Against Calling the Deifying Energy a Created Godhead

¹ Upon these things, since those who contradict the [metropolitan] of Thessalonica say that this gift of the Spirit and energy—namely the deification, according to which the saints are deified, addressed as “Godhead” by the saints—is a created godhead, constructing this from the fact that the great Dionysius called God its “subsistor,” and called it an “imitation,” and a “relation of those who partake,” the sacred synod declared that they speak impiously. Nevertheless, this too being inquired by the divine synod—whether any of the saints said that deification is uncreated, and whether “relation” and “imitation” and “gave subsistence” are said also of uncreated things—there were brought forward sayings of the saints not always shown to be said of created things. For the great Basil, in the Antirrhetics, says: “He who begot the drop of dew did not give subsistence to the drops and to the Son in like manner.” And in the first book of the Hexaemeron: “That it might be shown,” he says, “that the world is an artful construction, set forth for all unto contemplation, so that through it the wisdom of its Maker might be known, the wise Moses used no other word concerning it, but said, ‘In the beginning he made’—not ‘he energized,’ nor ‘he gave subsistence,’ but ‘he made’; inasmuch as many of those who imagined the world to co-exist from eternity with God conceded that it was not begotten by him.” And it was demonstrated together from this that both “to energize” and “to be energized” can be said not only of created things, but also of eternal and uncreated things; since the contentious, hearing grace “energized,” suppose it forthwith to be created. For the great Gregory in theology says: “Let it be also energies, if this seems good; not even thus

² shall you overthrow us; rather, this very thing would be the consubstantial that has energized.” And the divine Gregory of Nyssa: “We cannot name three Gods,” he says, “those who energize the divine and overseeing energy conjointly and indistinguishably from one another, upon us and upon all creation.” And concerning the “imitation” the [metropolitan] of Thessalonica said that the great Dionysius added to the “imitation” the “inimitable”; so that the deifying gift is no more an imitation than an inimitability. Gregory the Theologian also says that the Son is an imitation of the Father, writing in the second of the discourses On the Son: “Image of the Father as consubstantial, and because this one is from that, and not that Father from this. For this is the nature of an image, to be an imitation of the archetype, and of that whereof it is called.” So that the “imitation” does not hinder the deification from being uncreated. And the providence of God toward the things provided for is a “relation”; and his foreknowledge toward the things foreknown; and the predeterminations from eternity in God, toward the things predetermined. But to each of these the being a “relation” is no hindrance to its being uncreated. So that neither is the deifying gift of the Spirit—deification itself—created, because it is a relation toward the deified. For that it is uncreated, the divine Maximus will also clearly and concisely present, writing: “The divine grace, even if it gives enjoyment to those who partake by grace, yet gives no comprehension. For it remains, even by the participation of those who enjoy it, incomprehensible, since by nature it has infinity, as being unbegotten.” And again: “This is the Gospel of God, an embassy of God to men, and of the Son made flesh, granting as a reward to those who obey him unbegotten deification.”