乞食者（駁基督一性論對話） 第 1 章 第 1/13 段

Such was that Alexander the coppersmith, who, possessing nothing worthy of note—neither distinction of birth, nor skill in speech, nor popular influence, nor generalship, nor deeds of valor in war, but plying only a mechanic's craft—became known solely through his frenzy against the most divine Paul.

They say too that the inventor of the Manichaean heresy was a runaway slave, deserving of the whip, and that out of a lust for glory he composed that abominable religion.

This very thing certain men do even now: fleeing the labors on account of which virtue's leaders win her lovely renown, they have procured for themselves a most inglorious and thrice-wretched notoriety.

For, longing to become champions of novel doctrines, they collected their impiety by contribution from many heresies and pieced together this destructive heresy.

But I shall endeavor to discourse with them briefly, both for the sake of their healing and out of forethought for those who are sound in faith.

The name of the treatise is *The Beggar*, or *The Many-Formed*.

For having begged and gathered their miserable doctrines from many unholy men, they put forward this variegated and many-formed opinion.

For to name the Master Christ God alone belongs to Simon and Cerdo and Marcion and the rest who share in this abominable neighborhood.

But to confess the birth from the Virgin, yet to say that it was merely a passing-through, and that God the Word took nothing from the Virgin—this they plundered from the monstrous fables of Valentinus and Bardesanes and those who border upon them.

And to call the Godhead and the manhood of the Master Christ one nature—this they filched from the drivel of Apollinarius.

And again, to attach suffering to the Godhead of the Master Christ they have stolen from the blasphemy of Arius and Eunomius; so that this heresy resembles nothing so much as the garments patched together by beggars out of various rags.

For this reason I entitle this treatise *The Beggar*, or *The Many-Formed*.

The names of the questioner and the answerer I shall not insert into the body of the discourse, as did the sages of the Greeks of old, but shall write them outside, at the beginnings of the lines.

For they addressed their writings to men trained in every kind of learning, and for whom discourse was their very life;

but I wish the reading, and the discovery of its profit, to be easily grasped even by those uninitiated in learned discourse.

This will come to pass when the persons in dialogue are made plain from the names written outside.

And the one who contends on behalf of the apostolic doctrines is named Orthodox, while the other is called Eranistes (the Beggar).

For just as we are accustomed to call one who is fed by the pity of many a beggar, and one who knows how to gather money a money-maker, so also we have given him this appellation from his practices.

I ask those who chance upon this to make trial of the truth without any prejudice whatsoever.

We shall divide the treatise into dialogues.

And the first will take up the contest concerning the immutability of the Godhead of the only-begotten Son;

the second, God helping, will show that the union of the Godhead and the manhood of the Master Christ came to be without confusion;

and the third will contend concerning the impassibility of the Godhead of our Savior.

After these three contests, by way of supplementary contests, we shall add certain other things, fitting a syllogism to each chapter, and showing that the apostles' preaching is preserved by us intact.

But since—I know not for what reason—you have broken concord and now put forward to us empty doctrines, let us, if it seem good, without any strife seek out the truth in common.

{ERANISTES.} We have no need of inquiry;

for we hold fast to the truth with exactness.

{ORTH.} This too has each of the heretics supposed of himself;

and indeed both Jews and Greeks think themselves to be champions of the doctrines of truth—and not only those who worship the teachings of Plato and Pythagoras, but also those of the Epicurean faction, and the utterly godless and creedless.

But it behooves us not to be slaves to prejudice, but to seek after true knowledge.

{ERAN.} I am persuaded by the exhortation, and I accept the proposal.

{ORTH.} Since, then, you have obediently received the former appeal, I ask you again not to entrust the search for truth to human reasonings, but to seek out the footsteps of the apostles and prophets and the saints who came after them.

For this is what travelers are wont to do, when they have strayed from the highway and scan the byways to see whether they have any marks of feet—of men or horses or asses or mules—belonging to those who have gone or come;

and when they find them, they track like hounds, and do not give up until they recover the straight road.

Lead on, then, yourself, since you began the discourse.

{ORTH.} Then let us first clearly distinguish the divine names—I mean essence and hypostases and persons and properties—and let us know and define what difference they have to one another;

and then thereafter let us take up what follows.

{ERAN.} You have given the dialogue a most excellent and most necessary preamble.

For when these matters have been clearly determined, the discussion will proceed more easily.

{ORTH.} Since, then, it is settled, and we have agreed together that these things ought so to be done, answer me, my friend.

Of God—both the Father and the only-begotten Son and the all-holy Spirit—do we say there is one essence, as we have been taught by divine Scripture, both old and new, and by the Fathers who assembled at Nicaea; or do we follow the blasphemies of Arius? {ERAN.} We confess one essence of the Holy Trinity.

{ORTH.} And do we think that hypostasis signifies something other than essence, or have we supposed it to be another name for essence? {ERAN.} Has essence any difference from hypostasis? {ORTH.} According to the wisdom that is from without (secular wisdom), it has none.

For essence signifies that which is, and hypostasis that which subsists.

But according to the teaching of the Fathers, the difference which the common has to the particular, or the genus to the species or to the individual, that same difference has essence to hypostasis.

{ERAN.} Speak more plainly concerning genus and species and the individual.

{ORTH.} We call 'animal' a genus, for it signifies many things at once.

And again, of the irrational creatures there are many species: some winged, some amphibious, some land-dwelling, some swimming.

And each of these is divided into many.

So too of the winged and of the rest there are many species;

but nevertheless of all these the genus is 'animal,' and the species are those aforementioned.

So too the name 'man' is a name common to this very nature.

For it signifies both the Roman and the Athenian and the Persian and the Sarmatian and the Egyptian, and, to speak in sum, all who share in this nature.

But the name 'Paul' or 'Peter' no longer signifies the common nature, but a particular man.

For no one, on hearing 'Paul,' runs back in thought to Adam and Abraham and Jacob, but conceives only of that man whose appellation he has heard.

But hearing simply 'man,' he does not fix his mind upon the individual, but reckons the Indian and the Scythian and the Massagete, and, in a word, the whole race of men.

And this not only nature teaches us, but also divine Scripture.

For 'God said,' it declares, 'I will blot out man whom I have formed from the face of the earth.' And this He spoke concerning very many myriads.

For more than two thousand two hundred years having passed after Adam, He brought upon men the utter destruction by the flood.

'Man, being in honor, understood not'—not this man or that man, but bringing an accusation against all men in common.

And countless such passages one may find, but there is no need to be long-winded;

rather let us return to the discourse concerning essence and hypostasis.

{ORTH.} Just as, then, the name 'man' is a name common to this nature, so we say that the divine essence signifies the Holy Trinity, while the hypostasis is indicative of some particular person, namely, either of the Father or of the Son or of the Holy Spirit.

For we say that hypostasis and person and property signify the same thing, following the definitions of the holy Fathers.

{ERAN.} We agree together that these things are so.

{ORTH.} Whatever, then, is said concerning the divine nature is common to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit—such as 'God,' 'Lord,' 'Creator,' 'Almighty,' and whatever is akin to these.

{ERAN.} Indisputably they are common to the Trinity.

{ORTH.} But whatever, again, is indicative of the hypostases—these are no longer common to the Holy Trinity, but belong to that hypostasis whose properties they are.

For instance, the name 'Father' and 'unbegotten' are properties of the Father; and again, the name 'Son' and 'only-begotten' and 'God the Word' indicate neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit, but the Son.

And 'the Holy Spirit' and 'the Paraclete' are indicative of the hypostasis of the Spirit.

{ERAN.} Does not divine Scripture, then, call both the Father and the Son 'Spirit'? {ORTH.} It has called both the Father and the Son 'Spirit,' thereby signifying the incorporeal and uncircumscribed character of the divine nature.

But by 'Holy Spirit' he names the hypostasis alone of the Spirit.

ERANISTES: This too is beyond dispute.

ORTHODOXOS: Since, then, we have said that some things are common to the Holy Trinity, while others are proper to each hypostasis, do we say that the name 'immutable' is common to the essence, or proper to some one hypostasis? ERANISTES: Immutability is common to the Trinity.

For it is not possible that part of the essence should be mutable and part immutable.

For just as mortality is common to human beings, so immutability and unchangeableness are common to the Holy Trinity.

Therefore the only-begotten Son also is immutable, even as is the Father who begot him, and the Holy Spirit.

ORTHODOXOS: How is it, then, that in citing that saying of the Gospel, 'The Word became flesh,' you attach mutability to the immutable nature? ERANISTES: We do not say that he became flesh by way of mutation, but as he himself knows how.

but that according to the true reckoning God is without flesh.

ERANISTES: This is the opinion of the Valentinians, the Marcionites, and the Manichaeans.

But we have been taught by clear confession that God the Word was made flesh.

ORTHODOXOS: When you speak of his being made flesh, what do you understand by it—the taking of flesh, or the being turned into flesh? ERANISTES: What we have heard the Evangelist say:

'The Word became flesh.' ORTHODOXOS: This word 'became'—how do you understand it? That, having undergone a turning into flesh, he became flesh? ERANISTES: I have already said, as he himself knows how;

but we know that all things are possible for him.

For indeed he turned the water of the Nile into blood, and the day into night, and showed the sea to be dry land, and filled the waterless wilderness with waters.

And we hear the prophet too saying:

'Whatsoever the Lord willed he did, in heaven and on earth.' ORTHODOXOS: The Maker refashions the creation as he wills;

for it is mutable, and follows the biddings of the one who fashioned it.

But he himself has a nature immutable and unchangeable.

For this reason, then, the prophet says concerning the creation:

'But thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.' And again, God himself concerning himself:

'I am, and I have not changed.' ERANISTES: One ought not to search out things hidden.

ORTHODOXOS: Nor ought one to be wholly ignorant of the things revealed.

ERANISTES: The manner of the incarnation escapes me;

but I have heard that 'the Word became flesh.' ORTHODOXOS: If he became flesh by being turned, he has not remained what he was before;

and this is easy to learn from many images.

For indeed such-and-such sand, when brought near to fire, first becomes fluid, then is fused into glass, and together with the change it also alters its name.

For it is no longer called sand, but glass.

ORTHODOXOS: And though we call the fruit of the vine a grape-cluster, when we have pressed it out we call it not grape-cluster but wine.

ORTHODOXOS: And this wine itself, when it has turned sour, we are wont to call no longer wine but vinegar.

ORTHODOXOS: So too, when we burn and dissolve stone, we call it no longer stone, but quicklime or lime;

and one may find countless such things which, along with the change, alter their appellation.

ORTHODOXOS: If, then, you say that God the Word underwent the turning into flesh, why ever do you call him God and not flesh? For the change of appellation befits the alteration of nature.

For if, where the things that are changed have some kinship with what they were before (for vinegar somehow approaches wine, and wine the fruit of the vine, and glass the sand), these nevertheless obtain a different appellation after the alteration,

where the difference is infinite, and as great as that of a gnat to the whole creation, visible and invisible (for so great, or rather much greater still, is the interval between the nature of flesh and that of Godhead), how is it possible that after the turning the former appellation should remain? ERANISTES: I have often said that he became flesh not by way of turning, but, remaining what he was, he became what he was not.

ORTHODOXOS: But this word 'he became,' unless it be made plain, hints at a turning and an alteration.

For if it was not by taking flesh that he became flesh, then it was by being turned that he became flesh.

ERANISTES: This word 'he took' is your own invention.

For the Evangelist says, 'The Word became flesh.'

ORTHODOXOS: You seem either to be ignorant of the divine Scripture, or, while knowing it, to deal maliciously with it.

But I will either instruct you if you are ignorant, or convict you if you are dealing maliciously.

Answer, then: do you confess that the teaching of the divine Paul is spiritual? ERANISTES: Most certainly.

ORTHODOXOS: And do you say that the same Spirit wrought both through the Evangelists and through the Apostles? ERANISTES: So I say;

for so I was taught by the apostolic voice:

'But all these things one and the same Spirit works, distributing severally to each one as he wills.' And again:

of faith. ORTHODOXOS: In good season have you brought forward the apostolic testimonies.

If, then, we say that both the instructions of the Evangelists and those of the Apostles belong to the same Spirit, hear the Apostle interpreting the Gospel saying.

For writing to the Hebrews he spoke thus:

'For surely it is not of angels that he takes hold, but he takes hold of the seed of Abraham.' He did not say, 'He became the seed of Abraham,' but 'He takes hold of the seed of Abraham.'

ORTHODOXOS: Did then the seed of Abraham also have what Abraham had according to nature? ERANISTES: Not all things.

For Christ did no sin.

ORTHODOXOS: Sin belongs not to nature, but to the evil will.

For this reason I did not say indefinitely 'what Abraham had,' but 'what he had according to nature'—that is, a body and a rational soul.

Say, then, plainly, whether you agree that the seed of Abraham is both a body and a rational soul.

For if not, then in this respect too you side with the ravings of Apollinaris.

But indeed I will compel you to agree to this from another quarter as well.

ORTHODOXOS: When, then, we hear the prophet saying, 'But thou, Israel my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, seed of Abraham whom I have loved,' do we understand the Jews to be mere flesh, and not complete human beings composed of bodies and rational souls? ERANISTES: True.

ORTHODOXOS: And the seed of Abraham was not soulless nor mindless, but had all that characterizes the nature of Abraham? ERANISTES: He who says these things advocates two sons.

ORTHODOXOS: But he who says that God the Word was turned into flesh says not even one Son.

For flesh in and of itself is not a son.

But we confess one Son, who took hold of the seed of Abraham according to the divine Apostle, and who wrought out the salvation of mankind.

But if you do not cherish the apostolic teaching, confess it openly.

ERANISTES: We say, then, that the Apostles have spoken contradictory things.

For 'The Word became flesh' seems somehow to be contrary to 'He took hold of the seed of Abraham.' ORTHODOXOS: To you, who do not understand or who contend in vain, things that are in harmony seem contradictory.

For to those who make use of a sober reasoning it does not so appear.

In the same way he also calls to mind the promise that was made to Abraham.

Or do you not remember the promises given to the patriarch by the God of all? ERANISTES: What promises? ORTHODOXOS: When he led him out of his father's house and enjoined him to come into Palestine, did he not say to him, 'I will bless those that bless thee, and those that curse thee I will curse, and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed'? ERANISTES: I remember these promises.

ORTHODOXOS: Then call to mind also the covenants made by God with Isaac and Jacob.

For he gave the same promises to these also, confirming to the second and third what had been given to the first.

ERANISTES: I remember these too.

ORTHODOXOS: And the divine Apostle, interpreting these covenants, speaks thus in the Epistle to the Galatians:

Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed.

He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, 'And to thy seed,' which is Christ; thereby most plainly showing that the manhood of Christ sprang from the seed of Abraham, and that it fulfilled the promise which had been made to Abraham.

ERAN. These things were said by the Apostle.

ORTH. These things indeed are sufficient of themselves to resolve every controversy that is stirred up concerning this matter.

Nevertheless I will also remind you of another prediction.

Jacob the patriarch gave this blessing, which had been bestowed upon himself, upon his father, and upon his grandfather, to his son Judah alone.

'Judah, and a leader from his loins, until he come to whom it is reserved; and he shall be the expectation of the nations.' Or do you not accept this prediction as having been spoken concerning the Saviour Christ? ERAN. The Jews misinterpret such prophecies.

But I am a Christian, believing the divine words, and accepting without hesitation the prophecies concerning our Saviour.

ORTH. Since then you confess that you believe the prophecies, and say that the things foretold concerning our Saviour were divinely proclaimed, understand from this the aim of the apostolic sayings.

For, showing that the promises made to the patriarchs had reached their fulfillment, he uttered that marvelous saying:

'For verily he took not on him the nature of angels'—all but saying, The promise is without falsehood, the Lord has set the term upon His promises, the fountain of the blessing is opened to the nations, God the Word has laid hold of the seed of Abraham, and through this He accomplishes the salvation promised of old, through this He confirms the expectation of the nations.

ERAN. Excellently have the prophetic sayings been fitted to the apostolic.

ORTH. So again the divine Apostle, reminding us of the blessing of Judah, and showing that this also received its fulfillment, cries aloud:

'For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah.' And the very same thing both the prophet Micah and the evangelist Matthew have done.

For the one uttered the prediction, and the other joined the testimony to the history.

And the marvel is that he said the most manifest enemies of the truth plainly told Herod that Christ is born in Bethlehem.

'For it is written,' he says, 'And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah;'

'for out of thee shall come forth a governor, that shall shepherd my people Israel.' But let us add also that which the Jews maliciously omitted, presenting the testimony incomplete.

For the prophet, having said, 'For out of thee shall come forth to me a governor,' added, 'And his goings forth have been from the beginning, from the days of eternity.' ERAN. You have done excellently, in setting down the whole testimony of the prophet.

ORTH. He proclaims Him not God only, but also man.

Man, as having sprung from Judah according to the flesh and having been born in Bethlehem;

and God, as existing before the ages.

For the phrase, 'Out of thee shall come forth to me a governor,' signifies the birth according to the flesh which took place in the last days;

but the phrase, 'His goings forth have been from the beginning, from the days of eternity,' clearly proclaims His existence before all ages.

So also the divine Apostle in the Epistle to the Romans, lamenting the ancient good fortune of the Jews and their change for the worse, and having made mention of the divine promise and legislation, has added these words also:

'Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.' And by the same words he showed Him to be both Creator and Lord and Governor of all things as God, and to have sprung from the Jews as man.

ERAN. Behold, you have interpreted these things;

but to the prophecy of Jeremiah what would you say? For that proclaims Him God only.

ORTH. Which prophecy do you mean? ERAN. 'This is our God; no other shall be reckoned with him.'

'He found out all the way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved.'

'After this he appeared upon earth, and dwelt among men.' In these words the prophet foretold nothing concerning flesh, nor concerning manhood, nor concerning man, but concerning God alone.

Where then is there need of syllogisms? ORTH. Do we say that the divine nature is invisible, or do we not believe the Apostle when he says, 'To the incorruptible, invisible, only God'? ERAN. Beyond dispute the divine nature is invisible.

Does it not clearly teach the invisibility of the divine nature? And it says thus:

'Whom no man hath seen, nor can see.' If then the beholding of the divine nature is impossible for men—and I say also for angels—tell me how the unseen and invisible One appeared upon the earth.

ERAN. The prophet said that He appeared upon the earth.

ORTH. And the Apostle said, 'To the incorruptible, invisible, only God,' and, 'Whom no man hath seen, nor can see.' ERAN. What then? Does the prophet lie? ORTH. God forbid; for both these words and those are of the divine Spirit.

Let us then inquire how the invisible One appeared.

ERAN. Do not bring to me human reasonings and syllogisms.

For I am persuaded by the divine Scripture alone.

ORTH. Accept no argument that is in no way confirmed by the testimony of Scripture.

ERAN. If you bring me the solution of the dispute from the divine Scripture, I will accept it without contention and will not gainsay.

ORTH. You know that but a little while ago we made the evangelic saying clear by means of the apostolic testimony, and the divine Apostle showed us how the Word became flesh, saying expressly, 'For verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham.' The same teacher then will now also teach us how God the Word appeared upon the earth and dwelt among men.

ERAN. I am persuaded by both the apostolic and the prophetic words.

ORTH. Writing to Timothy, the divine Apostle set down these words also:

'Confessedly great is the mystery of godliness;'

For with His hand He fashioned the faculty of sight and healed the man blind from birth.

And again He restored the faculty of hearing to the deaf man, and loosed the tongue that was bound, using His fingers as an instrument, and applying His spittle as a kind of protecting remedy.

So again, walking upon the sea, He disclosed the all-powerful nature of the Godhead.

Fittingly then the divine Apostle said, 'Who was manifested in the flesh.'

'For He was seen,' he says, 'of angels.' Therefore together with us the nature of the bodiless ones also enjoyed this gift.

ERAN. Did the angels then not see God before the appearing of the Saviour? ORTH. The Apostle said that having been manifested in the flesh He was seen of angels.

ERAN. But the Lord said, 'See that ye despise not one of these little ones, the least.'

'For the only-begotten Son,' he says, 'who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.' And Moses the great, longing to see the invisible nature, heard the Lord God saying to him, 'No one shall see my face, and live.' ERAN. How then shall we understand that 'Their angels do always behold the face of your Father'? ORTH. As we are wont to understand the things concerning the men who were thought to have seen God.

ERAN. Speak more clearly.

ORTH. Is God then visible even to men? ERAN. By no means.

Yet concerning Moses the lawgiver the history says that 'the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as if a man should speak unto his friend.'

And God Himself, the God of all, said, 'Mouth to mouth will I speak to him, in a manifest form, and not by dark sayings.' What then shall we say? that they beheld the divine nature? ERAN. By no means.

'No one shall see my face, and live.' ORTH. Do then those who said they had seen God lie? ERAN. God forbid;

for they saw such things as it was possible for them to see.

ORTH. Does then the benevolent Lord measure His revelations by the capacity of those who behold? ERAN. Certainly.

ORTH. And this too He has made plain through the prophet.

'For I,' He said, 'have multiplied visions, and by the hands of the prophets was I likened.' He did not say, 'I was seen,' but, 'I was likened.' And the likening does not reveal the very nature of that which is seen.

For not even the image of the king reveals the very nature of the king, even though it preserve distinct the features of the king.

ERAN. This at least is obscure and unclear.

ORTH. Did then those who beheld those revelations not see even the essence of God? ERAN. For who is so mad as to dare to say this? ORTH. Yet it has nevertheless been said that they saw.

ORTH. But we, both using pious reasonings and believing the divine declarations, which cry aloud expressly, 'No man hath seen God at any time,' say that they saw not the divine nature, but certain visions commensurate with their own power.

ORTH. So then let us understand also concerning the angels, when we hear that 'They do daily behold the face of your Father.' For they do not see the divine essence, which is uncircumscribed, incomprehensible, inconceivable, all-embracing, but a certain glory commensurate with their nature.

ERAN. It is agreed that these things are so.

ORTH. Yet after the incarnation He was seen also by the angels, according to the divine Apostle, using not a likeness of glory, but a true and living one—as it were a veil—the covering of the flesh.

'For He was manifested,' he says, 'in the flesh, was justified in the Spirit, was seen of angels.' ERAN. This I have accepted as scriptural, but the innovations of terms I do not accept.

ORTH. What novel name have we coined? ERAN. That of 'the veil.'

For what Scripture ever called the Lord's flesh a 'veil'? ORTH. It seems you do not read the divine Scripture with much diligence.

For otherwise you would not have found fault with what we said as being spoken figuratively.

For, in the first place, when the divine Apostle says that the invisible nature was made manifest through the flesh, he permits us to understand the flesh as the veil of the Godhead.

Then again, the divine Apostle plainly employed this very name in the Epistle to the Hebrews.