(4) Therefore it must be asked: Is God all-wise and has the Word, or, on the contrary, is He not all-wise and has no Word? If we admit the latter, then the incongruity is self-evident. And if the former, then it must be asked: How is He all-wise and has the Word? Does He have the Word and Wisdom by Himself or by Himself? If so, then there will be someone who communicated to Him initially, but He Himself, before receiving what was communicated, was not all-wise, and without the Word. But if the Word is from Him, then it is evident that He is not of those who do not exist, and did not exist when He did not exist. There has always been a Word, because there is always One Whose image He is.

And if it is said that, although God is all-wise and not without the Word, yet in Himself He has His own wisdom and His own word, namely, not Christ, but the Word by which He also created Christ, then it must be said to this: If Christ was brought into being by this word, then it is evident that everything was brought into being by Him. And He will be the Word of Whom John says, "All things were there" (John 1:3); and the Psalmist: "Thou hast created all things in Wisdom" (Psalm 103:24). At the same time, Christ will be found to have falsely said: I am in the Father, because the other is in the Father. Unjustly, according to the heretics, will be this: the Word was made flesh. For if He Who was all things became flesh Himself, and Christ is not the Word in the Father in Whom all things were, then it follows that Christ was not made flesh, unless Christ is called the Word. 459 And if we accept this, then, in the first place, Christ will not be what His name shows, and secondly, "Not by Him was all things, but by the word by which Christ also came into being." But if it is said that Wisdom in the Father is a quality, or that the Father is the original Wisdom, then the inconsistencies mentioned above will follow from this. The Father will be composed, having become Himself both the Son and the Father.

Moreover, in order to rebuke and shame the heretics, it will be necessary to say that the Word that is in God will not be a creature, and He is not of those who are not. As soon as the Word is in God, He is Christ, Who says: I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; and therefore also the only-begotten Son, for no one else is begotten of the Father. This son is alone; He is the Word, the Wisdom, and the Power, because God is not made of these things, but begets them. As He creates creatures by the Word, so by nature He has the birth of His own essence — the Word, by Whom He builds, creates, rules all things, because all things are brought into being by the Word and Wisdom, and by the creation of the Word all things abide (Psalm 118:91). The same must be said of the Son. If God does not beget, then He does not work; for the Son is His begotten, and through Him God works. Otherwise, shameless heretics will be followed by the same questions and the same inconsistencies.

5) In Deuteronomy it is said: "But ye who are attached to the Lord your God, live all to this day" (4:4). From this we can see the difference and understand that the Son of God is not a creature. For the Son says: I and the Father are one (John 10:30), and I am in the Father, and the Father in Me (14:11). And created beings, when they prosper, are attached to the Lord. The Word, as His own, dwells in the Father; and 460 created beings, being consensual, are applied as alien by nature and diligent by will. And the Son by nature is one with Him who begets, and he who is adopted will be added to the generation. Wherefore it is soon added: Which tongue is so great, which is God, draw nigh (Deuteronomy 4:7)? And in another place, "God draweth nigh, I am" (Jeremiah 23:3). For He draws near to the created as to strangers; but he does not draw near to the Son as his own, but abides in Him. And the Son is not diligent, but co-existent with the Father. For this reason Moses also says in the same Deuteronomy: "Listen to His voice, and cleave unto Him" (13:4). And that which clings adheres to it.

(6) In the reasoning of this feeble and human conception of the Arians, by which it is supposed that the Lord was lacking, when He said, "I will be given unto me" (Matthew 28:18), and "I will receive" (John 10:18), and when Paul says, "By the same God shall exalt Him" (Phil 2:9), and sit at the right hand (Ephesians 1:20), and the like, it must be said that our Lord, being the Word and Son of God, bore a body upon Himself, and became the Son of man, so that, having become an Advocate for God and of men, the things of God, we may serve us, and those things that are ours may serve God. Therefore, when it is said that he hungers, weeps, wears, cries: Eloi, Eloi, then He receives from us the infirmities of human beings and our own infirmities, and offers them to the Father, interceding for us, that these infirmities may be destroyed in Him. But when it is said, "Thou hast given Me power," and "I have received," and "By the same God hath exalted Him," these are the gifts communicated to us through Him from God. The Word was not insufficient, It was never brought into being. Likewise, people were not able to serve themselves with this; and this is granted to us through the Word. 461 Wherefore that which is given to us is communicated as it were to Him. For this reason the Word became man, so that what is given to Him, as it were, would pass on to us. The common man could not have been vouchsafed this, nor would the Word alone have need of it. Wherefore the Word joined with us, and then gave us authority, and exalted us. The word that is in man has exalted man. And because the Word is in man, man has received it. Therefore, since the Word is in the flesh, man is exalted and has taken power. Therefore this is written to the Word, because it was given for His sake. For the sake of the Word that is in man, these gifts are given; and as the Word was made flesh, so man received that which was received by the Word. For all that man has received is spoken to those who have received the Word, so that it may be seen that He as a man, as far as it is in accordance with His nature, was not worthy to receive, yet He received it for the sake of the Word, which was made flesh. Therefore, if it is said that something is given to the Lord, or something like that, then it must be imagined that it is not given to Him as one who has need, but is given to man through the Word. And everyone who intercedes for another accepts mercy, not having need of it himself, but for the sake of him for whom he intercedes.

7) Just as He accepts our infirmities without Himself being weak, and hungers without hungering, but prays for our infirmities so that they may be blotted out, so He Himself again accepts gifts from God instead of infirmities, so that a person who has entered into union with Him may partake of them. Thus, the Lord says: "All that thou hast given unto me, thou hast given unto them" (John 17:7-8); and again: I pray for these. He prayed for us, taking upon Himself our things, and gave us what He received. Since the Word was united to man, the Father, looking at the Word, gave man the opportunity to ascend, to have all power, and so on. Therefore it is written to the Word Himself, and as it were to Him is given all that through Him we accept. As the Word was made man for our sake, so through Him do we ascend. Wherefore there is nothing incongruous in the fact that, just as for our sake He humbled Himself, so for our sake He is said to be exalted. Thus, a gift to Him means: He gave it to us for His sake; and to exalt Him means to exalt us in Him. The Word Himself, when we are exalted, and receive, and receive help, as if He were lifted up, received, and received help, gives thanks to the Father, writing to Himself what is ours and saying: "All that Thou hast given Me, I have given unto them."

(8) The Arians, who follow Eusebius, by attributing to the Son the beginning of being, pretend not to agree that the Son has the beginning of kingship. But this is ridiculous. For he who ascribes to the Son the beginning of being, evidently ascribes to Him also the beginning of kingship; and therefore, recognizing what they themselves reject, they become blind. And also those who assert that the Son is one name, that the Son of God, that is, the Word of the Father, is neither self-existent nor independent, pretend to be indignant at those who assert that it was when the Son did not exist. And it's also funny. For those who do not ascribe existence to the Son are indignant at those who ascribe at least temporary existence. And what they themselves deny, they admit as a reproach to others. And the followers of Eusebius, recognizing the Son, deny that He is the Word by nature, and want the Son to be called the Word by invention. Others, while acknowledging the Word, deny that He is the Son, and, relying on absolutely nothing, want the Word to be called the Son by invention.

9) I and the Father are one (John 10:30). You say, "Then the two are one, or one has 463 two names, or one is divided into two." If, therefore, the one is divisible into two, then the divided must be a body, and neither is perfect, because each is a part, and not a whole. If one has two names, then Sabellian is the teaching; Sabellius says that one and the same is both the Son and the Father; and by this He destroys both of them, namely, when He is the Son, He destroys the Father, and when He is the Father, He destroys the Son. But if the two are one, then it is necessary to be both two and one in Divinity; and since the Son is of one essence with the Father, it is necessary for the Word to be from the Father Himself; Why, though there are two, because there is the Father and the Son, that is, the Word, yet they are one, because God is one. And if not, then it was necessary to say: I am the Father, or: I am the Father. But now the saying Az signifies the Son, and the Father is the Begat Who begat Him, and the saying is one, the one Godhead and His consubstantiality. For the All-Wise and Wisdom are not the same, as the Greeks say; or the Father and the Word are not one and the same, because it is unseemly for Him to be His own Father. The Divine teaching knows the Father and the Son, the All-Wise and the Wisdom, God and the Word, although it completely preserves its inseparability, inseparability, and indecomposability into parts.

(10) If, however, anyone who hears that the Father and the Son are two, slanders that two Gods are preached (some really imagine such things and do not hesitate to ridicule when they say, "You say two Gods"), then he should answer: If he who acknowledges the Father and the Son says two Gods, then he who says one destroys the Son and preaches Sabellianism. For if the predicate of two is Hellenistic, then it follows that the one who says one is Sabellian. But that's not the case. Let it not be so! On the contrary, just as he who says that the Father and the Son are two, says one God, so he who says that God is one, contains in his thought two, the Father and the Son, who are of one essence in the Godhead; for the Word, which is from the Father, is immediate, not separate, inseparable from Him. Take the human likeness: fire and radiance from it; in being and in appearance, there are two, but also one, because the radiance of fire and with it is inseparable.

11) The Sabellians fall into the same foolishness as the Arians. And these say that the Son was created for our sake, that we might be created, as if God were waiting for our creation, in order that, according to some, He might manifest, or according to others, create the Son. Therefore the Arians are inferior to us rather than to the Son. For they say that it is not we for His sake, but He who received existence for our sake; for for this purpose He was created and exists, that through Him he might create us to God. But the Sabellians, equally and even more wicked, ascribe less to God than to us. For we often act silently, with a single thought, in such a way that the conceivable is clothed in images; but they want God to be inactive while He is silent, and only to have power when He publishes the Word; for he could not create in silence, but began to build, crying out.

It is fair to ask them: Was the Word, being in God, perfect, so that it could also create? If, being in God, He was imperfect, but having been born, He became perfect, then we are the cause of His perfection, because He was born for our sake. For for our sake it was given the opportunity to create. And if He was perfect in God, so that He could also create, then His birth is superfluous, because, being in the Father, He could create. 465 Wherefore whether it is not begotten, or is begotten, is not for our sake, but because it is always of the Father. His birth is not shown to be our creation, but His being from God, because He was before our creation.

12) The speculations of the heretics will prove to be just as audacious in relation to the Father. If the Father could not create in silence, then it is necessary to conclude that when He begotten, that is, when He spoke, He received power. But whence did He receive it, and for what purpose? But if He could create, while still having the Word in Himself, then He gives birth in vain, having the opportunity to create in silence. Moreover, if the Word was in God before birth, then it follows that it was born outside and became outside of God. And if we admit this, then why does he say now: I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? If He is now in the Father, it follows that He has always been in the Father, as He is now, and it is in vain to say that He is born for us, and after us He returns to be, as He was; for before it was not that which is not now, and now it is not what it was not before. On the contrary, the Word is as it has always been, having all the same things and to the same extent, otherwise it will be imperfect and changeable. For if it was what it was, it will be after that, as it is not this now, then it is evident that now it is not what it was and will be, that is, if it was in God before, and will be again in God afterwards, then it is evident that now there is no Word in God. But the Lord rebukes them, saying: I am in the Father, and the Father in Me. So He is now, as He always was. And if it is so now, as it has always been, then it is clearly impossible that sometimes He was born, and sometimes not, that sometimes there was silence in God, and sometimes God spoke. On the contrary, there is always a Father; and the Son, the Father's Word, not by name 466 only the Word; The Word is not by invention, but is really the Son, consubstantial with the Father, not born for our sake, because we received existence for His sake. And if He was born for our sake, and at His birth we were created, and by His birth the creature was created, and if He returns to be what He was before, then, in the first place, He who is born will again be unborn. For if His procession is birth, then His return is the cessation of birth. As soon as He is in God, God will be silent again. But if He is silent, it will again be the same as it was in His silence – silence, and not creation; therefore, the creature will have an end. Just as with the procession of the Word the creature received existence and was realized, so with the return of the Word the creature will cease to exist. What was the need to come into existence if it ceased? Or why did God speak in order to be silent afterwards? To what did He manifest Him Whom He calls? Why did he give birth, Whose birth did he want to stop? What will happen again? Unknown. Either he will be silent forever, or he will give birth again and invent a new creature, because he will not create the same one (otherwise the one that received existence could remain), but will create another; and consequently he will stop this one too, and invent a new one, and so on to infinity.

(13) This, perhaps, is what Sabellius borrowed from the Stoics, who assert that God shrinks, and also expands together with creation, and rests immensely. For that which expands is widened by constraints, and that which is extended is extended, having first been compressed; and remains the same; but nothing else that ripens but one modification. If, therefore, the enlarged Unity has become the Trinity, and the Unity is the Father, and the Trinity is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, then, in the first place, the enlarged Unity has undergone a modification and has become what it was not, because it has expanded without having previously been enlarged. And then, if the Unity Itself has expanded into the Trinity, and the Trinity is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it follows, according to Sabellius, that the Father Himself was made both the Son and the Spirit, except that the Unity called by Sabellius is something other than the Father. In the same case, it should have been said that the One did not expand, but produced three, so that first the One, and then the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. For if She Herself had expanded and stretched Herself out, She would have remained the same as She was stretched out. But the Trinity is no longer an expanded Unity; being a Unity, She was not yet a Trinity. Therefore the Father, being the Father, was not the Son and the Spirit; but having become Them, He is no longer only the Father. And some will mockingly call it the body of God, introducing a changeable God. For what does expansion mean, is it not a modification that is expandable? Or what is enlarged, is it not that which was not previously extended, but constrained? For these are one and the same thing, and differ from themselves only in time.

14) The divine Apostle also knows this, writing in his Epistle to the Corinthians: "You are not narrowly contained in us, but you Corinthians also spread out" (2 Corinthians 6:12-13). Not others, but the same Corinthians he advises to come from a straitened state to an enlarged one. But just as if the closely enclosed Corinthians were to expand again, they would not become different, but would again be Corinthians, so if the Father was expanded into the Trinity, then the Trinity is again one Father. And again the Apostle says: "Our heart shall be enlarged" (v. 11). 468 And Noah said, "Let God spread Japheth" (Genesis 9:27). And the heart is the same, and Japheth is the same in the expansion. Therefore, if the One has expanded, then perhaps it has expanded in others. And if it has expanded in Itself, it will be that which is expanded. What is this, if not the Son and the Holy Spirit? But it is good to ask the one who thinks thus: what is the effect of such an expansion? Or to say before the truth itself: why, in general, is the Unity expanded? That which does not remain the same, but is subsequently enlarged of necessity, must have a reason why it is enlarged. If the Father expanded in order that the Word and the Spirit might be inherent in Him, then it would be superfluous to say: first the One, and then it expanded. For the Word and the Spirit are not afterwards, but always, otherwise God would be without the Word, as the Arians say. Therefore, if there has always been the Word and there has always been the Spirit, then the One has always been expanded, not just expanded. But if it was enlarged afterwards, then the Word also enlarged afterwards. But if it was enlarged by reason of incarnation and then became the Trinity, then it follows that there was no Trinity before incarnation. It will turn out that the Father also became flesh, because He, being a Unity, expanded in man. Or perhaps the One will already be flesh and, thirdly, Spirit, because one and the same one has expanded. And the Trinity will be only in name. And if the One has expanded for creation, then this is absurd. For it was possible, and being a Unity, to create all things; The unit had no need to expand and was not weak before the expansion. It is absurd and impious to think and talk about God in this way. But the consequence of this will be another inconsistency. If the Unity expanded for the sake of the creature, and while it was the Unity, there was no creature, but after the creation the Unity will again be without expansion, 469 then the creature will also be destroyed. For as it was expanded for creation, so with the cessation of expansion will the creation also cease.