Chapter 5 — The opinion of Sabellius concerning the Son of God, and its refutation

But since all who have a right conception of God are firmly persuaded that there can be but one who is God by nature, some, gathering from the Scriptures that Christ is truly and naturally God and the Son of God, confessed indeed that Christ the Son of God and God the Father are one God; yet that God is not called ‘Son’ by nature or from eternity, but assumed the appellation of Son from the moment that he was born of the Virgin Mary in the mystery of the incarnation. Thus, whatever Christ underwent in the flesh was ascribed by them to the Father—for instance, that he was the son of a Virgin, conceived by and born of her, that he suffered, died, and rose again, and whatever else Scripture relates of him in the flesh.

They endeavored to confirm this contention by the authority of Scripture.

For it is said: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord (Deut 6:4); and: See that I am alone, and there is no God beside me (Deut 32:39); and: The Father who dwells in me does his works, and: He who has seen me has seen the Father; and*:* I am in the Father and the Father in me (John 14:9–11). From all these texts, they imagined that God the Father himself is called the Son, after being born of the Virgin.

This was the opinion of the Sabellians, who were also styled Patripassionists, because they contended that the Father suffered, and believed that Christ was the Father himself.

Now, though this opinion differs from the former in the matter of Christ’s divinity (since the latter confesses that Christ was God in truth and nature, whereas the former denied this), nevertheless, both opinions agree as to the question of generation and sonship. For just as the former opinion asserts that the sonship and generation, whereby Christ is called Son, did not precede Mary, so also does the latter. Consequently, neither opinion refers generation and sonship to the divine nature, but only to the human. The latter opinion has this also peculiar to it: it asserts that when we speak of the Son of God, we do not indicate a subsistent person, but a property adventitious to a preexisting person, since the Father assumed the appellation of Son by reason of his having taken flesh from the Virgin, not as though the Son were a subsistent person distinct from the Father.

The falseness of this position can be clearly proved by the authority of Scripture. For the Scriptures call Christ not only the son of the Virgin, but also the Son of God, as we have shown above. (Ch. 4.) But it is impossible for a person to be his own son. For, since the son is begotten of his father, and the begetter gives being to the begotten, it would follow that the giver of being would be identified with the receiver, and this is quite impossible. Therefore, God the Father is not the Son, but the Father and Son are distinct.

Again. The Lord said: I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me (John 6:38); and: Now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence (John 17:5). From these and like passages it is clear that the Son is other than the Father.

However, according to this opinion, it might be said that Christ is called the Son of God the Father in respect only of his human nature; namely, because God the Father created and sanctified the human nature that Christ assumed. Accordingly, as God he is Father of himself as man. And thus there is nothing to prevent the same one as man being distinct from himself as God.

But, in that case, it would follow that Christ is styled the Son of God even as other men, by reason either of creation or of sanctification. But we have shown that Christ is not called the Son of God for the same reason as other holy men. Therefore, it cannot be understood in the aforesaid manner that the Father is Christ and his own Son.

Further. Where there is one subsistent suppositum, plural predication is inadmissible. Yet Christ spoke of himself and the Father in the plural, when he said: I and the Father are one (John 10:30). Therefore, the Son is not the Father.

Again. If the Son is not distinct from the Father, except through the mystery of the Incarnation, before the Incarnation they were not distinct at all. Yet we find from Scripture that the Son was distinct from the Father even before the Incarnation. For it is said: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1). Hence the Word that was with God was in some way distinct from him: for we are accustomed to speak of one person as being with another. The begotten of God says: I was with him forming all things (Prov 8:30), and this implies some kind of fellowship and distinction. It is also said: I will have pity on the house of Judah, and I will deliver them by the Lord their God (Hos 1:7), where God the Father speaks of the people to be saved by God the Son, as by a person distinct from himself and worthy of the name of God. It is also said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness (Gen 1:26), where the plurality and distinction of man’s makers are expressly indicated; and Scripture teaches that man was created by God alone. Consequently, God the Father and God the Son were two distinct persons even before Christ became man. Therefore, the Father is not called the Son by reason of the mystery of the Incarnation.

Moreover. True sonship refers to the suppositum which is called ‘son,’ for the hand and foot are not properly called sons, but the man whose parts they are. Now the terms paternity and sonship denote distinction in those of whom they are said, even as do begetter and begotten. Hence if one is really a son, he must be a distinct person from his father. Now, Christ is truly the Son of God, for it is said: that we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ (1 John 5:20). Consequently, Christ must be a suppositum distinct from the Father; and therefore the Father is not the Son.

Besides, after the mystery of the Incarnation the Father bore witness to the Son: This is my beloved Son (Matt 3:17). Now in pointing him out thus, he referred to the suppositum. Therefore, Christ is a distinct suppositum from the Father.

The arguments whereby Sabellius endeavored to establish his position do not prove his contention, as we shall show more fully further on. (Ch. 9.) For the fact that God is one, or that the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, does not prove that the Father and Son are one suppositum, because two things that are distinct supposita may be one in some respect.