《Contra Arianos》 2.14
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 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,’ and the words of the Apostle, ‘Who was faithful to Him that made Him,’ 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 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 of the present Jews, but would have inquired and learned 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;’ so by Peter, ‘He hath made Him Lord and Christ’; —as by means of Solomon in the Person of the Lord Himself, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works;’ so by Paul, ‘Become so much better than the Angels;’ and again, ‘He emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant;’ 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.’ 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, as before, their statement.
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, neither is He Image. 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, 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? 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 of the Father, and an essential 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.
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. 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;’—afterwards also Nathan the Prophet came in and repeated her words to David, ‘Solomon thy servant.’ 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,’ 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, 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’ 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 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.’ 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.’ 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;’ 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.’ And Scripture says about Job, ‘And there came to him seven sons and three daughters.’ As Moses too has said in the Law, ‘If sons become to any one,’ and ‘If he make a son.’ 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.’ 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, 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, 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? 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.’ 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.’ 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,’ and with St. Paul for writing, ‘God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able.’ 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,’ or is trustworthy, and cannot lie. Again, ‘If any faithful woman have widows,’ she is so called for her right faith; but, ‘It is a faithful saying,’ 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 in His human Economy and fleshly presence.
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, 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, 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, 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, were made, but that the Word, being Framer of all, afterwards 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, 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.’
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 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.’ 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;’ 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;’ 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.’ 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’ 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;’ 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 the Word was not as one of things originate in a body, nor as creature in creature, but as God in flesh, 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.
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 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。
κυλιόμενοι, Orat. iii. 16.
 Prov. viii. 22. Cf. i. 53 and infr. 19–72.
 Heb. iii. 2. ／ 希伯来3:2。
 Vid. infr. note on 35. ／ 参考35的注解。
 Cf. Rom. xi. 32 ／ 参考罗马6：32。
 τῶν νῦν ᾽Ιουδαίων, means literally ‘the Jews of this day,’ as here and Orat. i. 8. 10. 38. Orat. ii. 1. b. iii. 28. c. But
elsewhere this and similar phrases as distinctly mean the Arians, being used in contrast to the Jews. Their likeness to the Jews is drawn out, Orat. iii. 27. de Decr. i.
τῶν νῦν ᾽Ιουδαίων 的意思就是‘今日的犹太人，’如同在《反亚流论文》i.8.10.38,ii.1.b.iii.28所使用的。但是在其他的地方，这句话和其他类似的话具有与亚流派不同的意思，与犹太人相对。它们和犹太人的类似点则被排除。《反亚流论文iii.27》。《尼西亚信经护文》i。
 ἐρωτῶντες ἐμανθάνον; and so μαθὼν ἐδιδάσκεν, Orat. iii. 9. de Decr. 7. supr. p. 13, note a.
ἐρωτῶντες ἐμανθάνον; and so μαθὼν ἐδιδάσκεν,《反亚流论文》iii.9。《尼西亚信经护文》7。 supr. p. 13，注释a。
 John i. 14. / 约翰1:14
 Acts ii. 36. / 行传2：36
 Prov. viii. 22. / 箴言8：22
 Heb. i. 4. / 希伯来1：4
 Phil. ii. 7. / 腓利比2：7
 Heb. iii. 1, 2; Sent. D. 11.
 By λαυβάνοντες παρ᾽ αὐτῶν τὸ λῆμμα, ‘accepting the proposition they offer,’ he means that he is engaged in going through certain texts brought against the Catholic view, instead of bringing his own proofs, vid. Orat. i. 37. Yet after all it is commonly his way, as here, to start with some general exposition of the Catholic doctrine which the Arian sense of the text in question opposes, and thus to create a prejudice or proof against the latter. vid. Orat. i. 10. 38. 40. init. 53. d. ii. 5. 12. init. 32–34. 35. 44. init. which refers to the whole discussion, 18–43. 73. 77. iii. 18. init. 36. init. 42. 54. 51. init. &c. On the other hand he makes the ecclesiastical sense the rule of interpretation, τούτῳ [τῷ σκοπῷ, the general drift of Scripture doctrine] ὥσπερ κανόνι χρησάμενοι προσέχωμεν τῇ νάγνωσει τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφὴς, iii. 28. fin. This illustrates what he means when he says that certain texts have a ‘good,’ ‘pious,’ ‘orthodox’ sense, i.e. they can be interpreted (in spite, if so be, of appearances) in harmony with the Regula Fidei. vid. infr. §43, note; also notes on 35. and iii. 58.
借由 λαυβάνοντες παρ᾽ αὐτῶν τὸ λῆμμα ，‘接受了他们的论点，’他的意思是他与一些被用来反对大公教会看法的经文争斗中，而不是带出他自己的证明，参考《反亚流论文》i.37。然而，在这发生的一切之后，根据习惯和他的风格，他会开始开始以大公教会的教义，针对亚流对于这些经文的问题，展开一般性的探讨，而证明后者是错误的。参考《反亚流论文》. i. 10. 38. 40. init. 53. d. ii. 5. 12. init. 32–34. 35. 44.init. 这些都是与整个争论有关的，18–43. 73. 77. iii. 18. init. 36. init. 42. 54. 51. init. &c 。在另一方面，他以教会的角度作为诠释的标准， τούτῳ[τῷ σκοπῷ ，]
 §22, note.
 i.e. in any true sense of the word ‘image;’ or, so that He may be accounted the παράλλακτος εἴκων of the Father, vid. de Syn. 23, note 1. The ancient Fathers consider, that the Divine Sonship is the very consequence (so to speak) of the necessity that exists, that One who is Infinite Perfection should subsist again in a Perfect Image of Himself, which is the doctrine to which Athan. goes on to allude, and the idea of which (he says) is prior to that of creation. A redundatio in imaginem is synonymous with a generatio Filii. Cf. Thomassin, de Trin. 19. 1.
例如，从‘像’这个词的任何一种意义而言，祂都能够被描述成父的παράλλακτος εἴκων。参考《关于亚里米嫩和西流加两个大会》23注释1。古教父们认为神的儿子乃是神的存有的必然结果（也只能这么说）。那位无限完美这不像依靠祂自己的那个完美的像，才得以存在。这就是亚他那修所暗示的教义。（他说）这位的概念乃是在所有的被造之物之前。一位从像中的流出（redundatio in imaginem，redundation就是英文的offspring）是被生的儿子（generatio Filii）的同义词。参考Thomassin，《三位一体论》19.1。
 For καρπογόνος ἡ οὐσία, de Decr. 15. n. 9. γεννητικὸς, Orat. iii. 66. iv. 4. fin. ἄγονος. i. 14. fin. Sent. Dion. 15. 19. ἡ φυσικὴ γονιμότης, Damasc. F. O. i. 8. p. 133. ἄκαρπος, Cyr. Thes. p. 45. Epiph. Hær. 65 p. 609. b. Vid. the γέννησις and the κτίσις contrasted together Orat. i. 29. de Decr. 11. n. 6, de Syn. 51, n. 4. The doctrine in the text is shortly expressed, infr. Orat. iv. 4 fin. εἰ ἄγονος καὶ νενέργητος
对于，《尼西亚信经护文》15注释9。γεννητικὸς，《反亚流四论文》iii.66.iv.4。fin。《Sent. Dion.》15.19。ἡ φυσικὴ γονιμότης，大马色人约翰《F.O.》i.8,p.133。ἄκαρπος，区利罗Thes.p.45。Epiph. Hær. 65 p. 609. b。参考γέννησις和κτίσις，并与《反亚流四论文》i.29，《尼西亚信经护文》11注释56，《关于亚里米嫩和西流加两个大会》51注释4。这个教训在《反亚流四论文》iv.4末了被简单的叙述。εἰ ἄγονος καὶ νενέργητος。
 Orat. iii. 59, &c.
 Orat. iii. 63. c.
 ἐνούσιος, infr. 28.
 §1, note 13.
 1 Kings i. 19.
 ver. 26.
 Ps. cxvi. 16.
 πολλάκις πολωλέναι δίκαιοι, vid. infr. §28.
πολλάκις πολωλέναι δίκαιοι，参考本书28段。
 Prov. xx. 23.
 Apol. c. Ar. 36.
 Is. xxxviii. 19, LXX.
 2 Kings xx. 18; Is. xxxix. 7.
 Gen. iv. 1, and infr. 44. note on Qana^.
 Gen. xlviii. 5, LXX.
 Job i. 2, LXX.
 Cf. Deut. xxi. 15; vid. Lev. xxv. 21, LXX.
 Serap. ii. 6. b.
 That is, while the style of Scripture justifies us in thus interpreting the word ‘made,’ doctrinal truth obliges us to do so. He considers the Regula Fidei the principle of interpretation, and accordingly he goes on at once to apply it. vid. supr. §1, note 13.
 λεξείδια, Orat. iii. 59. a Sent. D. 4. c.
 Orat. iii. 62 init. infr. §22, note.
 Ps. civ. 24; John i. 3.
 Eccles. xii. 14.
 Combines Greek of Deut. xxxii. 4 and Ex. xxxiv. 6; cf. Rev. iii. 14.
 1 Cor. x. 13.
 Ps. cxlv. 14. LXX.
 1 Tim. v. 16.
 Tit. iii. 8, &c.
 ἄτρεπτος καὶ μὴ λλοιούμενος; vid. supr. de Decr. 14. it was the tendency of Arianism to consider that in the Incarnation some such change actually was undergone by the Word, as they had from the first maintained in the abstract was possible; that whereas He was in nature τρεπτὸς, He was in fact λλοιούμενος. This was implied in the doctrine that His superhuman nature supplied the place of a soul in His manhood. Hence the semi-Arian Sirmian Creed anathematizes those who said, τὸν λόγον τροπὴν ὑπομεμενηκοτα, vid. De Syn. 27. 12). This doctrine connected them with the Apollinarian and Eutychian Schools, to the former of which Athan. compares them, contr. Apoll. i. 12. while, as opposing the latter, Theodoret entities his first Dialogue ῎Ατρεπτος
ἄτρεπτος καὶ μὴ λλοιούμενος；参考《尼西亚信经护文》14。亚流主义有一种认为在道成肉身中，道经过了某种改变的倾向。他们一开始就抽象的认为，在性质中祂是τρεπτὸς，而事实上祂乃是λλοιούμενος。这就成为一种暗示祂的超人类本质在祂人性的魂的位置上供应祂的一切的教训。所以半亚流的色缅信经咒诅那些教导τὸν λόγον τροπὴν ὑπομεμενηκοτα的人，参考《关于亚里米嫩和西流加两个大会》27，12。这个教训把他们跟亚波里拿流（Apollinarian）和欧迪奇（Eutychian）学派联系了起来。亚他那修在《contr. Apoll.》i.12中把他们跟前者做了一个比较。为了反对后者，希欧多尔则撰写了他的第一篇神学对话῎Ατρεπτος。
 Exod. xxix. 5.
 νεργάστου γῆς is an allusion to Adam’s formation from the ground; and so Irenæus, Hær. iii. 21. fin. and many later fathers.
 This is one of those distinct and luminous protests by anticipation against Nestorianism, which in consequence may be abused to the purpose of the opposite heresy. Such expressions as περιτιθέμενος τὴν ἐσθῆτα, ἐκαλύπτετο, ἐνδυσάμενος σῶμα, were familiar with the Apollinarians, against whom S. Athanasius is, if possible, even more decided. Theodoret objects Hær. v.11. p. 422. to the word προκάλυμμα, as applied to our Lord’s manhood, as implying that He had no soul; vid. also Naz. Ep. 102. fin. (ed. 1840). In Naz. Ep. 101. p. 90. παραπέτασμα is used to denote an Apollinarian idea. Such expressions were taken to imply that Christ was not in nature man, only in some sense human; not a substance, but an appearance; yet pseudo-Athan. contr. Sabell. Greg. 4. has παραπεπετασμένην and κάλυμμα, ibid. init. S. Cyril. Hieros. καταπέτασμα, Catech. xii. 26. xiii. 32. After Hebr. x. 20. and Athan. ad Adelph. 5. e. Theodor. παραπέτασμα, Eran. i. p. 22. and προκάλυμμα, ibid. p. 23. and adv. Gent. vi. p. 877. and στολή, Eran. 1. c. S. Leo has caro Christi velamen, Ep. 59. p. 979. vid. also Serm. 22. p. 70. Serm. 25. p. 84.
这是因预先看见涅斯托留主义而产生独特并浅显易懂的反驳，其结果就是滥用另一个异端的目的。像περιτιθέμενος τὴν ἐσθῆτα, ἐκαλύπτετο, ἐνδυσάμενος σῶμα这些表述是亚波里拿流主义（Apollinarians）所熟悉的。甚至亚他那修也会坚决的抵制它们。希欧多尔在《Hær.》v.11.422页中反对把προκάλυμμα这个字用在主的人性上，这个字暗示祂没有自己的魂；参考拿先斯的贵格利《Ep.》102下。（1840版）。在拿先斯的贵格利《Ep.》101中，παραπέτασμα这个字被用来描述亚波里拿流主义的观念。这样的表述意指基督并没有人的性质，只是从某种意义上而言是人。祂没有人的性质，只有人的样子；然而pseudo-Athan在《contr. Sabell. Greg.》中用了παραπεπετασμένην和κάλυμμα。区利罗《Hieros.》καταπέτασμα，《Catech.》xii.26，xiii.32。在希10：20后，和亚他那修《致Adelphiu，主教和认信者，反对亚流党人》5e。希欧多尔παραπέτασμα，《Eran.》i.22页。和，προκάλυμμα同书23页以及《adv. Gent.》vi.877页。στολή，《Eran.》1.c。大里奥说，caro Christi velamen《Ep.》59.979页，及《讲道集》22.70页，《讲道集》25.84页。
 ᾗ λόγος ἐστι. cf. i. 43. Orat. ii. 74. e. iii. 38 init. 39. b. 41 init. 45 init. 52. b. iv. 23. f.
ᾗ λόγος ἐστι。参考i.43。《反亚流四论文》ii.74.e。iii.38上。39.b.41上。45上。52.b。iv.23注释。
 The Arians considered that our Lord’s Priesthood preceded His Incarnation, and belonged to His Divine Nature, and was in consequence the token of an inferior divinity. The notice of it therefore in this text did but confirm them in their interpretation of the words made, &c. For the Arians, vid. Epiph. Hær. 69, 37. Eusebius too had distinctly declared, Qui videbatur, erat agnus Dei; qui occultabatur sacerdos Dei. advers. Sabell. i. p. 2. b. vid. also Demonst. i. 10. p. 38. iv. 16. p. 193. v. 3. p. 223. contr. Marc. pp. 8 and 9. 66. 74. 95. Even S. Cyril of Jerusalem makes a similar admission, Catech. x. 14. Nay S. Ambrose calls the Word, plenum justitiæ sacerdotalis, de fug. sæc. 3. 14. and Philo still earlier uses similar language, de Profug. p. 466. (whom S. Ambrose follows), de Somniis p. 597. vid. Thomassin. de Incarn. x. 9. Nestorius on the other hand maintained that the Man Christ Jesus was the Priest, relying on the text which has given rise to this note; Cyril, adv. Nest. p. 64. and Augustine and Fulgentius may be taken to countenance him, de Consens. and Evang. i. 6. ad Thrasim. iii. 30. The Catholic doctrine is, that the Divine Word is Priest in and according to His manhood. vid. the parallel use of πρωτότοκος, infr. 62–64. ‘As He is called Prophet and even Apostle for His humanity,’ says S. Cyril Alex. ‘so also Priest.’ Glaph. ii. p. 58. and so Epiph. loc. cit. Thomassin loc. cit. makes a distinction between a divine Priesthood or Mediatorship, such as the Word may be said to sustain between the Father and all creatures, and an earthly one for the sake of sinners. vid. also Huet Origenian. ii. 3. §4, 5. For the history of the controversy among Protestants as to the Nature to which His Mediatorship belongs, vid. Petav. Incarn. xii. 3. 4. [Herzog-Plitt Art. Stancar.]
亚流派认为我们的主的祭司职分是在祂的道成肉身之前，并且是属于祂的神性，其结果就是把祂当作此段的神祗。这段话中的评论确认了亚流派对于造（made）这个字的诠释。对于亚流派，参考Epiph.《Hær.》69，37。优西比乌也有一个与众不同的宣告，Qui videbatur, erat agnus Dei; qui occultabatur sacerdos Dei。《advers. Sabell.》i.2页b。也参考《Demonst.》i.10.38页，iv.16.193页，v.3.223页。《contr. Marc.》8，9，66，74，95页。甚至耶路撒冷的区利罗也做了类似的宣告《Catech.》x.14。安波罗修称道为plenum justitiæ sacerdotalis，《de fug. sæc.》2.14。亚历山大的革力免曾经一、两次说过λόγος ρχιερεὺς，《Strom.》ii.9下。非罗（Philo）早期也使用过类似的话，《de Profug.》466页。（安波罗修也跟随他的用法）《de Somniis》597页。参考Thomassin.《论道成肉身》x.9。在另一方面，涅斯托流根据在这段评论中提到的内容而坚称，为人的基督耶稣是祭司。区利罗，《adv. Nest.》64页。奥古斯丁和傅琴苏可能都支持他，《de Consens.》，并同时使用πρωτότοκος这个词，后面的62-64。‘因着祂的人性祂被称作先知，甚至是使徒，’亚历山大的区利罗说，‘以及祭司。’《Glaph.》ii.58页。Epiph.和Thomassin清楚的在神圣的祭司职分和中保职分间做了区别，就像道被称为维系父和万有，而属地的乃是为了罪人的缘故。参考Huet《俄列根主义者》ii.3.4,5。对于抗议宗内部对于祂的中保职分该属于祂的那个性质，参考Petav. 《道成肉身》xii.3。4. [Herzog-Plitt Art. Stancar.]
 [One of the few passages in which Ath. glances at the Arian Christology. A long note is omitted here on the subject of Or. i. 8, note 3.]
 Heb. ii. 14–18; iii. 2.
 Or, answer, vid. infr. iii. 27.
 1 Pet. iv. 19.
 Vid. Jer. ix. 3. and xv. 18; Deut. xxxii. 20, LXX.; ib. xxxii. 39; Mal. iii. 6.
 1 Thess. v. 24.
 2 Tim. ii. 13.
 Heb. xiii. 8.
 Heb. iii. 5, 6.
 Here is a protest beforehand against the Monophysite doctrine, but such anticipations of various heresies are too frequent, as we proceed, to require or bear notice.
 θεὸς ἐν σαρκὶ, vid. λόγος ἐν σ. iii. 54. a. θ. ἐν σωματι, ii. 12. c. 15. a. λ. ἐν σώμ. Sent. D. 8 fin.
θεὸς ἐν σαρκὶ，参考λόγος ἐν σiii.54.aθ. ἐν σωματι，ii.12.c.15.a. λ. ἐν σώμ《Sent. D.》8下。
 κατ᾽ εὐδοκίαν Orat.iii. 64. init.