Against Marcellus (Book 2, chapters 2–4)

Against Marcellus

continued

Chapter 2

1 He attacks those who say that the Son of God is truly a Son, living and subsisting. He makes his own view plain, writing in these very words (No. 42): “So before he came down and was born through the virgin, he was only Word. For what else was it that came down ‘in the last of the days,’ as he himself wrote, and was born of the virgin, before he took on human flesh? It was nothing other than Word.” 2 Then, going on, he calls him eternal, defining him in this way as unbegotten. He writes (No. 48): “Do you hear, then, the agreement of the Holy Spirit, who through many different persons bears witness to the eternity of the Word?” 3 “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 testimonies in a row he wants to show the eternity of the Word.” And after other things he adds (No. 81): “For before, as I have often said, he was nothing other than Word.”

4 He adds that he was not even “the image of the invisible God,” saying (No. 82): “It is therefore clear that before he took up our body, the Word by himself was not the image of the invisible God.” And again, after other things, he goes on (No. 49): “What, then, was this that came down before he became man? Surely, he says, Spirit. For if anyone wanted to say anything other than this, the angel who spoke to the virgin would not allow it: ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you.’ And if he says it was Spirit, hear the Savior saying, ‘God is Spirit.’” 5 Here the Savior has plainly said of the Father, “God is Spirit,” and so Marcellus is refuted, since he said that the Father himself became man. But he strives still harder, writing as follows (No. 39): “So let him learn that the Word of God has come, not a Word named loosely, as they say, but one who is truly Word.”

6 And again he adds this to what he has said (No. 62): “For if the examination concerned the Spirit alone, he would reasonably appear to be one and the same as God. But if the addition of the flesh in the Savior is examined, the Godhead seems to be extended only in activity. So reasonably it is truly an undivided monad.” 7 He builds up this point still more by what he writes in the following passages (No. 31): “To say that he was begotten before the ages seems consistent. For the offspring is what comes forth from the Father who sent it out. But the other point has not been taken up by him in a sound or reverent way.” 8 “For to say that the one who came forth from him is not Word, and that this is the true manner of the begetting, but is simply Son only, usually gives those who hear it an impression of a human appearance.” In these words he openly denied the Son. He brings in a bare Word, like some commander of what is to be done, as is clear from what he adds (No. 41): “whom all the divine Scriptures proclaim in this way.”

9 “For David says about him, ‘By the word of the Lord the heavens were made firm.’ And the same again: ‘He sent out his word and healed them.’ Solomon says, ‘The wicked will seek me and will not find me. For they hated wisdom, and did not choose the word of the Lord.’ And Isaiah said, ‘For out of Zion will go forth a law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.’” 10 “And again Jeremiah says, ‘The wise were put to shame, and were terrified and were caught, because they rejected the word of the Lord.’ And the prophet Hosea said, ‘They hated the one who reproved in the gates, and they abhorred the holy word.’ Micah likewise, also mentioning the Word, said, ‘Out of Zion will go forth a law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.’” 11 After collecting so many sayings about the commanding Word, Marcellus says that the God Word who was “in the beginning with God” is also of this kind. So he goes on to say (Fr. 46): “The holy apostle and disciple of the Lord, John, teaches clearly and explicitly at the beginning of the gospel, as of something previously unknown among men. He names him the Word of the Almighty. This is how he spoke: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ By using more than one testimony he shows the eternity of the Word.”

12 Marcellus adds to this and says next (Fr. 47): “By saying ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ John shows that the Word was in the Father in power (for God is the beginning of all things that have come to be, ‘from whom are all things’). By saying ‘and the Word was with God,’ he shows that the Word was with God in active operation (for ‘all things came to be through him, and apart from him not one thing came to be’), 13 and by saying that the Word was God, he shows that the Godhead is not divided, since the Word is in him and he is in the Word. For he says, ‘The Father is in me, and I am in the Father.’” Marcellus adds still more to this, laying bare his own thought in what he says next (Fr. 28): “So the holy apostle and disciple of the Lord, John, when he spoke of the Word’s eternity, proved a true witness to the Word, saying, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’

14 Here he makes no mention of any begetting of the Word. By using three testimonies one after another, he confirmed that the Word was in the beginning.” And he adds to this, saying (Fr. 61): “We know that the dispensation in the flesh is different with regard to the man, but we have believed that the eternity according to the Spirit is united with the Father.” 15 Going on after this, he says next (Fr. 64): “If then he himself says, ‘I came out from the Father and have come,’ and again, ‘The word which you hear is not mine, but the Father’s who sent me,’ and ‘All that the Father has is mine,’ it is clear that he also said, with good reason, ‘The Father is in me and I am in the Father.’ The meaning is that the Word who says this is in God, and the Father is in the Word, because the Word is the power of the Father.

16 For a trustworthy witness has called him ‘the power of God and the wisdom of God.’ So the Savior does not say ‘I and the Father are one’ because of an exact agreement in all words and works, as Asterius said. He says it because it is impossible for the Word of God, or for God, to be divided from his own Word. Asterius thinks the Savior said this because of agreement in everything. If he refuses to look at the second dispensation and so learn the truth, then we must remind him how, in what appears on the surface, one can sometimes see disagreement. 17 For that is what the written words teach us. What agreement is there at the time of the passion, when he says, ‘Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass,’ and then adds, ‘Yet not as I wish, but as you wish’? First of all, to say ‘Let this cup pass’ is not what someone in agreement would say. And what is added does not seem to belong to agreement either, for he says, ‘Not mine, but let yours be done, Father—your will.’

18 You hear how the letter shows disagreement in appearance, with one willing and the other not willing. For it is clear that the Father willed it, from the fact that what he willed came about. And it is clear that the Son did not will it, from the fact that he asks to be spared. And again he says, ‘I do not seek my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me.’” 19 How then, he says, did the Savior say “I and the Father are one” because of their agreement in everything? And after a little he adds (no. 65): How can the Son have agreement with the Father, or the Father with the Son, when the Son says “All that the Father has is mine”? For to say “All that the Father has is mine” would plainly be the act of a Son who takes more than his share from the Father.

20 For on that view, passing over the words “all that the Father has is common,” he said instead “all that the Father has is mine.” Yet that is not how one who agrees would speak. He would say: all that the Father has is common. For the Acts of the Apostles praises the agreement of those who then came to the faith, and says “all things were common to them.” If one must hold that among men, who are able to agree, all things are common, how much more should the Father and the Son share a common life, if they are divided into two hypostases? But as it is, in saying “All that the Father has is mine,” the Son appears to take more than his share from the Father. And in claiming that he is not even master of his own word, but that the Father is master of this too

21 (for “the word that you hear,” he says, “is not mine but the Father’s who sent me”), he shows the Father taking away the Son’s own things. So on Asterius’s notion, both statements appear to be inconsistent with each other. 22 For one who agrees ought not to snatch away what rightly belongs to the other, since that would be grasping. He ought to regard what belongs to each as common. So when we look at the human flesh, we will not find the Savior saying “I and the Father are one” in the way Asterius has written. The Savior did not say “I and the Father are one” because of an exact agreement in all words and deeds, as Asterius wrote. 23 For if that were so, he would surely have said: “I and the Father agree with each other in everything.” But as it is, he said “I and the Father are one.” So if there was some disagreement in those matters, and the Master must speak the truth, we must understand exactly this: whenever the Savior says “I and the Father are one,” he is not saying it with a view to the man whom he took up, but to the Word who came forth from the Father.

24 For if there seems to be any disagreement, it must be referred to the weakness of the flesh, which the Word took up although he had not had it before. But if oneness is spoken of, this clearly belongs to the Word. 25 So it was fitting that he said not only “I and the Father are one,” but also this: “I have been with you so long, Philip, and you say, ‘Show me the Father.’” He plainly meant that the Father is seen not with these eyes but with those that can see things of the mind. For both the Father and his Word are invisible to the eyes of the flesh. So he did not say this to Philip because of an agreement in everything. 26 After saying so much, he takes up the argument again from the beginning and lays down his teaching this way (no. 92): Before all creation there was a kind of stillness, as is likely, since the Word was in God. For if Asterius believes that God is the maker of all things, clearly he will agree with us that God has always existed and never received a beginning of being, while created things were made by him, and made out of nothing. For I do not think he agrees with anyone who says that some other things are also unbegotten. I think he is firmly persuaded that heaven and earth and everything in heaven and on earth were made by God.

27 If then he believes this, he must also agree that apart from God there was nothing else. So the Word, being in the Father, had his own glory. 28 After saying this, he adds, after other remarks (no. 93): Asterius calls the authority given to him “glory,” and not only glory but “glory before the world.” He does not consider that when the world had not yet come to be, there was nothing else besides God alone. 29 Having said this, Marcellus openly denied the Son through these words. Then, to persuade us exactly what kind of Word of God he had in mind, he makes his meaning clearer by comparing the Word to our own speech. He writes this (Nr. 55): “For just as everything that has come into being has come into being from the Father through the Word, so also the things said by the Father are expressed through the Word. For this reason the most holy Moses calls the Word an angel here: he appeared for no other purpose than to announce to Moses the things he knew would benefit the sons of Israel. And he knew that it would benefit them to believe that there is one God.”

30 “Therefore he also said to him, ‘I am the one who is,’ so that he would teach that there is no other god besides himself. And this, I think, is easy for sensible people to understand even from a small and lowly example taken from our own lives.” 31 “For no one can separate a man’s word from him in power or in substance. In a man the word is one and the same thing as the man himself, and it is distinguished from him by nothing else except the active working of the deed.” Then he expands still further, making his thought plain in the words that follow (Nr. 53): “God did not need some other preparation for the construction, such as material or anything else of a human sort, but only this preparation that was in his own mind.” 32 “Since, then, it was impossible for God to plan the construction of heaven apart from the Word and the wisdom that belongs to the Word, it was fitting that he said, ‘When he prepared the heaven, I was present with him.’” Again he adds a comparison of God’s Word to the human word, to show that it has no substance of its own. He writes here as follows (Nr. 56): “Here the Father says to Moses, ‘I am the one who is,’ and he clearly says it through the Word.”

33 “For everything the Father says, he is plainly seen to say everywhere through the Word. This is clear from ourselves too, as far as small things can be compared with great and divine things. For we also do everything we wish to say or do, as far as we are able, by means of our own word.” 34 Then, after saying some things in between, he adds (Nr. 68): “How then did Asterius, who pretends to follow the holy Scriptures simply and with fear, fail to know this passage, which says, ‘The Lord your God, he is God in heaven above and on earth beneath, and there is no other besides him,’ and that ‘he is one’ and that besides him there is no other?” 35 Going on, he again insists, saying (Nr. 40): “He is not called Word by misuse of the term—even if those who teach otherwise burst with their lies—but he is Word properly and truly. And he adds (Nr. 45): “For what else was the hidden mystery but the mystery concerning the Word? This mystery was so hidden ‘in God’ before that none of the earlier people clearly knew the things concerning the Word, but now we enjoy the wealth ‘of the glory’ and the hidden mystery.”

36 After this he again uses a human illustration, writing in this way (Nr. 52): “For who, whether of the holy angels or of righteous men, was trustworthy enough to cancel the punishment decreed against him on behalf of God, 37 if not the Word himself, who was present and formed together with him, to whom the Father said, ‘Let us make man in our image and likeness’? There was no other God who could help to form him. For he says, ‘I am God, the first, and I am after these things, and besides me there is no other God.’ So there was no younger god, nor any other who, being God ‘after these things,’ was able to work together with God.” 38 But suppose someone uses a small, human example, like our own, to examine God’s work as if in a picture. Take a skilled sculptor who wants to make a statue. First he looks within himself at its outlines and features. Then he works out how wide and how long it should be to look right, and he checks the proportion of the whole against each individual part. He prepares suitable bronze, sketches the coming statue beforehand in his own mind, and imagines he sees it with the mind’s eye. He is also aware that reason is working with him. By reason he calculates, and by reason he is accustomed to do everything, since nothing done without reason is beautiful. As he begins this work on material things, he urges himself on as if speaking to another: “Come, let us make it; come, let us shape a statue.” In the same way God, the Master of all, when he makes the living statue from the earth, urges on no one else but his own Word, saying, “Let us make man.” This was not the same way he made the other things, for the whole creation came to be by the Word.

39 And after other things he adds to this (Nr. 108): “But now I believe the divine Scriptures, that there is one God. And his Word [God] came forth from the Father so that ‘all things’ might come to be ‘through him.’ But after the time of judgment, the setting right of all things, and the removal of every opposing power, ‘then he himself will be made subject to the one who made all things subject to him,’ ‘to God and Father.’ In this way the Word will be in God, just as he was before the world existed. For when nothing existed before except God alone, and all things were going to come to be through the Word, the Word came forth in active power, this Word who belongs to the Father.” 40 And again he states the same thought more plainly, saying (Nr. 54): “For before the world existed, the Word was in the Father. But when the almighty God purposed to make everything in heaven and on earth, the making of the world needed an active power. For this reason, since nothing else existed except God (for all things are agreed to have been made by him), the Word then came forth and became the maker of the world. He had earlier prepared it inwardly, in thought.”

41 And once more, after all this, he adds (Nr. 34): “And for this reason he does not call himself Son of God, but everywhere calls himself Son of Man, so that by such a confession he might bring it about that man, through his fellowship with him, becomes a son of God by adoption. Then, after the end of the work, he would again be united with God as the Word, fulfilling what the apostle said earlier: ‘Then he himself will be made subject to the one who made all things subject to him, so that God may be all in all.’ For at that time he will be what he was before.” Through all these statements Marcellus, with head uncovered, has openly renounced the Son of God. 42 For if God and the Word within him were one and the same, then no one could ever be his own father, any more than his own son, being one and alone. But God was one and alone, and the same as his own Word. So it is plain that he was not a father when he had no son, and not a son when he had no father existing.

43 So from what has been set out, we have seen what this man laid out: that the Son of God neither exists nor pre-existed, but that a bare word was inside God himself, at one time resting and at another working with active power. He set these same points before us again and again in different ways in his writing, and piled up a great heap of needless words in the book. But we are content with the refutations he supplies against himself from the words he quoted, and we will not even think the absurdity of this Jewish doctrine worth an answer. 44 From here let us move on to what the same man said about the flesh, which he says the Word in God took up by activity alone. Let us see how he transfers to the flesh the teaching about God that Scripture gives concerning the only-begotten Son of God. He denies the Son who truly pre-existed, yet speaks of the flesh as God, though a little later this irreverent man declared that this flesh would be left empty of the Word.

Chapter 3

1 “For the Word ‘was in the beginning,’” being nothing other than Word. But the man who was united to the Word, who did not exist before, became man, as John teaches us when he says, “and the Word became flesh.” For this reason, then, Scripture appears to mention the Word alone. Whenever divine Scripture mentions the name of Jesus or of Christ, it appears to be naming the Word of God as he exists with human flesh. And if anyone claims he can point out the name of Christ or Jesus applied to the Word alone even before the new covenant, he will find that it was said prophetically, as is clear from this: “The kings of the earth stood by, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ.” 2 And after other things he adds: “So it is reasonable that before the descent he was, as we have often said, Word. But after the descent and the taking up of flesh he received various titles, because ‘the Word became flesh.’” Notice how by this Marcellus does not want the name of Jesus and Christ, and the other titles, to be applied to the Word, but to the flesh which he took up. This observation is necessary, so that when Marcellus in turn throws off the flesh, he may be convicted of blaspheming against the very Christ of God. Then, going on after the passages quoted above, he writes the following about the body of the Savior:

3 “And let Asterius not think it unbelievable that the body, though younger than he, could attain such antiquity. Let him consider this: even if human flesh is in fact younger, still the Word, who deigned to take it from a pure virgin and united his own to it, not only made the man created in himself ‘firstborn of all creation,’ but also wants him to be the beginning of all things, not only of those on earth but also of those in the heavens.” 4 After saying this, and after other remarks, he applies to the flesh the apostle’s words, in which the apostle speaks of the Son of God in the highest terms: “who is the image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation; because in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him; and he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” He is not ashamed to take such words of the apostle as being about the flesh. Going on, Marcellus himself writes this about it: “If, then, the Savior confesses that the flesh is of no benefit, how can it be that flesh which is from the earth and of no benefit should be with the Word in the ages to come, as though profitable to him?”

5 And again, about the same flesh, he adds: “How, then, could the form of a slave, which the Word took up, being the form of a slave, be with the Word?” Yet the man who said such things about the flesh now calls it “the image of God” and “firstborn of all creation,” and says that it existed before all things, and that “all things in heaven and on earth, thrones, dominions, rulers, authorities, were created in it.” 6 He writes as follows: “Therefore, if he himself is ‘firstborn of all creation,’ and ‘in him all things were created,’ we should know that the apostle is now speaking of his economy in the flesh.” And he confirms his statement by adding next: “So he was named ‘firstborn of all creation’ because of his birth in the flesh, not, as they suppose, because of the first creation.” 7 And he adds: “So this most holy Word was not called ‘firstborn of all creation’ before the incarnation (for how could the one who always is be the firstborn of anything?). Rather, it is the first ‘new man,’ in whom God willed ‘to sum up all things,’ that the divine Scriptures call ‘firstborn of all creation.’” And again he adds: “You hear how it happens that not only these things, but also the things that already existed, ‘in heaven and on earth, were created in him,’ in the new creation.”

8 So much for the passages in which Marcellus says he was named “firstborn of all creation” because of the flesh. Now see how he also applies the words “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works” to the flesh. He pays no attention to the divine Scripture, which speaks in the person of Wisdom in the Proverbs in this way: “I, Wisdom, made counsel my dwelling, and I called on knowledge and understanding. Through me kings reign, and rulers write down righteousness.” 9 Wisdom goes on to say right after this: “I walk in the ways of righteousness, and I move about among the paths of justice, so that I may give a possession to those who love me, and fill their treasuries with good things. If I report to you what happens day by day, I will remember to count what comes from eternity. 10 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 what follows. Marcellus did not want to fix his mind on these words. He had only one aim, which was to avoid confessing the Son of God. So he applies this plain statement about the divine nature to the flesh. He turned aside from the straight road and invented a trackless path for himself. His words are these:

11 “So this passage of the Proverbs, when it says ‘The Lord created me,’ does not mean to set out the beginning of our Savior’s divinity, as these people suppose. It means the second arrangement, the one in the flesh. For this reason it fittingly speaks of the creation of human flesh.” 12 And he continues: “So the creation belongs to his work as a man. That is why it says, ‘The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works.’ It means: he created me through the virgin Mary, through whom God chose beforehand to unite human flesh to his own Word.” 13 After some other remarks he adds: “This being so, it follows that we should consider in our minds this passage, spoken in a proverb: ‘The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works.’ For our Master God truly created, making what did not exist. For the flesh which the Word took up was not in existence; he created it when it did not exist.” And he adds again: “This, then, is what ‘The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works’ means.”

14 He goes on: “‘Before the age he founded me.’ He calls this a foundation, meaning the arrangement in the flesh that had been appointed beforehand. So the apostle also says, ‘For no one can lay any other foundation than the one that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.’ He mentions only one age here, from which he said the things of Christ were founded.” 15 And again he confirms the same wording, saying: “The prophet rightly said, ‘Before the age he founded me.’ He plainly means the flesh, because of its fellowship with his true Son, the Word.” Then he adds: “Next he says, ‘In the beginning, before he made the earth.’ What earth is this, if not our flesh, which became earth again after the disobedience? For it says, ‘You are earth, and to earth you will return.’ This flesh had to receive healing, since in some way it had come into fellowship with the holy Word.”

16 But see how Marcellus contradicts himself here. In one place he said that the flesh is “the beginning of his ways” that God created, and again he said that the same flesh is the “foundation.” Then he adds “before he made the earth,” and explains that the earth too is the flesh. He does not see that it makes no sense to say that the flesh was created before the flesh, and then, after the creation of the flesh, to call it flesh again. 17 On top of this, he goes on to say: “Then it says, ‘Before he made the depths.’ Here the prophet means, in a proverbial way, that the depths are the hearts of the saints, which hold the gift of the Spirit in their own depth.” 18 Notice in this too what he does. He took “The Lord created me” to be said about the flesh. Then, hemmed in by the Scripture that says “before he made the depths,” he explains the depths as the hearts of the saints. But he does not see that the hearts of the saints, that is, of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, of Moses, Elijah and Melchizedek, and of the other prophets, existed before the Savior’s flesh.

19 How, then, is it possible to apply the words “before He made the abysses” to the flesh? And after some other remarks Marcellus again goes on to say (Nr. 20): “What, then, is this heading too: ‘before the springs of the waters came forth’? He says it means the holy apostles.” The Scripture of Exodus sets this mystery before us, announcing the types of the apostles long ago; for since the apostles were twelve in number, it mentions twelve springs. 20 And he goes on to repeat the same thing, writing as follows (Nr. 20): “So it was reasonable that the Master, speaking through the prophet Solomon, said ‘before the springs of the waters came forth’ concerning his birth according to the flesh.” 21 Then, after going through some other matters in order, he continues (Nr. 22): “Since, then, we have spoken about the things that came first, it follows that we should fill in what is left. What is left is the part about the mountains and hills. For he says, ‘before the mountains were set firm, and before all the hills, he begets me.’ By mountains and hills he means the apostles and the successors of the apostles, so as to indicate, in figurative language, their righteous way of life as set against other people.”

22 After setting out interpretations of this kind, he turns again to the words of the apostle, and speaks the opposite of what the apostle says. For the apostle taught that the Son of God existed beforehand and is “firstborn of all creation.” With a loud voice he testified that “all things” were created “through him and in him,” and that he is “before all things.” But Marcellus drags this teaching down to the flesh, and a little later denies even this. 23 He says this (Nr. 43): “For this reason he fittingly adds, ‘who is the image of the invisible God.’ When did he become an image? Or when he took up the creature formed ‘according to image and likeness’? For before that, as I have often said, he was nothing other than Word.” And he persists, making the same point more plainly in these words (Nr. 82): “So it is clear that before he took up our body, the Word by himself was not the image of the invisible God. For an image must be seen, so that through the image what until then was not seen can be seen.”

24 And again he adds (Nr. 82): “How then did Asterius write that the Word of God is the image of the invisible God? For images show the things they are images of even when those things are absent, so that the absent one seems to appear through them. But if God is invisible and it follows that the Word is invisible too, how can the Word by himself be the image of the invisible God, when he himself is invisible? For it is impossible for what is not visible ever to be made visible through something invisible.” 25 Here too Marcellus fails to see that if we grant that the flesh is the image of God, it is time to say that the flesh of all people, and the faces of their bodies, are images of God. On his view the Savior would then have had nothing exceptional. Yet Marcellus seems to forget what he wrote afterward about the flesh. He called it “the form of a servant,” drawing on the apostle’s wording, and said that for this very reason, because it is “the form of a servant,” it cannot be united with the Word.

26 He even said outright (Nr. 104): “How can it be that what is from the earth and is of no benefit in the ages to come is united with the Word?” Yet at the present point he insists that the flesh is the image of the invisible God, and declares emphatically (Nr. 82) that before the taking up of our body his Word was not the image of the invisible God. 27 And again, after the passages already set out, he goes on to say (Nr. 83): “So it is clear from every side that the holy apostle called the flesh that was added to the Word the image of the invisible God, so that through what is visible the invisible might also appear. The apostle says, ‘He is the image of the invisible God.’ That is, now, when he has taken up the flesh made according to the image of God, he has become the true image of the invisible God.”

28 “For if we were counted worthy to know the Word of God through this image, we ought to believe the Word himself when he speaks through the image: ‘I and the Father are one.’ For no one can know either the Word or the Father of the Word apart from this image.” 29 And again he adds (Fr. 84): “So the apostle also says, as we said a little earlier, ‘he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.’ By ‘the form of a servant’ he means human flesh for us. Our Lord God shaped that flesh by his own wisdom when he said, ‘Let us make man in our image and likeness.’ He rightly calls human flesh an image, for he knew exactly that it would, a little later, be the image of his own Word.” 30 After this he tries to argue that the words “From the womb before the morning star I begat you” were also said about the flesh. He writes as follows (Fr. 26): “For this reason, then, since the star that marks the day was fittingly called the morning star by the prophet David, it is no longer right to ask who the morning star is. For it was the star that appeared at that time, the one that brought and announced the day to the magi.”

31 “It is therefore clear that the words ‘Before the morning star I begat you’ were spoken by the almighty Lord about the Word who was born of the virgin together with human flesh. The gospel also shows this plainly: our Lord was born of the virgin first, and afterward the star appeared that pointed out the day.” 32 Going on after this, he adds again (Fr. 94): “For man received authority not only over things on earth but also over things in heaven, and rightly so. For if, when he also became ‘man’ and ‘mediator between God and men,’ ‘all things were created for him,’ as the apostle said, ‘both those in heaven and those on earth,’ then it follows that we should know exactly that authority was given to him not only over things on earth but also over things in heaven.” And again, after other things, he adds (Fr. 95): “For if the holy gospel speaks of a certain glory given to him by the Father, man evidently received this glory through the Word. For having become, in the words of the holy apostle, ‘mediator between God and men,’ he glorified God-fearing men with the glory the Father had given him.”

33 And again he adds these things (Fr. 96): “He also deemed man, who had fallen through disobedience, worthy to be joined through the virgin to his own Word. For what other glory among men could be greater than this glory? After saying ‘I glorified you,’ he adds, ‘and I will glorify you again.’ In his surpassing love for mankind, by this second glory after the resurrection of the flesh, he would make the man who was formerly mortal immortal. He would glorify him with such glory that man would not only be freed from his former slavery but would also be counted worthy of a glory beyond man.” 34 And again he adds (Fr. 97): “So that, as I said, he might prepare man, who was first deceived by the devil, to defeat the devil himself in turn. For this reason he took up man, so that he might in due order prepare him to receive the firstfruits of authority.” And he adds further (Fr. 97, continued): “For this is the beloved, the man united to the Word, about whom the evangelist said, ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’”

35 And again he adds (Fr. 98): “The Word of the invisible God was going to be born of a virgin and take up human flesh. Through that flesh he would fight and defeat the devil, who had earlier overpowered man. He would then prepare man to become not only incorruptible and immortal but also enthroned with God in heaven.” 36 It is necessary to keep all this in mind because of what Marcellus himself is going to bring forward against the flesh that the Word of God took up. For as though he had forgotten everything he had set out, he brings the Savior’s body to an end that is neither good nor godly. On top of all this, as if his earlier points were already established, he tries to show that the words “The Lord reigned; let the earth rejoice” also refer to the flesh. 37 He puts it this way (Fr. 99): “The one, then, who came down and took on flesh through the virgin was appointed king over the church. This was clearly so that through the Word the man who had earlier fallen from the kingdom of heaven might be able to obtain the kingdom. God, wishing this man, who had earlier fallen from the kingdom through disobedience, to become lord and god, brought about this plan. So the most holy prophet David says prophetically, ‘The Lord reigned; let the earth rejoice.’”

38 And after other things he adds: “This is why the prophecy, speaking as though our Lord Christ took the beginning of his kingdom at some point in time, says, ‘But I was appointed king by him.’” And again he adds: “For this reason he will also reign. Having come to be in human flesh, and having been established as king through the Word, the man who was deceived at first will abolish ‘all rule and power and authority’ of the devil.” 39 Marcellus said all this about the Savior’s flesh, and much more besides. He said that the flesh is “the image of the invisible God” and “the firstborn of all creation,” and the king, and Jesus, and the Christ, and the beloved, and everything else he listed. He declared that the Word was called all these things because of the flesh. It is now time to look at the kind of end he gives that flesh.

Chapter 4

1 “For this reason he will reign, having come to be in human flesh. And having been established as king through the Word, the man who was deceived at first will abolish ‘all rule and power and authority’ of the devil. For he must reign,” he says, “until he puts his enemies under his feet.” So the holy apostle says this is the end of the kingdom of our Lord Christ: that all things be subjected under his feet. And a little later Marcellus adds: “Here the apostle reveals to us a very great mystery. He says that there will be an end of Christ’s kingdom, and that the end comes when all things have been subjected under his feet.” 2 And working out the same argument still further, he writes as follows: “In our earlier statements we said that our Lord Christ has had a beginning of his kingdom, and we used proofs from the divine Scriptures. One is the passage that says, ‘But I was appointed king by him on Zion, his holy mountain.’

3 “Another says, ‘The Lord has reigned; let the peoples be angry.’ And again, ‘The Lord has reigned; let the earth rejoice.’ In short, there is an abundance of countless passages we could use as testimony to show that the man received the beginning of his kingdom through the Word. If he received the beginning of his kingdom not more than four hundred years ago, it is no surprise that the apostle says that the one who obtained this kingdom so short a time ago will hand the kingdom over. He means that he will hand it over to God, who, as the Scripture says, appointed him king.” 4 And after other things he writes: “So it appears that, by activity alone, and because of the flesh, he has been separated from the Father until the coming time of judgment appears. Then those who pierced him will, as the prophecy says, have seen the one they pierced, and so the rest will follow in order.”

5 “For when all things are about to be subjected to Christ at the time of the end, as the apostle said, then ‘he himself will be subjected to the one who subjected all things to him.’ What then do we learn about the human flesh that the Word took on for our sake less than four hundred years ago? Will the Word have it in the ages to come, or only until the time of judgment? For what the prophet said must be confirmed in fact. ‘For they will look,’ he says, ‘on the one whom they pierced.’ And clearly what they pierced was the flesh.” 6 And a little later he adds: “That the Word did not take on our flesh for his own benefit, but so that the flesh might obtain immortality through its fellowship with the Word, is clear from the Savior’s own declaration. For concerning the flesh which he had when he spoke with his disciples, he says, ‘Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man going up to where he was before? The Spirit gives life; the flesh profits nothing.’ If he himself admits that the flesh profits him nothing, how can it be right that this flesh, which is from the earth and profits nothing, should be with the Word in the ages to come, as though it were of use to him?”

7 “For this, it seems to me, is also why the almighty Master says to him, ‘Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies as a footstool for your feet.’ He appears to be separating him by activity alone, on account of the human flesh. And as though he were fixing a set time for the sitting at his right hand, he says to him, ‘until I put your enemies as a footstool for your feet.’” 8 The holy apostle explained this prophetic saying of David more plainly for us, speaking somewhat like this: “For he must reign until he puts his enemies under his feet.” So his dispensation and kingdom as a man seem to have a limit. For David means nothing other than what the apostle said: “until he puts his enemies under his feet.” 9 So when he has his enemies as a footstool under his feet, he no longer needs this partial kingdom, since he is king over all things without exception. For he reigns together with “God and Father,” whose Word he was and is.

10 For the Word himself did not receive the beginning of a kingdom on his own account. It was the man who had been deceived by the devil who became king through the power of the Word, so that, having become king, he might defeat the devil who had deceived him before. For this reason the Acts of the Apostles also teach about this man, whom the Word of God took up and, having taken him up, sits at the right hand of the Father. They put it like this: “whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration.” These words too set a kind of limit and appointed time, within which the union of the Word with the dispensation as a man is fitting. 11 For what else does “until the times of restoration” mean, but to point us to the age to come, in which all things must receive their perfect restoration? Now Paul said that at the time of the restoration of all things even creation itself will be changed from slavery to freedom. For he says, “that creation itself will be set free from the slavery of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.”

12 How then could the form of a slave, which the Word took up, being the form of a slave, still be able to be with the Word? It is plainly and expressly the case that the dispensation of the Word in the flesh, for our sake, has taken place within a short time, between the ages past and the ages to come. And the inspired Paul has said that it will have an end, just as it had a beginning, speaking somewhat like this: “Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God and Father.” 13 After other things, Marcellus adds to these (Fr. 106): “Therefore he took up human flesh not for his own sake but for ours. But if it is clear that he took it up for our sake, and everything that concerns us will reach its end at the time of judgment through his providence and working, then there will no longer be any need even of this partial kingdom.” After saying this, Marcellus became aware that he had fallen into something absurd, and so he adds to what he had said (Fr. 107): “But if someone says that human flesh is worthy of the Word because he made it immortal through the resurrection, let him know that not everything that is immortal is worthy of God.”

14 “For God is greater even than immortality itself, since by his own will he can make even things that do not exist immortal. And it is clear that not everything immortal is worthy to be united with God, from the fact that rulers, authorities and angels, though immortal, make no difference to the unity of God.” 15 After saying this, Marcellus saw that he had thrown himself into a pit of absurdity, as it were, and he tries to take it back, in a way confessing that he knew nothing of what he was saying. So he goes on to say (Fr. 108): “But if someone asks about this flesh that has become immortal in the Word, what do we say to him? That we think it unsafe to lay down doctrine about things we have not learned exactly from the divine Scriptures.” 16 For how could those who overturn the doctrines of others do this?

17 “But to those who want to learn from us the exact account of this matter, we will say that, trusting the holy apostle, we know that we should look at hidden mysteries as he himself said: ‘For now we see,’ he says, ‘through a mirror in a riddle, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I also was fully known.’ So do not ask me about things I have not clearly learned from divine Scripture.” 18 “For this reason, then, I will not be able to speak clearly about that divine flesh which shared in the divine Word. But as it is, I believe the divine Scriptures: there is one God, and his Word came forth from the Father so that ‘all things’ might come to be ‘through him.’ Then, after the time of judgment, and the setting right of all things, and the destruction of every opposing power, ‘then he himself will be subjected to the one who subjected all things to him,’ ‘to God and Father,’ so that the Word may be in God in the same way as he was before.”

19 This is the kind of end this remarkable writer brings upon the flesh of our Savior, having forgotten what he had said about it earlier. 20 Then the man who has declared so plainly that the Savior’s body will be left empty of the Word after the time of judgment puts on an air of reverence. He says he does not know how to answer if someone asks him about the flesh, and that he would say to the questioner, “Do not ask me about what I have not learned.” 21 But any ordinary person could say to him: “Why then, man, are you making a fool of yourself? Why do you push yourself over a cliff, laying down in writing definitions about matters you have not learned? Why do you not guard what you received from the fathers and teachers of the Church? Instead you openly innovate, bringing into life a new and strange perversion. You give the kingdom of Christ a temporary and recent beginning and assign it an end. You deny the truly only-begotten Son of God and suppose in his place a bare Word with no being and no substance of its own, which you say is not other than God but one and the same with him. And anyone who denied the Son of God would say just this, and naturally so!

22 “For a Word that has no substance of its own is not a son, just as the word in a man could never be called the son of that man, since it exists in the speaker only as an activity. Yet you say, turning everything upside down, that this Word became Son of God from the Father less than four hundred years ago, through taking up the flesh. You say he was named Jesus and Christ, was called ‘image of the invisible God’ and ‘firstborn of all creation,’ and then became king as well. You say he began all of this from the time just mentioned, and that at the time of the consummation all of it will be brought to a sudden end. 23 “Where, then, did you learn these things? Who was your teacher in them? Which bishop? What councils? What writing of churchmen? And how would the Savior’s immortal body fit into your scheme? For when you admit that it is immortal and call it divine, you must surely suppose it also to be incorruptible and indissoluble. A body of such a nature plainly remains standing, and indissoluble. But you took the Word away from it and joined him to God.

24 “So then the body alone, without the Word, will stand on in immortal and incorruptible speechlessness and motionlessness? And how will the Word himself go back 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? But he was in him always, being coeternal and one and the same with God. How then was he in the body? If he lived in it as a soul does, then he will exist with a substance of his own, separate from the Father, living and subsisting in the flesh he took up. 25 “What, then, prevented him from being confessed as a living Son of God even before the world was established? But perhaps he will say that the Word was in the body by activity alone and not by a substantial existence. For he says that, being with the flesh only by active working (moving it and doing everything that is recorded in the Gospels), he was joined to God in substance, as being God’s Word, inseparable from him and undivided.

26 “If he says this, let him answer when we ask: did the Word’s activity reach only this flesh, and not other men, God’s saints, as well? And does not the same Word also work in all the rest of the things he made? Yet we have learned that ‘by the word of the Lord the heavens were made firm’ and that ‘all things came to be through him, and apart from him not one thing came to be.’ So he works in all things.” 27 We know from the divine Scriptures that “the word of the Lord came to Hosea, the son of Beeri,” and “the word of the Lord came to Isaiah, the son of Amos,” and “the word of the Lord which came to Jeremiah.” In the case of each prophet it was the same Word of God who was at work. Then did all those men share the same rank as the only-begotten Son of God, and did the Savior have nothing more than they had, if he was moved only by an activity of the Word who was joined to God?

28 But Marcellus does not even allow Christ to receive what the prophets receive. They will obtain eternal life, immortal and unending, and they will live through all the ages in the announced kingdom of heaven, enjoying good things “which eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and which have [not] entered the human heart.” But the Christ of God, the common Savior of all, “the firstborn from the dead,” the hope of the resurrection of the saints, will on Marcellus’s account be left alone at that time. His kingdom will come to an end, and the life-giving flesh will be left deserted and without the Word. So according to Marcellus’s teaching he neither existed beforehand as Son of God nor lasts forever. 29 It was only to be expected, then, that these views stirred the truly God-loving and thrice-blessed emperor against the man, even though Marcellus had flattered him endlessly and had gone through many praises of the emperor in his writing. These same views also forced the holy council to publicly condemn the man by a written document against him, even though it was unwilling. That council had gathered in the imperial city from various provinces: Pontus and Cappadocia, Asia and Phrygia and Bithynia, Thrace and the regions beyond. These same views have also compelled us to undertake the present examination. In doing so we stand with what the holy council decided, and we also do what is sufficient for our fellow ministers who ordered us to do this.

30 I consider this writing especially necessary because of those who think the man was wronged. For I must heal the suspicion of our brothers by making plain his unbelief toward the Son of God. For a long time it had lain hidden in him, but now it has been exposed by his own book. He brought it of his own accord, when no one had called for it, and put it into the emperor’s hands, asking him to examine what was written in it. He perhaps hoped that, because of the praises he had given the emperor, he would himself win special favor with the emperor, while the bishops he had slandered would be handed over to punishment. 31 But the outcome did not match his hopes. For the judge of these matters was God, and Christ Jesus himself, whom the author sets aside. He saw the man’s hidden things, and brought it about that, with no one forcing him, he became his own accuser and his own refutation. So the man who prided himself on his book went to the emperor, and the emperor handed over the examination of what was written to the council. The holy council of God rejected the book, and rightly so, because it confesses neither a godly beginning nor a godly end for the Son of God.