82. But I am not needlessly critical on this point. For I had rather use an expression that is new than commit sin by rejecting it. So, then, we will pass by this question of innovation, and see whether the real question is not reduced to something which all our fellow-Christians unanimously condemn. What man in his senses will ever declare that there is a third substance, which is common to both the Father and the Son? And who that has been reborn in Christ and confessed both the Son and the Father will follow him of Samosata in confessing that Christ is Himself to Himself both Father and Son? So in condemning the blasphemies of the heretics we hold the same opinion, and such an interpretation of ὁμοούσιον we not only reject but hate. The question of an erroneous interpretation is at an end, when we agree in condemning the error.

82. Quo sensu judicio communi damnetur.---Sed 0535A hinc non calumnior. Malo enim aliquid novum commemorasse, quam impie respuisse. Praetermissa itaque quaestione novitatis, ne in his quidem residet quaestio, quae communi omnium nostrum judicio damnantur. Quis enim sanae mentis tertiam substantiam, quae et Patri et Filio communis sit, praedicabit? Vel quis secundum Samosateum, in Christo renatus, et Filium confessus ac Patrem, quod Christus in se sibi et pater et filius sit confitebitur? Par itaque in condemnandis impietatibus haereticorum nostra sententia est: et hanc homousii intelligentiam non modo respuit, sed et odit. 510 Atque ita non relinquitur vitiosae intelligentiae quaestio, ubi in vitii damnatione communis assensus est.