For the plea will not avail them in their self-defence, that He is delivered by our Lord to His disciples third in order, and that therefore He is estranged from our ideal of Deity. Where in each case activity in working good shows no diminution or variation whatever, how unreasonable it is to suppose the numerical order to be a sign of any diminution or essential variation11    Reading ἐλαττώσεώς τινος ἢ κατὰ φύσιν παραλλαγῆς, κ. τ. λ.! It is as if a man were to see a separate flame burning on three torches (and we will suppose that the third flame is caused by that of the first being transmitted to the middle, and then kindling the end torch12    “The Ancient Greek Fathers, speaking of this procession, mention the Father only, and never, I think, express the Son, as sticking constantly in this to the language of the Scriptures (John xv. 26)”—Pearson. The language of the above simile of Gregory would be an illustration of this. So Greg. Naz., Orat. I. de Filio, “standing on our definitions, we introduce the Ungenerate, the Generated, and that which proceeds from the Father.” This last expression was so known and public, that it is recorded even by Lucian in his Philopatris, §12.), and were to maintain that the heat in the first exceeded that of the others; that that next it showed a variation from it in the direction of the less; and that the third could not be called fire at all, though it burnt and shone just like fire, and did everything that fire does. But if there is really no hindrance to the third torch being fire, though it has been kindled from a previous flame, what is the philosophy of these men, who profanely think that they can slight the dignity of the Holy Spirit because He is named by the Divine lips after the Father and the Son? Certainly, if there is in our conceptions of the Substance of the Spirit anything that falls short of the Divine ideal, they do well in testifying to His not possessing glory; but if the highness of His dignity is to be perceived in every point, why do they grudge to make the confession of His glory? As if any one after describing some one as a man, were to consider it not safe to go on to say of him as well that he is reasoning, mortal, or anything else that can be predicated of a man, and so were to cancel what he had just allowed; for if he is not reasoning, he is not a man at all; but if the latter is granted, how can there be any hesitation about the conceptions already implied in “man”? So, with regard to the Spirit, if when one calls Him Divine one speaks the truth, neither when one defines Him to be worthy of honour, to be glorious, good, omnipotent, does one lie; for all such conceptions are at once admitted with the idea of Deity. So that they must accept one of two alternatives; either not to call Him Divine at all, or to refrain from subtracting from His Deity any one of those conceptions which are attributable to Deity. We must then, most surely, comprehend along with each other these two thoughts, viz. the Divine nature, and along with it a just idea, a devout intuition13    Reading καὶ τῆς εὐσεβοῦς ἐννοίας., of that Divine and transcendent nature.

Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐκεῖνο αὔταρκες εἰς ἀπολογίαν αὐτοῖς, ὅτι ἐπειδὴ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν τρίτον ὑπὸ κυρίου τοῖς μαθηταῖς παραδέδοται, διὰ τοῦτο τῆς θεοπρεποῦς ἐννοίας ἀπηλλοτρίωται. ἐφ' ὧν γὰρ ἡ κατὰ τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἐνέργεια οὐδεμίαν ἐλάττωσιν ἢ παραλλαγὴν ἔχει, πῶς ἐστιν εὔλογον τὴν κατὰ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τάξιν ἐλαττώσεώς τινος, τῆς κατὰ φύσιν παραλλαγῆς, οἴεσθαι σημεῖον εἶναι; ὥσπερ ἂν εἴ τις ἐν τρισὶ λαμπάσι διῃρημένην βλέπων τὴν φλόγα_αἰτίαν δὲ τοῦ τρίτου φωτὸς ὑποθώμεθα εἶναι τὴν πρώτην φλόγα ἐκ διαδόσεως διὰ τοῦ μέσου τὸ ἄκρον ἐξάψασαν_ἔπειτα κατασκευάζοι πλεονάζειν ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ φλογὶ τὴν θερμασίαν, τῇ δὲ ἐφεξῆς ὑποβεβηκέναι καὶ πρὸς τὸ ἔλαττον ἔχειν τὴν παραλλαγήν, τὴν δὲ τρίτην μηδὲ πῦρ ἔτι λέγεσθαι, κἂν παραπλησίως καίῃ καὶ φαίνῃ καὶ πάντα τὰ τοῦ πυρὸς κατεργάζηται: εἰ δὲ κωλύει οὐδὲν πῦρ εἶναι τὴν τρίτην λαμπάδα, κἂν ἐκ προλαβούσης ἀναλάμψῃ φλογός, τίς ἡ σοφία τῶν διὰ τοῦτο τὴν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἀξίαν ἀθετεῖν εὐσεβὲς νομιζόντων, ἐπειδήπερ μετὰ πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν ἠριθμήθη παρὰ τῆς θείας φωνῆς; εἰ μὲν γὰρ λείπει τι τῶν θεοπρεπῶν νοημάτων ἐν τοῖς ἐπιθεωρουμένοις τῇ φύσει τοῦ πνεύματος, καλῶς αὐτῷ προσμαρτυροῦσι τὸ ἄδοξον: εἰ δὲ διὰ πάντων τὸ μεγαλεῖον τῆς τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἀξίας κατανοεῖται, τί μικρολογοῦσι περὶ τὴν ὁμολογίαν τῆς δόξης; ὥσπερ ἂν εἴ τις ἄνθρωπον τινὰ λέγων εἶναι μηκέτι ἀσφαλὲς ἡγοῖτο συνομολογεῖν ἐπὶ τούτου τὸ λογικὸν ἢ θνητὸν ἢ εἴ τι ἄλλο περὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον λέγεται καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀνατρέποι πάλιν ὃ ἔδωκεν: εἰ γὰρ οὐ λογικός, οὐδὲ ἄνθρωπος πάντως: εἰ δὲ τοῦτο δέδοται, πῶς τὸ συνημμένως μετὰ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου νοούμενον ἀμφιβάλλεται; οὕτω τοίνυν εἰ ἀληθεύει περὶ τοῦ πνεύματος ὁ θεῖον λέγων, οὐδὲ ὁ τίμιόν τε καὶ ἔνδοξον ἀγαθόν τε καὶ δυνατὸν εἶναι τοῦτο διοριζόμενος ψεύδεται: τῇ γὰρ τῆς θειότητος ἐννοίᾳ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα νοήματα συνεισέρχεται: ὥστε ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τῶν δύο τὸ ἕτερον, ἢ μηδὲ θεῖον λέγειν ἢ μηδὲν τῶν θεοπρεπῶν νοημάτων ὑποσπᾶν τῆς θειότητος. διὰ τοῦτο δεῖ πάντως μετ' ἀλλήλων τὰ δύο καταλαμβάνεσθαι, καὶ τὴν θείαν φύσιν μετὰ τῆς προσφυοῦς ὑπολήψεως καὶ τὰς εὐσεβεῖς ἐννοίας περὶ τὴν θείαν τε καὶ ὑπερέχουσαν φύσιν.