XIV. . . . . [Orthodox] To proceed from the creations to the essence of God, and to perceive the uncreated essence from the visible creatures, is part of the misleading doctrine of Eunomius. Hence, both things necessarily have as a result that there is a diversity (of divinities) both by concluding impiously (in your fashion) (that there is one divinity) and by atheistically cutting up the one divinity of God. Therefore, the divine bishop of Nyssa says: “The essentially invisible God becomes visible by His energies. He is not visible in His essence, but in some of His characteristics.” [De Beatitudinibus 4] “None of the divine characteristics is acquired, even if they are not His essence.” [Cf. Cyril of Alexandria De adoratione in spiritu et veritate 9] In his books against Eunomius, the great Basil runs completely counter to you who hold to the doctrine of Barlaam; setting forth Eunomius’ written doctrines, who says: “By seeing the created things, a person can be brought from them to the essences, discovering the Son as a creature of the unborn and the Spirit as a creature of the only begotten Son,” he says: “I do not see how it is possible to arrive by reasoning to the essences from the created things; for the created things show His power and wisdom and craft, but not the essence itself. Nor do they necessarily demonstrate all the power itself of the Creator, because it is possible that the craftsman does not put all his strength into his energies, but often uses the weaker energies in the works of his craft. And even if he would put all his power into his work, even so it would be possible to measure his strength in his works but not to understand what his essence is.” [Against Eunomius 2] That is exactly what the divine Paul says: “Even since the creation of the world His eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things He has made.” [Romans 1:20] . . . .
XVI. . . . . O[rthodox]. Obviously, my friend, the uncreated essence and the uncreated energy are inseparable from each other. For neither of them is ever seen separate from the other. And so there is in essence and energy one uncreated divinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. That was also the opinion of Maximus, wise in divine matters, when he wrote, “One divinity without beginning, simple, super-essential, without parts an indivisible.” [Capita theologica 2,1] He added: “For the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the divinity. And there is one God, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For one and the same are the essence and the energy and the power of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” [ibid] that one divinity and the one God, “who is invisible by His essence becomes visible by His energies, when He is seen in some of the characteristic features around Him,” [De Beatitudinibus 4] according to Gregory of Nyssa, the speaker from God; and, according to the blessed Cyril, none of the divine characteristics is acquired.” [De adoratione in spiritu et veritate 9] Hence, what you yourself initially cited as evidence from the divine Maximus, even if he did not literally write it down in that way, could be a pious thought. For the distinction in the divinity is not contrary to its unity. [cf. Maximos the Confessor, Chapters on Love 3,28] But you did not understand that and you broke apart the one divinity into a created and an uncreated one, in a most impious manner, just as Arius had done. For that man had also broken up the One God into a created and an uncreated one, because he had not understood the pious distinction according to the divine hypostases.
–St. Gregory Palamas, Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Barlaamite which Invalidates in Detail the Barlaamite Error, 14, 16 (Global Publications/CEMERS, n.d.; tr. Rein Ferwerda).
