17

is the Son of God before the incarnate presence, “through whom all things” came into being, not naming him Word, but Lord Jesus and Christ. But if according to Marcellus God and the Word in him were one and the same, it would have been sufficient for the apostle to say, “for us there is one God 1.20.55 the Father, from whom are all things.” For the thought was complete and the saying self-sufficient in introducing God as the maker of all things. But even a Jew would say this. But the herald of the church teaches not to be ignorant of the second 1.20.56 in addition to the first; and what was this? “and one Lord, Jesus Christ.” Therefore he adds the second part, saying next, “for us—for if not for all, yet for us,” he says, “one Lord, Jesus Christ.” And why after the one God is this one also “for us one Lord,” he establishes by adding “through whom are all things;” for since “all things came into being through him,” it is fitting that to us who know this he is believed to be Lord 1.20.57 of all after the God over all. But that he said these things not concerning the flesh, but concerning the Word of God, is clear from his adding “through whom are all things.” For he says, “for us one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.” This indeed has been said also concerning the light and concerning the pre-existent Word. Therefore Jesus Christ himself was the light and the Word, “through whom all things” came to be, but not the flesh. For he would not have said “through whom are all things” so unconnectedly concerning the flesh. 1.20.58 10. The same Paul knows to name the Son of God who pre-existed the flesh as Christ, likewise calling him a rock, through what he writes concerning those who journeyed with Moses in the wilderness, saying, “for they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ,” and he confirms the same thing after other things, saying, “neither let us test Christ, as some of them 1.20.59 tested and were destroyed by the serpents.” And he confirms this very thing yet more, saying, “by faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, considering the reproach of Christ a greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt.” And he establishes this still more clearly in what he says: “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, 1.20.60 and being found in fashion as a man.” You see that before he emptied himself and took “the form of a slave” he was and pre-existed and existed “in the form of God.” And who was this? None other than Jesus Christ. Therefore, Jesus Christ himself was God the Word even before he took on the 1.20.61 flesh. For one must listen carefully to the divine apostle saying, “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,” and clarifying next who this Jesus Christ was, through what he adds, saying, “who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave.” 1.20.62 Can one, therefore, in this case also interpret the saying as applying to the flesh? Is it fitting to say “who also” and “being” concerning the flesh? But did flesh “empty himself, taking the form of a slave”? But this is indeed ridiculous. Come, then, let us examine how it is said, “who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself.” If indeed he were a non-existent Word, in no way subsisting outside of God, but being within him, at one time in stillness and silence, 1.20.63 and at another in activity, how then was this one “in the form of God,” being himself God in power? And how did he “not consider it robbery to be equal with God,” being himself God? And how did he “humble himself, becoming obedient” to the Father? For this one obeying that one would be 1.20.64 indicative of two persons. And since Marcellus has used the word among men as an image, it must be asked if it is possible to apply to the human word the saying: who, being in the form of a man, did not consider it robbery to be equal with a man, but emptied himself, becoming obedient to the man? And how could the innate word in a man do these things, being one and the same with the man? Not, therefore, a mere word and

17

ἐστιν τὸν πρὸ τῆς ἐνσάρκου παρουσίας υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ «δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα» ἐγένετο, οὐ λόγον ὀνομάζων, ἀλλὰ κύριον Ἰησοῦν καὶ Χριστόν. ἀλλ' εἰ κατὰ Μάρκελλον εἷς καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς ἦν ὁ θεὸς καὶ ὁ ἐν αὐτῷ λόγος, ἀπήρκει τῷ ἀποστόλῳ φάναι «ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς 1.20.55 ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα». πλήρης γὰρ ἦν ἡ διάνοια καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτοτελὴς τὸν θεὸν εἰσηγούμενος ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων. ἀλλὰ τοῦτο καὶ Ἰουδαῖος ἂν εἴποι. ὁ δὲ τῆς ἐκκλησίας κῆρυξ πρὸς τῷ προτέρῳ 1.20.56 καὶ τὸ δεύτερον μὴ ἀγνοεῖν διδάσκει· τί δὲ ἦν τοῦτο; «καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός». διὸ προστίθησιν τὸ δεύτερον ἑξῆς λέγων «ἡμῖν εἰ γὰρ καὶ μὴ πᾶσιν, ἀλλ' ἡμῖν, φησίν εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός». διὰ τί δὲ μετὰ τὸν ἕνα θεὸν καὶ οὗτος «ἡμῖν εἷς κύριος», παρίστησιν ἐπιλέγων «δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα»· ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τὰ «πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο», εἰκότως ἡμῖν τοῖς τοῦτ' ἐπισταμένοις κύριος εἶναι 1.20.57 τῶν ὅλων μετὰ τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸν πεπίστευται. ὅτι δὲ οὐ περὶ τῆς σαρκὸς ταῦτ' ἔλεγεν, ἀλλὰ περὶ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου, δῆλός ἐστιν ἐκ τοῦ ἐπιφέρειν «δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα». «ἡμῖν» γάρ φησιν «εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα, καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα». ὃ δὴ καὶ περὶ τοῦ φωτὸς καὶ περὶ τοῦ προόντος λόγου εἴρηται. αὐτὸς οὖν ἦν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς τὸ φῶς καὶ ὁ λόγος, «δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα» γέγονεν, ἀλλ' οὐχ ἡ σάρξ. οὐ γὰρ ἂν περὶ τῆς σαρκὸς ἀσυναρτήτως οὕτως εἶπεν ἂν τὸ «δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα». 1.20.58 ιʹ. οἶδεν δὲ τὸν τῆς σαρκὸς προϋπάρχοντα τοῦ θεοῦ υἱὸν Χριστὸν ὀνομάζειν ὁ αὐτὸς Παῦλος, κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ πέτραν αὐτὸν ἀποκαλῶν, δι' ὧν γράφει περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ συνδιατριψάντων Μωσεῖ, λέγων «ἔπινον γὰρ ἐκ πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας, ἡ δὲ πέτρα ἦν ὁ Χριστός», καὶ ἐπισφραγίζεται τὸ αὐτὸ μεθ' ἕτερα φάσκων «μηδὲ ἐκπειράζωμεν τὸν Χριστόν, καθώς τινες αὐτῶν 1.20.59 ἐπείρασαν καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ὄφεων ἀπώλοντο». καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον τοῦτ' αὐτὸ βεβαιοῖ λέγων «πίστει Μωσῆς μέγας γενόμενος ἠρνήσατο λέγεσθαι υἱὸς θυγατρὸς Φαραώ, μείζονα πλοῦτον ἡγησάμενος τῶν Αἰγύπτου θησαυρῶν τὸν ὀνειδισμὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ». ἐναργέστατα δὲ ἔτι μᾶλλον τοῦτο συνίστησιν ἐν οἷς φάσκει «τοῦτο φρονείσθω ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, ἀλλ' ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου 1.20.60 λαβών, καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος». συνορᾷς ὅτι πρὸ τοῦ κενῶσαι ἑαυτὸν καὶ «μορφὴν δούλου» λαβεῖν ἦν καὶ προῆν καὶ «ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ» ὑπῆρχεν. τίς δὲ ἦν οὗτος; οὐδεὶς ἄλλος ἢ Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. αὐτὸς οὖν ἦν θεὸς λόγος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς καὶ πρὶν ἢ τὴν 1.20.61 σάρκα λαβεῖν. ἀκριβῶς γὰρ ἀκουστέον τοῦ θείου ἀποστόλου λέγοντος «τοῦτο φρονείσθω ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ», καὶ διασαφοῦντος ἑξῆς τίς ποτ' ἦν οὗτος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι' ὧν ἐπισυνάπτει λέγων «ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, ἀλλ' ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών». 1.20.62 μήτι οὖν κἀνταῦθα ἐπὶ τὴν σάρκα οἷόν τέ ἐστιν ἐκλαβεῖν τὸ λόγιον; μὴ περὶ τῆς σαρκὸς ἁρμόζει λέγειν τὸ «ὃς καὶ» καὶ τὸ «ὑπάρχων»; ἀλλὰ μὴ σὰρξ «ἐκένωσεν ἑαυτὸν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών»; ἀλλὰ γελοῖον τοῦτό γε. φέρ' οὖν ἐξετάσωμεν ὅπως εἴρηται τὸ «ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, ἀλλ' ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν». εἰ μὲν δὴ λόγος ἦν ἀνύπαρκτος, μηδαμῶς ἔξωθεν τοῦ θεοῦ ὑφεστώς, ἀλλ' ἔνδον ὢν ἐν αὐτῷ, ποτὲ μὲν ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ καὶ σιγῇ 1.20.63 ποτὲ δὲ ἐν τῷ ἐνεργεῖν, καὶ πῶς οὗτος ἦν «ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ», δυνάμει θεῷ αὐτὸς ὢν ὁ θεός; πῶς δὲ «οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ», αὐτὸς ὢν θεός; πῶς δὲ «ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπήκοος γενόμενος» τῷ πατρί; τὸ γὰρ ὑπακούειν τόνδε τῷδε δυεῖν γένοιτ' 1.20.64 ἂν προσώπων παραστατικόν. καὶ ἐπειδήπερ τῷ παρὰ ἀνθρώποις λόγῳ κέχρηται εἰκόνι Μάρκελλος, πευστέον εἰ δύναται ἁρμόζειν ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου λόγου τὸ λέγειν· ὃς ἐν μορφῇ ἀνθρώπου ὢν οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα ἀνθρώπῳ, ἀλλ' ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ; καὶ πῶς ὁ ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ συμφυὴς λόγος ταῦτα ἂν ποιήσειεν, ἓν καὶ ταὐτὸν ὑπάρχων τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ; οὐκ ἄρα λόγος ψιλὸς καὶ