The One Widened into Three

Perhaps he borrowed this from the Stoics, who hold that their God contracts and then expands again with the creation, and afterward rests without end. For what is widened was first narrow, and what is expanded was first contracted. It remains what it was, and only undergoes something done to it. If, then, the Monad was widened and became a Triad, and the Monad was the Father, and the Triad is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then, first, the Monad in being widened had something done to it and became what it was not. For it was widened, whereas it had not been wide before. Next, if the Monad itself was widened into a Triad, and the Triad is Father and Son and Holy Spirit, then Father and Son and Spirit turn out to be the same, as Sabellius held. That is, unless the Monad he speaks of is something besides the Father. But then he ought not to speak of widening, since the Monad was to make Three, so that there was a Monad, and then Father, Son and Spirit. For if the Monad was widened and expanded itself, it must itself be what was expanded. And a Triad, once widened, is no longer a Monad, and while it is a Monad it is not yet a Triad. So he who was Father was not yet Son and Spirit; but once he has become these, he is no longer only Father. And a man who lies like this must ascribe a body to God and make him subject to being acted upon. For what is widening but something that happens to what is widened? Or what is the widened thing but something that was not so before, but was narrow? For it is the same thing, differing from itself only in time. [a]

The divine apostle knows this when he writes to the Corinthians, “Do not be narrowed in us, but be widened yourselves, Corinthians.” He is urging the very same people to change from narrowness to wideness. And just as, supposing the Corinthians, once narrowed, were then widened, they would not have become other people but still been Corinthians, so if the Father was widened into a Triad, the Triad is again the Father alone. He says the same thing again: “Our heart is widened.” And Noah says, “May God widen for Japheth.” For it is the same heart and the same Japheth in the widening. If, then, the Monad widened, it would widen for others; but if it widened for itself, then it would itself be what was widened. And what is that but the Son and the Holy Spirit? It is fair to ask him, when he talks like this, what the working of this widening was, or, in plain truth, why it took place at all. For whatever does not stay the same, but is widened in the course of time, must have a cause for its widening. If, then, it happened so that the Word and the Spirit might be with him, it is beside the point to say, “First a Monad, and then widened.” For the Word and the Spirit did not come afterward; they always were, or else God would be without a Word, as the Arians hold. So if the Word and the Spirit always were, it was always widened, and was not a Monad at first. But if it was widened afterward, then there is a Word only afterward. But if it was widened for the Incarnation and then became a Triad, then before the Incarnation there was not yet a Triad. It will even seem that the Father became flesh, if, that is, he is the Monad and was widened in the man. And so perhaps there will be only a Monad, and flesh, and thirdly the Spirit, if, that is, he himself was widened; and there will be a Triad in name only. It is absurd, too, to say that it was widened in order to create. It could have made everything while remaining a Monad, for the Monad did not need widening, and did not lack power before it was widened. Surely it is absurd and impious to think or speak like this about God. Another absurdity will follow as well. If it was widened for the sake of the creation, and while it was a Monad the creation did not exist, but at the end of all things it will be a Monad again after its widening, then the creation too will come to nothing. For as it was widened for the sake of creating, so when the widening ceases, the creation will cease too. [c]