Yet if you say, “Rather, the eternal, pre-existent Son—the Word, which is knowledge and wisdom—is an accident inhering in the substance of the Father and is therefore not a second substance,” then you have plainly stated that the Lord is a substance in which accidents inhere. But you yourselves previously denied this when you said, “He is a substance to which no accidents attach,” and again when you said, “Among created things there are substances that admit no accidents; the Creator is even more deserving of that.” This is an evident contradiction from which no escape is possible for anyone who examines your words from start to finish.

Your statements, taken together, oblige you to affirm that He is a single substance in which no accidents subsist. Yet you also maintain, “One substance, three hypostases,” whether you label them attributes, properties, accidents, or assert that the hypostasis is both essence and attribute.

Accordingly, we ask you: together with the hypostases, is the Lord three substances; or one substance possessing three attributes; or a substance devoid of any attribute?

If you say, “Three substances,” you have affirmed three entities and nullified your own claim that “the Lord is one substance and one God,” thereby openly acknowledging three gods.

If, however, you say, “Rather, one substance with three attributes,” you have conceded that this substance is the locus of attributes; and once attributes inhere in it—while you still call it a substance—and you assert, “Every existent is either substance or accident,” it inevitably follows that His attributes