CHAPTER I. ON THE LIFE AND WRITINGS. A BRIEF NARRATIVE ON THE LIFE OF MARCELLUS.
A Marcellus, who departed this life in the year 374, at least a centenarian, must have been born around the year 274, while Aurelian was in power, at almost the same time that Paul of Samosata, whose heresy Marcellus is said to have restored, was driven from the see of Antioch. Chosen as bishop of Ancyra before the year 314, he attended the synod of Ancyra held in that same year. From this point, in the Council of Nicaea, he inveighed sharply against Arius and his followers, inflaming their hatred against him. A dissension, having been stirred up, erupted into open war when Asterius the Sophist, the champion of the Arians, attacked the Catholic faith in a book published by him; Marcellus, in a distinguished work, attacked Asterius and provoked all the foremost camp-leaders of the Arians. This was the principal cause of the wrath and these the cruel pains of the Arians, who, from then on, singing a war-song against Marcellus, assailed him with both writings and machinations. Indeed, desiring to avenge the injury, they first, according to Socrates, summoned Marcellus to Jerusalem to plead his cause; then they summoned him to Constantinople, and, because he refused to abjure the heresy which they contended was contained in his book, they deposed him and put Basil in his place. Hence, Eusebius of Caesarea, in two books against Marcellus and three others under various titles, defended the cause of the Arians; and he so repelled the crimes brought against his followers that he himself betrayed the fact that he was an Arian. Then, in the same place, he conducted matters strenuously against Marcellus, whom he made guilty of violated sound doctrine, and accused him of restored Paulian and Sabellian error. But in this matter he did not attack Marcellus with an entirely unfortunate attempt: for from then on, he began to be not only odious to the Arians, but also suspected by many Catholics.
C Upon the death of Constantine, Marcellus, having been restored to his see along with other exiles, returned to his place not without tumult and bloodshed. Not long afterward, made an exile again, he found refuge with Pope Julius. There, trusting in his cause, he challenged his adversaries to judgment, offered to Julius a formula of his own faith—which, it is clear, suffered from no defect—defended his book against Asterius, proved that the truncated sentences had been twisted by the Eusebians into a depraved meaning and that the series of words had been adulterated, and defended and explained his statements in the Roman synod of 50 bishops; finally, he was admitted to communion by Julius and the bishops as innocent in the year 342. D When the Arians, however, did not rest, but in addition to other things rejected the Roman judgment, he experienced a similar fortune in the ecumenical synod of Sardica, where, after he had stated his case, he was cleared, and the Arian bishops were condemned and struck with anathema. Now all things were leaning in favor of Marcellus, and after the judgment had been pronounced in his favor in two synods, it seemed there was hope that no Catholic would any longer dare to doubt his sincere faith. But things turned out otherwise: for whether it was because Marcellus—the contents of whose book were so temperately enuntiated that they could be interpreted in either a good or a bad sense—in daily conversations sought to explain them according to the heretical opinion, or because Photinus, his disciple, openly proclaimed the same impiety or even a graver one in the Church, for which reason he too was condemned and deposed not long after, the reputation of Marcellus turned for the worse. Suspicion grew day by day; many of the Catholics openly condemned the man as being related to Sabellius; and the matter was brought to such a pass that he began to be suspected even by Athanasius, with whom a relationship and familiarity had previously existed. And yet, although Hilary and Sulpicius Severus narrate it, he was not then condemned by Athanasius and removed from communion, as will presently be shown. In the final years of Athanasius' life, a new and perhaps the most severe storm of all was stirred up against Marcellus: when Basil the Great and many others rose up and declared that the man should be condemned on account of impiety; then they were the authors to Athanasius B of his removing the man, who was alien to the Catholic faith, from the communion of the Church. Marcellus, a very aged man and almost one hundred years old, sensed that it was now near for that Athanasius, once his friend and companion in fortune, to pronounce judgment against him; and as the danger was now impending, he sent, in his own name and that of the entire Church of Ancyra, the deacon Eugenius and other orators to Athanasius, instructed with commendatory letters from the bishops of Greece and Macedonia, with whom Athanasius fostered peace and society. By reciting their own formula of faith, they were to remove from themselves the suspicion of error and perverse opinion. But because this profession of faith is Catholic in all its parts, and smites with anathema the heresy ascribed to Marcellus, it was admitted by Athanasius and the Egyptian bishops and fortified by their C votes. Therefore, those who think that Marcellus was condemned by Athanasius at the instigation of Basil are hallucinating, a number of whom includes Tillemont. For, as you may see in this excellent little work, Athanasius, who grants the requests to the orators of the Church of Ancyra and assents to their formula of faith, undoubtedly must have given those commendatory letters which they seek. Marcellus died around this time, about two years before Epiphanius wrote about the Marcellians in his *Panarion*, namely around the year 374. For since Epiphanius began his *Panarion* in the year 375, as he himself testifies, and in the following year, 376, reached the heresy of the Manichaeans (number LXVI), as you read there, it seems he wrote of the heresy of the Marcellians (number LXXII) in the same year, D where he narrates that Marcellus had died about two years prior. Moreover, Marcellus was at that time, it seems, more than a centenarian, as he was already an old man with gray hair in the year 336, and is said by Eusebius, and likewise by Athanasius, to have grown old in the episcopate; which frequent repetition of old age is thought to point to someone older than sixty. After the passing of Marcellus, his disciples, who were the clerics of the Church of Ancyra, approached the bishops and confessors residing at Diocesarea, and having brought forward the commendatory letters of Athanasius, whom they call thrice-blessed, and having given a formula of faith not unlike this one, but shorter—
A *but which also stood diametrically opposed to the impiety of Arius, and acted impiously against the very existence of the deity of the Only-begotten, and interpreted the appellation of the Word wrongly—they do not assail with any accusation:* for he says that the Only-begotten is called the Word, insofar as he came forth for a purpose and for a time, and returns again to him from whom he came forth; and he maintains that he did not exist before this going forth, nor does he subsist after his return. The proof of this matter is found in the books of that wicked *Syngrapha* [written contract] of his, which are kept by us. Yet they appeared in no way to reprove him; indeed, they are to be blamed for this, that they received him into ecclesiastical communion from the beginning through ignorance of the truth.
The same Basil, in Epistle 74 to Eustathius, Apollinarius, and Paulinus, has this: B *But as for Paulinus, whether he is to be blamed regarding his ordination, you yourselves will say; but it truly distresses us that he has faith in the dogmas of Marcellus, and admits his followers to communion without distinction. You know, most honorable brothers, that the dogma of Marcellus renders all our hope void, since it does not confess the Son in his own hypostasis, but hands him down as being produced, and as one who will return again to him from whom he had proceeded; nor does it concede that the Paraclete has a proper hypostasis; so that no one would err if he were to declare this heresy to be utterly alien to Christianity, and call it a kind of corrupted Judaism.*
In Epistle 78, speaking of the Nicene faith, he has this: C *For there are some who, even in this faith, adulterate the word of truth with deceit, and twist the meaning of the words to suit their own will. Since even Marcellus, holding impious views concerning the hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ, and explaining him to be a bare and mere word, dared from that source to take the pretexts for the causes of his impiety, having wrongly explained the sense of "consubstantial."* Thus Basil on the heresy ascribed to Marcellus.
II. What Basil says concerning the error of Marcellus
Basil therefore, in Epistle 52, which is to Magnus and Athanasius, has this: *But this is also sought by some here as necessary, which likewise seems so to us: that they should drive out the heresy of Marcellus as evil and harmful, and as being alien to the sound faith. For up to this present time, in all the letters that they write, they do not cease to anathematize the accursed Arius, turning it over and over, and to eliminate him from the Churches; but Marcellus, who showed his impiety D directly opposed to that, and acted impiously regarding the very existence of the deity of the Only-begotten, and wrongly interpreted the appellation of the Word, they appear to have brought no reproach against—he who admits that the Only-begotten is called "Word" for a need and for a time, coming forth and again returning to where he came from, existing neither before the going forth nor subsisting after the return. And of this, the books of that unjust writing of his, which are held by us, are proof. But nevertheless, they did not appear to blame him at all, and this even though they had the cause, as having received him into ecclesiastical communion from the beginning through ignorance of the truth.*
III. What Epiphanius says
Epiphanius, however, in the *Panarion*, heresy LXXII, brings forward a few things concerning the heresy of Marcellus, and says that he alone was accused of Sabellianism, and his disciples...
were unwilling to confess the hypostases: truly, at that time it was free for them to confess either three or only one hypostasis, provided they kept a right mind. For those Catholics who asserted only one hypostasis indicated by the name hypostasis the substance, which it is certain exists as one in God: those who professed three hypostases did not understand by them substance, but the subsistence of each person; and thus they differed only in word. The Fragments of Acacius of Caesarea against Marcellus which Epiphanius brings forward are all as a compendium of the more extensive treatise of Eusebius of Caesarea against Marcellus, of which we shall speak presently.
IV. What Chrysostom thinks.
A John Chrysostom in his Epistle to the Hebrews, ch. 1, blames Marcellus for saying that the Word is *enupostaton* (*subsistent*), as if you might understand it in such a way that it is not only of the same substance, but also the same hypostasis as the Father; indeed, he assails the same Marcellus not once as being like-minded with Photinus, Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata, and enumerates him among the worst of heretics.
V. What Theodoret thinks.
Theodoret, in book II of his *Heretical Fables*, has this concerning Marcellus: B "Marcellus the Galatian, similarly to that one, denied the triad of hypostases; he said that a certain extension of the Father's deity came into Christ, and he called this the Word-God; but after the whole economy, he said that it was again drawn back and contracted toward God, from whom it had been extended; and he calls the all-holy Spirit the extension of the extension, and [says] that this was granted to the apostles. And he simply posited a triad extending and contracting according to different economies." That is: Marcellus the Galatian, similarly to that one, denied the trinity of hypostases. He said that a certain extension of the deity of the Father came into Christ, and he called this the Word-God; but once the whole economy was completed, it was again drawn back and returned to God, from whom it was extended. And he [said] that the Holy Spirit was a further extension of the extension, and that this was given to the apostles according to different economies.
VI. What Eusebius of Caesarea thinks.
Now, from Eusebius himself, who wrote against Marcellus, let us bring forward passages opportune for understanding that Marcellian heresy. He says, therefore (pp. 4, 5*), that this is the opinion of Marcellus: that the Word was silent before creation, in the Father, one with God the Father, eternal, *aidion*, not begotten, so that the Father and the Son are indeed expressed by diverse names, but are nevertheless one in essence and hypostasis, *ousia de kai hupostasei hen onta*, as Sabellianism taught: also that the Word before its emission is like our silent word, *homoion tō en hēmin siōpōnti*; but when it is emitted for operation, it is like our word when we speak. C That Word (p. 6), furthermore, when it assumed flesh, then became, it is said, Jesus Christ, and was called king, likewise the image of the invisible God, and the firstborn of every creature, but that none of these things existed before, and that after the judgment it will lose all these; and that it [the Word] itself is bare and similar to a human word (p. 19), and not indeed the living and subsistent Son of God; and that it was not the image of God before it became man; he says that Marcellus removes the existence, *huparxin* and *hupostasin*, of the Son of God (pp. 33, 35, 36), and says that he was merely a bare word for the execution of commands; also that Marcellus, who rails against Sabellius, thinks the same things as Sabellius, who says that the Father and the Word are one; and that he himself (p. 167, 174) calls the substance *triprosōpon* and *trisōnumon*, that is, tripersonal and triple-named. Eusebius criticizes these things especially in the book of Marcellus: where he seizes upon and refutes some things, even the words of an orthodox sentiment, as being Arian, as heretical; whereas other things, which are indeed rightly reproved as erroneous, are not enunciated so clearly in the passages of Marcellus, as will be seen below; so that the heresy of Marcellus, which is expressed distinctly and without any ambiguity by Basil and Theodoret, lies so perplexedly in Eusebius that you could easily lean toward either side.
VII. The Sum of Marcellian Doctrine.
From the testimonies brought forward, furthermore, you may derive the sum of the Marcellian sentiment: One God has existed from eternity: whose *logos*, or reason, or word—for it is expressed in both ways—is likewise eternal, and is one with God himself in substance and hypostasis, *ousia kai hupostasei*, so that there is no distinction between the two: and it is the silent, internal, or *endiatheton* word. The Holy Spirit likewise has existed in God from eternity, with no distinction in like manner except that of name and reason. D But when God operates and speaks, then the Word emerges as a certain emission, extension, and dilation of the deity, and after the work is done, it reverts to God and remains in its pristine condition. In like manner the Word was emitted so that it might assume flesh; and then it was made the Son of God, and also king, Christ, the image of the invisible God, and the firstborn of every creature, whereas before there had been nothing of these: and after the judgment it will lose all these, and will be one with the Father as before. But as the Word is an extension and dilation of God, so also the Holy Spirit is a further extension and dilation, *parektasis tēs ektaseōs*; which likewise is emitted by God and reverts to God like the Word, and is one with God and the Word without any distinction. This is the opinion of Marcellus, according to the explanation of Eusebius, with which—though not so clearly—Basil and Theodoret agree. If, moreover, his doctrine was such, in nothing could it truly differ from Sabellius and the Patripassians: for he admits no distinction of persons, and teaches that that extension and further dilation has no proper *huparxin* and *hupostasin*, existence and hypostasis.
A True, if the passages of Marcellus brought forward by Eusebius are seriously weighed, it is not so easy to pass judgment on Marcellus, as will presently be demonstrated.
CHAPTER III. WHETHER THE ERROR ASCRIBED TO MARCELLUS CAN BE DISCOVERED IN HIS BOOK AGAINST ASTERIUS. I. Asterius writes for the Arians, against whom Marcellus, who is refuted by Eusebius. II. Does Marcellus say that the Father and the Word are distinguished only by names? III. Whether he said the Word is *agennetos* [unbegotten], and that the Son did not exist before Mary. IV. Why he says the Word is only after the incarnation the image of God and the firstborn of every creature. V. In the book of Marcellus nothing openly erroneous seems to have existed.
I. Asterius the sophist and vagabond, who, as Athanasius says, when Maximinus was raging against the Christians, had abjured the faith and offered sacrifice to idols, gave his name to the nascent Arianism, and published a book by which he might attack Catholic doctrine and vindicate the Arian cause. Marcellus, however, being from the beginning most hostile to the Arians, refuted Asterius in a published pamphlet, and in the same book harassed the leaders of the Arians—Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Caesarea, Paulinus of Tyre, Narcissus of Neronias, and others—on every side. Driven by this, Eusebius of Caesarea published five books: in which, defending the Arian cause with his might, he lifts to the stars with praises the leaders of the Arians who had been agitated by Marcellus, and inveighs bitterly against Marcellus in the name of Sabellianism. Under these circumstances, however, there was also a dispute among Catholics concerning the opinion of Marcellus: some contending that Marcellus was rightly accused; others defending that his faith was sound. We B therefore, having weighed the matters and examined the accusations of Eusebius, shall investigate what ought to be thought about that matter.
II. Does Marcellus say that the Father and the Word are distinguished only by names? Eusebius brings forward this first accusation against Marcellus (p. 5), that he said the Word is eternally one with the Father in essence and hypostasis—*οὐσίᾳ καὶ ὑποστάσει*—so that they differ from one another only in names, and that the Word is eternal and unbegotten: which, as he says, is the very opinion of Sabellius. But that the Father and the Word were one in essence—*οὐσίᾳ*—all Catholics said; the Arians, however, contended that there were diverse, separate, and unequal essences in the Father and the Word: and Eusebius fights for this very thing, as was proven in the preliminaries to the commentaries on the Psalms. Regarding *hypostasis*—*ὑποστάσει*—the question existed even among Catholics: some of whom professed three hypostases in the Trinity, others one, differing among themselves not in reality, but only in name. For since the Arians from the birth of the heresy had professed three hypostases in the Trinity, and *hypostasis*, according to Athanasius, signifies substance by itself; many Catholics, not unaware that the Arians, while putting forward three hypostases, intended C to understand three separate and disparate substances, contended that there was only one hypostasis, or, as they explained it, substance in God; yet so that they professed the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be one and another and another; while others admitted the formula of three hypostases for the sake of the convenient distinction of the three, while saying at the same time that there was one substance in God. Athanasius, however, says now one, now three hypostases in God; and in the Alexandrian synod of the year 362, over which Athanasius presided, it is defined that it is permissible either to say one hypostasis, provided the distinction of the three is preserved, or to profess three hypostases, provided only one substance is said to exist. Marcellus, therefore, is not to be blamed for having said that the Father and the Word are one in hypostasis, provided that he professed them to be one and another, and did not abolish the distinction.
Indeed, this must be examined from the passages of Marcellus brought forward by Eusebius. Marcellus therefore says (p. 55), as reported by Eusebius: *Οὐκοῦν πρὸ μὲν τοῦ κατελθεῖν, καὶ διὰ τῆς Παρθένου τεχθῆναι, λόγος ἦν μόνον. Ἐπεὶ τί ἕτερον ἦν, πρὸ τοῦ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ἀναλαβεῖν σάρκα, τὸ κατελθὸν ἐπ᾽ ἔσχατον τῶν ἡμερῶν, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸς γέγραφε, καὶ τὸ γεννηθέν ἐκ τῆς Παρθένου; Οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἢ Λόγος.* Hoc est: Therefore, before he descended and was born of the Virgin, it was only the Word. For what else was it, before he assumed human flesh, that which descended in the last of the days (as he himself writes), and that which was born of the Virgin? Nothing other than the Word. Marcellus, indeed, who acting against Sabellius D denies that the Father was incarnate, could not have written these things without believing that the Word was distinct from the Father. And a few words later, these words of Marcellus are brought forward: Learn, therefore, that the Word of God, not as they wish, was called Word *καταχρηστικῶς* [improperly]; but that which in truth, *ὡς ἀληθῶς*, existed, is the Word. Where, the phrase "in truth" denotes that the Word existed truly and by itself, and was not one and the same with the Father. Elsewhere (p. 59) Marcellus says: *Πρὸ γὰρ τῆς δημιουργίας ἁπάσης ἡσυχία τις ἦν, ὡς εἰκὸς, ἐν τῷ Θεῷ τοῦ Λόγου ὄντος.* Hoc est: For before the whole creation there was, as is reasonable to believe, a stillness in God, the Word being with God. Where you may discover nothing that is not Catholic: for what he says, that the Word is in God or with God, is of John. For some of the holy Fathers, among whom Athanasius repeatedly, and Augustine, said the very same thing: *πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν καὶ ἐν τῷ Θεῷ*, with God and in God; but others, and indeed in great number, held that phrase "in God" in suspicion, because it is not so read in the Gospel: for because the Paulians, Sabellians, Marcellians, and Photinians, and perhaps others, for the sake of removing all distinction between the Father and the Son, abused this manner of speaking, they rejected that "in God." But what Marcellus says, that there was a stillness in God before the creation, or silence, as he speaks elsewhere, does not hurt sound faith. For although in God there exists no change of condition or of status, and the Word likewise before and after the creation and incarnation in
A His existence with God the Father has remained and remains, yet, in the human manner of speaking, He is said to have descended, to have gone forth, to have proceeded, and likewise to have rested and been silent. A little later (p. 40), Eusebius vehemently criticizes these words of Marcellus: "He knew, however, that it was advantageous for them to believe that there is one God. Therefore He addresses him thus: 'I am who I am', so that He might teach that there is no other God outside of Himself." It is easy, however, I think, for any prudent person to understand this from a certain human, small, and humble example: for no one can separate a man's word from his power and substance. For the Word is one and the same with the man; and if they were to be taken apart from one another, they would certainly fall away from true faith. But from other parts of Marcellus, it is clearly seen that he uses the comparison of a man and his word, so as to prove that the Word has one and the same substance as the Father has; for a little below, these words of Marcellus are read: *Τίς γὰρ οὕτως ἢ τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων ἢ τῶν ἀνδρῶν δικαίων ἀξιόπιστος ἦν, τὴν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ προσώπου ὁρισθεῖσαν αὐτῷ τιμωρίαν λῦσαι· εἰ μὴ αὐτὸς ὁ Λόγος ὁ συμπαρὼν καὶ συμπλάττων, πρὸς ὃν ὁ Πατὴρ, Ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον, ἔφη, οὐκ ὄντος ἑτέρου Θεοῦ τοῦ συμπλάττειν αὐτῷ δυναμένου;* That is: "For who among the holy angels or the just men was worthy to release the punishment determined for man from the person of God, except the Word alone, who was present with God and was fashioning man together with Him, to whom the Father said, 'Let us make man in our image and likeness', since there was no other God who could fashion [him] along with Him?" From this, it seems plain to me that Marcellus admitted a distinction between the Father and the Word and deemed them one and another, and that he only denied this alone: namely, that the Word is a different God from the Father and possesses a different substance. But Eusebius, who, as has been shown elsewhere, posits a deity and substance in the Word other than the Father's, must consequently have condemned Marcellus, who defends the opinion contrary to this. But as to the fact that he adds that Marcellus thinks the Father and the Word are one and the same, and to be distinguished only by names, he does not prove this from clear statements of Marcellus, but because he reckons that if the Father and the Word are one and the same God by number, they are also one in all other respects, so that no distinction can be detected. Therefore, he contends that Marcellus—who defends that the Father and the Word are one God and one substance—admits no distinction at all except in names. But if Marcellus truly admitted a distinction between the Father and the Word, you would explain from this that dilation and extension of God the Father which Marcellus is testified to have taught; and you would say that if Marcellus truly said this, he understood nothing by these words but the emission of the Son for the purpose of carrying out creation, which the holy Fathers express everywhere. And this dilation B and extension, which authorities like Basil and Theodoret say Marcellus taught the Word to be, Eusebius of Caesarea does not mention even once. Hence it is evident that in the book of Marcellus against Asterius, nothing of this kind was found.
III. Whether he said the Word exists, and that the Son did not exist before Mary.
Against this, Eusebius brings a charge against Marcellus, stating that he said the Word is unbegotten, and the Son was made only then, when He assumed flesh from Mary. But Eusebius seems not to be consistent with himself: for in the excerpts of Marcellus which he produces, you may see the name of Father and Son, and likewise Father and Word, used throughout even for the time preceding creation. At the beginning, therefore, of book 1, pp. 4 and 5, he brings forward this opinion of Marcellus: *Λόγον αὐτὸν μόνον διδοὺς ἡνωμένον τῷ Θεῷ· καὶ τοῦτο εἶναι ἀΐδιον καὶ ἀγέννητον, ἕν τε εἶναι καὶ αὐτὸν τῷ Θεῷ, ὀνόμασι μὲν διαφόροις Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ χρηματίζοντα, οὐσίᾳ δὲ καὶ ὑποστάσει ἓν ὄντα.* That is: "Granting that it is only the Word itself, united to God, and that this is eternal and unbegotten, and that it is one with God, being designated by the different names of Father and Son, but in substance and hypostasis being one." In the excerpts of Marcellus brought by Eusebius, he always uses the name of Father and Word. From this it appears that Eusebius attributed this heresy to Marcellus only as a consequence; namely, he argues frequently in his books against Marcellus in this way: "If the Word is *aï dion*, sempiternal, then it follows that it was not begotten: for that which is begotten is posterior to that which begets, and is truly said not to have existed before it was begotten, and thus cannot be *aï dion*, or sempiternal." When, therefore, Marcellus says the Word is *aï dion*, or sempiternal, he must believe it was not begotten. Thus he speaks with the Arians, not noticing that it is no more repugnant C for the Father to beget from eternity than to exist from eternity, and that no posteriority of time in the Son is inferred from the fact that He is begotten: for being and begetting in God the Father are simultaneous and are so understood, and one could never exist without the other; and thus the Son is eternal just as the Father is, as the Catholic Church has always taught. But as regards the word *agennēton*—not begotten—which Eusebius testifies to be ascribed to the Word by Marcellus, there are two things especially to be considered: first, that it is not in the excerpts of Marcellus that Eusebius produces; and therefore it seems to have been ascribed to Marcellus by conjecture and consequence, because, namely, from Eusebius's reasoning adduced above, what is *aï dion* (eternal) cannot be begotten. Second, it is certain that the Arians have always played upon the words *agēneton*, not made, and *agennēton*, not begotten, as you may observe hundreds of times in Athanasius. For because the Father alone is *agennētos*, or unbegotten (as even Catholics admit), they, using the words *agennētos* and *agēnetos* promiscuously and deceitfully, [claim] that the Son is not *agēneton* D.
B V. It seems that there was nothing openly erroneous in the book of Marcellus. Furthermore, it may be clear from these [points] that nothing of error or heretical opinion was discovered in Marcellus’ book against Asterius, at least openly; for the things which Eusebius brings forward can easily be reduced to sound doctrine. Moreover, if Marcellus had said anything beyond the correct opinion, Eusebius surely would not have passed it over, since he, being moved against Marcellus and having neglected no path of causing harm, attacks and accuses of impiety not only those things which can be carped at and censured with at least some coloring, but even those things which are sound and orthodox. Since, however, the Roman synod under Julius in the year 342, and the Sardican [synod] in the year 347, having examined and weighed his opinions, declared the book of Marcellus to be free from error, judgment cannot be rendered against the book of Marcellus. But elsewhere, the authority of the distinguished men who defend [him] is so great that it is hardly permitted to excuse Marcellus. Wherefore I believe that Marcellus tempered the matter in such a way that if he inserted any perverse opinion into his book, it was wrapped in the windings and circuitous paths of words, so that it could easily be deflected into a good meaning; but when he, in familiar conversations, derived his own statements toward a perverse opinion, from this he incurred the offense of many, as is said below.
CHAPTER IV.
WHETHER MARCELLUS HANDED DOWN AN ERROR CONCERNING THE WORD AND SON OF GOD IN THE COURSE OF HIS LIFE, BY WORD OR BY WRITING.
I. The heresy of his disciple Photinus brought Marcellus into suspicion. II. He himself is thought to have scattered errors in his conversations. III. Athanasius held him as a suspect, Basil as a heretic. IV. Marcellus and the Marcellians speak in a Catholic manner in their professions of faith.
I. The heresy of his disciple Photinus brought Marcellus into suspicion. Marcellus, having been absolved by the judgment of the synods of Rome and Sardica, as has been said, seemed—the damage which his reputation had suffered having been in some way mended—now free and clear of suspicion. But not long afterward, he was attacked again by new accusations from the Catholics. The occasion was the rise of the heresy of Photinus, for he, having been trained under the discipline of Marcellus and afterward admitted as a bishop to Sirmio, began to spread widely the error which Eusebius attributed to his master, asserting that Christ was not the Son of God before his birth from the Virgin Mary, for which [cause] he was condemned and deposed in many synods. "And this very thing," says Sulpicius Severus, "weighed upon Marcellus, because Photinus seemed to have been his auditor in his youth." Many believed that the error had been drawn by Photinus from the teaching of Marcellus, especially since, although he professed nothing of that sort openly in his own book against Asterius, there were nevertheless some things which seemed to lean in that direction. Therefore, it happened most inopportunely for the master that the doctrine which he had taught...
in which Photinus had broken out, should be sought after by him. For being a man garrulous and most loquacious, as Eusebius relates, and as can be seen from the surviving fragments of his work, while he was explaining more obscurely in daily conversations and dialogues what had been set forth in his book, he was found to be occasionally lapsing into that very opinion which he had rejected before the Roman and Sardican synods. Hence, a rumor spread widely, especially throughout the East, that Marcellus felt impiously regarding the Son of God, and taught the very same things that were alleged in the accusations of the Arians. Yet, there was not one single opinion of all men regarding Marcellus; for, as Epiphanius testifies, many stood on behalf of Marcellus, among whom was Paulinus, Bishop of Antioch: and this is an evident sign that Marcellus had not put forth impious dogmas openly and clearly; but he had spoken so perplexedly that, from this, divisions of opinion were created, with some judging the man to be thinking in a Catholic manner, while others deemed him to be thinking perversely and impiously.
III. Athanasius held him as a suspect, Basil as a heretic.
A grievous unpopularity appears to have been brought upon Marcellus from this, since those two luminaries of the Church, Athanasius and Basil, suspected the man of being infected with error. Indeed, Epiphanius testifies for Athanasius: Ήρόμην δὲ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ χρόνῳ τινὶ τὸν μακαρίτην πάπαν Ἀθανάσιον περὶ τούτου τοῦ Μαρκέλλου, πῶς ἂν ἔχοι περὶ αὐτοῦ. Ὁ δὲ οὔτε ὑπεραπελογήσατο, οὔτε πάλιν πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀπεχθῶς ἐνέχθη· μόνον δὲ διὰ τοῦ προσώπου μειδιάσας ὑπέφηνε, μοχθηρίας μὴ μακρὰν αὐτὸν εἶναι, καὶ ὡς ἀπολογησάμενον εἶχε. That is: *I myself asked the blessed Pope Athanasius at one time concerning this Marcellus, what he might think of him. He neither defended him, nor on the other hand was he unfavorably disposed toward him; but merely smiling with a turn of his countenance, he indicated that he was not far from wickedness, and he considered him as one who had been purged.* B Basil is much harsher; he holds Marcellus to be a heretic, considers his impiety to be diametrically opposed to the Arian view, and deems the man to be condemned because he teaches that the Word is indeed called unbegotten, insofar as He proceeds for use and for a time, and again returns to Him from whom He proceeded: he says He does not exist before the departure, nor subsist after the return. Of this matter, his wicked writings are the proof. The rest has been brought forward above; but now let it be asked whether that wicked writing which Basil mentions is the same book which, in the Roman and Sardican synods, was declared to be free from error. A Indeed, it does not seem that Basil is attacking any other book: for it is not read that Marcellus published any other book than the one against Asterius, entitled *On the Subjection of the Lord*, as Hilario testifies. Yet someone might say, does Basil consider the book heretical and worthy of condemnation, despite it having been accepted as orthodox in the Roman and Sardican synods? In order to meet this argument, those things said above must be repeated, namely, that Marcellus was able to temper the matter in such a way that his words could be bent toward a good or bad meaning. However, when he defended his cause in person at the judgment of the synods, and maintained the sound and Catholic meaning of his words, the Holy Fathers—because the book put forward no impiety openly and plainly, and his utterances could be received in a Catholic sense, as Marcellus maintained—dismissed the man with his book as innocent. For what Marcellus truly held in his mind, and what he felt in his heart of hearts, was left to the judgment of God alone. Besides this, as many believe, when Marcellus explained his words to his disciples in private conversations according to his heretical frame of mind, and the fame of that thing was wandering widely, then at last it was believed that Marcellus had acted subdolously, and he himself is seen to have declared his book to be one written with a depraved mind. Although, furthermore, the matter is tossed about in doubt—namely, whether Marcellus really fell into that impiety of which he was commonly accused (for when Epiphanius, being a contemporary of Marcellus, testified that there were various opinions among the orthodox at that time regarding this matter, and he himself does not dare to yield to one side or the other), what can we, so many ages removed from that time, judge? Nevertheless, a grave argument is drawn up from here against Marcellus: that such great doctors as Basil and Athanasius, whom it was not easy to deceive with words, held him to be either utterly heretical or highly suspect. C D
IV. Marcellus and the Marcellians speak in a Catholic manner in their professions of faith.
Whatever may be the case regarding the opinion of Marcellus, it is certainly established that both he and his disciples, in the formulas of faith which they offered, when they condemn and reject the error ascribed to them, do not do so in the manner of those who are repentant and returning to the faith; but, with a constant added caution, they ward off the calumnies of their adversaries, and do not confess that they felt in such a way. You may observe this in Epiphanius in the *Formula of Faith* of Marcellus, offered to Julius, where he denies having felt as the Arians kept saying he did; and in the brilliant formula of faith in the legation of Eugenius, which we are now for the first time bringing out from the darkness, it is read as follows: *For we do not think that the Son is one thing and the Word another, as some have lied about us that we think*; likewise, in the *Exposition of Faith* offered to the bishops of Diocaesarea, the Marcellians say that they are gladly answering the Fathers who were asking questions, so that they might propel away the crimes of corrupted religion falsely offered to them, διὰ μάλιστα τοὺς βουλομένους ματαίως θρυλλεῖν περὶ ἡμῶν τινα
τινα .
A Furthermore, since Marcellus and his disciples always composed their formulas of faith in accordance with orthodox sentiment, and since they were on other accounts held to be heretics or suspects by many of the holy Fathers contemporary with Marcellus, it is no wonder if there existed as great a variety of opinions concerning the faith of Marcellus as Epiphanius exhibits.
CHAPTER V. WHETHER ATHANASIUS EVER REMOVED MARCELLUS FROM HIS COMMUNION. 1. Athanasius had not removed Marcellus from his communion before the year 358. II. Nor did he do so later at the instigation of Basil.
I. Athanasius had not removed him from his communion before the year 358. (Frag. 2, p. 1300.) Athanasius, who had for many years been a companion of the fortunes and a friend of Marcellus, finally, as rumors were spread and he was led away by the testimonies of prominent men, began to hold him suspect, whom he had previously defended to the best of his ability. We learn this from the testimony of Epiphanius; one is not permitted to detract from the faith of him who reports what he heard from Athanasius himself. But Hilary, also a contemporary, testifies that it had reached the point where Athanasius even denied communion to Marcellus. But why is Athanasius written back as being culpable for the denial of communion, in this manner? Was Marcellus kept away on account of the defect of his book? They themselves are witnesses that Photinus derived the beginnings of this perversity from his teachings. For, upon communion being denied to him by Athanasius, Marcellus refrained from entering the church. Thus, communion with him in that faith regarding the subjection and tradition of the kingdom teaches us: once denied, it shows again the depravity of another doctrine. Sulpicius Severus, having apparently borrowed this from Hilary, relates the same in these words: "After an interval of time, when Athanasius had discovered that Marcellus was of a faith that was not altogether sound, he suspended him from communion." And he possessed this modesty, that, having been marked by the judgment of such a great man, he yielded of his own accord. Moreover, having been innocent before and later depraved, he might have seemed to be already guilty at the time when he was judged. But Hilary, whom Sulpicius takes as his authority, borrows this from the decree of the synod of Sirmium, in which Photinus was condemned in the year 349. C But since only Arian prelates celebrated this synod, no faith is to be placed in them, for they were accustomed to scatter six hundred similar slanders against Athanasius and both Marcellus, both by word and by writing. Beyond this, Athanasius defended Marcellus at least until the year 358 as innocent and circumvented by the frauds of the Arians, as is evident in his *Apologia contra Arianos*, in his *Apologia de Fuga*, and in his *Historia Arianorum ad monachos*: whence it is plain not only that he fostered a partnership of communion with him, but that not even yet had there come upon him the suspicion against Marcellus which Epiphanius mentions. And indeed, the opinion of almost everyone is in agreement that no faith is to be placed in this testimony of Hilary, inasmuch as it was accepted from the Arians.
II. Nor did he do so at the instigation of Basil. There are not lacking those who believe that Marcellus, at the time noted by Hilary, had not yet been condemned by Athanasius; but they think that later, with Basil stirring him up, Marcellus and the Marcellians were removed from communion by Athanasius. This is also the opinion of Tillemont. Indeed, those people were ignorant that Marcellus and his followers had D forestalled the judgment of Athanasius by the deputation of Eugenius and others. For when Basil persisted and other bishops urged him, insisting to Athanasius that Marcellus ought to be condemned, Marcellus, having learned of the matter, so that he might interrupt their attempts and machinations, delegated orators to plead his cause before Athanasius and to present a profession of faith in his own name and that of the Church of Ancyra. And when the formula of the legates presented a faith that was entirely sound and orthodox, Athanasius, together with the other bishops who were present, assented to it and granted letters of commendation to those who were asking for them. I believe no one will go on to deny this.
CHAPTER VI. CONCERNING THE LEGATION OF MARCELLUS AND THE CHURCH OF ANCYRA TO ATHANASIUS, WHICH WE NOW PUBLISH FOR THE FIRST TIME. 1. From where the exemplar of this legation comes. II. On what occasion and in what year the legation was made. III. Concerning the profession of faith recited in the name of Marcellus. IV. Concerning the subscriptions of the Egyptian prelates. V. What the outcome of the business was.
I. From where the exemplar of this legation comes. The legation of Marcellus and of the Church of Ancyra to Athanasius has come out of the Escorial library. We have discovered, however, an exemplar of this in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, written in a recent hand among the Greek codices. And this little work is golden, complete in all its numbers and parts; however, the subscriptions of the Egyptian prelates subjoined at the end are truncated, as is manifest, and mutilated; so much so that the name of Athanasius himself, which had undoubtedly been placed before the others, has fallen away. Furthermore, such was the fate of the subscriptions, that they perished through the carelessness of the amanuenses, because they thought that mere signatures pertained to nothing of importance: hence it is that the Sardican subscriptions are mutilated, and likewise the Alexandrian ones of the year 321. But in the attestation of the Alexandrian people made in the year 356, the subscriptions, which were in great number, were omitted entirely by the copyists. It is no wonder, therefore, that the subscriptions here are held to be lacking and mutilated.
II. On what occasion and in what year the legation was made. It is not difficult to conjecture what was the cause or what the occasion for the sending of this legation by Marcellus. For when, around the year 371, Basil and other bishops were plotting at the court of Athanasius to remove Marcellus from the communion of the Church as the author of a new heresy, one diametrically opposed to the Arians, Marcellus, not ignorant that they were conspiring to his ruin, so that he might avert the imminent danger, [obtained] the commendatory [letters] of the bishops.
He sent his envoys, protected by these letters, to Athanasius. In this legation everything fits wonderfully well; for besides those letters sought from the bishops of Macedonia and Achaia—at a time when they were treating of matters of faith with Athanasius with one mind—the [legation] proceeds in the profession of faith attached to the legation, especially against the Anomoeans, as if they were then causing disturbances, which agrees perfectly with that period. After the formula of faith was recited by the envoys before Athanasius, they requested commendatory letters for themselves from Athanasius, which, having obtained, they produced at the Synod of Tyana, as we shall say below.
III. Of the profession of faith recited in the name of Marcellus.
Athanasius, as one who, having been led astray by the accounts of many, and especially of Basil, held the faith of Marcellus to be suspect, questioned the envoys about his doctrine. They produced a formula of faith, and first they condemned the Arian heresy with an anathema, and professed the consubstantiality (τὸ ὁμοούσιον). Hence they repudiated the distinction between the Son and the Word which had been ascribed to them, and affirmed that those who accused them on this matter were calumniators; they proscribed Sabellius, and confessed that there are three subsistents in the Trinity. "For," they say, "we do not say that the Trinity is without a subsistence (ἀνυπόστατον); but we acknowledge it in a subsistence (ἐν ὑποστάσει)." That is to say: We do not say that the Trinity is without substance or hypostasis, but we recognize it in a hypostasis. Where it is to be noted that Marcellus, according to his accustomed manner, only admitted one hypostasis in the Trinity, because he accepted *hypostasis* as *substance*. This matter was dealt with in the Synod of Alexandria in the year 362, where, after reasons were brought forward on both sides, it was granted that both those who professed only one—of which number were the Marcellians—and those who professed three hypostases, should retain their own formulas, provided that those who said "one" would acknowledge the distinction of the three, and those who said "three hypostases" would profess the unity of the substance. Following this, the action was against the Anomoeans, who said that the Son is unlike the Father, and that the Holy Spirit is a creature. From hence they proceed to repudiate the opinion of those who said that the Son of God had entered into a holy man born of Mary in the same way as into any one of the prophets; which heresy, having originated—as it was thought—from Paul of Samosata, was later revived by Nestorius, a matter from which heavy dissensions were stirred up in the East. Finally, with the impiety of Paul of Samosata and Photinus condemned, the formula of faith is concluded, than which you would not find today, in the fourth century, any clearer one or one more congruent with the Catholic faith.
IV. Of the subscriptions of the Egyptian prelates.
This confession having been published, the envoys requested and obtained commendatory letters from Athanasius. Then Athanasius and the others who were present at the assembly fortified the profession of faith with their votes and subscriptions. These subscriptions, however, have come down to us in a mutilated state, so that the name of Athanasius, which [should be] first among the subscriptions...
signatures, is missing, and the names of only four bishops survive. The first is Theodulus of Oxyrhynchus, of whom there is no mention anywhere else. The second is Plenes, bishop of Hermothis, or Hermethis, the very man, it seems, who was ordained by Alexander, had been relegated by the Arians to Ammonia in the year 356, and had by then grown old in the episcopate. The third is Ischyrion, bishop of Leonto, or Leontopolis: perhaps the same who in the Council of Tyre acted vigorously in the cause of Athanasius along with other Egyptian bishops. The last is Bishop Isaac, of whom a man of the same name is found among the Egyptian bishops in the Sardican subscriptions. Others have perished.
[V. What the outcome of the business was.]
Now, indeed, it remains for us to disclose what the outcome of such a great affair was. Athanasius died in the year 375; Marcellus, however, in the following year, 374, as has been said. After his death, shortly before Epiphanius wrote about Marcellus—for he testifies that the matter was very recent—some Ancyrans from the disciples of Marcellus approached the B Fathers of Caesarea who were in exile for the faith; namely, Photinus, Eustathius, another Photinus, and Sigerius, priests; Hyginus, a deacon; Heraclides, a subdeacon; and Cyriacus the *prostatis*, that is, patron or defender. Having brought forth letters of recommendation and communion from Athanasius, which, as requested and obtained from the legates/envoys, were mentioned above, they issued a confession of faith, to which they appended the Nicene Creed. This confession is not unlike the one they had offered to Athanasius; however, in this one they expressly confess the *tria prosopa*, or three persons, in the Trinity, which surely accords well with the opinion of their teacher Marcellus; for he calls God *triprosopon*, or tripersonal, on which account he had been accused by Eusebius. They condemn, however, the errors ascribed to the Marcellians with an C anathema. Having seen this, the Diocasarean confessors, most of whom were friends of Athanasius, received them into communion. But Basil (Epist. 293), more ardent in his desire to vindicate the ecclesiastical faith, because he could hardly let go of the opinion he had once formed concerning the impiety of Marcellus, expostulated not lightly with the Diocasarean fathers because they had admitted the Marcellians to communion without consulting other bishops. He says: "Even now, at least, deign to send us the proposals on the basis of which you received the followers of Marcellus; knowing this, that even if you have secured your own position completely, you ought not to entrust such a matter to yourselves alone; but it is necessary that those in the West and those in the East who are in communion [with us] be of one mind with you regarding their reinstatement," that is: "Even now, however, deign to send us the reasons and causes for which you were induced to receive the followers of Marcellus; not being unaware, even if you seem to have decided your affairs cautiously and considerately, D that it was not permitted to you to grant this; but that it should have been the case that you awaited the reckoning and judgment of those who, both in the West and in the East, were of your communion, regarding their restoration." Such was Basil; either because he was unaware of the things that had been done at Alexandria by Athanasius for the sake of Marcellus and his followers; or, which is more true, because he thought that Marcellus and the Marcellians had acted deceitfully and fraudulently in the formulas of faith which they had offered to Athanasius and the Diocasareans. Even though the response of the Diocasareans to Basil nowhere appears, by the matters themselves and by subsequent events, it seems certain that the Diocasareans replied to Basil: that it was not permitted to them—to those who had proscribed and condemned with anathema all the errors attributed to Marcellus, and who professed the faith of the Nicene Creed, and who, moreover, had been received and admitted by the great Athanasius himself and other Egyptian bishops, as the letters of Athanasius himself bore witness—to deny ecclesiastical communion. At length, as we may believe, having been mitigated, though reluctantly, Basil applied his mind to receiving the Marcellians, with this precaution, however, that it should not appear that he had gone over to the Marcellians, but that the Marcellians had been led back into the Church of God. For he writes exactly this (Epist. 321) to the prelate Peter of Alexandria: "Having been often harassed by the Galatians, I have never been able to answer them, awaiting your judgments. And now, if the Lord grants it, and they wish to bear with us, we hope to bring the people into the Church; so that we ourselves may not be reproached for having gone over to the Marcellians, but that they might become members of the body of the Church of Christ; so that the evil slander that had been scattered by the heresy might be made to disappear by our reception [of them], and we be not shamed as having joined them." It seemed proper to provide the Greek, because this notable passage had been perversely translated by the Micraean translator; thus we render it: "As the Galatians were frequently and persistently urging me, I have not yet been able to answer anything, because I was awaiting your response. Now, however, if the Lord favors it, and they are willing to be compliant to us, we hope to lead the people back into the Church; so that they cannot reproach us with the fact that we have accessed the parts of the Marcellians; but that it may be truly said that they have become members of the body of the Church of Christ; so that the infamy of that heresy, which is scattered all around, might be taken out of the way by their accession and admission to us, and we not be affected with shame and disgrace, as if we were going over to their side." This condition, this manner proposed by Basil for the receiving of the Marcellians, was, as is likely, very pleasing and agreeable both to Peter of Alexandria, the successor of Athanasius, and to the Marcellians, who so greatly desired peace and communion. For after this, no question regarding Marcellus or his followers arises. I hope that the learned will agree with me that this was the order and the outcome of the Marcellian tumult.
CHRIST. HENR. GEORG. RETTBERG PREFACE
To his own edition, which he titled: Marcelliana, Göttingen 1794, in 8vo.
It seems necessary to explain briefly what purpose I have followed in publishing these texts. When, in examining the opinions of the ancient writers of the Greek Church concerning God, I arrived at Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, it happened to me to my great inconvenience that the testimonies which C. H. Vogel, in his dissertation on Marcellus (Göttingen, 1757), intended to collect from Eusebius down to Gennadius, stood in great confusion, flawed, and obscure—comparable only to the texts published in Paris in 1628 with those which I now present. And yet, it is chiefly from these that the true opinion of Marcellus must be elicited, unless one suspects that Eusebius may have passed over everything most forceful and by far the best. The condition of these texts, as I have just said, is the reason why some things have been attributed to Marcellus, and are still attributed to him, from which he himself shrank.
Four writings, however, as far as I know, have been cast up onto the shore like wreckage from that violent and most turbulent storm, insulting the rage of the waves by their very lightness, as some might think. The first are the fragments of the book *On the Subjection of the Son*, preserved by his enemy Eusebius in the aforementioned books, and in part also by Epiphanius in the *Acacian Excerpts* (vol. 1, pp. 838 sqq.). The second is the booklet presented to Julius of Rome, which Epiphanius preserved for us (ibid., pp. 834 sqq.). The third, for me indeed doubtful, is the Embassy of the deacon Eugenius to Athanasius on behalf of the cause of Marcellus, and the confession of faith of the Church of Ancyra. Montfaucon, who has rendered such excellent service to Greek letters in general and, in particular, to this field, provided us with a copy of this in *Nova Collectio Patrum et Scriptorum Graecorum* (vol. 1), with the addition of a *Diatribe* on the case of Marcellus, which has already been praised by many. Finally, the fourth is the confession of the clergy of Ancyra to the exiled bishops of Diocæsarea, which the same Epiphanius contains.
It may perhaps seem convenient to others if I were to collect the first three here, in such a way that the fragments I have placed in the first position, purged of errors and, where necessary, explained by a new translation (for the one attributed to Montacute frequently conveys no sense at all) and more copious observations, are presented, and that I should place the remaining two beneath these. Thus it may appear more clearly by what steps, if indeed one should descend to such words, he was able to approve of that which even the Athanasians might find slightly more moderate.
Enough regarding the plan I have followed in the *Marcelliana*. Allow me to tarry a little longer on matters which did not have a place in the annotations, but nevertheless seem not to be overlooked. Eusebius of Cæsarea often snaps at even minor things, e.g., that he called the writings of Solomon "prophecy," or that he cited some places of Holy Scripture differently—that is, perhaps from some other recension—and so on; these I have neglected, unless where they might appear to be connected with dogma. Sometimes he did not even understand the words, as in fragment XXIII, or he twisted their meaning. Throughout, he argues in the same manner—which at that time was pleasing to many, and has not become obsolete even in our age—not to address the matter itself, but to elicit from his opponent's words whatever he pleased, and to attempt to prove them absurd. Furthermore, his partisan spirit and hatred shine through on every page, so thoughtless and forgetful that he condemns in Marcellus what he himself had written elsewhere. He took his example from Marcellus, who had burned with no less hatred against Asterius, Paulinus, the Eusebians, etc., and had not spared Origen, although he was not hostile to him and had indeed borrowed some things from him. Now, if one considers how vehemently Eusebius admired Origen—which is apparent from *Hist. eccl.* lib. VI and Socrates I, 20—what honor, to put it mildly, he showed to Paulinus (as is understood from *Hist. eccl.* lib. X), and finally that the theology he called "ecclesiastical" differed only by softer words from the Arian opinion: he will not indeed be excused, but he will grant pardon to human frailty.
Among those who studied to overturn the opinion of Marcellus, no ancient or modern writer, as far as I have read, has named Athanasius. Yet he, unless the 5th Oration against the Arians is a patch sewn on like so many other things, wished to refute that very book *On the Subjection of the Son*; this will be clear to anyone who, after reading these fragments, finally approaches that oration. Everywhere he names Sabellius, but he understands Marcellus, as others of the same age are accustomed to do, who rhetorically call not just Sabellius, but even "Sabellians" by that name: this, having been neglected by Epiphanius and other ancients, and by more recent writers—except for C. Wormius (who nevertheless acknowledges the error once on p. 40) and those who follow him incautiously—has been the cause of strange confusion. He mentions the Arians more sparingly, and as if in passing, warning by their example. Whence it is concluded at least that the title promises one thing, while the pages provide another; and further, that Marcellus appeared to the author to be *sabellizing*. But I maintain that the patch is foreign, such as the *De æt. subst. F. et Sp. S. de hum. nat. susc.*, and the *Contra Gentes* and *De incarnatione verbi Dei*, etc.
What primarily moved Basil the Great—to whom, while still a boy, Marcellus had written the book *On the Subjection of the Son*—to be somewhat more hostile, as it seems, to Marcellus and his followers? If you ask me, two things occur to me: first, that he was most tenacious of the faith in which he had been nurtured from his youth, as he genuinely confesses in the epistle to the Neocæsareans, which is LXV, pp. 326–327; second, that Marcellus and his followers had criticized his monastic institutions, as is evident from epistle LXXIII, p. 514.