赫爾米安的法昆杜斯

為三章辯護第 7 章

拉丁文原文．14 節．部分字詞可點開查義

7:1

Sed et jam probare debemus quomodo iidem Eutychiani vel Semieutycbiani, qui contra Chalcedonense, imo vero etiam contra Ephesinum concilium, duas Filii Dei negant esse naturas, econtrario Nestorianos per hoc adjuvent, quorum falsitati se putant veritalis negatione resistere. Asserentes enim quod una sit Filii Dei natura, ipsi polius alterius substantiæ hominem Christum desum extra Dei Filium, dicere convincuntur: quod nobis falso imputant, qui duas unius dicimus filii esse naturas. Nam si quæratur ab eis utrum Filium Dei, quem unius dicunt esse naturæ, consubstantialem Patri fateantur, negare non po- ( terunt.

但如今我們也當證明：這些歐迪克派、或半歐迪克派，他們違背迦克墩會議、甚或違背以弗所會議，否認上帝之子有兩性，反倒正藉此幫助了聶斯多留派——他們本以為藉著否認真理來抵擋聶斯多留派的謬妄。因為他們主張上帝之子只有一性，這樣他們自己反倒被證實是在說：那位屬於另一本質的人——基督，是在上帝之子之外；而這正是他們虛妄地加在我們頭上的——我們乃是說一位聖子有兩性。因為若有人問他們：他們所說只有一性的上帝之子，是否與父同質，他們無法否認。

But now we ought also to prove how these same Eutychians, or Semi-Eutychians, who against the Council of Chalcedon—nay rather even against the Council of Ephesus—deny that there are two natures of the Son of God, on the contrary assist the Nestorians by this very thing, by whose falsehood they suppose themselves to resist by a denial of the truth. For in asserting that there is one nature of the Son of God, they themselves are rather convicted of saying that the man Christ, of another substance, is outside the Son of God: which they falsely impute to us, who say that there are two natures of one Son. For if it be asked of them whether they confess the Son of God, whom they say to be of one nature, to be consubstantial with the Father, they will not be able to deny it.

7:2

Deinde si hoc ab eis quæratur, utrum simplicis natune sit Pater, hoc quoque similiter fatebuntur. Igitur Filium Dei, quem unius dicunt esse naturæ Patrique consubstantialem, etiam simplicis, id est divinae tantum dicere compellentur; ac per hoc alterius erit substantiæ I homo Christus Jesus, cui separatim dcputetur humana natura. Atque ita cum duas unius Filii negant esse naturas, alteram subsistentiam Filii Dei, et alteram assumpli hominis arguentur inducere. Cujus probabilis rationis sancta Ephesina synodus non ignara cum Nestorium condemnaret, quod Dei Filium non solum in duabus naturis, quod sanctum est, sed etiam in duabus subsistentiis, quod profanum est, prædicabat:

其次，若問他們父是否屬單純之性，這一點他們也照樣承認。所以他們必被逼著說：他們所宣稱只有一性、與父同質的上帝之子，也是單純的，就是說只有神性；如此一來，人——基督耶穌，就要屬於另一本質，而人性要單獨歸給他。這樣，他們既否認一位聖子有兩性，就被顯明是在引入上帝之子的一個自立體（subsistentia）、和所取之人的另一個自立體。聖以弗所會議並非不曉得這合理的推論；它定聶斯多留的罪，是因他宣告上帝之子不僅在兩性之中（這是聖潔的），更在兩個自立體之中（這是褻瀆的）：

Then if it be asked of them whether the Father is of a simple nature, this too they will likewise confess. Therefore they will be compelled to say that the Son of God, whom they declare to be of one nature and consubstantial with the Father, is also of a simple, that is, of only a divine nature; and through this the man Christ Jesus will be of another substance, to whom the human nature is separately assigned. And thus, in denying that there are two natures of one Son, they will be shown to introduce one subsistence of the Son of God and another of the assumed man. Not ignorant of this probable reasoning, the holy Synod of Ephesus, when it condemned Nestorius because he proclaimed the Son of God not only in two natures, which is holy, but also in two subsistences, which is profane:

7:3

non quod duas fateretur Filii Dei naturas, sed quod duas subsistentias mentiretur, cum redarguit: nec testimoniis antiquorum Patrum qutbus eum de pravi dogmatis novitate convincit, unam Filii Dei naturam esse monstravit, sed unam potius esse personam. Et utique ad comprimendum et penitus exstingoendum errorem Nestorii, qui duos nobis filios inducere conabatur, nihil utilius, sicut jam diximus, nihilque validius esset, si veritas sineret, quam ut unam esse Filii Dei naturam, vel testimoniis Patrum probarent, vel sua definitione decernerent.

它定他的罪，並非因它承認上帝之子有兩性，而是因它駁斥他所謊稱的兩個自立體；它用古代眾教父的見證——藉此證明他乖謬教義之新奇——所顯明的，並非上帝之子有一性，而是有一位格。誠然，為要壓制並徹底撲滅聶斯多留的謬誤（他企圖把兩個兒子引給我們），正如我們已說過的，倘若真理容許，沒有甚麼比這更有益、更有力的了——就是憑眾教父的見證去證明、或憑會議自己的定義去裁定：上帝之子只有一性。

it was not because it confessed two natures of the Son of God, but because it refuted his lie of two subsistences; nor by the testimonies of the ancient Fathers, by which it convicts him of the novelty of a perverse dogma, did it show that there is one nature of the Son of God, but rather that there is one person. And surely, for repressing and utterly extinguishing the error of Nestorius, who was endeavouring to introduce two sons to us, nothing would have been more useful, as we have already said, nor anything more effective, had the truth allowed it, than to prove by the testimonies of the Fathers, or to decree by its own definition, that there is one nature of the Son of God.

7:4

At cum Nestorium non solum duas in illo mysterio naturas, verum etiam duas subsistentias prædicantem, non propter utrumque, sed propter hoc solum synodus Ephesina redarguit, quod unum Finum in duas subsistentias divideret, vel si illa contra eum Patrum testimonia non proferret, quibus Christus in duabus esse naturis ostenditur, affirmasse merito ju licaretur duas unius Filii Dei esse naturas, quod in Nestorio, propter aliud improbato, non pariter improbavit. Unde vel hac auctoritate ostensa coerciti Eutychiani, jam desinant contra sanam et necessariam confessionem Ecclesiæ disputare:

但以弗所會議駁斥聶斯多留——他在那奧祕中不僅宣告兩性，更宣告兩個自立體——並非因這兩件事，而單單因這一件事：他把一位聖子分成兩個自立體；因此，縱使會議沒有提出那些見證眾教父、藉以顯明基督存在於兩性之中的話，它仍當被公正地判為：曾肯定一位上帝之子有兩性——而它對聶斯多留並未一併定這一點之罪，乃是為了別的緣故定他的罪。所以，歐迪克派既被這一旦顯明的權威所約束，就當止息攻擊教會這健全而必要的告白：

But since the Synod of Ephesus refuted Nestorius—who proclaimed in that mystery not only two natures but also two subsistences—not on account of both, but on account of this one thing alone, that he divided the one Son into two subsistences; even if it did not bring forward against him those testimonies of the Fathers by which Christ is shown to exist in two natures, it would rightly be judged to have affirmed that there are two natures of one Son of God, which in Nestorius—condemned for another reason—it did not equally condemn. Whence, restrained by this authority once shown, let the Eutychians now cease to dispute against the sound and necessary confession of the Church:

7:5

quæ non tantum secundum Chalcedonensis, sed etiam secundum Ephesinx synodi instituta, Christum in duabus praedicat esse naturis. Non enim, vel si eis consta; a possit, humanorum argumentorum ratiocinatione credere se debuerunt, ut unam Christi contenderen esse naturam; sed Patrum potius auctoritati se subjicere, in quibus spiritus Dei locutus est. Verum hoc prudentia eorum non palietur, de qua dicit Apostoius: Quoniam prudentia carnis mors est, prudentia autem spiritus, vita et pax; quoniam prudentia carnis inimica est in Deum: legi enim Dei non subjicitur, nec enim potest (Rom.

教會這告白，不僅按迦克墩會議的規定，也按以弗所會議的規定，宣告基督存在於兩性之中。因為他們不該——縱然他們做得到——憑人理論證的推理去信，以致主張基督只有一性；倒當順服那有上帝之靈藉以說話的眾教父之權威。然而他們屬肉體的明智不容他們如此；使徒論到這明智說：「體貼肉體的就是死，體貼聖靈的乃是生命平安；因為體貼肉體的，就是與上帝為仇；因為不服上帝的律法，也是不能服」（羅

which not only according to the institutions of the Council of Chalcedon, but also according to those of the Synod of Ephesus, proclaims that Christ exists in two natures. For they ought not, even if it were possible for them, to believe by the reasoning of human arguments, so as to contend that Christ is of one nature; but rather to submit themselves to the authority of the Fathers, in whom the Spirit of God has spoken. But their prudence will not suffer this—the prudence of which the Apostle says: "For the prudence of the flesh is death, but the prudence of the spirit is life and peace; because the prudence of the flesh is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be" (Rom.

7:6

VIII, 6), ut in personæ quidem ve subsistentiae unitate, auctoritatem nobiscum divinam sequantur, quoniam tanti miraculi secretum humana ratio indagare non valet. In hoc autem, quod putantes unam ex duabus factam esse naturam, a fundatissima Patrum auctoritate discedunt, videamus si, quemadmodum fidunt, vel secundurn sapientiam mundi constare illis sua ratio potest. Dicunt igitur, sicut ex duabus naturis, id est ex anima et carne, una composita est humana natura, sic ex deitate et humanitate una composita est Christi natura: et ideo ex duabus quidem, sed non in duabus naturis Christum confitemur.

羅八6—7），好叫他們在位格或自立體的合一上，與我們一同跟從上帝的權威，因為人的理性無力探究這如此偉大之奇蹟的奧祕。但在這一點上——他們以為一性是由二性合成，便離棄了眾教父最為穩固的權威——讓我們看看，照他們所信賴的，他們的理論是否連按世界的智慧也能站立得住。他們說：正如由兩性、就是由魂與肉，合成一個人性，照樣由神性與人性合成基督之一性：因此我們承認基督確是出於兩性，卻不是在兩性之中。

8:6-7), so that in the unity indeed of person or subsistence they might follow with us the divine authority, since human reason has no power to search out the secret of so great a miracle. But in this—that, thinking one nature to have been made out of two, they depart from the most firmly grounded authority of the Fathers—let us see whether, as they trust, their reasoning can hold good for them even according to the wisdom of the world. They say, then, that just as out of two natures, that is, out of soul and flesh, one composite human nature is made, so out of deity and humanity one composite nature of Christ is made: and therefore we confess Christ to be out of two natures indeed, but not in two natures.

7:7

Equidem nulla causa est cur etiam unusquisque homo in duabus negetur esse naturis, in carne scilicet atque anima. Quae tamen quia et una ex duabus composita, recte hominis naturam dici certissimum est: potuit enim hominis anima in unam naturam cum sua carne componi. De Christi vero divinitate inconvertibiliter simplici, non sine ingenti blasphemia dicitur, quod in unam naturam cum suscepta humanitate componi potuerit. Deinde considerent, quod sive anima, sive caro, adunationis suæ causa exstiterunt, et non hunc habent naturæ finem, singulariter ac separatim consistere; sed ad sui conjunctionem tendunt, et invicem sibi debent quodammodo ut existant.

誠然，沒有理由否認每一個人也是存在於兩性之中，就是在肉與魂之中。然而這兩者既也是由二者合成的一體，最確實當被稱為人的本性：因為人的魂可以與其肉合成一性。但論到基督的神性——那不可改變的單純者——若說它能與所取的人性合成一性，便是極大的褻瀆。接著讓他們思想：無論是魂或肉，都是為著聯合之故而存在的，且它們的本性並沒有這目的——要單獨而分離地自存；倒是傾向於彼此的聯合，並可說彼此相欠，才得以存在。

Indeed there is no reason why every individual man too should be denied to exist in two natures, namely in flesh and soul. Yet because these, being also one composite out of two, are most certainly rightly called man's nature: for the soul of man could be composed into one nature with its flesh. But of Christ's divinity, unchangeably simple, it cannot be said without enormous blasphemy that it could be composed into one nature with the assumed humanity. Then let them consider that whether soul or flesh, they exist for the cause of their union, and have not this end of their nature, to subsist singly and separately; but they tend toward their conjunction, and in a manner owe it to one another that they exist.

7:8

Nam, sic ut caro animæ facta est, ita et anima carni a; ci ipse naturalis carum intentioni est finis. pariter esse. Non enim credendum estOrigenis deliramentis a, qui suspicatur humanarum animarum substantias longe ante quam in corporibus essent, non solum fuisse, verum etiam peccasse, et prius quidem mentes, postea vero animas faclas, cum pro peccatorum suorum meritis in corpora truderentur: cum dicat Apostolus: Rebecca ex uno concubitu habens Isaac patrem nostrum (Rom. IX, 10), etc. Cum enim nondum nati fuissent, aut aliquid egissent bonum ac malum secundum electionem, ut propositum Dei maneret, non ex Operibus, sed ex vocante dictum est ei, quia major serviet minori.

因為正如肉是為魂而造，魂也是為肉而造；它們意向的自然目的就是——一同存在。因為我們絕不可信俄利根的囈語；他妄想人的魂之本質早在進入身體之前便已存在，且不單存在，更曾犯罪，又說它們先被造為「心智」，後來才被造為「魂」，是因其罪過的緣故被投入身體：然而使徒說：「利百加因一次與我們的先祖以撒同房而懷孕」（羅九10）等等。「（雙子）還沒有生下來，按揀選也未曾行善作惡，神就照他揀選人的旨意說：『將來大的要服事小的』，不在乎人的行為，乃在乎召人的主。」

For just as the flesh was made for the soul, so also the soul for the flesh; and this is the natural end of their intention—to exist together. For we must not believe the ravings of Origen, who supposes that the substances of human souls existed long before they were in bodies, and not only existed but also sinned, and that they were first made minds and afterward souls, when for the merits of their sins they were thrust into bodies: whereas the Apostle says, "Rebecca conceiving by one act of Isaac our father" (Rom. 9:10), and so forth. "For when they were not yet born, nor had done anything good or evil according to election, that the purpose of God might stand, it was said to her, not of works but of Him that calleth, that the elder shall serve the younger."

7:9

Paulo itaque melius et fidelius credimus docenti, quia cum Jacoh et Esau necdum nali fuissent, nihil egerunt bonum aut malum, nec ex operibus, sed ex vocanlis gratia sunt discreti, quam Origeni somnianti quod, ut nascerentur, supplicium fuerat nescio cujus mali. Nam et cum morte a suis corporibus animæ separantur, ad sui tamen conjunctionem similiter tendunt, et propterea unam naturam humanam efficiunt. Quod de Verbi Dei natura nefas est credere, quoniam aliquando non sola substiterit, sed humanæ naturæ adunatio causa ei fuerit existendi, ut ipsa sibi adunata quiesceret naturalis ejus intentio.

於是我們寧可相信保羅，他教導得更好、更忠實：當雅各與以掃尚未出生時，他們未曾行善作惡，他們被分別出來不在乎行為，乃在乎那召人者的恩典——而不信俄利根的夢囈，說他們得以出生，竟是因某種惡的刑罰所致。因為即使魂藉死亡與其身體分離，它們仍照樣傾向於其聯合，因此構成一個人性。但若論到上帝聖道的本性，說它曾有一時並非單獨自存，而是以與人性的聯合為其存在之因，好叫它與自身聯合後其本性的意向才得安息——這樣相信乃是邪惡的。

And so we believe Paul, who teaches better and more faithfully that when Jacob and Esau were not yet born, they did nothing good or evil, and were distinguished not by works but by the grace of Him who calls—rather than Origen, who dreams that, in order that they might be born, it was the punishment of some evil or other. For even when by death souls are separated from their bodies, they nonetheless likewise tend toward their conjunction, and therefore constitute one human nature. Which it is wicked to believe concerning the nature of the Word of God, that at some time it did not subsist alone, but that the union of human nature was the cause of its existence, so that, united to itself, its natural intention might rest.