I made an AI translation of Pope Hormisdas' letters he made or received found in PL 63! However, there are so many letters, it would be a burden to post here. I will look for options on how to post.
The Papal letters are overwhelming about concerned with the Acacian schism where Constantinople fell into heresy, denying Chalcedon. Many of the correspondences are with the Emperor Justin, and the future emperor Justinian who was still on good terms with the papacy!
This post serves no apologetics purposes, I was looking for something else completely and found nothing, so here is the accidental product of my futile labor, I did an AI translation of PG 151:885-900 on the EO theology Gregory Palamas, the beginning and ends are missing, maybe someday I will do the rest, though that is unlikely. Some of his discourse is overtly antiCatholic but he is debating a contemporary of his. I also have the OCR Greek text I can post possibly in the future.
"To the Third and Fourth Discourse of the Same Gregory Concerning Divine Participation, Energy, and Grace, a Sixth Refutative Discourse."
.....Then, leaving aside, as it were, the entire sequence and connection of the sacred words, he attacks the theology of the Holy Spirit as taught by the Church’s sacred teacher, Anastasius, I say, the wise, and through him, the sacred synodal tome, slandering both him and it, and doing so far worse and more absurdly than he had already done against the great Cyril. For the synodal tome, presenting the divine Anastasius along with the sacred theology of the Spirit, states as follows: It agrees with what the divine Paul said about the Spirit; for he called those who have believed temples of God, having received the indwelling grace of the Spirit: “For do you not know that you are a temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you?” And again, “Do you not know that your bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God?” These words clearly teach that the all-holy Spirit is of the divine nature; for if those who have believed are called temples of God because they have received the grace of the Spirit, then the Holy Spirit is from God. For having the grace of the Spirit dwelling within them, they are called temples of God. Thus, with the teacher having spoken these things about the divine Spirit, this philosopher, puffed up with propositions, middle terms, conclusions, and the vanity of human reasoning and syllogisms, all but sacrificing to the refuted wisdom of the outsiders, frequently reproaching the simplicity and ignorance of those who converse with the wisdom of the Gospel and the true and primary wisdom, shows himself to be ignorant, unwise, and uneducated in both divine and human wisdom, as if his brain were shaken and he neither knows what he says nor what he affirms. For having completely misunderstood the teacher’s aim, which above all else should be considered according to the theologians, especially by one who reads the divine Scriptures and their interpreters and theologians, or rather, having concealed that sacred teacher of the Church, whether willingly through great malice and perversity, or through excessive ignorance of the sacred words, he, being contentious, utterly ignorant, and uninitiated in divine matters, seizes the teacher’s theology, stripping away the apostolic saying, as we just noted above, and as the teacher himself had used it, but distorted and incomplete. Attributing it to the synod and the tome with great shamelessness, as if it were poorly stated by them, he then takes the subsequent interpretation and construction of the argument, and the conclusion from the teacher, as if it were a sharpened sword, as if it were ours and of our reasoning, as he thought, using it against us. Through his shameless slander against us, he clearly speaks and writes against the sacred theology of the teacher, things of which only he who speaks and writes is worthy. Perhaps only the devil, along with him, would dare to speak against the Church of Christ. What, then, does he say? For it is just to mention some of these things as an example, since it is not possible to cover them all.
The hearer Agathangelos reports a few of the holy sayings, obviously from those stated in the tome; then, connecting the Apostle’s words very faultily, as if they were spoken by the synod, as I already mentioned, he adds those things. These, he says, having brought the divine sayings, the champion of piety, the divine Gregory, I say, left the rest uninterpreted, but for the latter saying of the Apostle, he provided a brief interpretation, yet proceeded again to other things in the same way. And this is: For if those who have believed are called temples of God because they have received the grace of the Spirit, then the Holy Spirit is from God; for having the grace of the Spirit dwelling within them, they are called temples of God. Having presented these as if they were ours through his own Agathangelos, listen now to how he flows sharply and groundlessly against us, as if driving the theology of the saints as a common calamity of the Church through us, doing so most shamefully with long-winded slander and calumny, as is fitting for him. For what, he says, do you see, O friend, how he is always caught circling around the same things, publicly displaying his ignorance without much shame? For with a malicious soul, neither can virtue ever be taught, nor can it ever be captured by will. And learning and shame are parts of virtue. These have neither entered his malicious soul nor ever will. And in between, prattling and insulting with things far worse and more absurd than these, he adds: Thus, it often occurred to me to say that if there were only ten heresiarchs from the beginning of time, I would not consider him one of the ten, but nine of the ten. Now, with so many and countless ones, I do not consider him one of them, nor even among the many, but rather surpassing all of them, or rather, not surpassing one, but surpassing all entirely. For having gathered the impiety of all, he has not only surpassed all in ignorance and shamelessness but also those he blasphemes.
These things, I think, no one among all people, O Gregoras, would have so easily devised or, having devised, would not have hesitated to immediately put into words and writings with such zeal, as you have done against yourself and your own head, as if celebrating. For if you say and write all these things against us, as if we misinterpret the divine Scriptures and openly blaspheme against God and His theologians, it has been shown that what we say is not our own misinterpretation and blasphemy, as you wrongly supposed, but the divinely fitting interpretation and theology of the Church’s divine teachers. How is it not clear, as they say, even to a blind man, that the revered tome and the synod that issued it strongly agree with the theology of the saints, nobly contending against heresies with them, and indeed are glorified with them, who worthily theologize and glorify God? For, as He says, “Those who glorify Me, I will glorify.” But you, aligning with those who fight against them and God, have made yourself one with their condemnation and lot, or rather, you alone have drawn upon your own head the condemnation of all heresiarchs together. For your own votes and decisions say this, and in addition, what you just said against us, that with a malicious soul, neither can virtue ever be taught nor captured by will, and that learning and shame, being parts of virtue, have not entered your malicious soul. For these things are yours and fittingly belong to your catalog of praises and crown of insult, which you have justly woven for yourself and your own head, not for those you wrongly spoke against. For you yourself, not another, have driven away all practice and knowledge of sacred words from the threshold of your soul, as I already mentioned, casting aside the shame proper to Christians. With such shamelessness, you have attacked the great and primary theology, the sacred and divinely inspired Scriptures, and indeed the sacred words of the teachers, as if by this alone you have declared yourself a Cynic, or rather, far worse than them in shamelessness. For it is not about the same things, but we must return the discourse to those matters again.
The divine Anastasius, considering the theology of the divinity of the Spirit and intending to show the Paraclete as one God, consubstantial and coessential with the Father and the Son, naturally uses many other arguments to support his discourse, including those previously said to the Corinthians by the wise Paul: “For do you not know,” he says, “that you are a temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you?” And again: “Do you not know that your bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God?” From this, the teacher, as if receiving a given premise, not humanly like Gregoras or some other vain sophist of his kind, but theologically and divinely fitting, reasons and excellently concludes his aim and the truth. For these things, he says, clearly teach that the all-holy Spirit is of the divine nature. For if those who have believed are called temples of God because they have received the grace of the Spirit, then the Holy Spirit is from God; for having the grace of the Spirit dwelling within them, they are called temples of God. For the teacher, taking both premises from the oracles, concludes that the Holy Spirit is God, which was his aim to show. The great Basil says the same about these matters, proving that the Spirit is God because the divine Paul taught that those who have it dwelling within them are temples of God. Our sacred synod of the Fathers, since its aim was to show that what the deified partake of is not the divine essence—for how could it be, unless we are to proclaim all as sons of God by nature and Christs?—but His natural grace and deifying energy, cited 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, he says, temples of God they are called, having the grace of the Spirit dwelling within. Why, then, O philosopher, do you say that the Fathers spoke in these matters without reasoning, artlessly, and ignorantly, you who wrongly worship syllogisms instead of the Gospel, not even using these with the proper reason? For they, taking the premises, the middle and common term, about which you proudly teach as if it were some great and lofty thing, the conclusion, and simply all together, from that teacher of the Church, have nothing of their own added to those sacred sayings, but bring the teacher’s theology bare as a witness to the truth of piety. For I say these things because of you and your prattling and vain speech, presuming to think you say great things to your companions and associates; for such things are far from the divine court, the apostolic, and the patristic assembly, which the sixth ecumenical synod, having presided, immediately expelled from the divine assembly as soon as they appeared, saying they have nothing in common with Aristotelian, evangelical, and apostolic words. And rightly so, for, as it says, there is no fellowship between light and darkness, nor agreement between Christ and Belial. But what do you say to these things? To whom do you attach your slander, long-winded insult, blasphemous calumny, and untimely and insatiable attack? To Anastasius, that is, the teacher of the Church, and the oracles he uses to theologize about the divine Spirit, or to the revered tome and the Fathers who issued it? Or to both him and them together? Rather, using them as a mask, as if on some stage or drama, you dare to attach blasphemy and insult to all of them; for their words are all theirs, not these, as has been shown. But in truth, your blasphemy is neither against these nor those. For it is easier to shoot down and strike the sky or the sun of this day than to make the heralds of truth, both these and those, accountable for your blasphemies, even if you burst saying and writing such things, even if you multiply tenfold your decalogue from the evil one, twice, thrice, and many times. For hear what the philosopher writes and blasphemes against the saints and, I say, the God of the saints Himself. For, he says, claiming to show an uncreated energy, partaken and divided among creatures, and not at all the divine essence as the only uncreated, he clearly declared the Holy Spirit without any concealment. But this is entirely the opposite of what he intended to abolish.
In three absurdities, Gregory falls in these brief steps, openly opposing apostolic and patristic theology. For he denies the divine energy, and because of this, he claims that the divine essence is merely uncreated, so that he might drag the natural power of God down to the level of creatures and assert that the divine essence is participable. This is something that only Barlaam and Akindynos, his mystagogues, first and alone dared to say, having been initiated by Satan. For almost none of the ancient heretics, despite the many and varied heresies that have arisen, has ever been found to have explicitly stated this. And thirdly, in addition to these, he denies that divine participation occurs through the Holy Spirit—that is, through His natural gift and grace—rejecting all holy Scripture and divine theology that clearly proclaim this, and teaching that the Fathers who follow them go in the opposite direction. It is as if someone, he says, intending to travel to Susa or Ecbatana, instead heads toward the laws of the Britons.
But more on this later, O philosopher. For now, speak and add to it, and set forth the subsequent blasphemies and distortions of theological words, so that all those who have spoken evil may themselves bring about their own downfall and resolution. For, he says, to make the last point the starting point, both because this is more striking to the ear than what was previously stated, and because while the other points pass by unexplained, this one, though brief, provides some interpretation. For he cites the divine Apostle saying, “Do you not know that your bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God?” (1 Corinthians 6:19). And in interpreting this, he employs a kind of hypothetical syllogism—or rather, he does not employ it, but wishes to do so, yet fails. For he neither hits the mark nor knows what a syllogism is, nor what a term, a premise, or a conclusion is, nor how these must relate to one another according to the rules of logic. It goes like this: If those who have believed are a temple of God because they have received the grace of the Spirit, then the Holy Spirit is from God. For, having the grace of the Spirit dwelling within them, they are called temples of God.
But these things, as if they were ours, he takes from the saints against us, slandering us in the most shameful and audacious way, and brazenly and boldly insulting the theology of the saints. Not only does he do this with the points mentioned, but also with things far more absurd and worse, as I have already said, which the discourse has passed over to avoid the filth and frequent disgust of his words. Let us now turn the discussion to his theology—or rather, to his audacious blasphemy against the divine—and so that the novelties of his heresy may be more clearly exposed once again.
I do not know, he says, whether I should say his ignorance is the cause of his impiety, or his impiety the cause of his ignorance, or both of both. For, passing over the rest, he himself, from his own initiative, moved by I know not what, has made it clear and evident from the scriptural testimonies he brought forth in his defense—so clear that even the most foolish could perceive it without any proof—that the very essence of the divine Spirit is what is said to dwell ineffably in those worthy among men, and for this reason, they are called temples of God. Yet he seems insensible even to what he himself appears to propose.
For before this, as you yourself know better, having brought these things to us, he cites the great Athanasius saying that the Spirit is within us, and the Word who grants this is within us, and the Father is in the Word. And thus it is said, “We will come, I and the Father, and make our abode with him” (John 14:23). From this, it becomes even clearer that the very essence of the Trinity dwells in those who are worthy and makes its abode among men. And at the same time, the accursed words of this man, claiming that there are energies distinct from the divine essence—not only of the Holy Spirit but also of the Father and the Son—are refuted.
For do you not see that the testimony of the saint declares that the essence of the holy Trinity dwells in those who are worthy, while he, not understanding, falls back into his habitual malice, dragging the saint’s meaning into his own insubstantial and non-existent energies? And this utterly shameless man is not restrained but, taking the plural form of the saint’s words as referring to the three hypostases, he seeks to distort it into a declaration of infinite, insubstantial, and non-existent energies and divinities. In his perverse mind and tongue, he openly slanders the great Dionysius, bringing him forward as a witness to his own madness, as you have heard briefly above. For Dionysius, he says, speaking of the illuminations in the plural, showed that they are not the essence of God. For the essence is never expressed in the plural. Calling them illuminations, he says, and describing them as unoriginate and unending, he showed them to be divine and uncreated energies.
---
Has anyone, after the incarnate presence of Christ, even among the many who have blasphemed in various ways and at different times against the majesty of the divinity and its ineffable economy, as has been said, ever so audaciously and without any pretense uttered such blasphemy as this wretched and utterly reckless man? Not only does he think this, but he also proclaims it in writings and words, and so persistently? I think not—unless one refers again to Barlaam and Akindynos, the originators of this new heresy and, indeed, the fathers of this man. Tell us, O philosopher, from what sources and principles have you philosophized this empty theology—or rather, blasphemy? For the interpreters and teachers of sacred theology, upon whom the Fathers of the synod relied when they issued their decree, universally declare: “It is not permitted to say or think anything about the superessential and hidden divinity beyond what has been divinely revealed to us through the sacred oracles.” For the superessential knowledge of this divinity, which transcends reason, mind, and essence, must be entrusted to its own superessential ignorance. And again: “Concerning this superessential and hidden divinity, as has been said, it is not permitted to say or think anything beyond what has been divinely revealed to us through the sacred oracles.” For, as it has graciously delivered concerning itself in the oracles, its knowledge and contemplation, whatever it may be, are inaccessible to all beings, as it is superessentially exalted above all.
These are their teachings, and others like them—for now is not the time to list them all in sequence. But where did you take your ideas from? For they, knowing God as both expressible and inexpressible, known and unknown, participable and imparticipable, distinguish some things as belonging to Him in Himself and others as pertaining to what is around Him. As they say, they now explicitly teach that the worthy become partakers of God through the natural grace and gift of the Spirit, as you have heard the holy Athanasius, explaining the apostolic saying, state once and twice shortly before: just as they also say that all things exist within God, according to His creative and providential principles. For there is nothing at all outside His creative and providential energy and power, whether in heaven or on earth. And when they say that all things—whether the living and lifeless things created by Him or those worthy of His adoption and deifying indwelling—simply partake of God, they teach us to understand what they themselves explain elsewhere, as has been said: that those who partake of His natural gift and grace become, according to them, divinely radiant by grace, which is what they mean when they say that they are called gods and holy ones by their nearness and likeness to the only Holy One and God by nature. But all things partake of God’s voluntary and creative power as its works and products, according to what the theological Fathers have already stated, and, moreover, they are sustained in existence by His providence according to the principles by which they were created.
But how, then, do you say that the very essence of the holy Trinity dwells in the worthy? And what is this participation in God, and of what kind? For it is neither creative nor providential. First, because you do not accept that there is a natural and divinely fitting energy of God; and if, according to you, this does not exist, then God neither acts nor creates. For, as the wise Maximus says, “Just as there can be no existence without being, so there can be no action without energy.” Secondly, because not only the worthy of God partake of His creative and providential power and energy, nor even only the unworthy, but simply all beings. For “He spoke, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created” (Psalm 33:9). And all things partake of providence, as the holy Dionysius says, proceeding from the all-causing divinity. But neither is participation in His essence itself ever possible, he says. For the essence is itself, even if it is contemplated as what it is—namely, that we call one thing essence and another hypostasis—but it does not exist apart from its hypostases. For, as the theological Fathers say, the hypostasis is nothing other than essence with its hypostatic properties. Therefore, it remains that, according to you, the essence of the Trinity dwells in the worthy only in terms of its hypostatic properties. For it is in this sense that the Trinity is the Trinity. If, then, the three divine hypostases, as you say, dwell in each of the worthy of God, then each of those deified would, according to you, have more than the divine temple—namely, the one in whom the Only-Begotten Son of God dwelt beyond reason for our sake—since the Son had only one of the Trinity united in Himself by hypostasis. For, as the holy Dionysius says, neither the Father nor the Spirit communed with Him in any way, except perhaps in His benevolent and philanthropic will and in all His transcendent and divine activity. Yet each of the God-bearing ones, according to you, bears not only the Son of God but also the Father and the Spirit essentially united within themselves. What could equal this mythology and monstrosity—or rather, this new and absurd fight against God?
For the temple assumed from the all-holy Virgin, united hypostatically to the Only-Begotten Son of God, is both the Son of God and Christ. For the Only-Begotten Son of God, even after the incarnation, is the same perfect God and perfect man, anointed not by energy, as the other anointed ones, as the Theologian Gregory says, but by the presence of the Anointer in His entirety. And He adopts the faithful by grace through the Spirit to Himself, to the Father, and to the Spirit, making them other anointed ones in Himself, according to the divine Apostle. For this is the essence of the economy for our sake. But if this is not so according to sacred theology and mystagogy, but the tri-hypostatic divinity dwells in each of the worthy either by essence or by hypostases, as you say, then none of them is naturally a son of God. For the temple, united hypostatically only to the Son of God, did not have only the hypostasis of the Son in itself, but, according to you, all three hypostases together. And how, or whose Son, would he be? Moreover, since there is one natural Son, the Only-Begotten, neither could he become a son by grace. For to whom would he be adopted, being, according to you, united to the Trinity by its hypostases? Nor would such a one be Christ. For the assumed temple, even if by the presence of the entire Anointer, is not anointed by energy like the other holy anointed ones, nor does he possess all the powers and energies of the Spirit in himself, but he is not united hypostatically to the Spirit. For otherwise, Christ would also be the Holy Spirit by hypostatic union with it, just as He is truly the Son through such a union. But He is not. For there is one Holy Spirit, just as there is one Only-Begotten Son of God, even after the incarnation—unless someone looks to the Sabellian confusion, and how could one take pleasure in saying so? But one who, according to you, has the Trinity dwelling essentially in their body would be united hypostatically to the Spirit, were it not that, according to you, they are also united to the paternal and filial hypostases. Since, as you say, they are similarly united to these, they would no more be the Spirit than the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Nor, according to you, would such a one be Christ by grace, not only because you deny such a divinely fitting grace, which is the cause of all this controversy, but also because one united hypostatically to the Spirit, according to you, cannot partake of the Spirit’s grace.
But this absurd heresy—or rather, these heresies—cannot be purely traced to any of the ancient heresies, so far does it surpass them all in its evil. Perhaps one might compare it to the Massalians, for it somewhat resembles them. For they, too, proposed these same things as you, saying that the essence of God dwells in those purified among them and distorting that dominical saying in the Gospels, “I and the Father will come and make our abode with him” (John 14:23). The holy synod of the orthodox, convened against them, declared: “There is a visitation of the Paraclete, and God dwells in the worthy, but not as the divinity has by nature.” I am at a loss as to how this natural indwelling of the three divine hypostases in the worthy, according to Gregory’s monstrosity, could occur, or how those who partake would partake of the very essence of God. For to partake is to take a part of the whole, as the very term “participation” indicates. Thus, the divine Luke, in recounting the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles in the Acts, says, “And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed” (Acts 2:3). The divine Chrysostom, interpreting this, says: “He rightly said ‘distributed.’ For they were from one root, so that you may know it is an energy sent from the Paraclete.” And the great Paul, enumerating the various gifts of the divine Spirit, says: “But all these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as He wills” (1 Corinthians 12:11). But the essence and its divine hypostases are indivisible. Therefore, there can never be participation in them, except through their natural energies. Hence, the divine Chrysostom, explaining that evangelical saying, “For God does not give the Spirit by measure” (John 3:34), says: “We all,” speaking of the apostles, “have received the energy of the Spirit by measure (for here ‘Spirit’ means the energy; for this is what is distributed). But He has the entire energy without measure.” If His energy is without measure, how much more His essence? Nor does the union of hypostases occur in such a way that one hypostasis, joined to another, results in a single hypostasis from both. For this union does not belong to the Church of Christ but rather to Nestorius, as I have already said, who wickedly introduced a duality of sons. Indeed, Nestorius, raving about such unions and saying that the hypostases are united by relation, did not say that a single hypostasis results from both, divine and human, but spoke of two hypostases, introducing a duality of sons and wickedly dividing the one and Only-Begotten Son of God, even after the incarnation, into two. But this Gregory, attributing the indwelling of the divine Trinity to each of the worthy, alone would say what follows from this and how far he surpasses even Nestorius’ nonsense in this evil. Hence, the Church of Christ, teaching that the union of Christ’s two natures occurred hypostatically without confusion, does not say that the divine hypostasis of the Only-Begotten dwells in the human hypostasis—for then there would necessarily be two hypostases and two sons. Let the Nestorian error perish, they say, along with those who think like him. Rather, the Only-Begotten Son of God, having assumed a perfect human nature in His own hypostasis, has shown one hypostasis of both His natures, divine and human, and thus, even after the ineffable union, the one Only-Begotten Son of God is known and worshipped rightly and believed in two perfect natures, divine and human.
But Gregory, as if asleep and snoring in response to all this, or drunk without wine, passes over the divine Scripture’s numerous and varied statements about divine participation and the energies of the saints, which lie before his very eyes, as if they were silent or nonexistent. Instead, he maliciously tears out parts of their theology and then distorts and misapplies them, misinterpreting that dominical saying in the Gospels, “I and the Father will come and make our abode with him” (John 14:23), in the manner of the Massalians. From this, he thinks he deduces that the essence of God is participable, showing no reverence for the decision of the holy synod against them, which stands between the synodal decree and the theological statements.
But it would be good for us to bring forth again the words of the holy Fathers concerning divine participation and the theology from the synodal decree, which Gregory wickedly concealed. And first of all, let the great Athanasius be introduced into the discussion to teach about these matters, since it is shown that Gregory, more than others, has torn apart and plundered his words from the synodal decree. But before setting forth those sayings of the Theologian as they stand, let us first bring into the open Gregory’s sacrilege against his words, so that it may become clear to all how far he has strayed from the truth. He says to his listener Agathangelos, as you yourself know better, having brought these things to us: “The great Athanasius says that the Spirit is in us, and the Word who grants this is in us, and the Father is in the Word, and thus it is said, ‘We will come, I and the Father, and make our abode with him.’” And this the philosopher says unphilosophically and most shamefully, virtually eliminating the teacher’s entire sacred theology concerning the divine Spirit, bringing it forth against us as if we were misusing it contrary to the Theologian’s intent. He cuts out a tiny portion of the whole discourse for himself, namely that which was stolen by the Massalians from the divine oracles, which sufficed at the time for the synod’s condemnation of them: “God dwells in the worthy,” as all the Fathers say, “but not as the divinity has by nature.” But let the decree again speak and expound its own contents—or rather, those of the theological Fathers, securely and without adulteration.
The great Athanasius, in his letter to Serapion, says: “All that belongs to the Father belongs to the Son. Therefore, the gifts given by the Son in the Spirit are the Father’s gifts, and when the Spirit is in us, the Word who grants this is in us, and the Father is in the Word. And thus it is said, ‘We will come, I and the Father, and make our abode with him,’ as has been stated. For where the light is, there is the radiance, and where the radiance is, there is its energy and essential grace.”
And teaching this again, Paul wrote in his second letter to the Corinthians, saying: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:14). For the grace and gift given are given in the Trinity, from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. For just as the grace given is from the Father through the Son, so the fellowship of the gift cannot occur in us except in the Holy Spirit. For by partaking of this, we have the love of the Father, the grace of the Son, and the fellowship of the Spirit itself. Thus, a single energy of the Trinity is shown from these.
What do you say to this, O Gregory? Who is it that cuts and distorts the divine Scriptures? For you constantly call the writings of the theologians divine Scriptures, not even knowing the term correctly, nor understanding what the divine Scriptures are—those of the Old and New Testaments—and what are the words, explanations, and interpretations of the teachers and theologians, which are not divine Scriptures. Who is it that distorts and erases these, and not simply, but when you attempt to oppose and contradict the Church of Christ through them? Who is the absurd and reckless blasphemer and sacrilegious one, whom you have often falsely accused us of being? Is it the decree, the synod, and its holy protector Gregory, or you? It is clear that it is you, and you cannot escape or deny it, with the refutations coming so brilliantly against you from your own words. And I am astonished besides, wondering what reasoning Gregory used to so wickedly misuse this novelty against the teacher’s words. For since he planned to oppose all those main points, taking them for himself from the synodal decree, he should have addressed them all equally, resolving each one thoroughly with the supports they rely on, rather than passing over most in silence, cutting out certain parts of the whole, making them his own work, and thus falsely labeling his words as refutations of the decree. For one who holds to the intent and argument of the matters at hand in such disputes, resolving objections for the interlocutor and defending soundly and according to divine laws against the scriptural and theological testimonies brought forth by the other, even if they pass over most of the opponent’s points, still preserves the intent and premise, as I said, and does no harm to the whole. For it is as if they extend their defense to all those points, and through what is said, they no less effectively address what was omitted due to length. This is customary among the theological Fathers in their refutations from ancient times, and we have followed the same teachers in the same way, for it is not permitted otherwise. But one who speaks neither to the intent nor the argument directly, saying nothing sound, nor resolving objections in any way, and—worse and most absurd of all—passing over the common axioms of the faith and their interpreters and theologians, so many and so great, some in silence, others by slander, and boldly washing them away with insults, as if it were the decree and us, giving most to oblivion’s waves, stealing small parts of the whole and thinking through them to wickedly attack the whole—these are the things Gregory frequently dares in his words. What could one say of such a man that would be worthy of his folly and audacity? I mean both the other things and the fact that he hoped to escape notice while so openly committing outrages against divine things.
Come then, Gregory, teach us your intent and your arguments yourself. For we cannot accurately discern them on our own. Did you think those words were spoken for your sake and your glory, or against us and the synodal decree, or against none of us theologians, but simply and randomly cast out by us? If the first, it would be novel and fall into a riddle, if you, stirring everything up, as is said, composing so many books against us, stirring up all Greek words, myths, and proverbs, misinterpreting nearly all sacred sayings, fabricating things against us that do not exist, and passing over the many and great words of the theologians that are against us, as if deliberately contradicting yourself and ensuring your own defeat. But if you thought they were against us and the truth, then deemed it necessary to hide them out of shame, giving your argument to silence and darkness, how were you not more ashamed, attempting the impossible? For “the light shines in the darkness,” as divine oracles say, and “the word of God is not bound” (2 Timothy 2:9). Rather, you should have done one of two things: either approach the Church and subscribe to its decree, having learned the truth as you ought, and thus you would have done the work of a pious and philosophical man—for the words are for God and His truth—or at least remain silent, withdraw, and sink away, not grumbling. Thus, you would at least be consistent with yourself. But if the third, you still should not have torn apart or completely hidden the words of the teachers. You should have brought them forth against us and proclaimed them, preserving their honor and what is due to them, and shaming those who use them randomly and contrary to their intent, thus no less securing victory for yourself from this. But now, your words are nonsense and a great laughingstock, all openly vain, as they say, and nothing sound.
But let us consider, if it seems good, the aforementioned words of the great Athanasius concerning the divine Spirit and divine participation, and comparing what we and the philosopher have set forth, let us examine both the difference and the similarity. Since God is partaken of, and the Spirit dwells in the worthy according to the sacred Scriptures and the explanations and theologies of the teachers—and even Gregory himself, though not rightly, seems to somehow confess this—we say that this participation in God and this ineffable indwelling occur not by essence but by natural energy and grace. For this is what all Scripture and inspired teaching intend and proclaim, and the other is not permitted at all. But Gregory says it is not by energy or grace at all. For, according to him, there is no natural and uncreated thing around God—neither power, nor energy, nor grace—but all these are names spoken of the divine essence, and there is only the essence. Therefore, he says that the very essence of the divine Trinity dwells in the worthy, and this is what they partake of, not something else. Let us, then, bring forth the great Athanasius, as I have already said, and examine our position in him; for he will judge well for both sides. And first, let us consider the intent and purpose of his discourse. For his purpose in the letter to Serapion, concerning the divine Spirit, is to show that it is consubstantial, co-powerful, and, if I may say, co-divine with the Father and the Son. He demonstrates this, reasoning sacredly from both the sacred experience of divine realities granted to him and the apostolic theology, that the divine gifts given to the worthy in the holy Trinity are given from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. Those who give the same things from themselves have the same power and energy. Therefore, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, giving the same divine gifts, have one and the same energy. From this, the consubstantiality and co-divinity of the divine Trinity are immediately demonstrated, based on the natural and theological axiom that those who share the same energy and power are of the same essence, just as, conversely, those not of the same energy are not of the same essence. This is most beautifully philosophized by him and the other theological Fathers, and also by the wise Basil. Where, then, O philosopher, does the great Athanasius say that the very essence of the divine Spirit, the very essence of the holy Trinity, dwells in the worthy, as you claim? For the gift, the grace, and the love—which we speak of above, below, and simply everywhere in the discourse—he mentions, but where the essence? Surely nowhere. Show it yourself, and we will be silent. Not only did the teacher completely pass over this, as it is not even to be considered, but he also interprets that divine oracle, “I and the Father will come and make our abode with him,” to show how it must be understood, lest anyone suppose, as you do, that God is partaken of by essence, but rather by grace and gift, as he himself indicated. And so, that theological passage, from the very beginning, says: “All that belongs to the Father belongs to the Son. Therefore, the gifts given by the Son in the Spirit are the Father’s gifts; and when the Spirit is in us, the Word who grants this is in us. And thus it is said, ‘We will come, I and the Father, and make our abode with him,’ as has been stated.”
What do you say these are, O philosopher? That the gifts of the Father, given by the Son in the Spirit, are the gifts of the Spirit; and when the Spirit is in us, the Word who grants this is in us. And thus it is said, “We will come, I and the Father, and make our abode with him,” as has been stated. These are not creatures, for how could they be? For when these occur in us, this theologian says the Holy Spirit is in us, and in the Spirit, the Son with the Father. Likewise, the divine Cyril, responding to Hermias, who asked how the indwelling of the Father and the Son in us should be understood and accomplished, being one and not different, says: “There is nothing difficult or unattainable in this. For how else could it be, except through the Holy Spirit filling us with divine gifts through itself and making us partakers of the ineffable nature?” And in his Thesaurus, the same Cyril says: “But if the Holy Spirit were truly a creature, according to the madness of the heretics, how could it possess the entire energy of God? For no one, I think, would so far cry out against right thinking as to dare even to say that the divine essence is ministered through some external instruments brought into being for the energy that naturally passes from it to those suitable to receive it.”....
