33

a statue; thus God the Lord of all, when making the ensouled statue from earth, gives command not to some other but to his own Word, saying, "Let us make man." By these words he clearly attributed to God both an immanent reason with which one reasons and a spoken word with which one speaks, supposing the Word in God to be of the same sort as ours. 2.16.1 All these things, therefore, being denials of the Son of God, need no further elaboration. But I think it is fitting to ask this much: if indeed there was one God and nothing else, neither Father nor Son, why did the Scripture falsely use such names? And why does Marcellus himself play the hypocrite, calling him who is not Son but Word, Son? And since he has used the example of the word in humans, it must be said that not every man has a son, though he is rational and possesses the innate word in himself; 2.16.2 therefore a son is something different from the word. If then he says God has a Word in himself and nothing else, with which he both thought and spoke to himself, saying "Let us make man," why does he also call him Son in vain? Why does he play the hypocrite to the church? And why, not believing in the Son of God, does he pretend to believe, putting on a show by calling the Word in God, Son, when the example clearly teaches the wide separation of the innate word in the soul from a son begotten of someone and subsisting in himself and living and active? 2.16.3 But it is not I, he will likely say, but the divine evangelist who called him Word; it would be consistent, then, for us also to agree with this. Yes, I say so myself. 2.17.1 Except I think it is not fitting to hear the saying in any other way than by becoming disciples again of the evangelist himself, who teaches what sort of Word he defined. And he clearly showed what sort of being this was, by adding next and saying "and the Word was God"; for he could have said, "and the Word was the God," with the addition of the article, if indeed he considered the Father and the Son to be one and the same, and the Word himself to be the God over all, but he did not publish the Scripture this way. 2.17.2 For he ought to have said either "the Word was of God," or "the Word was the God," with the addition of the article, if he were making the Scripture agree with the thought of Marcellus. But as it is, he shows that the Word himself is also God, in like manner to the God with whom he was; for having said before, "and the Word was with the God," he adds, saying, "and the Word was God," all but teaching us more clearly, first, to consider as God the one who is beyond all things, the Father of the Word himself, with whom the Word was; then after him not to be ignorant that his Word, the only-begotten Son, was not himself the God over all, but that he himself was also God. 2.17.3 For the conjunction "and" joins the divinity of the Son to the Father. Therefore he says, "and the Word was God," so that we may see the God over all with whom the Word was. And hear of the Word himself as God, as the image of God, and an image not as in lifeless matter, but as in a living Son and most precisely conformed to the archetypal divinity of the Father. 2.17.4 But since it seemed good to Marcellus to compare the Word of God to the human word, how much better shall we say it is, using the human word as an image, to use this example instead and to say that the father of our word is the mind, being different from the word. For the mind, what it is and of what sort of substance it exists, no man has ever known, but like a king established within in his secret chambers, he plans what must be done; 2.17.5 but the word from it, as if born from the inmost sanctuaries of a father, becomes known to all those outside. Then some partake of the benefit of the word, but the hidden and invisible mind, indeed the father of the word, 2.17.6 no one has ever seen. In the same way then, or rather beyond every image and example, the perfect Word of the all-sovereign God, not composed of syllables and verbs and nouns according to the spoken word of men, but as the only-begotten Son of God, living and subsisting, proceeds indeed from the

33

ἀνδριάντα· οὕτως ὁ τῶν ὅλων δεσπότης θεὸς τὸν ἔμψυχον ἐκ γῆς ἀνδριάντα ποιῶν οὐκ ἄλλῳ τινὶ ἀλλὰ τῷ ἑαυτοῦ παρακε λεύεται λόγῳ «ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον» λέγων. διὰ τούτων ἐναργῶς καὶ ἐνδιάθετον λόγον ᾧ διαλογίζεταί τις καὶ προφορικὸν ᾧ διαλέγεται προσῆψεν τῷ θεῷ, τοιοῦτόν τινα οἷον τὸν καθ' ἡμᾶς καὶ τὸν ἐν τῷ θεῷ εἶναι λόγον ὑποθέμενος. 2.16.1 ταῦτα μὲν οὖν πάντα ὡς ἀρνητικὰ τυγχάνει τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ, οὐδὲν προσεπεξεργάζεσθαι δεῖ. τοσοῦτον δὲ οἶμαι προσήκειν ἐπερωτῆσαι, εἰ δὴ εἷς θεὸς ἦν καὶ οὐδὲν ἕτερον, οὐ πατὴρ οὐχ υἱός, τί κατεψεύδετο τῶν τοιούτων ὀνομάτων ἡ γραφή; τί δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς Μάρκελλος ὑποκρίνεται, τὸν μὴ υἱὸν ἀλλὰ λόγον υἱὸν ἀποκαλῶν; καὶ ἐπειδὴ κέχρηται παραδείγματι τῷ ἐν ἀνθρώποις λόγῳ, λεκτέον ὡς οὐ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος υἱὸν ἔχει, λογικὸς ὢν καὶ τὸν συμφυᾶ λόγον 2.16.2 ἐν αὑτῷ κεκτημένος· οὐκοῦν ἕτερόν τί ἐστιν υἱὸς παρὰ τὸν λόγον. τὸν οὖν θεὸν εἰ λόγον ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ φάσκοι καὶ οὐδὲν ἕτερον, ᾧ καὶ διενοεῖτο, ᾧ καὶ πρὸς ἑαυτὸν διελέγετο «ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον» λέγων, τί καὶ μάτην υἱὸν ὀνομάζει; τί δὲ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ὑποκρίνεται; τί δὲ μὴ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ προσποιεῖται πιστεύειν, σχηματιζόμενος διὰ τοῦ τὸν λόγον τὸν ἐν τῷ θεῷ υἱὸν ἀποκαλεῖν, σαφῶς τοῦ παραδείγματος μακρῷ διεστάναι διδάσκοντος τὸν ἔμφυτον ἐν ψυχῇ λόγον παρὰ τὸν ἔκ τινος γεννηθέντα καὶ καθ' ἑαυτὸν 2.16.3 ὑφεστῶτα καὶ ζῶντα καὶ ἐνεργοῦντα υἱόν; ἀλλ' οὐκ ἐγώ, φήσει ὡς εἰκός, ἀλλ' ὁ θεῖος εὐαγγελιστὴς λόγον αὐτὸν προσεῖπεν· ἀκόλουθον τοίνυν εἴη ἂν καὶ ἡμᾶς τούτῳ συνομολογεῖν. ναί φημι καὶ αὐτός. 2.17.1 πλὴν οὐδ' ἑτέρως προσήκειν οἶμαι ἐξακούειν τῆς φωνῆς ἢ αὐτῷ πάλιν μαθητευομένους τῷ εὐαγγελιστῇ διδάσκοντι ὁποῖον διωρίζετο λόγον. σαφῶς δὲ τοῦτον παρίστη οἷός τις ἦν, ἐπισυνάπτων ἑξῆς καὶ λέγων «καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος»· δυνάμενος γοῦν εἰπεῖν· καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, μετὰ τῆς τοῦ ἄρθρου προσθήκης, εἴγε ἓν καὶ ταὐτὸν ἡγεῖτο τὸν πατέρα εἶναι καὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτόν τε εἶναι τὸν 2.17.2 λόγον τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων θεόν, οὐχ οὕτως ἐξέδωκε τὴν γραφήν. ἢ γὰρ καὶ θεοῦ ἦν ὁ λόγος ἐχρῆν εἰπεῖν ἢ ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, μετὰ προσθήκης τοῦ ἄρθρου, εἰ τῇ Μαρκέλλου διανοίᾳ σύμφωνον τὴν γραφὴν ἐποιεῖτο. νυνὶ δὲ καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν λόγον θεὸν εἶναι παρίστη, ὁμοίως τῷ πρὸς ὃν ἦν θεῷ· προειπὼν γὰρ «καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν», ἐπάγει λέγων «καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος», μονονουχὶ σαφέστερον ἡμᾶς διδάσκων πρῶτον μὲν ἡγεῖσθαι θεὸν τὸν ἐπέκεινα τῶν ὅλων αὐτὸν τὸν τοῦ λόγου πατέρα, πρὸς ὃν ἦν ὁ λόγος, ἔπειτα μετ' αὐτὸν μὴ ἀγνοεῖν ὡς καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, οὐχὶ αὐτὸς 2.17.3 ἦν ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεός, ἀλλ' ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸς θεὸς ἦν. ὁ γὰρ «καὶ» σύνδεσμος τῷ πατρὶ συνάπτει τὴν θεότητα τοῦ υἱοῦ. διό φησιν «καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος», ἵν' ἴδωμεν θεὸν τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων πρὸς ὃν ἦν ὁ λόγος. καὶ θεὸν αὐτὸν τὸν λόγον ἄκουε, ὡς εἰκόνα τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ εἰκόνα οὐχ ὡς ἐν ἀψύχῳ ὕλῃ, ἀλλ' ὡς ἐν υἱῷ ζῶντι καὶ ἀκριβέστατα πρὸς τὴν ἀρχέτυπον θεότητα τοῦ πατρὸς ἀφωμοιω2.17.4 μένῳ. ἐπεὶ δὲ τῷ ἀνθρωπίνῳ λόγῳ τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ παραβάλλειν ἐδόκει Μαρκέλλῳ, καὶ πόσῳ βελτίω εἶναι φήσομεν, εἰκόνι χρώμενον τῷ ἀνθρωπίνῳ λόγῳ, τούτῳ μᾶλλον χρήσασθαι τῷ παραδείγματι καὶ φάναι τοῦ παρ' ἡμῖν λόγου πατέρα εἶναι τὸν νοῦν, ἕτερον ὄντα παρὰ τὸν λόγον. τὸν μὲν γὰρ νοῦν, ὅστις ποτὲ καὶ ὁποῖος ὢν τὴν οὐσίαν ὑπάρχει, οὐδεὶς πώποτε ἀνθρώπων ἔγνω, βασιλεὺς δ' οἷα ἐν ἀπορρήτοις εἴσω τοῖς αὐτοῦ ταμείοις ἱδρυμένος τὰ πρακτέα βουλεύεται· ὁ δ' ἐξ αὐτοῦ λόγος οἷα πατρὸς ἐξ ἀδύτων μυχῶν γεγεννημένος 2.17.5 τοῖς ἐκτὸς πᾶσιν καθίσταται γνώριμος. εἶθ' οἱ μὲν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ λόγου μεταλαμβάνουσιν ὠφελείας, τὸν δ' ἀφανῆ καὶ ἀόρατον νοῦν, τὸν δὴ 2.17.6 τοῦ λόγου πατέρα, οὐδεὶς πώποτε εἶδεν. κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ δή, μᾶλλον δ' ἐπέκεινα πάσης εἰκόνος τε καὶ παραδείγματος, ὁ τοῦ παμβασιλέως θεοῦ τέλειος λόγος, οὐ κατὰ τὸν προφορικὸν ἀνθρώπων λόγον ἐκ συλλαβῶν καὶ ῥημάτων καὶ ὀνομάτων συγκείμενος, οἷα δὲ μονογενὴς τοῦ θεοῦ υἱὸς ζῶν καὶ ὑφεστὼς πρόεισιν μὲν τῆς