“If he called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, [do you say of him] whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, You are blaspheming, because I said, I am the Son of God?” You hear how many times the Savior himself named himself not “Word,” but “Son,” and called himself “only-begotten.”
And he taught how he himself had been sent, and had been sanctified before being sent by the Father; and he shames those who hesitate to confess him Son of God, teaching from the divine Scripture that not only were men called sons of God, but even “gods” — though mortal by nature. Wherefore one need not think it blasphemous to confess as both Son of God and God the one whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world.
What then ought to befall the one who, after so many such utterances, has dared to say that he is “Word” and nothing else — having even said, in his very own words: “and for this reason he does not name himself Son of God, but everywhere calls himself Son of Man, in order that by such a confession he might, by adoption, prepare man to become son of God through fellowship with him”? Having said this, Marcellus — I know not with what eyes he was able to look back upon, or with what lips to speak against, so abundant a body of testimony.
And that he himself was Light the Savior likewise declared, in agreement with what was said above concerning the Light, saying: “I am the light of the world,” and again, “I am the light and the truth and the life,” and again, that “the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light.”
And if anyone should ask whence he came, he who spoke these words will answer: “He who comes from above is above all,” and “he who comes from heaven bears witness of what he has seen and heard.” But who was it that came from heaven? Surely not the flesh which the Savior assumed? By no means. Rather, evidently, he himself — the Light and the Word and God and the only-begotten and the Son, being himself all these things. “What this one has seen and heard,” it says, “he bears witness of.” Therefore he both saw and heard before he came upon the earth.
And whom did he see, if not the Father? And from whom did he hear, if not from the Father? Thus he taught himself to be not a merely signifying word, but truly a living and subsisting Son, so that it is said: “The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand. He who believes in the Son has eternal life.” Let us believe, then, that the Father, loving the Son, has given all things into his hand.
One must attend carefully to the word “all things,” which comprehends the existence of all created things, by which one might perceive the greatness of the power of the Son of God, considering with how great and what manner of hand he has received from the Father the existence of all things that are.
For if the whole heaven and world are great, and if those things beyond what is seen — subsisting among incorporeal, incorruptible, intellectual, and divine powers — are by far greater and more excellent than these, and all the things that, escaping our mind, elude our knowledge — of all these, the one hand of the only-begotten Son of God, encompassing them, displays the excellence of his boundless power.
This the Son himself also declared again through another saying, where he says: “All things have been delivered to me by my Father.” Then, as though we were perplexed as to who and how great was the one who had received so vast a trust, he says: “Do not seek, nor ask” — for it is not in the nature of things to be known by men, nor indeed even by the higher and more divine powers — “the exact comprehension of the Son of God.”
Wherefore, having first declared, “All things have been delivered to me by my Father,” he added, “and no one knows the Son except the Father.” Let, then, all ineffable discourse concerning the Son of God be silenced, and let the knowledge of his begetting from the Father be entrusted to the Father alone; let no one, seeking further, proceed into matters concerning his ineffable nature and essence; rather, let only his own teaching about himself be confirmed to us by the grace of faith, plainly instructing that all things have been delivered to him by the Father.
Therefore God was giving and delivering [these things] for improvement and benefit, making the transmission to one who is Savior and physician and pilot of all things; while the Son was receiving, and, like a faithful guardian of a deposit, sustained the giving — not as a wordless and non-subsistent word, but as truly being the only-begotten and beloved Son of the Father.
(7) In addition to these, he also named himself “bread of life,” saying: “I am the bread of life; I am the living bread that came down from heaven.” And he explained most clearly, articulating precisely how he existed as living, where he says: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me shall also live because of me.”
This he also taught elsewhere, saying: “For just as the Father has life in himself, so also he has given the Son to have life in himself.” Therefore he was also the bread of life, existing in heaven, watering and nourishing the angelic powers by the power of his deity; and he was all these things before he came upon earth, and was Son, having life in himself, just as the Father has life in himself.
For the distinctive and peculiar quality of the Father’s unbegun and divine life — on account of which he alone is said, according to the divine apostle, to have immortality — this the Son alone would possess, inasmuch as he is the image of the Father and thereby attains it; yet he possesses this life not as unoriginate, nor unbegotten, nor as his own by nature in the same manner as the Father, but as having received it from the Father.
For thus it is said: “and he has given to the Son also to have life in himself, just as the Father has life in himself.” Therefore the one gave, the other received. And he alone has received this privilege, such that he does not procure life for himself from some external source, as other living things do, but has it welling up within himself, in accordance with that which is in the Father. Wherefore all things that partake of life live by the supply of the Son; but he alone has life welling up in himself, the Father having granted him this for the benefit of those who are in future to be made alive through him.
This indeed he himself also teaches, saying: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me, he also shall live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven.” You see how, even existing in heaven, he was the bread of life. Wherefore it is said somewhere: “Man ate the bread of angels.” And so, before being sent by the Father, he was in heaven, and lived because of the Father.
— not as a merely signifying word, nor as being one and the same as God, but as one who subsists and has a life of his own, which the Father has given him.
And proceeding further, setting forth the surpassing quality of the Father’s glory, he said: “As the Father taught me, I speak these things; and he who sent me is with me — he has not left me alone, because I always do the things pleasing to him.” Note carefully how it is said “always.”
“For it is not only now,” he says, “when I converse with men on earth through the flesh, that I do the things pleasing to the Father, but always.” And he is attested to speak these things which he learned from the Father as from a teacher. Therefore he also ascribes to the Father the role of teacher — being evidently other than him, since everyone who is instructed by someone is other than the one who teaches.
But if the Word was in God — on account of which he might also be called “rational,” being a certain signifier of the Father’s thoughts — how could he become his own teacher? And how, being inseparable from God, could he say that he had been sent? And how, being one and the same as God, could he testify that he does the things pleasing to him? But if Marcellus should say, in reply to this, that it was the Word being in the flesh that spoke these words — what then shall we say to this, in reply to his refusal to confess him to be Son, and instead [confessing him] Word only?
And how was he in the flesh, when he was saying these things? Was he then living and subsisting, existing outside the Father? And who then was the Father at that time, not possessing his own word within himself, but subsisting without a word? And the Word dwelling in the flesh — when he made his sojourn upon earth, if he was outside the Father, living and subsisting and moving the flesh after the manner of a soul — being evidently other than the Father — then again two hypostases existed, both he himself and the Father.
And thus all of Marcellus’s labor is exposed as vain — he who defines as an essential, living, and subsisting word the one who came to be in the flesh. But if the Word dwelling in the body was outside of God, yet was united and joined to God so as to be one and the same with him, he will of necessity be forced to grant either that it was the Father himself who was in the flesh, or that it was the Son subsisting by himself and operating in the body, or a human soul, or, if none of these, that the flesh moved of its own accord, being soulless and irrational.
If, then, he should say it was the Father, then for him the Father will be the one who was begotten and suffered and endured every human passion — which utterance, when Sabellius spoke it, the Church of God indicted as a written charge of impiety. But if it is not lawful to say that the Father was made man, then it is necessary for those taught this by him to confess the Son.
But if Marcellus should deny that this one [the Son] subsists, it is time for him to suppose him a mere man, composed of body and soul, differing in nothing from the common nature of men. But this doctrine too has been expelled from the Church — which of old the Ebionites held, and, recently, the Samosatene and those called after him the Paulianists, who for holding it underwent the penalty of ill repute.
What then remains after this, but to introduce the flesh alone, without any indweller, moving of its own accord like the automata made by wonder-workers? And how could the flesh — the body by itself, apart from any agent operating within it — have said, “As he taught me, these things I speak”? And how could the flesh have said, “I always do the things pleasing to him”? And how could the flesh have said that it had been sent by the Father? And is it pious to call God the Father of the flesh, rather than of the one dwelling and operating within it? Who, then, was this? Was it the word in God, being himself God according to Sabellius, or, as it is pious and true to say, the living and subsisting only-begotten Son of God?
But if he should say neither of these, he will of necessity posit a human soul, and Christ will for him be a mere man — no longer a Sabellian, but this new writer will for us be a Paulianist instead. But if he should say that it was the word in God — being nothing other than word, and a merely signifying or operative word — that dwelt in the flesh —
— then how could he have said that he lives a life distinct from the Father? And how was he himself sent, being always joined and united to God? And how does he say the Father is his teacher? And how did he say that he himself always does the things pleasing to the Father? For these are, expressly, the words of a Son who subsists and lives; and throughout the whole Gospel, he who prays to the Father, who glorifies the Father, who asks to be glorified by the Father — what else does he show himself to be but one who subsists — and especially when he says: “The testimony of two men is true: I am one who bears witness of myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness of me.”
Through so many [testimonies], the Savior himself, having shown himself to be living, nowhere named himself “Word,” but “Son” and “Light” and “only-begotten” and “bread of life” — everything rather than “Word.”
And he teaches that he has a word, saying: “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word” — but he does not say that he himself is a word. How then, after all these things, does he not blush, this one who has declared that he is only word and nothing else? Hear, then, how he wrote, saying: “so that it is clear from every side that no other name befits the eternity of the Word than that which the most holy disciple of God and apostle John spoke at the beginning of his Gospel.”
And again: “Therefore, before he came down and was born through the virgin, he was only Word. For what else was that which came down in the last days — as he himself also wrote — and was born of the virgin, before it assumed human flesh? It was nothing other than Word.”
So much, then, has it been possible for Marcellus to say and declare, on account of his refusal to confess the Son of God. To whom the evangelist might say, crying out aloud: “What are you saying, man? I did not call him Word alone, but also God, and Light that enlightens every man coming into the world, and only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.”
Let no one, then, slander the theologian [John], but let him listen carefully to him — what sort of “word” he supposed, immediately joining “and the Word was God,” and adding, “all things were made through him.” But as for the Savior of all himself, he is not even once named “Word,” but “Son of God” and “only-begotten” and “Light” and “Life” and “Truth” — everything rather than “Word.”
(8) But if he should say that these things are said only from the New Testament, it will be said to him that “In the beginning was the Word” too comes from nowhere else than from it. It is, then, one and the same Gospel, and the same evangelist, who called him Word and who also wrote all the rest concerning him.
(9) And Paul too, the divine apostle, saying to us, “one God the Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things,” clearly names the Son of God who existed before the incarnate presence, through whom all things came to be — not calling 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 sufficed for the apostle to say to us, “one God the Father, from whom are all things.”
For the sense would have been complete, and the statement self-sufficient, presenting God as maker of all things. But even a Jew might say this. The herald of the Church, however, teaches us not to be ignorant of the second [truth] in addition to the first.
And what was this? “And one Lord Jesus Christ.” Wherefore he adds the second point next, saying, “to us” — for even if not to all, yet “to us,” he says — “one Lord Jesus Christ.” And why, after the one God, is this one also our one Lord? He shows this by adding, “through whom are all things.” For since all things came to be through him, fittingly, to us who know this, he is believed to be Lord of all, after the God who is over all.
That he was speaking these things not concerning the flesh, but concerning the God-Word, is clear from his adding, "through whom are all things." For he says, "For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things." This same thing is also said concerning the light and concerning the Word who pre-existed. Jesus Christ himself, then, was the light and the Word through whom all things came to be — not the flesh. For he would not have spoken so incoherently of the flesh as to say, "through whom are all things."
10. The same Paul knows how to call the Son of God, who existed before the flesh, "Christ," likewise calling him a rock, in the passage where 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 seals this same point afterward, saying: "Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them tempted him and were destroyed by serpents."
And he confirms this same point still further, saying: "By faith Moses, having grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt." And he establishes this yet more clearly still in the passage where he declares: "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider being equal with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, and being found in appearance as a man."
You see that before emptying himself and taking the form of a servant, he existed, and pre-existed, and subsisted in the form of God. Who then was this? None other than Jesus Christ. He himself, then, was God the Word, Jesus Christ, even before taking on the flesh.
For we must listen closely to the divine apostle saying, "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus," and then going on to make clear who this Jesus Christ was, by adding and saying, "who, being in the form of God, did not consider being equal with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant."
Is it, then, possible here too to take the saying as referring to the flesh? Is it fitting to say of the flesh the words "who" and "being"? Did the flesh, then, empty itself, taking the form of a servant? But this is simply absurd. Come, then, let us examine how it is said, "who, being in the form of God, did not consider being equal with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself." If indeed the Word had no subsistence, in no way existing outside of God but being within him, at one time in quiet and silence, at another in activity—
then how was this one "in the form of God," if he himself, in power, was God? And how did he not consider being equal with God a thing to be grasped, if he himself was God? And how did he humble himself, becoming obedient to the Father? For the very fact of one obeying another would be indicative of two persons.
And since Marcellus makes use of the analogy of the word found among men, we must ask whether it is possible to fit to the human word the statement: "who, being in the form of a man, did not consider being equal to a man a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, becoming obedient to the man"? And how could the word that is innate in a man do these things, since it exists as one and the same thing with the man? The Word, therefore, will not be a bare and unsubsisting word, but truly the only-begotten Son of God, who, being in the form of God, did not consider being equal with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant — whom the divine apostle also named Jesus Christ, knowing precisely that he pre-existed the flesh.
11. In addition to these things, the same [apostle] named him the mediator of God, saying that Moses' legislation was given by his hand, in the passage where he says: "the law, having been ordained through angels, in the hand of a mediator; now a mediator is not of one, but God is one." You hear how, distinctly naming God on the one hand and naming angels on the other, he introduces the mediator between them, saying, "now a mediator is not of one." He was, then, even before the incarnation, in the time of Moses, mediating the giving of the law.
12. The same apostle also calls him high priest, saying: "Having, then, a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God..."
13. Moreover, he also knows him as the "brightness of glory" and "the exact representation of God," and "Son" and "heir," saying: "In these last days he has spoken to us in a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the ages; who, being the brightness of his glory and the exact representation of his hypostasis..." And here too (just as it was said above concerning the Word, "all things came to be through him," and concerning the light, "he was in the world, and the world came to be through him," and concerning Jesus Christ, "for us there is one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things")—
See how the same phrase, "through whom also he made the ages," is likewise said concerning this same one. 14. It is worth fixing our mind on this: how he has been named "brightness." For I think this word is indicative of the begetting of the Son from the Father. For since the Son has often been named, and God has been styled Father, in order that we might not fall down to the level of the generation of animals and suppose something of that sort, the apostle has employed, in speaking of God, a more befitting-of-God image.
Speaking of the Father as one who dwells in unapproachable light, and defining the Son as the brightness of the paternal light, so that the brightness is the offspring of the first light — not according to the kind of generation that arises among mortal animals, but according to the example stated. Fittingly, then, he also calls him the image of the invisible God, both because he exists in the form of God and because he is the brightness and the exact representation of the hypostasis.
For this reason, writing concerning him, he said: "who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him were created all things in the heavens and on the earth, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers — all things have been created through him and for him; and he is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
For these things are said concerning the deity of the Son of God, even if it does not seem so to Marcellus. For the divine apostle would not have said so much concerning the flesh. This is foolish and unintelligible, besides making the interpretation of the phrase incoherent; for how would it have suited to say of the flesh, "who [masculine] is the image," when he ought — if that were truly meant — to have said, "which [feminine, agreeing with 'flesh'] is the image"?
15. And again, elsewhere, the same [apostle] named him the image of God, saying: "But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, among whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, so that the illumination of the gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine upon them."
Here too it is fitting to fix the mind on how the divine apostle brought forth a defining statement concerning Christ by calling him the image of God, so that no one might suppose there to be two gods, but one who is over all. For if God is one, and there is no other besides him, it would be this same one who is also known through the Son, as through an image.
Therefore the Son too is God, on account of the Father's form impressed in him as in an image. This is precisely what the divine apostle sets forth, at one time saying, "who, being in the form of God," at another defining him as the image of God. Therefore, along with the other titles, the Son also both was and was named "the image of God" before his enfleshed coming. But these things have been gathered from the New Testament, a few out of countless many, for the sake of keeping our discourse to a fitting measure.
16. And the prophets of God who lived long ago also honored this same one with various theological titles. For one called him the Spirit of God, saying: "A rod shall come forth from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise from the root, and the Spirit of God shall rest upon him — the spirit of wisdom and understanding," and so on. For through these words he clearly signified both the one born of David's seed according to the flesh, and the God-Word who dwelt in him. From this the divine apostle at one time said, "now the Lord is the Spirit," and at another, "Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God." And another likewise calls him Spirit, saying: "the Spirit before our face is Christ the Lord." And in the gospel too it is clearly said concerning him: "Behold my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased; I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim judgment to the nations."
17. Another of the prophets called him life and light, in addressing God and saying: "For with you is the fountain of life; in your light we shall see light." For who was the fountain of life and the light with God, if not he himself who said in the gospels, "I am the light of the world," and "I am the way, and the truth, and the life"? Therefore the prophet again, entreating in prayer to God, says: "Send out your light and your truth; let them guide me."
18. Zerubbabel too, by declaring him Truth, was deemed worthy of the victor's prize, in the passage recorded concerning him before the king of the Persians, where he said: "And truth abides and is strong forever, and lives and prevails forever and ever. And with her there is no accepting of persons or partiality, but she does what is just, and abstains from all that is unjust and wicked." To which he adds: "And hers is the strength and the kingship and the authority and the majesty of all ages." For by saying that Truth lives and conquers and prevails, he most emphatically set forth her hypostasis. In keeping with this, the Savior himself also, naming himself Truth, set his seal upon the testimony of Zerubbabel.
20. And already another has addressed him as "mountain," in saying, "the mountain in which God has been pleased to dwell." Wherefore also, in Daniel, a stone cut from a mountain without hands is seen, and again the same is beheld restored to a high mountain — the mountain signifying the pre-existence of his deity, and the stone signifying his humanity.
21. And they also called him Righteousness, as the one who says: "Who has raised up righteousness from the east?" 22. And "the Sun of Righteousness," as the one who says: "But to you who fear my name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise, with healing in its wings." And another says: "The sun shall go down upon the prophets who lead my people astray." For these things could not fittingly apply to the sensible sun, nor indeed to the Word incarnate.
23. And Solomon also names him Wisdom, saying: "Wisdom has built herself a house, and has set up seven pillars," and so on. And that Wisdom was living and subsisting before the world, he himself taught, uttering these words as though from her own person: "I, Wisdom, have made counsel my dwelling, and I have called upon knowledge and understanding," and then, going on to add: "Through me kings reign, and rulers decree justice; through me princes are exalted, and tyrants rule through me."
24. Moreover, Solomon also called him the Tree of Life and Lord, saying: "She is a tree of life to all who take hold of her, and to those who lean upon her, as upon the Lord, she is secure."
25. And Solomon's father David also, in one and the same [psalm], named him both Lord and Priest — at one time saying, "The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand," at another declaring, "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: you are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek."
26. And the same [David] also knows how to confess him as God, saying: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions." For here it is God who is anointed by God — who else could this be but he who, on account of the paternal anointing, is proclaimed Christ?
27. This same one was also God's beloved, which indeed is set forth by the superscription [of the psalm], which contains "A Song concerning the Beloved."
28. Isaiah called him "arm," saying: "The Lord shall reveal his holy arm in the sight of all the nations." 29. And David knew him as both Righteousness and Salvation together, wherefore he said: "The Lord has made known his salvation; in the sight of the nations he has revealed his righteousness."
And again: "Proclaim the good news of his salvation day by day." And once more: "Who will give out of Zion the salvation of Israel?" And: "Show us, O Lord, your mercy, and grant us your salvation." 30. And what need is there for me to go through each instance one by one, when it is open to the diligent student to gather such things together from the whole of the God-inspired Scripture, by which it is evident that the men of God, illumined by the divine Spirit, uttered the knowledge of the only-begotten Son of God — a knowledge that was at that time unspeakable and hidden from the multitudes of the Jewish people. Wherefore they proclaimed him variously, under veiled titles. For the grace of the proclamation of the theology concerning him was being kept in reserve for his own coming — that theology which his church throughout the whole inhabited world, having received it as a mystery long hidden and kept in silence, now solemnly proclaims.