5

would be God; 1.1.31 for “a mediator is not of one.” He stands, then, as a mediator of two. Of whom these are, he clarifies by naming angels and God; of whom he says the Son of God, being in the middle, received the law from the Father with his own hand, but ordained it “through angels” to the former people. The Son was therefore from that time a mediator of God and of angels, before he be1.1.32 came “a mediator of God and of men.” And he was not as a mere Word of God, without hypostasis, being one and the same with God; for in this way he would not be a mediator. But he was and preexisted as “the only-begotten Son, full of grace and truth.” And he was mediating for the Father who was providing the law “through angels” to men. Which indeed, from that time teaching the ignorant and unlearned of the theology of the Son of God, the Apostle confirmed, saying, “but a mediator is not of one.” For it is not in the nature of things for a mediator 1.1.33 to be defined in relation to one. Therefore, this one is not of one, but of necessity in the middle of two, being neither of those of whom he happens to be in the middle; so that one should neither consider him to be the God over all, nor one of the angels, but the middle and mediator of these, when he mediates for the Father and angels; just as again, when he becomes “mediator of God and of men,” being in the middle of each order, he is neither of those of whom he is mediator; being neither himself the one and only God nor a man like other 1.1.34 men. What then, if he is none of these, but the only-begotten Son of God, now having become mediator of men and God, but long ago in the time of Moses being mediator of God and angels? Writing these things to them, transmitting them in some such way, the great Apostle says, “the law was 1.1.35 ordained through angels in the hand of a mediator. But a mediator is not of one, but God is one.” “One” therefore is “God,” and “one mediator of God” and of all created things, not now beginning his saving mediation, but also before his theophany to men, just as 1.1.36 the argument has shown. And these things having been set forth in brief to the Galatians themselves from the epistle to them alone, with the saving faith providing the mystical regeneration “into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” and in addition to the divine written records, with the catholic church of God from the ends of the earth to the ends confirming the testimonies from the divine scriptures by unwritten tradition, it is time now to examine the words of Marcellus and to present the proofs we promised, so that no one might think the man is being slandered by us. 1.1.37 And since my proposed purpose is to set forth what has been said in brief, I will not collect all the man's utterances, but will use only the essential ones, passing over the majority as if they were superfluous and proceeding through the same things. But before the proof of what has been said, I think it necessary first to demonstrate to the readers, that he did not even accurately understand the plain words of the divine readings, so that it may be known by those who still do not know him what sort of person he was who was led to the audacity of the things he said. 1.2.1 For instance, then, since the prophet Zechariah lived during the times of the return from Babylon, and mentioned Jesus the high priest, that is, the son of Jozadak, who along with Zerubbabel led those who returned from Babylon, this noble and admirable writer, being ignorant of these things, quotes the passage of Zechariah in which he mentions Jesus, but, being cast far from the history, 1.2.2 he supposed that he was speaking about Jesus the successor of Moses. And again, when the apostle wrote in his epistle to the Galatians in this manner, “But the Jerusalem above is free, which is our mother,” he either missed it, or did not understand it, or even willingly distorts the statement, writing, “But our Jerusalem is above; for this one is in bondage with her children.” 1.2.3 And again, when our Savior had said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are not mindful of the things of God

5

ἂν εἴη ὁ θεός· 1.1.31 «ὁ» γὰρ «μεσίτης ἑνὸς οὐκ ἔστιν». δυεῖν δ' ἄρα μέσος ἕστηκεν. τίνων τούτων, διασαφεῖ ἀγγέλους ὀνομάζων καὶ τὸν θεόν· ὧν μέσον ὄντα τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκ τὸν νόμον χειρὶ μὲν ἰδίᾳ εἰληφέναι φησὶν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, «δι' ἀγγέλων» δὲ τῷ προτέρῳ διατεταχέναι λαῷ. ἦν ἄρα ἐξ ἐκείνου ὁ υἱὸς μεσίτης θεοῦ τε καὶ ἀγγέλων, πρὶν ἢ γε1.1.32 νέσθαι «μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων». καὶ ἦν οὐχ ὡς ψιλὸς θεοῦ λόγος, ἀνυπόστατος, ἓν καὶ ταὐτὸν ὑπάρχων τῷ θεῷ οὐ γὰρ ἂν εἴη οὕτω γε μεσίτης· ἀλλ' ἦν καὶ προῆν ὡς «μονογενὴς υἱὸς πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας». καὶ ἦν μεσιτεύων τῷ πατρὶ παρέχοντι τὸν νόμον «δι' ἀγγέλων» ἀνθρώποις. ὃ δὴ διδάσκων ἐξ ἐκείνου τοὺς ἀγνῶτας καὶ ἀμαθεῖς τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ θεοῦ θεολογίας ὁ ἀπόστολος ἐπεσφραγίζετο λέγων «ὁ δὲ μεσίτης ἑνὸς οὐκ ἔστιν». οὐ γὰρ ἔχει φύσιν ἐφ' 1.1.33 ἑνὸς τὸν μεσίτην ὁρίζεσθαι. διὸ οὗτος μὲν οὐκ ἔστιν ἑνός, δυεῖν δὲ μέσος ἐξ ἀνάγκης, οὐδέτερος ὢν ἐκείνων ὧν μέσος τυγχάνει· ὥστε μήτε αὐτὸν εἶναι τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸν ἡγεῖσθαι μήτε τῶν ἀγγέλων ἕνα, τούτων δὲ μέσον καὶ μεσίτην, ὅτε τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ἀγγέλοις μεσιτεύει· ὡς αὖ πάλιν, ὅτε «μεσίτης» γίνεται «θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων», μέσος ὢν ἑκατέρου τάγματος, οὐδέτερόν ἐστιν, ὧν μεσίτης ὑπάρχει· οὔτ' αὐτὸς ὢν ὁ εἷς καὶ μόνος θεὸς οὔθ' ὁμοίως τοῖς λοιποῖς ἀν1.1.34 θρώποις ἄνθρωπος. τί δέ, εἰ μηδὲν τούτων, ἢ θεοῦ μονογενὴς υἱός, νῦν μὲν ἀνθρώπων καὶ θεοῦ μεσίτης γεγονώς, πρόπαλαι δὲ ἐπὶ Μωσέως θεοῦ καὶ ἀγγέλων μεσίτης ὑπάρχων; ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῖς γράφων, ὧδέ πη παραδιδοὺς λέγει ὁ μέγας ἀπόστολος «ὁ νόμος δια1.1.35 ταγεὶς δι' ἀγγέλων ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου. ὁ δὲ μεσίτης ἑνὸς οὐκ ἔστιν, ὁ δὲ θεὸς εἷς ἐστιν». «εἷς» οὖν ἔστιν ὁ «θεός», καὶ «εἷς μεσίτης θεοῦ» τε καὶ τῶν γενητῶν πάντων, οὐ νῦν ἀρξάμενος τῆς σωτηρίου μεσιτείας, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸ τῆς εἰς ἀνθρώπους αὐτοῦ θεοφανείας, ὥσπερ 1.1.36 οὖν ὁ λόγος ἀπέδειξεν. τούτων δ' ἐν βραχεῖ Γαλάταις αὐτοῖς ἐκ μόνης τῆς πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἐπιστολῆς παρατεθέντων, τῆς τε σωτηρίου πίστεως τὴν μυστικὴν καὶ ἀναγέννησιν «εἰς ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος» παρεχούσης, καὶ πρὸς τοῖς θείοις ἐγγράφοις τῆς ἀπὸ περάτων γῆς ἕως περάτων καθολικῆς τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκλησίας τὰς ἀπὸ τῶν θείων γραφῶν μαρτυρίας ἐξ ἀγράφου παραδόσεως ἐπισφραγιζομένης, ὥρα λοιπὸν καὶ τὰς Μαρκέλλου διασκέψασθαι λέξεις τῶν τε ἐπηγγελμένων ἡμῖν τὰς ἀποδείξεις ὑποσχεῖν, ὡς ἂν μή τις τὸν ἄνδρα συκοφαντεῖσθαι πρὸς ἡμῶν νομίσειεν. 1.1.37 σκοποῦ δέ μοι προκειμένου διὰ βραχέων ἐκφῆναι τὰ εἰρημένα, οὐ πάσας ἀναλέξομαι τοῦ ἀνδρὸς τὰς φωνὰς, μόναις δὲ ταῖς συνεκτικαῖς χρήσομαι, τὰς πλείους ὡσανεὶ περιττὰς καὶ διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν χωρούσας ὑπερθησόμενος. πρὸ δὲ τῆς τῶν εἰρημένων ἀποδείξεως οἶμαι δεῖν ἐν πρώτοις παραστῆσαι τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσιν, ὅτι μηδὲ τὰς προχείρους λέξεις τῶν θείων ἐξηκρίβου ἀναγνωσμάτων, ὡς ἂν γνωσθῇ τοῖς ἔτ' αὐτὸν ἀγνοοῦσιν ὁποῖός τις ὢν ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν εἰρημένων προήχθη τόλμαν. 1.2.1 Αὐτίκα δ' οὖν τοῦ προφήτου Ζαχαρίου κατὰ τοὺς τῆς ἐπανόδου χρόνους τῆς ἀπὸ Βαβυλῶνος γενομένου, Ἰησοῦ τε μνημονεύσαντος τοῦ ἱερέως τοῦ μεγάλου, δηλαδὴ τοῦ υἱοῦ Ἰωσεδέκ, ὃς ἅμα Ζοροβάβελ τῶν ἀπὸ Βαβυλῶνος ἐπανελθόντων ἡγήσατο, ὁ γενναῖος οὗτος καὶ θαυμαστὸς συγγραφεὺς ταῦτ' ἀγνοήσας τίθησιν μὲν τοῦ Ζαχαρίου τὴν λέξιν δι' ἧς μέμνηται τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, μακρὰν δὲ τῆς ἱστορίας ἀκοντισθεὶς 1.2.2 λέγειν αὐτὸν ὑπείληφεν περὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Μωσέως διαδόχου. καὶ πάλιν τοῦ ἀποστόλου γράψαντος ἐν τῇ πρὸς Γαλάτας ἐπιστολῇ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον «ἡ δὲ ἄνω Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐλευθέρα ἐστίν, ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ ἡμῶν», ἢ λάθετ' ἢ οὐκ ἐνόησεν ἢ καὶ ἑκὼν διαστρέφει τὸν λόγον, γράφων «ἡ δὲ ἡμετέρα Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἄνω ἐστίν· αὕτη γὰρ δουλεύει μετὰ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς». 1.2.3 καὶ αὖθις τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν τῷ Πέτρῳ εἰρηκότος «ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, σατανᾶ, σκάνδαλον εἶ ἐμοί, ὅτι οὐ φρονεῖς τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ