帕拉瑪斯

聖山宣言第 1 章第 10/17 段

希臘文原文．112 節．部分字詞可點開查義．本章太長已分段，此段為 1:1155–1:1266（全章共 2009 節）

1:1155

Ἐπειδή εἰσί τινες λέγοντες διαφέρειν ἀλλήλων τό πρόεισι καί τό προχεῖται καί τό ἐκπορεύεται, ἐξελέγησαν εἰς ἀναντίρρητον ἀπόδειξιν τοῦ ἰσοδυνάμου αὐτῶν αἱ προκείμεναι χρήσεις τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου καί μετ αὐτάς αἱ ( σελ

既然有些人說「出來」「被傾倒」「發出」彼此有別，故選取前述聖區利羅的引文，及其後的（頁……），作為其等值之不可駁斥的證明。

Since there are some who say that 'comes forth' and 'is poured forth' and 'proceeds' differ from one another, the foregoing citations of holy Cyril, and after them the (p. ...), have been selected as incontrovertible proof of their equivalence.

1:1156

Ἀντεπιγραφή ἑβδόμη Ἐπειδή τινες ἀκούοντες τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ὑπάρχον καί ἀναβλύζον καί προϊόν, οὐχί τήν φύσιν τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Υἱοῦ πηγάζειν καί ἀναβλύζειν τερατολογοῦσιν, ἀλλά τό πνευματικόν χάρισμα τό τοῖς ἀξίοις ἐπιγινόμενον, διά τό τήν ἐγγινομένην αὐτοῖς ἐνοίκησιν τῆς πανταχοῦ παρούσης θεότητος τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος σχετικῶς γίνεσθαι, οὕτω τό τοιοῦτον ἐκλαμβάνοντες χάρισμα, ὥσπερ ἄν εἰ ἀποδιῃρημένον τῆς θείας οὐσίας νοοῖτο τοῦ Πνεύματος , συνελέγησαν αἱ παροῦσαι γραφικαί χρήσεις, ἐξ ὧν ἔχει τις διαγνῶναι, ὡς κἄν ἡ ἐγγινομένη τοῖς ἀξίοις ἐνοίκησις τοῦ παναγίου Πνεύματος σχετική ἐστιν ἀρρήτως καί ὑπέρ λόγον, ἀλλἐπεί ἐκεῖ τά χαρίσματα προχέονται, ὅπου ἡ θεία φύσις αὐτοῦ σχετικῶς ἐνοικήσει, αὐτό τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, τό ἕν τῆς Τριάδος καί συμπληρωτικόν, ὅπερ ἐστί θεία φύσις καί τέλειος Θεός, ὡς ὁ Πατήρ καί ὁ Υἱός, (σελ

第七反題。既然有些人聽見聖靈從聖子存在、湧流、出來，並不怪誕地說聖靈的本性從聖子的本質湧出、湧流，而是（意指）那臨到配得者的屬靈恩賜—因為那臨到他們、屬於無所不在的聖靈神性的內住，乃是以關係性方式發生—於是把這等恩賜當作彷彿被想為與聖靈的神聖本質分離者：故匯集眼前這些聖經引文，由之可辨明：縱然那臨到配得者的至聖之靈的內住，是以不可言喻、超乎理性的關係性方式，然而，既然恩賜是傾倒在那聖靈神聖本性以關係性方式內住之處，那麼聖靈本身—三一中之一、且使三一完備者，它乃是神聖本性、且如聖父和聖子一樣是完全的神—（頁……）

Seventh Counter-heading. Since some, hearing that the Holy Spirit exists and gushes and comes forth from the Son, do not monstrously say that the nature of the Spirit wells up and gushes from the substance of the Son, but (mean) the spiritual gift that comes to be in the worthy—because the indwelling that comes to be in them, of the everywhere-present Godhead of the Holy Spirit, occurs relationally—thus taking such a gift as if it were conceived as separated from the divine essence of the Spirit: the present scriptural citations have been collected, from which one can discern that, even though the indwelling of the all-holy Spirit that comes to be in the worthy is relational, ineffably and beyond reason, yet, since the gifts are poured forth there where its divine nature relationally indwells, the Holy Spirit itself—the one of the Trinity and completive (of it), which is the divine nature and perfect God, as the Father and the Son— (p. ...)

1:1157

) δηλοῦται, ὅταν τις λέγῃ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον προϊόν καί ἀναβλύζον καί ὑπάρχον ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ

……便被表明，每當有人說聖靈從聖子出來、湧流、存在時。

...is signified, whenever one says the Holy Spirit comes forth and gushes and exists from the Son.

1:1158

Ἀντεπιγραφή ἑβδόμη Ὄντως οὐκ οἶδενἅ λέγει οὔτε περί τίνων διαβεβαιοῦται ὁ καί ταύτην τήν ἐπιγραφήν συνθείς

第七反題。誠然，這擬出此題者，既不知自己所說的是什麼，也不知自己是就何事作斷言。

Seventh Counter-heading. Truly, he who composed this heading too knows neither what he says nor concerning what things he makes his assertions.

1:1159

Οὐδείς γάρ τῶν εὐσεβεῖν ᾐρημένων διεσπαρμένην εἶναι νομίζει τῆς θείας φύσεως τήν θείαν χάριν καί τήν ἐνέργειαν˙ οὐ μήν ὅτι ἀχώριστός ἐστι τῆς θείας φύσεως ἡ θεία ἐνέργεια, παρά τοῦτο καί φύσις ἐστίν ἡ ἐνέργεια ταύτης μηδέν διαφέρουσα (τοῦτο γάρ τῆς Βαρλαάμ καί Ἀκινδύνου δυσσεβείας ἐστίν)˙ ἡ μέν γάρ θεία ἐνέργεια ἐκ τῆς θείας φύσεώς ἐστι καί ἐνθεωρεῖται ταύτῃ κατά τούς θεολόγους, ἀλλ οὐκ ἔστι καθ αὑτήν, ἡ δέ θεία φύσις οὐκ ἐκ τῆς ἐνεργείας ἐστί καθ ἑαυτήν ἐστι καί τῶν θείων ἐνεργειῶν ἐστι πηγή

因為凡選擇敬虔者，無一認為神聖本性的神聖恩典與能力是被四散撒開的；也並非因神聖能力與神聖本性不可分離，能力便也是本性、與本性毫無分別（因為這正是巴拉昂與阿金底諾的不虔）；因為神聖能力出於神聖本性、且按眾神學家所言在本性中被觀照，卻不獨自存在；而神聖本性並非出於能力，乃是獨自存在、且是諸神聖能力之泉源。

For none of those who have chosen to be pious thinks the divine grace and energy of the divine nature is scattered abroad; nor, because the divine energy is inseparable from the divine nature, is the energy therefore also nature, differing in nothing from it (for this is the impiety of Barlaam and Akindynos); for the divine energy is from the divine nature and is contemplated in it, according to the theologians, but does not exist of itself; whereas the divine nature is not from the energy, but is of itself and is the fountain of the divine energies.

1:1160

Ἀλλά καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον οὐκ ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως εἶναι τοῦ Υἱοῦ φαμεν˙ οὗτος δέ λέγων εἶναι τοῦτο ἐκ τῆς φύσεως, ἡμῖν ἀντιλέγειν οἴεται καί τἀναντία ἡμῶν κατασκευάζειν, μηδέν διαφέρειν, ὡς ἔοικε, νομίζων τήν φύσιν τῆς ὑποστάσεως,ἤ καί διαφοράν ἀφρόνως εἰσάγων φύσεως ἐπί τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος, ἐπεί διαφοράν ἐστιν ὑποστάσεων

但我們也說聖靈非出於聖子的位格；而這人說它「出於本性」，便以為自己在駁斥我們、確立與我們相反之見，他似乎認為本性與位格毫無分別—否則便是糊塗地在至聖三一中引入本性的差異，因為（其實）只有諸位格的差異。

But we too say the Holy Spirit is not from the hypostasis of the Son; and this man, saying it is 'from the nature,' thinks he contradicts us and establishes the opposite of our view, supposing, as it seems, the nature to differ in nothing from the hypostasis—or else senselessly introducing a difference of nature in the case of the Holy Trinity, since there is a difference of hypostases.

1:1161

Ἐπιγραφή ὀγδόη Εἰς ἀπόδειξιν τοῦ εἶναι τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐκ Πατρός καί Υἱοῦ συνελέγησαν καί αἱ παροῦσαι γραφικαί λύσεις, αἱ δηλοῦσαι εἶναι αὐτό ποιότητα τῆς τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ οὐσίας, ἔτι δέ εὐωδίαν, πνοήν καί ὀσμήν τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ, μεθ ἅς ἕτεραι χρήσεις, αἵτινες καί τόν ( σελ

第八題。為證明聖靈是出於聖父和聖子，也匯集了眼前這些聖經解答，它們顯明它是聖父與聖子本質的一種特質，且是聖父與聖子的馨香、氣息與氣味；其後另有引文，它們也（……）（頁……）

Eighth Heading. For proof that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, the present scriptural resolutions have also been collected, which show it to be a quality of the essence of the Father and the Son, and moreover a fragrance, breath and odor of the Father and the Son; after which other citations, which also (the ...) (p. ...)

1:1162

Ἀντεπιγραφή ὀγδόη Αἱ συνειλεγμέναι παροῦσαι γραφικαί χρήσεις καί διά παραδειγμάτων τό πρός τόν Πατέρα καί τόν Υἱόν ὁμοούσιον παριστῶσι τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος κατά τό ἐγχωροῦν˙ οὐ γάρ ἔστιν εὑρεῖν ἐπί Θεοῦ παράδειγμα πάντῃ κατάλληλον

第八反題。眼前所匯集的這些聖經引文，也藉諸例證盡可能地呈現聖靈與聖父和聖子的同質性；因為論到神，不可能找到一個全然恰當的例證。

Eighth Counter-heading. The present collected scriptural citations also present, by means of examples, the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, as far as is possible; for it is not possible to find in the case of God an example altogether suitable.

1:1163

Ἐπεί δέ καί ὕδωρ ζῶν καλεῖται τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον κατά τήν χάριν καί τήν ἐνέργειαν, τούτου τοῦ ὕδατος καλεῖται πηγή καί ὁ Υἱός μετά Πατρός, ἔστιδ ὅτε καί αὐτό τό ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, ὁ δέ τάς ρήσεις ταύτας προενεγκών ἐνταῦθα τάς μέν παρῆκε τούτων, ταῖς δέ παραχρῆται καί οὕτω δι αὐτῶν κλέπτειν οἴεται τούς ἐντυγχάνοντας πρός τήν οἰκείαν κακόνοιαν

既然聖靈也按恩典與能力被稱為「活水」，聖子也與聖父一同被稱為這水的泉源，有時也指聖靈本身；但這在此援引這些話的人，略過了其中一些、又濫用另一些，如此以為藉著它們把讀者偷竊去歸向自己的惡見。

And since the Holy Spirit is also called 'living water' according to grace and energy, the Son too with the Father is called fountain of this water, and sometimes also the Holy Spirit itself; but he who brought forward these sayings here passed over some of them, and misuses others, and thus thinks to steal his readers away, by means of them, to his own ill opinion.

1:1164

Αἱ παροῦσαι γραφικαί χρήσεις, ἐν αἷς οἱ πατέρες ἐθεολόγησαν πάντα τά τοῦ Πατρός ἴδια φυσικῶς διαβαίνειν ἐπί τόν ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεννηθέντα Υἱόν, κατεστρώθησαν εἰς ἀπόδειξιν τοῦ ὑπάρχειν καί προϊέναι καί πηγάζειν τό Πνεῦμα καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καθάπερ ἀμέλει καί ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, κατά τόν ἅγιον Κύριλλον

眼前這些聖經引文—其中眾教父神學地宣告聖父的一切特性本性地過到那從祂受生的聖子身上—被鋪陳出來，以證明聖靈也從聖子存在、出來、湧出，正如它確然從聖父，按聖區利羅所言。

The present scriptural citations, in which the Fathers theologized that all the properties of the Father pass naturally onto the Son begotten of Him, have been set down to prove that the Spirit exists and comes forth and wells up also from the Son, just as indeed from the Father, according to the holy Cyril.

1:1165

Εἰ γάρ τήν πατρότητα καί τό γεννᾶν μόνον ἀφαιροῦνται ἀπό τοῦ Υἱοῦ οἱ προσδιορισμοί τῶν χρήσεων, εὔδηλον ὡς Υἱός μέν ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ οὐκ ἔσται, Πνεῦμα δέ τό ἐκ τῆς πατρικῆς ἀναβλύζον οὐσίας καί ἐκ τῆς μή γεννώσης οὐσίας τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἀναβλύζον ἔσται καί προχεόμενον

因為若這些引文的限定詞只把「父職」與「生育」從聖子身上除去，那麼顯然不會有「子出於子」，但那從父性本質湧出的聖靈，也將是從聖子那非生育的本質湧出並被傾倒的聖靈。

For if the qualifications of the citations remove from the Son only the fatherhood and the begetting, it is evident that there will be no Son from the Son, but the Spirit which wells up from the paternal essence will also be the Spirit welling up and being poured forth from the non-begetting essence of the Son.

1:1166

Ὄντως ἀσυλλόγιστον ἡ δυσσέβεια˙ διαβαίνειν γάρ ἀκούων ὁ λατινόφρων οὗτος ἐπί τόν Υἱόν τά τοῦ Πατρός ἴδια φυσικῶς τε καί οὐσιωδῶς, τά τῆς πατρικῆς ὑποστάσεως ἐνόμισεν ἴδια, ἀλλ οὐ τά τῆς φύσεως

誠然，不虔是不合邏輯的；因為這拉丁派之人，聽見聖父的諸特性本性地、本質地過到聖子身上，便以為它們是那父性位格的特性，而非本性的特性。

Truly, impiety is illogical; for this Latin-minded man, hearing that the properties of the Father pass onto the Son naturally and essentially, supposed them to be properties of the paternal hypostasis, but not of the nature.

1:1167

Οὐκοῦν κατά τήν αὐτοῦ σύνεσιν, ἥν ἐν ταῖς τῶν θεοφόρων κέκτηται θελογίαις, τοῦ θείου Κυρίλλου γράφοντος ἐν θησαυροῖς πῶς οὐκ ἔσται Θεός τό Πνεῦμα, ὅλην ἔχον οὐσιωδῶς τήν ἰδιότητα τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ, τά ὑποστατικά τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα ἕξει, γέννημά τε καί γεννήτωρ ἔσται καί Πατήρ τῶν φώτων τό γεννᾶν καί ἐκπορεύειν ἔχον˙ οὗ τί ἄν ἀκουσθείη δυσσεβέστερόν τε καί καινότερον;

所以，按他從負荷神者的教父之神學中所獲得的理解—神聖的區利羅在《寶庫》中寫道「聖靈既本質地有聖父與聖子的全部特性，怎會不是神呢」—聖靈將擁有聖父與聖子那些位格性的特性，將既是後裔又是生者，且是眾光之父，有生育與使其發出之能；論到此，還能聽見什麼更不虔、更新奇的呢？

Therefore, according to his understanding, which he has acquired in the theologies of the God-bearing Fathers—the divine Cyril writing in the Thesauri, 'How shall the Spirit not be God, having essentially the whole property of the Father and of the Son'—the Spirit will have the hypostatic properties of the Father and the Son, and will be both offspring and begetter, and Father of lights, having the power to beget and to cause to proceed; than which what could be heard more impious and more novel?

1:1168

Τό αὐτό δέ σχεδόν πείσεται πάλιν αὐτός τε καί οἱ κατ αὐτόν φρονοῦντες καί ὅταν ἀκούσωσι τοῦ μέν ἱεροῦ Δαμασκηνοῦ λέγοντος ἐν τῷ ὀγδόῳ τῶν δογματικῶν πάντα ὅσα ἔχει ὁ Πατήρ καί τοῦ Πνεύματός ἐστι πλήν τῆς ἀγεννησίας καί τοῦ τῆς θεολογίας ἐπωνύμου Γρηγορίου γράφοντος ἐν τῷ Πρός τούς ἀπ Αἰγύπτου καταπλεύσαντας, πάντα ὅσα τοῦ Υἱοῦ καί τοῦ Πνεύματος, πλήν τῆς υἱότητος

他自己、並與他同見者，也將再次幾乎落入同樣的境地，每當他們聽見神聖的大馬士革的（約翰）在其《教義論集》卷八中說：「聖父所有的一切也屬於聖靈，唯獨『非受生』除外」；以及那以神學得名的貴格利在其《致從埃及航行而下者》中寫道：「凡屬聖子的一切也屬聖靈，唯獨『子職』除外。」

And he himself, and those who think like him, will suffer almost the same again, whenever they hear the sacred Damascene saying, in the eighth of his dogmatic works: 'All that the Father has belongs also to the Spirit, except unbegottenness'; and Gregory surnamed of theology writing, in his work To Those Who Sailed Down from Egypt: 'All that is the Son's is also the Spirit's, except sonship.'

1:1169

Πόσης δέ ἀνοίας πάλιν τό ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας ἀκούειν καί ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Υἱοῦ ὑποστάσεως δοξάζειν, ὥσπερ ἄν εἰ μία ἦν, καθάπερ οὐσία, οὕτω καί ὑπόστασις ἐπί Θεοῦ˙ πρός δέ καί τό μή συνορᾶν ὡς, ἐπεί Πατρός καί ἐκ Πατρός λέγεται τό Πνεῦμα, οἱ Πατέρα εἶναι τόν Υἱόν ἀπαγορεύοντες συναπαγορεύουσι καί τήν τοῦ Υἱοῦ πρός τόν Πατέρα κοινωνίαν κατά τήν ἐκπορευτικήν ἰδιότητα

又是何等大愚，竟聽見「出於本質」就把它榮耀為「出於聖子的位格」—彷彿神裡面正如只有一個本質、也只有一個位格；更甚者，竟不察覺：既然聖靈被稱為「屬聖父的」與「從聖父的」，那些否認聖子是父者，便也一併否認了聖子按「使其發出」之特性而與聖父所有的相通。

And what great folly again, to hear 'from the essence' and glorify it as 'from the hypostasis of the Son'—as if there were one hypostasis in God, just as one essence; and moreover, not to perceive that, since the Spirit is called 'of the Father' and 'from the Father,' those who deny the Son to be Father co-deny also the Son's communion with the Father according to the procession-causing property.

1:1170

Ἐπιγραφή δεκάτη Αἱ παροῦσαι γραφικαί χρήσεις, ἐν αἷς οἱ πατέρες (σελ

第十題。眼前這些聖經引文，其中眾教父（頁……）

Tenth Heading. The present scriptural citations, in which the Fathers (p. ...)

1:1171

διαγινώσκειν ὡς καί τό Πνεῦμα διά τοῦτο ἴδιον τοῦ Υἱοῦ λέγεται εἶναι, διά τό ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ εἶναι˙ καί αὖ διά τοῦτο ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Υἱοῦ λέγεται, διά τό τῆς τοιαύτης οὐσίας ἴδιον ἀγαθόν εἶναι αὐτό, ὅπερ ἐμφαίνει καί τήν πρός τόν Υἱόν τοῦ Πνεύματος ὁμοουσιότητα

……好使人能辨明：聖靈也因此被說為聖子所固有—因它出於聖子的本質；又因此被說為出於聖子的本質—因它是這等本質固有之善，這也顯示聖靈與聖子的同質性。

...so that one may discern that the Spirit too is said to be the Son's own on this account—because it is from His essence; and again, on this account it is said to be from the essence of the Son—because it is the proper good of such an essence, which also displays the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Son.

1:1172

Εἰ γάρ κατ ἄλλον τινα λόγον ὁμοουσιότητος, ὁποῖός ἐστιν ὁ περί δύο τινῶν ὁμοουσίων λεγόμενος, ἐν οἷς οὐκ ἔστι διά τοῦ ἑτέρου τό ἕτερον, ἦν τό Πνεῦμα ἴδιον τοῦ Υἱοῦ καί ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ἦν ἄν καί ὁ Υἱός ἴδιος τοῦ Πνεύματος καί ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πνεύματος διά τό ἀντιστρέφον τῆς τοιαύτης ὁμοουσιότητος, ὅπερ οὔτε ἐρρήθη παρά τινος τῶν ἁγίων οὔτε ρηθήσεταί ποτε παρά τοῦ τῶν ὀρθοδοξεῖν αἱρουμένων

因為若聖靈是聖子所固有、且出於聖子本質，是按另一種同質性之觀念—即論兩個同質之物所說的那種，其中一者並非「藉著另一者」—那麼聖子也將是聖靈所固有、且出於聖靈本質，因這等同質性可互換；而這既未曾被任何聖徒說過，也永不會被任何願作正統者所說。

For if the Spirit were the Son's own and from the essence of the Son according to some other notion of consubstantiality—such as that spoken of concerning two consubstantial things, in which the one is not 'through the other'—then the Son too would be the Spirit's own and from the essence of the Spirit, because of the convertibility of such consubstantiality; which has neither been said by any of the saints nor will ever be said by anyone who chooses to be orthodox.

1:1173

Ἡ δέ τοιαύτη ὁμοουσιότης οὐδέ κυρίως ὁμοουσιότης, ἀλλ ἡ συνάπτουσα τό ἕτερον τῷ ἑτέρῳ, ὡς δι αὐτοῦἤ ἐξ αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχον φυσικῶς τε καί οὐσιωδῶς

而這等同質性甚至不是嚴格意義上的同質性，乃是那把一者與另一者相連的那種—即一者作為本性地、本質地藉著另一者、或出於另一者而存在。

And such consubstantiality is not even properly consubstantiality, but the kind that conjoins the one to the other, as existing through it or from it, naturally and essentially.

1:1174

Καί μαρτυρήσει τοῦτο ἡ ἐνταῦθα κατεστρωμένη τοῦ μεγάλου Βασιλείου χρῆσις ἡ λέγουσα μή τά ἀδελφά ἀλλήλοις ὁμοούσια λέγεσθαι, προστίθενται δέ καί αἱ δηλοῦσαι χρήσεις διά τοῦτο εἶναι τόν Υἱόν ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί, διά τό ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ εἶναι, ἵν εἴη τῷ βουλομένῳ ἐντεῦθεν διαγινώσκειν, ὡς καί τό Πνεῦμα διά τοῦτό ἐστι τῷ Υἱῷ ὁμοούσιον, ὅτι ἐκ τῆς αὐτοῦ οὐσίας ἐστί

這由此處所鋪陳的偉大巴西略之引文得以見證，那引文說：彼此同類之物並不被稱為同質；又附上那些顯明聖子因此而與聖父同質之引文—因祂出於聖父的本質—好使凡願意者由此辨明：聖靈也因此與聖子同質，即因它出於聖子的本質。

And this is witnessed by the citation of the great Basil set down here, which says that things kindred to one another are not called consubstantial; and there are added also the citations which show the Son to be consubstantial with the Father on this account—because He is from His essence—so that whoever wishes may thereby discern that the Spirit too is on this account consubstantial with the Son, namely because it is from His essence.

1:1175

Ἀντεπιγραφή δεκάτη Ἴδιον ἐστιν ὁ Υἱός τοῦ Πατρός, ὡς ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεννηθείς, ὡσαύτως καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, ὡς ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Πατρός (σελ

第十反題。聖子是聖父所固有的，因祂從聖父受生；照樣聖靈也是聖父所固有的，因它從聖父本身發出，（頁……）

Tenth Counter-heading. The Son is the Father's own, as begotten from Him; likewise also the Holy Spirit, as proceeding from the Father Himself, (p. ...)

1:1176

) ἐκπορευόμενον, καθἅ καί ὁ μέγας Βασίλειος ἐν τοῖς Πρός Εὐνομιανούς φησι κεφαλαίοις, γράφων˙ τήν πρός τόν Πατέρα οἰκειότητα νοῶ τοῦ Πνεύματος, ἐπειδή παρά τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορεύεται

……正如偉大的巴西略也在其《駁歐諾米派》諸章中所言，寫道：「我把聖靈與聖父的親密關係理解為：既然它從聖父發出。」

...just as the great Basil also says in his chapters Against the Eunomians, writing: 'I conceive the Spirit's kinship with the Father, since it proceeds from the Father.'

1:1177

Λέγεται δέ καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα, ἐπειδή ὁ αὐτός ἐν ὀγδόῳ κεφαλαίῳ τῶν Πρός Ἀμφιλόχιόν φησιν, ὡς κατά τήν φύσιν ᾠκειωμένον αὐτῷ

聖靈也被稱為「屬聖子的」，因同一位巴西略在《致安非洛基》卷八中說，它是按本性被歸屬於聖子的。

And the Spirit is also called 'of the Son,' since the same Basil says, in the eighth chapter of his work To Amphilochius, that it is appropriated to Him according to nature.

1:1178

Ἔστι δέ τῶν ἀδυνάτων τά τῇ φύσει ταυτά μή καί ἀλλήλοις οἰκεῖα εἶναι˙ οὐ λέγεται δέ ὁ Υἱός τοῦ Πνεύματος, ἵνα μή δόξῃ Πατήρ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, ἅτε τοῦ Υἱοῦ Πατέρα δεικνύντος τόν οὗπερ ἄν λέγοιτο Υἱός

凡本性相同之物，不可能彼此不相親近；但聖子不被說為「屬聖靈的」，免得聖靈彷彿成了父，因為聖子顯明：那位祂可被稱為其子者，即是父。

And it is impossible for things identical in nature not to be also kindred to one another; but the Son is not said to be 'of the Spirit,' lest the Holy Spirit should seem to be Father, inasmuch as the Son shows to be Father the one of whom He might be called Son.

1:1179

Ὁ δέ λατινόφρων οὗτος ἐκ τῶν ὑγιῶς ἐνταῦθα κατεστρωμένων ρήσεων οὐδέν συνάγει ὑγιές

但這拉丁派之人，從此處所妥善鋪陳之言，竟歸結不出任何健全之論。

But this Latin-minded man gathers nothing sound from the soundly set-down sayings here.

1:1180

Ἐξελέγχεται μέντοι καί παρ ἑαυτόῦ λέγων διά τό ὁμοούσιον ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Υἱοῦ λέγεσθαι τό Πνεῦμα˙ οὐ γάρ ἔσται διά τοῦτο καί ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως˙ συμβήσεται γάρ ἐξ ἀλλήλων εἶναι ταῦτα, διό οὐδείς οὐδέποτε τῶν ἁπάντων τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον εἴρηκεν ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως εἶναι τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ἀλλ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Πατρός

他甚至被自己所駁倒，因他說聖靈乃因同質性而被說為出於聖子的本質；因為不會因此就也是出於位格；否則便要推出這些彼此互出—故此眾聖徒中無一曾說聖靈出於聖子的位格，而是出於聖父的位格。

He is indeed refuted even by himself, saying that on account of the consubstantiality the Spirit is said to be from the essence of the Son; for it will not on this account be also from the hypostasis; for it would follow that these are from one another—wherefore none of all (the saints) ever said the Holy Spirit is from the hypostasis of the Son, but from that of the Father.

1:1181

Ἐπιγραφή ἑνδεκάτη Ἐπειδή ἀκούοντές τινες τό Πνεῦμα ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Υἱοῦ λέγουσιν ἄλλο εἶναι τό ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας καί ἄλλο τό ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως, μή δυνάμενοι συνιδεῖν ὡς τό Υἱός ὄνομα ὑποστατικόν ἐστι καί ὁ λέγων ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Υἱοῦ ὅλον δηλοῖ τόν Υἱόν, οὐσίαν δηλαδή ἐνυπόστατον, εἰς ἔλεγχον τῆς αὐτῶν ἐπινοίας συνελέγησαν αἱ παροῦσαι γραφικαί χρήσεις, αἱ δηλοῦσαι ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός τόν Υἱόν γεννᾶσθαι

第十一題。既然有些人聽見聖靈出於聖子的本質，便說「出於本質」是一回事、「出於位格」是另一回事—他們不能察覺「子」這名是位格性的，且那說「出於聖子的本質」者所指的乃是整個聖子，即那有位格的本質—故匯集眼前這些聖經引文，以駁斥他們的觀念，它們顯明聖子是從聖父的本質受生的。

Eleventh Heading. Since some, hearing that the Spirit is from the essence of the Son, say that 'from the essence' is one thing and 'from the hypostasis' another—unable to perceive that the name 'Son' is hypostatic, and that he who says 'from the essence of the Son' signifies the whole Son, namely the enhypostatic essence—the present scriptural citations have been collected for the refutation of their notion, which show the Son to be begotten from the essence of the Father.

1:1182

Ὡμολογημένου γάρ μίαν εἶναι τήν ἐκ Πατρός γέννησιν τοῦ Υἱοῦ, πῶς ἔστι διαφέρειν τό ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας καί τό ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως, εἰ μή τις βλασφημῶν ἐθέλει λέγειν ἄλλην μέν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας, ἄλληνδ ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως Πατρός γέννησιν τοῦ Υἱοῦ;

因為既已一致承認聖子從聖父的受生是「一個」，那麼「出於本質」與「出於位格」怎能有別，除非有人褻瀆地願說：聖子從聖父的受生，一個是出於本質、另一個是出於位格？

For it being agreed that the generation of the Son from the Father is one, how is it possible for 'from the essence' and 'from the hypostasis' to differ, unless someone, blaspheming, wishes to say that there is one generation of the Son from the essence and another from the hypostasis of the Father?

1:1183

Μεθ ἅς ἕτεραι χρήσεις αἱ δηλοῦσαι ( σελ

其後（有）另一些引文，它們顯明（頁……）

After which (there are) other citations which show (p. ...)

1:1184

ὁπωσδήποτε τήν ὕπαρξιν καί ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως ἐκείνης ταύτην ἔχει καί ἀντιστρόφως˙ ὅ γάρ ἄν ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως ἐκείνηςᾖ καί ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας ἐκείνης ἐστίν

……無論以何方式有其存在，它也從那位格有之，反之亦然；因為凡出於那位格者，也出於那本質。

...in whatever way the existence, it has it also from that hypostasis, and conversely; for whatever is from that hypostasis is also from that essence.

1:1185

Ὅταν δέ τι μιᾶς μέν οὐσίας ᾖ, οὐ μιᾶς δέ ὑποστάσεως, ἀλλά πλειόνων, τό ἐκ τῆς μιᾶς ἐκείνης οὐσίας οὐκ ἐκ τῶν λοιπῶν αὐτῆς ὑποστάσεών ἐστιν, ἀλλ ἐκ μιᾶς τινος αὐτῶν

但每當某物屬於一個本質、卻非屬於一個位格而是屬於多個位格時，那出於那一個本質者，便非出於它其餘的諸位格，而是出於其中某一個位格。

But whenever something is of one essence, yet not of one hypostasis but of several, that which is from that one essence is not from the remaining hypostases of it, but from some one of them.

1:1186

Ἐπεί οὖν ἡ ἀνωτάτω καί προσκυνητή Τριάς ἡμῖν μία φύσις ἐστίν ἐν ὑποστάσεσι τρισίν, οὐ πᾶν τό ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τήν ὑπόστασιν ἔχον ἐκ τῶν λοιπῶν ὑποστάσεών ἐστιν, ἀλλ ἐκ μιᾶς τινος αὐτῶν, δηλαδή τῆς πατρικῆς˙ ἐκ ταύτης γάρ μή εἶναι οὐκ ἐνδέχεται

既然那至高至尊、當受敬拜的三一，於我們是一個本性、三個位格，那麼，並非凡從本質而有其位格者，皆出於其餘諸位格，而是出於其中某一個—即那父性位格；因為它不可能不出於這位格。

Since, then, the most exalted and adorable Trinity is for us one nature in three hypostases, not everything that has its hypostasis from the essence is from the remaining hypostases, but from some one of them—namely the paternal; for it is not possible for it not to be from this.

1:1187

Οὐκοῦν οὐχί καί ἐξ ἑτέρας, ἀλλ ἐκ μόνης, εἶπερ ἐκ μιᾶς

所以它也非出於另一位格，而是唯獨出於那一位格，倘若確是出於一個位格的話。

Therefore it is not also from another, but from that alone, if indeed from one.

1:1188

Καί τοῦτο δῆλον ἀπό τῶν ἀνθρώπων˙ ἕκαστος γάρ ἡμῶν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας μέν ἐστι τοῦ Ἀδάμ, οὐκέτι δέ ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως τοῦ Ἀδάμ, διότι μία μέν οὐσία τῶν ἀνθρώπων νῦν, πολλαί δέ ὑποστάσεις˙ ἀνθρωπίνης δέ τήν ἀρχήν μιᾶς οὔσης οὐσίας τε καί ὑποστάσεως, τῆς τοῦ Ἀδάμ, ἐκ τοῦ οὐσίας τοῦ Ἀδάμ ἡ Εὔα οὖσα καί ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως ἐκείνου ἦν

這從人也可看明；因為我們各人都出於亞當的本質，卻不再出於亞當的位格，因為如今人的本質是一個、位格卻是眾多的；但當人性在起初是一個本質、一個位格—即亞當的—時，夏娃既出於亞當的本質，也出於他的位格。

And this is clear from human beings; for each of us is from the essence of Adam, but no longer from the hypostasis of Adam, because the essence of human beings is now one, but the hypostases are many; but when human nature was in the beginning one essence and one hypostasis, that of Adam, Eve, being from the essence of Adam, was also from his hypostasis.

1:1189

Ἀλλά καί πρίν τόν Κάϊν εἶναι, μιᾶς οὔσης ἀνδρικῆς οὐσίας τε καί ὑποστάσεως, ἐκ μιᾶς καί τῆς αὐτῆς ὁ Κάϊν ἀνδρικῆς οὐσίας τε καί ὑποστάσεως ὑπῆρχε, τοῦ Ἀδάμ˙ δυοῖν δέ ἀνδρῶν ἤδη καθ ὑπόστασιν τελούντων, ὁ τῷ Κάϊν γεννηθείς υἱός ἐκ τοῦς οὐσίας μέν ὑπῆρχε τοῦ Ἀδάμ, ἀλλ οὐχί καί ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, ἀλλἐκ μόνης τῆς τοῦ Κάϊν

同樣，在該隱存在以前，當只有一個男性本質與位格時，該隱出於同一個男性本質與位格，即亞當的；但當已有兩個男人按位格存立時，那生給該隱的兒子固然出於亞當的本質，卻非也出於他的位格—乃是唯獨出於該隱的位格。

And likewise before Cain existed, when there was one male essence and hypostasis, Cain came from one and the same male essence and hypostasis, that of Adam; but when two men already subsisted according to hypostasis, the son begotten to Cain was indeed from the essence of Adam, but not also from his hypostasis—rather from that of Cain alone.

1:1190

)Ὁ δέ λατινόφρων οὗτος διατεινόμενος ἐνταῦθα καί ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως εἶναι τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα, εἴπερ εἶναι θεολογεῖται ἐκ τῆς φύσεως, μίαν δείκνυσι φρονῶν ὥσπερ οὐσίαν οὕτω καί ὑπόστασιν ἐπί Θεοῦ, τόν Υἱόνἤ τόν Πατέρα τελέως ἀθετῶν ὁ τάλας, πρός δέ τούτῳ καί ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Υἱοῦ τήν ὕπαρξιν εἶναι τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος δεικνύς

）但這拉丁派之人，在此主張聖靈也出於聖子的位格—倘若它確被神學地說為出於本性—便顯明他認為神裡面正如只有一個本質、也只有一個位格，這可憐人徹底地廢棄聖子或聖父其一，更顯明神聖聖靈的存在乃是唯獨從聖子而來。

) But this Latin-minded man, maintaining here that the Spirit is also from the hypostasis of the Son—if indeed it is theologized as being from the nature—shows that he thinks there is one hypostasis just as one essence in God, the wretch utterly setting aside either the Son or the Father, and moreover showing the existence of the divine Spirit to be from the Son alone.

1:1191

Ἀλλά καί ἀπό τῶν ρητῶν,ἅ θεολογοῦσι τελείαν οὐσίαν εἶναι τόν Πατέρα καί τελείαν οὐσίαν τόν Υἱόν, ὡσαύτως καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, οὐ τό ἑνιαῖον καί ἀπαράλλακτον τῆς οὐσίας ἐπιγινώσκει τῶν τριῶν, ἀλλ ἐνθεωρεῖν πειρᾶται πληθυσμόν τινα καί διαφοράν ἐντεῦθεν κατ αὐτήν ἀφρόνως

甚至從那些神學地宣告「聖父是完全的本質、聖子是完全的本質、聖靈亦然」之言，他也認不出三者本質的合一與不可變易，反倒糊塗地試圖由此就那（本質）觀想出某種多樣與差異。

And even from the sayings which theologize that the Father is a perfect essence and the Son a perfect essence, and likewise the Holy Spirit, he does not recognize the oneness and unalterableness of the essence of the three, but senselessly tries to contemplate therefrom some multiplicity and difference according to it (the essence).

1:1192

Ἐπιγραφή δωδεκάτη Ἐπειδή εἰσίν τινες ἀποτολμῶντες καί λέγοντες τό ἀναβλύζειν καί προϊέναι καί ἐκλάμπειν καί πεφηνέναι ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα μή δηλοῦν τό οὐσιωδῶς καί ἐνυποστάτως ὑπάρχειν αὐτό ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ἀλλά τήν ἐξ αὐτοῦ τῶν πνευματικῶν χαρισμάτων διανομήν, εἰς ἔλεγχον τῆς τοιαύτης ἀνοίας ἐξελέγησαν αἱ παροῦσαι γραφικαί χρήσεις, αἱ δηλοῦσαι ἀναβλύζειν καί ἐκλάμπειν καί πεφηνέναι τόν Υἱόν ἐκ Πατρός˙ οὐ γάρ δή τις ἐρεῖ ὡς οὐχ ὁ Υἱός ἐστιν ὁ ἀναβλύζων καί ἐκλάμπων καί πεφηνώς ἐκ Πατρός οὐσιωδῶς καί ἐνυποστάτως, ἀλλά τά χαρίσματα τοῦ Υἱοῦ

第十二題。既然有些人膽敢說「聖靈從聖子湧出、出來、放光、顯現」並不表示它本質地、有位格地從聖子存在，而是（表示）從祂分配屬靈恩賜，故為駁斥這等愚妄，選取眼前這些聖經引文，它們顯明聖子從聖父湧出、放光、顯現；因為斷無人會說：那本質地、有位格地從聖父湧出、放光、顯現者不是聖子，而是聖子的恩賜。

Twelfth Heading. Since there are some who dare to say that 'the Spirit wells up and comes forth and shines forth and appears from the Son' does not signify it to exist essentially and enhypostatically from the Son, but the distribution of spiritual gifts from Him, for the refutation of such folly the present scriptural citations have been selected, which show the Son to well up and shine forth and appear from the Father; for surely no one will say that it is not the Son who wells up and shines forth and appears from the Father essentially and enhypostatically, but the gifts of the Son.

1:1193

Ἀντεπιγραφή δωδεκάτη Τό γεννητῶς ἔκ τινοςἤ ἐκπορευτῶς τήν ὕπαρξιν ἔχον ἐξ αὐτοῦ καί προϊέναι λέγεται καί ἐκπέμπεσθαι καί ἐκλάμπειν, (σελ

第十二反題。凡以受生或發出方式從某物而有其存在者，也被說為從它出來、被差出、放光，（頁……）

Twelfth Counter-heading. That which has its existence from something by generation or by procession is also said to come forth and be sent forth and shine forth from it, (p. ...)

1:1194

) εἴπερ φῶς ἐστι, καί ὅσα παραπλήσια τούτοις

……倘若它確是光，以及其他與此類似者。

...if indeed it is light, and whatever else is similar to these.

1:1195

Οὐ μή πᾶν τό προϊόνἤ ἐκπεμπόμενονἤ ἐκλάμπον ἔκ τινος καί ἐξ ἐκείνου γεννητῶςἤ ἐκπορευτῶς τήν ὕπαρξιν ἔχει καί ἐν ἰδίᾳ ὑποστάσει ἐστίν

但並非凡從某物出來、或被差出、或放光者，都是以受生或發出方式從它而有其存在、且處於其自身位格中。

But not everything that comes forth or is sent forth or shines forth from something has its existence from it by generation or procession, and is in its own hypostasis.

1:1196

Οὗτος δέ, ὁ τάς ἐπιγραφάς ταύτας συγγραψάμενος, τόλμαν ἐγκαλεῖ τοῖς εὐσεβῶς καί νουνεχῶς φρονοῦσι τολμητίας ὤν αὐτός περί τό δυσσεβεῖν

但這擬出這些題目者，竟指控那些敬虔而明智思想者為膽大妄為，自己卻在不虔上膽大妄為。

But this man, who has composed these headings, charges with audacity those who think piously and sensibly, while being himself audacious in impiety.

1:1197

Τό ἀναγκαῖον, ὅθεν ὡς ἐκ τοῦ γεωμετρικοῦ πορίσματος σχοίης ἄν, ὦ φιλότης, καί τῆς πρῴην ἀγραφίας τό αἴτιον˙ καί νῦν γάρ ἄκων ἐπί τό γράφειν ἦλθον ὑπ ἀνάγκης ἀπαραιτήτου

那必要—親愛的朋友，你可由之、如從幾何推論一般，也把握到我先前（在著述上）緘默的緣由；因為如今我也是不得已、在不可推卸的必要之下才動筆的。

The necessity, from which you may grasp, dear friend, as from a geometrical corollary, the cause also of my former silence (in writing); for now too I have come unwillingly to writing, under inescapable necessity.

1:1198

Ταῦτ ἄρα καί αὐτός τῆς τε μακρηγορίας καί τῆς ἀγροικίας τῶν ρημάτων ἀνάσχου

所以，求你既忍受我論說之冗長，也忍受措辭之粗陋。

Therefore bear with both the length of my discourse and the rusticity of the words.

1:1199

Τί ποτ οὖν ἐστι τό βιασάμενον;

那麼，究竟是什麼強逼了我呢？

What then is it that has compelled me?

1:1200

Ἀκηκόαμεν ἐξενηνέχθαι βιβλίον Κατά Λατίνων τῷ καλῷ τά τε ἄλλα καί περί τούς λόγους καί τούτων μάλιστα τό κορυφαῖον εἶδος Καλαβρῷ Βαρλαάμ καί δι ἐφέσεως ἦν ἡμῖν ἐντυχεῖν τῷ βιβλίῳ

我們聽說那位卓越人物—他在其他方面、在言辭之事上、尤其在言辭之最高形式上皆稱卓越—卡拉布里亞人巴拉昂，出了一本《駁拉丁人》之書；我們極切望得著並研讀此書。

We have heard that a book Against the Latins has been issued by the fine fellow—fine both in other respects and in matters of discourse, and most of all in the chief form of these—Barlaam the Calabrian; and it was our earnest desire to obtain and read the book.

1:1201

Πάνυ δέ ἦν μοι βουλομένῳ προσεντυγχάνειν καί τῷ τοῦ Λόγου Πατρί˙ τούτου δέ ἐπί τοσοῦτον ἀπῳκισμένου σύν σοί, διά σοῦ δεῖν ἔγνων ἐρέσθαί τι τῶν ἀναγκαιοτάτων

我極其渴望也能親近聖言之父；但既然祂與你同在、相去如此遙遠，我便認定必須藉著你來探問那最為要緊之事。

It was very much my wish to meet also with the Father of the Word; but since He dwells so far removed, together with you, I judged it necessary to inquire, through you, into one of the most essential matters.

1:1202

Ἐγκαλεῖ τοῖς προσδιειλεγμένοις τῶν Λατίνων, ὅτι δύο ἀρχάς ποιοῦσι τῆς τοῦ Πνεύματος θεότητος, τόν Πατέρα δηλονότι καί τόν Υἱόν, ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων δογματίζοντες αὐτό

他指責他所交談過的那些拉丁人，控訴他們為聖靈的神性立了兩個本原——即父與子——主張聖靈出於二者。

He accuses those of the Latins with whom he had conversed, charging that they make two principles of the Spirit's divinity—namely the Father and the Son—dogmatizing that the Spirit proceeds from both.

1:1203

Οἱδ οὐ, φασιν, εἷς γάρ Θεός καί ὡς ἐξ ἑνός ἡ πρόοδος, κακῷ τό κακόν φεῦ ἰώμενοι, μᾶλλον δέ καί χείρονι, ὡς φανερόν ἔσται προϊόντος τοῦ λόγου

但他們說：「並非如此；因為神只有一位，而那發出乃是如同出於一。」——唉，這是以惡醫惡，甚而以更惡的去醫治，正如本文往下推進時將顯明的。

But they say, "Not so; for there is one God, and the procession is as from one"—alas, healing evil with evil, or rather with something worse, as will become plain as the discourse proceeds.

1:1204

Ὁ δέ μεταξύ λέγων ἐπιφέρει, ἴσως ἄν τις ὑπέρ ταύτης ἀπολογούμενος τῆς δόξης, (σελ

他在中間插話補充說，或許有人為這意見辯護（頁）

Speaking in between, he adds that perhaps someone defending this opinion (p.)

1:1205

) τουτέστι τῶν δύο ἀρχάς δοξαζόντων τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, εἴποι μηδέν ἄτοπον εἶναι, εἴ τις δύο μέν ἀρχάς λέγει, τόν Πατέρα δηλονότι καί τόν Υἱόν, μή μέντοιγε ἀντιδιῃρημένας μηδέ ἀντιθέτους ἀλλήλαις, ἀλλά τήν ἑτέραν ὑπό τήν ἑτέρανἤ ἐκ τῆς ἑτέρας

——即那些主張聖靈有兩個本原之人——或會說：若有人講論兩個本原，即父與子，只要它們不是彼此對立、互相對峙，而是一者隸屬於另一者、或出於另一者，那便沒有什麼荒謬之處。

—that is, of those who hold there are two principles of the Holy Spirit—might say there is nothing absurd if one speaks of two principles, namely the Father and the Son, provided they are not set over against one another nor opposed to each other, but the one is under the other or from the other.

1:1206

Προϊών δέ ἐπιβεβαιοῖ μηδαμόθεν ἔχειν τό ἄτοπον τήν δόξαν ταύτην, μάρτυρα παράγων τόν ἐν θεολογίᾳ πολύν Γρηγόριον λέγοντα περί τοῦ Υἱοῦ˙ ἡ ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀρχή

他更進一步堅稱這意見毫無荒謬之處，引神學造詣甚深的貴格利為證——他論到子說：「出於本原的本原。」

Proceeding further, he insists that this opinion is in no way absurd, bringing forward as witness Gregory, who is great in theology, who says concerning the Son: "the Principle from the Principle."

1:1207

Καί ἐπ ἐκεῖνο δέ τοῦ λόγου γενόμενος, ἐφ ὅ τῶν παραδεδομένων ἡμῖν περί Θεοῦ τά συντείνοντα τῇ διαλέξει καταλέγει, προϋποθέμενος ὡς μίαν φύσιν ἀνομολοῦμεν ἐπί τοῦ Θεοῦ, τρεῖς δέ ὑποστάσεις, καί ὡς ἕτερα τά φυσικά τῶν ὑποστατικῶν, ἐπιφέρει λέγων καθ ὑπόθεσιν καί τοῦτο ἀνωμολογημένην ὡς οὐ δύο ἀρχαί οὕτως ὡς μή ἔχειν τήν ὑπαρξιν τήν ἑτέραν ἐκ τῆς ἑτέρας, ὡς ἀσεβές ὄν οὕτω δύο λέγειν ἀρχάς ἐπί Θεοῦ

他來到論述中列舉在傳給我們關於神之事中與此辯論相關之處時，先立定：我們在神裡承認一個本性卻有三個位格，且本性的屬性不同於位格的屬性；他隨後補充說——這也是按假設所承認的：並非有兩個本原以致一者由另一者得存有，因為這樣論神有兩個本原乃是不虔的。

And coming to that part of the discourse where he lists what bears upon the disputation among the things handed down to us concerning God, having first laid down that we confess one nature in God but three hypostases, and that the natural properties differ from the hypostatic ones, he adds, saying that this too is granted by hypothesis: that there are not two principles in such a way that the one has its existence from the other, since it is impious thus to speak of two principles in God.

1:1208

Καί γάρ καί αὐτός αὖθις προστίθησιν˙ ἴσως οὕτω γε οὐδέν κωλύει ὥς φησιν ὁ Θεολόγος, ἡ ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀρχή, καί δείκνυσιν οἰόμενος ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων λόγων καί δι ἄλλων μεταξύ διαλεγόμενος μή δυσσεβές εἶναι λέγειν ἀρχήν καί τόν Υἱόν τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, ὡς καί αὐτόν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὄντα, εἰ καί ἀρχή ἐστι

因為他自己又補充說：「或許這樣便沒有什麼攔阻，正如神學家所言：『出於本原的本原。』」並且以為從這類話便能證明，又在中間藉其他論點辯論，他主張稱子也為聖靈之本原並非不虔，因為子自己也出於本原，縱使祂自己即是本原。

For indeed he himself again adds: "Perhaps in this way nothing prevents it, as the Theologian says, 'the Principle from the Principle.'" And, supposing that from such words he proves it—and disputing through other matters in between—he holds that it is not impious to call the Son also a principle of the Holy Spirit, inasmuch as the Son too is from a principle, even though He is Himself a principle.

1:1209

Καί μήν οὐδέ ἐπί τῆς δημιουργικῆς ἀρχῆς, καθ ἥν καί ὁ Υἱός φανερῶς ἀρχή παρά τῆς Γραφῆς καλεῖται, δύο λέγειν εὐσεβές ἀρχάς˙ ἀλλ οὐ ταύτην ἐνταυθοῖ προϋποτίθεται, μηδέν συντελοῦσαν πρός τήν προκειμένην σκέψιν

誠然，即便就那創造的本原而言——按此本原，子也被聖經明明稱為「本原」——說有兩個本原也是不虔的；但他在此並未以這層意思為前提，因為這對所探討之事毫無助益，

And indeed, not even with respect to the creative principle—according to which the Son too is plainly called "principle" by Scripture—is it pious to speak of two principles; but he does not here premise this sense, since it contributes nothing to the matter under examination,

1:1210

λέγων, ὅπερ οὐκ ἄν εἴη ἐπί τῆς δημιουργικῆς ἀρχῆς˙ ἡ αὐτή γάρ ἐστιν ἐκείνη

他所說的話不可能適用於創造的本原，因為那本原乃是同一的。

saying what could not be said of the creative principle, for that principle is one and the same.

1:1211

) Ἄλλως τε, τό δημιουργικόν ταύτης σημαινούσης, οὐ δύο μόνον ἄν εἴποι τις, εἰ καί μή καλῶς, ἀλλά καί πλείους˙ τρισυπόστατος γάρ αὕτη ἡ ἀρχή˙ φύσει δέ οὖσα καί κοινή ἐστι˙ κοινήν δέ οὖσαν, πῶς οὐκ ἄν ἔχοι καί τό Πνεῦμα ταύτην τήν ἀρχήν;

)再者，若它指創造之能，人或可說的就不只兩個（雖非正確），甚至更多；因為這本原乃是三個位格的。它既按本性而存，便也是共有的；既是共有的，聖靈又怎會不也具有這本原呢？

) Besides, if it signifies the creative power, one could speak not only of two—though not rightly—but even of more; for this principle is tri-hypostatic. And being by nature, it is also common; and being common, how would the Spirit too not possess this principle?

1:1212

Καί ὁ τῷ Ἰώβ δέ προσδιαλεγόμενος ὑπέρ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνης Ἐλιούς, Πνεῦμα, λέγων Κυρίου τό ποιῆσάν με, οὐ ποιητικήν ἀρχήν τό Πνεῦμα λέγει;

那位為神的公義與約伯辯論的以利戶，當他說：「造我的乃是主的靈」時，豈不是稱聖靈為創造的本原嗎？

And Elihu, who debated with Job on behalf of God's justice, when he says, "the Spirit of the Lord is that which made me," does he not call the Spirit a creative principle?

1:1213

Καί ὁ θεῖος ᾠδικός Δαβίδ, λόγῳ μέν Κυρίου τούς οὐρανούς στερεωθῆναι ψάλλων, Πνεύματι δέ τάς τῶν οὐρανῶν δυνάμεις, οὐχ ὥσπερ τῷ Υἱῷ, οὕτω καί τῷ Πνεύματι τήν δημιουργικήν ἀρχήν προσμαρτυρεῖ;

神聖的詩人大衛歌頌說諸天藉主的話而堅立，天上的萬象卻藉聖靈而立——他豈不是像對待子一樣，也把創造的本原歸於聖靈嗎？

And the divine psalmist David, when he sings that the heavens were established by the word of the Lord, but the powers of the heavens by the Spirit—does he not attribute the creative principle to the Spirit just as to the Son?

1:1214

Εἰ οὖν διά τό γέγραφθαι ἡ ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀρχή, δύο εἰπεῖν ἀρχάς οὐδέν κωλύει, καί διά τό γεγράφθαι καί τό Πνεῦμα ποιητήν, δύο ποιητάς εἰπεῖν οὐδέν κωλύει˙ἤ διά τό λόγῳ Θεοῦ καί Πνεύματι τήν κτίσιν στερεοῦσθαι, ταὐτόνδ εἰπεῖν συνίστασθαι, τρεῖς ἀρχάς εἰπεῖν οὐδέν κωλύει

那麼，若因為寫著「出於本原的本原」，便沒有什麼攔阻人講論兩個本原，那麼既然也寫著聖靈也是創造者，就沒有什麼攔阻人講論兩個創造者；又或既然受造之物是藉神的話和聖靈而堅立（這等於說由二者所構成），就沒有什麼攔阻人講論三個本原了。

If then, because it is written "the Principle from the Principle," nothing prevents one from speaking of two principles, then since it is also written that the Spirit too is a maker, nothing prevents one from speaking of two makers; or since creation is established by the Word of God and by the Spirit—which is the same as to say it is constituted by them—nothing prevents one from speaking of three principles.

1:1215

Ἀλλ οὐδαμοῦ τῶν θεολόγων εἶπέ τις οὔτε δύο οὔτε τρεῖς˙ ὥσπερ γάρ Θεόν ἑκάστην τῶν προσκυνητῶν ἐκείνων ὑποστάσεών φαμεν καί Θεόν ἑκατέραν ἐκ Θεοῦ, ἀλλ οὐ παρά τοῦτο τρεῖςἤ δύο ποτέ θεούς, οὕτω καί ἀρχήν ἐξ ἀρχῆς φαμεν, ἀλλ οὐ δύο ποτέ ἀρχάς˙ δευτέραν γάρ ἀρχήν οὐδέπω καί τήμερον ὑπό τῶν εὐσεβῶν ἀκηκόαμεν, ὥσπερ οὐδέ Θεόν δεύτερον

但任何神學家都從未說過有兩個或三個本原；因為我們既稱那些當受敬拜的位格中每一位為神，又稱其中兩位為「出於神的神」，卻決不因此就有兩位或三位神；照樣我們也說「出於本原的本原」，卻決不說有兩個本原；因為直到今日，我們也未曾從敬虔之人聽說過第二個本原，正如也未聽說過第二位神。

But nowhere did any of the theologians say either two or three; for just as we call each of those adorable hypostases God, and each of two of them God from God, yet not on this account ever two or three gods, so also we say "principle from principle," yet never two principles; for a second principle we have not, even to this day, heard from the orthodox, just as neither a second God.

1:1216

Ἀλλ εἷς ἡμῖν Θεός καί μοναρχία τό προσκυνούμενον, οὐκ ἐκ δύο θεῶν, οὐδ ἐκ δύο ἀρχῶν συνιόντα, καί ἕν, ἐπεί μηδέ κατά ταῦτα μεριστόν, ἡμῖν τό σεβόμενον˙ καί μήν οὐδέ κατά τό αὐτό μερίζεταί τε καί συνάγεται˙ διαρεῖται μέν γάρ ταῖς ὑποστατικαῖς ἰδιότησι, τοῖς δέ κατά τήν φύσιν ἑνοῦται

我們所敬拜的乃是獨一的神，是一個君主獨一之治——不是由兩位神所組成，也不是由兩個本原所合成——並且是一，因為我們所崇敬的，按這些理由乃是不可分的；也決不是在同一方面既被分又被合：因為它按位格的屬性而被區分，卻按本性所有的而被聯合。

But one is our God, and what we worship is a monarchy—not composed of two gods, nor coming together out of two principles—and it is one, since what we revere is not on these grounds divisible; nor indeed is it divided and gathered in the same respect: for it is distinguished by the hypostatic properties, but united by what pertains to the nature.

1:1217

Εἰ γοῦν δύο ἀρχάς εἰπεῖν οὐδέν κωλύει, λοιπόν αὗταί εἰσι καθ ἅς μερίζεται˙ ἑνωθῆναι τοίνυν αὖθις κατ αὐτάς ἀδύνατον˙ οὐκ ἄρ αἱ δύο μία

那麼，若沒有什麼攔阻人講論兩個本原，那麼這兩者便是神性藉以被分的；如此，神性按它們便不可能再被聯合；所以這兩者並非一。

If, then, nothing prevents speaking of two principles, it follows that these are that by which the divinity is divided; and so it is impossible for it to be united again according to them; therefore the two are not one.

1:1218

Ὁ τοίνυν λέγων δύο ἀρχάς ἐπί Θεοῦ, ὅτι ὁ Υἱός ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀρχή ἐστιν, εἰ μέν κατά τό δημιουργικόν φησι, πρός τῷ καί (σελ

因此，那以子為「出於本原的本原」而說神裡有兩個本原的人——若他所指的是創造這層意義，那麼，除了（頁）

He, then, who says there are two principles in God on the ground that the Son is "the Principle from the Principle"—if he means this in the creative sense, then, besides the fact that (p.)

1:1219

) ἄλλως μή συμβαίνειν τῇ καθ ἡμᾶς ὁμολογίᾳ, καί τό Πνεῦα τό ἅγιον ἐκβάλλει τῆς δημιουργικῆς δυνάμεως, ταὐτό δέ εἰπεῖν καί τῆς θεότητος˙ τό γάρ μή δημιουργικόν, οὐδέ Θεός˙ εἰ δέ κατά τό θεογόνον, ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ σαφῶς τό Πνεῦμα παραδίδωσιν

)這在別處與我們的信仰告白不合之外，他還把聖靈逐出創造之能——這等於把它逐出神性；因為凡不能創造的便也不是神——但他若所指的是那「生發神性」之義，那麼他便明明傳講聖靈是出於父並出於子。

) it otherwise does not accord with our confession, he also casts the Holy Spirit out of the creative power—which is the same as casting it out of the divinity; for what is not creative is not God either—but if he means it in the divinity-begetting sense, then he plainly hands down that the Spirit is from the Father and from the Son.

1:1220

Οὐ μή ἀλλά τοῦτο μέν αὐτός ἐν τοῖς Λόγοις εἰρηκώς, σιωπῆσαι τελέως οὐ διέγνων

雖然如此，既然他自己在其《論述》中說了這話，我便不認為應當完全緘默。

Nevertheless, since he himself has said this in his Discourses, I have not seen fit to keep entirely silent.

1:1221

Τόν μέν οὖν εἰσόμεθα καί μέθ ἡδονῆς δήπου˙ τί γάρ ποτ ἄν ἄλλο προσδόκιμον ἡμῖν εἴη παρ ἀνδρός ἀκριβοῦς εὐσεβείας πόθῳ τήν ἐνεγκοῦσαν ἀπολιπόντος;

那麼，這人我們將要認識，而且確是欣然地；因為對一個出於對精確敬虔的渴慕而捨棄了故鄉的人，我們還能期待什麼別的呢？

Him, then, we shall come to know, and indeed with pleasure; for what else could we expect from a man who, out of longing for exactness in piety, has left his homeland behind?

1:1222

Ἴσθιδ ἀκριβῶς καί ἀμετάπειστος ἴσθι περί τοῦτο, ὅτι τοῦτό ἐστι τό τῶν Λατίνων φρόνημα καί ἐν τούτῳ αὐτοῖς σχεδόν τό ἰσχυρόν καί πρός τοῦτο ἀντιπαράττεσθαι δεῖ τόν ἀντιτεταγμένων, εἰ μή βούλοιτο κενοῦν μέν ἐν τοῖς ἀκαίροις τήν ἴσχύν, ἥττωνδ ἐν τοῖς καιρίοις εὑρίσκεσθαι

你要確切地知道，並在此事上堅定不移：這就是拉丁人的心思，他們幾乎全部的力量都在於此，反對者必須在此處迎戰——除非他甘願把力氣耗在不相干的事上，而在關鍵之處反顯軟弱。

Know exactly, and be unshakeable concerning this: that this is the mind of the Latins, and in this lies almost the whole of their strength, and against this the opponent must take his stand—unless he wishes to expend his strength on what is beside the point, and be found weaker in the decisive matters.

1:1223

Ὅταν γάρ μή ἐκ τῶν ἡμῖν ἀνωμολογημένων ποιῶνται τούς συλλογισμούς, μηδέ ὡς ἀρχαῖς χρῶνται τοῖς θεοπαραδότοις ρήμασί τε καί νοήμασι, μικρόνἤ οὐδέν ἡμᾶς ἀπολογεῖσθαι χρή, ὡς ἐθελοκακοῦσι καί πρός ἔριν, ἀλλ οὐ πρός ἀλήθειαν ποιουμένοις τήν διάλεξιν, καί μάλισθ ὅτι μηδέν οἱ τοιοῦτοι λόγοι ἡμᾶς

因為每當他們所建構的三段論不是出於我們所共認的，也不以神所傳下的話語和觀念為本原時，我們便幾乎、甚或全然無須作任何辯護——因為這等人是故意作惡、是為爭競而非為真理而辯論的——尤其因為這類論證對我們毫無作用。

For whenever they construct their syllogisms not from what is agreed upon by us, nor use as principles the words and concepts handed down from God, we need to make little or no defense—on the ground that such men are willfully malicious and carry on the dispute for the sake of contention rather than for truth—and especially because such arguments avail nothing against us.

1:1224

Εἰ γάρ τόν μουσικόνἤ τόν γεωμέτρην ᾗ τοιοῦτον ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν οὐ προσδιαλεκτέον ἀγεωμετρήτῳ παντάπασινἤ ἀναρμόστῳ, μή ἐξημμένῳ δηλαδή τῶν τῆς γεωμετρίαςἤ τῆς μουσικῆς ἀρχῶν, κἄν περί αὐτῶν τῶν ἀρχῶν τήν ζήτησιν ποιῆσθον τούς μαθηματικούς ἐκείνους μηδέ ἀποκρίνασθαι, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἡμᾶς οὐκ ἀποκριτέον, οὐδέ διαλεκτέον τῷ περί Θεοῦ ἰδιοτήτων συλλογιζομένῳ μή ἀπό τῶν θεολογικῶν ἀρχῶν˙ ἐκ ψευδῶν γάρ αὐτῷ συντίθεται (σελ

因為若連音樂家或幾何學家，就其本行而言，都不該與全然不通幾何或不通音律的人交談——即不通幾何或音樂之本原的人——而那些數學家就算被人追問本原本身時也無須回答，那麼，對一個論及神之屬性卻不從神學本原出發推理的人，我們就更不該回答、更不該辯論了；因為他的論證乃是出於虛假的前提（頁）

For if neither the musician nor the geometer, as such, ought to converse with one wholly ignorant of geometry or unmusical—that is, one not grounded in the principles of geometry or music—and if those mathematicians need not even answer should the inquiry be made about the principles themselves, then much more ought we not to answer, nor dispute, with one who reasons about the properties of God yet not from the theological principles; for from false premises his (p.)

1:1225

) ὁ λόγος, ἐξ ὧν οὐ πάντως ἀληθές συνάγεται, μᾶλλον δέ οὐδόλως

)所組成的，由此絕不能推出真實之事——或者不如說，什麼也推不出來；

) argument is composed, from which what is true is by no means deduced—or rather, nothing at all is;

1:1226

προάγεται τό ψεῦδος, ὥστε τό ἐναντίον τῇ θεολογίᾳ κατά τῆς ἑαυτῶν φέρειν κεφαλῆς ἀνάγκη, ὅ ἐστιν ἡ βλασφημία

反倒推出虛謊，以致與神學相反之事必然臨到他們自己頭上——這就是褻瀆。

falsehood is advanced, so that the contrary of theology is necessarily brought down upon their own head—which is blasphemy.

1:1227

Ὡς οὖν τήν κατά διάθεσιν ἄγνοιαν νοσοῦντας παραιτεῖσθαι δεῖ

因此，他們既患著一種出於存心的無知，便當被拒絕。

Thus, as suffering from a willful ignorance, they must be refused.

1:1228

Ἀλλά γάρ ὅπως σαθρόν λίαν ἐξελέγχεται τό δοκοῦν τοῦτο τοῖς λατινικῶς φρονοῦσιν ἰσχυρόν, ἤδη μέν καί ἐν τοῖς πρῴην Περί τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος σύν αὐτῷ πεποιημένοις ἡμῖν λόγοις πολλαχοῦ καί διά πλειόνων ἀπεδείξαμεν καί νῦν δέ οὐκ ὀκνήσομεν διά τούς ἐντυγχάνειν μέλλοντας τουτωί τῷ γράμματι

但這在那些按拉丁人方式思想之人看來如此堅固的論點，其實是極其朽壞的——這一點我們早已在先前與他一同所作的《論聖靈》諸論述中，在許多地方詳加證明了；如今我們也不憚於此，乃是為了那些將要讀這篇文字的人。

But that this which seems so strong to those who think in the Latin way is in fact thoroughly rotten, we have already demonstrated in many places and at length in our earlier discourses composed with him On the Holy Spirit; and now too we shall not hesitate, for the sake of those who are going to read this writing.

1:1229

Οὐδέ γάρ ἀνεχόμεθα κακοδόξων ἐπιχείρημα παρ ἡμῶν ἐγγεγραμμένον ἀνεξέλεκτον προκεῖσθαι τοῖς πολλοῖς, μᾶλλον δέ ἀναλαβόντες καί ἑτέραν δόντες ἀρχήν τῷ λόγῳ, τά τῆς μοναρχικωτάτης ἀρχῆς εἰς δύναμιν διατρανώσωμεν καί ἐπελέγξωμεν τούς τοῦ ἑνός Πνεύματος δύο δογματίζοντας ἀρχάς, ὅτι τε τοῦτο δογματίζουσι καί ὅτι οὐ καλῶς

因為我們不能容忍由我們記下的異端論點未經駁斥便擺在眾人面前；倒不如重新拾起它、給這論述另一個開端，讓我們竭盡所能闡明那至高君主之本原的事，並駁斥那些為獨一聖靈主張兩個本原之人——既證明他們確是這樣主張，也證明他們這樣主張並不正確。

For we cannot endure that an argument of the heterodox, recorded by us, should lie before the many unrefuted; rather, taking it up again and giving the discourse another beginning, let us, to the best of our power, make clear the things of the most monarchical Principle, and refute those who dogmatize two principles of the one Spirit—both that they do dogmatize this, and that they do not do so rightly.

1:1230

Ἡ δημιουργική ἀρχή μία ἐστίν, ὁ Πατήρ καί ὁ Υἱός καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον

創造的本原乃是一：父、子和聖靈。

The creative principle is one: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

1:1231

Ὅταν οὖν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ τά ἐκ τοῦ μή ὄντος προηγμένα λέγωμεν, τήν τε ἀγαθότητα, δι ἥν τό εἶναι ἔσχον, καί τήν ἐγγεγενημένην χάριν, ὅθεν ἕκαστον τοῦ εὖ εἶναι καταλλήλως μετεσχήκασι, καί τήν ἐπιγεγενημένην ὕστερον, δι ἥν πρός τό εὖ εἶναι τά διαπεπτωκότα ἐπανῆλθον, ὅταν ταῦτά τε καί περί τοιούτων ποιώμεθα τούς λόγους, ἀρχήν καί πηγήν καί αἴτιον καί τόν Υἱόν ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματί φαμεν, οὐχ ἑτέραν, ἄπαγε, ἀλλά τήν αὐτήν, ὡς τοῦ Πατρός δι αὐτοῦ ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι καί προάγοντος καί ἐπανάγοντος καί συνέχοντος καλῶς τά πάντα

那麼，每當我們講論神從無有中所帶出之物——即它們藉以得存有的良善，和植入其中的恩典（萬物各按其分藉此分享美好存有），以及後來加上的恩典（墮落者藉此重歸美好存有）——每當我們論到這些以及這類事時，我們也在聖靈裡稱子為本原、源頭和原因；不是別的本原，斷乎不是，乃是同一個，因為父藉著祂、在聖靈裡，美善地帶出、領回並維繫萬有。

Whenever, then, we speak of the things brought forth from non-being by God—namely the goodness through which they received being, and the grace implanted in them, whereby each shares fittingly in well-being, and the grace later added on, through which the fallen returned to well-being—whenever we make our discourses about these and such matters, we call the Son too, in the Holy Spirit, a principle and source and cause; not another, far from it, but the same, since the Father, through Him in the Holy Spirit, both brings forth, leads back, and holds all things together well.

1:1232

Ὁ δέ Πατήρ πρός τῷ πηγή τῶν πάντων εἶναι διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, καί πηγή καί ἀρχή ἐστι θεότητος, θεογόνος ὤν μονώτατος

但父除了藉子在聖靈裡作萬有之源外，也是神性的源頭與本原，唯獨祂是神性的生發者。

But the Father, besides being the source of all things through the Son in the Holy Spirit, is also source and principle of divinity, being alone the begetter of divinity.

1:1233

Καί τοῦτ ἐσμέν εἰδότες κρεῖττονἤ κατά ἀπόδειξιν διά τῶν θεοπνεύστων λογίων τρανῶς ἐκπεφασμένον

這事我們所知比靠論證所得更為確實，因為它藉神所默示的聖言被清楚宣明了。

And this we know better than by demonstration, since it is plainly declared through the God-inspired oracles.

1:1234

Ὅταν οὖν ἀκούσῃς ὅτι ὁ Υἱός ἡ ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀρχή καί ὁ καλῶν αὐτόν ἀπό γενεῶν ἀρχήν (σελ

那麼，每當你聽見子是「出於本原的本原」，以及那稱祂為「從世代以來的本原」的話（頁）

Whenever, then, you hear that the Son is "the Principle from the Principle," and Him who calls Him "principle from the generations" (p.)

1:1235

) καί μετά σοῦ ἡ ἀρχή ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τῆς δυνάμεώς σου, τῶν δημιουργημάτων νόει, καθάπερ καί Ἰωάννης ἀριδήλως ἐν τῇ Ἀποκαλύψει περί αὐτοῦ βοᾷ, ἡ ἀρχή τῶν κτισμάτων τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐχ ὡς καταρχή, ἄπαγε, Θεός γάρ, ἀλλ ὡς δημιουργός αὐτῶν˙ κοινωνός γάρ ἐστι τῆς ἐξ ἧς ταῦτα πατρικῆς ἀρχῆς, καθ ἥν καί τῶν πάντων δεσποτείας αὕτη ἐστίν ἐπώνυμον

以及「在你掌權之日，本原與你同在」，這要按受造之物來理解——正如約翰在《啟示錄》中也明明論到祂呼喊：「神受造之物的元始」——不是作為起首的本原，斷乎不是（因為祂是神），乃是作為它們的創造者；因為祂分享那作這些事之源的父性本原，按此本原祂也得了那統管萬有之主權的名。

) and "with You is the principle in the day of Your power," understand it of created things—just as John too cries out plainly about Him in the Apocalypse, "the Principle of God's creatures"—not as an originating principle, far from it (for He is God), but as their Creator; for He shares in the paternal principle from which these things come, according to which He too bears the name of lordship over all.

1:1236

Τοῦ δέ Πνεύματος τόν Υἱόν ἀρχήν ἐπί τῆς σημασίας ταύτης, πῶς ἄν φαίη τις, εἰ μή καί τό Πνεῦμα δοῦλονἤ κτιστόν;

但若聖靈不是僕役或受造之物，誰又能在這層意義上稱子為聖靈的本原呢？

But how could anyone call the Son a principle of the Spirit in this sense, unless the Spirit too were a servant or a creature?

1:1237

Ἀλλ ἐπεί Θεός τό Πνεῦμα, οὐκ ἀρχή αὐτοῦ κατά τοῦτο ὁ Υἱός, εἰ μή ἄρα ὡς θεοτητος ἀρχή

但既然聖靈是神，子在這方面便不是祂的本原——除非乃是作為神性的本原。

But since the Spirit is God, the Son is not in this respect a principle of Him—unless indeed as a principle of divinity.

1:1238

Εἰ δέ τῆς τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος θεότητος ὁ Υἱός ἐστιν ἀρχή, κοινωνεῖν δέ κατ αὐτήν τῷ Πατρί ἀμήχανον, μόνος γάρ τεθεολόγηται πηγαία θεότης Πατήρ, ἑτέρας ἄρα διαφόρου τινος θεότητος ὁ Υἰός ἐστιν ἀρχή καί διέσπασε τό Πνεῦμα τῆς παγαζούσης ἐκ Πατρός θεότητος˙ἤ διά δύο διαφόρους θεότητας δώσωμεν τούτῳ τῷ ἑνί, καί τοῖς τρισί μίαν ἀνομολογοῦντες θεότητα;

但若子是聖靈神性的本原，而父在此事上與祂共有又屬不可能（因為唯有父被神學稱為源頭性的神性），那麼子便是某種別的、不同神性的本原，並把聖靈從那由父湧流而出的神性中扯離了；或者，我們是否要因著兩種不同的神性而把這歸給那一位，卻又為這三位承認一個神性呢？

But if the Son is the principle of the Holy Spirit's divinity, and it is impossible for the Father to share with Him in this (for the Father alone has been theologized as the fontal divinity), then the Son is the principle of some other, different divinity, and has torn the Spirit away from the divinity that wells up from the Father; or shall we, by reason of two different divinities, grant this to the One, while confessing one divinity for the Three?

1:1239

Πῶς δέ καί αἱ δύο κατά Λατίνους τοῦ ἑνός Πνεύματος ἀρχαί μία ἐστίν ἀρχή;

再者，按拉丁人所說，這獨一聖靈的兩個本原又怎會是一個本原呢？

And how, according to the Latins, are the two principles of the one Spirit one principle?

1:1240

Οὐ γάρ ἀξιώσουσιν ἡμᾶς πίστει δέχεσθαι τούτων τά προβλήματα, ἀλλά μηδέ σοφιστικῶς ἀποκρινέσθωσαν, ἄλλην ἀντ ἄλλης ποιούμενοι τήν ἀπόκρισιν

因為他們不會要求我們憑信心接受這些難題；他們也不可詭辯地回答，以一個答案頂替另一個。

For they will not require us to receive these problems on faith; nor let them answer sophistically, giving one answer in place of another.

1:1241

Ἡμῶν γάρ ἐρωτώντων πῶς δύο κατ αὐτούς τοῦ ἑνός Πνεύματος ἀρχαί, μίαν ἐκεῖνοι διισχυρίζονται τῶν δύο εἶναι τήν ἀρχήν

因為當我們問道：按他們所說，這獨一聖靈怎會有兩個本原時，他們便堅稱那兩者乃是一個本原。

For when we ask how, according to them, there are two principles of the one Spirit, they insist that of the two there is one principle.

1:1242

Ἡμεῖς δέ οὐ περί τῶν δύο προσώπων ἐρωτῶμεν, ἀλλά περί τοῦ ἑνός, καί περί τούτου μᾶλλον πρός αὐτούς ποιούμεθα τόν λόγον ὡς ἐπεί τῶν δύο μία ἡ ἀρχή καλῶς, πῶς τοῦ ἑνός δύο ἔσονται ἀρχαί καί πῶς αἱ δύο μία κατ αὐτούς;

但我們所問的不是關於這兩位位格，乃是關於那一位；我們對他們所論的更在於這一點：既然這兩者的本原確然是一，那麼這一位又怎會有兩個本原，而那兩者按他們所說又怎會是一呢？

But we are not asking about the two persons, but about the one; and concerning this rather we make our argument against them: since the principle of the two is rightly one, how will there be two principles of the one, and how, according to them, are the two one?

1:1243

Φασίν οὖν˙ διότι ἡ μία ἐστίν ἐκ τῆς ἑτέρας

於是他們說：因為這一者是出於另一者。

They say, then: because the one is from the other.

1:1244

Ἐκ μιᾶς ἆρα γεγέννηται ἀρχῆς ὅτι ἡ Εὔα ἦν ἐκ τοῦ Ἀδάμ, καί οὐ δύο εἰσί τούτου τοῦ ἑνός ἀρχαί, ὅτι ἡ μία ἐστίν ἐκ τῆς ἑτέρας;

那麼，難道夏娃因為出於亞當就是由一個本原所生，而這一者就沒有兩個本原，理由是這一者出於另一者嗎？

Has Eve, then, been begotten from one principle because she was from Adam, and are there not two principles of this one, on the ground that the one is from the other?

1:1245

) Οὐ δευτέρα ἀρχή τῶν ἐξ αὐτῆς, ὅτι καί αὐτή τήν ἀρχήν ἔσχεν ἐξ Ἀδάμ;

)難道她對那些由她而出的人來說不是第二個本原嗎？因為她自己也是從亞當得了她的本原。

) Is she not a second principle of those who come from her, because she too received her principle from Adam?

1:1246

Καίτοι ἀμφοῖν τό γόνιμον αὐτοῖς, ἀλλά καί διάφορον καί ἐν διαφόροις ὑποστάσεσι˙ διόπερ οὐδέ μία ἐστίν αὗται αἱ ἀρχαί, καίτοι ἡ μία ἐστίν ἐκ τῆς ἑτέρας

然而二者都有生育之能，但這能也是不同的，且在不同的位格之中；正因如此，這些本原並非一，縱使這一者出於另一者。

And yet both have the power of generating, but it is also different and in different hypostases; for this very reason these principles are not one, even though the one is from the other.

1:1247

γοῦν ἐνταῦθα, οὗ, εἰ καί μή ἕν, ὅμως ἐστί τό γόνιμον ἀμφοῖν, οὐκ ἔνι τοῦ ἑνός μίαν εἶναι τήν ἀρχήν, πῶς ἐπί τῆς ἀνωτάτω Τριάδος αἱ δύο τοῦ ἑνός ἁγίου Πνεύματος μία εἰσίν ἀρχαί, ἐν ᾗ μηδαμῶς ἐστι κατά τό θεογόνον κοινωνία;

那麼，若連在此處——縱然生育之能不是同一的、卻仍歸於二者——這一者的本原都不可能是一，那麼在至高三一的情形中，這獨一聖靈的兩個本原又怎會是一呢？在祂裡面，就生發神性而言根本毫無共通可言。

If, then, even here, where—even if it is not one—the power of generating nevertheless belongs to both, it is not possible for the principle of the one to be one, how, in the case of the supreme Trinity, are the two principles of the one Holy Spirit one, in which there is by no means any communion in respect of the begetting of divinity?

1:1248

Πάλιν ἡ Εὔα, ἐκ μόνου οὖσα τοῦ Ἀδάμ, ἐκ μιᾶς ἐστιν ἀρχῆς, ὁ δέ Ἀδάμ ἐκ γῆς ἐστιν, ἀλλ οὐ παρά τοῦτο ἡ Εὔα ἐκ τῆς γῆς καί τοῦ Ἀδάμ˙ ὁ γάρ Ἀδάμ μόνος ἐκ τῆς γῆς

再者，夏娃既單出於亞當，便是出於一個本原；而亞當出於地，但夏娃並不因此就出於地又出於亞當；因為唯獨亞當出於地。

Again, Eve, being from Adam alone, is from one principle; and Adam is from the earth, but Eve is not on this account from the earth and from Adam; for Adam alone is from the earth.

1:1249

Ἤ τοίνυν καί αὐτοί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ μόνου λεγέτωσαν τό Πνεῦμα, καί οὕτως αὐτό ἐκ μιᾶς ἀρχῆς λεγέτωσαν, ἀλλ οὐκ ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς, ἀφ ἧς καί ὁ Υἱός, κἀντεῦθεν πάλιν δύο εἰσίν ἐπί τῆς θεότητος ἀρχαί καί οὐκ ἔτ ἐστί μείζων ὁ Πατήρ τῷ αἰτίῳ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ἐπίσης γάρ καί αὐτός αἴτιος θεότητος,ἤ ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός αὐτό λέγοντες, μίαν ἐν τῷ Πνεύματι ὡς καί τῷ Υἱῷ εὐσεβῶς διδότωσαν ἀρχήν

那麼，他們要麼也說聖靈唯獨出於子，並如此說祂出於一個本原——但不是出於子也出於的那同一個本原；如此一來，神性中又有了兩個本原，父也不再因作子之原因而為大，因為子也同樣是神性之原因；他們要麼說聖靈唯獨出於父，便當敬虔地為聖靈、也如同為子，承認一個本原。

Either, then, let them too say the Spirit is from the Son alone, and so say it is from one principle—but not from the same principle from which the Son also is, and thence again there are two principles in the divinity, and the Father is no longer greater in being the cause of the Son, for the Son too is equally cause of divinity; or, saying that the Spirit is from the Father alone, let them piously grant one principle in the Spirit as also in the Son.

1:1250

Μέχρι γάρ ἄν ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦἤ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων λέγωσιν, ἀλλ οὐκ ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός, οὐκ ἔστι μίαν εἶναι τῆς θεότητος τοῦ ἑνός Πνεύματος ἀρχήν

因為只要他們說聖靈出於子、或出於二者，而非單出於父，那麼這獨一聖靈之神性便不可能有一個本原。

For as long as they say the Spirit is from the Son or from both, but not from the Father alone, it is impossible that there be one principle of the divinity of the one Spirit.

1:1251

Συνάπτων γάρ τις ἐπί τῶν τοιούτων, εἰ καί μίαν φαίη τήν ἀρχήν, ἀλλ ὁμωνύμως, ὥστε οὐ μία˙ εἰ δέ διαιρῶν κατά μίαν ὁρᾷ τάς θείας ὑποστάσεις, τῆς μιᾶς ἐξ ἀνάγκης δύο φανερῶς γίνονται ἀρχαί

因為在這類情形中，凡把它們合在一起的人，縱使他說本原是一，也只是含混地說，以致它並非一；但他若加以區分、逐一地看那些神聖位格，那麼從那一個必然明明生出兩個本原來。

For one who in such cases joins them together, even if he should say the principle is one, says it equivocally, so that it is not one; but if he, dividing, views the divine hypostases one by one, then of necessity two principles plainly come to be from the one.

1:1252

Ἐμοίδ ἔπεισι θαυμάζειν καί τό ὑπερβάλλον τῆς ἀνοίας τῶν τάς δύο ταύτας, ὥς φασιν, ἀρχάς μίαν λεγόντων τε καί οἰομένων

但我也不禁驚訝於那些把這兩個本原（如他們所說）稱為、並以為是一者之人那超乎尋常的愚妄。

But it comes over me to marvel also at the surpassing folly of those who call and suppose these two principles, as they say, to be one.

1:1253

Εἰ μέν γάρ κοινωνεῖ τῷ Πατρί κατά τό θεογόνον ὁ Υἱός, προβαλλόμενος τό Πνεῦμα, καί ἕν αὐτοῖς τό θεογόνον καί ἡ ἐκ τούτων αὕτη πρόοδος, τῆς φύσεως ἄρα τοῦτο καί οὐ δύο εἰσίν ἀρχαί, οὐδ αἱ δύο μία, (σελ

因為若子在生發神性這事上與父共有、發出聖靈，且那生發之能在二者裡是一，並且這發出是出於二者，那麼這便屬於本性，便沒有兩個本原，那兩者也並非一，（頁）

For if the Son shares with the Father in respect of begetting divinity, projecting the Spirit, and the begetting power is one in them, and this procession is from them, then this belongs to the nature, and there are not two principles, nor are the two one, (p.)

1:1254

) ἀλλ ἁπλῶς μία, καί ἀποξένωται τῆς θείας φύσεως αὐτό τό Πνεῦμα, μή καί αὐτό κατά τό θεογόνον κοινωνοῦν

)乃單純是一；而聖靈自己便從神聖本性中被疏離，因為它在生發神性上也沒有相通。

) but simply one; and the Spirit itself is alienated from the divine nature, since it too does not commune in respect of begetting divinity.

1:1255

Εἰ δέ μή κοινωνεῖ ὁ Υἱός κατά τοῦτο τῷ Πατρί, μηδέ ἕν αὐτοῖς τοῦτο τό προβάλλειν, καθ ὑπόστασιν τῷ Υἱῷ ἡ πρόοδος τοῦ Πνεύματος

但若子在此事上不與父共有，這發出在二者裡也不是一，那麼聖靈的發出便按位格屬於子。

But if the Son does not share with the Father in this, nor is this projecting one in them, then the procession of the Spirit belongs hypostatically to the Son.

1:1256

Διάφορος ἄρα αὕτη τῆς ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός τοῦ Πνεύματος προόδου˙ τά γάρ ὑποστατικά διάφορα

因此這發出便不同於聖靈從父而出的發出；因為位格的屬性是各異的。

Therefore this procession is different from the procession of the Spirit from the Father; for the hypostatic properties are different.

1:1257

Πῶς οὖν μία αἱ διάφοροι ἀρχαί;

那麼，這些彼此各異的本原又怎會是一呢？

How, then, are the different principles one?

1:1258

Καί μήν τοῦ μεγάλου Βασιλείου ἐν τοῖς Πρός Εὐνομιανούς ἀντιρρητικοῖς αὐτοῦ κεφαλαίοις γράφοντος, πάντα τά κοινά Πατρί τε καί Υἱῷ κοινά εἶναι καί τῷ Πνεύματι, εἰ μέν κοινόν ἐστι Πατρί τε καί Υἱῷ τό ἐκπορεύειν, κοινόν ἔσται τοῦτο καί τῷ Πνεύματι καί τετράς ἔσται ἡ Τριάς˙ καί τό Πνεῦμα γάρ ἐκπορεύσει Πνεῦμα ἕτερον

誠然，偉大的巴西流在他《駁歐諾米烏派》的辯難諸章中寫道：凡父與子所共有的，也與聖靈共有——那麼若「發出聖靈」這事是父與子所共有的，這事便也與聖靈共有，三一便要成了四一；因為聖靈也就要發出另一位靈來。

And indeed, when the great Basil, in his refutatory chapters Against the Eunomians, writes that all things common to the Father and the Son are common also to the Spirit—if then the procession-producing is common to the Father and the Son, this will be common also to the Spirit, and the Trinity will be a tetrad; for the Spirit too will then proceed-produce another Spirit.

1:1259

Εἰ δέ μή κοινόν ἐστι κατά Λατίνους τῷ Πατρί καί τῷ Υἱῷ τό ἐκπορεύειν, ὡς τοῦ μέν Πατρός ἐμμέσως κατ αὐτούς, τοῦ δέ Υἱοῦ ἀμέσως ἐκπορεύοντος τό Πνεῦμα, οὕτω γάρ καί ὑποστατικῶς ἔχειν τόν Υἱόν τό προβλητικόν φασιν, οὐκοῦν κατ αὐτούς καί τό δημιουργεῖν καί ἁγιάζειν καί ἁπλῶς ἅπαντα τά φυσικά οὐ κοινά Πατρός τε καί Υἱοῦ;

但若按拉丁人所說，「發出聖靈」不是父與子所共有的——理由是按他們所說，父是間接地、而子是直接地發出聖靈（因為他們這樣說子是按位格擁有那發出之能的）——那麼，按他們所說，創造、成聖、簡言之一切本性的運作，豈不也都不是父與子所共有的了嗎？

But if, according to the Latins, the procession-producing is not common to the Father and the Son—on the ground that, according to them, the Father produces the Spirit mediately, but the Son immediately (for in this way they say the Son has the projecting power hypostatically)—then, according to them, are not creating and sanctifying and, in short, all the natural operations also not common to the Father and the Son?

1:1260

Ἐπειδή ὁ μέν Πατήρ διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ κτίζει τε καί ἁγιάζει καί διά μέσου τοῦ Υἱοῦ δημιουργεῖ καί ἁγιάζει, ὁ δέ Υἱός οὐ δι Υἱοῦ, τοιγαροῦν κατ αὐτούς ὑποστατικῶς ἔχει τό δημιουργεῖν καί ἁγιάζειν ὁ Υἱός, ἀμέσως γάρ καί οὐχ ὡς ὁ Πατήρ ἐμμέσως, καί οὕτω κατ αὐτούς τά φυσικά τῶν ὑποστατικῶν διενήνοχεν οὐδέν

因為父是藉著子創造並成聖、是以子為媒介塑造並成聖，而子卻不是藉著一位子；所以按他們所說，子乃是按位格擁有創造和成聖；因為祂是直接地行這事，而非像父那樣間接地；如此按他們所說，本性的屬性便與位格的屬性毫無分別。

Since the Father creates and sanctifies through the Son, and fashions and sanctifies by means of the Son, but the Son not through a Son, therefore, according to them, the Son has creating and sanctifying hypostatically; for He does so immediately, and not as the Father mediately; and thus, according to them, the natural properties differ in nothing from the hypostatic ones.

1:1261

Εἰδ ἄρα φαῖεν διά τοῦ Πνεύματος τόν Υἱόν δημιουργεῖν καί ἁγιάζειν, ἀλλά πρῶτον μέν οὐ σύνηθες τοῖς θεολόγοις διά τοῦ Πνεύματος τόν Υἱόνἤ τόν Πατέρα δημιουργόν εἶναι λέγειν τῶν κτισμάτων, ἀλλ ἐν Πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, ἔπειτα πρός τῷ μηδ οὕτω τό ἀνωτέρω δεδειγμένον ἄτοπον αὐτούς ἐκφεύγειν, οὐ γάρ δι Υἱοῦ πάλιν ὁ Υἱός ἀναφαίνεται δημιουργός καθάπερ ὁ Πατήρ, συμβήσεται τούτοις μή κοινόνε ἶναι λέγειν καί τῷ Πνεύματι ( σελ

但他們若於是說子是藉著聖靈創造並成聖，那麼，首先，神學家素來不慣於說子或父是藉著聖靈創造受造之物，乃是說「在聖靈裡」；其次，他們縱然如此也逃不出上文所證的荒謬，因為子仍未像父那樣被顯為藉著一位子而為創造者；如此就會推出：他們得說創造和成聖也不是與聖靈共有的（頁）

But if then they should say that the Son creates and sanctifies through the Spirit, yet, first, it is not customary for the theologians to say that the Son or the Father is creator of creatures through the Spirit, but rather "in the Holy Spirit"; and next, besides their not even thus escaping the absurdity demonstrated above, for the Son is again not shown to be creator through a Son as the Father is, it will follow for them to say that creating and sanctifying are not common also to the Spirit (p.)

1:1262

) τό δημιουργεῖν καί ἁγιάζειν, ὡς μή δι ἑτέρου, μηδέ ὡς ὁ Πατήρἤ καί ὁ Υἱός αὐτοῦ ταῦτα ἐνεργοῦντος

)的創造和成聖，彷彿聖靈不是藉著別位行這事，也不是像父或子藉著它行這些事。

) creating and sanctifying, as though it does not do so through another, nor as the Father or the Son works these through it.

1:1263

Κατ αὐτούς οὖν ὑποστατικῶς ἔχει τό Πνεῦμα τό δημιουργεῖν καί ἁγιάζειν, ὡς οὐκ ἐμμέσως καθάπερ ὁ Πατήρ κτίζον τε καί ἀδιάφορα δείκνυται τοῖς ὑποστατικοῖς τά φυσικά˙εἰ δέ τοῦτο, καί ἡ φύσις ταῖς ὑποστάσεσι ταὐτόν τε καί ἀδιάφορον

那麼按他們所說，聖靈乃是按位格擁有創造和成聖，因為它不像那創造的父那樣是間接地——如此本性的屬性便被顯為與位格的屬性沒有分別；若是如此，那麼本性也就與位格相同、毫無分別了。

According to them, then, the Spirit has creating and sanctifying hypostatically, as not mediately like the Father who creates—and the natural properties are shown to be indifferent from the hypostatic; and if this is so, then the nature too is the same as and indifferent from the hypostases.

1:1264

Συλλογίζεσθαι δέ ἐπί τοῖς τοιούτοις ἔργῳ ὑπό τῶν πατέρων ἐδιδάχθημεν καί οὐδέ τούς Λατίνους γράψαιτ ἄν τις τούτου χάριν

但在這類事上構作三段論，我們乃是在實際上受了眾教父的教導，因此沒有人能單憑此就把拉丁人也記為違犯者。

But to construct syllogisms in such matters we have been taught in practice by the fathers, and on this account no one could write down even the Latins as transgressors.

1:1265

Μήτεδ ἀποδεικτικῶς τούτους συλλογίζεσθαι, καθάπερ φῄς αὐτός, παρά τό μή τοῖς αὐτοπίστοις λογίοις ὡς ἀρχαῖς καί ἀξιώμασι χρῆσθαι καί τοῖς θεοσόφοις καλῶς ἕπεσθαι πατράσι, μήτε διαλεκτικῶς, διά τό μή ἐκ τῶν παρ ἡμῖν λημμάτων ποιεῖσθαι τούς συλλογισμούς, καί πάνυγ ἄν φαίην

正如你自己所說，他們既不是論證式地推理（因為他們不以那些自證的聖言為本原和公理，也不正確地跟隨那些有神聖智慧的教父），也不是辯證式地推理（因為他們的三段論不是出於我們所共認的前提）——這話我完全同意。

Neither do they reason demonstratively, as you yourself say, owing to their not using the self-attesting oracles as principles and axioms, nor rightly following the divinely wise fathers; nor dialectically, owing to their not constructing their syllogisms from the premises granted among us—and I would entirely affirm this.

1:1266

Μηδεμίαν δέ εἶναι ἀπόδειξιν ἐπ οὐδενός τῶν θείων καί τῶν ἐν τῇ ἀνωτάτω Τριάδι ζητουμένων, ἀλλά πάντα τόν περί αὐτῶν συλλογισμόν διαλεκτικόν οἴεσθαί τε καί καλεῖν, ἀποδεικτικόν δέ οὐδέποτε, πολλοῦ δέω τίθεσθαι

但要說關於任何神聖之事、以及在至高三一中所探求之事都全無論證，並要把論及這些事的每個三段論都當作、都稱為辯證式的、決非論證式的——這一點我絕不苟同。

But that there is no demonstration concerning any of the divine matters and of what is sought in the supreme Trinity, but that one should suppose and call every syllogism about them dialectical, and never demonstrative—from this I am far from agreeing.

← 上一段下一段 →

聖山宣言 第 1 章 第 10/17 段

聖山宣言第 1 章第 10/17 段