藥箱（駁八十異端） 第 1 章 第 77/82 段

But others said that the old man had declared that at the first resurrection we shall observe a certain millennium, living in the same manner as we do now — keeping the law and other observances, and partaking of all the customary practices of the world, including marriage, circumcision, and the rest.

This we have not fully believed concerning him;

but as some have affirmed, they said that he had indeed spoken this.

And it is clear that this millennium is written of in the Apocalypse of John, and that the book is held in trust by very many, and among the God-fearing as well;

but the majority, being devout readers of the book, and having knowledge of spiritual things, take what pertains to the spiritual in it spiritually, and have believed it to be true, though set forth with great depth of meaning.

For not only is this stated there in a profound manner, but many other things as well.

And, according to what has been said by the Apostle, [such disputation] will turn to strange questionings and endless genealogies.

For this is very foolish, and needing no interpretation, it is clear to everyone who possesses understanding.

For such wisdom and the subject-matter of this discourse does not even require investigation.

For if we are to be raised up again in order to be circumcised, by what reasoning have we not already anticipated being circumcised beforehand? Therefore, in this respect, those who from this present time have recognized what is perfect, and have anticipated being made perfect in that perfection which is then to come, happen to be acting more necessarily than we.

Where then is what was said by the Apostle, that 'if you be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing,' and 'whoever of you are justified by the law, you have fallen from grace'? And where is what was said by the Lord, that 'in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels'? But as for 'you shall sit at the table of the kingdom of my Father, eating and drinking,' and 'when I drink it new with you in the kingdom of heaven' — the addition of the word 'new,' and the phrase 'at the table of the kingdom,' signify another meaning altogether.

For we ourselves also say, having learned from the divine words, that there is a certain partaking of ambrosial drink and food;

concerning which it is said, 'things which eye has not seen nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man, which God has prepared for those who love him.'

But he says that first, during the thousand-year period, we shall partake of natural pleasures without toil and grief, and after the thousand-year period, then we shall partake of the things which have been spoken of, according to what is said, 'things which eye has not seen nor ear heard.'

But this argument is contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture.

For if the law made no one perfect, and yet we are commanded to keep the law after the resurrection; and if the holy law given through Moses by the Lord became for us a tutor unto Christ, as being inferior to those who are being made perfect, entrusted with bringing us to the greater and most perfect one; but when Christ the perfect one and Master came, and had received from the hand of the one who had tutored those being introduced — that is, the faithful — the holy virgin, even the Church, and we, having recognized through the law the tutor the greater one, the perfecter Jesus, the tutor is done away with — how shall the argument of those who say such things not rather be shown to be a mark of shallow thought and foolishness, namely that after the perfecting work of Christ there is again need of a tutor, so that we should return to the beginning of the elements, of teaching, and of the laying on of hands, according to what is written, the Apostle clearly telling us that everything that grows old and aged is near to vanishing away, signifying this concerning the old covenant and legislation?

For, he says, when the priesthood is changed, there necessarily takes place a change of the law also.

But if the old was set aside and the new was renewed, who then would again boldly bring back the old into use for us, turning the new back into oldness, thereby preparing us to fall away from grace and attempting to turn us away from the benefit of Christ? Having briefly dealt with these matters in our discourse, and considering this sufficient on account of the extent of the work, let us proceed, beloved, to what follows, calling as usual upon God for help, for the setting forth and demonstration of the remaining matters, and for their refutation.

Against the Antidicomarianites, [heresy] 58, but 78 in order.

And first we have written a letter concerning this matter.

Nevertheless, for the sake of maintaining the order of the numbering, here also we shall set forth the whole letter, together with what has reasonably been added to it or omitted from it, and we shall speak concerning the heresy.

For certain of the Antidicomarianites, as though holding some enmity against the Virgin and wishing to belittle her glory, being carried away by a certain envy or error, and wishing to defile the minds of men, have dared to say that holy Mary, after the birth of Christ, was joined to a man — I mean, to Joseph himself.

And they say, as I have stated above, that this teaching has issued from that old man Apollinarius himself, or from certain of those who have been his disciples;

and I am uncertain about this; but concerning those who say these things, I am obliged to speak.

But that I may not involve myself in a second labor, I shall subjoin below the letter which I mentioned before, written to the country of the Arabs.

To my most honored and most beloved lords, my true children and brothers, fellow-believers who are orthodox, from priest down to layman, and to the catechumens throughout Arabia, Epiphanius, least of bishops, greetings in the Lord.

In the present time, one may both marvel and not marvel;

one may marvel, because in our generation all things are being fulfilled; and one may not marvel:

for day by day there arises for us, by increase, out of human reasonings and thoughts, a sophistic suspicion which advances further into evil, and abandons apostolic teaching, just as the most holy Apostle foretold, that some will depart from sound teaching, giving heed to myths and doctrines of demons, and so forth.

For whatever it is possible to search out and devise as evil ways, in these men are more zealous, rather than fulfilling the commandment which says to seek things that are good and acceptable, and that speech should be seasoned with salt, so that it may give grace to those who hear.

And should we ponder this — whence it comes about that base things are renewed among us day by day — we too shall be as untaught men, not heeding the divine and prophetic words.

For in all parts of the faith must be fulfilled that which is said: 'When the Son of man comes, will he find faith on the earth?' For to what point has the mind of men, set upon evil from its youth, arrived? What parts of the faith has it not destroyed? In what discourses has ill-will not thrown into confusion what is useful among those things most fitting and belonging to the settled order of a rational nature — whose proper duty it was rather to contemplate what is dignified, and to labor to add further to it, even were this to require going beyond nature, rather than forcibly diverting what is true into what is indecent, straining toward the worse?

For, henceforth, since all things — both the blasphemous and those outside the Holy Spirit — have been fulfilled in our generation, they turn again to other, new things.

For some blaspheme the Father, the God and Creator of all things — those called after 'knowledge' [the Gnostics]; and others again, those called Marcionites and Archontics, and following after them the Manichaeans, who have most justly received their name by a certain just dispensation of God, having acquired the name that signifies madness;

All these, together with several other heresies — I mean the Cainites, the Sethians, the Melchizedekians, the Colorbasians, the Cerdonians, and the rest — dare to blaspheme against the Father of all, in denying that he is the God who spoke in the Law and in the Prophets, and who is justly worshiped by all creatures as their Maker and Creator;

These try to abolish, along with his worship, his sovereignty also, denying him who truly exists, and imagining instead another who does not exist, by their mythical fancy — so that they fall away from him who is, and do not find him whom they merely imagine.

For thus does foolish talk and the devil's sowing of words habitually produce such confusion and turbidity, stirring up through blasphemous reasonings the minds of created men to wage war, by evil suspicions and denials of God, against their own Master.

They have dared, denying the only Master who purchased them — the only-begotten Child, Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, who truly exists, begotten of the Father without beginning and without time, who always exists from the Father and exists together with the Father, but is begotten incomprehensibly and undefilably, being of one substance with the Father, and not other than the Father;

Having gone mad again, they bark against their own Master like rabid dogs, just as from the beginning the Jews who did not know him were called 'dumb dogs' — fittingly deemed worthy of this appellation by the prophet, on account of their shameless onrush against the Lord and his coming, as one may truly see.

For they say that rabid dogs are called 'mute' because, their reason having deserted them, they become toothless.

For such is the nature of dogs, whenever it is turned aside into rabies:

Those which once knew their master and his sons, his household members, and all the others belonging to the master of the house — when madness seizes them, the faces of these familiar people become altered before their sight, and they rise up against those very ones who are their own, whom they once honored, wagging their tails at them and submitting to them in their manner.

So it was at once with those who were expecting the coming of Christ, those preparing to receive the bridegroom, those praying to behold the fulfillment of the prophets, those who had promised to obey the divine words, those who had entered into covenant with Moses, saying, 'Be you the mediator between us and the Lord, and whatever the Lord shall say to you, we will hear and do' — when they saw their own Master arrive, they failed to recognize the form and the types of the truth which the prophets, before he came in the flesh, had depicted, engraved, proclaimed, and signified;

First, then, they said to him, 'Who is this who speaks blasphemies?' At another time, without shame, they dared to say that he had a demon; and moreover they did not blush to call him a Samaritan.

In the end, then, as I have already shown, they rose up like raging dogs, and nailed his hands fast — just as, with its madness, a dog always comes on with its paws raised, and does not shame to tear at the very faces of its own masters.

They delivered up their own Lord to be crucified, and as for the prophets who belonged to the household of their own Master, one they sawed asunder, another they stoned to death, and another they dispatched by the murder of the sword.

After them, likewise, now the new Jews, following the same course one after another — the natural Jews according to the flesh indeed denied him in one way, but those who now deny the perfect legitimacy of the Son of God toward the Father — calling him a creature and a thing made, and alien to the Father — being altogether mad and thunderstruck, ceaselessly insist upon this.

But from among these again, others, having abandoned the aforesaid blasphemous teachings, and having, so to speak, gazed upon the heavenly vision that is above nature itself, and having intruded into and busied themselves with the things above, as though come down from on high, declare with self-willed arrogance and forcefully insist, casting the Holy Spirit out of the Godhead.

And they have not denied the Father, nor the legitimacy of the Son toward him; but they walk again in another way, so that from every side that word might be fulfilled, 'faith has failed out of their mouth.'

For what else do they now wish, but to attack the Holy Spirit, who is not alien to the Father and the Son, who is of the same Godhead and cannot possibly be alien to the Godhead — as though they themselves had authority to give orders to God rather than to be ordered by him? For, without shame, they call the Spirit alien, a slave, a creature, recent, and made, and whatever other shameful thing they devise to procure for themselves in the way of suspicion concerning him.

destroying them through ill will, unbelief, and ignorance — even those who had fled from blasphemy concerning the Holy Trinity, this idle and malicious notion has dragged off again into other matters, so that no one might sin without being detected.

For I hear that someone has now conceived some novel notion concerning holy Mary, the ever-virgin, and dares to hurl some blasphemous suspicion against her — so that our times, on every side, resemble an evil serpent and venomous beast lurking in darkness and testing everyone with its bites, one on the face, another on the heel, another on the hand, so that the bite of unbelief might escape no one — but he who thinks to have escaped it in this respect might unwittingly, in another way, not escape the venom, while he who has sound faith in one point might, in some other way, procure harm for himself.

Whence does this ill will come? Whence such boldness? Does not the very name bear witness, does it not persuade you, O contentious one? Who ever, or in what generation, has dared to speak the name of holy Mary and, when asked, not immediately add 'virgin'? For from the very appellative names, the proofs of her virtue shine forth.

For the righteous have received dignities of names, each fittingly and as was appropriate to him.

And to Abraham was added the title 'friend of God,' and it shall not be dissolved; and to Jacob, to be called 'Israel,' and it shall not be altered; and to the apostles, 'Boanerges,' that is, 'sons of thunder,' and it shall not be relinquished; and to holy Mary, 'virgin,' and it shall not be turned aside;

for the holy one remained undefiled.

Does not nature itself teach you? O strange new madness! O novel affairs!

But there are many other things which, in ancient times, were not dared by the fathers; but now one man blasphemes against the incarnate coming of Christ, speaking differently concerning his very Godhead; another renders defective in himself the whole matter of the incarnate coming; another is vexed at the resurrection of the dead; and yet another in some other respect.

And, to speak simply, O our troubled generation, whose life stands in danger, drenched on every side by evil seeds sown by the devil, of thoughts and reasonings of false belief!

How do they dare to attack the undefiled virgin, who was deemed worthy to become the dwelling place of the Son, who was chosen for this very purpose out of the myriads of Israel, so that, as a vessel and dwelling deemed worthy, she might exist only as a sign of that birth?

For I heard from someone that certain people dare to say concerning her, that after she had given birth to the Savior, she was joined to a man.

For the ignorance of those who have not learned the exact sense of the divine Scriptures, nor have drawn near to the historical accounts, always turns from one thing to another, and distracts the man who wishes, from his own mind alone, to track down something concerning the truth.

For, first, when the virgin was given over to Joseph, the lots having compelled her to come to this, she was not given to him for union — if the truth must be told — since he was a widower.

But because of the law he has been called 'husband' of her; yet, according to the sequence of things, it is shown from the Jewish tradition that the virgin was not given to him for the purpose of being joined to him, but so that she might be preserved as a testimony for future generations, that the dispensation of the incarnate coming did not arrive spuriously, but was truly attested — brought about, in truth, apart from the seed of man, and by the Holy Spirit.

For how could so old a man have a virgin as his wife, having been a widower from his first wife for so many years? For this Joseph is the brother of Clopas, and he was the son of Jacob, who was surnamed Panther;

Both these were born of the one surnamed Panther.

Now this Joseph had his first wife from the tribe of Judah, and she bore him children numbering six, four males and two females, just as the Gospel according to Mark and according to John have made clear.

The first was named Obliah, which is interpreted 'wall,' and he was surnamed 'the Just,' being a Nazirite, which is interpreted 'holy.'

And this one was the first to receive the seat of the episcopate, to whom, as the first, the Lord entrusted his throne upon the earth;

who was also called 'the brother of the Lord,' just as the Apostle also agrees with this, saying somewhere, 'But other of the apostles I saw none, except James, the Lord's brother,' and so on.

But he is called 'brother of the Lord' on account of having been brought up together with him, not according to nature, but according to grace.

For Mary, having been betrothed to Joseph, seemed to be the wife of the man, though she had no bodily union with him.

And from this circumstance, the close kinship of the sons of Joseph to the Savior has been called, and rather has even been reckoned, in the rank of brothers;

For just as Joseph himself, though having had no part in the birth of the Savior according to the flesh, is reckoned in the rank of father by way of dispensation — as Luke the evangelist says concerning the Savior himself, that he was, 'as was supposed, the son of Joseph' — just as Mary herself also said to him in the Gospel according to Luke, 'Behold, your father and I have been seeking you in great distress.'

Who then would call Joseph the father of the Lord, who had no causal part in him at all, especially since the incarnate coming came about apart from the seed of man? But it is through the dispensation that the matter obtained this designation.

He begot this James when he was about forty years old, more or less.

And after him was born a child called Jose.

Then after him came Symeon, then Judas, and two daughters, one called Mary and the other Salome; and his wife died.

And after many years, being a widower, he took Mary, though the man was about eighty years old and advanced in age.

And after this he takes Mary, as the Gospel also says:

"For," it says, "Mary had been betrothed" — and it did not say "had been married."

And again elsewhere, "he did not know her."

One may marvel at all these matters in which wicked pretexts are hunted after, and at those things where there is no need to search out reasons or to seek what ought not to be sought — yet men turn away from what is necessary to foolish inquiries, so that from every side ruin, of unbelief and blasphemy, should altogether be brought upon us on account of the dishonors done to the saints.

And so, first of all, the sequence of events refutes them from every side: first, because an old man who had become more than eighty years old did not take a virgin for [marital] use, but rather she was entrusted to him for the purpose of being kept safe.

And second, he himself was altogether righteous, and having heard that what was in her was of the Holy Spirit, he did not dare, after such a dispensation, still to lay claim to her, nor to make use of the vessel that had been counted worthy to contain him whom heaven and earth could not contain, because of the surpassing greatness of his glory.

For if even now many believers in his name strive to remain virgins, and to be chaste and continent, how much more was not Joseph the more faithful — and Mary herself, treasuring all these things in her heart, as it is written? But after so great, and such, and so momentous a dispensation, was an old man again to be joined to a pure and honored virgin — to a vessel that had contained the Uncontainable One, and had received so great a mystery, a sign of heaven and of the life of mankind?

For how shall we not demonstrate that the Virgin remained pure? Let them show us at once that Mary bore any children after the conception of our Savior.

Let the fabricators and rhapsodists of deceit and malicious contrivance state the names, inventing them as they go.

For the virgin was no longer joined [to a husband].

For if she had ever borne children while continuing together with the Savior, her children too would likewise have been said to be with him.

But what leads them astray is the saying, "Behold, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, seeking you."

And they do not know what had been written just before this, namely that "his brothers did not believe in him."

As for the things written in the divine Scriptures in seemingly plain terms — behold, coming to perceive it fully in every respect, we give thanks to God, who has beforehand secured, through what seem to be brief words in the divine Scripture, the means of setting forth the truth of the whole of Scripture.

For always, on hearing about James, that he was called "the brother of the Lord," we used to wonder and say, "What is the need of this?" But now we have come to know for what reason the divine Scripture foretold it in this way.

But it was altogether so that, whenever we hear, "Behold, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, seeking you," we might learn that this speaks of James and the other sons of Joseph, and not of sons of Mary — who never existed.

For it was clear that James was greater in age at the time of the Lord's coming in the flesh.

And Scripture, in refuting them, calls them "brothers," naming them expressly — James, Joses, Symeon, Judas, Salome, and Mary — so that they might learn whose son James actually is, and from what mother, and might understand, by comparing their ages, who is the elder.

For Jesus was crucified in the thirty-third year of his coming in the flesh; and at that time it was the twentieth year of Herod, the son of Archelaus.

For in the thirty-third year of Herod the first, the son of Antipater, the Savior was born in Bethlehem of Judea, which was the forty-second year of Augustus the king.

And having spent two years [there], he was taken by Joseph into Egypt, because of what had been told to Herod by the Magi, since Herod sought to destroy the child.

And he went down into Egypt and remained there another two years.

And Herod the king died in the thirty-seventh year [of his reign].

And his son Archelaus succeeded him for nine years.

And thus the [saving] work was accomplished, and he was handed over to the cross in the eighteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, while it was the twentieth year of Agrippa, called "the Great," and of Herod the younger, the son of Archelaus.

But nowhere have we heard that Joseph begot any sons [thereafter].

Moreover, after returning from Egypt, he himself did not live for many years more.

For it was the fourth year for the Savior, but more than the eighty-fourth year for Joseph, when he came back from the land of Egypt.

And Joseph remained alive for another eight years.

And in the twelfth year, when they were going up to Jerusalem, he [the child] was sought, since he could not be found on the journey, as the Gospel according to Luke relates.

And in the middle of these years Joseph died, and thereafter he was no longer brought up under Joseph, but [remained] in Joseph's household.

Hence the Gospel no longer says, declaring that "his father and his mother and his brothers came," but rather, "Behold, your mother and your brothers are standing outside."

Nor, moreover, when they said to him in Galilee, "No one who does these things wishes to be in secret" —

"If you do these things, show yourself to the world" — it does not say that his father and his brothers said this to him, but "his brothers," since Joseph no longer existed in the body.

Then, moreover, at the very consummation, when the Savior was standing on the cross, as the Gospel according to John relates, "having turned," it says, "he saw the disciple whom the Lord loved," and he said to him concerning Mary:

"Behold your mother"; and to her he says, "Behold your son."

But if Mary had had children, and if she had had a husband, for what reason would he have entrusted Mary to John, and John to Mary? And for what reason did he not rather entrust her to Peter? Or for what reason to Andrew, or to Matthew, or to Bartholomew? But it is clear that it was to John on account of his virginity.

"Behold," he says, "your mother" — although she was not John's mother according to the flesh — but this was so that he might show her to be a mother as the originator of virginity, since Life itself came forth from her.

And to John — although he was, according to the flesh, no relation of hers — he said this, in order to teach him to honor his own mother, since the Lord himself was truly born of her according to the flesh, lest anyone should suppose the whole matter to be an illusion and not a reality.

He was making provision concerning her, to entrust the Ever-Virgin — who had become a mother through the dispensation, yet remained undefiled on account of the honor due to him and the wondrous vessel [that she was].

And the Gospel says, "And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home."

But if she had had a husband, if she had had a house, if she had had children, she would have withdrawn to her own [household] —

and not to one who was not her own [kin].

But let not this be turned to the harm of some, so that they should think they may take from this an occasion to devise for themselves women called "syneisaktoi" and "beloved companions," through a maliciously contrived pretext.

For there the matter was accomplished according to a [divine] dispensation, this case being set apart from all other cases which, according to God, ought to be observed with strict precision.

For indeed, once this had happened, and he had taken her to himself, she no longer remained continually with him.

But even if some think that we have erred, let them search out the traces in the Scriptures, and they will find neither the death of Mary, nor whether she died or did not die, nor whether she was buried or not buried — even though John undertook his journey into Asia.

And nowhere does it say that he took the holy Virgin along with him; Scripture simply kept silence about this, on account of the surpassing greatness of the marvel, so as not to bring the minds of men into utter astonishment.

For I myself do not dare to speak of it, but though I ponder it in my mind, I practice silence.

For perhaps we have indeed found some traces concerning that holy and blessed woman, such that her death cannot even be found.

For on the one hand, Symeon says of her, "And a sword shall pierce through your own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed"; and on the other hand, the Revelation of John says that "the dragon hastened after the woman who had borne the male child, and there were given to her the wings of a great eagle, and she was carried away into the wilderness, that the dragon might not seize her."

And perhaps this can be fulfilled in her case.

But I do not by any means assert this decisively, nor do I say that she remained immortal.

But neither do I affirm with certainty whether she has died.

For Scripture has surpassed the human mind, and has left the matter suspended, on account of that precious and most excellent vessel, lest anyone should fall into suspicion concerning her regarding fleshly matters.

So then, whether she died, we do not know; and if she was buried, she was not joined to [corruptible] flesh.

But who, having brought madness upon himself, would wish to hurl forth some blasphemous suspicion, and lift up his mouth, and loosen his tongue, and part his lips out of an evil mind — and instead of hymns and glory, devise certain insults, and behave outrageously toward the holy Virgin, and refuse to honor the vessel that has been so honored?

But if it is necessary to consider these matters also from some other point of view, let us also take up the relations pertaining to natural science.

They say that the lioness gives birth only from a single womb-bearing, and the reason is as follows:

The animal is most fierce, bright-eyed in appearance, most formidable in strength — so as to say it is the most royal of all the kinds of animals.