文集 第 2 章 第 3/8 段

For it will be reckoned as a vice of contentiousness, to demand a proof of bare wording, the sense of whose faith you know to abound more copiously in the Scriptures. Seek therefore the sense whence the nature of this word drew its origin; and when you have found the sense, do not doubt that you have likewise found the name. XXIV. Athanasius said: By whatever arguments you deal with him, he can in no way be recalled from this intention. For he knows most certainly that if it comes down to this—that it be taught, from the consequence of the Scriptures, that the substance of the Father and of the Son is one (which is 'homoousion')—he can most easily be overcome: and therefore, driven by the peril of diffidence and fear, he demands a proof of bare wording.

But he must again be bound by his own professions. You demand of me that I show in writing one substance of the Father and of the Son, that is, the homoousion; yet you yourself confess three ousiai, that is, three substances. Show me, then, where you have read of three ousiai. For if I must deny the one, that is, the homoousion, on the ground that I do not find it written in bare words, how do you dare to profess three ousiai, when you can nowhere demonstrate this in writing? Probus the judge said:

If there exists any document from the divine authorities, set down properly and expressly, by which it is proved that there are three ousiai of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and three natures (as you confess), let it be produced, so that Athanasius may be able to turn aside from the confession of one substance, which is the homoousion. For when you have shown the triousion expressly set down in the Scriptures, it will be manifest that Athanasius persists thus far in the confession of the homoousion by the rashness of a most stubborn obstinacy, in that he could not demonstrate it expressly set down. But if you yourself are likewise unable to demonstrate three ousiai, you will appear bound by the same necessity of condition as I am. XXV. Athanasius said:

Let him teach that three ousiai are expressly set down, and I will make cession of the one substance, which is the homoousion. Arius said: If there are three, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, necessarily there are three substances, in which each person is known to subsist separately and more distinctly in its own propriety. Athanasius said: Here arguments avail nothing; here the truth is gathered by reasoning from consequence; the express wording of testimonies is demanded. Read the triousion expressly set down, and do not say by conjecture: 'If there are three, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, necessarily there are also three substances'; for I too by a similar conjecture can opine more truly: If the Father and the Son are one (since He Himself says:

'I and the Father are one'), how is there not one substance? But you were utterly unwilling to enter upon this path of disputation, while you demand from me a testimony expressly set down (by demonstrating the homoousion). By a similar reasoning, then, do you also read three ousiai expressly and properly set down. For if I must deny the homoousion because I do not show it written in bare words, then I must necessarily confess the triousion, if I come to know it expressly set down by your demonstration. Arius said: Does the Father subsist in His own propriety, or not? Athanasius said: Unless you read me three ousiai expressly set down, I will give no answer to your questions. For who does not see whither your objection tends?

For you wish, by the argument of a cunning question, to prove distinct substances of the Father and the Son; but here there is no need of arguments, where by a plainer testimony of express wording a document of three substances is demanded. But if you desire to pass from the express wording of testimonies to the consequence of things, let this very point be made known to the public conscience: that you have not been able to demonstrate three ousiai expressly set down; and when we both have settled this article, it will be necessary for me to satisfy your objections or questions. XXVI. Probus the judge said: So far as the aim of your disputation shows, neither can you show the Homoousion, nor he the Triousion, expressly and specifically set down.

Wherefore, lest you linger any longer in a childish contention over superfluous matters, let both of you at last desist from this demand for a bare document; and by reasoning from consequence gather either the homoousion or the triousion from the authority of the Scriptures. For it will not be lawful to doubt of the appellation of a name which a copious accumulation of testimonies will be able to confirm more firmly. Arius said: Since your verdict has decreed that we must gather the force of the aforesaid names by the persuasions of reasonings and by the causes of consequent things, lest it seem to Athanasius that I, by the difficulty of demonstrating the truth, have sought documents of the express wording of a bare term, I will so act as your decree has promulgated.

For I rather wished to use brevity, lest the aim of reasoning, wandering too far, should overshadow the truth with ambiguous meanings. Athanasius said: Faith cannot come into doubt which is propped by the safeguard of truth. The light of resplendent truth scatters the thicker clouds of falsehoods. For he cannot lack his own strength who has no need to be aided from without by the props of supporting votes. And on another day Probus the judge said: Since I do not doubt that you will keep, by an inflexible verdict, the covenants of the compact you have entered upon, by which you appear to have mutually granted this, that you should prove the profession of one substance or of three substances from the consequence of the divine writings, by a luminous examination of disputation:

that is, the question being laid aside, the question that demanded a document of a bare term expressly set down; the reasoning of the agreement itself now requires that, all the cavilling of human argumentation being set aside, from the sacred volumes of the divine authorities you should teach whether the substances of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit are one or distinct. For the proof of which matter not only my own mind (as I think), but the mind of almost all mortals, is so held in suspense by hanging expectation that, if the merits of so great a business would allow it, it would desire to arrive, without the adjournment of a single day or the interval of a single moment, at the summit of truth and the goal of a most manifest understanding.

Wherefore, lest so devout an intention of the faithful and one eager for truth be frustrated, with all the allurement of luxuriant oratory cast out, treat of the matter, of the cause, of what is fitting, of what is necessary; cautiously avoiding (as I said) every parade of words and the trappings of phrases that wander far from the cause and the charm of speeches: so that the narrative of your disputation may be adorned rather by truth than by the buskin of swelling eloquence. II. Athanasius said: Although long since I have frequently and often disputed, apart from these proceedings, concerning the unity of substance, and have committed my disputations to writing, so that nothing more can be added by me in this disputation:

yet because these things were said outside, with no one opposing face to face, I find it necessary to repeat these same things and to put them forth into this examination of public proceeding, that they may be confirmed by the verdict of your judgment. Probus the judge said: If they shall not have been weakened by Arius's rejoinders, then they will be able to stand by our firm verdict. Arius said: Why are these snares of deceit set forth? Why, in defense of an impious assertion, is the verdict of the judge preferred beforehand? Let us first do what the necessity of demonstrating the truth imposes upon us to do. Let the profession of our faith be impressed upon the human ear. Let the judges perceive by what ways and by what reasonings, and finally by what documents, our assertion is supported:

and then at last we will request the promulgation of the verdict, which assuredly in no way hangs upon our own discretion, from the judge. Probus the judge said: It behooves you to remember my preface, lately made at the beginning of this proceeding, and your own pledge inserted some time ago into the past proceedings, by which it was concluded that, superfluous matters being laid aside, one must come down to the citadel of the business. This you ought at length at some time to be doing. Arius said: Let him teach that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are of one substance: of one power, one dignity, one glory, one majesty, one virtue and honor; which with a rather improvident and too incautious profession he is wont to bandy about before the peoples. Athanasius said:

Do you profess that the Son is truly born of the Father, or not? Arius said: Do you yourself profess that the Father cannot be subject to any defect of derivation or division, or not? Athanasius said: I profess it strongly. Arius said: And I too profess that the Son was born from the Father. III. Athanasius said: Do you reckon that to be born 'from' (ex) the Father is the same as to be born 'of' (de) the Father? Arius said: It is enough for you that I have said He was born 'from' the Father; which also I most easily show to be written. Why do you employ cunning arguments? For the rest, 'born of (de) the Father' I have been able nowhere meanwhile to find written for the present. But I recall that 'from (ex) the Father' is written, the apostle John saying: 'He that loveth the Father loveth him that is born of him.'

Athanasius said: Do you then think it makes no difference whether He is said to be born 'from him' (ex ipso) or 'of him' (de ipso)? Arius said: If you are able to demonstrate to me, expressly set down, that the Son is born 'of' (de) the Father, then I will judge what I ought to think thereof. But since I am not unaware that in very many copies it is variously set down, so that in the same places where 'from him' is read, in other manuscripts 'of him' is read; yet whether this has come about by the fraud of interpolators, or by the signification of one and the same thing (that is, that 'from him' is the same as 'of him'), this cannot bring any sufficient prejudice to our faith. Athanasius said: In this careful pursuit of yours I have observed things quite certain from the reasoning you have set forth.

But that you said no prejudice can be brought in these words only to our faith, and did not designate it as affecting the faith of both parties, I have wondered greatly; and I judge that, hastening to fortify your own faith, you have proposed it thus, hoping that I might thereafter pass over lightly without any document. In the Gospel, too, the Son says of the Father: 'God is a Spirit' (John 4:24). And, to show Himself born of the Father, He said: 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit' (John 3:6). And, 'I came forth from God the Father' (John 16:27). Behold, I have shown the Son born of the Father, the Son Himself saying it. IV. Arius said:

You employ disputations cunning and suspicious enough, in saying that I said this for the fortification of my own faith; but, that from your meanings all ambiguity of suspicion may be removed, as I confessed above, whether He be said to be born 'from him' or 'of him,' it can bring no prejudice at all in any way to the faith of either party. Athanasius said: When the Father begot the Son from Himself, did He beget this which He Himself is, or something else? Arius said: He begot assuredly that which He Himself is, since God begot God, Light begot Light, the Perfect begot the Perfect, the Omnipotent begot the Omnipotent. Athanasius said: Therefore not from without, nor from nothing, nor from any preceding or subsequent matter, but from Himself He begot;

and He begot nothing other than what He Himself is. Arius said: One begot another. Athanasius said: We too confess that one begot another. But if He begot of Himself, that is, of that which He Himself is, then the Son cannot be of another substance or of a different kind; and thus He will be of one and the same substance with the Father. Arius said: If you knew into how many errors of perfidy the profession of one substance inclines, you would assuredly never make mention of this name between the Father and the Son, nor would you have concluded your disputation, divided by certain steps of questions, with such an article, so as to bring it to this end of impious profession. Athanasius said:

That it is impious and sacrilegious to profess distinct substances of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and that it is pious and religious to believe them to be of one substance, know, Arius, that I cannot be ignorant of this; and I will demonstrate that this is not gathered by human opinion, nor found out by conjectures and arguments, but handed down by the teaching authority of heavenly doctrine. V. Probus the judge said: First assign to me the force and quality of the word; and then at last it can be demonstrated whether it befits the Father and the Son. Athanasius said: Substance, indeed, is distinguished by two kinds of appellation: and there is one kind, namely a quality, which may indicate the essence of an existing nature.

But there is another kind of substance, by which he who possesses is distinguished from the things which he possesses. And, that what I say may become plainer, I use a clearer exposition. For example: a man is the substance of his own kind and nature. Again, if there is anything which he possesses from without, that is, in the matter of gold or silver or other kinds of goods, it is called his substance. And although the appellation of the same word seems to be one, yet it seems to signify two things. But we are disputing about that kind of substance by which each nature, on account of that which it is or subsists, is named a substance. And whatever it has begotten of itself, that is, from its own self, can be nothing other than that which it is itself.

Finally, a man, a father begetting a son, begets a man of his own kind, that is, of his own substance, because man begets man; and they are rightly said to be of one substance, because the truth of birth does not admit a diversity of substances. But there is a diversity of substance, as I might say for example, if a man should beget a beast, or if a beast of any kind should beget a beast of a kind different from itself; that is, if an ox should beget an ass, or a sheep beget a goat. Since these proceed into a diversity of kind, the generation will be monstrous, in no way preserving the propriety of its own nature. Again, in the qualities of the elements, what diversity or propriety of substances there may be, it is worth the effort to observe. For example:

The nature of each fire or light seems to furnish from itself that which it itself is; as light furnishes brightness, as fire furnishes burning. And subsisting in this kind of its own office, it seems to preserve the undefiled nature of its own substance. But if light should beget darkness from itself, it will be liable to change, furnishing matter of a kind different from itself; for in this it will be able to preserve the substance of its immutability unimpaired, if it furnishes from itself that which it itself is. But if, as I said, that which it furnishes from itself shall be other than the very thing that furnishes it, then it can be called of another substance; which the quality, or order, or reason of all natures by no means admits.

Come now, if it seems good, let us raise the eye of the mind from earthly and visible things to higher things, and from the things that have been made let us recognize the substance of the uncreated power, taught by the teaching authority of the apostle, where he says that the invisible power of the Godhead is to be understood from the things that have been made (Rom. 1:20). Arius therefore says that the Son was born from the Father, and does not deny that God begot God, Light begot Light. In which profession one of two things must without doubt be held. For either, begetting from Himself, He begot that which He Himself is, and on this account the Son will be of one substance with the Father; or, if He begot a God of a kind different from Himself, it cannot be called a true birth, which could not preserve the propriety of the substance of its kind:

and the reasoning of the disputation is brought to this, that either He was not born at all, or He was degenerate. Both of which it will seem absurd and impious to confess. VI. Probus the judge said: If Arius knows anything that avails him against these things, let him not delay to declare it. Arius said: I do not think Athanasius is ignorant that God is of a simple and immutable nature. But if, as he himself asserted, He generated from His own substance, He will without doubt be mutable. For it is necessary that, in begetting from Himself that which He Himself is, He either lost a part of His substance through a generation of derivation, or was able to suffer the defect of division.

For I confess that the substance of God the Father has neither brought forth anything from itself, nor been derived into the qualities of parts, nor felt, or been able to feel, accession or detraction, or anything of this sort that is liable to passion. Athanasius said: But neither do we believe the divine nature to be subject to these conditions of passions; rather, we faithfully confess that in these the Father is impassible, and that He impassibly begot the Son from Himself, that is, of that which He Himself is. Nor do the kinds of division or derivation and of parts, and of the passion of all things, which, driven by an empty fear of anxiety, you wished to object, turn us aside from the truth of our profession;

so as to make us deny that God could beget from Himself, on the ground that He would seem to be subject to these passions. What, therefore, is more religious, what holier and more befitting the Godhead (I beseech you, O hearers), weigh with the even scale of judgment. Raise the eyes of your mind, and fearing the terrifying day of the judgment to come, perceive with religious intention of mind what more agrees with the catholic and apostolic truth: whether to confess that the omnipotent God impassibly begot the Son from Himself, or rather to opine that, lest He be subject to the defect of passion, He could not beget the Son from Himself, that is, from His own substance.

For I build up this, I assert this by the clearest profession of voice: that just as God is impassible, so also is He omnipotent. I believe that He was able to generate from His own substance, yet was not subject to the defect of any passion. For division, derivation, contraction, accession, flux, or whatever kinds of passions of this sort there can be, befit corporeal and tangible things composed from diversity. But God, who is circumscribed by no corporeal marks of figures, nor distinguished by any lineaments of members, cannot be subject to the defect of passion. And rightly do I profess generations in Him, because He begot; and rightly nonetheless do I confess it was impassibly, because He was never passible. VII.

Arius said: Is it then, because omnipotence cannot be denied in God, on that account to be confessed that He can suffer those things which the wholly incorrupt substance of His divinity does not admit? Whence it will seem very dishonorable and full enough of impiety that, through the profession of one substance, we should believe that neither the Father subsists properly, nor the Son stands in His own propriety. For thither does the aim of his perfidy proceed: that, the persons of the Father and the Son being mingled, and collected and confounded from diverse elements into the coagulation of one thing, they are unable in any way to subsist (as I said) in the singularity of their own propriety.

This too, exceedingly horrible and to be removed far from the minds of the faithful, is contained in the perfidy of this profession of yours: that the inviolable Father, in begetting from His own substance, could in no way avoid the defect of corruption and division. Athanasius said: Bound more tightly, as it were by insoluble knots, by the truth of the divine generation, and seeking a refuge of escape through I know not what contrivances of an impious intention, from which it is certain the divine nature is free, you object corruption to the incorrupt, passion to the impassible, impotence to the omnipotent: and, repeating this frequently and often, no reverence for the divine majesty can (so far as I see) restrain you from objections so impious;

but, with no regard for shame, you strive to rush headlong into an injury against the venerable nativity of the Son. But you, wandering too unbridled and floating, as it were in the eddy of a billowy sea, with a certain natural license, the testimonies of the divine authority will restrain, and, hemmed within certain limits of the divine profession, will not allow you to go beyond the bounds of the lawful constitutions. The divine majesty therefore impresses upon human senses, by that sacred oracle of its own profession, in which it testifies that it begot the Son ineffably from the hidden secrets of its own substance, and says: 'From the womb before the morning star I begot thee' (Ps. 109:3). One thing therefore must be held in this attestation of the divine profession.

For either He begot the Son incorruptibly from His own ineffable substance, or, lest He be corrupted, He did not beget at all. But I choose this part of the entire faith, which more religiously persuades us to serve God who testifies concerning Himself: nor will any obstacles of human passion, descending from the sacrilege of unbelief, be able in any way to call me back, so that I should with reason not believe that God could generate, lest after the manner of human custom He might be subject to corruption; since I do not doubt that it is enough for me to profess that He was born of God's substance who is agreed to have proceeded from the womb of the Father. VIII. Arius said:

So far as the aim of your pursuit shows, you wish to introduce to us a God composite and liable to corruption, since in this matter you do not even fear to accept a corporeal appellation of a womb. It will therefore be necessary that either He be composed of members, if He has a womb; or liable to corruption (as I said), if He generated from His own substance. Athanasius said: I would rightly be charged with having thought thus, if I had affirmed, by the presumption of my own rashness, without any testimony of divine law, that God has a womb. But since God Himself, to refute the madness of those unwilling to believe, deigned to declare this concerning Himself, in order more evidently to teach, by the naming of a womb, that He begot the Son not from without, not from elsewhere;

but from Himself, that is, from His own substance, He begot the Son; why do you fasten upon me the marks of a vicious credulity, when you could rather say this to God: 'If You have a womb, You will be composite; if You begot from Yourself, You will be liable to corruption'? For a womb is understood in God without any composition of members, just as eyes and ears, and hands and feet, are said to be in Him without any lineaments of distinctions. As, therefore, you understand eyes because He sees all things, ears because He hears all things, hands because He works all things, feet because He is everywhere; so ought you to understand a womb, because He begot ineffably from Himself. IX. Nor ought you faithlessly to suppose that, if He begot from Himself, He could indeed be corrupted;

of whom, inasmuch as He, omnipotent, was able to generate even incorruptibly, and could not be corrupted by this very generation, it is fitting faithfully to profess. For if He is believed to have been wondrously born of the Virgin incorruptibly, against the nature of things, how much more must He be believed to have been incorruptibly begotten of the Father? For if the substantial nature of the Virgin, which from itself, by the condition of corruptible nature, could indeed be subject to passion and corruption, nevertheless with the undefiled integrity of chastity and with the virginal enclosures unbroken, bore a son with the integrity of a wondrous incorruption; why should we not rather believe (as I said) that the incorruptible God, the Son being incorruptibly begotten from Him, could not be corrupted?

O new and unspeakable, damnable fear of a monstrous opinion, to confess that the Virgin cannot be corrupted by childbirth, and to dread that God would be subject to the defect of corruption, if He had willed to generate from His own substance! With God therefore willing, the Virgin of corruptible nature bore without any defect of corruption: and shall He Himself, who, more incorruptible than all natures, granted her to generate incorruptibly, not have been able to grant this to Himself, that He could incorruptibly generate the Son from His own substance?

Therefore, since both the utterances of the divine Scriptures testify that God begot the Son from Himself, and Arius confessed this in his earlier pursuit, judge (O best of men, Probus) which of us agrees more with the divine Scriptures: whether I, who profess the Son to be of one substance with the Father on this account, namely, that He is recognized to be born from Him, and not from elsewhere; and who profess again on this account that He begot incorruptibly, because the most excellent substance of the divine majesty cannot, through its own ineffable power, be subject to corruption; or this man who is placed in so great a crisis of doubtful understanding that he does not know where to set the foot of his faith.

For, being unwilling to confess that God begot incorruptibly from His own substance, he is drawn into this necessity of confession: that he denies altogether that He begot. But this very thing, to deny it, he will assuredly never be able to do, with prophetic or apostolic voices everywhere meeting him and crying out with clear clamor. X. Probus the judge said: Whatever I have been able to learn in this assertion of your pursuits, the final verdict of our examination will retain. But now, if you think there remains to you anything more from the divine Scriptures agreeing with your faith, deign to bring it forth, that by the progress of disputation we may most easily be able to track out what the reason of truth contains. Arius said:

That I used such brief and slight questions in all that narrative of my disputation was a matter of Christian modesty and reserve, that the path of our disputation might be begun with light beginnings. But since I see Athanasius shaking the most robust firmness of perspicuous truth by certain batterings of ramming questions, I think I must contend against him more keenly and more vigorously.

He says, then, that the Father and the Son are of one substance; but that undefiled and ineffable essence, which is the Father, was never overflowing in itself, so that it might rightly, as it were by a certain superabundance, without loss of itself, have begotten the Son in the same substance, since of that essence, which to all others is infinite and immeasurable and incorporeal, nothing can be superabundant. For to overflow belongs to bounded things, which is, as it were, to flow outside oneself. But God, who embraces all things and has nothing outside Himself, has nothing either whereby He can flow forth, or, being infinite, whereby He could overflow; since to flow forth belongs to those who receive increases?