藥箱（駁八十異端） 第 1 章 第 12/82 段

For they were also called natives of each land, just as the daughters of Jethro reported to their father the help given by Moses, how, driving away the shepherds, he watered their flocks; and when they went and told this to their own father, he said, 'Why have you come back so quickly today?' They said to him, 'An Egyptian man delivered us from the shepherds, and drew water and watered our flock.' And immediately he said to them, 'Why did you not bring him here, that he might eat bread?' And who does not know that Moses was the son of Amram and Jochebed, Amram the son of Kohath, Kohath the son of Levi, Levi the son of Jacob, Jacob the son of Isaac, and Isaac the son of Abraham? So it is by no means the case that, because Moses was called an Egyptian, the succession of his noble birth and lineage was thereby overthrown.

But these followers of Ebion, having abandoned the way, have gone astray into many perverted paths, and have given over their mind to a steep and toilsome track.

Again they boast of having circumcision, and pride themselves, as it were, that this is the seal and mark of the patriarchs and of the righteous who conducted their lives according to the law, by which they suppose themselves to be made equal to those men.

And indeed they wish to trace the establishment of this practice from Christ himself, just as those associated with Cerinthus also do.

For these too say, according to that same foolish argument of theirs, that it is enough for the disciple to be as the teacher.

'Christ was circumcised,' he says, 'so you also be circumcised.'

And that in every way the seeds of this error might be put to shame.

Just as a bridle was set upon the sea by God — bars and gates, sand as a boundary for the sea, and the command, 'You shall come thus far and no farther, but your waves shall be broken within yourself,' as it says — so also these men shall be consumed within themselves.

But there, the word of the boundary was spoken by God's own command for the good order of the sea; here, however, malice and error, of themselves, blinding the mind and turning away from pious reasoning, have taken it upon themselves to raise up, as it were, waves against themselves, dashing the wretched presumptions they proclaim beforehand against other waves of their own, and being ever broken within themselves and dissolving themselves — or like some dreadful reptile that injures itself, turning back upon itself from the tail, devouring itself, and becoming the consumer of its very self.

For they say this once happened at a certain time to asps shut up together in jars, when each devoured the other, and the more savage and fiercer one remained at the end.

And some natural historians in the land of Egypt record that this one, left alone and coming to hunger, began with its own tail and devoured itself.

For this reason they fittingly gave it a name, calling it, because of the head of the Gorgon, an 'aspidogorgon.'

So likewise the vain-minded Ebion and those around him have taken it upon themselves to cut themselves to pieces, doing away from the very outset with the very things on which they pride themselves.

For Christ did not circumcise himself, having been born a little child.

But glory be to the merciful God, that Ebion has thereby forestalled himself, in not confessing the truth, so that this very thing has become a refutation of him.

For if he had said that he, coming from above as God, was circumcised with the eighth-day circumcision by Mary, then, being God at that very time and permitting it according to his own good pleasure, he would have furnished the impostor with a plausible argument concerning the circumcision.

But since he introduces him as having become a mere man, from men, the child is no longer the responsible agent, even though he was circumcised with the eighth-day circumcision.

For he did not circumcise himself, but was circumcised by men.

For indeed children do not circumcise themselves, nor are they responsible for their own circumcision, but their parents are.

For those, being ignorant, are still infants and unknowing, and do not even know what is being done to them by their parents.

But we say that he is God, having come from heaven, and having remained in the womb of the virgin Mary for the full time of children carried in the womb, so that he might complete for himself, from the virginal womb, the enfleshed incarnation and dispensation, in which he was also truly circumcised, and not in mere appearance, on the eighth day.

For he came to fulfill the law and the prophets, and not to destroy them, nor to declare the law to be alien, but rather as having been granted by him and remaining in types until him, so that in him and through him what was lacking in the law might again be fulfilled, in order that the types, having come to spiritual perfection, might be proclaimed in truth by him and by his apostles, no longer being types but the truth itself.

For upon him was fulfilled what was said in the law, which endured until his own time and there ceased, being transferred instead into fulfillment — which is what Zipporah said, that 'the blood of the circumcision of my child stood still.'

And she did not say, 'I circumcised my child.'

For the angel who was sent was not administering the dispensation so that circumcision might occur, nor did he withdraw out of fear of the blood of circumcision; rather, he withdrew for the sake of a reminder of the child to come, that the blood of circumcision should stand still — which, upon hearing and dispensing accordingly, he then withdrew.

And of what child — listen — but of the one concerning whom the prophet said, 'they will wish they had been burned with fire'?

'For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given' — the phrase 'a child was born' showing in truth, so as to signify the true incarnation, while 'a son is given to us' shows the Word of God from above, and that the Son of God himself was given and, having come to be in the womb, was made man, possessing both — God and man — himself God, himself man; himself the Son given from above, himself the child born.

It was upon him, then, that the blood of circumcision at last stood still, as it also says in the Gospel, when Greeks went up to see him and came to Philip and said to him:

'Show us Jesus.' And Philip told John, and John told Jesus, that certain Greeks wished to see him. And immediately the Lord answers, saying, 'Now the glory of God has arrived' — so as to show that circumcision in the flesh was passing away, having served as a type until its time, whereas the uncircumcision in the flesh, possessing in the spirit a greater circumcision, was beholding Christ and had truly apprehended him.

But if these men wish to say:

'How then was Christ circumcised?' — well, O you who have gone astray, we have already shown you for what reason he was circumcised.

For he was circumcised for many reasons.

First, so as to show that he had truly assumed flesh, against Mani and those who say he appeared only in seeming.

Next, so as to show that the body was not consubstantial with the Godhead, as Apollinarius says, nor yet that he brought it down from above, as Valentinus says.

And so as to confirm the circumcision that he himself had once given, which had rightly served its purpose until his own coming, and also so that the Jews might have no excuse.

For if he had not been circumcised, they would have had cause to say, 'We could not receive Christ while uncircumcised.'

Moreover, since he had commanded Abraham to be circumcised for the sake of a visible seal, given as a type of the true and invisible one, it was necessary for Christ, by being circumcised, to confirm this.

For the visible circumcision came about because of Abraham's doubt, when the holy and righteous man said, in doubt, 'Will a son be born to one who is a hundred years old, and will Sarah, an old woman, bear a son?' And immediately the Lord said, 'Take for me a heifer three years old, and a goat and a calf,' and so forth; and around sunset, when he saw torches of fire and a furnace and the rest, God said to him, by way of reproof, 'Your seed shall be a sojourner in a foreign land, and they shall enslave it four hundred years' — for the sake of assurance, on account of the doubt with which he had said, 'Will a son be born to one who is a hundred years old?' — so that the seed, once enslaved by idolatrous and unbelieving Egyptians, might not forget the God of its fathers. He therefore imposed upon him and upon them circumcision in the flesh, so that, seeing it, they might be reminded, and be put to shame, and not deny him.

And this practice endured until Christ, and for this reason he too was well pleased to be circumcised and truly became man — having come from above, from the Father, God the Word, and not having laid aside his divinity, but having genuinely put on flesh.

Having a complete incarnation, he is circumcised, ordering all things in truth, so that, as I have said before, the Jews might be without excuse, and the Manichaeans and others might be refuted, and so that, having been circumcised, he might rightly bring circumcision to an end and point to another, greater one — not as one who lacked it and was thereby proving something to himself, but as one who did have it, showing that there is no longer need of it, but rather of the greater one.

And that immediately upon being born he was God, and not a mere man, the magi will clearly show.

The magi, coming to Jerusalem for a child of two years old and under, and having made inquiry and learned that Christ was being born in Bethlehem, went out again, the star guiding them, and came from Jerusalem to Bethlehem.

And entering in, they found him with Mary his mother, and falling down, they worshiped him and offered him their gifts.

If, then, he is worshiped from the very beginning, the one who was born is not a mere man but God, and he does not become Christ after thirty years and after his baptism, but was immediately born Christ from a virgin, both God and man.

And this is shown not only thus, O deceived Ebion, but also from the age of twelve he is found sitting in the midst of the priests and elders, asking them questions and debating with them, and they were astonished at the word of grace that proceeded from his mouth.

And he did this not after his thirtieth year, so that you might say that he became Christ when the Spirit came upon him, but immediately from the age of twelve, as I have said before, as it is written in the Gospel according to Luke.

But even before that, it says, while he was yet a child, Joseph and Mary and their company went up to Jerusalem to worship at the feast, and as they were returning, Jesus remained behind; and they sought him along the way and among their relatives and did not find him — for Mary had relatives there.

And having turned back and found him, she said to him, 'Child, why have you done this to us? Behold, your father and I have been seeking you in great distress' — for Joseph held the position of father to him, though he was not his father by nature.

Then the Lord said to her, 'Why is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be about my Father's business?' — signifying that the temple was built in the name of God, that is, of his own Father.

If therefore from infancy he knew the temple and the Father, then Jesus who was born was not a mere man, nor was it only after his thirtieth year, after the form of the dove came upon him, that he began to be called Son and Christ; but from the very beginning, and boldly, he taught that he must be about his Father's affairs.

And that Joseph was not his father but stood in the place of a father, hear the same evangelist saying, who wrote in the person of Mary: 'Your father and I have been searching for you in great distress.'

Again, how does he write, saying: 'And Jesus himself, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son, as was supposed, of Joseph'?

By saying 'as was supposed,' he showed that he was not really his son, but only supposed to be so.

Time would fail me were I to go on recounting all this in demonstration of the truth and in refutation of the vain folly of Ebion and of the corrupted school born of that same folly.

For from what source could it not be clear that Joseph was not the father, but was reckoned as one in the place of a father? Behold, it says, the virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son.

And it did not say, 'Behold, the woman.'

And again in another place it says: 'And the heifer shall give birth, and they shall say, She has not given birth.'

For since some of the Manichaeans and Marcionites say that he was not born at all, therefore it says, 'she shall give birth, and they shall say, She has not given birth.'

since Mary did not give birth from the seed of a man, while these madmen falsely claim that she bore him from the seed of a man.

The heifer, then, truly gave birth to God, and truly to man.

And that the virgin is called a heifer, and that the ashes of this heifer served as purification for those defiled, hear the Law saying: 'Take for yourself a red heifer' — so as to show the chosen vessel that was Mary, because of the fire-like quality of the Savior's Godhead that was contained within the virgin.

For 'our God,' it says, 'is a consuming fire.'

A virgin heifer, one that has not known the yoke of marriage with a man.

But why should I dwell on further particulars? As Isaiah again said, speaking in the person of the Lord: 'Take for yourself a great, new scroll (tomos)' — a 'tomos,' that is a 'cutting,' because although the virgin was of the seed of man by lineage, she was cut off from union with men and severed from the natural custom of mankind.

For all men are born from the seed of a man.

But the birth of Christ, though according to nature he received his incarnation from the virgin woman Mary, was contrary to nature 'cut off' from the ordinary course belonging to humanity, just as Jacob also says of him: 'From a shoot, my son, you have gone up' — and he did not say, 'From seed you have gone up.'

And for this reason the holy prophet Isaiah says — or rather, the Lord says to him — 'Take for yourself a scroll of paper,' signifying the customary manner in which the sons of men write everything.

As also in the hundred and thirty-eighth psalm it says: 'In your book shall all be written.'

'The days were fashioned, and not one of them had yet come to be.'

For he likened the womb to a book.

But the Hebrew wonderfully clarifies the word.

For the 'unformed substance' he called 'golmi,' which is interpreted 'groats' or 'a grain of fine flour' — that is, that which has not yet come together into bread and been kneaded, but rather, like a small piece cut from a grain of wheat, a bit of coarse meal, or a fine granule, such as is made from fine flour.

Thus, speaking with precision, he showed the like-formed image that is cut off from man for the sowing, and says — the word being interpreted into the Greek tongue — 'the unformed,' that is, the not-yet-shaped, 'your eyes have seen,' while still in the womb, or before the womb; for God knows all things before they come to be, as it is written.

In any case, both 'book' and 'scroll' signify the womb.

And it did not say, 'Take for yourself a book,' or 'Take for yourself paper,' but 'a scroll (tomos),' on account of what is distinct from ordinary human custom; and 'of paper,' on account of the writable nature of the womb.

'New,' because of the newness and purity of the virgin; 'great' —

for truly great is Mary, the holy virgin, before God and men.

For how could we not call her great, who contained the Uncontainable, whom heaven and earth cannot contain? Yet he, being uncontainable, was contained according to his own choice and good pleasure, willingly and not by necessity.

Therefore the scroll is great and new.

Great because of the wonder; new because she was a virgin.

'And write in it,' it says, 'with the pen of a man' — and it did not say —

'someone shall write in it with the pen of a man' — nor did it say —

'a man shall write in it,' lest Ebion should find a pretext.

For if it had said 'a man shall write in it,' he could have said that Joseph the man had sown the seed, and that Christ was begotten from the seed of a man.

But to Isaiah, seven hundred and fifty-three years — more or less — beforehand, he said, 'Write,' so that from the length of that interval the truth might be evident to all, namely that no one could, seven hundred and fifty-three years in advance, have sown the seed for one who was yet to be born.

Does he, then, say to the prophet 'Write' in vain? Not at all — but in order to show that the Holy Spirit who was in the prophet was itself, in truth, the active agent of the conception of the incarnate coming of Christ.

'For the Holy Spirit shall come upon you,' says the angel Gabriel to Mary, and so on.

And 'with the pen of a man' means 'in the image of a man.'

For Christ Jesus is man, and mediator between God and men, since God the Word came from above, while the man came from Mary, not begotten from the seed of a man.

And for this reason the prophet immediately says, 'And I went in to the prophetess,' so as to show that Mary was the prophetess, and not the wife of Ahaz, as some err in claiming that it was said in reference to Hezekiah.

For in the third year of his father's reign the word was prophesied: 'Behold, the virgin shall be with child.'

And after Ahaz died, having reigned fourteen years and then come to his end, Scripture immediately says: 'And Hezekiah reigned, and he was twenty-five years old when he began to reign.'

How then, during his father's reign — his father having reigned fourteen years — while it was being prophesied that Emmanuel would be born of a virgin, could Hezekiah be born, seeing that he began his reign twenty years after his father? Should it not rather appear to the discerning that he already existed, having been born, at the time when the prophet uttered this word during the reign of Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah? — especially since the wife of Ahaz was not a prophetess at all, as is evident to everyone.

But it is Mary who said and prophesied: 'From henceforth all generations of the earth shall call me blessed.'

It was to her that Gabriel came and brought the good news that the Spirit — the very Spirit that spoke in Isaiah — would come upon her, and that she would bear a son, our Lord Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit and not from the seed of a man, as these foolish and erring men blasphemously assert.

The Sabbath-keeping of this vain-minded man has also been refuted, as have circumcision and the daily washings that he performs.

For it was on the Sabbath that Jesus made a point of performing most of his healings.

And not only did he heal, but he healed in two ways.

For he commanded those healed on the Sabbath to take up their pallet and walk; and moreover, on the Sabbath he made clay and put it upon the eyes of the blind man.

But to knead clay is itself a work.

Hence the apostles, knowing from his conversing and teaching among them that the Sabbath had been abolished, plucked ears of grain on the Sabbath, rubbed them, and ate.

And it was, as the Gospel has it, 'the second-first Sabbath.'

For the Law appointed different sabbaths: the one being the sabbath that naturally recurs by the week, and the other on account of the new moons that fall according to the lunar cycle, and the feasts that followed accordingly — such as the days of the Feast of Tabernacles, and the days of the Passover, when they sacrifice the lamb and thereafter eat unleavened bread.

And further, whenever they observe the one fast of the year that is called the Great Fast, and the other which they call the Little Fast.

For whenever these days happen to fall — whether on the second day of the week, or the third, or the fourth — that day too is appointed to them as a sabbath.

Therefore, after the day of unleavened bread that had occurred and the sabbath day appointed that year, on the sabbath naturally following the day of unleavened bread — itself reckoned as a sabbath — the disciples were found walking through the grainfields, plucking ears of grain, rubbing them, and eating, thereby showing that the bond fixed by the Sabbath had been loosed, now that the great Sabbath had come, that is, Christ, who gave us rest from our sins. Of this Noah was a type: when his father saw him after he was born, he gave him, by prophecy, the name Noah, saying that this one would give us rest from our sins, that is, from our hard labors.

But Noah did not in fact give rest from sins; rather, Lamech uttered that prophecy in reference to Christ, whom Noah truly signifies — for 'Noah' is interpreted 'rest,' as also is 'Sabeth,' which likewise is interpreted 'rest' and 'sabbath.'

That is, Christ, in whom the Father and his Holy Spirit found rest, and in whom all holy men found their rest, ceasing from their sins.

This is the great and eternal Sabbath, of which the small and temporary sabbath was a type — a type that served its purpose only until his coming, having been ordained by him according to the Law, and dissolved in him and fulfilled in the Gospel.

For thus he said, that the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.

The continual sacrifice, offered daily.

And it was not only the priests themselves who prophesied, by their not resting, that the Sabbath would be abolished, but circumcision itself also broke the Sabbath.

For when a child was born, often on a Sabbath, there occurred a clash between the Sabbath and circumcision.

Thus the dissolution of both was foretold beforehand.

For it is shown that those who circumcised a child born on the Sabbath, if they wished to observe the eighth day strictly and found it falling on a Sabbath, then by circumcising performed work and thereby broke the Sabbath.

But if, in order not to break the Sabbath, they postponed it, then they performed the circumcision on the ninth day instead, and thereby broke the very rite of circumcision, and the ordinance's fixed limit of eight days concerning it.

But neither was the first circumcision perfect; rather, it was given for the sake of a sign — both as a reminder for those who came afterward and on account of the hesitation of the holy Abraham, who, as has been said, was rebuked, and as a type of the great circumcision, which fully accomplishes all things in equal measure among those made worthy of it.

For if that circumcision was for the sake of sanctification and for the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven, then Sarah has been deprived of the kingdom, and so have Rebekah, Leah, Rachel, Jochebed, Miriam the sister of Moses, and all the holy women — and they would not be able to inherit the kingdom of heaven, since they were unable to receive the circumcision of Abraham that God bestowed upon him, according to the reasoning of these men.

But if these women have not been deprived of the kingdom of heaven, even though they did not partake of circumcision, then the circumcision now performed in the flesh has no force whatsoever.

But why does Ebion boast about circumcision, when even the idolaters and priests of the Egyptians have circumcision? Indeed the Saracens too, who are also called Ishmaelites, have circumcision, as do the Samaritans, the Jews, the Idumaeans, and the Homerites.

Yet most of these do this not because of the Law, but because of some irrational custom.

And simply put, I would spend a long time wearing myself out over this man's nonsense, because he leans in vain upon the saying spoken by the Savior, 'It is enough for the disciple to be as his teacher,' so that he too might glorify his own circumcision by appeal to the circumcision of Christ — the circumcision that was rightly performed in him and abolished through him.

Nevertheless, since this brutish man wishes to take this saying as referring to imitation of Christ, I shall not hesitate to show that it was not said for this reason.

For the Lord immediately makes clear, by saying that he did not say it for this reason, but because of the persecutions and the drunken insolence of the Jews against him, and he says, 'If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you.'

'If they hated me, they will also hate you.'

'Do you not call me Lord and Teacher? And you say well, for so I am.'

'If then they called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more those of his household? And a servant cannot be above his master, nor a disciple above his teacher.'

'Let the disciple be perfected in all things, as his teacher' — that is, ready for persecution and slander and whatever else may be brought against him.

Whence also holy Paul said, 'Be imitators of me, as I also am of Christ.'

And not that he imitated his own Master in a way he ought not.

For he did not say, 'I am God,' or 'I am the Son of God,' or 'I am the Word who is God.'

Rather he says, 'I am the least of the apostles,' and 'as to one born out of due time, he appeared also to me.'

But if you, Ebion, take this saying as referring to imitation of Christ, and on the basis of the circumcision about which you vainly boast wish to be as the teacher — or rather as the Lord — do not liken yourself to him in the matter of circumcision.

For the Lord did away with its time, as we have clearly demonstrated through many testimonies.

That is, saving not men alone, but sealing together the whole people of the Christians in truth, both men and women alike, and giving without stint — not deficiently to one order of men alone on account of weakness — an inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, but revealing the kingdom of heaven to the entire people through the seal, the commandments, and good teaching.

But if you wish to be as the Lord, O Ebion — that is, as the Teacher — you have been greatly deceived.

Do not compare yourself to him in circumcision; rather, call Lazarus forth from the tomb, or raise some other dead man, cleanse lepers, or grant sight to the blind, or heal one paralyzed from birth, if you can.

But you cannot, because you act contrary to this, being held fast by unbelief and by the bonds of the flesh and the unfulfilled ordinances of the Law.

And even if you were able to do these things — which you cannot, because of your false belief — I do not say that you would be as Christ.

For you cannot be compared to God, being a corruptible and deceived man; nor indeed can you even invoke the name of Christ for divine signs, and even if you should invoke it, you accomplish nothing.

But if you should indeed manage to raise up a paralytic, he who was raised through the name of Jesus would have received from him also this understanding: that he should not tolerate your sabbath-keeping, but should learn from the name of the one who healed him, 'Take up your pallet and go to your house' — on the Sabbath.

I have already said how each of them differently sets forth his doctrine about Christ: at one time Ebion himself, saying that he came into being as a mere man by ordinary begetting; at another time the Ebionites descended from him, saying that the Son possesses a power from above, from God, and that he puts on and takes off Adam according to the occasion — and we have overturned, by the power of God, their divergent opinions.

And why should I still linger longer in these brackish, tidal places, at some times flooded and at other times dried up, from which the castings-up of fish often occur, and which cause harm to the feet of those walking along these shores, because among the fish there are some venomous ones — I mean stingrays, sea-dragons, sharks, and morays — as has already been said?

I shall therefore pass by this place once more, giving thanks to God that we have turned back this heresy also, having refuted it not carelessly but with careful diligence.

Let us, then, beloved, devote ourselves next to the other heresies in succession, asking God for help, so that he himself may bring to completion through us the fulfillment of our promise.

Against the Valentinians, also called Gnostics: eleventh [in this book], but thirty-first in the whole sequence.

After these called Ebionites, having traversed their wickedness, and having promised, by God's power, to proceed also to the others — those bearing the shapes of other wild beasts and the poisons, bites, and venoms of serpents, such as one may see, as though from a chasm, in their teachings, having been engendered from a fire-breathing or dread serpent and a basilisk† — I now proceed to the heresy of the Valentinians, making my refutation of them to the best of my ability; these are the ones who have also imposed on themselves the name of Gnostics, of whom there are ten varieties struck as it were from one blow of their dream-mongering about conjugal pairs, ogdoads, and male-female aeons, each equally matched against another — no longer arranging my treatise according to the order of chronological succession, but passing from one to another according to their progression.