30

word, and that which is implanted in the rational soul, according to which we have the ability to reason, second. and besides this, another, that which through tongue and articulate voice signifies something, third. and in a third 2.13.2 manner, that which is composed in writing by the writer. fourth. Moreover, we are accustomed to call logos also the spermatic or vegetative, according to which things not yet grown are deposited in seeds in potentiality, being about to come forth into the light in actuality at any moment. fifth. And besides these, they are accustomed to name logos in another way, the scientific principle of some art or science, and that which is comprehensive of all such theorems, as for example the medical or architectural or geometrical. 2.14.1 Since, therefore, different senses are presented by the term logos, and since the evangelist has said absolutely "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," it is fitting to apply the mind and to understand that the evangelist is here transmitting some strange kind of logos beyond those known to us, having said logos absolutely, but having added the strange and paradoxical nature of its unique power in the phrase "and the Word was God." 2.14.2 For, he says, do not suppose that this one is also among the relative things, like the logos in the soul or like that which is heard through the voice or like that which is in corporeal seeds or like that which subsists in mathematical theorems; for all these, being relative things, are conceived in another pre-existing substance. But the God Logos does not need another pre-existing thing, that having come into being in it, it might subsist, but it is living and subsisting in itself, 2.14.3 since it is God. For "the Word was God." But hearing that he is God, he says, do not suppose that he too is without beginning and unbegotten like his Father, but learn that "in the beginning was" this God Logos. But what beginning he posits for him, he clarifies next, not having said: and the Word was the God, with the addition of the article, so that he might not define him to be the God over all, nor yet: in God, so that he might not reduce him to a human likeness, but he said "and the Word 2.14.4 was with God." For if he had said: and the Word was in God, presenting it as an accident in a subject and as one thing in another, he would have introduced God as composite, on the one hand positing him as a substance without a word, and on the other, the word as an accident to the substance. 2.14.5 Supposing this, Marcellus brings the Father and the Son together into the same thing, calling the substance the Father, and the word in him the Son; not having reasoned that one who grants this, by positing God without a word, would fall into an atheistic and impious dogma, accepting a God without reason, having a word as an accident in him but not himself being 2.14.6 a word; whereas it is necessary to confess one divine thing, ineffable, good, simple, uncompounded, uniform, that is beyond all things, being God-in-itself, Mind-in-itself, Word-in-itself, Wisdom-in-itself, Light-in-itself, Life-in-itself, Beauty-in-itself, Good-in-itself, and whatever better than these one might conceive, or rather, beyond 2.14.7 all mind and beyond all thought and reflection, and that his only-begotten Son, as an image of the Father born from him, being in every way and in all things most like the one who begot him, is himself also God and mind and word and wisdom and life and light and an image of the beautiful and the good itself, not being the Father himself but the only-begotten Son of the Father, nor being himself the unbegotten and without beginning but the one born from him and having as his beginning the one who begot him. 2.14.8 But if Marcellus, contradicting these things, should say that God and the word in him are the same thing, defining God as uncompounded and simple, then it is time for him to confess neither Father nor Son, but openly to put forward the Jew or to introduce Sabellius, who says that the Father and the Son are the same; so that according to him "in the beginning was the Word" is equivalent to "in the beginning was God," and "and the Word was with God" is equivalent to "and God was with God," 2.14.9 and likewise the third is the same as "and God was God," which things would indeed be, besides being incoherent, also most irrational. And how will "all things were made through him" have a place, when there is one subject? For he does not say by him

30

λόγος καὶ ὁ ἐν τῇ λογικῇ ψυχῇ καταβεβλημένος, καθ' ὃν τὸ λογίζεσθαι ἡμῖν πάρεστιν, βʹ. καὶ παρὰ τοῦτον ἕτερος, ὁ διὰ γλώττης καὶ φωνῆς ἐνάρθρου σημαίνων τι, γʹ. καὶ κατὰ τρίτον 2.13.2 τρόπον, ὁ διὰ γραφῆς τῷ γραφεῖ συντεταγμένος. δʹ. ἤδη δὲ λόγον εἰώθαμεν καλεῖν καὶ τὸν σπερματικὸν ἢ φυτικόν, καθ' ὃν δυνάμει τὰ μηδέπω φύντα ἐναπόκειται τοῖς σπέρμασιν, μέλλοντα ὅσον οὔπω τῇ ἐνεργείᾳ εἰς φῶς προϊέναι. εʹ. καὶ παρὰ ταῦτα ἑτέρως εἰώθασιν ὀνομάζειν λόγον τὸν ἐπιστημονικὸν τέχνης τινὸς ἢ ἐπιστήμης καὶ πάντων τῶν τοιωνδὶ θεωρημάτων καταληπτικόν, οἷον ἰατρικὸν ἢ ἀρχιτεκτονικὸν ἢ γεωμετρικόν. 2.14.1 διαφόρων τοίνυν τρόπων παρισταμένων ἐκ τῆς τοῦ λόγου φωνῆς, τοῦ τε εὐαγγελιστοῦ ἀπολύτως εἰρηκότος «ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος», προσήκει τὸν νοῦν ἐπιστήσαντα καταμαθεῖν, ὡς ξένον τι χρῆμα λόγου παρὰ τὰ ἐγνωσμένα ἡμῖν ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος παραδίδωσιν, ἀπολύτως μὲν εἰπὼν λόγον προσθεὶς δὲ τὸ ξένον καὶ παράδοξον τῆς ἰδιαζούσης αὐτῷ δυνάμεως ἐν τῷ «καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ 2.14.2 λόγος». μὴ γὰρ τῶν πρός τι, φησίν, νόμιζε εἶναι καὶ τοῦτον, ὡς τὸν ἐν ψυχῇ λόγον ἢ ὡς τὸν διὰ φωνῆς ἀκουόμενον ἢ ὡς τὸν ἐν σωματικοῖς ὄντα σπέρμασιν ἢ ὡς τὸν ἐν μαθηματικοῖς ὑφεστῶτα θεωρήμασιν· οὗτοι γὰρ πάντες τῶν πρός τι ὄντες ἐν ἑτέρᾳ προϋποκειμένῃ νοοῦνται οὐσίᾳ. ὁ δὲ θεὸς λόγος οὐχ ἑτέρου δεῖται τοῦ προϋποκειμένου, ἵν' ἐν αὐτῷ γενόμενος ὑποστῇ, καθ' ἑαυτὸν δέ ἐστιν 2.14.3 ζῶν καὶ ὑφεστὼς ἅτε θεὸς ὤν. «θεὸς» γὰρ «ἦν ὁ λόγος». θεὸν δὲ αὐτὸν ἀκούων, φησίν, μὴ ἄναρχον καὶ ἀγέννητον ὁμοίως τῷ αὐτοῦ πατρὶ καὶ αὐτὸν εἶναι ὑπολάβῃς, μάνθανε δὲ ὅτι «ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν» οὗτος ὁ θεὸς λόγος. τίνα δ' αὐτοῦ τὴν ἀρχὴν ὑφίσταται, διασαφεῖ ἑξῆς, οὐκ εἰπών· καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός, μετὰ τῆς τοῦ ἄρθρου προσθήκης, ἵνα μὴ αὐτὸν εἶναι τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων ὁρίσηται, ἀλλ' οὐδ'· ἐν τῷ θεῷ, ἵνα μὴ καταβάλῃ ἐπὶ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ὁμοιότητα, ἀλλὰ «καὶ ὁ λόγος 2.14.4 ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν» ἔφη. εἰ γὰρ εἰρήκει· καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ἐν τῷ θεῷ, ὡς ἐν ὑποκειμένῳ συμβεβηκὸς καὶ ὡς ἕτερον ἐν ἑτέρῳ δούς, σύνθετον ὥσπερ εἰσῆγεν τὸν θεόν, οὐσίαν μὲν αὐτὸν ὑποτι2.14.5 θέμενος δίχα λόγου συμβεβηκὸς δὲ τῇ οὐσίᾳ τὸν λόγον. ὅπερ οἰηθεὶς Μάρκελλος τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συνάγει, τὴν μὲν οὐσίαν καλῶν τὸν πατέρα, τὸν δ' ἐν αὐτῷ λόγον τὸν υἱόν· οὐ λογισάμενος ὡς ὁ τοῦτο διδούς, τὸν θεὸν ἄνευ λόγου ὑποθέμενος, ἀθέῳ καὶ δυσσεβεῖ περιπέσοι ἂν δόγματι θεὸν ἄλογον παραδεχόμενος, ἔχοντα μὲν λόγον ὡς συμβεβηκότα ἐν αὐτῷ οὐ μὴν αὐτὸν ὄντα 2.14.6 λόγον· δέον ἕν τι θεῖον, ἄρρητον, ἀγαθόν, ἁπλοῦν, ἀσύνθετον, μονοειδὲς τὸ ἐπέκεινα τῶν ὅλων ὁμολογεῖν, αὐτόθεον, αὐτονοῦν, αὐτόλογον, αὐτοσοφίαν, αὐτοφῶς, αὐτοζωήν, αὐτοκαλόν, αὐτοαγαθὸν ὄντα καὶ τούτων ὅ τι ἄν τις κρεῖττον ἐπινοήσειεν, μᾶλλον δ' ὑπὲρ 2.14.7 πάντα νοῦν καὶ πάσης ἐπέκεινα διανοίας τε καὶ ἐνθυμήσεως, τὸν δὲ τούτου μονογενῆ υἱόν, ὡς ἂν εἰκόνα τοῦ πατρὸς ἐξ αὐτοῦ φύντα πάντη τε καὶ κατὰ πάντα ὁμοιότατον ὄντα τῷ γεγεννηκότι, καὶ αὐτὸν θεὸν καὶ νοῦν καὶ λόγον καὶ σοφίαν καὶ ζωὴν καὶ φῶς εἶναι αὐτοῦ τε τοῦ καλοῦ καὶ ἀγαθοῦ εἰκόνα, οὐκ αὐτὸν ὄντα τὸν πατέρα ἀλλὰ τὸν τοῦ πατρὸς μονογενῆ υἱόν, οὐδ' αὐτὸν ὄντα τὸν ἀγέννητον καὶ ἄναρχον ἀλλὰ τὸν ἐξ αὐτοῦ φύντα καὶ ἀρχὴν ἐπιγραφόμενον τὸν 2.14.8 γεγεννηκότα. εἰ δὲ τούτοις ἀντιλέγων Μάρκελλος ταὐτὸν εἶναι φάσκοι τὸν θεὸν καὶ τὸν ἐν αὐτῷ λόγον, ἀσύνθετον καὶ ἁπλοῦν τὸν θεὸν ὁριζόμενος, ὥρα μήτε πατέρα μήτε υἱὸν ὁμολογεῖν αὐτόν, ἄντικρυς δὲ τὸν Ἰουδαῖον προβάλλεσθαι ἢ τὸν Σαβέλλιον εἰσάγειν, πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι φάσκοντα· ὥστε κατ' αὐτὸν τὸ «ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος» ἴσον εἶναι τῷ ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ θεός, καὶ τὸ «καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν» ἴσον εἶναι τῷ καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἦν πρὸς τὸν 2.14.9 θεόν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ τρίτον ταὐτὸν εἶναι τῷ καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ θεός, ἃ δὴ πρὸς τῷ ἀσυναρτήτῳ καὶ παραλογώτατα εἴη ἄν. πῶς δὲ καὶ τὸ «πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο» χώραν ἕξει, ἑνὸς ὄντος τοῦ ὑποκει μένου; οὐ γὰρ ὑπ' αὐτοῦ φησιν