Page:Nestorius and his place in the history of Christian doctrine.djvu/130

position of power which is given back to man^[1]. 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 Christ^[2]. I have, therefore, no doubt that there existed a kinship in tradition between Marcellus and Nestorius^[3]. 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^[4] 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 ὁμοούσιος as excluding persons (ὑποστάσεις) in the Trinity, the same use of πνεῦμα 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: ἀρχὴ γάρ τοι τῶν καλλίστων τῆς δικαιοσύνης ὁδῶν γεγένηται ἡμῖν ὁ ἄνθρωπος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῖς κρείττοσι τῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων προσάγω ἡμᾶς κ.τ.λ. and Marcell, fragm. 9–15, Klostermann, p. 186 f.).
4. Nestoriana, p. 298, 23, where Marcellus is substituted for Manichaeus.