132

knowledge not only a gift of God, but also a perfecting habit of the rational nature, but not a deifying gift, for it is not supernatural, while that one is beyond nature. And all would be, some more and some less, but nevertheless altogether gods, both men and angels; and the demonic race always imperfect gods and demigods. Therefore this is not deification or a habit; for whatever might be the perfecting habit of the rational nature, whether knowledge, or a mixture, or a good disposition of body and soul, coming from without or from within, it would make precisely rational those upon whom it came, but not also gods.

But indeed, as has been shown above, the saints clearly say that this adoption which has proceeded from faith into energy and this deifying gift is enhypostatic; but this man, who alone of all men has supposed the imitation of God to be the divine rule and a deifying gift, insists that it is not enhypostatic; therefore it is different from the deification which was both begotten in (p. 624) and known to the Fathers. And divine Maximos said that this is not only not unhypostatic, but also unbegotten, and not only uncreated, but also uncircumscribable and supertemporal, so as to make those who have been blessed with it uncreated, unoriginate, and uncircumscribable through it, although through their own nature they have come into being from non-being. But this man, “intruding into things which he has not seen,” insists that deification is created and natural and under time, clearly fashioning it from himself, from which it is clear that he is also dragging God down into a creature. For deification according to the Fathers is an essential energy of God; but of whichever essence the essential energies are created, this [essence] also is of necessity created. And one might see this wretched man falling into this absurdity in many ways and often; for he does not blush to declare that all the innate powers and energies of God are created, although we have believed that each of the saints is a temple of the living God because of the indwelling grace. How then is the dwelling place of a creature a temple of God? And how is each of these uncreated through grace, if it is created? And this especially comes to me to wonder, how he himself says that the light that shone on Tabor is called theurgic by the Fathers, and then he himself does not endure to call this a deifying gift. Nevertheless, since the deifying gift of the Spirit is an energy of God, and God has His appellations from His energies, (for His super-essentiality is nameless, if deification existed from virtue and wisdom alone) God would not have been called God as having a deifying energy, with wisdom and virtue making this energy of His manifest, nor would he have been called super-divine, as existing beyond this divinity; for it would have been enough for Him to be called super-wise and super-good and (p. 626) such things. Therefore, the grace and energy of deification is something other than virtue and wisdom.

Having disregarded, then, the revilings of the good Barlaam against us (for they are not directed against us, but against the Fathers; for theirs are the insulted doctrines, or rather, it does not even touch them; for someone spitting, as they say, at heaven, does not make heaven but himself despicable); therefore, considering these abominable blasphemies as nothing, as if he had asked in doubt what deification is, we shall answer this according to the power measured out to us by the Lord. Hearing of a deifying energy of God, O best of men, and a theurgic grace of the Spirit, do not be over-curious, nor seek how this is, or how that is, or how not, and these things, since you are not about to be in God without it, according to those who spoke about it, but hold to the works through which you will attain it; for then you will know it also, as far as is possible; for only he who has learned by experience knows the energies of the Spirit, according to the great Basil. But he who seeks the knowledge before the works, believing those who are experienced, receives some image of the truth, but thinking from himself and having fallen away from the image, then as if he has found something great, he is puffed up and is very much against those who

132

γνῶσιν οὐ μόνον Θεοῦ δῶρο, ἀλλά καί τελειωτικήν τῆς λογικῆς φύσεως ἕξιν, οὐ δῶρον δέ θεοποιόν, οὐ γάρ ὑπερφυές, ἐκείνου ὄντος ὑπέρ φύσιν. Εἶεν δ᾿ ἄν καί πάντες, οἱ μέν μᾶλλον οἱ δ᾿ ἧττον, θεοί δ᾿ ὅμως ἁπαξάπαντες ἄνθρωποι καί ἄγγελοι˙ ἀεί δέ ἀτελεῖς θεοί καί ἡμίθεοι τό δαιμόνιον φῦλον. Οὐκ ἄρα θέωσις ἤ ἕξις αὕτη˙ ἥτις γάρ ποτ᾿ ἄν εἴη τελιωτική τῆς λογικῆς φύσεως ἕξις, εἴτε γνῶσις, εἴτε κρᾶσις, εἴτε εὐφυΐα σώματός τε καί ψυχῆς, θύραθεν ἤ οἴκοθεν προσγινομένη, λογικούς ἀκριβῶς οἷς ἄν ἐπιγένοιτο τελέσειεν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί καί θεούς.

Ἀλλά γάρ, ὅπερ ἀνωτέρω δέδεικται, τήν μέν ἐκ πίστεως εἰς ἐνέργειαν προβᾶσαν υἱοθεσίαν καί τήν θεοποιόν δωρεάν ταύτην οἱ ἅγιοι σαφῶς ἐνυπόστατόν φασιν˙ οὗτος δέ τήν θεομιμησίαν ἥν θεαρχίαν καί θεοποιόν δῶρον μόνος ἁπάντων ὑπενόησεν, οὐκ ἐνυπόστατον εἶναι διισχυρίζεται˙ τοιγαροῦν ἑτέρα ἐστί παρά τήν τοῖς πατράσιν ἐγγεγενημένην τε (σελ. 624) καί ἐγνωσμένην θέωσιν. Μάξιμος δέ ὁ θεῖος οὐκ ἀνυπόστατον μόνον εἶπε ταύτην, ἀλλά καί ἀγένητον, καί οὐκ ἄκτιστον μόνον, ἀλλά καί ἀπερίγραπτον καί ὑπέρχρονον, ὡς καί τούς αὐτῆς εὐμοιρηκότας δι᾿ αὐτήν ἀκτίστους, ἀνάρχους καί ἀπεριγράπτους τελέσαι, καίτοι διά τήν οἰκείαν φύσιν ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων γεγονότας. Οὗτος δέ, «ἅ μή ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύων», κτιστήν καί φυσικήν καί ὑπό χρόνον ἰσχυρίζεται τήν θέωσιν εἶναι, σαφῶς παρ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ δημιουργῶν αὐτήν, ἀφ᾿ ἧς καί τόν Θεόν δῆλός ἐστιν εἰς κτίσμα κατασπῶν. Ἡ μέν γάρ θέωσις κατά τούς πατέρας οὐσιώδης ἐστίν ἐνέργεια Θεοῦ˙ ἧς δέ οὐσίας αἱ οὐσιώδεις ἐνέργειαι κτισταί, κτιστή καί αὕτη ἐξ ἀνάγκης. Ταύτῃ δέ τῇ ἀτοπίᾳ πολυτρόπως ἄν τις ἴδοι καί πολλάκις τόν ταλαίπωρον τοῦτο περιπίπτοντα˙ οὐτ γάρ ἐρυθριᾷ πάσας τάς ἐμφύτους τοῦ Θεοῦ δυνάμεις τε καί ἐνεργείας κτιστάς ἀποφαινόμενος, καίτοι ναόν Θεοῦ ζῶντος τῶν ἁγίων ἕκαστον εἶναι πεπιστεύκαμεν διά τήν ἐνοικοῦσαν χάριν. Πῶς οὖν ναός Θεοῦ τό τοῦ κτίσματος οἰκητήριον; Πῶς δέ τούτων ἕκαστος ἄκτιστος διά τήν χάριν, εἰ κτιστή; Ἐκεῖνο δέ μοι καί λίαν θαυμάζειν ἔπεισι, πῶς καί αὐτός θεουργικόν λέγων ὑπό τῶν πατέρων καλεῖσθαι τό ἐν τῷ Θαβωρίῳ λάμψαν φῶς, εἶτ᾿ αὐτός θεοποιόν δῶρον τοῦτο λέγειν οὐκ ἀνέχεται. Οὐ μήν ἀλλ᾿ ἐπειδή ἡ θεοποιός δωρεά τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐνέργειά ἐστι Θεοῦ, ὁ δέ Θεός ἀπό τῶν ἐνεργειῶν ἔχει τάς ἐπωνυμίας, (ἡ γάρ ὑπερουσιότης ἀνώνυμός ἐστιν αὐτοῦ, εἴπερ ἐξ ἀρετῆς μόνης καί σοφίας ἡ θέωσις ὑπῆρχεν) οὐκ ἄν Θεός ὡς ἔχων θεοποιόν ἐνέργειαν ἐκαλεῖτο ὁ Θεός, τῆς σοφίας καί ἀρετῆς ταύτην αὐτοῦ δήλην ποιούσης τήν ἐνέργειαν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐδ᾿ ἄν ὑπέρθεος ἤκουεν, ὡς ταύτης τῆς θεότητος ἐπέκεινα ὑπάρχων˙ ἀπέχρησε γάρ ἄν αὐτῷ ὑπέρσοφον καί ὑπεράγαθον καί (σελ. 626) τά τοιαῦτα λέγεσθαι. Τοιγαροῦν ἄλλο πρά τήν ἀρετήν καί τήν σοφίαν ἡ χάρις καί ἡ ἐνέργεια τῆς θεώσεώς ἐστι.

Τῶν τοῦ καλοῦ τοίνυν Βαρλαάμ εἰς ἡμᾶς λοιδοριῶν ἀλογήσαντες (οὐ γάρ εἰς ἡμᾶς, ἀλλ᾿ εἰς τούς πατέρας ἀναφέρονται˙ τούτων γάρ εἰσι τά ὑβρισμένα δόγματα, μᾶλλον δέ οὐδέ ἐκεῖνων ἅπτεται˙ πτύων γάρ τις, ὅ φασιν, εἰς οὐρανόν, οὐ τόν οὐρανόν ἀλλ᾿ ἑαυτόν ποιεῖ κατάπτυστον)˙ οὐκοῦν ἡμεῖς παρ᾿ οὐδέν τάς βδελυράς ταύτας βλασφημίας ἡγησάμενοι, ὡσανεί διαπορητικῶς ἤρετο, τί ποτ᾿ ἄρα θέωσίς ἐστιν, ἀποκρινούμεθα πρός τοῦτο κατά τήν ἐπιμετρηθεῖσαν ἡμῖν παρά Κυρίου δύναμιν. Ἐνέργειαν Θεοῦ θεοποιόν, ὦ βέλτιστε, ἀκούων καί Πνεύματος χάριν θεουργόν, μή πολυπραγμόνει, μηδέ ζήτει, πῶς μέν τοῦτο, πῶς δ᾿ ἐκεῖνο, πῶς δέ μή, καί ταῦτα ταύτης ἄνευ μή γενήσεσθαι μέλλων ἐν Θεῷ, κατά τούς περί αὐτῆς εἰπόντας, ἀλλά τῶν ἔργων ἔχου δι᾿ ὧν ἐκείνης τεύξῃ˙ τότε γάρ καί ταύτην εἴσῃ κατά τό ἐγχωροῦν˙ μόνος γάρ ὁ πείρᾳ μαθών οἶδε τάς ἐνεργείας τοῦ Πνεύματος, κατά τόν μέγαν Βασίλειον. Ὁ δέ πρό τῶν ἔργων τήν εἴδησιν ζητῶν, τοῖς πεπειραμένοις μέν πιστεύων, λαμ βάνει τι τῆς ἀληθείας ἴνδαλμα, παρ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ δέ διανοούμενος καί τοῦ ἰνδάλματος διαπεσών, εἶθ᾿ ὡς εὑρηκώς μέγα φυσᾶται καί πολύς κατά τῶν