藥箱（駁八十異端） 第 1 章 第 58/82 段

But when it says 'and the one who is begotten,' it has shown, without need of further inquiry, concerning God the Word, that he is undoubtedly Son, not created, not made.

But concerning the incarnate dispensation from Mary, by the addition of 'and the one who is begotten shall be called holy, the Son of God,' it has shown that it made even the one who was born Christ and Lord:

As in the case of the other sayings everything has been clearly fulfilled and they contain no difficulty, so also here it has been fulfilled in the incarnate coming, and there is no deviation for those who are attentive to their own life.

For the Word, living from the living Father, is Son of the Father, and not a creature.

And everything has been fulfilled in the incarnate coming, so that it might neither be thought a phantasm, nor the flesh be considered consubstantial with the deity above, but that his becoming man is united into one impassibility, especially after the resurrection from the dead.

'For he no longer dies,' it says, 'death no longer has dominion over him.' For there is one Lord, one Christ, one King, seated at the right hand of the Father — the bodily and the spiritual, one union, one spiritual deity, both radiant and glorious.

But now I shall pass over this saying, considering it sufficiently explained, and take up the other devices of their speech, contrived for the overthrow of their hearers.

'If he is of the substance of the Father, how is it that he does not know the hour and the day, but by his own word confesses to the disciples that he does not know what the Father knows, saying that concerning that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father alone? If, then,' they say, 'the Father knows and he himself does not know, how can the same deity of Father and Son exist, when the Son is ignorant of what the Father knows?' But as for the things which the Only-begotten was teaching and setting forth mystically, in his divine wisdom, for the security of most true knowledge, these men, not understanding the human-like expressions, snatch up everything to their own harm — like fearsome serpents — and, like prey baited by the cunning hunter, drag themselves off to their own destruction, not knowing that falsehood will nowhere stand firm, while truth in every way corrects its own sons and refutes the lie.

Let those who have held an evil suspicion concerning Christ from the beginning tell us: which is greater, in nature and in knowledge — God, the Master of all and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, or that day and that hour which are brought about and made to occur by the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit? And surely, when asked, they will be compelled by the truth itself to say that the Father is greater, as indeed he is.

As for the Son — since none knows except the Father — he who knows the greater, that is, the Father, how does he not know the lesser? But these are divine sayings, spoken by the Holy Spirit, and unknown to those who have not received the gift and grace of the Holy Spirit.

For being such, the aforementioned have an unstable mind and a foolish understanding, which slips into harmful and inferior deviations.

For that which was spoken by the Lord himself will meet them beforehand: 'Be ready; let your loins be girded, and your lamps in your hands, and you shall be like good servants, awaiting your own master.'

For as a thief in the night, so does that day come.

And the holy apostle says, 'You are not children of darkness, but of the day, so that the day may not overtake you as a thief.'

If, then, the sons of the day are not covered by darkness but become ready, because their master comes on a day they do not know and at an hour they do not expect, will he then differ from his own servants and sons of the day — he who, because of his own luminous being and deity, is himself the cause of these very things for them? Or will he be caught as those who are ignorant of the day and unprepared are caught, being ignorant and found wanting? But who, unless out of his mind, would reckon such things concerning the Lord — that he himself would be like the men who are ruled and discipled by him, or like those who are worse off through their own unpreparedness and ignorance? The whole notion is foolish.

If, then, these things cannot be fulfilled in that sense, and the saying, if extended that way, will be found contrary to its own use, then it must be sought what account we may find, so that, both being preserved without contradiction, we may not be turned aside from the truth.

For it is impossible for the Lord to lie, and it is impossible for him to make his explanations in vain for our life.

The Father, then, knows; the Son knows; the Holy Spirit knows.

For nothing in the Father is different from the Son, nor in the Son different from the Spirit, as we have shown in each of the aforementioned heresies, when the occasion arose, from true proofs, that the Trinity is one Godhead and has nothing in itself that differs, but the whole is perfection, three perfect [Persons], one doxology, and one lordship.

By what reasoning then has he said this? And indeed I have already expounded concerning this saying elsewhere.

Nothing will hinder us from adding to the same points and saying the same true words.

For me it is no burden, and for those who read it, it will be a safeguard, while for those in opposition, a refutation.

For the matter stands in this way.

For he has introduced together in the midst three ranks: the Father, himself, and all the angels in heaven.

And to the Father he attributed the knowing, not only indicating awareness and knowledge, but also the things always held without doubt by the Father and by the Son, and that have come to be and have been accomplished.

And the Father knows the day; at the same time he both knows it and has worked it and has done it and has judged it, as he said in the Gospel according to John, that the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son.

For in having given it, he has already judged.

For he who does not believe in the Son has already been judged, not because the judgment has already passed, but because the things that are then to be are already being shown forth, just as in this case too the same principle is fulfilled.

For Scripture knows one kind of knowing and another kind of knowing, just as we have often, in coming down to the essential point, from likenesses and examples of things already treated, not ceased to set forth the clarity and expression of each subject.

Let us then take up again from the beginning and speak concerning these things.

What do you say, you people? Did Adam know Eve his wife even before the disobedience and transgression, or did he not know her? And you cannot contradict the truth.

For if you are unwilling to walk uprightly toward such an understanding, you will be refuted.

While they were naked and not blind.

For you can neither deny this, nor can you affirm that they were not seeing.

For, it says, Eve saw that the tree was good for food and beautiful to behold. Therefore indeed they saw and knew.

Knowing and seeing, they recognized one another.

But it was after a long time — as Scripture says — that 'Adam knew Eve his wife.'

But it speaks of the first knowledge and sight as knowledge consisting through seeing and through understanding, whereas concerning the second knowledge it declares knowledge through use.

How could he not have known her who was of one body and one rib with him? But here Scripture is not describing the knowledge that is through understanding, but that through use.

For indeed also in the case of Jacob.

For that he happened to be shepherding for seven years with Rachel and Leah, he also knew them.

But when it narrates the union of their honorable marriage, it says, 'He knew Leah his wife.'

Because the first knowledge was through understanding and through sight, but the second knowledge and knowing was through use and activity.

So also in the divine Scripture, 'The Lord knew those who are his,' not as though he were ignorant of those who are not his, but it signifies the effective character of the Lord's regard.

'And depart from me, workers of lawlessness; I have not yet known you.'

Did he then not know them by knowledge? But since they were not worthy of him, he takes away from them the practical [knowledge].

And in another place, 'You only have I known of all the nations.'

Have then all the nations and the whole number of humanity been left out of his knowledge, and is it not rather that the hairs of the head of every man — both of those who serve him and those who disobey him — are known by him? For God knows the ways on the right hand.

Does he then not know the ways on the left? And how many such things could be said concerning one kind of knowledge and another?

So also the only-begotten Son of God.

For since, it says, the Father has given judgment to the Son, he has thereby already ascribed to the Father the knowledge that consists in both cognition and effective action.

'No one knows the day except the Father' — in two ways.

That he knows when it comes; for indeed the day and hour come by his authority, and he knows it in terms of accomplishment.

For it has already been accomplished by him, the judgment having been handed over to the Only-begotten.

So also in the Only-begotten Son of God, being God and in nothing different from the Father, there is the same knowledge.

For he himself knows it, and he himself leads it and brings it and accomplishes it and judges it, and without him it does not come.

But he has not yet known it in terms of action, that is, he has not yet judged.

For still the impious act impiously, and the unjust are grasping, and fornicators and adulterers and idolaters act lawlessly, and the devil is at work, and heresies rise up, and error is at work, until the only-begotten Son of God brings that day and renders to each his due.

And he will know it, that is, he will accomplish it in power.

And in the Father it has been fulfilled in two ways, but in the Son it exists according to knowledge and is not unknown, while according to action it has not yet been accomplished, since he has not yet judged.

But from the holy angels it is withheld in two ways, in that they have not yet known it in action, that is, have not yet accomplished it.

For they have not yet been commanded to go out and gather the impious, like the tares, bundle by bundle, and to prepare them to be burned in the fire.

And you see, beloved and servants of God, that each of those who, through some preconception, draw terrible things upon themselves, has campaigned in vain, each in various ways attacking himself in attempting to blaspheme the Son of God with inferior and diminished notions.

But having sufficiently made the exposition of this, let us again turn our attention to their other statements, with the power of God.

For they are bold fellows and audacious in everything, although indeed confessing not like the Manichaeans nor like many other heresies, but at least holding the truth concerning the flesh — yet even this deficiently and not most fully.

For they confess that the Savior truly had flesh, but hearing from the very Gospel that he grew weary from the journey, and hungered, and thirsted, and slept, and rose, gathering all these together they refer them to his Godhead, wishing on the basis of such matters to alienate his Godhead from the substance of the Father.

For, they say, if he is of the Father, since the Father — as the divine Scripture says — neither grows weary nor thirsts nor hungers, then he would not grow weary, nor hunger, nor thirst, nor sleep, nor is there any tracing out of his understanding.

But since these things were thus fulfilled in the Son, he is, therefore, they say, alien to the substance and nature of the Father. And that these things were not fulfilled in the Only-begotten before his incarnate coming, they themselves also will confess.

But when, being compelled, they confess and come to the things fulfilled in his incarnate coming, and hear that precisely because he took a body, he therefore reasonably performed these things — yielding, like a charioteer to the chariot, to reasonable needs — because he truly put on flesh and not in appearance, then they claim that these things were not from the flesh alone.

For indeed, in itself, the Godhead alone will neither thirst nor grow weary.

But those who have abandoned the way and turned aside onto the opposite paths do not know that the Son of God, in coming, took not only flesh, but also a soul and a mind, and everything that constitutes a man, apart from sin, having been truly begotten not from the seed of a man, but from Mary the holy virgin through the Holy Spirit.

They are unwilling to admit that he took a soul, because of the refutation this brings against them, which is the easiest of all means to oppose their empty talk.

For he himself, the true God, who says of himself, 'I am the truth,' confesses that 'my soul is troubled' and 'my soul is exceedingly sorrowful,' and 'I have authority to lay down my soul and to take it again' — so that he might show himself to be God, having the authority.

For this saying does not belong to a mere man.

For no one has authority to lay down his soul and to take it again.

But when he speaks concerning his soul, he shows himself to have truly become man, and not in appearance.

And again, 'I am the good shepherd, who lays down his soul for the sheep.'

And in order to show that these things were true, he said on the cross to the Father, 'Into your hands I commit my spirit'; and, it says, when the soldiers came, they found him already having breathed his last.

And again, 'And crying out with a loud voice he said, Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani' — that is, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' — as we have already explained the force of this saying — and, the Gospel says, 'he breathed his last.'

Now since 'he breathed his last,' and 'into your hands,' and 'my soul is troubled,' and all the other sayings, are spoken by the Truth itself, who would be so foolish as to be persuaded by such a workshop of nearsighted men given to dreaming, and to abandon these very reasonable, true sayings of the Word of God?

But finally, hunting for words — the things well and rightly said from each Scripture — like pirates who mutilate the healthy bodies of men, they make use of a certain testimony, which Scripture, having often used it more figuratively, relates.

And they are accustomed to take what is said figuratively as literal truth, while what has been proclaimed truly and unambiguously they allegorize into another person.

For immediately they leap up, bringing forward a saying from the holy Isaiah, claiming that it is spoken from the person of the Father: 'Behold, my beloved servant shall understand, in whom I am well pleased, whom my soul has loved' — as though this expression belonged to the Father.

'Has,' they say, '[the Father] taken a soul?' But if we say, 'God forbid,' 'then what,' they say, 'except that it is spoken more figuratively?' 'Therefore,' they say, 'what is spoken by the Son is also spoken more figuratively.'

And they suppose that in this they find and hunt out a pretext against the truth, which, however, will not be granted to them.

For the truth, being unadorned, stands by itself, neither being overcome nor needing embellishment.

Let us examine the force of both sayings.

For if the Father came into a body and put on flesh and spoke this word, he truly had a soul.

But if the Father did not put on flesh, yet it is said, 'my soul,' this is sung concerning God in a figurative sense, in order to secure what is genuine and to show his genuine relation toward the Son.

But it is no longer the same thing to say these things concerning the Son in this matter.

For the Father did not take flesh, but the Son put on flesh.

The Father did not become man, but the Son became man.

For the like must be said also concerning the Father.

For just as here it says, 'My soul loved him,'

if therefore, because 'my soul loved' is spoken in a rather figurative manner, we accept the statement about the soul as figurative, then indeed the statement about the heart is also spoken in a rather figurative manner.

And it is clear that this would be evident to everyone possessed of understanding.

If then Scripture speaks figuratively concerning the Father's 'soul,' and concerning the 'heart' which he did not take—for he did not bear flesh—then such things are applied to the Father in a rather figurative sense.

But the same must no longer be thought concerning the Son.

For the Son took flesh and the whole condition of humanity.

For this will stand opposed to one who speaks in a rather figurative way concerning the Son with regard to the person assumed in the incarnation—even should such a hypothesis arise in some part of the discourse—because he truly became man.

For if what concerns the soul of the Son is allegorized, and must be understood in a rather figurative way concerning it, then let the same things also be said concerning the heart.

And then in the end we shall grant that all things are semblance and not truth.

Then, according to the contentious reasoning of Arius, it has been spoken figuratively also concerning the flesh, and the Word, having come, no longer had a heart, nor liver, nor flesh, nor entrails, nor bones, nor anything of this sort, but all things henceforth are allegorized and spoken of in a rather figurative manner;

or that he took altogether a mingled body, having none of the internal organs.

How then did he eat and drink? Away with such a thought!

But if the Father is said to have a heart and a soul, and this can be allegorized and spoken of figuratively with reference to him, [they claim] it can also be figurative with reference to the Son, thereby denying that he took a soul.

But if, when pressed concerning the heart, they cannot deny it, because it is confessed by them that the Lord took on the whole condition of the body, then from the fact that 'heart' is confessed in two ways—the one truly confessed, the other allegorized—so also the statement concerning the soul is true, and is not allegorized nor spoken of figuratively.

Since the incarnation of Christ is complete in every respect—in body and soul and mind and heart, and in all that pertains to man, apart from sin—it came about that human things were reasonably enacted in him, and in his divinity were perfectly † accomplished in salvation;

his divinity will no longer be reckoned less glorious than the Father's perfection; rather, through the enfleshed incarnation, thirsting, hungering, drinking, eating, sleeping, and being troubled will be fulfilled in him, while his divinity remains impassible.

And their argument on this point collapses again, since he who was God came into flesh.

When they say, 'If he were from the Father, how did he come into flesh?' one might say to them: What do you say concerning the angels? It is plain to everyone that they confess the angels to have come into being through the Son.

For indeed they also blaspheme concerning the Spirit and dare to say that he was created by the Son, whereas he is uncreated, proceeding from the Father and receiving from the Son.

For he was judged, so that in judging justly he might stop the mouths of those who would afterward speak against him.

For no one will be able to contradict his righteous judgment.

For he bore the body, keeping it undefiled.

For what came to be in man from the beginning, that is, in Adam, did not by any means come to sin because of the Creator, who bears no responsibility for Adam's sin, so that he sinned for this reason; rather, the Creator gave him self-determination, and each becomes to himself the cause of his own sin.

For this reason God the Word, the Creator who bears no responsibility for sin—who together with the Father, and with his Holy Spirit, created man—being immortal and undefiled, by his own good pleasure, through some ineffable mystery of wisdom, became man, taking up all things completely on behalf of his own creation because of his surpassing love for mankind, not out of necessity but by voluntary will, so that in the flesh he might condemn sin, and on the cross dissolve the curse, and in the tomb utterly abolish corruption, and, having descended with his soul into Hades, might in his divinity break the sting of death and dissolve the covenant made with Hades.

But these utterly ungrateful men, turning good things into evil—instead of giving thanks, as they ought, to him who is loving to mankind, perfect, and good, being from a good Father—no longer give thanks, but rather show ingratitude, attaching passions to his divinity which they cannot substantiate, though the truth is manifest to all.

And these things having thus been explained, I shall now proceed in turn to other sayings.

For they, wrongly interpreting the saying of the Gospel, say, 'The Father who sent me is greater than I.'

And first, he says, 'The Father who sent me,' and not 'who created me.'

For all the divine Scriptures signify his genuine relation to the Father.

'You begot me,' he says, 'Father'; and, 'I came forth from the Father, and have come'; and, 'I am in the Father, and the Father in me'; and, 'the Father who sent me.'

And nowhere has it said 'who created' or 'who made.'

And how do these men heap up for themselves things that do not exist? 'The Father who sent me is greater than I'—what is more fitting than this? And what more necessary than this? And what more genuine than this? And what more proper than this? For to whom is it proper to glorify the Father, if not to the true Son, who was begotten of him? For the Father glorifies the Son and the Son glorifies the Father; and for this reason, as an example for us, and because the glory rendered to the Father is by him referred to one unity and one glory, the Son glorifies the Father, that he might teach us that the honor due to himself belongs to the Father, just as he has said, 'He who does not honor the Son as he honors the Father, the wrath of God remains upon him.'

In what manner do these men reason? By bulk? Or by time? Or by height? Or by age? Or by rank? Which of these applies to God, that they should think this? For the divine does not fall under time, so that he who was begotten of the Father timelessly should be thought inferior;

nor does the divine admit of progress, so that the Son, having advanced, should not yet have attained the Father's majesty.

For if the Son of God is called Son of God by way of advancement, then there were many equal to him, and for this reason he advanced, being called greater in rank, yet lesser than the one who was before him in rank.

But Scripture says, 'Who among the sons of God shall be likened to the Lord?'—inasmuch as all others are so called by way of misuse of the term, while he alone is Son by nature, and not by grace, since he discovered every path of knowledge, and no one shall be made equal to him.

But what do they say? 'The Father surpasses the Son in height.'

In what part, then, is the divine set? Or is it circumscribed spatially, so that by such circumscription the 'greater' might be signified?

And from every side their contrived, alien theory collapses.

But leaving this aside too, let us proceed, beloved, to their next statements.

For they say that the one who sends is not like the one who is sent, but the one who sends is one thing in power, and the one who is sent is another, since the one sends and the other is sent.

And if the understanding of the truth were as they hold, the whole matter of our knowledge would no longer be referred to one unity of truth, power, and divinity.

For if two were meeting, or two sending, the Son would no longer be Son but a brother, there being a fellow brother present, and the other no longer a father;

but either by coalescence or by adoption—or he was sending himself, or the two together, sending or arriving at once, would signify two divinities and not one unity.

Here, then, 'the one who sent' and 'the one who is sent' are used in order to show that there is one source of all good things, that is, the Father; and following upon the source—not under a different name, but by the name of the Son and of the Word—being one fountain from a fountain, the Son, having proceeded, is always with the Father, begotten, because 'with you is the fountain of life';

and in order to show also concerning the Holy Spirit, it adds, 'In your light we shall see light,' in order to show that the Father is light, and the Son is light of the Father, and the Holy Spirit is light, and a fountain from a fountain—the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Only-begotten.

'For rivers of living water shall flow from his belly, springing up into eternal life';

but he said this concerning the Holy Spirit, says the Gospel.

And again he speaks, showing his disciples concerning his consubstantiality with the Father, saying:

'If anyone opens to me, I will come in, and my Father, and we will make our dwelling with him.'

And he no longer said, 'I shall be sent by my Father';

but, 'I and the Father will make our dwelling with him,' as though the Son knocks and the Father enters together with him, so that Father and Son are always together and never separated, the Father from the Son nor the Son from his own Father.

Wherefore also in another place he says, 'I am the way,' and, 'through me they shall come to the Father.'

And lest some should think him lesser than the Father because people come to the Father through him, he says, 'No one shall come to me unless my heavenly Father draws him.'

The Father, then, brings [us] to the Son, and the Son brings [us] to the Father, and he brings [us] in by the Holy Spirit.

For always, at every time, the Trinity subsists in one unity of divinity—three perfect [Persons], one divinity.

And their argument has collapsed.

Again they say: 'For what reason, then, did Christ say to his own disciples, "I am going to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God"? If, then, he confesses him as his God, how can he still be equal to him, or genuinely begotten by him?'—[they say this] in order to show that in all respects they possess ignorance of God, and are in no way illumined by the light of the Gospel.

Whoever searches from age to age and from generation to generation shall know the truth's power concerning the perfect knowledge of our Savior and his equality with the Father.

But these men, clothed with a Jewish mindset, are provoked and grow indignant at the Son of God, just as those [Jews] used to say:

'We do not stone you for any evil deed, but because, being a man, you make yourself the Son of God, making yourself equal to God.' So also these men, having fallen into the same passion as the Pharisees and the Jews, grow indignant, unwilling to say that the Son is equal to him who begot him.

For observe, I ask you, the precision of the Scriptures: nowhere before the incarnate coming has divine Scripture spoken this saying, but rather the Father says to the Son, 'Let us make man,' calling the Son a fellow-creator and thereby showing him genuine according to equality.

And nowhere did the Son say, 'my God and your God'; yet Adam heard the voice of God walking in paradise, and God spoke to Noah:

'Make for yourself an ark of incorruptible wood'; and 'the Lord rained down [fire] from the Lord'; and 'the Lord said to Moses':

and nowhere did the Lord say, 'my God and your God.'

But when he took our body, and appeared on earth, and lived among men, and was reckoned among us, then he said to his own disciples—to whom he was obliged to be made like in all things except sin—'my God' and 'your God,' and 'my Father' and 'your Father';

'My Father' according to nature, in the Godhead; and 'your Father' by grace, for my sake, in the adoption; 'my God,' because I have taken your flesh; and 'your God' according to nature and in truth.

And thus all things are clear and transparent, and there is nothing contrary, nor bearing any appearance of an entanglement with death, in the divine Scripture, as these men pretend, devising evil things for themselves.

I think that, once more, what has been said concerning this point too is sufficient, and I shall now proceed to the remaining matters.

For they say again that the Holy Spirit is a creature of a creature, because 'all things came to be through the Son,' as Scripture said—senselessly tearing certain phrases apart, not holding to the saying as it was spoken, but wickedly conjecturing, and misinterpreting, according to their evil surmise, what was well said, on the basis of the mere wording.

For the divine Gospel did not speak this concerning the Spirit, but concerning all created things—that whatever is created came to be through the Word, and by the Word.

For 'all things came to be through him, and without him not even one thing came to be';

As the reading extends further, it tells what came to be, so that it might thereby be known that 'all things came to be through him, and without him not even one thing came to be.'