20

For John, the golden of tongue, explaining that which was said by Abraham to his own servant, "place your hand under my thigh," proceeding in his 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 disordered, but as being beyond order. For neither does God have form, not as being formless, but as being unformed."

Beyond order, therefore, but not under order is God. But if there is also an order in God because of the three-hypostases of the Godhead, still it is not known to us because it is beyond every kind of order. For we know the order according to enunciation, having been taught by the God-inspired Scripture, from which we are also piously taught that this is varied. But that which comes from natural sequence, and especially for the two persons, both the Son and the Holy Spirit, we in no way know. Wherefore Gregory the most theological says in the second of his Irenicals, "Thus we think and thus we hold, that how these things are in respect to relation and order, we concede that the Trinity alone (p. 146) knows and those to whom the Trinity may reveal it, having been purified, either now or later."

But, they say, the great Basil, as one purified by revelation, having learned this, said it in his *Against Eunomius*. And that Gregory the Theologian concedes that this is known to those to whom the Trinity may reveal it, having been 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, displeased and not at all bearing this calmly and finding it very burdensome, said: "'From the saints,' he says, he said he had learned; but who the saints are and in which of their writings they made this teaching, he cannot say?'" It is clear that there were no saints who said this.

Then, since he deduced from the Holy Spirit's being third in order and in dignity that it is also third in nature, although this does not follow, the great one, conceding and accepting it hypothetically, says: "'Even if the word of piety perhaps teaches that the Holy Spirit is third in order and dignity, so that we may concede it entirely, it is not necessary from this that it also be third in nature.'" As one therefore who accepted it hypothetically, but not dogmatizing this himself, he advanced the argument as something debatable.

But what he says in the first of his books *Against Eunomius*, that "there is a kind of order not according to our positing, but from the sequence that exists in them according to nature," he says making his argument not concerning the Son and the Spirit but also concerning the Father and the Son, in whom it is both known and confessed by all that the Son is caused, and the Father is cause and of necessity conceived of before the caused, even if not in time, as he himself says there. (p. 148) Therefore, these things also without hesitations and disputes, he says that the Father is placed before the Son, and that the Son is second to the Father, writing: "But we, according to the relation of causes to the things from them, say that the Father is placed before the Son, but no longer according to the difference of nature, nor according to precedence in time." And again in the third, he says, "In order, He is second to the Father, because from Him, and in dignity, but in nature He is no longer second."

Thus he knows confessedly that the Son is from the Father, but not also the Spirit from the Son. For if he knew this, he would not have disputed at all, nor would he have forbidden

20

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 τόν λόγον προήγαγεν.

Ὅ δέ φησιν ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν Πρός αὐτόν Εὐνόμιον, ὡς «ἔστι τάξεως εἶδος οὐ κατά τήν ἡμετέραν θέσιν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ τῆς κατά φύσιν αὐτοῖς ἐνυπαρχούσης ἀκολουθίας», οὐ περί τοῦ Υἱοῦ καί τοῦ Πνεύματος ἀλλά καί περί τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ ποιούμενος τήν διάλεξίν φησιν, ἐν οἷς ἐγνωσμένον τε καί ἀνωμολογημένον ἅπασιν αἰτιατόν μέν εἶναι τόν Υἰόν, τόν δέ Πατέρα αἴτιον καί τοῦ αἰτιατοῦ προεπινοούμενον ἐξ ἀνάγκης, εἰ καί μή κατά χρόνον, ὡς αὐτός ἐκεῖ φησι. (σελ. 148) Ταῦτ᾿ ἄρα καί χωρίς ἐνδοιασμῶν τε καί ἀμφισβητήσεων, τόν μέν Πατέρα προτετάχθαι τοῦ Υἱοῦ φησι, τόν δέ Υἱόν δευτερεύειν τοῦ Πατρός, γράφων˙ «ἡμεῖς δέ, κατά μέν τήν τῶν αἰτίων πρός τά ἐξ αὐτῶν σχέσιν, προτετάχθαι τοῦ Υἱοῦ τόν Πατέρα φαμέν, κατά δέ τήν τῆς φύσεως διαφοράν οὐκέτι, οὐδέ κατά τήν τῶν χρόνου ὑπεροχήν». Ἐν δέ τῷ τρίτῳ πάλιν, «τάξει μέν», φησί, «δεύτερος τοῦ Πατρός, ὅτι ἀπ᾿ ἐκείνου, καί ἀξιώματι, φύσει δέ οὐκέτι δεύτερος».

Οὕτως οἶδεν ὁμολογουμένως ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός εἶναι τόν Υἱόν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί καί τό Πνεῦμα ἐξ Υἱοῦ. Εἰ γάρ τοῦτ᾿ ἐγίνωσκεν, οὐκ ἄν ὅλως ἠμφισβήτει, οὐδ᾿ ἄν ἀπηγόρευε