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

← All books · Latin Fathers › In Defence of the Three Chapters

Facundus of Hermiane

In Defence of the Three Chapters 4

Latin original · 25 verses · some words can be tapped for a gloss

← ch. 3ch. 5 →
4:1
Sane tacendum non arbitror quod sint etiam catholici * qui, sicut credimus, nescienles hoc ante b memorata synodo conlirmatum, superflue contra de verbo contendant: quia videtur eis quod dici non debeat Ullum de Trinitate pro nobis crucifixum, sed potius unam de Trinitate personam. Mos ergo tanquam propinquos prius nobis sociare debemus, ut ipsi quoque nohiscum hanc confessionem teneant, in qua non potest, sicut plerisque videtur 6, Nestorianorum dolus abscondi: ne cum inaniter de verbo contendunt, rei controversiam minus examinate definiant.
Indeed I do not think it should be passed over in silence that there are also Catholics who—because, as we believe, they do not know that this was confirmed by the aforementioned synod—needlessly dispute over the word: for it seems to them that one ought not to say that one of the Trinity was crucified for us, but rather one person of the Trinity. We must therefore first join them to ourselves as kinsmen, that they too may hold this confession with us—a confession in which, as it seems to most, the deceit of the Nestorians cannot be hidden—lest, while they vainly dispute over the word, they should define the controversy of the matter with too little examination.
實在，我認為不應緘默不言：也有一些公教信徒，照我們所信，因為不知道此事已被前述公會議確認，便多此一舉地在字句上爭辯：因為在他們看來，不應說「三位一體中的一位曾為我們被釘十字架」，而寧可說「三位一體中的一個位格」。因此我們應當先把他們如近親一般聯合於我們，好叫他們也與我們一同持守這信認；在此信認中，正如多數人所見，聶斯多留派的詭計無法隱藏；免得他們在字句上空洞地爭辯時，反而對事情的爭議未經詳審就妄下定論。
4:2
Nam cuti Dominum nostrum Jesum Chri lum sic perhibeant unam esse de Trinitate personam, ut et Dei subsistentiam unam esse non denegent, quae naturarum adunalione, id est divinitatis et humanitatis, existat; eumdem esse dicentes Deum quem humiliem, nec aliter beum, aliter hominem, sed et hoc et illud similiter, id est naturaliter, de verbo contendere mihi videntur. Siquidem hoc etiam suo sennone demonstrant. Si enim dicamus, inquit, unum de Trinitate pro nobis cruciGxuin, si quis interroget quid unum dicamus, non possumus respondere Deum aut Filium, quia non tres sunt in Trinitate dii vel filii, ex quibus unus crucifixus dicatur:
For since they affirm our Lord Jesus Christ to be one person of the Trinity in such a way that they do not deny that the subsistence of God is also one, which exists by the union of the natures, that is, of divinity and humanity—saying that he is the same God who is man, and not God in one respect and man in another, but both the one and the other alike, that is, by nature—they seem to me to dispute merely over the word. Indeed they show this even by their own speech. For, they say, if we should say that one of the Trinity was crucified for us, and someone should ask what we call 'one,' we cannot answer 'God' or 'the Son,' because there are not three gods or sons in the Trinity, from whom one might be said to be crucified.
因為他們既如此主張我們的主耶穌基督是三位一體中的一個位格，以致也不否認天主的存有（自立體）是一個，這存有乃由兩性的結合，即神性與人性的結合而存在；他們又說那作天主的與那作人的是同一位，並非在此處為天主、在彼處為人，而是兩者一樣地、即本性地兼具——在我看來，他們不過是在字句上爭辯而已。事實上他們自己的言論也表明了這點。因為他們說：倘若我們說「三位一體中的一位曾為我們被釘十字架」，若有人問我們所說的「一位」是指什麼，我們不能回答說「天主」或「聖子」，因為三位一體中並沒有三位神或三位子，可以說其中一位被釘十字架。
4:3
et ideo recte dicimus unam de Trinitalc crucitixam esse personam, quoniam tres sunt in Trinitate personae, ex quibus una crucifixa dicatur. At hæc non generalis est loqucndi regula, sed quædam privata lex, quam sibi sua contentione fecerunt. Nam in tantum necesse non est tres intelligi deos aut filios, si unus de Trinitate crucifixus dicatur; ut ita in Genesi scriberetur: Ecce factus est Adam unus ex nobis (Gen. III, 22). Quod utique non ex solius persona Patris, neque ex solius Filii, vel Spiritus sancti, dictum accipitur; sed tota ipsa Trinitas, id est Paler, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus, illic inducitur loqui; ideo pluraliter ex nobis dictum est.
and therefore, they say, we rightly say that one person of the Trinity was crucified, since there are three persons in the Trinity, of whom one may be said to be crucified. But this is not a general rule of speech, but a kind of private law which they have made for themselves by their contention. For it is so little necessary to understand three gods or sons if one of the Trinity is said to be crucified, that in Genesis it is thus written: 'Behold, Adam is become as one of us' (Gen. 3:22). This is certainly not taken to be said from the person of the Father alone, nor of the Son alone, or of the Holy Spirit; but the whole Trinity itself, that is, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is there represented as speaking; therefore it is said in the plural, 'of us.'
他們又說：所以我們正確地說，三位一體中的一個位格被釘十字架，因為三位一體中有三個位格，可以說其中一個被釘十字架。然而這並非一般的語言規則，而是他們因自己的爭辯而為自己訂立的某種私自的律法。因為若說「三位一體中的一位被釘十字架」，根本不必理解為有三位神或三位子；正如《創世紀》如此記載：「看哪，亞當已成了我們中的一個」（創三22）。這話當然不能理解為單從聖父一位的位格、或單從聖子、或聖神而說的；而是整個三位一體，即聖父、聖子、聖神，在那裡被引述為說話者；所以才用複數說「我們中的」。
4:4
Cur igitur non ibi Scriptura dicit, Ecce factus est Adam una persona ex nostris personis, sed potius, Fece factus est Adam unus ex nobis? Nunquid unus Deus ex nobis, quasi ex tribus ? aut unus Pater ex nobis, quasi ex tribus patribus a ? aut unus Filius, vel Spiritus sanctus ex nobis, quasi ex tribus filiis, vel spiritibus sanctis ? Quis hoc vel insanus dixit 1 ? Nullus autem de Trinitate melius loqui potest, quam ipsa de se locuta cst Trinitas. Non ergo sequitur ut, cum dicitur unus de Trinitatc Dominus Jesus Christus, unus Deus, aut unus Filius subaudialur ex tribus diis aut filiis. Tres tamen sunt, Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus, ex quibus unus recte dicitur Dominus Jesus Christus.
Why then does Scripture not there say, 'Behold, Adam is become one person of our persons,' but rather, 'Behold, Adam is become as one of us'? Is it 'one God of us,' as though of three? or 'one Father of us,' as though of three fathers? or 'one Son, or Holy Spirit, of us,' as though of three sons or holy spirits? Who, even if mad, has said this? No one can speak of the Trinity better than the Trinity itself has spoken of itself. It does not therefore follow that, when one of the Trinity is called the Lord Jesus Christ, 'one God' or 'one Son' should be understood as out of three gods or sons. Yet there are three, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, of whom one is rightly called the Lord Jesus Christ.
那麼，為什麼《聖經》在那裡不說「看哪，亞當已成了我們眾位格中的一個位格」，反而說「看哪，亞當已成了我們中的一個」呢？難道是「我們中的一位神」，彷彿出於三位神嗎？或是「我們中的一位父」，彷彿出於三位父嗎？或是「我們中的一位子，或聖神」，彷彿出於三位子或三位聖神嗎？有誰，即使瘋了，會這樣說呢？沒有人能比三位一體自己論及自己更妥善地論說三位一體。因此，當稱主耶穌基督為「三位一體中的一位」時，並不能推論說「一位神」或「一位子」是要被理解為出於三位神或三位子。然而確有三位，即聖父、聖子、聖神，可以正確地說其中一位是主耶穌基督。
4:5
Nam et Joannes apostolus in Epistola sua de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto sic dicit: Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, spiritus, aqua, et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt (1 Joan. V, 8): in spiritu significans Patrem, sicut Dominus mulieri Samaritanæ secundum ipsius Joannis Evangelium loquitur, dicens; Crede mihi, quia veniet hora quando neque in monte hoc, neque in Hierosolymis adorabitis Patrem. Vos adoratis quod nescitis, nos adoramus quod scimus: quia salus ex Judæis CII. Sed venit hora, et HUnC est, quando veri adoratores adorabunt Patrem in spiritu ct veritate: nam et Pater tales quærit qui adorent CuJU.
For John the Apostle also in his Epistle speaks thus of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit: 'There are three that give testimony on earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one' (1 John 5:8): by the spirit signifying the Father, as the Lord speaks to the Samaritan woman according to the Gospel of the same John, saying: 'Believe me, that the hour cometh, when you shall neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, adore the Father. You adore that which you know not; we adore that which we know, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father also seeketh such to adore him.'
因為宗徒若望在他的書信中也如此論及聖父、聖子和聖神：「在地上作見證的有三：就是聖神、水和血；這三者歸於一」（若一五8）：他以「聖神」指聖父，正如照若望自己的福音，主對撒瑪黎雅婦人所說：「你相信我罷！到了時候，你們將不在這座山上，也不在耶路撒冷朝拜父。你們朝拜你們所不認識的，我們朝拜我們所認識的，因為救恩是出於猶太人。然而時候要到，且現在就是，那些真正朝拜的人，將以心神以真理朝拜父，因為父就是尋找這樣朝拜他的人。」
4:6
Spiritus est Deus, et eos qui adorant eum, in spiritu et veritate oportet adorare (Joan. IV, 21). In aqua vero Spiritum sanctum significans, sicut in eodem suo Evangelio exponit verba Domini dicentis: Si quis sitit, veniat ad me, et bibat. Qui credit in me, sicut dicit Scriptura, flumina de ventre ejus fluent aquæ Miræ. Ubi subsecutus adjecit: Hoc autem dicebat de Spiritu, quem accepturi erant credentes in cum. Nondum enim erat Spiritus datus, quia Jesus nondum fuerat glorificatus (Joan. VII, 57). In sanguine vero Filium significans, quoniam ipse ex sancta Trinitate communicavit carni et sanguini.
'God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth' (John 4:21). But by the water signifying the Holy Spirit, as in the same his Gospel he expounds the words of the Lord saying: 'If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink. He that believeth in me, as the Scripture saith, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.' Whereupon, following, he added: 'Now this he said of the Spirit which they should receive who believed in him; for as yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified' (John 7:37). But by the blood signifying the Son, since he alone of the holy Trinity partook of flesh and blood.
「天主是神，朝拜他的人，應當以心神以真理去朝拜」（若四21）。他又以「水」指聖神，正如他在同一部福音中解釋主的話說：「誰若渴，到我這裡來喝罷！凡信從我的，就如《經》上所說：從他的腹中要流出活水的江河。」隨後他補充說：「他說這話，是指那信仰他的人將要領受的聖神，因為那時還沒有賜下聖神，因為耶穌還沒有受到光榮」（若七37）。他又以「血」指聖子，因為唯獨他在至聖三位一體中分受了血肉。
4:7
Non ergo ait Joannes apostolus loquens de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto, tres sunt personæ quæ testificantur in terra, spiritus, aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt 2. Quid ergo pro Joanne respondent apostolo ? Qui sunt hi tres, qui in terra testificari, et qui unum esse dicuntur? num dii? num patres? num filii, aut spiritus sancti? Non utique, sed hi tres, Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus sunt, tamenetsi non invenitur unum nomen, quod de omnibus communiter masculino genere prædicetur, sicut communiter de illis personae prædicantur genere feminino. Aut si forsilan ipsi qui de verbo contendunt, iD eo quod dixit:
John the Apostle, then, speaking of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, does not say, 'There are three persons that give testimony on earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.' What, then, do they answer on behalf of the Apostle John? Who are these three that are said to testify on earth, and to be one? Are they gods? are they fathers? are they sons, or holy spirits? By no means; but these three are the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit—although there is found no one noun that may be predicated of them all in common in the masculine gender, as the word 'persons' is predicated of them in common in the feminine gender. Or if perhaps those who dispute over the word, in that he said:
那麼，宗徒若望論及聖父、聖子和聖神時，並沒有說：「在地上作見證的有三個位格，就是聖神、水和血，這三者歸於一。」那麼他們要替宗徒若望怎樣回答呢？那被說在地上作見證、且歸於一的「這三者」是誰呢？難道是諸神嗎？難道是諸父嗎？難道是諸子，或諸聖神嗎？絕不是，而是這三者乃聖父、聖子和聖神——雖然找不出一個陽性名詞可以共同地稱謂他們眾位，正如「位格」一詞可以陰性共同地稱謂他們。又或者，那些在字句上爭辯的人，在他所說的話中：
4:8
Tres sunt qui testificantur in terra, spiritus, aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt, Trinitatem quæ unus Deus est, nolunt intelligi, secundum ipsa verba quæ posuit pre apostolo Joanne respondeant. Nunquid hi tres, qui in terra testificari et qui unum esse dicuntur, possunt spiritus, aut aquæ, aut sanguines dici ? Quod tamen Joannis apostoli testimonium beatus Cyprianus Carthaginiensis antistes et martyr in epistola sive libro quem de Trinitate' scripsit, de Palre et Filio et Spiritu sancto diclum intelligit. Ait enim (tom. II): < Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus (Joan. x, 30); ct iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est, et hi tres unum sunt (1 Joau. v, 7).
'There are three that give testimony on earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one'—if they refuse to understand the Trinity, which is one God, let them answer according to the very words which he set down on behalf of the Apostle John. Can these three, who are said to testify on earth and to be one, be called 'spirits,' or 'waters,' or 'bloods'? Yet this testimony of the Apostle John, blessed Cyprian, bishop of Carthage and martyr, in the epistle or book which he wrote on the Trinity, understands to be spoken of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For he says (vol. II): 'The Lord says, I and the Father are one (John 10:30); and again of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written, and these three are one (1 John 5:7).'
「在地上作見證的有三：就是聖神、水和血，這三者歸於一」——他們既不願把這話理解為「那作為唯一天主的三位一體」，就讓他們按照他替宗徒若望所寫下的字句來回答。難道這被說在地上作見證、且歸於一的「三者」，可以稱為「諸聖神」，或「諸水」，或「諸血」嗎？然而宗徒若望的這一見證，迦太基的主教兼殉道者聖西彼廉，在他所寫關於三位一體的書信或書卷中，理解為是論及聖父、聖子和聖神的。因為他說（卷二）：「主說：『我與父原是一體』（若十30）；又論及聖父、聖子和聖神，《經》上記載說：『這三者歸於一』（若一五7）。」
4:9
» Proinde considerare debent qui verborum captionibus snpervacue student, quia non simul et conjuncte dicimus unum Filium ex Trinitate crucifixum, ul tres aut duos filios inducere videamur; sed prius dicentes, quod magna synodus confirmavit, unum ex Trinitate incarnatum, vel passum, vel crucifixuri, cum interrogati fuerimus, quem unum de Trinitate dicamus, recte postea respondemus, Filium. Non autem recte simul diceretur unus filius ex Trinitate incarnatus, aut passus, aut crucifixus. Sed non est consequens ut quæ simul non recte dicuntur, etiam singillatim non recte dicantur.
Accordingly those who needlessly busy themselves with verbal cavils ought to consider that we do not say all together and conjointly 'one Son of the Trinity was crucified,' so as to seem to introduce three or two sons; but first saying, what the great synod confirmed, that one of the Trinity was incarnate, or suffered, or was crucified, then, when we are asked which one of the Trinity we mean, we rightly afterwards answer, 'the Son.' But it would not be rightly said, all together, 'one son of the Trinity was incarnate, or suffered, or was crucified.' Yet it does not follow that things which are not rightly said together are also not rightly said singly.
因此，那些徒然糾纏於字句把柄的人應當思量：我們並非把「三位一體中的一位聖子被釘十字架」一併連結地說出，以致彷彿引入三位或兩位子；而是先說（這正是大公會議所確認的）「三位一體中的一位曾降生、或受苦、或被釘十字架」；然後，當我們被問及所指三位一體中的哪一位時，我們才正確地回答說：「聖子」。但若把「三位一體中的一位子曾降生、或受苦、或被釘十字架」一併連結地說，就不正確了。然而不能由此推論說：凡一併連結地說不正確的，分開單獨地說也必不正確。
4:10
Ac ne hoc dissimulent intelligere, aut fortasse uon possint, verborum suorum vel convincantur vel admoneantur exemplo. Nam et ipsi, cum recte dicant unam ex Trinitate personam crucifixam, secundum quod ille etiam vir beatus et doctrinae admirabilis Augustinus, in opere quod scripsit de Prædestinatione et persevcrantia sanctorum, docet 5: < Fidelis qui in eo veram naturam credit et contitetur humanam, id est nostram, quamvis singulariter suscipientc Deo Verbo, in unicum Dei Filium sublimatam: ita ut qui suscepit, et quod suscepit, una esset in Trinitate persona. > Cum igitur et ipsi, quemadmodum docuimus I, juxta docLriuam Patrum recte dicant unam ex Trinitate personam crucifixam;
And lest they pretend not to understand this, or perhaps cannot, let them be either convinced or admonished by the example of their own words. For they themselves, when they rightly say that one person of the Trinity was crucified—according to what that blessed man, admirable in doctrine, Augustine, teaches in the work which he wrote on the Predestination and Perseverance of the saints: 'The faithful one who believes and confesses in him a true human nature, that is, ours, though singularly taken up by God the Word, exalted into the one Son of God: so that he who took it up, and that which he took up, should be one person in the Trinity.' Since therefore they too, as we have taught, according to the doctrine of the Fathers rightly say that one person of the Trinity was crucified;
為免他們佯裝不懂此理，或者實在不能懂，就讓他們由自己言辭的例證得以折服或受警惕。因為他們自己既然正確地說「三位一體中的一個位格被釘十字架」——正如那位德行卓著、學識可欽的奧斯定，在他所寫《論聖徒的預定與堅忍》一書中所教導的：「凡信徒在他身上相信並承認真實的人性，即我們的人性，雖然這人性是由天主聖言以獨特的方式所取，而被高舉成為天主的獨子：以致那取人性者，與那被取的人性，在三位一體中乃是一個位格。」既然如此，他們自己也照我們所教導的，按照教父的道理正確地說「三位一體中的一個位格被釘十字架」；
4:11
et itera interrogati cujus eamdem dicant esse personam, recte respondeant, Filii; non tamen quod singillatim recte dicunt, etiam simul et conjuncte recte dicere poterunt, id est, unam personam Filii ex Trinitate crucifixam, quasi duæ personæ sint Filii. * Sicut ergo, quamvis non recte simul dicatur una persona Filii ex Trinitate crucifixa, et recte item 2 de ipsa per. sona singillatim dicitur quod Filii sit: ita quamvis non recte simul dicatur, unus filius ex Trinitate crucifixus, recte tamen singillatim dicitur unus ex Trinitate crucifixus, et item de ipso uno quod Filius sit. Quocirca, recte dicitur unus ex Trinitate crucifixus, et una ex Trinitate persona.
and likewise, when asked whose person they say it is, they rightly answer, 'the Son's'; nevertheless what they rightly say singly, they will not be able also to say rightly all together and conjointly, that is, 'one person of the Son out of the Trinity was crucified,' as though there were two persons of the Son. Just as, therefore, although it is not rightly said together, 'one person of the Son out of the Trinity was crucified,' yet it is rightly said of that same person singly that it is the Son's: so, although it is not rightly said together, 'one son out of the Trinity was crucified,' yet it is rightly said singly, 'one out of the Trinity was crucified,' and likewise of that one, that he is the Son. Wherefore it is rightly said both 'one of the Trinity was crucified,' and 'one person of the Trinity.'
並且，當他們被問及所說的是誰的位格時，也正確地回答說：「是聖子的」；然而他們分開單獨所正確說的，卻不能一併連結地正確說出，即不能說「三位一體中的一個聖子的位格被釘十字架」，彷彿有兩個聖子的位格似的。所以，正如雖然不能一併地正確說「三位一體中的一個聖子的位格被釘十字架」，卻可以分開單獨地正確說該位格乃是聖子的：照樣，雖然不能一併地正確說「三位一體中的一個子被釘十字架」，卻仍可以分開單獨地正確說「三位一體中的一位被釘十字架」，並照樣論及那一位說他乃是聖子。因此，可以正確地說「三位一體中的一位被釘十字架」，也可正確地說「三位一體中的一個位格被釘十字架」。
4:12
Sed unam dicere personam Nestorianorum nova subterfugia minus excludit: qui convicti innumeris testimoniis Patrum, quod Deus Verbum et assumptus homo una persona sit, pro auctoritatis dignilate ab eis hoc vel existimant dictum, vel existimare se fingunt, ut sic homo Jesus Christus. dicatur Verbi gessisse personam, sicut etiam gessit Apostolus, qui scribens ad Corintbios dicit: Nam et ego quod donavi a, propler vos in persona Christi, ut non circumveniamur a Satana (II Cor. II, 10); non ut unus idemque esset Deus et homo.
But to say 'one person' does not sufficiently exclude the new evasions of the Nestorians; who, convicted by countless testimonies of the Fathers that God the Word and the assumed man are one person, on account of the dignity of authority either think this was said by them, or pretend to think so, in such a sense that the man Jesus Christ is said to have borne the person of the Word, just as the Apostle also bore it, who writing to the Corinthians says: 'For what I have pardoned, I have done it for your sakes in the person of Christ, that we be not overreached by Satan' (2 Cor. 2:10); not that one and the same should be God and man.
然而只說「一個位格」尚不足以排除聶斯多留派新的遁辭：他們既被教父無數的見證所折服，承認天主聖言與所取的人乃是一個位格，便因顧及那些權威的尊嚴，或以為教父是這樣說的，或佯裝以為如此——其意是說：人耶穌基督被稱為扮演了聖言的位格，正如宗徒也曾扮演那位格一樣；宗徒寫信給格林多人時說：「我所寬恕的，是為了你們，當著基督的面（在基督的位格中）寬恕的，免得我們受撒殫的暗算」（格後二10）；而不是說天主與人乃同一位。
4:13
Cum vero et unus ex Trinitate, et una ex Trinitate persona pro nobis crucifixa recte dicatur, hanc uti- I litatem qua i fraus Nestorianorum a sancta et magna synodo sufficienter exclusa est, intelligere et approbare jam debent qui dici nolebant unum de Trinitate pro nobis incarnatum, vel passum, vel crucifixum. Qui etiam si nulla invitaret utilitas, neque hoc esset tantæ synodi auctoritate firmatum, modestius facerent acquiescere sapienti Gregorio, qui de vocabulorum diversitate dissidendum non esse decrevit (Gregor. Nazianzenus orat. 39). In eo enim sermone cujus est titulus: De luminibus, ita locutus est: « Deum cum nomino, uno lumine illustramini, simul et tribus.
But since both 'one of the Trinity' and 'one person of the Trinity was crucified for us' are rightly said, those who refused to say that one of the Trinity was incarnate, or suffered, or was crucified for us, ought now to understand and approve this benefit, by which the fraud of the Nestorians has been sufficiently excluded by the holy and great synod. And even if no benefit invited it, nor were this confirmed by the authority of so great a synod, they would act more modestly to acquiesce in the wise Gregory, who decreed that there should be no dissension over diversity of terms (Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 39). For in that sermon whose title is 'On the Lights,' he spoke thus: 'When I name God, you are illumined by one light, and at the same time by three.'
既然「三位一體中的一位」和「三位一體中的一個位格曾為我們被釘十字架」都可以正確地說，那麼那些先前不願說「三位一體中的一位曾為我們降生、或受苦、或被釘十字架」的人，如今就應當明白並贊同這一益處，藉此益處，至聖的大公會議已充分排除了聶斯多留派的詭詐。即使沒有任何益處促使如此，也沒有如此偉大公會議的權威加以確認，他們若順從睿智的額我略，也更顯謙遜；額我略曾裁定，不應為字詞的差異而起爭執（納齊安的額我略，講道第39篇）。因為在那篇題為《論諸光》的講道中，他如此說：「當我稱呼天主時，你們便被一道光，同時也被三道光所照耀。」
4:14
Tribus quidem, secundum uniuscujusque proprietates sive personas. Nihil enim pro vocabulorum diversitate dissidendum est, cum ad eumdem Mensum omnium diversitas provocet intellectum. > Dum igitur et magna nos ad hanc confessionem invitet utilitas, et non inaudila et nova sit illa vox de qoa nobis deliberare sit liberum an admitti debeat, quam divinarum Scripturarum testimoniis convenire etiam a tantis Patribus confirmatum esse docuimus, nihilque de verbo sit dissidendum, placere omnibus debet ut unus ex Trinitate, vel de Trinitate, crucifixus pro una persona dicatur.
'By three indeed, according to the properties or persons of each one. For nothing should be disputed over diversity of terms, since the diversity of all calls the understanding to the same meaning.' Since therefore a great benefit invites us to this confession, and that expression—about which we should be free to deliberate whether it ought to be admitted—is neither unheard-of nor new, but one which we have shown to be in agreement with the testimonies of the divine Scriptures, confirmed also by so many Fathers, and since there should be no dispute over the word, it ought to please all that 'one of the Trinity, or from the Trinity, was crucified' be said for 'one person.'
「實在是三道光，乃按各位的特性或位格而言。因為不應為字詞的差異而起爭執，既然這一切差異都引人理解趨向同一個意義。」既然有極大的益處邀請我們作此信認，並且那一句話——關於它，我們本可自由斟酌是否應予接納——既非聞所未聞，也非新奇之說，反而正如我們已表明的，它與天主聖經的見證相符，也經如此眾多的教父所確認，並且不應為字句而起爭執，那麼眾人就都應樂於接受：把「三位一體中的（或出於三位一體的）一位被釘十字架」當作「一個位格」來說。
4:15
Quanquam si quis rem diligenter atlendat, et altius causam repetat, inveniet quod non sic dicimus, unus pro una persona, sed politis una persona pro uno ex Trinitate dicatur. Nam sic I Ecclesia Christi, etiam cum necdum ad distinctionem Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti uterctur nomine personæ 6, tres credidit et prædicavit, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum; sicut testimonio Joannis 7 supra docuimus, quo dictum est: Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, spiritus, aqua et sanguis; et hi tres unum sunt (I Joan. v, 8). Personarum autem nomen, non nisi cum Sabellius impugnaret Ecclesiam, necessario in usum predicationis assumptus est;
Although, if one attend to the matter diligently and trace the cause more deeply, he will find that we do not so say 'one' for 'one person,' but rather 'one person' is said for 'one of the Trinity.' For thus the Church of Christ, even when it did not yet use the name 'person' for the distinction of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, believed and preached three: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; as we have shown above by the testimony of John, where it is said: 'There are three that give testimony on earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one' (1 John 5:8). But the name 'persons' was not taken into the usage of preaching, of necessity, except when Sabellius assailed the Church;
不過，若有人仔細留意此事，並更深追究其緣由，便會發現我們並非如此以「一位」代替「一個位格」，反而是以「一個位格」代替「三位一體中的一位」。因為基督的教會，即使在尚未用「位格」這名稱來分別聖父、聖子和聖神之時，也已相信並宣講三者：聖父、聖子和聖神；正如我們上文藉若望的見證所表明的，那裡說：「在地上作見證的有三：就是聖神、水和血；這三者歸於一」（若一五8）。然而「位格」這名稱，唯有當撒伯里烏攻擊教會時，才不得不被採用於宣講之中；
4:16
ut qui semper tres crediti sunt et vocati, Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, uno quoque simul et communi personarum nomine vocaren. tur. Deinde ctiam subsistentiæ dictæ sunt, quoniam Ecclesiæ placuit, ad significandam Trinitatem, et hoc nomen distinctioni personali tribuere. Quæstio itaque aliquando de novo nomine personae et subsistentiæ fuit, utrum ad significandam Trinitatem, quae Deus est, deberet admitti, sicut et ipsius Trinitatis nomen admissum est: non de eo quod semper tenuit et prædicavit Ecclesia, quia tres sunt qui testificantur iu terra, et hi tres unum sunt. Unde etiam memoratus vir 8 Augustinus in quinto decimo de Trinitate Iibro (Cap. 3):
so that those who had always been believed and called three—the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit—might also be called together by one common name of 'persons.' Then also they were called 'subsistences,' since it pleased the Church, in order to signify the Trinity, to attribute this name too to the personal distinction. There was therefore at one time a question about the new name of 'person' and 'subsistence,' whether it ought to be admitted to signify the Trinity, which is God, just as the name of the Trinity itself was admitted: not about that which the Church always held and preached, that there are three that testify on earth, and these three are one. Whence also the aforementioned man Augustine, in the fifteenth book on the Trinity (chap. 3):
好叫那向來被相信、被稱為三者的聖父、聖子和聖神，也可同時以「位格」這一共同的名稱來稱呼。其後又被稱為「自立體（subsistentia）」，因為教會為了表明三位一體，也樂意把這名稱賦予位格的分別。所以一度曾有關於「位格」和「自立體」這新名稱的爭議，即這名稱是否應被採納以表明那作為天主的三位一體，正如「三位一體」這名稱本身已被採納一樣：而不是關於那教會向來持守並宣講的事，即「在地上作見證的有三，這三者歸於一」。因此前述的奧斯定在《論三位一體》第十五卷（第三章）也說：
4:17
< Clarum, inquit, est in substantia veritatis, non solum Patrem Filio non esse majorem, sed nec ambos simul aliquid majus esse quam solum Spiritum sanctum; aut quoslibet duos in eadem Tricitate majus aliquid esse quain unum; aut omnes simul tres, majus aliquid esse quam singulos. » Nec ait vir cautissimus et sapientissimus ambas personas simul aliquid esse majus in substantia veritatis quam solum Spiritum sanctum, quod quidem recte, si vellet, diceret; sed polius ambos: neque ait quaslibet duas personas in eadem Trinitate majus esse aliquid quam unam, sed quoslibet duos in eadem Trinitate majus esse aliquid quam unum;
'It is clear,' he says, 'in the substance of truth, not only that the Father is not greater than the Son, but that neither are both together anything greater than the Holy Spirit alone; or that any two in the same Trinity are anything greater than one; or that all three together are anything greater than each singly.' And the most cautious and most wise man did not say that 'both persons together' are anything greater in the substance of truth than the Holy Spirit alone—which indeed he might rightly say, if he wished—but rather 'both'; nor did he say that 'any two persons' in the same Trinity are anything greater than 'one,' but 'any two in the same Trinity are anything greater than one';
他說：「在真理的本體中，顯然不僅聖父並不大於聖子，而且聖父聖子二者合起來也不大於單獨的聖神；同一三位一體中任何二者也不大於一者；三者合起來也不大於各別一者。」這位極謹慎、極睿智之人並沒有說「兩個位格合起來」在真理的本體中大於單獨的聖神（其實他若願意，這樣說也是正確的），而是說「二者」；他也沒有說同一三位一體中「任何兩個位格」大於「一個位格」，而是說同一三位一體中「任何二者」大於「一者」；
4:18
neque dixit omnes simul tres personas majus aliquid esse quam singulas, sed omnes simul tres majus aliquid esse quam singulos. Quod si hujusmodi locutiones ex dictis proLatissimorum Palrum velim colligere, ante me tempus quam exempla deficiet. Nihil est igitur quod dc verbo reprehendamur, dicentes unum de Trinitate incarnatum, sive passum, sive crucifixum. Quod etiam sancta Chalcedonensis synodus, divinarum Scripturarum auctoritate et antiquissimorum Patrum testimonis informata, videns a magno Proclo ad Armenos utiliter scriptum, et a sapientissimo Joanne Antiocheno et cæteris orientalibus episcopis in con. cilio approbatum, convenienter ipsa quoque linnavit.
nor did he say 'all three persons together are anything greater than each,' but 'all three together are anything greater than each.' But if I should wish to collect expressions of this kind from the sayings of the most approved Fathers, time would fail me sooner than examples. There is therefore no reason that we should be reproached over the word, in saying that one of the Trinity was incarnate, or suffered, or was crucified. This too the holy Council of Chalcedon, informed by the authority of the divine Scriptures and the testimonies of the most ancient Fathers, seeing what had been usefully written by the great Proclus to the Armenians, and approved by the most wise John of Antioch and the other Eastern bishops in council, fittingly itself also confirmed.
他也沒有說「三個位格合起來大於各別一個位格」，而是說「三者合起來大於各別一者」。倘若我願意從那些最受推崇的教父言論中蒐集這類說法，那麼時間必先於例證而用盡。因此，我們說「三位一體中的一位曾降生、或受苦、或被釘十字架」，並無任何可在字句上受責備之處。這事，至聖的加采東公會議，既受天主聖經的權威與最古老教父的見證所教導，又見到偉大的普羅克魯斯致亞美尼亞人所作的有益著述，以及極睿智的安提約基雅的若望和其他東方主教在會議中所贊同的，於是也合宜地加以確認。
4:19
Et ideo hanc rcligiosam et necessariam vocem suscipientes qui de verbo superflue contendebant, ita jam nobiscum Nestorianos urgere debent ac premere, ut non tantum unam ex Trinitale personam dicant, quod illi male, sicut jam diximus, interpretantur; sed etiam unum ex Trinitate passum, quod nulla fraude possint eludere. Quibus Nestorianis hoc modo gravius insistimus, si eis dicamus: Certum est accipere vos nobiscum quia Trinitatem, quae unus Dens est, significavit Apostolus dicens: 0 altitudo divitiarum sapientiæ et scientiæ Dei! quam incomprehensibitia sunt judicia ejus et investigabiles viæ ejus !
And therefore those who were needlessly disputing over the word, now receiving this religious and necessary expression, ought thus together with us to press and urge the Nestorians, so as to say not only 'one person of the Trinity'—which they wrongly interpret, as we have already said—but also 'one of the Trinity suffered,' which they can by no fraud evade. Upon these Nestorians we press more heavily in this way, if we say to them: It is certain that you accept with us that the Apostle signified the Trinity, which is one God, when he said: 'O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! how incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways!'
因此，那些先前在字句上多此一舉爭辯的人，如今既接納了這虔敬而必要的說法，就應當與我們一同如此催逼、壓制聶斯多留派，使他們不僅說「三位一體中的一個位格」（這話他們如我們所說地錯誤解釋），而且也說「三位一體中的一位受了苦」，這話他們無論用什麼詭計都無法迴避。我們以這種方式更嚴厲地逼問這些聶斯多留派，若我們對他們說：你們必然與我們一同承認，宗徒所指的乃是那作為唯一天主的三位一體，他說：「啊，天主的富饒、智慧和知識，是多麼高深！他的決斷是多麼不可測量！他的道路是多麼不可探究！」
4:20
Quis enim cognovit sensum Domini, aut quis consiliarius ejus fuit 9 aut quis prius dedit illi, et retribuetur ei ? Quoniam ex ipso, et per ipsum, et in ipso sunt omnia: ipsi gloria in sæcula (Rom. XI, 33). Ex ipso dicens, ex Patre; per ipsum vero, per Filium, sicut alibi dicit: Nobis tamen unus Deus Pater, ex quo omnia, et nos in illo I; et unus Dominus Jesus Christus, per quem omnia, et nos per ipsum (1 Cor. VIII, 6). In ipso vero, in Spiritu sancto: de quo Salomon ait: Quoniam spiritus Dei replevit orbem terrarum, et hoc quod continet omnia, scientiam habet vocis (Sap. i, 7); nec aliud est in ipso esse omnia, nisi ab ipso omnia contineri.
'For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and recompense shall be made him? For of him, and by him, and in him, are all things: to him be glory for ever' (Rom. 11:33). Saying 'of him,' that is, of the Father; 'by him,' that is, by the Son, as he says elsewhere: 'Yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him' (1 Cor. 8:6). And 'in him,' that is, in the Holy Spirit: of whom Solomon says: 'For the spirit of the Lord hath filled the whole world: and that which containeth all things hath knowledge of the voice' (Wisd. 1:7); nor is 'all things being in him' anything other than 'all things being contained by him.'
「有誰曾知道上主的心意？或者有誰曾當過他的顧問？有誰曾先施恩於他，而望得到報答呢？因為萬有都出於他，藉著他，並歸於他：願光榮歸於他，至於永遠」（羅十一33）。他說「出於他」，是指出於聖父；「藉著他」，是指藉著聖子，正如他在別處所說：「為我們只有一個天主，就是聖父，萬物都出於他，我們也歸於他；也只有一個主，就是耶穌基督，萬物藉他而有，我們也藉他而有」（格前八6）。而「歸於他（在他內）」，是指在聖神內：論到聖神，撒羅滿說：「因為上主的神充滿了世界，那包羅萬有者，洞悉一切言語」（智一7）；而「萬有在他內」無非就是「萬有為他所包含」。
4:21
Quæ cum ita sint, quomodo non unus ex hac Trinitate est Dominus Jesus Christus, cum, sicut ostendimus, idem dicat Apostolus: Unus Dominus Jesus Christus, per quem omnia, et nos per ipsum? Item cum ipse Dominus Jesus Christus, hanc Trinitatem nobis insinuans, in Evangelio discipulis I Buis dixerit: Euntes docete omnes gentes, baptizante. eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti (Matth. XXVIII, 19); quomodo Petrus apostolus Judæos exhortans diceret: Pœnitentiam agite, et baptizetur unusqnisque vestrum in nomine Jesu Christi, in remissionem peccatorum, et accipietis donum Spiritus sancti (Act. II, 38) ? aut quod simul' in eisdem Actis apostolorum legitur (Cap.
Since these things are so, how is the Lord Jesus Christ not one of this Trinity, when, as we have shown, the same Apostle says: 'One Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him'? Again, since the Lord Jesus Christ himself, intimating this Trinity to us, said to his disciples in the Gospel: 'Going, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' (Matt. 28:19); how would the Apostle Peter, exhorting the Jews, say: 'Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit' (Acts 2:38)? or what is likewise read in the same Acts of the Apostles (chap.
既然如此，主耶穌基督怎能不是這三位一體中的一位呢？因為正如我們所表明的，同一位宗徒說：「只有一個主，就是耶穌基督，萬物藉他而有，我們也藉他而有」？再者，主耶穌基督自己向我們暗示這三位一體，在福音中對他的門徒說：「你們去教訓萬民，因父及子及聖神之名給他們授洗」（瑪二十八19）；那麼宗徒伯多祿勸勉猶太人時，怎會說：「你們悔改罷！你們每人要因耶穌基督之名受洗，好赦免你們的罪過，並領受聖神的恩賜」（宗二38）呢？又如同一部《宗徒大事錄》中所載（第
4:22
XIX), quidam discipuli, quos ejus coapostolus Paulus Ephesi reperit baptisino tantum Joannis imbutos, ab eo admoniti baptizarentur in nomine Domini Jesu, si non unus esset ex TriniLate, in qua tantum baptizari præceptum est, Dominus Jesus Christus? Quod autem in nomine Domini Jesu hi quos memoravimus baptizati narrantur, non co credendum arbitror, quia non in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti baptizati sunt, ut etiain in ipsis servaretur verbis a Domino constituta forma baptismi;
chapter 19): certain disciples, whom his fellow Apostle Paul found at Ephesus instructed only in the baptism of John, were, on his admonition, baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus—if the Lord Jesus Christ were not one of the Trinity, in which alone it has been commanded to baptize? But that these whom we have mentioned are narrated to have been baptized 'in the name of the Lord Jesus,' I do not think we should believe to mean that they were not baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, so that even in the very words the form of baptism established by the Lord might be preserved;
十九章）：保祿——基督的另一位宗徒——在厄弗所遇見某些門徒，他們只領受了若望的洗禮，經保祿勸告後便奉主耶穌之名受洗；倘若主耶穌基督不是三位一體中的一位（而唯獨命人因這三位一體受洗），這事又怎能成立呢？至於說我們所提及的這些人被記載為「奉主耶穌之名」受洗，我認為不應理解為他們沒有因父及子及聖神之名受洗，以致連在那些字句中也保存了主所訂立的洗禮程式；
4:23
sed quia hoc erat insinuandum quod baplismo novo fuerint baptizati, sufficere iudicatum est ad discretionem ipslus novi baptismi solum nomen Domini Jesu memorare, quod neque in baptismo Joannis, neque in aliis baptismis Judaici ritus interserebatur. Cæterum illis sacratis verbis, id est, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, baptizati mihi videntur. Nec mendaciter dictum, quod absit, existimo: Baptizetur unusquisque vestrum in nomine Jesu Christi, aut quia baptizati sunt quidam in nomine Domini Jesu: quoniam certissime in DOmine Jesu 3 baptizabant apostoli, etsi non in solius Domini Jesu, id est Filii, nomine baptizabant, verum etiam in Patris et Spiritus sancti.
but because it was to be intimated that they had been baptized with a new baptism, it was judged sufficient, to distinguish this new baptism itself, to mention only the name of the Lord Jesus—which was inserted neither in the baptism of John nor in the other baptisms of the Jewish rite. As for the rest, they seem to me to have been baptized with those sacred words, that is, 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.' Nor do I think it was said falsely—far be it—'Let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ,' or that 'certain were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus': since most certainly the Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus, even if they did not baptize in the name of the Lord Jesus alone, that is, of the Son, but also in that of the Father and of the Holy Spirit.
而是因為要表明他們是領受了一種新的洗禮，於是判定：為了分別這新洗禮本身，只提主耶穌之名便已足夠——這名既不見於若望的洗禮，也不見於猶太禮儀的其他洗禮之中。至於其餘，依我看，他們是奉那些神聖的字句，即「因父及子及聖神之名」受了洗。我也不認為（絕無此理）以下的話是虛謊地說的：「你們每人要因耶穌基督之名受洗」，或「某些人奉主耶穌之名受了洗」：因為宗徒們確確實實是奉耶穌之名授洗的，縱然他們並非單奉主耶穌（即聖子）之名授洗，而是也奉聖父和聖神之名授洗。
4:24
Ac per hoc arbitror quod, cum baptisma celebraretur, in ipsis quoque sacratis verbis servabatur illa forma baptismi; in narratione vero suniciebat, ad discretionem aliorum baptismatum, solius Domini Jesu facere mentionem. Propterea vero credo quod de omnium trium personarum commemoratione, Domini Jesu nomen ad insinuandum novum baptismum magis assumptum est, quoniam ipsi consepelimur per baptismum in mortem. Verumtamen non diceretur, nisi, ut jam asseruimus, unus esset ex Trinitate Dontinus Jesus Christus. His igitur atque aliis quamplurimis informatus, priusquam hoc a magna synodo Chalcedonensi appobatum esse cognoscerem, unum de Trinitate credidi Dominum Jesum Christum:
And by this I judge that, when baptism was celebrated, that form of baptism was preserved in the sacred words themselves; but in the narrative it sufficed, to distinguish it from other baptisms, to make mention of the Lord Jesus alone. And for this reason I believe that, out of the commemoration of all three persons, the name of the Lord Jesus was the rather taken to intimate the new baptism, because it is with him that we are buried together by baptism unto death. But this would not be said unless, as we have already asserted, the Lord Jesus Christ were one of the Trinity. Instructed therefore by these and very many other things, before I knew that this had been approved by the great Council of Chalcedon, I believed the Lord Jesus Christ to be one of the Trinity:
因此我判斷：在舉行洗禮時，在那些神聖的字句中也保存了洗禮的程式；但在敘述中，為了與其他洗禮相區別，只提主耶穌一名便足夠了。我又相信，正因如此，在三個位格的全部提念中，特別取了主耶穌之名來表明這新洗禮，因為我們正是藉著洗禮與他一同被埋葬而入於死亡。然而，若不是如我們已主張的，主耶穌基督乃三位一體中的一位，這話便不能成立。所以，我受了這些以及其他極多事理的教導，在我得知此事已蒙加采東大公會議所贊同之前，便已相信主耶穌基督是三位一體中的一位：
4:25
qui Deus ex Deo natus ante saecula, idem in plenitudine temporum homo sit nalus ex Virgine; et qui Patris existens unigenitus, factus sit unigenitus matris; ut geminæ gigas substantiæ, sicut intellexit et cantavit Ambrosius, utriusque veræ nativitatis proprietate credatur, sitque consubstantialis Patri secundum divinitatem, et consubstantialis matri secundum humanitatem: et sicut ideo consubstantialis Patri creditur, quia proprius ejus et verus est Filius, sic etiam matri propterea consubstantialis credatur, quia proprius etiam ejus et verus est filius.
who, being God born of God before the ages, the same was in the fullness of time born man of the Virgin; and who, being the only-begotten of the Father, was made the only-begotten of his Mother; so that, as a giant of twin substance—as Ambrose understood and sang—he is believed by the property of both true births, and is consubstantial with the Father according to divinity, and consubstantial with his Mother according to humanity: and as he is therefore believed consubstantial with the Father, because he is his own and true Son, so also let him be believed consubstantial with his Mother, because he is also her own and true son.
他作為天主，在萬世之前由天主所生，同一位卻在時期圓滿時由童貞女而生為人；他作為聖父的獨生子，卻成了母親的獨生子；以致他如同雙重本體的巨人（正如安博所領悟並歌詠的），按兩種真實誕生的特性而被相信，並按神性與聖父同性同體，按人性與母親同性同體：正如他被相信與聖父同性同體，因為他是聖父本來的、真實的兒子，照樣也應被相信與母親同性同體，因為他也是母親本來的、真實的兒子。
← ch. 3ch. 5 →
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253545556575859606162636465666768697071727374