He would have examined these things and their kindred passages with precision, if he had any concern for grasping them. But as it is, having so carelessly and loosely declared that the hearts of the saints are "the deeps," he did not even understand this — that he who said "before he made the deeps" taught that he himself existed before the holy and God-beloved men who have come to be from the beginning of the age; so that in every way it is impossible to apply the words before us to the flesh of the Savior.
But he, passing on to another phrase of the same Scripture, interprets this one too as follows, saying: "What, then, is this heading also, 'before the springs of the waters came forth'? He says it means the sacred apostles. And the Scripture of Exodus sets forth this mystery to us, foretelling long ago the types of the apostles."
"For since the apostles are twelve in number, [Scripture] mentions twelve springs." And in saying this he does not understand that Israel also had twelve tribes, and their patriarchs were twelve, and there is one book of the twelve prophets — but also there are twelve hours of the day, and twelve months of the whole year.
Why then would the number twelve pertain more to the apostles than to all those others, if indeed it was merely a numerical quantity that provided him the reason for such an interpretation of the passage? He ought rather to have perceived that the prophets of God too, inasmuch as they partook of the same Holy Spirit, were not strangers to the springs. Wherefore it is said concerning them, "In the congregations, bless God the Lord, from the springs of Israel."
So that it is necessary to confess that the Son of God, who says "before the springs of the waters came forth," existed even before those [prophetic] springs. But hear how he interprets it, saying: "Fittingly, then, concerning his generation according to the flesh, the Lord, speaking through the prophet Solomon, said, 'before the springs of the waters came forth.'"
And he adds: "For thus the Savior said to the sacred springs, 'Go, make disciples of all nations.'" Then, as if summing up the argument, he appends the conclusion to his own account, saying: "It is evident from every quarter that the sacred apostles were figuratively called 'springs' by the prophet." And so he wishes the apostles to be the springs — but the prophets do not please him.
Why so? For no other reason than that he could not [thereby] present the flesh of the Savior as prior to those [prophets]. And yet, even before the natural, perceptible springs — which Moses too mentioned in the account of the world's creation, saying, "a spring went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the earth," and again, "a river goes out from Eden to water paradise" — the Son of God, who teaches these things concerning himself, pre-existed. And he who spoke to Job also mentions the springs of the sea, saying, "Have you come to the spring of the sea, and have you walked in the tracks of the deep?"
And since Scripture also teaches that there are certain waters above the heavens — Scripture which says, "Praise him, you heavens of heavens, and you waters that are above the heavens" — it follows that of those waters too (whatever their nature may be) one must understand there to be springs, so that he who said he himself pre-existed "before the springs of the waters came forth" might be shown to be older than those as well.
But he, having applied his mind to none of these things and unwilling to labor, persists in the same course. For also, treating the words "before the mountains were settled," "and before all the hills he begets me," he says that "mountains" and "hills" mean the apostles and the successors of the apostles, so that by way of proverb he might signify their righteous manner of life above other men.
So then, according to him, the springs were the same [as the apostles], and the mountains the same, and the hills the same. But just as, with respect to the springs and mountains as literally observed, it is not natural to say that these are the same things (for there is nothing common, as regards their quality, between springs of water and the heights of mountains), in the same way, in the case of things contemplated allegorically according to their sense, one must set forth the difference between the springs, mountains, and hills as understood in this theoretical way. But he, knowing nothing that has been tested with rigor, confounding everything through carelessness, has declared that springs of water and mountains and hills are the same, and says that all these are the apostles, without distinguishing the manner of their difference.
Why then did he not also similarly call "mountains" and "hills" those who were perfected in righteousness and piety before the flesh of our Savior — but rather only for the reason that the flesh of the Savior could not [have been shown] to have subsisted before them? So then the referral of the words before us to the flesh of the Savior is forced and constrained. And how could "he begets me" apply to the flesh at all? For he declared himself to have been begotten before the springs, before the mountains, and before the hills, saying, "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works; he founded me before the age."
If then indeed the flesh should speak these words, as it seems to Marcellus, how could the flesh say "before all the hills he begets me"? For let it be granted that the flesh was before the apostles — but how could the flesh itself say that it was begotten by God? For it seemed to Marcellus to be saying that it was created, not having existed before.
For he said: "He truly created — our Lord God having made what was not; for the flesh which the Word assumed did not exist, but he created it, not existing." We understood, then, that it was created — but how could it also be said to have been begotten by God, when our Savior says, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh," and the Apostle also says, "made of a woman, made under the law"?
How then could the flesh have said, concerning the God of all, "before all the hills he begets me"? These interpretations, I think, are manifest to everyone as having a forced character. But one could say, without forcing and apart from any allegorical mode, that these things are true of the Son of God — since he pre-existed the earth as well, and was and existed before the corporeal springs of the waters came forth, and before the sensibly-so-called deeps, and before the shape of the earth was constituted in the heights of the mountains and hills. For "all things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being."
But if someone should ask why he did not teach that he himself existed before the heavens, nor before the divine and super-cosmic powers and spirits within the heavens or beyond them — it will be said to him that the Word did not, for the time being, mention these things, because through the Proverbs he was imparting a certain elementary instruction to those who were infants in soul.
And this becomes evident from the fact that it is at one point said, "Hear, my son, the instruction of your father, and do not reject the ordinances of your mother"; and at another, "My son, attend to my laws, and incline your ear to my words"; and again, "My son, do not despise the discipline of the Lord, nor faint when rebuked by him."
And, "My son, if you become good for yourself, you will be good also for your neighbors; but if you turn out bad, you alone will draw up the evils." And one might for oneself gather countless similar sayings from the book of Proverbs, through which the Word is seen to be conversing with those who are infants in soul.
Thus also Moses, being a tutor of those immature in understanding, made mention of heaven and earth and the creation of visible things, but not indeed of the creation of angels, nor of divine powers, nor of holy spirits, because those who were being taught by him were not yet able to receive instruction concerning these.
Fittingly, then, the Word also in [the Proverbs], addressing such persons, made his teaching begin from the mountains, hills, and springs around the earth, as from things more familiar, so that, beginning as it were from a foundation, he might lead those under instruction by the hand toward the better things, and might prepare them to pass from the smaller things to the more divine.
These things, then, if one should investigate nothing beyond the letter [would be understood so]. But if one should wish to understand these things more deeply as well, one will not take them to refer to the apostles any more than to all the righteous and God-beloved men who have ever come to be, and from there one will pass over also to the divine and angelic powers, saying that "mountains" and "hills" hint at the various ranks of angels and archangels and divine spirits — thrones and dominions and principalities and powers.
For the divine Apostle taught that all these things too were created through him and for him, and that he exists before all of them — starting, as is reasonable, from this point, because it is said in these words, in the person of the Son of God, "before the mountains were settled, and before all the hills he begets me." He said, then, that the other things were "settled," but that he alone was "begotten" before the constitution of the things declared.
The same Apostle also knows the heavenly Jerusalem and the heavenly mountain upon which he says it stands, saying: "You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the festal gathering and assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven." Pre-existing, then, all of these, the only-begotten Son of God was hinting, in a veiled manner through the Proverbs, at the mystery of his own ineffable begetting.
And that he was suggesting these very things to be understood becomes evident from what he connects next, saying: "When he was preparing the heaven, I was present with him." Here that noble interpreter of the Scriptures came to a halt, shut out, no longer able to advance further, being unable to smooth out the sequence of the thesis he had assigned concerning the flesh of the Savior.
For having made mention of the flesh both above and below [in his exposition], and having declared that everything was said concerning the flesh, he got as far as the mountains and the hills, saying that these are the apostles; but the things consequent upon these he willingly consigned to silence, no longer daring to proceed further with the Scripture.
At this point, then, he halts his argument. But after very many things said by him in between, he departs from the interpretation applied to the flesh, and confesses that it is the Word of God who spoke these things. He says, then, in these very words: "For before the world existed, the Word was in the Father. But when Almighty God proposed to make all things in the heavens and upon the earth, the coming-to-be of the world required an effective activity; and for this reason, since there was nothing else besides God (for it is confessed that all things came to be by him), then the Word went forth and became the maker of the world — he who also beforehand was preparing it intelligibly within, as the prophet Solomon teaches us when he says, 'When he was preparing the heaven, I was present with him,' and 'as he was setting the springs of what is under heaven securely, when he was making the foundations of the earth strong, I was beside him, fitting together.'"
"I was [there], in whom he delighted; for the Father delighted, fittingly, making all things through the Word together with wisdom and power." These are the words of Marcellus. If, then, he has at last, however reluctantly, admitted that these things were spoken in the person of the Word, it is necessary for him to accept that the whole connected passage before us is to be referred to that same Word of God.
For he who said, "When he was preparing the heaven, I was present with him," was the very same one who said, "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works." For it was shown to us at the beginning that it is one and the same person who runs through the whole passage before us. Therefore the very one who said "the Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works" added, "he founded me before the age," and "in the beginning, before he made the earth," and "before the mountains were settled, and before all the hills he begets me."
The same one also joined "when he was preparing the heaven, I was present with him" and the things that follow upon these. If then it was the Word who said these things, how could he, while being within God and, being co-unbegotten with God and one and the same as him, at the same time say that he himself was created and begotten? For it was shown, as I said, that it is one and the same person who runs through all the passage before us.
But if he has at last, however belatedly, confessed that these words were spoken in the person of the Word who is in God, then the interpretation he applied to the flesh of the Savior stands convicted of having been forced upon it. And all those explanations at once are exposed as stale, vain, and superfluous. But if it was the flesh of the Savior that said, "the Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works," according to the interpretation given by him; and if the flesh was "founded before the age" and "in the beginning, before he made the earth" (that is, taking "earth" to mean the flesh, as he supposed, because of the saying, "earth you are, and to earth you shall return"); and if indeed it was the flesh that said "before he made the deeps," "before the springs of the waters came forth," "before the mountains were settled, and before all the hills he begets me" (because it had, as this most wise man supposed, been begotten before the choosing of the apostles) — then it follows that it was also in the person of the flesh that "when he was preparing the heaven, I was present with him" was said.
But no one, unless he has taken leave of his senses, could ever agree with this interpretation; for the word of truth will cry aloud in reply against him, showing who it was that spoke all these things.
That the only-begotten Son, begotten of God, was indeed other [than the Father] — living and subsisting, and existing even before the constitution of all created things — this he himself demonstrates through what he adds next, saying: "When he was preparing the heaven, I was present with him." For he was with him and present with him even before the heaven came to be, and all that is beyond heaven and all that is in heaven. This, then, he was hinting at by saying, "When he was preparing the heaven, I was present with him."
But how did God prepare it, except by legislating and outlining, before it came to be, the manner in which it must be constituted? The Father, then, outlined and prepared it, considering how so vast a heaven must be constituted — of what magnitude it needed to be, and of what shape, and how many measures and parts — for the sake of the things that would be contained within it, and of those that would be outside it, and for the sake of those things that would make their course within it. But he, gazing intently upon the thoughts of the Father and alone beholding the depths within him, proceeded through works, ministering in obedience to the Father's nods.
"Praise him, all his angels; praise him, all his hosts. Praise him, sun and moon; praise him, all stars and light. Praise him, you heavens of heavens, and you waters that are above the heavens. Let them praise the name of the Lord; for he spoke, and they came to be; he commanded, and they were created."
Nevertheless, even before the heaven itself came to be, and all that is beyond heaven, and all that is in heaven (for by the one term "heaven" all things are inclusively signified), the Son of God existed, and was present with and together with the Father while he was still deliberating about the constitution of all these things. Wherefore he says, "When he was preparing the heaven, I was present with him." Then, like a good painter, receiving the archetypal forms from the thoughts of the Father, he transferred them into the substances of the works, thus giving life and shape and subsistence to such things as he saw pre-existing in the mind of the Father.
He himself might be a trustworthy witness of these things, teaching thus in the Gospels: "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of himself, unless he sees the Father doing it; for whatever things that One does, these the Son likewise does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all things that he himself does."
Here one might reasonably ask how the Son does again the things that have already once been done by the Father. But he himself resolved this problem by saying, "For whatever things the Father does, these the Son likewise does."
The things, then, that come to be through the Son happen to be likenesses of archetypal works pre-subsisting in the ineffable thoughts of the Father, which the Son, gazing intently upon them in the mind of the Father, made as imitations of what he saw. And that his beholding the depths of the Father is a work of the Father's love, he shows further on, clarifying and saying, "For the Father loves the Son and shows him all things that he himself does." Since, then, the Father shows him his own hidden things, the Son, beholding them, brought into subsistence through works the works of the Father's will. Thus, then, being together with the Father and present together with him as he was making ready beforehand the heaven and what is upon it, he taught this, saying, "When he was preparing the heaven, I was present with him."
And the Father rejoiced even before the world came to be, looking upon his own only-begotten Son and, as it were, beholding himself mirrored in him, as in an image. Wherefore Wisdom says, "I was that in whom he took delight daily." But the Son too was filled with gladness, rejoicing at the sight of the Father; this, at any rate, he himself teaches, saying, "And I rejoiced before him at all times, when he rejoiced having completed the inhabited world."
Here "the inhabited world" is understood as the completion of all created things, which, being brought forward from non-being into being through the Son, caused the God of all to rejoice. The true account, then, presented briefly and summarily from the divine Scripture, would be something of this sort. But he, being borne down from above to below toward the flesh of our Savior, ran his understanding aground, twisting and misinterpreting the true sense of the divinely-inspired Scripture.
But, passing over to [the interpretation involving] the Word, he says that it was he who [was] within the Father, having prepared the heaven, as it were, in reflection and reasoning.
He said, then, in these very words: "For before the making of the world, the Word was in the Father. But when Almighty God proposed to make all things in the heavens and upon the earth, the coming-to-be of the world required an effective activity; and for this reason, since there was nothing else besides God (for it is confessed that all things came to be by him), then the Word went forth and became the maker of the world — he who also beforehand was preparing it intelligibly within, as the prophet Solomon teaches us, saying, 'When he was preparing the heaven, I was present with him.'"
In these words it is fitting to observe in what manner, willfully deaf, he does not hear the word "I was present with him," which expressly signifies the presence of the Son together with the Father, but declares, contrary to Scripture, that there was no one else besides God before the things that came to be came to be. And he did not shudder to utter this statement, which is a denial of the Son, nor was he abashed before the divine Scripture, which testifies that he alone was present together with the Father before the creation of heaven. For it says, "When he was preparing the heaven, I was present with him."
For the preposition "with" [syn], attached to "being present," signifies a presence together with another at the same time. Not simply, then, "being present," but rather he teaches that he himself was present together with the Father. And the Father, too, did not simply rejoice, but rejoiced additionally at the presence of the Son; wherefore it says, "I was that in whom he took delight, day by day."
But how could the fact that he rejoices before the Father be fitting for a Word that does not subsist [as a distinct hypostasis], but is [merely] within God himself and operating only in a signifying manner — when the very terms "rejoicing" and "before him" plainly establish his hypostasis? But Marcellus, taking no account of these things, sets aside the Son, and says that the Word, being within God, at one time proceeds forth in effective activity, and at another time is within him, not being active; and he does not see that to say that something is inside and outside God posits a certain composite and bodily affection, which it is not lawful to admit with respect to the unbegotten and incorporeal nature.
And how, by "proceeding forth," did the Word become the maker of the world? Was it by tongue and voice, or, in every case, surely, by God's using speech? And with whom would he have conversed, when no one else was present with him? And with whom would he have held discourse, when no one was present? But [it would follow that] he conversed with himself, using voice and speech, so that the Word too proceeded forth from him.
And why should he not, even while the Word remained within him, have constituted with effective power the things he willed — since even among men most craftsmen accomplish their own works in silence, and especially when no one is present with them as they work? What then prevented God also, in some such way, from constituting all things while holding the Word within himself? But he even proposes the image of a sculptor conversing with himself and saying to himself, "Come, let us make; come, let us fashion a statue." For so he says that the Master of all, God, also spoke to himself, "Let us make man" — as has already often been shown through what precedes, by which, I think, his denial of the Son of God has been laid bare.
For to say that God converses with himself, having his own Word within him, would be characteristic of a certain Jewish mindset; but to say that he is the Father of the Word within him, and that the Word within him is his Son, was a distinguishing mark of the false teaching of Sabellius.
As again, in turn, to say that the three are one — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — this too is a mark of Sabellius. This very thing Marcellus also declared, writing somewhat as follows: "For it is impossible that three hypostases, being [three], should be united in a monad, unless the triad should first have its beginning from a monad. For the sacred Paul said that those things are summed up in a monad which differ from God in nothing as regards their unity; for it is only in unity that the Word and the Spirit differ from God."
Then he attempts to establish this, proceeding next and saying: "If then the Word appears to have gone forth from the Father himself and to have come to us, and the Holy Spirit, as Asterius too confessed, proceeds from the Father; and if the Savior again says concerning the Spirit that 'he will not speak from himself, but will speak whatever he hears, and will announce to you the things that are coming; that One will glorify me, because he will receive from what is mine and will announce it to you' — then, not clearly and openly here, but by an ineffable account, the monad appears — expanded indeed into a triad, yet in no way enduring to be divided."
"For if the Word proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit too is likewise confessed to proceed from the Father, and again the Savior says concerning the Spirit, 'That One will receive from what is mine and will announce it to you' — is it not then evident that some hidden mystery is being uncovered? For how, unless the monad, being undivided, is expanded into a triad, is it possible for him to say at one time concerning the Spirit that it proceeds from the Father, and at another time to say, 'That One will receive from what is mine and will announce it to you,' and again, having breathed upon the disciples, to have said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit'?"
"For how, if it proceeds from the Father, does it profess to receive this ministry from the Son? For it is necessary — if [the Father and the Son] are two divided persons, as Asterius said — either that the Spirit, proceeding from the Father, should have no need of the ministry from the Son (for everything proceeding from the Father must necessarily be perfect, needing in no way the help from another), or, if it receives from the Son and ministers grace from that One's power, that it no longer proceeds from the Father."
And after other things he adds: "But if the Gospel says that, having breathed upon the disciples, he said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit,' it is clear that the Spirit went forth from the Word. How then, if the Spirit proceeded from the Word, does the same [Spirit] again proceed from the Father?" And he adds after other things: "Not rightly, then, nor fittingly did he say that there are three hypostases," having said this not once but even a second time. Through these things, then, and things similar to them, this most wise man attempts to establish that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one and the same, with three names applied to a single hypostasis.
For neither in these matters has he understood in what way both the Son is said to proceed from the Father, and likewise the Holy Spirit; nor has he been able to comprehend how the Savior spoke concerning the Holy Spirit, "He will receive from what is mine and will announce it to you," nor how, having breathed upon his disciples, he said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." This, for those who contemplate the matter piously, will have an easy solution, if one considers that the Son, always being together with and present together with the Father, was, as it were, within, in the innermost and inaccessible recesses of the Father's kingdom, but then, being sent forth by the Father for the salvation of the human race, said of himself that he had gone forth from the Father. This, indeed, he also made clear elsewhere by a parable, speaking of himself: "The sower went out to sow."
For from where did he go out, if not from the innermost realms of the Father's Godhead? And by the same reasoning, the Holy Spirit too, always standing beside the throne of God — since indeed "myriads of myriads stand beside him," according to Daniel — was likewise sent forth, at one time in the form of a dove upon the Son of Man, at another time upon each of the prophets and apostles.
Wherefore it too is said to proceed from the Father. And why do you marvel? Since it is also said concerning the devil, "And the devil went out from the Lord," and again a second time it is said, "And the devil went out from the Lord." And you might find the same also in the case of Ahab, where Scripture adds, "And an evil spirit went out and stood before the Lord and said, 'I will deceive him.'"
But these are contrary spirits; how and in what manner it is so said is not the present occasion to investigate at length. But the only-begotten Son of God teaches that he himself went forth from the Father because of his eternal being-together with him; and the Holy Spirit likewise, existing as other than the Son. This the Savior himself clearly establishes, saying, "He will receive from what is mine and will announce it to you." For this would be a direct demonstration that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not one and the same; for that which receives something from another is understood to be other than the one giving.
And that the Holy Spirit is indeed other than the Son, our Savior and Lord himself taught expressly and in various ways with the clearest of words, in the passage where he said to his own disciples: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments; and I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that he may be with you forever — the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive." Do you see how he says that the Comforter Spirit is other and different from himself? But if, having breathed upon the disciples, he said, "Receive the Holy Spirit," one must not fail to recognize that the breathing was, in a certain way, purifying the souls of the apostles, preparing them to be fit for the reception of the Holy Spirit.
For it is not said that he breathed into their face, nor that [he breathed] a breath of life, nor that [he breathed] the Holy Spirit, as is written of Adam, that "God breathed into his face a breath of life"; but it is said, first, that he breathed, and then that he said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." And that he gives the Spirit shows, again, that he himself is other than that which is given.
For the giver and the thing given could not be the same. Rather, the one who supplied it was the Savior, the thing given was the Holy Spirit, and those receiving it were the apostles; and the breathing was, as I said, purifying for the apostles, or also effective for the impartation of the Holy Spirit — for it is possible to understand it either way.
In any case, from these things it is shown that the Holy Spirit exists as other than him — as is shown also through what follows, in the words again recorded, where he said: "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him."