|Reference numbers||Urk. 9
|Ancient source||Section 1: Eusebius, Against Marcellus 1.4.18-20
Section 2: Eusebius, Against Marcellus 1.4.49
Section 3: Eusebius, Against Marcellus 1.4.50
Section 4: Eusebius, Against Marcellus 1.4.51
|Modern edition used||G.C. Hansen and E. Klostermann, Eusebius Werke, Band 4: Gegen Marcell. Über die kirchliche Theologie. Die Fragmente Marcells GCS 14, 2nd edition (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1972)|
(1.) [Paulinus of Tyre wrote these things, without mentioning the gospel’s teaching. He confessed some things which they themselves had put forward, and others which they read in the writings of others who spoke in times past, sounding forth this sort of thing. The result is that they furnish certain “proofs” from the words of Origin in a letter of his, rather than being persuaded by the Evangelists and Apostles. These are their words]
It is time now when we are debating about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, to set out a few points which were omitted then [in Origen’s day]. On the subject of the Father, he is Father as undivided and not imparting himself to the Son, not bringing him forth, as some people think. For if the Son is an issue of the Father and a production from him, as are the productions of animals, then it is necessary that both the producer and the produced shall be a body….
(2.) [Later]…With these words, he who is considered the father of this saying, Paulinus, was not ashamed to speak and to write. Once he said that Christ was a second God, and that he had been begotten as a more human God, and another time he was defining him as a creation….
(3.) …Then he [Marcellus] slanders the blessed [Paulinus] as though he had said there were many Gods…
(4.) …And since he has learned this, Paulinus, the father of Asterius, thinks that they are younger Gods…
Sections 1 and 4 translation by AJW
Sections 2 and 3 from Hanson, p. 45
No Responses yet