Against Marcellus 2 part 3/4

And he speaks of him theologically, proclaiming together both the knowledge of him and his divine manifestation to mankind. Then, as those of old had already learned from the divine readings of the word that came to be with each prophet, he himself proclaims a more divine and extraordinary beginning of him, which none of the prophets ever revealed to men so nakedly and unveiledly.

Therefore, delivering to all with a great voice the hidden and secret mystery concerning the Word, he cried out, saying: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things came to be through him, and without him not one thing came to be.'

'For if,' he says, 'having been instructed long ago beforehand by the former divine Scriptures, you have learned that the word of the Lord came to this prophet, and again likewise came to another, and again to yet another — now it is necessary to proclaim to all, not how he came to be, but how he was in the beginning; and that he was God, and that all things came to be through him, and that this very God the Word, through whom are all things, by the loving-kindness of the Father became flesh and dwelt among us.'

These things John the great disciple and apostle of Christ proclaimed, teaching all mankind the new and fresh mysteries of the Savior — not that God was rational, nor that he himself deliberated within himself and conversed with himself, saying, 'Let us make man,' nor that he made use of words that command what is to be done. For these are things that anyone who denies the Son of God might say.

And this is exactly what Marcellus does: he flees, as to a refuge, to the old Scripture, and tries to gather together the commands given to the Jewish people, still in its infancy, concerning not practicing idolatry but knowing and worshiping one God alone. There the teaching about the one God flowed abundantly for him, a teaching usefully and seasonably given at that time to Jews who were practicing idolatry. And having taken refuge there, and having, as it were, fenced himself about with Jewish hardness of heart as in a fortress, he set forth his denial of the Son of God.

Listen, then, to what expressions he uses, writing here word for word: 'Whom then does Asterius suppose to be the one who says, "I am He who is"? The Son, or the Father? For, looking to the human flesh which the Word of God has taken, and forming his fancy accordingly, he has declared there to be two hypostases, of Father and of Son, thus separating the Son of God from the Father, just as one might separate a son of man from his natural father.'

'If, then, he will say that it was the Father, separating himself from the Son, who spoke these words to Moses, he will confess that the Son is not God. For how can it be that one who says "I am He who is" not agree that "He who is" declares himself to be, by way of contrast to that which is not? But if he should claim that it is the Son, distinguished in hypostasis, who says this, "I am He who is," it will in turn be thought that he says the same about the Father; and each of these positions is impious.'

And again, attempting to show that the Father and the Son are one, he writes thus: 'For he himself confesses, saying, "The Father is in me, and I in the Father." And that he said this not simply nor without purpose is clear also from another apostolic saying: for the one who said "one Lord," "one faith, one baptism," also said "one God and Father, who is over all, and through all, and in all." You see that not even here does he depart from this consistency, but here too he undergoes the same thing. For having said "one Lord," he again said "one God," so that whenever he mentions the one Lord he might also include the Father, and whenever he speaks of the Father he might testify that the Word of God is not excluded.'

Having said these things, Marcellus next gathers together numerous passages from the Old Testament to prove that God has no Son.

Asserting, then, that God is an undivided monad, he shows that the Father and the Son are the same, writing in this manner: 'What then? If we, not attending to the Spirit, should fail to consider the monad undivided in power, would we not sin, seeing that the word clearly teaches us, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and him alone shall you serve"?'

He proclaims the same thing also by means of the Gospel according to Mark: for when a certain scribe came to him and asked which was the first of the commandments, he answered him, saying, first of all: 'Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your soul and with all your strength. This is the first; and the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'

'There is no other commandment greater than these.' And the scribe said to him: 'Well said, Teacher; you have said truly that he is one, and there is no other besides him.'

'But the scribe, since he supposed he had learned piety through the Law, is evidently praising the Savior's saying, "Hear, O Israel," where he says, "the Lord your God is one," and confirming that it was well said, as it were with an oath: "for truly," he says, "you have said that God is one, and there is no other besides him." But those who boast of knowing the mysteries of the New Testament — these are the ones who wish to fashion a second God, separated from the Father in hypostasis and power.'

To these he adds, establishing by these means that God is one and that there is no Son. And that Scripture knows to call the monad 'Lord' and 'God' has already become clear from what was said above, through which God spoke to his servant Moses: 'And God spoke again to Moses: Thus shall you say to the sons of Israel: The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. You see how, showing us one person here, he addresses the same one as both Lord and God.'

'And again, likewise, Scripture says: "And the Lord spoke all these words, saying: I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage; you shall have no other gods besides me." You hear how, through the pronoun, he declares that there is one God alone.'

'And again, a little later, "I am the Lord your God," he says, declaring himself to be Lord and God. And what do we also learn from another Scripture? "And you shall know today," he says, "and shall not be led astray in your mind, that the Lord your God, he is God in heaven above and on the earth below, and there is none besides him." And again in the same Deuteronomy: "Hear, O Israel," he says, "the Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind."'

'And again in the same book: "See now, see that I am he, and there is no God besides me; I kill and I make alive; I strike and I heal." How then, though Asterius pretends to follow the holy Scriptures simply and reverently, did he fail to recognize this passage, which says: "The Lord your God, he is God in heaven above and on the earth below, and there is none besides him still," and that he is one, and besides him there is no other?'

And after other matters, he adds again, saying: 'How then will the sacred prophet Jeremiah not openly convict him of teaching a different doctrine? For prophesying to us concerning the Savior, he spoke thus: "This is our God; no other shall be reckoned beside him. He found out every way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved. Afterward he was seen upon the earth, and lived among men."'

And again he adds, saying: 'But it seems that the Father is in the Word, even if it does not seem so to Asterius and those who think the same as he does. For this seems so to the divinely-inspired prophet Isaiah, who says by the Holy Spirit: "And they shall worship you, and in you they shall pray; for God is in you, and there is no other besides you, for you are God." You see how he utterly overturns, root and branch, the artful wickedness of those who teach a different doctrine.'

And again he adds: 'And if you wish to hear yet another prophecy of the same prophet confirming for us one God: "I, God, am the first," he says, "and unto the things that are to come I am he"; for the "I" is indicative of one person. For the two expressions signify to us one person. For having said "I," he adds also "am," so that through the two parts of speech, pronoun and verb, the monad of the deity is attested.'

'And if he needs still another testimony, I will again offer him the same prophet saying: "I am the first, and I am after these things; and besides me there is no God." If Asterius supposes the Son to be divided from the Father in hypostasis, as a son of man is, being scandalized by the human flesh which he assumed for our sake, let him show us who it is that says these words.'

'For here too the saying spoken belongs to one person. Who then is it that says, "There is no God besides me"? Let him also hear another prophecy which says, "There is no righteous one and savior besides me." If he supposes there to be two gods, he must necessarily confess that the other one is neither righteous nor a savior. But if he is neither righteous nor savior, how can he still be God? For it declares that there is one who is righteous and savior. And again: "Before me," it says, "there was no other, and after me there shall not be; I am God, and there shall be no savior apart from me."'

'And if he wishes to hear yet another prophetic saying, perhaps spoken precisely against him and those disposed like him concerning the deity, let him hear Isaiah saying: "Repent, you who have gone astray; return in heart, and remember the former things of old, that I am God, and there is none besides me."'

'He did not say "I God," but with the addition of the article, so that he might clearly show that there is one God. And what of the prophet Hosea? Does he not also testify the same, saying: "I brought you up out of Egypt," and, "you shall know no God besides me, and there is no savior apart from me"? And again Malachi: "Is there not one God"...'

'...created you? Is there not one Father of you all?' But perhaps Asterius will say that David said nothing about this, although David, coming from Moses, was the eldest of the other prophets — and that for this reason it remains doubtful whether one ought to suppose there to be two gods divided in hypostasis, or not. Therefore, so that he may not say this, I think it consistent also to show him David saying the same things as the aforementioned saints: 'Hear, my people, and I will speak to you; O Israel, and I will testify to you: if you will hear me, there shall be no new god in you, nor shall you worship a strange god; for I am the Lord your God.'

'He who shows himself and says "I am he" — is it not plain that he says there is only one God, namely, himself?'

All these things, and yet more besides these, Marcellus heaped up in denial of the Son of God, failing, through lack of understanding, to consider that such teaching was given to them on account of the hardness of heart of the Jewish people. For it was not possible for the Holy Spirit, through the prophets of God, to deliver the full doctrine of true religion to men whose minds were as yet imperfect.

Thus, then, he legislated for them to perform sacrifices, and circumcision of the body, and observance of the Sabbath, and abstinence from certain foods, and bodily purifications and bodily blessings — indeed, the promise of a land flowing with milk and honey, but not the promise of the kingdom of heaven. And our Savior and Lord, when asked how, though Moses had ordained that a man who wished might give a bill of divorce and put away his own wife, he himself ordained the opposite, gave a comprehensive answer, saying: 'Moses wrote for you because of your hardness of heart; but from the beginning it was not so.'

He would have said the same thing, then, if someone had asked why Moses and the prophets after him, while urging that one God be worshiped, did not teach them the knowledge concerning the Son: for those who were constantly being drawn away by polytheistic error were not able to receive the grace of the gospel. Therefore they gave them the teaching of one God to suit their hardness of heart, meanwhile disciplining them by turning them away from thinking that there were many gods, and leading them on toward the introduction of the one.

In this way, then, Moses delivered an incomplete teaching to those of his own time, because of the incompleteness of their understanding — so much so that he made no mention at all of the creation of angels in his account of the making of the world, although the prophets after him mentioned not only angels but also divine powers and holy spirits and the heavenly ministers of God, concerning whom Daniel taught, saying: 'A thousand thousands ministered to him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.'

But Moses passed over all these matters in silence with respect to their accounts, although he was not ignorant of them, but had received in advance, by the divine Spirit, exact knowledge of them all; yet in his account of the making of the world he made no mention whatsoever of them as having come to be from God.

And one could say that the cause of this was none other than the hardness of heart of the people, just as the Savior himself taught. And you would learn that there are countless other things in the constitution of the universe from the readings of the New Testament, which are not found at all in the writing of Moses: for he made no mention of principalities, nor of powers, nor of world-rulers, nor of spiritual forces of wickedness, against which the divine apostle says our struggle is set.

What then? Since neither in Moses nor in the rest of the prophets can words concerning these things clearly be found, must we disbelieve the apostle? Or when this same apostle again makes mention of the order of the higher beings, saying that Christ sits at the right hand of God, 'far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come'...

...and again, when he names thrones and dominions and principalities and powers, saying, 'for in him were all things created that are in the heavens and on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers' — is it not fitting to accept these things, on the ground that neither Moses nor the rest of the prophets had previously spoken of them? Or shall we say the same concerning these matters too — that the stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and in ears were not able to have these accounts believed among them? To them the prophets of God did not even reveal the things concerning the Jerusalem above, just as indeed, making clear to the Church of Christ the accounts concerning her, Paul cried out, saying: 'But the Jerusalem above is free, which is our mother,' and '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 who are enrolled in heaven.'

Let Marcellus say, in response to these things, whether he is able to bring forward from the ancient writings the teaching of these matters.

But if he cannot find it, let him give the reason why all these things, and countless others akin to them, were passed over in silence by the prophets of God — matters concerning which the same apostle prayed to God on our behalf, that we might have strength to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth and length and depth and height, and to know the love of God which surpasses knowledge.

Our Savior himself also revealed very many mysteries concerning the kingdom of heaven, and concerning the consummation of all things, and concerning the promises, sometimes through parables and sometimes even in secret sayings, to his disciples, to whom he said: 'To you it has been given to know the mysteries of God.' The like of these one would not find in Moses or in the rest of the prophets.

What then? Since these things were not delivered to the Jewish people, being kept in reserve for the Church of Christ until a fitting time — should we, on this account, set at nought the grace given to us, or rather give greater thanks to him who has counted us worthy of such great knowledge? In the same manner, then, it would be fitting to receive also the teachings concerning the Son from the same New Testament, being in no way surprised that the men of God did not reveal the knowledge concerning him to the hard-hearted people, but kept the account concerning him in store for a fitting season.

For it did not seem fitting, to men who at that time were being drawn away into polytheistic error, to deliver the mystery concerning Father and Son — to men to whom they did not even reveal the accounts concerning the subordinate powers, lest under this pretext they should fall into Greek polytheism, they who fashioned for themselves a god who was 'father of men and gods.'

For this reason, restraining them from such error, the word proclaimed the one God, yet did not thereby deny that this same one was Father; it taught them to worship the true God and exhorted them to know no other besides him, yet did not deny that he was Father. And if it also called him Lord and God and righteous and Savior, it did not thereby exclude the possibility of also considering him to be Father of his only-begotten and beloved Son — whether it be the Father or the Son who says, 'I am He who is.'

The statement would be true in either case. For the Father, who is, would be, being alone himself, God over all, and through all, and in all, as the divine apostle taught. And the Son too, being himself also styled 'He who is,' would speak truly, being the only-begotten Son alone of him who is; but also, being the image of the invisible God, he would be his image precisely in this respect, in that he alone was 'He who is'; wherefore he too would be styled 'He who is,' since he too has likewise been proclaimed, throughout the whole of the God-inspired Scripture, both God and Lord, just as the Father.

This can also be known from the revelation made to Moses. For Scripture says: 'And God spoke to Moses and said to him, "I am the Lord, and I appeared to Abraham and to Isaac and to Jacob," being their God.' You see how he said that he himself had appeared to the fathers. And when he appeared, Scripture again testifies, saying: 'And the Lord God appeared to Abraham by the oak of Mamre, as he sat at the door.' But how did he appear, if not in human form? And whom must we believe this to be, but the Son of God? This too he himself set forth in the Gospels, saying to the Jews: 'Abraham your father rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.'

And when they marveled at this saying, he added: 'Before Abraham was, I am' — showing most plainly his own pre-existence. What then does this account establish, except that he himself is the Son of God who spoke to Moses and said, 'I am He who is'? For he himself taught that he had appeared to Abraham. And how he himself was 'He who is' has already been said.

And the great apostle Paul also knows the Son of God as having become the mediator of the legislation given through Moses, in the passage where he teaches, saying: 'The law was ordained through angels, by the hand of a mediator; now a mediator is not of one.' The one, then, who spoke to Moses was the mediator, mediating the salvation of mankind from that time, before he took flesh.

And that this was Jesus Christ, the same apostle set forth, saying: 'There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.' Whether, then, the words 'I am He who is' were spoken by Moses from his own person, or whether it was the Father who put forth this utterance through him, the statement would be true either way.

Let Marcellus, then, not be perplexed, employing a syllogism which he considers, as he supposes, inescapable, by which he says: 'Whom then does Asterius suppose to be the one who says, "I am He who is" — the Son, or the Father?' — and then goes on to conclude that if it is the Father who is 'He who is,' the Son will no longer be God, since 'He who is' declares himself to be, in contrast to that which is not; but if he should claim it is the Son, distinguished in hypostasis, who says this, 'I am He who is,' the same thing in turn will be thought to be said concerning the Father; and each of these positions is impious.

But in saying these things, he himself has fallen into each of the two absurdities, defining one of them to be 'He who is,' while denying the other. And which one this is, he himself could hardly know. For either, granting the Father, he will deny the Son; or, admitting the Son alone, he will set aside the Father; or rather, he will be convicted of knowing neither Father nor Son, granting only one and removing the other out of the way. And this even though he hears God saying: 'I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage; you shall have no other gods besides me.'

Again, here too let him not be troubled in soul, but let him also hear what follows in sequence: for having said, 'You shall have no other gods besides me,' he added, 'You shall not make for yourself an idol, nor the likeness of anything, of what is in heaven above, or of what is on the earth below, or of what is in the waters under the earth. You shall not bow down to them, nor shall you serve them; for I am the Lord your God, a jealous God.'

You see how he distinguished them from being led away with the polytheistic error of the nations, and taught them to know him alone as God and Lord. Who, then, was this? The Son, having in himself the image of the Father, and by the Father's own authority ordaining these things for those sick with idolatry. For just as all things came to be through him — the Father having established the being of all created things through the Savior — so also it was the Father himself who delivered to men, through the Son as mediator, the knowledge of himself and true piety.

This too the apostle taught, writing to the Galatians in these very words, when he said: 'The law was ordained through angels, by the hand of a mediator; now a mediator is not of one, but God is one.'

And even when it says, 'See now, see that I am he, and there is no God besides me,' again it was the Father, as it were through an image and mediator, who said this through the Son. For if, when the prophet Isaiah says, 'I have begotten and raised up sons,' and again, 'but Israel did not know me, and my people did not understand me,' and again, 'I have given commandment to all the stars, and with my hand I have made the heaven firm,' and other such sayings, we shall say that it is not Isaiah who speaks these things, but the God who speaks through him — should it not then be fitting to say the same regarding the only-begotten Son of God, that the Father must testify these things through him to those who stood in need of such commandments? These people were idolaters, as the same Scripture teaches, saying: 'And the Lord said: Where are their gods, in whom they trusted? Whose fat of their sacrifices you ate, and whose wine of their libations you drank; let them arise and help you, and let them become your protectors.' For it is to these people that the words 'See now, see that I am he, and there is no God besides me' are joined.

So then, even if he cries out ten thousand times through the prophet, saying, 'Besides me there is no God,' and 'besides me there is no righteous one and Savior,' and 'you shall know no God besides me, and there is no savior apart from me,' and however many other such sayings akin to these are found in the rest of the prophets — it was God, and from of old, in Christ reconciling the world to himself. And it was the Father himself who spoke these things to men through the only-begotten Son, as it were through an interpreter. This too the Son himself delivered in the Gospels, teaching them to know only one God, in the passage where he said: 'And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.'

It was he himself, then, who was the true God, the one alone, and there is no other besides him — the one who enjoined these things upon the idolatrous nation of the Jews at that time, not only through the prophets but also through his own Son. For instance, then, Isaiah (or rather God through him), having said, 'Besides me there is no God; who is like me?' and next, 'You are witnesses whether there is a God besides me,' added, 'and there were none then; the fashioners and the carvers are all vain, doing the things pleasing to themselves.'

And throughout the whole of his prophecy you would find the lifeless carved images being cut down; and likewise, with every single prophet, you will find the one God proclaimed for the sake of turning them away from polytheistic error. In this same way we too are accustomed, in our dialogues with the superstitious among the Greeks, to reserve the teaching concerning Christ for a fitting occasion, while meanwhile bringing forward refutations of their idolatrous error and establishing, with demonstrative arguments, that there is one God.

Let Marcellus, then, learn — if, having grown old in the episcopate of the Church of Christ, he has not even yet learned it — that for the ancient people the knowledge of the hidden mystery concerning the Son of God was in no way suitable, they being prone to idolatry; and that it was reserved by his grace for his Church alone — that mystery hidden from the ages and from the generations — in which mystery was contained the doctrine concerning the holy Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

But he, having gathered together so many things as even a teacher among the Jews might say, discoursing on circumcision in a Jewish synagogue, prides himself in putting these forward before the disciples of Christ, not knowing that a Jew in the flesh could say more than he. In these matters, then, he boasts; but in perverting the true theology concerning our Savior he is not ashamed.

Straightway, then, he fails to understand the words of the divine apostle, who in various ways taught that he is the image of God, through the words of his which I have set forth — from which it ought to be understood that the Church of God does not proclaim two gods; for it introduces neither two unbegotten beings nor two beginningless beings, as we have often said, nor two essences set over against one another in equal honor; therefore neither does it introduce two gods, but teaches that there is one first principle and God, and that the same one is the Father of the only-begotten and beloved Son, and likewise also one image of the invisible God, which is the same as his only-begotten and beloved Son. And even if the apostle, speaking theologically of the Father, says, 'the blessed and only Sovereign,' and again, 'who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light' —

And again, 'to the King of the ages, incorruptible, invisible, the only God,' and again, 'to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever; Amen' — and even if still more such things are said in doxology of the one God who is over all, one must understand that the Only-begotten Son of God is the image of all these, not as formed in lifeless matter but as in a living Son. And even if the Savior himself teaches that the Father alone is the true God, saying, 'that they may know you, the only true God,' still one must not shrink from confessing him too to be true God, as possessing this as in an image, so that the addition of 'only' may fit the Father alone, as the archetype of the image.