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.

(15) Such inconsistencies will arise from the proposition that the One expands into the Trinity. And since those who assert this presume to separate the Word and the Son, and to say that the one is the Word, and the other is the Son, and first the Word, and then the Son, let us consider this also. But heretics express their bold thought in different ways: some say that the Son is the man whom the Saviour took upon Himself; the others, that both man and the Word, were then made the Son when they were united. And there are others who assert that the Word Himself was then made the Son when He became man. From the Word, they say, came the Son, being formerly not the Son, but only the Word. The Stoics are imitated in both, and affirm that God expands, and deny the Son. But it is utterly absurd that, by naming the Word, one denies that He is the Son. For if the Word is not of God, they may justly deny that He is the Son. But if He is from God, why cannot they perceive that he who exists from someone is the son of him from whom he exists? Then, if God is the Father of the Word, why should not the Word be the Son of His Father? The father is called the father who has a son; That son is called the son who has a father. Therefore, if God is not the Father of Christ, then the Word is not the Son. But if God is the Father, then in all justice the Word will also be the Son. If He is afterwards the Father, and originally God, then this is Arian wisdom. Moreover, it is not in accordance with anything for God to change: this is characteristic of bodies. If, as in relation to the creature, God became the Creator afterwards, so He became the Father afterwards, then it should be known that there subsequently took place a change of the created, and not of God Himself.

(16) Therefore, if the Son is also a product, then in relation to Him God could justly become the Father afterwards. And if the Son is not a work, then it follows. that there is always a Father and always a Son. If the Son is always, then the Son will be the Word Himself. For if the Word is not the Son (and someone has ventured to say this), then he who affirms this either calls the Word the Father, or represents the Son as more perfect than the Word. Since the Son is in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18), it is necessary either for the Word not to be before the Son, because nothing is before that which is in the Father, or, if the Word is not the same as the Son, for the Word Himself to be the Father, in whom is the Son. But if the Word is not the Father, but the Word, then the Word will be outside the Father, because the Son is in the bosom of the Father. Not both of Them, the Word and the Son, are in the bosom of the Father, but one must be in the bosom, and this one is the Son, that is, the Only-begotten. And again, if one is the Word and another is the Son, then the Son will prove to be more perfect than the Word; for no one knows the Father, not even the Word, but the Son (Matthew 11:27). Therefore, either the Word does not know the Father, or, if He does, it is falsely said, "No one knows." The same must be understood in the reasoning of what has been said: "He who has seen Me is in the form of the Father" (John 14:9), and "I and the Father are one" (10:30). These, according to the heretics, are the words of the Son, not the Word.

This is also evident from the Gospels. According to the Gospel of John, when the Lord says: I and the Father are one, having taken the stone of the Jews, that they may slay Him. Jesus answered them, "Many good deeds have been shown unto you by the Father: for what work of theirs dost thou take a stone upon me?" And the Jews answered Him, "For a good deed we do not cast a stone against Thee, but for blasphemy, for Thou, O man, hast made unto Thyself 471 God." Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'Az rekh, bozi thou?' If these are the words of the gods, to whom the word of God has been, and the Scripture cannot be destroyed: His Father is holy and sent into the world, you say, as you have spoken blasphemy, I am the Son of God. If I do not do the works of the Father, have not faith in Me: if I do, if you do not believe Me, believe in your works: that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father (vv. 30-38). However, as far as this should be understood clearly, Christ did not say this: "I am God," nor this: "I am the Son of God"; but he only said: I and the Father are one.

(17) Wherefore the Jews, when they heard this alone, thought that He, in agreement with Sabellius, was saying, "I am the Father; And our Saviour draws the following conclusion from their erroneous opinion: even if I had called Myself God, then you should have known what is written: I am God. Then, explaining what had been said, "I and the Father are one," he pointed to the unity of the Son with the Father, saying, "I am the Son of God; for if he did not say it in exact words, then the meaning of these sayings, "I am one," he explained by the saying, "Son." Nothing can be one with the Father except that which is of the Father. And what can there be of the Father, except the Son? Wherefore he adds, That ye may understand that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me. For, interpreting the saying, "One," He said that unity and inseparability do not consist in the identity of the Son with Him with Whom He is one, but in the fact that He is in the Father, and the Father in the Son. By this He refutes both Sabellius, who said: I am not the Father, but the Son of God, and Arius, who said: I am one. Therefore, if one is the Son, and another is the Word, then it is not the Word, but the Son who is one with the Father, and he who has seen not the Word, but the Son, in the form of the Father. 472 And according to this explanation, either the Son is greater than the Word, or the Word is in no way superior to the Son. For what is higher or more perfect than this, one, and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and he who has seen Me in the sight of the Father? To the Son, as the same John says, belong the following sayings: "He who saw Me, saw Me (12:45); and, "Whosoever receiveth Me, receiveth Him that sent Me" (Matthew 10:40); and: "I have come light into the world, that whosoever believeth in Me shall not abide in darkness." And if anyone hears My words and does not keep it, I will not judge him: for I have not come, that I may judge the world, but that I may save the world. The word that heareth it judges him on the last day (John 12:46-48), as I come to the Father (14:12); preaching, He says, judges him who does not keep the commandment. For, as he says, if he did not come and spoke to them, they had no sin; but now they have no excuse (15:22), hearing my words, from which those who keep them reap salvation.

(18) Perhaps the heretics in their shamelessness will say that this is not the utterance of the Son, but of the Word. But from what has been said above, it is clearly seen that He who speaks is the Son, for it is indicated that He who says here, "I have not come to judge, but to save the world," is no one else, but the only-begotten Son of God. For the same John says above this: "Thus shall God love the world, as He hath given His only-begotten Son to eat, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." For God did not send the Son into the world, let Him judge the world, but let the world be saved by Him. If you believe in Him, you are not condemned: but if you do not believe, you are already condemned, because you do not believe in the name of the only-begotten Son of God. And this is the judgment, for light came into the world, and loved men more than darkness, but light: for their evil deeds were (3:16-19). If He who says, "473 I have not come, that I may judge the world, but that I may save him," is the same One who says, "See Me, see Him who sent Me," but He who came to save the world, and not to condemn it, is the only-begotten Son of God, then it is evident that He who says, "See Me, see Him who sent Me," is the same Son. For He also who says, "Believe in Me," and if anyone hearkens not to My words, I do not judge him, is the same Son of Whom it is said, "Believe in Him, you are not condemned, and you do not believe, you are already condemned, because you do not believe in the name of the only-begotten Son of God." And again: this is the judgment of him who does not believe in the Son, for light has come into the world, and they have not believed in Him, evidently in the Son. For He is the light which enlightens every man that cometh into the world (1:9). And all the time that He dwelt on earth after His incarnation, the light was in the world, as He Himself said: "Until you have light, believe in the light, that you may be sons of light" (12:36). And: "I have come into the world as a light" (v. 46).

(19) Therefore, because of what has been proved, it is evident that the Word is the Son. If the Son is the light that came into the world, then it is indisputable that the world received existence through the Son. For at the beginning of the Gospel, speaking of John the Baptist, the Evangelist adds: "Not that light, but let it bear witness to the light" (1:8); for, as it was said before, Christ Himself is the true light, which enlightens every man that cometh into the world (9). For if He was in the world, and the world was by Him (10), then of necessity He is the Word of God, of Whom the Evangelist said: "All things were by Him" (3). Or the heretics will have to name two worlds, so that the one may come into being through the Son, and the other through the Word; or, if the world is one and the creature is one, then one and the same thing must be called the Son and the Word before all creation, because 474 the creature received existence through Him. Consequently, if all things were both by the Word and by the Son, then it will not be contradictory, but one and the same thing will be said: in the beginning was the Word, in the beginning was the Son.

But if, since John did not say, "In the beginning was the Son," they say that it is unseemly for the Son that which is ascribed to the Word, then behold, and that which is attributed to the Son will be unseemly to the Word. And it is proved that the Son says: I and the Father are one, that the Son is in the bosom of the Father, and He also says: See Me, He who sent Me. True, the common relation to the Word and to the Son is what has been said: the world was by Him (1:10), wherefore it is proved that the Son is before the world, for the Creator must be before the created; but what was said to Philip, according to their reasoning, would not refer to the Word, but to the Son. For it is said, Jesus said, How long have I been with you, and hast thou not known me, Philip? And how do you say, show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words which I say unto you, I say not of myself: But the Father abide in me, he doeth works. Believe Me as I am in the Father, and the Father in Me: if not, have faith in Me for that works. Amen, amen I say unto you, believe in me, the works which I do, and that shall do, and greater than these: for I come unto my Father. And whatsoever ye ask in my name, that I will do it: that the Father may be glorified in the Son (14:9-13). Thus, if the Father is glorified in the Son, then the Son is the One who says: I am in the Father, and the Father in Me. And he saith, He that hath seen Me in the sight of the Father. For He who says these things proves of Himself that He is the Son, adding, "Let the Father be glorified in the Son."