乞食者（駁基督一性論對話） 第 1 章 第 12/13 段

If the man is soulless, this too the Arians say, in order that they may bring the passion to bear upon the Godhead, as though it were this that moves the body and also suffers.

It remained for us to treat of his being commanded, and having kept the commandments, and having done all things pleasing to him;

and further of his being made perfect, and exalted, and learning obedience from the things he suffered; and of his high priesthood and offering, and betrayal, and prayer to him who was able to save from death, and of his agony and bloody sweat, and of his prayer, and of anything else of the kind — if indeed it were not plain to all that such names as these pertain to that which suffers, not to the unturning nature that is higher than suffering.

By the same author, from his discourse on the Pascha.

Who is this who comes from Edom, and from the things of earth? Or how are the garments red of him who is bloodless and bodiless, as of one who treads the winepress and has trodden a winepress full? Set forth the beauty of the robe: the suffering body was adorned by its passion and made radiant by the Godhead, than which nothing is more lovely nor more beautiful.

Of Saint Gregory, bishop of Nyssa.

And this is by nature the character of God's dispensation concerning death and of the resurrection from the dead: not to hinder the soul from being separated from the body by death according to the necessary consequence of nature, but again to bring them back to one another through the resurrection.

By the same author, from the same discourse.

For since the God-receiving man was not from any other source, but from our own lump, that man who through the resurrection was exalted together with the Godhead—

just as in the body such as ours the activity of one of the sense-organs draws the whole, being united to the part, into shared perception, so, as though all nature were one single living being, the resurrection proceeding from the part passes through to the whole, since the continuous and united character of nature is imparted from the part to the entirety.

What, then, do we learn that is outside the fitting mystery, if he who stands bends down to him who has fallen, in order to raise up the one who lies prostrate? By the same author, from the same discourse.

It would be consistent, in this matter too, not to see the one thing while overlooking the other, but rather in the death to discern the human, and in the man to search out the more divine.

By the same author, from the treatise against Eunomius.

The human nature does not make Lazarus alive, nor does the impassible power weep over him who lies dead;

but the weeping is proper to the man, while what belongs to true life is proper to the Life.

Human poverty does not feed the thousands, nor does the almighty power run to the fig tree.

Who is it that grows weary from the journey, and who is it that without toil sustained the whole universe by his word? What is the effulgence of glory, and what is it that is pierced through by the nails? What form is struck upon the passion, and what form is glorified from all eternity? For these things are evident, even though no one should interpret them in words.

By the same author, from the same treatise.

He accuses those who attribute the passion to the human nature.

For he wishes altogether to subject the Godhead itself to the passion.

If, then, they accuse those who behold the passion as belonging to the man, they altogether commend those who declare the Godhead of the Son to be subject to passion.

But what is established by these arguments becomes an advocacy of the absurdity of their doctrine.

For if, according to their argument, the Godhead of the Son suffers, while that of the Father is preserved in complete impassibility, then the impassible nature stands as something alien to that which admits the passion.

Of Saint Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium.

From the discourse on the words, 'Amen, amen, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes on him who sent me has eternal life.' Whose, then, are the sufferings? They are of the flesh.

Therefore, if you assign the sufferings to the flesh, assign to it also the lowly sayings; and to him to whom you ascribe the miracles, attribute the exalted sayings.

For God, who works wonders, fittingly speaks lofty things, worthy of his works;

while the man who suffers rightly utters the lowly things, befitting the sufferings.

From the discourse on the words, 'My Father is greater than I.' But when you assign the sufferings to the flesh and the miracles to God, you assign, even against your will and of necessity, the lowly sayings to the man born of Mary, and the exalted and God-befitting sayings to the Word who was in the beginning.

Whence in one place I call myself equal to the Father, and in another I call the Father greater—not contradicting myself, but showing that I am God and man;

God in respect of the lofty things, and man in respect of the lowly.

And if you wish to know how my Father is greater than I, I said it in respect of the flesh, and not from the person of the Godhead.

By the same author, from the discourse on the words, 'If it be possible, let this cup pass from me.' Do not, then, cast the sufferings of the flesh upon the impassible Word.

For I am God and man, O heretic;

God, inasmuch as the miracles vouch for it; man, inasmuch as the sufferings testify.

Since, then, I am God and man, tell me: who is it that suffered?

If God suffered, you have spoken blasphemy;

but if the flesh suffered, why do you not attach the passion to that to which you impute the fear? For when one thing suffers, another is not afraid; and when the man is crucified, God is not troubled.

By the same author, from the discourse against the Arians.

And that I may not draw out the discourse at length, I ask you briefly, O heretic:

but if it was the man, as the truth holds, why then do you not attach the passion to the man? By the same author, from the discourse on the Son.

For when Peter had said that 'God made him both Lord and Christ,' he added, 'This Jesus, whom you crucified, this one God raised from the dead.' Now it was not the Godhead that was put to death, but the man; and he who raised him is the Word, the power of God, who said in the Gospel:

'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' So that if it be said:

'God made both Lord and Christ' him who was put to death and rose from the dead, it refers to the flesh, and not to the Godhead of the Son.

By the same author, from the discourse on the words, 'The Son can do nothing of himself.' For the Life did not have a nature such as to be held fast by corruption; wherefore it was not the Godhead that was dragged down into passion;

for how could it be? Rather, it was the manhood that was renewed unto incorruption.

Of Saint Flavian, bishop of Antioch.

By the same author, on Judas the betrayer.

So that when you hear of the Master being betrayed, do not drag down the divine dignity into meanness, nor attach the bodily sufferings to the divine power.

For the divine is impassible and unchangeable.

For even if, out of love for mankind, he entered into the form of a servant, yet he did not change his nature;

but being what he was, he permitted the divine body to receive the experience of death.

Of Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria.

For the souls of irrational animals are not taken up and set again in place, but perish together with their bodies and dissolve into dust.

But the Savior, having laid down his own soul from his own body at the time of the cross, again placed it into it, when he had risen from the dead.

Assuring us of this very thing, he foretold it, crying out through the Psalmist:

'You will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor will you let your holy one see corruption.' Of the blessed Gelasius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine.

From the discourse on the Epiphany.

He was bound, wounded, crucified, handled; he bore stripes, he received the scar of a sword.

All these things the body born of Mary endured.

But that which was begotten of the Father before the ages, no one was able to harm.

For the Word did not have such a nature.

For how does anyone lay hold of Godhead? How does he wound it? How does he draw blood from the bodiless nature? How does he wrap it in the bonds of burial? Reverence, therefore, the things you cannot harm, and honor the Godhead, being constrained by the argument of necessity.

Of Saint John, bishop of Constantinople.

From the discourse on the words, 'My Father works until now, and I work.' 'What sign do you show us, that you do these things?' What, then, does he say? 'Destroy this temple,' he says, 'and I will raise it up in three days,' speaking concerning his own body;

but those men did not perceive it.

How is it that the Evangelist did not pass it by, but added the correction, saying:

'But he was speaking concerning the temple of his own body'? For he did not say, 'Destroy this body,' but 'the temple,' in order to show the God who dwells within.

'Destroy this temple'—far better than the Jewish one.

For the one had the law, but the other had the Lawgiver;

the one had the letter that kills, the other the Spirit that gives life.

By the same author, from the discourse that the things said and done in a lowly manner were not on account of weakness of power, but on account of diverse dispensations.

How, then, does he here say, 'If it be possible'? He shows us the weakness of the human nature, which does not simply choose to be torn away from the present life, but shrinks back and hesitates, on account of the love toward the present life that was implanted in it from the beginning by God.

For if, when he had spoken so many things and of such magnitude, certain men dared to say that he did not take flesh, what would they not have said had none of these things been spoken? From the same author, from the same discourse.

See how they proclaimed beforehand even his earlier stage of life.

Ask the heretic, then: does God feel fear, and shrink back, and hesitate, and grieve? And if he say 'Yes,' then depart from him henceforth, and set him down below together with the devil—nay rather, even lower than the devil;

for not even that one will dare to say this.

But if he say that none of these things is worthy of God, then say:

For apart from these things, yet another absurdity will follow, if the words be taken as spoken of God.

For the words display not only anguish, but also two wills—one of the Son, and one of the Father—contrary to one another.

For to say, 'Not as I will, but as thou wilt,' this is the utterance of one displaying just that.

From the same author, from the same discourse.

For if this be said of the Godhead, a certain contradiction arises, and many absurdities are begotten from it.

But if it be said of the flesh, what is spoken has reason, and no accusation could arise.

For it is no condemnation that the flesh should not wish to die;

but he himself displays all the properties of the nature, apart from sin, and that with great abundance, so as to stop the mouths of the heretics.

'If it be possible, let this cup pass from me,' and,

'Not as I will, but as thou wilt'—this shows nothing else than that he has truly clothed himself in flesh that fears death.

For to fear death, and to shrink back, and to be in anguish, belongs to that flesh.

Now at one time he leaves it desolate and stripped of its own proper energy, in order that, having shown its weakness, he might give assurance also of its nature;

and now again he conceals it, that thou mightest learn that he was no mere man.

Of Severian, bishop of Gabala.

From the discourse On the Seals.

The Jews contend with what is visible, being ignorant of what is invisible; and they crucify the flesh, but do not destroy the Godhead.

For if with the writing, which is the garment of speech, my word is not made to vanish along with it, was God the Word, the fountain of life, made to die along with the flesh? The suffering pertains to the body, but the impassibility pertains to the dignity.

we have shown that those who have cultivated their divisions stand as accusers of your novel heresy, and that they openly proclaim the impassibility of the divine nature, and that both tongues—the Greek, I mean, and the Latin—have proclaimed a concordant confession concerning divine things.

ERANISTES: I too marvel at the concord of these men;

nevertheless, I observed much division in their statements.

ORTHODOXOS: Be not indignant, my friend.

For the very vehemence of the struggle against one's opponents is the cause of the lack of measure.

And this same thing it is dear also to the tenders of plants to do.

For whenever they see a plant leaning over, they not only set it upright to the straight measuring-rod, but even bend it back beyond the straight into the opposite side, so that the greater inclination toward the contrary direction may effect the upright standing.

But that thou mayest know that those who contend to strengthen this multiform heresy are eager, by the excess of their blasphemies, to conceal even the ancient heresiarchs, hear again from the writings of Apollinaris, which proclaim the impassibility of the divine nature and confess that the suffering belongs to the body.

Of Apollinaris, from the book arranged by chapters.

By 'the temple that was destroyed,' that is, the body of him who raises it up, John spoke.

And the body is altogether one with him, and there is no other beside them in their view.

But if the body of the Lord has become one with the Lord, the properties of the body have become his own on account of the body.

For this is the truth: that the conjunction with the body is not according to a circumscription of the Word, so that he should have nothing more than the taking of a body.

For if he is above this composition, he is also above the dissolution.

For neither was he circumscribed by the composition;

for otherwise the world would have been emptied;

nor in the dissolution did he possess the deficiency that comes from dissolution, as the soul does.

Just as the Saviour says that the dead come forth from the tombs, although the souls do not come forth from thence, so also he says that he himself will rise from the dead, although it is the body that is raised.

And in another similar treatise he has written these things.

To rise from the dead belongs to man, but to raise up belongs to God.

The same one, therefore, is both God and man.

If Christ were only man, he would not have made the dead alive;

and if only God, he would not, apart from the Father, of his own accord have made certain of the dead alive.

The same one, therefore, is both God and man.

If Christ were only man, he would not have saved the world;

and if only God, he would not have saved through suffering.

He is, therefore, both God and man.

If Christ were only man, or only God, he would not have been mediator between God and men.

But the flesh is an instrument of life, fitted through its sufferings to the divine counsels;

and neither are the words proper to the flesh, nor the deeds;

and though subjected to the sufferings after the manner befitting flesh, it prevails against the sufferings because it is the flesh of God.

The Son sojourned in the world, taking flesh from the Virgin, which he filled with the Holy Spirit unto the sanctification of us all.

And having delivered the flesh over to death, he destroyed death through the resurrection, unto the resurrection of us all.

And in the little treatise concerning faith he says these things.

And though the sufferings occur concerning the flesh, the power possessed its own impassibility.

He therefore acts impiously who refers the suffering up to the power.

And in the little treatise concerning the incarnation he has written these things again.

Here, then, indicating the same one—as man raised from the dead, but as God reigning over all creation.

ORTHODOXOS: You have seen by now one of the teachers of the empty heresy openly proclaiming the impassibility of the Godhead, and calling the body a temple, and most vigorously insisting that it was God the Word who raised it up.

ERANISTES: I have both heard and marveled, and I am greatly ashamed, because our own positions have appeared more to be shunned even than the innovation of this man.

ERANISTES: Whom do you mean by this one? ORTHODOXOS: Perhaps you have heard of Eusebius the Phoenician, who became bishop of Emesa, the city near Lebanon.

ERANISTES: I have come upon some of his writings, and I found him agreeing with the doctrines of Arius.

ORTHODOXOS: He happened to belong to that band;

yet nevertheless, though attempting to show the Father greater than the Only-begotten, he proclaims impassible the Godhead of him whom he diminishes, and he undertook long and truly wondrous contests on behalf of this.

ERANISTES: You will bring forward these words too for me, since I greatly long for them.

ORTHODOXOS: Accordingly, I will set forth a rather lengthy testimony, that I may satisfy your longing.

Hear, then, the man crying aloud, and consider that he has employed these words directly to us.

For what reason does he fear death? Lest he should suffer something from death? For what was death to him? Was it not the withdrawal of the power from the flesh? For surely the power did not receive a nail, that it should be afraid.

For if our soul does not suffer the things of the body while it dwells together with it, but the eye is blinded while the understanding remains sound, and the foot is severed yet the reasoning does not go lame;

and nature itself bears witness to this, and the Lord sets His seal upon it when He says:

'Do not fear those who are able to kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul.' If they cannot touch the soul, it is not because those who do it are unwilling, but because they are unable—even should they wish it—to make the conjoined body's sufferings reach it;

does He who created the soul and fashioned the body Himself suffer the things of the body, even though above all He takes upon Himself the sufferings of the body? Yet Christ suffered for us, and we do not lie.

For 'the bread which I will give is my flesh,' which He gave for us.

That which was seized was seized; that which was crucified was crucified.

But He who has the power both to indwell and to depart says this:

'Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit'—not into the hands of those who forced His departure.

I am not contentious; rather, I abstain from contention.

But with gentleness I wish to inquire concerning the matters in dispute, as among brethren.

Do I not speak truly when I say that the [divine] power could not receive the sufferings of the flesh? I therefore keep silent;

let him who wishes say what the power suffered.

Did it fail? Behold the peril.

Was it extinguished? Behold the blasphemy.

Did it cease to be? For this is the death of a power.

Tell me what, being able to prevail, could suffer, and I will not contend.

But if you cannot tell me, why are you indignant with me because I do not say what you yourself cannot say? It did not receive the nail.

Drive the nail into the soul, and I will admit it into the power.

Interpret for me the word 'suffered together with';

what does 'suffered together with' mean? As if the nail were in the flesh, but the pain in the power?

Did the power, which was not struck, feel pain?

For pain always follows upon suffering.

But if a body also, when the mind is strong, often despises pains through the vigor of its resolve, let someone here interpret without contention what suffered and what suffered together with it.

What then? Did not Christ die for us? How did He die? 'Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit.' The spirit departed, the body remained—the body remained without breath.

Did He then not die? He died for us.

not as I invent it, but as I hear it:

The Shepherd offered the sheep; the Priest offered the sacrifice;

'He gave Himself for us'; and:

'He who did not spare His own Son, but gave His Son for us all.' I do not set aside the words, but I seek the meaning of the words.

The Lord says, 'The bread of God came down from heaven.' And interpreting it—though I cannot speak more plainly because of the mysteries—He says only this much: 'It is my flesh.' Did the flesh of the Son come down from heaven? It did not come down from heaven.

What the power possesses came down from heaven, and it is reckoned to the flesh.

Therefore reverse it: the things which the flesh suffers are reckoned to the power.

How did Christ suffer for us? He was spat upon, He was struck on the cheek, they set a crown about His brow, His hands and feet were pierced.

All these are sufferings pertaining to the body, but they are referred to Him who indwells.

Cast a stone at the emperor's image—what is said? You have insulted the emperor.

Tear the emperor's robe—what is said? You have risen up against the emperor.

Crucify the body of Christ—what is said? Christ died for us.

But what need is there of me and you? Let us come to the evangelists.

How did you receive it from the Lord, how did the Lord die? They read: 'Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit.' The spirit above, and the body upon the cross for us.

For He offered the sheep.

All the things pertaining to the body are reckoned to Him.

Of the same author, from the same discourse.

He came to save our nature, not to destroy His own.

If I should wish to say that a camel flies, you are at once astonished, because it does not befit its nature;

if I should wish to say that men dwell in the sea, you will not endure it—and you do rightly;

As therefore, if I say strange things concerning these natures, you are astonished, so likewise, if I say that that Power which is before the ages, incorporeal in nature, impassible in dignity, which is with the Father, which is at the Father's side, which is at the right hand, which is in glory—if I say that that incorporeal nature suffers, do you not stop up your ears? If you do not stop your ears when you hear these things, I will keep guard over my heart.

Can we do anything to an angel—for instance, strike it with a sword, or cut it at all? Why do I speak of an angel? Can we do anything to a soul? A soul does not receive a nail, a soul is not cut, it is not burned.

Are His works impassible, and He Himself passible? I do not set aside the dispensation, but I detest these malicious falsehoods.

Christ died for us, and was crucified.

Thus it is written, thus the nature received it; I neither erase the words, nor do I blaspheme the nature.

Let the truer things be spoken, with intent to benefit, not to give offense.

The teacher is no enemy, unless the one being taught be ungrateful.

If you have something good to say, my ears are open with gladness.

Someone who has leisure for contention delights in following after strife.

Our body, when we die, remains.

But if we put that Power to death, we bring it down into non-existence.

I do not know whether you were unable to grasp it.

If the body dies, the soul is separated and remains.

But if a soul dies, since it is incorporeal, it altogether ceases to be.

A soul that dies altogether ceases to be;

for to immortal beings, death is [a passing] into non-existence.

But we lay down no law, if anyone is contentious.

But one thing I know: that each one, from what he holds as his conviction, from these things is destined to reap the fruit;

and each one departs to God, and puts forth what he said and thought concerning Him.

For do not suppose that God reads books, or is troubled by needing to remember, 'What did you say, and what did you hear?' All things are manifest.

Paul who is here is brought forward;

you called me a mere man; you have no life with me;

since you did not know me, I do not know you;

you did not know my dignity, I do not know you;

you said that I did not take up a body;

You have set at nought my grace; you shall not partake of my immortality.

You said that I was not born of the Virgin, whereas it was that I might save the body of the Virgin.

Each man carries away his own opinions concerning the faith.

proclaiming the impassibility of the Godhead, and overthrowing the phalanx of those who dare to attach suffering to it.

{ERANISTES.} I have seen it, and I marvelled at the contests, and indeed I admire the man for his reflections and conceptions.

{ORTHODOXOS.} Then, my good friend, emulate the bees, and flying about with your mind over the meadows of the divine Scripture, and gathering the lovely flowers of the all-praiseworthy Fathers, weave for us within yourself the honeycombs of the faith.

But if somewhere you should find even a plant that is neither edible nor sweet—such as this Apollinaris and Eusebius—yet having something suitable for honey-making, it is nothing amiss to take what is useful and to leave behind what is harmful.

For indeed the bees, often settling upon poisonous shrubs, leave behind whatever is deadly and gather up what is proper to themselves.

These things, my dear friend, we set before you according to the law of brotherly love.

And you will do well if you receive the exhortation.

But if you disobey, we for our part shall utter that apostolic word:

We have confessed one substance of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and we have declared with one accord that this is unchangeable.

If, then, there is one substance of the Trinity, and this is unchangeable, then the Only-begotten Son is unchangeable, being one Person of the Trinity.

And if He is unchangeable, then surely He did not become flesh by being changed, but is said to have become flesh by taking flesh.

If, having undergone a change into flesh, God the Word became flesh, then He is not unchangeable.

For no one in his right mind would call that which is altered unchangeable.

But if He is not unchangeable, then neither is He of one substance with Him who begat Him.

For how is it possible that of the simple substance one part should be changeable and another unchangeable? And if we were to grant this, we should assuredly fall into the blasphemy of Arius and Eunomius.

For those men say that the Son is of a different substance.

If the Son is of one substance with the Father, and the Son became flesh by undergoing a transformation into flesh, then the substance is changeable and not unchangeable.

And if anyone should dare this blasphemy, he will assuredly magnify it by blasphemy against the Father.

For he will doubtless name Him also changeable, since He partakes of the very same substance.

The divine Scriptures say that God the Word took flesh and, moreover, also a soul.

And the most divine Evangelist said:

The Word became flesh. It is necessary, then, to do one of two things: either, accepting the transformation of the Word into flesh, to turn away from all divine Scripture, both old and new, as teaching falsehood; or, obeying the divine Scripture, to confess the assumption of the flesh, but to drive out from our reasonings the notion of change, understanding devoutly the evangelical saying:

and this indeed must be done, since we both confess that the nature of God the Word is unchangeable, and we have countless testimonies to the assumption of the flesh.

That which dwells in a tabernacle is other than the tabernacle in which it dwells.

Now the Evangelist called the flesh a tabernacle, and he said that God the Word tabernacled in it.

For the Word, he says, became flesh, and tabernacled among us. But if He became flesh by being changed, He did not tabernacle in flesh.

Yet indeed we have learned that He tabernacled in flesh.

For the same Evangelist, in another passage also, called His body a temple.

One must therefore believe the Evangelist, who unfolded the saying and interpreted what seemed ambiguous to some.

If the Evangelist, having written 'The Word became flesh,' had added nothing capable of resolving the ambiguity, perhaps the dispute over the saying might have had some reasonable pretext, namely the obscurity of the text.

But since he immediately joined 'He tabernacled among us,' those who wrangle are quibbling in vain.

For that which follows is the interpretation of what was written before.

The all-wise Evangelist openly proclaimed the unchangeableness of God the Word.

For having said, 'The Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us,' he immediately added, 'And we beheld His glory, glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.' But if, according to the senseless, He had undergone the change into flesh, He would not have remained what He was.

But if, veiled with flesh, He sent forth the rays of His paternal nobility, then surely He has an unchangeable nature, yet He shines even in a body, and emits the flashings of His invisible nature.

For that light nothing is able to dim.

For the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not, as the most divine John says.

The all-praiseworthy Evangelist, wishing to interpret the glory of the Only-begotten, and then being unable to accomplish the undertaking, demonstrates it from His communion with the Father.

For, he says, He exists from that nature;

doing much as if someone, seeing Joseph in servitude beneath his worth, should say to certain persons ignorant of the distinction of his lineage, that Jacob was his father and Abraham his forefather.

For thus indeed did this one also say, that even having tabernacled among us He did not dim the glory of His nature.

For we beheld His glory, glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father. But if, even when made flesh, it was manifest who He was, then He remained what He was, and did not undergo the change into flesh.

We have confessed that God the Word assumed not flesh only, but also a soul.

Why then, pray, did the divine Evangelist here omit the soul, and mention only the flesh? Is it not clear that he pointed to the visible nature, and through it intimated that which is naturally joined to it? For with the mention of the flesh, that of the soul surely enters in along with it.