47. And when, by means of the power that enlightens us, we fix our eyes on the beauty of the image of the invisible God, and through the image are led up to the supreme beauty of the spectacle of the archetype, then, I ween, is with us inseparably the Spirit of knowledge, in Himself bestowing on them that love the vision of the truth the power of beholding the Image, not making the exhibition from without, but in Himself leading on to the full knowledge. “No man knoweth the Father save the Son.”  22  Matt. xi. 27, “οὐδεὶς οἶδε τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ Υἱ& 231·ς” substituted for “οὐ δὲ τὸν πατέρα τὶς ἐπιγνώσκει εἰ μὴ ὁ Υἱ& 231·ς.” And so “no man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost.”  23  1 Cor. xii. 3. For it is not said through the Spirit, but by the Spirit, and “God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth,”  24  John iv. 24. as it is written “in thy light shall we see light,”  25  Ps. xxxvi. 9. namely by the illumination of the Spirit, “the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.”  26  John i. 9. It results that in Himself He shows the glory of the Only begotten, and on true worshippers He in Himself bestows the knowledge of God. Thus the way of the knowledge of God lies from One Spirit through the One Son to the One Father, and conversely the natural Goodness and the inherent Holiness and the royal Dignity extend from the Father through the Only-begotten to the Spirit. Thus there is both acknowledgment of the hypostases and the true dogma of the Monarchy is not lost.  27  cf. note on p. 27 and the distinction between δόγμα and κήουγμα in § 66. “The great objection which the Eastern Church makes to the Filioque is, that it implies the existence of two ἀρχαὶ in the godhead; and if we believe in δύο ἄναρχοι; we, in effect, believe in two Gods. The unity of the Godhead can only be maintained by acknowledging the Father to be the sole ᾽Αρχὴ or πηγὴ θεοτήτος, who from all eternity has communicated His own Godhead to His co-eternal and consubstantial Son and Spirit. This reasoning is generally true. But, as the doctrine of the Procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son presupposes the eternal generation of the Son from the Father; it does not follow, that that doctrine impugns the Catholic belief in the Μία ᾽Αρχή.” Bp. Harold Browne, Exp. xxxix Art., Note on Art v. They on the other hand who support their sub-numeration by talking of first and second and third ought to be informed that into the undefiled theology of Christians they are importing the polytheism of heathen error. No other result can be achieved by the fell device of sub-numeration than the confession of a first, a second, and a third God. For us is sufficient the order prescribed by the Lord. He who confuses this order will be no less guilty of transgressing the law than are the impious heathen.

Enough has been now said to prove, in contravention of their error, that the communion of Nature is in no wise dissolved by the manner of sub-numeration. Let us, however, make a concession to our contentious and feeble minded adversary, and grant that what is second to anything is spoken of in sub-numeration to it. Now let us see what follows. “The first man” it is said “is of the earth earthy, the second man is the Lord from heaven.”  28  1 Cor. xv. 47. Again “that was not first which is spiritual but that which is natural and afterward that which is spiritual.”  29  1 Cor. xv. 46. If then the second is subnumerated to the first, and the subnumerated is inferior in dignity to that to which it was subnumerated, according to you the spiritual is inferior in honour to the natural, and the heavenly man to the earthy.

[47] Ἐπειδὴ δὲ διὰ δυνάμεως φωτιστικῆς τῷ κάλλει τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου εἰκόνος ἐνατενίζομεν, καὶ δι' αὐτῆς ἀναγόμεθα ἐπὶ τὸ ὑπέρκαλον τοῦ ἀρχετύπου θέαμα, αὐτοῦ που πάρεστιν ἀχωρίστως τὸ τῆς γνώσεως Πνεῦμα, τὴν ἐποπτικὴν τῆς εἰκόνος δύναμιν ἐν ἑαυτῷ παρεχόμενον τοῖς τῆς ἀληθείας φιλοθεάμοσιν, οὐκ ἔξωθεν τὴν δεῖξιν ποιούμενον, ἀλλ' ἐν ἑαυτῷ εἰσάγον πρὸς τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν. Ὡς γὰρ «οὐδεὶς οἶδε τὸν Πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ Υἱός», οὕτως «οὐδεὶς δύναται εἰπεῖν Κύριον Ἰησοῦν, εἰ μὴ ἐν Πνεύματι ἁγίῳ». Οὐ γὰρ διὰ Πνεύματος εἴρηται, ἀλλ' ἐν Πνεύματι. Καὶ «Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός, καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτὸν ἐν Πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ δεῖ προσκυνεῖν»: καθὼς γέγραπται: «Ἐν τῷ φωτί σου ὀψόμεθα φῶς», τουτέστιν ἐν τῷ φωτισμῷ τοῦ Πνεύματος, «φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον». Ὥστε ἐν ἑαυτῷ δείκνυσι τὴν δόξαν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς, καὶ τοῖς ἀληθινοῖς προσκυνηταῖς ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ γνῶσιν παρέχεται. Ἡ τοίνυν ὁδὸς τῆς θεογνωσίας ἐστὶν ἀπὸ ἑνὸς Πνεύματος, διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς Υἱοῦ, ἐπὶ τὸν ἕνα Πατέρα. Καὶ ἀνάπαλιν, ἡ φυσικὴ ἀγαθότης, καὶ ὁ κατὰ φύσιν ἁγιασμός, καὶ τὸ βασιλικὸν ἀξίωμα, ἐκ Πατρός, διὰ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς, ἐπὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα διήκει. Οὕτω καὶ αἱ ὑποστάσεις ὁμολογοῦνται, καὶ τὸ εὐσεβὲς δόγμα τῆς μοναρχίας οὐ διαπίπτει. Οἱ δὲ τὴν ὑπαρίθμησιν ἐν τῷ πρῶτον καὶ δεύτερον καὶ τρίτον λέγειν τιθέμενοι γνωριζέσθωσαν τὸ πολύθεον τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς πλάνης τῇ ἀχράντῳ θεολογίᾳ τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἐπεισάγοντες. Εἰς οὐδὲν γὰρ ἕτερον φέρει τῆς ὑπαριθμήσεως τὸ κακούργημα, ἢ ὥστε πρῶτον καὶ δεύτερον Θεὸν καὶ τρίτον ὁμολογεῖν. Ἀλλ' ἡμῖν ἀρκοῦσα ἡ παρὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἐπιτεθεῖσα ἀκολουθία, ἣν ὁ συγχέων οὐκ ἔλαττον τῆς τούτων ἀσεβείας παρανομήσει. Ὅτι μὲν οὖν οὐδέν, ὡς οὗτοι πεπλάνηνται, ἡ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν κοινωνία τῷ τρόπῳ τῆς ὑπαριθμήσεως παραλύεται, ἱκανῶς εἴρηται. Ἀλλὰ συνέλθωμεν τῷ φιλονείκῳ καὶ ματαιόφρονι, καὶ δῶμεν τὸ δεύτερον τινὸς καθ' ὑπαρίθμησιν ἐκείνου λέγεσθαι. Ἴδωμεν τοίνυν τί τὸ ἐκβαῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ λόγου. «Ὁ πρῶτος, φησίν, ἄνθρωπος, ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός: ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος ὁ Κύριος, ἐξ οὐρανοῦ.» Καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις: «Οὐ πρῶτον, φησί, τὸ πνευματικόν, ἀλλὰ τὸ ψυχικόν, ἔπειτα τὸ πνευματικόν.» Εἰ τοίνυν τῷ πρώτῳ ὑπαριθμεῖται τὸ δεύτερον, τὸ δὲ ὑπαριθμούμενον ἀτιμότερόν ἐστι τοῦ πρὸς ὃ ἔχει τὴν ὑπαρίθμησιν: ἀτιμότερος οὖν καθ' ὑμᾶς τοῦ ψυχικοῦ ὁ πνευματικός, καὶ τοῦ χοϊκοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ἐπουράνιος.