Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers Series 2 - The Still Small ...

and do not even allow him to be a Christian. No sooner do they hear this than Sabellius is
handy for them to urge against me, and it is noised abroad that my teaching is tainted with
his error. Once more I hold out in my defence my wonted weapon of truth, and demonstrate
that I shudder at Sabellianism as much as at Judaism.
3. What then? After all these efforts were they tired? Did they leave off? Not at all.
They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three
hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this
they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does
not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it
fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy.
If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent
for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are
clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us;
and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of
that side will be cast the vote of truth. What then is the charge? Two points are advanced
at one and the same time in the accusations levelled against me. I am accused on the one
hand of parting the hypostases asunder; on the other of never using in the plural any one
of the nouns relating to the Divinity, but of always speaking in the singular number of one
Goodness, as I have already said; of one Power; one Godhead; and so on. As to the parting
of the hypostases, there ought to be no objection nor opposition on the part of those who
assert in the case of the divine nature a distinction of essences. For it is unreasonable to
maintain three essences and to object to three hypostases. Nothing, then, is left but the
charge of using words of the divine nature in the singulars.
4. I have quite a little difficulty in meeting the second charge. Whoever condemns
those who assert that the Godhead is one, must of necessity agree with all who maintain
many godheads, or with those who maintain that there is none. No third position is conceivable.
The teaching of inspired Scripture does not allow of our speaking of many godheads,
but, wherever it mentions the Godhead, speaks of it in the singular number; as, for instance,
“in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” 2653 And again; “for the invisible
things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things
that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead.” 2654 If, then, to multiply godheads is
the special mark of the victims of polytheistic error, and to deny the Godhead altogether is
2653 Col. ii. 9.
2654 Rom. i. 20.
To Eustathius the physician.
661