All this is stated in the above chapter. With all this is in perfect agreement with what the same holy father says in the chapter "On the Divine Names," in the letter to Jordanes, and in the homily bearing the title "εις την θεόσωμον του Κυριου ταφην," so that it is impossible not to recognize all this as the product of one and the same mind. In his work "On the Divine Names" he says the following: "The Father [is] the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit. The Father of the only Son and the Originator of the Spirit. The Son is the Son, the Word, Wisdom and Power, the image, the reflection, the likeness (χαρακτηρ) of the Father and from the Father, but not the Son of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father, as proceeding from the Father. For there is no striving (ορμη) without the Spirit. And the Spirit of the Son, not as from Him, but as through Him proceeding from the Father, for the Father alone is the culprit." In a letter to the Jordanes: "For us there is one God the Father, and His Word, and His Spirit, and the Word is a hypostatic generation, therefore also the Son. And the Spirit is the hypostatic procession and outflow (προβλημα) from the Father through the Son, and not from the Son, as the spirit of His mouth, revealing the word (λογου εξαγγελτικον), but not the breath, which is resolved and overflowing (πνοη λυομενη και διαχεομένη), and serving us," as he says in the above-mentioned homily. The Father is the unborn parent of the Son, for he is not of anyone. The Son is the birth of the Father, as begotten of Him. The Holy Spirit [is the Spirit] of God and the Father, as proceeding from Him, and is called the Spirit of the Son, as appearing and being taught through Him, but not proceeding from Him."

Thus I say, and the same is testified by deeds by living testimony (εμψυχοις μαρτιριαις), as one might say. By works I mean in the present case the words (λογους) of the blessed [fathers], who, when they say that "the Spirit proceeds through the Son," not only do they not understand anything alien [to the thoughts of the fathers who preceded them], but, on the contrary, are in perfect agreement with them as to the meaning [of these words], as their disciples and followers do. And how could they understand anything alien when they, too, recognize the Father as the only author of the Son and the Spirit, the one source of the Godhead, and the root, and the beginning, and openly deny the origin of the Spirit from the Son?

They said very well — if I may be permitted to make an attempt to clarify the meaning of this saying more precisely — they [I repeat] knew very well — both the great Maximus and the divine Tarasius, as well as the holy John — that the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father, also has the cause of both His hypostasis and being (του ειναι). They also knew that He [the Holy Spirit] passes through the Son (προιον), is revealed, shines forth, appears, comes (ηκον) and is known. If you carefully examined their works, you would find that they really say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and through the Son appears, and is sent, and shines, and is revealed, and known; and in other places, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, but not in the sense in which you understand this saying, that is, that the Holy Spirit has an origin through the Son, so that as a consequence the cause of the hypostasis of the All-Holy Spirit would be attributed to the Son, this is nowhere written, and, consequently, it is impossible to think so; but, on the contrary, this is said by them in order to teach you, on the one hand, that since He proceeds from the Father as the Author, He also has His origin from there, since it is most fitting for the form of origin to be from the same place from which His origin comes; on the other hand, that He passes through the Son and appears, and so on, which is spoken of both in the above-mentioned and in the other God-bearing Fathers. For the passage (πρόοδω) of the Spirit into being from the Father—I continue to return to this subject, in order to better understand the meaning and significance which the Fathers associate with the term προοδος εις το ειναι—is accompanied by the radiance of the same Spirit through the Son, in the same manner as in the brilliance of light from the sun, light is emitted (προεσις) and appears through its ray. This comparison, it seems to me, convinces us that the above-mentioned theologians, speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, on the one hand, make it clear that He proceeds and exists (υφεστηκεν) from the Father as from the culprit, since the word "proceed" always means the manner in which the Holy Spirit proceeds, and on the other hand, they declare that, proceeding from the Father, He appears and reveals himself through the Son, although the word "appearance" is not found here literally, complementing the first, denoting the mode of origin (την χωραν πεπληρωκοτος του τροπου, του δηλωτικου υπαρξεως). As in other places, when we say that the Holy Spirit shines forth and passes (προιεναι) from the Father through the Son, we want to indisputably signify the manifestation of the Spirit through the Son; but at the same time our mind, ascending to a pious conception, thinks that the Spirit, who shines and appears through the Son, has its origin and the whole cause of being from the Father, although the verbs "to pass through" and "to shine" do not signify the proper mode of origin; in the same way, here, speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son, we apply the force of the meaning of the word "proceed" to one culprit, the Father, and, as a consequence, we correctly observe what is signified by this saying according to the theology of the Saviour, and we use the word "through the Son" not to denote communion in origin, but, guided by the sound teaching of the fathers, soundly and safely (ασφαλως), while we imply that, what they themselves have explained in other places, namely, that, proceeding from the Father, the Holy Spirit appears, is revealed, shines forth, and is sent through the Son. If you want to imagine all this with the greatest possible clarity, listen to the great lamp Gregory, the pastor of Nyssa. He says: "Concerning the being of the cause, we think of another distinction. For one is directly from the first," he means the Son, Who is directly from the Father, and by this he means that He is from the Father by birth (γεννητως), implying by this the very mode of origin, although this is not directly expressed in these words. As for the Spirit, He also, says [the Holy Father], is from the former, of course, and at the same time He says that He is from the first by means of procession (εκπορευτως), so that here also the mode of origin is understood, although the word itself does not occur literally. But at the same time he says that the Spirit is through Him who is directly from the first. Tell me, for God's sake, what is the meaning of the word "through him who directly"? Do you not think that the Spirit comes and has existence through the Son? Of course, you will not think this, but you will think that He shines, appears, and passes [through the Son], as [the Holy Father] says everywhere in other places.

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 what should be distinguished, at the same time unites into one also that which should be united, and brings into one in verbal expression (εξαγγελια). For the theological mind [of the Holy Father] knows that the Son was born and was born of 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 directly from the first," then through this he did not merge anything, just as he did not think anything unseemly, and although he was extremely constrained by the conciseness of the expression, he came out of the difficulty with all the more 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 the 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, 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 (ατονια) of the example. We will not understand a ray from the sun (νοησομεν), but from the unborn sun another sun — 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 primordial (πρωτοτυπου) Light. And so, if this is as much paternal and pious as it is true, then to confess that the Holy Spirit is descended from the Son is to utter blasphemy and affirm something completely 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 "procession" is used primarily 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 for 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 consequence of this, we quote their sayings without any changes (απαραποιητους), and we 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 is with the Holy Spirit and the passage into being from the Father, and the manifestation, revelation, and radiance through the Son, then we also think and philosophize in the same way, and in thus philosophizing we take nothing 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, [proclaiming] 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: or, 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. And to do both can only be done by those who do not perceive the glaring contradiction between these two subjects, with which, 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 forged their verbal weapons from I don't know what; 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 what 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 their speech a little, in order to refute, as it should be, all attacks. That in our scroll we understood by the word "radiance" not an origin, but a discovery, or a manifestation, or in general something very close to it, hardly anyone who runs through our notebook does not admit this, 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 one and the same thing, when we are reproached (βλασφημουμεν) because the scroll removes the word "origin," but does not defame (ουκ αποδοκιμαζει) 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; The proper meaning of this word, which means manifestation (φανερωσιν), 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 appear" (φαινω), the second from the verb "I come" (υπαρχω). Those who wish may ask the boys who are examined in the production of words in the schools, and examine us whether the verb εκφαινω, which is evidently identical with the verb φαινερω, does not mean the same thing as the verb υπαρχω, 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 (ονομα), and precisely from the word φαος, from which those two verbs originate. Who, finally, and by what art, will make us always understand the word εκφαινσις in the sense of υπαρξις? I know that some people really used these two words one instead of the other. In order to speak of origin, the word "radiance" (εκφαινσιν) 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 them as often as possible—where, indeed, both were appropriate (αληθευειν), and where it was possible to use both of these words in the course of their speech, and not everywhere and not always. And these people—I mean our present word-hunters—ignorantly turn "where" (που) and "when" (ποτε) into mere (απλως), 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 they were not all. Moreover, in my scroll I have used the word εκφαινσις instead of the word φαινερωσις or any other word identical in meaning, and I am blamed, not only because I consider these words to be very close to each other 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 as too ridiculous idiocy my efforts to prove that the word εκφαινσις means the same thing among them as φαινερωσις. 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 δια τουτο μονος απ' αρχης, 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 explained 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 (εις επιγνωσιν) 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 coming 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 (εγχρονως και ποτε), or existing in this capacity from eternity? Pshaw! (Απαγε), 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 men of learning and common sense, if you continue to walk about him (ετι την γλωτταν επαφησεις αυτου) 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].

Notes

1

The translation of the autobiography of one of the most famous theologians of the Eastern Church of the thirteenth century, offered to the readers of the "Christian Reading", is made from the original text published by Mr. Mattie in 1817 in Frankfurt am Main according to the manuscripts of the Frankfurt (owned by a private individual), Vienna and Lyon (the author used a copy of the latter, a copy belonging to the University of Göttingen) libraries. In the Frankfurt manuscript, which turned out to be the most correct, it bears the following title: Γρηγορίου τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου καὶ μακαριωτάτου οἰκουμενικου πατριάρχου περι τοῦ καθ' ἐαυτὸν ριοῦ, ὡς ἀππλλου προσωπου; In Vienna — the most defective: — τοῦ σοφωτάτου καὶ λογιωτάτου πατριάρχου κωνταντινουπόλεως Γροως �γορίου του Κυπρίου διηγήσεως μερικής λόγος, τὰ καθ' ἐαυτὸν περιέχων. But as early as the last century it was published according to the manuscript of the Liona Library by Derubeis, in Venice, with a Latin translation and notes, under the title: Georgii seu Gregorii Surgii, Patriarchae Constantinopolitani, vita, quae ex Codice Lugduno–Batavensi nunc primum graece in lucem prodit, latina interpretatione et notis. Accedunt dissertationes duae historicae, et dogmaticae, cum binis epistolis ejusdem Cyprii ad amicum, et Moschamperis Exchartophylacis ad ipsum, nunc primum edidit: queis Byzantina Georgii Pachimeri historia illustratur, Auctore Fr. Iv. Fran. Bernardo M. de Rubeis, Ordinis praedicatorum. Venètiis, MDCCLIII Typio Io. Bapfcistae (sic) Pasquali. Superiorum Permissu, ac Privillegio. 239. S. 4. The new edition of Mattie was caused by a defect in the text published by Derubeis according to the Lion copy alone (the most complete of all). Our translation was undertaken as much in consideration of the personality of the famous Patriarch as in the historical interest represented by the content of his autobiography. Following it, we hope to inform the readers of the "Christian Reading" of a translation of one of the letters of the Patriarch to the Emperor Andronikos Palaiologos the Elder, published by the same scholar and, like the autobiography, provided with a free German translation.

2