22

to be Lord, but also the Father of this one. 2.2.21 For “the word which you hear,” he says, “is not mine but the Father’s who sent me,” shows that the Father takes away the Son's own things. But both, according to the opinion of Asterius, 2.2.22 appear to have been said inconsistently. For one who is in agreement ought not to snatch away the just things belonging to the other, for this at least is greedy, but to consider the things belonging to each to be common. So when we look to the human flesh, not as Asterius has written, we will find that the Savior said "I and the Father are one," for not 20because of the precise harmony in all words and deeds20, as he himself has written, 20did the Savior 2.2.23 say "I and the Father are one"20. For if this were so, he would certainly have said: I and the Father are in harmony with each other in all things. But as it is, he said, "I and the Father are one." Therefore, if there was some disharmony in those things, and it is necessary for the Lord to speak the truth, it is fitting for the Savior to know precisely that whenever he says, "I and the Father are one," at that time he says this not looking to the man whom he has assumed, but to the Word who 2.2.24 came forth from the Father. For if any disharmony should seem to exist, this ought to be referred to the weakness of the flesh, which the Word, not having it before, assumed. But if oneness is spoken of, this is seen 2.2.25 to belong to the Word. Whence he reasonably said not only "I and the Father are one," but also that: "Have I been with you for so long a time, Philip, and you say, 'Show me the Father'?" it is clear that not with these eyes, but with the intelligible eyes that are able to see intelligible things. For both the Father and his Word are invisible to the eyes of the flesh. Therefore, it was not 20because of the 20harmony 20in all things20 that he said this to Philip. 2.2.26 Having said these things, resuming the argument from the beginning, he dogmatizes in this way: For before all creation there was a certain quietness, as is likely, since the Word was in God. For if Asterius has believed God to be the maker of all things, it is clear that he himself will also agree with us that the one exists forever, having never taken a beginning of being, and that other things have been made by him and have been made from non-beings. For I do not think that he also believes this of the one who says there are also some unbegotten things, but is precisely persuaded that heaven and earth and all things in the heavens and on earth have been made by God. 2.2.27 If, therefore, he should believe this, it is necessary for him to agree also to that, that besides God there was nothing else. The Word therefore had his own glory, being in the Father. 2.2.28 And having said these things, he adds after other things that Asterius names the authority given to him 20glory20, and not only glory but also 20pre-cosmic glory20, not understanding that, when the cosmos had not yet come into being, there was nothing else except God alone. 2.2.29 Having said these things, Marcellus, and having openly denied the Son through them, in order to persuade us precisely what sort of thing he thought the Word of God to be, more clearly reveals his thought by comparing him to our word, through which he writes these things: For just as all things that have come to be were made by the Father through the Word, so also the things spoken by the Father are signified through the Word. For this reason also the most holy Moses here names the Word an angel, because he appeared for no other reason but to announce to Moses these things which he knew 2.2.30 to be profitable for the sons of Israel; and he knew it was profitable to believe there is one God. Therefore he also said to him, "I am who I am," so that he might teach that there is no other God besides himself. And this is easy, I think, for those who are sensible to know 2.2.31 also from a small and humble example according to our own experience. For not even the word of a man is it possible for anyone to separate in power and hypostasis; for the word is one and the same with the man, and separated by nothing else than only by the activity of action. And he is even more lavish in revealing his thought, through which he says the following things in order: for not of another

22

κύριον εἶναι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τούτου τὸν 2.2.21 πατέρα «ὁ» γὰρ «λόγος ὃν ἀκούετε» φησὶν «οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμὸς ἀλλὰ τοῦ πέμψαντός με πατρός», ἀφαιρεῖσθαι τὸν πατέρα τὰ ἴδια τοῦ παιδὸς δείκνυσιν. ἑκάτερα δὲ κατὰ τὴν Ἀστερίου οἴησιν οὐκ ἀκο2.2.22 λούθως εἰρημένα φαίνεται. ἔδει γὰρ τὸν συμφωνοῦντα μὴ τὰ τῷ ἑτέρῳ προσόντα παρασπᾶσθαι δίκαια, πλεονεκτικὸν γὰρ τοῦτό γε, ἀλλὰ τὰ ἑκατέρῳ προσόντα κοινὰ εἶναι νομίζειν. ὥστε ὅταν μὲν εἰς τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ἀποβλέπωμεν σάρκα, οὐχ ὥσπερ Ἀστέριος γέγραφεν, οὕτως εὑρήσομεν εἰρηκότα τὸν σωτῆρα «ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν», οὐ γὰρ 20διὰ τὴν ἐν ἅπασιν λόγοις τε καὶ ἔργοις ἀκριβῆ συμφωνίαν20, ὡς αὐτὸς γέγραφεν, 20ὁ σωτὴρ 2.2.23 εἴρηκεν «ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν»20. εἰ γὰρ τοῦτ' ἦν, πάν τως ἂν ἔφη· ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἅπασιν πρὸς ἀλλήλους συμφω νοῦμεν. νυνὶ δὲ «ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν» ἔφη. οὐκοῦν εἰ ἐν ἐκείνοις ἀσυμφωνία τις ἦν, ἀνάγκη δὲ τὸν δεσπότην ἀληθεύειν, τὸν σωτῆρα ἀκριβῶς εἰδέναι προσήκει, ὅτι ἡνίκα ἂν «ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν» λέγῃ, τηνικαῦτα οὐκ εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον ὃν ἀνεί ληφεν ἀποβλέπων τοῦτό φησιν, ἀλλ' εἰς τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς προ2.2.24 ελθόντα λόγον. εἰ γάρ τις ἀσυμφωνία εἶναι δοκοίη, αὕτη ἀνα φέρεσθαι εἰς τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς ἀσθένειαν ὀφείλει, ἣν μὴ πρότερον ἔχων ἀνείληφεν ὁ λόγος. εἰ δὲ ἑνότης λέγοιτο, αὕτη τῷ λόγῳ 2.2.25 διαφέρουσα φαίνεται. ὅθεν οὐ μόνον τὸ «ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν» εἰκότως ἔφη, ἀλλὰ κἀκεῖνο· «τοσούτῳ χρόνῳ μεθ' ὑμῶν εἰμι, Φίλιππε, καὶ λέγεις· δεῖξόν μοι τὸν πατέρα», δῆλον ὅτι οὐ τούτοις τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς, ἀλλὰ τοῖς νοητοῖς τὰ νοητὰ ὁρᾶν δυνα μένοις. ἀόρατος γὰρ τοῖς τῆς σαρκὸς ὄμμασιν ὅ τε πατὴρ ὑπάρ χει καὶ ὁ τούτου λόγος. οὐ 20διὰ τὴν ἐν ἅπασιν20 οὖν 20συμφω νίαν20 τοῦτ' ἔφη πρὸς Φίλιππον. 2.2.26 τοσαῦτα εἰπών, ἐπαναλαβὼν ἐξ ὑπαρχῆς τὸν λόγον τοῦτον δογματίζει τὸν τρόπον πρὸ γὰρ τῆς δημιουργίας ἁπάσης ἡσυχία τις ἦν, ὡς εἰκός, ὄντος ἐν τῷ θεῷ τοῦ λόγου. εἰ γὰρ ποιητὴν ἁπάντων τὸν θεὸν ὁ Ἀστέριος πεπίστευκεν εἶναι, δῆλον ὅτι συνομολογήσει ἡμῖν καὶ αὐτὸς τὸν μὲν ἀεὶ ὑπάρχειν, μηδεπώποτε τοῦ εἶναι ἀρχὴν λα βόντα, τὰ δὲ γεγενῆσθαί τε ὑπ' αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων γεγενῆ σθαι. οὐ γὰρ οἶμαι καὶ τοῦτο πιστεύειν αὐτὸν τῷ λέγοντι εἶναί τινα καὶ ἀγένητα, ἀλλὰ ἀκριβῶς πεπεῖσθαι ὅτι οὐρανός τε καὶ γῆ καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς ὄντα ὑπὸ θεοῦ γεγένηται. 2.2.27 εἰ τοίνυν τοῦτο πιστεύοι, ἀνάγκη αὐτὸν κἀκεῖνο συνομολογεῖν ὅτι πλὴν θεοῦ οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἦν. εἶχεν οὖν τὴν οἰκείαν δόξαν ὁ λόγος, ὢν ἐν τῷ πατρί. 2.2.28 καὶ ταῦτα εἰπὼν ἐπάγει μεθ' ἕτερα τὴν δοθεῖσαν αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν Ἀστέριος 20δόξαν20 ὀνομάζει, καὶ οὐ δόξαν μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ 20προκόσμιον δόξαν20, οὐκ ἐννοῶν ὅτι μήπω τοῦ κόσμου γεγονότος οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἦν πλὴν θεοῦ μόνου. 2.2.29 ταῦτ' εἰπὼν Μάρκελλος καὶ τὸν υἱὸν δι' αὐτῶν ἀπαρακαλύπτως ἀρνησάμενος, ἵνα ἡμᾶς ἀκριβῶς πείσῃ ὁποῖον εἶναι τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐφρόνει, σαφέστερον ἐμφαίνει τὴν διάνοιαν τῷ ἡμετέρῳ λόγῳ ἀπεικάζων αὐτόν, δι' ὧν ταῦτα γράφει ὥσπερ γὰρ τὰ γεγονότα πάντα ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς διὰ τοῦ λόγου γέγονεν, οὕτω καὶ τὰ λεγόμενα ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς διὰ τοῦ λόγου σημαίνεται. διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ ὁ ἁγιώτατος Μωσῆς ἄγγε λον ἐνταῦθα ὀνομάζει τὸν λόγον, ὅτι δι' οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἐφάνη, ἀλλ' ἵνα ἀναγγείλῃ τῷ Μωσεῖ ταῦτα ἅπερ λυσιτελεῖν τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραὴλ 2.2.30 ἠπίστατο· ἠπίστατο δὲ λυσιτελεῖν ἕνα θεὸν εἶναι νομίζειν. διὸ καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν «ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὢν» ἔφη, ἵνα μηδένα ἐκτὸς ἑαυτοῦ ἕτερον θεὸν εἶναι διδάξῃ. τοῦτο δὲ ῥᾴδιον, οἶμαι, τοῖς εὖ φρο νοῦσιν καὶ ἀπὸ μικροῦ τινος καὶ ταπεινοῦ καθ' ἡμᾶς παραδείγμα2.2.31 τος γνῶναι. οὐδὲ γὰρ τὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου λόγον δυνάμει καὶ ὑπο στάσει χωρίσαι τινὶ δυνατόν· ἓν γάρ ἐστιν καὶ ταὐτὸν τῷ ἀνθρώ πῳ ὁ λόγος, καὶ οὐδενὶ χωριζόμενος ἑτέρῳ ἢ μόνῃ τῇ τῆς πρά ξεως ἐνεργείᾳ. καὶ ἐπιδαψιλεύεται ἔτι μᾶλλον τὴν αὐτοῦ διάνοιαν ἐμφαίνων, δι' ὧν ἑξῆς τάδε φησίν οὐ γὰρ δὴ ἑτέρας