📜 Verbum
Scripture and the Fathers, read aloud in the original
中EN
🎬 Videos📜 Read the text🔍 SearchAbout

← All books · Latin Fathers › Works (City of God, On the Trinity, etc.)

Augustine of Hippo

Works (City of God, On the Trinity, etc.) 29

Latin original · 41 verses · some words can be tapped for a gloss

← ch. 28ch. 30 →
29:1
[I 1] Aequalitatem patris et filii et spiritus sancti putant nonnulli ex hoc impediri quominus intellegatur, quia scriptum est: Christum dei uirtutem et dei sapientiam, ut ideo non uideatur aequalitas quia non est pater ipse uirtus et sapientia sed genitor uirtutis et sapientiae. Et reuera non mediocri intentione quaeri solet quomodo dicatur deus uirtutis et sapientiae pater. Ait enim apostolus: Christum dei uirtutem et dei sapientiam. Et hinc nonnulli nostri aduersus arrianos hoc modo ratiocinati sunt, eos dumtaxat qui prius se aduersus catholicam fidem extulerunt. Nam ipse Arius dixisse fertur: Si filius est, natus est.
Some think that the equality of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is hindered from being understood by this, that it is written, 'Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God,' so that on this account equality does not seem to hold, because the Father himself is not power and wisdom, but the begetter of power and wisdom. And indeed it is wont to be inquired with no slight attention how God is said to be the Father of power and wisdom. For the Apostle says: 'Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.' And hence some of ours have argued in this manner against the Arians—those, at least, who first raised themselves against the catholic faith. For Arius himself is reported to have said: 'If he is a Son, he was born.
有些人以為，聖父、聖子與聖靈的同等之所以不易被理解，是因為經上寫著：「基督是神的能力，神的智慧」，以致由於聖父自己並非能力與智慧、而是能力與智慧的生育者，同等似乎便不成立。而確實，神如何被稱為能力與智慧之父，常是人以不小的專注去探究的。因為使徒說：「基督是神的能力，神的智慧。」由此，我們中間有些人便如此駁斥亞流派——至少是那些起初起來抵擋大公信仰的人。因為據說亞流本人曾說：「祂若是子，就是被生的。
29:2
Si natus est, erat tempus quando non erat filius, non intellegens etiam natum esse deo sempiternum esse ut sit coaeternus patri filius, sicut splendor qui gignitur ab igne atque diffunditur coaeuus est illi, et esset coaeternus si esset ignis aeternus. Vnde quidem posteriores arriani abiecerunt istam sententiam fassique sunt non ex tempore coepisse filium dei. Sed inter disputationes quas habebant nostri aduersus eos qui dicebant: Erat tempus quando non erat filius, hanc etiam nonnulli ratiocinationem inserebant: 'Si dei filius uirtus et sapientia dei est nec umquam deus sine uirtute et sapientia fuit, coaeternus est deo patri filius. Dicit autem apostolus:
If he was born, there was a time when the Son was not'—not understanding that even to be born is, to God, to be everlasting, so that the Son is coeternal with the Father, just as the splendor which is begotten by fire and diffused is coeval with it, and would be coeternal if the fire were eternal. Whence indeed the later Arians rejected that opinion and confessed that the Son of God did not begin from time. But amid the disputations which our men held against those who said, 'There was a time when the Son was not,' some also inserted this reasoning: 'If the Son of God is the power and wisdom of God, and God was never without power and wisdom, then the Son is coeternal with God the Father. But the Apostle says:
祂若是被生的，就有過聖子尚不存在的時候」——他不明白：對神而言，連被生也是永恆的，故此聖子與聖父同永恆，正如那由火所生並發散出來的光輝，與火同時並存，且若火是永恆的，光輝也就與之同永恆。因此，後來的亞流派確實揚棄了那見解，承認神的子並非從時間開始。但在我們的人與那些說「有過聖子尚不存在的時候」之人的辯論中，有些人也插入這樣的推理：「神的子若是神的能力與智慧，而神從未沒有能力與智慧，則聖子與父神同永恆。但使徒說：
29:3
Christum dei uirtutem et dei sapientiam, et deum aliquando non habuisse uirtutem aut sapientiam dementis est dicere. Non igitur erat tempus quando non erat filius.' Quae ratiocinatio ad id cogit ut dicamus deum patrem non esse sapientem nisi habendo sapientiam quam genuit, non exsistendo per se pater ipsa sapientia. Deinde si ita est, filius quoque ipse sicut dicitur deus de deo, lumen de lumine, uidendum est utrum possit sapientia de sapientia dici si non est deus pater ipsa sapientia sed tantum genitor sapientiae.
Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God, and to say that God at some time did not have power or wisdom is the mark of a madman. There was not, therefore, a time when the Son was not.' Which reasoning drives us to say that God the Father is not wise except by having the wisdom which he begot, and is not himself of himself the Father, the very wisdom. And then, if it is so, the Son himself too, just as he is called God of God, light of light, it must be considered whether he can be called wisdom of wisdom, if God the Father is not himself the very wisdom but only the begetter of wisdom.
基督是神的能力，神的智慧」，而說神曾一度沒有能力或智慧，乃是瘋人的話。所以，沒有過聖子尚不存在的時候。這推理逼使我們說：父神並非本身自有智慧，而是唯有藉著擁有祂所生的智慧才有智慧，並非本身自有地即是那智慧之父。再者，若果如此，則聖子自己也一樣：正如祂被稱為「從神而出的神，從光而出的光」，就當思量：倘若父神本身並非那智慧、而僅是智慧的生育者，祂是否能被稱為「從智慧而出的智慧」。
29:4
Quod si tenemus, cur non et magnitudinis suae et bonitatis, aeternitatis, omnipotentiae suae genitor sit ut non ipse sit sua magnitudo et sua bonitas et sua aeternitas et sua omnipotentia, sed ea magnitudine magnus sit quam genuit et ea bonitate bonus et ea aeternitate aeternus et ea omnipotentia omnipotens quae de illo nata est, sicut non ipse sua sapientia est sed ea sapientia sapiens est quae de illo nata est. Nam illud non est formidandum ne cogamur multos filios dei dicere paraeter adoptionem creaturae coaeternos patri si magnitudinis suae genitor est et bonitatis et aeternitatis et omnipotentiae.
And if we hold this, why is he not also the begetter of his own greatness and goodness, eternity, and omnipotence, so that he is not himself his own greatness and his own goodness and his own eternity and his own omnipotence, but is great by that greatness which he begot, and good by that goodness, and eternal by that eternity, and omnipotent by that omnipotence which was born of him—just as he is not himself his own wisdom, but is wise by that wisdom which was born of him? For that is not to be feared, that we should be compelled to say there are many sons of God (besides the adoption of the creature) coeternal with the Father, if he is the begetter of his own greatness and goodness and eternity and omnipotence.
倘若我們持守此說，為何祂不也是祂自己偉大、良善、永恆、全能的生育者，以致祂並非本身即是自己的偉大、自己的良善、自己的永恆、自己的全能，而是藉著祂所生的那偉大而為大，藉那良善而為善，藉那永恆而為永恆，藉那從祂而生的全能而為全能——正如祂並非本身即是自己的智慧，而是藉那從祂而生的智慧而為智慧？因為那並不足懼，就是我們會被迫說：除了受造物的嗣子名分之外，還有許多與父同永恆的神的兒子——倘若祂是祂自己偉大、良善、永恆、全能的生育者的話。
29:5
Huic enim calumniae facile respondetur sic non effici quia multa nominata sunt ut ille multorum filiorum coaeternorum sit pater quemadmodum non efficitur ut duorum sit cum dicitur: Christus dei uirtus et dei sapientia. Eadem quippe uirtus quae sapientia et eadem sapientia quae uirtus. Itane igitur etiam de ceteris ut eadem sit magnitudo quae uirtus et si qua alia uel supra commemorata sunt uel commemorari adhuc possunt?
For to this cavil it is easily answered that it does not follow, because many things are named, that he is the father of many coeternal sons—just as it does not follow that he is the father of two when it is said, 'Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.' For the same power is that which is wisdom, and the same wisdom that which is power. Is it, then, likewise so concerning the rest, that the same greatness is that which is power, and whatever other things there are, whether mentioned above or such as can still be mentioned?
因為對這詭辯很容易回答：並不因為多樣事物被列舉，就得出祂是許多同永恆之子的父——正如當說「基督是神的能力，神的智慧」時，也不得出祂是兩個子的父。因為那能力即是智慧，那智慧即是能力。那麼，關於其餘各項是否也同樣如此，就是那偉大即是那能力，以及任何其他事物——無論是上文所提及的，抑或仍可提及的？
29:6
[II 3] Sed si non dicitur in se ipso nisi quod ad filium dicitur, id est pater uel genitor uel principium eius, si etiam gignens ei quod de se gignit consequenter principium est, quidquid autem aliud dicitur cum filio dicitur uel potius in filio, siue magnus ea magnitudine quam genuit, siue iustus ea iustitia quam genuit, siue bonus ea bonitate quam genuit, siue potens ea potentia uel uirtute quam genuit, siue sapiens ea sapientia quam genuit — magnitudo autem ipsa non dicitur pater sed magnitudinis generator; filius uero sicut in se ipso dicitur filius, quod non cum patre dicitur sed ad patrem, non sic et in se ipso magnus sed cum patre cuius ipse magnitudo est;
But if nothing is said of him in himself except what is said in relation to the Son—that is, Father or begetter or his beginning; and if, further, the begetter is consequently beginning to that which he begets of himself; but whatever else is said, is said with the Son, or rather in the Son—whether great by that greatness which he begot, or just by that justice which he begot, or good by that goodness which he begot, or powerful by that power or strength which he begot, or wise by that wisdom which he begot—while greatness itself is not called Father but the generator of greatness; whereas the Son, just as he is called Son in himself (which is not said with the Father but in relation to the Father), so is he not great in himself, but with the Father whose greatness he himself is;
但倘若祂在自身之內除了與聖子相關者外便無所稱述——就是「父」或「生育者」或「聖子的本源」；並且倘若那生育者相應地即是祂由自身所生者的本源；而凡其他所稱述的，都是與聖子一同、或更確切地說是在聖子裡面被稱述的——無論是藉祂所生的偉大而為大，藉祂所生的公義而為義，藉祂所生的良善而為善，藉祂所生的能力或大力而為有能，藉祂所生的智慧而為智——而那偉大本身並不被稱為父，乃是偉大的生育者；反觀聖子，正如祂在自身之內被稱為子（這不是與父一同陳述的，乃是相對於父陳述的），照樣，祂也不是在自身之內為大，而是與那以祂為其偉大的父一同為大；
29:7
sic et sapiens cum patre dicitur cuius ipse sapientia est, sicut ille sapiens cum filio quia ea sapientia sapiens est quam genuit — quidquid ergo ad se dicuntur, non dicitur alter sine altero, id est quidquid dicuntur quod substantia eorum ostendat ambo simul dicuntur. Si haec ita sunt, iam ergo nec deus est pater sine filio nec filius deus sine patre, sed ambo simul deus. Et quod dictum est: In principio erat uerbum, in patre erat uerbum intellegitur. Aut si in principio sic dictum est ac si diceretur 'ante omnia,' quod sequitur: Et uerbum erat apud deum, uerbum quidem solus filius accipitur non simul pater et filius tamquam ambo unum uerbum. Sic enim uerbum quomodo imago;
so too he is called wise with the Father whose wisdom he himself is, just as the Father is wise with the Son, because he is wise by that wisdom which he begot—whatever, therefore, they are called in relation to themselves, the one is not called so without the other; that is, whatever they are called which their substance displays, both are called so at once. If these things are so, then neither is the Father God without the Son, nor the Son God without the Father, but both together are God. And what was said, 'In the beginning was the Word,' is understood as 'in the Father was the Word.' Or if 'in the beginning' was said as if it were said 'before all things,' then what follows, 'And the Word was with God,' the Word is taken to be the Son alone, not at once the Father and the Son as though both were one Word. For thus is Word as Image;
照樣，祂也是與那以祂為其智慧的父一同被稱為智者，正如父是與子一同為智者，因祂藉那祂所生的智慧而為智——因此，凡祂們相對於自身所被稱述的，一位若無另一位便不被如此稱呼；也就是說，凡祂們所被稱述、而彰顯祂們實質者，二者是同時被如此稱呼的。若這些事屬實，那麼父若無子便不是神，子若無父也不是神，乃是二者一同為神。而經上所說「太初有道」，可理解為「道在父裡面」。或者，若「太初」之被說出如同「在萬有之先」，則接下來所說「道與神同在」，其中的「道」乃單指聖子，而非父與子一同、彷彿二者是一個道。因為「道」正如「像」；
29:8
non autem pater et filius simul ambo imago, sed filius solus imago patris quemadmodum et filius; non enim ambo simul filius. Quod uero adiungitur: Et uerbum erat apud deum, multum est ut sic intellegatur: uerbum, quod solus est filius, erat apud deum, quod non solus est pater sed pater et filius simul deus. Sed quid mirum si in duabus quibusdam rebus longe inter se diuersis potest hoc dici? Quod enim tam diuersum quam animus et corpus? Potest tamen dici animus erat apud hominem, id est in homine, cum animus non sit corpus, homo autem animus simul et corpus sit. Vt etiam quod consequenter scriptum est: Et deus erat uerbum, sic intellegatur, uerbum quod non est pater deus erat simul cum patre.
but the Father and the Son are not both together the Image, but the Son alone is the Image of the Father, just as also the Son; for both are not together the Son. But as to what is added, 'And the Word was with God,' it is much that it should be so understood: the Word, which is the Son alone, was with God, which is not the Father alone but the Father and the Son together, God. But what wonder is it if this can be said of two things far different from each other? For what is so different as soul and body? Yet it can be said that the soul was with the man—that is, in the man—since the soul is not body, whereas man is soul and body together. So that what is consequently written, 'And the Word was God,' may be understood thus: the Word, which is not the Father, was God together with the Father.
但父與子並非二者一同為那「像」，乃是唯獨聖子是父的像，正如也唯獨祂是子；因為二者並非一同為子。至於所附加的「道與神同在」，若如此理解便意義甚大：那唯獨是聖子的「道」，乃是與神同在，而這「神」並非單指父，乃是父與子一同的神。但若這話能論及兩樣彼此極不相同之物，又有何足奇呢？因為有什麼比靈魂與身體更相異呢？然而可以說靈魂與人同在——即在人裡面——因為靈魂並非身體，而人卻是靈魂與身體的合一。如此，接下來所寫「道就是神」，也可如此理解：那並非父的「道」，乃是與父一同為神。
29:9
Itane ergo dicimus ut pater sit generator magnitudinis, hoc est generator uirtutis uel generator sapientiae suae, filius autem magnitudo, uirtus et sapientia; deus uero magnus, omnipotens, sapiens, ambo simul? Quomodo ergo deus de deo, lumen de lumine? Non enim simul ambo deus de deo, sed solus filius de deo, scilicet patre; nec ambo simul lumen de lumine, sed solus filius de lumine patre.
Do we then say that the Father is the generator of greatness—that is, the generator of his own power or of his own wisdom—but the Son is greatness, power, and wisdom; while God is great, almighty, wise, both together? How then is he God of God, light of light? For not both together are God of God, but the Son alone of God, namely the Father; nor are both together light of light, but the Son alone of the Father who is light.
那麼，我們是否說：父是偉大的生育者——即祂自己能力或智慧的生育者——而子則是偉大、能力與智慧；至於神之為大、為全能、為智，則是二者一同？那麼祂又怎能是「從神而出的神，從光而出的光」呢？因為並非二者一同是從神而出的神，乃是唯獨聖子是從神、即從父而出；也並非二者一同是從光而出的光，乃是唯獨聖子是從那為光的父而出。
29:10
Nisi forte ad insinuandum et breuissime inculcandum quod coaeternum est patri filius ita dictum est deus de deo et lumen de lumine et si quid hoc modo dicitur, ac si diceretur, hoc quod non est filius sine patre de hoc quod non est pater sine filio, id est hoc lumen quod lumen non est sine patre de hoc lumine patre quod lumen non est sine filio, ut cum dicitur deus, quod non est filius sine patre, et de deo, quod non est pater sine filio, perfecte intellegatur quod non praecessit genitor illud quod genuit. Quod si ita est, hoc solum de eis dici non potest illud de illo quod simul ambo non sunt. Sicut uerbum de uerbo dici non potest quia non simul ambo uerbum, sed solus filius;
Unless perhaps, in order to insinuate and most briefly impress that the Son is coeternal with the Father, it was so said 'God of God' and 'light of light,' and whatever is said in this manner, as if it were said: this which is not the Son without the Father, of this which is not the Father without the Son; that is, this light which is not light without the Father, of this light the Father which is not light without the Son—so that when God is said, which is not the Son without the Father, and 'of God,' which is not the Father without the Son, it may be perfectly understood that the begetter did not precede that which he begot. And if it is so, this alone cannot be said of them: that of the one which both are not together. As Word cannot be said of Word, because both are not together Word, but the Son alone;
除非或許，為要暗示並極簡要地強調聖子與父同永恆，才如此說「從神而出的神」、「從光而出的光」，以及凡此類說法，彷彿是說：這位若無父便不是子者，出自這位若無子便不是父者；也就是說，這若無父便不是光的光，出自那若無子便不是光的父之光——好使當說「神」（就是那若無父便不是的子）並說「從神而出」（就是那若無子便不是的父）時，能完全明白：那生育者並未先於祂所生者。若果如此，則唯有這一項不能論及祂們：即以二者所非同時共具者去論其中一位。正如「道」不能論及「道」，因為二者並非一同為道，乃是唯獨聖子為道；
29:11
nec imago de imagine quia non simul ambo imago; nec filius de filio quia non simul ambo filius. Secundum quod dicitur: Ego et pater unum sumus. Vnum sumus enim dictum est; quod ille, hoc et ego secundum essentiam, non secundum relatiuum. [III 4] Et nescio utrum inueniatur in scripturis dictum 'unum sunt' quorum est diuersa natura. Si autem et aliqua plura eiusdem naturae sint et diuersa sentiant, non sunt unum in quantum diuersa sentiunt. Nam si iam unum essent ex eo quod homines erant, non diceret: Vt sint unum sicut et nos unum cum suos discipulos patri commendaret. At uero Paulus et Apollo quia et ambo homines et idem sentiebant: Qui plantat, inquit, et qui regat unum sunt.
nor Image of Image, because both are not together Image; nor Son of Son, because both are not together Son. According to which is said: 'I and the Father are one.' For 'we are one' was said; that which he is, this am I too, according to essence, not according to relation. And I know not whether it is found said anywhere in the Scriptures that things whose nature is diverse 'are one.' But if there be also several things of the same nature, and they think diversely, they are not one in so far as they think diversely. For if they were already one from the fact that they were men, he would not say, 'That they may be one, as we also are one,' when he commended his disciples to the Father. But indeed Paul and Apollos, because they were both men and thought the same: 'He that planteth,' he says, 'and he that watereth are one.'
「像」也不能論及「像」，因為二者並非一同為像；「子」也不能論及「子」，因為二者並非一同為子。這正合於所說：「我與父原為一。」因為經上說的是「我們原為一」；祂之所是，我也如此，這是按本質而言，非按相關而言。而我不知聖經中是否有何處說本性相異之物「原為一」。但即使有數樣同性之物，而它們所思相異，則就其所思相異而言，它們並非一。因為它們若僅因同為人便已是一，主在把門徒交託給父時，就不會說「使他們合而為一，像我們合而為一」。但保羅與亞波羅，因二人既同是人又思念相同，故經上說：「栽種的和澆灌的都是一樣。」
29:12
Cum ergo sic dicitur unum ut non addatur quid unum et plura unum dicantur, eadem natura atque essentia non dissidens neque dissentiens significatur. Cum uero additur quid unum, potest aliquid significari ex pluribus unum factum quamuis diuersis natura. Sicut anima et corpus non sunt utique unum (quid enim tam diuersum?), nisi addatur aut subintellegatur quid unum, id est unus homo aut unum animal. Inde apostolus: Qui adhaeret meretrici, inquit, unum corpus est. Non dixit 'unum sunt' aut 'unum est,' sed addidit corpus tamquam ex duobus diuersis masculino et feminino unum corpus adiunctione compositum. Et: Qui adhaeret, inquit, domino unus spiritus est.
When, then, 'one' is so said that it is not added what one, and many things are called one, the same nature and essence, not differing nor dissenting, is signified. But when it is added what one, something may be signified as made one out of many, though diverse in nature. As soul and body are certainly not one (for what is so diverse?), unless there be added or understood what one—that is, one man or one animal. Hence the Apostle: 'He that cleaveth to a harlot,' he says, 'is one body.' He did not say 'they are one' or 'it is one,' but added 'body,' as though one body composed by conjunction out of two diverse, male and female. And: 'He that cleaveth,' he says, 'to the Lord is one spirit.'
那麼，當「一」被如此陳述，以致不附加「何為一」，而諸物被稱為一時，所表明的乃是同一本性與本質，並無相異、並無不合。但當附加了「何為一」時，就可能表明某物由多樣、雖本性相異者合成為一。正如靈魂與身體斷然並非一（因為有什麼比它們更相異呢？），除非附加或隱含「何為一」——即一個人或一個活物。因此使徒說：「與娼妓聯合的，便是與她成為一體。」他沒有說「他們是一」或「是一」，乃是附加了「體」字，彷彿由男女兩樣相異者藉聯合所組成的一個身體。又說：「與主聯合的，便是與主成為一靈。」
29:13
Non dixit 'qui adhaeret domino unus est' aut 'unum sunt,' sed addidit spiritus. Diuersum enim natura spiritus hominis et spiritus dei, sed inhaerendo fit unus spiritus ex diuersis duobus, ita ut sine humano spiritu beatus sit dei spiritus atque perfectus, beatus autem hominis spiritus non nisi cum deo. Nec frustra, ut existimo, cum tanta in euangelio secundum Iohannem et totiens diceret dominus de ipsa unitate uel sua cum patre uel nostra inuicem nobiscum, nusquam dixit: 'Vt nos et ipsi unum' sed: Vt sint unum sicut et nos unum. Pater ergo et filius unum sunt utique secundum unitatem substantiae, et unus deus est et unus magnus et unus sapiens sicut tractatum est. Vnde ergo maior pater?
He did not say 'he that cleaveth to the Lord is one' or 'they are one,' but added 'spirit.' For the spirit of man and the spirit of God are diverse in nature, but by cleaving there comes to be one spirit out of the two diverse, so that without the human spirit the Spirit of God is blessed and perfect, but the spirit of man is blessed only with God. And not in vain, as I judge, when in the Gospel according to John the Lord said so much and so often concerning that very unity, whether his own with the Father or ours mutually with one another, did he nowhere say, 'That we and they may be one,' but 'That they may be one, as we also are one.' The Father, therefore, and the Son are one, assuredly according to the unity of substance, and there is one God, and one great, and one wise, as has been treated. Whence then is the Father greater?
他沒有說「與主聯合的便是一」或「他們是一」，乃是附加了「靈」字。因為人的靈與神的靈本性相異，但藉聯合便由兩樣相異者成為一靈，以致離了人的靈，神的靈仍是有福且完全的，而人的靈唯有與神一同才是有福的。並且，依我看來並非徒然：主在約翰福音中如此多次論及那合一——無論是祂自己與父的合一，抑或我們彼此的合一——祂從未說「使我們與他們合而為一」，乃是說「使他們合而為一，像我們合而為一」。所以，父與子確然按實質的合一乃是一，並且如前所論，有一位神、一位大者、一位智者。那麼，父又如何為大呢？
29:14
Si enim maior, magnitudine maior. Cum autem magnitudo eius filius sit, nec ille utique maior est eo qui se genuit, nec ille maior est ea magnitudine qua magnus est; ergo aequalis. Nam unde aequalis si non eo quo est cui non est aliud esse et aliud magnum esse? Aut si aeternitate pater maior est, non est aequalis filius quacumque re. Vnde enim aequalis? Si magnitudine dixeris, non est par magnitudo quae minus aeterna est atque ita cetera. An forte in uirtute aequalis est, in sapientia uero non est aequalis? Sed quomodo est aequalis uirtus quae minus sapit? An in sapientia aequalis est, in uirtute autem non est aequalis? Sed quomodo aequalis sapientia quae minus potens est?
For if greater, then greater in greatness. But since his greatness is the Son, neither is he assuredly greater than him who begot himself, nor is he greater than that greatness by which he is great; therefore they are equal. For whence is he equal, if not by that in which, to him, to be and to be great are not different? Or if the Father is greater in eternity, the Son is not equal in any respect whatever. For whence is he equal? If you say in greatness, that greatness is not equal which is less eternal, and so with the rest. Or is he perhaps equal in power, but in wisdom not equal? But how is that power equal which is less wise? Or is he equal in wisdom, but in power not equal? But how is that wisdom equal which is less powerful?
因為若祂為大，就是在偉大上為大。但既然祂的偉大就是聖子，祂便斷然不大於那生育祂自己者，也不大於那使祂為大的偉大；所以祂們是同等的。因為，祂由何而同等呢？若非藉那對祂而言「存在」與「為大」並無二致者？或者，倘若父在永恆上為大，則子在任何一方面都不與之同等。因為祂由何而同等呢？你若說在偉大上同等，那較不永恆的偉大便不是同等的偉大，其餘各項亦然。抑或祂或許在能力上同等，而在智慧上卻不同等？但那較欠智慧的能力怎能同等呢？抑或祂在智慧上同等，而在能力上卻不同等？但那較欠能力的智慧怎能同等呢？
29:15
Restat itaque ut si in ulla re aequalis non est, non sit aequalis. At scriptura clamat: Non rapinam arbitratus est esse aequalis deo. Cogitur ergo quiuis aduersarius ueritatis qui modo tenetur auctoritate apostolica in qualibet uel una re aequalem deo filium confiteri. Eligat quam uoluerit. Hinc ei ostendetur in omnibus esse aequalem quae de substantia eius dicuntur.
It remains, therefore, that if he is not equal in any one respect, he is not equal. But Scripture cries out: 'He thought it not robbery to be equal with God.' Every adversary of the truth, then, who is at all held by apostolic authority, is compelled to confess the Son equal to God in any one respect whatever. Let him choose which he will. From this it will be shown to him that he is equal in all the things which are said of his substance.
因此餘下的結論是：祂若在任何一方面不同等，就是不同等。但聖經高呼：「祂不以自己與神同等為強奪的。」那麼，凡真理的仇敵，只要尚受使徒權柄的約束，都被迫承認聖子在任何一方面與神同等。就讓他隨意揀選哪一方面吧。由此便要向他顯明：凡論及祂實質之事，祂在一切之中都是同等的。
29:16
[IV 6] Si enim uirtutes quae sunt in animo humano, quamuis alio atque alio modo singulae intellegantur, nullo modo tamen separantur ab inuicem, ut quicumque fuerint aequales uerbi gratia in fortitudine, aequales sint et prudentia et iustitia et temperantia (si enim dixeris aequales esse istos fortitudine sed illum praestare prudentia, sequitur ut huius fortitudo minus prudens sit ac per hoc nec fortitudine aequales sunt quando est illius fortitudo prudentior, atque ita de ceteris uirtutibus inuenies si omnes eadem consideratione percurras;
For if the virtues which are in the human soul, although each is understood in one way and another, are yet in no way separated from one another—so that whoever are equal, say for example, in fortitude are equal also in prudence and justice and temperance (for if you say that these are equal in fortitude but that one excels in prudence, it follows that this one's fortitude is less prudent, and thereby they are not even equal in fortitude, since that one's fortitude is more prudent; and so you will find concerning the rest of the virtues, if you run through them all with the same consideration;
因為人的靈魂中的諸德，雖然各以不同方式被理解，卻絕不彼此分離——以致凡在某一方面相等者，譬如在勇德上相等者，也在智德、義德、節德上相等（因為你若說這些人在勇德上相等，卻說其中一人在智德上更勝一籌，那就得出此人的勇德較欠智慧，如此他們連在勇德上都不相等，既然那人的勇德更具智慧；你若以同樣的考量遍歷其餘各德，便會對它們發現同樣情形；
29:17
non enim de uiribus corporis agitur sed de animi fortitudine), quanto ergo magis in illa incommutabili aeternaque substantia incomparabiliter simpliciore quam est animus humanus haec ita se habent? Humano quippe animo non hoc est esse quod est fortem esse aut prudentem aut iustum aut temperantem; potest enim esse animus et nullam istarum habere uirtutem. Deo autem hoc est esse quod est potentem esse aut iustum esse aut sapientem esse et si quid de illa simplici multiplicitate uel multiplici simplicitate dixeris quo substantia eius significetur.
for it is not of the strength of the body that we are treating, but of the fortitude of the soul)—how much more, then, in that immutable and eternal substance, incomparably more simple than the human soul, do these things so hold? For to the human soul to be is not the same as to be brave or prudent or just or temperate; for a soul can exist and have none of these virtues. But to God, to be is the same as to be powerful or to be just or to be wise, and whatever you say of that simple multiplicity or manifold simplicity whereby his substance is signified.
因為我們所論的並非身體的力量，乃是靈魂的勇德）——那麼在那不可變、永恆、且遠比人的靈魂更為單純的實質裡，這些事豈不更是如此？因為對人的靈魂而言，「存在」與「勇敢」或「明智」或「公義」或「節制」並非同一；因為靈魂可以存在，卻不具這些德中任何一項。但對神而言，「存在」與「為有能」或「為公義」或「為智慧」乃是同一，以及凡你論及那藉以表明祂實質的單純的繁多、或繁多的單純者，皆是如此。
29:18
Quamobrem siue ita dicatur deus de deo ut et singulis hoc nomen conueniat, non tamen ut ambo simul duo dii, sed unus deus sit (ita enim sibi cohaerent quod etiam in distantibus diuersisque substantiis fieri apostolus testis est, nam et solus dominus spiritus est et solus hominis spiritus utique spiritus est, tamen si haereat domino unus spiritus est; quanto magis ibi ubi est omnino inseparabilis atque aeterna conexio ne absurde dici uideatur quasi filius amborum cum dicitur filius dei si id quod dicitur deus non nisi de ambobus simul dicitur), siue quidquid de deo dicitur quod substantiam eius indicet non nisi de ambobus simul, immo de ipsa simul trinitate dicitur;
Wherefore, whether it be so said 'God of God' that the name fits each singly, yet not so that both together are two gods, but that there be one God (for so do they cleave to each other that even in distant and diverse substances the Apostle testifies this comes to pass—for both the Lord alone is spirit and the spirit of man alone is assuredly spirit, yet if it cleave to the Lord it is one spirit; how much more there, where there is an altogether inseparable and eternal connection, lest it seem absurdly said as though he were the son of both when he is called the Son of God, if that which is called God is said only of both together); or whether whatever is said of God which indicates his substance be said only of both together, nay of the very Trinity together;
因此，無論「從神而出的神」之被如此陳述，是要使這名分別適用於各位，卻不致使二者一同成為兩位神，乃是使有一位神（因為祂們如此彼此相連，以致連在相隔且相異的實質中，使徒也見證此事會發生——因為連主單獨是靈，人的靈單獨也確是靈，然而它若與主聯合便是一靈；那麼在那全然不可分且永恆聯結之處，豈不更是如此，免得當祂被稱為神的子時，彷彿荒謬地被說成是二者之子，倘若那被稱為「神」者僅是就二者一同而言的）；抑或凡論及神、表明其實質者，都僅是就二者一同、甚或就那三位一體本身一同而言的；
29:19
siue ergo hoc siue illud sit quod diligentius discutiendum est, nunc unde agitur satis est uidere nullo modo filium aequalem esse patri si in aliquo scilicet quod pertinet ad significandam eius substantiam inaequalis inuenitur sicut iam ostendimus. Apostolus autem dixit aequalem. In omnibus ergo aequalis est patri filius et est unius eiusdemque substantiae. [V 7] Quapropter etiam spiritus sanctus in eadem unitate substantiae et aequalitate consistit.
whether, then, it be this or that which must be more diligently discussed, for the present it is enough, for the matter in hand, to see that the Son is in no way equal to the Father if in anything, namely, which pertains to signifying his substance, he is found unequal, as we have already shown. But the Apostle said he is equal. In all things, therefore, the Son is equal to the Father, and is of one and the same substance. Wherefore the Holy Spirit also consists in the same unity of substance and equality.
那麼，無論此說抑或彼說更當殷勤探究，就目前所論之事而言，只需看明：聖子若在任何一件、即凡關乎表明其實質之事上被發現不同等，便絕不與父同等，正如我們已經顯明的。但使徒說祂是同等的。因此，聖子在一切事上都與父同等，並且是同一實質。所以，聖靈也同在這同一的實質合一與同等之中。
29:20
Siue enim sit unitas amborum siue sanctitas siue caritas, siue ideo unitas quia caritas et ideo caritas, quia sanctitas, manifestum est quod non aliquis duorum est quo uterque coniungitur, quo genitus a gignente diligatur generatoremque suum diligat, sintque non participatione sed essentia sua neque dono superioris alicuius sed suo proprio seruantes unitatem spiritus in uinculo pacis. Quod imitari per gratiam et ad deum et ad nos ipsos iubemur, in quibus duobus praeceptis tota lex pendet et prophetae. Ita sunt illa tria deus unus, solus, magnus, sapiens, sanctus, beatus. Nos autem ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso beati quia ipsius munere inter nos unum;
For whether it be the unity of both, or the holiness, or the love; whether it be unity because love, and love because holiness—it is manifest that he is not some one of the two by whom both are joined, by whom the begotten is loved by the begetter and loves his generator, and by whom they are, not by participation but by their own essence, nor by the gift of some superior, but by their own proper gift, keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Which we are bidden to imitate by grace, both toward God and toward ourselves; on which two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Thus those three are one God, alone, great, wise, holy, blessed. But we are blessed from him and through him and in him, because by his gift we are among ourselves one;
因為無論它是二者的合一，或是聖潔，或是愛；無論它是合一因它是愛，是愛因它是聖潔——顯然祂並非那使二者聯合的兩位中之一位，藉著祂那受生者被生育者所愛、又愛其生育者，並且藉著祂，二者之聯合並非藉分受、乃是藉其自身的本質，也非藉某更高者的賜予、乃是藉其自有的恩賜，在和平的聯繫中保守聖靈所賜的合一。這合一是我們奉命藉恩典去效法的，既向著神也向著我們自己；這兩條誡命乃是律法和先知一切道理的總綱。如此，那三位乃是獨一的神，是唯一的、大的、智的、聖的、有福的。而我們則是本於祂、藉著祂、在祂裡面得福，因為藉祂的恩賜，我們彼此合而為一；
29:21
cum illo autem unus spiritus quia agglutinatur anima nostra post eum. Et nobis haerere deo bonum est quia perdet omnem qui fornicatur ab eo. Spiritus ergo sanctus commune aliquid est patris et filii, quidquid illud est, aut ipsa communio consubstantialis et coaeterna; quae si amicitia conuenienter dici potest, dicatur, sed aptius dicitur caritas; et haec quoque substantia quia deus substantia et deus caritas sicut scriptum est. Sicut autem simul substantia cum patre et filio, ita simul magna et simul bona et simul sancta et quidquid aliud ad se dicitur quoniam non aliud est deo esse et aliud magnum esse uel bonum et cetera sicut supra ostendimus.
but with him one spirit, because our soul is glued fast behind him. And it is good for us to cleave to God, because he will destroy everyone that goeth a-whoring from him. The Holy Spirit, therefore, is something common to the Father and the Son, whatever that be, or is that very communion, consubstantial and coeternal; which, if it can fittingly be called friendship, let it be so called, but more aptly is it called love; and this too is substance, because God is substance, and 'God is love,' as it is written. And as he is substance together with the Father and the Son, so is he together great and together good and together holy, and whatever else is said in relation to self, since it is not one thing for God to be and another to be great or good, and the rest, as we showed above.
但與祂一同乃是一靈，因為我們的魂緊隨其後、膠附於祂。而我們親近神原是與我們有益，因為凡遠離祂行邪淫的，祂必要滅絕。因此，聖靈乃是聖父與聖子所共有的某物，無論那是什麼，或即是那同質且同永恆的共融本身；這共融若可恰當地稱為友誼，就讓它如此稱呼吧，但更貼切的是稱為愛；而這也是實質，因為神是實質，且如經上所記，「神就是愛」。並且，正如祂與聖父、聖子一同是實質，照樣祂也一同為大、一同為善、一同為聖，以及凡相對於自身所稱述的一切，因為對神而言，「存在」與「為大」或「為善」等等並非兩回事，正如我們在上文所顯明的。
29:22
Si enim minus magna est ibi caritas quam sapientia, minus quam est diligitur sapientia; aequalis est igitur ut quanta est sapientia tantum diligatur. Est autem sapientia aequalis patri sicut supra disputanuimus; aequalis est igitur etiam spiritus sanctus, et si aequalis in omnibus aequalis propter summam simplicitatem quae in illa substantia est. Et ideo non amplius quam tria sunt: unus diligens eum qui de illo est, et unus diligens eum de quo est, et ipsa dilectio. Quae si nihil est, quomodo deus dilectio est? Si non est substantia, quomodo deus substantia est?
For if charity there is less great than wisdom, then wisdom is loved less than it is; but it is loved as an equal, so that it is loved as much as wisdom is great. Now wisdom is equal to the Father, as we argued above; therefore the Holy Spirit also is equal, and if equal in all things, equal on account of the supreme simplicity that is in that substance. And so there are not more than three: one who loves him who is from him, and one who loves him from whom he is, and love itself. And if this love is nothing, how is God love? If it is not substance, how is God substance?
因為那裡的愛若比智慧為小，智慧所受的愛就少於它本身；然而它所受的愛是相等的，以致智慧有多大，就被愛得多深。正如我們在前面所論證的，智慧與父同等；因此聖神也是同等的，而若在一切事上同等，就是因那實體中至高的單純性而同等。所以不多於三：一位愛那從祂而出者，一位愛那祂所從出者，以及愛本身。這愛若是虛無，神怎能是愛？它若不是實體，神怎能是實體？
29:23
[VI 8] Si autem quaeritur quomodo simplex et multiplex sit illa substantia, animaduertenda est primo creatura quare sit multiplex, nullo autem modo uere simplex. Et prius corpus uniuersum utique partibus constat ita ut sit ibi alia pars maior, alia minor, et maius sit uniuersum quam pars quaelibet aut quantalibet. Nam et caelum et terra partes sunt uniuersae mundanae molis, et sola terra uel solum caelum innumerabilibus partibus constat, et in tertia sui parte minor est quam in cetera et in dimidia minor quam in tota, et totum mundi corpus quod duabus plerumque partibus appelari solet, id est caelum et terra, utique maius est quam solum caelum aut sola terra.
[VI 8] But if it is asked how that substance can be both simple and manifold, we must first observe why the creature is manifold, yet in no way truly simple. And first, every body assuredly consists of parts, so that one part there is greater and another lesser, and the whole is greater than any part whatsoever or of whatsoever size. For heaven and earth are parts of the whole mass of the world, and earth alone or heaven alone consists of innumerable parts; in a third of itself it is less than in the remainder, and in a half it is less than in the whole; and the whole body of the world, which is commonly named by its two chief parts, that is, heaven and earth, is assuredly greater than heaven alone or earth alone.
﹝卷六第八節﹞但若有人問：那實體怎能既是單純又是複多的？我們必須先察看受造物為何是複多的，卻絕非真正單純的。首先，凡物體必由部分構成，以致其中一部分較大，另一部分較小，而整體大於任何一部分或任何大小的部分。因為天與地是世界全體之量的部分，單是地或單是天就由無數部分構成；它在自身的三分之一中小於其餘部分，在一半中小於全部；而世界的整個物體——通常以其兩大部分即天與地來稱呼——必定大於單是天或單是地。
29:24
Et in unoquoque corpore aliud est magnitudo, aliud color, aliud figura. Potest enim et deminuta magnitudine manere idem color et eadem figura, et colore mutato manere eadem figura et eadem magnitudo, et figura eadem non manente tam magnum esse et eodem modo coloratum, et quaecumque alia simul dicuntur de corpore possunt et simul et plura sine ceteris commutari. Ac per hoc multiplex esse conuincitur natura corporis, simplex autem nullo modo. Creatura quoque spiritalis sicut est animua est quidem in corporis comparatione simplicior; sine comparatione autem corporis multiplex est, etiam ipsa non simplex.
And in each single body, magnitude is one thing, colour another, shape another. For even with the magnitude diminished the same colour and the same shape can remain; and with the colour changed the same shape and the same magnitude can remain; and though the same shape does not remain, it can be just as great and coloured in the same way; and whatever other things are said together concerning a body can be changed both together and severally, several without the rest. And by this the nature of body is convicted of being manifold, and in no way simple. The spiritual creature also, such as the soul is, is indeed simpler in comparison with body; but apart from comparison with body it is manifold, itself also not simple.
而在每一個物體中，大小是一回事，顏色是另一回事，形狀又是另一回事。因為即使大小減少，同樣的顏色和同樣的形狀仍可存留；顏色改變了，同樣的形狀和同樣的大小仍可存留；即使同樣的形狀不再存留，它仍可一樣大且一樣著色；凡其他一同述說於物體的種種屬性，都可以一同或分別地、若干項離開其餘而被改變。由此可見物體的本性被證明為複多的，絕非單純的。屬靈的受造物，如靈魂，與物體相比固然較為單純；但撇開與物體的比較，它本身也是複多的，並非單純。
29:25
Nam ideo simplicior est corpore quia non mole diffunditur per spatium loci sed in unoquoque corpore, et in toto tota est et in qualibet parte eius tota est; et ideo cum fit aliquid in quamuis exigua particula corporis quod sentiat anima, quamuis non fiat in toto corpore, illa tamen tota sentit quia totam non latet. Sed tamen etiam in anima cum aliud sit artificiosum esse, aliud inertem, aliud acutum, aliud memorem, aliud cupiditas, aliud timor, aliud laetitia, aliud tristitia; possintque et alia sine aliis et alia magis, alia minus, innumerabilia et innumerabiliter in animae natura inueniri; manifestum est non simplicem sed multiplicem esse naturam. Nihil enim simplex mutabile est;
For it is simpler than body in this, that it is not diffused as a mass through the space of a place, but in each single body it is whole in the whole and whole in any part of it whatsoever; and therefore when anything occurs in however tiny a particle of the body which the soul perceives, though it does not occur in the whole body, yet the whole soul perceives it, because it is not hidden from the whole. But nevertheless in the soul too, since it is one thing to be skilful, another to be dull, one thing to be keen, another to be retentive of memory; and desire is one thing, fear another, gladness another, sadness another; and these and countless other things can be found, some without others, and some more, some less, countlessly in the nature of the soul; it is manifest that the nature is not simple but manifold. For nothing simple is mutable;
因為靈魂比物體單純之處在於：它不像物體那樣作為一團質量瀰漫於空間各處，而是在每一個物體中，於整體中是全然的，於它的任何一部分中也是全然的；所以當身體中某極微小的部分發生了靈魂所感覺的事，儘管並非發生於全身，全靈魂卻感覺得到，因為它不隱藏於全靈魂。但即便如此，靈魂中也有種種分別：有技巧與遲鈍之別，有敏銳與善記之別；欲望是一回事，恐懼是另一回事，喜樂又一回事，憂愁又一回事；這些以及無數其他情狀，都可在靈魂的本性中被發現——有的離開別的而存，有的多有的少，數不盡且無可計量。由此顯然此本性並非單純，而是複多的。因為凡單純者皆不可變；
29:26
omnis autem creatura mutabilis. [VII] Deus uero multipliciter quidem dicitur magnus, bonus, sapiens, beatus, uerus, et quidquid aliud non indigne dici uidetur; sed eadem magnitudo eius est quae sapientia (non enim mole magnus est sed uirtute), et eadem bonitas quae sapientia et magnitudo, et eadem ueritas quae illa omnia; et non est ibi aliud beatum esse et aliud magnum aut sapientem aut uerum aut bonum esse aut omnino ipsum esse. Nec quoniam trinitas est ideo triplex putandus est; alioquin minor erit pater solus aut filius solus quam simul pater et filius —
but every creature is mutable. [VII] But God indeed is called in manifold ways great, good, wise, blessed, true, and whatever else it does not seem unworthy to call him; yet his greatness is the same as his wisdom (for he is not great in mass but in power), and his goodness is the same as his wisdom and greatness, and his truth the same as all these; and in him it is not one thing to be blessed and another to be great, or wise, or true, or good, or to be at all. Nor because he is Trinity is he therefore to be thought threefold; otherwise the Father alone or the Son alone would be less than the Father and the Son together —
然而一切受造物都是可變的。﹝卷七﹞至於神，固然被以多種方式稱為偉大、良善、智慧、有福、真實，以及其他凡稱呼祂並非不相稱者；但祂的偉大就是祂的智慧（因為祂之為大不在體量而在能力），祂的良善就是祂的智慧與偉大，祂的真實就是這一切；在祂裡面，有福不是一回事，偉大、或智慧、或真實、或良善、或全然的「存在」又是另一回事。也不可因祂是三位一體，就以為祂是三倍的；否則單是父或單是子就會小於父與子一同——
29:27
quamquam non inuenitur quomodo dici possit aut pater solus aut filius solus cum semper atque inseparabiliter et ille cum filio sit et ille cum patre, non ut ambo sint pater aut ambo filius, sed quia semper in inuicem neuter solus. Quia uero dicimus et deum solum ipsam trinitatem, quamuis semper sit cum spiritibus et animabus sanctis, sed solum dicimus quod deus est quia non et illi cum illo deus sunt, ita solum patrem dicimus patrem non quia separatur a filio sed quia non simul ambo pater est. [VIII] Cum itaque tantus est solus pater uel solus filius uel solus spiritus sanctus quantus est simul pater et filius et spiritus sanctus, nullo modo triplex dicendus est.
although it cannot be found how either the Father alone or the Son alone can be said, since always and inseparably the one is with the Son and the other with the Father, not so that both are the Father or both the Son, but because they are always mutually in each other, neither being alone. But because we call even the Trinity itself God alone, although it is always with the holy spirits and souls, yet we say 'alone' because they are not God together with him; so we call the Father alone Father, not because he is separated from the Son, but because both together are not the Father. [VIII] Since therefore the Father alone, or the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone is as great as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit together, he is in no way to be called threefold.
儘管無法找出怎能說「單是父」或「單是子」，因為那一位總是不可分離地與子同在，這一位總是與父同在，並非說兩者都是父或都是子，而是因為他們總是彼此相互內在，無一是孤獨的。但因我們也稱三位一體本身為獨一的神，儘管祂總是與聖靈與聖徒的靈魂同在，我們卻說「獨一」，因為他們並不與祂一同是神；照樣，我們稱父為「單是父」，並非因祂與子分離，而是因兩者一同並不是父。﹝卷八﹞既然單是父、或單是子、或單是聖神，其偉大等同於父與子與聖神一同，就絕不可稱之為三倍的。
29:28
Corpora quippe adiunctione sua crescunt. Quamuis enim qui adhaeret uxori suae unum corpus sit, maius tamen corpus fit quam si solius uiri esset aut solius uxoris. In rebus autem spiritalibus cum minor maiori adhaeret sicut creatura creatori, illa fit maior quam erat, non ille. In his enim quae non mole magna sunt hoc est maius esse quod est melius esse. Melior fit autem spiritus alicuius creaturae cum adhaeret creatori quam si non adhaereat, et ideo etiam maior quia melior. Qui ergo adhaeret domino unus spiritus est, sed tamen dominus non ideo fit maior quamuis fiat ille qui domino adhaeret.
Bodies indeed grow by their conjunction. For although he who cleaves to his wife is one body, yet it becomes a greater body than if it were of the man alone or of the wife alone. But in spiritual things, when a lesser cleaves to a greater, as the creature to the Creator, the former becomes greater than it was, not the latter. For in those things which are not great in mass, to be greater is to be better. Now the spirit of any creature becomes better when it cleaves to the Creator than if it did not cleave, and therefore also greater, because better. He therefore who cleaves to the Lord is one spirit; yet the Lord does not therefore become greater, though he becomes greater who cleaves to the Lord.
物體固然藉其結合而增長。因為那與妻子聯合者雖成為一體，其身體卻比單是丈夫或單是妻子的身體為大。但在屬靈的事上，當較小者依附於較大者——如受造物依附於造物主——那較小者比先前變大了，而較大者卻不然。因為在那些不以體量為大的事物中，較大就是較好。任何受造物的靈依附於造物主時，比不依附時變得更好，因而也更大，因為更好。所以「那與主聯合的，便是與主成為一靈」；然而主並不因此變大，儘管那依附於主的變大了。
29:29
In ipso igitur deo cum adhaeret aequali patri filius aequalis aut spiritus sanctus patri et filio aequalis, non fit maior deus quam singuli eorum quia non est quo crescat illa perfectio. Perfectus autem siue pater siue filius siue spiritus sanctus, et perfectus deus pater et filius et spiritus sanctus, et ideo trinitas potius quam triplex. [IX 10] Et quoniam ostendimus quomodo possit dici solus pater quia non nisi ipse ibi pater, consideranda est illa sententia qua dicitur deum uerum solum non esse patre solum sed patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum.
In God himself, therefore, when the Son equal to the Father cleaves to the Father, or the Holy Spirit equal to the Father and the Son cleaves to them, God does not become greater than each of them singly, because there is nothing by which that perfection could grow. But whether Father or Son or Holy Spirit is perfect, and God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is perfect; and therefore Trinity rather than threefold. [IX 10] And since we have shown how the Father can be called alone, because none but he is Father there, we must consider that statement in which it is said that the one true God is not the Father alone but the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
所以在神自身裡，當與父同等的子依附於父，或與父及子同等的聖神依附於父與子時，神並不因此比他們各位單獨為大，因為沒有任何東西能使那完全性增長。無論父、或子、或聖神都是完全的，而父、子、聖神一同的神也是完全的；故此當說三位一體，而非三倍。﹝卷九第十節﹞既然我們已說明父怎能被稱為「單是父」——因為那裡除祂之外無別的父——我們就當考量那句話，即說：獨一的真神不是單是父，而是父與子與聖神。
29:30
Si quis enim interroget pater solus utrum sit deus, quomodo respondebitur non esse nisi forte ita dicamus esse quidem patrem deum sed non eum esse solum deum, esse autem solum deum patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum? Sed quid agimus de illo testimonio domini? Patri enim dicebat et patrem nominauerat ad quem loquebatur cum ait: Haec est autem uita aeterna ut cognoscant te unum uerum deum. Quod quidem arriani sic solent accipere quasi non sit filius deus uerus. Quibus exclusis uidendum est an intellegere cogamur cum dictum est patri:
For if anyone asks whether the Father alone is God, how shall it be answered that he is not, unless perhaps we say thus: that the Father is indeed God, but that he is not God alone, and that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the only God? But what shall we do with that testimony of the Lord? For he was speaking to the Father and had named as Father the one to whom he was speaking, when he said: 'And this is eternal life, that they may know thee, the one true God.' Which indeed the Arians are wont to take as though the Son were not true God. When these are excluded, we must see whether we are compelled to understand, when it was said to the Father:
因為若有人問：單是父是否為神，除非我們或許這樣說，否則怎能回答說「不是」呢？我們可說：父固然是神，但祂不是獨一的神，而父與子與聖神才是那獨一的神。然而主的這段見證我們要如何處理？因為祂是向父說話，並稱那位祂所對之說話者為父，說：「認識祢——獨一的真神，這就是永生。」亞流派慣於如此領會這話，彷彿子不是真神。將這些人排除之後，我們須查看：當對父說：「認識祢——獨一的真神」時，我們是否被迫如此理解——
29:31
Vt cognoscant te unum uerum deum, tamquam hoc insinuare uoluerit quia et solus pater deus uerus est ne non intellegeremus deum nisi ipsa tria simul, patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum. Num ergo ex domini testimonio et patrem unum uerum deum dicimus et filium unum uerum deum et spiritum sanctum unum uerum deum, et simul patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum, id est simul ipsam trinitatem, non tres ueros deos sed unum uerum deum? An quoniam addidit et quem misisti Iesum Christum, subaudiendum est 'unum uerum deum'; et ordo uerborum est: 'ut te et quem misisti Iesum Christum cognoscant unum uerum deum'? Cur ergo tacuit de spiritu sanctu?
'That they may know thee, the one true God,' as if he wished thereby to insinuate that the Father alone is true God, lest we should understand God to be none but those three together, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Do we then, on the Lord's testimony, call both the Father the one true God, and the Son the one true God, and the Holy Spirit the one true God, and together the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, that is, the Trinity itself together, not three true Gods but one true God? Or, since he added, 'and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent,' is 'the one true God' to be supplied, and the order of the words is: 'that they may know thee and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent to be the one true God'? Why then was he silent concerning the Holy Spirit?
「認識祢——獨一的真神」，彷彿祂想藉此暗示：單是父才是真神，免得我們以為神無非是那三者一同，即父與子與聖神。那麼，我們是否按主的見證，稱父為獨一的真神，也稱子為獨一的真神，也稱聖神為獨一的真神，且父與子與聖神一同——即三位一體本身一同——不是三位真神，而是獨一的真神？抑或，既然祂加上「以及祢所差來的耶穌基督」，就當補足「獨一的真神」，而詞序應是：「使他們認識祢和祢所差來的耶穌基督為獨一的真神」？那麼祂為何對聖神緘默不言？
29:32
An quoniam consequens est ut ubicumque nominatur unum tanta pace uni adhaerens ut per hanc utrumque unum sit, iam ex hoc intellegatur etiam ipsa pax quamuis non commemoretur? Nam et illo loco apostolus uidetur quasi praetermittere spiritum sanctum, et tamen ibi intellegitur ubi ait: Omnia uestra; uos autem Christi; Christus autem dei; et iterum: Caput mulieris uir; caput uiri Christus; caput autem Christi deus. Sed rursus si deus non nisi omnia simul tria, quomodo caput Christi deus, id est caput Christi trinitas, cum in trinitate sit Christus ut sit trinitas? An quod est pater cum filio caput est ei quod est solus filius? Cum filio enim pater deus;
Is it because, wherever a one is named that cleaves to a one with such great peace that through this peace the two are one, it is thereby already understood that this very peace, though it be not mentioned, is present too? For in that place also the Apostle seems as it were to pass over the Holy Spirit, and yet he is understood there, where he says: 'All things are yours; but you are Christ's; and Christ is God's'; and again: 'The head of the woman is the man, the head of the man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God.' But again, if God is nothing but all three together, how is the head of Christ God, that is, the head of Christ the Trinity, since Christ is in the Trinity so as to be the Trinity? Or is that which the Father is with the Son the head of that which is the Son alone? For the Father with the Son is God;
莫非是因為：凡在一處提到「一」與另一「一」以如此大的和平相聯合，以致藉這和平二者合而為一，就由此已可理解這和平本身也在其中，儘管未被提及？因為在另一處使徒也彷彿略過聖神，然而聖神仍在其言中被理解，即他說：「萬有全是你們的，你們是屬基督的，基督是屬神的」；又說：「女人的頭是男人，男人的頭是基督，基督的頭是神。」但反過來說，若神無非是那三者一同，那麼基督的頭怎會是神，即基督的頭是三位一體，既然基督在三位一體之中以致構成三位一體？抑或，父與子一同者，乃是那單是子者的頭？因為父與子一同就是神；
29:33
solus autem filius Christus est maxime quia iam uerbum caro factum loquitur secundum quam humilitatem eius etiam maior est pater sicut dicit: Quoniam pater maior me est, ut hoc ipsum deum esse quod illi cum patre unum est caput sit hominis mediatoris quod ipse solus est. Si enim mentem recte dicimus principale hominis, id est tamquam caput humanae substantiae, cum ipse homo cum mente sit homo, cur non multo congruentius multoque magis uerbum cum patre quod simul deus est caput est Christi, quamuis Christus homo nisi cum uerbo quod caro factum est intellegi non possit? Sed hoc, ut iam diximus, aliquanto diligentius postea considerabimus.
but the Son alone is Christ, especially since it is now the Word made flesh that speaks, according to which humility of his the Father is even greater, as he says: 'For the Father is greater than I'; so that this very thing—to be God, which is one with the Father—is the head of the man Mediator, which he alone is. For if we rightly call the mind the ruling part of man, that is, as it were the head of the human substance, since man himself with the mind is man, why not much more fittingly and much more so is the Word with the Father, which together is God, the head of Christ, although Christ cannot be understood as man except with the Word which was made flesh? But this, as we have already said, we shall consider somewhat more carefully later.
但單是子才是基督，尤其因為如今說話的是「道成了肉身」，就其這謙卑而言，父甚至更大，正如祂說：「因為父是比我大的」；以致這件事本身——即與父為一的「作神」——乃是那中保之人的頭，而中保之人乃祂獨一所是。因為我們若正確地稱心智為人的主宰部分，即彷彿人性實體的頭——既然人連同心智才是人——那麼豈不更恰當、更確切地說：與父一同、且一同為神的道，乃是基督的頭，儘管基督若非連同那成了肉身的道就不能被理解為人？但這一點，正如我們已說過的，稍後要更仔細地考量。
29:34
Nunc autem aequalitas trinitatis et una eademque substantia, quantum breuiter potuimus, demonstrata est ut, quoquo modo se habeat ista quaestio quam discutiendam acriore intentione distulimus, nihil impediat quominus fateamur summam aequalitatem patris et filii et spiritus sancti. [X 11] Quidam cum uellet breuissime singularum in trinitate personarum insinuare propria: Aeternitas, inquit, in patre, species in imagine, usus in munere.
But now the equality of the Trinity and its one and the same substance has been demonstrated, so far as we could briefly, so that, however this question may stand which we have deferred to be discussed with keener attention, nothing may hinder us from confessing the supreme equality of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. [X 11] A certain writer, wishing very briefly to convey the properties of the several persons in the Trinity, said: 'Eternity is in the Father, form in the Image, use in the Gift.'
但如今，三位一體的同等以及其同一實體，我們已盡可能簡略地予以證明，以致無論那個我們留待以更敏銳的專注去討論的問題結局如何，都不妨礙我們承認父與子與聖神至高的同等。﹝卷十第十一節﹞某位作者想極簡略地表達三位一體中各位格的特性，說：「永恆在於父，形相在於像，運用在於所賜。」
29:35
Et quia non mediocris auctoritatis in tractatione scripturarum et assertione fidei uir exstitit, (Hilarius enim hoc in libris suis posuit), horum uerborum, id est patris et imaginis et muneris, aeternitatis et speciei et usus, abditam scrutatus intellegentiam quantum ualeo, non eum secutum arbitror in aeternitatis uocabulo nisi quod pater non habet patrem de quo sit, filius autem de patre est ut sit atque ut illi coaeternus sit. Imago enim si perfecte implet illud cuius imago est, ipsa coaequatur ei non illud imagini suae.
And because this was a man of no mean authority in the treatment of the Scriptures and the assertion of the faith (for Hilary set this down in his books), having scrutinized as far as I am able the hidden meaning of these words—that is, of Father and Image and Gift, of eternity and form and use—I judge that in the term 'eternity' he followed nothing else than that the Father has no father from whom he is, whereas the Son is from the Father so as to exist and so as to be coeternal with him. For an image, if it perfectly fulfils that of which it is the image, is itself made equal to it, not it to its image.
因為此人在解經與捍衛信仰上並非權威平庸之輩（這乃希拉里在其書中所立的），我便盡我所能考究這些話——即父、像、所賜，永恆、形相、運用——所隱含的意義，我判斷他在「永恆」一詞上所依循的無非是：父沒有從之而出的父，而子則從父而出，以致存在並與父同永恆。因為一個像，若完全滿足了它所肖之物，它本身就與那物同等，而非那物與它的像同等。
29:36
In qua imagine speciem nominauit, credo, propter pulchritudinem ubi iam est tanta congruentia et prima aequalitas et prima similitudo nulla in re dissidens et nullo modo inaequalis et nulla ex parte dissimilis, sed ad identidem respondens ei cuius imago est; ubi est prima et summa uita cui non est aliud uiuere et aliud esse, sed idem et esse et uiuere, et primus ac summus intellectus cui non est aliud uiuere et aliud intellegere, sed id quod est intellegere, hoc uiuere, hoc esse est unum omnia tamquam uerbum perfectum cui non desit aliquid et ars quaedam omnipotentis atque sapientis dei plena omnium rationum uiuentium incommutabilium, et omnes unum in ea sicut ipsa unum de uno cum quo unum.
In which Image he named form, I believe, on account of the beauty where there is already such great congruity and prime equality and prime likeness, differing in nothing and in no way unequal and dissimilar in no part, but answering back to that of which it is the image identically; where there is the prime and supreme life, to which to live is not one thing and to be another, but the same to be and to live; and the prime and supreme intellect, to which to live is not one thing and to understand another, but that which is to understand, this is to live, this is to be—all being one, as it were a perfect Word to which nothing is lacking, and a certain art of the omnipotent and wise God, full of all the living unchangeable rationales; and all are one in it, as it itself is one from the One with whom it is one.
我相信，他在此「像」中稱之為「形相」，是因那美麗——那裡已有如此大的相稱、原初的同等、原初的肖似，在任何事上都無差異，絲毫不不等，任何部分都不相異，而是與它所肖之物完全一致地相應相答；那裡有原初而至高的生命，對它而言活著不是一回事、存在又是另一回事，而是存在與活著同一；有原初而至高的理智，對它而言活著不是一回事、理解又是另一回事，而是那理解就是活著、就是存在——一切皆為一，彷彿一個完全的「道」，毫無缺欠，是全能而智慧之神的某種藝術，充滿一切活生生不可變的理則；一切在它裡面都是一，正如它本身出於那與之為一的獨一者。
29:37
Ibi nouit omnia deus quae fecit per ipsam, et ideo cum decedant et succedant tempora, non decedit aliquid uel succedit scientiae dei. Non enim haec quae creata sunt ideo sciuntur a deo quia facta sunt, ac non potius ideo facta sunt uel mutabilia quia immutabiliter ab eo sciuntur. Ille igitur ineffabilis quidam complexus patris et imaginis non est sine perfruitione, sine caritate, sine gaudio.
There God knows all things which he made through it, and therefore, though times pass away and succeed one another, nothing passes away from or succeeds to the knowledge of God. For these things which have been created are not therefore known by God because they were made, but rather they were made, and are mutable, because they are immutably known by him. That ineffable embrace, therefore, as it were, of the Father and the Image is not without full enjoyment, without charity, without joy.
在那裡，神認識祂藉它所造的一切，因此，儘管時光流逝更替，神的知識卻絲毫無所流逝或增添。因為這些受造之物並非因被造才被神所知，反倒是因被祂不可變地認識，才被造、才是可變的。所以，父與像那不可言喻的、彷彿的擁抱，並非沒有全然的享樂、沒有愛、沒有喜樂。
29:38
Illa ergo dilectio, delectatio, felicitas uel beatitudo, si tamen aliqua humana uoce digne dicitur, usus ab illo appellatus est breuiter, et est in trinitate spiritus sanctus, non genitus sed genitoris genitique suauitas ingenti largitate atque ubertate perfundens omnes creaturas pro captu earum ut ordinem suum teneant et locis suis acquiescant. Haec igitur omnia quae arte diuina facta sunt et unitatem quandam in se ostendunt et speciem et ordinem.
That love, therefore, that delight, that felicity or blessedness—if indeed it is worthily named by any human voice—was called 'use' by him in brief; and it is in the Trinity the Holy Spirit, not begotten but the sweetness of the Begetter and the Begotten, flooding all creatures according to their capacity with immense bounty and abundance, that they may keep their order and rest in their places. All these things, therefore, which have been made by divine art, display in themselves a certain unity and form and order.
所以那愛、那愉悅、那幸福或福樂——若真能以任何人的言語相稱地稱呼它——被他簡略地稱為「運用」；它在三位一體中就是聖神，並非被生的，而是生者與被生者的甘美，以浩大的慷慨與豐盈澆灌一切受造物，各按其容量，使它們保持自己的秩序，安息於自己的位分。所以這一切藉神聖藝術所造之物，都在自身中顯出某種合一、形相與秩序。
29:39
Quidquid enim horum est et unum aliquid est sicut sunt naturae corporum ingeniaque animarum, et aliqua specie formatur sicut sunt figurae uel qualitates corporum ac doctrinae uel artes animarum, et ordinem aliquem petit aut tenet sicut sunt pondera uel conlocationes corporum atque amores aut delectationes animarum. Oportet igitur ut creatorem per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspicientes trinitatem intellegamus cuius in creatura quomodo dignum est apparet uestigium. In illa enim trinitate summa origo est rerum omnium et perfectissima pulchritudo et beatissima delectatio. Itaque illa tria et a se inuicem determinari uidentur et in se infinita sunt.
For whatever of these things there is, is both some one thing, as are the natures of bodies and the endowments of souls; and is formed by some form, as are the figures or qualities of bodies and the teachings or arts of souls; and seeks or holds some order, as are the weights or arrangements of bodies and the loves or delights of souls. It behoves us, therefore, beholding the Creator understood through the things that are made, to understand the Trinity, of which a trace appears in the creature in such manner as is fitting. For in that Trinity is the supreme origin of all things, and the most perfect beauty, and the most blessed delight. And so those three seem both to be bounded by one another mutually, and to be infinite in themselves.
因為這些事物中無論有甚麼，既是某個「一」，如物體的本性和靈魂的稟賦；又被某種形相所塑造，如物體的形狀或性質、靈魂的學問或技藝；又尋求或持守某種秩序，如物體的重量或安排、靈魂的愛或愉悅。所以我們應當藉所造之物去領悟造物主，從而領悟三位一體，其蹤跡以相稱的方式顯現於受造物之中。因為在那三位一體中，有萬物至高的本源、最完全的美麗、最有福的愉悅。因此那三者既彷彿彼此相互限定，又在其自身中無限。
29:40
{Sed hic in rebus corporeis non tantum est una quantum tres simul, et plus aliquid sunt duae quam una res; ceterum in summa trinitate tantum est una quantum tres simul, nec plus aliquid sunt duae quam una, et in se infinita sunt.} Ita et singula sunt in singulis et omnia in singulis et singula in omnibus et omnia in omnibus et unum omnia. Qui uidet hoc uel ex parte uel per speculum in aenigmate gaudeat cognoscens deum et sicut deum honoret et gratias agat; qui autem non uidet tendat per pietatem ad uidendum, non per caecitatem ad calumniandum, quoniam unus est deus sed tamen trinitas. Nec confuse accipiendum est, ex quo omnia, per quem omnia, in quem omnia;
{But here in corporeal things one is not as much as three together, and two things are something more than one thing; whereas in the supreme Trinity one is as much as three together, nor are two anything more than one, and they are infinite in themselves.} So both each single one is in each, and all are in each, and each is in all, and all are in all, and all are one. Let him who sees this, whether in part or through a glass in an enigma, rejoice in knowing God, and honour him as God and give thanks; but let him who does not see stretch out through piety toward seeing, not through blindness toward slandering, since God is one, yet nevertheless Trinity. Nor is it to be taken confusedly, 'from whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things';
﹝但在此有形之物中，「一」不等於三者一同之量，而二物比一物多出些甚麼；然而在至高的三位一體中，「一」等同於三者一同之量，二也不比一多出甚麼，且它們在其自身中無限。﹞如此，各個別者既在各者之中，又是眾者在各者之中，各者在眾者之中，眾者在眾者之中，而萬者為一。凡見此者，無論是部分地見，或「如同對著鏡子觀看，模糊不清」地見，願他因認識神而歡喜，並如神般尊榮祂、感謝祂；至於那看不見的，願他藉敬虔向著「看見」而伸展，而非藉盲目向著毀謗，因為神是獨一的，卻仍是三位一體。也不可混淆地領會「萬有都本於祂、倚靠祂、歸於祂」；
29:41
nec diis multis, sed ipsi gloria in saecula saeculorum. Amen.
nor unto many gods, but to him be glory unto ages of ages. Amen.
也不是歸於眾多的神，而是願榮耀歸給祂，直到世世代代。阿們。
← ch. 28ch. 30 →
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344