Saint Gregory Palamas, Letter to Daniel

https://www.scribd.com/document/698098127/Gregory-Palamas-4th-Letter-to-Daniel-of-Ainos-Modern-Greek

TO THE MOST REVERED AND WISE IN DIVINE MATTERS METROPOLITAN OF AINOS, LORD DANIEL

Indeed, when shame departs from the soul, a whole chain of evils is introduced. For whoever removes shame, becoming beside himself, neither understands what he himself is doing nor what he is saying. How then will such a person recognize or accept the words of others? How will he comprehend the precision of the doctrines concerning God, he who is subject to the law of the debasement of vain boasters, who says, "Unless you become like little children, you will not enter the kingdom"1—becoming childlike not in mind but in malice? For the shameless and proud character fills with arrogance and makes the wise foolish, so that neither wisdom can find a place nor true education. For this reason, the prophet laments and mourns them, saying, "Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and prudent in their own sight"*—those who are ignorant of wisdom and untrained in education, misusing these against themselves by believing in them for everything and seeking in words that which is beyond words, those who speak more incorrectly than correctly, and while thinking they are vigilant and sound, are no better than those seized by deep sleep.

For just as those who are overtaken by sleep lose their senses, so too these individuals, when their mind and true knowledge abandon them, think that they are whatever they imagine and desire beyond themselves a zeal without zeal, which one of the Fathers called foolish, and the Apostle called zeal not according to knowledge3. Fully possessed by this, this self-taught—or rather unlearned—theologian does not know what he is saying or concerning what he is affirming.

He says, placing this first and foremost in the list of our errors, that although we said that energy and essence are one in God, then, as if we regretted it, we contradicted ourselves by saying they are different. And they did not even grasp that whatever is somehow one is not necessarily entirely one, for things that are one in genus differ in species, and things that are one in species differ in number, and sometimes even those that are one in number and hypostasis still differ in nature. Many things, although one in subject, are not only different but also contrary.

And I am not saying this because energy has such a relation to any essence (lest those who wish to quarrel in vain attack us again), but I say only this: that things which are not different in some way are still different in another way. Without number, it is impossible to demonstrate a difference, according to the divine Maximus, for he holds that every difference naturally introduces into itself the quantity of differing things, whether essences, qualities, or properties. In general, if we speak of difference, we recognize it by considering the differing things in some quantitative manner, whether through sensation or understanding. But to express it again in his own terms, number cannot divide, support, or introduce any kind of division, for knowing these things does not mean dividing them.

Thus, this is the first and greatest objection against us. What is the second? That we do not contradict only ourselves, in that we say some things in one way and show them to be otherwise in another way, but we also contradict the holy fathers along with ourselves. He adds many sayings of theirs, which show that in God, energy is the same as essence. You will see the same path followed by the teacher of this new wisdom and theology. They are ignorant that however many such sayings they gather, they will do so not in their favor, but in favor of us and the truth that agrees with us by the grace of Christ. Indeed, even Sabellius accomplished nothing against the Church by quoting, “I and the Father are one”5 and gathering everything else from Scripture that presents the divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit as one; for we, too, acknowledge one divinity, but worshiped in three hypostases. In the same way, we acknowledge that energy is the same as essence in the divine and supernatural simplicity, and not only in this but also in many intelligible essences, as we have demonstrated extensively in the treatise On Divine Energies. And since this is accepted even by those who oppose us, concerning the rest, our argument about the identity will be brief.

Thus, sometimes essence and energy are the same in God, but sometimes they differ from each other, as is clearly demonstrated in the writings of the Fathers. For the divine John of Damascus, writing about God, says, “There is a difference between the one who acts, the one who is capable of acting, the act itself, and the result of the act.”6 And the great Gregory the Theologian also says of God, “Willing and will, begetting and generation, speaking and word are different, unless we are drunk; for the former are the mover, and the latter are like the movement.”7 The great Basil also says, “How is it not ridiculous to say that the creative is essence, the providential is essence, the foreknowing is again the same, and to simply consider every energy as essence?”8

You see, Father, how those who think that essence and energy do not differ in God are drunk, ridiculous, and, as I said above, foolish. Yet who could present all the sayings of the Fathers through which it is stated and shown that energy is other than essence in God? Just as hypostatic things are not hypostasis but characteristics of hypostasis, so too natural things are not nature but characteristics of nature. The holy Damascene says, “We call the wills and energies natural; by this, I specifically mean the volitional and active power, according to which those that will and act perform their actions.”9

Therefore, natural will and energy belong to nature, as recorded by the Fathers. However, they are not only of nature but also from nature, while nature itself is neither of will nor from will or any other energy. As it originates from the latter, it is distinct and not nature, though it characterizes the very same in the immaterial beings and nothing else, it cannot be conceived as anything other than that from which it arises. For as the intellect is and also its activity, it is neither entirely the same as the nature from which it exists nor entirely different; for it is divided from the intellect because it proceeds from its nature and can be conveyed, using reason as a bridge to those who hear, and through many other ways.

Because it is also somewhat intellectual and intelligible, it shows in itself those things considered about it, and because it is inseparably contained with it, it is one with it. Whoever mentions energy or power immediately contemplates also the nature of which these are attributes.

Therefore, we must confess both the difference and the identity, and remain in the middle of piety with both, also acknowledging nature as the cause of energy, so that there are neither two principles nor one that is inactive, whether because it does not have a different energy of itself or because it has a foreign energy, descending into creation and estranged from divinity. What necessity is there to distort God poorly or to divide Him into inequalities? Surely, while the Fathers proclaim both of these things clearly, we agree with them; they think they contradict us, believing that the one is found in the testimonies.

The third argument of theirs against us is that God would progress from imperfection to perfection if energy were different from nature. Therefore, we could turn the argument exactly to the opposite; for neither will the intellect become worse than itself if it is released from thoughts according to the union called by the great Dionysius, as long as according to human wisdom, power is imperfect and perfect, the perfect maintains energy and is released from it without any corruption or change.

But setting aside such matters, we shall say to them what the holy fifth ecumenical council states; for the members of this holy council, realizing that what is said now by the opponents is exactly the same as what Origen said, justly condemned him, writing on the banner: “Origen said that God, from not creating, turned to creating, having certainly shifted from one to another,” as these present-day Origenists say that He will come from the imperfect to the perfect.

Listen, therefore, to the argument of the Fathers against this. They do not say that energy differs in any way from essence, but rather what? “We say,” they emphasize, “that it was not altered in its nature, but in its energy.” Do you see the clear difference between energy and nature? But listen further, that rather it was not altered in this either; “For He has always had the power to create and to bring into existence; this power was manifested when God willed.” Where are those who say that the active always indicates the created? Although the theologian says in the first treatise on the Trinity, “If the Father is a name of action, then he would have acted this very essence.” And here, therefore, they should hear that the eternal power of God was manifested through the creations.

In this manifestation, it had a beginning; however, this power itself did not have a beginning. For this reason, the great Athanasius distinguishes divine energies from creations, writing in his “Discourse Against the Arians” that both the energies and the creations belong to God, and by God here, he does not mean only the Father but also the Son and the Holy Spirit, because the creations are not only of the Father.

The fourth argument against us is that God would have quality and would be composite if the energy differs from the essence. What is remarkable is that, while we have written in response to each of these, they could not say a word, nor did they mention these things, but like a deaf person, they repeat the same arguments against those who have been defended. Yet, since the Fathers clearly state that the uncreated energy and power differ from the essence of God, and we agree with them, the accusation should not be directed at us who follow them but at those who lead, if it were valid.

But the divine word says, “Whoever falls upon that stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.” And we, having such defenders, will remain secure and unwavering. However, since we are accused of defending ourselves on behalf of the Fathers in everything, let us now say something more about these matters; for it is not easy to send to your reverence the treatise on the divine energies and their superessential simplicity, in which we develop more extensively the examination of these.

Thus, the Fathers forbid us to say quality concerning the divine superessentiality, but they say that the energies are not one, nor two, nor three, but much more, and all uncreated. Indeed, the great Basil says in his “Against the Eunomians,” “What are the energies of the Spirit? They are unspeakable due to their greatness, and innumerable due to their multitude. For how can we comprehend the things beyond the ages? What are the energies of the Spirit before the intelligible creation? Therefore, these energies of the Spirit, those before the intelligible creation and beyond the ages, cannot be created; nor can they be the essence of God or the Son of the Father, for there is one essence of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, and the only-begotten Son of the Father and the Spirit are one. The energies of the Spirit are innumerable, he says, due to their multitude.”

And after he connects some other things about the energies, he adds, “The Holy Spirit was both pre-existing and coexisting with the Father and the Son.” Then he concludes by saying, “Therefore, even if you comprehend something beyond the ages, this too is lower than the Spirit,” clearly indicating that the uncreated energies are lower than the Spirit.

How then are these the essence of God or the only-begotten of the Father? What the great one said at the beginning, how we should understand the pre-eternal energies, he said not in order to show that they are completely incomprehensible, but for accuracy; for he says they are unspeakable due to their greatness and innumerable due to their multitude. The one who is named in theology, Gregory, also points out something regarding the pre-eternal energies of the Spirit, and we have made much discourse in “Against Barlaam,” showing that providence operates even before the generation of the generated, and moreover not a little concerning its correspondences, since God, by reason of goodness, wisely provides what is suitable for the generation of time.

But let us return to our topic. Since the Fathers forbid us to speak of quality concerning God, they say of energies; thus according to them, energy is not quality. But what is the reasoning behind this? For in terms of quality, the created thing suffers rather than acts, while in terms of energy, this is not the case; for the acting is first unwearying and impassible, as in the case of craftsmanship and the mind of the skilled artisan. And if the created and active suffer something (for the art being exercised improves, as does the one possessing it), yet the self-sufficient and impassible and unchanging nature, manifesting divine power through energy, remains impassible even when it acts. Therefore, energy does not cause composition in the divine nature; for the thing in which there is no passion at all does not have composition, nor does it have an opposite undergirding divine power, that is, the inability, because the divine is omnipotent, nor does the divine nature have, by participation, the divine power, which are elements of composition among all created things; for God is self-sufficient and self-good and similar things generally, not one being another, but as not existing each of these by participation, being entirely indivisible and in all things inseparable. And that these things are thus, we have been taught; how each of these happens is not possible to either say or understand with accuracy.

What then would they say about the Trinity of one divinity, suspecting a composition due to energy? However, they say that if besides the nature of God something else uncreated exists, God will be composite. But I would say that if nothing else uncreated exists besides the nature, God will not be simple. For Gregory, the theologian, speaks about this: “Let us consider what it means to be of simple nature; for this is not its nature, nor the essence.” Therefore, since simplicity is not a nature, if it is not uncreated and without beginning, God will not be simple of itself, much less will he ever be. Thus, it would be one of the most absurd things for us to dare to say, adhering to their teaching, that simplicity does not pre-exist in the nature of God, as signifying something other than the nature, in order not to show it composite by this. And this simplicity is also one of the divine energies, according to those speaking of the Spirit; for by participation in this, angels and souls become simple. Therefore, this simplicity is also a participation, as the heavenly Dionysius the Areopagite says, “For every participation does not participate in itself, but is participated in. And everything that participates and does not participate in itself is again uncreated.”

The fifth argument is that for them, the energy of God is only the Son and the Holy Spirit, while we sin because we accept a common energy of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. For they say, “What need is there for the Son to have energy, since he is self-energy?” But if someone says that the Son is called energy because he exists inseparably with the Father, since he is not at all energy while being in a particular hypostasis, they assert that nowhere has it been written that God has energies, both hypostatic and non-hypostatic. To them, one could say, how, O wise ones, while you say that essence and energy are identical and indifferent, do you then consider the essence common to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, while you do not consider the energy common? How is it that the essence is not hypostasis nor hypostatic, since it is not one of the three nor one in the hypostases, but you make the energy hypostatic? For the particular characteristics of the Son or of the Spirit are the hypostases and the hypostatic attributes. And who, being sensible, to express it in the words of the divine Maximus, has ever spoken of hypostatic energy? Consequently, the Father would have only two energies, the Son and the Spirit, while each of the two would have no energy, although it is not easy to say how many points of Scripture testify to the richness of the energies of the Father, while concerning the Spirit, it has been elaborated more clearly above; finally, concerning the Son, the sixth council taught us to worship Christ, not only in two natures but also in two essences of energy and in two wills, as the prophet Micah also says; for he proclaiming the incarnation in Bethlehem says, “And his goings forth were from of old, from the days of eternity,” signifying as goings forth from the beginning, namely uncreated and without beginning, the energies according to his divinity, as also the divine Gregory of Nyssa explains the prophetic words. And if we accept that the prophet refers also to the birth through the goings forth from of old, again the doctrine of the Barlaamites is undermined; for birth is not nature, but about nature, just as unbegottenness is. Therefore, since birth is not nature, it is uncreated and without beginning. Let those who write that only one uncreated exists, namely the essence of God, be covered with shame, for everything that exists apart from it is created. If we take the assumption that essence is identical to energy, the Son as self-energy has no energy according to the theologians without divine energy, and the Father, as being of the same essence, is self-energy and neither will he have energy, nor will the Son have.

Do you see the multitude of absurdities that they have mistakenly piled upon themselves? Is the Creator of creatures only the Father or is it also the Son? Certainly, both the Son and the Holy Spirit are included. And we are all creatures not only of the Father but also of the only-begotten Son and of the Holy Spirit; no one who wishes to be pious can ever assert otherwise. Regarding the one who acts with energy, the actions are said to belong to that one who acts, although sometimes the actions are not mentioned. And the great theologian Gregory is a witness, who, in response to those who said the Son was the will of the Father, stated, “If the Father begot him willing, then will and willing, generation and that which is generated, saying and the word, if we are not intoxicated; thus the willed is not of the willing, nor the generated of the generation, nor the uttered of the uttering, but of the one who wills and the one who begets and the one who speaks.” If, therefore, the Son is the energy of the Father, and does not possess energy, according to them, we are not his creatures, but only of the Father. They have not heard the same theologian saying elsewhere that it is proper for the Father to come to creation through the divinity of the Son. Therefore, the one who acts through the energy of the house does not act immediately, and the one who speaks face to face does not meet immediately, because he communicates with reason.

But since those who oppose us assert emphatically that there are no uncreated energies that are non-hypostatic in God, what would they say to the great Basil when he states that in the Holy Spirit all things are perfect: love, joy, peace, and the rest, where he grasped and enumerated almost everything that is said of God? Among those, in the enumeration of gifts, he called security fear, conformed to the divine Spirit divinely. Then, repeating his statement, he says, “The Holy Spirit possesses all these in the same way, as the Spirit of God and as revealed from it; yet this itself, being uncreated, is hypostatic, while those that derive from it are its energies.” Do you see both many energies and uncreated and hypostatic? For he says that the Spirit possesses these in the same way, being the only hypostatic one.

In the discussions against Eunomius, concerning those who say the Son is the energy of the Father, it is stated, “If the Son is energy and not a product, neither the one who acts nor certainly the one who is acted upon is he, for energy is different from these; but it is also un-hypostatic, for no energy is hypostatic, meaning self-hypostatic.” If someone dares to say that non-hypostatic energies are creatures, let him explain how none of the creatures is hypostatic, especially since God did not create only qualities but also substantial beings.

What is this notion that the self-hypostatic is not suitable for the divine? I thought it best to omit the continuation and some of the previously examined points, as they are clear nonsensical statements. They claim that the self-hypostatic is unsuitable for the divine because Chrysostom, the father, says to those who contemplate the essence of God, “How is it possible for us to understand an essence that exists neither from another nor from itself?” Do you see that these new-fangled theologians believe that self-hypostatic means something that exists by itself? We, however, consider the self-hypostatic to be that which exists in a particular hypostasis. Therefore, if the Son is in a unique hypostasis, how can he not be self-hypostatic? The un-hypostatic, however, is significant for both the self-hypostatic and that which exists in another, according to patristic traditions. Thus, the Son is called hypostatic both because he exists in himself and because he is inseparable from the Father. If he possesses both of these, how can he lack each of them? Rather, the former of the significations is acknowledged by Christians; if anyone wishes to affirm the latter, we have no objection.

While they must seek and learn from experts as much as they are ignorant, they do not recognize the naming of the term nor inquire what the purpose of its use is; they attack the divine with great ignorance and ill will, demonstrating themselves to be irrational and distorted, as the great Dionysius also thinks, for he says, “It is irrational and distorted and characteristic of those unwilling to understand the divine not to pay attention to the meaning of the purpose, but only to the words.”

However, the one determined to argue against us clearly presents the views of Barlaam and Akinthinos; it is very evident. We do not overlook that under the pretense of piety lies the conspiracy of those who have now decided to write against us. He also says that all the wise near you agree and consent, a statement which is far from believing because he persuades himself through the letters of Akinthinos, who also claims to have the agreement of the most rational here and those devoted to tranquility and generally all others. For judging others with precision is difficult. Among the bishops, who are the wiser? Is it not the bishop of Ephesus and of Cyzicus? With them is the knowledgeable bishop of Dyrrachium? Therefore, there is no one among them who consents with him, especially after the council that took place and after the thorough examination that was conducted, so that they accept and sign the condemnations of such views. Yet they do not repent, while the most divine Cyzicus is ready alone to add to the Synodal book these words verbatim: “It happened that some brought to me certain parts from the writings of the most honorable hieromonk Gregory Palamas. They were distorted, as I learned later the truth by reading those writings. Therefore, having learned that these are in complete agreement with the saints, precisely in all matters, and hearing their words and finding them in full accord with the saints in all respects, as testimony and assurance of the truth of the things said and written by that most honorable hieromonk Gregory Palamas and the other monks, I signed.”

These things were added by the Bishop of Cyzicus along with all those who co-signed, who were seven in number and chosen as superiors to represent all. As for the other bishops, whether they now follow these or not, and who are the non-followers and why, anyone with sense can understand. You know most of the Hesychasts. But what need is there to speak about them, for whom I myself voluntarily took up the cause of defense, because they were being persecuted, while I was not, considering it better to be accused with them than to be regarded as irresponsible without them, which they too understand?

Among the other rational ones, one can see, if he wishes, some who composed lengthy and noble discourses both in defense of the truth we advocate and against those who oppose us. The one “who knows many things by nature,” to repeat Pindar, the wise and esteemed leader of impeccable judgment, Mataraṅgos, calls those who contradict us destroyers of the evangelical proclamations and new preachers of idolatrous folly, although even now the confusion of political matters gives boldness to falsehood.

Moreover, as we heard from this new Barlaam, you thought that we do not accept the identity of essence and energy upon the simple and incorporeal nature; necessarily we wrote against him, stating that neither do we prohibit this. However, since we find in the words of the fathers that they also differ from one another in many ways, this difference Barlaam and Akinthinos regard as a source of great absurdities, we defend ourselves, to the best of our ability, from the fathers, demonstrating that those who do not accept that they differ fall into many more absurdities.

Thus, we do not say two deities, one transcendent and one immanent, but one, existing not only in essence but also in the completeness of all things, as the divine Gregory of Nyssa says. Of what exactly? Of self-sovereignty, wisdom, goodness, power, creative and deifying will, and similar attributes, which the saints call divine energy, understood in a natural way concerning God, but not nature, as we previously presented, stating that the natural does not equate to nature, just as the hypostatic does not equate to hypostasis.

Furthermore, the term nature and essence, in a primary sense, does not belong to that transcendence, as the theophanous Dionysius says—because that is completely nameless—they use this designation even for the natural, and the fathers rarely do so. He who immerses his thought into the meaning, as the discourse says, and is not hindered by sounds and noises and syllables thoughtlessly, pays attention and understands what the intention of the writer is; however, the advocate of truth, when examining such things carefully, will see that many often tend to apply the name of nature even to the lower natural things, as if one were to say that fire has a nature of being upward, that is, naturally upward; for certainly, to be directed toward something is not its nature, since neither motion nor action is its nature, but the principle of each motion.

Thus, indeed, according to the abundant and truly spiritual understanding of the holy fathers, one could piously speak of the essence of each of God's energies. For according to these, God is the origin of all that comes to be, the essence of all, and the restoration of those falling into being through some disturbance. He is, therefore, good and beautiful, and all such things, altogether, indeterminate and absolute; He is also the essence of goodness and beauty, as the nature of the good and the goodness itself, as the essence and source of every virtue, as the being of all beings, as the cause of all things.

Thus, the superessential, supergood essence possesses goodness and such attributes, not called so of itself (for how could it have the essence of goodness, since it exists superessentially and supergood?), but because of those who participate, as a good-making power of them. Here I command you to understand words of profound wisdom, so that I may express myself theologically and poetically at the same time. Therefore, we also say one divinity. Since they claim that from certain patristic passages presented by us two deities are derived, one transcendent and one immanent, we, defending the fathers, demonstrate as best we can that no conclusion from those sacred words contradicts the existence of one divinity, and particularly a simple one.

We must also recognize this, that the subject and the struggle are neither simply about divinity nor divine energy, but concerning the divine and ineffable light, in which the Savior manifested the brilliance of the divine nature, in which He communes with the saints. Indeed, Barlaam has dared to say that it is created, describable, and in a sense perceptible, coming to be and passing away, and he consequently compelled us to advocate for our common hope, that of the light of the coming age and the eternal one.

Moreover, although this is called divinity by the saints, first he attempted to align us with the Massalians, who erroneously consider the essence of God to be both participable and visible; but as soon as he heard us referred to as the light and grace and brilliance of God, according to the fathers, not nature (for according to the written word, “no one has reached the hypostasis and essence of God, nor has anyone seen or declared the nature of God”), as soon as he heard this, he turned to say that it is absurd to assert two uncreated deities, as if one were to say that each human has two minds, since “mind” is also referred to as “intellect,” or that there are two suns in the sky, since we also call the ray “sun.”

But he, having been proven to be heretical by this synod, condemned himself to eternal exile; those suffering from his error, and after his flight, condemned similar ones in the second synod.

Now, as they are indeed resorting to the dreadful winter that has seized our Christ-bearing race, and having received permission to wrestle anew against us, they will immediately begin the dispute about the defeat. Noticing that the political authorities are disposed unfavorably toward us, since we did not deem it reasonable to approve and participate in the current actions, they have incited them so much against us that they intend to confine us within the inner sanctum of these palaces. They hoped for something worse from us, wanting and wishing in every way to push us toward their benefits, urging us to it to the best of their ability. Therefore, we are confined, while the advocates of Barlaam's doctrine, having taken the long-desired permission, are again emptying words that only the Son and the Spirit of God are divine rays and energies.

But those who are informed that such things have been said by the fathers as examples, sometimes regarding the Trinity of divinity, at other times regarding the common grace of the Father, Son, and Spirit, if they reflect carefully, will see that such images are somewhat more suitable to the brilliance of God, which the saints behold incomprehensibly and experience blissfully. For this reason, the great Gregory in theology, in his letter to Claudius, says, "To say that the Son is a ray of the Father, like the sun, is characteristic of the heresy of Apollinaris." For he is another sun, possessing the same power, grace, energy, and brilliance, as the same theologian says elsewhere, as if one were to speak of a composition of light into three suns. And again, "Their wealth is the consubstantiality and the unity of brilliance."

But the intellect, as an energy of the mind, and any other movement closer to it or further away, indeed bears a resemblance to the highest mind, considered as an example, because it is an inherent image of the mind, and the Son is the inherent image of the Father, yet consubstantial and in a particular hypostasis and unchanging; the intellect, however, does not have that unchanging quality toward the mind, for it too is a mind but is introspective. Nor has there ever been a distinct intellect revealed as consubstantial with the mind, for that is not its essence. Therefore, the divine Gregory of Nyssa rightly said that the term "God" signifies the active one, but "divinity" signifies energy; none of the three divine persons is energy, but rather each of them is the active one.

I want very much to learn this from some expert; for it is a common doctrine of both the East and our own wise men that concerning the simple and immaterial nature, the energy shares the same reason with the essence. Does the intellect, being an energy of the mind, which is of simple and immaterial nature, have any difference from that, or none at all? The saints clearly emphasize that just as the mind, receiving knowledge, does not become composite, in the same way—indeed much more so—divine nature, possessing foreknowledge, providence, and generally all such powers and energies, is naturally not composite. Since creation and providence are nothing but readiness to act when it wishes—because such is divine power—could it be said that the divine is composite because it has the power of will accompanying it? And how can readiness indicate composition? I would gladly explain this further.

Is the acceptance of the same reason two or just one? And if it is two, how can they be without any difference from each other? Yet if they differ somewhat and accept the same reason, it is necessary that they differ from each other according to their inherent properties. To this, the great Basil asserts everywhere that divine energy does not have the same reason as the essence. But do not think that this causes division in those, for to know these things does not imply division.

Moreover, what reason, that is, what definition can one give concerning the incomprehensible nature, to take the same one regarding the energy? Since it is impossible to find a definition of that, we shall certainly accept the community of names instead of the identity of the reason. The names indeed pertain to the divine energies, as all the Fathers commonly acknowledge. The essence of God is anonymous, as super-anonymous, although from the desire to say something about it, as far as it is permitted, we use the names of the energies, knowing that absolutely no one can not only name it but even conceive what it is. Indeed, we understand what exists exactly through the energies, and these powers and energies through the works; for the great Basil says, “The works are indicative of wisdom and art and power, but not of the essence itself, nor even of the whole power of the creator necessarily.”

And what is indicated through the works, we indeed understand, albeit dimly, in analogy to that supreme mind above all. What we understand, we also name; however, that we name does not mean that we consider them as later generated (for all that we understand about God, says Gregory of Nyssa to the Antirrhetici, was before the creation of the world), but we assert that these are named after the birth of the namer. Thus, divinity is a name of power and energy, but not of essence, although from it it is attributed also to that, and not simply of energy but of energies, namely that God creates all things before their generation and deifies and has the ability and will to be receptive to the divine vision, besides these and many others, as we are evidently taught by the sacred writings.

Therefore, does the act of deifying differ from that of being deified, or does God deify all that He wishes? Since they differ, could any of these be created? But how can those that exist before creation be created? Since they are also different and uncreated, might this prevent the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit from being one? However, since they differ from each other, necessarily each one differs from that super-essential nature; for those that are the same and indifferent to each other are also indifferent to one another. Indeed, 'they became vain in their reasonings; professing to be wise, they became fools,' those who cloak themselves with atheism in order to accuse us of dualism. For the non-existent divinity in all this demonstrates that the one who possesses them is incomplete and not God; but if any of these energies is created, then the one who possesses it is created and not God.

But let us pray to God to grant peace to the state. For then, by His grace, the truth of piety will prevail.