren," he says, "did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom, declaring to you the testimony of God. And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God." But the philosopher, setting legislation contrary to this common Lawgiver and Teacher of Christ’s Church, introduces instead human wisdom and the persuasion of words that are being brought to nothing, rejecting the demonstrations and the energies of the Spirit.
A But as for what we have already said in anticipation, he says that the first of those causes for his feigned and concocted refusal of the arguments against piety is that one must not engage in theology, as it is forbidden, he says, by those who are the lawmakers of the Church; for having set out from there, we were compelled to bring forward at length the argument against the philosopher. And he says that after that there is a second and a third, the one being the persecution that hangs over him, and those who are not strict guardians, and the cowardice and lack of timeliness arising from that, which he himself has already anticipated and invented; and the other, that even every hearing, he says, is closed to the arguments of heresy—this, for the present, truly, at once and justly, together with the entire fullness of the Church, except for some small and base portion, [rejects] the innovation, and the insult to the Divinity, and the arguments of those who turn away from it, even if in truth he has mingled falsehood with them here also, saying that some have already been preempted by the argument of truth, while others yield to cowardice, having been terrified by dominion and power.
But in addition to all the things mentioned, he adds at the end of this feigned postponement the argument that is truly safe and valid: I mean that [he says] the refutations of the champions and defenders of piety are not slightly dreaded and feared, along with the just mockery and overthrow that were destined to happen afterwards to him and his own arguments. And it is a marvel how the person from the oar and the spade, as he himself says, and from the daily labor of his hands, has passed into the steering of the Church, and therefore neither knows how to speak nor write with reason, yet this invincible dialectician, and philosopher, and interpreter of divine and sacred things, and self-appointed teacher, is so cowardly and trembles from afar? And how does he not feel shame, nor blush before the listeners, when he says these and those things at the same time, and simultaneously, and is caught by his own arguments, and becomes inconsistent with himself? For either those are not true, or these are false; for we shall not grant that both are equally true, since it is not possible for opposites to come together into the same state. But if there is every necessity that the latter are true—and this anyone who possesses a mind would say, for he would never have deigned to falsely accuse himself of cowardice and fear where it did not exist, and with the truth of the situation pressing—it is evident that those former things [were argued] with falsehood. And in truth he B fears, and struggles because the wise tongues of my rhetoricians, as he calls them, along with the truth of piety, are standing firm, as well as the theologians, from whom the divine light proceeding forward conquers everything, according to the argument of the accuser himself; I mean the refutations from there, and the most just and brilliant condemnation.
But the initiate and friend, the Angel—or rather, the mystagogue of such things himself—strengthening on the one hand the war in writing against the cause of piety, and on the other C removing and recovering [the argument] from the one that has previously occupied him, says that not one of those who are rightly thinking, nor of those well-born, should assist, nor follow the gathering of the Fathers and with piety, as if he were making his arguments beyond the Hyperboreans, or outside the Pillars of Hercules, and outside the inhabited world known to us, and having no one of those who have known and been with him as a listener to what is being spoken.
And who, O friend, among the emperors, both those who are present and those who have blissfully departed—so that I may begin from the principles and the head, from which you yourself also speak of human nobility—who, therefore, of those, or of the pious empresses, or of these God-guarded offspring, male as well as female, not merely of those who have attained age and intelligence, but even of those who are still imperfect in age but perfect in their mind regarding piety, who is not of the truth of piety? And who does not genuinely love Christ's Church and its sound understanding, and equally hates and turns away from the soul the heterodox and godless? And what is the golden race after them—I mean of those brothers, and nephews, and brides, and relations, and the great and first offices immediately after the imperial dignity, so that the list might not even be devoid of women of the imperial line, and this for the sake of you, who are puffed up and winged by these—are they not all at once, and every one of them, the study, and the zeal, and the defenders of the right arguments of piety and of the apostolic Church, courageously turning away from every strange heresy and bad opinion, just as if it were some Scylla and Charybdis and an Odyssean dog? Unless perhaps you say that some ignorant youths, who have come out of the children's school yesterday and the day before, and who admire some of the preliminary arguments, or not even those, but have only been listeners to some elements and syllables of those initial teachings, so that they are not even able to write accurately the things in the calculations of common administrations. For what if someone has put forward a gray and deep beard among these, but still carries about a childish and uninitiated mind, not walking in what he has not seen, and is as full of wisdom—not only of the upper and primary, I say, but also of this lower and human [wisdom]—as he is an empty participant, or thinks he is one? D
Then are you not ashamed before those who see, tell me, and those who hear, when your whole faction has already been almost entirely circumscribed, and it is itself unstable, and is frequently carried here and there, so that some, through lack of ability to contradict the saints and have anything timely to say, and to look up to the brilliant day of truth and that unapproachable light, say that these and those things ought to be kept silent, and that nothing concerning divine dogmas should be stirred up, driving away truth equally with falsehood, and light with darkness, while others who seem to have something more than the rest, as far as piety and outward appearance are concerned, say—some as if in a mystery and secretly, others already openly—that there is just cause to grieve [at the state] of the dis…
disaffected towards them, and the war waged against the Church by those standing at its head who have caused injustice, and who have been deprived of the presidency and the teaching thrones long awaited or even bestowed upon them? For I pass over for now your other group, who, longing for a name, or for freedom of speech, or for pecuniary gain, or [even] for a bit of bread—since they are well able to provide such things for themselves in the manner that is proper—shamefully gather these things from such a source. B But how could anyone pass over in total silence that final summit of lies, and that imagery—as if in a dream, or some intoxication, or a state of lethargy—and the error of the mind of this wandering philosopher? For he also introduces into his discourse the divine protector of piety, I mean Gregory, the holy [metropolitan] of Thessalonica—or rather, the beacon of the entire Church of Christ—as being, after the dissolution of that holy synod, driven out and slandered (as he himself says) by the multitude gathered there, and being forced by necessity to flee to the emperor for his support, and barely escaping in that manner from the ultimate dangers, groaning and trembling—for I have used his very own words. Yet, furthermore, he also says that his swarm of heretics, like certain rabid dogs, [rushed] before the gates of the palaces to tear and rend us asunder, leaving us half-dead, and that we barely managed to escape from there, so that he might seize from that point the very beginnings of his victory—which was either hoped for or dreamt of by him against us—to use his own language.
C ...and deeds. These men, even after your own overthrow and that of your companions—indeed, that of your heresy and of your falsehood—and the brilliant proclamation and commendation of the truth in accordance with piety, returned just as certain Olympic victors from that great Church, [looking] exalted, and brilliant, and godlike, and looking upward with the bearing of their soul, having cast down not the king of the Amorites, or the king of Bashan, or even, like David, Goliath later, but [having cast down] the great mind, the Assyrian, as wise Isaiah says, or the serpent, the dragon—to use his words again—the one who spoke in those god-fighting and blasphemous tongues the evil blasphemy against the heights, bringing upon it that holy and great sword of God, and, according to that divine word, [the sword] which is the utterance of God, as the divine Apostle says.
With such a procession, and with divine triumphs, and songs of victory, and applause, and paeans, there went forth from there the great soldiers and generals of Christ, and the unshakable bulwarks of His Church, having in their midst the friend [of God], the craftsman of the Word, the leader and protector of that holy struggle, the writer, the orator, and the sophist of the dogmas of piety, the destroyer of heresy, both long ago and now, the exposure of darkness, the radiant teacher and herald of the true light, not wearing a crown of olive upon his head, nor binding it with a crown of gold according to some of the ancients, but crowned from above with the transcendent and ineffable gifts of the Spirit, and enveloped and adorned invisibly with the light of the Spirit, a mouth of theology, and a tongue of piety, a temple of divine dogmas, and an instrument of holy words, a mystic and mystagogue of the true and primary wisdom, and a holy dwelling of the Spirit, and everything that is deemed and called divine and exalted by the Church of the faithful, [doing so] with a certain great and ineffable wonder.
D Things which worthy Gregoras, not knowing—whether willingly or unwillingly, out of envy—after his shameful retreat and flight from the synod together with his companions, [and] having undergone what they call a dog’s life, and having no clear light to know the things that are truly being done, weaves together and intertwines, as if on a stage and in a drama, those ridiculous things [filled with] a quantity of lies and nonsense that leaves no room for excess, as if plaiting a rope from sand, or dreaming as if in some intoxication, or melancholy, or lethargy (as I said before), not even knowing what he is saying, to those about whom the discourse is [addressed], [those words] being nothing, but testifying to the greatest folly, and madness, and disgrace of the one who is writing these things, so that it is not permitted for him to speak accurately, nor to write. As in...
those matters, he is not merely A attributing the power, and the expansiveness, and the wealth to his own potter’s craft, when it comes to the arguments and writings concerning dogmas and divine Scriptures.
It was fitting to discuss at greater length in this discourse those noble women whom you yourself called fugitives and outcasts because of piety, women whom you compared most inappropriately and unfittingly to the oil-bearing women of Christ; and regarding the cities, and the battle, and the uprisings of peoples against one another in every part of the earth, and the disorder—which are things that tell against you more than against the Church of Christ and B against its right doctrine, although you are the one bringing these charges against them, accusing them of being Achaemenids and of coming from Hagar. For they, too, cast the blame of their own problems and of our humiliation upon the Church of Christ, thinking wrongly that they have God with them in these matters, ignoring that "the whole world lies in the power of the evil one" (1 John 5:19), and that "one who does the will of God is better than ten thousand lawless ones" (Sirach 16:3), and further, "In the world you will have tribulation" (John 16:33), and "If they persecuted me, they will persecute you" (John 15:20), and words similar to these, spoken by the Truth himself, Christ, to his own disciples, and through them to us. Therefore, it was also fitting for me to refute you more C broadly together with them, since you have been caught in this matter both thinking and writing the same things against us as they do. But the argument, shunning surfeit and things that are superfluous, will here, for the present, halt its course, giving it back to the necessary points, and concerning those things which are the primary scope of our argument.
BY THE SAME
AGAINST HIM WHO WROTE THE SECOND DIALOGUE AGAINST PIETY AND HER HOLY VOLUME, BY THE PHILOSOPHER GREGORAS
SECOND ANTIRRHETIC DISCOURSE
On the difference between the divine essence and energy.
It is, however, a very laborious and difficult task, most wise and Christ-loving emperor, to oppose arguments to the arguments of impiety and to wage war against falsehood with the truth; and to arm the theology of the God-bearing Fathers against this multi-headed blasphemy. For falsehood is of itself easily detected, and for this very reason it is easily refuted even if it surrounds itself with D many circles, and frequently puts forward the masks of truth; yet the word of God, as it says, "the holy words are living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Heb. 4:12), is that for which the argument is made to the theologians. This, therefore, as I said, is not laborious nor difficult to bring to fulfillment, but that other thing, which is most burdensome and trying, is this disorder and confusion of arguments, and we are so shameless and inconsistent and repetitive with this falsehood and slander—for the shame and lack of restraint of these insults, and because it is as if maddened by some demonic energy, I let pass for now—to at least bring those things back to order and sequence in the argument, and to find who it is that one is to refute, as they seem in some way to be saying something and contradicting the argument of truth, and whom it is one should send away from this logical arena and conflict after having anointed them and crowned them with wool, according to the proverb, as no difficult or forceful thing, and no Sicilian strait is it directly! Therefore, leaving behind those long courses and detours, and that frequent babbling, let us turn the argument to the necessary things, as much as possible.
What else would be among the necessary and useful things, other than to examine again bit by bit the chapters of that holy volume of piety, and to join to them the things that were well-composed at that time by the holy council, from the divine Scripture and from the theological and patristic discourses, which were most miserably torn apart and severed from their harmony and connection by the one wrongly opposing them; and to add to the explanation—from the divine Scripture again, I say, and from its interpreters and theologians—and to treat this more broadly as far as possible? Since this very philosopher-dialectician also brings that charge against us in those insults of his, saying that we do not examine, nor syllogize, nor know how to construct the proposed points, but rather, as he says, introduce our own premises, and conclude otherwise out of ignorance; and he is not able to discern this very thing himself, or rather is doing so maliciously and twisting things, so that he is not writing arguments, but is rather hacking at them, as if he were referring back to the council of the Fathers, which I believe is to publish in summarized form, and as it were to quarrel over things that have been spoken and written at length many times. And if you wish, philosopher, I would say to that man, we will demonstrate to you the many and beautiful arguments themselves, and the books that were composed of old to your associates and teachers, not ignobly, and you will see and hear a multitude of treatises, and the necessity of syllogisms, and the construction, and the power, and the strength of the arguments, which with the Spirit rightly confirm the things of the Spirit, and [refute] every most shameful heresy and evil doctrine like stubble to the fire.
A But how could you, O reader, have paid attention to those things with the truth that accompanies them, you who have not even read this holy tome of the Synod itself soundly and faultlessly, but have torn it apart and mangled it, and have removed the greatest part of its connection, or even the whole of it, except for a few things, as we will show a little later as we proceed? He, then, who has dared such things against the definition of piety, does so with an uncovered head, as they say, and without any blushing, making his way against those holy parts and fragments of the definition of piety, fabricating persecutions, imprisonments, confiscations, and fears that do not exist at all. And in addition to these, as if on a stage and in a drama, he falsely introduces a certain mystic and friend at the dead of night to himself, allegedly offering the steps of the holy tome, and B inciting those [who hear] to nothing but perversion and slander, as the argument has already shown, a tome which those men, as it happens, already possessed in its entirety just as we ourselves did.
Therefore, he who is determined to contradict the truth in this way, raving uncontrollably and struggling against it and against us, and yet is unable even to look upon its power or even to open his mouth, contests the parts that have been cut off, vainly thinking he will profit from this, just as in military camps those who, through weakness, avoid attacking the enemy phalanxes head-on, but lie in ambush for them one by one or in pairs, or attack the rear-guard cowardly. C If he seemed to me to be saying something at all, and to be contesting the sound dogmas of piety with any arguments or thoughts—like those secret teachers of his for the time being—I myself would not have hesitated, according to the length of the argument, to use the truth against the falsehood as best I could. But since those things are merely a mob of words, a rabble, and an outright confusion, and contain nothing sound, this is what I think must be done, as I have already proposed: to set forth and gather into one [place], and to restore the harmony and order that belong to the seven chapters in total, which are counted in the definition of the holy D piety, which the philosopher's arguments also pretend to fight against. Then, by bringing [to bear] the unfolding and the working [of the Spirit], insofar as the Spirit grants it, to clarify the Scriptural and Patristic arguments righteously, which he, interpreting evilly, distorts; and thus, to proceed against his arguments and the fruits of his mind, and the contradictions and slanders on each chapter in particular, and to show not only that he is not telling the truth at all—with God, however, is the argument—but also that he is slandering and blaspheming, and standing shamelessly against the whole of the holy theology of the Saints, and—I say—against him who is one of the holy theologians, and the one and only physician and instructor, Christ, according to this argument of his. And indeed, what I said of those things must be spoken.
After the just condemnation and destruction A of those who think as Barlaam and Acindynus do, the holy tome of that Synod says word for word as follows: “Of those who are contentious and still in an incurable state, it seemed just that another synod be convened again, so that through examination the truth regarding the piety of the doctrines put forward by the Saints might become more evident. And when it had come to pass, since those who were heterodox did not wish to appear, but refused this once and for all, the most pious Emperor ordered that, many dogmatic, chapters having been put forward for inquiry, we should proceed.” B First, if there is in God a God-befitting distinction of essence and energy; second, once the distinction has appeared, whether this energy is created or uncreated; third, if uncreated energy be proven to be God-befitting, how could anyone avoid thinking that God is composite because of this, which the heterodox dare to use against the Church of God; fourth, if the utterance of divinity is hymned by the theologians not only regarding the essence, but also the divine energy. For from this, the enemies of this place pour out the deformity of ditheism upon the Church of God; fifth, if the theologians say that the essence is in some way superior to the energy, since this also falls under censure by those who oppose it. And finally, if God is participated in, whether the participation is according to the essence or according to the C energy.
“So many questions being set before us just now, we must not speak about all of them at once, for the grasp of what is being sought would thus become in no way accurate, nor as we intended, but having discussed each one individually, let us pass on to the next, using as unerring guides the holy theologians.”
And first, if it pleases, let us speak about the first: “Is there a God-befitting distinction in God of essence and energy—which is forbidden to those who are contentious, and who think that many other absurdities and polytheism follow from this—or is it entirely the same and indifferent?”
And a little later, “And the theologians,” he says, “as they have the opinion regarding these things, [having been] read to the hearing of all, it was proven that those who do not uphold the distinction between the divine essence and energy, together with the union, are atheists and involve themselves in many absurdities. D For according to the great Dionysius, that which has no power or energy neither is, nor is it anything, nor is there any affirmation or negation of it at all. But that which has [something], differs in some way from what it has. If, therefore, there is no difference between divine essence and energy, it is not possible for God to have the essence [as] energy. And that which does not have energy is without energy, and that which is without energy is non-existent.”
After the just condemnation and overthrow A of the God-bearing Damascene writing: “The work of the divine nature is the pre-eternal generation, and the work of the divine will is the creation”; and of Saint Cyril: “To act belongs to the energy, but to beget belongs to the nature.”
A And if they say that the divine essence and the divine energy—which they say are identical—are indifferent, since according to them the generation is of the nature, and according to them the energy is indifferent to the nature, then the generation will be of the energy too, and thus the creatures will be eternal generations, as being from the divine nature. But since, again, it is the function of the energy to act, and the nature is indifferent to the energy according to them, then it will be the function of the nature to act. And thus, according to them, those things which are of the nature will be creatures.” So much for the content of the venerable Tome.
But even concerning our Lord and God in the Gospel according to John, where it is said, “I and the Father are one,” the divine Chrysostom, in his sixty-fourth homily on the interpretation of that Gospel, clarifying this text, says that it was spoken there according to the power. For all his discourse was about this. “But if the power is the same,” he says, “it is evident that the essence is also.” And after a few words: “For it is not possible to learn either B another essence or another power through one another.” And again, in the same Gospel, when the apostle Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us,” this same divine Chrysostom, in the same homily, says: “Let us see, he says, what Philip is seeking to see: is it the wisdom of the Father? Is it the goodness? No, but what God is, that is, the essence itself.” And again, the same author, explaining the apostolic text from the Epistle to the Romans, which says, “For the mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace,” says that he called by “mind of the flesh” wickedness, and by “mind of the Spirit” the grace that is given, and the energy that is mingled with a good will, nowhere here discoursing about hypostasis and essence. And again, the same Chrysostom, in the discourse in which he explains the passage, “Put your hand under my thigh, and swear,” says these words exactly: “Truly, the Lord’s flesh was a lamp, which showed the light of the C Holy Spirit with sevenfold grace. For, he says, ‘A rod shall come out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise out of it, and the Spirit of God shall rest upon him.’ What kind? That which is manifold in energies and manifold in essence. ‘The Spirit of God shall rest upon him.’ Here he interprets the essence. But what follows tells of the energies of the Spirit: ‘The Spirit of God, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and strength, the Spirit of knowledge and piety, the Spirit of the fear of God,’ the seven graces of the Holy Spirit resting upon the Lord’s body, which he shapes in the form of a seven-branched lamp.” And again, the same divine Chrysostom, in his discourse concerning the Holy Spirit: “It does not,” he says, “take all the gifts, so that no one should think that the grace is the essence.”
But Gregoras, very basely and senselessly fastening upon these things, and attempting to misinterpret and distort them, now through the one who presided over the synod at that time and led the sacred struggles and dogmas, I mean the great Gregory of the great Thessaloniki, or rather, the joint light-bearer of that Catholic Church of Christ, and now also through the whole assembly of that synod of the Fathers, pours out the greatest slander and blasphemy against the sacred teachers and the high and supernatural theology of the Spirit, as if he had deliberately set himself for this task, and has made this very thing a new merchandise D of the most extreme and empty philosophy: I mean the attack and mockery of the ineffable and supernatural things, and the unbridled and bold insult. To oppose these now and bring forth the appropriate rebuttals, having interrupted the succession of those sacred rebuttals and arguments of the proposed synodical Tome—and I think it is somehow untimely and not without confusion. Therefore, keeping to the sequence of what preceded, and again, especially because of this slanderer, who, stringing together those long railings against the synod, adds those things to the others—so that we do not even speak or go through the matters proposed, nor bring in the theologians and teachers of the Church as witness to our own words, but boast in vain of all the saints, using their name alone as a pretext, while producing no one for the truths, for indeed he has none at all—because of all these things, and because the argument of truth ought to be set before all of us who read, straight and unconfused and sincere, just as it was previously set forth from above in common by the common synod of the Fathers, the argument must be brought back again to the continuity and harmony. What then does the holy Tome say again? “Of Saint Cyril,” it says, “again writing in the second of the dialogues against Hermias: In addition to all these things, we say that the fire that burns and the water that cools are made from the energy of God; those saying that essence and energy are the same and indifferent will be forced to say that both water and fire are from the essence of God. And so, the current heresy is worse than the error of the Greeks, since they indeed [thought] the rational soul alone [was] from the essence.”
You have heard, O philosopher, of the difference of the divine essence, and power, and energy, not from below and from the earth, but clearly from the heavens themselves, through the evangelists and apostles, and from the sacred Fathers and theologians who explained them, shining forth something wonderful and bright, and lighting the whole Church of Christ together, so that its supernatural rays are distributed from east to west, carrying within itself nothing unbright or dark, nor anything crooked, knotted, and enigmatic, but proposing everything straight to those who understand, according to the proverbial saying, and rightly, they find grace? And if toward this lightning, or rather should I say the sacred [radiance] of theology...
you are altogether strong to look back and to contradict, why did you not stand unflinching face to face against those bright and super-celestial rays, just as they say those eagles bring their offspring to the solar rays, and thus distinguish the genuine from the spurious? But toward those you turn the eyes of an owl or a bat, while toward the parhelia, or rather, it is more fitting to say, while you see the moon’s haze, and darkness, and deep fog, you dare to falsely represent that intelligible sun—the strange passions of your own soul and intellect, driven by which, as you ought not to have been, you are in wretched condition; and, having conceived in the night a wicked hope, according to the blessed B Isaiah, and having again said the same thing in falsehood, you yourself will be covered—you weave together those laughable objections, and the phantoms of syllogisms, and the common misinterpretations of the theologians, and the empty strife, and the chatter, plaiting a rope from sand, and running after your own shadow, and introducing a certain novel example and calamity directly into the Church of the faithful, for which even a child might blush.
But regarding those things, as I said before, we shall speak later, as God gives the word in due course; but now we must turn our speech again to the sequence and the definition of piety, and add what was left out to what has already been said. For it is neither holy nor profitable to abandon those arguments before the end.
Read, therefore. But even the holy martyr and philosopher, he says, Justin, writing that since God has essence for existence, but will for creation, he who rejects the difference between essence and will, and rejects the existence of God and his creation, is clearly shown to be among those who deny the difference and deny God and glorify a spontaneous [creation]. For according to the divine John of Damascus, will is also an activity, as he explains in the thirty-sixth of the dogmatic chapters concerning activity. For having spoken before of other things, and indeed of human and divine will, he adds immediately at the beginning of the next chapter, word for word, thus: "It must be known that all the aforesaid powers, whether cognitive, or vital, or natural, or technical, are called activities. For an activity is the natural power and movement of each essence, of which only that which is not-being is destitute."
These things having been thus very clearly clarified, and the difference having been demonstrated most evidently and as it could not be otherwise—not in the persuasion of human wisdom, according to the divine Paul, but in the teachings of the Holy Spirit, in the divinely inspired theologies of the Fathers, the divine synod said—it was necessary for those who attempted, even in any way whatever, to differ about this, now at least, if not before, to have piously driven the disease of contentiousness from their own intellect, and to be very readily persuaded by the common C teachers of piety, emitting not just louder voices concerning the difference of essence and activity, but, as it were, brighter, and attempting nothing at all to contradict them, and to try to be inquisitive further: what the activity is, and of what kind is the difference, and how it could be? For it seems they have not heard the Father Chrysostom, in those places where he explains the divine Gospel according to John, teaching that the divine activity is inexplicable, and incomprehensible, and beyond the laws of nature.
For if you receive the perception of this Spirit, he says, by hearing and by touch, and you do not know how to interpret it, nor the manner, why do you inquire into the activity from the divine Spirit? You do not understand that of the wind, even though you hear its voice: "But where it wills, it blows," is said to set forth the authority of the Paraclete. For if no one holds this, but it is borne where it wills, much more will the laws of nature be unable to contain the activity of the Spirit, nor the bounds of bodily birth, nor anything else D of such things.
Nor even that of the great Basil, who argues against Eunomius and theologizes, [saying] that if we were to measure everything by comprehension, and to assume that what is incomprehensible to concepts is not at all, the reward of faith will be gone, the reward of hope will be gone. And how could we still be worthy of the beatitudes that are laid up in faith concerning invisible things, if we were persuaded only by those things that are evident to reason? From where were the nations rendered foolish, and their senseless heart darkened? Is it not because they follow the things appearing to reason, and disobey the proclamation of the Spirit? And those whom Isaiah laments as having perished: "Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and learned before themselves." Is it not such as these? And after some time again the Tome [says], "Come now, let us," it says, "trusting in the God who is championed by the Fathers, attempt to discourse a little concerning the manner of the union and distinction of divine essence and activity, not attempting to find out our own reasonings for some defense of things piously theologized long ago by them, but, as we have been eager to observe the law everywhere, that the doctrines of the Church are to be confirmed by the teachers of the Church, and never to add anything of our own, nor take away from what has been dogmatized by them—using this same [law] here as well, having heard those who cry aloud that the divine activity is from the divine essence, we do not think that it is so because all things are from God, as [is thought] by those who differ, and to whom this, along with many other absurdities, seems [to be the case]. For while 'from God' has been said of creatures, 'from the essence of God' has never been said of any of the things created; indeed, this is utterly forbidden by the saints. For the great Basil says, 'That which is made is not from the essence of the maker'; and the divine Damascene, 'Creation, even if it has come into being after these things, yet not from...≫
the essence of the maker; the creature and the maker are altogether unlike.'
Moreover, we have not imagined it to be outside the divine essence, so as to speak nonsense, not so much impiously as ignorantly, but rather we say that this essential and natural movement of God proceeds and springs forth from the divine essence according to the theologians, and without it is never contemplated, but ever remains inseparable from it, and coexists with the divine essence, and is inseparably united to it, neither in eternity, nor in time, A nor divided from the divine essence by any interval, but is timeless, and pre-eternal, proceeding from it, and inseparably coexisting with it. For the great Athanasius says, "When," he says, "all things are worked by God through Christ in the Holy Spirit, I see the energy of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit as inseparable." And the divine Anastasius, whom the holy ecumenical council remembered, and called him great in his second discourse on the Incircumscribed—"Let us see," says he, "what the heretics endure to say about God. The energy, he says, is in all things, but the essence is nowhere, calling the result of the energy the energy itself." I, however, would say that the energy is inseparable from the nature of God. And after some things, "Where the energy is spoken of, the essence also is contemplated along with it, from which it proceeds. For each is circumscribed, and therefore they are altogether inseparable from one another." It proclaims the energy, while the essence is hidden; it is contemplated along with the energy, being unable to exist without it. And again: "Whatever the energy is, the essence stands as inseparable from it." But just as we preach the divine and eternal union, not only as inseparable, but as being one in many, and indeed by the commonality of the uncreated and the circumscribed, which the theology of the saints proclaims, so we have also known how to glorify the distinction and difference according to them, not from this source rending B them into a complete fragmentation and division, nor thinking of any monstrous and natural alienation, or separating these things from one another—far be it! But we have learned from the saints to accept the things which are by nature cause and caused, and, only by reasoning, piously to distinguish those things which are by nature united and inseparable. For the great Athanasius, in his fifth discourse against the Arians, says that another is the cause, and another is that which is from him; according to this, then, it would be two. But if there were not two, but it were said of the same being, that it is the same cause and caused, generating and being generated, which has been shown to be absurd in the case of Sabellius. Therefore, since it is believed by all the theologians that the energy is from the essence, and that the other is something else, and that they are two, from this point it is clearly shown that they have differed from one another powerfully, according to the "from what" and "from whom," the cause, that is, and the caused, as this great man teaches concerning divine things. And after some things: "Let there be, he says, a human example, the fire and the radiance from it, two in being and being seen, but in the 'from it' and 'inseparable' is its radiance." Just as, therefore, in the case of the fire and the light from it, the one being nature and cause, the other being of the nature of the plant and caused, he has spoken of the one because of the inseparability, and again of the different because of the cause and the caused, so we must also accept the one and the different in the case of the divine nature and the energy from it, the one according to that which is C united and inseparable, the other according to the cause and that which is from the cause itself. For neither does the one drive away the difference, nor does the difference altogether overturn the one. But each, when piously contemplated according to the saints, will be able to be harmed in no way by the other. But also the divine Gregory of Nyssa, knowing well the difference in these causes and caused beings, that it is linked to the truth, and is not in any way damaging to the nature that is indifferent, writing to Ablabius, said, "Confessing the inapproachability of the nature, we do not deny the difference according to the cause and the caused, in which alone we grasp that the one is distinguished from the other, in believing the one to be the cause, and the other to be from the cause."
The brother of him, however, and truly great Basil, appears in such a way to simply attribute the difference to these causes and caused beings, that he even dogmatizes about a rank out of natural sequence and the prior, and the second, in the case of the cause and the caused, speaking so expressly, and thinking it to be among the absurd and irrational things, not to confess, but to try to deny these things. And said that Eunomius either did not perceive this difference, or D that he was willingly concealing it by writing. "That, either Eunomius does not know, or he willingly concealed, that there is a certain kind of rank, not consisting in our contemplation, but occurring by the very natural sequence itself, as is the light from the fire to the fire. For in this we say the cause is prior, and that which is from it is second, not separating these things by an interval, but by reasoning, thinking of the cause before the caused. How then is it reasonable to deny the rank, where there is a first and a second, not according to our position, but because of the sequence naturally existing in them?" It is therefore possible for all who are able to reason in any way at all to grasp accurately from these things how the saint cared for truth and piety alike. For in saying that it does not consist in our contemplation, but occurs by the very natural sequence itself, by an inevitable and great and natural necessity, and by the bright truth, he showed that the difference in this rank between the caused and the causes exists, and that it is never allowed to be otherwise, but is always necessarily observed in them; but
A even if one were to say it twice or thrice concerning the theological [matters] and had worked out and theologized these things to such an extent under the sacred synod, he, as if confirmed, or even sleeping toward almost everything, tastes only of the beginning and the end of the theological arguments—not so that he might say or refute anything of what is required, as he himself claims for the time being, for even then there might have been something, but so that he might calumniate, and falsely accuse, and insult purely out of habit, first the synod and that sacred decree, and then the common Fathers and theologians of the Church, just as the discourse proceeding point by point will reveal.
For B tell me, O philosopher—I shall ask [you] since it is necessary—from where did you derive the new manner of this dialectic, which you have both learned yourself and introduced to the Church of God? Which of the sacred theologians did you imitate in these refutations? And yet, although there are many and great ones, both those immediately following the apostles and those in later times, [who lived] when those heresies were flourishing and those who were the enemies of the sacred Church of Christ. But if you did not wish to follow these, as was C necessary, but [preferred] your own philosophers and teachers, as leaders and guides, you ought to have at least adopted from them the modes of dialectic and the form of refutatory arguments, and thus written and spoken against those whom you have attempted to speak against. For they, as you know, almost all having refuted one another’s doctrines, and eventually Aristotle appearing to refute everything for everyone in most respects, do not appear to have used your manner or the form of your arguments, not even close. For how [could they]? [You], not even regarding or providing any account for such and so many of the subjects and headers of my thesis—as if they had never been stated in the beginning—but, as I said, merely touching upon the preliminaries and epilogues of those theological D arguments with the tips of your fingers, not so that you might say anything of what is required, but so that you might insult unrestrainedly, and calumniate, and lie against the truth, and this in the extreme, and unworthily of your own philosophers and teachers.
But if you should say that you were unable to find the whole synodal tome at once, but having received those brief phrases from your Agathangelos, you intended to speak of necessity only against those—firstly, this is not even true, but is a fiction, a contrivance, and a falsehood which the argument has previously shown. But even if your argument itself were true by hypothesis, it is nothing to the point. You ought to have sought, and the majority, or rather the whole at once, and thus to have refuted [them] part by part, and to speak, and to write, and not to lie so obviously both against yourself and to overturn the argument of the faction that has set you up, and to corrupt the thesis most shamefully. But why must one say these things, and demand what is fitting
A from so wonderful a king, and not even be able to look at or stand against that supernatural strength of the truth? He attempts to speak of the shadow of that truth, and B to speak what are supposedly empty words, but is rather weaving blasphemies against the saints, and against God Himself, who is spoken of by them in theological terms, babbling away and contriving those laughable things that are worth no consideration whatsoever. These things will indeed be demonstrated as the discourse proceeds. As for us, it is now the time to descend to those matters, and to hear his individual arguments, since we have from the beginning brought ourselves C to this task.
BY THE SAME AUTHOR
THIRD ANTIRRHETIC DISCOURSE AGAINST THE SAME PHILOSOPHER GREGORAS,
Concerning the Distinction Between the Divine Essence and Energy, and Concerning the Divine Power, Which God Possesses Naturally According to the Holy Theologians.
Say then, O good Gregoras, as you examine the matters against the holy B and the superfluous things, and those that have no relation to the matter under consideration, but which are directly at war with that council and the Tome, and as you attempt, as much as possible, to strip away the long-winded babbling which you directed especially against Agathangelos regarding the one who stands at the head of the divine dogmas—I speak of the great Gregory. First, as you can see, there is an attempt C wherein you speak of the great Dionysius saying that there is "no power or energy" that it possesses, nor is it absolutely "a thesis of his, nor a subtraction." And watch how you have not taken this simply, nor straightforwardly, but with your usual trickery. For one must see how Dionysius, when theologizing about divine power, says to others—and this is what he says—that "There is no power that it has, nor is it, nor is there any thesis of his at all." But you, the slanderer, have inserted—or rather, you have inserted to the end—you have inserted the "energy" D at the beginning of the clause, so that you might have a provision for your own wickedness. For you immediately let the word "power" be forgotten and carried away, and having posited "energy" as a foundation, you build a tower of impiety against piety, like one of the Chaldeans. And it is shown that you have used and abused him for no other reason than that you might make that divine man an accomplice to your supposed impiety and wickedness, and through him easily take captive the simplicity of your hearers.
The entire scope of this discourse of the adversary against the truth of piety is to show that God has no natural energy or power, and that it is in any way different from His essence. And this is his constant aim throughout the discourse, as will be shown in detail in what follows. As for your madness against us, or your lack of more important and necessary things, it is clear. D And what must one say about others? Since even those who are the leaders and teachers of our piety, and this very Dionysius before others, and those interpreting and teaching the divine Scriptures, and
those who oppose them, taking their stand, change many things, and transpose them, and make additions—which I was saying—of syllables and words, without in any way injuring the purpose of the discourse. But also the apostles before them, and the evangelists, so that I may bring the argument to the crowning points, and the first principles, and the very elements of the whole sacred theology, taking the words of the Law and the Prophets, and in a word, all of the Old [Testament] together as a testimony for their own discourse, have for the most part used the aforementioned manner, looking only to the understanding of the ancients, as I was saying, and [looking to] how they might fittingly and uncorruptly adapt the appropriate [words] to the matters at hand, while caring little for the words and syllables, provided the purpose of the one who wrote is preserved. And if you wish, we will also produce the books for you, and the discourses so disposed, and the sacred utterances, going even up to the venerable Gospels, and I say, to Christ himself, the first and only teacher of all. B
But, he says, "my discourse, looking toward that [Dionysius], both reviles and attacks the one who wrote badly, because he does not adhere to the understanding of the theologian himself; but instead of the power, which he [Dionysius] speaks of, he himself introduces with authority, as if some autocrat, an energy, entirely different from that one, such that it cannot even be compared." Very well. But if we should now bring into the discourse another sacred theologian and philosopher according to him—for it would be just that the things of the theologians be interpreted by theologians—if then that man, coming forward now, should teach clearly that the natural energy is power, or rather that very natural power, of which the holy Dionysius says that nothing of the things that exist is devoid (for he says that that which is wholly devoid of innate power would not be at all, not even being), and if that theologian has shown this, as I say, to be that natural power, being a natural energy, will he himself also lay down this battle, or rather this shadow-boxing, and make peace with the true discourse and with the agreement of these brilliant teachers, whom he himself also feigns to bring forward as witnesses of his own words, and will he subject his own discourse? Or what do you say? You will subject it, I know well, and you will be refuted, if not willingly, then at any rate unwillingly, by every necessity. Let there therefore come forward the recapitulation of the sacred theology of the apostles and Fathers, the common mouth of the theologians. I mean John the Syrian, to teach us the matter in question. For this man, having philosophized much about volitions, and will, and divine and human counsel in the theological treatises, as the Tome we showed a little earlier said, thus somehow after those things immediately brings in [a word] about energy, saying: "It is necessary to know that all the aforementioned powers—both the cognitive, and the vital, and the natural, and the technical—are called energies; for energy is the natural power and movement of each substance." And again, "Energy is the natural, innate move- C ment, the manifestative power of each substance." And again, "Energy is the natural power and movement of each substance, without which there is only that which is not." Do you see, O philosopher, the marvelous teaching and agreement of these holy and true philosophers and theologians? Since, for those to whom the same craftsman [is the one] who has used, as it were certain instruments at the proper time for each of these—I mean the Spirit of God, the Spirit of truth, and of wisdom, and of understanding—even with few words do they speak the same things. For that which Dionysius there called power, of which that which does not partake is not at all, nor is it anything, nor is there any position of it whatsoever, this the divine John here calls the natural energy of each substance, and power, without which there is only that which is not, just as you have heard. What could become clearer and more concise than this for a proof, and especially when it has been said three and four times in the same way by the theologian?
Do you wish that I also bring a second philosophical witness to the matter at hand, to whose words not only regarding the truth, but also toward the end by his own death, has sealed this great pronouncement of testimony? Let Justin, the great martyr of the Church, both martyr and philosopher, speak and testify to these things. "Energy," he says, "is the natural power, keeping intact for all things the essential distinction from everything else. Natural energy is the innate movement of every substance. Energy is the natural power manifesting every substance." So that those of that holy synod have rightly understood the saying of the wise Dionysius, according to his purpose and understanding, having called the natural energy along with the theologians the power, of which only that which is not is deprived. False is that discourse of Gregoras, which says that the Tome of the saints slanders and distorts [the truth] for the deception of the hearers. And that swarm of blasphemies and insults is directed not toward those who are slandered, but toward those who slander and lie by necessity. D
But the more complete discourse concerning energy let it wait for the present, taking up the proper discourse after a little, not by two or three theologians, but almost by all together; but now let us return to the philosopher and his discourses against us. "But a great shuddering," he says, "runs through my mind when I am about to touch upon theology, yet it is necessary to stand against this hostile babbling, and not to fight defenselessly, but having both a discourse [that is sound] and at the same time one that battles together with truth, and with the Spirit." The discourse must therefore be brought back, and those things must be brought into the middle, in which this slanderer and blind man brings forward the great Dionysius saying that which has no power or energy "neither is, nor is it anything, nor is there any position of it whatsoever." And rightly so; for neither nature nor art does anything in vain, but all things come into being for the sake of some of the things that are coming into being. But he, through craftiness, changed
805 CONTRĄ GREGORAM ANTIRRHETICORUM III. 806
bearing; for, he says, that which has, differs in some way from that which it has, [A] and since they have put forward the man who was apostle to the saints, Dionysius, by saying that that which has no power neither is, nor is it anything, nor is there any position for it at all, you, even before your objections and your accusations against us, have cast that ahead, immediately following the saying of the Theologian, saying: "Rightly; for neither nature nor art does anything in vain, but all things happen for the sake of one of those that occur." Which it is not possible to see at all, nor, as I said, even to conceive what it has to do, or how it contributes in any way to the aim and the argument of the Theologian. For he says [of] that which has no power, that it neither is, nor is anything, nor is there any position for it at all. Yet, if you were wishing to clarify or elaborate, you should have rather said those things, [B] "Rightly; for nothing that does not have its own innate and appropriate power, whether you speak of something intellectual, or rational, or irrational, or even inanimate, can exist at all." For in this way you would have been in agreement with the theologians and the wise, and before others with Dionysius, the father of the word. But now, saying those things, I do not know if you even speak coherently to yourself. For just as if someone had said that since the heaven is spherical, the earth holds the position of a center in relation to it, and you yourself had said: "Rightly; for nothing among terrestrial things can live at all without breathing this air," or if one of the quadrupeds, "Rightly; for man is a laughing animal"; so you say those things in the same way, I do not know if in your usual mocking manner against yourself, or against your audience. But these things, as far as they serve to point out the philosopher from these trifles, are not only in the great and lofty matters which he has badly undertaken, but even in the chance and smallest ones, foolish and blameworthy, and altogether incongruous; but let us come to his objections concerning "having," and his accusations, and his slanders against us, or rather against the common theology of the saints. [C]
For it differs, in any case, if there is no difference between divine essence and energy, it is not possible for the essence of God to have energy. And that which does not have energy is without-energy, and that which is without-energy is also non-existent. Concerning theology, then, and the holy science and contemplation according to it, I would say to him opportunely: "Do not fear at all, O philosopher. I am a sufficient guarantor for you, that you will not theologize in the least, nor will you yourself peep at all into the mysteries of God." For He set darkness as His secret place, according to the one who said, so that a darkened nature might not easily see the hidden beauty, which is unknown to the many. For [he says] neither does fire cool, nor does crystal heat; [D] moreover, with the sovereign judgment concerning such things laid down from above, and the assertion—for they do not gather grapes from thorns, nor figs from thistles, which Christ said concerning the scribes and the Pharisees. But the good man out of the good treasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil. Therefore, do not theologize yourself, as I said, but rather you will fight against the saints who theologize the divine things, and you will blaspheme, and you will wage war against God endlessly. For these things have long been stored up in the evil treasure of your heart, which you have now badly burst forth at the end, as you should not have done. Because of which you should have rather feared and trembled, and shrunk back; for this might have perhaps contributed something to your correction and salvation. But now, where there is no fear, you have feared, and where you ought to have feared and retreated, having cast away both cowardice at once and all shame, with a bare head you charge, not, as you said, for the Spirit, but against the Spirit—woe!—calling the theology of His saints a hostile babbling; for these things, this holy volume of the Synod [is clear]—not other things; and those words in which you pride yourself, and which you have acquired badly, using them most badly against yourself, and running towards a precipice, and driving through yourself the sword which you have taken up against your enemies. Hence, also, that holy man and seer of God, whose eyes are like doves according to the holy song—so, I think, that wise song-writer hinted at the grace of the Spirit, in which and through which those who see God according to Him see [Him] as it is possible—hence you, looking past him, and as in darkness and night groping for things that do not exist, call him a slanderer, woe! things which you yourself would have rather heard from those who wish to speak justly and according to reason. But enough of these. But that which you threw aside or cast before you so rashly, having read the saying of the wonderful Dionysius, I do not have at all the strength to relate what it means for you. For while running down that contemplator, or rather the whole Synod and me among the Fathers, with whom he drew up this holy definition of the faith, inspired by the divine Spirit, while rising up together against all of them, although you have not yet philosophized about the divine power and energy of the proposed [subjects]... [D]
The philosopher, having put forward those things from the synodal volume, as I said, has them in this way: "For according to the great Dionysius, that which has no power, of that which it is, neither is it anything, nor is there any position for it at all; but that which has, it has well, and it differs in some way. If, therefore, there is no difference between divine essence and energy, it is not possible for the essence of God to have energy; and that which does not have energy [is] without-energy and non-existent." Having added these things from the volume, he then brings in his own, saying: "Here, there being three sins—ignorance, and impiety, and the theft we have spoken of, and buffoonery—a fourth stands in between: that of slander, which he uses against the mind of the divine Dionysius." For that divine man, being wise and knowing that the meaning of "to have" is polysemous, and has been applied to creatures, rightly applied it here also to creatures. But this shameless one, while he himself is impious, [thinks] the divine one to be of one mind with him...
and he struggles to show [it] and slanders [him]. For it is known to those who possess even a little bit of rational knowledge, that the expression "to have" is homonymous and by no means simple, and this seems so to not only the wise men of those outside, but also to all the wise teachers of the divine Church together. If [the] divine A John of Damascus will suffice for us today for instruction, dividing for us the meaning of "to have" in eight ways, nowhere is he found giving "to have" to that divine and most simple nature. For how could he? With natural mediation intervening, and distinguishing the thing held from the one holding it in this way, but gathering in another way the spurious and acquired mode.
These four things, as we have heard, this empty philosopher B at once brings forward charges against the synodal tome, saying there is ignorance and impiety, theft and buffoonery, as he himself says, and, fourthly, slander, calling [it] ignorance and impiety, as one might guess from his vanity of reasoning and mind; for the logician did not even distinguish or clarify from there that the tome takes "to have" in creatures—as he himself mistakenly thinks—*only*, but rather not also in God at all, but rather the tome also expressed this concerning God, saying that He has a natural energy, and that it is somehow different from the divine essence, and calls this natural energy uncreated. For this, as he himself will show while proceeding, [will show] more clearly through his own words. And I think he calls it theft and buffoonery because he places the sacred utterances of the Scriptures, and indeed also the common teachings of the theological teachers concerning God—with which the whole tome is beautifully woven together from beginning to end and supported, and from which it takes manifest testimony for the truth according to piety—and because he also adds the energy, as being identical to the term of power, just as the theologians having already shown [it] through their own words for the sake of clarity, he added [it] in the section concerning power of the holy Dionysius. And as for the fourth and last of these, he himself clarifies [it] through himself, slander, and indeed again condemning of impiety those who set forth the definition, since they also say the wise Dionysius thinks and says these things to them from there, for also the whole [of the] entanglement and the battle comes from this.
For it is necessary to begin from here first by all necessity, and thus then also to run back to those [other things] according to the promise. For having rushed C to attack from the words of thy [mentor] Aristotle concerning God, you bring forward this admirable theologian as a pretext, as it were, for the insult against holy things; and how boldly you pour out lies! and slander, as the argument will presently show. But before these things are refuted, I wish to ask you this primarily: how, producing this theologian in testimony, indeed, of your words, did you not yourself bring forward his expressions and the whole account concerning "to have" without alteration? For it is not permitted to you, as it is to other speech-writers, and orators, and interpreters, either to take only the meaning of the statements, or [only] the parts, or to add syllables, or to remove [them] entirely, while using [this] so bitterly against the trial, and for your legislation against us because of these things, and subjecting [us] to countless other insults and blasphemies. Or must you, like some potentate and tyrant, use the autonomy of words and [do] as you wish concerning the words, while we must bitterly be subject to and serve your laws, and even if somewhere we might use the set laws with, at least, what is due, suffer the most terrible things from this self-appointed and common autonomy? D It is time, therefore, God giving a hand from above, not only to show him shamelessly lying about the things said, but also as being accountable both to God and to the truth for all those things together. And indeed, first, let us speak about the first; or rather, it seems to be more necessary to me to add also the parts of the philosopher that are missing beforehand, in which, as he himself says, he introduces the divine Theologian from Damascus, philosophizing the discourse concerning "to have," and thus to come to the refutation of his words. He brings forward, therefore, as Gregoras says, that holy theologian saying thus: "For it is necessary that what is held be with the essence that holds it, just like a garment."
And if you were erring only concerning the letters and the expressions, not even thus would you be tolerable, thus destroying your own admirable laws from close range; but now, having proposed the division of the theologian concerning the subject in eight ways, having yourself taken only two or three of the eight, you have mixed into these so much that is counterfeit, and false, and confused, as will presently appear. For it is necessary that those very same [things] of the theologian be set forth by us here, sound and unadulterated, so that the lie may be clearly refuted by the revelation of the truth. The blessed John, therefore, in the sixty-third of the theological chapters, says thus: "To have" is said in eight ways. For either as a habit, or a disposition, or according to another quality; for we are said to have knowledge and virtue; or as a quantity; for it is called a three-cubit
A size, the wood has. Or as substance about substance, which indeed the philosopher of the Church, the divine John from Damascus, says. Not but that also Aristotle himself, your own teacher, whom you ought for the time being to obey, I say this precisely for this reason, and because he himself, in completing the account concerning 'having' for himself, did not limit this to the eight ways only, but perhaps, he says, even other ways of having might appear. Which the most wise Damascene likewise teaches us, B which is the most generic genus. This is either about the whole body, as a tunic, or about a part, as a ring on a finger, or as a part in a whole; for we are said to have a hand; or as in a vessel; as we say the jar has wine; or as a possession; for we are said to have wealth, or a field, or the like. In the fifty-seventh [chapter] of the same [work], "The differences," he says, "of 'having' come about according to the difference of beings. For it is either animate or inanimate. And we are said to have animate [things], such as a child, a horse, and the like; but inanimate, as a ring, a shoe, and the like." And 'having' is said also of many other significations equivocally. How great, then, is the transformation and removal of the text in its phrasing and intent by Gregoras, there is no need for us to say or to elaborate, since it is manifest to all C who read. But this we must necessarily ask the philosopher: Whence, O philosopher, have you taken for your categories, that it is said that a certain one 'has a hand' as substance about substance? For that divine philosopher of the Church, John, I say, in order to [enumerate] one of the eight ways concerning 'having', and having spoken [of it] as a part in a whole, has set down the hand as an example of this. For we are said, he says, to have a hand. And he would have said likewise of a foot, and an eye, and the rest of the members of the body, as parts naturally belonging to the whole, as is the hand. But you say that man has a hand as substance [has] substance, having mixed it in, as you yourself would know, with garments, and weapons, and a field, and such like. And if you say that the hand, as substance [has] substance, simply has the body, and you thus rashly set yourself against the teacher's division concerning 'having', D even though, having brought forward that [teacher] for the testimony of your discourse, as you supposed, behold, you yourself have the hand in addition to the soul and the body, and possess not just a third substance, but rather not only a third, but a many-th, and simply [it turns out that you have] all the members of the body. And perhaps for this reason you are so uncontrollably puffed up against other men, since you yourself alone are composed of a number of substances, and for these reasons you are a kind of superman and indeed a monster. For if even otherwise your Aristotle called both hand and head substances, as being not in a subject, like accidents, yet here such a thing has no place. For as a part of the whole, O philosopher, man has the hand, and not as substance; since the subordinate genera, and species, and both these are what are called genera and species. But of genera, as genera, there are species, and of species, as species, there are genera, not genera of genera, and species of species, or of accidents of accidents, and of relatives of relatives, they are genera and species. For your philosopher would say that these are not only false, but truly a vast mockery. And the hand, therefore, is not as substance with substance [in the case of] the body, nor is [the body] a substance as [one thing] about another substance, the hand, like the tunic and the weapons [are] about the body; but man has the hand, as I said, clearly as part of the body, which indeed the philosopher of the Church, the divine John from Damascus, says. A Not but that Aristotle himself, your own teacher—whom you ought for the time being to obey—I say this precisely for this reason, and because he himself, in completing the account concerning 'having' for himself, did not limit this to the eight ways only, but perhaps, he says, even other ways of having might appear. Which the most wise Damascene likewise teaches us.
But you, the disorder and the ignorance and this confusion of your discourses, which I know not how I should worthily call—transferred as it is by you B from the high theology of the Spirit to these low and base [matters]—you have demonstrated to be worthy of indecency and laughter, or rather even tears to those who have understanding. For when you say that the creative power of God, and the foreknowing, and the providence, and simply every power and energy, is the substance of God, what else do you say C but one of these two things, I say, that God either has many substances, or that His substance is composed not only of many substances, but also of unlike parts? Which indeed the theologians among us clearly accused Eunomius of. But these, according to Eunomius, you do not yourself call substance of God, but creatures; for this [is] also the head of the blasphemies, I mean the rushing to drag God down to [the level of] a creature by means of His own natural [attributes]. For natural [attributes] must be D parallel to the natures, as the theological and natural account proclaims; but not yet this, but let us go back to those [points]. For this dialectician and philosopher here says, from the Aristotelian categories (as I said), and twisting these to the theology of the Spirit—on account of which he also ill-wrestles the words of the theologian and philosopher from Damascus and his arguments—that the term 'having' is equivocal and many-signified, and pertains only to creatures, but not to the simplest nature of God. For this is the first of his four propositions, by which he wrote a tome of ignorance and impiety against those who had set it forth: calling that [first point] ignorance, and [calling] the difference of the divine energy [from] the source, the divine substance, impiety. But concerning the divine energy and the difference according to it, we will speak more broadly after a little. But now, a few things must be said to the philosopher concerning the term 'having'.
How do you say, O best of men, that the blessed and simplest nature of God in no way possesses 'having'? For if you were saying that it does not have some one of existing things, or even two, you would not even so be endurable, impiously removing from the Cause of all things His [own attributes]; but now, not one or two or three, but removing the very power of 'having' from Him altogether, you, alas, most wickedly construct the Master of beings as not being. But I do not say at all and in every way that God does not possess 'having'. But "not properly," says the philosopher. And if not properly, does God have 'having', and consequently does He not always possess it...
nor even those things which He possesses both naturally and by right of authority? For such things are not possessed properly. It is possible, therefore, to lose them. And observe, O philosopher, the consequences, now that this view prevails. God possesses kingship, and lordship, A and power. For He is the King of kings, and Lord of lords, and He alone is mighty and powerful, as the [theology] hymns Him, and He is the dispenser of eternal life, and He alone has immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable. If, then, He does not possess these things properly, as this vain theologian says, how does He give them to others, making them kings, and lords, and immortal?
What then? Does He not even possess the angels properly, whose work is an untiring and unceasing hymn of Him? For theology bears witness to those natures in an exceptional way, and furthermore, that they are: "Mighty in strength, doing His word, that one may hear the voice of His words." Or does He not even possess this sensible and visible creation, which He brought forth of old from nothing, and for which even now He works providence and administration? "For my Father," He says, "works until now, and I am working." Or do you say that God does have these things—if we should even descend to your arguments—but that it is not said that He "possesses" them properly? O the shame! Tell me, why, or from where did you learn this common and monstrous theology? Because that philosophical category, he says, does not wish this, nor does the definition of "having."
B ...and, "I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again." And when He stood before the very cross and death, He said to His own disciples, "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." And to His own Father, "And now glorify Me, O Father, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." To say that God does not "possess" these and suchlike things properly, or that it is not said that He "possesses" them properly—which the empty wisdom of Gregoras claims—how is this not to call the very Truth a liar? This is the very pinnacle of impieties, and not even bearable to the ears of Christians. But we must return the argument again to what is primary and the only truly existing and most exalted things. God does not even possess the three hypostases properly, O good Gregoras; does the Father not possess the Son, nor the Spirit? For they are consubstantial, but these are not as essence around an essence, nor as an accident around an essence, nor as a creature and possession of the one who possesses, which your wisdom alone desires to mean by "having," and for this reason wishes it to be said of creatures and only of them, but not of God. And if you say that these things are so, why do we drive away Sabellius alone? For he also says exactly these things, and nothing else, saying that just as there is one essence, so also there is one person, and taking no account of the hypostases. For I do not even wish to mention that he wrongly surpasses even the opinion of Eunomius and Arius. For they, too, would have been eager to say, by running to your philosophy, that the Father is also said to "possess" the Son and the Spirit, C as essence around essence, since they were thinking of the three hypostases as unlike to one another and different in essence.
In order that you might not suffer this yourself, as it seems, and might not grow weary in defending the arguments concerning God—joining them to the essence, and dividing them by the hypostases, both piously and apostolically—by one word you have destroyed everything through your wonderful philosophy, and have betrayed the subject to the enemies just as the one who spoke it did, not by establishing that the Father possesses the Son or the Spirit, since "possessing" does not befit God properly, nor by honoring the Father as the unoriginate origin of those from Him, but rather, as far as it depended on you, by destroying those things and that [doctrine] as well. Or, because of the relative and referential nature of your categories, you will not grant "having" to these, so that you might not violate the law concerning them, although the Spirit is not even among those things; for not even this fits the Son in the way of relations, except for that which the Father and the Son, as their own and consubstantial, eternally and co-eternally possess. O the nonsense!
Thus, the philosopher has turned out to be clearly filled not only with impiety and ignorance, and not only with theft and buffoonery, D and in addition to these, with the slander of those who published the volume—as he himself says—but, in addition to being manifestly a liar and shameless in all these things together, he is indeed sick with things much worse and in every way more absurd, which what the argument promised to show.
A Come, then, let us also behold that eminent theologian after the apostles, I mean the holy Dionysius, whom Gregoras, in his discourse concerning the sacred power of that saint, claimed to be slandering the Church of Christ, acting far removed from that man's intellect and wisdom; or rather, let us recapitulate what was said just now concerning this matter against the volume of Gregoras, and before that, those things [said] earlier. He says that that divine man—meaning the divine Dionysius—being wise, and knowing that the term "power" has many meanings when attributed to created things, rightly assigned it here [as well] to created things, not only to the one bringing forth every power, but also to the one who is above every power, and is the self-power, and is the super-powerful, and brings forth other powers—infinitely infinite in number—beyond those that are, and because it is not possible for the infinite powers, which are and are being brought forth to infinity, to blunt the infinite creation of his power-making power, and because of the ineffable, unknowable, and inconceivable nature of his power that surpasses all things. "Or because of the abundance of the powerful one, it even strengthens weakness, and holds together and preserves the furthest of its echoes." B Tell me, then, O philosopher, and interpret this true philosopher and theologian correctly and unerringly, and as he himself truly wishes him to be interpreted; but if not, then restrain your tongue for a while from your own discourses and listen attentively, needing neither interpretation nor clarity from elsewhere.
For the purpose of this discourse here is to theologize concerning the divine power, as you have indeed mentioned yourself; and he advances the theology in this way, as you hear: saying that God is "power" for various reasons and in various modes, which he has already set forth, having distinguished them up to a decad, and as being the cause of his very being power, whether [we consider] the whole or the particular, and as being infinitely powerful.
And observe, before all else, the inconceivability and inconsistency of this empty expounder of the theologians here. For this is the very man who just a little above said those things, that Dionysius, when he theologizes concerning the divine power—at least to others—says this, that whatever has no power neither exists, nor is anything, nor has any position at all. Then, proceeding a little further, as I said, he claims that the discourse is made by him only concerning created things, as if having become outside himself in the worse sense, and not knowing what he says. For if the discourse here by the theologian is simply concerning created things, and nothing else besides this, how have you previously claimed that he was theologizing concerning the divine power? For neither could any of the created things be divine of its own self, nor are created things theologized [as divine], unless someone, chosen to deify and theologize these things, wishes to worship the creation according to the ancient impiety. C How then do you yourself say that he is theologizing about the divine power, while saying it is [only] concerning the created things? For either the created things are also divine, and theologized as gods according to your argument, or "created thing" and "divine power" are the same thing. But if it is neither of these, but you say of necessity that the natural power of God is the essence of God, and you say and explicitly proclaim and philosophize both of these; then this is the reasoning and the purpose of this long-winded book, [namely,] to prove that the much-sung properties of the nature of God, which are natural to God and naturally inherent in God, which the theological Fathers have taught to be different, are all created things, together with those who think like Arius; and to decree that God is essence alone, stripped of all things inherent in him—for the sake of which that much-talked-of war, directed against Eunomius, was waged by the most eminent of the Fathers, and for which he [himself] had also severed himself from the Church—you have taken upon yourself a war against the Church, a war of frequent, repeated blasphemy, insult, slander, and vanity against her, or, to speak truly, against your own head and soul.
D But let us proceed to the holy Dionysius and those words of his concerning the divine power, having taken up the discourse again from the beginning. "Power," he says, "is God," as possessing and surpassing in himself every power, and as being the cause of all power; and as bringing forth all things according to an unceasing and limitless power; and as being the cause of his very being power, whether the whole or the particular, and as being infinitely powerful.
He celebrates him as infinitely powerful, as you hear, not only because he brings forth every power, he says, but also because he is above every power, and is the self-power, and because he is super-powerful, and brings forth other powers—infinitely infinite in number—beyond those that are, and because it is not possible for the infinite powers, which are and are being brought forth to infinity, to blunt the infinite creation of his power-making power; and because of the ineffable, unknowable, and inconceivable nature of his power that surpasses all things, which, he says, because of the abundance of the powerful one, strengthens even weakness, and holds together and preserves the furthest of its echoes. All the powers, then, which the infinitely powerful God brings forth, and of which he can—or rather, is super-powerful to bring forth—others infinitely infinite [in number], consist, clearly, of the respective natural powers of each of the creatures, both of the intelligible and the sensible, the ensouled and the soulless, and simply of all things together; for whatever has no power, he says, neither exists, nor is anything, nor has any position at all. But his super-infinite power-making power, and self-power, the creation of which he says could never be weakened even if one were to posit that it possessed the ability to create infinitely many other powers besides those brought forth by it—which power, as he says, is also ineffable, and inconceivable, and is the power of God surpassing all things—because of the abundance of [his] strength, strengthens weakness, and holds together and preserves the furthest of its echoes, that is, everything that possesses these god-befitting boons.
A The one who brings into existence together all powers, and is the cause of essence, and life, and intellect, and reason, and of those that partake of perception—what sort of thing, B Gregoras, do you take this power of God, which is ineffable and inconceivable and surpasses all things, to be? Although even the Theologian, having attained it, has hymned it in itself as ineffable and inconceivable, beyond all others.
From the aforementioned results, or rather works, it is possible for those who consider correctly to infer something. What then do you say it is? You will certainly call the innate power of the almighty God either a creature or the essence of God. For these things you have received from your associates and teachers, I mean Barlaam and Akindynos, and this is the manner of your empty theology; or rather, although you had already previously uttered "creature" in your own discourses—for which reason you vomited out that frequent chatter and blasphemy against those who set forth this treatise, and, among other things, called them slanderers, scurrilous, and perverters of the holy words—yet now you seem to me to wish to deny and cross them out, being driven and as it were throttled on all sides by the inescapable nature of this Theologian’s god-befitting names and discourses.
At any rate, in the fifth chapter, while discoursing about the God who is, he speaks as follows from the very proem: "The aim of the discourse is not to manifest the super-essential essence as super-essential; for this is ineffable and unknown, and utterly unmanifest, and transcends union itself; but to hymn the essence-making progression of the God-ruling origination of essence into all things that are." Then, having briefly theologized in the interim concerning the participation and the god-befitting transcendence of these divine progressions—the Good, the Being, the Life, the Wisdom, and the like—he adds further: "These, therefore, the discourse desires to hymn, the divine names that manifest providence. For it does not promise to express the super-essential goodness, and essence, and life, and wisdom of His super-essential deity, which is established, as the oracles say, in hidden places above all goodness, and deity, and essence, and life, and wisdom; but it hymns the manifested, goodness-doing providence, and transcendently goodness, and the cause of all good things, and the Being, and the Life, and the Wisdom that makes essence and bestows wisdom..."
B You have understood now, then, O philosopher, the marvelous philosophy and knowledge concerning divine and lofty things of this true philosopher and bearer-of-God; and how he honors with silence, for the most part, the super-essential, unparticipated, ineffable, and hidden essence of God, and again hymns as divine, and lofty, and god-befitting, and participated, the self-participation of Him and his progressions and participations? Does he not clearly and most plainly set forth from the divine words, as he himself says, that he has been initiated, that of God, the one part, as super-essential and ineffable, is unknown and unparticipated, while the other part is both utterable and, by condescension and in part, attainable to creatures due to loving-kindness? For to manifest the super-essential essence, he says, insofar as it is super-essential, is ineffable and unknown, and utterly unmanifest, and transcends the union itself. And what this "union" is, he himself indicates most excellently to those who wish to learn in what follows. But he calls it the essence-making progression of the God-ruling origination of essence into all things that are. And again: "The discourse," he says, "does not desire to express the super-essential goodness of His super-essential deity, the goodness and deity which is above all, established in hidden places, as the oracles say, above it; but it hymns the manifested goodness-doing providence, and transcendently goodness, and the cause of all good things." It does not say that one is the super-essential essence, but this manifested goodness-doing providence, and transcendently goodness. What do you say, O philosopher? C Do you see in the matters here mentioned by this Theologian a certain difference between God’s essence and the participation in and progression of it? Or do you again see everything as undifferentiated with respect to the essence of God? If those are one thing and these are another—for the Theologian says the aim is to hymn not the former but the latter—what do you say these are, in relation to the truth itself? Are you looking towards creatures, or will you again overlook them, just like those who long ago overlooked the god-befitting power in Christ and attributed it to Beelzebub? Yet it has been demonstrated a moment ago—by this very Theologian, I say—that these are by no means creatures, but physical properties of God. And see again from the same: The Theologian calls this progression essence-making, and origination of essence, and goodness-doing providence, and transcendently goodness, and the cause of all good things. And the God-bearer Maximus, explaining this, says that he calls "origination of essence" the beginning and cause of every essence; for the deity itself is above every essence; and by "progression" he means the divine energy, which brought forth every essence. If, therefore, His essence-making power is a creature, according to you, first of all, the one who possesses the essential power as a creature would himself also be a creature; then, if this power is a creature, it would itself be created by another power, and that one by another, and this to infinity. Which of these things so lofty, so god-befitting, and so transcending all reason, O empty theologian, do you wish to...
A attribute to the creatures? Choose whichever of these impieties you please, since you have decided to blaspheme to the end. For this god-bearing teacher says these things are God, not insofar as He is superessential and unparticipated, but insofar as He is, he says, substance-making, participated, and the cause of all good things.
But you, speak and set against this your own energies, which are devoid of subsistence, or rather, altogether non-existent; these created godheads, which according to you are sometimes merely relations and nothing more, and sometimes exist only as words, or rather do not exist at all, being dissolved the moment they are uttered, and passing into non-being, according to you. For these are the things of your empty and truly monstrous theology, which you have invented for yourself in addition to the theology of your instructors and of the Theologian himself; for not even they, although they utter many blasphemies against themselves, ever arrived at saying any such thing.
B But you are afraid lest by this very distinction between the divine essence and what pertains to it, you might fall into polytheism? Such are the bogies and terrors of the senseless, by which not men are disturbed so much as babes still suckled and lisping; and because of this you have chosen godlessness as more easy and effortless, having shipwrecked in a small matter, not only your own salvation, it is true, but that of many others who were evilly persuaded by you. And rightly so; for you do not naturally have ears to hear. And for this reason, perhaps, the Lord also said to the listeners of His own word: "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." For if you had some abundance of these, you would have heard, in sequence, the same Theologian traversing those matters too. And he says that it is not one thing that is the Good—that is, the Word—and C another that is Being, and another Life or Wisdom, nor that there are many causes, and others which provide other godheads, which are superior and owed to one another; but that from one God come all the good processions and the divine names celebrated by us. And again: "We do not say that the 'Self-Existing' is some divine or angelic essence, the cause of all beings having existence; for the superessential [Principle] and essence and cause is alone the cause of all things having existence and is Being itself; nor [do we posit] another life-giving godhead beside the one that is superior to all those that live, and that is Life, the cause of 'Self-Life', nor, to sum up, primordial and creative essences and substances of beings, which some have improvised and blurted out as gods of beings and creators, which in truth and reality neither they themselves knew, as they did not exist, nor did their fathers." Did you pay attention? He says we do not distinguish Being, and Life, and Goodness, and Wisdom, and D the rest, from God as essences or substances, as if they were gods and creators of creatures. Choose, he says, which of the impieties you desire, since you have determined to blaspheme to the end. For this god-bearing teacher says these things are God, not insofar as He is superessential and unparticipated, but insofar as He is, he says, substance-making, participated, and the cause of all good things. For this is clearly the stuff of polytheism; but when we speak of the superessential cause of all things, we mean the processions themselves, and indeed the creatures—some created as His creatures, others naturally, as His natural properties, as the great Basil says. For these are Powers not subsisting by themselves, but contemplated in that superessential essence—Dionysius calls these such, as existing with Him. For they are inseparable from Him, and indivisible, like the rays of the sun and the radiance of the fire, so that God is of all things, three-hypostasized and almighty. But it is better to listen again to the words of that Teacher. We call these "Self-Being," he says, "Self-Life," and "Self-Godhead," primarily and divinely and as causes, referring to the one super-primordial and superessential principle and cause of all, and participatively referring to the providential powers issued from the unparticipated God—Self-Substantiation, Self-Life, Self-Deification—in which beings, by participating in them in a way appropriate to themselves, both exist, and live, and are deified, and thus are, and are spoken of, and the rest likewise.
But let what has been said thus far suffice; but what do you say about those things, O good Gregoras? For it is necessary to return there again. Does God have these natural powers and processions and providences and energies and self-participations, or does He not? He does, clearly, and He has them indivisibly, and incompositely, and without confusion, as this god-bearing teacher demonstrated most brilliantly; and God is one through all things, which I have also said before, active, willing, almighty; and he who attempts the overthrow of these, as he does not know, arms both hand and tongue against God. And he, whoever he may be, will be crushed along with the impious and the God-fighters; but that sacred synod both spoke well and piously that God has these, at least with this Theologian, and published well and God-lovingly this sacred Tome, and in agreement with him and this Theologian—I mean the blessed Dionysius—and indeed with the remaining theologian Fathers, which we shall immediately show as we proceed, with God's help. But since the discourse has brought us to the discourse concerning the energy of God, it would be opportune from now on to take up the complete discourse, as much as concerns union and difference, and as much as concerns the uncreated and the participated, and the expressible, and the knowable, and the unknowable, from the apostles and the Fathers—since the entire discourse and war of our opponents is almost entirely directed toward this.
TO THE SAME GREGORAS: FOURTH ANTIRRHETIC DISCOURSE
On the difference between divine essence and energy, and on the natural power of God; and an interpretation of the sayings of the holy theologians Cyril and John, which Gregoras, having cut up as if they were our own, has wrongly set forth; and on cause and that which has a cause, and how the saints used such terms while theologizing.But before embarking upon the holy discourses—I mean those concerning divine union and distinction—I think it necessary to add to what has already been said, and to uncover, as much as possible, the calumny, the falsehood, and the shameless blasphemy. Or rather, let that very father of those empty discourses and of falsehood bring forth his own offspring and fruits; for it is not holy, nor is it seemly, otherwise. Speak then, O philosopher, and propound, and again set forth your own, and fill up the syllogism, and the sensible among the hearers with the accustomed tedium; for it would be better if you did this yourself rather than others. B
I have deliberately set forth the whole of this passage of the calumniator in order, or rather, he himself sets forth his own thoughts and arguments in his own words for us again, as is seen, so that we may more clearly recognize the slander, the falsehood, the blasphemy against God and His saints, and the strange insult in one place. Yet not all that follows leads to insults; for otherwise we would have needed a second book and as many—or even more—discourses, had we examined those things; since there are many arguments and arguments of his that are supposedly to the point—I mean these things of insults and filthy ravings—so that it is not even possible to compare them.
"You see," he says, "how improperly and not strictly the term 'to have' is taken by the divine Fathers and the wise teachers of ours regarding that simple and uncompounded divine nature." But this ignorant logographer and impious dogmatizer is not at all ashamed to slander them, nor does he shudder to falsify the mysteries of Holy Scripture from human and composite models, and thereby to make that only simple and uncreated nature simultaneously composite and created. For what impiety would he not have surpassed by dividing the indivisible self-wisdom, and self-knowledge, and self-power, and self-energy, and self-life? But I laughed all the more at that ignorant man, when he dogmatizes that self-life, and self-energy, and self-power are without life, and without energy, and without power, while that which has energy, and life, and power from without and different exists as more living and active and capable—for this sounds like a riddle, and is similar to someone saying fire cools because it is hot, or snow warms because it is cold. And I would have gladly been persuaded by him also as to how, when Dionysius is theorizing here about power, he himself has leapt over it and put forward energy; for it would not be among the things not to be investigated by us while holding a discussion with him, who, being bold in all other things, did not deem it necessary to refrain from this malady, that is, to divide the god-fitting names of that simple and divine essence, and to call each of these things distinct deities, and to conceive of essence as one thing, and power as another, and energy and wisdom as another, and the like. For if one thinks that power and energy are the same, he believes that the other is also conveyed along with the understanding, seeing him rightly, where we must needs allow what they do. But if one is different from the other according to the meaning of the underlying subject, how is it that, having passed over in silence the word of 'power' lying before his eyes, he has shifted to energy, which he was not looking at, slandering the holy man’s direct judgment? Or is he perhaps afraid that he might be condemned along with Eunomius and his own impious and like-minded peer, by the divine Father Gregory of Nyssa? C
I will then, God willing, take those holy sayings of the theologians, which he, while clearly anti-dogmatizing and insulting, shamelessly takes for testimony, while misunderstanding and distorting the truth preached by them to the deception of the hearers, and finally, having gathered them all together, I will apply to each the appropriate and relevant solution in an apostolic and patristic manner. And the discourse is with God, and from that I will make the empty-talking and the falsehood to be refuted.
Now, however, hear the blasphemies of this counterfeit theologian and God-fighter from the very first starting gate. "You see," he says, "how improperly, and not strictly, the divine and simple nature 'has' the 'having'? And if, as you say, it has the power of 'having' not strictly, but improperly, it would hardly have any other of its own and naturally present things." And what is this very thing that you call "improperly"? For do you say that God has it from without and as an acquired thing, and not by nature, nor strictly? Or do you take "improperly" instead of "in vain" and falsely? D
A And if you were to say that God has it from without and as an acquired thing, and not by nature nor strictly, from where, O philosopher, and from whom has the Lord and God of all borrowed to have it? And further, why would He have this power itself, and nothing else? For that which gave it and is participated in would rather be God, and not that which lacks B and participates; for the one belongs to creatures, while to be participated in is proper to the Godhead.
Therefore, Gregory, who is surnamed for theology, says: "The perfect is not in God by way of addition; for there was no time when He was bereft of reason, nor when He was not true, nor unwise, nor powerless, nor lacking life, or brightness, or goodness," A and it is itself co-substantial by nature, namely goodness, rectitude, sanctification, life. None of these is acquired by Him, nor is it something that happened later. But you now say that the three-hypostasized Godhead, unique and all-powerful, has its natural properties as acquired and not strictly—I do not know from what god it borrowed them.
Moreover, how can you yourself bring an accusation against the Church and her holy tome, slandering it, as we heard, while progressing a little further? B For you said that we are written down as ignorant, and that you laugh because we teach, as you falsely accuse us, that the very life and self-activity and self-power is devoid of life and power, but that it has activity and life and power from without and as something different, and that that other thing is rather living and active and powerful. How, then, can you say what the Council and its pious definition did not say—but rather vehemently forbade, and with excess—knowing that it is the essential C and natural motion of God, which is His own activity, as we say is the case according to the oracles, that it proceeds and wells up as from an eternal fountain of the divine essence, and is never observed without it, but always remains inseparable from it? Therefore, as the Council has thus theologically defined divine things in a fatherly and apostolic and God-befitting manner, you yourself, just like those who are seasick, turning the brain, seeing things upside down and, to the contrary, overlooking and reasoning things that are above as below, say those things and slander it by declaring things that it so clearly denies. D
For Cyril, the wise man, speaking on behalf of the Son against the Arians, says: "If the Son is not Life by nature, how will he speak the truth, saying, 'He who believes in me has eternal life'? And if he promises to give to those who believe in him life as if it were present to himself by nature and exists substantially, how is it possible to conceive that he who does not possess it has received it from the Father? But as was previously stated, having come forth from the Father, he brings all things of his own by nature. And among the things belonging to the Father is Life. Therefore, the life-giving power is not adventitious to the Son, but belongs to him by nature and substantially, just as it does to the Father." C And John the theologian from Damascus says: "Christ has the idioms of the divine and paternal nature: that which is uncreated, that which is volitional, that which is active, that which is all-powerful, that which is creative, that which is unparticipated; [but] that which is participated is of the activity, not of the essence." Regarding the Holy Spirit, again the one surnamed for theology says: "The Holy Spirit was always participated in, not participating; sanctifying, not sanctified; perfecting, not perfected; filling, not filled; deifying, not deified." And the great Basil, who is of the same mind, says: "The difference, he says, in the holy powers regarding the Holy Spirit is this, that for him holiness is nature, while for them it exists by participation from Him to be sanctified."
To say that God has those things by participation, D and not by nature, and to pass over the blasphemy concerning the followers of Arius and Macedonius accurately—for they dared to separate the only-begotten Son of God, and indeed the Holy Spirit, from the divine essence, and said that they did not possess the specific properties of the divine nature strictly or naturally, but as acquired and by participation from God.
Therefore, also to them both, Athanasius the Great, the pillar of theology, says: "Far be it from me to say that anything concerning the Spirit is acquired. For neither the holy, nor the incorruptible, nor the good, nor any other thing contemplated concerning God, do I say is acquired by the Holy Spirit, but is holy by nature, good by nature, immortal by nature, as the Spirit of God and as springing forth from Him, and proceeding from Him." And the immovable base of piety, the great Basil, says: "There, he says, the Spirit is holy, where the Son is, and where the Father is, having all things co-essentially by nature. B None of these is acquired by Him, nor is it something that happened later. But you now say that the tri-hypostasized Godhead, unique and all-powerful, has its natural properties as acquired and not strictly—I do not know from what god it borrowed them.
Furthermore, how, while yourself bringing an accusation against the Church and her holy tome a little further on, do you slander it? For you said that we are written down as ignorant, and that you laugh, because we teach—as you falsely accuse us—that the very life and self-activity and self-power is devoid of life and power, but that it has activity and life and power from without and as something different, and because that other thing is rather living and active and powerful. How then, do you say, that which the Council and its pious definition did not say, C but rather vehemently forbade—and with excess—knowing that it is the essential and natural motion of God, which is His own activity, as we say is the case according to the oracles, that it proceeds and wells up as from an eternal fountain of the divine essence, and is never observed without it, but always remains inseparable from it? Therefore, as the Council has thus theologically defined divine things in a fatherly and apostolic and God-befitting manner, you yourself, just like those who are seasick, turning the brain, seeing things upside down and, to the contrary, overlooking and reasoning things that are above as below, say those things and slander it by declaring things that it so clearly denies.
You are caught by your own words, inescapably, D both ailing and teaching and writing these very things which you bring against the healthy theologians of the Church; and, what is a greater addition of evil, that you do so even word for word, in the very speeches in which you weave your slander and abuse against those holy men. For you said that God has the power improperly, and not strictly nor naturally, but from without and as an acquired thing, or rather that He has this very thing itself. For since the Fathers said in the tome, "If that which has no power, which the holy Dionysius says, has no being, nor is anything, nor is it, the position is utterly his own, since that which has [it] differs from that which it has in some respect," by those who do not grant any difference at all to the divine essence regarding its power and activity, and say that it [sc. the deity] has the activity itself, while the inactive and non-existent [have it not]. Therefore, having said these things immediately, you yourself, with uncovered head, said that God does not have natural power strictly, or rather, not having it at all. Wherefore you yourself would be the one deserving to inherit your own mockery and frequent insults and that shame, having brought the votes of judgment against yourself and by yourself, and having woven riddles for yourself; and that [you say] "fire cools, because it is hot, and snow warms, because it is cold," and all those long-winded maunderings which we left in your speeches, of the...
concern for time, and at the same time covering up your own shames as much as possible. A If, however, you say that you do not think this way yourself, and that you do not even wish these things to be taken in a standard sense, but not fundamentally, things which you yourself say in your own tongue and writings, that remains, and clearly nothing else, as I said before—I mean, that you explain these things in vain and falsely and say them; why, for there is another reason: so that the heresy may no longer be gathered together, and those things which the Synod said against you and your faction—that you attribute what is non-existent and that which is not in the ever-existing God, who is the cause of all beings, not only foolishly and ignorantly, but also impiously—but so that it may be taken clearly from your own position. Having thus spoken abusively against God and His Church, this pupil and friend of this pseudo-wisdom and knowledge B has dared to set them forth in writings and books, for which, indeed, it would have been necessary to call for drums and stocks against him, the things of the comedy he loves, but he even dares to speak freely, and adds even more to the falsehood and blasphemy. And the things formulated divinely and loftily from the divine Scriptures and the theologian Fathers by the Synod and the Tome, although they have appeared as so many and such great things, such that not even the beginning of what was said was passed over; yet he fabricates a divinity against them, and that much-bruited and everywhere-sung polytheism, [so-called] by him and his Fathers and teachers, things which nowhere by the Synod and the Tome C were uttered, but rather were even rejected and refuted, along with those ancient Greeks and heretics who formerly held them.
D God is in every way and altogether the only uncreated, His essence; but if they differ in any way both from each other and from the essence in which they are also contemplated—being natural properties of it, and by nature undivided and uncreated and co-eternal with the essence which produces them, according to the theologian Fathers—then God is no longer one uncreated, but a polyarchy and polytheism is what is venerated by us. And how, O philosopher, are the many not [many] in number, according to you, but in definition? For you yourself clearly think these things are created; how then are such things, being united to the uncreated nature, one uncreated strictly and in every way? If it is as essence is to essence, but this even you yourself would say is impossible. For it is impossible for any essence whatsoever to come together thus into one with another essence, since essential differences prevent this. Furthermore, if the union were to take place by mixing and blending, with confusion and mixture, then the result would be something of a different kind and neither of the [two] united natures. For we see such things as are composed of different essences. But in the case of God, this and that is in every way and altogether impossible. For God is not by nature genus and species, so that He might have essential differences which divide and constitute, nor could any essence ever bear the essence of God, without being destroyed, even before being co-mingled and confused. And for this reason, the ancient Church also correctly glorified the union of the natures of Christ not according to them, but according to hypostasis.
If, however, you say that such things are united to one another as hypostases, this is precisely the Nestorian fall, and one must be driven far from the Church, according to precipices and abysses. For that man and those who follow him dared formerly [to posit] such unions of hypostases, and for this reason, they who prattled of a duality of sons—the one as the Word of God, and the other as the son of man, united according to relation, and with only a consensus of will with one another, [asserting] the one Son of God, the same being both God and man—were shamefully cast out of the register of the pious, because they said the flesh assumed by the divinity in Christ was enhypostatic, but not heterohypostatic, as those men did. But you, while habitually insulting the divine, supernatural, and infinite energy of the divinity and the natural properties of God, bring these things against the Fathers, lying, in order that you may shade your own opinion, and strike with terror the simpler of the believers, by frightening them with the fear of the polyarchy imagined by you. And then, by also introducing your own opinion, and the atheism under the pretext of monarchy, and showing how you agree in all things with Eunomius, and indeed with the Galatian, he dares to speak freely in accusing the Synod and the Tome, that they—he says—divide the things of the divine and simple essence, [and] that they distinguish names, and conceive of essence as one thing, power as another, energy as another, and wisdom as another, and such things; for I put forward his own words again.
But you, therefore, O wise man, I might say to that man, [if you are] avoiding polytheism, as you say, [even] if you say that these things are entirely indifferent both to the essence and to each other, and [there is] the paradox on these matters, that you think these are also created and originate in time. For this you have already accused the Church of Christ of, even though it says that these are different from the essence and from each other in some respect, and are uncreated. So that according to you, if they do not differ at all from each other and from the essence, and are uncreated, and have originated in time, [then] God is one, and you likewise [are] both entirely and in every way the only uncreated, His essence... But if you say neither this nor that, you yourself would be right to teach and clarify your own dogma next. For you certainly would not say that these things are accidents in an essence; not only because you would construct the simple and super-essential nature as composite of accidents and essence, by saying it thus, but because it is impossible that accidents should not differ from one another, not only in number, I say, but also in definition. And tell me, he says, we say that all those names of God, being spoken of one subject, and not differing in any way, in anything, either from the essence of God or from each other. And if you say these are names only, O philosopher, bare of things, and not...
signifying each one of the aforementioned [attributes]—as we claim God to be, and King, and Judge, and Good, and Philanthropic, and Just, and Father, and Creator—then, according to you, Eunomius is blamed in A vain for this confusion, for you think and write the same things about the same subjects no less than he.
Although, even regarding these perceptible and visible things, from which the names are indeed applied to the divine energies, the King is one and the same; he is not different, but because he acts differently at different times, we also address him differently. And we say that the same King now rules and reigns, now judges, now bestows benefits; and at one time he fights against enemies and champions his own, at another he legislates, at another time he stands up for the wronged, and deals with ambassadors and cities, and appoints governors and generals by land and sea. And the energy, appellation, and name of each of these comes to the king in due course; and the same one possesses many and diverse names, which are neither referred to the definition and limit of his essence, nor signify one and the same thing in everything, nor are they mere names devoid of things, but each is said with reference to its proper signification, and accordingly to one of the things pertaining to the underlying subject, that is to say, the essence. B
For we acknowledge our God not only as simple, but as being precisely above simplicity itself, and above every essence and power. "For why," says the Theologian Gregory, "should we consider if the divine is of a simple nature? For this simplicity is not its nature, if indeed being is not merely for composite things." Hear also, in succession, the theologians who are kindred and connatural to him, and who philosophize about the same things to the same people as though from a single mouth. Basil the Great, then, writing to the holy Amphilochius, says: "We say that we know the majesty of God, and the power, and the wisdom, and the goodness, and the providence by which he cares for us, and the justice of his judgment, but not the essence itself. But he says that God is simple, and whatever you enumerate of him belongs to the knowledge of the essence." Now this is a sophism having myriad absurdities. And again the same writer to Eunomius: "For if Eunomius does not consider anything at all by way of mental conception, lest he seem to exalt God with human appellations, he will acknowledge that everything applied to God is equally essence. How then is it not ridiculous to say that the creative [power] is essence, and the providential [power] is again essence, and the prognostic [power] likewise, and simply to posit every energy as essence? And if all these tend toward one signified object, it is necessary by all means that the names should be able to mean the same thing as each other, just as in the case of polyonymous things, when we call the same person Simon and Peter and Cephas. Consequently, he who hears that the unchangeable nature of God is unbegotten will be moved toward the unbegotten, and he who hears of the impartible will be carried toward the creative. And what could be more absurd than this confusion, which, having taken away the proper signification of each of the names, contradicts both common use and the legislation of the Spirit?" And shortly after: "How then is it not a clear madness to say that there is no proper meaning underlying each of the names, but that, through their energy, all the names are able to define the same things as each other?" C
And his kindred brother and like-minded peer, I mean Gregory of Nyssa, having said nearly the same things in thought and word against the same opponent, then adds: "If, therefore, such things follow by nature regarding man, and the names are in no way detrimental to the definition of the essence, and are indicative of things that are appropriate and conformable to it, what then is one to say regarding the Almighty God who is by nature absolutely above all being, and power, and wisdom, and life, and energy, and such things; to whom the simple will is sufficient for all things, and the mental intention is a completed work, and for this reason he is proclaimed by theology as living, and self-life, and wise, and self-wisdom, and powerful, and self-power, and indeed as the hypostasis of such things?" The first [point is made] because of the indwelling reality, so that some power might not be thought of as existing of itself; the second, so that he might not seem to possess such things by participation; and the third, because he is the cause, not only of those who participate in them—I mean creation—but also of the participations themselves, as proper and natural powers, which even the wise Dionysius formerly taught us.
If you say that God is simple, and that whatever one calls him is D indicative of his essence, and not of anything else—for you insist and write this very clearly—then this very thing, and not something else, to [confute] your position against Eunomius, why do the Scriptures call the divine nature by many names—God, Judge, Just, Strong, Long-suffering, True, Merciful, and other such things? For if none of the names is apprehended with any distinctive meaning, but all are muddled together through the confusion of what is signified, it would be useless to use many epithets for the same subject, with no difference in meaning to distinguish the names from one another. But we do not divide the underlying subject itself along with these concepts; rather, having believed that whatever he is in essence, the thought conceived stands in proper relation to all these assumptions. For the names do not conflict with each other regarding
the nature of opposites, as if A the things that are might be observed within the same subject, just as it is impossible for life and death to be conceived in the same person at the same time. But each of those things spoken of regarding the divine nature has such an emphasis, that even if it is distinct in its meaning, it has no opposition to that which is named along with it.
You see, O philosopher, how the theologian Fathers stand with us—or rather, we stand with their unerring theology in all things, and are united and sustained by it. And there is nothing in our confession concerning God that does not depend upon their teaching and their discourses. Yet you have taken up the battle against them, and though you have used the holy Tome and those who have set forth these things as a sort of mask and covering, you are fighting alongside the enemies B of the Church, and bringing their condemnation upon your own head, as if on purpose. But, freeing us and yourself at least for the present from this superfluous and long-winded talk, and from aimlessly circling around the same points, and from speaking nonsense and behaving unseemly with such boldness, go on to speak the rest of your arguments, and what you yourself call proofs of the holy men and their words—or rather, proofs not of their faith and conduct, but of your blasphemies and slanders against those blessed men; of which, although the discourse has already shown some to us, it shall show others more clearly hereafter.
Speak, therefore. "But since," he says, "the impious one, having reproached us with the 'non-existent' in the first instance, has been clearly convicted of believing in the 'non-existent' himself, come, let us also attack his position on the subsequent arguments of impiety." For, wishing to confirm for himself the points made earlier regarding distinction, he puts forward a second argument, employing against the C divine Fathers the same slander again, out of ignorance and malice. For he brings forward divine John of Damascus, who says that generation is a work of the divine nature, but creation is a work of the divine will; and at the same time divine Cyril, who says that creating is a work of energy, but begetting is of nature. Then he brings in the senile nonsense of his own syllogisms, taking as granted that which is to be proven—this being the custom of his ignorance—and he says: "Since nature and energy are not the same, those who say that the divine essence and the divine energy are indistinguishable—since according to him it is of the nature to beget, and according to *them* the energy is indistinguishable from the nature—it will be, according to them, that begetting is also of the energy; and thus the creatures will be eternal generations, as being from the divine nature. But since, on the other hand, creating is of the energy, and the nature D is, according to them, indistinguishable from the energy, creating will be of the nature; and thus according to them, those things that are from nature will be creatures."
You seem to me now, O Gregoras, to be like that Sophoclean Ajax, the bearer of the shield. I mean those poets and philosophers of the Greeks of yours, since you received from them the teachings and principles of that now-abolished wisdom, and did not think as those of the wise teachers of the Church, of whom you have not heard Paul saying that "God has made foolish the wisdom of this world," and that "since in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe."
These things, therefore, not having heard as you ought, nor understood, nor having washed away the brackish from the potable of the words, nor having subjected this wisdom of the world as a servant and handmaid to the higher and primary philosophy of the Church—and these truly wise men—you have lost both this and that, alas!—and have been delivered into a reprobate mind along with them, which the blessed Paul says, to do and to say things that are not fitting. And for this reason, I always call them *yours*, and you entirely their emulator, since, having trusted everything in the end to them, as you ought not to have done, you have considered them as prophets and apostles and Fathers—wretchedly!—by whom you are now supported and with whom you fight in your writings. One might say this is a reed-like defense, or a broken staff; you are attacking all the theologians and teachers of the Church at once, even if you pretend in your madness to be in agreement with their theology, playing with that which is not play, and treating the great and simple multitude as ignorant of divine dogmas and words, in your haste to manipulate and deceive.
But, as I was saying, you seem to me now to be like that poet of yours mentioned before, Ajax. For just as he, his brain and mind deranged by that Athena of his myths, appeared to attack the princes and generals of the Greek army in the stillness of the night, as if he imagined he had them in his hands, and bound under his own tent—when it was a matter of sheer delusion and melancholy, by which he, having stepped aside from what was fitting, was slaughtering the white-footed rams as if they were those men, and binding others, threatening the most horrific things, while he himself, thinking he was twisting the hands and feet of men, was hanging them from the chariot-rim, until the day finally shone and he came to his senses again, and he himself became his own victim out of shame—so you too, driven by irrational grief and madness and terrible envy, much like some wild demons, are doing exactly what those who have lost their minds and are raving mad would do. You are clearly attempting—to twist the holy Tome of the synod and those who have rightly set it forth, as if you had the holy princes and generals of Christ's Church in your hands, and were binding them with your words, and pushing them toward their destruction—or rather, handing them over to total ruin, and already erecting the trophy in victory over them. For you said, "Since the impious one, having reproached us with the 'non-existent' in the first instance, has been clearly convicted of believing in the 'non-existent' himself, come, let us also attack his position on the subsequent arguments of impiety."
A Through his own inward parts he drives the sword against himself, and falling into a piteous ruin—except that he, as the fable says, is in the wilderness and on the mountain, and after having sobered up from that madness, and physically; but you, O shame! are in the midst of the common Church of the faithful, and still possessed by that madness, both psychically and eternally, such that you have not even left yourself any hope whatsoever. B For he, having read ignorantly, and having never been a man of skill in divine theology, nor having understood the sequence of the argument of those who used the terms, nor the intention of the Tome as he ought, supposed that one part belonged to the divine Cyril, but as for the other—that essence and energy are not the same—he tore this away from the Tome and with great shamelessness cast it at us as if it were supposedly our own, calling the doting trifles of syllogisms "ours," and accusing us of the customary ignorance, since he considered the request in the beginning—speaking, that is, of the debate on the difference between divine essence and energy—as a conceded fact. But the argument has already shown this sufficiently for us, and it would be a superfluous task, outside of the time and the need, to say the same things over again, and to turn them back with words, and to toil at nothing necessary. B We must now proceed to the next parts of the argument. Concerning the debate over the difference of divine essence and energy, Gregoras said that we, wishing to confirm ourselves, put forward two of the God-bearing teachers as witnesses and, again, bring them forth: the divine John of Damascus, and with him the divine Cyril. And customary upon these, he immediately brought against us the charge of ignorance at once and wickedness, and in fact also of the slander against them and of [their] buffoonery and, as he says, [their] subversion of the sacred words.
If these were his only points, I mean the falsehood against us and this shameless slander, and there was nothing else added, it might perhaps have been endurable and not worth much discussion. For he who has dared to slander the Master of all in such a way as to say that He does not possess energy, nor divine and natural grace, nor anything at all of natural and proper properties, nor even that He possesses communion of deification or of His own natural energy with the human nature—for which very reason the only-begotten Son of God deigned to be born and to be called Son of man due to the abundance of unspeakable loving-kindness—how could this man ever have refrained from slander, and plot, and falsehood against men, even if he carries this excess to an absurdity, and his argument against such people proceeds even against God and His glory? But now, acting shamelessly like the thieves of the proverb, he brazenly accuses us of his own wickedness, the theft, the ignorance, the perversion, and the misinterpretation of the theological words, and everything for which he alone is responsible. And he himself is immediate witness to the things I say. For he refers back to the synodical Tome, which brings forward the divine Cyril speaking logically to the heretics concerning the divine and unspeakable generation of the Only-begotten Son of God; and saying, among many other things: "If to generate is the same thing as to create, then he who generates will be creating what is generated, and he who creates will be generating what is created. But to create is of energy, while to generate is of essence; and essence and energy are not the same; therefore, to create is not the same as to generate." For it is necessary that we also state the passage here in full. C Thus, then, Gregoras, accusing the
divine teachers
of ignorance and wickedness because of the passage of the theological Tome that was put forward, is himself proven, in truth, to be at once ignorant and wicked.For having read A the aforementioned usage of the divine Cyril poorly and ignorantly, and having not at all become a man of skill in divine theology, nor having understood the sequence of the argument of those who made use of it, nor the intention of the Tome, as was required—as for the part that belonged to the divine Cyril, he abandoned it, but as for the part that "essence and energy are not the same," having torn this away from the Tome, he flung it with great shamelessness as if it were supposedly our own—doting trifles of syllogisms—and accusing us of customary ignorance, since he considered the question in the beginning, that is, the debate concerning the difference between divine essence and energy, as though it were a conceded fact.
B From this, the noble fellow clearly demonstrated how he reads theological arguments and dogmas with skill, and what kind of grasp he has of the holy words, and besides these, what manner of man he is among the logicians, and how he applies his syllogisms—which he even considers more as something of his own, such that he deems everyone ought to call him by these. For this wise man indeed deems this the very motto of philosophy. For, not having been able to reach the meaning of the venerable Tome at all, as I already pre-stated, in an orderly and logical manner, and with the requisite skill, and above all with the divine Spirit managing the argument, and placing each thing proportionately according to order and need, nor having understood the things of the wise Cyril, which are full of divine and human wisdom, and which are as of that part of the absent teacher, if it should be an imperfect effort, he casts it C at the Tome, against the context and the need, without logical proof, not more shaming those who issued it—as he foolishly thought—and slandering, as far as he himself is concerned, but acting as judge, and shaming himself, and calling down upon himself the punishment fitting for one who dares such things. For if he who calculates and writes such things according to the ballots and decisions—I mean of the philosopher—adds doting trifles of syllogisms to the argument, and is a companion and customary [practitioner] of ignorance, and thirdly, in addition to these, of wickedness and sacrilege, and has now been clearly revealed, not the Tome [as being] the one saying and writing those things, nor those who have correctly issued it, but this very person who is both author, and father, and zealot, and accuser, and judge of such things, he would justly be, by all means, and everyone, I think, will agree, and no one will contradict, that he has carried off the votes and the proclamations of such trophies for himself, and that he is leading a triumph for himself, and certain rites and victory choruses—just as he himself, of course, as he advances, boasts in his words—or rather, indeed, even Dionysuses, and Satyrs, and Bacchantes, and a chorus of drunkards, so that these things might in some way be fitting for the philosopher, since they are brought to him appropriately by his own sophists and poets and myths. But let these things be as they are; for it would not be ours to wish to be occupied with those things for very long. Come, let us also [turn to] those aforementioned...
holy words of the Fathers, and what Gregoras says regarding them, and let us examine them once more. D This man introduces the synodal tome, just as I showed a moment ago, going through the sayings of the theologians in brief. Or rather, let us set forth those things more fully here, since this was also the opinion of the accuser. The God-bearing Damascene, then, when theologizing about the Holy Trinity, says, "Begotten is that which proceeds from the essence of the begetter, being similar in essence; but creation and making is that which is from without, and not from the essence of the creator, [that which is] to be produced, that which is created and made, [being] entirely dissimilar." And after a little bit, "But the generation is without beginning and eternal, being a work of nature, and proceeding from his essence, so that the begetter may not undergo change, and so that God may not be a first God and a second God, and receive an addition; but creation, being a work of God's will, is not co-eternal with God, since it is not [the nature] of that which is brought from non-being into being to be co-eternal with the beginningless and ever-existing one." And the great Cyril, standing against the Arians who wrongly dogmatize that the Son of God is a creature, says, "If to beget is the same as to make, he who begets will be making the begotten, and he who makes [will be] the made. But making is of energy, whereas begetting is of nature. But nature and energy are not the same; therefore, to beget and to make are not the same."
C These things having been spoken thus by the theologians, the tome of the synod says, "Those who say that the divine essence and the divine energy are indifferent, since according to him it is of nature to beget, and according to them energy is indifferent to nature, it will be according to them that to beget is also of energy; and thus the works will be eternal begotten things, as being from the divine nature. But since, on the other hand, it is of the energy to make, and nature is indifferent to energy according to them, it will be of the nature to make; and thus according to them [the things] from nature will be works." After these things, the common enemy of these men, in turn speaking to his own Agathangelos, sets forth his own refutations against those who wrote the tome—or rather, [he speaks] openly against the holy theologians of the Spirit themselves—saying thus: "But truly it is permitted to you here, my dear, observe, to use your habitual buffoonery and perversion against the divine words, for the wretch; for even the sow, having learned to eat leather, would never cease, as the proverb says. But one may open up the meaning of the proposed words first, and then clearly discern his perversions. For one, John, speaks of generation, [while] Cyril speaks of this as 'to beget,' so that 'to beget' and 'generation' are the same for both. Except that the one speaks about God, [while] the other [speaks] simply about any nature that begets; and just as the former says that creation is of the will, so Cyril says that making is of the energy. Therefore, the relation that will has to creation, the same [relation] has energy to making; and conversely, what relation will has to energy, the same has creation to making; and again, as creation is to will, thus is making to energy, proportionally in divine and human matters. And thus, from every side, the things of technical analogy regarding the words of the saints are shown to be sound." And indeed, it has been demonstrated and already refuted by our argument who is the one who basely works these buffooneries, perversions, and calumnies against the divine words, whom you have rightly called a wretch in addition to the other things, and you have justly obtained for yourself the appropriate penalty through your own words, just as I said before, and [as to] your childish behavior, and your [mundane] ornaments—
these, too, along with the others, I mean those of your A proverbs, and of the dog that chews the leather, and of the dance, and the list mentioned above by me of your Dionysian [matters], are highly appropriate—in order that you might simply have everything at the hands of your [own] calculations, and of your quarrelsome fault-finding against others, as you seemed to do. But observe how the poor man, having been led astray in [his] intellect and mind by B both domestic madness and envy, and indeed also by the manifest impasse of having to say something pertinent—just like those who are deranged and failing in [their] senses—now against the Tome, now against the common teachers of the Church, now against whatever random statement, whether of our [own] internal matters or those from outside, and before all else he proceeds against himself, not understanding at all what is said by him, and that he brings these things forward against himself.
For first of all, he says that the divine Cyril [was] not speaking that syllogism concerning God, not knowing openly what he says. For this common teacher of the Church of Christ, just as I said previously, making his argument against the Arians, who dare to call the Son of God a creature, attempts and reasons C in different ways in certain different chapters concerning these same things. Therefore, he also assigns the title to them in this way: that creation and generation are not the same, nor is begetting the same as creating in God. First of all, then, he slanders the holy Cyril himself on this very point, [by saying] that he did not speak [it] with primary reference to God; then, what his subsequent [words] mean, it would be difficult to even discern—or rather, to discern is easy and [obvious] to anyone who wills it, but what this has to do with the aim of the argument, not even the progenitor of these things, I think, could say. For just as if someone, by way of hypothesis, had said that these theologians, Cyril and John—who have been mentioned many times—do not agree with each other in the things said, but regarding the problem D and the premises they seem to be sound and to agree with each other, but regarding the conclusion and the aim [they] disagree with each other very much, and are openly opposed; so the philosopher struggles, wishing to show them agreeing with each other in everything, and in no way whatsoever disagreeing. For he says, John speaks of generation, [while] Cyril speaks of begetting; and just as the former claims that creation is of the will, so Cyril [claims] the making [is] of the energy. Afterward, the philosopher also adds the alternate analogy to the theology of both saints, and says that the [matters] of the technical analogy regarding their arguments are sound from every side.
But I, even if [it be] not by reason, nor necessarily, that the [matters] of the alternate analogy have been adopted by the philosopher in such things—for we know that this holds true only in the case of numbers and magnitudes, not in all things absolutely, but since, as an accident, he is not lying even now by accepting it—I would gladly ask him what he intends by this zeal of his, and toward what aim the argument looks, in considering the analogy and the agreement regarding [these things]. For indeed, it is not very hard to learn that A as the ratio that the number nine has to three, the same [ratio] is held by six to two; and conversely, the ratio that three has to two, the same is held by nine to six.
But it belongs to those who uphold these holy words of the theologians—or to say the same thing, the revered Tome of the Council, to which those [saints] bear witness—not to demolish them. If, therefore, even you yourself are barely able to stand with them, and [if you wish] to advocate for the truth according to piety, you have found well that from which you might indicate your aim and the intention of [your] opinion; but if you agree with them no more than contradiction agrees with itself, but instead B you disagree and speak against [them]—if indeed anyone does—and you cast yourself into all kinds of cycles, and "move every rope" as they say, struggling in your contentiousness to prove the exact opposite, even if you labor in vain—[as if] struggling contentiously to demonstrate that a cube is a sphere, or a cone an isosceles triangle, for the sake of which you bring those things forward, and apply refutations to the holy words—I do not think even your Pythia, nor [your] astrolabes, would have ever been able to find [success], of which you [are] surely accustomed to "prophesy" many things of the future to yours [i.e., your followers] C quite often. For all those things are on our side, but not for you, just as you thought—I mean [that] the ratio which will holds toward creation, the same [ratio] energy holds toward making, and conversely, and that creation is the work of divine will and energy, but the unoriginate generation is the work of nature; for this is also the chapter of the argument for the holy theologians.
Which [truth] you yourself now, because it was not even spoken [in that way], are skipping over, [occupied] with the magnitude of intellect and nature, [and] you occupy your own argument with analogies; but as you go through those things little by little with arguments, and proclaim in their words the difference of the essence toward the energy, you do not even perceive what is being said, just as someone said of the wise, D that when night and darkness prevail, they pass by both gold and iron lying on the ground. For what, after all, do you understand, tell us clearly, O philosopher, when you read holy John, and write in your own words these things theologically: "The generation is unoriginate and eternal, being the work of nature, and proceeding from his essence, so that the begetter may not undergo change, and so that there may not be a first God and a second God, and [that he] may receive addition; but creation, being the work of God's will, is not coeternal with God; since that which is produced from what is not into being is not naturally [capable of being] coeternal with the unoriginate and ever-existing [God]." Do you draw from these stated things a difference of the divine essence toward this [its] energy, or not? And yet, it is not even possible to draw it from these theological words; but, as they say, it is evident even to a blind man that it is to be taken directly from this [text]. For the theologian teaches such a difference between these, that he shows the works of each to be different. For he says that the work of nature is the unoriginate and eternal generation, but that of the divine will is the creation, [which is] not coeternal with God.
A And the God-bearing Cyril, speaking in harmony with this, as you yourself read a short while ago, says that making is of energy, but generating is of nature, and that nature and energy are not the same. Yet you yourself, by introducing the reciprocal analogy in your arguments, have separated the natural will from the energy regarding both creation and making—and you did not dare even to call them [attributes] of God—while having the theologians standing face to face, both of them protest that making is not the same as generating; for if the generator were to be the one making the generated, then the maker would be generating the made. And you, at the same time, being afraid to speak of many essences of God, lest you pull stones down upon your own head, are thus, with uncovered head, rushing simultaneously to pass by Macedonius and Arius in your division and dissection of the divine nature.
B Why do you also say, regarding the divine and unoriginate generation of the Son of God—you who say that God is only essence with Eunomius, and who set yourself against all his natural and indeed at the same time his hypostatic [properties], and at one time say that there is nothing at all besides names—bare and non-existent, but may the discourse turn back upon the head of those who are the originators of the blasphemy—and at another time count these among the creatures? For you either call it a creature of all things, or the essence of God, or a hypostasis, or a relation, whichever you yourself say... for what else could you say? But you will not call it a creature; for you hear the theologians calling it unoriginate and eternal, and proceeding from the essence of God—the consubstantial Son, obviously—so that there might not be a God who is first and a God who is later. But you do not even say it is essence; for this, too, is common to the three hypostases; but the generation is of the Son alone. For this is the only Only-begotten; and besides, the theologians have said that it is a work of nature, but not nature itself. Yet you could never call the divine generation a hypostasis either; for the hypostases of the Godhead are three, namely, the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit, and none of the three is generation, but the one is the generator, the other is that which is generated, and the other is that which proceeds from the Father. It remains, therefore, for you to call it a relation, and a divine-fitting movement mediating to the extremes, and a work of nature, which the theologians say, causing the consubstantial to proceed from the consubstantial.
C Then, since a relation is not unoriginate and eternal, or non-existent, is it for this very reason nothing else but a sound and the voice of bare words? In this way you yourself philosophize about the relation you are philosophizing about. And yet, both the Father and the Son are names of relation, just as he who is named for theology also says against the Arians. For he says, O most wise, that Father is not a name of essence, nor of energy, but of relation, and of how the Father is related to the Son, and the Son to the Father. And the term God, and the term Lord, are likewise among the things said in relation, as the same man says this too. For he says that the invocation of God, even if it is etymologized by those clever in these things from *theein* (to run) or *aithein* (to burn) because of his ever-moving and consuming [nature] of wicked habits—for He is a consuming fire—...
D What then, since the divine names "God" and "Lord" are also relative, and are among the things said in relation according to these theologians, shall we, O philosopher, consign these matters also to the non-existent? What impiety! The unoriginate and eternal generation of God is indeed a divine-fitting relation of the Father to the Son. But this is the existence of the hypostasis of the Only-begotten Son of God, or the mode of this existence, being unknown, naturally, to every generated nature, and ineffable, according to which the divine-ruling and consubstantial persons—I mean of the Father and of the Son—are distinguished, just as the procession of the Spirit is also this other mode of existence, likewise incomprehensible and ineffable, according to which it is distinguished from the consubstantial Father and Son, and thus the one God of all is known and believed by us as Trinity. But you, neglecting the divine Scriptures, making little or no account of the theology of the common teachers and Fathers, utter everything from your own belly, and think you are doing theology—presenting the shameful and hideous triflings of your own mind, and now the reciprocal analogy, now the relation, and before these, that God does not have "possession," demonstrated to children—as one who has departed yesterday and the day before from the school of liberal arts and myths and poets; and having achieved nothing noteworthy there, except to have received from there certain echoes and voices of the preliminary subjects, and to have boasted of being a teacher to the philosopher. But they celebrate now the evil opinions under you as mystagogue, and the blasphemy against God, and the setting aside of His Church, and all the evils combined, against their own heads; nay rather, they even triumph shamelessly, and parade through the middle of the city.
Then, as if not content with things said so badly and inappropriately and far from the sacred words, the philosopher brings yet another charge, as he thinks, against the Tome of the Church, because, he says, "He did not say 'of the nature' for that which is generated, but 'out of the nature,' having added the 'out of' on his own from himself, through which," he says, "the inhabited world is thrown into confusion, because the Tome wishes, forsooth, to establish the energy as being from the nature as from a cause, and brings it about that the Son is this [energy] himself," and, he says, "overturns the whole mystery of piety." And at the same time, he says, "he also complies with the Latins regarding this addition," adding to the sacred utterances that say 'Spirit of Christ' the 'from their own authority' and the 'out of,' and thus they blaspheme that it also proceeds 'out of the Son'; and he brings upon these piles of blasphemies and calumnies, and insults such as come from the wagon-drivers; for I have not the capacity to recite those [insults] word for word, sparing as I am of time and length. But as for the agreement with the Latins...
and of communion; I do not say this for the sake of words and prepositions, but because of those things that are more timely, and of the procession of the Spirit, and of the participation in him, which we will show in what follows, who is responsible for those things, whether it be the scroll A of the council, or Gregoras himself. But concerning the addition of the "from," Gregoras voluntarily pretends to be deaf and blind, or else, hearing those who speak and seeing what is written, he intentionally brings the blasphemy against them into the scroll, fearing to be shameless in the presence of those people—for the arguments are of the theologians, not ours, or rather, they are also ours, since they are theirs, whom indeed Gregoras himself shortly before was reading to himself amidst his own arguments, which read thus: "Generation," he says, "is to bring forth from the substance of the begetter that which is begotten, similar in substance." And after a little bit: "Generation," he says, "being a work of an unoriginated and eternal nature, and proceeding from his substance."
And the procession, the one part has been spoken of, and the other will again be spoken of. But in what was mentioned before, the scroll was making an argument concerning the difference between the divine substance B and the energy, and it brought forward many other great arguments of the holy teachers, which he himself passed over as if they had not been spoken at all from the beginning. And indeed these wise teachers—I mean John and Cyril—so clearly bear witness to the difference of the substance from the energy, as if to say that the work of the substance is one thing, and that of the energy is another, and that the one and same God, through his substance, effects the unoriginated and eternal generation of the Son, but through his natural energy, he makes the creation, so that even by the reduction to absurdity, the great Cyril silences the Arians. For if, he says, to beget were the same as to make, he who begets would be making that which is begotten, and he who makes would be begetting that which is made.
And that the conflict is indeed against the theologians [on the part] of the opponent, has been demonstrated by those very [theologians]; but even if that preposition was not added by them, O Gregoras, as you read, but they said simply "the begotten from the substance," you would not have said, "the Son [is] from the substance of the Father," as if the preposition were not literally attached. But rather, why is it necessary to speak and inquire about such things? Where, indeed, when it is even explicitly laid down by the saints, he himself denies it, is vexed, and cries out against those who say that the Son is from the substance of the Father C, and he says that this disturbs the ends of the inhabited world, and he teaches his own disciples not to say that the begotten is from the nature of the begetter, explicitly dogmatizing a homonymous voice with Arius, placing the name of the Only-begotten Son of God—the name which is above every name—down among the creation, with a bold and demonic intent and tongue, and overturning the common rule of the faith, I mean the symbol of piety; and he mimics, as it were, the Latins from the opposite direction, or rather, he even surpasses them in what is most manipulative and most absurd, in that they, while thinking the Spirit to be God from God, contentiously and wickedly add the procession from the Son, which is not [the case], but he [Gregoras] does not think the Only-begotten Son of God to be from the substance of God, and he boasts, and writes, and at the same time calls those who say this heretics—not only Arius, but also Eunomius, and Eudoxius, and their entire godless faction, which had long since been dead and had noisily passed out of existence, he is attempting to introduce into the Church. And the pretext is quite fair! "Because," he says, "the scroll attempts to show through these things that the divine energy, being from the cause of the divine nature, is also a son of God, and it wrecks and entirely overturns the foundation D of piety."
And have you heard the arguments here, best of men, concerning the energy, that they said such things? That, indeed, the divine energy is from the divine substance, not as a Son begotten from the Father, as he himself...
Although, if the argument were even about the divine energy—that it is from God as from a cause—you still should not have rushed so madly against such an argument, and spoken immediately, and slandered us unblushingly, that we call the energy the Son of God, just because we say the divine substance is the cause of this, being natural, following the theologians. For we say God is the cause of the creatures, and we say the creatures are from him; and we call him the Father of all things, but not by nature, but as creator. And we call men "sons of his," but now as creatures, and now as adopted by grace; but by nature, [we call] only the Only-begotten and consubstantial Son of God the Son.
What then is this madness and this demonic war against the natural [properties] of God, as if even with the creatures being called "from God," and no one being his son by nature, the natural [properties] of God—if they are said to be from his nature—must either be sons of God, or not even exist in the beginning? Just as if one were to say that the lion is not a rational animal, or is not an animal at all, or that the fig tree is not an evergreen plant, or is not a plant at all, nature having produced it from the beginning.
But the many and beautiful testimonies of the theologians and Fathers concerning such things will be presented in detail by me in what follows; but now one or two of the foremost will suffice instead of all.
The great Basil, therefore, debating about such things, says the following in his *Antirrhetics*: "That which is 'from something' is either creative, being from him, as 'One is God the Father, from whom are all things,' or generative, as 'I came forth from the Father,' and 'From the womb before the morning star I have begotten you,' or natural, as 'our energy is from us,' or as 'the radiance of the sun is from it.'"
And he who is golden in tongue, John, interpreting the Evangelist John, and examining that divine passage which says, "And of his fullness we have all received, and grace for grace," let us suppose...
A it is a source of fire, and then from that source ten thousand lamps are kindled, and once, and twice, and many times. Does the fire not remain in the same fullness, even after bestowing so much of its energy? It is obvious to everyone. And a little further on: "For if where substance is the thing received, it is divided and yet not divided, much more so when the discussion is about energy, and the energy of an incorporeal substance, is nothing of this kind likely to occur." For this reason John also said, "Of his fullness we have all received."
Otherwise, it is not necessary that what is "of something" should also be "from it." For what is an "aspect" of something is not "from it," nor is a brother of someone "from it," nor is a friend from a friend, nor a master from a slave, and simply all things that are relative and said to be "towards something." B But what is "from something" is necessarily also called "from it"—just as the Son is of the Father, and creatures of God, and light of fire, and the ray of the sun, and the power of the powerful, and all such things. It would be a wonder, then, how this philosopher, hearing that to beget is an operation of the divine nature, while to create is an operation of the divine will, did not understand that the former of God—as a hypostatic property and characteristic of the paternal hypostasis—brings forth the consubstantial from the consubstantial; and that creating, also being of God and from God as a natural thing, which indeed is without beginning and eternal, are both present to God. For there was not a time when the Father was not the Father, nor was there a time when the Maker and Creator was not the Father, together with the Son C and the Holy Spirit, even if creatures are recent and later-born, at that time the creating and acting divine power, according to our God-bearing teachers, because God willed it.
For, as he also says, it is a human analogy, the fire and its radiance—two things in being and visibility, yet in that [the radiance] is from it, and is its indivisible radiance. Then he brought in the filthy and most ignorant interpretation of that petty and passionless interpreter, as if by way of conclusion, saying: "Consequently, since it is believed by all theologians that energy is also from the substance, that the one is different from the other, and that they are two, and from this it has clearly appeared that they differ from one another, according to the 'from which' and 'from something,' the cause, that is, and the caused, as this great one teaches the divine theologians." Just, therefore, as in the case of the fire and the light from it—the one being nature and cause, the other being natural and caused—he has spoken of the one because of the inseparability, and of the different again, because of the cause and the caused; so also in the case of the divine nature and the energy from it, we must grasp [the concepts of] the one and the different—the former in accordance with what is united and indivisible, the latter in accordance with the cause and that which is from the cause.
Such is the holy volume of the Fathers, D which, in accordance with custom, sets forth and agrees with the theological Fathers and teachers who theologize about the united and distinguished [nature] of the Godhead through natural and appropriate examples. But that reviler of the saints, that man, brought it forward wickedly, having cut off the construction of the argument from it, and not even leaving the things stated in their place, but indeed also abusing them in his choice of words. But our speech is not long concerning the abuse and perversion of the words, for it is one and the same thing for us to say concerning the divine nature and its natural energy, and concerning the divine nature and the energy from it—which he himself introduced as a change, as a piece of his beloved knavery, at once being unable to look straight even at the words, and treating the natural things of God as though they were a mortal blow against his own opinion, while at the same time also posing as a charge, even before the Fathers, that "from the substance," just as he himself has already said. It is necessary, however, to add to the aforesaid the construction of the argument used by the theological sayings. For the holy volume of the Fathers, having said, as we have already heard, "Thus also in the case of the divine nature and its natural energy, the one and the different are to be grasped by us—the former in accordance with [the principle of] the cause and that which is from the cause," thus introduces and builds up its own argument. For the one does not drive away the difference, nor does the difference utterly destroy the one; but each, when piously considered according to the saints, will not be able in any way to be harmed by the other.
But the one who accuses us, Gregoras, not knowing how to clarify the arguments, nor having examined the theological words which he encountered with this excellent, fresh scrutiny, having cut off the construction of that [argument], has consigned it to oblivion and total silence, undermining the strength of the argument and attempting to strike the back, since he cannot even face it, nor...
can he in any way approach it. A But as for his own arguments, and his interlocutor Agathangelos, what does he say next? "And this interpretation of the villain," he says, "contrary to all expectation, transfers the meaning of the utterance to an non-existent and unsubstantial energy of his own." Then, proceeding, and conflating similar things, he produces the great Basil, who says that Eunomius made a kind of order, not one established by our own positing, but one occurring by the natural sequence of things, as fire is in relation to the light that comes from it; for in these things we say the cause is first, and that which is from the cause is second, not separating them from one another by an interval, but by logic, conceiving the cause before the causative. B Nor did the kind-hearted Gregoras forget his customary theft and sacrilege, or even the foul-mouthed abuse after his own fashion. And here, too, he takes the end of the great man’s discourse, which acts as a conclusion, after stripping it of the venerable volume of theology, and hides it in his own darkness and falsehood. For the great Basil, as if perfecting and concluding his own discourse, says, "How then can it be reasonable to deny the order, in which there is a first and a second, not according to our positing, but according to the sequence naturally inherent in them?" And a little later the volume says again: "To those again who attempt to deny such a difference in Eunomius, the great Basil says, 'How,' he says, 'do you leave no difference? Or not even the difference inherent in the causes with respect to those things which are from them?" Thus Gregoras is caught lying, C and slandering, and tearing apart the sacred utterances through and through, and adding that piece of villainy, and with his strange depravity and the disorder of his words, he is shameless enough to attach his own disgraces to those who are beyond reproach.
But let us now hear his arguments and his contradiction against the holy theologians, and let us explain his aforementioned initiate and friend. "See," he says, "how the shameless man, having an aim to publicly confirm here the fruits of his own villainy, who earlier divided the indivisible nature of the divinity into two and different parts, now wishes to call them even superior and inferior, D and uncreated divinities, and first and second by nature, he places the cause and the causative in front, and this and that, and the begetting and the begotten. For this is what he does, in order that he may show first that the Father who begets is the substance, and second that the causative and begotten Son is the energy." And a little later: "For you have heard his absurd interpretation. For of the saints, whom he himself brought forward as witnesses, saying that they speak of the Father and the Son, he himself interpreted their energy as something besides the substance, and that those who spoke of 'this and that' did not speak of it according to substance—for this, not even the demons would say, that it is something else according to substance, and different from the Father who begets the Son, but according to the relation, according to which the begetter is called Father, and the causative is called the begotten Son (for it has been shown to us above that these are names of relation, and not of substance); and he himself, either not understanding or voluntarily hiding it, passed over it without elaboration, as if it were a matter of no importance, [at least rendering some moderate care for such things.] But having plundered and seized the very expressions, both the 'this and that' to be, and 'two', and 'cause', and 'causative', he immediately leaped away, caring little for the meanings signified by those terms, and without having calculated the impiety thence arising. And after a little: 'See,' he says, 'how, wishing to show that all the saints are his allies, he shows rather that none of the saints are his allies? For no one is shown saying that this non-existent energy, being something else than the substance in itself, is an uncreated causative from the substance, just as the Son and Word is from the Father; and while always shouting and insisting that he is teaching according to the holy ones, he shows rather that he himself says the things most contrary of all.' And after some things: 'But it seemed to me to ask this man: how does he conceive the energy to be from the divine substance and nature, and in what manner does he dogmatize the divine nature as cause, and the energy as causative? For cause and causative, and unbegotten and begotten, which the relation of generation performs through negation and affirmation, and furthermore the processional, are hypostatic properties; and the mode of their existence is characterized by these names.' [(C)] And after some things: 'Since, also, wishing to dogmatize uncreated divinities that are both superior and inferior, he introduces cause and causative, and at the same time first in order and second, and using holy witnesses, they say that fire is first in the example in order, and the light from it is second, the great Basil having placed the divine nature analogous to fire, had given it the primacy and that of order, and had placed the energy second, and analogous to the light of the fire; it is possible to show here first that the shameless man has allowed no villainy to go unpunished, not even here in slandering the saints; second, that the energy, which he dogmatizes as a non-existent and unsubstantial divinity, he now shows to be the Son of God: so that one of two things must necessarily happen: either we worship four hypostases, or the Son is double, composed of an insubstantial substance and an unsubstantial energy.'"
In summary, the philosopher has vomited out his own heresy here. For he neither says that God has an uncreated and divine energy by nature, nor one that is created or adventitious, according to those first lawmakers and tutors of his hitherto, Barlaam and Acindynus; so that he is not only far worse off than those ancient Monothelites and Monophysites by quite a margin, and more absurd—for they did not deny that Christ possesses the will and energy of the divinity at the same time, even if they wrongly denied him the possession of those of the human nature; but he [denies] the natural energy...
and the will to the one who is in three hypostases and almighty God, insofar as he attempts to take them away from Him, and furthermore [denies] that the One who is God is the Creator and Lord of all things that exist; through these things which he wrongly dogmatizes, he hastens to establish [his position] in accordance with the sacred theology of the Fathers.
For the divine and most wise Maximus says: "He who is deprived of the natural will and the essential energy will be neither God nor man; for it is impossible for a substance to be devoid of natural energy, of which that which does not exist is alone deprived." And again the same [Father says]: "If the natural energy is essentially present in God, and the things that are essentially present are also inseparable, it is necessary for those who say that he does not have the same energy as the Father even after the incarnation, to also say that he does not have the same essence; for where the natural energy does not exist, neither will the nature exist at any time; conversely, those who say he has the same essence, must also say he has the same energy; for where the nature is, there also the common energy according to it will be present, without fail."
The honeyed and truly philosophical tongue from Damascus, I mean the divine John, with the same divine Maximus, says again: "It is necessary, he says, that natural things should be absolutely appropriate to their natures; for it is impossible for the existence of a deficient nature to exist." But the energy according to nature does not exist outside it. And it is clear that it is impossible for the nature to exist or to be known without energy. For through things by which it acts, each thing proves its own nature, which is that which does not change.
A The one who is cause and the one caused—the Father and the Son—who manifest this alone, and who have taken on hypostatic properties, and in accordance with this principle—and for the example of fire and the light from it, which was taken from the theological Fathers—the Tome gives [this] to the essence and the energy from it, bringing it forward. And from this it constructs the tri-hypostatic God as Father, and His natural energy as Son. Whence it is that the four [hypostases] instead of three, and the composite and monstrous God of the philosopher, and the Son, as he says himself, and the source of blasphemies.
Tell me then, O friend, even if the cause and the caused of the Father and the Son is such an hypostatic property, as you yourself say, such that it pertains to no one else among all things of this relation and of this appellation, what do you teach concerning the Holy Spirit, and what concerning the secret and visible creation in its entirety? For the one exists by procession as consubstantial and co-natural from the Father, while the creation exists as a product of the tri-hypostatic and almighty God. For are these too sons of God according to your lofty theology? Or have you destroyed what you previously constructed as four hypostases, or is the Spirit also composite of the Son and the Spirit, and of the others which you illogically monstrousize there? Or is God not even the cause of these? Nor are these [produced] as from the cause of God, since you dogmatize that only the Father and the Son are the cause and the caused. Furthermore, Basil and Athanasius would justly be under blame according to your argument, since the former spoke of fire and the light from it, and as many things as are similar to these—calling some the cause and others the caused—not the Tome which used the example set forth by them.
B But the philosopher, who does not cast into his mind at all these things and those akin and similar to them, and who feigns ignorance of the holy Tome of the Council which he has just read, is not able to bring forward any witness of the saints concerning the distinction of the divine essence and energy, as he says; but he promises to bring forward very many, yet brings forward, as he says, nothing of the sort, but rather some unclear and dark things, and passes over without the necessary working out and construction all those things, at which one might not justly laugh at him, [while he is] going through that great and abundant theology of the Fathers, of which we have taken the greater part of the divine Tome, and set forth more thoroughly in the second discourse, and the proper working out and construction of the theological discourses, even if not keeping all [of it] with himself.
C But if this novel dogmatizer and irrational theologian is not satisfied with those things that have been said, we shall add yet more to those things spoken at that time, and we shall show from the divine Scriptures, and indeed also from the theological Fathers, the complete logic of the divine distinction and union—unless he wishes to stop his ears again in the same way, and shoot the arrows of falsehood and slander in vain against the truth. But that shall be in a little while; for the present time, let us see what are the accusations against the theologians and the holy Tome, in which he dances as he celebrates the insult and the slander against us.
D And even if it were such, until they are, clearly, the summits of teachers and theologians, and great for these things before the whole Church of Christ, and no one of those counted among the pious would ever say that the Holy Spirit is not caused by the cause of the paternal hypostasis and consubstantial, nor yet that the tri-hypostatic God is not the cause as creator of His own creatures.
But you would be more liable to all those things in truth, and your empty philosophy and theology, which gives the caused and the cause to birth alone, and destroys universals by means of particulars, and confuses the order of things and of words together. For the procreator is not simply a cause, O philosopher, nor is the thing procreated simply a caused thing, but just as the former is a cause in such a way, so also this is caused in such a way; since the Spirit also is caused in such a way, and the creatures, just as we have said before. And insofar as it is a cause and caused, there is not one difference for them; but insofar as one is a cause in such a way, and the others are caused in such a way, in this is the difference; for the former [is caused] in a generative way.
A Let us consider, then, the image of fire and light, to see to whom it applies more aptly and in more respects: to the supernatural and eternal generation of the Son from the Father, or to the ineffable and eternal procession of the energy from the divine nature. For the light is from the substance of the fire, and it proceeds from it; and as it proceeds, it remains undivided; and it is considered second in order B by way of conception, though not at all in time; and it is at once both united and distinct—the one, in that it is inseparable, the other, in that it is from it as from a cause. In these respects, therefore, fire and the light from it provide a certain dim image—as an example from the material and bodily realm—of the ineffable and eternal generation of the Son from the Father. But in that, on the other hand, the Son is not a power C existing not in a proper hypostasis and contemplated in another, but is a perfect hypostasis proceeding generatorily from the paternal hypostasis, living of Himself and subsisting, and operating in a manner worthy of God, perfect God from perfect God, Light from Light, and Life, and Wisdom, and an enhypostatic Power, and from Life, and Wisdom, and an enhypostatic Power, an enhypostatic Word, and a Son having all that the Father has except for the being a cause—in these respects, the light from fire could never possess this image.
But you, by saying that only him who begets and him who is begotten are cause and caused, seem to be saying the same thing, just as if you were to define the substance of stone, and you were not to say the stone itself, but the animal is the substance, or if someone were to define the elephant, and you were not to say the elephant, but were to say that the animal is the human. For the difference between these is not because of the rational and the irrational, in that the one is such an animal and the human is such an animal, not because of the animal simply, as in those cases because of the ensouled and the soulless, but the difference is not because of the substance, since both stone and animal are substance. And if you say that the image of the fire and the light from it has been taken by the theological Fathers fittingly, D for those contemplating the generation of the Only-Begotten from the Father, and that the caused and the cause are well adapted from these as from images to those ineffable and supernatural realities, but that the Tome errs, and those who set it forth, by applying the images and examples of the archearchic hypostases to the energy, and by making the one from this point the Son, and the other the trihypostatic entity—or rather, by making the substance of this [be] the Father of this—if the philosopher says these things, [and] says that we are unworthy of the example of the saints and have not used it according to their purpose, consider then also our argument regarding these things, which is the same thing to say as [that of] the Tome and the saints. For we have nothing outside of what they think, but we shall say their things again.
First, then, it has been demonstrated that the caused and the cause, insofar as it is caused and cause, belong not only to the Father and the Son, but also to the Father and the Spirit, and to God and the creatures; and not only to these, but also to many others among the creatures that exist from one another, of which one is that example of the saints mentioned, I mean the fire and the light from it. And let this be established. Then, it is necessary to consider this also: as these sensible and material images and examples are weak and very fragile for imaging things beyond sense and intellect—for "there is nothing," says the namesake of theology, "that sets my intelligence to rest, as I contemplate the imagined form in the examples, unless one takes some one thing from the image and out of gratitude discards the many;" and again, "even if a small likeness be found, the greater [part] flees, leaving me below with the example"—since, therefore, these earthly and human examples are so weak in regard to divine things, yet are necessary for us who are the object of the argument, as this philosopher also thinks, that [example] would be more akin to what is imaged, and more appropriate, which fits better and is made familiar in more ways, as far as it is possible.
C However, the natural energy of God—and according to those former things, it has an appropriate relationship to the aforementioned image of light. For it is also naturally from the substance of God, and proceeding from there, it remains undivided and is by order second to the nature that gushes forth, but not [second] in time; and it possesses [the quality of] being at once united and distinct, and the rest; and it appears having those later things with itself no less; I mean that it is not a hypostasis or substance, but rather a Power, contemplated in the substance as in an underlying subject. For "no energy is enhypostatic," says the great Basil, "that is to say, self-subsisting;" and furthermore, that it is also participable according to the nature of light, while the fire is imparticipable according to substance, which is in no way possible to say regarding the Son; for He is imparticipable in Himself, just as the Father and the Holy Spirit are.
D Since, therefore, it has been demonstrated by more arguments that fire, and the light from it, is naturally an image of the divine substance and of its natural energy, it would be a more suitable example of the Father and the Son than of those [others]. And rightly and according to the appropriate argument the synod of the Fathers used this, and in the venerable Tome they have given the demonstration of the united and the distinct, and of the divine energy proceeding indivisibly from the divine substance, and [they have demonstrated] the falsehood of Gregoras's words directly, and [that he] has launched this arrow wickedly and impiously against the Church. It is necessary also to confirm what has been said with the theological and patristic words, so that we may not seem to some to be simply saying things of our own. "I contemplated the sun, and the ray, and the light," says Gregory, the pillar of theology, regarding the consubstantial, and indeed also the united, and
indeed the distinguished nature of the supreme Trinity. But here, he says, there is a fear: first, lest some composition should be imagined in the incomposite nature, as is the case with the sun and the things in the sun; second, lest we should substantify the Father, but not constitute the Son and the Spirit, but rather make them certain powers, existing within, but not subsisting in themselves. For the ray is not another sun, but certain solar emanations and essential qualities. A Do you see what I was saying, that the example of fire and light—or rather, to speak of the sun and the ray—is more applicable to the divine essence and energy than to the Father and the Son? For the one (the Son) is a perfect hypostasis from a perfect hypostasis; and there is a fear, says the Theologian, lest we should substantify the Father, but say that the Son and the Spirit are not according to their own hypostasis, but rather make them certain powers existing within, not subsisting in themselves. Now the divine energies are essential powers, not subsisting in themselves, but subsisting within the essence—which is what the Theologian and teacher says is preferred, and more appropriately so, as the example of the sun and the ray.
And one who is of the same nature and same spirit with him, I mean the great Basil, having gathered both examples into one—I mean that of the sun and the ray, and certainly also that of the fire and the light from it—assigns them to the Holy Spirit and to the energy and grace naturally proceeding from Him, speaking thus: "There is the Holy Spirit, where the Son is, and where the Father is, possessing all things, and itself also being consubstantial according to nature." And after a little: "But as heating is inseparable from fire, and shining from light, so is sanctifying, life-giving, goodness, and uprightness from the Spirit; and as the sun shining upon bodies, and being variously partaken of by them, is not in the least diminished by those who partake, so the Spirit, bestowing His own grace upon all, remains undiminished and indivisible." B For the Only-Begotten, he says, born from the Father inseparably, and remaining in Him always, has an individual hypostasis distinct from that of the Father; but the ray of the sun and the light from the fire are certain emanations of those things, and essential and natural qualities, not having an individual hypostasis, but being contemplated in those natures—which is also most suitable to the natural energy of God, as the discourse has already shown. For it does not have an individual hypostasis, but is contemplated in the divine and tri-hypostatic nature as a natural property of it and an essential power. For what the natural and essential quality is in those essences, and what is accidental—this is what the natural properties are in the case of the divine and incomposite and simple essence according to the theological Fathers; which some have even called natural qualities of those theologians, for the sake of clarity, and to show that Christ, in accordance with His dual natures, possesses also the dual natural wills and the natural energies as properties of His own natures, naturally.
But Gregory, neither regarding the unity of the Godhead, nor in a manner worthy of God and theology applying anything to its distinction—but rather, arming himself poorly with the very voice and arguments against the teachers who theologized those things, and even pretending to be the Father, and those who have sacredly expounded that Tome—has lost even the distinction he seemed to profess regarding the God-principled persons of the Godhead, alas! For he says there are not three hypostases, nor does he say that the one God is distinguished by these, according to the rule and word of our pious faith, and the supernatural commandments and traditions from thence. C And the God-bearing Damascene, taking this image of fire and light, according to the aforementioned theologians, onto the Father and the Son, immediately shows it to be imperfect, according to the arguments we have already mentioned. For he says: "Just as the light born from the fire is always in it, not being separated from it in any way, so also the Son is born from the Father, in no way being separated from Him, but always remaining in Him." But the light, born from the fire inseparably and always remaining in it, does not have an individual hypostasis distinct from the fire; for it is a natural quality of the fire. But the Son of God, the Only-Begotten, born from the Father inseparably and indivisibly, and always remaining in Him, has an individual hypostasis distinct from that of the Father. See how the things said by this Theologian also intend the same as those proposed: that the examples of the fire and the sun, and indeed of the things from them, are more appropriate to the natural procession and energy and grace from the divine essence than to the unoriginate and ineffable generation of the Son from the Father.
But since he heard the names of Father and Son relating to relationship according to the theologians who were speaking against the heretics, he himself, having removed the name of the hypostases, and indeed that of the persons, says that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinguished only by a relationship, bringing in a new and strange voice to the theology of the blessed Trinity, instead of Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, which he calls relationship. And if, while preferring that, I mean the sacred theology of the hypostases, he said that the one Godhead was distinguished into three hypostases according to the choir of the theologians and Fathers, there would perhaps be nothing new, even if he added the relationship of the persons according to the Fathers. But now, having removed the tri-hypostatic, as I said, and the hypostatic or personal difference, which it is pious and worthy to speak of regarding God, he introduces a new kind of theology—the relationship—saying that the Godhead is distinguished by relationship alone. D Herein, thus far; but proceeding a little further, he will say that this relationship is but a bare voice alone, being devoid of any reality, and in no way said of any subject—the Libyan Fury again—I mean that confusion of Sabellius, which he introduces into the theology of the great Trinity, having dogmatized the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit as bare names.
A For this is exactly what it is for the holy Trinity to be distinguished by relation alone, while that relation, according to Gregoras, is in no way a reality, or rather does not exist at all, except as a bare word, which he himself will demonstrate further on through his own words, as I said. But it is necessary for us now to set forth at greater length the argument concerning divine union and distinction according to what has been promised, and to teach this philosopher the gospel and apostolic opinion and decree from on high, which is the unified and at the same time distinguished [nature] of sacred theology. I do not mean this only regarding the divine essence and the three thearchic hypostases or persons, but also regarding the essential power and energy of the divine essence, or its energies and powers, since the natural power and energy of God is brought forward by the theologians both collectively and distributively, just as the argument proceeding [from them] teaches us most excellently. Or rather, the philosopher would no longer be able to learn, nor to unlearn, nor to relearn the things that have been wrongly known and opined by him; for he ought to have sought these things long ago from those who know, and to have learned without contention what he had not learned. But at that time, having abandoned learning piously, he set his B hand and tongue against the holy masters impiously and with great folly, and having entered into almost every heresy, he left behind these own writings of his, which he would that he had not done.
But now, having come to the majority, and having kept the final silence—alas!—and being unable to hear, or to speak, or to unlearn, or to learn anything at all, he will lament in vain with his own companions and mystagogues, not, I say, merely for himself and his own destruction, but much more for those whom he taught and most evilly corrupted by his words and writings—which is indeed the heaviest [burden] of all. For "Woe," it says, "to him who gives his neighbor a muddy draught," and especially to those who have departed this life according to his teaching and, along with the present life, have lost the hope of repentance and correction, alas! Regarding them, indeed, as I said, the discourse has nothing to say; but it is necessary, I think, toward these still-surviving brothers. For I still call those [clergy] brothers, showing respect for the common head and Father out of philanthropy, and for the title, and for that ineffable mystagogy, and at the same time because I am willing to hear them for a while, seeing that they give us good hopes concerning the future.
TO THE SAME PHILOSOPHER GREGORAS: ANTIRRHETIC DISCOURSE FIVE
Concerning unified and distinguished theology, and concerning the difference, specifically again, of the divine essence and energy, and also concerning their union,
and that the union of these is contemplated in reality according to the theologians, while the difference is by concept; and the proofs of these from Dionysius
and Hierotheus, the successors of the apostles, from the divine Scriptures, from the ecumenical councils, and from certain theologians and teachers in part.
Now, entering with our discourse C into the divine and super-essential union and distinction of the Godhead, if we were aiming at some of our own thoughts and words, we would be some reckless and truly bold people, attempting things far beyond us with a vast distance and by excess. But since we have taken the matters of divine theology from the theologians themselves, as far as is possible, and are adapting them to the proposed hypotheses and discourses, we shall say those things now, as many as we might be able to hear, being guided by their leading and theology into the unerring truth of the divine words. Not that what was written and defined by that sacred assembly of the Fathers did not sufficiently attain the goal—how could that be?—but because even after those divine words and the brilliant demonstration of the things sought, the followers of Gregoras appeared to some to be saying and writing something. D Regarding them, and the truth of the facts, the wise men of those people say absolutely nothing—except that, to those wishing to hear them, and to those of Barlaam and Akindynos, they seemed to be saying something somehow.
For this reason, it is necessary now to return to that which is, as it were, the summit and peak of the divine Scriptures—I mean the evangelists and apostles, and indeed their associates and successors—and to hear from the apostolic theology and teaching whether there is any union or distinction in the Godhead, and what this is, and what those of the Church ought to say and think about it unerringly and in a manner worthy of God, and what, on the other hand, ought to be kept silent according to the divine laws, of course.
Now, who else could be the first hearers and mystagogues of the divine evangelists and apostles, and wise in divine matters, and wise in human matters—having ascended so far in theology and contemplation as not only to have learned to speak according to those very same [apostles], but also to have experienced the divine things supernaturally, and therefore also, with the apostles themselves...
to have been deemed worthy to be taught such things? A And who else, if not Timothy and Titus, and if any other is of their school, says these things? To whom else, then, if not to Dionysius and Hierotheus, who come immediately after the first apostles, must we entrust ourselves, and through them, to the extent that it is possible, learn and receive instruction in the things of the evangelists and apostles? Let us hear these teachers and theologians saying: "Theology," he says, "delivers some things in an united way, and others in a distinct way; and it is not permitted either to divide the united things or to confound the distinct, but rather to look upward, according to our capacity, toward the divine rays." Do you hear? The theologian gives us here a certain rule, a model, or foundation, as it were, of unerring theology, which speaks of both the united and the distinct in equal measure, and requiring each in accordance with the proper time and reason. For he says that one should not divide the things that are united—addressing the Arians and Macedonians, B and looking toward the division of the nature and the polyarchy—nor should one confound the things that are distinct through evil union—as is evident with the Sabellians, the Monophysites, and the Monothelites, and indeed also with those who have arisen after them with a greater augmentation of error, I mean those surrounding Barlaam and Akindynos, who introduce, as it were, a certain plague into the Church. But rather, we ought to follow divine theology and, as much as we are able, look upward toward the divine rays.
Therefore, we too, using this as a lamp, a guide, and a rule, proceed to the next parts of that theology. "Concerning the union," he says, "of the divinity, or rather of the super-essentiality, C the united thing is that which is in the principle-originating Trinity, and the common super-essential existence, the super-Godhead, the super-good goodness." And a little later: "The standing and placement, if one must say so, of the principle-originating hypostases in one another, is totally super-united, and is not confounded in any part." And a little before these things: "The united things, then," he says, "belong to the whole Godhead, as we have demonstrated in the theological outlines through many points from the oracles: the super-good, the super-divine, the super-essential, the super-wise, and whatever else belongs to super-essential *apophasis* (denial); along with which are also all the causal things: the good, the beautiful, the being, the life-giving, the wise, and whatever is named as a cause from all the good things of its good-befitting gifts; but the distinct things are the super-essential name and act of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, with no inversion or general commonality being introduced into these." D And after a little: "But there is also a distinction in the super-essential theologies, not only what I said, that each of the principle-originating hypostases is established in the union itself without mixture and without confusion, but also that the things of the super-essential theogony do not recur toward one another. The Father is the only source of the super-essential Godhead, the Son not being of the Father, nor the Father of the Son, but they guard the things appropriate to each of the principle-originating hypostases in a holy manner." And concerning these things, this is sufficient. For [the author] of the divine nature, the united, rather 3 Next, one should consider whether these theologians teach any other distinction in the Godhead besides the hypostatic one; since this had been the purpose of the discourse for us from the beginning. He says, as I think, that we ought rather to take up again the perfect manner of the divine union and distinction, so that the whole argument may become clear to us, rejecting all that is various and obscure, and assigning, as much as is possible, its own proper bounds clearly, lucidly, and orderly. Binding these things to the aforementioned theological rule, we ought to set out to the hearing of all the subsequent teaching of these theologians, so that, just as we have learned and keep from that one—that theology delivers some things in an united way, and others in a distinct way, and one must not divide the united nor confound the distinct—so also, having learned from these and those again, [we might learn] that the whole concern of the theologians is about God, and the divine union and distinction, and there is no discussion by them here at all concerning creatures; but now it is about the hidden and ineffable [nature] of the super-essentiality, and now about that which is spoken and known of it. And as they proceed, they will show others more clearly; but now [they speak] concerning the three principle-originating hypostases, and nothing more. We ourselves also, in so far as it is possible to give heed to the hearing of this high theology, meet [them] clearly, orderly, and wisely; since he promises that the whole argument will be easy to take in, as we have heard, rejecting all that is various and obscure, but clearly and orderly defining its own proper things. Whence, one should not wrongly go beyond that order and those bounds, hearing of "God" and "theology" and "divine union" and "divine distinction," and then look toward creatures, ridiculously and in every way ignorantly.
The theologian then says next: "For those initiated in the mysteries of our theological tradition call," as I also said in other places, "the unions the secret and ineffable super-abidings of the super-ineffable and super-unknown constancy, but they call the distinctions the good-befitting progressions and manifestations of the principle-originating Godhead." And after a little: "But if the divine distinction is the good-befitting progression, with the divine union super-unitedly multiplying and increasing itself in goodness, the unparticipated distributions are united according to the divine distinction: the essentializations, the life-givings, the wisdoms, and the other gifts of the goodness of the cause of all, according to which, from the participations and
A that which is participated in without participation is hymned as whole, and entirely, and all-complete, and full D of deity by the oracles. Again, and that one may summarize it, the Theologic Word Himself said: "I and the Father are one," and "All things that the Father has are mine," and "All mine are thine, and thine are mine." And again: "all things that are of the Father," He assigns them to the Thearchic Spirit as well, communicably and in unity. And after a little: "Whatever divine name one attempts to unfold, it must be taken as applying to the whole deity." Thus, then, the Theologian demonstrated the union of God's natural properties, as we have briefly shown: saying that these things are indivisible and common to the Thearchic Trinity. For, he says, it is not that this belongs to this divine person, and that to that one; but that all things belong to all B commonly, and in unity, and holily, and indivisibly, as of one and the same God. And if anyone should say that these things were not spoken concerning the whole deity, he says that he who dares to do so is blaspheming and is attempting essentially to sever the hyper-united Monad.
And this is, as has been said, the theology of the deity which is united according to its energies. And we have likewise heard of the distinction of it, the Theologian having defined it clearly and plainly and orderly, according to his promise. For, he says, divine distinction is the good-befitting procession of the divine unity, which C hyper-substantially multiplies itself in goodness and increases itself. And again: "For all divine things, and as many as have been made manifest to us, are known only by participations. But what they are in their own origin and foundation is beyond mind and every essence and knowledge." And proceeding a little further: "After the venerable theology of divine Hierotheos, we say that divine distinction, as has been said, is the good-befitting processions of the Thearchy. For, bestowing itself upon all beings, and overflowing the participations of all goods, it is distinguished in unity, and is multiplied unitarily, and is increased without falling away."
And beginning the fifth chapter of the present book, and being about to theologize concerning the Existent, he says: "The purpose of the argument is not to manifest the hyper-substantial essence in that it is hyper-substantial—for this is ineffable, and unknown, and entirely unmanifest, and surpasses even the union—but to hymn the essentializing procession of the Thearchic D Essentiality towards all beings; and the other things which we, having received them from this Theologian, have already set down in the third book, when we were considering the things concerning divine power." But now, I think, we must consider before all else: who are these who teach and theologize these things, and from where did they learn such things, and whether it is necessary to believe them unconditionally or not? First, then, such is the virtue of these men, and their wisdom, and theological knowledge, and contemplation, and their teaching authority, being such that, after the chosen ones of the Apostles, it holds sway over almost everyone—a thing which I also said at the beginning of the discourse, as if even if one were not to have studied under the chief of the Apostles and
enlightened, and being instructed in the sacred hymns, to see the divinely ruling lights bestowed upon us through them, and to hymn the goodness-giving Beginning of everything sacred, as Itself has imparted concerning Itself in the holy Oracles. And again: "For if there is anyone at all who stands against the Oracles, he will surely be far off even from the philosophy that is ours; and if he does not care for the wisdom of God that is his from the Oracles, how could we care for his guidance toward theological knowledge? But if he looks toward the truth of the Oracles, using this as both rule and light, we too, for the sake of an apology, will walk as steadily as we can."
A Furthermore, there was added to these, being entrusted by them with the sacred guardianship and leadership of the Churches, and running both of them the apostolic course—while the other of them, having become beyond-territory in the excess of his zeal and driving even to the Italians and the Gauls—to don a martyr's crown for all these things through his blood; for these things that have been foretold alone, they need to be numbered among the chiefest of the theologians and teachers of the Church of Christ. B Now, however, there are added to those things these as well, being so great and wondrous and worthy of the highest regard among all—or rather, superior to both word and wonder—by the novel synthesis, I say, and by the concurrence and union with those former things, so that even from their names and designations alone, they are venerable and supernatural to all, and their sacred theology and dogmas are esteemed and named the very voices of God and secondary oracles by His Church. And such, indeed, are these theologians; as they say one can show the lion from his claws, and I do not think any of the pious could gainsay those things that have been said on their behalf. But in addition to this, one must also observe how and from whence those men have learned these divine and noble things. Although it was somewhat redundant and outside of necessity to seek these things concerning such men, as long as we know them to be disciples of Paul and John, the chief of Christ's apostles and theologians, whose preaching and Gospel were not from men nor through men, but from the union and discourse of Christ Himself. Since, however, they have not refrained from teaching even this, let us examine this as well.
The holy Dionysius says that he himself and the celebrated Hierotheus were initiated into this divine theology in three ways and by three modes, as we have already heard: one, by being disciples of those premier apostles; and this is to be heard in his theologies, where he frequently brings forward the apostles and teachers, and their sacred traditions, sometimes calling them by the common name of theologians, apostles, sacred-initiators, guides, and sacred-teachers, and at other times by name, most especially mentioning Paul the chief of the teachers with the greatest possible reverence. The second is that by always starting from the divine Scriptures and those consistent with them, and not attempting or calculating anything whatsoever outside the sequence and theology of the Oracles. "For let the constitution of the Oracles be also for us even now," he says, "pre-ordained, for us to bind [our] truth to the things said about God, not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in the demonstration of the spirit-moved power of the theologians." And again: "Generally, therefore, one must not dare to say, nor even to conceive, anything concerning the super-essential and hidden Godhead beyond the things passed on to us divinely from the divine Oracles." And again: "But honoring the ineffable things with temperate silence, we are stretched toward the rays that shine upon us in the holy Oracles, and are led by them into the light, toward the divinely ruling hymns, in a manner transcending the world." C And it would be long, and beside the present time, to recount all the things of this theologian now in order, as he would be mindful of the theologies of his whole sacred work lying before the eyes of all, and clearly proclaiming the agreement of the Gospels, and apostles, and prophets, both in word, I say, and in meaning, and in all things wherein it is permitted. D There remains for them a third [way] toward the initiation into the supernatural theology, by which, excelling most teachers, they vie even with their own initiators and the chiefs of the apostles: the new revelation of the mysteries from above, through, I say, sacred illumination and unknown knowledge, and that sacred union which is supernatural and ineffable, according to which the mysteries are revealed to those who are God-like. Concerning this, the wise Dionysius, teaching in what has preceded, as we heard, says concerning himself: "But of these unions and distinctions, as many as we have found in the Oracles to be worthy of God, having discussed them separately in the Theological Outlines as far as was possible, we have set them forth, unfolding and expanding them by true reason, and bringing the sacred and unclouded mind to the manifest sights of the Oracles, and applying them to some as mystical according to the divine tradition above intellectual operation." And in the seventh chapter of the same book he says such things concerning these same: "And God is hymned from all existing things, according to the analogy of all things of which He is the Cause; and again, the most divine knowledge of God is that which is known through unknowing according to the union beyond mind, when the mind, having departed from all existing things, then also having let go of itself, is united to the super-lucent rays, being illuminated from thence and there by the unsearchable depth of wisdom." Concerning the divine Hierotheus, he says these things: "Whether he received it from the sacred theologians, or whether he has perceived it from the scientific investigation of the Oracles, out of much exercise and practice concerning them, or whether he was initiated from some more divine inspiration, not only having learned but having also suffered divine things, and from his sympathy toward them, if one must say so, being brought to their unlearned and mystical union and faith." These things being so, and such being the sacred theology, and the mysteries about which we are now deliberating, and such being these theologians and heralds, and of such great and
A inspired evidence from the Oracles, and as for these latter matters, not one of the things said in the least contradicts them—let these things be as you say, and let those who are common teachers of the Church believe in the former, but disbelieve in the latter, according to you—for I refrain from saying anything more. But if, as in the former cases, so also in these, they are hearers of the Apostles, and successors, and theologians, and masters among teachers, and have learned and possess the entire theology through the Oracles, and have received the revelation from above and the ineffable initiation regarding all things in the same manner, and have learned and experienced those things, and there is no distinction or division in them—what is this new and irrational audacity, that you now should count them among the teachers and theologians, and now strike them out with much authority, and at one time set Hierotheus and Dionysius alongside the Apostles and theologians, and [assert that] they are teachers and heralds of the most transcendent B discourses about God, provided they say what seems agreeable to you, but at another time [assert that] they and their theology are out of bounds, if they do not conform to your opinions? For either the teachers are true in both these and those matters, and the true initiate of the Gospel must in the same way be persuaded in both, or they are false in both, and one must disobey them in both; for it cannot be that this and that are so, that I mean one is false and the other true, since in this way even the contradiction would be in agreement with itself. Moreover, to follow the teacher now and to wish to speak against him again—and that in matters of such dignity—could not be the part of a disciple. For this is not the act of one being initiated and molded, but rather of one dragging the mystagogue and the rule to himself, and commanding the sources of the rivers to flow upwards, quite clearly.
C If, however, those around the philosopher should say again that that theology—I mean the one concerning the monarchy and the three God-ruling hypostases—is proclaimed in all the divine Scripture, and there is no one among the faithful who wishes to speak against it or even to dispute at all about its claims, whereas these matters concerning the processions and energies and communications and the difference of the divine nature, and natural properties, and whatever follows from these, which you say they state—these, then, are not to be found in the same way in the divine Scriptures; and for this reason we speak against them, because they seem to be outside our discourse—this also is a falsehood. For regarding the entire Old Testament—I mean Moses and those prophets who follow him—it is not possible to say how much they kept hidden the mystery of the Trinity, being very fearful D of the Jewish people’s proneness to polytheism and their gluttony for it; and for this reason also, "The Lord thy God is one Lord," and, "The Lord God is one," and, "I am God the first, and I am after these things, and beside me there is no other," are said from the person of God and are very frequent among them, and similar things to these. Not, however,
A that the doctrine of the one Godhead and of the monarchy can be explicitly taken from there, as it is now instituted and preached among us. For where, in the divine scriptures there, can the definition and name of the essence be found? For the essence and the hypostases of God are so intermingled with one another that one necessitates the other, and if these were silent, the former would also be silent in turn, just as if the former were not spoken of, the latter would not need to be spoken of either. And I do not say this now as though the Law and the Prophets did not know of the Monad and the Triad; for how would they not, since they all knew and preached in this clear way the holy mystery concerning Christ, and rather, even for the sake of these very things—I mean the things of grace—did they not become, for those who lived then, types and images and mystical foreshadowings of the things to come? But I do mean that, for the time being, these things were spoken to the ancients enigmatically and in a concealed manner, so that not even those who heard and saw them knew simply the power of the mysteries. And if one must speak, where even until today the great Paul says concerning those times and seasons: "When Moses is read, a veil lies upon their heart; but when one shall turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away." But not even from the Gospels and the Apostles is it possible to take the whole theology of the Monad and the Triad, of the essence and the hypostases, and of the things following these, as explicitly as it is preached in the Church now. For where is it written explicitly among them that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, or that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son? Or where is it said that God is one in three, the Creator of all invisible and visible creation, and that God is one in three as conceived together, and yet God is likewise whole as each is considered by himself; or that he is a Monad indivisible and a Triad without confusion—the former because of the essence or the Godhead, the latter because of the hypostases or persons—the most paradoxical thing: God, and God, and God, but one God, and not three, since the Godhead is one in three? From which of the Gospels or Apostles have you heard the name of "hypostasis" explicitly? And that there is one essence, but three hypostases? Where among them is the "unoriginate," and "co-originate," and "co-eternal," and "consubstantial," and the indwelling of the hierarchic hypostases in one another, and their permanence, and their grounding, spoken of?
If, however, you gaze toward the economy of Christ and the mysteries there, I fear lest you also disbelieve, having encountered all at once the names spoken there, and the terms which the need of the affairs and of the times discovered with the Holy Spirit, and handed over to the faithful as it were in types and as standards of piety. If you gather together all the foundations of the faith and of theology here, even though you do not have them explicitly written in the scriptures, you are nevertheless confident in the theology of the Fathers concerning the whole of it, knowing them to be the hearers and successors of those foremost ones, and teachers of the Church immediately after those first ones, and precise interpreters of the Oracles, and indeed having both learned and experienced those things through divine revelation, so that even the later oracles, as I have already said, are called their holy theology; how is it that you are not bold in this part of theology in the same way, even though you hear the tradition of the foremost apostles, and the holy witness of the oracles, continually crying out on behalf of these things, and indeed the divine revelations? For this is not only a matter of our God-taught teaching and theology, and of the apostolic tradition, but it is also far from human reasoning, and appears to fall into an enigma. B But they are so confident in their own theology and in the holy knowledge of the scriptures, and before these in the Spirit who rightly leads and illuminates, that they also bring forward the witness and the proofs from there for the things said by them, and drive away all doubt and human reasoning. For thus, he says, we hasten both to unite and to distinguish the divine things, as the divine things themselves are both united and distinguished. It is not conjecture, he says, in this place, and some doubt of reasoning, and suspicion, and the noise and clamor of human words; but it is God himself who is teaching us theology through us. This is also for us the study of the word, so to unite and to distinguish the divine things, as they themselves are indeed united and distinguished, and in no other way; so that it is of absolute necessity for those who do not unite and distinguish the divine things according to their theology, not to unite and distinguish them as the divine things themselves are united and distinguished. C But how? I for my part shrink from the blasphemy, but those who have understanding know entirely what they mean. For it is necessary also to introduce an entirely foreign God if one introduces a foreign union and distinction, and for this reason, undoubtedly, Gregory of Nyssa, that wonderful prelate, said: "Such has the God of Eunomius been shown to be to us."
It would have been necessary for us to stop our discourse concerning these matters here, having run back to the divine oracles as if to some trial, and having brought back from there votes with the greatest possible authority; for what more could one investigate and examine, when God gives authority to the words? But the discourse desires, by the abundance of the truth, to bring forward explicitly some of the very oracles of the Spirit on behalf of the matters set forth here, and to confirm our own claims from there. If, then, that also were present—I mean the book of the divine Dionysius along with the others, which this very man calls "Theological Outlines"—he makes frequent mention of this book in particular; we would have long ago been relieved of these troubles. For in that work, the Theologian says that the holy testimonies from the oracles have been set before him, as many as have discoursed concerning divine union and distinction; but with that [work] not being present, nor known at all to us, [we must speak] concerning the difference between the divine essence and energy,
A the uncreated, the immaterial, the timeless, the beginningless, the eternal, the unending, the infinite, the unknowable, the formless, the ineffable, the unsearchable; that He is called God of gods, Lord of lords, King of kings, the All-Ruler (Pantocrator), the Maker, the Creator, the Light, the Holy One, the Life, the Good, the Immortal, the Strong, the Almighty, and whatever else is spoken of by way of preeminence and causality—not that each one is called an essence, but rather that these things have their reference to the essence as in two or more things, according to that which is distributed, as we have learned. And it is also called the sum and fullness of the Godhead, according to Scripture, being equally considered and theologized according to each of the three hypostases. For, "All things that the Father has are mine, and I have been glorified in them." B The discourse will also add to the mention of divine union and distinction those evangelical and apostolic utterances that we have. And it would be a work of prayer, and of the protection of those theologians, not to cast away from their judgment and those theological delineations, nor altogether outside the scope, this [discussion]. John, therefore, the foremost of the evangelists and theologians, after that sublime theology of the Word of God, introducing John the Baptist as testifying in the discourse to His divinity, says that he spoke thus to the Jews: "This was he of whom I spoke: He who comes after me has become before me, because he was before me. And of his fullness we all have received, and grace for grace." This, the namesake of these, the Father—I mean Chrysostom—explaining, says: "And what ever is it," he says, "that 'of his fullness we all have received'? It is not that he possesses the gift as something participated, but that he is the fountain itself, and the root itself of all good things, the life itself, and the light itself, and the truth itself, not containing the wealth of good things in himself, but overflowing it also to all others, and after overflowing, remaining full, and being diminished in nothing by the supplying to others, but always gushing forth, and to all these distributing of the good things, he remains on the same level of perfection." And after some things: "For let us suppose there to be a fountain of fire, then from that fountain let thousands of lamps be lit, and twice as many, and three times, and many times. Does the fire not remain in the same fullness even after having imparted its energy to so many? It is surely clear to everyone. If, then, in the case of bodies, the dividable things which are diminished by the removal were found to be of such a nature, that even after providing for others, those which are from itself are in no way harmed, much more will this happen in the case of that immaterial and uncorrupted power. For if where essence is what is shared, and it is a body, and it is divided, and it is not divided, how much more when the discourse is about energy, and the energy which is from the immaterial essence, is it not likely to suffer anything of the sort? For this reason also John was saying, 'Of his fullness we all have received.'"
Regarding this fullness of the Godhead, also the Apostle Paul, writing to the Colossians, said: "See that there be no one who will spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ; that in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and you are filled in him." And the interpreter of this will be for us the luminary of the Church, Athanasius the Great, just as John was to him. What then, says the renowned Athanasius? "We theologize one God in three hypostases, having one essence, and power, and energy, and whatever else is considered and hymned as theologized concerning the essence; and that we may give a type to the discourse, and a sum, C the conformity of this great one's theology—I say—to the aforementioned theology of the divine Dionysius is clear from the things now said. For he also theologizes to him through all things above what is now set before us, differing only in words and phrasing. But in order that the things of the agreement may be shown even more clearly, we shall advance the discourse to that masterly utterance which this great man mentioned at the end of the aforementioned theology, since we are just now considering the things of the oracles. Christ, therefore, says to the disciples on the evening before the passion, teaching the final things, according to the Evangelist John: "All things that the Father has are mine; for this reason I said that he receives from mine, and will declare it to you," speaking clearly about the Paraclete; and again to his own Father: "All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I have been glorified in them." In the great council at Nicaea, therefore, this great one, debating with those around Arius, says things such as these: "All things that the Father has are mine. Not for the sake of created things did the Savior say 'All things that the Father has,' but whatever pertains to the Godhead of the Father, these the Lord said were his own; such as the immortal, the incorruptible, the immutable, the incomprehensible, the powerful, the foreknowing, and whatever the Father is, these happen to be the ownings of the Son." And again to the same [people], the same [man]: "All things that the Father has are mine. There is a necessity, therefore, for us to understand that there is in the Father the eternal, the everlasting, the immortal; but it is his not as foreign to him, but as being in a fountain, resting in him. When, therefore, you wish to think concerning the Son, having learned what things are in the Father, believe that these also are in the Son." And again: "All things that the Father has. And he has the creating, the making, the eternal, the being All-Ruler, the immutable. And the Son has these also, not by virtue, as we said, but they are of his essence." Where now are those saying that the things mentioned are not in God, nor that God has any uncreated thing in himself other than the essence? Let them be ashamed even now, if ever, of this great teacher and theologian, and [of those who] clearly speak these things in this way. D
A but according to an eminent and God-befitting transcendence, as I said, which the theologians also called apophatic theology. For those who hear [this] learn that even these are uncreated, and not that they are the essence of God, but things springing from His essence and resting in Him. For the Savior, he says, did not say this because of created things, "All that the Father has is mine," but the Lord said that all things that pertain to the divinity of His Father are His own. And again: "It is His," he says, "not as things foreign to Him, but as being in a fountain, resting in Him." To which the holy volume of the Fathers follows, just as I previously stated, knowing that the divine energy is an essential and natural motion of God, according to the theologians; we say that it proceeds and springs forth as from an ever-flowing fountain of the divine essence, and is never contemplated apart from it, but always remains inseparable from it, coexisting from eternity with the divine essence, and being united with it indivisibly. And again the great Athanasius says: "The Son also has the aforementioned things, not from virtue, as we said, but they are of His essence." Have you heard that it is of His essence? And these things are so much the property of His essence that from these he even gathers that the Son is consubstantial with His own Father, concerning which the battle was at that time for the theologians against the Arians. This is what the great Basil says: "Whose energies are the same, of these there is also one essence." And the energy of the Father and the Son is one, as in, "Let us make man." And again: "For whatever the Father does, these the Son also does in like manner." Therefore, there is one essence of the Father and the Son. But if they are properties of His essence, it is manifest that they are not the essence itself. For the essence of something is not the essence of an essence. This theologian often said that these belong to the divine essence. Furthermore, essence is never spoken of in the plural—for it is one—but these are expressed in the plural, for they are very many. Moreover, this same theologian explicitly said beforehand that each of these is not called essence, but [are things] around the essence. For this reason, the divine Paul also calls these the fullness of the godhead. And how could the fullness of the godhead that dwelt in Christ be a creature, or something non-existent and a non-being, according to your wretched wisdom?
Hearing these things, then, learn also this: that they are in such a state, not as foreign to His nature, but as natural, so that you may cast far from you the Aristotelian opinion concerning "having," and learn to unteach that blasphemy, that God does not "have" "having" strictly; and learn instead this high and God-befitting [truth], that whatever God has, He has it super-essentially, just as He is also good, and God, and being, and all other things—according to apophatic theology [He is] neither being, nor good, nor God, nor Lord, not by way of privation (for this is of the ultimate blasphemy and folly), but by way of transcendence, as being above all those things; so too He "has" all things, and nothing of all things is outside Him. For He alone is the boundary of all things, both divine and human; and it could be said, according to that argument, as the theologians say, that He has nothing, not even this very "having," not by way of privation—away with such blasphemy!—for this, indeed, [is what] B those who have not correctly said that God "has" that which is "having" have suffered; but according to an eminent and God-befitting transcendence, as I said, which the theologians also called apophatic theology.
Therefore, the great Athanasius said, as you have heard, that those things are His not as foreign to Him, but as being in a fountain, resting in Him. And again: "The Son also has these, not from virtue, as we said, but they are of His essence," slapping down your definition of "having," which is impoverished and lowly, and teaching you not to daringly attach these things onto the words about God—in the manner of Stoics and Epicureans, or those who are otherwise lowly and earthbound, but not unto matters of theology—concerning which, indeed, the renowned Dionysius says the same things through many [words] and in many other places, just as the discourse has already shown, and indeed in these [things] too. For he says in the discourse on divine union and distinction again: "That the whole godhead indeed has lordship over all things, regarding the God-generating godhead or the material [godhead], it is not even possible to say, as I think, in any way that 'Lord' is bandied about in theology in regard to the Father and the Son. But the Spirit is also Lord, and the good and the wise are hymned in regard to the whole godhead, and the light, and the divinizing [power], and the cause, and all things that belong to the whole thearchy, the oracles lead back to the thearchic hymnody." And after a little: "And that one might state it in summary, the thearchic discourse itself said: 'I and the Father are one,' and, 'All that the Father has is mine,' and 'all mine are yours, and yours are mine.'" And again: "Whatever belongs to the Father, [He] also attributes to Himself, in communion with the thearchic Spirit, and unitedly, [attributing] the theurgies, the worship, the fountainous and indefectible cause, and the distribution of good-befitting gifts." And I do not think that anyone who has been nurtured in the divine oracles with undistorted thoughts would contradict this, that all God-befitting things belong to the whole thearchy, according to the God-willed discourse.
But let us come again to that same examination of the oracles. The beloved Evangelist and Theologian introduces Christ, after the miracle on the blind man, conversing and speaking publicly to the Jews about many other things, and indeed also these: D "No one shall snatch [them] out of my hand," clearly the rational sheep. "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch out of the hand of my Father. I and the Father are one." And the divine Chrysostom, setting this, "I and the Father are one," for himself for explanation, says the following: "He speaks here according to the power. For all the discourse for Him was concerning this." And if the power is the same, it is manifest that the essence is also [the same]. For it is not possible to know or power or essence through another. And Christ, again, on the evening before the precious passion, arranging the final things for the disciples and teaching, according to the same evangelist, and saying those things among others: "If you had known me, you would have known my Father also, and from now [on]
A on you know him, and have seen him," Philip says to him: "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us." This question of Philip, then, the divine Chrysostom again examining in his evangelical expositions, let us hear what he says. "Let us see," he says, "what Philip seeks to look upon. Is it the wisdom of the Father? Is it the goodness? No, but what God is, his very essence itself."
Truly, however, the evangelist Luke, after the election of the prominent apostles by Christ and the naming of them by name, says these things about him, continuing: "And all the multitude sought to touch him, because power went out from him and healed all." B Interpreting this, the great Cyril says: "Rightly, the prophets, he says, did not have powers going out from themselves; for they performed miracles by the grace of God; but Jesus, being the fountain of every good and of all power, has powers going out from himself." And again, the same evangelist, recounting the miracle of Christ regarding the woman with the issue of blood, and introducing him thus as saying to his own disciples: "Someone touched me, for I knew power went out from me," the divine Cyril again interpreting this: "Power," he says, "goes out from Christ, not moving locally, but being distributed to others and remaining in Christ, just as teachings are both with the teachers and are passed on to those who learn."
It is evident, then, that Christ does not mean power here as being the essence, nor does Cyril, who explains his words. For he says: "I knew power went out, and power went out from him," and "Jesus," he says, "has powers going out from him." And again: "Power goes out from Christ." But that which goes out, as the divine words themselves say, goes out from something. But to say that the divine essence proceeds from something is close to madness. For if we were to grant that the essence proceeds from something, we would by all means declare that thing to be the cause of it; which is not only alien to God, but also manifestly impossible. Whence even the great Dionysius theologizes this rather as the cause of all things, saying thus: "All things partake of God's providence, pouring forth from the super-essential and all-causal Godhead." Besides, if anyone were to say that there is a cause of the divine essence, he will also, of necessity, construct this same thing to be the cause of the three thearchic hypostases; for the essence also is common, and one of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But to speak of any cause of the three worshipful hypostases, I do not know what kind of wicked heresy this does not bypass. D For it not only makes the holy Trinity a quaternity, but it also introduces a swarm of all sorts of other absurdities. And what is it that the divine Cyril said that this divine power is also given? For the divine essence is not given, says the holy theology according to us. For it is altogether unparticipable and equally inaccessible to every generated nature. But neither could such a said power ever be called created, so long as those who speak are sound of mind. For that which heals all could not be a creature, according to the word of the evangelist. How then could anyone call the power which remains in Christ without diminution a creature, according to this theologian who said these things, unless he wished himself to be numbered among the raving and deranged?
But let us go again to the great Paul, and let us examine the things written by him to the Romans concerning this divine power. "The wrath of God," he says, "is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men, who hold the truth in wickedness. Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God has manifested it to them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and divinity." C And let us hear what the theologians who are Fathers, Cyril and Athanasius, say, unfolding these things. He said above that the Greeks wronged the knowledge of God, having used it badly. From where, then, is it evident that they had knowledge? Now he says: "Because that which is known of God is manifest in them." Then he also argues for this, saying that from the orderly arrangement of creatures the Creator was proclaimed; as David says, "The heavens declare the glory of God." And what the "known of God" is, you might learn thus. Of God, some things are unknown, namely his essence, and some are known, such as all things pertaining to the essence, that is to say, goodness, wisdom, power, divinity, which Paul also calls invisible, understood by the things that are made. Therefore, to the Greeks he showed all that which is known of him, that is to say, all the things pertaining to the essence, which are invisible to sensible eyes, but comprehensible to the mind through the orderly arrangement in the things that are made.
Concerning these things, Basil the Great, writing to Eunomius, says thus: "It is likely that the essence itself is removed from the sight of all, except the Only-begotten and the Holy Spirit; but from the energies of God we are led on, and through the things that are made, we conceive of the Maker, and we receive the perception of his goodness and wisdom. For this is the 'known of God' which God has manifested to all men." And the brother of this man, Gregory, I mean of Nyssa, interpreting the evangelical beatitudes, and becoming in accordance with that divine word, I mean, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God," says: "The divine nature, whatever it is in essence, lies beyond every comprehensible conception." And being such by nature, he who is above every nature is in another way seen and comprehended, even the invisible and incomprehensible one. But there are many ways of such understanding. For it is also possible through the wisdom that is manifest throughout the universe to aimingly see him who has made all things in wisdom. For indeed, looking upon the world in creation, we form an impression not of the essence, but of the wisdom of him who has made all things. Even if we calculate the cause of our own life, that it came not of necessity, but of good intent
A to create man, again by this we say we have seen the method of God, of goodness, of whose essence we are being permitted a mental apprehension. Thus also in the case of all other things; for that which is invisible by nature becomes visible by the energies, being perceived in certain properties surrounding it. But the mind of the blessed does not look only to this, to be able to surmise the worker from some energy. For perhaps even to the wise of this age there might occur, through the harmony of the world, a comprehension of the super-cosmic wisdom and power. But Maximus the Great, who is wise in both, I mean in divine and human wisdom, and who is also a confessor of these things even unto blood, interpreting the apostolic text that was uttered, says as follows: The principles of beings, established beforehand before the ages in God, as he himself knows, being invisible—which it is the custom for divine men to call good volitions—are perceived being understood from his works. For all the works of God, being viewed knowledgeably by us according to nature with the necessary science, secretly proclaim to us the principles according to which they have been created, and the divine end upon each work B they reveal together; even as the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaims the work of his hands. And there is an eternal power, he says, and divinity, the providence that holds beings together, and the energy according to it which deifies those who are provided for. And if the things concerning God are also these matters about which Christ spoke to his own Father, "All mine are thine, and thine are mine," and, "All things that the Father hath are mine," if, therefore, these are matters and are uncreated, and not the essence of God according to the interpreters of the Gospels and these theologians, which indeed the Apostle writing taught were both "the known of God" and "the fullness of the Godhead" and his "eternal power and divinity," it remains to call these properties of the divine nature, and its essential energies, together with these theologians, I mean Basil the Great, and Gregory, and Maximus, and indeed the chorus of the remaining C theologians, to whom also John from Damascus, the theologian of the synods, says many other things wonderfully regarding these, from which we also shall speak in due time, and that these are ornaments of the Godhead which it imparted to the Master's body.
And having had enough of the words for the present, I say for now, few from many. But sufficient, as I say, even these to certify the theology of those ancient teachers and successors of the apostles, Hierotheus and Dionysius, which the discourse promised to show, and furthermore that they are also harmonious and concordant with the subsequent Fathers and theologians of the Church, so that they neither ring out of tune nor strike outside the mark, as they are all led together by one craftsman, and mystagogue, and teacher of such things, I mean by the Spirit of God. It would remain, then, also toward D the ecumenical synods that follow to look, and to learn if any of them also spoke concerning divine essence at the same time and energy, and if indeed they also contemplate some divine-fitting difference and distinction in these, or if they simply know these as one and indifferent, and say that the same thing is now called essence, now energy, and now that the essence is uncreated, but the energy a creature of the divine. For such things are somehow considered ancestral to those around the philosopher Gregoras, and a direct definition and symbol of faith, descending to them from far above from Acindynus and Barlaam; for these they also know precisely as fathers and teachers of divine dogmas, and the Church of Christ—even if they conceal their names out of shame—and there is a time when they even spoke them out openly under compulsion in our common assemblies with them, and especially so. Since, therefore, the Church of Christ immediately held those sacred synods of the inspired Fathers after the four Gospels of Christ in a certain order and dignity, and having received from them the pious definition of faith, and their sacred dogmas, this is considered by us as unerring faith, and piety, and orthodoxy, as much as I speak concerning the God-ruling and consubstantial Trinity, and all that concerns the economy through flesh, and the divinity of the only-begotten Son of God, who is one of this life-originating Trinity. For those same [Fathers] are also the overthrowers of every heresy and bad opinion, and of the truth according to piety, all after the teaching of the words, since they are Fathers and teachers, and for this reason we also require the sacred agreement with them immediately after every confession of the Godhead, and [from] priests at the same time, and kings, and those approaching the Church of Christ from any heresy whatsoever, and all together, come, let us also take and look at them in part. The holy and ecumenical fifth synod, then, after the periods of many years, scrutinizing the very bad writings and dogmas of Origen and Didymus, and Evagrius, and the band around them, saw—for even some of the Church were being abused by these very people—it said, it says, Origen, in his writings indeed, that things are co-eternal with God, and that since God is from eternity, the creatures are from eternity. If the creatures are not from eternity, God was changed entirely, coming from not creating to creating. We, toward these, it says, say: He was not changed according to nature, but according to energy, or rather not even according to energy. For he always had the power to create, but such power was energized when God willed. Have you heard the difference of divine essence and energy from these God-bearing mystagogues? For the heretics, by way of reduction to the absurd—for it is also absurd in their view, as it seemed, to be able to say that he who is only impassible and unchangeable undergoes change—they hastened to construct that which is more absurd, that the creatures are co-eternal with God. But the Fathers of the sacred synod...
AGAINST GREGORAS: ANTIRRHETICS V.
A ...with a beautiful and God-befitting distinction of the divine essence from the divine energy, they resolve this sheer-precipice problem, and they deliver the Church of Christ most beautifully from the pitfalls on either side, by saying that the creatures are works of the energy, but not of the essence of God. Therefore, those things that belong to the essence are the proper works of God—which is to say, clearly, the birth of the consubstantial Son and the procession of the Spirit, which are co-eternal and cannot but be so; and for this reason the Son and the Spirit are co-eternal and without beginning with the Father, so that the Immutable might not undergo mutation by generating or proceeding the consubstantial from eternity, and so that God might not be considered first and later, according to the theologians and Fathers who have already taught these things. But the creatures, being works of will and energy, and entirely outside the essence of God, cannot bring about mutation even if they come into being later; for they were produced from non-existence into existence by the will and energy of God. Then, too, the holy teachers, by manifesting together the uncreated and eternal nature of the divine energy and the immutability of God according to it, said that God is not changed by the energy, as if He did not possess it naturally from eternity and later acquired it, thereby receiving some mutation. For, they say, He indeed possessed the power to create, as it was naturally His own; but such power was brought into action because God willed it.
B Now, intending to consider the matters of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, I say before all else this: that if we did not already have all those things previously mentioned regarding the difference between the divine essence and divine energy, and indeed also the things that will follow regarding these same matters to the holy Fathers and theologians, the words by this very Council alone would have been sufficient for the Church of Christ for a complete account of the subject, it being ecumenical and having been assembled so brilliantly, and by so many teachers, not on other matters but on these specific ones, and holding these alone to be of service. For which one should wonder not a little, but C indeed to an excessive degree, at Gregoras and his fathers and guides of this new-fangled religion, how they threw aside the struggles and accomplishments of this great Council, as if it had never occurred at all nor come into existence to begin with, and as if they did not even mention it in their dreams—or rather, even if they did mention it, if not in writing, then at least by word of mouth, as I heard from one of those who associated with them—they treated them in the worst and most absurd manner, no better than they treated the Monothelites, who were rightly and justly condemned by that Council. For some of the associates of Acindynus, being usually guided by him regarding the matters of the divine energy—sometimes calling this natural power and movement of God a creature of God, sometimes saying that it is the essence of God itself and differs in nothing, and at other times the Only-Begotten Son D of God and His Spirit (for these are the first principles of the theology or, rather, of the blasphemy of Acindynus, which even still his writings and his successors attest to)—were asked by their students at that time, when he was teaching them such things, what they ought to think regarding the holy utterances and the sacred debates concerning the divine energy, and their misinterpretation and distortion (it being his own work and pursuit), and regarding this great and ecumenical Sixth Council. And they said things not yet explicitly contrary to what he thought and believed and proclaimed. But the good Acindynus, as if forgetful here of the knowledge at hand, and of the habit of distorting and slandering matters that are beyond all distortion and slander, here somehow rightly and worthily reveals the matters of his own heresy and lack of faith without blushing, having called all the Fathers of that holy Council altogether uneducated, barbarians, and ignorant in word and character, and as having thought nothing sound regarding the matters set before them at that time, discarding and erasing the entire ecumenical council as if it were something trivial and worthy of being overlooked, even though it was numbered at one hundred and sixty Fathers and teachers, having all the patriarchs presiding together, and a wonderful and great emperor with the entire senate around him, and along with these, and before these, the one who at that time held the primacy among all the churches, I mean the holy Pope of senior Rome; nay, not only one, but also second after him, and third, and indeed the entire sacred synod of churches under them, through discourses, legates, and their own representatives, and furthermore through synodical letters and long, multi-lined epistles, establishing the right and unerring word of faith, not from their own reasoning, but from the holy theology of the Scriptures and the divinely inspired teaching of those who came before them. And what need is there to speak further of these and those? Since he likewise rejected in the worst way, along with that council, not just this ecumenical council and those who were at it, but also all the ones before it and after it, some of which this council held as a kind of foundation and base, having built its own argument—like a pillar and unshakable tower of piety—upon their definitions and their holy notions concerning divinity, and the ones after it in turn likewise regarded it, and having numbered it with those before it, with the highest esteem, having proclaimed with them this one, and having condemned with them those whom it condemned, and having considered its matters as a definition of piety, and a canon of the right faith, and a standard, to the point of subjecting to the ultimate anathemas and condemnations those who do not accept them, a point which the discourse as it proceeds will show more clearly. But let those be cast away, having thought in the worst and most absurd manner regarding the axioms of our common faith and the great elements of piety.
A And, having stated [as they did] that from this point alone they are manifest to all as Christians, they have [thereby] erased themselves from the catalogue of the faithful, and have willingly departed far from the portion of Christ. But we, of his venerable Church, who together with the sacred Gospels reverence those venerable Councils of the Fathers, and deem them the standard, canon, and measure of our pious faith, come, let us also look well at the things dogmatized in part by this holy Council concerning the divine energy in Christ. For, indeed, B against those who, at that time, were of the mind of Sergius, Pyrrhus, Cyrus, and Theodore, and were resisting the orthodox with words and writings, and who said that the God-man Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, has one energy—the same [energy] of both the flesh and the divinity—the divine Council of the Fathers discourses [concerning] many and most important things through the divine Spirit, and among other things, the following: "We know," it says, "that the energy of each nature is individual, essential, natural, and appropriate, proceeding indivisibly from each substance and nature, according to the natural and essential quality that is inherent in it, and bringing with it the energy of the other substance, undivided at once and unconfused." For this also makes the difference of the energies in Christ, just as [it makes the difference of the identities of] the natures. And again: "For by one thing it is evident that Christ performed one act, and by another another, so that according to the divinity, the things which the Father does, the Son does likewise, and according to the humanity, because He is true God and man, the same [person] acted as man—the things which are proper to man." From whence it is also truly believed that this same one, being one, has natural energies—the divine, that is to say, and the human, the uncreated and the created—as a true and perfect God, [and] a true and perfect man, one and the same mediator C between God and men, the Lord Jesus Christ. D Behold how the holy Council, by these few words, has taught most excellently both the oneness and the difference of the divine nature in relation to the divine energy, and the natural, and the unconfused, and the immediate, [and also] that the difference of the energies of Christ, one from another and in relation to the natures—which is, of course, demonstrated from the results—further shows that the one Christ has two energies, as perfect God and perfect man, just as, it says, the difference of the natures shows that Christ's natures are two. But it is not possible to know the difference of the natures in Christ otherwise than from those natural [signs belonging] to Him—according to the same theologians—just as, indeed, the hypostatic characteristics [belong to the] hypostasis, so also the natural characteristics belong to nature, of the divine and the human alike. And we say natural [properties] are the wills and the energies, as they themselves say the same. These things, therefore, having safely theologized through the aforementioned words, the Fathers of the Council, and indeed also the uncreated [quality] of the divine energy A all at once, they called out, and natural, and that it proceeds from the divine essence, and that it is inseparable from it, which things could never be said of created beings—for such is not their nature, nor more than it is for flame to come forth from snow—thereafter, explicitly and in these very words, they added this: "Christ," they said, "being one, possesses natural energies, the divine, that is to say, and the human, the uncreated and the created." Therefore, even the particular divine council after the second iconoclasm, which overthrew the heresy and strengthened orthodoxy both in word and deed, thus, in the presence of the Church, in addition to other things, also solemnly decreed that the acts of this ecumenical council be proclaimed. To those who reject the voices of the holy Fathers [which are] for the establishment of the correct dogmas of the Church of God—Athanasius, Cyril, Ambrose, Amphilochius the God-speaker, Leo the most holy archbishop of elder Rome—and furthermore the Acts of the ecumenical councils, both the fourth, I say, and the sixth, those who do not reverence them, let there be anathema. B Since these things are thus, and since the ecumenical councils are, as it were, bound and sprouted into one another inseparably, and breathe the same [spirit] both with themselves and with the almighty Spirit of God that moves them, and indeed also with these Fathers and teachers who came after them—who are of the same nature and have the same spirit—and since they thus, in a God-inspired and fearful manner, proclaim their acts annually in the church, and cast out those who do not reverence them and subject them to anathema, tell me, Gregoras, and Niphon, and Dexios, and whoever else is of their mind, will you accuse the synodal Tome, or this one or that one, those who stood over the council and the holy Church, because after many councils, and long and continuous discussions, and many and fine words, and time, and the testing by words and deeds, they both proclaimed against and subjected to anathema Barlaam and Acindynus, the first mystagogues of them and arch-heretics, and those who disobey to the end and fight against the truth of piety, following those divine Fathers? C And how shall they not also here be calumniating and wronging us, just as they do, of course, in the matter of the faith? For the Fathers of our council have not set forth a definition of faith from themselves, [and] thereafter subjected to the condemnation and those fearful [anathemas] those who do not obey it—far from it. But rather, having set forth the definition of faith and the common canons of the Church—I mean those sacred councils of the Fathers—they have subjected to anathema those who disobey them to the end; not we, but those [councils] rather, just as formerly, have even now proclaimed [them cast out]. Which the council of our Fathers that has just been manifested has also done, having done the work of priests and angels of God, and having kept the fitting order and form,
A receiving it as a most excellent canon of truth. For I will say again concerning those very things, that they hasten to guard what is laid down there, so that it remains unmultiplied, undiminished, and immutable, as also the one who is the wise Dionysius dared to add with the greatest possible respect to their argument, as we have already said above, I mean this: that thus we hasten both to unite divine things to the Word, and to distinguish them, as divine things themselves are both united and distinguished.
And such are the things of the Oracles, and they are so clear and easy to distinguish, and they discard all the complexity and ambiguity which these very people—to whom even those who came after them, the highest of the theologians, consented in their explanations of them—are trying to force upon them. B Such also are the definitions and canons of piety that came after the venerable Oracles—that is to say, the ecumenical councils—thinking, canonizing, and legislating for the Church in the same way concerning these same things. I think, however, that from the many words of the same teachers and theologians, it is necessary to add a few things to what has been said, and thus, having clearly shown the agreement of all through everything, to interrupt for the present the continuity of the discourse. But let Justin the philosopher and martyr come forward again before the others to the discourse, to point out more broadly the difference of the divine energy in relation to the divine essence, since the holy volume of the Fathers touched upon his words only in passing and in part, for the sake of brevity. Let him come forward, therefore, being an ancient teacher of the Church, having been a student of the successors of the holy apostles, a wise man and a martyr, and one who possesses reliability from every point of view.
The martyr of Christ, therefore, says, when discoursing at that time against the Greeks: “If God creates by His being and not by His willing—as fire warms by its being—how is it that He is one, and simple, and uniform, yet is the creator of different essences?” To this, the children of the Greeks, answering, say such things as this: “One must not think that, as in us to be is one thing and to will is another, so it is in God; but in God, to be and to will are absolutely the same thing exactly. For what He is, He also wills, and what He wills, He also is; and there is no division in God, because God is self-originated. So the division of 'to be' relative to 'to will' must be rejected in the case of God.” And such things they say, wrongly concluding that the things created by Him co-exist with God from eternity; for they are Greeks. C But let us hear how this disciple of Christ refutes them, proving them to be liars, briefly and well. These very things Julian also—who regrettably exchanged the truth of piety for the falsehood and impiety of Hellenism—says in his encomium of his own god, wrongly praising the sun.
“For God,” says the divine Justin, “having essence for existence, but will for creation, he who rejects the difference between essence and will, rejects also the existence of God and His creation; His existence, that is, and the creation of things that were not.” And again: “If existence is one thing, and being inherent is another...” D
If it is true that it is existence, then the One willing is not; but if it is inherent in the essence, it is then of necessity one thing and another. For what is and what is inherent are not the same. And again: “If God wills many things, and many things are not, then at God’s side it is not the same thing to be and to will.” Such is the output of the teacher. That willing and the will are a natural energy and movement is clear from many other things, and this very point is shown by the divine John, the Syrian I mean, in the thirty-sixth A chapter of the Theological works, which the volume of the Fathers that has already reached us has also declared.
Cyril the wise, regarding God, says that what is accidental is not essence. For unbegotten, or incorruptible, or immortal, or invisible, is not essence. For if each of these signified essence, God would be composed of as many essences as He appears to possess naturally. If, therefore, not all that is said to be naturally present in God is also His essence, it remains to say that it is accidental to the essence itself, understood as such only by a word; for human nature has no higher thing than that which pertains to itself to say about God. But we use these terms as our own habits regarding Him, making things that belong to us examples of greater things, just as those who portray the celestial circle on a small tablet.
If these things are so, and no argument will ever contradict it, it is clear that the Church, knowing the difference between the essence and the energy of God, and preaching it well and piously, has taken her stand with the disciples of Christ, and indeed of this very man, the only teacher of her and of them; but those who do not know these things rightly and who speak them, blaspheme openly against Christ, having joined themselves most wretchedly to Julian and the Greeks. Basil the Great, writing to Eunomius, the successor of Arius, says: “The works are indicative of power B and of wisdom and of art, but not of the essence itself, and they do not even necessarily represent all the power of the Creator. It is possible that the craftsman might not deposit all his own strength into his energies, but often employs less intense efforts in the works of his art. But if he were even to move all his power onto the work, even so his strength would be measured by means of the works, but not the essence, whatever it might be, would be grasped.” And again, writing to the holy Amphilochius, he says: “So many things being numbered, clearly concerning God, whether these are names of one essence, and whether His fearsome nature, and His philanthropy, and His justice, and His creative nature, and His prognostic nature, and His retributive nature, and His majesty, and His providential nature, or whatever else among these we might say, do not declare the essence? For if they say this, let them not ask if we know the essence of God, but let them ask of us if we know God to be fearsome, or just, or whatever else they call the essence; let them not deceive us through the simplicity. For they themselves confessed that the essence and each of the enumerated things are one thing and another, C but the energies are various, while the essence is simple. We, however, say that we know our God from the energies, but we do not promise to approach His essence. His energies descend to us, but His essence remains inaccessible.” And again: “If we are to bring all the divine names and attribute them to the essence, we shall prove that God is not only composite, but also composed of heterogeneous parts, because a different thing is signified by each of the names.” And again: “The essence is one thing, for which no indicator of a definition has yet been discovered, and the meaning of the names surrounding it is another, named from some energy or worth.”
But he who is named for theology, Gregory the Great, says: “Is the immortal, he says to the Arians, and the kind, and the immutable, the essence of God? But if this is so, there are many essences of God, and not one; or the divine is composed of these. For these are not uncompounded, if they are essences.” And again: “For this is not His nature, the simplicity, if not even for composite things is being only composite.” And again: “A different thing is the begetting and the birth, the willing and the will, the speaking and the word, unless we are drunk; the former is the one who moves, the latter is as it were the movement.” And what does the divine Gregory of Nyssa say when writing to the same Eunomius? “As therefore, he says, having been taught by David that God is judge or long-suffering, we have not been taught the divine essence, but D what one ought to think regarding the subject, but that which is according to essence, whatever it is, remains none the less in obscurity; so too with the holy Scripture, as it predicates the remaining divine names of the One who is, while showing that the very One who is is nameless to Moses. He therefore who reveals the nature of the One who is should not discuss the things around the One who is, but should reveal to us the nature itself through which he speaks of the nature. For every name that you might say is about the One who is, it is not that thing itself, good, unbegotten, incorruptible; but the ‘is’ of each of these does not depart. Therefore, if someone promises to provide the definition of this Good One-Who-Is, and Being-Unbegotten, as it is, he would be in vain, speaking of the things observed, but keeping silent about the essence itself which he promises to interpret by his word. For to be unbegotten is one of the things observed in the One who is. Another is the definition of the being, and another is the definition of how the being is, which is, even until now, unspeakable and ininterpretable from the things said.” And again to the same: “The lordship is not a name of essence, but is of authority, and the appellation of Christ indicates the kingdom. Another is the definition of kingdom, and another is that of the nature.”
Cyril the Great, having mentioned the names and properties and energies concerning the divine nature in the *Thesaurus*, speaks thus: “None of the divine properties are acquired. From the effects, however, that is to say from the creatures, according to the...
A providence and the care of beings, we understand the infinite goodness, and wisdom, and power.” And again: “The mind, when in God, first seeks for the meanings concerning His essence, being inflamed by desire, but it does not find solace from the things concerning Him. For this is impossible and unattainable for any created nature in equal measure. But it finds solace from the things surrounding Him—I speak, that is, of the things concerning eternity, infinity and indeterminacy, goodness and wisdom, and the creative, providential, and judicial power over beings. And this alone of Him is entirely graspable: that He is infinite.” And again: “When you are about to theologize, do not seek the meanings concerning Him; for the human mind will never find them—indeed, nor will any other of the things after God—but contemplate as much as you are able the things surrounding Him; for instance, the things concerning eternity, infinity and indeterminacy, goodness and wisdom, and the creative, providential, and judicial power over beings; for this man is a great theologian among men, the one who discovers the meanings of these things, even if only in part.” These things, and those of the wise teachers and theologians, in so far as I am able to show at the present time, are thus throughout fitting and harmonious with their own writings, and indeed with the common councils of the saints. If Gregoras had worthily contemplated these things along with his own mystagogues, B and had sought and proposed not his own things, but those of Christ and the sacred theology concerning Him, he would not have asked ironically and ridiculously: “How is the divine energy from the divine essence?” For he would have known well from those teachers that just as it is natural from the nature—just as light from fire, and the ray from the sun; as that which springs from the source; as knowledge from the one who possesses it, and is communicated to the one learning, yet remains undiminished in the one teaching; as power from the one who is powerful; as movement from the one who moves; as sight from the eye; as thought from the mind—and things similar to these according to the theologian Fathers. For each of these is both distinct in conception from that from which it is, and united indivisibly according to the underlying reality, as we have heard.
The great one therefore speaks, discussing in private: “It is absolutely necessary for the wills and energies to be spoken of in Christ, and it is entirely necessary; for nothing of beings subsists without natural energy; for the Fathers clearly say that there is neither anything, nor is anything known, without its essential energy.” And again: “Christ corresponds to His natures, that is to say, as each is, so He both willed and acted. There are two natures; therefore, there are absolutely two natural wills and their equal number of essential energies.” And in the treatise *On Love*, he says regarding the properties of the divine nature and these energies: “We know God not from the essence,” he says, “but from the C participation, and providence, and care of beings.” By these means, the same person shows more clearly that the divine essence is one thing, and the energy another, just as the conciliar document already previously indicated, thus saying in the *Thesaurus*: “To act is of the energies, but to beget is of the nature. Nature and energy are not the same. Therefore, to act will not be the same as to beget.”
And thus the divine John Damascene, according to what has been said, also theologized that the energy is one thing and the divine nature another, saying thus: “We speak of two energies in our Lord Jesus Christ. He had the divine energy as God and consubstantial with the Father, and having become man, He had also the energy of the human nature.” It is to be known, inoltre, that energy is one thing, and the agent is another, and the product of energy is another. For energy is the active and essential movement of nature; the agent is the nature from which the energy proceeds; the product of energy is the result of the energy. And again: “Will is one thing, and that which is capable of willing is another. For will is the power of willing, while that which is capable of willing is that which possesses the will.” And again the same: “If energy is defined as the essential movement of nature, and someone knows nature to be immovable or entirely unmoving, he has found energy not as movement existing from its natural power.” And again: “In the case of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, from the sameness of the energy and the will, we recognize the sameness of the nature.” And again: “Whose the nature and the energy is the same, of these the essence is also the same; but those whose will and energy are different, of these the essence is also different.” And again: “We call the wills and the energies natural; I mean the volitional and active power, according to which they will and act, those who will and act.”
What, then, would follow for the great struggler and confessor of this piety, I speak of the wise Maximus, to be passed by in the argument, and just as if sealing with his own words the things already spoken by the theologians and teachers, so that what he once signed with blood, he now might sign with his writings, or rather both then and now, and likewise with his own blood, and with writings? D The great one indeed says, regarding the tome of the sacred Council among us: “The tome of the holy council, clearly regarding the divine energy in relation to the divine essence, speaks of the cause and that which is from it. They are distinguished from one another also by these things. The divine energy is participated in, but the divine essence in no way is. The energy is divided indivisibly, but the essence is not divided at all. The energy is named, but the essence is nameless. The energy is understood in some way, clearly from the creatures; but the essence is altogether inconceivable.” And these things, the tome contains; we, however, will add to you the remainder now in order, as he himself, using his own brevity, omitted.
The divine energy therefore differs from the divine essence; since the essence is simple only, whereas the energy is both simple and manifold—simple, clearly, in itself, but manifold in relation to those who participate.
A They differ again from one another, in that the essence transcends as essence, and existing in itself, whereas the energy is lower, as not subsisting by itself, but as it were a quality or accident, according to the theological Fathers, or rather to speak more appropriately, as a natural idiom having its being in the nature. Furthermore, the divine essence differs from the divine energy in that the one is one, while the energies are many. For the energies of the Spirit, according to St. Basil the Great, are ineffable because of their greatness, and innumerable because of their multitude. The same is also said by the divine Maximus, and Dionysius the Great before him. Furthermore, the divine essence differs from its energy in that the energy is what characterizes and manifests its essence, while the essence itself is what is manifested and characterized by the energy as its essential and natural [property]. For from the energy, says the wise Maximus, the nature of each thing is characterized, the uncreated B energy manifesting an uncreated nature, and the created [energy] a created one. Furthermore, the divine essence differs from the divine energy in regard to existing, and in-existing, and being, and being-present. For the divine essence is that which subsists by itself; but the energy in-exists and is present. But that which is one thing and another, as the great Justin has already taught beforehand, he says that it is one thing to exist and to be, and another to in-exist and to be present. Furthermore, the divine essence and divine energy differ from one another in that their works are also different, and not the same. Which the God-bearing Damascene taught a while ago through the synodal tome. For the work, he says, of the divine nature is the pre-eternal and eternal generation, but the work of the divine will is creation.
C Furthermore, the divine essence and the divine energy differ from one another also in that it is a different thing that manifests and makes known the one and the other. For the energy that co-exists indivisibly with it manifests the essence that remains hidden, according to the theological Fathers; and the creatures manifest this divine energy through themselves. For his invisible things from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and divinity, says the Apostle. Hence also the great Basil said, it is not the essence itself that the works indicate, but the power, and wisdom, and craft. And the divine Maximus again, From the energy the nature of each thing is characterized, the uncreated energy manifesting an uncreated nature, and the created [energy] a created one. These things, and those similar to these, bear witness in few words not only to the difference of the divine energy from the divine essence, but also to the divine, and infinite, and invisible, and natural, and uncreated, and creative, and all godly properties belonging to the energy of God. But do you demand long and many proofs for what has been said? Mostly indeed we have already been taught all these things through many [passages] by the theologians, and especially in those in which we examine together with them the sacred words, and also those D of the ecumenical [councils]; but I shall not hesitate to add to these [the ones] through the subsequent arguments, and to show more broadly both the divine nature of the divine energy, and the uncreated, and the different and godly nature of divine participation, and the holy and ineffable deification of those who are deified, since the venerable tome of the synod looks toward these things. The philosopher dared to shoot his arguments against these as if into heaven, and we have promised above to defend them as much as possible through the words of the Fathers once more. But now it is necessary to add here in few words the modes of the union of both the divine essence and the same energy, and to show both the difference and that which is equally present, and that they do not harm each other in anything, which the discourse of the adversaries always hastens to do, warring as it were against the united [nature] with the separated [character] of theology, and confusing both through each other. Thus then, according to the stated arguments, the essence of God and his energy differ from one another, according to which they have been called by the theologians "this" and "that"; but that they are united according to other arguments, and through these, and how they are said to be one, you would understand thus:
They are one another according to the uncreated, according to the uncircumscribed, as indeed even the great Anastasius has already taught beforehand, saying: "Wherever the energy appears, the essence from which it proceeds is co-contemplated with it; for each is uncircumscribed, and because of this they are entirely inseparable from one another." And again the same: "But the distinction is by conceptual thought, whereas the union is real and inseparable; for the energy is about the whole," he says. "And the essence is inseparable from this." The divine essence and the energy are one in one another also according to the infinite; for this and that are likewise infinite. Wherefore the fifth ecumenical council also speaks somewhat in this way, making discourse concerning the divine power, or energy: "If anyone should say, or hold the power of God to be circumscribed, let him be anathema." Furthermore, essence and energy are united to one another according to being common and both belonging to the three hypostases. They are one in one another also according to being entirely inseparable and indivisible. For the energy goes forth from the essence, but inseparably, as indeed the holy ecumenical council has already said, and indeed even before it the divine Anastasius, whom it also called great, saying, "The energy is about the whole, and the divine essence is inseparable from this." And again the same: "I would say that his energy is inseparable from the nature of God." According to these arguments and modes, I say both the former and the latter, the divine essence and the energy are two, or "this and that," not in reality according to the theological Fathers, but in conceptual thought of their difference, as it is being thought of and spoken of at the same time; and they are again these same things as one, not in conceptual thought, but in reality of their union, as it is being contemplated and spoken of; concerning which indeed the great Basil said, that in the case of the simple
and incorporeal nature, it admits the same argument regarding God, partly in respect of the hypostases, and partly again in respect of the essence. A And it is necessary for anyone, who has chosen to be truly pious, and who holds right and unerring opinions concerning God, to follow these things, and to be persuaded by these points equally; and to uphold the united and distinguished reality of theology equally with these theologians, believing in one and three, just as he knows and believes the same to be one and many: the one according to essence and in reality, the other according to conceptual thought, as I have often said. The theologians, as regarding one and the selfsame God who is three-hypostasized, active, willing, and omnipotent; to Him be the glory unto the ages. Amen.
CONCERNING THE THIRD AND FOURTH LOGOS OF THE SAME GREGORAS, ON THE PARTICIPATION OF THE DIVINE, AND ENERGY, AND GRACE. SIXTH ANTIRRHETIC LOGOS.
As for one who is rendered superfluous by foolish wisdom, B he has dared once, I suppose—or rather, that other one has, who, although he saw the Master in the flesh, and was unable to perceive at all the lightning of the divinity hidden beneath it from the omnipotent and God-befitting energy, through which he was invisibly driven from the human soul, proclaimed Christ to be God and the Son of God. But Gregoras, not even having been able to learn from that man, nor having received any perception of the natural power of God, even though the flesh and our nature were not standing in the way there, as they were here, stands against it with the bare head of the one three-hypostasized divinity, insolently abusing God through his own perversion and cancellation of the natural attributes of God; or rather, he is even constructing the position that there is no God at all, with that foolish man who, according to the God-bearing David, said, "There is no God in his heart." C This one who thinks he is a philosopher treats the holy way of piety and its God, in a manner so shameless and without shuddering, from the conflict against the theologians—both those who are now, those who will be, and those who were before—moving on to their holy theology, and from there proceeding to absurd fight-against-God. And with a bold and unrestrained tongue, he attempts to nullify the power that is above mind, and he speaks blasphemy against the transcendent height of God, so that even the things of the divine Scripture there are almost nothing in comparison to these things. To say, "I will set my throne above the clouds, and I will be like the Most High," spoken by the primal-evil and wicked power, would not be burdensome, nor merely long, to propose all things in order, part by part, and to go through them one by one in the discourse; but it is also something superfluous, and at the same time meddlesome, and indeed even outside the laws of the Fathers and teachers, and I would say, not free from filth and stain. For how could a pious ear and tongue be continually serving and submitting to those things? And even if each were to speak and hear piously against them—now the holy examples of the theologians, as many as I say concern the Cause and the caused, which they slander and distort, and through them, and together with them, they recklessly insult the greatness of the divinity, for which, by the theologians, very wisely and highly, and at the same time humanely because of our weakness, those God-befitting images have been adopted; D and now again, because they wickedly dogmatize that God possesses neither divine power, nor will, nor providence, nor anything at all natural and proper to Him—or rather that He is not even naturally capable of being called God, or that He is created and originated—now again, with much irony and mockery, they offer the omnipotent and all-creating divine energy to the champion of the word of piety, I mean Gregory the Great, and through him to God. For the bold and God-fighting tongue says, "Speak of your energies," and again, "Speak," it says, "of your non-essential and non-existent energies and divinities," and this often, and continually, and many times—that which not even the Evil One himself, the leader of wickedness, the demon, would have said.
Let those things be sufficiently stated in what has preceded. For the argument concerning the divine union and distinction is sufficiently rendered by the theologians, and that which is God-befitting and uncreated regarding the divine energy has been demonstrated, and will be shown again shortly. Not, however, that what Gregoras appeared to say, and oppose against them, has been dissolved only by their theology and muse, I think, but it has also been turned back well against the very head and mind of the one speaking, so that he has no more to say against these things, nor even to look back. Only that, to the scriptural passages poorly proposed by him from the saints, not for his own sake but against him and his own glory, the discourse has not yet proceeded according to the intended aim, being saved as a final prize, just as it had previously promised. It must be said, then, and considered in the same way regarding the following, following again the theological Fathers, the aim and power of each of the chapters proposed from the beginning, and even what the philosopher, by appearing to oppose them in order, has spoken ill of the Church of Christ, and indeed of her sacred Tome. But there, he has not kept to the order, nor has he answered all the chapters in sequence, even though he had considered this very thing from the beginning.
but instead, he passed by the first points and immediately skipped to the sixth, being confused and conflating matters here, and not even in these small details agreeing with himself. It is necessary for us to move there as well, justly pursuing him who pursues unjustly.
But before his supposed refutation and distortion, I think it is appropriate to pass over the disputed points into the struggle of discourse, and again to show the strength and beauty of the truth—and those points of which he, having touched only the outermost edge, immediately ceased from the complete reading; having insulted the parts of that whole text with many words and at long length, and having woven together, as is his habit, a great deal of nonsense and calumny against them; and being unable to deal with everything, or even to stand against it, he himself suffered the condition of the sensible darkness, driven far away by the presence of the light, and moving toward non-existence. Therefore, read the words of the Tome. After this, it says, it was sought from us: since these men who harass the Church say that all things partake of the essence of God—as if the divine essence and the divine energy were indistinct, and according to them there is nothing else to God save the essence alone—we, however, have been taught by the sacred Scriptures that God has essence, and power, and energy, which differs from the divine essence, or rather, even powers and energies. For thus He will be not only tri-hypostatic, but also all-powerful. It was asked, therefore, of what do all things partake: the divine essence, or the energy of God? These are the words of the Tome of the holy synod; and what Gregoras took from there he set forth in his own writings.
As for what follows, he has disturbed and distorted some, and left out most of it, which is the proof of the falsehood and calumny against us. For how could he have given heed to those things—the multiplicity of godheads, and non-existent energies, and things divisible and participable in sense, and things differing from the essence by long intervals, and by thousands upon thousands of measures and parasangs, as he himself speaks monstrously and mythologizes, slandering the Church and the saints with long mockery and irony? Is it not yet so? He misquotes those things. He says: "That which was questioned by the synod concerning the divine was proven, that every creation partakes of the energy of the Creator, but not of the essence. For neither does the house partake of the essence of the builder, nor does the ship of the shipbuilder, but of the art and the energy." But he, having expected that these things would be covered up by his falsehood, and that he would escape notice—even those who know—together with the ignorant; we, however, by the manifestation of the truth of what has been spoken, prepare for the falsehood to be refuted immediately.
It is as follows: It was asked, it says, of what do all things partake: the divine essence, or the divine energy of God? The holy synod said, "We know it to be inseparable," nor could the energy be apart from its own essence. But regarding those things created from the beginning by God, it said: "Who does not know, unless he should be perverting the truth in opposition to the Church, that every creation partakes of the energy of the Creator, but not of the essence? For neither does the house partake of the essence of the builder, nor the ship of the shipbuilder, but of the art and the energy," according to the Theologian of Nyssa. Moreover, the great Gregory in theology shows that the saints, being deified by the union with God, do not partake of the divine essence, but of the divine energy, writing concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, that He is called Christ according to the divinity: for this is the anointing of the humanity, not an energy sanctifying like the other Christs, but by the presence of the whole Anointing One.
If Gregoras had read and understood these things correctly and unadulteratedly long ago, both the natural and inseparable nature of the divine energy toward the divine nature that gushes forth from it, and indeed also what has been distinguished in a God-befitting way, he would have theologized well along with the Church. For when it said theology and apostolically that we know the divine essence and the divine and natural energy to be inseparable—for an energy could never be apart from its own essence—and from the subsequent theological expressions as if from sacred trumpets he would have learned clearly the participation in God that is proclaimed: how much, I say, is creative through the effects and creatures of the essence-making power and all-working energy, and how much is God-making and God-working, which is in fact participation and communion in God properly so-called, and the theosis that has been spoken of by the holy theologians, being an act truly most supernatural and ineffable of the great and most philanthropic economy of the Only-Begotten Son of God toward us, which, as He alone knows, He has worked, having given the Spirit, which is His and the Father's, according to Their common energy, and having made those who partake of the divine nature, to whom, according to the theological Evangelist, He gave power to become children of God, who were born not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God—whom He is not ashamed to call brothers, whom He made own sons and heirs of God and co-heirs, just as He became the firstborn from the dead for their sake, so also having become the first-type in many brothers, I mean these very ones—O the miracle!
But the philosopher Gregoras, and those of his wave, unphilosophically and without shame, or rather to speak the truth, far from all sacred philosophy and the Spirit, kick against the adoption [as sons] through the excess of philanthropy. And they not only kick, but also fight, and attempt by every machine to distort the theology and the grace, and against that very thing itself, and against the God who has given it, they stir up a certain strange battle and conflict. Therefore, here too, the most critical point of the theology of the Tome, which concerns the united nature of the divine energy...
as I have already stated, the philosopher has A philosophized poorly, while bypassing that long, sincere, and most clear theology concerning the participation of the divine—as though it had not even been mentioned or existed at all—and especially that of the golden and theological tongue, in those parts I mean where the things said concerning the divine energy are examined by the theologian Evangelist; and having extracted a few of the things said there for the sake of the other theologians, and having usually separated them from the meaning—and together from the words—of those [Fathers], he has mixed into his own words so much falsehood, ridicule, and shameless slander against the saints; for I leave it to be told again, as it will very soon be apparent, how endless is the garrulity of the insults against us. Bringing in then the student Agathangelos, who converses with him, the philosopher asks him supposedly about the matters at hand, and while reading those of the Tome as usual, he seems to touch upon some of the divine things spoken of there in a lofty manner for the theologians—I mean Basil, Gregory, and Dionysius, and in addition to these, the great Athanasius—but in a faulty and corrupted manner, and even of these very ones, which, as will be seen shortly, passed through his discourse by means of those same [Fathers].
B Then, after having left behind the entire coherence and connection of the sacred words, as it were, he attacks the theology regarding the Holy Spirit of the holy teacher of the Church—I mean the wise Anastasios—and by means of it [he attacks] the sacred Tome of the Church, mixing and confounding both him and this, and [doing so] much worse and more absurdly than Cyril did in what has already passed. For having brought forward the aforementioned divine Anastasios with the holy theology of the Spirit from the synodal Tome, saying thus: "According also with the things said by the inspired Paul regarding the Spirit; for he called those who believe temples of God, having had the grace of the Spirit as an indweller; 'Do you not know,' he says, 'that you are God's temple and the Spirit of God dwells in you?' And again, 'Do you not know that your bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God?'" These things, however, directly teach that the all-holy Spirit is of the divine nature; for C if those who believe are called God's temple, since they have received the grace of the Spirit, then the Holy Spirit is from God; for having had His grace as an indweller, they were named God's temples. These things, therefore, having been said thus by the teacher on behalf of the divine Spirit, this philosopher here, who prides himself on premises, middle terms, conclusions, and the vanity of human reasonings and syllogisms, and all but sacrificing to the laboring wisdom of the outsiders, and constantly reproaching the simplicity and ignorance of those who converse in the Gospel and true and primary wisdom, shows himself—and his brain, as it were—to be ignorant, unwise, and uneducated to the highest degree, regarding both the divine and human wisdom together D and is distracted, and knowing neither what he says nor about what he asserts. For having ignored the purpose of the teacher altogether, which indeed one ought to have contemplated before anything else according to the theologian Fathers, and especially one who reads the divine Scriptures and, more precisely, those who interpret them and the theologians, or rather having even hidden away that holy teacher of the Church himself, I do not know if willingly out of much malice and perversity, or out of an overwhelming ignorance of the sacred words, being an unholy man and altogether ignorant and uninitiated in divine things, he snatches the apostolic passage from that man's theology, having despoiled it, and not even that complete, as we have added just now in anticipation, and as that teacher himself had made use of it having taken it from there, but maimed and half-cut, and having thrown it before the synod and the Tome with much shamelessness, as though it were supposedly said poorly by them, then he takes the subsequent interpretation and construction of the discourse, and the conclusion from the teacher, as some honed sword, as though it were our own and of our way of thinking, as he supposed, and by means of the shameless slander against us, he both speaks and writes against the sacred theology of the teacher, things of which he himself alone is worthy to be the speaker and writer, although perhaps the devil alone might have dared to speak along with him and against the Church of Christ. What then does he say? For I think it is just to mention these also in part for the sake of an example; for it is not possible [to mention] everything.
The listener Agathangelos reports a few sayings of the saints, clearly from the things said in the Tome; then, having attached the words of the Apostle very faultily, as though these too were said by the synod, as I have already stated, he adds those. "These things," he says, "having brought [forward] the divine sayings intact, the champion of piety," meaning the divine Gregory, "has left the other things," he says, "uninterpreted, but having taken away a short-syllabled interpretation from that one passage of the Apostle and brought it here, he has passed under other things again similarly." And it is this: "If those who believe are called a temple of God because they have received the grace of the Spirit, then the Holy Spirit is from God; for having had His grace as an indweller, they were named temples of God." These things, having brought them forward against us as though they were ours, Gregoras, through his own Agathangelos—listen then how he flows against us sharply and insubstantially, driving, as it were, a common calamity of the Church through us upon the theology of the saints, and this very shamefully and with much garrulity and slander, and as is fitting for him. "For what," he says, "do you see, my friend, how he is always caught circling around the same things regarding the same things, and likewise is not greatly ashamed of constantly publicizing his own ignorance? For to a craftily-minded soul, virtue can neither be taught, nor, indeed, will it ever be captured by will." But of virtue, the learning and
A modesty are parts; these never entered his craftily-minded soul, nor will they ever enter. And having, in the interim, engaged in drivel and insults far worse and more absurd than these, he adds: "So that it often occurred to me to say that, if there had been only ten originators of heresies from the beginning of time, I would not have deemed this man one of the ten, but nine out of ten. Now, however, as they are so many and innumerable, I have not deemed him one, nor even those many, but rather all of them rolled into one; or rather, not even one, but absolutely all of them together. For having gathered the impiety of all, he has surpassed everyone, not only in ignorance and shamelessness, but also in the things he blasphemes."
This, I think, no one at all, O Gregoras, would have easily discovered, or having discovered it, would not have hesitated to set it forth at once in words and writing with such zeal, just as you yourself did, to your own detriment, speaking against yourself and your own head, as if you were showcasing it. For if you say and write all those things against us—as if we were misinterpreting the divine Scriptures and openly blaspheming God and his theologians—while it has been shown that what we say is not self-misinterpretation and blasphemy, as you yourself wrongly supposed, but rather the God-befitting interpretation and theology of the divine teachers of the Church, how is it not clear, as the saying goes, even to a blind man, that the contents of the venerable volume and of the synod that issued it are in total harmony with the theology of the saints and contend most bravely against the heresies, and are, indeed, in agreement with those who worthily theologize and glorify God? "Those who glorify," for he says, "I will glorify, but the one who wars with them"—he means those who war with God—"assigning him the same, you have made yourself a participant in their condemnation and lot, or rather, you have drawn the condemnation of all the heresiarchs together upon your own head alone." For this is what your own votes and decisions say; and in addition to these, all those things you said a short while ago against us, that in a craftily-minded soul virtue can never be taught, nor can it ever be captured by will, and that learning and modesty, being parts of virtue, never entered your craftily-minded soul. For these things too, along with your catalogue of praises and the crown of insults, are very fitting to you, D which you yourself wove—and justly so—for yourself and your own head, though not for those whom you ill-spoke; since you yourself—no other—are the one who has driven away all exercise and knowledge of the sacred writings from the threshold of your soul, as I have already said, casting aside the modesty becoming to Christians, and leaping upon the great and primary theology—I mean the sacred and divinely inspired Scriptures—and indeed upon the sacred words of the teachers with such shamelessness that in this respect alone you have shown yourself to be a Cynic, or rather, on account of your shamelessness, much worse than they. For not even in those same matters—but we must lead the argument back again to those points.
A Anastasius, contemplating the Word, and wishing to show that the Paraclete is of one essence and equally honored with the Father and the Son, uses, as is to be expected, many other things to demonstrate the argument, and indeed, those mentioned long ago to the Corinthians by the wise Paul: "Do you not know," he says, "that you are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you?" And again: "Do you not know that your bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God?" Hence the teacher, having as it were received the prompt, does not reason in a human manner, like Gregoras or some other one of the empty-talking circle around him, but theologically at once and in a God-befitting manner concludes thereafter B and draws the conclusion of his own goal and the truth most excellently. For these things too, he says, teach directly that the All-Holy Spirit is of the divine nature. For if those who believe are called the temple of God because they have received the grace of the Spirit, then it follows that the Holy Spirit is from God; for having possessed His grace as an indweller, they were named temples of God. For having taken both premises from the Scriptures, the teacher concludes that the Holy Spirit is God, which indeed was his goal to demonstrate. The great Basil says the same things about the same matters, proving the Spirit to be God, since the divine Paul taught that those who possess Him as an indweller are the temple of God. But our Holy Synod of the Fathers, C since its goal was to show that when those who are deified share in God, it is not the divine essence that is shared—for how could it be, unless we were to fantasize that all are sons of God by nature and are Christs?—but His natural grace and deifying energy; and it brought forward this theologian, among others, saying that the faithful are called temples of God by the Apostle because they have received the grace of the Spirit. And again: "Temples," he says, "of God they were named, having possessed the grace of the Spirit as an indweller." Why then, O philosopher, do you say that the Fathers spoke without logic, without art, and ignorantly in these matters—you, who wrongly worship logical syllogisms in place of the Gospel, and do not even use those same [syllogisms] with the appropriate reasoning? For they (the Fathers), having taken both the premises, and the middle and common term—concerning which, as if it were some great and lofty matter, you yourself make a display in your teaching—and the conclusion, and simply all things together, from that teacher of the Church, have nothing of their own to bring into those sacred statements at all, but rather bring forward his theology pure and simple for a testimony of the truth according to godliness. I am saying these things precisely for your sake and for your chatter and vanity, which you undertake on your own, so that you might appear to your companions and associates to be saying something profound; since such things are far from the divine courtyard, and from the apostolic and patristic assembly, which, even if they had appeared—those who were presiding over the Sixth Ecumenical Council—would have immediately driven you forth from the divine gathering, having nothing in common.
For what communion has light with darkness, he says, or what harmony for Christ with Belial? A What do you say to these things? Upon whom do you heap this slander, this protracted insult, and this attribution of blasphemy, and that untimely and insatiable denunciation? Is it upon Anastasius, that is to say, the teacher of the Church, and the sayings of which he makes use to explain the divine Spirit, or upon the venerable Tome and the Fathers who set it forth? Or is it upon both him and them together? Rather, while appearing to use this for a mask, as if upon a stage and in a drama, you dare to heap all the blasphemy and insult upon them; for it is their words, and not these, as has been shown. Yet in truth, your blasphemous remarks are directed neither against these nor against them at all. For it would be easier for you to shoot at and strike the heavens, or this very sun of the day, than to make the heralds of the truth—both these and those—guilty of your blasphemies, even if you were to speak and write such things until you were weary, and even if you were to multiply this tenfold, and that twice, and thrice, and many times over.
For hear now what the philosopher writes and blasphemes in sequence, both against the saints, and, I say, against the God of the Saints Himself. For he says: "Proposing to demonstrate an unoriginate and uncreated energy, which is participated in and partitioned among creatures, and in no way that divine essence which is alone uncreated, he clearly and without any concealment spoke of the Holy Spirit. But the reality is the exact opposite of what he intended."
B Gregoras falls into three absurdities in these brief words, being clearly opposed to the apostolic and patristic theology. For he denies the divine energy, and in so doing, he says the divine essence alone is uncreated, in order to drag that natural power of God into the creatures, and he says that the divine essence is participable—a thing that Barlaam and Akindynos, his own instructors, were the first and only ones among all to dare to say, after having been instructed by Satan. For no one among the ancient heretics, although some many and various heresies were exposed, ever appeared having said this explicitly. And thirdly, in addition to these, he denies that the divine participation takes place through the Holy Spirit—which is the same as saying, through His own natural gift and grace—thereby rejecting all Sacred Scripture and divine theology which clearly proclaims this, and teaching those who follow them to go in the opposite direction, just as if someone, he says, intending to go to Susa and Ecbatana, were instead to depart for the British Islands. But concerning these things, O philosopher, after a little while—but for now, speak and add, and the subsequent blasphemies and distortions of the theological words, so that we may append the fitting refutation to everything you have spoken so poorly.
C For in order, he says, that I may make the last point the first—both because it is more familiar to the hearing compared to what preceded it, and because it leaves those other points uninterpreted, while providing even a brief interpretation of this one, whatever it might be. For he brings forward the divine Apostle, who says: "Do you not know that your bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God?" And interpreting this, he uses a certain hypothetical syllogism, or rather, he does not use one, but desires to use one yet cannot. For he does not hit the mark, nor does he know what a syllogism is, or what a term, or what a premise, and what a conclusion, and what relationship these ought to have to one another, according to the rules of science.
It stands as follows: "If those who believe are a temple of God, because they have received the grace of the Spirit, then the Holy Spirit is from God. For having received His grace as an indweller, they were called temples of God." But as for these things, he takes the words of the saints as if they were our own to be used against us, and while slandering us in such a shameful and impudent manner, and insulting the theology of the saints with extreme shamelessness and daring—not only regarding these matters that were brought forward, but also things much more absurd and worse than these, as I have already said, which my discourse passes over, avoiding the mud and the frequent unpleasantness of his words—let us carry our discourse onward to his theology, or rather, to his bold blasphemy against the Godhead, so that the nature of that new-fangled heresy may be more clearly exposed again.
I do not know, he says, whether I should blame his ignorance as the cause of his impiety, or his impiety as the cause of his ignorance, or both for both. For passing over other things, he has, from his own resources—I know not from where he was moved—from the very testimonies of Scripture which he brought forward in his own defense, clearly and obviously shown, so that even the most foolish could perceive it without any proof, that it is the very essence of the divine Spirit that is said to dwell ineffably in those who are worthy of men, and that for this reason they are called temples of God. D Yet he himself seems to be the one who is insensate and the one of whom he himself is seemingly the advocate.
For he brings forward for this point, as you yourself well know, having brought these things to us, the great Athanasius, who says that since the Spirit is in us, the Word who gives this is in us, and in the Word is the Father. And thus is the passage, "I and the Father will come, and we will make our abode with him." From there, it again becomes much clearer—both that the essence of the Trinity itself dwells in the worthy and makes an abode with men, and at the same time the impious dogmas of this cursed one concerning these matters, saying that there are other energies besides the divine essence, not only the Holy Spirit, but also the Father and the Son. For do you not see that while the testimony of the holy one says that the essence of the holy Trinity dwells in the worthy, he himself...
A returns to his customary wickedness, and diverts the intellect of the holy man to those involuntary and unsubstantiated energies of his? And this most shameless man is not ashamed, but, being himself perverse in intellect and tongue, he wishes to distort the plural sense of the voice concerning the three hypostases—as if referring to unsubstantiated, infinite energies and essence-less divinities—and openly slanders the great Dionysius, putting him forward as a witness to his own madness, as you have heard a little above. For he says that Dionysius, when he introduced the illuminations in the plural, did not show them to be the essence of God. For he never allows that essence to be brought forward in the plural. But by calling them B "illuminations," and further naming them "unoriginate" and "endless," he showed these to be divine and uncreated energies.
Have you heard what the philosopher has dared to do, insulting God himself with his wretched arguments about God? For, he says, even the most foolish person perceives, without any proof whatsoever—evidently from the things said by the saints—that the very essence of the divine Spirit is what is spoken of as dwelling ineffably in those worthy of human dignity, and that this is why they are called temples of God. And again: "From this," he says, "it becomes clearer that the essence of the Trinity itself dwells in the worthy and makes its abode among men." And again: "For do you not see that the testimony of the holy one says that the essence of the holy Trinity dwells in the worthy?"
Has anyone ever been caught, since the incarnate presence of Christ, who has spoken so boldly—even though many, at different times, have blasphemed in various ways, as has been said, against the height of the godhead and indeed against the ineffable economy itself—without any mask, and with such frequency, C not just thinking this blasphemy, but proclaiming it in writings and discourses, as this wretch and most audacious man has done? I do not think so, unless one refers back to Barlaam and Akindynos, the leaders of the new heresy and the fathers of this man himself. For tell us, O philosopher, from where and from what principles you have philosophized this vain theology, or rather, this blasphemy. For the expositors and teachers of sacred theology—upon whom the Fathers of the Synod also relied when they issued the Tome—say generally: "One must not dare to say or conceive anything concerning the supersubstantial and hidden godhead beyond what has been revealed to us divinely from the sacred oracles." For to the ignorance of its supersubstantiality, which surpasses reason and intellect and its own essence, one must attribute the supersubstantial knowledge. And again: "Concerning, therefore, this supersubstantial and hidden godhead, as has been said, one must not dare to say or conceive anything beyond what has been revealed to us divinely from the sacred oracles." For just as it has revealed itself concerning itself in the oracles in a way befitting goodness, so its knowledge and contemplation—whatever it is—is inaccessible to all existing things, as it is, in a supersubstantial way, removed from all. D For it is not the time now to recount everything in order; but where did you get those things you have taken? For they, knowing God as both unutterable and utterable, as both unknown and known, and as the same One both participant and non-participant—the one from the things concerning Him, the other from the things around Him, as they themselves say—now indeed say expressly through the natural grace and gift of the Spirit that those worthy of God become participants, just as you have heard a little before the holy Anastasius saying, as he explains the apostolic [word]: just as the same ones say that all things participate in God, according to the creative and providential reasons, that is. For there is nothing at all outside His creative and providential energy and power, as much as is in heaven and as much as is on earth.
Now, however, when they say that in an absolute sense one participates in God—whether the things created by Him, these animate and inanimate things, or those worthy of His adoption and deifying indwelling—they give us to understand that which they themselves interpret in other places, as has been said: that some become, in a god-befitting participation, partakers of His natural gift and that very grace itself—having manifested this by grace, according to those same ones, as what it is by nature, and for this reason they are called gods and holy themselves, by their nearness and likeness to the One who is holy and God by nature—while all things participate in the volitional and creative power of God, as work and effects of that [power], according to the things already foretold to the theological Fathers, and furthermore, that His providence maintains the existence D of each one, according to the reasons by which they were created.
Otherwise, how do you say that the essence of the holy Trinity itself dwells in the worthy? And who, and of what kind, is such a participation in God? For it is not creative, nor is it providential. For first, you do not accept that God's energy is natural and god-befitting; and since this—according to you—does not exist, God cannot act or create. For as "it is not" is without existence, says the wise Maximus, so "to act" is without energy. Secondly, because the worthy of God do not share alone in the creative and providential power and energy of God—or rather, not even the unworthy are alone in this—but simply all existing things. For "He spoke, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created." And all things participate in providence, says the holy Dionysius, which gushes forth from the all-causal godhead. But it would never be, he says, a participation in the essence itself in itself. For the essence in itself, even if it is contemplated as to what it is, clearly—in accordance with which we call one thing essence and another hypostasis—is not without its own hypostases. For the theological Fathers say that the hypostasis is nothing other than the essence with the hypostatic properties. It remains, therefore, that the essence of the Trinity, according to you, dwells in the worthy in no other way than according to the divine...
A power; for the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are one in these. But if the three divinely-ruling hypostases, as you say, dwell in each of the worthy of God, then each of the godlike ones will have, according to you, so much more than the divine temple—in which, clearly, for our sake, the only-begotten Son of God dwelt beyond reason—inasmuch as He had that one of the Trinity within Himself, united according to hypostasis B. For the Father and the Spirit have nothing in common with these, the holy Dionysius says, unless one should say it is according to their good-willed and philanthropic agreement, and according to all the transcendent and ineffable God-working; but each of the God-bearers does not carry within himself only the Son of God, but also the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit, consubstantiated with himself, just as you yourself say. And what could be equal to this myth-making and monstrosity, or rather, to this new and absurd fight against God? And the temple assumed from the all-holy Virgin, even if it was united according to hypostasis to the only-begotten Son of God, and is both Son of God and Christ—for the only-begotten Son of God is one even after the incarnation, the same being both God and perfect man, anointed not by energy as the other christs, about whom the theologian Gregory speaks, but by the presence of the Anointing One—He also adopts the faithful by grace, through the Spirit, to Himself and to the Father and to the Spirit, and makes them other christs in Himself, according to the divine Apostle; for this is the chief point of the economy for our sake. But if these things are not so according to the sacred theology and mystagogy, but the three-hypostasized divinity, in essence, or even according to the hypostases, as you say, dwells in each of the worthy, is it neither anything by nature, a son of God out of them? For he did not have only the hypostasis of the Son within himself, as the temple, having been united only C according to hypostasis to the Son of God, but also the three hypostases together, according to you. And how so? Or whose son would he be? Furthermore, being the son by nature, and one and only-begotten, he could not become a son by grace; for through whom would he be adopted, since he is united to the Trinity according to the hypostases, according to you? And he would not even be Christ, the one of such a kind. For the temple that was assumed, even if by the presence of all the Anointing One, yet not by energy, as the other christs—for He was sanctified, and had all the powers and energies of the Spirit together within Himself, but was not united to the Spirit according to hypostasis. For then Christ would also be the Holy Spirit, being united to Him according to hypostasis, just as indeed He is truly the Son because of such union. But He is not. For the Holy Spirit is one, just as indeed the only-begotten Son of God is one even after the incarnation; unless one were looking at a Sabellian fusion, and in this way one might speak of it while being pleased. But he who has the Spirit dwelling within by essence, as you yourself say, would be the Holy Spirit, being united to Him according to D hypostasis, if he were not, according to you, also united to the paternal and the filial hypostasis; but since, as you say, he is united to these likewise, he would not be more—nor will this one be Christ according to you, according to grace; not only because he denies such God-befitting grace—over which this whole war of yours is—but also because he cannot possess by the grace of the Spirit the one who is united to him according to hypostasis, according to you. But this absurd heresy, or rather the heresies, cannot even be purely traced back to any of the ancient heresies, so greatly has it surpassed them all; unless one were to say the Massalian one. For it is somewhat like that one, too. Wherefore, because those ones also set forth these very things of yours, and say that the essence of God dwells in those who have been purified among them, and distort that Masterly voice in the Gospels saying, "I and the Father will come, and we shall make a dwelling with him," the holy synod of the orthodox that was convened against them at that time says, "There happens a presence of the Paraclete, and God dwells in the worthy; but not as the divinity exists by nature." But I myself do not know how this dwelling by nature of the three divinely-ruling hypostases could happen in the worthy according to Gregory’s monster-talk, and how those who partake could partake of the very essence of God. For to partake is for a part to receive of the whole, as the very word "part-taking" indicates. Therefore, the God-speaking Luke, in their history of the Acts, regarding the coming of the divine Spirit upon the apostles, says, "And there appeared to them divided tongues as of fire"; which the divine Chrysostom, interpreting, says, "Well did he say, 'divided.' For they were from one root, so that you may know that it is an energy sent forth from the Paraclete." And Paul, the great, having enumerated the various gifts of the divine Spirit, says, "But all these the one and the same Spirit works, dividing to each one individually as He wills." But the essence and its divinely-ruling hypostases are undivided. Therefore, there can never be a partaking of them, except according to their natural energies. Whence also the divine Chrysostom, again interpreting that evangelical saying which says, "For God does not give the Spirit by measure," says, "We all"—speaking, that is, about the apostles—"received the energy of the Spirit by measure (for 'Spirit' here means the energy; this is what is divided)." But He possesses all the energy immeasurable and entire. But if His energy is immeasurable, much more so is His essence. But not even the union of the hypostases happens in such a way that one hypostasis coming together with another hypostasis, makes one hypostasis revealed from both—for this union belongs not to the Church of Christ, but rather to Nestorius, as I have pre-stated, who wrongly introduced a duality of sons. Rather, that man, babbling about such wretched unions, and saying that they are united according to relation, did not say that one of the hypostases—the divine and the human—was made from both, but said that the hypostases were double, bringing in a duality of sons.
A And Gregoras himself, in implanting the God-ruling Trinity in each of those who are worthy, alone says what is logically inferred from this, and when he has wrongly run past these things, he also includes that nonsense of Nestorius. Hence, the Church of Christ, teaching that the unconfused union of the two natures of Christ has taken place according to hypostasis, does not say that the divine hypostasis of the Only-begotten dwelt in the human hypostasis; for thus there would of necessity be two hypostases and two sons. But away, they say, with the Nestorian fall, and with him those who wrongly think his thoughts! Rather, the Only-begotten Son of God, having brought the human nature, being perfect, into His own hypostasis, has shown the hypostasis of both of His natures to be one; and thus, even after the ineffable union, the one Only-begotten Son of God is both recognized and worshiped well and believed in with two perfect natures—I mean the divine and the human.
But Gregoras, as if he were sleeping and snoring to all these things, or even as if drunk without wine, passes by the sayings of the divine Scripture—the many and beautiful words concerning the participation in and energy of the divine things—which are lying before his eyes, as if they were neither speaking nor even existing. Yet he tears away certain parts of their theology, as if it were a poem of his own, and then clings to those parts in a distorted and evil way, wrongly interpreting with the Massalians that previously mentioned Lordly voice in the Gospels, "I and the Father will come, and we will make our abode with him," and from this he imagines, and concludes, that the essence of God is participate-able, and he does not even respect the rejection made of them by the holy synod, which lies between the synodal Tome and the theological discourses.
B And having put nearly the whole theology out of the way, and bringing this forward against us, supposedly as being wrong, C and not using it according to the aim of the Theologian, but cutting away a very small passage by itself from the entire discourse—I mean this very one, which was stolen by the Massalians from the divine scriptures, which also sufficed for the synod at that time for their condemnation: "God dwells in the worthy," the Fathers having said, "but not as His nature or divinity exists." But let the Tome itself speak again and set forth its own contents, or rather, the contents of the theological Fathers, safely and uncorruptedly as they exist.
"And the great Athanasius," he says, "in his letter to Serapion, says, 'All that is of the Father is of the Son. Therefore, the gifts given by the Son in the Spirit are gifts of the Father; and while the Spirit is in us, the Word who gives this is in us, and in the Word is the Father.' And thus it is, 'I and the Father will come, and we will make our abode with him,' as has been said. For where the light is, there is also the radiance; and where the radiance is, there is also its energy and self-existent grace."
And Paul, teaching this again, wrote to the Corinthians in his second epistle, saying, "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with us all." For the grace and gift given is given in the Trinity by the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. For just as the grace given is from the Father through the Son, so there could not be a fellowship of the gift in us, if not in the Holy Spirit. For participating in this, we have the love of the Father, and the grace of the Son, and the fellowship of the Spirit Himself; therefore, one energy of the Trinity is shown from these.
What do you say to these things, O Gregoras? Who is it that is cutting up and distorting the divine Scriptures? For you constantly call the words of the theologians "divine Scriptures," not even knowing the name well, nor understanding what are the divine Scriptures—I mean those of the Old and those of the New—and what are the words of the teachers and theologians, and their expositions and interpretations, rather than those, and not "divine Scriptures." Who is it that is distorting and erasing these things, and that not simply, but when you attempt to contradict and oppose the Church of Christ through them? Who is the absurd and impudent person, the scoffer and the sacrilegious one, whom you have so often falsely accused by slandering us? The Tome and the synod, and its holy protector Gregory, or you? It is clear that it is you, and it is not permitted to flee or to deny it, seeing that the proofs from you come forward so very brilliantly.
But it occurs to me to wonder about other things: by what reasoning, then, did Gregoras use this innovation against the words of the teacher so evilly? For since he thought to contradict all those chapters which he himself, from the
synodical tome, had set before himself, it was his duty to go through all of them, and to dissolve everything in detail by which each of them is supported, rather than to pass over almost all of them in silence, save for a few, and by cutting away certain parts of the whole, to claim them supposedly as his own work, and thus falsely to inscribe his own writings as *Antirrhetika* against the tome. Furthermore, he who holds to the aim and argument of the matters proposed in such polemics, by resolving the objections to the one with whom he is conversing, and by defending himself against the Scriptural and theological testimonies brought forward by him, both soundly and according to divine laws, even if he passes over the greater part of the points disputed, yet by preserving the aim, as I said, and the subject-matter, does not injure the whole; for he extends his apology with all his might against all those things, and as for the points taken up, he none the less thoroughly reviews them well through what has been said. This, indeed, has been considered the practice from of old among the theologian Fathers in their *Antirrhetika*, and we have used the same B towards the teachers, in obedience to them. Since it is not permitted to do otherwise. But he, while saying nothing sound against either the aim or the argument directly, and indeed not even resolving the objections in any way—and what is worse than all those, and most absurd, passing over the common axioms of the faith, and their interpreters and theologians, and these being so many and so great, passing over some in silence and slandering others, and reviling them with bold insults, as if he were insulting the tome and us—while he gives the greater part of the total to the waves of forgetfulness, and stealing away small parts of the whole, he wrongly thinks to attack the whole. These things, then, which are frequently dared by Gregoras in his discourses, what could one call such a man, to address him in a manner worthy of his folly and his boldness? I say, moreover, that he hoped to escape notice while thus openly acting wantonly against things divine, and that all men would think evil [of us].
Come, then, tell us your aim yourself, and your arguments, Gregoras. For we do not have it in us to perceive them accurately of ourselves. Did you think those words were seen for your sake and for your glory, or towards us and the synodical tome, or against none of us theologians, but rather that they were thrown out by us simply and in vain? And if the former were the case, it would be something new, and falling into an enigma, if you yourself were to set everything in motion, as the saying goes, and to compose so many books against us, and to stir up all Greek arguments and myths and proverbs, and to misinterpret almost all the sacred utterances, and to fabricate against us things that are not, while passing over many and great words of the theologians that are against us, as if you were deliberately contradicting yourself and contriving your own defeat. But if you thought those things were against us and against the truth, and then you saw that you ought to hide them out of shame, and give the argument over to silence and darkness, how were you not ashamed, rather, to attempt the impossible? For "truth shines in darkness," the divine oracles say, and the Word of God again is not bound. C Rather, therefore, one of two things was necessary for you: either to approach the Church and subscribe to her boundaries, having learned the truth as you ought—for thus you would have acted the part of a pious and philosophical man well, for the words are for the sake of God and the truth according to Him—or else to keep silence, to retreat, to hide yourself, and not to mutter. For thus you would at least be consistent with yourself. But if it were the third, even so it was not necessary for you to rend asunder the words of the teachers, and to hide some of them entirely away. You ought rather to have brought them forward against us, and to proclaim them, and to preserve the honor and the points made for those to whom they belong, while putting to shame those who use them in vainly and D not at all less than those who use them otherwise than according to the aim, and thus, through that, to procure for yourself the victory. But as it is, all which comes from you is nonsense and broad laughter, and all things together are, they say, [empty] possessions, and nothing sound.
But let us consider, if you please, the words brought forward by Athanasius the Great concerning the Holy Spirit and divine participation, and, having set them alongside the points raised by us and the philosopher, let us examine both the difference and likewise the similarity. Since God is participated in, and dwells in those worthy of the Spirit, according to the sacred Scriptures, obviously, and according to the interpretations and theologies of the teachers—and I say that even Gregoras himself, it seems, even if not well, yet he confesses this in some way—we say that this participation and unspeakable indwelling of God occurs not by essence but by natural energy and grace. For this both Scripture and all God-inspired teaching wish to proclaim; but that [other], by no means; for it is not permitted at all. But Gregoras says it is not by energy and grace in any way. For he says there is nothing natural and uncreated regarding God, neither power nor energy nor grace, but that all these names are spoken against the divine essence; but that there is only essence. Wherefore he says that to those who are worthy, the very essence of the triarchical Trinity dwells within, and that this is not participated in by them as anything else.
Come then, having brought forward Athanasius the Great to our discourse, as I said, let us therein consider our own points; for he will judge both sides well. And first of all, let us consider the aim of the argument and the will of the Great One. For his aim, in the discourse he addresses to Bishop Serapion concerning the Holy Spirit, is to show It to be consubstantial, and equal in power, and equal in divinity, if I may so speak, with the Father and the Son. He proves, therefore, by reasoning holily from the sacred experience of divine matters that has come to him, and indeed also from apostolic theology, that the gifts given to those worthy in the holy Trinity are divine graces given from the Father through...
the Son in the Holy Spirit. A And those who give the same things from themselves are of the same power and energy. Therefore the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, in giving the same divine gifts, possess one and the same energy. And thus the consubstantiality and the co-divinity of the sovereign Trinity is at once demonstrated, supported by the underlying claim of nature and of theological argument, namely, that things which are of the same energy and power are also of the same substance, just as conversely, things that are not of the same energy are also not of the same nature. This has been philosophized most beautifully by him, along with the other theologian Fathers, and in addition to these, by Basil the wise. Where then, O philosopher, did Athanasius the Great say that the very substance of the divine Spirit, the very substance of the holy Trinity, dwells in those who are worthy, as you claim? For the gift, and the grace, and the love—which we speak of up and down and simply everywhere in our discourse—[are given], but where is the substance? Certainly nowhere. Either show it yourself, and we shall be silent. And the teacher not only passed over this entirely, as he could not even from the beginning, but he also interprets that divine oracle, B "I and the Father will come and make an abode with him," in a way that suggests the middle, so that no one might suppose God is participate-able according to substance, as you claim, but rather according to grace and gift, as he himself has demonstrated. And observe for me that theological passage, from the beginning, I say. "All things," he says, "that the Father has are the Son’s." Therefore, the things given by the Son in the Spirit are gifts of the Spirit; and the Spirit being in us, the Word who gives this is also in us. And thus it is that "I and the Father will come and make an abode with him," as has been said. "All things," he says, "that the Father has are the Son’s." Therefore, the things given by the Son in the Spirit are gifts of the Father.
Now, those things would not be creatures, not even according to you, but they are surely the substance of the tri-hypostatic divinity. For it is one and is called one everywhere, and this is the first and common axiom of the faith of believers, as even you would say; but the things are not one, but many; for all things, he says, that are given by the Father through the Son in the Spirit [are gifts]. C And the divine substance is not given to anyone, nor is it bestowed; for how could it be? For it is the giver, and not the thing given. But these things are given, as you hear; for they are gifts. Whence the divine Cyril also said that the Father and the Son do not dwell in those who are worthy otherwise than through the Holy Spirit. But how is this, and in what manner? By filling them, he says, with the divine gifts of the Holy Spirit. And these characterize the giver, that he is God—which the divine Anastasius also said beforehand—but the substance characterizes nothing; for it is of the things characterized, not of the things which characterize.
Since, therefore, the philosopher has destroyed in a short space not only those who are worthy of the indwelling of God according to him, but also his own God, for the reason that these are neither creatures, nor yet the substance of God, as has been shown by the theologians—but those who have found the true God through experience and practice, and who have truly possessed Him, and for these reasons therefore know how to theologize about Him securely, and have already shown through the things said_that these are neither nature nor creatures, but rather are specifically His own and natural, of which they become ineffably participants, and they become partakers of the divine nature, which the divine Cyril above was saying, having received it from the chief of the apostles, Peter. D The same ones will show this even more broadly, and even before the others, Athanasius the Great himself again, through himself, shall interpret and teach his own words. "All things," he says, "that the Father has are the Son’s." What are these things you speak of, O summit of theologians and teachers? Teach more clearly for the sake of these people who are willfully deaf. For we have long listened well to your theological trumpet. Moreover, the teacher says, they themselves are not unaware, having long been present at my private discussion against the Arians, and now most especially in the things previously spoken. For having introduced the only-begotten Son of God there, and saying this very thing which I have now said, "All things that the Father has are mine," I did not say this for the sake of creatures, said the
Saviour—that is, "All that the Father has"—but all that belongs to the divinity of the Father, He said to be His own, O Lord: for instance, the immortal, the incorruptible, the unchangeable, the incomprehensible, the omnipotent, the foreknowing. And again, "All that the Father has is Mine." It is necessary, therefore, for us to understand that in the Father there is the eternal, the everlasting, the immortal. And these are His not as something alien to Him, but as being at rest in Him as in a source. And the Son also has these things, not from virtue, as we have said, but they are of His essence. A
Have you heard the unerring theology of the teacher and the clarity of the things propounded to him alike? All things, he says, that the Father has, are the Son's. But yet, the Saviour, he says, did not say this because of created things. Having set these things above created things in such a way as being natural to God, listen how he shows them equally not to be the essence of God itself; for, he says, as in a source they are at rest in Him. And again, the Son also has these things, he says, not from virtue, as we have said, but they are of His essence. And if the things which are of the essence of God, and which are at rest in Him as in a source, were those same things and also the essence of God, how could that be? For the source and the thing drawn from the source are different, as anyone who has a brain would say. The nature, therefore, according to the theologian, is the source, and the things drawn from it are as natural things. This is what the ecumenical council, having spoken about the energies and the wills of Christ, already accomplished, having said that the nature is the source, and the appropriate wills and energies are the things drawn from it.
Now, those who are worthy of these natural things of God partake of His Spirit; for since nature is common, so too are the natural things of the holy Trinity, and they are said to partake of the Holy Spirit, and through Him and with Him to have the Father and the Son, as if indivisibly united within themselves, just as you hear from the theologians. The Holy Spirit is participated in, therefore, not according to essence, nor according to hypostasis—for this is foreign to theology, as you have already heard many times—but according to the divine gifts and energies. Spirit is also the name given to the energy of the Spirit, as the golden-tongued John the Evangelist had also said while expounding the theologian a little while ago. And divine Scripture calls these energies of the divine Spirit not only Spirit, but also "spirits" in the plural. For the prophet Isaiah says, "There shall come forth a rod from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall arise from the root, and the Spirit of God shall rest upon Him—a Spirit of wisdom and understanding, a Spirit of counsel and strength, a Spirit of knowledge and piety, a Spirit of the fear of God"—He shall fill Him. B Which thing the Theologian Gregory, unfolding shortly, says, "I believe the prophet Isaiah is pleased to call the energies of the Spirit 'spirits'." And John Chrysostom, teaching more broadly about these things, says, "There shall come forth a rod from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall arise from it, and the Spirit of God shall rest upon Him"—by which name the nature of the Spirit itself is understood.
Next, as for the gifts, a Spirit of wisdom and understanding, a Spirit of counsel and strength, a Spirit of knowledge and piety, a Spirit of the fear of God. And again the same: "Since the Spirit that is given is the Holy Spirit, He is also called the gift, synonymous with the Giver." For this reason Paul says, "For you did not receive a spirit of slavery again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption." And again, "For God did not give us a spirit of cowardice, but of power and love and self-control." He says "Spirit" here, he says, for the gift; and again, it has been said before this, that the Holy Spirit is one thing, the gift is another, the king is another, and the gift of the king is another. These things, then, are from the divine Chrysostom; but the most wise and profound in divine matters, Maximus, regarding the same prophetic passage, says as follows: "The holy prophet Isaiah, in the prophecy concerning Him, says that seven spirits rest upon the Saviour who sprang from the root, not acknowledging seven spirits of God—and teaching others to expect them as such—but having called the energies of the one and the same Holy Spirit 'spirits', because the acting Holy Spirit exists as a whole in every energy worthily and without defect. And the divine Apostle calls the various energies of the one Holy Spirit 'various gifts', clearly being worked by one and the same Spirit." And after a little, "If someone calls these gifts 'spirits' according to Isaiah, as I think, he does not fall away from the truth. For in every gift, the Holy Spirit exists as a whole, acting worthily, whether to a greater or lesser degree." C
You have learned through all these things that the energy is active, but not hypostatic—meaning the energy, but not the hypostasis—of the Holy Spirit is that which dwells in those who are worthy and makes them temples of God, and that through the divine energy and grace the Spirit dwells in them? For in every gift, he says, the Holy Spirit exists as a whole, acting worthily, whether to a greater or lesser degree. And the Father and the Son also dwell entirely in those in whom the divine Spirit dwells in this way, since the natural grace and energy is one and the same for the three—just as is the nature, as has already been shown many times. And this is that Lordly promise, according to the God-bearing men who have learned by experience and taught it, saying: "I and the Father will come and make an abode with him." And theology is so concerned with these things concerning the energies of the Spirit, that it does not only mention that the prophet Isaiah correctly called these "seven spirits" resting upon the Saviour of all, according to what has already been said, and in addition to this the divinely-inspired Zechariah called them the "seven eyes of the Lord" in the Spirit. For he says, "The stone which I have set before the face of Jesus, upon the one stone—there are seven eyes." And again, "These are the seven eyes of the Lord, which look upon all the earth." But also the divine Evangelist
A John, I say, the son of thunder, thus addresses the churches in the venerable Apocalypse. John says to the seven churches that are in Asia: "Grace be unto you and peace from Him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits which are before His throne, and from Jesus Christ"—having theologically spoken of the energies of the Spirit, rather than of the hypostasis, or perhaps together with the hypostasis and the essence, in an ineffable way, just as the Spirit Himself knows.
However, in so far as it is possible for us to know, having learned from those who are His partakers and theologians, that the energies are entirely united, connatural, and inseparable from the essence and from the hypostasis—or to speak more precisely, from the hypostases—as their natural properties, just as the intellect and the knowledge of the mind, and the power of the powerful, and the motion of the moved, as the same authors say, and that the Holy Spirit is whole in each as acting, according to these same authors again. Which things those who do not wish to learn make themselves blind regarding the light voluntarily, wandering in darkness even in winter; or, to speak with the words of the divine Scripture once again: "Blind, being short-sighted, and as if they had no eyes, groping for a wall," he says.
B It sufficed, then, even for these things to have been said for the sake of the purpose from on high and the subject of inquiry; but we, for the sake of the abundance of the word of truth, hasten to bring in the remaining voices of the theologians to our argument, and to show again to those who contradict these things, in express terms, that the divine essence is unparticipated; since they themselves, striving especially to conceal these things, constantly reproach us in their own writings for a lack of word, and of demonstration, and of the alliance of the holy theologians. Or rather, let the words of the synod and of its holy Tome be spoken here first, so that from this, the accuser of these things may be convicted both as a liar and as a slanderer. What then does the Tome say? The great Basil says, concerning the one God of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, the following: "The Holy Spirit fills all things with His power, but is participated in only by those who are worthy; not being participated in by one measure, but distributing the energy according to the proportion of faith." Do you hear? So that you may not think that the being of God everywhere is one and the same thing as being participated in, he makes a most wise and lofty distinction between the two, and says: "The Spirit, being God, and being in all, and above all, fills all things with the power of the Godhead, and nothing of the totality is inaccessible or void of Him. But He is not participated in by all; for neither does the light of this sensible sun, although it shines upon all sensible creation in the same way, and is naturally participable in the same way to all, for this reason become so; but it is so only to those who are suitably disposed for the reception and participation of the light; and even to those, C not equally, but according to the proportion of each one's power." Consider this, therefore, as from a dim sensible image, regarding the supersubstantial God. For He is, he says, participable only by those who are worthy, having—that is—a natural aptitude through purity for the reception and participation of Him. But not even to those equally; for He is not participated in, he says, by one measure, but distributes the energy according to the proportion of faith.
Together with this, the teacher also demonstrates the ineffable manner of participation, in so far as it is possible, by saying that the worthy participate through the divine energy of the Spirit. For if, in the case of this sensible sun—for I still keep to that image—if in its case those who participate in the ray do not participate in the hypostasis nor in the nature itself of the sun, but in its natural effluence and quality, and in an undivided power, which has the same nature as the sun and yet is different, according to the appropriate words, how much more will this be so in the case of God, D the incorporeal, and immaterial, and omnipotent, who gives to those things the power to be able to do these things in accordance with the abundance of His power? The divine Spirit, therefore, distributes His own energy to those who participate, the theologian says, having taken this from the Apostle according to the proportion of faith. Concerning which the divine Chrysostom has already spoken, considering the purpose of the Evangelist John. "For by 'Spirit' here," he says, "he means the energy. For this is what is divided. But if His energy is immeasurable, much more so is His essence." And the great Athanasius, in turn: "One and the same is the Spirit, of whom also all the distributions are. But He Himself is indivisible according to nature."
But let us come again to the Tome and the great Basil. "Just as the reflections of faces," he says, "do not occur in all materials, but in those that possess a certain smoothness and transparency, so the energy of the Spirit is not in all souls, but in those that have nothing crooked nor tangled." And the holy Maximus says: "All things that God is, [the one] who has been deified by grace will also be, without the identity of essence." And explaining the Psalms, the great Basil again says: "God made man from the earth, and His ministers a flame of fire. But nevertheless, the power to conceive and to understand their own Creator and Creator exists also in men. For He breathed into the face—that is, He placed in man a certain portion of His own grace—that he might recognize the like by the like." And again the same author, in his writings to Amphilochius concerning the Holy Spirit: "Renewing man," he says, "the Lord, and what he had lost of the grace from the breath of God, again bestowing it, breathing into the face of the disciples, what does He say? 'Receive the Holy Spirit'." And these things are from the synodal Tome. But the divine Chrysostom, making his discourse concerning this very thing, says that it was not the essence, nor the hypostasis of the Spirit, that was given by Christ to the apostles through the breathing after the resurrection; even if He said, "Receive the Holy Spirit," but rather a certain authority and spiritual grace, which is common to the Trinity. For explaining the Evangelist—
A the Theologian, who in the Gospel says concerning this, that they did not receive the Spirit, but He prepared them to be fit for the reception of the Spirit. B If anyone were to err, and say that then they received some spiritual authority and grace, such as to remit sins, he therefore introduced, "Whose sins you remit, they are remitted," showing what kind of energy he gives. For the grace of the Spirit is ineffable, and the gift manifold. And this happens so that you may know that the gift and authority of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one; for what seems to be proper to the Father and to the Son C appears also to be of the Holy Spirit; and the distributions of the gifts are from the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
You yourself also understand, even now, from the theology of these ecumenical teachers and true philosophers, or rather from Him who is the first and sole guide and teacher of all, Christ, and from His divine Gospels, that the divine Spirit given to the faithful and indwelling is not the hypostasis of the Spirit, not the essence itself of the superessential Trinity—as you yourself wrongly said—but it is the common energy and gift of the one tri-hypostatic Godhead given in the Holy Spirit, and for this reason, also called the Holy Spirit itself. Or do you even still, with regard to the superessential essence and the tri-hypostatic Godhead, falsely dream and mythologize about indwelling and participation with the Messalians, D framing periphrases and paraphrases and misinterpretations against your own head, only so that you might not confess God to be participable according to divine energy and grace together with those who are graced, but according to essence, as you yourself say, at the hands of those disciples of Satan, Barlaam and Akindynos, whom you have most evilly followed and taught. This is not then, but it is also clear to see in your own writings, that you have chosen the second with the greatest eagerness, for which you have waged this long war against us and the Church of Christ. But we, if not for your sake, then certainly for the sake of those under you, and for the sake of the good hope concerning them, will add to what has been said.
For the synodical tome says this, and again the divine Damascene in the chapter on foreknowledge and predestination in his theological chapters: "The Creator made man male," and endowed him with His own divine grace, and established him in communion with Himself through this. And again, the great Basil in the writings to Amphilochius, "Who," he says, "is so disobedient to the blessings prepared by God for the worthy, as not to know that the crown of the saints is the grace of the Spirit?" But whose souls do the streams of the Gold-flowing one (Chrysostom) not irrigate, and whose opposite structures, built upon sand and without foundation by them, does he not wash away? A And the tome of the synod, having taken most of it, holds it by itself. But we, having taken a few things from it because of the length, will none the less adorn and garnish this discourse concerning the Spirit with these things.
The great Father, therefore, going through that pronouncement in the Gospel according to John, the voice of the Savior, "He who believes in me, as the Scripture says, rivers of living water shall flow out of his belly," B says that the Evangelist said this concerning the Spirit, which those who believe in Him were about to receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified. Concerning these divine words, this great Father, having said a few things beforehand, adds these things in order: "There was no longer a prophet among the Jews, nor did grace watch over their holy things. Since, therefore, the Holy Spirit had been suspended, but was now ready to be poured forth abundantly, and the beginning of this distribution after the cross was not only of abundance, but also of greater gifts—for the gift was more wondrous, as when He says, 'You do not know of what Spirit you are,' and again, 'For you did not receive a spirit of slavery again to fear, but you received a Spirit of adoption.' For the ancients themselves indeed had the Spirit, but they did not provide it to others, whereas the apostles filled myriads. Since, therefore, they were about to receive this grace, and it had not yet been given, for this reason he says, 'The Holy Spirit was not yet.'" Since, therefore, the Evangelist, speaking of this grace, C was saying, "For the Holy Spirit was not yet," that is, given, "because Jesus was not yet glorified," calling the cross glory; for since we were enemies and sinners, and lacking the gift of God, and God-hated, and since grace was a proof of reconciliation, but a gift is not given to enemies nor to those who are hated, but to friends and to those who have pleased Him, it was necessary first for the sacrifice on our behalf to be offered, and for the enmity in the flesh to be abolished, and to become friends of God, and then to receive the gift. For if this happened in the case of the promise to Abraham, much more in the case of grace. And again, the same [Father] in the same gospel interpretations: "And in our case," he says, "the water does not work simply, but when it receives the grace of the Spirit, it dissolves all sins." And after a little: "But even if the whole world comes, the grace is not consumed, nor is the energy spent, but remains the same and such as it was before. And just as the solar rays illuminate the day each day and are not consumed, nor does the light become less for them from the great distribution, so and much more is the energy of the Spirit not at all diminished by those who partake of it."
D Consider and observe. For behold, this golden theologian, having mentioned the Holy Spirit more than eighteen times in these evangelical interpretations, now "Spirit," now "grace of the Spirit," and sometimes "life-giving..."
A this, and at other times "energy," showing that that which is supplied by Christ and partaken of by the faithful is the divine Spirit, not supplied or partaken of according to His essence, nor according to His hypostasis, but according to His grace and gift and energy, which also itself, according to the aforementioned divine Scriptures and their expositors—the theologians—is called Spirit, inasmuch as it is natural and inseparably co-existing with Him, and through it the whole Spirit is partaken of and exists as present and acting. Concerning which, indeed, the same Chrysostom has already spoken briefly in the discourse concerning the Spirit. For since it is the Holy Spirit that is bestowed, the gift is also called by the same name as the Giver. For this reason Paul says, "For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but of power, B and of love, and of a sound mind." And he says, he declares, that "Spirit" here is the gift. And again, it has been said before this, he says, that the Holy Spirit is one thing, a gift is another, a king is another, and the gift of the king is another. And again: "That you may know that the gift is sent, but the Spirit is not sent, the Savior says to the apostles, 'Remain in Jerusalem until you are clothed with power from on high; and you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.'" The power that is supplied is one thing, the Spirit that supplies it is another. "For all these one and the selfsame Spirit works, distributing to each one individually as He wills." These things the great teacher of the world, John, teaches often, in the same way, and continuously and frequently—even if we do not recount everything in detail, for the sake of brevity following the divinely inspired oracles, as he himself has already shown, and indeed also those things said to the holy apostles concerning the divine Spirit, I say, in their holy Acts.
For the divine Luke tells how these things happened, A for those who came with Peter, that "even upon the Gentiles the gift of the Holy Spirit has been poured out." And after a little while again, "For they heard them speaking with tongues and magnifying God. Then Peter answered, 'Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?'" So it is possible to see the divine Scripture weaving its own purpose through such things, and making this its very aim: to believe that it is God Himself who is partaken of according to His natural and supernatural properties, which has also often been stated and demonstrated. But if this natural grace and energy of the Spirit is a creature, and stands apart from Him, first of all, along with the absurd blasphemy and the war against the divine Scriptures and the theologians, and furthermore, everything will be turned against the aim of the philosopher, who insists that the very essence of the Holy Trinity dwells in the worthy; for God and creature would not be the same thing, which I have also already spoken of to him more broadly. B Then also, how did the Church, having received it from the holy apostles, and Macedonius and the God-fighting faction around him, think more severely and blindly concerning the Spirit than Simon, and if there is anyone else according to him? Since those around Macedonius said the Spirit was a servant, but of the Father and the Son, while those around Simon thought to consider his grace as something venal, to be purchased by men. But if this grace is a creature, O philosopher, according to you, how could the Spirit partake of the insult directed at it, which the apostles and Fathers after them considered to be uncreated God? But it would never be so according to your assumptions, as long as it is a natural property, and grace, and energy co-essential with, and inseparable from, God, through which He Himself as acting is present and is partaken of humanely and ineffably at the same time, as has already been shown to the holy theologians through many passages from the divine Scriptures.
The divine Luke therefore narrates C that Simon seeing that the Holy Spirit is given through the laying on of the apostles' hands—but the divine Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says the same thing: "You have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God." Here both Paul and Luke record that the Holy Spirit is given and that the faithful receive [Him]. And the chief of the apostles, Peter, as if interpreting this giving of the Spirit, shortly after that same passage says, "May your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be acquired with money," showing us directly that very thing which had been foretold, that the Holy Spirit is given and received according to His supernatural grace and His gifts and energies, but not according to His own hypostasis. Again, the divine Luke in the Acts: "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were hearing." D Here the Holy Spirit, then shortly after going on, "And they were amazed," he says, "those of the circumcision who believed."
And these things, briefly, concerning the divine energy and the grace, and the participation in God according to it, which, while having shown these things themselves to be equal, would brilliantly be, and indeed the non-participatability of the divine essence along with these by every necessity. But I think it necessary to add some small things concerning this same subject—I say, concerning that which is non-participatable of the divine essence—according to the promise of the theologians, and thus to rest the argument for a little while. The most wise Maximus therefore says: "He who is not partakable by beings according to essence, but who wishes to be partaken of in another way by those who are able, stands entirely apart from the hiddenness of the essence, since even the very mode, according to which He willed to be partaken of, remains continuously unmanifest to all." And the divine John from Damascus says: "The divine is incomprehensible, and therefore it will also be nameless. Being ignorant, therefore, of His essence, let us not seek a name for the essence. For names are indicative of things. But being good, God, even in the participation of His goodness...
A thus also, as He made us from that which is not into that which is, so neither did He bestow the knowledge of His essence.
And look at this wise theologian, precisely in what has been said, as he discourses concerning the Unknown and Nameless of the divine essence, bringing forward both arguments and proofs against those who object, that the Super-essential is altogether unparticipable. And taking this as something agreed upon by all, he not only offers no argument for this, but rather confirms what was previously said by means of this, saying that even as He did not bestow His essence, so neither did He bestow the knowledge of His essence. And again, the same theologian, explaining another, says these things: "And the end of the mystery is for the one being deified by the inclination toward God, being deified by the participation B of the divine illumination, not passing over into the divine essence." For if the sun, he says, bestowing upon us of its own proper energies, remains unparticipated in its own essence, how much more so the Maker and Lord of the sun? And again: "This man, therefore," he says, "the Creator prepared as male, having bestowed upon him of His own grace, and having made him in communion with Himself through this; whence He also made the naming of the animals prophetical, as they were given to him as servants, in a manner of lordship."
Athanasius the Great, contemplating the things concerning the Annunciation C of the ever-virgin and Theotokos, says, "As the Spirit and the Power of the Most High was promised to the apostles, so also to the Virgin. And if in the apostles it did not follow that the incarnation was accomplished, it is clear that neither was the Spirit incarnate in the Virgin, nor did He become man." For just as, in the apostles, the power became a defense against every opposing power, and the coming of the Spirit acted according to all the essential things pertaining to Him, working in all signs and wonders, and in powers for the confirmation and belief of the promise of Christ, so also upon the Virgin the coming of the Spirit happened in all the things essentially belonging to Him according to the divine authority, bestowing grace, so as to make her rejoice in all. And D after a little: "But that the Virgin was filled with the power of the Spirit, for the sanctification, however, of her body, and for being able to bear the saving fruit; and thus, consequently, in her, the power of the Godhead did not act as a mere energy, but according to the whole fullness of the Godhead, the very Arch-god and Super-arch-god hypostasis of the Son of God was incarnate and became man." For it was previously shown that just as authority and kingdom, and all other things, according to theology, are placed first, not every one is said of the hypostasis, but rather, being interpreted specifically concerning the hypostasis according to essence, so also the power and the energy are referred to the hypostasis substantially, commonly indeed upon each of the three divine hypostases, but specifically also upon the one of the Son of God who was incarnate and became man. And these things, indeed, the theological Fathers A and common teachers of the Church, having thus received the things of the holy Gospels and apostles, so also taught us disciples to think and to teach the brothers those things which they taught; and it was not fitting for those who contradict the Church to oppose what had been previously stated to such manifest things, and to attempt to distort things that are beyond all distortion and gainsaying.
But in order that we might introduce their associates and successors now into the discourse, and show by means of both their words and their teaching, how they themselves also received the things of the ancient Fathers and teachers, and that we are in no way standing apart from their mind, just as we are not at all from theirs, in the same, clearly, speaking in the Spirit the things of the Spirit all together, let Germanus, the holy Father and teacher of the ecumenical Church, come forward before his B own words, and show the harmony through the sacred words. For this great one, too, making his own discourse to the Latins concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, and standing as a bulwark of the evangelical and patristic definitions, since he was contemplating the things concerning the participation and communion of God, and introducing the holy words of those theologians concerning these things, and many others, and especially the leaders and most prominent among them, through the theology of these men reproving the new-fangled opinion of the Latins, who wrongly think that the saints participate in the essence itself, and not in the essential energy and grace of God. The things thus previously stated concerning these by Athanasius the Great in his homily concerning the divine Annunciation, this holy Germanus having read, thus adds his own opinion: "Observe," he says, "how when the Fathers say the Holy Spirit dwells and C makes His abode in the saints, they say not the hypostasis itself, but the grace." And again, "The divine Cyril," he says, "explaining that prophetic word, 'I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh,' says, 'If the Son is God by nature from God, for He has been begotten from God and the Father, the Spirit is His own and from Him and in Him, just as, indeed, of the Father himself.'" And in the [epistle] to Theodosius: "Baptizing Jesus in fire and the Holy Spirit, not introducing into those baptized a Spirit that is foreign, servilely and ministerially, but as God by nature, with power from on high, that which is from Him and strictly His own. And after a little: 'releasing from sins the one who approaches Him, He subsequently anoints him with His own Spirit; which He himself, the Word from God the Father, imparts, and out of His own nature causes to spring D forth for us.'"
So also the things of the great Cyril, regarding which the divine Germanus, having clearly set forth the literal meaning, see how he understands and interprets wisely. "But here," he says, "the grace and the energy [are] clearly of the blessed Trinity," he says, "poured forth from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, just as He himself, the pro-"
prophet, says: 'I will pour out from my Spirit,' so that by the identity of the energy, he might also point to the identity of the essence. For if, when he said, 'I will pour out my Spirit,' someone perhaps might have supposed that he was the Paraclete himself, [being] poured forth from both the Father and His Son; yet since he said, 'from my Spirit,' and added the cause alongside it, saying 'upon all flesh,' he pointed out not the hypostasis, but the grace, as we have B said; for we are not recipients of that [hypostasis], but of this [grace], in which, indeed, we participate to a greater or lesser degree, according to the faith and the purity each of us possesses. For that [Spirit] which proceeds from the Father is not, in any essence, graspable or divisible to a greater or lesser degree. Therefore, we believe that the grace and the energy and the illumination and the power are that which is springing forth from the divine essence. For if the divine essence is not in itself without energy, and without grace, and lightless, and powerless, and such grace is also something acquired—yet there is nothing acquired in the divine essence itself, nor is it accidental.
But it would be good, the divine Germanus says again, to set forth the testimonies of our Fathers being produced by the Latins. And, indeed, immediately [from] the great Athanasius in that [work] on the incarnate epiphany of [the] God Word: "To the Gospel," he says, "Jesus promises to give water to the faithful in thirst, saying to the Samaritan woman concerning the holy Spirit: 'If you had known the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, Give me water to drink, you would have asked him, and he would have given you C living water.' And after a little he says to her: 'Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again. But whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water leaping up into eternal life.' And for this reason David psalms in God, saying, 'For with you is the fountain of life; in your light we shall see light.' For he knows that the Son is with God and the Father, the fountain of the holy Spirit, as also through Jeremiah the Son says: 'My people have committed two evils; they left me, the fountain of living water, and they hewed out for themselves broken cisterns that will not be able to hold water.' And again: 'The Father being the fountain, and the Son being called the river, we are said to drink the Spirit.'" The ones, therefore, who hold the Latin [views], the wise Germanus says again, [say] that the Son is the fountain of the hypostasis of the Paraclete, and that unto us thirsty men He causes this to spring forth, and we, the faithful, receive and drink it as water. "But we are not," he says, "recipients of the essence—for then we would be composed of divinity and humanity—but of the divine grace and gift." Which the Lord made clear from [the words], "If you had known the gift of God," [hinting] that not only the Father and the Son are a fountain, but the Paraclete Himself also. And this very thing the [text] produced in the second chapter says: "For the prophet says, 'They have left me, the fountain of living water,' and David: 'For with you is the fountain of life; in your light D we shall see light.' Do you see that the Father was called a fountain, and the Son likewise, and likewise the holy Spirit?"
Hear also those [things] from him, the great [Athanasius], a little above: "For the Lord Himself says: 'He who believes in me, rivers will flow from out of his belly.' But he was saying this about the Spirit, which those believing in Him were about to receive." And in Joel from the person of the Father: "I will pour out from my Spirit." And for this reason He breathed into the face of the disciples, saying, "Receive [the] holy Spirit," in order that we might learn that the holy Spirit being given is from the fullness of His divinity. For in Christ, he says, "dwells all the fullness of the divinity bodily," that is, in His flesh, just as the Evangelist also says: "We all have received from His fullness." This, the holy Germanus says, unfolding—or rather, working out the things said, both the "I will pour out," and the "I breathe," and the "from the fullness," and the "we of His"—all these things are declarative of the divine grace and illumination and energy of the holy Trinity.
Then, having mentioned the Father Chrysostom, the wise Germanus says again—now in the homily on the incarnation of the Lord [he says], "Christ came to us, gave to us His [own] Spirit, and took our body"—now [he says] in the first discourse to [the]... "And thus, the Spirit concerning Christ will guard you unto the day of the coming redemption," he adds the things from himself, saying thus: "But, O you men, the [thing] from Him and from Christ is not the essence and existence, but the grace and the gift, of which we also are recipients. And we have learned this [as] the Spirit of Christ, according to that [word]: 'But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him.' He gave this, when He breathed on the disciples. He has given [it] again more perfectly, even when the Paraclete distributed His own gifts among the apostles. For if even He was distributing, but yet also the Son and the Father. For the grace is one." He has given [it] again with the Father and the Spirit both when He came upon the holy Virgin and Theotokos according to the voice of the angel, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you," just as indeed the holy Athanasius points out in [his work] on the Annunciation.
The great Athanasius, he says, in the third [book] against Arius, says these things: "[The] Spirit giving grace and peace, the Son also gives the same. For this [is] one and the same from the Father through the Son, just as the light of the sun and of the radiance is one, and the illuminating of the sun takes place through the radiance." And after some things: "John therefore writes, 'In this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, that He has given us of His Spirit.' Consequently, through the grace of the Spirit given to us, we both come to be in Him, and He in us. And since the Spirit is of God, therefore, this having come to be in us, deservedly, as having—
been called the energy of God, is thought to be, according to a property of His, the energy of God; but they have wrongly supposed it. It has been demonstrated, therefore, he says, that the Holy Spirit is not only the Comforter, but also the one and simple divine grace and power, illumination and energy, which is diversified by goodness in those who are divided, and which without division multiplies, gathering together even the divided things towards its own simplicity, which, B being poured forth from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit to the Comforter, works for the beings that have existence and well-being, according to the receptive power of each, and acts upon this whether it is natural or volitional. But those who do not believe in this way, nor that this is also from the Holy Spirit just as it is from the Father and from the Son, as the common energy of the holy Trinity, but say that this is the hypostasis of the Comforter, and thus that it has its being from the Son, they set Him aside, and they believe in a duality, according to Macedonius, but not indeed in a Trinity.
But the things of this ecumenical teacher of the Church, I mean the divine Germanus, are sufficient for the present. For having taken the discourse concerning divine energy and grace and illumination from the ancient Fathers and theologians, he taught most excellently, having demonstrated that it is a natural power, existing by nature from the holy Trinity, differing indeed from the essence, but co-eternal and connatural, and consubstantial, and inseparable from it, through which both the united and the distinct in relation to its own essence are well-theologized, and he philosophized truly in a manner worthy of God and of theology concerning the participation in it, not having stated at all that the hypostasis of the Spirit, nor the divine essence, is participated in by the saints, and indeed by the other creatures proportionally—for indeed it is not in the nature of that to be at all graspable and divisible, nor for the creatures to be C receptive at all of the divine essence and hypostasis—but [he stated that] the divine energy, and grace and illumination, although being simple in itself and indivisible, is divided and diversified among the divided things proportionally with divine goodness, according to their natural and volitional fitness, and receptive power, so that from this it is both one and many, being considered and spoken of as the very same. And those who hold to those things not only do not stand against this distinct [aspect] of theology in relation to its being unified, but they also make the divine essence to be inoperative, and powerless, and lusterless, and graceless; for I shall make use of the teacher’s words again, and I add that [to say this is] to believe with Macedonius in a duality, and therefore not in the holy Trinity, which [has been shown] by us in what has preceded through many [arguments], for we follow in all things the evangelical and apostolic and indeed the theological and patristic discourses.
But you, O wise Gregoras, what do you say to these things? Do you, at least, accept this holy teacher of the universal Church of the faithful, this interpreter of the sacred words, and of those ancient theologians, proph-
-[A]esying and adding them to the Church at that time? In this way, shall we also stand against his words and his theology, in accordance with them?
He says, therefore, that the man who was at that time the defender of the Latins, Beccus, writing concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, speaks thus, word for word: "And what is that which is imparted to us through the Son? It is the one God of the holy Trinity, the Paraclete; that is, the very essence and hypostasis of the all-holy Spirit. For the Spirit does indeed proceed, according to holy Cyril, from God and Father, but is imparted to creation through the Son. If, therefore, that which proceeds from the Father is the same as that which is imparted to creation through the Son, and it is the one God of the holy Trinity, the Paraclete—that is, the very super-essential essence and hypostasis of the all-holy Spirit—that proceeds from God and Father, it is evident that the same is imparted to creation through the Son, and not grace alone. But if grace alone and [B] energy are imparted to creation through the Son, them the same is also that which proceeds from the Father. For the divine Cyril says that the same thing is imparted to creation through the Son, which also proceeds from the Father."
But the teacher of the Church, both then and now—who is proclaimed, I say, by the Catholic Church herself, as his own sacred writings, read in public rites and festivals, bear witness, along with those of the ancient Fathers and teachers, to all ears—is the one whom you, of necessity, have numbered among those to whom you have wickedly slandered these holy men, numbering them among others, and indeed among the new-fangled adversaries of the Spirit—I mean these Latins. As the divine Germanus has already sufficiently shown from the theologians, so that, among other things, you might learn this also: that it is not those who call the energy a natural energy proceeding from the essence, but rather those who declare that the divine essence and the divine energy are in every way the same and indifferent, and who, further, make the united [C] aspect of theology conflict with its distinctness, and who say that the divine essence itself and the hypostasis of the Spirit are participable, who are the authors of your writings and doctrines—those doctrines, indeed, by which you have openly persuaded yourself and your companions and fellow-mystics to adopt Latinism, for which the war is now most especially raging—nor do you blush or feel shame at attributing these things to the Church of the Orthodox and to the saints, just as someone who has lost his senses and is raving.
[D] And I will set beside him, for your sake, a second teacher and patriarch, wise in divine things, and wiser than you and those like you by a great distance in human affairs as well, even if his discourse on such matters is brief; one who has appeared as a lover, a mystic, and a master of true and primary wisdom: I mean Gregory from Cyprus, whose fame is great in all the Church of the believers, on account of both his dogmas and his words, his brilliant life and excellent conduct, and indeed those many noble struggles which he endured on behalf of the right faith, contending against those who think the thoughts of your Latins. Let Gregory, therefore, the wise man, come forward even now through his own words to teach the doctrines concerning the Divinity and the divine energy and sacred illumination and participation, and to demonstrate the agreement between him and us with the ancient Fathers and theologians. Or rather, before his words, [let us set forth] those of his opponents.
For, O man, the divine essence is not attainable by us. For if the six-winged Seraphim do not at all endure to bear the brilliance and radiance emitted from the divine nature, how can it be reasonable to say that our material and heavy nature is at all capable of [receiving] the divine essence itself? This has been granted to us once and for all in the ineffable and incomprehensible and super-natural union of God the Word, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, by the good pleasure of the Father and the cooperation of the Holy Spirit. And our Lord Jesus Christ was, bearing in Himself two essences, both divinity and humanity. But what is imparted to us who are of a lower order is not the essence and hypostasis of the all-holy Spirit—for the divine essence is not attainable, nor is it divisible and composed of parts; for it is simple, and in every way inaccessible and unparticipable—but the divine and goodness-working and unitary effulgence and grace and energy of the all-holy Spirit, which is simply and indivisibly, and yet at once and without omission and unitarily, always springing forth from the super-theic and tri-hypostatic nature. And it is this [energy] that those who are better draw to themselves, though it is multiplied and fragmented without division in those who are divided, according to the measure of each one's virtue, and some more, some less, receive this, and become gods by grace and participation. And the divine Scriptures call this divine effulgence and grace, the energy and gift of the all-holy Spirit, "Holy Spirit"; but indeed also "Divinity," and "God," and "deifying." For regarding the simple and incorporeal nature, it admits the same logic as the essence, and the energy does so too, says the great Basil in his *Antirrhetici*, just as we say "sun" not only of the solar disc itself, but also of the radiance and energy emitted from it. That it is divinity, and God, and deifying, and self-goodness...
and the creator of everything, and unnameable, and unparticipatable, and transcendent—these things the divine Scriptures say of this divine grace, energy, and gift proceeding from the transcendent Trinity; the divine Areopagite Dionysius and the divine Damascene John are witnesses to this. For the former, in his *On Divine Names*, speaks thus: "They do not contradict themselves those who sometimes call God self-essence, self-life, self-power, self-peace, and the like, and at other times call him the hypostasis of self-essence, self-life, self-power, self-peace, and such things. For the former are named from beings, and especially from those that are primarily beings, as their cause; the latter [are named] transcendently, as being above all things and even above things that are primarily beings. We speak of self-essence, self-life, self-power, self-peace, and the like, divinely, archically, and causally, referring to the one super-archic source and cause of all; but we speak participatably of the participations given forth from God—self-essentialization, self-vivification, self-invigoration, self-pacification, and the like—which we say have come into being from God absolutely, archically, and primarily." Some of the sacred teachers say that the super-good and super-godly one is the hypostasis of self-goodness and of divinity, calling "self-goodness" the goodness-making and deifying participation and gift proceeding from God.
B The divine John Damascene also, in the fourteenth chapter on the attributes of the divine nature, says likewise that the divine radiance and energy, being one, simple, and indivisible, while distributing itself in a goodness-like manner among all divisible things and bestowing the constituents of its own nature, remains simple, being multiplied indivisibly in the divisible [things], and gathering and turning the divisible things back to its own simplicity. For all things yearn for it and have their being in it, and it itself imparts being to all things as it has it by nature; and it itself is the being of beings, the life of living things, the reason of rational beings, and the intellect of those that are intellectually, being itself above intellect, above reason, above life, and above essence. This, therefore, the goodness-making and goodness-distributing divine radiance and energy of the all-holy Spirit, which is also named Holy Spirit, the divine Fathers say is granted to us, according to the capacity for reception of each, whether natural or by inclination. It is granted, then, to the creation, or rather to those who are worthy, through the Son, the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father, and He dwells in them; but not only He, but also the Father and the Son, just as the Lord Himself says: "I and the Father will come, and we will make our abode with him"; and through the Prophet: "I will dwell in them and walk among them." But this is not according to hypostasis, but according to the distribution of divine gifts. For according to the participation and gift of divine grace, the Holy Spirit, the one God of the holy Trinity, the Paraclete, dwells in the righteous just as the Father and the Son do; but not according to hypostasis, as we have said, nor according to existence, but participatably according to the distribution, as we have said, of the divine gifts, according to the example of the sensible sun. For it is both unparticipatable by us as regards the disc, because of its height, and participatable by the rays, as the divine Areopagite Dionysius says, that God is participated in by each of those who participate in him in his entirety, and by no one in any part, just as a center in the midst of a circle is with respect to all the lines lying in the circle. And just as the impressions of a seal participate in the archetypal seal, being in each of the impressions entirely and in the same way, and in none in any part. And above these is the unparticipatability of the all-causal divinity, in that there is no contact with it, nor any other commingled meeting with those that participate.
Following this, the divine John Damascene also says: "Just as the ray and the light of the sun descend to us without being separated from the sun or divided from one another, so also the Son and the Holy Spirit descend to us from the Father and from one another without interval, working our salvation. And just as in those cases the radiance accompanying the ray is imparted to us through it, so also the Holy Spirit, accompanying the Son, is imparted to the worthy through Him in the distribution of the gifts." For He breathed, he says, and said: "Receive the Holy Spirit." And just as in those cases light is spoken of both of the sun and of the ray, so also in these cases the Spirit is spoken of both of the Father and of the Son. For through the Son and from the Son it is granted to the worthy. And they are receptive of this all-holy Spirit, and not of the divine essence itself and the hypostasis of the Paraclete God, the one of the holy Trinity. For if this were so, it would follow, along with other absurdities, that each of those receptive of this Spirit would have to be said to bear two essences within himself, divinity and humanity, and each would be called God-man, and the Savior Christ would have nothing more than one of these; furthermore, the divine essence would be varied and divisible, and would exist more or less in those who receive it.
D Do you see to what absurdities the claim leads, that the Spirit granted to us from the Son is the essence and hypostasis of the all-holy Spirit, and not the divine grace and energy itself of the all-holy Spirit? But what, is the Spirit that is from Him not eternally from the Son? Is it that the Spirit from the Son must be thought to be something that comes to accrue to creation and to us? But if this is so, since creation exists in time and under time, the Spirit from the Son will also necessarily be recent and under time. But indeed He co-exists with the Son, and is eternally from Him, and not under time; it is not, therefore, necessary to think it only that which is granted to us who are under time
A and are called—this, which they are and are called.
See from these things that this divine radiance and grace shines forth eternally and without beginning and timelessly, and the energy of the supra-luminous and tri-hypostatic nature exists equally from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, even if it is granted to all created things, and to us who are under time, and exists under time from the Son. We said, therefore, if it proceeds for us and for our sake, it is also under time; because for the Holy Spirit to proceed is indicative of His existence, just as for a child to be born is indicative of the Son, and for us to say "proceeds" is the same as saying "proceeds for us," B and "has existence for us and because of us." But if it has existence because of us, it is certainly under time, and we are greater than It. But indeed, to shine forth, and to come forth, and to flow forth, and to be granted, and the like, are not indicative of existence, but of the distribution of divine grace and energy whenever He wills. Therefore, we do not say that this divine grace and radiance and energy has its being under time and because of us; but it always and absolutely shines forth and flows forth from the Son, just as indeed from the Father, as we have said, and indeed from the Comforter Himself, the God, the Holy Spirit. And it shines forth and is granted to all creation and to us under time and recently, because all creation and we ourselves have come into existence under time and recently. But if this divine grace and radiance in no way has its being for us, as it is indeed demonstrated, C how in any way is it necessary to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds for us, while the Fathers say that He is granted, and shines forth, and flows forth to us?
Such things, too, does Gregory the wise say concerning the difference of the divine essence and energy, O wise Gregoras, and of natural grace and radiance, and of the sacred participation of the Spirit, and of procession and mission, and of distribution, and as many things as have been said by him in detail concerning these in what preceded. Thus to the theologian Fathers, and to our holy synod, and indeed to the synodal tomes, they are fitting and in every way consonant, so that I fear lest you wrongly attribute these to our holy Theologian, I mean Gregory the Great, or to any of those of the synod. D But you would not be able to, there being many tongues and books attesting to them and to those previously mentioned as being genuine toward those who gave them birth. And what need is there to say such things concerning others, when even Gregoras himself, while still outside the arrows of terrible envy and the hatred against us, was in harmony well with the Church of Christ concerning such things, and stood with her against the heretics on behalf of the same things and against the same people, and crowned the defenders of this truth according to piety with all kinds of wreaths of words and praises? Therefore, on account of Andronikos, the admirable emperor, recently at that time after the struggles on behalf of piety, and the [refutation] of Barlaam
the heresies A according to him in the Church, who had passed over to the better life, and having received—as it were—a great and wondrous shroud along with himself, the proclamation of piety and the support of the Church of Christ; therefore, as he was departing these things thus well, and having received for these things ten thousand praises, this philosopher, while weaving his funeral oration with words, added those things also very well: "You, holy overseers of the Church, seek out the burning zealot and co-defender of the dogmas. You, who are in the mountains and caves, seek the bulwark and champion of your glory and honor. You, leaders of the divine ascetic retreats, the acropolis of your strength, remember his final struggles on your behalf, how his body being already completely exhausted from the wounds of war, and from surgical cauterizations, and being driven thence toward death, he cared nothing for the body, and being unsparing B of his own life, he came zealously to the tribunal and the mystagogues. And he did not depart from there until he had shattered your revilers and their dogmas which had corrupted those things, and the shipwrecks of the Church which had been written falsely, and had committed them to the depths and waves of corruption and perdition." These things, indeed, the philosopher said then on behalf of the truth according to piety, and on behalf of that champion of this, the blessed and wondrous emperor, being still vigorous in his mind and in that which is considered by the soul, and [speaking] well and worthily, in truth, of those who are philosophers of the best and most worthy things. And it would have been just, in my opinion, for all of these things to have been engraved as epitaphs and golden verses upon the emperor’s tomb, so that it might proclaim more clearly than any trumpet, to the future time, both the virtue of the emperor and the glory of the Church of Christ, and moreover the falsehood and fickleness C of Gregoras, and indeed the baseness and wantonness of his judgment and his tongue—and how such a man could never be just, nor trustworthy to discourse and write at all concerning God and divine dogmas, he who so easily, like playing at draughts or dice, shifts and turns, or more properly to say, distorts the faith according to the times and affairs, or rather to speak more truthfully, for the sake of strife and contention, and envy—that worst of fates—and thereby, alas, makes merchandise of the highest glory concerning God and the common salvation of the common race for the sake of base pretexts and passions.
CONCERNING THE FOURTH DISCOURSE OF THE SAME PHILOSOPHER GREGORAS
Concerning the natural and essential energy of God, that it is uncreated.ANTIRRHETICAL DISCOURSE SEVENTH
Since, however, he uses his tongue again for this, and it is necessary for us to follow in his footsteps, or rather to meet and stand face to face with the venerable Tome and the Fathers who spoke D there by the Spirit, and not to stand apart. Since we have received and handed down the discourse concerning the participation in the holy and divine Spirit, the ineffable communion and deification, not as much as it was necessary, but as much as was possible for us, from those who have learned by experience and habit, and for this very reason are able to theologize and teach those things safely, having stated with them that God is unparticipable, just as He is also incomprehensible to mind and word, and ineffable in His essence, but participable analogously and perceivable in part according to the divine Apostle and the word, not from those things which are according to Him, but from those things which are about Him—which are indeed concomitants of the divine nature, and natural properties, and gifts of the Spirit, and natural and essential energies, and divine processions and participations, and such things as it is the custom for the theologians to call—come, let us go also to the uncreated nature of this very essential and natural divine energy of God, and the discourses of the holy theologians concerning this. Although, indeed, this very thing has already been proven along with the aforementioned to those who are not completely asleep and snoring, or stopping their ears like an asp against the holy incantations. But since the philosopher, having pushed off from there as if with a rudder, came to these words, and brings before us the second chapter of the venerable Tome, and against this C—he again uses his tongue, and he introduces his own student and friend Agathangelos, Gregoras, to teach the things of the Tome, who also, coming forward, speaks in this way: "With the lawless Tome and the writer of the first chapter having finished, and whatever of the things being blasphemed there having been heard by you was refuted, the second chapter has such an origin immediately. It was proved, he says, also this, that those who do not accept as uncreated the energy that is inseparable yet natural to the divine essence, while differing from It, as has been said, make the essence of God itself created—for according to the holy Maximus, from the energy each nature is characterized, the uncreated energy showing an uncreated nature, and the created [energy] the created. And further, the divine John Damascene [says]: 'The created energy will show a created nature; the uncreated will characterize an uncreated essence.' Those, then, who say the divine energy is created, from which also the divine nature is characterized, show by necessity the divine nature to be created also." D Just
A as he previously destroyed the holy tome, he destroys the philosopher here, by his own comic teacher's standard; yet, insofar as that one wove comedy, fabricated things that were not, and played the jester on purpose, this philosopher—this recent dogmatist, this sudden theologian—I do not know whether he ignored the very composition of the discourse along with its truth, or whether he acted with willful malice and confusion, or both. For since the holy tome of the Fathers, as he himself says above, and says it in this fashion, demonstrated that those who do not accept the natural and inseparable energy of the divine essence make even the very essence of God a creature. Then, while introducing the aforesaid words of the saints as testimony for the argument between the two, and thus leading the other leg of the division—"Not only this, but they are also Monothelites," and so on—and having just rendered the argument in such a way, which was exactly what the proposed conjunctive conjunction required, the philosopher shamefully cut off that whole part from the whole, and caring not at all for the necessity of the phrase, nor the purpose and sense of the argument, but rather going against that very power itself, he left B some things for the depths of oblivion and silence, never mentioning them again at all, but immediately substituted his own misinterpretations into the discourse, teaching his listener Agathangelos the heresy again, and, as is customary, the slander and falsehood against us—or rather, against God and His saints. And it is necessary for us, according to him, to connect what he said here to those things spoken previously, and thus from there to bring the rays of true theology against the darkness of his heresy.
"You know," he says, "my good Agathangelos, that upon the union of the Godhead with humanity, when the divine Word became incarnate, just as there are two natures, so are there said to be two energies. But the energy of the Godhead was and pre-existed, and, being unchangeable, it possessed both an unchangeable power of acting and will, and was simple. Now it has been demonstrated to us entirely that in the case of the simple and immaterial nature, the energy admits the same word or definition as the essence. And it is called 'self-energy' by the saints when the name has reference to the acting Godhead; otherwise, it would not be so. For one of two things must be said: either it is a creature, or it is not-being, just as it happened for me above that the term 'energy' is threefold in its division, being homonymous. But to Palamas, my good Agathangelos, for thinking that the Godhead of the Word has changed due to the communion of the flesh, it is considered that he dogmatizes three wills in Christ: one, the transcendent one of the divine essence; a second, that of the Hypostasis of the Word, which is itself uncreated but subordinate; and a third, that of the humanity."
Then, having raved about many such things C, Gregoras, now saying that the humanity of Christ is... now that Christ has three wills, and indeed those that are dissimilar, and those whom he calls "Agnoetae"—I do not know from where or from whom he got this, as he reviews one by one the holy Fathers who gave the tome, and adds that it is redundant and useless, a "Straits of Sicily" as they say. For we, since we do not acknowledge two uncreated things in the simple and divine nature, as we have said—the saints expressly forbidding this completely—say that the Word of God Himself is the will, and truly distinguish (the nature and the will).
Truly, nothing could ever be worse than vainglory and envy. These things turned angels into demons, and led their leader to become the Devil. These things cast the first man out of Paradise. These things marked Cain as an fratricide. These things snatched the most excellent Joseph from paternal embraces and relegated him, a slave and prisoner, to Egypt. And what need is there to speak of other things? These things made possible that terrible Christ-killing and made the disciple and friend a traitor, alas! and a God-killer. These things likewise pitiably surrendered to the demons the whole soul of this Gregoras D, which they had possessed long ago. For the unhappy man would never have been led to say or write such things against God and the truth according to piety, had he not been entirely surrendered to those vengeful and bitter spirits, under the evil yoke of those vile passions. For, to speak of the man himself—of whom I myself was a listener and eyewitness, having then just entered this imperial city for the first time from Athos and our dear place of retreat there, and having been entrusted with the care of the Church, I mean that one at Heraclea in Thrace, a year, I think, after my ordination, since I had been hearing much from long ago about this Gregoras and the Church of Christ, and how he differed from others and spoke against the correct word of piety (for the leader and champion of impiety after the first one, Acindynus, had already passed away in the worst way, having changed his life along with his heresy)—I had decided that I needed to come to him, to come into his presence and discourse, and to become an eyewitness of the disputed and contested matters for the philosopher. I went, then, and approaching and greeting him as is customary, and sitting down, after a little while I drew him into the discussion of the dogmatic thesis of the Church, although he was somewhat hesitant and reluctant. I asked him, therefore, if he thought and said that God possesses a natural energy, differing from His essence. And since he agreed, I brought forward a second question, if he considered this energy to be uncreated and worthy of God. And when he said, "How could it be otherwise, with all the holy teachers together thinking and teaching this?" I said that I marvel greatly how, with matters being so, and he himself thinking the same as the common Church, he then stands apart in place and communion, and...
A he separates many from himself, and gives B himself over to judgments against God and the divine and lofty discourses concerning Him and His theology, as if he had become beside himself, and as if he did not even know what he says and writes. But rather, before descending to the contemplation of those matters, and [before] us and the refutation, it is necessary for me also to set forth here the points of the synodal tome and the theology of the saints, sound and complete, of which he, having customarily passed over most—and the more necessary—points, and not even mentioning them, did not deal with those few [that he did mention] well, nor with the truth, nor in the manner in which they stand. And first, the preface of the chapter, which is not small, he straightway removes from the very beginning, [though it contains] the C sacred testimony of the theologian Fathers, and indeed also of the ecumenical holy synod, not even enduring it despite his promises and pledges. The tome therefore says: "After this, we sought to have it demonstrated by the saints, if this—which is indeed uncreated but inseparable from, and yet distinct from, the divine essence—energy is, which those who contradict the Church did not in the least accept." And this too was demonstrated by the saints as being clearly proclaimed, the chief [witness] of which is the holy and ecumenical Sixth Synod, as has been sufficiently demonstrated above through the passages of it set forth in detail, D and [further] judgments against himself which are not good, nor even at all befitting his wisdom and established order.
For, I said, with the aforementioned things being as they are, and as has been told, I think that nothing will stand in the way or be adverse to the remaining points, since all of them are almost entirely suspended from there, and hold the discourse concerning the divine and natural energy of God and His power as a certain root and origin. But he, the philosopher says, claiming that the holy [Metropolitan] of Thessalonica does not speak of one energy of God according to the theologians, but says there are many and diverse energies relative to each other. But as for me—even though these things are of the theologian Fathers and teachers, but not of the wise Gregory, as I have said to him, just as with the aforementioned points—there is every necessity, just as in those [prior cases], so also in these, to be persuaded and to agree with the Fathers, if we intend to be truly among the pious, and not wander off somewhere far from the truth. Then, also, when some of the theologians were brought forward in the discourse as testimony to the disputed points, and he was bringing forth as many as he happened at that time to recall, the philosopher was unable to contradict the truth of what was said, but blamed the [Metropolitan] of Thessalonica once again, as speaking of many and very numerous energies in excess [of the proper number], and not in alignment with us and the theologians.
And this, as I foretold, the philosopher completely passes over in silence; but he touches upon the subsequent points with only the tips of his fingers, as they say—which, indeed, was also set forth above for us, traversing his book against us—and having touched upon those points, or, to speak more appropriately, having cut those points up and torn them to shreds, and not sparing the harmony of the discourse and the phrasing in the slightest, he leapt to his customary insults and slanders against us. But we, having taken back what was poorly seized by him, shall restore the due harmony to our discourse.
And while I was attempting to resolve everything that stood in the way for him once again, and [showing] how we and he both think and write and proclaim the very same things of the holy theologians, and not others—for it is not permitted, since I saw the same things recurring again and again and revolving around the same points—and because he did not desist from his empty reproaches against the saint and his unjust writing, I dissolved the discussion and conversation with him, as having nothing in it that is useful. But going off to myself, since I was saying that the philosopher, as I see it, does not bring his reproaches against piety, but rather privately against the one who stands at its head, being overtaken by some passion, as is natural for a man; perhaps he will change after a little while and will heal this—for it is entirely a light matter, and not difficult to change—and thus we shall have him in common with us, both in the affairs of the common Church and as one who professes and proclaims what is truly good, which I see him still thinking and saying, although, due to his pettiness toward the man, he seems to stand apart somehow. These things I was praying for and expecting, and I was teaching many others for his sake; but instead, alas! everything happened contrary to those hopes. And that envy against the herald of the Word, having increased little by little with the additions of the Evil One, rose up against the discourse, and from envy and misanthropy the philosopher came to this battle against God, and it is shown that he has received the end of that [proverb] from the divine Scripture, and I say this to him [himself]: "He who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?" See, then, what he has dared to say and write.
7. AGAINST GREGORAS ANTIRRHETICS VII.
The tome of the Synod says, therefore, after the aforementioned things, that it was also proven that those who do not accept the energy of the divine essence—which is uncreated and natural, yet distinct from it—as has been said, make it a creature and at the same time [make] the essence of God [a creature], according, he says, to the holy Maximus and John of Damascus. And Gregoras, having taken these testimonies from the tome, presented them there. But not only that; they are even worse and more absurd than those of the past, and they conceive the creatures to be eternal. For because we confess two natures in our Lord Jesus Christ, the one uncreated and the other created, those who do not say that the divine nature has an uncreated will and energy, but conceive of one created will and one created energy in Christ—which the Sixth Synod anathematized as being proclaimed—thereby clearly reveal themselves to be Monothelites. And they are far worse than those [earlier ones], insofar as they indeed spoke of one will and one energy in Christ, but [as] uncreated, and thus abolishing the created [will and energy]; but these [say there is] one will and one energy, but created, thereby destroying the un-
uncreated [will and energy] A while openly not accepting any. But since the great Basil, in his writings to Amphilochius, says: "The names of the Spirit are indeed thus transcendent and great, although they do not possess any excess for [His] glory; but what are the energies? Ineffable due to [their] magnitude, and innumerable due to [their] multitude; for how shall we conceive of those energies which are beyond the ages? Or what were His energies before the intelligible creation?" Those who say that the divine energies are created openly profess that the things "beyond the ages" are created things. But it has also been shown that the common and natural divine energies of the tri-hypostatic nature are uncreated, not through two or three testimonies, but through almost the whole of the divinely inspired Scripture. And these are the [words of the] holy volume for the present. Let us now examine the considerations set forth by the philosopher, and the arguments regarding the energy of God, and his assumptions, and his opinion. "When the divine Word," he says, "was incarnate, just as there are two natures, so also are two energies said to exist. But one was of the divinity, and pre-existed, and, being unchangeable, also had the power and will to energize as unchangeable, and simple."
B And up to this point, the philosopher seems to be somewhat reasonable, and for a short while even to hold to sound doctrine; but the matter, in truth, is not so. Instead, it seems so only as far as the syllables and words are concerned; but deception is cunningly hidden within the words, just as copper in a lure. For since the aim of the author of the treatise is to show that the essence itself of God, and His energy, are one and the same—and not other, as the heresy wishes—and that this and that are called by the same name, as is the case with things having many names (just as Sabellius said regarding the essence of God and the three hypostases, having held them to be mere names spoken of one and the same subject of the substance), he lays the foundation through a few short words and scatters the seeds of his own argument and purpose, which he himself C reveals more clearly afterward. For he did not say, "Just as there are two natures of the Word after the incarnation, so also are there two natural energies of the same, corresponding to the divine and human nature." But how then? "Thus," he says, "and two energies are said to exist," hinting clearly at the idea that they are spoken of, but do not actually exist, as if essence and energy were one and the same and indifferent [in His view], and most especially in the case of God. And again, he says: "The nature of God being unchangeable, it had also the power and will to energize as unchangeable, and simple." This is clearly against the argument and the opinion of the one speaking. But he who does not know what he himself says against himself—to affirm that He had an unchangeable natural and corresponding energy, as the theological Fathers [say], escapes him, so that he might not seem to be speaking of some difference between the divine essence and energy, which is indeed the very thing his purpose is to war against. "The divinity," he says, "had the power and will to energize," D as if He energizes without energy, as he himself thinks, [i.e.,] without power or will—just as if someone were to say, or rather, as this same person himself writes and speaks in the same way and argument, I mean, the living [to live] without life, and the speaker to speak without reason. And behold the mist poured over the eyes of his mind. For by his own arguments, while acknowledging the natural power of God—which is the very natural and essential energy concerning which the Word speaks according to the aforementioned theological Fathers, of which [energy] they say that only that which is not [non-being] is deprived—he is therefore also proclaiming it even against his will. For the argument cannot be set otherwise for one traversing such things, [and] he denies by facts what is said by himself, not having heard the divine Father Maximus explicitly saying this: "Just as it is impossible to exist without subsistence, so also is it impossible to energize without energy." Or rather, he seems to hear such things, but he mishears and explains poorly the things well said by the God-bearing ones, saying that [energy] is the very essence of God, which they say is also an energy. Although the theologian did indeed distinguish in this brief passage between the two—I mean between essence and energy—and by what is acknowledged even by the heretics: that it is impossible to exist without subsistence (which is absolutely nothing other than "to be" and the essence itself of the being), he pointed out that that thing is not, and neither is that which is disputed by them, that "to energize without energy," which was indeed the goal from the beginning for that theologian, and for which the noble one fulfilled his confession and his martyr's struggle. But the philosopher, being unable to perceive or even to philosophize about this very thing—although it is accessible and does not require a deep mind, seeing that the thing showing would not be identical in all respects with the thing shown, nor the one characterizing with the one characterized, just as the purple robe and the scepter are not royalty, nor the morning ray the sun, nor the cloud the rain—he says that the essence and energy of God are one and the same in all respects, not piously conjoining the distinguished with the united as the theologians do, but rather poorly destroying and confusing both of these, and introducing another confusion into the holy words and dogmas through nature, I say, and the natural things of God, [a confusion] in no way less than that of those Monophysites and Monothelites. For he who says that God does not have an energy befitting God at all, but that He is essence alone according to Eunomius, without its natural [properties], this man destroys not only the distinguished but [also] the united of theology along with it. For of what could there even be a union, if the things about to be united have been destroyed beforehand according to him? Rather, according to this argument, not only is the union destroyed, but the one itself, that is to say, the essence, according to the theological Fathers. For the essential energy being destroyed, the aforementioned God-bearing teacher says, neither God nor man will exist; and onto the power of energizing and the will, the philosopher added "and simple," not as though God is simple
A in nature and in energy he is the same, which is truly the apostolic and patristic mind, but also because, while attempting to do away with the divine energy, he thereby suggests that a duality and composition are theoretically present in God, provided we say, according to the teachers of the Church of Christ, that God has a natural energy—one that is different from His essence in some way, which indeed my discourse will proceed to show him more broadly. Thus, not only does the outcome for this empty philosopher’s new theology end in something utterly absurd and irrational, but his eagerness also carries him toward impiety and atheism, nor is it possible to find a clean example of such absurdity and ruin. And observe his subsequent remarks as well.
"It has been fully demonstrated," he says, "to us that, in the case of the simple and incorporeal nature, energy admits the same account or definition as essence." And it is called "self-energy" by the saints whenever the name has reference to the energizing divinity; otherwise, it would surely not be; for one of two things would follow in sequence: either that it is a creature, or that it does not exist. Previously, he used to say that the transcendent essence of the divine Spirit, the common essence itself of the Holy Trinity, dwells in the worthy, and sanctifies them, and deifies them—a point where, among other things, he was clearly refuted by the holy council against them, the Messalians, I mean; but now, he seems to have been dragged most miserably along with those who formerly spoke wrongly about knowing the essence of God—a body of "dissimilar" thinkers—setting at naught those many fine arguments about the incomprehensible by the venerable theologians, in which they say that not only the powers above, and I mean those orders superior to all things, the Cherubim and Seraphim and Thrones, find that essence to be unknown and ineffable, but that even His judgments and His ways are, together with the Apostle B, unsearchable and past finding out.
But Gregoras—alas for the delusion! alas for this new disaster!—not only says that the essence of God is comprehensible, but also says that it is finite and circumscribed by a definition. For in misinterpreting the dictum of the wise Basil, which he wrote to Eunomius—where he said regarding the simple and incorporeal nature that "energy admits the same definition as the essence"—he wretchedly mistook "definition" for "account." For he says: "It admits the same account or definition as the essence." And these things the one who denies the divine energy C has dared to say, so that he might not establish—as he wrongly thinks—a composition in God and a polytheism, by saying that the essence of God is limited and finite and circumscribed by an account, a thing which not even any of the heretics up to now has ever imagined, for it has never even been heard of. For the followers of Origen dared to say that God is circumscribed, but only according to his power; the essence, however, not at all. And the apostolic and patristic theology says that all of God’s natural power and energy is boundless, which indeed the divine Chrysostom, and indeed even D the holy Anastasius together with him, have already said.
As the discourse proceeds for us again, we shall show this same thing through other theologians as well. But Gregoras says that the very essence of God is defined—I know not by which evil demon he has been taught—even though the holy theology of the Spirit grants a supernatural knowledge of it to the blessed Trinity alone, and says that the divinely-ruling persons know only themselves and one another. For, it says, the things of God no one knows, except the Spirit of God. And the Spirit, it says, searches all things, even the depths of God. And Christ again: "As the Father knows me, I also know the Father"; and, "No one knows who the Son is, except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is, except the Son." Therefore, even to Philip, when he said, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us," He said, "He who has seen me has seen the Father. And how do you say, Show us the Father?" Which the divine Chrysostom, unfolding, as the discourse reaching us has already shown, says: "Let us see what Philip is seeking to learn." It is: what God is, the very essence of God. Therefore, there is no other definition of God, O philosopher, except the Father’s definition and Word, according to the theologian’s voice—the subsistent and living Wisdom and Power, the exact image, the only-begotten Son of God. But if you say, "What then is that which the God-bearing Basil says, that 'energy admits the same account as the essence'?" it is not necessary for us to solve these doubts and objections. For you have not come as one intending to learn from the Church of Christ—for you would have arrived having learned that way. But now, you have wrongly reversed the order, and instead of a student, you have ordained yourself a teacher and a theologian; D or rather, being an irrational insulter and slanderer of the Church’s common teachers and theologians, you would not even be worthy of this. But for us, it will suffice today for this alone to be the case: that you have been clearly convicted here not only of slandering and lying, but also of blaspheming and acting unlawfully concerning these very most divine and most exalted matters. For your own sake and the sake of your case, not at all, but for the sake of the rest, let us develop the theological discourse. And we will [examine] the scope as well, as much as possible, in a little while, but let us examine that first now.
"Regarding the simple and incorporeal nature, energy admits the same account as the essence," says the great Basil here. And Gregoras, having not heard this well nor according to the teacher’s scope, thought it to be something the same and indistinct, and that the divine essence and the energy are one in all respects; or rather, that the very essence of God is what both this and that are called. First of all, then, not only is the argument false, and far from every theological scope and discourse, but it is also something absurd and ignorant, and far from the Greek tongue. For things that admit the same account could never be one and the same, but the [contrary...]
A different. For it is natural for such things to be spoken of in two ways, or even as multiples: either as being different in species but the same in genus, or as being the same in species but many in number. For example, when we say that an elephant, a horse, and a lion admit the same account, clearly when we predicate "animal" of them, or when we say the same of Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, provided they have "human" predicated of them. For each of these is a human, and in as much as each is an animal, they admit the same account as one another. Thus he would be vain and unlearned who says that which is unique unto itself admits the same account. For it is possible, and indeed wicked, to divide the one into two, as if one were to say that Socrates admits the same account as the son of Sophroniscus; in the same way, the philosopher is shown to be far from the target and the intent of the wise Basil, and from his very syllables and words, throwing his dart B against himself rather than against the Council and the Tome.
Then what will Gregoras say, if we prove that the theologians—and I include the very man who teaches these things, the great Basil—do not say that the divine energy admits the same account as the divine essence? Let the great Basil himself be the first to speak these things, and let him interpret his own words. "The divine nature," he says, "in all the titles conceived of it, remains as it is, unindicated, as our discourse puts it; for having learned of a benefactor and a judge, good and just, and as many other such things, we have been taught differences of energies. But we are no more able to know the nature of the one who acts through the comprehension of these energies. For when one provides an account for each of these titles, and for the nature itself concerning which the titles are, he will not provide the same account for both. And since their account is different, their nature is also different. Therefore, the essence is one thing, for which no account has yet been found to manifest it, and the meaning of the titles around it is another, named from some energy or worth." And again, he himself writes to Amphilochius: "We say we know the greatness of God, and the power and the wisdom, and the goodness, and the providence by which He cares for us, and the justice of His judgment, not His essence itself. But God," he says, "is simple; and whatever you might enumerate of Him, it is a known thing of His essence." This, however, is a sophism that has ten thousand absurdities. And the divine Gregory of Nyssa writing against Eunomius says: "Lordship is not a name of essence, but is of power, and the title of Christ indicates his kingship." The account of kingship is one thing, and the account of nature is another. D And again to the same: "Just as, then, by saying that He is judge, we conceived of a certain energy around Him through the judgment, and through the 'is' we applied our mind to the underlying reality, being clearly taught by these not to think that the account of the 'being' is the same as that of the energy, so too from the saying, 'He is begotten or unbegotten,' we divide our understanding into a double apprehension, conceiving the underlying reality through the 'is,' but through 'begotten' or 'unbegotten,' we grasp what is present to the underlying reality." And Maximus the wise says the following in his Theological Chapters: "When preparing to theologize, do not seek accounts *of* Him, for the human mind will not find them, nor will any other mind among those after God; but contemplate those *around* Him as much as is possible; for instance, those concerning eternity, infinity and indefiniteness, goodness and wisdom, and the creative, providential, and judicial power over beings. For this is the great theologian among men, he who finds the accounts of these even to some degree."
What do you say to these things, O philosopher? Behold, you have clearly heard these teachers of theology, and Basil especially above the others, saying that the divine energy does not admit the same account as the divine essence; and that those whose account is not the same, of them the nature is also different. And nothing at all has been introduced by us—but this theologian himself, having taken the premise from the oracles, and the other from the nature of the things themselves—as a necessary conclusion, and one confessed by all—has thus brought forth an irrefutable argument, having convicted your syllogism of being false, at least according to your apprehensions, I say. For as for others, he is not false according to the proper account, having been brought forth by the same theological mind and tongue, even if it is not according to your account.
But "how is it possible," says the philosopher, "to speak the truth in the same instance, and of this and that?" For this is to say that a contradiction agrees with itself. But the following argument is not ours, O philosopher, but rather yours—you who interpret the divine and lofty theology from on high, not from the divine oracles, nor from apostolic and patristic words, but out of your own belly, that is, your own mind, and you who set the common teachers against themselves and each other, and who now misinterpret and slander their theology, and now drag it through the dirt as if it were our own, and wash it with ten thousand absurdities and insults. Speak then here also, and play the philosopher with your own ideas: which of these theological voices do you record as true, and which do you strike out as false? For you cannot claim both. Declare it, and stir up your syllogisms, and that long vanity of yours, and that idle prattle, if you could successfully show that affirmation and negation are true in the same and one instance, and leave none of the teacher's logical arguments discarded; for both are holy, and
933 CONTRA GREGORAM ANTIRRHETICORUM VII. 934 similarly spoken by the Theologian, and the wise and philosopher, and god-bearing men. A And so, confessing only that it is not able to be defined by any concept of words according to its nature. For the prophecy explicitly proclaims that the divine greatness has no limit, saying that there is no end to the magnificence of his glorious holiness. But if the things concerning him are without limit, much more is he, in his essence, whatever he is, contained by no definition in any part. The wise confessor of the truth according to piety, Maximus, says: "We know the one divine energy of Christ according to the holy Fathers, from which many divine [energies proceed], and one human [energy], from which many human ones according to us [proceed]." For we know his one divine energy as God according to essence, which the Father also possesses by nature, and the Holy Spirit, from which, I say, the many and innumerable and properly divine energies proceed—those according to providence, those according to judgment, those according to upholding, those according to the creation of beings and their procession; all are divine and boundless. Consonant with these, the god-bearing Damascene sings as follows, making his own words to the Master himself: "Being true God, you knew the falling asleep of Lazarus, and you declared this to your disciples, proving, O Master, the boundless energy of your divinity."
B But the philosopher, now, if ever, shaken beyond the usual and to an extreme, and dizzy at the difficulty of the argument, was unable to say or even to hear the things that are. Leaving him aside—for he will never listen, and especially not now—we shall turn to those who are able to hear the argument according to the premise, and having unfolded the theological mind, we shall again, with God, show the harmony of the things said, as far as possible.
And let us speak, first, about the first. Definitions, as it seems even to those outside, are indicative of the things and nature underlying them, as the name itself also shows. For a definition separates the thing from the commonality of others, and through essential differences, as it were, gathers it into itself and circumscribes it—as when we say, "Essence is a self-existent thing, not needing another for composition," and "Man is a rational, mortal animal, receptive of mind and knowledge," and the like, for both essences and accidents, I mean. For these things are proper to creatures and to matter. But that God *is*, we have been taught; for this the whole of creation, both silent and vocal, cries aloud. But *what* he is, no one of all has dared to say, nor will anyone ever attempt to, unless he has destroyed his brain and his senses; for how could one who does not even know the definition of his own soul and mind accurately [dare to define God]? Since then the divine in itself is incomprehensible, and is boundless by every necessity according to the divine Scriptures, and indeed also according to their interpreters and theologians.
From the things concerning him—I mean the natural properties and energies—even if he is caught in part, yet even according to these, I say, he is both incomprehensible and boundless. For "his judgments are a deep abyss," according to the Prophet, and as Paul says, writing again to the Romans: "His judgments are unfathomable, and his ways past tracing out." To which the great Basil, again following, says: "If his judgments, he says, are a deep abyss, as the Prophet says, and his ways are untraceable, then surely they are also unsearchable, according to the Apostle; how much more so is he himself, whose judgments and ways are such?" And it is no wonder if God himself is such, seeing that the things of his are such. And again, the same man: "The names of the Holy Spirit are such, supernatural, not indeed having any excess to glory; but what are the energies? Ineffable indeed because of their greatness, and innumerable because of their multitude." And the god-speaking Nyssen, writing to Eunomius: "But if anyone should require of us some interpretation and description and explanation of the divine essence, we shall not deny that we are ignorant of such wisdom."
C And it would be a long task to recount all the voices of the holy theologians now in order, in which they hymn and theologize not only that the transcendence of the divine is boundless, but also the things naturally existing around it. But Gregoras, with definition and comprehension and circumscription, not only subjects the divine energy but also the divine essence, as much as lies in himself, all at once poorly marking out the holy theology concerning such things, and not even knowing what he says. For it is the work of those who are mad and out of their minds to gaze outright at such things regarding God.
D And since we have warded off the alien through the Scriptural and theological voices, come, let us show our own. For since the divine energy—how it is the same as the divine essence, and how it is different according to the aforementioned arguments, both in the synodical tome and by us, and in the united [energy] the distinguished [energy]—does not stand against theology; rather, it is not even possible to theologize without error as one who does not correctly and worthily of God judge the things concerning God and the proper words about him, as indeed this very thing has already been shown through many [points], if somehow the teacher of piety, Basil the Great, I mean, now says that the natural energy admits the same account as the divine essence, theologizing on the divinely fitting union of these, and showing the others, and the uncreated and co-eternal and inseparable [nature] of the divine energy toward the divine nature, clearly; and now again he says that it does not admit the same account as that, wisely and theologically indicating the distinction of it from that, speaking of an "account" here and there—not a "definition," as he who has dared, Gregoras, says—away with the blasphemy! But simply the things concerning both, namely, of the nature...
A that is that Being, and good, in no way; wherefore it is not, nor is it good, as being beyond even these. Yet how could "to be a certain something," and "not to be," ever be a nature, and especially that of God? Thus, then, the account concerning the master's discourse has been, I think, sufficiently demonstrated to us, that when hearing "discourse" one must not conceive of a "definition," but simply of the things said concerning the essence or its energy. Now we must go on to the second of the questions and show how, in a simple and incorporeal nature, the energy admits of the same account as the essence, and yet again, not the same, although this too has been demonstrated before. But let it be said again for the sake of clarity.
B That the discourse concerning this may become as clear and intelligible to us as possible, let us hear again the words of the great Father Basil concerning this. For so it is, and this also is the common opinion of theology concerning God, that many things are said concerning Him, and that there are many different accounts concerning Him; but that they are in no way a definition, both because God is indeterminate, according to the accounts rendered beforehand, and because it is impossible for there to be many definitions of one and the same thing; rather, there is one, and this must be determined and circumscribed, so as neither to exceed nor fall short in the measure of its syllables. Whence, even of the things said about God, according to the utterances of the theological Fathers, some signify what God is not—such as "unoriginate," "endless," "immortal," "infinite," "uncircumscribed," and things akin to these; but to think that the "what God is not" is a definition—the removal of non-being, not the positing of being—would this not be sheer madness? And the names of dignity, energy, and relations, such as Father and Son, and Lord, and God, and King, and Almighty, and Creator—how could they be a definition? They are so many in multitude, and each signifies something concerning Him, but not God Himself, since they are not even precisely a definition of those things concerning God, under which they are indeed said. Wherefore the theological Fathers, when they were about to speak and write about such things, never referred to a definition, but rather, having mentioned one, they strenuously forbade it—not only, of course, of the divine nature, but also of its energy, as has been shown. They said to apply these to God, having entitled the theological discourses thus: "Concerning things said of God," and "Concerning things said of Christ," and again, "Things applied to the divine nature," and "Each of the things said concerning God," and "That when you are about to theologize, do not seek the accounts according to Him, but those concerning Him"—for this, he says, is a great theologian even among men, the one who finds even to some degree the accounts of these; and as many things as are like these, teaching us by these—as I have already said often—not to consider the account concerning God a "definition," but simply one of the things said of God, or two, or many, according to the accounts I have provided beforehand. And yet, even when saying of heaven, and earth, and indeed of angels and men, that they are "creatures of God," we are not stating the definition of the essence of each; and when speaking of this entire sensory creation together, that it came into being from non-being into being by the word of God, because of divine goodness, to exist for the sake of man, we are not defining its essence, but are stating a certain account concerning it and its cause. If, therefore, even in the case of these creatures, which are determined and finite, we express such accounts and do not call them "definitions," but simply call what is said concerning them a certain thing, how much more so in the case of the divine, unblemished, and indeterminate nature, and indeed of its natural properties? But the things said of God, such as "He is" and "Good," which seem, according to the holy theologians, to be more proper to that transcendence, even these, in that they are, signify that He is, and that He is good; but what the nature is— C He says, therefore, to those who war against the Holy Spirit and do not claim that He is creator, directing his argument: "If, then, the supracosmic body of Christ is from the Holy Spirit, yet it is not possible for it to be His offspring—because that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit—nor, again, is it His energy, because in a simple and incorporeal nature the energy admits of the same account as the essence: it remains, then, that it is from Him as His creature." First of all, O philosopher, you should not have philosophized so unlearnedly and ignorantly to war against things that are manifest, and to call that which is not explicitly "being," or again, to call the "being" and "appearing" non-being, [an absurdity] at which even a child would blush. For Basil, that common teacher of the Church, introducing both the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit and the hypostatic body of Christ to the discourse, and unfolding that evangelical voice, "That which was begotten in the holy Virgin is from the Holy Spirit," and saying that it is not as His offspring that it is from Him—for that which is born of the Spirit is spirit—nor yet as an energy of the Spirit is it from Him—for in a simple and incorporeal nature the energy admits of the same account as the essence—you say, shamelessly, that the energy is the same thing and one with the essence in all respects. And this, too, the great Basil says here;—although D the great Basil did not set forth the argument simply, but via division from the beginning. For, he says, "that which is 'from something' is either creatively, or generatively, or naturally from Him," as the energy is from the one acting. Therefore, "from something," O philosopher, is different from that "from which it is" according to this very thing, or it is the same in all respects, and in no way different. And if these things are so according to you, Sabellius is wrongly driven away by those who say that the things from the Father exist co-eternally—I mean the Son and the Spirit—saying that they are not different in hypostasis from one another, but are the same thing and one in all respects. And not only is that which is "generatively" from something, which the great Basil says, entirely one and undifferentiated from that from which it was begotten, but also that which is "creatively" from something is, likewise, one and the same—
both in respect of essence alone, and in respect of hypostasis—both the begetter and the begotten, and the creator and the creation.
A But tell me, for what reason did Basil the Great bring forward these divisions of the argument if things are thus, according to you? For he ought rather to have said regarding the Lordly body, aiming at the mark, that "that which is from something," whether it be creatively, or generationally, or naturally, is in no way different from that from which it is, but is something one and the same in all respects. And by speaking thus, he would have established, according to you, that the Lordly body, being from the Holy Spirit according to the divine Scripture, either is the Holy Spirit Itself, so as to be something one and the same both as creation and as Holy Spirit and as the body of Christ, or it is not from the Holy Spirit, the one which is from the Holy Spirit according to the divine oracles, since it is body and creation, concerning which the whole argument of the teacher exists. And the same applies to the energy. For he would not have said "it admits of the same definition as the essence"—for two things are those which admit of the same definition—but rather that "it is one and the same, at one time essence, and at another time energy, called by the same name" according to Gregoras. But enough of this mockery. May the theologian Father be merciful to us in this; for these are not our words, but rather those of Gregoras's pseudophilosophy and pseudodoxy. To which we also, of necessity, lend both hand and tongue, not that we might agree, but that we might refute. For that great man says, B "That which is from something is either generationally, as the Son from the Father, or creatively, as creatures from God, or naturally, as energy from the one who acts (the agent)." And because of this, the all-holy body of Christ, being from the Holy Spirit, is neither generationally from Him (for it would be Spirit, since that which is begotten of the Spirit is spirit according to the divine oracles), nor naturally, as energy from the agent. For, he says, in the case of a simple and incorporeal nature, the energy admits of the same definition as the essence; the teacher signifying by this very thing that since the body of Christ, insofar as it is a human body and a creation, is both compound and made of four elements, it is not from the Holy Spirit as His natural energy—for indeed the Spirit is both incorporeal and simple. But in the case of a simple and incorporeal nature, the energy admits of the same definition as the essence; as, for instance, as the essence is simple and incomposite, so also is its natural energy simple and incomposite; as the essence is uncreated, so also is its energy uncreated; as the essence is circumscribed and undefined, so also is its energy far removed from every circumscription and definition; as the essence is invisible to men, so also is its energy. Since, therefore, the Lordly body is not of this kind, nor is it from the Holy Spirit as natural energy, but rather creatively, he says, it is from Him.
You have learned how the energy admits of the same definition as the essence in the case of a simple and incorporeal nature, and what C this argument is, and that there are two things: the essence, and the natural energy from it—not in fact, according to the holy Anastasios, but in reason (*logos*), according to Basil the Great and indeed also the divine Gregory of Nyssa—and is it not in all respects? Learn, in addition to these, from the words of the teacher, this also: that the energy is both natural and uncreated. For "naturally," he says, is "that which is from something," as energy is from the one who acts. But uncreated energy, according to the wise Maximus, will characterize an uncreated essence; whereas created (energy) will declare a created nature. For he says—and this is also clearly understood with the great Basil—it is necessary that natural properties be appropriate to the natures; neither does fire cool, nor does ice warm. Which would be the same as that which was often said before by the great Basil, namely, that the energy admits of the same definition as the essence. And the Great One also showed the uncreatedness of this in another way through the division of the argument, by saying that creatures are creatively from God, to which he also joined the body of Christ, but that the energy is not creatively, but naturally, and for that reason it admits of the same definition as the essence.
But concerning this natural and uncreated (energy), it will be spoken of more fully in what follows; for not even in what has already been said did Gregoras call it created—for how could he, since he was saying that it is the nature itself, and not something else? But he will immediately affirm after this that it is also a creation and indeed even "not-being." Such is his theology, to call the essence of God both a creation and not-being, apart from the homonymy, as he himself says. Now, D since the argument has shown us from the Fathers how the divine essence admits of the same definition as the divine energy, come, let us also show how it does not admit of the same definition, according to the same teachers, by repeating the same argument again. The divine nature, he says, in all the names applied to it, remains unmanifested as to what it is, as our argument says. For having learned of a "Benefactor," and "Judge," "Good," and "Just," and as many others of this sort, we have been taught the differences of the energies. But we are in no way able to know the nature of the one who acts through the comprehension of the energies. For when one provides a definition of each of these names, and a definition of the nature itself concerning which the names are, he will not provide the same definition for both. But if the definition is different, the nature of these is also different. Therefore, the essence is one thing, of which no definition has yet been discovered as its announcer, and the meaning of the names concerning it is another, named from some energy or worth. And the one of one mind with this theology and his brother, Gregory of Nyssa, says: "Lordship," he says, "is not a name of essence, but of authority; and the appellation of Christ indicates the kingdom." But one is the definition of the kingdom, and another is that of the nature. These things need almost no interpretation or further working out. For the theologians say clearly that the definition of the nature is one thing, and that of the energies and names surrounding it is another. Or rather, that of the nature itself, he says, no definition exists as yet.
A His announcer turned out to be the energy surrounding it, and, he says, the names, which he also called the expression of them, almost like the wise Theologian and martyr Dionysius did. And these people, speaking about the same things, which he has already taught us, saying: "If we name God, or life, or substance, or light, or Word, the superessential hiddenness, we understand nothing else but the powers brought forth from it to us, unifying, or substance-making, or life-generating, or wisdom-giving." But to it, according to the resolution of all intellectual energies, we apply [the term], seeing not even one deification, or life, or substance, which is exactly similar to the Cause that is exalted above all according to transcendence. So much for those things; let us come again to the philosopher and his arguments. "When," he says, "the name of the energy has a reference towards the deifying Godhead, and admits the same definition as the substance, it is also called energy by the saints; otherwise it would not, of course." For one of two things would follow in succession: either it is a B creature, or it is non-existent, just as, as I said above, it struck me somewhere to divide the term of energy in three ways, being homonymous. Then, after that long babbling against the saints and the right reason, "For we," he says, "in the case of the simple and divine nature, as we have said, not having to think of two uncreated [realities], the saints expressly forbidding it entirely, we say that the Word of God is none other than His will, and will and substance are exactly the same."
In these matters, Gregoras spewed out his whole heresy, or rather all his heresies at once. And if there were no other things said and written by him against our pious faith, and indeed against its theologians and teachers, these alone would have sufficed to erase the name of the book from those of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to cast him out of the catalog of the Church, and to place him far away from her sacred precincts. For behold the evil fruit of impiety. "When," he says, "the name of the energy does not have its reference toward the deifying Godhead, and is not accepted by the saints as standing for the substance, then one of two things follows in succession: either it is a creature, or it is non-existent." Has any one of the ancient and recent heretics ever dared such things? For Barlaam and Acindynus, the fathers and guides and instructors of this philosopher in impiety, although they surpassed others—I omit speaking now of those around Eunomius the Galatian, and indeed the Monophysites and Monothelites, and those before them, Arius and Sabellius and the Pneumatomachian Macedonius—in many other things, and indeed in the daring to bring down the things of God to creation, and to call the energy of God clearly a creature, and that, I say, His very Godhead; yet this man, as if to be prodigal with his wrong-headedness, and so that he might not seem to follow those in all things, and that the name of philosophy or pseudo-philosophy is not misused in vain, not only called the energy of God a creature, but also ranked it with things that do not exist. For C he says that one of two things follows, that it is a creature, or that it is non-existent.
And from where, tell me, O philosopher, have you heard this theology? From which evangelists? From which apostles and prophets? From which theologians and teachers have you learned these things, that the natural energy of God—for it is concerning this that the whole argument is for us and for our God-bearing teachers—unless it be the very nature of God, is either a creature, or non-existent? For concerning the energy of God and the creature, most of the things that the theological teachers have said you have already heard, and you will hear others shortly; and besides other things I also say this: that natural things must be analogous to the natures, and that if the energy is created, it will also manifest a created nature, but if it is uncreated, it will characterize an uncreated substance. But that you said the energy of God is non-existent, this can hardly be called even blasphemy or heresy; rather it is folly and drunkenness, and a derangement of the mind, and madness of the one who says such things, and all such things. For not only theologians and God-bearers and choirs of wise men and philosophers, but even everyone who has simply tasted of mind and reason says that energy is a natural power and motion, of which only the non-existent is deprived. And it would be a wonder, or rather an occasion for laughter against those who say those things, if that which proves the non-existent to be in no way existing through its own withdrawal, as it were, and deprivation, and again constitutes the existent and proves it existent through itself, that this natural power and energy would be non-existent according to you; just as if someone were to say that the soul which gives life to bodies is void of life, and that motion and power are again unmoved and impossible, or that the sun which makes the day is by nature devoid of light.
And yet Gregory of Nyssa, or rather the teacher and luminary of the inhabited world, says among other things that which is admirable and excessively exalted, that he who seeks for proofs concerning the fact that God has been manifested to us in the flesh should look at the energies. For of the very reality of God existing, no one would have another proof except the testimony through the energies themselves. What then, O wise Gregoras, has the presence in the flesh and the supernatural manifestation of the only-begotten Son of God been proven to us from the non-existent? But for the fact of God existing at all, have we no other proof than the non-existent? For you yourself construct these things, saying that the energy of God is non-existent, D as this theologian and teacher says. But the common sun and teacher of Christ’s Church does not say such things, but how? "From the greatness," he says, "and beauty of the creatures, the Creator is seen by analogy; and His invisible things are seen from the creation of the world, understood by the works, as well as His eternal power and Godhead." Which the theological Fathers, expounding in their own words, as has been shown to us in what preceded, called His creative power and providence and deifying energy. But you, calling these non-existent, are clearly not deifying [Him], not even according to the Hel-
Hellenes, who worshipped gods that existed, evil though they were, as the Apostle says; but you, A while making a god, as you say, not of what is non-existent, but of that which in no way and in no manner exists, how do you not go beyond them in impiety? Hence, you would not be right to be annoyed any longer at the things from the synod and the Tome, which state that you believe in what has no existence, since you say that the energy of God in no way and in no manner exists. For that which in no way and in no manner exists in terms of energy is nothing else than that which in no way and in no manner exists in terms of nature, since it is said that the nature of each thing is characterized by its energy, and that natural things must be consistent with the natures. Moreover, the same theologians state that there is no other energy intermediate between created and uncreated, just as there is no nature. Yet you have discovered a marvelous new energy, evidently the polar opposite of what those men wrongly theologized—the non-existent. And not even up to this point does Gregoras stop his novel theology or his war against God, but he even destroys the natural will of the tri-hypostatic Godhead itself, as far as he is concerned. For he says, "We say that the Word of God is Himself will," and that "it is precisely the same as essence and will." And the hypothesis of the theology or empty speech is as very elevated and secure! "For," he says, "in order that we might not conceive of two uncreated things, whereas the saints expressly forbid this B altogether."
And who is it, O philosopher, who says there are two or many uncreated things? For if you say that those who call the natural things of God uncreated are saying there are two or many uncreated things, then it is not we, nor the holy Tome of the Church, but rather the choir of the theological Fathers and teachers [that says this]. They say that natural things must be consistent with the natures, and that nothing in God is created, just as nothing in man is uncreated. And what of the pillar of the Church, Athanasius, I say, as you yourself heard spoken by us yesterday, that Christ did not say, "All things that the Father has are mine," on account of created things, but that the Lord said they were his own [things] as referred to the Godhead of the Father? And what of the confessor of piety, Maximus the wise, who says, "The kingdom of Christ is a thing beyond ages"? For it is not permitted, he says, to say that the kingdom of God is preceded by ages or times. But you, claiming that those who piously call the natural and own things of the divine essence uncreated are saying there are two or many uncreated things, are saying exactly the same thing as if someone were claiming that the Church worships many gods because the perfect God is both, and is called, each of the three archical hypostases, or similarly saying there are many Paracletes because it calls the seven energies of the Spirit seven Spirits, or saying that we consist of three suns, since it is customary for us to call the disk, the ray, and the light on the disk a sun. But just as there are not many Spirits because of the natural powers of the Spirit—rather, there is one God for us, the Paraclete, who is glorified with the Father and the Son—C just as the perceptible sun is one, so too the natural powers of God, which have been spoken of by us previously, are similarly called divine and uncreated, and there are not many uncreated things, nor many gods, according to your quibbling and slander; rather, the uncreated is one, and the tri-hypostatic, and active, and volitional, and omnipotent God is one. Rather, if you call those things uncreated according to sacred theology, you say the uncreated is one, and you say the tri-hypostatic God is one. For the tri-hypostatic God is one and alone and indivisible, and precisely unconfused—the divine nature, I mean, together with its own natural and characteristic traits, just as the sun is one, together with what naturally accompanies it, I mean the ray and the light. But if you were to say that the things naturally belonging to God are created, you do not call the uncreated one, as you supposed, but rather [you call it] nothing. For of those things whose nature it is to be created, by no mechanism could their nature ever be uncreated, just as it is impossible for the nature of those things that are uncreated to be created; for as little as the ray appears as something misty and dark, the sun would [not] be bright by nature, nor, conversely, would the sun naturally gushing forth that ray be something lackadaisical and dark by nature because of that bright [ray] proceeding from it. What then? Do we not clearly hear the saints in church theologizing that the One God by essence is three: I mean the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who are without beginning and co-eternal? In that case, are there many uncreated things and many gods because of this?
But Gregoras is also clearly shown to be saying that the divine will is hypostatic, not natural, saying that the Son is merely the will of the Father, which is what the Monothelites of old were wrongly saying. D For they also, forbidding two wills in Christ, and saying many other things, and that those who will are introduced along with their willings, and that there is a danger from this of calling the willing hypostases of Christ two, just as there are two wills—the theological Fathers immediately countered: "If those who will are introduced along with the willings, then by correct conversion, the willings will also be introduced along with those who will." And thus, he says, according to your argument, the Holy Trinity will be "of another stock," with the three willings having been introduced along with the three who will, as you say. Which is what Gregoras now has also devised, saying that the Son is the will of the Father, not a non-hypostatic will, just as he does with wisdom and word and power and such things according to sacred theology, but in order to destroy the one natural will of the three, about which our argument is concerned. And according to this, Gregoras calls the Son of God non-hypostatic, which did not even enter the minds of those Monothelites at the time. For the theological Fathers say that no energy is "in-hypostatic," that is, self-hypostatic; but the will of God is an energy according to the same [Fathers]. And this same Gregoras says that the very nature of God is his own natural will,
A regarding which he also takes refuge in the essence. But these are the things of those who are drunk and deranged, not of those who are sober, nor of those philosophizing the true philosophy. Therefore also Gregory, that brilliant star of theology, B rightly condemned those of the Arian persuasion who imagined and said that the Son of God is the will of the Father, and said: "Another thing," he says, "is begetting and birth, willing and will, speaking and word, unless we are drunk; the one is the mover, the other, as it were, the motion." Do you hear that even in God motion is god-befitting, and that the mover is something other than this motion? For this reason also the divine Cyril said, "Nature and energy are not the same," as you have heard; and the great Chrysostom says, "Wisdom is from the essence, but the essence is not from wisdom." And again, "When the discourse," he says, "is about energy, and the energy from the immaterial essence." C Following whom, the God-bearing Damascene said that the divine birth was the work of the divine nature, bringing forth from itself the co-essential and consubstantial; but that creation, being a work of the will, as you have heard, is not co-eternal with God. And again, the same man says: "It must be known," he says, "that energy is one thing, and the agent of energy is another, and the product of energy is another, and the one who acts is another. For energy is the transitive and essential motion of the nature; the agent of energy is the nature from which the energy proceeds; the product of energy is the result of the energy; and the one who acts is the one who uses the energy, that is, the hypostasis." He says, moreover, that the energy is also called the product of energy, and the product of energy the energy. And if the Son of God, Gregoras, as you say, D were to construct it rather as a mode, that the will of God is the Word of God, and the essence itself of God is also his will—and this according to you—then the Son of God would henceforth be the essence of God; and the divine essence would not be tri-hypostatic, as you say, but would be one hypostasis, begotten from the Father; and it would not be that a divine hypostasis begat a single hypostasis, but the common essence of the three, as you say. And the essence would not be in three hypostases, as we have been taught from of old, but the essence of the tri-hypostatic Godhead would be begotten from the hypostasis of the Father, according to you. For having called his Word only the will of God, you then inferred that the divine essence and the divine will are exactly the same, not even listening to the divine Maximus saying that "energies are not essences, nor are they by themselves, but they exist in the essence." If, therefore, the energy is essence according to Gregoras, and the energy according to the aforementioned Theologian is not by itself, but in the essence, then the essence henceforth according to him is not by itself, but in the essence—and he has lost, along with God, alas for the philosopher, even the definition of the essence simply, the preludes of his wisdom, which defines the essence as a self-subsistent thing, not needing another for its constitution; and this he says with much laughter and to the shame of those who say these things. For this essence, which according to them is also considered an energy, is not considered about something else, but about the essence—I cannot say whether it is another or itself. Moreover, since the divine will is not a natural power, nor considered in the essence, nor differing from the essence in this very regard, as the theological teachers say—but rather being of the hypostasis of the Son according to Gregoras, and there being no other than this, but the divine essence and the divine will being, according to him, a certain identical and exact thing—besides the other absurdities that are gathered, not even in this way can the philosopher escape the difference. For since essence and hypostasis are not the same according to the true word of piety, which perhaps even Gregoras would not deny, if indeed the essence and the will are one and the same thing in all respects and without difference according to him, then behold, according to him the will itself, being the essence, is not entirely the same, but it is different, not only of the Father, but of the three hypostases together. Furthermore, according to his own word, if the will of God is the Son of God, but not a natural power common to the three, as theology says, not even in this way would essence and will be the same and without difference according to Gregoras, since essence and hypostasis are not the same, as he himself would say, but neither would Son and Father and Spirit be the same simply, lest we also be caught experiencing the things of Libyus. Since these things are thus, in addition to the other absurdities, as I have already said, the philosopher has not been able to escape the difference between the essence and the will, and it is in vain that he has set those things before himself. C And those teachers of the Church, theologians and heralds of the truth of piety, say that nature and energy are not the same; and that energy is one thing, and the agent of energy is another, and that energy is the transitive and essential motion of the nature; and further, that the energy proceeds from the nature. But Gregoras, on the contrary, asserts all these things deliberately, that they are the same and not other, and that nature and energy are different, and that the divine will is nothing other than the Word of God, and that essence and will are exactly the same. But if, he says, the will were not referred to the essence, so that the essence and the will were clearly the same, one of two things would follow in turn: either it is a creature, or it is non-existent. And yet the aforementioned theologians said that the energy and the will are from the nature of God, and that this is a transitive and essential motion of it, as we have heard. And how could that which proceeds from the unoriginate and divine nature, and is its own essential and transitive motion, be either a creature or non-existent, unless the divine and eternal nature, whose essential and transitive motion it is, were also a creature and non-existent? That neither essence and will, or energy, are in every way the same and without difference, nor yet that they would be a creature or non-existent if they were the same according to the philosopher, has been demonstrated by us by many and irrefutable arguments. But it is necessary already to hasten, as if to a refuge, also to the sixth of the ecumenical councils, since the entire discussion concerning the divine and human energies and wills in Christ is in that one, and that of the-
A synod tome proceeds rather from thence, and as if having taken its starting-point from there, it also proceeds to the subjects of theology, in agreement with the truth. But furthermore, since Gregoras seems to make mention of it for some reason, perhaps out of necessity—that which is from the tome—let us also examine his arguments beforehand, and especially his division concerning his energy as an equivocal term; or rather, as if he were some tyrant B against the divine energy, he defines and legislates with authority, setting at naught what has been said in a manner worthy of God by the holy theologians regarding these matters, let us consider them before the synod, of course. For we have often undertaken to make a wider examination and resolution of the arguments and utterances of the holy theologians brought in by him and against him, separately following these antirrhetic discourses, since we require not a few books and transcripts for the investigation of theirs, because of the habitual theft, I mean, and the diversions and distortions of the philosopher.
He says, therefore, again and again, while initiating his own listener Agathangelos into the mystery concerning energy: "The Son and Word of God is called energy; the Holy Spirit is also called energy." For it is not doubtful, says the great Athanasius, that He Himself is the living counsel of the Father, and substantial energy, and true Word. C And again, "The Son being one," he says, "the living Word, there must be one perfect and full sanctifying and illuminating life, being His energy and gift, which is said to proceed from the Father." Cyril likewise, also he: "If the Son is," he says, "the living and essential energy and power and wisdom of the Father, the Holy Spirit is also the energy of the Son." Energy is also called the natural power existing in each of the things that are, as heating in fire and cooling in snow. The result of the active power is also called energy, and work, and operation, just as the earth and the heavens and the things in them are works and energies of God. For the divine John of Damascus also says that energy and operation are called such, and conversely energy is the operation, just as creation is the creature; according to D which meaning we call the house the energy of the builder, and the ship that of the shipwright. Energy is also called the intervening temporal interval of the motion of the builder toward what is being built, and of the shipwright toward the ship; which being an accident in itself, and a certain relative mean of both extremes—that which is acting and that which is being acted upon—comes to an end with the end of the extremes, and is no longer anything; concerning which the divine theologian Gregory also said that it "will be energized, and will not energize, and at the same time with being energized it will cease," just as the vision between the seer and the seen, and the taste between the taster and the tasted.
Then, having added other meanings of energy, the philosopher—as he thinks, up to ten—some being taken from the theology of the saints for him, others being rather his own passing remarks phrasings and concepts, just as most of those he foresaw, which the discourse indeed leaves for us as a vain mob of words and nothing to the point, then he adds these: "The divine John of Damascus, philosophizing concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, as to how many meanings of energy there are, says: 'The power of the miracles of His divinity existed as energy. But the manual labor, and the willing, and the saying, "I will, be thou cleansed," existed as the energy of His humanity.' And the result of human energy is the breaking of the loaves, and the hearing of the leper; but of the divine energy it is the multiplication of the loaves and the cleansing of the leper."
And these things are from Gregoras. But it is necessary for us to ask him, and for what reason, O philosopher, do you not—while philosophizing, as you yourself said, concerning our Lord Jesus Christ and the energy according to Him—also discourse and write about this very thing according to those masters, this teacher from Damascus, and indeed the theologians with him and before him, whom you yourself cite in order after him? For the entire discourse is for us, and for the synod, and for the holy tome, concerning this, not concerning another; but you, as if strictly avoiding the immediate topics, engage in many circles, and busy yourself with equivocal terms, and introduce into the discourse that superfluous chatter, and those vain and useless divisions and explanations? But if you also wished to speak about every energy, as you say, both divine and human, and to instruct your companion, why did you not introduce into this logical struggle the aforesaid teacher, the divine John I mean, and furthermore his arguments concerning energy, and the divisions and the theology? For you would have seemed thus to be beyond all suspicion, and to be doing what is likely and according to reason. But now the complete opposite of that has happened to you from those arguments. And if it were not the very intention of that theologian to philosophize concerning divine energy, I mean, and to distinguish equivocal terms, and to divide the divine and the human, and the created and the uncreated energy from one another, and to say what is energy, and if it is a result, and what is active, and what is energizing, perhaps your arguments might have had some excuse. But now, the teacher looks to those things with all zeal, and making this the primary task of the rest, in those things, to instruct the Church of Christ not only through himself, but also through the theological and patristic arguments before him, and to stand against and refute those who speak in opposition, he does not even permit you to excuse yourself. For look: the teacher titles his own discourse concerning the energies that are in our Lord Jesus Christ, to which you yourself would not disagree, nor ever speak against; and having said much concerning divine and human energy throughout the whole discourse—for these are also the two energies of the one Christ, clearly, just as are the natures—nowhere [does he describe] the Son of God, or His consubstantial Spirit
A as an energy, having [it] from the first starting point as the Only-Begotten Son and consubstantial God, directly. You say, "The Son and Word of God is called an energy; the Holy Spirit is also called an energy." And following these, you introduce Athanasius and Cyril for testimony, supposedly, of your words. And where in previous times you were saying the Word of God was energy, and indeed exactly the same as essence and will, now, having changed, you say that the Son and the Holy Spirit are an energy of God, joining difficulty to difficulty and confusion to confusion, much darker and more unintelligible than those that preceded them.
For say: did the wise John know of an energy in places where it was spoken by the theologians B before him—the Son of God and the Spirit—or did he not know? And if you say the latter, you are speaking blasphemy directly against the common teacher of the Church, saying that he did not know those things about which he set out to teach; but if he did know, just as he did know, and no one ever having a mind will deny, why did he himself not also set these things forth according to you, even though he had also made the things proposed [here] the subject of his own discourse, and was considering the things concerning the energies of Christ, as he himself says? For either he was knowingly withholding those things from us, or he was anticipating those who had spoken them. But if even the devil would be ashamed to say such things against the teacher of the Church, as he is also far C from the goal and intention of that man—for what was proposed to him, and the discourse of the whole book, is to teach the Church of Christ the Gospel and apostolic theology and the faith from both the Old and New Scripture, and indeed also from the fathers and theologians before him, and to introduce nothing of his own into the holy dogmas, but having entrusted everything to them, to gather himself alone and to condense as much as possible the things spoken by them at length and sporadically, and thus to set them forth to those who love learning in a certain order and sequence, for he said these things as he was beginning the treatise—it is clear that neither through not knowing, nor through envying us or the theologians and teachers before him, nor indeed opposing himself and his own goal and words, did he omit those things, but [he left them out] as not D primarily belonging to the goal and discourse proposed to him, as the discourse going forward will show more clearly. For having placed before his own discourse the sixth of the holy Ecumenical Councils, and looking at it as an unerring goal, and indeed at the confessors and theological Fathers who, a little before and after that, uttered the same things regarding the same subjects, he thus gave forth the discourses regarding the wills and energies of Christ, lacking nothing, adding nothing, nor throwing anything whatsoever outside the goal and the discourse.
But since indeed you yourself, late and with difficulty and after you had brought everything from yourself to the discourse regarding energy as you wished, thought to mention this blessed man, come, let us also, having repeated the discourse a little, examine what you say concerning him and his words, and what he says in turn concerning himself and these matters laid before us, and thus we shall come to the things said to you regarding divine energy and the Ecumenical Council.
FURTHER TO THE FOURTH AND INDEED THE FIFTH DISCOURSE OF THIS SAME GREGORAS
DISCOURSE EIGHT
Concerning divine energy, that it is uncreated, and that the divine is not composite through this, but simple in nature.
The divine John of Damascus, philosophizing concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, as Gregoras says, "The power of his miracles, he says, was the energy of his divinity, but the manual operation, and the willing, and the saying, 'I will, be thou clean,' was the energy of his humanity; the result of the human energy was the breaking of the loaves, and the hearing of the leper; of the divine energy, the multiplication of the loaves and the cleansing of the leper." But the divine Cyril, according to the same Gregoras, says also this: "To walk, he said, with bodily feet and to speak through the tongue, happened to be the work of human nature, but to heal the limbs of the paralytic and to prepare the tongue of the deaf to speak were works of divine power. But neither one occurred without the other. For that things heterogeneous and of different natures should have the same energy, no one in his right mind would grant, but just as they have the definition of their essence B or quality separated, so also will they render a different energy." And these indeed are the words of the theologians, which Gregoras himself also brought forward in his discourse by himself. For us, before descending to his interpretations and the working out of the things said, it is necessary to discern that,
A how he does not treat of theological matters here rightly, nor with appropriate discourse, but obliquely and distortedly; and as one who does not seek after the truth nor the theological aim, but rather drags the rule toward himself, and compels the teacher to follow his own opinions and discourses.
For he, beginning immediately at the discourse concerning energy, says: “We speak of two energies in our Lord Jesus Christ. For he had, as God and consubstantial with the Father, the divine energy, and as having become man and consubstantial with us, the energy of human nature.” One must know B that energy is one thing, and the energetical another, and result another, and the one working another. Energy is the active and essential movement of the nature; the energetical is the nature from which the energy proceeds; the result is the product of the energy; and the one working is he who makes use of the energy, that is, the hypostasis. Energy is also called a result, and a result energy.
But he, having deliberately departed from this foundation and, so to speak, root and beginning of the subsequent discourses—as if they were finely distinguishing and clarifying each thing, namely, hypostasis and essence, and the energy proceeding essentially from these, and something else besides this, which is power, and the essential and active movement of it, and pointing out the use of this energy and its result—having passed by this pure and most clear and perfected theology concerning energy, and which is not able to cause confusion even to a child, as if it had not been spoken at the beginning nor even existed, he seems to touch upon some very small part of what follows; and having joined to this likewise some part of the things said by the divine Cyril concerning the energies and natures of Christ, as has been mentioned by us just before, and having placed them in parallel and so to speak clashing C with one another, he attempts through them to confuse and disturb these things, and to destroy the agreement of the theologians on both sides and their aim.
But let us see now his interpretation, and his arguments, and his elaborations. "From this point, Agathangelos," he says, "it becomes clear to you that Cyril calls actions what John Damascene calls energies, and what John calls the results of energy, these Cyril calls works of power." And elaborating, and, so to speak, summarizing, he says that John calls the powers of the miracles D that belong to the Godhead energies, and results and products, that is to say, the creations of God, as has been shown for us elsewhere at greater length through scriptural testimonies; but Cyril has called the aforementioned things works, and this he has proceeded to declare are energies, so that for him here, it is clear and indubitable that they are the same—works and energies—and that we may conclude through both and from both of the saints that the miracles themselves performed by Christ our God and Savior are, on the one hand, of uncreated and divine power and will, and, on the other, as of a man. Now, that the philosopher says and teaches here too that the natural energy of God and the power are products and creations of his energy, is not altogether something new, nor do I think it is outside of his usual practice. For these things have been seen from of old appearing in his thoughts and writings, and knowing God only essentially with Eunomius, stripped of all his natural properties, as if all things in him were counted among created things. It is not strange, therefore, nor new, as I said, if he wishes to establish his own ancestral opinion and the faith of Barlaam and Acindynus together with those who have been their disciples.
But what strikes me is not a little to be wondered at, especially now, is how shamelessly and impudently he leaps upon the common dogmas of the saints concerning God and their discourses, exactly as if he were in some Hyperborean regions, or even outside the Pillars of Hercules, and far somewhere from the inhabited world of ours, and from the common Church, and making his own discourses far from her sacred tablets and words! For tell us, O you who are wise in superfluous and alien things, how, when the God-bearing Damascene has introduced into the discourse the two natural energies of Christ properly corresponding to his two natures—I mean the divine and the human—and has shown the proper and corresponding ends and results of each—for the power of the miracles, he says, was the energy of his Godhead, and the result of this was the multiplication of the loaves and the healing of the leper, but the handling, and the willing, and the saying, "I will, be thou clean," was the energy of his humanity, of which, he says, the breaking of the loaves was the result, and the leper hearing—how, then, as I said, when the theologian brings those forward in conjunction, and separately posits the essential power of the nature, which he himself said at the beginning of the discourse was something else besides nature, and the active and essential movement of it, and separately its result—the end, namely, of the use made of this same natural power and energy in this case—the multiplication, as he says, of the loaves, and the healing of the leper—do you, as if some violator and tyrant of the theological discourses, confuse the division of that man and disturb it with your own words, acting so indecently without any mask and veil, only in order to make the natural energy of God a creature? For with that man having so brilliantly distinguished, and having theologized about the aforementioned things securely, you, like some strongly deaf man, and insensible of what is said by him, or even thinking to say and write your own things among such like people, call those things laughable, saying, "John calls the powers of the miracles energies of the Godhead, and also results and products, that is to say, creations of God," as if you were insensible and did not even know what you are saying. For what [is] new with the innate and essential movement and power of God and the creatures? Although indeed through these very things, the...
A divisions are set forth by you and those with you—both then and now—and [are] understood and spoken of; and just as you make divisions everywhere in your discourse regarding the natures, I mean, and those natural [properties], so too you do again regarding these very natural ones, and their own proper effects, so that no ignorance of duty and no error might arise in anyone due to homonyms.
Hear, then, the following [words] of the same teacher as well, I say. For by using a customary example for the theologians before him concerning the matters before him, he speaks somewhat thus: "And in the case of the red-hot sword, just as the natures of the fire and the iron are preserved, so also are the two energies and their effects. For the iron possesses the cutting [property], and the fire the burning [property]. And the cutting is the effect of the iron's energy, while the burning [is the effect] of the fire's." And after a little: "So too in Christ: the divine and omnipotent energy of his divinity, and the one according to us of his humanity; the effect of the human [energy] is the taking hold and drawing of the child's hand, while that of the divine is the giving of life. For this is one thing, and that is another, even if they exist inseparable from one another in the theandric energy."
B He is seen to have made the distinction, as he has indeed done once or twice before; but he also called the energy of Christ’s divine nature divine and omnipotent, not saying that it is entirely that nature itself, but rather its essential and innate movement and power, and one raised up and superior to the effects and creatures in the same measure that the divine and natural and omnipotent power of God—and energy, I mean according to this theologian—is [superior] to those brought from non-being into being by it.
And again, the same theologian [says] in the same places: "If providence over beings is not only of the Father and the Holy Spirit, but also of the Son, even after the incarnation, and if this is an energy, then it is also an energy to the Father after the incarnation. If we have known Christ as being from the miracles of the same essence to the Father, and the miracles happen to be an energy of God, then it is also an energy of the same [essence] to the Father after the incarnation." Note again here how the teacher calls God's providence over beings a divine energy, so that you might not suppose it to be that essence itself, nor a creature of God, but rather a movement and power essential to the nature. For this reason, Dionysius from the Areopagus called these natural energies not only processions and manifestations, and participations and self-participations, but he also called them providences and goodnesses, proceeding from God—who is unparticipated—in an abundant flow and overflowing C bounty.
And Athanasius the Great likewise calls the creative energy of God providence: "The Father and the Son do not operate," he says, "according to one providence and another, but according to one and the same essential energy of the divinity." On behalf of which the fifth of the ecumenical councils also spoke to those who hold the views of Origen, just as we have said before, that while God always had the power to create and to fashion, such power was "energized" because God willed [it], so that from these things and those, everyone who is a lover of true theology might learn—I say—that the essential and active power and movement and energy of God’s nature, which is uncreated and co-eternal and inseparable from the nature that causes [it] to flow, could never be rendered "created" by the usage in this or that creature or miracle at the appropriate time and reason for each.
For how could it depart from its own natural property, and this, indeed, not simply, but by going over to the complete opposite? For the same theologian Fathers say it is impossible for the energy of the uncreated nature to be created, just as [it is] for the uncreated [to be] of the created [nature] in any way. But the usage, as I said, of the divine energy around this or that object—either creating or, perchance, working miracles—both begins and ends; just as the great Gregory [the Theologian] said in theology: "If the Holy Spirit is an energy, according to some," he said, "it will be energized and will not energize, and along with being energized it will cease, [resulting in] this natural energy of God D being a mere interval and not a natural existence."
For A it is clear that it is impossible for nature either to exist or to be known without its natural energy. For by that through which each thing energizes, it confirms its proper nature, which is that which does not change. Let those around Gregoras hear this too, and let them learn that every energy is defined as the essential movement of any nature, and that no one knows of an energy that is not a movement existing from a natural power, and that there is no energy—nor nature—that is a mean between created and uncreated; and that natural energy does not belong to things external. B Understanding these things, let them put away those confused opinions and divisions about energy that are much encumbered with spurious matter, and those improper homonymies. For the Theologian, having said that every energy—and that no one knows any other energy besides that one, and that there is no mean between created and uncreated, and that that which exists by nature is not of things external—having secured his own argument from every side through divisions, definitions, and frequent negations and affirmations, has shown clearly to all that the natural energy of God is not simply a nature, nor is it a creature, but a god-fitting power, C and a natural, uncreated, eternal, infinite, and immutable movement, inseparable from the nature that causes it to spring forth, possessing a difference from its nature by concept alone, according to what has already been said many times to the theologians, the Fathers, and to us, who are their hearers. Therefore, we do not know of many uncreated things, nor many beginnings, nor many creative and providential powers—I speak according to those liars and slanderers of Christ’s Church—even if the theologians say that God’s natural energy and providence are all-working and almighty. But for us, D the God who is preached through these and in these, and the Creator and Maker of all, and Lord, is one, three-subsistent, active, willing, and almighty. And just as in the case of those who speak, we say that the speaker speaks, and his tongue speaks, and likewise the word also, though we do not for this reason say that there are many who speak the things spoken, but one who speaks—since indeed both the tongue and the word are naturally his, and it is one who speaks the things spoken through them, even if we should say that those things also speak, as has been said, the one as an instrument for the words to the speaker, and the word again as the speaker’s natural power, communicative of thoughts, and just as if we should speak of an eye and a mind, the one seeing and the other thinking, we do not deprive the mind of thinking, nor the eye of seeing, nor again for this reason do we say that those who see and think are two, but it is one mind that sees through the eyes and thinks through its own intellect—and likewise concerning the other senses and sensory faculties—so too, saying that God energizes and creates and is moved in a god-fitting way, and provides for his own, and saying likewise that his natural power and energy according to the theologians do these things, we do not for this reason say that there are two who energize, and create, and provide, but one.
Nor, according to the God-speaking Dionysius, do we say there are many causes, nor that there are others providing other godheads, superior and inferior, but that the all-good processions of the one God, and the divine names celebrated by us, are such. Concerning these, the God-bearing Maximus also says, as we have already stated, that "just as it is impossible for there to be being without existence, so it is impossible to energize without energy."
Such, then, are the things of the God-speaking Damascene—or rather, of the theologians and Fathers before him, of whom he was the appropriate and fitting mouthpiece—insofar as I have been able to examine them in part. But concerning Cyril, the wise teacher, whose usage Gregoras joined to that of the wise John, I say this: that he himself, if anyone is, is a theologian of divine and God-befitting things, especially concerning the natural things of God, and, I say, of the very energy of God, just as he has already taught us many other things, and especially that inspired statement of his about which we have spoken at length against Gregoras—which he brings forward against us in his Tome, as if it were our own and ill-spoken. For the great one, making his argument there against the Arians, says: "If to beget is the same as to create, the begetter will be the creator of that which is begotten, and the creator will be the begetter of that which is created. But to beget is of nature, while to create is of energy; and nature and energy are not the same. Therefore, to beget will not be the same as to create." Behold, for the teacher clearly showed not only the difference of energy with regard to the divine nature—saying, "Nature and energy are not the same"—but he also showed it to be a creative power of God; for, he says, "To create is of energy." What then? Because creating is an energy of God, is God not the creator, or are there two creators for this reason? Such things are nonsense and open mockery. For those who think regarding such matters in this way, and speak thus, could not easily say that God begets, or that there are two who beget—the essence, according to them, and God. For just as the God who begets is not only essence but also hypostasis, so he is not only essence, but also natural power and energy. And just as the things of his essence are not foreign to his hypostasis—for the one and the same God is this and that, and neither is essence without hypostasis, nor hypostasis again without essence, with each, clearly, keeping its own idion unconfused—so too the things of his essential energy and power are not foreign to the essence that naturally gushes them forth, since it is its natural and inseparable power, and through it, as being innate and essential, he energizes; and he himself is the one who energizes and creates, the one, trinitarian, and all-powerful God of his innate power and of his so-called energy. For one must somehow sound the same things about the same subjects often and frequently, because of those who are somewhat hard of hearing and contentious.
B But let us return again to the blessed Cyril, and to those things which the philosopher, having taken from him, brings forward against the energy of God and the Synodal Tome. "Walking," he says, with bodily feet, and speaking through the tongue, was a work of human nature; but to heal the limbs of the paralytic by a word, and to articulate the tongue of the deaf so that he might speak, were works of divine power. But neither occurred without the other. For no one in their right mind would grant that things different in kind and different in nature have the same energy; but just as they have a definition of essence or of quality that is distinct, so they will also attribute a distinct energy. What then does the philosopher say to these things as well, and how does he interpret this theological usage? Let us hear. For I myself have not yet chanced upon this logical passage in the books—I say, the writings—of the teacher, but I accept the argument for the time being according to the one who has recorded it. Speak therefore, O philosopher, and add your own.
"John," he says, "says that the powers of miracles are energies of divinity, and that accomplishments and the results of energies—which is to say the same thing, works of God—are as has been demonstrated to us in many other places by scriptural testimonies; but Cyril has declared those things which he previously called 'works' to be energies when proceeding forth; so that for him, too, it is clearly and undoubtedly the same thing here to call them 'works' and 'energies'; and he concludes for us that through both, and from both of the saints, those very miracles performed by Christ our God and Savior, are, on the one hand, from uncreated power and divine will, as God, and, on the other, exist as human energy, as man."
In truth, the philosopher, having calculated and concluded the sayings of the saints poorly, and very badly, has led the argument, as he supposed, where he wished. But the reality is quite the opposite, as we have already shown and shall, God willing, show again. And observe the haze poured over both his intellect and his words. For he announces, I say, the holy words of the theologians somewhat correctly here, insofar as the syllables and words go; then, wishing to collect and conclude from them, he makes his own conclusion not according to the true premises, but [constructs] a false and irrelevant one; or rather, he does not even set forth the premises themselves purely and unadulteratedly, but, bringing them forward in a confused and somewhat hucksterish fashion, he concludes relevantly. Listen: "John," he says, "says that the powers of miracles are energies of divinity, and that accomplishments and the results of energies—which is to say the same thing, works of God." And yet, O blessed one, he does not say so; but he said that the power of miracles was the energy of the divinity of Christ. And an accomplishment, he says, is this: the multiplication of the loaves, and the cleansing of the leper. An accomplishment, then, is not an energy and work of God
A that is, of the creatures—according to these energies, and the power of God; but rather this is of the nature of a thing and a creature. But whose energies are those, you say—the works of which are the powers of the miracles, and the energies of the Godhead—and which you declare are accomplishments and creations? For if you were speaking of these powers and energies, which you also call creatures, in the singular, as an energy and accomplishment, you would have seemed to be speaking of the essence of God—which you yourself acknowledge to be an uncreated energy—and, for the present part at least, you would have been in agreement with yourself. But now, by bringing them forward in the plural—for you spoke of "energies"—you cannot even say that here, nor can you be consistent with yourself; for the essences of God are not many, nor can you ever bring that forward in the plural, but only in the singular, unless indeed you claim that those energies of yours—of which the power and energy of God are, according to you, accomplishments and creations—are creatures. So that now, you must be saying that the divine energy itself is the essence of God, and now you must be blaspheming this same thing as an accomplishment and a creation—I do not know of what created energies you were speaking.
Do you see, O Gregoras, how, of your own will, you have wandered away from the true theology of the saints, so that you do not even perceive what you are saying or what you are writing? Indeed, you are clearly warring against yourself in these very words, being unable to preserve your own hypotheses and axioms, but even overthrowing and erasing them with full force, so that this, perhaps, is the only thing one might justly say: that you have thus also introduced the wise Cyril in the same way. When he says that walking with bodily feet and speaking through a tongue are works of human nature, but that to heal with a word the limbs of the paralyzed and to make the tongue of the deaf articulate to speak were works of divine power, you do not here understand the meaning of the words you read, nor the sense of what is said, even though it is so plainly set before you. For while he was theologizing that the God-befitting miracles of Christ are works of divine power, as we hear, he was speaking of the essential and natural power and energy of the Godhead of Christ—which, in the divine utterances of John B to which reference was made a little earlier, he called an accomplishment and creation of divine energies—and changing this now, he says it is the very essence of God, of which he says the miracles are the works and accomplishments, which he says the divine Cyril also speaks of again as energies of God. But I—if it were to ascend from the energies and creatures to the contemplation of the very essence of God, according to Eunomius and Gregoras—would have accepted his discourse, having little regard for the words. But now, the theologians and teachers of these things say that it is not so; but that from the creations, one is referred not to the essence, but rather to the wisdom and the creative power and energy of God. For the same divine Cyril says in the *Thesaurus*: "There is nothing acquired among the divine attributes; yet from the accomplishments, C indeed, God is seen, but not according to his essence." Have you heard the difference between created things and divine essence and energies, and that according to these energies God is seen from the creatures, but not according to his essence?
Hear also the great Basil teaching the same things about the same matters. "The creations," he says, "are indicative of power and wisdom and craft, but not of the essence itself; and they do not necessarily present the whole power of the Creator, as it is possible for the craftsman not to have deposited all his strength into the energies, but often to have used lesser intensity in the works of his craft." But if you were to exert the entire power upon the work, even so his strength would be measured by means of the works, and not his essence—whatever that might be—grasped. And again, the same one in the same works says: "It is likely that the essence itself is invisible to everyone except to the Only-Begotten and the Holy Spirit; but from the energies of God we are led upward, and by considering the creator through his creations, we receive the perception of his goodness and his wisdom. This, indeed, is that which is known of God, which God has manifested to all men."
But this Gregoras, having condemned these and suchlike things to vanity, as it seems, as if they had never been spoken by such men at all, and having set these two theologians—I mean John and Cyril—in conflict with one another, and having slandered their theology together, and having, as he thought, gathered a mutual analogy from their words—for he even wrote his work in such a way—he fashions the essential and natural power and energy of God into a creature of God, and says that from this creature one proceeds to the essence of God, according to Eunomius. But we, overturning his false and absurd analogy with the sound word of truth, say, in accordance with the divine Fathers, that the power which the blessed John called the power of the miracles of Christ and the energy of his Godhead, this same thing the wise Cyril also called divine power—that is to say, the essential and natural power and movement D and energy of the Godhead—concerning which the wise John says: "We knew Christ to be of the same essence as the Father from the miracles; and the miracles, he says, happen to be an energy of God." And the inspired Cyril says: "No one in his right mind would grant that heterogenous and heterophyletic things have the same energy; but just as they have the definition of the essence—that is, of the quality—distinct, so also will they render the energy distinct." He is all but saying what the wise John, together with the divine Maximus, had already said about the same things: "By the energy," he says, "each nature is characterized, the uncreated energy showing an uncreated nature, and the created energy showing a created one," and that natural things must be appropriate to the natures.
A Thus, the wise John, as we said, spoke of the power and divine energy of the wonders of Christ, and the holy Cyril called this divine power and energy appropriate to the divine nature. And the divine John spoke of the effect of the divine energy, which the wise Cyril called the works of divine power. And thus, being in analogy and agreeing with each other and with the oracles from which they have sprung, the venerable theologians Cyril and John appear most excellently, and they turn away from the empty philosopher’s empty analogies, and his discordant harmonies and slanders.
B But if this philosopher, objecting, should say: "And how do both the wise Cyril and the great Athanasius call the Son and the Spirit the energy of God—which has already been demonstrated to me through their words?" let this same Gregoras come forward and resolve his own doubt. For we, having brought forward John the Syrian, who has wonderfully collected and recapitulated both the words of those men and those of all the theologians together, along with his own theology—and having demonstrated that he made this very thing a treatise, namely, to speak about every divine and human energy—we have found him nowhere, as yet, in that place calling the Son of God or the Holy Spirit an "energy," according to the philosopher’s word. He himself, therefore, as I said, would be the one justly responsible for resolving his own perplexity before others. Or rather, he has already done his entire business, having incited the theologians against each other and clashed them together as is his custom, and having destroyed them by means of each other, and their god-befitting theology, as far as it depended on him; but we, God willing, shall shortly resolve this too, together with the theologian Fathers.
Now it is necessary to look before all else toward the holy ecumenical council; for indeed, it is that which is the primary subject of the present argument, and the Tome of our synod originates more from it; and moreover, Gregoras himself seems to touch upon part of it, although he has left out the whole of it except for a little bit, and this, I think, compelled by necessity, since we did not sufficiently touch upon its words in what preceded, nor did we bring forward the thefts, the misinterpretations, and the discords of Gregoras concerning it. Gregoras says, therefore—bringing forward the things of the Tome, as is his custom, against the Tome itself—"For from the Acts of that sixth holy council," he says, "another expression was brought forward, having text as follows: C And behold his shamelessness and his lack of intellect, how, while stealing sacred things publicly, he does not at all feel shame before those who see it, nor does he even cover up his shame with some darkness and concealment, as is the custom of thieves. For if another expression was brought forward from the Acts of the holy council," says the Tome, "as you yourself say, it is evident that yet another one, far greater than this one and many times larger, was brought forward by the Tome, which you, having badly cut off, have hidden in its entirety, which will be brought forth to your disgrace and triumph over your lies and your slander."
As for the present matter, speak and bring forward the things of the Tome, just as you yourself wish. "We know," it says, "the energy of each nature—I mean the essential, natural, and appropriate one, passing through indivisibly from each essence and nature, in accordance with the natural and essential quality implanted in it, and the energy which is simultaneously inseparable and unconfused, accompanying the other essence." For this also makes the difference of the energies in Christ, just as it makes the differences of the natures of the natures. D And after a few things, "Proceeding," says Gregoras—meaning the Tome and those who set it forth—"he infers the conclusion of such Acts, holding the definition, and says that the teaching of the holy Fathers decreed to proclaim in Christ two natural wills, not opposed, but his human will following and not resisting or struggling against, but rather being subjected to his divine and all-powerful will."
These being read, those who were opposing were like the deaf, asserting that the divine and uncreated essence and its divine and uncreated energy are in every way indifferent. Gregoras, therefore, having thus badly attacked the things of the definition, just as also those before him, and having taken only the final part of the expression from it, and having thrown away the most of it, and not even mentioning it, thereafter proceeds to his friendly misinterpretations and the customary blasphemy and slanders against them and against us. But for me, since I am easily able—from the very portions he has taken from there—to prove him to be a liar, a slanderer, and a blasphemer of the Divinity, for which that holy council once condemned him—it appears necessary to bring forth all those things of the holy council to the argument first, even if the argument is somewhat long, and to show this accuser of piety now to be, if ever, willingly acting wickedly and acting maliciously, and extending his own god-fighting and blasphemy into something truly unforgivable.
The Tome of our holy synod says, therefore: "Upon these things, an expression of the Acts was read, having text as follows: 'For who, even if he were slow to understand, will not perceive—which is apparent to all—that it is impossible, and contrary to the order of nature, for there to be a nature and it not to have the energy of that nature? Which was never approved to be said even by the heretics, who invented all human villainies and crooked questions against the correctness of the faith, and assemblies appropriate to their own depravities. How, then, that which was never spoken by the holy Fathers, nor dared to be found by the profane heretics, will be able to be recklessly asserted at present, in order to prove that, of the two natures of Christ—that is, the divine and the human, whose properties are known to be intact in Christ—[he has] one energy, who ever thinking rightly will be able to prove?'"
A But the tokens of victory and the prizes will thus be proclaimed openly with us; and no one of all men—unless his brain is disordered, or he is otherwise warped in his judgment—will gainsay it. B But since the writer of those anti-rhetorical discourses, having torn from there—without any blushing—the second statement of the aforementioned holy Synod which lies next in the Tome, dares to write and speak and contradict against it, it would be just for us to venture upon the same things again, and, having brought those things into our discourse, to look subsequently at Gregoras, his misinterpretations, and the accusations against us.
For if one says that it is one, whether temporal or eternal, divine or human, uncreated or created, is it the same which also belongs to the Father, or is it another besides the Father? If, then, it is one and the same, it is common to the divinity and the humanity of Christ; which is absurd to say. Therefore, when the Son of God, the same being God and man, performed human acts on earth, the Father likewise performed them with Him. Since whatever the Father does, these the Son also does in like manner; for whatever the truth contains, in as much as Christ performed certain human acts, it is referred back to His person alone as Son; which things are not the same as those of the Father. For it is evident that Christ performed one thing in one way and another in another, in order that according to the divinity what the Father does, the Son might also do in like manner, and according to the humanity, which are proper to man, this same one acted as man; since He is truly both God and man. Whence it is also truly believed that this same One, being one, has natural energies—the divine, that is to say, and the human, the uncreated and the created—as true and perfect God, true and perfect man, one and the same mediator of God and men, the Lord Jesus Christ.
This whole divinely-inspired theology concerning the energies of Christ, so broad and clear and precise in all respects, which purely divides the divine energy from the divine essence and from creatures, and explicitly proclaims in the words themselves its God-befitting and uncreated nature—even though it was spoken of at such length and in such detail—Gregoras appears to have passed over in total silence. And since he could not even approach or touch upon the argument, he proclaims his own defeat to all by his silence regarding it, while, against his will, he proclaims the bright and manifest victory and power of the Synod and the Tome, and shows by the very facts themselves that what he says and writes in his assumed opposition are toys of children playing in the sand, who likewise deceive or amuse children, not men who have a sound mind and uphold a true account. But that word of truth is alone, which, as the blessed Paul says, is not bound; so neither does it play nor is it played with, but rather it sees those in whom the divine and most exalted things may reside, leading them up from the flesh to the Spirit, and making participants of the mysteries of God those who partake of it. Whence it also seemed that the argument concerning the matters at hand should stop for me here, and that I should already stay my hand from further efforts. For what indeed would one investigate further, and say and write and debate, when the one who is debating flees the contest and the stadium, and thus most shamefully deserts the peak of the struggle, and drags down upon himself not only the ballots and the judge from above, but also the mockery, the sarcasms, and the rightful laughter of all the spectators together?
Therefore, the Tome says again: "And again from the same Acts another statement was brought forward, having on its face [the following]: 'The energy of each nature we know to be each one—I mean the essential and natural and proper energy, proceeding indivisibly from each essence and nature, according to the natural and essential quality inborn in it, and the energy that is at once indivisible and unconfused, which follows the other essence.' For this also makes the difference of the energies in Christ, just as [it makes] the being of the natures of the natures."
And this much Gregoras likewise adds in his own writings; but what follows these—the definition which belongs to that blessed Synod—has experienced almost the same thing as the aforementioned [passages] at his hands; except for the fact that he has passed over those things entirely in silence, as I myself have already said; while these things of the definition he has cut up and torn apart, and has consigned some of them to silence and oblivion, while taking others from there, he joined them to the aforementioned, just as has been said by us in what precedes; the distortion and the cutting of which will be exposed most clearly by the healthy [texts] of the definition provided by us here now.
The Tome says, therefore, again: "But the definition sought by them, when read, possessed on its face as follows: 'The present holy and ecumenical Synod, having faithfully received and embraced with open hands the report made by the most blessed and most holy Pope of elder Rome, Agatho, to our most pious Emperor. And after some [lines]: Following also the five holy and ecumenical synods, and the holy and approved Fathers, and concordantly defining, it confesses our Lord Jesus Christ to be our true God, the one of the holy and consubstantial and life-creating Trinity, perfect in divinity, and the same [to be] perfect in humanity, in all things like unto us without sin, begotten before the ages from the Father according to the divinity, but in the last days the same for us and for our salvation [born] of the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin, who is truly Theotokos according to the humanity, one and the same Christ the Lord, the only-begotten, known in two natures, unconfusedly, unchangeably, inseparably, indivisibly, in no way is the difference of the natures taken away on account of the union,
A but rather is the property of each nature preserved, and they run together into one person and one subsistence, not being divided or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son, only-begotten, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets from of old taught us about Him, and Christ Himself taught us, and the symbol of the holy Fathers delivered to us, and we likewise proclaim in Him two natural wills, that is to say volitions, and two natural energies, indivisibly, unchangeably, inseparably, unconfusedly, according to the teaching of the saints. And [we proclaim] two natural wills, not contrary—God forbid, as the impious heretics have said—but his human will following, and not opposing or struggling against, but rather even being subjected to, His divine and all-powerful will. And these things are from the Tome of our synod, having taken them from the ecumenical synod. But Gregoras, desiring to imitate those thieves of the proverb, when he ought, after his irrational audacity against this synod, to take cover and hide, and to tremble at and fear the refutations, he, through the excess of shamelessness and boldness—or, to speak more appropriately, of insensibility—thinks he must also accuse and make further attacks, and complain of an alteration of a word, as he himself says, or of the falling away or omission of a syllable. Even though, in the aforementioned [texts], that a word should be changed or a syllable slip out—as he himself says—either by forgetfulness or by the haste of those transcribing the sacred phrases, or by the difference of the archetypes, is nothing new or unusual, so long as the purpose of the discourse and the intention of those who originally composed it are none the less preserved. For what, in regard to the purpose of the discourse, could be considered contrary, if the Tome—as Gregoras says—set forth "energy" instead of "synergy," having found it so in others of the archetypal notebooks? For it is indeed the same thing to speak of the synergy of the other essence, which carries with it the other essence in Christ, coming together into His one subsistence and energy; so that he who goes through these things, because of the similarity and indifference of the meaning, might be ignorant of which of these things those who spoke and wrote them from the beginning truly meant. Let there be, therefore, instead of "energy"—according to Gregoras—"synergy," and let the article "the" be added or be placed before the word of the other, as he says. We do not dispute with him over these things, whether it be one way or the other. But the fact that he dares, with such a soul and tongue, to attack this holy ecumenical synod and the dogmas of the faith, and to drive away from the assembly all that theology of the Fathers, spoken by the divine Spirit, save for a few things, this now surpasses those who formerly held the views of Marcion by a great distance, in that they occupied themselves with syllables and words alone, and by this attempted to corrupt the holy Scriptures, as those who have examined their works say; but Gregoras thus [removes] whole pages together, and clauses, and long passages, B of the dogmas, which I have spoken of, shamelessly casting them out, and by this act he has surpassed Acindytus, that successor of Barlaam, and the second leader of the heresy, by a great distance.
But of these things, enough for the present time. Now, however, we must come to the explanations and the unfolding, as he himself says, of the sacred utterances, and we must also come to that of the philosopher. Come, he says, and let us also render the pious meaning in sequence, and in its entirety, following it. It holds thus: "We know the energy, he says, of each of the two natures, that is to say, we know the two energies of the natures of Christ, that of the divinity and that of the humanity; but to say the same thing, one [energy] which is simple and uncompounded and uncreated, and another which is created and composite." And since that which constitutes each essence is also called "essential," and likewise that which constitutes each nature is "natural"—whence the Son and Word of God is called "essential" and "ensouled" according to the great Athanasius—consequently and fittingly, therefore, we know the simple essence and nature to be uncreated, and its energy to be simple and one, just as it was before the incarnation; and it certainly was and pre-existed, simple and one and self-energetic. And since He was unchangeable, He remained, therefore, also after the incarnation, just as He was, simple and one and an uncreated self-energy, and not one thing by essence and another by energy. For this has been proven many times, that in that simple and divine nature, no duality or difference can be known. For how can that which is in every way one have difference and opposition towards itself? Fittingly, therefore, we apply to that simple and divine nature the being of the uncreated [energy], both to be conceived and to be called an energy, and to the composite and human nature [we apply] the having of a created and visible energy, whence we also know it proceeds indivisibly from each essence and nature, proportionately rendering its progression and manifestation into the miracles that appear, according to the divine Apostle, who states that to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
Hear the laughter-worthy and foolish explanation of this wise—or rather, of this sophist and deceiver. For he appears to have wretchedly perished not only of the true and primary wisdom, but even of the lower, servile, and ministering wisdom. For the holy ecumenical synod of the Fathers says: "We know the energy of each of the two natures, I mean the essential and natural and appropriate one, proceeding indivisibly from each essence and nature," and all the rest, as we have already said; but he, desiring neither to accept and believe the things well and divinely spoken, nor daring to openly cross out the heralds of the word of truth, attempts to blot out the most simple and clear and manifest truth with, as he claims, explanations and distorted interpretations, uttering those ridiculous things. The
965 ἑκατέρας γὰρ, φησί, φύσεως ἑκατέραν ἴσμεν ἐνέργειαν· ἤγουν τῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ φύσεων δύο τὰς ἐνεργείας γινώσκομεν, τῆς τε θεότητος καὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος. Εἶτα μεταξὺ περὶ οὐσιώδους εἰπὼν καὶ φυσικοῦ, καὶ τὸν Υἱὸν αἰνιξάμενος τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὴν φυσικὴν εἶναι ταύτην ἐνέργειαν, ὡς οὐσιῶδές τι καὶ φυσικὴν, εἴτουν συστατικὸν τῆς οὐσίας τε καὶ τῆς φύσεως, ὡς αὐτός φησιν, ἀλλ' οὐχ ὡς οὐσίαν ζῶσαν καὶ τελείαν ὑπόστασιν, καὶ τὸν μέσον ὅρον ἐντεῦθεν κακῶς εἰληφώς, τῶν ὁμωνύμων πως ὄντα, καὶ συλλογισάμενος οὕτως, ὡς ᾤετο, ψευδὲς ἐπήγαγε τὸ συμπέρασμα, συναγαγὼν οὕτωσί· Καταλλήλως ἄρα καὶ ἁρμοζόντως γινώσκομεν τὴν μὲν ἁπλῆν οὐσίαν καὶ φύσιν ἄκτιστον εἶναι καὶ ἁπλῆν καὶ μίαν ἐνέργειαν. Καὶ μετ' ὀλίγον· Καὶ οὐκ ἄλλη μὲν κατ' οὐσίαν, ἄλλη δὲ κατ' ἐνέργειαν. Καὶ μετὰ βραχύ· Πῶς γὰρ τὸ πάντη ἓν διαφορὰν ἕξει πρὸς ἑαυτὸ καὶ ἐναντιότητα, τῇ δὲ συνθέτῳ καὶ ἀνθρωπίνῃ φύσει τὸ κτιστὴν καὶ ὁρατὴν ἔχειν ἐνέργειαν;
B Καὶ τί τούτων ἡμῖν ἔδει, φιλόσοφε, τῶν συλλογισμῶν τε καὶ παραλογισμῶν, ἐξὸν αὐτόθεν τὴν τῆς πίστεως λόγον λαβεῖν εὐαγγελικῶς τε καὶ ἁπλῶς, ἀλλ' οὐκ ᾿Αριστοτελικῶς τε καὶ σοφιστικῶς, μᾶλλον δ' ἀσόφως οἰκειότερον εἰπεῖν, ἐκτεθειμένον; Εἰ γὰρ καὶ ᾿Αριστοτέλης αὐτὸς ἐκεῖνος ὁ σὸς διδάσκαλος παρῆν, καὶ τῶν σῶν λόγων τε καὶ παραλογισμῶν τούτων ἤχους, πληγῶν ἂν εἶπε δεῖσθαι καὶ σέ, ἐπειδὴ καὶ τοῖς μὴ λόγῳ καὶ ἀποδείξει κατὰ σὲ πειθομένοις οὕτως εὖ ποιῶν ἐκεῖνος ἐδίκασεν. Οἱ μὲν γὰρ τῆς οἰκουμενικῆς ταύτης συνόδου Πατέρες, οὐ περὶ διαφορᾶς τῶν Χριστοῦ φύσεων καὶ ἑνώσεως ὑποστατικῆς συνιόντες τότε, οὐδὲ γὰρ τὸν ἀντιλέγοντα τούτοις οὐδαμῶς εἶχον, πάντων ἐπίσης τὰ Νεστορίου τε καὶ Διοσκόρου καὶ Εὐτυχοῦς μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς σφοδρότητος ἀποστρεφομένων, ἀλλὰ περὶ θελημάτων μᾶλλον καὶ ἐνεργειῶν τῶν ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ τοῦ ἀγῶνος αὐτοῖς ὄντος, τούτοις καὶ γὰρ ἦσαν οἱ σφοδρῶς πολεμοῦντες, ἁπλῶς οὕτω καὶ δίχα συλλογιστικῶν ἐφόδων τε καὶ κατασκευῶν δύο τὰς φυσικάς τε καὶ οὐσιώδεις ἐνεργείας εἶπον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καταλλήλως ἑκατέραν ἐξ ἑκατέρας αὐτοῦ προϊοῦσαν οὐσίας καὶ φύσεως κατὰ τὴν ἐμπεφυκυῖαν αὐτῇ φυσικὴν καὶ οὐσιώδη ποιότητα· καὶ ὅτι ἀδύνατον καὶ παρὰ τὴν τάξιν φύσεώς ἐστι τὸ εἶναι D φύσιν, καὶ ἐνέργειαν μὴ ἔχειν φύσεως, ὅπερ οὔτε ἀπὸ τῶν αἱρετικῶν, φησίν, ἐδοκιμάσθη ποτὲ λέγεσθαι, πλὴν τῶν Μονοθελητῶν ἐκείνων, καὶ μετ' ἐκείνους τε καὶ σὺν ἐκείνοις ᾿Ακινδύνου τε καὶ τοῦ Γρηγορᾶ τούτου. Κατ' ἄλλο γάρ, φησί, καὶ ἄλλο δηλονότι ἐνήργησεν ὁ Χριστός· ἐπειδὴ ἀληθής ἐστι καὶ Θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος. Ὅθεν καὶ ἀληθῶς πιστεύεται ὅτι ὁ αὐτὸς οὗτος, εἷς ὢν ἔχει φυσικὰς ἐνεργείας, τὴν θείαν δηλονότι καὶ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην, τὴν ἄκτιστον καὶ τὴν κτιστήν, ὡς ἀληθινὸς καὶ τέλειος Θεός, ἀληθινὸς καὶ τέλειος ἄνθρωπος. Σὺ δὲ πᾶσι τούτοις φανερῶς ἀντιλέγων ὁμοῦ, καὶ μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς ἀναισχυντίας ἀντικείμενος, πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀτόποις κἀκεῖνο σὺν τοῖς Μονοθελήταις ἐκείνοις παρρησιαζόμενος λέγεις; ὅτι ἐπὶ τῆς ἁπλῆς ἐκείνης καὶ θείας φύσεως οὐ δύναται διπλόη τις γνωστῆναι καὶ διαφορά. Πῶς γάρ, φῄς, τὸ πάντη ἓν διαφορὰν ἕξει πρὸς ἑαυτὸ καὶ ἐναντιότητα, τὴν κατ' ἐπίνοιαν παρὰ τῶν θεολόγων ῥηθεῖσαν διάκρισιν καὶ διαφοράν τῆς θείας ἑνώσεως, ἤτοι τῆς θείας οὐσίας πρὸς τὴν θείαν φύσιν, στάσιν τινὰ καὶ μάχην καὶ ἐναντιότητα τοῦ ἑνὸς δοξάζων· κακῶς πρὸς ἑαυτή; ὅπερ τότε μὲν οἱ Μονοθελῆται, περὶ τῶν δύο θελημάτων τε καὶ ἐνεργειῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὡς ἀλλήλοις ἀντικαθισταμένων δῆθεν καὶ ἀντιπαλαιόντων, κακῶς φρονοῦντες ἐξηλέγχθησάν τε καὶ ἀπεβλήθησαν. Ὁ δὲ Γρηγορᾶς νῦν, πολλῷ χεῖρον καὶ ἀτοπώτερον ἐπὶ τῆς θείας φύσεως καὶ τῆς θείας αὐτῆς ἐνεργείας ὑπενόησε καὶ ἐδίδαξεν. Εἶτα καὶ μετ' Εὐνομίου τοῦ πάλαι νομοθετῶν ὡσανεὶ καὶ αὐτός, καὶ διαιτῶν τῇ θεότητι, καθάπερ ἐκεῖνος περὶ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἔλεγεν, ὅτι μὴ ὄντα φαμὲν γεγενῆσθαι τὸν Υἱόν, τῇ δὲ τοῦ ποιήσαντος γνώμῃ τὴν διαφορὰν τοῖς πᾶσιν ὁρίζομενοι, τοσαύτην αὐτῷ νέμομεν τὴν ὑπεροχήν, ὅσην ἔχειν ἀναγκαῖον τῶν ἰδίων ποιημάτων τὸν ποιητήν, οὕτω καὶ Γρηγορᾶς ἐνταῦθά φησι, Καταλλήλως οὖν ἐφαρμόζομεν τῇ μὲν ἁπλῇ ἐκείνῃ καὶ θείᾳ φύσει τὸ ἄκτιστον εἶναί τε καὶ νοεῖσθαι καὶ λέγεσθαι ἐνέργειαν, τῇ δὲ συνθέτῳ καὶ ἀνθρωπίνῃ φύσει τὸ κτιστὴν καὶ ὁρατὴν ἔχειν ἐνέργειαν, ὡς εἶναι τοὺς μὲν πάλαι Μονοθελήτας, τὴν ἀνθρωπείαν τοῦ Χριστοῦ φύσιν ἀρνουμένους, φυσικὴν λέγειν ἔχειν ἐνέργειαν, ᾿Ακίνδυνον δὲ καὶ Γρηγορᾶν τουτονὶ τὴν θείαν μηδαμῶς λέγειν φύσιν φυσικὴν ἔχειν ἐνέργειαν, ἀλλ' αὐτὴν ἐκείνην μᾶλλον ἐνέργειαν πεφυκέναι τὴν φύσιν, ὃ δὴ καὶ ὁ τῆς καθ' ἡμᾶς συνόδου τόμος ἤδη περὶ αὐτῶν εἴρηκεν, οὐ θεολογικήν τινα μαρτυρίαν προβαλλομένων, οὐ τὴν οἰκουμενικὴν ταυτηνὶ προϊσταμένων τοῦ λόγου σύνοδον, τοὺς τεχνίτας φημὶ καὶ ἀγωνιστὰς καὶ λαμπροὺς τοῦ δόγματος κήρυκας, ἀλλὰ τὰ τῆς πεπλανημένης αὐτῶν δόξης καὶ φαντασίας ὥσπερ ἀξιώματά τινα τῆς μεγάλης ἡμῶν προβαλλόντων πίστεως. Καταλλήλως καὶ γάρ, φησίν, ἐφαρμόζομεν τῇ ἁπλῇ ἐκείνῃ καὶ θείᾳ φύσει τὸ ἄκτιστον εἶναί τε καὶ νοεῖσθαι καὶ λέγεσθαι ἐνέργειαν, ὥσπερ αὐτοκράτωρ τις καὶ τύραννος αὐτοχειροτόνητος τῶν τοιούτων. Καὶ ὅρα καὶ τὴν τῆς ἀναισθησίας ἑξῆς καὶ ἀνοίας κατασκευήν, καὶ ᾗ συγκεφαλαιοῖ τὸν τῆς δυσσεβείας λόγον κακῶς. Ὅθεν καὶ ἀδιαιρέτως, φησίν, προϊοῦσαν ἴσμεν ἐξ ἑκατέρας οὐσίας καὶ φύσεως ἀναλόγως αὐτήν, εἰς τὰ φαινόμενα θαύματα ποιουμένην τὴν πρόοδον καὶ φανέρωσιν. Καὶ εἰ μία καὶ ἡ αὐτή ἐστιν ἡ θεία οὐσία καὶ ἡ θεία ἐνέργεια, φιλόσοφε, καὶ ἐν πάντη καὶ ἀδιάφορον, καὶ οὐδαμῶς οὐδὲ κατ' οὐδένα τινὰ λόγον ἐστὶν ἄλλο οὐσία καὶ ἄλλο ἐνέργεια, ὡς αὐτὸς ἤδη διὰ πολλῶν πᾶσι τοῖς ἁγίοις καὶ δὴ καὶ τῇ συνόδῳ ταύτῃ τῇ ἱερᾷ κακῶς ἀντικαθιστάμενος κατεσκεύασας, ἐκ ποίας οὐσίας αὖθις καὶ φύσεως ἡ οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ πρόεισι; Μὴ καὶ οὐσίας αὐτὸς πολλάς τινας καὶ διαφόρους ἔχεις τοῦ
τοῦ Θεοῦ λέγειν, καὶ διὰ ταῦτα τὴν οὐσίαν ταύτην, ἣν δὴ D εἴη τοῦ κινουμένου κίνησις καὶ ἐνέργεια; Ἢ μὲν γὰρ καὶ ἐνέργειαν τοῦ Θεοῦ δοξάζεις, ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας φῂς προϊέναι τοῦ Θεοῦ; Ὁρᾶτε πῶς οὐκ οἶδεν ἃ λέγει, οὐδὲ τῶν αὐτὸς αὑτοῦ διανοημάτων τε καὶ ῥημάτων αἰσθάνεται, ὃ δὴ καὶ αὐτὸς εἶπεν ἤδη πολλάκις;
Λαμβάνει μὲν γὰρ ἐκεῖθεν ἔστιν οὗ, καὶ χρῆται ταῖς θεολογικαῖς λέξεσιν, ἵνα καὶ δόξῃ τἀκείνων λέγειν, καὶ τοῖς δόγμασιν ἐκείνων συνηγορεῖν· τοῖς δ' ἑαυτοῦ λογισμοῖς καὶ τῇ διεφθαρμένῃ διανοίᾳ προσάγειν ἐκεῖνα καὶ συντιθέναι πειρώμενος, ἐπεὶ μὴ συνιέναι ταυτὶ μηδαμῶς ἀλλήλοις μηδ' ἐνοῦσθαι μηδὲ συμπλέκεσθαι πέφυκεν, οὐ μᾶλλον ἢ χρυσὸς καθαρὸς ὀστράκου φύσει, καὶ ἄργυρος τιτάνῳ, καὶ πίττῃ χαλκός, ἐκείνοις τε τοῖς θείοις κακῶς ἐνασελγαίνων ὑβρίζει, καὶ τὸν οἰκεῖον περιφανῶς ἀνατρέπει σκοπόν, οὐδ' αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ γοῦν συμφωνῶν, ὥσπερ καὶ ὅταν ἐνέργειαν λέγῃ τὸ χρονικὸν διάστημα τὸ μεταξὺ τοῦ ποιοῦντος καὶ τοῦ ποιουμένου ἐν ταῖς περὶ ἐνεργείας σοφαῖς αὐτοῦ διαιρέσεσι. Διαιρῶν καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖ τὴν τῆς ἐνεργείας φωνὴν ὡς ὁμώνυμον, καθάπερ ἠκούσαμεν, τὴν μὲν τοῦ θείου Δαμασκηνοῦ διαίρεσιν, ἣν ἐκεῖνος μετὰ τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ τοῦ Πνεύματος θείας σοφίας, ὑψηλῶς δηλαδὴ καὶ θείως, πεποίηται, παρῆκεν, ὡς οὐδὲν αὐτῷ συμβαλλομένην πρὸς τὸν σκοπόν· τὴν δ' αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ φέρων διαίρεσιν ἀντεισήγαγε.
Καὶ πρῶτον μὲν εὐθὺς ἐν τῇ διαιρέσει τῆς ἐνεργείας σημαινόμενον τέθεικε τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, περὶ οὗ δὴ καὶ ἡμῖν εἰρήσεται· εἶτα μετὰ δύο καὶ τρία, Λέγεται, φησίν, ἐνέργεια καὶ τὸ μεταξὺ χρονικὸν διάστημα τῆς κινήσεως, τοῦ τε οἰκοδόμου πρὸς τὸ οἰκοδομούμενον, καὶ τοῦ ναυπηγοῦ πρὸς τὸ πλοῖον· ὃ καὶ συμβεβηκὸς ὂν καθ' αὑτό, καὶ σχετική τις μεσότης τῶν ἄκρων ἀμφοῖν, τοῦ τε ἐνεργοῦντος καὶ τοῦ ἐνεργουμένου, συγκαταλήγει τῇ τῶν ἄκρων λήξει, καὶ οὐκέτι οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδέν. Ἐκ δὲ ταύτης τῆς οἰκείας θέσεως, ὥσπερ ἀπό τινος ἀξιώματος κειμένου, καὶ πᾶσιν ὡσαύτως δοκοῦντος, ὁρμώμενος ὁ φιλόσοφος, καὶ σχέσει καὶ μὴ ὂν ἐδόξασε κακῶς τὴν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὅταν μὴ πρὸς τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτὴν ἐκείνην, φησίν, ἀναφέρηται, ὅταν μὴ ταυτόν τι καὶ ἀδιάφορον πάντη, οὐσία Θεοῦ δηλονότι καὶ ἐνέργεια, λέγηται. Καὶ τὸν θεολόγον εἰσάγει Γρηγόριον περὶ τῆς ῥηθείσης αὐτῷ ταύτης ἐνεργείας, ἤτοι τοῦ χρονικοῦ διαστήματος τῆς τοῦ ποιοῦντος κινήσεως, ὡς αὐτός φησιν, Ἐνεργηθήσεται, λέγοντα, καὶ οὐκ ἐνεργήσει, καὶ ὁμοῦ τῷ ἐνεργηθῆναι παύσεται.
Ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τοῦ θεολογικοῦ τουτουὶ ῥητοῦ, καὶ ὅπως καὶ κατὰ τίνος ἐχρήσατο τούτῳ σημαινομένου τῆς ἐνεργείας ὁ θεῖός φημι Γρηγόριος, ἐν τοῖς φθάσασιν ἤδη παρ' ἡμῶν δέδεικται· νῦν δ' ἀναγκαῖον τοῦ διαλεκτικοῦ καὶ κενοῦ δογματιστοῦ τουτουὶ πυθέσθαι, πῶς τὸ μεταξὺ χρονικὸν διάστημα τῆς κινήσεως τοῦ ποιοῦντος πρὸς τὸ ποιούμενον, συμβεβηκὸς ὄν, ὡς αὐτός φησι, καθ' αὑτό, ἐνέργεια λέγεται. Τὸ γὰρ χρονικὸν διάστημα, φιλόσοφε, πῶς ἂν B οὐ τῶν ἐκτός, ἀλλ' ἐκ τῆς φύσεως, καὶ δραστικὴ καὶ οὐσιώδης ἐστὶ ταύτης κίνησις, καὶ φυσικόν, καὶ ἀδιαίρετον καὶ ἀχώριστον, καθὰ δήπου τῶν θεολόγων λεγόντων ἤκουσας, τούτοις δὲ καὶ τῷ χρόνῳ τὸ κοινόν, κατὰ τὸν τοῦ εἶναι λόγον· εἰ μὴ ἄρα καὶ τὸ χρονικὸν διάστημα τοῦ γεννῶντος πρὸς τὴν γέννησιν τὴν κύησιν εἶναι λέγεις αὐτήν, καὶ τοῦ σπείροντος καὶ τοῦ φυτεύοντος τὸν μεταξὺ πρὸς τὸ φυτευόμενον καὶ τὸ σπειρόμενον χρόνον αὐτὴν τὴν σπορὰν καὶ τὴν φυτείαν εἶναι φῇς. Ἀλλὰ ψεῦδος ταῦτα καὶ ἀπάτη καὶ σόφισμα, μηδὲ προσωπεῖον γοῦν τι περιφέροντα· ἐν χρόνῳ μὲν γὰρ ἐκεῖνα, χρόνος δὲ οὐδαμῶς. Εἰ δ' ὅτι ἐν χρόνῳ ἡ ἐνέργεια τοῦ ποιοῦντος πρὸς τὸ ποιούμενον, τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην φημὶ τέως, ἡ γὰρ τοῦ ἀκτίστου φυσικὴ ἐνέργεια καὶ ἄκτιστος καὶ ὑπέρχρονος, εἰ τοίνυν διότι ἐν χρόνῳ ἐκείνη, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ χρόνος κατὰ σέ, ἔστω καὶ τόπος ἡ αὐτή, ἐπειδὴ καὶ ἐν τόπῳ, ὥσπερ δὴ καὶ ἐν χρόνῳ. Ἀλλὰ τούτων μὲν ἅλις· δεῖ δὲ καὶ πρὸς τὰ πρόσω χωρεῖν, τῶν περιττῶν τουτωνὶ καὶ ματαίων ἀφεμένους.
Πῶς μὲν οὖν ἐνέργεια τῆς θεότητος ὁ Υἱὸς καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα, μᾶλλον δὲ πῶς καὶ ἐνέργειαν ἔστιν οὐ τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ οὐκ ἐνέργειαν αὖθις οἱ θεολόγοι ταῦτά φασι, καὶ πῶς ὁ Υἱὸς καὶ θέλησις καὶ βούλησις εἴρηται τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκείνοις, ἔτι τε, πῶς ἡ θεία ἐνέργεια, καὶ μίμησις καὶ σχέσις ὁμοῦ, καὶ ἀμίμητος καὶ ἄσχετος ἡ αὐτή, ἐν τοῖς ἑξῆς καὶ ἡμῖν τοῖς θεολόγοις ἐπομένοις σύν γε τῷ τῆς συνόδου τόμῳ ῥηθήσεται· τὸ δὲ νῦν εἶναι τὰ περὶ θείας ἁπλότητος, καὶ ἣν φησιν ὁ Γρηγορᾶς τῷ Θεῷ διὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν προσγίνεσθαι σύνθεσιν, καὶ ἡμεῖς ἤδη σκοπῶμεν· μᾶλλον δὲ πῶς τὰ κατὰ τῆς παρεισφθαρείσης παρ' αὐτοῦ τε καὶ τῶν αὐτοῦ Βαρλααμιτῶν Πατέρων συνθέσεως παρὰ τοῦ συνοδικοῦ τόμου ῥηθέντα, καὶ αὖθις ἑαυτῷ προσθεὶς ὁ φιλόσοφος, ἀνατρέπειν δῆθεν πειρᾶται, κατίδωμεν.
Εἰσάγει τοίνυν καὶ πάλιν τὸν ἑαυτοῦ μύστην τε καὶ φίλον Ἄγγελον ἢ Ἀγαθάγγελον, συνήθως τὰ τῆς καθ' ἡμᾶς συνόδου τε καὶ τοῦ τόμου προσαγγέλλοντα· ὃς δὴ καὶ πρὸς τὰς αὐτὰς παρεξηγήσεις τε καὶ βλασφημίας καὶ αὖθις τὸν ἑαυτοῦ μυσταγωγὸν ἐκκαλούμενος, οὕτω πως τὰ τοῦ τόμου προτίθησι, καί φησι· Φέρε τοίνυν πρὸς Θεοῦ, μηδὲν ὑπερτιθέμενος, D τὸν ὅμοιον καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς διασάφει μοι τρόπον· ἔχει γὰρ οὑτωσί. Μετὰ τοῦτο, φησίν, ἐζητήσαμεν παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων, εἰ μηδεμίαν ἔχοι τις ἂν ἐπινοεῖν σύνθεσιν ἐπὶ Θεοῦ διὰ τὴν τῆς θείας οὐσίας καὶ ἐνεργείας διαφοράν· καὶ τοῦτο γὰρ οἱ ἀντιλέγοντες ἰσχυρίζονται. Ἀπεδείχθη οὖν παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων ἁπάντων κηρυττόμενον, ὡς οὐκ ἔστι σύνθεσίν τινα παρὰ τοῦτο νομίζειν Θεοῦ. Ὁ γὰρ θεῖος Μάξιμος ἐν οἷς πρὸς Πύρρον διαλέγεται φανερώτατα δείκνυσι, μή τινα σύνθεσιν ἐκ τῆς ἐνεργείας δείκνυσθαι, Ὁρᾷς, λέγων τῷ Πύρρῳ, ὅτι ἐκ τούτου πλανάσθε, ἐκ τοῦ πάντη ἀγνοῆσαι, ὅτι αἱ συνθέσεις τῶν ἐν ὑποστάσει ὄντων, καὶ οὐ τῶν ἐν ἑτέρῳ θεωρουμένων εἰσί; Καὶ τοῦτο κοινὸν φρόνημα πάντων, καὶ τῶν ἔξω φιλοσόφων, καὶ τῶν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας θεοσόφων
θεοσόφων A μυσταγωγῶν. Εἰ δὲ τῶν θελημάτων σύνθεσιν λέγετε, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων φυσικῶν σύνθεσιν λέγειν ἐκβιασθήσεσθε. Εἶτα προϊὼν ὁ φιλόσοφος, τὰ μὲν πρὸς Εὐνόμιον εἰρημένα τῷ θεηγόρῳ Νύσσης περὶ θείας ἁπλότητος παρατρέχει κακούργως, ἔλεγχον ὄντα σαφῆ καὶ ἀνατροπὴν τῆς αὐτοῦ δόξης· ἐπὶ δὲ τὰ τοῦ μεγάλου Βασιλείου καὶ Γρηγορίου τοῦ Θεολόγου μεταπηδᾷ, παρεξηγεῖσθαι καὶ διαστρέφειν συνήθως καὶ ταῦτα πειρώμενος. Διὰ καὶ φησι, μετὰ τὰς πολλὰς καθ᾿ ἡμῶν φλυαρίας καὶ ὕβρεις, οὑτωσὶ καὶ πάλιν πρὸς τὸν οἰκεῖον ἀκροατὴν Ἀγαθάγγελον· Ἀνάγνωθι τὰ ἑξῆς αὐτὸς, Ἀγαθάγγελε, τὸ βιβλίον εἰς μέσους ἡμᾶς ἀνελίξας ἐκείνου τοῦ ἐναγοῦς, ἵν᾿ ὑπ᾽ ὄψιν ἐναργεστέραν τὰ λεγόμενα γένηται. Οἱ μὴ δεχόμενοι, φησί, τὴν διαφορὰν τῆς θείας οὐσίας καὶ τῆς θείας ἐνεργείας, καὶ ἁπλῶς πάντων τῶν περὶ τὴν θείαν οὐσίαν φυσικῶς θεωρουμένων, ἐκεῖνοι σύνθετον ποιοῦσι μᾶλλον τὸν Θεὸν, τοῦ μεγάλου Βασιλείου φανερῶς λέγοντος, Εἴπερ εἰς τὴν οὐσίαν φέροντες πάντα τὰ θεῖα ὀνόματα καταθήσομεν, οὐ μόνον σύνθετον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ἀνομοιομερῶν συγκείμενον τὸν Θεὸν ἀποδείξομεν, διὰ τὸ ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο ὑφ' ἑκάστου τῶν ὀνομάτων σημαίνεσθαι· καὶ τοῦ μεγάλου Γρηγορίου τοῦ Θεολόγου γράφοντος, Ἢ καὶ τὸ ἀθάνατον καὶ τὸ ἄκακον καὶ τὸ ἀναλλοίωτον οὐσία Θεοῦ· ἀλλ᾽ εἰ τοῦτο, πολλαὶ οὐσίαι Θεοῦ, καὶ οὐ μία· ἢ σύνθετον ἐκ τούτων τὸ Θεῖον· οὐ γὰρ ἀσυνθέτως ταῦτα, εἴπερ οὐσίαι.
B Ἡμᾶς δὲ χρὴ, πρὶν εἰς τὴν ἐξέτασιν τῶν θεολογικῶν ταυτηνὶ καθεῖναι ῥητῶν καὶ τὰς τοῦ φιλοσόφου παρεξηγήσεις, καὶ τὰ λείποντα τῷ λόγῳ προσθεῖναι, καὶ ἅπερ ἐκεῖνος κακῶς ἀφελόμενος καὶ τούτου τοῦ κεφαλαίου, καὶ ὅσπερ τῶν διδασκάλων μαρτυρίας ἀποκρυψάμενος καὶ σιγῇ καὶ λήθη παραπέμψας τελείᾳ, ἔπειτα καὶ ἀντιλέγειν ὡς ἐν σκηνῇ καὶ δράματι προσποιείται τῷ συνοδικῷ τόμῳ. Φησὶ τοιγαροῦν ὁ τόμος εὐθὺς μετὰ τὴν προῤῥηθεῖσαν πρὸς Πύρρον ῥῆσιν ἐκείνην τοῦ ἁγίου Μαξίμου φημί· Ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ Νύσσης θεῖος Γρηγόριος ἐν ἕκτῳ κεφαλαίῳ τῆς εἰς τὴν ἐξαήμερον ἀναπληρώσεως οὕτω πρὸς λέξιν διέξεισιν· Εἰ τοίνυν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ κἂν διάφορα τυγχάνῃ τὰ πρὸς αἴσθησιν κατεσκευασμένα παρὰ τῆς φύσεως ὄργανα, διὰ πάντων ὁ νοῦς ἀνεργῶν καὶ κινούμενος, καὶ καταλλήλως ἑκάστῳ πρὸς τὸ προκείμενον κεχρημένος, εἷς ἐστι καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς, ταῖς διαφοραῖς τῶν ἐνεργειῶν οὐ συνεξαλλάττων τὴν φύσιν, πῶς ἄν τις ἐπὶ Θεοῦ διὰ τῶν ποικίλων δυνάμεων πολυμερὲς τὸ τῆς αὐτοῦ οὐσίας καθυποπτεύσειεν; Ὁ δὲ σοφώτατος Κύριλλος, ὁ αὐτὸς αὖθίς φησι τόμος, Οὐ γὰρ οὐσία τὸ ἀγέννητον, φησὶν, ἢ τὸ ἄφθαρτον, ἢ τὸ ἀθάνατον, ἢ τὸ ἀόρατον. Εἰ γὰρ ἕκαστον τούτων οὐσίαν σημαίνει, ἐκ τοσούτων οὐσιῶν σύγκειται ὁ Θεὸς, ὅσαπερ ἂν αὐτῷ φυσικῶς προσόντα φαίνηται· πολλὰ γάρ ἐστιν, ἃ μόνῳ μὲν αὐτῷ πρόσεστιν, ἑτέρῳ δὲ τῶν πάντων οὐδενί. Ἀλλ᾽ ἐνταῦθα μικρὸν διακόψας τὴν τῶν θεολογικῶν ταυτηνὶ ῥητῶν συνέχειαν, ἐρέσθαι βούλομαι Γρηγορᾶν, ὅτου χάριν ἀντιῤῥητικοῖς αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν ἐπιβαλὼν τοῖς λόγοις, καὶ τινα κεφαλαιωδῶς ἀφελόμενος C τὴν πρὸς ἐκεῖνα λογικὴν μάχην καὶ τὸν πόλεμον ἀναδεξάμενος δημοσίᾳ, καὶ μέντοι καὶ τοῖς καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ἐπεξιέναι δοκῶν, οὕτω τὰς μαρτυρίας ἐκείνων ὡς μηδὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν οὔσας παρατρέχει, καὶ ταῦτα καὶ τοιαύτας, καὶ παρὰ τοιούτων, καὶ ὑπὲρ τηλικούτων εἰσενηνεγμένας; Οὐ γὰρ μεγάλοι μὲν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, σμικρὰ δέ τινα τὰ παρ' αὐτῶν εἰσενηνεγμένα, καὶ οὐκ ἄξια τῶν εἰπόντων· ἢ καὶ ταῦτα μὲν μεγάλα καὶ ὑψηλὰ, ὑπὲρ εὐτελῶν δέ τινων καὶ τῶν τυχόντων οἱ λόγοι· ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ Θεοῦ μὲν ταῦτα, καὶ τῆς ἀνωτάτω περὶ ἐκείνου δόξης· Θεοφόροι δ᾽ ἀκριβῶς οἱ λέγοντες, καὶ οὐδὲν αὐτοῖς εἴρηται τῆς ἐκεῖθεν ἐπιπνοίας καὶ διαγνώμης χωρίς. Ἢ γοῦν σιγᾷν ἔδει σε καὶ ὑποχωρεῖν, ὦ φιλόσοφε, πρὸς τὰς τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος ταύτας βροντάς, ἐπειδὴ τὸ ἀκούειν ἀπεῖπας καὶ συνιέναι καθάπαξ, ἢ λέγειν πρὸς τὰ προκείμενα ταῦτα καὶ ἀντιλέγειν καὶ ἐξελέγχειν, καὶ μηδὲν παρατρέχειν μηδοπωστιοῦν τῶν προβληθέντων φημὶ κεφαλαίων τέως, καὶ τῶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς θεολογικῶν ῥητῶν, ὅπερ δὴ καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆς αὐτῆς προθυμήθης. Νῦν δὲ πᾶν τοὐναντίον φαίνῃ ποιῶν, καὶ τοῖς αὐτὸς σεαυτοῦ λόγοις καὶ ταῖς ὑποθέσεσιν ἐπίτηδες ὥσπερ ἐναντιούμενος. Ἐγὼ γὰρ τοσαύτην οἶμαι παρὰ παντὸς τοῦ νοῦν ἔχοντος, καὶ μὴ πρὸς ἔριν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ποιουμένου τοὺς λόγους, τοῖς προῤῥηθεῖσι διττοῖς θεολογικοῖς ῥητοῖς ἐνορᾶσθαι τὴν δύναμιν, καὶ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν τοῦ νυνὶ ζητουμένου, ὡς εἴ γε καὶ μόνα ταῦτα παρῆν, καὶ οὐδὲν ἄλλο τῶν τε πρὸ αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν μετ' αὐτὰ ῥηθησομένων ὡσαύτως προσῆν, αὐτὰ ταῦτα μόνα πρός γε τὸν σκοπὸν ἐξαρκεῖν ἂν τοῦ λόγου, καὶ μηδέν τι τὸπαράπαν ἐλλείπειν μηδοτιοῦν. Ὁ μὲν γὰρ τῶν θεολόγων μηδαμῶς, διὰ τὸ ποικίλον τῶν φυσικῶν δυνάμεων, πολυμερή τινα καὶ σύνθετον ὑποπτεύεσθαί φησι τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα τὴν καλλίστην ἐκείνην εἰσάγων, φημὶ δὴ τὸν ἀνθρώπινον νοῦν μηδαμῶς ταῖς ποικίλαις διὰ τῶν αἰσθήσεων ἐνεργείαις τὴν οἰκείαν ἐξαλλάττοντα φύσιν· Κύριλλος δ᾽ ὁ σοφὸς, καὶ πολλὰ τὰ προσόντα φυσικῶς εἶναί φησι τῷ Θεῷ μόνῳ, καὶ μὴ μόνην οὐσίαν αὐτὸν εἶναι κατά σε, δίχα τῶν φυσικῶν τε καὶ ἰδίων αὐτῆς, καὶ μηδὲ οὐσίας αὐτὰ εἶναι, ἵνα μὴ σύνθετον, φησὶν, ἐκ τοσούτων εἴη τὸ θεῖον. Τῶν τί ἂν σαφέστερόν τε καὶ οἰκειότερον, καὶ δὴ καὶ συντομώτερον γένοιτο πρὸς τὸν λόγον; Ἀλλὰ σκοπῶμεν καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἀκολούθως τοῦ σεπτοῦ τόμου, καὶ τὰς ἐν αὐτῷ γνώμας καὶ διδασκαλίας ὡσαύτως τῶν θεολόγων. Ὁ θεῖός φησι Χρυσόστομος, Τοῦ Πνεύματος τὴν χάριν ἡ Γραφὴ ποτὲ μὲν φησι πῦρ, ποτὲ δὲ ὕδωρ καλεῖ, δεικνῦσα ὅτι οὐκ οὐσίας ταῦτα ὀνόματα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐνεργείας· οὐ γὰρ ἐκ διαφόρων συνέστηκεν οὐσιῶν τὸ Πνεῦμα, ἀόρατόν τε καὶ μονοειδὲς ὄν. Ὁ δὲ Νύσσης πρὸς Εὐνόμιον αὖθις, Τί; ὁ διφυᾶ τὸν Θεὸν εἶναι λέγων, πλὴν σοῦ, τοῦ πᾶσαν ὀνόματος ἔννοιαν τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐσίᾳ συμφύροντος, καὶ μηδὲν ἔξωθεν προσεῖναι λέγοντος, ἀλλ᾽ ἕκαστον τῶν περὶ τὸ θεῖον ὀνομάτων τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐσίᾳ ἐγκεντρίζοντος; Ὁρα δὴ κἀντεῦθεν καὶ ἐπίστησον, εἴ γε βούλει, ὡς οὐχ ὁ D τόμος ὀλίγα τῶν τῇ συνόδῳ καὶ τῷ τόμῳ ῥηθέντων, καὶ
καὶ A you thought worthy, even though you stand outside the divine court and the sacred teachings. Rather, you did not even speak ill of that man [Pyrrhus] remaining in his heresy, but [spoke of one] instructed at that time by divine Maximus, and one who had well vomited up the heresy, even if after a short time he returned again, in an evil way, to his own vomit. And first of all, you have openly lied about that dialogue mentioned by the others. For the dialogue does not introduce Pyrrhus as advocating a union of two non-existent things, as you say, and things not considered as existing in a subject in the essence; for this is to be ignorant of the goal and the argument of that very discussion. Rather, the goal of the argument there, for divine Maximus, was to persuade Pyrrhus, who was conferring with him, to glorify Christ as possessing B dual wills and dual energies corresponding to his dual natures, I mean the divine and the human, one of which he [Pyrrhus] entirely denied, namely, the human. But through many irrefutable proofs, after the discourse concerning the wills had progressed for the teacher, Pyrrhus yielded and confessed that Christ possesses two wills corresponding to his dual natures, and that these are natural, and not, as in the opinion of those Monothelites, naturally opposed to each other. For Pyrrhus says there in these very words: "Since it is necessary to accept with a good mind the truths that appear from the examination, the argument showed with much clarity that the wills in Christ are natural." So Pyrrhus was not, according to Gregoras, advocating a union of two non-substantial and non-existent accidents in themselves, nor was divine Maximus correcting him by scoffing at them on that basis; but he taught him rather that Christ possesses two wills, and that he possesses these as natural—which Pyrrhus himself also confessed of his own accord—not non-existent, not non-substantial, but having each an existence appropriate to itself, I mean the divine and the human, in which they naturally exist. After accepting these dual natural wills, Pyrrhus, desiring again to confuse them and to bring them into one will through a new commingling and union with each other—not in themselves (for how could that be?), but in the natures of Christ and, as he wrongly thought, considered after the union—adds these words: "It is possible, just as we speak of one composite something from two natures, so also to speak of one composite something from two natural wills, so that both those who speak of 'wills' because of the natural difference of the natures in Christ, and those who speak of 'one' because of the supreme union, may no longer differ with each other for the sake of mere words." C In response to these claims, which were so poorly stated by Pyrrhus and are now taken from there by the synodical volume, divine Maximus, skillfully adding his reply, says: "Do you see that from this you are led astray, from being completely ignorant that unions are of things that exist in substance, and not of things contemplated in something else?" And from these things divine Maximus, just as I say to Pyrrhus then, has now most clearly shown to those around Gregoras that
synthesis of the natural things of Christ which do not exist by themselves, but are contemplated as in a subject in those natures, can never be generated either toward each other, or toward the things that underlie them, that is to say, the natures themselves. For, he says, syntheses are [referring] to things that are in a hypostasis in their own right, and clearly [they are] of the natures; and just as the two natures of Christ, having come together, formed one composite hypostasis of Him, but not of those things contemplated in another and not existing by themselves, namely, the natural [properties]. B
If, however, you speak of a synthesis of wills, the wise Maximus says again, you will be forced to speak of a synthesis of other natural things as well, if you wish to demonstrate the logic of your own doctrine to be consistent—that is, [the logic] of the created and the uncreated, of the infinite and the finite, of the indeterminate and the determinate, of the mortal and the immortal, of the corruptible and the incorruptible—and you will be carried away into absurd suppositions. Which this philosopher of ours, having clearly suffered from such things, is seen to have done. For not only is he shown to be evil for championing the doctrines of those Monothelites, but even [doctrines] far worse and more absurd, inasmuch as they denied the human energy and will of Christ, but this man denies not the human, but the divine—which, clearly, He possesses with the Father and the Spirit.
You have heard the explanations and arguments of the philosopher and dialectician, and how he overturns even the very premises of the teachings of the masters, and the purpose of things, and these things are so clearly set forth and cry out, that not even the very young or those unlearned in their words would be able to have any doubt at all? I, for my part, believe that even the Greeks themselves, his mystagogues, if they happened to be present at the striving of these words and the hearing of them, would have delivered the harshest verdicts against him, as one who, no less, is insulting and breaking the law of the very nature of logic. Aristotle would have said that this man is worthy of stripes, as I have already stated, since he neither understands the necessity of logic, nor has any knowledge at all of how to follow those who know and speak [rightly]. But *that* may be said to have sufficed; since there is no need for further elaboration, nor for longer words from us, with the truth set before all so nakedly, and possessing its strength as irrefutable in itself, so that not even one of all people—except, indeed, this Gregoras alone—could find anything to dispute, just as his things have been clearly exposed, and being nothing else but deception and falsehood, are obvious.
But it is time for us to move on to the great Basil and his arguments against Eunomius, and to hear the arguments of the philosopher regarding them, and those which this man, again using, thinks to attack *even these* in our synod and against the law. C But this also has been demonstrated, says the synodal tome, that those who—in accordance with the contradictors—do not accept the distinction of the divine essence and the energy, and simply of all things naturally contemplated regarding the divine essence, they rather make God composite; whereas the great Basil clearly says: "If we shall deposit all divine names as referring to the essence, we shall prove God to be not only composite, but composed of dissimilar parts, because a different thing is signified by each of the names." And the great Gregory the Theologian writes: "Or else the immortal, and the innocent, and the unchangeable are the essence of God; but if so, there are many essences of God, and not one; or [else] the divine is made composite from these; for these are not uncompounded, if they are essences."
And as for the explanation of these things, or rather their usual overthrow, as Gregoras thinks, let us hear, going through them, what he says: "And indeed, these things having been set forth in such a way, O good Agathangelus, would it not be permitted for us, having been silent and having allowed ourselves some ease, to try to extract the mode of the calumny of this wretch against the luminaries of the Church, and to expose his ignorance clearly?" And after some things: "For the great Basil does not [mean this] according to the mindset in which this vile creature understood these things, but he is overturning the evil mind of the impious Eunomius. For Eunomius, hearing 'unbegotten light' [in reference to] the Father... D
A said that both must mean the same thing, or else it follows of necessity that God is composite. For, he says, if light were something other than the unbegotten, God would necessarily be proven composite to us. And after a little, the great Basil, he says, responding, sets out the following word for word: 'If we take the "unbegotten" as a part of the essence, the argument would have room, according to Eunomius, to say that what is composed of different things is composite; but if we posit light, or life, or goodness as the essence of God, as being life in its entirety, and light in its entirety, and goodness in its entirety, and [yet] the life has the unbegotten as a concomitant, how is He who is simple in His essence not non-composite? For surely those modes which indicate His property will not damage the argument of His simplicity; otherwise, everything that is said about God will reveal to us a God who is composite.' And, as it seems, if we intend to preserve the conception of the simple and indivisible, or else we shall say nothing about God, except for 'unbegotten,' and we shall refuse to call Him invisible, incorruptible, immutable, creator, judge, and all the things we now take up for praise; but if we do accept these names, what then shall we do? Shall we place everything we carry [to Him] into the essence? Then not only shall we demonstrate Him to be composite, but also composed of non-uniform parts, because each of these names signifies something different.
B Well done, O good Gregoras, that you have read to us here from above the teaching of that master—Basil, I mean, the Great—against your like-minded friend, so that your own words, just like those of Eunomius, might be more clearly refuted here, at the hand—so to speak—of this brilliant theologian. For that tome of the synod that is among us, using brevity there, has taken from it the end of this theological statement, becoming itself the one who [selects] those things that are urgent and necessary, and sending those who desire it to that breadth [of the original work]; but you, having added those things to these, while being worthy of blame for other wickedness, how could you be worthy of being praised for this report? And so, let us consider, I say, from these very things that have been said, the accuracy of the agreement of Gregoras with Eunomius. Eunomius, then, positing the unbegotten of the Father as a property according to unique essence—for he wished thereby to construct the unlikeness of the substance to the Son through the begotten—[argued that unless] the things subsequently predicated naturally of God—I mean light, and life, and goodness—were either the same thing and indifferent to the unbegotten (I mean in essence, according to him), or if this were not so, then God is no longer simple, but composite. But this Gregoras, the companion of that man, not calling the unbegotten the essence of God according to him, but the will of God, and the energy, and simply all the properties of the divine nature, not claiming them to be natural and about God according to the apostolic and patristic theology, C but that they are the essence of God itself, wholly and in every way—[he maintains] that without any distinction perceived by them, neither in relation to the essence itself, nor in relation to each other, unless these things were so, he says that the simplicity of God is in danger of being opposed, and that composition is gathered about the divine nature, thus demonstrating his agreement with the like-minded Eunomius in these things, and being another one, yet the same through all things. Therefore, the Great Basil says to both of these, writing in this way: 'But Eunomius—or, to say the same thing, Gregoras—having transferred the opposition of properties to the essence, thereby draws upon himself the occasion of impiety, just as one who scares us children with his sophisms—that if light were something other than the unbegotten, God would necessarily be proven composite to us.' And what do I say? That if the light were not something other than the unbegotten, it would not be possible for the Son to be designated [as such], just as the unbegotten itself is not. Then, a little further on, the teacher says: 'But indeed, he says that God will appear composite, unless it is understood as the same as the unbegotten, that is to say, as the light in essence. For Eunomius said that the unbegotten is essence, and having said that, he says, we have this to say: that if we took the unbegotten as a part of the essence, the argument would have room to say that what is composed of different things is composite; but if we posit light, or life, or goodness as the essence of God, as being total life, and total light, and total goodness, and [yet] the life has the unbegotten as a concomitant, how is He who is simple in essence not non-composite?' And the things following these, all of which Gregoras, having taken from the Great [Basil], set forth, having already reached [the point of arguing] against himself and his own glory.
'But he himself,' he says, 'Behold, Basil the Great also says that the light, and the life, and the goodness are the essence of God,' which I also agree with him [in saying]. But this, too, is a falsehood, O best of men. For how could he who was just now speaking about Eunomius—saying that he, having transferred the opposition of properties to the essence, is thereby drawn into the occasion of impiety, and having called light a natural property, is attempting to construct an argument D that he is the very nature of God—have himself, a little further on, said that it is the essence of God? And these are the things from him who says that the essence is one thing, the indicator of which no discourse has yet discovered, and another is the meaning of the names surrounding it, [said to be] from some energy, or [related to] honors? This, which the great and sublime Dionysius has already understood and taught us in like manner in his theology: 'If we name the superessential hiddenness "God," or "life," or "essence," or "light," or "word," we understand nothing else than the powers drawn forth from Him to us, which are deifying, or life-making, or life-generating, or wisdom-giving; and we do not apply [these] to Him according to the resolution of all intellectual energies, seeing no deification, or life, or essence, which is exactly similar to the Cause that is transcendent above all things in every preeminence.' Otherwise, there are not many essences of God, nor is the essence of God composed of many things, so that at once the light, and the life, and the goodness would be the essence of God. For the many, [when considered as] one
A, nor is the essence or the light or the life or the good [to be considered] as one thing, and this as that, or as another; rather, by showing that He who is properly that Being is such that one who is ignorant of it cannot name it—for this very thing is also the common postulate of our faith—and by leading the argument forward, not by a hypothesis but rather by destroying his own hypothesis through the addition of the phrase, "The whole of what it is." And since, [when] speaking in words and [confronted by] logographers of the past, in matters that are misunderstood, he is fulfilling the task of the argument in this way. Gregory, certainly, the namesake of theology, when making his discourse concerning the creation of the angels, since he was ignorant of that which is natural and of the essences of those beings—"Whether," he says, "they are intellectual spirits, or fire such as is immaterial and incorporeal, or some other nature that is as close as possible to the things mentioned," one must judge these—and again, the same person concerning the first-formed and concerning Paradise: "He placed this," he says, "in Paradise,"—whatever this paradise was—"by honoring it with free will." But if someone says that the divine names indicate these [angels] and their very essence from their energies, we do not disagree; rather, we think and agree with those who thus believe and speak, for the Theologians are also the leaders and masters of our arguments, since "God" and "the Word" and indeed the very name of the essence, although they are [in reference to] energies according to these [Theologians], are nevertheless referred back to the essence itself, because of its being nameless and hyper-nominal B and contradicting [it]. For to the same person belong both these things and those, even if it seems that our [arguments] are being challenged; [the opponent] not understanding that there, the Great [Basil] calls the meaning of the divine names one thing and another thing, which distinguishes the [nature] of God through his natural theology, whereas here, he speaks of the subject as being one in all the names and in all the acts for which the names exist, speaking of the unified theology of God, and the undivided and unconfused [nature], since one is the essence of God, by which also the things concerning it necessarily and inseparably follow, according to which, clearly, also the divine names [follow], and one is the God who is through all things and known and worshipped by us as three-hypostasized and almighty.
This the great Dionysius also [says] in his
Concerning the Divine Names
, philosophizing similarly, as we have already said ourselves: "We do not say that the Good is one thing," he says, "and Being another, and Life another, or Wisdom; nor are there many causes, and other gods that are secondary and subordinate, which produce the divine powers; but from the one God [come] all the good processions, and the divine titles celebrated by us; the one [kind of name] being a manifestation of the providence of the one God in its entirety, the others being of the more universal and particular [providences] of the same."C But the "philosopher" was not at all able to understand that while the divine nature has these names of the natural properties of God as being said [d] uniquely of itself, as the cause of them, yet it also has them as hyper-nominal from our naming of it, through its own natural [names] for the impasse of some natural name. When, therefore, according to these reasons, we take the names of these natural properties when speaking of the nature itself, the thing manifested is one, [that is] God, according to the essence itself, clearly. For not to some other subject, says the teacher, does the appellation of "the Good" guide the intellect, nor to another [does the appellation] of "the Powerful," and of "the Wise," and of "the Just"; but whatever names you might speak, the thing signified is one in all, God, according to essence, which I have previously stated. But when these divine names are spoken of those properties of the divine nature of which they are names according to existence and properly, at that time we do not look at one and the same subject when speaking these.
But the philosopher does not say this; he says that these names are void of realities, not being said according to the energies and the other natural properties of God. "For how," he says, "God being of essence alone, and possessing no natural [property] following [Him] in any way—which Eunomius also says—according to which, clearly, the names are also said, or rather, which is [the essence] itself, I say, according to these very people?" Although he himself read to us the great Basil saying exactly this a short while ago: "If we refer all the divine names to the essence, we shall demonstrate God to be not only composite, but also composed of dissimilar parts, because of the different things signified by each of the names." And he brings forward the [work] D against Eunomius, I mean [the work] of this teacher, saying, "All the God-befitting names and concepts are in equal status one to another, in that they do not differ at all in the meaning concerning the subject. For the appellation of 'the Good' does not guide the intellect to one subject, and that of 'the Powerful' and 'the Wise' and 'the Just' to another; but whatever names you might speak, the thing signified is one in all; and if you say 'God,' you have pointed out the same [subject] whom you understood through the other names." And Gregory says these things, not so much because he is intent on contradicting the Synod and its Tome, but [because he is intent on] showing the Great [Basil], as he thought, to be at odds with himself .
For this also is [a function] of the confusion of Eunomius and those of his party, which this great Basil, together with his brother Gregory, mocking in previous [passages], says: "Of the many divine names, are these names of one essence, and do they have equal weight with one another—the Terrible, and the Beneficent, and the Just, and the Creative, and the Prescient, and the Retributive, and the Great, and the Provident—or whatever of these we might say, do we not signify the essence? For if they say this, let them not ask whether we know the essence of God, but let them ask us if we know God to be terrible, or if [we know Him to be] just, or beneficent; these we confess we know. But if they say the essence is something else, let them not use illogical arguments."
A Let them answer us regarding [their insistence on] simplicity. For they themselves confessed that the essence is one thing, and that each of the enumerated [attributes] is another. But the energies are manifold, while the essence is simple. Whenever, therefore, according to these teachers, proper names are spoken regarding the natural energies of God, the thing signified by them is not one; for neither is the essence of God composed of such things, nor are such things equivalent to one another, as you hear; but each of the names appropriately signifies one of the things naturally pertaining to God, according to their own teacher again. For if, as he says, all these things tended toward one signified object, then all the names would necessarily have the power to be identical to one another, as is the case with names that are synonymous. And a little later: And what could be more absurd than this confusion, which, by taking away the proper meaning of each of the names, legislates against common usage and the teaching of the Spirit? And again: How is it not clear madness to say that a proper signified object is not placed under each of the names, but to define that—contrary to the energy—all the names can mean the same thing?
B But let us hear Gregoras again, regarding how he slanders both us and the synodal tome, attempting shamelessly to fasten his own disgraces upon their destroyers, and how he stands in complete opposition to the arguments of the Theologians, blaspheming and insulting with impudence those things which they theologize and praise as proper to God alone. He therefore tells his listener, as usual, while teaching [him] again, "Angel": For even if, he says, most of the names derive the sources of their discovery from some energy or other, yet nowhere does he stop the signified object of the conception at the energy, but returns to the acting nature, just as a shadow is conceived along with the energy. Not due to the diverse derivation of the names, therefore, and to the difference of the conceptions generated in us from the names, do we conceive God as already diverse and composite in Himself, as Palamas [does], but as Basil, who is slandered by him, teaches.
C And see the shameless slanderer, as I said, and blasphemer, how he attempts to fasten his own blasphemy upon us, and, appearing to cast the words of the saints against us, goes over entirely to their side. For he says that all the divine names, and indeed the things accompanying the divine nature, which have been considered in theology as natural and substantial to God, are the essence of God, and that there is no difference [between them]. From this, they [the others] proved that he makes God composite by his own arguments, as we have already demonstrated, in which even the God-speaking [Gregory] of Nyssa, among other things, said to him and his teacher Eunomius: "Who, besides you, says that God is dual in nature, grafting every concept of a name onto the essence of God, and saying that nothing belongs [to Him] from outside, but every [term] is of the essence of God?" D Yet, he who has assumed the mask of a whore, and has become shameless toward all the saints, dares to say these things of the Scripture, and mocks every theological and paternal argument at once. For if, he says, most of the names derive the roots of their discovery from some energy or other, yet nowhere does he stop the signified object of the conception at the energy, but returns to the acting nature. And again: Not due to the diverse derivation of the names, therefore, does he say, and to the diverse conception of the meanings already [present] toward Himself, do we conceive God as diverse and composite, as Palamas [does], but as Basil, who is slandered by him, teaches.
And yet, slanderer and liar, this very thing is what is being pursued by the synod and by us in this part of the discourse: to show God to be above your composition, and to proclaim His simplicity through the Theologians, just as it has indeed been shown. And the great Basil, in whose name you yourself pretend to follow, you are rather contradicting him to his face; he was saying those things to you and your teacher Eunomius a little earlier, through the synodal tome [I mean]: that if, by bringing all the names to the essence, we shall deposit them there, we shall prove God to be not only composite, but composed of dissimilar parts, because one thing and another is signified by each of the names. Who then is the slanderer, Gregoras, of this great man? Who is it that makes God composite? Is it you, who mix all the divine names and concepts regarding God with the divine essence—or rather, who say that these are the divine essence, and that nothing natural is contemplated about it—or we, who, along with this brilliant Theologian, and indeed the teachers with him, are warring in this way over these very things against Eunomius and Pyrrhus, and I say, against you yourself as a third with him? It is evident that it is you; and you would not escape these refutations of the truth, and the arrows of the strong [man], even if you were to cast around you countless circles of falsehood from all sides, and even if you were to assume the Scythian cap along with those teachers.
What then does this enemy of the piety of the truth say again? You see, he says, how the divine and most simple nature is named by many and diverse names, and [names] signify diverse concepts, while the subject for all the names is that which is named through all, and is not composite, whatever that [subject] may be; thus it comes about. Here, Gregoras creates the appearance of removing composition in God, which he himself and the cabal after him accuse the Church of God of doing. Yet he removes it in such a way that, as if it were the essence of God alone that naturally exists, the things conceived and said substantially about Him are in no way anything at all but the noise of a voice alone; which, as his discourse proceeds, he will show more broadly. The great Basil, O philosopher, saying, as you heard, to your guide Eunomius: "Essence is one thing..."
A nor does any of these terms signify anything other than that underlying essence, nor can it create any composition, nor are all these things without the essence by themselves, nor yet with the essence, for they are not received as essences other than that one, just as Eunomius does by claiming that the unbegotten is essence, nor as parts of that one essence, just as the impious Palamas ignorantly conceives when he says they are external to the divine nature, yet natural, that is, parts of it. A different discourse, for these and their nature are distinct.
B To the holy Amphilochius, regarding those who hold the same opinions, just as you have already anticipated saying: "Let them not ask," he says, "if we know the essence of God, but let them ask us if we know God to be fearsome, or just, or philanthropic." These things we acknowledge that we know. But if they say the essence is something else, let them not lead us astray through simplicity; for they themselves confessed that the essence and each of the enumerated attributes are one thing and another. But the energies are manifold, while the essence is simple. We, however, say that we know our God from the energies; but we do not promise to approach the essence itself. For His energies descend to us, but His essence remains inaccessible. C And he who is of one mind with him, the brother of Nyssa, the divine Gregory, writing to Eunomius says: "Who is so dull of mind, and uninitiated in the magnificence of divine dogmas, as to take into his mind the Cause of all things, and not immediately and simultaneously conceive, in a consolidated way, all those things that are piously understood concerning God, but rather to imagine that one thing was acquired later, another in the beginning, and another in between, according to some succession of order?" And after a little: "For since He does not become worse or better by addition, but is always the same, therefore there is nothing regarding Him that is either earlier or later. Or in this way He would be found to be older and younger than Himself. Unless God is not always all things, but according to some order and sequence, one thing He is, and another He becomes, and there is no composition regarding Him; but whatever He is, He is wholly. But according to the logic of the heresy, if being first unbegotten, He thereafter becomes Father, there being no heap of practices conceived regarding Him, He becomes nothing else than wholly older and younger than His whole self." And Cyril the Great says: "If whatever belongs to God alone, this will also be His essence, it will be composed for us from many essences. For there are many things which belong to Him alone by nature, but to no other of existing things. For the divine Scriptures call Him King and Lord, and incorruptible, and invisible, and in addition to these, myriad other things about Him. If, therefore, each of those things belonging to Him is to be placed in the rank of essence, how will the simple not be composite? Which is most absurd to conceive."
D You, however, O empty theologian, even if you do not agree with your teacher Eunomius on this very point—he who said, as you yourself also stated, that the attributes of God are His essence naturally—yet you agree with him very much in those things where you say clearly that none of these signifies anything other than the underlying essence, saying with him that God is essence apart from natural attributes; and have you understood us as saying that they are parts of the simple and partless essence? We have said rather the opposite, as you have already heard often with the great Basil, who says: "If we took the unbegotten as a part of the essence, the argument would have room for Eunomius, when he claims that that which is composed of different things is composite; but if we posit that the light of God, or the life, or the good is the essence, being wholly life, and wholly light, and wholly good, and the unbegotten is an attribute that follows, how is He who is simple in essence not non-composite? For the modes of His property that signify Him will not trouble the discourse of His simplicity." Or will everything said about God show Him to us to be composite, as it seems, if we are to preserve the concept of the simple and partless? Or shall we say nothing about God except "the unbegotten," and refrain from calling Him invisible, incorruptible, unchangeable, Creator, Judge, and all those things we now employ for doxology? Or if we accept these names, what shall we do? Shall we carry everything into the essence and deposit it there? Then we shall prove Him to be not only composite, but composed of unlike parts, because different things are signified by these names.
And writing to Eustathius the physician in what has preceded, he said: "The divine nature, in all the names conceived, remains unindicated, as our discourse says; for having learned that He is Benefactor and Judge, good and just, and all other such things, we were taught the differences of the energies. But we are no more able to know the nature itself of the one who energizes through the understanding of the energies. For when someone gives an account of each of these names, and of the nature itself, regarding which the names exist, C Well, then, O best of teachers and theologians, these things are clearly according to divine decrees. But since this Gregoras, along with the faction held by him and concerning him, rejects the essence, as they say, for themselves, both to be and to be called such things, and casts the blasphemy solely upon Eunomius and those who follow him, and they do not endure at all our saying that these properties follow the divine nature from eternity, while they themselves say that this is a composition of the divine nature, and because of this, far from the divine courtyard, you would be just, if you, the same, would more clearly
A learn about those things and show again what those many and myriad things are which the divine Scriptures speak of regarding God alone, just as you have previously stated. For perhaps this too is that matter of your sacred theology, which one of that gang heard long ago, and slandered the Church among us as worshipping myriads of gods—O, what a foul tongue!—and this he wrote to a foreigner and enemy of her, blowing into the false prophet as a teacher.
"But I," says the wondrous Cyril, "said that such things exist according to nature in God, and belong to Him alone. Things that belong by nature, and that naturally arise as properties of the divine nature, are neither a nature nor parts of a nature. For God, we say, is whole in each of these, and there could never be a composition out of these things that are concomitant to the divine nature and contemplated with it by logical abstraction." So that you may understand more clearly, hear indeed the things I said long ago against those from Eunomius. By conceptual abstraction, I said, [we contemplate] the unbegotten in God. For the unbegotten, or the incorruptible, or the immortal, or the invisible is not an essence. For if each of these signifies an essence, God is composed of as many essences as there appear to be things naturally belonging to Him. If, therefore, not all that is said to belong to God by nature is also His essence, it remains to say that it is a B property of the essence itself, although it is understood as such only by a term. For human nature has nothing greater than itself to speak of regarding God. Therefore, we use our own habits regarding Him, treating the things of ourselves as examples of greater things, just as those who delineate a heavenly circle on a small tablet. For by not conceiving of anything as being a property by conceptual abstraction in the case of God, nor allowing others to conceive in such a way, you will certainly fall into great difficulty, and a turmoil of myriad ungodly thoughts will surround you.
Such are the views of the holy teachers and theologians, and thus they both conceive of composition in God and reject it. For they say, as you hear, that the composition in God may be conceived in three ways: either when things naturally understood to be with God are called diverse essences, or when they are called parts of the essence, or when they are not considered as essential and natural, but as acquired. But the first is not only impossible, but also monstrous and strange, and for this reason far from God and from theological discourse, more than one could even imagine. For if, he says, each of the natural properties belonging to God were to be placed in the order of essence, the Simple One would be composed of many essences for us; this is most absurd to conceive. The second is no less impious than the first, or rather it is even more impious; for it introduces not only a composition to the simple nature of God, but also a division to the indivisible, and a dissolution to the incorruptible and immortal, the sole Giver of incorruptibility—for composition is a principle of constitution, while dissolution is a principle of the opposite. For if, he says, the unbegotten, and the invisible, and the incorruptible, and the unchangeable, and the C things belonging to Him are parts of the essence, we would prove that God is composed of heterogeneous parts.
The third, however, is very appropriate to the Arians, the Eunomians, and those who share the mind of Macedonius, to whom indeed Barlaam along with Acindynus and Gregoras bound themselves with great zeal, having from the start an impiety evident to all, inasmuch as they reduce God to creatures through His natural [properties]. For if the energy is created, say the theologian Fathers in unison, then the nature of these is also created; and things whose energy is uncreated, their nature is also uncreated. Therefore, Athanasius the Great, together with the wise Basil, said: "Let it not be for me to speak of anything acquired regarding the Spirit," having already said: "For I do not call the holy, nor the incorruptible, nor the good, nor any other of the things contemplated regarding B God, acquired to the Holy Spirit, but holy by nature, good by nature, immortal by nature." And again: "All things characterized by excellence and causality," he says, "are not each called essence, but belong to the essence, which is also called the sum and fullness of divinity according to Scripture, contemplated equally in each of the holy three hypostases; and they are spoken of [theologically]." The divine Gregory of Nyssa, whom you heard a moment ago saying, "There is no composition regarding God; but whatever He is, He is wholly," [supports this]. But according to the logic of the heresy, if He were first unbegotten and afterwards becomes Father, without any accumulation of habits being conceived regarding Him, He is nothing other than becoming older and younger than His whole self.
Cyril the wise, indeed, says that none of the divine properties are acquired. However, from the effects, namely the creatures, according to these energies, and not according to essence, is God seen, demonstrating His properties as being co-eternal with God in time, C because they are not acquired, and expressly separating them from the effects—that is, the creatures—and showing that the same are properties and energies of the divine nature, and that God is not seen from the creatures according to essence, according to Eunomius and Gregoras, but according to these energies. So much does that short passage of the theologian contain, and such things it embraces in brief; thus clearly the theologians Fathers drive the composition suggested regarding God, and the three arguments mentioned, far from the thresholds of the Church of Christ.
But this Gregoras himself, like some autonomous tyrant, does not force human laws and decrees, but laws explicitly divine, and their holy teachers and heralds, and standing contrary to all, and misinterpreting so many and so great arguments of the theologians, and legislating against the lawgivers themselves, says that the divine nature is [identical to] the things that naturally belong to it, and that there is no difference whatsoever, or at least that God is of necessity composed in this way; for it is not possible, he says, otherwise. And yet, philosopher, I would say to him, regarding natural arguments, and this order of sensible things, and so on, but not of the divine Scriptures—
for God creates all the visible and invisible creation, but out of non-beings, and by word alone. Where have you ever heard this even among generated things? Yet looking upon this in the natural things of God, you will A theologize unerringly and according to divine laws, that is, the Spirit of His mouth by nature, yet not as you propose. For if, in the case of sensible things, there could never be composition of the thing moved due to the motion, nor of the one possessing knowledge due to the knowledge—according to the arguments of B my philosophers and, indeed, the theologians—how could the God-befitting power and motion, for these are the divine energy itself, cause the almighty God to be composite, as you yourself say?
But Acindynus and Gregoras, and the gang led by him, think that because the ray of the sun, or the heat that naturally accompanies fire, and furthermore the intellect of the mind, and things similar to these, exist as parts in their respective natures—even if they exist inseparably from them—so too the natural things of God exist as parts in His nature; and thus, he says, God is composed of many things, which are different both from one another and from the nature, according to you. And yet, you have heard the contrary of all the sacred theologians: that they do not take those things which naturally follow essence as essence, nor as parts of essence, so as not to establish God C as composite, and indeed composed of heterogeneous parts. For God, he says, is whole essence and whole energy, and it is not the case that a part of Him is essence and a part is energy, as you have supposed, so that He might be divisible and composite on account of these things; but just as the Father is whole in the Son, and the Son is whole in the Father, and just as the Holy Spirit is whole in the Father and the Son, and the Father together with the Son are likewise in the Spirit, according to the argument of essence and—needless to say—power, and the communication, so also is God whole in the assumption of the flesh, namely according to the hypostasis of the Son, not according to that principle of consubstantiality—for otherwise the assumption would have been God by nature—but as the energy, he says, of the incarnation, namely as working the incarnation according to the principle of the economy. Moreover, the Simple and Indivisible is also whole in those being adopted and divinized by the Spirit, working in them the supernatural and ineffable deification, because, he says, He is whole, as working in each of the energies, and being present to every gift, whether greater or lesser.
If, however, you think that because those natural powers are in the creatures as parts of the essence, therefore they are also in the Master of creation as parts of His nature, and that for this reason you wickedly imagine the Only-Beyond-All-Simplicity to be composite, would not any man of sense be more likely to laugh at your folly, or to pity your ignorance and wretchedness? D For we might with justice retort that the things of God are not thus, precisely because the things of creatures are thus. And I would say that this is also a part of the divine theology, the most beautiful and most glorious simultaneously: that the principles concerning creatures do not apply to the things concerning God, lest the creature be God or God a creature—a judgment which is among the more boorish and wickedly held and spoken. For this reason God generates the Son from His essence, but not as bodies do; He produces [the Spirit] as the breath of His mouth, naturally, though not as [it is with] parts of nature. For this is the way of creatures and of the composition below, since the creatures also, in acting, somehow suffer. But God is beyond all these—for He is God.
If you ask how, we say that this is beyond "how." Whence also many, he says, seeking such things, were unable to learn the "how" and fell away from the faith. Tell me first, how is God born of a woman? How does a man come to be from virginal blood and male seed without coition? How, having been born of a virgin, does she after childbirth still preserve her virginity? And if you wish, [consider] these small things below, I mean the principles and modes of your own birth and composition, those concerning soul and mind, and the bond of the latter to matter, and this earthy mixture, so that I may pass over the many [other examples] for the sake of length; and then I too will render an account to you concerning these, and perhaps I shall state the "how." But if you are not ashamed to confess ignorance regarding those things, and such as are similar to them, how can you be so rash and contentious beyond measure regarding these, attempting to propose things beyond apprehension, and wickedly overstepping the arguments and teaching of the theologians, falling into myriad and various absurdities?
And surely you hear the most wise Maximus also, again, now [speaking of] the hard-to-contemplate and incomprehensible nature of these divine things and arguments, and now again of the part that is amenable to you and expressible, philosophizing in a few words as best he can. For if, he says, the divine energy according to the true argument signifies God without division, whole in Himself in each one, according to whatever respective principle He possesses, who is there who can exactly conceive and say how God is in all things collectively whole, and in each of the beings specifically, indivisibly and divisibly; neither being varied while being divided among the beings in which He exists, as in infinite differences, nor again being contracted according to the one specific existence, nor contracting the differences of beings according to the one unified totality of all, but is truly all in all, while never departing from His own indivisible simplicity? And again: In the case of God, we do not call "Being," and "Good," and "God," and "Creator," and "Supra-essential," and "Infinite," and "Immortal," and things like these, essential differences, lest we should dogmatize Him to be composite from these, but appellations, some of which are indications of things contemplated about Him, but none of which are descriptive of things concerning His essence and nature. Some signify things that pertain to the divine nature, but do not indicate the nature itself; which...
as he says, is the specific property of essential and constitutive differences. A If, then, the philosophers were taught by this very man—who is a philosopher and a wise teacher—when and how composition occurs and is spoken of, they would learn that this is far removed from God and the arguments concerning God, both of ours and of our teachers; and that they themselves are rather the ones who render God not only composite, but composed of dissimilar parts. For nowhere, says Gregoras, quoting Eunomius, does the teacher fix the meaning of the concept of divine names upon the energy, but runs back to the acting nature. And accusing us as well—ignorantly, as he thinks—of saying that the consequences and [concepts] thought of in relation to the divine nature are other than that nature, yet are natural, and that we call the immortal, the infinite, the simple, the incomprehensible, B and things similar to these, uncreated; and that they are not the essence of God, but rather viewed *about* His essence, along with these holy Theologians and our teachers: you yourself, O philosopher, neither saying that these attributes are of the essence when naturally belonging to God, in no way speaking with Eunomius as you claim, nor yet with Basil and Maximus and the rest of the teachers of Christ’s Church—as we, too, certainly hold—by refusing to call these natural [attributes] of God and properties of the divine nature, but rather charging the theologians and us with bad doctrine and heresy for these things; for having received all these things from their teaching, we possess them—what do you say these are? Or [do you say they are] nothing at all C (you have already said this many times), [that] when these are not the essence of God, they are nothing but a mere scattering of words, dissolving into the air, such that, according to you, God's essence and "nowhere nothing" are the same thing? But may such blasphemy recoil upon your own head, and may it be far from the mind and tongue of the pious.
Come now, let us add what is missing from the book of heresy, and relieve both yourself and us, for today, of this anxiety. He says: "Palamas and his madness say that the unoriginate, the immortal, the infinite, the simple, D the providential, the just, the good, the wise, the holy, and such things, are indeed uncreated divinities, but not the essence of God, but rather viewed about it." Is it not clearly the case here that Gregoras, casting upon us the mask of the holy theologians, in our person audaciously insults them, and through them, once again, insults their God? He constructs through his own arguments a composition of the divine essence—which he pretended to renounce—proving now that God is not only composite, but, according to the great Basil, composed of dissimilar parts. For, having already reached the point of arguing against Eunomius, the teacher said: "What then shall we do? Shall we refer all things to the essence and store them there? Then we shall prove Him not only composite, but composed of dissimilar parts, because one thing and another is signified by these names." And Cyril again the divine, and Maximus the wise, said that the unbegotten, or the incorruptible, or the immortal, or the invisible, is not by essence; for if each of these signifies the essence, God is composed of as many essences as there are things that appear as naturally belonging to Him. And again: "There are many things that belong to God alone by nature, and to no other of existing things." If, therefore, each of these that belong to Him is to be placed in the rank of essence, how will the simple not be composite? Which is most absurd to conceive. We have heard the divine Maximus say a little before that as for these names of God—some of which he lists there in part—"we do not say," he says, "that they are essential differences, lest we should dogmatize that He is composed of these, but [we call them] titles, some of which are indicative of things viewed about Him, but in no way indicative of things concerning His very essence and nature. Some signify things that pertain to the divine nature, but do not indicate the nature itself, which is the specific property of essential and constitutive differences." Against these strong and irrefutable refutations of his heresy, Gregoras raves uncontrollably, and not knowing how to vomit the poison of his malice against them, he trembles; for he even releases his entire quiver of impiety against the faithful Church, and against the pure filter of the truth—the protectors and teachers and orators—the shame and the arrows of slander and falsehood against us, while crying out at them, as they say, for a target.
But it would be good to listen here again D to the pillar of the Church, I mean the great Athanasius, lest the slanderer, having taken his words as well along with his thoughts, as if they were our own, should pour out his blasphemy against him. The great man says, then, word for word: "The uncreated, the incorporeal, the timeless, the unoriginate, the eternal, the unending, the infinite, the unknown, the unformed, the ineffable, the unsearchable, that He is called God of gods, Lord of lords, King of kings, the Almighty, the Maker, the Creator, the
light, the Holy, the life, the good, the immortal; and that to be, I say, according to these very A teachers, B is powerful, almighty, and whatever else is referred to by way of preeminence and causality, is not termed an essence, but as surrounding the essence. And it is also called a sum and fullness of Godhead according to Scripture, as being equally contemplated and theologized in each of the three hypostases. For, "All things that the Father has are mine, and I have been glorified in them." B So Gregoras is no longer arming his blasphemous tongue solely against the teachers—even here pretending us—but also against the apostolic and evangelical divine oracles, and I say, against Christ himself who speaks in them, whom this marvelous theologian surely also took as a witness at the end of his own discourses. He said that the teachers—and us—call the energies and natural properties of God "divinities," not because he has ever heard such a thing claimed by us—how could he?—but because he wishes to stir up the hearer as much as possible, as if the titles, and especially the monarchy, were supposedly being destroyed; regarding which points we shall speak similarly after a little. For he introduces C as well: "For he is the one who divides the one and undivided Godhead, the only uncreated, into many, if not essence-less, then distinct and uncreated godheads, and at one point keeps them apart from one another, and at another point fuses them together by his logic—those that are not, nor will be, nor ever came into being of themselves, but are only names bereft of realities, and, so to speak, air-walking camps of empty sounds, having neither a seat nor a basis, but only a heavy and harsh-sounding cry that fills our ears, and flows away into the air for the one who has been struck."
But, O philosopher, I for my part would say to him once more: it has been demonstrated most excellently and already through many [examples] to these wise teachers and theologians who it is that introduces division and synthesis, and the entire confusion together, into the Godhead; D which, in fact, you do now likewise in these words of yours, impiously insulting simultaneously that which is joined and that which is distinguished in the Godhead, and blaspheming through us those who have spoken these things in a God-inspired way. This, then, is that most perfect "opinion and theology" about God, or rather, the blasphemy of Gregoras; and thus he counts God—through the destruction of His natural attributes—among those that are in no way whatsoever, which the discourse knows to be especially characteristic of evil, just as the conciliar tome showed him from above to be thinking naught, and just as he himself has shown himself many times through his own works; except that here [he does so] with even greater irony and mockery, and with higher divine madness and insolence. Let it be [so]. But concerning the godheads he himself fabricates, continuously turning them upside down in his discourses, and setting traps for the ears of the hearers, and from there thinking to frighten us like children—in a little while, we, along with the conciliar tome and the theologian Fathers, shall speak as much as possible. As for the present, it is for us to show him in part that these things which are added to the divine nature are neither essences—according to his teacher Eunomius, obviously—nor indeed some phantom-like hypostases, nor [are they] contemplated as per se [entities]—according to this foolish wise man, who has imagined the Platonic ideas, and him here as well along with Acindynus—but [are understood] about the divine nature rather as natural and essential, coeternally and indivisibly and in a God-befitting manner, and not being merely names bereft of realities, nor flowing away into the air along with the struck [air], according to this "theologian" who speaks from his belly. Therefore, the great Basil says again: "The Holy Spirit does not seek growth, being most perfect; wherefore also with Him all things are perfect: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, wisdom, understanding, counsel, steadfastness, piety, knowledge, sanctification, redemption, faith, manifestations of power, gifts of healing, and whatever is akin to these, possessing nothing in itself as acquired, but having all things eternally as the Spirit of God, having shone forth from Him, having Him as cause as the source of Himself, and from that source gushing forth. And it is itself the source of the aforementioned goods; but that which gushes forth from God is hypostatic, while those which gush forth from it are His energies."
Have you heard? "All the aforementioned," he says, "the Holy Spirit possesses eternally, as having God as the cause of Himself, and gushing forth from Him." And it gushes forth, he says, also the aforementioned, naturally, obviously, insofar as they are energies. "But the one," he says, "gushes forth from God as hypostatic, but the others as natural energies." But no energy is hypostatic according to the same teacher again. Hear him, then, once more, so that you may learn that wisdom is common to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, obviously, through which the Son is said to be the wisdom of God, indeed most essentially, but not because of the fact that He is called wisdom is the essential and common wisdom and power of the three destroyed according to you. "If the Father," he says, "knows the Son entirely, so as to know also all the wisdom stored up in Him, in equal measure [this wisdom] will also be known by the Son, obviously together with all the wisdom existing in Him, and the foreknowledge of the future." And again: "Christ," he says, "is the power of God and the wisdom of God, the whole of the paternal power being stored up in Him, obviously; whence whatever He sees the Father doing, these things the Son also does likewise." And Cyril the Great: "If the Son," he says, "is not life by nature, how will He be truthful saying, 'He who believes in Me has eternal life'? And if He promises to give life as existing in Him by nature, and subsisting essentially, to those who believe in Him, how is it possible to conceive that the Son, not having [it], has received it from the Father? But as it is said before, having proceeded from the Father, He brings with Him all things of His by nature. And among the things belonging to the Father is also life. Therefore, the life-creating power is not something added to the Son, but belongs to Him by nature and essentially, just as it does to the Father." Where now are those who [castigate] the things of the wise teacher—
and say that the Father does not have a natural creative capacity and energy A in the way that He has natural generation, B or who maintain that the Son is not the very life of the Father? Let them hear that life belongs naturally and essentially to the Son. "But," these men say, "to be, and to be present, are one thing, even in God." For, he says, the Son, having proceeded from the Father, brings with Him all that is the Father's by nature; and among the things present to the Father, he says, is life. So that it may not seem that He possesses life as something acquired and by participation, both He and His life are spoken of theologically; but so that He might not again be thought a mere power, not existing in His own hypostasis, He is also said to have eternal life, and to give this to those who believe in Him—just as He also possesses wisdom, and immortality, and dwells in light unapproachable, and being Himself the dispenser of these to the worthy, He is in turn the wisdom, and power, and immortality, and the true light of God. And again the same divine Cyril: "Of all things, therefore, that belong to the Father by nature, and that are present in the Son naturally and essentially, whoever would say that He is a creature will be guilty of the unavoidable accusations of impiety. For how could the things belonging to the same nature and essential energy not be connatural to one another?" And again the same: "It is wise, indeed, to say that nothing happens to the essence of God, because it has perfection from itself; yet we see that a great deal of reasoning compels us to think of such things as accidents in God, even if they have not truly happened. For what shall we say, considering that before the ordering of this universe, He was indeed Creator according to essence, but not yet so in energy, because nothing of the things that exist had been brought forth into generation? But since the all was made, He has become, as it were, Creator, and in a certain manner this has 'happened' to Him, to be seen also in energy as such. If, therefore, any of these things are conceived as having happened to God, why do you struggle in vain, saying that the Unbegotten should not be called an accident to God, when such things appear in such a form, when it in fact exists in Him according to essence?" Have you observed how not once or twice, but three times and often, this wise theologian calls the things regarding God natural and essential, and not adventitious, but belonging naturally and essentially, yet not being the essence itself, so that one would think these things are accidents—as it were—to the essence of God, even if it has not 'happened' C to the essence? Are these not truly the words of the holy Fathers and theologians, who spoke of the things of the Spirit by the divine Spirit, and who made the holy contemplation and exposition of the oracles by the Word of God? So that the blasphemy and calumny is not against us, but rather against them, and against the Spirit who spoke in them, which, the Lord says, "will not be forgiven, neither in this age nor in the one to come," to those who do not repent, that is, and do not turn. And again the same divine Cyril in the same *Thesaurus*: "If you think that God becomes composite because He has nature and judgment, that is, will, look also at this—"
B by the Son, creatively; and not for this reason is He composite. For such are the fruits of one nature. The same argument will hold regarding what is good, and incorruptible, and invisible, and whatever is present to the divine nature. Now Maximus the Wise, writing to John the Bishop regarding the energies of Christ, says, "For this reason, he says, the God-bearing Fathers proclaimed two natures in the one Christ, since they perceived the essential powers and energies of the natures in Him; for they knew well that the energy of His divinity was the working of miracles, and they likewise knew the energy of His humanity to be the working of His sufferings. For each nature of the one Christ and Son, having its own natural energy, worked naturally, and was by nature energetic, but by no means inenergetic or immovable. For an immovable and inenergetic nature has no existence whatever, nor does it stand as a nature or essence at all. Therefore, in confirmation of the natures in Christ, the God-wise Fathers proclaimed the essential energies of the natures, so that they might not define any of them as dead and inenergetic, but as living in the proper sense, and energetic and powerful." Behold, this theologian says expressly that those who do not confess the essential and natural energies of Christ suffer from the infirmity of the Monophysites—not that the natures themselves are not present, nor outside the natures, but that they are natural and appropriate to the natures, without which, he says, the natures could not even exist at all.
For this reason, he says again, "Christ acted and worked appropriately to His own natures, that is, just as each is by nature." And His natures are two; therefore, the natural wills must also be two, and the energies corresponding to them and essential to them. And the common teacher of all these theologians, as it were, their successor and interpreter of their very words, and a voice like a common one, I mean John the Syrian, says: "As, he says, the number of the natures of the same and one Christ, piously understood and spoken of, does not divide the one Christ, but sets forth the difference of the natures while maintaining it in the union, so too the number of the wills and energies essentially present in His natures; for in both natures He was willing and acting for our salvation; it does not introduce division, God forbid, but declares their preservation—and that only—even in the union, as well as their salvation. For we say the wills and energies are natural and not hypostatic; I mean the volitional and energetic power itself, according to which He wills and acts, the things that will and act." And again the same: "In the case of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, he says, from the identity of the energy and the will, we recognize the identity of the nature. And again: 'Those whose will and energy are the same, their essence is also the same; and those whose will and energy are different, their essence is also different.'" From these and such things, for why is it necessary to be overly curious and to linger? It is shown that Greg-
Gregoras, even if he pretends to us that he uses the terms of the theologians for the sake of reputation, and in order not to seem to act lawlessly against divine matters, is himself obviously acting lawlessly against these very things, and in conflict with all theologians and teachers, and with the common Church of Christ, and in words and deeds, and battling alongside his own initiators and fathers—I refer to Akindynos, who has shamelessly insulted the ecumenical divine synod, and indeed also with his associates and initiates, some of whom have even explicitly abandoned, in their own words and writings, their submission and agreement to the holy Fathers of the Church, although they have spoken nothing new, even if these things were spoken in this way by the Fathers. For B he says it is not by necessity for us to be led everywhere by their words, since, he says, we were not even baptized in the name of the Fathers. But we, remembering the divine commandments and ordinances of our common Master and Lord that were given to his first disciples and our teachers, who said, "Go into all the world, and make disciples of all nations," and, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you," and, "What I tell you in the darkness, proclaim in the light," and, "What you have heard in the ear, proclaim upon the housetops," and that, "You are the light of the world," and "the salt of the earth," and, "Let your light shine before men," and similar things, we both receive and worship, and with our whole soul embrace, their theology—as well as that of the venerable associates and successors of those divine Fathers and teachers—having learned it as the oratorical expression of the divine oracles, and having been guided by it to the true faith in the primordial and blessed Trinity, the one tri-hypostatic and almighty Godhead, with whom we also drive away every profane and alien dogma concerning God from those who speak from the earth and from their belly, and I mean all the ancient ones, and these new and recent ones, and the followers of those, as if they were certain epilogues and summaries of those who have become common for the ruin and corruption—not of the common Church, I would not say, for he who cares for the common salvation of the faithful would not have permitted this—but of those who are miserably following them, as if they were not to suffer wrong, and who are tossing the things of piety and their own salvation as if they were on dice and boards.
But we must not entirely pass over that point here either, so that the accuser does not seem to gain something from the silence. For the synodal tome, in addition to the aforementioned, also brought forward Gregory the Great in theology, against those around Eunomius who rave that the unbegotten and begotten are essences, and from this attempt to cast the Son out of the Godhead because of the alleged lack of likeness in essence; against these, therefore, the one named for theology stands in opposition, and wishing to show that the unbegotten and the begotten are not essences, but both exist C around the same essence, and resolving the absurdity admitted even by them, he speaks of the problem—the one, I say, of the Great Basil toward them—and he himself speaks likewise: "For if," he says, "both the immortal, and the harmless, and the unchangeable are the essence of God, then there are many essences of God, and not one; or the divine is composite from these. For they are not incomposite, if indeed they are essences." And to those around Eunomius, none of the two absurdities arising from this seemed to be the case, even if they were blaspheming for the time being regarding the unbegotten and the begotten. For they did not want the Father or the Son to have many essences, even if they were wrongly dividing them from one another according to essence, nor for the one to be composite from different essences. And the theologian immediately brings this against them, bearing witness and saying: "These they do not say; for they are common also to others; but what is solely and properly God's, this is essence." But this philosopher of ours, while he seems to reject those things and says that those who say either many essences or that the one essence of God is composite from many D are concluding in impiety, is caught by the facts as being of precisely this mind, which he seems to oppose with them. For he who says that nothing essential or natural is to be contemplated in the essence of God according to him, either attaches these things to the essence of God either as parts, or as essences, or says these things are nothing but bare names and the hollow sound of words, easily flowing away into the air—which the philosopher has clearly written shortly before, which has not been dared at all by those around his own teacher, I mean Eunomius, so that in this part the student has become greater than the teacher.
The synodal tome, therefore, refuting Gregoras himself on these very points, and at the same time showing with the theologians that those who say that God has a nature, and a natural power and energy, and simply all the accompanying natural and essential properties in the divine nature—those do not make him composite, as the theological Fathers say, but rather those who think according to them that these very things are the essence of God, and give no difference whatsoever by conception to the essence and the natural properties around it. These things, therefore, the holy philosophical tome brought forward, together with the rest of the theological Fathers, and indeed also Gregory the Great, theologizing these things with them. Gregoras, having encountered these, would have done better, perhaps, to pass over them in silence, as is his custom in such matters, fleeing the more manifest and forceful refutations; but now, wishing to attack these as well, he has found nothing at all of the opportune, I mean useful, things—for how could he?—but having set forth from the beginning only the saying of the teacher against Eunomius, and then having spoken of the intent, so he claims, and having offered an explanation of this, he has abused and slandered—according to his custom—against himself, I mean, and his own opinion, those very things, and by babbling against both the truth and us, he has, as it is said by some, stirred up the hornets' nest against himself.
TO THE FIFTH AND SIXTH DISCOURSES OF THE SAME PHILOSOPHER GREGORAS: NINTH ANTIRRHETIC DISCOURSE
Concerning deity and God, and again concerning divine energy and deification, that it is uncreated.
A The designation carries an indication, whether of an intuitive or an active power. But the divine nature, in all the names that are conceived, remains as it is, ineffable—as our discourse says. For having learned that He is Benefactor and Judge, Good and Just, and whatever other things are like these, we have been taught the distinctions of the energies; but we are able to know nothing more of the One who works, through the understanding of the energies.
The argument has now come to the very head of the discourse, and to the summit, so to speak, and acropolis of the whole subject matter: I mean the argument of the one, simple, and unoriginate deity, against whom almost the entire war—all the darts of falsehood and calumny, and that vain and monstrous polytheism and polyarchy, which has no place even among the godless nations now—is directed, not so much against those against whom the war is being waged, but against those who are wrongly warring and lying against the truth.
B Almost everything concerning this has indeed already been said by us, not only in the previous discourses against this Gregoras—in which we have sufficiently refuted, along with the Theologian Fathers, the baseless and false arguments he raised and posed against the Tome—but even in the second of the discourses against his teacher Acindynus, and also in these later ones, in which we have made, a short while ago, a long discourse concerning divine energy, deifying participation, and the ineffable communion and deification.
However, since one of the chapters stolen from the synodical Tome by Gregoras is also this one concerning deity and monarchy, on which he is now seen to be composing a discourse privately—even if, by flapping about on high, he was disturbing this rational theater, imagining some sort of deities above and below which do not exist at all, just as those who are raving imagine, they say, a dog in a basin, because their mania creates things that are not—I believe it is necessary for us to hear the arguments concerning this again, and to set the synodical Tome against them as well, along with the Theologian Fathers, and thus, with the truth, to refute here too the vain slander and falsehood.
Gregoras therefore brings in again, in this way, the student Agathangelos, reporting the contents of the Tome to him. “After this,” he says, “it was asked in the Tome by the high priests and scribes, those who fill up the Palamite choir, whether this unoriginate and uncreated energy is named ‘deity’ by the Saints separately.” And this also appeared, preached by the theologians. And he immediately brings forward a portion of the letter of the great Basil to Eustathius the physician as proof. And these are the words: “The identity of the energy in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit shows clearly the unchangeableness of the nature; so that if the name of deity signifies nature, the communion of essence confirms that this designation is properly applied also to the Holy Spirit.” But I do not know how they, who are always C changing the forms of the ideas in these antiphonic discourses, and appearing in the arguments as a sort of Proteus, as in a fable—or acting as if on a stage and in a drama, constantly putting on different masks and characters for himself, at one time assuming the tragic, at another the comic manner and acting along with the buffoons, and now showing himself to be a slanderer, now a thief, and a temple-robber, an insolent man, a bold and rapacious snatcher of the divine words—have just now turned to another, not having departed from this one in what preceded, but now having become wholly and more clearly of this [disposition].
For although he assumes the guise of one being tried, and is about to step onto the threshold of the courts, he makes, as is customary, no real discourse at all to provide the study of the legal argument, nor to hire advocates, nor to procure for himself pleaders and witnesses for his statements—as is the law in such matters—except only so far as to look again to the habitual slander and falsehood, from which he is naturally unable ever to depart. But he demands that the defendant appearing against him should immediately, from the very entrance, leave all the witnesses and laws and written documents and advocates outside the doors, and then enter the contest naked and unarmed of everything. D Or rather, Gregoras does not demand only these things—for he would not even hold his ground at all, with no one to concede to him—but he himself, having burst in with his customary boldness and impudence, drives away almost everyone: laws, and advocates, and witnesses alike of the one defending himself against him. And after having permitted only one of the witnesses to enter the court, see, then, how even in this he cuts away most of the arguments, and removes the more timely and necessary ones, just like a shameless and insolent tyrant, and not even looking at the majesty and the height of the matters themselves, I mean those of the arguments, and indeed of the one bearing witness. For he cuts off even the very beginning of the aforementioned utterance of the great Basil, and then, in between, some of the parts of that...
...said, and everything that he wished, most of it A in the nature of variation, not unreasonably, as if it had not been said at the beginning, he allowed to be carried away in the currents of forgetfulness. But let the Synodal Tome from above speak these things to us, and let it go through its own matters soundly and without omission. For straightway the great Basil says in the books *Against Eunomius*: "And the name of Godhead itself, he says, whether it signifies the overseeing or the providential power, had a natural relation to the human." Gregoras, without mentioning this at all, begins what follows as if from the very beginning. And again, the same man in his *Letter to Eustathius the Physician*: "Therefore, he says, the identity of the operation in the case of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit clearly shows the immutability of the nature, so that even if the name of Godhead signifies nature, it refers properly and to the Holy Spirit, to which the commonality of the essence applies." But I do not know how they who fabricate everything bring the appellation of Godhead to demonstrate the nature. And after some words: "Therefore, the appellation provides a demonstration of some power, either overseeing or operative. But the divine nature, in all the names conceived of it, remains as it is, inexpressible, as is our discourse. For having learned of him as Benefactor and Judge, good and just, and all other such things, we have been taught differences of operations. But we have not been taught any more about the nature of the one operating through the understanding of the operations."
B Up to this point, Gregoras seems in a way to be fair, as far as the announcement and the narrative are concerned—I say, but what follows these is vanity and low-cast in his writing, and like miscarriages, not even respecting their natural harmony with those things that are kindred and inseparable. Therefore, the great man says again, arguing for his own previously stated words: "For when one gives an account of each of the names, and of the nature itself, about which the names are, he will not give the same account for both. If the account is different, then the nature of these is also different." Therefore, the essence is one thing, of which no account that fully reveals it has been found, and the meaning of the names concerning it is another, named from some operation or dignity. And again the same great Basil says in the same letter: "Whether the name of Godhead is of an operation, as we say that there is one operation of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, so we say that there is one Godhead." But let us here digress slightly from the words of the great man, and remind the philosopher of the opinion of the theologians, which has been often stated, and before others I say to him: "The natural things must be appropriate to the natures," he says, "and neither the fire to cool, nor the ice to heat, so that the operation of the uncreated nature is uncreated, and that of the created nature is created; and there is no other operation intermediate between created and uncreated," the same theologians also say this. Let us return again to the Tome and to the great Basil. "Whether also according to the opinions of the many," he says, "the name of Godhead is indicative of nature, because no C definition of the Godhead defines the Trinity." But to some there is hardly any need for elaboration or clarification here, so brightly do they possess purity and clarity, and many times—at least in the things already said and sufficiently elaborated by us, in which we have also had the discourse concerning divine operation and simplicity—save for a few things, which we shall also speak of in a little while. But it is necessary that those who have defected from this logical and dogmatic court to the side of Gregoras should also go down to the logical struggle and the stadium as advocates of the word of piety and as witnesses, since they have long since appeared as theologians and teachers and heralds of it, and in turn also fulfill their duties with justice. Therefore, let the Tome be brought in, and let it speak their words likewise once again. And Saint Athanasius, it says, says such things concerning these matters: "From the appellation of God it is evident that it happens to be operative. For it does not represent the essence of God itself—for it is impossible to know this—but God represents and indicates to us His contemplative operation." And again the same: "The name God does not signify the essence of the Godhead, for this is incomprehensible and nameless, but it is called God from His contemplative operation, as Saint Dionysius says, or from *theein*, that is, to run through, or from *aithein*, that is, to set on fire." But the same great Dionysius says: "If we should name the transcendent darkness God, or life, or essence, or light, or Word, we mean nothing else than the powers derived from Him to us, which deify, or create essence, or give life, or bestow wisdom." And we apply to it, according to the release from all intellectual operations, seeing no deification, or life, or essence that is exactly similar to the Cause that is separated from all things by every excellence. And again he says: "Godhead is the providence that contemplates all things." And that it is an operation is known from other sources too, but especially from what the great Athanasius writes, saying: "The Father and the Son do not effect providence by one and then another, D but by one and the same essential operation of the Godhead." But also the great Dionysius again in his second *Letter to Gaius* says that Godhead is the substance of the deifying gift, and the inimitable imitation of the Transcendent and Transgood, insofar as we are deified and made good.
Such and so great interpreters and witnesses of the words concerning the Godhead, he who is posing as the one who compiles the *Antirretici* against them and us, has spewed out with tyrannical and much malice, and then he also clamors and acts shamelessly, and with the greatest possible impudence leaps upon them, not proving us by Scriptural demonstrations or by any theological testimonies, but presenting these as if they were some kind of decrees from his own house and from himself. For he sees, he says to his own listener and mystagogue at the same time, Agathangelos...
[he does this] so that he might refute the things of falsehood even more brilliantly and more nobly with the discourse of truth.
Now, as for his arguments concerning monarchy and the one godhead—to which he also applies the sacred words of the theologians, setting the unity of theology in battle array against its clearly defined [aspects], and setting the holy teachers against themselves and against each other, which is indeed an ancient custom among the heterodox—it seems good to me for the present to pass over them, since they have already been sufficiently examined by us in the preceding [pages], and have received the arguments and refutations of the truth. Besides, it would be superfluous and outside the proper scope of the discourse to discuss at length and almost fruitlessly, for those who acknowledge only one omnipotent God in three persons, and who have not even in dreams imagined anyone else besides Him, the matter of monarchy, because of the delirious ravings of this very Gregoras of ours; although, as I have already mentioned, not even one of the unbelieving nations, after the coming of Christ on earth, has remained totally ignorant of the one God of all, even if they do not all know Him soundly and genuinely—for this belongs solely to the faction of those who truly worship piously, and to the flock, I say, according to us. Let us, however, examine if anything that may be considered worthy of account or of defense is said by him.
He never brings forward any testimony of the saints that is consistent, A but rather he decrees his own dogmas like oracles, and tyrannically compels all whom he encounters to accept what he says, allowing no one to contradict what he contradicts. And he does not just need to be composed in this way, but he is caught, seeing one of two things always: for either he lies about all the saints together, behaving arrogantly as though they agreed with his own blasphemies, without saying who those [saints] are or how or where they agree; or, sometimes, when he brings forward certain things as testimony for his own empty babblings, he is found to have understood nothing, being clearly caught in the act of bringing them forward against himself. And I pass over the empty crowd of his subsequent words and his insatiable chatter, sparing the time and the length of the discourse, except insofar as from what has been said, his philological composition and contradiction here is manifest to all, and [it is manifest] how much he cares for the truth and for that which truly *is*. And it is nothing new, nor is it discordant with his soul and his ways, to stitch together, to write, and to lie in public with a certain great and splendid diligence. For how could he who lies—concerning God and the truth according to godliness—so forcefully and persistently in discourse, in writing, and in every possible way, and who has been slandering and leaving no excess of evil undone, how could such a person ever spare those who preach and write those things, or whatever else it might be? For this would be equivalent to his being somehow contrary and contradictory to himself, if he plainly casts his arrows through all those things against his own head. For this, indeed, would be simply to shoot into heaven.
Therefore, having spoken at length regarding monarchy and the unity of the godhead, as I said, B and having himself called the theologians to testimony as if the matter were doubtful according to him and in need of much testimony—just as if he were striving through poor arguments and testimonies to prove that the sun we perceive is one and unique, or that the moon is spherical and not square—and having shadow-boxed and raved at length and insulted as is his custom, he then adds these words: "And first, let Basil come forward to me," he says, "refuting this man’s slander through that very letter of his to Eustathius." For the great Basil does not speak here of uncreated energy, but of the manifold operations and miracles, as he himself sets them forth again in this same letter, saying that it is necessary, by the sameness of the energy, to infer the unity of the substance. D "He sanctifies, he gives life, he invokes, and the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit do all such things in the same way. Do you see, then, how Palamas calls the sanctification, and the life-giving, and the illumination, and the invocation—and the things of God such as these—uncreated godheads? And then he is not ashamed to put forward these very things to prove the things that he himself is blaspheming." But you have understood and set forth even these things in a corrupted way here, O philosopher, slandering this great man just as you do us. And first, [there is] that lie: that the great Basil is not speaking here of uncreated energy, but of operations, that is to say, of results and creatures, just as he himself
A has wrongly supposed. Let him show us, then, that very same Basil again. For he says, immediately following his own words, "whether the discourse is for him regarding the natural energy of God, or regarding other creatures." And yet, even the matters set forth for him through the volume of the same epistle are clearly those [matters] that so illuminate the natural divine energy as to stop the mouth of all gainsayers at once, so that they cannot even mutter. Nevertheless, let those [matters] also be added, so that he may again demonstrate the power of the truth in abundance. He says, then, a little further up, according to this epistle: "If we see that the energies which are wrought by the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are different from one another, we conjecture that the operating natures are also different, due to the otherness of the energies. For it is not possible that things which are separate according to the definition of nature be brought to one another in the mode of their energies; neither does fire cool, nor does crystal heat; but they are separated from one another by the difference of their natures, and the energies which come from them [are separated] as well. If, however, we conceive of a single energy of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, differing or varying in nothing, it is necessary to infer the unity of their nature from the identity of the energy." And then, immediately following, the great one enumerating the kinds of natural energies B by parts, says: "It sanctifies, and gives life, and illuminates, and consoles. And all such things [are done] likewise by the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."
Do you perceive now, tell me, O philosopher, that the entire discourse of the teacher is regarding natural energy and power, and not at all regarding results and creatures, as you yourself have wrongly supposed? For it is not possible, he says, that things which are separated according to the definition of nature be brought to one another in the mode of their energies, "just as it is not possible," he says, "that fire cools, nor that crystal heats." For to each of these, and not adventitiously, belongs its own [property]—to the one heat, and to the other cold—just as indeed to God it belongs naturally and essentially to sanctify, and to give life, and to illuminate, and things similar to these, not from without.
But Gregoras, not even in these matters refraining from an obvious imitation of that ancient Marcion, and in other things surpassing him, in order that he might establish only his own wicked opinion and that of his fathers, and prove God to be a creature through His own natural and proper [demonstrations], inserts between the words of the teacher, of his own accord, the word "makes," as we have heard. "For it sanctifies," he says, "it gives life, it illuminates, it consoles, and it makes all such things C likewise, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." So that this shameless man is both of these at once: a slanderer and calumniator of the theological and patristic discourses, by means of his own additions and subtractions, and an unbridled insulter of those who are not to be called to account, bringing his own shame and boldness upon them in an evil manner.
Behold then, therefore, that the great Basil, having mentioned the name of the divine energy more than fifteen times in those [writings] of ours from that sacred epistle, here in the singular, there in the plural—let Gregoras come forward, if he can, and show where, in the things said, or rather in the entire epistle, the great Basil appears to have once called this an "operation" (ἐνέργημα), or a "result," or a "making," as he himself says? But he would not be able to. Although the name of "operation" (ἐνέργημα) is common to both: to the natural energy of God, I mean, and to the result of this, according to the divine Apostle. For, "to each," he says, "is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the profit," and then through the charisms of the Spirit enumerated individually there, he [the Apostle] himself leading this manifestation of His into greater clarity, says: "To one, indeed, is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom," and so forth. "But all these things," he says, "is wrought by one and the same Spirit, distributing to each uniquely as He wills." And again, "There are," he says, "diversities of gifts, and diversities of operations (ἐνεργημάτων). And the same Spirit, and the same is God, who works all things in all." Therefore, the theologian from Damascus also says: "The energy is also called 'operation' (ἐνέργημα), and the operation is called 'energy,' just as 'creature' is called 'creation'." But the great Basil here, I say, does not appear to be using even this intermediate word at all, cutting off, as it seems, any handles and pretexts D for Gregoras and those like him on every side, and driving them through all [means] toward the truth. And observe also these things: "All things," says the great one, "are wrought equally for the worthy by the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; all grace and power." Then, between these, the rest according to the same— [alt-version omitted]
A kind, as we have heard, having numbered them, next he adds: "And if there is any other good which descends to us. Then all grace and power, and every good thing which descends from God to the saints, do you say that this is the result and product of an energy, and not the natural energy and power of God, bestowed in the Holy Spirit?"
You seem to me very insipid, or rather, altogether deaf to the charisms and gifts of the Spirit; for otherwise you would not think such things about them. And yet, for this very reason the Teacher added, "descends to us," so that he might teach you the condescension of the height of the Godhead to human lowliness, and that what descends from above to us is not some product and result, but rather divine grace, and the natural power of God, of which all created things are energies and results, whether they be the essences of beings, or those things which are bestowed proportionally upon beings. But what of the economy on our behalf which is in the sensible and intelligible creation? Does he not hear that even this is of the energy and power of the Holy Spirit, and that things on our behalf are accomplished with the Father and the Son by the power of the Spirit? Does the economy on our behalf, according to you, consist of a product and a result? But you say that the energy and power of the Holy Spirit is the essence itself, not the natural and operative motion of the essence—that of which, according to these very theologians, only non-being is deprived! But the Teacher who is written of and who theologizes these things does not intend this, my good man; so that there is every necessity to be persuaded by his words rather than by yours. For what does that man say, adding again: "Therefore, the essence is one thing, of which no word as yet has been found to convey it, and the meaning of the names concerning it is another, being named from some energy or worth." He did not say that the essence is one thing and the names of the essence another, as Gregoras, suspicious, is wont to babble in many places; but how? "The essence," he says, "is one thing, of which no word as yet has been found to convey it, and for this reason it is hymned by the holy theologians as 'above a name' and 'nameless.' And the meaning of the names concerning it is another," he says, as if to say that the things signified concerning it by the names are named from some energy or worth; as, B obviously, "God," and "Creator," and "Almighty," and "Lord," and "King."
See therefore, even according to this great one, that neither is the essence itself, by itself, that which receives the divine names, nor are the names devoid of realities, according to Gregoras, proceeding only to bare words; but these names are naturally of those things which belong essentially to the divine essence, being named, he says, from some energy or worth. Therefore Maximus, and likewise John the Syrian—I mean the theologians after this great one—say that the essence is one thing and the energy another, and indeed also essential C and natural this I say, for the energy is considered either in the constituent account of the essence, or it is among those things which are external. But that the natural energy is not among things external is clear from the fact that it is possible for an essence to be without works. But without natural energy, it is impossible for the essence either to be or to be known. For that by which each thing naturally acts, proves what it is, which is unchanging. And again: "For the energy, being natural, exists as a constituent and innate character of the nature." And again, the same person in the same place: "None of the beings is naturally accustomed to do opposites. For fire does not warm and cool, nor does ice cool and warm, nor does the earth dry and moisten, nor does water moisten and dry." If, therefore, this is not observed in any of the things that are, how do you not fear to say that the Word who was incarnate, and who became man essentially, performs with one energy both the miracles and the sufferings, which according to the account of nature differ from one another? And again, all the Fathers expressly and in common said and taught that the things of the same essence are of the same energy, and the things of the same energy are of the same essence, and that things which differ in essence also differ in energy, and things which differ in energy also differ in essence. And the divine teacher from Damascus says in the *Theological Chapters*: "It is necessary to speak of two energies in Christ because of the duality D of the nature. For of those whose nature is distinct, of these the energy is distinct; and those whose energy is distinct, of these the nature is distinct. And conversely, those whose nature is the same, of these the energy is also the same; and those whose energy is one, of these the essence is one, according to the God-bearing Fathers." And again: "The holy Fathers have said with one accord that things of the same essence are also of the same energy." And again: "It is necessary in every way that natural things be appropriate to the natures. For it is impossible for a deficient nature to have existence. But natural energy is not among things external. And it is clear that it is impossible for the nature either to be or to be known without natural energy. For by those things through which it acts, each thing proves its own nature. Which is unchanging. And again in the same place: "If Christ's energy is one, the same for both divine and human...
and by nature existing as man, how did he perform his miracles and sufferings with one energy?" And again: "If every energy is defined as a substantial movement of some nature, as those skilled in these matters have divided it, where has one seen an unmoving nature, or one entirely without energy, or found an energy that is not a movement of a natural power?" And what of these things besides, from the most brilliant, I say, beacon and guide of the Church, Cyril? "'Peace,' he says, 'I leave with you.'" If, therefore, he calls the peace his own, as a specific good and natural property existing within him, how is it not clear that the Father’s unique attributes pass over to the Son not by participation, but a substantial discourse draws the attributes of the Begetter onto the Begotten? And again: "Of all things, therefore, that belong to the Father by nature and are naturally and substantially rooted in the Son, who would not be guilty of the unavoidable charges of blasphemy for calling them a composition of words? For how could things of the same nature and energy not be of the same kind to one another?" B
And these, then, are the teachers as you have heard; but what is it that you say to these very things, O philosopher? For see, the theologians have demonstrated through many long, continuous arguments both that the divine energy is natural and substantial, and god-befitting, and uncreated, and innate, and not external to the nature, and proper and characteristic of the divine nature; C and that the discourse also pertains to this very same natural energy of God—concerning which I also speak to the great Father Basil, and for this reason they constantly take his examples and words as testimony for their own arguments, and frequently present the testimony of the holy Fathers and teachers, hinting at him, this great one, before the others, and the wise Cyril with him, and indeed those before them and after them; for they have all theologized the same things concerning the same matters in the same Spirit, which the discourse also promised to show us. Or rather, why is it necessary to search out and scrutinize the testimonies of others here, when it is possible to bypass the great interpreter himself and witness of his own words, and to confirm his own arguments through his own self? Indeed, the great Basil says again in his writings against Eunomius: "The Holy Spirit does not seek growth, being most perfect; therefore, all things with Him are perfect: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, wisdom, discernment, counsel, certainty, piety, knowledge, sanctification, redemption, faith, workings of powers, gifts of healings, and whatever is similar to these, having nothing in itself that is acquired, but having all things eternally as the Spirit of God, and having appeared from Him, having Him as the cause as His source, and gushing forth from there." And He Himself is also the source of the aforementioned goods. But that which gushes from God is subsistent; but those that gush from Him are His energies. And he adds to these and the great philosopher Athanasius says concerning the divine Spirit: "Far be it from me," he says, "to say that anything is acquired in the Spirit. For neither the holy, nor the incorruptible, nor the good, nor any other of the things contemplated concerning God, do I say to be acquired by the Holy Spirit, but by nature holy, by nature good, by nature immortal, as the Spirit of God, and gushing forth from Him, that is to say, proceeding." Have you heard, Gregoras, how the great Basil clarifies and elucidates that clear and simple discourse concerning the energies of God, discoursing at that time to your instructor Eunomius, and now also to him and to you, together with the great Athanasius? For these same ones are everywhere, and they always speak concerning the same things in the same way, being inspired, that is, by the divine Spirit. For he says that the things contemplated around God exist alongside God naturally and eternally, and that these very divine energies gush forth from Him as natural, and that none of these is acquired by Him. What then, O philosopher? Are these things, concerning which there is such a great discourse among the theologians, and theology, and god-befitting piety, merely something, or are they simply a din, and an empty sound devoid of words and realities? You, for your part, not only hold such things concerning these, but you also pour out a long, sarcastic invective and insult upon these natural attributes of God, and you shamelessly call them non-substantial and non-existent divinities, and mock and scoff at us—or rather, you blaspheme God shamelessly, and His mystics and theologians—for this is your theology, not ours, when you speak of them as your non-substantial and non-existent energies, O soul and tongue of filth! You do not even fear the lightning bolts from heaven, nor the irresistible and terrible rivers of the coming fire which await those who insult the Godhead according to you. But these teachers of piety and infallible instructors of the discourses concerning God say that it is not possible for God to exist at all apart from His natural attributes, since not even any nature whatsoever has ever existed apart from its natural properties. But I do not know how I have found myself brought out again into the arguments concerning divine energies, although I have said so many things in quantity and magnitude together with the theological teachers concerning these in what has preceded, so that not even one who is extremely contentious and hostile can find room to argue against them. But the one who is debating with me here, acting as the cause for those who wish to argue, by constantly leading the discourse to the same things and challenging it, and taking no glut from his defeat. But let us return again to the same discourse, and indeed to that which is spoken against by him and blasphemed concerning the Godhead. Gregoras, therefore, says again to his own listener: "Observe how, from the miracles and works that take place, the names said derivatively are also spoken concerning God." And this is that which the great Basil also says: that it is possible to know only the power of the One who acts through the comprehension of the energies.
A And if, as you seem to bear witness here along with the great one, we are able to know only the power of the One who acts through the comprehension of the energies, we have what was sought, and there is no further argument, since we ourselves, having been taught this very thing by the teacher, say that the works are indicative of power and wisdom. Palamas, however, as has been said, names all the things that are produced from such energies absolutely as godheads, yet he calls them visible to sensible eyes, and different both from one another and from that divine nature. Again, this man returns to the confusion of Eunomius, which is what he says against him, and through him again against this man, the great Basil. For having habitually called the works of God particular and natural—which indeed is the common and general mark of his heresy—he says that the names are referred from the works to the essence itself, blaspheming in two ways: by dragging down to creation the attributes which naturally belong to God, and by this—even along with them—the nature which indivisibly gushes them forth, according to these theologians; and by the fact that he does not refer them from the works to the divine energy and power, but rather to the divine essence itself, which is a flaw from which both Eunomius and his evil doctrine are pure. B But let the great Paul make both of these ashamed, writing thus to the Romans: "For that which we have already said, that the known of God is manifest to men; for God has manifested it to them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the works, even His eternal power and divinity." Which the divine Maximus elucidating says: "All the works of God, being contemplated by us according to nature with the necessary knowledge, tell us secretly the reasons according to which they have been brought into being, and show forth to us the divine purpose in each work; according to which also 'the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaims the work of his hands.' And the eternal power and divinity is the providence which holds together the things that exist, and the energy according to it which divinizes those being provided for."
Basil, however, the great one again, making this very thing clear, says to those around Eunomius such things as these: "What then, will they leave behind as something exceptional for the knowledge of the Only-Begotten, or of the Holy Spirit, if they themselves possess the apprehension of the essence itself? For surely, by assigning to the Only-Begotten the contemplation of the power, and the goodness, and the wisdom of God, they will not set for themselves the understanding of the essence as commensurate; for it is likely that in every instance the essence itself is unviewable to all, except to the Only-Begotten and to the Holy Spirit; but that we, being raised up from the energies of God, and by means of the works considering the Maker, receive the perception of His goodness and wisdom. For this is the known of God, which God has manifested to all men." And again, to the same man, he says: "The works are indicative of power and wisdom and art, but not of the essence itself, and they do not even necessarily represent all the power of the Creator." But behold also the senselessness of this empty expositor of theological doctrines. For not only is he unable to understand those things, but he also does not know his own self and his own words, not knowing what he is saying.
C "But I," says Gregoras, "say that the essence is this power, but not one thing and another; nor do I conceive any difference whatever between them." Do you say this, then, that we are able to know only the essence of God through the comprehension of the energies? And what else do you leave for God that is unknown to you, if you say that you know only the essence of God? But the great Basil does not mean these things in this way, most excellent one. For he says, "What exceptional thing will they leave behind for the knowledge of the Only-Begotten or of the Holy Spirit, if they themselves possess the apprehension of the essence itself?" And again: "The works are indicative of power and wisdom and art, but not of the essence itself," as you have heard, if indeed you heard; "and that it is likely that the nature itself is unviewable to all, but that we, being raised up to Him from the energies of God, receive the perception of His goodness and wisdom." Then from whence, O philosopher, and from what authors, or from what expository teachings and words have you brought forth this monstrous and bold theology, that from the comprehension of the energies, or rather of the works—for you know no other energy than this—you were able to know only the essence of God? What evil demon led you into the mysteries of these things? For the opinion, says the great Basil, that one has found the essence itself of the God over all is of great pride and arrogance. For they almost obscure with their grandiloquence even Him who said, "I will set my throne above the stars." And the divine Gregory of Nyssa says thus to Eunomius: "God is in Himself whatever He is even believed to be; but He is named by those who call upon Him, not by what He is, but by what He is believed to be in His activity regarding our life." D For when we call Him God, we conceive Him as the overseer and the beholder and the seer of hidden things. And the divine Chrysostom says, "The prophets appear to be ignorant not only of what the essence of God is, but they are also at a loss concerning His wisdom—how great it is. And yet, the essence is not from the wisdom, but the wisdom is from the essence. But when they are not able to grasp even this with precision, of how great a madness would it be to think one is able to submit the essence itself to one's own reasonings?" Which this very Gregoras has suffered in direct opposition to those lawless men, not only ignoring these theologians, but also prophets and apostles at the same time, or rather even the highest powers regarding God, I say
A thus, therefore, according to them, we worship one God—but we worship one God who is tri-hypostatic, active, and omnipotent; one in essence, yet tri-hypostatic as recognized in three hypostases; active and omnipotent as possessing energies and powers; and uncreated in essence, in hypostases, in powers, and in energies. For there is nothing created in God, just as there is nothing uncreated in man, says the divine and wise Maximus. And the same author again concerning the same matters: "Following the Spirit-moved decrees of the holy Fathers, and the synodal decisions of our own time, we reject and subject to anathema, B as before, so now, unless they repent, those who speak of two divinities in God, a created and an uncreated one, and who call the divine nature the only uncreated divinity, while calling the brilliance of the divine nature—in accordance with which the Lord also shone around the disciples on Tabor—and every divine power and energy, and everything that is contemplated and attributed as theology around the divine nature, a created divinity. We, however, worship and reverence one divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; not in essence only, but also in power, and in an uncreated energy, and in all things that are contemplated and attributed as theology around the essence." And again: "We do not say there are two divinities, C nor one superior and one inferior, but one; not in essence only, but viewed in the perfection of all things, as the divine Gregory of Nyssa also says." Of which things? Of authority, wisdom, goodness, creative, deifying, and volitional power. And these are the things which we, speaking both privately and publicly with our own people, and debating with the adversaries, both say and write, as I have said. And as to what we have said both synodically and in speeches and in writings, both this great and wondrous city knows, D or rather the greatest and best part of the city, that is to say, all who were present at what was said there. For these things, he says, were not done in a corner. And the synodal tome, being present, has already declared some things, and will declare others hereafter. What then does the tome say? Many arguments having been moved meanwhile, the dissenters began their accusation against the Thessalonian. And it was of this sort: that in some of his own writings he writes many times of two and many divinities, and these superior and inferior. And when they had said this many times and prevailed, and were blaming these very terms, the most pious emperor, regarding these things, commanded: "Let it be manifest to us, whether you make the words themselves the cause of what has been spoken, or the things revealed through the words, or both. For if the war is against the things, why do you make war on the shadow of the thing, sitting by the word? For the things themselves must be examined naked, and the truth in these matters must be sought from the theologians. But if, while continuing in agreement regarding the things, you blame the word...
it would be just, A I think, to point out Gregoras himself as he passes by in his discourse, and to show against whom his arguments regarding monarchy and polytheism are directed, and [directed against] that long shadow-boxing and that monstrous and phantasmal war. For it is not even against those who hold and preach what has been said—how could it be? Else, if there were someone who said that twice two is five, and seven plus one is ten, and that a living being is a reasoning, mortal creature, receptive of intellect and knowledge, [he would be] a stone directly—these things and the like to these belong to those who are intoxicated, and not to those who are sober, but rather to some who have lost their minds and are raving. But that those things are not directed against us is manifest from the outset to everyone whose brain is not damaged. But if we said that the name of "divinity" does not belong to the nature of God alone, but rather pertains even more to its energy, we did so following the holy B theologians, since even they themselves say that all divine names are not of the divine essence; and they say that the divine voice is also energetic and relative, as we have already said, for the super-essential and super-named [nature] is also unnamed by itself; if for this reason those in the party of Gregoras accuse us of polytheism, they happen to be manifest not so much against us as against the teachers, bringing forth accusations and blasphemy, from which we have learned those things.
And this, therefore, is indeed an old tactic of Gregoras, as indeed the discourse has often shown us to be the case, using a mask as it were against the face of the saints, and then striking with all his hand and tongue, not so much against us as against them, or rather, while appearing to be against us and them together, in truth [he is aiming] against his own head. C But since—in addition to other things, or rather, before almost all other things—Gregoras keeps lying about us, [saying] that we produce, as he says, no witnesses from the saints for the dogmatic statements made by us concerning God—for he was saying to his own student a little while ago, "Do you see, for he never brings forth a single testimony of the saints supporting him, but as if they were oracles, he dogmatizes his own settled opinions," and [he says] that he lies about all the saints together, claiming that they agree with his own blasphemies, though he says not who those [saints] are, nor how, nor where they agree—since, therefore, Gregoras is so unrestrainedly and excessively shameless even in these obvious matters, it would be D necessary that the theological utterances concerning divinity, which were briefly summarized a little earlier by the Tome, should be put forward by us more fully and again, and indeed that those that are left and are akin to the things said should be added to the discourse from these very same [saints]. And let the divine Gregory of Nyssa be first brought forward by us into the discourse, saying as follows to Eunomius in his *Antirrhetics*: "And the name of 'divinity' itself, whether it signifies overseeing power or providential power, had a fitting relationship to the human..."
nature provided with the power; for it is He who is God and overseer of those brought into existence by Him." And a little later: "Since, therefore, this was the sum of our misfortune—that the human being was cast out from the good Father and became alien to the divine oversight and providence—for this reason He who shepherds all rational creation, having left the aimless and super-celestial flock among the heights, pursued the wandering sheep, I mean our nature. For having appropriated to His own nature, through purity and kinship with the Father, that new man who was created according to God, in whom dwelt the fullness of the godhead bodily, He drew along with Him toward the same grace all the nature that was kin and partner to His body." And the same author says again, in his discourse *On the Divinity of the Son and the Spirit*: "Some say that divinity is indicative of nature. But we say that the divine nature either has no indicative name, or has none for us. Yet if anything is spoken, whether by human custom or by the divine Scripture concerning those things indicated about it, the divine nature itself remains ineffable and unutterable, transcending all meaning through language."
B Let them take the serpent as accuser of their senseless blasphemy; for he shows that it [the name of deity] has the meaning of a vision-producing energy. For in advising them to touch the forbidden things, he promises this: "Your eyes will be opened, and you will be as gods." You see that he bears witness to the vision-producing energy in the title of "divinity"; for it is not possible to see anything unless the eyes are opened. Therefore, the title of "divinity" does not represent nature, but the vision-producing power. And this same theologian, writing to Ablabius about the holy Trinity, says: "Acknowledging, he says, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, how do we not say three gods, but one God? Since the name 'God' is indicative of energy; for it is etymologized from *theein* (to run) everywhere, or from *theasthai* (to see), or from *aithein* (to burn) off corruption. As each person possesses such an energy in a complete way, the name indicative of it will also be complete in every way, and it will be, and be called, 'God' in the strict sense; but in that the aforementioned energy is one and immutable in the three, the divinity is also one, and there is one God in three hypostases. For in the case of the uncreated Trinity, it is not possible to find a name indicative of its essence." And the same author says again: "God indicates one working; divinity, energy." Neither of the three is an energy, but rather each of them is a worker. C Do you hear, O Gregoras, from this theologian, how through all sorts of reasoning and objections, and testimonies of Scripture in support of these, he proves not only for the title of "divinity," but also for the name of "God," that it is derived from it—not as being of His divine nature, but rather of His natural energy—whether he says it is the overseeing energy, or D the burning, that is, the consuming of corruption? And he so much forbids the name from representing the nature of God, that he also accuses those who think such things of senseless blasphemy, and sets the arch-evil serpent against them as an accuser for these reasons. "Let them take," he says, "the serpent as accuser of their senseless blasphemy." Why then do you, also senselessly, according to those men of that time—or rather, being far more senseless than even they—do violence to the words of the other theologians and indeed of this great one, striving to turn them all toward the contrary, and representing them as if they were fighting against themselves and against one another? You said, for you, that this divine theologian, writing to the Greeks, said that the name "God" is indicative of essence, ignoring that even the name of "essence" according to the same theologians refers to the essence-making power and energy, of which the super-essential hiddenness is the name; for that is "above-named," as you hear, and "nameless," as it transcends all meaning through language. Moreover, the name of "essence" is not only taken by these theologians for the essence-making power itself, and indeed for the super-essential energy derived from it—as is also life, and light, and peace, and the good, and things analogous to these—but you would find them using the term "essence" also for each of the three hypostases. Indeed, they even speak of the whole tri-hypostatic God as "divine essence," meaning thereby the nature, and the hypostases, and all the natural and essential things—that is, the things which follow, according to these very theologians, upon the divine nature. And it is also a custom for all, simply, to use it in writings and discourses; as when we say "angelic essence," or "human essence." For we do not mean "essence" when speaking thus without hypostases and natural energies and powers, but obviously the nature together with those that are inseparably with it—I mean with the hypostases, and with all things natural and essential. And therefore, Gregory the Great also held to this discourse, while debating with the Greeks about divinity and monarchy, and wishing to show them the tri-hypostatic God worshipped by us—not many gods, according to the Hellenic error, but one by nature. "One being the divine essence," he says, "and one the name describing it, that of 'God,' there is one God in the strict sense, in accordance with the discourse of essence." He was saying this, not here dividing the divine essence from its three hypostases and from the natural things—far from it! For not only is God one, but also three; the one by essence, the other by the hypostases. How then could the teacher be thought to be sound in theological matters, if in this way, according to you, the discourse of "essence" were understood here, I mean as separate from the natural and the hypostatic, and only of the super-essential itself? For even immediately someone contending against it, as if...
A there were an idiom of the eternal essence, which is the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, to oversee and behold and know all things. And these things, indeed, in so far as it is possible to show from the aforementioned discourse to Gregoras, that the name of "deity," even if this theologian says it is of the essence, yet it is taken from some idiom pertaining to it, since what that (essence) is, is inconceivable and incomprehensible.
That God is one, but also three, your speech here concerning the One is altogether true. But the master did not interpret the discourse of the essence here in that way; rather, just as we said a little before, he spoke of the whole together as the one tri-hypostatic and omnipotent God; and so truly the entire scope of theology is preserved faultlessly by the master, without any contradiction whatsoever growing up against it.
Furthermore, one must also consider, in addition to these things already said, that the Theologian, when making his discourse for the Greeks, and standing in the struggle for the monarchy, and moving against their polyarchy and polytheism, did not deem it necessary to B introduce a distinction between divine essence and energy for the present, and to give certain handles and pretexts at least as far as a syllable and a word to those polytheists, and thus appear to confuse theology as if on purpose; but he names the super-named and nameless divine essence from its natural energy, I mean the "deity," just as he also calls the same [essence] from this essence-making power, which indeed is considered of old in all theology, both ancient and new, as I have also said before; for it is not possible to call the nameless otherwise. But towards a believer, I mean Ablabius, there being need again for this renowned teacher to write about the same things in like manner, he does not appear to have used the discourse in the same way; but having distinguished the divine energy from the divine essence in a manner worthy of God by his discourse, and having demonstrated the distinction according to nature—that the divine essence is by nature above every name, but this natural energy of it is what is named—he brilliantly demonstrates the monarchy and the one and only tri-hypostatic God. For in that, he says, each person has the energy of the deity perfected, he will necessarily also have the name that manifests it, and he will be and be called God strictly; but insofar as the aforementioned energy is one and unchangeable in the three, so is the deity one, and God is one in three hypostases. For in the case of the uncreated Trinity, it is not possible to find a name manifesting its nature. Thus also Justin the philosopher and martyr, and whoever else of the teachers speak about such things, and not otherwise; for they do not think so, as it will be shown still more clearly in the following by the same theologians.
But, I say, so that we may now demonstrate our own discourse even from the very discourse against the Greeks by the God-speaking one of Nyssa, from which Gregoras also thinks to bring his objection against the truth, come, let us set forth those things into the midst. "The monad of the holy Trinity according to the essence," he says, "and clearly also according to the name of 'God'—for this is meaningful of the essence, not that it sets forth what it is, since the divine essence is inconceivable and incomprehensible, but it is taken from some idiom pertaining to it and manifests it, just as 'neighing' and 'laughing,' being idioms of natures, when spoken, signify the natures of which they are C idioms."
See also that [point] concerning the general divine energy of the same theologian, O philosopher. "God," he says, "is declared as acting, but deity as an energy; but none of the three is an energy, but rather each of them is acting," so that you may learn not to wrongly say now that the Son of God and the Spirit are the divine energy, and now the divine essence itself, and energy and self-energy, and the divine will itself, this exact essence—not things subsisting by themselves, but things subsisting and being contemplated in the divine essence which is the source of these—sometimes wrongly imagining and speaking of the divine essence itself, and sometimes [wrongly] of its thearchic hypostases, and not even conceiving the distinction between these worthy of God, even by way of thought, which you have indeed been bruited about blaspheming in what has passed, and perverting every theological and patristic discourse.
Look also at the great Basil hereafter, reasoning the same things to you more clearly concerning the same matters. For after saying many things about the difference between divine energy and nature, as has also often been said by us in what has gone before, he then adds these things: "Therefore, the identity of the energy in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit clearly shows the unchangeableness of the nature; so that even if the name of 'deity' signifies nature, this designation, by which the community of the essence is joined, is applied strictly to the Holy Spirit also." But I do not know how they bring the designation of "deity" to the indication of the nature, making every preparation as if they had not heard from the Scripture that a "created nature" does not come about. But Moses was made a god of the Egyptians, the one who gives oracles having said to him, "I have given you as a god to Pharaoh." Therefore, the designation bears an indication of some authority, whether of oversight or of activity. But the divine nature remains in all the conceived names as it is, unindicated, as our discourse says. And a little later: "Whether, therefore, the name of 'deity' is of an energy, as one energy of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, so one nature also to be the deity; or if, according to the opinions of the many, the name of 'deity' is indicative of nature, because finding no variation in the nature, not unsuitably we define the Trinity as one deity." That the name of "deity" is not of the hidden super-essential deity—for how [could it be] of that which is altogether ineffable and nameless?—but of the energy essentially pertaining to it, is clear from many things, both from those now said and from those previously said in part by the theologians, even if, according to an opposition, D this great man, advancing the discourse against the one contradicting, says, "Even if it is indicative of nature,"
A regarding whose divinity of the Spirit, according to them, the argument was—regarding that which is naturally present to God, or regarding some other [divinity], as these people present say, is created." For it might come to pass that for us also in this matter the testimony from the enemies is, as it is sung, surely more trustworthy. What, then, did the great Basil say concerning them? "They uncover," he says, "more clearly the scope of the argument, that in the case of the Father they accept that He is God, and they admit the Son likewise to be joined to the name of divinity, but for the Spirit, who is numbered with the Father and the Son, they no longer admit Him to be included in the concept of divinity." And again: "What is the argument, while granting the communion in other names to the Spirit with the Father and the Son, to separate Him alone from the divinity? But if it is inferior," he says, "according to their argument, or such that it does not contain communion with the Father and the Son for the name of divinity, it is not worthy to share in any other of the names befitting God." And again: "But they say that this appellation is indicative of nature, but that the nature of the Spirit is not in communion with the Father and the Son, and for this reason, neither does it partake of the communion according to this name." And again: "So that even if the name of divinity signifies nature, the communion of essence composes that this appellation be applied properly to the Holy Spirit as well. But I know not how they, who fabricate everything, apply the appellation of divinity to the indication of nature."
The divine Gregory of Nyssa says: "They who, clearly, were then suffering from the sickness of Macedonius, say that the divinity is indicative of nature. But we say that the divine nature has no name that is indicative of it." And shortly after: "But let them take the serpent as accuser of their senseless blasphemy. For counseling them to touch the forbidden things, he promises this: that 'your eyes will be opened, and you will be as gods.' Do you see that he bears witness to the divinizing energy by the voice of divinity? Therefore," he says, "the appellation of divinity signifies not nature, but [rather] the divinizing power."
And such were the arguments of those who fought against the Spirit, as the teachers say, and such were also those of these [moderns] D again, towards those others concerning the divinity of the Spirit. From which, I think, the scope of each is made manifest: on the one hand, those who most wickedly wanted to alienate the Spirit from the divinity of the Father and the Only-Begotten, since the nature of those was also considered by them to be alien [to Him]; but on the other hand, the teachers of piety, by the identity of natural energy—for this, as they clearly proved B from the divine Scripture, is also what the appellation of divinity is—and by having presented the commonality of the nature, so that both are collectively shown most beautifully and most securely through one another: through that which is common [to the divinity], that is, the natural energy, the common and united [power], or rather, even precisely [that which is] in the [divinity] of the nature, and through that of the nature again, the common
A and one divinity of the three. For if a created divinity were present to God, as you say, from this it would follow that one God is piously recognized in three persons, consubstantial, co-equal in power, omnipotent, possessing one natural energy and divinity, and for this reason, the three remaining one God—the most paradoxical thing—since the divinity, according to these very theologians, belongs as one to the three, just as the nature does. B If, however, [the] uncreated and the created [were] one divinity, yet [the latter] possesses a natural and essential power, without which one cannot even be God, or rather cannot even exist at all, according to these very theologians, and indeed also according to natural and true reason, then is not a ditheism and polytheism thereby introduced? Yet you have already heard this many times from us and from our holy teachers, and not only that, but also from the Synodal Tome itself, which expressly proclaims and confirms that by no means are two divinities, or many, to be conceived of or spoken of; for it says that this was not even said by the theologians. Rather, the difference between the divine essence and the divine energy is [what is to be] explicitly conceived and spoken of... and indeed also [that which is taught] by their own oracles; and besides these, that the divine energy is [also] divinity, or that the energy of God is divinity—for we do not at all differ even on this point, concerning which the argument is now addressed to the common teachers of the Church. But you, who have maliciously intruded once again into Christ's Church, along with Barlaam and Akindynos, or rather, even together with them, tell us what you have to say to this? For behold, you have been refuted as thinking and teaching that the one divinity of the Trinity is created, by which God is and is called [God], which it did not occur even to those ancient heretics to say. For if the ever-existing divinity, by which God is God, does not always exist, then God, who is the ever-existing One, is not always God according to you. And follow this out yourself, O philosopher: the perpetually existing [One] does not always exist, and God is not God. Or even thus: The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are God by one natural energy, according to the theologians. But this energy is created, according to you; therefore, by this one and created energy, according to you, [there is] one created God. Or again thus: If the many and created things are, according to you, God—for you yourself call even the natural energies of God [created], in which [you include] your own divinity, of course—then the one and uncreated [nature] is not God by necessity. If the one and uncreated [nature] is not God according to you, then strictly speaking, the existing [One] does not exist, and God is not God according to you. Thus, through everything, you have been refuted as being not only irreligious, but also impious and atheistic; and you will not be able to escape ditheism and polytheism, or rather, even atheism itself, precisely [as defined] by my philosophers and theologians, O philosopher, so long as you add a created [divinity] and a strange and monstrous kind of divinity, and drag down the things of God's nature into the realm of created things. C But if our argument and theirs also grieves the truth, if the divinity, by way of cause, is the transcendent and nameless essence of God, having the natural power and energy of itself—I mean the contemplative, providential, and deifying energy—[if it] has [this] called divinity by existence, and in this way the divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, and not two or many, since it is of the same and one God, and [since] the nature and the natural and inseparable power and energy and divinity [are one], and this and that is one God, and the essence of God is one and indivisible with its essentially proceeding [properties], trihypostatic, active, volitional, omnipotent. Either you yourself deny the trihypostatic nature of the divinity, so as not to introduce three gods—since each of the thearchic persons, when considered by itself, is also God. But you will not accept the argument, since we know God to be three in hypostases, but one in essence and power and the definition of divinity. How then, here, where there [happen to be] persons and [each consists] by itself, are you not forced to think of three gods, even though each by itself is God—which, as I said, is not the case—but rather that the three are one God? "But I," says the philosopher, "while avoiding ditheism most of all, and fearing polyarchy and atheism, called the energies and the divinity of which you speak created, if they do not signify the essence of God, knowing only the essence of God itself as uncreated, while all things concerning the essence are created." And I say that this same thing, and nothing else, is what makes you a ditheist and polytheist and atheist, because you deny all the essential [properties] of God and indeed the divinity naturally inherent in Him, and you yourself introduce in their stead a created divinity—I know not of what God, and from whence you heard it. So if the divinity of God, that is, the nature, has a created divinity according to you, nothing prevents it from being one divinity; but if God possesses a contemplative and providential power, that is, an uncreated and co-eternal divinity, inseparable from His essence, by which He is and is called God—clearly according to the theologians—and all other things that naturally belong to Him, this itself is, according to you, polytheism and polyarchy. And who would not worthily laugh at your folly and madness at once, and indeed at your ignorance, if D you think and say [that these things]—yet there [you say that] these qualities of God [do not] exist by themselves in any way, but are considered indivisibly in the source-essence? Do you not recognize and call God the essence of God together with its natural properties, which the divine Scriptures most of all, and the councils, and the theologians all together proclaim? And [do you not recognize that they], along with the unified [nature] of theology, also excellently teach that which is distinct, not only concerning the essence and its three worshipped persons, but also concerning the same essence again and its natural properties and energies, of which, clearly, they say there is one divinity? For what reason, then, [are there many] goodnesses, and wisdoms, and lives, and beings, and lights, naturally in God
if you say that even one of these divine names represents the essence of God? For it is impossible to attain knowledge A of God's essence from his natural properties, because they refer only to his transcendent essence, which theology says is beyond name. For our argument here does not concern the hypostases either; how therefore, while you maintain unity in all those former cases—calling one wisdom, one life, one peace, one light—[do you, regarding] divinity alone, because the nameless essence also partakes of this name from its essential energy, just as it surely does in those other cases, fabricate two or many divinities, and wickedly fashion things that do not exist, and struggle to link to theology what is explicitly forbidden, while treating with all haste those things that are acclaimed, preached, and written as you wish to interpret them? As if one, hearing the sun mentioned, or the Son with the Father as one God, did not acknowledge exactly these things, but, judging the speakers to be dualists and imagining two suns, were himself to join the shadow of night to this bright eye of day, calling both the sun, and rather joined [them] as one, and combined the firstborn Son of Israel with the God and Father, saying that this one and that one were one God. For I also think it one and the same to think and to say these things, and to bring, according to Gregoras and Acindynus, a created divinity to the transcendent essence, and then to consider God and the creature one God and one divinity. And not I alone, but I know that each of those who think rightly [does so].
But enough of these things. But so that you may know that these wise theologians and rhetoricians do not say these things only concerning divinity, nor do they say that this [term] alone is an energetic term, as they themselves say, but also the term "God" itself, likewise and in the same way, listen to what follows from them themselves, I say. The divine Gregory of Nyssa, therefore, writing against Eunomius—which is what we were already saying—says: "God is in and of Himself whatever He is believed to be. But is He named from what He is? Rather, [He is named] from the energies concerning our life that he is believed to possess. For when we call Him God, we conceive of the overseer, the inspector, and the one who sees the hidden things." And again to the same [subject]: "But we have concluded that the name 'God' has been derived from [His] contemplative energy; so that, having been instructed regarding a certain partial energy of the divine nature through this name, we have not attained in our conception to the essence itself through this name." And again to the same: "For He who provided the power to those things that exist is God and overseer of those things that have been made by Him." The same [author] again, in [the letter] to Ablabius: "The name 'God', he says, is indicative of energy. For it is etymologically derived everywhere from 'running' B (theein) or from 'seeing' (theasthai) or from 'burning' (aithein) away wickedness." Anastasius of Sinai, again: "In how many ways, he says, is the name 'God' used in Scripture? In two: by nature and by relationship. By nature, the Creator; by relationship and by grace, even the righteous are called gods. It is evident, however, that the name 'God' happens to be energetic, and not essential."
Note that it does not itself [i.e., the essence] represent God’s essence—for this is incomprehensible and nameless—but He is called God from His contemplative energy, as holy Dionysius says: either from "running," that is, pervading, or from "blazing," which is to burn. Similarly, "man" does not indicate the nature itself, but the "looking up" (the anō athrein), that is, looking upward at the energy of our eyes. If, therefore, both of the titles of Christ’s natures have their names from their own energies—a source of dismay to the hardened heart of the heretics—why are they not ashamed to deny His essential energies? But furthermore, even that great Dionysius among theologians, whom this God-bearer also puts forward as a witness for his own discourses regarding divinity, says most other things about such matters, just as it has been said by us previously, and indeed also that truly glorious [saying]: "If we were to name the transcendent, hidden God, or life, or essence, or light, or Word, we would understand nothing else than those powers that have come forth to us from Him, whether manifesting, or making essential, or life-giving, or wisdom-giving, and so forth, as it has been consistently said by this great man." Here, what will Gregoras say, and his guide and deceiver toward atheism and destruction, Acindynus? C Truly, their foolish heart was darkened, as the Apostle long ago said to the wise men of the Greeks; and claiming to be wise, they became foolish, since these men also almost exchanged the glory of the one and only God, according to those [Greeks], for the worship of creatures, polytheism, and atheism. For behold, having dropped the name of divinity here, the theologians—and having stripped away every veil and shadow of those who speak against [the truth]—they [the opponents] craftily inject [their own views] into themselves, just like the venomous bites of reptiles, fabricating divinities that do not exist, and shamefully deifying creatures for themselves, and they theologize about God Himself, deliberately transposing from the name of divinity to the name "God." D What then, O wise men and teachers of this vain faith or destruction? Is this God also "created," whom these teachers of piety theologize about here, since they do not all concede together, as you have heard, that it is the divine essence that the name indicates, but rather that it is of the natural energy of God, just as we have already stated many times concerning [the term] divinity? As for the name of divinity, since the theologians said in many places that it is not the essence itself but rather its essential energy, thus avoiding the logic of God’s natural energy and the blasphemy of supposedly calling the divinity of God created...
A but by your perverse shift into a deeper pit, you have fallen into an inextricable folly and a circle in which you have spent your life, philosophizing unphilosophically, and sacrificing as it were only to things that do not exist, and wickedly worshipping vain things, being tossed by which you have come to a disastrous end, your mind corrupted, miserable man; and you have—alas!—denied the very true faith and piety toward God in your final days, spitting upon the simplicity of the Gospel and mocking most shamefully our teaching in the Spirit, which comes from fishermen and tentmakers and unlettered men, and you have left behind for yourself a burial shroud and a column of ungodliness and atheism in these words of yours in the Church—a column always being demolished by the pious, but always branding your struggles and courses taken in defense of ungodliness and atheism; and what is even worse and more absurd than this is that you send those who have been trapped and B led astray by you and these words of yours, like merchandise, to that place of prepared, unending fire, which is surely a matter for tears, and of how many it is not worth saying! Then you even dared to theologize after all this—or, to speak more appropriately, to war against God—and to deliberately and wickedly oppose all the theologians together, both ancient and new, who are bearers of God; you did not do this out of human intellect and wisdom, but rather out of the inspiration of the good Spirit who dwells in them and who instructed them in the mysteries of His divinity, whose teachings and words and the supernatural power of whose theology—whose voice, to speak apostolically, has gone out into all the earth, and whose feet to the ends of the inhabited world—these will now justly brand both you and your words as a recorded trophy against your blasphemy and war against God, which shall never be demolished for aeons by anyone: not by word, not by time, not by any manner of means at all. Say, therefore, and add the things that follow from your book of blasphemy and war against God once again, so that we may once more apply ourselves to these things or set against them these living volumes of the Spirit. For the Word is still raging against these things. C
TO THE SAME PHILOSOPHER GREGORAS That divine grace and deification are unapproachable and inimitable for human nature, even if the same comes to be by way of relation and imitation in the Holy Spirit; and how and according to what arguments the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are called energies of the Father by the theologians, and yet again are not energies themselves. DISCOURSE TEN.
These things and such as these against the one, all-powerful and uncreated divinity, and against the holy theologians of this, having been wickedly philosophized by the aforementioned Gregoras, and again that manufactured companion and friend, Agathangelos, is introduced, saying thus: "Palamas," he says, "provides a certain epilogue to this chapter of that lawless tome, which even his own followers D, having remembered that light on Mount Tabor as they are accustomed, as a certain unassailable citadel, and one very difficult for their enemies to look upon, have granted." Therefore, it is necessary for you not to leave even these things as far as possible from the appropriate meditation, to hand over the feast of analysis to those who have been negligent regarding them. And after a little: "For it is thus."
A Relationship, he says, is also God's providence toward those who are provided for, and His foreknowledge toward those who are foreknown, and the eternal predestinations in God toward those who are predestined. But for each of these it is no impediment to being related toward that which is uncreated. Thus not even this deifying gift, the theosis itself, is created, because it is a relationship toward those who are being deified." But here the philosopher, not as is his custom, performs his usual theft and buffoonery, and again; but having progressed little by little toward the worse, as it seems, and having become much better than himself—and I mean this in the sense that he brings those things to a much greater and more absurd degree—he removes almost all of the proposed heads and suppresses at once all the testimonies of the Saints regarding it, many of which are great. B Except that he did not see fit, I know not how, to conceal and render everything in total obscurity, for I think some divine power was assisting him against his will in these matters, lest he altogether secretly act maliciously and wickedly against the truth. Wherefore it is necessary for us to take them up from the beginning, and to propose the holy tomos itself again, and to add them to the discourse just as they are, safe and sound. Upon these, he says: "Since this gift of the All-Holy Spirit and energy, namely the theosis, by which the saints are deified, is called divinity by the saints, those who contradict the Thessalonian C say it is a created divinity, establishing this from the fact that God is called creator by the Great Dionysius, and that he called this an image and a relationship of those who partake, the holy synod declared that they spoke ill; however, this having also been sought by the divine synod, if any one of the saints said that the theosis is uncreated, and if the relationship and the image and that which subsists are also said of the uncreated, proofs of the saints were brought forward, not always declaring these to be said of created things." For the great Basil in his *Antirrhetics* says, "He who produced the clods of dew did not produce the clods and the Son in the same way." And in the first book of the *Hexaemeron*: "In order to demonstrate," he says, "that the world is a technical work, set before all for contemplation, so that through it the wisdom of the One who made it might be recognized, the wise Moses did not use any other voice concerning it, but said, 'In the beginning He created,' not 'He energized' nor 'He brought into subsistence,' but 'He created.'" In as much as many of those who imagined the world to be co-existing from eternity with God, did not allow that it had been brought into being by Him. And it was demonstrated from this, that both the acting and the being acted upon can be said not only of created things, but also of eternal and uncreated things; since those who differ, hearing of the grace being energized, immediately think it is created. For the great Gregory in his theology, "Let it be," he says, "that 'Father' is also an name of energy, if this pleases; not even so will you capture us." D Having skipped over all this holy theology of the saints, and indeed also the synodal elaboration, as if it had not even been spoken or had not even existed from the beginning, the philosopher mixes the subsequent piece of the discourse—like those dogs that sit nearby at common meals and tables—with his theft and shamelessness, and snatches it impudently according to those things of the table of the discourse, for his own subversion, or rather, to speak more appropriately, as a tearing and a trampling, and which the discourse had already reached, he proposes, saying thus: "Relationship is also God's providence toward those who are provided for, and His foreknowledge toward those who are foreknown, and the eternal predestination in God toward those who are predestined. But for each of these it is no impediment to being related toward that which is uncreated; thus not even this deifying gift of the Spirit, the theosis itself, is created, because it is a relationship toward those who are being deified." This, Gregoras impudently snatched, as I said, from the table of the discourse, and flees, crouching like those dogs that are accustomed to stand by and be served at tables, having abandoned the construction of the theological and patristic discourses, just as he did before. But it is necessary for us to bring those in too, and to construct our own discourse again through the patristic discourses. The synodal tomos therefore goes on, establishing what was said before: "For that the theosis is uncreated, the divine Maximus will clearly and briefly demonstrate, writing: 'Divine grace, even if it gives enjoyment to those who partake according to grace, it does not give apprehension. For it remains even in the participation of those who enjoy it, unapprehensible, because it has its infinity by nature, as being unbegotten.' And again: 'This is the Gospel of God, the petition of God toward men through the Son who was incarnate, and bestowing as a reward to those who hearken to Him the unbegotten theosis.'" Thus this empty man himself, the philosopher, both says and discusses, and composes *Antirrhetics*, as he himself pretends; whom I do not know how to name, whether a wonder-worker and a miracle-monger and a sophist, just as they say those in the theaters once [did], of the sights of those watching, as if...
A gathering impossibilities from impossibilities. For whence has he received these things, and from whom has he taken this starting-point, or from the divine description of the teaching or [from] the technical science of the outside philosophers, from which the rhythm of language [is derived] even for the divine Fathers? Or surely from nowhere at all. It is necessary, therefore, he says, for us to speak first about what relation is, and under what category it is generically brought.
For he said that the horse is a rational being, that the ox also [is], through the B gathering of impossibilities. And yet, this [man] tries to lead the venerable Gospel of Christ—which was proclaimed and confirmed by faith and grace alone—away [from that] with empty reasonings and with the words of a foolish and ignorant man, not wanting to hear even the one who is preeminent among His apostles and heralds, I mean Paul the great, who says, "My word and my preaching were not in persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power." For did not God make foolish, he says, the wisdom of this world? And again, "God chose the foolish things of the world, that He might put to shame the wise." But this friend of the foolish and shamed and abolished wisdom, [instead of] those who were the disciples and friends and teachers and heralds of the true and truly existing wisdom—the ones who had practiced those things through faith and experience and the power of the Spirit, and who had suffered and learned together, so that they did not even speak about these things from the beginning, nor were they those who had brushed aside everything of their own person alike—calls upon the Aristotelian categories for the Church of Christ once again, so that we might learn, he says, under what category relation is generically brought, and through those "scientific" words—as he himself says—we might be taught the mysteries of the God of all. Vain and truly dead is he who asks the dead about the living, according to what the great Isaiah said; not knowing that in the case of God, at least according to my—and again I say—the theologians, even things that are extremely opposite and fighting against each other by nature both come together and act in concert with one another [in a way that is] above all reason and intellect. Just as, indeed, I speak of the non-existent with the existent, and the unwise with the wise, and the impossible with the powerful, and the darkness with the light—according to the affirmative and, clearly, the apophatic theology—so too, the non-relational and the ungraspable [are brought into] relation in turn with that which is graspable. But it is more necessary to take this up again slightly from above, and to clarify the same argument.
The intent here for the Synod and for the holy tome in accordance with it, as we have already said a little while ago, was to show the divinizing energy and the deification [to be] divinity, [which is] spoken of in many places by the theologians [using] the same words, [which] not even those who hold the opinions of Barlaam and Akindynos can deny C
this, as far at least as concerns the pronunciation and the wording, I say, it is an attempt to drag it down even to a creature, impiously. For Dionysius, that sacred guide and theologian, says, "Dionysius says imitation and relation,"—he called this theosis. And such was the proposition set before the Synod, one of those seven that appeared originally, which Gregoras, as he himself says, had taken from the Tome, B and such is the writing against the proposition on the part of his own faction, which the Synod and the Tome were, of course, under a necessity of refuting. And indeed, I ask that we examine the premises and the conclusion of these logicians and sophists, and indeed, the straight and unerring resolution of the Synod. For they, having taken the lesser of the premises, as they claim, from the divine Dionysius—for he called the deifying gift of the Spirit "imitation" and "relation"—and having themselves, with great license, introduced the greater—for they have no power to show from the theologians that "imitation" and "relation" were ever called creatures of God, unless, perhaps, as this philosopher says, he should tyrannically foist the wise men of the Greeks upon the divine philosophy. And again, which is precisely what he has done, he attempts to prove not only that it is a creature, but also that it is non-existent and a non-entity, C having—as I said—most basely taken the greater of the premises from themselves, while it is clearly false and in no way looking toward the sacred doctrines; they brought forward a conclusion not only false, but also impious and godless, declaring the divinity of God to be created. But our sacred Synod of Christ received the one premise—not according to these slanderers, I say, but according to the sacred theology—saying that this "imitation" is inimitable and this "relation" unrelated, while it discarded the other as spurious and false and banished it from sacred theology. For that theology nowhere acknowledges such a God-befitting relation and imitation to be created, much less a non-entity and non-existent, as this man Gregoras claims; and that the conclusion of these men is at once false, impious, and godless, as I have already said, they clearly demonstrated; I mean, they showed that the premise, according to them, drags the deifying gift of the Spirit and the grace of sacred theosis—I mean the divinity of God itself, according to which the one God by nature makes many to be gods by grace—down to a creature; and these proofs of theirs are not very trustworthy or God-befitting. For they are not pronouncements or tyrannical and Sicilian edicts against this insatiable slanderer of the saints, D nor are they from that wisdom of the world which is being brought to naught and which is utterly foolish, but rather from the God-inspired Fathers and theologians themselves—I mean Dionysius and the wise Gregories together—and with them and after them, Maximus, the firm pillar of theology and of confession, not by preeminence of speech and human wisdom, according to the common teacher Paul, I say, but in demonstration and power of the divine Spirit, both having suffered it and having shown those things well. Those whom the philosopher Gregoras, having given himself over to complete obscurity and silence, along with that divine and lofty theology—inasmuch as he was not even able to look back toward those divine rays, just as owls and moles are not toward the perceptible glimmers of the sun—he lacks the shamelessness even to respect or blush before the holy Synod according to us, and its God-like Tome, on account of his impudence; but we have already quite clearly and through many arguments shown those men to be theologizing, and that the imitation is not only unrelated and inimitable, but also that relation itself is such that it is not so much an imitation and relation, but rather that it is by nature both inimitable and unrelated in that it is above that, both here and there, and that the imitation, and indeed the activity and the being worked upon, hold such a place among things divine and uncreated, that it was safely said of the Only-Begotten himself, "If this is also," he says, "the nature of the image, the imitation of the archetype, the name of 'activity' was then also raised in opposition to the Arian contention against the paternal hypostasis." "For let it be granted," he says, "that the 'Father' and the name of 'activity' according to your account—not even so will you refute us. But this very thing itself would be that which produced the consubstantial." And I say the other things along with these, which those aforementioned theologians have already taught just as much. Not only therefore do these and such things as these, which our discourse, as I said, has shown to the common Fathers and teachers of the Church who have brilliantly theologized, but also, those who have explicitly stated the deifying grace of the Spirit—the supernatural deification of those being deified—saying it is uncreated and having no beginning in time, as being both unbegotten and infinite, and a natural property of God. For, says the God-bearing Maximus, it remains even in the participation of those partaking of it, incomprehensible; because according to its nature, as unbegotten, it possesses infinity. And the same man says that this is the Gospel of God, which through the incarnate Son has been given as a reward to those who believe in Him: the unbegotten deification. By which, also, he adds from without, as is his wont: "I speak of the unbegotten deification," he says, "as the deification according to substance, an in-hypostatic illumination, which has no generation, but is inconceivable in worthy manifestations." To these, Gregoras, as it seems, being vexed and suffering with passion to an excessive degree, inasmuch as this does not accord with his categories and vain wisdom—which is known only by faith and experience, as I have already said many times, and not by human words and proofs—not only hides it in obscurity and silence, as I said before, but also, with great shamelessness along with slander, heaps the madness and insult against them upon us, saying that we dogmatize without proof, and that we bring forward these things as if they were some sort of tyrannical edicts and pronouncements. For they are the ones, not we—even if we, in a different manner, as disciples
A of the Spirit, pronounce these divine and sublime things—who speak more broadly and again in a moment about the same things, so that Gregoras, and anyone else, I say, according to him who is incurably ill, may be even more stung. Maximus the Great then, again interpreting some of the theological utterances as is his custom, says: "The man who through all things becomes obedient to God, does not have his being or his being called divine from nature or from relation, but comes to be and is named such by position and grace." For the grace of deification is absolutely unrelated, not possessing any power in nature receptive of itself; since it is no longer grace, but a manifestation of energy according to natural power. And thus, again, it is not paradoxical what is coming about, if deification were according to a receptive power of nature; for then deification would reasonably be a work of nature, and not a gift of God. And such a person would also be able to be God by nature, and to be called such properly; for the power or the immutable motion of nature towards activity, which constitutes the natural power of each of the beings, is nothing else. And how deification displaces the one who is being deified, if it is contained within the bounds of nature, I cannot see.
One must ask here those around the philosopher Gregoras: what do they gather from these stated things, for the theologian Fathers, regarding the gift B and grace and deification that makes god-like, which comes from the Spirit? For our holy synod, standing C at that time against their objection, which falsely and impiously, as has been said, gathered God's divinity and deification from imitation and relation, did not deduce the impossible from the impossible, as Gregoras says while mocking, and introducing the ox and the ass for himself in a way worthy of himself; but through things known to enemies and the impious, it clearly showed what is confessed and agreed upon by all those who are truly pious and faithful, saying that it is a *relation*, and God’s providence towards those who are provided for, and His foreknowledge towards those who are foreknown, and the eternal predestinations in God towards those who are predestined. But for each of these it is not a hindrance to be a relation towards the uncreated. And so the deifying gift of the Spirit, deification itself, is not created, because it is a relation towards those who are being deified.
And these things, the synod and its holy tome, D bringing forward the argument of the others and their own concerning relation and imitation, and solving the difficulty; but these theologian Fathers, as we hear, not only say that this is unbegotten, infinite, and incomprehensible, as being clearly a natural property of God, but also strongly object to the relation and natural disposition, and the comprehension of it. For Maximos the God-inspired, says, along with Gregory the Great—for he interprets the latter while philosophizing—"The grace of deification," he says, "is absolutely unrelated, not having any receptive power for itself in nature." And again: "If it were according to a receptive power, it would be a work of nature, not a gift of God." And again: "We do not have," he says, "a power in nature receptive of deification; and that nature does not possess a power capable of grasping what is above nature; and these things which the theologians have said earlier regarding this by way of objection, A which I stated, rejecting relation entirely concerning deification."
What then do those around Gregoras say to these things? For since they do not accept the opinion of our synod, nor the holy tome, which puts together the inimitable with imitation, and the unrelated with relation, along with Dionysius the wise—but they also pour out a long and uneducated irony of theirs, as if they were deducing the impossible from the impossible—let them defend themselves, and reason, and conclude their own position, if they could, standing against the objections B of these theologians, who call the deifying gift and deification of the Spirit absolutely unrelated. For I no longer make the argument here to Gregoras and those with him about the uncreated and the created—since the uncreated nature of this has been expressly declared by these venerable theologians in many ways—but temporarily about the relation and the imitation, from which they themselves also wrongly gathered the creature. For see, the deified theologians say that deification is absolutely unrelated and incomprehensible, and finds no receptive power in human nature.
"Speak therefore, Gregoras, so that I may address you again according to your own way. The peak of the theologians, Dionysius, has already called it C relation and imitation," he says, "and I myself say this along with him." "But those who are with him, indeed, you say, noble sir. For if you were speaking with him, you would have been saying, according to him, both inimitable and unrelated." "And how," he says, "is it possible to say both this and that? For if it is unrelated, it is not a relation; if it is a relation, it is not unrelated." "For it is not possible," he says, "for a contradiction to be in harmony with itself." The philosopher has fallen again into the previous difficulties. Which is what he suffered there regarding the universal divine energy, hearing the theologians say that it is the same with the divine nature, and then again not the same; this is exactly what he does here also regarding the deifying energy and grace, hearing D from the saints both that it is the same and that it is unrelated. Such are the things of these *thymosophists* and pseudo-philosophers who subject divine things to natural and human reasoning, and are not persuaded by those who are persuaded by the divine Spirit, and who have suffered, and learned, and teach these things. To whom, indeed, John, the golden-tongued, as if rebuking and mocking their folly as much as possible, in his discourses on the divine Transfiguration, says: "But they will immediately object," he says, "those who carry around an untempered and captious tongue, 'And if the divine glory of God the Word is invisible, how did He show it to the apostles? For if it is visible, it is not invisible; and if it is invisible, it is not visible.'" As also the divine Gregory of Nyssa, in his discourses on behalf of the protomartyr divine Stephen, discussing his divine contemplation in the Spirit, and other things...
A spoke while directing his remarks for the most part against the Pneumatomachians. And again: "It is the prerogative of divine grace alone," as has been said more at length by us in our previous works against this Gregoras—and indeed those things as well—"that Stephen, not remaining within human nature and power, beholds the divine; but, being mingled with the grace of the Holy Spirit, he was through it exalted to the understanding of God." It is shown clearly, therefore, he says, that where the Spirit is, there the Lord is also beheld, and the Father’s glory is grasped.
If, however, the philosopher [Barlaam] also wished to hear and learn these most divine and supernatural matters, while they were being theologized upon and taught, he would not—as he indeed went about doing in the company of those with unbridled tongues—have spoken and written evil things about the light of the divine Transfiguration, namely those laughable claims: that if Peter and those with him on the mountain did not see the light of Christ’s Transfiguration, it is truly divine and uncreated; but if they did see it, it is no longer B divine, nor uncreated. For he would say that what is at any time beheld by human eyes is a creature, and that the gift of the Spirit that deifies—I mean deification itself—is impossible to be both a participation and non-participatory at the same time, and therefore necessarily created, as he himself says, even though he hears the divine teachers explicitly stating one thing and then forbidding the other.
Now as to what is non-participatory, O philosopher, and inimitable in deification, the theologians have already shown this in many other good arguments, and indeed even a little above, where the one named for Theology—the divine Gregory, I mean—spoke about divine deification, and wise Maximus along with him wisely and worthily examined his thoughts. But as to how the same thing is also said to be a participation, and both a participation and a mimicry, listen to them—the same ones—saying it again in the same way; or rather, you have already heard them say it clearly, but you did not understand, and so listen to those same ones again. "The person," he says, "who becomes obedient to God in all things, does not have existence as God, or being called God, by nature or by participation."
But how, O best and most divine-minded of teachers? For you have learned this by experience, and not by hearsay alone. Tell us, therefore; or rather, both of you say and teach—for these things are common to both: "By position," he says, "and by grace, such a one is called and named God." For we have said that of names, some refer to essence, some to participation, and some to grace or privation. We said, then, that the name is one of grace when a man is called God in the Scriptures; that is, the man who has become obedient to God in all things, according to: "I said: Ye are gods," not having existence as God, or being called God, by nature or by participation, but by position and by grace having become so and being so named. And a little later the same ones say again: "It is not C paradoxical," they say, "what is happening, if deification were according to the receptive capacity of nature. For then it would reasonably be a work of nature, and not a gift of God, and such a one could be God by nature and properly so." This is naturally its proper characteristic: to bestow D deification in proportion to those who exist, illuminating nature with the light that is beyond nature, and placing it above its own limits according to the superabundance of glory.
So, according to these God-minded teachers, O philosopher, in human nature there is no participation, mimicry, or state of deification; but by the power and grace of the divine Spirit, just as it falls under the mind and eyes, according to these God-bearing men and theologians, although it is also above nature and mind—being according to nature—so too does that which is above these things in essence come to be in participation, mimicry, and state through the power of the same Spirit. And what novelty would it be, and contrary to the divine intention and the reasons, if the divine Spirit, namely, sees and knows His own things again, and takes and possesses them through the reasons by which He knows how to mingle Himself ineffably by energy with the minds of the God-like, and makes His own things theirs, and through these very things—those which are being deified—I mean, beholds His own things, not by mind alone, but also by eyes, O the miracle! which have gone beyond nature by the deifying power and grace? Which, even in the future manifestation of Christ, will be more brilliantly and more God-like in those who are being deified, among whom the only God by nature stands in the midst of gods by grace. For "they shall shine," he says, "as the sun," the Sun of Righteousness Himself, that is, Christ, who is also foretelling these things; for there is no need or cause for solar light there. This is what He also wrought on the mountain of the divine Transfiguration, showing from that point what is to come, and granting to those who were worthy the pledges and the preliminaries.
Therefore, also Maximus the God-inspired, in the same works regarding the same things, philosophizing along with the wise theologian, says: "By the progress according to God, when the human nature has become unceasingly equal to the angels regarding the predictive knowledge of the reasons existing in things, the infinite-giving effusion of true wisdom coming upon it according to what is permitted, purely provides henceforth to the worthy an indiscernible and inexplicable concept regarding God." And finally, having united the created nature with the uncreated through love—O the miracle of the philanthropy of God toward us!—man shows in one and the same thing through himself, having by the state of grace wholly encompassed the Whole with the whole, and having become all that God is, except for the identity of essence, and having received back all of God Himself, and having acquired God Himself as though the prize of the ascent unto God Himself, as being the limit and the boundless and infinite end of those who are moved toward Him.
And again the same one in the same works: "The soul becomes god by participation in the divine grace, having itself ceased from all operations according to mind and sense, and having caused the psychic operations of the body to cease along with it, the body also being deified along with it according to the participation of deification proportional to it, so that God alone appears through both the soul and the body."
A And after a few words: "So that the soul, as the great Dionysius says, is an image and manifestation of the invisible Light, a mirror pure, unhurt, undefiled, unspotted, receiving within itself, if it is permitted to say so, the beauty of the good-natured God-likeness." Behold, you see that the theologian Maximus here introduces, as you observe, a theologian—that very wise Dionysius himself—whom he said just a little while ago he was following, when he spoke of the unapproachable and inimitable relation and imitation, namely deification. If, then, he truly, and not for the sake of hypocrisy and deceit, fashions his following of these three—of whom I am speaking now, rather, and teaching, and persuading to these divine and lofty words, namely those concerning the mystery of deification, as far as is possible—what shall we say to this? How does a man become and be called God by grace, through the superabundant philanthropy of the God who is alone such by nature? For it is by experience and habit that these godlike men learn and speak theologically of these things, and not simply by words or conjectures. But I shall bring forward to you, alongside these, a fourth and a fifth theologian, who speak the same things about the same subjects, in the same Spirit, so that you may learn from this the richness of grace both in words and in works. The great Athanasius, therefore, speaking to the followers of Arius concerning the economy of Christ incarnate, says: "The Word of the Father, having been united to flesh, became flesh, so that men, having been united to the Spirit, might become one spirit. Therefore, He is God bearing flesh, and we are men bearing the Spirit. Having taken the first-fruits from the substance of men, which is the form of a servant, and having become in the likeness of men, He gave to us from the substance of the Father the first-fruits of the Holy Spirit, so that we all might become one Son of God in the likeness of the Son of God. Therefore, the true Son of God bears us all, so that we all might bear the Son of God."
B Cyril the wise says: "The Word of God came, so that, having taken up human things into Himself, He might grant His own things to the nature. For He gives to human nature what is His own, and takes up the things proper to humanity. But neither shall we deny the natural servitude, nor shall the Son lose the natural honor." And the same one says again: "As the Son is consubstantial, so also is He co-willing with His own Begetter." And He will reveal Himself to the holy ones not according to knowledge perceived merely in concept alone, but there shall exist a certain preeminent way of His illumination for them; for while the simpler of the faithful have their faith in bare and unexamined reasonings, the perfect shall receive the torch-bearing through the Spirit, and will gaze with the eyes of the mind through the Holy Spirit upon the Lord Himself who has taken up His abode within them. To these, the great Maximus again, agreeing, says that knowledge is twofold: the one lying in word and divine concepts, being present according to form C and having only the perception of the things conceived, not having the truth of the word and concepts, but rather the enjoyment according to form. But who shall we judge to be blessed, truly godlike and God-bearing, and full of the all-varied gifts of the Spirit, if not he who has with himself that most God-like mind—I mean Antony, our guide—who has been a fellow-dialogue partner and fellow-ascetic with him in the greatest things? And indeed, Symeon after him, the eloquent and wise and most sweet tongue of the Church, who came in later times, but who adorned and beautified all, both ancient and new, who have established the Church of Christ by sweat and toils and their own blood, by the power of the word and the grace of the Spirit. What, then, does the divine Macarius say along with these? "The perfect illumination of the Spirit is not merely a revelation of concepts, but a steady and everlasting illumination of hypostatic light in the souls. For the text, 'He who said that light should shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts,' and 'Enlighten my eyes, lest I sleep in death,' and 'Send forth your light and your truth, they shall guide me to your holy mountain,' and 'The light of your face has been marked upon us,' and all things such as these, demonstrate the same thing. And to blessed Paul, the light that shone on the way, by which he was also caught up to the third heaven and became a hearer of unspeakable mysteries, was not a certain enlightenment of concepts and knowledge, but the illumination of the power of the good Spirit hypostatically in the soul, the superabundance of whose brightness the eyes of the flesh, being unable to bear, were blinded; through which all knowledge is revealed, and God is truly known to the worthy and loving soul." And again: "Since every thought, he says, enters into the heart through the imagination of certain sensible things, then the blessed light of the divinity illuminates it when it has leisure from all things, and becomes stripped of these, if that brightness appears to the pure mind through the deprivation of all concepts."
Do you hear, O Gregoras, these things also, from these God-bearing men, what they philosophize—having suffered and having learned—about the blessed light of the divinity, I mean about the deifying gift of the Spirit itself and deification, for which our discourse is from above, and offering those things from the divine Scripture for the refutation of the argument? Through all of which it is equally demonstrated that it is not the divine essence, nor any light of concepts and knowledge D and revelation, but rather a steady and everlasting illumination of hypostatic light in the souls, says he, and an illumination of the power of the good Spirit hypostatically in the soul, through which, he says, all knowledge is especially revealed, and God is truly known to the worthy and loving soul. This is the very thing itself, about which very many other most beautiful things are said.
A A short while ago the divine Maximus was speaking, and he had indeed called this deification a positioning—though by "positioning" he meant the essential, hypostatic illumination which has no generation, but is an inconceivable manifestation in those who are worthy. And if you should say, "And how, then, do the blessed ones [Maximus’s interlocutors], while having cited your great Basil in what has gone before as saying that no energy is hypostatic, and Maximus the wise again as saying, 'Energies are not substances, but pertain to the substance,' claim that this is an illumination of hypostatic light and an essential, hypostatic illumination?" Know this, philosopher: that the theologians do not disagree, nor do they oppose themselves and each other. But they harmonize together most beautifully, just as I claim is the case with all other things as well; and so in this matter too, they have spoken of the light as hypostatic and the illumination as essentially hypostatic, as you have heard—for they, the teachers, distinguish this light of the Godhead from the light of thoughts and knowledge, through which, he says, all knowledge is revealed, and God is truly known to the worthy soul. This is what the wise Maximus, while teaching a moment ago, said to be a twofold knowledge: one being that which resides in discourse and divine concepts, present in a formal sense, not possessing the sensation of the things grasped; and the other that which is by energy, possessing the fulfillment in a formal sense, alone and without discourse or true concepts. Furthermore, the theologians have denied that the divine energy is a substance, but have also affirmed that it is at once a hypostasis and hypostatic—that is, self-hypostatic. For we know even this, that the meanings of being "hypostatic" are various. For they have also spoken of it as being in a hypostasis, and as hypostatic, and as hypostatic in itself; because it is contemplated in the Tri-hypostatic Godhead, and possesses this as it were a hypostasis, a natural and indivisible property of His, and it is therefore rightly called hypostatic by the theologians even in this respect. B C And it seemed that Pyrrhus, of whom we were speaking, not only did not speak against it but, as he also agreed with those around him, he was brought by those things that appeared and were acknowledged by them to the reduction to the absurd. For it is not possible otherwise. Therefore, not only was Pyrrhus unable to speak against it, but he even assented to the things said by the divine Maximus, being, I think, intimidated by the superiority of the divine truth. For, he says, the argument duly accomplished the overturning of all the points proposed, and nothing at all is lacking. And at the end of the dialogue he says again, "In truth, the inquiry concerning the energies has shown that the one energy, in whatever way it is spoken of in Christ, is an absurdity. But I ask forgiveness on behalf of myself and those who have gone before me. For it was out of ignorance that I was carried away into these absurd thoughts and arguments." But those around the philosopher Gregoras do not even want to let these things enter their minds at all, nor, given that they are so many and so powerful, have they even seen fit to take counsel concerning them on their own behalf; but like people wandering here and there in the deep darkness of night, clashing shamefully with themselves and each other, they try to teach the Church of Christ matters concerning "relation" simply—and that from Greek arguments. Ignorant, among other things, of this also: that the Fathers called deification a "relation without relation," not as though it were not by nature a reality, and a mere relation between two extremes—I mean the actor and the one acted upon; far from it!—but as that which becomes the "without-relation" by the power of the divine Spirit. But Gregoras, that precise examiner of homonyms, being ignorant of the homonymy here—that the "reachable" is also called "relation" homonymously by the theologians, just as he had earlier suffered in the case of the name of "energy," when the theologians called the use of the divine energy an "energy"—if he knew that "energy," he says, is the natural miracles of Christ, from which the Son is shown to be consubstantial with the Father; just as, then, in that case, so here too did the philosopher, being ignorant of the homonymy, take "the seeing"—the same as saying "the reachable"—in place of the vision and the being-acted-upon, and the same as saying "the relations of the extremes." And for this reason he thought that the divine energy and deification were not only unseemly and not uncreated, but not even a reality—a thing which is, in fact, an active and essential movement of the nature with the theologians; D where indeed they even should have understood and spoken of its activity, and use, and relation, not simply, but in a divine manner, according to the theologians.
That the theologians did indeed think of this divine energy and deification as a reality, and called the reachable a "relation without relation" in the Spirit, they have already shown by many excellent arguments. For when deification, according to them, sees such and such things and carries the one being deified out of himself, and is an unbegotten deification, and an essentially hypostatic illumination and hypostatic light, and the rest of the things which have been said at length by the divine Maximus and the others, what [is one to think]?
A Or is it that the theologians named the relative [relation] to the divine Spirit an "absolute relation" (ἀσχέτως σχέσιν), not a simple relation—that is to say, the usage of it, or the disposition of the one seeing and the one being affected? Observe also these things.
B The theologian Gregory speaks of the "anointing" (χρίσις) of humanity on the part of Christ’s divinity. But if it is an anointing, it would necessarily be a relation of the Anointer to the one anointed. What then? If this anointing is a relation, is it not therefore a "thing" (πρᾶγμα), according to the philosopher? What impiety! For it is the very hypostatic divinity of the only-begotten Son of God which anointed the humanity assumed by him in an ineffable union. Therefore, the theologian, having named it an "anointing," showing it to be homonymous with the relation of the Anointer to the one anointed, thereby shows it at once to be the very thing that anointed. For Christ, he says, is so called on account of the divinity. For this is the anointing of the humanity, not an energy sanctifying like other "christs," but the presence of the whole Anointer, the work of which is for man to hear the Anointing and for the one being anointed to be made God. And Great Athanasius, writing to Bishop Serapion, calls the Holy Spirit both anointing (χρίσμα) and seal (σφραγίς), although he also calls the one anointing and sealing Him, having received this from divine Scripture. For he says the Spirit is called both anointing and seal. For John writes: "And you, the anointing which you received from him, abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things." And it is written in the prophet Isaiah: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me." And Paul says: "In whom also having believed, you were sealed for the day of redemption." Now the anointing has the fragrance and breath of the Anointer; and those who are anointed, partaking of this, say: "We are the fragrance of Christ." And the seal has the form of Christ who seals; and the ones being sealed participate in this, being formed according to it, the Apostle saying: "My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ is formed in you." And being thus sealed, we logically become partakers of the divine nature, as Peter said. And thus the whole creation partakes of the Word in the Spirit; and through the Spirit we are all said to be partakers of God. And this is what the teacher says, having the apostles and prophets with him, saying C that "the anointing which you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things," and that "Having believed in Christ, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the earnest of our inheritance." How those who partake of the Word in the Spirit participate, and by what words they are said to have God in themselves having received this—these things are sufficiently explained in the discourse on divine participation by the evangelists and apostles and prophets, and the choir of theologians and teachers after them, among whom D that divine man also instructed us, having explained with power and grace the holy and ineffable participation, and having said that the communion and union come to pass. It has therefore been shown to the theologians by all these things very clearly that the deifying grace and energy of the Spirit—I say, the very divinity of God—that ineffable deification of those being deified, is absolutely "absolute" (ἄσχετος) to human nature, which in no way possesses this power of receptivity from itself; yet by the power of the divine Spirit it becomes "relative" (σχετή), just as it also becomes remarkably and supernaturally intelligible and perceivable. And for this reason it is said by the holy theologians not only to be a relation and an imitation, but also "absolute" and "unimitable." And not for this reason only, but because it is not even a relation simply, that is to say, an action and passion of the one acting and the one being affected. This seems to the detractors of this [truth] to be the very usage of it, wrongly imagining this through the homonymy, and from there not even reckoning the natural power and divinity of God to be a "thing," although it is the one being and in another sense no other [thing], if one wishes to understand it well and without error; which is precisely what the theologians taught us regarding the name of "energy," as I previously stated. Furthermore, how the disposition of the one acting toward the one being affected—which we call simply a relation and the usage of the relative—could be "absolute," I cannot see. For the "absolute" is a certain thing, clearly being distinguished from the "relative," but not simply a disposition of the two extremes, I mean of the one acting and the one being affected. Just as, therefore, one would never say that the relative is not a thing, which by nature goes toward a relation, or is and is called a relation, so also no one will ever say that the "absolute" is not a thing, which by nature in no way falls under relation and imitation. So that even from the very syllables and words, I say, it has been sufficiently shown to the admirable Dionysius that his discourse was not about relations and imitations and dispositions simply, but about divine and high things, I mean about the very natural processions and powers of God, termed by him as "absolute" and "unimitable" homonymously, because by the grace and power of the divine Spirit, as the theologians have frequently said, these things also come to be supernaturally in a relation.
And these things I now say for the sake of the hunters of syllables and words, and the captious examiners and rhetoricians of homonyms. For otherwise I would not have made this discourse even for a short time for my own sake, not because of the superfluous prattling—I mean these repetitive discourses and tautologies—but also because of the life-making, and wisdom-bestowing, and good-working, and peace-working, and god-making [powers] of those being deified, and the ingenerate and endless processions and powers of God above all, which the great Dionysius, having called [them] such throughout the whole book to those hearing, demonstrated that all the verbal bickerings of his opponents were empty nonsense at once. But also
A Maximus and John, the theologians, having learned from him, called the divine energy both creator and omnipotent; for this one is both single and many-sided and many-named according to them, which indeed has been spoken of by us also, following them, more broadly in the book concerning divine energy.
But may there not be many gods and divinities on account of these arguments, as has seemed to some wickedly and godlessly? Not at all, friend, not at all. For that is a falsehood and a slander against the Church of Christ, dragging along with it much that is impious and at once ignorant and foolish against those who thus understand and speak of these things. For the God tri-hypostatic and omnipotent through all things is one to us, and is thought of and spoken of: simple, though, and ungraspable and unparticipable, at once also unobservable and invisible and super-named, and indivisible, and unrelated, and inimitable according to essence, or rather, to speak more accurately, together with these theologians, according to the mystery of the super-essentiality; yet simple, at the same time and many-sided, is the same according to those same teachers, and again also graspable somehow and participable and observable and visible in the Spirit, being named and divided indivisibly according to the divine energy, and in relation and imitation according to this same, I say, the unrelated and inimitable [divinity] becomes in the same Spirit, deifying those who are being deified—not by the ungraspable and unparticipable and ineffable [essence] of the super-essential and hidden divinity, for how could that be?—but by His own natural power and energy and grace, which theology indeed calls divinity and deification and the deifying gift of the Spirit, just as it has already been philosophized through many things by the theologians, not being a creature of God. For how could this ever be, naturally innate in Him, and working [in us] to partake of God, and making [us] partakers of the divine nature, and deifying by grace and adoption those who are being deified? For those of this party who are theologians and gods by grace would never be deified by what is alien to the divine nature, but rather by what is kindred and appropriate to the divine nature; nor will the creature ever deify those who partake of it; nor would that one ever be called God, who holds out a created divinity, as the evil theologians say; for if that is God, he says, it is not a creature; for the creature is [numbered] with us, not [with] the gods. But if it is a creature, it is not God. Therefore the divinity and God is one, truly uncreated, which is spoken of and venerated by us, and which we have as the object of inquiry, having departed far from all ditheism and polytheism and the worship of creatures at once. Or else [they] will also bring in a created God, those who bring in a created divinity, as they wickedly and most absurdly do, which could never be. For if it is a creature, it is not God, and with us, the theologian says, is the creature of those who are not gods. A creature, then, which the theologians said the deifying divinity and deification of God could never be and be called. But neither is it merely a relation, which they call a disposition of the Maker towards the thing made. Whence also those C who are set in motion around Gregoras wickedly, not only toward the creatures, but also D toward the non-existent and what is not, they attempted to drag it down.
That it is this and is no other which is the divinity of God, naturally belonging to Him and indivisibly as natural and essential energy, yet also becoming present to men in a participable way, and deifying those who partake of it, as heat is in the fire that possesses it naturally and in those who are being warmed, and as teachings, the theologians say, are at once among the teachers and those being taught, and are communicated and not divided among the teachers, and having often already shown this, they will point it out through their own words, and no less will the same [theologians] show it now through a few. Basil, the great, then, writing to Eunomius concerning the Father, "The life," he says, "which He imparts to another hypostasis, the Spirit, is not separated from Him; but as of fire, one thing is the heat that accompanies it, the other is what it imparts to the water, or to some of those things, so also the Spirit, and has in Himself the life, and those who partake of Him live in a God-befitting way, having acquired divine and heavenly life." And his consonant brother, the divine Gregory I say, of Nyssa, writing to Harmonius concerning perfection, "Since," he says, "according to the prophetic word, men have been alienated from the life-giving womb through sin, for this reason Christ having assumed the first-fruits of our common nature, made it holy through soul and body, making it at once free from every evil and in itself unsusceptible [to it], that having placed this on high through incorruption, He might draw up with Himself all that is kindred according to nature and of the same tribe to it, and receive those who were rejected into adoption, and the enemies of God into the participation of the divinity." And the same in the same [book] again: "One by nature is the purity, both that in Christ and that observed in the one who partakes. But the One springs forth, and the one who partakes draws [from it]." And again: "Just as Christ appropriated to Himself His own man by the power of the divinity, so He will also lead each one to the union of the divinity, if they bring forward nothing unworthy of the kindred union with the divine." And the golden, in truth, and God-moved tongue, leading these things toward what is clearer, as it were, and pointing out what the participable divinity is, so far as it is possible through the evangelical interpretation, "From the fulness
A of his," he says, "we all have received." Does fire not remain in the same sufficiency even after it has imparted its energy to so many? This is surely evident to everyone. But if, where there is a substance that is the subject and body, it is both divided and not divided, how much more so when the discussion is about energy, and the energy of an incorporeal substance, is it not to be expected to suffer anything of the sort? These, then, are not those who—according to the opposing languages and God-fighters—are wickedly introducing a dyotheism; nor are we who rightly follow in all these matters; but rather, those who, in addition to the divine and unnamed nature, and having God as a "created" divinity—I know not whence and how they have innovated, and have thence tyrannically introduced a "lowered" and "superior" [reality] to the Being. For this, in truth, is what the difference of substances is naturally apt to produce: to wit, the created and the uncreated—which even the great Dionysius has already said in what preceded.
And this, too, is a novelty, and one full of all imposture and falsehood, and Barlaam and Acindynus, and those around this Gregoras together with them, have wickedly introduced both a dyotheism and the worship of the creature, and indeed also that which is "superior" and "lowered" B by nature, contrary to piety and the sound discourse thereof; then, most wickedly, they bring upon the holy theologians and the Church of Christ the deformity and the shame from that [innovation], along with much calumny and shamelessness, stirring up much dust and the confusion of thoughts therefrom for the many, and dividing and confounding the members of the Church, I mean with Arius and Sabellius and Macedonius, and the polytheistic and God-fighting rabble of their time and after them. For this, indeed, was also at that time the ready accusation against the Church of Christ. "Because," he says, "they hold many gods and many uncreated things," thus disparaging the consubstantiality and equal honor of the Trinity against us; because those men wickedly tore the one three-hypostasized divinity into different substances, and uncreated and created things, and then, forsooth, they thought they were guarding the monarchy and worshipping the one God precisely. Which thing, in the same way, the followers and like-minded companions of those men now cast against us, asserting—agreeably to the divine theology—a God-befitting difference of substance and energy, and that the divine essence is C God-befittingly superior to the divine powers of it—those who, with bold mind and tongue, even now, along with those men, as I said, introduce and [posit] the "superior" and "lowered" according to substance—I mean, that is, the created and the uncreated. But we, saying that the divine essence is God-befittingly superior to its own energy, and calling it, [the energy], lower than that [essence], as its principle and cause and substance, do not divide—according to them—the one and indivisible divinity into uncreated and created, and strictly "superior" and "lowered" things; but we know and proclaim one uncreated and eternal divinity of the one three-hypostasized and almighty God, even if they should tear apart the [terms] for those who make innovations regarding the created and uncreated, the "lowered" and "superior" according to substance, which Barlaam, the first leader of the heresy, introduced—contrary to the discourse of piety, as I said—and has wickedly left behind to his successors and the leaders and zealots of his heresy after him. But it would be better D to hear here as well from the Council and its holy Tomos; and what Gregoras was supposedly attempting to contradict from of old.
What, then, says the Tomos? "After it was shown," it says, "and the divine energy was named divinity, we sought to be demonstrated by the theologians whether God is superior by substance to this divine energy and those things essentially contemplated around it. And this, too, appeared as proclaimed by all the saints. And it was also demonstrated that those who do not accept this are truly polytheists, calling many [things] 'principles,' as not referring them to one cause; and [proclaiming] as one principle the things essentially contemplated around God." For the great Basil says in the *Antirrhetics*: "There is a sort of order, not consisting of our own positing, but happening by the very sequence according to nature, as with fire in relation to the light that is from it; for in such cases we speak of the cause as prior, and the secondary as that which is from it, not separating them by interval, but by the reasoning of the caused, we think of the cause first. How then is it reasonable to deny the order where there is a first and second, not according to our positing, but from the sequence naturally existing in them?" And also in the [letters] to Amphilochius he writes, "But what are the energies of the Spirit? Ineffable because of their greatness, and innumerable because of their multitude. For how shall we conceive those beyond the eons? What were his energies before the intelligible creation? And how many are the graces from him regarding the creation? And what is the power towards the eons to come? For it was even prior and co-existed with the Son and the Father before the eons. So that, even if you conceive of something beyond the eons, this also is of the Spirit," declaring the pre-eternal energies to be of the Spirit. And in the discourse concerning the divinity of the Son and the Spirit, the divine Gregory of Nyssa says: "The divine nature remains ineffable and unutterable, [E] transcending every signification through speech." Therefore, not the nature, but the deifying power of the Spirit does the appellation of divinity signify. And the great Athanasius, in the second discourse against the Arians, says of the heretics who say the Son is of the will, and not of the nature of the Father: "If they grant the power of willing to God concerning things that are not, why do they not acknowledge that which is superior to the will of God?" And in the third [discourse] against the heretics: "They have not contemplated the opposite; for just as that which is contrary to the will is opposed to it, so that which is according to nature is superior to and precedes the willing." And writing against Macedonius, the same [Father] says: "Know," he says, "that to be God is secondary to the nature." And we, too, if we become imitators...
of God according to Paul, become gods, but we cannot become this by nature.
The divine Maximus says: "God is transcendentally and infinitely beyond all beings, both partakers and things participated in." And also the great Dionysius says in the twelfth chapter of *On the Divine Names*: "Insofar as beings, whether holy, or divine, or primarily royal, and the auto-participations of those who partake of them, transcend non-beings, by so much is the One who is beyond all beings established above all things, and is the unparticipated Cause of everything that is above all beings and of all things that partake and are participated in." And in his second letter to Gaius, he says: "How is He who is beyond all things and beyond the Godhead and the Goodhead? If you understand Godhead and Goodhead as the very substance of the beneficent and deifying gift, and as the inimitable imitation of the Super-Essential and Super-Good, according to which we are deified and made good; for if this becomes the principle of being deified and made good for those who are being deified and made good, He who is the supra-archic B of every principle and of the so-called Godhead, exists beyond them as Godhead and Goodhead." And again the same [author]: "One ought to transition to the truly existing, theological naming of Him who truly is." We shall remind you of this much, that the scope of the discourse is not to manifest the Super-Essential Essence, as it is super-essential—for this is ineffable and unknown and entirely unmanifest—and transcends even union itself, but to hymn the substance-making procession of the Thearchic Authority into all beings. The divine Maximus, in his *Scholia*, calls this procession here the "divine energy," which brought forth every substance.
The following parts of the theology of the wise Chrysostom, from his discourses—I mean, those concerning the Incomprehensible—in which he produces the prophets, not only not knowing the divine essence, but also, in addition to this, the wisdom which exists from it, and indeed from the evangelical exegesis, in which the same [author] explains that theological utterance, "For God does not give the Spirit by measure," saying—meaning to the Son, clearly. These things, then, the discourse here has omitted C as being part of the volume and connected to the aforementioned words of the theologians, since we, having already reached the point in our discourses concerning energy, have also set these forth now word for word exactly.
Gregoras, then, has customarily passed over even these, except for a few; but for us, those things which it was necessary to go through and to add to what had been said as related and appropriate from the, I say, theologians, were lacking, so that Gregoras might not have cause, even here, to treat us as speaking authoritatively and indemonstrably, and to slander us again, as if we bring forward none of the saints as allies to our discourses. Dionysius, therefore, that beacon of the holy Church from Athens, so that we may repeat some of the aforementioned things, philosophizes as follows in *On the Divine Names* concerning what is now before us. "Some," he says, "of our divine instructors say that the Super-Good and Super-Essential [One] is the substance of the Auto-Goodness and Godhead, calling it Goodness and Godhead, D the beneficence and divine gift—or the grace that has come forth from God, and the auto-kallopoietic [beauty-making] flux, and whole beauty and partial beauty, and altogether good and partially good, and whatever else has been said or shall be said in the same manner—signifying the providences and goodnesses participated in by beings, proceeding from God, the unparticipated [Cause], in an abundant flux and overflowing, so that the Cause of all may precisely be beyond all, and the Super-Essential and Super-Natural may in every way transcend every substance and nature."
Again, the great Athanasius in his second discourse against the Arians says: "If God creates things external, and things that were not previously, by willing, He would be Father of many things beforehand. For if they grant to God the willing concerning things that are not, why do they not acknowledge that which is above the willing of God?" But He has transcended the willing, by the fact that it is natural for Him to be and to be the Father of His own Word. And again: "It is secondary, as I said before, to create, than to beget." For the Son is truly and essentially from that blessed and ever-existing essence; but those things which arise from His will, and consist outside [of Him], come to be.
The divine Gregory of Nyssa, writing to Eunomius, says: "Having learned these things, then, from Paul, we are astonished, because not only are the judgments of God higher than the power of those attempting to investigate them, but also the paths of knowledge remain, even until now, inaccessible." And after a little: "These things, then, having learned from the apostolic magnanimity, we reckon through the things said, that if the judgments are unsearchable, and the paths not to be tracked, and the promise of good things transcends every guess from conjectures, how much more is the divine [essence] itself, by the measure of that which is ineffable and inaccessible, above and higher than those things conceived concerning it?"
What does the wise and truly divinely-inspired Cyril say, writing to the Arians? "To be God is less than to be the Father and God. For if He is God, He has a relationship toward things that are slaves; but if He is Father, toward His own co-equal Son." And again the same [author]: "If the Christ-opponents think they are bestowing something great upon God by confessing Him to be Father from the beginning, but granting [only] that He is God, let them hear that they are highly insulting [Him], by depriving the divine nature of a more worthy reality. For God, indeed, as towards things that are slaves and possess created substance, has the relationship—but Father as towards [His] Son. Those, therefore, who say that He was God from the beginning, but not yet Father, attribute to God the relationship towards things that are slaves, depriving Him of the greater. For it is better to be a begetter than to be a creator." And after some [lines]: "If the name Father is not somehow more authoritative and more worthy than God upon God, for what reason did the Savior not command to baptize into the name of God and Son and Holy Spirit, but, signifying the more truthful dignity of the divine nature, said into the Father and Son, and into the Holy Spirit?" And again: "He did not say, 'He who has seen Me has seen the...
A Father, to whom He attributes the greater, and not the lesser. Let the Father, therefore, be first, and thus God, or let them be both at once and conjoined."
Where now are those who slanderously accuse us of ditheism with unrestrained tongue, those bitter calumniators, those accusers of the praised ones, those new-fangled and ill-formed creatures of the evil one, saying that we abolish the monarchy, while we stand so bravely and manfully, both by holy words and arguments and writings, against that impious and polytheistic opinion? And that we strike so strongly against ditheism and polytheism, and against those things which are wrongly posited as superior and inferior—I mean the schism of the one, three-hypostasized, all-working, and all-powerful Godhead into created and uncreated [parts], together with the wicked fathers and creators of such things—while they themselves, as if from some repentance, or forgetfulness, or folly, or I do not know what to call it, wickedly wish to advocate for ditheism? B Such talk is expansive, and it is in truth a lack of perception and a folly of those who falsely accuse these holy teachers and theologians, attributing their own errors, and the disgrace, and that truly deadly fall from recklessness, to the very ones who refute and demolish them, as if perversely turning [the blame] for the sake of deceiving and corrupting the many; for this is indeed the pinnacle of impiety, and the most wicked and truly absurd commodity and principle of it.
Behold, it has been demonstrated to the theologians accurately through many [arguments], O philosopher, that not only the substance of God, in as much as it is substance, is superior to the things observed essentially around it—possessing the natural order as [it is] the source, root, and cause—but also that these very things observed naturally around God do not deny the difference in their mutual significance. Consequently, indeed, the first is likewise [such], and the second, and the greater, and the lesser, just as "Father" and "God," and "Son" and "Lord," are considered, according to these very holy theologians whom I mention, in relation to the same substance and the same divine hypostases; but this natural order and sequence does not lead to the wicked and disorderly, and truly incoherent, "superior and inferior Godhead" of Barlaam and Akindynos, and those who think as they do. Perish those who hold such things together with their Greek polytheism! For we do not say there are many causes, nor do we say, along with the apostolic and patristic theology, that there are other and different divine powers which are overflowing and inferior; but [we declare] the all-good processions of one God, and the divine names which we celebrate. Therefore, Gregory, this wise theologian among us, who is a philosopher of the true and primary wisdom, says: "To say that there are two Godheads, a superior and an inferior, is not our teaching, but that of Barlaam." C And his writings are an irrefutable witness, as are most men. For of such things, those who are many and knowledgeable will bear witness of him. But the synodal tome itself points it out.
But Barlaam brought this forward in order to show that the Godhead of Christ, which was shown upon the mountain, and the illuminating power of the Spirit, were created, as if there were not one uncreated Godhead, if the brightness and power of the divine nature were also uncreated. We, however, proclaimed the divine radiance that flashed forth ineffably from thence to be uncreated, along with the divine nature. Similarly, we also showed, in unison with the theologians, that the power and the distinctness of the Godhead do not stand apart from its unity. For even if the authority of the substance, as the great Basil says, and the will, and the brightness of the divine nature, D and simply the power of the divine nature, have differed, yet the brightness and power of the nature are not separative of the nature itself; nor is it possible for one to perceive one [part] standing apart from the other, leaving the other bereft. But he who exercises his mind upon power or brightness immediately perceives the nature of which each of these is a [part], inseparably; and much more so in the case of divine things, in which, according to the God-wise Fathers, the unifications of the divisions prevail and pre-exist, neither destroying them nor being hindered by them in any way. Thus to us is God in one Godhead.
But what I was saying: one does not bring [it] into created and uncreated, and superior and inferior, and unequal and mutually warring Godheads—at least according to the followers of Barlaam and Akindynos and this Gregory here—and say that the divine substance, as substance and source and cause, is superior to those which come from it. For how could it be? The possible is naturally superior to the power, and the mind [is superior] to the word and to knowledge, and the fire [is superior] to the light, and the sun [is superior] to the ray; and furthermore, the source [is superior] to the water, and simply that which begets [is superior] to everything that is begotten, and the cause [is superior] to the caused. But not because of this are the things produced naturally alienated from those that produce them. Because of this very fact, they are attached to them as to the causes of their own natural [existence]; for from homogeneous [beings], homogeneous and corresponding things are of necessity naturally produced; [this] second and lower and lesser [nature] is not to the alienation of the nature, but by position and order it naturally has [the difference] according to concept. Or will you not even grant that the sun is superior to the ray that naturally proceeds from it? My teacher-theologians say even this, and you will not call this [ray] second to it, and lesser, and lower, even if you see it with your senses coming down with us and becoming corresponding to all bodies, both animate and inanimate, and becoming properly and fitly present to each. Or will you call it torn away and broken off from him, and of a later generation, by reason of this nature, so that one could conceive of a sun at any time without its ray, just as if you thought of a ship at any time without the mind? These are what I call monstrous and strange, even though one has, even to the perception, the natural union—tangible to the senses—of the ray to the sun, which is its cause, and the unbreakable and inseparable [character of it], and—
if in the case of bodies and matter, and of the natural energy belonging to the Triad, and of things intelligible at once and sensible, it is possible to see such things—how could it not be so in the case of the incorporeal and impassible, and of the almighty Divinity which surpasses every mind, and [is] by far greater and higher than those, incomparably so? And this very thing is both divinely and worthy of God, and according to these men themselves, I say, [it is so] for those who are seers and theologians in the Spirit, of the high things that are invisible and ineffable.
B And what else needs to be said, where not only in the case of nature and the natural things of God, but also in the case of the God-ruling hypostases, the same things are likewise and are called so? "For my Father," says the God-ruling Word, "is greater than I." And yet, as this same person says again, he is the only-begotten Son of God, who is in the bosom of the Father. And, "I and the Father," he says, "are one." And this does not destroy that, nor does that which appears contrary stand against the divine theology. For the one is according to the nature and the divinity, and to the natural properties generally, while the other is according to the hypostases and the cause. For greater, he says, is the Father than the Son, not in nature, but in cause. This is one thing, and that is another, even if both are seen—each according to its own respective logic—as God. If then, even in the case of the hypostases that exist and are contemplated by themselves, the greater and the lesser being observed does not stand against or war at all with the natural equality of the divinity—but he is the same both greater and equal, the former by the C reasoning of the cause, the latter by the reasoning of the essence—how, in the case of the natural things of God which do not subsist by themselves at all, but are contemplated in the nature as essential and proprieties, and which possess this alone as source and existence, can these be lower and therefore secondary, and lesser than this [nature] which is of related honor, connatural fellowship, and natural value and union to the cause itself, tear apart and shatter them, lest God be subjected—only according to those who fight against God, I say—to splitting and division? And that these things be torn apart into generated and ungenerated, and into things badly laid down and things lying above? But rather, even creation, as much as is below and human, and as much as is of the things above and transcendent, might be deprived of the hymned communion of God and the deification. For there could not be—say my theologians and those inspired by God—the deified being deified by any generated thing at all, just as they could not be encompassed and knitted D together by that essence itself in any way at all because of nature, but [only] through those things that belong to it essentially and naturally and inseparably, it is clear. And these things are thus far.
Since Gregoras, however, badly denying the common and God-befitting and natural energy of the Triad, or [its] energies, says that the Son and the Spirit are the energy of the Father alone—having received such things from Acindynus the teacher—it is necessary also to say a few things about this, as the theologians do, and thus afterwards to rest the argument. And indeed, first let us ask Gregoras, for what reason—when our argument is here concerning the commonly to the God-ruling Triad existing natural energy—he makes no mention of the ecumenical councils, I mean the fifth and the sixth, and indeed another choir of theologians before these and after these, who made much discourse in what has passed, to whom Gregoras indeed seems to follow and to support, allegedly? Now he was saying that it [the essence] is the common essence of the God-ruling Triad, now he was saying that the will and the energy, accurately, were the energies of God, and sometimes a relation, and sometimes not—except for the sound and noise of words alone? How then, as if from repentance, now abandoning all those things for which he was making much discourse to the theologians and to the council, twisting and misinterpreting, moving every stone, he discourses to us concerning the venerable hypostases, saying that the Son and the Spirit are solely the energies of the Father's hypostasis? And who of the wise would count the course of the things resulting from these words of yours, philosopher? For if, according to you, the energies of the Father's hypostasis alone are the Spirit with the Son, then the energy is not natural, and all necessity [implies] that there are not one, but three different energies for the three, and hence also that three essences are introduced along with the three persons, and from thence the heterousion [difference in essence] of the Triad is constructed along with Arius and Macedonius. For the great Basil, having already often arrived before, said with his brother Gregory and indeed with the other theologians: of those subjects for whom the energy is changed, the essence is also changed; but for those for whom the nature is the same, of these the energy is also the same. But if the Father, as you say, has as energies only the Son and the Spirit, and the others do not have [them], first of all from this the dissimilarity according to essence is introduced; then, not only are they not co-creators with the Father, but they are not at all, Maximus the God-bearer says. For the same person says that no one knows any nature to be immovable or 50B unenergetic. For only that which does not exist is deprived of natural energy and power, the same theologian and again with Dionysius and the other teachers says.
And if the philosopher says again that the Son and the Spirit do not need energy, being self-energy, the Father ought, according to his own logic, to be naturally this same thing, and not to need natural energy, being self-energy. But if those things belong to that One, and not to these, the argument will again, by all necessity, be turned back onto the philosopher. For either these energies are essential, and the Son and the Spirit are divided according to essence from the Father, not possessing the same essential energies, or [as] things naturally belonging as properties of the Father's hypostasis, they will show the holy Triad to be heterothelic [having a different will] and differing by its natural energy, and from there again the dissimilarity of essence is introduced, just as the argument has already shown. >
A Since you use both [terms] poorly, supposedly establishing the monarchy, but rather by means of both destroying each one—both by this feigned advocacy and by the reverence you show toward the supposedly one God—you are openly introducing a created divinity, polytheism, and atheism. And so, although the same theologian Fathers have stated that the energy possesses the same account as the essence, and yet again that it does not [possess] the same, each with the proper logic, you have removed the first [part], and have used it poorly against the second, constructing a divinity and energy that are, at all times and in every way, the same and entirely indifferent [as essence]. B Here, indeed, instead of the concept, you have poorly received the term, having dared to subject to a definition not only the boundless and incomprehensible energy, but also the divine, nameless, and ineffable essence of God. Thus, by the relationship and imitation in the Spirit, those [Fathers] have grasped the unrelationed and inimitable [status of the energy] in a manner befitting God, and [they have grasped] that which is equal, connatural, and inseparable, because of [its being] natural and uncreated, in the lower and secondary [rank], and the lesser on account of the cause. You, however, having used the relationship and imitation against [that which is] unrelationed and inimitable, and having used the lower and secondary [rank]—as being from a cause—against the indivisible, uncreated, and equal [nature] of the divinity, have introduced a war, insofar as it rests with you, against the natural properties of God, and against the essence, which is the cause and source of these, [against] the one tri-hypostatic and omnipotent, unoriginate Creator and Master of all, cutting [the divinity] into a created and uncreated [part], and bringing in upon us an Arius and a Macedonius, along with their followers, together with [their] uncreated and created and unequal divinities and natures.
According to this same logic of the theologians, C here too, [you say] the Son of God and the Spirit are now the energy of the Father, subsisting essentially and living, both because of the impassibility of the procession from there, and because of the precisely united and inseparable [nature]—for such is also the natural energy—and as being, because the whole [energy] of the Father is naturally in the Son and the Spirit, and furthermore because of the co-eternal and uncreated [character of this relation]. Now, you [claim] that none of the three persons is an energy as subsisting by itself, but [is] seen only in another, and is only acting, but not also being acted upon, as is the energy. Thus, therefore, you have discarded the one of the two from the common teachers of the Church, who theologized about these matters as is the custom, and you use the other poorly against its own self, doctrinally defining only the Son and the Spirit as uncreated energies of the Father, whence you have constructed the insubstantial, the immaterial, and the nonexistent, and a myriad of other impieties, at least according to the items proposed. D But the theologian teachers do not think so, most excellent [sir]. For listen: Athanasius the Great, whom you seem to set before the others, [speaks] of the Son and the Spirit as the energy of the Father.
B and [claims that it] operates in that which is receptive to it. Therefore, also desiring to show that the Son is co-equal and consubstantial with his Father, he says: The Son is Power, just as the Father is. But in order to show that he is not the Father himself, for this reason he is the power and energy of the Father. For the Father is not from another, but he [the Son] has his being as power from the Father. And again, to the Greeks, the same [Athanasius says]: The almighty and perfect Word of the Father, having alighted upon all things and having spread his powers everywhere, holds together and binds all things unto himself. Do you see how this great one renders himself for you the explicator and clear interpreter of his own words, and how and according to what arguments he says the Son is the energy and power of the Father? And that he [the Son] himself possesses the same powers and energies as the Father, existing as an essence and perfect hypostasis by himself, and not being contemplated in another—by which I mean according to the essential and natural energy of the Three—and as co-creator and sustainer of all things together with the Father and the Spirit? For as these are common to the Son, so too are they to the consubstantial and co-equal Spirit. And not only this, but the Great One also pointed out the Father himself as being power, just as he did also the Son and the Spirit, because of the unity of the essence and of the Godhead, having taken this too from the divine C Scripture: "You shall see," for in fact he spoke to the Jews concerning himself, "the Son of God sitting at the right hand of the Power of the Father," clearly.
[The Father] is hymned by the holy theologians as all-working, essence-making, and active; I say for the present that this is not something else apart from the nature that moves them, [but] one and the same thing, though, as we have already said many times, it possesses the same meaning D as the different. Again, the same teacher, writing to Ablabius, having called the name "God" the [name] of the God-contemplating, providential, and searing energy of God, proceeds further to add those [following] things: "Insofar as each person has such energy completed [in itself], it will also have its completed and declarative name, and it shall be essentially called God; but insofar as the aforementioned energy in the Three is one and unvarying, the Godhead is also one." And again, the same [Athanasius adds]: "We are able," he says, "not to name three gods those who act in the God-contemplating and overseeing power and energy in conjunction and indistinguishably from one another, both in us and in all creation." Cyril the Wise says: "The Holy Spirit is equal in power and consubstantial with God, possessing the divine energy in himself naturally."
Thus it has been sufficiently proved already to the theologians [that] the Fathers say the Son and the Spirit are the power and energy of the Father according to these arguments; yet also that other thing has surely been demonstrated most excellently: that each of the three hypostases is also power and energy and is called [so] as existing by itself, just as also life, and wisdom, and light and things similar to these, so that they may not be thought to have them by partaking [of them] according to the other powerful, wise, and living [beings], which indeed has been said by us in the preceding [pages].
But they are said again to be powerful, and active, and wise, and living—each of the three—so that hearing that each of them is wisdom, and power, and energy, and life, we may not think them to be a power viewed in another, which is not an essence existing and being by itself, which is what the natural energy is. And the God-ruling Trinity is also called at once both wisdom and power, just as indeed also God; and life, and Word, and light; which indeed the theologians have also taught in the same way, because each of the persons possesses these unvaryingly, both individually and all together. Therefore, the Great Basil again says to Eunomius: "For if the Son possesses the essence unvaryingly, he will also possess [it] unvaryingly according to the power; and where the power is equal, there the energy is surely and entirely equal."
But Basil the Great, discoursing with Eunomius and wishing to show the uncreatedness of the Son, says: "If Christ is the wisdom and power of God, and these are uncreated, then Christ is also entirely [uncreated]." And that this belongs also to the Spirit, any pious person would say, according to the same argument. But do you learn from here the uncreatedness of the wisdom and power of God—that is to say, of the natural energy of God—not [by it] being the essence itself according to you, and thus having the uncreated naturally, so that this very thing is testified [of] to the Only-Begotten Son of God from this [source] also, and this seems to be so even to those who think the thoughts of Arius, even though they wrongly consider the Son of God to be a creature. For the Great One, attempting [the argument] not from the things that they do not think, but from the things that are admitted to be held [by them], led them into the necessity of being persuaded even if they did not wish it.
And again, the same [Basil] to the same Eunomius: "Christ, he says, is the power of God and the wisdom of God, the whole of the paternal power being clearly stored up in him. Whence, whatever he sees the Father doing, these things the Son also does in like manner." What also does the divine Gregory of Nyssa [say]? "God, he says, signifies the one acting, but Godhead signifies the energy. And none of the three is energy, but rather each of them is acting." Do you hear that none of the three is energy, but rather each of the three is acting? For the hypostases existing as perfect by themselves are not acting; but the natural energy, being power and active movement of the one acting, is acted upon and moved by him, and it sees [the rest].
For Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. And Dionysius the Great says: "God is power, as possessing and exceeding every power in himself." Thus the power and the energy of God, being natural and essential, does not divide the hypostases, but rather unites [them] naturally into one Godhead, to each of the three hypostases—likewise and all together with the three—being present as to one God, according to the things previously said, clearly, to the theologians.
Therefore also Maximus the Wise, [speaking] against those who wrongly have long said the divine energy is hypostatic and not natural, says: "Who, he says, has called the energy hypostatic, and where is this from, and from whom did they take it and bring it forward?" And again: "None of the natural [things] into a particular [individual]...
primarily, but has its reference to his own nature and substance." Moreover, the divine John of Damascus, showing this very thing—that the divine power and energy is by nature neither a hypostasis nor hypostatic, even as it is not a substance simply, but rather essential and natural, as being present to the divine substance itself naturally—says as follows concerning these matters: "We call the wills and energies natural and not hypostatic, by which I mean the very volitional and active power, according to which the things that will and act do will and act. For if we grant that these are hypostatic, we shall be forced to say that the three hypostases of the holy Trinity have different wills and different energies." And again: "The divine will of Christ," he says, "is without beginning, and having the power that follows it as all-producing," standing as it were against this philosopher, "Substance and will are precisely the same," [for he is] philosophizing badly. And again the divine Damascene: "Just as the number of the natures of the one and the same Christ, piously understood and spoken of, does not divide the one Christ, but stands for the difference of the natures while maintaining [it] even in the union, so too the number of the essentially B energies—for He was volitional and active of our salvation according to both natures—does not introduce division, far from it, but indicates their preservation and salvation even in the union, and that alone. For we say the wills and energies are natural and not hypostatic; I mean the very volitional and active power, according to which the things that will and act do will and act." And again: "If every energy is defined as an essential motion of some nature, where has anyone found an energy that is not a motion existing of a natural power?" Thus clearly and securely by many and good arguments did the theologians, as I have also partially shown, teach here also the doctrine concerning the natural energy of God, and that it is not according to this, but according to other arguments above all, that the Only-Begotten of God and His Spirit are said to be the energy of the Father. And if these things are so well and accurately rendered according to a doctrine that preserves [the truth] for them, and no one having a mind would ever contradict [them], then not in vain has our mind also shot forth the things proposed against Gregoras and his gang concerning these very matters.
CONCERNING THE DIVINE TRANSFIGURATION ON MOUNT TABOR
And concerning the light of the divinity therein, and again concerning the supernatural deification and partaking of the God-befitting and natural grace of the Spirit.DISCOURSE ELEVENTH
"Answer not a fool according to his folly," C the word of the wise man says, Solomon, through his few words teaching the great and wonderful thing, that one should not long associate with those who speak blasphemy against the height of God, nor pass time and converse much with the fool who, as the divine David said, "There is no God in his heart." And for this reason, too, the wise Paul taught, saying, "A man who is heretical, after the first and second admonition, reject, knowing that such a one is subverted and is self-condemned." Hence you might see most of the theologian teachers, and before all others the leaders of the apostles themselves, as much as possible disdaining this part of the arguments: that there is no necessity at all for the sake of those who impudently come against one face to face and force, but rather [there is a necessity] for the protection and salvation of those being taught. Since, therefore, we too, having come against this philosopher and his arguments under every necessity, because he D so stubbornly and shamelessly came against the assembly of the Fathers and against the venerable standard of our pious faith, and through them against the choir of the theologian Fathers, and against the God theologized by them, have extended our refutational arguments to great length even against our will, we have judged it necessary now also to bring them to a certain harbor and peace from that long storm and war, and now
A that he has been moved by appeals, it would be somehow superfluous, and a vacuous waste and friction of time, to pursue the same points again, and to occupy the discourse with nothing necessary, and to restrain the hand that is carried forward toward the face. Especially since the discourse has pursued all those heads as much as was permitted, together with the Theologian Fathers, which indeed Gregoras, having plundered from the holy Tome of the Church, set before himself for the purpose of overthrowing it, as he himself says. Yet if he, even regarding the habit of repeating himself and lying and doing so basely, and philosophizing without philosophy unto insult and reviling of the saints, holds fast to the same things again—himself being entirely ignorant of how to strike the mark and declare something timely and adhering to the appropriate discourse, while on the other hand, intentionally saying things badly and slandering those who both know those things well and speak them, in the highest degree, if anyone of all men is trained in this, and no philosopher—ancient or modern—gives way to him in these matters, B I think he holds the first prize. For which reason, indeed, it also seemed best to us not to answer the fool according to his folly, lest we be made like unto him, according to the wise proverb. For against him and his arguments, what has been said is sufficient, lest he seem wise in his own eyes; for this, too, the wise writer of Proverbs adds, saying: "But answer a fool according to his folly, lest he seem wise in his own eyes" (Prov. XXVI, 5). Therefore, all the things that Gregoras, appearing to argue against the Synodical Tome while philosophizing about the difference between the divine essence and the divine energy, and about the fact that this is uncreated and participateable, and about the Divinity and relationship and imitation, and indeed also about the unrelated and inimitable and uncreated nature of the supernatural and ineffable deification, and that this is secondary and lower according to the Theologians than the nature of the Cause itself, and that the Spirit of God together with the Son are not physical energies of the tri-hypostatic Divinity, even if in another way they are the powers and energies of the Father, and that these things are said where it is stated according to the words of God, and this also in the aforementioned Tome, or rather, in the refutations proper to the Tome which this fabricator of speeches joined—all, therefore, that this philosopher pretends to argue against those things, he has unbridledly blasphemed against the sacred theology and its wise teachers, as many as I say from the Old and as many from the New, have—I think—been refuted by us, as much as our power has reached, from their own orations, and from the Fathers who have indeed clarified and taught these things. It would remain, then, to consider what follows regarding the divine Transfiguration of Christ, and what the same person recounts concerning the voice that He brought into existence and begat, and how, and according to what sort of reason the wise Dionysius calls God the producer of His own processions and natural energies. Or rather, since concerning these matters too, something sufficient has been said by us to him in the previous three discourses, I say that it is a task for those who have made these matters and the philosopher's discourses concerning them their own, and not only so, but Gregory—the wise tongue, that is to say, and Theologian—still present in life to us, in three books he himself also pursued these things, C beyond the letters and appeals of certain persons mentioned here. Nonetheless, I say that we too must examine from a part here the things concerning the divine Transfiguration, or more truly to say, the things written by that philosopher more audaciously against the divine and supernatural mystery, since we had not yet encountered the book concerning this and his writings, except for hearsay and certain voices alone, disseminated then from some to others, and thus having come to us, against which we stood our own discourse. But now that both the book and the discourse against the mystery have come into our hands along with the others, having conversed, as I said, with these few things, and as much as will not annoy those who will encounter this writing hereafter, having left aside here the discourse concerning this that lies in the middle, thus we will then perfectly bring our own discourse here to a close. But it is necessary, according to the preceding continuity and order, to set forth here those things spoken concerning the divine Transfiguration in the Synodical Tome, and thus to pass over Gregoras again along with his own arguments and his customary refutation or fighting against God. What, therefore, is the Tome? "After this," it says, "it was sought to be shown by the saints, both that the light of the Lord's Transfiguration is uncreated, and that this is not the essence of God." And almost all said that this was proved according to the fourth session, in which those present who were arguing against the Church, now saying that this was created, and a phantom, and a curtain, and an image—openly blaspheming—and now also saying this impiously, that it was uncreated and the essence of God. For there was brought forward in that assembly Gregory, named for theology, writing, "No one has stood in the hypostasis and essence of the Lord according to what is written, and has seen or explained the essence of God." And the divine Maximus, writing in the seventh chapter of the third century of theological chapters, "He who does not exist according to essence, being participateable, but willing to be participated by those who are able in another way, does not depart entirely from being hidden according to essence." And the divine Chrysostom, writing on the same feast, "On the mountain," he says, "the Savior, having been transfigured, showed in a small way, as Master, to His own disciples the glory of His invisible divine kingship." But immediately they will cry out, those who carry around an unbridled and predatory tongue: "And if His divine glory is invisible, how did He show it to the apostles? For if it is visible, it is not invisible; but if it is invisible, it is not visible." Therefore, hear intelligently. Here Christ showed to His own disciples the glory of His invisible kingship, and did not show it—that is to say, He slightly opened the Divinity, and not completely, in part manifesting it, and in part sparing them. For in manifesting it, He showed to them the divine glory of the invisible kingship, not such as
A it was, but as much as the eyes of those who were fleshly could bear; yet, sparing them and not begrudging them, He did not show them the whole glory, lest they lose both their vision and their life. But also all the saints, call this an illumination, and have shown it to be brightness, and grace, and deification, and divinity, little more firm than sight, and an inaccessible light, and the unoriginate natural ray of the Son, a dart of divinity, a flash of divinity, and such like.
There was also brought forward in that assembly the first synodical tome on these matters, which piously and firmly demonstrated it is uncreated, and not a substance, through many testimonies from the divine Scripture, and from those of our thrice-blessed and late emperor of memory, lord Andronikos Palaiologos, words consistent with the saints, and God-fearing decrees. Against which holy and divine tome, those who at that time saw it and spoke against it, and against the Most Reverend of Thessalonica, we rejected, B as those who now assert the light of the Lord’s Transfiguration to be created, and now most foolishly hold it to be the substance of God, and as those not pleased to possess the substance of God and uncreated power and energy, but as those dragging down all the common powers and energies of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit abundantly into the creature, and those who call polytheists those who confess the uncreated God not according to substance alone, but also according to the hypostases, and according to the common divine powers and energies of the three hypostases.
And as for those matters regarding the aforementioned fourth council, the same holy tome sets forth those of the first synodical tome somewhat thus. For this reason, too, after a second council had been assembled, over which presided our now mighty and holy emperor Lord C John Kantakouzenos, Akindynos was exposed, both thinking and saying the same things as Barlaam, and accusing the monks. For which cause he also incurred the same condemnation as Barlaam, a synodical tome having been issued against those blasphemies of that Barlaam through which the entire Christian body was cut off, as this same synodical tome sets forth, for many other reasons, and because it endeavored to show the light of our Lord’s Transfiguration, which appeared to the blessed disciples and apostles who went up with Him, as created and circumscribed, and having nothing more than any of the sensible lights. Nor is this one alone, Barlaam, condemned by the synodical tome, but he makes himself liable to the same punishments, and anyone who follows him fights against the monks and the Church of God. For it says verbatim: "But also if any other, of those who spoke or wrote blasphemously and heterodoxly against the monks, or rather against the Church itself, under those things from Barlaam, should again be found accusing the monks, or in any way attacking such things, by our humility he is to be subjected to the same condemnation, and he shall be excommunicated D and cut off from the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Christ, and from the orthodox body of the Christians."
And such is the holy tome of the synod regarding our matters, I mean regarding the most divine light of the divine Transfiguration of Christ, and indeed also against those who from the beginning insulted it with blasphemous and God-fighting tongue, Barlaam and Akindynos, and the wicked gang according to them, and such was the justice justly received by them, who were fought against by the Church of Christ together with the pious and faithful emperors.
Let us also see what Gregoras this time says and writes about the same things, and if he is consistent here in everything with his teachers, or if he has discovered something more and has been ambitious in addition to their teaching, having taken it from his own philosophy and science, even though Gregoras strongly denies it, and to an excessive degree denies their mystery. And if he were present still, and continued among the living, he would have grieved more at being accused of these things, or of the heresy, and the excommunication, and the separation from Christ, and from the Church of Christ. But this itself would be a clear sign of his exact agreement with the ancient heretics, and I mean here Akindynos. For whereas he was driven then by the orthodox Church of the faithful, he was also openly both thinking and defending these same desires as Barlaam; but as for him who was imitating, as I said, the schoolmaster Barlaam in those [heresies] of Arius and Macedonius and Sabellius and those heresiarchs following them, he repeatedly subjected him to the anathema from God, even though there was no requirement demanding such things, hiding and sophistically concealing his heresy and his assimilation to the schoolmaster by every means and word. And this is what Gregoras, acting in the same way towards both, was seen doing, wordsedly condemning both and not even pretending that he wishes to listen to the name, but by deed proclaiming their things, and there is nothing else that Barlaam and Akindynos were in their writings.
D But it would be time now to speak of the philosopher and his own opinion again regarding the divine Transfiguration of Christ, and his writings. Speak then, Gregoras. "But see also the greater and more serious things," he says, "next, that he has also dogmatized the Transfiguration as a name, which is the relation of the Transfiguring Word of God, and transforming into brightness—as regards the body being transfigured and transformed—the form, divinity, and its own self as new, uncreated, and other than the divine substance; whereas it was necessary, if that light were other than the divine substance and subordinate, not to say it is an uncreated divinity; but if it were not other, to say that it is remaining the divine substance itself, shown in inexplicable ways." But he is not ashamed of having blasphemed the same things as the Iconoclasts entirely; but to a much greater degree of absurdity, according to his custom, he...
Having brought forth his customary slander, as shall be shown as we proceed, Gregoras mixes it with the heterodoxy and blasphemy long since associated with him, and he seems once again to be arming his discourse against us. And indeed, the nature of his slander and falsehood is clear from the outset. For who among us, as he claims, said that the term "Transfiguration" signifies a distinct, uncreated divinity? Though we have already—having previously set forth the words of the holy tomes, both this one of ours, I say, and that earlier one against Barlaam and Akindynos which was long ago rightly issued to the Church of God, as far as that tome made mention of our synod—set them out to the letter. Let Gregoras, therefore, say where he ever heard the tomes against which he pretends to contend claim that the Transfiguration is a divinity subsisting in itself, separately and apart from the divine essence. Or has the philosopher once again rattled his brains, so that he does not even know what he says or writes? Just as when he was brought forward at that synod of ours by those of like mind to speak against us and the right faith, he sat blathering for a long time, stammering things indistinct, almost inarticulate and incomprehensible to all those gathered there, when, having ostensibly claimed that we say Mount Tabor is uncreated, he provoked the laughter of almost everyone then present at the synod.
But such is the falsehood and the slander against us. However, as the discourse goes on C just a little, we hear that he also unveils his blasphemy against the Lord’s light, saying that if it were distinct from the divine essence and inferior, it could not be called divinity or uncreated; but if it is not distinct from the divine essence, then he says it must be the divine essence itself, revealed in ineffable ways. So it is that, according to this empty theologian and self-appointed teacher of divine dogmas, this inaccessible Light of the Divinity—the natural and inseparable glory of God—is either a creature, a phantasm, and an apparition (which he and his faction expressly stated and were convicted of at the time of the synod), or it is the very essence of God. For this is the primary point of the heresy from of old, and the philosopher, having inherited this from the leaders of his own perversion, D teaches that the divine light seen by the saints in ineffable ways is the very essence of God—saying and writing with a bold and demonic tongue and hand that God’s essence is somehow visible, brandishing the Iconoclasts and their impiety at us like a bugbear, as if we were stammering children.
But before we embark upon those arguments and his and their prattle, let us hear his subsequent words and what he says the Transfiguration itself is. For, leaving aside the blasphemy against the divine light for a moment, he returns to the Transfiguration—or rather, to that very subject and the holy words concerning it.
Against Gregoras, Antirrhetic XI
A Once again, this philosopher, having abandoned the evangelical philosophy and being puffed up by his acquired learning—and having lost even that by the righteous abandonment of God—has set out to examine, as he said before, the homonyms and divisions. He says he seeks what its genus is, and, having called it a homonymous term, he says that it signifies the essence when used of God, according to the rule of the luminaries of the Church, but that regarding sensible things, the "form" is the particular mold on the surface.
B But, O philosopher, what might I say to him? Is not the form of a man the essence of the man, and just as that of God, but only the image of the person, and is the particular mold on the surface the form of the man? And how could he who does not speak the wisdom of this age, but God’s wisdom in a mystery, which has been hidden, which God foreordained before the ages—how then does this man...
A claim both wisdom and the title of a true philosopher, while philosophizing about the things of Christ’s dispensation—he who, while saying that Christ "being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant," nevertheless says that Christ assumed only the form of the face and the quality of the image surrounding the appearance, according to you, and not the perfect Adam—I mean flesh, soul, and mind?
Such an attempt has not been dared by anyone among the impious to this day. For it has never even been heard of. For those around the Syrian Apollinarius spoke wickedly in saying that Christ assumed flesh without a mind and without a soul, as if the divinity had been reckoned in His place instead of a soul; but that Christ assumed only the form of a human face and the quality surrounding the appearance, I do not know if anyone at all has thought—except you.
Wherefore John, who is golden-tongued, interpreting the aforementioned apostolic utterance, and speaking against certain ancient heretics—Marcellus, and Photinus, and Sophronius—who said that not the hypostasis of God the Word, but only the energy had been united to the flesh, says: "How," says he, "do you say that it was an energy? For the form of God," he says, "took the form of a servant. Is the form of the servant an energy of a servant, or is it the nature of a servant?" By all means, surely it is the nature of a servant. Therefore, the form of God is also the nature of God. It is not, then, an energy. And this teacher of the inhabited world, as you hear, takes this as something acknowledged even by those who oppose the word of piety—that the form of the servant is the nature of a servant—and through this he also proves what is contested by them: that if this is so, then likewise so is that, that the form of God is also the nature of God. For "the form of God," he says, "took the form of a servant." B
But Gregoras, who stands against the apostolic and Patristic teachings, says everywhere: "In the case of God," he says, "the essence can be the same as the form, but in the case of men, by no means; but the form," he says, "is for them only the quality surrounding the appearance," thinking that he has the teachers of the Church with him—those whom he fights in everything. Since, therefore, Christ, having assumed the form of a servant, did not assume only the form of the face—for this would be something phantom-like and absurd to imagine—but assumed the nature of man in its own complete hypostasis, He also transformed it in Himself, illuminating it with the light of His own divinity. "For the nature darkened in Adam," says the wise cantor of the Church regarding Christ, "by being transformed, You have made to shine again, having transmuted it into the glory and brightness of Your divinity." This, as the discourse proceeds, will be shown to us more broadly through the same theologians. Thus, therefore, the examination regarding the form, and the homonyms of the philosopher, as false and baseless, are scattered and depart again.
But let us look at his subsequent divisions and questions concerning the transformation, and those matters in which he himself, while denying the divine transformation of Christ, then accuses us of impiety C and of being those who oppose the Iconoclasts, as he himself puts it.
I should readily ask, he says, Gregoras, what he might understand "transformation" to be. For the word does not signify anything other than a change or alteration of form. If, therefore, he speaks of the divine essence, what would be more absurd than one who says that the transformation of Christ on the holy mountain was a transubstantiation? But if he asserts that the form of the servant was fully and entirely changed—to speak accurately according to these Iconoclasts themselves—into a light ineffable, uncreated, and a divinity foreign to them, then it must be sought, he says, how the created has crossed over itself to the uncreated, and the originated to the unoriginated, and the temporal to the timeless, and the finite to the infinite. But let us, having taken these very premises of his against us, prove his syllogism to be devoid of logic, and before that, let us question the philosopher.
And if the transformation is nothing else, as you yourself say, than a change or alteration of form; and to say that the unchangeable essence of God is changed, as you also say, has surpassed all impiety; and to assert that the form of the servant has been fully and entirely changed into a light ineffable and uncreated, and a divinity foreign to the impious Iconoclasts, is something peculiar—there remains, then, a third, pious alternative by every necessity, as you yourself, I suppose, gather by dividing: to say that the transformation of Christ did not happen on the mountain at all, so that everyone who says the transformation happened does not necessarily fall into either of the stated impieties.
We say this, however, not simply, nor does the universal Church of Christ, but the choir of evangelists and apostles, who did not follow "cunningly devised fables," as the blessed Peter says, but having been "eyewitnesses of His majesty," D and hearers of the Father’s voice and testimony, being with Him, he says, on the holy mountain; or rather, Christ Himself is that very One who was transfigured, who, while foretelling to the disciples the kingdom of Himself and of the Father, pronounced this great and supernatural mystery of the transformation. But Gregoras says: "Since," he says, "the transformation is nothing else than a change or alteration of form, and to say that either the divine essence or the human nature of Christ has been altered—each is impious—let him who wishes," according to Gregoras, "conclude that by every necessity Christ was not transfigured."
Such are the things of logical science, and of the divisions, and of the syllogisms of the wise Gregoras. Boasting in these, he accuses the mystagogues and initiates of the Gospel of ignorance and boorishness throughout his entire book. Thus clearly he shows himself opposed to the evangelists and apostles, and I say, to the Hypostatic Wisdom of God Himself, the common Teacher and Master of all, Christ, who...
A by showing that the human nature of Christ possessed every natural glory of the Godhead through the inseparable union according to the Hypostasis—yet without departing from itself, nor being transmuted into Godhead, nor, I say, being the divine nature itself, nor being something other and separated from it, for what could that be?—but rather remained human nature even after the anointing and the co-deification of the Godhead. For this reason the noble champion, in his work on behalf of this [truth], just as Gregoras himself sets forth in his own writings, also embellishes his account; he says: "Eusebius, in reference to the ineffable and inexpressible light, and because it is becoming to the Word of God, says that the form of the servant was transformed upon the mountain."
Do you hear, Gregoras, the impiety of the Iconoclast, or rather, the impieties? For he says that the human nature of Christ was transformed upon the mountain, and he says that it was transformed into a certain hypostatic light, just as the namesake of this confession will demonstrate more fully as he proceeds. What impiety has he not surpassed? B He therefore adds: "And the argument of Eusebius is thus, and being as it is, all of his impiety hangs upon it here; but let us examine as succinctly as possible where the things of this new teaching and doctrine of his lead, and let us attempt to investigate what and of what sort the mode of this transformation is."
Everything that undergoes change is changed either in essence—which is considered in terms of generation and corruption—or in one of the things within it. And this [latter] in two ways: for it is either changed in quantity, according to which growth and diminution are shown, or in quality, from which alteration is indicated. If then it has been changed in quality, it has been moved towards alteration, and this is the reconfiguration of some characteristic, or a variation of some things of the underlying subject, occurring detachably or inseparably, which show [the subject] as other and different from the former, yet it does not make the thing being altered into something else; for it did not change essentially, but has caused the same thing to become such-and-such in terms of quality. But this does not mean to have been changed entirely out of entirely; for the underlying subject C remains preserved in every way. But if it is in terms of quantity, it has received some growth or diminution. Yet neither does this make something else besides what existed from the beginning, but has caused the same thing to become so-much in terms of magnitude. Therefore, not even in this way has the form been changed entirely out of entirely. It remains, then, to say that it has been changed in itself in respect to the essence, with the result that there is a necessity for everything to have proceeded from generation to corruption, and from being to non-being.
Likewise, the confessor of piety convicts both Eusebius, who stood at the head of the Iconoclast heresy, and this Gregoras—the former, through the reduction to the absurd, having shown that he did not speak of the transformation [of Christ] nor of a divine alteration of quality, nor of the deification of the human nature D of Christ, but of the
transformation of its essence, as if there were an absolute necessity, as they say, for it to have passed from generation to corruption, and from being into non-being. But A he refutes the contrived divisions and syllogisms of Gregoras, who posits certain things about form and transformation as a premise, and draws and concludes other things. Through these he shows himself, and not us, as he supposed, to be in agreement with the Iconoclasts, and indeed thinking and saying things much worse in their impiety than they; for insofar as they have wrongly interpreted the transformation to have taken place, he on the other hand denies it utterly and impiously, contending directly—as the discourse has already shown—against the Jews that the divinity of Christ was neither present nor manifested.
And whereas the Arian and Iconoclast Eusebius brought against the foregoing [arguments] that it was evidently the body of Christ that cast off mortality and corruption, the confessor and teacher of the truth says: "Add, if you wish, that the visible further passes into the invisible, and what is under time into the timeless, and the created into the uncreated, and whatever other such things are opposed." But no one writes of mortality, nor of the transformation itself by itself. For it will never be contemplated as existing without a body. Just as whiteness or blackness B would not subsist without a substrate; for just as that form and essence has not been changed into the nature of divinity—as he thinks, for it is impossible for this to happen, as has already been said, and the truth itself witnesses to this, from the accurately examined nature of things and the correctness, unerringness, and blamelessness of our dogmas—but he has been transformed, says Eusebius, and rendered immortal, and has become incorruptible and uncreated. Then, having been transformed, says the teacher, and rendered immortal, has he remained a body, or not? For if he has remained, the discourse of Eusebius is seen to be vain, and there will be no problem for us; but if he has not remained, nor has he been transformed, then he does not require immortality and incorruptibility. For it had nothing into which it would be transformed, nor was there anything that would put on immortality, as there was no existing thing in which these would be contemplated. But it is absurd, or rather impossible, even to think such things.
And again, by magnifying the servile form from the mode of the transformation C more than he ought, and by honoring it in a way that Christ himself did not honor, and by having initiated from this [notion] the change, as he proceeds he says that the very form and essence has been cast off and changed into divinity, as he will show even more clearly in the things to be set forth by him hereafter; and still more by a progression from having cast off mortality and washed away corruption, and having been fashioned into the glory of God. But the great mystagogue Apostle teaches that this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality; but that a body should put on incorporeality, or the created become uncreated, or the circumscriptible be transferred into uncircumscriptibility, has not yet been heard of until this day. These things, as Gregoras supposed, are against us, having set in motion his own spinning-top by his words. For concerning the divine transformation, as those of us who are sacred theologians say, it was not that Christ was transformed into what he was not, having assumed it, D nor that he changed into what he was not, but that he was manifested as he was to his own disciples, opening their eyes and making them see from being blind; and that he was then seen, which was invisible to human eyes, as a body emanating divine brilliance, a mortal body pouring forth the glory of divinity. For the Word became flesh, and the flesh became Word, even if neither departed from its own nature. And again: "This, he says, we celebrate today, the deification of nature, the change unto the better, the ecstasy and ascent toward that which is above nature, out of that which is according to nature."
And again: "He who then shone forth exceedingly upon the mountain, not becoming then more radiant or higher than himself—far from it—but being what he was even before to those of the disciples who were being perfected and, as they were being initiated into the higher mysteries, were truly beholding, and in that you revealed in the holy mountain, O Benefactor, the lightning hidden under the flesh of your essential and divine splendor." Therefore, these things and things like them, with those of us who are the divine hymnographers and teachers of the mystery saying that the form of the slave has not been changed and transformed under the divine form, the human essence [has not been changed] under the essence, that is, of God, in the one hypostasis of Christ, but rather has been glorified and altered in the glory and alteration that is above nature, through that natural and inseparable glory and divinity, remaining flesh by nature again, quickened by a rational and intellectual soul according to nature, "O what a miracle!" for, says the prelate theologian, "it is beyond all mind. The glory did not come to the body from without, but from within, from the God-Word's超-divine divinity, which was united to it according to hypostasis in an ineffable way." But Gregoras, who even said before—having previously called the divine form divine essence, and the human form not essence, but, as he himself said, a qualitative impression around the manifestation—then, having reasoned badly and ignorantly from things he himself had least posited, brought about the name of the transformation—and I do not know into what [kind of] transformation he impiously and atheistically brought his argument—the transformation of Christ itself, or rather [the transformation] of the nature of God, or the change of the human nature, according to the impious Iconoclasts, entirely and in every way. So that there is every necessity for the philosopher, from the things he himself presumed and reasoned badly, either to say that the transformation of Christ did not take place at all—which I say is not only impious, but also atheistic, which I said before—or, in avoiding this, to fall of necessity into one of the other impieties from his own division: either he makes the God who is by nature unalterable and immutable into one capable of being altered and changed according to his own syllogism, or [he makes] the human nature of Christ entirely and in every way with the
unapproachable light, and calls *it* divinity and deification and the natural glory of God, and the things that follow from these. For he adds: “The saving body,” he says, “was thought by the Iconoclasts to have been changed into the uncreated and incorrupt; but the light then made manifest was [thought by them to be] uncreated divinity and non-substantial; then, on the mountain, as if a beginning had been made for the uncreatedness of the human [nature] and for incorruption, as in the manner of a guarantee, but after death and the ascent to the heavens, it had already become perfect and by nature uncreated.”
And behold the craftiness and variety of his malice and falsehood, and his god-fighting, in these few words. For even if there were wise men concerning these things, they did not know how to do or say what is good. For he has taken from Eusebius and the Iconoclasts that the body was changed and transformed through the transfiguration of Christ into the incorrupt and uncreated, but [he argues] that this divine light of his transfiguration is divinity and uncreated, as a natural property of God, and an hypostasis in itself, not an essence, but rather in the essence as a natural glory, and a brightness seen of God.
But if Gregoras, in the midst of his own arguments, says that the transfiguration of Christ was an alteration of form toward the more brilliant—thus instructing his own initiate, and saying, “That the transfiguration of the Savior on the mountain was not thought by the Iconoclasts to be an alteration of form toward the more brilliant, but this also, in the first place, is in no way consistent with himself; for those concerned with the transfiguration, its definitions, and its divisions and syllogisms did not have any such thing at all; and then, that he speaks of this alteration of the form of Christ toward the more brilliant—which he accuses the Iconoclasts of not thinking—not as an alteration of the right hand of the Most High, nor as an ecstasy and ascent from natural things to things above nature, nor as a deification of nature, but by glorifying the brightness of the form of Christ”—for he has not learned to truly hold the views of the theologians, and to say those things, that the apostles fell, being unable to gaze upon the glory of the light of the Son, because it was an unapproachable light. For he says, “Jesus went up into the mount and was transfigured before them. What is ‘was transfigured’? He B revealed, he says, a little of his divinity, and showed them the God indwelling, and his face shone as the sun.” And again: “While assuring the apostles, Christ,” he says, “showed them the divine glory of the invisible kingdom, not as much as it was, but as much as those bearing about bodily eyes were able to endure; yet sparing them and not begrudging them, he did not show them the whole glory, so that they might not, along with the vision, lose their life. And that Christ leads the disciples up to the mountain to show them the super-radiating glory and brightness of his own divinity, into which, a little before more mystically, and now more transparently through his transfiguration, he has transmuted the nature that heard, ‘You are earth, and to earth you shall go.’” This, then, we celebrate today: the deification of nature, the alteration toward the better, the ecstasy and ascent toward things above nature of those things that are according to nature.
To these things, then, and to such things, this philosopher here, wishing to be in harmony, said that the transfiguration of Christ was an alteration of form toward the more brilliant—how far he is from that! But he himself, according to the group associated with him, calls the divine and unapproachable light of the transfiguration of Christ a creature and an image, [as well as] the natural glory of his divinity, his common kingdom with the Father. And rather, he even calls it both a creature and an essence of God; in this he is in harmony with Acindynus, his own mentor. And he condemns along with the Iconoclasts not only the synod and the current Church simply, but also all the holy theologians together, and the Fathers who spoke C of those things regarding the divine and unapproachable light, and divinity and deification, and the natural glory of God, and those things that follow from these.
These things, then, having snatched from the theology of the saints, and furthermore having heard it called a “guarantee of the Spirit” by the same theologians, who had taken this from the Apostle, and having mixed it with the impiety of the great theology of the Spirit, and having confused and disturbed it, and having brought down the grace of the divine Spirit, like the god-fighting Jews of old, to Beelzebub, he attempts in this way to attach the heresy of iconoclasm and its condemnation, as he himself thinks, to our synod and to the Church of Christ, through what he has wickedly and ignorantly collected, accusing not so much us as the divine Scripture and those who had long ago examined it with the Spirit, from whom, indeed, we also have received and possess these things. For he adds, after a little, in this way: “Concerning the divine iconoclasm of Palamas, of which you know to be the most critical of the present struggle, it is possible for you, indeed, by examining it in comparison, to see clearly that he himself blasphemes in the same things against the same people, if one were to see those very roots of evil, and the first growth; but it is no less possible to see what he himself has done, the addition, finding growth upon growth, and bringing lawlessness upon lawlessness.” Is it not clearly, here, that Gregoras has let burst forth lawlessness, and the impiety and what is truly godless from his own way of thinking, by calling the theology of the saints lawlessness, a root of evil, and a wicked growth upon growth? For he openly blasphemes that lawlessness is both the root of evil and the growth, he who is truly the son of lawlessness and destruction, concerning the natural glory of God, I mean the unoriginate and unapproachable light of the divinity of Christ, which we have proclaimed, having received it from the apostolic and theological voices. What, truly, are these? The light, he says, the divinity shown to the disciples on the mountain, a little more solid than sight; and
A the servile substance, having brightened it with natural properties. "Another
of the God-bearing ones
in the same way. 'Suddenly,' he says, 'Christ is transformed before the disciples, and his form changes, and having put on a garment of light, he showed a flashing sight.' O the wonder! Rays were emanating from the human form, sent by divine energies. And again: 'This is,' he says, 'my beloved Son.' Him I created as slaves; this One I begat as Son from my substance. 'He is my Son, even if he has put on the form of a slave for your sake; he possesses inaccessible light, even if for your sake he has measured out the rays.' O blessed eyes that see Christ adorned as a bridegroom! O blessed eyes that see the fearful day of judgment in a mild appearance! For those things which angels shall see trembling, these they beheld rejoicing.But he who very wisely composes the memorandum to the bosom-friend Theologian, mindful of that divine transformation of Christ, says the following about him: ‘He ascends with Christ as he goes up to the mountain, and is deemed worthy of a sight as wondrous and beyond speech, having seen the divinity of the Word itself stripped bare, and he hears a heavenly voice.’
For Christ will come with his body, as my discourse says; and such he was as he was seen by the disciples on the mountain, or shown, with the flesh being overcome by the divinity. And they saw, he says, his beauty, Peter and the sons of thunder on the mountain, outshining the brightness of the sun, and they were deemed worthy to take in with their eyes the preludes of his glorious presence; and because the inaccessible, he says, and timeless light, having transformed its own flesh, irradiated it superessentially with the superabundance of its own outpouring of light. For being unable to bear the ray of that immaculate flesh, or that which was emanating miraculously through this from the divinity of the Word which had been hypostatically united to the flesh, they fall upon their faces—O the wonder!
But what of him who says: ‘Today an abyss of inaccessible light, today an outpouring of divine brilliance is shining on the mountain to the apostles, Jesus Christ, to me a dear matter and name’? And after some things: ‘For Christ, having been begotten timelessly from the Father, possesses the natural and timeless ray of the divinity, not later acquiring existence, nor even this glory itself; for he is from the Father without beginning, but is timeless, and possesses the brightness of his own glory, and having become flesh, he himself remains within his own radiance; and the flesh is glorified at the same time as its production from non-being into being, and the glory of the divinity becomes also the glory of the body. For one is this and that: Christ, consubstantial with the Father, and connatural and of the same race as us. B
If, therefore, the holy body has never existed without a share of the divine glory, but from the extreme union in accordance with the hypostasis it has been fully enriched with the glory of the invisible divinity, so that the glory of the Word and of the flesh is one and the same; yet, the glory existing invisibly in the visible body appeared invisible to those who could not contain things invisible even to angels, being prisoners of the flesh. And after a little: And the body shines as the sun. For the outpouring of light became of the body. For all things of the one incarnate God Word have become common, both those of the flesh and those of the uncircumscribed divinity. Yet one thing is that from which the boasts of glory come, and another that from which the sufferings are known to be common. But the divine prevails, and imparts of its own brightness and glory to the body, and remains itself without share in the suffering in the sufferings.
But what of him who is more ancient in time, but in theology is breathing with and in accord, as one moved by the same Spirit? ‘Christ,’ he says, ‘having led the disciples up from below, not so much physically as theoretically—that is, having made them capable of those surpassing illuminations—was then transformed before them.' For of old, indeed, Jesus the Savior was transformed, not before men, but before his own Father: when ‘he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, he who exists in the form of God.’ Then, therefore, he veiled the divine form by being transformed into the form of a slave. But now he restores the form of the slave to the natural form, C not having put off the servile substance, but having brightened it with natural properties.
Thus we, together with the theologian Fathers and teachers of the Church of Christ, theologize about the matters of his divine transformation, not discovering reasoned arguments from ourselves and speaking from our own belly, as the great Isaiah says, against the Arian Eusebius, and those persuaded by him, the Iconoclasts, and indeed this Gregoras, who have both wickedly and impiously said that the entire human nature of Christ has been changed from its entirety and transformed into a light that is unspeakable and indescribable, and fitting for God the Word—I know not what and of what kind that light is, which they monstrously claim to be in a particular hypostasis and substance, apart from God the Word. For neither would the human nature have changed into a quality and power that is divine (not being considered in itself, but in the nature from which it springs), nor would it have been in the world, and been with men, and at once operated the things of the divinity and of the humanity naturally; for I omit to say that it also suffered, and was crucified, and died, and rose, and was touched by the hands of the disciples, and showed the wounds in himself economically, proving his humanity.
Yet we do not say those things according to Gregoras, nor do we define form, in the case of God, as substance alone, and in the case of men, not as substance as he says, but as a qualitative imprint regarding the appearance, D so that not only should the form of God, having taken up the form of a slave, not be said—and I say this as the head of the economy of Christ and of our salvation—but so that there might also be some phantom and monstrosity, such as that being gathered wickedly by the philosopher, and harmonious with the dogmas of the fantasiasts and Iconoclasts: that the only-begotten Son and Word of God, having become with us for our sake, took the qualitative imprint regarding the appearance of the human substance and hypostasis, or that the transformation of Christ was nothing at all, so that there should not be, he says, change and alteration from
A necessity, whether of the Godhead or of the humanity, of Christ. Such indeed are the matters of theology and Christomachy of this new theologian, which he himself, having previously shown through his own terms and syllogisms, has demonstrated. But we say this, following the aforementioned holy theologians and teachers: that the form of God, having taken the form of a servant from the virginal blood beyond the laws of nature by the power of the Holy Spirit, and having simultaneously brought about the assumption of that form in an ineffable way, along with the union and the deification, as one and the same glory of the Word and of the flesh—this he did not strip it of its natural and essential state, nor did he alter or transform it entirely from its whole. For how could the same person be the Son of man and also be the Son of God according to his own divine oracles, being the same perfect one in Godhead and in humanity?
What, then, could be said of the suffering that is received within him, and of the death, if he did not bear the whole man within himself, connatural and united inseparably according to his own hypostasis with the Godhead? But he brought it about that, while remaining entirely man by nature, he remained entirely God by the ineffable union; for the divine overcomes, as we have heard the theologians saying, and imparts its own brightness and glory to the body, and the glory of the Godhead becomes the glory of the body also. B But since the mystery beyond nature was uncontainable to human eyes, at that time the light, unapproachable and inaccessible, was hidden under the flesh as if under a veil—for it was uncontainable to men—and was seen C of its own radiance, appearing to the apostles differently than it had been seen before. And that he opened up a little of the Godhead, says John who is golden of tongue, and showed them the God indwelling within, as much as they were able to bear, carrying bodily eyes, having been altered, that is to say, by the power and energy of the Spirit. For this, he says, is the alteration of the right hand of the Most High. These things are what eye has not seen, and what ear has not heard, and what has never ascended into the heart of man. Thus in the age to come we shall always be with the Lord, beholding Christ flashing with the light of the Godhead. Thus, according to the divine singer, the sights of the Godhead were beheld by the apostles in the flesh, shining upon Mount Tabor. Thus the Word of God, having been mingled without confusion, showed us the coal of the Godhead, which burns away sins but illuminates souls. Thus Christ, who with invisible hands fashioned man according to his own image, in his own fashioning showed forth the archetypal beauty. Thus the unchangeable nature, having been mingled with the mortal, unfolding the light of the invisible Godhead to the apostles, shone forth ineffably—he who at the end of the ages, as through a mirror, says he, shone through the flesh to the world and descended even to Hades, and dissolved the darkness therein. For since, says again the golden-tongued John, he had spoken much to the disciples about dangers and afflictions and temptations of all kinds and deaths, and some of these were things before their eyes every day, while the enjoyment of good things was still in hopes and expectations, wishing to confirm their vision and to show what that expected thing truly is, and what the ineffable and God-befitting glory is, he shows and reveals it to them as much as was possible at that moment. And again: Because, he says, the word of the kingdom was as yet unclear to the hearers, for this reason he went up onto the mountain and was transfigured before them, opening up to them the glory of those things that are to come. D But Gregoras, even when hearing of the kingdom of God, poorly—I know not how—along with Acindyrus, the most wretched of all who have perished, misunderstands this also as a created thing, daring in his mind, and saying, as the miserable ones do, that it is possible to be once without a kingdom. Concerning which I think it not inopportune to say a few things from the theologian teachers to those people.
Chrysostom, therefore, and again the divine one, considering the words of the God-bearing David, says: What then, does David mean, saying, "The Lord has reigned"? For if he always reigns, that he "has reigned" is superfluous. If therefore he wished to praise a kingdom, why did he say, "The Lord has reigned," as if the kingdom had taken a beginning? And when does the kingdom of God take a recent beginning, and was there ever a time when God was not king? And how? Nothing is recent in God. He does not take on power, he is not clothed with a kingdom, but he is king from eternity, from eternity Master, from eternity Creator, as the blessed Moses says: The Lord reigning for the age and beyond. And further: If therefore the blessed...
A Moses, having been born many generations before David, proclaimed the kingdom of God, what is the intention of the blessed David, when he proclaims the ancient [kingdom] as recent, saying, “The Lord hath reigned”? Is it not manifest that he is interpreting the economy of the Savior? For the kingdom of the Savior is twofold: the one is eternal, having no beginning; the other is after the ages, receiving its beginning from the economy. And indeed, being always king, he becomes king also according to the flesh, possessing the one naturally, and receiving the other according to the human formation.
And the confessor and teacher of piety, Maximus, says: “We know of something super-aeonian according to Scripture, which it signified, but what this is, it did not name, according to [the text]: ‘The Lord reigning for the age and beyond.’” And further: “Therefore there is some B reality beyond the ages, the pure kingdom of God. For it is not fitting to say that the kingdom of God began or is reached by ages or times.” But lest you think that the kingdom of God, which these Christ-bearers described having received from Holy Scripture, is one thing, and the kingdom of heaven prepared for the righteous from the foundation of the world, according to the word of the Lord himself, is another, he immediately adds, saying: “We believe this to be the inheritance of those being saved, and their dwelling and place, as the true word hands down.” And again, the same [Maximus] says: “The kingdom of God is a participation by grace in the goods that belong naturally to God, and it is the very form of the natural beauty of those who put on the image of the heavenly [One].”
And the fellow-ascetic and fellow-singer with him—I mean the Christ-bearer Thalassius—says: “Eternal is God, and boundless, and undefined; and he promised eternal, and boundless, and unspeakable goods to those who obey him.” And again: “They are beyond the ages, he says, and before every age, and beyond mind and reason, the goods reserved for the heirs of the promise.”
What does the great Athanasius also say about these same things? Let us listen. Thus, he says, does Paul speak to Timothy: “Suffer hardship with the Gospel according to the power of God, who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given to us in Christ Jesus before eternal ages, but has now been manifested through the appearing of our Savior.” How do we receive [what was given] before eternal ages, not yet having been born, but having been born in time, unless the grace reaching us was reserved in Christ? For it was not fitting for our life to be founded in any other, if it were not in the Lord who was before the ages, through whom the ages also have been made, so that as it was in him, we too might be able to inherit eternal life.
And the great Basil, having said much about the all-working and all-powerful energy and grace of the Holy Spirit, adds also these things: “For who is so deaf to the prepared goods? C The crown is the grace of the Spirit, provided then more abundantly and more perfectly according to the proportion of the noble deeds, the spiritual glory being distributed to each; for in the brightness of the saints there are many mansions with the Father, that is, distinctions of honors.” And after some things: “How then is it possible to understand the judgment being accomplished without the Holy Spirit, since the word shows that it is itself also the prize of the righteous, when instead of the pledge the perfect [thing] is granted?”
Since the word of the saints, running on in relation to the pledge of the Holy Spirit, has arrived very opportunely, come, let us consider in part the things said about this by the apostles and teachers. Since he also mocks the word concerning this divine pledge, as we heard Gregoras saying in the preceding, not me and us so much, but rather the teachers, and Fathers, and apostles, condemning them along with the Iconoclasts even in this. The great Basil indeed, besides the things already said by him, even in the great mystical rite, while hymning the gifts of the Holy Spirit, says: “The gift of adoption, the pledge of the future inheritance, the first-fruits of eternal goods, the life-giving power, the source of sanctification,” having received these from the Apostle. And the divine Chrysostom, contemplating that apostolic [word] which says, “And he who establishes us and has given us the pledge,” speaks as follows: “I give you a pledge; what pledge? The Holy Spirit, the gift of the Spirit.” But speaking concerning the Spirit: “He gave the ring to the apostles: take, give to all. One ring is divided and is not consumed; learn the gift of the Spirit; Peter received, Paul received the Holy Spirit, he passed through the inhabited world. He delivered sinners from sins, healed the lame, clothed the naked, raised the dead, cleansed the lepers, muzzled the devil, drove out demons, conversed with God, planted churches, demolished temples, dissolved wickedness, planted virtue, made men D angels.” All these things, while still a pledge, he fulfilled by the word in the whole inhabited world.
And when I say the whole, I mean as much land, sea, mountains, and valleys, and hills as the sun looks upon. For the tent-maker, he who handled the awl and worked in leather, went around like a winged creature, passing through the world with one mouth of ancient things. And this craft was no hindrance to virtue; but the tent-maker was stronger than demons, more brilliant than kings, mightier than armies, wiser than philosophers, the man without a mouth. Whence did he receive the pledge, carry the ring, and carry it around? All saw that the King had wed our nature. The demon saw, and retreated, having seen the pledge. He saw a shadow and retreated. He saw garments and fled. O, the power of the Spirit! He feared not the soul, not the body, but the garment. Not the garment, but the shadow. Paul went about the inhabited world, pulling out the thorns of sins, the seeds
A of piety, just as an excellent plowman, having the plow of teaching for God, the source of radiance. Whither did he go? To the Thracians, to the Scythians, to the Indians, to the Moors, to the Goths, to the beasts, and he transformed them all. Whence? From the earnest. How did the grace of the Spirit suffice? An illiterate man, naked, barefoot, he who gave the earnest of the Spirit. Therefore he says: "And for these things who is sufficient?" But our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant, not of letter, but of Spirit. Did you see how many things the Spirit did? And in the treatise on the resurrection from the dead, the same Apostle again says: "For this reason," he says, "Paul, having made the word concerning the resurrection trustworthy, from the resurrection of Christ, from God being the one who creates, brings in also this passage, saying that he gave us an earnest, not of money, nor of gold and silver, but B an earnest of the Spirit." Now the earnest is a part of the whole, and is a pledge for the whole. For just as in contracts he who has received the earnest is thereafter confident for the whole and has believed, so also you, having received the earnest of the Spirit—I mean the gifts—no longer doubt concerning the goods laid up. And after a little: "But yet neither have you become destitute of the grace of the Spirit, but many symbols of that gift remain even now, much greater and more wondrous than those very things enumerated. For it is not the same thing to raise up a body that has died, and to deliver a soul that has been deadened by sins from that destruction, which is what happens through baptism. It is not the same thing to drive away a disease of the flesh and to sink a heavy load of sins; it is not the C same thing to correct an eye that is blinded and to illuminate a soul that has been darkened with light." For if the earnest of the Spirit were not also now present, baptism would not exist, the forgiveness of sins would not have taken place, we would not have received righteousness and sanctification, we would not have received adoption, we would not have enjoyed the mysteries. For mystical body and blood could never have come to be without the grace of the Spirit; we would not have had priests. For it is not possible for these ordinations to take place without that visitation. And one could recount many other symbols of the grace of the Spirit. So you too have an earnest of the Spirit; and you have put off the death of the soul, and the satiety of passions, and you have put off the unclean life. D
Concerning the earnest of the Spirit and the firstfruits, according to the Apostles and the holy teachers.
Do you hear, Gregoras, from the Apostles—I speak of these philosophers and wise men—the true and first wisdom, whatever they philosophize concerning the earnest and the firstfruits of the divine Spirit? They were taught these things not by technical sciences and methods of human wisdom, but having become eyewitnesses and partakers, they were accounted worthy of the natural glory and grace of God, and of that greatness with Peter, I say, and the sons of thunder, or if you wish, with the whole distinguished order of the Apostles, the blessed twelve together, in the form of fiery tongues then, receiving power from on high according to the great promise of the Savior to them, through which they illuminated the world and led it back from the shadow of ignorance and error? What, then, does it seem to you to be regarding this divine earnest, which was distributed to all the Apostles and teachers, as you hear, and which has performed and continues to perform supernatural things, overcoming all reason and nature? Now you could never call it a creature of God, unless you are openly insane and deranged, both for the reasons that these things are performed by Him in a God-befitting way above nature, and because you hear sacred theology saying that this earnest is not only of the Spirit, but that it is the Holy Spirit Himself. How then, after Macedonius, could you now dare to blaspheme so openly the Spirit of God as a creature? But what then? Will you say that this is the essence or the hypostasis of the Spirit? But that is not possible. For one would be more likely to say that the earth is spherical and the heaven is a cone, and that it has the relationship of a center to that sphere, or that this bright eye of the day, the sun, does not have light from itself, but that it has it from the moon—perhaps some might think that by saying such things one is saying something—than to say what you say. And I omit saying now that it is not the essence of God nor the hypostasis that is given. Nor are those who partake by nature able to partake of it at all, but of the grace and the energy. Therefore also that is given to us, which we also receive by the power of the Spirit; the theologians say this too. This, however, I do not set forth now for the moment, although it is a common axiom of the Church of Christ of old. That it has been sufficiently said and demonstrated to us by many things in what has preceded, and so that you may not slander us again, that we take as agreed-upon the things that were to be sought from the beginning. For thus your theology and wisdom inspects the axioms, imagining foolishly that these things are sought and not agreed-upon and established. Let this rest, then; but I wish to ask the philosopher at least this much here: if the earnest of the Spirit IS the essence and the hypostasis of the Spirit, as you yourself would say, and not the grace and the energy, how is it an earnest? And what then is the whole, of which the earnest is the earnest, which you call the very essence and hypostasis of the Spirit? For the Apostle called it an earnest of the Spirit and a firstfruits—"For we have," he says, "the firstfruits"—and the theologians who interpret this, as you have heard, say that it is the firstfruits of eternal goods, and an earnest, and a ring, and a part of the whole, and a pledge for the whole that is expected, and they call it a secure earnest. And at the same time they say that it has been distributed to all by the one who gave it to the apostles and teachers, and that it has performed in them and continues to perform all things new and supernatural, and possible for God alone. But it is impossible for the essence and the hypostasis of the Spirit to be an earnest of anything—for of what, indeed?—and not even a part of the whole. For God is not divided according to essence and hypostasis; but also each of the divin-divinely founded hypostases is God perfect and transcendent and indivisible. Speak then, O philosopher, and define, and syllogize, and conclude with your scientific methods, if you are able—you, of whom we, the disciples of the Gospel and of tent-makers and fishermen, are ignorant—how such things can both be and be called as they are, so that you too might perhaps hear from the Wisdom itself, just as Nicodemus, the night-disciple of old, once heard: "Are you the scholar and guide of celestial movements and of the heavens," as you yourself might say? And you do not know these things? Rather, he became a well-ordered disciple and son of that night—the night of the day and of the light—having ascended quickly from the letter to the Spirit, and having been initiated into the true and first Wisdom by the hypostatic Wisdom of God, being revealed as a disciple and follower of Christ instead of a Pharisee and legalist. But you, sitting still in the shadow and the letter, or rather, intentionally distorting both the types and the truth, could never say anything opportune, nor anything worthy of the Spirit. A
The fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Him, as it were according to essence, and the only-begotten Son of God is whole according to hypostasis, and so also whole according to the powers and natural energies, and all things that are obviously contemplated as theological and praised concerning the divine essence, which the theologians call the sum and fullness of the Godhead. We, however, according to the evangelist Theologian, "out of His fullness have all we received." As for this, the divine Chrysostom himself, explaining it, says that He does not possess the gift as something participated in, but that He is the fountain itself and the root itself of all good things, Life itself and Light itself and Truth itself, not keeping the wealth of good things to Himself, but overflowing it to all others as well; and after overflowing, He remains as full, and is diminished in no way by the provision given to others, but always gushing forth, and distributing these good things to all, He remains on the same level of perfection. But what I bring is something that can be participated in. For I received it from another, and it is but a small part of the whole, a poor drop compared to an ineffable abyss and an infinite sea. And in the discourse concerning the Holy Spirit, the same great teacher of the Church says the following: "This Masterful body, and the holy flesh which received the energy of the Holy Spirit, did not receive one gift or a second, as was the case with the apostles and prophets. For a human being cannot contain all things. Wherefore Paul says: 'Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Do all have the gifts of healings?' For the gifts are divided among us, but in the flesh of Christ all the gifts, all the graces, were present according to the essence of the flesh." And observe this: He first filled His own temple with every grace. He had the gift to heal the sick, to cast out demons, to raise the dead, to prophesy, to work the things of the truth; He could do all things, and He had the fullness of the gifts, from which the Masterful flesh was filled with all the gifts. B Yet it was entirely necessary for us to receive in part from the Masterful body, as if from a reservoir; it is dispensed to prophets and apostles alike. John testified thereof, that in Him is the whole fullness, and Paul: "In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." He did not say simply, "in whom the Godhead dwelt," but "the fullness of the Godhead," that is, every gift of the Godhead. And so that no one might think that it dwelt in the Word of God, he says, "In whom dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." In His flesh, all the fullness of wisdom, of understanding, of power, of signs, of every energy. Henceforth we all borrow from the fullness. John the Baptist testifies: "And I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize, He said to me, 'Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending and remaining.' He did not say, 'bestowing a gift upon Him,' but 'remaining'—the whole—'this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'" Then, wishing to show that the Savior did not receive grace as a human being, John says: "For God does not give the Spirit by measure." C
But come now, let us learn the doctrine of the mystery again from the evangelists and the apostolic ones, and from their interpreters and theologians, or rather, from those who have succeeded you, who are also able to hear and understand these things. According to essence and hypostasis, then, just as God is unknown and ineffable, so also He is indivisible and ungraspable; this is the common axiom of our pious faith. But according to His natural grace and energy, and the all-varied divine procession of the things naturally belonging to Him, and the manifold distribution, the indivisible is divided, and the simple is made manifold, just as He is said to be and is graspable because of philanthropy as He becomes. Everywhere present as a whole, and above all things, both in essence and hypostases, and in power and energy—for the same God is indivisible in all things and one, while the property of each of the God-authoring hypostases is preserved, clearly being unconfused: for the worshipped [God] is truly one and three—but He is divided and made manifold, and is called by various names, and is distributed according to that principle, namely, as He is sayable because of philanthropy, and graspable and divisible, I mean the natural power and energy and grace. Whence John, the golden-tongued, interpreting that saying of the Gospel which says, "God does not give the Spirit by measure," [says]: "For we all," he says, "received the energy of the Spirit by measure." For here he calls the energy 'Spirit'. For this is what is divided. But He possesses the whole energy in an immeasurable and complete manner. And if the energy is immeasurable, the essence is so all the more. Do you see the Spirit is also infinite? He who has received such an energy of the Spirit, he who knows the things of God, he who says: "We speak that which we have heard, and we testify that which we have seen,"—how could it be just to suspect him? If, then, in the Masterful temple, as Paul the great also says, all D
A gifts were present, and all graces, in what way is it that the teacher does not wish this? For he says that if we divide the gifts, it is because human nature cannot contain everything. But in the flesh of Christ, all the charisms, all the graces, were present. And interpreting this, he says: "He had the gift of healing the sick, casting out demons, raising the dead," and so forth. Furthermore, the substance and the subsistence of the Spirit are one, not many; but these [gifts] are not only many, but also differ from one another. For the whole "fullness of the Godhead," along with the Apostle, and this golden-mouthed teacher, says these things as you have heard; and [he says] that not all are prophets, nor all teachers, nor do all have the gifts of healings, and that from the moment—he says—that the Masterful flesh was filled, it drew, as from a fountain, and gave to the apostles and prophets from that source. How then could the divine charisms be the substance and subsistence, being things that are drawn as from a reservoir B from the Masterful flesh and dispensed to the saints?
But what if these things are a relation and not realities, as you say, or creatures? As for the relation, understand it from this: for no one would call the "fullness of the Godhead" which "dwelt bodily in Christ"—and from which, as from a fountain, he drew and supplied the apostles and prophets—a mere concept, as you have heard. And Maximus the Great, debating with Pyrrhus, as you have heard, did not call the natural energy of the Godhead a relation, but a reality; nor did the other dispute this, as being admitted even by the enemies, even if the use of the energy is already truly a relation, and has been called an energy by the theologians, just as we have already said. But what shall I say to the [charge of it being a] creature? C Our treatise and collection are full of such quibbles and ravings, and we are almost nauseated and dizzy from the frequent disgust and the coupling of those who constantly vomit up such things. For first of all, it is ridiculous—or rather, it is worthy of no small trembling and shrinking—to dare to call the Masterful temple a creature, and to affirm that the whole "fullness of the Godhead" is made up of creatures, and that these, according to you, are in some way ranked and numbered with the subsistence of God the Word and the Spirit, filling the Masterful flesh, and proceeding from there as from a fountain, filling apostles and prophets with varied and manifold charisms. Then, too, that the teacher D of the Baptist, as if bringing forth the testimony of John, you heard him saying, "He who sent me to baptize, he said to me, 'Upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining.'" And clarifying this, the teacher himself says again: "He did not say," he says, "that one gift was bestowed upon him, but that the whole [Spirit] remained." Then, as if purposely leading you away from the suspicion of created things, the teacher showing that these gifts of the Spirit are the natural [gifts] of God, and for this reason it is also called Holy Spirit—he brings forward the Evangelist John, speaking thus: "Then, wishing to show that the Savior did not receive grace as a human being," John says: "God does not give the Spirit by measure," and, "Of his fullness we have all received. He is the fullness, we [receive] from the fullness." A How? From the moment he filled the Masterful flesh, he drew from it as from a fountain, and lent the gift to men. Do you see, O philosopher, that the Holy Spirit is these things, according to the natural divine energies, and the charisms being distributed indivisibly and ordaining apostles, prophets, and teachers through them, but are not creatures? If the Spirit is these things—as indeed it is—and it is said that for him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit "it will not be forgiven, neither in this age, nor in the age to come," by a Masterful sentence, it would be just for you to look at what follows. For these are the properties of the divine nature, the charisms naturally belonging to the Holy Spirit, concerning which the blessed Paul wrote to the Corinthians, B saying: "But one and the same Spirit works all things, distributing to each one individually as he wills." And this is the earnest, and the seal, and the first-fruits, and the part of the whole which was distributed to apostles, and prophets, and teachers, and to every spiritual fullness, through which we have all been drawn into the knowledge of the truth and the knowledge of God, and divine illumination. Which, at the beginning of his own manifestation and his descent to us, he took through the equal-divine flesh of God the Word, and then, after his ascension to the heavens and restoration, descending again from above upon Zion, and beginning with the choir of the apostles, as one of the wise theologians and melodists says, he distributed the grace to the believers by participation. C
But perhaps you will say that all those things were said by the evangelists and apostles, and by the venerable Baptist himself, not concerning the divine light of the Transfiguration, nor concerning the descent of the divine Spirit at Pentecost. Concerning these things, indeed, John, who is golden in tongue, was just now making a long speech. Wherefore it is necessary to go through this again with the great Paul, and having shown what was known to him prophetically and apostolically—by sacred words, and by asceticism, and by time, and by study, and by experience, and before these, by the grace of the Holy Spirit—to seal the things said through many [testimonies]. For concerning the things written to the Corinthians by the Apostle, he says: "We all, with unveiled D
A face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord." And after a little: "What is it, 'beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image'?" This was clearer when it operated the gifts of signs. Yet not even now is it difficult for one who possesses faithful eyes to discern this. For as soon as we are baptized, the soul shines more brightly than the sun, being purified by the Spirit. And we not only look into the glory of God, but we also receive a certain radiance from thence. For just as if pure silver, placed toward the rays, should itself send forth rays not from its own nature alone, but also from the solar brightness, so also the soul, being purified and becoming brighter than silver, receives a ray from the glory of the Spirit, and sends it back. Wherefore he also says, "Beholding, we are being transformed into the same image from the glory of the Spirit into our glory which is being generated, and such as is fitting from the Lord the Spirit." And again: "Do you wish that I show you this, also from the Apostles, in a way more perceptible to the senses? Consider Paul, whose garments performed works; Peter, whose shadows had power; for if they did not bear the image of the King, and their brightness were not inaccessible, their garments and shadows would not have performed such works. For the garments of a King are terrible even to robbers. Do you wish to see this shining even through the body? 'Looking,' he says, 'into the face of Stephen, they saw it as the face of an angel.' But this is nothing compared to the glory flashing from within. For what Moses had upon his face, this they carried upon their soul; or rather, even much more. For that of Moses was more perceptible to the senses, but this was incorporeal."
B The fire that shone upon Paul dimmed his sense of sight, but enlightened the eyes of his heart. For the vision of flesh cannot contain the power of that light. This is the fire that was seen by Moses in the bush. This is what snatched Elijah from the earth in the form of a chariot. Seeking the energy of this fire, the blessed David said: "Prove me, O Lord, and try me; test my reins and my heart." This is the fire that warmed the heart of Cleopas and his companion, as the Savior spoke to them after the resurrection from the dead. And the angels, too, and the ministering spirits partake of this fire, according to what is written: "Who makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire." This fire, by burning up the mote in the eye, restores the mind to purity, so that, having recovered its natural power of discernment, it does not see the splinter in the eye of a brother, but continually contemplates the wonders of God, according to him who says: "Open my eyes, and I shall understand the wonders from your law." This fire is a fugitive-place for demons, a consumer of all wickedness, a destroyer of sin, the power of resurrection, the energy of immortality, the illumination of holy souls, and the establishment of rational powers. This [fire] may we also pray to reach to us, so that, walking always in the light, we may never stumble, not even for a moment.
C In the commentary on the prophet Isaiah, the interpretation of the God of glory, it says: "This is the day in which the Sun of righteousness will shine forth, our Lord, who teaches concerning Himself that as long as He is in the world, He is the light of the world, and therefore exhorted [us] to work while it is day." And again: "We consider that these things are promised to those worthy of rest, seeing that there are many rooms in the house of the Father, and a diverse inheritance is laid up in the land of the inheritance, which the meek shall inherit." That is to say, some will rest in the compassion of the revelation of God, others [will rest] under the shelter of the heavenly powers. And others will be hidden in the glory derived from the light, as if by a cloud. Perhaps the light will shine upon Zion itself, and the cloud of the day, which has its origin from naught else than D that very light, will shine upon the things around it. And after a few words: "Of what sort was the luminous cloud that stood around the disciples during the transfiguration of the Lord." And again: "This, then, is the people which, having been darkened in ethnic ignorance, saw a light, not like the light from fire, nor like that from stars or the moon, nor like that of the sun or lightning, but a great light, which shines upon both the intelligible and the sensible; which is also with the Father, and illumines angels, and gladdens men, and suffices for all, and still has its own rays extended toward the greater." And the divine Chrysostom again: "The bodies of those who have pleased God," he says, "shall put on such glory as it is impossible to see with these [physical] eyes."
A And God prepared for us certain obscure signs and traces of these things, to be given both in the Old and in the New Covenant. There, indeed, the face of Moses was at that time illuminated by such great glory that it was inaccessible to the eyes of the Israelites; but in the New Covenant, that of Christ shone forth far more than this. But let these things suffice; let us return again to the philosopher, so that we may hear his arguments and philosophy against the Lordly light.
For he introduces the confessor and herald of piety, Theodore, again speaking as follows concerning the divine light of the Transfiguration to Eusebius of Pamphilus and the Iconoclasts: "But," he says, "the argument must be taken up again, and we must investigate what this light could be; for the noble man has not yet clearly shown what it is, except that he attributed it to God the Word. He will say it more clearly later. Nevertheless, let us examine the argument regarding the things posited by him at the present time. Is it some essence and subsistent entity, existing in itself and not needing another for its existence, or is it an incorporeal and non-substantial quality, having its being in another, and not observed in itself?"
But if it is an essence, is it angelic, since an angel is also light, and a shimmer and outpouring of the first and highest light? But he would not say this. And after a few words: "But if it is a divine essence, how was it transferred into this? If it moved into its own hypostasis and was observed by itself, and was cut off as it were into another and a peculiar person, and shone forth in the appearance of the Word, not subsisting with or growing together with any of those observed in the Trinity, the Trinity has become a tetrad for him. B And see how Eusebius, ambitious regarding the divine essence, multiplies it with an abundance of hypostases, and magnifies the things that are unmultiplied and undiminished, and is altogether unsusceptible to any lessening or increase whatsoever. But if, becoming confounded with the hypostasis of the Word and, as it were, consubstantial, it has passed into it, he gives to that hypostasis of the Word a greater addition and increase in his gratitude, which is nothing other than the substance of the Father in nature, differing only by the characteristic of the property according to birth. Thus, spending himself against the overfull and unneeding nature, he clearly exhibits his own madness.
So that to conceive of a composition in that essence which is over-extended and beyond all simplicity, from which a passion would of necessity follow for the blessed and impassible Godhead. And after a few words: "It remains, then, to say, if he called this incorporeal or non-substantial quality, what follows: as if it were an effluence of some essence and a radiance into which that form has been changed; but none the less, the extreme insult and absurdity of all will be rubbed onto the divine body. For he would pervert the definition of being. And by this, non-existence will be introduced. Otherwise, it is not even possible for a quality [to exist] without a subject, to be shown as to what it ever is by itself, even if one should call it among the essential things, or even if it is traced back to an essence. As in the case of a living being without that which is the animal, unless one first assumes a living and sensible essence. C And again: "But that this corruptible should put on incorruption and the mortal immortality, the great mystagogue, the Apostle, teaches; but that the body should put on incorporeality, or the created become uncreated, or the circumscribed be transferred into uncircumscribedness, has not even yet been heard."
In the first place, then, we have this to say to Gregoras again, that he has not even here set forth these words of the teacher as they are, but has removed many necessary points from them, as is his habit, harming the sequence and order of the argument. But these things themselves, which have been set forth for the time being, must also be examined, and the scope and arguments of the teacher must be considered, and against whom Gregoras produced them here. For I think that he brought forward such things against himself and those of like mind and his own teachers, I know not whether out of ignorance, or whether he is playing with the heresy; but the argument will show this immediately.
For the great Theodore, composing his own argument and opinion from older times against Eusebius of Pamphilus, and indeed also those Iconoclasts who honored these things—for Eusebius was long ago out of the way together with the Arians—accuses them by writing: "Since you say that the divine body of Christ has been transformed and changed by His Transfiguration into a certain divine light, which you say, it must be investigated," he says, "what this light could be, which was different from God and from man. For it will be," he says, "either some essence, existing in its own hypostasis, and not needing another for its subsistence, or an incorporeal and non-substantial quality, having its being in another." Then, having used wise divisions and logical and spiritual demonstrations, the wise man, as we have heard, through the reduction to the impossible and absurd, demonstrated that the positions of his opponents were all together stale and false and contained nothing sound.
D And it must be considered next who those could be who are caught by these accusations of the Arians and Iconoclasts: the synodal tome and those who held it theologically and apostolically, or Gregoras who writes such things about the holy Church of Christ. Let that man himself, therefore, speak again a few of the things already said, and let him show what the Fathers said at that holy synod concerning this light of Christ, I say, and what this philosopher again says with Barlaam and Acindynus, his own teachers. "There was brought forward," he says, "in the fourth session, Gregory, surnamed for theology, writing: 'No one has either seen or declared an essence of God in the existence and substance of the Lord, according to what is written.' And the holy Maximus says, writing: 'He who is not participable according to essence by those who exist, but is willing to be participated in by those who are able according to another mode, does not at all depart from that which is secret according to essence.' So that the light of Christ's Transfiguration is not the essence of God. For it is neither visible nor..."
participant in any way, just as the essence of God is, according to what has already been said many times both in the divine Scriptures and by all the theologians together, but also because the divine essence is not divided, nor can one speak of a part of it, whether great or small. But these things belong to the divine energy and illumination, B which is divided and measured, and as it were diminishes itself, not because of its own nature, but because of the power and capacity of those receiving it, just as the divine Chrysostom was writing in the foregoing, that it is the divine energy which is divided, but not the divine essence; for that is indivisible. And Basil the Great, along with him, says the same to his brother Gregory and the rest of the theologians. Therefore, you hear it called by theologians, frequently, a natural glory, and grace, and illumination, and the like, but never essence and nature. Yet we do not say that this is essence-less C nor without subsistence, according to those ancient Arianizers and Iconoclasts, and their follower, this man Gregoras. For if it is not essence in itself, nor observed in its own subsistence, it possesses the divine essence, of which it is a natural property, being indivisible and inseparable from it, without which, as an essential and natural energy and power, the essence itself would not exist at all. For if the essential energy is removed, Maximus the Great teaches, along with the other theologians, that there will be neither God nor man. It also possesses the three thearchic hypostases, not as a hypostatic property accompanying them—for then it would belong to only one of the three—but as natural and essential, belonging equally and D and wholly to the three. Therefore, in the first synodical tome, which was concerned with these things and which piously and firmly demonstrated it to be uncreated and not essence through many testimonies from the divine Scripture, and from the concordant pronouncements and God-fearing decrees of that thrice-blessed and ever-memorable emperor of ours, Lord Andronikos Palaiologos—having seen those who were opposed to this holy and divine tome at that time, and those who were also contradicting the most holy Metropolitan of Thessalonica, we rejected them, as they were foolishly asserting that the light of the Lord’s Transfiguration was at one time created, and at another time, most nonsensically, that it was the essence of God, and as they were not content to have the essence of God and untcreated power and energy, but all the...
A common powers and energies of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, they drag them down into the status of a creature. Then, after a little, adding also to what was said previously regarding the first synodal tome, the tome of this our own synod says the following: For this reason, a second synod was convened, over which presided also our now mighty and holy emperor, the lord John Kantakouzenos; Acindynus was convicted of holding and saying the same things, and of accusing the monks; for which he drew upon himself the same condemnation as Barlaam, that which proceeded from the synodal tome against those blasphemies of Barlaam, by which he is severed from the entire Christian plenitude, as this very synodal tome itself sets forth, for many other reasons, and because he endeavored to show that the light of the Lord's Transfiguration, seen by the blessed disciples and apostles who went up with Him, was created and circumscribed, and had nothing more than visible lights. Yet it is not only Barlaam who has been anathematized by that synodal tome—the first, that is—but he renders himself liable to the same penalties, even if anyone following him wars against the monks and the Church of God. B Insofar, then, as those around Barlaam and Acindynus, and their successor and champion Gregoras, say that the light of the Lord's Transfiguration is the essence of God, they fall into one of those absurd heresies which arise from the division of the wise Theodore—I follow Eusebius here. However, they say it is not in the way of the divine essence being turned into a body, but as having somehow been intermingled and commingled with the Lord's flesh, and then having become visible through it. These men have something more than those others, in that they say the common essence itself of the tri-hypostatic Godhead is what was commingled and seen in the body of Christ, not saying—as the others do, according to the master's discourse—that a different kind of divinity, having been changed, became as they say the human nature of Christ. But inasmuch as those around Acindynus do not say that the divine light of Christ is one of these sensible lights—like solar or stellar, or lightning, or the fire of this sublunary realm—but that it is indeed a divine light, as those others say, yet not natural and co-eternal with the nature of God, but having begun from Tabor at that time through the body of Christ, having begun not, he says, to appear to the worthy, but to be absolutely; which also, according to them, will exist concurrently throughout the ages, being destined to exist endlessly with Christ, and that the God-like will also be partakers of this, partaking, according to him, of such a deification and divinity as the darkness of Acindynus's theology invented in these last times—in this way, they cling to the other of the heresies, which the divine Theodore, dividing them, as I have said, brought forward against the Iconoclasts. For they say that this light is some essence and a respective hypostasis, and the divinity, not as co-hypostatic, but as subsisting alongside it, at that time first, as they themselves say, in the hypostasis of Tabor C or as threefold instead of twofold, on account of the duality according to the natures, I mean, or two instead of one on account of the unity of the hypostasis, and that the divine and super-essential Trinity was revealed as a quaternity by the addition of this new and recent light.
And you see, says the wise Theodore again, how ambitious Eusebius is regarding the divine nature—or to put it the same way, Acindynus and Gregoras—multiplying the abundance of hypostases and increasing things that are un-multipliable and undiminishable, and in every way incapable of any diminishment or increase. D That these things of Gregoras and Acindynus in many ways coincide with both the Arians and the Iconoclasts, the things already spoken against them by the wonderful Theodore demonstrate most clearly; not brought in by us, but by him, I say, Gregoras, into the argument against us, just as he himself has wrongly supposed. That it also goes beyond, has been shown already along with the rest, and this quite often. And he shows that the creature is as such; especially that recent light which began from Tabor, as I said, those around Acindynus saying so explicitly. Whence also the created divinity and—alas!—the servitude of the creatures, and the glory of worshipping the creation worst of all rather than the Creator—the ancient infirmities of our nature, from which the only-begotten Word of God, through the excess of His love for mankind, became as we are and set us free.
The testimony of the philosopher Theodore against Eusebius
And have you not heard, O philosopher, when writing of him, the philosopher in deed, this very Theodore, I mean, speaking to Eusebius, saying that even an angel is light, and an effulgence and irradiation of the first and highest light—philosophizing in a few words what the Theologian Gregory said: God, he says, is the unapproachable and highest light, neither grasped by the mind nor expressed by speech, the illuminator of every rational nature; this in the intelligible realm is what the sun is in the sensible, imagined as much as we are purified, and loved as much as we have imagined, and once we have loved it, it is again understood, the very thing itself being contemplative and graspable of itself, pouring out a little to those outside. Now I speak of the light as that which is contemplated in the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, of whom the commonality and the radiance of the brightness is the wealth. A second light is the angel, an outflow or participation of the first light, having the illumination through its inclination toward Him and ministry, I do not know whether divided in illumination by the rank of its station, or receiving the rank by the measures of illumination. And again: God is the unapproachable and indivisible light, neither beginning, nor ceasing, nor measured, contemplated as much as He is by a few; though I think not even by a few. And second lights are the powers around Him and the serving spirits, which are effulgences of the first light. And after a little: For the eternal He is Himself light and nothing else; for what need was there of a second light for those who have the greatest? But for those below, around us, He shines forth the first power of this light. Does there, then, exist light, even if those around Barlaam and Acindynus, and Gregoras ofsimilar mind, do not wish it, even before the sensible and above the whole sensible and intelligible world, as the light that illuminates every rational nature, just as you have heard—this exists among intelligible things as the sun does among sensible things? For what need, he says, is there of a second light, that is to say, a sensible one, for those who possess the greatest light? What then is this light, O philosopher? For I shall proceed. You could not say it is sensible, for it exists before the whole sensible and intelligible world; but neither is it simply intelligible. For it is neither expressible by language, he says, nor graspable by the mind. How then could that which is unutterable and incomprehensible be simply intelligible?
B Since, then, God is this light, and according to this Theologian, God is light—inaccessible and most supreme—explicitly speaking concerning this, and that He Himself is light to eternal beings and nothing else (for what need of a second light for those who possess the greatest?), it is necessarily not of created things. But is this the essence of God? And how, again according to this Theologian, is it that which is perceived by those being purified and by those who love, in proportion to how much they love, and is shed in small measure upon those outside? And how is an angel a certain efflux or participation of this first light, and are all the powers around God radiant emanations of the first light? For if we were to grant this according to you, and suppose the divine to be intelligible and participable, not only to angels but also to those of the human race who are godlike—by those very things previously stated by the Theologian we would be establishing that the indivisible, immutable, and infinite is divided, shed, and measured, and furthermore is seen by some in small measure as to how great it is; which is the most absurd thing of all, and alien and foreign to the dogmas of piety.
But my theologian and philosopher here, O philosopher, does not intend these things regarding these matters in this way. But how? Listen. To express God, he says, is impossible, as my discourse holds; but to conceive Him is even more impossible. For the thought-out thing might perhaps be expressed by discourse, if not adequately, at least dimly to one whose ears are not entirely corrupted and whose intellect is not sluggish. But to encompass such an object with the intellect is altogether impossible and impracticable, not only for those who are debased and looking downward, but also for those who are most exalted and lovers of God, and likewise for every created nature. Do you hear? He said that God is not only unutterable according to essence, I say, but also inconceivable—not just to ordinary people, but even to prophets and apostles, and altogether to all the saints; nay, rather, even to the angelic natures themselves. This indeed he made clear, adding: And likewise to every created nature. And again: That God, whatever He is in nature and essence, no one of humanity has ever found, nor shall anyone find. And shortly after: But what there is now, is a certain small efflux reaching toward us, and as it were a small radiance of a great light. This is what the golden-tongued John, interpreting a short while ago the Evangelist and Theologian of the same name, was saying. For he, speaking about Christ, "Of his fullness D we all received," the teacher explains, does not hold that the grace is participable—but He is the self-source and self-root of all good things. "But I," he says, "carry [something] that is participable; for I received it from Another, and a small portion of the whole, and as it were a humble drop compared to an unutterable abyss and an infinite sea." Then, having brought in that example of fire, "If, however," he says, "in the case of divisible bodies, which are diminished by the subtraction, something of this kind was found—which, even after providing its own to others, is in no way damaged—much more has this happened in the case of that incorporeal and immaculate power. For if where essence is what is being shared, and it is a body, it is divided and not divided, much more, when the discourse is about energy, and the energy of an incorporeal essence, is it not likely to suffer such a thing." Wherefore John also said, "Of his fullness we all received."
And this itself is what the Theologian meant a short while ago—now, on the one hand, regarding the angels, saying: "The angel is a second light, a certain efflux or participation of the first light, and the powers around Him and the liturgical spirits are second lights, radiant emanations of the first light"; and now again, on the other hand, regarding those holy and godlike men who are according to Him—I mean these ones: "What there is now," he says, "is a certain small efflux reaching toward us, and as it were a small radiance of a great light," speaking concerning this very natural divine energy, of which they themselves say it is divisible. And again the same one: "Jacob imagined a high ladder, and had received the ascent of angels and the pillar mystically, perhaps to signify the stone that was anointed for our sake." And after a little: "But that," he says, "neither he himself, nor anyone above him until today, of the twelve tribes of which he was father, ever boasted that he had contained the whole nature or vision of God." Wherefore the nature of God, according to this Theologian, is also nameless in itself, as being unknowable and super-named. For the divine, he says, is unnameable. And this is set forth not only by the logicians, but also by the wisest and most ancient of the Hebrews. For neither has anyone ever breathed the whole air, nor has the mind ever entirely contained, nor speech encompassed, the essence of God; but by sketching out from the things around Him the things according to Him, we gather a certain faint and weak fantasy, one from another. And this is the best theologian for us: not he who found the whole—for "the whole" indeed nothing captures—but he who might imagine more of another, and gather into himself more of the image or shadow of the truth, or whatever we might call it. Regarding these things, the great Dionysius has already said: "All the divine things, and as many as have been revealed to us, are known by participations alone. But they themselves, whatever they are according to their own principle and subsistence, are above intellect and every essence and knowledge; for example, if we should call the super-essential God hiddenness or life or essence or light or Word, we mean nothing else than the..."
from the powers brought forth to us from It, whether essential, life-giving, or wisdom-bestowing. And we ascribe to It the release from all intellectual energies. And again: "The One, the beyond-knowledge, the beyond-essence, the Good Itself—which is, I say, the Triadic Unity, the co-divine and co-good—is impossible to speak of or to conceive." As from an ever-flowing spring, according to an infinitely-bestowing grace, the great gift of the pure deification proceeds unto us. Wherefore another theologian, having already attained this, taught, saying: "Christ, born without beginning from the Father, possesses the natural and unbeginning ray of the Godhead." For He is from the Father, he says, but He possesses His own proper brightness of glory without beginning and timelessly, and the same One, having been incarnate, remains in His own proper radiance. And this, he says, is what is meant by, *And He was transfigured before them.* For remaining in the same identity, He appeared to the disciples now as someone other than He previously appeared. At the same time, he also teaches both the invisibility of the divine nature, and the visibility of this ineffable energy and illumination again in the Spirit; and that even in the age to come, those who are God-like shall B coexist with Christ, the Sun of righteousness, shining together in an angelic manner according to His promise, *Then the righteous shall shine as the sun in the kingdom of the Father*. He says, "God, indeed, no one has ever seen as He is by nature; and he who has seen, has seen Him in the Spirit." This is the alteration of the right hand of the Most High. These are the things which *eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and which have not entered into the heart of man* at any time. Thus, in the age to come, we shall always be with the Lord, beholding Christ shining with the light of the Godhead. And again: For as the truly divine and God-inspired Dionysius said, so shall the Master appear to His own perfected servants, in the same manner as He appears on Mount Tabor to those God-bearing ones. And Gregory, who is both God-bearing and a Theologian, in harmony, as I said, says: "Christ will come with His body, as my discourse says; but He will be such as He appeared to the disciples on the mountain or was revealed, with the Godhead overcoming the flesh." Which John the bosom-friend and Evangelist, being again initiated through divine revelations and teaching in a high manner, says, *The city above, Jerusalem, has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it; for the glory of God lightened it, and the lamp thereof is the Lamb, and the nations shall walk by the light thereof.* And after a few words: *And they shall see*, he says, *the face of God and of the Lamb, and His name is on their foreheads. And there shall be no night there, and they have no need of a lamp or the light of the sun, because the Lord God shall give them light, and they shall reign for ever and ever.*
C But also the angelic-like unions of the holy powers, which one must call either impulses or traditions—and of the beyond-knowledge and invisible goodness—are ineffable and unknown, and exist only for those angels themselves who have been deemed worthy of an angelic cognition beyond knowledge. The God-like ones, being united to these in imitation as far as is possible, since for the mind there occurs a cessation of all intellectual energy—such becomes the union of the initiated minds toward the beyond-divine light—they hymn It most strictly through the removal of all contingent beings, being truly and beyond-nature illuminated by the most blessed union with It, because It is the cause of all beings, but It is itself nothing, as it is transcendently removed from all things. Thus it has been demonstrated through all that has been said, to those who have both experienced and learned these divine things well, that according to essence God neither is nor is called light, just as indeed [it is with] the other divine and beyond-nature names; unless one should speak of Him according to causality—for according to this account He is called everything, as the cause of all those things—but according to natural energy and grace and illumination, He is and is called light, the unapproachable and supreme one, and is indeed hymned [as such] by the theologians in the things that have preceded. And this is the natural and unbeginning and unapproachable light of the Trinity, according to which also God is said by divine Scripture to dwell in unapproachable light, and to be clothed with light as with a garment, and, *The brightness of our God is upon us*, says the divine David, and, *Let the light of Thy countenance be marked upon us*, the same one [says] again to God, and similar things to these: the first and greatest light of the bodiless and eternal powers, of which those participating do not need a second light, namely, a sensible and created one, according to the aforementioned Theologian; for what need, he says, is there of a second light for those who possess the greatest? Which indeed another theologian calls their wonder and doxology and food, hymning the mystery of the transfiguration of Christ; saying this, that angels wonder at it; archangels hymn it; all the intellectual order of the super-celestial [beings], being nourished in another way, is set as most evident and most truthful evidence of the philanthropy of the Word toward us. This Christ, the Sun of righteousness, also, as having forth-shining without beginning as a natural ray, and as the natural glory of His own Godhead, glorifies this and His own human nature together with the assumption of it, ineffably according to the union and deification in hypostasis; and the glory of the Godhead becomes the glory of the body also. And He displays the mystery just now for the first time to the disciples on the mountain, being transfigured. Whence also according to the truthful [statement] of the theologians D Thus the divine and eternal and unapproachable and supreme and natural and indivisible light of the Godhead, Its natural and co-eternal and never-setting radiance and glory and grace and energy—these God-like and light-like ones together all, like certain lamps and torches, or, as it were, ethereal beacons brilliantly ignited by this blessed lightning and deification, and [by the] pre-eternal and pre-cosmic and super-cosmic and unending and infinite and eternalizing glory of the angels and saints, and of all the
divine fullness according to Christ, as a natural property of the nature of God, they proclaimed in the Holy Spirit. A But since this Gregoras, having already brought forward in previous arguments the confessor and Confessor Theodore—trying to bring before us his own arguments against Eusebius and the Iconoclasts—has, with much greater vehemence, dragged them against his own head, having been convicted of thinking and writing not only the same things, but things by far worse than the Iconoclasts through those very arguments, as our discourse has already shown: come, let us also set forth what this teacher says concerning the divine transfiguration of Christ and the great light associated with it, and let us see if these things also happen to be in agreement with the theologians, Fathers, and teachers who preceded him. For it would be just, both to listen and for the philosopher to be persuaded by these, inasmuch as he himself was the first to draw them into the discourse, and from there he hoped—as much as possible—to erect his own trophies against the divine light, and against us.
And let the divine Theodore come forward again, to teach his own arguments against Eusebius and the Iconoclasts, and what he himself thinks concerning the divine light of the divine transfiguration of Christ. B For he says that the Savior was previously discoursing to the disciples about the word concerning dangers, saying, "Whoever desires to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me," and things similar to these. But since the things commanded were surely very heavy and hard to bear, so that they might not grow weary from the difficulty of the things being said, he strengthens their minds, and brings into view, most excellently, the brightness of the secrets that lie in hopes, and those that are about to be revealed. Wherefore, as the viewers of this mystical vision were able, he shows that glory with which he is about to come at the completion of the ages, by which they themselves will also be illuminated together, receiving this as a counter-gift for their struggles; C so that they might be even more confident in dangers, despising those things present, and in no way comparing them to the things expected, nor judging the sufferings of the present time to be worthy of comparison with the glory about to be revealed—according to the blessed Paul.
Do you hear, O Gregoras, even from this teacher and confessor of piety, how he is in agreement throughout with the theologians, Fathers, and apostles who preceded him? For he too says that the transfiguration of Christ is a revelation of future goods, shown to the blessed disciples as much as was possible, and that Christ was seen by them just as he will come after the completion of the present things, and that they themselves, and those after them and with them, will shine together with the same glory, shining as the sun according to the word of Christ; and that this is the glory that was to be revealed to the saints then, of which "the sufferings of the present time are not worthy," according to the blessed Paul. Hear also the following words of the teacher.
D As for you, O philosopher, having heard the teacher saying that our nature has returned to the beginning, having been illuminated, in the manner in which it was created by the Creator, having washed away the shame brought in from sin and having run back to its ancient beauty in Christ—will you imagine nothing loftier and more divine? Will you be unable to conceive of anything more than the soul and mind created by God? For surely the fact that it has run back to its ancient beauty, and this in Christ, will not shame you, when it has been stated so clearly by the theologian. But the theological Fathers clarify in few words those things of the theologian and Father who came after them, and they will show what that ancient beauty was in the first-created man, which—having flowed away through transgression, or rather, having flown away—returned again in the humanity of Christ, which was also given back to all the faithful through the holy sufferings of Christ.
And indeed, let Cyril the Great come forward and say those things. Concerning the making of man, and his production into existence, the blessed Moses, he says, insists that God took dust from the earth, and fashioned with His all-working power this beloved form of the body, and breathed into his face the breath of life, so that man became a living soul. Therefore, we do not say that the given divine breath to the fashioned one was the soul itself—for it would have been immutable, having come forth from such a nature—but the participation of the Holy Spirit, placed from the beginning into the human soul. For all perfection is in those things made through the Spirit. Whence also, the being that was fashioned was made in the image of God, as having been conformed to Him through the participation of the Spirit. But what the blessed Moses insisted was breathed into man by God, this Christ, renewing in us after the resurrection from the dead, breathed into his own disciples, saying, "Receive the Holy Spirit," so that, having been formed again into the image from the beginning, we might appear conformed to the One who made us through the participation of the Holy Spirit. When, therefore, the Holy Spirit comes into us, He shows us to be conformed to God.
A Basil the Great, and before him the one who expounded the Psalms, says: "Renewing us, Christ—and as to the grace he had lost through the breathing, he bestows this back—breathed into our face." Then he deposited a certain portion of his own grace, so that by the like we might recognize the like. To these A Diadochos, who is truly divine and enlightened, and consistent in experience and in word, follows, saying: "Holy grace is acquired for us through baptism, of which one surpasses the other infinitely; for it renews us in the water and brightens the 'according to the image,' scrubbing away every wrinkle of our sin. But the other awaits, so that it may labor together with us. When, therefore, the mind begins to experience in great perception the kindness of the all-holy Spirit, then we ought to know that grace begins to paint, as it were, the 'according to the likeness' onto the 'according to the image.' So this perception shows us being formed according to the likeness, but the perfection of the likeness we shall know from illumination." And again: "One cannot acquire spiritual love unless one be enlightened in full assurance by the Holy Spirit. For unless the mind perfectly receives the 'according to the likeness' through the divine light, it can indeed have all the other virtues, but it remains still devoid of perfect love."
But let us return again to the divine Theodore. "We," he says, "according to the apostolic preaching, that is, the teaching of the Church, have believed piously that he has been deified, since he has put off corruption and mortality, and has been changed for the better. For he received the radiance of the divine rays, deified by the power and grace of the God-Word who dwelt in him. And insofar as it is the body of God, it is holy, life-giving, filled with ineffable light, having shared in all the goods of the Word, and being enriched and adorned with all his perfections; and it has become that which anointed it through the anointing, not departing from its own property, nor having migrated into a divine essence." And so that I may use a dimmer C and coarser example, but one more familiar to us—for it is not otherwise possible than to apply things concerning us to things above us—just as the solar body, a vehicle for the primordial light fashioned by the Creator, since it was united with it (for the light was mingled with it, with no part appearing that was without light), it did not lose the being of a body, but by the brightness of the light that had taken root in it, it is wholly and entirely D illuminated. Just so—so that one may conjecture the great from the small—the body of Christ, since corruption and the symptoms resulting from corruption were driven away, is wholly and entirely illuminated by the glory of the divinity and the light, not by ceasing to be a body, but by being and remaining one much purer. Thus, the confessor of piety is like-minded and consonant in all things with the theologians who preceded him, the Fathers, as I have already said, inasmuch as he remains consistent with them A and is instructed by the same Spirit. For in accordance with them, he also says that the body of Christ, having received the brightness of the divine rays by the power and grace of the Word who dwelt in him, is, as he says, the body of God, holy, life-giving, and filled with ineffable light. Then, after the solar example—which John the God-bearer from Damascus also used in the same way when writing about the transfiguration of Christ—he says that in this way, too, the body of Christ, since corruption and the symptoms B resulting from corruption have been driven away, is wholly and entirely illuminated by the glory of the divinity and by the light. Learn, therefore, from this, Gregoras, that the light of the divinity is neither a creature, nor, I say, according to this theologian—whom you yourself have cited, for sure, against your own head—is it the essence of God. For he calls it light, not simply, but ineffable, as you hear, and a brightness of a divine ray, and a glory of the divinity, and light, wholly and entirely illuminating the body of Christ. Therefore, according to these statements, the light of the divinity is not a creature, but neither is it the essence of God, as you yourself also wrongly stated this in what went before, both because of these things already mentioned to this God-bearer, and indeed because of the things C that will be spoken of more extensively to him in what follows. For those things must be added to what has been said, even if the discourse is somehow longer, and it must be demonstrated that Gregoras, and all those before him and contemporaneous with him combined, do not—not only as Iconoclasts, as I said a little earlier, but as Arians with Eusebius—speak of God as visible and participant in essence. As this very admirable Theodore, having passed through his own arguments, will show more clearly, having brought forward the Arian and Iconoclast Eusebius, who writes thus: "Confessing that the Savior is God the Lord, we prepare ourselves to see him as God, having ourselves purified our own hearts with all diligence, so that we might see him purified. For blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." But if you, out of superabundance, before the future face-to-face vision and sight of our Savior, set great store by his icons, who would we have as a better artist of the God-Word himself? Thus, then, did the confessor of piety, having placed those things of Eusebius before us, say: "Do you see, even now, to what extent his blasphemy rises as he fights against God?" For his drunken rage against the Only-Begotten has been labored over in a thousand ways in his words—for he pretends that he is everywhere a creature and a product—and the argument concerning the incarnation of him and his body is forbidden by him. What then do you think he purports to mean, that he utters these things as if aiming at the divine essence? And the wretch carries himself with insolence, not otherwise than as if to see God, which is nothing other than to see God simply and as he is in nature; but he overextends himself beyond the merit of the saints, and, as someone purer and more insightful, he pretends to have seen things greater than them regarding the vision of the divine.
A For the source of all goods, the unminished and supreme, even he who spoke of God, declared: "No one has ever seen God," and another, adhering to the same divine proclamation, said: "Whom no man has seen, nor can see." Indeed, the one most excellent among those who have seen God also heard: "Man shall not see my face, and live." But who is it who has so overstepped the great-mindedness of the theologians? And why do I speak of these, if he has not even transcended the transcosmic powers, leaving behind the world and the body and despising every material relationship, and passing beyond the objects of sight, so as to exist above creation and to look down from above the supercelestial orders, and to see God, and to understand what He is in His essence? And who is this, if not Eusebius? He who alone B boasts of having seen—with the pure eyes of his heart and untainted by any human and material propensity—the essence that is above being and invisible even to the Seraphim, puffed up by vain hopes, having become bloated from the gross and carnal, and here too expecting the divinely-transmitted truths, he who places the form of a servant upon the invisible and unsubstantial divine nature, in which he has been deceived by his own pure eyes!
What evil and God-fighting tongue, sharpened toward impiety, has uttered such things, which not even the inventor of sin and the first to behave insolently against God has dared? He "has set his mouth against heaven, and his tongue has passed over the earth," and he has "spoken wickedness against the height." C But let this deranged and ecstatic mind be driven far from God and the theology of the Christians. Since we have refuted that which is alien, let us ourselves ascend to the height of the divine promise, and let us discern what the true account is regarding this, teaching us what it is for the pure in heart to see God. And let the voices of the teachers be set before us again, those who know how to speak the mysteries by the Spirit of God, and, condensing as best we can, let us gather in brief the circumstances of the concepts spoken through many, grasping those most relevant to the goal as best possible, so that the divine nature, whatever it is, is neither graspable by the mind nor expressible by word. For it is ungraspable, inexpressible, and unapproachable, and it lies beyond every limit, surpassing all knowledge and thought. Before It, every intellectual power comes to a halt, and every cognitive progress ceases. For neither word, nor knowledge, nor opinion, nor imagination pertains to It. For It is inaccessible and unapproachable to all, and separated from all existing things, and established superessentially above all that exists, and no word could attain It; for it is impossible for those who are below to ascend above the Word; silence represents this better than speech. To us, however, that It exists is the only thing known from the things about It, shining forth certain impressions and faint echoes, and these to those who have purified the mind. What, then, is that which the pure in heart shall see? The ultimate of the desirable, the zenith of blessedness, D the source of all goods, the unminished and supreme, the ineffable light, the unapproachable glory. How, then, can one see the desired object? God, who is by nature invisible, becomes visible from the divine energies and powers surrounding Him, as many as lift our mind toward the height and the exalted, and lead us to the greatness of the divine understanding; not by uncovering what the essence is, but by revealing to us the greatness of His goodness. But it is not only knowing something about God that is blessed—for this has been attained by many through the wisdom of the world—but to have God Himself within oneself is blessed, according to the proclamation that the "kingdom of God" is within us. For the measure of understanding that is receptive to us is within us. For thus did God, who fashioned us from the beginning, imprint the characters and likenesses of the good things upon the structure of our nature, in accordance with His own nature. But wickedness, having entered in, obscured these and made them useless, hiding them under shameful veils. C If, therefore, one cleanses away by the diligence of one’s life the stain that has entered in through sin, and cleanses the "inner man" whom the Word designates in the heart, the God-like beauty will shine forth again, and in its own beauty it beholds the image of the divine nature. For just as rusted iron, if it is scraped and cleansed of the rust, gives off rays that leap toward the sun, so truly, when you have wiped away the rust that has blossomed upon the shape through evil desire, it will again recover its ancient likeness, and it will be good. For good is in every way like the good. Therefore, seeing it in itself, it sees the desired object. And thus does the "pure in heart" become blessed, because looking toward his own purity, he beholds the archetype in the image. For just as those who behold the sun in mirrors, even if they do not gaze toward the heaven, see it no less in the radiance of the mirror than those who gaze upon the solar circle, so also he who is weak toward the understanding of the unapproachable light, if he turns back to the grace of the image fashioned from the beginning, has the sought-after object within himself. For purity, dispassion, and the alienation from all evil is deification. If, therefore, these are in him, God is certainly in him. If, then, he is free from every mixture of wickedness and passion, and his reason within him is separated from every defilement, this man is blessed in his keenness of sight, because through being cleansed he has understood what is invisible to the impure, and with the material mist removed from the eyes of the soul, in the pure clarity of the heart he sees the blessed vision from afar. This is purity, sanctification, simplicity, all such light-like rays of the divine nature, through which God is beheld. But how one becomes pure in heart, it is possible to learn through the evangelical teaching. These things being thus spoken, and that of the truth...
the Word of Christ shall not fall away, and the understanding which the theologians provide shall not be proven false. But Eusebius, understanding none of these things, is always vomiting forth from his belly those filthy and stinking, blasphemous dogmas, in no way departing from them. Perhaps one might not inappropriately think, looking toward the earthly and material mindset of those possessed by Arian polytheism—or, more correctly, atheism—that he expects to see that God whom they deem to be created, and that he promises to see this one as a creature, face to face, in a sensible way. But let these things be as they are.
What do those who advocate for the views of Barlaam and Acindynus say to these things, along with this Gregoras who has brought forward even the wise theologian—I mean the great Theodore—as a witness against us? Doing well, indeed, for he was not very well known to us before, so far as these admirable writings are concerned. For not even he, as you hear, along with the theologians and Fathers before him, whom he sets up as witnesses and advocates of his own arguments, endures it at all that God, by nature, is in any way expressible, visible, or graspable by the mind; and not only to the God-like and those lofty in mind among men, but even to those who excel them, he says, the angels Cherubim and Seraphim—and, simply put, to every created nature. From which, indeed, the great one accuses those around Eusebius of both folly and utter madness, or rather, even of polytheism and atheism altogether, saying that this is the hallmark of the Arians, who have wrongly assumed that God is a creature. For they say that those who are thus judged by them—that they expect to see Him face to face, that is, in His very essence—do so because they consider Him, according to them, to be a creature. And it is to these that those around Acindynus and Gregoras have, as it were, deliberately joined themselves. And how could one explain their desire to be of this faction and order, blaspheming the Master of creation in the worst way along with the God-killing Jews, asserting that He is a creature, and that the glory, light, and divinity which He wears is created, both in His future fearful coming and, indeed, long ago in His theophany on Mount Tabor? For all these same theologians of mine say that He will come just as He appeared to the disciples on the mountain, the divinity overcoming the flesh. But these men say that both this and that are a creature, and that those who have been deified are deified by a creature, both then and now and hereafter, I know not by what and how this [creature] is capable of performing divine operations. But this teacher, following most excellently both the divine Scriptures and the teachers and theologians before him, has theologized that God is, in essence, as I said, both ineffable and invisible, incomprehensible and inconceivable; but visible from the divine energies and powers around Him, as many as—raised up toward the height, he says—lift up our mind, and toward that of the divine majesty. D What, then, is this, O empty theologian, and you, an under-earthly interpreter of heavenly mysteries? For since the essence of God is, as the rest of the theologians and this teacher also say, both ineffable, inconceivable, and utterly incomprehensible, he says: "For it is incomprehensible," he says, "and inexpressible and unapproachable, and beyond all lack of definition; toward which every intellectual power comes to a halt, and every cognitive progress ceases. For neither word, nor knowledge, nor glory, nor imagination is of it; and no word, he says, could reach it; for it is impossible for those to tread upon what is beyond word." Since, therefore, these things are not the essence of God, since not even knowledge, nor imagination, nor word is His at all, tell me what is the ultimate object of desire, and according to this theologian, the highest point of blessedness—the inexhaustible fountain of good things, the ineffable light, the unapproachable glory—these things which are so high and supernatural, and not simply accessible even to those who may happen to be without the Spirit? You have heard before, and you hear from the theologians who have both experienced these things and learned them at the same time, those myriad-spoken things [they say] about them, according to him who spoke in the discourses concerning the divine transfiguration, from which indeed we learn that these things are natural to God and are called so by the sacred teachers; wherefore God is these things, even if not by essence, yet by grace and energy. For "Blessed," says the Master’s word, "are the pure in heart, for they shall see God"—speaking according to these very natural properties of the divinity, according to which He who is invisible by nature becomes beloved through philanthropy to those who have been purified. But you heard also that this teacher spoke likewise regarding these same things a short while ago. For having taken that [saying] of the Theologian of Nyssa: "It is not," he says, "the knowing of something about God that is alone blessed—for this came to many even through the wisdom of the world—but for one to have God within himself is blessed," according to what is proclaimed: The kingdom of God is within us. For the measure of understanding that we can contain, he says, is within us. For thus God, who created us from the beginning, impressed upon the construction of our nature the characters and copies of His own nature’s good things. If, therefore, one cleanses away the filth that has entered in through sin by diligence in life—and the inner man, which the Word calls the heart—the God-like beauty will shine forth again, and
A God, who possesses these things, is said and believed to dwell in them by divine theology.
But just as, in the case of that beast and the small enclosure, if someone were to roll a stone from the outside and cleverly block up one of the exits, he would easily B achieve victory over the beast for the combatant, easily holding the other of the exits and thus bravely preventing the escape of the beast—so too here, the mystagogues and allies of Christ, having placed the cornerstone Christ securely at one of the exits through their own theology, and having C pointedly stated, "No one has seen God at any time," and having in various ways established and demonstrated from that point, through their own theology, that the divine essence is incomprehensible and ineffable—in this way, then, the removal of this wicked heresy will be made easy and simple for us, God willing, while they easily hold onto the other exit. For it says: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." Through this, surely, the same theologians will show—and immediately—that God is participant not through creatures, for how could He be? But through His own natural attributes. Or rather, to them, these things have already been demonstrated most beautifully and many times over. D It will be shown in part, likewise, as if in an epilogue, and now: First of all, it would be ridiculous, and a matter of the utmost senselessness or madness, to think that the Only-Begotten Son of God—God Himself—while pronouncing those who have purified their hearts blessed because they shall see God, would then set before them, for such contemplation and vision, creatures according to Gregoras. For if these creatures are God—if we were to grant that these things have it so, according to him—then who among those who have chosen to be pious would worship the creature instead of the Creator? And yet, although He is by nature the greatest and most precious of all sensible creatures; or else, according to Eusebius and the Arians, God will be a creature, He who is expected by them to be seen according to essence, just as Theodore the Wise already previously said. And those who formerly insisted that God dwells in creatures according to essence and hypostasis, and were preparing everything to be "co-divine" and consubstantial, are now attempting, as if in reverse, to drag God Himself down into the category of a creature. Since you have heard that deification is purity, dispassion, sanctification, and simplicity, as you say; but as to the fact that the purified man sees what is unseen to those who are not purified, and that looking toward his own purity he sees the archetype in the image, and that in the clear serenity of the heart he sees the blessed vision in its full radiance, and how all those light-like effulgences of the divine nature show God through themselves—why have you not heard this, even though all these things are laid out and discussed together for them? And how is it that you have not heard the theologians, who in what precedes have said through many arguments that God possesses these things eternally, and that nothing of such things is acquired in Him
A nor did you pass by the fact that they flow without beginning from the divine nature, with the light that is above nature and beyond its own boundaries, just as you did not even mention or recall these things? For purity, and freedom from passion, and alienation from all things, is union, says the teacher, or it is that it is absolutely necessary for the one being deified to arrive through these very things first; for thus, and not otherwise, would he be fit for communion and participation in the Godhead; or it is that to everyone who is deified, there belongs a great abundance of such deifying virtues, and such things belong to him as a kind of wealth and an inexhaustible treasure, having been acquired first from within and from one's own zeal—with God, of course, aiding therein—and having obtained a firm and unshakable habit and practice of those things through the perfecting Spirit; whence, then, B even deification exists *by grace*, to quote the great Maximus again. For we suffer, he said in what preceded, since it is above nature, but we do not *produce* deification by grace. For we do not possess by nature a power receptive of deification. And the same [teacher] again says: Nothing that is originated is by nature causative of deification, since it is not even capable of comprehending God. For it is natural for this to be the property of divine grace alone, to bestow deification analogously to those things that exist, illuminating nature with the light that is above nature, and placing it above its own limits according to the superabundance of glory. And again: If we possess by natural power that which is accustomed to come from us, and deification is not among those things that possess the capability to come from us, then it is not among those things that are within our power; for there is no discourse in nature regarding things above nature. Therefore, deification is not an act of our power, which we do not have by nature, but is of the divine power alone, not existing as a reward of just works given to the saints, but as a demonstration of the abundance of the Creator, who will make those who work the good to be *by adoption* what He Himself will be shown to be *by nature*, according to the discourses He understands, so that He may be both perfectly known and remain entirely incomprehensible.
You hear how deification is not merely an act of the just, as you have supposed; C for he says we suffer, since it exists above nature by grace, but we do not perform deification, and that nothing originated is by nature causative of deification, since it is not even capable of comprehending God, but that it is not even a reward for the just deeds given to the saints, but a demonstration of the abundance of the One who made them, and that it is natural for this to be the property of divine grace alone, to bestow deification analogously to those who exist. Where, then, are the works and creatures of distinguished men here, and all those things which you wrongly imagine, wandering against the things that are natural and proper to God? For that these things are natural and proper to God and supernaturally above human nature, this great man, along with the other theologian Fathers, shows here in few words, saying that it is above our nature, and that it is natural for it to be of divine grace alone, illuminating nature to be above itself according to the superabundance of glory; and that the Creator works this by adoption in those who are deified, which He Himself is by nature, according to the discourses He understands. D This, according to the rest of the holy teachers, and indeed also this wise Theodore who spoke a short while ago, is either goodness, or purity, or sanctification, or simplicity—all such things, he says, are out-shinings of the divine nature, through which God is perceived. And before these and after these, as the same teacher already said, [it is] the ultimate of those things to be desired, the height of blessedness, the inexhaustible and undiminished source of all good things, the ineffable light, the unapproachable glory. For if anyone, he says, were to wash away through the diligence of his life the filth that has entered through sin, and were to purify the inner man, whom the discourse calls the heart, the God-like beauty will shine forth again, and in the beauty proper to the divine nature it perceives its image. But what is that God-like beauty which, for those who have purified the inner man through the diligence of their life, does not shine from without, but rather shines forth from within and, as it were, revives and is renewed, in which and as in some beauty of its own that has appeared, it perceives the image of the divine nature? What else but the great and first dignity of the image, the natural grace of the divine Spirit, which was given to man from above in paradise by the divine in-breathing, and then, having been lost through the disobedience and the first sin of that man, but by the presence and the flesh and the passion and the resurrection of Christ, having been first breathed into His disciples in part, and renewed, and later again in the upper room having shone forth more brightly and more abundantly in the form of fiery tongues, and having enlightened and sanctified everything of theirs, the beauty of the One who is truly powerful, says the great Basil, is His intelligible and contemplatable Godhead; the beauty according to Him again, which Peter and the sons of thunder saw on the mountain, shining brighter than the brilliance of the sun, and the preludes of His kingdom, which they were able to receive into their eyes? Concerning which, I suppose, the divine David also spoke, saying in anticipation: Gird your sword upon your thigh, O mighty one, in your beauty and in your comeliness (Ps. XLIV, 3-4), signifying, I suppose, the flesh by the thigh, and by the sword the word of God, which is sharper than any two-edged sword, and which reaches even to the division of soul and spirit, and through the comeliness and the beauty [signifying] this intelligible and contemplatable Godhead of the God-man which shone forth above the sun, through which He even now from that time renews in part and illuminates and restores the divine in them, as many as, through diligence and purification of life, have attained to be washed of that which was added from sin, like the image of rusted iron and silver; and afterwards it will also raise together and deify more clearly, and other suns
A of signs performed the graces; yet even now it is not difficult for one having faithful eyes to discern it. For at the same time as we are baptized, the soul shines brighter than the sun, being cleansed by the Spirit; and we not only look toward the glory of God, but also receive from thence a certain radiance. And to this the wonderful [Father] adds that most beautiful image of pure silver, placed toward the sun's rays, and sending back rays from itself, not only, he says, from its own nature, but also from the solar brightness, to which he indeed compares the soul that receives the divine ray of the Spirit, and sends it back. And he says that the wise Paul wills this, saying: "Beholding [as in a mirror] the same image, we are transformed from glory to glory"—the glory, he says, which is engendered, as is likely, from the Lord the Spirit. Which things have indeed been stated by us in detail in the third of the former discourses against this Gregoras.
Neilos the Great, who is no less a contemplative of divine things and a philosopher than of logical and human ones, says: "A condition of the intellect is a contemplative height, resembling a heavenly color, in which the light of the holy Trinity appears at the time of prayer." In harmony with this is the divine Isaac, the Syrian—a contemplative, I say, and a philosopher—who says that, at the time of prayer, the graced intellect beholds its own purity B to be like onto the heavenly color, which was named by the elders of Israel as the place of God, when He was seen by them on the mountain. And again: "Purity is an intellect," he says, "upon which the light of the holy Trinity shines at the time of prayer."
Thus, through all things, the apostles and theologians, mystagogically leading the Church of Christ in the discourse of piety according to different causes and times, remain in agreement with one another, as fellow-combatants and like-minded, all together guided, persuaded, and led by the same Spirit. C This is the [same] Theodoros, if anyone was of that best chorus and brilliant catalogue, since he also sealed his most excellent discourses and theology with confession and the blood of martyrdom and death; and very well, and with a certain good fortune, has he now entered into this logical and dogmatic struggle. And I have, for a short while, even thanks to offer this philosopher, although he not only does not praise, but even finds fault with the greatest and most important things in the others, because, I say, he brings this great teacher of piety with his sacred theology into the midst. D For he has convicted him who brought him forth not only of the things set forth by the Iconoclasts concerning the divine transfiguration of Christ—or rather, even of things much worse and more absurd—but he has also shown him to be an Arian, following Eusebius, wrongly glorifying the essence of God as visible, expressible, and graspable; and not only the natural glory of God, the ineffable
A and unassailable deification, for he wrongly draws down to created things both his own arguments and those of his predecessors, and through them and together with them brings in the divine essence—of which these things are inseparable—as also a simply created God, just as Theodore, the divine man, would have said along with Eusebius and the Arians, whom he follows, to behold that essence face to face, inasmuch as it is by nature a creature, he says, and is thus seen. And what could be more glorious and more brilliant than this marvelous victory? Why should one still linger and occupy himself with the things against the light of the Master, and the supernatural A delusions of deification arising from there, on the part of the empty philosopher, when this witness and confessor of the truth of Christ, put forward against our testimony and accusations, convicts this very man out of great abundance of all those things, and has together all the choir of the holy theologians introduced by us for testimony, or rather, himself sounding together and singing with all of them the all-harmonious melody of theology, by the power and energy and grace of the all-powerful and adorable Spirit? Amen.
CONCERNING THE MONKS ON THE HOLY MOUNTAIN OF ATHOS, And those who practice stillness in a holy manner. TWELFTH DISCOURSE.
Here, wishing to bring my discourse to a halt, which is what I had anticipated in what came before, the strange madness against these philosophers and God-bearers of mine, and the brilliant battle of this pseudo-philosopher, or rather, to speak more appropriately, this war against God, held back—those dedicated to God, according to the divine Scripture, who have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires, those crucified with Christ along with Paul, namely, the chosen vessel, so that each of them may be able, indeed, to say with him, "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." And because we give thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in light, who has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son. B Therefore, the enemy of this divine light and of the kingdom of God has made this undeclared war against those who are light-like and God-like to break out as if from another source. And Barlaam, imitating that first enemy of this divine light and initiator of this varied and manifold heresy—or rather, the Calabrian Barlaam, born and raised in the Church of the Latins, which has long since been miserably severed from the truly Christian Church, ever since it innovated regarding the apostolic and paternal faith, brought in those not-good novel innovations against divine theology with arrogance, pride, and the self-willed and bold nature of his mind; Barlaam, therefore, among them, as I said, having obtained both training and education, but not failing also to have studied the outer discourses not perfunctorily, so as to appear to excel in these rather than to occupy himself with holy things, which he did not even practice rightly from the beginning, B brought nothing new, nor anything outside of the discourse and matter concerning him, as I say, if indeed he desired to mock our holy things craftily and wickedly with a mask and a guise; he has been stripped bare by those among us who are truly wise and philosophers, in both words and writings and in all holy councils, but having been thoroughly convicted in addition to the Latin and traditional opinions, and also the evil and godless dogmas of the Greeks, along with Socrates and Plato and those from the Stoa, he returned shamefully to his own, having suffered what he hoped to do to others, and not having endured his defeat and disgrace and that common triumph. But this Gregoras, coming from the barbarians to this queen of cities and the great mother of the churches of Christ—for he hailed from the land of the Paphlagonians, and obtained training and education here, and shared in Greek literature, so as to appear to have practiced some of the heavenly things, and to have gained some name, or rather, C much higher and greater than the matter involving him—he did manage to shed the barbarian habit and speech in some way, but the barbarian nature in his habits and mind he not only could not shed, but he also worked it out further and added to it, after having appeared so much worse than his own fellow countrymen as to not even be comparable; or rather, those people, even if they are barbarians in language and otherwise in habit, as their training and ancestral customs provide them, yet they are careful of good manners, nobility, and virtue as much as possible, and of piety more than others, and are students and guardians of the apostolic and paternal dogmas, so that they would even contend for these with the greatest zeal in the time provided, how would you say D they would gladly depart from their soul? But he even D
A says that, as I previously stated, not a trace of virtue is found through his own 'Agathangelus', nor even any particle of good or any remnant among those holy men, in any manner whatever; unless, he says, one finds the exact opposite. And rightly so; for it is not permitted for eyes to look upon the rays [of the sun], and even if they attempt to gaze intently, the brilliance turns into darkness for them; and in like manner, the bright light of this phosphorus is invisible to bats. B Just as this brilliant and supernatural light—I mean the light of the manifold virtue of those holy men—is altogether invisible to Gregoras and his companions, who are partners in his heresy; acting like a conspicuous beacon, it does not only shine intelligibly to those present there, but it also shines on land and sea, in islands and cities, to Greeks and barbarians, and reaches even to the extremities of the world in an extraordinary way, everywhere encompassing and being admired by those...
C ...and paternal dogmas, so that they would even contend for these with the greatest zeal in the time provided, how would you say they would gladly depart from their soul? But he even treats with insolence the one who gave birth to, nourished, and instructed [the Church], and [who] imparted language and name to her, as he should not have done, and with a wanton and audacious tongue, he rails against the Bride of Christ in the most cruel and execrable manner, far beyond any precedent. And I say that Barlaam brought this guide of mysteries into such matters, inasmuch as he [Barlaam] had begun to rail against the sacred hesychia and its students from certain base premises, [and] because he had a strong opponent in the theological tongue of Gregory, he slipped into those absurd opinions and heresies while providing apologies for his prior sins, sinning against himself under [the weight of] a guilt beyond all forgiveness, and utterly depriving himself of all defense and plea at once. Yet, he appeared and acted as if he were not shameless toward the priesthood and the venerable hierarchs and guides of the sacred mysteries, but further, he made himself masters over their own judgment, judges and punishers—nay, tormentors—of both dogmatic and theological discourses and those who spoke against them, although he did so in no other way [than] one that is neither good nor just. D This follower of his and successor in his error, however, rails against all of them as priests of God, and together as pastors and teachers, and indeed against God himself, who is piously and worthily being theologized and proclaimed by these very men, as the discourse has already shown us in part. He rails intemperately against the sacred hesychia through its athletes and ascetics—or rather, not only against the hesychia, but against all virtue, both that of contemplation and that of action, setting before the discourse the sacred Athos, which one of our wise men called the true common workshop of all virtue, [the place] which one might say is the region of the entire world that has been most manifestly chosen for such a life, the sacred retreat, the great and truly marvelous wrestling-school of virtue, the distinctive ranger of the matters of Olympus—or rather, I know not what one could say that would suffice thereafter; for the virtue of those dwelling there blunts every excess.
The wise emperor, who—not yet having grasped the scepter and the power, and having only just arrived among those there—so admired the virtue of the inhabitants that he was saying, "The Greeks, in their myths, say that Atlas, one of the gods who fell with Cronus, was condemned by those who did the ruling to hold up the pillars of the earth, as if he were squeezed by such a weight; but I would say that these men—with the truth bearing witness to me—have obtained this honor, because of their life of profound philosophy, from God [the honor] of holding up the earth, rendering the Divine propitious toward it by their prayers." Therefore, the sacred Athos, so marvelously admired to excess by great and wise men and kings, because of the abundance of its virtue and the holiness of those dwelling near—for I let the writers and wise men before us be, though they are no less, if not even more [admired] than those of the present day—[...] to struggle to hold their life in this way, as if they were not of earth and clay, but were certain fleshless and bloodless beings, and were in an extraordinary way transcending the human? Is there not wakefulness, standing all the night, psalmody and songs, and the reading of divine Scriptures and sacred discourses by night and by day? Mystical songs, sung in a new and almost transcendent way with the marvelous harmony and the rhythm and the form and the new feast of those customs, what sirens does it not surpass? What Orpheus, whom among those under the sun [who are] melodic and musical does it not show to be mere nonsense, [inhabitants] who abound in spiritual grace and mystery? Which of the fruits of the Spirit does not spout forth in those blessed ones with great abundance: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, against which there is no law, for they live, so to speak, above the law, to speak like the blessed Paul. For I will not speak now of sleeping on the ground, and lack of washing, and continuous kneelings, and labors of the hands and toils throughout the day, and what relates to clothing and footwear and food, [which is] likewise simple and unpretentious, and the entire harsh training in which these noble men delight [as they] philosophize throughout their whole life. Since the discourse, while mentioning the fruits of the Spirit with the Apostle a short while ago, also mentioned love—the extreme summit of the virtues, that is—and [since] what pertains to it is divided, according to divine oracles, towards God and towards one's neighbor, of the love toward God...
A regarding that one’s imitation, as far as is possible, who makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
And these things, indeed, [concern] all those who live in communities and congregations and holy dwellings of those blessed men; but if you look also to those who are utterly isolated and hermits, as many as have pitched their huts by the peaceful monasteries, and as many as have fixed them throughout the desert, wandering in mountains, and caves, and in the chasms of the earth—some living in the mountains, and truly rivaling the life of beasts and birds—you will admire both the solitude, and the desert life, and the lack of possessions, and the lack of food, and the life rivaling almost that of Elijah and John, and indeed even the immaterial ones; you will be astonished even more at the mortification of the flesh, and the unending fountains B of tears, and the summit of deifying humility together with love, through which those men, having achieved both bodily and psychic stillness and the peace of the intellects and everything divine and lofty, have returned in a supernatural way to the ancient beauty, most beautifully and along with all that occurs through mental and unceasing prayer, having rendered to the image what is according to the image, and, to the highest of objects of desire, to the true light of the blessed Trinity, having been, in a blessed and supernatural manner, joined together and deified.
But Gregoras, having perceived not even one of these things, which he ought to have C perceived, nor able to look upward, being swayed by the passions that lead wretchedly—I mean envy and vainglory, by which he was obviously driven into his strange and evil mindset—weaves together [accusations of] greed and gluttony against those God-bearing men, and satiety, and drunkenness, and immoderacy of sleep, and things which not even one of those who have chosen to live with wives and children in the world, and who make claim to even a small degree of piety, would be brought to utter at any time, and thus with uncovered head and without any mask. And he adds to these things even worse and most unbecoming things: dreams and suggestions, and visions of certain sensible fires, and false prophecies, and delusions—himself being indeed deluded and deranged—attributing D his own thoughts and mind to the Saints, and those things for which he himself is more accountable, as will be demonstrated a little later from the same words. Why is he twisting together and stitching these things, and putting them into writing? So that, by weaving together from both extremes the apostolic life and the proclamation and the faith and the Gospel of Christ, and dancing and insulting [these] along with Julian and Celsus, and indeed Elymas and Simon of old, he might obtain a name and an account belonging to such a register. For as there are for us two things—which both confirm the sound faith and the Gospel of Christ and the proclamation, I mean [that of] correct dogmas and of the infallible words concerning God, and as many as [pertain] to the blessed and originating and consubstantial Trinity
A and indeed even to the God-befitting way of life and sacred works—since a faith is in some sort dead and motionless, according to what has been said, if it lacks the corresponding works, and since of both of these there are supreme craftsmen, initiates, and mystagogues for us who are called by Christ B—I mean the priesthood and the monastic way of life, an angelic [state] that vies with incorporeal orders, each with [its] matter, in a way transcending nature, both purifying and illuminating and establishing the creature in relation to the Creator, and properly rendering back to the Image that which is according to the image—Gregoras, having taken the leaders in both of these—I mean the hierarchs and pastors of the people, and indeed also those who are zealous for intellectual stillness and prayer, and who through perfect love and watchfulness spend their entire lives without distraction in the contemplation of God and union [with Him]—has, for these [reasons], made them a work of his own and of his own words, [treating them] with falsehood and calumny and with a manifest madness against Christ, in such a way that you might say [his words] are whetted and sharpened, so clearly and concisely does he revile—most disgracefully and absurdly—the Gospel of Christ and the faith and the whole Church together. Through the prominent priests and teachers and their holy science and theology, he has abused piety absurdly; and through those God-bearers and God-like ones—those, that is, who in watchfulness and prayer and contemplation attend to God—he has mocked and reviled the apostolic and paternal and God-befitting way of life. Or rather, [he has reviled] both through both, since these things are in a way conjoined and inseparably united, so that neither a sincere faith and accuracy of dogmas and an infallible theology can consist without the holy way of life, nor, conversely, can the evangelical way of life—as well as the body and mind and action and the word, and that which is perfected through all these and keeps the word—remain without the sound dogmas and the conceptions and words regarding God that precede, as I said, in the one who provides the necessity. For soul and body, in a way, have a relation to one another, even if we have something more to say, as also [if] both parts are deadened by the division and separation from one another.
Thus, Gregoras, by far surpassing the guide Barlaam in such matters, would not be worthy of being compared even to the ancient heretics and heterodox, in this multifaceted battle against the Gospel and Christ, having long since surpassed them all, and having contended in these matters only with Jews and Greeks. For C not even those who boldly and impiously said that the Son of God and the Spirit were a creature, along with Arius and Macedonius, rose up against the evangelical way of life according to Gregoras, and thus trampled upon the whole [of it]; far from it. Rather, they seemed to respect both the form and the priests, and the excellent way of life, and to praise its practitioners, as did even Gregory—I mean the Theologian’s tongue—when in his discourses on the Spirit he said the following to them: "I am so caught up in you, and I so revere this well-ordered conduct of yours, and the color of your abstinence, and these holy assemblies, and [your] solemn virginity and purity, and your all-night psalmody, and your love for the poor, for brethren, and for strangers, that I would even accept being anathema from Christ and suffering something as one condemned, if only you would stand with us, and we could together glorify the Trinity." So that this argument of ours contains nothing strange in considering those who revile both the way of life and the holy dogmas—for whom the cross of Christ is, according to these men themselves, to some a scandal and to others foolishness—conjoined with Greeks and Jews.
Since, however, this hollow man even drags down—or to speak more appropriately, brings down—the divine mystery of holy prayer and the mystical energy and overshadowing of the divine Spirit to Beelzebul, [and] in a Jewish and Pharisaic manner, and I say this very thing, calls those God-like ones Massalians and Euchites, he must be asked again: who would those be who think the things of the Massalians and those whom he calls Euchites, those who pray in spirit and in mind and sing, according to the wise Paul, and who purify the vision D of the mind by action and word, for the reception of the energy and illumination of the Spirit, according to those God-like and light-like Fathers who say that it is a "state of the mind," an "intelligible height," resembling a "heavenly color," to which the light of the holy Trinity comes during the time of prayer? And [they say] that at the time of prayer the graced mind sees its own purity, similar to the heavenly color, which under the Israelite senate was called the "type" of God, when it appeared to them on the mountain, and that it is the purity of the mind, on which shines the light of the holy Trinity at the time of prayer. Those who think and experience such things blissfully, along with these blessed ones, Gregoras, would be worthy of being numbered with your Massalians—whom you yourself in your words deem [them to be], or rather you yourself, who think and write about them maliciously? You, certainly. And you would not deny, as I think, your own childhood [views]. For you were saying in your previous [writings] that the very essence of God is participable by men—the very highest divine Trinity, namely the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit—not according to the creative and providential and life-giving and all-working power, not according to the peace-making and goodness-making and wisdom-making and God-working and natural grace and energy participated in and indwelling its own creations, but sometimes according to the essence itself, and sometimes according to the hypostases, at the time when that Dominical [statement] to the wise apostles [is cited] by Athanasius of the bright and theological voice...
A explaining, "I and the Father will come, and we will make our abode with him." And you have furthermore had the holy synod, which was gathered for the Orthodox against them, fall upon you B and strike you upon the head, C stating that there is a certain "visitation" of the Paraclete, and that God dwells in those who are worthy, yet not as the Godhead exists in its nature. But that you also accuse the holy and divinely-taught and God-working prayer—as if it were some one of the unspeakable and evil things—by bringing forward some Massalians who think wrongly about it, and through those same ones you abuse not only this prayer itself, but also its devotees with much madness or folly, [this shows that] you appear not only ignorant and unlearned yourself regarding the holy prayer and its good characteristics D and those who are led astray, and truly a mirror of God and divine things, but also [you do not know] the oracles concerning it and the bright and continuous teaching, or you have not heard them from the beginning, or if you have heard them, you forget them willingly and lead others to think the same [wrongly]; and not only this, but you even accuse those who obey and practice it.
For not only does Christ himself reveal that he is continually withdrawing and praying, by night and by day—sometimes having with him the three foremost of the holy disciples, as then upon Tabor, when, as they were praying, the inaccessible light of the Godhead shone forth, and the kingdom of the Father was revealed according to his supernatural and wondrous prediction, the brightness of which the disciples, unable to bear, fell upon their faces, according to the divine oracles, and were greatly afraid; and sometimes, by himself, drawing near to God alone, and giving us patterns of stillness and leisure, A and at the same time of holy prayer—for God indeed had no need of such things, but he was teaching us such things through words likewise; now saying to the disciples, "Watch and pray," and, "Watch therefore at every time, praying that you may be reckoned worthy to escape all the things that are to come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man"—but now also he was urging them, according to the same evangelist, to the duty of praying always and not losing heart, and he was even describing to them the holy patterns of prayer, when asked by the disciples, speaking thus, "You, pray." B Or indeed Paul, the wise disciple, following in his footsteps, "Pray without ceasing," he says. "In everything give thanks." And again: "Continue in prayer," he says, "distributing to the needs of the saints"; and, "I will pray," he says, "with the spirit, and I will pray with the mind also."
David then, the theologian and psalmist of the Old [Covenant], "I will bless the Lord at all times," he says; "his praise shall be always in my mouth." And, "Every day," he says, "I will bless you, and I will praise your name." And, "My mouth shall speak the praise of the Lord; let all flesh bless his holy name." And to God again, "Let those who know you bless you," he says. And, "Praise the Lord, all his holy ones," C hinting to those of whom we speak, above all others, by the divine Spirit.
And the theologian of the New, "We must remember God," he says, "rather than breathe." And to those who accuse him of fleeing from the priesthood, after his return, the same man again, defending himself, says, "Nothing seemed to me so desirable, as to close the senses, and becoming outside the flesh and the world, turning inward upon oneself, and touching nothing human unless absolutely necessary, speaking only to oneself and to God, to live above the things that are seen, and to bear the divine impressions always pure within oneself, undefiled by God and divine things, always becoming, taking light from light, and becoming clearer than that which is dimmer, already reaping the good of the age to come."
And his fellow ascetic in such things and man of the same spirit—Basil the Great, I mean—writing about the life of stillness, says, "Prayers, succeeding the readings, receive the soul made fresher and more vigorous, moved by desire for God. And a good prayer is that which brings about a clear conception of God in the soul. And this is the dwelling of God: to have God established within one through victory. Thus do we become a temple of God, when the continuity of the memory is not interrupted by cares, when the mind is not shaken by unexpected passions."
And the holy and philosophical mouth of the Church, John the Syrian, I mean, theologizing about the divine transformation of Christ, says, "Stillness is the mother of prayer; prayer is the manifestation of divine glory." For when we close the senses, and draw near both to ourselves and to God, and being freed from the rotation of the world outside, D we become within ourselves, then we shall clearly behold the kingdom of God within ourselves. For the kingdom of the heavens, which is the kingdom of God, is within us, Jesus the God declared. "Servants indeed," he says, "approach the Master with fear and desire through petition, and prayer becomes the provider of the journey to God and of union, feeding and strengthening the mind by itself."
But of the Master, he says, "How will he pray? Or, being in need, how will he stand?" Or it is plain, that as he makes our person his own, and instructs us, and levels a path toward the ascent to God through prayer, and teaches that prayer is the provider of divine glory. To which John, the creator and teacher of the ascetic Ladder, agreeing, says, "Let the memory of Jesus be united to your breath, and then you will know the profit of stillness." And again: "With the name of Jesus, strike your enemies."
And it would be a long task, and aside from the present occasion and hour, to speak step by step of the things concerning the holy prayer, stated likewise by these God-bearing ones, the which are also canons and
A guides, in a way, for those who pursue this holy philosophy, directing them toward that archetypal divine rule, the one teacher of all. Whom, then, does Gregoras say are the Euchites and Massalians? Are they those who now piously pursue holy prayer and watchfulness in imitation of these God-bearing ones? Or rather, does he mean the leaders of such persons? For he who provided the seeds is the cause of what springs up, as someone from the outside says; or perhaps both these and those; for according to Gregoras, both these and those are held liable for the same things. And according to his own logic, one must bring the same charge against both. For that this B argument also leads back to the common Master by sheer necessity, I now omit to mention, wishing to avoid the overreach of the philosopher’s blasphemy. But let us return to him once again. Tell me then, O philosopher, by your stars, and numbers, and lines, and syllogisms, from where and from what noteworthy principle and cause do you start, when you couple these workers of the blessed and God-form prayer to those Euchites of whom you speak, or rather, when you say that these are they and no others? Is it because they make it their endeavor throughout life to pray unceasingly and to commune with God alone by themselves, as much as is possible, above all else? But these things were shown a little while ago to be the endeavors and commandments of Christ and His first disciples. But because of the prayer, and that tireless zeal concerning it, must these God-bearing ones also be driven out according to these same things along with those heretics, as you yourself would say? And if these things must be so, according to your lofty philosophy and teaching, for what reason do you not also cast out from the portals of the Church the divinely delivered prayer, by which we have been taught to call God the Father in a supernatural way, since the Massalians use this more than we do throughout their lives, rejecting every other holy prayer and psalmody? C According to you, one must not even worship the one and only God, the Master of all, nor claim a monarchy. Since both the Jews and the Achaemenians, and indeed all those from Hagar together, think exactly this, and worship one God and Lord of all. Let Moses and all the prophets with him be summoned together, and the theologians of the Old Testament—I mean the one of Marcion—since even to the Jews these things seem in some way sacred. But let the supernatural mystery of the Trinity also be excluded according to your logic, because of the multitude and the distinction of the persons, so that you yourself may not appear to worship the Hellenic polytheism. What then? Did not the demons also call Christ the Son of God with a piercing voice, saying, "What have we to do with You, Son of God?" and "I know who You are, the Son of God"? Will you therefore reject this heavenly and God-inspired theology and confession because of these things, and be more absurd than the demons and the Jews? D These things, then, Gregoras does not altogether ignore, as I myself suppose; but he does evil, rather, willingly against the Church and against God, acting in league with the author of evil, the devil, in accordance with these very same things, and becoming another devil to those who are called by Christ. For those things which he cunningly stole from the holy words and connected to his own, so that he might steal through appearance, and so that the hook of deception might not appear naked, but rather attract the prey from the start—these things this collaborator of his, taking them from there against the Church of Christ, hastens to ascribe to it the worship of demons, just as if, by way of inversion, he were reviling those robbers and sacrilegious ones, as he ought, but instead [reviling] those who use their own holy things according to holy laws and divine ordinances—because, forsooth, those others wickedly stole these things and use them in a most wicked way, and in a way that is not permitted. He himself would also seem to me to revile the Emperor likewise because of the purple robe and the crown upon his head. For since it has also been possible for tyrants on various occasions to use these things wickedly, and to claim that the name is not appropriate for God because it has also been falsely applied by some to creatures and demons, and that it does not befit Christ—this great title of both divinity and humanity—because of the Antichrist. But these are drivel and laughter and deceit, and downright atheism. And what is common, O empty comedian, and mocker of holy things, do you see else in these and those, such that you make everything of theirs common, unless you speak again of those calumnies and the manifest and monstrous lie, which the discourse has already reached...
A instructions are found, and the lives of the blessed men are handed down in writing, as certain living icons of the life according to God set before the imitator of good works. And therefore, concerning whatever each one may feel he lacks, the mind, lingering upon that—as if from some common dispensary—finds the medicine suitable for the infirmity. But to those Euchites of yours, the works of the hands are considered to be like some Fury and a bad omen, and they do not wish to listen to the Apostle, who legislates to the Thessalonians and to all you faithful through them: "If anyone is idle, let him touch neither food nor repast," and further, "These hands," he says, "served my necessities and those who were with me," and, "I have shown you everything, that so laboring you ought to help the weak." Does he rightly refute with the truth? For those men, by forbidding all other holy prayer and supplication and divine psalmody—which, as I said, they alone, as they claim, busily apply themselves to as "prayer"—they are opposed to it. But ours, these men of God, pray indeed intellectually and by themselves always—and this is what I mean by the most useful thing, to pray unceasingly, just as the wise Paul, having already passed this way, taught both those who live according to Christ and those who strive for these things. They pray together in all things, both with one another and with the Church of Christ, saying now, "How sweet are thy words to my throat, more than honey to my mouth!" And, "My mouth shall speak wisdom, and the meditation of my heart understanding, and I will open my mouth in parables, I will speak of problems from the beginning." Now again, "Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me, his holy name." And, "My heart has poured forth a good word, I tell my works to the king," and, "My mouth shall speak the praise of the Lord," and, "Let all flesh bless his holy name," and all that follows of this wondrous Prophet. B And indeed, the one whom they carry about on their tongue mostly by night and by day, and make his words a certain divine food and ambrosia and holy nectar, spending nights awake in these things continuously, and celebrating together at the holy mysteries of Apostles and martyrs and Fathers alike, and with those who perform these things, clashing together the divine cymbals and musical instruments, and who do not hide with their diligence C and gathering and spiritual graces some human festivals and assemblies? But your Euchites, O philosopher, and the Massalians, so unphilosophically and even basely and wickedly regard the meditation of the divine Scriptures and all other holy words, that they call the diligence and meditation concerning these matters not only useless and empty, but even evil and the creations of the Evil One. But to our sages and philosophers here, such reading and meditation of these things has been set as a soul and living power through all their life, as they say with David, "I loved thy law, O Lord; all the day it is my meditation," and, "Thy law is a lamp to my feet and a light to my paths," and, "Thy word is very fire-tested, and thy servant has loved it." And with the wise Solomon again: "The mouth of the just distills wisdom," and, "The wisdom of the Lord will enlighten the face of the prudent," and things similar to these. To these, indeed, the theologians who follow the New [Testament]—and at the same time the teachers of both practice and theory for these men of ours—the one says, "The words of God were sweeter to me than honeycombs, and I called upon understanding, and I gave my voice to wisdom." And the other, writing to this very man, says, "The greatest path to the discovery of duty is the meditation of the God-inspired D Basil again, the great teacher of asceticism and stillness, says, "What is more blessed than to imitate the choir of angels on earth, straightway at the beginning of the day rushing to prayers, and honoring the Creator with hymns and odes, then after the sun has shone clearly, turning to works, with prayer being present with him everywhere, and as if with salt seasoning his labors with hymns?" For the cheerful and painless state of the soul is provided by the comfort of hymns. To these, indeed, the good diligent ones using them as a certain plumb line and rule of that philosophy, both honor manual labor when the need calls for it, and join with it holy hymns and prayer, just as we ourselves, having learned by experience, have ourselves being formerly with those blessed ones; and they hold onto the unceasing prayer according to the mind just as if it were breath itself, according to the things aforementioned, so that they do not depart from these even while eating or sleeping, but while the body sleeps due to the necessity of nature, the heart, apostolically, keeps watch because of the supernatural and indefatigable grace of the Spirit that is with it. For this reason, also, love characterizes them, and joy, and peace, and gentleness, and at the same time temperance, and simply all the fruits of the Spirit, abundantly budding forth in them. But of the others, conceit, and pride, and gluttony, and the wandering of the eyes, and hypocrisy, and anger, and wrath, and disorder, and forwardness of tongue, and insolence, and unseemly laughter, and all that are by nature the signs of the operation of the contrary spirit. "For what fellowship has light with darkness, or what concord has Christ with Belial?" says the common teacher of the Church. As a monkey would more easily be a man because it imitates the man in some way, or a leopard or a cat because of the dimness of the shape—one might say an echo and the idols of the leaps, or those Euchites, whom Gregoras says are workers of some stillness and prayer. Very well. But since Gregoras thinks he must unlawfully accuse even those things to these God-bearing men, no
A one should say that he spares his tongue, or that he lacks falsehood and insatiable slander. For he said that the strivers of this stillness and of mental prayer, after the passing of the stomach’s need, and after gluttony and drunkenness, attend to some sort of long sleep—akin to death and suited to those who use intoxication—and to certain phantasms and dreams, and from these try to predict and divine the future; alongside these, he takes the Massalians and, believing he ought not pass over even this in silence—although this has already been refuted by others, and there is almost nothing wanting to what has been said, for to those who have striven to live such a life as the divine Word has everywhere marked out for us, what do their gluttonies, inebriation, and Massalian phantasms and dreams of the philosopher have in common? But in order to show that he says nothing healthy, nor anything attached to the truth in these matters either, and especially to hold him accountable by his own words—for this is what our discourse previously promised to do—I think I will pass over the sacred prophecies of those holy men concerning common and particular matters, which have often been and are now fulfilled by the Holy Spirit, and which I believe are familiar to kings, laymen, monks, and those who lead the priests, and to all, so to speak; for those who depart from among us, and the wonders miraculously worked there, are things that B have taken hold of near and far, of land and sea, and have loudly announced far and wide that they are present in cities and countries, both Greek and barbarian, and [are full of] prophets and God-bearers, and of signs and powers and healings—and indeed they are full of all the apostolic gifts together, both present and past—things which, of course, Gregoras and his followers alone disbelieve, doing nothing new or outside their own affairs, nor exceeding their initial zeal and opposition. For those who do not grant to God the power to possess the energy according to nature in them, but who demand that He be content with nature alone, without even conceiving within it any natural things at all, so that the simple one does not become complex and manifold to them, or—as they themselves say—so that by natural things they might fall away from God, how could they accept the fruits and activities of the divine energy, since it does not exist even at the beginning according to them? For this, according to Gregoras, is for something to come from nothing. And they, while disregarding all that is theological, scriptural, and patristic, C as well as the very natures of things—of things both intelligible and sensible—could reasonably act shamelessly against these things that are newly occurring, and which are seen and spoken of by eyes and tongues alike, and indeed are being written about by those very people, I mean the ones who see them, with however much D value or dignity one might ascribe to them. But if these people say that the wonders of those holy men never even happened at all, and that everything said about them is just empty fabrication and a crowd of words, even if those who are cured shout aloud almost every day, and even though the witnesses of these things proclaim them in speech and writing in a magnificent manner, and even if it rings out from the sunrise to the sunset, and from land and sea, and here and there according to their accounts—for he says that we should not wish these things to be at all, nor should we believe the man at all, nor record him in the catalogue; yet if this, as they say, is, from the reverse side, a victory, and powers and miracles occur through him, and otherwise it is not possible in any way to arrange the argument, let those things be given over to Beelzebub, along with everything else in his power and energy. For he says this is what the counsel of the wise has decided, and those among us who are theologians and rhetoricians of the divine mysteries, and these things must prevail over all, and this wonderful resolution has been moved by the wise against them, that all should together flee those things and the worker of them, as being of the opposing power and energy. Alas! Who will give water to my head and a fountain of tears to my eyes, and I will weep for the crushing of the wise men of my people? For it is fitting for us here to take up the lament of the divine Jeremiah. For I said to myself, "We shall become wise," and I have departed far from true and primary wisdom. I do not mean because it is incomprehensible and hard to infer, according to the word of the wise man, but rather because of the unbelief and the insult, and the abundance of ignorance. For I refrain from saying anything more, out of respect for piety.
The Jews of old dared to ascribe the divine powers and miracles of Christ to Beelzebub, and to the power from him; Christ predicted that the penalty for this would be unavoidable, both now and in the coming age, because of the blasphemy, I mean, against the Spirit. For He says that the sin will never be forgiven them, nor will they receive pardon for these things, even though the body’s cloud and the obstacle of the flesh were confronting them at that time—for they were not choosing to confess Christ as God, and then attaching His powers and miracles to the demon, but rather they were first saying of Him in an evil way that He was not from God. So too, they proceeded against those others, according to their own [logic]. But Christ was granting pardon for the blasphemies against Himself because of the flesh; yet He said that the things done against the energy of the Holy Spirit were otherwise unforgivable for them, as they were wrongly attributing these things to the opposing power. Those around Gregoras, while confessing God to be one in three persons, the Master of all, then [ascribe] His own...
evil energy, and the all-powerful blasphemy, in how much more terrible and absurd ways do they work evil than those of that time? But even if these men considered the holy Gregory to be speaking evil—just as those men of old once considered Christ, saying that He is not of God because He does not keep the Sabbath, and that He has a demon—why do you listen to him? And things similar to these. But it was necessary, not because of the hatred and strife against him, to blaspheme also the Spirit of God, and to refer His supernatural power and energy in a Pharisaical manner, or rather to cast it down, to demons. For thus, perhaps, there might have been some excuse. But now, it is beyond all forgiveness, the matters of blasphemy against God, according to the word of Christ, for those who do not repent worthily.
B And yet, it is perverse and vile in another way, and of a senseless mind and reasonings, and not even preserving the slightest form of an argument, to think and to say that a demon works miracles in tombs at all, while men are healed day by day there with such zeal, suffering the most grievous things—they whose destruction they would have gladly bought at any price, so that it might come to pass that the one lying there be proclaimed to all, as these followers of Gregoras would say. For what end would it serve? And what profit would the demons have from this? I cannot see. For we know that demons give themselves up to sorcerers, enchanters, and magicians still living—not on behalf of men, for how could that be?—but rather against men, so that they might hold those very people through whom they work their own will badly under them, and through them, bring about to others either the danger of the soul, or of the body, or even both. For this, as I said, is for them the most important thing. But upon men coming there, and having left these dead bodies in the tombs, while their souls have departed to another lot, they could not use them as they do those living ones; for it is not possible at all, and it is far from being the case, to hold those souls under them, or through them to do harm to others. But if it is not even possible to speak to them, nor to use them at all, while they are staying by the tombs of the bones, as these men say, even though they do good to men who are suffering wickedly in their bodies, and at times even in their souls—which could never be, just as darkness could not be light, nor sweet be bitter; for neither do the enemies of men wish for these things, nor are they able to do so at all, and the healing of the sick ends for them in the glory and praise of God—the demons have then, according to Gregoras, unwittingly divided themselves against themselves and cast themselves out of their own rule, by, as I say according to this same man, procuring salvation for men with such great zeal, and gathering together from every side glory, power, and praise for God, as if on purpose, and with much struggle, establishing the matters of His rule. And if Satan himself casts himself out, and is divided against himself, according to the Lord’s word, how will his kingdom stand?
B It would be time, then, henceforth, according to the promise, to show—and he is liable for this from his own words—that he is initiated into such things, and into the dreams and apparitions of evil demons, things which neither are nor will be; and that as he was initiated by them from the beginning, so he is also zealous afterwards to endure the coming hardships on its behalf, being taught by those same ones again, as if there were a great reward for him laid up from this, and for those like him, but, conversely, a most great misfortune for the pious, as he himself says, ending in destruction. Gregoras therefore says to his own initiate and mystagogue Agathangelos, in the epilogues of his writing against the piety, as follows: "Since the time of our conversation has extended, as you see, far into the night, and it is necessary for you to depart, since those who are entrusted with the guard of our status are sleeping, come, let us briefly go through the manner of what is about to happen. For it is not right that you should be ignorant, nor those friends of ours with whom you are about to converse and struggle, so that they might not be distressed by looking toward the uncertain nature of the hope. For it has happened that, as I have been thrown into prison, this long despondency has already been poured over me, deeply pricking and grieving the reasoning faculty of my soul; not that I continued suffering, being imprisoned, but because I saw the storms of the Church being raised against the divine dogmas, and the multitude being constantly driven, and one part being bound, and another becoming exiled; and one part bowing its knee to Baal because of the violence of famine and the taking away of its own possessions, while the savior was nowhere to be found. Being, therefore, full of such thoughts at that time, I fell into tears, and having prayed much to God, and having sat down and rested my head upon my right hand, I was seized by a light sleep, and it seemed to me in a dream that one of the friends stood by and said, 'Rejoice, and do not be disheartened, for you have God as a most powerful helper, for whose sake you endure these struggles.' For you shall see that, not long hence, these persecutors of piety will suffer not only such things as they have inflicted upon you, but even far more grievous ones. For they will make war against one another, emperor against patriarch and against bishops, and again bishop against bishop; and they will fall into each other’s anathemas and into their own. And the patriarch will be expelled from his throne, and another will be brought in instead." And after a little: "He himself will suffer similar things. And the emperor will be deprived of the empire at the same time, with varied dishonor." And before these...
A things there is silence. And that the patriarchs and the thrones will be cast out, he teaches his own mystagogue, as this very man himself, who is being initiated, says; but that they will return again, and will denounce his heresy with words and deeds and writings, this he does not deem worthy of even a mention or anything at all.
Palamas will be captured by the barbarians; and not that he will suffer the most hateful things, not that he will suffer the most shameful things. But the majority of the bishops, with the Roman land being shaken by a violent earthquake, will be buried together with their very bishoprics and houses, and, so to speak, with the cities along with the men. And this would be a just deposition from God for them, for which they themselves unjustly deposed those bishops and presbyters and wise men who were striving rightly for piety, and as many as were temperate in their piety.
Thus Gregoras, under the demon who has been evilly befriended long ago and loves lies, just as [he was initiated] into the heresy before, so indeed also into these false ravings, was falsely initiated—for in this he is seen for a time to be telling the truth, that he has learned these foretellings and these false prophecies through dreams from his friendly demon, those things for which he was clearly caught being sick, which he himself falsely alleged when accusing those God-bearing men; and by his own votes and decisions and judgment, he justly becomes liable. For he said that the oracles and predictions in his dreams were of drunkenness and gluttony and the Massalian error, slandering those blessed men.
B If, therefore, these things are so and according to your votes, O philosopher, and no one speaks against them, and you, as you yourself say to your companions, were initiated into the false oracles predicted by the friendly demon in sleep and by certain dreams, how does it not come about exactly what I say, with very much excess, that you make yourself liable to your own votes and decisions? Or rather, if the philosopher were dreaming such things while in the grip of gluttony and belly-fullness and luxury and drunkenness, and of deep sleep and stupor, which one could attribute to the fullness of the belly and to drunkenness—the stupor resulting from the mist arising from within, creating confusion in the imagination, and making him, as it were, see and hear things that do not exist—but since, as he himself says, he was also mourning and weeping, and was drawing near in prayer with Eusebius to God—the Creator, the Knower, the Circumscribed and Visible, and according to His essence, as the wise Theodore says—it is clear that he [the philosopher] has appeared as one who has received these oracles purely from the activity of the philosopher [himself], having been evilly dragged along by a spirit of error, so as not to be helped, and having made himself a vessel of the opposing activity C entirely, as I said, because having thrust aside the all-creating activity of the Spirit, he has—with such incontinence of mind and tongue as I do not know if anyone else among his contemporaries has—boldly and very audaciously insulted the Godhead Itself. And thus, it seems to me, [I see] the ignorance and spitefulness of the demon providing him with oracles. For the difference among the bishops was already—or rather, not among the bishops, if one must tell the truth—but the difference was of the synod against that patriarch alone, who was carried along by levity and by the rashness of thought and by audacity and by the innovation of political affairs, and who had slipped, out of animosity toward certain people, into things into which he ought not to have slipped; for which D indeed, O Gregoras, this also ought to have been added to those things, so that the argument might be preserved and intact for your teacher, and not happen to be, as it were, half of the teaching, and misleading rather than teaching the one being initiated. But now you speak of the things that were happening then and were being seen, whether [these are] that deceiver of yours, as you yourself presumably said, or you and that [demon] together; but concerning future things, which your friend and teacher had already promised, there is absolutely nothing sound, just as indeed those things against the wise emperor, and indeed against the great Gregory, I say, the Father, are sheer lies, and what [falsehood] does it not surpass in the excess of slander? Or rather, your teacher and that friend of his, having been unable to know anything whatsoever from foreknowledge; for what fellowship has light with darkness? Paul, who has been enlightened, says; but by making conjectures from things that appear, he surmises the future, and from this he is lying about most things, and I say that this is what has happened here, which is habitual to him; having expected that this honored man would be deprived of the empire with varied dishonor, if indeed the whole thing is not a fabrication of your own and of your envy, and of your lie-loving and slanderous tongue, falsely knitting together things that do not exist from the difference among the emperors, and pretending to foretell things according to your own prayer and will. But this very admirable emperor, long since possessed by divine longing and the desire for retirement, as many others of his friends know, and we ourselves are among the most intimate of his friends, which I think even you yourself do not ignore, and being partakers with him in the matter of the retirement and the stillness and of the plan and counsel, I say with the most excellent Nicholas [Kabasilas]; the emperor, therefore, bringing these thoughts, which I mentioned above, as having been confirmed by him, and for this reason indeed, also being very much distressed by the affairs of the government, and how else would you say, burdened, if even otherwise the things that happened at that time were fitting into his aim and the desire of his soul, having seized the appropriate time, he brought to an end the thing long striven for and loved, and altogether wonderful; not only not having considered the laying aside of the government and of the common economy and conduct of affairs a loss, but even considered loss for the sake of the death of Jesus, and the desire for retirement, [as] much better than all those things which were considered for him to be for [worldly] gain and glory according to the world; and not only not having brought any disrepute upon himself from this, but in addition to the true and first glory from God, even the lower and human [glory] thus
bountifully accompanying him—so that those who were formerly ignorant of his character now possess, to a degree that cannot even be expressed, those who were once unjustly hating him now rightly loving him, having cast off as rubbish the most wretched envy and the lie, and with the truth having returned, as it were, into itself. And whereas at that time, those who were under his hand and subject to him were worshiping him as their master—albeit not all purely, due to the aforementioned causes—now, however, almost everyone does so purely, and with the dutiful goodwill and affection [that is appropriate].
B But concerning that division and discord which the demonic friend was driving through him, and indeed the mysteries he was initiating for that person, those things which neither were nor were ever to be, they falsely prophesied at that time according to their own opinion. But now that the truth of the situation has shone forth as it should, they might not unreasonably be called by everyone—as they were already by God—liars, deceivers, impostors, and enemies of kings. And what need is there to mention the rest, when he had hoped that this miraculous and Christ-loving king—who is nothing short of piety, and of the sacred, ancestral zeal and earnestness for the Church, even he who has been seen to be the heir of the diadem and the scepter—would also contend and fight for the impieties both of himself and of those on his side, and would stand with him? But this noble man, having known both the fatherly kingdom and the kingdom of God most beautifully and as he ought, and having taken even from the arms of his miraculous mother and queen, and from her sincere faith toward God, and from the zeal for the right doctrine as if it were some armor and kingly equipment, he recognized his spiritual mother—I mean the Church of Christ—most excellently; and being closely attached to the teachers of this Church both piously and with the love of God, and offering to them at once both his head and his soul, just as we see, he clearly manifests those miraculous confessions toward her through his works, having shown the wolves surrounding Acindynus and Gregoras to be snapping in vain, and having told all who think as they do to lament.
But before all things, and above all, both kings and queens together and all this golden lineage, loving [them] as children love fathers, or rather loving nature itself, and striving as it were to relax the longings and bonds from that source because of the abundance of their love, and bestowing upon them honors and reverence, and respect, and obedience, and all things of this kind alike, as something godlike and beyond every example—what is it that they do not say, what is it that they do not do, which contributes to the honor and service of this [Church]? Or rather, they are both doing and saying all those things to excess, but they believe they are saying and doing nothing worthy of the cause. Such is the king and master of affairs now with God. For he surpasses all men now living, both in prudence and in sagacity, and in nobility of character and goodness of manner, and in forgiveness toward those who offend, and in the liberality of his mind and his right hand, by such a great abundance that it is not even possible to make a comparison, and with his miraculous disposition toward his father and king, and with his reverence and the abundance of his love, he strives to surpass those before him, while competing brilliantly even with those from his own loins, and effectively struggling to bear the power in these aforementioned matters over all, just as indeed in other things, and to place himself as a wonderful example before the kings who come from him, and indeed before all those who hold the second rank of the kingdom, the children together.
He thus considers this [Church] the support of his authority, a divine counsel, a kind of soul of his affairs, of his life, and of the kingdom of both himself and his children, and his earnest supporter, protector, guardian, and father, and he persuades all his own true kin to consider it so as well. So miraculous C toward one another are these kings, and with such bonds of love, and concord, and unanimity—or I do not know what else to call it—are they held together, with envy, and jealousy, and hatred, and evil suspicion, and all things of such a kind having been well driven away from there, while the virtue of the kings has shone forth to all fully and all at once, and it displays its multifaceted beauty, and its strength together with its seemliness, from the abundance of what is present; upon which the evil envy did not watch well, nor the lie for long, which indeed have wrought destruction—alas!—for our race and complete ruin from the beginning. Which even this Gregoras here has most cruelly suffered from, as he ought not to have, since even the change he desired—
But enough of these things. But regarding the great teacher of my Thessalonians, I say, and shepherd, and those things which his bold and profane tongue said against the truth and that unassailable soul, licentiously and basely, and worthily of itself, in a few words—even in these I say that thing, that God indeed sends through captivity to the Achaemenids even him, just as indeed [He sent] the apostles of old for the preaching, and the salvation of the nations through the persecution of the Church, that is, the one after the destruction of the divine Stephen, wisely weaving opposites through opposites, so that, he says, it might appear even more miraculous. But the one who became great there, let those who know it say even now, what kind he appeared D in works and in speeches to the wise and the rulers of the Achaemenids. Or rather, they even say, and write, and preach most clearly the continuous teachings and exhortations toward our people, the great consolation of the word, the solutions to disputed questions, the wonderful interpretations of the Scriptures, the refutations of that new heresy and impiety, the theology, the new and super-natural words concerning the one three-hypostatic divinity, those concerning the divine birth of Christ, both the one from above and beyond time, and indeed the one in time and according to the flesh, those concerning the cross and divine icons and types, and of the Old and New Testament, and the law, and circumcision, and the priesthood
remained in agreement with him, finding him speaking, and one that did not touch upon any dogmatic subject, but being on this very point nothing but calumny and insult against both himself and the holy synod A that was assembled by us, and indeed against the entire Church as well, nor indeed that alone, but also bringing accusation against the emperors themselves and those related to them by lineage, even the entire senate. And now he describes Gregory as sitting under persecution, purification, and guards, complaining of the deprivation of sacred books, which in no way exists—and now [he describes] the condemnation and persecution of piety being called the removal of impiety, and [he claims] that the holy synod said and did nothing pious, as he himself says, but only slanders. He says that even those who were sitting there and standing around, having condemned them for falsehood and impiety, concealed their own opinion in silence and chose the advocacy of impiety B by reason of the authority and the impending fear; nor, he says, were the things spoken and done there truly given in the Tome, through the malice and ignorance of those who wrote it. For [he says] there was no one among us who knew how to speak and write with knowledge, but that all were brought forward to the rostrum not rightly or justly, having come from the plow, as he himself says, and the oar and the rural life, so that they did not even know what the matter of the episcopacy is, and what its goal and profession are, let alone being able to guide and preserve others. And finally, the persecution there against the synod and the leading priests of God, and especially the wise Gregory, and the stripes and the scourges and the heap of unbearable insults—as if we had found C Gregoras to be some sort of paralytic and one with a shaken brain, who had imagined things and written them down most wickedly, we refuted him there in detail, catching him lying and babbling about all such things at once, so that he is no longer considered worthy of being believed even in greater and more important matters, this man who so lies about these lesser and small things, and says so with such eagerness as to leave no room for excess.
The second of the discourses, looking toward the philosopher's second [work], engages the struggle concerning the difference between divine essence and divine energy. Since the disputant said he wished to bring forward an argument D not against all the points of the synodal Tome in order, but against certain chapter-subject headings of the case, which are seven in number, our discourse, looking to these things, first introduces the synodal Tome itself, making the enumeration of these chapter-subject headings; then, next, introducing all that concerns the difference of divine essence and energy in detail from the same synodal Tome, which Gregoras concealed out of malice, leaning on scriptural and theological arguments, and on the best elaborations and constructions of the Fathers who have set them forth, it ends the course there, briefly.
A The third treatise, considering the matters concerning the difference between the divine essence and energy, likewise examines the discourse on the divine power which is naturally with God, introducing the divine Areopagite, Dionysius. For Gregoras, contradicting this through the synodal tome, attempts to prove that the natural power of God is created. In these matters, he is rebuked by the true discourse, while slandering the God-bearing Damascene along with the aforementioned divine Dionysius. For he says that God does not possess the power to have, either properly or by nature, and that the holy ones know and teach these things. For this, as he himself says, is proper to created things. The discourse now convicts him in these matters: sometimes leaning toward the thoughts of Sabellius, claiming that God does not have the Son and the Spirit properly and hypostatically, even if it is said so; and at other times, he is carried away by the followers of Arius and Eunomius. For theirs is the notion of "heteroousian," and the idea that God has His own Son and Spirit surrounding His essence, clearly according to the philosophical categories of the philosopher.
B Furthermore, he slanders the holy theologians Athanasius and Basil, as if they used the terms "cause" and "caused" only in regard to the Father and the Son. The discourse rebukes him again, out of these very same theological Fathers and indeed others, demonstrating that he is both a liar and a blasphemer, since they use the terminology of "cause" and "caused" more appropriately in regard to the divine essence and the natural energy than does he. Moreover, in addition to the stated absurdities, the discourse shows that Gregoras constructs things much worse and more absurd than even the Monothelites and Monophysites; for they, while confessing the natural will and energy of the divinity, wrongly denied that of Christ’s humanity, whereas he explicitly denies the will and energy of the Holy Trinity, and simply all things that naturally belong to It.
In the fourth of the discourses, which similarly deals with the difference between the divine essence and energy, and which also carries the thrust of his natural power, Gregoras is rebuked, proceeding not only maliciously against those in the synodal tome, but also in deep ignorance. First, the discourse rebukes him, as one suffering not only from the errors of Arius and Macedonius, but as one having surpassed even these in impiety; inasmuch as they—while daring to separate the Son and the Spirit of God from the Father’s essence, and saying that they possessed the properties of the divine nature not properly or naturally, but by participation and as something adventitious—yet he says that the Father Himself, the tri-hypostatic Godhead, does not possess these things properly, but as acquired, later-born, C or false. Then, proceeding, the discourse shows Gregoras now singing in harmony with Eunomius, in those points where, according to him, he also says that one should not conceive of essence as one thing, power as another, and energy and wisdom as another, as if the Church possessed this as a dogma, and said that there is some difference between the essence and these, yet that they are nonetheless uncreated, as they are natural to God. At other times, he is shown to be of the same mind as Nestorius and the Monophysites, as he speaks of the union as being "according to essence," and indeed "relative," so that a duality of perfect hypostases might be united. Then, finding a usage there from the holy Cyril, theologizing about the difference between the divine essence and divine energy, he wrongly divides this into two; he gives one part of that to the Generator, and hurls the other at the tome and at us as if it were supposedly our own. Then he advances against him and us with unrestrained fury. Having thus rebuked him in these matters as a malicious person, as an ignorant man, as one who is an insulter and a blasphemer of the saints in an extraordinary way, he further proves him to be a slanderer both of the divine Cyril and of John, I mean the wise one. Upon these points, having set in motion the discourse on cause and caused, according to which Gregoras… D and again, the holy theologians Athanasius and Basil are slandered.
The fifth treatise, dealing with the united and distinguished theology and again the difference of the divine energy, and indeed of the unity of this, saying that while it is considered in reality, the difference is by conception and not by reality—the proofs of these are from Dionysius and Hierotheus, the hearers and successors of the holy apostles, from the divine Scriptures, from the ecumenical councils, and indeed from the holy teachers and theologians in part. It is further proven by the discourse that not only by the Sixth Ecumenical Council are those who suffer from the contagion of Gregoras and Akindynos rebuked, as holding worse and more absurd views than those Monothelites, but also by all the councils together, both general and local, since all are in agreement and confirm one another. Wherefore the curse and the excommunication brought upon those who think the opposite to those is from all, and not merely the local councils and tomes of our time. For these manifest the [decrees] of those, contributing nothing of their own but only the confession and the agreement of those. In addition to these, those who suffer from the errors of Origen are also rebuked according to the第五 ecumenical council—I mean the holy one—which said to him that while God always had the power to create, such power was energized when He Himself willed. Whence God did not change, he says, from one state to another.
To the sixth [treatise], which looks toward the third and fourth of Gregoras and struggles concerning the participation of the divine [essence] and energy, the same man is again rebuked, both in other respects blaspheming against God in some way through the "received" and "participated" divine essence, and indeed slandering the great Anastasius of Antioch along with the synodal tome and insulting him unrestrainedly. For the things said concerning the divine Spirit by this wise teacher, he strips from the tome and, having used them as if they were supposedly our own, he slanders and insults most shamefully in these matters, just as he did with those of the holy Cyril previously. Yet not only so, but he [slanders] Athanasius along with him, the great participant in the essence and hypostasis of the Spirit, and indeed this very holy...
Trinitarian [theology]. A And again, he opposes the sixth [book] of Gregoras, while again setting forth our own discourse on the Godhead and God and divine energy and deification, demonstrating that it is uncreated, and that it is incommunicable and inimitable to human nature, even if it comes to be in relation and imitation through the Holy Spirit; and how and according to which arguments the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit, and the energies of the Father are called [such] by the theologians, and again, how they are not the same energies; and that the three monarchical hypostases are likewise called [God/divine] both commonly and individually, and as wisdom and power, because they possess these things naturally and not by participation, and again possess the natural power and energy commonly and conjunctly, as consubstantial and co-divine. He proves again that the philosopher and the great slanderer [Gregoras] slanders Basil, just as he did in those that preceded, B and also the other theological Fathers. For he says, indeed, that the teacher [Basil] is not speaking regarding the physical energy of God when writing to Eustathius, but regarding the effects, that is to say, the creatures. Yet not only so, but they also show him to be, again, of one mind with Sabellius as well as Arius and Macedonius, not considering the divine energy—along with the theological Fathers—to be second and lower than the divine nature that pours it forth, as a cause that is superior and greater; but rather gathering from this that there are different Godheads and different gods from one another, which is what seemed to those ancient heresiarchs mentioned above, clearly because of the difference of the divine hypostases, which is rightly maintained by the Church of Christ. C The eleventh [book], in detailing the matters concerning Christ’s divine transfiguration on Tabor and the light of the Godhead according to it, and regarding the supernatural deification again, and the participation in the deifying and natural grace of the Spirit, shows Gregoras to be saying that the transfiguration of Christ did not happen at all, or that the human form or the appearance of Christ was changed and altered—[siding] along with the Iconoclasts—and furthermore, [that he is] imagining God to be both definable and circumscribed, not from those things surrounding Him according to the holy mystagogy, but according to His very essence, along with Eusebius and the Arians, and introducing a created and circumscribed God along with them, whom they indeed expect and worship according to His essence, says the holy Theodore Graptus, having been put forward by Gregoras himself against us, supposedly, and against the word of truth. The discourse D goes through in these [sections] the matters of the unapproachable light of the Godhead, and of that [light] itself, and of the theophany and the divine illumination given to the saints in the Spirit, now in part as in a pledge, according to the divine Paul, I say, and those theologians and teachers after him, but in the age to come more abundantly and more perfectly. *For the righteous shall shine as the sun*, says Christ, the Sun of righteousness, *in the kingdom of their Father*, and they shall be equal to the angels and sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. This twelfth and final [book] of the others on behalf of the monks on the holy mountain of Athos
composed in a manner more firm in the angelic way of life, exposes Gregoras in these, just as in the others, as a slanderer, a blasphemer, and a preposterous reviler of the saints; and not only this, but also as accountable for all those things which he falsely accuses the saints of, calling them deluded, false prophets, and Massalians. Furthermore, having defended the most godly emperors—for the deceitful and slanderous tongue of this man did not even spare them—and indeed also having discoursed briefly on behalf of Gregory, our theologian and teacher common to the Church of Christ, and in addition on the captivity in Asia and his holy miracles, in this recapitulation he brings the course to a close, having spoken a few small things as if in an epilogue to the wonderful emperor who had also initiated this undertaking at the beginning.
Such are the matters for us against Gregoras and his own [efforts] against piety and the right opinion concerning God and the champions and defenders of this, most godly emperor. For it is necessary for me, just as I began, so also to end this rational course by looking again toward you, the cause of these [struggles], and ascribe the whole outcome to you, who are best in all things. If it has been done sufficiently and according to the opinion held by the one who rightly urged these [matters], thanks be to God and to you who called us; but if [it has been done] less than our hopes, even so, thanks. For I know well that I have not been armed in an open manner, but armored on all sides with scriptural and theological arguments; and they do not merely turn aside and dissolve the [arguments] of the opposition from a standpoint of great superiority, but also knock them back upon their own heads, since they are easily toppled and fragile by nature, [weakened] by the splendid excess of falsehood and by the slothful, ignorant, and shallow nature of the one who wrote these things. Conversely, the difficulty and the fact that it is not at all easy to address the demands—composed as they are with the disorder, I say, and the incongruity of the problems and syllogisms of the philosopher, and with the slander and the frequent lying against the theological and patristic writings, and against the synod and all of us—is something that the discourse has already shown in previous sections; so much so that those who read the book with understanding marvel that we were able to collect the purpose and the intent from the things written by the philosopher, and to give some order for the time being to such disorder and confusion, and thus to proceed against them with scriptural and theological arguments combined, and even to concede this first from ourselves B to our adversary, and to concede at least that he appeared to say something at all against the word of truth, and to contradict in any way what he surely set out to do—which, he says, one could not easily grasp if one were to examine his own [words] alone.
But because Gregoras, in addition to his frequent and successive slanders against us, and his lack of holy testimonies and the alliance of theological arguments, frequently and with much shamelessness accuses us of ignorance—not only of worldly education and philosophy, but also of this sacred knowledge of ours, of which he has appeared to be completely uninitiated and devoid, while having practiced the other in a faulty and ignorant manner, as has clearly been shown from his own words—yet he has not profited at all from any of the praiseworthy and useful things. Out of necessity, the contents of the volume, and indeed the theological and patristic arguments as well, have been set forth at length in the discourses, and perhaps beyond the normal custom, for which no one, I think, would justly begrudge us, looking toward Gregoras and his goal against the truth and against us. I, for my part, consider that all the theological statements introduced by Gregoras for the sake of contradiction, or C the more necessary ones among them, have already been resolved by the word, and that the majority of them have been turned back upon the head of the one who misused them, as I have also said before, and that nothing at all is lacking.
If, however, something has perhaps been left out that requires investigation, the argument will not hesitate to go back over those things later, having taken up the appropriate time once more, and this precisely because of the strife and contentiousness of some. For our argument possesses strength well enough otherwise, I say, according to the goal and the logic of the truth itself.
If it seems that the form, and the one who wishes to follow our way, departs from the [normal] mode of argument by moving against the philosopher and his shamelessness, there is nothing new or foreign to the discourse here, most Christ-loving emperor, if the discourse, as it makes its way through such a deep and vast mire—I mean the mire of his words—should happen to sprinkle a few things off. And he who encounters the book that is against the sound faith will know this well; he will not blame this so much as he will praise and marvel at the other thing—that we used our words in so moderate a fashion, and so much less than the matters of that man, that it is not even permissible to compare them [to ours]. For those who are eager to be of the sacred faction of Christ and of him, and who remember his holy exhortations and words, [know that he] says, "Blessed are you when they revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake." To Him be the glory with the D Father and the Holy Spirit, now and always, and to the ages of ages. Amen.