The Distinction of Hypostases

By imagining him thus, he calls the Father and the Son to be such, thereby separating the Son of God from the Father, just as anyone would separate a son of a man from his father according to nature. If he is said to have spoken these things to Moses while separating the Father from himself as the Son, he will not confess the Son to be God. For how can he allow the one saying 'I am the Being' (Exodus 3:14) not to agree that the Being says he is in opposition to non-being? But if he would posit the Son as being separated, he would be said to say 'I am the Being' regarding the Father too.her of these is impious.

Therefore, I shall begin to oppose each of those who have written incorrectly, starting from the epistle written by him. He wrote to believe in the Father as God the Almighty, and in his Son the only-begotten God, the Lord our Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit; and he says that he has learned this way of godliness from the divine writings. And I, when he says this, accept the things said very much, for this is the common way of godliness for all of us, to believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; but when, not having considered the divine, he says the Father is Father and the Son is Son more humanly to us through some technical theory, one can no longer praise such a theory as harmless. For through such a theory, the heresy currently conceived by them comes to increase, which I think is easy to demonstrate clearly from his own words. For he said that one must believe the Father to be truly Father and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Spirit likewise.

For it is impossible for three hypostases to be one unity, unless the Trinity first has its beginning from a unity. For the holy Paul said that those things are being recapitulated into a unity, which differ from God in nothing regarding unity; for the Word and the Spirit alone differ from God in unity.

If, therefore, the Word seems to have come forth from the Father and come to us, and the Holy Spirit, as Asterius also confessed, proceeds from the Father, the Savior immediately says concerning the Spirit that 'he will not speak of himself, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are coming' (John 16:13).

"He shall take from mine and he will announce to you" (John 16:5), the monad does not appear here clearly and manifestly, but in a secret word, expanding into a trinity yet by no means undergoing division. For if the Word proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit also is confessed to proceed from the Father, and immediately regarding the Spirit the Savior says, "He shall take from mine and he will announce to you" (John 16:5), is it not then evident that a mystery is being hidden to be revealed? For how, if the monad being undivided were not expanding into a trinity, could it contain him regarding the Spirit to say at times that he proceeds from the Father, and at times to say, "He shall take from mine and he will announce to you" (John 16:5), and immediately after having breathed upon the disciples, "Receive Holy Spirit" (John 20:22) having said?

For how, if he proceeds from the Father, does he promise to receive this ministry from the Son? For it is necessary either that, being divided into two, as Asterius said, there be persons, or that the Spirit proceeding from the Father must not be in need of the ministry from the Son (for everything proceeding from the Father must be perfect, by no means being dependent on the help of another), or, if he receives from the Son and by his power ministers the grace, he no longer proceeds from the Father. If, however, the Gospel said that having breathed upon the disciples, "Receive Holy Spirit" (John 20:22), he had said, it is evident that the Spirit came forth from the Word. How then, if the Spirit proceeded from the Word, does it again proceed from the Father?

Therefore, he has not spoken correctly nor appropriately, having said that there are three hypostases, not once, but a second time. We know the economy according to the flesh to differ for the man, but we have believed the incorcorporeality according to the spirit to be united to the Father. For if the examination of the Spirit were the only one, it would seem fitting that the Word be one and the same with God; but if the addition according to the flesh upon the Savior were being examined, it seems that the divinity is being expanded by energy alone, so that it would seem fitting that the monad truly is undivided.

For Asterius had decided that there are one and the same, according to this, only the Father and the Son, in accordance with which they agree in all things. For so he said: and because of the precise account in all words and works...