31

this marvelous author has brought upon the flesh of our Savior, having forgotten what he said about it in the preceding sections. 2.4.20 Then he who so clearly declared that the saving body would become destitute of the Word after the time of judgment feigns reverence and says he does not know how to answer, if anyone should ask him about the flesh, and would say to the one asking: do not ask me 2.4.21 about things I have not learned. But even any ordinary person might say to him, Why then do you mock yourself, man? Why do you push yourself down cliffs, by defining in writing things you have not learned? And why do you not keep what you have received from the ecclesiastical fathers and teachers, but you openly innovate, introducing to life a new and strange perversion, giving a temporary and recent beginning to the kingdom of Christ and positing an end for it, and denying the truly only-begotten Son of God, but positing a mere Word, without substance and without hypostasis, which you say is nothing other than one and the same with God, which indeed anyone denying the Son of God might reasonably say? 2.4.22 For a Word that does not subsist is not a son, just as the word in a man could never be called a son of man, consisting only in an activity in the one who speaks. And you confusedly assert that this one became Son of God from the Father not even a full four hundred years ago through the assumption of the flesh, and was named Jesus and Christ, and was called the "image of the invisible God" and "firstborn of all creation," and indeed also became king then, beginning all these things from the specified time, then at the time of the consummation all these things will cease at once. 2.4.23 Where then have you learned these things? Who became your teacher of these things, which of the bishops, what synods, what writing of ecclesiastical men? And where for you would the immortal body of the Savior go? For confessing it immortal and calling it divine, you will surely somehow posit it as incorruptible and indissoluble, and being of such a nature it remains clearly coherent and indissoluble. But you were removing the Word from it 2.4.24 and joining it to God. Therefore will the body alone stand without the Word in immortal and incorruptible irrationality and immobility? And how will the Word itself go into God and be united again with him after the separation from the flesh? Was it not in God, when it was with the flesh? But it was always in him, being co-eternal and one and the same with God. How then did it exist in the body? If indeed dwelling in it like a soul, it will then be in a hypostasis, separated from the Father, 2.4.25 both living and subsisting in the flesh which it assumed. What then prevented confessing him as the living Son of God even before the foundation of the world? But perhaps he would say it came to be in the body by activity alone and not by hypostasis of substance; for he says that by effective activity alone it was with the flesh in moving it and doing all that is recorded in the Gospels, while by substance it was joined to God, as being his Word, inseparable and indivisible. 2.4.26 If indeed he should say these things, let him answer our question: did the activity of the Word reach only this flesh, and not also upon other men, the saints of God? And in all the rest of the creations of the Word does not the same Word act? And indeed we have learned that "by the word of the Lord the heavens were made firm" and "all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." 2.4.27 Therefore it is active also upon all things. We have also learned from the divine scriptures that "the word of the Lord came to Hosea the son of Beeri," and "the word of the Lord came to Isaiah the son of Amoz," and "the word of the Lord which came to Jeremiah." And upon each of the prophets the same Word of God was active. Therefore did the same dignity as the only-begotten Son of God belong to all of them also, and was there nothing more for the Savior, if indeed he was moved by activity alone by the Word united to God. 2.4.28 But Marcellus does not even grant to the... to have the same things as the prophets for the

31

ἐπήγαγεν τῇ σαρκὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ὁ θαυμαστὸς οὗτος συγγραφεύς, ἀμνημονήσας ὧν περὶ αὐτῆς διὰ τῶν ἔμπροσθεν 2.4.20 εἴρηκεν. εἶθ' ὁ σαφῶς οὕτως τὸ σῶμα τὸ σωτήριον ἔρημον τοῦ λόγου γενήσεσθαι μετὰ τὸν τῆς κρίσεως καιρὸν ἀποφηνάμενος εὐλάβειαν προσποιεῖται καὶ μὴ εἰδέναι φησὶν ἀποκρίνεσθαι, εἴ τις αὐτὸν ἔροιτο περὶ τῆς σαρκός, φῆσαι δ' ἂν πρὸς τὸν ἐρωτῶντα· μή μου 2.4.21 πυνθάνου περὶ ὧν μὴ μεμάθηκα. ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ τυχὼν εἶπεν ἂν πρὸς αὐτόν, τί δὴ οὖν σαυτὸν σκώπτεις, ἄνθρωπε; τί δὲ κατὰ κρημνῶν ὠθεῖς, περὶ ὧν μὴ μεμάθηκας ὁριζόμενος ἐγγράφως; τί δὲ μὴ φυλάττεις ἃ παρὰ τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν πατέρων τε καὶ διδασκάλων παρείληφας, νεωτερίζεις δ' ἄντικρυς νέαν καὶ ξενίζουσαν εἰσάγων τῷ βίῳ διαστροφήν, ἀρχήν τε πρόσκαιρον καὶ νεωτέραν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ διδοὺς καὶ ταύτης τέλος ὑφιστάμενος, καὶ τὸν μὲν ἀληθῶς μονογενῆ τοῦ θεοῦ υἱὸν ἀρνούμενος λόγον δὲ ψιλὸν ἀνούσιον καὶ ἀνυπόστατον ὑποτιθέμενος, ὃν οὐδ' ἕτερον ἢ ἓν καὶ ταὐτὸν τῷ θεῷ εἶναι φῄς, ὃ δὴ καὶ πᾶς εἴποι ἂν ἀρνούμενος τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, 2.4.22 εἰκότως; οὐ γὰρ υἱὸς ὁ μὴ ὑφεστὼς λόγος, ὡς οὐδ' ὁ ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ λόγος υἱὸς ἄν ποτε ῥηθείῃ ἀνθρώπου, ἐνεργείᾳ μόνῃ ἐν τῷ λαλοῦντι συνιστάμενος. τοῦτον δ' ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς πρὸ ἐτῶν οὐδ' ὅλων τετρακοσίων διὰ τῆς ἀναλήψεως τῆς σαρκὸς υἱὸν θεοῦ γεγενῆσθαι ἄνω κάτω φῄς, καὶ Ἰησοῦν καὶ Χριστὸν ὠνομάσθαι, εἰκόνα τε «τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου» χρηματίσαι καὶ «πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως», καὶ δὴ καὶ βασιλέα τότε γενέσθαι, ἀρξάμενον τούτων ἁπάντων ἐκ τοῦ δηλωθέντος χρόνου, ἔπειτα καιρῷ τῆς συντελείας τούτων ἁπάντων ἀθρόως 2.4.23 παυθήσεσθαι. ποῦ δὴ οὖν ταῦτα μεμάθηκας; τίς δέ σοι τούτων κατέστη διδάσκαλος, τίς ἐπισκόπων, ποῖαι σύνοδοι, ποῖον ἐκκλησιαστικῶν ἀνδρῶν γράμμα; ποῦ δέ σοι τὸ σῶμα τὸ ἀθάνατον χωρήσειεν ἂν τοῦ σωτῆρος; ἀθάνατον γὰρ ὁμολογῶν καὶ θεῖον ὀνομάζων αὐτὸ πάντως που καὶ ἄφθαρτον καὶ ἀδιάλυτον ὑποθήσῃ, πεφυκὸς δὲ τοιοῦτον μένει συνεστὸς δηλαδὴ καὶ ἀδιάλυτον. ἀλλὰ τὸν λόγον 2.4.24 ἀφῄρεις αὐτοῦ καὶ τῷ θεῷ συνῆπτες. οὐκοῦν ἄνευ λόγου μόνον τὸ σῶμα στήσεται ἐν ἀθανάτῳ καὶ ἀφθάρτῳ ἀλογίᾳ καὶ ἀκινησίᾳ; πῶς δὲ αὐτὸς ὁ λόγος εἰς τὸν θεὸν χωρήσει καὶ συναφθήσεται αὖθις αὐτῷ μετὰ τὸν τῆς σαρκὸς χωρισμόν; ἆρα μὴ ὢν ἐν τῷ θεῷ, ὅτε τῇ σαρκὶ συνῆν; ἀλλ' ὢν ἐν αὐτῷ διὰ παντός, συναΐδιός τε ὢν καὶ ἓν καὶ ταὐτὸν τῷ θεῷ. πῶς οὖν ὑπῆρχεν ἐν τῷ σώματι; εἰ μὲν ψυχῆς δίκην οἰκῶν ἐν αὐτῷ, ἔσται ἄρα ἐν ὑποστάσει, τοῦ πατρὸς κεχωρισ2.4.25 μένος, ζῶν τε καὶ ὑφεστὼς ἐν ᾗ ἀνείληφεν σαρκί. τί οὖν ἐκώλυεν καὶ πρὸ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου συστάσεως υἱὸν θεοῦ ζῶντα αὐτὸν ὁμολογεῖν; ἀλλ' εἴποι ἂν ἴσως ἐνεργείᾳ μόνῃ οὐχὶ δὲ οὐσίας ὑποστάσει καὶ ἐν τῷ σώματι γεγονέναι· δραστικῇ γὰρ ἐνεργείᾳ μόνῃ φησὶ τῇ σαρκὶ συνὼν τῷ κινεῖν αὐτὴν καὶ πράττειν ὅσαπερ ἐν Εὐαγγελίοις φέρεται οὐσίᾳ τῷ θεῷ συνῆπτο, οἷα λόγος ὑπάρχων αὐτοῦ ἀχώριστος καὶ 2.4.26 ἀδιάστατος. εἰ δὴ ταῦτα λέγοι, ἐρωτήσασιν ἡμῖν ἀποκρινάσθω, ἆρ' ἐπὶ μόνην τὴν σάρκα ταύτην ἡ τοῦ λόγου ἐνέργεια ἔφθακεν, οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ ἐφ' ἑτέρους ἀνθρώπους τοὺς ἁγίους τοῦ θεοῦ; καὶ εἰς τὰ λοιπὰ δὲ πάντα τοῦ λόγου δημιουργήματα οὐχὶ ὁ αὐτὸς ἐνεργεῖ λόγος; καὶ μὴν μεμαθήκαμεν ὡς «τῷ λόγῳ κυρίου οἱ οὐρανοὶ ἐστερεώθησαν» καὶ «πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν». 2.4.27 οὐκοῦν ἐνεργεῖ καὶ ἐπὶ πάντων. ἔγνωμεν ἀπὸ τῶν θείων γραφῶν καὶ ὡς «λόγος κυρίου ἐγενήθη πρὸς Ὡσηὲ τὸν τοῦ Βεηρί», καὶ «λόγος κυρίου ἐγενήθη πρὸς Ἡσαΐαν υἱὸν Ἀμώς», καὶ «ὃς ἐγενήθη λόγος κυρίου πρὸς Ἱερεμίαν». καὶ ἐφ' ἑκάστου δὲ προφήτου ὁ αὐτὸς ἐνήργει τοῦ θεοῦ λόγος. ἄρ' οὖν τῆς ἴσης ἀξίας τῷ μονογενεῖ υἱῷ τοῦ θεοῦ κἀκείνοις ἅπασιν μετῆν, καὶ πλέον οὐδὲν ὑπῆρχεν τῷ σωτῆρι, εἰ δὴ ἐνεργείᾳ μόνῃ ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου τοῦ τῷ θεῷ συνημμένου 2.4.28 ἐκινεῖτο. ἀλλ' οὐδὲ τὰ ἴσα τοῖς προφήταις φέρειν δίδωσιν Μάρκελλος τῷ