乞食者（駁基督一性論對話） 第 1 章 第 11/13 段

ORTH.: Then neither must one add 'in the flesh' here—this device of yours that you have invented against the Godhead of the Word;

but the passion must be attached to the bare Godhead of the Word.

But the bodiless nature was not by itself capable of suffering.

ORTH.: But it is in no way fitting to add anything to the apostolic words.

ERAN.: There is nothing absurd in one who knows the apostolic aim supplying what is lacking.

ORTH.: To add to the divine words is madness and audacity;

but to unfold what is written and to reveal the hidden meaning is holy and pious.

ORTH.: We then would be doing nothing unseemly or unholy in searching out the meaning of what is written.

ORTH.: Let us then in common seek out what seems to lie hidden.

ORTH.: The great Paul called the divine James the brother of the Lord.

ORTH.: In what sense, then, shall we understand him to be a brother—by kinship of the Godhead or of the manhood? ERAN.: I will not endure to divide the united natures.

ORTH.: And yet you have often divided them in what was examined before.

And you will do this very same thing now as well.

For tell me: do you call God the Word an only-begotten Son? ERAN.: So I say.

ORTH.: And 'only-begotten' signifies the sole Son? ERAN.: Certainly.

ORTH.: And the only-begotten has no brother at all? ERAN.: He has none at all; for he could not be called only-begotten if he had a brother.

For he could not be called only-begotten if he had a brother.

ORTH.: Then they have falsely called James the brother of the Lord.

For the Lord is only-begotten, and the only-begotten has no brother at all.

ERANISTES: But the Lord is not incorporeal, so that the heralds of the truth should ascribe to Him only what pertains to the Godhead.

ORTHODOXOS: How then would you show the apostle's word to be true? ERANISTES: By saying that it was according to the flesh that He shared in the kinship with the Master.

ORTHODOXOS: Behold, you have again brought in for us that very distinction which you censure in us.

ERANISTES: There was no other way to show the kinship.

ORTHODOXOS: Then do not accuse those who are unable to resolve such matters in any other way.

ERANISTES: You are leading the discussion off into other matters, wishing to evade the question.

Once these things have been examined, that point too will be resolved.

When you heard James called the brother of the Lord, did you not say that the kinship belonged not to the Godhead but to the flesh? ERANISTES: So I said.

ORTHODOXOS: Here too, then, when you hear of the suffering of the cross, fit it to the flesh.

ERANISTES: The apostle Paul called the crucified one the Lord of glory.

ORTHODOXOS: And the same apostle called the Lord the brother of James.

It is the same Lord both here and there.

If, then, you rightly fitted the kinship there to the flesh, surely the suffering also is to be fitted to it.

For it is among the most absurd things to conceive of the kinship according to distinction, yet to attach the suffering without distinction.

ERANISTES: I am persuaded by the apostle when he calls the crucified one the Lord of glory.

ORTHODOXOS: And I too am persuaded and believe that He is the Lord of glory;

for it was not the body of some common man, but the body of the Lord of glory, that was nailed to the wood.

One must nevertheless know that the union makes the names common.

Do you say that the flesh of the Lord came down from the heavens? ERANISTES: By no means.

ORTHODOXOS: But that it was formed in the womb of the Virgin? ERANISTES: So I say.

ORTHODOXOS: How then does the Lord say:

'If then you should see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?' And again:

'No one has ascended into heaven except He who came down out of heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven.' ERANISTES: He speaks not of the flesh but of the Godhead.

ORTHODOXOS: But the Godhead is from God the Father.

How then does He call Him the Son of Man? ERANISTES: The properties of the natures have become common to the person.

One must nevertheless know this also, that the commonness of the names produced no confusion of the natures.

And by the pious discernment of the word we find things that seem contrary to be in accord.

ORTHODOXOS: Just as, then, you said that the divine nature came down from the heavens, and yet said that it was called the Son of Man on account of the union, so it is fitting to say that the flesh was nailed to the wood, while confessing that the divine nature is inseparable from it — both on the cross and in the tomb — yet receiving no suffering therefrom, since it is not in its nature to suffer, nor indeed to die, but has an immortal and impassible essence.

For this very reason he also named the crucified one the Lord of glory, assigning the name of the impassible nature to the passible one, since it had become that nature's body.

Let us further examine this also.

'For had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.' They crucified, then, the nature which they knew, not the one they were wholly ignorant of.

But if they had known that which they were ignorant of, they would not have crucified that which they did know.

But since they were ignorant of the divine nature, they crucified the human one.

Or have you not heard them saying:

But if they had recognized that one too, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

ERANISTES: These things somehow have the appearance of probability.

But the teaching of the faith of the fathers who assembled at Nicaea says that the Only-begotten Himself, the true God, of one essence with the Father, suffered and was crucified.

ORTHODOXOS: You seem to have forgotten what has often been agreed upon.

ERANISTES: What things? ORTHODOXOS: That after the union the divine Scripture attaches to the one person both the lofty things and the lowly.

Having said that He suffered and was crucified, and having first pointed out the nature capable of suffering, they thus attached the suffering to their words.

ERANISTES: The fathers said that the Son of God, Light from Light, He who is from the essence of the Father, both suffered and was crucified.

ORTHODOXOS: I have said many times that the one person receives both the divine and the human things.

And indeed it would have been quite consistent, having spoken of God the Father, to set down immediately also the title of the Son;

but they wished to hand down to us at once both the doctrine of theology and that of the economy, lest one should suppose the person of the Godhead to be one thing and that of the manhood another.

For this reason they added to what had been said concerning the Father, that one must also believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

And after the incarnation the God-Word was called Christ.

This name, then, receives all things — both whatever is proper to the Godhead and whatever is proper to the manhood.

Yet we nonetheless recognize which things belong to this nature and which to that;

and this too is easy to learn from the very symbol of the faith.

ORTHODOXOS: And the phrase 'true God from true God' — of which do you say it is proper: of the Godhead or of the manhood? ERANISTES: Of the Godhead.

ORTHODOXOS: Therefore that which is of one essence with the Father is not the flesh, nor even the soul,

but the Godhead, which fashioned all things? ERANISTES: True.

ORTHODOXOS: So then, when we hear of suffering and the cross, we must recognize the nature that received the suffering, and not attach it to the impassible one, but to that nature which was assumed for this very purpose.

That the most admirable fathers also confessed the divine nature to be impassible, but fitted the suffering to the flesh, the conclusion of the creed of the faith bears witness;

'But those who say, There was once when He was not, and, Before He was begotten He was not, and that He came into being out of things that were not, or who assert that the Son of God is of another hypostasis or essence, or is mutable or changeable — these the holy catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.' See then what kind of punishment they threatened against those who attach the suffering to the divine nature.

ERANISTES: Their discourse there is about mutation and change.

ORTHODOXOS: But what else is suffering than mutation and change? For if, being impassible before the incarnation, He suffered after the incarnation, He surely suffered by undergoing a change;

and if, being immortal before the incarnation, He tasted death — according to your account — after the incarnation, He was surely altered, having become mortal out of immortal.

But the all-praised fathers drive out of the sacred precincts both such doctrines and indeed the very authors of them, and cut them off as rotten members from the healthy body.

For this reason we beseech you to fear the punishment, and to hate the blasphemy.

Of these, some shared in that wonderful assembly, some after them shone forth in the churches, and some long, long ago enlightened the world.

But neither the difference of the times nor the diversity of tongues marred the harmony; rather, they were like a lyre having many and diverse strings, yet giving forth one all-harmonious sound.

ERANISTES: You will offer me a most lovely and thrice-longed-for hearing;

for such teaching is beyond dispute and exceedingly profitable.

ORTHODOXOS: Open wide your ears, then, and receive the streams of the spiritual fountains.

Of the holy Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and martyr.

From the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans.

They abstain, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His goodness raised up.

Of Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons.

From the third book of the works Against the Heresies.

It is clear, then, that Paul knows no other Christ than this One who was born of the Virgin, who suffered and was buried and rose again, whom he also calls a man.

For having said, 'But if Christ is proclaimed as risen from the dead,' he goes on to give the reason for His incarnation, saying:

'For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.' And everywhere, when speaking of the Passion of our Lord and of His manhood and of His death, he employs the name of Christ, as in that passage, 'Do not by your food destroy him for whom Christ died.' And again:

'But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.' And again:

'Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us;'

'for it is written, Cursed is everyone who hangs upon a tree.' From the same author, from the same discourse:

For just as He was man in order to be tempted, so also He was Word in order to be glorified;

the Word remaining quiet in the being tempted and being crucified and dying,

but being present with the man in the conquering and the enduring and the showing of kindness and the rising again and the being taken up.

From the same author, from the fifth book of the same treatise:

The Lord having redeemed us by His own blood, and having given His soul on behalf of our souls, and His own flesh in exchange for our flesh.

Of the holy Hippolytus, bishop and martyr.

From the letter to a certain empress.

He therefore calls Him the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep, inasmuch as He is the firstborn of the dead.

Who, when He had risen, and desiring to show that this which was raised was the very same which had also died, the disciples being in doubt, called Thomas to Him and said:

By calling Him the firstfruits, he bore witness to what has been said by us, namely that the Saviour, having taken flesh from the same lump, raised it up, making it the firstfruits of the flesh of the righteous, so that all of us, in the hope of Him who is risen, may have the resurrection as our expectation, believing in Him.

Of the same author, from the discourse on the two thieves:

The body of the Lord bestowed both things upon the world: the sacred blood and the holy water.

Of the same author, from the same discourse:

And though the body was dead after the human manner, it has in itself a great power of life.

For those things which do not flow forth from dead bodies, these flowed forth from Him, both blood and water, that we might know how great is the power which had taken up its dwelling in the body unto life, so that it neither appeared like other dead bodies, but was able to pour forth for us the causes of life.

Of the same author, from the same discourse:

But not a bone of the holy Lamb is broken, the type showing that the suffering did not reach unto the power;

for the bones are the power of the body.

Of the holy Eustathius, bishop of Antioch and confessor.

For above all, if it were not for the sake of the salvation of men that He willingly delivered up His own body to the slaughter of death—

First, they attach much weakness to Him, in that He was not able to withstand the assault of His enemies.

Of the same author, from the same discourse:

'the beginning of His ways.' For the man who died rises again on the third day; but to Mary, who in the steadfastness of her soul was eager to touch the holy limbs, He replied and cried out, saying:

'Touch Me not, for I have not yet ascended to My Father;

but go to My brethren, and say to them:

I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.' Now the words, 'I have not yet ascended to My Father,' were not spoken by the Word and God who set out from heaven and abides in the bosom of the Father, nor by the Wisdom that encompasses all created things;

but it was that very man, framed together out of manifold limbs, who declared this—he who was raised from the dead and had not yet, after death, ascended to the Father, but was reserving to himself the firstfruits of the going forth.

Of the same author, from the same discourse:

He clearly names the very man who was crucified the Lord of glory in his writing, since he declared Him both Lord and Christ, just as the apostles, discoursing with one accord to the sensible Israel, say:

'Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made Him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.' Accordingly it was Jesus who suffered whom He made Lord, and not the Wisdom nor the Word which from the beginning possessed the sovereignty of dominion, but Him who, lifted up, spread out His hands upon the cross.

Of the same author, from the same discourse:

For if it is incorporeal, it neither falls under the touch of hands, nor is grasped by the perceptible eyes, does not endure wounding, is not nailed with nails, has no share in death, is not hidden in the earth, is not enclosed in a tomb, does not rise from the graves.

Of the same author, from the same discourse:

'No one takes My soul from Me;

I have authority to lay down My soul, and I have authority to take it again.' Now if He had authority over both as God, He on the one hand permitted them to destroy the temple, undertaking it thoughtlessly, but on the other hand He wrought its raising more gloriously.

And it has been shown by incontrovertible proofs that He Himself, by His own power, raised up His own house, having wrought it anew.

But we must also ascribe the mighty works of the Son to the most divine Father.

For neither does the Son create apart from the Father, according to the unbreakable declarations of the sacred Scriptures.

For this reason, then, at one time the most divine Begetter is written to have raised Christ from the dead, and at another time the Son promises that He will raise up His own temple.

If, then, from what has been previously examined, the divine Spirit of Christ has been shown to be impassible, the accursed ones assail the apostolic definitions in vain.

For if Paul declared that the Lord of glory was crucified, plainly looking to the man, it does not on that account follow that suffering must be attached to the divine nature.

Why, then, do they weave together this conclusion, saying that Christ was crucified out of weakness? Of the same author, from the same discourse:

But if indeed it were fitting to attach some form of weakness to Him, one might say that it is consistent to attribute these things to the man, and by no means to the fullness of the Godhead, or to the dignity of the supreme Wisdom, or to Him who, according to Paul, is written to be God over all.

Of the same author, from the same discourse:

This, then, is the manner of the weakness on account of which He is written, according to Paul, to have come unto death.

For the man lives by the power of God, that is to say, abiding together with the divine Spirit, since the Most High's power which dwells as a citizen within him has been demonstrated according to the definitions set forth above.

Of the same author, from the same discourse:

But if, having entered the virginal womb, He did not diminish His authority, neither is the Spirit defiled when the body was nailed to the wood of the cross.

For the body was crucified aloft, but the divine Spirit of Wisdom both dwelt within the body, and mounted up to the heavenly places, and encompassed all the earth, and held sway over the abysses, and, searching out the souls of each, discerned them, and did all things together in His accustomed manner, as God.

is enclosed and contained, just as the substances of liquids and solids are shut up within their vessels, yet are contained rather than contain their receptacles.

But being a certain divine and inexpressible power, embracing both the innermost and the outermost parts of the temple, it strengthens them, and thence reaching yet beyond, it holds and encompasses all masses together.

Of the same author, from the same discourse:

But if the sun, being a visible body apprehensible by sense, though enduring so many and such great outrages everywhere on earth, does not change its order, nor perceives any blow small or great, are we then to suppose that the incorporeal Wisdom is defiled and alters its nature, if its temple is nailed to a cross, or endures dissolution, or undergoes wounding, or receives corruption? Nay, the temple suffers, but the unstained substance stands altogether undefiled in its dignity.

Of the same author, from the discourse on the titles of the Ascents.

But neither is it His Word, being God who was begotten of Him, through whom came into being the angels and the heavens and the boundless magnitudes of the earth and, in short, all the substances and constitutions of created things;

but it is the man of Christ, raised from the dead, who is exalted and glorified, while His adversaries reap disgrace outright.

Of the same author, from the same discourse:

But those who out of envy took up hatred against Him, and who were fortified in hostile array, are scattered, since the Word and God raised up His own temple in a manner worthy of His dignity.

Of the same author, from the interpretation of the second Psalm.

In conclusion, then, the prophet Isaiah, in recounting the very traces of His sufferings, among other things adds this also with a louder cry:

'And we saw Him, and He had no form nor comeliness;

but His form was without honour and failing beyond the sons of men.' Then, expressly making clear that the aspects of goodly appearance and the sufferings are attached to the man, but not to the divine nature, he straightway again adds, saying:

'A man in stripes, and knowing how to bear infirmity.' Of the same author, from the same interpretation:

This, then, is that very One who, after the insults, was seen unsightly and misshapen, and then again, by a change, put on comeliness.

For neither was God, who dwelt in him, led to death after the manner of a lamb, nor slaughtered like a sheep, being by nature invisible.

Of the holy Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria and confessor.

From the letter to Epictetus.

Who was ever so impious as to say and at the same time to hold, that the Godhead itself, which is consubstantial with the Father, was circumcised, and from being perfect became imperfect, and that what was nailed to the wood was not the body, but the very creative substance of Wisdom? Of the same, from the same letter.

For what the human nature of the Word suffered, these things he referred to himself in concurrence, so that we might be able to partake of the Godhead of the Word.

And it was a paradox, that he himself was both the one suffering and the one not suffering.

Suffering indeed, because his own body suffered, and he was in the very body that suffered;

but not suffering, because the Word, being God by nature, is impassible.

And he himself, the incorporeal One, was in the passible body, while the body had within itself the impassible Word, doing away with the weaknesses of the body itself.

Of the same, from the same letter.

For being God and Lord of glory, he was in the body that was ingloriously nailed to the cross;

and the body indeed suffered, being pierced upon the wood, and from its side there flowed blood and water; yet, being the temple of the Word, it was filled with the Godhead.

And the body itself, having a mortal nature, rose again above its own nature through the Word who was in it, and ceased from the corruption that is according to nature; and having put on the Word who is above man, it became incorruptible.

Of the same, from the greater discourse on the faith.

...of the dead — was it a man, or God? Peter the apostle interprets it for us, knowing better, and says:

'Having taken him down from the tree, they laid him in a tomb; but God raised him from the dead.' Therefore that dead body of Jesus which was taken down from the tree, which was also laid in a tomb and buried by Joseph of Arimathea — this the Word raised, saying:

'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' He who also gives life to all the dead, gave life also to the man from Mary, Christ Jesus, whom he had assumed.

For if, while he was upon the cross, he raised the dead bodies of the saints that had already dissolved, much more is the ever-living God the Word able to raise the body he wore, as Paul says:

'For the Word of God is living and active.' Of the same, from the same discourse.

Life therefore does not die, but gives life to the dead.

For as the light is not harmed in a dark place, so neither can Life suffer anything when it visits the mortal nature.

For the Godhead of the Word is unturning and unchangeable, as the Lord says in prophecy concerning himself:

'See me, that I am he, and I have not been changed.' Of the same, from the same discourse.

The living One cannot die, but rather gives life to the dead.

There is therefore also a fountain of life in the Godhead which is from the Father; but he who died — or rather, who was also raised from the dead — is man, he who also intercedes for us, he who is from the Virgin Mary, whom the Godhead of the Word assumed for our sake.

Of the same, from the same discourse.

It came to pass that Lazarus, having fallen sick, died;

but the Lord's manhood did not die from having fallen sick, nor unwillingly;

rather it came of itself to the dispensation of death, being strengthened by God the Word who dwelt in it, who said:

'No one takes my life from me;

I lay it down of myself. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority again to take it up.' It is therefore the Godhead of the Son that lays down and takes up the life of the man he wore.

For he assumed the man complete, so that he might also give life to him complete, and with him to the dead.

Of the same, from the discourse against the Arians.

When therefore the blessed Paul says, 'The Father raised his Son from the dead,' John relates to us that Jesus said, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.'

For the things that belong to his body are spoken with reference to his own person.

So then also, when it says, 'The Father gave life to the Son,' the life must be understood as given to the flesh.

For if he himself is the Life, how does the Life receive life? Of the same, from the discourse on the incarnation.

For the Word, perceiving that the corruption of men could not otherwise be undone except by dying altogether, and that it was not possible for the Word to die, being immortal and the Son of the Father — for this cause he takes to himself a body that is able to die, so that this body, partaking of the Word who is over all, might be sufficient for death on behalf of all, and through the indwelling Word might remain incorruptible, and thenceforth corruption might cease from all through the grace of the resurrection.

Whence, as a victim and sacrifice free from every stain, he offered up to death the body which he had taken to himself, and by the offering that was fitting he straightway did away with death from all who are like him.

For the Word of God, being over all, fittingly, by offering his own temple and bodily instrument as a ransom for all, fulfilled on behalf of all what was owed to death;

and thus, being present with all through that which is like them, the incorruptible Son of God fittingly clothed all with incorruption in the promise concerning the resurrection.

For even that corruption which is in death no longer has any place against men, because of the Word who dwelt among them through the one body.

Of the same, from the same discourse.

...having now given proofs, he offered up a sacrifice on behalf of all, delivering his own temple to death in place of all, so that he might make all men unaccountable and free from the ancient transgression, and might show himself also to be mightier than death, displaying his own body incorruptible as the firstfruits of the resurrection of all.

For the body indeed, inasmuch as it too had a common substance — for it was a human body, even if by a stranger wonder it was framed from a virgin alone — being nevertheless mortal, died in the sequence proper to bodies like it; but by the entry of the Word into it, it was no longer corrupted according to its own nature, but through the indwelling Word of God it came to be outside corruption.

Of the same, from the same discourse.

Whence, as I said before, the Word, since it was not possible for him to die — for he was immortal — took to himself a body that was able to die, so that he might offer it as his own in place of all;

and, as himself suffering on behalf of all through his entry into the body itself, he might bring to nought him who has the power of death.

Of the same, from the same discourse.

For the body indeed, suffering according to the nature of bodies, died;

but it had the pledge of incorruption from the Word who dwelt in it.

For when the body died, the Word was not put to death along with it, but he himself was impassible and incorruptible and immortal, being indeed the Word of God; and being present with the body all the more, he hindered from it the corruption of bodies that is according to nature, as the Spirit also says to him:

If anyone should say that in the passion of the cross the Son of God and God endured pain, and not the flesh together with the soul which the form of a servant put on, which he took to himself, as the Scripture has said:

Of the holy Ambrose, bishop of Milan.

From the treatise on the catholic faith.

But there are some who have advanced to such a pitch of impiety as to suppose that the Godhead of the Lord was circumcised, and became imperfect from being perfect, and that upon the wood it was not the flesh, but that divine substance, the maker of all things.

Of the same, from the same discourse.

The flesh suffered; the Godhead is free from death;

he permitted the body to suffer by the law of human nature.

For how can God die, when the soul is unable to die? 'Fear not,' he says, 'those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul.' If therefore the soul cannot be killed, how can the Godhead fall under death? Of the holy Basil, bishop of Caesarea.

This is plain to everyone who has given even a little attention to the intent of the apostolic expression, that he does not deliver to us a manner of theology, but rather points out the terms of the dispensation.

'For God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified,' pointing with the demonstrative word to his humanity, which is manifest and visible to all.

Of the holy Gregory, bishop of Nazianzus.

From the letter to Nectarius, bishop of Constantinople.

But the most grievous of all the calamities in the Church is the boldness of the Apollinarians, whom, I know not how, your Holiness overlooked when they procured for themselves the authority to hold assemblies on equal terms with us;

but the most grievous of all is that they represent the very only-begotten God, the judge of all beings, the author of life, the destroyer of death, as being mortal, and as receiving the passion in his own Godhead, and that in that three-day deadening of the body the Godhead too was deadened together with the body, and that thus it was raised again from death by the Father.

Of the same, from the former exposition to Cledonius.