By Water & Blood

Chapter 4: How Marcellus, not understanding the Scriptures, defined one hypostasis of Father and Son and Holy Spirit

—just as, again, to say that the three are one, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit: for this too belongs to Sabellius. And Marcellus too declared this very thing, writing somewhat as follows (Nr. 60):

“For it is impossible for three hypostases, if they exist, to be united in a monad, unless the triad first has its beginning from a monad. For the holy Paul said that those things are summed up in the monad which in no way differ from God in respect of unity; for the Word and the Spirit alone differ from God in unity [text uncertain].”

Then he tries to establish this next, proceeding and saying (Nr. 60):

“If, then, the Word should appear to have gone forth from the Father himself and to have come to us, and the Holy Spirit, as even Asterius confessed, proceeds (ἐκπορεύεται) from the Father, and again the Saviour says concerning the Spirit, ‘He shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you’—does not the Monad here, plainly and manifestly, by an ineffable principle, appear expanded (πλατυνομένη) into a triad, yet in no way submitting to be divided?

“For if the Word proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit too is confessed to proceed from the Father, and again the Saviour says concerning the Spirit, ‘He shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you,’ is it not evident that some hidden mystery is being uncovered? For how, unless the Monad, being indivisible, were expanded into a triad, could he say concerning the Spirit at one time that he proceeds from the Father, and at another, ‘He shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you,’ and again, having breathed on the disciples, say, ‘Receive ye the Holy Spirit’?

“For how, if he proceeds from the Father, does he promise to receive this ministry (διακονία) from the Son? For if they were two divided persons (πρόσωπα), as Asterius said, it would of necessity follow either that the Spirit, proceeding from the Father, does not need the ministry of the Son (for everything that proceeds from the Father must necessarily be perfect, in no way needing help from another); or, if he receives from the Son and ministers the grace out of the Son’s power, that he no longer proceeds from the Father.”

And after other things he adds (Nr. 60): “But if the Gospel says that, having breathed on the disciples, he said, ‘Receive ye the Holy Spirit,’ it is plain that the Spirit went forth from the Word. How then, if the Spirit came forth from the Word, does the same proceed again from the Father?” And after other things he adds (Nr. 60): “He has not, then, spoken rightly or fittingly in saying that there are three hypostases—saying it not once but a second time.” Through these and similar arguments the most wise man tries to establish that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one and the same, three names being applied to one hypostasis.

For neither in these did he understand how the Son is said to proceed from the Father, and the Holy Spirit likewise; nor has he been able to grasp how the Saviour said of the Holy Spirit, “He shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you,” nor how, having breathed on his disciples, he said, “Receive ye the Holy Spirit.” For those who contemplate piously, this will have an easy solution, if one considers that the Son, being always with the Father and present with him, was somewhere within, as it were in the inner sanctuaries and inaccessible places of the Father’s kingdom; and then, being sent forth by the Father for the salvation of the human race, he said that he had come forth from the Father. This he made plain about himself elsewhere too, through a parable, saying, “A sower went forth to sow.”

For from where did he go forth, if not from the innermost palaces of the Father’s Godhead? And by the same reasoning the Holy Spirit too, always standing beside the throne of God—since also “ten thousand times ten thousand” stand before him, according to Daniel—was itself also sent forth, at one time in the form of a dove upon the Son of man, at another upon each of the prophets and apostles; therefore it too is said to proceed from the Father. And why do you marvel? It is said even of the devil, “And the devil went forth from the Lord,” and again a second time, “So the devil went forth from the presence of the Lord.” And you would find the same in the case of Ahab, where the Scripture adds, “And there came forth an evil spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will deceive him.”

But these are opposing spirits, and how and in what manner this is said of them, now is not the time to inquire curiously. The only-begotten Son of God, however, teaches that he came forth from the Father because he is always with him; and the Holy Spirit likewise, being other than the Son. This the Saviour himself clearly establishes, saying, “He shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.” For this would be a direct proof that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not one and the same; for that which receives something from another is understood to be other than the giver.