For it is you who first called God’s utterance a “son.” You say, “We have named him ‘son’ because he issued from Him just as speech issues from the intellect.” In that case you ought equally to have called His life a son, for it too springs from Him and is generated by Him; there is, after all, no difference between the Lord’s knowledge and His life. His knowledge is inseparable from Him, and His life is inseparable from Him—so why designate the one as a son but not the other?

You further claim, “He is begotten of God and eternal without beginning,” yet you acknowledge that none of the prophets ever described God’s knowledge, speech, or wisdom as begotten of Him. What people understand about something begotten of another—as knowledge and speech arise from a human being—is that it is either a new occurrence within him or something that separates from him; no one conceives of it as remaining inherent in him while also being generated from him and eternal without beginning.

Next, in your creed you assert that he became incarnate from the Holy Spirit, or from the Holy Spirit and Mary, even though, according to you, he took flesh from the Word you call “the Son,” not from the Holy Spirit. If, however, he was incarnated by the Holy Spirit, then he would be the Holy Spirit, not the Word that is the Son.

Yet you still maintain, “He is the Word of God and His Spirit.” That would entail two hypostases—the hypostasis of the Word and the hypostasis of the Spirit—whereas your doctrine allows for only one hypostasis.