論聖三一對話錄 第 1 章 第 15/23 段

and, as though measuring the heaven with a mere span, with the utterly small intellect that is in us we do not shrink from gazing upward toward what lies beyond all mind — and so we say that the Son is light and life and wisdom and power, and certain other things besides these.

For he has been so named in the God-inspired Scripture; yet we do not thereby shut up his ineffable nature within each of these names, as though we were saying that he is composed of disparate parts and has been laboriously woven together into some one complete whole.

For he is simple and of a single form; but from the many attributes that inhere in him essentially, we proceed, as it were, into faint rays of contemplation upon him and a measured survey of his nature.

If, then, he is called the "character" of the Father's hypostasis, understand him as coexisting inseparably and, at the same time, as naturally inhering in the Father, and as, so to speak, the very form of him who begot him.

And whenever, too, he is called "radiance" — as of a light that has, so to speak, sent itself forth and flashed out — understand this as a kind of outward emanation from the Father, neither wholly separated from the hypostasis from which it comes, nor yet wholly contained within it, but rather emerging, as it were, into subsisting on its own and into individual existence.

For the Son dwells within the Father's nature, having it, one might almost say, as a root, and admitting of no total division from it; yet he subsists as an individual, and is truly Son — not a hypostasis-less character, nor something cast upon him without real existence, nor an accident, like shape in a body.

For being life by nature, how could he be conceived as not subsisting? Have you not inquired of him saying:

"I am He who is; this is my name, and a memorial forever, unto generations of generations"? {B.} You speak well.

And you have said, quite fittingly for us, that the Son is both "the One who is" and "life," as being, in every respect, the character and exact likeness of the Father who is and who lives.

But why then, they say, if this is so, does he receive life from the Father? For he himself said:

"...to have life in himself." And indeed, elsewhere too, without any hesitation, he says:

"As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so the one who eats me shall also live because of me." And Paul says to us, "But God, being rich in mercy, because of his great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ — by grace you have been saved — and raised us up together, and seated us together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus." And, in short, throughout practically the whole of the God-inspired Scripture, he is seen to be made alive by the Father and to be a partaker of life.

In what way, then, shall we set the truth against our opponents? This is what I would most gladly ask you.

{A.} And indeed I thought I was speaking to you both excellently and not beside the point, saying that the Son must be understood as the character not of the Father's will, but of his essence and hypostasis — and this not out of harmony with the divine Scripture.

for I would by no means disavow what is rightly maintained and rightly said.

{A.} Now among existing things, whatever has been fashioned not merely after the shape and figure of something, but has rather been allotted an essential resemblance to it, would surely, in every case, be of the same nature, and would be bound, without any deficiency, to a likeness in every respect.

{B.} What exactly do you mean? For your statement is not entirely clear to me.

{A.} A statue in human likeness, made, let us say, of bronze or of stone — is it a representation of the essence of a given man, or rather of his form and shape? {B.} Of his form, obviously.

{A.} But the son of a given man, fashioned for this very purpose by nature herself, and perfectly formed unto the likeness of his begetter — in respects, I mean, that pertain to nature — would he not then be understood as a natural and essential image? {B.} Yes.

{A.} Since it is now clear and evident that the Son, being the character of the hypostasis of God the Father, has displayed in himself the divine beauty unmarred and unadulterated, having expressly said:

"I am in the Father and the Father is in me," and, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" — how is it not necessary to conclude that he, being distinguished by the very properties of the Godhead just as, of course, the Father also is, could in no way fall short of being life and life-giving, lest the one whose image he is be somehow dishonored through the image? For it will follow, if this were not so, that what belongs to the Son — who is the image of the Father — would no longer be life, but rather something deficient in life and a partaker of life from another; and thereby the Father himself would already, in some way, come under suspicion of the same thing.

Or how could that which is given life be an unvarying image of that which gives life? How could that which is deficient be the image of that which possesses in abundance? How could that which is insufficient even for its own nature be the image of that which is able to distribute to others? {B.} You speak well.

{A.} As for those who have prattled that the Son is a mere partaker of life and does not himself constitute life according to nature — where in the world they would locate his nature, as though it were something other than the life within him, I am at a loss to conceive.

Is it not necessary that whatever is held to come to participate in something be of a nature different from it — lest it be said and seen to be, in effect, a partaker of itself, supposing it were of the same nature? {B.} It is necessary.

{A.} Therefore, if the Son is not life by nature, he will surely exist in some nature of his own, distinct from what he himself is, having received a share — as of something other — in the life that is within him.

Let those, then, who fight for such thoroughly corrupted doctrines answer us: under what category, according to them, will his nature fall?

for our argument has already shown that he is not a created being.

{B.} "Life," it is said, "came to be from the Father";

"That which was made, in him was life." Therefore the Son is life.

{A.} Binding the two together, then, and reducing life and the Son to one, do you mean to say that he is not distinct from the life within him — as though, by different names, we were signifying the nature of one and the same thing conceived by us, whether it happens to be called "Son" or "life"? {B.} That is what I say.

{A.} Do they then suppose that life has been made by the Father?

And how then would this outcome not amount, for them, to a charge and indictment of folly? For is it not necessary — however unwillingly — to say that what has come into being was brought forth out of non-existence, and that what has been brought to the very beginning of its being possessed non-being prior to its being? But this, most excellent sirs, is by no means life — far from it!

For life is not that which has been brought into life;

rather, what belongs to it is to exist perpetually, possessing an existence without beginning and without end.

But if they think their argument wise and well-considered — the one that maintains the Son, though he might be conceived as life, to be a mere partaker of life — let them hear that it is that which gives life which is properly called life, not that which is given life; just as, likewise, with light and wisdom and power: it is not that which lacks light, is destitute of wisdom, and craves strength from another that bears these names, but rather that which illumines, makes others wise, and empowers others.

Do I not seem to you to be walking the path that is straight and unswerving, the one commended by the ordinances of the law? For it is said, "You shall go by the royal road." {B.} Indeed I do.

{A.} But how could that which is enriched by a relation not grounded in nature, and which only barely manages to be, altogether, what it is, ever be placed on equal footing with that which grants participation to others and graciously bestows a share in what is held to belong to it in its own right? For I hear the Son saying:

"For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wills." And quite reasonably so.

For the nature of the Father and of the Son operates on equal terms, and in no way differently.

For the Father is life, and the Son too is life, no less than the Father.

{B.} But I think they would say: "You are spinning falsehoods, sir; your mind has already, as it were, come to nothing — it has fallen short of precise conception, and has falsified and belittled that transcendence and superiority which the Father possesses in being life."

"For how, or on what grounds, could he be set on equal footing with the Son, even if he too is called life?" {A.} Having briefly deliberated over these arguments, we, for our part, shall judge it best to remain calm and undisturbed;

but let those who contend for their own doctrines try to persuade us that the Father is a greater life-giver than the Son, and that the Son is lesser than him — even though the Son exists as life by nature.

But they will not be able to do this, I know; yet they will conjecture whatever seems good to them, and will readily determine concerning the Son whatever they please, yoking that nature which is queen over all things to their own private decrees.

Then they suppose they are honoring the Father, even as they debase, through decrees of diminishment, the Son who has come forth from him according to nature — though he says plainly:

"He who believes in me does not believe in me, but in him who sent me"; and, "He who beholds me beholds him who sent me." For in what way could we discern the Father as being life according to nature in the Son, unless the Son too were understood to be life according to nature? And why should we not also believe him when he declares, "I am the way and the truth and the life"? And in saying — with the definite article, and in a unique sense — that he himself is "the life," would he not thereby exclude the Father and God from being life, unless we grant that both are of one nature, and that this reality comes to us equally through both, not indeed as from two sources, but as from the one God who gives life to all things? {B.} That is so.

A. Is it not in him that we live and move and have our being? B. By all means, if indeed we shall grant that the most sacred Paul speaks truly.

For how could it be otherwise? For Christ, who is the truth, lives and speaks in him.

Behold then, my friend, how it is in God the Father that we live and move and have our being.

But the giver of being and life would be none other than the Son who has appeared from him, who, being distinguished by the Father's own properties and being the life-giving offshoot of natural life, instills life as his own good into those who need it, and holds the whole creation together in its being.

And indeed, speaking to the Jews, he says, 'Truly, truly I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.'

'For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.' Then, signifying to us his own nature, he says, 'Truly, truly I say to you—'

he who believes has eternal life.

'I am the bread of life.' If, then, the Son is active in us equally and without variation, in respect of being life and not less than the Father, how would they not place him in equal claims of being, if only some should choose to think rightly about him and consider it necessary to do so? B. But we shall follow, he says, what the Son himself has said.

...in himself, so also he has given to the Son to have life in himself. A. Add what is missing, or else know that you are doing wrong to the truth.

B. What then? A. That which is necessarily and needfully to be added to what you said, that is—

'And he has given him authority also to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.' B. You seem, I think, to wish to make clear that the Son receives life from the Father not insofar as he is understood and is God, but insofar as he became man—he who by nature does not have being as life, but is rather a partaker of life that is from God.

A. Yet why in the world do you not rather attribute this to yourself, but thoughtlessly kindle it against me? For did you not hear me saying that the Father has given the Son to have life in himself, and the authority of judging, because he is the Son of Man? B. I did hear it—

—but let the 'giving' now, he says, be understood as applying to the judging alone.

For since the Law assigned judging to God as an exceptional prerogative (for it said that judgment belongs to God), he receives the prerogative of God as man.

A. But is Christ man like us, even though he is also understood to be God insofar as he has appeared from God? B. Yes—

—for how could it be otherwise? A. Was it then, in fact, a work proper and exceptional to the divine nature—that which was given to him as man, that is, life? B. But the Father is said to have given life to the Son.

A. Add the element of time, and let the question be resolved.

For when he appeared as one of us, then, precisely then, he is said also to be made alive, even though he himself is by nature life, being from God and from life.

And indeed, when the Father is spoken of as supplying life to the Son as one who did not have it, one might perceive, and quite without difficulty, that the Son is his own supplier of life; and we say this not insofar as he is understood as God, but insofar as he appeared as man, to whom life was given and admitted, as it were, from outside.

For the blessed Paul said—

'But if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.' Yet our Lord Jesus Christ, granting this benefit not by another's energies but rather by his own, says to the Jews concerning his own body—

'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' B. How then has the Father worked life in the Son, if Christ came back to life by his own powers and energies? A. Because, the Father being life, the Son has appeared from him as life, by nature and truly, manifesting the essence of him who begot him, being wholly in the Father, and in turn bearing the Father wholly within himself.

In this way we say that the Father's work is also the Son's, and whatever the Son should do, this is the work of the Father.

And indeed, showing that the energy from the Father is his own, and setting before those eager to learn a clear demonstration of his working equally in all things as a sign of his consubstantiality with him, he says, 'If I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works.' And again, at another time—

'But the Father who abides in me, he himself does the works.' For surely he did not think it fitting that things worked in a manner befitting God should be measured by the standards of humanity, but rather he attributed them to the ineffable nature that transcends the mind—

—'Even if you do not believe me, believe my works.' For those things which were wrought in a manner befitting God and beyond reason do not allow the glory and faith concerning him to remain confined within the measures of the kenosis, but it is raised up, as it were, on high, and he is known not as a mere man at all, but still as God and from God.

A. Is not what I say true? B. Certainly indeed.

A. But this too nearly escaped me, riding past unnoticed.

B. What do you mean? A. The saying of Paul just now cited, in which the teaching was quite clear that the life-giving from the Father is accomplished, both in Christ himself and in us, through the Holy Spirit.

B. For they might say so; but let it also be asked by us in turn—

'For what do you have that you did not receive?' A. The Holy Spirit, then, is life-giving; and having obtained a share in it, we have partaken of the one and true God as of life.

For you think rightly, since indeed the Spirit also fulfills in us ourselves the participation in and presence of God.

'By this we know that he abides in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.' A. Consider then, my friend, that the supplier and giver of the divine and life-giving Spirit is the Son who has appeared from God.

For he breathed on his disciples, saying—

'Receive the Holy Spirit.' How then would it not be among the most utterly discordant things for one who is not life to be the supplier of life, if he is truly present in those who have life as something imparted from without, according to some opinion held by them in a way I do not understand? And yet why in the world, I might reasonably ask, if he is not life, does the Spirit instill it as his own good, and by the manner of the breathing-forth declare himself to be the supplier of life? Whenever, then, the Son is said to be a partaker of life, that is, to be made alive by the Father, at once reckon the whole divine nature as understood, as it were, in the Father, in whom and from whom both the Son and the life-giving Spirit accomplish the life-giving for those who have their life imparted from without—not as an instrument of the ineffable nature, but as bestowing, so to speak, the whole of its quality through himself upon creation, and thoroughly reshaping that which is by nature subject to corruption unto life everlasting.

And being made wise by these considerations for this purpose, you will find that the life-giving work in Christ was effected only with respect to that which is by nature capable of being made alive, that is, the human nature.

For he who is truly from the Father, the Only-begotten, drove away the corruption of his own flesh through his own Spirit, and made his own temple superior to death.

For that, insofar as he is God and has sprung forth from the natural life—clearly that of the Father—he himself too is by nature life, the divinely inspired John would be a most manifest and true witness.

For thus he writes concerning him—

'That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life—and the life was manifested, and we have seen it and testify and declare to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us.' Then, making clearer who this life which he calls by that name may finally be, he says again—

'And we know that the Son of God has come—'

'—and has given us understanding, that we may know the true God, and we are in the true one, in his Son Jesus Christ.'

'This is the true God and eternal life.' For where at all, or how, could he be understood both as existing from the beginning and as true God, unless he had obtained, prior to and above being called into existence, the being always and remaining ever the same? For being by nature life, then, precisely then, is he fittingly recognized as such.

For to the true God, this manner of being would indeed be fitting, and the opposite would be entirely at odds with it; and indeed his name is 'He Who Is'—

'For I am,' he said, 'He Who Is; this is my name and my memorial for ever, to generation after generation.' B. But if, he says, you attribute the Father's energy to the Son, and this without variation, and say that he is equal in power, where will you still preserve any inferiority for him, seeing that he clearly says—

'My Father is greater than I'? And again—

'I am going to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God'? For he knew that the Father was his own God.

A. So then, if they have not believed that the Son is by nature and truly God, he would surely be altogether a creature, and nothing other than this could he be.

But concerning those who have chosen to think in this way, I think it fitting to say that saying—

'—who will give water to my head, and a fountain of tears to my eyes, that I may weep for this people day and night?' And let every God-loving and pious person cry out against them—

'You have been estranged from Christ, you have fallen from grace.' And your portion and inheritance is no longer God—far, far from it—

—but rather simply some spurious and falsely-named thing, possessing a counterfeit glory of divinity.

They have truly worshiped the creature rather than the Creator, and for this reason have believed the Son to be among lesser things than the Father, and to have life as something imparted from without—indeed rather to be among those things which, being creation, do not have life of their own.

Then why have they resolved to worship him whom they bind fast within the measures of creation, and impiously strip of his essential supremacy over all things, even though John clearly says—

'He who comes from above is above all.' For surely the Son will not possess being above all by superiorities of mere comparison—

—but since, in saying 'all things,' a designation of everything that has come into being is introduced, the Son, having no part whatsoever of his own that belongs among creatures, will stand exalted above all things—

—since he is not among all things, but exceptionally above all things, because he attains at last to the highest limit, beyond which there is absolutely nothing.

A. Is not 'God' the name that is above every name, just as the divine Paul told us? B. Yes.

'For in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' B. What then shall we say, if they should say that it is written concerning the Father that he graciously gave him the name that is above every name? A. But if, Hermias, they would add to this a willingness to learn thoroughly in what way and how the Son has being God as something adventitious, although he has obtained this dignity by nature, accompanying his very being—then, I think, they would immediately abandon their position, and, casting off contentiousness as though it were the disease of apoplexy, would cease slandering the ineffable being of the Son, and would choose to think rightly along with us.

But those men, as is likely, will stand firm, defending their own opinions and fighting on behalf of falsehood, and taking their stand nobly with a zeal that is, I think, not inferior to that which some might choose to display who wish to demonstrate the law of arming themselves for war and battle in defense of their children and their wives.

But we, having chosen to speak with precision, are compelled to stir up what is hidden, and to lay bare the truth that is not easy for the more unlearned to grasp.

A. The divinely inspired Paul, then, said to us concerning the Only-begotten—

'Who, being in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even death on a cross.'

For I would most gladly ask you—so answer me as I inquire.

B. What do you mean to say? A. The Only-begotten emptied himself, lowering himself into the form of a servant, and he endured the cross, despising the shame, and became obedient unto death.

'Therefore,' it says, 'God graciously gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth.'

A. Did he then acquire, in a manner belonging to our order of things, as a wage for his brave deeds, and a gift for his obedience, and a crown for his courage, the being called God, and the necessity of being worshiped both by the holy angels themselves, and by us on earth, and by those already departed? B. So it seems.

For our slips and our sins, let the Only-begotten receive as much thanks as possible.

But let it be known that the occasion of his deifying glory is the offenses of humanity.

For if we had not sinned, he would not have become like us—

And if he had not become like us, he would not have endured the cross;

and if he had not died, he would not have acquired the right to be worshiped both by us ourselves and by the holy angels.

{B.} The argument is bold, yet it has plausibility.

{A.} But if he was in equality and in the form of the Father, having no part in the measures of self-emptying, what increase of glory would he have in receiving the name that is above every name, at the time of the self-emptying? Do you not perceive to what danger their argument would be exposed, if it were examined more closely? {B.} I perceive it.

{A.} Do you wish, then, that for the present we set aside this overly subtle argumentation, and proceed to the point that the Only-Begotten was God in the beginning, and in the form and equality of the Father — even though we have already spent a lengthy discourse on this in what has gone before? {B.} By all means.

{A.} Therefore, through the voice of Isaiah, God the Father says:

'I am the Lord God, still from the beginning.' And as the saints themselves also cry out, one might hear them say to him:

'Are you not from the beginning, O Lord our God? And we shall surely not die.' Behold, he has been named God from the beginning, and God the Father truly is.

Now the divinely-inspired John, when he addressed to us his words concerning the Son, said: 'That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life.' And he also addressed certain persons:

'I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning.' And as to who exactly this is, he himself again declared:

'Thus says he who is, who was, and who is to come.' {B.} But that he existed even before creation, they too would admit;

but that he was also God, they say, has not yet been clearly established.

{A.} Then how is it not fitting that we too, justly indignant at this moment against those who have put forth this detestable statement, should say:

'You deaf, hear; and you blind, look up and see.' For the divinely-speaking evangelist writes plainly not merely that he existed, but that the Word was also God, whereas they, as though going headlong into anything whatsoever out of wine and drunkenness, without any consideration, mock the truth with their irony.

Come then, let us also, proceeding through other lines of thought, recognize that the Son is God by nature.

For would it not be fitting for him who truly is God by nature to render judgment upon each person's deeds, crowning with praise those who have the law as the definer of their life and who have honored a glorious and conspicuous life, while readily punishing those who have sinned as arrogant and insolent men who wantonly outrage the ordinances from above? {B.} It would be fitting.

{A.} And again, would you attribute the ability to fill all things, to pervade all things, and to be in all things, to any nature other than the divine? {B.} I certainly would not;

for how could it be otherwise? {A.} And as for living and conducting one's life for God, and making God one's boast — would you not say, my friend, that this is most fitting for the saints? {B.} By all means.

{A.} Come then, tell me this:

{B.} What is that? {A.} Is not every good gift and every perfect gift from above, coming down from the Father of lights — and is not the word of wisdom the most precious of all things? {B.} I agree;

for thus the sacred Scripture says.

{A.} Behold, then, the Son existing as the distributor and dispenser of the good things that come to us from above and from the Father, and this by his own authority:

'But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of the gift of Christ.' And moreover, elsewhere too, when God spoke to the most holy Moses:

'Who has given a mouth to man, and who has made the deaf-mute or the deaf, the seeing or the blind? Is it not I, the Lord God? Now go, and I will open your mouth.' And elsewhere again our Lord Jesus Christ spoke to the holy apostles:

'Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate beforehand how to answer;'

to distribute to each the recompense of whatever he might do, and to justify whomever he chooses (for 'it is God who justifies; who is he that condemns?' according to what is written);

we shall behold the Son active in both matters, not in a ministerial capacity, but with authority befitting God.

'For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world but forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of his Father with his holy angels, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.' And he also spoke to one of those who were ill:

'Child, your sins are forgiven you'; whereupon the unholy Pharisees, enraged beyond all reason, dared to bind with the charge of blasphemy him who had uttered so divine and utterly unhesitating a word, and indeed they said:

'Who can forgive sins but God alone?' He, then, who is Lord both of the law and of justice, and dispenser of crowns, and dispenser of righteousness, and who forgives sins — though it belongs to none of those numbered among creatures to do this — how could he not be God by nature? Do I seem to you to hold these views rightly? {B.} Most elegantly indeed, and far from being open to mockery.

{A.} Now since God is in all things, departing from none, but filling all things with an activity befitting God, thus he also says to Israel:

'Heaven is my throne, and the earth is the footstool of my feet;'

'What house will you build for me, says the Lord? Or what is the place of my rest?' Turning this matter, and quite rightly, toward the Word who has appeared from God the Father, the divinely-inspired Paul writes to us:

'where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free, but Christ is all and in all.' And again, in addition to this: