For if you should say that the Spirit is numbered and spoken of after the Son, which seems to you the more secure of arguments, although I would say it is no less fallible than the others, they too will show you the Son, in some cases spoken of not after the Spirit, that is, with the Holy Spirit numbered before. But we with the truth will speak against both, saying, O men, things do not lie in the order of names.

For if this were so, what prevents, by the same logic of co-enumeration and pre-enumeration being interchanged in the divine Scripture, at one time begetting and proceeding, and at another time the same things being begotten and proceeding forth? For we do not, as you do, call the Father the procatarctic, (p. 144) or first cause of the Spirit, and the Son the second, even if the Father is called these things because of the creative cause. And being so called from that, He is at times so named by the theologians even when speaking about uncreated things, just as He is called Father because of the Son. But at times also when speaking about things below, we name Him thus; for we do not worship God the Father as first, and the Son as second, and the Holy Spirit as third, so that we always speak of the second after the first and the third after it, necessarily bringing under order that which is above order, as also with all other things.

For John, golden of tongue, explaining what was said by Abraham to his own servant, "put your hand under my thigh," as he proceeds in the homily says: "Let the Holy Spirit be proclaimed; let the Only-begotten be exalted; let the Father be glorified. Let no one think that the dignity has been overturned, if we mention the Spirit first, then the Son, then the Father; or the Son first, then the Father. For God does not have order, not as being without order, but as being above order. Nor does God have form, not as being formless, but as being unformed."

Therefore, God is above order, but not under order. But if there is also an order in God on account of the three-hypostases of the Godhead, still it is not known to us because it is above every kind of order. For we know the order according to proclamation, having been taught by the God-inspired Scripture, from which we are also piously taught that this is interchanged. But the order which is present from the natural sequence, and especially in the two persons, both the Son and the Holy Spirit, we do not know at all. Wherefore Gregory the most theological in the second of his Irenic orations says, "Thus we think and thus we hold, that how these things stand in relation and order, we concede is known to the Trinity alone (p. 146) and to those to whom the Trinity might reveal it, being purified, either now or hereafter."

But, they say, the great Basil, as one purified by revelation, having learned this, said it in his work *Against Eunomius*. And that Gregory the theologian concedes that this is known to those to whom the Trinity might reveal it, being purified. But if this is so, how is it that when Eunomius said that he learned from the saints that the Holy Spirit is third in order and dignity, the divine Basil, being displeased and by no means taking this lightly but bearing it very grievously, said, "'From the saints,' he says, he said he had learned it; but who are the saints and in which of their discourses have they made this teaching, he cannot say"? It is clear that there were no saints who said this.

Then, since that man deduced from the Holy Spirit's being third in order and dignity that it is also third in nature, although this does not follow from it, the great one, yielding and accepting it for the sake of argument, says, "even if the principle of piety perhaps hands down that the Holy Spirit is third in order and dignity, so that we may concede it entirely, it is not necessary on this account that it be also third in nature." As, therefore, accepting it for the sake of argument, but not dogmatizing this himself, having disputed it

Εἰ γάρ ὅτι μετά τόν Υἱόν λέγεται τό Πνεῦμα ὑπαριθμούμενον ἐρεῖς, ὅ σοι δοκεῖ τῶν ἐπιχειρημάτων ἀσφαλέστερον, ὡς ἔγωγ᾿ ἄν φαίην οὐχ ἧττον τῶν ἄλλων σφαλερόν, κἀκεῖνοί σοι τόν Υἱόν δείξουσιν, ἔστιν οὐ λεγόμενον μετά τό Πνεῦμα, προαριθμουμένου δηλαδή τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος. Ἀμφοτέροις δέ ἡμεῖς μετά τῆς ἀληθείας ἀντεροῦμεν λέγοντες, οὐκ ἐν τῇ τάξει τῶν ὀνομάτων, ὦ οὗτοι, κεῖνται τά πράγματα.

Εἰ γάρ τοῦτο, τί κωλύει κατά τόν αὐτόν λόγον τῆς συναριθμήσεώς τε καί προαριθμήσεως ἐπαλαττομένης παρά τῇ θείᾳ Γραφῇ, ποτέ μέν γεννᾶν τε καί προβάλλειν, ποτέ δέ τά αὐτά γεννᾶσθαί τε καί προβάλλεσθαι; Οὐδέ γάρ προκαταρκτικόν , (σελ. 144) οὐδέ πρῶτον αἴτιον ἐπί τοῦ Πνεύματος, ὡς ὑμεῖς, τόν Πατέρα λέγομεν, δεύτερον δέ τόν Υἱόν, εἰ καί διά τό δημιουργικόν αἴτιον ταῦτα καλεῖται ὁ Πατήρ. Κἀκεῖθεν οὕτω κεκλημένος, ἔσθ᾿ ὅτε παρά τῶν θεολόγων οὕτως ὀνομάζεται καί περί τῶν ἀκτίστων τόν λόγον ποιουμένων, ὥσπερ καί Πατήρ διά τόν Υἱόν καλεῖται. Ἀλλ᾿ ἔσθ᾿ ὅτε καί περί τῶν κάτω ποιούμενοι τούς λόγους, οὕτω τοῦτον ὀνομάζομεν˙ οὐδέ γάρ πρῶτον μέν Θεόν τόν Πατέρα σέβομεν, δεύτερον δέ τόν Υἱόν, τρίτον δέ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, ἵν᾿ ἀεί τό δεύτερον μετά τό πρῶτον λέγωμεν καί μετ᾿ αὐτό τό τρίτον, ὑπό τάξιν ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἄγοντες τά ὑπεράνω τάξεως, ὥσπερ καί τῶν ἄλλων πάντων.

Ὁ γάρ χρυσοῦς τήν γλῶτταν Ἰωάννης ἐξηγούμενος τό παρά τοῦ Ἀβραάμ πρός τόν οἰκεῖον οἰκέτην εἰρημένον, «θές τήν χεῖρά σου ὑπό τόν μηρόν μου», κατά τήν ὁμιλίαν προϊών φησι˙ «κηρυττέσθω Πνεῦμα ἅγιον˙ ὑψούσθω ὁ μονογενής˙ δοξαζέσθω ὁ Πατήρ. Μηδείς ἀνατετράφθαι τήν ἀξίαν νομιζέτω, εἰ Πνεύματος πρῶτον μνημονεύομεν, εἶτα Υἱοῦ, εἶτα Πατρός˙ ἤ Υἱοῦ πρῶτον, εἶτα Πατρός. Οὐ γάρ ἔχει τάξιν ὁ Θεός, οὐχ ὡς ἄτακτος, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ὑπέρ τάξιν ὤν. Οὐδέ γάρ σχῆμα ἔχει ὁ Θεός, οὐχ ὡς ἀσχήμων, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἀσχημάτιστος».

Ὑπέρ τάξιν οὖν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὑπό τάξιν ὁ Θεός. Εἰ δ᾿ ἔστι καί τάξις ἐπί τοῦ Θεοῦ διά τό τρισυπόστατον τῆς θεότητος, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἔστιν ἡμῖν ἐγνωσμένη διά τό ὑπέρ πᾶν εἶδος τάξεως εἶναι. Τήν μέν γάρ κατά τήν ἐκφώνησιν τάξιν ἴσμεν, διδαχθέντες παρά τῆς θεοπνεύστου Γραφῆς, παρ᾿ ἧς καί ἐπαλλαττομένην ταύτην εὐσεβῶς διδασκόμεθα. Τήν δ᾿ ἐκ τῆς φυσικῆς ἀκολουθίας προσοῦσαν, καί μάλιστα τοῖς δυσί προσώποις, τῷ τε Υἱῷ καί τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, οὐδαμῶς ἴσμεν. ∆ιό Γρηγορίων ὁ θεολογικώτατος ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ τῶν Εἰρηνικῶν φησιν, «οὕτω φρονοῦμεν καί οὕτως ἔχομεν, ὡς ὅπως μέν ἔχει ταῦτα σχέσεώς τε καί τάξεως, αὐτῇ μόνῃ τῇ Τριάδι (σελ. 146) συγχωρεῖν εἰδέναι καί οἷς ἄν ἡ Τριάς ἀποκαλύψῃ κεκαθαρμένοις, ἤ νῦν ἤ ὕστερον».

Ἀλλ᾿, ὁ μέγας, φασί, Βασίλειος, ὡς κεκαθαρμένος ἐξ ἀποκαλύψεως, τοῦτο μαθών εἶπεν ἐν τοῖς Κατ᾿ Εὐνομίου. Συγχωρεῖν δέ καί Γρηγόριον τόν θεολόγον εἰδέναι ταύτην, οἷς ἄν ἡ Τριάς ἀποκαλύψῃ κεκαθαρμένοις. Ἀλλ᾿ εἰ τοῦτο, πῶς τοῦ Εὐνομίου μαθεῖν εἰπόντος ἐκ τῶν ἁγίων τρίτον τῇ τάξει καί τῷ ἀξιώματι τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, δυσχεράνας οὔμενουν ἠρέμα τούτῳ καί λίαν ἐπαχθῶς ἐνεγκών ὁ θεῖος Βασίλειος, «παρά τῶν ἁγίων», φησίν, εἶπε μεμαθηκέναι˙ τίνες δέ οἱ ἅγιοι καί ἐν ποίοις αὐτῶν λόγοις τήν διδασκαλίαν πεποίηνται εἰπεῖν οὐκ ἔχει»; ∆ῆλον ὡς οὐκ ὄντων τῶν εἰπόντων ἁγίων.

Εἶτα, ἐπειδήπερ ἐκεῖνος ἐκ τοῦ τρίτου εἶναι τῇ τάξει καί τῷ ἀξιώματι τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον τρίτον εἶναι καί τῇ φύσει συνήγαγε, καίτοι μηδέ παρά τοῦτο συναγόμενον, ἐνδούς ὁ μέγας καί καθ᾿ ὑπόθεσιν παραδεξάμενος, «εἰ καί τρίτον εἶναι», φησί, «τῇ τάξει καί τῷ ἀξιώματι τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ὁ τῆς εὐσεβείας ἴσως παραδίδωσι λόγος, ἵνα καί ὅλως συγχωρήσωμεν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἀνάγκη παρά τοῦτο τρίτον εἶναι αὐτό καί τῇ φύσει». Ὡς οὖν καθ᾿ ὑπόθεσιν παραδεξάμενος, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τοῦτο δογματίζων αὐτός, ἀμφισβητικῶς ἔχοντα