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 fragments[1], 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 occur[2]. 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 (θέσει)[3], and we even find in him the idea, that this
- ↑ 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).
- ↑ Klostermann, 74, p. 200, 5 f.: οὐκ εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον ὂν 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.
- ↑ Klostermann, 41, p. 192, 1 ff.: καὶ διὰ τοῦτο οὐχ υἱὸν θεοῦ ἑαυτὸν ὀνομάζει, ἀλλὰ … υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου …, ἵνα διὰ τῆς τοιαύτης ὁμολογίας θέσει τὸν ἄνθρωπον διὰ τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν κοινωνίαν υἱὸν θεοῦ γενέσθαι παρασκευάσῃ.
