That he is the image and radiance of the Father, and exists in the form of God, the divine Paul most clearly taught, as has been demonstrated above. Just as, when one Father subsists and one Son has been begotten from the Father, no one of sound mind would say that there are two fathers or two sons, and just as, when one king rules and his image is displayed everywhere on earth, no one of sound judgment would say that there are two who rule, but rather one who is honored also through the image — in the same way (as we have often said) the Church of God, having received one God to worship, continues to worship that same God also through the Son, as through an image.
Not understanding these things, Marcellus declared that the flesh of the Savior is the image of the invisible God — the flesh which the Apostle called 'the form of a servant' — not considering that all men, too, are formed according to the flesh of the Savior. And while he insists that the body which the Savior assumed is the image of the unbegotten, ineffable, paternal Godhead, he denies that the only-begotten Son of God, through whom all things came to be — for 'all things came to be through him, and without him not one thing came to be' — is the image of God, saying, in these very words: 'It is therefore plain that, before the assumption of our body, the Word in himself was not the image of the invisible God.' You see with what perversion he has treated the Apostle's meaning.
Such being the case, the evangelist John proclaimed the mystery that had been known hiddenly by Moses and the rest of the prophets, unveiling it and crying out with a great voice: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things came to be through him.'
and testifying that he was the light that enlightens every man coming into the world; he was in the world, and the world came to be through him, and the world knew him not — clearly setting forth the sonship when he says, of the Father, 'no one has ever seen God,' and of the Son, 'the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.'
This wondrous teacher of the sayings of Christ, having gathered together from the divine Scripture the commandments of God and the injunctions concerning things to be done, defines the Word 'in the beginning' to be something of this sort. Hear how he attempts to establish this, writing in the following manner: 'Since those who teach them are, as it were, ashamed to make mention of the Word — him whom all the divine Scriptures thus proclaim. For David says of him, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were established,” and again the same, “he sent forth his word and healed them.” And Solomon: “The wicked will seek me and will not find me, for they hated wisdom and did not choose the word of the Lord.” And Isaiah: “Out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” And again Jeremiah says, “The wise men were ashamed and were dismayed and were caught, because they rejected the word of the Lord.”'
And the prophet Hosea said, 'They hated him who reproves in the gates, and abhorred the holy word.' And Micah likewise, he too making mention of the word, said, 'Out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.'” Having gathered these and their kindred texts, he supposes that through them he strengthens his own opinion.
Observe how he has mixed together and jumbled the testimonies from divine Scripture — the sent word of God, the saving and healing word, and the word that gives injunctions for what must be done. For 'they hated him who reproves in the gates, and abhorred the holy word' — what word does he suppose this to be, if not surely the injunctive word concerning holy and just deeds? He wishes to confess anything rather than the Son of God, as though ashamed to make mention of the Son. For we know that the Son of God is Son in the most proper sense, and truly the only-begotten of God; and we know precisely that he is the Word, not like the word among men, but such as it is fitting to conceive the Word of God to be — living, subsisting, and a Son. But he, introducing a merely significative word, one that gives injunctions for what must be done, naturally shrank from confessing the Son, whom in very deed he was denying.
Then he himself, without noticing it, writes things contrary to himself. For in other places he insists that none of the former people knew the things concerning the Word, for it was a hidden mystery. And he writes, in these very words: 'For what else was the hidden mystery, but that which concerns the Word? For this mystery was hidden beforehand in God to such a degree that none of the former people clearly knew the things concerning the Word, but it is we who now enjoy the riches of the glory and of the hidden mystery.' And again he adds: 'But the sacred apostle and disciple of the Lord, John, teaching clearly and expressly at the beginning of the Gospel — as of something previously unknown among men — naming him the Word of the Almighty, thus said, “In the beginning was the Word.”' In these passages, then, he defines the hidden mystery to be the fact that God has a Word; while in the prophetic sayings just now cited, he maintains that all the divine Scriptures proclaim the things concerning him, and he gathers together very many testimonies concerning the word of God.
He was not, then, unknown to the former people, for they all knew such words, carrying the prophetic oracles on their lips and in their memory. But this 'Christian' holds up before us the scribe of the Jews, not hearing the Savior saying, 'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites,' and he marvels at him for affirming by oath that 'God is one, and there is none besides him,' not knowing that 'even the demons believe — and shudder.'
Observe how, from the prophetic Scriptures themselves, he gathers together the material concerning the word that teaches what must be done — a word which even the children of the Jews will acknowledge that they know, since they received it before us. But not even Sabellius himself was ignorant of such a word.
How then, while striking at the Jews and Sabellius, did he say, through the words of his I have cited, that they did not know the Word? And since he himself declared earlier that no one could know God or recognize his Word unless one had received the image of the invisible God — that is, plainly, the flesh, as he himself said —
(for he maintained that God and his Word are recognized only through the image, calling the flesh the image) — it must be recalled, by what has already been set forth, that all the Jews, apart from the incarnate presence, knew precisely the word of God and the words in the prophetic Scriptures that enjoin holy deeds, having studied these from their tenderest years, and confessed God to be the maker and creator of all things, just as also the scribe who confirmed this by oath.
This, then, is offered as proof that the man Sabellianizes. It is time now to go on to consider also the perverse interpretations of the divine Scriptures which he has made, so that everyone who honors this man may learn that he has strayed not only from the right faith, but also from the sound reading and contemplation of the divinely inspired Scriptures.