論聖三一對話錄 第 1 章 第 11/23 段

'Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits — him who forgives all your iniquities, who heals all your diseases, who redeems your life from corruption.' But if we should act in that way [attributing salvation to a mere creature], we would without question be cast out of the soundest mind, and we would offend God;

whereas by kindling, instead, our doxologies to him for this, we shall be wise and true worshippers.

How then is the One who alone is of equal worth to all things still a made thing along with us — he who is God from God and truly Son? Is it not so? {B.} How could it not be? {A.} Come then, if you agree, let us add this further point to what has been said, and say that relative terms are signified through both members together, each contributing knowledge of the other.

So that, more easily, if one should learn what 'right' is, he would certainly also, through it, know what 'left' is; and indeed that the converse is likewise true, everyone whatsoever would agree.

'Father,' then, is a name among relative terms, and in the same manner so is 'Son.'

Toward what, then, and with an eye to what, shall these names make their reference, and their mutual relation, and could the reasoning appropriate to them possibly go any other way? {B.} And to whom is this not obvious? For 'father' is understood and spoken of in relation to 'son,' and likewise 'son' in relation to 'father.'

{A.} Then what could those perverted and deranged in mind possibly be thinking, when they call God 'Father' to us, yet insist that the Son is a made thing? Or is it not utterly ignorant and thoroughly unfitting to say that the thing made is coupled with 'Father,' and 'Father,' in turn, is joined to the thing that is made, according to the very logic of relative terms? {B.} Utterly so — lest we also end up calling the Father himself a made thing, since he would then have already acquired, as far as reasoning goes, a natural relation toward the things that are made.

{A.} Well then, listen also to Christ himself crying out:

'You know neither me, nor my Father;'

'if you knew me, you would know my Father also.' And when asked the reason for this rebuke, he will answer, saying:

'He who denies the Father, denies the Son also;'

'and he who denies the Son does not have the Father either.' And this quite reasonably and truly so.

For if he is not Father — in that he has begotten by nature — no one could grant that the Son subsists either.

For he is Son, because he has been begotten;

and if he is not Son inasmuch as he has been begotten, then neither would he be Father, according to the reasoning that is fitting and consistent with such conceptions.

Therefore it is true that each subsists together with the other, and is abolished together with the other; and once one of the two subsists, then certainly the other, too, on account of which the first is called and is what it is, will altogether subsist as well.

What then would they choose to think, if they should learn what Christ said to the disobedient and unruly people of the Jews:

'I have come in the name of my Father, and you do not receive me'? And yet Christ never once named himself Father, but rather Son, and from the Father.

How then does he say that he has come to us in the name of the Father? Or is it evident that 'in the name' must be understood as 'in the glory' and 'in the good repute' of the Father? For divine Scripture sometimes calls 'name' that far-resounding praise and that conspicuous honor amid glories, just as, indeed, what is celebrated in the Book of Proverbs:

'A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches.' Has, then, the Savior's word fallen short of being wise and true, in saying that he has come to us in the name of the Father, as he openly declared? {B.} And indeed it is sound to say that truth could not err from what is true.

{A.} If, then, this saying is true, either God the Father must be brought down among created things, lest he appear to surpass the Son in glory, or else the Son must now, in some sense, be raised up to the dignity befitting God and to that nature of sonship which is understood in respect of essence.

For he would in no way at all, on that account, fall short of God the Father, were he seen to be so;

and our wise John will confirm this, joining in, saying:

'He who comes from above is above all.' And that 'from above' signifies the nature which is on high and most exalted, the Savior's disciple will show, saying:

'Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights.' The Son, then, comes to us from the Father as from a fountain, having sprung forth from the root that is most high, and he shows forth in himself the brightness of that from which he sprang, having obtained the [prerogative] of being above all — just as, indeed, the Father also [is].

By 'above all,' in this instance especially, we mean not merely that he surpasses creation in glory alone, nor by preeminence in reputation, but that, by the supreme excellence of his essence, he rises above and transcends all things together with the Father who begot him.

But if he is above all, how could he be conceived as among all? For if he is truly a creature, he will be classed together with the other creatures.

How then is he other than all things, and above all things, unless he differs in nature from being reckoned among all things? Or, in honoring the incorporeal nature of the Son with mere spatial heights, shall we not simply be babbling at random? {B.} What do you mean? {A.} Do you wish us to say that 'from above' is meant as 'from a place,' conceived in contrast to 'below,' and measurable by intervals of distance? {B.} Then what shall we make of the Son, if he is in such a place? For that is proper to bodies.

{A.} Then we say best that 'from above' is to be understood as 'from the Father.'

Accordingly, he is known by the Father alone, and he alone knows his own Father and God.

For it is a thing hidden from view, and known by none among beings, whatever it truly is in itself — that nature which is highest of all.

For that he subsists, and is God, we believe;

but to inquire what he is according to nature is unbecoming, since it is not even attainable.

For the nature of God is beyond every mind.

How then, if he is created and generated, could he alone know the Father, and, in turn, be known only by the Father alone? And yet, while to know the nature of God is altogether unattainable for any created being, to fully comprehend what any of the things called into existence actually is would not exceed every mind — even if it were, in some measure, removed from our own [range of understanding].

Therefore, if he alone has known the Father, and, in turn, is known only by the Father, he has reasonably escaped being reckoned and classed among the things that have been made.

For only the highest and ineffable nature knows itself, and this matter is altogether untrodden ground for those brought forth into being.

{B.} Untrodden indeed, and inaccessible, since God is set far beyond every mind.

{A.} How, then, could the Son at all be said by us to have been created, when the most wise Paul cries out thus:

'...they are under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father;'

'so also we, when we were children, were enslaved under the elemental things of the world;'

'but when the fullness of time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem those under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.' Therefore, while we were still afflicted with ignorance, and held liable under the charges of our former childhood, we were carried along under the elemental things of the world, having served creation as slaves — although it was fitting to kindle reverence for him alone who truly is God by nature.

But since the Son shone upon us, then indeed — then, having been shown to be better and more advanced than the mind of childhood, and having passed on into the light of truth — we have, as I think, been set free, and I know you too would agree, from being yoked to the elements of the world.

For this is what the sacred word has just now signified to us — a word which those who care for uprightness would, I suppose, call both wise and true;

'for it speaks mysteries in Christ.'

A: Well then, Hermias, if we say that everything has been called into existence by the nods of its Maker, must it not be numbered among the elements of the world, or will it also be classed as a part of the world along with the whole? B: Very much so.

A: But have we been redeemed unto perfection of mind and reached the fullness of understanding, only to falsely feign a willingness to be subject again to the elements of the world? B: So I say.

A: Have we then received the faith in the Son as truly [faith] in the Son, or how is it? B: Thus it is.

A: Then the Only-Begotten would have to be unbegotten, so that he should not appear, along with the other elements, to be numbered and reckoned among created things, while we remain infants still bereft of the boasts belonging to perfection of mind, and rather deceived by vain reasonings than truly enriched with a firm hope and knowledge — clearly, the knowledge concerning the Son.

For what benefit at all would the Only-Begotten be to us, though he became man for our sake, if we have not been redeemed from serving the creation? And having received faith in him as in the Son, tell me, have we not been deceived? B: It seems so, if indeed he is created.

A: And what then — is not the instruction through Moses far better than that through Christ, if faith is truly directed to one of the created things? I should say that the saints speak in vain, always casting aside the more ancient commandment behind the evangelical decrees.

How then has the law perfected nothing, yet 'the righteous shall live by faith'? And yet the faith in the Son destroys those who have received it, while the law benefited the more ancient people — if we should accept the words of those who are perverted.

A: Most unhesitatingly indeed, and very readily.

But grant that this is what I wished to say.

B: What sort of things do you mean? A: For to the more ancient people the law, through the all-wise Moses, gave oracular decree:

'The Lord your God is one Lord.' And besides these things:

'You shall not make for yourself an idol, nor a likeness of anything, of whatever is in heaven above or whatever is on earth below.' And leading [us] further still toward what is better, and indeed separating [us] from the very elements of the world:

'Take heed to yourself,' it says, 'lest, looking up to heaven and seeing the sun and the moon and the stars and all the host of heaven, you be led astray and worship them.' Therefore the law called [people] to the one who is truly and by nature God, removing them entirely from what is treacherous and worse:

for it in no way sanctioned the necessity of worshiping the creation instead of the Creator, and indeed it made those who were called more secure in being firmly established in this very matter, attaching, as a penalty for those who would be negligent, the penalty reaching even unto blood;

but to what point our own affairs have advanced, come, let us now say.

The law has passed away, being charged as pertaining to shadows and types, while the light of truth has shone forth, since we have received faith in the Son — although, according to them, he is created and made.

More absurd still: for those who had not yet been enriched with the light of truth knew the one who is truly and by nature God;

but we, the exceptional ones — though we boasted of having obtained the truth not granted to those before us — have through it been led astray, and remain darkened rather than illumined by the divine light, wretches that we are!

A: And if you should also learn that other thing, you would, I think, marvel even more greatly.

B: What thing? A: The law has become for us a tutor unto Christ. For you have surely inquired at some point concerning the blessed Paul, who wrote thus.

A: We must therefore examine to what end, and in what way, the law was a child-attendant for us, referring us to Christ — that is, to the word and knowledge concerning Christ.

Was it toward something better and surpassing the knowledge inherent in it, yet still buried in the types — or rather toward something more shameful and lower? B: Toward something better and more radiant.

For every wise and sound-minded man, I think, would agree and would say that the matter stands thus.

Therefore, if the law, our tutor — though it proclaimed the one God who is by nature God — does not convey us to the mystery concerning Christ as to a more shameful knowledge, then the Son must rather be not created, lest the law be seen to have wronged us, nor moreover, by setting the knowledge of a creature as more excellent than the knowledge of God, be found a snare and diabolical trap — although it was spoken through angels and given to us for help.

'For he gave the law for help,' one of the saints said.

And if Christ is the fullness of the law and the prophets, how could the word of the God-inspired Scripture remain venerable? For it ends up leading the whole body of knowledge astray, its conclusion, as it were, enclosing us within a created and not uncreated nature.

But I think the opponent would say something like this: what would the name 'firstborn' wish to signify? A: That such-and-such a one holds precedence among brothers, and has obtained, perhaps, an existence through birth more senior than others.

B: Then how, they say, has the Son been named 'firstborn of all creation' unless he has creation as a sister, as it were, being of the same kind and the same nature? A: Then, it seems, the name 'Son' will henceforth appear utterly vain and useless as applied to him, the begetting a deception, and the word concerning the Father that has come to us an idle rumor.

For God has been called Father of the Son only in a figurative sense; thus also concerning the sons of Israel it says, 'I have begotten and raised up sons.'

A: Is then the Only-Begotten adopted into sonship together with us, and is the begetting merely a figure of speech, while the truth concerning him is that he was made? B: So they say.

A: And yet why, having abandoned as unprofitable the eagerness to discern the truth itself, do they all but utter that prophetic saying:

'We have made falsehood our hope, and we shall be sheltered by the lie'? For it was necessary, I think, before all else, to learn thoroughly when and under what circumstances the Word came to be called 'firstborn,' and thus at last to press on to set the heart upright, in uprightness of thought, toward the most fitting understanding of the mysteries.

For the times, and indeed the distinctions of persons, would show us, very easily, the unerring, incorrupt, and straightforwardly-arrived-at sense of the sacred Scriptures:

or if what I say is not true, and one need not examine the times and seasons in which the Word of God was still without flesh, and then with flesh, let this terrify no one, even if the things concerning him should perhaps be spoken indiscriminately, and let Scripture be free from any charge of blasphemy;

and even if someone should think that the Word from the Father — though he is Life by nature — truly died, let him seek applause from us, and praise for his truthfulness;

then indeed the one who says that he died in the flesh will also be speaking idle nonsense.

For everything concerning him has already, in a way, appeared undifferentiated.

B: This would be correct, if it were understood in this way; yet the matter is not free of blame, nor even of indictment.

— whether Christ himself also would be numbered among those bringing in [the tax] and be assessed the tribute, or whether he refuses the payment — the divinely-inspired disciple straightway rushed in, deeming it right to learn fully in this matter what they wished to do;

but Jesus, anticipating him, asked:

'The kings of the earth, from whom do they receive tolls or tribute? From their own sons, or from strangers?' And when Peter said:

'From strangers,' he said, adding:

'Then the sons are free.'

'But so that we do not cause them to stumble, go to the sea, cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you have opened its mouth, you will find a stater;'

'take that and give it to them for me and for you.' Do you perceive, then, that he has attested freedom as belonging to his own nature? And this would be freedom above creation:

for that which has been brought into being is a servant of its Maker.

'For all things are your servants.' Therefore the Son does not exist for us within measures befitting a servant, nor among those under the yoke, but within the divine and supreme nature, one that transcends created things.

A: Shall we then, Hermias, subject to the yokes of servitude the one thus adorned with so venerable a dignity, even though he is said to have descended into the form of a servant? And yet how is this not foolish? For if he came to be in the form of a servant, I would say that before the form of a servant he surely continued altogether in a free and unrestrained nature.

For nothing among existing things could become what it already was; but if it should abandon that in which it was, it would reasonably make a transition to something else.

The Son, then, comes to us — not from servants into a servant, but from a free nature into the form of a servant.

But if indeed nothing intervenes, if time counts for nothing, if the examination of persons contributes no benefit in these matters, and if the Word, still conceived as bare and without flesh, is not free — then let him be called a servant, and let him be numbered among those under the yoke.

B: Then how are these things not full of every absurdity for us? A: Well then, let those in opposition hear:

You who cannot bear to examine carefully the times and the persons, where are you being carried, what are you doing, O you who are distracted and easily captured by every evil spirit? Why do you confound things that should not be mixed, disregarding the time, the persons, and the reasoning by which the contemplation of what is said concerning the Son might become clear and altogether more distinct? For where the Word was God, not yet come to be in flesh, but begotten of the Father — there observe the still unmixed, divinely-befitting dignity, the sincere and unconfused glory, the pre-eminently free status, the power equal to the Father's.

For through him the things that once did not exist were brought into being.

Common counsel, equal working, and likeness in every respect whatsoever have been written of through Moses.

For he has brought before us God speaking — clearly, to the Word who co-subsists from him and in him:

'Let us make man according to our image and likeness.' For indeed 'let us make' would not befit one person, but would rather befit those numbering more than one or two.

But since, out of sparing mercy and love for us, moved as it were by an innate and divinely-befitting gentleness — though existing in the form of God the Father, he did not consider being equal to God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, and being found in appearance as a man, humbled himself — what argument will persuade us, who have determined to think rightly concerning him, to be eager, by the measures of his self-emptying, to reproach and belittle the one who, for us and on our behalf, brought down his own pre-eminence unto self-emptying? For it is then that the Only-Begotten is also 'firstborn,' and the one and only Son has been reckoned among many brothers, as Son from the Father.

For he descended into humiliation and appeared as we are, not that he might suffer any of the things wont to do injury, casting off being God and truly Son, but that he might restore that which is by nature a servant and created — that is, us — to the glory properly inherent in him alone, having made us sons of God.

Therefore, when he is ranked together with us through being called 'firstborn,' we shall not force him into what is contrary to nature — far from it;

rather, he himself will restore us to a dignity above nature.

To say that the divine and ineffable nature has been coerced, that is, has been overcome by creation — how is this not utterly senseless? Therefore, having become as we are, he will in no way cease to be as he is, having cast off what is his own; rather, we, on account of him, rise above ourselves, by the grace of the one who honors us, transcending the measure of our own nature and running up toward what is above and superior.

B: What do you mean? A: For have we not been called begotten of the Spirit and children of God? B: Yes.

A: Therefore we have also been commanded to call no one on earth 'father,' but to attribute what pertains to ourselves to God as Father, on account of the firstborn who has come to be among us — for no other reason than that we too, through him, might be sons.

For this purpose would befit the economy that took place with the flesh.

For where, then, would the mystery of Christ still be wise, if before all else he himself had wronged his own nature, benefiting nothing in our affairs? For he descended into being 'firstborn' so that he might be ranked with the many, though, as they suppose, he in no way possesses being different and better by nature than those with whom he is ranked.

B: But, they say, as one who differs not moderately in glory, and surpasses by incomparable excellences those with whom he is ranked, he is called 'firstborn of all creation.'

A: And where is his being 'incomparable in glory,' or what would be the magnitude of his excellence, so long as being created is predicated in equal terms both of him and of all other things? Our argument at present inquires diligently not into what surpasses or falls short in honor and glory, but into what would be that which is by nature created and brought into being, and what is above and beyond this, and whether the Only-Begotten has been allotted a nature set apart and separate from all others, one which everything believed to be created must fall behind and follow after.

For tell me, my friend, if someone, wishing to learn thoroughly what the sun is by nature, and what a horse is, should ask whether they are created, having their nature from what did not exist, or whether it is something else besides this — what would you yourself say? B: I would say that they are created.

A: And if he should further inquire meticulously and additionally ask, saying:

What then, of the two, will take precedence over the other in glory? Would this not indeed bring ridicule upon us, to raise so obvious a question, one ready to hand for anyone willing to answer it? {B.} Very much so.

{A.} But I think the whole matter is nonsense.

For how or whence could a horse contend with the sun for glory? A middle course is better than a direct comparison; yet if the reckoning of the being of both were weighed in the balance, and one examined what each of them actually is, they would not stand differently in relation to one another as regards the fact of having been made, even though the sun so greatly surpasses in glory.

Therefore, when the argument concerning the Son is examined by us, and it is set before us to see what he is by nature, it is truly a cold and counterfeit boast to think that he must excel in glory and be ranked before the others, if he is classed with creation and reckoned along with us as having been made.

For some gild him over with external superiorities, striking as it were at his most vital points, while pretending to adorn him with the brilliance of petty glories and fine words, so as to disguise the unpleasantness of their blasphemy against him.

For that which is altogether classed with creation in essence and belongs among the things made would not be God by nature, nor truly Son and Lord, but would be like one exceptional among servants, and among those under the yoke, differing only and solely in glory.

{A.} But it occurs to me also to marvel greatly at the following.

{B.} What then? {A.} For as though passing over the knowledge and understanding that he is also always Only-begotten, they babble foolishly of the name 'firstborn,' erecting it as a rampart against the more simple-minded.

And yet how would the following not be a truthful statement, if someone should choose to say it in reply to this:

If the name 'firstborn' enrolls the Son together with creation, as being firstborn among many brothers and therefore firstborn, it will thereby show 'only-begotten' to be wholly unassociated and unrelated to that classification.

For 'only-begotten' means precisely this: that by nature there is no other besides him.

But if he is to be neither 'firstborn' because he is 'only-begotten,' nor again 'only-begotten' because he is 'firstborn,' then it would perhaps be time to suppose that the Son does not exist at all.

...the force of the terms 'firstborn' and 'only-begotten'.

For how could each of the two be applied to one and the same subject and be understood as true? {B.} It could not be otherwise, I think, unless the economy according to the flesh should intervene.

{A.} And indeed know that you have thought nothing other than what seems right to the holy and God-inspired men, who have handed down and clarified for us the teaching concerning these matters.

For the divinely-inspired John named the Word who is from God both 'only-begotten' and 'God,' and moreover bore witness to his being without beginning in time, as befits God.

And Paul, who for us is full of Christ, replete with the Holy Spirit, and the finest among initiators into the mysteries, says:

'And when,' he says, 'he brings the firstborn into the world,' he says:

'And let all the angels of God worship him' — assigning, I think, the occasion befitting 'firstborn' to that which pertains to the time after the flesh.

For he was thus brought into the world, although he was already and always in it, and yet was not known by it.

For he was God from God, alone from the alone, and begotten ineffably;

but when he came to be as we are, then indeed, then he was already ranked with brothers, through being called 'firstborn.'

For where is the self-emptying, if not in his becoming 'firstborn' out of being 'only-begotten,' and being reckoned among creatures with us as man, he who is above all creation? And where at all did he who was rich become poor, unless he is seen to have taken on what was foreign to him, through which he indeed became poor? But if being created belongs only to the state of having been emptied and to the time of that lowering, then would being classed with creatures not be least fitting for that which was not emptied, but rather fitting for that which is set above creation and runs beyond the glory of having been made? {B.} It would indeed be fitting.

{A.} And if 'firstborn' is very fittingly introduced in connection with his choosing, for our sake, to undergo the much-spoken-of poverty — for being rich, he became poor together with us — then it would be firm and true, I think, that one must understand that in his not being poor he was 'only-begotten.'

For I think it necessary, wholly and altogether, that not even one of the two names be false concerning him.

He is, in one and the same subject, both 'only-begotten' and 'firstborn,' as truly Son and not a work of creation.

{B.} But, they say, the name 'son' has also been applied to things admittedly created.

'You are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High.' {A.} Then tell me, what harm would this do — either in glory, or in the very reasoning concerning his manner of being — to the true and by-nature God and Son, who has appeared from the very essence of God the Father, if we ourselves also, though being by nature from the earth, are called by adoption sons and gods? Rather, how would this fact concerning us not moderately benefit those more apt to learn in discourses about the Son? {B.} In what way? {A.} Because, good friend, I would say that the force of words, when used in an extended sense, would neither bring down to the measure of a lesser condition that nature which has obtained the most exalted and elevated rank, nor would the lesser nature, overcome by the glory of those higher ones, leap up into what is above nature merely because it has been honored by bare exaggerations of little words.

Do you know what I mean, and do you understand well? {B.} Not very much.

There being one for us who is and is worshiped, the God by nature, we ourselves have been named 'gods' by grace, and moreover we have been enriched with the glory of sonship.

Is this not indeed what you just now put forward to us? {B.} Yes.

{A.} What then, my friend, since we have been called gods and sons, is there any way that we ourselves could actually be gods by nature and truly sons of him who is set above all and transcends all, not having received this bright adornment as something merely introduced, but being believed to be the fruit of the most exalted nature? {B.} By no means.

For how could that which is by nature created be by nature God? {A.} Well said, my friend.

For each thing remains in its own nature, neither being lifted up together with the grandeur of an expression, nor again being brought down and sinking together with it, even if something of a lowlier sort should be spoken concerning it.

Let us then say that if 'firstborn' is applied to the Son as to one created, for our sake, when he appeared as we are, he would not thereby cast off being God and Son by nature and in truth.

...just as it did not raise up those called 'gods' into what is above nature, so, I think, being classed with creatures because of the human economy would in no way bring him down to what is contrary to nature.