11

the church of the Antiochians as if it were his own property. But this marvelous writer also mocks this man, who lived blessedly, rested blessedly, had long since fallen asleep, and was disturbing him in no way. And moving on from this, he wages war against Origen, who himself had also long ago ceased from life. Then he marches against Narcissus, and persecutes the other Eusebius, and at the same time rejects all the ecclesiastical fathers, being pleased with absolutely no one but himself alone. Therefore, he writes by name, making ill mention of all in this manner: I will begin, therefore, from the letter written by him to argue against each of the things that were not written correctly. He has written 20to believe in God the Father almighty, and in his Son the only-begotten God, our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit20; and he says he has 20learned from the divine scriptures this manner of piety20. But when he says this, I very much accept what is said, for this is the common manner of piety for all of us, 20to believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit20; but when, not having aimed at the divine power, he speaks to us in a more human way through some artful theory that the Father is Father and the Son is Son, it is no longer safe to praise such a theory. For through such a theory, the heresy now devised by them happens to grow, which I think is easy to demonstrate clearly from his own words. For he said, 20that one must consider the Father to be truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Spirit likewise20. This Marcellus says to Asterius, not being pleased to confess 20that the Father must be truly Father20 20and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Spirit likewise20. Whence he then attempts through lengthier arguments to refute the reasoning concerning these things. For he is willing to confess Christ to be a mere word, similar to human reason, but not a Son truly living and subsisting. And since he said that this heresy is now being devised, it must be shown how, as he proceeds, he makes mention of Origen of old as holding the same opinion as those now being slandered by him. But I have encountered very many ecclesiastical writings of men even older than Origen, in various letters of bishops and synods written long ago, through which one and the same character of the faith is demonstrated. Therefore, he has slandered incorrectly by saying that this heresy is now being devised by those being slandered. After this, proceeding a little, he speaks ill not only of Asterius, but also of the great Eusebius, to whose episcopate very many and distinguished provinces and cities belonged, in this manner: But I will remind you of what he himself has written, agreeing with the things poorly written by Eusebius, so that you may know that he clearly departs from his former profession. For he has written in these very words thus: 20For the main point of the letter was to refer the generation of the Son to the will of the Father, and not to declare the begetting to be a passion of God. This the wisest of the fathers declared in their own compositions, guarding against the impiety of the heretics, who falsely ascribed a certain corporeal and passible child-bearing to God, dogmatizing about projections20. And against these statements he then makes a lengthy refutation, after which he adds, saying: So Asterius, wishing to advocate for Eusebius who wrote poorly, by mentioning 20the nature of a father and the nature of the unbegotten20, has become his own accuser. For it were much better to leave unexamined 20the depth of Eusebius's thought20, as he himself wrote, 20lying in brevity20, than by using such a theory to bring the craftiness of the writing to light. And after other things he adds: But now let us examine one saying of those written by Asterius; for he said: 20One is

11

Ἀντιοχέων 1.4.3 ἐκκλησίαν ὡς οἰκείου ἀγαθοῦ μεταποιηθῆναι αὐτοῦ. ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦτον, μακαρίως μὲν βεβιωκότα, μακαρίως δ' ἀναπεπαυμένον πάλαι τε κεκοιμημένον καὶ μηδὲν αὐτῷ διενοχλοῦντα, ὁ θαυμαστὸς οὗτος συγγραφεὺς σκώπτει. καὶ ἐκ τούτου μεταβὰς Ὠριγένει πολεμεῖ, πρόπαλαι καὶ αὐτῷ πεπαυμένῳ τοῦ βίου. ἔπειτα Ναρκίσσῳ ἐπιστρατεύεται, καὶ τὸν ἕτερον Εὐσέβιον διώκει, ὁμοῦ τε πάντας τοὺς ἐκκλησιαστικοὺς πατέρας ἀθετεῖ, οὐδενὶ τὸ παράπαν ἀρεσκόμενος ἢ 1.4.4 μόνῳ ἑαυτῷ. γράφει δ' οὖν ὀνομαστὶ κακῶς μνημονεύων ἁπάντων τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἄρξομαι τοίνυν ἀπὸ τῆς ὑπ' αὐτοῦ γραφείσης ἐπιστο λῆς πρὸς ἕκαστον τῶν μὴ ὀρθῶς γραφέντων ἀντιλέγειν. γέγραφεν 20πιστεύειν εἰς πατέρα θεὸν παντοκράτορα, καὶ εἰς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ θεόν, τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον20· καί φησιν 20ἐκ τῶν θείων γραφῶν μεμαθηκέναι τοῦτον τὸν τῆς θεοσεβείας 1.4.5 τρόπον20. ἐγὼ δὲ ὅταν μὲν τοῦτο λέγῃ ἀποδέχομαι σφόδρα τὰ λεγόμενα, κοινὸς γὰρ οὗτος ἁπάντων ἡμῶν τῆς θεοσεβείας ὁ τρό πος, 20πιστεύειν εἰς πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν καὶ ἅγιον πνεῦμα20· ὅταν δὲ μὴ τῆς θείας ἐστοχασμένος δυνάμεως ἀνθρωπικώτερον ἡμῖν διά τινος ἐντέχνου θεωρίας τόν τε πατέρα πατέρα λέγῃ καὶ τὸν υἱὸν 1.4.6 υἱόν, οὐκέτ' ἐπαινεῖν τὴν τοιαύτην θεωρίαν ἀκίνδυνον. διὰ γὰρ τῆς τοιαύτης θεωρίας τὴν νῦν αὐτοῖς ἐπινοουμένην αἵρεσιν αὐξάνεσθαι συμβαίνει, ὅπερ σαφῶς ἐπιδεῖξαι ῥᾴδιον οἶμαι ἐκ τῶν αὐτοῦ λόγων. ἔφη γὰρ 20τὸν μὲν πατέρα δεῖν ἀληθῶς πατέρα εἶναι νομίζειν καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ἀληθῶς υἱὸν καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα ὡσαύτως20. 1.4.7 ταῦτα ὁ Μάρκελλος πρὸς Ἀστέριον, οὐκ ἀρεσκόμενος 20τῷ τὸν πατέρα δεῖν ἀληθῶς πατέρα εἶναι20 ὁμολογεῖν 20καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ἀληθῶς υἱὸν καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα ὡσαύτως20. ὅθεν ἑξῆς διὰ μακροτέρων ἀνασκευάζειν τὸν περὶ τούτων πειρᾶται λόγον. ψιλὸν γὰρ καὶ τῷ ἀνθρωπείῳ λόγῳ ὅμοιον, οὐχὶ δὲ υἱὸν ἀληθῶς ζῶντα καὶ ὑφεστῶτα τὸν 1.4.8 Χριστὸν εἶναι ὁμολογεῖν ἐθέλει. καὶ ἐπειδὴ ταύτην εἶπεν ἐπινοεῖσθαι νῦν αἵρεσιν, δεικτέον ὡς προϊὼν Ὠριγένους τοῦ πάλαι γενομένου μέμνηται ὡς ὁμοδοξοῦντος τοῖς νυνὶ πρὸς αὐτοῦ διαβαλλομένοις. ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ Ὠριγένους παλαιοτέρων ἀνδρῶν πλείστοις ὅσοις ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς συγγράμμασιν ἐντετύχηκα, ἐπισκόπων τε καὶ συνόδων ἐπιστολαῖς διαφόροις πρόπαλαι γραφείσαις, δι' ὧν εἷς καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς ὁ τῆς 1.4.9 πίστεως χαρακτὴρ ἀποδείκνυται. οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἄρα διαβέβληκεν εἰπὼν ταύτην ἐπινοεῖσθαι νῦν αἵρεσιν ὑπὸ τῶν διαβαλλομένων. μετὰ ταῦτα μικρὸν προελθὼν οὐ τὸν Ἀστέριον μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν μέγαν Εὐσέβιον, οὗ τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς πλεῖσται καὶ διαφανεῖς ἐπαρχίαι τε καὶ πόλεις μετεποιήθησαν, κακῶς ἀγορεύει τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ὑπομνήσω δέ σε ὧν αὐτὸς γέγραφεν συνιστάμενος τοῖς κακῶς ὑπὸ Εὐσεβίου γραφεῖσιν, ἵνα γνῷς ὅτι ἀφίσταται σαφῶς τῆς 1.4.10 προτέρας ἐπαγγελίας. γέγραφεν γὰρ αὐταῖς λέξεσιν οὕτως· 20τὸ γὰρ κεφάλαιον εἶναι τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ἐπὶ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ πατρὸς ἀνενεγκεῖν τοῦ υἱοῦ τὴν γένεσιν, καὶ μὴ πάθος ἀποφῆναι τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν γονήν. ὅπερ οἱ σοφώτατοι τῶν πατέρων ἐν τοῖς οἰκείοις συντάγμασιν ἀπεφήναντο, φυ λαξάμενοι τῶν αἱρετικῶν τὴν ἀσέβειαν, οἳ σωματικήν τινα καὶ παθητικὴν κατεψεύσαντο τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν τεκνο γονίαν, τὰς προβολὰς δογματίζοντες20. 1.4.11 καὶ πρὸς ταύτας δὲ τὰς φωνὰς πολλὴν ἑξῆς ποιεῖται τὴν ἀντίρρησιν, μεθ' ἣν ἐπισυνάπτει λέγων ὥστε συνηγορῆσαι Εὐσεβίῳ κακῶς γράψαντι βουλόμενος Ἀστέριος, 20φύσεώς τε πατρὸς καὶ φύσεως ἀγεννητοῦ20 μνη μονεύσας, αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ κατήγορος γέγονεν. πολὺ γὰρ βέλτιον ἦν 20τὸ βάθος τοῦ νοήματος Εὐσεβίου20, ὡς αὐτὸς γέγραφεν, 20ἐν βραχυλογίᾳ κείμενον20 ἀνεξέταστον καταλιπεῖν, ἢ τοιαύτῃ θεωρίᾳ χρησάμενον τὸ πανοῦργον τοῦ γράμματος εἰς φῶς ἀγαγεῖν. 1.4.12 καὶ μεθ' ἕτερα ἐπιλέγει νυνὶ δὲ ἐξετάσωμεν ἕν τι ῥητὸν τῶν ὑπὸ Ἀστερίου γρα φέντων· ἔφη γὰρ οὗτος· 20ἄλλος μὲν