59. As we find both expressions in use among the faithful, we use both; in the belief that full glory is equally given to the Spirit by both. The mouths, however, of revilers of the truth may best be stopped by the preposition which, while it has the same meaning as that of the Scriptures, is not so wieldy a weapon for our opponents, (indeed it is now an object of their attack) and is used instead of the conjunction  and . For to say “Paul and Silvanus and Timothy”  5  1 Thess. i. 1. is precisely the same thing as to say Paul  with Timothy and Silvanus; for the connexion of the names is preserved by either mode of expression. The Lord says “The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.”  6  Matt. xxviii. 19. If I say the Father and the Son  with the Holy Ghost shall I make, any difference in the sense? Of the connexion of names by means of the conjunction  and the instances are many. We read “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost,”  7  2 Cor. xiii. 13. and again “I beseech you for the Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, and for the love of the Spirit.”  8  Rom. xv. 30. Now if we wish to use  with instead of  and , what difference shall we have made? I do not see; unless any one according to hard and fast grammatical rules might prefer the conjunction as copulative and making the union stronger, and reject the preposition as of inferior force. But if we had to defend ourselves on these points I do not suppose we should require a defence of many words. As it is, their argument is not about syllables nor yet about this or that sound of a word, but about things differing most widely in power and in truth. It is for this reason that, while the use of the syllables is really a matter of no importance whatever, our opponents are making the endeavour to authorise some syllables, and hunt out others from the Church. For my own part, although the usefulness of the word is obvious as soon as it is heard, I will nevertheless set forth the arguments which led our fathers to adopt the reasonable course of employing the preposition “  with .”  9  “St. Basil’s statement of the reason of the use of μετά, σύν, in the Doxology, is not confirmed by any earlier or contemporary writer, as far as the editor is aware, nor is it contradicted.” Rev. C.F.H. Johnston. It does indeed equally well with the preposition “and,” confute the mischief of Sabellius;  10  “Sabellius has been usually assigned to the middle of third century, Mr. Clinton giving a.d. 256–270 as his active period. The discovery of the Philosophumena of Hippolytus has proved this to be a mistake, and thrown his period back to the close of the second and beginning of the third century.…He was in full activity in Rome during the Episcopate of Zephyrinus, a.d. 198–217.” Professor Stokes in D. C. Biog. iv. 569. For Basil’s views of Sabellianism vide Epp. CCX., CCXIV., CCXXXV. In his Hær. Fab. Conf. ii. 9 Theodoret writes: “Sabellius said that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were one Hypostasis; one Person under three names; and he describes the same now as Father, now as Son, now as Holy Ghost. He says that in the old Testament He gave laws as Father, was incarnate in the new as Son, and visited the Apostles as Holy Ghost.” So in the ῎Εκθεσις τῆς κατὰ μέρος πίστεως, a work falsely attributed to Gregory Thaumaturgus, and possibly due to Apollinaris, (cf. Theod., Dial. iii.) “We shun Sabellius, who says that Father and Son are the same, calling Him who speaks Father, and the Word, remaining in the Father and at the time of creation manifested, and, on the completion of things returning to the Father, Son. He says the same of the Holy Ghost.” and it sets forth quite as well as “  and ” the distinction of the hypostases, as in the words “I and my Father will come,”  11  Apparently an inexact reference to John xiv. 23. and “I and my Father are one.”  12  John x. 30. In addition to this the proof it contains of the eternal fellowship and uninterrupted conjunction is excellent. For to say that the Son is  with the Father is to exhibit at once the distinction of the hypostases, and the inseparability of the fellowship. The same thing is observable even in mere human matters, for the conjunction “  and ” intimates that there is a common element in an action, while the preposition “with” declares in some sense as well the communion in action. As, for instance;—Paul and Timothy sailed to Macedonia, but both Tychicus and Onesimus were sent to the Colossians. Hence we learn that they did the same thing. But suppose we are told that they sailed  with , and were sent  with ? Then we are informed in addition that they carried out the action in company with one another. Thus while the word “  with ” upsets the error of Sabellius as no other word can, it routs also sinners who err in the very opposite direction; those, I mean, who separate the Son from the Father and the Spirit from the Son, by intervals of time.  13  i.e., The Arians, who said of the Son, “There was when he was not;” and the Pneumatomachi, who made the Spirit a created being.

[59] Ἡμεῖς γὰρ ἀμφοτέρας ἐν τῇ τῶν πιστῶν χρήσει καταλαμβάνοντες τὰς ῥήσεις, ἀμφοτέραις κεχρήμεθα: τὴν μὲν δόξαν τῷ Πνεύματι ὁμοίως ἀφ' ἑκατέρας πληροῦσθαι πεπιστευκότες: τοὺς δὲ κακουργοῦντας τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐπιστομίζεσθαι μᾶλλον διὰ τῆς προκειμένης λέξεως, ἥτις τὴν δύναμιν τῶν Γραφῶν παραπλησίαν ἔχουσα, οὐκέτι ἐστὶν ὁμοίως τοῖς ἐναντίοις εὐεπιχείρητος_ἔστι δὲ αὕτη ἡ ἀντιλεγομένη νῦν παρὰ τούτων_ἀντὶ τοῦ καὶ συνδέσμου παρειλημμένη. Ἴσον γάρ ἐστιν εἰπεῖν: ‘Παῦλος καὶ Σιλουανὸς καὶ Τιμόθεος’, καὶ ‘Παῦλος σὺν Τιμοθέῳ καὶ Σιλουανῷ’. Ἡ γὰρ συμπλοκὴ τῶν ὀνομάτων δι' ἑκατέρας ὁμοίως τῆς ἐκφωνήσεως σῴζεται. Εἰ τοίνυν, τοῦ Κυρίου εἰπόντος Πατέρα καὶ Υἱὸν καὶ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, αὐτὸς εἴποιμι Πατέρα καὶ Υἱὸν σὺν τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, ἄλλο τι εἰρηκὼς κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν ἔσομαι; Τῆς δὲ διὰ τοῦ καὶ συνδέσμου συμπλοκῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων, πολλὰ τὰ μαρτύρια. «Ἡ χάρις γάρ, φησί, τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος.» Καὶ πάλιν: «Παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ Πνεύματος.» Εἰ τοίνυν ἀντὶ τῆς καὶ τῇ σὺν ἐθελήσαιμεν χρήσασθαι, τί διάφορον πεποιηκότες ἐσόμεθα; Ἐγὼ μὲν οὐχ ὁρῶ, πλὴν εἰ μὴ ψυχραῖς γραμματικαῖς τις τὸν μὲν σύνδεσμον ὡς συμπλεκτικὸν καὶ πλείονα ποιοῦντα τὴν ἕνωσιν προτιμῴη, τὴν δὲ πρόθεσιν, ὡς οὐκ ἔχουσαν τὴν ἴσην δύναμιν, ἀποπέμποιτο. Ἀλλ' εἴ γε περὶ τούτων τὰς εὐθύνας ὑπείχομεν, ἴσως οὐκ ἂν πολλοῦ λόγου πρὸς τὴν ἀπολογίαν ἐπεδεήθημεν. Νῦν δέ, οὐ περὶ συλλαβῶν οὐδὲ περὶ τοιοῦδε ἢ τοιοῦδε φωνῆς ἤχου ὁ λόγος αὐτοῖς, ἀλλὰ περὶ πραγμάτων ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἀληθείᾳ μεγίστην ἐχόντων διαφοράν. Ὧν ἕνεκεν, ἀπαρατηρήτου τῆς χρήσεως τῶν συλλαβῶν οὔσης, οὗτοι τὰς μὲν ἐγγράφειν, τὰς δὲ ἀποδιώκειν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἐπιχειροῦσιν. Ἐγὼ δέ, εἰ καὶ ἐκ τῆς πρώτης ἀκοῆς ἐναργὲς ἔχει τὸ χρήσιμον, ἀλλ' οὖν καὶ τὸν λόγον παρέξομαι καθ' ὃν οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν οὐκ ἀργῶς συμπαρέλαβον τὴν χρῆσιν τῆς προθέσεως ταύτης. Πρὸς γὰρ τῷ τὸ τοῦ Σαβελλίου κακὸν ἰσοσθενῶς τῇ καὶ συλλαβῇ διελέγχειν, καὶ παραπλησίως ἐκείνῃ τὸ τῶν ὑποστάσεων ἴδιον παριστᾷν, ὡς τό: «Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἐλευσόμεθα», καὶ τό: «Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν», ἐξαίρετον ἔχει τῆς ἀϊδίου κοινωνίας καὶ ἀπαύστου συναφείας τὸ μαρτύριον. Ὁ γὰρ εἰπὼν σὺν τῷ Πατρὶ τὸν Υἱὸν εἶναι, ὁμοῦ τήν τε τῶν ὑποστάσεων ἰδιότητα καὶ τὸ ἀχώριστον τῆς κοινωνίας ἔδειξεν. Ὅπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἐστὶν ἰδεῖν: ὁ μὲν καὶ σύνδεσμος τὸ κοινὸν τῆς ἐνεργείας παρίστησιν: ἡ δὲ σὺν πρόθεσις τὴν κοινωνίαν πως συνενδείκνυται. Οἷον, ἔπλευσαν εἰς Μακεδονίαν Παῦλος καὶ Τιμόθεος: ἀλλὰ καὶ Τυχικὸς καὶ Ὀνήσιμος ἀπεστάλησαν Κολοσσαεῦσιν: ἐκ τούτων, ὅτι μὲν ταὐτὸν ἐνήργησαν, μεμαθήκαμεν. Ἐὰν δὲ ἀκούσωμεν ὅτι συνέπλευσαν καὶ συναπεστάλησαν, ὅτι καὶ μετ' ἀλλήλων τὴν πρᾶξιν ἐπλήρωσαν προσεδιδάχθημεν. Οὕτω τὸ τοῦ Σαβελλίου κακόν, ὡς οὐδεμία τῶν ἄλλων φωνῶν καταλύουσα, προστίθησιν ἐκείνοις καὶ τοὺς κατὰ διάμετρον ἀσεβοῦντας. Λέγω δὴ τούτους οἳ χρονικοῖς διαστήμασι τοῦ μὲν Πατρὸς τὸν Υἱόν, τοῦ δὲ Υἱοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον διαιροῦσι.