約翰福音註釋 第 1 章 第 2/94 段

Having now sufficiently shown to be stale and fallen away from the truth the ignorant mind of those who hold those opinions, and having, by saying 'In the beginning was the Word,' shut off every entrance for those who say that the Son is from things not being, and having sharply cut away all their empty talk in these matters, he comes to another heresy, a neighbouring and most perverse one.

And just as if some best and most enduring husbandman should delight in the labours over his mattock, and, girded about the loins, and clad as much as possible in the garb befitting him and suited to rustic toil, should make every effort to render the aspect of the garden free from the unpleasantness of thorns, and does not cease overturning one thing after another, and going round and round ever heaves up the grievous stump, setting the hard tooth of the mattock beneath it;

so also the blessed John, bearing in his mind the living and effectual and most sharp Word of God, most keen-sightedly and most intelligently surveying all around the bitter shoots of the wickedness of those who hold heterodox opinions, all but runs upon them at a rush, and swiftly cuts them off from every side, procuring for those who shall meet with the writings that come from him that they may be kept in the right faith.

For behold again the sobriety of the Spirit-bearer.

He taught in what preceded that the Word was in the beginning—that is, in God and the Father, just as we have said;

but since, having the eye of his mind enlightened, he was not ignorant—as was likely—that some would rise up out of much ignorance, saying that the Father and the Son are one and the same, and distinguishing the Holy Trinity by names only, but not conceding it to exist in individual hypostases, so that the Father may indeed be conceived as truly Father and not Son, and the Son again may exist properly as Son and not Father, just as the account of the truth also holds;

of necessity he arms himself also against this heresy, as one already at hand, stirred up at that very season, or even destined to be at some time; and indeed, for its overthrow, he straightway sets alongside the 'In the beginning was the Word' the words 'And the Word was with God.'

everywhere of necessity bringing in the 'was' because of his pre-eternal begetting; but by saying that the Word was with God, showing the Son to be some one thing and subsisting by himself in his own right, and again the God and Father to be another, with whom the Word was;

for how at all could the one in number be conceived to exist in relation to itself, that is, alongside itself? And that the account of these matters will be found to be an ignorant one among the heretics, we shall teach through the contemplation in what follows, having made an exact examination of the things inquired into.

in hypostasis is the Son likewise also, the Holy Spirit being of course confessed together as God, even if for the present nothing be examined concerning him.

Of one substance, then, is the Son with the Father, and the Father with the Son; wherefore also they ascend into an unvarying likeness, so that the Father is seen in the Son, and the Son in the Father, and the one flashes forth in the other, just as the Saviour also somewhere says: He that hath seen me hath seen my Father, and again: I am in the Father and the Father in me. But even if he is in the Father, he has again in himself the Father;

he himself being nobly formed, as has already been said before, unto the exact form of the one who begat him, and again, unalterably, out of the very things which he himself is, portraying within himself the one who begat him.

Not on this account will He suffer any loss with respect to His existing in His own right, nor again will the Father lose His subsisting by Himself.

But neither will the exceedingly great resemblance and likeness produce any confounding of the hypostases, so that the Father who begets and the Son begotten from Him should be thought of as one in number.

Rather, the identity of nature will be confessed in both, while the fact that each subsists in His own right follows altogether of necessity;

so that the Father may truly be understood as Father, and the Son as Son.

For when the Holy Spirit is thus numbered together and confessed as God together with them, the holy and adored Trinity will possess its proper fullness.

{Another.} If the Son is Himself also the Father, what meaning has the distinction of the names? For if He did not beget at all, why is He called Father? And how could He be Son at all, if He was not begotten of a Father? For the names themselves demand, as of necessity, such a way of regarding them in relation to one another.

But since the divine Scriptures proclaim that the Son was begotten, and the account of the truth is thus, He therefore also subsists in His own right.

And again the Father too exists in His own distinct way, if indeed the one is seen to be from the other—the begotten in relation to the begetter.

{Another.} The blessed Paul, writing to the Philippians concerning the Son, says: 'Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.' Who then is He who did not wish to count it robbery to be equal with God? For is it not necessary to say that one is He who is in the form of God, and another again is He whose form it was? But it is clear to all and confessed.

Therefore the Father and the Son are not one and the same in number, but are each of proper subsistence and are contemplated in one another according to the identity of essence—even though the one is from the one, the Son, that is, from the Father.

{Another.} 'I and the Father are one,' the Saviour declared;

as knowing plainly that both He Himself and the Father subsist each in His own right.

But if the truth of the matter were not thus, why did He not, preserving what befits the singular, say 'I and the Father am one'? Since, however, He unfolds the meaning into a plural number, He would clearly, then, be overturning the surmise of the heterodox;

for the word 'are' could not intelligently be applied to a single one.

{Another.} At the fashioning of man the voice of God is recorded, saying: 'Let us make man according to our image and according to our likeness.' If, then, the breadth of the holy Trinity, so to speak, is contracted into some single thing in number, and impiously they do away with the Father and Son subsisting each in Himself,

who is the one speaking, and to whom, when He says 'Let us make man according to our image'? For surely He ought to have said, if it were so, just as those triflers assert: 'Let us make man according to my image and according to my likeness.'

But now, not having said this, but having given the making in the plural number, and having added 'according to our image,' the author of the book all but cries aloud with a bright and mighty voice the enumeration of the holy Trinity beyond a singular unit.

{Another.} If the Son is an effulgence of the Father, as light from light,

how is He not other than Him, as of proper subsistence? For that which is at all shone forth will, of course, undergo this as by another—by that which shines it forth—and not itself from itself.

{Another.} Showing Himself to be of the essence of God the Father, the Son says again somewhere: 'I came forth from the Father and am come.'

As to subsistence and number, since every reasoning persuades us to understand that which has come forth from something to be other than that from which it has proceeded, is it not so? Therefore the argument of our opponents is not true.

{Another.} We are justified by believing in God the Father, and in the only-begotten Son, and in the Holy Spirit;

for which reason the Saviour Himself also enjoins His own disciples, saying: 'Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.' If, then, the difference of the names contributes nothing at all to our understanding, and one who says 'Father' signifies the Son, and one who names the Son makes mention of the Father, what need was there to command those who believe to be baptized not rather into a unity, but into a Trinity? Since, however, the account concerning the divine nature runs out to the number three, it is surely evident to all that each of those numbered is in his own proper hypostasis;

but by not being in any way differentiated according to nature, they ascend into one Godhead and have one and the same adoration.

{Another.} The divine Scripture says that the cities of the Sodomites were burned up out of the wrath of God;

and explaining how the divine indignation was brought upon them, and clearly teaching the manner of their destruction, it says: 'The Lord rained from the Lord upon Sodom fire and brimstone'—since this too was a most fitting portion of the cup for those accustomed to commit such offences.

What Lord, then, sent forth the fire from what Lord, and consumed the cities of the Sodomites? But it is clear that the Father, working all things through the Son—since He is also His power and His arm—caused Him to rain the fire upon the Sodomites.

When, therefore, a Lord sends forth the fire from a Lord upon them, how is the Father not other than the Son—as regards subsisting in His own right—and again the Son other than the Father? For herein is signified the one as from the one.

{Another.} Moved by the prophetic Spirit, and through Him foreknowing things to come, the blessed psalmist perceived that the human race could not otherwise be saved except through the sole manifestation of the Son of God, who is strong to transform all things easily to whatever He may wish;

for which reason he besought that the Son be sent to us, inasmuch as He alone is strong to save those who had come under the hand and covetous grasp of the devil;

and indeed he said, as to God the Father: 'Send forth Thy light and Thy truth.' What, then, is the light, and what the truth? Hear the Son Himself saying: 'I am the light,' and 'I am the truth.'

But if the light and the truth of the Father—that is, the Son—is sent to us, how is He not other than Him as regards subsisting in His own right, even though He is one with Him as regards the identity of essence? For if some suppose that it is not so, but that the Father and the Son are the same and one, why did the Spirit-bearer not frame the manner of his prayer otherwise, crying: 'Come to us, O light and truth'? But since he says 'Send forth,' he would then be clearly one who knows that one is He who sends and another He who is sent;

and let the manner of the sending be understood in a way befitting God.

But it is clear that he persuades us to understand one as He who makes and works, and another as He through whom all things are wrought.

But I think our opponent will be utterly at a loss.

And since that the Father wrought all things through the Son, the divine Scriptures themselves proclaim, and we believe it—indeed I think that they too do—

and He subsists in His own right, and likewise the Son again, this not overturning the fact that the holy Trinity is seen in identity of essence? CHAPTER III.

That the Son is also God by nature, and in no way whatever either less than or unlike the Father.

Something of the sort do those do who settle the Jewish impiety of Arius into their own mind, wherefore also they bring forth from a dead heart not the life-giving word of pious contemplation, but whatever looks and gazes toward death;

'Their tongue is truly a piercing dart, deceitful are the words of their mouth.' As, therefore, if someone were already contending against words of truth and all but saying to the holy Evangelist: 'Let the Word have been, sir, with God, and let it stand thus—we are persuaded by your writings concerning this;'

and let there be and subsist a Father in His own right, and a Son likewise again;

what then ought one to think the Word to be according to nature? For being 'with God' does not altogether contain the disclosure of the essence as well.

But since the divine Scriptures proclaim one God, shall we ascribe this alone to the Father, with whom the Word was? What, then, does the herald of the truth say to this also? Not only was the Word with God, but He was also God—so that through being with God He might be recognized as other than the Father, and be believed to exist as Son in His own way and in His own right;

while through being God He may be understood as consubstantial and from Him according to nature, inasmuch as He is God and has come forth from God.

For it is impossible, since one Godhead is confessed by all, that the holy Trinity should not altogether ascend into identity of nature, and thus be referred to the one principle of the Godhead.

He did not come to be later, but rather He was, since it most certainly follows upon being God that one should also exist eternally;

for that which came to be in time, or which at all was brought over from non-being into being, could not be God by nature.

Since, therefore, God the Word has, through the 'was,' His eternity, and through being God His consubstantiality with the Father, of how great a chastisement and punishment must one think those will be found liable, who suppose Him to be in some respect less than or even unlike Him who begot Him, and who do not shudder to advance to such a pitch of impiety as already to dare to prate such things even to others—understanding neither what they say nor about whom they make their affirmations? For that the true Son who is from Him is in no respect less than the Father, we shall know again from the conceptions that are joined together.

{Another.} By many and various names do the divine Scriptures call the Son.

For they say that He is the wisdom and power of the Father, according to what is said by Paul: 'Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.' And again He is called both His light and truth, according to what is sung in the Psalms by one of the saints: 'Send forth Thy light and Thy truth.' He is called also righteousness, according to: 'In Thy righteousness make me to live'—for the Father gives life in Christ to those who believe in Him;

He is named also the counsel of the Father, according to what is said: 'By Thy counsel Thou hast guided me,' and again: 'The counsel of the Lord abideth for ever.' Since, therefore, the Son is all these things to God the Father, let those tell us who flatter the error of Arius and are filled with his madness, how He is less than Him.

For it is high time to say, if indeed it were as they hold, that the Father is not perfectly wise, not perfectly powerful, not perfectly light, not perfectly truth, not perfectly righteous, nor even perfect in counsel—if indeed, through having something less, the Son who is all these things to Him will not appear perfect.

But indeed to think or say this is impious;

the Father, because He has all things in Himself perfectly—

the Son too, then, is clearly perfect: the wisdom and the power, the light and the truth, the righteousness and the counsel of the Father.

And He who fills full the perfection in His own begetter, how could He be thought less? {Another.} If the Son, having something less as compared with God the Father, is adored both by us and by the holy angels, we shall be caught worshipping two gods, if indeed that which is not so will in no way ascend into identity of nature with that which is perfect;

and great is the difference which severs into estrangement things that are not in the same manner according to the account of nature.

But faith is not into a polytheistic number; rather, one is God, even the Father, since the Son ascends into unity with Him—and clearly also the Holy Spirit;

there is therefore no ground of accusation, then, in the Son.

For how could that which is less any longer be admitted into unity with the perfect Father, and be naturally united into identity of essence? {Another.} If the Son is a fullness—

'For of His fullness have we all received'—in what manner will He admit that which is less? For things contrary to one another are incompatible in one and the same subject at the same time.

{Another.} If the Son, having something less, fills all things, where will the greater of the Father find room? For it shall be said even in a more corporeal way, as by way of example, though the superiority and inferiority among things incorporeal is understood otherwise.

{Another.} If God is that which is above every name, and then the Son, being the heir of this, does not possess being perfect because of the 'less,' there is nothing great in that which is above all things;

but this is absurd either to think or to say;

the Son therefore is perfect, as being above every name, and is God.

{Another.} If the divine nature has no quantity, and the 'less' is known to occur among things that have quantity, how could the Son, being God by nature, be thought less? For He will not lie outside quantity, even though they say He has the 'less' as compared with the Father.

{Another.} The blessed John says concerning the Son that 'He gives the Spirit not by measure'—to those who are worthy, that is.

When, therefore, there is no measure in the Son, He is then unmeasured, and as God transcends every apprehension that is conceived in terms of quantity.

How, then, is He less who is not measured? {Another.} If the Son is less and the Father greater, they will clearly act differently and proportionately, according to the measures which each possesses, with regard to the sanctification bestowed upon us;

and the Father will sanctify to a greater degree, but the Son to a lesser and in His own right.

The Spirit too, therefore, will be twofold—lesser in the Son, but greater in the Father.

And those sanctified by the Father would be perfectly sanctified,

but those sanctified through the Son, imperfectly.

Yet there is great absurdity of reasoning in such notions.

For the Holy Spirit is one, and the sanctification is one and perfect, bestowed by nature from the Father through the Son;

the one who possesses the same operation as the perfect Father, then, is not lesser—He who has the Spirit of the Begetter as the good, living, and hypostatic property of His own nature, just as, assuredly, the Father does.

{Another.} If the Son existed in the form and equality of the Father, according to Paul's word, how is He lesser than Him? For surely the account of the dispensation in the flesh, and the humiliation spoken of on that account, will not strip the Son of the dignity that belongs to Him by nature—a humiliation that finds its resolution in the second coming from heaven.

For He shall surely come, as we have heard Him say, in the glory of His Father. How then can He who is lesser than Him be at all in the glory of the perfect Father? {Another.} God and Father is found somewhere saying through one of the prophets, 'My glory I will not give to another.' One must therefore ask those who impiously dishonor the Son—and rather, through Him, the Father also—

for he who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father either;

whether, as they themselves have supposed, the Son, being lesser than God the Father, is consubstantial with Him, or not? If, then, they say He is consubstantial, why do they vainly impute the 'lesser' to Him? For things of the same substance and nature could in no way possess a 'greater' one over another, at least in respect of the manner of their being;

and this is precisely the point at issue.

...they rank the Son over against the Father, as lesser in their view;

therefore He would be altogether other and alien from the Father.

But He who stands in the same relation to the Father in respect of the account of nature—how then could He still be lesser than Him? {But simple and disconnected statements.} If the Father is Almighty, and the Son is likewise Almighty, how is He lesser than Him? For surely, by any consistent reasoning, that which is not perfect will not rise up to the measure of the perfect.

And if the Father is Lord, and the Son is likewise Lord, how is He lesser than Him? For He would not be perfectly free, if He is lesser in lordship and does not possess the dignity in its fullness within Himself.

And if the Father is light, and the Son is likewise light, how is He lesser than Him? For He would not be perfectly light, but would be partly overtaken by the darkness, and the Evangelist would lie in saying, 'The darkness did not overcome it.' And if the Father is life, and the Son is likewise life, how is He lesser than Him? For life would not be perfectly in us, even if Christ should dwell in the inner man;

and those who have believed would somehow be in part dead, if the Son who has the 'lesser' is not perfectly life.

But since the absurdity in such notions must be put as far away as possible, we affirm that the Son is perfect, made equal to the perfect Father through the invariability of the substance.

{Another.} If the Son is lesser than the Father, and for this reason not consubstantial,

then He is other in nature and altogether alien.

Consequently He is not a Son, nor indeed God at all.

For how could He be called Son who is not from the Father, or how still God, who is not from God by nature? And since our faith is in the Son, we should still, in all likelihood, be going astray, not having come to know the true God.

But in believing in the Son, we believe also in the Father, and, that is to say, in the Holy Spirit as well.

The Son, then, is not alien to God the Father as being lesser, but is one with Him, because He is 'from Him' by nature, and therefore equal and perfect.

{Another.} If the God-Word who shone forth from God the Father is truly Son, then it is altogether necessary—even unwillingly—that our opponents confess that He exists from the substance of the Father.

For this is what true sonship signifies.

How then is such a One lesser than the Father, if He is the fruit of a substance that in no way admits 'lesser' in itself? For all things are perfectly in God.

But if He is not from the substance of the Father, then He is not a Son either;

but rather some kind of spurious and falsely named one.

But then neither would the Father Himself be justly and truly called Father;

for if there is no Son by nature, on account of whom He is a father, how could He be conceived as a father? But this is absurd.

But God is a true Father;

for this indeed all the divine Scriptures proclaim aloud;

therefore He who is from Him by nature is assuredly a Son;

and if this is so, He is not lesser.

{Another.} God does not properly derive the name of family, or fatherhood, from us; rather it is we who are seen to have received it from Him.

And Paul's word is trustworthy when he cries thus: 'From whom every family in heaven and on earth is named.' Since God is the most ancient of all, we are evidently fathers by imitation, we who have been called to His fashion through being made according to His image.

Then tell me, how is it that we, who have come into being according to His likeness, are by nature fathers of our own children, unless this belongs to the archetypal image after which we too have been fashioned? And how could anyone at all grant that the name of family, or fatherhood, has passed over to others from God, if He is really not a father? For if things were so, the nature of the matter would appear completely inverted, and it would rather be we who granted to Him, by His likeness to us, that He be called Father, than He to us.

For this the argument will compel even the reluctant heretic to concede.

[Paul is] witness, saying that every family in heaven and on earth is from Him.

But to say this would be among the most absurd of things;

for he speaks truly who boldly said, 'Since you seek proof of the Christ who speaks in me?'—and so the name of family flows down from God even to us.

Therefore He is by nature the Father of the Word;

and He has certainly begotten One not unlike Himself, as though by possessing the 'lesser,' or in those very things in which He Himself exists;

for we who have come into being in imitation of Him do not thus beget the things born of ourselves, but they are altogether equal, at least in respect of the account of nature.

{Another.} Let not the heretic, cunning in arguments, sophistically explain away the truth, nor, while confessing the Word of God to be Son, grant Him a bare honor consisting in words alone, saying that He is not from the substance of the Father.

For how could He be Son at all, if He is not so by nature? Either, then, let them strip off the mask of their hypocrisy and blaspheme openly, confessing Him neither God nor Son;

or if, being refuted by all divine Scripture and pelted by the words of the saints, they are put to shame before the truth and say that He is both Son and God, let them not think that He is lesser than the One who begot Him.

For how could the Word, being God, at all admit the 'lesser' in relation to the Father and God? Indeed, even a man is called, and is, the son of a man, yet he will not be lesser than his father at least in respect of being a man;

for a man, as man, could not be greater or lesser than a man, nor perhaps could an angel, as angel, be so to an angel, nor any other of existing things to anything whatever of the same kind, which has been allotted the account of the same substance.

Therefore if He is truly Son, one must say that He is from the substance of the Father, bearing in Himself by nature all its distinctive properties;

and if the Father is God by nature, then evidently the Word begotten from that substance is also God by nature.

How then will God be lesser than God, in this very respect of being God? {Another.} Whence, O you people, do you presume to say that the Son is placed among things lesser than those in which the One who begot Him exists? In what manner will He admit the 'lesser'? Now in respect of the time of His being, no one, I think, even raving greatly, would suppose it;

for the Son is before the ages, and He Himself is the Maker of the ages; and it may reasonably be understood that what has a begetting more ancient than all time could not at all be circumscribed by time.

Nor is He lesser than Him in any quantity of magnitude;

for the divine nature is conceived, and is, without magnitude, without quantity, and incorporeal.

How then will the 'lesser' be shown in the Begotten? Perhaps someone will say: in glory, in power, in wisdom.

Let them tell us, then, how great and how vast the Father is in these things, if indeed one must even say this;

so that the Son might then be understood as lesser, being measured against Him.

Or if the Father exists in incomprehensible and immeasurable good things, and the measure of them far outruns our understanding, whence do the Arians—ready to dare anything—call the Son lesser, to the overthrow of the dignity that belongs to Him by nature? For the 'lesser' is proved by comparison with the 'greater'; but if the worth of the Father is not measured out, what demonstration of any deficiency is there in the Son? {Another.} Concerning the vileness of the unholy heretics, one may truly say, speaking the truth: 'But our enemies are without understanding.' For how could they not be full of all ignorance, knowing neither what they say nor concerning what they make assertions, as Paul says? And the reason for which we think we must reprove them is this:

If they say that the Son has truly been begotten as God from God the Father, and so believe, how is He lesser than the Father? For from this a great absurdity of reasonings would be brought forth, blasphemous in every way, and such as one would refuse even merely to hear.

For if the Son, being God by nature at all, admits in any respect the 'lesser' in Himself, it then becomes necessary to conceive that there is something greater than God.

Consequently the substance of the Father would not be conceived as being in perfection in respect of anything whatever, even though He be God by nature;

...seeing that He too belongs to a substance that admits the 'lesser.'

And He would bear it potentially, even if He has not yet borne it;

since things that are receptive of something will assuredly also receive that of which they are receptive, and when the occasion calls them to undergo it, they will not decline.

But great blasphemy appears in such notions.

For neither will the Father advance anywhere toward the 'greater,' nor will He admit the 'lesser,' because He is God by nature.

Therefore neither will the Son admit the 'lesser' upon Himself, being Himself also God by nature, lest that little word, devised out of the ignorance of the heretics, be conceived as a predicate of the substance that is highest of all.