藥箱（駁八十異端） 第 1 章 第 65/82 段

Now concerning the likeness of the Son to the Father in all things, it has been discussed more fully elsewhere; nevertheless even now we shall not hesitate to note briefly that the Apostle, having called the Son 'the image of the invisible God' and having thereby taught that the Son is like the Father, has elsewhere handed down how one ought to understand the Son.

For in the Epistle to the Philippians he says, 'Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men'; and in the Epistle to the Romans, 'For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, condemned sin in the flesh' — so that, through these two testimonies from the two epistles, we might be taught, from the bodily instance, piously to apply the concept of 'likeness' also to the incorporeal Father and Son.

For the phrase 'taking the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of men' shows that he took flesh from the Virgin.

Therefore the flesh which the Son of God assumed is the same as the flesh of men, yet it is 'in the likeness' of men, since it was not begotten of seed as men are, nor from the bed of a man;

And the Son, being spirit and begotten as spirit from the Father, is, insofar as being spirit from spirit, the same as the Father, just as, insofar as being flesh from the flesh of Mary, he is the same as men; but insofar as he was begotten from the Father without flowing forth, or passion, or division, he is like the Father and is not the Father himself, just as the Son according to the flesh is in the likeness of men and is not himself in every respect a man.

Therefore through the Epistle to the Philippians he taught us how the hypostasis of the Son is like the hypostasis of the Father;

for he is spirit from the Father, and according to the concept of spirit he is identical, just as according to the concept of flesh he is identical;

yet not identical but like, because the Spirit which is the Son is not the Father, and the flesh which the Word assumed is not from seed and pleasure, but in the manner the Gospel has taught us.

Through these things, then, as has been said, the Son has instructed us how he, according to his own being and according to his own subsisting, is like the Father in all things;

and how he is like the Father in will and activity and works, through the Epistle to the Romans, from what he said: 'in the likeness of sinful flesh he condemned sin in the flesh.'

For being the same flesh as sinful flesh, which the Son of God assumed, and being likewise moved toward hunger and thirst and sleep as all flesh is, it was not from these things moved sinfully.

Therefore it is said 'in the likeness of sinful flesh,' which is like this principle: whatever the Father does, these same things the Son also does likewise.

For the Father, being spirit, acts with original authority, but the Son, being spirit, does not act with original authority as the Father does, but likewise.

Therefore, insofar as flesh and flesh are identical, just as insofar as spirit and spirit are identical; but insofar as it is without seed, it is not identical but like, just as insofar as it is without flowing forth and passion, the Son is not identical but like.

And insofar as flesh and flesh are identical, as insofar as spirit and spirit are identical, so insofar as it is in the likeness of sinful flesh, it is like the movements of the flesh and not identical; just as, in the likeness of that movement, the Son acts ministerially, and not identically as the Father acts with original authority;

For what the Father does, these things the Son himself does not do in the same manner, but likewise.

And it is evident from these things that the Son is like the Father in all things, as a son genuinely begotten from him is like a father.

For it is absurd that he, who is the Son of God existing before the ages and being by nature God from God the Father, should — when, contrary to his own nature, he became man from Mary — become like men who are men by nature, in that which is contrary to his own nature (for it was contrary to nature for him, being God, to become man), and yet, in that which is according to his own nature, that he should not be like the Father who begot him.

For if, in that which is contrary to his own nature, he is like those who are so by nature, much more is he, in that which is according to his own nature, like the Father who according to nature genuinely begot him;

so that it follows, according to the Scriptures, that the Son is like the Father in all things.

And he was also understood by us to be like us, as the Apostle taught us the concept of 'likeness' through what has been said before.

For he is like also insofar as he is life from life, light from light, true from true, and wisdom from the Wise One; and altogether, according to the Scriptures, he is like the Father who begot him not only in activity and will, but in his very being, subsisting, and existing he is like him in all things, as a son is like a father.

If the new heretics, disputing with us, speak of 'unbegotten' and 'begotten,' we shall say to them:

Since, having maligned the term 'essence' — which was in use among the Fathers — you do not accept it on the ground that it is unwritten in Scripture, neither shall we accept the term 'unbegotten,' since it too is unwritten.

The Apostle calls him incorruptible and invisible and immortal, but Scripture has never called him unbegotten.

'Begotten' conveys a concept common to all things that have come into being; for he who says 'begotten' signifies that a thing has come to be, but nowhere thereby indicates the Son who is conceived of as eternal; therefore, conceiving of the Son of God as eternal, we shall not accept this term.

Furthermore, the names 'Father' and 'Son' signify a relation to something; therefore, even if we name only 'Father,' we have implicit in the name 'Father' the notion of 'Son' as well, for a father is called father of a son; and even if we name only 'Son,' we have the notion of 'Father,' because a son is called son of a father.

For each depends upon the other, and the relation is not severed; but each, even when spoken of alone, brings in along with it the notion of the other — and not the name only, but with the name, also the kinship of nature.

For when we conceive of God as Father, we conceive of him as the Father of God; and when we conceive of him as Son of God, we conceive as God the one called 'Son of God,' and like, in nature, to him of whom he is also conceived to be the Son.

But 'unbegotten' is not called 'unbegotten' of a 'begotten,' nor is 'begotten' called 'begotten' of an 'unbegotten.'

Since, therefore, the terms 'unbegotten' and 'begotten' have no relation to one another, nor do they jointly signify a common nature, but rather make the property of the Son common with the rest of created things, we shall not accept these terms, on account of the method by which they lead toward impiety, but we shall always piously employ the terms 'Father' and 'Son.'

First, then, because we who were called from among the Gentiles were not baptized into 'Unbegotten' and 'begotten,' but into 'Father' and 'Son';

Next, because the Son is nowhere found to have called his own Father 'Unbegotten,' but always calling God 'Father,' and always calling himself 'Son of God' — a few things ought to be noted, hearing him say: 'If you loved me, you would rejoice that I go to my Father'; and, 'He whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world — do you say to me, You are angry with me, because I said, I am the Son of God?'; and 'I came forth from the Father, and I have come.'

'I came forth from the Father and have come into the world;'

'again, I leave the world and go to the Father'; and Peter's confession, 'You are the Christ, the Son of God'; and the Father from above, 'This is my beloved Son.'

And for this reason, since thus both the Father makes mention of the Son and the Son of the Father, and it is with these names — I will say it again — that we were sealed, we shall always use these terms, repelling the profane empty utterances against the apostolic faith.

For that which was spoken by the Father to the splendors of the saints:

'From the womb, before the morning star, I begot you' — this was necessarily spoken, and it will lead away from the commonality with created things those who so regard the Son, the Father, through the term 'womb,' instructing us concerning the Son who was genuinely and properly begotten from him;

just as likewise the Son too, having said, 'The Lord created me,' lest we suspect his nature to be made common with the rest of created things, necessarily added, 'and before all the hills he begets me,' thereby setting before us a pious and passionless conception of his sonship from God the Father.

But once the Father, and once the Son, on account of the aforesaid pious genuineness of the Son's sonship, set forth for us the term 'begotten.'

But the whole New Testament is full of the names 'Father' and 'Son.'

But so that the innovators of this heresy might be exposed from their own words, out of the many things written by them on this subject, we have noted down a few, on account of their length, from which the catholic believers, having thoroughly learned the whole mind of the heresy, will necessarily, I think, judge that those who wrote these things ought to be anathematized, along with their writings, and cast out from the apostolic faith, and that those who share and teach the same opinions as they should also be anathematized.

For they write, in these very words, as follows:

'For I was most eager to impart to you, as briefly as possible, the finest of the sayings concerning God.'

'As many as suppose that the Son preserves a likeness to the Father according to essence have stepped outside the truth, accusing, by means of the term unoriginate, the notion of the one who is like according to essence.'

'But the Son, on account of his generation, both is and is confessed to be lesser.'

'Therefore he does not preserve a likeness according to essence with the Unoriginate, but he preserves, bearing it pure in his own hypostasis, the will of God.'

'Therefore he preserves a likeness, not according to essence, but according to the principle of will: as he willed, so he brought it into being.' And again:

'How is it that you yourself do not also agree with me that the Son is not, according to essence, like the Father?' And again:

'When, then, the Son is confessed to be endless, not having life from his own nature but from the authority of the Unoriginate, while the unoriginate nature is endlessly superior to all authority, how are the impious not manifest, who, under the guise of a likeness of essence, exchange the doctrine of piety for a proclamation of a different essence?' And again:

'Therefore the name Father is not indicative of essence, but of authority, which brought into being the Son, God the Word, before the ages, who endlessly possesses the essence and authority granted to him, which he continues to possess.' And again: 'If they wish Father to be indicative of essence, and not of authority, let them also call the hypostasis of the Only-begotten by the name Father.'

We shall now say to the present-day heretics: You have written 'like according to will, unlike according to essence.'

Therefore we have written in reply that he is like, not only in imitation, but also according to essence.

Since, then, you were the first to mention 'essence,' saying 'unlike according to essence,' and for this reason are eager to have the term 'essence' removed, so that you might say the Son is like only according to will — if you truly agree that the Son is like the Father in all things, then anathematize those who speak of a difference of likeness, and write as follows: that if anyone does not say the Son is like the Father in all things, as a son is like a father, but says he is like according to will only, and unlike according to essence, let him be anathema.

And after this, if they wish not to mention the term 'essence,' and even set aside their own subscriptions, never mentioning 'essence' anywhere, let them at least confess the teaching of the Fathers — that the Son is like the Father, not only according to will, but according to being and according to subsisting and according to existing, altogether and in every respect, as a son is like a father, just as the divine Scriptures say.

To the faith set forth concerning the Son being like the Father in all things, they subscribed as follows:

Mark, bishop of Arethusa:

'Thus I believe and think, and I concur with what has been written above'; and those present likewise subscribed.

How we subscribed the aforewritten signature on the night as Pentecost was dawning, those present know, and so does the pious emperor, to whom I also bore witness, both unwritten and in writing.

After this, when Valens, according to his own custom, subscribed, adding to his signature 'the Son is like the Father,' but not adding 'in all things,' and not showing either how he agreed with what had been written before or how he understood the term homoousios — and when the pious emperor took note of this and compelled him to add 'in all things,' which indeed he then added — Basil, suspecting that even the phrase 'in all things' had not been added by him with sincere intent, but for the same purposes which the party of Valens were eager to secure, in order to carry it off to the council at Ariminum, subscribed as follows:

Basil, bishop of Ancyra:

Thus I believe, and I give my full assent to what has been written above, confessing the Son to be like the Father in all things:

And 'in all things' means not only with respect to will, but with respect to hypostasis, to existence, and to being, as Son, according to the divine Scriptures: spirit from spirit, life from life, light from light, God from God, true Son from true Father, Son who is wisdom from a wise God and Father; and, in short, the Son like the Father in all things, as a son is like a father.

And if anyone says that he is like the Father only in some respect, as has been written above, let such a one be alien to the catholic Church, in that he does not say, according to the divine Scriptures, that the Son is like the Father.

Of Hypatianus, and of bishops, presbyters, and deacons in great number.

These letters have been inserted here so that every scholar who seeks the truth of the faith may know that we are not railing against certain persons without foundation, but that we are eager to proceed from genuine records.

These same men, then, quarreled again with those who were with them, on account of certain hatreds and human rivalry, wrangling with one another and each seeking supremacy; and at that time the party of these Semi-Arians prevailed - I mean those around Basil, George, and Silvanus, and the rest.

having with them the right hand of the flesh, the emperor Constantius - I mean those around Eudoxius, George of Alexandria, and Euzoius of Antioch.

And those around Basil and George of Laodicea were humbled, although they had been very powerful; and from them again others were split off from the same heresy and synod, so that the Arian system was divided into three factions.

For Acacius the Palestinian, of Caesarea, together with Meletius, Uranius of Tyre, and Eutychius of Eleutheropolis, on account of their rivalry and hatred toward Cyril of Jerusalem, set themselves against those around Basil, George of Laodicea, Silvanus of Tarsus, Eleusius of Cyzicus, Macedonius of Constantinople, Eustathius of Sebaste, and Anianus, then appointed bishop of Antioch; and this same Acacius, having taken the field against them, wrought great confusion.

And they came to hold, in relation to one another, a like-minded opinion, yet each of them confessed it differently; and being at variance with one another, and split apart, they were scattered, as has been said, into three factions.

For Acacius and those with him confessed neither 'consubstantial' nor 'a creature, as one of the creatures,' although they themselves in fact held the latter;

but secretly, because of the times, suppressing the word 'creature,' they themselves were wholly the same as the Arians, though they concealed themselves at that time, thinking nothing other than these men did, because of those mingled with them who were orthodox by nature, yet were hypocrites, feigning deference to the emperor's right hand and fearing it.

And though they bore enmity toward one another, and wished to stand together, they were not able.

For Eutychius of Eleutheropolis, having received, as it were from the blessed Maximonas of Jerusalem, that confessor bishop, a clear orthodox faith, did not, because of his enmity toward Cyril, associate with those around Acacius; he held orthodox belief for a time, yet played the hypocrite for the sake of his own see - and so did many others of Palestine.

On account of such men, Acacius and those with him, holding the same rabid fury and mad ill-belief, for a time stirred up nothing concerning these matters, daring neither to confess the 'consubstantial' nor to deny it; but having assembled at the Seleucia called 'Tracheia' in Isauria, at the command of the emperor Constantius, they set forth, as it were, another creed - not the one drawn up by the Fathers in the city of Nicaea, the orthodox creed rightly composed, but speaking pretentiously, as if in simplicity, saying:

'We believe in one God, the Father Almighty,' and so forth, and in the Son of God - plainly, without speaking anything of force.

Later, so as to reveal their stagecraft, they said, 'We reject the term consubstantial as foreign to divine Scripture, but we anathematize the term unlike as applied to the Son in relation to the Father.' And this was the bait of deceitful hunters.

For indeed, when they were among themselves, they used to assert and teach that the Son of God is a creature, but is like the Father - like according to that notion which prevails among human beings.

For sculptors too fashion statues and craft likenesses, either of gold and silver and other material, or by means of colors upon wood, and these possess a likeness, yet have nothing in equality with the originals they portray.

having nothing whatsoever of the Father's divinity.

But some of those with them accepted it also because of the calamity of the times that had thus befallen them, and the majority of them were privy to this together, though some were also ignorant of it, as was later shown.

For among them were Patrophilus of Scythopolis, and after him Philip, who was appointed there as successor of the aforementioned, and many others who genuinely held this heresy.

But now, after the death of those men, when their false doctrine has spread far and wide, and they enjoy it boldly because of the favor of the flesh, and being no longer hindered, they openly proclaim their design, restrained no longer by any shame, nor pretending to act under any command.

But so that no one may think I speak without foundation, I shall here set forth also the creed put forth there by those around Acacius, together with the signatures of those who took part in that same synod.

The bishops assembled from various provinces at Seleucia in Isauria, by the command of the piety of our most God-fearing emperor Constantius:

We who have assembled at Seleucia in Isauria, by the imperial will, declare as follows:

Yesterday, which was the fifth day before the Kalends of October, we made every effort, with complete good order, to preserve peace for the Church and to deal soundly with matters of the faith, as our most God-beloved emperor Constantius commanded, in accordance with the prophetic and evangelical utterances, introducing nothing into the Church's faith apart from the divine Scriptures.

But since at the synod some men insulted some of us, and silenced others, not allowing them to speak, and shut out yet others against their will; and since they had with them those deposed from various provinces, and brought along with them those uncanonically appointed, so that the assembly became on every side full of tumult, as also the most illustrious count Leonas and the most illustrious governor of the province Lauricius witnessed with their own eyes - for this reason we declare that we do not shun the authentic faith set forth at the Dedication Council at Antioch, but rather bring it forward, the very faith to which our own fathers most especially agreed at that time, with respect to the matter under investigation.

But since the terms 'consubstantial' and 'of like substance' have troubled many in past times and even until now, and since, moreover, up to the present it is said that the term 'unlike,' applied to the Son in relation to the Father, is being introduced as a novelty by certain persons - for this reason we reject the term 'consubstantial' as foreign to the Scriptures, and we anathematize 'unlike'; and all who are found to hold such views we consider aliens from the Church.

But we clearly confess that the Son is like the Father, according to the Apostle who says of the Son that he is 'the image of the invisible God.'

And we confess and believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible.

And we believe also in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of him impassibly before all ages, God the Word, God only-begotten from God, Light, Life, Truth, Wisdom, Power, through whom all things came to be, both those in the heavens and those upon the earth, whether visible or invisible.

Him we believe to have taken flesh, at the consummation of the ages, for the abolition of sin, from the holy Virgin, and to have become man, and to have suffered for our sins, and to have risen again, and to have been taken up into the heavens, to sit at the right hand of the Father, and to be coming again in glory to judge the living and the dead.

And we believe also in one Holy Spirit, whom our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ named the Paraclete, promising, after his ascension, to send this Spirit to the disciples - which he also sent - through whom he also sanctifies those in the Church who believe and are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Those who proclaim anything else regarding the faith the catholic Church knows to be aliens.

And that the creed formerly set forth at Sirmium, under the piety of our emperor, is of equal force with this creed, those who peruse it will recognize.

The following, who were present, subscribed to the creed:

Basil, Marcus, and George, bishop of Alexandria, Pancratius and Hypatianus, and the majority of the bishops of the West.

I, George, bishop of Alexandria, have set forth the faith:

Thus I confess and hold, as is set forth above.

I, Acacius, bishop of Caesarea, have set forth the faith:

Thus I confess and hold, as is set forth above.

Here ends the exposition of the aforementioned Semi-Arians and Arians.

You who are sensible, having gone through this creed and the others, know how fraudulent is the scheme of either one of their systems, and how it partakes not at all - not even in the least - of true confession according to God.

For the Lord says, 'What you have heard in the ear, proclaim upon the housetops.'

And as the holy Apostle says, 'Let each one speak the truth with his neighbor'; while the prophet, rebuking the ill intent of such men, cries out, saying, 'He speaks peaceably with his neighbor, but in his heart he holds enmity' - or rather, malice. So also these men around Acacius, having split off from those around Basil, wishing to sever the bond of true confession, drew up a certain spurious creed, easily exposed, deceitful on every side, so that from these very statements, should they wish to deceive some, they might be able to confess what is right;

but should they wish to reveal the poison of their own false doctrine, this creed would prove for them ambivalent toward both positions, capable of yielding the confession appropriate to whichever practice each of them followed.

And the whole work was full of trickery.

For what one of them held, the other held as well; yet they were divided into schisms against one another, whether through some mutual hatred - because Cyril of Jerusalem bore a grudge against Eutychius, and Eutychius against Cyril, Cyril being aligned with Basil the Galatian, with Anianus who had been appointed over the church of the Antiochenes, and with George of Laodicea - but why should I wear myself out dividing and naming these ranks? I shall proceed instead to their mutual contradictions and to the refutation of the deceitfulness of each of them.

But I must first speak concerning what happened afterward:

For this turned out for some unto good, but for others unto wickedness.

For Meletius, appointed at Antioch by those around Acacius - and from this very act arose an objection against Acacius, since it involved turning aside, even if only a little, from their false-believing opinion, and it thereby made him appear, as it were, orthodox, through his confirming the aforementioned Meletius in his appointment - this Meletius, then, having been appointed by those around Acacius, was reckoned by them to be of their own opinion, but was not found to be so, as many report concerning this matter.

For now those attached to him and to his party, from the very fact that he was persecuted and cast out from his own see, advancing and increasing in number with the passage of time and the length of his persecution, hold orthodox belief for God's sake.

For the people of this party were more numerous than those of the synod.

These, having appointed bishops for themselves, confess wonderfully concerning the Son, and do not reject the term 'consubstantial,' but, as they say, hold it in readiness, so that, should a full synod come to pass, they might confess it and not deny it.

For it happened that this same most honored Meletius, who was appointed over the see of the Antiochenes by the Arians around Acacius, in his first homily, as a kind of first-fruits, gave an exposition in the church - and, as most say, an orthodox one.

And I shall here set forth his exposition.

Copy of the homily of Meletius

The most wise Ecclesiastes says that the end of a speech is better than its beginning, inasmuch as it is better and safer to cease from the struggle of speaking than to begin it - especially since the same Ecclesiastes says, 'This wisdom of the poor man is despised, and his words are not heeded.'

But since the body is not one member, but many, and all the members care for one another, so that there may be no schism in the body; and the head cannot say to the feet, 'I have no need of you'; but God has tempered the body together, giving greater honor to that which lacked it - that it is therefore unavoidable, when the whole body is moved, that each member should be moved along with it, is self-evident.

What then should one make the beginning of the discourse to you? Surely it is clear that, at the start of every word and every deed, it is fitting to make peace both the beginning and the end, beginning from it and likewise concluding in it.

For this, the Apostle says, will turn out unto salvation, through your supplication and the supply of the Spirit, which Jesus gives to those who believe in him.

And whether one should speak edification, or exhortation, or the comfort of love, or the fellowship of the Spirit, it comes about through the peace that is according to God - not, indeed, to all without distinction, but to those who love the law, as the prophet says:

- not the bodily law, which possesses only the image and shadow of the things to come, but the spiritual law, which wisely reveals the outcome of the things previously proclaimed.

'For great peace,' it says, 'have those who love you, and there is no stumbling-block for them.'

So that it is clear that a stumbling-block awaits those who have hated peace, and it is fitting that those who desire to be set free from these things should hold forth love toward the Lord, as it were a shield.

...having abolished the law of commandments contained in ordinances. And it is not possible to keep the commandment of the Lord unless the love of God comes first - for he says, 'If you love me, you will keep my commandments' - nor for the eyes or the heart to be enlightened, unless the commandment gives light - for it says, 'The commandment of the Lord is radiant, enlightening the eyes' - nor even to put forth a word of truth, unless one has Christ speaking within himself, according to him who says, 'If you seek proof of Christ speaking in me' - or rather, not only speaking, but also showing mercy.