老鱼:古教父们论基督人性被造集锦

 

华人基督教界目前普遍存在的基督论, 因过分强调神与人的分别，和基督的神性，而牺牲了基督的人性属性。认为因为基督是神，所以祂的人性是非受造的，就如同祂的神性一样。

 

古教父们认为基督的人性是受造的,包括游斯丁 (Justin the Martyr , 年代 103-162);

爱认纽( Irenaeus,130-202 ); 特土良(Tertullian,160-225); 亚历山大的俄列根(Origen,185-254);亚他拿修( Athanasius,296-373); 尼撒的贵格利(Gregory of Nyssa,335-395 ); 

 

拿先斯的贵格利(Gregory of Nazianzen,330-390 );  安波罗修(Ambrose of Milan,340-397); 奥古斯丁(Augustine of Hippo, 354-430);大马色的约翰(John of Damascus, 700-754).

下面是部分他们的著作原话,仅供参考.

 

1.       爱任纽《反异端（Against Heresis）》第三部十六章六節
。。这道是照着父的美意，常与人同在，与受造者连为一体，打成一片，因而也成了肉身。祂乃是我们的主耶稣基督，

為我們受難，。。。祂也在各方面都是人，为神所造，所以祂把人类都归到祂自己身上，使看不见的成了看得见的，不可测度的成了能测度的，不能受苦难的成了能受苦难的，道成了人。这样，祂使万有在祂里面同归于一，这样神的道既然在属天属灵界，无形之事上为至上，也可能在有形与物质的世界掌权。祂既拥有尊贵位，为教会元首，就到了时候要吸引万有归于祂自己。

《反异端（Against Heresis）》第三部二十一章十節
主在自己身上重演始祖（爱氏引罗5：19），正如始祖亚当的身体是从处女地而来，而为神的手及神的道所造成，照样道本身，即在自己身上重演亚当，乃从童女玛利亚诞生，而有亚当的人性。若是头一个亚当有一个人作他的父，才有理由说第二个亚当为约瑟所生。但若头一个亚当是由神用尘土造成，那在自己身上重演所造的人，也就理当有同样的生。那么神为何不再用尘土，却叫耶稣由玛利亚所生呢？这是为要避免另外有一个创造，和另外一个需要得救赎的，所以祂重演了原来的创造，从头至末保存了相似之处。

《反异端（Against Heresis）》第五部一章三節
。。正如神当初造人时，将生气吹入受造的人里面，他变成了有生命，有理性的人；照样在这末世，祂被造成为一个有生命而完全的人，能够承受完全的`父，这是由于父的道和神的灵与亚当受造的体质结合起来，这样，正如我们在肉体上都得死，照样在灵上都要得活。正如亚当当初不能脱离父的双手（指到以圣灵而言），因为父对双手说：我们要照着我们的形象，按着我们的样式造人；照样在末世，祂的双手形成了一个活人，不是由于人的情欲，也不是由于人欲，乃是由于父的美意，好叫亚当按照神的形象和样式，重新受造。

 

2.       特土良

当我读到一些瓦伦天奴（Valentinus）的卑鄙宗派作家时，他们唯恐主被人認為比天使微小，而天使不是由属地的血肉所造的，就此一开始就拒绝相信基督的人性和属地的本质是被造的。

(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.)

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

 

3.       亚他那修”论道成肉身”

这个救恩出于救主，是耶和华新造的，如耶利米所说，‘为我们造了一个救恩’，如阿奎拉所译，‘耶和华在女人里造了一件新事。’这事就成就在玛利亚身上。在女人里面所造的，要说那一件是新事，唯有主的身体从未曾被玷污的童女马利亚所生。也如《箴言》以耶稣的口气所说的：在耶和华造化的起头，在太初创造万物之先，就有了我。（8：22）祂没有说，‘在创造万物之先造了我’，免得有人把它理解为道的神性。所以，凡是提到造物的经文都是指耶稣的身体，因为主的人性被造为‘一切道路的起头’。《论道成肉身》，三联出版，200页

因而，一开始，当祂屈尊俯就我们时，祂就从一位童女为自己造了一个身体，由此给众人提供了主意证明祂神性的证据，因为造身体的主也是其他一切事物的造主。凡看到一个身体直接从童女生出来，不需要男人的配合，谁能不由此可推断出，住在这个身体里的就是其他一切身体的造主和主？
《论道成肉身》，三联出版，108页

 

《尼西亚信经护文（A DEFENCE OF THE NICENE CREED）》

说子（Son，大写，指神的儿子）是受造的也是正确的，因为这是指祂的成为人。因为受造是属于人的。。。这个特征，也是救主的，但这是指当祂取了身体的时候所说的。。。对于祂的成为人，合适的话是，主造了我。。。（当听见）主创造的，奴仆，和他受苦，我们应当正确的理解他们，而不能理解成与神（格）有关的，因为这是不合理的，而我们必须把他们理解为他为我们的缘故所穿上的肉体；。。。道成肉身的目的乃是要为所有的人所献（为祭），好叫我们，能有份与祂的灵（Spirit，大写，圣灵），能够成为（众）神（gods，小写复数，指神化后的人）,这是一个除非借由他穿上我们受造的身体，我们无法得到的恩典。。。。。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.       亚他那修” 反亚流”

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－解经；第四点，希伯来3：2介言；与亚流对这段话的诠释不同。它不能以这节中的‘奴仆’，和‘被造’ （那个审判者怎么可能会是‘神将要审判之物’中的一个‘被造之物（works）？’ 和‘忠信的（faithful）’来解释。）这也与接下来关于祭司的经文相矛盾。这段经文，如同彼前4章和其他经文一样，把‘忠信的’解释为可以信托（trustworthy）。所以最好把整个被造理解为神圣的产生或人类的被造。

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.

我认为，针对亚流派的那些疯狂的假教师们，如何抵挡真理的疯狂行为所说的已经够多了。我希望他们能够停止那些邪恶的思想，以及对亵渎救主的话，并且悔改。他们若仍然不愿意顺服，要像狗一样回头吞吃他们自己呕吐出来的秽物。继续为着他们的不敬虔，发明各样的说辞。那么，就是他们误解了箴言的这句话，‘在耶和华造化的起头，在太初创造万物之先，就造（译者：英文为create）了我’，以及使徒所说的‘他为那造了（译者：英文为made）他的尽忠’。他们毫无掩饰的争辩，神的儿子只不过是一个成品和一个被造之物。虽然他们可能学习过上述的经文，他们完全丧失了他们的思考能力，就是子不是从虚无而有的，也不是有起始之物中的一个。真理也如此见证（因为，作为神，他不可能是一件成品，称他为被造之物也是不敬虔的。当我们说‘从虚无而有’和‘在他产生前，他不存在’的时候，我们是指一个被造之物或是成品。）然 而，若他们愿意抛弃他们荒诞的小说，就会认同上述具有良善意义的经文。因为他们乃是执迷不悟的，让我们重新探讨那个问题背后的意义。用这一段一段的经文， 提醒忠信的人，他们（亚流派）根本不认识基督教的信仰。不然，他们就不会像今日不信的犹太人一样闭嘴无声，而会去探求并学习，‘太初有道，道与神同在，道 就是神，’这句话指的就是父喜悦道成为人。这也就是约翰描述祂的，‘道成了肉身。’彼得也说，‘神已经立他为主，为基督了，’－就像所罗门论到主自己的位 格时，说，‘在耶和华造化的起头，在太初创造万物之先，就造（译者：英文为create）了我’；而保罗说，‘就远超过天使’；又说，‘反倒虚己，取了奴 仆的形像，成为人的样式’；又说，‘同蒙天召的圣洁弟兄啊，你们应当思想我们所认为使者、为大祭司的耶稣。他为那设立他的尽忠，如同摩西在神的全家尽忠一 样。’因为这些经文的意义都是敬虔的和具有影响力的。在他成为人子，人却把他当作一个普通的人的时候，宣告了道的神格（divinity）。虽然就已经足以驳斥他们，然而，因他们误解了使徒的教导（如同我们先提到的），他们认为神的道乃是（被造之）成品中的一个，因为圣经说，‘他为那设立他的尽忠。’经过深思熟虑后，我认为需要进一步敉平他们的论点。

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.

如果他不是一个儿子（Son），就让他被称作一个成品，把那些成品的 特征也都应用在祂身上，别只有让祂被称为儿子（Son）、道、或智慧；也别让神被称作父，只要称祂为万有借祂而有的塑造者和造物主。让被造之物成为祂塑造 世界之意志的像和彰显。如他们所愿，让父也丧失生出的本质。这样就不会有具有祂的本质之道、智慧、和像。因为，若祂不是子（Son），祂也就不是（父的） 像。而若没有子，我们又怎么能够称神为造物主呢？因为万有都是在（神的）智慧里，借由道而有的。没了这位，就不会有万有。然而，你们却说，祂（父）却少了 那在祂（子）里面，并借由祂，创造了万有的一位。若神素质的本身就像是他们所坚持的，是没有生育的能力（译者：指父无法生出子来，故子不是真神，）那么祂 岂不就成了无法光照的光，枯干的泉源。而他们却还有脸教导祂（父）仍拥有塑造的能力？他们否认那位本质（就是神的），难道他们不会因为把那借意志而有的， （译者：万有都是因神的意志而被造，亚他那修意指，亚流派认为，基督是因神的意志而被造的，）摆在它的面前而感到脸红？祂乃是塑造了在祂之外、原先不存 在、借由祂的意志而有的万有，成为它们的创造者。何况，在这之先，祂已经是那从祂素质而出的流出之父。若他们把曾经不存在事物之意志算作为父的书信，他们 为什么不干脆承认父乃是借由某种的意志而有的？如今，有一位是远超意志的，祂乃是从本质来的，就是父自己的道。根据他们愚蠢的想法，若是那根据（神的）本 质先来的原先是不存在的，那么怎么可能随后的，还能够根据（神的）意志而有呢？因为道先有，而其他的被造之物在其后而有。相反的，不论那些不敬虔的人如何 狡辩；万有都是借由祂而有的，作为造物主，祂也根据祂自己的本质，在祂里面塑造了道；我们必须重复这样的教导。若祂拥有意志的能力，祂的意志也是有果效 的，并且足以维系万有，那么祂的道就是有果效的，是(万有的)塑造者。这样，道必然就是父那活的旨意，具有祂素质的能量，一位在祂里面万有被维持并被完美 的管理。没有人能够怀疑，那位安排万有的祂，乃是在被安排的万有之先。故此，如同我已经说过的，神的创造乃是在祂的出生之后。因为子乃是指某位拥有祂的性 质，并真从有福和永远的素质而来的那位。但是，那些从祂的意志，从虚无而有的，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 同我们已经指出的，他们在肆无忌惮的教导主不是神的儿子，而是一个成品这件事上，是罪无可恕的。这使得我们所有人都必须承认祂就是儿子（Son）。若祂是 儿子（Son），祂也真是，而没有人会承认一个儿子（son）是在他的父亲之外，而是从他的父亲而来的。我已经呼吁过，他们别再刁难这些由圣经的作者们使 用在道身上的这些词，就是否认‘对那位生祂的’这句话，而硬要说，‘对那位造祂的’这样的话。只要我们承认祂的本质，在这些情况下使用的词，不应该变成问 题。因为这些词记不贬低祂的本质，而本质也不会改变这些词。因为这些词并不会比素质更重要，而更重要的是素质本身，然后才是使用的词汇。这也是为什么当素 质是一个成品或被造之物，我们才能够合适的使用‘祂造了’，‘祂成为，’和‘祂创造，’并 把这些词用于成品之上。但是，当素质是流出和子（Son）时，那么‘祂造了’，‘祂成为，’和‘祂创造，’就不在属于它，也不能被用于一个成品身上。我们 会毫无疑问的把‘祂造了（He made）’当作‘祂生了（He begat）。’故此，有时候父亲会称那些从他们而生的儿子们为仆人，然而，这并没有否认儿子们的本质是从他们来的。而有时候，他们亲切的称他们的仆人为 儿子的时候，也并没有隐藏他们乃是他所买来的事实。因为他们乃是随从自己的意愿，以父亲的地位使用某种称呼，有时候则是因着他们的情感，他们使用了另一种 称呼。故此，撒拉称亚伯拉罕为主（lord），但她乃是妻子而不是仆人。腓利门是主人，使徒和仆人欧尼西姆称他为弟兄。拔示巴是母亲，但称她的儿子为仆 人，告诉他的父亲，‘你的仆人所罗门。’先知拿单来见大卫的时候，重复了他母亲的话，说，‘你的仆人所罗门。’他们不但不介意称他们的儿子为仆人，当大卫 听见这样的称呼是，他还承认其‘本质.’而当他们如此称呼的时候,并没有忘记其‘真实性,’向主祷告，希望这位被称作仆人的，能够继承他父亲的王位。因 为，他从本质而言，乃是大卫的儿子。

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，当我们读到这样的话的时候，我们应当合适的诠释它，不能因为我们听见所罗门被称为奴仆，就把他当作奴仆，而要把他当作本质上的真儿子。同样的，对于我 们的救主，祂在真理中被承认是儿子（Son），从本质上是道，圣徒们说，‘祂向那造（made）祂的尽忠，’或论到自己，说，‘主造了我，’以及‘我是你 的仆人，是你婢女的儿子。’同理，我们以这些作为理由，来否认祂的本质就是父的，并且祂就是从父来的。就像所罗门和大卫的例子，让他们对于父与子（间的关 系）有一个正确的观念。虽然他们听见所罗门被称为儿子，但是他们还是把他当作儿子。难道这些人不应该因为他们没有坚持以同样的方式解释主，而被千刀万剐？ 他们在听见‘流出’、‘道’和‘智慧’的时候，强制性的曲解其含义，并否认子（Son）从父而有的那个在本质上、真实的出生；在听见那些关于作品的字和词 的时候，毫不犹豫的人的祂存在的性质就是一个成品，并否定道；虽然根据祂的成为人，我们可以把这些词汇当作是祂的人性。他们用一种方式对待其他的事物，却 对主发出亵渎。‘对于主’，他们难道不是‘诡诈的天平’，‘令人深恶痛绝’？或许他们会承认，‘仆人’这个词可以在某种的意义下被使用，但是强调‘被造’ 就是支持他们的异端。他们仍然是破损的芦苇；因为若他们了解圣经的风格（译者：指恶行比带来审判），他们就会立刻审判他们自己。因为，是儿子的所罗门虽然 被称为仆人，如同我们已经说过的，即使父母称从自己而出的儿子们为‘被造作’，‘被造的’，和‘成为’，这些词都无法否定他们的性质。故此，以赛亚书记载 的希西家，在他的祷告中说，‘哦，我的救主，从今日起，我必造作许多儿女，他们将要宣告你的公义。’他接着又说，‘我将造作。’然而先知在该书和列王记下 说道，‘并且从你本身所生的众子。’他把‘造作’替代了‘生’，他称那些从他而出的为‘被造作’，这个词是否被用来指明本质的流出是毋庸置疑的。再者，夏 娃在怀该隐的时候说，‘耶和华使我得了一个男子；’她以‘得了（gotten）’代替‘产生（brought forth）。’因为她是先看见了男孩，然后再说‘得了。’不会有人因为‘我得了’这句话，就认为该隐是被买来的，而不是她所生的。（译者：这里的‘买’ 含有从虚无而来的意思。因为被买来的东西，曾经是不存在的。）还有，当列祖雅各告诉约瑟，‘我未到埃及见你之先，你在埃及地所生的以法莲和玛拿西这两个儿 子是我的。’圣经论到约伯则说，‘他生了七个儿子，三个女儿。’摩西也在律法书中说过，‘若众子成为某人（译者：意指长大成人），’和‘若他造作了一个儿 子（译者：根据英文重译）。’在此，他们称那些被生的（begotten）为‘成为（become）’和‘造作（made）’的时候，仍然被承认是儿子。 我们不必在‘他们成为（they became），’或‘我得到（I have gotten），’或‘我造作（I made）’这样的词句上纠缠。因为，只有本质和真理能够决定它们的意义。

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.

当有人质疑主是一个被造之物或作品的时候，我们应该先问他，祂到底是不是子和道和智慧。这就让那个把主当作作品和被造之物的臆测立刻摔的粉碎。因为一个成品永远不可能成为子和道；子也永远不可能成为一个作品。在这件事上，‘向着那位造祂的（To Him who made Him）’这句话不但没有帮助他们的异端，反而定罪了它，这是显而易见的。我们也已经解释过了，在圣经中，‘他造作（He made）’这句话也可以被用在真正和具有同本质的儿女身上。故此，主也被证明就是父的真儿子，也具有祂的本质。祂也是道和智慧，虽然‘他造作’也被用在 祂（子）的身上。而‘祂成为（He became）’也不是说祂就是一个作品。反而在所罗门，西希家的儿女身上，圣徒们在使用这些名词的时候，并没有任何的疑惑。虽然他们的父亲生了他们，但 是经上仍然记着，‘我造作了（I have made）,’和‘我得了（I have gotten），’和‘祂成为（He became）。’故此，不论这些神的敌人如何不断的用这些话为自己辩解，在我们解释这一切之后，我们要否认他们不敬虔的想法，并认为主就是父的真儿子， 真道和真智慧，不是一个作品，也不是一个被造之物。因为若子是一个被造之物，祂又要借着什么道和什么智慧来创造祂自己呢？因为万物都是接着道和智慧造的， 就如同经上记着，‘你所造的何其多！都是你用智慧造成的，’和，‘万物是藉著他造的；凡被造的，没有一样不是藉著他造的。’若祂是道和智慧，并且万有都是 借着他有的，那么祂必然就不在被造之物当作，也不是某种有起源的事物，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.

让 我们想想，把神的道称作一个作品是多么可怕的错误！所罗门在传道书中说，‘因为人所做的事，连一切隐藏的事，无论是善是恶，神都必审判。（译者：根据英文 重译）’若道是一个作品，你的意思是不是祂也会像其他的作品一样，被神审判？若审判者站在被告席上，这个审判如何进行？若你们必须人的主也与其他的完全都 站在被告席上，谁又能赐公义者祝福，赐不配者惩罚？而且，我们要根据那条律法来审判这位赐下律法者？被子审判，被子祝福，被子惩罚，这些都是成品的特征。 如今，你要让所罗门的话说服你，敬畏那位审判者。因为若神把万物都带到审判中，而子本身并不是那些将被审判的一个，而是审判所有成品的审判者，难道这个证 据不就是如同煌煌之日一样，证明子不是一个成品，而是父的道，在祂里面所有的万物都将被审判？再者，若‘那位忠信的（faithful，译者：也可做信实 的，请读者注意英文的faith翻译到中文具有不同翻译的问题，建议读者以英文为理解此段话的标准，并注意faithful这个词具有双重含义）’这句话 让那些人为难，因为他们认为‘忠信的（faithful）’这个词用在祂身上就如同其他的（被造之物），好像祂必须操练祂的信仰（faith），才能够领受信仰（faith）的奖赏一样。那么他们也应当用这个标准对摩西说的‘神是信实（faithful）和 真实的’，以及圣保罗写下的‘神是信实的（faithful），必不叫你们受试探过於所能受的’这些话吹毛求疵。然而，当圣徒们写这些话的时候，他们并不 是用人的角度来思考神，他们乃是承认‘忠信的（faithful）’这个词在圣经里面具有双重的含义，第一个是‘相信（believing)，’第二个是 ‘可以信靠（trustworthy），’前者是用在人身上，后者是用在神身上。故此，亚伯拉罕是忠信的因为他相信神的道；而神是信实的因为大卫在诗篇中 说，‘耶和华的道（话）是全然信实的（译者：根据英文重译），’或祂是可以信靠，永不说谎的那位。又，‘信主的妇女，若家中有寡妇，’乃是因为妇人的忠信 如此称呼她；但是，‘这话是可信的，’乃是因为祂所说的值得我们相信，因为祂所说的都是真实的。‘那造祂的对祂是信实的’这句话乃并没有别的含义，也不代表祂乃是有了信心而得（神）喜悦。而是，作为真神的儿子（Son），祂也是信实的，我们可以相信祂所说所作的一切。在祂人性的经纶和肉身的显现中，祂自己则仍然是不可改变，也未曾改变过。

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，让我们再来用‘祂造了（made）’这句话会会这些无耻的人，就能表 明他们错误的认为神的道是一个成品。除此以外，因为这种偏差的背景是大公教义，我也会使用这种说法出现的时间和挂下，表明异端是如何的缺乏理性。如同我们 前面已经做过的，我们要思考它们被使用的场合及目的。如今使徒只在说‘道成肉身’的时候才论到万有被创造之前的事。故此经上记着，‘同蒙天召的圣洁弟兄 啊，你们应当思想我们所认为使者（译者：即使徒）、为大祭司的耶稣。他为那设立他的尽忠。’祂成为‘使徒’的时候难到不就是祂披上了我们的肉身的时候吗？ 而他成为‘大祭司’的时候，不就是祂为我们献上自己，将祂的身体从死人中复活，聚集那些在信心中前来就近祂的人，将他们献给父神，拯救他们，并使神的愤怒 止息的时候吗？所以这样的期望（译者：指神对人的救赎）既不是道的性质，也不是祂从父的出生，使徒也说，‘向着那位造祂者尽忠（Who was faithful to Him that made Him）’--（灭绝这样的想法！因为道不是被造的，而是创造万有的）--这乃是指祂的降世为人和大祭司，这就是‘成为（became）’--如同人马可 以轻易的从律法和亚伦所提供的细节看见这点。我的意思是，亚伦并不是生下来就是大祭司，而是一个人。而是等他长大后，神愿意，他才成为大祭司。这个成为并 不是因着他自己那件平凡的外袍，而是披上妇人们根据神的命令，所做的祭司袍，胸牌，和内袍。亚伦要披着这些进入圣所，为百姓献上祭物，成为神洞察的眼光和 人的祭物中的中间人。故此主也说，‘太初有道，道与神同在，道就是神；’当父愿意为万人付上赎价的时候，恩典就被赐下。如同亚伦披上了他的袍子一样，道取 了属尘土的肉身，让马利亚成为祂身体的母亲。作为大祭司，祂以自己为祭，将自己献给父神，用祂的宝血洗净我们一切的罪，叫我们也能够从死人中复活。

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].’

旧 约发生的一切乃是这些事的影儿。救主的来临乃是亚伦根据律法所预表的。就像亚伦并没有因为披上大祭司的袍子而改变，除了穿上袍子外，他还是一样的。也就是 说，那些看见亚伦献祭，并说，‘看啊！今天亚伦变成了大祭司’的人，并不是代表他生为人，他成为大祭司之前才是人。而是他在他的职事中披上为大祭司所制造 的袍子，被立为大祭司。同样的，在主身上，我们也要有正确的认识。祂在披上肉身后并不会成为祂所不是的，而是永远不变。而‘祂成为’和‘祂被造’这样的表述不能被理解为道是被造的，但是这位是万有的塑造者之道，借着披上一个有起源、被造的身体被造成大祭司，好叫祂能为我们献上自己；故此，祂被称为被造的。若主并没有成为人，这是亚流派争辩的重点。若‘道成肉身’，除了‘祂向那位造祂者尽忠’外，我们还能如何描述祂的成为人？若‘太初有道’是的对道本身正确的描述，那么对于人的正确描述就是‘成为（become）’和‘被造（to be made）。’有谁在看见主如同一个人一样的四处行走，在祂的工作里却又显明为神的时候，不会问，是谁把他造成一个人？而当然听见这个问题，难道不会回答，是父把祂造成一个人，并把祂当作大祭司，差遣到我们中间？若 我们先搞清楚其先决条件，这个意义，时间，人物和使徒自己，以及写下‘祂向那位造祂者尽忠’的作者对于我们就是非常容易理解的。因为只有一条思路，而经文 都是有关与那一位永不改变者。祂接着又在希伯来书中写到，“儿女既同有血肉之体，他也照样亲自成了血肉之体，特要藉著死败坏那掌死权的，就是魔鬼，并要释 放那些一生因怕死而为奴仆的人。他并没有取了天使的性质，乃是成为伯拉罕的後裔。所以，他凡事该与他的弟兄相同，为要在神的事上成为慈悲忠信的大祭司，为百姓的罪献上挽回祭。他自己既然被试探而受苦，就能搭救被试探的人。同蒙天召的圣洁弟兄啊，你们应当思想我们所认为使者、为大祭司的耶稣。祂为那造祂的尽忠。”

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.

谁能够在读完这整段话后，不定罪亚流派，并赞扬蒙福的使徒能把话讲的如此清楚？因为当基督‘被造’的时候，在祂成为‘使徒’的时候，像我们一样‘取了血肉之体？’难道他不是在‘凡事该与他的弟兄相同’的时候，才成为‘慈悲忠信的大祭司’？ 当祂成为人的时候，难道不是因为祂披上了我们的肉身，才与我们‘相同’。故此保罗在写到道人性的经纶（Word's human Economy）的时候，说到‘祂为那造祂的尽忠’这句话的是，并不是指祂的本质。别让任何的疯子在宣称神的道是个作品；祂因着独生的性质是儿子 （Son），当取了并披上我们的肉身时，成为‘弟兄（brethren）’。祂又因为献上了自己，而被称作‘慈悲和忠信的’--慈悲乃是因为在祂对我们的 怜悯中祂献上了自己，忠信不是因为祂与我们同享一样的信仰，也不是像我们一样的拥有信心，而是祂所说的、所做的就像献上一个信实的祭物，配得我们的信托。 祂是永远长存，绝不会落空的那位。而那些根据律法献上祭物的，却得不到这样的信实，必须随着时间的往前而不断的洁净自己。然而救主的献祭是一次永远有功效 的，完全了整个律法，祂的工作是永远信实的。亚伦与他的后裔，必须在律法下，在死亡的时候交接其职事。而主的祭司职份是更高超的，不需要交接也不需要继 承，祂成为‘慈悲忠信的大祭司’，是用于的。祂的应许是信实的，叫祂能够听见（我们的祈求），也不会误导那些来就近祂的人。我们也能从伟大的彼得的书信中 看见，‘所以那照神旨意受苦的人要一心为善，将自己灵魂交与那信实的创造主。（译者：根据英文重译。）’因为祂是信实不改变的，永远住在（我们里面），并 成就祂所应许的。

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，那些希腊人所谓的神（gods），我们根本不屑提它们的名字，它们的性质和应许都不是信实的。而各地的那些当地的神祗，不但在时间的流逝中归于无有， 最终自然消亡。道却向它们呼喊（译者：有叫阵的意思），‘它们里面缺乏信实’，它们不过是‘掉落的水珠，’和‘在它们里面没有信实。’然而万有的神，是确 实、实在、和真实的那位，是信实的，祂永远不变，并说，‘看啊，我永远就是祂，’和我‘永不改变。’所以祂的儿子是‘信实的，’永远长存并永不改变，祂的 性质和应许都不会蒙骗我们。就像使徒写给帖撒罗尼家人书中再次提到的，‘那召你们的本是信实的，他必成就这事。’因着成就祂所应许的，‘祂对祂的话是信实 的。’所以他写给希伯来人的信中也提到道‘不可改变’的意义：‘他仍是可信的，因为他不能背乎自己。’故此，使徒能够理直气壮的描述道在肉身的显现，称祂为‘向那位造祂者尽忠的使徒，’这表明甚至当祂被造为人的时候，‘耶稣基督昨日、今日、直到永世是一样’不改变的。如同使徒在他的书信中提到祂的大祭司职分时，说到祂的被造成为人，并没有忽视祂的神格。反而先提到它，提醒我们不能牺牲任何一面。更重要的是，当他提到祂的人性的时候，我们自然会知道祂的尊高和祂的君尊都是父的。例如，他说，‘摩西为仆人，而基督确是儿子，前者‘对他的家尽忠，’而后者乃是‘对全家（尽忠，译者：指神的家），’因为祂建立了神的家，是它的主和塑造者，也如同神一样圣别它。对于摩西，性质上是一个人，成为忠信的，乃是因相信那位借着自己的道跟他说话的神。而道并不是一件在身体中有起源的事物，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。人类必须穿上肉身才能够存在并存活。但是神的道被造为人，乃是为了圣别（人类的）肉身。虽然祂是主，但是却在奴仆的形像之中。因为万有都是道的奴仆，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）’的这个表述是正确的，它并不是说道是被造的，而是指那个祂所取的与我们一样的身体。故此，祂成为人，被称作是我们的兄弟。即使当‘造（made）’这个字被用来指这位道的时候，它乃是被当作‘生（begat），’现今的讨论已经从每一个角度陈明了这个字的意义，并指明子（Son）不是一个成品，从素质上就是父的流出。而根据父的良善旨意，在经纶（Economy）中，祂为了我们的缘故被造、并被组成为一个人。我要再看看他们还能掰出其他错误的推论？因着这个原因，使徒说，‘祂向那造祂者尽忠。’在箴言中，甚至称祂为被造之物。只要我们承认祂成为人，不论我们说‘祂成为，’或‘祂被造作（has been made），’或‘被造（created），’或‘被塑造（formed），’或‘奴仆，’或‘使女之子（son of an handmaid），’或‘人子，’或‘被构成（was constituted），’或‘走了祂的旅程，’或‘新郎’或‘兄弟的儿子，’或‘兄弟，’都是没有问题的。这些词汇都能够合适的别用来描述人的构成。它们都不代表道的素质，而是祂的成为人。

5.       拿先斯贵格利”论神显”13

。。。于是，祂成为带着祂所取之本性的神，成为两性，及肉与灵里的一位格，后者使前者成圣。全新的生成，奇异的联合，自有者曾为存在，非受造的成了受造的，原本不可能包含的成了被包含的，借着属理智灵魂的介入，周旋与神与肉身的形体性之间。赐予财富的，变成了频发的，因为祂取了我肉身的贫乏，好叫我获得他神性（Godhead）的富有。

 

神学演讲录》4.2:在他们看来，以下这话太唾手可得了：“在耶和华造化的起头，在太初创造万物之先，就造了我。”对此我们应如何应对呢？我们能因为所罗门晚年的堕落就指控他， 或者跑他先前所说的话吗？我们能说这些话就是智慧自身的话，就如同知识和造物主—道—万物借祂而造—的话吗？。。。那么我们一起来思考一个小问题。在一切 存在的事物中，那个是非起源的？神。因为没有谁能说出神的起源，否则，那源头就是比神更早的存在。那么神为了我们所穿上的人性（Manhood）的原因是什么？当然就是我们的得救。次位还能是什么呢？既然我们在这里清楚的看到了即是被造的又是受生的“我”，论证就简单了。凡是看到与原因相关的，我们就必须认为是指人性，而凡是绝对的、非源起的，就必须认为是对祂神性（Godhead）的阐述。那么这个“造了（被造）”是否与原因相关呢？经上这样说，在耶和华造化的起头，在太初创造万物之先，就造了我。须知，祂手所行的，是诚实公平的；为了人的缘故，祂受神性油膏，因为这油膏乃是属于人性的。但是“祂生了我”则与原因无关，否则你得找出那位助手。。。事实上，祂为了使我们得释放，为了所有那些原本在罪的捆绑中因祂而得救的人，屈从于肉身，经历出生，体验我们生命的境况。卑微的人竟然能与神联合，并借着这种联合得与神的性情有份，能临到人头税的，还有比这更大的命运吗？

 

6.       奥古斯丁“三位一体论”

十四、我已说到我们的前辈应用圣经中上述和类似的见证，来揭露异端派的错谬，将教义所示三位一体的合一和平等给向我们证明。由于上帝的道成为肉身，作成我们得救的工夫，好叫为人的基督耶稣可以作神人间的中保，所 以在圣经中有许多事说起来，好像是表明甚或是很明显地说，父是比子大的；以致人们不求甚解，或不顾圣经的全盘意义，企图将那些从肉体论耶稣基督所说的事， 转移到祂道成肉身以前永恒的本体上去。例如，他们说，子比父小，因为经上记着主自己说：“父是比我大的”（约24：28）。但真理证明，按照同一意义子也 是比祂自己小；因为祂既“虚己，取了奴仆的形像，”祂怎得不成为比祂自己小呢？祂之取了奴仆的形像，并不使祂失去那使祂与父同等的上帝之形像。倘 若祂取了奴仆的形像，而并不是使祂失去上帝的形像，因为祂自己在奴仆的形像里和在上帝的形像里同是父上帝的独生子，在上帝的形像里是与父同等，在奴仆的形 像里是神人间的中保，即为人的基督耶稣；那么谁个不能看见祂在上帝的形像里比祂自己大，可是在奴仆的形像里却比祂自己小呢？而后者照着 奴仆的形像加以了解，就没有混乱之处。其实这将全部圣经弄清楚这问题的准则，是在使徒保罗一封书信的一章里揭橥了。他在那里足够清楚地将这区分介绍给我 们，说：“他本有上帝的形像，不以自己与上帝同等为强夺的；反倒虚己，取了奴仆的形像，成为人的样式；并有人的样子”（腓2：7）。于是在本性上上帝的儿子与父上帝同等，但在“样子”上比父小。因为在祂所取的奴仆形像上，祂比父小；但在祂取了奴仆的形像以前所有父得形像上，祂与父同等。祂在上帝的形像上是道，“万物是祂造的”（约1：3）；但祂在奴仆的形像上“为女子所生，且生在律法以下，要把律法以下的人赎出来”（加4：4，5）。照样祂在上帝的形像里造了人；祂在奴仆的形像里被造为人。因为假如父独自造了人，而子没有分，经上就不会记着说：“我们要照着我们的形像，按着我们的样式造人”（创1：26）。所以，既然上帝的形像取了奴仆的形像，所以祂是二者，是上帝也是人：是上帝，乃是由于上帝去取；也是人，乃是由于人被取。二者中之一，既不因取的动作而变成了另一，即神并未被改变成受造者，以致不再是神；而受造者也并不改变成为神，以致不再是受造者。 

奥古斯丁“教义手册”

第三十八章 耶稣基督的肉体有圣灵成孕而生，其意并非指圣灵是其父

但 我们可否由此说，圣灵是那个属人性的基督之父呢？可说父上帝生了道，圣灵上帝生了人，这两个属性合起来就形成了基督吗？或说，由道而言，祂是父上帝的儿 子，由人而言，祂是圣灵上帝的儿子，因为圣灵是其父，使祂由童女马里亚而生吗？谁敢这样说呢？不用说有许多其他胡言乱语由此兴起，卑污不堪入耳。隐藏，我 们在信经中要说：“我们的主耶稣基督，是出于上帝而为上帝，由圣灵从童女马里亚而生，而成为人，有神性和人性，是全能父上帝的独生子，圣灵是由父上帝出来 的”（印自古拉丁教会所用使徒信经）。如果圣灵没有生基督，则所谓基督是由圣灵所生，当如何解释呢？或者可以说，祂是由圣灵造的吗？因为虽然按祂是上帝说：“万物都是祂造的”（约1：3），但按祂是人说，祂也是受造的。例如使徒说：“按肉体说，祂是从大卫后裔生的”（罗1：3）。但这种说法也有问题。这个由童女怀孕所生的受造者虽然只于子的位格相结合，但是受造于整个三位一体（因为三位一体的工作是不能分开的），那么此处为何只说圣灵生祂呢？这或者是因为每逢提到其中之一的工作时，实即指三者共同的工作而言。这 个解释是对的，我们能举出实例来证明。不过我们无需在这个解答上花费更多的工作。因为我们的那个谜乃是，祂既从任何意义上说不是圣灵的儿子，则“祂是有圣 灵所生”这句究竟系何所指？因为上帝虽然 造了这个世界，但不能说世界是上帝的儿子，或说世界是由上帝而生。我们要说世界是上帝创造的，上帝形成的，上帝制作的，或用别的合宜的说法。当我们在信经 中说，基督是有圣灵和童女马里亚所生，我们的难题是，如何解释祂不是圣灵的儿子，只是童女马里亚的儿子，而事实上祂是有圣灵和马里亚两者而生。显然，基督是由圣灵所生，并不能和祂是有童女马里亚所生，做同一解释。圣灵生了基督，但圣灵不是基督的父亲，马里亚圣灵基督，马里亚却是基督的母亲。

宗教文化出版社，321-322页

7.       大马士革的圣约翰 “正统信仰阐详”

第三章 论基督的两个性格，以反对那主张只有一性的学派。

基督的两个性格，无更改，无变换而互相连结起 来，那神性既未与它原有的单纯性分离，而人性也没有变成神的性格，或者减退到没有存在，也不是由两个性格产生的一个复合性格。因为复合性格与组成它的任何 一个性格不可能是同样的本体，与从另外的许多东西造出一种东西的情形是有别的。例如：身体是由四元素组成的，但是它并不与火，或空气，或水，或地有同样本质，也不保留一样的名称。因此，倘若在结合以后，如 那些异教徒所执意的，以基督的性格为一个复合的单位，祂已由一个单一性格变成了一个复合性格，祂与性格单一的父不是同体，也与那非由神性和人性组合而成的 母亲不是同其本质。于是祂不属神性，也不属人性，祂将不称为神，不称为人，而只被称为基督；而这基督一词将不是内在实存的名称，照他们的意见只是所谓一个 复合性格而已。

但是，我们却不宣告基督的性格是复合的，也不以祂是由另外一些东西所造成的，而其结果与那些原来东西全不相同，好比人由灵魂与身体造成，或身体由四元素造成那样。我们认为祂虽然是由这些不同部份所组成，但是祂仍然与原来一样。因为我们承认祂，同时是属神性，也属人性，而皆可称为完全的神，即是两者为同一的本体；但祂由两个性格发生，也以两个性格而存在。还有，由“基督”一词，我们就知道这个内在实存的名称，不是表示“一种”的意义，却是意味着两个性格的并在。因为祂膏了自己，正如神用自己的神性膏自己的身体，也如人被膏了。因为祂自己就是神，也是人。受膏之礼就是祂的人性得神性。假如基督是一个复合的性格，而与父为类同的本体，则父也必定是复合的，并亦与肉身有同样的本体，这真是荒诞不经而极端的亵渎。

事实上，一个性格又怎能包含彼此相反而又本质相异的份子呢？同一的性格又怎么可能同时是被造而又非被造的，是必死而又不死的，是有限定而又无限定的呢？

但是，那些辩称基督只有一个性格的学派，他们如果也说那个性格是一个单纯的性格，他们必需承认祂干脆地就是神，而其化为世人只是一种现相；要不然，他们就得照着涅斯多留的说法，承认祂只是人。那么，关于祂是“完全的神性和完全的人性”又应如何解说呢？如果他们认为在结合之后，基督只是一个混合性格，那么何时才能说祂是有两个性格呢？因为每个人都极明白在结合以前，基督只有一个性格。

那 些异教徒之所以被引入歧途。全在于他们误以性格与实存看成同一意义。当我们说人类的性格是一个时，要注意我们如此说并未关涉到灵魂和身体的问题。因为当我 们把灵魂与身体一起比较时，我们不能说它们为一个性格。不过，人类中实有非常之多的个体存在，但皆具有同样的性格，因为所有个体都由灵魂与身体组成，在灵 魂的性格内一同有分，又都占有实质的身体和共通形相。我们每只提及这些非常多而不同的个体中之一个性格；其实就是说每一个体有两个性格——灵魂与身体，意即是，人的存在由这两个性格完成的。

但就我们的主耶稣基督来说，我们不能容许指其有一共通形相。因 为过去从来没有，现在没有，将来也不会有另外一个由神性和人性两者联成的基督，存在于神性和人性里面，同时是完全的神，也是完全的人。因此，指着我们的主 耶稣基督，我们不能像说一个人是由灵魂与身体所造成的情形，而照样说基督也是神性与人性造成的一个性格。因为前者的情形是关于一个普通的人，可是基督并不 是一个人。因为没有什么基督的形相可以裁定。因此，我们认为曾经有一种两个完全性格的联合，这两个性格一是神性，一是人性；这 联合并不是有如那神所诅咒的丢斯库若，有如优提克斯与瑟维如斯并所有一班背教的人所说的那样紊乱，或混杂，或混合，或杂乱。也不是那为神所憎的涅斯多留所 说的，和底阿多若与摩普修厄契亚的狄奥多等，以及他们的鬼魔党徒所说的那样——这联合不是外观的或相对的情况，或是尊严的问题，或意志的一致，或尊荣方面 的同等，或在名称或好意上的同一。这联合乃是依照综合法，意即是在内存性上，因而没有转换，或搀混，或变性，或隔开，或分离；我们就承认 在两个仍是完全的性格中，只有一个内存本位，即是神的化身儿子；我们认为这是同一的内存本位，属于祂的神性和祂的人性，并且承认在联合之后，那两个性格都 被保留在祂里面了，但是我们不认为每个性格是分离的和各别独在的，它们是在一个复合的本位内互相联结而归于一。我们说这结合是本质的，即是实在的而不是现 像的事。再有，我们说这结合是本质的，并不是说两个性格归结成为一个复合性格的意思，而是这两个性格在神的儿子之一个复合本位内的真正联合之意，我们也肯 定这两个性格的基本差异仍然是保留着的。因为被造的仍旧是被造的，非被造的仍旧是非被造的，必死的仍旧是必死的，不死的仍旧是不死的，有限制的仍旧是有限制的，无限制的仍旧是无限制的，可看见的仍旧是可看见的，看不见的仍旧是看不见的。“一部份为奇迹的朗照，另一部份则受侮辱而蒙不白之冤。”



还有，“道”将人类的属性作为已有，因为一切属于祂圣洁肉身的都是“道”的。藉着各部份彼此间的相互贯通，祂以传达交通的方法，将自己的属性分授给肉身，故在本位上就成了一个。因为那活动如神如人的祂，本是独一无二的，祂选择任何一个形式而与另一形式保持灵交。所以，虽然祂的神性绝不曾受苦难，但我们说荣耀的主是被钉在十字架上了（林前2：8），我们又承认人子在受难之前就在天上，正如主自己说过的一样（约3：13）。因为荣耀的主与那在性格上实际为“人子”，意即是，已变成了世人的祂。是 一而非二的。祂的一一的痛苦与奇迹都为我们所知道，虽然奇迹是由祂的神力所为，祂的痛苦是人的感觉所忍受。我们知道，正如祂的内存本位是一个，所以两个性 格的基本差异仍被保留着。倘若没有那互不相同的事物本身存在，那么，怎么会有差异呢？因为差异就是不同事物间的差别。尽管论到基督的本质虽然两个性格彼此 不同，我们认为基督将两个极端结合在祂自己里面；在祂的神性方面，祂与父和圣灵关连着，而在人性方面，祂却与祂的母亲和其余的人关连着。 同时，尽管祂的两个性格是结合了，我们认为一方面祂与父及圣灵不同，另一方面也与祂的母亲及其余一切人类不同。因为两个性格是在祂的内存本位内结合着，于 是就有一个复合的本位，而在这一点上，祂与父及圣灵不同，也与祂的母亲及我们不同。

第四章 论互相交通的方式。

我们已经屡次说及本性是一事，内存本位或个体乃是另一事。本性表示同类的个体之共通，而普遍的形相，如神，人；个体则是不可分的独立实存，例如圣父，圣子，圣灵，或彼得，保罗。所 以要注意那神性和人性的名称是表示本性或性格。当神的名称与人的名称用于性格方面的时候，就如像我们说神是有不可思议的本性，神是唯一的；而关于个体则较 特殊地来应用它更通常的名称，如当经上说：“所以神，就是你的神用油膏你”（诗45：7）：这里经句是指父子；还有，“乌斯地，有一个人”（约1：1）， 这只是指着约伯。

就我们的主耶稣基督而论，我们承认祂具有两个性格，但是只有一个由 两个性格组成的本位个体；所以当我们想到祂的性格时，我们就说祂的神性和祂的人性，而当我们想到由两重性格所结成的个体存在时，我们有时就用有关于祂双重 性格的名称，如“基督”，“同时是神，也是人”，及“化成人身的神”等；有时我们用那些只表示祂一种性格的名称，如单说“神”或“神的儿子”，单说“人” 或“人子”；有时则用一些表示祂的崇高之名号，有时又用那些名号之表示祂的谦卑。因为与神相似亦与人相似的祂是唯一的。祂是神，乃是由于那永无起因的父，但是后来化成了人，则由于祂对人类的爱。



第六章 神性的全部在其位格之一的当中，与人性结合起来，是整个的结合，不是一部与一部拼成。

那 共通的和一般的情形怎样，可以得知它们里面特殊，各节的情形又怎样。那么，本质是共通的，例如一种形相或种类。但是个体的实存则是特殊的，它的特殊性并不 是因在性格上只占了一部而没有别的部份，其特殊乃是在数目的意义方面，因为它是各个的。实存个体间的相互差别是由于数目，而不是由性格所致。因此，我们可 以由实存的个体而觇知共通的本质，因为在同样种类的每一个体里面，本质都是完全的。所以在本质上来说，个体彼此并无差异之点，其差异只是在其附属的一些特 征，但是个体的特征而不是性格的特征。事实上人们把个体解释为具有一些附属物的本质。所以个体包含一般的和特殊的，而有一个独立的存在，至于本质却没有独 立的存在，只可探索之于个体中便了。随而，当某一个体受痛苦时，整个的本质（由于本具感知痛苦的能力），也受着痛苦，其痛苦程度与那受苦的个体相等。虽然 如此，但是一切同类的个体却不一定与那受苦中的个体一同痛苦。

似此，我们承认神的性格整个而完全地具在它的每一个体，即每一位格中，它是全部寓在父里，全部寓在子里，亦全部寓在圣灵里。因此，父是完全的神，子也是完全的神，圣灵也是完全的神，又论到圣三位一体的神，道的化身，我们也认为神性在其位格中之一的当中整个而完全地与整个的人性联结着，不是神性局部与人性局部的结合。圣使徒说得真对：“因为神本性一切的丰盛，都有形有体的居住在基督里面”（西2：9），那就是说在基督的肉身里面。使 徒的学生丢尼修，曾受了神的默示，对神事知识异常丰富，他说过，整个的神性在它的一个位格里面与我们相交。但是我们不应承认上帝体性的所有位格（即是三 个），在实存个体方面是与人性的所有个体一致的。因为父与圣灵只在“道”的化身中参加了善意和旨趣是了。但是我们认为上帝体性的整个本质是与整个人性联合 着的。因为上帝“道”当初造我们的时候所注入于我们性格内的事物，祂没有减少一件，祂自己将它们完全带来，就是身体，有思想的和有理性的灵魂，以及身心的 一切属性。因为缺乏这些里面任何一件的受造物就不是人了。但是祂在祂的丰盛里，我在我的丰盛里，完全与完全两相结合着，祂才能依着祂的恩典，将救恩赐给整个人生。因为那没有被拿取的，就不能复原。

于 是神的道以心为媒介而与肉身联合着，心就是神的纯洁与肉身的沉浊之间的桥梁。因为心是临乎灵魂与身体，但当心成为灵魂的最纯洁部份时，神就是那个心的最纯 洁部份。当那更优良者准许时，基督的心就证实它自己支配的权能，但它是为那更优良者所统治，所引导，而去做那些神愿意的事情。

还有，心就成为神性与它结合成一个体时的位置，正如心与身体相结合一样的明显，而并不是像一个同居者那样，这正是异教徒该被抨击的错误，他们说一个斗不能够包容两个斗，因为他们用物质的标准去衡量那非物质的。如果只是在基督里面有一部份神性与一部份人性结合着，那么基督怎么能被称为完全的神和完全的人，并且被说是与父同有一本质，亦与我们同有一本质呢？

还有，我们主张我们的性格曾从死里复活，并且升到天上，坐在父的右边，这并不是说所有众人一概曾从死里复活，坐在父的右边，却只是在基督的本位内，我们的整个性格曾经发生过这件事情。实在圣使徒说：“上帝叫我们与基督一同复活，一同坐着”（弗2：6）。

关于这点，我们更以为这种结合是藉着共通的本质而发生的。因为各种本质都适合于它所包含的个体，在那里找不出一个局部的及特殊的性格或本质；因为要不然的话，我们就必将以为同样的个体在本质上是相同的而又是不相同的，则关心圣三位一体的神性，也是相同的，而又是不相同的了。所 以在每一个体里面，我们只见到相同的性格，当我们说：“道”的性格成了肉身时（如有福的阿塔内细阿及息立尔说的一样），乃是指神性与肉身结合。因此，我们 不能说“道的性格受痛苦”，因为在肉身里面的神性并未痛苦，我们只是说在基督里面人性受痛苦，而不说人类的一切个体受痛苦；我们也承认基督在祂的人性里面 受过痛苦。所以当我们说“道”的性格时，乃是指“道”的自身。“道”又兼有本质的普遍意义及个体的特殊意义。

第八章 答覆那些人所问：主的两个性格当算作连续物，抑或是不连续物。

如果有人问：主的两个性格当算作是一种连续物，或算作一个不连续的事物呢？我们回答说：主的两个性格即不是一件物体，也不是某一个形状，也不是一条线，也不是时日，也不是地方，可以作为一种连续的事物。因为这些事物都是可以连续地计数的。

更 要注意数目是对付一些不同的事物，要计算那相互间没有丝毫差异的事物，乃是全然不可能的。只要它们各不相同，就可将它们加以列举。例如：彼得和保罗，要是 他们只是一个，就不得被分开来计算。因为他们既在本质方面是同一的，就不能说他们是两个人性，但是他们在个体方面显然不同，所以说他们是两位。这样，数目 与差别的事物有关，正如不同的物体彼此互相殊异，就可将它们一一列举出来。

那么，就个体来说，主的两个性格无混杂地相合为一，照着名义和方式的区别，它们又无需分裂而可加以别异。我们之可将此二性列举出来，并不是依照它们结合为一的情况，因为并不是由于基督的个体，我们才认其为有两个性格。它们之可被列举出来，乃是依照它们无需分裂就被别异出来的情况，因为基督之有两个性格，乃是由于差别的名义和方式。因为它们在个体里面合而为一，并且互相渗透，所以它们就无混杂地相结合着，每个性格自始至终保存了它自己固有的及本质的别异。因此，它们既是依照别异的情况而被列举出来，单单为了这点，它们就必须算作一种不连续的事物。

因此，基督是唯一的，是完全的神及完全的人。我们用一样的顶礼对祂与父及圣灵一同膜拜，也尊崇祂洁白无瑕的肉身，并不以为这肉身不宜受敬拜。因为祂的肉身实是在“道”这一位格中受敬拜，道已成了肉身的本位。但是，我们并不向那受造的任何事物表示顶礼。因为我们所敬拜的祂，不是仅以其肉身，而以其与神性结合为一的肉身，又因为祂的两个性格，合成了上帝的道的一个内在本位。我怕摸红炭是因为火包连着木块。我敬拜基督的双重性格是因为祂的神性与祂的肉身包连一起。我没有将一个第四者导入至三位一体里，那断乎不能！但是我们承认上帝道和祂肉身是一个位格，即使在道的化身之后，三位一体仍然是三位一体。

第四篇 第五章 答覆那些人所问：“基督的存在是被造的或非被造的？”

上帝圣道在其化身之前，祂的存在是单纯而非复式的，无形的，非被造的；但在祂化了肉身之后，祂也成为肉身的存在，而变成复合的，即由其永具的神性与所承担的肉身所组成；因而有两个性格的特征，其两性格为人所皆知道。所以那同一个位格，却就神性方面来说是非被造的，就人性方面来说是被造的，同时是看得见的，又是看不见的。要不如此的话，我们就会不得不将独一的基督分开，说其有两个位格，或者，只好否认两个性格间的区别，而致引起相互变换和混杂。

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

何邪之教，何异之端