28

his saints. Do you see into what a precipice he has fallen, having used no guide, nor the divine scriptures; for he has composed all these things 2.9.12 for himself from one saying, which he has not understood. For immediately proceeding to the proofs of the new and recent covenant, he was driven from all sides, being in distress, but having found only one word contributing to his own evil opinion, as if having stumbled upon some godsend, he grappled with this alone, and not even this spoken from the person of our Savior but from the person of the evangelist, by which he named him, saying, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Setting out from this point, therefore, as if he were nothing other than a word similar to that known among us, he denied the Son. 2.10.1 And yet the great and divine evangelist himself did not call him only Word, as has often been said by us, but also God and Light and Son and Only-begotten; and he records that the Savior himself nowhere in the scripture calls himself Word, but throughout the whole gospel, Life and Light and Only-begotten and Son of God and Truth and Resurrection and Bread of Life and Vine and Shepherd and countless other things, just as 2.10.2 has already been previously shown. Why then, there being so many, does he not insist on the letter in all the rest, but rather investigate the meaning of what is said, but on the Word alone does he say that it is to be taken literally, as if he were nothing other than a word? He writes therefore in these very words, saying, not named Word in a figurative sense, even if those who teach other doctrines burst in their falsehood, but being properly and truly the Word. 2.10.3 And again, let him learn, then, that the Word of God has come, not a Word named figuratively, as they say, but being a true Word. And again previously, as I have often said, he was nothing other than Word. And again, before he came down and was born through the virgin, he was only Word. For what else was he before assuming human flesh, the one who came down "in the last days," as he himself wrote, and the one who was born from the virgin? He was nothing other than Word. To Marcellus saying these things, it would be just to bring forward such a question as this: 2.10.4 And from where, sir, do you add to us the "nothing other" and the "only"? For we have accurately understood "In the beginning was the Word"; and not only that, but also "and the Word was God" and "the light that enlightens every man" and "he was the only-begotten Son" and all the other things that have been enumerated. But that he was only Word and nothing other than Word, no one could prove 2.10.5 to have been said. From where, then, is the audacity of the addition? For why would one not rather say he is only Son and nothing other than Son? Why not God and nothing other than God? Why not light of the world and nothing other than this? Why not life and nothing else? And concerning similar things, one could most justly 2.10.6 propose the same. But just as someone, if he said this, would be convicted of erring—for he is all these things at once, being one Son of God and if anything is superior to these, having been deemed worthy of different appellations according to each concept of the divine powers within him— 2.10.7 so also in the case of the Word, he who says he is only Word and nothing else would reasonably be said to be mistaken; for while the evangelist John alone called him Word, and not only this but other things as well, and the Savior proclaimed himself Light and Truth and Life and Only-begotten Son and the rest, but Word in no way, how is it not absurd not to say he is one of these and nothing else concerning the names by which he named himself, but concerning the evangelist's saying about him, the one that proclaimed him Word, to maintain that he was nothing other 2.10.8 than Word? But he also says, being properly and truly the Word. But why not being properly and truly God? For it was not one person who proclaimed him Word, and another who called him God; but one and the same evangelist taught that he was at once God and Word, saying, "and the Word was God," and this same one also named him Light. Why then not properly and truly Only-begotten Son and as many other things as the Lord and Savior himself through the evangelist concerning

28

ἁγίους αὐτοῦ. ὁρᾷς εἰς οἷον κεχώρηκεν κρημνὸν μηδενὶ χειραγωγῷ. χρησάμενος, μηδὲ ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς· ταῦτα γοῦν πάντα 2.9.12 ἀπὸ μιᾶς φωνῆς, ἣν μὴ νενόηκεν, ἑαυτῷ συνέθηκεν. αὐτίκα γὰρ χωρήσας ἐπὶ τὰς ἀποδείξεις τῆς νέας καὶ καινῆς διαθήκης, πανταχόθεν μὲν ἠλαύνετο στενοχωρούμενος, μίαν δὲ μόνην εὑρὼν λέξιν τῇ αὐτοῦ συμβαλλομένην κακοδοξίᾳ, ὥσπερ τινὶ περιτυχὼν ἑρμαίῳ ταύτῃ μόνῃ συνεπλάκη, οὐδ' αὐτῇ ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν εἰρημένῃ ἀλλ' ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ, δι' ἧς αὐτὸν ὠνόμασεν, «ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος» εἰπὼν «καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος». ἔνθεν γοῦν ὁρμηθεὶς ὡς μηδὲν ὄντα ἕτερον ἢ λόγον ὅμοιον τῷ παρ' ἡμῖν ἐγνωσμένῳ τὸν υἱὸν ἠρνήσατο. 2.10.1 καίτοι οὐ λόγον μόνον αὐτὸς ὁ μέγας καὶ θεῖος εὐαγγελιστὴς κέκληκεν, ὡς πολλάκις ἡμῖν εἴρηται, ἀλλὰ καὶ θεὸν καὶ φῶς καὶ υἱὸν καὶ μονογενῆ· αὐτόν τε τὸν σωτῆρα ἱστορεῖ ἑαυτὸν ἀποκαλοῦντα λόγον μὲν οὐδαμοῦ τῆς γραφῆς, δι' ὅλου δὲ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ζωὴν καὶ φῶς καὶ μονογενῆ καὶ υἱὸν θεοῦ καὶ ἀλήθειαν καὶ ἀνάστασιν καὶ ἄρτον ζωῆς καὶ ἄμπελον καὶ ποιμένα καὶ μυρία ἕτερα, ὥσπερ 2.10.2 οὖν ἤδη προδέδεικται. τί δήποτ' οὖν, τοσούτων ὄντων, ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν λοιπῶν ἁπάντων οὐχ ἵσταται ἐπὶ τῆς λέξεως τὴν δὲ τῶν λεγομένων διάνοιαν πολυπραγμονεῖ, ἐπὶ δὲ μόνου τοῦ λόγου κυριολεκτεῖσθαι αὐτόν φησιν ὡς οὐδὲν ὄντα ἕτερον ἢ λόγον. γράφει δ' οὖν αὐτοῖς ῥήμασιν λέγων οὐ καταχρηστικῶς ὀνομασθεὶς λόγος, κἂν διαρρα γῶσιν οἱ ἑτεροδιδασκαλοῦντες ψευδόμενοι, ἀλλὰ κυρίως τε καὶ ἀληθῶς ὑπάρχων λόγος. 2.10.3 καὶ πάλιν μανθανέτω τοίνυν θεοῦ λόγον ἐληλυθέναι, οὐ λόγον καταχρηστικῶς ὀνομασθέντα, ὡς αὐτοί φασιν, ἀλλ' ἀληθῆ ὄντα λόγον. καὶ αὖθις πρότερον, ὥσπερ πολλάκις ἔφην, οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἦν ἢ λόγος. καὶ πάλιν πρὸ τοῦ κατελθεῖν καὶ διὰ τῆς παρθένου τεχθῆναι λόγος ἦν μόνον. ἐπεὶ τί ἕτερον ἦν πρὸ τοῦ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ἀναλαβεῖν σάρκα τὸ κατελθὸν «ἐπ' ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν», ὡς καὶ αὐτὸς ἔγραφεν, καὶ τὸ γεννηθὲν ἐκ τῆς παρθένου; οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἦν ἢ λόγος. ταῦτα Μαρκέλλῳ λέγοντι ἦν ἂν δίκαιον τοιανδὶ προσαγαγεῖν πεῦσιν· 2.10.4 καὶ πόθεν ἡμῖν, ὦ οὗτος, τὸ οὐδὲν ἕτερον προστίθης καὶ τὸ μόνον; τὸ μὲν γὰρ «ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος» ἀκριβῶς ἔγνωμεν· καὶ οὐ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ «καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος» καὶ «φῶς ἦν τὸ φωτίζον πάντα ἄνθρωπον» καὶ «μονογενὴς ἦν υἱὸς» καὶ ὅσα κατείλεκται ἕτερα. ὅτι δὲ λόγος ἦν μόνον καὶ οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἢ λόγος οὐκ ἂν ἔχοι 2.10.5 τις εἰρημένον ἀποδεῖξαι. πόθεν οὖν τὸ τῆς προσθήκης τόλμημα; διὰ τί γὰρ οὐχὶ μᾶλλον υἱὸν ἄν τις εἴποι αὐτὸν μόνον καὶ οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἢ υἱόν; διὰ τί δὲ οὐ θεὸν καὶ οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἢ θεόν; διὰ τί μὴ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου καὶ οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἢ τοῦτο; διὰ τί δὲ μὴ ζωὴν καὶ οὐδὲν ἕτερον; καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν παραπλησίων ταὐτὸν ἄν τις δικαιό2.10.6 τατα ἂν προτείνειεν. ἀλλ' ὥσπερ ἄν τις, εἰ τοῦτο λέγοι, ἐλέγχοιτ' ἂν ἁμαρτάνων πάντα γὰρ ἀθρόως ἐστὶν ταῦτα, εἷς ὢν υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ εἴ τι τούτων ἀνώτερον, καθ' ἑκάστην ἐπίνοιαν τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ θεϊκῶν δυνάμεων διαφόρων καὶ τῶν ἐπηγοριῶν ἠξιωμένος, 2.10.7 οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ λόγου ὁ φὰς μόνον λόγον αὐτὸν εἶναι καὶ οὐδὲν ἕτερον σφάλλεσθαι ἂν λέγοιτο εἰκότως· μόνου γὰρ τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ Ἰωάννου λόγον αὐτὸν ἀποκαλέσαντος καὶ οὐ τοῦτο μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἕτερα, τοῦ δὲ σωτῆρος φῶς καὶ ἀλήθειαν καὶ ζωὴν καὶ μονογενῆ υἱὸν καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἑαυτὸν ἀνειπόντος λόγον δὲ οὐδαμῶς, πῶς οὐκ ἄτοπον ἐπὶ μὲν ὧν αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν ὠνόμασεν μὴ λέγειν ἓν τούτων εἶναι καὶ οὐδὲν ἕτερον, ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ περὶ αὐτοῦ φωνῆς, τῆς λόγον αὐτὸν ἀνειπούσης, διαβεβαιοῦσθαι ὡς οὐδὲν ἕτερον 2.10.8 ἦν ἢ λόγος. ἀλλὰ καὶ κυρίως φησὶν καὶ ἀληθῶς ὑπάρχων λόγος. διατί δὲ μὴ κυρίως καὶ ἀληθῶς ὑπάρχων θεός; οὐ γὰρ δὴ ἕτερος ἦν ὁ λόγον αὐτὸν ἀνειπών, ἕτερος δὲ ὁ θεὸν ἀποκαλέσας· εἷς δὲ καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς εὐαγγελιστὴς ὁμοῦ θεὸν καὶ λόγον αὐτὸν ἐδίδαξεν εἰπὼν «καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος», ὁ δ' αὐτὸς καὶ φῶς αὐτὸν ὠνόμασεν. διατί οὖν μὴ κυρίως καὶ ἀληθῶς υἱὸν μονογενῆ καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα αὐτὸς ὁ δεσπότης καὶ σωτὴρ διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ περὶ