致馬里努斯神學小品 第 1 章 第 7/12 段

'Since, then, the human will is one thing, and the divine another, he who made our sufferings his own utters, as it were from the man, that which befits the weakness of the nature;'

'but he adds the second utterance, willing that the lofty and God-befitting purpose be ratified over the human, for the salvation of the world.'

'By "not mine," he signified by the word the human [will];'

'but by adding, "yours," he showed the conjunction of his own Godhead with the Father, of which [Godhead] there is no difference of will, on account of the communion of nature.'

But the divine John [Chrysostom], who illumined the throne of the queen [city], in the oration entitled To Those Who Were Absent from the Assembly — which is also a proof that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and whose beginning is, 'Again the horse-races, and again our assembly has grown smaller' —

'Do you see how he also proclaimed beforehand his own earlier age?'

'Ask, then, the heretic: "Does God fear and shrink back?"'

'And if he says, "Yes," then depart from him henceforth, and set him down below with the devil — or rather, even lower than that one; for not even he would dare to say this.'

'But if he says, "None of these things is worthy of God" —'

'say, "Then neither does God pray."'

'For apart from these things, there would be yet another absurdity, if these words were God's [own].'

'For the words do not signify agony alone, but two wills — one of the Son, one of the Father — contrary to one another.'

'"Not as I will, but as you [will]" — this is what it signifies.'

'But this, not even they [the heretics] ever conceded;'

'but while we always say, "I and the Father are one," with reference to power, they claim that this is said with reference to the act of willing, asserting that the Father and the Son have one volition.'

'If, then, the Father and the Son have one volition, how does he say here:'

'"Yet not as I will, but as you [will]"?'

'For if this saying refers to the Godhead, a certain contradiction arises, and many absurdities are engendered from it.'

'But if [it refers] to the flesh, the words make sense, and no charge [of impropriety] could arise.'

'For it is no condemnation that the flesh does not wish to die.'

'For he himself displays all the properties of nature apart from sin, and with much abundance, so as to stop the mouths of the heretics.'

'When, therefore, he says, "If it is possible, let this cup pass from me," and "Not as I will, but as you [will]," he shows nothing else than that he has truly clothed himself with flesh that fears death.'

'For to fear death, and to shrink back, and to be in agony, belongs to that [flesh].'

'At one time, then, he leaves it [the flesh] forsaken and bare of its own operation, in order that, having shown its weakness, he might also confirm its nature;'

'but at another time he conceals it, so that you may learn that he was not a mere man.'

'For just as, if the human things had been shown throughout, this [i.e., that he was a mere man] would have been supposed;'

'so likewise, if he had performed the things of the Godhead throughout, the principle of the [divine] economy would have been disbelieved.'

And let us also hear clearly what Cyril, the teacher of the Alexandrians, teaches in the twenty-fourth chapter of the Thesaurus:

'When, therefore, he appears to be fearful of death, and saying:'

“If it be possible, let this cup pass from me” — consider again that the flesh, fearing death, was being taught, as it was borne by God the Word, no longer to suffer this.

For he said to the Father:

“Not as I will, but as you [will].”

For he himself was not afraid of death insofar as he is Word and God, but he was hastening to carry the dispensation through to its completion.

For this is the will of the Father.

Yet he also has the not-willing to die, because the flesh naturally shrinks from death.

This one, commenting on the great evangelist John, says: “Christ himself made this statement concerning this, teaching that his dying for all is a thing willed, because the divine nature had so purposed;

but a thing not willed, on account of the sufferings on the cross.”

And so far as it concerns the flesh recoiling from death, he says such things.

And the divinely-inspired Severian, who had been bishop of Gabala, commenting on “Father, let this cup pass from me,”

and on “Father, save me from this hour”:

“The Lord, anticipating them, stops the mouths of the heretics, in order to show that he had put on this body capable of many sufferings, a body in agony over death;

a body trembling at the violence of death;

a body grieved and troubled at the end of life.

“Now is my soul troubled”;

“My soul is deeply grieved, even unto death”;

for the Divine is impassible, untroubled, and fearless.

“For the spirit,” says the Lord, “is willing”;

so that he manifests two wills.”

But I think it has been sufficiently demonstrated, by the God-bearing Fathers, that there is a duality of wills belonging to the same one — one will and another, both a divine and a human will — and that death was, for the Savior, both a thing willed and a thing not willed;

the one, on account of what he was from the beginning;

the other, on account of what he later became.

We must, then, begin also upon the matter of the difference of operations and their duality, following in order for us [the path set by] the God-speaking [Fathers], who set their seal upon this likewise with the testimonies of the Fathers.

Thus, then, the great confessor and teacher Ambrose, archbishop of Milan, in his second discourse to Gratian, sets forth the following:

“Equal, therefore, in form, yet the same one is lesser in the assumption of the flesh and in the suffering of man.

For in what manner can the same nature be both lesser and equal?

And how, if it is lesser, does the same [nature] likewise do the things which the Father does?

For in what manner is the same operation from a different essence?

For the lesser cannot operate in the same way as the greater;

or can there be a single operation where the essence is different?” And indeed, the ever-memorable Cyril, hierarch of Jerusalem, in his discourse on the gospel saying where the Lord made the water wine, whose beginning is:

“A wonder — and this too became a wonder”:

he showed the twofold operation, the same one suffering as man, yet operating as God;

for he is not one and another, even though he acts in one way and another.

Thus too the most mighty and most sacred Leo, exarch of the great Church of the Romans, in his Dogmatic Tome to the sainted Flavian, against the ill-named Nestorius and Eutyches:

“For he operates in each form, in communion with the other, that which is proper to each:

the Word performing that which belongs to the Word;

the body accomplishing those things which belong to the body;

and the one of these shines forth in wonders;

while the other has fallen under outrages.

Simple indeed is the term “fasting.”

And in the other instances of the natures that have been conjoined, the operation of the humanity is one thing, and the power of the divinity is another.

Below he grows weary, and above he holds together the elements;

below he hungers, and from above he supplies the rains.

Below he fears, and above he thunders.

Below he stands before the tribunal, and from above he beholds himself.

But concerning almsgiving, the manifestation of the twofold operation converges into one.

For he who from above, from among the Cherubim, awards the merciful, this same one, sitting before the Treasury, tests those who are charitable.”

And the same one, in his discourse on the apostle Thomas against the Arians:

“Having heard these things, I purified my soul of unbelief;

I stripped off the wavering inclination, I put on conviction, I touched the body, rejoicing and trembling.

I stretched forth, along with my fingers, the eye of my soul as well, and thereafter I perceived two operations.”

But indeed also the most wise Cyril, president of the Alexandrians, in the thirty-second chapter of the Thesaurus:

“For surely we shall not grant that the natural operation of God and of the creature is one;

lest we should reduce that which is made to the divine essence,

nor indeed bring down the excellence of the divine nature to the level fitting for created things.

For those whose operation and power are invariably one, for these it is necessary that the unity of kind also be preserved.”

These things, then, the Fathers of piety have proclaimed resoundingly — Fathers whom, out of many, or rather countless, and indeed, so to speak in scriptural terms, out of the whole cloud of witnesses, we have brought forward cursorily, restraining the bulk of our text, for the most manifest demonstration of their true knowledge concerning Christ, the Savior of all.

Setting out from this, moved by the Spirit they handed down to the holy Churches [the teaching] that, just as the same and one Christ has two natures, so too, equal in number to the natures, one must confess the wills and the operations of the same [Christ to be two] — one and another, both a divine and a human act of willing and operation alike — for the manifestation of the essential difference of those [natures] out of which, in which, and which he is.

removing thereby alike phantasy and confusion, and together with these division entirely — inasmuch as it recognizes (or: is recognized) really and without obscuring, according to the indivisible union, [Christ to be] one and the same God the Word incarnate for our sake, [known] from the [natures] out of which he is.

But those of the opposite and adversarial party [teach] the contrary.

For the impious Apollinaris says thus in his treatise entitled:

“Demonstration Concerning the Divine Incarnation according to the Likeness of Man”:

and they do not remember that this will is said to be proper not to man, [the man] from earth, as they themselves suppose, but to God who descended from heaven.

And the same foolish man again, in [the work] entitled:

“The Very Enfleshed Manifestation of God”:

“For Christ is one, moved by the divine will alone, according to which we also know his operation to be one, proceeding, amid diverse wonders and sufferings, from his one nature.

For he is God enfleshed, and is so believed;

‘Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me’;

yet ‘not my will, but yours, be done’ does not carry the sense of one will and another, not agreeing with each other, but of one and the same will;

but [he] declining death in accordance with the dispensation.”

since it was God, bearer of flesh, who said this:

having no difference at all in willing —

But the disciple and successor of that man's impiety, and — aptly named — an adversary of the word of truth, Polemon the heretic, in his Refutation Against the Holy Fathers, says the following, perversely:

Having been united to the completeness of flesh and having become man, he did not mix into himself the mutable mind, moved by natural will toward opposite things; rather, having himself become mind, he has wrought all things by an immutable, divine will.

But is it not so, according to Gregory the Cappadocian, that the one element is divine, and the other, deified — since it is mutable?

For that which was capable of being deified could altogether also have been made earthy, as with the first Adam.

And in the sixth of the letters written by him to Timothy, [he speaks] of his fellow-worker, a wicked accomplice in impiety:

He who speaks of two wills of Christ, following those who have said so of old and now, either introduces two Christs out of the one — divided from one another not only in nature, but indeed also in enmity —

or else teaches that the same [Christ] is at war with himself.

For where there is duality, there is altogether division.

But also Themistius — shield-bearer of the faction of Severus, yet ringleader of the ill-mindedness of the Agnoetae — in chapter 45 of the second discourse of [his work] against the tome presented to the Empress Theodora by Theodosius, heresiarch of the heretics named after him, says as follows, in hatred of God:

It is not because the sacred Athanasius said that Christ showed two wills at the time of the passion, that we should therefore forthwith ascribe to him two acts of willing,

and [regard] these as warring with one another, according to these syllogisms of yours;

but we shall know, piously, that the single act of willing of Emmanuel, as belonging to one [subject], is moved now in a human manner, now in a manner befitting God.

The same intractable heretic, again, in chapter 52, discourse three, of the treatise he composed in the train of the impiety of his fellow-countryman:

I say that the knowledge and the operation of Emmanuel are one, just as also the act of willing.

He who is immutable, as God, who is above all suffering, having been moved in a manner befitting man with respect to the act of willing, declines the suffering;

but again, in a manner befitting God, he takes courage toward the suffering; and each of these he [does] through the flesh.

And these things, then, he holds perversely.

But those who are likewise opposed to these men, and equally to the truth — I mean the teachers of division — being driven together toward the same and equal false opinion concerning one will and one operation as those men;

who also advocated a union that is merely relational and by gnome, loudly proclaim the following:

Theodore, then, the ill-minded and contentious, who despoiled the see of the Mopsuestians, in the second discourse of [his work] On the Miracles, which he wrongly expounded:

But the follower and successor of that man's madness, Nestorius the accursed, in what is called by him the Manifest Initiation, discourse two of the treatise on this subject, says the following, maliciously:

We preserve the natures without confusion, joined not according to essence, but by gnome; wherefore we also see their will, operation, and lordship as one, shown by an equality of dignity.

For God the Word, having taken up the man whom He had foreordained, was preferred, in respect of him, by the principle of authority, on account of his foreknown disposition.

The same madman, again, in the same [work], discourse four:

It was not that God the Word was one, and he in whom He became man, another;

For the person of both was one in dignity and honor, worshiped by all creation, divided by no place or time through any difference of counsel and will.

But indeed also Paul the Persian, being a false deacon of the most abominable heresy of Nestorius, in his discourse On Judgment, utters the following along with those men, warring against God:

A union has come to be; one nature has not come to be.

But if one nature has not come to be, then Christ is not a single hypostasis, one in person;

therefore the union is according to good pleasure, sustained by an identity of counsel and gnome, so that the difference of the natures may be shown unconfused, and the mystery of good pleasure may be made manifest by a single volition.

In these men, as you see, most excellent ones, examining both their writings and, before these, their doctrines, you will find them exceedingly of one voice and in agreement in all things — or, I know not how, now, because of our sins, a union has crept in against the blameless faith, establishing the one will in the case of Christ, and likewise the one operation, just as those fools [hold].

The one will, [it establishes] by saying:

'Wherefore, following the holy Fathers in all things, and in this also, we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ.'

But the one operation, [it establishes] by asserting:

that it also follows from this — that is, from the maintenance of the two operations — that one must also profess two wills.

For if it is determined that the wills follow upon the operation, then it is altogether necessary that, once the consequent — I mean the one will — has been ratified through it, the antecedent also be ratified, that is, the one operation.

For hastening, sophistically, to introduce this together with the one act of willing, it decreed, as a matter of opinion, that the act of willing follows upon the operation.

the one, human; the other, divine —

[Is this not attested] by Gregory the Theologian, speaking of the human will of the Savior:

'For his willing, having been wholly deified, is in no way contrary to God.'

[Is it not attested] also by his namesake, the teacher of the Nyssenes:

who says, 'The soul wills, the body touches,' and:

'by the operating body, and by the impulse of the will that arises in the soul.'

'Willing through the soul, but touching through the body'; and, 'the human will is one thing, and the divine another'; and having said:

'Not mine' — by this he signified in his statement the human [will];

and having added, 'but Yours,' he showed the conjunction of His own divinity with the Father.

[Is it not attested] by John Chrysostom, teaching:

'For the words indicate not merely that he is in agony, but two wills.'

'And if this saying were spoken of the divinity, a certain contradiction would arise.'

'But if [spoken] of the flesh, the words make sense.'

'For the flesh's not wanting to die is not a matter of condemnation;'

'but he himself displays all the things of nature, apart from sin, and with great abundance.'

[Is it not attested] by Cyril of Alexandria, wisely teaching:

'For this was the will of the Father: to carry the economy through to its completion.'

'But he also has the not-wanting-to-die, on account of the flesh's naturally shrinking from death.'

'He has, as a thing willed, dying on behalf of all, because the divine nature has willed it;'

'but [it is also] not-willed, because the flesh naturally shrinks from death.'

[Is it not attested] by Severian, bishop of the Gabali, who is cited [as saying]: 'So that it shows two wills:'

But nor, concerning a unanimous confession, [does the list fail to include] the great confessor Ambrose, prudently proclaiming: 'For in what way is the same operation of a different essence?'

'For can there be one operation, where the essence is different?'

[Is it not attested] by Cyril of Jerusalem, exhorting: 'He showed the twofold operation, suffering as man, while the same one operating as God.'

[Is it not attested] by the divine Leo, declaring with understanding: 'For each form operates, in communion with the other, that which is proper to it.'

'but concerning mercy, the twofold operation concurs;'

'and thus I perceived two operations.'

[Is it not attested] likewise by Cyril, the most holy teacher of Alexandria: 'For surely we shall not grant that the natural operation of God and of a creature is one.'

Will it then declare that these men, or some of them, are not holy, nor indeed approved mystagogues of the Church;

but will also pronounce their glorious confession concerning two wills and two operations to be impious, and alien to the Christian teaching?

For by asserting these things, it confirms the argument for us.

Likewise also [they claim] that the expression "the two operations" scandalizes many, as having been spoken by none of the holy and approved mystagogues of the Church, but that indeed there follows from it the affirming of two wills that stand opposed to one another;

and hence that two [subjects], willing things contrary to one another, are thereby introduced;

which is impious and alien to Christian doctrine. Behold, clearly and "with head bared" — that is, openly declared — it is here determined that what is asserted, namely the professing of two wills and the operations, equal in number to them, that accompany this [profession], belongs not to the holy, nor indeed to the approved mystagogues of the Church;

but rather [it belongs] to the impious, as being impious and, as he says, alien to Christian doctrine;

and, for those who proclaim these things, it further introduces two [subjects] willing things contrary to one another,

that is, [she refuses to attribute] the two wills and the operations equal in number to them to the Spirit-moved Fathers, whom she did not even venture to follow, or to call these men holy, or at all to profess these things according to them and together with them, for the confirmation of the mystery of Christ, God according to the flesh.

But let it be shown by whom, and concerning whom and to whom, he affirmed that the expression "the one operation" was spoken, and that in this, as in all things, [they] agree in confessing one will of Christ God — those who were manifestly disclosed to be both champions of confusion and leaders of division.

For instance — for it is not unfitting, by way of confirmation, to run through this again briefly — Apollinarius the impious, warring against God, [says] the following:

"For Christ is one, moved by the divine will alone, wherefore also we know his operation to be one, having no difference whatsoever in willing."

Polemon, the enemy of truth [says]:

"By an unchangeable divine will he has made all things;"

and "that which was deified" — according to Gregory the Cappadocian —

And, "He who says there are two wills of Christ, in the manner of those puffed up of old and of the present, either introduces, in place of the one, two Christs, or teaches him to be at war with himself."

Themistius the unlawful: "But let us hold as one the single act of willing of Emmanuel, as belonging to one [subject], [saying that it] is moved in one respect humanly, and in another respect in a manner befitting God;"

and, "I affirm one knowledge and one operation of Emmanuel, just as also one act of willing."

Theodore the god-stricken: "He has shown that the act of willing is one, the operation one, brought forth according to one and the same authority."

Paul, who is even in disposition a Persian: "The union [took place] according to good pleasure, being held fast by an identity of counsel and inclination [gnome];"

and, "The mystery of good pleasure is shown to be [a mystery] of a single volition."

These execrable and accursed men, then, he defines as holy Fathers,

he knows these to be the approved mystagogues of the Church, whom, following in all things — even in this — and jointly defining with them one will and operation of Christ God, she likewise confounds and cuts asunder the principle of the economy, just as they do.

How then, holding the very opinions of the adversaries, has she supposed that she thinks otherwise, merely interchanging her votes?

and choosing and preferring that which is not, over that which is —

for indeed, since it is truth, not injustice, that judges, it is surely clear to everyone that he who is in agreement and of one confession with those [heretics] is not the one who says what they do not say, but the one who professes what they teach as doctrine;

[truth] knows to characterize him as of the same opinion.

And yet she herself also somehow testifies, crying out, that the abominable Nestorius would never have dared to affirm two wills;

but rather [testifies that he confessed] a self-determination — that is, one will — belonging to the two persons fabricated by him;

If, then, according to her own [account], Nestorius affirms not two wills but one will,

and this also is what Apollinarius, and all the impious [heretics] descended from them, [affirm] — and indeed also one operation, as the argument has demonstrated — then indisputably she regards us, who say two [wills and operations] in accordance with the divine Fathers, as altogether of a different mind;

while she herself, saying "one," [proves] to be of the same mind as Nestorius and Apollinarius, and to stand among their circle, adhering to what they teach as doctrine;

and, as I said, disowning the divine [Fathers], while inscribing the accursed ones as her own Fathers.

But by what, or by what kind of compelling cause, has she brought this in against the pious confession?

If [it is] on the ground that we do not have the faith, the assertion is false;

for all who profess the right doctrine were Christians even before this [novelty arose].

But if [it is] on the ground that we do [have the faith], the manner [of their proceeding] is to be shunned, as being counterfeit, introducing what is superfluous, by which, while concealing their own knavery, and bringing forward not even a single citation of any Council, or Father, or Scripture whatsoever, but having only the testimony of their own [party] to rely on, they say these things, fabricating the dogmas of piety — which the eyewitnesses from the beginning, who became servants of the Word, and their disciples and successors thereafter, God-inspired teachers of the truth, handed down to us;

that is to say, the holy and ecumenical five Councils of the most blessed and God-bearing Fathers.

But if these Councils handed these things down, what is the proof, or from where do they [derive] the confirmation of such dogmas?

Besides, since we hold to and confess the holy Councils, it is clear that the invention of what has been imported [these novel teachings] is spurious.

But if these things do not belong to the holy Councils, what then is the weight of this drama, bending the ill-famed [teaching] by [invoking] the name of the all-renowned [Fathers], so that the appellation of the most glorious Fathers and Councils might serve as bait for the more simple unto apostasy from the truth — [an appellation] ingeniously devised from above, from the very beginning, by those of contrary mind, both for the concealment, as I said, of their own [errors], and for the deceitful, as it were, snatching away of those led under them?

Wherefore, for the complete abolition of such things — I mean of those who from time to time search out deceitful investigations against the faith — a synodal law is also most excellently established by the holy assembly of the blessed Fathers at Chalcedon, decreeing somewhat as follows:

"The holy and ecumenical Council has decreed that it is permitted to no one to put forth another faith, that is, to write or compose [one], or to think it, or to teach it to others;

but as for those who dare either to compose another faith, that is, to bring it forward, or to teach or hand down another creed to those wishing to turn to the knowledge of the truth from Hellenism or Judaism, or indeed from any heresy whatsoever — these, if they be bishops or clergy, [it is decreed that] the bishops shall be alien to the episcopate, and the clergy to the clerical order;

but if they be monks or laymen, let them be anathematized."

Who, then, of those who have perceived God even to any degree at all, and who are attached to his all-radiant glory — from whom, and through whom, and unto whom is the salvation of those who piously confess him — would still abandon the orthodox faith handed down to us from above and from the beginning through the divinely-inspired oracles and the Fathers, and prefer instead the recent innovation,

against which — just as also against every other [innovation] devised by those of contrary mind, contrary to pious reasoning — the lawful decree of the approved synodal curse has been issued by the holy Fathers assembled at Chalcedon, as the argument has demonstrated;

unless, having grown numb to his own life, he has preferred estrangement from the glory of God —

[this being] the knowledge of the final deception and the last beast, according to the prophecy — uttered by divine inspiration and most blessed illumination — of the holy men who held these views, [given] for our protection who have come upon the ends of the ages: let each of us guard against this imported innovation with the whole strength of his own heart, lest we be swept away carelessly and negligently, but rather, standing very firmly and manfully against all impiety, casting down reasonings, to speak in the words of Scripture, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God.

For this reason indeed the Savior of all things himself, our Lord and God, securing us in his love for mankind, [says]:

"Then," he says, "if anyone says to you:"

"Behold, here is the Christ," or "behold, there" —

"do not believe [them]" — sending far off the counterfeit and various beliefs and suppositions concerning him held by the deceivers, regarding the mystery pertaining to him which lies exceedingly far beyond [comprehension], and warding off his own followers from every alien opinion, by which those who are contentious in manner and of opposite mind are accustomed both to disturb and to make war upon the sincerity of the confession made toward him;

so that our pious and God-loving mind may never, ensnared by any of these, fall away from the truth, carried along by the plausibility of myths, rather than being confirmed by the demonstration of the words of the Fathers.

"Watch therefore, and pray," the Word again enjoins us for this reason, "that you may not enter into temptation;"

by watchfulness meaning to instill in us sobriety concerning this [matter], and by prayer, his aid according to grace.

And here he speaks of temptation [that arises] from error, not from necessity, into which we are led from ourselves, not from elsewhere, when we turn aside from the straight and royal path;

which path do you yourselves, being guided by God, cut a straight course through, and wisely guide also those like me, your own [flock], who halt between two opinions, bringing [us] back to the shadowless and unsetting light of the most divine confession and conduct of the Word, looking toward the recompense that comes from there.

Since also the divine law enjoins that those among you who are strong should bear the burdens of the weak, and thus fulfill the law;

And a heavy burden, beyond any other of the difficult things, is the divergence of accounts concerning the same matters, which arises among those who are more infantile [in faith], through changes of times and persons, perhaps by the deceit, or by the intimidation, of those who flatter, fawn, or affect exactness;

and especially in a time of universal disorder, springing up without restraint.

Do not, then, cease to stretch out a compassionate hand to your own suppliant, purifying him, on the one hand, skillfully by word;

and on the other hand, benevolently strengthening him by prayer, and drawing him near and attaching him to God the Word, rightly worshipped and believed by you, the all-sovereign King of the ages, both now and at his fearful appearing;

to whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be honor, dominion, glory, and worship, unto the ages of ages.