乞食者（駁基督一性論對話） 第 1 章 第 13/13 段

For when we hear the prophet saying, 'Let all flesh bless His holy name,' we do not think that the prophet is exhorting soulless flesh, but we believe that the whole is called to hymnody by the mention of a part.

The saying, 'The Word became flesh,' is indicative not of a change, but of His ineffable love for mankind.

For the all-praiseworthy Evangelist, having said, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,' and having shown Him to be the Creator of things visible and invisible, and having named Him Life and true Light, and having set down certain other like things, and having spoken of the Godhead as far as the human mind was able to contain and the tongue was sufficient to serve its strains, added:

And the Word became flesh—as though astonished and marvelling at the insatiability of His love for mankind.

Thus being eternally, and being God, and being ever with God, and having made all things, and being the fountain of eternal life and of true light, for the sake of the salvation of men He put around Himself the tabernacle of the flesh.

And it was thought to be only that which it appeared.

For this reason, then, he did not even mention the soul, but only the flesh, which is perishable and mortal;

and the soul, as being immortal, he passed over, in order to show the immeasurableness of His goodness.

The divine Apostle names the Master Christ the seed of Abraham.

But if this is true—and it is true—then God the Word was not changed into flesh, but took hold of the seed of Abraham, according to the very teaching of the Apostle.

But if God the Word, having been changed into flesh, was named Christ, we shall nowhere find the truth of the oaths.

Yet indeed we have been taught that God is undeceiving—nay rather, that He is truth itself.

Those who believe that after the union one nature of Godhead and manhood came into being do away, by this reasoning, with the properties of the natures;

and the doing away with these is the denial of each nature.

For the confusion of the things united does not permit us to conceive either the flesh as flesh or God as God.

But if even after the union the difference of the things united is clearly discerned, then no confusion has occurred, but an unconfused union.

And if this is jointly confessed, then the Master Christ is not one nature, but one Son, exhibiting each nature unadulterated.

We too affirm the union, and they themselves also jointly confess that it came to be at the conception.

If, then, the union mingled and confounded the natures, how was it that the flesh after the birth was seen to have nothing new, but even displayed the human character, and preserved the measures of an infant, and endured the swaddling-clothes, and drew the maternal breast? But if these things were accomplished according to fantasy and seeming, then according to fantasy and seeming have we too enjoyed salvation.

But if even these very men do not admit the fantasy and seeming, as they say, then truly the body that was seen was a body.

And if this is jointly confessed, then the union did not confound the natures, but each remained unadulterated.

Those who have compounded this variegated and multiform heresy sometimes say that God the Word became flesh, and at other times say that the flesh received the change into the nature of Godhead.

But each statement is both stale and vain and full of falsehood.

For if, according to their very argument, God the Word became flesh, why then do they call Him God, and this alone, yet refuse to name Him also man? And why, when we, together with confessing Him to be God, say that He is also man, do they vehemently accuse us? But if the flesh was changed into the nature of the Godhead, for what reason do they partake of the antitypes of the body? For the figure is superfluous once the reality has been done away with.

A bodiless nature is not circumcised in a bodily manner.

The phrase 'in a bodily manner' is added on account of the spiritual circumcision of the heart.

Circumcision, then, surely belongs to a body.

Therefore the Lord Christ had a body.

And if this is agreed upon, then the argument for a commingling of natures has also been refuted.

Moreover, we have learned that the Saviour Christ hungered and thirsted, and we believe that these things truly happened and not merely in appearance.

But these things are proper not to a bodiless nature, but to a body.

Therefore the Lord Christ had a body, which before the resurrection received the sufferings of its nature.

And the divine Apostle also bears witness to these things:

For we do not have, he says, a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in all things according to our likeness, yet without sin. For sin belongs not to nature, but to an evil choice of the will.

'He who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep.' Yet the narrative of the Gospels shows the Lord Christ sleeping in the boat.

But sleeping is contrary to not sleeping;

the prophetic sayings are surely contrary to the evangelical ones, if indeed, according to their argument, the Lord Christ is God alone.

For both these streams and those flow from one and the same Spirit.

Therefore the Lord Christ had a body, akin to other bodies, one that received the need for sleep; and the argument of a commingling has been shown to be a fable.

The prophet Isaiah spoke concerning the divine nature: 'He will not hunger, nor will He grow weary,' and what follows;

and the Evangelist also says:

being wearied from His journey, He sat thus by the well. But 'He will not grow weary' is contrary to 'being wearied';

consequently the prophecy is contrary to the narrative of the Gospels.

For both these things and those belong to one and the same God.

Therefore not growing weary belongs to the uncircumscribed nature;

but moving from place to place is proper to the circumscribed body.

And that which moves about, being compelled to walk, undergoes the weariness that comes from travelling.

Therefore it was a body that walked and grew weary.

For the union did not commingle the natures.

The Lord Christ said to the divinely inspired Paul when he was imprisoned:

'Do not be afraid, Paul,' and what follows.

But He who drove out this man's fear was Himself so afraid of the passion that, as the blessed Luke said, He even sweated bloody clots of sweat from His whole body, and with these He sprinkled the ground that lay beneath His body, and He was strengthened by angelic aid.

For how is being afraid not contrary to driving out fear? And yet they are not contrary.

For the same One is both God by nature and man;

and as God He encourages those who need courage;

but as man He receives courage through an angel.

And this, although the Godhead and the Spirit were present with Him as an anointing;

yet neither the conjoined Godhead nor the all-holy Spirit at that time upheld the body and strengthened the soul, but they entrusted this service to an angel, so that they might display the weakness of both the soul and the body, and through this weakness might show forth the natures of the things that were weak.

And these things evidently happened with the consent of the divine nature, so that of those who should come afterwards, those who believe in the assumption of the soul and the body might be confirmed by the demonstrations, while those who gainsay it might be refuted by the clear testimonies.

If, then, the union is joined to the conception, and if the union, according to their argument, made both natures into one nature, how could the properties of the natures have remained unimpaired—so that the soul was in anguish, while the body sweated to the point of producing bloody clots from the excess of fear? But if the one belongs to the body and the other to the soul, then it is not the case that one nature of flesh and of Godhead came into being from the union; rather, one Son appeared, displaying in Himself both the divine things and the human things.

But if they should say that after the resurrection the body received the change into Godhead, it is fitting to reply thus.

Indeed, after the resurrection He was seen as circumscribed, having hands and feet and the other members of the body;

and He was tangible and visible, and He had the piercings and the scars which He had before the resurrection.

But the divine nature is simple and uncompounded, whereas the body is compounded and divided into many members;

therefore it was not changed into the nature of Godhead, but even after the resurrection it is immortal and incorruptible, and full of divine glory, yet is nevertheless a body having its own circumscription.

When the apostles disbelieved, the Lord after the resurrection showed them His hands and His feet, and the marks of the nails.

Then, teaching them that what was seen was no phantasm, He added, 'A spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see Me having.' Therefore the body was not changed into spirit;

for it was flesh and bones, and hands and feet.

Consequently, even after the resurrection the body remained a body.

And the thrice-blessed Stephen said that he saw the Lord.

Therefore the body of the Lord is a body even after the ascension.

For this is what the victorious Stephen beheld, since the divine nature is invisible.

If all the nature of men shall see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven, according to the word of the Lord Himself;

'No one shall see My face and live'—and both are true—then He will come with the body, with which He also ascended into the heavens.

And the angels also said this to the apostles:

'This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw Him going into heaven.' And if this is true—as indeed it is true—then there is not one nature of flesh and of Godhead.

We have been taught, both from the divine Scripture and from the holy Fathers who were assembled at Nicaea, to confess the Son to be consubstantial with God the Father;

and both nature teaches and the divine Scripture proclaims the impassibility of the Father.

Therefore we shall confess the Son also to be impassible.

For the identity of essence teaches this definition.

Whenever, then, we hear the divine Scripture proclaiming the cross and the death of the Lord Christ, let us say that the suffering belongs to the flesh.

For in no manner can the Godhead, which is by nature impassible, suffer.

'All that the Father has is Mine,' the Lord Christ said;

and surely impassibility is one of all these things.

If, then, He is impassible as God, He suffered as man;

for the divine nature does not admit of suffering.

'And the bread which I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.' And again:

'I am the good shepherd, and I know My own, and I am known by My own, and I lay down My life for the sheep.' Therefore the good shepherd gave both body and soul for the sheep who have body and soul.

The nature of men is composed of body and soul.

But this nature had sinned, and needed a sacrifice free from every blemish.

Therefore the Creator, having taken body and soul, and having kept them untouched by the stains of sin, gave His body for the bodies, and His soul for the souls.

And if these things are true—and they are true, for the words belong to Truth itself—then those who attach the suffering to the divine nature are at once talking nonsense and blaspheming.

The blessed Paul called the Lord Christ the firstborn from the dead:

But the firstborn surely has the same nature as those of whom he is called firstborn.

Therefore it is as man that he is the firstborn from the dead.

For he was the first to loose the pangs of death, and he gave to all the sweet hope of coming back to life.

But in that nature in which he rose, in that same nature he also suffered.

Therefore it was as man that he suffered, but as the wondrous God he remained impassible.

The divine Apostle named the Saviour Christ the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep;

and the firstfruits have a kinship with the whole of that of which they are firstfruits.

It is not, therefore, in respect of his being God that he is called firstfruits.

For what kinship is there between Godhead and manhood? For the one nature is immortal, the other mortal.

But such is the nature of those who have fallen asleep, of whom Christ was called the firstfruits.

To this nature, then, belong both the death and the resurrection.

For in the resurrection of this nature we have the pledge of the common resurrection.

For this indeed was shown even to those who did not believe.

But that which rose was also that which was buried;

and that which was buried was also that which had died;

and that which had died was surely also that which was nailed to the cross.

Therefore the divine nature remained impassible, even while joined to the body.

By calling the life itself flesh, they contrive by their argument to make it mortal.

But they ought to have perceived that, on account of the life united to it, it too is life-giving.

But if, according to their own argument, the life is mortal, how could the flesh — which is by nature mortal but becomes life-giving on account of the life — remain life-giving?

God the Word is by nature immortal, but the flesh is by nature mortal.

But it too, after the Passion, became immortal through its participation in the Word.

How then is it not monstrous to say that the giver of such immortality has partaken of death?

Let those who insist that God the Word suffered in the flesh be asked the meaning of the saying;

and if they should dare to say that, when the body was nailed, the divine nature endured the pain, let them learn that the divine nature did not supply the office of a soul.

For God the Word had assumed a soul along with the body.

But if they turn away from this argument as blasphemous, and say that the flesh suffered by nature, while God the Word made the suffering his own as of his own flesh, let them not put forward riddling and murky words, but state plainly the meaning of the ill-sounding phrase.

For of this interpretation they will have as fellow-voters those who choose to follow the divine Scripture.

The divine Peter, in his catholic Epistle, said that Christ suffered in the flesh.

But he who hears the word 'Christ' does not conceive of God the Word as bodiless, but as made flesh.

The name of Christ, therefore, signifies both natures;

but the addition of 'in the flesh' together with the suffering signifies not both, but one of the two, as having suffered.

For he who hears that Christ suffered in the flesh again conceives of him as impassible in that he is God, and assigns the suffering to the flesh alone.

As he was being crucified, Christ the Master said:

'Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.' Now this spirit the followers of Arius and Eunomius say is the Godhead of the Only-begotten;

for they suppose that the body was assumed without a soul.

But the heralds of the truth say that the soul was thus named, having understood this from the words that follow.

For immediately the all-wise evangelist added:

'And having said this, he breathed out his last.' Thus, then, did Luke record it;

and the blessed Mark likewise set down 'he breathed out his last';

but the most divine Matthew wrote that 'he gave up the spirit', and the inspired John that 'he delivered up the spirit'. Yet they all spoke according to human custom.

For we are accustomed to say of those who die 'he breathed out', and 'he gave up', and 'he delivered up the spirit'.

Consequently, none of these expressions has any indication of Godhead, but they are declarative of the soul.

But even if someone should accept the Arian sense of the saying, none the less will he thus also demonstrate the immortality of the divine nature.

For he committed it to the Father; he did not consign it to death.

If, then, those who deny the assumption of the soul, and say that God the Word is a created thing, and teach as doctrine that he came to be in the body in place of a soul, nevertheless say that he was not given over to death but committed to the Father — what pardon could they obtain who confess one substance of the Trinity, and leave the soul in its own immortality, yet dare unrestrainedly to say that God the Word, who is consubstantial with the Father, tasted death?

If Christ is both God and man, as the divine Scripture also teaches, and as the all-praiseworthy Fathers continually proclaimed, then it was as man that he suffered, but as God he remained impassible.

before the resurrection, and proclaim the nature of the Godhead to be impassible, why on earth do they leave aside the passible nature and attach the suffering to the impassible one?

If the Saviour and Lord nailed to the cross the bond that was against us, according to the divine Apostle, then it was the body that he nailed.

For in the body every man, as though writing certain letters, fixes fast the stains of his sins.

For this reason, on behalf of those who had sinned, he delivered up the body that was free of all sin.

When we say that the body, or the flesh, or the manhood suffered, we do not separate the divine nature.

For just as it was united to the flesh when it hungered, thirsted, and grew weary, and moreover slept, and when it endured the agony of suffering — undergoing none of these things itself, but permitting the flesh to receive the affections of its nature — so also was it joined to it when it was crucified, and it permitted the suffering to be brought to completion, in order that by the suffering it might undo death; not receiving pain from the suffering, but making the suffering its own, as of its own temple and of a flesh united to it, on account of which those who have believed are called members of Christ, and he is named the head of those who have believed.

Unchangeable, unconfused, impassible he remains — the Word coeternal with God the Father — even though he took flesh in the last of times.

As Theodoret writes here: 'Having received God-given grace from on high.'

As with a three-edged sword whetted sharp, you who are impious, be smitten, slain, and fall before me by these three arguments — as many of you as are not afraid wickedly to attach to the Word change, confusion, and even suffering. And let the three-fold cord, as Solomon somewhere writes, be for us like a threefold, unbreakable noose: let the Trinity of these wise arguments be such.