122

completely unknowable, but knowable according to those things, which are goodness, wisdom, power, divinity or majesty and simply all the things around the essence, as the father Chrysostom also says verbatim)˙ so when we say these things to such people, the one who accuses us of ditheism is himself clearly not worshipping the creator of all things, but some inoperative God. For he could no longer call him creator or God-worker or active at all, since the venerable Maximus clearly declared that it is not possible to act without a corresponding energy, of course, just as it is not possible to exist without existence. But neither will he call uncreated this one whom Barlaam calls God; for from the uncreated energy, according to the same theologian again, the uncreated nature is characterized; but that which characterizes is distinct from that which is characterized.

If, therefore, the divine nature does not have an energy distinct from itself, this energy being uncreated and knowable to us from its effects, while that nature is established beyond all comprehension, how will anyone at all know that there is some uncreated nature, being incomprehensible in itself but known from the things around it, among which are, according to the great Athanasius, both its power and its energy? But why do I prolong these things by saying them, (p. 592) and this when the saints teach verbatim that the nature of God and energy are not the same? For it is of the nature to beget, but of the energy to create; and the essence of God is one thing, and the essential energy of God is another; and the essence of God is one thing, and the meaning of the names concerning it is another. Why then do I prolong these things by saying them? For Barlaam, through what he says, introduces to us a non-existent god. For that which has no natural power or energy neither is nor is something, nor is there any affirmation or negation of it at all, according to the theologians.

This foolish accuser of our piety has therefore said that there is no God in his heart, even if with his lips he pretends to maintain that a god exists. “But God has energies,” he says, “but they are created; for every energy of God, apart from the essence that energizes all things, is created, and the one beginningless and endless thing is the divine nature, and this is the only uncreated light and the uncreated glory of God.” O the impiety, or to speak more properly, the atheism and most perfect ungodliness. For either God does not have natural and essential energies, and the one who says this is an atheist (for this again says outright that there is no God; for the saints clearly say that if there is no natural and essential energy, Christ, who is worshipped in two such energies and two natures, will be neither God nor man), or, if there are natural and essential energies of God, and these are created, the essence of God which has them will also be created; for of whatever essence and nature the natural and essential energies are created, it itself is not uncreated. But also the divine providence and the contemplative power and the splendor of God, which appeared on Tabor to Moses and Elijah and to those who went up the mountain with Christ, who was manifesting his own divinity and kingdom, these too, therefore, are created things, if the nature alone (p. 594) is beginningless and endless and this alone is the uncreated light and the uncreated glory of God, and thus there is one uncreated divinity, since only the divine essence is uncreated.

For providence is a relation of God towards the things that enjoy his provision, and the contemplative power is towards the things seen, and the splendor is towards the things divinely illumined; but the divine nature is not a relation, being in every way released from and established beyond all things. And it does not belong to the contemplative energy to create; for God contemplated all things even before their coming into being, but he did not create them also before their coming into being.

122

ἄγνωστον παντάπασι, κατ᾿ ἐκείνας δέ γνωστόν, αἵ εἰσιν ἡ ἀγαθότης, ἡ σοφία, ἡ δύναμις, ἡ θειότης ἤτοι μεγαλειότης καί ἁπλῶς πάντα τά περί τήν οὐσίαν, ὡς καί ὁ Χρυσόστομος ἐπί λέξεώς φησι πατήρ)˙ οὕτω τοίνυν ταῦτα πρός τούς τοιούτους ἡμῶν λεγόντων, ὁ διθεΐαν κατηγορῶν δῆλός ἐστιν αὐτός οὐ τόν πάντων ποιητήν προσκυνῶν, ἀλλά Θεόν τινα ἀνενέργητον. Οὐ γάρ ἔτι δύναιτ᾿ ἄν αὐτόν εἰπεῖν δημιουργόν ἤ θεουργόν ἤ ὅλως ἐνεργόν, σαφῶς ἀποφηναμένου τοῦ σεπτοῦ Μαξίμου ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐνεργεῖν χωρίς ἐνεργείας καταλλήλου δήπουθεν, ὥσπερ οὐδέ ὑπάρχειν χωρίς ὑπάρξεως. Ἀλλ᾿ οὐδέ ἄκτιστον ἐρεῖ τοῦτον ὅν φησιν ὁ Βαρλαάμ Θεόν˙ ἐκ γάρ τῆς ἀκτίστου ἐνεργείας, κατά τόν αὐτόν πάλιν θεολόγον, ἡ ἄκτιστος φύσις χαρακτηρίζεται˙ τό δέ χαρακτηρίζον τοῦ χαρακτηριζομένου διενήνοχεν.

Εἰ τοίνυν μή ἔχει δαφέρουσαν ἑαυτῆς ἡ θεία φύσις ἐνέργειαν, ἄκτιστον καί ταύτην οὖσαν καί γνωστήν ἡμῖν ἐκ τῶν ἐνεργημάτων, ἐκείνη πάσης καταλήψεως ὑπερανιδρυμένη, πῶς εἴσεταί τις τῶν ἁπάντων ὡς ἔστι τις φύσις ἄκτιστος, ἀπερινόητος οὖσα καθ᾿ ἑαυτήν ἐκ δέ τῶν περί αὐτήν γινωσκομένη, ὧν ἐστι κατά μέγαν Ἀθανάσιον καί ἡ ταύτης δύναμις καί ἡ ἐνέργεια; Τί δ᾿ ὅμως ταῦτα (σελ. 592) μηκύνω λέγων, καί ταῦτα τῶν ἁγίων διδασκόντων ἐπί λέξεως ὅτι φύσις Θεοῦ καί ἐνέργεια οὐ ταὐτόν; Τῆς μέν γάρ φύσεώς ἐστι τό γεννᾶν, τῆς δέ ἐνεργείας τό ποιεῖν˙ καί ἄλλο ἡ οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ καί ἕτερον ἡ οὐσιώδης τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐνέργεια˙ καί ἄλλο μέν ἡ οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἑτέρα δέ τῶν περί αὐτήν ὀνομάτων ἡ σημασία. Τί τοίνυν ταῦτα μηκύνω λέγων; Ὁ γάρ Βαρλαάμ, δι᾿ ὧν φησιν, ἀνύπαρκτον ἡμῖν εἰσάγει θεόν. Τό γάρ μηδεμίαν ἔχον δύναμιν ἤ ἐνέργειαν φυσικήν οὔτε ἔστιν οὔτε τί ἐστιν οὔτε ἔστι παντελῶς αὐτοῦ θέσις οὐδέ ἀφαίρεσις κατά τούς θεολόγους.

Εἶπεν οὖν ὁ ἄφρων οὗτος τῆς ἡμῶν εὐσεβείας κατήγορος ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ, εἰ καί τοῖς χείλεσιν εἶναι δῆθεν θεόν ἰσχυρίζεται. «Ἀλλ᾿ ἔχει», φησίν, «ἐνεργείας ὁ Θεός κτιστάς δέ˙ πᾶσα γάρ ἐνέργεια Θεοῦ χωρίς τῆς τά πάντα ἐνεργούσης οὐσίας κτιστή, καί ἕν ἄναρχον καί ἀτελεύτητον ἡ θεία φύσις, καί αὕτη ἐστί τό μόνον ἄκτιστον φῶς καί ἡ ἄκτιστος δόξα τοῦ Θεοῦ». Τῆς δυσσεβείας, οἰκειότερον δ᾿ εἰπεῖν τῆς ἀθεΐας καί τελεωτάτης ἀσεβείας. Ἤ γάρ οὐκ ἔχει φυσικάς καί οὐσιώδεις ἐνεργείας ὁ Θεός, καί ἄθεός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦτο λέγων (τοῦτο γάρ πάλιν ἄντικρύς φησιν ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι Θεός˙ οἱ γάρ ἅγιοι φανερῶς λέγουσιν ὅτι φυσικῆς καί οὐσιώδους ἐνεργείας μή οὔσης οὔτε Θεός ἔσται οὔτε ἄνθρωπος ὁ ἐν δυσί ταῖς τοιαύταις ἐνεργείαις καί δυσί ταῖς φύσεσι προσκυνούμενος Χριστός) ἤ, εἴπερ εἰσίν ἐνέργειαι Θεοῦ φυσικαί καί οὐσιώδεις, κτισταί δέ εἰσιν αὗται, κτιστή ἔσται καί ἡ ταύτας ἔχουσα οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ˙ ἧς γάρ οὐσίας τε καί φύσεως αἱ φυσικαί καί οὐσιώδεις ἐνέργειαι κτισταί, ἄκτιστος αὐτή οὐκ ἔστιν. Ἀλλά καί ἡ θεία πρόνοια καί ἡ θεατική δύναμις καί ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ λαμπρότης, ἡ καί κατά τό Θαβώριον ἐπιφανεῖσα Μωσεῖ καί Ἡλιού καί τοῖς συναναβᾶσιν ἐπί τό ὄρος τῷ Χριστῷ, τήν οἰκείαν ἐκφαίνοντι θεότητα καί βασιλείαν, καί αὗται τοίνυν κτίσματά εἰσιν, εἴπερ ἡ φύσις μόνη (σελ. 594) ἄναρχός ἐστι καί ἀτελεύτητος καί αὕτη μόνη ἐστί τό ἄκτιστον φῶς καί ἡ ἄκτιστος δόξα τοῦ Θεοῦ, καί οὕτω μία ἀκτιστος θεότης ὡς μόνης ἀκτίστου τῆς θείας οὐσίας ὑπαρχούσης.

Ἥ τε γάρ πρόνοια σχέσις ἐστί τοῦ Θεοῦ πρός τά τῆς παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ προμηθείας ἀπολαύοντα καί ἡ θεατική δύναμις πρός τά ὁρώμενα καί ἡ λαμπρότης πρός τά θείως λαμπρυνόμενα˙ ἡ δέ θεία φύσις σχέσις οὐκ ἔστι, πάντῃ πάντων ἀπολελυμένη τε καί ὑπερανιδρυμένη. Καί τῆς μέν θεατικῆς ἐνεργείας τό δημιουργεῖν οὐκ ἔστιν˙ ἐθεᾶτο γάρ τά πάντα ὁ Θεός καί πρό γενέσεως, οὐκ ἐδημιούργει δέ αὐτά καί πρό γενέσεως.