group says otherwise, as some people imagine; rather, both assertions are made by all the Christian sects—the Nestorians, the Jacobites, the Melkites, and the like. This, too, betrays your inconsistency: if he were truly God, he could not simultaneously be the Son of God, whether the word “son” is taken to denote an attribute or something else. The Father, after all, is the essence, and the essence is not the attribute. And if by “son” you intend the essence together with the attribute of speech—as you explain the al-uqnūm (hypostasis)—then that very essence is also characterized by life, while speech—whether you mean by it knowledge, or expression coupled with knowledge—subsists, together with life, in the Father. Yet an attribute is not identical with the One it describes, nor is any attribute ever termed the “son” of the One it qualifies; none of the prophets, peace be upon them, ever expressed themselves in such a manner.

The upshot is that when they say, “and in one Lord, Jesus Christ,” they do not mean to append a mere attribute, nor do they intend that this is the Father Himself—unlike the statement, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” which all refer to one and the same God, with the conjunction indicating distinct descriptions. Were “the Son” meant to be identical with the Father, that would run counter to their own creed, for they would then have made Him a god issuing from Himself and would have ended up saying, “two gods—in fact, three—yet He is one.”