2

through the blasphemy of one of like mind, seems to me to be a matter of both shamelessness and insensibility. And that these things are so, he would be a refutation of himself, introducing God as Son-Father according to Sabellius, if not in plain speech, at least in truth, by destroying the hypostasis of the Son, and defining one God, and calling this one His own Father and then again His own Son. 1.1.3 For granting that the Logos is in God, and defining this one as being one and the same with him, he said that he is called his Father; and that the Logos is his Son, not truly being a Son in the hypostasis of a substance, but properly and truly being Logos. At least he indicates that he is not Logos by an improper use of the term, but properly and truly being Logos, and nothing 1.1.4 other than Logos. But if nothing else, it is clear that he was not Son properly and truly, but was named so only by sound and name, by an improper use of the term. And saying that the Logos, the one who was incarnate and born of the virgin, is one and the same with God, he declared him to be God. Which indeed Sabellius uttered long and long ago, and the church of God rejected, counting him among the atheistic heretics. 1.2.1 For to confess one God in contrast to the polytheistic error of the Greeks, the children of the Jews first received. But to know the same as Father of a only-begotten Son is a special prize the saving grace has bestowed on the church. But it knows only Jesus Christ as Son and no other, not according to the generation of the flesh which he assumed—for this it has been taught to call the form of a servant and Son of man—but according to the generation from God the Father himself before all ages, unknown to all; according to which the fullness of the paternal Godhead also constituted him Son of God, not as a divinity that is privately owned and separate from the Father, nor one without beginning and unbegotten, nor one drawn from some other foreign place and alien to the Father, but as being filled from the very participation of the Father, as if poured forth upon him from a spring. For "in him alone all the fullness" of the paternal "Godhead" dwells, the great apostle taught. Wherefore one God is preached in the church of God, "and there is no other besides him"; and one only-begotten Son of God, the image of the paternal Godhead, and for this reason God. Which theology, indeed, the many, not having comprehended, devised various paths of error: 1) some granting the Son to be God, but denying the man whom he assumed, 2) others supposing him a mere man, and being ignorant of the God in him, 3) and others, for fear of seeming to introduce a second God, defining the same to be Father and Son. Having turned away from these, the church of God glories in the evangelical preaching of the truth, boasting to have one God over all, and inscribing one only-begotten Son, God from God, Jesus Christ, confessing the same to be Savior and becoming Son of man, being the Son of God before he also became man, and becoming this which he was not through the ineffable excess of the Father's love for man. The word of truth indeed proclaims these things from the person of the church; but those who deny the Son of God, and say that there is one God and nothing else, why do they trouble the church in vain, when they should be associating with the synagogues of the Jews? And why do they entangle themselves with blasphemous words, slandering the one God with twofold appellations, if indeed they suppose the same to be Father and the same to be Son? For whose father is he, if no son subsists? And whose son will he be, if the one who begot does not pre-exist? And being one, he himself will surely be the one who was incarnate and suffered and completed a mortal life among men. But Sabellius, saying these things, the church of God drove far away, as one who dared things atheistic and impious; and Marcellus tries to renew these things, using a pretext of not-persuasive speech. For rightly defining one God, he says that this one has the Logos in himself, united and joined to him; and then of the one God he calls one part Father, and the other Son, as if there were some double and composite substance 1.5.2 in him. And by how much

2

διὰ τῆς τοῦ ὁμογνώμονος δυσφημίας, ἀναιδείας ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ ἅμα καὶ ἀναισθησίας ὑπάρχειν. ὅτι δὲ ταῦθ' οὕτως ἔχει, γένοιτ' ἂν ἔλεγχος αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ, υἱοπάτορα τὸν θεὸν κατὰ τὸν Σαβέλλιον, εἰ καὶ μὴ γυμνῷ τῷ λόγῳ, τῇ γοῦν ἀληθείᾳ εἰσάγων, τῷ τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἀναιρεῖν τοῦ υἱοῦ, ἕνα δὲ θεὸν ὁρίζεσθαι, καὶ τοῦτον ἑαυτοῦ πατέρα καὶ αὖ πάλιν υἱὸν ἀποκαλεῖν ἑαυτοῦ. 1.1.3 λόγον γὰρ εἶναι δοὺς τὸν ἐν τῷ θεῷ, ἕν τε καὶ ταὐτὸν ὄντα αὐτῷ τοῦτον ὁρισάμενος, πατέρα τούτου χρηματίζειν αὐτὸν ἔφη· τόν τε λόγον υἱὸν εἶναι αὐτοῦ, οὐκ ἀληθῶς ὄντα υἱὸν ἐν οὐσίας ὑποστάσει, κυρίως δὲ καὶ ἀληθῶς ὄντα λόγον. ἐπισημαίνεται γοῦν ὅτι μὴ καταχρηστικῶς λόγον, ἀλλὰ κυρίως καὶ ἀληθῶς ὄντα λόγον, καὶ μηδὲν 1.1.4 ἕτερον ἢ λόγον. εἰ δὲ μηδὲν ἕτερον, δῆλον ὡς οὐδὲ υἱὸς ἦν κυρίως καὶ ἀληθῶς, μέχρι δὲ φωνῆς καὶ ὀνόματος καταχρηστικῶς ὠνομασμένος. ἕν τε εἶναι λέγων καὶ ταὐτὸν τῷ θεῷ τὸν λόγον, τὸν σαρκωθέντα καὶ ἐκ τῆς παρθένου τεχθέντα, θεὸν αὐτὸν ἀπέφηνεν. ὃ δὴ πάλαι καὶ πρόπαλαι τὸν Σαβέλλιον φθεγξάμενον ἀπεδοκίμασεν ἡ ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ, τοῖς ἀθέοις αὐτὸν αἱρεσιώταις ἐγκαταλέξασα. 1.2.1 τὸ μὲν γὰρ θεὸν ὁμολογεῖν ἕνα πρὸς ἀντιδιαστολὴν τῆς Ἑλλήνων πολυθέου πλάνης πρῶτοι παρειλήφασιν Ἰουδαίων παῖδες. τὸ δὲ καὶ πατέρα τὸν αὐτὸν υἱοῦ μονογενοῦς γνωρίζειν ἐξαίρετον γέρας ἡ χάρις ἡ σωτήριος τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ δεδώρηται. υἱὸν δὲ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν μόνον οἶδεν καὶ οὐδένα ἕτερον, οὐ κατὰ τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς ἣν ἀνείληφεν γένεσιν ταύτην γὰρ δούλου μορφὴν καὶ υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου καλεῖν δεδίδακται, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς πρὸ πάντων αἰώνων ἄγνωστον τοῖς πᾶσιν· καθ' ἣν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς πατρικῆς θεότητος καὶ αὐτὸν υἱὸν θεὸν ὑπεστήσατο, οὐκ ἰδιόκτητον καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀφωρισμένην οὐδ' ἄναρχόν τινα καὶ ἀγέννητον οὐδὲ ἄλλοθέν ποθεν ξένην καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀλλοτρίαν ἐφελκόμενον θεότητα, ἐξ αὐτῆς δὲ τῆς πατρικῆς μετουσίας ὥσπερ ἀπὸ πηγῆς ἐπ' αὐτὸν προχεομένης πληρούμενον. μόνῳ γὰρ «ἐν αὐτῷ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα» τῆς πατρικῆς ἐνοικεῖν «θεότητος» ὁ μέγας ἐπαίδευσεν ἀπόστολος. διὸ δὴ εἷς θεὸς τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ κηρύττεται, «καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἕτερος πλὴν αὐτοῦ»· εἷς δὲ καὶ μονογενὴς τοῦ θεοῦ υἱός, εἰκὼν τῆς πατρικῆς θεότητος, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο θεός. ἣν δὴ θεολογίαν οἱ πολλοὶ νοεῖν οὐ χωρήσαντες, ποικίλας ἀτραποὺς ἐπενόησαν πλάνης· αʹ οἱ μὲν θεὸν δόντες τὸν υἱόν, τὸν δ' ἄνθρωπον ὃν ἀνείληφεν ἀρνησάμενοι, βʹ οἱ δὲ ψιλὸν ἄνθρωπον ὑποθέμενοι, τὸν δ' ἐν αὐτῷ θεὸν ἀγνοήσαντες, γʹ οἱ δὲ φόβῳ τοῦ δοκεῖν δεύτερον εἰσηγεῖσθαι θεὸν τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν ὁρισάμενοι. οὓς ἐκτραπεῖσα ἡ ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας εὐαγγελικῷ κηρύγματι σεμνύνεται, ἕνα μὲν τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸν ἔχειν αὐχοῦσα, ἕνα δὲ καὶ υἱὸν μονογενῆ θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐπιγραφομένη, σωτῆρα τὸν αὐτὸν καὶ υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου γινόμενον ὁμολογοῦσα, ὄντα μὲν υἱὸν θεοῦ πρὶν ἢ καὶ ἀνθρώπου γενέσθαι, καὶ τοῦτο δὲ γενόμενον ὅπερ οὐκ ἦν δι' ἄφατον ὑπερβολὴν τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς φιλανθρωπίας. ὁ μὲν δὴ τῆς ἀληθείας λόγος ταῦτ' ἐκ προσώπου βοᾷ τῆς ἐκκλησίας· οἱ δὲ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ἀρνούμενοι, ἕνα δὲ θεὸν εἶναι φάσκοντες καὶ οὐδὲν ἕτερον, τί καὶ παρενοχλοῦσιν μάτην τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ταῖς Ἰουδαίων προσομιλεῖν συναγωγαῖς δέον; τί δὲ καὶ βλασφήμοις σφὰς αὐτοὺς περιπείρουσιν λόγοις, τὸν ἕνα θεὸν συκοφαντοῦντες διτταῖς ἐπηγορίαις, εἰ δὴ τὸν αὐτὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν υἱὸν ὑποτίθενται; καὶ τίνος γάρ ἐστιν πατήρ, μηδενὸς ὑφεστῶτος υἱοῦ; τίνος δὲ υἱὸς ἔσται, μὴ προϋπάρχοντος τοῦ γεγεννηκότος; εἷς δὲ ὢν πάντως που αὐτὸς ἔσται ὁ σαρκωθεὶς καὶ παθὼν καὶ τὸν ἐν ἀνθρώποις διανύσας θνητὸν βίον. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα λέγοντα Σαβέλλιον ἡ ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ, ὡς ἄθεα καὶ δυσσεβῆ τολμῶντα, μακρὰν ἤλασεν· ταῦτα δὲ Μάρκελλος ἀνανεοῦσθαι πειρᾶται, προκαλύμματι χρώμενος οὐ πιθανῷ λόγῳ. θεὸν γὰρ ἕνα ὀρθῶς ὁριζόμενος, τοῦτον αὐτὸν λόγον ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἡνωμένον καὶ συνημμένον αὐτῷ φησίν· κἄπειτα τοῦ ἑνὸς θεοῦ τὸ μέν τι πατέρα καλεῖ, τὸ δὲ υἱόν, ὡς διπλῆν τινα καὶ σύνθετον οὐσίαν 1.5.2 ἐν αὐτῷ εἶναι. καὶ πόσῳ