📜 Verbum
Scripture and the Fathers, read aloud in the original

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

Facundus of Hermiane

In Defence of the Three Chapters 58

Latin original · 11 verses · some words can be tapped for a gloss

← ch. 57ch. 59 →
58:1
Sanctus autem Basilius magnum Gregorium a, qui miraculorum operatoris cognomen accepit, ut vocaretur et vocetur a Graecis, non ab Arianorum tantum, qui creaturam et facturam Filium dicunt, verum etiam a contrario Sabellianorum erFore defendit, qui unam Patris et Filii subsistentiam dicunt, quamvis hæc et praedictus Gregorius dixisse videatur, Unde idem sanctus Basilius, loquens de qoibusdam, qui auctoritate ipsius Gregorii excusare suam perfidiam nitebantur, c Immiserunt, ait, quoddam experimentum per epistolam ad unanimem nostrum Anthimum Tyanorum episcopum, quod magnus Gregorius dixerit in Expositione fidei Patris et Filii personas intellectu quidem esse duas, subsistentiam autem esse unam, hoc autem quia non dogmatice dictum est, sed certative in sermone ad Gelianum, non potuerunt conspicere qui in subtilitate sensuum semetipsos beatificant:
But the holy Basil defended the great Gregory—who received the surname of worker of miracles, so that he was and is called by the Greeks 'Thaumaturgus'—not only from the error of the Arians, who say the Son is a creature and a created thing, but also from the contrary error of the Sabellians, who say there is one subsistence of the Father and the Son, although the aforesaid Gregory too seems to have said this. Whence the same holy Basil, speaking of certain men who strove to excuse their perfidy by the authority of Gregory himself, says: 'They have injected a certain experiment by a letter to our unanimous Anthimus, bishop of the Tyanenses, namely that the great Gregory said in the Exposition of the Faith that the persons of the Father and the Son are indeed two in understanding, but that the subsistence is one; but that this was said not dogmatically but contentiously, in the discourse to Aelianus, those could not perceive who beatify themselves in the subtlety of meanings:'
但聖巴西略(Basil)護衛了那位偉大的額我略(Gregory)——他獲得了「行奇蹟者」的稱號,以致被希臘人稱為、且至今仍被稱為「顯靈者」(Thaumaturgus)——不僅免於亞略派的謬誤(他們說子是受造之物、是被造的),也免於與之相反的撒伯流派(Sabellians)的謬誤(他們說父與子只有一個自立體),雖然前述的額我略似乎也說過這話。因此同一位聖巴西略,論到某些憑額我略本人的權威竭力為自己的背信開脫之人時說:『他們藉一封書信,向我們同心的提雅納(Tyana)主教安提模(Anthimus)投下某種試探,說偉大的額我略在《信仰闡述》中說:父與子的位格在理智上固然是二,但自立體是一;然而這話並非以教義方式說的,而是在對厄連諾(Aelianus)的論辯中爭辯式地說的——那些在意義的精微上自命有福的人,無法看清這點:』
58:2
in qua multæ sunt falsitates eorum quae scribuntur, sicut in ipsis sermonibus ostendemus, si Deus voluerit. Rursus vero pagano satisfaciens, non arbitrabatur opus esse subtilitatis ratiocinatione circa verba. Est etiam ubi ct consentiendum sit consuetudini contradicentis, ut non ad necessaria reluctetur. Quapropter et multas invenies ibi voces, quae nunc haereticis maximam virtutem praebeant, sicut creaturam, et facturam, et si quid tale est. Multa autem dicta et de conjunctione quae ad hominem facta est, ad divinitatis referunt rationem qui inerudite audiuut Scripturas: quale est et hoc quod ab his circumfertur.
'in which there are many falsities of the things that are written, as we shall show in the discourses themselves, if God will. But again, satisfying a pagan, he did not think there was need of subtlety in reasoning about words. There is also a place where one must even consent to the custom of the one contradicting, so as not to struggle against necessary things. Wherefore you will also find there many expressions which now afford the greatest strength to heretics, such as 'creature' and 'created thing,' and any such thing. But many things said concerning the conjunction which was made unto man, those who hear the Scriptures uninstructedly refer to the account of the divinity: such as is this also which is circulated by these men.'
『其中所寫的有許多失實之處,正如我們將在那些論辯本身中所表明的,若神願意。但他再次,為使一個外邦人滿意,並不認為在言詞的推理上需要精微。也有需要甚至順從那反駁者的習慣之處,好不致與必要的事相爭。為此,你在那裡也會發現許多如今給異端最大力量的措辭,例如「受造之物」、「被造的」之類。但許多論到那向著人所成的結合的話,那些不善於聆聽聖經的人卻歸於神性的道理:例如這些人所流傳的這話也是如此。』
58:3
» Proinde quomodo synodus juste anathematizaret Theodorum in Ecclesiæ pace defunctum, cum propterea Atlianasius et Basilius Dionysium atque Gregorium a eriminibus talibus tantisque defendant, quod in Ecclesiæ pace defuncti sunt ? aut quomodo epistolam venerabilis pro laude Tbeodori pronuntiaret hæreticam, cum hæc Athanasii et Basilii scripta hæretica dicere n n auderet? aut quomodo Eutychiani eamdem synodum culpant, quod apud se non accusatum Theodorum anathematizare non præsumpserit, cum istos Patres a quibas Dionysius atque Gregorius etiam excusantur, culpare non possint? Sed aliud quod majus est, proferamus.
Accordingly, how could the synod justly anathematize Theodore, deceased in the peace of the Church, when on that very account Athanasius and Basil defend Dionysius and Gregory from such and so great charges—because they died in the peace of the Church? Or how could it pronounce the letter of the venerable Ibas heretical for the praise of Theodore, when it would not dare to call these writings of Athanasius and Basil heretical? Or how do the Eutychians blame the same synod, because it did not presume to anathematize Theodore, who was not accused before it, when they cannot blame these Fathers by whom Dionysius and Gregory too are excused? But let us bring forth another thing which is greater.
因此,會議怎能公義地絕罰那在教會平安中安息的提阿多若——既然亞大納修和巴西略正是因狄約尼削與額我略在教會平安中安息,纔護衛他們免於這樣如此重大的指控?或者,它怎能宣告可敬的伊巴斯為讚揚提阿多若而寫的書信為異端——既然它不敢稱亞大納修和巴西略的這些著作為異端?或者,歐迪奇派怎能責備同一個會議,因它不敢絕罰那未在它面前受控的提阿多若——既然他們無法責備這些連狄約尼削與額我略也藉以得開脫的教父?但讓我們提出另一件更重大的事。
58:4
Nam beatus Hilariusb, Arianorum potentissimus atque acerrimus expugnator, et constantissimus fidei Christianae confessor, in epistola quam de eisilio scriPsit episcopis provinciae Germaniae primae, et Germaniae secundae, et primae Belgicae, et Belgicæ secundae, et Lugdunensis primae, et Lugdunensis secundae, et provmciae Aquitanicae, et provinciae Novempopulanae, et ex Narbonensi plebibus et clericis Tolosanis, et provinciarum Brit nniarum episcopis, non unius bominis verba privatim dicta, sed publica decreU eoncilia approbat, quibus octuaginta nostri Patres pro Paulo Samosateno repudiaverunt ut homousios, id est unius essentiae cum Patre Filius vocaretur, ct rationem cur hanc vocem rcpudiaverint talem reddit, quoniam memoratus Paulus hæreticus solum Patrem Deum esse confitebatur, Filium vero a Mariæ matris generatione coepisse, et hominem tantum esse dicebat;
For the blessed Hilary, the most powerful and most fierce vanquisher of the Arians, and the most constant confessor of the Christian faith, in the letter which he wrote about the exile to the bishops of the province of Germania Prima and Germania Secunda, and Belgica Prima and Belgica Secunda, and Lugdunensis Prima and Lugdunensis Secunda, and the province of Aquitanica and the province of Novempopulana, and from the Narbonensis to the people and clergy of Toulouse, and to the bishops of the provinces of Britain, approves not the words of one man spoken privately, but the public decrees of councils, by which eighty of our Fathers, on account of Paul of Samosata, refused that the Son should be called homoousios, that is, of one essence with the Father; and he renders such a reason why they refused this word, namely that the said Paul the heretic confessed God to be the Father alone, but said that the Son began from the generation of his mother Mary, and was only a man;
因為蒙福的依拉略(Hilary)——亞略派最有力、最猛烈的征服者,基督信仰最堅定的宣信者——在他論流放所寫、致日耳曼第一行省、日耳曼第二行省、比利時第一行省、比利時第二行省、里昂第一行省、里昂第二行省、阿基坦行省、諾溫波普拉納行省的主教,並從納波訥行省致圖盧茲的會眾與聖職人員,以及致不列顛諸行省主教的書信中,所贊同的不是一人私下所說的話,而是會議的公開決議;藉這些決議,我們八十位教父因撒摩撒大的保祿(Paul of Samosata)之故,拒絕讓子被稱為homousios,即與父同一本質;他並給出他們拒絕這詞的緣由,乃是那位異端保祿承認唯獨父是神,卻說子是從其母瑪利亞的生育開始的,且只是一個人;
58:5
et docebat propterea maluisse illos Patres remoto homousio homœousion statuere, id est similis essentiae, quoniam similitudo unionem non permiuit intelligi. At cum Arius postea homœousion male intelligeret ac doceret, et negans Filium cum Patre unius essesubstantiae, sic diceret similem Patri, sicut Joannes apostolus de se atque aliis adoptionis filiis dicit: Nunc filii Dei sumus, et necdum manifestatum est quod sumus 2: scimus quoniam cum apparuerit, similes ei erimus, quoniam videbimus eum sicuti est (1 Joan. in, 2). Cum ergo prave 3 homœousion Arius praedicaret, alii Patres 4 homousion resumpserunt.
and he taught that those Fathers had on that account preferred, the homoousion being removed, to establish the homoeousion, that is, of similar essence, because similitude does not permit the union to be understood. But when Arius afterward wrongly understood and taught the homoeousion, and, denying that the Son was of one substance with the Father, said that he was similar to the Father just as John the apostle says of himself and the other sons of adoption: 'Now we are the sons of God, and it has not yet appeared what we shall be: we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is' (1 John 3:2): when therefore Arius perversely preached the homoeousion, the other Fathers resumed the homoousion.
他並教導說:那些教父因此寧願除去homousios(同質),而確立homoeousios,即相似本質,因為相似不容許那合一被理解。但當亞略後來錯誤地理解並教導homoeousios,否認子與父是同一本體,竟說子相似於父,正如約翰宗徒論到自己及其他承嗣為子的人所說的:『現在我們是神的兒女,但我們將來如何還沒有顯明:我們知道,當祂顯現時,我們必相似於祂,因為我們必見祂的本相』(若一3:2):所以當亞略邪謬地宣講homoeousios時,其他教父便重新採用了homousios(同質)。
58:6
Proinde Hilarius, ut in neutris Patribusaccusaret Ecclesiam, quae utrosque habuit bonoratos, hanc absolutionem quaestioni dedit, quoniam et i li octuaginta contra hæreticum improbaverunt homousion, et trecenti decem et oeto id ipsum contra baereticum probaverunt. Hoc quoque adjiciens (Sub finem): « Cogitemus tot sacerdotes sanetos et quiescentes jam: quid de nobis erit qui rem eo deducimus, ut quia episcopi non fuerunt, nos quoqoe nec coeperimus; ordinati enim ab bis sumus, et eorum sumus successio: renuntiemus episcopatui, quia officium ejus abanathemate sumpserimus.
Accordingly Hilary, in order not to accuse the Church in either set of Fathers—for she held both in honor—gave this resolution to the question: that the eighty had disapproved the term homoousios against a heretic, while the three hundred and eighteen had approved that very term against a heretic. He adds this also (toward the end): «Let us consider so many holy priests, now at rest: what will become of us, who bring the matter to this point, that because they were not bishops, we too may never have begun to be bishops; for we were ordained by them, and we are their succession—let us renounce the episcopate, since we have received its office from those whom we anathematize.»
因此希拉留為了不在兩派教父中任一派身上控告教會(教會曾尊崇兩派),便對這問題作出如下的裁決:那八十位主教是針對一位異端者而否定了「同質」一詞,而那三百一十八位則是針對一位異端者而肯定了同一詞。他又補充說(在末尾):「讓我們思想這麼多已安息的聖潔司祭:我們若把事情推到這地步——說因為他們不是主教,所以連我們也從未成為主教——我們將會如何?因為我們是由他們所按立的,我們是他們的繼承;那麼,既然我們是從我們所詛咒的人手中領受了主教的職分,就讓我們放棄主教之職吧。」
58:7
» Verum hæc omnia, quæ vel privatim a sanctis Dionysio atque Gregorio dicta, vel publice in concilio a memoratis octuagnta Patribus 4, nou tantum excusandi habere difficultatem videntur, quoniam ante definitionem Nicaenae synodi prolata reperiuntur. Illud est multo amplius, quod idem sasctus Hilarius in eadent sua epistola prolata aeque defendit Sirmiense concihum a post Nicaenum congregatum, in cujus decretis dictum est: « Si quis unam dicens Deum, Christum autem Deum ante saecula Filium Dei obsecutum Patri in creatione omnium non confitetur, anathema sit. » Et iterum: « Si quis Deum non Dominum Patrem 3, et Filium quasi Dominum a Domino, duos dieat Deos, anatbema sit.
But all these things—whether spoken privately by the holy Dionysius and Gregory, or publicly in council by the aforesaid eighty Fathers—seem to present no great difficulty for excusing, since they are found to have been uttered before the definition of the Council of Nicaea. There is something far weightier: that this same holy Hilary, in that same letter of his, equally defends the Council of Sirmium, gathered after the Nicene, in whose decrees it was said: «If anyone, calling God one, does not confess that Christ, the Son of God before the ages, was obedient to the Father in the creation of all things, let him be anathema.» And again: «If anyone should call the Father God but not Lord, and the Son as it were Lord from the Lord, and so speak of two Gods, let him be anathema.»
但這一切——無論是聖狄奧尼修斯和格里高利私下所說的,還是上述八十位教父在公會議中公開所言——似乎都不難為其辯解,因為發現它們都是在尼西亞會議的定義之前說出的。然而有一件事份量重得多,就是這同一位聖希拉留在他同一封信中,同樣為西爾米烏姆會議(在尼西亞會議之後召開的)作辯護;在那會議的法令中說:「若有人稱神為一,卻不承認那在萬世以先為神之子的基督,在創造萬物之事上順服了父,這人當受詛咒。」又說:「若有人稱父為神卻不稱為主,又稱子彷彿是出於主的主,因而言說有兩位神,這人當受詛咒。
58:8
Non enim exæquamus vel comparamus Filium Patri, sed subjectum intelligimus. Neque enim descendit in Sodoma sine Patris voluntate, neque pluit ex se, sed a Domini auctoritate, scilicet Patris; nec sedet ad dexteram a semetipso, sed audit dicentem Patrem, Sede ad dexteram meam (Psal. cix, I). » Rursumque: c Si quis innascibilem et sine initio dicat Filium, tanquam duo sine principio, et duo innascibilia, et duo innata dicens, duos dicat Deos, anathema sit. Caput eeim quod es1 principium omnium Christus; caput autem quod est principium Christi Deus. Ita enim ad unum, qui est sine principio omnium principium, per Filium universa referimus. Et iterum (Cap. 27):
For we do not put the Son on a level with the Father, nor compare them, but we understand him to be subject. For he did not descend into Sodom apart from the Father's will, nor did he rain down of himself, but by the authority of the Lord, that is, of the Father; nor does he sit at the right hand of himself, but he hears the Father saying, Sit at my right hand (Ps. 109:1).» And again: «If anyone should call the Son unbegotten and without beginning, as though there were two without beginning, and two unbegotten, and two unborn, and so speak of two Gods, let him be anathema. For the head, which is the beginning of all things, is Christ; but the head which is the beginning of Christ is God. For thus we refer all things, through the Son, to the One who is the beginningless beginning of all.» And again (chapter 27):
因為我們並不把子與父等同或相比,而是領會子是順服的。因為子並非離開父的旨意而下到所多瑪,也不是憑自己降雨,而是憑主——即父——的權柄;他也不是憑自己坐在右邊,而是聽見父說:你坐在我的右邊(詩一〇九1)。」又說:「若有人稱子為非受生的、無始的,彷彿有兩個無始者、兩個非受生者、兩個未生者,因而言說有兩位神,這人當受詛咒。因為那作萬物之元首、萬有之根源的乃是基督;而那作基督之元首、基督之根源的乃是神。因為我們正是這樣,藉著子,把萬有歸於那位無始而為萬有之始者。」又說(第二十七章):
58:9
« Confirmantes Christianismi intellectum, dicimus quoniam si quis Christum Deum Filium Dei ante sæcula subsistentem et ministrantem Patri ad omnium perfectionem non dicat, sed ex quo de Maria natus est, ei eo et Christum et Filium nomlnatum esse, et initium accepisse ut sit Deus, dicat, anatbema sit. » Quae omnia memoratum Sirmiense concilium * sanctus Hilarius necessarie contra Photinum et 4 Orientales asserit decrevisse. Quorum sufficientem excusationem faciens, quomodo sint accipienda demonstrai.
«Confirming the understanding of the Christian faith, we say that if anyone does not declare that Christ, God the Son of God, subsisting before the ages and ministering to the Father unto the perfecting of all things, but rather says that from the time he was born of Mary, from that point he was named both Christ and Son, and received a beginning so as to be God—let him be anathema.» All these things the holy Hilary asserts that the aforesaid Council of Sirmium of necessity decreed against Photinus and the Easterners. And making a sufficient excuse for them, he shows how they ought to be understood.
「為堅固基督信仰的領悟,我們說:若有人不宣認那在萬世以先存在、並服事父以成全萬有的基督——神之子神,反倒說他是從由馬利亞所生之時起,才被稱為基督與子,且領受了一個開端而成為神,這人當受詛咒。」聖希拉留斷言,上述西爾米烏姆會議出於必要,針對福提努和東方人作出了這一切的議決。他為他們作了充分的辯解,並指明這些話當如何領會。
58:10
Hæc ergo Atbanasio, haec Basilio, hæc Hilario et omnibus viris sanctis sollicitudo fuit, ne culpatis velut haereticis eis qui in Ecclesiæ pace atque honore defuncti sunt, ipsa quae illos magno honore dignata est Ecclesia culparetur. Et ideo vel si forte inveniantur aliqui in plurimis approbati, qui cumdem Theodorum damnent velut baereticum, hoc probabiliter profecto non faciunt; nec in eo sequendi sunt, in quo consuetudinem Ecclesiæ non sequuntur. Unde si Chalcedonensis synodus, Ecclesiae morem in defensionem ipsius Ecclesiæ sequens, dicta Theodori similiter excusaret, quis eam de hac pietate atque cautela nisi profanus argueret? Nec tamen et hoc sine Athanasio.et Hilario 5 posset.
This, then, was the concern of Athanasius, of Basil, of Hilary, and of all holy men: that, by blaming as heretics those who had died in the peace and honor of the Church, the very Church which had deemed them worthy of great honor should not herself be blamed. And therefore, even if perhaps some men, approved in very many respects, are found who condemn this same Theodore as a heretic, they assuredly do not do this with good warrant; nor are they to be followed in this, wherein they do not follow the custom of the Church. Hence, if the Council of Chalcedon, following the Church's custom in defense of the Church herself, were likewise to excuse the words of Theodore, who but a profane person would accuse it of this piety and caution? And yet not even this could it do without Athanasius and Hilary.
可見,這正是亞他那修、巴西流、希拉留以及一切聖潔之人所掛慮的:免得那些在教會的平安與尊榮中辭世之人被斥為異端,以致那曾以大尊榮看待他們的教會本身反受指責。所以,即便或許有人——他們在許多方面受人稱許——把這同一位狄奧多若定為異端,他們這樣行斷無正當理由;在此事上他們既不遵循教會的慣例,便不該被效法。因此,倘若迦克墩會議遵循教會的慣例、為教會本身辯護,同樣為狄奧多若的話辯解,那麼除了褻瀆之人,還有誰會因這份虔敬與謹慎而指控它呢?然而即便如此,若沒有亞他那修與希拉留的先例,它也無法這樣行。
58:11
Porro aliquid tale non fecit, quæ hinc invidiam sUStinet, quod alterius ad se delatam epistolam, nec de laude Theodori accusatam, pro veræ fidei confessionc quam continet, pronuntiavit oithodoxam.
Moreover, it did no such thing—the council which on this account endures ill-will because, with regard to a letter brought before it by another, a letter not impeached for any praise of Theodore, it pronounced it orthodox on account of the confession of the true faith which it contains.
再者,那受人忌恨的會議並未行任何這類的事;它之所以受忌恨,乃因為它對於別人呈於其前的一封信——一封並未因任何稱讚狄奧多若而受指控的信——憑著信中所含的真信仰之認信,宣告它為正統。
← ch. 57ch. 59 →
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253545556575859606162636465666768697071727374