9

clearing himself of suspicion as far as voice and word; yet in his opinion and in his agreement with the man he is caught, being pierced by the same arrows as he was, so that to me * * * * * it would have been a matter of prayer that he not fall into the same things; but now he appears to be erring worse than that man. For that man, perhaps being mistaken, was ignorant; but this one, confessing that the man was mistaken, and then pushing himself over the obvious cliff of the same impiety, would be worthy of no pardon. But let us examine the things that have been said. 1.16.1 First, then, that he said that neither Sabellius nor the Jews had known God because they had not known the Word, one must consider what sort of Word he posits; for if it is the only-begotten Son of God, the subsisting and living one, he himself has not known him either. For indeed, since our Savior mentioned the Son in various ways and often declared him the only-begotten Son and never called himself Word, but taught throughout all the Gospels that he is the Son of God, for which reason he also blesses Peter for saying, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” and testifies that this knowledge came to him through a revelation from the Father, saying, “Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven,” this wonderful man, as if having his ears stopped, writes these things verbatim and for this reason he does not name himself Son of God, but everywhere calls himself Son of man, so that through such a confession he might by adoption prepare man to become a son of God through communion with him. 1.16.2 Do you see how he does not dare to confess him as Son of God, so that he might not fall away from the dogma of Sabellius; but he calls him Son of man, on account of the flesh which he assumed. And throughout his whole treatise he names him Word, continuously indicating that he was nothing other than 1.16.3 Word. And in the very things in which he finds fault with Sabellius, he quotes the words of the Savior, by which he said, “no one has known the Father 1.16.4 except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him,” but as if correcting them, instead of the Son he again names him Word, saying thus: “for ‘no one knows,’” he says, “‘the Father except the Son,’ that is, the Word,” and he adds, “for the Word through himself provides the knowledge of the Father,” and he adds, “it was impossible to know God in any other way than through his own Word,” and again he puts Word instead of Son and calls him “his own Word”; and in such very brief statements he has mentioned Word many times, but Son not even once. But he even alters the Savior’s own 1.16.5 saying, introducing “that is, the Word” instead of “the Son,” as if the meaning of Son were not more fitting to the title of Father; whence the Savior fittingly joined the pairing of the Son to that of the Father, but this man, having refused to say “Son,” babbles on about the Word, and he accuses Sabellius of denying the Son, but while doing the same thing as he, he dissembles, thinking to avoid the suspicion of heterodoxy by the slander against him. If, then, he finds fault with Sabellius for denying the Son of God, he ought first to have found fault with himself; but if it is because Sabellius was ignorant of the Word which he himself defined, 1.16.6 he did not rightly accuse him of this. For neither Sabellius nor the Jews themselves, who deny the Christ of God, could be ignorant of the Word which Marcellus says is in God, through which he delivered oracles to Moses and the prophets, but everyone would say that they knew this accurately, not only Jews but also Greeks. For who would not confess that God is rational, just as he is also wise and good and powerful? Sabellius would not deny knowing this; but because he did not also confess the Son of God as living and subsisting, both being and pre-existing his flesh, 1.16.7 for the sake of this agreement with Marcellus he was likewise driven from the church of God. And how Marcellus thought the same things as Sabellius would be clear from the things in which he distinguished that God and his Word are one and the same, at one time saying in these very words 1.17.1 for if an examination of the spirit should take place

9

ὑπονοίας καθαίρων ἑαυτὸν μέχρι φωνῆς καὶ λόγου· τῇ γε μὴν γνώμῃ καὶ τῇ πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα ὁμοφροσύνῃ ἁλίσκεται τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἐκείνῳ περιπειρόμενος βέλεσιν, ὡς ἔμοιγε * * * * * καὶ δι' εὐχῆς ὑπῆρξεν ἂν τὸ μὴ τοῖς αὐτοῖς αὐτὸν περιπεσεῖν· νυνὶ δὲ κάκιον ἢ ἐκεῖνος πλημμελῶν φαίνεται. ὁ μὲν γὰρ τάχα που σφαλλόμενος ἠγνόει· ὁ δ' ὁμολογῶν ἐσφάλθαι τὸν ἄνδρα, κἄπειτα αὑτὸν ὠθῶν ἐπὶ τὸν προφανῆ τῆς αὐτῆς δυσσεβείας κρημνόν, οὐδεμιᾶς γένοιτ' ἂν συγγνώμης ἄξιος. ἀλλὰ γὰρ διασκεψώμεθα τὰ λελεγμένα. 1.16.1 πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ὅτι μήτε τὸν Σαβέλλιον μήτε Ἰουδαίους ἐγνωκέναι τὸν θεὸν ἔφη τῷ μὴ τὸν λόγον ἐγνωκέναι αὐτούς, σκέψασθαι χρὴ ὁποῖον ὑποτίθεται λόγον· εἰ μὲν γὰρ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν ὑφεστῶτα καὶ ζῶντα, ἀλλ' οὐδ' αὐτὸς τοῦτον ἔγνω. αὐτίκα δ' οὖν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν διαφόρως μνημονεύσαντος τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ πολλάκις μονογενῆ υἱὸν ἀνειπόντος καὶ μηδεπώποτε λόγον ἑαυτὸν ἀποκαλέσαντος, διὰ πάντων δὲ τῶν εὐαγγελίων υἱὸν θεοῦ εἶναι διδάξαντος ἐφ' ᾧ καὶ μακαρίζει τὸν Πέτρον εἰρηκότα «σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος», καὶ τὴν γνῶσιν αὐτῷ δι' ἀποκαλύψεως τοῦ πατρὸς γεγονέναι μαρτυρεῖ φήσας «μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων βὰρ Ἰωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέν σοι ἀλλ' ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ οὐράνιος», ὁ θαυμαστὸς οὗτος ὥσπερ βεβυσμένος τὰ ὦτα ταῦτα κατὰ λέξιν γράφει καὶ διὰ τοῦτο οὐχ υἱὸν θεοῦ ἑαυτὸν ὀνομάζει, ἀλλὰ παν ταχοῦ υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου ἑαυτὸν λέγει, ἵνα διὰ τῆς τοιαύτης ὁμολο γίας θέσει τὸν ἄνθρωπον διὰ τῆς πρὸς αὐτὸν κοινωνίας υἱὸν θεοῦ γενέσθαι παρασκευάσῃ. 1.16.2 ὁρᾷς ὅπως υἱὸν μὲν αὐτὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ὁμολογεῖν οὐ τολμᾷ, ὡς ἂν μὴ ἐκπέσοι τοῦ Σαβελλίου δόγματος· υἱὸν δὲ ἀνθρώπου καλεῖ, δι' ἣν ἀνείληφεν σάρκα. καὶ λόγον δὲ δι' ὅλου τοῦ οἰκείου συγγράμματος ὀνομάζει συνεχῶς ἐπισημαινόμενος, ὡς οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἦν ἢ 1.16.3 λόγος. καὶ ἐν οἷς δ' οὖν τὸν Σαβέλλιον καταμέμφεται, παρατίθεται μὲν τὰς τοῦ σωτῆρος φωνάς, δι' ὧν ἔφη «οὐδεὶς ἔγνω τὸν πατέρα 1.16.4 εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς καὶ ᾧ ἂν ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψῃ», ὥσπερ δὲ ἐπανορθούμενος αὐτὰς ἀντὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ λόγον αὖθις ὀνομάζει, ὧδε λέγων «οὐδεὶς» γὰρ «οἶδεν» φησὶν «τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱός», τουτέστιν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ἐπιφέρει ὁ γὰρ λόγος δι' ἑαυτοῦ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς παρέχει γνῶσιν, καὶ προστίθησιν ἀδύνατον ἦν ἑτέρως γνῶναι τὸν θεὸν ἢ διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου λόγου καὶ αὖθις λόγον ἀντὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ τίθησιν καὶ τὸν ἴδιον αὐτοῦ λόγον ἀποκαλεῖ· καὶ ἐν οὕτω βραχυτάτοις ῥήμασιν πολλάκις μὲν ἐμνημόνευσεν λόγου, υἱοῦ δὲ οὐδ' ἅπαξ. ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος 1.16.5 μεταποιεῖ τὴν ῥῆσιν, ἀντὶ τοῦ «ὁ υἱὸς» ἐπάγων τουτέστιν ὁ λόγος, ὡς οὐχὶ μᾶλλον τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ σημασίας ἁρμοζούσης τῇ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐπηγορίᾳ· ὅθεν εἰκότως ὁ μὲν σωτὴρ προσφυῶς ἐφήρμοσεν τῇ τοῦ πατρὸς τὴν τοῦ υἱοῦ συζυγίαν, ὁ δὲ τὸν υἱὸν εἰπεῖν παραιτησάμενος ἄνω κάτω τὸν λόγον θρυλεῖ, καὶ Σαβελλίου μὲν κατηγορεῖ τὸν υἱὸν ἀρνουμένου, ταὐτὸν δὲ πράττων ἐκείνῳ σχηματίζεται, τῇ κατ' αὐτοῦ διαβολῇ τὴν τῆς κακοδοξίας ὑπόνοιαν ἐκκλίνειν οἰόμενος. εἰ μὲν οὖν τῷ Σαβελλίῳ μέμφεται τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ἀρνουμένῳ, ἑαυτῷ πρότερον χρῆν μέμψασθαι· εἰ δὲ ὅτι ὃν αὐτὸς ὡρίζετο λόγον Σα1.16.6 βέλλιος ἠγνόει, οὐκ ὀρθῶς τοῦτό γε ᾐτιᾶτο. οὔτε γὰρ Σαβέλλιον οὔτ' αὐτοὺς Ἰουδαίους, τοὺς τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ἀρνουμένους, ὅν φησιν Μάρκελλος ἐν τῷ θεῷ εἶναι λόγον, δι' οὗ Μωσεῖ καὶ τοῖς προφήταις κεχρημάτικεν, ἀγνοῆσαι, τοῦτον δὲ ἀκριβῶς εἰδέναι καὶ ὁ πᾶς εἴποι ἂν οὐ μόνον Ἰουδαίων ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἑλλήνων. λογικὸν γὰρ τίς οὐκ ἂν ὁμολογήσειεν εἶναι τὸν θεόν, ὡς καὶ σοφὸν καὶ ἀγαθὸν καὶ δυνατόν; Σαβέλλιος τοῦτο μὲν οὐκ ἂν ἀρνηθείη εἰδέναι· ὅτι δὲ μὴ καὶ υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ζῶντα καὶ ὑφεστῶτα ὄντα τε 1.16.7 καὶ προόντα τῆς σαρκὸς ὡμολόγει, ταύτης ἕνεκα τῆς πρὸς Μάρκελλον συμφωνίας ὁμοίως αὐτῷ τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκλησίας ἠλάθη. πῶς δὲ τὰ ἴσα Μάρκελλος τῷ Σαβελλίῳ ἐφρόνει, δῆλος ἂν εἴη ἐξ ὧν ἓν καὶ ταὐτὸν εἶναι τὸν θεὸν καὶ τὸν αὐτοῦ λόγον διεστείλατο, ποτὲ μὲν αὐτοῖς ῥήμασιν εἰπὼν 1.17.1 εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἡ τοῦ πνεύματος ἐξέτασις γίγνοιτο