of kinship was it? To answer this question I must enlarge upon two other points, i.e. the doctrine of Marcellus of Ancyra and the so-called Symbolum Sardicense.

Marcellus of Ancyra, whose huge work is preserved only in fragments1, does not seem to have occupied himself with the christological question as such, as far as we can judge. It was the Arian Logos-doctrine that he opposed; the Arian doctrine as to the Jesus of history was not made an object of discussion by him. Hence it may be explained, that in some places he says: the Logos took on flesh, and in others: God joined a man to his Logos. This latter phrase, it is true, is less often used than the other, but nevertheless it does occur2. And it is not this phrase alone which shows resemblance to Nestorius' doctrine; it is also said by Marcellus, that the man joined to the Logos became son of God by adoption (éσe)3, and we even find in him the idea, that this

1 Collected after Rettberg (Marcelliana, Göttingen, 1794) by E. Klostermann (Eusebius Werke IV, Gegen Marcell., etc., Leipzig, 1906), pp. 185-215. Comp. F. Loofs, Die Trinitätslehre Marcells v. Ancyra (Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1902, pp. 764-781).

2 Klostermann, 74, p. 200, 5 f.: οὐκ εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον ὃν ἀνείληφεν ἀποβλέπων τοῦτό (John 10, 30) φησιν, ἀλλ ̓ εἰς τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς προελθόντα λόγον—; 1, p. 185, 10: ὅτε τὸν ἀγαπηθέντα ὑπ ̓ αὐτοῦ ἄνθρωπον τῷ ἑαυτοῦ συνῆψεν λόγῳ; comp. 107, p. 208, 15; 108, p. 208, 22; 117, p. 210, 29.

3 Klostermann, 41, p. 192, 1 ff.: kai dià Toûto ovx viòv Beoû ἑαυτὸν ὀνομάζει, ἀλλὰ...υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου..., ἵνα διὰ τῆς τοιαύτης ὁμολογίας θέσει τὸν ἄνθρωπον διὰ τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν κοινωνίαν υἱὸν θεοῦ γενέσθαι παρασκευάσῃ.

man joined to the Logos1, after having been exalted, became σύνθρονος τῷ θεῷ”. Still more of kinship in tradition is to be seen between Marcellus and Nestorius when in Marcellus Christ appears as the beginner of a new humanity. It was for this purpose, that the Logos took on the man, viz. that he might assist the man who has been deprived by the devil of his position of glory, in gaining victory over the latter3. He, the man joined to the Logos, is the πρωτότοκος τῆς καινῆς κτίσεως and the πρωτότοκος ἐκ νεκρῶν, the πρῶτος καινὸς ἄνθρωπος, εἰς ὃν τὰ πάντα ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι ἐβουλήθη ὁ θεός5, he is the image of the Logos and thus of the invisible God, and, having become κύριος and Ocós, he received thereby the firstfruits of the

1 Klostermann, 42, p. 192, 8 and 109, p. 208, 25: ô tô Xóyw ἑνωθεὶς ἄνθρωπος. 2 Klostermann, 110, p. 208, 30.

3 1. c. 108, p. 208, 21 f. : ἵνα ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου ἀπατηθέντα πρότερον τὸν ἄνθρωπον αὐτὸν αὖθις νικῆσαι τὸν διάβολον παρασκευάσῃ· διὰ τοῦτο ἀνείληφεν τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἵνα ἀκολούθως τοῦτον ἀπαρχὴν τῆς ἐξουσίας παραλαβεῖν παρασκευάσῃ.

4 1. c. 2, p. 185, 24: οὐ μόνον τῆς καινῆς κτίσεως πρωτότοκον αὐτὸν ὁ ἀπόστολος εἶναι φησίν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρωτότοκον ἐκ νεκρῶν.

5 1. c. 6, p. 186, 18 f.

6 1. c. 94, p. 205, 12f.: εἰκών ἐστιν τοῦ ἀοράτου θεοῦ· νῦν δηλονότι, ὁπηνίκα τὴν κατ ̓ εἰκόνα τοῦ θεοῦ γενομένην ἀνείληφε σάρκα...εἰ γὰρ διὰ τῆς εἰκόνος ταύτης τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον ἠξιώθημεν γνῶναι, πιστεύειν ὀφεί λομεν αὐτῷ τῷ λόγῳ διὰ τῆς εἰκόνος λέγοντι· ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἓν ἐσμεν. οὔτε γὰρ τὸν λόγον οὔτε τὸν πατέρα τοῦ λόγου χωρὶς τῆς εἰκόνος ταύτης γνῶναί τινα δυνατόν.

7 1. c. 111, p. 209, 1 f.: τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν πρότερον διὰ τὴν παρακοὴν τῆς βασιλείας ἐκπεπτωκότα κύριον καὶ θεὸν γενέσθαι βουλόμενος ὁ θεὸς ταύτην τὴν οἰκονομίαν εἰργάσατο.

position of power which is given back to man1. Finally it is deserving of notice, that Marcellus, when applying the terms υἱός, κύριος and Χριστός only to the Christ of history, is, as regards the two latter terms, in perfect harmony with Nestorius, and that further, as regards the first, Nestorius, too, applied the term after the incarnation only to the undivided historical person of Christ2. I have, therefore, no doubt that there existed a kinship in tradition between Marcellus and Nestorius3. I do not mean that Nestorius had necessarily read Marcellus' work. It is probable—if a conjecture as to the text is right-that he once named him, opposing his idea, that the Logos, when going at the end of all things to be reabsorbed into the Father, would put off his flesh; but he could have learned this idea through hearsay. Marcellus and Nestorius could have a kinship in

1 See p. 117, note 3, comp. above p. 89 at note 8.

2 See above p. 86.

3 In consideration of the fact that a common kinship of two persons to a third one proves them to be akin to one another, I notice that we find in Marcellus and Eustathius the same understanding of the oμoovσios as excluding persons (vπoσráσels) in the Trinity, the same use of πveûμa as applied to the Logos, the same quotation of Baruch, 3, 36-38 (comp. above p. 110, note 2, and Marcellus, fragm. 70, p. 202, 20 ff.) and the same striking explanation of Prov. 8, 22 (comp. Eustathius, fragm. Cavallera, 33, p. 77: ảρxǹ Yáp Toɩ TŴV καλλίστων τῆς δικαιοσύνης ὁδῶν γεγένηται ἡμῖν ὁ ἄνθρωπος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῖς κρείττοσι τῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων προσάγων ἡμᾶς κ.τ.λ. and Marcell, fragm. 9-15, Klostermann, p. 186 f.).

4 Nestoriana, p. 298, 23, where Marcellus is substituted for Manichaeus.

tradition even if Nestorius did not know Marcellus' work. Besides it is perhaps remarkable, that Nestorius who so zealously anathematises all heretics never put Marcellus on such a black list.

Likewise it seems to me without doubt, that there is a kinship in tradition between Nestorius and the so-called Symbolum Sardicense1. In the beginning of this creed Ursacius and Valens, "the Arians," as they are called, are blamed because they pretended to be Christians, and nevertheless dared to say, that the "Logos or Spirit" was wounded, slain, died and rose again. Correspondingly the creed declares at the end, that not the Spirit in Christ (i.e. the Logos) suffered, ἀλλ ̓ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὃν ἐνεδύσατο, ὃν ἀνέλαβεν ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν παθεῖν Svváμevov3, and it asserts as to the resurrection that not ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἀλλ ̓ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐν τῷ θεῷ ἀνέστης. This conformity of views between the Sardicense and Nestorius is really not surprising, for the Sardicense is of western origin and we have already seen that since Tertullian's time the western tradition included a doctrine of the two natures of Christ, which resembled that of Nestorius5.

1 I quote the revised text I gave in Das Glaubensbekenntnis der Homousianer von Sardica (Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie, 1909) pp. 7-11.

23, p. 7, 7-10.

3 11, p. 10, 53–55.

4 ib. p. 10, 55 f.

5 Comp. the references to western theologians I gave in the notes of Das Glaubensbekenntnis etc. (p. 11 ff.).

Moreover, as regards the relation between Nestorius and the Sardicense another point, too, is to be discussed. I must go a roundabout way to show this. First, attention must be drawn to the fact that the Sardicense had a particular kinship with Marcellus1. Like Marcellus, the Sardicense declares that the term πpwтÓTOKOS, if used of Christ, is applied to him as to the new creature, i.e. as to the beginner of the new humanity 2. Like Marcellus, it understands the eternity of the Logos, not as Origen did as an eternal existence beside God the Father, but as the eternal existence in him up to the time when he issued from God3. Like Marcellus, the Sardicense contends that God and his Logos have one ὑπόστασις4. Like Marcellus, it identifies the λόγος ǎσaρkos and the Spirit of God; and like Marcellus, it assumes, that from the historical Christ the Spirit of God proceeded and went over to the disciples. Like

1 This, too, is proved in the notes mentioned in the preceding note.

2 Comp. above p. 117, note 4, and Sardicense, 7, p. 9: ὁμολογοῦμεν μονογενῆ καὶ πρωτότοκον· ἀλλὰ μονογενῆ τὸν λόγον, ὃς πάντοτε ἦν καὶ ἔστιν ἐν τῷ πατρί· τὸ πρωτότοκος δὲ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ διαφέρει (i.e. refers to the man) καὶ τῇ καινῇ κτίσει, ὅτι καὶ πρωτότοκος ἐκ νεκρῶν. 3 Comp. the preceding note.

4 Sardicense, 4, p. 7: ἡμεῖς δὲ ταύτην παρειλήφαμεν...πίστιν καὶ ὁμολογίαν· μίαν εἶναι ὑπόστασιν,...τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος.

5 Sardicense, 11, p. 10: καὶ τοῦτο (viz. τὸ πνεῦμα) πιστεύομεν πεμφθέν· καὶ τοῦτο οὐ πέπονθεν, ἀλλ' ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὃν ἐνεδύσατο.

6 This cannot be proved by a single quotation; but evidence is given in my papers Die Trinitätslehre Marcells (p. 771 ff.) and Das