Untitled

THE FATHERS
OF THE CHURCH
A N E W T R A N SL AT ION
VOLU M E 135
THE FATHERS OF
THE CHURCH
A N E W T R A N SL AT ION
EDI TOR I A L B OA R D
David G. Hunter
University of Kentucky
Editorial Director
Andrew Cain William E. Klingshirn

University of Colorado The Catholic University of America
Brian Daley, S.J. Joseph T. Lienhard, S.J.
University of Notre Dame Fordham University
Mark DelCogliano Rebecca Lyman
University of St. Thomas Church Divinity School of the Pacific
Susan Ashbrook Harvey Wendy Mayer
Brown University Australian Catholic University
Robert A. Kitchen
Sankt Ignatios Theological Academy
Trevor Lipscombe
Director, The Catholic University of America Press
F OR M ER EDI T OR I A L DI R E C T OR S
Ludwig Schopp, Roy J. Deferrari, Bernard M. Peebles,
Hermigild Dressler, O.F.M., Thomas P. Halton
Carole Monica C. Burnett, Staff Editor

EUSEBIUS OF
CAESAREA
AGAINST M ARCELLUS
A ND
ON ECCLESI ASTICAL
THEOLOGY
Translated with introduction and notes by
K EL L E Y MCC A RTH Y SPOER L

St. Anselm College, Manchester, New Hampshire
M A R KUS V INZEN T
King’s College London
THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA PRESS

Washington, D.C.
Copyright © 2017
THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA PRESS
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements
of the American National Standards for Information Science—
Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials,
ANSI z39.48 - 1984.
∞
Biblical quotations in notes on pages 77, 166, and 334 are

taken from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright 1952
[2nd edition, 1971] by the Division of Christian Education of the
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of
America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available

from the Library of Congress.
ISBN 978-0-8132-2991-1
Markus would like to dedicate this work to Martin Tetz
(May 22, 1925–January 31, 2017), one of the twentieth cen-
tury’s most influential scholars of Eusebius of Caesarea’s
texts against Marcellus of Ancyra, Marcellus himself, and
the historical environment of post-Nicaea. Tetz’s death this
year has taken away one of the keen readers and a great
inspiration for young researchers. Markus still remembers
his encouraging words when he started this project with
an unpublished German translation (with Gerhard Feige),
and his close critical readings by which he had followed the
early steps of research on the relationship between Asteri-
us, Marcellus, Apolinarius, and Eusebius. It is hoped that
what has been achieved is following the trajectories that
Martin Tetz had pursued throughout his entire life.
J
Kelley would like to dedicate her work on this long and ar-
duous project to a seminal early influence in her life: her
maternal grandmother, Mrs. Margaret Kelley Martin, who
died in 1982. She was herself a fine linguist (as her father
was, a small-town lawyer in a New England mill town filled
with immigrants) and an avid reader, who encouraged and
supported Kelley’s love of books and study from a young
age. More importantly, she was a woman of great faith and
daily, fervent prayer, who endured by dint of them decades
of agonizing suffering from arthritis in the years before
hip replacements became common. She has given Kelley
inspiration to carry on with this project over so many years
despite obstacles and frustrations, and Kelley is sure and
grateful that her beloved Gramma’s prayers have brought
her to its much-desired conclusion.
CONTENTS
C ON T E N T S
Acknowledgments ix
Abbreviations and Sigla xi
Select Bibliography xiii
INTRODUCTION
I. Justification for the Translation 3
II. The Genesis of Eusebius of Caesarea’s
Anti-Marcellan Works 9
III. Theological Analysis 18
1. A sterius’s Controversial Theology as
Seen by Marcellus 18
a. Marcellus and Asterius on Word
and “Words” 24
b. T he Word’s status as image of God and
his glory 25
c. T he unity of Father and Son and
Marcellus’s rejection of two hypostases 26
d. The emergence of the Son 27
e. The kingship of Christ 29
f. The role of the Holy Spirit 30
g. Summary 32
2. Marcellus’s Errors in the Eyes
of Eusebius 33
3. Eusebius’s Response to Marcellus’s
Theology 40
a. Trinity 40
b. Christology 50
viii CONTENTS
IV. The Influence of Eusebius’s
Anti-Marcellan Works 60
1. Credal Formulas 61
2. Explicitly Anti-Marcellan Tracts 62
3. Tracts Against Sabellius and Arius 64
V. O verview of the Major Contributions
of Eusebius’s Anti-Marcellan Works
to Fourth-Century Theology 67
VI. Some Notes about the Translation 71
Against Marcellus
Book One 75
Book Two 117
On Ecclesiastical
Theology
Book One 159
Book Two 219
Book Three 275
INDICES
G eneral Index 341
Index of Holy Scripture 351
Index of Ancient Sources 357
Index of Modern Authors 366
Index of Greek Words 368
ABBREVIATIONS AND SIGLA
A BBR E V I AT ION S A N D S IG L A
Abbreviations
General
Gr. Greek.
HE Historia ecclesiastica (for several authors).
LXX Septuagint.
RSV Revised Standard Version.
Periodicals and Series

FOTC Fathers of the Church. Washington, DC:
The Catholic University of America Press, 1949—.
GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller (der
ersten drei Jahrhunderte). Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs,
1897–1949; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1953–2001;
Berlin: De Gruyter, 2001—.
PG Patrologia Cursus Completus: Series Graeca.
Ed. J.-P. Migne. Paris, 1857–1886.
SC Sources Chrétiennes. Paris: Cerf, 1941—.
Critical Editions and Translations

K./H. Eusebius Werke IV: Gegen Marcell, Über die kirchliche
Theologie, Die Fragmente Marcells. Edited by Erich
Klostermann and Günther Christian Hansen. GCS.
3d ed. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1989.
Migliore Eusebio di Cesarea: Teologia ecclesiastica. Translated
by Franzo Migliore. Rome: Città Nuova Editrice, 1998.
Op. Hans-Georg Opitz. The Arian Debate up to the Year 328:
Texts and Studies. Unpublished manuscript.
xi
xii ABBREVIATIONS AND SIGLA
Urk. Hans-Georg Opitz. Urkunden zur Geschichte des arian-
ischen Streites 318–328. Berlin and Leipzig: De Gruyter,
1934. Cited by document number.
V. or Vinzent, Markus. Markell von Ankyra: Die Fragmente
Vinzent und der Brief an Julius von Rom. VCSup 39. Leiden:
Brill, 1997; or Vinzent, Markus. Asterius von Kappa-
dokien: Die Theologischen Fragmente. VCSup 20. Leiden:
Brill, 1993.
Works of Eusebius of Caesarea

CM
Contra Marcellum. The abbreviation CM is used in
the notes for the Latin title of Against Marcellus.
ET De ecclesiastica theologia. The abbreviation ET is used
in the notes for the Latin title of On Ecclesiastical
Theology.
Sigla
<> words supplied by the editor of the Greek text
[] words supplied by the translators of this volume
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
S E L EC T BI BL IO G R A PH Y
Primary Sources: Editions and Translations

Editions
Gaisford, Thomas. Eusebii Pamphili contra Hieroclem et Marcellum libri.
Oxford: Typographeo Academico, 1852.
Eusebius Werke IV: Gegen Marcell, Über die kirchliche Theologie, Die Frag-
mente Marcells. Edited by Erich Klostermann and Günther Christian
Hansen. GCS. 3d ed. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1989.
Koetschau, Paul. “Anzeige und Rezension der Edition Klostermann.”
ThLZ 31 (1906): 597–600.
Montagu, Richard. Eusebii Pamphilii Caesareae Palaestinae episcopi, de
demonstratione evangelica libri decem, quibus accessere nondum hactenus
editi nec visi contra Marcellum Ancyrae episcopum libri duo: de ecclesiastica
theologia tres: omnia studio R.M. latine facta, notis illustrata: et indicibus
loco suo necessariis locupletata. Paris: Sonnius, Cramoisy and Morellus,
1628.
Rettberg, Georg. Marcelliana, accedit Eunomii Ekthesis pisteos emendatior.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck et Ruprecht, 1794.
Vinzent, Markus. Markell von Ankyra: Die Fragmente und der Brief an Julius
von Rom. VCSup 39. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Translations
Eusebio di Cesarea: Teologia ecclesiastica. Translated by Franzo Migliore.
Rome: Città Nuova Editrice, 1998.
Select Secondary Bibliography on

Marcellus of Anycra
Barnard, Leslie W. “Marcellus of Ancyra and the Eusebians.” GOTR 25
(1980): 63–76.
———. “Pope Julius, Marcellus of Ancyra and the Council of Sardica:
A Reconsideration.” RTAM 38 (1971): 69–79.
Beskow, Per. Rex gloriae: The Kingship of Christ in the Early Church. Trans-
lated by Eric J. Sharpe. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell, 1962.
xiii
xiv BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dowling, M. J. “Marcellus of Ancyra: Problems of Christology and the
Doctrine of the Trinity.” Ph.D. diss., Belfast, 1987.
Feige, Gerhard. Die Lehre Markells von Ankyra in der Darstellung seiner
Gegner. ETS 58. Leipzig: Benno Verlag, 1991.
———. “Markell von Ankyra und das Konzil von Nizäa (325).” Pages
67–136 in Denkender Glaube in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Festschrift aus
Anlass der Gründung der Universität Erfurt. Edited by Wilhelm Ernst
and Konrad Feieries. ETS 63. Leipzig: Benno Verlag, 1992.
Fondevila, José M. “Ideas cristológicas de Marcelo de Ancyra.” EE 27
(1953): 21–64.
Foss, Clive. “Late Antique and Byzantine Ankara.” DOP 31 (1977):
27–87.
Gericke, Wolfgang. Marcell von Ancyra. Der Logos-Christologe und Biblizist.
Sein Verhältnis zur antiochenischen Theologie und zum Neuen Testament.
TABG 10. Halle: Akademischer Verlag, 1940.
Green, H. Benedict. “Matthew 28:19, Eusebius, and the lex orandi.”
Pages 124–41 in The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour of Henry
Chadwick. Edited by Rowan Williams. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1989.
Hanson, R. P. C. “The Source and Significance of the Fourth Oratio
Contra Arianos Attributed to Athanasius.” VC 42 (1988): 257–66.
Hockel, Alfred. Christus der Erstgeborene: Zur Geschichte der Exegese von Kol
1:15. Düsseldorf: Patmos-Verlag, 1965.
Hübner, Reinhard. “Gregor von Nyssa und Markell von Ankyra.” Pages
199–229 in Écriture et culture philosophique dans la pensée de Grégoire de
Nysse. Edited by Marguérite Harl. Leiden: Brill, 1971.
———. “Soteriologie, Trinität, Christologie. Von Markell von Ankyra
zu Apollinaris von Laodicea.” Pages 175–96 in Im Gespräch mit dem
dreieinen Gott. Elemente einer trinitarischen Theologie. Festchrift zum 65
Geburtstag von Wilhelm Breuning. Edited by Michael Böhnke and
Hanspeter Heinz. Düsseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1985.
Kannengiesser, Charles. “Marcello di Ancira.” Pages 2089–91 in vol. 2
of DPAC. Edited by Angelo de Berardino. 3 vols. Casale Monferrato:
Marietti, 1983–1988.
Klose, Carl R. Geschichte und Lehre des Marcellus und Photinus. Hamburg:
F. Perthes, 1837.
Le Bachelet, X. “Ancyre, conciles d’.” Pages 1173–77 in vol. 1 of DTC.
15 vols. Edited by A. Vacant and E. Mangenot. Paris: Letouzey et
Ané, 1908–1950.
Lienhard, Joseph T. “Acacius of Caesarea’s Contra Marcellum: Its Place
in Theology and Controversy.” StPatr 48 (1987): 185–88.
———. “Basil of Caesarea, Marcellus of Ancyra, and ‘Sabellius.’” CH
58 (1989): 157–67.
———. “Contra Marcellum: The Influence of Marcellus of Ancyra on
Fourth-Century Greek Theology.” 3 vols. Habilitätionsschrift,
Albert-Ludwigs Universität zu Freiburg im Breisgau, 1986.
BIBLIOGRAPHY xv
———. Contra Marcellum. Marcellus of Ancyra and Fourth-Century Theology.
Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1999.
———. “Did Athanasius Reject Marcellus?” Pages 65–80 in Arianism
after Arius. Essays on the Development of the Fourth Century Trinitarian
Conflicts. Edited by Michel R. Barnes and Daniel H. Williams. Edin-
burgh: T&T Clark, 1993.
———. “The Exegesis of 1 Cor 15:24–28 from Marcellus of Ancyra to
Theodoret of Cyrus.” VC 37 (1983): 340–59.
———. “Marcellus of Ancyra in Modern Research.” TS 43 (1982):
486–503.
———. “Two Friends of Athanasius: Marcellus of Ancyra and Apolli-
narius of Laodicea.” ZAC 10 (2006): 56–66.
Logan, Alastair H. B. “Marcellus of Ancyra and Anti-Arian Polemic.”
StPatr 19 (1989): 189–97.
———. “Marcellus of Ancyra and the Councils of AD 325: Antioch,
Ancyra, and Nicaea.” JTS n.s. 43 (1992): 428–46.
———. “Marcellus of Ancyra, Defender of the Faith against Heretics—
and Pagans.” StPatr 37 (2001): 550–64.
———. “Marcellus of Ancyra on Origen and Arianism.” Pages 159–63
in Origeniana Septima. Edited by W. A. Bienert and U. Küneweg.
BEThL 137. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999.
———. “Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), ‘On the Holy
Church’: Text, Translation and Commentary.” JTS n.s. 51 (2000):
81–112.
Loofs, Friedrich. “Marcellus von Ancyra.” Pages 259–65 in vol. 12 of
RE. Edited by J. J. Herzog. 24 vols. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1896–
1913.
———. “Die Trinitätslehre Marcells von Ancyra und ihr Verhältnis zur
älteren Tradition.” SPAW (1902): 764–81.
Macholz, Waldemar. “Der Dichter Prudentius in den Spüren Marcells
von Ancyra.” ThStKr 82 (1909): 577–92.
Molland, Einar, “‘Des Reich kein Ende haben wird’: Hintergrund
und Bedeutung einer dogmatischen Aussage im nicäno-
constantinopolitanischen Glaubensbekenntnis.” Pages 234–53 in
vol. 2 of Einar Molland, Opuscula patristica. Edited by Inger Marie
Molland Stang. BTN 2. Universitet förlaget, 1970.
Möller, Wilhelm. “Marcellus, Bischof von Ancyra.” Pages 22–25 in vol.
9 of RE. Edited by J. J. Herzog. Stuttgart/Hamburg, 1858. Pages
279–82 in vol. 9 of RE. Edited by J. J. Herzog and A. Hauck. Leipzig,
1881.
———. “Rezension von Theodor Zahn, Marcellus von Ancyra 1867.”
ThStKr 42 (1869): 147–76.
Montfaucon, Bernard de. “Diatriba de causa Marcelli Ancyrani.” LI–
LXVII in vol. 2 of Bernard de Montfaucon, Collectio Nova patrum et
scriptorum Graecorum, Eusebii Caesareensis, Athanasii, & Cosmai Aegyp-
tii. 2 vols. Paris: C. Rigaud, 1706.
xvi BIBLIOGRAPHY
Parvis, Sara. “The Canons of Ancyra and Caesarea (314): Lebon’s The-
sis Revisited.” JTS n.s. 52 (2001): 625–36.
———. Marcellus of Ancyra and the Lost Years of the Arian Controversy
325–345. Oxford Early Christian Studies. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2006.
———. “Marcellus or Vitalis: Who Presided at Ancyra 314?” StPatr 34
(2001): 197–203.
Pelland, Gilles. “La théologie et l’exégèse de Marcel d’Ancyre sur 1 Cor
15:24–28: Un schème hellénistique en théologie trinitaire.” Greg 71
(1990): 679–95.
Pollard, T. E. “Marcellus of Ancyra: A Neglected Father.” Pages 187–96
in Epektasis: Mélanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Daniélou.
Edited by Jacques Fontaine and Charles Kannengiesser. Paris:
Beauchesne, 1972.
Pouderon, Bernard. “Muthodos, mustikos: L’hermeneutique de la
Cohortatio ad Graecos restituée à Marcel d’Ancyre.” REAug 49 (2003):
267–83.
Pourchet, Maurice. “Marcel d’Ancyre et ses sources théologiques.”
Ph.D. diss., Rome, 1935.
Richard, Marcel. “Un opuscule méconnu de Marcel évêque d’Ancyre.”
MScRel 6 (1949): 5–24.
Riebe, Alexandra. “Marcellus of Ancyra in Modern Research.” M.A.
diss., Durham University, 1992.
Riedweg, Christoph. Ps-Justin (Markell von Ankyra?): Ad Graecos de vera
religione (bisher Cohortatio ad Graecos). SBA 24. Basel: Reinhardt, 1992.
Riggi, C. “La dialoge des Marcelliens dans le Panarion 72.” StPatr 15
(1984): 368–74.
Robertson, Jon M. Christ as Mediator: A Study of the Theologies of Eusebius
of Caesarea, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Athanasius of Alexandria. OTM.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Sansbury, Christopher. “Athanasius, Marcellus, and Eusebius of Cae-
sarea: Some Thoughts on their Resemblances and Disagreements.”
Pages 281–86 in Arianism: Historical and Theological Reassessments.
Edited by Robert C. Gregg. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Patristic
Foundation, 1985.
Scheidweiler, Felix. “Marcellus von Ancyra.” ZNW 46 (1955): 202–14.
Seeberg, Erich. Die Synode von Antiochien im Jahre 324–325. NSGTK 16.
Aalen: Scientia, 1973.
Seibt, Klaus. “Ein Argumentum ad Constantinum in der Logos- und
Gotteslehre Markells von Ankyra.” StPatr 26 (1993): 415–20.
———. “Markell von Ancyra.” Pages 83–89 in vol. 22 of TRE. Edited by
Horst Robert Balz et al. 36 vols. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1977–
———. “Markell von Ankyra (ca. 280–374 n. Chr.) und Asterius
Sophista (ca. 270–ca. 350): Anmerkungen zu einer neuen Edition
der Markell-Fragmente und der Epistula ad Iulium.” ZKG 111
(2000): 356–77.
BIBLIOGRAPHY xvii
———. Die Theologie des Markell von Ankyra. AKG 59. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 1994.
Simonetti, Manlio. “Ancora sulla paternità dello ps. Atanasiano “Sermo
maior de fide.” VetChr 11 (1974): 333–43.
———. “Su alcune opere attribuite di recente a Marcello d’Ancira.”
RSLR 9 (1973): 313–79.
———. “Sull’interpretazione patristica di Proverbi 8:22.” Pages 9–87 in
Manlio Simonetti, Studi sull’Arianesimo. VSen n.s. 5. Rome: Editrice
Studium, 1965.
Spoerl, Kelley McCarthy. “Athanasius and the Anti-Marcellan Contro-
versy.” ZAC 10 (2006): 34–55.
———. “Two Early Nicenes: Eustathius of Antioch and Marcellus of
Ancyra.” Pages 121–48 in In the Shadow of the Incarnation: Essays on
Jesus Christ in the Early Church in Honor of Brian E. Daley, S.J. Edited by
Peter W. Martens. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press,
2008.
Stead, Christopher. “‘Eusebius’ and the Council of Nicaea.” JTS n.s. 24
(1973): 85–100.
Tetz, Martin. “Ante omnia de sancta fide et de integritate veritatis: Glau-
bensfragen auf der Synode von Serdika (342).” ZNW 76 (1985):
243–69.
———. “Die Kirchweihsynode von Antiochien (341) und Marcellus
von Ancyra: Zu der Glaubenserklärung des Theophronius von
Tyana und ihren Folgen.” Pages 199–218 in Oecumenica et Patristica:
Festschrift für Wilhelm Schneemelcher zum 75. Geburtstag. Edited by Dam-
askinos Papandreou, Wolfgang A. Bienert, and Knut Schäferdiek.
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1989.
———. “Markellianer und Athanasios von Alexandrien. Die markel-
lianische Expositio fidei ad Athanasium des Diakons Eugenius von
Ankyra.” ZNW 64 (1973): 75–121.
———. “Zum altrömischen Bekenntnis. Ein Beitrag des Marcellus von
Ancyra.” ZNW 75 (1985): 107–27.
———. “Zur strittigen Frage arianischer Glaubenserklärungen auf
dem Konzil von Nicaea (325).” Pages 220–38 in Hanns Ch. Bren-
necke et al., eds., Logos. Festschrift Luise Abramowski, Beihefte zur
Zeitschrift für Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 67. Berlin and New
York: De Gruyter, 1993.
———. “Zur Theologie des Markell von Ankyra I. Eine Markellische
Schrift ‘De incarnatione et contra Arianos.’” ZKG 75 (1964): 217–70.
———. “Zur Theologie des Markell von Ankyra II. Markells Lehre
von der Adamssohnschaft Christi und eine pseudoklementinische
Tradition über die wahren Lehrer und Propheten.” ZKG 79 (1968):
3–42.
———. “Zur Theologie des Markell von Ankyra III. Die pseudoathana-
sianische Epistula ad Liberium, ein markellisches Bekenntnis.” ZKG
83 (1972): 145–95.
xviii BIBLIOGRAPHY
Toom, Tarmo. “Marcellus of Ancyra and Priscillian of Avila: Their
Theologies and Creeds.” VC 68 (2014): 60–81.
Vinzent, Markus. Asterius von Kappadokien: Die theologischen Fragmente,
Einleitung, kritischer Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar. VCSup 20.
Leiden: Brill, 1993.
———. “Die Entstehung des ‘Römischen Glaubensbekenntnisses.’”
Pages 185–409 in Tauffragen und Bekenntnis. Studien zur sogenannten
‘Traditio Apostolica’, zu den ‘Interrogationes de fide’ und zum ‘Römischen
Glaubensbekenntnis.’ Edited by Wolfram Kinzig, Christoph Mark-
schies, and Markus Vinzent. AKG 74. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
1999.
———. “Die Gegner im Schreiben Markells von Ankyra an Julius von
Rom.” ZKG 105 (1994): 285–328.
———. “Gottes Wesen, Logos, Weisheit und Kraft bei Asterius von
Kappadokien und Markell von Ankyra.” VC 47 (1993): 170–91.
———. Pseudo-Athanasius, Contra Arianos IV. Eine Schrift gegen Asterius
von Kappadokien, Eusebius von Cäserea, Markell von Ancyra und Photin
von Sirmium. VCSup 39. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Willenborg, Franz August. Über die Orthodoxie des Marcellus von Ancyra.
Münster, 1859.
Zahn, Theodor. Marcellus von Ancyra. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Theolo-
gie. Gotha: F. A. Perthes, 1867.
Select Secondary Bibliography on

Eusebius of Caesarea
Abramowksi, Luise. “Der Geist als ‘Band’ zwischen Vater und Sohn—
ein Theologoumenon der Eusebianer?” ZNW 87 (1996): 126–32.
Armstrong, Jonathan J. The Role of the Rule of Faith in the Formation of the
New Testament Canon According to Eusebius. Lewiston, New York: The
Edwin Mellen Press, 2014.
Bardy, G. “La théologie d’Eusèbe de Césarée d’après L’Histoire Ecclésias-
tique.” RHE 40 (1955): 5–20.
Barnes, Timothy D. Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1981.
Beeley, Christopher. “Eusebius’ Contra Marcellum, Anti-Modalist Doc-
trine and Orthodox Christology.” ZAC 12 (2009): 433–52.
Berkhof, H. Die Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea. Amsterdam: Uit-
geversmaatschappij Holland, 1939.
Bigelmair, A. “Zur Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea.” Pages 65–85
in Festschrift für Georg von Hertling. Edited by Görres-Gesellschaft zur
Pflege der Wissenschaft im Kath. Deutschland. Kempten: Kösel’sche
Buchhandlung, 1913.
Campenhausen, Hans von. “Das Bekenntnis Eusebs von Caesarea (Ni-
caea 325).” ZNW 67 (1976): 123–39.
BIBLIOGRAPHY xix
DelCogliano, Mark. “The Eusebian Alliance: The Case of Theodotus of
Laodicea.” ZAC 12 (2008): 250–66.
———. “Eusebian Theologies of the Son as the Image of God before
341.” JECS 14 (2006): 459–84.
Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism. Edited by Harold W. Attridge and
Gohel Hata. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1992.
Foakes-Jackson, F. J. Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Caesarea and First Chris-
tian Historian: A Study in the Man and His Writings. Cambridge:
W. Heffer and Sons, Ltd., 1933.
Gero, Stephen. “The True Image of Christ: Eusebius’ Letter to Con-
stantia Reconsidered.” JTS n.s. 32 (1981): 460–70.
Gressmann, Hugo. Studien zu Eusebs Theophanie. TU 23.3. Leipzig: J. C.
Hinrichs, 1903.
Gwynn, David M. The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria
and the Construction of the ‘Arian Controversy.’ OTM. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2007.
Heil, Ute. “Athanasius und Eusebius. Zum Rückgriff des Athanasius
auf Euseb von Caesarea.” Pages 189–214 in Drei griechische Apologeten:
Origenes, Eusebius, und Athanasius. Edited by A. C. Jacobsen and J.
Ulrich. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2007.
Holland, D. L. “Die Synode von Antiochien (324/325) and ihre Bedeu-
tung für Eusebius von Caesarea und das Konzil von Nizäa.” ZKG 81
(1970): 163–81.
Hollerich, Michael J. Eusebius of Caesarea’s Commentary on Isaiah: Chris-
tian Exegesis in the Age of Constantine. Oxford Early Christian Studies.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999.
Inowlocki, Sabrina, and Claudio Zamagni, eds. Reconsidering Eusebius:
Collected Papers on Literary, Historical, and Theological Issues. Leiden:
Brill, 2011.
Johnson, Aaron P. Eusebius. London: I. B. Taurus, 2014.
———. Eusebius of Caesarea: Tradition and Innovation. Edited by Aaron P.
Johnson and Jeremy Schott. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic
Studies, 2013.
Kannengiesser, Charles. “Eusebius of Caesarea, Origenist.” Pages
435–66 in Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism. Edited by Harold W.
Attridge and Gohel Hata. StPB 42. Leiden: Brill, 1992.
Lee, S. Eusebius of Caesarea, On the Theophania or Divine Manifestation
of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Cambridge, UK: Duncan and
Malcolm, 1843.
Luibhéld, Colm. Eusebius of Caesarea and the Arian Crisis. Dublin: Irish
Academic Press, 1981.
———. “Eusebius of Caesarea and the Nicene Creed.” ITQ 39 (1972):
299–305.
Lyman, J. Rebecca. Christology and Cosmology: Models of Divine Activity in
Origen, Eusebius, and Athanasius. OTM. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1993.
xx BIBLIOGRAPHY
———. “Substance Language in Origen and Eusebius.” Pages 257–66
in Arianism: Historical and Theological Reassessments. Edited by Robert
C. Gregg. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Patristics Foundation, 1985.
Mackett, John K. “Eusebius of Caesarea’s Theology of the Holy Spirit.”
Ph.D. diss., Marquette University, 1992.
Moreau, J. “Eusèbe de Césarée de Palestine.” 1437–60 in DHGE 15. Ed-
ited by R. Aubert and E. Van Cauwenbergh. 31 vols. Paris: Letouzey
et Ané, 1963.
———. “Eusebius von Caesarea.” Pages 1052–88 in RAC, vol. 6.
Edited by Franz Joseph Dölger et al. 24 vols. Stuttgart: Hiersemann,
1950–.
Mühl, M. “Der λόγος ἐνδιάθετος und προφορικός von der älteren Stoa bis
zur Synode von Sirmium 351.” ABG 7 (1962): 239–68.
Munos Pacios, R. “La mediación del Logos, preexistente a la encar-
nación, en Eusebio de Cesárea. EE 43 (1968): 381–414.
Nielsen, Sylvia. Euseb von Cäsarea und das Neue Testament. Theorie und
Forschung 786. Theologie 43. Regensburg: Roderer, 2003.
Opitz, H.-G. “Euseb von Caesarea als Theologe.” ZNW 34 (1935):
51–59.
Pollard, T. E. “Eusebius of Caesarea and the Synod of Antioch (324–
325).” Pages 459–65 in Űberlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen.
Edited by Franz Paschke. TU 125. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1981.
Prestige, G. L. “Ἀγέν[ν]ητος and γεν[ν]ητός and Kindred Words in Euse-
bius and the Early Arians.” JTS 4 (1923): 486–96.
Ricken, F. “Die Logoslehre des Eusebios von Caesarea und der
Mittelplatonismus.” TP 42 (1967): 341–58.
———. “Zur Rezeption der platonischen Ontologie bei Eusebius
von Kaisareia, Areios und Athanasius.” Pages 114–17, 326, 331, in
Metaphysik und Theologie. Edited by K. Kremeer. Leiden: Brill, 1980.
Robertson, Jon M. Christ as Mediator: A Study of the Theologies of Eusebius
of Caesarea, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Athanasius of Alexandria. OTM.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Rousseau, Philip. “Eusebius of Caesarea.” Pages 141–44 in vol. 3 of
The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome. 7 vols. Edited by
Michael Gagarin and Elaine Fantham. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2010.
Ruther, R. R. “The Knowledge of God in Eusebius and Athanasius.”
Pages 229–42 in The Knowledge of God in the Graeco-Roman World.
Edited by J. Mansfield, R. van den Broek, and T. Baarda. Leiden:
Brill, 1988.
Schwartz, E. “Eusebios” in Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswis-
senschaft. Edited by A. Pauly, G. Wissowa. 3d ed. (1907): 1370–1439.
Simonetti, Manlio. “Eusebio e Origene. Per una storia dell’ origenis-
mo.” Aug 26 (1986): 323–34.
Spoerl, Kelley McCarthy. “Anti-Arian Polemic in Eusebius of Caesarea’s
Ecclesiastical Theology.” StPat 32 (1997): 33–38.
BIBLIOGRAPHY xxi
Stead, Christopher. “‘Eusebius’ and the Council of Nicaea.” JTS n.s. 24,
1 (1973): 85–100.
Stevenson, J. Studies in Eusebius. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1929.
Strutwolf, Holger. Die Trinitätstheologie und Christologie des Euseb von
Caesarea: Eine dogmengeschichtliche Untersuchung seiner Platonismusrezep-
tion und Wirkungsgeschichte. FKDG 72. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht, 1999.
Thielman, F. S. “Another Look at the Eschatology of Eusebius of Cae-
sarea.” VC 4 (1987): 226–37.
Three Greek Apologists: Origen, Eusebius, and Athanasius. Edited by
Anders-Christian Jacobsen and Jörg Ulrich. Frankfurt am Main:
Peter Lang, 2007.
Trisoglio, F. “Eusebio di Cesarea e l’escatologia.” Aug 18 (1978):
173–82.
Vinzent, Markus. Pseudo-Athanasius, Contra Arianos IV: Eine Schrift gegen
Asterius von Kappadokien, Eusebius von Cäsarea, Markell von Ankyra,
und Photin von Sirmium. VCSup 36. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Wallace-Hadrill, David S. Eusebius of Caesarea. Westminster, MD: Can-
terbury Press, 1961.
———. “Eusebius of Caesarea.” Pages 537–43 in vol. 10 of TRE. Edited
by Horst Robert Balz et al. 36 vols. New York: Walter de Gruyter,
1977–.
Warmington, B. H. “Eusebius of Caesarea and some Early Opponents
of Athanasius.” StPatr 32 (1997): 59–64.
Weber, Anton. Arche: Ein Beitrag zur Christologie des Eusebius von Cäsarea.
Munich: Verlag Neue Stadt, 1965.
Weis, Matthias. Die Stellung des Eusebius von Cäsarea im arianischen Streit.
Trier: Paulinus-Druckerei, 1919.
Willing, Meike. Eusebius von Cäsarea als Häreseograph. PTS 63. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 2008.
Young, Robin Darling. “Theologia in the Early Church.” Comm 24 (1997):
681–90.
INTRODUCTION
AGAINST MARCELLUS
AGAINST MARCELLUS 1
Eusebius
B O OK ON E
HE UNDERLYING reason for his [Marcellus’s] writing

was hatred of his fellow men, but the root of this was
jealousy and envy, which indeed also cast countless
others into the most extreme evil. Yes, from the beginning,
jealousy and envy brought about fratricide.1 Driven on by these
impulses, he wrote this one and only treatise (though it was of
no use); right from the start this man2 was determined to make
war upon the holy ministers of God, instead of speaking and
writing against the great and numerous body of heretics who
were bringing his territory into ruin.3 If only the saving Word
had had any effect on him, this would indeed have been his
primary task, like a good shepherd driving out the enemies of
the Church of God of the (2) Galatian people as if they were
wolves and wild beasts. But this man, who disregards his ter-
ritory as if it were some dry land full of creeping things spew-
ing out darts of venom, having boiled over needlessly and in
vain, discharged his rage against the ministers of God. And not
against just anybody, but against those conspicuous among all
for their life in the grace of God, and their philosophical con-
1. See Gn 4.1–16.
2. By setting up this contrast between “this man,” Marcellus, and the “holy
ministers of God,” Eusebius suggests Marcellus is an inexperienced writer,
perhaps even a layman. He, of course, was not, but already one of the inspira-
tions behind the Nicene condemnation of Arius. In any case, Eusebius’s phras-
ing here is consistent with the insinuation that Marcellus not only grievously
neglected his pastoral duties in his own diocese, but out of ignorance polemi-
cized against his theological opponents.
3. It is unclear whom Eusebius has in mind here—the wolves and beasts
may recall Justin’s and Irenaeus’s heretics, the Valentinians and the Pontic
wolf, Marcion (Justin, 1 Apol. 58; Irenaeus, haer. 1.27.4; 3.12.12), or the Mon-
tanists or others.
75
76 Eusebius
duct; and <not those living> alone, but even those who have
fallen asleep in Christ, and those of these whose fame is sung,
as it were, throughout the whole inhabited world especially
because of the excellence of [their] service of God and [their]
study of holy words. But he spoke of these men in a disparaging
way not one time, but many times and in different ways, having
mercilessly leveled false accusations (3) and calumnies against
them. Then he even used curses against them, such as wom-
en use in battle, railing and uttering curses at those who have
done no wrong to him.4 For this reason the treatise ran on even
beyond what was necessary to a great (for him) and immeasur-
able length, since, all told, it came (4) near, I estimate, to ten
thousand lines to complete the one tract.5 Therefore, as one
might expect, having sharpened an abusive tongue against the
holy ministers of God and having exercised beforehand [his]
irreverence and disrespect against these [ministers], going fur-
ther he next advanced to the most important thing of all, sub-
jecting the only begotten and beloved Son of God to these sorts
of godless blasphemies, such as it will be better to hear him,
but not me, saying a little later.
(5) Having then, however, made use of his words up to this
point, I shall hold back, without adding many words to contra-
dict and refute them, as the men who are blasphemed by him
are certainly neither unknown nor obscure, but are known
among all, (6) even when they are not mentioned, nor is [his]
blasphemy against the Christ of God something contested and
difficult to discover—hence there is no need for some great and
more verbose zeal to refute it. Thus to all who have received
the Church’s grace,6 great and small alike, the empty babbling
of this foreign theologian has been made manifest, even by its
mere quotation. For this reason I will make use of only brief
4. Eusebius indicates that Marcellus not only attacked Asterius (who was
secretary of Dianius of Caesarea in Cappadocia), but also bishops who had not
been involved in the debate; see Lib. syn. ad synod. Antioch. anno 341, ed. J. D.
Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (Florence: Expensis An-
tonii Zatta, 1759–1798) II, col. 1350.
5. If this were correct, the book cannot have been much longer than what
we now have as fragments, as our word count is already around 16,000 words.
6. Eusebius refers here to baptismal grace.
AGAINST MARCELLUS 1 77
notes, organizing the treatise with method and orderliness,
only hinting at (7) the sheer absurdity of the views that will be
introduced. But before progressing to his words I would neces-
sarily advise those reading the man’s treatise, especially if in-
deed there are any men from Galatia,7 not to be unmindful of
the holy statement of Paul the Apostle, who, writing to those
very Galatians, exhorted [them] not to turn away from “the one
who called” them “in [the] grace of Christ to another gospel,”
for “there is no other,” as he himself said, “even if there are cer-
tain men who trouble” them (8) “and wish to distort the gospel
of Christ.”8 And it is necessary to turn one’s mind to that [re-
mark] which, addressing even himself, the great Apostle made
for the shaming of those who were attempting to turn the men
away [from the right faith], when he said, “but even if we or an
angel from heaven shall proclaim to you a gospel other than the
one we have proclaimed to you, let him be anathema.”9 (9) In-
deed, having taken up this [theme], he repeats it a second time,
saying, “As I have proclaimed and I now say again: if someone
proclaims to you a gospel other than that which you received,
let him be anathema.”10
But what in the world was this gospel instead of which there
was no other one,11 if not, I suppose, that very gospel that indeed
it is recorded that the Savior publicly proclaimed when he was
handing it over to his disciples, saying, “Go, make disciples of all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and (10) of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit”?12 For he alone through the mys-
tical regeneration has given to us this grace of the knowledge of
the holy Trinity, since neither Moses nor any prophet provided
this to the people of old. For it was fitting for the Son of God
alone to proclaim to all human beings the paternal grace, since
7. It is not clear here to whom Eusebius refers.

8. Gal 1.6–7. “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who
called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel—not that
there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to per-
vert the gospel of Christ.” (RSV)
9. Gal 1.8.
10. Gal 1.9.
11. The correction of Klostermann is unnecessary.
12. Mt 28.19.
78 Eusebius
indeed, “The law was given through Moses,” but only through
“Jesus Christ,” as through (11) an “only-begotten Son,” did
“grace and truth” come.13 For this reason rightly did the one
[Moses], in the manner of a tutor, hand over to the people of
old in their infancy “elements of the beginning of the ways of
God,”14 on the one hand prohibiting [the] error of polytheism,
while on the other, announcing the knowledge of one God. But
the saving grace, which provides to us a certain transcendent
and angelic knowledge, unveiled for all to see the ancient mys-
tery that had been hidden in silence from the people of old, an-
nouncing that the very God who is beyond the universe15 [and]
who was known to the men of old is at the same time God and
Father of the only-begotten Son, supplying as well the power
of the Holy Spirit through the Son to those (12) deemed wor-
thy. Thus the Church of God received and preserves the holy,
blessed, and mystical Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as
its saving hope through the regeneration in Christ. And this
was the gospel that the great Apostle testifies it is not lawful to
change “for another gospel [though] there is no other”16 still
up to the present through the letter to them, crying out to [the]
Galatians, “Even if we or an angel from heaven proclaims to
you a gospel other than you received, let him be anathema,”17
commanding [them] long ago, as is right, not to heed either
bishops or rulers or teachers if one of them should distort the
true statement of the faith. (13) But who was this [man]18 who
teaches [us] to know God as Father and hands over [to us] the
knowledge of a Son of God and the zeal to participate in a Holy
Spirit? Indeed, these things would be the distinguishing fea-
tures of Christians alone, this being the way in which, I think,
the (14) holy Church of God distinguishes itself from the Jew-
ish way [of life]. For as that way [of life] rejected the polythe-
istic and Greek error by [the] confession of one God, so also
the exceptional knowledge concerning the Son that belongs to
13. Jn 1.17–18.
14. Heb 5.12.
15. Rom 9.5.
16. Gal 1.6–7.
17. Gal 1.8.
18. Klostermann’s emendation <ἢ> is unnecessary.
the Church introduced something greater and more complete,
teaching [human beings] to know the same God as Father of
an only-begotten Son, a Son who is truly existing and living
and subsisting. In saying, “For as the Father has life in himself,
so also he has given to the Son to have life in himself,”19 the
only-begotten of God himself taught [this], (15) so that the
Father is truly Father (not being called so only in name, nor
having acquired the title falsely, but [being] in truth and deed
Father of an only-begotten Son) and also the Son is truly Son.
But he who supposes that the Son is a mere word and testifies
that he is only Word and many times says this very thing, that
he is nothing other than Word, remaining within the Father
while he is resting but being active in the crafting of the cre-
ation, just like our word that rests when we are silent but is ac-
tive when we are speaking, would clearly agree with a certain
Jewish and human conception [of the Word], but deny the true
Son of God.
(16) Indeed, if someone were to ask one of the Jews if God
had a word, to be sure, he would say, “I suppose so”—since every
Jew would confess that he has both not only a word, but many
words. But that he also has a Son, he would no longer (17) con-
fess [this] when asked. But if not a Jew but one of [the] bishops
were to introduce this belief, granting that he is only a word
united to God and [that] this is eternal and unbegotten and
both one and the same with God, on the one hand being called
by different names of Father and Son, while on the other, ex-
isting as one in being and hypostasis20 [with the Father], how
could it not be clear that he is clothing himself in the mantle of
Sabellius, and has made himself a stranger to both the knowl-
edge and the grace in Christ? For the law of the Church com-
mands us neither to question, nor to dispute, nor to ask whether
or not the only-begotten Son of God existed or pre-existed; but
it teaches by means of a confessed and unambiguous faith with
great courage and boldness to confess that God is a Father of
a Son, the Only-begotten, and to name neither the Son Father
nor the Father Son, but to worship on the one hand the Father
19. Jn 5.26.
20. οὐσίᾳ δὲ καὶ ὑποστάσει.
80 Eusebius
who is ingenerate, and eternal and without source and first and
only, but on the other to believe that [the Son] has been begot-
ten by the Father and subsists and is alone only-begotten Son,
(18) and also to acknowledge him as God as being truly Son of
God.
Therefore, if someone were to appear to contradict these
[truths], and defined this Word of God as being like the one
in men, <how would he avoid being refuted> since he neither
understands nor realizes that nothing mortal or human must
be attributed to the God who is beyond the universe, nor alto-
gether any of the things that occur to our understanding, even
if the divine Scriptures, teaching those who read them as if they
were certain very young children, speak about him in a more
human way, applying to him hands and feet and eyes and voice
and words and a mouth and a face and countless other things
of this sort? These things, indeed, must be transferred to ideas
befitting God, so that they might not imagine there is anything
mortal or human in God; for the Savior himself taught [that]
“God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit
and truth.”21 (19) But if [God is] spirit, it is clear that [he is]
divine, greater than any perceptible and composite body, so as
to have neither a perceptible word, coming from a tongue and
listened to by mortal ears through speech, nor a tongue nor a
voice nor a face nor any other thing that is comparable to a mor-
tal and (20) human conception. For if the holy Apostle taught
that there is something else “which eye has not seen nor ear
heard nor has occurred to the heart of man” of the sort “which
God has prepared for those who love him,”22 the giver of these
things would himself be more ineffable than all these ineffable
things, so that it would be more true by far to say in the the-
ology concerning him that neither has eye seen nor ear heard
nor has (21) the knowledge of the comprehension of him come
“into the heart of man.” But the same saying would also apply
about the generation of the Son. So the Savior himself would
become a worthy interpreter of these sacred mysteries for us,
claiming in this way somewhere, “All things have been given to
21. Jn 4.24.
22. 1 Cor 2.9.
me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father,
nor does (22) anyone know the Father except the Son.”23
Therefore then, if anyone were to contradict these [words]
and dare to say
that even the Son, to whom the Father has given all things,
did not subsist, but were to define him as word as only like [the
word] in human beings, at one time resting in God like the one
that is silent among us, but at another time being active like
[the word] that is uttered in speaking among us;
then to say that this very [word] at a certain time not four
hundred whole years ago took flesh (I know not how) and
through it has fulfilled the human economy and at that time
became Son of God and as Jesus Christ both was called King
and is addressed as image “of the invisible God,” and “firstborn
of all creation,”24 never having received these titles ever before;
then in addition to this sort of madness, he neither grant-
ed unending life and eternal kingdom to Christ, whatever time
frame he has in mind, but would introduce an end to him that
is neither auspicious nor such as the Savior himself promised to
those who would be made worthy through him of the gospels,
having promised eternal life and immortal resurrection and
[the] kingdom of heaven to those who love him;
(23) but would claim that at that time, in accordance with the
expected hope of these, the things of the everlasting kingdom
would endure for all the others, but that a complete depriva-
tion of all these things would be the lot of Christ himself alone,
his kingdom having come to an end, while the flesh that he
assumed would be left behind abandoned, while the Word him-
self, who pre-existed in God, being separated from the body
(even if this were to be undying and immortal), would be unit-
ed to God, so as to become one and the same again with God
just as he also was previously;
(24) then what extravagance of impiety could be left to him
[who makes such claims]?
For this reason, then, the witness of the apostolic command
is needed, which said to these [Galatians]: “Even if an angel
23. Mt 11.27.
24. Col 1.15.
82 Eusebius
from heaven shall announce a gospel different from the one
you received, let him be anathema.”25 But I was wonder-struck
when I was reflecting upon the Apostle’s thinking. For just as
if he were prophesying the future to the Galatians themselves,
he explained more precisely the theology of the Savior, in that
passage in the beginning of the letter to them, in which he
wrote in a more surprising way than usual 26 as follows: “Paul
an apostle, not by men (25) nor through a man but through
Jesus Christ.”27 At any rate, one would not find him writing in
this way to others—because, as we know, there were no others
to whom he wrote in this way concerning the faith. For just as
he brought correction to those who supposed that Christ was a
mere man, teaching that he was not a man at the beginning of
the letter, so proceeding further he said to the same [readers],
“My gospel, which was proclaimed to you, is not according to
man, nor did I receive it from a man, nor was I taught it, but
through a revelation of Jesus Christ,”28 (26) through which he
again shows that Jesus Christ was not a man. And he again clar-
ified further on what he was, if not a man, saying, “when God
took pleasure in choosing me from my mother’s womb to reveal
his Son in me.”29 You see that he addressed the Savior clearly as
25. Gal 1.8–9.

26. Eusebius finds Paul surprising in the opening of Galatians as the Apos-
tle specifies mediation between God and man through Christ, who is divine as
well as human. Eusebius is at pains to stress his anti-Marcellan position, but,
as one can see here, also deviates from Asterius (therefore the note on the
“surprise”). Marcellus saw the divine Logos as the mediator; Asterius believed
Christ mediated God’s grace through his humanity, whereas Eusebius (with
Paul in Galatians) sees that Paul stated that he had become Apostle “not by
men nor through a man but through Jesus Christ.” See Asterius, fr. 47 (112 V.):
“See, then, also through Moses he [God] guided the people out of Egypt and
has given the Law, although he [Moses] too was only a human being; hence,
it is possible that through the same [the Son as a human being] the same can
happen [mediatorship of God’s grace, salvation, law-giving].” Eusebius tries
to communicate a middle position between Asterius and Marcellus, and in-
troduces the idea that Christ is both God and man; hence he reflects neither
Marcellus’s view (that Christ is mediator only as God) nor Asterius’s position
(that Christ is mediator only as human).
27. Gal 1.1.
28. Gal 1.11–12.
29. Gal 1.15–16.
Son of God (27) and because of this as God. And that he knew
that he was Son of God even before [his] coming in the flesh
he shows in the clearest way possible, adding in the same letter
to Galatians: “But when the fullness of time came, God sent
his Son, born of a woman.”30 Therefore not now, but before he
was born of a woman, the Father sent a Son who exists and pre-
exists, so that he who was of old Son of God might also become
Son (28) of man, having been born “of a woman.” But he teach-
es that he also became a mediator of the law of Moses, 31 defin-
ing the purpose of the mediation, by saying, “What then? The
law was given because of transgressions until the seed came to
whom it had been promised, ordained through angels by [the]
hand of a mediator. Now a mediator implies more than one;
but God is one.”32 You hear that in these [words] the Apostle
taught [those] same Galatians to know from (29) [that pas-
sage] that God is one, and that the mediator between God and
angels is one. Indeed, he also showed this in other [remarks],
saying, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God
and men, [the] man Jesus Christ.”33 But when, on the one hand,
he named him mediator between “God and men,” quite right-
ly he called him “man” because of the Incarnation. But when,
on the other hand, he introduced the same as mediator not
between God and men but between God and angels, he no lon-
ger named him “man,” but he says only that he is “mediator,”
having said that the law was ordained (30) “through angels by
[the] hand of a mediator,”34 and clarifying the name of the me-
diator necessarily by a distinction in saying, “Now a mediator
implies more than one; but God is one.”35 Consequently neither
would “the” God be the mediator (for of whom could he also
become a mediator?) nor would the mediator himself be “the”
God, (31) for “a mediator implies more than one.”36 But rather
30. Gal 4.4.

31. See Asterius, fr. 47 (112 V.).
32. Gal 3.19–20.
33. 1 Tm 2.5.
34. Gal 3.19.
35. Gal 3.20.
36. In this passage Eusebius relies upon the Origenist distinction between
the Father as “the” God and the Son as God. See introduction, pp. 23, 45.
84 Eusebius
he stood between these two. Who these were between whom
[he stood] [Paul] makes clear by naming angels and “the” God.
He says that the Son of “the” God, being between them [“the”
God and angels], has received the law with his own hand from
the Father, but that it was ordained for the first people [the
Jews] through angels. Thus on that basis the Son was mediator
between God and angels, before (32) he became “mediator be-
tween God and men.”
And he was not, as a mere word of God, non-subsistent, 37 ex-
isting as one and the same with God (for he would not then be
a mediator); but he existed and pre-existed as “only-begotten
Son full of grace and truth.”38 And he acted as a mediator for
the Father when he provided the law to men “through angels.”
And indeed, when teaching on this basis the ignorant and un-
learned regarding the theology of the Son of God, the Apostle
confirmed this, saying, “a mediator implies more than one.”39
For it is not natural (33) for a mediator to be defined in rela-
tion to one thing. For this reason, this mediator does not imply
one party, but necessarily operates between two parties, being
neither of those between whom he is, so that he is thought to
be neither “the” God who is over all40 nor one of the angels,
but in between and a mediator between these, when he medi-
ates between the Father and angels. As once again, when he be-
came “mediator between God and men,”41 being between each
rank, he belongs to neither one of those ranks between which
he is mediator. Neither is he himself the one and only God, nor
is he (34) a man like the rest of men. What then, if neither of
these, [is he] if not an only-begotten Son of God, now having
become a mediator between men and God, but very long ago
in the time of Moses existing as mediator between God and
angels? And writing these things to them, passing them down,
I suppose, in this way the great Apostle says, “The law having
been ordained (35) through angels by [the] hand of a media-
37. ἀνυπόστατος.
38. Jn 1.14.
39. Gal 3.20.
40. Rom 9.5; Eph 4.6. The phrase “over all” appears frequently.
41. 1 Tm 2.5.
tor. Now a mediator implies more than one; but God is one.”42
Therefore, “there is one God” and “one mediator of God” for
all creatures, the saving mediation beginning not now, but even
before his divine appearance among men, as (36) the state-
ment thus showed. Given that these things have been laid out
in brief to the same Galatians from the only letter addressed to
them, and that the saving faith provides the mystical regenera-
tion “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit,”43 and that in addition to the divine writings the uni-
versal Church of God from one end of the earth to the other
confirms the testimonies from the divine Scriptures by its un-
written tradition, now it remains also to examine in detail the
statements of Marcellus and to undertake the demonstrations
that were promised by us, lest anyone think that the man is un-
justly disparaged by us. (37) My present goal being to discuss
briefly what has been said, I will not recount all the statements
of the man, but I will make use of only those that are most sig-
nificant; through them I will make my argument, having gone
over the most, as it were, egregious ones. But before I lay out
what he has said, I think it is necessary in the first place to show
to my readers that he did not understand correctly the most
obvious statements of the divine Scriptures, so that it might be
known to those who were still ignorant of him44 what sort of
man was driven to dare [to say] such things.
Chapter 2
(1) Therefore, to begin with, the prophet Zechariah arose at
the time of the return from Babylon and mentioned the great
priest Jesus,45 that is, the son of Josedek, who together with
Zerubbabel led those who had returned from Babylon. This
fine fellow and wondrous author [Marcellus], being ignorant of
42. Gal 3.19–20.

43. Mt 28.19.
44. This shows that Marcellus’s book, and perhaps he himself, was not
known by all the people whom Eusebius intended to address.
45. Zec 3.1–2. The Hebrew name “Joshua” is in fact a form of the Greek
name “Jesus.”
86 Eusebius
these things, cites the statement of Zechariah in which he men-
tions Jesus, but having gotten the historical referent completely
wrong, (2) he supposed he spoke about Jesus, [the] successor to
Moses. And again, where the Apostle wrote in the letter to the
Galatians in this way, “the Jerusalem that is above is free, which
is our Mother,”46 he either forgot or did not know or even delib-
erately distorts the statement, writing, however:
“Our Jerusalem is above. For she is in bondage with her
children.”47
(3) And again, where our Savior said to Peter, “Get behind
me, Satan; you are a stumbling block to me, because you do not
think of the things of God but of the things of man,”48 not hav-
ing understood in what sense the statement was made to the
Apostle and for what sort of reason, he says that these things
were said to the Devil. But he proposes such tremendous errors
at the same time under a single section [of his treatise], writing
with these very words in this way:
That there is no name that is greater than “Jesus” among those
who are named on earth, the gospel testifies in that passage
where the angel said to Mary: “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you
have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in
your womb and bear a son, and you will call his name (4) Jesus.
He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High.”49
This is also clear from the prophecy of Zechariah, which had
prophesied long ago concerning this name. For it says, “The
Lord showed to me the great priest Jesus standing before the
angel of the Lord, and the Devil standing at his right hand to
accuse him. And the Lord said to the Devil: ‘The Lord, who
has chosen (5) Jerusalem, rebuke you.’”50 For when did he
rebuke him? When he joined the man beloved by him to his
own Word. He says, “He who has chosen Jerusalem,” [mean-
46. Gal 4.26.

47. Small middle section of Marcellus, fr. 4 (1 K./H.) (8,5–6 V.), taken
from Gal 4.25–26.
48. Mt 16.23.
49. Lk 1.30–32.
50. Zec 3.1–2.
ing] quite clearly, this one belonging to us, about which the
Apostle says, “Our Jerusalem is above. (6) For she is in bond-
age with her children.”51 For at the time when he was in that
great Jerusalem, that is, in our Church, he rebuked the Devil
in accordance with the prophecy, having said, “Get behind me,
Satan, because you are a stumbling block to me.”52 Therefore,
this [Jesus] is the great priest (7) of whom Jesus in the past pre-
served the type. For it was not possible for that man [Jesus] to
be called a great priest, even though he was honorable in every
way, because not even Moses was called great (for Moses was
great in this respect, that he was even called “servant of God”
and was named God of the Pharaoh by God himself). 53 (8) But
if because of this someone were to think that Jesus was said to
be great because he was deemed worthy to lead the people into
the Holy Land and did many other wonders, let him also know
through this, that the attribution of greatness to Jesus referred
not so much to the action of the type, but to his [Jesus’s] lead-
ing of his people a little later into this great city of Jerusalem
that was to come. 54
You see how great his ignorance was, having completely lost
track of the historical referent, and not having been able to
identify (9) the Jesus who was indicated by the prophet Zech-
ariah. For the one was son of Josedek of [the] tribe of Levites,
having received the high priesthood from the family of Aaron,
on account of which he was also deemed “great priest,” just as
the prophet teaches, saying, “and [the] Lord showed to me Je-
sus the great priest.”55 (10) But the successor of Moses, who led
the people into the Promised Land and who also did many oth-
er miracles, was a son of Nun, of the tribe of Ephraim, which
had nothing to do with the priesthood. Well now, having devi-
ated to so great an extent from the most obvious sense of the
[biblical] statement and having been ignorant of the straight-
51. Gal 4.25–26.

52. Mt 16.23.
53. Ex 14.31; Ex 7.1.
54. Marcellus, fr. 4 (1 K./H.) (6,12–8,18 V.).
55. Zec 3.1.
88 Eusebius
forward facts of the narrative, how could this fellow [Marcel-
lus] be worthy to teach the highest theology?
And with regard to Peter, likewise (11) it is necessary to know
in what sense it was said to him “Get behind me” and what the
[proper] interpretation of the name of Satan is and why he
also said he [Peter] was a “stumbling block,” and how at almost
nearly one and the same time it was said to him both “Blessed
are you, Simon bar Jonah”56 and (12) “Get behind me, Satan,”57
and what the meaning of the expression “to follow behind” the
Savior is. Right afterward, he himself explains [this], adding
next, “If anyone wishes to follow me, let him deny himself and
take up his cross and follow me,”58 which Peter himself in fact
did (13) a little later, having been perfected by martyrdom. But
it is also necessary to inquire why he blessed him and why he
rebuked him. But he [Marcellus], having taken none of these
things into consideration, declared that these things were said
(14) to the Devil, contrary to Scripture. And was this the only
thing about which he was ignorant? No, but proceeding on
again, having mentioned the resurrection of our Savior [and]
having then wished to show that even before him in prophet-
ic times someone was raised from the dead, he again makes
mistakes here too, saying that first Elisha the prophet raised [a
child] from the dead;59 not knowing that even before Elisha,
Elijah the great resurrected the son of the widow when he had
died, as (15) one can learn from the third book of Kings.60 But
he also seems to have been ignorant of these things in what he
wrote as follows:
Therefore, the Apostle says that he is not only “firstborn of the
new creation,”61 but also “firstborn of the dead”62 for no other
reason, it seems to me, but so that through the expression
“firstborn of the dead” one might grasp how the expression
56. Mt 16.17.
57. Mt 16.23.
58. Mt 16.24.
59. LXX 4 Kgs 4.35 (RSV 2 Kgs 4.35).
60. LXX 3 Kgs 17.22 (RSV 1 Kgs 17.22).
61. Col 1.15; 2 Cor 5.17; Gal 6.15.
62. Col 1.18.
“firstborn of all creation” is to be understood. For our Lord Je-
sus Christ was not the first to rise from the dead, but the man
who was raised by Elisha the prophet rose before [him],63 and
Lazarus rose before his resurrection,64 and at the time of the
Passion “many bodies of those who had fallen asleep”65 rose.66
(16) But Marcellus seems to me to have taken even this with-
out carefully considering it; I mean the statement that “many
bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep” were raised before
him [Christ]. For he did not take into consideration the whole
text of the gospel when it teaches that “after (17) his <raising>”67
the bodies of the saints were raised.
But you would find him running into error even in his pre-
sentation of the apostolic statement. For, on the one hand, the
divine Apostle, writing these sorts of things to the Romans, says,
“having been chosen for [the] gospel of God, which had been
promised beforehand through his prophets in [the] holy writ-
ings concerning his Son, who came from [the] seed of David
according to [the] flesh, (18) having been ordained Son of God
in power according to the spirit of holiness.”68 But, on the oth-
er hand, [this fellow], with I do not know what intention, even
here distorts the apostolic statement, when he writes “having
been foreordained,” instead of “having been ordained,” so that
he [Christ] might be like those (19) who were foreordained “ac-
cording to [his] foreknowledge.”69 Thus he says in this way with
these very words:
Therefore, just as God the Almighty long ago foreordained
the Church, so also [did he foreordain] the fleshly economy
of Christ, through whom he foreordained to call the race of
the God-fearing “into adoption,”70 having laid the foundation
[for him] beforehand in his mind. Because of this, the Apostle
63. LXX 4 Kgs 4.35 (RSV 2 Kgs 4.35).

64. Jn 11.44.
65. Mt 27.52.
66. Marcellus, fr. 12 (2 K./H.) (14,6–13 V.).
67. Mt 27.52, 53.
68. Rom 1.1–4.
69. Eph 1.11.
70. Eph 1.5.
90 Eusebius
expressly proclaimed him who “in the Holy Spirit” is “foreor-
dained Son of God.”71
And again he says in other [words]:
This is he about whom Paul said, “The foreordained Son of
God.”72
(20) But even here he not only distorts the apostolic state-
ment, but even the very sense through the addition of the prep-
osition [be]fore. But pursuing the same line of argument, when
the Psalm includes [the statement], “From the womb before the
morning star I begot you,”73 the fellow has used even in this
case a preposition that is absent [from the biblical text] in or-
der to reprimand (21) the one [Asterius] who does not make
claims similar to the ones he does. Therefore, listen to how he
writes, saying:
Well then, because of this, it seems good to me (22) to consider
in detail now what I have not yet considered previously. For
most of what was written by him [Asterius] has become clear to
us from what has already been said. For [Scripture] says, “From
the womb before the morning star I brought you forth.”74 For
he [Asterius] somehow altogether believed that suppression of
the preposition from would concur with his heretical opinion.
For this reason he took away the central idea expressed by this
word because he wanted to show [the Son’s] initial birth from
above.75
And since he exerted himself powerfully in these [remarks]
on behalf of his own error, while having accused the man [As-
terius] who wrote correctly, having himself said nothing, he
hands over to those who come upon it the same testimony of
the reading. (23) And proceeding on again, the same man in-
troduces the Savior saying, “I am the day,” claiming somewhere
in this way:
71. Rom 1.4; Marcellus, fr. 37 (19 K./H.) (36,1–5 V.).

72. Rom 1.4; Marcellus, fr. 112 (122 K./H.) (106,1 V.).
73. Ps 109.3 (RSV 110.3).
74. Ibid.
75. Marcellus, fr. 57 (28 K./H.) (50,7–12 V.).
For since it was dark previously because of the ignorance of
the fear of God, and since the day was going to appear (for
[Christ] says, “I am the day”), [Scripture] most fittingly called
the star [the] “morning star.”76
(24) And in another place he says,
For since after the assumption of the flesh he is proclaimed
both “Christ” and “Jesus,” as well as “life”77 and “way”78 and
“day.”79
And again proceeding on, he presents the statement of the
Apostle:
“Our Jerusalem is above.”80
(25) And why should I continue on at length, since it is pos-
sible for him who wishes on the basis of what has been said to
read the same sorts of things throughout the whole treatise and
to consider the carelessness of the man? Listen to him, because
of his carelessness, calling many times Solomon a prophet and
invoking the “prophecies” of Proverbs. (26) Therefore, just as
he says in these [remarks]:
For this reason, the most holy prophet Solomon said, “Receive
instructions in wise dealing,”81 and again, “words of the wise
and their riddles,”82
he calls the proverb a prophecy, and again:
For this reason, this most wise prophet seems to me also to
have uttered the first words of the prophecy in the form of a
proverb.83
76. Marcellus, fr. 58 (30 K./H.) (52,1–3 V.).

77. Jn 11.25; 14.6; 1 Jn 1.1–2; 5.20.
78. Jn 14.6.
79. Jn 9.4; this passage comes from a small middle section of Marcellus, fr. 3
(43 K./H.) (6,1–3 V.).
80. Small middle section of Marcellus, fr. 4 (1 K./H.) (8,5–6 V.), taken from
Gal 4.25–26.
81. Prv 1.3.
82. Prv 1.6; Marcellus, fr. 24 (123 K./H.) (28,17–18 V.).
83. Marcellus, fr. 25 (124 K./H.) (28,19–20 V.).
92 Eusebius
(27) And a second and third time and many times, as I said,
he does this, being ignorant that “there are varieties of gifts”84
but still “the same Spirit” and to one “is given the utterance
of wisdom” according to the Apostle, “to another utterance of
knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the
same Spirit, to another prophecy.”85(28) For this reason Solo-
mon has been attested to have received gifts of wisdom, “for
[the] Lord gave to Solomon wisdom,” as Scripture says, “and he
was made wise beyond all men.”86 But neither having acquired
the prophetic life nor the distinctive mark of prophecy, which
is known from [the statement] “Thus says the Lord” and sim-
ilar [statements], (29) he makes his declarations through his
own words. But [that] fellow [Marcellus], having paid no atten-
tion to any of these things, granting, as it were, some gift to the
man, calls him [Solomon] a prophet, not having understood
that the prophets “went around in skins of sheep and goats, in
want, afflicted, mistreated.”87And he says that the proverbs are
his prophecy [even if] the divine Scripture nowhere teaches
[this], although he [Solomon], the very wisest man, together
with [the] Holy Spirit, gave to this book [the] name Proverbs,
to another Ecclesiastes, and to the third Song (30) of Songs,
applying these titles not on the basis of a godless or human
calculation.
But he also tries to interpret the very divinely inspired Scrip-
ture of him [Solomon] by means of Greek models, having paid
no heed to Paul the Apostle when he said, “we did not receive
the spirit of the world but the Spirit that comes from God, so
that we might see the things that were given by God to us; and
we do not speak these things in learned words taught of hu-
man wisdom, but in learned [words] taught of [the] Holy Spirit,
teaching spiritual things to the spiritual. But the psychic man
does not receive the things of the Spirit of God. For [they] are
folly to him, and he cannot know that they are judged spiritual-
84. 1 Cor 12.4.

85. 1 Cor 12.8–10.
86. LXX 3 Kgs 5.9–10 (RSV 1 Kgs 4.29–30).
87. Heb 11.37.
ly.” But having been ignorant even of these things, the noble
88
man tries to place before us the meaning of the holy Proverbs

on the basis of Greek writings, writing in this way in these very
words:
Chapter 3
(1) For it is not out of place, I think, at this time to remind you
in the present discussion of a few of the non-Christian prov-
erbs. “Either he is dead or he is teaching letters.” One would
suppose on the basis of its wording that this proverb was said
against those who teach letters, since another one of them also
said, “You taught letters; I went to school.” But those who wrote
the commentaries alleged that this was not the case. Rather,
they say, when the Sicilians conquered the Athenians in battle,
they spared only those who claimed to be educated, leading
them as teachers to [their] children, but killed all the rest. And
when some of those who had fled and returned home were
asked by the Athenians about some of their relatives, they al-
lege that they said, “Either he is dead or he is teaching letters.”
(2) But what about [the proverb] “A goat to the knife”?
Someone might suppose—if I may put down what has been
said about it before—that the proverb was said because of the
fact that the goat that is about to be sacrificed looks up at the
knife. But the ancients, you can be sure, did not say this. For
the expression would not have been a proverb if indeed this
were so (for it was logical to think this if you take the saying
literally). But they allege that this was said with regard to those
who bring evil on themselves. For [they say] Medea, in Corinth,
after she had killed her children, hid the knife on the spot. But
when the Corinthians, in obedience to an oracle that had been
given to them, were sacrificing a black goat and did not have a
knife, the goat, digging with its hoof, uncovered Medea’s knife
and was sacrificed with it.
(3) But “What does [the saying] ‘Enough of the oak!’
mean?” someone says. For it is impossible to understand the
proverb at first glance. The ancients, as they said, ate acorns
88. 1 Cor 2.12–14.

94 Eusebius
before the cultivation of grain, [but] when, as they thought,
this type of nourishment was later discovered, taking note of
it and rejoicing in the change, they said, “Enough of the oak!”
And this, they said, was [the meaning of] the proverb.89
(4) Again, another proverb was articulated by most of the
wise men among them in many and various books. It is neces-
sary to mention at present what those who have chosen to inter-
pret proverbs have written about it, but 90 so that we might refute
Asterius, who also knows from his non-Christian studies exactly
what the point of the proverb is, though at present he pretends
to be ignorant so that he might seem to lend persuasiveness to
his own viewpoint through the use of a proverbial statement.
[The proverb] is “the skill of a Glaukos.” The non-Christian
wise men who mentioned this proverb (5) explained it various-
ly. For a certain one of them said that Glaukos was a man who
had become knowledgeable in a certain skill, which was the
most wondrous of many, but which perished at sea along with
that man, since no one has heard of it since. But another, hav-
ing testified that Glaukos had an excellent knowledge of music,
says that four bronze disks, which were made by him, achieved
a concordance of sounds as a result of a certain harmony in the
striking. And so on this basis the proverb was articulated. (6)
Yet another one says that of [the] votive offerings of Alyattes,
a mixing bowl with a wondrous stand was offered, something
made by Glaukos of Chios. And another [says that] Glaukos
himself dedicated at Delphi a bronze tripod, which he crafted
from its materials in such a way that when struck forcefully, the
feet on which it rested and the upper casing and the garland on
the basin and the rods extended through the middle resonat-
ed with the sound of a lyre. And again another says that the
proverb was articulated with regard to a certain Glaukos who
believed that he had made something even greater.
89. Cf. Theophrastus, On Piety, apud Porphyry, Abst., 2.5.6.

90. The editor Wendland and following him Klostermann/Hansen have
thought there was a lacuna in the text. As one can see from the manuscript
corrections of V c and V*, there must, indeed, have been a corruption. Yet the
text makes sense without assuming a lacuna: Marcellus indicates that he, as
Asterius has done before him, is using an interpreter, not to support Asterius’s
interpretation, however, but to refute him.
(7) You see how the difficulty of the proverb is also demon-
strated through this, through [the fact that] those who wished
to explain this proverb do not agree on the same interpreta-
tion. Thus the point of the proverb seems to be something dif-
ficult to find even among the non-Christians. For this reason
also a certain one of the wise men among them, having col-
lected the proverbs spoken by many men and in different ways,
has written six books on them, two (8) in meter, four in prose.
Non-Christians called these “proverbs” for no other reason, it
seems to me, than because when they read the proverbs of the
most wise Solomon and came to know through them that there
is nothing to learn clearly at first glance from their wording,
they, too, desiring to emulate the prophetic writing, wrote in
the same way as he [Solomon]. Then, since they could think of
no other name more suitable than that, they also named these
proverbs.91
(9) Through these sorts of comparisons, Marcellus attempts
to teach the Church of God [how] to understand the divinely
inspired Scriptures. But I presented this whole long and ver-
bose digression because I wanted to show the folly of the mas-
sive and importunate ambition with which the man has oper-
ated, having made a show of the writings of the Greeks, while
(10) ignoring the holy [Scriptures]. For he would never have
fallen into such great folly if he had remembered the apostolic
commands, through which he [the Apostle] exhorts [us] to use
“the gifts given by God to us,” to speak “not in words taught by
human wisdom, but taught by [the] Spirit, (11) teaching spiritu-
al things to the spiritual,”92 [and] had not failed to understand
in what sense [this statement] was made: “the psychic man does
not receive the things of the Spirit of God. For [they] are folly
to him, and he cannot know that they are judged spiritually.”93
But having been ignorant of these things, he supposed that the
wise men of Greece acquired knowledge of the wisdom grant-
ed by God to Solomon, and having this knowledge, emulated
(12) the prophetic writing, as he himself says. And how were
91. Marcellus, fr. 23 (125 K./H.) (24,1–28,16 V.).

92. 1 Cor 2.12–14.
93. Ibid.
96 Eusebius
the psychic men able to know and emulate divine things and
yet did not know that “spiritual things” are judged “by the spir-
itual,” given that the holy Apostle declared that a psychic man
cannot receive “the things of the Spirit of God”? But although
the same man said that the psychic man cannot know spiritual
things “because they are judged spiritually,” the noble fellow
[Marcellus], contradicting the Apostle, claims that the (13) au-
thors of Greek proverbs had written in the same way as Solo-
mon [wrote]. And, indeed, he says this, using these very words:
When they read the proverbs of the most wise Solomon and
came to know through them that there is nothing to learn
clearly at first glance from their wording, they, too, desiring
to emulate the prophetic writing, wrote in the same way as he
[Solomon].94
And see again in another way from the[se] very comparisons
how greatly he deviated from the truth, having said that the
Greeks have written in the same way as Solomon. (14) For on
the one hand, Solomon, impelled by God-given wisdom, ded-
icated all of his writing to the benefit and salvation of souls by
means of the word of godly piety; but for the sake of the ex-
ercise of the reader’s understanding, he made use of obscure
metaphors, turns of phrase, and expressions conveyed through
riddles. And there is testimony of this in the beginning of the
book, [where it says], “Having listened to these, a wise man
will be wiser, and the thoughtful man will acquire guidance,
and he will reflect on a parable (15) of dark words, both the
words and riddles of wise men,” and again, “to receive turns of
phrase.”95 And that this is also the case, it is easy to learn from
the things contained in the book, which otherwise cannot be
known, unless we pass from the surface meaning to the deeper
meaning underneath it. Such is the statement “By the leech,
three daughters were loved with love, and the same three did
not plaster it up. And the (16) fourth was not content to say
what was sufficient,”96 and “Wisdom built her house, and set up
94. Marcellus, fr. 23 (125 K./H.) (28,11–14 V.).

95. Prv 1.5–6; 1.3.
96. Prv 30.15.
seven pillars; she has slaughtered her beasts and has mixed her
wine in a mixing bowl,”97 and all the other statements similar
to these, which are impossible to understand in another way,
either at first reading or from some story, but solely according
to the metaphorical and analogical sense of the wording.
The proverbs that were exhibited among the Greeks, howev-
er, (17) received their beginnings from certain stories. For the
proverb “Either he is dead or he is teaching letters” was said,
he says, because of this story; and because of yet another deed
of this sort that happened, the statement “A goat to the sword”
was said. And the proverb “Enough of the oak!” likewise [was
said], because of the time when acorn-eaters ceased [consum-
ing] this sort of food. But even if a certain Glaukos, having be-
come knowledgeable in some skill, was described in different
ways by those afterward who disagreed about these things in
[their] writing about him, what does this have to do with the
divinely inspired Proverbs? Unlike the Greek proverbs, these
[proverbs] do not admit solution on the basis of a certain story.
Consequently, not only in ignorance and without understand-
ing of the divine Scriptures, but also in opposition to the Apos-
tle, Marcellus declared that the wise men of Greece, reading
the Proverbs of Solomon, learned [from them] and imitated
the prophetic writing and (18) wrote in the same way he did.
Since I have said these things for the purpose of demonstrating
the fact that the man had not read the divine Scriptures in the
appropriate way, the time now also calls for a consideration of
his unsound belief about the faith, since he imagines things
that are contrary to the Church’s teaching and has rejected
both it and those who preside over it.
Chapter 4
(1) I will present first the statements through which he at-
tempts to contradict what was written correctly and in accor-
dance with Church teaching, rejecting those who wrote it,
and having waged all but total war upon all. First he compos-
97. Prv 9.1–2.

98 Eusebius
es the refutation against Asterius, then against Eusebius the
(2) great,98 and then he turns to the man of God, the so truly
thrice-blessed Paulinus, on the one hand a man honored with
the highest office of the Church of Antioch who on the other
served the Church of Tyre in a most distinguished way, and he
shone so brightly in the episcopacy [there] as (3) to claim the
good of the Antiochene church as his own.99 But this wondrous
author mocks even this man, who had lived blessedly, and died
blessedly, and fell asleep a long time ago and who now sleeps
in peace, and whom nothing troubles any longer. And having
turned from this fellow, he makes war on Origen, whose life
also ended long ago. Next he battles against Narcissus, and per-
secutes the other Eusebius100 and rejects all of the ecclesiastical
fathers together, content with none whatsoever except (4) him-
self alone.101 Therefore he writes, making hostile mention of all
of them by name in this way:
Well then, I will begin to refute each of those things that were
written incorrectly from the letter that was written by him [As-
terius]. He has written that “he believes in the Father, God Al-
mighty, and in his Son the only-begotten God, our Lord Jesus
Christ, and in the Holy Spirit.”102 And he says that he “learned
this way of piety from the divine Scriptures.”103 (5) And when
he says this, I approve these statements wholeheartedly, for this
way of piety—namely, to believe in Father, Son, and Holy Spir-
it—is common to us all. But when, failing to grasp the divine
meaning, he tells us in a more human sense through a certain
contrived theory that the Father is Father and the Son (6)
Son, it is no longer without danger to praise this theory. For
the consequence of this sort of theory is that the heresy lately
98. Of Nicomedia.
99. As one can see from further below where the same term μεταποιέω ap-
pears (19,10 Κ./Η.), Paulinus must have demanded the see of Antioch as his
own—and apparently was criticized for this by Marcellus.
100. Of Caesarea.
101. This gives us an insight into the structure of Marcellus’s one book, the
restoration of which has been attempted by Klaus Seibt, followed (with slight
alteration) by Markus Vinzent in his critical edition of Marcellus’s fragments.
102. Asterius, fr. 9 (86,1–3 V.).
103. Asterius, fr. 9 (86,4–5 V.).
invented by these men is aggravated, which clearly is easy to
show, I think, from his remarks. For he said that “it is necessary
to think that the Father is truly Father and that the Son is truly
Son and likewise [regarding] the Holy Spirit.”104
(7) Marcellus said these things against Asterius, not content
with the claim that “it is necessary” to confess “that the Father
is truly Father and the Son is truly Son and likewise [regard-
ing] the Holy Spirit.” For this reason, he immediately attempts
to refute the statement concerning these [points] through more
extensive remarks. For he wishes to confess that the Christ is a
mere [word] resembling even the human word, but not a truly
living and subsisting Son. (8) And though he said that this here-
sy [was] invented very recently, it must be shown as he continues
that he has in mind Origen, who lived long ago, as one who be-
lieves the same things as those who are now being slandered by
him. But I have also read a great many ecclesiastical treatises of
men more ancient than Origen, and various letters of both bish-
ops and synods written long ago, through which one and the
same (9) outline of the faith is revealed. Therefore, not rightly
has he [Marcellus] rejected it, saying that this heresy has been
invented just recently by those who are being slandered. A little
after these things, he goes on and addresses in hostile fashion
not only Asterius, but also the great Eusebius, for the episcopacy
of whom many illustrious provinces and cities have contended,
in this way:
I will remind you of the things that [Asterius] himself wrote
when he recommended the evil writings of Eusebius, so that
you might know that he clearly departs from the (10) former
profession. For he has written as follows in these very words:
“For it is the chief aim of the letter to refer the generation of
the Son to the will of the Father and not to represent begetting
as involving suffering on the part of ‘the’ God. This very idea
the wisest of the Fathers revealed in their own treatises, guard-
ing against the impiety of the heretics, who falsely claimed that
‘the’ God’s generation [of the Son] was in some way corporeal
104. Asterius, fr. 60 (120 V.); see Eusebius of Nicomedia, ep. ad Paulin. Tyr.
(= Urk. 8; III 15–17 Op.); Marcellus, fr. 1 (65 K./H.) (2,3–4,9 V.).
100 Eusebius
and subject to suffering, which they declared were the emana-
tions.”105
(11) And in addition to these statements, he next composes
an expanded refutation, after which he begins again, saying:
Therefore Asterius, wishing to defend Eusebius (who wrote so
badly), himself became his own accuser, having made mention
of both “the nature of the Father and the nature of the Begot-
ten.”106 For it would have been much better to have left lying
unexamined “the depth of the thought of Eusebius that lay in a
short statement,”107 as he himself wrote, than, having subjected
it to a lengthy examination, to have brought the wickedness of
the letter into the light.108
(12) After other remarks, he adds:
But now let us examine one statement from the writings of
Asterius. For this man said, “The one is the Father who begot
from himself the only-begotten Word109 and the firstborn of all
creation . . .”110 Having linked the two [titles], he wrote “only-
begotten” and “firstborn,” although there is a great difference
between these names, (13) as is easy to understand even by
those who are very uneducated. For it is clear that the only-
begotten, if he were really only-begotten, can no longer be
firstborn, and if the firstborn were [really] firstborn, he cannot
be only-begotten.111
And in these remarks, he censures Asterius in vain, for the
statements come not from him but from the divine Scripture
that [speaks of] the Son of God as at one time an only-begotten
Son and at another as firstborn of all creation. (14) And again
he adds to these remarks, saying:
105. Asterius, fr. 5 (84 V.); Marcellus, fr. 2 (34 K./H.) (4,10–17 V.).
106. Asterius, fr. 8 (86 V.).
107. Asterius, fr. 6 (84 V.).
108. Marcellus, fr. 9 (35 K./H.) (12,3–8 V.).
109. Jn 1.18.
110. Col 1.15; first part of Asterius, fr. 10 (86,1–2 V.); see also Marcellus, fr.
113 (96 K./H.) (106,2–14 V.).
111. Marcellus, fr. 10 (3 K./H.) (12,9–16 V.).
But having departed from the true knowledge, he revealed
to us even now his contrived theory. For not having the will
to construct it for himself “out of the divine Scriptures,” 112
he goes back to those whom he considers to be “the wisest
fathers,” alleging [that] “this very idea the wisest of Fathers
(15) revealed in their own treatises.”113 Asterius says that these
fathers of his have expressed their opinion and have written
their dogma concerning God on the basis of their own con-
viction. For the (16) word “dogma” implies human will and
judgment. And that this is so, the dogmatic skill of doctors
gives sufficient testimony to us, as well as the so-called dogmas
of the philosophers. And that the decisions of the Senate are
still even now called the dogmas of the Senate, no one, I think,
is ignorant.114
But Marcellus was also compelled to say these things, having
forgotten the apostolic statement about the Savior: “he abol-
ished the law with its commandments and ordinances [lit., dog-
mas].”115 But he also finds fault with the necessity of following
the fathers, although the divine Scripture says, “Ask your fa-
ther, (17) and he will inform you; your elders, and they will tell
you,”116 and, “Do not remove the ancient landmark that your an-
cestors set up.”117 Still angry because he [Asterius] called Pauli-
nus blessed, mentioning him together with Eusebius again with
hostility, he writes in this way:
For [Asterius], having wished to defend Eusebius, who wrote
such a bad letter, said that “first he [Eusebius] composed the
letter, not expounding the dogma in the manner of a teacher,
for it was written neither to the Church nor to the unlearned
but to the blessed Paulinus.”118 He said the latter was blessed
112. Excerpt from Asterius, fr. 9 (86,4–5 V.); see also Marcellus, fr. 1 (65
K./H.) (2,6–7 V.).
113. Excerpt from Asterius, fr. 5 (84,2–3 V.); see also Marcellus, fr. 2 (34
K./H.) (4,14–15 V.) and 18 (87 K./H.) (18,9 V.); Origen, de princ. I praef.
114. Marcellus, fr. 17 (86 K./H.) (16,10–18,3 V.).
115. Eph 2.15.
116. Dt 32.7.
117. Prv 22.28.
118. Asterius, fr. 7 (84 V.).
102 Eusebius
for this reason—that he held the same opinion as Asteri-
us. Therefore, seeing that we have learned who the “wisest
fathers”119 of Asterius were, I think it follows that we say who
also became the teacher of Paulinus and others. (18) For it
should be entirely clear to us from the letter of Paulinus who
his teacher was.120
And after offering some intervening remarks, he again re-
peats the same slander [against Paulinus], that he misinterpret-
ed Origen, saying in this way:
Not remembering the evangelical teaching, Paulinus wrote
these things, confessing that “some are moved in this way by
themselves, while others (19) were led in this way by the inter-
pretations of the aforementioned men.”121 Then finally, adding
it as if it were the crowning flourish of the demonstration, he
appended to his own letter [a passage] from the sayings of
Origen, as if he [Origen] could be more convincing than the
evangelists and the apostles. And the words are these: “It is
time now to take up again the subject of the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit, and to explain a few of the matters that
were previously put to the side. Regarding the Father, since he
is inseparable and indivisible, he becomes (20) Father of a Son,
not having cast him forth, as some men think. For if the Son is
something cast forth by the Father and an offspring from him,
such as the offspring of living beings are, it is necessary that he
who cast forth and he who has been cast forth be a body.”122
(21) Then immediately after the presentation of the sayings
of Origen, he continues, saying:
Origen wrote these things because he did not want to learn
from the holy prophets and apostles about the eternity of the
119. Excerpt from Asterius, fr. 5 (84,3 V.); see also Marcellus, fr. 2 (34
K./H.) (4,14–15 V.) and 18 (87 K./H.) (18,9 V.); Origen, de princ. I praef.
120. Marcellus, fr. 18 (87 K./H.) (18,4–12 V.).
121. Paulinus of Tyre, ep. (= Urk. 9; III 17–18 Op.).
122. Origen, de princ. 4.1.28. See on this fragment M. Vinzent, “Origenes
als Postscriptum. Paulinus von Tyrus und die origenistische Diadoche,” in Orige-
niana Septima. Origenes in den Auseinandersetzungen des 4. Jahrhunderts, ed. W. A.
Bienert and U. Kühneweg, BETL 137 (Leuven: University Press, 1999), 149–
57; Marcellus, fr. 19 (37 K./H.) (18,13–20,4 V.).
Word. But having made more of his own efforts, he dared to
describe in vain a second hypostasis of the Word.123
But he [Marcellus] contradicts even these things that were
said correctly by Origen concerning the fact that one must not
suppose that the begetting of the divinity of the Son is corpore-
al and subject to suffering, especially because he [Origen] has
granted a hypostasis to the Son. And he carries on, speaking ill
of Origen again and contradicting in these remarks what was
written correctly by him:
It is clear that Origen relied upon his own opinions when he
wrote these sorts of things, from the fact that he frequently
even contradicts his own views. Therefore, in another passage,
he says certain things regarding God, which it is fitting to
recall. (22) He writes as follows: “For God did not begin to be
a Father, as if he were prevented [before], as men who have
become fathers were [prevented] by not being able to be fathers
before. For if God is always perfect, and he always has the pow-
er to be a Father, and if it is good for him to be Father of such
a Son, why does he delay and deprive himself of the good, and,
so to speak, of that [power] by which he is able to be a father?
And indeed the same thing must also be said about the Holy
Spirit.”124 (23) Therefore, if Origen also wrote this, how did the
blessed (according to him [Asterius]) Paulinus think it was dan-
gerous to conceal this passage, but that he should use contra-
dictory passages for the support of his own opinions, for which
we might say Origen himself could not take responsibility?125
In these remarks, Marcellus lied when he said that Origen
said contradictory things, not having been able to understand
that through the previous statement he showed the incorpore-
ality and impassivity of the Father, while through the second
statement he showed that the Son has been begotten not in
time but before all ages. (24) But again after other remarks
about Origen the same fellow writes these things:
123. Marcellus, fr. 20 (38 K./H.) (20,5–8 V.).

124. Origen, comm. in Gen. 1.1, in Pamphilus, apol. 3 (PG 12: 46C; 17:
561A).
125. Marcellus, fr. 21 (39 K./H.) (20,9–22,6 V.).
104 Eusebius
And yet, if it is necessary to speak the truth concerning Origen,
it is fitting to say this, that having just abandoned the teachings
of philosophy, and having decided to occupy himself with the di-
vine words before [he had gained] an accurate comprehension
of the Scriptures, because of a great ambition resulting from
his non-Christian education, he began to write sooner than was
appropriate. He was led astray by the arguments of philosophy,
and composed certain things incorrectly because of them. And
this is clear: for it was while still under the influence of the dog-
mas of Plato (25) and the distinction between the first principles
in his thought, that he wrote the book On First Principles and
gave this title to the treatise. But [this is] the strongest proof that
he drew the beginning of his remarks and the title of the book
from no other source than from the statements made by Plato.
For in the beginning he wrote as follows: (26) “Those who have
believed and who have been convinced”;126 you will find this
remark was made in this way in the Gorgias of Plato.127
Not even if he had quoted [Plato], would it have brought dis-
grace to Origen because when he says “those who have believed
and who have been convinced,” he also adds immediately af-
terward: “‘grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ’128
and Christ is the truth according to what was said by him, ‘I am
the truth.’”129 For what sort of commonality could there ever be
between these things (27) and Plato? No book of Plato On First
Principles is remembered, nor did Origen think in the same way
about first principles as Plato did, since he [Origen] knew that
the first principle alone is ingenerate and without source and
beyond the universe, and that this is Father of one only-begot-
ten Son, through whom all things came into existence. And the
fellow who lied about Origen even in these remarks (28) adds
[more] after other statements, saying:
For although Asterius said, “the Word was generated before
the ages,”130 the passage itself proves that he is lying; so that
126. Origen, de princ. I praef.

127. See Plato, Gorg. 454d–e; Marcellus, fr. 22 (88 K./H.) (22,7–19 V.).
128. Jn 1.17.
129. Jn 14.6.
130. Asterius, fr. 17 (90 V.).
he is not only in error regarding the fact[s], but also regarding
the letter. For if Proverbs says, “Before the age, he founded
me,”131 how did he [Asterius] say, “he was generated before
the ages”?132 For it is one thing for him [Christ] to have been
founded before the age, and another “to have been generated
before the ages.”133
(29) Having said these things and added other remarks for
the purpose of overthrowing the claim that the Son was gener-
ated before the ages, he adds in these very words:
I ask those who read the holy [Scriptures],134 who have truly
received, as it were, seeds and principles of this interpretation,
to add more complete demonstrations to those that have been
said, so as to refute still more the convictions of those who are
distorting the faith. For in truth they have “left behind” the God
who begot them, and “dug for themselves broken cisterns.”135
(30) Having launched these sorts of calumnies, he also
through them immediately afterward tries to show that the Son
is not the image of God, saying in this way:
It follows, I think, to speak briefly also about the image. For
[Asterius] has written: “The one who was begotten from him
is another, ‘who is the image of the invisible God.’”136 Asterius
calls to mind “the image of the invisible God”137 for this rea-
son, so that he might teach that “God is as different from the
Word as even a man seems to differ from his own image.”138
(31) And after some intervening discussion, he continues:
Therefore, it is absolutely clear that before the assumption of
our body the Word in and of himself was not “image of the
131. Prv 8.23.

134. See Irenaeus, haer. I praef. (SC 264, 26).
135. Jer 2.13; Marcellus, fr. 46 (89 K./H.) (40,9–14 V.).
136. Col 1.15; Asterius, fr. 11 (88 V.); see also fr. 13 (88 V.).
137. Excerpt from Asterius, fr. 11 and 13 (88 V.).
138. See Asterius, fr. 52–55; 75 (116–118,14 V.); Marcellus, fr. 51 (90 K./H.)
(46,1–5 V.).
106 Eusebius
invisible God.”139 For it is natural for the image to be seen, so
that through the image that which has hitherto been invisible
might be seen.140
And he adds:
How then has Asterius written that the Word of God is an “im-
age of the invisible God”?141 For images reveal those things of
which they are the images even when they are absent, so that
even he who is absent (32) seems to appear through them. If it
is the case that while God is invisible the Word also is invisible,
how can the Word be in and of himself an “image of the invisi-
ble God,”142 seeing as he, too, is invisible?143
And proceeding on, he again casts aspersions, saying in this
way:
How do those men “full of deceit and villainy,”144 to speak
as the Apostle does, refer the passage to what they think is
[Christ’s] first creation,145 even though David clearly said these
things about his generation according to the flesh?146
(33) And having offered a [more] extensive statement in the
intervening material, he carries on:
Therefore, what will [Asterius] say in response to these points?
For I do not think that he has anything to say about this, nor
do I think he would confess clearly and undisguisedly even
139. See Col 1.15; Asterius, fr. 11 (88 V.); see also fr. 13 (88 V.).
140. Asterius, fr. 13 (89 V.); Marcellus insists that only the incarnate Word
can be the image of God, because he is visible, and that this is the point of
images, to make the invisible visible. His attack on Asterius presupposes, how-
ever, that Asterius himself had taught that images make the invisible visible,
and yet that he applied this making of the Word visible to the pre-incarnate
generation of the Word. Marcellus, fr. 53 (92 K./H.) (46,10–48,3 V.).
141. Excerpt from Asterius, fr. 11 and 13 (88 V.).
142. Ibid.
143. Marcellus, fr. 54 (93 K./H.) (48,4–9 V.), while the last phrase is miss-
ing; see Eusebius of Caesarea, CM 2.3 (48,33–49,5 V.), where the full fragment
is given.
144. Acts 13.10.
145. See Asterius, fr. 13–14; 23; 25; 30; 35 (90; 94; 96; 100 V.).
146. Marcellus, fr. 60 (29 K./H.) (52,13–15 V.).
to others what he himself hides in his own mind, as one can
clearly learn from what he has written. For he says that “the
one is the Father who begot from himself the only-begotten
Word and firstborn of all creation, the one [who begot] one;
the perfect a perfect, the King a King, the Lord a Lord, the
God a God, an unchanged147 image of [his] being148 and will
and glory and power . . .”149 These statements clearly prove his
(34) defective belief about the divinity. For how can “the Lord,
who is begotten, and God,”150 as he said before, be an image of
God? For an image of God is one thing, and God another. And
so if he is an image, he is not Lord and God, but an image of
[the] Lord and God. But if he is really Lord and God, the Lord
and God can no longer be an image of [the] Lord and God.151
(35) And he said these things in complete ignorance, not
having understood that even the Son can at one time be said
[to be] living image of his own Father, since he is like the Fa-
ther as much as possible. Indeed, the Scripture also teaches
this, which says, “Adam lived two hundred and thirty years, and
he begot according to his likeness and according to his image,
(36) and he gave him the name Seth.”152 And concerning the
divinity of the Son, the Apostle teaches, saying, “who, though
he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as
something to be grasped at, but emptied himself,”153 and again,
“who is the radiance of [God’s] glory and [the] exact imprint
of [his] hypostasis.”154 And in other passages, it has been said,
“[He is] [the] radiance of eternal light, [the] spotless mirror of
the activity of God, and [the] image (37) of his goodness.”155
Again, the Apostle in saying, “seeing that you have stripped off
147. See introduction, p. 22 n. 82.

148. οὐσίας.
149. Asterius, fr. 10 (86 V.); already quoted in Marcellus, fr. 10 (3 K./H.)
(12,10–12 V.).
150. See Asterius, fr. 11 (88 V.) and Marcellus, fr. 51–52 (90–91 K./H.)
(46,1–9 V.).
151. Marcellus, fr. 113 (96 K./H.) (106,2–14 V.).
152. Gn 5.3.
153. Phil 2.6–7.
154. Heb 1.3.
155. Wis 7.26.
108 Eusebius
the old self with its practices, and have clothed yourselves with
the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge according
to the image of its creator,”156 clearly (38) does not teach that
the image of God is said to be the flesh. But having passed on
[from that topic], again Marcellus writes against the bishops as
follows:
For, you see, Asterius’s doctrine does not cause us so much
pain,157 if he was compelled to write such things, but the fact
that even some of those who seem to hold positions of leader-
ship in the Church, having forgotten the apostolic tradition,
and having preferred non-Christian [doctrines] to those di-
vine, dared to teach and write things of this nature, which are
no less erroneous than those mentioned before.158
(39) And after other remarks, he adds:
For having read the letter of Narcissus, who presides at Neroni-
as, which he has written to a certain Chrestos, Euphronius, and
Eusebius, as to how “Ossius the bishop asked him if he would
also say in this way, as Eusebius of Palestine does, that there
are two beings,”159 I learned from his writings that he answered
that “he believed that there were three beings.”160
Having said these things, he passes from Narcissus to Euse-
bius [of Caesarea], reproaching him (40) because he confesses
the Word of “the” God to be God.161 So he writes these things
also about him:
One may clearly and easily learn from those very remarks that
were written by him [Eusebius of Caesarea] into what great
156. Col 3.9–10.

157. See Asterius, fr. 10–11 (86–88 V.).
158. Marcellus, fr. 115 (98 K./H.) (108,6–10 V.).
159. οὐσίας; first part of the fragment of the epistle by Narcissus of Neroni-
as to Chrestus, Euphronius, and Eusebius (= Urk. 19; III 41 Op.).
160. οὐσίας; Marcellus, fr. 116 (81 K./H.) (108,11–15 V.). Second part of the
fragment of the epistle by Narcissus of Neronias to Chrestus, Euphronius, and
Eusebius (= Urk. 19; III 41 Op.).
161. Although this is not a fragment of Marcellus, it still is a report about
Marcellus’s text that goes beyond the quotation (indicated by the “also” in the
next sentence).
blasphemy he fell, having dared to separate the Word from
“the” God and to call the Word another God, who is separated
from the Father in being162 and power. (41) For he has written
as follows in these very words: “Of course, the image163 and the
one of whom he is the image are not to be thought of as one
and the same thing, but as two beings,164 two things,165 and two
powers, corresponding to the number of their names.”166
And he adds these remarks in evil slander, saying:
Well then, how have these men, following the same evil path
of those who are not Christian, not chosen both to teach and
write the same things [as they did], since Eusebius has spoken
like both Valentinus and Hermes, and Narcissus like both
Marcion and Plato?167
(42) Then, immediately afterward, he strings together a long
and rambling disquisition, alleging that “. . . he had learned by
hearsay that Eusebius preached something one time when he
was in Laodicea.”168 About such things, of which he had no
knowledge, having learned them from hearsay, he writes in ad-
dition, saying:
On the contrary, it was necessary to cry with tears and mourn-
ing to the Lord: “We have sinned, we have been impious, we
have broken the law,”169 and we have done what is evil in your
sight, and now repenting, (43) we ask to obtain your loving-
kindness. It was fitting and appropriate to say these things to
him because of the “immeasurable goodness and loving-
162. οὐσίᾳ.
163. See, for example, Eusebius of Caesarea, dem. ev. 4.2.2. and 5.2.21.
164. οὐσίαι.
165. See Origen, c. Cels. 8.12.
166. Marcellus, fr. 117 (82 K./H.) (110,1–7 V.). See the fourth part of Euse-
bius of Caesarea, ep. ad Euphr. Bal. (= Urk. 3,4; III 5,11–6,2 Opitz), first report-
ed, then quoted.
167. See (Marcellus?), de sancta eccl. 9. The Marcellan authorship is uncer-
tain; see Klaus Seibt, “Marcell von Ancyra,” Theologische Realenzyklopädie 22
(1992): 83–89, 85; Marcellus, fr. 118 (85 K./H.) (110,8–11 V.).
168. First part of Marcellus, fr. 119 (99 K./H.) (110,12–13 V.). This first part
had not been recognized as Marcellus’s fragment (see V. ad loc.).
169. Dn 9.15.
110 Eusebius
kindness of God.”170 And yet it followed that the God who gov-
erns with lovingkindness and justice responded by saying: “If
an enemy taunted me, I would bear it; if he who hates me dealt
insolently with me, I would hide from him. But you, my equal,
my guide, my familiar friend, we used to hold secret converse
together; (44) within God’s house we walked in fellowship.”171
For that he attends to us who are his servants we know from
his statement, for he said, “Behold, I will be with you all the
days of your life, even to the end of the age.”172 Thus it would
be entirely appropriate, I think, to add also to the foregoing
the following words: “Let death come upon them, let them go
down to Hades alive, because wickedness is in their hearts.”173
For Scripture says that those who are dead in the ignorance of
impiety are swallowed up by Hades. For they are really dead,
even though they seem to live.174
(45) And again, immediately following these remarks, he
censures Eusebius “. . . for having preached in the church one
time when he was passing through Ancyra, the very thing,”
he says, “he has learned through hearsay.”175 Angry at this, he
writes such things:
But the Apostle writes these sorts of things concerning the
faith of the Galatians. But Eusebius, confounding the apostolic
intention (on account of which the Apostle said this for the
aforementioned reason, “My children, with whom I am in tra-
170. Ti 3.4.
171. Ps 54.12–15 (RSV 55.12–14).
172. Mt 28.20.
173. Ps 54.16 (RSV 55.16).
174. Second part of Marcellus, fr. 119 (99 K./H.) (110,13–112,15 V.).
175. Although this is not a literal quotation, it needs to be read together
with the previously quoted fragment of Marcellus that mentions Eusebius in
Laodicea. If Hans-Georg Opitz is correct, the fragments belong to the time
immediately preceding Nicaea. In his unpublished introduction to the Urkun-
den zum Arianischen Streit I, Opitz writes, “The aggressive narration of Marcel-
lus and the hardly restrained anger of Eusebius leave the historical events in
the dark. But perhaps one can interpret the sayings of the two by concluding
that Eusebius stuck to his position that he held in Antioch and even made it
public in a homily at the see of the third person who had been condemned
there, Theodotus of Laodicea” (trans. Vinzent).
vail until Christ be formed in you!”), attacked the Galatians
176
for “not having the right belief about God.” (46) For he was
truly in travail with a certain sharp and bitter labor, because
he knew that the Galatians did not think about piety as he
did, nor did they speak of “two beings,177 things, powers, and
Gods.”178
Pay heed to these remarks, how he rails bitterly at him who
said no more, as he himself writes, than the apostolic word.
And now he confesses that Eusebius “speaks of two gods,” on
the grounds that he calls the Son of “the” God “God” togeth-
er with the Father. Proceeding on in the remarks immediately
following, as if he had forgotten those ideas he had just criti-
cized, he attempts to slander the same [Eusebius] for having
said that Christ is a mere man. (47) Next he adds to the previ-
ous remarks a certain great and voluminous load of nonsense,
stringing together for himself both truths and falsehoods,179
all but just like those who say, “Our lips are our own; who is
Lord of us?”180 (48) through which he shows, just as I said at the
beginning of this treatise, that he attacked the writing out of
overwhelming enmity and hatred of his brothers.181
And having turned from these matters, he once again rep-
resents Asterius as the protagonist in a tragedy, spinning out a
long-winded statement about him, too, how he went about trav-
eling, and where and when and to whom he went. But having
dropped him, he again turns to the man of God Paulinus, writ-
ing these things in these very words:
176. Gal 4.19.

177. οὐσίαι.
178. Marcellus, fr. 120 (83 K./H.) (112,16–23 V.). See notes to Marcellus, fr.
119; above, note 168; see Asterius, fr. 54–55 (118 V.), Paulin. in Marcellus, fr.
121 and 122; Paulin., ep. (= Urk. 9,2–4; III 18,4–8 Op.).
179. Literally, “things that are and things that are not.”
180. Ps 11.5 (RSV 12.4).
181. This reveals that from the beginning, Eusebius wrote this book not
only because fellow bishops had asked him to write it, but also because he saw
himself being attacked by Marcellus, one of his “brotherly” co-bishops.
112 Eusebius
(49) Convinced by these remarks, even Paulinus, the father
of this man [Asterius], does not hesitate to speak and to write
these things, saying at one time that “Christ is a second God”
and that “he [this one] has become a more human God,” and
at another time asserting that “he is a creature.” That this is
so, [I cite as evidence the fact that] he even once said in front
of us, when he was passing through Ancyra, that “Christ is a
creature.”182
(50) And again, making the whole story up, he [Marcellus]
says that he refuted Paulinus. Then he slanders the blessed
man for having said that “there are many gods,” and having left
Paulinus behind, he again rattles on about Eusebius, claiming:
Eusebius of Caesarea has also written in this vein and himself
holds the same opinion about gods as Paulinus and those who
are not Christian. (51) For he has written not that there is
one only God, but that “the only true God is one.”183 Having
learned this, then, from this source, Paulinus, too, father of
Asterius, thought “there are newer gods.”184
And in these remarks, he blames those men as if they were
introducing belief in [multiple] gods, while he himself denies
the divinity of the Son. And having presented the statement of
Eusebius, he does not understand that the statement teaching
that the Father is [the] only (52) true God was not his, but our
Savior’s, who said, “so that they may know you, the only true
God.”185 And after other remarks he continues, saying,
How will they be able to prove to us from someplace out of
the divine Scriptures that there is “one unbegotten and one
begotten” in the way they themselves have believed “he has
182. First part of Marcellus, fr. 121 (40 K./H.) (114,1–5 V.), reporting Pau-
linus of Tyre (= second part of Urk. 9,2f.; III 18,4–7 Op.); see Marcellus, fr. 91;
Asterius, fr. 54–55 (118 V.); Paulinus of Tyre in Marcellus, fr. 122 (84 K./H.) =
Paulinus of Tyre, ep. (= Urk. 9,4; III 18,8 Op.).
183. Eusebius of Caesarea, ep. ad Euphrat. Bal. (Urk. 3,3; III 5,5–10 Op.).
184. Marcellus, fr. 122 (84 K./H.) (114,8–12 V.). Paulinus of Tyre, ep. (Urk.
9,4; III 18,8 Op.).
185. Jn 17.3.
been begotten,” given that neither prophets nor evangelists
186
nor apostles have said this?187

(53) Thereupon, as if, having drawn up a list of all the con-
testants in an athletic event, he were simultaneously to start
wrestling with them, he turns to Narcissus and says:
So that if someone should say [this], claiming that there is “a
first and a second God,” as Narcissus has written in these very
words188 (54) (though neither does he who says, “Let us make
man in our image and likeness,” agree),189 “because he [the
Son] and his Father are two,” we have heard this partly from
the testimony of the Lord and from the holy Scriptures. Well
then, if because of this Narcissus were to wish “to distinguish
the Word from the Father in power,” let him know that the
prophet who wrote that God said, “Let us make man according
to our image and likeness,” also wrote, “God made man.”190
(55) And having turned from Narcissus to Asterius, he writes
these things:
For Asterius declared that “the Father and Son are one and
the same only in this respect, that they agree in all things.”
For so also he said, “Because of their exact agreement in all
[their] words and actions [the Savior] says, ‘I and the Father
are one.’”191
And again he attacks Eusebius, saying:
For they want the Savior to be a man.192 This is clear from the
fact that Eusebius [of Caesarea] slyly twists the words of the
186. Asterius, fr. 12 (88 V.); see Asterius, fr. 9 (86,4f. V.); Marcellus, fr. 1 (65
K./H.) and 17 (86 K./H.).
187. Marcellus, fr. 123 (32 K./H.) (114,13–16 V.).
188. Excerpt of Narcissus of Neronias (= second part of Urk. 19; III 41,5f.
Op.).
189. Gn 1.26.
190. Gn 1.27; Marcellus, fr. 124 (80 K./H.) (116,1–9 V.) (= Urk. 19; III 41,6–
10 Op.).
191. Marcellus, fr. 125 (72 K./H.) (116,10–13 V.); Jn 10.30; Asterius, fr. 39
(102 V.). See also Asterius, fr. 38.40–41 (102–104 V.); Marcellus, fr. 74 (73 K./H.)
(62,5–64,14 V.) and 75 (74 K./H.) (64,15–66,27 V.).
192. See in Marcellus, fr. 128 (102 K./H.) (120,1–3 V.).
114 Eusebius
Apostle (56) to serve his own purposes. For wishing to bring
forth great blasphemy as from a certain long-standing labor,
he “brings forth out of his own treasure evil,”193 according
to the saying of the Savior.194 (57) For wishing to show that
the Savior is only a man, as if he were revealing to us a great
ineffable mystery of the Apostle, he thus said, “For this reason,
most clearly even the holy Apostle, handing down [to us] the
ineffable and mystical theology, cries out and has proclaimed,
‘There is one God’; then after the one God, he says, ‘[and] one
mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ.’”195
(58) Now if he says he is man with regard solely to his economy
in the flesh, then he is de facto also confessing that he places
no hope in him. For the prophet Jeremiah said, “Cursed is the
man who trusts in man.”196
(59) You see how the evil blinds [him]. At any rate, having
himself given testimony to one who confessed that the Son is
God, and having laid to this man’s blame that he introduces
[the claim that] the Word of God subsists as God in being 197
and power, now he slanders the same man [= Eusebius himself]
for saying that Christ is a mere man, obviously lying both in
what he has said and in those remarks that he adds again im-
mediately afterwards about him, saying:
But the aforementioned man [= Eusebius of Caesarea], having
given little thought to the holy prophets, said, as if expounding
“an ineffable and secret theology of the Apostle,” “there is one
God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus
Christ.”198 (60) And he who wrote these things and boasts exces-
sively about his knowledge of the Scriptures did not consider
that the most holy Apostle who wrote this has also written,
“He who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard
193. Mt 12.35.
194. See Eusebius of Caesarea (Urk. 3,5; III 6,3f. Op.) and Marcellus, fr. 127
(101 K./H.) (118,11–22 V.).
195. 1 Tm 2.5; quotation from Eusebius of Caesarea (= Urk. 3,5; III 6,5–7
Op.).
196. Jer 17.5; Marcellus, fr. 126 (100 K./H.) (116,14–118,10 V.).
197. οὐσίᾳ.
198. 1 Tm 2.5; shortened quotation from Eusebius of Caesarea (cf. Urk. 3,5;
III 6,5–7 Op.).
equality with God as something to be grasped at, but emptied
himself, having taken the form of a slave, being born in the
likeness of men. And (61) being found in human form . . .”199
You see how (as if he saw beforehand in spirit the evildoing
of these men) the holy Apostle thus wrote in another passage
“as a man” and “being born in the likeness of men,” so that he
might put a stop to their great blasphemy.200
And after other remarks, he slanders the same [= Eusebius
of Caesarea] brutally in this way:
How then can Eusebius, who paid no attention to these pas-
sages, wish the Savior to be only (62) a man? 201 For even if he
does not dare to say this openly, he is convicted from his own
writings of wanting to do so.202
And he who said this blamed the same man for proclaiming
that the Son is God, writing in this way:
. . . Into what great blasphemy he fell, having dared to separate
the Word from “the” God and to call the Word another God,
who is separated from the Father in being203 and power.204
(63) Marcellus, having laid out such great enormities and
ones greater by far than these, not against the bishops alone,
but even against the wholesome and ecclesiastical faith, would
clearly himself be guilty of such a heresy. That the man cared
nothing for truth, you would learn if you read the letters them-
selves of the bishops, in which you would find him mutilating
the overall sense of their statements and hiding all the connec-
tions between them, seizing upon individual phrases (64) and
contriving evil slander out of these. At any rate he abuses Eu-
sebius quite openly, as having said that Christ is a mere man,
when he should have compared his own letter with the apostol-
199. Phil 2.6–7.

200. Marcellus, fr. 127 (101 K./H.) (118,11–22 V.).
201. See Eusebius as given in Marcellus, fr. 126 (100 K./H.) (116,14–118,10
V.).
202. Marcellus, fr. 128 (102 K./H.) (120,1–3 V.).
203. οὐσίᾳ.
204. First part of Marcellus, fr. 117 (82 K./H.) (110,1–3 V.).
116 Eusebius
ic statement, through which the Apostle himself said, “There
is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man
(65) Jesus Christ.”205 Therefore, this most wise fellow has slan-
dered this apostolic statement, as if it belonged to Eusebius, not
having understood that he was slandering the Apostle. But the
statements of his that are brought out in the same letter, as well
as those that have been composed in the remaining treatises of
his concerning the divine Scriptures, which indeed have been
passed around in every place, 206 (66) he has delivered over to si-
lence, having hidden in silence the things that he did not want
to slander. One would find that he has done something similar,
too, with the remaining writings he has slandered.
Having a care for the proportion of the text, we will leave
a closer examination of these things to those who wish, while
we ourselves strive zealously to uncover the still remaining out-
landish statements of Marcellus himself about the Son of God,
so that it might become obvious to all the manner in which he
himself thought about the Son of God.
205. 1 Tm 2.5.
206. Eusebius refers here to his own numerous theological treatises and
scriptural commentaries, accusing Marcellus of making the case for his ac-
cusations of heresy against the bishop of Caesarea by quoting Eusebius out of
context and highly selectively.
AGAINST MARCELLUS 2
Eusebius
B O OK T WO
FTER IDENTIFYING those [bishops] whom he slan-

dered, we now have the opportunity to bring to light
the faith of the Galatian, or rather his lack of faith in
the Son of God, and to lay bare the evil belief that lurked with-
in the man for a long time, now that the pretext of the letter
has been dealt with briefly, and to show to all through the tes-
timony of his own statements what sort of man it is who leads
the Church of Christ. He believes that the Son neither is nor
pre-subsists nor ever wholly existed with God before the birth
through the Virgin, but says he is only a word, connatural with
God, eternally coexisting and united to him, just as the word
in a human being would also be. For he himself uses this ex-
ample, having said that there is a word internally in God him-
self, which at one time is quiet but at another time is active for
the purposes of communication, and comes forth from the Fa-
ther in activity alone, just as we also, in giving some command,
would be active in saying and uttering something. But that no
one, at any rate in this sense, would say that the communicat-
ing and active word is a son is obvious to all.
Although he [Marcellus] grants this in the case of God, I do
not know in what sense he says that the Word, which has not
subsisted, assumed the flesh and was active in it (3) and at that
time became Christ, Jesus, King, Image of God, and beloved
and glorified Son, yes, even “firstborn of all creation,”1 [and]
that the one who did not exist previously, then came to be, al-
though he did not subsist. But his most incredible statement is
that he [the Son] took his beginning, yes, not even four hun-
dred whole years ago and that when all these ages [have passed]
1. Col 1.15.
117
118 Eusebius
he will cease [to exist] after the time of the judgment, when the
Word is united to God, so that he will no longer be another be-
sides God, while the flesh that he assumed will be left behind,
empty of the Word, with the result that at that time neither the
Son of God nor the Son of Man whom he assumed will subsist.
(4) Further, he [Marcellus] goes to this extreme, as if he
had been made deaf and [did] not hear the angel Gabriel, an-
nouncing to the Mother of God clearly and speaking distinctly
about him who would be born from her and issue forth “from
the seed of David according to the flesh,”2 stating, “Behold, you
will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will call
his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the
Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his
father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever;
and of his kingdom there will be no end.”3 Nor did he under-
stand the statements of Daniel the great prophet, who put his
seal upon these same things through the prophecies he made
in the divine Spirit, saying, “And behold, with the clouds of
heaven there came a Son of Man, and he came to the Ancient
of Days (5) and was presented before him. And to him was giv-
en dominion and honor and kingship, and all peoples, nations,
and languages will serve him; his dominion is an everlasting
one that shall not pass away, and his kingdom will not be de-
stroyed.”4 But neither did Isaiah convince him about the un-
ending kingdom of the Son of Man even when he prophesied in
this way: (6) “for to us a child is born, to us a Son is given; and
the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will
be called angel of great counsel, wonderful counselor, mighty
God of power, prince of peace, father of the age to come. For
he will bring in peace and healing (7) with him. His rule [will
be] great, and of his peace there will be no end, for the throne
of David and for his kingdom he will establish it, and uphold
it with justice and righteousness from this time forth (8) and
forever more.”5 Indeed, those things that Gabriel announced
2. Rom 1.3.
3. Lk 1.31–33.
4. Dn 7.13–14.
5. Is 9.6–7.
to the Virgin were in agreement with these statements, consid-
ering that he said that he [who would be born] from her would
reign “forever” and “of his kingdom” there would be no end.
But how Marcellus dared to write things that are contra-
dictory to all these statements, you would learn from his pro-
nouncements, through which he denied the divinity along with
the humanity of the Son of God, a novelty that surpasses ev-
ery godless (9) heresy. For those who claimed that the Son of
God neither was before nor pre-existed belong to the hetero-
dox, some of whom, having supposed that he is a man from a
man like the rest of men, said that he has been honored with
adoption as a son, and having granted this, have confessed that
he has an immortal and everlasting honor, glory, and eternal
kingdom. But there are others who, denying the man, have
proposed that the Son of God is the pre-existing God.6 Well,
those who are foreign to the Church were driven to this great
error, but he who ruled over the Church of God for such a long
time destroys the existence of the Son of God. Having served
at his altar, he believes that he himself, I suppose, will obtain
for himself presently an eternal and immortal life, while he de-
prives (10) the High Priest of this. But we have “a great High
Priest,” according to the Apostle, “who has passed through the
heavens, Jesus, the Son of God,”7 who, he dares to say, neither
pre-existed nor pre-subsisted, but will neither be nor coexist
with the saints of God according to that very promise of the
kingdom of heaven. For at that time when all those saints will
participate in the kingdom of God in incorruptible and im-
mortal bodies, he deprives Christ alone and the body that he
assumed (11) of it. He also does not find it disturbing that the
originator of the resurrection, 8 the cause of eternal life for all,
will be deprived not only of the kingdom, but he even declares
6. On the early history of “docetism,” to which Eusebius seems to refer

here, see Markus Vinzent, “‘Ich bin kein körperloses Geistwesen’: Zum Ver-
hältnis von Kerygma Petri, ‘Doctrina Petri’ und IgnSm III,” in Monarchian-
ismus im 2. Jahrhundert, VCSup 50, ed. Reinhard Hübner and Markus Vinzent
(Leiden: Brill, 1999), 241–86.
7. Heb 4.14.
8. See Rv 3.15.
120 Eusebius
that he will be deprived of life itself—just as if someone were
to give their eyes, but take away the light that provides illumi-
nation to these. And neither the great angel of God Gabriel
nor the great prophet Daniel, about whom it was said, “You are
not wiser than Daniel, are you?”9 nor the great Isaiah nor the
remaining (12) chorus of the prophets induced the man either
to write or think these sorts of things, nor did [the] Jews them-
selves [induce him], among whom it is hoped that the Christ
(who is even now still expected, [and] whom they were accus-
tomed to call “[the] Anointed”) will have the undying and im-
mortal kingdom. But [Marcellus] has become even worse than
these [the Jews] because he dared to profane both the begin-
ning and the end of the Son of God, against whom the divine
Apostle himself did not blush to prohibit [anyone] from utter-
ing such blasphemies, on the contrary saying, “The saying is
worthy of belief: if we have died with him, we shall also live
with him; if we endure, we shall also reign with him,”10 and that
we shall be heirs of God, but certainly not without Christ, for
(13) he says, “heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provid-
ed we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified
with him.”11 And again he [the Apostle] says, “But if we have
died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.
For we know that Christ, once raised from the dead, will nev-
er die again; death will no longer have dominion over him,”12
(14) and again, “but the free gift of God is eternal life with
Jesus Christ our Lord.”13 Therefore, eternal life will be provid-
ed to us in no other way than “with Jesus Christ our Lord,”14
and our hope [will be] not simply to live, but to be glorified
together with him and to be heirs together with him and to
rule together with him. For we will acquire all things from (15)
communion with him. The same [Apostle] teaches this, having
said, “God is worthy of belief, by whom you were called into the
9. Ezek 28.3.
10. 2 Tm 2.11–12.
11. Rom 8.17.
12. Rom 6.8–9.
13. Rom 6.23.
14. Ibid.
communion of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.” But he shows 15
what [this] communion [will be], saying, “and raised [us] up”
and “made [us] sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ
Jesus, that in the coming ages, he might show the immeasur-
able riches of his grace (16) in kindness towards us in Christ
Jesus.”16 But the same [Apostle] also taught these things about
the Savior when he said, “But he holds his priesthood perma-
nently, because he continues forever. Consequently he is able
for all time to save those who draw near to God through him,
since he always lives (17) to make intercession for them.”17 And
truly [he not only said this] but also said that Melchizedek re-
mains a priest “forever” because of his resemblance to “the Son
of God.”18 But that Marcellus dared to write things contrary to
all these claims will be shown a little later. For now, let us first
examine what he thought about the fact that there was neither
a source nor did the Son of God subsist.19
Chapter 2
(1) Having denounced those who have said that the Son of
God was truly a Son, living and subsisting, he lays down his own
stated opinion in these very words, writing as follows:
Therefore, before the descent and birth through the Virgin, he
was only Word. For before the assumption of the human flesh,
what else was “that which came down ‘in the last days’”20 as he
[Asterius] himself also wrote, “and that which was born from
the Virgin”? It was nothing other than Word.21
(2) Then proceeding on, he next says that he is eternal, as-
serting thereby that he is ingenerate. He writes this way:
15. 1 Cor 1.9.

16. Eph 2.6–7.
17. Heb 7.24–25.
18. Heb 7.3.
19. περὶ τοῦ μηδὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν εἶναι μηδ’ ὑφεστάναι τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ υἱὸν . . .
20. Heb 1.2.
21. Marcellus, fr. 5 (48 K./H.) (8,19–22 V.).
122 Eusebius
You hear, then, the consistent testimony of the Holy Spirit, giv-
ing witness through many and diverse persons to the eternity
of the Word. (3) And because of this he [John] begins from
the eternity of the Word, saying, “In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”22
Using three successive testimonies, he wishes to show the eter-
nity of the Word.23
And after some other remarks, he adds:
For previously, as I have said many times, he was nothing other
than Word.24
(4) And he adds that he was not “image of the invisible
God,”25 saying:
invisible God.”26
And again after some other remarks he adds:
Well then, what was this “which came down”27 before the In-
carnation? Surely, I suppose, he [Asterius] says, “Spirit.”28 For if
he would like to say something besides this, the angel will not
agree with him, because he said to the Virgin, “The Holy Spirit
will come upon you.”29 But if he will say that he is Spirit, let
him listen to the Savior, who says, “God is Spirit.”30
(5) For this reason, clearly, since the Savior said, “God is
spirit,” about the Father, Marcellus is convicted of saying that
the Father himself was incarnated. And he dares to write still
more in this manner:
22. Jn 1.1.
23. Marcellus, fr. 6 (53 K./H.) (10,1–6 V.).
24. Last part of Marcellus, fr. 52 (91 K./H.) (46,8–9 V.).
25. Col 1.15.
26. Ibid.; first part of Marcellus, fr. 53 (92 K./H.) (46,10–48,1 V.).
27. Asterius, fr. 58 (120,1 V.).
28. Asterius, fr. 58 (120,2 V.).
29. Lk 1.35.
30. Jn 4.24; Marcellus, fr. 61 (54 K./H.) (54,1–5 V.).
Well, then, let him learn that the Word of God came, not “be-
ing called Word figuratively,”31 as those men say, but being true
Word.32
(6) And again he adds these things to what has been said:
If one were only to consider the Spirit, the Word would rightly
appear to be one and the same with God. But if one were to
consider the addition of the flesh to the Savior, the divinity
seems to extend itself only by virtue of its activity, so that, as is
to be expected, the monad is truly indivisible.33
(7) And he adds still more to the argument through what he
wrote in the remarks immediately following in this way:
Therefore, to have said that “he has been begotten before
the ages”34 seems a logical statement: for that which has come
forth from the Father who sent it forth becomes an offspring.
But the other statement has no longer been taken in a sound
or pious sense by him [Asterius].35 (8) For to have said that he
who has come forth from him [the Father], and that this is the
true manner of begetting, is not the Word, but [that] “he is
simply only son”36 has usually provided a certain justification
for those listening who are inclined to take a human perspec-
tive.37
And [that] in these words he brazenly denied the Son, intro-
ducing a mere word that commands what must be done, is clear
from what he adds, saying,
(9) . . . whom all the divine Scriptures proclaim in this way.
For David said concerning him, “By the Word of the Lord, the
heavens were made,”38 and the same again: “He sent forth his
31. Marcellus’s statement is based on Asterius, fr. 71 (130 V.); see also Mar-
cellus, fr. 94 (46 K./H.) (84,1 V.).
32. Marcellus, fr. 65 (45 K./H.) (56,1–2 V.).
33. Marcellus, fr. 73 (71 K./H.) (62,1–4 V.).
34. Prv 8.23, 25; excerpt of Asterius, fr. 17 (90,1–2 V.).
36. See Asterius, fr. 53 (116 V.); see also Asterius, fr. 27 (96,2–3 V.).
37. Marcellus, fr. 66 (36 K./H.) (56,3–8 V.).
38. Ps 32.6 (RSV 33.6).
124 Eusebius
Word and healed them.”39 And Solomon said, “Evil men will
seek me, and they will not find me. Because they hated wisdom
and did not choose the Word40 of the Lord.”41 And Isaiah said,
“The Law will go forth from Zion, and the Word (10) of the
Lord from Jerusalem.”42 And again Jeremiah says, “The wise
men shall be put to shame; they shall be dismayed and taken
because they rejected the Word of the Lord.”43 And Hosea44
the prophet also said, “They hated him who reproves in the
gate, and despised a pious Word.”45 Micah himself, likewise
mindful of the Word, said, “The Law will go forth from Zion,
and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”46
(11) Bringing together these many remarks about the word
of command, Marcellus says that even the Word-God that “was
in the beginning with God”47 was of this sort. For this reason
he carries on, claiming:
But the holy apostle and also disciple of the Lord, John, teach-
ing clearly and explicitly at the beginning of the gospel, as
something previously unknown among men, calling him Word
of the Almighty, thus said, “‘In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”48 Not
making use of [only] a single testimony, he reveals the eternity
of the Word.49
(12) And he builds on these comments, adding immediately
afterwards:
. . . So that by saying, “In the beginning was the Word,”50 he
might show that the Word was in the Father by power (for
39. Ps 106.20 (RSV 107.20).

40. LXX = “fear.”
41. Prv 1.28–29.
42. Is 2.3.
43. Jer 8.9.
44. The quotation in fact derives from Amos.
45. Am 5.10.
46. Mi 4.2; Marcellus, fr. 67 (47 K./H.) (56,9–58,5 V.).
47. Jn 1.2.
48. Jn 1.1.
49. Marcellus, fr. 68 (51 K./H.) (58,6–10 V.).
50. Jn 1.1.
God, “from whom are all things,” is the source of all things
51
that have come to be), and by saying, “And the Word was with
God,”52 [he might show] that the Word was with God by activity
(“for all things (13) were made through him, and without him
not one thing was made”), 53 and by having said that “the Word
was God,”54 [he might show us] not to divide the divinity, since
the Word is in him and he himself is in the Word (for [the
Word] says, “The Father is in me, and I am in the Father”).55
And he adds still [more] to these remarks, laying bare [his]
peculiar opinion through those remarks he carries on with im-
mediately afterwards, saying:
Well then, the holy apostle and disciple of the Lord, John, call-
ing to mind his eternity, became a true witness to the Word, 56
saying, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
(14) with God, and the Word was God,”57 making no mention
here of a generation of the Word, 58 but using three testimo-
nies, one right after another, he confirmed that the Word was
in the beginning. 59
And he adds to these remarks, saying:
We know to refer the economy according to the flesh to the
man, but we believe that the eternity according to the Spirit is
united60 to the Father.61
(15) Proceeding to these remarks, he next adds these state-
ments:
51. 1 Cor 8.6.

52. Jn 1.1.
53. Jn 1.3.
54. Jn 1.1.
56. See Jn 21.24.
57. Jn 1.1.
58. See Asterius, fr. 74 (124–128 V.).
59. Marcellus, fr. 71 (33 K./H.) (60,10–14 V.).
60. Technically, aorist tense and so “was united.”
61. Marcellus, fr. 72 (70 K./H.) (60,15–16 V.).
126 Eusebius
If then [the Savior] himself says these things, “I proceeded and
came forth from the Father,”62 and again, “And the word that
you hear is not mine, but the Father’s who sent me,”63 and, “All
that the Father has is mine,”64 it is clear that it makes sense for
him also to have said that “the Father is in me, and I am in the
Father.”65 So that the Word who says this is in God, (16) while
the Father is in the Word, because the Word is a power of the
Father. For a witness most worthy of belief has said he is “the
power and wisdom of God.”66 Thus the Savior says, “I and the
Father are one,”67 not because of the “exact agreement in all
[their] words and actions,” as Asterius said,68 but because it is
impossible either for the Word to be separated from God or
for God to be separated from his own Word. Thus if Asterius
thinks that the Savior said this “because of [their] agreement
in all things,” and does not wish to learn the truth by taking
into consideration the second economy, it is necessary to re-
mind him that sometimes an apparent (17) disagreement is to
be seen [between the Father and Son]. For so [the following]
words of [Scripture] teach us. For what sort of agreement is
this at the time of the Passion when he [the Son] says, “Father,
if it is possible, let this cup pass,”69 and then adds, “But not as
I will, but as you will”?70 For the first statement, “let this cup
pass,” was not characteristic of one who was in agreement. And
even the addition appears to give no indication of agreement,
(18) for he says, “Not my will, but your will, Father, be done.”
You hear how the text shows an apparent disagreement be-
tween the one who wills [and the one who does not will]. For it
is clear that the Father willed [the Passion] from the fact that
what he wanted happened. But that the Son did not will [the
Passion] is clear from the fact that he begged [the Father to
62. Jn 8.42. The biblical text actually reads “from God,” not “from the Fa-
ther.”
63. Jn 14.24.
64. Jn 16.15.
65. Jn 10.38.
66. 1 Cor 1.24.
67. Jn 10.30.
68. Asterius, fr. 39 (102 V.).
69. Mt 26.39.
70. Ibid.
“let this cup pass”]. Again, he [the Son] says, “I do not seek my
own will but the will of the Father who sent me.”71 (19) How
then does [Asterius] say that “the Savior said, ‘I and the Father
are one,’ because of [their] agreement in all things”?72
And after a bit he adds:
How can the Son be in agreement with the Father or the
Father be in agreement with the Son, when the Son says, “All
that the Father has is mine”?73 For the statement “All that the
Father has is mine” was, on the contrary, that of a Son greed-
ily taking what belonged (20) to the Father. For this reason,
having omitted to say that all that the Father has is held in
common, he said, “All that the Father has is mine.” And yet it
was not characteristic of one who was in agreement to speak in
this way, but [to say]: “All that the Father has is held in com-
mon.” For if the Acts of the Apostles, praising the agreement
of those coming to the faith at that time, declared, “They had
all things in common,”74 and if one ought to think that among
men who are capable of agreement all things are held in com-
mon, how much more necessary was it for the Father and the
Son to have things in common, since they have been divided
into two hypostases? But now, by saying, “All that the Father has
is mine,” the Son appears to take greedily what belongs to the
Father. But by alleging that he is not Lord of his own word, but
that the Father is [Lord] even of this (21) (for he [the Savior]
says, “The word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who
sent me”),75 he indicates that the Father has taken the property
of the child. But each of these statements, which correspond to
Asterius’s opinion, (22) seems to be illogical. For it was neces-
sary for the one who was in agreement not to take from anoth-
er the things that rightfully belong to him, for this is indeed
greedy, but to think that those things that belong to each are
held in common. So whenever we look at the human flesh, we
71. Jn 5.30.
72. See Asterius, fr. 39 (102 V.); Marcellus, fr. 74 (73 K./H.) (62,5–64,14 V.).
73. Jn 16.15.
74. Acts 4.32.
75. Jn 14.24.
128 Eusebius
will thus find that the Savior said, “I and the Father are one,”76
not as Asterius has written, for it was not “because of their
exact agreement in all [their] words and actions,” as he has
written, that (23) the Savior said, “I and the Father are one.”
For if this were the case, he would surely have said, “I and the
Father are in agreement with one another in all things.” But in
this instance he said, “I and the Father are one.” Therefore, if
there was some disagreement in those matters, and if the Lord
must speak the truth, it follows that the Savior knew precisely
that when he said, “I and the Father are one,” he said this at
that time not with regard to the man whom he assumed, but
with regard to the (24) Word who came forth from the Father.
For if there should seem to be a certain disagreement, this
ought to be referred to the weakness of the flesh, which the
Word assumed, not having it before. But if the oneness were to
be spoken of, this appears (25) to apply to the Word. For this
reason, he rightly said not only, “I and the Father are one,” but
also, “Have I been with you so long, Philip, and you say, ‘Show
us the Father’?”77 (clearly not to these eyes, but to the eyes of
the mind that are capable of discerning intellectual things).
For what the Father and his Word are is invisible to the eyes of
the flesh. [Christ] did not say this to Philip “because of [their]
agreement in all things.”78
(26) Having said all these things [and] having taken up the
argument anew, he lays down [his] teaching in this way:
For before the fashioning of all, there was a certain silence, as
one might expect, since the Word was in God. For if Asterius
has believed that “God is Maker of all things,”79 it is clear that
even he himself will confess along with us that the one [God]
has always existed and never received a beginning of his exis-
tence, while the other things have both come to be by him and
have come to be out of nothing. For I do not think to someone
who says that there also are certain things that are ingenerate
[he would say that he also believed this, but] that he is firmly
76. Jn 10.30.
77. Jn 14.9.
78. Marcellus, fr. 75 (74 K./H.) (64,15–66,27 V.).
79. Asterius, fr. 21 (92 V.).
convinced that the sky and earth and everything in the sky
and upon the earth came to be from God. Well now, (27) if
he were to believe this, 80 it would be necessary for him also to
confess that there was nothing other than God. Thus the Word
possessed his own glory, since he was in the Father.81
(28) And having said these things, he carries on after some
other remarks:
Asterius calls the authority82 given to him “glory,” and not only
glory, but also “pre-cosmic glory,”83 not understanding that
when the cosmos did not yet exist, there was nothing other
than God alone.84
(29) Marcellus, having said these things and having blatant-
ly denied the Son, so that he might persuade us of precisely the
sort of Word of God he has in mind, exhibits his conception
more clearly to our understanding, representing it through
these remarks he wrote:
For just as all the things that have come into existence have
come into existence by the Father through the Word, so also the
things that are said by the Father are communicated through
the Word. Because of this, even the most holy Moses called the
Word an angel,85 at that time when he appeared for no other
reason but so that he might announce to Moses these very
things that he believed would benefit the sons of Israel. (30)
And [the Word] believed that it would benefit [them] to believe
that there was one God. For this reason, he also said to him
[Moses], “I am who am,”86 so that he might teach [them] that
there was no other God apart from himself. This is easy to know,
I think, for those who ponder well a small and humble example
from our experience. (31) For it is not possible to separate the
word from a human being in power and hypostasis. For the word
80. See Asterius, fr. 21; 27; 29 (92; 96 V.).

81. Marcellus, fr. 76 (103 K./H.) (68,1–10 V.).
82. See Mt 28.18; Jn 17.2; 5.21–22.
83. Asterius, fr. 36 (100 V.).
84. Marcellus, fr. 77 (104 K./H.) (68,11–13 V.).
85. Ex 3.2.
86. Ex 3.14.
130 Eusebius
is one and the same with the man, and is separated [from him]
in no other way than by the activity alone of the deed.87
And he gives yet another illustration exhibiting his opinion,
when he says these sorts of things next:
For God was in need of no other preparatory material, such as
matter or any other human [material] for [the] establishment,
but this which (32) he had ready in his own mind. Since, then,
it was impossible for God to contemplate the establishment
of the heavens apart from [the] Word and the wisdom that
belongs to the Word, he [the prophet Solomon] rightly said,
“When he established the heavens, I was present with him.”88
And he adds again, likening [the Word] of God to the hu-
man word, so as to show that he is non-subsistent, 89 and writes
in this way:
To be sure, the Father in this passage says to Moses, “I am who
am,”90 (33) but he clearly says it through the Word. For what-
ever the Father says, in every case he appears to say it through
the Word. This is clear even from our own experience, insofar
as one can compare small things with great and divine ones.
For whatever we wish both to say and do according to our
capacity, we do by means of our word.91
(34) Then, after some intervening remarks, he says in addi-
tion:
How then did Asterius, pretending “to follow the holy Scrip-
tures simply and scrupulously,”92 not know this passage, which
says, “The Lord your God, this is God in heaven above and on
earth beneath, and there is no other beside him,”93 and that
“he is one,” and that “there is no other beside him”?94
87. Marcellus, fr. 87 (61 K./H.) (74,12–76,10 V.).

89. ἀνυπόστατον.
90. Ex 3.14.
91. Marcellus, fr. 89 (62 K./H.) (76,16–78,4 V.).
92. Asterius, fr. 50 (114 V.); see also Asterius, fr. 9 (86 V.).
93. Dt 4.39.
94. Dt 4.35; last part of Marcellus, fr. 92 (78 K./H.) (82,8–12 V.).
(35) And proceeding, he again affirms [this] confidently,
claiming:
Not “having been called Word figuratively,”95 even if those who
teach differently burst asunder with their lies, but being chiefly
and truly Word.96
And he adds:
For what mystery was hidden other than that concerning the
Word? And so this mystery was previously hidden “in God,”97
so that none of the earlier people knew clearly the truth about
the Word, but we now enjoy the riches of the glory98 and of the
hidden mystery.99
(36) And after these remarks, he has again made use of a
human image, writing in this way:
For who, either of the holy angels or of just men, was so trust-
worthy as to undo the punishment ordained for him by the
mouth of God,100 (37) if not the Word himself, who coexisted
and who formed along [with him], to whom the Father said,
“Let us make man in our image and likeness,”101 since there
was no other god who was capable of forming along with him?
For he says, “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there
is no god.”102 Therefore, neither was there any “newer god,” nor
was there “another god” after these,103 (38) who was capable of
working together with God. But if, using a small human exam-
ple from our experience, one were to explain the divine activi-
ty as through an image, it would be as if some man knowledge-
able in making statues, wishing to form a statue, first considers
within himself its type and character and then figures out how
95. Section of Asterius, fr. 71 (130 V.).

96. Marcellus, fr. 94 (46 K./H.) (84,1–2 V.).
97. Eph 3.9; Col 1.26.
98. Eph 3.16.
99. Marcellus, fr. 96 (50 K./H.) (84,9–13 V.).
100. See Asterius, fr. 37 (100 V.); Marcellus, ep. ad Lib. 6; Gn 3.19; Rv 1.5.
101. Gn 1.26.
102. Is 44.6.
103. See Asterius, fr. 55 (118 V.), and Paulinus of Tyre in Marcellus, fr. 122
(84 K./H.) (114,8–12 V.) (= Paulinus of Tyre, ep. = Urk. 9,4; III 18,8 Op.).
132 Eusebius
much width and height would be suitable for it. He scrutinizes
the proportion of the whole in each part, and after having pre-
pared the right amount of bronze104 and outlined beforehand
in his mind the future statue with a clear mental picture of it,
he is conscious of the cooperation of his reason,105 with which
he makes his calculations and with which he is accustomed to
do everything (for nothing beautiful comes to be without rea-
son).106 When he begins this perceptible work, which he sees in
his mind’s eye, he exhorts himself as he would another, saying,
“Come now, let us make, let us form a statue.” Just so does God,
the Lord of the universe, in making a living statue from earth,
exhort himself with nothing but his own Word, saying, “Let us
make man . . . ,”107 although not in the same way as the other
creatures. For the whole creation came into existence by [the]
Word.108
(39) And in addition to these remarks, after some other com-
ments, he says:
But now I believe the divine Scriptures, that God is one, and
the Word of this [God] on the one hand came forth from the
Father, so that “all things” might come to be “through him,”109
but on the other hand, after the time of the judgment, the
restoration of all things, and the destruction of all opposing
activity, “then he will be subjected to him who put all things
under him,”110 “to [his] God and Father,”111 so that in this way
the Word might be in God, just as he also was previously before
the cosmos existed. For there was nothing else before but God
alone; but when all things were going to come into existence
through the Word, the Word came forth in active energy, be-
ing [the Word] of the Father.112
104. See Prv 8.27.

105. Literally, “word.”
106. Again, λόγος in the sense of rationality.
107. Gn 1.26.
108. Marcellus, fr. 98 (58 K./H.) (88,11–90,8 V.).
109. Jn 1.3.
110. 1 Cor 15.28.
111. 1 Cor 15.24.
112. The last part of Marcellus, fr. 109 (121 K./H.) (102,13–21 V.).
(40) And again he makes the same idea plainer when he says:
Before the world existed, the Word was in the Father. But when
Almighty God resolved to make everything in heaven and on
earth, the generation of the world required active energy. And
because of this, there being nothing else besides God (for
all things are confessed to have come to be by him), at that
moment, the Word, having come forth, (41) became maker of
the cosmos, he who even beforehand was preparing it within
his mind.113
And again, after all these [statements], he carries on, saying:
And because of this he does not name himself “Son of God,”
but everywhere calls himself “Son of Man,” so that through this
sort of confession he might enable the man through fellowship
with him to become by adoption Son of God, and so that after
the completion of the deed, he might again, as Word, be united
to God, fulfilling that which was said by the Apostle: “Then he
himself will be subjected to him who put all things under him,
so that God may be all in all.”114 For then he will be what he was
before.115
Through all these statements Marcellus brazenly blasphemes
against the Son of God. (42) For if God and the Word within
him were one and the same, he could never himself become
his own father, just as he could not become his own son, since
he would be a single entity. But if the same God himself was a
single entity with his own Word, clearly he neither was a Father
(since he did not have a Son), nor was he Son (since he did not
have a Father).
(43) Therefore, then, we know from the foregoing what sort
of things the fellow recounted concerning the claims that the
Son of God neither exists nor pre-exists, but exists as a mere
word within God himself, at one time silent and then at an-
other exerting himself in active power. And having presented
these same things in many and various ways in his writing, he
114. 1 Cor 15.28.
115. Marcellus, fr. 111 (41 K./H.) (104,12–18 V.).
134 Eusebius
gathered together in the treatise a great heap of superfluous
statements. But in any case, content with refutations of him
provided by himself out of those statements he proposed, we
will not dignify the irrationality of this Jewish dogma with a
counter-refutation.
(44) Henceforth, having turned to his statements about the
flesh, which he says the Word within God assumed only by vir-
tue of activity, come, let us see how he applies to the flesh the
theology brought forward in the divine Scriptures concerning
the only-begotten Son of God, on the one hand denying that
he is the truly pre-existing Son of God, but on the other apply-
ing the theology to the flesh,116 which the impious fellow assert-
ed would a little later be abandoned by the Word.
Chapter 3
(1) For “the Word” “was in the beginning,”117 as nothing other
than Word. But once the man who had not existed previously
was united to the Word, it [the Word] became man, as John
teaches us, saying: “And the Word became flesh.”118 Well now,
because of this he certainly mentions only the Word. For if the
divine Scripture should mention the name of Jesus or Christ, it
appears so to name the Word of God when he existed with the
human flesh. But if someone should proclaim that even before
the New Testament the name of Christ or Jesus can be shown
to apply to the Word alone, he will find that this has been said
prophetically, as is also clear from this statement: “The kings
of the earth stood up, and the rulers gathered themselves
together, against the Lord and against his Christ.”119
(2) And after other remarks, he continues:
Rightly, therefore, before the descent he was this, which we
said many times: Word. But after the descent and the assump-
116. What Eusebius means here is to attribute divinity to the assumed

flesh, in effect, an accusation of Christological adoptionism.
117. Jn 1.1.
118. Jn 1.14.
119. Ps 2.2; Marcellus, fr. 7 (42 K./H.) (10,7–17 V.).
tion of the flesh he also acquired different titles, since “the
Word became flesh.”120
Note that through these statements Marcellus does not wish
the name[s] of Jesus and Christ and the remaining titles to
apply to the Word, but to the flesh that he has assumed. But
we need to note this so that when he [Marcellus] rejects the
flesh again,121 he will be convicted of impieties against the very
Christ of God. Then, after what was said before, proceeding
on, he next writes these sorts of things about the body of the
Savior:
(3) And let Asterius not think this implausible that, although
it was of more recent origin, his [Christ’s] body was able to
obtain such great antiquity. But let him reflect that even if
it is the case that the human flesh is most certainly of more
recent origin, nevertheless, the Word, having deemed it right
to assume this [flesh] through a pure virgin, and having united
what belonged to himself to this [flesh], not only made the
man who was created in himself “firstborn of all creation,”122
but also wants him to be a beginning of all things, not only of
those on earth, but also of those in heaven.123
(4) Having said all this, after other remarks, he refers to
the flesh the apostolic statements through which [the Apostle]
gives the theology regarding the Son of God (saying, “He is
the image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation, for in
him all things were created, in heaven and on earth . . . wheth-
er thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all
things were created through him and for him. He is before all
things, and in him all things hold together”),124 unashamedly
applying these sorts of statements of the Apostle to the flesh.
Concerning this, Marcellus himself proceeds to write these
things:
120. Jn 1.14; Marcellus, fr. 8 (49 K./H.) (10,18–12,2 V.).

121. As Marcellus does when he suggests that the Word will cast off the
assumed flesh at the consummation of salvation history in fr. 106.
122. Col 1.15.
123. Marcellus, fr. 11 (8 K./H.) (12,17–14,5 V.).
124. Col 1.15–17.
136 Eusebius
Therefore, if he [the Savior] confesses that the flesh does not
benefit him, how is it possible that the flesh, which is of earth
and is of no avail, will also coexist with the Word even in the
ages to come—as if it did offer some benefit to him?125
(5) And again he adds further about the same flesh:
. . . How would it still be possible for the “form of a slave,”126
which the Word assumed, since it is the form of a slave, to con-
tinue to coexist with the Word?127
But having said these sorts of things about the flesh, he now
says it is “image of God”128 and “firstborn of all creation,”129 and
that since it is before all things, “all things in heaven and on
earth—whether thrones, dominions, (6) principalities, author-
ities—were created” in it.130 And he writes as follows:
Therefore, if on the one hand he is himself “firstborn of all
creation,” but on the other, “All things were created in him,”131
it is fitting for us to know that the Apostle in this instance is
speaking of his economy in the flesh.132
And he confirms the remark, adding next:
Thus he [Christ] was named “firstborn of all creation”133
because of the fleshly birth and not “because of the first cre-
ation,”134 as those men think.135
(7) And he adds:
125. A middle section of Marcellus, fr. 106 (117 K./H.) (96,9–12 V.).
126. Phil 2.7.
127. A later section of Marcellus, fr. 106 (117 K./H.) (98,20–22 V.).
128. Col 1.15; Marcellus, fr. 53 (92 K./H.) (46,10–48,3 V.) (“image of the
invisible God”).
129. Col 1.15; Marcellus, fr. 13 (4 K./H.) (14,14–16 V.).
130. Col 1.16–17, reporting Marcellus’s interpretation of this passage,
which belongs to Marcellus, fr. 11 (8 K./H.) (12,17–14,5 V.).
131. 1 Cor 1.16.
132. Marcellus, fr. 13 (4 K./H.) (14,14–16 V.).
133. Col 1.15.
134. See Asterius, fr. 13–14; 23; 25; 30; 35 (90; 94; 96; 100 V.).
135. Marcellus, fr. 14 (5 K./H.) (14,17–16,1 V.).
Well then, this most holy Word before the Incarnation was not
called “firstborn of all creation”136 (for how is it possible for
him who always exists to be firstborn of someone?), but the
first “new man”137 in whom God wanted “all things to be gath-
ered up”138 —this man the divine Scriptures call the “firstborn
of all creation.”139
And again he adds:
You hear how not only these things, but also the things that
pre-existed “in the heavens and on the earth” happen to “have
been created in him”140 according to the new creation.141
(8) And so he has said that these statements through which
he was called “firstborn of all creation” [were made] because
of the flesh. But observe that he also refers the statement “The
Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works,”142
again to the flesh, paying no attention to the divine Scripture
that speaks in this way, from the person143 of Wisdom in the
Proverbs: “I, Wisdom, live with prudence, and I attain knowl-
edge and discretion. . . . By me kings reign, and rulers (9) de-
cree what is just.”144 The same Wisdom adds next: “I walk in the
way of righteousness; I am directed along the paths of justice,
endowing with wealth those who love me, and filling their trea-
suries with good things. If I should announce to you the things
that happen by day, (10) I will remember to recount the things
of the age. The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways
for his works. Before the age, he founded me, at the first, be-
fore the making of the earth,”145 and what follows after these.
Not having wished to apply his mind to these [statements],
since there is [for him] only one goal, that is, not to confess
136. Col 1.15.

137. Eph 2.15; 4.24.
138. Eph 1.10.
139. Col 1.15; Marcellus, fr. 15 (6 K./H.) (16,2–6 V.).
140. Col 1.16.
141. Marcellus, fr. 16 (7 K./H.) (16,7–9 V.).
142. Prv 8.22.
143. ἐκ προσώπου.
144. Prv 8.12, 15.
145. Prv 8.20–24 (RSV 8.20–23).
138 Eusebius
the Son of God, Marcellus applies the foregoing theology to
the flesh, and having turned aside from the straight road, he
contrived a dead-end for himself, writing literally in this way:
(11) Therefore, since this passage of Proverbs did not intend
to show the beginning of the divinity of our Savior, as those
men think, but [to show] the second economy according to the
flesh, [the prophet] said, “The Lord created me.”146 For this
reason he fittingly mentions the creation of the human flesh.147
(12) And next he adds:
Accordingly, the “creation” refers to the fact that he is a man.
For this reason he says, “The Lord created me as the beginning
of his ways for his works”;148 “created me,” that is, through the
Virgin Mary, through whom God chose to unite the human
flesh to his own Word.149
(13) And after other remarks, he continues, saying:
Therefore, since this is so, it follows that we should closely inves-
tigate the passage, which was stated in proverbial fashion: “The
Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works.”150
For the Lord our God, having made that which did not exist
previously, truly created. For he created not the existing flesh,
which the Word assumed [but the non-existent flesh].151
And he carries on again, saying:
Therefore, this is [the meaning of] the statement: “The Lord
created me as the beginning of his ways for his works.”152
(14) And he adds:
“Before the age, he founded me,”153 calling this foundation his
foreordained fleshly economy, as the Apostle also says, “For no
146. Prv 8.22.

147. Marcellus, fr. 26 (9 K./H.) (30,1–4 V.).
148. Prv 8.22.
149. Marcellus, fr. 28 (10 K./H.) (30,9–12 V.).
150. Prv 8.22.
151. Marcellus, fr. 29 (11 K./H.) (30,13–32,2 V.).
153. Prv 8.23.
other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which
is Jesus Christ.”154 Here [the prophet or the Apostle] calls to
mind one age in which he said the dispensation of Christ was
founded.155
(15) And again he confirms the same statement, claiming:
. . . The prophet rightly said, “Before the age, he founded
me,”156 that is, the [foundation] according to the flesh, because
of the communion with his true Son, the Word.157
And he next says in addition:
Then [Wisdom] says, “At the first, before the making of the
earth.”158 What sort of earth was this, other than, obviously,
our flesh, which again became earth after our disobedience?
For [Scripture] says, “You are earth, and to earth you shall
return.”159 For it was necessary that this [flesh] obtain
healing, by having communion in some way with the holy
Word.160
(16) Observe that Marcellus in these remarks trips himself
up. At any rate [he stumbles] in another [passage],161 [when,]
having said that the flesh, having been created, is the “begin-
ning of the ways”162 of God, and again that the same is a “foun-
dation,”163 he adds, “before the making of the earth.”164 Then
again he interprets the earth as the flesh, not seeing that it does
not follow at all to say the flesh was created before the flesh and
to name the flesh again after the creation of the flesh. (17) But
he adds still more to these [reflections], saying next:
154. 1 Cor 3.11.

155. Ps 54.20 (RSV 55.19); Marcellus, fr. 35 (17 K./H.) (34,5–10 V.).
156. Prv 8.23.
157. The last part of Marcellus, fr. 38 (20 K./H.) (36,8–9 V.).
158. Prv 8.24.
159. Gn 3.19.
160. Marcellus, fr. 39 (21 K./H.) (36,10–13 V.).
161. See Marcellus, fr. 28 (10 K./H.) and 29 (11 K./H.) (30,9–32,2 V.).
162. Prv 8.22; the text refers to Marcellus, fr. 29 (11 K./H.) (30,13–32,2 V.).
163. 1 Cor 3.11; Marcellus, fr. 38 ( 20 K./H.) (36,6–9 V.).
164. Prv 8.23.
140 Eusebius
Then [the prophet] says, “Before the making of the depths.”165
Here the prophet says in proverbial fashion that the depths are
the hearts of the saints, which have in their depths the gift of
the Spirit.166
(18) And in these remarks, note that, having taken the phrase
“the Lord created me”167 as having been said with regard to the
flesh, then having been boxed in by the Scripture that says “be-
fore he made the depths,” on the one hand he interprets the
depths, saying they are the hearts of the saints, but on the oth-
er, he does not see that the hearts of the saints—to be sure, of
Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob and Moses and Elijah and
Melchizedek and the rest of the prophets—(19) have come into
existence before the flesh of the Savior. Therefore, how is it pos-
sible for the statement “before the making of the depths” to
apply to the flesh? And yet after other remarks, he again adds
more, saying:
Therefore, what is one to make168 of this central passage:
“Before the springs abounding with water came forth”?169
[Scripture] says these are the holy apostles. The text of Exodus
reveals this mystery to us, having proclaimed long ago the
types of the apostles. For since the number of the apostles is
twelve, it mentions twelve springs.170
(20) And he adds further, writing the same thing in this way:
Therefore, in all likelihood, the Master spoke about the birth
in the flesh through the prophet Solomon, when the latter
said, “Before the springs abounding with water came forth.”171
(21) Next, then, having gone through other things, he car-
ries on:
165. Prv 8.24.

166. Marcellus, fr. 40 (22 K./H.) (38,1–3 V.).
167. Prv 8.22.
168. Klostermann’s addition “likewise” in harmonizing this passage with
the earlier quotation is not needed.
169. Prv 8.24.
170. Ex 15.27; Marcellus, fr. 41 (23 K./H.) (38,4–8 V.).
Therefore, since we have spoken concerning the foregoing, it
follows next that we also complete [our interpretation of] what
remains. And that passage remains that speaks of the mountains
and hills. [The prophet] says, “Before the mountains had been
shaped, before all the hills, he begets me.”172 [The prophet] calls
the apostles and the successors of the apostles mountains and
hills, so that he might indicate in proverbial fashion the [apos-
tles’] upright way of life in comparison to that of other men.173
(22) Having proposed certain interpretations of this sort,
he again turns to the apostolic statements, making claims that
contradict the Apostle. For the one [the Apostle] who taught
the pre-existent Son of God also [taught] that he is “firstborn
of all creation,”174 testifying in a loud voice that “all things”
were created “through him and in him” and that he is “before
all things.”175 But the other [Marcellus] drags down this theolo-
gy, too, to the level of the flesh, a little later (23) denying even
this. So he says in this way:
Because of this he rightly adds “who is the image of the invisible
God.”176 When did he become an image other than when he
assumed the form “in the image and likeness”?177 For previously,
as I have said many times, he was nothing other than Word.178
And he continues, clarifying the same point still more open-
ly through what he says:
invisible God.”179 For it is natural for the image to be seen, so
that through the image that which has hitherto been invisible
might be seen.180
172. Prv 8.25.

173. Marcellus, fr. 45 (27 K./H.) (40,3–8 V.).
174. Col 1.15.
175. Col 1.16–17.
176. Col 1.15.
177. Gn 1.26.
178. Marcellus, fr. 52 (91 K./H.) (46,6–9 V.).
179. Col 1.15.
180. Marcellus, fr. 53 (92 K./H.) (46,10–48,3 V.).
142 Eusebius
(24) And again he adds, saying:
How, then, has Asterius written that the Word of God is an
“image of the invisible God”?181 For images reveal those things
of which they are the images even when they are absent, so
that even he who is absent seems to appear through them. If it
is the case that while God is invisible the Word is also invisible,
how can the Word be in and of himself “image of the invisible
God,”182 seeing as he, too, is invisible? For it is impossible for
that which is invisible ever to appear through [another] invisi-
ble thing.183
(25) But in these remarks, too, Marcellus does not see that
if we should grant that the flesh is the image of God, we will
then have to say that the flesh even of all human beings and the
outward appearances of [their] bodies are images of God, with
the result that the Savior had nothing extraordinary in and of
himself. But he [Marcellus]—as if he had forgotten the things
he wrote after these about the flesh, having said it is “the form
of a slave”184 from the apostolic comparison and because of this
is not (26) able to coexist with the Word because it is “the form
of a slave,” but also [having] openly said:
. . . How is it possible that [the flesh], which is of earth and is
of no avail, will also coexist with the Word even in the ages to
come?185
—insists that the flesh in the present is the image of the invisi-
ble God, maintaining obstinately:
. . . that before the assumption of our body the Word itself was
not “image of the invisible God.”186
(27) And again, after the things that were presented, he car-
ries on, saying:
181. Asterius, fr. 11 and 13 (88 V.).

182. See also ibid.
183. Marcellus, fr. 54 (93 K./H.) (48,4–10 V.).
184. Phil 2.7.
185. Middle passage of Marcellus, fr. 106 (117 K./H.) (96,10–12 V.).
186. Col 1.15; section of Marcellus, fr. 53 (92 K./H.) (46,10–48,1 V.).
For this reason in every way it is clear that the flesh that was
added to the Word was spoken of by the holy Apostle as the
“image of the invisible God,”187 so that through the visible,
that which is invisible might also appear. Hence the Apostle
says, “He is the image of the invisible God.” Clearly now he
became a true image of the invisible God at that time when he
assumed the flesh that was made “in the image”188 of God. (28)
For if through this image, we were made worthy to know the
Word of God, we ought to believe the Word himself when he
says through the image, “I and the Father are one.”189 For it is
impossible for anyone to know either the Word or the Father of
the Word without this image.190
(29) And again he adds:
And so the Apostle also says in this way, as we mentioned a
little while ago, “He emptied himself, having taken the form
of a slave,”191 indicating to us through “the form of a slave” the
human flesh, which the Lord our God formed with his own
Wisdom when he said, “Let us make man in our image and
likeness,”192 rightly calling the human flesh “image.” For he
knew exactly that a little later it would be an image of his own
Word.193
(30) After these remarks he attempts to argue that even [the
statement] “From the womb before the morning star I begot
you”194 was made about the flesh, and writes as follows:
Well then, because the star that reveals the day was rightly
called the morning star by the prophet David, it is no longer
appropriate to seek out what the morning star is. For this was
the star that appeared at that time, which moved ahead and
showed (31) the day to the Magi. Therefore, it is entirely clear
187. Col 1.15.

188. Gn 1.26.
189. Jn 10.30.
190. Marcellus, fr. 55 (94 K./H.) (48,11–19 V.).
191. Phil 2.7.
192. Gn 1.26.
193. Marcellus, fr. 56 (95 K./H.) (50,1–6 V.).
194. Ps 109.3 (RSV 110.3).
144 Eusebius
that the verse “Before the morning star, I begot you”195 was
spoken by the Lord Almighty concerning the Word who was
born together with the human flesh through the Virgin. The
gospel also clearly shows this, insofar as our Lord was first born
through the Virgin196 and then later, the star appeared that
revealed the day.197
(32) Proceeding on to these remarks, he again adds:
For the man received not only authority over things on earth
but, naturally, also over [things] in heaven.198 For if, when he
became “man” as well as “mediator between God and men,”199
[and] then “in him all things were created,” as the Apostle
said, “in heaven and on earth,”200 it follows to know exactly
that authority has been given to him, not only over [things] on
earth, but also over [things] in heaven.201
And again, after other remarks, he continues:
For if the holy gospel speaks about a certain glory that was giv-
en to him by the Father, 202 the man appeared to have received
this through the Word. For having become “the mediator
between God and men,”203 according to the holy Apostle, he
glorified the God-fearing human beings with the glory that
was given to him by the Father.204
(33) And again he adds these remarks:
And he deemed the man who fell through disobedience wor-
thy to be united through the Virgin to his own Word. For what
other sort of glory among human beings could be greater than
this glory? Having said, “I have glorified you,” [the Father]
195. Ibid.
196. Mt 1.25.
197. Mt 2.2; Marcellus, fr. 59 (31 K./H.) (52,4–12 V.).
198. See Jn 17.2; 5.21–22; Mt 28.18.
199. 1 Tm 2.5.
200. Col 1.16.
201. Marcellus, fr. 78 (105 K./H.) (70,1–6 V.).
202. See, for example, Jn 17.5.
203. 1 Tm 2.5.
204. Marcellus, fr. 79 (106 K./H.) (70,7–11 V.).
continues, saying, “And I will glorify [you] again,” so that,
205
because of his abundant lovingkindness in the second glory

after the resurrection of the flesh, he might make immortal
the man who was previously mortal and glorify him with such
great glory that he is not only delivered from his previous en-
slavement but is even made worthy of superhuman glory.206
(34) And again he adds further:
. . . So that, as I said, he might enable the man himself who was
previously deceived by the Devil to conquer the Devil again.
Because of this, he assumed the man, so that as a result of this
he might enable him to receive the first fruits of authority.207
And he adds still more, saying:
For this is the beloved, 208 the man united to the Word, of
whom the evangelist recorded, “This is my beloved Son, with
whom I am well-pleased.”209
(35) And again he continues:
That the Word of the invisible God 210 was going to be born
through a virgin and assume human flesh, and so also that
through it, having condemned the Devil, who had previously
prevailed over the man, he might enable him to become not
only incorruptible and immortal, but also enthroned together
with God in heaven.211
(36) It is necessary to hold all these things in memory be-
cause of the things that are going to be brought forward by
Marcellus himself against the flesh that the Word of God as-
sumed. For as if he had forgotten all these things that he pre-
sented, he pursues a goal neither auspicious nor pious with re-
gard to the saving body. In addition to all of these, as of those
205. Jn 12.28.
206. See Rom 8.21; Marcellus, fr. 80 (107 K./H.) (70,12–19 V.), directed
against Asterius, fr. 36–37 (100 V.).
207. Marcellus, fr. 81 (108 K./H.) (72,1–4 V.).
208. See Ps 44.1 (RSV 45).
210. See Col 1.15.
211. Marcellus, fr. 83 (110 K./H.) (72,8–12 V.).
146 Eusebius
previous things that were brought forward by him, he attempts
to show that even the statement “The Lord reigns; let the earth
rejoice”212 is (37) to be referred to the flesh. And he says in
this way:
At any rate, he who came down and took to himself the flesh
through the Virgin was established king over the Church, 213
clearly so that the man who had previously been deprived of
the kingdom of heaven might be able to obtain the kingdom
through the Word. For this reason, God devised this economy,
since he wished that this man, who had previously been de-
prived of the kingdom because of disobedience, might become
Lord and God. Therefore, the most holy prophet David says
prophetically, “The Lord reigns; let the earth rejoice.”214
(38) And after other remarks, he carries on:
For this reason, just as Christ our Lord received a beginning
of his kingdom at a certain time, the prophecy says, “And I was
established as king by him.”215
And again he continues:
For because of this he will also rule as king after he has come
in human flesh, and having been established through the
Word as king, 216 the man who was previously deceived will de-
stroy “every rule” of the Devil and “authority and power.”217
(39) Having said all these things about the flesh of the Savior
and still more things than these, and having said that it is the
image “of the invisible God,”218 the “firstborn of all creation,”219
the king, Jesus, Christ, the beloved, and all the other things he
laid down, having claimed that the Word was called all of these
212. Ps 96.1 (RSV 97.1).

213. See Ps 2.6.
214. Ps 96.1 (RSV 97.1); Marcellus, fr. 99 (111 K./H.) (90,9–15 V.).
215. Ps 2.6; Marcellus, fr. 100 (112 K./H.) (92,1–3 V.).
216. See Ps 2.6.
217. 1 Cor 15.24; the first part of Marcellus, fr. 101 (113 K./H.) (92,4–6 V.).
218. Col 1.15.
219. Ibid.
things because of it [the flesh], the time has already now 220
come to consider the sort of end he confers on it [the flesh].
Chapter 4
(1) For because of this he will rule as king after he has come in
human flesh, and having been established through the Word
as king, 221 the man who was previously deceived will destroy
“every rule” of the Devil and “authority and power.”222 For
[Paul] says, “For he must reign until he has put all enemies
under his feet.”223 Thus the holy Apostle says that this [is] the
end of the kingdom of our Lord Christ, namely, when he puts
all things under his feet.224
And after a bit, he says in addition:
Here the Apostle reveals the greatest mystery to us, declaring
that there will be an end of the kingdom of Christ; and this
end will be when he puts all things under his feet.225
(2) And developing still further the same argument, he
writes in this way:
We have said in our foregoing remarks, using proofs out of the
divine Scriptures, that our Lord Jesus Christ received a begin-
ning of [his] kingdom. There is one [passage] that says, “I was
established as king by him over Zion, his holy mountain,”226
(3) and another is, “The Lord reigns; let the nations rage,”227
and again, “The Lord reigns; let the earth rejoice.”228 And
220. Marcellus implies that because of Christ’s resurrection the time has
“already” come to talk about the fate of Christ’s resurrected body, because the
power of Christ’s resurrection is already at work in salvation history, though
obviously incomplete at the time Marcellus is writing.
221. See Ps 2.6.
222. 1 Cor 15.24.
223. 1 Cor 15.25.
224. Marcellus, fr. 101 (113 K./H.) (92,4–10 V.).
225. Marcellus, fr. 102 (114 K./H.) (92,11–13 V.).
226. Ps 2.6.
227. Ps 98.1 (RSV 99.1).
228. Ps 96.1 (RSV 97.1).
148 Eusebius
altogether there is abundant testimony consisting of myri-
ad statements to show that the man received a beginning of
[his] kingdom through the Word. Therefore, if he received a
beginning of [his] kingdom no more than four hundred years
ago all told, it is nothing paradoxical if the Apostle says that
he who obtained this kingdom such a short time ago will hand
over the kingdom, to be sure, to God who established him as
king, as Scripture says.229
(4) And after other statements, he writes as follows:
Therefore, [the Word] appears to have been separated from
the Father by activity alone because of the flesh, until the
approaching time of judgment appears, so that according to
the prophecy, when those who once pierced [him] look upon
the one whom they have pierced, 230 in this way the (5) rest
may also take place in proper order. For since all things are
going to be subjected to Christ in the end time, as the Apostle
said, then, “He will be subjected to him who put all things
under him.”231 Well then, what do we learn about the human
flesh, which the Word assumed for us, not four hundred whole
years ago? Will the Word have this even then in the ages to
come or only until the time of judgment? For it is necessary
that that which was said by the prophet be confirmed in deed.
For [Zechariah] says, “They will look on him whom they have
pierced.”232 But clearly they pierced the flesh.233
(6) And he adds [to this] after other comments, saying:
For that the Word assumed our flesh not for his own bene-
fit, but so that the flesh might attain immortality because of
its communion with the Word, is also clear from the same
statement of the Savior. For concerning the flesh, through the
possession of which he associated with the disciples, he thus
said, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to
see the Son of Man ascending where he was before? It is the
229. Marcellus, fr. 103 (115 K./H.) (92,14–94,9 V.).

230. Jn 19.37; Zec 12.10; Rv 1.7.
231. 1 Cor 15.28.
232. Jn 19.37; Zec 12.10.
233. Marcellus, fr. 104 (116 K./H.) (94,10–21 V.).
Spirit that gives life; the flesh is of no avail.” Therefore, if he
234
confesses that the flesh does not benefit him, how is it possi-
ble that the flesh, which is of earth and is of no avail, will also
coexist with the Word even in the ages to come—as if it did
offer some benefit to him? (7) For it seems to me also because
of this that the Lord Almighty says to him, “Sit at my right
hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”235 Seeming to
distinguish him by activity alone because of [the] human flesh,
and determining, as it were, a certain specified time for him to
sit at his right hand, he thus says to him, “until (8) I make your
enemies your footstool.”236 The holy Apostle, interpreting for
us even more clearly this prophetic statement of David, thus
said somewhere, “He must reign until he has made his enemies
his footstool.”237 Thus the human economy and kingdom seem
to have a certain limit. For this which was said by the Apostle,
“until he has made his enemies his footstool,” conveys noth-
ing other than this. (9) Therefore, whenever he has made his
enemies his footstool, he [will] no longer need this partial
kingdom, since he will be wholly king of the universe. For
he will reign together with [his] “God and Father,”238 whose
(10) Word he was and is. For the Word himself did not receive
a beginning of kingdom for himself, but the man who was
deceived by the Devil has become king through the power of
the Word, so that, having become king, he might conquer the
Devil, who had deceived [him] previously. Because of this, the
Acts of the Apostles also teaches us regarding this man, whom
the Word of God assumed and whom, having assumed, he sets
at the right hand of the Father, when it says: “whom heaven
must receive until the time of restoration.”239 And these [Acts]
[speak in this way], determining, as it were, a certain limit and
appointed time during which it is fitting for the human
(11) economy to be united to the Word. What else does the
phrase “until the time for restoration” wish to convey to us
234. Jn 6.61–63.
235. Ps 109.1 (RSV 110.1).
236. Ibid.
237. 1 Cor 15.25.
238. 1 Cor 15.24.
239. Acts 3.21.
150 Eusebius
than [the] coming age, in which all things must be completely
restored? Well then, if Paul said that in the time of the resto-
ration of all things even creation itself will pass from bondage
to liberty (for he says that “the creation itself will be set free
from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of
the (12) sons of God”), 240 how would it still be possible for the
“form of a slave,”241 which the Word assumed, since it is the
form of a slave, to continue to coexist with the Word? There-
fore, the divinely inspired Paul said clearly and distinctly that
in a certain short span of time within past as well as future ages
the fleshly economy of the Word has occurred for our sakes
and that as this economy has a beginning, so also it has an
end, having thus said, “Then comes the end, when he delivers
the kingdom to [his] God and Father.”242
(13) After other remarks, he adds to these:
Therefore, he assumed the human flesh not for his own sake,
but for ours. But if it is obvious that he has assumed it for our
sake, and [if] everything that pertains to us by his providence
and activity will come to an end in the time of judgment, then
there will no longer be a need for this partial kingdom.243
Having said these things, Marcellus, then perceiving that
he had fallen into an absurdity of his own making, adds these
statements to what was said:
But if someone should say that the human flesh is worthy of
the Word because he made it immortal through the resurrec-
tion, let him know that not everything that is immortal is wor-
thy of God. (14) For God, who is able by his own will to make
even things that come from nothing immortal, is greater even
than immortality itself. That not everything that is immortal is
worthy of being united with God is also clear from the fact that
the principalities, powers, and angels, although immortal, in
no way belong to the oneness of God.244
240. Rom 8.21.

241. Phil 2.7.
242. 1 Cor 15.24; Marcellus, fr. 106 (117 K./H.) (96,4–100,3 V.).
243. Marcellus, fr. 107 (119 K./H.) (100,4–7 V.).
244. Marcellus, fr. 108 (120 K./H.) (100,8–14 V.).
(15) Having said these things and as if becoming aware that
he himself had fallen into the depth of absurdity, he attempts
to call [himself] back from it, confessing in some way that he
knew nothing about what he had said. For this reason, he con-
tinues, saying:
But if someone should ask about this flesh that has become
immortal by the Word, what are we to say to him? [We would
say] that we think it is dangerous for us to expound dogma
about things of which we have no exact knowledge from the
divine Scriptures. (16) For how is it (17) possible for those who
overturn even the dogmas of others to do this? But we will say
to those who wish to learn from us the accurate truth about
this that, convinced by the holy Apostle, we know that it is
fitting for us to see the hidden mysteries in this way, as he him-
self said. “For now we see,” he says, “in a mirror dimly, but then
face-to-face. Now we know in part; then we shall know fully,
even as we have been known.”245 So do not ask me (18) about
things about which I have no clear knowledge from the divine
Scripture. Well then, because of this, I will not be able to speak
clearly about that divine flesh that acquired communion with
the divine Word. But now I believe the divine Scriptures, that
God is one and that, on the one hand, the Word of this [God]
came forth from the Father, so that “all things” might come
to be “through him,”246 but that, on the other hand, after
the time of judgment, the restoration of all things, and the
destruction of all opposing activity, “then he will be subject-
ed to him who put all things under him,” “to [his] God and
Father,”247 so that in this way the Word might be in God, just as
he also was previously.248
(19) This wonderful author proposed this sort of end for the
flesh of our Savior, having forgotten what he said about it in the
previous remarks. (20) Then, having declared clearly in this way
that the saving body would be bereft of the Word after the time
245. 1 Cor 13.12.

246. Jn 1.3.
247. 1 Cor 15.28, 24.
248. With the exception of a missing small final passage, this is Marcellus,
fr. 109 (121 K./H.) (102,1–19 V.).
152 Eusebius
of judgment, he feigns piety and says he does not know [how]
to answer if someone should ask him about the flesh, but would
say to the one who asks, “Do (21) not ask me about what I have
not learned.” But someone who came across him could well say
to him, “Why then do you mock yourself, man? Why indeed do
you rush down [the] cliffs, 249 offering definitive statements in
writing things about which you have not learned? Why do you
not preserve the things you have received from both the fathers
and the teachers of the Church? But you innovate recklessly,
introducing into [its] life a new and alien distortion, granting
a beginning, both circumscribed in time and more recent, to
the kingdom of Christ, and having determined an end of this,
and denying the truly only-begotten Son of God and assuming
[that he is] a mere word, without being and non-subsistent, 250
which you say is nothing other than one and the same with
God, which indeed even everyone would say with good reason
if he were denying the Son of God. (22) For the Word that does
not subsist is not a Son, just as neither would the word that is in
man ever be said [to be] a son of man, having arisen within the
one speaking by virtue of activity alone. Again and again, you
say that this [Word] has become Son of God from the Father
not four hundred whole years ago through the assumption of
the flesh and was called “Jesus” and “Christ,” and designated
image “of the invisible God” and “firstborn of all creation,”251
and then that at that time he became a king who ruled over all
these things from the time indicated, [but] then he will cease
[to exist] completely at the time of the consummation of all
of these things. (23) From where then have you learned these
things? Who is your authority for teaching these things—which
of the bishops, what sort of synods, what sort of book of eccle-
siastical men? Where do you think the immortal body of the
Savior would go? For confessing that it is immortal and calling
it divine, you will suppose, I think, that it is altogether both
incorruptible and indissoluble, and having a nature of this sort
it remains, to be sure, solid and indissoluble. But (24) you took
249. Mk 5.13; Mt 8.32; Lk 8.33.

250. ἀνούσιαν καὶ ἀνυπόστατον.
251. Col 1.15.
away the Word from it [the assumed flesh] and united it to God.
Therefore, will the body stand alone without [the] Word in im-
mortal and incorruptible irrationality252 and inactivity? And
how will the Word itself return into God and be united again
with him after its separation from the flesh? Consequently, was
he [the Word] not in God when he coexisted with the flesh,
although he was in him in every respect, being both co-eternal
with him [and] one and the same with God?253 How, then, did
he come to be in the body? If indeed he dwelt in it in place of
a soul, he will consequently be in a hypostasis distinct from the
Father, (25) both living and subsisting in the flesh that he as-
sumed. What, therefore, hindered [Marcellus from] confessing
that he was the living Son of God even before the constitution
of the world? But he [Marcellus] would say that he has come to
be in the body likewise by activity alone and not by the hypos-
tasis of being.254 For he says that, coexisting with the body by
active energy alone (by moving it and doing all the things relat-
ed in the gospels), he was united by virtue of being255 to God,
existing as a Word inseparable and indistinguishable from
him. (26) If, then, he should say these things, let him answer
us who have asked whether the activity of the Word has come
to this flesh alone, but not also to the other holy men of God.
Is not the same Word also active with regard to all the remain-
ing things fashioned by the Word? And surely we have learned
that “by the Word of the Lord, the heavens were made,”256 and
“all things were made through him, and without him not one
thing was made.”257 (27) Therefore, he is active even with re-
gard to all things. We know from the divine Scriptures also
that “the Word of the Lord came to Hosea the Son of Beeri,”258
and “the Word of the Lord came to Isaiah the son of Amoz,”259
252. Literally, “wordlessness.”

253. Klostermann’s punctuation of the text here is incorrect.
254. οὐχὶ δὲ οὐσίας ὑποστάσει.
255. οὐσίᾳ.
256. Ps 32.6 (RSV 33.6).
257. Jn 1.3.
258. Hos 1.1.
259. Is 2.1.
154 Eusebius
and “the Word of the Lord came to Jeremiah.” 260 And the same
Word of God also worked in every prophet. Consequently then,
all those prophets had a value equal to that of the only-begot-
ten Son of God, and the Savior had nothing more, if indeed
he was moved only in activity by the Word that was united with
God.261 (28) But neither does Marcellus grant to the Christ
of God to bear [honors] equal to those of the prophets. For
those men will receive an eternal life both immortal and ever-
lasting; they will live unto all ages in the proclaimed kingdom
of heaven and will enjoy goods of which “no eye has seen, nor
ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived.”262 But the Christ
of God himself, the common Savior of all, “the firstborn of the
dead,”263 the hope of the resurrection of the saints, he alone
consequently will at that time be left behind, his kingdom will
come to an end, and the life-giving flesh will be abandoned,
alone, and irrational, 264 so that he neither pre-exists as Son of
God nor endures into infinity (29) according to the teaching of
Marcellus.
Rightly, therefore, these claims roused the emperor, as one
truly God-loving and thrice-blessed, against the fellow, and yet
countless flatteries and many praises of the emperor appear
in his treatise. These things forced even the holy synod that
assembled in the royal city from diverse provinces of Pontus,
Cappadocia, Asia, Phrygia, Bithynia, Thrace, and the regions
beyond to censure the man through the decree against him
even though it was unwilling [to do so]. These matters forced
even us to proceed to the investigation at hand, at one and the
same time supporting the opinions of the holy synod and try-
ing (30) to do this to the best of our ability at the command
of our fellow servants. But I think it was especially necessary
for me that the treatise has been written because of those who
have thought the fellow was treated unjustly. For it is necessary
260. Jer 1.2.

261. So the position of Asterius, fr. 47 (112 V.), which, as Eusebius shows in
the next sentence, is even superior to that of Marcellus.
262. 1 Cor 2.9.
263. Col 1.18.
264. Literally, “without the Word.”
to assuage the suspicion of our brothers through presenting
clearly his lack of belief in the Son of God that has been quietly
circulating for a long time, but which now had been spoken
through that treatise of his; although no one called for it, he
came along, bearing it unbidden, and having given it into the
hand of the emperor, he deemed [him] worthy to discern the
things that had been written [in it]. I suppose that he proba-
bly hoped that, because of the praises directed at [the emper-
or], [in it] he would find protection from the emperor himself,
and that he might (31) take vengeance on the bishops who had
been slandered by him. But, to be sure, his escape did not turn
out as he had hoped. For the judge of these events was God
and Jesus Christ himself, the one who is denied by [this] writer,
who indeed, seeing the secrets of the fellow, made him become
both his own accuser and prosecutor, with no one coming to
his aid. For this reason the one man [Marcellus], priding him-
self on [his] treatise, approached the emperor, while the other
[Constantine] left the judgment of this book to the synod, and
the holy synod of God rejected the treatise as unfit, and rightly
so, because it confesses neither a beginning nor a pious end of
the Son of God.
ON ECCLESIASTICAL
THEOLOGY
ON ECCLESIASTICAL THEOLOGY 1
B O OK ON E
Dedication
O THE MOST honorable and beloved fellow minister
Flacillus, Eusebius sends greetings in the Lord.
It is no wonder if those things written by us in brief
against the garrulous and long-winded writing of Marcellus
were sufficient. For indeed there is no need of many words for
the refutation of those things that are immediately obvious to
their readers. Because of this, then, in the previous two books,1
I produced a clear refutation of them, having used only the ci-
tation of the man’s words without providing an entire counter-
argument. But now, in addition to those excerpts, I have pro-
duced by my own hands2 another refutation of those words in
three books. For the man who composed a single large and
error-riddled treatise says that “he has done this so as to make
1. The Against Marcellus.

2. Eusebius is clearly at pains to insist that he did not employ the assistance
of an episcopal “ghost writer” on the project. Deacons, in particular, often
served as theological advisors, secretaries, and draft writers; for example,
Athanasius served Alexander in this capacity. Asterius himself seems to have
advised Dianius and other Eusebian bishops (see Lib. syn. ad synod. Antioch.
anno 341 [Mansi II, col. 1350]; see on this W. Kinzig, In Search of Asterius: Stud-
ies on the Authorship of the Homilies on the Psalms, Forschungen zur Kirchen- und
Dogmengeschichte 47 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990], 18–19),
and, of course, Marcellus had Photinus as his deacon and theological advi-
sor—who produced the first commentary on Marcellus’s creed (the only one
used by Rufinus for his credal commentary). On this see Markus Vinzent, Der
Ursprung des Apostolikums im Urteil der kritischen Forschung, FKDG 89 (Göttin-
gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006), part IX. When Eusebius insists that
he wrote this book by himself, he is, indeed, indicating that he did not use
any assistant(s), perhaps indicating from the beginning that Marcellus’s and
Athanasius’s claims that “the Eusebians” are all inspired by their theological
advocate Asterius are not true for what follows.
159
160 Eusebius
known the one God,”3 lest, having divided up the text,4 he un-
wittingly give the Son of God the rank of a hypostasis. But hon-
oring the all-holy and thrice-blessed Trinity, we have brought
together in a corresponding number of books the entire sub-
ject, having sworn off wordiness, and also presenting the true
theology as concisely as possible. Therefore, you yourself are
to be the judge, when you read [them], of whether these re-
marks are sufficient to the task. But if they leave anything out,
it will fall to you, both to provide for these omissions, since it is
clearly the duty of a brother to provide for the deficiencies of a
brother, and if they are in need of revision in any place, to put
it right through correction.
I pray that you may fare well and remember me to the Lord
in all things.
[Preface ]
(1) I thought that the citations of Marcellus’s own words that
I assembled in the previous books were sufficient for their ref-
utation. For they contained so clear and indisputable a denial
of the Son of God that even without any counter-argument, the
thought contained in these words had to be rejected by those
who are nourished by the Church of God. (2) But because I
became concerned lest by chance some might later be drawn
away from the Church’s theology by the frequent citations [of
Scripture]5 that the man has used in order to make them be-
3. Fragment from Marcellus, fr. 1 (128 K./H.) (2,1–2 V.), derived from the
preface of his book or from the letter of dedication.
4. Marcellus used one book to stress one hypostasis in God; Eusebius is,
therefore, going to use three books because he believes in three hypostases
in God.
5. With Migliore (p. 45) we think that the second “ juxtaposition” means
“scriptural citations,” although our translation is slightly different from his.
This interpretation is supported by the number of scriptural texts Marcellus
had gathered, and the way Eusebius in CM 1–2 juxtaposes them with more
scriptural texts. In addition to the more theological arguments in ET, Eusebi-
us again devotes much attention (e.g., ET 1.20) to the proper interpretation of
various scriptural passages, so as to argue that these do not support Marcel-
lus’s position.
ON ECCLESIASTIC AL THEOLOGY 1 161
lieve what he thought would agree with his views, I judged that
it was necessary under the present circumstances to expand the
refutation of these remarks, so that every person might learn
that not a single one of his quotations of the inspired Scripture
provides a testimony that agrees with him [Marcellus] when
he denies the Son of God; rather, all his quotations completely
and incontrovertibly state the opposite and correct his errone-
ous interpretations of the divine Scriptures. And indeed, using
the same method [the quotation of Scripture], I will bring to
bear on that matter the theology concerning our Savior. I will
have nothing new to say, nor will I relate any brilliant discov-
ery of my own; rather, I offer the uncorrupted teaching of the
Church of God. This teaching the Church now preserves, since
it received it from those who from the beginning personally
saw and heard the Word from heaven.
Chapter 1
(1) Before embarking on the close examination of these
matters, since in the middle of [Marcellus’s] treatise6 I found
that Sabellius7 was being criticized by him, astonished at that
man’s stupidity, because he did not refrain from speaking ill of
one whom he ought to have praised more than all because he
held beliefs and ideas similar to his, I resolved not to pass over
that remark in silence, but to offer a refutation8 of this [man—
namely, Sabellius] too in the present treatise. For, on the one
hand, his [Marcellus’s] disparagement of the ministers of
God (even if it led to censure for him, but good reputation for
those who are freeing themselves from communion with him)9
6. This could also be translated as “book,” as Marcellus’s treatise consist-

ed of only one book. We prefer “treatise” because Eusebius is talking about
a text, not necessarily a physical object, which “book” suggests. “In the mid-
dle” seems to reflect what is reflected in the surviving fragments. In fr. 69 (44
K./H.) (58,11 V.), roughly the middle of the book, Marcellus talks about Sa-
bellius.
7. For Sabellius, see the introduction, pp. 35–36.
8. Eusebius promises to “kill two birds with one stone”: to refute Marcellus,
but in showing Marcellus’s kinship with Sabellius, to refute the latter too.
9. Although a bit vague, it is clear that Eusebius is not talking about Atha-
162 Eusebius
(2) is only to be expected since it seems natural for one to den-
igrate ideas that are displeasing to him; but on the other hand,
his [Marcellus’s] unwitting attack on himself through the con-
demnation of one who thinks as he does seems to me to have
its cause in both want of perception and shameless impudence.
But since this is the case, he would become his own accuser,
introducing God as a “Son-Father,” just as Sabellius does, even
if not [using] the term himself, but in the true sense, by taking
away the hypostasis of the Son, and by defining God as one and
calling him Father of himself and again Son of himself too.
(3) Having granted that the one who is in God is Word, and
having defined him as one and the same with him, he said that
he is to be called the Father of this one, and that the Word is
his Son, not truly as a Son in the hypostasis of being,10 but liter-
ally and truly as Word. Hence, he indicates that he is not Word
in a figurative sense,11 but that he is literally and truly Word,
and nothing (4) other than Word. But if he is nothing other
[than Word], it is clear he was not Son literally and truly but,
as far as the term and name go, was called this in a figurative
sense. Saying that the Word is one and the same with God, he
clearly stated that the one who was made flesh and was born
from the Virgin is God himself. Long, long ago the Church of
God rejected this when Sabellius said it, after counting him
among the godless heretics.
nasius, but perhaps about other bishops like Theophronius of Tyana, who
seems to have had some sympathy with Marcellus’s theology, but then—under
pressure from Eusebius of Nicomedia—at the Dedication Council of 341 dis-
tanced himself from it. See Markus Vinzent, “Die Entstehung des römischen
Glaubensbekenntnisses,” in Tauffragen und Bekenntnis, Studien zur sogennanten
“Traditio Apostolica,” zu den “Interrogationes de fide” und zum “Römischen Glaubens-
bekenntnis,” ed. Wolfram Kinzig, Christoph Markschies, and Markus Vinzent
(Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999), 282–92, 304.
10. ἐν οὐσίας ὑποστάσει. See Heb 1.3.
11. See Asterius, fr. 71 (130 V.), according to Marcellus, fr. 65 (45 K./H.)
(56,1 V.), 94 (46 K./H.) (84,1 V.).
Chapter 2
The children of the Jews first received the confession of the
one God in opposition to the polytheistic error of the Greeks.
But the saving grace of recognizing that the same [God] is also
Father of an only-begotten Son has been given to the Church
as a special privilege. For as Son it knows Jesus Christ alone and
no other, not according to the generation of the flesh that he
assumed (for it has been taught to call this flesh the “form of
a slave” and “Son of Man”),12 but according to his [generation]
before all ages from God himself and the Father, [which is] un-
knowable to all. According to this [generation from God] the
fullness of the paternal divinity also made him, the Son, God,
and so as a result he possesses a divinity that is not his own, one
separated from that of the Father, nor one that is without source
and that is unbegotten, nor one that is foreign, from somewhere
else, and different from the Father’s. Rather, he is filled with
divinity by participating in the paternal [divinity] itself, which
pours into him as from a fountain. For the great Apostle taught
that “in him alone dwells all the fullness” of the paternal “divini-
ty.”13 For this reason, then, one God is proclaimed by the Church
of God, “and there is no other besides him,”14 but also one only-
begotten Son of God, the image of the paternal divinity, who,
because of this, is God.
Chapter 3
So then, not having succeeded in understanding this theolo-
gy, many contrived various pathways of error:
1) those who granted that the Son is God, but who denied
the man whom he has assumed;
2) those who have supposed that [Christ] is a mere man, but
did not recognize that God was in him;15
12. “Form of a slave,” Phil 2.7; “Son of Man,” for example, Mk 8.31.
13. Col 1.19; 2.9.
14. Dt 4.35; 32.39.
15. Eusebius seems to play heresiological extremes against each other, the
164 Eusebius
3) those who, from fear of seeming to have introduced a sec-
ond God, defined Father and Son as the same [God].16
The Church of God, having rejected these men, glories in the
gospels’ proclamation of the truth. On the one hand, it boasts
that there is one God who is over all; on the other, it affirms
one only-begotten Son, God from God, Jesus Christ. It confess-
es that the same became Savior and Son of Man, being Son of
God before he also became Son of Man, and that he became
this, which he was not, because of the ineffable abundance of
the Father’s love for humankind.
Chapter 4
The word of truth, indeed, proclaims this through the voice
of the Church. As for those who deny the Son of God, however,
alleging that there is one God and no other, why do they even
flock into the Church at all, when they should associate with
the synagogues of the Jews? And why do they also spit on them
[the Jews] with blasphemous words, slandering the one God
with two names,17 if indeed they suppose the same is Father
and the same is Son? For of whom will [the Father] be Father,
if no Son subsists? And of whom will the Son be Son, if the one
who has begotten him does not exist prior to him? But if [the
Father]18 is entirely one, I suppose he himself will be the one
who was incarnated and suffered and ended mortal life among
men.19
first reducing the human side of the Incarnate (e.g., Docetism), the second a
form of psilanthropism.
16. Another allusion to the modalism of Sabellius.
17. I.e., God as Father and Son.
18. The reference, we assume, is not to “God,” but to “Father,” as this name
was the last to appear. In addition, Eusebius just discussed what happens if
the Father is one: as a consequence, the Father (not God the Son) would be
incarnate.
19. Eusebius broaches the Patripassianist charge here. If Father and Son
are not distinguished, then the one who is incarnate is the Father.
Chapter 5
(1) But the Church of God expelled Sabellius for saying
these things, as one who dared [to make] godless and impious
[claims]. Marcellus, however, tries to revive these views in veiled
form, not through persuasive arguments. For although he cor-
rectly defines God as one, he says that this God has the Word it-
self within himself, united and joined to him. And then he calls
one aspect of the one God “Father” and the other “Son,” as if
there were a certain twofold and composite being20 (2) in him.
And inasmuch as the one [Sabellius] who does not divide the
power that is without source, unbegotten, and divine, but open-
ly confesses it as the same, is better than this man [Marcellus]
in his choice of evil views, by so much more is the Jew better
than either of these, since he does not divide the one God into
Father and Son as Marcellus does, nor does he introduce the
same as “Son-Father” in the manner of Sabellius, but he reveres
God and acknowledges his Christ, and looks for him whose
coming is proclaimed by the prophets. But since they [the Jews]
did not receive the latter when he came, they underwent and
will undergo a penalty for their lack of faith in him.
Chapter 6
(1) But those who can believe in the one who has come ac-
knowledge through prayer21 these three:
• the one from “the seed of David”22 and from the holy Virgin,
• and the Son of God who has taken up his dwelling in the
latter, who pre-exists and subsists substantially, 23
• and God who is Father of this latter, by whom he [the Son]
constantly confesses that he has been sent.24
20. οὐσίαν.
21. Eusebius is probably referring to some kind of doxological or credal
formula with this reference to “prayer.”
22. Rom 1.3.
23. οὐσιωδῶς ὑφεστῶτα.
24. Jn 5.30; 6.57; 14.24.
166 Eusebius
Therefore, according to the Apostle, there is “for us one God,
the Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
through whom are all things,”25 the pre-existing only-begotten
Son of God, and thirdly the Son of Man according to the flesh,
whom the Son of (2) God assumed for us. But neither should
the body that he assumed be thought of as the same thing as the
Son of God who assumed it, nor should the Son of God himself
be thought of as one and the same with the one who begot him.
Hence, since these three truths are foundations,26 those who,
while granting the two, dismiss the third, ought to be cast out of
the Church.27
Chapter 7
(1) Thus certain godless men belonging to the heterodox,
having rejected the flesh of the Savior, and having said that he
has appeared on earth in a kind of phantom-like appearance, 28
were the first completely to miss the mark of truth. But those
who have accepted the fleshly economy but have denied the
pre-existence of the Son of God have contrived for themselves,
as I said, various “dead-ends.”
Some men have said that he became a mere man, better
than the common nature of all men in no respect except in the
advantages of virtue;29 others, having declared that the God of
25. 1 Cor 8.6.

26. 1 Cor 3.11: “For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is
laid, which is Jesus Christ” (RSV).
27. Eusebius obviously has no clear trinitarian structure in his mind, as the
third here, of course, is not the Spirit, but the assumed man, which also shows
the early state of the debate that focused on Father-Son-man/body, rather
than Father-Son-Spirit. As a result, the three foundations Eusebius is talking
about here are fundamentally binitarian and Christological in reference. He
does, however, address the Spirit in ET 3.4–6. This is more proof that theolo-
gians early on are sensitive to the Christological implications of Marcellus’s
trinitarian theory.
28. Another reference to Docetism, perhaps with Marcion(ites) in mind,
as “phantom” was regarded as one of the catch terms of this “heresy.” See, for
example, Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 1.22.
29. Certainly a charge against his colleague Asterius. See Asterius, fr. 31;
34; 35 (98, 100 V.).
the universe himself dwelt in the body, explained that he him-
self was called Son of himself on account of the human econo-
my that he endured. These men, 30 granting the two, God and
man, deprived themselves of the third, having denied that the
Savior is himself the only-begotten Son of God.
(2) Long ago Sabellius and now Marcellus, having been car-
ried away together by their view of these matters, boasted [first]
that they knew full well, just like the faithless Jews, the God
over all, 31 and together they confessed, second, the flesh taken
from the holy Virgin; but third, the Son of God, who is light
and truth, the very culmination of the salvation of us all, they
threw overboard and were shipwrecked together by their deni-
al (3) of the Son and of the light of truth. Thus one will hear
these men confessing the one God and honoring the flesh of
the Savior, but though they confess the Son of God who dwelt
in the flesh with their words and their lips, they in fact reject
him.
For it is necessary to search for the Son of God, who is truly
living and subsisting, and who is neither the same as the body
that he assumed nor the same as the God and Father. For nei-
ther would anyone be pious who said that the God who is be-
yond the universe is “Son” (for of whom will the one who has
encompassed the divinity that is without source and unbegot-
ten be Son?), nor will anyone who said that the only-begotten
Son of God is the same as the Father escape from the punish-
ment leveled at the blasphemous.
Chapter 8
(1) For this reason, then, the Church of God, rightly discern-
ing32 the straight and imperial way, rejected the other ways that
diverge [from this one], and hands over to its children [this]
knowledge of inspired grace, teaching them to confess in the
very mystery of rebirth,33 namely, to believe in one God the Fa-
30. Namely, Asterius and Marcellus.

31. See Rom 9.5; Eph 4.6.
32. This is possibly an allusion to 2 Tm 2.15.
33. The term refers to baptism, although it is interesting that despite
168 Eusebius
ther who rules over all, giving them to know that in this way
the theology is perfect and exact and complete in all its parts,
which hands down
• one God in contradistinction to the polytheistic error of
the Greeks,
• but knows that he is Father in opposition to the teaching
of the Jews,
• and confesses that he is ruler over all, turning away from
the impiety of the godless heterodox.
(2) In any case, none of the heterodox would say that the
Father of Christ is the same as the God who rules over all, 34 nor
would any of the Jews confess that God is a Father since they do
not know the only-begotten Son, nor would a Greek say that he
recognized one God alone.
For this reason, then, purifying itself of the error of all of
these, the Church proclaims the one God, teaching that he is
both Father and Ruler over all, on the one hand Father of the
one and only Christ, and on the other, God and Creator and
Lord of all the remaining creatures. So also the Church hands
down [the] only-begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, who has
been begotten before all ages from the Father, but who is not
the same as the Father, but who exists in himself and lives and
truly coexists as Son, God from God and light from light and
life from life, who has been begotten from the Father for the
salvation of the universe by means that are unspeakable and
talking of a “handing over of knowledge of inspired grace,” what follows does

not seem to refer to a known and traceable credal formula, but again points
directly to the discussion in the text above on “Sabellianism.” The variations
of Eusebius’s formulae indicate that he is simply trying to answer questions
about the catechumens’ belief that were part of the baptismal liturgy. And yet
this is another example of how important the liturgical argument was for the
development of theological and later trinitarian thinking during the fourth
century.
34. Eusebius likely has various Gnostic mythologies in mind here. This is
an important, although difficult, statement, as the term “ruler over all” (pan-
tokrator) is somewhat mysterious. As noted elsewhere (see Markus Vinzent,
“Die Entstehung des römischen Glaubensbekenntnisses,” in Tauffragen und
Bekenntnis, 254), the term pantokrator is very rarely used in early Christian lit-
erature.
ineffable and altogether unknowable and incomprehensible
to us, and he subsists not in the same way that the remaining
begotten beings do, nor does he live a life that resembles that
of the creatures that have been begotten through him, but he
alone (3) was born from the Father himself and is life itself.
For it was also fitting for the God of all before any creation
and before all ages to bring forth this only-begotten offspring
as a certain basis and unbreakable foundation of those things
that were going to come into existence through him. For this
reason, then, before all the things that were going to come into
existence, he begot the Son as the ray of a certain light and
fountain of life and treasure chest of goods, “. . . in whom are
hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,”35 accord-
ing to the (4) divine Apostle. For out of such great goods the
Father, who alone is good, caused the Son to subsist, so that
being life itself, he might give life to the universe, and being
light itself, the “true Light,”36 he might also illuminate every
intellectual and rational being, 37 and as Word and Wisdom it-
self, he might bring into existence and govern everything in a
wise and rational manner. On account of these things, then, he
alone and no other has been proclaimed and is only-begotten
Son of God.
Chapter 9
(1) For this reason, one might 38 rightly censure those who
have dared to represent him as a creature, which came into exis-
tence out of nothing, like the remaining creatures. For how will
he still be Son? And how will the one who assumes the same na-
35. Col 2.3.

36. Jn 1.9.
37. οὐσίας.
38. Although Eusebius is writing against Marcellus, he at least sees that
Marcellus was right to attack his opponent Asterius, who had dared to call
the Son a creature who, like other creatures, was created out of nothing. Un-
fortunately, because this work by Eusebius has been rarely used to interpret
Asterius, these notions of Asterius’s have been overlooked for a long time. As
in the previous chapter, it is obvious that Eusebius distances himself not only
from Marcellus, but also from Asterius.
170 Eusebius
ture as the remaining creatures be only-begotten of God? For
by virtue of the latter he would instead be the brother of these
[creatures],39 but not the Son of God, and he will be one of the
many creatures,40 since he would have a share in the fellowship
of the creation out of nothing just as they have. (2) But the di-
vine oracles do not teach in this way concerning him. Rather,
when they teach about the origin of creatures, they consistently
give witness that all things came into existence through him. For
“all things were made through him, and without him not one
thing was made,”41 and “in him all things were created in heaven
and on earth, visible and invisible,”42 and “all things were created
through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all
things hold together,”43 according to (3) the apostolic teachings.
When [the Scriptures] introduce the theology concerning him,
they distinguish him from all the remaining [creatures], and
acknowledge him as Lord and Master and Fashioner and God
and Savior of all, and reveal him alone and no other as the only-
begotten Son of God, and call him alone Wisdom and Word and
Life and Light and “image of the invisible God”44 and “radiance
of eternal light.”45 And they teach [us] to think countless other
things akin to these about him, thus revealing the unique rela-
tion of the paternal divinity to him alone as to an only-begotten
Son. (4) For this reason, the Father’s voice also proclaimed him
alone beloved Son by the river Jordan, testifying with a great cry,
“This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”46 It47 gives
this testimony a second time when it confirms the same state-
ment during the transfiguration on the mountain.48 (5) Thus
39. Asterius, in fact, taught this. See Asterius, fr. 31 (98 V.). Eusebius ac-
cepts Marcellus’s criticism of Asterius in this respect, also to counteract Mar-
cellus’s claim that he, Eusebius himself, was simply a follower of Asterius.
40. See Asterius, fr. 45; 34; 23; 44 (110; 100; 94; 108 V.).
41. Jn 1.3.
42. Col 1.16.
43. Col 1.16–17.
44. Col 1.15.
45. Wis 7.26.
46. Mt 3.17.
47. The Father’s voice.
48. Mt 17.5.
since the God of the universe himself has provided this testimo-
ny for him, and the evangelist expressly teaches that he is the
only-begotten Son, in that passage where he said, “No one has
ever seen God, the only-begotten Son (or only-begotten God)49
who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known,”50
[and] even the Savior himself in the teachings concerning him
confirms this, when he said, “For God so loved the world that he
gave his only-begotten Son, that all who believe (6) in him might
have eternal life,”51 the man who, after these statements, defines
the Son as something that came into being out of nothing, and
as a creature that came forth from the non-existent, unwittingly
grants only the name to him, but denies that he is truly the Son.
For that which has come into existence out of what is not could
not truly be the Son of God, because he would be nothing other
than one of the creatures.
Chapter 10
(1) The true Son of God, seeing as he has been born from
him, that is to say, from the Father, would rightly be called both
the only-begotten and beloved [Son] of the Father. So he would
also be God. For what would an offspring of God who has been
made like the one who has begotten him be [other than a true
Son]? Therefore, on the one hand, a king creates but does not
beget a city, while on the other, he is said to beget, but not cre-
ate, a son. And the craftsman would be a fashioner but not a
father of that which is crafted by him, nor would he be called
fashioner of the son who came forth from him. All the more,
the God of the universe would be said to be Father of the Son,
but (2) also rightly creator and maker of the cosmos. And if
once somewhere in Scripture someone were to find it said, “The
49. The addition in parentheses (so in the critical edition, reflecting Eu-
sebius’s argument) is another instance of Eusebius distancing himself from
Asterius, who confessed the Son as “only-begotten God.” See Asterius, fr. 9 (86
V.), quoted in Marcellus, fr. 1 (65 K./H.).
50. Jn 1.18.
51. Jn 3.16.
172 Eusebius
Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works,”52
it is necessary to scrutinize the sense of the statement, which
I will set out a little later, 53 but not to undermine on the basis
of one statement, like Marcellus, the most important dogma
of the Church. For that man, having once heard that the Son
is Word, stumbled on the man and eliminated his existence. 54
(3) Indeed, how is it pious to compare the Son, who is given
witness to by both himself and the Father, with the rest of the
creatures? How will he be only-begotten if he is counted togeth-
er with the multitude of creatures? And surely from the name
itself, the Son shows [his] natural relationship to the Father,
just as, again, the name “only-begotten” encompasses both his
nature and his birth itself and the fact that he is an only [Son]
and that no other has a share with him in the sonship.
But (4) these people, too, seem to have suffered the same
illness as Marcellus. For one man, fearing to say that there were
two gods, put forth a denial of the Son, setting aside his hypo-
stasis.55 But others, having granted two hypostases, one ingen-
erate and the other created out of nothing, assert one God. 56
But for those men the Son will no longer be the only-begotten
or indeed Lord or God, since he will not share in the divinity
of the Father, but will be placed on a level with the remaining
creatures because he came to subsist out of nothing.
(5) But the Church does not teach this. It proclaims the Son
of God to be God and Lord and teaches that he is truly Son
and God, not as many men have been called in name sons and
52. Prv 8.22, obviously one of the scriptural texts debated between Asterius
and Marcellus; see Asterius, fr. 17; 48 (90; 114 V.); Marcellus, fr. 23–46 (24–40
V. = fr. 125; 123; 124; 9; 12; 10; 11; 13; 14; 15; 16; 126; 17; 18; 37; 38; 39; 22; 23;
24; 25; 26; 27; 89 in K./H.).
53. Specifically, in ET 3.1–3; see pp. 275–304 below.
54. ὕπαρξιν. When Eusebius speaks about “stumbling on the man,” he may
have in mind Marcellus’s willingness to attribute a hypostasis distinct from
that of the Father’s to the assumed humanity of God, even though he will not
attribute a hypostasis to the pre-existent assuming Word himself. See fr. 85
(74,1–5 V.).
55. It is unclear to whom Eusebius refers here, but he clearly has support-
ers of Marcellus in mind.
56. See Asterius, fr. 52–56 (116–118 V.)—as the edition shows, texts that
are quoted by both Marcellus and Eusebius.
gods, concerning whom it has been said, “I said, you are gods
57
and sons of the most High, all of you,”58 but because the one
who alone was begotten from the Father himself “existed in the
form of God”59 and was “image of the invisible God and first-
born of all creation.”60 For this reason, the Church has learned
to honor and revere and worship him alone as Lord and Savior
and its God.
Chapter 11
(1) If the notion of proclaiming two gods makes them afraid,61
let them know that even when the Son is confessed by us to
be God, the former [namely, the Father] would still be the one
and only God, the only one without source and unbegotten,
the one who possesses the divinity as his own,62 and who has
become the cause of being and of being in such a way63 for the
Son himself.
Even the Son himself confesses that he lives because of
[him],64 saying outright, “As the living Father sent me, and I
live because of the Father,”65 and, “For as the Father has life in
57. So Asterius, fr. 31; 45; 72 (98; 110; 132 V.).

58. Ps 81.6 (RSV 82.6).
59. Phil 2.7.
60. Col 1.15.
61. Eusebius is referring to the debate between Marcellus and Asterius.
See Marcellus, fr. 97 (76 K./H.) (86–88 V.), in which he is reacting to Asterius.
See Asterius, fr. 55 (118 V.).
62. Note that Eusebius is not only saying that the Father has “his own di-
vinity,” but the “divinity as his own,” which is a subtle but important differ-
ence. The Son also has his own divinity, but does not possess it as his own, but
as a divinity that is given to him by the Father, whereas the Father alone has
the divinity out of himself. In this respect, Eusebius accepts Asterius’s position
that what the Son is (and does) has been given to him by the Father. See As-
terius, fr. 36; 38 (100; 102 V.). Eusebius’s counter-argument against Marcellus
reflects the debate between Marcellus and Asterius. See Asterius, fr. 51 (116
V.), Marcellus, fr. 92 (78 K./H.) (80,13–82,12 V.).
63. αὐτῷ τε τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ εἶναι καὶ τοῦ τοιῷδε εἶναι γεγονὼς αἴτιος.
64. I.e., the Father.
65. Jn 6.57. Again with this scriptural quotation and the next one, Eusebius
reflects the discussion between Marcellus and Asterius that Eusebius encoun-
tered in Marcellus’s work against Asterius. See Asterius, fr. 38–42 (102; 104;
174 Eusebius
(2) himself, so also he has given to the Son to have life in him-
self.”66 For this reason, he also teaches that the Father is both
our God and his God, when he says, “I go to my Father and to
your Father and to my God and to your God.”67 The great Apos-
tle teaches that God is the head of the Son and the Son is the
head of the Church, in one place saying, “the head of Christ is
God,”68 and in another asserting about the Son, “and he made
him head over all things for the Church, which is his body.”69
(3) Therefore, he himself would be the originator and head of
the Church while the Father would also70 be his head. In this
way the Father of the only-begotten Son is one God, and the
head of even Christ himself is one. Since there is one source71
and head, how could there be two gods, and not
one, that one alone,
who acknowledges no higher being nor other cause than
himself,
who possesses the divinity of monarchical authority as his
own, without source and unbegotten and
who has given a share of his own divinity and life to the Son,
who through him [the Son] has brought all things into exis-
tence,
who sends him,72
106 V.); Marcellus, fr. 74 (73 K./H.) (62,5–64,14 V.). Asterius had used these
scriptural texts to underline the power of the Father and the fact that the Son
was on the receiving side of the Father’s creative activity (although the first
of the creatures to receive the Father’s power and divinity). Asterius does this
in order to differentiate Father and Son and to work out his soteriology. In
contrast, Marcellus asserts against Asterius that the Son is not just the one who
received the Father’s power, but is himself the Father’s power and Logos.
66. Jn 5.26.
67. Jn 20.17.
68. 1 Cor 11.3.
69. Eph 1.22–23.
70. Klostermann’s addition of a second “head” is incorrect and mislead-
ing, which is proven by the next sentence (“of even Christ”). Eusebius wants to
express that the Father is head of both, the Son and the Church, and that the
Son’s headship (as with his divinity) is not a second one, but is the headship
of the Father.
71. ἀρχῆς.
72. See Jn 6.57; Mk 9.37.
who gives commands to him, 73
who enjoins,74
who teaches,
who hands over all things to him,75
who glorifies him,76
who exalts him in the highest,77
who revealed him as king of the universe,
who gives all judgment to him,78
who wishes that we also obey him,79
who encourages him to take up his throne at the right hand
of his magnificence (4) when he addresses him and says, “Sit at
my right hand,”80 the one
who, for all these reasons, also exists as God of the Son him-
self,
in obedience to whom his only-begotten child
“emptied himself,
humbled himself,
took on the form of a slave and
became obedient unto death,”81
to whom he [the Son] also prayed, 82
73. See Jn 14.31.

74. See Jn 8.28.
75. 1 Cor 15.24. See Marcellus, fr. 103 (115 K./H.) (94,8 V.); 106 (117
K./H.) (100,2 V.); Jn 5.22; Mt 11.27; Lk 10.22—all passages that are addressed
by Asterius. See Asterius, fr. 74 (134–136 V.). Eusebius must have known this
text of Asterius, as can be seen from the scriptural texts that follow in Asteri-
us, ibid.
76. Jn 12.28. See the debate between Marcellus and Asterius on this top-
ic, Asterius, fr. 36; 74 (100; 134–138 V.); Marcellus, fr. 80 (107 K./H.) (70,12–
19 V.).
77. Phil 2.9.
78. Jn 5.22.
79. Mk 9.7; Mt 17.5; Lk 9.35.
80. Ps 109.1 (RSV 110.1). See the debate on this topic in Marcellus, fr. 106
(117 K./H.) (96,4–100,3 V.).
81. Phil 2.7, 8. Eusebius is referring here to Marcellus’s criticism of Euse-
bius’s interpretation of this biblical verse; see Marcellus, fr. 127 (101 K./H.)
(118,11–22 V.).
82. See Jn 17.11, 20–23; on this, Asterius, fr. 41 (104 V.); with regard to Mt
26.39, see Asterius, fr. 74 (136,21 V.).
176 Eusebius
to whom he renders obedience when he [the Father] com-
mands, 83
to whom he also gives thanks, 84
whom he also teaches us to consider the “only true God,”85
whom he confesses to be greater than himself, 86
whom, in addition to all these features, he wishes all of us to
know is also his God?87
(5) And when he glorified his Father in this way, the Father,
glorifying him in return, 88 revealed him as Lord and Savior
and God of the universe and co-regent of his kingdom.
Well then, having been taught these things by her own God,
the Church deems it right to recognize him as God, Lord, and
Savior, but also as the only-begotten Son of the God who is over
all, and to address no other creature as God, 89 but knows (6) this
one alone as God, whom alone the Father begot from himself,
just as he himself indicates, speaking through Solomon, “Before
the mountains had been shaped, before all the hills, he begets
me,”90 thus in some way hinting at the divine and transcendent
powers by the terms “mountains” and “hills.”91
Chapter 12
(1) Well then, if someone should also inquire about a mat-
ter he has no business inquiring into and should question both
83. See Mk 14.35–36; Mt 26.39; Lk 22.42.

84. See Jn 11.41.
85. Jn 17.3.
86. See Jn 14.28; on this, Asterius, fr. 42 (106 V.).
87. See Jn 17.20–23; 20.17; see Asterius, fr. 41 (104 V.).
88. See Jn 12.27–28; 13.32; 17.1. On this, see Asterius, fr. 74 (136 V.).
89. The latter argument is directed against Asterius’s reading of Prv 8.22–31
as discussed between him and Marcellus. See Asterius, fr. 17; 48 (90; 114 V.);
Marcellus, fr. 23–46 (24–40 V.).
90. Prv 8.25.
91. Eusebius equally distances himself from Marcellus’s position and exe-
gesis, which did not read into Prv 8.22–31 the pre-cosmic birth of the Son, but
referred this biblical text to the Logos’s Incarnation, the second economy, and
his birth from Mary, and which equated the “mountains” and “hills” of Prv 8.25
with the “apostles” and their successors, the bishops. On this, see Marcellus, fr.
26 (9 K./H.) (30,3–4 V.); 28 (10 K./H.) (30,9–12 V.); 45 (27 K./H.) (40,3–8 V.).
how God could beget and how he who is beyond the universe
will be Father, the audacity of this question will be silenced by
the one who made this statement: “Do not inquire into those
things that are deeper than you, nor scrutinize those things
that are higher than you. Meditate on the commandments you
have been given; what has been hidden is no concern of yours.”92
And let Paul, who said, “O the depth of the riches and wisdom
and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments
and how inscrutable his ways!”93 convince the man who dares
to go further not to reach for things that are unattainable. Or
let him rather say regarding those things that he also says have
come into existence out of nothing, how and in what way they
came to subsist, (2) since they did not exist at all previously. For
indeed he [God] did not construct everything in the way that
craftsmen among us do, having taken matter as a pre-existing
substrate in his hands. Just as so great a thing was impossible
by nature for men (I mean bringing into being from nothing
that which does not exist at all), but was possible for him, he
also became maker of the universe not in a human way, but by
means that are ineffable and inexpressible to us. (3) So in this
way and much more would the begetting of his only-begotten
be unsearchable and inscrutable, not only by us alone, as one
might say,94 but also by all the powers that are greater than we
[are]. For how could those things that are greatly subordinate
by nature, far lower and distant from the ineffable and divine
being,95 comprehend what is transcendent and highest? And
how could those things that did not exist previously and that
were brought into being through him out of nothing (which
would render the one who brought them into being the cause
of their existence)96 obtain knowledge of the first creation? Or
how then will we, men of yesterday, clothed in “skin and flesh,”
92. Sir 3.21–22.

93. Rom 11.33.
94. Eusebius is referring back to Rom 11.33.
95. οὐσίας.
96. “Cause” is the translation for αἴτιος, “existence” that for ὑπάρξεως. The
idea that creating things makes the creator the cause of their existence is an
important idea in Eusebius, linked to his defense of his own monotheism in
the face of Marcellus’s contention that the assertion of two hypostases com-
178 Eusebius
strung together “by bones and sinews,”97 and not even under-
standing our own affairs, conduct without danger an inquiry
about the ineffable, curiously trying to find out how the Father
begot the Son?
That even countless things that are right at our feet escape
our knowledge (4) should be self-evident. For who would be
able to say how the soul was enclosed in the body, how it will
leave it, how it penetrated [the body] in the first place, what
the form of the soul is, what is its appearance, what is its shape,
what is its being?98 The man who troubles himself over demons,
the being99 of angels, the principalities, thrones and poten-
tates, authorities, (5) and ruling powers has not yet [been able
to explain these things] to me. If we are at a loss in all these
matters, what need is there for investigating the knowledge con-
cerning the divinity that is without source and ingenerate? Why
inquire into the things that are unattainable, how God subsists
as Father of an only-begotten Son, as if the Father’s voice were
not enough for us as a testimony to the beloved, whom he pro-
claimed, having said, “This is my beloved Son, (6) with whom I
am well-pleased; listen to him.”100
If indeed it is commanded that we listen to him, being obe-
dient to the imperial law, let us listen to the beloved Son. What
he wishes us to know about him, he will show, having said, “For
God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, so
that everyone who believes in him might have eternal life.”101
Of course, then, we should believe him, so that we might obtain
eternal (7) life, for “he who believes in him,” he says, “has eter-
nal life,”102 not he who knows how [the Son] was begotten from
the Father, for then no one would have a share in eternal life,
since indeed this has been said, that “no one knows the Father,
promises it. For Eusebius, there is only one God because there is only one
cause.
97. Jb 10.11.
98. οὐσία.
99. οὐσίας.
100. Mt 17.5.
101. Jn 3.16.
102. Jn 3.36.
except the Son, nor does anyone know the Son” except the “Fa-
ther” alone who begot him.103
And therefore faith is sufficient for us for salvation, which
allows [us] to know God as [the] Father who rules over all, and
to acknowledge his only-begotten Son as Savior, who indeed, in
addition to other things, also handed over these statements in
this way: “That which has been begotten of flesh is flesh, and
that which has been begotten of the spirit is spirit,”104 (8) but
“God is spirit.”105 Thus it follows that one must also think that
what has been begotten of God is God.
By as much, however, as God who transcends the universe
was differentiated and separated by nature from earthly flesh,
by so much is it necessary to think that the manner in which
the Father begot the Son is differentiated from the generation
of fleshly things. For neither by sending something forth, nor
by being altered, nor by being moved by passion, nor (9) by
enduring anything whatsoever of those things that we normally
experience, did he cause him to subsist. For he was not a body
so that one could attribute emanation, or diminution, or exten-
sion,106 or change, or turning, or flux, or partition, or suffering
to him. In contradistinction to all these kinds of change, he
brought into existence the work of generation in a way ineffa-
ble and incomprehensible to us, or rather, unsearchable and
inscrutable to every generated nature.
Therefore, as the sun begets the ray, so also the Son is said
to be [the] “radiance of eternal light”107 and “radiance of glo-
ry,”108 though surely not like a perceptible image of light, for in
a manner beyond any analogy, he [the Father] made him [the
103. Mt 11.27.
104. Jn 3.6.
105. Jn 4.24.
106. This is obviously directed against Marcellus’s view that the divine
Monad (Oneness) had been broadened into a Trias (Trinity) during the so-
teriological economy. See Marcellus, fr. 48 (67 K./H.) (42,10–11 V.); 73 (71
K./H.) (62,3 V.). Marcellus uses the verb πλατύνεσθαι for this “broadening.”
As shown in the introduction, both Asterius and Arius were keen to stress the
non-materialistic nature of the Son’s begetting.
107. Wis 7.26.
108. Heb 1.3.
180 Eusebius
Son] subsist by means that are ineffable and incomprehensible,
and this as the one and only-begotten [Son].
(10) Let every mouth reject the impious and godless men
who have suffered the error of polytheism, those men who, hav-
ing cast down into the multitude the special and unique beget-
ting of the only-begotten Son, have addressed him as Father “of
gods and men,”109 both mixing together men with gods, and
introducing the same Father as being of one nature with the
former. But with demonic energy they uttered this impious and
godless statement, proposing gods that have similar natures
and similar sufferings to [those of] the mortal, passible, and
sinful race of human beings, and the common Father of these
as almost in every way likened to his children. But the ecclesias-
tical herald proclaims to all one only-begotten Son of one God,
whom he [the Father] made to subsist for the salvation of and
providence over all creatures.
Chapter 13
(1) Since the nature of generated things, while different in
corporeal and incorporeal things, animate and inanimate, ra-
tional and irrational, and mortal and immortal, was not capa-
ble of drawing near to God, who transcends all and is over all,
nor of having a share in the brilliance of his divinity, because
the superior nature [of God] surpasses its deficiency, but would
have, because of the weakness of its nature, been totally and
utterly lost, had it not encountered God’s help in the form of
the Savior, the Father’s love of humanity fittingly established
his only-begotten child for all, who moves through all, supports
all, and who showers upon all those the guidance110 that comes
from him. (2) For the Father who begot him has revealed him
alone as shepherd and Savior, guardian, protector, healer, and
governor of all things in heaven and on earth taken together,
having entrusted to him alone the direction of the constitution
and government of the universe, which he [the Son] himself
teaches, saying, “All things have been given to me by my Fa-
109. Homer, Il. 8.1.52.

110. Literally, “abundance of means.”
ther,” and again, “For the Father loves the Son and has given
111
all things into his hand.”112 (3) Such a wise governor, having
taken up [this] inheritance from the Father, taking his stance
upon the whole cosmos and looking up to his Father, leads and
carries out the governance of everything, neither neglecting
the smallest of those things that are in need of his leadership
nor overlooking the most humble. Therefore, indeed, he comes
to the assistance of all, distributing to each the things that are
fitting for it, and for the care of the universe providing like a
physician those (4) things that conduce to its salvation. For this
reason he rightly did not overlook human life, but even long
ago he provided his aid to human beings who from of old were
beloved by God, at one time appearing in human form to the
forefathers of the Hebrews, and at another, ordaining fitting
laws for the descendants of these, and even then, too, to those
who would come afterwards he gave out through prophets or-
acles of his coming (5) epiphany, which would illuminate all
human beings. And when the time of these [human beings]
passed, he brought to fulfillment in deeds the ancient oracles
and then became present, having further been mingled with
mortal life, the shepherd becoming one of the sheep,113 al-
though he himself was the only-begotten Son of God, in, as it
were, a divine statue, the instrument of the body,114 conversing
from above with the human race through [his] (6) teachings,
111. Mt 11.27; Lk 10.22.

112. Jn 3.35.
113. Either an allusion to Paul’s statement in Phil 2.6–11 that the Son
took on the form of a slave, or, more likely, to Johannine literature indicating
that the shepherd became one of the sheep, an idea that is close to Asterius’s
Christology.
114. I.e., the mouth or voice. Given Eusebius’s Christology, which is proto-
Apolinarian and based on a Word-Flesh model, the incarnate Son is like a god
taking up residence in a statue, while being the statue’s (= body’s) mouth or
voice. The Son becomes present in the world, being—as Asterius had already
stated in fr. 46 and fr. 47 (112 V.)—one among those to whom he speaks. Yet in
Eusebius the Son is more than just the first creature as in Asterius. The Son,
although in the statue (hence among the people), talks from above to the peo-
ple who are looking at the statue from below. The image used here is that of
a colossal statue, as, for example, the statue of Constantine in the Capitoline
in Rome.
182 Eusebius
healings, and ineffable lessons of inspired wisdom. Soon, how-
ever, and at the Father’s prompting out of surpassing love for
humanity, he drove right up to the very gates of death, so that
he might render even those here worthy of his own grace, hav-
ing drawn them up to life with him. Thus “God was in Christ
reconciling the world to himself.”115 And he underwent the
fleshly economy, although he was and pre-existed before it,
having been honored with the divinity of the paternal glory.
For indeed, not thinking it “robbery to be equal with God,” but
thus having emptied himself and “having taken on the form of
a slave, he humbled himself, becoming obedient” to the Father
“even unto death,”116 so that “ just as death” came “through one
man’s sin” and gained dominion over the entire race,117 so also
eternal life “through his grace” might rule over those who [be-
lieve] in him and through him are acknowledged by his God
and Father.
Chapter 14
(1) Thus the Church rightly proclaims these things, and re-
jected Sabellius like a certain counterfeit coin stamped with
the denial of the Son of God, because he, too, said that he
knew one God and there was none other besides him—just like
Marcellus.
The first heralds of our Savior himself, however, called those
who said they knew one God and did not deny the body of the
Savior, but did not know the divinity of the Son, “Ebionites”;118
that is to say, they called them in the Hebrew language “poor”
with respect to their understanding. (2) The Church fathers119
115. 2 Cor 5.19.

116. Phil 2.6–8.
117. Rom 5.12, 16, 17.
118. Eusebius discusses the Ebionites in his Historia ecclesiastica 3.27.
119. Eusebius’s On Ecclesiastical Theology with its “Church theology” is an
important source for a) the development of a Christian/Church theology,
b) the development of a Church-related (and soon owned and distinguished
from non-Church-related) philosophical discipline, and c) the development of
an orthodoxy that is based on references to a tradition of Church fathers and
their pupils/descendants, distinct from philosophical school traditions. As we
also exposed the Samosatene as one foreign to the Church of
God, because, although he taught that Jesus was the Christ of
God, and confessed that there was one God over all just as Mar-
cellus does, he did not also confess that Christ both is the Son
of God and was God before the fleshly birth. But on the one
hand this man was driven far away from his [Christ’s] Church
as one who was irreverent toward Christ, (3) while on the oth-
er, Sabellius, because he offended the Father himself, whom he
dared to call Son, underwent the same judgment as the godless
heretics. Marcellus, however, suspecting that he would suffer
the same fate as Sabellius, invented a more novel subterfuge
for his error, determining that God and the Word in him were
one, but granting him two labels, namely, Father and Son. In-
deed, he did not hide (4) nor did he escape, but sometime later
he himself was caught with his own nets.120 But even before he
was caught, having been struck by conscience, he began to slan-
der Sabellius to deflect suspicion from himself.
Chapter 15
(1) Listen to how he slandered the man, having mentioned
him by name, writing these things about him in these very words:
For Sabellius, who himself had also slipped from the right
faith, had accurate knowledge neither about God nor about his
holy Word. For the one who did not know the Word was also
ignorant of the Father. For he [the Word] says, “No one knows
have noted in the introduction, this aspect of Eusebius’s theology was inspired
by the debate between Asterius and Marcellus, wherein Asterius tried to defend
Eusebius’s letter with reference to Paulinus (who himself had written a letter
that ended with a quotation from Origen), while Marcellus distinguishes be-
tween the teaching of the gospel and the philosophical school tradition, plac-
ing Origen in the latter. See Asterius, fr. 5; 7; 9 (84; 86 V.); Marcellus, fr. 17–22
(86; 87; 37; 38; 39; 88 K./H.) (16–22 V.).
120. This is another indication that Marcellus was active on the anti-Arius
and anti-Asterius side of the early trinitarian debates, and, as such, an early
opponent of Eusebius’s, but in the early stages of these debates had enough
support to survive opposition to his views and efforts to depose him. See the
introduction, pp. 13–18.
184 Eusebius
the Father except the Son,”121 that is, the Word. For the Word
through himself provides the knowledge of the Father. For
he also said in this way to those of the Jews who at that time
thought they knew God, but who rejected his Word, through
whom alone God is known: “No one knows the Father except
the Son and him to whom the Son revealed him.”122 For since
it was impossible to know God in any other way, he [the Word]
teaches human beings to know him through his [God’s] own
Word, so that that man [Sabellius] has erred who does not
know accurately the Father and his Word.123
(2) Marcellus wrote these things in an effort to clear himself
of the suspicion of “Sabellianizing” as far as his speech and writ-
ing went, but surely by virtue of his intent and the similarity of
his thinking to that man’s [Sabellius’s], he is caught by the same
arrows that pierce that man from all sides, as for me . . . 124 and
through prayer, there would be an avoidance of the same fate.
But now he appears to have erred to a greater degree than that
man. For the one was in large part ignorant when he erred, I
suspect, but the other, acknowledging that the man was in er-
ror, and yet casting himself off the notorious cliff of the same
impiety, would be worthy of no forgiveness. But let us thorough-
ly scrutinize the things that have been said.
Chapter 16
(1) Therefore, in the first place, since he said that neither
Sabellius nor the Jews knew God because they did not acknowl-
edge the Word, it is necessary to examine what sort of Word
he [Marcellus] proposes, for if the Son of God is the only-
begotten, who subsists and lives, he [Marcellus] nevertheless
does not acknowledge him. Thus to begin with, our Savior men-
tioned the “Son” in different ways and called him many times
“only-begotten Son” and never spoke of himself as “Word,” but
through all of the gospels, taught that he is Son of God (on
121. Mt 11.27.
122. Ibid.
123. Marcellus, fr. 69 (44 K./H.) (58,11–60,2 V.).
124. The text is corrupt here.
account of which he also blesses Peter when he said, “You are
the Christ, the Son of the living God,”125 and he testifies that
the knowledge has come to him [Peter] through a revelation
of the Father, having said, “Blessed are you, Simon bar Jonah,
because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my heav-
enly Father”).126
This wondrous man [Marcellus], as if his ears were blocked,
writes these things, in these very words.
with him to become by adoption Son of God.127
(2) See how he [Marcellus] does not dare to confess that he
is “Son of God,” lest he deviate from the teaching of Sabellius,
but calls him “Son of Man” on account of the flesh that he as-
sumed. Indeed, throughout the whole of his own treatise, he
calls him “Word,” indicating repeatedly that “he was nothing
other than (3) Word.”128 And, again, in the remarks in which
he disparages Sabellius, he refers to the statement of the Savior,
in which he said, “No one knows the Father (4) except the Son
and him to whom the Son revealed him,”129 and as if he were
correcting this statement, he again calls the Savior “Word” in-
stead of “Son,” thus saying:
For he [the Word] says, “No one knows the Father except the
Son,”130 that is, the Word.131
And he adds:
For the Word through himself provides the knowledge of the
Father.132
125. Mt 16.16.
126. Mt 16.17.
127. Marcellus, fr. 111 (41 K./H.) (104,12–15 V.).
128. A rephrasing of Marcellus, fr. 7 (42 K./H.) (10,7 V.).
129. Mt 11.27.
130. Ibid.
131. Marcellus, fr. 69 (44 K./H.) (58,13–14 V.).
132. Marcellus, fr. 69 (44 K./H.) (58,14–15 V.).
186 Eusebius
And he adds:133
It was impossible to know God in any other way than through
his own Word.134
And again he puts “Word” instead of “the Son” and calls
him “his own Word.” Even in the briefest of remarks he men-
tions the “Word” several times, but the “Son” not once. And he
even (5) alters the saying itself of the Savior, introducing “that
is, the Word,”135 instead of “the Son,” as if the reference to the
Son would not harmonize better with the title of the Father.
For this reason, on the one hand the Savior rightly and appro-
priately matches the title of the Son136 to that of the Father, but
on the other, he who declined to call him the Son above is al-
ways talking about the “Word” below, and although he accuses
Sabellius of denying the Son, he makes a spectacle of himself
doing the same thing as he, hoping that by casting aspersions
on him [Sabellius] he will avoid the suspicion of evil doctrine.
Therefore, if he blames Sabellius for denying the Son of God,
he should first put the blame on himself. But if (6) Sabellius
was ignorant of the Word, as [Marcellus] himself defined it,137
he was not rightly accused for this. For no one would say that
either Sabellius or the Jews themselves, although they deny the
Christ of God, were ignorant of the fact that there is a word
(which Marcellus says is “in God”),138 through whom [God]
gave oracles to Moses and the prophets, but rather that they
acknowledged [this word] correctly—and not only the Jews,
133. This example shows that when Eusebius states about Marcellus that
the latter “adds,” it does not follow from this reference that the text that Euse-
bius then is quoting followed immediately the former quotation in Marcellus’s
book.
134. Marcellus, fr. 69 (44 K./H.) (58,18–19 V.).
135. Ibid. (58,14 V.).
136. Literally, “fits the yoke of the Son to that of the Father.”
137. According to Eusebius, Marcellus defined the Word much as Sabellius
defined the Son, namely, as identical with the Father; hence Marcellus is not
right to accuse him. Eusebius thinks that even Marcellus would admit that Sa-
bellius, as the Jews had done, had accepted the existence of the Word spoken
to Moses and the prophets.
138. Marcellus, fr. 76 (103 K./H.); 109 (121 K./H.) (68,1–2; 102,18 V.).
but also the Greeks. For what person would not admit that God
is rational,139 just as he is wise, good, and powerful? Sabellius
would not deny knowing this. But because he did not also con-
fess that the Son of God lived, subsisted, (7) and pre-existed
the flesh, [and] because of this agreement with Marcellus, he
was driven from the Church of God just as he [Marcellus] was.
It would be clear how Marcellus thought the same things as
Sabellius from those remarks in which he asserted that “God
and his Word are one and the same,”140 when he said in these
very words:141
Chapter 17
(1) If one were only to consider the Spirit, the Word would
rightly appear to be one and the same with God.142
Later, however, comparing the (Word) of God to the human
word, he also adds:
The word in a man is143 one and the same with him, being
separated [from him] by nothing other than the activity alone
of the deed.144
Therefore, he soon explained that before the establishment
of the cosmos there was nothing else except God, and again
said in these very words that
When the cosmos did not yet exist, there was nothing other
than God alone.145
139. This passage plays upon the double meaning of the Greek word λό-
γος—which can mean rationality as well as word.
140. See below, n.142.
141. It is interesting to note that Eusebius carefully chooses the next quo-
tations from Marcellus’s book, always cutting out and leaving aside the biblical
references of Marcellus.
142. Marcellus, fr. 76 (103 K./H.); 109 (121 K./H.) (68,1–2; 102,18 V.).
143. Although there is a variance in the wording from how Eusebius quotes
Marcellus, fr. 87 (61 K./H.) (76,9 V.), shortly afterward the translation harmo-
nizes the text for the sake of a smoother reading.
144. Marcellus, fr. 87 (61 K./H.) (76,8–10 V.).
145. Marcellus, fr. 77 (104 K./H.) (68,11–12 V.).
188 Eusebius
(2) Whereas later146 he compared the Word of God to the
word by which we communicate, in those remarks in which he
wrote in this way:
come into existence by the Father through the Word, so also
the things that are said by the Father are communicated
through the Word.147
And having called him the communicating word in these re-
marks, he proceeds in what follows to present him as one and the
same, inseparable in hypostasis from the Father, saying some-
where in this way:
And this is easy, I think, for those who reflect well upon a
small (3) and humble example from our experience. For it is
impossible for anyone to separate the word of a man in power
and hypostasis. For the word is one and the same with the
man, and is separated [from him] in no other way than by the
activity alone of the deed.148
And again he has used the same image when he said:
For whatever the Father says, in every case he appears to say it
through the Word. This is clear even from our own experience,
insofar as one can compare small things with great and divine
ones. For whatever we wish both to say and do according to our
capacity, we do by means of our word.149
(4) It would be fitting to think one hears Sabellius more than
Marcellus saying these things, if Marcellus had not mocked
Sabellius for these ideas, because he shamelessly dared to call
“Son” the communicating word in God, as he himself [Marcel-
lus] thinks [Sabellius had done]. For again Sabellius was not so
stupid as to attribute to God who is over all a word like the one
in men, nor was he so unintelligent as to call the word that does
not subsist “Son of God.” (5) For this reason, Sabellius, having
146. Eusebius combines here two Marcellan passages, fr. 76/77 (103/104
K./H.) and 87 (61 K./H.), which he uses by alternating between them.
147. Marcellus, fr. 87 (61 K./H.) (76,8–10 V.).
148. Marcellus, fr. 87 (61 K./H.) (76,5–10 V.).
149. Marcellus, fr. 89 (62 K./H.) (76,17–78,4 V.).
said that there is one God, but having denied the Son, following
the proposition that was attributed to him, alleged that the Fa-
ther and the Son were the same. Marcellus, however, admitting,
as that man did, that God and the Word in him are one and the
same thing, blames Sabellius in vain, but not (6) himself as well.
For either he [Marcellus] must approve of that man, or censure
him, and, in censuring him, he must give up that evil doctrine
that is like his and not imagine God after the manner of a
statue-maker deliberating with himself and not speak of him as
engaging in a dialogue with his own reason and being exhorted
by himself:
“Come, let us make, come, let us form (7) a statue” (for he said
that in such a way as God said, “Let us make man”),150
nor suppose that the Word is in God at one time in mental
thought, as in man, [and] at another time communicated as it
is in speech among us. For one could tolerate hearing Sabellius
or one of the Jews, who undisguisedly deny the Son of God, say
these things, rather than a Christian. (8) But this one [Marcel-
lus], like one taking pride in Jewish teaching, introduces into
the Church of Christ this impious and godless dogma concern-
ing the non-existence of the Son of God, maintaining through
the whole treatise he labored over that before the world came
into existence “there was nothing other than God alone,”151 so
that he might bar the means of approach to the Son. (9) But he
is also arrogant, boasting that he knows one God, as if we too
do not say this, since we have received that the Son of God is
truly “Son,” and having learned from him to acknowledge one
God,152 and that he is God and at the same time Father of the
only-begotten Son, [himself] truly existing as a Son, begotten
before all ages from him [the Father], and who before the as-
sumption of the flesh was not only called “Word,” which that
venerable man asserts, but also countless other things. This
150. Gn 1.26, but also part of Marcellus, fr. 98 (58 K./H.) (90,4f. V.).
152. Eusebius clearly refers to Marcellus’s letter to Constantine that intro-
duced his work to the emperor. See Marcellus, fr. Praef. (128 K./H.) (3,1f. V.);
see also above Eusebius of Caesarea, ET praef. (60,10–12 K./H.), pp. 160–61.
190 Eusebius
one [Marcellus], however, would falsify153 the divine Scripture,
flatly denying that before the coming in the flesh he was called
anything other than Word.
Chapter 18
(1) Listen at any rate, then, as he maintains [this] obstinately,
writing in this way in these very words:
So that it is clear in every way that no other name befits the
eternity of the Word than this very one that John, the most
holy disciple of the Lord and apostle, uttered in the beginning
of the gospel. For since after the assumption of the flesh he is
proclaimed both “Christ” and “Jesus,” as well as “life”154 and
“way”155 and “day”156 and “resurrection”157 and “door”158 and
“bread”159 and whatever else he is called by the divine Scrip-
tures, besides these it is not fitting for us to be ignorant of the
first name, which was Word. For because of this, too, the most
holy evangelist and disciple of the Lord, much roused in spirit,
recalling the origin160 from above, and not a more recent one,
said, “In the beginning was the Word,”161 and, “the Word was
with God, and the Word was God,”162 so that he might show
that if there is any new and more recent name, it exists as a
result of his new and recent economy according to the flesh.163
(2) And he adds in what follows:
153. Eusebius is accusing Marcellus of presenting a false picture of the

Scriptures, suggesting they only refer to the preexistent Christ as Word, when
in fact that is not the case. So Marcellus is in effect presenting a “skewed” pic-
ture of the scriptural evidence.
154. Jn 11.25; 14.6; 1 Jn 1.1–2; 5.20.
155. Jn 14.6.
156. Jn 9.4.
157. Jn 11.25.
158. Jn 10.7, 9.
159. Jn 6.35.
160. ἀρχῆς.
161. Jn 1.1.
162. Ibid.
163. Marcellus, fr. 3 (43 K./H.) (4,19–6,11 V.).
what else was “that which came down ‘in the last days,’”164 as he
the Virgin”?165 It was nothing other than Word.166
And again he carries on:
than Word.167
(3) And yet again he continues, alleging:
For “the Word” “was in the beginning,”168 as nothing other
than Word. But once the man who had not existed previously
was united to the Word, it [the Word] became man, as John
teaches us, saying: “And the Word became flesh.”169 (4) Well
now, because of this he certainly mentions only the Word. For
if the divine Scripture should mention the name of Jesus or
Christ, it appears so to name the Word of God when he existed
with the human flesh. But if someone should proclaim that
even before the New Testament the name of Christ or the Son
can be shown to apply to the Word alone, he will find that this
has been said prophetically.170
And after other remarks, he adds, saying:
Rightly, therefore, before the descent he was this, which we
said many times: Word. But after the descent and the assump-
tion of the flesh he also acquired different titles.171
These, therefore, are the statements through which Marcel-
lus is caught denying the Son of God, who is and lives and is
truly Son, and (5) introducing a mere word. And it has been
shown through his remarks presented above, of what sort of
164. Heb 1.2.

165. Asterius, fr. 57 (118 V.).
166. Marcellus, fr. 5 (48 K./H.) (8,19–22 V.).
167. Last sentence of Marcellus, fr. 52 (91 K./H.) (46,8–9 V.).
168. Jn 1.1.
169. Jn 1.14.
170. Marcellus, fr. 7 (42 K./H.) (10,7–14 V.).
171. First part of Marcellus, fr. 8 (49 K./H.) (10,18–12,2 V.).
192 Eusebius
word he supposed him to be, using as an example the human
word and saying that he is one and the same with God. And
then, having established this starting point, it happened ac-
cordingly that on the basis of his assumptions, he proceeded
to falsify the divinely inspired Scripture and to manufacture
distorted interpretations of it.172
Chapter 19
(1) It seems to me opportune here to scrutinize briefly some
of these [distortions] and to show to those who are ignorant
that no Scripture is in accord with that man who innovates and
turns away from those with pure faith, but, on the contrary,
that all [Scriptures] state and testify the opposite of the state-
ments that have been wrongly maintained by him.
It was especially necessary to show this to those who honor
the man,173 lest as a result one of them, because of his igno-
rance of the divine readings, might ever think that he [Marcel-
lus] hit the target of truth.
(2) And therefore this [claim] must first be considered, which
indeed he has also dared to assert,174 namely, that before the
birth through the Virgin the Son of God was not called by any
other name than “Word.” For [Marcellus] alleges that neither
was he anything but “Word” before the coming of the flesh, nor
was he called otherwise, except prophetically, for he both was
and was called Word and nothing else, but that after [his] com-
ing in the flesh he acquired additional different names.
172. Klostermann did not recognize the grammatical structure of the sen-
tence and misleadingly added an unnecessary πρῶτον.
173. This passage gives an insight into the agenda and also the reason
why Eusebius had to compose this second attempt to refute Marcellus. De-
spite his first attack on Marcellus in CM, there still must have been bishops
who honored Marcellus at the time when Eusebius wrote ET, according to this
passage, because they thought that Marcellus’s use of Scriptures “hit the tar-
get of truth.” This latter sounds as if Eusebius is quoting from his opponents.
Unfortunately it escapes our knowledge whether he did so directly from their
writings or as part of a letter from his own supporting colleagues.
174. Again, Klostermann, ignoring the dramatic content of the sentence
before, unnecessarily and misleadingly adds a πρῶτον.
Chapter 20
(1) Therefore, then, this must be shown first: that [Marcel-
lus] has shown himself [to be] unlearned and ignorant of the
divine Scriptures.
[1] For the divine evangelist John himself first called him
“Word.”
[2] Not long after, but right away and immediately afterwards,
he called him “God,” having said, “And the Word was God.”175
Although he could have said, “and the Word was of God,” he did
not say this, lest anyone say that he was like the word in human
beings. No, he calls him “God,” thus showing the extraordinary
nature of the honor befitting his status as God.
[3] (2) Moving on to a different aspect of the honor accord-
ed him, [John] calls him “Light,” having shown that he exist-
ed prior to the assumption of the body (3) in accordance with
this same statement, in which he says concerning the Baptist:
“He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light
that enlightens every man coming into the world. He was in
the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world
did not know him. (4) He came to his own home, and his own
people did not receive him.”176 You see how in these lines he
[John] called him not only “Word,” as Marcellus thinks, but
also “God” and “Light,” and he taught that he pre-existed and
that the world came into existence through him. For just as
he said before that all things came into existence through the
Word of God and “without him”177 nothing was made, so also
[these things were made] through the light: (5) for “the world,”
he says, “was made through him,”178 so that the light and God
the Word are one and the same. In saying at one time that the
world and at another time all things were made through him,
he reveals the helper of God. In any case, the evangelist could
have said, “All things were made by him,” and again, “And
the world was made by him,” but he did not say “by him” but
175. Jn 1.1.
176. Jn 1.8–11.
177. Jn 1.3.
178. Jn 1.10.
194 Eusebius
“through him,” so that he might refer us to (6) the sovereign
power of the Father that makes the universe. But he also says,
“The world did not know him.”179 All human beings by virtue
of notions implanted by nature confess the God of all, and the
children of the Jews were first led by the hand by the prophetic
writings, as even Marcellus himself shows, (7) proceeding to his
next remarks. Therefore, this was another [besides the God of
all], whom “the world did not know,” God and Word, existing
as and having been called “Light.” But [he was not] a percepti-
ble light, nor one that illuminates the eyes of the flesh like the
sun. For in this way, even the nature of the irrational animals
would participate in it. But now he [John] teaches what sort
of light this light was, saying, “He was the light that enlightens
every man coming into the world.”180 Consequently, this light
was the (8) rational light of human beings alone. Therefore,
by its intellectual and rational power, it rendered the souls that
have been made “in his image and likeness”181 intellectual and
rational. And since that light did not happen to be perceptible,
neither was the light that transcends the universe, God him-
self. For “God is light, and in him is no darkness,”182 and the
light was unapproachable, as the divine Apostle teaches, saying
“dwelling in (9) unapproachable light, which no one has seen
or is able to see.”183 “He,” however,184 “was in the world” “en-
lightening every man coming into the world.”185 But the world
too, he says, was made through this sort of light, of the one who
is greater—to be more specific, of the Father, who established
everything through the Son. Thus these three respectful and
pious titles—“Word,” and “God,” and “Light,” which are as one
in conformity with the powers of the Son of God—were placed
by the Theologian at the beginning of his gospel.
179. Ibid.
180. Jn 1.9.
181. Gn 1.26.
182. 1 Jn 1.5.
183. 1 Tm 6.16.
184. The “δέ” indicates that Eusebius is here differentiating between the
light = “the” God, and his noetic and rational light = the Son, through which
the original light shines and creates, as is developed in the next sentence.
185. Jn 1.10, 9.
[4] (10) Shortly thereafter the same [evangelist John] also
adds a fourth [title], calling the same “Only-begotten” when
he says, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and
we saw his glory, glory as of an only-begotten from the Father,
full of grace and truth.”186 Therefore, he was already called the
“Only-begotten” of God before assuming the flesh. For even if,
he says, “The Word became flesh”187 especially for us, neverthe-
less we, to whom he deemed it right to reveal his divinity, “saw
his glory,”188 not looking at the flesh (for it was the “form of a
slave”),189 but at his glory, which is contemplated apart from the
body but with a pure mind, a glory that is ineffable and sur-
passes all the rationality of mortals, the sort of glory that one
might imagine belongs to the only-begotten Son of God. (11) It
was, however, a glory [that came] “from the Father.”190
You see that he [John] did not say, “And we saw his glory,
glory as ‘of a word,’” although he had said before, “the Word
became flesh.”191 Rather, in order to teach what sort of word
he had in mind (because it was not a communicating word; for
how could this sort of word be one capable of becoming flesh?),
he instead necessarily called him “Only-begotten.” (12) And he
teaches that his glory is that according to which he is conceived
as only-begotten Son of God.192 And he says that the glory
comes to him from no other source than from the Father. For
he did not possess a glory that is ingenerate or without source
or acquired by himself, but [one that is] received “from the Fa-
ther.” Indeed, even he [Christ] himself indicates this when he
says, “Father, glorify me with the glory which I had with you be-
fore (13) the world was.”193 And the Father answers him, saying,
186. Jn 1.14.
187. Ibid.
188. Ibid.
189. Phil 2.7.
190. Jn 1.14.
191. Ibid.
192. The point here is that, after having praised the Son’s glory, Eusebius
wants to make sure that the reader understands the character of this glory,
which, by nature, is the Father’s and belongs to him as its sole source, as Euse-
bius makes clear in the next sentence.
193. Jn 17.5.
196 Eusebius
“I have glorified you, and I will glorify you again.”194 And still
further, the same evangelist establishes his hypostasis, adding,
“John bore witness to him, and cried out, saying, ‘This was he
who comes after me, who ranks before me, for he was before
me.’ And from his fullness (14) we have all received.”195 But the
new Sabellius does not listen to John when he cries out that
“He was before.” And yet according to the flesh John the Bap-
tist was before the birth of the Savior; so how then can he give
witness that he [Christ] was before him? For it was not by vir-
tue of the birth according to the flesh (15) that the Savior was
before him; thus it was by virtue of the fact that he was only-
begotten of God that he was before John and existed before
him. Therefore, does he [Marcellus] admit that these things re-
fer to the Father and God of the universe, or to a word in God,
one that is without being and non-subsistent,196 that is the same
as God? And how would it be possible to say concerning the
word that does not subsist, “He was before”? Who would be so
insane as to think John the Baptist spoke about the God of the
universe [when he said], “He was before me,” and, “Because be-
fore me he was.” (16) Therefore, the one who is acknowledged
as divine and who existed before him has been shown through
these statements to pre-exist the birth of John, and before the
coming in the flesh existed as and was called not only “Word,”
but also “God” and “Light” and “Only-begotten.”
[5] From what source the knowledge of these things came to
the evangelist he himself will show, saying in what follows: “The
only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he has
made him known.”197 You see from whom he has learned the
theology concerning the Son. (17) For neither does Moses say
this, nor any of the prophets after Moses, nor yet any of the an-
gels or of the greater powers, but “the only-begotten Son” him-
self, “he has made this known.” Therefore, the invisible God
did not make it known, but the only-begotten Son, having be-
come visible, made the Father known to human beings, clearly
194. Jn 12.28.
195. Jn 1.15–16.
196. ἀνούσιον καἰ ἀνυπόστατον.
197. Jn 1.18.
existing as another beside the invisible God. But because he
also pre-existed, he was neither in the thought of the Father,
as it appeared to Marcellus, but in his bosom. Indeed, just as
the Savior promised that we would rest in the bosom of Abra-
ham, Isaac, and Jacob, so also the Son was in the bosom of the
Father, without having been one and the same with the Father,
since neither will we be the same (18) as the holy patriarchs
[when we rest in their bosom].
For in addition to these, observe that, after once naming
him “Word,” addressing the same as “God,” calling him “Light,”
revealing him as “Only-begotten,” and confessing him as “Son
of God,” he [John] no longer calls him “Word,” but later also
depicts him as the Savior who did not call himself “Word,” but
“Son,” “Only-begotten,” “Light,” “Life,” “Truth,” and many oth-
er things, just as it is possible to hear him teaching somewhere
in this way: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only-
begotten Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not
perish,”198 and again: “For God did not send the Son into the
(19) world to judge the world,”199 and once more: “He who does
not believe has already been judged, because he has not be-
lieved in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.”200 And
here again God gave and “sent the Son as the Savior of the
world,”201 the one who was sent being clearly another besides
the one who sent. For this reason it seems to me that our Savior
himself through the following said—written, as it were, against
Marcellus and those who are jealous of the Son’s nature—“Has
it not been written in (20) the law that I said, ‘You are gods’? If
he said those men are gods to whom the Word of God came,
and Scripture cannot be set aside, are you saying of the one
whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blas-
pheme,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”202 You hear how
many times the Savior himself called himself not “Word,” but
“Son,” and added that he was “Only-begotten,” (21) and how
198. Jn 3.16.
199. Jn 3.17.
200. Jn 3.18.
201. 1 Jn 4.14.
202. Jn 10.34–36.
198 Eusebius
he taught that he was sent and was sanctified before being sent
by the Father, and that he is ashamed of those who hesitate to
confess him “Son of God,” teaching from the divine Scripture
that men mortal by nature were called not only sons of God
but even gods. For this reason one must not think it blasphemy
to confess him both “Son of God” and “God,” (22) “whom the
Father sanctified and sent into the world.”203
Therefore, why should we tolerate the man who dared after
these sorts of remarks to say, 204 “For he was Word and nothing
else,”205 and who said in his own words [the following]?
with him to become by adoption Son of God.206
When Marcellus said these things, I do not know with what
eyes he was able to look at nor with what lips he was able to con-
tradict these sorts of (23) testimonies. And that he himself is
also “Light,” the Savior shows, when he says in agreement with
what has been recounted before concerning light: “I am the
light of the world,”207 and again: “I am the light, and the truth
and the life,”208 and once more: “Because the light has come
into the world and men loved (24) the darkness rather than the
light.”209 And if someone were to ask where he has come from,
he will give an answer by saying, “He who comes from above is
above all,”210 and, “He who comes from heaven . . . bears witness
to what he has seen and heard.”211 But who was “He who comes
203. Jn 10.36.
204. The implied addition to “tolerate the man” is in episcopal ranks. Eu-
sebius is talking about past events—i.e., justifying Marcellus’s deposition in
Constantinople in 336 for his refusal to recant his views, which, according to
Eusebius, clearly contradicted Scripture.
205. See Marcellus, fr. 7 (42 K./H.) and 52 (91 K./H.) (10,7–17; 46,6–9 V.).
206. Marcellus, fr. 111 (41 K./H.) (104,12–18 V.); the same fragment has
already been quoted above.
207. Jn 8.12.
208. Jn 14.6 (quoting “light” instead of “way”).
209. Jn 3.19.
210. Jn 3.31.
211. Jn 3.31–32.
from heaven”? Was it the flesh that the Savior assumed? Not
at all! But he himself, that is to say, the “Light,” the “Word,”
“God,” the “Only-begotten,” and “Son,” he, who himself is all
these things, gives witness, he says, to the things “he has seen
and heard.” (25) Therefore, he both has seen and heard before
he came to earth. Whom has he seen other than the Father?
Whom did he hear other than the Father?
Therefore, he taught that he himself was not a communicat-
ing word, but a Son truly living and subsisting, so as to say, “the
Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand. He
who believes in the Son has eternal life.”212 Let us believe, then,
that “the Father,” “loving the Son,” (26) “has given all things
into his hands.”213
Accordingly, one must pay careful attention to “all things,”
since it includes the existence of all creatures, and through this
term one can see the greatness of the power of the Son of God,
if one has reflected with how great a hand he received from the
Father the (27) existence of all beings. For if the whole heav-
en and world are great, and those things that are beyond the
visible, subsisting in incorporeal and incorruptible intellectual
and divine powers, are still far greater and more excellent than
these, and all such great things in transcending our minds es-
cape our knowledge, in grasping all of these the one hand of
the only-begotten Son of God (28) reveals the superiority of
his infinite power. Indeed, the Son himself shows this, too, in
another remark, when he says, “All things have been given to
me by my Father.”214
If, then, we are at a loss as to who the one was who has re-
ceived this sort of commission and how great he is, do not seek,
he says, or inquire! For he does not have a nature capable of be-
ing known by men, nor even is an accurate comprehension of
the Son of God by the greater and more divine powers possible.
(29) For this reason, having said before, “All things have been
given to me by my Father,” he adds, “And no one knows the Son
212. Jn 3.35–36.
213. Jn 3.35.
214. Mt 11.27.
200 Eusebius
except the Father.”215 Well then, let every forbidden word con-
cerning the Son of God be silenced, and let the knowledge of
his generation from him [the Father] be granted to the Father
alone, nor let anyone in seeking the ineffable nature and be-
ing216 probe any further, 217 but let his teaching about himself be
secured for us only by the grace of faith, which teaches clearly
that all things were given to him by the Father. (30) Therefore,
God gave and bestowed these things, making them something
to be handed down for [our] betterment and benefit, to one
who was, as it were, a Savior and healer and helmsman of the
universe. The Son, however, 218 received them as a faithful keep-
er of a deposit, and accepted them, 219 not as a word that is with-
out being and non-subsistent, 220 but as one who is truly a Son,
only-begotten and beloved of the Father.
[6] (31) Further, in addition to these titles, he also called
himself the “Bread of life,” saying, “I am the bread of life,”221
[and] “I am the living bread that came down from heaven.”222
And that he existed as a living being, 223 he made absolutely
215. Ibid.
217. Eusebius is forbidding the advancement of the search into the nature
of God. “Probing” suggests the notion that to press on or advance further
would be intrusive and inappropriate—which obviously Eusebius thinks it
would be.
218. This distinction, despite all the praise of the Son, may highlight Euse-
bius’s subordinationist thinking of the Son.
219. The role of the Son is astonishingly passive: keeper of a deposit.
220. ἀνούσιος καὶ ἀνυπόστατος.
221. Jn 6.48.
222. Jn 6.51.
223. καὶ ὅπως ὑπῆρχε ζῶν. This is a slightly difficult argument, but Euse-
bius wants to make clear that the “living” from John 6.51 does not mean, as
Marcellus would have had it according to Eusebius, that the Logos exists in-
distinguishable from the Father. Eusebius adds John 6.57 to draw the parallel
between the two distinguishable hypostases of the living Father and the living
Son with the different hypostases of the living Son and the creatures who live
through the Son. Life according to Eusebius means life and existence as a hy-
postasis, distinguished and different from one’s source and origin of life. The
idea of an origin seems to be less important than that of difference of hypos-
tases and existence. See also the beginnings of the next and the next-but-one
paragraph, which start: “Therefore, then, he was the bread of life and existed in
clear, articulating this in the remarks where he says, “As the
living Father sent me, and I (32) live because of the Father, so
he who eats me will live because of me.”224 He also taught this
in other statements, having said, “For as the Father has life in
himself, so also he has given to the Son to have life in him-
self.”225
Therefore, he was the bread of life and existed in heaven,
refreshing the angelic powers and nourishing them with the
power of his divinity, and was such before he came to earth and
was the Son who has life (33) “in himself,”226 just as the Father
has life “in himself.”227 For the excellent and unique charac-
ter of the ingenerate and divine life of the Father, on account
of which “he alone has immortality,”228 as was said by the holy
Apostle, the Son alone could have, seeing as he was the image of
the Father even in this respect. But he has the aforementioned
life not like the Father, not without source nor ingenerate nor
(34) acquired by himself, but has received [this immortal life]
from the Father. For thus he says, “For as the Father has life
in himself, so also he has given to the Son to have life in him-
self.”229 Therefore, the one has given, the other received.230 And
he alone received this privilege, to have life provided to him not
like the remainder of living things from some place or another
from without, but to have it springing forth in himself just like
the life that is in the Father.231 For this reason all things that
heaven . . .” and, “You see how, even existing in heaven, he was the bread of life.”
Emphasis added.
224. Jn 6.57.
225. Jn 5.26.
226. The Son’s being and existence here refer to his pre-existence in heaven.
227. Jn 5.26.
228. 1 Tm 6.16.
229. Jn 5.26.
230. After Eusebius has made it clear that there is a hierarchy between
Father and Son, in what follows he is going to distinguish what makes the Son
privileged over and above the creatures—a differentiation that recalls Asteri-
us’s wording of the Son who is only born/only-begotten, i.e., the only one that
is created solely (μόνος) by the Father, whereas all the other creatures received
life through the Father and the Son simultaneously with all others, namely,
the multitude of creatures. On this, see Asterius, fr. 23–37 (94–100 V.).
231. This idea that life in the Son is life that springs forth from within
202 Eusebius
participate in life live because of the additional help of the Son.
But he alone has life springing forth in himself, the Father hav-
ing given this to him for the benefit (35) of those beings that
were going to be brought to life through him. He himself, then,
also teaches this, saying, “As the living Father sent me, and I live
because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven.”232
You see that even when he was in heaven, he was the bread
of life. For this reason, somewhere it has been said: “Man ate
the bread of angels.”233 And consequently, before he was sent by
the Father, he was in heaven and lived because of (36) the Fa-
ther, not as a communicating word or as if he were one and the
same with God, but he subsisted and had his own life, which
the Father (37) has given to him.
Progressing further, and revealing the transcendence of
the Father’s glory, he said, “Just as the Father taught me, these
things I speak. And he who sent me is with me. He has not left
me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him.”234 Observe
carefully that he said (38) “always.” For he says not only “now,”
when he associated with men on earth through the flesh, 235 “do
I accomplish those things that are pleasing to the Father,” but
“always.” And 236 he gives witness that he speaks these things
that he has learned from the Father as from a teacher.237 There-
himself while being life from the Father makes one wonder why Eusebius was
so opposed to Marcellus, who thought precisely of this intrinsic in-being of
the Logos in God and God in the Logos. This is one of the important passages
that show that despite all the invective, Eusebius and Marcellus shared more
than they were willing to admit on the battlefield of opposition.
232. Jn 6.57–58.
233. Ps 77.25 (RSV 78.25).
234. Jn 8.28–29.
235. See Bar 3.36–39, one of the key passages of early monarchianism,
which is also used by Marcellus against Asterius. See Marcellus, fr. 93 (79 K./H.)
(82,13–15 V.); R. Hübner/M. Vinzent, Der Paradox Eine, VCSup 50 (Leiden: Brill,
1999), 231.
236. Marcellus used the idea of eternity (“always” in the sentence before)
to refute Asterius’s example of the Son being taught by the Father, hence be-
ing a second, subordinate hypostasis. See Asterius, fr. 34 (100 V.).
237. Again, with this idea of the teacher, Eusebius takes sides with Asterius
in this debate between Marcellus and Asterius. See Asterius, fr. 34 (100 V.): “As
fore, he also acknowledges the Father as [his] teacher, clearly
as another besides him, since surely everyone who is a pupil of
someone else is other than (39) the teacher.
But if the Word was in God, on account of which he was
also said to be rational, 238 as someone who communicates the
thoughts of the Father, how could he become teacher of him-
self? How, then, being inseparable from God, did he say that
he himself was sent? How, existing as one and the same with
God, did he affirm that he did things pleasing to the latter?
If in response to these things Marcellus were to say that the
Word made these statements when he was in the flesh, what will
we say with regard to this failure to confess that he is Son, (40)
[while claiming that he is] only Word? How was he [the Word]
in the flesh when he said these things? Was he, therefore, living
and subsisting and existing outside of the Father? And who was
the Father, then, since he did not possess his own Word in him-
self, but subsisted without a Word? If the Word, while dwelling
in the flesh when he was teaching upon the earth, was outside
the Father, living, subsisting, and moving the flesh in place of
a soul, he was clearly another besides the Father, and again he
and the Father existed as two hypostases, (41) and so every ef-
fort of Marcellus has been proven to be in vain, because he has
defined the one who has come in the flesh as the substantial, 239
living, and subsisting Word. For if the Word who dwelt in the
body existed outside of God, but was united and joined to God
so as to be one and the same with him, he [Marcellus] must of
necessity admit that either it is the Father himself in the flesh,
or the Son who subsists in himself and acts in the body, or the
soul of a man, 240 or if none of these, that the flesh241 moves itself
from a teacher and craftsman, he (the Son) has learned to create and thus he
serves God (the Father) who has taught him.” In what follows, Eusebius may
even have preserved the conclusion that is missing in the shortened fragment
of Asterius that Athanasius preserved.
238. Λογικός.
239. οὐσιώδη.
240. The soul existing on its own in the body, separate from the Father
and the Son.
241. The flesh existing on its own as flesh, separate from the Father, the
Son, and the soul.
204 Eusebius
spontaneously, being without soul (42) and without rationali-
ty.242
If, however, he were to say [it is] the Father, the Father will
be for him the one who was begotten and who suffered and
who has undergone every trial involved in human suffering,
which view indeed the Church of God decreed was impious
when Sabellius expressed it.
If it is, however, not lawful to say that the Father was incar-
nate, it is necessary for those who are taught [Marcellus and his
pupils]243 by the one [Sabellius] who teaches this, to confess the
Son. (43) And if Marcellus denies that this [Son] subsists, the
cause must be that he supposes him to be a mere man, com-
posed of body and soul, in no way different from the common
nature of human beings. But this teaching, too, has been cast
out of the Church. Indeed, long ago the Ebionites and lately
the Samosatene and those called Paulinians after him, because
they thought this, (44) paid the penalty for their blasphemy.
What, then, is left after these but to introduce the flesh alone
devoid of any inner life, which moves itself like the self-moving
statues of wonderworkers?244 And how could the flesh and the
body itself without the one acting [within] have said by itself:
“Just as (he) taught me, these things I speak”?245 And how could
the flesh have said, “For I always do what is pleasing to him”?246
And how did the flesh say that it was itself sent by the Father?
Is it pious, then, to say that God is the Father of the flesh, or rath-
er of the one who indwells and acts in it? Who, then, was this?
Was it the Word in God, who himself is God according to Sabel-
242. In fact, without “word” or λόγος—thus suggesting that the indwelling

Word is the mover of the assumed body in Christ.
243. This is an indication that Eusebius is obviously not thinking of Mar-
cellus alone, but also of people supporting him or following him, for example,
Marcellus’s deacon Photinus, who soon after the publication of Eusebius’s text
enters the debate.
244. Eusebius likely has in mind here the statues of the ancient figure of
Daedalus, which were reported to be able to move on their own, as Plato men-
tions at Meno 97d–e. On this, see Jan N. Bremmer, “The Agency of Greek and
Roman Statues: From Homer to Constantine,” Opuscula 6 (2013): 7–21.
245. Jn 8.28.
246. Jn 8.29.
lius, or is it (which is pious and true to say) the living and subsist-
ing (45) only-begotten Son of God? But if he [Marcellus] should
say neither of these, of necessity he will suppose that it is the soul
of a man, and for him Christ will be a mere man. And our novice
author247 will no longer be a Sabellian but a Paulinian. But if he
were to say that the Word in God dwelt in the flesh as (46) noth-
ing other than Word, namely, a communicating or active word,
how also could this Word have said that it lived its own life along-
side the Father? How was it sent, having always been joined and
united to God? And how did it say that the Father was its teach-
er? And how did it say that it always did “what was pleasing to the
Father”?248 For these remarks would be explicitly characteristic
of a Son who subsists and lives, and throughout the entire gospel
the one who prays to the Father, who glorifies the Father, who is
deemed worthy to be glorified by the Father; what else does he
show but that he himself subsists, and especially (47) when he
says, “The testimony of two men is true. I bear witness to myself,
and the Father who sent me bears witness to me”?249
Through all these remarks, the Savior himself, having shown
that he himself lives, nowhere called himself “Word,” but “Son”
and “Light” and “Only-begotten” (48) and “Bread of life” and
anything rather than “Word.” He teaches that he also possess-
es a word, when he says, “If a man loves me, he will keep my
word,”250 but he does not say that he himself is “Word.”
How, then, after all this does the man who has declared
that [the Savior] is Word alone and nothing else not blush with
shame? Listen, then, to how he wrote, saying:
So that it is clear in every way that no other name befits the
eternity of the Word than this very one that John, the most
holy disciple of the Lord and apostle, uttered in the beginning
of the gospel.251
247. Eusebius, the experienced writer and author of many works, seems to
hint at the fact that Marcellus’s opus was the first he had ever written.
248. Jn 8.29.
249. Jn 8.17–18. This is a key passage for Eusebius, wherein he sees the
teaching of two hypostases unambiguously affirmed.
250. Jn 14.23.
251. The beginning of Marcellus, fr. 3 (43 K./H.) (4,18–6,1 V.).
206 Eusebius
(49) And again:
So that he might show that if there is any new and more recent
name, it exists as a result of his new and recent economy ac-
cording to the flesh.252
(50) And again:
Therefore, before the descent and birth from the Virgin, he
was only Word. For before the assumption of the human flesh
(51) Marcellus had to say and to declare all these things in
order not to confess the Son of God. Against him, the evange-
list would have said, crying out in a loud voice, “Why do you say
this, man? I did not say that he was only Word, but also God, 256
and ‘the light that enlightens every man coming into the
(52) world,’257 and the only-begotten Son who is ‘in the bosom
of the Father.’”258 Let no one, then, misrepresent the Theolo-
gian, but listen to him carefully, [as he explains] how he under-
stood “Word,” having added right next to it: “And the Word was
God,”259 and added: “All things were made through him.”260 He
was not called “Word” once by the Savior of the world himself,
but “Son of God,” “Only-begotten,” “Light,” “Life,” “Truth,” and
everything other than “Word.”
[7] (53) If he [Marcellus] were to say that these [views of his]
were taken from the New Testament, it will be said to him that
even the statement “In the beginning was the Word”261 came
from no other source than from it. Well then, one and the
252. Ibid. (6,9–11 V.).

253. Heb 1.2.
254. Asterius, fr. 57 (118 V.).
255. Marcellus, fr. 5 (48 K./H.) (8,19–22 V.).
256. Cf. Jn 1.1.
257. Jn 1.9.
258. Jn 1.18.
259. Jn 1.1.
260. Jn 1.3.
261. Jn 1.1.
same gospel and the same evangelist, having said he was Word,
also ascribed to him all the remaining [titles].
[8] (54) And even Paul the divine Apostle, who says, “For
us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and
one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things,”262 clear-
ly speaks of the Son of God, “through whom all things were
made,” before his coming in the flesh, not as “Word,” but as
“Lord,” “Jesus,” and “Christ.” But if, according to Marcellus,
God and the Word in him were one and the same, it would
have been sufficient for the Apostle to declare, “for us there is
one God, (55) the Father, from whom are all things.” For the
thought made full sense, and the statement was complete in
itself because it described God as maker of the universe. But
even a Jew could say this. But the herald of the Church teach-
es us that in addition to the first clause [of his statement] we
should (56) also not be ignorant of the second. And what was
this? “And one Lord Jesus Christ.” For this reason he adds the
second statement, saying next, “For us (for even if not for all,
but for us, he says)263 there is one Lord Jesus Christ.” For what
reason after the “one God” does this man also present “for us
there is one Lord,” saying in addition “through whom are all
things”? For since “all things were made through him,” it is fit-
ting for us who have come to this conviction, to believe that
he is Lord (57) of the universe after the God who is over all.
And that he [Paul] did not say this regarding the flesh, but con-
cerning God the Word, is clear from the addition of “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 indeed was also said about
the light and the pre-existent Word. Therefore, Jesus Christ
was himself the light and the Word “through whom all things”
came into existence, but not the flesh. For it would have been
totally incoherent for him [Paul] to say “through whom are all
things” about the flesh.264
262. 1 Cor 8.6.

263. That is, even if not for Jews and radical unitarians like Marcellus.
264. In view of everything Eusebius has said about creation happening
through the pre-existent Son and Word and not the incarnate man Jesus, it
208 Eusebius
[9] (58) The same Paul knows to call the Son of God who
pre-existed the flesh “Christ,” in the same way as he addresses
him as “rock,” in the remarks he wrote concerning those who
sojourned in the desert with Moses, saying, “For they drank
from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was
Christ”;265 and the same point is confirmed after other state-
ments when he claims, “We must not put Christ to the test, as
some of them did (59) and were destroyed by serpents.”266 And
he reiterates this same point once more, saying, “By faith Mo-
ses, when he was grown up, refused to be called ‘Son of Pha-
raoh’s daughter.’ . . . He considered abuse suffered for Christ
greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt.”267 He reveals this
still further in the clearest fashion in those remarks in which
he declares, “Have this mind among yourselves, which was
also in Christ, who, though he was in the form of God, did not
count equality with God a thing to be grasped at, but emptied
himself, having taken the form of a slave, . . . (60) and being
found in human form.”268
You see altogether that before emptying himself and taking
the form of a slave, he existed and pre-existed and existed “in
the form of God.” And who was this? None other than Jesus
Christ.
Therefore, God the Word himself was Jesus Christ even be-
fore (61) assuming the flesh. For one must listen carefully to
the divine Apostle when he says, “Have this mind among your-
selves which was also in Christ,” and when he makes quite clear
in the following who this Jesus Christ then was, in those addi-
tional remarks in which he says, “who, though he was in the
form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be
grasped at, but emptied himself, having taken the form of a
slave.”269 (62) Thus could such a statement apply to the flesh? Is
is clear that he thinks the attribution of the phrase “through whom are all
things” to the flesh that the Son assumes is nonsensical.
265. 1 Cor 10.4.
266. 1 Cor 10.9.
267. Heb 11.24, 26.
268. Phil 2.5–7.
269. Phil 2.5–6.
it suitable to say the words “who” and “existed” concerning the
flesh? Did the flesh “empty himself, having taken on the form
of a slave”? But this is ridiculous.
Come then, let us examine in what sense it was said, “Who,
though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with
God a thing to be grasped at, but emptied himself.” If, then,
the Word was without existence, 270 in no way subsisting outside
of God, but being within him, at one time in rest and silence
(63) and at another in activity, how was he also in the form of
God, since as power for God he was himself “God”?271 And how
did he “not count equality with God a thing to be grasped at,”
being himself God? How did he “humble himself, becoming
obedient”272 to the Father? For being obedient, one [person]
to another, would have to be (64) indicative of two persons.273
And since Marcellus has used the word within men as an im-
age, one should inquire if it is possible to apply the statement 274
to the human word: “who being in the form of man, did not
count equality with man a thing to be grasped at, but emptied
himself, becoming obedient to man.” And how could the word
that is by nature in man, do these things, being one and the
same with the man? Consequently “the one who was in the
form of God” will not be a mere word that is non-subsistent 275
but truly an only-begotten Son of God, who “did not count
equality with God a thing to be grasped at, but emptied him-
self, having taken the form of a slave,” whom the divine Apostle
270. ἀνύπαρκτος.
271. Klostermann, who misunderstood this difficult passage, incorrectly
deleted the “for God.” Of course, Marcellus would not have entertained Eu-
sebius’s thought that the Logos is God as “power for God”; on the contrary,
he maintained that the Logos is God as God, but he added that he was this
God’s power. Using Marcellus’s thinking, Eusebius sharpens and overstresses
the differentiation that Marcellus was also willing to make within God, and to
deduce from there that such differentiation presupposes difference between
two divine persons, as Eusebius further explains. Hence, Klostermann deleted
a most important element of the text—against the manuscript.
272. Phil 2.8.
273. προσώπων.
274. I.e., Phil 2.7.
275. ἀνυπόστατος.
210 Eusebius
also called Jesus Christ, knowing correctly that he pre-existed
the flesh.
[10] (65) In addition to these [titles], the same Apostle called
him a “Mediator of God,” having said that the law of Moses was
given into his hand, in that passage where he says, “The law was
ordained through angels by [the] hand of a mediator. Now a
mediator implies more than one; but God is one.”276 You hear
that he individually refers to God and names angels, and in-
troduces between them the mediator, saying, “Now a mediator
implies more than one.” Consequently, he existed even before
the Incarnation because he acted as a mediator at the time of
Moses for the giving of the Law.
[11] (66) The same Apostle also calls him “High-priest,” say-
ing, “We have a great high-priest, who has passed through the
heavens, Jesus, the Son of God.”277
[12] (67) Not only [this], but the same Apostle also knows
the same to be the “Radiance of the glory” and “Exact Imprint
of God” and “Son” and “Heir,” since he says, “In these last days
he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of
all, through whom he also made the ages. He is the radiance
of glory and the exact imprint of his hypostasis,” 278 and, just as
above it was said concerning the Word, “All things were made
through him,”279 and concerning the light, “He was in the
world, and the world was made through him,”280 and concern-
ing Jesus Christ, “For us there is one Lord Jesus Christ, (68)
through whom are all things,”281 see here how in similar fash-
ion it is said concerning him: “through whom he also made the
ages.”282
[13] It is worthwhile with these remarks to pay careful at-
tention to the sense in which he was called “Radiance.” For I
think the title is indicative of the begetting of the Son from the
276. Gal 3.19–20.

277. Heb 4.14.
278. Heb 1.2–3.
279. Jn 1.3.
280. Jn 1.10.
281. 1 Cor. 8.6.
282. Heb 1.2.
Father. Because, when the Son has been referred to and when
God has been addressed as Father, we often imagine something
along the lines of the generation of animals, 283 the Apostle has
used an image that is (69) more befitting God, having said
about the Father, “He dwells in unapproachable light,”284 and
having defined the Son as the radiance of the paternal light,
so that the radiance is the offspring of the first light, not in the
manner of generation that pertains among mortal animals, but
according to the model just described. Therefore, he [Paul]
also fittingly calls him “image of the invisible God”285 because
he existed “in the form of God,”286 and because (70) he is the
radiance and “exact Imprint of the hypostasis.”287
For because of all these [truths], writing about him, he said,
“He is the image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation,
for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, vis-
ible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principal-
ities or authorities—all things were created through him and
for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold to-
gether.”288 (71) For these things were said concerning the divin-
ity of the Son of God, even if Marcellus does not think so. For
the divine Apostle would not have said all these things concern-
ing the flesh. For this is stupid and unintelligible in addition to
being an incoherent interpretation of the phrase. For how was
it fitting to say concerning the flesh, “who is the image,” when
one should rather say, “it is the image”?
[14] (72) And in another passage, the same [Apostle] also
283. The optative (ὑπολάβοιμεν) already indicates that Eusebius is think-

ing hypothetically and also acknowledging the longstanding tradition of the
(Neo-Platonic) discussion about the Father-Son relationship in connection
with birthing. On this, see more in M. Vinzent, Pseudo-Athanasius, Contra Ari-
anos IV, 353. The addition, however, of Klostermann (without manuscript
basis) is misleading and removes Eusebius from the Neo-Platonic tradition
within which he himself stands. We translate “animals” to draw further the
contrast between the messy corporeal birth of animals and the spiritual reflec-
tion of the Son as the proper analogy for his birth.
284. 1 Tm 6.16.
285. Col 1.15.
286. Phil 2.6.
287. Heb 1.3.
288. Col 1.15–17.
212 Eusebius
named him “Image of God,” saying, “And even if our gospel
has been veiled, it has been veiled to those who are perishing.
In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of
the unbelievers, to prevent the light of the gospel of Christ,
(73) who is the image of God, from shining in their hearts.”289
We should also investigate the meaning here, since the divine
Apostle brought forth a defining statement concerning Christ,
having said he was the “Image of God,” lest anyone suppose
there are two gods, rather than the one who is over all. For if
“there is one God, and no other besides him,”290 he would be
the one who is also recognized through the Son as through
an image. (74) Therefore, the Son is also God, because of the
form of the Father that is in him as in an image. The divine
Apostle indeed shows this when at one time he says, “He was in
the form of God,”291 and at another defines him as the “Image
of God.” Therefore, the Son both was and was addressed to-
gether with [these] other titles also as “Image of God” before
his coming in the flesh. But these [testimonies] from the New
Testament have been assembled by us, a few from myriads, for
the sake of the due proportion of the treatise.
[15] (75) In addition,292 the prophets of God who lived long
ago honored him with different theologies.293 For one called
him “Spirit of God,” saying, “There shall come forth a shoot
from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his
roots. And the Spirit of God shall rest upon him, the Spirit of
wisdom and understanding,”294 and so forth. For through these
words the one who is “from the seed of David according to the
flesh”295 and God, the Word, who dwelt in him, became clearly
apparent. For this reason the divine Apostle at one time said,
“The Lord is the Spirit,”296 and at another, “Christ the power of
289. 2 Cor 4.3–4.

290. Dt 4.35.
291. Phil 2.6.
292. This awkward break of paragraphs indicates that these paragraph
breaks in the edition do not derive from Eusebius.
293. I.e., divine titles.
294. Is 11.1–2.
295. Rom 1.3.
296. 2 Cor 3.17.
God and the wisdom of God.” And another [prophet] like-
297
wise calls him “Spirit,” saying, “the Spirit before us, Christ the
Lord.”298 Also in the gospel it was said clearly concerning him:
“Behold, my servant 299 whom I have chosen, my beloved with
whom my soul is pleased. I have put my Spirit upon him, and
he shall proclaim justice to the Gentiles.”300
[16] (76) Another one 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.”301 For who was
the fountain of life from God and the light, other than he who
said in the gospels, “I am the light of the world,”302 and, “I am
the way and the truth and the life”?303 For this reason again, ap-
proaching God as a suppliant in prayer, the prophet says, “Send
out your light and your truth; they will lead me.”304
[17] Even Zerubbabel, having proclaimed him as “Truth,”
was deemed worthy of the prizes of victory when he was sum-
moned before the King of the Persians, saying, “The (77) truth
endures and is strong forever, and lives and prevails forever and
ever. With her there is no favoritism, but she does what is just
instead of anything that is unjust or wicked.”305 To this he adds,
“To her belong the strength and the kingship and the pow-
er and the majesty of all the ages.”306 For having said that the
truth lives and conquers and rules, he revealed in the clearest
possible fashion [the Truth’s] hypostasis. And in accordance
with these statements even the Savior himself, in calling him-
self truth, confirmed the testimony of Zerubbabel.
[18] (78) And he also called him a “River” who said, “There
is a river whose streams make glad the city of God.”307
297. 1 Cor 1.24.

298. Lam 4.20; note that Eusebius varies from the LXX, adding πρό and
changing the case of κύριος from genitive to nominative.
299. Literally, “behold my child” (παῖς).
300. Mt 12.18; cf. Is 42.1.
301. Ps 35.10 (RSV 36.9).
302. Jn 8.12.
303. Jn 14.6.
304. Ps 42.3 (RSV 43.3).
305. 1 Esd 4.38–39.
306. 1 Esd 4.40.
307. Ps 45.5 (RSV 46.4).
214 Eusebius
[19] (79) And already he addressed him as “Mountain” who
said, “the mountain in which God is pleased to dwell.”308 For this
reason also in Daniel [we read] the stone cut “from the moun-
tain” “without hands”309 and again the same had been seen, hav-
ing been restored to the lofty mountain, the mountain signifying
the pre-existence of his divinity,310 and the stone his humanity.
[20] (80) And the prophets311 called him “Justice,” such as
the one who said, “Who roused justice from the east?”312
[21] And [they called him] “Sun of justice”; for example, the
one who said, “But for those who fear me, the sun of justice will
rise, and healing will be on its wings,”313 and another [prophet]
says, “The sun will go down on the prophets,” “those who lead
my people astray.”314 For indeed these statements would not be
suitably applied to the visible sun, but neither would they be so
to the incarnate Word.
[22] (81) Solomon in Proverbs calls him “Wisdom,” too, say-
ing, “Wisdom built her house, and set up seven pillars,”315 and so
forth. And that wisdom pre-existed the world, living and subsist-
ing, he himself taught from the mouth of wisdom herself, having
uttered these words: “I, wisdom, live with prudence, and I attain
knowledge and discretion,”316 and adding in what follows, “By me
kings reign, and rulers decree what is just; by me the great are
magnified, and rulers govern the land through me.”317
[23] (82) But Solomon addresses him also as both “Tree of
life” and “Lord,” saying, “[This] is a tree of life to all who lay
hold of it, and steadfast for those who lean upon it as upon the
Lord.”318
308. Ps 67.17 (RSV 68.16).

309. Dn 2.34.
310. As Eusebius already suggests in the conclusion to ET 1.11.
311. The reference to “the prophets” indicates, again, that the next para-
graph is an integral part of the logical structure.
312. Is 41.2.
313. Mal 4.2.
314. Mi 3.6, 5.
315. Prv 9.1.
316. Prv 8.12.
317. Prv 8.15.
318. Prv 3.18.
[24] (83) And the father of Solomon, David, in the Psalms,
named him “Lord” together with “Priest,” in one passage, say-
ing, “The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand,”319 and in
another claiming, “The Lord has sworn and will not change
his mind. You are a priest forever after the order of Melchize-
dek.”320
[25] (84) And the same [David] knew to confess him as
“God,” proclaiming, “Your throne, O God, endures forever and
ever; your royal scepter is a scepter of equity. You loved justice
and hated wickedness. Because of this, God, your God, anoint-
ed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.”321 For if in
these lines God is anointed by God, who else would he be but
the very one who was proclaimed Christ [“Anointed One”] be-
cause of the paternal anointing?
[26] (85) And this same [Christ] was also the “Beloved by
God,” which indeed the title of the Psalm shows, which says,
“An ode for the beloved.”322
[27] (86) Isaiah calls him “Arm,” saying, “The Lord will re-
veal his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations.”323
[28] And David knew him to be “Justice” together with “Sal-
vation,” and so he said, “The Lord made known his salvation;
before the nations (87) he revealed his justice”;324 and again:
“Tell of his salvation from day to day”;325 and again: “Who will
render out of Zion the salvation of Israel?”326 and, “Show to us
your mercy, Lord, and grant us your salvation.”327
[29] And what need is there for me to take up each example,
when for the one who is eager to learn it is possible to gather
together these sorts of examples from throughout the divinely
inspired Scripture, through which the men of God, illuminated
by the divine Spirit, reveal the knowledge of the only-begotten
319. Ps 109.1 (RSV 110.1).

320. Ps 109.4 (RSV 110.4).
321. Ps 44.7–8 (RSV 45.6–7).
322. Ps 44.1 (RSV 45).
323. Is 52.10.
324. Ps 97.2 (RSV 98.2).
325. Ps 95.2 (RSV 96.2).
326. Ps 13.7 (RSV 14.7).
327. Ps 84.8 (RSV 85.7).
216 Eusebius
Son, which at that time was a secret from and escaped the notice
of the majority of the Jewish people? For this reason, they also
proclaimed him in various ways with forms of address that have
been concealed. For the grace of the proclamation of the theol-
ogy concerning him was preserved for his coming, by which his
Church throughout the world, as if receiving some mystery that
was long ago kept hidden in silence, (88) is exalted.
Indeed, the divine Apostle also teaches this when he says,
“According to the divine office which was given to me for you,
to make the word of God fully known, the mystery hidden for
ages and generations, but now made manifest to his saints. To
them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles
are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in
you, the hope of glory.”328
You see that the Son of God was the mystery that was previ-
ously hidden, but now (89) has been made manifest. For this
reason the prophets of God wrote their mystical theology about
him in the prophetic spirit while the majority of the Jewish na-
tion remained in ignorance of the hidden mystery—as a result
of which they were taught to know one God because they were
repeatedly being dragged down by polytheistic error, but were
ignorant that God was Father of the only-begotten Son. For this
mystery was preserved for the Church [to be formed] from the
Gentiles, (90) according to [the] excellent grace granted to it,
for in him are, according to the Apostle, “hidden all the trea-
sures of wisdom and knowledge.”329
But through all these passages the Word of God, who “in
the beginning was with God,”330 was shown to have been called
not only “Word,” as Marcellus thinks, but also “Son,” “Only-
begotten,” “Light,” “Bread,” “Jesus,” “Christ,” “Lord,” “High
Priest,” “Radiance,” “Character,” “Image,” “Firstborn of all cre-
ation,” “Font of life,” “Truth,” “River,” “ Justice,” “Sun of justice,”
“Wisdom,” “Tree of life,” “Lord,” “God,” “Beloved,” “Priest,”
“Arm,” “Justice,” and “Salvation.” And he was and was called
all these things even when he pre-existed the flesh, just as the
328. Col 1.25–27.

329. Col 2.3.
330. Jn 1.1.
(91) Scriptures cited have shown. Well now, for what reason, hav-
ing disregarded all these truths, does Marcellus insist upon “the
Word” alone, not even passing over to the remaining names, but
alleging that he is only Word of God and the communicating
Word, who at one time rests in silence in God and at another
speaks or acts in activity alone, other than that he openly Sabel-
lianizes, and does not believe in the Son of God nor acknowl-
edge the mystery that pre-existed long ago, and which was made
manifest only to the Church (92) of Christ through his grace?
But if he were to say that the fact that God has the Word
within himself and uses [this] Word is the mystery that is un-
known (for this seems to Marcellus himself to be the case when
he writes in this way:
the Word), 332
well then, if he should say this, let him learn that every one of
the Jews who have not acknowledged the Christ of God would
even confess that (93) God has the Word and is not irrational.333
Even Sabellius himself and every Greek and barbarian who sup-
posed there was a God would unambiguously say this. For as
soon as one mentions God, one thinks of him as wise, rational,
powerful, righteous, and good. Therefore, what sort of mys-
tery was hidden, which is confessed by all? For who would not
say that there is in God wisdom, power, life, light, truth, justice,
word, and everything that is noble and good? Rather, one would
say that he is all these things and whichever of these is higher
and better and unknown to us. For nature without the need of
a teacher compels every human being to confess these things
about God.334 (94) For this reason we are also taught that the
Son is all these things, seeing as he is the only-begotten Son
331. Eph 3.9; Col 1.26.

332. Marcellus, fr. 96 (50 K./H.) (84,9–11 V.).
333. Literally, “without a word”: ἀλόγος.
334. For the philosophical background to Eusebius’s discussion here
of “natural notions” about God, see St. Basil of Caesarea, Against Eunomius,
218 Eusebius
and heir of the Father and also possesses whatever the Father
possesses.335 For this reason he has been said to be in the form
of God and image of God, according to the divine Apostle, who
said, “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count
equality with God a thing to be grasped at,”336 and again, “who
is the image of God.”337 (95) Consequently, that God is ratio-
nal was not “the mystery, which was hidden for ages and gener-
ations,”338 nor was this mystery “now made manifest,”339 having
been acknowledged by all men by means of natural notions; for
if someone were to ask what sort of mystery it is, the Apostle an-
swers, saying “[the mystery] now made manifest to his saints. To
them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles
are the riches of the glory of this mystery, (96) which is Christ
in you.”340
Christ, therefore, was the mystery, and it is clear that he is
the Son of God. For this reason the prophets of God previously
glorified him mystically with various forms of address, conceal-
ing his ineffability and dispensing341 by his grace his revelation
to all.
Well now, when after so many scriptural testimonies Marcel-
lus affirms that in the beginning before the assumption of the
flesh the Word was nothing other than Word and was called by
no other name, but then acquired other titles when “the Word
became flesh”342 (before this being nothing other than Word),
how could he not be convicted as unlearned and devoid of un-
derstanding of the divine Scriptures? But since this is so, bring
on the rest, so that we might examine further the new Sabellius
come back to life.
trans. Mark DelCogliano and Andrew Radde-Gallwitz, FOTC 122 (Washing-

ton, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2011), 108, n. 77.
335. A possible allusion to Jn 16.15?
336. Phil 2.6.
337. Col 1.15.
338. Col 1.26.
339. Ibid.
340. Col 1.26–27.
341. The idea expressed here is that the mystery of Christ’s identity is given
out bit by bit over time.
342. Jn 1.14.
B O OK T WO
OW THAT THE testimonies from the divine Scriptures

have been presented, in which it was shown that the
Son of God was called not only “Word” before his
coming in the flesh (as Marcellus thought) but also many other
things, come now, let us consider the remaining idol of Sabel-
lius, which has, as it were, popped up out of the earth.1 For he
dared to say that the God who is over all, 2 the Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ, has himself been born from the holy Virgin
and has himself suffered, having written in this way:
Well then, what was this “which came down”3 before the In-
carnation? Surely, I suppose, he [Asterius] says, “Spirit.”4 For if
he would like to say something besides this, the angel will not
agree with him, because he said to the Virgin, “The Holy Spirit
will come upon you.”5 But if he will say that he is Spirit, let him
listen to the Savior, who says, “God is Spirit.”6
(2) Through these remarks, he said that the God of the uni-
verse (concerning whom our Savior and Lord taught, having
said, “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship
in spirit and in truth”),7 is the Spirit that came upon the Vir-
1. The remaining idol’s “popping out of the earth” recalls the figure from
Greek mythology, Cadmos, who, at Athena’s request, sowed dragon’s teeth in
the ground, from which popped up the so-called Spartoí (the “sown”). They
subsequently fell upon one another, and only a few survived, who then were
used by Cadmos to build the new town of Thebes.
2. Rom 9.5; Eph 4.6.
3. Asterius, fr. 58 (120 V.).
4. Ibid.
5. Lk 1.35.
7. Jn 4.24.
219
220 Eusebius
gin, (3) in this way openly bringing Sabellius back to life. And
proceeding on, he refers to the Father the statement of Jeremi-
ah the prophet, who clearly said concerning the Incarnation of
the Savior,
“After these things he appeared on earth and lived among
men,”8
claiming in these very words:
But the Father must be in the Word, even if it does not seem so
to Asterius and to those who think the same things as he does.9
(4) But he also does the same thing with regard to the Pas-
sion of the Savior. For having brought forth from the Lamenta-
tions of Jeremiah the passage that says,
“The Spirit before us, Christ the Lord, was taken in their de-
structive snares,”10
he adds:
And here likewise, the prophet speaks of the Word who has
assumed our flesh.11
And he continues, saying:
A spirit could never become the maker of a shadow.12 But
that God himself is [Spirit], the Savior said, “God is Spirit.”13
And that God is light, he himself teaches us, saying, “I am the
light.”14
You see how he transfers that which has been said about the
Savior to the divinity (5) of the Father. And again, he shame-
8. Bar 3.38; Klostermann did not recognize that this was a quotation of
Marcellus, fr. 93 (79 K./H.) (82,17–18 V.).
9. Marcellus, fr. 95 (55 K./H.) (84,3–4 V.).
10. Lam 4.20. The LXX has “the Lord’s anointed,” not “Christ the Lord.”
For the first time recognized as a fragment of Marcellus by K. Seibt, Die Theolo-
gie des Markell, 353; Marcellus, fr. 62 (55 K./H.) (54,6–8 V.).
11. Marcellus, fr. 63 (56 K./H.) (54,8–9 V.).
12. See Lam 4.20.
13. Jn 4.24.
lessly eliminates the hypostasis of the Son, alleging that before
the fashioning of the creatures there was nothing other than
God alone. Therefore, he writes as follows in this literal state-
ment.
Asterius calls the authority15 given to him “glory,” and not only
glory but also “pre-cosmic glory,”16 not understanding that
when the cosmos did not yet exist, there was nothing other
than God alone.17
And again, he confirms the same point, saying:
. . . The sky and earth and everything in the sky and upon the
earth came to be from God. Well now, if he were to believe
this,18 it would be necessary for him also to confess that there
was nothing other than God.19
Chapter 2
(1) You see, a Jew openly denies the only-begotten Son of
God, “through whom all things” came to be.20 For if there was
nothing other than God before the generation of the world,
the Son would not have then existed. And how could [it be
that] “all things came to be through him, and without him
not one thing came to be”?21 Therefore, on the one hand, the
Jew, denying the Christ of God, before the generation of the
world knows nothing except God alone, with Marcellus giv-
ing witness in support of him, while on the other hand, the
Church of Christ is proud to say with all candor, “We have one
God, the Father, from whom are all things, and (2) one Lord,
Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.”22 But when she
says “through whom are all things,” she acknowledges that he
15. See Mt 28.18; Jn 17.2; 5.21–22.

16. Asterius, fr. 36 (100 V.).
17. Marcellus, fr. 77 (104 K./H.) (68,11–12 V.).
18. See Asterius, fr. 21; 27; 29 (92; 96 V.).
19. Marcellus, fr. 76 (103 K./H.) (68,7–10 V.).
20. 1 Cor 8.6; Jn 1.3.
21. Jn 1.3.
22. 1 Cor 8.6.
222 Eusebius
is before all things. And therefore the man who says that be-
fore the generation of the world there was nothing other than
God alone falsifies the truth. For the Son, his only-begotten,
was also with the only God before the establishment of the
world and coexisted with the Father. For he also taught her [the
Church] this, who said, “In these last days, he spoke to us in a
Son, whom he appointed as heir of all, through whom he also
(3) made the ages.”23 And in Proverbs, the Son himself teaches
about himself through Solomon, saying, “When he established
the heavens, I was present with him.”24 But he himself also “was
the light that enlightens every man coming into the world,”25
because “he was in the world, and the world was made through
him.”26 But if “the world was made through him,” (4) it is clear
that he pre-existed the world. Thus God was not alone before
the establishment of the world, but his only-begotten Son was
present with him, and looking upon him the Father rejoiced,
as he himself [the Son] as Wisdom teaches, saying in Proverbs,
“I was daily his delight.”27 And the Son himself, contemplating
the Father’s thoughts, was filled with joy, for which reason he
says, “I rejoiced before him always.”28 The Church of Christ,
having received these pious and divine mysteries, preserves
[them]. But the man who says,
When the cosmos did not yet exist, there was nothing other
than God alone, 29
(5) shows himself to be wrapped in the mantle of either a Jew
or a Sabellius.30 For if right from the start he denies the Son
23. Heb 1.2.

24. Prv 8.27.
25. Jn 1.9.
26. Jn 1.10. The whole chain of scriptural quotations forms one argument
in Eusebius.
27. Prv 8.30.
28. Ibid.
29. Marcellus, fr. 77 (104 K./H.) (68,11–12 V.).
30. The conjecture by Klostermann goes against the sense—Eusebius does
not want to portray Marcellus slipping into the mantle of himself, a Sabellian,
but into that of his models, either Jew or Sabellius, which is also confirmed by
the argument that directly follows.
and introduces God alone, he will be a Jew who rejects Christ;
on the other hand, if he accepts the title of the Son insofar as
he is Word, but claims that the one God is he, Son together
with Father, he will bring Sabellius back to life. For if before
the world there was nothing other than God, either he [God]
will himself be Father and Son, or he will not have a Son.
Chapter 3
(1) But Marcellus seems to say that the Son is this, [namely,]
the Word in God himself, by which he is thought to be rational,
so that he is father of himself, and again son of himself. Listen,
then, to his words, in which he writes in this way:
For before the fashioning of all there was a certain silence, as
(2) one might expect, since the Word was in God. For if Aste-
rius has believed that “God is Maker of all things,”31 it is clear
that even he himself will confess along with us that the one
[God] has always existed and never received a beginning of his
existence, while the other things have both come to be by him
and have come to be out of nothing.32
You see that, having posited that God is without beginning,33
he said that the Word that was in him was in silence prior to the
fashioning. And proceeding on, he adds:
Well now, if he were to believe this, 34 it would be necessary for
him also to confess that there was nothing other than God.
Thus the Word possessed his own glory, since he was in the
Father.35
(3) Consequently, as is only reasonable, he says that the Word
is also eternal, that is to say, ingenerate, writing as follows:
31. Asterius, fr. 21 (92 V.).

32. Marcellus, fr. 76 (103 K./H.) (68,1–5 V.).
33. “Beginning” (ἀρχή) can also sometimes be translated “origin” or
“source” in Eusebius, depending on whether he wants to emphasize the log-
ical start of existence or the source from where this start takes its beginning.
34. See Asterius, fr. 21; 27; 29 (92; 96 V.).
35. Marcellus, fr. 76 (103 K./H.) (68,8–10 V.).
224 Eusebius
You hear, then, the consistent testimony of the Holy Spirit, giv-
ing witness through many and diverse persons to the eternity
of the Word.36
And again:
And because of this he [John] begins from the eternity of the
Word, saying, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God.”37 Using three successive
testimonies, he wishes to show the eternity of the Word.38
(4) And it is possible to hear how he claimed that the Word
is united to God and is likewise unbegotten39 with him, when
he says in this way somewhere:
We know to refer the economy according to the flesh to the
man, but we believe that the eternity according to the Spirit is
united40 to the Father.41
Chapter 4
(1) Well then, having asserted that the Word is in the Father
in this way, he next declares that he is one and the same thing
with him, writing in these words as follows:
If one were only to consider the Spirit, the Word would rightly
appear to be one and the same with God. But if one were to
consider the addition of the flesh to the Savior, the divinity
seems to extend itself only by virtue of its activity, so that, as is
to be expected, the monad is truly indivisible.42
(2) And proceeding on again, he says:
Thus the Savior says, “I and the Father are one,”43 not because
of the “exact agreement in all [their] words and actions,” as
36. Marcellus, fr. 6 (53 K./H.) (10,1–2 V.).

37. Jn 1.1.
38. Marcellus, fr. 6 (53 K./H.) (10,2–6 V.).
39. συναγέννητον.
40. Technically, aorist tense and so “was united.”
41. Marcellus, fr. 72 (70 K./H.) (60,15–16 V.).
42. Marcellus, fr. 73 (71 K./H.) (62,1–4 V.).
43. Jn 10.30.
Asterius said, but because it is impossible either for the Word
44
to be separated from God or for God to be separated from his

own Word.45
Therefore, then, if God and the Word within him were one
and the same thing, as it seems to Marcellus, the one who came
to be within the holy Virgin and was made flesh and became
man and suffered what has been recorded and who died for
our sins was himself the God who is over all46 —indeed, a view
for which the Church of God reckoned Sabellius among athe-
ists and blasphemers when he dared to say this.
Chapter 5
So, if Marcellus were to say that the Word of God was the
one who was incarnated, but determined that he was insepa-
rable from God, having asserted that the monad is indivisible,
and that there is one hypostasis of God and of the Word within
him, according to him one would have to think that the one
who was incarnated was none other than the God who is over
all.47 But if the monad is indivisible, God and the Word within
him are one and the same thing, and who, then, would some-
one say is the Father and who is the Son, since the underlying
reality48 is one? And so in this way, Marcellus, introducing him
who is one and the same, a Son-Father, renewed [the error of]
Sabellius.
Chapter 6
(1) But the Church of God also acknowledges that the monad
is indivisible, confessing one source, the one God who is unbe-
gotten and without source, but also deems the only-begotten Son
who is born from him, truly existing and living and subsisting,
44. Asterius, fr. 39 (102 V.). Marcellus emphasizes that the one source of
will and action cannot be divided, but also that neither can they go separate
ways, and hence disagree.
45. Marcellus, fr. 74 (73 K./H.) (62,11–14 V.).
46. Rom 9.5; Eph 4.6.
47. Ibid.
48. τοῦ ὑποκειμένου.
226 Eusebius
as Savior, although he is neither without source nor unbegotten
(so as not to posit two sources and two gods), but begotten from
the Father himself and having the one who has begotten him as
source. (2) For this reason, it has received the belief in one God
the Father, who rules over all, and in Jesus Christ our Lord, the
only-begotten Son of God, this holy and mystical faith provid-
ing regeneration in Christ to those who are enlightened through
it. But Marcellus says that the monad extends itself in activity,
which takes place in bodies, but not at all in the incorporeal,
ineffable, and indescribable being.49 (3) For it is neither extend-
ed in activity, nor contracted in inactivity, nor does it act in any
way as human beings do, nor does it move in any way as human
beings do. But God, being an indivisible monad, begot his only-
begotten Son from himself, neither being divided nor undergo-
ing alteration, (4) change, flux, or any suffering. For neither by
commanding nor by being commanded nor by laying down the
law does he do these things, speaking as human beings do by
the tongue and lips. Nor, when looking to the ordering of the
universe, did he contemplate [it] by making use of eyes as we
do, but having anticipated things that do not exist 50 beforehand
by means of his ineffable and divine power, he sees even those
as if they already existed (5) and subsisted. But neither does he
construct [the universe] by making and fashioning as craftsmen
among us do, having taken pre-existing material in his hands
and fingers, but again, by means of his ineffable and incom-
prehensible power he brought into existence from nothing the
being51 of all creatures. Therefore, then, if he made all things
by means that are ineffable and unfathomable to us, why, then,
should it be controversial if we say that no passion has occurred
within him in the begetting of the Son, as there is in the genera-
tion of mortal animals, because [the begetting of the Son] took
place beyond all things and before all things, in a way completely
unlike things commonly acknowledged to be mortal by nature,
but rather in the manner that is known to him alone?
49. οὐσίας.
50. Rom 4.17.
51. οὐσίαν.
Chapter 7
(1) But are you afraid, man, lest, having confessed that
there are two hypostases, you introduce two sources and cast
aside the monarchical divinity? Well then, learn that because
there is one God who is without source and unbegotten, but
the Son has been begotten from him, there will be one source
and a single monarchy and kingship, since even the Son him-
self acknowledges his Father as source. (2) “The head of Christ
is God,”52 according to the Apostle. But are you anxious that
one might have to accept that there are two gods if you confess
that there are two hypostases of Father and Son?53 But know
this too: that the man who grants that there are two hyposta-
ses of Father and Son is not compelled to say there are two Fa-
thers, nor that there are two Sons, but will grant that one is
the Father and the other is the Son. Thus, in the same way,
it is not necessary for the man who posits two hypostases to
grant that there are two gods. (3) For we neither deem them
equally worthy of honor, nor both without source and unbe-
gotten, but deem the one [hypostasis] as unbegotten and with-
out source, while [we deem] the other as begotten and having
the Father as his source. For this reason, even the Son himself
teaches that his Father is also his God, when he says, “I go to
my Father and to your Father (4) and to my God and to your
God.”54 Thus God is shown to be both Father and (5) God of
the Son himself. For this reason, then, the God of the Son is
proclaimed by the Church to be one. And the Son, when he
is compared to the Father, will not also be God of the Father
himself, but only-begotten Son, his “beloved,”55 “image of the
invisible God,”56 and “radiance”57 of the paternal glory; and he
reveres, worships, and glorifies his own Father, acknowledging
him as God even of himself, to whom he has been reported
52. 1 Cor 11.3.

53. Klostermann’s addition of εἴη is unnecessary.
54. Jn 20.17.
55. Mt 3.17.
56. Col 1.15.
57. Heb 1.3.
228 Eusebius
also to pray, to whom he also gives thanks, and to whom he also
became “obedient unto death.”58 (6) And he confesses that he
lives “because of the Father”59 and is able to do nothing with-
out the Father and that he does not do his own will but the
will of the Father. Indeed, he says explicitly, “I have come down
from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him who sent
me,”60 and again, “I am able to do nothing of myself. But as I
hear, so I judge, and my judgment is just, because I do not seek
my own will but the will of the one who sent me.”61 And yet that
the one who sent him was another besides himself he shows
right afterward, when he says, “If I bear witness to myself, my
testimony is not true; (7) there is another who bears witness to
me.”62 Then, having called to mind the Baptist, he teaches that
the Father is his witness, saying, “And the Father who sent me
has himself borne witness to me.”63 And he adds, “If you loved
me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for (8)
the Father is greater than I.”64 Through all of these statements
he shows that he himself is other than the Father. And he shows
the superiority of the Father’s glory when he speaks of the one
who has sent and of himself as having been sent and having
come down from heaven “not to do my own will but the will of
him who sent”65 him.
And what would Marcellus say to these things, listening
to the one who has come down from heaven teaching these
things? For he will not even now, I think, say that the flesh
of the Savior says these things; (9) for the flesh has not come
down from heaven. Well then, who will he say is the one who
has come down from heaven and teaches these things? Will it
be God himself or the Word who has been united to him? But
if he should say the Father, having exposed his naked Sabel-
lianism, the Savior himself will denounce him as a liar, saying,
58. Phil 2.8.

59. Jn 6.57.
60. Jn 6.38.
61. Jn 5.30.
62. Jn 5.31–32.
63. Jn 5.37.
64. Jn 14.28.
65. Jn 6.38.
“I have come down from heaven not (10) to do my own will but
the will of him who sent me,”66 and, “I am able to do nothing
of myself, but as I hear, so I judge,”67 and, “I do not seek my
own will but the will of the one who sent me,”68 and, “the Fa-
ther is greater than I.”69 For to think that the (11) Father says
these things would be the height of madness. But if he says that
the foregoing statements apply to the Word that is connatural70
with God and to his reasoning by which he reasons and reflects
within himself, how, then, could the thought of God and the
reasoning within him also have come down from heaven? And
how, having come to be in the flesh that it assumed, did it re-
count these things? How will the Word, who is in God, say that
he has come down “not to do [his] own will, (12) but the will
of him who sent”71 him? Through these statements the Son of
God shows his own reverence for the Father. And since he [the
Son] leads all creatures that have come to be through him,
as he is Savior and Lord and Fashioner of all (for “all things
came to be through him and without him not one thing came
to be”),72 then he can also be addressed as God, (13) Master,
Savior, and King. For this reason his Church has been taught to
revere and worship and honor him as God, (14) having learned
to do this from him. Thus the Savior himself says, “The Father
judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all
may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father,”73 clearly
commanding [the Church] to honor him not like the prophets
nor like the angels or the powers that are distinct from these,
but very nearly like74 the Father himself. For the Father himself,
having wished this, “has given all judgment to the Son, that all
may honor (15) him, just as they honor the Father.”75
66. Ibid.
67. Jn 5.30.
68. Ibid.
69. Jn 14.28.
70. συμφυᾶ.
71. Jn 6.38.
72. Jn 1.3.
73. Jn 5.22–23.
74. τῷ πατρὶ παραπλησίως.
75. Jn 5.22–23.
230 Eusebius
Indeed, Thomas the Twin also, knowing these things cor-
rectly, seeing as he was one of the band of the twelve disciples,
acknowledged him as both God and Lord with crystal-clear
words, saying, “My Lord and my God!”76 For this reason, then,
it is also fitting for us to revere the Son alone and no other with
divine honor, just as we honor the Father, (16) and in this way
the Father is honored through the Son. And indeed, [the Son]
teaches this very thing too, when he says, “He who honors the
Son honors the Father who sent him.”77
For just as in honoring an image of an emperor that had
been sent [to us], we would honor the emperor himself who
is the archetype of the image, in the same way the Father
would be honored through the Son, just as (17) he is also seen
through him. For “he who has seen” the Son “has seen the Fa-
ther,”78 seeing the unbegotten divinity impressed in the Son as
in an image and mirror. “For he is [the] radiance of eternal
light, [the] spotless mirror of the activity of God, and [the]
image of his goodness.”79 And having received all these things
from the Father, he has received the glory from him [the Fa-
ther] and from the divinity, as a genuine and only-begotten
Son would receive it. But the Father has not also received [it]
from anyone, and since he himself is source, fountain, and root
of all good things, he would rightly be addressed as [the] one
and only God.
Chapter 8
(1) But since Marcellus is ignorant of these matters, he does
not want the Son to have been truly begotten from the Father,
as a living and subsisting Son, but contends that the Word
came forth from God like [that] very word that communicates
or commands something. Listen, then, to him as he frankly
says even this in these words:
76. Jn 20.28.
77. Jn 5.23.
78. Jn 14.9.
79. Wis 7.26.
Therefore, to have said that “he has been begotten before the
ages”80 seems a logical statement: for that which has come forth
from the Father who sent it forth becomes an offspring. But
the other statement has no longer been taken in a sound or pi-
ous sense by him.81 For to have said that he who has come forth
from him [the Father] is not the Word, but [that] “he is simply
only son,”82 and that this is the true manner of begetting, has
usually provided a certain justification for those listening who
are inclined to take a human perspective.83
(2) Then, after showing that the Word has not been begot-
ten from the Father, he thus says in these exact words:
Well then, the holy apostle and disciple of the Lord, John, call-
ing to mind his eternity, became a true witness to the Word, 84
saying, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God,”85 making no mention here
of a generation of the Word.86
And so, denying in this way the Son of God, he alleged that
at one time the Word who is in God was within God, but at an-
other time came forth from God and (3) at still another time
will return again into God and will be in him as he also was
before. Listen to how he says these things in these words:
But now I believe the divine Scriptures, that God is one and
that, on the one hand, the Word of this [God] came forth
from the Father, so that “all things” might come to be “through
him,”87 but that, on the other hand, after the time of judgment,
the restoration of all things, and the destruction of all oppos-
ing activity, “then he will be subjected to him who put all things
80. Prv 8.23, 25, quoted by Asterius; see Asterius, fr. 17 (130 V.).
83. Marcellus, fr. 66 (36 K./H.) (56,3–8 V.).
84. See Jn 21.24.
85. Jn 1.1.
86. See Asterius, fr. 74 (124–128 V.); Marcellus, fr. 71 (33 K./H.) (60,10–
13 V.).
87. Jn 1.3.
232 Eusebius
under him,”88 “to [his] God and Father,”89 so that in this way the
Word might be in God, just as he also was previously.90
(4) And again, he proposes the same idea more plainly, writ-
ing in this way:
moment, the Word, having come forth, became maker of the
cosmos, he who even beforehand was preparing it within his
mind.91
(5) And again, after all these remarks, he continues on, say-
ing:
And because of this he does not call himself “Son of God,” but
everywhere he calls himself “Son of Man,” so that through this
sort of confession, he might enable the man through fellow-
ship with him to become by adoption Son of God, and so that
after the completion of the deed, he might again, as Word, be
united to God, fulfilling that which was said by the Apostle:
“Then he himself will be subjected to him who put all things
under him, so that God may be all in all.”92 For then he will be
what he was before.93
Having said so many things about the Word that is in God,
by which we think he is rational, Marcellus has fallen upon
treacherous ground, having dared to say that the Word that is
in him has been at one time outside of God and again within
him after the time of the judgment, so that in this way he might
be in God, united to him just as he also was before.
88. 1 Cor 15.28.

89. 1 Cor 15.28, 24.
90. With the exception of a missing, small, final passage, this is Marcellus,
fr. 109 (121 K./H.) (102,1–19 V.).
91. Marcellus, fr. 110 (60 K./H.) (104,1–6 V.).
92. 1 Cor 15.28.
93. Marcellus, fr. 111 (41 K./H.) (104,12–18 V.).
Chapter 9
(1) Well then, it is now time for him to answer our questions.
Therefore, what should we think of that intermediate period
when the Word was outside of God? And how did he come
forth? And in what sort of state, then, was God when he did not
have his own Word within himself? For if the Word will be in
God at the consummation of the universe, just as he also was
prior to the time of consummation, how will he be the Word
who came forth from God? For if, on the one hand, subsisting in
himself, he became other than God, the effort of Marcellus will
be in vain; but if, on the other hand, having also come forth
from God, like the spoken word in our own experience, he re-
mained inseparable from the Father, he was therefore always
and through everything (2) in God, even when he was active.
How, then, at the time of the judgment does he [Marcellus]
send him back, saying that at that time he will be united to God
and will be just as he also was before? For if at that time he will
be just as he also was before, the Word who came forth from
God will not be such as he was before, but even God himself
will be unlike himself, formerly having the Word within him-
self and receiving him back at the consummation of the uni-
verse and [only] then becoming as he also was before, but in
the meantime being dissimilar. And the Word, having become,
so to speak, outside of God, will not before the consummation
of the universe be such (3) as he was previously. And which of
these would be the more impious statement?
For altogether, [the expressions] “was” and “be” and “has
once come to be” and again “about to be,” which are indica-
tive of a change in time, would be foreign to the being94 that is
timeless, without source, ingenerate, and immutable, concern-
ing which it is fitting to think that it alone exists and always
exists unchangeably and in exactly the same way, being neither
diminished, nor contracted, nor extended, nor expanded, nor
having anything outside or inside itself, nor becoming one
thing at one time and another thing at another, nor being one
94. οὐσίας.
234 Eusebius
thing before and becoming something else afterward and then
again (4) being restored to its former state.
Indeed, Marcellus dared to propose these ideas, saying that
long ago there was God and a certain quiet together with God,
sketching out for himself the views of that very founder of the
godless heretics who made a spectacle of himself promulgating
atheism, saying, “There was God and silence,”95 and that after
the silence and quiet, the Word of God came forth in the be-
ginning of the making of the universe in active energy, so that
he is no longer such as he was when he was previously resting
in the silent God, but, (5) upon coming forth from God, be-
comes active. And how, then, did he come forth? Altogether, I
suppose, like the expression of the articulate voice, that is, God
speaking and talking just as human beings [do]. At any rate,
this is what seemed to him to be the case when he wrote in this
way:
come into existence by the Father through the Word, so also
the things that are said by the Father are communicated
through the Word.96
(6) And again:
ones. For whatever we wish both to say and to do according to
our capacity, we do by means of our word.97
(7) Therefore, then, if the Word came forth in this way from
the Father, [that is,] in active energy, for what reason did it oc-
cur to Marcellus to set a limit to the activity of the Word, [name-
ly,] the time of the consummation, during which he says that
95. On Simon Magus, see Theodor Zahn, Ignatius von Antiochien (Gotha:
Friedrich Andreas Perthes, 1873), 390.
96. Marcellus, fr. 87 (61 K./H.) (74,12–13 V.).
97. Marcellus, fr. 89 (62 K./H.) (76,17–78,4 V.). When Marcellus uses the
term “word” at the end of this statement, he uses it in the sense of our funda-
mental rationality.
the Word will be in God, just as he also was before (he granted
that beforehand he was resting in God’s silence)? Therefore, af-
ter the consummation, too, there will be a certain quiet, since
the Word will intend no activity. But before the establishment
of the creatures there was nothing, he says, except God, and
since there was nothing, (8) it is fair enough [to say] that he
[God] was silent. But Daniel the prophet prophesies that at the
time of the consummation, there will be tens of thousands be-
fore the throne of God, saying, “a thousand thousands served
him; and (9) ten thousand times ten thousand stood before
him,”98 and all in some degree will be sons of the age that is to
come then, namely, the blessed souls of patriarchs, prophets,
apostles, and all holy spirits of the martyrs, and sheep of our
Savior, who will stand at his right hand and will hear: “Come,
O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you
from the foundation (10) of the world.”99
Well now, given that all these will exist and live an immortal
life after the time of the judgment, why won’t the Word of God
be active even then? For what reason did it occur to Marcellus
to declare that God will then no longer speak to the saints nor
use his active Word, but will be, as he also was before, that is,
silent and at rest?100 For he makes this point, having said several
times that he will then be as he also was before—and he was
before, as [Marcellus] himself said, at rest. (11) Thus at that
time God will cease to speak, though before this time [he was]
speaking and using his active Word, but afterward [will] de-
prive his saints of [his] own Word and the Wisdom in him in
the promised kingdom of heaven itself.
You see over what sort of cliff he [Marcellus] has gone, hav-
ing employed no guide—surely not the divine Scriptures. At
any rate, he contrived for himself all these ideas (12) on the ba-
sis of one statement, which he nevertheless has not understood.
98. Dn 7.10.
99. Mt 25.34.
100. Eusebius is not very accurate here, as he blends the Word and God
and speaks as if Marcellus talked of both the Word’s and God’s (the Father’s)
changing between silence and speaking, inactivity and activity.
236 Eusebius
Once101 he had confronted the evident proofs of the Young102
and New Testament, he was driven into a corner from all di-
rections, and having discovered a single passage that supports
his evil belief, and lighting upon it as upon a windfall, he put
together [that belief] on the basis of this single passage, and
not on that one that had been spoken from the mouth of our
Savior but [on one spoken] from the mouth of the evangelist,
in which he called him [Word], having said, “In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God.”103 And so, having taken his start from there, he denied
the Son as if he were nothing other than a word like the one
recognized [to exist] in us.
Chapter 10
(1) And yet the great and divine evangelist himself has
called [him] not only “Word,” as has been said many times by
us,104 but also “God”105 and “Light”106 and “Son”107 and “Only-
begotten.”108 And he recounts that the Savior himself nowhere
in the Scripture calls himself “Word,” but throughout the gos-
pel “Life”109 and “Light”110 and “Only-begotten”111 and “Son
of God”112 and “Truth”113 and “Resurrection”114 and “Bread of
101. Klostermann’s “but” is unnecessary.

102. Eusebius here ridicules how Marcellus turns a “New” Testament into
a “Young” Testament with his claim that only the New Testament can give wit-
ness to the “active Word” that became incarnate in the relatively recent past
(“not four hundred years ago”), as he says in his fr. 103 (105 K./H.).
103. Jn 1.1.
104. The phrase “as has been said many times by us” might refer to the
tortuous survey of ET 1.20.
105. Jn 1.1.
106. Jn 1.4; 1.5; 3.19; 8.12; 11.9; 12.35–36.
107. Jn 1.34; 1.49; 3.18; 5.25; 10.36; 11.4, 27; 17.1; 19.7.
108. Jn 1.14, 18; 3.16, 18.
109. Jn 11.25; 14.6.
110. Jn 8.12; 12.46.
111. Jn 1.18; 3.16.
112. Jn 10.36.
113. Jn 14.6.
114. Jn 11.25.
life” and “Vine” and “Shepherd” and countless other
115 116 117
things, as (2) has already been shown. Why on earth, then, giv-
en that these titles are so numerous, does he [Marcellus] not
stop [when he encounters] all the remaining titles in the text,
and inquire carefully into the sense of those things that are
said, but instead says that he is chiefly designated by the [title
of] “Word” alone,118 as if he were nothing other than Word?
Thus he writes in these very words, saying,
Not “having been called Word figuratively,”119 even if those
who teach differently burst asunder with their lies, but being
chiefly and truly Word.120
(3) And again:
Well then, let him learn that the Word of God came, not
“being called Word figuratively,”121 as those men say, but being
true Word.122
And again:
than Word.123
And again:
115. Jn 6.35.
116. Jn 15.1, 5.
117. Jn 10.11. It is surprising that Eusebius leaves out three more self-
descriptions of Jesus according to John: Christ (Jn 4.26), the one who is from
above (Jn 8.23), the door (Jn 10.7), and the way (see Jn 14.6). He obviously
reacts against Marcellus, fr. 3 (43 K./H.) (4,18–6,11 V.), where this list of titles
in John has been taken to refer to the Word incarnate.
118. See Marcellus, fr. 3 (43 K./H.) (4,18–6,11 V.).
119. Section of Asterius, fr. 71 (130 V.).
120. Marcellus, fr. 94 (46 K./H.) (84,1–2 V.).
122. Marcellus, fr. 65 (45 K./H.) (56,1–2 V.).
123. Last sentence of Marcellus, fr. 52 (91 K./H.) (46,8–9 V.). Marcellus
often says that before the creation of the cosmos, there was nothing other
than God. But the context here indicates he is talking about different titles for
Christ, which he refuses to apply to the second person before the Incarnation.
238 Eusebius
It would be right to bring this sort of inquiry before Mar-
cellus when he says these things: (4) for what reason, my good
man, do you add for us [the words] “nothing other” and “only”?
For we correctly know that statement, “In the beginning was
the Word,”127 without the qualification “only,” but also the state-
ment that “the Word was God”128 and that “he was the light that
enlightens every man”129 and “only-begotten Son”130 and all the
other statements that have been proposed. But no one would
be able to show that it has been said that he was “only” Word
and “nothing other” than Word. (5) From where, then, comes
the audacity of this addition [“only”]? For why shouldn’t one
rather say that he was only Son and nothing other than Son?
Why shouldn’t one say that he was God and nothing other than
God? Why not “Light of the world”131 and nothing other than
this? Why not “Life”132 and nothing other [than this]? And one
could in all justice extend the same line of reasoning to similar
[statements]. (6) But just as anyone, if he were to say this, would
be accused of making a mistake (for he is all these things to-
gether, being one Son of God, and even if one rates one of
these as more important than others,133 according to each con-
ception of the different divine powers in him and titles), (7) so
also the man who said of the Word that he is only Word and
nothing else would rightly be said to be in error. For since only
the evangelist John called him “Word” and not only this, but
also other things, while the Savior addressed himself as “Light”
124. Heb 1.2.

125. Asterius, fr. 57 (118 V.).
126. Marcellus, fr. 5 (48 K./H.) (8,19–22 V.).
127. Jn 1.1.
128. Ibid.
129. Jn 1.9.
130. Jn 1.18.
131. Jn 8.12.
132. Jn 14.6.
133. Marcellus, fr. 3 (43 K./H.) (4,18–6,11 V.), claims that “Word” would be
the proper, not the improper or metaphorical, title of (the incarnate) Christ.
and “Truth” and “Life” and “Only-begotten Son” and the rest,
but nowhere as “Word,”134 how could it not be absurd to say
with regard to those things he called himself that he is one of
these and no other, and with regard to the evangelist’s title for
him, which addressed him as Word, to confirm that he is noth-
ing other (8) than Word? But “chiefly and truly” he [the evan-
gelist] also says “he is” “God.”135 For there was not one man who
addressed him as Word and another man who called him God,
but one and the same evangelist taught at the same time that
he was God and Word, having said, “and the Word was God,”136
and the same evangelist also called him “Light.” Therefore, has
not the Master and Savior himself <through>137 the evangelist
given witness concerning himself that he is chiefly and truly
the only-begotten Son and all the other things? But the one
who disregarded all [these] things says that he is chiefly and
truly only Word, and he adds that he would consequently be
only Word, and from that point he stumbles upon the analogy
of the human word.
Chapter 11
(1) And hearing him [called] “Light,” he does not fall to [the
level of] the corporeal light, nor does he say he is like the splen-
dor of the sun, but with regard to the Word, he proposes that he
is a communicating [word] and like the human word, so that
he says that at one time he rests in God and at another comes
forth from God, and becomes inside and outside him, just like
134. This is an accurate remark, as the self-descriptions of the Lord in the

New Testament do not include the title “Word.”
135. Second part of Marcellus, fr. 94 (46 K./H.) (84,2 V.). Here is one of
Klostermann’s most extensive corrections of the manuscript text, deriving
from a misunderstanding of the argument. He has overlooked that Eusebius
combines (deliberately or not?) a quotation from Marcellus (to which the first
part is referring) with John—as the following argument highlights—from
whom “God” is taken (John 1.1) to contradict Marcellus. See Marcellus, fr.
94 (46 K./H.), where this fragment ends not in the Johannine predication of
“God,” but “Logos/Word.” Klostermann’s entire addition has to be deleted.
136. Jn 1.1.
137. These brackets indicate a manuscript emendation.
240 Eusebius
the word in our own experience, the word that is called “inte-
rior” and the word that is (2) heard expressed by means of the
voice. Thus he says in these very words:
ones. For whatever we wish both to say and to do according to
our capacity, we do by means of our word.138
And again he says these things:
For before the fashioning of all there was a certain silence, as
one might expect, since the Word was in God.139
Then he continues:
For there was nothing else before but God alone; but when all
things were going to come into existence through the Word,
the Word came forth in active energy.140
(3) Having said such things about the Word, listen to how he
attempts to interpret the gospel saying, writing as follows:
something previously unknown among men, and calling him
Word of the Almighty, thus said, “‘In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”141
Not making use of [only] a single testimony, he reveals the
eternity of the Word.142
(4) And again he says,
Using three successive testimonies, he wishes to show the eter-
nity of the Word.143
And again, he adds,
138. Marcellus, fr. 89 (62 K./H.) (76,17–78,4 V.).

139. First sentence of Marcellus, fr. 76 (103 K./H.) (68,1–2 V.).
140. Excerpt from Marcellus, fr. 109 (121 K./H.) (102,19–20 V.).
141. Jn 1.1.
142. Marcellus, fr. 68 (51 K./H.) (58,6–10 V.).
143. Last sentence of Marcellus, fr. 6 (53 K./H.) (10,4–5 V.).
So that by saying, “In the beginning was the Word,” he might
144
show that the Word was in the Father by power (for God, “from
whom are all things,” is the source of all things that have come
to be);145 and by saying, “And the Word was with (5) God,”146
[he might show] that the Word was with God by activity (“for
all things were made through him, and without him not one
thing was made”);147 and by having said that “the Word was
God,”148 [he might show us] not to divide the divinity, since the
Word is in him and he himself is in the Word (for [the Word]
says, “The Father is in me, and I am in the Father”).149
Marcellus, denying the hypostasis of the only-begotten Son
of God through these many statements, calls the divine evan-
gelist to witness to his evil belief, as if he knew nothing other
than the Word, which at one time is active and at another rests
in God, and was nothing other than God himself.
Chapter 12
(1) And yet the great man who is at once both evangelist and
theologian, having mentioned the Word three times in this pas-
sage, has not only said that he is Word of God. For he did not
say, “In the beginning was the Word of God,” but indefinitely,
“In the beginning was the Word,”150 having left it to us to inves-
tigate what sort of Word he was. And again, he said, “And the
Word was with God,”151 when he could have said, “And the Word
of God was in God.” But he also said, “the152 Word was God,”153
and not “the Word was of God,” lest we assume that he is a cer-
tain activity of God (2) that communicates or makes something.
And indeed Marcellus, having thought that the Word of God is
144. Jn 1.1.
145. 1 Cor 8.6.
146. Jn 1.1.
147. Jn 1.3.
148. Jn 1.1.
150. Jn 1.1.
151. Ibid.
152. Klostermann’s addition of “and” is superfluous.
153. Jn 1.1.
242 Eusebius
himself eternal, that is to say, unbegotten, asserted this many
times, not comprehending that if, on the one hand, he should
say that the Word is other than God, there will be two eternal
beings (the Word and God) and no longer one source, but that
if, on the other, he should say that there is one eternal one, as-
serting that God is the same as the Word, he will blatantly agree
with Sabellius, introducing (3) that entity that is one and the
same, a Son-Father. Therefore, for him the Father will be begot-
ten and have suffered, and he himself will be the one who prays
to himself and says that he has been sent by himself and that he
is Son and only-begotten of himself; here Marcellus does not
speak truly, but lies with dissimulation through his ignorance.
And what other statement could be more impious than this? But
come, let us see what sort of Word the evangelist announces to
us when he says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God.”154
Chapter 13
(1) Thus the term “word,” as it has been utilized in the Greek
tongue, admits of various meanings:
1) That which has been placed in the rational soul, by which
it is possible for us to reason, has been called “word.”
2) And besides this, there is another meaning: that which
communicates something through the tongue and articulate
speech.
3) And in a third (2) sense, [“word”] refers to that which has
been laid down by an author in writing.
4) And already we have also been accustomed to call “word”
that seminal or vegetative power, by which those things that are
not yet growing but will soon come forth in actuality into the
light are stored up in potentiality in seeds.
5) And besides these, we have otherwise been accustomed to
call “word” that knowledge of a certain skill or science, which
also comprehends all the basic principles of these sorts of
things, such as medicine or architecture or geometry.
154. Ibid.
Chapter 14
(1) Well now, since the different senses of the term “word”
have been presented, and the evangelist has said without qual-
ification, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God,”155 it is fitting [for us] to
consider the sense intended [here], whether in the present in-
stance the evangelist conveys a certain peculiar use of the term
“word” besides those known to us, on the one hand having said
without qualification “word,” while on the other having added
some strange and paradoxical sense of the power unique to
him [the Word] in the statement “and the Word was God.”156
(2) For do not think, he says, that this, too, belongs to those
things that are in relation to something else, such as the word
that is in the soul or that is heard through the voice, or that
which is in physical seeds, or which subsists in mathematical
theorems. For all of these, belonging to those things that are
in relation to something else, are thought to exist in another
pre-existing being.157 But the God-Word is in need of no other
pre-existing thing so that, having come to be in it, he might
subsist, but he is in himself (3) living and subsisting, since he is
God. For “the Word was God.”158
And hearing that he is God, he [the evangelist] says, lest you
suppose that he also is without source and unbegotten like his
Father, learn that this God-Word was “in the beginning.”159
And what beginning he attributes to him, he [John] clarifies
immediately afterward, not having said, “and the Word was the
God,” with the addition of the article, lest he assert that [the
Word] was the God who is over all. But neither [did he say]
the Word was “in God,” lest he compare him to the likeness
of a human [word], but he said, “and the Word was (4) with
God.”160 For if he had said, “and the Word was in God,” having
155. Ibid.
156. Ibid.
157. οὐσίᾳ.
158. Jn 1.1.
159. Eusebius is using ἀρχή here in the sense of “source.”
160. Jn 1.1.
244 Eusebius
proposed that he is like an accident in a subject and one thing
that is in another thing, he would have introduced, as it were, a
composite God, supposing that he [God] is a (5) being161 with-
out rationality, while he renders the Word an accident in th[at]
being.162 Having thought this very thing, Marcellus causes the
Father and Son to become the same thing, calling the being163
Father, and the Word within him the Son, without realizing
that he who grants this, having supposed that God is without
[his] Word, would fall into the godless and impious claim of as-
serting that God is irrational,164 having the Word as an accident
within himself while not being himself (6) rational.165
But it is necessary to confess that that which is beyond the
universe is one single thing, divine, ineffable, good, simple, in-
composite, something of one form, that is God himself,166 In-
tellect itself, Word itself, Wisdom itself, Light itself, Life itself,
Beauty itself, Goodness itself, and whatever one could think is
greater than these, and rather beyond (7) all knowing and be-
yond all thought and conceiving. And [one must also confess]
the only-begotten Son of this [God], as if he were the image
of the Father who has been brought forth from him and [is]
altogether and in every way most like the one who has begot-
ten him, and [one must confess that] he, too, is God and In-
tellect and Word and Wisdom and Life and Light and Image
of the Good and the Beautiful itself; not that he himself is the
Father, but that he is the only-begotten Son of the Father; not
that he himself is the one who is, who is unbegotten and with-
out source, but the one who has been brought forth167 from the
latter and who acknowledges as source the one who has begot-
ten him.
(8) But if, denying these arguments, Marcellus should al-
lege that God and the Word within him were the same, defin-
161. οὐσίαν.
162. οὐσίᾳ.
164. I.e., literally, “without his word,” or “without his rationality.”
165. Literally, “not being himself Word.”
166. See below, ET 3.17.
167. φύντα.
ing God as incomposite and simple, see, then, how he confess-
es neither the Father nor the Son, but openly either professes
what Jews believe or introduces Sabellianism, because he al-
leges that the same is Father and Son. As a result, according to
him, the statement “In the beginning was the Word” is equiva-
lent to the statement “In the beginning was the God,” and the
statement “and the Word was with the God” is equivalent to the
statement “and the God was with the (9) God,” and likewise,
too, the third statement is the same as the statement “and God
was the God,” which statement indeed would, in addition to be-
ing incoherent, also be most illogical.
In addition, how can there be scope for the statement “and
all things came to be through him,” since the underlying real-
ity is one? For he [the evangelist] does not say that all things
have come to be “by” him or “from him” but “through him.”
Now the addition of the preposition “through” indicates that
which is of service, as the same evangelist further on shows, say-
ing, “The Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came
through Jesus Christ”;168 for as the Law, since it is not of human
invention nor comes from Moses himself, but from God, desig-
nated Moses as servant and helper for the giving of the Law to
human beings, and because of this it has been said, “The Law
was given through Moses,” so also, “grace came through Jesus
Christ,”169 the (10) Father having effected it through Christ.
Therefore, in the same way it has also been said, “All things
came to be through him,”170 since there was one who did the
making, himself having been assisted, so that one must seek
the maker of the universe as another, the one who caused all
things to subsist through the one who has been spoken of as
divine. And (11) who would this be? But he [Marcellus] could
not say. Since these things are so, it is necessary to confess that
the one who is spoken of as divine by the evangelist is neither
the God who is over all171 nor the Father himself, but the only-
begotten Son of the latter, who is not an accident in the Father,
168. Jn 1.17.
169. Ibid.
170. Jn 1.3.
171. Rom 9.5; Eph 4.6.
246 Eusebius
nor something that exists in him as in a subject, nor as one and
the same thing with God, but truly as Son, living and subsist-
ing, existing in the beginning and being with God and being
God, (12) through whom he fashions all things, so that it would
be correct, if one were to clarify and to say instead of “in the
beginning was the Word,” “in the beginning was the Son,” and
instead of “and the Word was with God,” “and the Son was with
the Father,” and instead of “and the Word was God,” “and the
Son was God.” And likewise that statement that follows right
after would also agree with these: for “all things came to be
through him, and without him not one thing came to be.”172
(13) Well then, rightly did the divine evangelist say that he was
in the beginning, having attributed to him a source, that is to
say, the begetting from the Father. For everything that is be-
gotten from something has the one who has begotten him as
source. And surely likewise he added, not “and the Word was in
God,” but “and the Word was with God,” teaching that the one
who was begotten, having also possessed the Father as source,
is not somehow far from the Father, nor has he been separated
or moved to some great distance from him, but that he is pres-
ent to him and exists together with him.
(14) And indeed, he [the Son] also taught this in Proverbs,
having said previously, “before all the hills, he begets me,”
having added afterwards, “when he established the heavens, I
was present with him.”173 Thus the Word, that is to say the only-
begotten Son, was with God, his own Father; he coexisted with
him and (15) was always and everywhere present with him.
And indeed [John] also shows this, when he says, “And the
Word was with God.” But since it was fitting for us to know also
to what rank he belonged, he necessarily added, “and the Word
was God.” For how was he who was begotten from the one and
only unbegotten God not going to be God? For if “that which
has been begotten of the flesh is flesh, and that which has been
begotten of the spirit is spirit,”174 according to the saving teach-
ing, it would follow, too, that that which has been begotten
172. Jn 1.3.
173. Prv 8.27.
174. Jn 3.6.
from God (16) would be God. For this reason also “the Word
was God,” even God [the] maker and fashioner of all things.
And indeed this same point the evangelist also showed immedi-
ately afterwards, having added “all things came to be through
him.”
Therefore, the Law, which was a tutor [given] through Mo-
ses, introducing God as maker of all in the story of the making
of the universe, in transmitting the elements and principles of
godly piety, taught, “In the beginning God made the heavens
and the (17) earth,”175 and what follows. And guiding the Jewish
people through them [these principles and elements], the Law
exhorted [them] to believe that the cosmos is created, so that
they might not worship the creation (18) instead of the “one
who created it.”176 But how and through whom God fashioned
all things, Moses had not yet handed over to those under him,
but “grace and truth came through Jesus Christ,”177 proclaim-
ing the mystery that had been hidden in silence by Moses, and
initiating the newer and mystical teaching for the Church of
God. Having shouted openly for all to hear, “In the beginning
God,”178 and “All things came to be through him, and (19) with-
out him not one thing came to be,”179 and having added still
to these, “In him was life, and the life was the light of human
beings. The light shines in the darkness,”180 and the things that
follow these, through [these] [the Church] teaches the Son of
God and the excellence of the divine light and of the life that
is in him, and how everything that has been said by Moses and
even that which is beyond these were established through him.
But Marcellus, grasping none of these things, is convicted now
of Judaism and then of Sabellianism: (20) as a Jew, claiming
that before the establishment of the cosmos there was noth-
ing except God alone (while the Church confesses that before
175. Gn 1.1.
176. Rom 1.25.
177. Jn 1.17.
178. Jn 1.1.
179. Jn 1.3.
180. Jn 1.4–5.
248 Eusebius
the establishment of the cosmos there were the Father and the
Son), while as Sabellius, declaring that Son and Father are one
and the same thing, and introducing him [the Son] as at one
time an interior word and at another as an expressed word. (21)
For although he pretends not to allow these terms, he clearly
[means them] when he says that [the Word] is at one time in
God and at another comes forth in active energy, and through
these statements he likens him to the human word.
To be sure, the divine evangelist established that the one
who was spoken of as God by him was Word in none of the
ways that have been recounted, but such as it was fitting to
think of the only-begotten Son of God: namely, that he was
Word in such a way that all things were established by the Word
and without the Word nothing came to be, but God and only-
begotten in such a way that he alone was truly Son of the God
who is over all—really a genuine and beloved Son, (22) who is
made like his Father in all things. For this reason he was also
truly light in such a way that he sheds intellectual and ratio-
nal light upon the souls made in his image. For this reason he
[John] says that he is the light not of all things, but only of hu-
man beings. For he [John] said, “He was the light that enlight-
ens every man coming into the world.”181 Likewise, he was also
truly life, in the sense that he provides to all living things the
stream of living water that flows from him. And if you consid-
ered each conception of the divine powers in him, you would
find that they also were true names of him. For in all things the
Son of God was truth, which indeed he himself shows, saying,
“I am the truth.”182
Chapter 15
(1) But this novice author neither understands nor knows
these things, nor is he aware that he is ignorant of them, al-
though he indeed even boasts that he knows how they are.
Come then, having taken these matters up again, let us listen
to how he likens [the Word] to the word in human beings, to
181. Jn 1.9.
182. Jn 14.6.
the word in thought and the word in expression, writing in this
way:
And this is easy to know, I think, for those who ponder well a
small and humble example from our experience. For it is not
possible for anyone to separate the word from a man in power
and hypostasis. For the word is one and the same with the
man, and is separated [from him] in no other way than by the
activity alone of the deed.183
(2) Indeed in these remarks he has used the expressed word
as an image, while he [has used] the interior word as an image
in the following remarks when he says:
For God was in need of no other preparatory material, such as
matter or any other human [material] for [the] establishment,
but this which he had ready in his own mind. Since, then, it
was impossible for God to contemplate the establishment of
the heavens apart from the Word and the wisdom that belongs
to the Word, he [the prophet Solomon] rightly said, “When he
established the heavens, I was present with him.”184
(3) Then, proceeding right on, he shows that the Word of
God is also at the same time interior, writing in this way:
For who either of the holy angels or of just men was so trust-
worthy as to undo the punishment ordained for him by the
mouth of God, if not the Word himself, who coexisted and
who formed along with [him], to whom the Father said, “Let us
make man . . .”185
(4) And immediately after this, he clarifies what sort of
Word he is, introducing [it] when he says:
But if, using a small human example from our experience,
one were to explain the divine activity as through an image,
it would be as if some man knowledgeable in making statues,
wishing to form a statue, first considers within himself its
type and character and then figures out how much width and

185. Gn 1.26; first part of Marcellus, fr. 98 (58 K./H.) (88,11–14 V.).
250 Eusebius
height would be suitable for it. He scrutinizes the proportion
of the whole in each part, and after having prepared the right
amount of bronze186 and outlined beforehand in his mind the
future statue with a clear mental picture of it, he is conscious
of the cooperation of his reason, with which he makes his
calculations and with which he is accustomed to do everything
(for nothing beautiful comes to be without reason).187 When
he begins this perceptible work, he exhorts himself as he
would another, saying, “Come now, let us make, let us form a
statue.” Just so does God, the Lord of the universe, in making
a living statue from earth, exhort himself with nothing but his
own Word, saying, “Let us make man . . .”188
Through these remarks [Marcellus] clearly attributes to
God both an interior word with which someone calculates and
an expressed word with which he converses, having supposed
that the Word that is in God is also like the one in us.
Chapter 16
(1) Therefore, there is no need to reconsider how all these
statements serve to deny the Son of God. I think that it is
enough to ask this much: if indeed there was one God and
nothing else, neither Father nor Son, why did Scripture fab-
ricate such names? And why does even Marcellus himself dis-
simulate, calling the Son not Son, but Word? And since he has
used that word that is in human beings as a model, it should be
said that while not every man has a son, every man is rational
and has within himself a connatural reason. (2) Therefore, a
son is something other than [a man’s] reason. Thus, if he [Mar-
cellus] were to allege that God has within himself a word and
nothing else, [a word] by which he both thought and conversed
with himself, saying, “Let us make man,”189 why does he also
call him unnecessarily Son? Why does he mislead the Church?
Why does he pretend to believe in the Son of God when he
186. See Prv 8.27.

187. Again, λόγος in the sense of rationality.
188. Gn 1.26; middle part of Marcellus, fr. 98 (58 K./H.) (88,18–90,7 V.).
189. Gn 1.26.
does not, making a show of calling the Word that is in God
“Son,” while the image clearly teaches us to make a great dis-
tinction between the word that is implanted in the soul and the
Son who was begotten from someone [else] and who himself
(3) subsists and lives and is active? But “not I,” he will say, as
is to be expected, “but the divine evangelist addressed him as
Word; from this it follows that we too should make this confes-
sion [with him].” And even I myself say yes [to that].
Chapter 17
(1) Nevertheless, I do not think it fitting to take the expres-
sion in any other sense than that in which the evangelist him-
self defines the “Word” when he teaches the disciples. And
clearly he showed what sort of word this was, adding this im-
mediately afterwards when he says, “And the Word was God.”190
Indeed, he could have said, “And the Word was the God,” with
the addition of the article, if indeed he thought that the Father
and the Son were one and the same and that the (2) Word him-
self was the God who is over all191 —but he did not write in such
a way. For it would have been necessary to have said either that
the Word was of God or that the Word was the God, with the
addition of the article, if he were going to make what he wrote
agree with the thought of Marcellus. But now he also shows
that the Word himself is God in a similar way as the God with
whom he was. For, having said before, “and the Word was with
God,” he continues, saying, “and the Word was God,” not only
teaching us more clearly to think first that the Father of the
Word, with whom the Word was, is God, the one who is beyond
all,192 and then not to be ignorant that, in addition, after him
his Word, the only-begotten Son, was not himself (3) the God
who is over all,193 but was also himself God. For the conjunction
“and” connects the divinity of the Son to the Father. For this rea-
son he [John] says, “And the Word was God” so that we might
190. Jn 1.1.
191. Rom 9.5; Eph 4.6.
192. Ibid.
193. Ibid.
252 Eusebius
see that he who is over all,194 with whom the Word was, is God,
and hear that the Word himself is God, as an image of the God,
and an image not as in inanimate material but as in a living
son, who also has been made like, in the closest way possible, to
the archetypal divinity of the Father. (4) But since it seemed a
good idea to Marcellus to compare the Word of God to the hu-
man word, we will also say it is better by far, if one uses the hu-
man word as an image, to have used instead this example and
to say that the mind is the father of the word in our experience,
being other than the word. For no man ever has come to know
what the mind is in its being,195 but it is like a king, who, seat-
ed within his secret treasures, takes counsel as to what things
must be done; and his word, having been begotten from [his]
innermost chambers as from a father, (5) is made known to all
outside. Therefore, they may partake of the benefit of the word,
but no one ever knows the unseen and invisible mind, which
indeed is the (6) father of the word. In the same way, then, but
rather beyond every image and example, the perfect Word of
God, the all-powerful king, not being composed of syllables
and words and names like the expressed word of men, but liv-
ing and subsisting like an only-begotten Son of God, goes forth
from the paternal divinity and kingship, and he refreshes the
entire world with the gifts of his abundance, causing all crea-
tures to overflow with life and reason and wisdom and light
and participation in every good. The Father and God of the
universe, who is transcendent, however, is unapproachable and
unfathomable to all because of his ineffable and invisible intel-
ligence, for which reason he has also been said to dwell in “un-
approachable light.”196 (7) But the one who is unapproachable
and unfathomable to all would be the Father, while there is the
other, who is nearer to all since indeed he governs all things
with the Father’s consent (for which reason it has been said,
not of the Father, but of the Son, that “he was in the world, and
the world was made through him”),197 and the one was beyond
194. Ibid.
196. 1 Tm 6.16.
197. Jn 1.10.
the universe and over all things, “dwelling in unapproachable
light,”198 while the other is omnipresent through all things and
[is] in all things by his careful providence—thus only in this
way can the image of the human word be compared to him.
But since these things have been shown by us, it is fitting for
somebody who wants to learn to ask:
Chapter 18
(1) Why at the beginning of his book did the evangelist pro-
claim the only-begotten Son of God as Word? To this, we will
answer: because of the hidden prophecies about him of long
ago. For to each prophet, it was said, “the Word of the Lord
that came”—for example, “to Isaiah,”199 and “the beginning
of the Word of the Lord in Hosea,”200 and “the Word of the
Lord that (2) came to Joel,”201 and “The Word of the Lord came
to Jonah,”202 and likewise “to Micah.”203 And to the remaining
prophets as to each one that expression came was added (for
the divine Scripture correctly and necessarily indicates that
[the Word] was in none of the prophets but came to each, to
the extent that the power of each was capable of admitting [it],
coming to it and providing to the soul of each the appropriate
spirit from [him]). And understandably, in the present case,
the evangelist was about to announce the intelligible economy
of the Word. He no longer teaches that he came as one to an-
other, as he came to the ancients, but that he assumed flesh
and became man. And since he was going to announce to all
his saving advent to human beings, when he says next, “and the
Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” he necessarily goes
back to the beginning, 204 showing of what sort the (3) Word
was who just recently became incarnate, and he describes him
198. 1 Tm 6.16.
199. Is 2.1.
200. Hos 1.2.
201. Jl 1.1.
202. Jon 1.1.
203. Mi 1.1.
204. Jn 1.14. Eusebius uses ἀρχή here to mean “source” or “origin.”
254 Eusebius
as God, announcing at the same time the knowledge of him
and of his divine appearance among human beings. Then,
since the ancients knew beforehand from the divine Scriptures
that the Word had come to each prophet, he himself [the evan-
gelist] announces the more divine and excellent source of him,
which none of the prophets (4) proclaimed to human beings
so obviously and explicitly. For this reason, in handing over the
mystery concerning the Word that had been unknown and hid-
den, he shouted in a great voice to all, saying, “In the beginning
God; all things came to be through him, (5) and without him
not one thing came to be.”205 For he says that if, having been
taught by the earlier holy writings, you have previously learned
in times long ago that the Word of the Lord came now to this
prophet and likewise again to another and yet again to anoth-
er, even so now it must be proclaimed to all not that he came,
but that he “was in the beginning” and that he “was God” and
that “all things came to be” through him, and that that very
God-Word through whom all things came to be, by the Father’s
love for humankind, (6) “became flesh and dwelt among us.”206
John, the great disciple and apostle of Christ, announced
these things, instructing all human beings in the new and re-
cent mysteries of the Savior: not that God was rational, 207 nor
that he himself ponders within himself and converses with him-
self, saying, “Let us make man,”208 nor that he has used words
that command what he wishes to be done. For every man who
denied (7) the Son of God would say these things. And indeed,
Marcellus does just this when he flees to the ancient Scripture
as to a place of refuge and tries to bring together those things
that were enjoined upon the Jewish people in their infancy re-
garding the prohibition against worshiping idols and the ob-
ligation to acknowledge and revere only one God. And there
were many instances of teaching available to him concerning
the one God, it having been handed over for their [the Jews’]
205. Jn 1.3.
206. Jn 1.14.
207. λογικός.
208. Gn 1.26.
benefit then and in times since, whenever the Jews fell into idol-
atry. Indeed then, fleeing to this position and having barricad-
ed himself in by his Jewish hardness of heart as in a fortress, he
proposed the denial of the Son of God.
Chapter 19
(1) In any case, listen to how he has used such words, writing
in this way in these words:
Well, then, who does Asterius think it is who says, “I am who
am,”209 the Son or the Father? For he said that “there are two
hypostases of the Father and of the Son,” looking at the human
flesh that the Word of God assumed and because of it imagin-
ing that this is so, in this way separating the Son of God from
the Father, just as someone might separate the son of a man
from [his] natural father.210
(2) And he immediately adds:
Well then, if [Asterius] will say that the Father said these things
to Moses while separating himself from the Son, he will con-
fess that the Son is not God. For how is it possible for the one
who says, “I am who am,” not to confess at the same time that
“the one who is” is himself in contradistinction to him who is
not? But if he were to allege that the Son said this “I am who
am” while separated in hypostasis, he will be thought to say
the same thing again concerning the Father [namely, that the
Father is not]. And each of these is impious.211
(3) And again, trying to show that the Father and Son are
one, he writes in this way:
For [Christ] himself confesses, “The Father is in me, and I
am in the Father.”212 And that he said this neither simply nor
carelessly is also clear from another apostolic statement. For
he who said, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism,” said, “one
209. Ex 3.14.
210. See Asterius, fr. 52 (116 V.); Marcellus, fr. 85 (63 K./H.) (74,1–5 V.).
211. Marcellus, fr. 86 (64 K./H.) (74,6–11 V.).
212. Jn 10.38.
256 Eusebius
God and Father,” “who is over all and through all and in all.”213
You see that he does not deviate here from the agreement [of
Scripture], but here, too, has thought the same thing. For hav-
ing said “one Lord,” he said “one God,”214 so that whenever he
calls to mind the one Lord, he might also include the Father,
and so that whenever he speaks about the Father, he might give
testimony that the Word is not outside of God.215
(4) Having said these things, Marcellus then brings togeth-
er more Scriptures from the Old (5) Testament to show that
God has no Son. In any case, alleging that God is an indivisible
monad, he shows that the same is Father and the same is Son,
writing in this fashion:
What then? Unless, taking note of the Spirit, we were to think
that the monad is indivisible in power, would we not commit
an error, since the Word clearly teaches us, “You will worship
the Lord your God, (6) and you will serve him alone”?216 He
also proclaims the same thing through the gospel according
to Mark. For when one of the scribes came to him and asked
him which was the first of the commandments, he answered
him in this way, having said, “The first of all is ‘Hear, O Israel,
the Lord our God, the Lord is one, and you shall love the Lord
your God with all your soul and all your strength.’ This is the
first commandment. And the second one is like this—‘you will
love (7) your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other com-
mandment greater than these.” “And the scribe said to him,
‘You are right, teacher; you have truly said that God is one and
there is no other beside him.’”217 (8) But the scribe, who seems
to have learned piety through the Law, appears to praise the
response of the Savior when he says, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord
your God is one,” and to confirm by an oath that he spoke well,
for he says, “You have truly said that God is one and that there
is no other beside him.” But those who boast that they know
the mysteries of the New Testament, these men also wish to
213. Eph 4.5–6.

214. Ibid.
215. Marcellus, fr. 90 (75 K./H.) (78,5–13 V.).
216. Mt 4.10; cf. Lk 4.8; Dt 6.4–5.
217. Mk 12.29–32.
invent a second god, divided in hypostasis and power from the
Father.218
(9) He adds to these remarks, making out that God is one
and that there is no Son in these comments:
But that the divine Scripture knows to call the monad “Lord”
and “God” has also already become clear from what has been
said before, in what God said to his servant Moses. “God said
again to Moses, ‘Speak thus to the sons of Israel: the Lord,
the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of
Isaac, and the God of Jacob has sent me to you.’”219 You see how
[Scripture] addresses the same as Lord and God, demonstrat-
ing to us, (10) then, one person.220 Again, Scripture likewise
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.’”221 You hear how through the pronoun [“I”], [Scripture]
declares that there is only one God. (11) And again, a little later
[God] says, “I am the Lord your God,”222 saying that he himself
is Lord and God. What do we learn through another Scripture?
[Scripture] says, “Know this day, and do not be confused in
your mind, that the Lord your God, this is God in heaven above
and on the earth beneath, and there is no other beside him.”223
And again, in the same [book] of Deuteronomy, it says, “Hear,
O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord, and you shall love the
Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your (12) soul,
and with all your mind.”224 And again, in the same [book]: “See,
see that I am, and there is no God beside me; I kill and I make
alive; I wound and I heal.”225 How, then, did Asterius, pretend-
ing “to follow the holy Scriptures simply and scrupulously,”226
219. Ex 3.15.
220. πρόσωπον.
221. Ex 20.2–3.
222. Ex 20.5.
223. Dt 4.39.
224. Dt 6.4–5.
225. Dt 32.39.
226. Asterius, fr. 50 (114 V.); see also Asterius, fr. 9 (86 V.).
258 Eusebius
not know this passage, which says, “The Lord your God, this
is God in heaven above and on earth beneath, and there is no
other beside him,”227 and that “He is one,” and that “there is no
other beside him”?228
(13) And after other statements, he again adds to these, say-
ing,
Then how will the holy prophet Jeremiah not openly refute
[Asterius] for teaching otherwise? For, prophesying to us
regarding the Savior, he said as follows: “This is God; no
other can be compared to him! He found the whole way to
knowledge and gave it to Jacob his servant and to Israel whom
he loved. After these things he appeared on earth and lived
among men.”229
(14) And again he adds, saying,
But the Father must be in the Word, even if it does not seem
so to Asterius and to those who think the same things as he
does. For this is the opinion of the divine prophet Isaiah, who
says through the Holy Spirit, “And they will bow down to you,
and they will make supplication to you; because God is in you,
and there is no other beside you. For you are God.”230 You see
how completely he refutes the crafty malice of those who teach
differently.231
(15) And he continues:
And if you wish to hear still another prophecy from the same
[prophet] that confirms for us that there is one God, he [the
prophet] says, “I am God, the first, and to the last; I am.”232 For
the “I” is indicative of one person, 233 for the two words show
one person234 to us. For having said “I,” [the Lord] also adds
227. Dt 4.39.
228. Dt 6.4; 4.35, 39; Marcellus, fr. 92 (78 K./H.) (80,13–82,12 V.).
229. Bar 3.36–38; Marcellus, fr. 93 (79 K./H.) (82,13–18 V.).
230. Is 45.14–15.
231. Marcellus, fr. 95 (55 K./H.) (84,3–8 V.).
232. Is 41.4.
233. προσώπου.
234. πρόσωπον.
“am,” so that through the two parts of the statement, pronoun
and verb, the monad of the divinity (16) might be attested to.
And if one should need yet another testimony, I will again pres-
ent to him the same prophet saying, “I am the first, and I am
the last; besides me there is no god.”235 If Asterius thinks that
the Son, “being separated in hypostasis from the Father, is like
a son of man,”236 being scandalized by the human flesh that he
assumed for our sake, let him show us who says these things.
(17) For the text here also speaks of one person.237 Therefore,
who is the one who says, “There is no god besides me”? Let him
also hear still another prophecy, which states, “A righteous god
and a savior, there is none besides me.”238 If he were to think
that there were two gods, 239 it would be necessary for him to
confess that the other one was neither righteous nor a savior.
But if [that other god] is neither righteous nor a savior, how
can he still be God? For there is declared to be one who is
righteous and a savior. And again, [the prophet] says, “Before
me, there was no other god, and after me there shall be none.
I, I am God, and besides (18) me there will be no savior.”240 If
[Asterius] wishes to hear yet another prophetic saying, which
was perhaps in some way spoken with regard to him and those
disposed [to think] as he does regarding the divinity, let him
hear the same Isaiah saying, “Repent, those who have gone
astray, return in [your] heart, and remember the former things
of old; for I am ‘the’ God, and there is no other besides (19)
me.”241 [Isaiah] did not say, “I am a God,” so that through the
addition of the article he clearly demonstrated that there is
one God. What also [did] Hosea the prophet [say]? Doesn’t
he also testify to the same things, when he says, “I led you out
of Egypt, and you shall know no other god besides me, and
besides me there is no savior”?242 And again, Malachi says, “Did
not one God (20) create you, and is there not one Father of you
235. Is 44.6.
236. Asterius, fr. 54 (118 V.).
238. Is 45.21.
240. Is 43.10–11.
241. Is 46.8–9.
242. Hos 13.4.
260 Eusebius
all?”243 But Asterius will probably say that David said nothing
about this, even though he is the oldest of all the prophets next
to Moses, and that because of this, it is doubtful whether or
not it is right to think there are “two gods divided in hyposta-
sis.”244 Therefore, so that [Asterius] might not say this, I think it
logical to show to him [David] saying the same things as those
aforementioned holy men. He says, “Hear, my people, and I
will speak to you; [hear,] Israel, and I will give witness to you. If
you listen to me, there will be no (21) strange god among you;
you shall not bow down to a foreign god. For I am the Lord
your God.”245 Does not the one who reveals himself and says “I
am” clearly say that there is only one God, that is, himself?246
Chapter 20
(1) Marcellus was gathering together all these [quotations]
and still more than these for the purpose of denying the Son,
not having realized, because of his ignorance, that this sort of
teaching was provided to those [prophets] on account of the
hardness of heart of the Jewish people. For the Holy Spirit was
not able (2) to hand down through the prophets of God the
perfect rule of reverence toward God to human beings who
were imperfect in [their] hearts. And for this reason he thus
commanded them by law to perform sacrifices and bodily
circumcision and the keeping of the Sabbath and abstinence
from certain sorts of meat, and physical ablutions and corporal
blessings, [which included,] yes, to be sure, promises of a land
flowing with “milk and honey,”247 but not a kingdom of heaven.
But our Savior and Lord himself, when asked why Moses com-
manded the man who wished to dismiss his wife to give her
a bill of divorce, 248 commands the opposite, and gave the uni-
versal teaching, having said, “For your hardness (3) of heart,
243. Mal 2.10.

244. See Asterius, fr. 54–55 (118 V.).
245. Ps 80.8–10 (RSV 81.8–10).
246. Marcellus, fr. 97 (76 K./H.) (86,1–88,10 V.).
247. Ex 3.8.
248. See Mt 19.7.
Moses wrote this; but from the beginning it was not so.” Thus
249
he also would have said the same thing if someone had asked,
“Why do you suppose Moses and the prophets after him, having
at one time commanded [the Israelites] to worship one God,
did not teach [them] the knowledge of the Son?” For since they
were continuously being led astray by the error of polytheism,
they were not capable of receiving the grace of the gospel. For
this reason, then, on account of their hardness of heart, they
[Moses and the prophets] gave them the teaching about the
one God, instructing them to turn away from thinking that
there were many gods, to turn instead toward belief in one God.
(4) Thus Moses provided an incomplete teaching to those who
were with him because of their incomplete understanding, just
as he made no mention of the creation of angels in the account
of the making of the world, and yet the prophets who came af-
ter these mention not only angels but also divine powers and
holy spirits and the super-celestial servants of God, teaching
about whom Daniel said, “A thousand thousands served him,
and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before (5) him.”250
But Moses handed down his account in silence about all of
these—and yet he did so not because he was ignorant of them,
having in fact received beforehand accurate knowledge of all
things by the divine Spirit; even so, he made no (6) mention
at all of those things as having been made by God in the mak-
ing of the world. And one would say that the reason for this
was none other than the people’s hardness of heart, just as the
Savior himself taught. And you would also learn from the writ-
ings of the New Testament that there are countless other things
in the constitution of the universe that are not conveyed at all
in the writings of Moses. Hence he made no mention of the
principalities or powers or world rulers or “spiritual hosts of
wickedness,”251 with which (7) the divine Apostle says we have
to take up battle. Why then? Since one cannot clearly learn
from either Moses or the remaining prophets the accounts con-
cerning these, should we disbelieve the Apostle? Or whenever
249. Mt 19.8; Mk 10.5.

250. Dn 7.10.
251. See Eph 6.12.
262 Eusebius
the same [Apostle] recalls once again the rank of the greater
powers, saying that Christ is seated at the right hand of God “in
the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power
and dominion, and above every name that is named, (8) not
only in this age but also in that which is to come,”252 and again,
whenever he names thrones and dominions and principalities
and authorities, saying, “for in him all things were created, in
heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or
dominions or principalities or authorities,”253 is it not therefore
fitting to accept these things, even though neither Moses nor
the remaining prophets had received anything about these be-
forehand? Or will we also say the same thing about these—that
those who were “stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and
ears”254 were not able to believe what was said about them?
The prophets of God did not reveal anything to them of the
Jerusalem above, as Paul, disclosing it plainly to the Church of
Christ, proclaimed even about it, saying, “But the Jerusalem
above is free; and she is our mother,”255 and, “You have come
to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly
Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and
to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled (9) in heav-
en.”256 Let Marcellus respond to these, if he is able to produce
the teaching about them from the ancient Scriptures. (10) But
if he should not find [anything to say], let him give the reason
on account of which the prophets of God were silent regarding
all these matters and countless others akin to these, concern-
ing which the same Apostle implored God on our behalf, “that
we may have power to comprehend with all the saints what is
the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the
(11) love of God, which surpasses knowledge.”257 But even our
Savior himself revealed the greatest mysteries concerning the
kingdom of heaven, the consummation of the universe and
252. Eph 1.20–21.

253. Col 1.16.
254. Acts 7.51.
255. Gal 4.26.
256. Heb 12.22–23.
257. Eph 3.18–19.
the promises, at one time through parables and at another
through the secrets [he revealed] to his disciples, to whom he
said, “To you it has been given to know the mysteries of God.”258
One would not be able to discover (12) their equivalent from
Moses or from the remaining prophets. What then? Since these
things were not given to the Jewish people, but were reserved
until the opportune time for the Church of Christ, is it nec-
essary in addition to this that we put aside the grace that was
given to us, or rather that we give thanks to him who deemed
us worthy of this sort of knowledge? For the same reason, there-
fore, it would be appropriate to accept the teachings about
the Son from his New Testament, not concerned if the men
of God did not reveal the knowledge of him to the people of
hardened hearts, dispensing at the proper (13) time the teach-
ing concerning him. For it did not seem advantageous to hand
over the mystery concerning the Father and Son at that time to
men who were weighed down with the error of polytheism, to
whom neither did he reveal the words concerning the subordi-
nate powers, lest on this pretext those who imagine that their
God is father of “gods and men”259 fall into Greek polytheism.
(14) For this very reason, the Word, protecting them from this
sort of error, announced the one God, although he surely did
not deny that the same was Father. And he taught them to wor-
ship the true [God], and he commanded them to acknowledge
none but him, while he, to be sure, did not deny that he is a
father. And if he called him Lord and God and just and sav-
ior, it still would not prevent anyone from thinking that he is
Father of his only-begotten and beloved (15) Son. Therefore,
if the Father or the Son should say, “I am who am,”260 the state-
ment would be true of each. For the Father would be “He who
is,” being himself alone “God who is over all and through all
and in all,”261 as the divine Apostle taught. And the Son himself
would also speak the truth, calling himself “He who is” since he
alone is the only-begotten Son of “He who is.” But since he also
258. See Mt 13.11.

259. Klostermann: Homer, Il. 8.1.52.
260. Ex 3.14.
261. Eph 4.6.
264 Eusebius
exists as image of the invisible God, in this way he would be
image of him, with respect to the fact that [God] himself alone
is “He who is.”262 For this reason [as sole image of the invisi-
ble God who is “He who is”], he also calls himself “He who is,”
since throughout the divinely inspired Scripture he calls him-
self both God and Lord just as the Father was.
Chapter 21
(1) It is also possible to know this from the oracle given to
Moses. Thus Scripture says, “And God spoke to Moses and said
to him, ‘I am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to
Jacob, as their God.’”263 You see how he said that he himself ap-
peared to the fathers. And when he appeared, Scripture again
gives witness, saying, “And the Lord God appeared to Abraham
by the oak of Mamre, as he sat at the door . . .”264 And how did he
appear but in human form? And whom should one believe this
to be other than the Son of God? Indeed, [Christ] also showed
this in the gospels, saying to the Jews, “Your father Abraham
rejoiced that he was to see my day, (2) and he saw [it] and was
glad.”265 And as his listeners wondered, he added to the state-
ment: “Before Abraham was, I am,”266 showing in the clearest
fashion possible his own pre-existence. What, then, does the
statement convey other than that he is the Son of God, who gave
the oracle to Moses and said, “I am who am”?267 For he taught
that he himself appeared to Abraham. And how (3) he was “He
who is” has been stated.
And the great Apostle Paul knew the Son of God was the
mediator of the giving of the Law through Moses, which he
taught, saying, “The Law was ordained through angels by [the]
262. I.e., the Son and nobody else. This means that the Father “alone was,”
while the Son “was the alone begotten” (begotten without a helper), whereas
all others are begotten with the help of the Son; hence the “alone” marks the
Son as sole “image” of the Father; see Asterius, fr. 10 (86 V.).
263. Ex 6.2–3.
264. Gn 18.1.
265. Jn 8.56.
266. Jn 8.58.
267. Ex 3.14.
hands of a mediator. Now a mediator implies more than one.”268
Therefore, the one who spoke to Moses was the mediator, me-
diating by means of that [law] for (4) the salvation of human
beings even before the assumption of the flesh. The same Apos-
tle showed that this was Jesus Christ, having said, “There is one
God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus
Christ.”269 Therefore, whether the statement “I am who am” was
made to Moses from his own person270 or the Father was the one
who uttered this statement through him, in each case (5) the
statement would be true. Well, then, let Marcellus not be puz-
zled, using, as he thinks, an irrefutable syllogism, when he says,
Well then, who does Asterius think it is who says, “I am who
am,”271 the Son or the Father?272
then implying next that if the Father were “He who is,” the Son
will not be God, because
. . . he [Asterius] says that the “one who is” is himself in contradis-
tinction to him who is not? But if he were to allege that the Son
said this, “I am who am,” while separated in hypostasis, he will
be thought to say the same thing again concerning the Father
[namely, that the Father is not]. And each of these is impious.273
(6) Saying these things, the same man has fallen into each
of these absurd claims, on the one hand asserting that the “one
who is” is one, while on the other hand denying the other. And
who this is, he should know. For he will either, having granted
the Father, deny the Son, or having accepted the Son alone, he
will dismiss the Father. Rather, he will be convicted of knowing
neither the Father nor the Son, because in granting one alone
he tosses the other aside.
And if he should hear God saying, “I am the Lord your God,
who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of
268. Gal 3.19–20.

269. 1 Tm 2.5.
271. Ex 3.14.
273. Second part of Marcellus, fr. 86 (64 K./H.) (74,6–11 V.).
266 Eusebius
bondage. (7) You shall have no other gods before me,”274 again,
let his soul not be troubled at this, but let him listen to those
things that follow immediately afterwards. For having said, “You
shall have no other gods before me,” he continues, “You shall not
make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything
that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is
in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or
serve them. For I (8) the Lord your God am a jealous God.”275 You
see how he gave the command, lest [the people] be led astray by
the polytheistic error of the Gentiles, that they should acknowl-
edge him alone as God and Lord. And who was this? The Son,
who had the image of the Father within himself, and ordered
these things on his own authority for those who were sick with
idolatry. For as “all things were made through him,”276 the Father
having caused to subsist the being277 of all creatures through
the Savior, so the Father himself handed over to human beings
the knowledge of (9) and piety toward him through the Son as
a mediator. And the Apostle taught this, writing in these very
words to the Galatians, in which he said, “The Law was ordained
through angels by [the] hand of a mediator. Now a mediator
(10) implies more than one; but God is one.”278 And if he should
say, “See, see that I am, and there is no God beside me,”279 again
it was the Father claiming this through the Son as through an
image and mediator. For if, then, Isaiah the prophet says, “Sons I
have reared and brought up,”280 and again, “Israel does not know
me, and my people do not understand me,”281 and again, “I com-
manded the stars, and by my hand I made firm the heavens,”282
and everything else of this sort, will we not say that Isaiah said
these things, but that God was speaking through him and in
him [the prophet]? Will it, then, not be fitting also with regard to
274. Ex 20.2–3.
275. Ex 20.4–5.
276. Jn 1.3.
277. τὴν τῶν γενητῶν ἁπάντων οὐσίαν ὑποστησαμένου.
278. Gal 3.19–20.
279. Dt 32.39.
280. Is 1.2.
281. Is 1.3.
282. Is 45.12.
the only-begotten Son of God [to say] that the Father needed to
confirm these things through him for those who stood in need
of these sorts of commandments? These men were idolaters, as
the same Scripture teaches, saying, “And the Lord said, ‘Where
are [their] gods, in whom they trusted, of whose sacrifices you
eat the fat and of whose libations you drink the wine? Let them
arise and help you, and let them become your protectors.’”283 For
to these remarks was added the statement “See, see that I am,
and there is no God beside me.”284
Chapter 22
(1) Well now, if pronouncing countless times through the
prophet he proclaimed, “Besides me there is no God,”285 and,
“A righteous God and a savior, there is none besides me,”286
and, “You shall know no other god besides me, and besides me
there is no savior,”287 and all the other remarks akin to these
that are referenced in the other prophets, God was also on that
basis “in Christ reconciling the world to himself,”288 and it was
the Father himself who was saying these things to human be-
ings through the only-begotten Son as through an interpreter.
And indeed, the Son himself handed down in the gospels,
teaching [the people] to acknowledge only one God, when
he said, “And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only
true (2) God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”289 There-
fore, he himself was the true God, who alone is one and be-
sides whom there is no other, who enjoined these things upon
the Jewish nation when they had fallen into idolatry, not only
through the prophets but [also] through his own Son.
Thus when Isaiah (or rather, when God through him) said,
“Besides me there is no God; who is like me?”290 and right after,
283. Dt 32.37–38.
284. Dt 32.39.
285. Is 44.6.
286. Is 45.21.
287. Hos 13.4.
288. 2 Cor 5.19.
289. Jn 17.3.
290. Is 44.6–7.
268 Eusebius
“You are witnesses if there is a god besides me,” he continued,
“and there were none then. All who make idols and graven im-
ages [do so] in vain, creating shame (3) for themselves.”291 And
throughout the whole of his prophecy you would find the inan-
imate statues struck down, and in each prophet you will like-
wise find the one God proclaimed for the purpose of quashing
the error of believing in many gods. Thus even we were accus-
tomed, when confronted by the superstitions of the Greeks in
conversations with them, to dispense [only] at the opportune
moment the teaching concerning Christ, in the meantime pro-
ducing for them refutations of their idolatrous error and de-
fending with convincing arguments the claim that God is one.
(4) Well now, let Marcellus learn, if, having grown old in the
episcopate of the Church of Christ, he even now has not yet
learned that the knowledge of the hidden mystery regarding
the Son of God was in no way granted to the people of old, who
had slipped into idolatry, and that the “mystery hidden for ages
and generations”292 was dispensed to his Church alone through
his grace, in which mystery the teaching of the holy Trinity of
Father and Son and Holy (5) Spirit was included. But the fellow
[Marcellus] who has gathered together all these statements, as
many as even a teacher of Jews could utter concerning circum-
cision while conversing in a synagogue of the Jews, thinks him-
self so high and mighty because he casts these things before
the disciples of Christ, not knowing that one who is a Jew in his
flesh could say more than he. And so he boasts of these things,
making a spectacle of himself while he distorts the true divine
teaching regarding our Savior.
Chapter 23
(1) Therefore, then, since he does not understand the state-
ments of the holy Apostle, who taught in various ways that he
is the image of God, through those remarks of his that I have
been laying out, it is necessary from this point forward to un-
derstand that the Church of God does not proclaim two gods.
291. Is 44.8.
292. Col 1.26.
For it does not introduce two unbegottens or two things with-
out source, as has been said many times by us, nor does it in-
troduce two beings293 parallel to one another because of their
equal glory, and for this reason not two gods, but it teaches
one source and God and that the same is Father of the only-
begotten and beloved Son, just as it also teaches one image of
the “invisible God,”294 which is the same as his only-begotten
and beloved Son. And even if the Apostle in speaking of God
should call the Father “the blessed and (2) only Sovereign,”295
and again, “who alone has immortality and dwells in unap-
proachable light,”296 and again, “the king of ages, immortal,
invisible, the only God,”297 and again, “to the only wise God be
glory for evermore through Jesus Christ! Amen,”298 and even if
still more things than these should be said for the glorification
of the God who is one and over all, 299 it is necessary to think
that the only-begotten Son of God is the image even of all of
these, not as if he were an image that has been formed in inan-
imate matter but as one in a living Son. And even if the Savior
himself teaches that the Father is the only true God, saying,
“that they may know you, the only true God,”300 one should not
hesitate to confess that he [the Son] is true God and that he
has this status as in an image, so that the addition of the word
“only” applies to the Father alone as to [the] archetype of the
image. Just so, the divinely inspired Paul taught (3) most clearly
that he [the Son] is the image301 and radiance302 of the Father
and is “in the form of God,”303 as has been shown through what
has gone before. Therefore, just as when one father subsists
and one son is brought forth from the father, one would not
correctly think of saying there were two fathers or two sons,
294. Col 1.15.
295. 1 Tm 6.15.
296. 1 Tm 6.16.
297. 1 Tm 1.17.
298. Rom 16.27.
299. Rom 9.5; Eph 4.6.
300. Jn 17.3.
301. Col 1.15.
302. Heb 1.3.
303. Phil 2.6.
270 Eusebius
and just as when one king has come to power whose image
is borne throughout the earth, not wisely would one say that
there were two rulers, but that there is one who is honored also
through the image, in the same way (as we have often said) the
Church of God, having undertaken the worship of one God,
(4) continues to worship the same also through the Son, as
through an image. Indeed, not understanding these things,
Marcellus claimed that the image “of the invisible God”304 is
the flesh of the Savior, which the Apostle has called the “form
of a slave,”305 not having considered that even all human beings
have been formed in the likeness of the flesh of the Savior. Yet
he declares that the body that the Savior assumed is an image
of the ingenerate and ineffable paternal divinity, but he denies
that the only-begotten Son of God, through whom all things
were established (for “all things were made through him, and
without him not one thing was made”), 306 is the image of God,
saying in these very words:
invisible God.”307
(5) You see the tremendous distortion he has forced upon the
apostolic interpretation. Thus John the evangelist announced
the mystery that was known (although in a hidden way) to Moses
and the remaining prophets, and revealed it by crying in a loud
voice, “In the beginning was the Word, (6) and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God. All things were made through
him.”308 He gave witness that “he was the light that enlightens
every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and
the world was made through him, yet the world did not know
him,”309 and clearly demonstrated his sonship when he said of
the Father, “No one has ever seen God,” and of the Son, “The
304. Col 1.15.

305. Phil 2.7.
306. Jn 1.3.
307. Col 1.15; first part of Marcellus, fr. 53 (92 K./H.) (46,10–48,1 V.).
308. Jn 1.1, 3.
309. Jn 1.9–10.
only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he has
made him known.”310
Chapter 24
(1) This wondrous teacher of the words of Christ, bringing
together out of the divine Scripture the commands of God and
the exhortations as to what must be done, defines the Word who
was “in the beginning”311 as something of this sort. Hear how he
attempts to understand these things, writing in this way:
Of those who teach them as if they were ashamed to mention
the Word, whom all the divine Scriptures proclaim in this way.
For David said concerning him, “By the Word of the Lord, the
heavens were made,”312 and the same again: “He sent forth
his Word and healed them.”313 And Solomon said, “Evil men
will seek me, and they will not find me. Because they hated
wisdom and did not choose the Word314 of the Lord.”315 And
Isaiah said, “The Law will go forth from Zion, and the Word
of the Lord from Jerusalem.”316 And again Jeremiah says, “The
wise men shall be put to shame; they shall be dismayed and
taken because they rejected the Word of the Lord.”317 (2) And
Hosea 318 the prophet also said, “They hated him who reproves
in the gate, and despised a pious Word.”319 Micah himself, like-
wise mindful of the Word, said, “The Law will go forth from
Zion, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”320
Having brought together these passages and others like
these, he [Marcellus] thinks that through them he can provide
310. Jn 1.18.
311. Jn 1.1.
312. Ps 32.6 (RSV 33.6).
313. Ps 106.20 (RSV 107.20).
314. LXX = “fear.”
315. Prv 1.28–29.
316. Is 2.3.
317. Jer 8.9.
318. The quotation in fact derives from Amos.
319. Am 5.10.
320. Mi 4.2; Marcellus, fr. 67 (47 K./H.) (56,9–58,5 V.).
272 Eusebius
further support (3) for his belief. See how, having mixed to-
gether the witnesses from the divine Scripture, he at the same
time confused the Word that is sent out from God, the saving
and healing Word, and the one that exhorts persons as to what
must be done. For the statement “they hated him who reproves
in the gate, and despised a pious word”321 presupposes a sort
of word that altogether, I suppose, exhorts one to pious and
just deeds, and purports to confess anything rather than the
Son of God, just as if one were ashamed to mention the Son.
For we know that the Son of God is son in the most primary
sense322 and truly only-begotten Son of God, and we correctly
know that he is Word, not like the word among men, but such
as it is fitting to think the Word of God is, one who is a living
and subsisting Son. But it makes sense that the man who in-
troduces a word that communicates and exhorts one to deeds
hesitated to confess the Son, whom he denied in fact.323
Chapter 25
(1) And yet he himself does not perceive that he writes things
that contradict himself. For in other passages he boldly affirms
that none of the former people [the Jews] knew anything about
the Word, for the mystery was hidden. He writes as follows in
these very words:
the Word, but we now enjoy the riches of the glory325 and of the
hidden mystery.326
And again he adds,
321. Am 5.10.
322. Κυριώτατον: perhaps an allusion to Marcellus’s fr. 94, wherein he as-
serts that the second person is chiefly and truly Word—not Son.
323. Lit., “by the deed itself.”
324. Eph 3.9; Col 1.26.
325. Eph 3.16.
326. Marcellus, fr. 96 (50 K./H.) (84,9–13 V.).
something previously unknown among men, calling him Word
of the Almighty, thus said, “‘In the beginning was the Word.”327
Therefore, in these remarks he asserts that God’s having a
Word was a hidden mystery, while on the other hand, in the
prophetic statements that were just now presented, he asserts
that all the divine Scriptures proclaim something about the
Word, and he gathers together still more testimonies concern-
ing the Word of God. (2) Consequently [this Word] was not un-
known to the former people, for they all knew these sorts of
words, since they bore the prophetic statements in their mouth
and memory. But this Christian presents himself before us as
the scribe of the Jews, not listening to the Savior when he says,
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!”328 and he is
amazed at the one who confirms with an oath that “God is one,
and there is no other but he,”329 not (3) knowing that even the
“demons believe and tremble.”330
Note how from the prophetic writings themselves he gathers
together those statements about the Word that instruct [us] as
to what deeds must be done, which things even the children
of the Jews will confess to know, seeing as they have received
this before us. But not even (4) Sabellius himself was ignorant
of this sort of word. How then, striking down the Jews and Sa-
bellius, did he say that they did not know the Word in those re-
marks of his that I presented? And since the same man claimed
through the previous remarks that no one was able to know
God or his Word unless he has received the image of the invis-
ible God, which is clearly the flesh, (5) as he himself said (for
he contended that God and his Word are known only through
the image, saying that the flesh is the image), it must be re-
membered through the foregoing that apart from the incar-
nate presence, all Jews correctly knew the word of God and the
327. Jn 1.1; first part of Marcellus, fr. 68 (51 K./H.) (58.6–10 V.).
328. Mt 23.13.
329. Mk 12.32.
330. Jas 2.19.
274 Eusebius
words in the prophetic writings that exhorted them to pious
deeds, because they studied these from tender youth onwards,
and confessed that God is the maker and fashioner of all, just
as even the scribe who confirms this by oath did.
(6) All these things, then, serve to show that the man is a
Sabellianizer. Now it remains to proceed also to those distorted
interpretations of the divine Scriptures that he has contrived,
so that every one of those who admire the man might learn
that he causes them to deviate not only from the right faith, but
also from the sound reading and interpretation of the divinely
inspired Scriptures.
B O OK T H R E E
HE GREAT evangelist John announced the theology of

our Savior in a manner different from the one that
had been handed down [previously]. That Marcellus,
having denied this, drove headlong into the faithlessness of the
Jews, has been shown from what has been said. And in what
distorted a fashion he misinterpreted teachings that were clear-
ly pronounced about our Savior, you may learn from a great
many of his other statements, but especially, indeed, from this
one. In the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom, speaking in her own
person1 about herself, introduces these things, explaining in
detail: (2) “I, Wisdom, live with prudence, and I attain knowl-
edge and discretion. The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil.
Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and the twisted paths
of the wicked I hate. (3) I have good advice and sound wisdom;
I am insight, I have strength. By me kings reign, and rulers de-
cree what is just; by me the great are magnified, and rulers gov-
ern the land through me. I love those who love me, and those
who seek me find me. Riches and honor are with me, endur-
ing wealth and righteousness. (4) My fruit is better than gold
and precious stones, and my yield is greater than choice silver. I
walk in the way of righteousness; I am directed along the paths
of justice, endowing with wealth those who love me, and filling
their treasuries with good things. If I should announce to you
the things that happen by day, I will remember to recount the
things of (5) the age. The Lord created me as the beginning
of his ways for his works. Before the age, he founded me, at the
1. αὐτοπροσώπος. In this section of the work, involving extensive scriptural

interpretation, the Greek noun πρόσωπον is consistently translated as “per-
son.”
275
276 Eusebius
first, before the making of the earth. Before the making of the
depths, before the springs abounding with water came forth,
before the mountains had been shaped, before all the hills, he
begets me—when the Lord made fields, uninhabited regions,
and the first habitations. When he established the heavens, I
was present with him; when he marked out his throne on the
winds, when he made firm the clouds above, when he estab-
lished the springs of water under heaven firmly, and when he
made the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him in
harmony; and I was daily his delight; I rejoiced before him al-
ways, rejoicing to have completed his inhabited world and de-
lighting in the human race.”2
Chapter 2
(1) Wisdom says these things about herself in Proverbs. I
have deliberately laid these out in their entirety out of neces-
sity, having shown that the one who says these is one person,
since there is no change of speaker in the middle [of the pas-
sage]. Therefore, Wisdom is shown to be teaching these things
about herself. And here in the first place it must be noted in
what an indefinite way she is called Wisdom. For [the text] says,
“I3 live with prudence”;4 yet it does not say the “Wisdom of God.”
But just as in the evangelist, the statement “in the beginning
was the Word”5 was written indefinitely, and again, “The Word
was with God,”6 and it was not said, “the Word of God,” so that
no one might think that he is spoken of as something that ex-
ists in relation to something else, nor as an accident in God,
but as subsisting and living (for which reason [the text] adds,
“and the Word was God,”7 and did not say, (2) “the Word was of
God”); the same also applies in the case of Wisdom. For God,
2. Prv 8.12–31.
3. Klostermann’s correction of the text is unnecessary. The “I” is precisely
the indefinite way of Wisdom speaking as one person.
4. Prv 8.12.
5. Jn 1.1.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
the Word, and Wisdom are one and the same. For this reason,
she is named in Proverbs indefinitely, not only in the previous-
ly cited words, but also, to be sure, through remarks like this:
“Happy are those who find Wisdom,”8 and, “God by Wisdom
founded the earth,”9 and, “Say to Wisdom, you are my sister,”10
and, “Proclaim Wisdom so that understanding might attend
you,”11 (3) and, “Wisdom is better than jewels,”12 and, “Wisdom
built her house, and set up seven pillars,”13 and all the other
statements akin to these [that] are presented in the same book.
In none of them was Wisdom said to be of God, but Wisdom
without qualification, so that we might not think it is some ac-
cidental thing that is a contingent feature of God, like knowl-
edge in an intelligent man, but subsisting and living Wisdom,
the very same as the (4) Son of God.
If, however, someone should suppose that the Wisdom spo-
ken of there is a wise disposition in God, according to which
we think God is wise, let him heed the Scripture when it says,
“Say to Wisdom, you are my sister.”14 Who would be so insane as
to suppose that the God who is over all15 and the wise disposi-
tion in him are said to be “sister” of the types [of wisdom] that
belong to those human beings who conduct their affairs wise-
ly? (5) But if you take the statement as applying to the Christ
of God (for “Christ is the wisdom and power of God”),16 there
will be no impediment to the understanding, since he does not
refuse the sisterhood even among us because of his abundant
love for humankind. But if God and the Wisdom introduced in
Proverbs are one and the same because Wisdom was a wise dis-
position in him according to which God is thought to be wise,
what prevented [Solomon] from writing “God” instead of “Wis-
dom”? Yet the statement “Wisdom built her house, and set up
8. Prv 3.13.
9. Prv 3.19.
10. Prv 7.4.
11. Prv 8.1.
12. Prv 8.11.
13. Prv 9.1.
14. Prv 7.4.
15. Rom 9.5; Eph 4.6.
16. 1 Cor 1.24.
278 Eusebius
seven pillars”17 and those that follow this are said, but not “God
(6) has built his house,” and so on; and respectively,18 “Say to
Wisdom, you are my sister,”19 was said, but not, “Say to God, you
are my brother.”
You see, however, how this sort of (7) statement strikes the
ear as discordant. But if you suppose that these remarks apply
to the Son (for he himself was Wisdom), the entire passage will
read well, since no impious thought provides an impediment,
given that the Apostle Paul gives testimony that agrees with
this; with unmistakable clarity he named our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ “Wisdom,” having said, “Christ the power and wis-
dom of God.”20 (8) Since these things are so, it follows from all
that has been laid out previously that the statement “The Lord
created me as the beginning of his ways for his works”21 has
also been said by him.22
If he says, however, that he himself was created, he did not
say this as if he had come into being from what is not, nor as if
he were like the rest of the creatures and he himself had come
into being from nothing, as some have supposed incorrectly, 23
but as if he both subsisted and lived, and was before and pre-
existed the establishment of the whole cosmos, having been ap-
pointed to rule the universe by the Lord, his Father.
Therefore, the [phrase] “was created” has been said here in-
stead of “he appointed” (9) or “he established.” And to give
another example, the Apostle called those who rule and lead
among men “creation” when he said, “For the Lord’s sake ac-
cept the authority of every human creation, whether of the em-
peror as supreme, (10) or of governors, as sent by him.”24 And
17. Prv 9.1.

18. Klostermann’s attempts to correct the manuscript reading here are
unnecessary. His problem derives from misunderstanding πάλιν; it does not
mean “again,” but “respective.”
19. Prv 7.4.
20. 1 Cor 1.24.
21. Prv 8.22.
22. Literally, “by his person”: προσώπου.
23. Eusebius is clearly distinguishing himself here from the position held
by Asterius, fr. 44 (108 V.).
24. 1 Pt 2.13–14.
the prophet, having said, “Prepare to call upon your God, O
Israel,”25 “Wherefore behold him making firm the thunder and
creating the Spirit and proclaiming unto men his anointed
(Christ),”26 and, “Let this be recorded for a generation to come,
so that a people that is being created may praise the Lord,”27
took 28 [the language of] “creating” as applying to that which has
come into being from non-existence. For the Lord did not cre-
ate the Spirit at the time when he proclaimed his Christ to all
human beings through it. (11) For “there is nothing new under
the sun.”29 But the Spirit was both in existence and pre-existed,
but was sent at that time when the apostles had been gathered
together, when like thunder “from heaven there came a sound
like the rush of a violent wind,”30 and, “They were filled with the
Holy Spirit,”31 and as a result of this they proclaimed the Christ
of God to all human beings in accordance with the prophetic
utterance. [In the case of] “Wherefore behold him making firm
the thunder and creating the Spirit and proclaiming unto men
his anointed (Christ),”32 the verb creating was used for sending or
appointing; “thunder” expressed in another way the gospel proc-
lamation. And the one who says, “Create a clean heart in me, O
God,”33 did not say this as if he had no heart; rather, he prayed
that a pure mind (12) might be perfected in him. So also in this
way that statement was made “so that he might create in himself
one new humanity in place of the two”34 as equivalent to “so that
25. Am 4.12.
26. Am 4.13.
27. Ps 101.19 (RSV 102.18).
28. Klostermann’s correction of the manuscript by adding a “not” is in-
correct, as with this sentence. Eusebius is following up his argument about
the identification between creation and “endowing,” having before made the
connection between creation and “appointment.” Without the wrongly added
“not,” Eusebius stresses the “what” (what the Spirit was not), instead of taking
creation as the beginning of the Spirit (that the Spirit was not), as he will ex-
plain in the following sentences.
29. Eccl 1.9.
30. Acts 2.2.
31. Acts. 2.4.
32. Am 4.13.
33. Ps 50.10 (RSV 51.10).
34. Eph 2.15.
280 Eusebius
he might bring together.” But note that the same idea is meant
in those remarks such as, “Clothe yourselves with the new self,
created according to the likeness of God,”35 and, “If anyone is in
Christ he is a new creation,”36 and if one examined closely the
divinely inspired Scripture, he would find that all other [such]
statements were made in this sense.
Therefore, do not wonder if metaphorically also in that
statement, “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways
for his works,”37 the verb he created was used for he established or
he appointed me to rule, since even in the gospels, when it was
said by our Savior, “I confess to you, Father, Lord of heaven and
earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and
the intelligent and have revealed them to infants,”38 we do not
say that the confession of sins was shown by the Savior, in the
way that it was said in other passages, “Confess your sins to one
another,”39 but the thanksgiving for the infants, the language
of confession being used as the equivalent of the statement, “I
thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth.”40
(13) And if one searched at one’s leisure, one would find
myriads of metaphorical statements throughout the whole of
the divine Scripture, some of which have a complex mean-
ing, and still others that are predicated univocally of different
things, concerning which it would be no small task (14) to pur-
sue at the present time.
Therefore, in this way, even here the statement, “The Lord
created me as the beginning of his ways for his works,” was used
for, “He appointed me to rule over his works.” For this reason,
[Scripture] did not simply say, “He created me,” but added, “as
the beginning of his ways for his works.”
(15) The Hebrew text explicitly shows this. And so, if some-
35. Eph 4.24.

36. 2 Cor 5.17.
37. Prv 8.22.
38. Mt 11.25.
39. Jas 5.16.
40. Migliore, 166: “but the thanksgiving for the infants, in the sense of
‘I thank you, Father . . .’” This is a little more complicated because of the use
of the preposition ἀντί in the sense of “as the equivalent of,” which one sees
elsewhere in this text.
one should investigate the true meaning of the divinely in-
spired Scripture, he would find that the Hebrew reading did
not include [the phrase] “He created me,” for which reason
none of the remaining translators made use of this wording.
For example, Aquila said, “The Lord acquired me as the head
of his ways,” while Symmachus said, “The Lord acquired me as
the beginning of his ways,” and Theodotion said, “The Lord
acquired me as the beginning of his way,” (16) and the transla-
tion seems reasonable.41
For he was the head of the whole creation, visible and in-
visible, its foundation and salvation, whom the Father begot
as [his] only-begotten Son, and having begotten him, he ap-
pointed him as Savior of the universe, gathering up within
and through him the constitution of the universe, as the di-
vine Apostle taught, having said, “to gather up all things in
him, things in heaven and things on earth,”42 so that he not
only sustains all those things that had come into being from
nothing through him, but also so that he takes upon himself
the oversight of the administration of the universe, seeing as
he is Word and Wisdom and Life and Fullness of all Beauty and
Goodness, so that (17) all things are governed and preserved
through him. And he also showed this through the previously
cited statements, through which he said, “By me kings reign,
and rulers decree what is just; by me the great are magnified,
and rulers govern the land through me.”43 (18) Thus all things
are governed by the ineffable laws of the universal wisdom
and providence of the Son of God. He taught this through the
aforementioned statements, and he urged us to cling to him,
saying, “I love those who love me, and those who seek me find
me,”44 and deterred us from the opposite path when he added
41. Symmachus, Aquila, and Theodotion are three known second-century

translators of the Jewish Bible from Hebrew into Greek. Symmachus and Aqui-
la stand for contrasting approaches: the first for an elegant yet sensible transla-
tion, the latter for his literal renderings, as can also be seen in the quotations
that Eusebius gives here.
42. Eph 1.10.
43. Prv 8.15–16.
44. Prv 8.17.
282 Eusebius
in these words: “the twisted paths of the wicked I hate.”45 (19)
Having commanded these and things akin to them, the Son of
God (for he himself was Wisdom) next hands over the mystic
knowledge concerning himself to those who were previously
benefited through them, saying, “If I should announce to you
the things that happen by day, I will remember (20) to recount
the things of the age.”46 For if, he says, I were going to teach
those things that are done by me each day, it is also necessary
that I recall my works from the beginning of the age and show
how the Father, having begotten me for this, appointed me to
rule the universe, so that I might lead his ways and the works
that have been made by him through me. For this reason con-
sequently he adds, “The Lord created me as the beginning of
his ways for his works,”47 or, “The Lord acquired me,” according
to the previously (21) cited translation. For the great acquisi-
tion of God was the only-begotten Son, first in that he came
into existence from him since he is his Son, and second in that
he was appointed the benefactor and Savior of all. And so he
is and was named the greatest and most honored acquisition
of the Father. For there could be no other acquisition of the
Father’s more honored than the Son.
For this reason, the first-formed Adam, when he acquired
the first son among men, was said also in that passage [to have
claimed], “I have acquired a man through God,”48 since the He-
brew text (22) contains kanthei for “I have acquired.” Now kana
is used for “he acquired” in Hebrew. In this way it was said of
Abraham, “the field that Abraham acquired (ἐκτήσατο),”49 for
which the Hebrew has kana, the same term used in the Hebrew
and in [the phrase] “The Lord created (ἔκτισεν) me as the be-
ginning of his ways for his works.”50 For given that the verb kana
is used here, all the translators are unanimous in rendering it
with “he acquired.” (23) But the phrase “he created” was reject-
45. Prv 8.13.

46. Prv 8.21a.
47. Prv 8.22.
48. Gn 4.1.
49. Gn 25.10.
50. Prv 8.22.
ed by the Hebrews, which is not found in the Scripture that lies
before [us].
There would be a very great difference between “he created”
and “he acquired,” by which “creation,” according to common
opinion, shows the passage from nothingness into being, while
“acquiring” characterizes the belonging of something that al-
ready pre-existed (24) to someone who had acquired [it].
Now, when the Son of God says, “The Lord acquired me
as the beginning of his ways for his works,”51 at one and the
same time he revealed his pre-existence and his characteristic
belonging to the Father, and also the usefulness and necessity
of his own (25) foresight and government with regard to the
Father’s works. For this reason, he next adds, “Before the age,
he founded me, at the first, before the making of the earth. Be-
fore the making of the depths, before the springs abounding
with water came forth, before the mountains had been shaped,
before all the hills, he begets me,”52 through all of which state-
ments his usefulness and necessity to all is shown, teaching that
he both was and pre-existed, and ruled over the whole cosmos,
and guided it in accordance with its needs.
For in the [story of] the making of the world [in Genesis],
Moses made no mention of invisible powers beyond the uni-
verse because of the imperfection of those being instructed by
him, but recounted the constitution of the visible cosmos, hav-
ing recalled four elements in the beginning, heaven and earth,
and depths and water, and said that the two have been made by
God (for “In the beginning,” he says, “God made the heavens
and the earth”), 53 but no longer mentioned in a similar way the
depths and the water, as if these, too, had been made, but he
simply said, “and darkness covered the face of the deep, while
a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.”54 Neces-
sarily, then, through the foregoing passages, the Son of God
also teaches concerning them that they are created and that he
himself exists before them and (26) that all things have been
51. Ibid.
52. Prv 8.23–25.
53. Gn 1.1.
54. Gn 1.2.
284 Eusebius
made through him. For this reason he says, “Before the age, he
founded me, at the first, before the making of the earth. Be-
fore the making of the depths, before the springs abounding
with water came forth.”55 Calling to mind these three things,
the earth and the depths and the water, having saved the great-
er item, the heavens, he adds it in the fourth and last place. For
this reason, he next adds, “When he established the heavens, I
was present with him.”56
(27) Well now, since these things are clearly presented by
the divine Scripture and have been treated by us briefly as in
an abridgement of the narrative, let us listen to how Marcellus,
having cast [his] mind down to earthly things, confidently af-
firms that all these things were said of the flesh that the Savior
assumed, writing literally in this way:
(28) Therefore, since this is so, it follows that we should closely
investigate this passage, which was stated in proverbial fashion:
“The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways.”57 For the
Lord our God, having made that which did not exist previous-
ly, truly created. For he created not the existing flesh, which
the Word assumed, but the non-existent flesh. 58
And he adds:
Therefore, if indeed this new mystery appeared most obviously
“in the last times,”59 since for this reason it was foreordained
before this age, the prophet rightly said, “Before the age, he
founded me . . .”60 —that is, the flesh.61
(29) And again he continues, saying:
Then [Wisdom] says, “at the first, before the making of the
earth.”62 What sort of earth was this, other than, obviously,
55. Prv 8.23–24.

56. Prv 8.27.
57. Prv 8.22.
58. Marcellus, fr. 29 (11 K./H.) (30,13–32,2 V.).
59. Heb 1.2; cf. 1 Pt 1.20.
60. Prv 8.27.
61. Marcellus, fr. 38 (20 K./H.) (36,6–9 V.).
62. Prv 8.23–24.
our flesh, which again became earth after [our] disobedience?
For [Scripture] says, “You are earth, and to earth you shall
return.”63
You see how far he goes astray, having, on the one hand, de-
viated from the right [path], and, on the other hand, having
contrived for himself instead a path that is rough and (30) im-
passable to traverse without an exit.64 Look at how he applied
a forced meaning to everything and persisted in uttering a
shameless and abominable idea rather than confess that the
Son of God himself is Wisdom. (31) Therefore, he refers the
clause, “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for
his works,” to the person of the Savior, confessing that he is the
one who claims these things in Proverbs. And he says in the
same words:
Therefore, as was fitting, when ancient things had passed in
due season and all future things were going to become new
through the newness of our Savior, Christ our Lord pro-
claimed through the prophet, “The Lord created me as the
beginning of his ways.”65
(32) And having said this, he casts his mind down to the
flesh of our Savior, adding next:
For the Lord our God, having made that which did not exist
previously, truly created. For he “created as the beginning of
his ways” not the existing flesh, which the Word assumed, but
the non-existent flesh.66
Yet the honorable man does not understand that the one
who says, “I, Wisdom, live with prudence,”67 and, “The Lord
created me,”68 is a certain single voice and one person, such
63. Gn 3.19; first part of Marcellus, fr. 39 (21 K./H.) (36,10–12 V.).
64. If earth is nothing but flesh that ends in earth, the journey of the di-
vine economy is nothing but a dead end, or a circle that ends where it started
from. Eusebius questions here Marcellus’s soteriological concept.
66. A second part of Marcellus, fr. 29 (11 K./H.) (30,15–32,2 V.).
67. Prv 8.12.
68. Prv 8.22.
286 Eusebius
that if one [of these verses] were to be referred to the flesh,
the other one would necessarily refer to it also. And Wisdom
will be the one who says both. (33) But if the flesh were to say
according to Marcellus, “The Lord created me as the begin-
ning of his ways,”69 it would also be Wisdom, and it will be the
flesh that claims, “By me kings reign,”70 and, “By me the great
are magnified.”71 But how could the flesh say, “I will remember
to recount the things of the age,”72 to which it adds, “The Lord
created me as the beginning of his ways”?73
But he also shows what the ways are, saying next:
For this one [Christ] became a way of piety for us who were
going to walk justly, a beginning of all the ways after these.74
(34) And he adds:
[The author of Proverbs] rightly said that the Lord our Savior
was a “beginning of ways” because he also became a beginning
of the other ways (after the first way), which we have come to
possess, revealing the traditions through the holy apostles
who, “with exalted proclamation,”75 according to the prophecy,
proclaimed to us this new mystery.76
Yes, Marcellus [said] these things.
Chapter 3
(1) Therefore, if [Marcellus] did not accept the writing both
of Moses and of the prophets after Moses, his conclusion would
have a certain rationale. But since he is not among those who
reject the Old Testament, why then, when he called the apostles
and their teachings “ways,” did he not pay heed to the prophets
of God, who have written countless things concerning the ways
69. Prv 8.22.

70. Prv 8.15.
71. Prv 8.16.
72. Prv 8.21a.
73. Prv 8.22.
74. Marcellus, fr. 30 (13 K./H.) (32,3–4 V.).
75. Prv 9.3.
76. Marcellus, fr. 31 (14 K./H.) (32,5–9 V.).
of God? For in the first place Moses, writing in this way, said,
“You should go along the king’s highway,”77 and, “See, I have set
before you (2) the way of life and the way of death”;78 and Da-
vid likewise, “The Lord watches over the way of the righteous,
but the way of the wicked will perish”;79 and Jeremiah, “Stand
at the crossroads, and ask for the ancient paths of the Lord,
and look at what the good way is; and walk in it.”80 And you
will find that each of the prophets calls to mind the ways (3) of
God differently. Well, then, if our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ
[of God] teaches that he himself is the beginning of the ways
of God, saying, “The Lord created me as the beginning of his
ways for his works”81 (being altogether, I suppose, more ancient
than Moses and the prophets and those who have lived earlier
according to the ways of God), 82 but the flesh that he assumed
was not older than all of those, the passage has not been rightly
understood to refer to (4) the flesh. Thus the Savior did not say
these things because of the flesh, but because he pre-existed
and led the way as the beginning of all the ways of the Lord,
which all the ancient men who loved God traversed.
(5) And since the divine Apostle in saying, “O the depth of
the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearch-
able are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!”83 propos-
es certain other ways, those that exercise providence over the
universe, through which, by means of his ineffable judgment
and incomprehensible calculations, he governs all things with
divine power, it follows to say that the one who said, “The Lord
created me as the beginning of his ways for his works,”84 is also
the beginning of these ways. And since [Marcellus] did not un-
derstand the ways of God, he declared that the (6) flesh of our
Savior is the beginning of these [ways]. He also interprets the
phrase “for his works,” claiming,
77. Nm 20.17.
78. Dt 30.15.
79. Ps 1.6.
80. Jer 6.16.
81. Prv 8.22.
82. Eusebius may have angels in mind here.
83. Rom 11.33.
84. Prv 8.22.
288 Eusebius
Therefore, [the prophet] says, “He created me as the begin-
ning of his ways for his works.”85 Of what sort of works, how-
ever, does he speak? The Savior says about them, “My father
is working still, and I am working.”86 And again he says, “. . .
having accomplished the work which you gave me to do.”87
(7) Then, as if clarifying the meaning of those remarks, he
adds,
For “who” before the revelation of these matters “would have
believed”88 that the Word of God, having been born through
a virgin, would assume our flesh and reveal bodily the entire
divinity in it?89
As if making his meaning complete, he adds,
Therefore, this is [the meaning of] the statement, “The Lord
created me as the beginning of his ways for his works.”90
(8) And he wrote these things, not having been able to lift
up the eyes of his mind “on high” and to say with the prophet,
“When I shall look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars that you have established,”91 nor hav-
ing recalled the prophetic saying, through which it was said,
“but they do not regard the deeds of the Lord, or (9) compre-
hend the work of his hands.”92 For if he [Marcellus] had paid
attention to these statements, he would have known that before
the heavens and the earth and before the entire world, and not
only before the visible but also before the intelligible works of
God that have their hypostasis 93 in incorporeal and transcen-
dent powers, the one who says these things both existed and
pre-existed.
85. Ibid.
86. Jn 5.17.
88. Is 53.1.
89. Marcellus, fr. 33 (16 K./H.) (32,14–34,2 V.).
91. Ps 8.4 (RSV 8.3).
92. Is 5.12.
93. ἐν ὑποστάσει.
But [Marcellus], having moved on to that statement, “Before
the age, he founded me,”94 again puts the flesh front and cen-
ter, saying in this way:
. . . calling this foundation his foreordained fleshly (10) econ-
omy, as the Apostle also says, “For no other foundation can
anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”95
And he adds,
Here [the prophet or the Apostle] calls to mind one age in
which he said the dispensation of Christ was founded although
many ages have passed by, as David said, “He exists before the
ages.”96
(11) And having turned next to the statement, “at the first,
before the making of the earth,”97 he again says that the earth
is the flesh [of Christ], writing in this way:
What sort of earth was this, other than, obviously, our flesh,
which again became earth after [our] disobedience? For
[Scripture] says: “You are earth, and to earth you shall re-
turn.”98 For it was necessary that this [flesh] obtain healing.99
And he makes these claims, this most wise man, not having
recalled how he had said just above that before the making of
the earth the flesh was created as the beginning of the ways
of God. (12) And if, in short, he indicated the flesh through
“the earth,” how is it not necessary to confess that the one who
says that he was before the making of the earth, pre-existed the
flesh? For he says, “Before the age, he founded me, at the first,
before the making of the earth.”100 Therefore, the one who says
these things existed before the (13) making of the flesh. And if
he also called to mind not long ago ages, but [only] the one,101
94. Prv 8.23.

95. 1 Cor 3.11; Marcellus, fr. 35 (17 K./H.) (34,5–8 V.).
96. Ps 54.20 ( RSV 55.19); Marcellus, fr. 35 (17 K./H.) (34,8–10 V.).
97. Prv 8.23–24.
98. Gn 3.19.
99. Excerpt of Marcellus, fr. 39 (21 K./H.) (36,10–13 V.).
100. Prv 8.23–24.
101. Note that Eusebius accepts here an argument that Marcellus made
290 Eusebius
which even our Savior mentioned, having said, “The sons of
this age marry and are given in marriage,”102 so also the flesh
that our Savior assumed did not exist before the present age,
but he himself [God the Son], who taught these things through
Solomon, [did]. You see into what rough terrain [Marcellus]
has fallen, having deviated from the right and imperial (14)
road.
And besides these statements, he adds still more, saying,
[The prophet] says, “Before the making of the depths.”103 Here
the prophet says in proverbial fashion that the depths are the
hearts of the saints, which have in their depths the gift of the
Spirit.104
He does not understand that before the incarnate coming
of our Savior, the holy prophets of God partook of the same
Spirit, both Moses and those still more ancient than Moses.
Therefore, if the hearts of the saints were these [depths], it is
necessary that (15) the one who says “before the making of the
depths” be older than all of these depths. How, then, was it pos-
sible for these [statements] to be referred to the flesh of the Sav-
ior? And surely if he [Marcellus] had knowledge of the divine
Scriptures, he would not so easily have declared that the depths
were the hearts of the holy, having understood that “darkness
covered the face of the deep,”105 according to the testimony of
Moses, and how complex and difficult it is to interpret the state-
ment in the divine Scripture [as being] about them. For the
Apostle says, “Do not say, ‘Who (16) will ascend into heaven?’
(that is, to bring Christ down) or ‘Who will descend into the
deep?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).”106 Thus in
these remarks the regions of Hades seem to have been called
“the deep.” But the Lord himself shows this even more clearly
against Asterius, who, as one can see in his fr. 17 (90 V.), spoke of ages in the
plural. As before, we can see that Eusebius, in his criticism of Marcellus, is also
critical of Asterius.
102. Lk 20.34.
103. Prv 8.24.
104. Marcellus, fr. 40 (22 K./H.) (38,1–4 V.).
105. Gn 1.2.
106. Rom 10.6–7.
in the divine oracle made to Job: “Have you entered into the
springs of the sea, or walked in the recesses of the deep? Have
the gates of death been opened for you in fear, or did (17) the
gates of Hades tremble when they saw you?”107 and the evil pow-
ers in the deep, about which it was said, “Praise him [the Lord]
from the earth, you sea monsters and all depths,”108 and still
the darkness over the deep, about which Moses said, “Darkness
covered the face of the deep.”109 Having learned all of these,
if [Marcellus] had been diligent and not inattentive when he
read the divine Scriptures, he would not have dared to say that
the hearts of the holy were (18) the depths, but he would have
known in what sense these statements were made, statements
such as, “Deep calls to deep at the thunder of your cataracts,”110
and again, “The very deep trembled, a multitude of the water’s
sound,”111 and again, “The deep is like a garment (19) that cov-
ers him.”112
If he had examined these passages more closely and others
akin to them, he would have had some chance of understand-
ing them. But now, having so hastily and incoherently asserted
that the hearts of the holy men are the depths, he as a result
does not perceive that the one who said, “before the making
of the depths,”113 taught that he himself existed before the holy
and God-loving men of the past age, so that it is altogether im-
possible to refer the foregoing passages to the flesh of the Sav-
ior. (20) Having turned to another passage in the same Scrip-
ture, he interprets it, too, in this way, saying:
Therefore, what is one to make likewise of this central passage:
“Before the springs abounding with water came forth”?114
[Scripture] says these are the holy apostles. The text of Exodus
reveals this mystery to us, having proclaimed long ago (21) the
107. Jb 38.16–17.
108. Ps 148.7.
109. Gn 1.2.
110. Ps 41.8 (RSV 42.7).
111. Ps 76.17 (RSV 77.16–17).
112. Ps 103.6 (RSV 104.6).
113. Prv 8.24.
114. Ibid.
292 Eusebius
types of the apostles. For since the number of the apostles is
twelve, it mentions twelve springs.115
And having said these things, he does not understand that
there were also twelve tribes of Israel and twelve patriarchs
of these and one book of the twelve prophets, but also twelve
hours of the day and twelve months of the whole (22) year.
Why, then, would the number twelve pertain more to the apos-
tles than it does to all those other things, [as] if a quantitative
number really provided him with a reason for this interpreta-
tion of the passage? But it is necessary to comprehend that even
the prophets of God, to the extent that they partook of the
same Holy Spirit, were no different from [his] springs. For this
reason it has been said concerning them in the Psalms: “Bless
the Lord God in the assemblies, O you who are of (23) Israel’s
springs!”116 And so it is necessary to confess that the one who
said, “Before the springs abounding with water came forth,”117
was the Son of God, even before those springs [came forth].
Listen to how [Marcellus] interprets this, saying,
Therefore, in all likelihood, the Master spoke about the birth
in the flesh through the prophet Solomon, when he [the latter]
said, “Before the springs abounding with water came forth.”118
(24) And he adds,
For in this sense the Savior spoke to the holy springs, “Go,
make disciples of all nations.”119
Then, as if he were wrapping up the whole discussion,120 he
adds [this] conclusion to his exposition, saying,
115. Ex 15.27; Marcellus, fr. 41 (23 K./H.) (38,4–8 V.).

116. Ps 67.26 (RSV 68.26).
117. Prv 8.24.
118. Ibid.; Marcellus, fr. 42 (24 K./H.) (38,9–11 V.).
120. Eusebius indicates in this statement that he knew of the dialogical,
controversial character of Marcellus’s work.
From all sides [of the Old and New Testaments] it is clear that
the holy apostles were also called “springs” in a figurative sense
by the prophet.121
He wishes the apostles to be springs, (25) but the proph-
ets do not please him. For what reason [could this be] other
than122 that he was not able to prove that the flesh of the Savior
was before them? And yet the Son of God, who teaches [these]
things concerning himself in Proverbs, pre-existed even before
the springs that are visible by nature, which even Moses called
to mind in his account of the making of the world, having said,
“But a spring rose from the earth, and watered the whole face
of the ground,”123 and again, “A river flows out of Eden to wa-
ter the garden.”124 He who converses with Job125 also recalls the
springs of the sea, saying, “Have you entered into the springs
of the sea, (26) or walked in the recesses of the deep?”126 And
since Scripture teaches that there are certain waters even above
the heavens when it says, “Praise him, you highest heavens, and
you waters above the heavens!”127 it follows that one must think
there are certain springs even of those waters (whatever their
nature would be), so that he who has said that he pre-existed
“before the (27) springs abounding with water came forth”128
is shown to be more ancient than those waters. Applying his
mind to none of these, nor wishing to make the effort, [Mar-
cellus] persists in these same [opinions], since he also makes
these claims:
[The prophet] says, “Before the mountains had been shaped,
before all the hills, he begets me.”129 [The prophet] calls the
apostles and the successors of the apostles “mountains” and
121. Marcellus, fr. 44 (26 K./H.) (40,1–2 V.).

122. Klostermann’s textual addition is incorrect.
123. Gn 2.6.
124. Gn 2.10.
125. Above, Christ was mentioned as conversing with Job; see ET 3.3.16
(150,9 K./H.).
126. Jb 38.16.
127. Ps 148.4.
128. Prv 8.24.
129. Prv 8.25.
294 Eusebius
“hills,” so that he might indicate in proverbial fashion the
[apostles’] upright way of life in comparison to that of other
men.130
(28) Therefore, the same were also the springs, the same
were also the mountains, and the same were also the hills. But
just as it is not natural in the case of visible springs and moun-
tains to claim that [they are] the same things (for the springs
of the waters have nothing in common with the heights of the
mountains in respect of quality), in the same way also in the
case of things seen in the mind allegorically, it is necessary to
show the difference[s] between these intelligible springs and
mountains and hills. But [Marcellus], understanding none of
what has been investigated closely, mixes everything up reck-
lessly, so that the springs of the waters and the mountains and
the hills appear to be the same things, and he says that all of
these are the apostles, having made no distinctions with regard
to the ways in which they are different. (29) Why, then, does
he not call those who were made perfect in justice and piety
even before the Incarnation131 of our Savior likewise “moun-
tains” and “hills,” if not for the reason that132 he could not let
the flesh of the Savior subsist before them? Therefore, only by
forcing and twisting the sense can the foregoing statements be
said to refer to the flesh of the Savior.
How then, too, could the statement “he begets me”133 refer to
the flesh? For before the springs and before the mountains and
before the134 hills he said he was begotten, having said, “The
Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works.
Before the age, he (30) founded me.”135 If, then, the flesh were
to claim these things, as seems to Marcellus to be the case, how
130. Marcellus, fr. 45 (7 K./H.) (40,5–8 V.).

131. Literally, “flesh.”
132. Again, Klostermann’s addition is unnecessary; it is idiomatic for Euse-
bius to construct in this way.
133. Prv 8.25.
134. Klostermann’s later addition, “all” (with Montague), is incorrect; only
a little later Eusebius introduces this notion as a second argument. See ET
3.3.30 (151,7 K./H.). (It is in the corrections, p. 259.)
135. Prv 8.22.
could the flesh have said, “Before all the hills, he begets me”?136
For in this case the flesh would be before the apostles. But how
can the flesh itself say that it has been begotten by God? For it
seemed right to Marcellus to say that (31) the flesh, not existing
previously, was created. For he said:
For the Lord our God, having made that which did not exist,
truly created. For he created not the existing flesh, which the
Word assumed, but the non-existent.137
Thus, on the one hand, we have acknowledged that [the
flesh] was created, while, on the other, how it was possible that
it was also begotten by God was explained when our Savior said,
“That which has been begotten of the flesh is flesh.”138 And
the Apostle also says, “born (32) of a woman, born under the
law.”139 Therefore, how could the flesh have said concerning
the God of the universe, “Before all the hills, he begets me”?140
Therefore, I think it is evident to all how these passages have
this interpretation only by being distorted. But without violence
one could say that the Son of God confirmed these even without
any allegorical means [of interpretation] since he also pre-ex-
isted the earth; he was and pre-existed before the coming forth
of the material springs of waters and before the visible depths
spoken of and before the composition of the shape of the earth
in the heights of the mountains and the hills. For “all things
were made through him, and (33) without him not one thing
was made.”141
And if someone should ask why he did not teach that he
himself was before the heavens and those things in [the] heav-
ens and the divine and transcendent powers and spirits beyond
them, let it be said to him that until that time [the Incarna-
tion] the Word did142 allude to these things when he imparted
136. Prv 8.25.

137. Excerpt of Marcellus, fr. 29 (11 K./H.) (30,15–32,2 V.).
138. Jn 3.6.
139. Gal 4.4.
140. Prv 8.25.
141. Jn 1.3.
142. Klostermann’s alteration of the text is doubtful. Eusebius did not
want to present a tautology (the Son did not teach—and he means teaching
296 Eusebius
a certain education through the Proverbs to those who were
spiritually infants. (34) This is clear from what was said then:
“Hear, my child, your father’s instruction, and do not reject
your mother’s teaching,”143 and then, “My child, be attentive
to my laws, and incline your ear to my sayings,”144 and again,
“My child, do not despise the Lord’s instruction or dismiss his
(35) reproof,”145 and, “My child, if you do good yourself, you
will also be good for your neighbors; but if you become evil,
you alone will bear the evil.”146 And you yourself could gath-
er together by yourself countless passages and ones like them
from the book of Proverbs, through which the text appears to
address those who are spiritually infants. (36) So also Moses,
as the teacher of those imperfect in comprehension, alluded
to the heaven[s] and the earth and the fashioning of the visi-
ble [world], but obviously [did] not also [teach] the creation of
the angels or of the divine powers and holy spirits, because his
disciples were not yet capable of instruction in these matters.
(37) Therefore, consequently the text in Proverbs, too, when it
provides instruction to these sorts of men from the mountains
around the land and the hills and the springs as from things
that are better known, having begun from what is more fun-
damental, led by the hand those who were being instructed to
what is greater, and prepared them to pass over from the lesser
things to those that were more divine.
(38) Thus this is the case if one did not inquire needlessly
beyond the [literal reading] of the text. But if one wished to re-
flect more deeply about these things too, he will refer them not
to those apostles and all the just and God-loving men who have
ever lived, but he will pass from them to the divine and angelic
powers, saying that mountains and hills are different ways of
speaking figuratively of angels and archangels and divine spir-
without using pictures, such as the ones used in Prv 8—and did not call to
mind), but what he wants to say is that the Son did not teach these things
straightforwardly, but called these contents to mind in the images of Proverbs
as a pedagogy for immature people (i.e., the Jews of the Old Testament times).
143. Prv 1.8.
144. Prv 4.20.
145. Prv 3.11.
146. Prv 9.12.
its, and with regard to thrones and (39) dominions and sover-
eignties and authorities, since indeed the divine Apostle taught
that these147 things, too, were all created “through him and for
him”148 and that he was “before all”149 these things, beginning
from that place, as was right, because it was said in these pas-
sages from the person of the Son of God, “Before the moun-
tains had been shaped, before all the hills, he begets me.”150
Therefore, he said that the other things were shaped, while
only he was begotten before the (40) establishment of those
things mentioned. The same Apostle also knows the heavenly
Jerusalem and the heavenly mountain upon which he says Jeru-
salem is [placed], saying, “You have come to Mount Zion and to
the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innu-
merable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the
firstborn who are enrolled in heaven.”151 And so, pre-existing
all of these, the only-begotten Son of God spoke figuratively
through the Proverbs, proclaiming in a veiled manner his own
ineffable begetting. (41) And that he wanted these things to be
understood is clear from what he adds, saying next, “When he
At this point, the honorable interpreter of the Scriptures
[Marcellus] came to a stop, having been barred by the Scrip-
tures, and did not proceed further, because he was not able to
smooth away [the difficulty] that follows from (42) the thesis
advanced by him concerning the flesh of the Savior. For always
having called to mind the flesh and having declared that all
these things were said about the flesh, he [Marcellus] hastened
to the mountains and the hills, having said that these were the
apostles, but the things that follow upon these he deliberately
handed over to silence, having no longer dared to proceed fur-
ther with regard to the Scripture.
(43) At this point, then, he puts an end to his argument.
147. The τὰ deleted by Klostermann should be restored.

148. Col 1.16.
149. Col 1.17.
150. Prv 8.25.
151. Heb 12.22–23.
152. Prv 8.27.
298 Eusebius
After so many things have been said by him at length in the
meantime,153 he now drops the reference to the flesh and con-
fesses that it is the Word of God who said these things. He says
this in these very words:
cosmos, he who even beforehand was preparing it within intel-
lectually, as the prophet Solomon teaches us, saying, “When
he established the heavens, I was present with him,”154 and,
“When he established the springs of water under heaven firm-
ly, and when he made the (44) foundations of the earth, then I
was beside him in harmony; and I was daily his delight.”155 For
rightly did the Father delight in making all things with wisdom
and power through the Word.156
So Marcellus says. If, therefore, he finally confessed—and
this with difficulty—that these things were said by the person
of the Word, he should also accept that the entire collection
of previous texts is to be referred to that same Word of God.
(45) For the one who said, “When he established the heavens,
I was present with him,”157 was the same as the one who said,
“The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his
works.”158 For one and the same person was shown to us from
the beginning who was speaking in all the previous passages.
And so the same [person] who said, “The Lord created me as
the beginning of his ways for his works,”159 added, “Before the
age, he founded me,”160 and, “At the first, before the making of
153. Of course, relating Prv 8 to the Incarnation of the Lord.

154. Prv 8.27.
155. Prv 8.28–30.
156. Marcellus, fr. 110 (60 K./H.) (104,1–11 V.).
157. Prv 8.27.
158. Prv 8.22.
159. Ibid.
160. Prv 8.23.
the earth,” and, “before the mountains had been shaped, be-
161
fore all (46) the hills, he begets me.”162 The same added both,
“When he established the heavens, I was present with him,”163
and what follows these [words]. If, then, the Word was the one
who said these things, how was he within God, co-ingenerate
with God, and existing as one and the same with him and [yet]
saying that he was created and begotten by him? For one and
the same (47) person, as I said, was shown to be speaking in all
the previous passages.
But even if sometime afterwards, he [Marcellus] confessed
that these things were said by the person of the Word in God,
his conclusions about the flesh of the Savior were forced, and all
those together164 have been exposed as being outmoded, vain,
and outlandish views. But if the flesh of the Savior was the one
who said, “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways
for his works,”165 according to the interpretation given by him,
and if the flesh was established “before the age”166 and “at the
first, before the making of the earth”167 (since clearly the flesh is
earth, as he thinks, because of the passage, “You are earth, and
to earth you shall return”),168 and if it was the flesh that said,
“Before the springs abounding with water came forth, before
the mountains had been shaped, before all the hills, he begets
me”169 (because [the flesh] was begotten before the election of
the apostles, as that most wise man thinks), it follows that so,
too, the statement, “When he established the heavens, I was
present with him,”170 was said by the person of the flesh. (48)
But no one would be so out of his mind as ever to accept this
161. Prv 8.23–24.

162. Prv 8.25.
163. Prv 8.27.
164. Namely, the contradictory views of the one verse being interpreted as
relating to the Word of God while the others have been related to the Incar-
nation.
165. Prv 8.22.
166. Prv 8.23.
167. Prv 8.23–24.
168. Gn 3.19.
169. Prv 8.24–25.
170. Prv 8.27.
300 Eusebius
interpretation. For the word of truth,171 giving a great shout,
will contradict him, (49) showing who it was at this time who re-
counts these things. Therefore, that the only-begotten Son, who
was begotten by God, living and subsisting, existing even before
the establishment of all creatures, was other [than the flesh],
he himself shows through those remarks he adds next, saying,
“When he established the heavens, I was present with him.”172
For he was together with and present to him [God] even before
the creation of the heaven[s] and the things beyond heaven and
everything in heaven. Thus this was stated figuratively through
the statement, “When he established the (50) heavens, I was
present with him.”173
And how did God establish [the heavens] before he created,
if not by making laws for them and designing the way in which
it was necessary to establish them? And so the Father designed
and made ready, pondering how it was necessary to establish
so great a heaven, how much height it would need and the
sort of shape its tremendous heights and components [would
have] in consideration of those things that would be contained
within it and those that would be outside of it and in view of
those things being turned over in his [mind]. But he [the Son]
who looks intently at the calculations of the Father and alone
gains access to the depths within him proceeded on through
the works, (51) following the signs of the Father and assisting
him. For this reason, it has been said somewhere: “Praise the
Lord from (52) the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise
him, all his angels, praise him all his host! Praise him, sun and
moon, praise him, all you stars and light! Praise him, you high-
est heavens, and you waters above the heavens! Let them praise
the name of the Lord! Because he spoke, and (53) they came
into existence; he commanded, and they were created.”174
But even before the very heavens and those things that are
beyond heaven and all things in heaven came into existence
(for all things taken together have been shown to come from
171. By “word of truth” here, Eusebius seems to mean John’s gospel.

172. Prv 8.27.
173. Ibid.
174. Ps 148.1–5.
one [source]), the Son of God existed, and was present to and
together with the Father when he was still contemplating the
establishment of all these things. For this reason he says, “When
he established the heavens, I was present with him.”175 Thus like
a good scribe taking the archetypal ideas from the Father’s cal-
culations, he transferred them to the substances176 of the works,
sculpting and giving specific shape to such things, (54) just as
he had seen them stored beforehand in the Father’s mind. And
that he himself would be a worthy witness of these things, he
teaches in the gospels in this way: “Truly, truly, I say to you, the
Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees
the Father doing; for whatever he does, that (55) the Son does
likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he
himself is doing.”177
With regard to this passage, one would quite rightly ask why
the Son makes for a second time the things that have already
been made by the Father. But he himself resolved that problem,
having said, “For whatever the Father does, that (56) the Son
does likewise.”178 Therefore, the things that are made by the Son
are copies of the archetypal works that pre-exist in the ineffable
calculations of the Father. Observing them closely in the mind
of the Father, then, the Son made copies of the things he had
seen. He shows that [this ability] to look into the Father’s depths
is a work of the paternal love in the next passage where he also
says clearly, “For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all that
he himself is doing.”179 Consequently, when the Father revealed
his secrets, the Son, seeing them, completed the works of the
paternal will through his [own] works. Therefore, coexisting in
this way with the Father and being present to him when he was
preparing the heavens and the things within them, he [the Son]
taught this, saying, “When he established (57) the heavens, I was
present with him.”180 The Father rejoiced even before the mak-
175. Prv 8.27.

177. Jn 5.19–20.
178. Jn 5.19.
179. Jn 5.20.
180. Prv 8.27.
302 Eusebius
ing of the world, looking at his own only-begotten Son himself
and discerning himself in him as in an image. For this reason,
Wisdom says, “I was daily his delight.”181 But the Son was also
filled with joy, being gladdened at the sight of the Father. He
himself teaches this when he says, “. . . I rejoiced before him (58)
always, rejoicing to have completed his inhabited world,”182 the
inhabited world here understood as the totality of all creatures
in which, having been called into being from nothing through
the Son, the God of all rejoiced.
Therefore, the true interpretation, which has been shown
from the divine Scripture as in a short and abbreviated expla-
nation, would be something like this. But he [Marcellus], be-
ing brought down from on high, has run his mind aground on
the flesh of our Savior, misconstruing and misinterpreting the
(59) true sense of the divinely inspired Scripture.
But even having passed over to the Word, he says that it is
[the Word] within the Father who (60) prepared the heavens as
in calculation and deliberation. And he said this in these very
words:
Before the making of the world, the Word was in the Father.
But when Almighty God resolved to make everything in heaven
and on earth, the generation of the world required active ener-
gy. And because of this, there being nothing else besides God
(for all things are confessed to have come to be by him), at that
cosmos, he who even beforehand was preparing it within his
mind, as the prophet Solomon teaches us, saying, “When he
(61) In these remarks, it is fitting to observe the completely
irrational way in which he [Marcellus] willfully pays no heed to
the statement, “I was present with him,” which expressly shows
the presence of the Son with the Father,184 but he declares in
181. Prv 8.30.

182. Prv 8.30–31.
183. Prv 8.27; see Marcellus, fr. 110 (60 K./H.) (104,1–7 V.).
184. Klostermann addition <συν> is incorrect, as Eusebius only works to-
wards this argument.
opposition to Scripture that before the creation there was
nothing else besides God. And he did not shudder at having
unleashed this statement, though it denies the Son, nor was he
troubled [by the fact that] the divine Scripture testifies that be-
fore the creation of the heavens he [the Son] alone was pres-
ent alongside the Father. For it says, “When he established the
heavens, (62) I was present with him.”185 For the prefix syn, add-
ed to the verb “to be present with,” shows the presence of the
same together with the other. Therefore, he [the Son] does not
teach simply that he was with the Father but that he himself
was together with the Father. And the Father did not simply re-
joice, but he rejoiced in the presence of the (63) Son. For this
reason he [the Son] says, “I was daily his delight.”186 But how
could the claim that he was the Father’s delight in his presence
apply to a Word that did not subsist, one that was in God him-
self and that acted for the purpose of communication, contrary
to the claims that he delighted, and was in the presence of, [the
Father], both of which indicate his hypostasis? But Marcellus,
not having given a rational account of any of these statements,
denies the Son, and says that he is the Word in God who at
one point comes forth in active energy, but at another is with-
in [God] not doing anything. And he [Marcellus] does not see
that to speak of something being inside and outside of God
suggests something composite and a kind of physical change,
which is not (64) lawful to accept with regard to the ingenerate
and incorporeal nature.
And how, having come forth, did the Word also become the
maker of the world? Did God make use of tongue, voice, and187
even language? And with whom did he also converse, given
that there was no one else together with him? And with whom
did he join company, there being no one besides him? But did
God himself converse with himself, making use of speech and
discussion so as also to make the Word come forth from him?
(65) And why was God unable to bring into existence the things
185. Prv 8.27.

186. Prv 8.30.
187. Again, Klostermann’s “improvement” of the text is incorrect. The
brachylogic omission of ἤ after πότερα is typical for Eusebius.
304 Eusebius
he wanted unless the Word was within him as active power,
when even among men, most craftsmen are silent when they are
bringing their projects to completion and especially when no
one is present with them while they are working? Thus what pre-
vented even God from establishing all things in this sort of way,
having the Word within himself? But [Marcellus] also proposed
the simile of a sculptor discussing with himself and saying to
himself,
Come now, let us make, let us form a statue.188
For he says in this way that even “God, the Lord of the uni-
verse, said to himself, ‘Let us make man,’”189 as he showed al-
ready many times before through previous remarks, through
which, I think, his denial of the Son of God (66) has been
made plain. For to allege that God himself, having his own
Word within himself, conversed with himself, would be charac-
teristic of a certain Jewish way of thinking. And [to allege] that
the Father of the Word within him and the Word within him,
his Son, are the same was a feature of Sabellius’s evil belief,
Chapter 4
(1) and again, to say that the three, Father, Son, and Spir-
it, are [the same] is190 also characteristic of Sabellius’s point of
view. And Marcellus endorses this same claim when he writes
somewhere:
For it is impossible that the three, being hypostases, could be
united in a monad, unless the Trinity were previously to take
its beginning from the monad. For the holy Paul said that
those things are gathered up191 in [the] monad, which in no
way belong to the oneness of God; for only the Word and the
Spirit belong to the oneness of God.192
188. A small section of Marcellus, fr. 98 (58 K./H.) (90,4–5 V.).

189. Gn 1.26; last part of Marcellus, fr. 98 (58 K./H.) (90,5–7 V.).
190. If we take out the wrong paragraph break here, the construction does
not need Klostermann’s addition of <ἓν>.
191. Eph 1.10.
192. Marcellus, fr. 47 (66 K./H.) (42,1–4 V.).
(2) Then he tries to bolster this [point] by proceeding to say
next:
Well then, if the Word were to appear to have come from the
Father himself and to have come to us,193 and “the Holy Spirit”
(as even Asterius confessed) “proceeds from the Father,”194
and again the Savior says concerning the Spirit that “he will
not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will
speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it
to you,”195 doesn’t the monad in this ineffable statement appear
clearly and obviously to broaden into a Trinity without in any
way suffering division? (3) For if the Word proceeds from the
Father, and the Spirit himself is also confessed to proceed
from the Father,196 and again if the Savior says concerning
the Spirit, “He will take what is mine and declare it to you,”197
is it not, then, obvious that some hidden mystery has been
revealed?198 For how, unless the monad, being indivisible, were
to broaden into a Trinity, would it be possible for him to say
at one time concerning the Spirit that he proceeds from the
Father,199 and at another to say, “He will take what is mine
and declare it to you,”200 and again [to say] when he breathed
upon the disciples, “Receive the Holy Spirit”?201 (4) For if [the
Spirit] proceeds from the Father, how is he declared to receive
this service from the Son?202 For if there were “two separate
193. See Jn 16.27–28; 8.42.

194. Jn 15.26; Asterius, fr. 59 (120 V.).
195. Jn 16.13–14.
196. See Jn 15.26.
197. Jn 16.14.
198. See Eph 3.9; Col 1.26.
199. Jn 15.26.
200. Jn 16.14.
201. Jn 20.22.
202. The service that the Spirit receives is the “giving” of him to the apos-
tles. Marcellus believes (with all others and the gospel) that the Spirit was not
given by the Father, but by the Son to the apostles. Now, if Father and Son
were two separate persons, the breathing out of the Spirit (Jn 20.22), as with
actors wearing masks in the ancient theater, would not be one breathing, but
two different persons behind two different masks. Hence it would no longer
be the breathing out of Spirit by the Father, but that of the Son. Alternatively,
306 Eusebius
persons,”203 as Asterius said, either it is necessary that the Spirit
in proceeding from the Father does not need the service that
comes from the Son (for everything that proceeds from the
Father is necessarily perfect, and in no way in need of the help
of another), or it is necessary that if he [the Spirit] receives
from the Son and from his power bestows grace, he no longer
proceeds from the Father.204
(5) And after some other remarks, he adds:
But if the gospel [says] that, having breathed upon the disci-
ples, [Christ] said, “Receive the Holy Spirit,”205 it is clear that
the Spirit came forth from the Word. How, then, if the Spirit
came forth from the Word, “does” the same “proceed from the
Father”?206
And he adds after other remarks:
Therefore, neither rightly nor appropriately did he [Asterius]
say (and that not once but even a second time) that “there are
three hypostases.”207
So through these statements and [others] like these, this
most wise fellow tries to argue that the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit are one and the same, the three names being laid
upon a single hypostasis. (6) For in these matters neither has
he understood how the Son is said to proceed from the Father
and likewise the Holy Spirit, nor has he been able to grasp in
what sense the Savior said concerning the Holy Spirit, “He will
take what is mine and declare it to you,”208 nor in what sense,
having breathed upon his disciples, he said, “Receive the Holy
Spirit.”209 Those who reflect piously will easily find the solution
to [these questions], if one were to consider how the Son, al-
the Son would not have needed to breathe out the Spirit, as the Father had
already done so.
203. Asterius, fr. 56 (118 V.). The term used here is πρόσωπα.
204. Marcellus, fr. 48 (67 K./H.) (42,5–44,8 V.).
205. Jn 20.22.
208. Jn 16.14.
209. Jn 20.22.
ways coexisting and being present with the Father, deep with-
in as if in the most profound and inaccessible recesses of the
paternal kingdom, but then being sent forth from the Father
for the salvation of the human race, said that he himself came
forth from the Father.
And at another time he revealed this about himself through
a parable, (7) saying, “A sower went out to sow.”210 For from
what place did he go forth, if not from the inmost realms of
the paternal divinity? According to the same line of reasoning,
the Holy Spirit, too, having always stood by the throne of God,
since even “a thousand thousands”211 stood by it according to
Daniel, was himself also sent out, at one time in the form of
a dove upon the Son of Man, 212 at another upon each of the
prophets and apostles. (8) For this reason [the Spirit] was also
said to proceed from the Father. And why do you wonder at
this? [Since] it has been said even of the Devil, “So the Devil
went forth from the Lord,”213 and again a second time it was
said, “So the Devil went forth from the Lord.”214 You will also
find Scripture saying about Ahab, “An evil spirit came forth
and stood before the Lord and (9) said, ‘I will entice him.’”215
But now is not the time to trouble ourselves with how and in
what ways [Scripture] has spoken about these opposing spir-
its. The only-begotten Son of God teaches that he himself has
come forth from the Father because he is always together with
him, and likewise about the Holy Spirit, who exists as another
besides the Son. The Savior himself shows this clearly when he
says, “He will take what is mine and declare it to you.”216 For this
would be unmistakable proof that the Son and the Holy Spirit
are not one and the same. For that which takes from another is
thought to be other than the one who gives.
210. Mk 4.3.
211. Dn 7.10.
212. See Lk 3.22.
213. Jb 1.12.
214. Jb 2.7.
215. 3 Kgs 22.21 (RSV 1 Kgs 22.21).
216. Jn 16.14.
308 Eusebius
Chapter 5
(1) And that the Holy Spirit is other than the Son, our Savior
and Lord himself taught clearly and distinctly in the plainest
of words, when he said to his disciples, “If you love me, you will
keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he
will give you another Counselor, to be with you forever, even
the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive.”217 You see
that he says that the Spirit is “another Counselor” and other
than himself. And if, having breathed upon the disciples, he
said, “Receive the Holy Spirit,”218 one must not be ignorant that
the breath was in some way purifying of the soul of the apos-
tles, rendering them fit for the (2) reception of the Holy Spirit.
For he is not said to have breathed upon their faces either the
breath of life or the Holy Spirit, as it is written of Adam, “God
breathed into his face the breath of life,”219 but he was said to
have breathed first and then said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”220
His giving the Spirit, again, shows that he is other than (3)
the one who is given. For the one who gives and that which is giv-
en could not have been the same, but the one who provides [the
Spirit] was the Savior, and that which is given was the Holy Spir-
it, and those who received the Spirit were the apostles, while the
breath purified the apostles, as I said, or even effected the giv-
ing of their share of the Holy (4) Spirit, for it is possible to inter-
pret this event in either of these ways. Thus from these passages
it is shown that the Holy Spirit is another existing alongside [the
Son], as is also shown through additional remarks, in which this
is again recorded, when [the Son] said, “If a man loves me, he
will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and (5) we will
come to him and make our home with him.”221 To this he adds,
“These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But
the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my
name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remem-
217. Jn 14.15–17.
218. Jn 20.22.
219. Gn 2.7.
220. Jn 20.22.
221. Jn 14.23.
brance all that I have said to you.” You hear that he has used a
222
plural verb about himself and the Father, 223 having said, “We will
come to him and make our home with him,” and in speaking of
the Holy Spirit as of another, he said, “He (6) will teach you all
things.”224 Of this nature was also the statement, “And I will pray
the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with
you forever, even the Spirit of truth.”225 Therefore, the Counsel-
or was another beside him [Christ], concerning whom he taught
these sorts of things. Therefore, quite rightly again he added,
saying, “These things I have spoken to you while I was still with
you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will
send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your
remembrance all that (7) I have said to you.”226 For I have up to
this time said these things to you, he says, but the Spirit of truth,
whom my Father will also send, he will teach you everything
(8) that you have not learned now because you were not capa-
ble of it; but when he has come, I mean the Counselor, he will
complete the teaching, along with calling to your remembrance
even the things now said by me. And again, he adds, “But when
the Counselor, whom I shall send to you from the Father, comes,
the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will give
witness concerning me.”227 Through all of these remarks, he
clearly shows that the one who is sent by him and who is going to
give witness concerning him (9) is another besides himself. He
confirms [this] fact still further by also saying in these words,
“Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I
go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to
you; but if I go, I will send him to you.”228 In saying that he went
away, he also revealed in these remarks his passion (10) and the
ascension to the Father that occurred after this.
Therefore, after so many statements, who would be so fool-
222. Jn 14.25–26.
223. Lit., “a multiple way.”
224. Jn 14.26.
225. Jn 14.16–17.
226. Jn 14.25–26.
227. Combining elements of Jn 14.16–17 and 15.26.
228. Jn 16.7.
310 Eusebius
ish as to say that the one who says these things and the one
about whom he said them are one and the same, when he lis-
tens to him clearly making a distinction [in order] to declare
the truth, and showing what that truth was: that (11) unless he
went away, the Holy Spirit would not come. And if [the Son] de-
clares differently at one time that the Father will send the Holy
Spirit and at another time that he himself will send him, he
does not, I assure you, teach contradictory things; for whatever
“he sees the Father doing,” “that the Son does likewise,”229 and,
“as he hears, so he judges.”230 For this reason, by the judgment
of the Father, when the Father desires, then the Son and Sav-
ior through himself231 sends to his disciples the Spirit of truth,
the Counselor, to counsel them and to comfort them in what
they suffered at the hands (12) of those who were persecuting
them while they were preaching the gospel. And [he sent the
Holy Spirit] not only to counsel them, but also to teach them
the entire truth of the new covenant, which they did not grasp
from the Savior’s instruction when he conversed about these
matters with them, because they were still enslaved by their
Jewish (13) education. But he fulfilled [these predictions] with
his actions after his resurrection from the dead. After having
said to Mary, “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended
to my Father,”232 [and] after he was seen by the disciples hav-
ing ascended to the Father, then the Holy Spirit was sent and
was with him and willingly revealed the service for which he
had been appointed. (14) [Only] then did he allow himself to
be touched.233 For when “he breathed upon”234 [them], then he
also gave to them a share in the grace of the Holy Spirit, such
as could effect the forgiveness of sins. For “there are varieties of
gifts,”235 of which a part was given to [the disciples] when [the
Savior] was with and present to them, but afterwards he filled
229. Jn 5.19.
230. Cf. Jn 5.30.
231. One needs to read δι’ αὐτοῦ.
232. Jn 20.17.
233. See Lk 24.39; Jn 20.27.
234. Jn 20.22.
235. 1 Cor 12.4.
them with an [even] greater and more perfect power. He spoke
to [the apostles] about this in the Acts of the Apostles: “but
you shall receive power from on high when the Holy Spirit has
come upon you.”236 And when he promised that they would be
baptized with the Holy Spirit, he also then fulfilled that [prom-
ise] after his ascension, when the (15) Holy Spirit was sent to
them on the day of Pentecost in accordance with his words.
Although the passages on this topic stand in need of greater
explanation and clarification, now is not the time to examine
them in detail, since that is not the task set before us; instead
it was necessary to show that the Counseling Spirit was other
than the Son. This was also shown in a different way in those
things that the Savior himself taught, in addition to the others
and in which he said, “I have yet many things to say to you,
but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit (16) of truth
comes, he237 will guide you into all truth; for he will not speak
on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and
he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glori-
fy me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”238 In
these words he promises again that his disciples will learn from
the Holy Spirit [these] things that he himself did not teach,
saying, as if about another, “when he comes,” and, “he will not
speak on his own authority,” and, “he will glorify me,” and, “he
will take what is mine.”239 For to suppose that the Savior himself
said all these things about himself would be tremendous and
(17) irremediable stupidity. For through these [statements] the
Savior himself clearly taught that the Holy Spirit exists as an-
other besides himself, outstanding in honor and glory and priv-
ileges, greater and higher than any [other] intellectual and ra-
tional being240 (for which reason he has also been received into
the (18) holy and thrice-blessed Trinity). Yet he is surely subor-
dinate to [the Son].241 Indeed, [the Son] showed this when he
236. Acts 1.8.

237. Klostermann’s addition here of “that one” is unnecessary.
238. Jn 16.12–14.
239. Jn 16.13–14.
241. Klostermann’s erasure of “being” is not necessary.
312 Eusebius
said, “For he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever
he hears he will speak.”242 He makes clear, however, from whom
he will hear: “He will take what is mine and declare it to you,”243
that is, from my treasure. For in him [the Son] are “hidden all
the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”244 (19) Therefore, he
himself, seeing as he is the only-begotten Son, receives from
the Father and listens to [the Father], while the Holy Spirit sup-
plies [what he receives] from him [the Son]. Hence, [the Son]
says, “He will take what is mine and declare it to you.”245
Yet the God who is over all is also said to be “spirit,” as the
Savior himself taught, when he said, “God is spirit, and those
who worship him must worship in spirit and truth,”246 and he
will truly be the holy of holies and “dwelling among the holy.”247
But the Son of God is also spirit, because he is both spirit and
himself holy of holies, if indeed he is [the] image of the (20) in-
visible. For this reason it has also been said of him, “Now the
Lord is the spirit,”248 (21) and, “the spirit before us, Christ the
Lord.”249 But given that the Holy Spirit is another alongside
the Father and the Son, the Savior, showing his unique char-
acteristic, 250 has called him “Counselor,” distinguishing him
from the common run of similarly titled [spirits] through the
title “Counselor.” For the angelic powers also are “spirits.” For
it has been said: “He who makes his angels spirits.”251 But none
of these can be equal to the Counseling Spirit. For this rea-
son, (22) only this [Spirit] has been received into the holy and
thrice-blessed Trinity; in no other way did the Savior command
his apostles to hand over the mystery of his regeneration to
those Gentiles who believed in him than by “baptizing them
in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spir-
242. Jn 16.13.
243. Jn 16.14.
244. Col 2.3.
245. Jn 16.14.
246. Jn 4.24.
247. See Is 57.15.
248. 2 Cor 3.17.
249. See Lam 4.20.
250. τὸ ἰδίωμα.
251. Heb 1.7.
it.” Thus the Father has the ultimate authority and bestows
252
grace, while the Son assists in this [effort] (for “grace and truth
came through Jesus Christ”), 253 and the Holy Spirit, to be sure,
the Counselor, himself distributes according to the varieties of
gifts within him, “for to one is given through the Spirit the ut-
terance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge
according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spir-
it,”254 and likewise what has been reckoned among these.
Chapter 6
(1) Therefore, the Holy Spirit by nature loves to dwell only in
those holy ones, bestowed through the Son upon whomever the
Father selected. And this would be his task, to sanctify all with
whom he shares one or even many of the gifts within him, so
that prophets and apostles and every God-loving soul, yes, and
even the great and divine powers, have a share in his holiness.
Since the Son has been honored with the paternal divinity, he
would be the maker and fashioner of all created things, both
visible and invisible, and surely also of the very existence255 of
the Counseling Spirit. For “all things were made (2) through
him, and without him not one thing was made,”256 and, “in him
all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and
invisible.”257 But the God who is beyond all things and Father
of our Lord Jesus Christ, being something ineffably good and
greater than any calculation and conception, any speech and
consideration, of all things, however many, of whatever type
they may happen to be, leading his Holy Spirit besides the only-
begotten Son, rightly has alone been declared the God “who
is over all and through all and in all” by the Apostle when he
says, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of
us all, who is over all and through all and (3) in all.”258 And he
252. Mt 28.19.
253. Jn 1.17.
254. 1 Cor 12.8–9.
255. ὑπάρξεως.
256. Jn 1.3.
257. Col 1.16.
258. Eph 4.5–6.
314 Eusebius
alone would be called “one God and Father” “of our Lord Je-
sus Christ,”259 while the Son would be “the only-begotten God,
who is in the bosom of the Father.”260 But the Counseling Spirit
would be neither God nor Son, since he himself has not also
received his generation from the Father as the Son has, but is
one of those things brought into existence through the Son,
because “all things were made through him, and without him
not one thing was made.”261
(4) Therefore, all these mysteries are handed over to the holy
and Catholic Church in this way through the holy pronounce-
ments. But Marcellus, having mixed everything together, at one
time descends into the very abyss of Sabellius, and at another
attempts to renew the heresy of Paul of Samosata, and at an-
other has been shown as a bare-faced Jew. For he introduces a
single hypostasis with three faces,262 as it were, and three names,
saying that the same is God and the Word within (5) him and
the Holy Spirit. And when he has turned from these claims to
the apostolic theology concerning Christ, again, he has made
use of distorted interpretations. For while the divine Apostle
unmistakably theologizes about the Son of God and says, “He
is the image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation, for
in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible
and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or
authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together,”263
Chapter 7 264
(1) this wondrous fellow, having stumbled again on the
flesh,265 declares that it is the image of the invisible God, paying
no attention [to the fact that the statement] “he who is the im-
259. Eph 4.6; 2 Cor 1.3.

260. Jn 1.18.
261. Jn 1.3.
262. τριπρόσωπον.
263. Col 1.15–17.
264. Another example of a wrong paragraph break.
265. Klostermann’s addition of κατὰ is unnecessary.
age” has been put forth in the masculine form. For having no
idea how the “he who” could apply to the flesh, he [Marcellus]
said that this was shown to be itself the image “of the invisible
God.”266 And again he says that [the statement], “He is before all
things,”267 was made about the flesh, not being ashamed to take
(2) the “he” as referring to the flesh.268 And he says that [he] has
been called “firstborn of all creation”269 because of the flesh, and
he relentlessly persists in claiming that the things “in heaven and
on earth,”270 “visible and invisible,”271 were created by means of
the flesh, nor does he fail [to say the same about] thrones and
principalities and dominions and authorities, saying that they
were made worthy of the creation by Christ through the flesh of
the Savior. Having already laid out in my previous book Marcel-
lus’s remarks about these matters,272 not to let this [treatise] get
too long, I will be satisfied with the testimony of those passages.
But that this sort of interpretation of the Apostle’s statement is
distorted and forced, does not require, I think, further support,
because the shamelessness of the interpretation is evident to all.
Chapter 8
Nevertheless, having said so many things about the flesh
of the Savior, he does not preserve it safe and sound for us. If
only he had maintained the pious manner of thinking about
it! Now, after he has said all these things about [the flesh], he
declares that at the consummation of the ages it [will] be left
behind, devoid of the Word, writing in this way:
Therefore, if he confesses that the flesh does not benefit him,
how is it possible that the flesh, which is of earth and is of
266. Col 1.15; see Marcellus, fr. 55 (94 K./H.) (48,11–19 V.).
267. Col 1.17.
268. Eusebius’s argument here rests on the fact that the Greek word for
“flesh” is feminine.
269. Col 1.15.
270. Col 1.16.
271. Ibid.
272. See Eusebius of Caesarea, CM 2.3 (50 K./H.), pp. 134–47 in the pres-
ent volume.
316 Eusebius
no avail, will also coexist with the Word even in the ages to
come—as if it did offer some benefit to him?273
Chapter 9
And he repeats the same claim in another passage, claiming,
Well then, if Paul said that in the time of the restoration of all
things even creation itself will pass from bondage to liberty
(for he says that “even the creation itself will be set free from
its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the
sons of God”), 274 how would it still be possible for the “form of
a slave,”275 which the Word assumed, since it is [the] form of a
slave, to continue to coexist with the Word?276
Chapter 10
(1) You see what sort of remarks he has dared to advance
against the flesh of our Savior, not having acknowledged that
even before [his] ascension into heaven, when it [the flesh] was
still upon the earth before the Passion, he glorified it in this
way on the mountain, showing [it, that is, the flesh] as an im-
age of his kingdom to only three of his chosen disciples, so that
his face (2) shone and was brilliant with flashes of light (for the
divine Scripture says, “and his face shone like the sun, and his
garments became white as light”);277 but neither did he [Marcel-
lus] comprehend what sort of glorious body Christ would have,
about which the Apostle spoke, and how he taught that our
bodies would be conformed to that body, when he says, “who
will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body.”278 Nor
has [Marcellus] given any thought to the way in which [Paul]
wrote that the mortal will be swallowed up by life, when he pro-
274. Rom 8.21.
275. Phil 2.7.
277. Mt 17.2.
278. Phil 3.21.
claims, “not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be
further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by
life.”279 Ignorant of all these statements, [Marcellus] stubbornly
insists that the Word is going to be one and the same with God,
as he also was before, but as for the flesh left behind by the
Word, (3) he has no idea where it will be. Listen to how he says
these things:
But if someone should ask about this flesh that has become im-
mortal by the Word, what are we to say to him? [We would say]
that we think it is dangerous for us to expound dogma about
things of which we have no exact knowledge from the divine
Scriptures. For how (4) is it possible for those who overturn
even the dogmas of others to do this? But we will say to those
who wish to learn from us the accurate truth about this that,
convinced by the holy Apostle, we know that it is fitting for us
to see the hidden mysteries in this way, as he himself said. “For
now we see,” he says, “in a mirror dimly, but then face-to-face,”
and what follows.280 So do not ask me about things about which
I have no clear knowledge from the divine Scripture. Well
then, because of this, I will not be able to speak clearly about
that divine flesh that acquired communion with the divine
Word.281
So the one who confesses that he neither is able to say any-
thing nor has learned anything from (5) the Scripture makes
these sorts of claims about the flesh, having taken [them] neither
from Scripture nor from other [sources], nor having learned
[them] from the Church. Instead, he invented for himself and
dreamed up out of his own imagination an offspring that is for-
eign and alien to the truth. Nor has he taken to heart the scrip-
tural passage that says, “Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke
you, and you be found a liar,”282 and, “Woe to the prophets who
follow their own heart.”283 (6) See, then, into what great impiety
he has fallen. For he, having cast the whole theology concern-
279. 2 Cor 5.4.

280. 1 Cor 13.12.
282. Prv 30.6.
283. See Ezek 13.3.
318 Eusebius
ing the pre-existent only-begotten Son down to the level of the
flesh, and having addressed it as the crown of victory in these
very words, saying,
. . . that the Word of God enabled the human flesh to become
immortal through the resurrection and like one who has been
crowned with the wreath of victory to sit at the right hand of
the Father, 284
this same man says that [the flesh] will be empty and bereft in
the consummation of all thing[s], uniting the Word with the
Father while separating the flesh from the activity of the Word
and having left it behind, I don’t know how, on the one hand
immortal and incorruptible and on the other soulless and un-
moved by the (7) Word. And again he tries to support these
conclusions on the basis of the divine readings, of which he
has no understanding. For our Savior said to those who did not
understand the teachings about his flesh and blood, “Do you
take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of
Man ascending where he was before? It is the Spirit that gives
life; the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you
are spirit and life.”285
Chapter 11
Not having grasped the intention of the statement, he [Mar-
cellus] thought that [the Word] repudiates the flesh that he
assumed from the holy Virgin. Then on this basis, he tries to
support the claim that after the consummation of all things the
Word that is in God will leave behind the flesh, now empty of
his own power. He says so in these very words:
For concerning the flesh, through the possession of which he
associated with the disciples, he thus said, “Do you take offense
at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending
where he was before? It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh is
of no avail.”286 Therefore, if he confesses that the flesh does not
284. Marcellus, fr. 84 (127 K./H.) (72,13–15 V.).

285. Jn 6.61–63.
286. Ibid.
benefit him, how is it possible that the flesh, which is of earth
and is of no avail, will also coexist with the Word even in the
ages to come—as if it did offer some benefit to him?287
You see how greatly he has distorted the gospel statement
because he did not understand in what manner and for what
reason the saving utterance of the Word has been stated.
Chapter 12
(1) But you, having taken up the gospel text, see the whole
teaching of our Savior [and] how he did not speak about the
flesh that he assumed, but about the mystical body and blood.
For when he fed the multitudes with the five loaves and provid-
ed this great miracle to those who were watching, many Jews,
disparaging the deed, said to him, “Then, what sign do you do,
that we may see, and believe you?”288 Then they made a com-
parison with the manna in the desert, saying, “Our fathers ate
the manna in the wilderness; as it has been written, ‘He gave
them bread from heaven to eat.’”289 (2) To these remarks the
Savior answered, “Truly, truly I say to you, it was not Moses who
gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true
bread from heaven.”290 Then he continues, “I am the bread of
life,”291 and again, “I am the bread that came down from heav-
en,”292 and again, “The bread which I shall give is my body.”293
And again he adds, “Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the
flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you (3) have no
life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eter-
nal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is
true food, and my blood (4) is true drink. He who eats my flesh
and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”294 And when
287. Excerpt of Marcellus, fr. 106 (117 K./H.) (96,6–12 V.).

288. Jn 6.30.
289. Jn 6.31.
290. Jn 6.32.
291. Jn 6.35.
292. Jn 6.51.
293. Ibid. Instead of “body,” the Johannine text has “flesh.”
294. Jn 6.53–56.
320 Eusebius
he had recounted all these sorts of things in a more mystical
way, certain of his disciples said, “This is a hard saying; who can
listen to it?”295 —to which the Savior replied, saying, “Do you
take offense at this? Then what if you were to see (5) the Son of
Man ascending where he was before? It is the Spirit that gives
life; the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you
are spirit and life.”296 Through these remarks he taught them to
hear in a spiritual sense what had been said about his flesh and
blood. For [he says], “Do not think that I am speaking about
the flesh, which I bear, [saying] that it is necessary to eat it, nor
suppose that I command [you] to drink sensible and corporeal
blood, but know well that ‘the words that I have spoken to you
are spirit and life,’297 so that the words themselves and the state-
ments themselves are the flesh and blood; he who partakes of
them always, feeding as it were on heavenly bread, (6) will have
a share in the life of heaven.” Therefore, he [Christ] says, “Take
no offense at what I have said to you about the food of my flesh
and the drink of my blood, nor let what I have said about the
flesh and blood trouble you when at first you hear it. For these
things are ‘of no avail’298 when they are heard sensibly, but the
Spirit is that which gives life to those (7) who are able to hear
spiritually.” But since the upstart interpreter of the evangelical
teachings understood none of these things, listen to how he
writes, saying in [these] very words:
After he laid hold of his human body and showed it to those
who were watching, he said, “Do you take offense at this? Then
what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending where he was
before? It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh is of no avail.”299
(8) To this one must say, “Where do you, my fine man, get
[this] addition,300 which is not contained in the evangelical writ-
295. Jn 6.60.
296. Jn 6.61–63.
297. Jn 6.63.
298. Ibid.
299. Jn 6.61–63; Marcellus, fr. 105 (118 K./H.) (96,1–3 V.).
300. That is, the detail (which is not in the gospel text) Marcellus adds
about Christ “laying hold of his human body” before he spoke to his disciples.
ing? For you yourself imagine that the Savior, having taken hold
of [his] human body and shown it to those who were watching,
said, ‘Do you take offense at this?’301 and you dare to make up
this addition yourself?” Then, having taken on that dare, he
next thinks to support [the claim] that the flesh of the Savior
will be left behind, devoid of the power of the Word, by saying,
Therefore, if he confesses that the flesh does not benefit him,
how is it possible that the flesh, which is of earth and is of
no avail, will also coexist with the Word even in the ages to
come—as if it did offer some benefit to him?302
Thus with such stupidity and ignorance, he began to misin-
terpret the gospel. He also likewise invented distorted interpre-
tations of the apostolic statements.
Chapter 13
(1) Indeed, when early on in the Acts of the Apostles, Pe-
ter says concerning our Savior, “whom heaven must receive un-
til the time of restoration,”303 because he [Marcellus] has not
grasped the meaning of the statement, on the basis of it he
attempts to circumscribe the kingdom of Christ, alleging that
a certain limit and appointed time for his kingdom is shown
because of the (2) phrase “until the time of the restoration.”
He says that this same claim is also supported by the Psalm
that says, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your
footstool,”304 and [he says] that Paul the Apostle said because of
this, “For he must reign until he has made his enemies his foot-
stool.”305 For he supposed that the [phrases] “up to” and “until”
are indicative of a circumscribed time. Listen now to how he
writes this in so many words, saying,
For it seems to me also because of this that God Almighty, the
Lord, says to him, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your ene-
301. Jn 6.61.
303. Acts 3.21.
304. Ps 109.1 (RSV 110.1).
305. 1 Cor 15.25.
322 Eusebius
mies your footstool.”306 Seeming to distinguish him by activity
alone because of [the] human flesh, and determining, as it
were, a certain specified time for him to sit at his right hand,
he thus says to him, “until I make your enemies your footstool.”
(3) The holy Apostle, interpreting for us even more clearly this
prophetic statement of David, thus said somewhere, “He must
reign until he has made his enemies his footstool.”307 Thus the
human economy and kingdom seem to have a certain limit.308
And after some other remarks, he adds,
Because of this, the Acts of the Apostles teaches in this way
regarding this man, whom the Word of God assumed and,
having assumed him, he sits at the right hand of the Father, as
when it says, “whom heaven must receive until the time of res-
toration.”309 And these [Acts] [speak in this way], determining,
as it were, a certain limit and appointed time.310
(4) He adds to this after some other statements:
. . . How would it still be possible for the “form of a slave,”311
which the Word assumed, since it is the form of a slave, to
continue to coexist with the Word? Therefore, the divinely
inspired Paul said clearly and distinctly that in a certain short
span of time within past as well as future ages the fleshly econ-
omy of the Word has occurred for our sakes and that as this
economy has a beginning, so also it has an end, having thus
said, “Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to
[his] God and Father.”312
Chapter 14
(1) Through such statements, Marcellus both revealed his
ignorance of the Son’s “glorious body”313 and denies his unend-
306. Ps 109.1 (RSV 110.1).

307. 1 Cor 15.25.
308. Excerpt from Marcellus, fr. 106 (117 K./H.) (96,12–98,1 V.).
309. Acts 3.21.
311. Phil 2.7.
312. 1 Cor 15.24; Marcellus, fr. 106 (117 K./H.) (96,4–100,3 V.).
313. Phil 3.21.
ing kingdom, not having understood that the term “until” is
usually taken according to a certain custom that is character-
istic of Scripture. Indeed, it is in this sense that the Savior said
to the disciples, “Lo, I am with you always, until the close of
the age,”314 not denying that he would be with them even after
the close of the age, but teaching that even now he will be with
them “until the close of the age,” watching over and protecting
all those who are his disciples, and after the close of the age, he
will be present to them to an even greater degree, (2) declaring
that they will belong to his kingdom. In this sense, then, both
the statement, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies
your footstool,”315 and the statement, “whom heaven must re-
ceive until the time of restoration,”316 have been said not as if
he would no longer exist after these things, but as if he would,
at the time of the close of the age, depart from the Father’s
throne and make a second descent from heaven, about which
the Apostle teaches, saying, “For the Lord himself will descend
from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call,
and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in
Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be
caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord
in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord.”317 Thus it is
necessary that the Savior remain in heaven and sit at the right
hand of the Father “until the close of the age,”318 but at the very
consummation of all things, having effected his second, glori-
ous coming, he will take up his holy ones to dwell forever with
him, not until a certain time, but unto endless ages. (3) For,
he says, “so we shall always be with the Lord.”319 Therefore, the
holy ones, always being with him, will enjoy his kingdom in the
kingdom of heaven, which has been proclaimed.
But having understood none of these things, when the holy
Apostle said about our Savior, “For he must reign until he has
314. Mt 28.20.
315. Ps 109.1 (RSV 110.1).
316. Acts 3.21.
317. 1 Thes 4.16–17.
318. Mt 28.20.
319. 1 Thes 4.17.
324 Eusebius
made his enemies his footstool. The last enemy to be destroyed
is death,”320 and again, “When (4) all things are subjected to
him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who
put all things under him, that God may be all in all,”321 this fine
man, as is his custom, also misinterprets these [statements],
hearing in some sense—I know not what—that the Son’s sub-
jection to the Father is the equivalent of the Word being united
to God. For when was he not united to him, if the Word existed
eternally in God? How, then, does he say, “Then he will be sub-
jected” “to his God and Father”?322
Chapter 15
(1) It is necessary to understand the meaning both when the
Apostle said that all things would be subjected to the Son him-
self and when he teaches that even [the Son himself] will be
subjected to the Father by virtue of the same subjection, saying,
“When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself
will also be subjected to him who put (2) all things under him,
that God may be all in all.”323 Yet he [Marcellus] pays no at-
tention to the phrase “all in all.” For [Paul] does not say that
God will be “all” in the Son, but “in all.” This statement would
rather indicate a certain conjunction and unity of all things,
if God were going to be “all in all.” But [Marcellus] interprets
the subjection of the Son as the unification of the Word, who
will be one and the same with the Father, just as he also was be-
fore, as [Marcellus] himself (3) said. Well now, if he defines the
subjection to the Father as a unification, it would follow also
that that subjection of all things to the Son signifies the same
unification with him, so that the Son would no longer exist in
and of himself, nor would the multitude of saved creatures sub-
jected to him live their own life, but there would be a certain
meshing together and commingling of all of them, since the
Son and all the rest, (4) and not only they, but also God him-
320. 1 Cor 15.25–26.

321. 1 Cor 15.28.
322. 1 Cor 15.28, 24.
323. 1 Cor 15.28.
self, would be one and the same. For if all things are united
with the Son, and the Son is united with the Father by virtue of
being subjected to him, look at (5) what results from this line
of reasoning. But just as the Apostle did not indicate unifica-
tion when he said that all things would be subjected to the Son,
but the obedience that comes from free choice and the glory
and the honor that all things will give to him as to a Savior
and king of all, in the same way also, the same subjection to
the Father would indicate nothing other than the glory and the
honor and the reverence and the magnificent and free obedi-
ence, which even [the Son] himself will give to [his] “God and
Father,”324 when he makes all things worthy of the paternal di-
vinity. (6) For in the meantime, seeing as they are not [at pres-
ent] worthy of this, having taken upon himself, like a common
savior of all, the correction of the imperfect and care of those
in need of healing, he exercises his kingship, putting the ene-
mies of the kingdom under his feet. Indeed, the Psalm shows
this when it states, “The Lord said to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right
hand, until I make your enemies (7) your footstool.’”325 When326
he places the enemies under his feet, he will, however, establish
those worthy of his kingdom in everlasting life, for327 at that
time even death, the last enemy of all, will be destroyed. For
when no one dies anymore, and those who are worthy of the
kingdom will live in eternal life, death, of course, will no longer
exist, since it will no longer have anyone (8) to kill. When these
[the holy ones] have been suitably prepared, all holy ones will
be subjected with a saving subjection to the Son of God. By the
life that he is, they will live eternally; by the wisdom that he
is, they will be wise; by the rationality328 that he is, they will be
made rational. So also they will become Christs, having been
anointed by the Spirit with his sweet perfume, and they will be
displayed as stars of the new age, having been supplied with
lights from him, and they will be sons of God, having been
324. 1 Cor 15.24.

325. Ps 109.1 (RSV 110.1).
326. Klostermann’s addition of δε is incorrect.
327. Klostermann’s erasure of γὰρ is incorrect.
328. Lit., “Word.”
326 Eusebius
adorned with the Spirit of adoption, and they will become par-
takers in all the remaining powers in him when they will have
been subjected to him, so as to become both righteous from his
righteousness and holy from his holiness. Since (9) “the Word
was God,”329 too,330 neither will he begrudge them divinity, so
as to confirm that Apostle’s prophecy that the holy ones would
become “heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ.”331 Yes, sure-
ly they will even have heavenly bodies like those of the sun and
the moon and the stars, (10) and by virtue of this they will have
a share in his glory. The same [Apostle] shows this, having said,
“from it [our commonwealth in heaven] we await a Savior, the
Lord Jesus Christ, who will change our lowly body to be like his
glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all
things to himself.”332
You see that by his power to subject all things to himself, he
will also effect the transformation of our body, so as to ren-
der even our body “like his glorious body.”333 (11) But if our
body will be like “his glorious body,” why will his glorious body
not participate all the more in his kingdom? And if our body
will be swallowed up by life, as the Apostle gave witness, having
said, “not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be
further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up
by life,”334 why will his body not be all the more swallowed up,
not only by life, as our [body] will be, but also by his divinity,
since he availed himself of the powerful assistance of his di-
vinity? Surely, then, let no one question or be in doubt about
what it is proper to think about the saving body, by listening
to Paul, who clearly says that it is necessary for “what is mor-
tal” to be “swallowed up by life” and that our body will be like
Christ’s “glorious body by the power (12) [that enables him
even] to subject all things to himself.”335 Consequently, then,
329. Jn 1.1.
330. Klostermann’s δε is incorrect.
331. Rom 8.17.
332. Phil 3.20–21.
333. Phil 3.21.
334. 2 Cor 5.4.
335. Phil 3.21.
he will subject all things to himself, and it is necessary to think
that this saving subjection is of such a nature as accords with
the passage, “the Son himself will be subjected to him who put
all things under him,”336 imagining a certain unspeakable and
ineffable subjection that is fitting for him alone, when he will
lead those gathered together by him as in a chorus to [his]
“God and Father,”337 bringing the glory and honor and rever-
ence and esteem to him, seeing as he is indeed the cause of all
good things,
Chapter 16 338
(1) at which time, too, the conclusion of the apostolic teach-
ing will be fulfilled, which says, “so that God may be all in
all.”339 Indeed, we will understand the same thing from the
other promise, in which it was said by God himself, “I will live
among them, and I will walk among them, and I will be their
God, and they shall be my people.”340 But now in the present
age the promise comes to the worthy alone, in brief and par-
tially, in accordance with [the statement], “We know in part
and prophesy in part.”341 But after the consummation of all
things, when the new age has come, he will no longer dwell
in some few of them, but in all who are then (2) worthy of the
kingdom of heaven. Thus in this way he will be “all in all,”342 to
be sure, “dwelling among them and walking among them,”343
not disdaining to be “their God”344 and claiming them all as his
people. In this way, then, he will be in them, as he is also said to
be in the Son himself, just as [the Son] himself teaches, saying,
“The Father is in me, and I am in the Father.”345 And he will be
336. 1 Cor 15.28.

337. 1 Cor 15.24
338. Another odd paragraph break.
339. 1 Cor 15.28.
340. 2 Cor 6.16. Cf. Lv 26.12; Ezek 37.27.
341. 1 Cor 13.9.
342. 1 Cor 15.28.
343. Cf. 2 Cor 6.16.
344. Ibid.
345. Jn 10.38.
328 Eusebius
“all things” in them, by providing himself to all according to
the capacity of each to participate in his divinity. [And] when
the thrice-blessed hope and unending and immortal life have
been established in this end, in which God will be “all in all,”
filling all with the flashes of his divinity as of ineffable light, the
Son, exalting and rejoicing in their victory, having crowned as
with a wreath of victory those made worthy through him of his
blessedness, will bring to completion his undying and eternal
kingdom under the Father’s rule, when all those other oracles
about him will also be fulfilled, indeed also those said by the
angel Gabriel to the all-holy Virgin concerning him who would
be born from her, in fact that “he will reign forever . . . and (3)
of his kingdom there will be no end.”346 Then, when the Son
rules, he will hand over to his Father all those who are ruled by
him, not ceasing to exercise rule, nor departing from it, for the
holy Apostle did not say that he would cease to exercise [rule]
(for then he would have written the opposite of what the angel
Gabriel prophesied to the virgin [when he said that] “he will
reign forever . . . and of his kingdom there will be no end”), 347
but that he would hand over the kingdom, that is to say, those
who were (4) ruled by him, “to his God and Father.”348 For as
one overjoyed by his victory, he will hand over to the Father all
those who have been brought to perfection by him as if ren-
dering to him a deposit. Indeed, [Christ] himself teaches this,
saying, “All things have been given to me by my Father.”349 For
this reason it follows that, like a good guardian, he will hand
over the deposit to God that he carried safe and sound through
everything, like a high priest showing to him all those who
are made holy by him, white as snow and shining with their
incorruptible bodies of the resurrection like the most brilliant
robes, so that they might not only rejoice in his rule over them,
but also be filled with the (5) ineffable goods of the Father. For
in this way will “God be all in all,”350 as the Apostle said, with
346. Lk 1.33.
347. Ibid.
348. 1 Cor 15.24.
349. Mt 11.27; Lk 10.22.
350. 1 Cor. 15.28.
the Son bringing to him those who are ruled, so that all of this
might take place; I mean that the Father might be “all in all.”
For as he was before in the Son, according to [the statement],
“The Father is in me, and I am in the Father,”351 so he will then
also be in (6) those who are perfected by the Son.
For the Apostle did not say that the Son would cease to rule
and that God would rule, but that the Son would hand over
“the kingdom to his God and Father,”352 revealing the deposit
safe and sound and fitting for the worship of and priestly ser-
vice to the Father, and that God would be “all in all”353 as if
God dwelt among them and walked among them and became
all things to them. For of some he will be master, of some king,
of some something else. But of all taken together he will be
God, becoming all things to them by the divine virtues (7) and
powers in him. This is the end of the thrice-blessed hope to
which the great Apostle subscribed when he said, “so that God
may be all in all.”354
But he will be all in all in a manner proportionate to the
capacity of each, distributing different aspects of his divinity
to all, but he will preserve exclusively for his only-begotten Son
the excellent and paternal glory and honor and kingdom that
cannot be shared with all the rest.
Chapter 17 355
(1) But if it is necessary that these things be confirmed with
a prophetic seal, in order to strengthen the trustworthiness of
what has been said, I will call to witness the prophetic spirit
[that spoke] through Ezekiel the prophet, which indeed pro-
claims these same things in these sorts of words: “For thus says
the Lord: Behold, I, I myself will search for my sheep and will
seek them out. As a shepherd seeks out his flock when gloom
and clouds are amidst the sheep that have been scattered
351. Jn 10.38.
352. 1 Cor 15.24.
353. 1 Cor 15.28.
354. Ibid.
355. Another odd paragraph break.
330 Eusebius
abroad, so will I seek out my sheep.”356 And after some other
remarks: “I will save my flock, they shall no longer be a prey;
and I will judge (2) between ram and ram. And I will set up
over them a shepherd, and he will shepherd them, my servant
David, and he will be their shepherd. And I, the Lord, will be
their God, and my servant David shall be ruler among them. I,
the Lord, have spoken! I will make a covenant with David.”357
And after other remarks, he repeats the same prophecy a sec-
ond time, saying, “And I will save them from all their lawless
deeds in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them; and
they shall be my people, and I will be their God. My servant Da-
vid shall be ruler over them; and (3) he will be shepherd over
all of them.”358 And again, he adds, “and David my servant shall
be their prince forever.”359
Notice that in all these passages it is said that God will be nei-
ther shepherd nor ruler but God of those who will be deemed
worthy of the blessed consummation. And of these same it is
prophesied that David will be ruler and shepherd, David here
intimating in a veiled way Christ, because he is “from his
seed.”360 (4) And this is clear from the fact that David died be-
fore the time when these things were said. Daniel the prophet
proclaims these things even more clearly, calling the Christ of
God “Son of Man” plainly in this way, just as also the text of the
holy gospels was accustomed to call him. He says in this way, “I
saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a Son of Man, and he came to the Ancient
of Days and was presented.361 And to him were given dominion
and glory and kingdom, and all peoples, nations, and languages
shall serve him; (5) his dominion is an everlasting one that shall
not pass away, and his kingdom will not be destroyed.”362
You see how in these remarks, too, the prophet shows that
356. Ezek 34.11–12.

357. Ezek 34.22–25.
358. Ezek 37.23–24.
359. Ezek 37.25.
360. Cf. Rom 1.3.
361. Klostermann’s addition < αὐτῳ> is not necessary.
362. Dn 7.13–14.
the kingdom that will be indestructible and undying and with-
out end will not be the kingdom of the Word that is in God,
but of the Son of Man, and he clearly teaches that the Son of
Man is another besides the Ancient of Days, who received the
indestructible kingdom from the Ancient of Days, that is to say,
from the same Father. (6) But Marcellus asserts that [they are]
one and the same, and that one hypostasis underlies [the] two
names. And yet he still dares to circumscribe his kingdom and
asserts in an utterly shameless way that there will be an end to
Christ’s kingdom after the time of judgment, writing in this way:
Here the Apostle reveals the greatest mystery to us, (7) declar-
ing that there will be an end to the kingdom of Christ, and this
end will be when he puts all things under his feet.363
And he expands upon that remark, saying in this way some-
where:
We have said in our foregoing remarks, using proofs out of the
divine Scriptures, that our Lord Jesus Christ received a begin-
ning of [his] kingdom.364
And he adds,
And altogether there is abundant testimony consisting of myr-
iad statements to show that the man received a beginning of
[his] kingdom through the (8) Word. Therefore, if he received
a beginning of [his] kingdom no more than four hundred
years ago all told, it is nothing paradoxical if the Apostle says
that he who obtained this kingdom such a short time ago will
hand over the kingdom, to be sure, to God.365
(9) And after some other remarks, he continues, saying,
Well then, what do we learn about the human flesh, which the
Word assumed for us, not four hundred whole years ago? Will
the Word have this even then in the ages to come or only until
the time of judgment?366
363. Marcellus, fr. 102 (114 K./H.) (92,11–13 V.).

364. First part of Marcellus, fr. 103 (115 K./H.) (92,14–94,1 V.).
365. Second part of Marcellus, fr. 103 (115 K./H.) (94,4–8 V.).
332 Eusebius
Yes, Marcellus dared to say these sorts of things. But the
prophets of God, determining that the kingdom of Christ will
be everlasting, say that after the time of judgment he will have
the rule over the new age. For notice how the prophet Eze-
kiel, having presumed the occurrence of the tribunal of the
flocks of God, after the judgment of these, appoints David as
their (10) shepherd and proclaims that the same will rule over
them.367 And Daniel first said, “And as I looked until thrones
were placed, and the Ancient of Days took his seat; his raiment
was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his
throne was fiery flames, its wheels were burning fire. A stream
of fire issued and came forth from before him; a thousand
thousands served him, and ten thousand times ten thousand
stood before him; the court sat in judgment, and the books
were opened.”368 Having foreseen these things, he next sees
the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven to the Ancient
of Days and receiving the indestructible kingdom. Therefore,
even at that time he will exercise the power of ruling as king
over those worthy of blessedness in a manner both different
and greater than [the way in which he rules] now. (11) The gos-
pel gives witness by those remarks in which the Savior himself
confirms the prophetic utterances, handing over the teachings
about the consummation to his own disciples, through what he
taught when he said, “When the Son of Man comes in his glo-
ry, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious
throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will
separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the
sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right
hand, but the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those at
his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the king-
dom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.’”369
But note how these statements agree with what has been said
in the prophecy about the judgment of the sheep and the goats
and how the Son of Man is introduced as king after the judg-
ment of the flocks, (12) and God as his Father. For even he him-
367. Ezek 37.24.

368. Dn 7.9–10.
369. Mt 25.31–34.
self taught this, having said, “Then the king will say to those at
his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father,’”370 just like Da-
vid, who was mentioned in the prophecy, who, the text teaches,
will be a shepherd and ruler over the flocks [and] who under
the leadership of God will shepherd and guide the ones God
nurtures. (13) And it is necessary for that man to understand
the meaning [of this statement]—that the prophecy spoke figu-
ratively what has been said by the Apostle in the passage, “when
he has destroyed every rule and every authority and power,”371
[and] when it said, “and (14) I will banish wild beasts from the
land.”372 For what would those beasts that harassed the flocks
in ancient times be but the opposing powers? And when they
are removed, the new and fresh age, purified of all evil, will
have the Son of Man as king (or according to the prophecy that
intimated [this] in a veiled way, David as shepherd and ruler,
because he [Christ] is “from the seed” of David), 373 but it is not
said that it [the new age] would have God as shepherd or ruler,
but God himself, who by virtue of a purpose greater than that
of a shepherd and ruler and king, [and] in keeping with the
magnificence of the divine power, will rule not only the flocks
but also the shepherd himself. For “my servant David shall be
their shepherd. And I, the Lord, will be their God.”374 And he
calls David “servant” because our Savior and Lord assumed
“the form of a servant”375 “from the seed of David.”376
Chapter 18
(1) And this is the thrice-blessed end, insofar as it is that
promised kingdom of heaven our Savior pledged to those who
are worthy of it, [in which] the God who is over all, even his Fa-
ther, will himself bestow the highest good of all, [that is] him-
370. Mt 25.34.
371. 1 Cor 15.24.
372. Ezek 34.25.
373. Rom 1.3.
374. Ezek 34.23–24.
375. Phil 2.7.
376. Rom 1.3.
334 Eusebius
self, upon all who are ruled by the Son, becoming therein “all in
all.”377 Indeed, our Savior and Lord himself again showed this
when offering up to “his God and Father”378 the great prayer on
behalf of his intimates, in which he asks, saying, “That they may
all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they
also (2) may be one in us, so that the world may believe that you
have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given
to them, that they may be one even as we are one. I in them
and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the
world may know that you have sent me and have loved (3) them
even as you have loved me. Father, I desire that they also, whom
you have given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my
glory, which you have given me.”379
The great appeal itself of our Savior on our behalf, that we
might be with him where he himself is and that we might see
his glory and that his Father might love us just as he loves him,
and that he might give, even to us, the very thing that was be-
stowed upon him, and give, even to us, the glory that was given
to him, making us all one, so that we might no longer be many
but all one, having been united in his divinity and the glory of
the kingdom, not by the coalescence (4) of one being, 380 but
by the perfection of the highest virtue. For he taught this, hav-
ing said, “that they may be perfected.”381 For in this way, hav-
ing been made perfect by his wisdom and prudence and justice
and piety and every virtue, we will be joined together to the in-
effable light of the paternal divinity and become, yes, even us,
lights because of our closeness to him, and sons of God accord-
ing to our participating in communion with his only-begotten,
having been made perfect through [our] participation in the
brilliance of his divinity.
377. 1 Cor 15.28.

378. 1 Cor 15.24.
379. Jn 17.21–24.
381. Jn 17.23. RSV has “that they may become perfectly one.”
Chapter 19
(1) And so in this way we will all become one with the Father
and the Son. For just as [the Son] himself said that he and the
Father were one, saying, “I and the Father are one,”382 so also he
prays that we all will participate, by [our] imitation of him, in
that same oneness, not in the way Marcellus [thinks], the Word
being united to God and joined to [his] being,383 but just as the
truth gave witness, the Savior himself having said, “The glory
that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be
one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may
become perfectly one.”384 For in this way also at that time will
the apostolic saying about the end then be fulfilled, which says,
“so that God may be all in all.”385
(2) And since Marcellus and those who “Sabellianize” as he
does have customarily used three statements in their attempts
to show that the Father and the Son are one, at one time chat-
tering, “I and the Father are one,”386 and at another, “The Fa-
ther is in me, and I am in the Father,”387 and, “he who has seen
me has seen the Father,”388 yet to the statement, “I and the Fa-
ther are one,” must be added the remarks that precede these,
in which he prays on behalf of his disciples that they themselves
may also all partake of that same unity, (3) and so he says, “that
they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me,
that they may become perfectly one.”389 And with the statement,
“The Father [is] in me, and I [am] in the Father,”390 we will
place again that statement of his, through which, in praying
for them, [Christ] said, “even as you, Father, are in me, and I in
you, that they also may be in us. . . . the glory that you have giv-
en me I have given to them,”391 through which he clearly shows
382. Jn 10.30.
383. οὐσίᾳ.
384. Jn 17.22–23.
385. 1 Cor 15.28.
386. Jn 10.30.
387. Jn 10.38.
388. Jn 14.9.
389. Jn 17.22–23.
390. Jn 10.38.
391. Jn 17.21–22.
336 Eusebius
that the Father is in him in the same way as he also wishes to
be in us—not that he himself and the Father are one by virtue
of one hypostasis, but that since the Father has given to him a
share in his own glory, he also, likewise, (4) imitating the Fa-
ther, gives to his own [a share in it].
For this reason he says, “The glory that you have given me I
have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,”392
“even as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may
be in us.”393 So, then, the Father and the Son are one according
to the community of glory; in giving a share of this to his disci-
ples he also made them worthy of the same unity.
Chapter 20
(1) And again in this way the Father was in him, and he was
in the Father, just as the holy Apostle also teaches about all who
are worthy of the heavenly kingdom, saying, “Then God will
be all in all,”394 as also [the statement], “I will live among them,
and I will walk among them,”395 has been said, but also, “In him
we live and move and have our being.”396 And all these things
have been said about us, who subsist in our own hypostasis and
live (2) and have nothing in common with the paternal divin-
ity. Why, then, is it necessary to wonder, if such statements are
also applied to the Son, given that they neither take away his
hypostasis, nor teach that the Father and Son are the same,
but show the extraordinary honor characteristic of the Father
in comparison to him and the glory of the divine communion
that belongs to an only-begotten?
Chapter 21
(1) So, then, “he who has seen” him “has seen the Father,”397
by virtue of the fact that he alone and no other is image “of
392. Jn 17.22.
393. Jn 17.21.
394. 1 Cor 15.28.
395. 2 Cor 6.16.
396. Acts 17.28.
397. Jn 14.9.
the invisible God” and “radiance of the glory [of God] and
398
the exact imprint of his hypostasis”399 and exists “in the form of
God”400 according to the apostolic teachings. For as also the one
who has seen the king’s image that has been made like him to
the most accurate degree, receiving an impression of the con-
tours of the form through the drawing, imagines the king, in
the same way, or rather in a way beyond all reason and beyond
any image, the one who with a mind made clear and the eyes
of the soul made pure and illuminated by the Holy Spirit, hav-
ing scrutinized carefully the greatness of the power of the only-
begotten Son and Lord, and having reflected that “in him the
whole fullness of the Father’s deity”401 dwells and that “all things
were made through him,”402 and, “in him all things were cre-
ated, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,”403 and hav-
ing reckoned that the Father begot him alone as only-begotten
Son, since he is like him in all things, by that power he will also
see the Father himself through the Son, as he is seen by those
who have been cleansed in their mind, about which it was said,
“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”404
(2) So let these things be our challenge, [to us] who tried
here to be brief, as in an abridgment. But if particular passages
stand in need of greatest refinement, he who cares about their
accurate comprehension, having applied his mind to the evan-
gelical and apostolic readings, will derive the whole sense from
them at his leisure. Surely, given that myriads of other passages
have been collected from here and there in Marcellus’s trea-
tise, the great majority stated in a way contrary to the intention
of Scripture, others distorted, and possessing no coherence,
[and] thinking that the common refutation has become mani-
fest among those who think rightly, through what has been ex-
amined by us, I will be content with these remarks.
398. Col 1.15.

399. Heb 1.3.
400. Phil 2.6.
401. Col 2.9.
402. Jn 1.3.
403. Col 1.16.
404. Mt 5.8.
INDICES
GENERAL INDEX
GENERAL INDEX
G E N E R A L I N DE X
Aaron, 4, 87 Ancyra, 5, 9–11, 13–18, 60, 64, 66,

Abraham, 140, 197, 257, 264, 282 109–10, 112
absurdity, 77, 150–51 angel, 77–78, 81, 86, 118, 120, 122,
abundance, 56, 164, 180, 252 129, 219, 328; angel of great coun-
Acacius of Caesarea, 62 sel, 118
accident, 36, 244–45, 276 angels, 42, 83–84, 131, 150, 178,
accuser, 100, 155, 162 196, 202, 210, 229, 249, 261–62,
acorns, 93 264, 266, 287, 296–97, 300, 312,
acquiring, 283 332; archangels, 296
activity, 27, 30, 57–58, 108, 117, anointed, 38, 215, 220, 279, 325
123, 125, 130–32, 134, 148–54, Apolinarian, 43, 55–56, 63, 65–66,
174, 187–88, 209, 217, 224, 226, 181
230–31, 234–35, 241, 249, 318, Apolinarius of Laodicea, 6, 8, 55–56,
322 59, 63–66, 70
Adam, 107, 282, 308 the Apostle, 77, 82–84, 86–89, 91–
adoption, 89, 119, 133, 185, 198, 92, 95–97, 106–8, 111, 114, 116,
232, 326 119–20, 133, 135–36, 138–39,
adoptionism, 38, 54, 69–70, 134 141–44, 147–49, 166, 207, 211,
afterlife, 40 216, 218, 227, 232, 261, 266,
agreement, 46, 113, 119, 126–28, 269–70, 278, 289–90, 295, 313,
187, 198, 224, 256 315–16, 321, 323–26, 328–29,
Ahab, 307 331, 333
Alexander of Alexandria, 10, 12, apostles, 102, 113, 140–41, 176,
14–16, 48 235, 279, 286, 291–97, 299, 305,
all and in all, 256, 263, 313 307–8, 311–13
all in all, 133, 232, 324, 327–29, apostolic statement, 89–90, 101, 116,
334–36 255
Almighty, 89, 98, 124, 133, 144, 149, Aquila, 281
232, 240, 273, 298, 302, 321 architecture, 242
alteration, 98, 226, 295 Arius, 4–5, 9–17, 19–23, 27, 41–43,
ambition, 95, 104 46–47, 62, 64–66, 69, 75, 179, 183
analogical, 97 article, 243, 251, 259
anathema, 19, 43–44, 62, 66, 68, Asia, 10, 154
77–78, 82 aspersions, 106, 186
Ancient of Days, 118, 330–32 Asterius of Cappadocia, 14–15, 17,
ancients, 93, 253–54 63
341
342 GENERAL INDEX
Athanasius of Alexandria, 3–5, 15, Cadmos, 219
16, 18–19, 24, 30, 62–63, 65–66, calculations, 28, 132, 250, 287,
70, 159, 161, 203, 211 300–301
atheists, 225 Cappadocia, 4, 15, 76, 154
Athenians, 93 Cappadocians, 3, 68
Augustine, 4 character, 216
authorities, 135–136, 178, 211, 262, Chios, 94
297, 314–15 chorus, 120, 327
authority, 16, 34, 129, 144–47, 152, Chrestos, 108
174, 221, 262, 266, 278, 305, Christology, 37–38, 50–51, 55–56,
311–13, 333 59–60, 65, 69–70, 181
Church Fathers, 8, 182
Babylon, 85 Church of the Holy Sepulchre, 16
baptism, 34, 167, 255, 313 cisterns, 105
Baptist, 193, 196, 228 cities, 99
barbarian, 217 clothed, 108, 177, 317, 326
Basil of Ancyra, 64 coexisting, 47, 58, 117, 153, 301,
before the ages, 47, 103–5, 123, 163, 307
168–69, 189, 231, 289 coming forth, 27, 42, 234, 295
Beloved, 215–16 commandments, 101, 177, 256,
binitarian, 48, 166 267, 308
bishops, 9–11, 13–14, 16–19, communication, 117, 303
61–62, 76, 78–79, 99, 108, 111, communion, 10, 120–21, 139, 148,
115, 117, 152, 155, 159, 161, 151, 161, 317, 334, 336
176, 192 composite, 36, 80, 165, 244, 303
Bithynia, 10, 14, 154 condemnation, 5, 10, 13–14, 17, 60,
blasphemy, 54, 76, 109, 114–15, 120, 62, 75, 162
133, 198, 204; blasphemous, 164, connatural, 117, 229, 250
167; blasphemers, 225 Constantia, 12
blessed, 49, 78, 88, 98, 101, 103, Constantine, 11, 16–18, 29, 37, 155,
112, 154, 160, 235, 269, 311–12, 181, 189, 204
328–30, 332–33 consubstantiality, 57
blood, 185, 318–20 consummation, 135, 152, 233–35,
body, 13, 40, 47, 50, 52, 54–59, 69, 262, 315, 318, 323, 327, 330, 332
75, 80–81, 102, 105, 119, 122, corporeal, 37, 99, 103, 180, 211,
135, 141–42, 145, 147, 151–53, 239, 320
166–67, 174, 178–79, 181–82, cosmos, 33, 41, 129, 132–33, 171,
193, 195, 203–4, 270, 316, 319– 181, 187, 221, 222, 232, 237,
22, 326 247–48, 278, 283, 298, 302
bread, Bread, 190, 200–202, 205, Council of Alexandria (362), 68
216, 236, 319–20; bread of life, Council of Ancyra (358), 64
200, 202 Council of Antioch (Dedication
breath of life, 308 Council, 341), 61
bronze, 28, 94, 132, 250 Council of Antioch (344), 62
brothers, 111, 155 Council of Chalcedon (451), 3, 56,
59, 70
GENERAL INDEX 343
Council of Constantinople (381), 19, education, 9, 33, 104, 296, 310
43, 68 Ekthesis Makrostichos, 43, 62
Council of Nicaea (325), 23, 66 Elijah, 88, 140
Council of Serdica (343), 61 Elisha, 88–89
Council of Sirmium (351), 43, 62 emanation, 41, 179
Counselor, 49, 118, 308–10, 312–13 emendation, 78, 239
creation out of nothing, 24, 128, emperor, 11–12, 17, 29, 154–55, 189,
169–72, 177, 223 230, 278
cross, 38, 88 end of the kingdom, 30
crown of victory, 318 enemies, 30, 75, 147, 149, 321–25
culmination, 167 energy, 58, 132–33, 153, 180, 232,
Cyril of Jerusalem, 64 234, 240, 248, 298, 302–3
enmity, 111
Daniel, 49, 118, 120, 214, 235, 261, enslavement, 145
307, 330, 332 envy, 34, 75
David, 30, 89, 106, 118, 123, 143, ephemeral, 36–37
146, 149, 165, 212, 215, 260, 271, Ephraim, 87
287, 289, 322, 330, 332–33 epiphany, 181
deceit, 106 episcopacy, 16, 98–99
deposit, 200, 328–29 error, 21, 37, 38, 41, 48, 50–51, 65,
Devil, 86–88, 145–47, 149, 307 78, 89–90, 105, 119, 159, 163,
Dianius of Caesarea, 76 168, 180, 183–84, 216, 225, 238,
Diodore of Tarsus, 56 256, 261, 263, 266, 268
disagreement, 62, 126, 128 eschatology, 29, 69–70
disks, 94 eternal, 20–22, 26, 33, 37, 40–41,
disobedience, 30, 139, 144, 146, 285, 44, 47–48, 52, 65–66, 79–81, 108,
289 119–21, 153–54, 170–71, 178–79,
divine Apostle, 89, 120, 169, 194, 182, 199, 223, 230, 242, 267, 319,
207–9, 211–12, 216, 218, 261, 325, 328; eternal life, 81, 119–20,
263, 281, 287, 297, 314 178, 182, 319, 325
Docetism, 51, 164, 166 eternity, 35, 37, 46–49, 102, 122,
doctors, 101 124–25, 190, 202, 205, 224, 231,
dogma, 101, 134, 151, 172, 189, 317 240; eternity of the Word, 37, 122,
dominions, 135–36, 211, 262, 297, 124, 190, 205, 224, 240
314–15 Euphrantion of Balaneae, 10
door, 190, 237, 264 Euphronius of Antioch, 14, 108
dyoprosopic, 55 Eusebius of Emesa, 63–64
Eusebius of Nicomedia, 10–11,
Ebionites, 54, 182, 204 14–15, 17, 61, 99, 161
Ecclesiastes, 92 Eustathius of Antioch, 12–14, 16, 51
Ecclesiastical Theology, 6–9, 14, 18, evangelical teaching, 102
21, 30, 40, 44, 51, 56, 66, 182 evangelist, 145, 171, 190, 193,
economy, 9, 26, 29, 31, 33, 81, 89, 195–96, 206–7, 236, 238–39,
114, 125–26, 136, 138, 146, 149– 241–43, 245–48, 251, 253–54,
50, 166–67, 176, 179, 182, 190, 270, 275–76
206, 224, 253, 285, 289, 322 evangelists, 102, 113
344 GENERAL INDEX
evil, 75, 93, 99, 109–10, 114, 116–17, fratricide, 75
165, 186, 189, 236, 241, 275, 291, fullness of time, 83
296, 304, 307, 333
existing, 51, 54, 58, 79, 84, 119, 134, Gabriel, 118, 120, 328
138, 153, 166, 177, 189, 194, 197, Galatia, 9, 63, 75, 77, 117
201, 203, 225–26, 243, 246, 284– Galatians, 77, 78, 81–83, 85–86, 111,
85, 295, 297, 299, 300, 308 266
eyes, 32, 35, 80, 120, 128, 194, 198, genealogies of teachers, 8
215, 226, 288, 337 genetic simile, 42, 68
Gentiles, 213, 216, 218, 266, 312
face, 80, 151, 177, 283, 290–91, 293, geometry, 242
308, 316–17 George of Laodicea, 64
faith, 41, 43, 77–79, 82, 85, 92, 97, Glaukos, 94, 97
99, 105, 111, 115, 117, 127, 165, glory, 22, 24–26, 29, 33, 44, 46, 49,
179, 183, 192, 200, 208, 226, 255, 107–8, 119, 129, 131, 144–45,
274, 313 179, 182, 195, 202, 210, 216,
falsehoods, 111 218, 221, 223, 227–28, 230, 269,
Fathers, 71, 99, 101, 227 272, 311, 325–27, 329–30, 332,
feet, 30, 80, 94, 147, 178, 325, 331 334–37
figuratively, 123, 131, 237, 296, 297, goat, 93, 97
300, 333 gods, 17, 37, 44, 111–12, 172–74,
first: first creation, 106, 136, 180, 197–98, 212, 226–27, 257,
177; firstborn, 25, 29, 81, 88–89, 259–60, 261, 263, 266–69
100, 107, 117, 135–37, 141, 146, goodness, 108, 110, 230
152, 154, 173, 211, 262, 297, government, 46, 118, 180, 283
314–15; firstborn of the dead, governors, 278
88, 154 grace, 40, 75–79, 82, 84, 104, 121,
Flacillus of Antioch, 14, 16, 18, 159 163, 167–68, 182, 195, 200,
flesh, 30, 36, 38–39, 47, 50–55, 57– 216–18, 245, 247, 261, 263, 268,
59, 67, 81, 83, 89, 91, 106, 108, 306, 310, 313
114, 117–18, 123, 125, 128, 134– grain, 94
43, 145–54, 162–63, 166–67, 177, great priest, 85–87
179, 185, 187, 189–92, 194–96, Greece, 95, 97
199, 202–12, 216, 218–20, 224– Greek error, 78
25, 228–29, 246, 253–54, 265, Greeks, 95–97, 163, 168, 187, 268
268, 270, 273, 284–95, 297–300, Gregory of Nyssa, 3–4, 65
302, 314–21 guidance, 96, 180
footstool, 30, 149, 321–25
foreknowledge, 89 Hades, 110, 290–91
forever, 118–21, 213, 215, 308–9, hands, 39, 78, 80, 90, 159, 167–68,
323, 328, 330 175, 177, 199, 214, 226, 265, 282,
form of God, 107, 115, 173, 208–9, 288, 310
211–12, 218, 269, 337 harmony, 17, 26, 94, 276, 298
foundation, 89, 138–39, 166, 169, hatred, 75, 111, 275
235, 281, 289, 332 head, 174, 227, 281, 332
fountain, 42, 163, 169, 213, 230 hearsay, 109–10
GENERAL INDEX 345
heart, 71, 80, 154, 255, 257, 259–62, 53, 55, 57, 67, 69, 127, 160, 172,
279, 317, 337 177, 200, 203, 205, 227, 255,
heavenly places, 121, 262 304, 306
heavens, 119, 123, 130, 137, 153, hypostasis, 20, 21, 22, 27, 31, 35, 36,
210, 222, 246–47, 249, 266, 271, 37, 44, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,
276, 283–84, 288, 293, 295, 58, 67, 68, 69, 79, 103, 107, 108,
297–303 129, 153, 160, 162, 172, 188, 196,
Hebrew, 85, 182, 280–82 200, 202, 210–11, 213, 221, 225,
heirs of God, 120, 326 227, 241, 249, 255, 257, 259–60,
heresies, 9, 51 265, 288, 303, 306, 314, 331,
heresy, 10, 13, 38, 98, 99, 115–16, 336–37
119, 166, 314
heretical categories, 9 idolatry, 255, 266–68
heretics, 4, 17, 75, 99, 162, 183, 234 ignorance, 75, 87, 91, 97, 107, 110,
Hermes, 109 192, 216, 242, 260, 321, 322
heterodox, 119, 166, 168 Illyricum, 17–18
hidden, 78, 116, 131, 151, 169, 177, image, 22, 25, 27, 29, 30, 34, 39,
216–18, 247, 253–54, 268, 270, 48, 68, 81, 105–9, 113, 122, 131,
272–73, 280, 305, 312, 317 135–36, 141–43, 146, 152, 163,
High Priest, 119 170, 173, 179, 181, 188, 194, 201,
hills, 141, 176, 246, 276, 283, 293– 209, 211–12, 218, 227, 230, 244,
97, 299 248–49, 251–53, 264, 266, 268–
holy: holy Church, 78; Holy Land, 69, 270, 273, 302, 312, 314–16,
87; holy mountain, 147; holy pa- 336–37
triarchs, 197; holy Scriptures, 113, image of God, 22, 39, 47, 105, 107,
130, 257; holy Word, 137, 139, 117, 142, 212
183 immortality, 47–48, 52, 81, 119–20,
Holy Spirit, 8, 30–31, 48, 50, 77–78, 145, 148, 150–54, 180, 201, 235,
85, 90, 92, 98–99, 102–3, 122, 269, 317–18, 328
219, 224, 258, 260, 279, 292, impassivity, 103
305–14, 337 impiety, 81, 99, 110, 168, 184, 317
Homoian, 4 impious, 110, 134, 165, 180, 189,
Homoiousian, 4, 43, 47, 64, 68 204, 233, 242, 244, 255, 265, 278
honey, 260 impudence, 162
honor, 49, 118–19, 173, 192–93, inactivity, 52, 153, 226, 235
227, 229–30, 275, 311, 325, 327, Incarnation, 25–26, 28, 30, 32–33,
329, 336 36, 38–39, 47, 50–59, 67, 70, 83,
Hosea, 124, 153, 253, 259, 271 122, 137, 176, 210, 219–20, 237,
human: human flesh, 25, 30, 55, 59, 294–95, 298–99
121, 127, 134–35, 138, 143–50, incomprehensible, 21, 169, 179–80,
191, 206, 237, 255, 259, 318, 322, 226, 287
331; human perspective, 123, 231; incorporeal, 180, 199, 226, 288, 303
human reproduction, 42; human incorporeality, 103
word, 99, 130, 187, 192, 209, 239, incorruptible, 52, 119, 145, 152–53,
248, 252–53 199, 318, 328
hypostases, 26, 27, 31–32, 35, 43, indissoluble, 152
346 GENERAL INDEX
indivisible, 21, 102, 123, 224–26, Josedek, 85, 87
256, 305 Joshua, 85
indwelling, 55, 204 Julius of Rome, 13, 29, 61
ineffable, 20, 56, 80, 114, 164, 169, justice, 214–16
177–80, 182, 195, 200, 226, 244,
252, 270, 281, 287, 297, 301, 305, king, 20, 22, 25, 29–30, 38–39 59,
327–28, 334 81, 107, 117, 146–49, 152, 171,
ingenerate, 20–21, 24, 26, 37, 41, 48, 175, 213, 229, 252, 269–70, 287,
80, 104, 121, 128, 172, 178, 195, 325, 329, 332–33, 337
201, 223, 233, 270, 299, 303 kingdom, 29–30, 39–40, 59, 64, 69,
inscrutable, 177, 179, 287 81, 118–20, 146–50, 152, 154,
instrument, 55, 181 176, 235, 260, 262, 307, 316,
Intellect, 244 321–23, 325–34, 336
interpretation, 9, 11, 13–14, 21, 24, kingship, 29, 118, 213, 227, 252, 325
34, 37, 53, 61, 88, 94–95, 102, knife, 93
105, 136, 141, 160–61, 175, 192,
211, 270, 274–75, 292, 295, 299– Laodicea, 43, 60, 109, 110
300, 302, 314–15, 321 leadership, 108, 181, 333
invisible, 20–21, 25, 34, 39, 81, leech, 96
105–6, 122, 128, 135–36, 141–42, liar, 228, 317
145–46, 152, 170, 173, 196–97, liberty, 150, 316
211, 227, 252, 262, 264, 269–70, Licinius, 11
273, 281, 283, 312–15, 337 life, 12, 40, 47, 58–59, 69, 75, 78–79,
irrationality, 21, 52, 134, 153 81, 91–92, 98, 110, 119–120, 141,
Isaac, 140, 197, 257, 264 149, 152, 154, 164, 168–69, 171,
Isaiah, 118, 120, 124, 153, 215, 253, 173–74, 178, 181–82, 190, 198–
258–59, 266–67, 271 202, 204–5, 213–14, 216–18, 220,
Israel, 129, 215, 256–58, 260, 266, 223, 235–36, 247–48, 252, 267,
279, 292 287, 294, 308, 316–20, 324–26,
328
Jacob, 118, 140, 197, 257–58, 264 light, 7, 18, 20, 32, 100, 108, 117,
jealousy, 34, 75 120, 167–70, 179, 193–94, 198,
Jeremiah, 114, 124, 154, 220, 258, 206–7, 210–13, 217, 220, 222,
271, 287 230, 238–39, 242, 247–48, 252–
Jerome, 71 53, 269–70, 300, 316, 328, 334
Jerusalem, 16, 64, 86–87, 91, 124, living, 28, 48, 51–53, 57, 76, 79, 99,
262, 271, 297 102, 107, 121, 132, 153, 167, 173,
Jew, 79, 165, 207, 221–23, 247, 268, 185, 199–203, 205, 214, 225, 230,
314 243, 246, 248, 250, 252, 262, 269,
Jewish, 37, 40, 78–79, 134, 189, 216, 272, 276–77, 297, 300
247, 254–55, 260, 263, 267, 281, lovingkindness, 110, 145
304, 310 Lucian of Antioch, 15
Jews, 79, 84, 120, 163–65, 167–68, Lucianist, 15
184, 186, 189, 194, 207, 217, 245, lying, 100, 104, 114
254–55, 264, 268, 272–73, 275, lyre, 94
295, 319
GENERAL INDEX 347
madness, 81, 229 mystical theology, 114, 216
Magi, 143 mythology, 219
Mamre, 264
Marcion, 75, 109, 166 Narcissus of Neronias, 12, 17, 98,
Mary, 31–32, 58, 67, 86, 138, 176, 108–9, 113
310 Neo-Arian, 4
Master, 140, 170, 229, 239, 292 new: new creation, 88, 137, 280; new
Medea, 93 man, 137
mediation, 21–22, 31, 82–83, 85 New Testament, 40, 42, 134, 191,
mediator, 22, 31, 42, 49, 82–85, 114, 206, 212, 236, 239, 256, 261, 263
116, 144, 210, 264–66 Nicaea, 7, 11
medicine, 242 Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed, 69
Melchizedek, 121, 140, 215 nothingness, 283
Meletian schism, 16
mere man, 38, 54, 82, 111, 114, 116, oak, 93–94, 97, 264
163, 166, 204–5 obedient, 46, 175, 178, 182, 209, 228
metaphorical, 97, 238, 280 Old Testament, 38–40, 46, 58, 286,
metaphors, 96 295
meter, 95 oneness, 20–21, 26, 33, 68, 128, 150,
Micah, 124, 253, 271 179, 304, 335
Middle-Platonism, 19 only-begotten, 25, 29, 44, 47, 78–80,
milk, 260 84, 98, 100, 104, 107, 134, 152,
ministers, 75–76, 161 154, 163–64, 166–72, 174–81,
miracle, 319 184, 189, 195–97, 199–201, 205–
misconstruing, 302 6, 209, 215–17, 221–22, 225–27,
misinterpreting, 302 230, 238–39, 241–42, 244–46,
monad, 21–22, 26, 28, 37, 39, 64, 248, 251–53, 263, 267, 269–72,
123, 179, 224–26, 256–57, 259, 281–82, 297, 300, 302, 307, 312–
304–5 14, 318, 329, 334, 336–37
monarchianism, 69, 202 oracle, 93, 264, 291
monarchy, 227 oracles, 170, 181, 186, 328
monotheism, 33, 37, 40–41, 44–45, Origen, 8, 23, 34, 43, 45, 47, 50,
48, 177 70–71, 98–99, 101–4, 109, 183
Montanists, 75 Ossius of Cordoba, 11, 108
morning star, 90–91, 143–44
Moses, 22, 77–78, 82–84, 86–87, 129– Pamphilus, 34, 46, 70, 103
30, 140, 186, 196, 208, 210, 245, Passion, 38, 52, 89, 126, 220, 316
247, 255, 257, 260–65, 270, 283, paternal divinity, 163, 170, 252, 270,
286–87, 290–91, 293, 296, 319 307, 313, 325, 334, 336
mouth, 80, 131, 180–81, 214, 236, patripassianism, 38, 50, 54, 164
249, 273 Paul of Samosata, 37–38, 54, 69–70,
music, 94 314; Samosatene, 54, 183, 204
mystery, 78, 114, 131, 140, 147, 167, Paulinian, 54, 204–5
216–18, 247, 254, 263, 268, 270, Paulinus of Tyre, 8, 14–15, 17, 98,
272–73, 284, 286, 291, 305, 312, 101–3, 112, 131, 183
331 peace, 98, 118
348 GENERAL INDEX
Pentecost, 311 pronoun, 257, 259
perfect, 20, 22, 25, 29, 103, 107, 168, prophecy, 86–87, 91–92, 146, 148,
252, 260, 294, 306, 311, 334 258–59, 268, 286, 326, 330,
perfume, 325 332–33
person, 19 prophets, 38, 58, 89, 92, 102,
Peter, 86, 88, 185, 321 113–14, 120, 140, 154, 165, 181,
Pharaoh, 87, 208 186, 196, 212–14, 216, 218, 229,
Philippopolis, 61–62 235, 253–54, 260–63, 267, 270,
Philo of Alexandria, 19–20, 22, 286–87, 290, 292–93, 307, 313,
26–27 317, 332
Philogonius of Antioch, 12 proportion, 28, 116, 132, 212, 250
philosophy, 104 prose, 62–63, 71, 95
Photinus of Sirmium, 43, 62–63, 70 prosecutor, 155
phrase, 96, 106, 140, 149, 207, 211, prosopon, 35
236, 278, 281–82, 287, 321, 324 proverb, 91, 93–95, 97; proverbial,
Phrygia, 154 94, 138, 140–41, 284, 290, 294
piety, 96, 98, 111, 152, 247, 256, 266, Proverbs, 91–93, 97, 105, 137–38,
286, 294, 334 214, 222, 246, 275–77, 285–86,
pillars, 97, 214, 277–78 293, 295–97
Plato, 104, 109, 204 providence, 150, 180, 253, 281, 287
Plotinus, 19–20 provinces, 99, 154
Pneumatomachians, 65 psilanthropism, 38, 54, 164
polytheism, 17, 34, 37, 40, 48, 78,
163, 168, 180, 216, 261, 263, 266 Radiance, 210, 216
Pontus, 154 rationality, 28, 53–54, 132, 187, 195,
Porphyry, 19, 27 204, 234, 244, 250, 325; rational
power, 20, 22–23, 25, 27–30, 32, 49, faculty, 36
78, 89, 103, 107, 109, 113–15, readers, 82, 85, 159
118, 124, 126, 129, 133, 146–47, refutation, 18, 35, 98, 100, 134,
149, 165, 174, 188, 194, 199, 201, 159–61, 337
209, 212–13, 217, 226, 241–43, responsibility, 103
249, 253, 256–57, 262, 270, 277– restoration, 29, 98, 132, 149–51, 231,
78, 287, 298, 304, 306, 311, 318, 316, 321–23
321, 326, 332–33, 337 resurrection, 81, 88–89, 119, 145,
pre-existence, 5, 38–39, 44, 47, 50, 147, 150, 154, 190, 310, 318,
53, 56, 58–59, 67–69, 141, 172, 328
207, 318 revelation, 37, 40–41, 82, 185, 218,
presence, 38, 51, 55, 66, 273, 302–3 288
pretext, 117, 263 riddles, 91, 96
Priest, 119, 215–16 River, 213, 216
priesthood, 87, 121
prince of peace, 118 Sabellianism, 14, 168, 205, 222, 228,
principalities, 135–36, 150, 178, 211, 245, 247
261–62, 314–15 Sabellianizer, 274
profession, 99 Sabellius, 21, 35, 37, 40, 42, 63–65,
Promised Land, 87 69–70, 79, 161–62, 164–65, 167,
GENERAL INDEX 349
182–89, 196, 204, 217–25, 242, springs, 140, 201, 276, 283–84,
248, 273, 304, 314 291–99
saints, 89, 119, 140, 154, 216, 218, stars, 266, 288, 300, 325–26
235, 262, 290 statue, 27, 28, 36, 131–32, 181, 189,
salvation, 4, 9, 23, 29–30, 32, 35–36, 249, 250, 304
40, 52, 59, 82, 96, 135, 147, stereotype, 69
167–68, 179–81, 215–16, 265, stone, 161, 214
281, 307 stream, 42, 248, 332
Satan, 49, 86–88 subjection, 324–25, 327
school, 93, 182–83 subordinationist, 45, 200
sculptor, 27, 28, 36, 304 subsisting, 51–54, 57, 79–80, 99, 114,
second God, 112–13, 164 117, 121, 153, 164–65, 167, 169,
Senate, 101 178, 184, 199, 203–5, 209, 214,
Serdicense, 61 225, 230, 233, 243, 246, 251–52,
servant, 29, 87, 213, 245, 257–58, 269, 272, 276–77, 300
330, 333 Sun of justice, 214, 216
Seth, 107 superhuman, 145
shadow, 32, 220 superiority, 199, 228
sheep, 92, 181, 235, 329–30, 332 syllogism, 265
shepherd, 75, 180–81, 329, 330, Symmachus, 281
332–33 Synod of Antioch (268), 38
Sicilians, 93 Synod of Antioch (325), 12
silence, 78, 116, 128, 161, 209, 216– Synod of Antioch (338/339), 18
17, 223–35, 240, 247, 261, 297 Synod of Coele-Syria (327), 14
Simon Magus, 234 Synod of Constantinople (336),
slander, 99, 112, 114–17, 155, 164, 17, 198
183 Synod of Rome (340), 61
slave, 115, 136, 142–43, 150, 163, Synod of Tyre (335), 16
175, 181–82, 195, 208–9, 270,
316, 322 teacher, 20, 23, 34, 46, 70, 101,
Solomon, 91, 92, 95–97, 124, 130, 102, 202–3, 205, 217, 256, 268,
140, 176, 214–15, 222, 249, 271, 271, 296
275, 277, 290, 292, 298, 302 tears, 110
Son of Man, 56–58, 118, 133, 148, Theodore of Mopsuestia, 56
163–64, 166, 185, 198, 232, 307, Theodotion, 281
318–20, 330–33 Theodotus of Laodicea, 12, 70, 111
Song of Songs, 92 Theognis of Nicaea, 11–12
soul, 51–55, 59, 70, 153, 178, 203–5, Theologian, 194, 206
213, 242–43, 251, 253, 256–57, theological schools, 8
266, 308, 313, 337 theology, 6, 9, 15, 18, 23, 29, 30, 33,
source, 6, 15, 20, 41, 44–45, 66, 80, 37, 45–46, 48, 50, 52, 60–80, 82,
104, 112, 121, 125, 163, 165, 167, 84, 88, 114, 134–35, 138, 141,
173–74, 178, 182, 195–96, 200– 160–61, 163, 168, 170, 182–83,
201, 206, 223, 225–27, 230, 233, 196, 216, 275, 314, 317; trinitarian
241–44, 246, 253–54, 269, 301 theology, 6, 19, 40, 42, 60, 67, 69
spiritual things, 92, 95–96 theophanies, 46
350 GENERAL INDEX
Thrace, 154 207, 219, 226, 233–34, 244–45,
throne, 49, 118, 175, 215, 235, 276, 247, 250, 252–53, 261–62, 278,
307, 323, 332 281–83, 287, 295, 304
thrones, 135–36, 178, 211, 262, 297, unsearchable, 177, 179, 287
314–15, 332 unspeakable, 168, 327
time of the judgment, 118, 148, 150,
151, 231–33, 235, 331–32 Valentinians, 75
tragedy, 111 Valentinus, 109
transcendentals, 21 villainy, 106
transfiguration, 170 Vine, 237
Tree of life, 216 Virgin, 58, 117, 119, 121–22, 138,
Trinity, 3–4, 8, 26, 28, 31, 34, 40, 43, 144, 146, 162, 165, 167, 191–92,
48–51, 64, 68, 77, 78, 160, 179, 206, 219, 225, 237–38, 318, 328
268, 304–5, 311–12 voice, 12, 18, 80, 141, 164, 170, 178,
true: true image, 142; true Son, 79, 181, 206, 234, 240, 243, 254, 270,
139, 171; true Word, 123, 237 285, 303
truly: truly Father, 31, 79, 99; truly
Son, 31, 79–80, 99, 172, 191, 248; water, 140, 248, 266, 276, 283–84,
truly Word, 131, 162, 237, 272 291, 292–93, 298–99
truths, 80, 111, 166, 211, 217 wickedness, 100, 110, 215, 261
twelve, 140, 230, 292 wills, 67, 70, 126
types, 140, 277, 292 wisdom, 9, 28, 92, 95–96, 124, 126,
130, 169, 177, 182, 212–14, 216–
unapproachable, 194, 211, 252–53, 17, 249, 252, 271, 275–78, 281,
269 287, 298, 312–13, 325, 334
unbegotten, 22, 37, 41, 79, 113, 163, woman, 83, 295
165, 167, 173–74, 224–27, 230, womb, 82, 86, 90, 118, 143
242–44, 246 wonders, 87
unchanged, 22, 25, 29, 107 worship, 37, 79–80, 173, 219, 229,
unfathomable, 226, 252 247, 256, 261, 263, 270, 312, 329
universal Church, 85
universe, 28, 32, 46–47, 57, 78, Zechariah, 85–87, 148
80, 104, 132, 149, 167–69, 171, Zerubbabel, 85, 213
175–77, 179–81, 194, 196, 200, Zion, 124, 147, 215, 262, 271, 297
INDEX OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
INDEX OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
I N DE X OF HOLY S C R I P T U R E
Old Testament
Genesis Leviticus 2.6: 29, 146–47
1.1: 247, 283 26.12: 327 8.4: 288
1.2: 283, 290–91 11.5: 111
1.3–31: 177 Numbers 13.7: 215
1.26: 28, 113, 131– 20.17: 287 32.6: 123, 153,
32, 141–43, 189, 271
194, 249–50, 254, Deuteronomy 35.10: 213
304 4.35: 130, 163, 212, 41.8: 291
1.27: 113 258 42.3: 213
1.28: 28 4.39: 130, 257–58 44.1: 145, 215
2.6: 293 6.4–5: 256–57 44.7–8: 215
2.7: 308 6.4: 256–58 45.5: 213
2.10: 293 30.15: 287 50.10: 279
3.19: 131, 139, 285, 32.7: 101 54.12–15: 110
289, 299 32.37–38: 267 54.16: 110
4.1–16: 75 32.39: 163, 257, 54.20: 139, 289
4.1: 75, 282 266–67 67.17: 214
5.3: 107 67.26: 292
18.1: 264 3 Kings (1 Kings, RSV) 76.17: 291
25.10: 282 5.9–10: 92 80.8–10: 260
17.22: 88 81.6: 173
Exodus 22.21: 307 84.8: 215
3.2: 129 95.2: 215
3.8: 260 4 Kings (2 Kings, RSV) 96.1: 30, 146–47
3.14: 129–30, 255, 4.35: 88–89 97.2: 215
263–65 98.1: 147
3.15: 257 Job 101.19: 279
6.2–3: 264 1.12: 49 103.6: 291
7.1: 87 2.7: 49 106.20: 124, 271
14.31: 87 109.1: 149, 175, 215,
15.27: 140, 292 Psalms (LXX 321–23, 325
20.2–3: 257, 266 numbering) 109.3: 33, 90, 143
20.4–5: 266 1.6: 287 109.4: 215
20.5: 257 2.2: 134 148.1–5: 300
351
352 INDEX OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Psalms (LXX 8.30: 222, 302–3 6.16: 287
numbering) (cont.) 9.1–2: 97 8.9: 124, 271
148.4: 293 9.1: 97, 214, 277– 17.5: 114
148.7: 291 78
9.3: 286 Lamentations
Proverbs 9.12: 296 4.20: 213, 220,
1.3: 91, 96 22.28: 101 312
1.5–6: 96 30.6: 317
1.6: 91 30.15: 96 Ezekiel
1.8: 296 13.3: 317
1.28–29: 124, 271 Ecclesiastes 28.3: 120
3.11: 296 1.9: 279 34.11–12: 330
3.13: 277 34.22–25: 330
3.18: 214 Wisdom 34.23–24: 333
3.19: 277 7.26: 108, 170, 179, 34.25: 333
4.20: 296 230 37.23–24: 330
7.4: 277–78 37.24: 332
8.1: 277 Sirach 37.25: 330
8.11: 277 3.21–22: 177 37.27: 327
8.12: 15, 137, 214,
276, 285 Isaiah Daniel
8.13: 282 1.2: 266 2.34: 214
8.15: 214, 281, 286 1.3: 266 7.9–10: 332
8.16: 286 2.1: 153, 253 7.10: 49, 235,
8.17: 281 2.3: 124, 271 261, 307
8.20–24: 137 5.12: 288 7.13–14: 118,
8.21a: 282, 286 9.6–7: 118 330
8.22–31: 33, 176 11.1–2: 212 9.15: 110
8.22: 33, 34, 137–40, 41.2: 214
172, 176, 278, 41.4: 258 Hosea
280, 282, 284–88, 42.1: 213 1.1: 153
294, 298–99 43.10–11: 259 1.2: 253
8.23–24: 284, 299 44.6–7: 267 13.4: 259, 267
8.23–25: 283 44.6: 131, 259, 267
8.23: 105, 123, 138– 44.8: 268 Joel
39, 231, 284, 289, 45.12: 266 1.1: 253
298–99 45.14–15: 258
8.24–25: 299 45.21: 259, 267 Amos
8.24: 139, 140, 46.8–9: 259 4.12: 279
290–93 52.10: 215 4.13: 279
8.25: 141, 176, 293– 53.1: 288 5.10: 124,
95, 297, 299 57.15: 312 271–72
8.27: 28, 130, 132,
222, 246, 249, Jeremiah Jonah
250, 284, 297–303 1.2: 154 1.1: 253
8.28–30: 298 2.13: 105
INDEX OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 353
Micah Zechariah Malachi
1.1: 253 3.1–2: 85–86 2.10: 260
3.6: 5, 214 3.1: 85–87 4.2: 214
4.2: 124, 271 12.10: 148
New Testament
Matthew 12.29–32: 256 1.9: 169, 194, 206,
1.25: 144 12.32: 273 222, 238, 248
2.2: 144 14.35–36: 176 1.10: 9, 193–94, 210,
3.17: 145, 170, 227 222, 252
4.10: 256 Luke 1.14: 84, 134–35,
5.8: 337 1.30–32: 86 191, 195, 218,
8.32: 152 1.31–33: 118 236, 253, 254
11.25: 280 1.33: 328 1.15–16: 196
11.27: 81, 175, 179, 1.35: 31–32, 122, 1.17–18: 78
181, 184–85, 199, 219 1.17: 78, 104, 245,
328 3.22: 307 247, 313
12.18: 213 4.8: 256 1.18: 100, 171, 196,
12.35: 114 8.33: 152 206, 236, 238,
13.11: 263 10.22: 175, 181, 271, 314
16.16: 185 328 1.34: 236
16.17: 88, 185 20.34: 290 1.49: 236
16.23: 86–88 22.42: 176 3.6: 179, 246, 295
16.24: 88 24.39: 310 3.16: 171, 178, 197
17.2: 316 3.17: 197
17.5: 170, 178 John 3.18: 197, 236
19.7: 260 1.1: 34, 91, 122, 3.19: 198, 236
19.8: 261 124–25, 134, 3.31–32: 198
23.13: 273 190–91, 193, 206, 3.31: 198
25.31–34: 332 216, 224, 231, 3.35: 181, 199
25.34: 235, 333 236, 238–41, 243, 3.36: 178
26.39: 126, 175–76 247, 251, 270–71, 4.24: 32, 80, 122,
27.52: 89 273, 276, 326 179, 219–20,
28.18: 25, 129, 144, 1.3: 125, 132, 151, 312
221 153, 170, 193, 4.26: 237
28.19: 77, 85, 292, 206, 210, 221, 5.17: 288
313 229, 231, 241, 5.19–20: 301
28.20: 110, 323 245–47, 254, 266, 5.19: 301, 310
270, 295, 313–14, 5.20: 301
Mark 337 5.21–22: 25, 129, 144
4.3: 307 1.4–5: 247 5.22–23: 229
5.13: 152 1.4: 236 5.22: 175, 229
9.7: 175 1.5: 236 5.23: 230
9.37: 174 1.8–11: 193 5.25: 236
10.5: 261 1.9–10: 270 5.26: 79, 174, 201
John (cont.) 12.28: 145, 175, 20.22: 305–6, 308,
5.30: 127, 165, 228– 196 310
29, 310 12.35–36: 236 20.27: 310
5.31–32: 228 13.32: 176 20.28: 230
5.37: 228 14.6: 91, 104, 190, 21.24: 125, 231
6.30: 319 198, 213, 236–38,
6.31: 319 248 Acts
6.32: 319 14.9: 128, 230, 1.8: 311
6.35: 190, 237, 319 335–36 2.2: 279
6.38: 228, 229 14.15–17: 308 2.4: 279
6.48: 200 14.16–17: 309 3.21: 149, 321–23
6.51: 200, 319 14.23: 205, 308 4.32: 127
6.53–56: 319 14.24: 126–27, 165 7.51: 262
6.57: 165, 173–74, 14.25–26: 309 13.10: 106
201–2, 228 14.26: 309 17.28: 336
6.60: 320 14.28: 176, 228–29
6.61–63: 149, 318, 14.31: 175 Romans
320 15.1: 5, 237 1.1–4: 89
6.61: 149, 318, 15.26: 31, 305–6, 1.3: 118, 165, 212,
320–21 309 330, 333
6.63: 320 16.7: 309 1.4: 90
8.12: 198, 213, 220, 16.12–14: 311 1.25: 247
236, 238 16.13–14: 305, 311 4.17: 226
8.17–18: 205 16.13: 305, 311–12 5.12: 16–17, 182
8.23: 237 16.14: 305–7, 312 6.8–9: 120
8.28–29: 202 16.15: 126–27, 218 6.23: 120
8.28: 175, 204 16.27–28: 305 8.17: 120, 326
8.29: 204, 205 17.1: 176, 236 8.21: 145, 150, 316
8.42: 126, 305 17.2: 25, 129, 144, 9.5: 21, 78, 84, 164,
8.56: 264 221 167, 180, 183,
8.58: 264 17.3: 45, 112, 176, 188, 207, 212,
9.4: 91, 190 267, 269 219, 225, 243,
10.7: 9, 190, 237 17.4: 288 245, 248, 251,
10.11: 237 17.5: 144, 195 269, 277, 312–13,
10.30: 113, 126, 128, 17.11: 175 333
142, 224, 335 17.20–23: 176 10.6–7: 290
10.34–36: 197 17.21–22: 335 11.33: 177, 287
10.36: 198, 236 17.21–24: 334 16.27: 269
10.38: 125, 126, 241, 17.21: 334–36
255, 327, 329, 335 17.22–23: 335 1 Corinthians
11.4: 27, 236 17.22: 335–36 1.9: 121
11.9: 236 17.23: 334 1.16: 136
11.25: 91, 190, 236 19.7: 236 1.24: 28, 126, 213,
11.41: 176 19.37: 148 277–78
11.44: 89 20.17: 174, 176, 227, 2.9: 80, 154
12.27–28: 176 310 2.12–14: 93, 95
INDEX OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 355
3.11: 139, 166, 289 4.26: 86, 262 Colossians
8.6: 34, 125, 166, 6.15: 88 1.15–17: 211
207, 210, 221, 1.15: 25, 34, 81, 88,
241 Ephesians 100, 105–6, 117,
10.4: 208 1.5: 89 122, 135–37, 141–
10.9: 208 1.10: 26, 137, 281, 42, 145, 146, 152,
11.3: 174, 227 304 170, 173, 211,
12.4: 92, 310 1.11: 89 218, 227, 269–70,
12.8–9: 313 1.20–21: 262 314–15, 337
12.8–10: 92 1.22–23: 174 1.16–17: 136, 141,
13.9: 327 2.6–7: 121 170
13.12: 151, 317 2.15: 101, 137, 279 1.16: 136–37, 141,
15.24: 30, 132, 146– 3.9: 131, 217, 272, 144, 170, 262,
47, 149, 150, 175, 305 297, 313, 315, 337
322, 324, 325, 3.16: 131, 272 1.17: 297, 315
327–29, 333–34 3.18–19: 262 1.18: 88, 154
15.25: 30, 147, 149, 4.5–6: 256, 313 1.19: 163
321–22, 324 4.6: 84, 164, 167, 1.25–27: 216
15.28: 29, 34, 132– 180, 183, 188, 1.26: 131, 217–18,
33, 148, 151, 232, 207, 212, 219, 268, 272, 305
324, 327, 329, 225, 243, 245, 2.3: 169, 216, 312
334–36 248, 251, 263, 2.9: 163, 337
269, 277, 312–14, 3.9–10: 108
2 Corinthians 333
3.17: 212, 312 4.24: 280 1 Thessalonians
4.3–4: 212 6.12: 261 4.16–17: 323
5.4: 317, 326 4.17: 323
5.17: 88, 280 Philippians
5.19: 182, 267 2: 38 1 Timothy
6.16: 327, 336 2.5–6: 208 1.17: 269
2.5–7: 208 2.5: 83–84, 114, 116,
Galatians 2.6–7: 107, 115 144, 265
1.1: 82 2.6–8: 182 6.15: 269
1.6–7: 77–78 2.6: 107, 115, 181– 6.16: 194, 201, 211,
1.8: 77–78, 82 82, 211–12, 218, 252–53, 269
1.9: 77 269, 337
1.11–12: 82 2.7: 136, 142–43, 2 Timothy
1.15–16: 82 150, 163, 173, 2.11–12: 120
3.19–20: 83, 85, 210, 175, 195, 209, 2.15: 167
265–66 270, 316, 322,
3.19: 83, 210, 333 Titus
265–66 2.8: 209, 228 3.4: 110
3.20: 83–84 2.9: 175
4.4: 83, 295 3.20–21: 326 Hebrews
4.19: 111 3.21: 316, 322, 326 1.2: 121, 191, 206,
4.25–26: 86–87, 91 210, 222, 238, 284
Hebrews (cont.) 11.37: 92 1 John
1.3: 48, 108, 162, 12.22–23: 262, 297 1.1–2: 91, 190
179, 211, 227, 1.5: 194
269, 337 James 4.14: 197
1.7: 312 2.19: 273 5.20: 91
4.14: 119, 210 5.16: 280
5.12: 78 Revelation
7.3: 121 1 Peter 1.7: 148
7.24–25: 121 1.20: 284 3.15: 119
11.24: 26, 208 2.13–14: 278
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
I N DE X OF A NC I E N T S OU RC E S
Alexander of Alexandria
ep. Alex. Thess., Urk. tomus ad epp., Urk. 15:
14: 10 10
ep. Alex. Thess., Urk.
14.52: 48
Apolinarius of Laodicea
c. Ar. IV (Pseudo- fr. 146.242.19–22: 57 KMP 24.175.21–22: 43
Athanasius): 63 fr. 148.246.30–247.4: 57 KMP 25.176.3: 43
c. Sab. (Pseudo- KMP 26.176.15–16.26:
Athanasius): 63 KMP: 55, 60, 65 65
KMP 1.167.19: 43 KMP 27.176.21: 65
fr. 41.213.31–33: 57 KMP 13.171.21: 43
fr. 112.233.32–33: 57 KMP 15.172.14: 43 Quod unus sit Christus:
fr. 121.237.11–12: 57 KMP 19.173.23–24: 43 63
Aristotle
Metaph. 1032a24: 27
Metaph. 1033b32: 27
Arius
ep. Alex., Urk. 6.3: 41 ep. Eus., Urk. 1.2: 10 Thalia: 20, 41
ep. Alex., Urk. 6.4: ep. Eus., Urk. 1.3: 10
22, 43 ep. Eus., Urk. 1.4: 41
Asterius of Cappadocia
fr.: 106 fr. 7: 101, 183 fr. 10: 22, 25, 29, 46–
fr. 1–4: 41 fr. 8: 100 47, 100, 107–8, 264
fr. 5–6: 24 fr. 9: 98, 101, 113, 130, fr. 11: 25, 105–7, 142
fr. 5: 24, 100–102, 183 171, 183, 257 fr. 12: 113
fr. 6: 100 fr. 10–13: 25 fr. 13–14: 106, 136
357
358 INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
Asterius of Cappadocia (cont.)
fr. 13: 25, 105–6, 142 fr. 36: 25–26, 129, 145, fr. 52–56: 172
fr. 14: 22, 27 173, 175, 221 fr. 52: 27, 33, 105, 255
fr. 15: 27 fr. 37: 131 fr. 53: 123, 231
fr. 17: 104–5, 123, 172, fr. 38–40: 46 fr. 54–55: 111–12, 260
176, 231, 289 fr. 38–42: 173 fr. 54: 27, 111–12, 259
fr. 21: 23–24, 128–29, fr. 38: 26, 46, 113, 173 fr. 55: 131, 173, 257,
221, 223 fr. 39–40: 26 259
fr. 22: 27 fr. 39: 26, 113, 126–27, fr. 56: 306
fr. 23: 32, 106, 136, 225 fr. 57: 191, 206, 238
170, 201 fr. 40–41: 113 fr. 58: 122, 219
fr. 24: 20 fr. 40: 46 fr. 59: 31, 305
fr. 25: 106, 136 fr. 41: 175–76 fr. 60: 31, 99
fr. 26: 32 fr. 42: 176 fr. 61–62: 43
fr. 27: 24, 123, 129, fr. 44: 170, 278 fr. 61: 31, 306
221, 223 fr. 45: 170, 173 fr. 64–73: 26
fr. 29: 24, 129, 221, 223 fr. 46: 46, 181 fr. 64: 26, 28
fr. 30: 106, 136 fr. 47: 23, 82–83, 154, fr. 71: 123, 131, 162,
fr. 31: 166, 170, 173 181 237
fr. 34: 46, 166, 170, 202 fr. 48–49: 33 fr. 72: 173
fr. 35–36: 46 fr. 48: 172, 176 fr. 74: 125, 175–76, 231
fr. 35: 136, 166 fr. 50: 130, 257 fr. 75: 27
fr. 51: 33, 173
Athanasius of Alexandria
apol. sec. 65.4: 16 decr. 8.1: 15, 19 syn. 15: 20, 23, 41, 46
decr. 20.2: 19 syn. 18: 24
Ar.: 5 syn. 18.2: 15, 19
Ar. 1.6.5: 46 Letter to Alexander of syn. 18.3: 15
Ar. 1.30.7: 15 Alexandria 2: 41 syn. 20.1: 15
Ar. 1.32: 15
Ar. 3.2.1: 15
Ar. 3.60.4: 15
Pseudo-Athanasius
dial. c. Macedon. 14: 31 dial. III de Trin. 4: 31
Baruch
3.38: 220
Basil of Caesarea
Against Eunomius: 217
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES 359
Constantine
ep. Theod. Laod., Urk.
28: 11
ep. epp., Urk. 20: 12
Cyril of Jerusalem
cat. 15: 64
Epiphanius of Salamis
haer. 72.6–10: 63
haer. 73.12–22: 43
haer. 76.3: 15
1 Esdras
4.38–39: 213
4.40: 213
Eusebius of Caesarea
CM 1.1–2: 24 CM 1.4.35: 47 CM 2.3.36–2.4.1–28: 40
CM 1.1.1: 34 CM 1.4.39: 34 CM 2.4: 29
CM 1.1.9: 34 CM 1.4.46: 38 CM 2.4.13: 21
CM 1.1.10–11: 40 CM 1.4.59: 38 CM 2.4.21: 36
CM 1.1.11–14: 37 CM 1.4.64: 38 CM 2.4.24: 51–52, 55
CM 1.1.15: 36 CM 2.1.1–3: 39 CM 2.4.25–26: 58
CM 1.1.17: 38, 40 CM 2.1.2: 50 CM 2.4.27–28: 38
CM 1.1.22: 50 CM 2.1.9: 38 CM 2.4.30: 17
CM 1.1.23: 50 CM 2.1.10–11: 40
CM 1.1.27: 56 CM 2.2: 26 dem. ev. 4.2.2: 109
CM 1.1.30: 23 CM 2.2.1: 37 dem. ev. 5.2.21: 109
CM 1.1.32–33: 42 CM 2.2.2: 48
CM 1.1.32: 36 CM 2.2.4: 31 ep. Alex. Alex., Urk. 7: 10
CM 1.1.36: 34 CM 2.2.5: 38
CM 1.2: 35 CM 2.2.8: 36 ep. Euphr. Bal., Urk. 3,3:
CM 1.2.4: 33 CM 2.2.11: 36 112
CM 1.4: 24–26 CM 2.2.15–25: 26 ep. Euphr. Bal., Urk. 3,4:
CM 1.4.3: 34 CM 2.2.26–29: 26 109
CM 1.4.16: 34 CM 2.2.32: 36 ep. Euphr. Bal., Urk. 3,5:
CM 1.4.19–28: 30 CM 2.2.43: 36 114
CM 1.4.23: 41, 47 CM 2.3: 106, 315
CM 1.4.30–31: 25 CM 2.3.2: 39 ep. ad eccl. Caes., Urk.
CM 1.4.33–34: 25, 29 CM 2.3.23–27: 25 22: 13
Eusebius of Caesarea (cont.)
ET praef.: 189 ET 1.20.5: 42 ET 2.3.3: 37, 48
ET 1.1.3: 38 ET 1.20.5, section 25: ET 2.4.2: 38
ET 1.1.4: 38, 40 36 ET 2.5: 21, 35, 38
ET 1.2: 37, 41–42, 45, ET 1.20.5, section 30: ET 2.6.1–2: 41
47, 50 36, 46 ET 2.6.1: 44
ET 1.3: 38, 51, 56 ET 1.20.6: 47, 53–54 ET 2.6.2–3: 37
ET 1.3.1: 38, 51 ET 1.20.6, section 36: ET 2.7.1–2: 43
ET 1.5.1: 36 36 ET 2.7.1–3: 44
ET 1.5.2: 38, 40 ET 1.20.6, section 39: ET 2.7.1: 41, 44
ET 1.6.1: 34, 55 36, 42 ET 2.7.5–6: 46
ET 1.6.2: 50 ET 1.20.6, section 40: ET 2.7.6: 42
ET 1.7.1: 38, 51 43–44, 51, 53, 55 ET 2.7.8: 46
ET 1.7.3: 50, 57 ET 1.20.6, sections ET 2.7.16–17: 47
ET 1.8.1: 37 41–42: 55 ET 2.8.1: 36
ET 1.8.2–3: 41 ET 1.20.6, section 41: ET 2.9.12: 35
ET 1.8.2: 47 54 ET 2.10.4–8: 34
ET 1.8.3–4: 46 ET 1.20.6, section 43: ET 2.11.1: 36, 37
ET 1.8.3: 42 38, 54 ET 2.12.2–3: 37
ET 1.9–10: 41–42 ET 1.20.6, section 45: ET 2.12.2: 37, 41, 48
ET 1.10: 27 38, 71 ET 2.12.3: 38
ET 1.10.3: 45 ET 1.20.6, section 46: ET 2.14: 23, 45, 47, 244
ET 1.11: 214 36, 46 ET 2.14.4: 36
ET 1.11.3: 44–45 ET 1.20.8: 40 ET 2.14.9: 46
ET 1.11.4: 45–46 ET 1.20.8, sections ET 2.14.14: 47
ET 1.12: 41 55–56: 34 ET 2.14.19–20: 40
ET 1.12.8–10: 41 ET 1.20.9: 67 ET 2.14.20: 37
ET 1.12.8: 41, 57 ET 1.20.9, section 63: ET 2.15.1: 37
ET 1.12.9: 42 43, 46 ET 2.15.2: 37
ET 1.13.2: 46 ET 1.20.9, section 64: ET 2.15.3: 37
ET 1.13.5: 55 36 ET 2.15.4: 37
ET 1.14.2: 34, 38 ET 1.20.12, section ET 2.17.3: 47
ET 1.16.2: 50 67: 34 ET 2.17.6: 37
ET 1.17.2: 36 ET 1.20.14: 25, 47 ET 2.17.7: 46
ET 1.17.4: 36 ET 1.20.14, sections ET 2.18.2: 50
ET 1.17.7: 36–37 72–74: 34, 39, 47 ET 2.19: 33
ET 1.17.9: 41 ET 1.20.29, section ET 2.19.21: 27
ET 1.18.4: 36 87: 49 ET 2.20.5: 49
ET 1.19.2: 39 ET 1.20.29, section ET 2.21.1–4: 46
ET 1.20.3: 50 89: 37 ET 2.21.4: 43
ET 1.20.3, section 5: 46 ET 1.20.29, section ET 2.22.1–2: 45
ET 1.20.4, section 11: 91: 36 ET 2.22.5: 40
36 ET 2.1.1: 31, 38 ET 2.23: 25, 39
ET 1.20.4, section 15: ET 2.2.1: 34, 40 ET 2.23.1–2: 44
36 ET 2.2.5: 40 ET 2.23.1: 44, 47
ET 2.23.2: 45 ET 3.3.64: 37 ET 3.14–18: 40
ET 2.23.4: 50 ET 3.4–6: 166 ET 3.17.6: 35
ET 2.24.3: 36 ET 3.4: 31 ET 3.18.3–4: 35
ET 3.1–3: 34 ET 3.4.6: 47 ET 3.18.4: 45
ET 3.1.1: 43 ET 3.4.9: 49 ET 3.19.3: 35
ET 3.2.1: 36, 43 ET 3.5: 49 ET 3.20.2: 45
ET 3.2.17: 46 ET 3.5.8–9: 42 ET 3.21.1: 47
ET 3.2.31: 43 ET 3.5.15: 50
ET 3.2.32: 43 ET 3.5.17–18: 49 fr. 103: 236
ET 3.3: 294 ET 3.5.18: 49
ET 3.3.5: 46 ET 3.5.22: 34 HE 7.27–31: 38
ET 3.3.39: 43 ET 3.6.1: 45, 49
ET 3.3.53–58: 46 ET 3.6.4: 38 v.C. 2.63: 11
ET 3.3.56: 47 ET 3.8–12: 30 v.C. 3.59–62: 14
ET 3.3.63: 36 ET 3.14–16: 34
Eusebius of Emesa
adversus Sabellium: 63 de fide: 63
de fide 24: 63
Eusebius of Nicomedia
ep. Alex. Alex., Urk. 7: 10 ep. Paulin. Tyr., Urk. 8: ep. Euphr. Balan., Urk.
31, 99 3: 10
Eusebius of Nicomedia/
Theognis of Nicaea
ep. syn. Nic., Urk. 31: 11
Gregory of Nyssa
adversus Arium et
Sabellium: 65
Homer
Il. 8.1.52: 180, 263
Irenaeus of Lyon
haer. 1 praef.: 105
haer. 1.27.4: 75
haer. 3.12.12: 75
Jerome
ep. 85.3: 71
John Chrysostom
Philogon.: 12
Jubilees
1.12: 307 38.16–17: 291
2.7: 307 38.16: 291, 293
10.11: 178
Justin Martyr
1 Apol. 58: 75
Marcellus of Ancyra
ep. ad Iul.: 13, 29 fr. 20: 103 fr. 43: 292
fr. 21: 103 fr. 44: 293
fr. Praef.: 189 fr. 22: 104 fr. 45: 141, 176, 294
fr. 1: 31, 99, 101, 113, fr. 23–46: 172, 176 fr. 46: 105
160, 171 fr. 23: 95–96 fr. 47: 26–27, 35, 304
fr. 2: 100–102 fr. 24: 91 fr. 48: 26, 31, 67, 179,
fr. 3: 91, 190, 205, fr. 25: 91 306
237–38 fr. 26–46: 33 fr. 49: 306
fr. 4: 86–87, 91 fr. 26: 138, 176 fr. 50: 31, 35, 43, 306
fr. 5: 121, 191, 206, 238 fr. 27: 285 fr. 51–52: 107
fr. 6: 122, 224, 240 fr. 28: 138–39, 176 fr. 51–56: 39
fr. 7: 39, 134, 185, 191, fr. 29: 138–39, 284–85, fr. 51: 105
198 295 fr. 52: 122, 141, 191,
fr. 8: 39, 135, 191 fr. 30: 286 198, 237
fr. 9: 17, 19, 100 fr. 31: 286 fr. 53: 106, 122, 136,
fr. 10: 100, 107 fr. 32: 288 141–42, 270
fr. 11: 135–36 fr. 33: 288 fr. 54: 25–26, 106, 142
fr. 12: 89 fr. 34: 138, 288 fr. 55: 142, 315
fr. 13: 136 fr. 35: 139, 289 fr. 56: 143
fr. 14: 136 fr. 36: 105 fr. 57: 33, 90
fr. 15: 137 fr. 37: 90 fr. 58: 91
fr. 16: 137 fr. 38: 139, 284 fr. 59: 144
fr. 17–22: 183 fr. 39: 139, 285, 289 fr. 60: 33, 106
fr. 17: 101, 113 fr. 40: 140, 290 fr. 61: 31, 122, 219
fr. 18: 15, 17, 19, 101–2 fr. 41: 140, 292 fr. 62: 220
fr. 19: 102 fr. 42: 140, 292 fr. 63: 220
fr. 64: 32, 220 fr. 87: 27, 130, 187–88, fr. 107: 39, 150
fr. 65: 123, 162, 237 234, 249 fr. 108: 150
fr. 66: 123, 231 fr. 88: 130, 249 fr. 109: 35–36, 40, 132,
fr. 67: 124, 271 fr. 89: 130, 188, 234, 151, 186–87, 232,
fr. 68: 124, 240, 273 240 240, 317
fr. 69: 161, 184–86 fr. 90: 256 fr. 110: 35, 133, 232,
fr. 70: 125, 241 fr. 91: 112, 257 298, 302
fr. 71: 125, 231 fr. 92: 33, 35, 130, 173, fr. 111: 133, 185, 198,
fr. 72: 125, 224 258 232
fr. 73: 26, 123, 179, 224 fr. 93: 202, 220, 258 fr. 112: 90
fr. 74–75: 26 fr. 94: 35, 123, 131, fr. 113: 29, 100, 107
fr. 74: 26, 33, 52, 55, 162, 237, 239 fr. 115–118: 17
113, 127, 174, 225 fr. 95: 220, 258 fr. 115: 108
fr. 75: 27, 113, 128 fr. 96: 131, 217, 272 fr. 116–117: 43
fr. 76: 24, 26, 129, 186– fr. 97: 35–36, 173, 260 fr. 116: 34, 35, 108
87, 221, 223, 240 fr. 98: 28, 36, 132, 189, fr. 117: 35, 109, 115
fr. 77: 26, 129, 187, 249–50, 304 fr. 118: 109
189, 221–22 fr. 99–114: 29 fr. 119: 109–11
fr. 78: 144 fr. 99: 29–30, 146 fr. 120: 35, 111
fr. 79: 144 fr. 100: 26, 30, 39, 146 fr. 121: 111–12
fr. 80: 145, 175 fr. 101: 30, 146–47 fr. 122: 15, 112, 131
fr. 81: 145 fr. 102: 39, 147, 331 fr. 123: 113
fr. 82: 145 fr. 103: 35, 39, 148, fr. 124: 113
fr. 83: 145 175, 331 fr. 125: 26, 113
fr. 84: 318 fr. 104: 35, 148, 331 fr. 126: 114–15
fr. 85: 27, 33, 35–36, fr. 105–109: 39 fr. 127: 114–15, 175
43, 55, 172, 255, 265 fr. 105: 320 fr. 128: 114–15
fr. 86: 255, 265 fr. 106: 36, 136, 142,
150, 175, 316, 319,
321–22
(Marcellus?)
de sancta eccl. 9: 109
Narcissus of Neronias
ep. ad Chrestum, Euphro-
nium et Eusebium,
Urk. 19: 108, 113
Origen
comm. in Gen. 1.1: 103 comm. in Jo. 2.12–18: 23 de princ. 1 praef.: 101–2,
104
Pamphilus
apol. 3: 103
Paulinus of Tyre
ep., Urk. 9: 102
ep., Urk. 9,2–4: 111–12
ep., Urk. 9,4: 112, 131
Philo of Alexandria
Ebr. 30: 27 Opif. 8–9: 26 Spec. 1.60: 22
Ebr. 184: 27 Opif. 20: 27
Opif. 171: 20
Mut. 27–29: 22
Mut. 259–264: 26
Philostorgius
HE 1.9: 12
HE 2.14: 15
Plato
Gorg. 454d–e: 104 Meno 97d–e: 204
Porphyry
abst. 2.5.6: 94 sent. 32: 27
Rufinus
HE 1.11: 12
Socrates Scholasticus
HE 1.7.1: 11 HE 1.25: 12 HE 1.39: 12
HE 1.23.6: 14 HE 1.36.3: 15 HE 2.2: 12
Sozomen
HE 1.15.10: 11–12 HE 2.27: 12
HE 1.16.5: 11 HE 2.34: 12
HE 2.25.1: 16
Synod of Antioch (325)
Urk. 18: 11–12
Synod of Bithynia (320?)

Urk. 5: 10
Synod of Palestine (321/322?)

Urk. 10: 11
Tertullian
Adv. Marc. 1.22: 166 Adv. Prax. 1–2: 38
Adv. Prax. 8: 42
Theodoret
HE 1.7.10: 12
HE 1.20.4: 14
HE 2.2: 12
Theophrastus
On Piety: 94
INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS
INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS
I N DE X OF MODE R N AU T HOR S
Abramowski, L., 60, Hübner, R. M., 6, 60, Opitz, H.-G., 7–8, 10,
62 63, 66, 202 15, 60, 110
Anatolios, K., 3
Ayres, L., 3–6 Johnson, P., 4 Parmentier, L., 12
Jones, G., 5 Parvis, S., 5, 9, 10,
Barnes, M. R., 3–5 13–18, 66
Barnes, T. D., 4–5, 9, Kannengiesser, C., 4 Pohlsander, H. A., 12
14, 16–18 Kelly, J. N. D., 59
Beeley, C., 3 Kinzig, W., 4, 62 Radde-Gallwitz, A., 4,
Beeley, C. A., 8, 46, 56 Kirinjan, M., 11 218
Behr, J., 3 Klostermann, E., 15, Riedweg, C., 10
Bertin, I., 64 77–78, 94, 140, 153, Risch, F. X., 6
Bidez, J., 11–12 174, 192, 209, 211, Rusch, W. G., 10
Blanc, C., 23 220, 222, 227, 236,
Böhm, T., 4 239, 241, 263, 276, Schwartz, E., 12
Bremmer, J. N., 204 278–79, 293–95, Seibt, K., 5, 9, 16, 60,
Brennecke, H. C., 4–5 297, 302–4, 311, 98, 109, 220
314, 325–26, 330 Sesboüé, B., 3
DelCogliano, M., 3, 6, Kofsky, A., 4 Simonetti, M., 3
22, 70, 107, 218 Kopacek, T. A., 5 Slusser, M., 43
Drake, H. A., 4 Spoerl, K. M., 6, 8,
Drecoll, H. V., 3 Lienhard, J. T., 5, 6, 51, 41, 50–51, 55, 57,
Dummer, J., 15 60, 63–64 65–66, 70
Lietzmann, H., 43, 63 Steenson, J. N., 4
Feige, G., 5, 60 Logan, A. H. B., 10 Stegmann, A., 63
Löhr, W. A., 4 Strutwolf, H., 4
Graumann, T., 8 Lorenz, R., 4
Gregg, R. C., 4 Lyman, J. R., 56 Teal, A., 3
Groh, D. E., 4 Tetz, M., 9, 13, 15, 60,
Mansi, J. D., 76 62
Hahn, A., 43 Martin, A., 3
Hansen, G. C., 11–12 Migliore, F., 7, 160, 280 Ulrich, J., 4
Hanson, R. P. C., 3 Mommsen, T., 12
Hildebrand, S. M., 3 Morales, X., 3 Vaggione, R. P., 5
Holl, K., 15, 65 Moutsoulas, E. D., 66 Vinzent, M., 4–6, 8,
13–14, 17, 19, 31,
366
INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS 367
60–63, 65–66, 70, Weedman, M., 5 Young, F., 3
98, 102, 119, 159, Williams, D. H., 4
161, 168, 202, 211 Williams, R., 4, 10, 66 Zahn, T., 234
Winkelmann, F., 11–12
Wallace-Hadrill, D. S., 9 Wolfson, H. A., 22
Weber, A., 45
I N DE X OF G R E E K WOR D S
ἀγένητος, 37 204, 250 οὐσιώδη, 203

ἀγέννητος, 37 λόγος ἐνδιάθετος, οὐσιωδῶς, 165
ἀγεννήτους, 22 36–37
αἴτιος, 41, 173, 177 λόγος πλατύνεσθαι, 179
ἀνούσιαν, 152 προστακτικός, 36 πρόσωπα, 43
ἀνούσιος, 36, 200 λόγος προφορικός, πρόσωπον, 42–43, 49,
ἀνύπαρκτος, 209 36–37 67–68, 209, 257, 275
ἀνυπόστατος, 36, 84, λόγος σημαντικός,
130, 152, 196, 200, 36 σοφία, 28
209 συμβεβηκός, 36
ἀπαράλλακτος, 22, 107 μονάς, 21, 26 συναγέννητος, 22, 224
ἀρχαί, 22, 48 μόνος, 20, 21 συναίδιος, 22
ἀρχή, 22, 41, 44–45,
174, 190, 223, 243, ὁμοούσιος, 5, 14, 44, 45, τριάς, 26
253 57, 65–66
αὐτοπροσώπος, 275 οὐσία, 19, 20, 35, 43, ὑπόστασις, 19, 43, 153,
57–58, 68, 79, 178, 162
διάνοια, 28 109, 114–15, 153,
δύναμις, 28 243–44, 335 φύντα, 244
οὐσίαι, 35, 44, 109,
ἐκ προσώπου, 137 111
ψυχῆς δίκην, 51
ἐκτήσατο, 282 οὐσίας, 22, 58,
ἐπιστήμη, 28 107–8, 169,
177–78, 200,
λογικός, 203, 254 226, 233, 269,
λόγος, 28, 132, 187, 301, 311, 334
368

Untitled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE FATHERS

Andrew Cain William E. Klingshirn

Carole Monica C. Burnett, Staff Editor

K EL L E Y MCC A RTH Y SPOER L

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA PRESS

Biblical quotations in notes on pages 77, 166, and 334 are

Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available

Periodicals and Series

Critical Editions and Translations

Works of Eusebius of Caesarea

Primary Sources: Editions and Translations

Select Secondary Bibliography on

Select Secondary Bibliography on

HE UNDERLYING reason for his [Marcellus’s] writing

7. It is not clear here to whom Eusebius refers.

25. Gal 1.8–9.

30. Gal 4.4.

42. Gal 3.19–20.

46. Gal 4.26.

51. Gal 4.25–26.

63. LXX 4 Kgs 4.35 (RSV 2 Kgs 4.35).

71. Rom 1.4; Marcellus, fr. 37 (19 K./H.) (36,1–5 V.).

76. Marcellus, fr. 58 (30 K./H.) (52,1–3 V.).

84. 1 Cor 12.4.

man tries to place before us the meaning of the holy Proverbs

88. 1 Cor 2.12–14.

89. Cf. Theophrastus, On Piety, apud Porphyry, Abst., 2.5.6.

91. Marcellus, fr. 23 (125 K./H.) (24,1–28,16 V.).

94. Marcellus, fr. 23 (125 K./H.) (28,11–14 V.).

97. Prv 9.1–2.

123. Marcellus, fr. 20 (38 K./H.) (20,5–8 V.).

126. Origen, de princ. I praef.

131. Prv 8.23.

147. See introduction, p. 22 n. 82.

156. Col 3.9–10.

176. Gal 4.19.

nor apostles have said this?187

199. Phil 2.6–7.

FTER IDENTIFYING those [bishops] whom he slan-

6. On the early history of “docetism,” to which Eusebius seems to refer

15. 1 Cor 1.9.

39. Ps 106.20 (RSV 107.20).

51. 1 Cor 8.6.

80. See Asterius, fr. 21; 27; 29 (92; 96 V.).

87. Marcellus, fr. 87 (61 K./H.) (74,12–76,10 V.).

95. Section of Asterius, fr. 71 (130 V.).

104. See Prv 8.27.

116. What Eusebius means here is to attribute divinity to the assumed

120. Jn 1.14; Marcellus, fr. 8 (49 K./H.) (10,18–12,2 V.).

136. Col 1.15.

146. Prv 8.22.

154. 1 Cor 3.11.

165. Prv 8.24.

172. Prv 8.25.

181. Asterius, fr. 11 and 13 (88 V.).

187. Col 1.15.

because of his abundant lovingkindness in the second glory

212. Ps 96.1 (RSV 97.1).

come to consider the sort of end he confers on it [the flesh].

229. Marcellus, fr. 103 (115 K./H.) (92,14–94,9 V.).