乞食者（駁基督一性論對話） 第 1 章 第 10/13 段

But if these things are a type of the truth, and in the type the Only-begotten did not endure slaughter, but a ram was substituted and offered upon the altar and fulfilled the mystery of the sacrifice, why then even here do you not assign the suffering to the flesh, and proclaim the impassibility of the Godhead? ERANISTES: But you too, in expounding the matters of the type, said that Isaac was brought back to life by the divine voice.

We therefore do nothing improper in fitting the truth to the type, and in proclaiming that God the Word both suffered and was brought back to life.

ORTHODOXOS: I have often said that it is impossible for the image to have everything that the archetype has.

And this is easy to learn from the present case as well.

For Isaac and the ram correspond to the image in respect of the difference of the natures, but in respect of the separation of the divided hypostases they no longer do so.

For we proclaim such a union of Godhead and manhood that we conceive of one indivisible Person, and know one and the same to be both God and man, seen and unseen, circumscribed and uncircumscribed, and all the other attributes as well, whatever declares the Godhead and the manhood, we fit to the one Person.

Since, then, it was not possible for the resurrection to be prefigured in the ram, being as it was irrational and destitute of the divine image, they divide between them the type of the mystery of the dispensation, and the one displays the image of the death, the other of the resurrection.

And this very same thing we find also in the Mosaic sacrifices.

For it is possible to see in those also the type of the saving passion prefigured.

ERANISTES: And what Mosaic sacrifice sketches out the truth in shadow? ORTHODOXOS: All of it, one may say; the whole Old Testament is a type of the New.

'For the Law, having a shadow of the good things to come'; and again:

'Now all these things happened unto them as types.' And most clearly of all the image of the archetype is shown by the lamb slain in Egypt, and by the red heifer burned far outside the camp.

The Apostle too, having made mention of this in the Epistle to the Hebrews, added:

For these prefigure the image of the two natures of the Saviour: the one, being let go, of the impassible Godhead; the other, being slain, of the passible manhood.

For it maims those who draw near, and often harms even those who have done no wrong;

but the other is of the edible and clean animals according to the Law.

ORTHODOXOS: Hear then the Master likening the saving passion to the bronze serpent:

'As Moses,' He says, 'lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believes on Him should not perish, but have eternal life.' But if the bronze serpent fulfilled the type of the body that was nailed up, what have we done improper in comparing the sacrifice of the goats to the saving passion? ERANISTES: Because John called the Lord a Lamb, and Isaiah likewise a lamb and a sheep.

ORTHODOXOS: But the blessed Paul calls Him sin and a curse.

Therefore, as a curse, He fulfils the type of the accursed serpent;

and as sin, He shows the image of the sacrifice of the goats.

For for sin, according to the Law, it was not a lamb but a he-goat of the goats that was offered.

In the Gospels He likened the righteous to lambs, but sinners to kids.

Since, then, He was about to endure the passion not for the righteous only but also for sinners, He fittingly prefigures His own sacrifice by means of lambs and goats.

ERANISTES: But the type of the two goats leads one to conceive of two persons.

ORTHODOXOS: It was not possible for both to be prefigured together in one goat—both the passibility of the manhood and the impassibility of the Godhead.

For being slain, this one could not have shown the living nature.

For this very reason two were taken, for the declaring of the two natures.

And this very same thing one might learn from another sacrifice as well.

ERANISTES: What kind? ORTHODOXOS: That in which the lawgiver ordains that two clean birds be offered, and the one be slain, but the other, dipped in the blood of the one that was slain, be let go free.

For here too we behold the type of the Godhead and the manhood: the one being sacrificed, the other appropriating the suffering.

ERANISTES: You have brought forward for us many types.

But I do not welcome enigmatic discourses.

ORTHODOXOS: And yet the divine Apostle says that even the histories are types, and he called Hagar a type of the old covenant, and likened Sarah to the heavenly Jerusalem, and said that Ishmael was a type of Israel, but Isaac of the new people.

Accuse, then, also that great trumpet of the Spirit, because he has brought forward to us all these enigmatic discourses.

ERANISTES: Even if you should bring me ten thousand other discourses besides these, you will not persuade me to divide the suffering.

For I have heard also the angel saying to the women about Mary:

For by the common names we address the part also.

For when we enter into the shrines of the holy apostles, or prophets, or martyrs, we inquire, 'Who is the one lying in the coffin?' And those who know the truth answer and say, perhaps 'Thomas the apostle,' or 'John the Baptist,' or 'Stephen the champion of the martyrs,' or naming by name some other of the saints, and this though the relics lying there are sometimes exceedingly small.

But no one who hears these common names—which denote at once both the soul and the body—will suppose that the souls too are shut up in the tombs.

But he knows that it is only the bodies, or rather small portions of the bodies, that lie within the tombs.

This very same thing that holy angel also did, when by the name of the person he designated the body.

{ ERAN.} And how will you prove that the angel spoke to the women concerning the Lord's body? {ORTH.} First of all, the very tomb suffices to resolve the question in dispute.

For neither is a soul consigned to a tomb, much less the uncircumscribed nature of the Godhead;

for tombs are prepared for bodies.

And next, the divine Scripture also clearly teaches this.

For the inspired Matthew relates it in this manner:

When evening was come, there came a rich man from Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was a disciple of Jesus.

He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.

Then Pilate commanded that the body be given up.

And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb, and departed. See how many times he made mention of the body, so that he might stop the mouths of those who blaspheme against the Godhead.

This the thrice-blessed Mark also did;

and I will recite the things that he too has related.

For when evening was come, he says, since it was the Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, who also himself was waiting for the kingdom of God, took courage and went in to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus.

But Pilate marvelled that he was already dead; and calling to him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time.

And when he had learned it from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph;

and having bought linen and taken him down, he wound him in the linen, and laid him in a tomb, and so forth.

Marvel then, as you behold the harmony, and how harmoniously and continually the name of the body is employed.

And the all-praiseworthy Luke likewise has related how Joseph asked for the body, and having taken it, deemed it worthy of the customary rites.

But the most divine John related still other things in addition.

For he says: Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave him leave.

He came therefore and took away the body of Jesus.

And there came also Nicodemus, who at the first had come to Jesus by night, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds' weight.

They took therefore the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen cloths with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to prepare for burial.

Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had yet been laid.

There therefore, because of the Jews' Preparation, since the tomb was near at hand, they laid Jesus. Observe then how many times he made mention of the body, and having shown that it was this that was nailed to the cross, and that it was this that Joseph asked of Pilate, and that it was this that he took down from the tree, and that it was this that they wound in the linen cloths with the myrrh and the aloes, then he set down the name of the person, and said that Jesus was laid in the tomb.

For this very reason the angel also said:

For thus we too are accustomed to speak: 'In such and such a place so-and-so was buried'; and we do not say 'the body of so-and-so,' but 'so-and-so.'

And everyone of sound mind knows that we are speaking about the body.

And thus it is customary for the divine Scripture also to speak:

For it says: Aaron died, and they buried him in mount Hor; and again:

Samuel died, and they buried him in Ramah; and countless other instances of this kind.

This custom the divine Apostle observed when he made mention of the Lord's death.

For he says: I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures; and so forth.

{ERAN.} In what you have just read, the Apostle made no mention of a body, but of Christ, the Saviour of us all.

You have therefore brought the testimony against yourself, and struck yourself with your own darts.

{ ORTH.} You have forgotten, it seems, and very quickly too, those long discourses which I went through, showing that they often designate the body also by the names of the persons.

This very same thing the divine Apostle has now also done, and this is easy to discern from the passage itself.

For what reason then did this inspired man write these things to the Corinthians? { ERAN.} Certain persons had deceived them, saying that there would be no resurrection of bodies.

Having learned this, therefore, the teacher of the whole world brought forward to them the arguments concerning the resurrection of bodies.

{ORTH.} And why then, wishing to demonstrate the resurrection of bodies, did he bring the Lord's resurrection into the midst? { ERAN.} As being sufficient to make plain the resurrection of us all.

{ ORTH.} For what likeness has it to the death of the others, that by its resurrection he should give proof of the resurrection of all? {ERAN.} For this reason the only-begotten Son of God became man, and suffered, and made trial of death, that he might abolish death.

Having risen, therefore, through his own resurrection he proclaims the resurrection of all men.

{ORTH.} And who, hearing of the resurrection of God, would believe that the resurrection of all men would take place in like manner to this? For the dissimilarity of the natures does not permit belief in this argument of the resurrection.

For the one is God, but the others are men;

and how vast is the distance between God and men;

for the latter are mortal and perishable, and likened to grass and to a flower;

...the Word, and through this he showed his likeness to men.

{ ORTH.} The passion, then, and the death, and the resurrection belong altogether to the body; and the divine Apostle, showing this from another quarter, promises the return to life to all, and to those who believe in the resurrection of the Saviour but suppose the common resurrection of all to be a fable, he cries out, saying:

But if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen;

and if Christ be not risen, then is your faith vain, ye are yet in your sins. And from that which has come to pass he confirms that which is to be;

and from that which is disbelieved he casts out that which is believed.

For if that, he says, appears to you impossible, then this too is surely false.

But if this indeed seems to be true and trustworthy, let that likewise be deemed trustworthy.

For here too the resurrection of a body is proclaimed, and this indeed is called the firstfruits of those others.

For this he declared assertively, after the many syllogisms set forth earlier.

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. And not only did he confirm the argument concerning the resurrection, but he also revealed the mystery of the dispensation.

For this reason indeed he called Christ 'man,' that he might show the remedy to be suited to the disease.

{ ERAN.} Is Christ then only man? { ORTH.} God forbid;

for we have said the contrary many times, that he is not only man, but also God before the ages.

But he suffered as man, not as God.

And this the divine Apostle clearly taught us when he said:

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. And writing to the Thessalonians also, he confirms from the resurrection of our Saviour the argument concerning the common resurrection.

For if we believe, he says, that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. { ERAN.} The Apostle indeed showed the common resurrection through the Lord's resurrection.

And it is clear that here too it was a body that both died and rose again.

For he would not have attempted to demonstrate the resurrection of all through this, unless it had a kinship in substance with those bodies.

Yet I will not endure to attach the passion to the human nature alone;

but it seems to me to be consistent to say that God the Word died in the flesh.

ORTH. We have often shown that what is by nature immortal can in no way whatsoever die.

If, therefore, He died, then He was not immortal.

And how great are the perils that lie in the blasphemy of such words? ERAN. By nature He is immortal, but having become man He suffered.

ORTH. In that case, then, He underwent change.

For how else, being immortal, did He receive death? Yet we have agreed together that the substance of the Trinity is unchangeable.

Least of all, therefore, did He partake of death, since He possesses a nature superior to change.

ERAN. The divine Peter has said, 'Christ then having suffered for us in the flesh.' ORTH. With this our own teaching also agrees.

For from the divine Scripture we have learned the rule of doctrines.

ERAN. Why then do you not say that God the Word suffered in the flesh? ORTH. Because in the divine Scripture we have not found this expression.

ERAN. And yet I have just now adduced such a use of it from the great Peter.

ORTH. You are unaware, it seems, of the difference between the names.

ERAN. Of what names? Does not the Master Christ seem to you to be God the Word? ORTH. The name 'Christ,' when applied to our Lord and Saviour, signifies God the Word who became man;

the name 'Emmanuel' signifies God with us, both God and man;

but the term 'God the Word,' when so spoken by itself, denotes the simple nature, that which is before the world, above time, and incorporeal.

The holy apostles, when they spoke, nowhere attached suffering or death to this appellation.

ERAN. If suffering is attached to Christ, and God the Word, having become man, was named Christ, I think I do nothing absurd in saying that God the Word suffered in the flesh.

ORTH. The venture is altogether audacious and exceedingly rash.

But let us examine the matter somewhat in this fashion.

The divine Scripture says that God the Word is from God the Father.

ORTH. Moreover, it teaches likewise that the Holy Spirit also is from God.

ORTH. But God the Word it names the only-begotten Son.

ORTH. Yet the Holy Spirit it nowhere addressed as Son.

ORTH. And this too has its existence from God the Father.

ORTH. Since, then, we confess together that both the Son and the Spirit are from God the Father, would you ever dare to name the all-holy Spirit 'Son'? ERAN. By no means.

ORTH. But 'begotten'? ERAN. Nor this either.

ORTH. For what reason? ERAN. Because I was not taught this either by the divine Scripture.

ORTH. And that which is neither begotten nor again created—what appellation would it fittingly receive? ERAN. We name it uncreated and unbegotten.

ORTH. And of the all-holy Spirit we say that it was neither created nor indeed begotten.

ORTH. Would you then have the confidence to call the all-holy Spirit 'unbegotten'? ERAN. Certainly not.

ORTH. And why ever do you not call 'unbegotten' that which by nature is indeed uncreated, yet in no way begotten? ERAN. Because this I have not learned from the divine Scripture, and I greatly fear to say the things it has passed over in silence.

ORTH. This same reverence, then, good sir, preserve for us also in the matter of the saving Passion; and whatever of the divine names Scripture has left free from suffering, do you also leave free, and do not attach suffering to them.

ERAN. And which are these? ORTH. Nowhere did it join suffering to the appellation 'God.'

ERAN. Neither do I say that God the Word suffered apart from a body, but I affirm that He suffered in the flesh.

ORTH. Then you speak of a manner of suffering, not of impassibility;

yet not even of a human soul would anyone say this.

For who would say—unless he were utterly raving—that the soul of Paul died in the flesh? Not even of some thoroughly wicked man would this ever be said;

for the souls even of the wicked are immortal.

But while we say that such-and-such a murderer was slain, no one would say that his soul was butchered in the flesh.

But if we say that the souls of murderers and grave-robbers are free from death, how much more justly, surely, ought we to know that the soul of our Saviour is immortal, seeing that it has by no means tasted of sin.

For if the souls that have committed the greatest transgressions escaped the experience of death by reason of their nature, how could that soul—which both possesses an immortal nature and has received not even the slightest stain of sin—have received the hook of death? ERAN. In vain have you brought forward to us these lengthy arguments.

For we confess that the soul of the Saviour is immortal.

ORTH. And of what punishment would you not be worthy, when you say that the soul—which has a created nature—is immortal, yet by your argument make the divine substance mortal? And when you do not say that the soul of the Saviour tasted death in the flesh, yet dare to say that God the Word Himself, the Maker of all things, suffered the Passion? ERAN. We say that He suffered impassibly.

ORTH. And what man in his senses would endure these ridiculous riddles? For no one has ever heard of an impassible suffering, nor of an immortal death.

For that which is impassible has not suffered, and that which has suffered would not remain impassible.

But we hear the divine Paul crying aloud:

the souls of men and the very demons themselves immortal? ORTH. We do say so;

but God is immortal in the proper sense;

for He is immortal by substance, not by participation;

for He does not possess immortality as having received it from another.

But to the angels and to the others whom you just now mentioned, He Himself has bestowed immortality.

If, therefore, the inspired Paul names Him immortal, and says that He alone possesses immortality, how do you attach to Him the suffering of death? ERAN. We say that after the Incarnation He tasted death.

ORTH. But we have often confessed together that He is unchangeable.

'But you are the same, and your years shall not fail'? For according to your argument He did not remain the same.

For if the Same, being immortal, underwent death through the flesh, with change going before, He underwent death; and even His life failed for three days and an equal number of nights—what excess of impiety does saying such things leave behind? For I think that not even for those who contend against impiety is it without danger to utter such things with the tongue.

ERAN. Cease charging us with impiety.

For neither do we say that the divine nature suffered, but the human;

yet the divine suffered together with the body.

ORTH. How do you mean 'suffered together'? That, when the nails were being driven into the body, the divine nature received the sensation of the pain? ERAN. Yes.

ORTH. Both now and in what was examined before, we have shown that not even the soul partakes of all the body's affections;

but the body, receiving the vital power through the soul, has the sensation of the sufferings.

But even if we should concede that the soul suffers pain together with the body, none the less shall we find the divine nature impassible.

For it was not joined to the body in place of a soul.

Or do you not confess together that He assumed a soul? ERAN. I have often confessed it.

ORTH. And a rational soul? ERAN. Certainly.

ORTH. If, then, He assumed the soul together with the body, and we conceded that the soul suffers together with the body, then it was the soul that suffered together, not the Godhead, with the body;

and it suffered together, receiving the pains, as is reasonable, through the body.

But one might perhaps say that the soul suffers together with the body, yet dies together with it by no means;

'Fear not them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul.' If, therefore, we do not say that even the soul of the Saviour shared death with the body, how could anyone accept the blasphemy ventured by you, which dares to say that the divine nature partook of death? And this, when the Lord shows now the body being offered, now the soul being troubled.

ERAN. And where did the Lord show the body being offered? Or will you again bring forward to us that much-belaboured testimony of yours:

'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up'? And, putting on airs, will you present to us the evangelist saying:

But he was speaking of the temple of his own body; and when he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that Jesus had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken. ORTH.: If you so intensely detest these divine utterances, which proclaim the great mystery of the incarnation, why on earth do you not, like Marcion and Valentinus and Manes, erase such utterances altogether? For those men too did this very thing.

But if this seems audacious and impious, then do not mock the words of the Master, but follow the apostles, who after the resurrection believed that the Godhead raised up the temple which the Jews had destroyed.

ERAN.: If you have firm testimony, cease reviling and fulfil your promise.

ORTH.: You surely remember those evangelical sayings in which the Lord made a comparison between the manna and the true food.

ORTH.: In that passage, having delivered many words concerning the bread of life, he added these as well:

'And the bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.' And in these words one may see both the generosity of the Godhead and the gift of the flesh.

ERAN.: A single testimony does not suffice to resolve the dispute.

ORTH.: The Ethiopian eunuch did not read many Scriptures, but finding a single prophetic testimony he was guided by it unto salvation.

But you—not all the apostles and prophets, nor those who after them became heralds of the truth, are able to persuade.

Nevertheless I will bring you yet other testimonies concerning the Master's body.

You know that passage of the evangelical narrative where, having eaten the Passover with his disciples, he showed the end of the typical lamb and taught what kind of body was the substance of that shadow.

ERAN.: I know this narrative.

ORTH.: Then recall what the Lord took and broke, and what he called that which he had taken.

ERAN.: For the sake of the uninitiated I will speak more mystically.

Having taken and broken and distributed it to the disciples, he said:

'This is my body, which is given for you'—or 'broken,' according to the Apostle.

'This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.' ORTH.: Did he not then, in displaying the type of the passion, make no mention of Godhead? ERAN.: He did not.

ORTH.: But he did mention body and blood? ERAN.: True.

ORTH.: Then it was a body that was nailed to the cross? ERAN.: So it seems.

ORTH.: But let us examine this further as well.

When, after the resurrection, the Master came in to the holy disciples while the doors were shut, and beheld them terrified, in what manner did he dispel their fear and implant faith in place of fear? ERAN.: He said to them:

'See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself.'

ORTH.: Therefore it was the body that was raised? ERAN.: It appears so.

ORTH.: And that which rose had also, surely, died? ERAN.: So it seems.

ORTH.: And that which had died was nailed to the cross? ERAN.: Necessarily.

ORTH.: Then according to your own argument the body suffered.

ERAN.: The chain of reasoning compels one to say this.

ORTH.: But let us consider it in this way too.

I will ask again, and do you answer as a lover of truth.

ORTH.: When the all-holy Spirit came upon the apostles, and the marvellous sight and sound gathered many tens of thousands of men beside that upper chamber, which of the apostles was it who, being the first to speak publicly at that time, said concerning the Master's resurrection—

—and had believed these things, foreseeing his resurrection prophetically, and said expressly that his soul was not left in Hades, neither did his flesh see corruption?

ORTH.: Of these, therefore, is the resurrection.

ERAN.: And how could anyone in his right mind speak of a resurrection of a soul that had not died? ORTH.: You who say that both the passion and the death and the resurrection belong to the unchangeable and uncircumscribed Godhead—how have you suddenly appeared to us as men of sound mind, so as to refuse to attach the name of resurrection even to the soul? ERAN.: Because the term 'resurrection' properly belongs to that which has fallen.

ORTH.: But it is not apart from the soul that the body attains the resurrection; rather, being made new by the divine will and joined again to its yoke-fellow, it receives back life.

ORTH.: The divine Ezekiel teaches these things more clearly.

...it received back its structure, and put forth sinews and veins and arteries, and the flesh laid beneath among these, and the skin as a covering over them all; and then he commanded the souls to return to their proper bodies.

ORTH.: The Lord's body, however, did not undergo this corruption, but remaining undefiled it received back its own soul on the third day.

ORTH.: Therefore the passion belongs to those to whom the death also belongs? ERAN.: Certainly.

ORTH.: And to those to whom the death belongs, to these also belongs the resurrection? ERAN.: Necessarily.

ORTH.: Then it was not the Godhead that underwent death, but the body, through the separation of the soul.

ERAN.: I for my part will not endure these absurd statements.

ORTH.: Then you are contending against your own arguments; for these, which you have named absurd, are yours.

For these very ones, which you called absurd, are yours.

ERAN.: You are wholly slandering me; for none of these arguments is mine.

For none of these words is mine.

ORTH.: When, someone asking what the living creature is that is at once rational and mortal, one should answer and say 'man,' whom would you call the interpreter of the definition—the questioner or the answerer? ERAN.: The answerer.

ORTH.: Rightly, then, did I say that these arguments are yours;

for you, of course, in answering—denying some things and agreeing to others—confirmed the arguments.

ERAN.: Then I will by no means answer, but will only ask.

ERAN.: What, then, do you say to that apostolic saying:

'For had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory'? For here he made mention neither of body nor of soul.