See, then, how in all these different thoughts this theologian teaches one and the same theology, and, consequently, how can there be difficulty in restoring pious thought even at this point, where the word [of the Holy Father], distinguishing that which is to be distinguished, at the same time unites into one also that which is to be united, and brings into one in verbal expression (εε). For the theological mind [of the Holy Father] knows that the Son was begotten and proceeded from the Father, and consequently well said, "Directly from the first." He also knows that the Spirit proceeds from the same Father and has an origin; but at the same time He knows that He is also through the Son, but not as having origin through the Son. And if he used an expression signifying connection, saying, "through him who is immediately from the first," he did not merge anything through this, nor did he think anything unseemly, and although he was extremely constrained by the conciseness of the expression, he came out of the difficulty with all the greater triumph. In the word "from the first" he heard the Son and the Holy Spirit, and he understood that both of them were from the first as from the cause, but he understood each with his own way of origin. And with the words "The Spirit through the Son" he immediately struck at the radiance, the illumination, the manifestation, and the like, which is said by other theologians, and by Nyssa himself, when they say that "the Spirit through the Son." And just as here the power of piety opens up the possibility of reasoning and does not allow it to extend beyond correctness, even though a thousand difficulties arise from the side of expressions, so when it is a question of restoring the power of the saying, "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son," one should not be ashamed of the conciseness of interpretation and fall into confusion. For the Spirit proceeds from the Father, as having its origin and cause of existence from Him. And if so, then by the words "through the Son" what else can you understand if not what you understood by the word "through him who is directly," listening to the teacher of the Truth itself and guided by Nyssa. But thou hast understood these words, not in the sense that the Spirit has origin and being through the Son, but that He shines forth and appears through Him, justly attributing to the Father alone of these [Persons] the cause. This is clearly seen, among other things, from what Gregory of Nyssa himself says in other places. There is no need, slavishly adhering to the comparison, to give the slanderers a pretext [for slander] in the inconsistency (ο) of the example. We will not understand a ray from the sun (οοε), but from the unborn sun another sun of the Son, together with the thought of the first one shining together with Him through birth, and resembling Him in all things in beauty, in power, in brilliance, in majesty, in brightness, in a word, in everything that only we contemplate in the sun. And again another similar light [we understand] the Spirit in the same way, not separated from the generated light by any temporary distance, but shining through it, having the cause of the hypostasis from the original (ουου) Light. If, therefore, this is as much paternal and pious as it is true, then to confess that the Holy Spirit is derived from the Son is to utter blasphemy and to affirm something utterly alien to the pious Church, and where is the reason, when we hear from certain saints that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, not to understand at once that by these words the saints do not assimilate to the Holy Spirit an origin through the Son? although the word "origin" is used mainly to denote the method of origin? But we, of course, will not think of expelling them from the assembly of saints for these words, nor striking out their words as impious, as said one of those who, in their ignorance, are ready to do and say everything. No, and they will still remain holy to us, as teachers of piety and all that is good, and we, for our part, looking at the correctness of their thoughts, will not reject their sayings, observing in all things the reverence due to the fathers. As a result, we quote their sayings without any changes (οου), and keep their thoughts undistorted. Therefore, when they say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, we also say as they do: the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. Again, when they think that the origin of the Holy Spirit and the passage into being is from the Father, but the manifestation, revelation, and radiance through the Son, then we also think and philosophize in the same way, and in thus philosophizing we do not take anything away from the word "procession," which signifies the mode of origin. Thus, when they say that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, these words in their mouths do not at all mean that He has an origin through the Son. And if you say: "mean," then what prevents us from making it a dogma of the Church, that is, [to proclaim] that the Holy Spirit has through the Son a passage into being? And in this case, why do we excommunicate from the Church the Italians and Vecca, who think and preach this with all the ensuing consequences? One of two things: either, stubbornly insisting that the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son means His descent through the Son, admit them also into communion with you, as they think and speak well and piously, or, not receiving them into your communion, then be just, do not accept this opinion either. And to do both can only be done by those who do not perceive the glaring contradiction between these two subjects, I believe every thinking man will agree.

It would be enough to say this about the subject we have proposed to ourselves and to conclude our speech here. But, since the word "radiance" was not left alone, but this absolutely innocent word was attacked by people who, I don't know what, forged their verbal weapons; people who, if they knew how to value themselves, would hate themselves for their aspirations to write in a way that, perhaps, no one hates another. They also attack something else, but chiefly that which we have called this eternal radiance. This word, in their opinion, must mean the same as the word "origin," and therefore it will not be superfluous to continue his speech a little, in order to refute, as it should be, all attacks. That in our scroll we understood by the word "shining" not an origin, but a discovery, or a manifestation, or in general something very close to it, hardly anyone in this book, running through our notebook, will not admit, no matter how uneducated he may be. For, on the one hand, it clearly denies the origin of the Spirit through the Son, although, on the other hand, it does not at all deny the radiance of the Spirit through the Son. And how could these two words "origin" and "radiance" mean the same thing, when we are reproached (ουε) precisely because the scroll removes the word "origin," but does not defame (ου οοε) the word "radiance," as containing a pious thought. And if in some Fathers [the word] "radiance" is used instead of the word "origin" only in a figurative sense; but the proper meaning of this word, which signifies manifestation (ε), is clearly seen from the following. Radiance and origin are two nouns, but not from nouns, but from two verbs: the first from the verb "I am" (), the second from the verb "originate" (υ). Those who wish may ask this in the schools of the boys who are examined in the production of words, and test whether the verb ε, which is evidently identical with the verb ε, does not mean the same thing as the verb υ, although it seems inconceivable that different words should mean the same thing. Perhaps the children, when they fall into competition, will say that both these verbs originate from one and the same word (οο), and precisely from the word ο, from which the two verbs originate. Who, finally, and by what art, will make us always understand the word ε in the sense of υ? I know that some people really used these two words one instead of the other. In order to speak of origin, the word "radiance" (ε) was indeed used instead of the word "origin." But the point is when and where they used. They used these words in this way there - I do not omit the opportunity to repeat it as often as possible, where, indeed, both were appropriate (ευε), and where it was possible to use both of these words in the course of speech, and not everywhere and not always. And these people, I mean our present word-hunters, ignorantly turn "where" (ου) and "when" (οε) into mere (), as if one or two white men could safely conclude that all men are white, and you would not even believe your eyes if you said that not all. Moreover, in my scroll I have used the word ε instead of the word ε or other word identical in meaning, and I am blamed, not only because I consider these words to be very close to one another in meaning, but also because I used them before I was worthy to use them and establish them in the sense of the interpreters of the divine dogmas, so that I may use these words after them. But I am really afraid that you may take my efforts to prove that the word ε means the same thing as ε as too ridiculous idiocy. And even if no one else had spoken in this way, it would have been enough for you to read the explanation of the prophetic lamp of Zechariah, Maximus, whom I have often mentioned, or his explanation of the theological expression ουο οο ', to never again stutter about this word.

But, they say, I have also called this radiance eternal. This is the third accusation against us. And you, who say this, whoever you are, do you not call the shining, the illumination, and the manifestation of the Spirit through the Son eternal? And how can we imagine this radiance in any other way? It is clear that the Spirit is communicated, given, and sent through the Son only when those to whom He is sent, communicated, and given are able to receive Him. But He shines, shines, and manifests Himself eternally. You can be convinced of this from the Great Basil, from his brother Gregory [of Neocaesarea], from the wonderworker, from Athanasius, from the wise John [of Damascus], whose sayings I recalled a little above. "The Son," says Basil, "through Himself, and together with Himself knowing the Spirit proceeding from the Father." Thus, if He is ever known with the Son, with the Son, from Whom He has never been separated, as you know, and through Whom He has ever been seen; then how can we conceive of all this if not eternal? Gregory, in turn, among the attributes of the Spirit that make Him different from the Father and the Son, also considers that He appears and shines through the Son. And since the Holy Spirit has never been without His personal attributes, as you also know, then the manifestation through the Son as an attribute inherent in Him as eternally existing, of course, you will not call non-eternal, if only you have reason. The miracle-worker clarified this even better with his teaching that "the Holy Spirit is eternally sent through the Son from the essence of the Father." Athanasius and John also give us an image, as far as possible, of the incomprehensible invisible Trinity, in order to guide us as far as possible, and to lead us to the knowledge (ε ε) of this blessed nature. The first of them shows us this image in the sun, in the reflection of its rays and light, the second in the sun, ray and light. Do you think that these Fathers regard light and radiance as always proceeding from the sun through reflection or through a ray, or perhaps they do this in some way apart from the rays? And then, when you hear that the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son in the sense that He appears through the Son, and not that He is descended from Him, how do you imagine the relation of the Spirit to the Son? Do you imagine Him to be the Spirit of the Son in time, having become so after (εο οε), or existing in this capacity from eternity? Pshaw! (ε), you will say, of course, from eternity and always, if the Spirit is always the Spirit of the Son, and He is called the Spirit of the Son because He appears through the Son, then obviously he who calls Him the Spirit of the Son, or, what is the same thing, says that He is revealed through the Son, says at the same time that He is revealed from eternity. Cease, then, my dear, your attacks on the scroll; otherwise, how can you not incur an attack on yourself from learned and sensible people, if you continue to walk about him (ε εε υου) and are just as generous with your attacks. I do not think that you have so little love for good, and that you have been so blinded that you are not prudent for your own benefit, or at least that you do not appear to be so, and that you do not slander [good people].