14

they have dug for themselves broken cisterns.” 1.4.30 Having reviled them with such things, he next tries to show that the Son is not even an image of God, saying thus: I think it fitting to say a few things also about the image. For he has written: 20another is he who was begotten from him, “who is the image of the invisible God.”20 Asterius mentions “image of the invisible God” for this reason, to teach that God differs from the Word as much as a man seems to differ from his own image. 1.4.31 and having said some things in between, he adds: Therefore it is manifest, that before the assumption of our body, the Word in himself was not an image of the invisible God. For it is fitting for the image to be seen, so that through the image that which was previously not seen can be seen. And he adds: How then 20has Asterius written that the Word of God is an “image of the invisible God”20? For images are indicative of those of whom they are images even when they are absent, so that even the absent one seems to appear through 1.4.32 them. But if, since God is invisible, it happens that the Word is also invisible, how can the Word in himself be an 20“image of the invisible God,”20 being himself also invisible? And going on, he reviles again, saying thus: How then do those “full of all deceit and villainy,” to speak in apostolic terms, transfer the saying to 20his first20, as they think, 20creation20, and this when David spoke clearly concerning his birth according to the flesh? 1.4.33 And between these things, having extended a long argument, he adds: What then will he say to these things? For I do not think he has anything to say about this. For I do not think that he would clearly and openly confess to others what he himself hides in his own mind, as it is possible to learn clearly from what he has written. 20“For another,”20 he says, 20“is the Father who begot from himself the only-begotten Word and firstborn of all creation, only from only, perfect from perfect, king from king, lord from lord, God from God, the unchangeable image of his essence and counsel and glory and power.”20 These sayings clearly refute his base 1.4.34 opinion concerning divinity. For how can the begotten Lord and God, as he himself has previously stated, be an image of God? For an 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 a lord and a God; but if he is truly Lord and God, the Lord and God can no longer be an image of a lord and a God. 1.4.35 And he has said these things with extreme carelessness, not considering that a son can also be called a living image of his own father, whenever he is most like his father. At any rate, scripture also teaches this, saying: “And Adam lived two hundred and thirty years, and he begot after his own form and after his own image; 1.4.36 and he called his name Seth.” And concerning the divinity of the Son, the apostle teaches, saying: “who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself,” and again: “who being the radiance of his glory and the express image of his person.” And in other places it is said: “For he is the radiance of eternal light, and a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image 1.4.37 of his goodness.” Again the apostle, saying, “having put off the old man, and having put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him,” is clearly teaching that the flesh was not said to be the 1.4.38 image of God. But Marcellus, turning again to the bishops, writes thus: For behold, the matter concerning Asterius does not so much grieve us, that he was led to write such things, but that also some of those who seem to preside over the church, forgetting the apostolic tradition, and preferring things external to the divine, have dared to write and teach such things, which hold no less to the error of the aforementioned. 1.4.39 And after other things he adds: For having come across a letter of Narcissus, the bishop of Neroniados, which he wrote to

14

ὤρυξαν ἑαυτοῖς λάκκους συντετριμμένους». 1.4.30 τοιαῦτα καὶ διὰ τούτων λοιδορησάμενος ἑξῆς πειρᾶται δεικνύναι ὅτι μηδὲ εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν ὁ υἱός, λέγων οὕτως ἀκόλουθον ἡγοῦμαι βραχέα καὶ περὶ τῆς εἰκόνος εἰπεῖν. γέγραφεν γάρ· 20ἄλλος δέ ἐστιν ὁ ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεννηθείς, «ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου»20. εἰκόνος διὰ τοῦτο μέ μνηται θεοῦ ἀοράτου Ἀστέριος, ἵνα τοσοῦτον τὸν θεὸν τοῦ λόγου διαφέρειν διδάξῃ, ὅσον καὶ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἑαυτοῦ εἰκόνος διαφέρειν δοκεῖ. 1.4.31 καὶ μεταξύ τινα εἰπὼν ἐπιφέρει οὐκοῦν πρόδηλον, ὅτι πρὸ τῆς τοῦ ἡμετέρου σώματος ἀναλήψεως ὁ λόγος καθ' ἑαυτὸν οὐκ ἦν εἰκὼν τοῦ ἀοράτου θεοῦ. τὴν γὰρ εἰκόνα ὁρᾶσθαι προσήκει, ἵνα διὰ τῆς εἰκόνος τὸ τέως μὴ ὁρώμενον ὁρᾶσθαι δύνηται. καὶ ἐπιλέγει πῶς οὖν 20εἰκόνα τοῦ ἀοράτου θεοῦ20 τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον Ἀστέριος εἶναι γέγραφεν; αἱ γὰρ εἰκόνες τούτων ὧν εἰσιν εἰκόνες καὶ ἀπόντων δεικτικαί εἰσιν, ὥστε καὶ τὸν ἀπόντα δι' 1.4.32 αὐτῶν φαίνεσθαι δοκεῖν. εἰ δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου ὄντος ἀόρατον εἶναι καὶ τὸν λόγον συμβαίνει, πῶς 20εἰκὼν τοῦ ἀορά του θεοῦ20 ὁ λόγος καθ' ἑαυτὸν εἶναι δύναται, καὶ αὐτὸς ἀόρα τος ὤν; καὶ προϊὼν αὖθις λοιδορεῖ, λέγων οὕτως πῶς οὖν οἱ «πλήρεις δόλου καὶ ῥᾳδιουργίας», ἀποστο λικῶς εἰπεῖν, μεταφέρουσιν τὸ ῥητὸν εἰς 20τὴν πρώτην αὐτοῦ20, ὡς οἴονται, 20κτίσιν20, καὶ ταῦτα τοῦ ∆αυὶδ περὶ τῆς κατὰ σάρκα αὐτοῦ γενέσεως σαφῶς εἰρηκότος; 1.4.33 καὶ μεταξὺ τούτων μακρὸν κατατείνας λόγον ἐπιφέρει τί οὖν πρὸς ταῦτα λέξει; οὐ γὰρ οἶμαι αὐτὸν ἔχειν τι περὶ τούτου λέγειν. οὐδὲ γὰρ σαφῶς αὐτὸν καὶ ἀπαρακαλύπτως ἡγοῦμαι καὶ πρὸς ἑτέρους ὁμολογῆσαι ἄν, ὅπερ αὐτὸς ἐν τῇ ἑαυτοῦ κρύπτει διανοίᾳ, ὡς ἔστιν σαφῶς ἀφ' ὧν γέγραφεν μανθάνειν. 20ἄλλος μὲν γάρ20, φησίν, 20ἐστὶν ὁ πατὴρ ὁ γεννήσας ἐξ αὑτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ λόγον καὶ πρωτότοκον ἁπάσης κτίσεως, μόνος μόνον, τέλειος τέλειον, βασιλεὺς βασιλέα, κύριος κύριον, θεὸς θεόν, οὐσίας τε καὶ βουλῆς καὶ δόξης καὶ δυνάμεως ἀπαράλλακτον εἰκόνα.20 ταῦτα τὰ ῥητὰ σαφῶς τὴν 1.4.34 φαύλην αὐτοῦ περὶ θεότητος ἐλέγχει δόξαν. πῶς γὰρ ὁ κύριος γεννηθεὶς καὶ ὁ θεός, ὡς αὐτὸς προλαβὼν ἔφη, δύναται εἰκὼν θεοῦ εἶναι; ἕτερον γὰρ εἰκὼν θεοῦ, καὶ ἕτερον θεός. ὥστε εἰ μὲν εἰκών, οὐ κύριος οὐδὲ θεός, ἀλλ' εἰκὼν κυρίου καὶ θεοῦ· εἰ δὲ κύριος ὄντως καὶ θεός, οὐκέτι ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ θεὸς εἰκὼν κυρίου καὶ θεοῦ εἶναι δύναται. 1.4.35 καὶ ταῦτα σφόδρα ἀβλεπτῶν εἴρηκεν, οὐκ ἐννοήσας ὡς καὶ ὁ υἱὸς δύναται ἔμψυχός ποτε εἰκὼν τοῦ ἰδίου πατρὸς λεχθῆναι, ἐπειδὰν ᾖ τῷ πατρὶ ὁμοιότατος. τοῦτο γοῦν καὶ ἡ γραφὴ διδάσκει ἡ λέγουσα «ἔζησεν δὲ Ἀδὰμ τριάκοντα καὶ διακόσια ἔτη, καὶ ἐγέννησεν κατὰ τὴν ἰδέαν αὐτοῦ καὶ κατὰ τὴν εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ· 1.4.36 καὶ ἐπωνόμασεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Σῆθ». καὶ περὶ τῆς θεότητος δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ ὁ ἀπόστολος διδάσκει λέγων «ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, ἀλλ' ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν», καὶ πάλιν «ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως». καὶ ἐν ἑτέροις δὲ εἴρηται «ἀπαύγασμα γάρ ἐστιν φωτὸς ἀιδίου, καὶ ἔσοπτρον ἀκηλίδωτον τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ ἐνεργείας, καὶ εἰκὼν 1.4.37 τῆς ἀγαθότητος αὐτοῦ». αὖθις δὲ ὁ ἀπόστολος «ἀπεκδυσάμενοι τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον, καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν νέον τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ' εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος» λέγων, δῆλός ἐστιν οὐ τὴν 1.4.38 σάρκα εἰρῆσθαι διδάσκων τὴν εἰκόνα εἶναι τοῦ θεοῦ. μεταβὰς δὲ αὖθις Μάρκελλος ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐπισκόπους ὧδε γράφει ἰδοὺ γὰρ τὸ κατὰ Ἀστέριον ἡμᾶς οὐ τοσοῦτον λυπεῖ, εἰ τοιαῦτα προήχθη γράφειν, ἀλλ' ὅτι καί τινες τῶν προεστάναι δοκούντων τῆς ἐκκλησίας, τῆς μὲν ἀποστολικῆς ἐπιλαθόμενοι πα ραδόσεως, τὰ δὲ ἔξωθεν τῶν θείων προτιμήσαντες τοιαῦτά τινα γράψαι τε καὶ διδάξαι ἐτόλμησαν, ἃ οὐδὲν ἔλαττον τῆς τῶν προ ειρημένων ἔχεται πλάνης. 1.4.39 καὶ μεθ' ἕτερα ἐπιλέγει ἐντυχὼν γὰρ Ναρκίσσου τοῦ Νερωνιάδος προεστῶτος ἐπιστολῇ, ἣν γέγραφεν πρὸς