Against Marcellus

^A And he has treated them—those whose reputation for virtue and godliness and the practice of divine words is sung throughout almost the entire world, so to speak—with poison; and in vain and to no purpose has he poured forth his simmering wrath. Nor against those of the common people, I know not whom, but against those very men who, by the grace of God, had acquired a celebrated name for themselves through a divine—or rather, a philosophical—way of life. And he obstructed not only the living and the seeing, but even those who had long since fallen asleep in Christ: these men, whom piety toward God and a practiced knowledge of the sacred scriptures had made most renowned throughout the world—men preferred above all others—he did not merely content himself with insulting them once, but, like a wicked calumniator, he heaped up boundless and immeasurable slanders, often repeated and variously composed; ^B and furthermore, he even hurled imprecations upon them, just as women are wont to do in quarrels and brawls, attacking men who had never done him any wrong. Hence, indeed, his writing grew to an immeasurable and excessive length, so that that single work swelled to nearly ten thousand lines. Why should we wonder, then, if, having honed his tongue so sharply against the holy priests of God, and having exercised his impious audacity in this way as if by a preliminary exercise, he has advanced his steps of impiety to such a degree that, finally, he has subjected the very head and apex, the only-begotten and beloved Son of God, to such blasphemies of his—blasphemies which you will hear described, not by my own words, but by his, for I judge this to be better. ^C When I have set down in writing the things he himself has uttered, I shall proceed no further in this book to refute and disprove them; nor is there any need to lengthen the discourse by weaving arguments, since those whom he has lacerated with insults are by no means unknown or ignoble, but, even if they remain silent, are celebrated by the mouths and speech of all: and since that blasphemy which he belched forth against the Christ of God is so manifest and stands so self-evident that there is no need for any more rigorous diligence to confute it. ^D For those who have partaken of the divine grace in the Church, both small and great alike, have perceived this new-fangled speech of this strange theologian as soon as it was uttered. Therefore, I shall only use brief annotations, weaving the discourse together in order and sequence, and pointing out only the irrationality of the things included. Before I proceed to his own words, it is necessary to advise those who encounter this man's treatise—and especially if any of them should be Galatians—not to lose sight of the divine voice of the apostle Paul, who, writing to the Galatians themselves, warned them not to be moved away from Him who called them in the grace of Christ unto another Gospel.

For there is not another, as he himself says, save that there are some who trouble them and wish to pervert the Gospel of Christ. And it is necessary to fix one’s attention also on that passage by which that great Apostle, even while touching upon himself, puts forth a word to bring to shame those who were attempting to distort the men, saying: ‘But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel other than that which we preached to you, let him be ^A anathema.’ And taking it up again, he repeats it, saying: ‘As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than that which you have received, let him be anathema.’ But what was this, for which there was no other gospel [to be preached]? Is it not certainly that same thing which the Saviour is recorded to have said when entrusting it to His disciples: ‘Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’? For this grace of the knowledge of the holy Trinity ^B He alone has bestowed upon us through the mystical regeneration, when neither Moses nor any of the prophets had ministered this to the former people. For it was fitting for the Son of God alone to announce this grace of the Father to all men; since the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ alone, as the only-begotten Son. Whence, the lawgiver, after the manner of a pedagogue, was delivering the elements of the first principles of God's oracles to the former people, who were in their infancy, restraining them from the error of polytheism, but preaching that there is one God alone who should be known; while saving grace, providing ^C us with a certain super-mundane and angelic knowledge, revealed openly the mystery that had been kept silent from the former people for ages—that He who is the God beyond all things, He who was known to the men of old, is God and simultaneously Father of the only-begotten Son, and it supplied to those who are worthy the power of the holy Spirit through the Son. By this means the Church of God, having received the holy and blessed and mystical Trinity of Father and Son and holy Spirit for a saving hope ^D through the regeneration in Christ, [maintains it]. For the time was still such that the veil was not yet removed, and it was before the revelation. The orthodox Fathers cite in the first place that passage in the beginning of Genesis, "Let us make man," etc., of which Basil of Seleucia speaks. See Tertullian against Praxeas. Epiphanius draws the matter out by degrees. "One Deity," he says, "was especially announced by Moses; the duality of persons, strongly predicted by the prophets; but the Trinity of persons was made manifest in the Gospels." This he says in the *Ancoratus*, hence the most learned Nyssen calls it "knowledge by addition" in his book *On the Holy Spirit* and similarly [in his book] *On God*: "By addition our nature has known the mystery of the Trinity."

^A And this was the ^A Gospel, which it is not permitted to alter into another Gospel; which is not another, as the great Apostle continues to testify to the Galatians even now, crying out through his Epistle to them: *Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be accursed*. [He does this] from afar, as is expected, so that one should not pay heed even to bishops, nor to rulers, nor to teachers, if any of them should distort the true word of the faith, teaching one to know God the Father, and handing down that one must recognize the Son as God; and to be zealous to share in the Holy Spirit (which things alone could become the hallmarks of Christians), ^B by which process the holy Church of God is distinguished from the Jewish mode of life. For just as that [former dispensation] rejected the polytheistic and Hellenic error through the confession of one God, so also does the Church’s singular knowledge concerning the Son present something greater and more advanced, teaching us to know the same God as Father of the Only-begotten Son—one who is truly Son, and living, and subsistent. For just as the Father (29) *has life in Himself*, as the Only-begotten of God Himself taught, so that the Father might also truly be Father—not merely acting in name, nor possessing the title falsely, but in truth and act being Father of the Only-begotten Son; and the Son being truly Son. But he who assumes the Son to be a mere Word, and testifies that He is *only* Word, and frequently says this very thing, that the Word was nothing else remaining within the Father who is at rest—[that is, the Father] who is at rest in silence and at work in those who speak—he clearly would be in agreement with some Jewish and human opinion, while denying the truly begotten Son of God. For if one were to ask any of the Jews if God has a Word, he would surely say [yes]. For every Jew would agree that He has both a word and many words. But if He also has a Son, he ^C does not acknowledge Him as the Only-begotten, nor as Father, as he explains at times. Nazianzen calls this opinion "poverty" more than once. And Gregory says: "You Jews, confessing the divinity as most singular, bring poverty upon its simplicity, settling cheaply on matters concerning the divinity." And the Greeks, worshipping empty idols and multiplying the divinity, are of necessity inclined toward the deception of idolatry, being attached to many gods who are in opposition to one another. But we, the Christians, treating the divinity of the Trinity, proclaim it as transcendent in wealth and power. Confessing one God, the Trinitarian power. Your poverty—and their polytheism—we equally reject and avoid. ^D

^A

He might go on to confess, if questioned, that if not a Jew, some bishop might introduce this view: granting that the Word is indeed united with God, and that He is eternal and unbegotten, and that He is one and the same as God, though titled by the differing names of Father and Son, while being one in essence and subsistence. How would he not clearly be seen as ^B adopting the view of Sabellius, while being alienated from that knowledge and grace which is in Christ? For the Church’s rule

Discipline concerning the Son

If, therefore, one were to appear as an opponent of these things, defining the Word of God as analogous to the word in men, without understanding or considering that one ought to attribute nothing mortal or human to God, who is beyond all things—nor anything at all that arises in our own conceits, even if the divine Scriptures, instructing those who encounter them as if they were children, speak of Him ^D somewhat humanly, attributing to Him hands, and feet, and eyes, and voices, and words, and mouths, and a face, and ten thousand other such things—things which it is appropriate to translate into God-befitting conceptions, [taking care that] nothing mortal or human in Him is active when He is creating the universe.

[alt-version omitted]

^A For God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth, the Savior Himself has taught us. And if He is Spirit, it is clear that He is divine, superior to every sensible and composite body; so that He has neither a sensible word expressed by a tongue and audible to mortal ears through vocal utterance, nor tongue, nor voice, nor face, nor anything else comparable to mortal and human reasoning. For if, as the divine Apostle taught, things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have they ascended into the heart of man—such are the things that God has prepared for those who love Him—if this is so, then He who is the Giver of all these ineffable things would be more ineffable still; and one might with much greater truth say in the theology concerning Him that eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has the knowledge of the conception regarding Him ascended into the heart of men. ^B And the same argument would apply to the generation of the Son. The Savior Himself might be a competent hierophant for us in these matters, saying somewhere thus: "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son."

If, then, anyone should speak against these things, and would dare to say that the Son—to whom the Father handed over all things—does not subsist, but should define Him only as a Word, similar to that which is in men, which is sometimes silent in God, just like the one who is silent among us, and sometimes active, just like the one among us who, when speaking, utters sounds; and then, at some certain time—not even four hundred years ago—to say that He took on flesh (I know not how) and through it has completed the dispensation regarding man, and that only then did He become the Son of God, and was named Jesus Christ, and was proclaimed King, and was shown to be the image of the invisible God and the firstborn of every creature, not having been so before; and then, in such an absurdity, not even granting to Christ, from the time he conjectured, the life and kingdom that is into infinite and endless ages; but also not imposing upon Him an end, nor [the prospect] such as belongs to those who through Him will be counted worthy of the promises which the Savior Himself has promised—eternal life, and incorruption, and immortality, and the kingdom of heaven, which He promised to those who love Him—at that time, according to the awaited...

^A hope, he should assert that for all others the things of the kingdom will endure for an endless age, but for Christ alone there will be a sudden deprivation of all these things, with His kingdom to cease, and the flesh which He assumed to be left desolate, and the Word, who (51) is present in God, to be separated from the body—even if this body be immortal and incorruptible—and to be joined to God, in such a way as to become one and the same again with God, just as He was before; what excess of impiety could be left for this man? Wherefore, for these reasons, the testimony of the Apostolic distinction is necessary, saying: "Even if an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you contrary to what you have received, let him be anathema." It occurs to me to marvel, in observing the Apostolic intent. For as if prophesying the future, he was specifying the theology of the Savior to the Galatians, writing in this way at the very beginning of his epistle to them (52), more ^B unusually than according to his custom: "Paul, an apostle, not from men, nor through (55) man, but through Jesus Christ." One would not find him having written in this way to others; for, as is likely, no others were the same as the ones to whom he was writing regarding the faith. For since they were assuming that Christ was a "bare man," he brought in the correction, teaching that He was not a man at the beginning of the epistle. And proceeding, he said to those same people: "That my gospel, which was preached to you, is not according to man, nor did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but through a revelation of Jesus Christ." By which he again demonstrates ^C that Jesus Christ was not just a bare man (54). If He was not merely a man, who was He? Advancing further, he explained, saying: "But when it pleased God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb, to reveal His Son in me." See how he clearly proclaimed the Savior as Son of God, and for this reason, God. And that he understood Him to be the Son of God even before His incarnate presence, he demonstrates most clearly by adding in the same epistle to the Galatians: "But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman." Therefore, it was not then, but before He was born of a woman, that the Father sent the Son, who was the Son and (55) pre-existed, as if the ancient Son of God and Son of man.

^A Since he who once was, so he also exists again with God. For can anyone transcend God in impiety by thinking these things? It is, therefore, certainly and necessarily required to apply the testimony of that apostolic determination, [*] *Even if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything beyond what you have received, let him be anathema.* (Gal. 1, 8). As I apply myself more accurately to the apostolic sense here, I am struck with greater wonder. For just as if he were prophesying the future, he expounds the divinity of the Savior to the Galatians with a more accurate style. For in a new way, and one not used by him elsewhere, he begins the Epistle written to them thus: *Paul an apostle, not from men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ.* (ibid., 1). One cannot find that this Apostle wrote to others with this formula of words, for the reason that none among those to whom he was writing were so affected concerning the faith as were the Galatians. For just as if they held the opinion that Christ had existed as a mere man, so he attempted to correct them and to reshape the error of their opinion, while in the very opening of the epistle he teaches that He was not a man (a mere man, that is). Proceeding further to these same people, he writes: *My gospel which is among you is not according to man: nor did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ.* (ibid. 11, 12). By these words he expressed quite clearly that Jesus Christ was not a mere man. But who He was, or what, if not a man, his epistle declares as it proceeds: *But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, to reveal his Son in me.* (ibid. 15). There you see clearly that our Savior existed as the Son of God. ^{B C}

^A And thus he existed with God; for he would not in this way be a mediator, nor indeed in himself be the one and only God, nor likewise the God over all—the God over all, even if he is one—nor is he [the Father] himself the one and only God. But he was, and pre-existed, as the only-begotten Son, full of grace and truth. And he was acting as a mediator for the Father, who was providing the law to men through angels. The Apostle, teaching the ignorant and unlearned concerning this theology of the Son of God, seals his argument ^B by saying, *Now a mediator is not a mediator of one.* For it is not in the nature of things for a mediator to be defined in relation to one. Wherefore, he is not of one, but of necessity he is a mediator of two, being neither of those of whom he happens to be the mediator, so that one might not think him to be the God over all, nor one of the angels; but he is the midpoint and mediator between these, because he mediates to the Father and the angels. Just as again, when he becomes a mediator of God and men, being in the middle of each order, he is neither of them, but exists as a mediator for the remaining men, as man. What then? If he is none of these? He is the only-begotten Son of God, now having become the mediator of men and God, just as of old, in the time of Moses, he existed as the mediator of God and angels. The great Apostle, writing these things ^C to them, and handing them down in this way, says: *The law was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not of one; but God is one.* There is therefore one God, and one mediator of God and of all things that have been brought into being; not now having begun the saving mediation, but even before his appearance to men, just as the argument has demonstrated. Having set out these things briefly to the Galatians themselves, solely from the epistle addressed to them—which provides the mystical regeneration of saving faith in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and in addition to the holy scriptures, confirms the testimonies from the divine Scriptures of the Catholic Church of God from one end of the earth to the other, by way of unwritten tradition—it is time now to examine the expressions of Marcellus, and to bring forward the proofs promised to us, so that no one might think the man is being slandered by us. ^D Since my purpose is to set forth the things said in brief, I shall not collect all the man's statements, but shall use only the cohesive ones.

^A per se non subsistens, ^B or as if they were redundant and through the same things traveling, I shall pass over. But before the proof of what has been said, I think I ought first to demonstrate to those who happen upon this that he did not even accurately examine the obvious expressions of the divine readings, so that it may be known to those who are ignorant of him, what sort of person he is who was brought to such boldness in the things previously mentioned.

The divine theories regarding the Son of God, the Apostle himself also recorded in this manner, saying: “A mediator is not of one.” And certainly the nature of the matter does not allow a mediator to be defined from any one source. For this reason, he is not of any one individual, but is a medium necessarily between two, distinct from both, of whom he is established as mediator. It is not, therefore, to be thought that this one is that God who is God above all, nor yet one of the number of the angels: but a medium between both and a mediator, inasmuch as he intercedes as a medium between his Father and the angels. In the same manner again, where he becomes a mediator of God and of men, being a medium between the order of both, he exists as a mediator, being of neither of these. He is not that one and sole God, nor yet a man, in the way that other men are. What, then, if he exists as nothing of these? Certainly the only-begotten Son of God, already constituted as the mediator of God and men; but of old, under the Mosaic times, was the mediator of God and the angels. These are the things which that great Apostle handed down in writing to the Galatians, saying: “Law ordered through angels, in the hand of a mediator; a mediator is not of any one, but God is one.” Therefore, there is one God, and one mediator of God and of men, and moreover of everything created: who was not now for the first time beginning his mediation for salvation, but of old existed as mediator, when he had not yet been born and was not yet dwelling among men: which, indeed, has already been demonstrated previously in the discourse. These are the things which we propose to the Galatians for consideration, briefly and in summary, from that very epistle of Paul to the Galatians, in which is contained that mystical regeneration of saving faith, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. These things, besides the fact that they are recorded in the divine Scriptures, are also confirmed to a greater extent by the tradition of the Catholic Church, which is spread from one end of the world to the other, which confirms and seals the testimonies of the sacred Scriptures through unwritten tradition. But now it is time that we bring forward in succession the words of Marcellus and, by the demonstration we promised, set forth those points by which these things are most clearly proposed—things which we have hitherto argued—lest anyone think that out of a desire for slander these things have been heaped upon him. Since, indeed, it is my purpose briefly to describe the things said by him, I do not, however, think that they should be reviewed at present piece by piece and word for word. I will invoke only those things which are the main points and contain the cause, while omitting very many things that are unnecessary and that recur to the same point. But before I approach the matter, it is necessary by demonstration to make manifest to the reader that this man has not grasped the mind and meaning of the divine Scriptures, much less when they might be obvious to anyone: so that those who are ignorant of who and what sort he is may finally understand with what boldness he rushed to commend precisely these things in his writings.

CHAP. II. That he does not even accurately understand the divine Scriptures.

Immediately, therefore, when the prophet Zacharias was present at the times of the return from Babylon, and made mention of Jesus the high priest, specifically of the son of Josedec, who along with Zorobabel led those who returned from Babylon, this noble and admirable writer, having been ignorant of this, sets forth the word of Zacharias, through which he makes mention of Jesus, but having been shot far from the history, he has supposed him to be speaking about Jesus, the successor of Moses.

^A And again, the Apostle having written to the Galatians in this way: *But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is our mother of all* (Gal. IV, 26), he has either not understood, or even knowingly distorts the word by writing: *But our Jerusalem is above* (68); *for this is in bondage with her children.* And again, the Savior having said to Peter: (69) *Get behind me, Satan; you are an offense to me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men* (Matt. XVI, 23), not understanding how the Word had been spoken to the Apostle, and for what cause he says these things were spoken to the devil—at once he puts such errors under one paragraph, writing this in his own words: ^B "That no name is more excellent than the name of Jesus among all that are named on earth, the Gospel bears witness, where the angel said to Mary: *Do not fear, for you have found favor with God; and behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a son, and you will call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest* (Luke I, 30-32). And it is clear also from the prophecy of Zacharias, who long ago prophesied concerning this name: *For he showed me*, he says, *the Lord Jesus the high priest, standing before the face of the angel of the Lord. And the devil stood at his right hand to oppose him. And the Lord said to the devil: The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you* (Zach. III, 1, 2). When, however, did he rebuke him? ^C Then, certainly, when he united to his own Word the man beloved by him, 'He who has chosen,' he says, 'Jerusalem'; it is clear that he means this our Jerusalem of which the Apostle speaks: *But our Jerusalem is above; for this is in bondage with her children.* For at that time, having come into that great Jerusalem, that is to say, into our Church, he rebuked the devil, according to the prophecy, saying: *Get behind me, Satan; for* he was deemed worthy to bring the people into the holy land, and yet—was he deemed worthy, O son of Pamphilus, to bring the people into the holy land, was he then a 'great' one, or was he not, when he led together with Zorobabel those returned from Babylon, he, the son of Josedek, and took the small and visible things instead of the great and invisible, in the opinion of Moses, that he—this one—was all the more clearly for this our Jerusalem, 'But our Jerusalem is above, for this is in bondage with her children.' ^D [...] of the Savior, when he was speaking."

^A *“Get behind me, Satan: for you are a stumbling block to me.”* (Matth. XVI, 23) This, then, is the great priest, of whom that Jesus at that time preserved the type. For it was not possible for him to be called a great priest, even though he had become glorious in all things, had not Moses been named great. (71) For Moses was so great that he was called both the servant of God, and was named by God himself the God of Pharaoh. If someone, for this reason, thinks that Jesus was called great because he was adjudged worthy to lead the people into the Holy Land and worked many other miracles, he should realize also that for this reason, the greatness spoken of in the case of Jesus did not differ so much in the typical event; rather, it was because he was about to lead his own people, a little later, into this great Jerusalem of ours. You see, therefore, how greatly he errs in this history, in that he did not understand who or what sort of person that Jesus was whom the prophet Zechariah mentioned. For he was the son of Josedec, of the tribe of Levi, from the lineage of Aaron, having received the high priesthood (72) — whence he was styled the "great priest," just as the prophet teaches, saying, *And the Lord showed me Jesus the great priest.* But the Jesus who was the successor of Moses—who led the people of the Lord into the land of promise and did many other wondrous things—was the son of Nave, of the tribe of Ephraim, which has nothing in common with the priesthood. Therefore, he who has wandered so far from the plain reading, and is ignorant of the bare history, how could he be considered reliable?

^B Consequently, Marcellus has clearly expressed his mind in these words: that he did not grasp this prophecy concerning Jesus Christ according to the letter, but only in a typical and secondary sense. How Eusebius himself was also expounding it, not moved by any goad of contradiction, is not far from being true. Which interpretation cannot and ought not be refuted. Truly, since all things happened to them in a figure, it is certain that what was said concerning the type according to the letter, was applied concerning the substance according to the mystical sense. Although it might be granted that Marcellus also applied these things to Christ according to the letter, he was not on that account to be called to task by the ignorant. Tertullian, a man at least to be placed alongside Eusebius, has it thus against the Jews: "Nor will you be able to call him the son of Josedec, who was not at all clothed in filthy garments, but was always adorned with priestly attire. Nor was he ever deprived of the priestly office: but Jesus is Christ, the high Priest of God the Father, etc."; with this agrees Lactantius, lib. IV, cap. 14, and Jerome, epistola 8. ^C While [the editor] recites the diverse opinions and views of others here, Jerome seems to have had Marcellus in mind. Lactantius writes: "But they, in turn, were deceived and mistaken in the same way, thinking these things were said of Jesus the son of Nave, who was the successor of Moses, or of the priest Jesus, the son of Josedec, to whom nothing of what the prophet narrated applies." But in this, one must consider: *In that time he stood at the right hand of the Lord, so that he might withstand him* (Zachar. III, 1). The blessed Jerome [says]: "When Jesus had on filthy garments (ibid. 5), that is, as long as he carried our sins, the devil stands against us in our sins." But when he says in Zechariah, *Take away, take away the garments* (ibid. 4), and immediately, *Jesus says to the devil: May the Lord rebuke you*, etc. The same most learned Father, in his Commentaries on the place of the prophet, insinuates that the opinion of the Christian teachers against the Jews was openly common [that this] is not a treatise instituted here concerning Jesus [son] of Josedec. But our [writers], he says, argue thus, that he is the great priest to whom [the Father] says: *You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchisedech* (Ps. CIX, 4). And they do not attempt to show that it is Jesus, son of Josedec, because the son of Josedec is not brought forward in the present text, who in other places, where it is truly said of Jesus [son] of Josedec, is always judged by his father's surname. Therefore, why should Marcellus not be taken as if he had not spoken in the first sense, but as those Fathers, and others besides them, [did]? ^D (71) [Greek variant note: we have "God of," they have "God himself of," or "God's God of," etc., "as it is about to be" or "about to be," etc.] (72) "But the great priest": This title is not so frequent in Scripture, but the supreme Pontiff is accustomed to be called *archiereus* [high priest]. Only, as far as I remember, Elias the pontiff who found the book of the law, the ancestor of this Jesus, is thus used: and before him, Jehoiada; who nevertheless was not the pontiff, or the highest of the priests. And it is read in Zechariah, as if it were not a common title of all pontiffs: but attributed to some more illustrious ones.

^A it was done by miracles, was the son of Nun, of the tribe of Ephraim, which tribe had nothing in common with the priesthood. Therefore, he who has so wandered in a voice so obvious to everyone, and has been ignorant of the simple sequence of history, cannot be safely trusted in theological matters and those concerning divine knowledge.

However, we must also insist on Peter, just as it was said to him, *Vade post me* (Get behind me), and what the interpretation of that name, *Satan*, might be. For what reason was it also said of him, "you are a scandal to me and an offense"? And for what reason, pray, does it happen that at one and the same time it is said to one and the same person, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah," and "Get behind me, Satan"? What does that mean, "Get behind me," and what the Savior immediately added and followed up on, "If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself once, take up his cross, and thus follow me." Which the same Peter fulfilled in deed, when he was subsequently consumed by martyrdom. But it must be investigated entirely why, when He had proclaimed him so blessed, He nevertheless immediately rebuked him so vehemently? Since Marcellus considered neither of these, he pronounced those words to be referred to the devil, contrary to the manifest truth of Scripture. But was this the only thing he was ignorant of? ^B Nay, rather, as the ^A instruction of the highest theology proceeds; and indeed it is necessary to understand regarding Peter, how it was said to him, "Get behind me," and what the interpretation of the name *Satan* is; why, also, He called him a "scandal"; and how at almost one and the same time [He said] to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah," and also, "Get behind me, Satan"; and what the meaning is of "to walk behind Him," which the Savior, being close at hand, explained by joining them together: "If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." Which the same Peter himself achieved a little later, perfected by martyrdom. But it is also necessary to ask, for what did He call him blessed, and for what did He rebuke him? The man, paying attention to none of these, declared that these things were said to the devil, contrary to the Scripture. Does it follow, then, that he was ignorant of this alone? Did he not also, going further, having recalled the resurrection of our Savior, and then wishing to show that even before Him, during the prophetic times, someone is reported as having been raised from the dead, err again in this, ^B first saying that the prophet Elisha raised [someone] from the dead? ^C He is unaware [of the truth], if we read [the text], and what the meaning is of "to walk behind the Savior," which [He explained] being close at hand, etc., namely the meaning, or, as I have followed in the translation, "and what the Savior beside him explained," etc.

^D regarding another accusation of Eusebius: in which he acts as a sycophant more foolishly. For he who affirms that Elisha raised a dead man before the resurrection of Christ, or that he was the first and chief of all to call back a dead man to life, does not deny it of Elijah, nor does he say that *he* was the first of all to be raised, whom Elisha restored to life, but [that he was] the first; in such a way he could also raise a dispute about Lazarus, who rose before Christ and through Christ; but the reading of the codex must be corrected *primum dicens*... as the following indicates. Marcellus argues that Christ was not called the firstborn of the dead because He was the first of all to rise from death to life: for before Him, he says, Elisha raised a dead man: Lazarus rose before His resurrection: and at the time of the passion many bodies of the dead arose. And thus the Eusebian calumny about Elisha is manifest. Marcellus only says that he raised a dead man before Christ; he does not say that he was the first of all, nor that he raised a dead man before Elijah. As far as the dead are concerned, in the Gospel, that is certainly not excused in the same way, even if Marcellus spoke loosely *in the time of the passion*. For it is clear that they, as Eusebius notes, only rose with Christ. The passage of the Apostle is Colossians 1:15, where Christ is called the "firstborn of all creation." And verse 18, "the firstborn from the dead." In the interpretation of that passage, Marcellus seems to have stung the Arians. For they wished for Christ to be established from this as a creature by the Apostle, before all other things, even having been made [before] the angels: but yet made; whence He is said to be the firstborn of all creation. No, says Marcellus, Christ is called the firstborn of all creation in the same way that He is immediately called the firstborn of the dead; nor is He called the firstborn of the dead because He was the first of all to return from death to life, since many had returned before Him: as Lazarus, and he, or they, who were raised by Elisha; nor is He said to be the firstborn of all creation because He was created indeed, but before other creatures. From this Eusebius carps as if Marcellus had said that Elisha was the first of all to raise a dead man: a pettifogger and a sycophant of syllables; omitting what was the head: namely the sense and meaning of the apostolic saying: which Marcellus is said to have explained with Athanasius, so that He was called the firstborn, in both cases, because in Him, through Him, by His power, majesty and energy, the dead had risen, even if they were prior to Him. Creatures had existed, prior to Him, namely regarding the human, in respect to whom, and no otherwise, He ought to be called the firstborn, not as the Arians blasphemed, even regarding the deity. See Athanasius, Orat. III, against the Arians, p. 234, 235. Although also for another reason Christ may be called the firstborn of the dead. Because He was the first to rise to eternal life. For rising from the dead, He does not die again. But they returned into their dust: and in their sepulchers they await the trumpet. And although those who rose after the resurrection have not returned to their dust, yet they are also in time later than the resurrection of Christ, which is clearly noted in the Gospel. Thus He was the first in time to rise to eternal life. He did not rise first in time *alone*, He rose second, by His own power, not the power of another. Third, in Him and through Him others were raised, and all will be raised, so that He is justly called the firstborn of the dead, and we apply that utterance of Jacob concerning his Reuben (Gen. XLIX, 3) to the humanity of Christ: "Reuben, my firstborn, my strength, and the beginning of my children." Certainly those who rose after Christ, as companions of His resurrection, did not, it seems to me, die again. This is the common opinion.

^A In the context of his discourse, having mentioned the resurrection of the Savior, he attempts to teach that before His incarnation, in the times of the prophets, it was said that someone had been raised from the dead. In this very point he errs egregiously. For he says that the prophet Elisha was the first to raise a dead person, remaining ignorant of the fact that Elijah, that greatest of prophets, was prior to Elisha and had raised the widow's son from the dead: a fact he could have learned from the third book of Kings. ^B But he was ignorant of this very thing, as is apparent, when he writes in explicit words: "Not only therefore did the Apostle say that He was the 'firstborn of the new creation,' but also the 'firstborn from the dead'; for no other reason, it seems to me, than that He who is called the 'firstborn of all creation' might also be understood to be the 'firstborn from the dead.'" For our Lord Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead before all others; rather, he who was raised by the prophet Elisha had risen before Him. And Lazarus also rose before His resurrection, and at the time of His passion many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep arose. And it seems to me that Marcellus posited this inconsiderately—I mean the statement that "many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep arose before Him." For he did not attend to the whole of the Gospel writing, which teaches that the bodies of the saints were raised *after* His own. You would find him erring also in his exposition of the apostolic text. For the divine Apostle, writing to the Romans, says these things: "Separated unto the Gospel of God, which He had promised before through His prophets in the holy Scriptures concerning His Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was designated the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness." But he—I know not with what intent—distorts the apostolic word here too, making "predestined" instead of "designated," so that He might be like those who are predestined according to foreknowledge. He says, therefore, word for word, as follows: ^C "Just as, therefore, God the Almighty predestined His Church long ago, so also the economy of Christ according to the flesh, through whom He predestined the race of the God-fearing to be called to adoption, having first founded it in His own mind. For this reason the Apostle clearly proclaims through the Holy Spirit concerning the predestined Son of God," and so on. And again he says in other places: "This is He concerning whom Paul spoke, the 'predestined Son of God.'" And even here he has corrupted not only the apostolic word, but the very meaning itself by the addition of the preposition *pre* (pro-). ^D Doing things akin to these, he turns away from the psalmody— [alt-version omitted]

in the same manner, and concerning the economy of Christ according to the flesh, through whom he preordained that race which honors and worships God for their adoption as sons, having first laid that foundation, he determined this in his own mind. For this reason, the Apostle, through the Holy Spirit, manifestly calls him the Son of God, foreknown and ^A predestined; and in another place: "This is he of whom Paul was speaking, the preordained Son of God." He did not merely corrupt the word used by the Apostle in this place, but even his very thought by the change of that preposition. But these are germane and genuine which he also attempted in the Psalms. For where it is said, "From the womb before the morning star I have begotten thee," he adds a supplement which is nowhere found in the Psalm, so that he might thus rail against those who did not think the same as he did. Attend, then, to what he writes: ^B "For this reason, it seems to me entirely proper that some things, of which I have not yet spoken before, should now be discussed. For most of what has been written by him is already manifest from what has been said before by us. From the womb, he says, before the morning star I have begotten thee." For he thought that by this means the preposition *ek* (from), which had been stolen away, would somehow concur with the opinion of his heresy. Therefore, by removing the most crucial part of the syllable, he desired to signify his ancient regeneration. And since in these matters he strove ^B strongly about his own error, criticizing the one who wrote correctly, while himself saying nothing to those who encounter it, he hands down the same testimony for reading. Moving on again, the same man introduces the Savior saying, "I am the day," while saying in that place: "For darkness being present before, on account of the ignorance of piety, but the day being about to appear, 'For I,' he says, 'am the day.'" He rightly calls the star the morning star. And in another place he says: "Since after the taking up of the flesh, ^C Christ and Jesus is preached, and life and the way and the day." And again, moving on, he places the Apostle's [words]: "But our Jerusalem is above." And why need I be lengthy, when it is possible for anyone who wishes to gather similar things from the entire work of the men I have mentioned before, and to observe the ease of the man? From which facility he will hear his ^C words: "From the womb before the morning star I have begotten thee." The one here, moreover, uses a supplement that is not present at all, to rail against the one who does not say [the same] ^D as he does: "Listen, therefore, to how he writes, saying: 'For this reason, therefore, it seems to me good to discuss a few details concerning things of which I have not yet spoken before. For the majority of the things written by him have become clear from what we have already said. From the womb, he says, before the morning star I have begotten thee.' For he thought, somewhere, that the preposition *ek*, which had been stolen, would certainly contribute to the goal of the heresy. Therefore, having removed the most important part of the syllable, he wished to signify his ancient regeneration. And since he strove strongly in these [passages] regarding his own error, having criticized the man who wrote correctly, while himself saying nothing to those who encounter it, he hands down the same testimony of reading. Moving on, the same man again introduces the Savior saying: 'I am the day,' saying in that place: 'For darkness being present before, on account of the ignorance of piety, but the day being about to appear, For I, he says, am the day.' He rightly calls the star the morning star. And in another place he says: 'Since after the taking up of the flesh, Christ and Jesus is preached, and life and the way and the day.' And again, moving on, he places that of the Apostle: 'But our Jerusalem is above.' And why need I lengthen, when it is possible for the one who desires to gather similar items from the whole composition and to overlook the ease of the man?"

^A And it has come to pass that he even designated Solomon as a prophet, and the Proverbs as prophecy, not once. For instance, he speaks in this manner: "For this reason, the most holy prophet Solomon said 'to receive the turns of words';" and again: "The sayings of the wise and riddles," he terms the proverb prophecy; and yet again: "Wherefore it seems to me that this most wise prophet also spoke the first steps of prophecy proverbially." And a second time, and a third, and often, as I said, he does this, being ignorant that there are distributions of gifts, even if it is the same Spirit. ^B And to one indeed is given the word of wisdom, according to the Apostle; to another, the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another, faith in the same Spirit; to another, prophecy. For this reason, Solomon is testified to have received the gift of wisdom. For "the Lord gave wisdom to Solomon," as the Scripture says, "and he was wiser than all men." Yet he neither led a prophetic life, nor was he distinguished by any prophetic character—such as that which is recognized by those similar expressions, "Thus saith the Lord," and the like—through his own words. But seeing none of these things, just as if he were bestowing something of his own, he calls him a prophet, not understanding that the prophets "wandered about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented." ^C And he says that his Proverbs are prophecy, even though the divine Scripture nowhere teaches this, but the most wise man himself, with the divine Spirit, gave names to these compositions—to this book, Proverbs; to another, Ecclesiastes; and to the third, Song of Songs—not without God, nor attributing these titles to them by human reasoning. But even this divinely inspired Scripture of his, he attempts to interpret through Greek examples, not heeding the Apostle Paul who says: "But we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God: which things also we speak, not in the words managed by human wisdom, but in the words taught by the Holy Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him, and he cannot know that they are spiritually ^D appraised." And not understanding these things, the noble fellow attempts to explain to us from Greek readings, as if it were forbidden by the Apostle to accept from the Egyptians things that would conduce to the building and adorning of the tabernacle. As if Paul himself did not borrow from Menander, Aratus, Epimenides, or Callimachus. As if Eusebius himself were not a writer, if there were any other who had believed the Evangelical Preparation to be much more refined by that mosaic work; but these things belong to a faction. Certainly, Marcellus is not in this to be blamed, whatever he may be, for having brought secular letters, as he calls them, to the Solomonic Proverbs.

^A And this too the noble man, being ignorant of, attempts to add to our understanding of the divine Proverbs from Hellenic readings, writing in these words after this manner.

CHAP. III. Marcellus on the proverbs among the Greeks.

^B “For I think there is nothing absurd, at the present moment, in recalling some of the proverbs from outside sources. ‘Either he is dead or he is teaching letters.’ One might suppose at first glance that this proverb was said against those who teach letters, since also another of those among them taught the letters. ‘I, for my part, used to go to school,’ he said; but those who wrote the commentaries said that it does not have this meaning. But because the Siceliotes, they say, having defeated the Athenians in war, spared only those who professed education, taking them as teachers for their children, but killed all the others. And some from among them, having fled and returned home, when asked by the Athenians about some of their friends or those related to them, they said, ‘Either he is dead, or he is teaching letters.’ ^C But why also the (proverb) ‘The goat against the knife’? Might one suppose, if I were to set forth beforehand what is said about it, that it is said, in every way surely, because the goat being sacrificed looks toward the knife? But some of the ancients did not say this; for the adage said would not even be a proverb if this were so (for this would be a natural inference to make from appearances), but they say that it is said of those who bring evils upon themselves. For they say that Medea in Corinth, after she had killed her children with her own hand, hid the knife ^D there. And the Corinthians, according to an oracle given to them, while sacrificing a black goat, were in want of a knife. And the goat, scraping with its foot, revealing the

^A earth, unearthed him, the Medeaian, by whom ^A he was to be sacrificed.

But what does this mean, says one, "Enough of the oak"? It is not easy for everyone to grasp the sense of this proverb. The ancients of old, before agriculture was discovered, used to feed on acorns. But after crops were subsequently produced, transferring their attention to these and delighting in the change, they said, "Enough of the oak." And they claimed this to be the proverb. We also find it necessary in the present case to mention another proverb, which is recorded in many and various books by those learned among them who have chosen to interpret proverbs, and what they have written about it. But in order that we might refute Asterius—who, while being well versed in these secular teachings regarding the meaning of the proverb, is in this instance pretending ignorance, so that he may seem to plausibly establish his own opinion through the use of this proverbial saying—we must observe that regarding the proverb, "The art of Glaucus," the learned among the Greeks who have mentioned it have interpreted it in various ways. ^B For one of them said that a certain Glaucus, who was knowledgeable in a certain art, one that was most marvelous among many, perished together with his invention at sea, before anyone had learned of it. Another, testifying to the extreme musical skill of Glaucus, says that four bronze discs were fashioned by him, in order to produce a certain rhythmic harmony from the sound of their striking; and that from this the proverb was used. Another says that among the offerings of Alyattes the Lydian at Delphi there was dedicated a mixing bowl and a stand for the bowl, a marvelous work, the creation of Glaucus of Chios. A fourth one narrates that Glaucus himself dedicated at Delphi a bronze tripod, so masterfully fashioned that if someone were to strike it in a coarser manner, either its feet upon which it stood, or that which was above like a rim, or the wreath girding the cauldron, ^C or the rods stretched through the middle, would ring with the sound of a lyre. And yet another says that the proverb was so called because of a certain Glaucus who was thought to have accomplished something more than the rest.

Do you see, ^D how the difficulty of the proverb is shown by this, through the fact that those who wished to interpret this proverb could not even agree upon the same interpretation? So difficult a thing does this proverb appear to be even among the outsiders. Wherefore also, some one of the wise men among them, having collected those

^A many and variously spoken proverbs, wrote six books concerning them: two of those in meter, and four of those without meter. These, then, the outsiders named Proverbs for no other reason, in my opinion, but because, having fallen upon the Proverbs of the most wise Solomon, and having learned from them that there is nothing from a cursory reading to be clearly understood of what is said in them, they also, wishing to emulate the prophetic writing, wrote in the same manner as him. Then, as they were unable to devise any name for them more authoritative than that, they also named these Proverbs. By such citations, Marcellus attempts to teach the Church of God to understand the divinely inspired Scriptures. ^B I have recounted this entire long and tedious superfluity, wishing to show the irrationality of his great and untimely vanity, which the man uses, indeed with enough pomp regarding secular erudition, but meagerly regarding the sacred Scriptures. For had he been mindful of the apostolic admonition, he would by no means have fallen into such great vanity: for he persuades us to speak those things which have been communicated to us, *not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.* Nor did he grasp what is written: *The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him: and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually discerned.* ^C Being ignorant of these things, he supposed that the wise men of the Greeks had possessed the knowledge of the wisdom which God had bestowed upon Solomon, and that, having known it, they had—as he himself says—emulated the prophetic writing. But how could natural men have known and emulated divine things, when they could not discern spiritual things spiritually, and when it had been established by the Apostle that the natural man does not grasp the things of the Spirit of God; and it is further stated by the same that the natural man cannot understand spiritual things, because they are spiritually discerned? Yet, contradicting the Apostle, this noble person ^D says that the collectors of the Greek proverbs wrote in the same manner as Solomon. Speaking verbatim, he says thus: «Since they had fallen upon the Proverbs of the most wise Solomon, and had known from their reading that it was very difficult to grasp their meaning from a cursory glance, and since they wished to emulate that prophetic manner of writing, they wrote in the same way as him.» Consider also, in another way, from these citations of his, how far he has missed the truth in saying that those among the Greeks wrote in the same manner as Solomon. For Solomon, being moved by divine wisdom,

dedicated all his writing to the usefulness and salvation of souls for the sake of godliness; but for the exercise of the minds of those who read, he employed obscure problems, and shifts of language, and expressions brought forth through riddles. And this is testified to in the very beginning of his book, where it says: "For the wise man who hears will be wiser; and the prudent man will possess governance, and will understand the parable of ^A dark sayings, the words of the wise and riddles." And again, "to receive the shifts of words." And it is easy to learn that this is indeed how it stands from the contents of the book, which we cannot understand in any other way unless we pass from the surface reading to the sense perceived from it; as for example: "The leech had three beloved daughters, and these three did not satisfy it, and the fourth was not satisfied to say, 'It is enough.'" And, "Wisdom built a house for herself, and set up seven pillars, and slaughtered her own sacrifices, and mixed her own wine into a bowl." And whatever other things are similar to these, they cannot be understood in any other way, nor easily, nor from any history, except through metaphor alone and the turning of the expression. ^B But the proverbs of the Greeks that have been set forth have taken their origins from certain histories. For the saying, "He is either dead or teaching letters," was spoken, he says, because of such-and-such a history; and again, by another deed that occurred, the saying, "The goat, the sword," was spoken; and likewise, "Enough of the oak," because those who once ate acorns ceased from such food. But even if some Glaucus, having been an expert in some craft, was remembered in diverse ways by those who disagreed afterwards in a discourse about him, what is this to the divinely inspired proverbs? For these do not, like the Greek proverbs, admit their solution from some history. ^C Marcellus therefore, ignorantly and without experience of the contemplation of the divine Scriptures, not only that, but also contrary to the Apostle, declared that the wise men of the Greeks, when they had encountered the Proverbs of Solomon, learned and emulated the prophetic writing and wrote in the same manner as him.

With these things having been said by us as proof that the man has not encountered the divine Scriptures as he ought, it is now time to examine his unsound opinion of the faith; for, inasmuch as he holds opinions contrary to the ecclesiastical doctrine, he has slandered both it and its leaders. ^D

CAP. IV. That he slandered both the ecclesiastical doctrine and its leaders.

Before all else, those things are to be set forth by me in which.

^A he attempts to speak against those things which have been written, slandering those who wrote them, and setting up, as it were, a universal battle against everyone. For lately he makes his refutation against Asterius; and lately against Eusebius the Great (96), and then he turns to that man of God, truly thrice-blessed, Paulinus (97), a man honored by the Church of the Antiochians, having served with distinction as bishop of the Tyrians, and having so shone in his episcopacy that the Church of the Antiochians took him to itself as if he were its own prized possession. But this marvelous writer mocks even this man, who lived blissfully and died blissfully, having fallen asleep long ago and troubling no one. And transitioning from this, he wars against Origen, who had long since departed from this life. Then he maneuvers against Narcissus (98); and he persecutes the other Eusebius (99); and at once he rejects all the ecclesiastical Fathers (99*), being pleased with no one at all except himself alone. He writes, therefore, mentioning them all by name and speaking ill of them, in this manner. "I will begin, then, from the very letter written by him; he has written to refute every one of those things which were not rightly written (1): 'To believe in the Father ^{B C D}

'To believe in the Father ^A almighty, and in his Son, the only-begotten God, our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit;' and he says that he has learned this form of piety from the divine Scriptures. I, for my part, whenever he says this, accept what is said with great readiness. For this is a common form of piety for us all: to believe in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But when, not having attained to the divine power, he speaks of the Father as Father, and the Son as Son, more after the manner of men through some crafty speculation, it is no longer safe to praise such speculation. For it happens that through such speculation the heresy now devised by them increases, as I think it is easy to demonstrate clearly from his own words. For he says that one must believe the Father to be truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Spirit likewise. ^B These are the things Marcellus says to Asterius, not being pleased that one must confess the Father to be truly Father, and the Son to be truly Son, and the Holy Spirit likewise. Wherefore, in what follows, he attempts to refute the discourse concerning these things at greater length. For he wishes Christ to be acknowledged as a mere word, similar to human speech, and not as a Son truly living and subsisting. And since he said that this heresy was invented just now, it must be shown that, as he proceeds, he mentions Origen, who lived long ago, as being of the same opinion as those whom he is currently attacking. But I, having read very many ecclesiastical writings of men older than Origen, and letters of bishops and synods written long ago, through which one and the same character of faith ^C is demonstrated, have found this to be so. Not rightly, therefore, has he slandered them by saying that the current heresy was invented by those he attacks. After this, proceeding a little further, he speaks ill not only of Asterius, but also of the great Eusebius—to whose bishopric very many and illustrious provinces and cities were transferred—in this manner: "I will remind you of what he himself has written, defending those who were badly written of by Eusebius, so that you may know that he clearly departs from his former declaration. For he has written in these very words: 'The Father... eternal; but if they also call the Son true God, it does not grieve us; for being born, He is true.' [He seeks] to cover up the rotten [doctrine]..."

^D As to what Marcellus had written about him, it is not clear. Certainly Athanasius invokes his testimony, in which that [claim] of the Arians is expressly refuted and rejected. As for this "alastor" [avenging spirit]; here, however, it appears that the Nicomedian is meant. For he was a jumper from one see to another: Berytian, Nicomedian, Constantinopolitan; and if I remember rightly, he was once a seeker after the Antiochene see. As if this had been worthy of praise in him, it is mentioned by this other Eusebius; this very thing is cast at him, as a man of ambition, by Constantine, not yet depicting him as at that time Arianizing, as Theodoret [does]. He is not yet caught by him (see book 1, chapter 20; see the letter of the Church of Alexandria in Athanasius, *Apologia contra Arianos* 1, concerning his vacillating ambition).

^A The substance of the letter is that the generation of the Son is to be referred to the will of the Father, and that the generation from God is not to be declared a passion. This is what the most wise ^B Fathers declared in their own writings, guarding against the impiety of the heretics, who falsely attributed to God a certain corporeal and passible generation, dogmatizing about emanations. And against these expressions he makes a lengthy refutation, to which he subjoins, saying: "So that Asterius, wishing to assist Eusebius who wrote poorly, having made mention of the nature of the Father and of the nature of the unbegotten, has become an accuser of himself. For it would have been much better ^C to leave the passion of Eusebius's thought, as he himself wrote, lying unexamined in its brevity, than by employing such a theory to bring the craftiness of the writing into the light." And after other things he adds: "But now let us examine one statement from the things written by Asterius. For he says: 'Another is the Father, who begat from himself the only-begotten Word and firstborn of all creation.' He has written, joining both, only-begotten and firstborn, although there is deep opposition between these terms, as is easy for even those very slow to learn to know. For it is clear that if the Only-Begotten is indeed only-begotten, he can no longer be firstborn; and the Firstborn, insofar as he is firstborn, cannot be only-begotten." And in these things he blames Asterius in vain. For what he was using were not his own words, but the words of the divine Scripture. For they declare the Son of God to be now "only-begotten" Son, and at other times "firstborn of all creation." Again ^D he subjoins to these, saying: "But, abandoning true knowledge, he has displayed to us an artificial theory. For not having from the divine Scriptures the support for his own will, he runs back to the most wise Fathers, as he thinks, claiming that what the most wise of the Fathers declared in their own writings was a judgment of his own Fathers, as Asterius says, and that they dogmatized about God from their own volition. For the very name of 'dogma' stems from human counsel and opinion. And that this is so, the [technical] art of this Asterius sufficiently witnesses to us; insofar as he was once a professor of sophistry."

[there are also] what are called ^A doctrines of the philosophers. But that the things decreed by the Senate are still even now called 'senate dogmas,' I think no one is ignorant." And yet Marcellus, forgetful of the apostolic voice which says regarding the Savior that He "has abolished the law of commandments by His dogmas" [Eph. II, 15], is led to speak thus. But he also finds fault with the need to follow the Fathers, while the divine Scripture says: "Ask your father, and he will announce to you; your elders, and they will tell you" [Deut. xxxii, 7]; and, "Do not move the ancient boundaries which your Fathers have set" [Prov. xxii, 28].

Then, being indignant that he called Paulinus "blessed," and at the same time mentioning Eusebius again in a derogatory way, he writes as follows: "For wishing to conspire/consent with Eusebius, who had written that impious epistle: first, he does not expound it in a teacher-like manner, ^B from which [perspective] he composed the epistle for the dogma; for the letter was addressed neither to the Church, nor to those who were ignorant, but to the blessed Paulinus—having called him blessed for this reason, that he held the same opinion as Asterius. Since, therefore, we have learned of the most wise Fathers of Asterius, I consider it logical to name the teacher of Paulinus as well, and of the others. For from Paulinus' epistle, the one who became his teacher would be evident to us."

And while saying certain things in the midst, he again slanders the same man as having not rightly received Origen, saying thus: "Paulinus did not write these things reminding [one] of Evangelical ^C teaching, but confesses that some move in this way of their own accord, while others have been led to this manner [of thinking] from the readings of the aforementioned men." Finally, as if placing a finishing touch upon the demonstration, he appended to his own epistle things from the sayings of Origen [as if] they were more able to persuade than the evangelists and the apostles. These are the sayings: "The one who has taken up again [the subject] concerning the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, to go through a few of the things omitted at that time. Concerning the Father, that being indivisible and imparting, the Son becomes Father; not having set Him forth, as some think. For if the Son is a projection [problem] of the Father and ..."

^A he who projects and he who has been projected must necessarily be a body. » Then, following the placing of the Origenian expressions, he adds, saying: « These things Origenes wrote, not having wished to learn concerning the eternity of the Word from the holy prophets and apostles; but, having given too much indulgence to himself, he dares to set forth a second distinct hypothesis of the Word. » And in opposing those things which were rightly said by Origen regarding the fact that one must not assume any bodily and passible generation of the divinity of the Son of God—above all because he granted a hypostasis to the Son—he adds, again speaking ill of Origen and opposing the things rightly written by him, in these words: ^B « That Origen, while writing such things, employed his own doctrines is clear from the fact that he frequently overturns even his own teachings; in another passage, at any rate, regarding what he says about God, it is appropriate to remind one. » He writes as follows: « For God did not begin to be Father, hindered, as are human fathers who come to be, by not being able (10) for a time to be fathers. For if God is always perfect, and the power is present with Him to be Father, and it is good for Him to be Father of such a Son, he delays, and deprives Himself of the good, and, so to speak, [he fails to be] that of which he is able to be Father. The same, however, must also be said concerning the Holy Spirit. » How, then, when Origen wrote this, did the blessed Paulinus—according to him—think it was not safe to conceal this, but used the contrary things for the confirmation of his own opinions (11), in a way that not even Origen himself, if it were possible to give an account of his doctrine, would have done? ^C In these matters, Marcellus, having said that Origen spoke things contrary to himself, lied, not being able to understand that through the first citation he was declaring the incorporeal and impassible nature of the Father, and through the second, that the Son was begotten not in time, but before all ages. And again, after some other things, the same man writes these things about Origen: « Yet, if one must tell the truth about Origen, this is what is fitting to say: that having just departed from his studies in philosophy, and having chosen to converse with the divine words, before a precise comprehension of the Scriptures, because of the great and ambitious nature of his outside education, having begun to delineate things sooner than he ought, he was led astray by the teachings of philosophy, and wrote some things because of them that were not well. ^D It is clear—for he was still mindful of the things of Plato (12)

^A that he wrote a book *Concerning Principles* and gave this title to the work—that this is the greatest proof that he did not derive the beginning of his words from anywhere else but from the sayings uttered by Plato. For he begins by writing: "Those who believe and those who are believed." You might find this saying, expressed in this way, in Plato’s *Gorgias*.

Even if it were reported, it would not bring a charge against Origen for saying "those who believe or are even believed," and adding immediately afterward, “that grace and truth came through Jesus Christ,” and that Christ is the truth, according to what was said by Him: “I am the truth.” For what communion could there ever be between these things and Plato? No book of Plato’s *Concerning Principles* is ever mentioned. Nor did Origen hold a similar opinion to Plato regarding principles; for Origen, knowing one unique principle, unbegotten, without beginning, and beyond all things, established this to be the Father of one only-begotten Son, through whom all things have been made.

^B This man [Marcellus], having lied about Origen in these matters as well, adds after some other things, saying: “For although Asterius said that the Word was begotten before the ages, the statement itself convicts him of lying; so that he has missed not only the matter, but also the letter. For if it says in Proverbs, ‘He founded me before the age,’ how did he himself say that he was begotten before the ages? For it is one thing for Him to have been founded before the age, and another to have been begotten before the ages.” Having said these things, and having added other things for the overturning of the Son’s having been begotten before the ages, he adds in these words: “I exhort those who encounter ^C the holy ones, having received as it were seeds and principles of this interpretation truly, to add more proofs to what has been said, so that the intentions of those who pervert the faith may be the more refuted. For thus they have abandoned God who begat them, and have hewn out for themselves broken cisterns.”

Having insulted them with such things and through them, he next attempts to show that the Son is not even the image of God, saying as follows: “I think it necessary to say a few words also concerning the image. For he has written: ‘Another is the one begotten by Him, who is the image of the invisible God.’ Asterius makes mention ^D of the invisible God for this reason, that to such an extent [is] He...

^A He wishes to show that the God of the Word differs, as much as a man is thought to differ from his own image. And having said certain things in between, he adds: “Therefore it is manifest that before the assumption of our body, the Word, by Himself, was not the image of the invisible God; for it is proper for an image to be seen, so that through the image that which for a time is not seen might be able to be seen.” And he continues: “How then has Asterius written that the Word of God is the image of the invisible God? For images are demonstrative of those things of which they are images, even of those that are absent; so that even the absent seems to be visible through them. But if, since God is invisible, it also happens ^B that the Word is invisible, how can the Word, by Himself, be the image of the invisible God, while He Himself is also invisible?” And continuing further, he insults [Him] again, saying thus: “How then do those who are full of deceit and craftiness—to speak with the Apostle (14)—transfer the passage to His first creation (15), even though David (16) has clearly spoken this concerning His generation according to the flesh?” And having spun out a long discourse between these points, he adds: “What then will he say to these things? For I do not think he has anything to say concerning this. Nor do I believe he would express in open confession before others what he hides ^C in his own secret thought: a thing which anyone may see from what he has written. For he wrote: ‘Another is the Father who begets from Himself the only-begotten Word and the firstborn of all creation, alone the only one, perfect [the] perfect, king [the] king, Lord [the] Lord, God [the] God, unchangeable image of substance, and counsel, and glory, and power.’ These statements clearly refute his own base view concerning the Godhead. For how can the Lord, having been born, and being God, as he himself previously said, be the image of God? For the image of God is one thing, and God is another. So that if He is an image, He is not Lord, nor God, but [an] image of the Lord and of God; but if He is truly Lord and God, [the Lord and God] can no longer be an image of the Lord and of God.” And he has said these things very ^D carelessly (17), not having understood that the Son can also be called at times a living image of His own Father, since He is most like the Father. This, at any rate, the Scripture also teaches, saying: “And Adam lived..."

two hundred and thirty years, and he begat a son according to his image and likeness, and he called his name Seth.” ^A And concerning the divinity of the Son, the Apostle teaches, saying: “Who, existing in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God, but emptied Himself.” And again: “Who is the radiance of His glory and the character of His substance.” And in other places it is said: “For He is the radiance of eternal light and an unspotted mirror of the working of God, and an image of His goodness.” And again the Apostle: “Putting off the old man with his deeds, and putting on the new, who is being renewed unto knowledge according to the image of Him who created him.” By saying this, it is clear that he is not teaching that the flesh is the image of God. ^B Returning then to the bishops, Marcellus writes thus: “Indeed, what Asterius has brought upon us does not grieve us so much for the fact that he was prompted to write such things, but because some who seem to preside over the Church, having forgotten the apostolic tradition and preferring worldly things to divine ones, have dared to write and teach such things, which involve no less error than what was previously said.” And after other things he adds: “For having chanced upon a letter written by Narcissus, bishop of Neroneas, which he directed to a certain Chrestus, and Euphronius, and Eusebius, as though a question were proposed to him by the bishop Hosius, whether he himself, like Eusebius of Palestine, confessed two substances, thus also he spoke. ^C I understood him, from what was written, to answer that he believed there were three substances.” Having said these things, he passes from Narcissus to Eusebius, accusing him because he confesses that the Word of God is God. He writes also these things concerning him: “For having dared to divide the Word of God, and to name the Word another God, distinct in substance and power from the Father, as to how great a blasphemy he has fallen, it is possible to learn clearly from the very utterances written by him.” And he has written in these very words as follows: “For surely the image and that of which it is the image are not one and the same, if it is to be understood as the same; ^D but there are two substances, and two things, and two powers, of which there are also as many names.” And these things, as if refuting them well, he adds, saying: “How then, have these men, having turned to the most evil path of those outside [the Church], not become ashamed to teach and write the same things?”

^A And he further produces a long and tedious rambling discourse, claiming that he had learned from hearsay that Eusebius had at one time been preaching in Laodicea relative to matters of which he was ignorant—as he writes, having learned it from hearsay; and he subjoins, saying: “It was fitting that he should cry out to the Lord with tears and lamentations: We have sinned; we have acted impiously, we have transgressed, and we have done evil in your sight; and now, repenting, we ask to obtain mercy from you.” This, forsooth, was fitting for him; these things he ought to have said, on account of the immense goodness and mercy of God. ^B But, in truth, it would have been more consistent for God, having passed over [for a moment] His goodness and having consideration for justice, to have answered in the opposite way: “If an enemy had insulted me, I could have borne it; and if he who hates me had spoken great things against me, I would have hidden myself from him. But you, O man, my equal, my guide, and my familiar friend, who together made my food sweet to me: in the house of God we walked in harmony.” For indeed, that God dwells with us, His ministers, we know from His own word: “Lo, I will be with you,” He said, “all the days of your life, even unto the consummation of the age.” ^C Then, consistently, he would surely have added the sayings which follow those that precede: “Let death come upon them, and let them descend into hell alive: because iniquity is in their hearts.” And indeed, Scripture teaches that those who die in the ignorance of impiety are swallowed up by hell. For they were dead even when they seemed to live. He accuses Eusebius again in the following [passage], on the grounds that when he was passing through Ancyra, he at one time preached ^D there in the church—things which he says he learned from hearsay, and in response to which, being indignant, he writes such things as: “But the Apostle writes such things regarding the faith of the Galatians; Eusebius, however, perverting the apostolic meaning, for the sake of which the Apostle [wrote] for the aforementioned reason, saying: ‘My little children, of whom I labor again until Christ be formed in you,’ attacked the Galatians as if they possessed no right opinion regarding God.” For he was truly in labor, [feeling] a certain sharp and bitter travail, because he knew that the Galatians did not think regarding godliness as he did, nor did they speak of two substances, and things, and powers, and gods. Observe now how he distorts these things.

^A He proceeds to say nothing more, as he himself writes, than the Apostolic utterance. And now he admits that Eusebius says there are two Gods, in that he holds the Son to be God together with the Father; yet, proceeding to what follows, as if he had forgotten what he had just accused him of, he attempts to slander the same person by saying that he holds Christ to be a mere man. Next, he adds to the preceding matters a certain long and tedious piece of nonsense, stringing together things that are and things that are not, ^B almost as if he were referring to those who said, "Our lips are our own; who is our master?" By these things it is shown, as I said at the beginning of the writing, that he has set upon the text out of an excess of hatred and fraternal animosity. Departing from these matters, he again treats of Asterius tragically, extending a long account about him, how he travels, and where, and when, and to whom. And leaving this aside, he turns again to that man of God, Paulinus, writing these words of him: "Persuaded by these sayings, his father, Paulinus, also does not hesitate to say and write these things; sometimes calling Christ a second God, and that He was brought forth as God in a more human way; at other times, he defines Him to be a creature. That this is so, he even once told us, when he was in Ancyra, that Christ was a creature." And again, telling fables, he says he argued with Paulinus. Afterwards, he slanders the blessed man for having spoken of many gods, and, leaving Paulinus, he occupies himself again with Eusebius, saying: "Thus also Eusebius of Caesarea has written, having the same opinion regarding God as Paulinus and those outside. For he has written, not as if there were only God, but that there is one only true God. Whence, therefore, learning this, the father of Asterius, Paulinus, thought there were younger gods." ^C And in these things he blames them as if they were introducing a belief in gods, while he himself denies the divinity of the Son; and setting forth the statement of Eusebius, he understands that the utterance teaching that the Father is the only true God was not his, but that it was our Savior who said, "That they may know thee, the only true God." And after other things, he adds, saying: "For from where will they be able to show us from the divine scriptures that the one is unbegotten, and the other begotten, as they themselves have believed Him to be begotten? Neither the prophets, nor the evangelists, nor the apostles ^D have said this." Then, as if he had registered for games, being prepared to quarrel with everyone, he passes on to Narcissus, and says: "So that even if someone were to say that, establishing that there is a first God, and a second, just as Narcissus [did] in these very words..." [index: entries preserved]

arbitratus est esse. Quos, veluti de diis opinio- ^Anes introducentes accusat, cum Filii deitatem neget ipse. Qui si verba Eusebiana proponere voluisset, intellexisset procul dubio non illa esse, quæ Patrem solum verum Deum docuissent, cum a Servatore prolatum sit illud, ut is cognoscant solum verum Deum. Post nonnulla subnectit inquiens [R. XXVII]: « Namque unde ille nobis demonstrare poterit e Scripturis sacris, unum esse ingenitum, unum item genitum (eo modo nimirum quo esse cum genitum ipsi autumant), cum prophetarum nullus aut evangelistarum, nullus apostolorum id affirmot? » Deinceps, non secus quam qui in certaminibus describitur, ad manum cum omnibus conserendam, confert se ad Narcissum et ait [R. LXX]: « Quis autem illud affirmat, nedum contendit, ut ^B Narcissus disertis verbis asserit, primum esse Deum, et secundum. Non certe confirmat hoc quod dicitur, illud, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem nostram et similitudinem (ipse enim Dominus testatur, et partim audivimus a sanctis Scripturis, quia ipse ipsiusque Pater duo sunt. Si ergo Narcissus idcirco velit Filium a Patre potentia dividere, noverit quia ille qui scripsit propheta quasi Deus dixerit: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem nostram et similitudinem), ipse ait: Et fecit hominem Deus. » Relicto Narcisso, in Asterium scribit [R. LXIII]: « Unum atque idem esse pronuntiat Asterius, Patrem solummodo atque Filium in eo quod per omnia consentiant et conspirent; ait enim: Propter exactissimam illam consonantiam in omnibus dictis atque factis, dicitur: Ego et Pater unum sumus. » Invehitur deinde in Eusebium ita [R. LXXXIX]: « Servatorem hominem fuisse docet: idque liquet in eo quod vaferrime sententiam apostolicam traducit Eusebius ad suam voluntatem constabiliendam. Veluti enim qui jam dudum parturierat, ut in lucem blasphemiam horrendam producturus, ita de suo proprio thesauro effudit malitiam, juxta dictum Servatoris. Namque ostensurus hominem solum Servatorem exstitisse, non aliter quam qui mysterium absconditum Apostoli manifestaturus erat, ita inquit: Quapropter apertissime divinus Apostolus absconditam et mysticam ^C nobis theologiam revelaturus, clamat et vociferatur: Unus est Deus. Et postquam Deum unum esse confirmaverat, Mediatorem quoque unum Dei atque hominum constituit, hominem Jesum Christum. Quod si ergo hominem ideo illum appellet, quod respiceret eam, quæ est secundum carnem, œconomiam, non potest fieri quin simul profiteatur ille, spem se nullam in eo collocare. »

None of the words of the speaker are allowed: Let us make man according to our image and likeness.

and found in fashion as a man.» ^A You see how the holy Apostle, as if foreseeing through the Spirit their artifice, wrote in one place: «as a man,» and «being made in the likeness of man,» in order to put an end to such blasphemy of theirs. And after other things, he slanders the same man thus: «How then, not attending to these things, does Eusebius wish the Saviour to be a mere man?» Although he does not dare to say this openly, he is convicted by his own words that this is what he wants. And he who said these things was blaming the same man for declaring the Son to be God, writing thus: «For having dared to divide the Word of God, and having named the Word another God, ^B different in substance and power from the Father, into what great blasphemy has he fallen?»

Such things, and many more than these, did Marcellus pour forth not only against the bishops, but also against the very sound and ecclesiastical faith, clearly showing what state of mind and purpose he possessed. That the man cared nothing for the truth, you might learn if you should ever chance upon the letters of the bishops themselves, in which you will find that he mutilated the whole body of the meaning of the words; he obscured their entire logical sequence, seized upon mere snippets of phrases, and made of them a malicious slander. ^C For instance, he slanders Eusebius openly, as having called Christ a mere man, because he had made a citation of the Apostolic voice in his own letter, through which the Apostle himself said: «For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.» This Apostolic statement, therefore, he has maligned as if it were Eusebius’s own; the most wise man not understanding that he was maligning the Apostle, while he has passed over in silence his other voices, which are carried in the same letter, ^D and those in his other writings worked out on the holy Scriptures, which are diffused everywhere. He concealed in silence what he could not slander. One might find that he has done the like regarding the rest of the writings he has maligned, which, out of regard for the symmetry of our discourse, we shall leave to those who wish to form an exact judgment of them, while we ourselves hasten to reveal the same strange language of Marcellus concerning the Son of God, so that it may be manifest to all what he himself thought concerning the Son of God.

OF EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS AGAINST MARCELLUS, BISHOP OF ANCYRA BOOK II

CONTRA MARCELLUM, BOOK II, CHAPTERS

1. How Marcellus opined and taught that the Son of God, before the birth from the Virgin, neither was in any sense nor possessed pre-existence. ^A 2. What Marcellus felt concerning the Word that is in God. 3. What Marcellus opined concerning the flesh which the Word assumed. 4. What end Marcellus introduced with regard to the kingdom of Christ, and also the flesh which Christ assumed.

CHAPTER I How Marcellus opined and taught that the Son of God, before the birth from the Virgin, neither was in any sense nor possessed pre-existence.

Time now at last demands of us, that having already set forth the men whom this Galatian slandered, we should set his faith—or rather his infidelity—before the eyes and into the light, and uncover that impiety of his opinion which has for such a long time lain hidden within him, having stripped off the mask ^B. Furthermore, by producing testimonies from his own writing, we must show who the man was and of what quality, as he presided over the Church of Christ.

^A is the one who openly asserted that the Son neither existed nor pre-existed with God at all, before He was born through the Virgin, claiming that He was only the Word, co-natural with God, eternally co-existing and united with Him, just as the word in a human being might be. For he uses this example himself, stating that the Word exists within God Himself, sometimes resting, sometimes acting significantly, coming forth from the Father by activity alone; just as we also, when we command something, act in the act of saying and speaking. Now, that no one would be able to say in this way that the significant and active Word is the Son, is clear to everyone. Yet, having granted this in the case of God, he declares—I know not how—that the non-subsistent Word has taken on flesh, and has acted in it; and that then He became Christ, and Jesus, and King, and the image of God, and the Beloved, and the glorified Son, and indeed also the First-born of all creation, not having existed previously, but having come into being then, even though He did not subsist. ^B It is a paradox of the Word that He should begin from four hundred years ago, and not even truly from all these things, and that again He should cease suddenly after the season of judgment, with the Word being united to God, so that there is nothing else besides God, and the flesh which He took on being left deserted and destitute by the Word, so that neither the Son of God will ever have subsisted, nor the Son of man whom He took on. And he descends to such a depth of subversion that he does not even listen to the archangel Gabriel, ^C who clearly and explicitly brings tidings to the Theotokos regarding Him who was to be born of her, and who was to come from the seed of David according to the flesh, when he says: "Behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." He does not even understand the voices of the great prophet Daniel, who sealed these very things, through whom he spoke by the divine Spirit, saying: "And behold, with the clouds of heaven ^D the Son of man was coming, and he reached up to the Ancient of days, and was presented before him. And to him was given authority, and honor, and the kingdom; and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve him. His authority is an eternal authority, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom shall not be destroyed." But neither did Isaiah convince him concerning the never-ending kingdom of the Son of God, where he himself prophesies, saying: "For a Child is born to us, a Son also is given to us, whose authority is upon his shoulders, and his name shall be called, of great

^A counsel, the Angel, the wonderful counselor, God the mighty, the Potentate, the Prince of peace, the Father of the age to come. I will bring health and peace to him. Great is his authority, and of his peace there shall be no end. Upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to aid it in judgment and in justice, from this time forth and unto the ages." To these words, therefore, those things which Gabriel announced to the Virgin were harmonious, when he said that he who was to be born of her would reign unto the ages, saying, "And of his kingdom there shall be no end."

But with what audacity Marcellus dared to write things contrary and repugnant to all these testimonies, you may learn from his own words, through which he denied at once the divinity and the humanity of God the Son, in a manner more novel than every atheistic heresy. For among the authors of perverse opinions, some, having supposed that the Son of God did not exist of old nor pre-exist, asserted him to be a man one of many, similar to the rest, ^B and exalted by adoption alone, among those born of women; yet they nonetheless attribute to him honor that shall never terminate, and a kingdom that shall endure unto eternity. Again, those who reject his humanity suppose him to be the Son of God existing, and also God pre-existing, but they have proceeded thus far in their straying, being alien to the Church. ^C But this man, who presided over the Church of God for so long a time, removes the subsistence of the Son of God, while he serves at his very altars. And while he perhaps hopes to obtain eternal and immortal life, he deprives the High Priest of this same life. For we have, according to the Apostle's declaration, a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God. Whom this man dares not affirm to have existed of old, nor to have pre-subsisted, nor does he teach that he will exist, nor that he will dwell with the saints of God according to that very promise made concerning the kingdom of the heavens. For when all the saints shall partake of the kingdom of God in bodies endowed with immortality and incorruptibility, he deprives Christ—and the flesh which he assumed—of it. ^D And he does not tremble to cast out the leader of our resurrection, the author of eternal life to all, from the kingdom, not only that, but to deprive him of life altogether. It is not otherwise than if one were to grant eyes, but utterly take away the light, which is the origin of the sight of the eyes through its emanation. And neither did that great angel of God, Gabriel, nor that great prophet Daniel, of whom it was said, "Art thou wiser than Daniel?" nor that great Isaiah, nor the rest of the choir of prophets, persuade the man to refrain from writing or believing such things, nor did the Jews themselves, among whom the

^A Christ, who is still expected today, whom they are accustomed to call the Anointed, is hoped to have a kingdom without old age and death (36). But he who has dared to be impious while in the beginning and at the end of the Son of God has become even worse than these, for whom not even the divine Apostle could feel shame so as not to commit such impiety, saying point-blank, "Faithful is the word: for if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: if we suffer, we shall also reign with him," and that we shall be heirs of God, yet not without Christ. "For heirs," he says, "of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." And again, "If we be dead with him," he says, "we believe that we shall also live with him, knowing that Christ, being raised from the dead, dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him." And ^B again: "The gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Therefore, eternal life will not be provided to us in any other way than in Christ Jesus our Lord; and our hope is not simply to live, but to be glorified with him, and to inherit with him, and to reign with him; for all things will belong to us from our communion with him; this the same [Apostle] teaches, saying: "God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the communion of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord." And he reveals what this communion is, and raised us up together, saying, "And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that he might shew in the ages to come the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus." The same [Apostle] also taught these things concerning the Savior, saying: "But he, because he continueth for ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. ^C Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." Not only so, but he also said that Melchizedek remains a priest for ever, because he is made like unto the Son of God. But that Marcellus dared to write the contrary to all these things will be set forth a little later; but now let us first see what he thought about there not being a beginning, and that the Son of God did not exist.

CONCERNING WHAT MARCELLUS THOUGHT ABOUT THE WORD IN GOD.

^D [alt-version omitted]

After he had railed against those who believed that the Son of God had truly existed as a living and subsistent Son, he makes his own opinion clear in these very words: ^A “Wherefore, before He descended and was born of the Virgin, He was the Word alone. For what else was He, before He assumed our human flesh, that which descended in the last times, as he himself writes, and that which was born of the Virgin was nothing other than the Word?” Proceeding further, he says that He was eternal, and defines Him as unbegotten. He writes thus: ^B “You hear, then, the agreement of the Holy Spirit, which by many and different persons bears witness to the eternity of the Word.” And for this reason he begins from the eternity of the Word, saying: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” By using three consecutive testimonies, he wishes to demonstrate the eternity of the Word. And after other things, he adds: “For formerly, as I have often said, the Word was nothing else.” And he further adds that He was not even the image of the invisible God, saying: ^C “It is therefore manifest that before the assumption of our body, the Word was not, in Himself, the image of the invisible God.” And again, after other things, he brings in: “What, then, was this that descended, before He became man? It was certainly, he says, Spirit. For if anyone should wish to say something other than this, the angel who said to the Virgin, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you,’ will not permit it. But if he says that it was Spirit, hear the Savior saying, ‘God is Spirit.’ ^D Since the Savior clearly said this from there concerning the Father, ‘God is Spirit,’ Marcellus is convicted of having imagined that the Father Himself became man.” He is even more zealous, writing as follows: “And let him learn, then, that the Word of God came, not, as they want it, as a word called such catachrestically, but being in truth the Word.” And again he adds these words to what was said: “For if an examination were to be made of the Spirit alone, it might perhaps appear identical to God; but if the addition according to the flesh in the Savior were examined, the Godhead alone appears to be expanded by its energy; so that, reasonably, it is indeed an indivisible monad.” And he establishes this even more by what he writes in the following: “To say that He was begotten before the ages seems, for its part, to be said consistently; for the offspring is the going forth of the Prompter.

^A Another way, however, is neither soundly nor piously accepted by him. For to say that the One who has gone forth from Him is not the Word, and that this is the true mode of generation, but simply only the Son, is accustomed to provide to those who hear it a certain emphasis of human appearance.” And in these things, he openly denies the Son, while introducing a sheer Word, as if it were a certain commanding entity of the poets, which is clear from what he adds, saying: “Not thus do all the divine Scriptures preach. For David says concerning Him: *By the word of the Lord were the heavens established*; and again, *He shall send forth His word and heal them* [Ps. XXXII, 6; CXLVII, 20]. And Solomon: *The wicked shall seek me, and shall not find me. For they hated wisdom, and the word of the Lord they did not choose* [Sap. XIII, 6, 7]. And Isaiah: *For out of Sion shall go forth, he said, the law and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem* [cf. Isa. II, 3]. And again Jeremiah: *The wise men have been put to shame, he says, and have been terrified, and have been caught, because they have rejected the Word of the Lord* [cf. Jer. VIII, 9]. And the prophet Hosea: *They hated him who reproves in the gates, and they have abhorred the holy word* [cf. Amos V, 10]. And Micah ^B similarly, also making mention of the word, said: *The law and the Word of the Lord shall go forth from Jerusalem* [cf. Mich. IV, 2].”

Gathering so many testimonies concerning the commanding Word, Marcellus says that the Word who in the beginning was God with God is also of such a kind. Hence he adds, saying: “The holy apostle and disciple of the Lord, John, clearly and expressly teaching in the beginning of the Gospel, naming Him the Word of the Almighty, as if He were previously unknown among men, thus said: *In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God* [John I, 1]. He does not use a single testimony to signify the eternity of the Word.” And he adds to these, following up [(39)]: “So that in the saying, *In the beginning was the Word*, he might show by capacity the Word to be in the Father, for in the beginning of all things that exist is God, from whom are all things; but in ^C the saying, *And the Word was with God*, the Word to be by activity with God—for all things were made through Him, and without Him was made nothing; and in the fact that he said the Word to be God, not to divide the divinity, since the Word is that which is in Him, and He in the Word: *For in me, he says, is the Father, and I in the Father* [John X, 38].”

And yet he adds to these, stripping naked his own mind, through which he continues, saying: “The holy apostle and disciple of the Lord, John, then, mentioning His eternity, became a true witness of the Word, saying, *In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God*, mentioning no begetting of the Word here, but using three successive testimonies, he confirmed that the Word was in the beginning.” And he adds to these, saying: “The dispensation according to the flesh, as regarding the man ^D...

we know; but the eternity according to the Spirit, we believe to be united to the Father.” ^B And in the process he adds to these: “But if he himself affirms this, saying: ‘I came out from the Father, and I come,’ and again: ‘The Word which you hear is not mine, but the Father’s who sent me,’ and: ‘All things that the Father has are mine,’ it is manifest that it is not said without reason: ‘I am in the Father, and the Father is in me,’ so that the Word might subsist in God, by whom this is brought forth. For in that Word is the Father, since the Word is the power of the Father. For a witness worthy of faith has called Him the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Therefore the Savior did not say, ‘I and the Father are one,’ because of that most exact consonance in all words and works, as it seemed to Asterius, but because it is impossible either to divide the Word from God, or to separate God from the Word. But since Asterius thinks the Savior spoke in this manner on account of that total consonance, and not attending to the second economy, he wished to learn the truth, it is necessary that I should admonish him, since Scripture most expressly shows that there appears at least sometimes to be a dissonance. For what consonance was there at the time of the passion, when He said: ‘Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass,’ and added: ‘nevertheless, not as I will, but as you’? ^C Indeed, it was not consonant to say, first: ‘Let this cup pass.’ Nor does what follows seem to have anything in common with consonance: ‘Not my will, but yours be done, Father.’ You hear how the letter, at first sight, denotes a dissonance: the one willing, the other not willing. For that the Father willed is clear from the fact that what He willed came to pass; and that the Son willed not, is clear from those things by which He entreats. And again: ‘I do not seek,’ He says, ‘my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me.’ How then, on account of the consonance in all things, does he say the Savior said: ‘I and the Father are one’?” And after a little he adds: “How can the Son have consonance with the Father, or the Father with the Son, when the Son says: ‘All things that the Father has are mine’? ^D For it would have been clearly overreaching on the part of the Son regarding the Father, for Him to say: ‘All things that the Father has are mine.’ For the sake of this, having passed over the [words] ‘All things that the Father has,’ even if not in the second [case], how sometimes according to it, is it possible to see an apparent dissonance?

^A And on another occasion: "I seek not," he says, "my will, but the will of the Father who sent me." How then, because of that consonant agreement everywhere and in all things, does he affirm that the Saviour proclaimed, "I and the Father are one"? And after a few words intervening he says: ^C "How can the Father have agreement towards the Son, or the Son towards the Father, when the Son has said, 'All things that the Father has, are mine'? For the Son who speaks in this way is more presumptuous than his Father. 'All things that the Father has, are mine,' he says; therefore he does not say, 'All things that the Father has, are common,' whereas it would have been appropriate for one who had agreement with his Father in all things to say so: inasmuch as in the Acts of the Apostles, where the agreement of those who were then ^B coming to the faith is praised, it is said that 'all things were common to them'; and all things are to be considered common between those who embrace agreement among men: how much more was it fitting that the Father and the Son should embrace communion, who were divided into two hypostases? ^D But now the Son appears to set himself above the Father by saying, 'All things that the Father has, are mine.' And in saying that the Word is not Lord of his own [Word], but the Father is [Lord] even of this, ('The word which you hear,' he says, 'is not mine, but the Father's who sent me,') he shows that he takes away from the Father even those things which are proper to him. Neither of these, according to the opinion of Asterius, is rightly said. For it would have been fair and equitable that one who is in agreement should in no way draw to himself things that belonged by right to another—for this denotes greed—but should consider those things which were available to either as common. So that when we look at the human flesh, we do not find the Lord speaking as Asterius has written: 'I and the Father are one'; for if he intended that, he would certainly have said, 'I and the Father agree with each other in all things'; but now he said, 'I and the Father are one.' Therefore, if any dissonance had existed between them—and it cannot be that the Lord should lie—it is certainly necessary that we understand the Saviour, when he said, 'I and the Father are one,' not to have said this with a view to the man whom he assumed, but to the Word who proceeded from the Father. For if any dissonance could be detected, that ought rather to be referred to the infirmity of the flesh, which the Word assumed although he did not have it before. But if this is called unity, it certainly seems to be referable to the Word. Whence not only that, 'I and the Father are one,' was deservedly said by him, but also another thing besides: 'I have been with you for so long a time, Philip, and you say: Show me the Father.'" It is evident that this is not [to be seen] by these eyes, but by those able to see intelligible things with the mind. For both the Father and his Word are invisible to the eyes of the flesh. It was not, then, because of the agreement in all things that he said this to Philip. Having said so much, and taking up the argument again from the beginning, he defines the manner in this way: "For before the creation of all things, there was a certain silence, as is likely, the Word being in God. For if Asterius has believed that God is the creator of all things...

he will surely acknowledge this with us as well: that He exists eternally, having never taken a beginning, and that all other things have come to be through Him, and have been brought into existence out of nothing. For I do not think he would believe the one who says that there are certain unbegotten things, but rather he should be completely persuaded that heaven and earth and all that is in the heavens and upon the earth have been brought into existence by God. If, therefore, he believes this, he must necessarily acknowledge that as well, that ^A besides God nothing else existed. The Word, therefore, had His own glory, being in the Father." Having said these things, he adds among other things: "Asterius calls the power given to Him a glory; and not only a glory, but an antemundane glory, not considering that, before the world was made, nothing at all existed besides God alone." When Marcellus had said this, having thus plainly denied the Son through these words, so that he might thoroughly persuade us what kind of idea he entertained of the Word of God, he reveals his mind more clearly, likening Him to our own word, concerning which he writes thus: "For just as all things that have been made are understood to have been made by the Father through the Word. For this reason the most holy Moses calls the Word an 'angel' in this passage, because He did not appear for any other reason than to announce to Moses those things which he knew were beneficial to the children of Israel. And he knew that it was beneficial for them to believe there is one only God. ^B Therefore, he also speaks to him, saying: 'I am Who I am,' so that he might teach them that there is no other God besides Himself. This is easy, I think, for those of sound mind to grasp, even from some small and lowly example drawn from us. For it is not possible to separate a man's word from his power and substance. For the word is one and the same with the man, and is not separated by any means other than by the action of doing." And he continues to more boldly reveal his intention, by means of which he says the following in what follows: "For God did not need any other designation, such as matter or any other human ^C thing, for construction, but only this preparation which is in His own mind. Since, therefore, it was impossible for God to think of the construction of the heaven without the Word and the wisdom inherent in the Word, he said reasonably: 'When He was preparing the heaven, I was present with Him.'" And he adds again, likening the Word of God to the human word, in order to show that He is unsubstantial. He writes as follows: "In this place, 'I am Who I am,' the Father speaks to Moses. And He speaks, clearly, through the Word. For all things that the Father speaks, He appears everywhere to be speaking through the Word. And this is evident from our own selves, as far as it is possible to compare small things with great and divine ones. ^D

^A For we do all that we wish, as far as we are able, both to speak and to do, by our own word. Then, after saying some things in between, he adds: "How then, did Asterius ^B—while pretending to follow the holy Scriptures simply and with fear—not perceive this part, saying: 'The Lord thy God, this Lord is one; God is in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath, and there is no other besides him'? And that He is one, and besides Him there is no other. And proceeding further, he argues again, saying: 'Not figuratively has the Word been named, even if those who teach otherwise and lie may burst with rage, but He truly and really exists as the Word.' And he adds: 'For what other ^C hidden mystery was there than that according to the Word? And thus was this mystery hidden in God beforehand, so that no one of the former people clearly knew the things concerning the Word; but we now enjoy the riches of the glory of the hidden mystery.' And after these things he again uses a human image, writing in this manner: 'For who among the holy angels, or righteous men, was trustworthy enough to avert the punishment determined by God against them, ^D were it not the Word Himself who was present with (and co-forming) the Father, who said, "Let us make man in our image and likeness," there being no other God able to co-form with Him? For I am, He says, the first God, and I am after these things, and besides me there is no other God. Neither, then, was there any younger God, nor is there any other God after these things capable of working with God. But if someone, using a small and human example according to our own measure, as if by an image, were to examine the divine action: just as some skilled statue-maker, wishing to fashion a statue, first perceives within himself its forms and characteristics; then he conceives of its breadth and length, as is appropriate, and the proportion of the whole, examining it in each of its parts; and having prepared the suitable material of bronze, and having pre-formed the future statue in his own mind, and thinking he sees it intellectually, and realizing that the word—by which he reasons and by which he is accustomed to do all things (for nothing good comes into being without word)—works with him, beginning this sensible work, he encourages himself by speaking to himself as to another: "Come, let us make; come, let us fashion a statue." So the God and Master of all, making the living statue from the earth..." [alt-version omitted]

does not address it to any other, but to his own Word, saying, "Let us make man"—not in the same way as the others; for by the Word was the whole creation made. ^A And after other things, he adds to these: "But now I believe the holy Scriptures, that there is one God, and His Word God, which proceeded from the Father, that all things might be through Him. But after the time of judgment and the restoration of all things, and the destruction of every opposing power, then He Himself shall be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, God and Father, so that the Word may thus be in God, as He was also before, before the world was. For while there existed nothing before but God alone, and all things were to be made through the Word, the Word proceeded with operative power—this Word which was of the Father." And again he sets forth the same thought more clearly, saying: "For before the world was, the Word was in the Father. But when God the Almighty set out to make all things that are in heaven and on earth, the production of the world required an operative power; and for this reason, there being nothing else besides God (for it is acknowledged that all things were created by Him), then the Word, having proceeded, became the maker of the world, whom even before He used to call 'intellectually' within. And again, after all, he adds, saying: "And for this reason He does not call Himself the Son of God, but man, so that through such a confession He might prepare man, through his communion with Him, to become a son of God; and after the end of the action, he might again, as Word, be united to God, fulfilling that which was said by the Apostle: 'Then shall He Himself be subjected to Him who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all' (51). ^C For there will then be that which was before." By such things, Marcellus openly denied the Son of God. For if God was the same, and the Word in Him, and no one could ever be his own Father—just as neither is one his own son—and being one, and yet alone, and himself God with his own Word, it is evident that He was not Father, since there existed no Son for Him, nor was He Son, since there did not exist for Him a Father. ^D What sort of things, therefore, this man has devised concerning the non-existence of the Word of God, and the Word being merely an internal Word.

^A existing in Him by God, and that He at one time was at rest, and at another time operated by an active power, that man has already set forth—we have learned through the things brought forward. But having set these same things forth again and again, and in different ways, in his own writing, he has heaped up in his treatise a great pile of superfluous words. But we, being satisfied for our part by his own refutations of himself, from the words which he has set forth, shall not deem the absurdity of this Jewish dogma worthy of even a refutation.

From there, passing on to the things stated by the same man concerning the flesh, which he says the Word in God assumed by operation ^B alone, let us come to see how he transfers the theology carried in the divine Scriptures concerning the Only-begotten Son of God to the flesh; refusing the Son of God, who truly pre-existed, while deifying the flesh, which the irreverent man defined would shortly after be abandoned by the Word.

Chap. III. What Marcellus believed concerning the flesh which the Word assumed.

^C « For the Word was in the beginning, being nothing other than the Word; but the man who was united to the Word, not having been before, became man, as John teaches us, saying: *And the Word became flesh.* ^D For this reason, then, he appears to make mention of the Word alone; for whether the divine Scripture makes mention of the name of Jesus, or even of Christ, it appears to mean the Word of God who is with the human flesh. But if anyone should venture to profess that he will find the name of Jesus used of the Word alone, outside the Scripture of the New Testament, he will find this stated prophetically, as is also clear from this: *For the kings of the earth stood, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ.* » And after other things, he adds: « Rightly, therefore, before the descent—which we have often said—He was called Word; but after the descent and the assumption of the flesh, He has received different appellations. »

^A Observe here with me, however, how Marcellus contends that the name Jesus and Christ, and the other appellations as well, are not used of the Word, but only of the flesh which the Word assumed. And this is because, where he rejects the flesh, he is finally found to be impious regarding the Christ of God: he proceeds further, and writes in this manner regarding the body of the Savior: [R. VIII] « Let not Asterius imagine this to be unmerited, if, being posterior to his own body, he is unable to aspire to antiquity; but let him consider that, even if it happens that this human flesh is posterior, nevertheless, the Word of God, who deigned to assume it through the most holy Virgin, having united to it His own [Word] which was, rendered that man of His the Firstborn of every creature, and willed to constitute him the principle of all things, both those which are on earth and those which are in heaven. » He who wrote these things, mentions a little later the words of the Apostle, by which he establishes the divinity of the Son: namely those, *Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature, because in him were created all things, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things ^B were created through him and in him; and he is before all, and all things consist in him.* All these things he refers to the flesh, nor did he blush to interpret these apostolic utterances as spoken regarding that flesh, of which he himself proceeds to write in the following manner [R. CIV]: « If the Savior confesses that the flesh profits nothing, whence does it come about that the flesh, which is also sprung from earth and profits nothing, when it has profited nothing, shall assist the Word in the future age? » (cf. p. 182 A) Again, concerning that same [flesh] he begins thus: « How was it fitting that the form of a servant, which the Word assumed for Himself, since it exists as the form of a servant, should remain united to the Word? Certainly it cannot be. » And yet, he himself who wrote thus about the flesh, at present calls it the image of God and the firstborn of every creature; he says it existed before all things, and teaches that in it all things were created, both those which are on earth and those which are in heaven, thrones, ^C dominions, principalities, powers. His words are [R. V-VII]: « If He himself is the firstborn of every creature, and in Him all things were created, it behooves us to understand that the Apostle in the present instance makes mention of that dispensation according to the flesh. » He confirms this by adding these words also: « Moreover, He was called the firstborn of every creature, not as they imagine, because [that which is] before [all] ^D

things was itself created, but on account of ^C His generation according to the flesh. » He adds, moreover: « Wherefore this most holy Word was not called the firstborn of every creature before His incarnation. For how could He, who always was, be the firstborn of anyone? But that first new man, in whom God wished to sum up all things, is he who is named in Holy Scripture, the firstborn of every creature. » He infers then: « You hear how it happens that not only these things, but also those things pre-existing both in the heavens and upon the earth, are created in Him according to this new creation. » These, then, are the things through which he has said He was called the firstborn of every creature on account of the flesh. But observe how he also refers the passage, ^D *The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways for His works*, back to the flesh again. He does not attend to the Holy Scripture speaking of this person figuratively through the persona of Wisdom in the Proverbs: « I, wisdom, have dwelt in counsel, and I have called upon my own glory and understanding; through me kings reign, and princes write down righteousness. » To which the same Wisdom adds: « I walk in the ways of righteousness, and I move in the midst of the paths of equity, that I may divide existence to those who love me, and fill their treasuries with good things. If I announce to you the things that happen day by day, I will remember to recount the things that were from the age. The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways for His works, before the age He founded me, in the beginning before He made the earth, » and the things following these.

Marcellus, not wishing to apply his mind to these things, and having but one aim—that of not acknowledging the Son of God—refers the aforementioned theology to the flesh. Having deviated from the straight path, he devised for himself a pathless way, writing verbatim as follows: [R. IX] « This head of the Proverbs, therefore, does not intend, as they imagine, to teach us the beginning of the Savior’s divinity, where He says, *The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His ways*, but [it teaches] that second dispensation which was accomplished in the flesh; wherefore He mentions the possession, that is, of the flesh newly created. Not therefore, he adds, is the creature distinct from His human operation. Therefore, he says, *The Lord created me [as] the beginning of His ways for His works*. It is through the Virgin Mary, ^B whom God chose in advance to unite human flesh to His own Word. » Then he adds in sequence: [R. X] « Since this is truly so, it is consistent to consider in one's mind this statement spoken proverbially: *The Lord created me [as] the beginning of His ways for His works*. For He truly created [it], having made that which was not—our Lord God, indeed, [created] that flesh which the Word assumed. » He says again: « This, therefore, is what is meant by *The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways for His works*. He adds, moreover, *Before*.

of his ways. And he adds: *Before the ages he founded me*; understanding by foundation his own flesh, which he had foreordained according to the dispensation; which the Apostle himself also affirms: *For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ* 10. He makes mention here of one age, from which he says those things concerning Christ were founded. And he confirms the same statement again, saying: "With good reason did the prophet say: *Before the age he founded me*; it is clear that this signifies ^A that which is according to the flesh, by reason of its communion with the Word, who is truly his Son." And he adds next: "Then, he says, in the beginning, *before he made the earth*. What earth? Manifestly this our flesh, which became earth again after the disobedience. For he says: *Earth you are, and to earth you shall return* 11. For it was necessary that this should find a remedy, in some way having communion with the holy Word." See, however, how Marcellus contradicts himself in these points. For having said in another place that the beginning of the ways of the Lord was the created flesh, and having in the second place posited it as the foundation, he subjoins: *Before the earth was made*, where again by earth he understands the flesh; and he fails to see that it is inconsistent to say that flesh was created before flesh was created, and after the creation of the flesh, to insist again upon the name of flesh. ^B But he, in addition to these things, subjoins next, saying: "Then, *Before he made the abysses*," the prophet uses the term "abysses" proverbially to mean the hearts of the saints, which have in their own depths the gift of the Spirit. But in these matters, observe closely how he who had interpreted that saying, *The Lord created me* 12, as referring to the flesh, being later pressed into a corner by the Scripture which says, *Before the abysses were formed* 13; interprets the abysses as the hearts of the saints, and does not perceive that the hearts of the saints—to wit, those of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, of Moses, and of Elias, and of Melchizedek, and of the rest of the prophets—had existed before the incarnation of the Saviour. How then is it possible to refer the words *Before the abysses were formed* to the flesh? And after other things, he again subjoins, saying: "What then is the meaning of the clause, ^C *Before the springs were brought forth* 14? This mystery is set forth for us by the Scripture of Exodus, which long ago foreshadowed the types of the Apostles; for the number of the Apostles being twelve, it makes mention of the twelve springs." And again he subjoins the same thing, writing thus: "With good reason, therefore, does the master speak concerning the birth according to the flesh through the prophet Solomon, who says: *Before the springs of waters were brought forth* 15." ^D

^A Having passed over some other matters, he adds: "Since, therefore, we have spoken concerning those who go before, it follows that what is lacking should also be completed. Now that which is lacking is, 'according to the mountains and the hills.' For before the mountains were established, he says, and before all the hills, he birthed me. He implies that the mountains and hills are the apostles and the successors of the apostles, so that he might signify, through a proverb, their righteous conduct compared to that of other men." After having set forth such interpretations, he returns again to the apostolic words, uttering things contrary to the Apostle. For the latter was teaching that he is the pre-existent Son of God and the Firstborn of all creation, and that all things were created in him and through him, and was testifying with a great voice that he existed ^B before all things. But he [Marcellus] casts down this theology toward the flesh, and a little later denies even that. He speaks as follows: "For this reason it is added, quite reasonably, *who is the image of the invisible God.* When did he become an image? Or was it when he assumed the formation made *according to image and likeness*? For before, as I have often said, he was nothing other than the Word." And he persists in clarifying the same thing more nakedly, by which he says: "Therefore it is manifest that, before the assumption of our body, the Word was not *in himself* the image of the invisible God. For the image must be seen, so that through the image that which is not for the time being seen may be able to be seen." And again he adds, saying: "How then has Asterius written that the Word of God is the image of the invisible God? For images are demonstrative of those things of which they are images, even when they are absent; so that the absent may also seem to appear through them. But if, while God is invisible, it happens that the Word is also invisible, how can the Word, being himself invisible, be the image of the invisible God? For it is impossible for that which is not visible to appear ever through the invisible."

^C Now in these things, Marcellus does not perceive that, if we were to grant that the flesh is the image of God, it would be time to say that the flesh and the countenances of the bodies of all men are images of God. So that, according to him, the Savior would have nothing exceptional. But he, as if forgetting what he wrote subsequently concerning the flesh, having called it *the form of a servant* from an apostolic citation, and [having said] on account of this that it could not be ^D united with the Word because it is the form of a servant—but having even said with naked head: "How is it possible for that which is from the earth, and which profits nothing, to be united with the Word in the ages to come?"—he persists in asserting that the flesh is the image of the invisible God for the present time, affirming apodictically that before the assumption of our body, his Word was not the image of the invisible God. And again, after the things set forth, he continues, saying: "Wherefore it is clear from every side, if...

the image of the invisible God is stated by the holy Apostle to be that flesh which subsequently joined the Word, so that by the visible the invisible might be seen. For, says the Apostle, [it is] of the invisible God. Now it is evident that, when he assumed the flesh which had been made in the image of God, he became the true image of the invisible God. For if through this image we have been judged worthy to know the Word of God, we ought to believe the Word himself, when he says through the image, 'I and the Father are one.' For it is impossible for anyone to know either the Word or the Father of the Word without this image." And he again ^B adds: "In this way then, also, the Apostle says, just as we said a little before, 'He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant,' by the form of a servant signifying to us the human flesh, which our Lord God, shaping it by his own wisdom, said, 'Let us make man in our image and likeness,' rightly calling human flesh an image. For he knew precisely that it would be the image ^C of his own Word a little later." After these things, he attempts to establish that even [the passage], "From the womb before the morning star I have begotten thee," was spoken concerning the flesh. He writes as follows: "For this reason, then, the morning star, which declares the day, having been correctly named by the prophet David, it is no longer right to inquire who this morning star is, or who he happens to be; for this was the star that appeared ^D at that time, which both brought and signified the day to the Magi. It is evident, therefore, that [the passage], 'Before the morning star I have begotten thee,' was spoken by the omnipotent Lord concerning the Word who was born through the Virgin with human flesh, and the Gospel clearly signifies this, that first our Lord was born through the Virgin, and afterwards the star appeared, showing the day." Proceeding further, he adds again: "For man has received not only the authority over things on earth, but also over those in heaven. Justly so; for if when he even became man, and a mediator of God and men, then all things were created in him, as the Apostle said, 'those in heaven and those on earth,' it follows that we should know accurately that authority..."

was granted to him not only over those things which were on earth, but also those which were in heaven. And again, after some other things, he adds: 'For if the Holy Gospel speaks of some glory given to him by the Father, this man appears to have received it through the Word. For since he became a mediator between God and men, according to the holy Apostle, he glorified the pious among men by the glory imparted to him by the Father.' And again he adds these things: 'And he deemed the man who had fallen through disobedience worthy to be united to his own Word through the Virgin. For what other greater glory could there be among men than this glory?' Having said that 'I have glorified, and I will glorify again,' he adds, saying, that through the exceeding greatness of his philanthropy, in the second glory after the resurrection of the flesh, he might make the man who was formerly mortal immortal, and might glorify him with such glory, that he would not only be delivered from his former slavery, but also be deemed worthy of glory surpassing human nature.' And again he adds: 'In order, as I said, that he might prepare the man who had been previously deceived by the devil to defeat the devil himself in turn. For this reason he assumed man, so that he might subsequently prepare him to receive the beginning of authority.' And he adds further, saying: 'For this is the beloved, the man united to the Word, concerning whom the evangelist said: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' And again he adds: ^B 'That the Word of the invisible God was about to be born through the Virgin, and to assume human flesh. And in order that through it he might lay low the devil who had previously prevailed over man, he might prepare him not only to become incorrupt and immortal, but also to sit on a throne in heaven with God.' All these things it is necessary to keep in memory because of the things which are to be brought forward by him [Marcellus] against the flesh which the Word of God assumed. For as if he had forgotten all these things which he set forth, he brings forward an end for the saving body that is neither auspicious nor pious. In addition to all these things, just as if his previous arguments had been successful, he tries to show that also the text, 'The Lord has reigned, let the earth exult,' must be referred to the flesh. He says ^C as follows: 'The one, therefore, who descended and took on flesh through the Virgin, was established king over the Church, clearly in order that through the Word the man who had previously fallen from the kingdom of the heavens might be able to attain to a kingdom. God therefore, wishing this man who had previously fallen from the kingdom on account of disobedience to become Lord and God, wrought this economy.' The most holy prophet David, therefore, prophetically—

thus speaks: 'The Lord has reigned, let the earth rejoice.' And after other things he adds: 'For which cause, as though our Lord Jesus Christ had received the beginning of his kingdom from a certain time, the prophecy sings: "But I was appointed king by him."' And again he adds: 'For this reason also he reigns, in order that, having become in human flesh, and having been appointed king through the Word, the man who had been previously emptied might evacuate all the rule, power, and authority of the devil.' So much concerning the flesh of the Savior, and having said still many more things than these, asserting it to be the image of the invisible God, and the firstborn of every creature, and king, and Jesus, and Christ, and the beloved, and whatever else he has enumerated: he had added, moreover, that for the sake of that very flesh, the Word had been distinguished by so many names, yet he nevertheless assigns to it an end, which it is now time for us to consider.

CHAPTER IV.

CHAPTER IV.

^A by him, upon Sion his holy mountain. Another there: "The Lord has reigned, let the peoples be angry." And again: "The Lord has reigned, let the earth exult." And it is possible to show, having an abundance of ten thousand testimonies in proof, that the man received the beginning of his kingdom through the Word. If, therefore, he received the beginning of his kingdom not more than four hundred years ago, it is nothing paradoxical if the Apostle says that he who attained to this kingdom so short a time ago is to deliver up the kingdom, clearly to God who appointed him, as the Scripture says, king.

And after other things he writes thus: ^B "Therefore, by operation alone, and indeed under the pretext of the flesh, he appears separated from the Father until the time of judgment shall arrive, so that those who then pierced him, according to the prophecy, may look upon him whom they pierced, and thus at last that which follows may attain its completion. For when all things are to be subjected to Christ at the time of the end, as the Apostle said, then he himself shall be subjected to him who subjected all things to him. When, therefore, we learn about the human flesh, which the Word assumed for our sake less than four hundred years ago, [we ask] whether the Word will possess this even in the ages to come, or only until the time of judgment. For it is necessary that what was spoken by the prophet be confirmed by deed. For 'they shall look,' he says, 'on him whom they pierced,' and what they pierced, it is clear, was the flesh."

And he adds, after other things, saying: ^C "For that the Word did not assume our flesh so that he himself might benefit, but that the flesh might obtain immortality through the communion with the Word, is evident also from the decree of the Savior himself. For concerning the flesh which he had while he conversed with his disciples, he says thus: 'Does this scandalize you? If then you see the Son of Man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that vivifies, the flesh profits nothing.' If, therefore, he confesses that the flesh profits him nothing, how is it possible for that which is from the earth, and which profited nothing and will profit nothing, to be joined with the Word in the ages to come? For this reason it seems to me also that the omnipotent Lord says to him: 'Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool,' ^D by operation alone, on account of the human flesh, appearing to separate him and defining a certain time for his sitting at the right hand, he speaks thus to him: 'Until I make your enemies your footstool.' The holy Apostle, interpreting this prophetic utterance of David more clearly for us, spoke in this way: 'He must reign until he has placed his enemies as a stool for his feet.'"

' ^A Thus, the economy and reign according to man of His, seems to have a certain fixed limit. For the Apostle means nothing else than that which was said: 'Until he has placed his enemies as a stool for his feet.' Therefore, when He has secured His enemies as a footstool, He no longer needs this partial reign, being the King of all things universally. For He reigns together with God and the Father, ^B whose Word He was and is. For the Word Himself did not by Himself receive a beginning of reign, but man, who had been deceived by the devil, became king through the power of the Word, so that, having become king, he might conquer the devil who had previously deceived him. For this reason, the Acts of the Apostles, concerning this man whom the Word of God assumed, and who, having been assumed, sits at the right hand of the Father, teaches in this manner: 'Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restoration,' that is to say, the man. Thus, those Scriptures, as if defining a certain limit and term in which it is fitting for that economy of man to be united to the Word, speak in this way. For what else is signified by the expression, 'until the times of restoration,' than what was destined to happen to us, in which all things must obtain perfect restoration? For at the time ^C of the restoration of all things, the creation, too, is to be changed from slavery into the freedom which Paul proclaimed, for he says that 'the creation itself will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.' How, then, is it possible for the form of a servant, which the Word assumed, to be forever united to the Word, being a form of a servant? Therefore, it is clear and explicitly stated that the economy of the Word, assumed for our sake, will endure for a very brief time, in respect to the past and future ages. And as it had a beginning, so the divine Paul proclaimed that it would have an end: 'Then the end, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father.' Thus, for our sake, not His own, He assumed the human [nature].

But if He appears to have assumed it for our sake, and all things concerning us, by His own providence and operation, will reach an end at the time of judgment, there will no longer be need of this particular kingdom." Having said this, Marcellus, becoming aware that he had fallen into an absurdity, adds these words to what was said: "But if anyone should say, for these reasons the human flesh is worthy of the Word because through the resurrection He rendered it immortal, let him know that not everything which is immortal is worthy of God. For God is even greater than immortality itself, being able by His own will to make even those things that are not immortal, immortal. And that not everything immortal is worthy of being united to God is evident, because principalities, powers, and angels, although they are themselves immortal, have nothing ^B in common with the unity of God." Having said this, and realizing that he had fallen as if into a fathomless abyss of absurdity, he attempts in some way to retract, confessing that he understood nothing of what he said. Therefore he adds: "But if anyone should ask us about this flesh which is in the Word, whether it is immortal, we answer that we do not think it safe to dogmatize on matters which we have not learned accurately from the divine Scriptures. For how could those be able to do this, who even overturn the dogmas of others? But we will say to those ^C who desire to learn from us the accurate account regarding this, that we, being persuaded by the holy Apostle, know that it behooves us to look upon these hidden mysteries as he himself said: 'For we see now through a mirror in an enigma; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know just as I am known' (1 Cor. xiii, 12). Therefore, do not ask me regarding things about which I have not learned clearly from divine Scripture. For this reason, therefore, I shall not be able to speak clearly even about that divine flesh which has participated with the divine Word. But now I believe the divine Scriptures, that there is one God, and His Word, which proceeded from the Father, in order that all things might be created through Him; and after the time of judgment, and the ^D restoration of all things, and the abolition of all opposing operation, then He Himself shall be subjected to God and the Father who subjected all things to Him, so that the Word may thus be in God, just as He was before." This kind of end did this admirable writer attribute to the flesh of our Savior, having forgotten those things which in the preceding

he had said concerning it. ^A Then, clearly, this person who so plainly declared that the Savior's body would be bereft of the Word after the time of judgment, feigns reverence, and says he cannot answer if anyone should ask him about the flesh, but would say to any questioner, "Do you not inquire about the things we have not learned." But any chance passerby would say to him: "Why do you ridicule yourself, man? And why do you push yourself over precipices, defining in writing things about which you have not learned? Why do you not guard the things you have received from the ecclesiastical fathers and teachers, but instead innovate, introducing a new and strange perversion into life, giving both a temporary beginning and a newer [origin] to the kingdom of Christ, and positing an end to it, ^B denying the truly only-begotten Son of God, yet positing as a mere Word, without substance and without hypostasis; which you say is nothing other than being one and the same with God? Anyone who says this might rightly be said to deny the Son of God. For the Word that does not subsist is not a son, just as a man's word would never be called a son of man, seeing that it consists only in the activity of the speaker. Yet this [Word] you narrate to have been born of the Father, before not even four hundred years had passed, to have been made the Son of God through the assumption of flesh, and to be called Jesus and Christ above, and to have been named the image of the invisible God, and the firstborn of all creation, and furthermore to have been then constituted king of all these things, from the time signaled, and then, at the time of the consummation of all these things, to be suddenly brought to an end. Where, pray, have you learned these things? Who has become your instructor in these, which of the bishops, what synods, what document of an ecclesiastical man, or where will you place that immortal body of the Savior? ^C For in confessing it immortal and naming it divine, you surely must also assume it to be incorruptible and indissoluble; and being such by nature, it remains, of course, subsistent and indissoluble. But you take the Word away from it and join it to God. Shall this body, then, without the Word alone, subsist in an immortal and incorruptible irrationality and immobility? And shall the Word itself yield into God, and be joined to Him again after the separation from the flesh? Was He not in God when He was with the flesh? Nay, but since He was in Him throughout, being co-eternal and one and the same with God? How, then, did He subsist in the body—

if He inhabited it as one shorn of soul? It would thus be separated from the substance of the Father, living indeed and subsisting in that flesh which He assumed. ^A What therefore prevents us from confessing Him to be the living Son of God even before the constitution of this world? But perhaps he would say that He existed in the body by operation alone, and not by the hypostasis of His substance; for he says, "By operative power alone was He present to the flesh, to move it and to perform all things which are reported in the Gospels, while His substance was united to God, as being His Word, inseparable and indistinct from Him." If he says this, let him answer us when we ask: Did the operation of that Word reach only to that flesh? Did it not also reach to other holy men of God, and to all the remaining works of the Word? Does not the same Word perform the work? And yet we have learned that "by the word of the Lord the heavens were established," ^B and that "all things came into being through Him, and without Him not one thing came into being." Therefore, that He operates also in all things, we have learned from the divine Scriptures, and how "the word of the Lord came to Hosea the son of Beeri"; and, "the word of the Lord came to Isaiah the son of Amoz"; and how "the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah"; and how the same word of God was operating in the case of every prophet. Was there, therefore, an equal dignity to that of the monogenous Son of God shared by all of them, and did the Savior possess nothing more, if He was moved merely by the operation of the Word that remained united to God? But Marcellus does not even allow the Christ of God to have equal standing with the prophets. For the former will obtain life ^C eternal, immortal, and unending, living throughout all ages in the promised kingdom of heaven, and enjoying the goods "which eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and which have not ascended into the heart of man." But the Christ of God, the common Savior of all, the firstborn of the dead, the hope of the resurrection of the saints, will, according to this, be left alone at that time, with His kingdom brought to an end, and His life-giving flesh left destitute and irrational, so that He would not have pre-existed as the Son of God before He became man, nor will He persist into eternity, according to the doctrine of Marcellus. With good reason, therefore, these things stirred that truly God-beloved and thrice-blessed king against the man, ^D although he had flattered him in countless ways and had passed over many praises of the king in his writing. These things also stirred up the holy synod, which had gathered in the royal city from various provinces—from Pontus and Cappadocia, from Asia and Phrygia, and Bithynia, from Thrace and the regions beyond—to denounce the man by means of the Scripture against him, and even against his will, it compelled him. These things...

likewise compelled us ^A to proceed to the examination now in hand, at once standing alongside those who seemed good to the holy synod, and at the same time fulfilling the requirements for our fellow ministers who had given this to us as a mandate. Above all, however, I consider it to have been a necessary task for me, on account of those who think that this man is being treated unjustly. For it is fitting to heal the suspicion of our brethren, by making manifest the impiety against the Son of God that had for a long time lain dormant in him, but has now been brought to light by his own writing; for, with no one summoning him, he was present of his own accord, and placing it into the hands of the emperor, he begged him to discern the things written therein; ^B perhaps hoping that, by reason of the praises inserted therein for him, he himself might obtain some privilege from the emperor, and that the bishops accused by him might be subjected to punishment. But the matter did not at all proceed according to his heart's desire. For God was the judge of these things, and Jesus Christ himself, who was treated with despite by the writer, and who, as He beholds the hidden things of the man, caused him to become his own accuser and convict, without anyone compelling him. Whence, while he was approaching the emperor, glorying in his writing, he [the emperor] transmitted the judgment of the things contained in the writing to the synod. And the holy synod of God condemned the writing. With good reason, since it confesses neither a pious beginning nor a pious end concerning the Son of God. ^C

TO THE MOST REVEREND AND BELOVED FELLOW MINISTER FLACILLUS, EUSEBIUS SENDS GREETING IN THE LORD.

It is by no means to be wondered at if I have been content to refute in a few words matters that are most verbose in Marcellus, and comprised in writing with the utmost garrulity. For it was not necessary to refute with many words things which seemed rejectable to anyone, even to the casual observer. Wherefore, thinking that it would be entirely sufficient to have set forth what proceeded from the man in the two prior books, I ceased from any labor of disputing, and produced only his own words for his own refutation. In ^D the things at hand, I have brought forth not only the exposure of these things, but also their refutation through three [means/points]. For, whereas one—

having busied himself with a long and multi-errant work, says that he did this because he acknowledges one God, fearing perhaps that, by giving a place to the Son of God for subsistence ^A, he might inadvertently break up the scripture. But we, honoring the all-holy and thrice-blessed Trinity, have encompassed the whole subject in just as many [books]; sparing ourselves from prolixity, and in concise and brief terms having set forth the true theology. If, therefore, what has been written is sufficient, you yourself will be able to judge upon reading it; but if anything is lacking, you might also fill it in—naturally, as a brother would for a brother’s shortcomings—if anywhere it also stands in need of healing, being deemed worthy of correction. I pray that you be well, and that you may remember me in the Lord at all times.

OF THE REFUTATIONS AGAINST MARCELLUS BY EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA, ON ECCLESIASTICAL THEOLOGY, BOOK ONE.

CAPITULA OF THE FIRST BOOK

I. That Sabellius was ineptly criticized by Marcellus, when he himself is involved in the same error as Sabellius in every way. II. That the grace of Christ has bestowed upon the Church of God a certain excellent knowledge concerning the Father and the Son. III. That those who are heterodox have gone astray in various ways in their discourse concerning the Son. IV. That those who do not confess the subsistence of the Son of God call themselves Christians in vain. V. That Marcellus, following the heresy of Sabellius, denies the Son of God. ^{B C D}

VI. How the Church of God believes. VII. That those who dissent from the Church have erred in more than one way and manner from the theology concerning the Son of God. VIII. The presentation of sound and ecclesiastical orthodoxy. IX. That the Son did not subsist in the same manner as the many creatures. X. That since He alone was begotten of the Father, it is rightly said that He alone is both God and the only-begotten Son. XI. How the Church acknowledges one God, even though it has lately accepted the form "God from God." XII. That His generation from the Father is ineffable. XIII. That the advent and presidency of the Son of God was necessary and salutary for all. XIV. That the Church rightly cast out Marcellus, who held the same opinion as Sabellius. XV. With what words Marcellus attacked Sabellius, while pretending not to think the same things as he. XVI. How he is caught by his own words, holding the same opinion as Sabellius. XVII. How he openly denied the hypostasis of the Son. XVIII. How he claimed that before the assumption of man, the Son was nothing other than the Word, similar in all respects to that which is used among men. XIX. How the divine Scriptures call the Son of God not only "Word," but by six hundred other names, even before He was incarnate. XX. Demonstrations proposed from the sacred Scriptures, explained and comprised in thirty chapters in all.

PROOEMIUM