27

testifying with a great cry; but he applies this theology also to the flesh, a little later denying this as well 2.3.23. And he says thus: 2.3.23 "For this reason he fittingly adds, 'who is the image of the invisible God'." When did he become an image, or at what time did he assume the form "in our image and likeness"? For previously, as I have often said, he was nothing other than the Word. And he persists, clarifying the same thing more plainly, through what he says: "Therefore it is manifest that before the assumption of our body the Word in himself was not the image of the invisible God; for it is fitting for the image to be seen, so that through the image that which was previously unseen can be seen. 2.3.24" And again he adds, saying: "How then has Asterius written that 'the Word of God is the image of the invisible God'? For images are indicators of those things of which they are images, even when they are absent, so that even the absent one seems to appear through them. But if, God being invisible, it follows that the Word is also invisible, how can the Word in himself be the 'image of the invisible God', being himself also invisible? For it is impossible for the unseen ever to be revealed through the invisible." 2.3.25 And in these things Marcellus does not perceive that if we were to grant that the flesh is the image of God, it would be time also to say that the flesh of all men and the faces of their bodies are images of God, so that according to him the Savior had nothing exceptional. But he, as if forgetting what he wrote after this about the flesh, calling it "the form of a slave" from the apostolic quotation, and for this reason that it could not 2.3.26 be with the Word because it is "the form of a slave," but also having said openly: "How is it possible for that which is from the earth and is of no benefit in the ages to come to be with the Word?", he insists at present that the flesh is the image of the invisible God, positively affirming that before the assumption of our body his Word was not the image of the invisible God. 2.3.27 And again after what has been set forth he adds, saying: "Wherefore it is clear from every side that the flesh which was joined to the Word was called 'image of the invisible God' by the holy apostle, in order that through the visible the invisible also might appear." "And 'he is the image'," says the apostle, "'of the invisible God'." "Now, clearly, at the time when he assumed the flesh made in the image of God, he became a true 2.3.28 image of the invisible God. For if through this image we have been deemed worthy to know the Word of God, we ought to believe the Word himself saying through the image, 'I and the Father are one'. For it is possible for no one to know either the Word or the Father of the Word without this image. 2.3.29" And again he adds: "Thus indeed the apostle also says, as we mentioned a little before, 'he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave,' signifying to us by the form of the slave the human flesh, which our Master God, fashioning by his own wisdom, said, 'Let us make man in our image and likeness,' rightly naming the human flesh an image. For he knew precisely that it would shortly be the image of his own Word. 2.3.30" After this he attempts to establish that the phrase "from the womb before the morning star I have begotten you" was also spoken concerning the flesh, and he writes thus: "For this reason, then, since the star signifying the day was fittingly named 'morning star' by the prophet David, it is no longer right to investigate who this morning star happens to be; for this was the star that appeared at that time, which brought and declared 2.3.31 the day to the magi. It is therefore manifest that 'before the morning star I have begotten you' was spoken by the almighty Master concerning the Word born through the virgin with human flesh, since the Gospel also clearly signifies this, that our Master was first born through the virgin, and later the star appeared which showed the day. 2.3.32" Proceeding on these points he adds again: "For the

27

μεγάλῃ βοῇ μαρτυρόμενος· ὁ δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν σάρκα καὶ ταύτην καταβάλλει τὴν θεολογίαν, μικρὸν ὕστερον καὶ ταύτην 2.3.23 ἀρνούμενος. λέγει δὲ οὕτως 2.3.23 διὰ τοῦτο εἰκότως ἐπιφέρει «ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου». πότε γενόμενος εἰκὼν ἢ ὁπηνίκα τὸ «κατ' εἰκόνα καὶ καθ' ὁμοίωσιν» ἀνείληφεν πλάσμα; πρότερον γάρ, ὥσπερ πολλάκις ἔφην, οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἦν ἢ λόγος. καὶ ἐπιμένει τὸ αὐτὸ γυμνότερον διασαφῶν, δι' ὧν φησίν 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. 2.3.24 καὶ πάλιν προστίθησιν λέγων πῶς οὖν 20εἰκόνα τοῦ ἀοράτου θεοῦ τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον20 Ἀστέριος 20εἶναι20 γέγραφεν· αἱ γὰρ εἰκόνες τούτων ὧν εἰσιν εἰκόνες καὶ ἀπόντων δεικτικαί εἰσιν, ὥστε καὶ τὸν ἀπόντα δι' αὐτῶν φαίνεσθαι δοκεῖν. εἰ δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀοράτου ὄντος ἀόρατον εἶναι καὶ τὸν λόγον συμβαίνει, πῶς 20εἰκὼν τοῦ ἀοράτου θεοῦ20 καθ' ἑαυτὸν ὁ λόγος εἶναι δύναται, καὶ αὐτὸς ἀόρατος ὤν; ἀδύνατον γὰρ τὸ μὴ ὁρατὸν διὰ τοῦ ἀοράτου φανῆναί ποτε. 2.3.25 καὶ ἐν τούτοις δὲ ὁ Μάρκελλος οὐ συνορᾷ, ὅτι εἰ τὴν σάρκα δοίημεν εἶναι τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ θεοῦ, ὥρα καὶ πάντων ἀνθρώπων τὰς σάρκας καὶ τὰ τῶν σωμάτων πρόσωπα εἰκόνας εἶναι λέγειν τοῦ θεοῦ, ὥστε κατ' αὐτὸν μηδὲν ἐξαίρετον ἐσχηκέναι τὸν σωτῆρα. ὁ δ' ὥσπερ ἐπιλαθόμενος ὧν μετὰ ταῦτα περὶ τῆς σαρκὸς συνέγραψεν «δούλου μορφὴν» αὐτὴν εἰπὼν ἐξ ἀποστολικῆς παραθέσεως καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μὴ 2.3.26 δύνασθαι συνεῖναι τῷ λόγῳ διὰ τὸ «δούλου μορφὴν» εἶναι, ἀλλὰ καὶ γυμνῇ τῇ κεφαλῇ φήσας πῶς ἐγχωρεῖ τὴν ἐκ γῆς τε οὖσαν καὶ μηδὲν ὠφελοῦσαν ἐν τοῖς μέλλουσιν αἰῶσιν συνεῖναι τῷ λόγῳ;, εἶναι εἰκόνα τοῦ ἀοράτου θεοῦ τὴν σάρκα ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος εἶναι διισχυρίζεται, διαβεβαιούμενος ἀποφαντικῶς ὅτι πρὸ τῆς τοῦ ἡμετέρου σώματος ἀναλήψεως οὐκ ἦν εἰκὼν τοῦ ἀοράτου θεοῦ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ. 2.3.27 καὶ αὖθις μετὰ τὰ ἐκτεθέντα ἐπιφέρει λέγων διὸ πανταχόθεν δῆλον εἰκόνα τοῦ ἀοράτου θεοῦ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἱεροῦ εἰρῆσθαι ἀποστόλου τὴν προσγενομένην τῷ λόγῳ σάρκα, ἵνα διὰ τοῦ ὁρατοῦ καὶ τὸ ἀόρατον φαίνηται. «εἰκὼν» δὲ «ἐστὶν» φησὶν ὁ ἀπόστολος «τοῦ ἀοράτου θεοῦ». νῦν δηλονότι, ὁπηνίκα τὴν κατ' εἰκόνα τοῦ θεοῦ γενομένην ἀνείληφεν σάρκα, εἰκὼν ἀλη2.3.28 θὴς τοῦ ἀοράτου θεοῦ γέγονεν. εἰ γὰρ διὰ τῆς εἰκόνος ταύτης τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον ἠξιώθημεν γνῶναι, πιστεύειν ὀφείλομεν αὐτῷ τῷ λόγῳ διὰ τῆς εἰκόνος λέγοντι «ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν». οὔτε γὰρ τὸν λόγον οὔτε τὸν πατέρα τοῦ λόγου χωρὶς τῆς εἰκό νος ταύτης γνῶναί τινα δυνατόν. 2.3.29 καὶ πάλιν ἐπιφέρει οὕτω γοῦν καὶ ὁ ἀπόστολός φησιν, ὥσπερ μικρῷ πρόσθεν ἔφαμεν «ἐκένωσεν ἑαυτὸν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών», διὰ τῆς μορφῆς τοῦ δούλου τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ἡμῖν σημαίνων σάρκα, ἣν ὁ δεσπότης ἡμῶν θεὸς τῇ ἑαυτοῦ διαπλάττων σοφίᾳ «ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον» ἔφη «κατ' εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν καὶ ὁμοίωσιν», καλῶς τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην σάρκα ὀνομάζων εἰκόνα. ᾔδει γὰρ ἀκριβῶς ὅτι εἰκὼν ἔσται μικρὸν ὕστερον τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ λόγου. 2.3.30 μετὰ ταῦτα πειρᾶται κατασκευάζειν ὅτι καὶ τὸ «ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐγέννησά σε» περὶ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐλέγετο, γράφει δὲ οὕτως διὰ τοῦτο τοίνυν τοῦ τὴν ἡμέραν δηλοῦντος ἀστέρος ἑωσφόρου ὑπὸ τοῦ προφήτου ∆αυὶδ εἰκότως ὀνομασθέντος, οὐκέτι ζητεῖσθαι δίκαιον τὸν ἑωσφόρον, τίς δήποτε ὢν οὗτος τυγχάνει· οὗτος γὰρ ἦν ὁ τηνικαῦτα φανεὶς ἀστήρ, ὁ φέρων τε καὶ δηλῶν 2.3.31 τὴν ἡμέραν τοῖς μάγοις. πρόδηλον οὖν τὸ «πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐγέν νησά σε» ὑπὸ τοῦ παντοκράτορος εἰρῆσθαι δεσπότου περὶ τοῦ διὰ τῆς παρθένου γεννηθέντος σὺν τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ σαρκὶ λόγου, σαφῶς καὶ τοῦτο τοῦ εὐαγγελίου σημαίνοντος, πρότερον μὲν τὸν δεσπό την ἡμῶν διὰ τῆς παρθένου τετέχθαι, ὕστερον δὲ τὸν ἀστέρα φανῆναι τὸν τὴν ἡμέραν δεικνύντα. 2.3.32 ἐπὶ τούτοις προϊὼν αὖθις ἐπιλέγει εἴληφεν γὰρ ὁ