老魚:古教父們論基督人性被造集錦

 

華人基督教界目前普遍存在的基督論, 因過分強調神與人的分別，和基督的神性，而犧牲了基督的人性屬性。認為因為基督是神，所以祂的人性是非受造的，就如同祂的神性一樣。

 

古教父們認為基督的人性是受造的,包括游斯丁 (Justin the Martyr , 年代 103-162);

愛認紐( Irenaeus,130-202 ); 特土良(Tertullian,160-225); 亞歷山大的俄列根(Origen,185-254);亞他拿修( Athanasius,296-373); 尼撒的貴格利(Gregory of Nyssa,335-395 ); 

 

拿先斯的貴格利(Gregory of Nazianzen,330-390 );  安波羅修(Ambrose of Milan,340-397); 奧古斯丁(Augustine of Hippo, 354-430);大馬色的約翰(John of Damascus, 700-754).

下面是部分他們的著作原話,僅供參考.

 

1.       愛任紐《反異端（Against Heresis）》第三部十六章六節
。。這道是照着父的美意，常與人同在，與受造者連為一體，打成一片，因而也成了肉身。祂乃是我們的主耶穌基督，

為我們受難，。。。祂也在各方面都是人，為神所造，所以祂把人類都歸到祂自己身上，使看不見的成了看得見的，不可測度的成了能測度的，不能受苦難的成了能受苦難的，道成了人。這樣，祂使萬有在祂裡面同歸於一，這樣神的道既然在屬天屬靈界，無形之事上為至上，也可能在有形與物質的世界掌權。祂既擁有尊貴位，為教會元首，就到了時候要吸引萬有歸於祂自己。

《反異端（Against Heresis）》第三部二十一章十節
主在自己身上重演始祖（愛氏引羅5：19），正如始祖亞當的身體是從處女地而來，而為神的手及神的道所造成，照樣道本身，即在自己身上重演亞當，乃從童女瑪利亞誕生，而有亞當的人性。若是頭一個亞當有一個人作他的父，才有理由說第二個亞當為約瑟所生。但若頭一個亞當是由神用塵土造成，那在自己身上重演所造的人，也就理當有同樣的生。那麼神為何不再用塵土，卻叫耶穌由瑪利亞所生呢？這是為要避免另外有一個創造，和另外一個需要得救贖的，所以祂重演了原來的創造，從頭至末保存了相似之處。

《反異端（Against Heresis）》第五部一章三節
。。正如神當初造人時，將生氣吹入受造的人裡面，他變成了有生命，有理性的人；照樣在這末世，祂被造成為一個有生命而完全的人，能夠承受完全的`父，這是由於父的道和神的靈與亞當受造的體質結合起來，這樣，正如我們在肉體上都得死，照樣在靈上都要得活。正如亞噹噹初不能脫離父的雙手（指到以聖靈而言），因為父對雙手說：我們要照着我們的形象，按着我們的樣式造人；照樣在末世，祂的雙手形成了一個活人，不是由於人的情慾，也不是由於人慾，乃是由於父的美意，好叫亞當按照神的形象和樣式，重新受造。

 

2.       特土良

當我讀到一些瓦倫天奴（Valentinus）的卑鄙宗派作家時，他們唯恐主被人認為比天使微小，而天使不是由屬地的血肉所造的，就此一開始就拒絕相信基督的人性和屬地的本質是被造的。

(For, as I have read in some writer of Valentinus' wretched faction,(18) they refuse at the outset to believe that a human and earthly substance was created(19) for Christ, lest the Lord should be regarded as inferior to the angels, who are not formed of earthly flesh.)

基督的肉體 (V. ON THE FLESH OF CHRIST.18,19) 

 

3.       亞他那修”論道成肉身”

這個救恩出於救主，是耶和華新造的，如耶利米所說，‘為我們造了一個救恩’，如阿奎拉所譯，‘耶和華在女人里造了一件新事。’這事就成就在瑪利亞身上。在女人裡面所造的，要說那一件是新事，唯有主的身體從未曾被玷污的童女馬利亞所生。也如《箴言》以耶穌的口氣所說的：在耶和華造化的起頭，在太初創造萬物之先，就有了我。（8：22）祂沒有說，‘在創造萬物之先造了我’，免得有人把它理解為道的神性。所以，凡是提到造物的經文都是指耶穌的身體，因為主的人性被造為‘一切道路的起頭’。《論道成肉身》，三聯出版，200頁

因而，一開始，當祂屈尊俯就我們時，祂就從一位童女為自己造了一個身體，由此給眾人提供了主意證明祂神性的證據，因為造身體的主也是其他一切事物的造主。凡看到一個身體直接從童女生出來，不需要男人的配合，誰能不由此可推斷出，住在這個身體裡的就是其他一切身體的造主和主？
《論道成肉身》，三聯出版，108頁

 

《尼西亞信經護文（A DEFENCE OF THE NICENE CREED）》

說子（Son，大寫，指神的兒子）是受造的也是正確的，因為這是指祂的成為人。因為受造是屬於人的。。。這個特徵，也是救主的，但這是指當祂取了身體的時候所說的。。。對於祂的成為人，合適的話是，主造了我。。。（當聽見）主創造的，奴僕，和他受苦，我們應當正確的理解他們，而不能理解成與神（格）有關的，因為這是不合理的，而我們必須把他們理解為他為我們的緣故所穿上的肉體；。。。道成肉身的目的乃是要為所有的人所獻（為祭），好叫我們，能有份與祂的靈（Spirit，大寫，聖靈），能夠成為（眾）神（gods，小寫複數，指神化後的人）,這是一個除非藉由他穿上我們受造的身體，我們無法得到的恩典。。。。。for it is true to say that the Son was created too, but this took place when He became man; for creation belongs to man。。。but we must interpret it by that flesh which He bore for our sakes; 。。。so on His becoming man, the words befitted Him, The Lord created Me. 。。。The Lord created, and Servant, and He suffered, we shall justly ascribe this, not to the Godhead, for it is irrelevant, but we must interpret it by that flesh which He bore for our sakes; 。。。that the Word was made flesh in order to offer up this body for all, and that we, partaking of His Spirit, might be made gods, a gift which we could not otherwise have gained than by His clothing Himself in our created body.

 

4.       亞他那修” 反亞流”

Chapter XIV.—Texts explained; Fourthly, Hebrews iii. 2 Introduction; the Regula Fidei counter to an Arian sense of the text; which is not supported by the word ‘servant,’ nor by ‘made’ which occurs in it; (how can the Judge be among the ‘works’ which ‘God will bring into judgment?’) nor by ‘faithful;’ and is confuted by the immediate context, which is about Priesthood; and by the foregoing passage, which explains the word ‘faithful’ as meaning trustworthy, as do 1 Pet. iv. fin. and other texts. On the whole made may safely be understood either of the divine generation or the human creation.

第十四章－解經；第四點，希伯來3：2介言；與亞流對這段話的詮釋不同。它不能以這節中的‘奴僕’，和‘被造’ （那個審判者怎麼可能會是‘神將要審判之物’中的一個‘被造之物（works）？’ 和‘忠信的（faithful）’來解釋。）這也與接下來關於祭司的經文相矛盾。這段經文，如同彼前4章和其他經文一樣，把‘忠信的’解釋為可以信託（trustworthy）。所以最好把整個被造理解為神聖的產生或人類的被造。

1. I did indeed think that enough had been said already against the hollow professors of Arius’s madness, whether for their refutation or in the truth’s behalf, to insure a cessation and repentance of their evil thoughts and words about the Saviour. They, however, for whatever reason, still do not succumb; but, as swine and dogs wallow[210] in their own vomit and their own mire, rather invent new expedients for their irreligion. Thus they misunderstand the passage in the Proverbs, ‘The Lord hath created me a beginning of His ways for His work[211],’ and the words of the Apostle, ‘Who was faithful to Him that made Him[212],’ and straightway argue, that the Son of God is a work and a creature. But although they might have learned from what is said above, had they not utterly lost their power of apprehension, that the Son is not from nothing nor in the number of things originate at all, the Truth witnessing[213] it (for, being God, He cannot be a work, and it is impious to call Him a creature, and it is of creatures and works that we say, ‘out of nothing,’ and ‘it was not before its generation’), yet since, as if dreading to desert their own fiction, they are accustomed to allege the aforesaid passages of divine Scripture, which have a good meaning, but are by them practised on, let us proceed afresh to take up the question of the sense of these, to remind the faithful, and to shew from each of these passages that they have no knowledge at all of Christianity. Were it otherwise, they would not have shut themselves up in the unbelief[214] of the present Jews[215], but would have inquired and learned[216] that, whereas ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,’ in consequence, it was when at the good pleasure of the Father the Word became man, that it was said of Him, as by John, ‘The Word became flesh[217];’ so by Peter, ‘He hath made Him Lord and Christ[218]’; —as by means of Solomon in the Person of the Lord Himself, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works[219];’ so by Paul, ‘Become so much better than the Angels[220];’ and again, ‘He emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant[221];’ and again, ‘Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Jesus, who was faithful to Him that made Him[222].’ For all these texts have the same force and meaning, a religious one, declarative of the divinity of the Word, even those of them which speak humanly concerning Him, as having become the Son of man. But, though this distinction is sufficient for their refutation, still, since from a misconception of the Apostle’s words (to mention them first), they consider the Word of God to be one of the works, because of its being written, ‘Who was faithful to Him that made Him,’ I have thought it needful to silence this further argument of theirs, taking in hand[223], as before, their statement.

我認為，針對亞流派的那些瘋狂的假教師們，如何抵擋真理的瘋狂行為所說的已經夠多了。我希望他們能夠停止那些邪惡的思想，以及對褻瀆救主的話，並且悔改。他們若仍然不願意順服，要像狗一樣回頭吞吃他們自己嘔吐出來的穢物。繼續為着他們的不敬虔，發明各樣的說辭。那麼，就是他們誤解了箴言的這句話，‘在耶和華造化的起頭，在太初創造萬物之先，就造（譯者：英文為create）了我’，以及使徒所說的‘他為那造了（譯者：英文為made）他的盡忠’。他們毫無掩飾的爭辯，神的兒子只不過是一個成品和一個被造之物。雖然他們可能學習過上述的經文，他們完全喪失了他們的思考能力，就是子不是從虛無而有的，也不是有起始之物中的一個。真理也如此見證（因為，作為神，他不可能是一件成品，稱他為被造之物也是不敬虔的。當我們說‘從虛無而有’和‘在他產生前，他不存在’的時候，我們是指一個被造之物或是成品。）然 而，若他們願意拋棄他們荒誕的小說，就會認同上述具有良善意義的經文。因為他們乃是執迷不悟的，讓我們重新探討那個問題背後的意義。用這一段一段的經文， 提醒忠信的人，他們（亞流派）根本不認識基督教的信仰。不然，他們就不會像今日不信的猶太人一樣閉嘴無聲，而會去探求並學習，‘太初有道，道與神同在，道 就是神，’這句話指的就是父喜悅道成為人。這也就是約翰描述祂的，‘道成了肉身。’彼得也說，‘神已經立他為主，為基督了，’－就像所羅門論到主自己的位 格時，說，‘在耶和華造化的起頭，在太初創造萬物之先，就造（譯者：英文為create）了我’；而保羅說，‘就遠超過天使’；又說，‘反倒虛己，取了奴 仆的形像，成為人的樣式’；又說，‘同蒙天召的聖潔弟兄啊，你們應當思想我們所認為使者、為大祭司的耶穌。他為那設立他的盡忠，如同摩西在神的全家盡忠一 樣。’因為這些經文的意義都是敬虔的和具有影響力的。在他成為人子，人卻把他當作一個普通的人的時候，宣告了道的神格（divinity）。雖然就已經足以駁斥他們，然而，因他們誤解了使徒的教導（如同我們先提到的），他們認為神的道乃是（被造之）成品中的一個，因為聖經說，‘他為那設立他的盡忠。’經過深思熟慮後，我認為需要進一步敉平他們的論點。

2. If then He be not a Son, let Him be called a work, and let all that is said of works be said of Him, nor let Him and Him alone be called Son, nor Word, nor Wisdom; neither let God be called Father, but only Framer and Creator of things which by Him come to be; and let the creature be Image and Expression of His framing will, and let Him, as they would have it, be without generative nature, so that there be neither Word, nor Wisdom, no, nor Image, of His proper substance. For if He be not Son[224], neither is He Image[225]. But if there be not a Son, how then say you that God is a Creator? since all things that come to be are through the Word and in Wisdom, and without This nothing can be, whereas you say He hath not That in and through which He makes all things. For if the Divine Essence be not fruitful itself[226], but barren, as they hold, as a light that lightens not, and a dry fountain, are they not ashamed to speak of His possessing framing energy? and whereas they deny what is by nature, do they not blush to place before it what is by will[227]? But if He frames things that are external to Him and before were not, by willing them to be, and becomes their Maker, much more will He first be Father of an Offspring from His proper Essence. For if they attribute to God the willing about things which are not, why recognise they not that in God which lies above the will? now it is a something that surpasses will, that He should be by nature, and should be Father of His proper Word. If then that which comes first, which is according to nature, did not exist, as they would have it in their folly, how could that which is second come to be, which is according to will? for the Word is first, and then the creation. On the contrary the Word exists, whatever they affirm, those irreligious ones; for through Him did creation come to be, and God, as being Maker, plainly has also His framing Word, not external, but proper to Him;—for this must be repeated. If He has the power of will, and His will is effective, and suffices for the consistence of the things that come to be, and His Word is effective, and a Framer, that Word must surely be the living Will[228] of the Father, and an essential[229] energy, and a real Word, in whom all things both consist and are excellently governed. No one can even doubt, that He who disposes is prior to the disposition and the things disposed. And thus, as I said, God’s creating is second to His begetting; for Son implies something proper to Him and truly from that blessed and everlasting Essence; but what is from His will, comes into consistence from without, and is framed through His proper Offspring who is from It.

如果他不是一個兒子（Son），就讓他被稱作一個成品，把那些成品的 特徵也都應用在祂身上，別只有讓祂被稱為兒子（Son）、道、或智慧；也別讓神被稱作父，只要稱祂為萬有借祂而有的塑造者和造物主。讓被造之物成為祂塑造 世界之意志的像和彰顯。如他們所願，讓父也喪失生出的本質。這樣就不會有具有祂的本質之道、智慧、和像。因為，若祂不是子（Son），祂也就不是（父的） 像。而若沒有子，我們又怎麼能夠稱神為造物主呢？因為萬有都是在（神的）智慧里，藉由道而有的。沒了這位，就不會有萬有。然而，你們卻說，祂（父）卻少了 那在祂（子）裡面，並藉由祂，創造了萬有的一位。若神素質的本身就像是他們所堅持的，是沒有生育的能力（譯者：指父無法生出子來，故子不是真神，）那麼祂 豈不就成了無法光照的光，枯乾的泉源。而他們卻還有臉教導祂（父）仍擁有塑造的能力？他們否認那位本質（就是神的），難道他們不會因為把那借意志而有的， （譯者：萬有都是因神的意志而被造，亞他那修意指，亞流派認為，基督是因神的意志而被造的，）擺在它的面前而感到臉紅？祂乃是塑造了在祂之外、原先不存 在、藉由祂的意志而有的萬有，成為它們的創造者。何況，在這之先，祂已經是那從祂素質而出的流出之父。若他們把曾經不存在事物之意志算作為父的書信，他們 為什麼不乾脆承認父乃是藉由某種的意志而有的？如今，有一位是遠超意志的，祂乃是從本質來的，就是父自己的道。根據他們愚蠢的想法，若是那根據（神的）本 質先來的原先是不存在的，那麼怎麼可能隨後的，還能夠根據（神的）意志而有呢？因為道先有，而其他的被造之物在其後而有。相反的，不論那些不敬虔的人如何 狡辯；萬有都是藉由祂而有的，作為造物主，祂也根據祂自己的本質，在祂裡麵塑造了道；我們必須重複這樣的教導。若祂擁有意志的能力，祂的意志也是有果效 的，並且足以維繫萬有，那麼祂的道就是有果效的，是(萬有的)塑造者。這樣，道必然就是父那活的旨意，具有祂素質的能量，一位在祂裡面萬有被維持並被完美 的管理。沒有人能夠懷疑，那位安排萬有的祂，乃是在被安排的萬有之先。故此，如同我已經說過的，神的創造乃是在祂的出生之後。因為子乃是指某位擁有祂的性 質，並真從有福和永遠的素質而來的那位。但是，那些從祂的意志，從虛無而有的，都是被祂自己的流出所塑造的。

3. As we have shewn then they are guilty of great extravagance who say that the Lord is not Son of God, but a work, and it follows that we all of necessity confess that He is Son. And if He be Son, as indeed He is, and a son is confessed to be not external to his father but from him, let them not question about the terms, as I said before, which the sacred writers use of the Word Himself, viz. not ‘to Him that begat Him,’ but ‘to Him that made Him;’ for while it is confessed what His nature is, what word is used in such instances need raise no question[230]. For terms do not disparage His Nature; rather that Nature draws to Itself those terms and changes them. For terms are not prior to essences, but essences are first, and terms second. Wherefore also when the essence is a work or creature, then the words ‘He made,’ and ‘He became,’ and ‘He created,’ are used of it properly, and designate the work. But when the Essence is an Offspring and Son, then ‘He made,’ and ‘He became,’ and ‘He created,’ no longer properly belong to it, nor designate a work; but ‘He made’ we use without question for ‘He begat.’ Thus fathers often call the sons born of them their servants, yet without denying the genuineness of their nature; and often they affectionately call their own servants children, yet without putting out of sight their purchase of them originally; for they use the one appellation from their authority as being fathers, but in the other they speak from affection. Thus Sara called Abraham lord, though not a servant but a wife; and while to Philemon the master the Apostle joined Onesimus the servant as a brother, Bathsheba, although mother, called her son servant, saying to his father, ‘Thy servant Solomon[231];’—afterwards also Nathan the Prophet came in and repeated her words to David, ‘Solomon thy servant[232].’ Nor did they mind calling the son a servant, for while David heard it, he recognised the ‘nature,’ and while they spoke it, they forgot not the ‘genuineness,’ praying that he might be made his father’s heir, to whom they gave the name of servant; for to David he was son by nature.

如 同我們已經指出的，他們在肆無忌憚的教導主不是神的兒子，而是一個成品這件事上，是罪無可恕的。這使得我們所有人都必須承認祂就是兒子（Son）。若祂是 兒子（Son），祂也真是，而沒有人會承認一個兒子（son）是在他的父親之外，而是從他的父親而來的。我已經呼籲過，他們別再刁難這些由聖經的作者們使 用在道身上的這些詞，就是否認‘對那位生祂的’這句話，而硬要說，‘對那位造祂的’這樣的話。只要我們承認祂的本質，在這些情況下使用的詞，不應該變成問 題。因為這些詞記不貶低祂的本質，而本質也不會改變這些詞。因為這些詞並不會比素質更重要，而更重要的是素質本身，然後才是使用的詞彙。這也是為什麼當素 質是一個成品或被造之物，我們才能夠合適的使用‘祂造了’，‘祂成為，’和‘祂創造，’並 把這些詞用於成品之上。但是，當素質是流出和子（Son）時，那麼‘祂造了’，‘祂成為，’和‘祂創造，’就不在屬於它，也不能被用於一個成品身上。我們 會毫無疑問的把‘祂造了（He made）’當作‘祂生了（He begat）。’故此，有時候父親會稱那些從他們而生的兒子們為僕人，然而，這並沒有否認兒子們的本質是從他們來的。而有時候，他們親切的稱他們的僕人為 兒子的時候，也並沒有隱藏他們乃是他所買來的事實。因為他們乃是隨從自己的意願，以父親的地位使用某種稱呼，有時候則是因着他們的情感，他們使用了另一種 稱呼。故此，撒拉稱亞伯拉罕為主（lord），但她乃是妻子而不是僕人。腓利門是主人，使徒和僕人歐尼西姆稱他為弟兄。拔示巴是母親，但稱她的兒子為仆 人，告訴他的父親，‘你的僕人所羅門。’先知拿單來見大衛的時候，重複了他母親的話，說，‘你的僕人所羅門。’他們不但不介意稱他們的兒子為僕人，當大衛 聽見這樣的稱呼是，他還承認其‘本質.’而當他們如此稱呼的時候,並沒有忘記其‘真實性,’向主禱告，希望這位被稱作僕人的，能夠繼承他父親的王位。因 為，他從本質而言，乃是大衛的兒子。

4. As then, when we read this, we interpret it fairly, without accounting Solomon a servant because we hear him so called, but a son natural and genuine, so also, if, concerning the Saviour, who is confessed to be in truth the Son, and to be the Word by nature, the saints say, ‘Who was faithful to Him that made Him,’ or if He say of Himself, ‘The Lord created me,’ and, ‘I am Thy servant and the Son of Thine handmaid[233],’ and the like, let not any on this account deny that He is proper to the Father and from Him; but, as in the case of Solomon and David, let them have a right idea of the Father and the Son. For if, though they hear Solomon called a servant, they acknowledge him to be a son, are they not deserving of many deaths[234], who, instead of preserving the same explanation in the instance of the Lord, whenever they hear ‘Offspring,’ and ‘Word,’ and ‘Wisdom,’ forcibly misinterpret and deny the generation, natural and genuine, of the Son from the Father; but on hearing words and terms proper to a work, forthwith drop down to the notion of His being by nature a work, and deny the Word; and this, though it is possible, from His having been made man, to refer all these terms to His humanity? And are they not proved to be ‘an abomination’ also ‘unto the Lord,’ as having ‘diverse weights[235]’ with them, and with this estimating those other instances, and with that blaspheming the Lord? But perhaps they grant that the word ‘servant’ is used under a certain understanding, but lay stress upon ‘Who made’ as some great support of their heresy. But this stay of theirs also is but a broken reed; for if they are aware of the style of Scripture, they must at once give sentence against[236] themselves. For as Solomon, though a son, is called a servant, so, to repeat what was said above, although parents call the sons springing from themselves ‘made’ and ‘created’ and ‘becoming,’ for all this they do not deny their nature. Thus Hezekiah, as it is written in Isaiah, said in his prayer, ‘From this day I will make children, who shall declare Thy righteousness, O God of my salvation[237].’ He then said, ‘I will make;’ but the Prophet in that very book and the Fourth of Kings, thus speaks, ‘And the sons who shall come forth of thee[238].’ He uses then ‘make’ for ‘beget,’ and he calls them who were to spring from him, ‘made,’ and no one questions whether the term has reference to a natural offspring. Again, Eve on bearing Cain said, ‘I have gotten a man from the Lord[239];’ thus she too used ‘gotten’ for ‘brought forth.’ For, first she saw the child, yet next she said, ‘I have gotten.’ Nor would any one consider, because of ‘I have gotten,’ that Cain was purchased from without, instead of being born of her. Again, the Patriarch Jacob said to Joseph, ‘And now thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, which became thine in Egypt, before I came unto thee into Egypt, are mine[240].’ And Scripture says about Job, ‘And there came to him seven sons and three daughters[241].’ As Moses too has said in the Law, ‘If sons become to any one,’ and ‘If he make a son[242].’ Here again they speak of those who are begotten, as ‘become’ and ‘made,’ knowing that, while they are acknowledged to be sons, we need not make a question of ‘they became,’ or ‘I have gotten,’ or ‘I made[243].’ For nature and truth draw the meaning to themselves.

所 以，當我們讀到這樣的話的時候，我們應當合適的詮釋它，不能因為我們聽見所羅門被稱為奴僕，就把他當作奴僕，而要把他當作本質上的真兒子。同樣的，對於我 們的救主，祂在真理中被承認是兒子（Son），從本質上是道，聖徒們說，‘祂向那造（made）祂的盡忠，’或論到自己，說，‘主造了我，’以及‘我是你 的僕人，是你婢女的兒子。’同理，我們以這些作為理由，來否認祂的本質就是父的，並且祂就是從父來的。就像所羅門和大衛的例子，讓他們對於父與子（間的關 系）有一個正確的觀念。雖然他們聽見所羅門被稱為兒子，但是他們還是把他當作兒子。難道這些人不應該因為他們沒有堅持以同樣的方式解釋主，而被千刀萬剮？ 他們在聽見‘流出’、‘道’和‘智慧’的時候，強制性的曲解其含義，並否認子（Son）從父而有的那個在本質上、真實的出生；在聽見那些關於作品的字和詞 的時候，毫不猶豫的人的祂存在的性質就是一個成品，並否定道；雖然根據祂的成為人，我們可以把這些詞彙當作是祂的人性。他們用一種方式對待其他的事物，卻 對主發出褻瀆。‘對於主’，他們難道不是‘詭詐的天平’，‘令人深惡痛絕’？或許他們會承認，‘僕人’這個詞可以在某種的意義下被使用，但是強調‘被造’ 就是支持他們的異端。他們仍然是破損的蘆葦；因為若他們了解聖經的風格（譯者：指惡行比帶來審判），他們就會立刻審判他們自己。因為，是兒子的所羅門雖然 被稱為僕人，如同我們已經說過的，即使父母稱從自己而出的兒子們為‘被造作’，‘被造的’，和‘成為’，這些詞都無法否定他們的性質。故此，以賽亞書記載 的希西家，在他的禱告中說，‘哦，我的救主，從今日起，我必造作許多兒女，他們將要宣告你的公義。’他接着又說，‘我將造作。’然而先知在該書和列王記下 說道，‘並且從你本身所生的眾子。’他把‘造作’替代了‘生’，他稱那些從他而出的為‘被造作’，這個詞是否被用來指明本質的流出是毋庸置疑的。再者，夏 娃在懷該隱的時候說，‘耶和華使我得了一個男子；’她以‘得了（gotten）’代替‘產生（brought forth）。’因為她是先看見了男孩，然後再說‘得了。’不會有人因為‘我得了’這句話，就認為該隱是被買來的，而不是她所生的。（譯者：這裡的‘買’ 含有從虛無而來的意思。因為被買來的東西，曾經是不存在的。）還有，當列祖雅各告訴約瑟，‘我未到埃及見你之先，你在埃及地所生的以法蓮和瑪拿西這兩個兒 子是我的。’聖經論到約伯則說，‘他生了七個兒子，三個女兒。’摩西也在律法書中說過，‘若眾子成為某人（譯者：意指長大成人），’和‘若他造作了一個兒 子（譯者：根據英文重譯）。’在此，他們稱那些被生的（begotten）為‘成為（become）’和‘造作（made）’的時候，仍然被承認是兒子。 我們不必在‘他們成為（they became），’或‘我得到（I have gotten），’或‘我造作（I made）’這樣的詞句上糾纏。因為，只有本質和真理能夠決定它們的意義。

5. This being so[244], when persons ask whether the Lord is a creature or work, it is proper to ask of them this first, whether He is Son and Word and Wisdom. For if this is shewn, the surmise about work and creation falls to the ground at once and is ended. For a work could never be Son and Word; nor could the Son be a work. And again, this being the state of the case, the proof is plain to all, that the phrase, ‘To Him who made Him’ does not serve their heresy, but rather condemns it. For it has been shewn that the expression ‘He made’ is applied in divine Scripture even to children genuine and natural; whence, the Lord being proved to be the Father’s Son naturally and genuinely, and Word, and Wisdom, though ‘He made’ be used concerning Him, or ‘He became,’ this is not said of Him as if a work, but the saints make no question about using the expression,—for instance in the case of Solomon, and Hezekiah’s children. For though the fathers had begotten them from themselves, still it is written, ‘I have made,’ and ‘I have gotten,’ and ‘He became.’ Therefore God’s enemies, in spite of their repeated allegation of such phrases[245], ought now, though late in the day, after what has been said, to disown their irreligious thoughts, and think of the Lord as of a true Son, Word, and Wisdom of the Father, not a work, not a creature. For if the Son be a creature, by what word then and by what wisdom was He made Himself[246]? for all the works were made through the Word and the Wisdom, as it is written, ‘In wisdom hast Thou made them all,’ and, ‘All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.’[247] But if it be He who is the Word and the Wisdom, by which all things come to be, it follows that He is not in the number of works, nor in short of things originate, but the Offspring of the Father.

當有人質疑主是一個被造之物或作品的時候，我們應該先問他，祂到底是不是子和道和智慧。這就讓那個把主當作作品和被造之物的臆測立刻摔的粉碎。因為一個成品永遠不可能成為子和道；子也永遠不可能成為一個作品。在這件事上，‘向着那位造祂的（To Him who made Him）’這句話不但沒有幫助他們的異端，反而定罪了它，這是顯而易見的。我們也已經解釋過了，在聖經中，‘他造作（He made）’這句話也可以被用在真正和具有同本質的兒女身上。故此，主也被證明就是父的真兒子，也具有祂的本質。祂也是道和智慧，雖然‘他造作’也被用在 祂（子）的身上。而‘祂成為（He became）’也不是說祂就是一個作品。反而在所羅門，西希家的兒女身上，聖徒們在使用這些名詞的時候，並沒有任何的疑惑。雖然他們的父親生了他們，但 是經上仍然記着，‘我造作了（I have made）,’和‘我得了（I have gotten），’和‘祂成為（He became）。’故此，不論這些神的敵人如何不斷的用這些話為自己辯解，在我們解釋這一切之後，我們要否認他們不敬虔的想法，並認為主就是父的真兒子， 真道和真智慧，不是一個作品，也不是一個被造之物。因為若子是一個被造之物，祂又要借着什麼道和什麼智慧來創造祂自己呢？因為萬物都是接着道和智慧造的， 就如同經上記着，‘你所造的何其多！都是你用智慧造成的，’和，‘萬物是藉著他造的；凡被造的，沒有一樣不是藉著他造的。’若祂是道和智慧，並且萬有都是 借着他有的，那麼祂必然就不在被造之物當作，也不是某種有起源的事物，而是父的流出。

6. For consider how grave an error it is, to call God’s Word a work. Solomon says in one place in Ecclesiastes, that ‘God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil[248].’ If then the Word be a work, do you mean that He as well as others will be brought into judgment? and what room is there for judgment, when the Judge is on trial? who will give to the just their blessing, who to the unworthy their punishment, the Lord, as you must suppose, standing on trial with the rest? by what law shall He, the Lawgiver, Himself be judged? These things are proper to the works, to be on trial, to be blessed and to be punished by the Son. Now then fear the Judge, and let Solomon’s words convince you. For if God shall bring the works one and all into judgment, but the Son is not in the number of things put on trial, but rather is Himself the Judge of works one and all, is not the proof clearer than the sun, that the Son is not a work but the Father’s Word, in whom all the works both come to be and come into judgment? Further, if the expression, ‘Who was faithful,’ is a difficulty to them, from the thought that ‘faithful’ is used of Him as of others, as if He exercises faith and so receives the reward of faith, they must proceed at this rate to find fault with Moses for saying, ‘God faithful and true[249],’ and with St. Paul for writing, ‘God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able[250].’ But when the saints spoke thus, they were not thinking of God in a human way, but they acknowledged two senses of the word ‘faithful’ in Scripture, first ‘believing,’ then ‘trustworthy,’ of which the former belongs to man, the latter to God. Thus Abraham was faithful, because He believed God’s word; and God faithful, for, as David says in the Psalm, ‘The Lord is faithful in all His words[251],’ or is trustworthy, and cannot lie. Again, ‘If any faithful woman have widows[252],’ she is so called for her right faith; but, ‘It is a faithful saying[253],’ because what He hath spoken has a claim on our faith, for it is true, and is not otherwise. Accordingly the words, ‘Who is faithful to Him that made Him,’ implies no parallel with others, nor means that by having faith He became well-pleasing; but that, being Son of the True God, He too is faithful, and ought to be believed in all He says and does, Himself remaining unalterable and not changed[254] in His human Economy and fleshly presence.

讓 我們想想，把神的道稱作一個作品是多麼可怕的錯誤！所羅門在傳道書中說，‘因為人所做的事，連一切隱藏的事，無論是善是惡，神都必審判。（譯者：根據英文 重譯）’若道是一個作品，你的意思是不是祂也會像其他的作品一樣，被神審判？若審判者站在被告席上，這個審判如何進行？若你們必須人的主也與其他的完全都 站在被告席上，誰又能賜公義者祝福，賜不配者懲罰？而且，我們要根據那條律法來審判這位賜下律法者？被子審判，被子祝福，被子懲罰，這些都是成品的特徵。 如今，你要讓所羅門的話說服你，敬畏那位審判者。因為若神把萬物都帶到審判中，而子本身並不是那些將被審判的一個，而是審判所有成品的審判者，難道這個證 據不就是如同煌煌之日一樣，證明子不是一個成品，而是父的道，在祂裡面所有的萬物都將被審判？再者，若‘那位忠信的（faithful，譯者：也可做信實 的，請讀者注意英文的faith翻譯到中文具有不同翻譯的問題，建議讀者以英文為理解此段話的標準，並注意faithful這個詞具有雙重含義）’這句話 讓那些人為難，因為他們認為‘忠信的（faithful）’這個詞用在祂身上就如同其他的（被造之物），好像祂必須操練祂的信仰（faith），才能夠領受信仰（faith）的獎賞一樣。那麼他們也應當用這個標準對摩西說的‘神是信實（faithful）和 真實的’，以及聖保羅寫下的‘神是信實的（faithful），必不叫你們受試探過於所能受的’這些話吹毛求疵。然而，當聖徒們寫這些話的時候，他們並不 是用人的角度來思考神，他們乃是承認‘忠信的（faithful）’這個詞在聖經裡面具有雙重的含義，第一個是‘相信（believing)，’第二個是 ‘可以信靠（trustworthy），’前者是用在人身上，後者是用在神身上。故此，亞伯拉罕是忠信的因為他相信神的道；而神是信實的因為大衛在詩篇中 說，‘耶和華的道（話）是全然信實的（譯者：根據英文重譯），’或祂是可以信靠，永不說謊的那位。又，‘信主的婦女，若家中有寡婦，’乃是因為婦人的忠信 如此稱呼她；但是，‘這話是可信的，’乃是因為祂所說的值得我們相信，因為祂所說的都是真實的。‘那造祂的對祂是信實的’這句話乃並沒有別的含義，也不代表祂乃是有了信心而得（神）喜悅。而是，作為真神的兒子（Son），祂也是信實的，我們可以相信祂所說所作的一切。在祂人性的經綸和肉身的顯現中，祂自己則仍然是不可改變，也未曾改變過。

7. Thus then we may meet these men who are shameless, and from the single expression ‘He made,’ may shew that they err in thinking that the Word of God is a work. But further, since the drift also of the context is orthodox, shewing the time and the relation to which this expression points, I ought to shew from it also how the heretics lack reason; viz. by considering, as we have done above, the occasion when it was used and for what purpose. Now the Apostle is not discussing things before the creation when he thus speaks, but when ‘the Word became flesh;’ for thus it is written, ‘Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession Jesus, who was faithful to Him that made Him.’ Now when became He ‘Apostle,’ but when He put on our flesh? and when became He ‘High Priest of our profession,’ but when, after offering Himself for us, He raised His Body from the dead, and, as now, Himself brings near and offers to the Father those who in faith approach Him, redeeming all, and for all propitiating God? Not then as wishing to signify the Essence of the Word nor His natural generation from the Father, did the Apostle say, ‘Who was faithful to Him that made Him’—(perish the thought! for the Word is not made, but makes)—but as signifying His descent to mankind and High-priesthood which did ‘become’—as one may easily see from the account given of the Law and of Aaron. I mean, Aaron was not born a high-priest, but a man; and in process of time, when God willed, he became a high-priest; yet became so, not simply, nor as betokened by his ordinary garments, but putting over them the ephod, the breastplate[255], the robe, which the women wrought at God’s command, and going in them into the holy place, he offered the sacrifice for the people; and in them, as it were, mediated between the vision of God and the sacrifices of men. Thus then the Lord also, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;’ but when the Father willed that ransoms should be paid for all and to all, grace should be given, then truly the Word, as Aaron his robe, so did He take earthly flesh, having Mary for the Mother of His Body as if virgin earth[256], that, as a High Priest, having He as others an offering, He might offer Himself to the Father, and cleanse us all from sins in His own blood, and might rise from the dead.

故此，讓我們再來用‘祂造了（made）’這句話會會這些無恥的人，就能表 明他們錯誤的認為神的道是一個成品。除此以外，因為這種偏差的背景是大公教義，我也會使用這種說法出現的時間和掛下，表明異端是如何的缺乏理性。如同我們 前面已經做過的，我們要思考它們被使用的場合及目的。如今使徒只在說‘道成肉身’的時候才論到萬有被創造之前的事。故此經上記着，‘同蒙天召的聖潔弟兄 啊，你們應當思想我們所認為使者（譯者：即使徒）、為大祭司的耶穌。他為那設立他的盡忠。’祂成為‘使徒’的時候難到不就是祂披上了我們的肉身的時候嗎？ 而他成為‘大祭司’的時候，不就是祂為我們獻上自己，將祂的身體從死人中復活，聚集那些在信心中前來就近祂的人，將他們獻給父神，拯救他們，並使神的憤怒 止息的時候嗎？所以這樣的期望（譯者：指神對人的救贖）既不是道的性質，也不是祂從父的出生，使徒也說，‘向着那位造祂者盡忠（Who was faithful to Him that made Him）’--（滅絕這樣的想法！因為道不是被造的，而是創造萬有的）--這乃是指祂的降世為人和大祭司，這就是‘成為（became）’--如同人馬可 以輕易的從律法和亞倫所提供的細節看見這點。我的意思是，亞倫並不是生下來就是大祭司，而是一個人。而是等他長大後，神願意，他才成為大祭司。這個成為並 不是因着他自己那件平凡的外袍，而是披上婦人們根據神的命令，所做的祭司袍，胸牌，和內袍。亞倫要披着這些進入聖所，為百姓獻上祭物，成為神洞察的眼光和 人的祭物中的中間人。故此主也說，‘太初有道，道與神同在，道就是神；’當父願意為萬人付上贖價的時候，恩典就被賜下。如同亞倫披上了他的袍子一樣，道取 了屬塵土的肉身，讓馬利亞成為祂身體的母親。作為大祭司，祂以自己為祭，將自己獻給父神，用祂的寶血洗淨我們一切的罪，叫我們也能夠從死人中復活。

8. For what happened of old was a shadow of this; and what the Saviour did on His coming, this Aaron shadowed out according to the Law. As then Aaron was the same and did not change by putting on the high-priestly dress[257], but remaining the same was only robed, so that, had any one seen him offering, and had said, ‘Lo, Aaron has this day become high-priest,’ he had not implied that he then had been born man, for man he was even before he became high-priest, but that he had been made high-priest in his ministry, on putting on the garments made and prepared for the high-priesthood; in the same way it is possible in the Lord’s instance also to understand aright, that He did not become other than Himself on taking the flesh, but, being the same as before, He was robed in it; and the expressions ‘He became’ and ‘He was made,’ must not be understood as if the Word, considered as the Word[258], were made, but that the Word, being Framer of all, afterwards[259] was made High Priest, by putting on a body which was originate and made, and such as He can offer for us; wherefore He is said to be made. If then indeed the Lord did not become man[260], that is a point for the Arians to battle; but if the ‘Word became flesh,’ what ought to have been said concerning Him when become man, but ‘Who was faithful to Him that made Him?’ for as it is proper to the Word to have it said of Him, ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ so it is proper to man to ‘become’ and to be ‘made.’ Who then, on seeing the Lord as a man walking about, and yet appearing to be God from His works, would not have asked, Who made Him man? and who again, on such a question, would not have answered, that the Father made Him man, and sent Him to us as High Priest? And this meaning, and time, and character, the Apostle himself, the writer of the words, ‘Who is faithful to Him that made Him,’ will best make plain to us, if we attend to what goes before them. For there is one train of thought, and the lection is all about One and the Same. He writes then in the Epistle to the Hebrews thus; ‘Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death wereall their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily He took not on Him the nature of Angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted,He is able to succour them that are tempted. Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Jesus; who was faithful to Him that made Him[261].’

舊 約發生的一切乃是這些事的影兒。救主的來臨乃是亞倫根據律法所預表的。就像亞倫並沒有因為披上大祭司的袍子而改變，除了穿上袍子外，他還是一樣的。也就是 說，那些看見亞倫獻祭，並說，‘看啊！今天亞倫變成了大祭司’的人，並不是代表他生為人，他成為大祭司之前才是人。而是他在他的職事中披上為大祭司所製造 的袍子，被立為大祭司。同樣的，在主身上，我們也要有正確的認識。祂在披上肉身後並不會成為祂所不是的，而是永遠不變。而‘祂成為’和‘祂被造’這樣的表述不能被理解為道是被造的，但是這位是萬有的塑造者之道，借着披上一個有起源、被造的身體被造成大祭司，好叫祂能為我們獻上自己；故此，祂被稱為被造的。若主並沒有成為人，這是亞流派爭辯的重點。若‘道成肉身’，除了‘祂向那位造祂者盡忠’外，我們還能如何描述祂的成為人？若‘太初有道’是的對道本身正確的描述，那麼對於人的正確描述就是‘成為（become）’和‘被造（to be made）。’有誰在看見主如同一個人一樣的四處行走，在祂的工作里卻又顯明為神的時候，不會問，是誰把他造成一個人？而當然聽見這個問題，難道不會回答，是父把祂造成一個人，並把祂當作大祭司，差遣到我們中間？若 我們先搞清楚其先決條件，這個意義，時間，人物和使徒自己，以及寫下‘祂向那位造祂者盡忠’的作者對於我們就是非常容易理解的。因為只有一條思路，而經文 都是有關與那一位永不改變者。祂接着又在希伯來書中寫到，“兒女既同有血肉之體，他也照樣親自成了血肉之體，特要藉著死敗壞那掌死權的，就是魔鬼，並要釋 放那些一生因怕死而為奴僕的人。他並沒有取了天使的性質，乃是成為伯拉罕的後裔。所以，他凡事該與他的弟兄相同，為要在神的事上成為慈悲忠信的大祭司，為百姓的罪獻上挽回祭。他自己既然被試探而受苦，就能搭救被試探的人。同蒙天召的聖潔弟兄啊，你們應當思想我們所認為使者、為大祭司的耶穌。祂為那造祂的盡忠。”

9. Who can read this whole passage without condemning the Arians, and admiring the blessed Apostle, who has spoken well? for when was Christ ‘made,’ when became He ‘Apostle,’ except when, like us, He ‘took part in flesh and blood?’ And when became He ‘a merciful and faithful High Priest,’ except when ‘in all things He was made like unto His brethren?’ And then was He ‘made like,’ when He became man, having put upon Him our flesh. Wherefore Paul was writing concerning the Word’s human Economy, when he said, ‘Who was faithful to Him that made Him,’ and not concerning His Essence. Have not therefore any more the madness to say that the Word of God is a work; whereas He is Son by nature Only-begotten, and then had ‘brethren,’ when He took on Him flesh like ours; which moreover, by Himself offering Himself, He was named and became ‘merciful and faithful,’ —merciful, because in mercy to us He offered Himself for us, and faithful, not as sharing faith with us, nor as having faith in any one as we have, but as deserving to receive faith in all He says and does, and as offering a faithful sacrifice, one which remains and does not come to nought. For those which were offered according to the Law, had not this faithfulness, passing away with the day and needing a further cleansing; but the Saviour’s sacrifice, taking place once, has perfected everything, and is become faithful as remaining forever. And Aaron had successors, and in a word the priesthood under the Law exchanged its first ministers as time and death went on; but the Lord having a high priesthood without transition and without succession, has become a ‘faithful High Priest,’ as continuing for ever; and faithful too by promise, that He may hear[262] and not mislead those who come to Him. This may be also learned from the Epistle of the great Peter, who says, ‘Let them that suffer according to the will of God, commit their souls to a faithful Creator[263].’ For He is faithful as not changing, but abiding ever, and rendering what He has promised.

誰能夠在讀完這整段話後，不定罪亞流派，並讚揚蒙福的使徒能把話講的如此清楚？因為當基督‘被造’的時候，在祂成為‘使徒’的時候，像我們一樣‘取了血肉之體？’難道他不是在‘凡事該與他的弟兄相同’的時候，才成為‘慈悲忠信的大祭司’？ 當祂成為人的時候，難道不是因為祂披上了我們的肉身，才與我們‘相同’。故此保羅在寫到道人性的經綸（Word's human Economy）的時候，說到‘祂為那造祂的盡忠’這句話的是，並不是指祂的本質。別讓任何的瘋子在宣稱神的道是個作品；祂因着獨生的性質是兒子 （Son），當取了並披上我們的肉身時，成為‘弟兄（brethren）’。祂又因為獻上了自己，而被稱作‘慈悲和忠信的’--慈悲乃是因為在祂對我們的 憐憫中祂獻上了自己，忠信不是因為祂與我們同享一樣的信仰，也不是像我們一樣的擁有信心，而是祂所說的、所做的就像獻上一個信實的祭物，配得我們的信託。 祂是永遠長存，絕不會落空的那位。而那些根據律法獻上祭物的，卻得不到這樣的信實，必須隨着時間的往前而不斷的潔淨自己。然而救主的獻祭是一次永遠有功效 的，完全了整個律法，祂的工作是永遠信實的。亞倫與他的後裔，必須在律法下，在死亡的時候交接其職事。而主的祭司職份是更高超的，不需要交接也不需要繼 承，祂成為‘慈悲忠信的大祭司’，是用於的。祂的應許是信實的，叫祂能夠聽見（我們的祈求），也不會誤導那些來就近祂的人。我們也能從偉大的彼得的書信中 看見，‘所以那照神旨意受苦的人要一心為善，將自己靈魂交與那信實的創造主。（譯者：根據英文重譯。）’因為祂是信實不改變的，永遠住在（我們裡面），並 成就祂所應許的。

10. Now the so-called gods of the Greeks, unworthy the name, are faithful neither in their essence nor in their promises; for the same are not everywhere, nay, the local deities come to nought in course of time, and undergo a natural dissolution; wherefore the Word cries out against them, that ‘faith is not strong in them,’ but they are ‘waters that fail,’ and ‘there is no faith in them.’ But the God of all, being one really and indeed and true, is faithful, who is ever the same, and says, ‘See now, that I, even I am He,’ and I ‘change not[264];’ and therefore His Son is ‘faithful,’ being ever the same and unchanging, deceiving neither in His essence nor in His promise; —as again says the Apostle writing to the Thessalonians, ‘Faithful is He who calleth you, who also will do it[265];’ for in doing what He promises, ‘He is faithful to His words.’ And he thus writes to the Hebrews as to the word’s meaning ‘unchangeable;’ ‘If we believe not, yet He abideth faithful; He cannot deny Himself[266].’ Therefore reasonably the Apostle, discoursing concerning the bodily presence of the Word, says, an ‘Apostle and faithful to Him that made Him,’ shewing us that, even when made man, ‘Jesus Christ’ is ‘the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever[267]’ is unchangeable. And as the Apostle makes mention in his Epistle of His being made man when mentioning His High Priesthood, so too he kept no long silence about His Godhead, but rather mentions it forthwith, furnishing to us a safeguard on every side, and most of all when he speaks of His humility, that we may forthwith know His loftiness and His majesty which is the Father’s. For instance, he says, ‘Moses as a servant, but Christ as a Son[268];’ and the former ‘faithful in his house,’ and the latter ‘over the house,’ as having Himself built it, and being its Lord and Framer, and as God sanctifying it. For Moses, a man by nature, became faithful, in believing God who spoke to Him by His Word; but[269] the Word was not as one of things originate in a body, nor as creature in creature, but as God in flesh[270], and Framer of all and Builder in that which was built by Him. And men are clothed in flesh in order to be and to subsist; but the Word of God was made man in order to sanctify the flesh, and, though He was Lord, was in the form of a servant; for the whole creature is the Word’s servant, which by Him came to be, and was made.

如 今，那些希臘人所謂的神（gods），我們根本不屑提它們的名字，它們的性質和應許都不是信實的。而各地的那些當地的神祗，不但在時間的流逝中歸於無有， 最終自然消亡。道卻向它們呼喊（譯者：有叫陣的意思），‘它們裡面缺乏信實’，它們不過是‘掉落的水珠，’和‘在它們裡面沒有信實。’然而萬有的神，是確 實、實在、和真實的那位，是信實的，祂永遠不變，並說，‘看啊，我永遠就是祂，’和我‘永不改變。’所以祂的兒子是‘信實的，’永遠長存並永不改變，祂的 性質和應許都不會矇騙我們。就像使徒寫給帖撒羅尼家人書中再次提到的，‘那召你們的本是信實的，他必成就這事。’因着成就祂所應許的，‘祂對祂的話是信實 的。’所以他寫給希伯來人的信中也提到道‘不可改變’的意義：‘他仍是可信的，因為他不能背乎自己。’故此，使徒能夠理直氣壯的描述道在肉身的顯現，稱祂為‘向那位造祂者盡忠的使徒，’這表明甚至當祂被造為人的時候，‘耶穌基督昨日、今日、直到永世是一樣’不改變的。如同使徒在他的書信中提到祂的大祭司職分時，說到祂的被造成為人，並沒有忽視祂的神格。反而先提到它，提醒我們不能犧牲任何一面。更重要的是，當他提到祂的人性的時候，我們自然會知道祂的尊高和祂的君尊都是父的。例如，他說，‘摩西為僕人，而基督確是兒子，前者‘對他的家盡忠，’而後者乃是‘對全家（盡忠，譯者：指神的家），’因為祂建立了神的家，是它的主和塑造者，也如同神一樣聖別它。對於摩西，性質上是一個人，成為忠信的，乃是因相信那位借着自己的道跟他說話的神。而道並不是一件在身體中有起源的事物，而是神在肉身之中，祂是一切被祂所建造之事物的塑造者和建造者。人類必須穿上肉身才能夠存在並存活。但是神的道被造為人，乃是為了聖別（人類的）肉身。雖然祂是主，但是卻在奴僕的形像之中。因為萬有都是道的奴僕，借着祂存有，借着祂被造。

11. Hence it holds that the Apostle’s expression, ‘He made,’ does not prove that the Word is made, but that body, which He took like ours; and in consequence He is called our brother, as having become man. But if it has been shewn, that, even though the word ‘made’ be referred to the Very Word, it is used for ‘begat,’ what further perverse expedient will they be able to fall upon, now that the present discussion has cleared up the word in every point of view, and shewn that the Son is not a work, but in Essence indeed the Father’s offspring, while in the Economy, according to the good pleasure[271] of the Father, He was on our behalf made, and consists as man? For this reason then it is said by the Apostle, ‘Who was faithful to Him that made Him;’ and in the Proverbs, even creation is spoken of. For so long as we are confessing that He became man, there is no question about saying, as was observed before, whether ‘He became,’ or ‘He has been made,’ or ‘created,’ or ‘formed,’ or ‘servant,’ or ‘son of an handmaid,’ or ‘son of man,’ or ‘was constituted,’ or ‘took His journey,’ or ‘bridegroom,’ or ‘brother’s son,’ or ‘brother.’ All these terms happen to be proper to man’s constitution; and such as these do not designate the Essence of the Word, but that He has become man.

故此，使徒‘祂造（He made）’的這個表述是正確的，它並不是說道是被造的，而是指那個祂所取的與我們一樣的身體。故此，祂成為人，被稱作是我們的兄弟。即使當‘造（made）’這個字被用來指這位道的時候，它乃是被當作‘生（begat），’現今的討論已經從每一個角度陳明了這個字的意義，並指明子（Son）不是一個成品，從素質上就是父的流出。而根據父的良善旨意，在經綸（Economy）中，祂為了我們的緣故被造、並被組成為一個人。我要再看看他們還能掰出其他錯誤的推論？因着這個原因，使徒說，‘祂向那造祂者盡忠。’在箴言中，甚至稱祂為被造之物。只要我們承認祂成為人，不論我們說‘祂成為，’或‘祂被造作（has been made），’或‘被造（created），’或‘被塑造（formed），’或‘奴僕，’或‘使女之子（son of an handmaid），’或‘人子，’或‘被構成（was constituted），’或‘走了祂的旅程，’或‘新郎’或‘兄弟的兒子，’或‘兄弟，’都是沒有問題的。這些詞彙都能夠合適的別用來描述人的構成。它們都不代表道的素質，而是祂的成為人。

 

5.       拿先斯貴格利”論神顯”13

。。。於是，祂成為帶着祂所取之本性的神，成為兩性，及肉與靈里的一位格，後者使前者成聖。全新的生成，奇異的聯合，自有者曾為存在，非受造的成了受造的，原本不可能包含的成了被包含的，借着屬理智靈魂的介入，周旋與神與肉身的形體性之間。賜予財富的，變成了頻發的，因為祂取了我肉身的貧乏，好叫我獲得他神性（Godhead）的富有。

 

神學演講錄》4.2:在他們看來，以下這話太唾手可得了：“在耶和華造化的起頭，在太初創造萬物之先，就造了我。”對此我們應如何應對呢？我們能因為所羅門晚年的墮落就指控他， 或者跑他先前所說的話嗎？我們能說這些話就是智慧自身的話，就如同知識和造物主—道—萬物借祂而造—的話嗎？。。。那麼我們一起來思考一個小問題。在一切 存在的事物中，那個是非起源的？神。因為沒有誰能說出神的起源，否則，那源頭就是比神更早的存在。那麼神為了我們所穿上的人性（Manhood）的原因是什麼？當然就是我們的得救。次位還能是什麼呢？既然我們在這裡清楚的看到了即是被造的又是受生的“我”，論證就簡單了。凡是看到與原因相關的，我們就必須認為是指人性，而凡是絕對的、非源起的，就必須認為是對祂神性（Godhead）的闡述。那麼這個“造了（被造）”是否與原因相關呢？經上這樣說，在耶和華造化的起頭，在太初創造萬物之先，就造了我。須知，祂手所行的，是誠實公平的；為了人的緣故，祂受神性油膏，因為這油膏乃是屬於人性的。但是“祂生了我”則與原因無關，否則你得找出那位助手。。。事實上，祂為了使我們得釋放，為了所有那些原本在罪的捆綁中因祂而得救的人，屈從於肉身，經歷出生，體驗我們生命的境況。卑微的人竟然能與神聯合，並借着這種聯合得與神的性情有份，能臨到人頭稅的，還有比這更大的命運嗎？

 

6.       奧古斯丁“三位一體論”

十四、我已說到我們的前輩應用聖經中上述和類似的見證，來揭露異端派的錯謬，將教義所示三位一體的合一和平等給向我們證明。由於上帝的道成為肉身，作成我們得救的工夫，好叫為人的基督耶穌可以作神人間的中保，所 以在聖經中有許多事說起來，好像是表明甚或是很明顯地說，父是比子大的；以致人們不求甚解，或不顧聖經的全盤意義，企圖將那些從肉體論耶穌基督所說的事， 轉移到祂道成肉身以前永恆的本體上去。例如，他們說，子比父小，因為經上記着主自己說：“父是比我大的”（約24：28）。但真理證明，按照同一意義子也 是比祂自己小；因為祂既“虛己，取了奴僕的形像，”祂怎得不成為比祂自己小呢？祂之取了奴僕的形像，並不使祂失去那使祂與父同等的上帝之形像。倘 若祂取了奴僕的形像，而並不是使祂失去上帝的形像，因為祂自己在奴僕的形像里和在上帝的形像里同是父上帝的獨生子，在上帝的形像里是與父同等，在奴僕的形 像里是神人間的中保，即為人的基督耶穌；那麼誰個不能看見祂在上帝的形像里比祂自己大，可是在奴僕的形像里卻比祂自己小呢？而後者照着 奴僕的形像加以了解，就沒有混亂之處。其實這將全部聖經弄清楚這問題的準則，是在使徒保羅一封書信的一章里揭櫫了。他在那裡足夠清楚地將這區分介紹給我 們，說：“他本有上帝的形像，不以自己與上帝同等為強奪的；反倒虛己，取了奴僕的形像，成為人的樣式；並有人的樣子”（腓2：7）。於是在本性上上帝的兒子與父上帝同等，但在“樣子”上比父小。因為在祂所取的奴僕形像上，祂比父小；但在祂取了奴僕的形像以前所有父得形像上，祂與父同等。祂在上帝的形像上是道，“萬物是祂造的”（約1：3）；但祂在奴僕的形像上“為女子所生，且生在律法以下，要把律法以下的人贖出來”（加4：4，5）。照樣祂在上帝的形像里造了人；祂在奴僕的形像里被造為人。因為假如父獨自造了人，而子沒有分，經上就不會記着說：“我們要照着我們的形像，按着我們的樣式造人”（創1：26）。所以，既然上帝的形像取了奴僕的形像，所以祂是二者，是上帝也是人：是上帝，乃是由於上帝去取；也是人，乃是由於人被取。二者中之一，既不因取的動作而變成了另一，即神並未被改變成受造者，以致不再是神；而受造者也並不改變成為神，以致不再是受造者。 

 

奧古斯丁“教義手冊”

 

第三十八章 耶穌基督的肉體有聖靈成孕而生，其意並非指聖靈是其父

但 我們可否由此說，聖靈是那個屬人性的基督之父呢？可說父上帝生了道，聖靈上帝生了人，這兩個屬性合起來就形成了基督嗎？或說，由道而言，祂是父上帝的兒 子，由人而言，祂是聖靈上帝的兒子，因為聖靈是其父，使祂由童女馬里亞而生嗎？誰敢這樣說呢？不用說有許多其他胡言亂語由此興起，卑污不堪入耳。隱藏，我 們在信經中要說：“我們的主耶穌基督，是出於上帝而為上帝，由聖靈從童女馬里亞而生，而成為人，有神性和人性，是全能父上帝的獨生子，聖靈是由父上帝出來 的”（印自古拉丁教會所用使徒信經）。如果聖靈沒有生基督，則所謂基督是由聖靈所生，當如何解釋呢？或者可以說，祂是由聖靈造的嗎？因為雖然按祂是上帝說：“萬物都是祂造的”（約1：3），但按祂是人說，祂也是受造的。例如使徒說：“按肉體說，祂是從大衛後裔生的”（羅1：3）。但這種說法也有問題。這個由童女懷孕所生的受造者雖然只於子的位格相結合，但是受造於整個三位一體（因為三位一體的工作是不能分開的），那麼此處為何只說聖靈生祂呢？這或者是因為每逢提到其中之一的工作時，實即指三者共同的工作而言。這 個解釋是對的，我們能舉出實例來證明。不過我們無需在這個解答上花費更多的工作。因為我們的那個謎乃是，祂既從任何意義上說不是聖靈的兒子，則“祂是有聖 靈所生”這句究竟系何所指？因為上帝雖然 造了這個世界，但不能說世界是上帝的兒子，或說世界是由上帝而生。我們要說世界是上帝創造的，上帝形成的，上帝製作的，或用別的合宜的說法。當我們在信經 中說，基督是有聖靈和童女馬里亞所生，我們的難題是，如何解釋祂不是聖靈的兒子，只是童女馬里亞的兒子，而事實上祂是有聖靈和馬里亞兩者而生。顯然，基督是由聖靈所生，並不能和祂是有童女馬里亞所生，做同一解釋。聖靈生了基督，但聖靈不是基督的父親，馬里亞聖靈基督，馬里亞卻是基督的母親。

宗教文化出版社，321-322頁

 

7.       大馬士革的聖約翰 “正統信仰闡詳”

第三章 論基督的兩個性格，以反對那主張只有一性的學派。

基督的兩個性格，無更改，無變換而互相連結起 來，那神性既未與它原有的單純性分離，而人性也沒有變成神的性格，或者減退到沒有存在，也不是由兩個性格產生的一個複合性格。因為複合性格與組成它的任何 一個性格不可能是同樣的本體，與從另外的許多東西造出一種東西的情形是有別的。例如：身體是由四元素組成的，但是它並不與火，或空氣，或水，或地有同樣本質，也不保留一樣的名稱。因此，倘若在結合以後，如 那些異教徒所執意的，以基督的性格為一個複合的單位，祂已由一個單一性格變成了一個複合性格，祂與性格單一的父不是同體，也與那非由神性和人性組合而成的 母親不是同其本質。於是祂不屬神性，也不屬人性，祂將不稱為神，不稱為人，而只被稱為基督；而這基督一詞將不是內在實存的名稱，照他們的意見只是所謂一個 複合性格而已。

但是，我們卻不宣告基督的性格是複合的，也不以祂是由另外一些東西所造成的，而其結果與那些原來東西全不相同，好比人由靈魂與身體造成，或身體由四元素造成那樣。我們認為祂雖然是由這些不同部份所組成，但是祂仍然與原來一樣。因為我們承認祂，同時是屬神性，也屬人性，而皆可稱為完全的神，即是兩者為同一的本體；但祂由兩個性格發生，也以兩個性格而存在。還有，由“基督”一詞，我們就知道這個內在實存的名稱，不是表示“一種”的意義，卻是意味着兩個性格的並在。因為祂膏了自己，正如神用自己的神性膏自己的身體，也如人被膏了。因為祂自己就是神，也是人。受膏之禮就是祂的人性得神性。假如基督是一個複合的性格，而與父為類同的本體，則父也必定是複合的，並亦與肉身有同樣的本體，這真是荒誕不經而極端的褻瀆。

事實上，一個性格又怎能包含彼此相反而又本質相異的份子呢？同一的性格又怎麼可能同時是被造而又非被造的，是必死而又不死的，是有限定而又無限定的呢？

但是，那些辯稱基督只有一個性格的學派，他們如果也說那個性格是一個單純的性格，他們必需承認祂乾脆地就是神，而其化為世人只是一種現相；要不然，他們就得照着涅斯多留的說法，承認祂只是人。那麼，關於祂是“完全的神性和完全的人性”又應如何解說呢？如果他們認為在結合之後，基督只是一個混合性格，那麼何時才能說祂是有兩個性格呢？因為每個人都極明白在結合以前，基督只有一個性格。

那 些異教徒之所以被引入歧途。全在於他們誤以性格與實存看成同一意義。當我們說人類的性格是一個時，要注意我們如此說並未關涉到靈魂和身體的問題。因為當我 們把靈魂與身體一起比較時，我們不能說它們為一個性格。不過，人類中實有非常之多的個體存在，但皆具有同樣的性格，因為所有個體都由靈魂與身體組成，在靈 魂的性格內一同有分，又都占有實質的身體和共通形相。我們每隻提及這些非常多而不同的個體中之一個性格；其實就是說每一個體有兩個性格——靈魂與身體，意即是，人的存在由這兩個性格完成的。

但就我們的主耶穌基督來說，我們不能容許指其有一共通形相。因 為過去從來沒有，現在沒有，將來也不會有另外一個由神性和人性兩者聯成的基督，存在於神性和人性裡面，同時是完全的神，也是完全的人。因此，指着我們的主 耶穌基督，我們不能像說一個人是由靈魂與身體所造成的情形，而照樣說基督也是神性與人性造成的一個性格。因為前者的情形是關於一個普通的人，可是基督並不 是一個人。因為沒有什麼基督的形相可以裁定。因此，我們認為曾經有一種兩個完全性格的聯合，這兩個性格一是神性，一是人性；這 聯合併不是有如那神所詛咒的丟斯庫若，有如優提克斯與瑟維如斯並所有一班背教的人所說的那樣紊亂，或混雜，或混合，或雜亂。也不是那為神所憎的涅斯多留所 說的，和底阿多若與摩普修厄契亞的狄奧多等，以及他們的鬼魔黨徒所說的那樣——這聯合不是外觀的或相對的情況，或是尊嚴的問題，或意志的一致，或尊榮方面 的同等，或在名稱或好意上的同一。這聯合乃是依照綜合法，意即是在內存性上，因而沒有轉換，或攙混，或變性，或隔開，或分離；我們就承認 在兩個仍是完全的性格中，只有一個內存本位，即是神的化身兒子；我們認為這是同一的內存本位，屬於祂的神性和祂的人性，並且承認在聯合之後，那兩個性格都 被保留在祂裡面了，但是我們不認為每個性格是分離的和各別獨在的，它們是在一個複合的本位內互相聯結而歸於一。我們說這結合是本質的，即是實在的而不是現 像的事。再有，我們說這結合是本質的，並不是說兩個性格歸結成為一個複合性格的意思，而是這兩個性格在神的兒子之一個複合本位內的真正聯合之意，我們也肯 定這兩個性格的基本差異仍然是保留着的。因為被造的仍舊是被造的，非被造的仍舊是非被造的，必死的仍舊是必死的，不死的仍舊是不死的，有限制的仍舊是有限制的，無限制的仍舊是無限制的，可看見的仍舊是可看見的，看不見的仍舊是看不見的。“一部份為奇蹟的朗照，另一部份則受侮辱而蒙不白之冤。”



還有，“道”將人類的屬性作為已有，因為一切屬於祂聖潔肉身的都是“道”的。藉着各部份彼此間的相互貫通，祂以傳達交通的方法，將自己的屬性分授給肉身，故在本位上就成了一個。因為那活動如神如人的祂，本是獨一無二的，祂選擇任何一個形式而與另一形式保持靈交。所以，雖然祂的神性絕不曾受苦難，但我們說榮耀的主是被釘在十字架上了（林前2：8），我們又承認人子在受難之前就在天上，正如主自己說過的一樣（約3：13）。因為榮耀的主與那在性格上實際為“人子”，意即是，已變成了世人的祂。是 一而非二的。祂的一一的痛苦與奇蹟都為我們所知道，雖然奇蹟是由祂的神力所為，祂的痛苦是人的感覺所忍受。我們知道，正如祂的內存本位是一個，所以兩個性 格的基本差異仍被保留着。倘若沒有那互不相同的事物本身存在，那麼，怎麼會有差異呢？因為差異就是不同事物間的差別。儘管論到基督的本質雖然兩個性格彼此 不同，我們認為基督將兩個極端結合在祂自己裡面；在祂的神性方面，祂與父和聖靈關連着，而在人性方面，祂卻與祂的母親和其餘的人關連着。 同時，儘管祂的兩個性格是結合了，我們認為一方面祂與父及聖靈不同，另一方面也與祂的母親及其餘一切人類不同。因為兩個性格是在祂的內存本位內結合着，於 是就有一個複合的本位，而在這一點上，祂與父及聖靈不同，也與祂的母親及我們不同。

第四章 論互相交通的方式。

我們已經屢次說及本性是一事，內存本位或個體乃是另一事。本性表示同類的個體之共通，而普遍的形相，如神，人；個體則是不可分的獨立實存，例如聖父，聖子，聖靈，或彼得，保羅。所 以要注意那神性和人性的名稱是表示本性或性格。當神的名稱與人的名稱用於性格方面的時候，就如像我們說神是有不可思議的本性，神是唯一的；而關於個體則較 特殊地來應用它更通常的名稱，如當經上說：“所以神，就是你的神用油膏你”（詩45：7）：這裡經句是指父子；還有，“烏斯地，有一個人”（約1：1）， 這只是指着約伯。

就我們的主耶穌基督而論，我們承認祂具有兩個性格，但是只有一個由 兩個性格組成的本位個體；所以當我們想到祂的性格時，我們就說祂的神性和祂的人性，而當我們想到由兩重性格所結成的個體存在時，我們有時就用有關於祂雙重 性格的名稱，如“基督”，“同時是神，也是人”，及“化成人身的神”等；有時我們用那些只表示祂一種性格的名稱，如單說“神”或“神的兒子”，單說“人” 或“人子”；有時則用一些表示祂的崇高之名號，有時又用那些名號之表示祂的謙卑。因為與神相似亦與人相似的祂是唯一的。祂是神，乃是由於那永無起因的父，但是後來化成了人，則由於祂對人類的愛。



第六章 神性的全部在其位格之一的當中，與人性結合起來，是整個的結合，不是一部與一部拼成。

那 共通的和一般的情形怎樣，可以得知它們裡面特殊，各節的情形又怎樣。那麼，本質是共通的，例如一種形相或種類。但是個體的實存則是特殊的，它的特殊性並不 是因在性格上只占了一部而沒有別的部份，其特殊乃是在數目的意義方面，因為它是各個的。實存個體間的相互差別是由於數目，而不是由性格所致。因此，我們可 以由實存的個體而覘知共通的本質，因為在同樣種類的每一個體裡面，本質都是完全的。所以在本質上來說，個體彼此並無差異之點，其差異只是在其附屬的一些特 征，但是個體的特徵而不是性格的特徵。事實上人們把個體解釋為具有一些附屬物的本質。所以個體包含一般的和特殊的，而有一個獨立的存在，至於本質卻沒有獨 立的存在，只可探索之於個體中便了。隨而，當某一個體受痛苦時，整個的本質（由於本具感知痛苦的能力），也受着痛苦，其痛苦程度與那受苦的個體相等。雖然 如此，但是一切同類的個體卻不一定與那受苦中的個體一同痛苦。

似此，我們承認神的性格整個而完全地具在它的每一個體，即每一位格中，它是全部寓在父里，全部寓在子裡，亦全部寓在聖靈里。因此，父是完全的神，子也是完全的神，聖靈也是完全的神，又論到聖三位一體的神，道的化身，我們也認為神性在其位格中之一的當中整個而完全地與整個的人性聯結着，不是神性局部與人性局部的結合。聖使徒說得真對：“因為神本性一切的豐盛，都有形有體的居住在基督裡面”（西2：9），那就是說在基督的肉身裡面。使 徒的學生丟尼修，曾受了神的默示，對神事知識異常豐富，他說過，整個的神性在它的一個位格裡面與我們相交。但是我們不應承認上帝體性的所有位格（即是三 個），在實存個體方面是與人性的所有個體一致的。因為父與聖靈只在“道”的化身中參加了善意和旨趣是了。但是我們認為上帝體性的整個本質是與整個人性聯合 着的。因為上帝“道”當初造我們的時候所注入於我們性格內的事物，祂沒有減少一件，祂自己將它們完全帶來，就是身體，有思想的和有理性的靈魂，以及身心的 一切屬性。因為缺乏這些裡面任何一件的受造物就不是人了。但是祂在祂的豐盛里，我在我的豐盛里，完全與完全兩相結合着，祂才能依着祂的恩典，將救恩賜給整個人生。因為那沒有被拿取的，就不能復原。

於 是神的道以心為媒介而與肉身聯合着，心就是神的純潔與肉身的沉濁之間的橋梁。因為心是臨乎靈魂與身體，但當心成為靈魂的最純潔部份時，神就是那個心的最純 潔部份。當那更優良者准許時，基督的心就證實它自己支配的權能，但它是為那更優良者所統治，所引導，而去做那些神願意的事情。

還有，心就成為神性與它結合成一個體時的位置，正如心與身體相結合一樣的明顯，而並不是像一個同居者那樣，這正是異教徒該被抨擊的錯誤，他們說一個斗不能夠包容兩個斗，因為他們用物質的標準去衡量那非物質的。如果只是在基督裡面有一部份神性與一部份人性結合着，那麼基督怎麼能被稱為完全的神和完全的人，並且被說是與父同有一本質，亦與我們同有一本質呢？

還有，我們主張我們的性格曾從死里復活，並且升到天上，坐在父的右邊，這並不是說所有眾人一概曾從死里復活，坐在父的右邊，卻只是在基督的本位內，我們的整個性格曾經發生過這件事情。實在聖使徒說：“上帝叫我們與基督一同復活，一同坐着”（弗2：6）。

關於這點，我們更以為這種結合是藉着共通的本質而發生的。因為各種本質都適合於它所包含的個體，在那裡找不出一個局部的及特殊的性格或本質；因為要不然的話，我們就必將以為同樣的個體在本質上是相同的而又是不相同的，則關心聖三位一體的神性，也是相同的，而又是不相同的了。所 以在每一個體裡面，我們只見到相同的性格，當我們說：“道”的性格成了肉身時（如有福的阿塔內細阿及息立爾說的一樣），乃是指神性與肉身結合。因此，我們 不能說“道的性格受痛苦”，因為在肉身裡面的神性並未痛苦，我們只是說在基督裡面人性受痛苦，而不說人類的一切個體受痛苦；我們也承認基督在祂的人性裡面 受過痛苦。所以當我們說“道”的性格時，乃是指“道”的自身。“道”又兼有本質的普遍意義及個體的特殊意義。

第八章 答覆那些人所問：主的兩個性格當算作連續物，抑或是不連續物。

如果有人問：主的兩個性格當算作是一種連續物，或算作一個不連續的事物呢？我們回答說：主的兩個性格即不是一件物體，也不是某一個形狀，也不是一條線，也不是時日，也不是地方，可以作為一種連續的事物。因為這些事物都是可以連續地計數的。

更 要注意數目是對付一些不同的事物，要計算那相互間沒有絲毫差異的事物，乃是全然不可能的。只要它們各不相同，就可將它們加以列舉。例如：彼得和保羅，要是 他們只是一個，就不得被分開來計算。因為他們既在本質方面是同一的，就不能說他們是兩個人性，但是他們在個體方面顯然不同，所以說他們是兩位。這樣，數目 與差別的事物有關，正如不同的物體彼此互相殊異，就可將它們一一列舉出來。

那麼，就個體來說，主的兩個性格無混雜地相合為一，照着名義和方式的區別，它們又無需分裂而可加以別異。我們之可將此二性列舉出來，並不是依照它們結合為一的情況，因為並不是由於基督的個體，我們才認其為有兩個性格。它們之可被列舉出來，乃是依照它們無需分裂就被別異出來的情況，因為基督之有兩個性格，乃是由於差別的名義和方式。因為它們在個體裡面合而為一，並且互相滲透，所以它們就無混雜地相結合着，每個性格自始至終保存了它自己固有的及本質的別異。因此，它們既是依照別異的情況而被列舉出來，單單為了這點，它們就必須算作一種不連續的事物。

因此，基督是唯一的，是完全的神及完全的人。我們用一樣的頂禮對祂與父及聖靈一同膜拜，也尊崇祂潔白無瑕的肉身，並不以為這肉身不宜受敬拜。因為祂的肉身實是在“道”這一位格中受敬拜，道已成了肉身的本位。但是，我們並不向那受造的任何事物表示頂禮。因為我們所敬拜的祂，不是僅以其肉身，而以其與神性結合為一的肉身，又因為祂的兩個性格，合成了上帝的道的一個內在本位。我怕摸紅炭是因為火包連着木塊。我敬拜基督的雙重性格是因為祂的神性與祂的肉身包連一起。我沒有將一個第四者導入至三位一體裡，那斷乎不能！但是我們承認上帝道和祂肉身是一個位格，即使在道的化身之後，三位一體仍然是三位一體。

第四篇 第五章 答覆那些人所問：“基督的存在是被造的或非被造的？”

上帝聖道在其化身之前，祂的存在是單純而非複式的，無形的，非被造的；但在祂化了肉身之後，祂也成為肉身的存在，而變成複合的，即由其永具的神性與所承擔的肉身所組成；因而有兩個性格的特徵，其兩性格為人所皆知道。所以那同一個位格，卻就神性方面來說是非被造的，就人性方面來說是被造的，同時是看得見的，又是看不見的。要不如此的話，我們就會不得不將獨一的基督分開，說其有兩個位格，或者，只好否認兩個性格間的區別，而致引起相互變換和混雜。

 

http://theologychina.weebly.com/index.html