藥箱（駁八十異端） 第 1 章 第 63/82 段

I believe, therefore, in God the Almighty, and in Christ Jesus his only-begotten Son, our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was buried, and on the third day rose again from the dead, ascended into the heavens, and sits at the right hand of the Father, whence he comes to judge the living and the dead;

and in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, life everlasting. We have learned from the divine Scriptures that the Godhead of the Father and of the Son is undivided.

For if anyone separates the Son — that is, the Word of God the Almighty — it is necessary that he either suppose there to be two gods, which is held to be foreign to divine teaching, or confess that the Word is not God, which likewise appears to be foreign to the orthodox faith, since the evangelist says, 'and the Word was God.'

But I have learned precisely that the Son is the undivided and inseparable Power of the Father.

For the Savior himself, our Lord Jesus Christ, says, 'The Father is in me, and I am in the Father,' and 'I and the Father are one,' and 'He who has seen me has seen the Father.'

Having received this faith from the divine Scriptures, and having been taught it by our godly forefathers, I both proclaim it in the Church of God and have now written it to you, keeping a copy of it with myself.

And I request that you insert a copy of this into your letter to the bishops, so that some who do not accurately know either us or them, giving heed to what has been written by them, may not be deceived.

being able thereby to ascertain accurately what has been said in it.

And if it is amiss, let them judge for themselves.

For we do not wish to speak beyond what we know and what has come to us.

For even if the libellus is sound concerning the matter, those who read and hear it will nonetheless conclude that the necessity of his defense did not arise in vain, nor out of idleness, nor out of enmity toward him — unless indeed he had vomited forth certain disturbing statements which compelled him to come to a defense concerning what had been said by him.

For it happens that, even after he had erred, he defended himself excessively through the libellus and corrected himself — or rather, that by means of the libellus he adorned his words, so as to conceal what had been said by him, lest he fall from the common assembly of bishops and from the canon through deposition.

Such, then, are the things concerning Marcellus that have come to us.

And I myself once asked the blessed Pope Athanasius about this Marcellus, what his opinion of him was.

But he neither defended him excessively, nor again did he speak of him with hostility; rather, smiling only with his countenance, he intimated that he was not far from wickedness, but that he regarded him as one who had made his defense.

And I shall set forth those things which certain persons found in Marcellus's own treatises — things which seemed to them reprehensible — and, directing their attack against him, they themselves composed counter-treatises.

But by others again — because those who had composed the counter-treatises later turned to a different position — the very counter-treatises composed by them were put forward for the sake of refutation; and they also showed, in their own compositions, in accordance with the divisions that arose among the party of Acacius, Basil the Galatian, and George of Laodicea, that these had been composed to refute that same Acacius.

For this was the one who spoke against Marcellus using Marcellus's own treatises, which I shall now set forth, so that in all things, omitting nothing of the truth, we may show that we neither reject what tends toward correction, nor wish to agree with those who attempt anything contrary to what is true.

And these are the words from Acacius's refutation against Marcellus:

These things, then, and the like, Marcellus wrote after his misinterpretation of the sayings in Proverbs, speaking iniquity against God, and lifting up his horn on high.

Having then come past the middle of the book, and again setting forth the words spoken by Asterius:

'For the Father is one — he who begot from himself the only-begotten Word and firstborn of all creation: Only from the Only, Perfect from Perfect, King from King, Lord from Lord, God from God, the unaltered image of essence, counsel, power, and glory.' Having set forth these words, and being displeased at the phrase 'the unaltered image' — that is, the exact and clear impress of the essence of God, and the rest — calling this supposition base, he adds his own displeasure, writing as follows:

These words clearly expose his base opinion concerning the Godhead.

For how can the Lord and God, once begotten, as he himself said earlier, still be the image of God? For the image of God is one thing, and God is another.

So that if he is an image, he is not Lord nor God, but the image of the Lord and of God;

But if he is truly Lord and truly God, then the Lord and God can no longer be the image of the Lord and of God. And so on.

Therefore he wishes him to be none of the things he had previously said [he was].

For he says that he is an image of all these things.

Therefore, if he is an image of essence, he can no longer be essence-itself; and if he is an image of will, he can no longer be will-itself; and if he is an image of power, he is no longer power; and if he is an image of glory, he is no longer glory.

For the image is not an image of itself, but of something else.

But you, Marcellus, having earlier praised these very words at the beginning of your book, and now having denied that the Son is God the Word from God, and only-begotten from the Only One, and perfect from perfect, have clearly exposed your base opinion concerning the Godhead.

Having taken the image to consist in lifelessness and godlessness, in will-lessness and powerlessness and inglory and essence-lessness, you ought to have had your unholy tongue cut out, for having spoken a word against the Lord and having ended your life with a soul that had sinned so impiously.

For having circumscribed the image of God within lifelessness, you say that it is neither Lord nor God, not essence, not will, not power, not glory.

You wish it to be a motionless image of these things, as it were soulless and lifeless, making it something set outside the original, and likewise soulless, as though composed by human art alone.

You do not wish the image of God to be a living image of the Living One, nor an essential image of essence, nor an image, without variation, of will and power and glory as will and power and glory.

But to say 'without variation' is not the same as to say 'unbegotten'; rather it means that he has been made like the Father, distinctly and exactly, with respect to the Father's Godhead and all his activity. And after other matters:

Your deceitful lips, which speak wickedness against God in pride and contempt, ought to have become mute. For the Father alone begat the Only-begotten alone, even though you, now wishing something else, are unwilling to accept it — the Son having received his coming-forth not from the cause of Valentinus's Aeons, but having his generation from the Father alone, and being perfect from perfect.

For there is nothing imperfect in the Father, and therefore neither in the Son; but the perfection of the Son is the genuine offspring of that Father's perfection and supreme perfection.

For it is pious to confess that God reigns even in relation to the Son who was begotten before the ages — the Son being a king who is also reigned over, through whom the rest of creation is ruled, gratefully confessing his subjection.

For the Father has begotten not a private individual, but a king, whose kingdom has neither beginning of days nor end of life.

For his dignity is not from outside, but contributes to his very essence, just as it does for the Father who begat him.

Therefore it is also written, 'And of his kingdom there shall be no end.' And thus it is confessed by us that Lord begets Lord, and God begets God.

And simply put, we call him an image of essence and will and power and glory — not soulless and dead, but essential, volitional, powerful, and glorious.

For power does not beget powerlessness, but power-itself; and glory does not beget inglory, but glory-itself; and will does not beget will-lessness, but will-itself; and essence does not beget the essence-less, but essence-itself.

The Word, then, is an image who is God, living Wisdom, subsistent, an active Word and Son, itself possessed of essence.

For this is she in whom God rejoiced daily, when he was glad, having completed the world.

And after other matters, when Marcellus had recalled the sayings of Asterius, he adds, saying:

Having set forth these things, then, and proceeding by denial of the image and essence of our Savior, and of the only-begotten sonship from the Father, and of the firstborn-status over all creation, and of the oneness of the Only-begotten, and of the perfection from the Perfect, and of the kingship from the King, and of the lordship from the Lord, and of the Godhead from God, and, simply put, of the unvarying image of God's essence, will, power, and glory — denying these things with no small words before men, and therefore about to be denied before his Father — you write these very words:

These words clearly present his base opinion concerning the Godhead of the Father and the Son. But the denial of them has clearly exposed your perverse and base heterodoxy concerning the Godhead and essence of Christ.

And after other matters he adduces the words of Marcellus:

Therefore he wishes him to be none of the things he had previously said.

For he says that he is an image of all these things.

Therefore, if he is an image of essence, he can no longer be essence-itself.

And if he is an image of will, he can no longer be will-itself.

And if of power, he is no longer power.

And if of glory, he is no longer glory.

For the image is not an image of itself, but of something else. But these words, Marcellus, are stale and false.

For Asterius wishes him to be all the things he had previously mentioned, saying: king begets king, lord begets lord, God begets God — and thereby he dissolves your soulless image, the one which according to you is composed by human art alone.

For he calls him a living image of all these, being the imprint of the living image of the one who begat him; and he calls him an image of essence that is essence-itself, and of will that is will-itself, and of power that is power-itself, and of glory that is glory-itself — and an image not of himself, but of another.

But you, not confessing the Son to be God from God, nor Light from Light, nor Power from Power, wish the Son to be neither God nor Light, neither Power nor essence, neither will nor glory.

But it impiously does away with the body — these very things — at the consummation, together with these.

And you deny that 'the Word was God,' while you call him Son of God either in name only or as merely a man, so that God would be begetting one of a different kind, begetting the Son by adoption, according to 'I have begotten and exalted sons,' and according to 'you received the spirit of adoption,' and 'bring to the Lord, O sons of God.'

Asterius, therefore, in calling the Son an unvarying image of the Father's essence, power, will, and glory, means altogether that the Father's characteristics are, as it were, present in the Son, and that the things conceived of the Father have been impressed upon, or given to, the Son — these being nothing other than the Father himself.

He wishes him, therefore, to be all the things he had previously mentioned.

For he does not have in mind an image in colors, nor does he introduce a third party, a painter, so that this painter, differing from the Father, might paint the qualities elsewhere by means of colors and call this the Son.

For it is thus, having misunderstood while thinking you understood, that you say:

'Therefore, if he is an image of essence, he cannot be essence-itself, and if of will, no longer will-itself.' But according to us, if he is a living image of essence, he can be, and indeed is, essence-itself.

And thus we call him, with respect to essence, an image that is essence, because of a most exact imitation of life and activity; and likewise, with respect to will, an image that is will — namely the Angel of Great Counsel — and, with respect to power and glory, power and glory.

And demonstrative of these things is the saying: 'For as the Father has life in himself, so also he gave to the Son to have life in himself,' and 'as the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also the Son gives life to whom he wills.'

For the phrase 'as ... so' is an exact imprint of iconic imitation and likeness.

And after a few other matters: 'For the Word who is God, who supplies to others life and beauty and form, is not himself lifeless and beautyless and formless, understood to exist in deadness or in non-being; rather, he has been formed by the Father's characteristics — not as being himself another while possessing characteristics of form that are other than himself, but rather: in his being are the characteristics, and in the characteristics is his being.'

But the image, being an image of another and not of itself — as indeed you also wish — bearing in itself the characteristics of the prototype, presents otherness, but an otherness that is also a likeness.

For he is an image not of himself, but of something else, being what he is: 'the image of the invisible God.'

The Son, then, is the image of the Father, a living image of the Living One, in movement and activity, in power and will and glory — not soulless, nor motionless; having his being in another and being depicted as such, yet himself, in himself and through himself, not being without motion.

And he is an unvarying image — not the unvariation making him the Father, but the Son exactly reproduced. Here end the words of Acacius.

But now the orthodox, our brethren and confessors, say that they have received from certain disciples abandoned by Marcellus a document containing a confession offered in defense concerning the faith:

Its subtleties, though I myself have not fully grasped it, I have here set down.

The title: 'The Faith of the [Followers] of Marcellus.'

If anyone says that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the same, let him be anathema.

If anyone assigns a beginning or an end to the Son of God and Word, or to his kingdom, let him be anathema.

If anyone says that the Son or the Holy Spirit is a part of the Father, and does not confess that the Son of God came to be from the essence of the Father before all conception, let him be anathema.

But concerning the incarnation of God the Word, the only-begotten Son of God, we confess that the Son of God also became man without sin, through the assumption of the whole of human nature, that is, of a rational and intellectual soul and of human flesh.

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate and became man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into the heavens, and is coming to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit.

But those who say, 'There was once when he was not,' and 'Before being begotten he was not,' and that he came into being from things that are not, or who assert that he is of a different hypostasis or essence, or that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration — these the catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.

I, Photinus, presbyter of the catholic church at Ancyra, believe and think thus, as has been written above.

I, Eustathius, presbyter of the same church, believe and think thus, as has been written above.

I, Photinus, presbyter of the same church, believe and think thus, as has been written above.

I, Sigerius, presbyter of the same church, believe and think thus, as has been written above.

[I,] deacon of the same church, believe and think thus, as has been written above.

I, Heraclides, subdeacon of the same church, believe and think thus, as has been written above.

I, Elpidius, reader of the same church, believe and think thus, as has been written above.

I, Cyriacus, patron of the same church, believe and think thus, as has been written above. These are the things written by them to the confessors and fathers.

If, then, it can be understood by the discerning to belong among the better statements of faith, then let it indeed be so classified.

But if, on the other hand, through the reasoning contained in that very apology, some things not correct have crept in as errors, let it likewise again be left to those who love learning.

Since, then, we have gone through the exposition of all the aforesaid matters concerning this same Marcellus, I shall pass over him as well, and shall examine the heresies that follow.

Against the Semi-Arians, [Heresy] 53, and 73 in the overall sequence.

By the power of God, having torn apart the monstrous errors of Arius and of those who came after him — I mean Photinus, but also Marcellus (in whom he seemed for a little while to have been shaken from the very things which he had from the beginning vomited forth, like a man overcome by drunkenness; and may his followers be set right, if indeed they will be set right) — and having cut off, by the divine word that is sharper than any two-edged sword, the tares that sprang up from Arius himself, let us now examine, concerning the wild growth that has sprung from Arius himself, how some 'semi-Arianize,' denying his name but clothed with him and with his own evil doctrine, feigning under some pretext to disguise their own altered countenance, as the drama of those on the stage is contrived, so that they hide their own faces beneath other masks, and from within the mask recount the shameful and drunken matter of comedy — either being carried along in some other way, or reproducing the fables of the ancients, which the poets among them have composed.

So too these men, wishing to lead astray the innocent, are themselves — in face, in character, and in evil doctrine — just what Arius and the Arian madmen are.

And ostensibly, for the sake of deceitful flattery, wishing to adorn the perverse teaching that is openly acknowledged among those men, they say that the Son of God is a creature;

and in order, as it were, to deceive and to grant some concession to the Son of God, with flattering words addressed to those who are startled by this statement, they add in charlatan fashion: 'We do not say that he is a creature as one of the creatures, nor a begotten thing as one of the begotten things.'

But they utterly reject the term 'homoousios,' pretending that it is foreign to the divine Scripture.

But concerning these matters we have discoursed most thoroughly in the treatise against Arius.

And in order that they might also put forward a term similar to this, those around Basil — I mean Basil and George, the leaders of this heresy of the Semi-Arians — say: 'We do not say homoousios, but homoiousios.'

And these same men hold views concerning the Holy Spirit that are equal to those of the Pneumatomachians (the Spirit-fighters).

For no longer, as with a certain shame or hesitant speech (as in the case of the Son, concerning whom, being ashamed to say outright that he is a creature — though in reality this is what they hold — yet on account of their fear of men they add the term 'homoiousios,' and call him a creature, but not as one of the creatures) — no, concerning the Holy Spirit, as I have said, they set out with no hesitation at all, but like rabid dogs they define him without restraint as altogether a creature, and thus they insist and affirm that he is alien in nature to both the Father and the Son.

And lest anyone should say that we speak falsely against certain men out of malicious accusation, I will here set forth, as each of them wrote, a letter — Basil having written one, and George of Laodicea, together with Basil and those with him, another.

To our fellow ministers in Phoenicia, and to the rest who think the same as we do, greetings in the Lord.

We pray that, after the trial of the Church's faith — tried as if by fire amid the temptations that occurred concerning the faith — and after the events that took place in Constantinople on account of Marcellus, and after the exposition of faith drawn up in the council convened at the dedication of the church in Antioch, and after these, the events at Sardica and the faith that once more flourished there, and further after the events concerning Photinus at Sirmium — and moreover the reasonings which, having been questioned on each point concerning the faith by those in the East who were at variance with those at Sardica, we set forth — that henceforth there might be quiet, and, the Church from East to West having been united under the pious reign of our lord Constantius, and offenses having been cast out, that there might be peace, and that we might devote ourselves to the worship of God.

But since, as it seems, the devil does not cease, working through his own instruments against himself, in order that in every way — according to what was foretold by the Lord, and proclaimed in harmony through the holy apostle for the safeguarding of the faithful — he might bring about apostasy, devising innovations against the faith of the Church, and now, under a certain outward form of piety, seeking to win some to himself, and by their means devising profane novelties of speech against the pious genuineness of the only-begotten Son of God — we, having earlier heard that certain persons were running about in this manner in Antioch, and also in Alexandria, and further in Lydia, or in Asia, casting sparks of impiety into the souls of the more simple, hoped that, on account of the boldness of their impiety and the sheer shamelessness of it, with the local lords, our fellow ministers, contending against it, the heresy thus devised would wither away and the evil be extinguished.

But since, next, both those visiting from the aforementioned places and those from the region of Illyricum report that the inventors of this evil, applying themselves diligently, are even so bold as to harm many others and to leaven them toward wickedness, we could no longer bear to delay; but, having also read the letters of our like-minded fellow minister George of the church of Laodicea (copies of which we have appended), and having reverently taken to heart, before God, the testimonies of those who solemnly protested to us, we — assembling, as the occasion allowed, since the holy day of Pascha was drawing near, as many of us as were able to assemble (since winter also proved an obstacle to many, as they indicated by letter) — were eager to set forth, in this document, the distinctive character of the faith, so far as it agrees with the rest, with the council held at Antioch as we said before, with the faith set forth at its dedication, and also with that at Sardica, which the council of Sirmium took up, and with the reasonings put forth there — wishing to articulate precisely the faith of the catholic Church concerning the Holy Trinity, and, in addition to this, as we said before, concerning the form of the innovation, only dictating as far as the Spirit allowed.

And we exhort you, most honored lords and fellow ministers, having read this, since you have been established in the faith handed down from the fathers, and since we hold the same views as you, to append your signatures, as we have believed — so that, being fully assured, those who dare to introduce this same impiety may either be ashamed and set right, or, if they persist, be cast out of the Church — since we, having received the faith handed down from the fathers, from apostolic times through those in between even to us, as a kind of inheritance, guard it — lest they be, already of their own accord, preparing the apostasy for the son of lawlessness, who threatens even to dare to sit in the temple of God.

Our faith is in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is as follows:

...them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Therefore we who are regenerated into this faith ought to understand piously the concepts arising from these names.

...baptizing them not into the name of the unfleshed one and the one who became flesh, nor of the immortal one and the one who underwent the experience of death, nor of the unbegotten and the begotten, but into that of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; so that, hearing these names drawn from natural relations, we might, in accordance with them, understand the Father as the cause of an essence like his own, and, hearing the name of the Son, might understand the Son to be like the Father, whose Son he is.

We have therefore believed in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, not in a creator and a creature.

For creator and creature are one thing, and father and son are another; for each of these pairs is distinct from the other in concept.

For when I say 'creature,' I am at once implying 'creator'; and though the term 'son' too is taken from bodily things, and, because of the passions and effluxes belonging to bodily fathers and sons, might seem exposed to the same difficulty, it nevertheless purely establishes the notion of the existence of an incorporeal Son from an incorporeal Father; for this very reason, the term 'creature,' by contrast, entangles with itself a corporeal notion.

And since that which he makes is a creature, he called him 'Son' alone, taking from the pair 'creator and creature' the impassibility of the creator with respect to the creature, and from 'creature' its firm and stable subsistence — proceeding from an impassible creator, and being such as the creator willed it to be — thus he has taught us a perfect and pure conception concerning Father and Son, drawn from the bodily father and son, and from the bodily creator and creature.

For when there is removed from the notion of 'creature' the idea of that which subsists externally, and of matter, and of all the other things that the name 'bodily creature' involves, there remains from 'creature' this alone: the concept — I mean the impassibility of the one who creates, and the completeness of the thing created, and that the thing created is such as the creator willed it to be.

If, then, casting out again the other elements from the terms 'creator' and 'creature,' we take only the concept that the creature exists from an impassible creator, complete and stable, and such as he willed it to be, it follows that, since we have been taught to believe especially in Father and Son, we must likewise take, from the names 'Father' and 'Son,' some one pious concept.

For as we said again concerning 'creature': when all bodily aspects are removed, what remains is the concept of the impassibility of the creator, and the completeness, stability, and conformity to his will of the creature; so also in the case of Father and Son, when all bodily aspects are removed, what alone will remain is the generative production of a living being like in substance — since every father is understood to be father of one of like substance to himself.

But if, along with all the other bodily notions cast out from the names 'Father' and 'Son,' there were also cast out the notion that gives us to understand the Father as the cause of a living being like in substance, then he who is believed in would no longer be Father and Son, but creator and creature; and the names 'Father' and 'Son' would be superfluous, contributing nothing of their own.

And thus he would be creator inasmuch as he is God, but in no way at all a father.

For that the Father is called 'Father' not with reference to an activity, but with reference to a substance like his own — a substance which subsists in accordance with such an activity — is clear from natural reasoning.

For God, having many activities, is by one activity understood as creator, insofar as he is creator of heaven and earth and of all things in them, and also of things invisible.

But being Father of the Only-begotten, he is understood not as creator, but as father, having begotten.

Lest what is begotten be imperfect, and lest whatever accompanies the bodily father and son should also occur here, one might, out of over-caution, remove the genuine concept in the case of Father and Son; whatever other 'product' such a person might then speak of, he will never call the Son 'Son.'

For whether he should call him surpassing in magnitude — as heaven surpasses a mountain or a hill — he will still hold him to belong to the class of things made, even though he be understood to surpass them in magnitude; or whether he calls him first as having come into being out of need, or as having served for the creation of the other things, not even so will he place him outside the concept of 'things made.'

For just as it makes no difference whether the coal is taken from the altar with tongs rather than by the hand itself — even if it is by means of the tongs that the smith's craft of hammering the iron is carried out — for both the tongs and the iron hammered by them will belong to the class of things made; so likewise, he through whom all things came to be will not differ at all from the things made, unless he is Son, in the sense that the natural concept implies.

For, having been made, he would be first among the things made, and would become an instrument for the maker, through whom the creator works all things.